Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The increasingly insane left
Speaker 1: wig media doubles down on its baseless attack against the
Speaker 1: Covington High School students. We will bring you up to
Speaker 1: speed on where that feud stands. And also Ocasio Cortez
Speaker 1: says the world will end in twelve years and climate
Speaker 1: change is like fighting World War two. We're gonna break
Speaker 1: this down and much more coming up on The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence magnor mistake America. You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, no, welcome to the
Speaker 1: buck sex And Show everybody. It's increasingly obvious that the
Speaker 1: left doesn't really care what the truth is about the
Speaker 1: targets of their hatred so long as they are able
Speaker 1: to vent their fury at them. And there is some
Speaker 1: connection to Trump and conservatism and the white male patriarchy
Speaker 1: in America and all these other things that the left
Speaker 1: just hates, one would think, although maybe not, but it
Speaker 1: would be understandable for anyone to assume. In the aftermath
Speaker 1: of this Covington High School fake news extravaganza right where
Speaker 1: you had this short clip that showed a student looking
Speaker 1: into the eyes of a Native American man banging his drum.
Speaker 1: Everybody jumped to it as, oh my gosh, look at
Speaker 1: these racist white kid Trump supporters and the history of
Speaker 1: oppression of the Native American peoples, and it was all
Speaker 1: all this narrative backstory got funneled into it and then
Speaker 1: was ignited, of course, as all issues are now with
Speaker 1: just the the insane rage of the anti Trump left.
Speaker 1: I mean, they hate this guy. They hate him so much.
Speaker 1: They act like a combination of frightened and nasty children
Speaker 1: when it comes to Trump. You know, one second they're crying,
Speaker 1: the next second they're bullying. I mean, they just can't
Speaker 1: get a grip. But then the video came out and
Speaker 1: many people, including a number of conservatives, including a number
Speaker 1: of conservative friends of mine, who I think, and I
Speaker 1: know this because I've spoken to someone them, feel like
Speaker 1: they've really learned a lesson here. Don't be part of
Speaker 1: the online lynch mob ever if you can, but certainly
Speaker 1: until you know the facts and always keep things in perspective.
Speaker 1: What was all the anger about here in the first place.
Speaker 1: Nobody was certainly no indigenous person or left wing victim
Speaker 1: group meaning this Native American or the black Israelites who
Speaker 1: were right there with them and really partaking in this
Speaker 1: protest alongside him. Nobody was injured, nobody was attacked, nobody
Speaker 1: was threatened, nobody used no no, None of the children
Speaker 1: that were there, they're children, by the way, when you're
Speaker 1: fourteene or fifteen, you're a kid. They didn't use any
Speaker 1: racial slurs, they didn't even say anything hostile. How was
Speaker 1: this even a news story? Well, because people projected the media,
Speaker 1: The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, they projected
Speaker 1: onto this really inconsequential encounter, all of their own neuroses
Speaker 1: and anger and feelings of intellectual insufficiency, I mean, just
Speaker 1: everything put onto these kids. And then the video came
Speaker 1: out and it showed that if we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about hostility and racism and threats, it was all directed
Speaker 1: at the kids. So the apologies started coming, and there
Speaker 1: were people who I think were earnest in that, and
Speaker 1: you can tell for yourself who they are and who
Speaker 1: they are not and who's just sort of saying it.
Speaker 1: But what is truly amazing is that there are efforts
Speaker 1: underway right now from major media outlets, most notably The
Speaker 1: Daily News, which is a burning dung heap of journalism
Speaker 1: to begin with. I mean the Daily News had to
Speaker 1: cut half its staff not long ago. It should have
Speaker 1: cut all of its staff because it is a terrible, garbage,
Speaker 1: non journalistic organization. I mean, it's just tabloid trash, trash,
Speaker 1: bad writers, bad editorial, bad news coverage. It's garbage. The
Speaker 1: Daily News instead of saying wow, now that we have
Speaker 1: additional context, now that we see what really happened in this,
Speaker 1: as I've said, inconsequential incident, until the media blew it
Speaker 1: up into a national news story, nothing really happened. It
Speaker 1: was the optics and the construct around the optics that
Speaker 1: got people so energized and freaked out about this. But
Speaker 1: the Daily News decided to do a deep dive, effectively,
Speaker 1: to do oppo research into the lives of fifteen year
Speaker 1: old kids. So what did that entail, Well, they went
Speaker 1: back and they looked at all the photos they could find,
Speaker 1: and all the stories they could find, and everything they
Speaker 1: could about Covington High School in Kentucky, Catholic school for
Speaker 1: boys who had just marched for life by the way.
Speaker 1: God bless you and good for you Cumington High School.
Speaker 1: Thank you. It's reassuring to know they're fifteen year olds
Speaker 1: who are marching for life in this country, that they're
Speaker 1: not all a bunch of little automatons who believe everything
Speaker 1: that they've been told by the left wing authority, figures
Speaker 1: that are foisted upon them, not just in public schools,
Speaker 1: unfortunately in Catholic schools too. We're gonna have to take
Speaker 1: a priest a task here in a few minutes. That's
Speaker 1: coming up. Welcome back to him. Sorry, we had a
Speaker 1: little miscommunication there, so I wasn't quite done with my thought.
Speaker 1: But we went into break but that such as life
Speaker 1: in live radio. So where was I opo research from
Speaker 1: the media. Okay, we've talked about what happened with Comington
Speaker 1: High School of the weekend. All of the different political
Speaker 1: biases involved the way that people view things, that the
Speaker 1: perspectives that they bring to this and they saw what
Speaker 1: they wanted to see. The media saw what they wanted
Speaker 1: to see and without a trace of humility. After the
Speaker 1: BuzzFeed debacle, I mean, one of the premier online left
Speaker 1: wing sights in the country, such as it is, falls
Speaker 1: faced first after claiming to have a story that likely
Speaker 1: would have, if true, ended the Trump presidency. I mean effectively,
Speaker 1: whether it actually meant he was pushed out of office
Speaker 1: or not. It would have been all over for twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty if he had truly committed a federal felony,
Speaker 1: that that's a problem. But he didn't, and the Special
Speaker 1: Council says he didn't. This was just a big lie.
Speaker 1: No humility, no lesson learned from that situation, whatsoever. So
Speaker 1: now the media has collectively received a chastening from what
Speaker 1: happened with BuzzFeed. They jump on the look at these
Speaker 1: racist at these racist Catholic school kids staring at at
Speaker 1: a Native American man, disrespectful all he was, look at him.
Speaker 1: They didn't even say anything, They just looked at him.
Speaker 1: A look is now a thing and people worth threatening
Speaker 1: to hit the kids. A writer for Saturday Night Live offered,
Speaker 1: all I can say on air is a sexual favor
Speaker 1: in response to anybody who would physically harm the kids.
Speaker 1: I mean, these people are psychopaths. They've really got a problem.
Speaker 1: Kath Griffith said something, I'm trying to remember what it was,
Speaker 1: something just horrifically stupid, oh. She she also found a
Speaker 1: photo of these kids from before speaking of the OPO research,
Speaker 1: and she said that they were giving a Nazi saluted
Speaker 1: a basketball game. It's actually the hand symbol for a
Speaker 1: three pointer. Well known to anybody who I actually used
Speaker 1: to play basketball growing up, but well known to anybody
Speaker 1: who watches basketball or plays. It's a symbol for a
Speaker 1: three pointer. Okay, this is like somebody giving somebody else
Speaker 1: a thumbs up and someone's like, oh my gosh, just
Speaker 1: like Stalin would have done. What what do you mean
Speaker 1: the thumbs up? We all know what that means. We
Speaker 1: all know what the three point hand signal is. These
Speaker 1: are these are high school kids. They're a basketball game.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's what they're doing. Unless you're a moron,
Speaker 1: you know that's what they're doing. Oh but then enter
Speaker 1: the Daily News. I'm not to be confused with the
Speaker 1: Delhi Beasts, another terrible left wing rag that shouldn't exist
Speaker 1: for any real reason. You know, it shouldn't exist, but
Speaker 1: for some reason it does. The Daily News comes out
Speaker 1: and finds photos of students at Covington High School in
Speaker 1: black paint, their whole bodies in black paint, and they
Speaker 1: run students in the story is you know students used
Speaker 1: to wear black face too, heckel black basketball opposition player.
Speaker 1: That was the story they ran with. It is a
Speaker 1: complete and utter lie. It is a smear. What was happening,
Speaker 1: which is apparent from the photograph, is that the students
Speaker 1: were in a blackout game where everybody, as a show
Speaker 1: of solidarity, dresses in terms of clothing and yes, body
Speaker 1: paint sometimes in one color. There are all blue games,
Speaker 1: there are all red games, there are blackout games. This
Speaker 1: is just a school spirit cheer thing. Now you can say,
Speaker 1: you could argue if you wanted to with me and say, buck,
Speaker 1: it's bad form for high school kids to have black
Speaker 1: paint all over their bodies, even though it's clear that
Speaker 1: they're on a sea of people wearing black clothing, or
Speaker 1: that this is for everybody, and that it's just about
Speaker 1: the unity of the color in the stands as a
Speaker 1: school spirit thing. They do this in college games too,
Speaker 1: and you and with a thirty second Internet search, you
Speaker 1: would see that that's what this was. For the Daily
Speaker 1: News to run that they were the students were heckling
Speaker 1: a black player in blackface as they did, is racial
Speaker 1: incitement of the worst kind. It is horrifying. The Daily
Speaker 1: Beast and everyone who works there should be ashamed. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The Daily News, well, the Daily Beast too. The Daily
Speaker 1: News should be ashamed of what they have done. And
Speaker 1: there are real consequences. There are now death threats against
Speaker 1: parents of these students, real death threats. Law enforcement in
Speaker 1: northern Kentucky is worried about this. They're not saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, just you know, it'll probably blow over there,
Speaker 1: and they're saying that they're going to prosecute because it's
Speaker 1: a felony. It's a felony. I saw on Twitter someone
Speaker 1: tweeted out, why can't a school shooting happen at the
Speaker 1: Covington High School? I mean, this is what people are writing,
Speaker 1: This is what people are saying. You have adults who
Speaker 1: are professional journalists who are advocating for these kids to
Speaker 1: get punched, these kids to get threatened, to get attacked.
Speaker 1: They've docked them, they've put their information out there online.
Speaker 1: And let's remember for what it didn't even do anything.
Speaker 1: They were actually, if anything, the victims here. Let's also
Speaker 1: note that the basketball game where the students weren't all
Speaker 1: black was from twenty eleven, which means that not a
Speaker 1: single student in the basketball game that they showed would
Speaker 1: have had any anything, None of the students that were
Speaker 1: at this march for life and the aftermath and this
Speaker 1: whole thing with Phillips, this activist, there's no crossover, so
Speaker 1: it is not so what they did was they said,
Speaker 1: let's just find a way to call these kids racists,
Speaker 1: and they did it. They're doing APO research, media organizations
Speaker 1: doing APO research against teenagers, and the Washington Post, the
Speaker 1: New York Times they're saying, well, new evidence has come
Speaker 1: to light that complicates No, it's not complicated, You guys lied.
Speaker 1: It's not complicated. Media's a bunch of liars, a bunch
Speaker 1: of cowards who will sacrifice the reputations and the futures
Speaker 1: of children in order to satisfy their political blood lust.
Speaker 1: For getting a trumpet any way they can, and all
Speaker 1: those who support him, and for putting their bizarre interest
Speaker 1: where where cry baby social justice beliefs into action? All
Speaker 1: the poor Native Americans? Okay, what is that these fifteen
Speaker 1: year old kids? Nothing? Nothing? And now Covington High School
Speaker 1: has police that are stationed at the school. Now they're
Speaker 1: expectations of protesters showing up there. There are real security
Speaker 1: concerns for these kids. They are worried, and it's understandable
Speaker 1: why they are worried, because people are crazy and there
Speaker 1: have been some very very scary thing said and written
Speaker 1: about these young men. And this is now turned. This
Speaker 1: has gone from a national scandal into a into a
Speaker 1: national media shame. People should be shamed over this, and
Speaker 1: as I've said, people should be fired over this too.
Speaker 1: This is inexcusable conduct. How is it that you have
Speaker 1: celebrities who are calling these kids Nazis and saying they
Speaker 1: should be punched and they suffer no consequences. They're advocating
Speaker 1: violence against children. These are little kids. These aren't eighteen
Speaker 1: year old. They're fourteen and fifteen year olds under any
Speaker 1: legal definition, their children. And yet there's still this clinging
Speaker 1: to the old narrative from many in the media. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a more complicated story now, but we still think
Speaker 1: something happened there. I would note they there are some
Speaker 1: dead enders on the Duke Lacrosse hoax. There are some
Speaker 1: dead enders on the UVA hoax. Well, maybe the story
Speaker 1: all fell apart and it was lies in fabrication, but
Speaker 1: there's still something there. People will say that they have
Speaker 1: said that I when I say people, I mean those
Speaker 1: with platforms who have a greater responsibility to the truth.
Speaker 1: But this is an unfortunate but perhaps necessary reminder for
Speaker 1: all of us that the other side, that the left
Speaker 1: is unethical, disgraceful, not to be trusted, and does not
Speaker 1: approach issues with honor and decency that conflict with their
Speaker 1: political goals. They just don't. No adult human being could
Speaker 1: be part of the rage mob against these kids, learn
Speaker 1: the full facts, and then continue to be a part
Speaker 1: of that rage mob and consider themselves to be honorable
Speaker 1: and decent. It is among the most disgusting things I
Speaker 1: have seen, and honestly, it's the most disgusting the media
Speaker 1: has been since the Kavanaugh hearing. It's true. The last
Speaker 1: time I was this furious and just this completely beyond
Speaker 1: beyond words gross stout by the conduct of the national
Speaker 1: media was the Kavanaugh hearing. And there are similarities here too.
Speaker 1: Cavanaugh didn't do anything wrong. Kavanaugh, there was no evidence
Speaker 1: against him. In fact, all the evidence pointed in the
Speaker 1: opposite direction that he didn't do anything. They still wanted
Speaker 1: to destroy him and anybody around him, and anybody who
Speaker 1: would defend him. Look what's going on with Covington. Covington
Speaker 1: High School in Kentucky. A bunch of Catholic boys trying
Speaker 1: to have a trip to DC, march for life, mind
Speaker 1: their own business where they're maga hats. But oh they're white,
Speaker 1: they support Trump. They're Catholics who march for life, So
Speaker 1: they're real Catholics. You know. Oh, media hates them, absolutely
Speaker 1: hates them. And there's no other explanation that you could
Speaker 1: come up with for this preposterous, preposterous effort to try
Speaker 1: to now justify the sliming of these kids in the
Speaker 1: media after the fact by finding something else to get
Speaker 1: them on. These are not public figure years, These are
Speaker 1: not people who asked for this. This is why I
Speaker 1: make the point to you. It's only a matter of
Speaker 1: time before the online rage mob comes for you. You
Speaker 1: could be walking to the grocery store and someone picks
Speaker 1: a fight with you, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: when you defend yourself, that person says, well, they used
Speaker 1: a racial slur. They used a uh, you know, an
Speaker 1: anti you know, anti Muslim slur. They you know, they're
Speaker 1: a sexist, they made a trans joke, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: and now you're on defense. And now you're a national
Speaker 1: totem for hate. It's a problem, the problem. The fact
Speaker 1: shouldn't matter, but they don't matter to this media. We've
Speaker 1: got more teams there with me. He's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America, Buck Sexton his back. Tell you the fact. God, yeah,
Speaker 1: but a shot that you won't burn, and the like
Speaker 1: with everybody in America. That's right, American is going down.
Speaker 1: Right if your point you do right? America? Great, that's right,
Speaker 1: that's right, that's right. When is the America have a
Speaker 1: big blake to the North American India come and asking
Speaker 1: this question, Billy, what is the America ever been great?
Speaker 1: Put us so called black man? That's right, American never
Speaker 1: been quake. I'm just wondering where are the efforts to
Speaker 1: Not that I'm advocating for this, I'm just observing not
Speaker 1: a lot of nastiness, uh, not a lot of effort
Speaker 1: to um docs or track down or even do any
Speaker 1: research I mean, which would be completely legitimate for the
Speaker 1: media into the black Israelites who were yelling at these kids.
Speaker 1: We don't know their names, we don't know their names,
Speaker 1: we don't know what their backgrounds are or what their
Speaker 1: situation is. But they'll look at a photo of a
Speaker 1: basketball game from eight years ago, eight years ago when
Speaker 1: the kids who were at this most recent rally were six.
Speaker 1: They'll look at that photo to determine racism in Covington.
Speaker 1: Right though, this just shows you this is why we
Speaker 1: don't trust the media. This is why with the media
Speaker 1: winds and says what is Trump calls figures. It's because
Speaker 1: you're bad, It's because you are not ethical. It's because
Speaker 1: you don't approach your work the way any normal, responsible,
Speaker 1: healthy adult would you. People have all been brainwashed by
Speaker 1: each other. You live in this echo chamber where you know,
Speaker 1: you think there's narrative that you're taught by your women's
Speaker 1: in gender studies professor at Brown is the way the
Speaker 1: world works, and it's not. And this is why conservatives
Speaker 1: don't end up buying into these stories early on. We
Speaker 1: we don't up getting swindled because we know we're like, wait,
Speaker 1: does this doesn't make any sense? His kids are going
Speaker 1: to pick a fight with these guys. This doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. And the more we find out about this
Speaker 1: guy Phillips speaking of the lack of oppo research interests right,
Speaker 1: so they'll they'll opo research docs and smear the kids
Speaker 1: completely unfairly. Now they have threats against their parent I mean,
Speaker 1: if somebody threatened my parents, I don't want to tell
Speaker 1: you what I would do to them if I found
Speaker 1: out who the person was. Okay, but let's just say
Speaker 1: it would be bad. But they're threatening people's parents. They're
Speaker 1: having to post armed guards and police at the school.
Speaker 1: They've never had to do this before because of threats
Speaker 1: against the school. And meanwhile, this guy Phillips, the media
Speaker 1: is holding him up as you know, some kind of
Speaker 1: a hero, a native American combat veteran from Vietnam. Oh
Speaker 1: wait a second, turns out he wasn't a combat veteran.
Speaker 1: He did serve in the Marine Corps. We thank him
Speaker 1: for his service, but why do they think that he
Speaker 1: was a combat vet from Vietnam? And I won't get
Speaker 1: into this old distinction. I always think it's interesting, you know,
Speaker 1: I was a civilian in war zones, but I always
Speaker 1: I kind of say I didn't really, you know, I
Speaker 1: served my country. I certainly didn't serve in the military.
Speaker 1: Was I I was in combat zones, but I was
Speaker 1: in a analyst and a really intellectual role. I did
Speaker 1: carry lots of weapons. I did go on the red Zone.
Speaker 1: I did move around with SF teams and did things
Speaker 1: that you put me in harm's way. But you know,
Speaker 1: I always kind of just because people all if CIA,
Speaker 1: you're just eating donuts and sitting at a desk. Final
Speaker 1: leave that there. But are we allowed to make this distinction.
Speaker 1: I think we are. There's a difference between serving and
Speaker 1: serving in a war zone. I think that's fair. It's
Speaker 1: just for the purposes of accuracy, right, I don't think
Speaker 1: and I defer to anybody listening who actually served the military.
Speaker 1: You know, if you served on the Air Force for
Speaker 1: ten years, thank you for your service this country. It's
Speaker 1: necessarily we appreciate that. But if you serve the Air
Speaker 1: Force for ten years and you said you were kicking
Speaker 1: indoors in Fallujah and you never said foot in Iraq,
Speaker 1: I think people would have an issue with that. I
Speaker 1: think that's a little weird. And this guy falls into
Speaker 1: that category. But the media is not particularly interested in
Speaker 1: that story. Oh yeah, they just a little correction appended
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post story on him. Initially Phillips the
Speaker 1: Native American activist, and you also see he's a bad person.
Speaker 1: He is not trying to tamp this down at all.
Speaker 1: He has no interest in trying to make sure that
Speaker 1: these kids are are protected and that you know, and
Speaker 1: that temperatures go lower. In fact, one of the one
Speaker 1: of the kids who is being interviewed, who's been interviewed
Speaker 1: by Savannah Guthrie, she is, or rather he is saying
Speaker 1: that he would like to have a Nick Sandman is
Speaker 1: his name. He was the one that was shown staring
Speaker 1: at at Phillips, the activist. He wants to have a
Speaker 1: sit down with, you know. He wants to kind of
Speaker 1: have a beer summit, although they can't drink, so it
Speaker 1: would have to be like a Martinelli's sparkling cider. Don't
Speaker 1: you guys all agree with the best when your kid whenever,
Speaker 1: when all the adults at Thanksgiving having like beer or wine,
Speaker 1: you got your Martinellis, and you feel pretty good about that.
Speaker 1: I love that stuff. It's liquid candy. But Phillips doesn't
Speaker 1: want to sit down with them. In fact, he's advocating
Speaker 1: for them to be expelled even still, and he's still
Speaker 1: telling these self serving narratives about how he didn't feel safe,
Speaker 1: you know, And Savannah Guthrie asked, this kid, do you
Speaker 1: feel from this experience, you owe anyone an apology? Do
Speaker 1: you see your own fault in any way? The answer
Speaker 1: those questions are no and should be no. And Savannah Guthrie,
Speaker 1: of course, is trying to take that media line of
Speaker 1: you know, I'm just asking questions, when don't you stop
Speaker 1: beating your wife fifteen year old kid? These people are disgusting.
Speaker 1: They're disgusting. You wouldn't want to You wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: leave your kids in their care over the weekend. You
Speaker 1: wouldn't want to trust your family members to them. They
Speaker 1: are bad. They are self righteous and yet deeply unethical
Speaker 1: and lacking in righteousness, the very toxic combination and some
Speaker 1: of the biggest people in the mainstream media are in
Speaker 1: fact the absolute worst. They are the worst, and I
Speaker 1: do not think we should be shy by calling this
Speaker 1: out anymore. I don't care how big their platforms are,
Speaker 1: how rich they are, how important or powerful they are.
Speaker 1: A lot of people at the biggest newspapers in the
Speaker 1: country and the biggest news networks in the country are scummy.
Speaker 1: They're bad people, and they should be held to account.
Speaker 1: Go more. Coming up, Team stay with me. We are
Speaker 1: a guest that he wants this giant, thirty foot wall
Speaker 1: to be the symbol of America. I tell President Trump,
Speaker 1: I've told him to his face. We want this symbol
Speaker 1: of America to remain the statue of liberty, freedom, equality,
Speaker 1: not a divisive wall, and we will fight for that.
Speaker 1: Fight for that we will. There have been negotiations, but
Speaker 1: there will be no successful negotiations until the government results.
Speaker 1: The reason we're in this dilemma is that the president
Speaker 1: has made demands and is simply insisting on a vanity project,
Speaker 1: a campaign promise, or a clauseline. And no president should
Speaker 1: be allowed to take the nation hostage to achieve a
Speaker 1: personal triumph. Schumer and Blumenthal denang Dick, as Trump likes
Speaker 1: to call him, are just slimy liars. They are. They're
Speaker 1: just liars, just gross, oiaginous fabricators. We should just say it.
Speaker 1: This idea that it's a vanity project for Trump to
Speaker 1: build a wall is completely contradicted by facts, by experts,
Speaker 1: by any real familiarity with what's going on at the border.
Speaker 1: The border is a border barrier is immensely helpful where
Speaker 1: it exists. And if this is about symbolism, as Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer says, the statue of liberty. Well, you know, the
Speaker 1: statue of liberty is a statue. It's not a policy.
Speaker 1: It's not the government. Ah, these people, I swear just
Speaker 1: waiting for him to refer to the Emma Lazarus poem
Speaker 1: as though that we all have to live by the
Speaker 1: words of Emma Lazarus. Everyone's like, who most of you know?
Speaker 1: But most of the country doesn't. You know? This is
Speaker 1: this is where you say to yourself, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: if if what Trump says, I'm sorry, if what Schumer
Speaker 1: says is true, and the border barrier is this terrible
Speaker 1: symbol of our divisiveness and all the bad, bad stuff
Speaker 1: about America. Right this border wall is so unwelcoming and
Speaker 1: it's racist. As Pelosi said, it's immoral. That was what
Speaker 1: she initially went with it, that the border wall itself
Speaker 1: is immoral. Well, if that is true, shouldn't we take
Speaker 1: down the bearer we already have in place. Shouldn't then
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi have to face the members of border patrol
Speaker 1: that she pretends to care about. Now, the federal workers
Speaker 1: that are not getting paid because of the shutdown. Right now,
Speaker 1: the Democrats love to talk about how much they care
Speaker 1: about these federal workers. But do they care about their mission?
Speaker 1: I can tell you they don't care about border patrol's
Speaker 1: mission at all. And in fact, I think if Democrats
Speaker 1: could have their way, they were just band border patrol
Speaker 1: just set up checkpoints that process people as they come in.
Speaker 1: Nobody gets turned away unless they're an imminent national security threat,
Speaker 1: and people come and go as they please. That's what
Speaker 1: the Democrats really want. They may not openly say it,
Speaker 1: but all of the policies they support are geared toward
Speaker 1: that and making it impossible to have a border that
Speaker 1: we actually control. But if we shouldn't be forced to
Speaker 1: destroy the barriers we already have, I want to know why,
Speaker 1: because Pelosi and Schumer think that the barrier at any
Speaker 1: barrier at the border is itself day facto racist, dumb
Speaker 1: and wrong. In reality, the only thing that's dumb and
Speaker 1: wrong or Pelosi and Schumer. But they should have to
Speaker 1: explain why we don't tear that stuff down. I remember
Speaker 1: we had Max's boot on Rising and I asked him
Speaker 1: his question. He looked at me like I was us.
Speaker 1: She's like, all right, the border while his racist Max
Speaker 1: Boot is he really kind of a disturbed individual. He's
Speaker 1: you know the things that Trump is a racist. The
Speaker 1: border wall is idiotic and dumb. I won't work. And
Speaker 1: I said, so, should we tear down the two hundred
Speaker 1: plus miles of fencing that we already have? I think
Speaker 1: it's actually even more than that. I can't remember at
Speaker 1: the top of my head. We have hundreds of miles
Speaker 1: of existing barrier, that's for sure. Should we tear down
Speaker 1: those hundreds of miles? It's so stupid. Why wouldn't we
Speaker 1: want to get rid of it? Him? And it's just
Speaker 1: a blight on our border, right, there's no reason for it. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's not stupid, that's right. And if you talk to
Speaker 1: anybody in border patrol or Immigrations and Customs Enforcement for
Speaker 1: five minutes, they'll tell you it's not stupid. I've even
Speaker 1: asked former senior Obama appointees from Immigrations and Customs Enforcement,
Speaker 1: who were people that really worked in that area for
Speaker 1: a while, right, not somebody who sort of comes and
Speaker 1: goes for a moment. And I've asked them and they
Speaker 1: won't even say They won't even say that the walls
Speaker 1: don't work, because they know they know the moment that
Speaker 1: you turn into one of these people it says that
Speaker 1: a border barrier is racist and ineffective. You say, first
Speaker 1: of all, it's a wall. A wall. A wall is
Speaker 1: an inanimate object, so I mean a wall can't be racist.
Speaker 1: The purpose of the wall is to prevent the violation
Speaker 1: of our laws. So really, any member of Congress who
Speaker 1: says that a barrier or the wall is racist is
Speaker 1: saying that the law that justifies that wall is racist,
Speaker 1: which means that Congress, that's right, the sitting Congress, it's
Speaker 1: racist because they're the ones that have the legal justification
Speaker 1: in place for the building of the wall. They could
Speaker 1: change that. They could say that anybody who wants to
Speaker 1: come to America is a you know, you said foot here,
Speaker 1: you're a citizens. The more the barrier. They could do that.
Speaker 1: Why not do that? By asking the left questions on immigration,
Speaker 1: You'll see how quickly they get flustered because they don't
Speaker 1: have any They don't have any answers, or at least
Speaker 1: they don't want to share the answers that come to mind.
Speaker 1: Because I do think that they have some understanding of
Speaker 1: the fact that their policies, their ideas are very radical.
Speaker 1: The American people are not with them on this stuff,
Speaker 1: and If the American people were by and large more
Speaker 1: aware of where Democrats stand on these issues, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: support the Democratic Party on immigration, and probably enough of
Speaker 1: them would realize how important an issue this is that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't support the Democratic Party period. If we know
Speaker 1: the more truth you know about the border. And I've
Speaker 1: been seeing this trend for years, but the last year
Speaker 1: it's more true than ever. The more somebody learns about immigration,
Speaker 1: immigration law, and our southern border, the more they recognize
Speaker 1: that the Republicans are correct and the Democrats or really Trump,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't even say the Republicans. Trump is correct and
Speaker 1: the Democrats are lying, and they I think they know
Speaker 1: that they're lying, and they don't care. I think that
Speaker 1: they are trying to get their way in the short
Speaker 1: term here, and it really just for them, is all
Speaker 1: about this is all just about twenty twenty and control
Speaker 1: the government once again. They want to throw their you know,
Speaker 1: fancy left wing inauguration parties here in DC again, all
Speaker 1: the big entertainers. They want their people in positions of
Speaker 1: power all across the government agencies. And however they have
Speaker 1: to get there, whatever they have to do to get
Speaker 1: there is really it's not even a secondary consideration. It
Speaker 1: just doesn't really matter to them. They just don't care.
Speaker 1: They will oppose anything no matter how important it is
Speaker 1: for the nation. I gotta tell you, I do like
Speaker 1: this idea. I'm seeing that there's a and it's it's
Speaker 1: a very trumpy and maneuver, this possibility that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is going to give a State of the Union address
Speaker 1: that is not the typical in front of a joint
Speaker 1: Houses of Congress, you know, a joint session of Congress.
Speaker 1: Rather pardon me, you know that the president might do
Speaker 1: this in some other capacity, or I think that's a
Speaker 1: great idea. I think that the State of the Union
Speaker 1: with one side sitting, the other side standing up every
Speaker 1: five seconds, I think it's just it's kind of it's
Speaker 1: kind of been I should think it's kind of beneath
Speaker 1: our government, meaning that it's just it's such obvious theater
Speaker 1: and the theatricality of it overrides any policy importance. I
Speaker 1: wish that they would just go back to the old
Speaker 1: days where they would have a written State of the
Speaker 1: Union address. And I think if Trump would help us
Speaker 1: get to that, and that's probably a good thing, you know,
Speaker 1: I would prefer that to what we have now where
Speaker 1: it just turns into this this you know what, like
Speaker 1: school spirit rally for either the Democrats or the Republicans,
Speaker 1: depending on who's in charge. So I think that's probably
Speaker 1: a good thing. And if you wanted to just do
Speaker 1: it and written format, just release it and it'd be
Speaker 1: a document we could all read it, I'd say that's
Speaker 1: fine too. You know, we get a lot of Trump unplugged,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that the state of the Union
Speaker 1: right now. It just gives Democrats more stuff to work
Speaker 1: with to try to tear down this president as they
Speaker 1: have the House of Representatives, and they're just going to
Speaker 1: go on this wild, you know, white whale chase. And
Speaker 1: that is not a comment on Trump's wait for destroying
Speaker 1: this presidency, and you know that they are. They're going
Speaker 1: to go all in on using the powers of the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives, the investigative processes that are at their
Speaker 1: disposal to tear down Trump and all those people around him,
Speaker 1: and that's really going to be their main effort going
Speaker 1: into twenty twenty. I do think that. And we'll talk
Speaker 1: more about some of the candidates. We'll talk a bit
Speaker 1: about Biden today on the show. You where's Biden in
Speaker 1: all this. I've got some thoughts for you on Biden,
Speaker 1: But I will say that the candidates who are who
Speaker 1: are in UM, I think Democrats know deep down that
Speaker 1: there's a very real possibility that none of these candidates
Speaker 1: are going to be sufficient on their own, none of
Speaker 1: them are gonna be sufficient to take down Trump. They're
Speaker 1: gonna have to They're gonna have to push along whoever
Speaker 1: the Democrat candidate is with something substantive, something that really
Speaker 1: wounds the Trump administration, from the Muller probe or from
Speaker 1: congressional investigations or something. They're gonna have to stack the
Speaker 1: deck because these these people, they're trotting out as I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy, what's his name, Castro, this is, this is
Speaker 1: all of this so far, it's really just a warren
Speaker 1: and these people are unserious, un serious options. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. You know what's smart kicking off twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: by planning out which roles your business needs to hire for.
Speaker 1: And you know what else is really smart starting the
Speaker 1: new year off the right way by going to zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck to hire the right people.
Speaker 1: Unlike other job sites, zipp recruiter finds qualified candidates for you.
Speaker 1: It's powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify
Speaker 1: people with the right skills, education, and experience and actively
Speaker 1: invites them to apply to your job, so you get
Speaker 1: qualified candidates fast. That's why zippercruiter is rated number one
Speaker 1: by employers in the US and this rating comes from
Speaker 1: hiring sites on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews.
Speaker 1: Right now, my listeners can try zip recruiter for free
Speaker 1: at this exclusive web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: If you love this show, show your support to it
Speaker 1: and a zip recruiter by going to zip recruiter dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. Again, that's zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: Because zip recruiter is simply the smartest way to hire.
Speaker 1: I think that the part of it that is generational
Speaker 1: is that millennials and people and you know, gen Z
Speaker 1: and all these folks that come after us are looking
Speaker 1: up and we're like, the world is going to end
Speaker 1: in twelve years if we don't address climate change. And
Speaker 1: your biggest issue is your biggest issue is how are
Speaker 1: we going to pay for it? And like this is
Speaker 1: the war, this is our world War two, And I
Speaker 1: think for younger people, we're looking at this and we're like,
Speaker 1: how how are we saying let's take it easy when
Speaker 1: three thousand Americans died last year? How are we saying,
Speaker 1: let's take it easy when the end person has just
Speaker 1: died from our cruel and unjust criminal justice system. How
Speaker 1: are we saying take it easy when the America that
Speaker 1: we're living in today is so dystopian, with people sleeping
Speaker 1: in their cars so that they can work a second
Speaker 1: job without healthcare, and we're told to settle down. I don't.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a fundamental separation between you know, that
Speaker 1: fierce urgency of now, the why we can't wait? That
Speaker 1: can we spoke of that? At some point, these chronic
Speaker 1: realities do reach a breaking point, and I think for
Speaker 1: our generation it's reached that what the heck is she
Speaker 1: talking about? Welcome back to the buck sex and show
Speaker 1: everybody that that was Alexandria, Yes, oh, Alexandria, Ocazio Cortez,
Speaker 1: Alexandrocazio Cortez whatever. AOC. That's the easy way to say
Speaker 1: it now. AOC, which also refers to where a wine
Speaker 1: comes from. Fun fact, but AOC is saying some really
Speaker 1: crazy stuff here, like the world is going to end
Speaker 1: in twelve years if we don't address climate change, and
Speaker 1: people clap for this. Now, before I dive deeper into
Speaker 1: the analysis that this young woman offers up, and before
Speaker 1: we go too far down this road, because I think
Speaker 1: some of you have even written to me. In fact,
Speaker 1: I know some of you have saying, don't give aoc
Speaker 1: much attention, don't you like, oh my gosh, like is
Speaker 1: like doing her analysis and she kind of sounds like that.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you don't like this because you think that it's
Speaker 1: some of you think that this is elevating her profile
Speaker 1: even more. We'll let me tell you that the latest
Speaker 1: polling national polling shows that if Democrats could vote for her,
Speaker 1: just shy of seventy five percent of Democrats polled said
Speaker 1: they would want Alexandra Ocasio Cortez to run for present.
Speaker 1: Now she can't constitutionally prohibited because of her age, but
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, they want this person to be president.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't leave this person in charge of my summer
Speaker 1: hotdog stand. They want her to be president. These are
Speaker 1: the people that lecture us about how Trump is not
Speaker 1: intellectual enough and isn't thoughtful Enferer, This is who they
Speaker 1: want now Again, I know they can't vote for her
Speaker 1: and she can't run, but the fact that the Democrat
Speaker 1: I'm not saying five or fifteen percent want her to run,
Speaker 1: seventy five percent say that they want her to run
Speaker 1: for president if she could, and she says things like
Speaker 1: the world is going to end in twelve years. How
Speaker 1: do you have a productive discussion with people who think
Speaker 1: that this is intelligent policy. How do you have a productive,
Speaker 1: you know, way of meeting in the middle with someone
Speaker 1: who believes that climate change is our World War two?
Speaker 1: Sixty million people died in World War Two, tens of
Speaker 1: millions viciously murdered, exterminated, tens of millions more died on
Speaker 1: the battlefield, and then millions and millions of civilians just
Speaker 1: killed by bombs and warfares, collateral damage. You're going to
Speaker 1: compare climate change to this, you think that that's a
Speaker 1: reasonable thing to say. And this is why, you know,
Speaker 1: in the minds of the progressive left, giving speeches in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York where you talk
Speaker 1: about tackling climate change, it's basically like the equivalent of
Speaker 1: being on a Higgins boat. And like storming Omaha Beach,
Speaker 1: although the people who talked that way wouldn't know what
Speaker 1: a Higgins boat is and also wouldn't know it Omaha
Speaker 1: Beach was. But you get what I'm saying. They really
Speaker 1: think that they're the saviors of the planet and this
Speaker 1: climate change philosophy that is so incredibly important to them.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is their religion. I often hear people
Speaker 1: say that climate change is a religion, but really, climate
Speaker 1: change for the left is the religion. It is their religion.
Speaker 1: This is their existential belief system made real, which is
Speaker 1: why you just can't have a reasonable discussion with them
Speaker 1: about this. I mean, I've tried to talk to some
Speaker 1: liberals and say, you know, what is it that you
Speaker 1: think makes me not because because I listened to so
Speaker 1: well I am a talk radio host. It's not that
Speaker 1: I just listened to so much talk radio because I'm conservative.
Speaker 1: I'm right wing. I've been propagandized too. I don't want
Speaker 1: the world to end either. I don't want our waters
Speaker 1: to turn to toxic waste and our air to be
Speaker 1: black with soot either. But that's a question of pollution
Speaker 1: and conservation, that's not a question of climate change. These
Speaker 1: are very different things, right, These are very different circumstances
Speaker 1: to discuss, and yet you know, here's here's a perfect example. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, al Gore in two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: producer Mike just sent me this one, Producer Mike is
Speaker 1: kind of like my pop up video from VH one.
Speaker 1: As I'm doing the show, I don't want to interrupt
Speaker 1: my flow. That's right, Mike. You make the magic happen
Speaker 1: with a little boo, you know, a little pops up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you say these things, and it's like this thing's pop
Speaker 1: in my head and I was like, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: I'm like, this is reminding me of al Gore in
Speaker 1: two thousand and six. Oh yeah, oh yeah, I did.
Speaker 1: We're already passed the point of no return already. That's
Speaker 1: that's the important point. But now now they're going to
Speaker 1: give themselves a mulligan, and it's actually twelve years out.
Speaker 1: Al Gore in two thousand and six, producer Mike wrote
Speaker 1: here said that quote, unless we take drastic measures regarding
Speaker 1: greenhouse gases, the world to reach a point of no
Speaker 1: return in ten years. Well we're past that point by
Speaker 1: two years, and we did not take those drastic measures.
Speaker 1: So so what am I supposed to do? And so
Speaker 1: is Algre a liar or a moron? Just one little
Speaker 1: add on to that. At the time when he said
Speaker 1: that he was promoting the documentary and Inconvenient Truth, so hey, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: of course, of course, I mean he's a charlatan, he's
Speaker 1: he's a fraudster. But nonetheless, here we are. You know,
Speaker 1: I had a very interesting and we're also we're just
Speaker 1: talking about the the Okazo Cortez Green New Deal climate
Speaker 1: change in sanity, we're going to talk more about the
Speaker 1: the Marxist the rise of social justice based Marxism within
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. Now this is real, folks. We are
Speaker 1: we are heading headlong into a future of the country
Speaker 1: deciding intellectual combat with socialism. We are doing that right now.
Speaker 1: That is underway. We're in the opening stages of it's
Speaker 1: really a renewed battle. But this is a new phase,
Speaker 1: a phase where the American experiment in constitutional limited government
Speaker 1: in this republic is going to come under assault from
Speaker 1: people who want to turn it into a a socialist
Speaker 1: Democrat experiment in redistributing wealth and intersectional politics based on
Speaker 1: identity and grievance culture. So that we're heading into that.
Speaker 1: But put just another moment here on on Okazia Cortez
Speaker 1: and the whole green movement. I had a guy today
Speaker 1: on rising I don't even know if I think they
Speaker 1: aired this today from the Environmental Defense Fund. He's a
Speaker 1: lawyer at the Environmental Defense Fund. So you know, these
Speaker 1: are environmentalist lawyers that basically all they do is sue
Speaker 1: industry to get them to do more expensive stuff. So,
Speaker 1: and I'm not opposed to all, you know, I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think the company should be able to dump
Speaker 1: their toxic waste in the rivers. But you see, what's
Speaker 1: interesting to me is that when somebody tells me there's
Speaker 1: a regulation about thumbas waste in a river, right, so
Speaker 1: just to take an example, or just just dumping their
Speaker 1: trash in a river system, I say, no, that's a
Speaker 1: bad idea, that that's I'm not I'm not okay with that,
Speaker 1: and I think that that should be you know that
Speaker 1: that is a place where a regulation is necessary. Right.
Speaker 1: I don't want companies taking their industrial waste and leaving
Speaker 1: it in a backyard somewhere where it seeps into the
Speaker 1: groundwater and poisons people's kids. Right, But you see. Notice,
Speaker 1: I'm not opposed to environmental regulation. I know i'm because
Speaker 1: I'm a right wing radio host supposedly bought off by
Speaker 1: the fossil fuel industry and have bought into the right
Speaker 1: wing propaganda of climate denialism. But I'm I'm completely I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of conservation. I'm in favor of anti pollution
Speaker 1: measures because, of course I want people to have access
Speaker 1: to you know, healthy drinking water. Of course, Hey, you
Speaker 1: know what happened Flint is terrible, terrible. By the way,
Speaker 1: I have actually done research into the New Orleans water
Speaker 1: system and the housing projects of New Orleans and very
Speaker 1: bad stuff going on there with lead poisoning two that
Speaker 1: nobody's paid any attention to, very little media coverage of it,
Speaker 1: but if you look into it, it's been really bad.
Speaker 1: But that's real stuff. Those are obvious scientific facts about
Speaker 1: the human consequences of slowly poisoning people. When they're talking
Speaker 1: about the Environmental Defense Fund suing the Trump administration, they're
Speaker 1: talking about less CO two in the air, about regulating
Speaker 1: CO two, which which literally is regulating air because plants
Speaker 1: emit CO two through photosynthesis or rather, I'm sorry, take
Speaker 1: in CO two through photosynthesis and emit oxygen, and they
Speaker 1: need the CO two to be able to do that.
Speaker 1: So CO two is a necessary part of our of
Speaker 1: our ecosystem, our global ecosystem. But it's a pollutant. They
Speaker 1: want to regulate methane. Will methane from cows butts, that's right.
Speaker 1: Cow farts is a huge greenhouse gas problem. But what
Speaker 1: are we gonna do tell the cows they can't fart?
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they don't actually think through these policies.
Speaker 1: But I asked this guy from the Environmental Defense Fund,
Speaker 1: I asked them, what is it that you think the
Speaker 1: Trump administration they're just so in the pocket of industry
Speaker 1: that they don't care about the world ending? I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's how much you care about the world ending?
Speaker 1: And we don't. What's more likely that you guys have
Speaker 1: bought into a theory that is inaccurate and we really
Speaker 1: just don't believe it, or that we don't care on
Speaker 1: our side that the world is going to end. The
Speaker 1: Environmental Defense Fund guy, he can't even tell me why
Speaker 1: the right doesn't agree on this COEO two stuff. They
Speaker 1: really just result, they really just resort to this, Oh
Speaker 1: you're bought off by fossil fields. It's nuts, absolutely nuts.
Speaker 1: But this is the stuff that they tell themselves. They
Speaker 1: are serious about this, and Okasio Cortez is serious about
Speaker 1: bringing Marxism soon to a district near you. So I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's not that's not going to be happening.
Speaker 1: I'll talk a little more about how I mean. Look,
Speaker 1: she's that, she's the most h she is the most
Speaker 1: influential in the national conversation and a most influential democrat
Speaker 1: in the country. A know nothing millennial who has a
Speaker 1: very flimsy grasp of history and facts and information, But
Speaker 1: she is the most influential democrat the country right now.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you it's true. More on her when we
Speaker 1: come back. Do you think it is moral for individuals
Speaker 1: to for instance, do we live in a moral world
Speaker 1: that allows for billionaires? Is that a moral outcome inself?
Speaker 1: It's not. It's not. And the system that allows billionaires
Speaker 1: to exist when there are parts of Alabama where people
Speaker 1: are still getting ring one because they don't have access
Speaker 1: to public health is wrong. It not only doesn't make
Speaker 1: economic sense, but it doesn't make moral sense. She does
Speaker 1: not really understand anything about economics. She does not understand
Speaker 1: anything about how capitalism works. And she is somebody who
Speaker 1: just says things that she has picked up from the
Speaker 1: Salon dot com, Nation dot com left wing Marxist social
Speaker 1: justice warrior apparatus. She does not have any real understanding
Speaker 1: of these issues at all. The emergence of billionaires in
Speaker 1: the world has also coincided with the pulling up from
Speaker 1: poverty globally of more people in the last call it
Speaker 1: eighty years than in all of preceding human history combined.
Speaker 1: There has been because of a system that privileges individual
Speaker 1: ingenuity and hard work and ability capitalism and the ability
Speaker 1: to enjoy the fruits thereof, we have had an explosion
Speaker 1: of wealth over the last century or so that is
Speaker 1: unprecedented in human history. That's the only reason we even
Speaker 1: have billionaires now. And to say that it is a
Speaker 1: moral question that one person who has legally acquired billions
Speaker 1: of dollars is that they are there's something inherently immoral
Speaker 1: about that undermines the very system of economics that has
Speaker 1: done more for people all over the world than anything
Speaker 1: else in all of human history before. There's just no question.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at the numbers. Nothing else even
Speaker 1: comes close but she is kicking at the load bearing
Speaker 1: walls of not just Western civilization but modern civilization here.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's somebody who clearly has been radicalized by
Speaker 1: the college professor Obama wing of the Democrat Party, and
Speaker 1: also by the way she said people are still getting ringworm.
Speaker 1: Ringworm is like a is like a skin rash that
Speaker 1: people can get. It's a fungal infection. So I don't
Speaker 1: know what and it's just a weird an I think
Speaker 1: anyone can get it. It's not some you know, if
Speaker 1: you want to talk. There are diseases that we could
Speaker 1: talk about that people get in some parts of the
Speaker 1: country that are really disconcerting, measles being one of them.
Speaker 1: That have to do with vaccinations, the lack thereof, and
Speaker 1: also the southern border and how it's open and people
Speaker 1: are coming across with no medical history, established, no vaccinations.
Speaker 1: We don't know anything. And then we got to put
Speaker 1: them into the school system, right, we got to put
Speaker 1: them into the you know, into communities without being able
Speaker 1: to check for what's going on. But Ocasio Cortez is
Speaker 1: just appealing to envy here, and that's what I want
Speaker 1: you all to be very aware of and on guard
Speaker 1: for is that the Ocasio Corteses of the world ultimately
Speaker 1: are in the game of exacerbating envy for political gain
Speaker 1: because envy is very powerful. There's a reason why, you know,
Speaker 1: do not covet thy neighbor's wife. It's really do not
Speaker 1: covet thy neighbor's wife or stuff or anything. You know,
Speaker 1: don't just desire what other people have. Because there's another
Speaker 1: part of this philosophically, which is everyone's got it tougher
Speaker 1: than you think. And I've seen this time and time
Speaker 1: again in my life. You think somebody has it completely
Speaker 1: worked out and they're just so lucky and everything's perfect,
Speaker 1: and then you find out the truth. You're wow, that
Speaker 1: person's been carrying a heavy burden for a long time.
Speaker 1: You just don't know. Be kind because everyone carries a
Speaker 1: heavy burden. It's a very important, a very important principle
Speaker 1: for all of us to live by. But envy as
Speaker 1: a political tool is dangerous because it can lead to
Speaker 1: dehumanizing attitudes toward the other. It can lead to a
Speaker 1: lack of connection to the political policies that, at first,
Speaker 1: in the in the general sense right theoretically seem like
Speaker 1: they're justified. But you know there's a human cost. Well,
Speaker 1: you could ignore the human cost if it's those other
Speaker 1: bad people that you need to take their stuff. They
Speaker 1: owe you stuff. You know, Envy is the root, is
Speaker 1: the root emotional impulse that is behind the kind of
Speaker 1: anti colonial rhetoric you here out of the Academy and
Speaker 1: from the left, the Marxist social justice rhetoric from the left,
Speaker 1: a lot of the intersectional racial grievance stuff that comes
Speaker 1: out of left. Envy is a major component of major
Speaker 1: emotion that the left exploits. And Ocasio Cortez is going
Speaker 1: to be in that business in a big way. And
Speaker 1: as I've been saying, whether you like her or not,
Speaker 1: whether you think she's important or not, she has a
Speaker 1: major impact right now on the national conversation about politics.
Speaker 1: Pretty big Supreme Court decision came down today on transgender
Speaker 1: service in the military. Now this is really just a
Speaker 1: decision on a previously implemented stay. I know, something like,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, all this legal ease, But I'm good at
Speaker 1: pretending to be a lawyer on radio. What happened was
Speaker 1: that a number of well as by way of review,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration had changed the regulations on transgender service
Speaker 1: in the military. Trump said on Twitter in July twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: the military would not permit trans personnel to be a
Speaker 1: part of the to be serving in the military. And
Speaker 1: then Defense Secretary maddis former or soon to be former
Speaker 1: Defense Sectary, Oh is he out? I forget, he's obviously resigned.
Speaker 1: He convened these experts and they said, Okay, well, now
Speaker 1: the actual policy is going to be you can serve,
Speaker 1: you just have to serve with your biological gender. So
Speaker 1: if you're a transgender female and that means you're biologically male,
Speaker 1: you have to serve in a male unit. That was
Speaker 1: the way that they they settled on. Ongoing forward, and
Speaker 1: the various courts Washington, DC, California, federal judges said, oh,
Speaker 1: that's discriminatory, you can't do that. Which is interesting is
Speaker 1: that because now you have federal judges effectively saying that
Speaker 1: that one, the military doesn't get to determine what is
Speaker 1: best for military readiness, and military policy is now being
Speaker 1: infringed on by federal judges. And two are now federal
Speaker 1: judges taking the position that a biological male is actually
Speaker 1: a biological female. Because I'd like them to try to
Speaker 1: defend that in court. I'd like them to explain how
Speaker 1: that is supposed to work. Look, this is where the
Speaker 1: left has just gone too far. They're wrong, They're scientifically wrong.
Speaker 1: They are wrong. For perspective of reason and logic, men
Speaker 1: and women are different, We are biologically distinct, and there
Speaker 1: are from a battlefield perspective, many many differences that matter. Okay,
Speaker 1: this has been shown in every time that an all
Speaker 1: female unit, or even a mixed male female unit is
Speaker 1: measured in terms of combat readiness against a male combat unit.
Speaker 1: And I'll say the same thing that a lot of
Speaker 1: the guys I know who are door kickers and who
Speaker 1: served and who know this stuff firsthand say, which is,
Speaker 1: if you are a woman and you can absolutely keep
Speaker 1: up with the men in terms of endurance and physicality, strength, speed,
Speaker 1: all of those things, shooting great, serve along right with them.
Speaker 1: The moment that somebody is whether a judge or somebody else,
Speaker 1: is mandating that the standards have to be changed, we've
Speaker 1: got a problem. And the moment that a judge comes
Speaker 1: along and says that for purposes of military cohesion and
Speaker 1: the separation of sexes, especially on base or abroad, on
Speaker 1: a battlefield situation, the separation of sexes is now going
Speaker 1: to be overruled by what is essentially a kind of
Speaker 1: cultural fad, which is the notion that transgender rights are
Speaker 1: the new civil rights crusade. That's what the left is saying.
Speaker 1: I think this is insanity, but they do say this.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court, by five four just said sorry, federal
Speaker 1: judges who overruled the Department of Defense. Remember this isn't
Speaker 1: just the Trump administration or Trump himself. The federal judges
Speaker 1: who overruled the Department of Defenses views on this that
Speaker 1: overruling of DoD by these federal judges must be overturned.
Speaker 1: So the overrule is effectively overrule old, so that the
Speaker 1: judge judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the
Speaker 1: most liberal one of the country, of course, can look
Speaker 1: at this issue more fully and then it can be
Speaker 1: appealed up to the Supreme Court. But because this five
Speaker 1: four decision already favored the DoD policy, essentially deferring to
Speaker 1: the DoD when it comes to military readiness, readiness and
Speaker 1: capability and unit cohesion, these are things that judges do
Speaker 1: not know about. These are things that judges do not
Speaker 1: understand overwhelmingly because of all of that, it's very likely
Speaker 1: that you'd have a five four decision here that it's
Speaker 1: not the transgender people can't serve. And I think that
Speaker 1: that's what really you know, it's not a discriminatory policy.
Speaker 1: This is what the left really gets gets deep down
Speaker 1: a road of dishonesty on this stuff. It's the problem
Speaker 1: that they have. The real problem or the issue is
Speaker 1: that they want people who are biologically male to be
Speaker 1: able to serve with a female unit and people who
Speaker 1: are a biologically female to be able to serve with
Speaker 1: a male unit based upon their transitioning status. And you
Speaker 1: know this is this is a problem for a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of reasons. You know, this is why you know
Speaker 1: you have the separation of sexes in the military, this
Speaker 1: is why frater you have, fraternization is an issue. It look,
Speaker 1: I never served, so I just know about this stuff
Speaker 1: from reading about it. But I've been on a lot
Speaker 1: of military basis and spend a lot of time around
Speaker 1: the military in combat zones. And you know, there are
Speaker 1: reasons for these policies. And it's not to be mean
Speaker 1: to transpeople. It's not to be bigoted or nasty or
Speaker 1: make anyone feel less than it's we need to have
Speaker 1: the best military fighting force on the planet. We do,
Speaker 1: but we want to keep it that way. And we
Speaker 1: also can allow the tinker of social justice warriors and
Speaker 1: various liberal judges to decide how the Department of Defense
Speaker 1: should be conducting its business without a clear you know, look,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, buck, but what about if there was
Speaker 1: going to racial discrimination. There's no discrimination here, Okay. People
Speaker 1: who are female served with females, people who are male
Speaker 1: served with males. If you've got some other psychological need
Speaker 1: or issue, that's something to be dealt with, but it's
Speaker 1: not the military's problem. Okay. This is where we have
Speaker 1: to draw lines, okay, And the left won't draw these
Speaker 1: lines because they like to live in this delusional state
Speaker 1: where male and female are not really different things. They
Speaker 1: are white americasted men. There's still a systematic racism, and
Speaker 1: it goes almost unknoticed by so many of us when
Speaker 1: all that is surrounding us. Is there any wonder that
Speaker 1: there is still that spirit of restlessness there? How do
Speaker 1: we ensure that every American can live a life of dignity?
Speaker 1: How do we fulfill the promise at working people who
Speaker 1: still go to bed like my dad used to staring
Speaker 1: at the ceiling, thinking, God, if I get prostate cancer
Speaker 1: or if my whitecasts presscats, we lose everything. We lose
Speaker 1: single biggest reason for bank We lose everything. How can
Speaker 1: we stand by guaranteeing that every single American can get
Speaker 1: affordable healthcare and medications? Because your health shouldn't depend on
Speaker 1: the color of your skin to your zip code, but
Speaker 1: it does. Wow, Okay, Joe Biden, We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: have some straight talk here on Joe Biden, folks, he
Speaker 1: is not yet one of the candidates for the presidency
Speaker 1: on the Democrat side in twenty twenty, has not officially announced.
Speaker 1: People are saying, you know, they wonder why, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you why. Joe Biden hasn't announced yet. Maybe
Speaker 1: he still will. There's a lot of pressure on people
Speaker 1: still say that he is a favorite. You know, he
Speaker 1: is the one that in the polls who can actually
Speaker 1: can actually run on Michael Kazio Cortez, who is in
Speaker 1: fact constitutionally barred from running because of her age. Because
Speaker 1: I get like, I'm not like old enough to like Ron.
Speaker 1: But Biden is someone who benefited tremendously from being a
Speaker 1: visible but inconsequential component of the Obama administration. Biden when
Speaker 1: he ran for president, people will forget this is a
Speaker 1: guy who was polling at like one or two percent
Speaker 1: the whole time. Okay, before that, he has been a
Speaker 1: largely inconsequential at best senator from Delaware who's actually very
Speaker 1: coy with some of the corporate interest in Delaware. As
Speaker 1: much as he'll speak sometimes like a social justice warrior
Speaker 1: as he just was, Biden's a guy who does whatever's
Speaker 1: best for Biden. I mean, he is the quintessential career politician. Okay,
Speaker 1: this guy is as inside the belt Way and as
Speaker 1: much about the career of Joe Biden as any human
Speaker 1: being could be in the swamp. And yet because he
Speaker 1: was the vice president for the Obama administration, because he
Speaker 1: you know, has involved himself in foreign policy matters for
Speaker 1: a long time, has terrible foreign policy judgment, by the way,
Speaker 1: and look at when when Biden takes a position on something,
Speaker 1: it's overwhelmingly in retrospect and at the time the wrong position.
Speaker 1: But he's a guy who's essentially failed upward in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways. Has never been an impressive and impressive
Speaker 1: honestly anything. And yet we're being told he the next
Speaker 1: president United States. And I think that that I think
Speaker 1: that was from MLK Day when he was giving that
Speaker 1: speech on white America. There. This is not what white
Speaker 1: America needs to hear or wants to hear right now
Speaker 1: in parts of the country where they're struggling. And that's
Speaker 1: part of what was so powerful about Trump's message was
Speaker 1: he was saying, look, if you're if you're in Michigan,
Speaker 1: if you're in Pennsylvania, if you're in West Virginia and
Speaker 1: you feel like your community has been flooded with drugs
Speaker 1: and there's nothing for you there, and the elites in
Speaker 1: DC who are who are influencing markets, it's not just
Speaker 1: the free market that does all this. With policy, with regulation,
Speaker 1: with government action, don't care about you. You have a point.
Speaker 1: Now we can argue whether that's true or not, but
Speaker 1: or how true it is, because there's at least some
Speaker 1: truth to it, but at least Trump was making an effort.
Speaker 1: Biden's version, apparently, is that quote white America has to
Speaker 1: admit there is still systematic rays end quote. I always
Speaker 1: wondering is it systemic or systematic or both or those
Speaker 1: both seem to get grown in there all the time.
Speaker 1: No one in white America says there isn't racism, and
Speaker 1: nobody i think would even argue with the notion of
Speaker 1: systematic racism. It just depends on what your definition of
Speaker 1: systematic racism is. Right, If you're going to tell me
Speaker 1: that the murder rate in the South Side of Chicago
Speaker 1: is a function of systematic racism, I'm going to need
Speaker 1: an explanation as to why that is. I'm going to
Speaker 1: need someone to explain what the system is doing there,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of you know, people say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's poverty. Hmm. Interesting because the poorest per capita country
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, county in the country is Harlan County, Kentucky,
Speaker 1: Eastern Kentucky, which is overwhelmingly white in terms of the
Speaker 1: ethnic makeup of that county. It's a very white, very
Speaker 1: rural part of the state, poorest in the country. Not
Speaker 1: a lot of gang violence going on. There a lot
Speaker 1: of opioid problem, but there definitely not a lot of
Speaker 1: gang violence, not a lot of violence in general. So
Speaker 1: why are we told that it's systematic racism or are
Speaker 1: we being told that, you know, where do we draw
Speaker 1: the lines on what is systematic racism and what is
Speaker 1: a broader societal or cultural failure that manifests itself with
Speaker 1: a greater preponderance in minority communities than in other communities
Speaker 1: across the country. You know, how do we draw those
Speaker 1: But just you see, that's having a real discussion about it,
Speaker 1: trying to discuss the problem, trying to discuss the issues
Speaker 1: from the perspective of wanting to make it better. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden just wants to say things that make Joe Biden
Speaker 1: sound like he cares and he's smart, and he's one
Speaker 1: of the good guys. Whether it has any effect on
Speaker 1: anyone's life in a meaningful way, whether it does anything
Speaker 1: for anybody, that's pretty irrelevant. You know, he does not
Speaker 1: particularly care what the result of the words that he
Speaker 1: uses is. He really just cares of what the perception
Speaker 1: of him is as a result of the things that
Speaker 1: he says. You know, he's just kind of a grinning
Speaker 1: used car salesman politician. I'm sorry, but it's true. And
Speaker 1: I just think it's so funny that there's this this
Speaker 1: early effort out there for people to try and come
Speaker 1: come out and say that, you know, Biden would be
Speaker 1: this great leader. There is no evidence, no evidence whatsoever
Speaker 1: that that is the case. None, okay, no evidence that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden would be some great president or even some
Speaker 1: great presidential candidate. And I just think that, you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats, they're gonna they're gonna create some narrative around someone,
Speaker 1: you know, They're they're going to find a way to
Speaker 1: prop somebody up and convince the Democrats will all vote
Speaker 1: for a Democrat. So it's really just can they make
Speaker 1: some story up about how wonderful somebody is and convinced
Speaker 1: enough people in swing states to vote for them. But
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna be Biden. And you know,
Speaker 1: if it's if it's Kamala Harris, she's the default candidate
Speaker 1: at this point. She's though, we don't have anybody great,
Speaker 1: so we'll go with her. There's a little I hate
Speaker 1: to be the one to say this, there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of Hillary reducts, you know, or you know Hillary
Speaker 1: part two. Here it's it's Hillary all over again. You know,
Speaker 1: she's the establishment is rallying around Harris. They're really because
Speaker 1: they want it to be Biden. But it's just not
Speaker 1: gonna fly. It's not gonna work. And he's certainly not
Speaker 1: endearing himself. Biden's not endearing himself to rural communities by
Speaker 1: trying to pretend like he's got this this social justice
Speaker 1: streak in him where he really he really cares so
Speaker 1: deeply about, you know, minorities who are living in poverty
Speaker 1: and systematic racism. And also this comment that your health
Speaker 1: shouldn't depend on the color of your skin or your
Speaker 1: zip code. What does that mean, because that he makes
Speaker 1: it sound like hospitals. You know that that to me
Speaker 1: is a statement that's a little a little reckless. He
Speaker 1: makes it sound like hospitals or doctors turn people away
Speaker 1: because they have the wrong skin color. You know, Biden
Speaker 1: likes to play these games. Remember you know he said
Speaker 1: quote put y'all back in chains. I mean, Biden likes
Speaker 1: to be an agitator on some of these issues of
Speaker 1: race to make up for the fact that he's basically
Speaker 1: the quintessential boring, middle age boomer white guy. That that's
Speaker 1: what he is. But he tries to play up this,
Speaker 1: you know, other part of himself. And I just you know,
Speaker 1: your health shouldn't depend on the color of your skin
Speaker 1: or your zip code. Sure our our health outcomes, at
Speaker 1: least in some way correlated to someone's socioeconomic status. Yes,
Speaker 1: is that fair or right? No, it is not. But
Speaker 1: it's also a function of a very complicated system we
Speaker 1: have that involves aiment for services and the choices that
Speaker 1: people make with the money that they have. I mean,
Speaker 1: I get I have some I guess somewhat radical ideas
Speaker 1: about about some of these things, because I want to
Speaker 1: just tell people, you know, we all approach healthcare like
Speaker 1: somebody else should be paying for it. Meanwhile, I mean
Speaker 1: I would advocate for you know, your healthcare is probably
Speaker 1: what you should be concerned about paying for ahead of anything,
Speaker 1: you know, other than your house and your food. You know.
Speaker 1: I know people that will spend ten thousand dollars on
Speaker 1: a vacation without, you know, without blinking their eyes. But
Speaker 1: then when you tell them they have to pay a
Speaker 1: fifty dollars co pay to go to the doctor, They're like, oh,
Speaker 1: why gosh, you know you're gonna need to pay for
Speaker 1: these things if you want the quality of service that
Speaker 1: we've all come to expect in this country. And you
Speaker 1: know the other side of it. I'll tell you anytime
Speaker 1: I've been in an erm, they're miserable, dysfunctional places that
Speaker 1: are deeply depressing, and you only want to be in
Speaker 1: one if you have absolutely no choice. And it's a
Speaker 1: desperate that you and I wish that medicine could get
Speaker 1: better than that, you know, And that's a view and
Speaker 1: I'm talking about as somebody who can pay that doesn't
Speaker 1: even matter. Still terrible. So there's a lot going on here,
Speaker 1: But the bottom line is I don't think it's going
Speaker 1: to be Biden, and if it is Biden, he's gonna lose.
Speaker 1: Maybe you've heard of the AARP, You or somebody you
Speaker 1: know it could already be a member, right, But did
Speaker 1: you know that the AARP is pretty left wing. They
Speaker 1: lobby for progressive causes and they actually fought tooth the
Speaker 1: nail for government run healthcare. That's why I recommend AMAC.
Speaker 1: Why should you check out AMAC? Well, you see, AMAC
Speaker 1: advocates for border protection, advocates for seniors, for fixing social security,
Speaker 1: and you'll get all those great value and discount items
Speaker 1: like car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance from AMAC that you
Speaker 1: do from AARP. But you're also supporting an organization that
Speaker 1: agrees with you and that supports what you stand for.
Speaker 1: So stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight
Speaker 1: by becoming a member today. The benefits are great, but
Speaker 1: the haws is even greater. Tell your family and tell
Speaker 1: your friends join right now at Amac dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's am Ac dot us slash buck. One more time,
Speaker 1: am Ac dot us slash Buck. I just want to
Speaker 1: take a moment to wish all the best and send
Speaker 1: the thoughts and prayers to Brett Baer who he's okay
Speaker 1: and his family's okay. But I don't know how many
Speaker 1: of you saw this. He is, of course, the host
Speaker 1: of Special Report on Fox News, which is on it
Speaker 1: during the six o'clock Eastern hour every night. I think
Speaker 1: it's the best panel and probably the single best non
Speaker 1: non opinion based news show on television. And you know,
Speaker 1: he's as nice a guy and as much of a
Speaker 1: of a gentleman and a professional as any Brett as
Speaker 1: anybody that you'd come across in the business. He was
Speaker 1: on a family vacation with his wife and his two children.
Speaker 1: He's got a you know, he's got a lovely family,
Speaker 1: and you know, he's a he's a real family man.
Speaker 1: And he was driving car out in Montana and they
Speaker 1: just hit an icy patch of road things. I know,
Speaker 1: the weather out there has been really cold. The country
Speaker 1: has been hit with a real cold snap and icy
Speaker 1: patche wrote, and the car just flipped right over. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just flipped over on its back. They all had
Speaker 1: to go to the hospital, but they're okay. You know.
Speaker 1: It's just it's a reminder for all of us that
Speaker 1: you know, you just don't know. I mean, for one thing,
Speaker 1: and I hate to be this now, I really do
Speaker 1: sound like I'm Team Buck's grandmother or something here. But
Speaker 1: the most dangerous thing you're going to do is drive
Speaker 1: for the most part. I mean, some of you listening,
Speaker 1: I know are are green Berets downrange. But for the
Speaker 1: rest of us, okay, the most dangerous thing you're going
Speaker 1: to do, for the most part statistically is driving a car.
Speaker 1: But also I think there's just a heightened sensitivity and
Speaker 1: conservative media and in DC right now. Brett's a DC guy.
Speaker 1: He does a show out of here. Ever since Bree
Speaker 1: Peyton's passing a few weeks ago from just a freak
Speaker 1: influenza influenza infection, I mean, just out of nowhere. As
Speaker 1: December twenty eighth, which also happens to be my birthday,
Speaker 1: I'll never forget getting the news. So I guess just
Speaker 1: a moment to wish thoughts and prayers to Bretton's family.
Speaker 1: They're all okay, nobody was severely injured, but obviously it's
Speaker 1: terrifying to be in your family, being in the car
Speaker 1: with your family and flip the car, and just to
Speaker 1: remind everybody, you know, be safe out there, to be
Speaker 1: careful and just remember, you know, you know, you don't know,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't know what's going to happen, so
Speaker 1: keep your loved ones close. That's sorry. I know that's
Speaker 1: a little a little out of maybe out of left field,
Speaker 1: but I was thinking, I was thinking about it today
Speaker 1: and I had I have a lot of friends who
Speaker 1: were still a rattled by would happen with Brie. And
Speaker 1: you know, she does a lot of Fox. She did
Speaker 1: a lot of Fox News, and you know, Brett obviously
Speaker 1: has had many of us on his show in our
Speaker 1: little conservative media community down here in d C. So
Speaker 1: it was another one of those moments. Gosh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's another another story that just reminds you you don't know.
Speaker 1: All right, let me get into some some policy stuff
Speaker 1: here China. Larry Cudlow is talking a bit about what's
Speaker 1: going on here with the China negotiations, because this does
Speaker 1: have a pretty major effect on our our overall economy,
Speaker 1: and it does affect what's going on in the global
Speaker 1: economy for sure, and the US economy here. You know,
Speaker 1: Culdlow Kudlow is a great messenger for the administration's position
Speaker 1: on this stuff. He's very effective, he's savvy, sharp, and
Speaker 1: comes across it's very warm to reporters. Reporters tend to
Speaker 1: really like this guy. But the China situation is obviously
Speaker 1: a point of a lot of tension because people are
Speaker 1: saying that Trump administration has picked this fight, although I
Speaker 1: think it's only fair to point out that China has
Speaker 1: really been the one picking the fight, and they've been
Speaker 1: picking it for last oh thirty years or so. They're
Speaker 1: the ones that have been engaged in the predatory and
Speaker 1: just deeply unfair trade practices that are getting a ride
Speaker 1: off our back without our say so. But here's how
Speaker 1: could Low sets this up place sixteen We're making progress
Speaker 1: in negotiating on the grandest scale between the two countries. Ever, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're covering everything technology, theft IP, forced transfers, family jewels,
Speaker 1: cyber intervention, commodities, industrial supplies, financial services, ownership. Nothing like
Speaker 1: this has ever been undertaken. This is good. Negotiations are good.
Speaker 1: You know. He lays out all this stuff, talks about
Speaker 1: intellectual property theft and all these different aspects of the
Speaker 1: economic and trade relationship that we have with China, and
Speaker 1: as he brings them up, I think it's worth noting
Speaker 1: that no one really had a until Trump came along.
Speaker 1: No one had the political will to deal with these issues.
Speaker 1: Neither Republicans nor Democrats were taking any strong action to
Speaker 1: stop this from continuing. And I think it's it's particularly
Speaker 1: noteworthy that many of the folks, many of the voices
Speaker 1: that you're hearing now that are saying that what Trump
Speaker 1: is doing is so reckless, are among those of the
Speaker 1: so called expert class that had absolutely no solutions, nothing
Speaker 1: to bring to the table to fix anything with China,
Speaker 1: and now that they're not in power and their way
Speaker 1: is not the way that the administration's going, we have
Speaker 1: to be told, Oh, it's so crazy, it's so dumb.
Speaker 1: I think I've been pretty consistent on this one all along.
Speaker 1: We're gonna know whether this works or not, and Trump
Speaker 1: will be judged, and I think in twenty twenty. Even
Speaker 1: part of this will be part of how he's judged
Speaker 1: relates directly to China. Will be judged on whether this works,
Speaker 1: doesn't work, or not. And if the answer is yes,
Speaker 1: well then we'll know that Trump was able to pull
Speaker 1: this off in the face of incredible bipartisan intellectual opposition
Speaker 1: and political opposition. But people just saying, oh, the experts
Speaker 1: all agree, there is a consensus on this one. It
Speaker 1: is crazy to do what he's doing. Well, it turns
Speaker 1: out that we have some information coming in that shows
Speaker 1: that I don't think he's crazy. It's risky, but that's
Speaker 1: different than crazy. We do have though, just earlier today
Speaker 1: reporting for the Wall Street Journal of China's annual economic
Speaker 1: growth rate is the slowest since nineteen nine. Now, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of different parts of this. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of different ways to analyze that. You could say
Speaker 1: where you could point to the fact that China, in
Speaker 1: order to avoid some long term economic risks financial risks,
Speaker 1: has decided that government borrowing needs to be curbed. There's
Speaker 1: a drop in large capital expenditures on things like infrastructure
Speaker 1: projects and big new factories, and you know, China has
Speaker 1: had to rein in some of this stuff because if
Speaker 1: it's just ferocious growth rate the last twenty years or so.
Speaker 1: But it also shows us that the leverage to try
Speaker 1: to get a change in Chinese behavior right now is
Speaker 1: pretty good. We're a pretty good position to do so. Now.
Speaker 1: Is it having a little bit of pain for the
Speaker 1: US economy, for our markets? Yeah, I think so. But
Speaker 1: anytime you get into a fight, you know, if you
Speaker 1: get into a boxing match and you think that you're
Speaker 1: just being able to knock the other guy out without
Speaker 1: getting punched, you know, you're usually delusional. That's usually not
Speaker 1: a good thing to think when you go in. And
Speaker 1: if we are going to get a change in Chinese behavior,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody should have expected it to happen
Speaker 1: in a way that wouldn't have any at least short
Speaker 1: term negative financial and economic implications for US. And I
Speaker 1: think we are seeing that right now. You know, the
Speaker 1: administration has said that they are willing to take some
Speaker 1: of these measures off the table right that there's that
Speaker 1: they may pull back. We the US may take some
Speaker 1: of these tariffs back in order to chill markets out
Speaker 1: as long as we feel like the Chinese are going
Speaker 1: to play ball. We'll see, We'll see. But you know,
Speaker 1: in the meantime, I would just note that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is taking action on problems that exist, that everyone
Speaker 1: knows exist, and that previously nobody seemed to want to
Speaker 1: take any action on. You know that that to me
Speaker 1: is significant, and that's also why all along I felt
Speaker 1: like we should give the administration some leeway and the
Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt, uh, you know, to find a
Speaker 1: way through this. By the way, I'm not yet finished
Speaker 1: with a book that I find very interesting. I find
Speaker 1: the thesis of it very interesting, called one hundred Year
Speaker 1: Marathon by Michael Pillsbury that takes just a contrarian view
Speaker 1: of Chinese national top down policy and strategy. It's really
Speaker 1: about strategy and civilizational strategy for China, and the hundred
Speaker 1: Year Marathon I'd say about a third through it right now,
Speaker 1: and it the the thesis and I'm reading as it
Speaker 1: expands on this one. But the thesis from the Hundred
Speaker 1: Year Marathon is that China has been engaged in a
Speaker 1: massive campaign of global deception and deception, particularly aimed at
Speaker 1: the United States, to make us treat the Chinese like
Speaker 1: there's some developing og Gali gosh, you know, we don't
Speaker 1: know how we're going to become a superpower country when
Speaker 1: all along they've been hoping to leverage that and to
Speaker 1: use that to harness the kind of American globalist let's
Speaker 1: bring everybody up and free trade is going to make
Speaker 1: us all rich attitude, and you know, if we need
Speaker 1: to help some of the Third world catch up to us,
Speaker 1: all the more the better. And you know, and and
Speaker 1: China use all this stuff is very zero sum. And
Speaker 1: there's there's a whole conversation in the book around or
Speaker 1: a lot of exposition around the idea of deception as
Speaker 1: central and strategy and how in Chinese culture they're even
Speaker 1: some of their their folk heroes, and they go back
Speaker 1: to the period of the warring states, which is also
Speaker 1: when you have Sunsue writing is you know, eternally famous
Speaker 1: the art of war and all these warring factions within
Speaker 1: the Chinese or the Chinese state, and there's all these lessons.
Speaker 1: It's essentially like the Chinese version of Machiavelli on steroids.
Speaker 1: But either when you get a sense of what their
Speaker 1: philosophy is and also the aggression, the long term aggression
Speaker 1: behind it to supplant America and really become a hedgemon
Speaker 1: unlike any of the world has ever seen. You get
Speaker 1: kind of a different view about Yeah, you know, China's
Speaker 1: just ripping off some of the intellectual property. You don't know.
Speaker 1: Big deal. Actually it is a big deal, And these
Speaker 1: are issues we should be paying close attention to. And
Speaker 1: I think that the hundred Year Marathon, which's written by
Speaker 1: an expert in China policy of many decades, really interesting stuff.
Speaker 1: So when I finished that, we'll have a longer discussion.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'll bring on one of my favorite East Asia experts.
Speaker 1: But keep that in mind. One hundred year Marathon. I
Speaker 1: think you'll find it interesting. We've got more coming up, Teams,
Speaker 1: stay with me. I want to tell you about a
Speaker 1: conservative alternative to liberal based email services ipatriots dot us.
Speaker 1: Ipatriots dot us is secure, private, and includes more of
Speaker 1: what you want without all the ads and spam. With ipatriots,
Speaker 1: you get thirty gigs of cloud storage, larger attachment sizes,
Speaker 1: and your files are safe. With ipatriots premium anti virus,
Speaker 1: anti spam, two hundred and fifty six bit encryption, and
Speaker 1: unlike a lot of those other big email providers out there,
Speaker 1: I patriots. Won't sell your stuff to third parties, won't
Speaker 1: sell your information or support a liberal agenda. It's like
Speaker 1: a lot of those Silicon Valley based giants. Okay. Ipatriots
Speaker 1: is compatible with most mobile devices, So show you are
Speaker 1: a patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us now, choose your
Speaker 1: membership program and input your desired ipatriots email address during checkout,
Speaker 1: and her promo code buck for ten percent savings during
Speaker 1: your first year of membership. Again, promo code b uc
Speaker 1: k at ipatriots dot us for ten percent savings during
Speaker 1: your first year. And the conquers step up to the spotlight.
Speaker 1: You are good man, Step up to the spotlight. It's
Speaker 1: a good heart, and it's heart for a good man
Speaker 1: to be a king. Okay, so that is is Black Panther.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you all knew as soon as it started.
Speaker 1: That's from Black Panther, the trailer for it. And why
Speaker 1: am I talking about Black Panther Because I want a
Speaker 1: lot of you to boo at me when I tell
Speaker 1: you that I've been waiting for a superhero movie to
Speaker 1: be nominated for an oscar. Even though conservatives we all
Speaker 1: make fun of the oscars all the time, but it
Speaker 1: is this this cultural phenomenon that you know, we tend
Speaker 1: to mock them, but we tend to also talk about
Speaker 1: them because I think it's a reflection of what the
Speaker 1: at a minimum, of what the Hollywood elites think about
Speaker 1: the culture right now and what matters and what doesn't
Speaker 1: and what kind of stories they want to tell. But
Speaker 1: Black Panther was nominated for an Oscar and I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm the only person that I know who will
Speaker 1: just come out and say it's just not a good movie.
Speaker 1: And there's some look, you know, there's some very cool
Speaker 1: scenes in it, and I think that the guys, you know,
Speaker 1: the guy who's the lead actor, is very charismatic and
Speaker 1: does a great job. But the storyline is just bad.
Speaker 1: It's just not a good storyline. It doesn't really hold together.
Speaker 1: You know, this whole thing about what is it? What
Speaker 1: is it called Brandon Unobtainium? That sounds about right, what's
Speaker 1: the like? I only saw one thing, you know, it's
Speaker 1: like or is that from Avatar? I can't I think no,
Speaker 1: I think Avatar is unobtainium. Whatever they have like the
Speaker 1: secret whatever, the secret sauce magic stuff is that they have,
Speaker 1: you know, and they don't want other people to get
Speaker 1: I see. I haven't seen it that many times anyway.
Speaker 1: I don't know why everyone has to pretend they think
Speaker 1: it's such a good movie. I mean, they're freaking giant
Speaker 1: cgi Rhinoceros is running people over in the Final Battle Secrets. Brandon,
Speaker 1: do you agree with me on any of this or
Speaker 1: do you like Black Panther? You probably like brand Now.
Speaker 1: I agree with you. It's an average you do hear
Speaker 1: a movie? It was average there. It's a totally average
Speaker 1: super Brandon, thank you. It's a totally average superhero movie.
Speaker 1: Into the Spider that's a good one. The New Spider
Speaker 1: Man people tell me that's amazing. Actually, my co host
Speaker 1: Crystal Ball told me she thought it was incredible, and
Speaker 1: I'm like, really, because she's not into cause superhero stuff,
Speaker 1: but she said, visually it's amazing. Yeah, it's it's not
Speaker 1: it's more than you think it's. It's really good. But no,
Speaker 1: I agree with you with Black Panther for sure. And
Speaker 1: one of my family members told me that Green Book
Speaker 1: is actually a pretty good movie. So you know, I'll
Speaker 1: definitely watch that when it's I only watch things at home.
Speaker 1: I don't do this as I've told you I'm way
Speaker 1: too grumpy from movie theaters. Somebody's always talking, somebody's and
Speaker 1: I have a giant head, but somebody's even more giant
Speaker 1: head is always in the way of my view of
Speaker 1: the screen. There's just always a problem, you know, And
Speaker 1: I just i'd just learned my lesson too many times.
Speaker 1: I only watch things at home where I control the environment,
Speaker 1: and that's that. So I'll watch Green Book when it
Speaker 1: comes out. A Star is Born, I feel like, you know,
Speaker 1: this is you know, just a Lady Gaga. Did you
Speaker 1: see that one? Brandon? I'd haven't, but I want to.
Speaker 1: I just don't want to pay for it, so I'm
Speaker 1: waiting for it to come out. At first, it's pretty good, um,
Speaker 1: so you know, yeah, he's I guess that one's decent.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think what else get this movie? Roma
Speaker 1: is apparently the favorite for a lot of these things
Speaker 1: I haven't. I don't even know anything about it. I
Speaker 1: mean there were movies nominated like the Favorite, which I
Speaker 1: didn't even know was a movie until now, so I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not up on this stuff at all. I
Speaker 1: just think that TV, as I've told you before, is
Speaker 1: in this Golden Age where it's just way, way better
Speaker 1: than that. The quality of top TV shows right now
Speaker 1: is blowing the quality of top movies out of the water.
Speaker 1: It's just not even comparable. I mean, there's so many
Speaker 1: good I'm discovering TV series that are even a few
Speaker 1: years old, and I'm like, uh, this is this is
Speaker 1: an a plus. I mean, I think Peaky Blinders is
Speaker 1: a phenomenal TV show. I hadn't and ended if you
Speaker 1: have you seen that one, Brandon, No, but I've heard
Speaker 1: good things for sure. It's very dude, you'd like it. Actually,
Speaker 1: it's got good music. The soundtrack is good too. You
Speaker 1: dig it. So I would if I may make a
Speaker 1: recommendation for you, DJ Brandon, I would say, put Peak
Speaker 1: Blinders on your list. It is really good. It's a
Speaker 1: little bleak in the beginning, but it gets it's really solid.
Speaker 1: But you know, Black clans But these are the Best
Speaker 1: Picture nominees. Black Clansmen, Bohemian Rhapsody, The Favorite Roma, Green Book,
Speaker 1: A Star Is Born, and Vice. Oh my gosh, you know,
Speaker 1: there's such a bunch of clowns. They really are going
Speaker 1: to nominate h They're really going to nominate Vice for
Speaker 1: Best Picture it's ridiculous, a movie just trashing Dick Cheney,
Speaker 1: you know where it's it's all a Dick Cheney is
Speaker 1: this is this super villain? Yeah, it's it's it's total nonsense.
Speaker 1: You know, I did not see a single good movie
Speaker 1: this Did you see anything that was good this year?
Speaker 1: I did not see a in theaters good movie this year?
Speaker 1: You did you sly go see one movie a year?
Speaker 1: I didn't see one. This ye and se Bohemian Rap City. No?
Speaker 1: It was it good? Yeah, it's a fun uh. You know,
Speaker 1: if you like the music of Queen, you'll like it.
Speaker 1: And the league guy Remedy, what's his name is? It
Speaker 1: does a great job. So it was good. When are
Speaker 1: they gonna make the Guns and the Pivotal Guns and
Speaker 1: Roses movie? My man? I mean that's that's actually been
Speaker 1: asked for many years. But I'm looking forward to seeing
Speaker 1: the Motley Crue movie coming out on Netflix in a
Speaker 1: month or so. The Dirt I'm looking forward to that too.
Speaker 1: You should read the book, guys. This guy's partied heard
Speaker 1: so anyway, the Oscars, who cares, we care a little bit,
Speaker 1: just to make fun of it. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: All these models like in the Bahamas, the most insane
Speaker 1: festival the world has ever seen. Island getaway turned disaster.
Speaker 1: It became very far bearing. So you know, that's the
Speaker 1: beginning of the introduction for the documentary on Fire Festival.
Speaker 1: F y r E and a lot I had heard
Speaker 1: about this. It became kind of a big news story
Speaker 1: for a little bit because it touched on some Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley stuff. It touched on some h you know, entrepreneurial
Speaker 1: kind of may off scheme like questions, and you know,
Speaker 1: so it really did get into the mainstream news for all,
Speaker 1: but it was really big among the social media influencer set.
Speaker 1: And it's an amazing story. I mean, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: tell you this right now. If you there's a documentary
Speaker 1: on Fire Festival right now on Hulu and a documentary
Speaker 1: on Netflix. Here's the basics of what happened. I've seen
Speaker 1: the Netflix one I have. I'm in the middle of
Speaker 1: the Hulu one, and you'd think, oh my gosh, buck,
Speaker 1: why would you watch two documentaries but the same thing.
Speaker 1: But they're actually covering different aspects of the story. And
Speaker 1: the Hulu one actually has the main guy, the bad guy,
Speaker 1: the the evildoer in his sense he gives an interview
Speaker 1: to them words in the first one. There's no interview
Speaker 1: on Netflix. But the basics are that this charlatan, I mean,
Speaker 1: this fraud. This guy is just an outright fraud. The
Speaker 1: fact that people couldn't see it. I could sit down
Speaker 1: with this guy and have a two minute conversation with
Speaker 1: you and tell you this guy's full of it. But
Speaker 1: his name is Billy McFarlane and he's serving a six
Speaker 1: year sentence in federal prison right now, by the way,
Speaker 1: And he had run a couple of kind of you know,
Speaker 1: social media influencer almost pump and dump type scams before
Speaker 1: he began this app that was supposed to allow for
Speaker 1: booking talent like you book uber. So, oh, you want
Speaker 1: to have jay Z come to your birthday party? This
Speaker 1: is you know. All you have to do is get
Speaker 1: this appen, have all the money. It probably costs you
Speaker 1: a million bucks, but you know jay Z will come
Speaker 1: to your birthday party. Right That's that was the basics
Speaker 1: of it. But to launch this thing, he created this
Speaker 1: ad campaign with true supermodels, I mean world class, top
Speaker 1: tier in terms of their pay scale supermodels, and they
Speaker 1: went to this deserted, beautiful island and they frolic around
Speaker 1: in the beach and they just do this brilliant. It
Speaker 1: was brilliant social media campaign for this music festival called
Speaker 1: fire fy R, And then the documentary is just about
Speaker 1: how there was no reason to believe that they could
Speaker 1: pull this off. It would be like having some of
Speaker 1: you probably you know Woodstock for sure. You may know
Speaker 1: what Coachella is too. I've never been. I just know
Speaker 1: it's a big, kind of fancy hipster music scene, music festival.
Speaker 1: But imagine doing the equivalent today of Woodstock on a
Speaker 1: tiny island in the Bahamas with no running water, no infrastructure,
Speaker 1: just a basic landing strip for an airport, and you're
Speaker 1: going to fit six thousand people on an island that
Speaker 1: is like the size of a couple of football fields
Speaker 1: put together. I mean, it's just it was insane. It
Speaker 1: was insane. But the way that people get conned, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think it's really important. I also read this book
Speaker 1: The Billion Dollar Well recently, which is another guy who
Speaker 1: used celebrity and salesmanship to engage in a multi billion
Speaker 1: dollar fraud. I still hasn't seen any justice, by the way.
Speaker 1: He's hiding out in China. But it's important to see
Speaker 1: how people scam people, and it's important to see also
Speaker 1: that sometimes the people that get scammed, including some of
Speaker 1: the promoters and other people involved in this, are smart
Speaker 1: people or good people. You know. Oftentimes, what allows you
Speaker 1: to get scammed like this fire festival guy did these
Speaker 1: people is your belief that other people are going to
Speaker 1: operate the way that you operate, right, that other people
Speaker 1: want to be ethical and keep their promises and are decent,
Speaker 1: and you give them the benefit of the doubt when
Speaker 1: they're trying to create something that's really you know, successful
Speaker 1: or meaningful or whatever it may be. So, I mean
Speaker 1: it's a real cautionary tale. But also just imagine you're
Speaker 1: a guy who is throwing a thirty five million dollar
Speaker 1: one or I guess it was a couple of days,
Speaker 1: but a thirty five million dollar party with six thousand attendees,
Speaker 1: and the day before they're scheduled to arrive. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't want to give away too much, but let's
Speaker 1: just say they have they have some tents on some
Speaker 1: concrete on an island next to a Sandals resort. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just crazy, Brandon, what would you give it out
Speaker 1: of ten? I gave it an eight point five. I
Speaker 1: as far as a documentary go, yeah, I can say that,
Speaker 1: but it just made me feel really a documentary. It's
Speaker 1: not like the most entertaining movie I've ever seen, But
Speaker 1: for a documentary, I thought it was pretty good. No,
Speaker 1: it was good. I just feel I can't. I just
Speaker 1: left feeling so bad for the people on the island,
Speaker 1: the ones who really, yeah that's I diagree. The woman
Speaker 1: who had to pay fifty thousand dollars out of her
Speaker 1: own pocket to pay or works. He's a restaurant worker.
Speaker 1: Because everybody else is young and has all this money,
Speaker 1: and I don't really feel that bad for them, but
Speaker 1: I felt bad for her, and there was a lot
Speaker 1: of that. There's a lot of schadenfreud at the dumb
Speaker 1: millennials that came out of this too. But anyway, everybody,
Speaker 1: I recommend if you have Netflix or Hulu, watch either
Speaker 1: or both of these Fire Festival documentaries. They're fantastic. Roll
Speaker 1: is up next, Hey, team Buck, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: People upset about the BuzzFeed situation. Still a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of things to get to here on the roll Call.
Speaker 1: Let's let's get to it. Kirk Rights First up, the
Speaker 1: left's fake news has gone too far. There needs to
Speaker 1: be a law if anyone's spreading fake news, they will
Speaker 1: be fined or jailed or both and can never do
Speaker 1: that kind of work. Ever. Again, fake news needs to
Speaker 1: be silenced. It's not freedom of speech, it's provoking others
Speaker 1: to do harm. I enjoy your show, Buck, I listen everyday. Kirk. Well, Kirk,
Speaker 1: you have fantastic tape east in radio shows. I do
Speaker 1: not think that you necessarily have spot on First Amendment
Speaker 1: jur's prudence. However, think about the possibility for abut if
Speaker 1: we were to open up charges of fake news to
Speaker 1: any kind of sanctions by the state. You mentioned being
Speaker 1: fined or jailed. There are some legal remedies for what
Speaker 1: we would consider the spreading of fake news, but they
Speaker 1: are from the individuals affected by them. Notably, if it's spoken,
Speaker 1: it's slander, if it's written, it's libel. And there's also
Speaker 1: the broader charge of defamation of character, and this goes
Speaker 1: to a jury. And these are civil not criminal offenses,
Speaker 1: but it can go to a jury and the payouts
Speaker 1: can be very high. So there is some check on this,
Speaker 1: but the check on a news organization just lying unless
Speaker 1: there are specific damages against an individual, is that we
Speaker 1: do not listen to and do not support give our
Speaker 1: dollars to or our eyeballs or ears to that media outlet.
Speaker 1: This is why when I tell you things like please
Speaker 1: do support the sponsors on this show, that's the way
Speaker 1: you vote for what kind of media you want there
Speaker 1: to be out there. You know, every time you buy
Speaker 1: some black rifle, every time you type in my UURL
Speaker 1: for zip recruiter, you're voting for this show to stay
Speaker 1: on the air. And yeah, if you buy something, you know,
Speaker 1: you get a product. It costs a little money, but
Speaker 1: you can just go to the UURL and show that
Speaker 1: sponsor that we are helping create broader awareness of their products.
Speaker 1: You know, the same thing is true unfortunate whenever you
Speaker 1: turn on MSNBC or CNN, or if you're a I
Speaker 1: must admit I'm a New York Time subscriber. Even though
Speaker 1: I think The New York Times does a lot of
Speaker 1: really harmful and dishonest reporting, I feel like I have
Speaker 1: to be aware of what the flagship paper of the
Speaker 1: enemy is putting out there every day. So I do
Speaker 1: spend a fair amount of time rooting around in the
Speaker 1: left's internet ecosystem, including The Times, the Washington Post, you know,
Speaker 1: huff Posts, Slate, you know, you name it. I mean
Speaker 1: all these different sites out there. I have saved a
Speaker 1: lot of them. I always find actually the Daily Mail
Speaker 1: as a surprisingly fun read, ABC, NBCCBS, They're all pretty
Speaker 1: much the same. But yeah, that's that's what I would
Speaker 1: say about those topics. David Right buck Shields ye podcast
Speaker 1: listener here, you said on Monday, the media is so
Speaker 1: Trump obsessed they don't bother to fact check. I disagree.
Speaker 1: I think they are so far gone they are reporting
Speaker 1: things they know are false because pushing the false narratives
Speaker 1: of the left is their secret job description. What's going
Speaker 1: on today is far worse than willful ignorance. David. I
Speaker 1: think what you are saying. I think we're both correct.
Speaker 1: I would offer to you that you're right and I'm right,
Speaker 1: meaning that I believe that there is, because of the
Speaker 1: ideological fervor of the left to try to destroy Trump
Speaker 1: via the media, there is a lack of the due
Speaker 1: diligence that you would usually expect from the press, or
Speaker 1: at least that the press pretends that they engage in
Speaker 1: um and it is sometimes just that. And I think
Speaker 1: there are times where they realize what they're saying is
Speaker 1: most probably going to turn out to be fake, and
Speaker 1: then it is not fake, or sorry, then then it
Speaker 1: is fake, rather then it is miraculously true. No that
Speaker 1: they know that it's probably not true, and they run
Speaker 1: with it anyway. I think that it's tough for them
Speaker 1: to run things that are they know they know to
Speaker 1: be untrue to a degree where they would be it.
Speaker 1: See the press, the press has to protect some degree
Speaker 1: of factual accuracy or else they lose their power. It's
Speaker 1: not because they have some ethical objection to lie. It's
Speaker 1: that the narrative is built because of the editorial decisions,
Speaker 1: the language used, what stories they cover, how they cover them,
Speaker 1: how they describe things, what words they use. That's how
Speaker 1: the left wing narrative is solidified through the media, and
Speaker 1: oh and the selective presentation of facts. But if they
Speaker 1: get observable, demonstrable facts wrong, that they do take a hit.
Speaker 1: And they do take a hit. Now I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that means they don't do it. I'm just saying they
Speaker 1: have to be aware of that. Right, it is not
Speaker 1: in here's a shorter way of saying what I'm trying
Speaker 1: to hear. It's not in the New York Times interest
Speaker 1: to say that there are fifty seven states, you know,
Speaker 1: so that just makes them look bad. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of instances, plenty of things that we can look at
Speaker 1: where it is clear that it's not the facts that
Speaker 1: are the problem. It is so it is the presentation
Speaker 1: of analysis as objective news that's the problem, all right.
Speaker 1: As you can see, I find this topic fascinating, but
Speaker 1: other people like move on to the roll call. Nathan
Speaker 1: writes a nice shout out from Bill O'Reilly social media
Speaker 1: assaults by Bill O'Reilly. This is from Bill O'Reilly dot com. Everybody,
Speaker 1: here's what Bill O'Reilly wrote about yours truly today, there's
Speaker 1: a good column on The Hill dot Com by Buck
Speaker 1: Sex and Entitle. It's only a matter of time before
Speaker 1: the social media mob comes for you. It basically says
Speaker 1: Americans have few protections from smears. You can be accused
Speaker 1: by a liar using a device and lose your job, reputation,
Speaker 1: and friends. No one is immune from this unless you're
Speaker 1: a millionaire. Suing for definition defamation is useless because of
Speaker 1: the great cost. That's completely true. By the way, it
Speaker 1: takes years to wind through the courts, which generally cannot
Speaker 1: care less about these cases. Then if the person defaming
Speaker 1: you loses, even if you win, they have so few
Speaker 1: assets you can't collect. We are living in a dangerous
Speaker 1: time where hateful people have more power than ever before.
Speaker 1: The legal system is corrupt in many areas, so we
Speaker 1: basically have no way to protect our reputations from social
Speaker 1: media assaults. High tech has destroyed due process and the
Speaker 1: reputations of its avenues of people. There's no solution to this.
Speaker 1: That's all on Bill O'Reilly dot com. But he starts
Speaker 1: it off talking about my column, which I hope you
Speaker 1: all have read on The Hill dot com. It's only
Speaker 1: a matter of time before the social media mob comes
Speaker 1: for you. That's it's gone viral. It's gotten retweets and
Speaker 1: likes and things from you know, Bill O'Reilly and Meghan
Speaker 1: Kelly and lots of different folks out there. So I
Speaker 1: would I would recommend that you recommend that you check
Speaker 1: it out. You know, I always have to say this,
Speaker 1: Meghan whatever something. I know some of you are probably
Speaker 1: Megan fans still, and some of you very much are not.
Speaker 1: But I always appreciate it that she used to have
Speaker 1: me on very early in my career and really put
Speaker 1: me on for substantive segments on Fox News in primetime
Speaker 1: and was the first person to ever do so, and
Speaker 1: for while she was a Fox, the most consistent person
Speaker 1: to do so. Now it's Tucker, which is great because
Speaker 1: Tuck and Buck were like, it's like a buddy comedy,
Speaker 1: But it was Megan Kelly, and so I am always
Speaker 1: thankful and appreciative of that. Uh, Kim right, Buck, Tell
Speaker 1: all those having trouble with the I heeart app to
Speaker 1: try the Stitcher app. I've always used Stitcher for your
Speaker 1: podcast and haven't had any problems. Well, I think that
Speaker 1: that sounds like a great idea. Um let's uh, that
Speaker 1: sounds good to me. Um, try try Stitcher if you
Speaker 1: If you're having problems with the I Heeart app, go
Speaker 1: for Stitcher for sure. Jonathan right, Tucker glazed Tucker gazed
Speaker 1: on your beard with jealousy. I'm glad your border reporting
Speaker 1: is getting traction shields. Hi u Jonathan. You know, first
Speaker 1: of all, your beard is awesome. I got a baby
Speaker 1: beard right now, guys. I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'm gonna make it to full beardom I'm trying.
Speaker 1: I'm trying. I know, don't get mad at me. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to push through for at least another week, maybe two,
Speaker 1: to see if I can actually make a go of this.
Speaker 1: But I just right now it kind of looks like
Speaker 1: a bad goatee. You know. It's it's just building around
Speaker 1: the chin area and not enough on the jaw line.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if I need to take some
Speaker 1: you know, some testosterone shots or something here. I don't
Speaker 1: know what to do because it's just not coming in
Speaker 1: fully on the jaw line. You know. Look, I got
Speaker 1: a lot of hair on my head. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know if God gave me a full the full
Speaker 1: spectrum of facial hair along with the swoop, because the
Speaker 1: swoop really does. I mean, you know, I'm I'm follicularly
Speaker 1: blessed up top. I don't think I'm facially follicularly blessed.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if the I don't even know
Speaker 1: if that's a word, but you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Any of you who have beard tips, by all means
Speaker 1: share them with me. We'll see if I can make
Speaker 1: it through. I also I don't know it. All it's
Speaker 1: gonna take is one person that I respect to be like,
Speaker 1: your beard looks bad when I'm on TV, and I
Speaker 1: don't have to be like, all right, fine, um, but
Speaker 1: I did. I will tell you I did. I got
Speaker 1: to the gym three days in a row last week,
Speaker 1: and uh, and I'm gonna get three to four times
Speaker 1: a week for the next month and I'm gonna build
Speaker 1: from there. The first workouts are the hardest. Everything hurts.
Speaker 1: I'm like, my back hurts, my knees hurt, my shoulder hurts.
Speaker 1: But now I'm actually feeling a little bit of a tiny,
Speaker 1: tiny tinge of muscle fiber coming back, and I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: this is probably a good thing. I should probably keep
Speaker 1: this going. Many of you know, many of you know
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. Come on, Maria, writes Buck, I
Speaker 1: was wondering if you knew of any issues with your
Speaker 1: podcast on Stitcher. I've not been able to play for
Speaker 1: several weeks. Love the show. You give us a voice
Speaker 1: to continue when Rush can no longer do it. First
Speaker 1: of all, Mario, thank you for even mentioning me the
Speaker 1: same sentence as Rush. That is very high praise, and
Speaker 1: I think we are fine on stitcher, Brandon, that should
Speaker 1: be good, right, I don't I'm not aware of any
Speaker 1: problem on stitch. Stitcher should be fine. Or spreaker, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you guys are a spreaker. Okay, well we will have
Speaker 1: to see. We will close up shop for tonight in
Speaker 1: the Hut With that, and thank you so much team
Speaker 1: for joining. As always, do subscribe to the podcast on
Speaker 1: either iTunes or Stitcher or the iHeart app that we
Speaker 1: can listen anytime in case you missed the live broadcast
Speaker 1: on radio stations across the country with at my friends
Speaker 1: until next time, She'll tie. Maybe you've heard of the AARP, right,
Speaker 1: it's pretty well known, But what's not as well known
Speaker 1: is that the AARP scripted portions of White House speeches
Speaker 1: behind closed doors to ensure the passage of Obamacare. They
Speaker 1: also stood against tax cuts for the middle class and
Speaker 1: for small business owners in the past. So forget that.
Speaker 1: Why don't you join an organization that gives you all
Speaker 1: the upside of the AARP but none of the downside.
Speaker 1: That's AMAC am AC Why AMAC Will you see? AMAC
Speaker 1: is all about advocating for conservative policies and a conservative
Speaker 1: view of America. It's get It also gets value for
Speaker 1: its members, including discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance,
Speaker 1: dental plans, many many benefits to make your life easier
Speaker 1: and save your money. So stand with AMAC, the conservative
Speaker 1: alternative to AARP, as they fight the good fight. Join
Speaker 1: right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. AMACK is better for you, Better
Speaker 1: for America.