Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunch. Could Trump be the
Speaker 1: worst enemy that Vladimir Putin has ever had with the president?
Speaker 1: Certainly think so, he said as much. We'll get into that.
Speaker 1: And also you are hearing so much about this investigation
Speaker 1: and Mueller and the witch hunt and the probe. Where
Speaker 1: was Obama in all this? And how involved was he
Speaker 1: in what we have seen here from the deep state
Speaker 1: actors against Trump? Plus later on what is masculinity today?
Speaker 1: We'll tackle that and the Democrats crazy chance to abolish
Speaker 1: ice that I'm more 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 passionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake Americans. Ready, great, You're a great American.
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins, analysts no r toughness on
Speaker 1: Russia than any president in many, many years, maybe ever.
Speaker 1: Look at the sanctions I've put on, look at the
Speaker 1: diplomats I threw out, Look at all of the things
Speaker 1: that I've done. Nobody else did what I've done. Obama
Speaker 1: didn't do it. Obama was a patsy for Russia. He
Speaker 1: was a total patsy. Look at the statement he made
Speaker 1: well he thought the mics were turned off. Okay, the
Speaker 1: stupid statement he made. Nobody there's a big deal about that.
Speaker 1: Getting along with President Putin. Getting along with Russia's a positive,
Speaker 1: not a negative. Now, with that being said, if that
Speaker 1: doesn't work out, I'll be the worst enemy he's ever had,
Speaker 1: the worst he's ever had. They have President Trump and
Speaker 1: laying down the law. That Welcome to the buck Sexton showybody,
Speaker 1: great to have you here. You know, what a crazy week, right,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm looking forward to this this week, just getting
Speaker 1: into the books and we can move on next week
Speaker 1: to some other stuff because this week has just been bonkers,
Speaker 1: all this stuff about Russia and all the paranoia and
Speaker 1: the insanity. You have people who still want to be
Speaker 1: treated as serious commentators on public affairs and on policy
Speaker 1: out there saying that Trump is a fully controlled asset
Speaker 1: of the Kremlin. I mean, people have just lost their minds,
Speaker 1: they really have. As we've discussed it all week, and
Speaker 1: I don't want to retread that ground. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: that Trump's coming out swinging here because he's not. He's
Speaker 1: not sorry, he knows who he is. You know, He's
Speaker 1: not controlled by the Kremlin. He knows that's all crap.
Speaker 1: He knows the left wing is just trying to find
Speaker 1: ways to stir up more venom against the president, who's
Speaker 1: becoming invulnerable to the worst verbal barbs imaginable, because who
Speaker 1: cares at this point, they can't hate him anymore than
Speaker 1: they do. It's not really possib when you're getting compared
Speaker 1: to Hitler as a as a normal thing, when you
Speaker 1: haven't done anything even vaguely hit Larion. I think you
Speaker 1: started to get numb to it after a while. And
Speaker 1: I think that's where this president is. Also, by the way,
Speaker 1: man of the week for me goes to Rampaul. Rampaul
Speaker 1: just getting it done. So glad to see the senator
Speaker 1: from Kentucky doing his thing. And he's got more on this.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's taking it now. He's taking his fellow Democrats,
Speaker 1: senators and some Republicans to task over just what they've
Speaker 1: put the country through this week Play twelve. Trump derangement
Speaker 1: syndrome has officially come to the Senate. The hatred for
Speaker 1: the president is so intense that partisans would rather risk
Speaker 1: war than give diplomacy a chance. Does anybody remember that
Speaker 1: Ronald Reagan sat down with gorbach Off and we lessened
Speaker 1: the nuclear attentions. We need to still have those openings. No,
Speaker 1: what are he is saying or excusing Russia's meddling in
Speaker 1: our elections. Absolutely, we should protect the integrity of our elections.
Speaker 1: But simply bringing the hatred of the president to the
Speaker 1: Senate floor in order to say we're done with diplomacy.
Speaker 1: We're going to add more sanctions and more sanctions. You
Speaker 1: know what, I would rather that we still have open
Speaker 1: channels of discussion with the Russians. You would think that's
Speaker 1: a pretty bipartisan point of view, right, open channels of
Speaker 1: discussion with the Russians. That's not something that should be controversial,
Speaker 1: should be too contentious, And yet it is, And yet
Speaker 1: it is. And you must say to yourself, why is that?
Speaker 1: Why is that the case? Oh, because this is all political.
Speaker 1: This really has very little to do with geo politics
Speaker 1: and foreign policy. It's just as rand Paul said, his
Speaker 1: Trump arrangement syndrome on full display. Um, I want talk
Speaker 1: to you more about what we've seen from the Deep
Speaker 1: States and and why I find it really troubling that
Speaker 1: there are so few honest people on the other side
Speaker 1: of the Aisle, who will even admit that they still
Speaker 1: think deep state is like a laugh line, like ha ha, yeah, right,
Speaker 1: there's a deep state. Do you want to explain to
Speaker 1: me how we have all of these former Intel Agency
Speaker 1: officials who are now paid left wing partisans. Okay, they've
Speaker 1: gone to the left wing networks, they're on the payroll,
Speaker 1: and they spend their time just trashing Trump in the
Speaker 1: most irresponsible way. And you know, he is the commander
Speaker 1: in chief. He is the top consumer of US intelligence products.
Speaker 1: That's just a fact. And you'd think that people that
Speaker 1: have spent their lives, oh, just in public service, if
Speaker 1: they weren't hardcore idealogus for the left, would at least
Speaker 1: have some deference and some respect for the person that
Speaker 1: the American people have given the authority in their name
Speaker 1: to act as commander in chief. But there's none of that.
Speaker 1: There's not Not only is there no difference or or
Speaker 1: no decency even extended to the president, there is vitriol.
Speaker 1: There is a complete and utter disgust for this president
Speaker 1: from them. So it's it's troubling to see and I
Speaker 1: think there's no way around this. There's no way to
Speaker 1: to try and soft pedal what's going on. They are
Speaker 1: in full on media revolt against this president and using
Speaker 1: they're once privileged positions in the government to enhance their
Speaker 1: voices to elevate themselves in the public discourse. It's very,
Speaker 1: very damaging, but it also is illuminating. We get to
Speaker 1: learn what they think, We get to learn what they
Speaker 1: really believe. And part of that process has involved people
Speaker 1: like the former Director of National Intelligence, who I just
Speaker 1: interviewed I don't know, a week or two ago, myself,
Speaker 1: James Clapper, saying some things that maybe tell us more
Speaker 1: than he intended to. This is on because you know
Speaker 1: right now. One of the problems is that when they
Speaker 1: push and push on these issues of Russia, there are
Speaker 1: counter arguments. One of the biggest ones, one of the
Speaker 1: most important ones is that if this was such a
Speaker 1: big deal, an attack on our democracy and oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: five alarm fire def Con one, what are we gonna
Speaker 1: do if all that were true? How could the Obama
Speaker 1: administration sit on it until really after the election. We
Speaker 1: all know the answer to this, but they this is
Speaker 1: one they can't get around. Obama made a political calculation.
Speaker 1: The Democrats who are in power, rolled the dice on
Speaker 1: this one and they lost. They rolled the dice and
Speaker 1: they lost. Clapper said something very interesting though about this
Speaker 1: play clips seven please, and I'm alluding now to the
Speaker 1: president criticism of President Obama for all that he did
Speaker 1: or didn't do before he left office with respect to
Speaker 1: the Russian meddling. If it weren't for President Obama, we
Speaker 1: might not have done the intelligence community assessment that we
Speaker 1: did that set off a whole sequence of events which
Speaker 1: are still unfolding today, notably Special Counsel Mueller's investigation. President
Speaker 1: Obama is responsible to that, and was he who tests
Speaker 1: us to do that intelligence community assessment. President Obama, according
Speaker 1: to Clapper, should be hailed to some kind of hero
Speaker 1: here for having to do an intelligence community assessment. Wow,
Speaker 1: that'll show them somebody who has been a part of
Speaker 1: intelligence community assessments in the past. Let me tell you
Speaker 1: not exactly gonna strike fear into the hearts of the Rooskis.
Speaker 1: Did you see that email I sent you? No, I'll
Speaker 1: send it again. Did you get that off the copy here? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: I'll get it for you. Look, do we have the
Speaker 1: conference from booked up? Dope? Nope? I about share we do.
Speaker 1: Let's come back tomorrow. It's really not you know, snake
Speaker 1: eating door kickers gathered together to save America as part
Speaker 1: of Team America. That that's not what the intelligence community
Speaker 1: assessment is. Just in case you wanted a little bit
Speaker 1: of extra background on that one. But here's the big
Speaker 1: avenue of inquiry that we haven't gotten really anything on yet,
Speaker 1: and I think we need to. And there are some
Speaker 1: challenges to it because of executive privilege and because of
Speaker 1: all of the different ways that they'll fight this. Just
Speaker 1: like they're fighting disclosure at d o J, fighting disclosure
Speaker 1: from within the Oval office is an even easier thing
Speaker 1: to do, therefore more difficult to achieve transparency. What did
Speaker 1: Obama know about this Russia probe? And when did he
Speaker 1: know it? How much of what we are seeing now
Speaker 1: with you know, Struck and Page and you know all
Speaker 1: these different figures Comy and Brannan and Clapper. You're gonna
Speaker 1: tell me that we've seen Clapper and Brendan running around
Speaker 1: essentially calling for people to do everything in their power
Speaker 1: to get rid of this president, that he's a danger
Speaker 1: to this country, there's a national security travesty, and they're
Speaker 1: doing everything they can to undermine him, to ruin his
Speaker 1: presidency to end his presidency. These were Obama's top intel guys.
Speaker 1: Does anyone really think that they were siloed off from
Speaker 1: the Oval Office, that they weren't telling President Obama about
Speaker 1: what was going on here with this? Does anyone really
Speaker 1: think that they weren't a part of discussions in which
Speaker 1: Obama must have had to make decisions about whether to
Speaker 1: go public with some of this information before the election,
Speaker 1: and also, as we know to then have surveillance as
Speaker 1: a lamed when he was a lame duck president. You
Speaker 1: have surveillance and investigations into Russia and Trump collusion. What
Speaker 1: did Obama know? Why have we found out so very
Speaker 1: very little about that? I mean, I'm I'm asking the
Speaker 1: question rhetorically. I think we I think we understand why
Speaker 1: we haven't heard much about it, but we've come to realize,
Speaker 1: I would say, beyond a reasonable doubt that they were
Speaker 1: very powerful Democrat appointees in the intelligence community and at
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, Essentially people that were either appointed
Speaker 1: by or deeply loyal to Obama, regardless of whether or
Speaker 1: not they were appointed, who were working to undermine, stop
Speaker 1: and then when they couldn't stop, destroy the Trump administration
Speaker 1: using their government authority and power to do so. This
Speaker 1: is the deep state that we talked about so much.
Speaker 1: But what we don't yet know is how much the
Speaker 1: White House was informed of those efforts as they were ongoing.
Speaker 1: And I, as somebody who comes from an intelligence community background,
Speaker 1: refused to believe that Obama just washed his hands of this,
Speaker 1: had no idea, wasn't directing this, wasn't involved in this.
Speaker 1: The information that I really want that just doesn't seem
Speaker 1: at all forthcoming right now, the stuff that I really
Speaker 1: need that I'm not getting to understand the full scope
Speaker 1: of just how grotesque the abuses of power were at
Speaker 1: the end of the Obama administration, using the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: weaponizing the surveillance and investigation processes of the i C
Speaker 1: against a political opponent. We have to know what Obama's
Speaker 1: hand wasn't all this, How involved was the opposition party's president,
Speaker 1: knowing that once Hillary wasn't going to be the president,
Speaker 1: there had to be actions taken to mitigate the day
Speaker 1: image that would be done after Trump had won when
Speaker 1: it came to people finding out just what had really
Speaker 1: gone on here. There's no question in my mind that
Speaker 1: there were efforts to hide information that they are going
Speaker 1: to be continued efforts to uh slow roll, if not
Speaker 1: entirely destroy any records that could be released that would
Speaker 1: illuminate this. But I just wanted to put it out here.
Speaker 1: Obama ordered, you'd heard Clapper himself saying, and Clapper would No.
Speaker 1: Clapper would have been in the Oval Office frequently with
Speaker 1: the President on these matters. Obama ordered the Intelligence community assessment.
Speaker 1: Couldn't Can you imagine a world in which the FBI
Speaker 1: does not inform the President of the United States that
Speaker 1: they are running an investigation that they are running, perhaps
Speaker 1: even informants into people tied to the presidential campaign of
Speaker 1: the other party. I don't believe it that. I don't
Speaker 1: believe that's possible. I don't believe that happen. And we
Speaker 1: don't yet have full transparency on this. But where was
Speaker 1: Obama while all this stuff was happening, while the deep
Speaker 1: state was trying to destroy Trump? What was Obama doing?
Speaker 1: What was he telling them? And how much did he know?
Speaker 1: We need answers to that. And the good part is
Speaker 1: now that I'm in DC, I actually know some people
Speaker 1: I can ask to try to help get some of
Speaker 1: those answers but I think that's the great because I'm thinking,
Speaker 1: you know, there's there is this effort now to slow
Speaker 1: things down in case Democrats, you know, Democrats take the house.
Speaker 1: People are saying, oh, well, Comey needs them and Brennan
Speaker 1: needs them to take the House so that the investigation stopped.
Speaker 1: What if the reason that the FBI has been so
Speaker 1: slow to release this information isn't just that it's protecting itself,
Speaker 1: but what if they think that they are somehow duty
Speaker 1: bound to protect the previous administration. These are questions that
Speaker 1: I think need to be sir, eight four four nine
Speaker 1: eight two five eight four buck, we have quite a
Speaker 1: show coming. I'm gonna be talking to you about later
Speaker 1: on about masculinity, about abolishing ice, about because they're trying
Speaker 1: to change what masculinity is. Here's the version is now
Speaker 1: masculine is gonna be like wimpy, boring and lame. That's masculine. Now,
Speaker 1: that's what they want you to think. Uh. We're also
Speaker 1: going to talk about the Democrats running socialists and how
Speaker 1: tone deaf that is considering the economy is doing really well. Um,
Speaker 1: and maybe I'll make fun of California today in terms
Speaker 1: of its sanctuary city policies in San Francisco. I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I don't know if we'll have enough time, but we'll see.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Is there a risk that glad right
Speaker 1: Putin could have recorded it? That risk is always there.
Speaker 1: Is there a risk that the soccer ball could have
Speaker 1: been Why we have an ability to measure those kinds
Speaker 1: of things. Yeah, I mean it's funny. Don't don't worry
Speaker 1: Andrew Mitchell. They got it, Okay, They're not gonna take
Speaker 1: the soccer ball the Russians gave them and just like
Speaker 1: leave in the situation room. You mean the one with
Speaker 1: Wolf litzerd No, I mean the real situation room. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's gonna happen. I think it's okay. Reminds
Speaker 1: me man memory laying here. I was, this is a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago on CNN, And what are the antors?
Speaker 1: I won't say who. He's actually a nice lady. She
Speaker 1: doesn't just doesn't seem to read a lot. But I
Speaker 1: was on her show, or she was I think guest
Speaker 1: hosting on the show. I don't even know who cares.
Speaker 1: But she asked me, she's like so and counter terrorism investigations,
Speaker 1: how does how does the FBI monitor phone calls. And
Speaker 1: I said, well, you know, the FBI can if they
Speaker 1: have a have a warrant, they actually can monitor them
Speaker 1: in real time. They can record the phone call, they
Speaker 1: can listen in as it's happening. And she said yes,
Speaker 1: but what about cell phones? And I never looked at her.
Speaker 1: I thought, yeah, like, you know, cell phones. She goes
Speaker 1: stupid questions, Yes, thank you exactly, this is on live TV.
Speaker 1: Billedge goes, yeah, cell phones, Yeah, they can do that.
Speaker 1: She and then she I'll never forget. So she asked me,
Speaker 1: can the FBI listen in on cell phone calls and
Speaker 1: record them? And I'm like yeah, and I figured maybe
Speaker 1: she got lost. Then she goes, are you sure. I'm like, wow, lady,
Speaker 1: you're really doubling down on this one. I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess trust the quote expert, which in this case is
Speaker 1: me on this one. Yeah, the FBI could listen in
Speaker 1: on cell phone calls. They can do a lot more
Speaker 1: than that too. But maybe that's a discussion for another time.
Speaker 1: But not not a lot of exposure to real world
Speaker 1: stuff from some of these uh you know, journalist types
Speaker 1: out there, Not a lot of exposure that was always
Speaker 1: amazing to me and yeah, do you think they've bugged
Speaker 1: the soccer ball? You know, think about the think about
Speaker 1: how that would look if if they discovered that the
Speaker 1: soccer ball that first of all, I gave it to
Speaker 1: the kids. So I'm assuming it's gonna stay in like
Speaker 1: Baron's room. So if the Russians were listening, and then
Speaker 1: they'd probably here Melania being like goodlines, bead and and
Speaker 1: you know him playing lots of I was gonna say Doom.
Speaker 1: I just aged myself that no one plays Doom anymore,
Speaker 1: do they? That's not producer Mike. What are the what's
Speaker 1: the cool video game? If you're a kid now, Like,
Speaker 1: what's the main call of duty? You don't know, dude,
Speaker 1: you're supposed you're the cool one here. You don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. John. I can't even hear him right now, John,
Speaker 1: you're cool too? Is that a game? I don't you
Speaker 1: tell me? All Right, we come back. We're gonna take
Speaker 1: a task to the deep State. Stay with me. He's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America, buck Sexton, his back to
Speaker 1: keep this momentum, going to continue this economic miracle. And
Speaker 1: that's what it is. It's a miracle. What's happened in
Speaker 1: the last year and a half. We must invest in
Speaker 1: job training and vocational education. And the fact is that
Speaker 1: companies are pouring back into our country. Companies have frankly
Speaker 1: left ten and twenty years ago and they're coming back,
Speaker 1: and we need people to work for those companies. We
Speaker 1: need talented people, we need people with training. That's why
Speaker 1: in a few moments I will be signing an executive
Speaker 1: order to establish the National Council for the American Worker.
Speaker 1: That's the first. Do you think any intelligence agencies US
Speaker 1: intelligence agencies are out to get you? Well, certainly in
Speaker 1: the past it's been terrible. You look at Brennan, you
Speaker 1: look at Clapper, you look at Hayden, you look at Comy,
Speaker 1: you look at McCabe, you look at Struck and his lover,
Speaker 1: Lisa Page. You look at other people in the FBI
Speaker 1: that have been fired and they are no longer there. Uh. Certainly,
Speaker 1: I can't have any confidence in the past. But I
Speaker 1: can have a lot of confidence in the President in
Speaker 1: the future, because uh, it's getting to be now where
Speaker 1: we're putting our people in. But in the past, no,
Speaker 1: I have no confidence in a guy like Brennan. I
Speaker 1: think it's a total low life. I have no confidence
Speaker 1: in Clapper. Take a look at all of the Shenanigans
Speaker 1: that have gone on, very hard to have confidence in
Speaker 1: that group. Now, I know you may be thinking, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's kind of topic whiplash. You're given us right. You
Speaker 1: got the president once that I can talking about the economy,
Speaker 1: then you place another another sound bite of him talking
Speaker 1: about the deep state and some of these former government
Speaker 1: partisans who are out to get him. But but I
Speaker 1: do that because what I started with there, what you
Speaker 1: hear from the president is what I want the president
Speaker 1: to be able to focus on. What I want the
Speaker 1: government to focus on, which growth, prosperity, good governance, and
Speaker 1: just overall well being of the United States. And what
Speaker 1: I had to transition to, because that's what the administration
Speaker 1: has to transition to, is I'm not a Russian puppet.
Speaker 1: This is all crazy. Russia didn't hand the election to me.
Speaker 1: Hillary wouldn't have won. Can we please stop? The deep
Speaker 1: state is reel. They've got a problem. They have Trump's
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome. So much burned time and energy and effort
Speaker 1: on all that stuff, and it's a real detriment to
Speaker 1: this country. And that's what I wanted to focus on
Speaker 1: from what This is not cost free, This isn't oh well,
Speaker 1: who cares, no big deal? It is actually a big deal.
Speaker 1: It does matter, in fact, that we have this circumstance
Speaker 1: where the president is bogged down with all this crazy
Speaker 1: stuff and it is frankly crazy. I'm more out of
Speaker 1: words and I'm saying bonkers and crazy and insane and deranged,
Speaker 1: and it's it isn't rational though. It's like we're not
Speaker 1: having an adult conversation anymore about Trump. It says though
Speaker 1: the people that oppose him, because they have not been
Speaker 1: able to come up with a a narrative that the
Speaker 1: American people will go for, have just turned to some
Speaker 1: kind of psychological disconnect. And that's there. That's their best
Speaker 1: means of coping. It's it's a coping mechanism. Pretending that
Speaker 1: Trump is a Russian agent, pretending that Trump is uh
Speaker 1: is you know, this terrible hit Larry and figure bringing
Speaker 1: fascism to this country. Have any of you felt the
Speaker 1: group of fascisms and Trumpet has been president. I mean,
Speaker 1: I really want to know if a single person listening
Speaker 1: to this broadcast coast to coast to coast across the country.
Speaker 1: If one person listening feels like they've had to deal
Speaker 1: with true fascism because of Trump, not because of Democrats,
Speaker 1: I might look, if you live in a place where
Speaker 1: you know the recycling police are coming after you, that's
Speaker 1: on you. I mean, that's Trump's fault. Any of you
Speaker 1: have had that experience, I really want to know and
Speaker 1: I want to hear it. Um. I also do find
Speaker 1: though that I'm I'm running out of patients, and I
Speaker 1: worry that that's part of the left strategy here too,
Speaker 1: that they believe that they can outlast us, that their
Speaker 1: psychosis will overcome our rationality just through sheer force of will.
Speaker 1: So I I I worry about that because some of
Speaker 1: us are just like I don't want to have these
Speaker 1: fights over the deep state tomorrow. But they won't stop.
Speaker 1: The investigation won't stop. And in the moment that we
Speaker 1: drop our guard, the moment that we no longer have
Speaker 1: our shields high, we could have a very big problem
Speaker 1: on our hands. And they may get what they want,
Speaker 1: which is to not just get even with this president,
Speaker 1: but to destroy his presidency. Uh to destroy this president,
Speaker 1: to destroy his presidency, which means stopping the agenda he
Speaker 1: was elected for. And so that's where I'm starting. I'm
Speaker 1: starting to see some people on the right that are
Speaker 1: just like, you know what, the gloves are off now.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not hearing it. I'm not having these people,
Speaker 1: the Mueller's and the Brennan's and and other well not Mueller,
Speaker 1: but Brennan and Clapper and others going on TV treated
Speaker 1: like nonpartisan experts who just have the best interests of
Speaker 1: the country in mind. No, no, no, Joe de Jonova
Speaker 1: went on quite a tear and I'm seeing others who
Speaker 1: were saying similar stuff. But but some of the people
Speaker 1: I know who are following this closely are in the media.
Speaker 1: They've decided that they're no longer gonna be polite about
Speaker 1: any of this anymore. And here's what here's what Joe
Speaker 1: had to say. Play three. I want to talk about
Speaker 1: two people, John Brennan and Leon Panetta. John Brennan is
Speaker 1: a trader, and I'll tell you why. He's the real trader.
Speaker 1: What he did and what he has said recently about
Speaker 1: the President of the United States is despicable. He is
Speaker 1: personally responsible for the leaking of unmasked information. He was
Speaker 1: responsible for the sharing of false information to u S
Speaker 1: intelligence sources to get FISA warrants. He is personally responsible
Speaker 1: for the sharing of false information with American intelligence agencies.
Speaker 1: Leon Panetta should be ashamed of himself after what he
Speaker 1: did in Benghazi when he kissed Hillary Clinton's Fannie, refused
Speaker 1: to allow forces to come to the rescue of people,
Speaker 1: and now he says that he thinks that the Russians
Speaker 1: may have something on the President to compromise him. Shame on,
Speaker 1: Leon Prenetta. May he rot in hell? Wow? I mean
Speaker 1: this is where we're going, folks. Yep, A Digionova slap
Speaker 1: doesn't not quite as catchy as a buck slap, but
Speaker 1: a Digionova slap, uh like, hey, diva, it does sound.
Speaker 1: I'm sure somewhere along the line there's probably a Grandma
Speaker 1: Dijanova who makes fantastic handworld pasta. I'm just saying it's likely. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's likely, um. But the buck slap there, courtesy of
Speaker 1: Dijanova was was was poignant, and I think he's tired
Speaker 1: of it. I think a lot of us are getting
Speaker 1: tired of this. But he was a United States Attorney
Speaker 1: for the District of Columbia from three to nineteen. According
Speaker 1: to uh, the Wikipedia here and now he's a lawyer
Speaker 1: here in d C. But he's he's sick of it, man,
Speaker 1: this whole thing. You know, I would have so much
Speaker 1: more respect for the Democrats if they would just come
Speaker 1: out and say, look, we want Bernie Sanders is um.
Speaker 1: We think that this is a better way for the
Speaker 1: country for going forward. Here's what we want to do,
Speaker 1: Here's how we're gonna try to achieve it, and we
Speaker 1: could have a real battle over ideas. Saying that the
Speaker 1: president is a puppet of Russia and a trader is
Speaker 1: not is un serious and very damaging. Not just damaging
Speaker 1: because oh it's mean and they're making the president feel
Speaker 1: but it's not that the president doesn't care. You know
Speaker 1: that the president's not. He's not losing any sleep because
Speaker 1: they're saying mean things about him. Well, it coursens the discourse,
Speaker 1: and I know that feels like, oh my gosh, buck,
Speaker 1: but Trump Trump he no, no, no, no, I mean
Speaker 1: between all of us, between just normal folks. It's one
Speaker 1: thing to say I disagree with your president or disagree
Speaker 1: with the president. It's another thing to you can even
Speaker 1: say I think his policies are really bad. When you
Speaker 1: say he's a traitor, which you're also doing is tainting
Speaker 1: all the people who voted for him, who support him,
Speaker 1: who stand with him. You're suggesting that they all are
Speaker 1: part of his treason. And there's a really corrosive effect
Speaker 1: on this. And you know, you see this with with
Speaker 1: what's going on right now, where anybody who tries to
Speaker 1: cross party lines at all, and I'm not even talking
Speaker 1: about politicians, talking about anybody anywhere runs up against a
Speaker 1: degree of opposition that is just completely, uh insane in
Speaker 1: terms of how how elevated it is and how fervent
Speaker 1: the opposition is. And I'm trying to find this right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know that where to go. Um, whoops. No,
Speaker 1: it's so Ben Shapiro, whom you know we've had on
Speaker 1: the show many times in the past. He's very busy
Speaker 1: with his own show these days, but he's welcome anytime.
Speaker 1: He knows that Ben Shapiro is doing great work and
Speaker 1: the Daily Wire is a really excellent sight. And so
Speaker 1: I don't even know who it was. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find it right now, guys. So I'm sorry that I'm
Speaker 1: I'm coming up short on the specific the specifics of
Speaker 1: the names here. But I saw it earlier today, and
Speaker 1: you know, you've got Ben Shapiro was brought up by
Speaker 1: some liberal as like, hey liberals, I'm I'm paraphrasing here.
Speaker 1: This was a Twitter exchange, Hey liberals, if you want
Speaker 1: to follow somebody that maybe you can be you know,
Speaker 1: enlightened by in some way about the other side. You know,
Speaker 1: if there's anything that here, it is here, it is.
Speaker 1: Sorry it took me a second. I lost it for
Speaker 1: a moment. There. Mark du Plas, Okay, I I don't know,
Speaker 1: producer Mike. Do you know this guy Mark du Plas
Speaker 1: is never heard of him before. Yeah, he's a actor
Speaker 1: and producer on this Oh Hollywood, Oh now I know.
Speaker 1: I okay. So this guy Mark Duplos put out a
Speaker 1: tweet and and I have the response tweet where he
Speaker 1: had what I would call the hostage video tweet that
Speaker 1: he put out afterwards. But he initially wrote something like,
Speaker 1: you know, Ben is somebody that maybe you disagree with
Speaker 1: that you should listen to him, you know, And and uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's you know, Ben makes makes good faith or arguments.
Speaker 1: He's not out there to just trash people. He's obviously
Speaker 1: a very very smart guy of a tremendous matter respect
Speaker 1: for him, and Matt Walsh is over the Daily Wire. Now.
Speaker 1: I think Matt Walsh is a great writer and also
Speaker 1: a really sound thinker. Emily's a naughty who you know
Speaker 1: as a friends during the show. Many times she's over
Speaker 1: Daily Wire. So they're they're just doing really good work
Speaker 1: over there, and I respect that team, that crew, hm
Speaker 1: what they're up to. But anyway, this guy du Plas
Speaker 1: splits out a tweet about this and he gets for
Speaker 1: merely saying, hey, if you want to see what the
Speaker 1: other side thinks, He gets his hand blown off metaphorically speaking,
Speaker 1: I mean he gets crushed. And so this actor producer
Speaker 1: guy Mike, what's he in anything? I would know? By
Speaker 1: the way, did we know what he's in? But it
Speaker 1: was never heard of him? Yeah? I can't off top
Speaker 1: of my head. I can't think. You may like know
Speaker 1: his face if you saw, but he hasn't done anything significant. Okay,
Speaker 1: um so okay, uh. I don't know who he is.
Speaker 1: But the point here is that he tweeted out something
Speaker 1: that was like maybe you could listen to Shapiro, and
Speaker 1: then he had to tweet this out a day later.
Speaker 1: I guess to try and save his career. He wrote,
Speaker 1: so that tweet was a disaster on many levels. I
Speaker 1: want to be clear that in no way I endorsed hatred, racism, homophobia, xenophobia,
Speaker 1: or any such form of intolerance. My goal has always
Speaker 1: been to spread unity, understanding, and kindness. But I'm going
Speaker 1: to make mistakes along the way. Sometimes I moved too
Speaker 1: quickly when I get excited, or failed to do enough research,
Speaker 1: or don't communicate myself clearly. I'm really sorry. I now
Speaker 1: understand that I need to be more diligent and careful.
Speaker 1: I'm working on that. Oh my gosh, this guy had
Speaker 1: to write this to save his bacon because he said
Speaker 1: that Ben Shapiro, somebody you might want to read some
Speaker 1: stuff from. This is how bad things have gotten, folks.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Ben Shapiro also appeared in a
Speaker 1: New Yorker piece recently a total just a total intentional smear.
Speaker 1: He was there with They mentioned Shapiro, um Roberts. They're like,
Speaker 1: you know, here are people that speak on college campuses
Speaker 1: and create controversy. And it was like Milo, Ben Shapiro
Speaker 1: and Robert Spencer. First of all, Mill doesn't speak in
Speaker 1: college campus. Is really more anymore. So. I don't know
Speaker 1: what that guy's doing, but he's not doing that. Robert
Speaker 1: Spencer is a white nationalists scum. And Vent Shapiro is
Speaker 1: a top conservative thinker, pundit. I mean, somebody who's in
Speaker 1: in in this media space and doing a great job.
Speaker 1: How could the New Yorker put those three names in
Speaker 1: the same paragraph, in the same article, unless it was
Speaker 1: one to refute the other or something. They put them
Speaker 1: in the same sentence. This is where this is all
Speaker 1: going now. They can't win the argument, so they just
Speaker 1: get The left gets more desperate, the tactics get more underhanded,
Speaker 1: and the who the The reality here is this is
Speaker 1: gonna get worse. It's gonna get much worse because I
Speaker 1: don't have a real argument to make and they don't
Speaker 1: have the ability to combat conservatism right now in the
Speaker 1: battlefield of ideas. They just really don't. It's all hatred,
Speaker 1: it's all mean words, it's all animosity, all right, right,
Speaker 1: I know, I know, we gotta calls coming in. I
Speaker 1: gotta teem we got some calls. We'll talk more next hour.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about abolishing I and how people talk a
Speaker 1: tough game about it, but they don't really want to
Speaker 1: do it. We have much much more on the way.
Speaker 1: Stay with me, Welcome back team. We've got some calls
Speaker 1: up here. Let's see what we've got. Who I just
Speaker 1: dropped my saying, oh yeah, Mike in Fair Hope, Alabama. Hey, Mike,
Speaker 1: how you doing it? Great? L tig I called in
Speaker 1: and had I thought about the situation out there in
Speaker 1: San Francisco and all of the poop in the street,
Speaker 1: and occurred to me, that's some real extensive property out there.
Speaker 1: And uh, at a certain point, people are are gonna
Speaker 1: start losing some property value, won't they. I'm sure it's affected. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm guessing that the uh, the defecation situation is primarily
Speaker 1: in the not ritzy areas. By the way, you know,
Speaker 1: how much do you ever see the see the show
Speaker 1: Full House? Okay, Mike, you can admit it. Come on.
Speaker 1: We all love Uncle Jesse And yeah, that's right. He's
Speaker 1: a very honest man. We've all seen Full House is
Speaker 1: a nice show. That house in Full House in San Francisco. Now,
Speaker 1: I think it's worth four million dollars, so that'll give
Speaker 1: you a sense. And it's just like a house four
Speaker 1: million dollars. Uh, And they no longer are allowed to
Speaker 1: take tours of it or something. There's something that came
Speaker 1: up recently. Anyway, the poop on the streets. Um. There's
Speaker 1: probably in areas where there's not a lot of rich folks,
Speaker 1: but citywide it's obviously a problem. The thing about living
Speaker 1: in a city is even if the bad area, so
Speaker 1: to speak, are the only ones affected by stupid policies
Speaker 1: or or the not. So, you know, wealthy areas are
Speaker 1: affected by dumb policies. Everyone has to use public transit, right,
Speaker 1: everyone has to walk around the park every there there
Speaker 1: are some places of shared experience, even if you live
Speaker 1: in a four million dollar mansion like the full House House, um,
Speaker 1: where it does affect you. So, I don't know. The
Speaker 1: Bay Area has the most expensive real estate in some places,
Speaker 1: I think in the whole country, which is amazing to
Speaker 1: me because I had to be honest you San Francisco
Speaker 1: is beautiful, but I wouldn't want to live there, not
Speaker 1: my gem. And if I'm going to California, I want
Speaker 1: the warm weather. I want Newport Beach, you know, I
Speaker 1: want someone. I want the o C. Sorry, Mike, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm starting to dream out loud here, Buddy, How are
Speaker 1: things down in Alabama right now? They're really hot. We're
Speaker 1: supposed to get some rain, but it seems to be
Speaker 1: holding off. But it has been too hot to do
Speaker 1: in your work in the yard. Well, I hear you, man,
Speaker 1: We'll stay. You stay, stay hydrated, hydra graduate. That's what
Speaker 1: I was told they say at West Point. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's true, but somebody told me that. Who
Speaker 1: would know. Thanks for calling in Mike. By the way,
Speaker 1: Producer Mike, very important to stay hydrated, I will have
Speaker 1: you know, very important, especially in these hot You promise,
Speaker 1: all right? Do you make me call producer Mike's mom
Speaker 1: and and check in on you? All right? You gotta
Speaker 1: make sure you stay. You don't need to call. She
Speaker 1: listens every night, but you can just tell her Producer
Speaker 1: Mike's Producer Mike's fam is is awesome. So you know
Speaker 1: they're supportive of the whole Freedom Hut operation here absolutely,
Speaker 1: And we got to take some photos of of Cash
Speaker 1: the now we'll say the official Freedom Hub mascot, right
Speaker 1: because I mean, we don't have another one, so he's
Speaker 1: the mascot. He's the only one. Yeah, alright, cool, thank
Speaker 1: you sir? All right, team, we got a big second
Speaker 1: hour coming up here where we're gonna talk about abolish ice.
Speaker 1: Abolish ice, which it's not a thing that anybody should
Speaker 1: want to do, but some crazy leftists want to didn't
Speaker 1: go very far though Democrats won't vote for what us
Speaker 1: Shock that and more in just a few I've got
Speaker 1: a simply Safe security system at home. There's so many
Speaker 1: things I love about it. It's so easy and I
Speaker 1: feel so secure, especially when I'm outside my home and
Speaker 1: I can check in using the simply Safe app. Right,
Speaker 1: these guys that simply Safe are all about the details,
Speaker 1: you know. One example is that simply Safe didn't want
Speaker 1: false positives. You know, if someone drops a plate, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: the alarm goes off. Right, No, no, no, They constructed
Speaker 1: a glass break test facility so that they can distinguish
Speaker 1: that simply Safe system that you have can distinguish between
Speaker 1: a broken plate or a broken window. No contract, no
Speaker 1: fine print, no shady stuff that you get with all
Speaker 1: these other security home security companies. No, no, no no, no.
Speaker 1: You'll get seven monitoring with police and fire dispatch just
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars a month. Go check it out. It's the
Speaker 1: best around the clock protection you can find. Protect your
Speaker 1: home today. Visits simply safe dot com slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: simply safe dot com, slash buck simply safe dot Com
Speaker 1: slash Buck. Buck Sexton Mission, decoding the news and disseminating
Speaker 1: information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, you're
Speaker 1: a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts. No,
Speaker 1: I've been consistent. I get asked this a lot. I
Speaker 1: am do not believe special counsel motors on witch hunt.
Speaker 1: I think it's a professional investigation conducted a man that
Speaker 1: I've known to be a straight shooter in all my
Speaker 1: interactions with him. That's undeniable that the Russians are taking
Speaker 1: the lead on this. Basically, they are the ones that
Speaker 1: are trying to undermine our basic values that divide us
Speaker 1: with our allies. They're the ones that are trying to
Speaker 1: wreck havoc over their election process. We need to call
Speaker 1: them out on that. It's critical that we do so
Speaker 1: um and to then take steps to make sure that
Speaker 1: they are not able to do this with the election
Speaker 1: coming up. Welcome back to the Bucks Exton Show. You
Speaker 1: know you have the Director of National Intelligence there, the
Speaker 1: d n I, which is the government's reaction after nine
Speaker 1: eleven to the massive intelligence failure of preventing nine eleven
Speaker 1: was to add many layers of intelligence bureaucracy onto the
Speaker 1: existing bureaucracy, the best example of which is in fact,
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence D. D and I. But
Speaker 1: there you have the D and I such as he
Speaker 1: is saying that Russia is trying to reak havoc on
Speaker 1: our election process, and right before that, you Christopher Ray
Speaker 1: of the FBI is saying it's not a witch on.
Speaker 1: So we just threw that in there too. That's the
Speaker 1: latest from the FBI. The bureaucracy protects the bureaucracy, no surprise,
Speaker 1: but on the wreaking havoc on our elections. I keep
Speaker 1: saying this, and I don't know why others don't really
Speaker 1: understand this too. I know some other conservatives do, but
Speaker 1: I don't know why more people aren't saying, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: you're right. There's no way for us to be able
Speaker 1: to ever trust elections again if we really think that
Speaker 1: what happened in the last election was you know, election meddling.
Speaker 1: Pearl Harbor, as so many people have said this week,
Speaker 1: so many major publications have written this week, if just
Speaker 1: a few Facebook sock puppets, right, fake accounts. If some
Speaker 1: Twitter trolls, some memes bread on social media, and a
Speaker 1: couple of email phishing scams are enough to consider an
Speaker 1: election tainted, we will never have And this is the
Speaker 1: world the Democrats are creating for us all to live in.
Speaker 1: If we allow them to, we will never have another
Speaker 1: election free of the that that uneasy feeling that maybe
Speaker 1: this is a legitimate, maybe this is not something we
Speaker 1: can trust. And if Putent's real goal is to just
Speaker 1: undermine our our democratic norms and our you know, our
Speaker 1: our whole system, what could be better than that. It's
Speaker 1: not just the election, it's all elections, and there's nothing
Speaker 1: they can do to stop this unless unless Facebook can
Speaker 1: find a way to prevent people from making you know,
Speaker 1: a fake account, which you know, verifying every single individual
Speaker 1: on Twitter, first of all, be insanely slow to their
Speaker 1: growth and expensive for them, and they're not gonna do it.
Speaker 1: But unless Twitter could find a way to do it,
Speaker 1: and facebooks are both of them, any of them, all
Speaker 1: these different social media platforms, you can't stop this. And
Speaker 1: this notion that even if Putin wanted to stop it,
Speaker 1: you might just have some Russians now with they just
Speaker 1: want to get you know, this is how they have
Speaker 1: a good time, you know, about drunk vodka, and we
Speaker 1: will mess with the medical election and nothing's gonna happen
Speaker 1: to them. No one's gonna no one's gonna hand them over,
Speaker 1: no one's gonna get sent to prison for it. And
Speaker 1: there's so much plausible deniability in this stuff. There's so
Speaker 1: many ways that you can engage in this kind of
Speaker 1: election meddling, and that it's never really gonna stop. And
Speaker 1: I just note that, you know, for me, one of
Speaker 1: the big parts of all this that never gets addressed
Speaker 1: sufficiently because they have no answer to it is if
Speaker 1: this was such a big deal and it was so critical,
Speaker 1: the Obama administration had an obligation, an obligation two, you know,
Speaker 1: hit the fire alarm, you know, yell at the house
Speaker 1: was on fire, tell the American people what was going on,
Speaker 1: and come what may politically, but it wasn't a big
Speaker 1: enough deal in their minds for them to do that,
Speaker 1: largely because they assumed Hillary was going to win, which
Speaker 1: is really the critical political turning point of this whole issue.
Speaker 1: They're not worried about the sanctity of democracy, the tragedy
Speaker 1: of the Russian intrusion into the election for Democrats is
Speaker 1: not that, you know that we have this sacred thing
Speaker 1: of electing officials and our constitution, the genius of the founding,
Speaker 1: all that's at stake. No, No, what upsets them so
Speaker 1: much is that Hillary lost, a Democrat, did not become
Speaker 1: president and Donald Trump won. And they think that calamitous.
Speaker 1: They think that is the equivalent of being hit by
Speaker 1: a massive bombing raid or a huge terrorist attack, where
Speaker 1: you know what, I picked your historical catastrophe. But they
Speaker 1: only think it because of Trump's win. They would not
Speaker 1: have thought that if Hillary had one. We know this,
Speaker 1: and that's how we get the clearest insight into what
Speaker 1: they really think and what they really believe on this issue,
Speaker 1: or they did believe. You know what's a fair assessment
Speaker 1: of all of this. You know, they're they're saying that Trump,
Speaker 1: you know, this is a big thing. Oh, they still
Speaker 1: targeting us? Are they still targeting us? This came up yesterday.
Speaker 1: Russia is never not going to be targeting us. Russia
Speaker 1: is not going to stop trying to influence American politics.
Speaker 1: Think about how important American positions and ideas and are
Speaker 1: to the whole world, the whole global economy, into Russia
Speaker 1: and all of its different interests outside of its borders,
Speaker 1: even in its borders. We're the global superpower. They're they're
Speaker 1: they're gonna try to do everything they can to steer
Speaker 1: us in directions that they want. That's not gonna stop.
Speaker 1: But if we allow them to get so far into
Speaker 1: our heads that we really think that they can have
Speaker 1: any outcome on the overall trajectory of a national election,
Speaker 1: or they can change so many Americans minds with these
Speaker 1: cloppy and slow you know, just I just said cloppy,
Speaker 1: didn't I Sloppy and clumsy was what I was trying
Speaker 1: to say there, But I just made up a new word,
Speaker 1: these cloppy, sloppy and clumsy mixed together, Uh, social media attacks.
Speaker 1: We're giving them way too much credit, folks, and we
Speaker 1: are opening ourselves up to much more self doubt as
Speaker 1: a nation about our elections and what's going on with
Speaker 1: them than we should. And Democrats don't mind. They think
Speaker 1: that's a small price to pay for getting back at Trump.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the left and socialists and abolish ice
Speaker 1: in just a moment. I love dogs, You love dogs,
Speaker 1: but you know if your pup has been kept up
Speaker 1: inside all day. Guess what when you get home, you
Speaker 1: open those doors, let them run around the yard. You
Speaker 1: might have a problem on your hands, digging and what
Speaker 1: do you do about that? Right? Because if your dog
Speaker 1: can dig under the fence, it can get out, and
Speaker 1: then you have to run around try to grab them,
Speaker 1: or even worse, could put the dog in jeopardy. Right,
Speaker 1: you gotta make sure your dog is safe. Dig Defense
Speaker 1: takes care of this problem. You'll never have to think
Speaker 1: about it again. Dig Defense extend the protection of your
Speaker 1: fence underground, so no amount of digging is gonna let
Speaker 1: your pets out of the yard or let predators into
Speaker 1: the yard. It comes at a bunch of different models
Speaker 1: and sizes. It will fit your needs exactly. You can
Speaker 1: install it with a hammer and a pair of gloves.
Speaker 1: It's available online at lows Menards, Wayfair and stop the
Speaker 1: dig dot Com again. Dig Defense the solution de pets
Speaker 1: digging under your fence and right now if you go,
Speaker 1: you can use promo code buck for ten percent off
Speaker 1: in the month of July again promo code buck at
Speaker 1: dig Defense. Stop the dig dot com. We are committing
Speaker 1: human rights abuses on this border and separating children from
Speaker 1: their families, and that you know, is part of the
Speaker 1: structure of the agency. We can replace it, and we
Speaker 1: can replace it with the Humane Agency. I don't think
Speaker 1: ICE today is working as intended. You think you should
Speaker 1: get rid of the agency. I believe that it has
Speaker 1: become a deportation force, um And I think you should
Speaker 1: separate the criminal justice from the immigration issues. And I
Speaker 1: think you should reimagine ICE. ICE was established in two
Speaker 1: thousand three, right at the same time as the Patriot Act,
Speaker 1: the a U m F, the Iraq War, and we
Speaker 1: look back at a lot of that time and legislation
Speaker 1: as a as a mistake. Now, I believe the moral
Speaker 1: character of the United States is at stake. So for me,
Speaker 1: it wasn't a question of whether I should go down there.
Speaker 1: If we have to have a rapid response, and I
Speaker 1: think every day that we go on, especially a day
Speaker 1: when something that heinous happens, we have to occupy all
Speaker 1: of it. We need to occupy every airport, we need
Speaker 1: to occupy every border, we need to occupy every ICE
Speaker 1: office until those kids are back with their parents. Period, occupy, occupy.
Speaker 1: What does that remind you of, Folks whole streets are
Speaker 1: streets Occupy Wall Street. I remember first real field assignment
Speaker 1: of my media career covering Occupy Wall Street. I was
Speaker 1: there for every major occupied protests, every major occupy thing
Speaker 1: in New York City. I was there the day it started.
Speaker 1: I was there the day the NYPD came in and
Speaker 1: had to club a bunch of filthy hippie and arrest
Speaker 1: them and get them out of Zukkati Park, right. I
Speaker 1: was there for all of it. But the rhetoric has returned.
Speaker 1: You heard there at the very end. Then that was
Speaker 1: Alexandra Occazio Cortes. She of, yeah, like people like the
Speaker 1: unemployment so low because like they have so many, like
Speaker 1: two jobs a person, so it's like double job for
Speaker 1: unemployment stuff and things. Yeah, what do you think of
Speaker 1: Israel and the Palestinians Occasio Cortes, Yeah, like Israel bad
Speaker 1: and Palestine and Palestinian um good because daily co's and
Speaker 1: huff posts say so, okay, all right, we'll take it
Speaker 1: fair enough. But anyway, she was saying there occupied occupies.
Speaker 1: She knows what that is harkening back to. And this
Speaker 1: is all about mobilization for the progressive left. Uh, this
Speaker 1: is all about what they're planning to do going into
Speaker 1: these of terms, and this call to abolish ICE, I've
Speaker 1: been saying all along, this is just it's such an
Speaker 1: example of the protest culture that Democrats have embraced that
Speaker 1: is largely a a brainless and thoughtless exercise. Abolish ICE
Speaker 1: and replace it with an agency that's more humane. Are
Speaker 1: you going to just fire all those federal employees and
Speaker 1: then rehire them with different uniforms to do the same job,
Speaker 1: because none of them will say, well, we shouldn't have
Speaker 1: any customs or border enforcement right because that's that is
Speaker 1: open borders. At that point they're actually just oh, wait,
Speaker 1: you mean that's what they really want, but they won't
Speaker 1: say it. What a shock, But they can't say that.
Speaker 1: They won't just come out and let us all know
Speaker 1: that that is the real purpose of what they are after.
Speaker 1: So instead you have this dance around if abolish ice,
Speaker 1: abolish ice, and they're they're channing this going around abolish
Speaker 1: ice um and then when when they also there's a
Speaker 1: tell here when they say they want the criminal justice
Speaker 1: component of immigrations and customs enforcement to be separated from
Speaker 1: the immigration one, Uh, they don't think that being in
Speaker 1: the country illegally is illegal. That's what this really comes
Speaker 1: down to. They this is why you see places like
Speaker 1: San Francisco that are going from sanctuary cities to sanctuary
Speaker 1: cities on steroids, where they now allow people to vote
Speaker 1: for what effects some local government expenditures. I mean school board.
Speaker 1: I know, it's like local dog catcher. It's not that
Speaker 1: big a deal, but it's gonna become a big deal.
Speaker 1: And school board in some places really doesn't matter. But
Speaker 1: you're hearing this, and I've been telling you for a
Speaker 1: while that immigrations and Customs enforcement abolition is a nonsense
Speaker 1: chant by unserious people. And sure enough today they they
Speaker 1: put it to the test, right, and and you can
Speaker 1: tell there's uh, you know this is this is where
Speaker 1: you get a little bit of grand standing on both
Speaker 1: sides here. But there were some votes today, Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: some votes today in the House of Representatives. And the
Speaker 1: first one was a resolution backing US immigrations and Customs enforcement.
Speaker 1: Republican leaders did this to show what they stand for.
Speaker 1: So ya, Republicans, you don't want to abolish ice. Uh.
Speaker 1: The vote was two hundred and forty four to thirty five,
Speaker 1: with a hundred and thirty three Democrats voting present. Think
Speaker 1: about that for a moment, shall you shall we? Democrats
Speaker 1: won't even agree. Democrats in Congress won't even agree with
Speaker 1: their Republican counterparts. Now, I know they'll say that this
Speaker 1: was a show vote, which it was. I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not naive, right, but you really, you guys have a
Speaker 1: chance to just go on the record. That's what this is.
Speaker 1: Going on the record? Are you four against ice? Democrats? Abstain? Abstain.
Speaker 1: This is pretty amazing when when you get down to it,
Speaker 1: and there were some other Democrats that I know, actually
Speaker 1: we're trying to push for an actual abolition of of ice.
Speaker 1: But that's not gonna happen. That's not gonna happen. Um,
Speaker 1: you know this, This is pretty amazing to me, pretty
Speaker 1: amazing to see how this is this is playing out.
Speaker 1: That you can have people who are elected at the
Speaker 1: national level and they think that it is to the
Speaker 1: benefit of their party going into the midterms to take
Speaker 1: this position is truly you know, Democrats. If Democrats were
Speaker 1: just normal, we'd have problems, folks, because look that the
Speaker 1: Republicans haven't really executed in the Congress on a lot
Speaker 1: of the agenda, that there are places where they're disappointing.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a trillion dollar deficit next year, a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars. That's Obama level deficit. I no, no one
Speaker 1: wants to hear it. I'm like, I'm like, Captain Wow,
Speaker 1: I'm no Fun, I get it, but we gotta keep
Speaker 1: it real here. And yeah, you know, that's that's something
Speaker 1: that Republicans are not doing well. They're just not getting
Speaker 1: it done. But you know, Senator of Fun, I think
Speaker 1: had some sage advice for the political opposition your play
Speaker 1: clip nine. I think that the Democrat Party is drifting
Speaker 1: and their rudderless right now, and they seem to be
Speaker 1: at least driven by the far left. And in the
Speaker 1: ex senative course, you've got people like Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren and others who are pulling them in that direction.
Speaker 1: And what it does is it makes it that much
Speaker 1: harder I think for moderate Democrats or Democrats who at
Speaker 1: least have a little bit of common sense from being
Speaker 1: pushed out into these, uh, these positions that are gonna
Speaker 1: make it very very difficult for them to to get
Speaker 1: elected in parts of the country where you have voters
Speaker 1: who are center or center right. I mean, these positions
Speaker 1: are completely out of the mainstream, and I think it's
Speaker 1: it's gonna be very, very difficult if you're a candidate Democrat,
Speaker 1: candidate who has a primary not to be pushed way
Speaker 1: out there in that direction. It's gonna be very hard
Speaker 1: to get back to the middle and win a general election. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I cannot remember, and I really mean this. I cannot
Speaker 1: remember the last time I heard a national level Democrat
Speaker 1: making the case for an economic issue of importance to
Speaker 1: the American people that was not some left wing fantasy.
Speaker 1: I can't remember it. I'm not even hearing them go
Speaker 1: to the well and things like minimum wage, which doesn't
Speaker 1: work the way people say it does and it is
Speaker 1: not as good as people say it is and all.
Speaker 1: But but you know what, it's popular. It's popular people
Speaker 1: minimum wage. People like it, right, raise the minimum wage.
Speaker 1: I mean, sorry, I kept saying minim wage. Raising the
Speaker 1: minimum wage is popular issue. You know, give workers more,
Speaker 1: give workers more. They're not even going to that. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they. I'm starting to think that Trump
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome. I have also made it impossible for them
Speaker 1: to even pull off the usual head fakes against the
Speaker 1: American people to make them think that they have any
Speaker 1: connection to the issues that matter to normal people. You know,
Speaker 1: whether there are thirty seven genders or not on a
Speaker 1: federal application for employment, that that doesn't matter to normal people.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. Normal people don't care. Okay, climate change as
Speaker 1: much as the elite's whine about it, normal people don't
Speaker 1: really care. They know. Look at all the polling, it's
Speaker 1: like ten percent of the population that really cares about
Speaker 1: climate change. Health Care people care, but not hear anything
Speaker 1: Democrats about that. Immigration people care, and all Democrats can
Speaker 1: talk about is amnesty and essentially incentivizing more illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's really what a majority of the
Speaker 1: American people are on board for. So I do think
Speaker 1: you end up sitting around thinking to yourself, what are
Speaker 1: they gonna do? Abolish ice? Is that really the pitch?
Speaker 1: Democrats won't even stand behind it, but they won't stand
Speaker 1: it against it either, because they are a bunch of quizzlings.
Speaker 1: A bunch of quizzlings. Indeed, by the way, for those
Speaker 1: who are wont because that came up a bunch this
Speaker 1: week and you're probably thinking, you're like, where does the
Speaker 1: term Quizzling come from a fun little history tidbit here.
Speaker 1: Vidkin Quizzling was Norwegian Norwegian politician during the occupation of
Speaker 1: the country during World War Two. So when the Nazis
Speaker 1: occupied Norway, it's kind of like calling somebody like Visa
Speaker 1: the Vichy France government a Quizzling is some and Churchill
Speaker 1: referred to him in such a disparaging way that it
Speaker 1: became its own, its own term. But that's where it's
Speaker 1: Vidcan Quizzling, the Norwegian or military officer, and Paula Titian
Speaker 1: who was running the country under the essentially a collaborator
Speaker 1: in a way with the uh Nazi force. All right,
Speaker 1: I've got much more teams, Stay with me. He's back
Speaker 1: with you now, because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the buck never stops making a mistake in
Speaker 1: putting forth candidates that labeled themselves democratic socialists when at
Speaker 1: this moment look at small or large business sentiment or
Speaker 1: consumer confidence, and Americans feel like capitalism is working for them.
Speaker 1: I believe in markets, but I also believe that markets
Speaker 1: have to have rules, Otherwise rich and powerful just keep
Speaker 1: sucking up all the value and everybody else ends up
Speaker 1: eating dirt. I think the big parts of this economy
Speaker 1: are not working for the American people. When saying, hey,
Speaker 1: the unemployment rate has gone down, Uh, that's a great thing.
Speaker 1: But you know when people are working at minimum wage
Speaker 1: jobs that won't support them, or they're working two, three
Speaker 1: or four jobs to try to pay the rent and
Speaker 1: keep food on the table, then simply saying the unemployment
Speaker 1: figures have gone down just doesn't get you there. You know,
Speaker 1: there's so much going on there. You've got, uh, Stephanie Rule, Oh,
Speaker 1: I've got to say. I kind of like, Actually, side
Speaker 1: don't but I don't know her. I like her work,
Speaker 1: but she's over on what was that the MSNBC, so
Speaker 1: the furthest left mainstream cable network, and she has She
Speaker 1: starts out by asking a very important question, I mean
Speaker 1: a question that Democrats are gonna have to stare right
Speaker 1: in the face real soon, which is the econmy is booming.
Speaker 1: Economy is incredibly strong and out g d P growth
Speaker 1: is better than it was during the Obama years by far.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the economy is doing really well.
Speaker 1: Unemployment record lows lowest it's been and I don't know
Speaker 1: thirty or forty years or something. You don't hear anything
Speaker 1: about this. Remember, Obama had to win reelection in with
Speaker 1: a crap economy, and because of the medium, because of
Speaker 1: Romney and the binder is full of women and all
Speaker 1: the other unfair stuff they piled on romney shoulders, they
Speaker 1: were able to, you know, give give Obama four more years, right,
Speaker 1: eight years of Obama, despite the fact that there were
Speaker 1: a lot of metrics in the economy where people said,
Speaker 1: if unemployment is still at you know, X rate, there's
Speaker 1: no way Obama can win. Guess what it was at
Speaker 1: still at a at a high level in any one.
Speaker 1: I mean, there were a number of areas where you
Speaker 1: would think that objectively, the poor performance that Obama had
Speaker 1: had in the presidency would have been a prohibition on
Speaker 1: a second term for him. But that's not what happened.
Speaker 1: They managed to get around that. But now you have
Speaker 1: an economy under Trump that is it is roaring. In fact,
Speaker 1: the economy is so good that you don't hear about it.
Speaker 1: That really speaks volumes, doesn't it. There is a deafening
Speaker 1: silence when it comes to criticism of the economy because
Speaker 1: Democrats have no message for the American people on this.
Speaker 1: They've got the usual class warfare stuff. They're gonna try that.
Speaker 1: But we heard that during the Obama years and it
Speaker 1: didn't make anything better for anyone. It just was a
Speaker 1: lot of excuses. Now things are actually going well. People
Speaker 1: are making more money, the markets are growing, wealth wealth
Speaker 1: is increasing in this country overall, which helps everyone. The
Speaker 1: country is getting wealthier. And you look at this and
Speaker 1: you think, this is the time when the progressives are
Speaker 1: the only ones in the Democratic Party that seemed to
Speaker 1: have any any momentum, any energy, any enthusiasm, excitement, right
Speaker 1: that the Bernie Sanders wing, that's where maybe Bernie's back.
Speaker 1: The Bernie Sanders wank of the Democratic Party is the
Speaker 1: only one that's getting anyone energized right now. You know,
Speaker 1: the polos Seas and the you know the other the
Speaker 1: Schumer's there. The people that fall into that category, they're
Speaker 1: gonna maybe cruise to reelection in the mid terms or
Speaker 1: a lot of them obviously aren't up in the mid terms.
Speaker 1: But there's no excitement, there's no interest. It's the socialists
Speaker 1: that get people interested. And this is where I have
Speaker 1: to say that the lack of I don't know, the
Speaker 1: lack of a good well, the media doesn't help on this.
Speaker 1: But also, you know, kids aren't learning enough about this
Speaker 1: stuff in schools these days. People just don't know the
Speaker 1: history of socialism and they don't know the theory of socialism.
Speaker 1: They don't know the radical foundations of Marxism and class
Speaker 1: warfare and what it really involves. They don't know what's
Speaker 1: happening countries that have become socialists. And you will have
Speaker 1: you know, the one thing you'll hear from people, and
Speaker 1: I want to arm you with this right now. You'll say, well,
Speaker 1: look at Venezuela, which, as I've told you, was a
Speaker 1: tragedy of errors on many levels economically, but one of
Speaker 1: the primary ones. One of the reasons Venezuela is like
Speaker 1: the eighth circle of Hell right now, is because they
Speaker 1: decided to set price controls to benefit the poor. That
Speaker 1: was that. That was the at least the ostensibly why
Speaker 1: they were doing it. There are a lot of other reasons,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of kickbacks in. Venezuela is also
Speaker 1: a narco state, which no one talks about. I think
Speaker 1: the number three person in the government is sanctioned by
Speaker 1: the Treasury Department for being a cocaine and heroin trafficker. Folks. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you've got a narco state as well. I just
Speaker 1: you don't hear people talking about it. I can't tell
Speaker 1: you why. I don't know why. I guess the media
Speaker 1: is just not interested in that. But you'll bring up
Speaker 1: Venezuela and they'll bring up oh well, what about Oh well,
Speaker 1: you mean Sweden. It's such a dystopia. And then I
Speaker 1: always say to them, you guysn't understand Sweden is not
Speaker 1: a socialist country. They don't they don't know this, they
Speaker 1: don't understand this. We're not socialists. In fact, Sweden and
Speaker 1: Denmark and Norway are very friendly to entrepreneurship, to foreign investments,
Speaker 1: to businesses when it comes to regulation. Sweden, the Nordic
Speaker 1: countries which are always pointed to as the example of,
Speaker 1: you know, how how great socialism can be, they're not
Speaker 1: socialist countries. They are high tax countries with a large
Speaker 1: welfare state, which is a which is a different thing,
Speaker 1: which is a different thing. It's not the government saying
Speaker 1: we're in charge of how everybody makes money and the
Speaker 1: distribution of goods and who's going to be doing what
Speaker 1: for whom and how. It's not the government picking winners
Speaker 1: and losers, the government saying, Okay, make all the money
Speaker 1: you can make, my fellow countrymen, we're going to set
Speaker 1: aside this amount for social welfare programs, and we're going
Speaker 1: to set the tax rate at this I popping jaw
Speaker 1: dropping them out. That's what those countries have. And then
Speaker 1: you know there's such an ignorance of this. You know,
Speaker 1: in Sweden, they're not saying bread is going to cost
Speaker 1: the dollar, and they're not saying that, uh, they're going
Speaker 1: to there's going to be an intentional penalization of the
Speaker 1: rich for the purposes of transferring money to the poor.
Speaker 1: They're not doing land seizures and redistributing it to the people.
Speaker 1: That's what they do in socialists, truly socialist countries. But
Speaker 1: you know what the other thing is that they won't
Speaker 1: tell you there's not enough money with the rich for
Speaker 1: the rich to carry the burden of the welfare state
Speaker 1: that you have in a place like Sweden. We already
Speaker 1: have a pretty robust welfare state in this country, but
Speaker 1: there's not enough money. If you tax just the quote rich,
Speaker 1: let's say, people who make what a half a million
Speaker 1: dollars a year or more, Uh, you can jack the
Speaker 1: rates way up. You're not going tonna pay for free
Speaker 1: college for everyone, free health care for everyone, no way.
Speaker 1: If you want what Sweden has, you have to tax
Speaker 1: the middle class at a very high rate. And this
Speaker 1: is the little This is the achilles he of the
Speaker 1: Bernies Okazia Cortez wing of the Democratic Party. Right now,
Speaker 1: they won't tell you that, but they can keep saying
Speaker 1: the rich, the rich, the rich. There's simply not enough money.
Speaker 1: And if they, by the way, and trying to squeeze
Speaker 1: that money out of the rich, they'll say and from
Speaker 1: corporations too. They'll create all kinds of downstream problems with
Speaker 1: the rest of economy problems and hiring problems, in wages,
Speaker 1: problems across the board. But if you really want free college,
Speaker 1: free healthcare, medicare for all, all of that, the only
Speaker 1: way to even have a serious conversation about it is
Speaker 1: if people making thirty to a hundred and fifty K
Speaker 1: folks are gonna pay forty fifty sixty percent of their
Speaker 1: income in taxes, in actual income taxes. Do you think
Speaker 1: that's a winning message. Do you think the Democrats could
Speaker 1: really come out and and make that pitch that that
Speaker 1: the middle class is gonna have to have huge tax
Speaker 1: raises too. I don't think so. I think that's a
Speaker 1: big issue for them. So this is why it's just
Speaker 1: Santa Claus, it's just rhetoric. It's you know, this is
Speaker 1: what Democrats say to make themselves feel good, like they
Speaker 1: have an important message, like they have something really to
Speaker 1: to share with their constituencies. And to have Elizabeth warrener
Speaker 1: and Elizabeth Warren is functioning economic illiterate, and the fact
Speaker 1: that she was in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Speaker 1: she was, I should say not in charge of it,
Speaker 1: but she was the brainchild it was. It was the
Speaker 1: brainchild of Elizabeth Warren in some capacity. Does not speak
Speaker 1: well for that organization, which, as we know, has also
Speaker 1: been trying to become a kind of a subset of
Speaker 1: the deep state with the government like the Trump administration
Speaker 1: somehow not in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
Speaker 1: even though it's a federal executive branch agency. So somehow
Speaker 1: I don't really get that. Um. But I'm telling you
Speaker 1: the fact that the Democrats are running socialist right now,
Speaker 1: and that that's the tip of the spirit. They're only
Speaker 1: prayer folks, And I'm gonna talk more to you about
Speaker 1: the midterms and what I think is coming up in
Speaker 1: a second here. The Democrats only prayers to run candidates
Speaker 1: that have a kind of Republican twang to them, have
Speaker 1: a I feel like a basic essence of republicanism. And
Speaker 1: then you find out more about them, and oh, I
Speaker 1: guess what, this is a Democrat. That's the only way
Speaker 1: they have a prayer of taking back the House. If
Speaker 1: they run as the leftist progressives that they are as
Speaker 1: a party, it is going to be a very sad
Speaker 1: fall for the Democrat Party. Joe Biden says he'll make
Speaker 1: a decision by January. I dream about Biden. That's a dream. Look,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden ran three times, he never got more than
Speaker 1: one percent, and President Obama took him out of the
Speaker 1: I've been cheap and everybody was shocked that he did.
Speaker 1: I'd love to have it be Biden. I think I'd
Speaker 1: like to have any one of those people that we're
Speaker 1: talking about. You know, there's probably the group of seven
Speaker 1: or eight right now. I'd really like to I'd like
Speaker 1: to run against any one of them. But Biden never
Speaker 1: by himself, could never do anything. You know, there are
Speaker 1: very few people that have the ability to uh, slice
Speaker 1: and dice somebody quite the way that President Trump does.
Speaker 1: You know, we think of Biden now because of the
Speaker 1: way the media propped him up during the Obama two terms.
Speaker 1: We think of Biden as as a politician of some
Speaker 1: or we've been told, I should say, to think of
Speaker 1: him as a politician of some national significance. You know,
Speaker 1: people look at him and he's he's popular. You think,
Speaker 1: why is Joe Biden so popular when he's, for one,
Speaker 1: a guy who didn't really do very much during the
Speaker 1: Obama years. I can't point to any thing that he
Speaker 1: was working on or in charge of that was significant
Speaker 1: and that made people's lives better or that. Okay, so
Speaker 1: no real accomplishment for three years, then years Oh wait
Speaker 1: a second, the Obama administration. So the media was completely
Speaker 1: in the tank for Obama, and by extension, that meant
Speaker 1: they were also in the tank for Joe Biden. Oh now,
Speaker 1: it all makes sense, right, They were always and you
Speaker 1: think back to some of his comments, and he had
Speaker 1: these gaps and they was, oh, crazy, uncle Joe. You know,
Speaker 1: he's just making those comments. And we all would on
Speaker 1: the conservative side at least recognize that he was making
Speaker 1: comments that if a conservative made it would have been
Speaker 1: game over. I mean, it would have been big, big problems.
Speaker 1: But because he's Joe Biden, you know, America's blue collar
Speaker 1: Joe and all this stuff, somehow they were able to
Speaker 1: turn this into Oh, he's so likable, and I don't
Speaker 1: think he's like, well, I think he's a very Remember
Speaker 1: he's also to put y'all back in chains. Remember he
Speaker 1: said that. I don't think he's likable. And when you
Speaker 1: look at his actual results, Okay, sure, he's a senator
Speaker 1: from Delaware. Hi, I'm in Delaware, But you know, he
Speaker 1: ran for president a couple of times and was really
Speaker 1: just ahead of like Kucinich. I it was was in
Speaker 1: that same conversation, So it was not a serious national
Speaker 1: contentent with presidency at all. And I think Trump, because
Speaker 1: he's Trump, because he doesn't buy the bs that's being
Speaker 1: piled up in front of him all the time by
Speaker 1: the media, he sees what Biden would be as a
Speaker 1: as a competitor, and he's like, yeah, this is great.
Speaker 1: By way. I think he's completely right. I think Biden
Speaker 1: gets crushed by Trump if he runs in, gets crushed
Speaker 1: by him, and that that also makes me think of
Speaker 1: something else here which I've I've been saying to you
Speaker 1: and I want to keep saying to you because feels
Speaker 1: like it's a ways off. But the mid terms are
Speaker 1: not were almost in August already, right, The summer is
Speaker 1: absolutely flying by, and you're getting pieces that are out
Speaker 1: there in places like the New York Times. This is
Speaker 1: just today, and this is what they're writing, a Democratic
Speaker 1: blue wave. Don't forget the Republicans. Big Hill one seems
Speaker 1: like an unstoppable force, but a GOP structural advantage may
Speaker 1: represent an immovable object. Now that's kind of a boring
Speaker 1: ish headline with its very tortured analogies and everything else.
Speaker 1: But uh, the truth is that what we have seen
Speaker 1: so far with Trump's arrangement syndrome, if the Democrats do
Speaker 1: not at least take control of the House this November,
Speaker 1: what we have seen so far with trump arrangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: it's going to somehow get worse. And I don't know
Speaker 1: what that means, but I worry about the country. Now
Speaker 1: I'm stuck between you don't want to give into the
Speaker 1: temper tantrum of the Democrats, of course, of course, and say, well,
Speaker 1: I mean maybe it's better if we have divided government.
Speaker 1: You're gonna hear a lot of that, folks, A lot
Speaker 1: of Republicans have divided government. That sounds great. If Trump
Speaker 1: is going to follow through with the rest of the agenda,
Speaker 1: he needs control of the House and the Senate. In fact,
Speaker 1: would be great if we could pick up seats, although
Speaker 1: I don't think that that is likely. But even if
Speaker 1: they just maintain majorities in both, we have a very
Speaker 1: good chance of Trump, of Trump being able to implement
Speaker 1: more of the agenda. But I really mean, what does
Speaker 1: the country feel like the day after the Republicans uh,
Speaker 1: the day after the Republicans manage with Trump as the
Speaker 1: leader of the party. Two and with two years of
Speaker 1: Trump as president, who is worse than Pearl Harbor, worse
Speaker 1: than Crystal Locked, the fascist, the Nazi, a racist, a
Speaker 1: sexual assault, I mean, all these things, all these things
Speaker 1: they say. If after two years of that, the Republicans
Speaker 1: maintain control of government, what do the Democrats tell themselves
Speaker 1: at night? You know, how do they keep themselves feeling
Speaker 1: safe and warm in their progressivism if not only Trump
Speaker 1: gets elected and they say, oh, it's Russia, it was
Speaker 1: all Russia. Really, is it? Gonna be all Russia again
Speaker 1: in the mid terms. By the way, I am worried
Speaker 1: that that's what we're getting ready for, meaning that Russia
Speaker 1: is now going to be the excuse for every election
Speaker 1: loss the Democrats have. And this is a really psychologically speaking,
Speaker 1: this is really toxic. I mean, this is when people
Speaker 1: start to lose it, when they use the conspiracy as
Speaker 1: the justification for the things that are going wrong in
Speaker 1: their lives. Then you have to really worry about folks.
Speaker 1: And I think that we are getting We're gonna see
Speaker 1: what that's like if the Democrat because I'm telling you
Speaker 1: there's analysis right now when they're saying, you know what, Democrat,
Speaker 1: So this is the New York Times, Democrats, you may
Speaker 1: not win the House. And and I saw this was
Speaker 1: from John up pot Or, it's Potterates. Sorry. A Democratic
Speaker 1: Party failure, sorry, a Democratic failure to flip the House
Speaker 1: in November will trigger a political panic the likes of
Speaker 1: which I'm not sure we've seen in the past half century.
Speaker 1: I completely agree that's what I've been saying. That's from
Speaker 1: John Potter, It's but I completely agree it will be
Speaker 1: dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. And I think
Speaker 1: that that's what we're heading for, folks. So if you
Speaker 1: think it's been bad with all the Russia, Russia and
Speaker 1: collusion and craziest up to this point, when Democrats failed
Speaker 1: to take the House this fall, it's going to get crazy.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton remission. Decoding the news and disseminating information is
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes, America of the Great, You're
Speaker 1: a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Former CIA analysts. No masculine adjective having qualities or appearance
Speaker 1: traditionally associated with men, especially strength and aggressiveness. Some of
Speaker 1: the synonyms are macho, manly, muscular, well built, red blooded,
Speaker 1: red blooded, my goodness, strapping, strong, brawny, powerful. I know
Speaker 1: for a lot of your like that sounds pretty good.
Speaker 1: What's the problem None of these really sound like me.
Speaker 1: I think that definition masculine isn't what some guys like
Speaker 1: to hear. Is a little scary. It's too small for
Speaker 1: something so big. It's what about trying to get people
Speaker 1: to con and be a certain way. I think that's
Speaker 1: what gets us in troubles. When we say that there's
Speaker 1: only one way to be mad, I mean there's not
Speaker 1: one way to be a man. But there's something generally speaking,
Speaker 1: we can all agree on that is manly, right or
Speaker 1: apparently not? According to this video, you define your own mess,
Speaker 1: you define who you are. For me, being masculind is
Speaker 1: being honest. This is the body that I have, This
Speaker 1: is what I know. So to me, this is what
Speaker 1: a man is for me? What does it mean to
Speaker 1: me to be masculine? Um, it's more a question of
Speaker 1: what does it mean to be human? No? See see
Speaker 1: that would be what does it mean to be human? See?
Speaker 1: This is like the the lunacy of the left strikes again.
Speaker 1: That was a promo video, it's not gotten millions of
Speaker 1: views and listens, put out by a clothing company called Bonobosh,
Speaker 1: And I will full disclosure, I actually actually like their clothing.
Speaker 1: So I think that they make some pretty comfis stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, not as good as nine line apparel, all right,
Speaker 1: it's not as good as Peter Millard, but it's it's
Speaker 1: pretty good clothing. And they made this video about masculinity
Speaker 1: and they get a bunch of guys who you know,
Speaker 1: some of them clearly or I guess you'd say beta
Speaker 1: male types and kind of like glyphic masculine as well,
Speaker 1: do you know if you could lift up both of
Speaker 1: your heads at the same tad ads speak, you are masculine.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's really this. What they're doing is they're
Speaker 1: redefining masculinity. I also think it's so instrument at the
Speaker 1: beginning of that video. It's so interesting to hear how
Speaker 1: they are kind of strengthened the reality and aggressiveness and it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you see, this is another time when one the left
Speaker 1: is playing games with definitions, and two this is an
Speaker 1: effort to eradicate gender distinctions. That is a real full
Speaker 1: cultural I was gonna say full frontal, but full cultural assault.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on here. They really believe in this.
Speaker 1: They believe this nonsense that there's no difference between the genders.
Speaker 1: They believe that they can just explain this away when
Speaker 1: there are the difference between men and male and female.
Speaker 1: Masculinity versus femininity is rooted in science and biology. Testosterone
Speaker 1: brings about different physical and yes, different psychological characteristics than estrogen.
Speaker 1: For example, I know women and men estrogen testosterone both,
Speaker 1: but the more testosterone you have, the well they're they're
Speaker 1: there are clear effects on how you look and how
Speaker 1: you act. Right, this is why men and women are different.
Speaker 1: Men and women are different. They can keep saying that's
Speaker 1: not true, but they're wrong, and they are going against
Speaker 1: not just science but common sense with this. But more
Speaker 1: to the point, this notion of masculinity and toxic masculinity.
Speaker 1: There is a phrase you'll hear and clearly the way
Speaker 1: they started out this conversation for this Nobo's video, they
Speaker 1: think toxic masculinity is a thing. And you know, I
Speaker 1: just see this as we no longer even share the
Speaker 1: same ideals, you know, Yeah, do I wish that I
Speaker 1: was six five and could bench press three hundred pounds?
Speaker 1: Uh and some of your like book, I can do that,
Speaker 1: But you know, do I wish I could do that?
Speaker 1: And do I wish I was you know, seven percent
Speaker 1: body fat? Uh? Yeah, all that's true, right, I wish
Speaker 1: I was six five seven percent body fat and like
Speaker 1: an Adonis, But I'm not. I do with the reality
Speaker 1: of men. That doesn't mean I don't try to make
Speaker 1: myself stronger, doesn't mean I don't try to put in
Speaker 1: the work, and it also doesn't mean that I reject
Speaker 1: the other parts of masculinity that they talk about in
Speaker 1: this video, like you know, aggressiveness. Yeah, I think some
Speaker 1: aggressiveness is a good thing. Aggression has an important place
Speaker 1: in our data that has to be controlled and you
Speaker 1: have to understand why. But aggression and drive are very
Speaker 1: much tied together. Dare I even say aggression and libido
Speaker 1: are even tied together, meaning that there is a degree
Speaker 1: of going out there and trying to you know, trying
Speaker 1: to achieve, trying to get status, trying and aggressiveness pushes that, right,
Speaker 1: Your aggression to be you know, your your testosterone fuel
Speaker 1: desire to be a certain kind of person is also
Speaker 1: tied to your very basic biological need you want to procreate.
Speaker 1: And you know, isn't it funny how you talk about
Speaker 1: this old book, people start to get all weird. This
Speaker 1: is this is our most basic reality. Biology is our
Speaker 1: most basic reality. I'm not saying it's our full reality.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's more important than spirituality, uh and
Speaker 1: our connection with God, but it's the basis of you know,
Speaker 1: this is who we are right now, and this is
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with every day. And there is really
Speaker 1: an effort underway to redefine that's what they're doing here,
Speaker 1: redefine masculinity. Uh, try to convince people that what we
Speaker 1: think of as traditional masculine virtues, Yes, there's that word.
Speaker 1: Virtues are somehow now bad right, strength and red blooded
Speaker 1: and and aggression and all these things that they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be considered bad things. You know, if we didn't
Speaker 1: have testosterone, if men didn't have the desire to yes,
Speaker 1: to struggle, to fight and to achieve. I don't mean
Speaker 1: to fistfight, but I mean to fight for those things
Speaker 1: that are important to you in life, we would not
Speaker 1: have had a lot of the human progress that we've had, Right,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't be where we are. These are very important things. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I just find it fascinating how much the left
Speaker 1: contorts itself two eliminate this from well from our consciousness
Speaker 1: but also just from our day to day lives. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, this notion that we should celebrate essentially Beta
Speaker 1: mailed them. You know, we should all aspire to be
Speaker 1: like writers for vox dot com or something. No, now
Speaker 1: this is it's look, it's kind of like when you
Speaker 1: see on the left they'll start to say, well, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't judge people at all by their appearance. Okay, we
Speaker 1: can all say that, but human attraction and sexuality are
Speaker 1: are hardwired into our brains. And while we can all
Speaker 1: tell each other we don't care what anybody else looks like,
Speaker 1: that's just not that's not reality. Now, a person of
Speaker 1: substance and worth puts all that into context and controls
Speaker 1: those impulses and understands that it's not the most important
Speaker 1: thing at all. But to say that you're just going
Speaker 1: to ignore it because we're being told to ignore it,
Speaker 1: that's that's completely preposterous. And to say that to say
Speaker 1: that masculinity is now toxic are our traditional definition of
Speaker 1: it as toxic and it's bad is Look, I think
Speaker 1: it's dangerous for society. I really do. I think this
Speaker 1: is It's not just that I disagree with them. I
Speaker 1: think that they're promoting ideas that are damaging in the
Speaker 1: long run. We want people who we want, we want
Speaker 1: end to believe in being men, and we want men
Speaker 1: to have an aspiration to be strong, to be dependable,
Speaker 1: to be courageous, to be virtuous, to be trustworthy, and
Speaker 1: aggression and masculinity and testosterone and these ideas that are oh,
Speaker 1: these are those all play a role in that. Otherwise
Speaker 1: we're just all a bunch of little you know, little
Speaker 1: soft handed lumps that are just hope we could come
Speaker 1: to a consensus. No bad, look, I get it. Not
Speaker 1: everybody's a door kicker. Not everybody gets to be a
Speaker 1: Navy seal. I didn't get to be one, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're not saying that we all have to measure up
Speaker 1: to some ideal of super masculinity, but we we are
Speaker 1: going to have certain notions of what we're trying to
Speaker 1: achieve as men, and that should be celebrated in society.
Speaker 1: You know, strength and discipline and endurance and drive and desire,
Speaker 1: the the this is critical for for humanity. I really
Speaker 1: mean this. Once again, you've got progressive. It's just I know,
Speaker 1: like it's a clothing it's a video for a clothing line,
Speaker 1: and who really cares. But it's part of a broader,
Speaker 1: very powerful cultural trend right now where they are kicking
Speaker 1: at the load bearing walls of civilization and they're they're
Speaker 1: free to do it, but I'm free to say that
Speaker 1: their ideas are wrong. They're ignoring what is obvious and
Speaker 1: what is true, and they are undermining truth at every turn.
Speaker 1: And when it comes to male female differences, masculinity, biology,
Speaker 1: they are so anti science. One of the great ironies
Speaker 1: of the of the left right now is they're actually
Speaker 1: so opposed to what is observable and demonstrable via science
Speaker 1: and scientific experiment and evidence, and they just don't care.
Speaker 1: You will not have beta males, just like you're never
Speaker 1: going to erase the advantage that attractive people have in
Speaker 1: life because we are human beings. We we we are
Speaker 1: not that evolved, will never be that evolved. You will
Speaker 1: never eliminate are general preference for men who strive, who fight,
Speaker 1: who achieve, And that's not a bad thing. You know,
Speaker 1: that's not a bad thing. But this is a whole
Speaker 1: other conversation. Maybe it would be great on this one
Speaker 1: would be if we could get Professor Jordan Peterson to join.
Speaker 1: We've had him on the show a couple of times before.
Speaker 1: I think we should reach out. And I know this
Speaker 1: is an area where he discussed He discusses this and
Speaker 1: he says this. You know, I'm just gonna tell you
Speaker 1: from my own experience, I see this with a lot
Speaker 1: of women who are who have been conditioned to think
Speaker 1: these are my friends. Now, these are peers of mine
Speaker 1: who are now in their middle eight thirties. They've been
Speaker 1: conditioned to think that, you know, they they there should
Speaker 1: be no gender roles, and they should they should pursue
Speaker 1: their careers every bit as aggressively as men, the same
Speaker 1: kinds of careers as men. They are not on a
Speaker 1: any kind of a timeline for having children, and you know,
Speaker 1: the same, the same, the same absolute equality with men
Speaker 1: in every sense, irrespective of biology. And there's a lot
Speaker 1: of misery that comes from this, and I see a
Speaker 1: lot of unhappiness, a lot of what does this really
Speaker 1: all mean? Okay, I'm maybe on partner track or maybe
Speaker 1: I'm a VP at the firm, But does this make
Speaker 1: me happy? Do I feel fulfilled as a as a
Speaker 1: woman doing this? So I'm sure say yes, But a
Speaker 1: lot of the ones that I know, and I'm speaking
Speaker 1: just from what I see and observe the answers no.
Speaker 1: And then I also see this in their dating lives.
Speaker 1: You know, why can't I find a good guy? Why
Speaker 1: can't I find the guy that well? What are the
Speaker 1: virtues that you seek? Are you? Are you looking for
Speaker 1: somebody who would would pass the political checklist, the ideological
Speaker 1: checklist they'd set up for what you should date. If
Speaker 1: you you know, if you go to vox dot Com
Speaker 1: or huffing to post on one of these places, because
Speaker 1: that that doesn't mesh well with the average female psychology
Speaker 1: of of what they want to be paired with us
Speaker 1: and made look. Men are supposed to be the protectors. Oh,
Speaker 1: I know this is so backwards and right now, a
Speaker 1: lot of the ladies listening like buck, I could beat
Speaker 1: you an arm wrestling match. That's not the point, Ladies.
Speaker 1: Men are opposed to have a certain role based on
Speaker 1: their gender they are. We can fight this, we can
Speaker 1: argue about it, but it's a losing battle, and it's
Speaker 1: a destructive one in the process too. And I see
Speaker 1: that destruction, and I see that misery, and that's why
Speaker 1: I won't be silent about it. So they can sit
Speaker 1: they can sit around and make videos about how masculinity
Speaker 1: is whatever they want to say it is. Masculinity is
Speaker 1: essentially being a human being, which is not masculine. It's
Speaker 1: being a human being. But they can try this redefining
Speaker 1: and and this ignoring of what is so obvious and
Speaker 1: so observable, but it is doomed to failure and doomed
Speaker 1: to a lot of to dooming a lot of people
Speaker 1: to misery in the process. You know, but Nobo stick
Speaker 1: to clothing, lead the social commentary to others. That's what
Speaker 1: I would say about this um. And we've got a
Speaker 1: whole lot more coming up, so stay with me. I
Speaker 1: won't answer your question because you get your opening statement,
Speaker 1: which was how horrible it is Donald Trump, I was
Speaker 1: talking about that's what you said. You said, you know
Speaker 1: you said that when it was here end up murdering
Speaker 1: the children of American saying, you know what's hard when
Speaker 1: the present week United Sanctuary to beat the hell out
Speaker 1: of you. That's uh, that kind of went off the
Speaker 1: rails a little bit. I guess you had Whoopee versus Judge.
Speaker 1: You know, I gotta tell you, I don't know. You know,
Speaker 1: those two ladies in the wrong way, both very fierce.
Speaker 1: You know, that's that's not a that's not a squabble
Speaker 1: i'd want to get in the middle of. We had
Speaker 1: judged Janine on the show earlier this week. She is
Speaker 1: she is feisty man, She does not mess around. She
Speaker 1: knows your stuff. And uh and you look Whoopee. He
Speaker 1: doesn't give an inch either. So that was quite a
Speaker 1: you can see they're like, okay, time we got a break.
Speaker 1: They decided it was time to time to bail out
Speaker 1: on on that one. Uh. And I also I always
Speaker 1: think these shows, these shows where you have an audience
Speaker 1: that that are political shows, you always get the whole
Speaker 1: like cheering, cheering for one side and drowning out the other.
Speaker 1: And I don't think that a studio audience for a
Speaker 1: political debate show is usually a good idea. And they
Speaker 1: haven't at the at the Bill Maher Show too, which
Speaker 1: I haven't watched in a very long time. I think
Speaker 1: I haven't watched that show in years now. I just
Speaker 1: couldn't just honestly, I just couldn't take it anymore. So
Speaker 1: many of the panels were just you know, yeah, like
Speaker 1: Trump is Hitler and they and even before that it
Speaker 1: was you know, Obama's God, and it just wasn't it
Speaker 1: just wasn't really that that interesting to me. But you know,
Speaker 1: you have this this uh, this point in in our discourse,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna I'm gonna keep bringing it up, folks,
Speaker 1: where yes, the the Democrats, they they think that they've
Speaker 1: made their case and the media believes they're on really
Speaker 1: solid ground with all this stuff about you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is a liar and Trump is the worst, and Trump
Speaker 1: is so bad, and there's all this there's all this stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, when you look at it, um, But then
Speaker 1: when you actually get down into the nuts and bolts
Speaker 1: of the situation, when you look at it a little
Speaker 1: more like, wait a second, what's really going on here? Uh? Here,
Speaker 1: here's some fun facts for you folks, because you know
Speaker 1: you've got that audience, you get whoopee, they're like, wow,
Speaker 1: Trump is the worst, trup is Heitler. Here's a an
Speaker 1: axios pole that is from hold on, let me see
Speaker 1: who we have here from today? All right, here's a pole.
Speaker 1: And you know what pauls are an interesting snapshot. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna say that they they're not the beyond end
Speaker 1: all and I usually think that, especially on cable news,
Speaker 1: like all right, let's just do some polls. You know,
Speaker 1: it could be kind of a lazy way for analysts
Speaker 1: to talk about numbers and not really have to make
Speaker 1: a point. But some you know, data is also necessary
Speaker 1: and data is useful. Here's what it says. Uh, do
Speaker 1: you approve or disapprove of the way Trump handled his
Speaker 1: press conference with putin of the total And this is
Speaker 1: after everything, This is after they've been saying it's worse
Speaker 1: than uh, it's worse than Pearl Harbor, It's worse than
Speaker 1: nine eleven. It's just as bad as all all these things.
Speaker 1: With the parade of horribles. They've tried it out about
Speaker 1: Trump's meeting, which, as I keep telling you, and look,
Speaker 1: some folks who listen to this show, it's disappointing me,
Speaker 1: but they think that I this week was too much
Speaker 1: for them with regard to me. They I've had a
Speaker 1: couple of people, not a lot. I mean, we're talking
Speaker 1: about of the of the vast national squad that his
Speaker 1: team buck. I'm talking about a few emails here, but
Speaker 1: a few people are like, they just think I was
Speaker 1: not tough enough on Trump, and they're gonna go away
Speaker 1: from the show for you know, well, I hope they
Speaker 1: come back, and you know it. Look, it's the nice
Speaker 1: thing about this whole situation is people are free to
Speaker 1: listen or not listen, right, and I want everyone to listen,
Speaker 1: but I act everyone's choices. But despite all of the
Speaker 1: craziness from this week, right, all the stuff you've seen,
Speaker 1: for of all people, all people pulled approve of the
Speaker 1: press conference in the way Trump handled Now you could say, well, Buck.
Speaker 1: I mean that means that I'm a clear majority of
Speaker 1: Americans disapproved. But so so from what we gather here
Speaker 1: of Americans think that, you know, the equivalent of Pearl
Speaker 1: Harbor was like nb D, no big deal. Among the GOP,
Speaker 1: seventy nine totally approved. Seventy nine are on board for
Speaker 1: this total approve, okay, not like a little bit, not
Speaker 1: a And then among Independence it's thirty so Independence it
Speaker 1: didn't look so it didn't look so great for them.
Speaker 1: Oh and by the way, Democrats that the single biggest
Speaker 1: number Democrats disapprove of how Trump handled his press conference
Speaker 1: with pood And this was just, folks, this was just
Speaker 1: a partisan spasm this week. It's not going to affect policies.
Speaker 1: I've said, it's not going to change anyone's life. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna make any terrible things happen. It was just
Speaker 1: a partisan spasm. And Democrats are gonna have you're hearing
Speaker 1: it here, you've been hearing for a while. They're gonna
Speaker 1: have to deal with the fact that they're messaging is
Speaker 1: just simply not strong enough right now to have any
Speaker 1: confidence going into the midterms and saying that Trump is
Speaker 1: basically handler is not going to be good enough. Stay
Speaker 1: right there, team, I'll be back Liberty, truth and great Hair.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show is back. The approach that we've
Speaker 1: taken to false news is not that not to say
Speaker 1: you can't say something wrong on the Internet, right. I
Speaker 1: think that would be too extreme. Everyone gets things wrong, right,
Speaker 1: And if we were taking down people's accounts when they
Speaker 1: got a few things wrong, then that would be a
Speaker 1: hard world for giving people a voice and and saying
Speaker 1: that you care about that. But at the same time,
Speaker 1: I think that we have a responsibility to when you
Speaker 1: look at if you look at the top a hundred
Speaker 1: things that are going viral or getting distribution on Facebook
Speaker 1: within any even day, I do think we have a
Speaker 1: responsibility to make sure that those aren't hoaxes and blatant misinformation.
Speaker 1: So that's the approach that we've taken. As we look
Speaker 1: at the things that are that are getting the most distribution,
Speaker 1: if people have flag them as potential hoaxes, we send
Speaker 1: those to fact checkers who are all well reckonable and
Speaker 1: um and and have followed standard principles for fact checking.
Speaker 1: And if those factrickers say that that it is provably false,
Speaker 1: then we will significantly reduce the distribution of that content.
Speaker 1: That was Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in an interview on
Speaker 1: a recode I had never heard of until now. But
Speaker 1: he's telling you how it's gonna happen, folks, what they're
Speaker 1: gonna do, How the other side is going to play
Speaker 1: the game. Right. They now have these fact checkers who
Speaker 1: if you look at PolitiFact, if you look at some
Speaker 1: of these outfits, very ler that they are left leaning,
Speaker 1: to say the least. I think you could even go
Speaker 1: as far as to say that they are in many
Speaker 1: cases left wing aligned. But this is the the the
Speaker 1: central offensive effort of the left right now to monitor
Speaker 1: and change and censor and throttle speech online. Say it's
Speaker 1: just about facts. Really. They've also got Zuckerberg saying in
Speaker 1: the same interview that violent content or content that could
Speaker 1: inspire violence, they're going to censor that. Here's what I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you. Okay, there will be a as long
Speaker 1: as Silicon Valley is dominated by people who have progressive ideology,
Speaker 1: which it currently is in a way that is similar
Speaker 1: to college campuses. Think of the faculty at Harvard and
Speaker 1: now put them in charge of some of the biggest,
Speaker 1: wealthiest most powerful companies in the world Facebook, Google Twitter,
Speaker 1: and and understand that the faculty at Harvard and the Facebook,
Speaker 1: Google Twitter sphere people running those companies have the same politics. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you you need to keep that in mind, and
Speaker 1: you need to also remember that they're always going to
Speaker 1: have these Oh well, we're just we're just trying to
Speaker 1: protect people, or we're just trying to, you know, keep
Speaker 1: falsehood from being spread online. It's going to be weaponized
Speaker 1: against the right. And this is it's really unfortunate. I've
Speaker 1: seen it for a long time. Because of the Internet,
Speaker 1: because of the new media, the left lost its strangle
Speaker 1: hold over the narrative in this country. Right, you no
Speaker 1: longer had three channels, three anchors, a few big newspapers,
Speaker 1: all of them dominated by the left, where you got
Speaker 1: your narrative of what's happening in your community, in your country,
Speaker 1: in the world. And this is something the left. They
Speaker 1: haven't accepted this. They want to go back to the
Speaker 1: old times when they had a massive I'm not saying
Speaker 1: they had complete control of the narrative and we weren't
Speaker 1: living in North Korea. Obviously, there was William Buckley in
Speaker 1: the twentieth century at National Review, and you have these
Speaker 1: different conservative voices that were certainly a part of the
Speaker 1: conversation in America. Despite where the media was for for
Speaker 1: most of the twentieth century, did have a a what
Speaker 1: we would consider today a clear traditionalist, center right perspective.
Speaker 1: The American people did. But they want the media wants
Speaker 1: to get back their massive advantage in the distribution of
Speaker 1: thoughts and ideas, and social media is how they do it.
Speaker 1: They can't do it with cable TV, they can't do
Speaker 1: it with newspapers, but social media is how they're going
Speaker 1: to try to do it. And they're gonna say it's
Speaker 1: to regulate hate speech. They're gonna say it's to get
Speaker 1: rid of violence. But I'm telling you they're putting in place.
Speaker 1: It's already been happening. They're putting in place. And it's
Speaker 1: a private company, folks, So we can't say, oh, First Amendment.
Speaker 1: You know, we have to watch this and we have
Speaker 1: to demand better. You know, you you might have to
Speaker 1: have the same way that you needed a Fox News
Speaker 1: as a counterbalance to what you were seeing with all
Speaker 1: the other cable news networks. You know, you might have
Speaker 1: to have a center right conservative social media platform where
Speaker 1: you don't have to worry about your traffic getting throttled
Speaker 1: or you know, if you post things in support of guns,
Speaker 1: now the second Amendment, I mean, are you advocating violence?
Speaker 1: A lot of people in the country would say yes.
Speaker 1: A lot of leftists would say yes. So guess what,
Speaker 1: it's not even that they'll ban you, at least if
Speaker 1: you get banned. You know what you heard at the end,
Speaker 1: there is basically throttling or limiting the traffic. So just
Speaker 1: elevating some voices while minimizing others. It's the equivalent of
Speaker 1: you're having a debate and your might gets turned off,
Speaker 1: all the other guys might gets turned way up. That's
Speaker 1: how they will control the narrative. And Facebook, which is
Speaker 1: a leftist organization, a left wing driven company, is going
Speaker 1: to be a critical part of their agenda here, so
Speaker 1: we gotta keep an eye on this. That said, roll
Speaker 1: call Facebook. That's up next. Hey, team Buck, it's time
Speaker 1: for roll call. Alright, let's get into that roll call action.
Speaker 1: Do you know what time it is? First? Stuff? And
Speaker 1: remember Facebook dot com, slash buck sex and don't just
Speaker 1: send me messages there, folks, If you are listening and
Speaker 1: you have not already please please do follow me so
Speaker 1: you can see the posts and you can be up
Speaker 1: to speed on all things freedom. Hut all right, Thomas,
Speaker 1: up first year here, rights. So it's quite a note buck.
Speaker 1: In your segment about foreign countries hacking our data and
Speaker 1: stealing our technologies, you should have mentioned the long term
Speaker 1: implications of how all that data intellectual property is sold
Speaker 1: on the dark web. It's a major industry that is
Speaker 1: utilized by every racketeering organization and cartel around the world.
Speaker 1: Their level of sophistication far exceeds anything governments have competition
Speaker 1: between governments for sober spying his old hat compared to
Speaker 1: the intricate systems devised by international traffickers and contraband networks.
Speaker 1: If the talking heads on the media networks ever started
Speaker 1: to dig into the amount of legal network traffic that
Speaker 1: goes on every day, their heads would explode. Interesting us
Speaker 1: never stopped f in the fight shields, hie. Well, thank you, Thomas,
Speaker 1: I did not really, I don't really know much about
Speaker 1: the dark web, be honest with you, so I will
Speaker 1: look into this, but very interesting thoughts from you and
Speaker 1: appreciate you writing in Johan. Right, Hey, buck Man, this
Speaker 1: messaging is tough. I had entered to start a new line,
Speaker 1: and instead it sends my wife has schooled me about it,
Speaker 1: so no more. Hello Buck, with nothing else. You are
Speaker 1: the only conservative talk show I can listen to these days.
Speaker 1: The others I shut off after a few minutes because
Speaker 1: most are hosted by pompous idiots. If you're on for office,
Speaker 1: I will vote for and support you. The reason for
Speaker 1: this message is something that happened with the All Star Game.
Speaker 1: It seems that a picture in that game made some
Speaker 1: hateful tweets when he was seventeen, which was some years ago.
Speaker 1: Now MLB is doing the look how superior we are
Speaker 1: thing and sending this guy to sensitivity training. MLB is
Speaker 1: like the police and Navy are to me, and that
Speaker 1: is something I no longer know. The Navy I was
Speaker 1: in in the seventies doesn't exist, and my old department
Speaker 1: doesn't even exist anymore. Observed absorbed into the n Y
Speaker 1: heat d Buck, I give up. The only good thing
Speaker 1: is my time on this earth is closer to the
Speaker 1: end than the beginning. The coming train wreck is on
Speaker 1: a VOIDO. By the way, I no longer fall the Mets.
Speaker 1: Johan A few things here, Johan First of all, thank
Speaker 1: you for your kind words about my show. And I
Speaker 1: know that there are others out there who take a
Speaker 1: very different approach, and they do a lot of I'm
Speaker 1: the best, I'm the greatest. Listen to me, I'm amazing,
Speaker 1: I'm the smartest. You know, that's not really I I
Speaker 1: leave all judgments about my ability, my talent, my insight
Speaker 1: to all of you, and I hope that you find
Speaker 1: it worth your time. I don't sit here and talk about,
Speaker 1: at least in any seriousness, how great I think I am.
Speaker 1: That's just my way. Other people have a different way.
Speaker 1: As to your comments, Yeah, things have definitely been in
Speaker 1: a lot of flux. There's a lot of change going on.
Speaker 1: But my friend, there's always there is always a good
Speaker 1: reason to push ahead. And this is really a moment
Speaker 1: to say shields high. It means keep that shield up,
Speaker 1: stay in the fight, and just be aware that you
Speaker 1: never ever give up. You stay in the fight, and
Speaker 1: you stay for what you believe in. Mark Rights, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: not sure when you are alive. When I listen on
Speaker 1: nine sixty a m in Connecticut, and I don't always
Speaker 1: get to hear roll call, but I heard tonight that
Speaker 1: you learned Arabic. My question is what is the best
Speaker 1: way to learn another language? Did the agency have programs
Speaker 1: to make it easier? If able to respond back, I
Speaker 1: would appreciate it. Shields high, Oh, Mark, let me tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm not a linguist. I'm not somebody who's I'm not
Speaker 1: somebody who's great at other languages. I was decent at
Speaker 1: French for a while, though I'm very, very rusty now.
Speaker 1: I took a little German, which I probably remember a
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty words of, and I took Arabic, which
Speaker 1: I probably remember fifty words of. Um, but I was
Speaker 1: studying it before nine eleven because of my interest in
Speaker 1: the region in terms of its history and politics, the
Speaker 1: Middle East. So you know that for from what I've
Speaker 1: seen from people I know who have learned the language,
Speaker 1: who have done very well with it. From what I've seen, Um,
Speaker 1: the truth is that you want to get momentum going,
Speaker 1: meaning once you start throw yourself into it, don't dabble
Speaker 1: because you won't make the progress necessary to keep you
Speaker 1: motivated to stay in it. So you need momentum with languages,
Speaker 1: and that means you want to go in, you know,
Speaker 1: with a lot because as you learn more, you'll want
Speaker 1: to spend more time learning more. Right. But if you're
Speaker 1: just learning a little bits and you forget a little
Speaker 1: bits and forget, it's not as effective. But I leave
Speaker 1: it to other people. I mean, I have an uncle
Speaker 1: who is a true linguist. He speaks speaks six languages.
Speaker 1: So I'm certainly not in that category. I'm just working
Speaker 1: on my English. But mark people I know have had
Speaker 1: some pretty good success with some of the language learning
Speaker 1: software that's out there, at least to get you too
Speaker 1: a reasonably conversational level. All right, Monica writes Buck, please
Speaker 1: stop saying Muslim ban when it is not. You are
Speaker 1: falling in the trap of using left vocabulary as always
Speaker 1: shields Hime. Monica, you are correct. They call it a
Speaker 1: Muslim band. It is not a Muslim ban. And this
Speaker 1: is one of these instances where I say to you, see,
Speaker 1: even even I fall victim too, getting pushed into the
Speaker 1: discourse of the left and the way that they were
Speaker 1: really the word choices of the left, and the way
Speaker 1: that they speak about all these things. So that is
Speaker 1: something that I think it's important for all of us
Speaker 1: to avoid for obvious reasons. Uh, And you do not
Speaker 1: look you don't. You don't want the enemy, you don't
Speaker 1: want the other side telling you how to speak. It's
Speaker 1: pretty straightforward, Brian, next up here, Uh right, Buck, thank
Speaker 1: you for showing the insanity portrayed by Congressman Jim McGovern.
Speaker 1: I'm sad to say that, through no fault of my own,
Speaker 1: he represents me in my district of Massachusetts. But this
Speaker 1: year he has a couple of competitors. I've been supporting
Speaker 1: a new Republican candidate, Tracy Louisville love Orn, and even
Speaker 1: march with her during the Fourth of July parade, even
Speaker 1: though I know that gains uh that gains no points
Speaker 1: with your parade hating self. True, Brian, True, don't worry.
Speaker 1: I'm there with you. I don't even go to other parades,
Speaker 1: even though I'm a veteran, for example. But this was
Speaker 1: word to me. If this shameless plug could make it
Speaker 1: on air to help get rid of Jim's ridiculousness, I'd
Speaker 1: be very grateful. So here's a link to the site
Speaker 1: Tracy for Congress dot com is the site Tracy love
Speaker 1: Orn for the US Congress up in the state of Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: There you go, Brian, your wishes my command now, Jen, Right, dude,
Speaker 1: you need to make a Hyena Arena T shirt. Well, Jen,
Speaker 1: I kind of like that idea. I think that makes
Speaker 1: some sense, but we need to get our T shirts out.
Speaker 1: By the way, I've been getting messages from some of
Speaker 1: you that your T shirts are very delayed. I wrote
Speaker 1: an email today to address this, and I'm going to
Speaker 1: follow up and see what's going on with our vendor
Speaker 1: because with our site change, you know, technology, things get
Speaker 1: a little messed up. Uh. If you if you ordered
Speaker 1: a shirt and did not get one, write to me
Speaker 1: on Facebook and we'll track down what's going on. And
Speaker 1: you know, if we we will, we will make this right.
Speaker 1: Because I really appreciate all of you who buy T
Speaker 1: shirts and and also, by the I really appreciate all
Speaker 1: of you who check out our sponsors. So if you
Speaker 1: ever have a problem when you type in a promo
Speaker 1: code for one of our sponsors, whether it's Black Rifle,
Speaker 1: you guys heard from the Strike Force CEO last night. Uh,
Speaker 1: when you go to strike Force dot strike Force Energy
Speaker 1: dot com and you type in buck, not only getting
Speaker 1: temper sent off and you're sending it to troops around
Speaker 1: the world. Ever, everything you buy get sent to troops
Speaker 1: and just remember that. But every time you type in
Speaker 1: that buck and press enter, you get temper cent off.
Speaker 1: You're helping troops and you are telling the Strike Force CEO. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm part of Team Bucking and I want to support
Speaker 1: you and the show. But if it doesn't work for
Speaker 1: some reason, if the promo code doesn't, let me know.
Speaker 1: Because technology is constantly uh something we have to stay
Speaker 1: on top of. Here. Um John, next up here. UH
Speaker 1: just heard you talking about the dreaded N word and
Speaker 1: was impressed, uh that you were able to continue that conversation.
Speaker 1: Even more impressed you didn't say chill ax. You really
Speaker 1: said that I can tolerate idiots talking like it's but
Speaker 1: when intelligent people, hey man, you know, sometimes like to
Speaker 1: throw words like lax into things. Settle down, John, settled down.
Speaker 1: All right, let's see what we get here. Uh. Bob
Speaker 1: Rights was in town in d C for the MLB
Speaker 1: All Star Game the last three days. Man, it was
Speaker 1: humid and swampy, Bob. Indeed, it is humid and swampy
Speaker 1: here in d C. It is. It is swamptastic. It's
Speaker 1: a real thing that happens here in this town. And
Speaker 1: you know it's not just the politics that are swampy.
Speaker 1: There you go, Paul, writes Paul from Austria. Guten tag Paul, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Austin Stewing, we miss you here in the United States.
Speaker 1: Paul Wrights would like to ask you to tell me
Speaker 1: about illegals voting. Do they do it? Is there much
Speaker 1: information on this data? My step mom is Hispanic and
Speaker 1: is so certain they do not. I want to show
Speaker 1: her otherwise. Please keep up the great work. It is
Speaker 1: a pleasure to listen to your message. Thank you, Paul. Paul.
Speaker 1: The truth is we don't know. We don't have the data,
Speaker 1: and left in the Democrats pretty much refuse to let
Speaker 1: us get the data. They do not want the They
Speaker 1: don't want things to be collected here that could let
Speaker 1: us know the answer. They'd rather this all be swept
Speaker 1: under the rug. They constantly say that there is no
Speaker 1: such thing as voter fraud. It does not happen, you know,
Speaker 1: don't believe it. Well, there is voter fraud, So how
Speaker 1: much is there? We don't really know. And we also
Speaker 1: know that d m vs, because of the Motor Voter Law,
Speaker 1: d m vs register anyone who shows up and in
Speaker 1: a lot of states, you get people who are registering
Speaker 1: for a driver's license even though they are not citizens
Speaker 1: and cannot legally vote. Well, it stands to reason, doesn't
Speaker 1: it that, even if not through intentional malfeasance, people could
Speaker 1: show up and be told, hey, you're at the d
Speaker 1: m V register, in the register, and then I think
Speaker 1: they're allowed to vote, But we don't know because they
Speaker 1: won't allow there to be any real research into this
Speaker 1: at the national level. So I I think, let's put
Speaker 1: it this way, wouldn't be surprising, giving everything, given everything
Speaker 1: that's at stake, wouldn't it be surprising if, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we found out that there wasn't a fair amount of
Speaker 1: voter fraud. Well we we think that system is totally
Speaker 1: honest and fine, there's no problems there are. That strikes
Speaker 1: me as a bit of a stretch. Matthew, next up here, Rights.
Speaker 1: I just started to watch Rising Good Show and caught
Speaker 1: crystals opening bit and had to post this. Are progressives
Speaker 1: that blind complaining about Trump or Republicans not being fiscally responsible?
Speaker 1: No they are not. No they are not. Pardon me,
Speaker 1: but neither are the Dems. How much debt did Obama?
Speaker 1: Ad would love to hear her defend that. Keep up
Speaker 1: the good fight, Matthew. You know, Matthew, what you see
Speaker 1: I think with all this stuff about debt and spending
Speaker 1: is that there's a pretty clear tendency among folks to
Speaker 1: think that their side spending to spending is correlated with
Speaker 1: government action. Their side spending is a good thing, and
Speaker 1: the other guys spending the other side spending is a
Speaker 1: bad thing. And I this is unfortunate, it's a bit cynical,
Speaker 1: but this is the reality of what we see in
Speaker 1: politics today. I mean, when was the last time you
Speaker 1: really heard somebody getting energized about a twenty trillion dollar debt?
Speaker 1: When was the last time you heard somebody who was
Speaker 1: particularly fired up about what that's doing to the country.
Speaker 1: I mean Ron Paul occasionally talks about it, but very
Speaker 1: few people seem to care much at all about what's
Speaker 1: going on with the the debt. So, yes, you are correct.
Speaker 1: Progressive now pretend to care. Obama spent us into oblivion
Speaker 1: and they are being dishonest with this stuff. But it
Speaker 1: is what it is. That's gonna be it for today
Speaker 1: in the Hut. Please do I check out our sponsors,
Speaker 1: Like I said, and uh, also get ready for the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut podcast my guest Jedediah Bela. This week we're
Speaker 1: talking about a lot of fun stuff. You'll want to
Speaker 1: hear that. It's gonna be a very relaxed chat about
Speaker 1: some things. Uh. And then until tomorrow, my friends, I'll
Speaker 1: be up in NYC Shields High