Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hudge is systemic racism, a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory. The LA sheriff who's calling out Lebron James,
Speaker 1: a judge in Pennsylvania says some lockdown measures are in
Speaker 1: fact unconstitutional and CDC's critical race theory training cancel. Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: coding the news and disseminating information is actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, you're a great American again. This is the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. Former CIA analysts. I can speak to
Speaker 1: three hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometime. No,
Speaker 1: welcome my friends to the buck Sexton Show. You feel
Speaker 1: that you feel that energy, friends, you see it, you
Speaker 1: know it. It's there, you can almost touch it. The
Speaker 1: battle is under way. Who's going to be running this
Speaker 1: country for the next four years? What's that going to
Speaker 1: mean for? You're free toom, your safety, your bank account,
Speaker 1: you're everything, you name it, right, your kids schooling. There's
Speaker 1: a lot that's affected by this. I wish we could
Speaker 1: say we live in a country where no one has
Speaker 1: to pay attention to who the government is, who's running
Speaker 1: it at least, but that's not the case. As we know.
Speaker 1: It's a big deal, a big difference. Wars can be
Speaker 1: started for the wrong reasons, or its can be lost.
Speaker 1: Economies can collapse and crash. It does matter who's in charge,
Speaker 1: and it does matter that we speak honestly about what
Speaker 1: the real downsides can be. But today I wanted to
Speaker 1: start with something a little bit different, a little bit
Speaker 1: less in the center of the news side. Oh, there's
Speaker 1: so much with Trump and now that we've got the
Speaker 1: Abraham Accords, we'll talk about that later on in the show,
Speaker 1: but the presidents finding these agreements for for Midi's peace
Speaker 1: between Israel, the UAE and Bahrain. But I want to
Speaker 1: start with something else, because what has really royal the
Speaker 1: country this year? As we know that the twin pillars
Speaker 1: of our politics have been COVID, the lockdowns, the response
Speaker 1: and BLM. Let's drill down into this BLM issue, which
Speaker 1: is really an ongoing conversation. That's one way of putting it.
Speaker 1: Riots and looting and violence and all this around this
Speaker 1: too and police brutality discussions, but it's really an ongoing
Speaker 1: conversation about race relations in this country. And at the
Speaker 1: center of it, there have been some theories, some concepts
Speaker 1: that we've all been told we have to accept uncritically
Speaker 1: we can't discuss, isn't it fascinating? Critical race theory is
Speaker 1: a doctrine that insists that you not be critical of
Speaker 1: the theory, that you're not allow it's based in critique,
Speaker 1: but criticism for you of these ideas is not allowed
Speaker 1: in that sense. It's kind of a rhetorical trick, isn't it.
Speaker 1: But this was fascinating. There's a guy named Matthew Frank
Speaker 1: and he is a associate director of the James Madison
Speaker 1: Program and lecturer and politics at Princeton Universities. So this
Speaker 1: is a smart guy. Never heard him before, and he
Speaker 1: wrote this. This was on the Public Discourse dot com site.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of before, but this crossed my radar
Speaker 1: and I want to tell you about this because it's
Speaker 1: fascinating and it's philosophically central to this moment we were in.
Speaker 1: No not everyone else. Today's were focused on oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump did this or Trump said that, And yeah, of
Speaker 1: course that's part of our fight, and we have to
Speaker 1: talk about that on many days too. But I want
Speaker 1: to take you into the philosophy of the fight for
Speaker 1: a moment because there are some concessions that have been
Speaker 1: made in our debates about all this. There have been
Speaker 1: some phrases, some mindsets, concepts that we've adopted consciously or
Speaker 1: not that maybe we really need to take a step
Speaker 1: back and think much more about. One of them would
Speaker 1: be white supremacy. I've been trying to raise the alarm
Speaker 1: for a few years now on this show and an
Speaker 1: every platform and an area that I can that white
Speaker 1: supremacy as a term has been expanded because it is
Speaker 1: so odious and hateful and wrong. Actual white supremacy, the
Speaker 1: notion of white people being better than other people, is irrational, immoral,
Speaker 1: and wrong. And we all agree on that. Right, our
Speaker 1: society agrees white supremacy. Bad white supremacists in movies are
Speaker 1: the bad guys. They're meant to be cheered against by
Speaker 1: the entirety of the American audience. And that is what happens. Right.
Speaker 1: They were the black boot wearing, swastika tattooed skinhead bad
Speaker 1: guys of the nineties. That's what white supremacy meant. And
Speaker 1: you could take it back to Jim Crow and to slavery,
Speaker 1: and there has been real, evil white supremacy in our history,
Speaker 1: but the term has now been expanded. Now we will
Speaker 1: hear that the judicial system is a continuation of white supremacy.
Speaker 1: That landownership, that capitalism is white supremacy. These are all
Speaker 1: things the left claims. The expansion of white supremacy to
Speaker 1: include all these other areas is just meant to be
Speaker 1: a method of attack that you can't push back against. Well,
Speaker 1: are you in favor of white supremacy all of a sudden, No,
Speaker 1: I'm in favor of capitalism. Well, capitalism, according to our
Speaker 1: new Marxist overlords on the left and the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: capitalism is a form of white supremacy. We'd say, well,
Speaker 1: wait what, and they'll say, well, look at history and
Speaker 1: look what's happened. They'll try to make this argument, but
Speaker 1: ultimately the argument is are you in favor of They're
Speaker 1: just redefining what white supremacy is. So then you have
Speaker 1: to say, wait, hold on, I'm not in favor of
Speaker 1: white supremacy. Ah, you're on defense, You're on defense. Another
Speaker 1: area of this is systemic racism. Right, systemic racism. Now,
Speaker 1: it's perhaps worth noting systematic racism would be a system that,
Speaker 1: as part of its function, produces racist outcomes. Systemic racism
Speaker 1: is just a way of saying, it's all throughout the system.
Speaker 1: It's not even just one output of a process that
Speaker 1: would be systematic. Systemic is the whole thing. There's racism
Speaker 1: oozing out of its pores, racism just billowing out from
Speaker 1: all over the entirety of the system. So systemic racism
Speaker 1: is really just a fancy way of saying everything is
Speaker 1: kind of racist that the Left doesn't like. There's racism
Speaker 1: and everything that they don't like. We've allowed this to
Speaker 1: creep into our conversations, and in fact, I've come across
Speaker 1: this many times. You'll have people who think they're intelligent,
Speaker 1: who think they're knowledgeable and wise. They're wrong, but they
Speaker 1: do believe these things. You'll have Democrats and even some Republicans.
Speaker 1: Look at Mitt Romney marching with BLM on his never
Speaker 1: ending quest to embarrass me and everybody else who voted
Speaker 1: for the guy in twenty twelve, and he's succeeding. He's
Speaker 1: succeeding in that quest. Good job, Mitte. But the whole
Speaker 1: purpose of this is to put you on defense because
Speaker 1: they'll ask you, are you saying there's no systemic racism?
Speaker 1: And you toronto and say, well, what does that even mean?
Speaker 1: And yes, in fact, I will say where is the
Speaker 1: systemic racism? Because if you're just going to judge something
Speaker 1: by the output of a system without looking at either
Speaker 1: individual circumstances and other variable that go into a system,
Speaker 1: like the judicial system, for example, you would have to
Speaker 1: explain it is our judicial system systemically anti in some ways?
Speaker 1: It is antimail if you ever spend any time in
Speaker 1: family court. But is it's esthetically anti mail? Because men
Speaker 1: are ninety percent of the of the defendants in criminal
Speaker 1: court over violent assaults more than No, that's that doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense. It's not anti maile. It's just there
Speaker 1: are more males who commit violent acts than females. I know,
Speaker 1: is oh? Is that? Who were allowed to say this? Buck?
Speaker 1: Why are you? Why are you speaking the most obvious
Speaker 1: truths that everybody already knows. You're not allowed to do
Speaker 1: that anymore. Isn't that interesting now? To borrow from one
Speaker 1: of to borrow from one of orwell is lesser known?
Speaker 1: To speak the truth in a time of universal deceit
Speaker 1: is a revolutionary act. That's what it feels like right now.
Speaker 1: There is so much universal deceit going on in it
Speaker 1: is this systemic racism construct? Now? This author I mentioned you.
Speaker 1: Matthew Frank He wrote a piece, an opinion piece in Newsweek,
Speaker 1: and it was accepted, and he wrote about this on
Speaker 1: the public discourse as it was accepted on September eleventh
Speaker 1: for publication by the opinion editor of Newsweek, Josh Hammer.
Speaker 1: I know Josh's work. Just a good guy as a conservative.
Speaker 1: He's trying to get diverse opinions on there. It was
Speaker 1: accepted and published on September fourteenth in the morning. Two
Speaker 1: hours later, the editor in chief of Newsweek, Nancy Cooper,
Speaker 1: just took it down, just took it down. Who does that?
Speaker 1: You have opinion editors that are allowed to approve and
Speaker 1: put on the side things. Here you have an academic
Speaker 1: from Princeton who writes about whether systemic racism is a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory, which it is. We'll get to that. But
Speaker 1: they pulled down this piece two hours after its publication online,
Speaker 1: which is completely contrary. You're noticing this more frequently now.
Speaker 1: That happened the New York Times with the publishing of
Speaker 1: the Tom Cotton op ed that op ed editor had
Speaker 1: to resign because he published a sitting center who, especially
Speaker 1: in retrospect, made not just an entirely within the bounds
Speaker 1: of discourse written argument, but was correct in the argument
Speaker 1: that he made that the rioting lunatics should face the
Speaker 1: force of the state. Sorry, Libs, but that was the
Speaker 1: Tom Cotton op ed of the New York Times. And
Speaker 1: now we have this Newsweek op ed. What was the crime,
Speaker 1: so to speak, that Matthew Frank committed here. Well, he
Speaker 1: wrote a piece about how systemic racism is effectively a hoax,
Speaker 1: that systemic racism as a concept is just abuse for
Speaker 1: political purposes, and it does not really exist. It is
Speaker 1: in fact a conspiracy theory because you don't have any
Speaker 1: proof of it, and it is alleged to be disprovable
Speaker 1: based upon the emotional impulses around it. In fact, when
Speaker 1: you try to disprove it, that is taken as evidence
Speaker 1: that you have fallen for the or you are part
Speaker 1: of I should say, the conspiracy. Right, you are part
Speaker 1: of the conspiracy. That's why this is It is a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory. And this really upsets liberals. This really upsets
Speaker 1: them because they think that this is a this is
Speaker 1: now a centerpiece of their ideology of their belief Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, I oppose systemic racism just like they oppose
Speaker 1: climate change, just like they believe in, you know, women's
Speaker 1: reproductive rights, these concepts that they either speak about dishonestly
Speaker 1: or they become emotionally invested in without ever thinking what
Speaker 1: is it that they're really claiming? What is what is
Speaker 1: the real claim of systemic racism is that there was
Speaker 1: racism in the past, there is racism today. If there's
Speaker 1: systemic races, show me where it is in the system.
Speaker 1: In fact, the only systemic racism that really exists is
Speaker 1: in favor in our system of black and Hispanic and
Speaker 1: Latino and Native American minorities in college admissions and for
Speaker 1: employment opportunities. That's the only systemic racial discrimination. And you
Speaker 1: can say it's positive discrimination. They come up with new
Speaker 1: terms to justify this, but it's racial discrimination. And as
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court has already written in recent years, if
Speaker 1: you want to stop discriminating by race, stop discriminating by race.
Speaker 1: It's very straightforward. But they don't like that the left
Speaker 1: is invested in this. They derive power from this, They
Speaker 1: derive moral meaning from this gihad that they can wage
Speaker 1: without actually taking any risks themselves. That's what's one of
Speaker 1: the things that's so seductive about left wing politics and ideology.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is espouse the approved phrases.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is, like a little arionette,
Speaker 1: dance to the tune that they want you to. And
Speaker 1: now they'll be nice to you, they'll help you, they'll
Speaker 1: promote you, they'll like you, and you're a good person.
Speaker 1: So this is why we have, you know, these labs.
Speaker 1: This is why you have you know, a white female
Speaker 1: Wesleyan grad who thinks that she's a warrior for racial
Speaker 1: justice by screaming epithets in the face of a black
Speaker 1: police officer in DC who's just trying to do his job.
Speaker 1: That's how you get to that point in society because
Speaker 1: people are invested in this. They like this feeling that
Speaker 1: they get that is unearned virtue. Unearned virtue is central
Speaker 1: to the Democrat mindset today. Oh I believe these things.
Speaker 1: I share them publicly. I take these positions. I vote
Speaker 1: this way, therefore I'm a good person. I don't even
Speaker 1: take the position that I vote for Republicans or that
Speaker 1: I'm a conservative because I'm a good person, although I
Speaker 1: think you could make that case, but I do it
Speaker 1: because I think it's just better correct right. It makes
Speaker 1: for a society of more safe, happy, prosperous, healthy, free
Speaker 1: human beings. But we have to keep pushing for that.
Speaker 1: It's not just oh, I take this position, therefore I'm
Speaker 1: better than other people. So what happened in this Newsweek piece?
Speaker 1: Why is systemic racism a concept that the left is
Speaker 1: so devoted to. Well we should dig into this some more,
Speaker 1: but here's the short version of what happened in this
Speaker 1: case with the piece by Matthew Frank. They could not
Speaker 1: allow the editor in chief of Newsweek could not abide
Speaker 1: a piece making this case without at least an oppositional
Speaker 1: piece running alongside it. That was the claim they made.
Speaker 1: You see friends that are always tilting the battlefield in
Speaker 1: their favor and looking at you like, I'm not weighing
Speaker 1: in on one side or the other. I'm just the
Speaker 1: journal like we're all a bunch of idiots. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom mud. This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Is systemic racism a conspiracy theory. Brilliant stuff here from
Speaker 1: Matthew Frank. You know it's good because the Libs panicked
Speaker 1: at the very mention of it, at the very title,
Speaker 1: the thesis. They can't handle it. You think if systemic
Speaker 1: racism was so easily proven, if it was so omnipresent,
Speaker 1: How many times have you heard about that? Turn on CNN,
Speaker 1: turn on MSNBC. You'll have some halfwit expert go on
Speaker 1: TV says, oh, we're all understand that systemic racism exists.
Speaker 1: In systemic racism, it's stomach. That's just kind of a
Speaker 1: fancy dressed up way of saying racism. But then when
Speaker 1: you're saying, well, if you're going to talk about a
Speaker 1: system that produces racism, show me the racism in the system,
Speaker 1: you got nothing. You get nothing. The best they can
Speaker 1: come up with is disparate impact theory. And when you say, well,
Speaker 1: what does disparate impact theory tell you? It's well, look
Speaker 1: New York City. I know the prison system here a
Speaker 1: bit because I worked the NYPD New York City. Nine
Speaker 1: of Riker's Island, which is the main prison for New
Speaker 1: York is black and Hispanic. Now are we claiming in
Speaker 1: this that or would they claim I should say that
Speaker 1: the Bureau of Prisons or that Rikers Island New York
Speaker 1: Bureau of Prisons or Rikers Island is putting innocent people
Speaker 1: in prison? Is the system racist? Is that why? There
Speaker 1: is that disparity in Rikers Island. Let's hear them make
Speaker 1: that claimant, and let's talk about that. Maybe they're right,
Speaker 1: but let's talk about that now. I think that they
Speaker 1: would not be right, but at least we could no.
Speaker 1: But instead it's just you are told to bow your
Speaker 1: head in solemnity and say you're right. You're right, there's
Speaker 1: systemic racism in and we'll where This is where Frank
Speaker 1: makes his most compelling arguments, and this is why the
Speaker 1: left was so upset with this. Here he goes, Americans
Speaker 1: quote are talking constantly these days about racism and if
Speaker 1: anyone needed reminding of its dominant historical form, specifically anti
Speaker 1: black racum, it's still a very real thing and we
Speaker 1: all have a stake in its eradication. But is systemic
Speaker 1: racism a real thing in the United States? To judge
Speaker 1: from the weakness of the case made for it, I
Speaker 1: would say no. In fact, a thesis for the existence
Speaker 1: of systemic racism looks just like a conspiracy theory, with
Speaker 1: one salient difference from other conspiracy theories. Let me explain,
Speaker 1: my friends, end quote. There is this is a thermonuclear
Speaker 1: stuff in politics. Now you're not allowed to ask these questions. Right.
Speaker 1: The Libs take this as ground they've already won. They
Speaker 1: say systemic racism, and the right runs and cowards in fear.
Speaker 1: And you say, why can't we talk? Show me this?
Speaker 1: If you want me to make this better? If I'm
Speaker 1: supposed to be an ally which is a term that
Speaker 1: is much abused, But if you want me to be
Speaker 1: an ally with you, then point to where this is
Speaker 1: and don't expect me to accept false premises or lies
Speaker 1: or misrepresentations in the specifics. Oh, it gets better. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the bus and show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. I yes. Continuing with this polled Matthew
Speaker 1: Frank piece Newsweek doesn't like to write anything or doesn't
Speaker 1: like to publish anything that's worth reading, it seems. I
Speaker 1: also I love this conceit that conservatives, and Frank writes
Speaker 1: this many conservatives, No, their views must always be balanced
Speaker 1: and contextualized in conjunct him with liberal views in the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. But liberals opinions are never treated that way.
Speaker 1: One hundred percent. You see this all the time. I'll
Speaker 1: never forget when I was at CNN and I was
Speaker 1: sitting there with a CNN anchor on set, and I
Speaker 1: asked her the question because she kept we kept doing
Speaker 1: these segments and it would be conservative political commentator Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton and political analyst Van Jones, political analyst or Gurgle
Speaker 1: and Garbor or one hundred and eighty years old, and
Speaker 1: Sexton over here wasn't around for her. Reagan Nixon administrator
Speaker 1: over or administration of Rutherford B. Hayes. Always I'm like,
Speaker 1: why don't we have this guy on TV? Or Jeff
Speaker 1: Rucker says I'm smarting or sound old and authoritator, but
Speaker 1: they would always say political analyst for this other person.
Speaker 1: It was always the other person was a political and
Speaker 1: why was I a conservative political commentator but the lib
Speaker 1: DNC pro bigandist who always got to talk more and
Speaker 1: didn't get interrupt. Look, CNN was great training. It was
Speaker 1: like going into the enemy camp for two years and
Speaker 1: seeing how all the sausage is made and it's gross.
Speaker 1: But I would see this happen, and I remember I
Speaker 1: asked the anchor, I said, why is that the case?
Speaker 1: And she looked at me with just this dumb stair,
Speaker 1: like what do you mean and I said, why am
Speaker 1: I always labeled as a conservative? But the liberal is
Speaker 1: always just a person who has expertise, a person with
Speaker 1: a point of view. Now we all know the answer
Speaker 1: to this, but I'm telling when I tell you this,
Speaker 1: I'm being serious. She's now an anchor on CNN, and
Speaker 1: was she was an anchor then, but now she's a
Speaker 1: bigger anchor. And she looked at me and it was
Speaker 1: clear from her face, and this was off camera, and
Speaker 1: being honest with that, she just had never this had
Speaker 1: never occurred to her before. See it's so you want
Speaker 1: to talk about systemic, systemic undermining and silencing of conservative
Speaker 1: voices in the American news media. That is systemic. It's
Speaker 1: all over the place. You see it. I'll show it
Speaker 1: to you. CNN doesn't even have real conservatives on air anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean, they got poor Rick Santorum, who's clearly got
Speaker 1: a mortgage to pay, so he shows up to get
Speaker 1: punched in the face over there. Feel bad for the guy.
Speaker 1: That's it. I mean, you know, what, do you want
Speaker 1: to talk about a system that is a system that
Speaker 1: is thoroughly soaked with anti conservatism. So, and I'll argue,
Speaker 1: I'll talk about who are your contributors. How much time
Speaker 1: do they get on air? How often are they You know,
Speaker 1: I can actually point to why I'm saying this is systemic?
Speaker 1: Where is the proof? Taking us back to our initial
Speaker 1: thesis here, where's the proof for systemic racism in America?
Speaker 1: If they're going to talk to me about outcomes of
Speaker 1: systems only and not what is being done by this system,
Speaker 1: I would say, I would say, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: Lots of things have spirit outcomes, right, I mean I
Speaker 1: remember it in CrossFit class, you know, seeing my bench
Speaker 1: press vers. You know, you put all your stuff on
Speaker 1: the board, and yes, I could bench press more than
Speaker 1: all of the women. That doesn't make me impressive, right,
Speaker 1: but it's a disparate outcome. Yeah, why you know is
Speaker 1: there oppression in that system? No, that's just the reality
Speaker 1: of it. There was no there was no bias against
Speaker 1: the women. It just I could you know, I'm a dude,
Speaker 1: I could bench warn, right, I mean, who who cares?
Speaker 1: I'm just feeling these days like the gym is so
Speaker 1: depressing because I haven't been in seven months. And I'll
Speaker 1: take I'll take it. I'll take any upside I can.
Speaker 1: But my point is that just because there are differences
Speaker 1: in a system. Unless you're a true Communist or Marxist,
Speaker 1: you'd have to and as we know, they create in
Speaker 1: many ways the most disparate systems where you have no rights,
Speaker 1: where the vast wealth disparities are even greater than they
Speaker 1: would be in a system like our own. Anyway, But
Speaker 1: you see here they won't even allow the debate to happen.
Speaker 1: They won't even allow the argument to occur. And they
Speaker 1: don't even they won't admit to the ways where they're
Speaker 1: trying to skew the conversation. So back to this Frank
Speaker 1: piece where he's saying that this is a conspiracy theory.
Speaker 1: Conspiracy theories are a hardy species of weed, he writes.
Speaker 1: Anti Semitism, whether left or right, thrives on them. Think
Speaker 1: of the foul fantasies of the protocols the elders of Zion.
Speaker 1: What else can explain these spread of the ludicrous q
Speaker 1: Anon examples could be multiplied, But two related features mark
Speaker 1: all conspiracy theories. First, the lack of evidence for their
Speaker 1: central claims does not count against them. Indeed, evidence of
Speaker 1: the contrary does no damage to belief in them, but
Speaker 1: is regarded as either proffered a proffered by the credulous
Speaker 1: or deliberately faked by the conspirators themselves. Second, the very
Speaker 1: denial of a conspiracy theories truth is taken as confirmation
Speaker 1: of it. The denier will typically be declared to be
Speaker 1: in on the conspiracy himself. Of course, he would say
Speaker 1: that he's one of them, judged by the presence of
Speaker 1: these two characteristics, that for its adherence is unfalsifiable, and
Speaker 1: that denial is taken as a guilty confirmation. The proposition
Speaker 1: that American society and institutions are afflicted by systemic racism
Speaker 1: has to be one of the greatest conspiracy theories of
Speaker 1: our time. So widely believed, is it? And what is fascinating?
Speaker 1: The true genius of the theory is that it has
Speaker 1: no conspirators at all. It doesn't need them. In fact,
Speaker 1: their absence is central to the theory. Is this is important?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, this isn't a huge news story today.
Speaker 1: Oh it always you're the latest Trump sweet No, this
Speaker 1: is important. This is if we're going to win not
Speaker 1: just the battle for this election, but the battle for
Speaker 1: this country's future. We have to fight back against wrong ideas.
Speaker 1: We have to fight back against destructive, incorrect, divisive ideology.
Speaker 1: And I have seen this. There is a pervasiveness now
Speaker 1: of Okay, well, the left went through a period and
Speaker 1: went into the nineties where everything was racist. Oh, everything
Speaker 1: is racist. You watch the movie PCU and there's a
Speaker 1: group of uh, you know, black activists on campus in it,
Speaker 1: and there they walk around and it's supposed to be
Speaker 1: a joke. You probably couldn't make this joke anymore, but
Speaker 1: they just walk around. You know. The tree is racist,
Speaker 1: the blackboard is racist, the stones in front of me
Speaker 1: a race. Everything is racist, right, And if everything's racist,
Speaker 1: nothing's racist, and we understand it. But now that that's
Speaker 1: systemic to it, so it adds this pseudo social science veneer.
Speaker 1: When then people feel like, oh, or maybe a non
Speaker 1: racist systemic racism. Oh okay. It's kind of like like
Speaker 1: the word strategic. You know, you add strategic to something
Speaker 1: and people all of a sudden go, oh, you're not
Speaker 1: just an analyst, You're a strategic analyst. Oh okay, you
Speaker 1: know strategic or senior right. Oh, People all of a
Speaker 1: sudden they're supposed to think differently about whatever that is,
Speaker 1: modifying a senior advisor or a senior blah bli blah,
Speaker 1: whatever it is. But now here we are with systemic
Speaker 1: racism being dissected eloquently and expertly in this essay and
Speaker 1: being declared a conspiracy theory. And you know, liberals will
Speaker 1: lose their minds over this because people don't like to
Speaker 1: think that they've been swindled, that they've been fooled. And
Speaker 1: you can't read this and think that there's not a
Speaker 1: large portion of American society that has bought into this concept.
Speaker 1: That's indefensible on the merits, that's just factually bizarrely wrong,
Speaker 1: he writes. Quote, it is usually the case with any
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory that the identity of the conspirator is a
Speaker 1: matter of some moment. There may be purported conspirators who
Speaker 1: some names are known, or they may remain shadowy figures
Speaker 1: of mystery, but someone is at fault for the ills
Speaker 1: the theory claims to explain. Not so with systemic racism.
Speaker 1: The system, a college, or a profession, or the nation
Speaker 1: as a whole is said to be suffused with racism,
Speaker 1: and asking for the identity of the culprits is supposed
Speaker 1: to be a sure sign of the inquirer's naivete. The
Speaker 1: fault for systemic racism is no one's in particular, and
Speaker 1: everyone's in general, or at least everyone not belonging to
Speaker 1: the aggrieved class of victims. This unique feature of systemic
Speaker 1: racism theory is indicated by its very name, as Brian
Speaker 1: Garner observes in Garner's modern English usage, Oh this wee
Speaker 1: get into the difference end quote. He talks about systemic systematic.
Speaker 1: But a thing quote is systemic if it affects or
Speaker 1: is a feature of an entire system system wide. Notice
Speaker 1: that no personal agency is required or indeed is any
Speaker 1: part of a systemic phenomenon. And there's the beauty of
Speaker 1: systemic racism theory. Who's to blame is never answered with
Speaker 1: any particularity that will fix responsibility on known persons, For
Speaker 1: the answer is why everyone? What could be more impervious
Speaker 1: to contrary evidence than a wholly impersonal conspiracy theory about
Speaker 1: human behavior? No one is responsible and so everyone is responsible?
Speaker 1: And therefore who end quote? There who gets to be
Speaker 1: the arbiter of how we tackle this and deal with this? Well?
Speaker 1: The high priests of systemic racism theory, don't you see? Ah?
Speaker 1: It all starts to come together, doesn't it. So I'm
Speaker 1: walking you through this because this matters. They're using this
Speaker 1: concept of systemic racism to justify why your kids are
Speaker 1: learning in school now the sixteen nineteen project, and how
Speaker 1: America is a systemically racist country. They're using this theory
Speaker 1: to jam these you know, diversity and inclusion program brainwashing
Speaker 1: programs down down your throat in companies across the country,
Speaker 1: mandatory now. And they have this like white fragility, uh fraud.
Speaker 1: You know this con woman who goes around talking about
Speaker 1: the white fragility concept all the time. Oh, isn't that amazing?
Speaker 1: If you don't agree with my systemic racism idea, clearly
Speaker 1: you're like or a fragile white person. See, it's all
Speaker 1: it's all meant to avoid debate, discussion, reason, argument, truth.
Speaker 1: It's all meant to avoid truth. It's meant to prey
Speaker 1: on people's emotions. You want to you want to be
Speaker 1: thought of a certain way. You want people to like
Speaker 1: you. You You don't want to be under a hack, you
Speaker 1: don't want to be under suspicion, So you go along
Speaker 1: with it. In that sense, it's actually very Soviet in
Speaker 1: its feeling too. Just go along, don't don't raise any issues,
Speaker 1: go along. If you go against them, you're a counter revolutionary.
Speaker 1: You must be destroyed. And that's where it derives so
Speaker 1: much of its power from. I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you about this because one, it's always noteworthy when journalists,
Speaker 1: like the editor in chief of Newsweek is willing to
Speaker 1: abandon central precept, central tenets, central promises of the profession. Right.
Speaker 1: A doctor who doesn't keep confidence with someone's medical records
Speaker 1: is not worthy of being a doctor anymore. A journalist
Speaker 1: who does not believe in the free expression of ideas
Speaker 1: and does not think that when you print something that
Speaker 1: you know is an opinion that one of your editors
Speaker 1: is put forward, pulling it to try to contextualize it
Speaker 1: in a way you won't offend your reader, is doing
Speaker 1: intellectual violence to the First Amendment. More than any of that,
Speaker 1: I suppose. I just want to put you in a
Speaker 1: position today, those of you who do me the great
Speaker 1: honor of listening to this show, and we're about to
Speaker 1: get intoelve the news, and you'll know everything that's happened
Speaker 1: in the country by listening to this show, to be sure,
Speaker 1: But I do think the philosophy matters, because when someone
Speaker 1: now thinks they've got you cornered or in one of
Speaker 1: your children comes home from school and thinks that there's
Speaker 1: only one answer to this question. When someone says to you,
Speaker 1: are you saying you don't believe in systemic racism? The
Speaker 1: answer to that question can now be yes, that is
Speaker 1: what I am saying. Prove me wrong, show me otherwise,
Speaker 1: and that, my friends will drive the left completely insane.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom und This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast, Went and Down. Friends. You know what you
Speaker 1: can always do if you want to try to win
Speaker 1: an argument and you have a losing argument, just lie right.
Speaker 1: That's what the Libs do. I'm not recommending you do this.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that's what the left does. Here is
Speaker 1: host of the View Sonny Houston, who has to has
Speaker 1: to clean up the mess that BLM activists made over
Speaker 1: the Weekend's to clean it up on TV. Here we
Speaker 1: go play six. According to a new Fox News poll,
Speaker 1: more voters classify BLM unrest as riots rather than protests.
Speaker 1: And that is scary because that's feeding into this narrative
Speaker 1: that the Trump campaign has been putting out there. And
Speaker 1: if you really look at the facts, ninety three percent.
Speaker 1: Nine percent of protests are non violent, non violent, and
Speaker 1: in fact, when Trump has put in force, has put
Speaker 1: in a federal enforcement, out of those ninety three percent,
Speaker 1: the violence ratchets up right, And so more five percent
Speaker 1: of the protests actually that are links of the Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter movement that was met by Forest by authority
Speaker 1: was met by Forest by authorities, compared to one percent
Speaker 1: of other sorts of demonstrations like COVID protests or protests
Speaker 1: about being unhappy about not being able to go to
Speaker 1: the barbershop. And so this is manufactured by the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: And I just wish that people understood that and knew that,
Speaker 1: and just looked up the real facts about protests in
Speaker 1: this country. I know that was painful to listen to,
Speaker 1: but I wanted you to hear. This is a person
Speaker 1: who is paid seven figures to go on TV and
Speaker 1: be a babbling moron. Everything that she said there is absurd.
Speaker 1: It's either just untrue or ridiculously stupid. It's embarrassing. But
Speaker 1: she's got to carry the water for her side. She's
Speaker 1: got to be on team Democrat, and that means she's
Speaker 1: gonna have to say dumb things. Now, I actually think
Speaker 1: she's smarter than what she's presenting on TV. But she's
Speaker 1: it's like she's the lawyer for BLM. She's gonna have
Speaker 1: to try to do whatever she can to keep them
Speaker 1: out of jeopardy. Not nothing else matters, No integrity, no honesty,
Speaker 1: no intellectual decency in any of this. You know what
Speaker 1: the end? You know what the percentage of protests that
Speaker 1: should be peaceful for a movement that claims to be
Speaker 1: about about justices. A hundred percent. That's what it should be,
Speaker 1: a one hundred percent. You know what they do when
Speaker 1: they burn down buildings and loot businesses and yell at
Speaker 1: people having they attack innocent human beings who have done
Speaker 1: nothing to them, who have no part of this. But
Speaker 1: even beyond that, they are inciting violence against cops. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's right, let's say it. They are inciting violence against
Speaker 1: police officers across the country because they claim, and this
Speaker 1: is a central claim, this is not a secondary, not
Speaker 1: a tertiary thing. They make the claim that police are
Speaker 1: hunting and murdering young black men out of vicious racism
Speaker 1: in a systemic way. There's that word again, systemic, And
Speaker 1: that is a lie. It's a lie. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: But people believe things that they're told that some people
Speaker 1: will take action on that, and that is what we
Speaker 1: saw over the weekend in California already early reports that
Speaker 1: as I've been saying, oh, who wants to place bets?
Speaker 1: That when you go through this guy social media, the
Speaker 1: shooter of those two Los Angeles Sheriff's deputes, who wants
Speaker 1: to place bets? You're gonna find out. Big BLM supporter, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'll take that bet. I'll give somebody ten to one
Speaker 1: odds on that bet. But the media is, oh, we
Speaker 1: don't know yet, we don't know if BLM has anything
Speaker 1: to do that. That's right, just delay and delay and
Speaker 1: run cover for evil. Good job Democrats. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the buses and show podcast. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Unleash the Deep States. I know it's not
Speaker 1: as cool as Unleash the Kraken, but you get the idea.
Speaker 1: That's what the Democrat establishment wants right now. That's what
Speaker 1: they're pushing for, that's what they're hoping for with all
Speaker 1: of this. You're starting to see it all happen. Wow,
Speaker 1: It's so easy, no matter how humiliated you were in
Speaker 1: the past, no matter how clear it is that a
Speaker 1: government employee was engaged in the most grotesque politicization of
Speaker 1: his or her job, even if they violated sacred principles
Speaker 1: of their own institution, even if they humiliated the bureaucracy
Speaker 1: with their actions. The deep state squad is getting plenty
Speaker 1: of airtime these days, no problem there at all. Easy
Speaker 1: to get on TV to be a deep stater and
Speaker 1: attack Trump. And we're just seeing the beginning of this
Speaker 1: last of this last effort. Let's start with Oh, there
Speaker 1: are so many of them. Let's start with Peter Struck.
Speaker 1: Peter Struck. Here he is, Here's what he says. How
Speaker 1: do we get them to start talking about Russia again
Speaker 1: as part of the plan. How how do we get
Speaker 1: the Libs an opportunity to call out Russia because that's
Speaker 1: what they want to do. They want to talk about Russia.
Speaker 1: Because even though you might say pock hold on hold
Speaker 1: on a saying hold on a second buck, I don't
Speaker 1: know why I got kind of texts in there for
Speaker 1: a hold on buck. No. But really, even if you
Speaker 1: would say, we haven't we proven that this is all nonsense.
Speaker 1: Haven't we proven that this is false? This is this
Speaker 1: is strange, this is absurd. They would come back and say,
Speaker 1: what do you mean that whole Special Council thing? They
Speaker 1: just didn't find all the facts. Man, there's just more
Speaker 1: out there, almost like a conspiracy theory that can never
Speaker 1: be proven wrong. It was never even and I don't
Speaker 1: know why this didn't catch on more. This was my
Speaker 1: initial theory about Russia collusion, even if Trump was willing
Speaker 1: to be that underhand, in which I do not believe.
Speaker 1: But just from a pure perspective of risk management for
Speaker 1: Trump and those around him, it's the dumbest idea in
Speaker 1: the world. You're gonna work with the Russians. We're told
Speaker 1: the Russians wanted Trump to win? What would they give?
Speaker 1: What would Trump have ever gained from working with the
Speaker 1: Russians on this? And then think of the risk that
Speaker 1: he's taking and at any point the Russians can drop that.
Speaker 1: It's it's such a dumb theory. You have to be
Speaker 1: a blanking, blinkered moron to think that this. But the
Speaker 1: country is full of people. There are losers without a
Speaker 1: thing to add to public discourse. They're not intelligent, they're
Speaker 1: not funny. They're not Who have you know, hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of social media followers now because they did the
Speaker 1: whole Russia collusion thing. Oh, I'm gonna get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of the Russia collusion at oh, this is he's
Speaker 1: a Russian asset, and then just say it was just
Speaker 1: feeding into this mania. These people should have really just
Speaker 1: followed the Kardashians or something instead, not tried to stretch
Speaker 1: their little brains. So far unbelievable. Now Russia's coming back,
Speaker 1: even though we've all been talking about this, even though
Speaker 1: we've had all these Now Russia's coming back. Here's Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: Meet the Press, the gold standard of political journalism, right,
Speaker 1: meet the press. Here's Peter Struck talking about how well
Speaker 1: I'll let him. I'll let oh, Peter Struck say at
Speaker 1: Place seventeen. Look, I think it is clear I believed
Speaker 1: at the time in twenty sixteen, and I continue to
Speaker 1: believe that Donald Trump is compromised by the Russians. And
Speaker 1: when I say that, I mean they hold leverage over
Speaker 1: him that makes him incapable of placing the national interests,
Speaker 1: the national security ahead of his own. That takes a
Speaker 1: variety of forms. I work counterintelligence for over twenty years,
Speaker 1: and I recruited spies during that time, and I defended
Speaker 1: against those people who are being recruited in our government.
Speaker 1: One of the largest ways that people in foreign governments
Speaker 1: gain leverage, and certainly in the case of the president,
Speaker 1: is through financial entanglements. And I think when you take
Speaker 1: a look at the Trump financial enterprise, particularly it's relationship
Speaker 1: with Russian with Russian moneys and potentially those related to
Speaker 1: organized crime and other elements, that those interactions have placed
Speaker 1: him in a position where the Russians have leverage over
Speaker 1: him and are able to influence his actions. Based on
Speaker 1: what top counterintelligence guy Peter struck, the FBI and CIA
Speaker 1: people are never going to think of them the same way,
Speaker 1: and they shouldn't, not after these morons have gotten through
Speaker 1: with line the public. Okay, they're financial entanglements where and
Speaker 1: also Trump's a billionaire. How much of a financial entanglement
Speaker 1: do we really think we're gonna have here? How much
Speaker 1: of a financial entanglement are we really talking about? All Right,
Speaker 1: that's something that we need to know because they've also
Speaker 1: told us that based on the emoluments Clause. They've also
Speaker 1: told us that President Trump has had his foreign policy
Speaker 1: influenced by diplomats buying cheeseburgers and having martinis at the
Speaker 1: Trump hotel. I'm not kidding. Oh, they're influencing him. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the sixty different countries that have had diplomats go have
Speaker 1: a cheeseburger or eat the delicious bacon at the Trump hotel.
Speaker 1: They're buying his foreign policy ten dollars at a time. Again,
Speaker 1: this is idiocy. I mean, intelligent people can't believe that
Speaker 1: Washington Post writes editorials on this. What kind of leverage
Speaker 1: do they think they have? Meaning, what kind of leverage
Speaker 1: do they think the Russians have against Trump? What would
Speaker 1: it be? Oh, they're gonna promise him a hotel. The
Speaker 1: guy's already a billionaire who's built a global brand now
Speaker 1: that people will remember, not just for decades, probably for
Speaker 1: centuries to come. I mean Trump is now in the
Speaker 1: history books, and the Russians have lever remember when it
Speaker 1: was the p tape, But we're supposed to forget. The
Speaker 1: FBI believe that the CIA believed that, at least the
Speaker 1: deep state libs who work there did. They thought that
Speaker 1: there really was a Trump a Trump video where he's
Speaker 1: getting a golden shower from prostagis. I mean, how much
Speaker 1: dumber is it going to get? They've learned nothing though.
Speaker 1: You see, they can't they can't allow themselves. It's like
Speaker 1: somebody who's a religious zealot can't ever answer any questions
Speaker 1: about their beliefs because even the smallest break in that
Speaker 1: in that mental armor will bring the whole thing crumbling down. Right,
Speaker 1: even the smallest chip in the wall of their belief
Speaker 1: can bring the whole thing down. That's with people with
Speaker 1: weak faith, people that don't have real arguments and understanding
Speaker 1: for their beliefs. They're very sensitive about it. That's true
Speaker 1: of the deep staters. So you have struck, and then
Speaker 1: you've got vinmin the president. Oh, here we go, here
Speaker 1: we go, play play people. This guy the whole whistle
Speaker 1: blower thing was this this loser who's like, I'm more
Speaker 1: important than Trump Arshiberd making reform policy in Ukraine. I
Speaker 1: was going to be Mukraine's defense minister. You hear about
Speaker 1: that story? Oh yeah, play eleven. The president suggested you
Speaker 1: are a never Trumper? Are you a never Trumper? I
Speaker 1: joined this administration, I joined the President's team. I joined
Speaker 1: this administration. Well, into this administration with the hopes of
Speaker 1: being able to do my job, with the hopes of
Speaker 1: being able to advance the US national security interests. I
Speaker 1: could say that I am now a never trumper. I
Speaker 1: was not a never trumper before. I was non partisan.
Speaker 1: I would be regardless of what adminstration, I would just
Speaker 1: try to do the best I could advanced national security interests.
Speaker 1: But I think as the President's attacked and politicized me directly,
Speaker 1: we and in taking a very sober review of where
Speaker 1: this president is taking this country, the divisions they catering
Speaker 1: to our adversaries, the undermining over national security interests, that
Speaker 1: I am absolutely an never trumper. Oh, now he's an
Speaker 1: ever trumper because the President was mean to him. But
Speaker 1: he wasn't an never trumper when he decided to try
Speaker 1: to undermine the sitting president of the United States with
Speaker 1: this nonsense over the over Ukraine phone call. Right, and
Speaker 1: the whistle blower. Remember I remember, Adam Schiff, No, you
Speaker 1: cannot talk, you cannot try to find that. May I
Speaker 1: denity the whistle blower is sacred. It's sacred. The total construct,
Speaker 1: total fraud. By the way, the reason we can't know
Speaker 1: the whistleblower is trying to take down a president of
Speaker 1: the United States, and basically was Vinman all along. Yes,
Speaker 1: I swear, but the Libs never, I say, They never learn.
Speaker 1: But it's really just they never change. They never changed
Speaker 1: their mind, they never change their attacks, they never change
Speaker 1: on any of this. They're impossible, or rather they're incapable
Speaker 1: of self correction, a very important tool in life. Can
Speaker 1: you self correct? Can you be honest with yourself about
Speaker 1: who you are, what you're doing, what you think, what
Speaker 1: you say, And is that the best version of you?
Speaker 1: Is that the most truthful version of you? Liberals, again,
Speaker 1: if you pull one brick out of the wall of
Speaker 1: their unearned self esteem, their unearned virtue, they're worried that
Speaker 1: the whole thing comes tumbling down. That's why they have
Speaker 1: to shut themselves off from discourse. That's why they're not
Speaker 1: willing to have a real exchange of ideas, and they
Speaker 1: create all of these echo chambers for themselves and then
Speaker 1: try to shut down the few places where conservatives have
Speaker 1: real reach in the media for ideas that half the
Speaker 1: country shares, but only about ten percent of the media
Speaker 1: is willing to share. Oh, isn't that interesting? But the
Speaker 1: never trumpers out there. You're going to see all of them.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be like the best of never Trumpers. I
Speaker 1: mean the compilation series that nobody wants, that nobody would buy.
Speaker 1: You know. Now, that's what I call never Trump. That's
Speaker 1: what's going to be. Remember those CDs. That's what's going
Speaker 1: to be coming your way. You're in the Freedom Mud.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not doing it for political reasons. I want the vaccine fast.
Speaker 1: If this were like the I call it the Obiden
Speaker 1: If this was the o'biden administration, you wouldn't have a
Speaker 1: vaccine for years because they would have taken two or
Speaker 1: three years. I've speeded up the process with the FDA.
Speaker 1: They've been great. Doctor Hahn has been great to add
Speaker 1: to the FDA. Alex Hazar has been fantastic. You know,
Speaker 1: it's been incredible what we've done because we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a vaccine in a matter of a matter of weeks.
Speaker 1: It could be four weeks, it could be eight weeks,
Speaker 1: but we're going to have it. We're getting very good
Speaker 1: results and it's really looking good. And they're great companies, Fizer,
Speaker 1: Johnson and Johnson Moderna. We have a lot of great companies,
Speaker 1: it's not just one, and they're all doing really well.
Speaker 1: It's going to be soon now. Will it be before
Speaker 1: the election? It could be in terms of we have
Speaker 1: something and we'll start delivering it immediately upon getting it.
Speaker 1: But we're very close to getting the vaccine and that's
Speaker 1: something I look forward to. You know, we've gone from
Speaker 1: thanks to the lockdown libes, we've gone from lockdown until
Speaker 1: vaccine is crazy. We'd never do that to you. Okay,
Speaker 1: we're locking down till a vaccine. They didn't really tell
Speaker 1: us that. They just decide if we're doing it. So
Speaker 1: now so it looks like we're gonna have to lockdown
Speaker 1: into long after we have a vaccine. And for all this,
Speaker 1: I just want to say thanks Fauci and company, because
Speaker 1: this is the biggest self inflicted policy disaster of any
Speaker 1: nation in generations where we're going to look back on
Speaker 1: this because there's no benefit to so much of what
Speaker 1: we've done. There's just a lot of people who are afraid,
Speaker 1: who are being used, who are refusing to have open
Speaker 1: conversations and open debate about what's really best for us
Speaker 1: to do under the situation. So yeah, that's where we are.
Speaker 1: And now they're trying to say things about the vaccine that, Look,
Speaker 1: I understand some of you. I understand some of you
Speaker 1: have your have concerns about the bodies governing us when
Speaker 1: it comes to this right now, the CDC messed up
Speaker 1: the testing originally, right the FDA, But I also know
Speaker 1: that vaccine testing like this is, if anything, too cautious,
Speaker 1: and they know that the eyes of the whole country
Speaker 1: are going to be on this at every stage. There
Speaker 1: are multiple vaccines in trial right now and looking like
Speaker 1: it's they're gonna work. But put aside for a second
Speaker 1: whether you're even going to get this vaccine or not yourself.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm probably going to get it based on
Speaker 1: what I read about it, so that I just have
Speaker 1: a greater degree of not worrying about infecting my parents.
Speaker 1: Let's say another even though I think we're through the pandemic,
Speaker 1: ninety percent through the pandemic at this point, I'm not
Speaker 1: expecting a major second wave this winter, and we'll see,
Speaker 1: you know. But then again, everyone's been wrong a lot
Speaker 1: on this whole thing. But I'm pointing to what the
Speaker 1: Democrat narrative around this is right now, because for months,
Speaker 1: let's just be clear. For months they have been saying, oh,
Speaker 1: let's listen to the experts, But now, for obvious political purposes,
Speaker 1: they are turning around and telling us I'm about the
Speaker 1: experts on this one. Bill Gates, he who is the
Speaker 1: billionaire who funds the I M. E. That had those
Speaker 1: horrifically wrong, horrifically wrong predictions about this virus and what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. Bill Gates has wondered, according to Bloomberg,
Speaker 1: whether the FDA can be trusted on a COVID vaccine
Speaker 1: right now? Oh, okay, so it was wear a mask
Speaker 1: because the CDC says so. Well, it still is that, right,
Speaker 1: wear a mask because the CDC says so. The vaccine,
Speaker 1: though I can't agree that it's safe, they'll tell you.
Speaker 1: Because the FDA can't be trusted under Trump. Why should
Speaker 1: we trust the CDC on masks but not the FDA
Speaker 1: on vaccines? I mean, you know, can they just be consistent?
Speaker 1: But you know, Bill Gates and the whole live intelligency
Speaker 1: and the media, they're going to be wondering about this
Speaker 1: particular vaccine safety right and tell about November fourth, then
Speaker 1: suddenly it will be safe and mandatory. I bet if
Speaker 1: Biden wins, don't you see, that's part of the whole
Speaker 1: Biden miracle. Biden wins, and then oh well, now we've
Speaker 1: really had the time to see that this vaccine is
Speaker 1: really going to work. And then they also have a
Speaker 1: justification for a mass inoculation, mandatory inoculation program that Biden
Speaker 1: will take credit for, and that will be also the
Speaker 1: excuse for finally letting us go back to normal life,
Speaker 1: and it will be timed perfectly with the Biden Harris
Speaker 1: campaign's political needs. That's what we're facing right now. Let's
Speaker 1: all be honest about that. That's what's going on right now,
Speaker 1: all right, There's no other reason to plane these sudden
Speaker 1: concerns that the FDA has about all this. There's no
Speaker 1: other reason to do do. I'm sorry that the people have
Speaker 1: about the FDA. There's no other reason for this. And
Speaker 1: it's becoming more and more clear. You know, cal Cunningham,
Speaker 1: who's down in running in North Carolina against Tom Tillis,
Speaker 1: this is for They had a Senate debate last night
Speaker 1: in North Carolina and he told ten million North Carolinians
Speaker 1: that he's not gonna take an FDA approved COVID vaccine.
Speaker 1: That's what we said last night, No he's not. He's
Speaker 1: not going to take it because no, no, now, look
Speaker 1: not because he thinks vaccines in general are problematic for
Speaker 1: the immune system, or that vaccines have heavy metals in them,
Speaker 1: or all these other things that you hear and look,
Speaker 1: some people in this audience, I disagree. I think vaccines
Speaker 1: have saved a whole lot of lives, and I think
Speaker 1: the numbers back that up. But you can direct your
Speaker 1: angry emails about that to producer Mark. This is not
Speaker 1: opposition to the vaccine because of concerns about This is
Speaker 1: opposition to the vaccine because they don't want people to
Speaker 1: think that we've beaten COVID before they've cast their votes
Speaker 1: in this presidential election. That's it. That's it. So after
Speaker 1: posturing as the pro science party for seven months of COVID,
Speaker 1: Democrats are about to wage the most dishonest anti vax
Speaker 1: campaign imaginable, even though it will directly cost some American
Speaker 1: lives because there are very at risk elderly people who
Speaker 1: you know, it is for those individuals getting a flu vaccine.
Speaker 1: Even though it's hit and miss. Sometimes it works, sometimes
Speaker 1: it doesn't. That's considered in the grand scheme of things
Speaker 1: good medicine, for senior citizens to get flu vaccines, for
Speaker 1: those people to not get the vaccine because of the
Speaker 1: Democrat scare campaign here is all really just because they
Speaker 1: place beating Orange Man bad over the health of the
Speaker 1: American people. Nothing else is allowed to matter. Anything that
Speaker 1: gets in the way of must be destroyed because the
Speaker 1: Libs have gone full psycho here. They don't care about
Speaker 1: your health. They don't care about that's all just pablum,
Speaker 1: all just talking points so that you say, Okay, maybe
Speaker 1: Biden's not such a bad guy. Thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: The bus Essen Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. But
Speaker 1: we have to do much more. And when the President
Speaker 1: says all they have to do is rake the leaves
Speaker 1: and ignore the climate challenge that we face, it's really
Speaker 1: quite sad. And I understand that he had an anti
Speaker 1: science rally. Is the press reported it was an anti
Speaker 1: science rally in Nevada, So you see the challenges a
Speaker 1: clear one. But I don't have any complaint about any
Speaker 1: of the cooperation that is being received from the national
Speaker 1: level to our state in California. I can't speak for
Speaker 1: the other states. Right. Listen to chief scigenist Nancy Pelosi. Hey,
Speaker 1: it was it at Science rally. At Science Rally. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh. They're gonna They're gonna cling to this mask
Speaker 1: mania for as long as they can. It's the only
Speaker 1: thing they've got left because they abandoned social distancing with
Speaker 1: the protest, so they know they're gonna get clobber on that.
Speaker 1: They can try to lie to people, gas light us,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, they abandon social
Speaker 1: distancing for BLM, which, as we now know beyond any doubt,
Speaker 1: is a destructive, dangerous, and and ultimately really pointless movement.
Speaker 1: Unless you think the point of it was to get
Speaker 1: Democrats elected and to hurt Trump and all that. Then
Speaker 1: I guess it served some purpose and to allow people
Speaker 1: to express their resentment and rage through a political prism
Speaker 1: or in the name of a political ideology, and that
Speaker 1: means smash windows, stolen merchandise, looted businesses, turned out buildings.
Speaker 1: Sure BLM did all of those things. But Trump held
Speaker 1: a rally in Nevada. I think Trump should hold more
Speaker 1: of these rallies. I think the Democrats are worried that
Speaker 1: he's running up the scoreboard, and I don't want to
Speaker 1: see that. They don't think that that's acceptable. They want
Speaker 1: to do anything they can to undermine him at this stage.
Speaker 1: And you have, in my mind at least a Democrat
Speaker 1: party that is desperately clinging to this notion of the
Speaker 1: pro science party, that anyone who just gives it a
Speaker 1: few moments honest attention will come back and say, a
Speaker 1: hold on a second. You mean the party that believes
Speaker 1: men can get pregnant, there are thirty seven genders, that
Speaker 1: there is somehow no difference between men and women except
Speaker 1: sexism is very real, that gender transition can occur before
Speaker 1: someone even hits puberty. I mean, you believe that, and
Speaker 1: that a fetus is not a baby, and that party
Speaker 1: and that the mother Earth gets angry and spews fire.
Speaker 1: It spews fire all over the forests in California, and
Speaker 1: that's why that's happening. That party wants the lecture us
Speaker 1: all on science. You know, I worked out yesterday in
Speaker 1: the gym, and I for at least a period of
Speaker 1: time because there was another gentleman in the gym, I
Speaker 1: had to have my mask on, so I'm doing dead
Speaker 1: lifts and like and like a little old lady because
Speaker 1: I've had so much muscle atrophy over the last seven months.
Speaker 1: But I'm doing my dead lips, and I got my
Speaker 1: mask on, and I'm breathing really hard, and all I'm
Speaker 1: thinking is, how does anyone think that is the air
Speaker 1: I'm spewing this stuff out? The air is just going
Speaker 1: above and below the mask. Just I'm breathing really hard,
Speaker 1: I'm shooting it all over. The mask is not stopping
Speaker 1: my air particles from flying all over. It's not doing it.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't matter. Right, This is this is the
Speaker 1: This is what the science tells us. That the science
Speaker 1: keeps changing. But they're sure about it. They're sure about it.
Speaker 1: And then there's oh, oh, let's hear from the libs
Speaker 1: other chief chief scientists, Don Lemon, that's terrifying thought play nine.
Speaker 1: Shame on the president for reading these people into this situation.
Speaker 1: But they're adults. Why are they doing this? Adults who
Speaker 1: should know better science facts. Good things are happening, he says,
Speaker 1: good things are happening. Well, not with the pandemic, but
Speaker 1: you wouldn't know it from that crowd. Now, with a
Speaker 1: pandemic or the wildfires or the hurricane, but The president
Speaker 1: doesn't want to talk about any of that. He is
Speaker 1: willing to risk the safety of his own supporters, as
Speaker 1: I just showed you just for the picture of a
Speaker 1: packed crowd indoors, so he can pretend everything is back
Speaker 1: to normal. Are you the mark? Are you being used? Hey?
Speaker 1: Ha ha? Really? Are you willing to put your lives
Speaker 1: in danger? Okay, that may be okay, fine, you want
Speaker 1: to do that, But what about other people's lives? What
Speaker 1: about the vulnerable in society, in your family that you
Speaker 1: were going to come into contact. But think about someone
Speaker 1: other than yourself. Oh, now, it's all about the Libs
Speaker 1: want us to be thinking about other people. They want
Speaker 1: you to be thinking about other people. But they don't
Speaker 1: want you taking a vaccine, even if the FDA says
Speaker 1: it's safe. But they want you to listen to the experts,
Speaker 1: but only when it comes to CDC saying wear a mask,
Speaker 1: even though the CDC has changed his mask guide and
Speaker 1: so many times I can't even keep it all straight.
Speaker 1: They want you to pretend that by wearing a mask
Speaker 1: when you enter a restaurant and then taking it off
Speaker 1: when you sit down at the restaurant, you're believing the
Speaker 1: science They want you to believe that it's necessary for
Speaker 1: me in a gym that's probably, you know, fifteen hundred
Speaker 1: square feet by myself, to wear a mask while I'm
Speaker 1: on a treadmill, because that's protecting people. This is idiocy.
Speaker 1: It's not science. It just you apply facts, reason and
Speaker 1: logic to this and realize that it's gammongering, it's lunacy,
Speaker 1: it's absurd. You don't have to be a doctor. You
Speaker 1: don't have to you don't have to be as well
Speaker 1: read as Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lemon, and you can
Speaker 1: figure this stuff out. And then there's the other ways
Speaker 1: in which they're deeply anti science. And then there's the
Speaker 1: other ways in which they've got problems or one thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Green New Deal is really just a
Speaker 1: crazy religious belief for Libs. Mike Pence has called this
Speaker 1: out play thirteen. Joe Biden wants to bury our economy
Speaker 1: under an avalanche of red tape like his own version
Speaker 1: of the Green New Deal. You know, the only thing
Speaker 1: green about the Green New Deal is how much green
Speaker 1: it's gonna cost all of us if they ever sign
Speaker 1: it in the law. It's true, it's true, But they
Speaker 1: think that they have the answers for the climate. They
Speaker 1: think they have the answers for California. You know, you
Speaker 1: know what the truth is about California. Fascinating. This guy
Speaker 1: Blomberg who is from Copenhagen, from Denmark, Copenhagen, part of
Speaker 1: the Copenhagen Consensus. I think he runs it. This guy
Speaker 1: had an editor in the New York Post laying out
Speaker 1: some of the points that I've been saying. You're the
Speaker 1: one thing that I will be honest with you. So
Speaker 1: here's what I knew before I read this, just from
Speaker 1: doing very basic research. Two degrees maybe close to three
Speaker 1: two degrees warmer in California, and they're telling you over
Speaker 1: that's about over the last thirty forty years, and they're
Speaker 1: saying that's why they're wildfires are so much worse. Okay,
Speaker 1: be in a room that goes from sixty eight to
Speaker 1: seventy degrees and tell me if you think that that's
Speaker 1: going to cause that much of an atmospheric difference, that
Speaker 1: there's there are massive conflagrations that occur. Okay, put that aside. First,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, just think this through. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be just think it through. And then also on
Speaker 1: the issue of how these are the worst fires ever
Speaker 1: the wets are wet, the hots are hot, or the
Speaker 1: fires are burning more the hurricanes and robbedy but all
Speaker 1: that stuff, right, Okay, let's think about Let's think about that,
Speaker 1: shall we for just a moment the sky Blumberg points
Speaker 1: out that there were much bigger fires seasonally that would
Speaker 1: burn in California in the eighteen hundreds, that it wasn't
Speaker 1: until they started to apply some forest forestry management to
Speaker 1: these areas of California that you would have much larger
Speaker 1: areas that would burn much larger year and year out.
Speaker 1: And that the single biggest issue here is that there
Speaker 1: has not been there has not been forestry management applied
Speaker 1: to this, so that there's a tremendous amount there's years
Speaker 1: and years worth of kindling undergrowth that builds up, which
Speaker 1: means that when it goes, the fire burns much hotter,
Speaker 1: much stronger, spreads spreads much faster than it did in
Speaker 1: the past. But that's because we have changed the way
Speaker 1: we deal with forests. But it used to be that
Speaker 1: there would be every year there'd be a big fires
Speaker 1: back the eighteen hundred California, big fires that would burn
Speaker 1: a whole lot more, much more than what is currently
Speaker 1: being burned. And now because we've we have firefighting that
Speaker 1: we do, but not a lot of forestry management. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it doesn't burn quite as far, but we keep running
Speaker 1: into this problem because of all the undergrowth. So it's
Speaker 1: managing the forest. But even even just put that aside
Speaker 1: for a moment, because libs'll argument that, let's go to
Speaker 1: the climate change thing here. Gavin Newsom, governor California, and
Speaker 1: Eric I think his name is Eric Mayor Garcetti of
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. They take the position that if we want
Speaker 1: this to stop, we need to lead the world on
Speaker 1: climate And if you think that a climate agreement that
Speaker 1: might get signed that would make Gavin Newsom happy in
Speaker 1: the next five or ten years is going to do
Speaker 1: a damn thing about forest fires in California, you're a moron.
Speaker 1: But Gavin Newsom knows that he's not. He's talking to
Speaker 1: people who it's not rational. They've been trained to believe this.
Speaker 1: Does anyone really think that California changing it's CO two output,
Speaker 1: that that's that's the thing, you know, if they've got
Speaker 1: more solar panels in California, if they have less CO
Speaker 1: two emissions in California. That's going to change the climate
Speaker 1: in a way that would affect these forest fires. That
Speaker 1: is a lunacy. That's a lot, and you know it.
Speaker 1: Just think it through. It's a clear, a clear lunacy.
Speaker 1: But that's what they're pushing for you. That's what This
Speaker 1: is what the Party of Science wants you to know.
Speaker 1: This is what the Party of Science they're They're not
Speaker 1: they're not about science. They're not about knowledge. They're about
Speaker 1: emotion and coercion and power and all this other stuff
Speaker 1: with the environment is just they've replaced God with Mother Earth.
Speaker 1: It's pathetic, it's regressive, but that's what they've done. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom mind. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: We've heard from Washington Governor j Ansley, we heard from
Speaker 1: California Governor Gavin Newson refer to these as climate fires.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that terminology is appropriate here? If
Speaker 1: we look over the last four decades, what we see
Speaker 1: is just a steady decrease in the snowpack and steady
Speaker 1: warming of the ocean off the coast, a steady increase
Speaker 1: in how dry the forests are, and how long that
Speaker 1: period is, and it just sets all the conditions for
Speaker 1: these these fires. The President I know visited California and
Speaker 1: said he just thinks, well, things will just get get
Speaker 1: better on their own. This is willful ignorance. This is
Speaker 1: putting your hands over your eyes and your ear saying
Speaker 1: I see no climate change, I hear no climate change.
Speaker 1: There is no climate change. Everything will get better. Wishful ignorance.
Speaker 1: At just it has resulted on the pandemic front of
Speaker 1: within a week we'll have two hundred thousand Americans who
Speaker 1: have died. And what we're seeing in the West is
Speaker 1: just a steady scorching of our forests and now the
Speaker 1: incineration of our towns. I mean, what do they think
Speaker 1: that California is gonna Let's assume that this guy's right
Speaker 1: on the science here, that Senator Merkley, what is the
Speaker 1: state of California is supposed to do about this? Exactly?
Speaker 1: Or let's say that all the Republicans, because we're the big, bad,
Speaker 1: evil people who don't care about everything burning down, what
Speaker 1: are we supposed to do to stop this from happening? Oh,
Speaker 1: stop global CO two emissions. Does anyone say this out
Speaker 1: loud and not hear how moronic? That is the only
Speaker 1: way to stop the fires in California is to limit
Speaker 1: global CO two emissions. It's not gonna happen, folks, It's
Speaker 1: not gonna happen. And as I've already told you, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of other reasons why these fires are
Speaker 1: what they are, And if they really wanted to deal
Speaker 1: with this, they would have to do controlled fires. But
Speaker 1: controlled fires come with some risk, never entirely controlled. They
Speaker 1: also burn a lot of stuff that people get upset about.
Speaker 1: Environmentalists get upset, Oh, you're burning the trees. I don't
Speaker 1: want to do that. Some other nature comes in and
Speaker 1: just does it. That's what ends up happening. But you know, friends,
Speaker 1: it's Trump is anti science, Trump is anti women, Trump
Speaker 1: is a racist, Trump is a trader. You know, all
Speaker 1: the things we've heard before. That's what you're going to
Speaker 1: be treated to this time around. Also that we can
Speaker 1: vote for Joe Biden, who we all recognize is a
Speaker 1: dotterering old buffoon. But nonetheless they want you to think
Speaker 1: that he's going to make everything so much better, so
Speaker 1: much better, that's the plan. Oh, and they want to
Speaker 1: blame trump support for all Trump's the borders somehow, the
Speaker 1: reason forever we're the reason for the pandemic, or the
Speaker 1: reason for climate change, or we're the reason for all
Speaker 1: of these things. They keep wanting to tell us what
Speaker 1: to do based on their idiotic ideas, and also somehow
Speaker 1: think that we're the reason that all these things are happening.
Speaker 1: Isn't that fascinating? Here's joy Anne Reid still hasn't found
Speaker 1: the hateful bigots who hacked into her blog from ten
Speaker 1: years ago to make her a homophobe. You know, she
Speaker 1: said the FBI was investigating. We still haven't. Gosh, still
Speaker 1: haven't found those people that hacked hacked into her blog?
Speaker 1: In quotes, Yeah, sure, here she is play seven. I mean,
Speaker 1: a lot of people have been giving up stuff, giving
Speaker 1: up parties with their families, birthday parties with their grandparents,
Speaker 1: and for their kids, funerals. People have been skipping funerals.
Speaker 1: People have been making tremendous sacrifices to try to end
Speaker 1: this nightmare. And Trump fans are taking the opportunity to
Speaker 1: fly to other states, to other states go attend a
Speaker 1: mask free rally. We're looking here at the crowds were
Speaker 1: not wearing masks in front of Trump. They festooned some
Speaker 1: behind him so that they'd be on camera looking like
Speaker 1: they were doing the right thing, but the ones in
Speaker 1: the crowd weren't. Those people are going to be in
Speaker 1: the walmart with people who didn't choose to be, you know,
Speaker 1: completely irresponsible. This strikes me as the reason we can't
Speaker 1: get past this because there are some people. It's not
Speaker 1: just Trump, it's other people who are deciding to take
Speaker 1: risks with the rest of our lives. Just so much
Speaker 1: stupidity in one sound bite. It's amazing, isn't it. Was
Speaker 1: she so critical of all the BLM protests, which, yeah,
Speaker 1: some of them were masks, they weren't social distancing, and
Speaker 1: a lot of them weren't wearing masks. Did she take
Speaker 1: the time to say that we had lost the right
Speaker 1: to have funerals and birthday parties and graduations. But BLM
Speaker 1: was having their massive protests for weeks and weeks on
Speaker 1: the streets so they could talk about how much they
Speaker 1: hate cops and how the white oppressor is destroying America
Speaker 1: as per critical race theory. Did she have a problem
Speaker 1: with any of that. No, No, But she's got a
Speaker 1: problem with Trump holding rallies where not everybody is wearing
Speaker 1: a mask. You know, they mask shame selectively and wonder
Speaker 1: why we don't take this more seriously. Other countries that
Speaker 1: have decided that that masking have recognized that masking is
Speaker 1: not some huge weapon against this virus. We don't want
Speaker 1: to hear from them. We don't want to listen to that.
Speaker 1: We've decided that this this is now it. You know
Speaker 1: you mask or you're a bad person, and this is absurd,
Speaker 1: but this is where we are. This is what they
Speaker 1: will say to you. Oh, speaking of absurdity, here's Bro
Speaker 1: Cuomo on the BLM shooting of the weekend. Need to
Speaker 1: hear this play eight the extent of what we know.
Speaker 1: That's it. I just showed it to you. Anyone who
Speaker 1: says they know why this happened is pushing an agenda
Speaker 1: because we don't know anything other than what you just saw.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of crazy people. I know,
Speaker 1: we don't like that word with mental health awareness, and
Speaker 1: I'm all about that, But you know what, that guy
Speaker 1: either has a bad mind, a bad soul, or bad brain,
Speaker 1: or a combination of all of them. Yeah, let's not
Speaker 1: jump to conclusions that the guy that killed two police
Speaker 1: officers in south central Los Angeles. I'm sorry to try
Speaker 1: to kill to sheriff's deputies in south central Los Angeles
Speaker 1: over the weekend. Let's not jump to conclusions and think
Speaker 1: that maybe the constant drumbeat in the media of cops
Speaker 1: or murdering black men constantly. Let's not assume that that
Speaker 1: had anything to do with this, or I should say,
Speaker 1: let's not analyze the situation and come to that preemptive
Speaker 1: conclusion subject to repudiation by the facts as they additionally
Speaker 1: come in. Right. Sure, this is just like what they
Speaker 1: do with with Jihatat terrorism. We may never know the motive.
Speaker 1: The guys run around yelling Alahu walk bar with a
Speaker 1: suicide vest on, saying he's doing for ices, but we
Speaker 1: may never know the real motive. I'm with this guy. Oh,
Speaker 1: let's not jump to conclusions. Let's wait until there are
Speaker 1: other things in the news cycle and people forget that
Speaker 1: there were also BLM protesters on video blocking ambulance access
Speaker 1: for these deputies as they were trying to fight for
Speaker 1: their lives. Let's just let's pretend like Nona, let's not
Speaker 1: connect any of the dots. That's right. Cuomo, for his
Speaker 1: audience's benefit, will pretend to be a moron because it
Speaker 1: makes the audience feel are we don't know what happened here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, you never really know when you're talking about
Speaker 1: a motive. You make the best guests you can with
Speaker 1: the facts as presented, and this one seems pretty clear.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the bus seton show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Well, we have a lot
Speaker 1: of countries that want to come in. So for years
Speaker 1: and years, these clowns have liked to criticize me. Well
Speaker 1: we disagree, disagree. Well, they never got anything. They never
Speaker 1: got anything done. They've been fighting for peace in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, and when I came in, I was told
Speaker 1: it was an impossible thing. You could never get it done.
Speaker 1: And we went around the other way. Instead of dealing
Speaker 1: with the Palestinians, we took the money away. We used
Speaker 1: to give them seven hundred and fifty million. Then they
Speaker 1: treat us badly. I said, why don't they treat uspaily?
Speaker 1: We give them all this money. Nobody ever did this.
Speaker 1: I took it away. They're going to make a deal.
Speaker 1: You watch. But we started dealing with other people and
Speaker 1: everyone said this couldn't happen, and we made a deal
Speaker 1: with Uie, led by a man to Mohammed, who's a
Speaker 1: great leader, a great warrior, and we made a deal
Speaker 1: with UIE. Then Bahrain came in, and we have many
Speaker 1: others going to be coming in over a short period
Speaker 1: of time, and the Palestinians will ultimately come into and
Speaker 1: you're gonna have peace in the Middle East without being
Speaker 1: stupid and shooting everybody and killing everybody and having blood
Speaker 1: all over the sand. President Trump letting everybody know there
Speaker 1: are deals that are getting done. It's not just all talk.
Speaker 1: Deals that are getting done in the Middle East, increasing stability,
Speaker 1: helping our ally Israel, and bringing more Muslim nations closer
Speaker 1: to the US foreign policy goals in the region. Let's
Speaker 1: talk to somebody about exactly how momentous this all is.
Speaker 1: We have our friend David if fun with us now.
Speaker 1: He's the editor in chief of the Alga Miner. David
Speaker 1: as always great to have you, always a pleasure. But
Speaker 1: so first telling me what's going on today. We got
Speaker 1: the White House, the Abraham Accords, deals getting signed. Let
Speaker 1: everybody know what's happening. Well, I think I said this
Speaker 1: once before, but I think this best captures it. The
Speaker 1: President's approach to dealing with the Middle East can best
Speaker 1: be described as a massacre of sacred cows. And in
Speaker 1: that clip that you just played, the President referred to
Speaker 1: it the approach that they've taken. Where they've taken really
Speaker 1: looked at everything with a fresh set of eyes, and
Speaker 1: came to the conflict rial the region for so long
Speaker 1: from a completely new direction, and that is really to
Speaker 1: focus on the countries that are much closer to Israeli interests,
Speaker 1: have a much more pragmatic approach to their foreign policy,
Speaker 1: and those that are sort of standing on the threshold
Speaker 1: of peace with the Jewish State start with a low
Speaker 1: hanging fruit, if you will, and the rest will follow.
Speaker 1: So today we saw a signing on the White House lawn,
Speaker 1: aptly named the Abraham Accords, named after the children of
Speaker 1: name for the children of Abraham. Obviously, Abraham's two children,
Speaker 1: Isaac and Ishmael, are said to represent the Muslim world
Speaker 1: and the Jewish world, bringing them both together in an
Speaker 1: historic moment, with United States brokering a deal between Israel
Speaker 1: and the Gulf States of Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates,
Speaker 1: the first such peace deal in the region. Since nineteen
Speaker 1: ninety four when you and me Buck were kids. Indeed,
Speaker 1: so I was no, no, no, for sure, I was
Speaker 1: a young buck back then. But David, this is these
Speaker 1: deals will mean what assuming they're implemented as planned? What
Speaker 1: are the changes here? We hear about normalization of relations
Speaker 1: between Israel, the UAE, Israel and bach Rain. How big
Speaker 1: a deal is that? Well, what does that actually mean
Speaker 1: for the people in those countries? Well, the incredible thing
Speaker 1: about these agreements, as opposed to past agreements that Israel
Speaker 1: has signed with both Egypt and Jordan, is that what
Speaker 1: was seeing on the ground for the people, as you say,
Speaker 1: is an incredible warmth and an incredible willing to cooperate
Speaker 1: and to work together and to get to know each
Speaker 1: other and to sort of integrate societies. So there's a
Speaker 1: huge business an economic component here. There's air travel running
Speaker 1: between the two countries, including over Saudi Arabia, who of
Speaker 1: the first time has agreed to allow air travel from
Speaker 1: Israeli aircraft across its airspace. But there's also a security element,
Speaker 1: which is super important. There's a lot of shared concern
Speaker 1: between Israel and the Girls States and others in the
Speaker 1: region over Iranian expansionism, which is a big issue of course,
Speaker 1: all forms of extremism on the ground. But I think
Speaker 1: beyond that, there is a whole host of challengers that
Speaker 1: are faced by states in the region, primarily water challenges,
Speaker 1: agricultural challenges, cybersecurity challenges that Israel has faced and found
Speaker 1: incredible solutions too. And some of the biggest challenges that
Speaker 1: are facing the UAE and Bahrain today have easy, out
Speaker 1: of the box solutions that have been developed in Israel.
Speaker 1: So what's incredible about this deal is that it's not
Speaker 1: necessarily moral or ideological or charitable. In terms of how
Speaker 1: these states have changed their view is interest First. The
Speaker 1: interests have aligned in a way that has bought people together,
Speaker 1: and that's really the bedrock of the long lasting, warm,
Speaker 1: and far reaching, secure stable piece that we're seeing emerging today.
Speaker 1: Speaking to Dovidafune, editor in chief of the Alga Minor,
Speaker 1: great news site that focuses on Israeli, Jewish and Mideast issues, Dovid,
Speaker 1: what would you like to see? Now we don't know
Speaker 1: if Trump is going to get four more years or not.
Speaker 1: Let's assume for our purposes that he does. What would
Speaker 1: you like to see as the follow on agreements actions,
Speaker 1: and now that it sounds like we have we have
Speaker 1: momentum here, perhaps we even have a framework for a
Speaker 1: more durable future mid East piece, What do you want
Speaker 1: to see as the next steps If Trump gets those
Speaker 1: four more years and has his team pursuing these goals, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty confident that the outcome of this election in
Speaker 1: the United States will tell us about the future of
Speaker 1: deston stability in that region. There's no question that there
Speaker 1: are some actors that are sort of lukewarm, sitting on
Speaker 1: the fence, that are waiting to see the outcome of
Speaker 1: the election. There's an understanding that the America's diplomatic relations
Speaker 1: are going to hit in a very different direction if
Speaker 1: there is to be a Biden administration, and they want
Speaker 1: to wait and see what happens. They're not ready to
Speaker 1: quite jump in right now at a moment where things
Speaker 1: may change quite dramatically. So I'm pretty confident that those
Speaker 1: that are on the fence are waiting to see where
Speaker 1: things go, and we'll jump in if Trump is reelected.
Speaker 1: There are also those that I wouldn't describe as sitting
Speaker 1: on the fence, but really malicious actors in the region,
Speaker 1: including the Iranians and others like that who are also
Speaker 1: trying to wait out the Trump administration and the hope
Speaker 1: that they're going to have a more charitable administration following
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Suddenly there's indication from the b In
Speaker 1: camp that he would sort of follow the Obama approach
Speaker 1: when it comes to dealings with a run. And the
Speaker 1: Palestinians as well. I mean, they're they're putting out statements,
Speaker 1: they're opposing the normalization that we've seen today. They're sort
Speaker 1: of jumping up and down, they're selking, they're crying, they're
Speaker 1: not presenting any alternatives. But it's pretty clear that that
Speaker 1: their strategy in terms of moving forward is just to
Speaker 1: wait and see what happens. But if there is another
Speaker 1: four years of the Trump administration, they're going to be
Speaker 1: between a rock and a heart place and they're going
Speaker 1: to have to take steps if they want to avoid
Speaker 1: a firm and deterioration of their diplomatic standing. They're going
Speaker 1: to be forced to take steps, which is really necessary.
Speaker 1: This sort of jolt and earthquake under their feet to
Speaker 1: get them to move forward and to take the risk
Speaker 1: to the necessary for peace to come to the table
Speaker 1: and to get real and to get serious about it.
Speaker 1: But what would be the next realistic step in this
Speaker 1: process that if you could, if we could get an
Speaker 1: agreement on next degree similar to the bob Rain or
Speaker 1: UAE deal, what would be the country and what would
Speaker 1: it stipulate. But leave aside the Palestinians for a second,
Speaker 1: let's talk about other actors in the region. Well, there
Speaker 1: there are a whole host of others that have, you know,
Speaker 1: let's say, express tepid interest in the way things are developing.
Speaker 1: The most obvious is Ohman. There was a there was
Speaker 1: a bit of a you know, a screw up with
Speaker 1: Sudan where where fun Ministry spokes and put out a
Speaker 1: statement saying that they were jumping into the circle of
Speaker 1: peace as it's been referred to as well. But then
Speaker 1: they walked it back. But I don't think they're too
Speaker 1: far down the line. The biggest prize, the big prize
Speaker 1: is Saudi Arabia and the movement that we're seeing now
Speaker 1: opening up the airspace. The very fact that Bahrain was
Speaker 1: part of the agreement that we saw today, and of
Speaker 1: course bahrain Is is almost a vassal state of Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 1: just sort of completely dependent on the Saudis for absolutely
Speaker 1: everything that couldn't have happened with that out to Saundy
Speaker 1: blessing and approval. So that's something that we could see
Speaker 1: coming up pretty soon. It's more delicate there in terms
Speaker 1: of the Saudi geopolitical position, but I think it's just
Speaker 1: a matter of time. It's inevitable. So you think we
Speaker 1: could get an Israeli a US broker Israeli Saudi peace
Speaker 1: deal in the next four years of a Trump presidency. Possibly,
Speaker 1: I do. And the chances of that happening are about,
Speaker 1: let's say, fifteen times more likely if Trump is reallected.
Speaker 1: Dovit Ifu and everybody the Alga minor check it out
Speaker 1: at Alga miner dot com. Dovid always good to have
Speaker 1: you all, my friend. We'll talk soon. Likewise, Tak you're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Mind. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: I like this story. I think it's good. Let let's
Speaker 1: see what these professional athletes, superstar, millionaire celebrity are really
Speaker 1: all about. The La County sheriff calls on Lebron James. You're,
Speaker 1: according to CBS Los Angeles affiliate to step up to
Speaker 1: the plate and double the reward to find the gunmen
Speaker 1: in the ambush of the two deputies. Sheriff Alex Villanueva
Speaker 1: challenging lakerstar Lebron James to contribute to efforts to find
Speaker 1: the gunman who shot to Los Angeles County deputies at
Speaker 1: point blank range. Villanueva made the challenge during an interview
Speaker 1: on a local radio show. There are two private pledges
Speaker 1: tolling seventy five thousand dollars in addition to the hundred
Speaker 1: thousand from the county, but the sheriff is calling on
Speaker 1: James to kick in one hundred and seventy five thousand
Speaker 1: or three hundred and fifty thousand dollars. I want to
Speaker 1: make a challenge, Lebron James, he said, I want you
Speaker 1: to match that and double that reward because I know
Speaker 1: you care about law enforcement. Quote. You expressed a very
Speaker 1: interesting statement on race relations and officer involved shootings and
Speaker 1: the impact that it has on the African American community,
Speaker 1: and I appreciate that, But likewise, we need to appreciate
Speaker 1: that respect for life goes across professions racist creeds, and
Speaker 1: I'd like to see Lebron James step up to the
Speaker 1: plate and double that. Do you think Lebron James is
Speaker 1: gonna do this, and of course not. Now, look I
Speaker 1: know how the libs are gonna try to defend this.
Speaker 1: Was like, oh, what is Lebron James supposed to be
Speaker 1: the one person who's Yeah, but it's the principle. Lebron
Speaker 1: James could also just say, look, I'm not writing checks
Speaker 1: for everything here, but he could publicly state the shooting
Speaker 1: was was horrific and wrong and does not represent anything
Speaker 1: that Black Lives Matter is supposed to be about. He
Speaker 1: can very easily do that. But no, Instead we have
Speaker 1: Jamiel Hill, who says insane stuff on social media on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. She says she had a response here.
Speaker 1: She said that the sheriff quote shouldn't be using the
Speaker 1: cold blooded murder of two officers to bully a celebrity
Speaker 1: and further a bad narrative that demanding police accountability means
Speaker 1: you sanction violence against the police. End quote. No that's
Speaker 1: not you don't you're not demanding accountability. No. No, I
Speaker 1: like this is cute, This is clever. I like the
Speaker 1: little rewrite here that we always get from the Libs
Speaker 1: on this. The basis of BLM is the murder of
Speaker 1: unarmed black men is systemic, rooted in racism, widespread and continuous.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. But they don't say it's rare.
Speaker 1: They don't say that those officers are either often justified
Speaker 1: in the shootings that have become central to the BLM movement,
Speaker 1: or it was a mistake. No, no, no, they will.
Speaker 1: They don't say that. They just continue on with the
Speaker 1: lie police accountability. The officers involved in these things lose
Speaker 1: their jobs and face life in prison, even when sometimes
Speaker 1: they do they have done a shooting that's entirely defied,
Speaker 1: justified under the law and under morality. But oh no,
Speaker 1: now it's about police accountability. See, friends, how we bring
Speaker 1: this full circle. Just like they want you to agree
Speaker 1: with systemic racism, now you have to agree with police accountability.
Speaker 1: Are police not accountable? Show me where? Show me where
Speaker 1: the police are not accountable? And let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: Show me where cops murder on armed black men with
Speaker 1: no you know, with no consequences against them, against the officers.
Speaker 1: Show me where this is happening. Mike Brown, No, Mike
Speaker 1: Brown deserve to get shot. They can keep talking about this,
Speaker 1: and it's sad and you never want anyone to get shot,
Speaker 1: but Mike Brown attacked a cop according to black eyewitnesses
Speaker 1: and the DOJ. According to Eric Holder and the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: Mike Brown got what was a legally justified shooting. But
Speaker 1: they still talk about this. Why why they bring up
Speaker 1: Trayvon Martin. They say, Oh, it's because he was wearing
Speaker 1: a hoodie. Trayvon Martin was shot by a Hispanic neighborhood
Speaker 1: watch guy. It wasn't even I don't think he was
Speaker 1: an officially part of it. He thought of himself as
Speaker 1: neighborhood watch. And Trayvon Martin was shot at least in
Speaker 1: part because he tried to bash the guy's head into
Speaker 1: the concrete and he happened to have a gun. It
Speaker 1: was a bad move for Trayvon Martin, who was an
Speaker 1: adult male and six feet tall and one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty pounds. Despite the photo of a twelve year old,
Speaker 1: the media liked to show all the time as the
Speaker 1: Trayvon Martin photo in the media right, just like the
Speaker 1: Mike Brown photo was always him in his cap and gown.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if I could find a cap
Speaker 1: and gown photo of me. That's the only photo from
Speaker 1: all of his social media they'd used, though Mike Brown
Speaker 1: honor student to read it bonfire the vanities. This was
Speaker 1: seen as a tactic that Tom Wolfe wrote about decades ago. Right,
Speaker 1: I could take the person who may have even been
Speaker 1: an aggressor, but for the purposes of a specific narrative
Speaker 1: of racial injustice, turned them into some kind of a hero.
Speaker 1: Right Jacob Blake. Kamala Harris shows up and says that
Speaker 1: Jacob Blake, she's proud of him. He's an alleged rapist,
Speaker 1: but she's proud of him. When will any of this
Speaker 1: madness stop? I don't know. People don't want to have
Speaker 1: discussions rooted in reality and in what is obvious and
Speaker 1: what is visible and what we all know. Instead, they
Speaker 1: want to create narratives. They have a story, they stick
Speaker 1: to it. They put a lot of false assumptions in it.
Speaker 1: They put a lot of either cherry picked or just
Speaker 1: flatly incorrect data in it, and then say this is
Speaker 1: what we this is the conclusion you draw from this.
Speaker 1: And if you say, well, hold on, I don't draw
Speaker 1: that conclusion, they say you're not allowed to question it.
Speaker 1: We are, however, allowed to question the critical race training.
Speaker 1: Critical race theory training that the CDC was planning on
Speaker 1: doing in contravention of the Trump executive order that was
Speaker 1: supposed to stop this kind of thing. They go ahead
Speaker 1: with this anyway, And that tells you a lot about
Speaker 1: the nature and the the approach of the deep state,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. But they were planning at the Centers for
Speaker 1: Disease Control to do one of these training sessions where
Speaker 1: they talk about white oppression and white privilege, and you
Speaker 1: know how bad all the white stuff is that's going on.
Speaker 1: It's it's really awful. And everyone's told, everyone told that
Speaker 1: they have to agree with this. You have to even
Speaker 1: get on your knees. You know the quote White Allies
Speaker 1: in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, where there were riots because the cops
Speaker 1: shot a guy who was Hispanic trying to stab an
Speaker 1: officer to death with a knife. They still had riots though,
Speaker 1: BLM riots the Spanic guy trying to kill a cop
Speaker 1: of the knife. BLM riots anyway. Yeah, that's that's the
Speaker 1: world we live in now. They told the White Allies
Speaker 1: on video to get on their knees. That video is
Speaker 1: that you get on your knees and beg forgiveness from
Speaker 1: the BLM gods. Yeah, I don't think. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: Not on my watch, ladies and gentlemen, Not on my watch.
Speaker 1: But I'm happy to see that the CDC has been
Speaker 1: slapped down. And now the latest on this is that
Speaker 1: they will not be doing their critical race theory training,
Speaker 1: even though initially Christopher Ruffo, who's tracking all this stuff down,
Speaker 1: said that they were moving forward with a critical race
Speaker 1: theory training program, and he obtained leaked documents. It was
Speaker 1: a thirteen week series called Naming, Measuring and Addressing the
Speaker 1: Impacts of Racism on the Health and well being of
Speaker 1: the nation. The first three training sessions were focused on racism, sexism,
Speaker 1: and systems of structured inequality. This is what they're going
Speaker 1: to be brainwashing CDC employees with thanks for listening to
Speaker 1: the buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: So I know it's now been aboarded training thanks to
Speaker 1: the President's executive order and the attention that was given
Speaker 1: to the plan to just go forward with it anyway.
Speaker 1: But Christopher Rufo was actually obtained obtained the info about
Speaker 1: these training sessions, and I think you should know what
Speaker 1: was being planned for critical race theory training within the
Speaker 1: Centers for Disease Control the CDC. Here you go, and
Speaker 1: this is all from Christopher Ruffo, who's been the guy
Speaker 1: unearthing all all of this information. He was on Tucker
Speaker 1: Show recently. It's really fascinating stuff. In sessions, the first
Speaker 1: three sessions, as we just discussed, were racism, sexism, and
Speaker 1: other systems of structure structured inequality. Then teaching CDC employees
Speaker 1: that they must address institutionalized racism and really said things
Speaker 1: right in the garden of a racist nation. This is
Speaker 1: all from the official training materials that they have already
Speaker 1: taught at the CDC in the past, I'm sure, and
Speaker 1: we're about to teach again if it were not for
Speaker 1: the Trump executive order on this. In Sessions six through nine,
Speaker 1: the CDC claims that quote racism is a public health
Speaker 1: crisis and that systemic racism there you go. Systemic racism
Speaker 1: leads to police killings of unarmed black and brown men
Speaker 1: and women and lead to the disproportionate impact of COVID
Speaker 1: nineteen on communities of color. See systemic racism. That's always
Speaker 1: that we've already talked about that what systemic or what
Speaker 1: is systemic racism, Where does it exist within the syst
Speaker 1: find me word, Who's responsible for making it happen within
Speaker 1: this system? Who's who's pushing the decisions or the frame
Speaker 1: work that leads to this systemic racism roof continues here.
Speaker 1: In sessions ten and eleven, the trainers will teach CDC
Speaker 1: employees that they must target and destroy the values of
Speaker 1: focus on the individual, the myth of meritocracy, and the
Speaker 1: myth of American exceptionalism and white supremacist ideology. All of
Speaker 1: this is textbook critical race theory. This is what is
Speaker 1: being taught friends, end quote there of this is what
Speaker 1: is being taught in federal institutions with your tax dollars.
Speaker 1: Employees are being told this is what you must believe.
Speaker 1: Federal government bureaucrats are trained, right, that's that word, trained
Speaker 1: to think this way, trained to think this is true.
Speaker 1: And yet we're supposed to believe this is in any
Speaker 1: way helpful. This is going to build a better society.
Speaker 1: And in the final session of the CDC teaching quote,
Speaker 1: employees are taught how to become activists. They will be
Speaker 1: encouraged to join an anti racism collaborative with eight collective
Speaker 1: action teams focused on communications, making, scientific publications, anti racists,
Speaker 1: and influencing policy and legislation. The whistleblower came to RUFO
Speaker 1: rights quote. I thought maybe they would wisely cancel this
Speaker 1: training series. Instead, we got a message this morning confirming
Speaker 1: this was yesterday. The pressure to participate is palpable, and
Speaker 1: if you don't, you will have to explain why you
Speaker 1: aren't a racist. That's right, friends, in the middle of
Speaker 1: a pandemic, the CDC is spending time on white supremacy
Speaker 1: and destroying white supremacist ideas according to these training materials,
Speaker 1: like the meritocracy exists. It's amazing, isn't it. Russ Vaught,
Speaker 1: who is the director of OMB, he came out and
Speaker 1: said glad to report per the president's director of the
Speaker 1: training is canceled immediately. So sanity prevailed this time around.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that it's usually winning. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean it's usually the case. Friends. We've got to continue
Speaker 1: to look at this and shine the light of honestly
Speaker 1: public outrage on this. I mean, it is stunning, stunning
Speaker 1: what we keep seeing with all this stuff really is
Speaker 1: really astonishing. Oh one more thing, I got to spend
Speaker 1: more time on this tomorrow before we get to roll call.
Speaker 1: But a judge in Pennsylvania has said that some lockdown
Speaker 1: measures are unconstitutional. You don't say we're thinking about this.
Speaker 1: We've had businesses shut down, We've had masked mandates put
Speaker 1: in place, We've had all these things, no legislation. This
Speaker 1: is just by executive FIA. I mean, we've had a
Speaker 1: stress test of how much America will accept tyranny, and
Speaker 1: we've just all decided to go along with it. Oh sure,
Speaker 1: why not? What's the worst that could happen? We're seeing
Speaker 1: what the worst is that could happen. It's it's the
Speaker 1: dissolution of our freedoms. Our rights are property all because
Speaker 1: people are panicked and so scared all the time because
Speaker 1: of the media. Darn it, you're in the freedom hud.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck sexon Show podcast. Hey, Team Buck,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. Roll call everybody, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck sexon Team Buck, and iHeartMedia dot com. That's
Speaker 1: how you get down with the roll call. Also, you
Speaker 1: could send us a direct message ou massage I believe
Speaker 1: in French. If you would like, you can do this.
Speaker 1: You can do this on Instagram too. Just go to
Speaker 1: buck Sexton and we'll get your stuff on the air,
Speaker 1: which is always fun for it always fun for everyone.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, do you ever watched the show Locked Up Abroad?
Speaker 1: I think so? Actually do Is that like the locked
Speaker 1: Up but you know the locked up in America but abroad?
Speaker 1: Kind of Yeah? Yeah, yeah, but it's always I was
Speaker 1: talking about brothers about this over the weekend because we
Speaker 1: were saying, what would be We're having a conversation is
Speaker 1: we're taking a little trip together, the two brothers in
Speaker 1: me and we're taking a little trip, and I would saying,
Speaker 1: what would be the worst country to be locked up
Speaker 1: abroad in? But not not including like Iran, North not
Speaker 1: including access of evil countries, so Ron, North Korea? But
Speaker 1: where were the worst places? And then we just realized
Speaker 1: that every one of these shows, it's like the same.
Speaker 1: It's always a guy who's I was on all the day.
Speaker 1: It's always a British guy. By the way, He's like,
Speaker 1: I was on all the day. I was a lot
Speaker 1: in I was a lot in Vietnam, And I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: I mean, mum, you know I should have I'll fly
Speaker 1: it down here. I'll make some extra cash by just
Speaker 1: taking this package and I'll put him in my bag,
Speaker 1: you know, I'll travel to the next place, you know,
Speaker 1: in Malaysia. It's a great place in Malaysia. And then
Speaker 1: they went through him in bag and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden it was a different story altogether. Like and then
Speaker 1: they're like dunt undone the guys like caught with drugs,
Speaker 1: and he's like, you know what I mean, it's always
Speaker 1: the same thing. So this is a public safety announcer
Speaker 1: for everybody. Definitely, don't travel to any country, but particularly
Speaker 1: a despotic Islamic country in say Southeast Asia or the
Speaker 1: Middle East, carrying like a kilo of heroin to make
Speaker 1: some extra money while you're on vacation. That's a bad idea. Wait,
Speaker 1: that's not a good idea. I thought I was advised
Speaker 1: bad idea to do that. Yeah, it's amazing. You have
Speaker 1: to tell people. That's amazing. These guys, it's like they're
Speaker 1: like a lot. It was having a great time on
Speaker 1: the beach. I'm like, I'm like surfing, I'm loving it,
Speaker 1: but I'm running out of money and them on Hola
Speaker 1: day and I need to make more cash, so I'll
Speaker 1: take this brick of heroin and I'm like Oh, but
Speaker 1: this guy who gave it to me such a cool cat, Like,
Speaker 1: what could really go wrong? And then the police locked
Speaker 1: me in the scariest selling the world, full of rats
Speaker 1: and giant bugs, and you're like, yeah, that's what happens.
Speaker 1: Don't do that. So I just thought it was an
Speaker 1: important safety tip for everybody. I'll take note. Facebook, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton, Team Buck, I saw Drey.
Speaker 1: I was just thinking about that show recently. I've seen
Speaker 1: it so many times. All right, Katie kicks us off
Speaker 1: the roll call. You're hey, Buck, thanks for your interview
Speaker 1: with Nas Felcher about the rise of homeschooling. I taught
Speaker 1: in public school long enough to become very disillusioned with it.
Speaker 1: Now I'm happily homeschooling my own kid in Mississippi, one
Speaker 1: of the most supportive states for homeschooling. Because of this,
Speaker 1: there's a rich homeschooling community here that rivals any community
Speaker 1: provided through public schooling. We have sports teams, honor societies, clubs,
Speaker 1: and friendships provided through the many and diverse homeschool cooperatives
Speaker 1: and Facebook groups. To any parents that thinks they aren't
Speaker 1: qualified to teach their own kid, I would say, if
Speaker 1: you have a high school education or even the cognitive
Speaker 1: ability to get one, you are qualified. And what's more,
Speaker 1: as much as those devoted teachers love their students, you know,
Speaker 1: and love your kid more than they do and will
Speaker 1: give them what they need to succeed. Shields Hie to
Speaker 1: you and all the families trying to do best they
Speaker 1: can for their kids. Oh, Katie, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for writing in about that. And I think that is
Speaker 1: a big part of it for for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: the concern over whether they are able even if they
Speaker 1: want to homeschool, are they able to homeschool? I think
Speaker 1: that's a big part of what holds people back from it.
Speaker 1: So that's really important to here for someone who's both
Speaker 1: been a public school teacher and also knows the ins
Speaker 1: and outs of how to homeschool. So I hope that
Speaker 1: this happens a lot more. If nothing else, it would
Speaker 1: be great for them to be more marketplace competition. That's
Speaker 1: not just based on the finances necessary for a private
Speaker 1: or even parochial school education, but the public schools need
Speaker 1: to know that they're not just going to get the
Speaker 1: same number of kids in the same district every year
Speaker 1: or the same money and not really have much in
Speaker 1: the way of standards to meet. Now, I know there
Speaker 1: are very good public schools. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: I understand that they're also a lot of really bad
Speaker 1: public schools. Frank writes, love the show, of course, Frank,
Speaker 1: you're a man who knows how to get on roll call.
Speaker 1: I saw the Tom Hanks movie on Apple TV very
Speaker 1: much enjoyed it. Actually, he is on a destroyer I believe,
Speaker 1: not a submarine. It was very suspenseful and the time
Speaker 1: went by quickly. I also enjoyed seeing the details of
Speaker 1: how a ship captain a ship is captain minute by
Speaker 1: minute during a conflict. I think it would be worth seeing. Well,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, Frank, I'm still curious. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: just saw the trailer and I guess I assumed it
Speaker 1: was a submarine for some reason, although that doesn't make
Speaker 1: much sense in retrospect. It doesn't look like a submarine,
Speaker 1: does it. Why do I think it was a submarine? Movie?
Speaker 1: Might just maybe I'm just getting confused with the Hunt
Speaker 1: for Rod October in my brain, which can happen. But
Speaker 1: if you like it, you know, I'm definitely down to
Speaker 1: check it out. I'm not going to bother producer Mark
Speaker 1: every day about whether he's seen Cobra Kai. But today
Speaker 1: i'm producer Mark. Have you watched Cobra Kai yet? Have
Speaker 1: you watched The Mighty Ducks yet? Alright, alright, fair point,
Speaker 1: But Cobra Kai is thirty minutes long, so I'm just
Speaker 1: saying no, it's a show. Oh so it's like many episodes,
Speaker 1: so you can watch thirty minutes at a time, but
Speaker 1: you'll know if you like it based on the thirty minutes.
Speaker 1: And I even think missus Mark has seen The Karate Kid, right,
Speaker 1: the movie the originally, I think everyone's seen The Karate Kid.
Speaker 1: I think so. I think it's like up there with
Speaker 1: Back to the Future. Et these are movies you had
Speaker 1: to see. And like Ralph's Machio is a big, big
Speaker 1: long Island guy. So that's true. That's true. Yeah, if
Speaker 1: you go back and watch that. Unfortunately, as I've had
Speaker 1: to explain to people before, I am not a hand
Speaker 1: to hand expert by any stretch of the imagination. Um,
Speaker 1: but I do know that the crane kick. Don't don't
Speaker 1: try that one on home, folks. Don't don't try that
Speaker 1: one on a bar fight. That's like the worst finishing
Speaker 1: move I've ever seen in my life. You know, go
Speaker 1: on one leg, lift your lift your knee up. It's
Speaker 1: like you're begging for someone to shoot for your legs,
Speaker 1: tack you the ground and pound your face in. It's
Speaker 1: like the worst thing I've ever seen in a But anyway,
Speaker 1: it looked good for a movie. It looked cool in
Speaker 1: the movie. When I was a kid, I was like,
Speaker 1: I want to learn the crane kick because I could
Speaker 1: beat up all the bad guys with my crane kick
Speaker 1: just like that. You definitely were like the kid, like
Speaker 1: you've said before, how you're the one who always talked
Speaker 1: to the cops. In college, you were always the goody
Speaker 1: two shoots. You were like best friends with the teacher,
Speaker 1: weren't you. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I don't even have to
Speaker 1: guess the teachers like me, no question. I don't like
Speaker 1: being when I got older, though, I think once I
Speaker 1: hit puberty and became like a you know, a little
Speaker 1: more manly. I don't like being told what to do,
Speaker 1: which was a big problem for working in the CIA
Speaker 1: and then the NYPD. So were you a harm monitor? No?
Speaker 1: Get them here, no way type? Oh go blank yourself?
Speaker 1: Producer Mark that's that's uncalled for, absolutely false false. I'm
Speaker 1: not narking on people. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. Now. I
Speaker 1: got it a little bit of trouble in high school. Actually,
Speaker 1: they instituted the buck Sexton lateness rule, where if you
Speaker 1: were less than thirty minute commute from school, you'd start
Speaker 1: to get double detention. I'm serious. I'm not a lot
Speaker 1: of kids traveled from really far away. Yeah, oh, this
Speaker 1: will shock you. I was late in high school all
Speaker 1: the time, and you know why. I figured out that
Speaker 1: we had free period sometimes, and I figured out that
Speaker 1: your first attention, or rather your detention for missing one
Speaker 1: free period would be I think it was fifteen minutes
Speaker 1: or thirty minutes. But my free period in the morning
Speaker 1: could sometimes be an hour. So instead of checking in
Speaker 1: on time and then just sitting there for an hour
Speaker 1: and studying, I would just sleep and then go in
Speaker 1: and then take my fifteen minutes of detention afterwards. They
Speaker 1: had to change the rule for me too. So that's
Speaker 1: what I was like, if you really want to know,
Speaker 1: this is like, now you show up an hour late
Speaker 1: for the show and take the going from me. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like you know you're saying a whole
Speaker 1: I'm definitely not an all monitor because I was late
Speaker 1: all the time, so I was not going to be good. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So next up here, let's see we get Adam. First
Speaker 1: of all, great hair, even better show. Thank you, Adam.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I'm not sure I agree with that
Speaker 1: analysis a little bit, but thank you. I learn a
Speaker 1: lot from listen. I'm just saying that it is the
Speaker 1: hair better than the show. I think there's a case.
Speaker 1: There's a case to be made, you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: asking questions. I learned a lot from listening, and I
Speaker 1: try to pass the buck whenever I can. My question is,
Speaker 1: how do the Democrat Party so successfully brand the Republican
Speaker 1: Party as evil? Anyone who knows basic American history knows
Speaker 1: the worst policies and most racist candidates were part of
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. Of course, there are to have been
Speaker 1: bad Republicans too. It just seems that it's accepted without
Speaker 1: question that Republicans are evil and Democrats are good. In
Speaker 1: your opinion, how did the left accomplish this, Adam? That's
Speaker 1: a fascinating question. I mean it's one that many people
Speaker 1: and myself included, have thought about a lot before. And
Speaker 1: I don't have a good, pithy roll call answer for you.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't it seem like in a reasonable rational world,
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party because of its defensive slavery, it's Jim Crowe,
Speaker 1: it's you know, segregation, all the Dixiecrats, all this bad
Speaker 1: racial stuff from our past, and it is terrible. It
Speaker 1: is unjust and is wrong. It is something that we
Speaker 1: have had to confront and we did confront also with
Speaker 1: a Civil War, for example, where hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: Americans died in battlefield and got their limbs blown off.
Speaker 1: And so we confronted it at one point in a
Speaker 1: big way, but and then continue to struggle through it
Speaker 1: and then the Civil Rights era and anyway, I'm not
Speaker 1: going to do the whole history of it right now,
Speaker 1: but how do the Democrats pull this switch? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you could argue the greatest trick the Democrats
Speaker 1: ever pulled was convincing the Democrat Party that it's not
Speaker 1: deeply racist in its history, because it is. And how
Speaker 1: do they do that. There's a cognitive dissonance there, I adam,
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, they have control of the media and academia,
Speaker 1: and you know there's an absolutism that is very commonplace
Speaker 1: among Democrats that I don't think you find among Republicans.
Speaker 1: But it's amazing how they've done it. I would have
Speaker 1: to tell you that I think it is pretty amazing.
Speaker 1: All right, David, Next up here, producer Mark. Let me
Speaker 1: help you understand why the fans booed at the game
Speaker 1: Thursday night. There are two very good reasons. One, the
Speaker 1: long established tradition to properly show respect for the flag
Speaker 1: and the country is to stand able while the anthem
Speaker 1: is playing. There are no other accepted practices for this. Wait, oh,
Speaker 1: I just work at David. We'll have to come back
Speaker 1: this Tomorrow's run out of time, everybody, We'll continue this
Speaker 1: roll call on the rest of the show tomorrow. Pass
Speaker 1: the buck go to Bucksexton dot com too. Shield Tie