Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. We're just hours away
Speaker 1: from the second Democrat Debate. We're going to talk about
Speaker 1: expectations from the left and the socialists and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. We'll also talk about Trump doubling down
Speaker 1: on his feud with Representative Commings over Baltimore. That and
Speaker 1: much more coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American. Again the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the buck Sexton Show, everybody.
Speaker 1: We got a great extravaganza of politics, current events, philosophy, musings,
Speaker 1: all the stuff we usually do here in the Hunt.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much for joining. I've got a
Speaker 1: few a few more weeks a Swamp show, and then
Speaker 1: we're heading up to the Big Apple, NYC time. I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to it. You know, I'm just even if
Speaker 1: I end up in a seventh floor walk up in
Speaker 1: a studio so small that I can cook my meals
Speaker 1: while showering and sitting on my bed, which don't think
Speaker 1: that that doesn't exist in New York. I'm just a
Speaker 1: New York guy, So it'll be good to be back home.
Speaker 1: But I've got some swamp time left in me and
Speaker 1: a lot to do while i'm here. So let's get
Speaker 1: to it, shall we. The Democrat debate in Detroit, Night one,
Speaker 1: it is, it is coming up. Of course, it's a
Speaker 1: two night extravaganza because there's a lot of Democrats were
Speaker 1: out there running, and I would just note that by
Speaker 1: going into this thing is as much and I have been.
Speaker 1: I know, I've been very effusive in my Biden criticism
Speaker 1: and my sense that there's just no chance in my
Speaker 1: mind that he is going to be the Democrats nominee.
Speaker 1: But if if we're going to really look into the data,
Speaker 1: turns out that Biden has quite a solid, quite a
Speaker 1: solid lead going into his thirty three percent of likely
Speaker 1: Democratic voters. He's thirteen points ahead of Bernie Sanders, who's
Speaker 1: in second place with twenty percent. Warren is in third
Speaker 1: place at fourteen percent. And there, you know, that's then
Speaker 1: you got Harris and then Buddha Judge, and you know
Speaker 1: then then it goes down. I'm pretty sure that Beto
Speaker 1: O'Rourke is going to pull a John cusack from say
Speaker 1: anything where he's just going to stand up on stage
Speaker 1: with Peter Gabriel in your eyes, playing on a boombox
Speaker 1: while wearing a trench coat, just looking at the Democrat
Speaker 1: primary voters of Americans say I'm here for you, and
Speaker 1: I just like, really think that if you gave Peto
Speaker 1: a shot, I could totally be the next president of
Speaker 1: the United States and unite all of our spirits in
Speaker 1: a harmony that would be unbreakable. I could see Betto
Speaker 1: making a play for it. I really could. I think
Speaker 1: there is a chance, there is a possibility that he's
Speaker 1: I mean not that he's gonna win or anything. I
Speaker 1: mean he's gonna do something kind of crazy tonight. The expectation,
Speaker 1: and it's because I believe he has said it recently,
Speaker 1: is that he is that that Biden rather is going
Speaker 1: to be the big show tonight, and he's not going
Speaker 1: to be so nice this time. He's not gonna be
Speaker 1: so nice. I'm gonna get it into an in depth
Speaker 1: conversation with you because I've done a lot of reading,
Speaker 1: some deep diving on busting. It's one of these policy
Speaker 1: that stretches back for a long time. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of sensitivities around it, a lot of what you know,
Speaker 1: telling people what they can and can't say about it.
Speaker 1: I read into it, looked a look at the data,
Speaker 1: looked at the stories, looked at the reality, and that
Speaker 1: whole exchange between Biden and Kamala was very interesting because
Speaker 1: it was the emotionally woke side of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: going after with Kamala Harris going after the more in
Speaker 1: touch with the political realities and the difficulties of policy
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden. That's just a consider that a little
Speaker 1: preview of where we're going to be going with this
Speaker 1: in just a few minutes. Because I've really the bussing
Speaker 1: Here's what I can tell you for most of you.
Speaker 1: What what I'll be able to illuminate around the bussing issue.
Speaker 1: You probably haven't heard elsewhere you probably because people get
Speaker 1: very tense about discussing it, and oh no, bussing is great.
Speaker 1: You know, everything's great. It's like you know, affirmative action.
Speaker 1: Oh it's great. I don't want to criticize that. It's
Speaker 1: all that's that has started to change recently. But the
Speaker 1: expectation is that there's going to be a very big
Speaker 1: Biden moment or that he's trying to get a big
Speaker 1: Biden moment, and here's where I think he'll fall flat.
Speaker 1: I really do. I do not believe that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has it in him. There have been some big establishment
Speaker 1: media organizations that have already laid a bit of the
Speaker 1: groundwork for Biden's replacement of sorts to come forward the
Speaker 1: leading person in this in this particular presidential contest. Trump
Speaker 1: disagrees with me on this, I will note, and I
Speaker 1: he has a inability an intuitive political sense. That is,
Speaker 1: it feels like it's you know, he's the X men
Speaker 1: and this is his superpower or something. I mean, he
Speaker 1: he says things to people say you can never say,
Speaker 1: and not only does he say it and get away
Speaker 1: with it, but then people started to realize, wow, maybe
Speaker 1: he was right. Maybe he's just speaking truth about something
Speaker 1: that we're not allowed to talk about. And Trump believes
Speaker 1: that Biden is going to limp to the nomination. I
Speaker 1: think was the sleepy Joe will limp to the nomination.
Speaker 1: I think was the quote from earlier today. So I
Speaker 1: don't believe that's gonna happen. I just don't see it.
Speaker 1: I think it's gonna If you ask me to put
Speaker 1: money on who would be the Democrats nominee. Right now,
Speaker 1: I think it's Kamala Harris. Jeff Zucker probably thinks it's
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris over it at seeing. I love when they
Speaker 1: show a Zucker photo. You'll see some of these where
Speaker 1: it looks like he's maybe gone three buttons down on
Speaker 1: the button down shirt. You know, he really likes to
Speaker 1: show off the the Zucker chest haired song. I don't
Speaker 1: know's I'm just telling you. Look at the photos. You'll
Speaker 1: see what I mean. It really likes to give us
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of Zucker Man cleavage and
Speaker 1: a lot of the photos. But here, here, here's a story.
Speaker 1: This has been on the top of Drudge, the top
Speaker 1: of Drudge for last twenty four hours. CNN's Jeff Zucker
Speaker 1: once feted Kamala Harris. Will that help or hurt? In
Speaker 1: twenty twenty so you know when he ran to become
Speaker 1: the first when I'm sorry, when she ran, When Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris ran to become the first woman of color recording
Speaker 1: mcmcclatchy here to be the California Attorney General a decade ago,
Speaker 1: Jeff Zucker told guests at a NBC Rockefeller Plaza office
Speaker 1: gathering in August two thousand and nine. That quote Kamala
Speaker 1: is not just important for the city of San Francisco,
Speaker 1: the state of California, but the entire country. And he
Speaker 1: you know he so he was a huge backer of hers. Look,
Speaker 1: my friends, I like that people know more of this now.
Speaker 1: I like that this information comes to light. It makes
Speaker 1: it harder for us all to be told to choke
Speaker 1: down the lie that these news organizations aren't picking winners
Speaker 1: and losers in this process, or trying to pick winners
Speaker 1: and losers. There are absolutely absolutely journalists who are doing
Speaker 1: what they can to shape the narrative so that their
Speaker 1: preferred candidate is going to come out on top of
Speaker 1: this whole thing. What do I think we'll be interesting
Speaker 1: to Here's the question that I would want asked. Of
Speaker 1: course it's CNNCED they want to ask this question, actually, Democrats,
Speaker 1: what do you love the most about this country? I
Speaker 1: think that would be really interesting. What is your favorite?
Speaker 1: Not and that it has to be the thing you
Speaker 1: love the most about America, because that otherwise we'll turn
Speaker 1: into well, like you know, Beto would stand up. But
Speaker 1: what I love is thought like we're also full of
Speaker 1: love and like while we're imperfect, but we have this
Speaker 1: like amazing like ability to love each other, and yet
Speaker 1: we don't do it enough. And no, no, no no a thing.
Speaker 1: What what is it about this country that separates? Or
Speaker 1: rather make your different arreations of the question would work
Speaker 1: for me. Ask all the Democrats on stage, why is
Speaker 1: America better than other countries? How about that? Why are
Speaker 1: we better than other countries? They would say home, but
Speaker 1: it depends on the country, and they're like, no, no no, no.
Speaker 1: If you're gonna run for president United States, you gotta
Speaker 1: think America's number one. So that means that you gotta
Speaker 1: think we're better than every other country, which I believe,
Speaker 1: you believe a lot of Democrats don't believe in folks.
Speaker 1: This is why it would be such a great question,
Speaker 1: and it gives them so little room for you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, I would love it if they would answer
Speaker 1: it in a kind of Barack Obama. Remember this was
Speaker 1: a moment where Barack Obama was a little vulnerable. You
Speaker 1: know that he believes that the Americans believe in American
Speaker 1: exceptionalism the way that Greeks believe in Greek is exceptionalism,
Speaker 1: and blahbli blah, and all of a sudden, it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: every country is basically just as great as another country.
Speaker 1: Make me president of America, though, I mean that was
Speaker 1: the pitch. People are like, what those questions would be
Speaker 1: really fun? Instead, you're to get the you know, medicare
Speaker 1: for all? What would you do about the border? And
Speaker 1: Democrats are gonna just play to the left wing bass.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna play to the left wing bass. That's
Speaker 1: what this is, and hope that they can move back
Speaker 1: to the center later on, which this always occurs in
Speaker 1: every presidential cycle. But some of the positions they're taking
Speaker 1: are just bonkers. I mean, healthcare for illegal aliens paid
Speaker 1: for by the taxpayer when you don't want to stop
Speaker 1: illegal aliens from flooding into the country is crazy. Vote
Speaker 1: normal voters saying people will not go for that, and
Speaker 1: they've all raised their hand at least in that second debate.
Speaker 1: I think it was in favor of that. So what
Speaker 1: will we learn tonight? I Mean, here here's a prediction
Speaker 1: that I'll only remind you of if I'm right. Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: Biden's gonna have a not strong, a strong but not
Speaker 1: strong enough performance. That'll be the consensus betto will be
Speaker 1: done Kamala will rise and the real fight is going
Speaker 1: to be Warren versus Bernie. That's going to be the
Speaker 1: most interesting component of tonight's debate. We shall see it
Speaker 1: is commonly internet debate. I don't even know. I might
Speaker 1: have gotten that one wrong, but the other ones are
Speaker 1: all true. I think we'll be right back. One man
Speaker 1: stands ready to deliver change we desperately need. A man
Speaker 1: I'm proud to call my friend, a man who will
Speaker 1: be the next president of United States, Barack America. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am
Speaker 1: to be vice President United States of America. Quite frankly,
Speaker 1: it might have been a better pick than me. Look,
Speaker 1: John's last minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the
Speaker 1: number one job facing the middle class, and it happens
Speaker 1: to be, as Barack says, a three letter word jobs, jobs, jobs.
Speaker 1: If we do everything rains, we do it with absolute certainly,
Speaker 1: we stand up there and we make really tough decisions,
Speaker 1: there's still a thirty percent chance we're gonna get it wrong.
Speaker 1: It is MoMA lived in Long Island for ten years
Speaker 1: or so. God rest her soul and hum although she's wait,
Speaker 1: your mom's still your mom's still alive. Is your dad
Speaker 1: past God bless her soul. Ladies and gentlemen, the President
Speaker 1: of the United States of America, Barack Obama, Now is
Speaker 1: the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt.
Speaker 1: Speaks softly and carry a big stick. I promise you.
Speaker 1: The president has a big stick. I promise you. My
Speaker 1: favorite is a three letter word, jobs, jobs, and he
Speaker 1: doesn't correct himself. Joe, Joe Biden man is so lucky
Speaker 1: that the media Libs have can did this whole narrative
Speaker 1: of how Joe Biden is just, you know, the the
Speaker 1: cute grandpa that makes the funny jokes that everything. You know. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: if Bush made any mistake when he was president, they
Speaker 1: just all called him a moron. Oh he's terrible, he's erber.
Speaker 1: You know. Biden can say the dumbest stuff you can imagine,
Speaker 1: and they go, oh, it's just Joe being Joe. Biden's
Speaker 1: never never struck me as all that bright. I think
Speaker 1: that Reagan's very short description of him from back in
Speaker 1: the eighties was very apt, which is that he is
Speaker 1: a perfect demagogue. That's that's exactly what he what he is,
Speaker 1: and really a shameless demagogue. I don't think he's a
Speaker 1: bad guy. I just think he's a very mediocre guy
Speaker 1: who's gotten politically lucky a couple of times and is
Speaker 1: a classic politician, will say whatever he has to say
Speaker 1: whenever he has to say it. Who worries me more?
Speaker 1: Are he the far left types? I mean the Sander
Speaker 1: Nistah folks out there, you know, the ones who are
Speaker 1: going to be fighting it out the clash of liberals
Speaker 1: as I saw today on the Drudge Report, Warren and
Speaker 1: Sanders here, because there can really only be one far
Speaker 1: left candidate that can get enough I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: who knows how this is all going to play out,
Speaker 1: but that can get enough of a of a left
Speaker 1: wing base behind him or her that they'll be in
Speaker 1: this thing for a long time. It's just it's becomes
Speaker 1: a crowded lane, and eventually people are just gonna want
Speaker 1: the one person who's in the best position to win.
Speaker 1: They're gonna want the one person who seems like they
Speaker 1: can really get it done. And I don't know who
Speaker 1: it's gonna be, but I do think that Bernie's I
Speaker 1: think that there. I think it's gonna be Warren, folks,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't see Birnie. You know, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: getting pretty pretty if on the Burns chances of being
Speaker 1: the crazy Kami who makes it all the way through
Speaker 1: the Democrat primary, that's for sure. And he says stuff
Speaker 1: that it's going to be very difficult for him to
Speaker 1: walk away from. Play clib six. You've been very critical
Speaker 1: of b being at Yahoo in the Israeli government. We
Speaker 1: spent a few billion dollars on aid to Israel. Would
Speaker 1: you ever consider using that aid as lever Israeli government
Speaker 1: to act differently? Absolutely? Absolutely, yeah, I mean we are
Speaker 1: giving large sums of money. Look, let me back it up.
Speaker 1: I lived in Israel. Actually I worked in a kabutz
Speaker 1: for a number of months. I have family in Israel.
Speaker 1: I am Jewish. I am not anti Israel, Okay. I
Speaker 1: believe that the people of Israel have absolutely the right
Speaker 1: to live in peace, independence and security, end of discussion.
Speaker 1: That is what I fervently believe. But I think what
Speaker 1: has happened is in recent years on the Nittanyahu you
Speaker 1: have an extreme right wing government with many racist tendencies,
Speaker 1: a right wing government with racist endencies, So he would
Speaker 1: consider cutting aid to Israel. Bernie Sanders folks man, this
Speaker 1: guy's you know, whether you agree with our financial support
Speaker 1: of Israel or not, you know, this is going to
Speaker 1: be something that the burden is going to have to
Speaker 1: answer for it down the line. Here. This is not
Speaker 1: something that he can easily spin. So I don't see
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders being able to take this thing all the way.
Speaker 1: But one thing I will say I do like is Democrats.
Speaker 1: The craziness of the Democratic Party is currently the biggest
Speaker 1: hurdle they have, and the platform is now far left.
Speaker 1: Whether all the candidates are far left, we'll have to see,
Speaker 1: but I think it's hard to argue that if they're
Speaker 1: all supporting a far left platform, they aren't themselves accurately
Speaker 1: described as in some way far left. And that's why
Speaker 1: there's this new Trump campaign ad that came out that
Speaker 1: it hits pretty close to home plate twelve. Raise your
Speaker 1: hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants.
Speaker 1: They're all the same. These Democrats support giving illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: free healthcare at our expense, spending taxpayer dollars covering illegal immigrants,
Speaker 1: calling for socialized medicine, destroying healthcare as we know it,
Speaker 1: and putting illegal immigrants before hardworking Americans. The Democrats radical
Speaker 1: reckless socialist. They're all the same, radical reckless socialist. I
Speaker 1: like it. It's got kind of a ring to it,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. And I don't think it's really accurate to
Speaker 1: say they're all the same. But they all want well,
Speaker 1: maybe this is what they're going for. They all want
Speaker 1: the same things more or less. There are slight variations
Speaker 1: on a theme, but I don't think it's out of
Speaker 1: line to refer to them as socialists. I think that
Speaker 1: they are increasingly very obviously socialists. They don't like the
Speaker 1: term because the term, for a lot of Americans comes
Speaker 1: with baggage, and there's a recognition that socialism is a failure. Historically,
Speaker 1: it always fails wherever it is tried. And yet Democrats
Speaker 1: are not trying to dust it off and say, oh no,
Speaker 1: we figured out how to do it the right way
Speaker 1: this time. I think that's very very unlikely my friends.
Speaker 1: In fact, I know it's not the case. But they're
Speaker 1: still trying to make a go of it somehow. So
Speaker 1: we shall see. Tonight. I'll be live tweeting the debate,
Speaker 1: So if you aren't on Twitter, now's a great time
Speaker 1: to start. If you are, on Twitter. Please retweet my
Speaker 1: stuff because it'll trigger libs all over the place. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, I think I said this to you.
Speaker 1: But tomorrow I'm in Baltimore, and then Thursday I'm in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, and then Friday, I'm doing the Bill Maher Show.
Speaker 1: So it's a busy week in the freedom. Hup, my friends.
Speaker 1: You also worked with them to a post bussing. And
Speaker 1: you know, there was a little girl in California who
Speaker 1: was part of the second class to integrate her public schools,
Speaker 1: and she was bust to school every day. Little girl
Speaker 1: was me. I did not oppose busing in America. What
Speaker 1: I opposed is bussing ordered by the Department of Education.
Speaker 1: That's what I opposed. That was the single most talked
Speaker 1: about and politically the most important exchange from the last
Speaker 1: Democratic presidential debate in Miami back on June twenty eighth
Speaker 1: of this summer, That whole exchange on that that was
Speaker 1: when it all of a sudden, one of the new
Speaker 1: guard of Democrat aspirants to the presidential nomination all of
Speaker 1: a sudden seemed like she could take Biden down a
Speaker 1: peg or two. All of a sudden, he wasn't the
Speaker 1: unstoppable poll unstoppable political force that the polls showed him
Speaker 1: to be. Now, I wanted to weigh in on this
Speaker 1: issue at the time, but I first wanted to take
Speaker 1: the time to read quite a bit about bussing, which
Speaker 1: I've done, and a very quick review of a very
Speaker 1: complicated and decades long program is that after the passage
Speaker 1: of the Civil Rights Civil Rights Act the Voting Rights
Speaker 1: Act in the sixties, there was an effort to integrate
Speaker 1: the schools. The federal government says, okay, well, now we're
Speaker 1: going to integrate schools and judges. Federal judges often mandated
Speaker 1: it in different parts of the country, and this was
Speaker 1: very contentious for a whole lot of reasons. The Democrat
Speaker 1: narrative of events here is that this was necessary, a
Speaker 1: good idea, and that it worked well. The reality is
Speaker 1: that this was a flawed idea, poorly implemented that sometimes
Speaker 1: worked for some people, but a lot of the time
Speaker 1: it didn't work for people at all, for the children,
Speaker 1: for the students involved in this, and instead of addressing
Speaker 1: the problems or looking at the program for what it
Speaker 1: really was, what do you think the Democrats go to
Speaker 1: explanation of everything was if you opposed bussing, you're a racist.
Speaker 1: Doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all, though, doesn't stand
Speaker 1: up for the facts. It was, I will tell you
Speaker 1: a low blow. It was a cheap shot that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris through at Biden in that debate. Wasn't wasn't fair.
Speaker 1: It wasn't fair, and she must have known that because
Speaker 1: here's the truth about the bussing system in this country.
Speaker 1: A lot of a lot of what went wrong with
Speaker 1: it was entirely predictable because it was a failure of
Speaker 1: central planning. This was a top down solution for a
Speaker 1: problem that did not take into account local realities, did
Speaker 1: not take into account localized improvisation, all of the predictable
Speaker 1: failures of central planning. We're evident in busing. It was
Speaker 1: a blunt instrument for what should have been a very
Speaker 1: precise and case by case approach for one thing people
Speaker 1: should have been able to choose. See, the way that
Speaker 1: bussing worked was you would, if you were a student,
Speaker 1: your parents would be told, hey, you can't go to
Speaker 1: your local high school anymore. You're now going to get
Speaker 1: on a bus. That's why they called it bussing. For
Speaker 1: forty five minutes an hour, maybe an hour and a
Speaker 1: half each way to go to some other school because
Speaker 1: we say so, well, some of the students, and this
Speaker 1: was all about racial integration right there. There were schools
Speaker 1: that were almost entirely white, or entirely white schools that
Speaker 1: were almost entirely black. And so what the czars of
Speaker 1: the government and the Department of Education decided to do is, well,
Speaker 1: let's just tell people top down that okay, we're gonna
Speaker 1: just make a determination that you know, certain students are
Speaker 1: going to go to this school and other students are
Speaker 1: gonna go to that school, and one none of the students'
Speaker 1: opinions matter at all, None of the family's opinions matter
Speaker 1: at all. This is the way it's going to be.
Speaker 1: You say, why is that? Why is that necessary? Why
Speaker 1: is that? And any criticism of this is shouted down
Speaker 1: as racism right away. Criticism of it is must be
Speaker 1: indicative of racism. And there were some areas of the country,
Speaker 1: notably in Boston and what I believe is considered Southey.
Speaker 1: In Boston, there were some ugly racial incidents when bussing
Speaker 1: was instituted where people didn't you know, they didn't want
Speaker 1: and it seemed to be really racial animals. But you
Speaker 1: know what, in all the studies they've done, the number
Speaker 1: one reason people didn't like bussing was they didn't like
Speaker 1: getting on a bus for a long time to go
Speaker 1: to a school that was far away. What a shock.
Speaker 1: White students didn't like it in many, many, many cases.
Speaker 1: Black students didn't like it in many, many, many cases.
Speaker 1: The program was an abject failure. In many places. The
Speaker 1: program had all kinds of unintended consequences. One of them was, Okay,
Speaker 1: so you're gonna take a predominantly white school district in
Speaker 1: let's say Detroit, and you're gonna say, guess what, now,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make it. You know, sixty forty white and
Speaker 1: African American. A lot of people in that neighborhood might say,
Speaker 1: you know what I am going to And this is
Speaker 1: what happened. They moved. They moved because they moved to
Speaker 1: that neighborhood in the first place for the school. Now
Speaker 1: they can't go to that school, so guess what, they
Speaker 1: moved somewhere else and they go somewhere where they can
Speaker 1: live near the school. For a lot of students, I
Speaker 1: was reading all of these you know, individual mini memoirs
Speaker 1: and anecdotes from people, because this got a lot of
Speaker 1: attention in the last month, so there's plenty of stuff
Speaker 1: to read all over the internet about it. And they
Speaker 1: were all saying that, you know that they picked their
Speaker 1: school based on where or rather they pick where they
Speaker 1: live based on what the school was. Then this it
Speaker 1: was a big draw for people. Oh, we're going to
Speaker 1: go to the school. And then you say, okay, buck,
Speaker 1: but why did they Why were they so worried that
Speaker 1: bussing would make the school worse? Okay, this isn't really
Speaker 1: that hard, folks. If you take a school that is
Speaker 1: predominantly minority and has students that are performing several grades
Speaker 1: below their level their age level, and you put them
Speaker 1: in the same classroom with students who are performing at
Speaker 1: grade level, then you have a problem of instruction. What
Speaker 1: do you do? And this played out in many different
Speaker 1: schools and school districts across the country over many decades.
Speaker 1: What what do you do? And now you got to
Speaker 1: create separate classes and so okay, but now you're in
Speaker 1: separate classes, but you're in the same building. There's no magic.
Speaker 1: This is one of the lies about the Department of
Speaker 1: education is you know, oh, if only we had a
Speaker 1: shiny or newer school, everybody would do their homework and
Speaker 1: everything would be great. This is not true. Schools are
Speaker 1: part of communities. Schools are places where people from an
Speaker 1: area come together in a worthwhile pursuit learning. But they're
Speaker 1: an integral part of the day to day lives of
Speaker 1: countless communities across the across the country. Do you know
Speaker 1: when all of a sudden bussing stopped being something that
Speaker 1: you had to just bend the knee and say, this
Speaker 1: is a great idea. There's no problems with us at all.
Speaker 1: By the way, there are a lot of ways to
Speaker 1: integrate schools don't involve busing. They could have had incentive programs,
Speaker 1: charter schools, vouchers. I'm not in any way saying that
Speaker 1: the goal of creating a classroom that is not an
Speaker 1: ethnic monoculture right where there's not just one group of
Speaker 1: any whether of any race, right, where there's different ethnicities
Speaker 1: represented different that's a good idea that makes sense. That's
Speaker 1: people should have exposure to any votes from different backgrounds.
Speaker 1: But it's the mechanism of how they tried to do
Speaker 1: this that was just inherently flawed telling a bunch of kids,
Speaker 1: guess what, you're in the fifth grade. You love your
Speaker 1: local school. Now you got to go to the other
Speaker 1: side of town. It's a forty minute drive each way.
Speaker 1: Now you don't get to see any of your friends anymore.
Speaker 1: And oh, what a surprise. Do your parents come to
Speaker 1: the PTA meetings? Do they come to the basketball or
Speaker 1: baseball games? Not if it's forty minutes away. They've got
Speaker 1: jobs and lines right that it's not part of their
Speaker 1: community anymore. They were just countless, countless problems with this program,
Speaker 1: but it didn't really start to become something that you
Speaker 1: could talk about, something that you could you could criticize,
Speaker 1: until they did studies work. Guess what, there were black
Speaker 1: students in many parts of the country. I mean, I know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna speak with this at a national level over
Speaker 1: many decades, so we've got to keep this discussions apparently
Speaker 1: going to be somewhat broad. But there were black students
Speaker 1: in many parts of the country, different school districts who
Speaker 1: were told, well, you have to be bust to a
Speaker 1: wider school district or a wider school rather, and they
Speaker 1: were like, I don't, but what if I like my school?
Speaker 1: I don't want I don't want to do that. I
Speaker 1: like the school I'm going to now. I live in
Speaker 1: this neighborhood, I like this school. I want to be
Speaker 1: around my friends. And you know, the the to the
Speaker 1: point about the failures of central planning, one of them
Speaker 1: is that individual choice doesn't matter. The decisions are being
Speaker 1: made for you. Bussing did this on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: You weren't asked if you wanted to go to the
Speaker 1: other school. You were told this is where this is. Now,
Speaker 1: you're assigned school. You weren't asked if you want to
Speaker 1: get white or black didn't matter. You weren't asked, you
Speaker 1: were told what if you don't want to do that?
Speaker 1: And then then you get into all the different studies
Speaker 1: as well about who's to say that a school inherently
Speaker 1: Now there's the experience of having exposure people of different
Speaker 1: races in school, which again I think that that's that's
Speaker 1: a that's a commendable goal. How do you get there? Okay,
Speaker 1: But then there's also does that does that necessarily if
Speaker 1: you approach that goal, even if you're very aggressive about it,
Speaker 1: and you do get the preferred representation levels, which I
Speaker 1: think if it's considered if it's less than twenty to
Speaker 1: forty percent minority, I think they consider it to be
Speaker 1: not a graded school. I forget what the Department of
Speaker 1: Education guidelines were. It probably is a formula that varies
Speaker 1: from different parts of the country. But even if you
Speaker 1: get to that level doesn't mean it's a great school.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people, this is really, you know, this is really
Speaker 1: where you see how this stuff fails. Black students who
Speaker 1: were in a school that they liked, where they were
Speaker 1: doing well academically. It would be bus to a new
Speaker 1: school that they didn't like, and they stopped doing well academically,
Speaker 1: and you know, they were just casualties of the system.
Speaker 1: Things were great, they were doing well. They were told, Nope, sorry,
Speaker 1: now you gotta hop in a bus, go forty five
Speaker 1: minutes other side of town or you know, nearest town,
Speaker 1: whatever it was. Their whole educational outlook changed. It was
Speaker 1: perhaps ruined. Now now you can read stories of people who,
Speaker 1: let's say that this changed their life and it made
Speaker 1: everything better. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't have
Speaker 1: I'm saying that that should have been a choice that
Speaker 1: was open. They should have been able to have exactly
Speaker 1: the experience that they had, but it should have been
Speaker 1: a choice that they made with their families, right, It
Speaker 1: should be you know, you have the option to go
Speaker 1: to this school, do you want to go to this school?
Speaker 1: It should never have been And Biden, to his credit,
Speaker 1: was at least saying in this debate that he was
Speaker 1: never a proponent of forced bussing, that it should have
Speaker 1: been an option to people. So he's right, forced bussing
Speaker 1: is not a good idea. Bussing by choice that can work,
Speaker 1: but it also doesn't deal with the failing schools. And
Speaker 1: you know, just bussing doesn't fix the problems of the schools,
Speaker 1: doesn't fix the problems of the society. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: a it's a very you know, blunt instrument for a
Speaker 1: very precise and precision needed problem. So that's the truth.
Speaker 1: So I just think it's so interesting that everyone all
Speaker 1: Biden and she really, you know, she really showed him,
Speaker 1: and you go back and you learn about this, and
Speaker 1: you find out that bussing was not this curl, It
Speaker 1: was not this education integration panacea that many on the
Speaker 1: left pretend it is. And it's just so so typical
Speaker 1: that what they did in order to shut down criticism
Speaker 1: in order to tell people, oh, you can't they did
Speaker 1: what they're always Oh you're racist. If you have any
Speaker 1: have you criticized bussing at all, it must be racist? Okay,
Speaker 1: what about criticizing bussing on behalf of the you know,
Speaker 1: young black students and black families who didn't want to
Speaker 1: be bussed anywhere and it didn't work out for them,
Speaker 1: And are we allowed to talk about their views on
Speaker 1: this or not. I was just shut it down because
Speaker 1: it's you know, shut down the conversation because there's racist. Really,
Speaker 1: the amount of damage the Democrats and the left have
Speaker 1: done to discourse on important issues by just being a
Speaker 1: bunch of race baiting race hucksters is it's incalculable. You know.
Speaker 1: There was the story in the New York Times and
Speaker 1: welcome back to the Bucks Exton show. We're talking about bussing.
Speaker 1: There was a story in the Times a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago about Louisville, Kentucky, talking about how, oh, it's
Speaker 1: such a big success story for integration of schools via bussing,
Speaker 1: and now you have some areas of the city that
Speaker 1: are predominantly African American where they want to be able
Speaker 1: to stay at schools closer to home. They want stay
Speaker 1: at the neighborhood schools. They don't want to be bust
Speaker 1: And you have all these liberals, predominantly white liberals making
Speaker 1: these decisions, by the way, who are saying, oh, what
Speaker 1: do you mean you don't want to be bused to
Speaker 1: the school and the other side of the town that
Speaker 1: has a higher white white population. This is necessary for
Speaker 1: diversity and black students. And this is going on right now.
Speaker 1: This conversation is happening in Louisville, Kentucky. Black students are like, look,
Speaker 1: not all of them, but some of them are saying,
Speaker 1: I like the school in my neighborhood. Can I please
Speaker 1: just go to school my neighborhood. That's this is my community,
Speaker 1: you know. But the liberals, top down, centralized planning, that's
Speaker 1: how they do things. Here's here's a few letters. By
Speaker 1: the way, I mentioned this to you that there's been
Speaker 1: all this stuff out there about bussing. I think there's
Speaker 1: a fascinating subject. I hope we're going to move on
Speaker 1: to the fight over Baltimore and Analigah commings versus Trump
Speaker 1: and all that's coming up in just a minute. But
Speaker 1: I wanted to share with you. A couple of these.
Speaker 1: These were published in the New York Times. These were
Speaker 1: letter to the editor in the aftermath of that first
Speaker 1: Democratic debate about the whole bussing issue. And here's one
Speaker 1: from a guy named John in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Here's
Speaker 1: what he wrote in nineteen seventy three. I was one
Speaker 1: of the white students who was bussed to one of
Speaker 1: the worst high schools in Prince George's County in Maryland?
Speaker 1: How would you have liked to have been forced to
Speaker 1: attend to high school known for violence, drug abuse and
Speaker 1: poor academics. White families in Prince George's County who had
Speaker 1: children forcibly bust to poorly performing, unsafe high schools, revolted
Speaker 1: on mass and moved out of the county. Force bussing
Speaker 1: resulted in a domino effect. When these families moved home,
Speaker 1: values fell and businesses closed. Crime and drug abuse rose
Speaker 1: county wide. Bussing was stopped in Prince George's County some
Speaker 1: twenty five years later. Millions of dollars had been wasted
Speaker 1: and it had widespread detrimental effects. The elitist scholars will
Speaker 1: never admit that force bussing was a colossal fail, nor
Speaker 1: would they ever send their own children to an unsafe
Speaker 1: inferior school. John Minehold, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This published the
Speaker 1: New York Times. Folks, I'm just John this. Do you
Speaker 1: ever hear that about bussing? Oh? No, bussing is you know,
Speaker 1: libs totally rewrite the history of what was really going on. Kevin.
Speaker 1: One more here, regarding school integration by bussing, Nicole Hannah
Speaker 1: Jones states that white Americans veneration of neighborhood schools has
Speaker 1: never outweighed their desire to maintain racially homogeneous environments for
Speaker 1: their children. This is not true and doesn't reflect how
Speaker 1: many people feel about having their children attend nearby schools.
Speaker 1: My children attend highly regarded neighborhood schools that my wife
Speaker 1: and I chose by selecting where we live. The schools
Speaker 1: are racially diverse, and our children are of mixed race.
Speaker 1: I don't care at all about the racial makeup of
Speaker 1: the schools. I care about safety, academics, and time. Having
Speaker 1: my children attend schools several miles away would be a
Speaker 1: complete non start, and I would not consider living in
Speaker 1: an area where this is possible. Most of the country,
Speaker 1: no longer has an environment where all things are about
Speaker 1: black and white. It's a broad mix, and people are
Speaker 1: more concerned with academic performance than skin color. What you
Speaker 1: claim may have been true fifty years ago in a
Speaker 1: binary racial environment, but it really has no bearing in
Speaker 1: most of America today. Kevin in Englewood, Colorado. People that
Speaker 1: have some thoughts on this, folks, some of them who
Speaker 1: dealt with this very personally. And we're gonna ask any
Speaker 1: any questions to Kamala about this stuff. No, she got
Speaker 1: her shot in on Biden and that's all that really mattered.
Speaker 1: All the journals were a flutter. Let me tell you, you
Speaker 1: you know, I've thought about this. Maybe I'm wrong, Maybe
Speaker 1: Biden is going to be the nominee, even though that
Speaker 1: means Trump's gonna win for a long time. You've got
Speaker 1: a very iron hand on it. It's a corruption. Look
Speaker 1: at the fact the government that's tucked in over the
Speaker 1: billions and billions of dollars, it's been no avail who
Speaker 1: absolutely no avail. Baltimore is as an example of what
Speaker 1: corrupt government leads to. Billions of dollars have been given
Speaker 1: and I feel so sorry for the people of Baltimore,
Speaker 1: as if they asked me, we will get involved, but
Speaker 1: we're already involved from the standpoint that over many years,
Speaker 1: billions and billions of dollars have been given to Baltimore.
Speaker 1: It's been misspent, it's been missing, it's been stolen with
Speaker 1: a lot of corrupt governments, and as you know, comings
Speaker 1: it's been in charge. Now I will say this, I
Speaker 1: think that Representatives coming should take his oversight committee and
Speaker 1: start doing oversight on in Baltimore. He finds out some
Speaker 1: real things. President Trump doubling down on his view of
Speaker 1: Baltimore as a place in desperate need of better leadership,
Speaker 1: and his criticism of Elijah Commings, long time Democrat Memer
Speaker 1: Congress representing Baltimore. And this is this is one of
Speaker 1: Trump's superpowers. Folks. Oh, there's all this outrage. Oh how
Speaker 1: could he He's not allowed to say that. Yeah, well
Speaker 1: he did, and now he's saying it again. And what
Speaker 1: he's saying about Baltimore is by and large true. They
Speaker 1: may not like exactly the words that he's using, but
Speaker 1: that he's saying things that need to be said and
Speaker 1: are true. That's more important to people, or at least
Speaker 1: to people that have an open mind and want to
Speaker 1: know what's going on. You know, Baltimore has a homicide
Speaker 1: rate that's approaching some of the Central American countries that
Speaker 1: people are fleeing from, claiming that they are uninhabitable because
Speaker 1: of the violence they faced. There are parts of Baltimore
Speaker 1: that are right up there in terms of homicides per
Speaker 1: hundred thousand residents, right up there with Central American countries
Speaker 1: that are in desperate straits. So why should we obscure
Speaker 1: the truth about what's happening here? Why why shouldn't we
Speaker 1: be able to have a conversation about this? And no
Speaker 1: one ever seems to have an answer. Oh, because Trump's racist,
Speaker 1: that's what they say. Because Trump is a bad man
Speaker 1: who is racist. They know that this doesn't change any minds, right,
Speaker 1: They understand that this is just feeding feeding more propaganda
Speaker 1: to the left wing base that wants, that has an
Speaker 1: emotional need to hear that Donald Trump is a racist,
Speaker 1: because that then shuts down everything else, all of his success,
Speaker 1: all of Trump's ability up to this point to govern effectively,
Speaker 1: the economy, all these different things, None of that matters
Speaker 1: because he's a racist. This is a lazy attack by
Speaker 1: the media, but it's a favorite attack by the media too.
Speaker 1: It is on so many Republican politicians, so many Republicans,
Speaker 1: And if Trump were nearly as racist as they say
Speaker 1: he is, why is it that I know so many
Speaker 1: Latino and African American conservatives who are staunch are staunch
Speaker 1: Trump defenders, and think that he's better on a lot
Speaker 1: of these issues than even some of his Republican predecessors were.
Speaker 1: Why do I or Democrat predecessors in terms of the results,
Speaker 1: They just they just don't They just don't care that
Speaker 1: he's such a clear races This is this is what
Speaker 1: we get from the Democrats though. It's demogoguery. It's demogoguery,
Speaker 1: and they're defending the indefensible. With the situation in Baltimore,
Speaker 1: That's why we played some of that audio for you
Speaker 1: yesterday with residents of Baltimore who are saying, luck this
Speaker 1: place is really, really, in fact a mess, and that
Speaker 1: Democrats would go to Sharpton still just shows you how
Speaker 1: delusional they really are about all of this. I mean
Speaker 1: that Democrats would go the Al Sharpton route here and
Speaker 1: try to use him as the voice of real authority
Speaker 1: on racial issues. Wow, Now Trump's not having any of that,
Speaker 1: of course play clip four. I am the least racist
Speaker 1: person there is anywhere in the world. When cotton men
Speaker 1: who I told wrong, you know, I'm gonna call my
Speaker 1: business like because I had to deal with him unfortunately
Speaker 1: in New York, but I got along with the mouth Shopton.
Speaker 1: Now he's a racist. What I've done for African Americans
Speaker 1: in two and a half years, no president has been
Speaker 1: able to do anything like it. Unemployment at the lowest
Speaker 1: level in the history of our country for African Americans.
Speaker 1: Nobody can beat that. You look at poverty levels, They're
Speaker 1: doing better than they've ever done before. So many things
Speaker 1: offered his opportunities, own criminal justice reform, President Obama couldn't
Speaker 1: get it done. Al Sharpton is someone who has incited
Speaker 1: anti Semitic bigotry in the past that led to fatality.
Speaker 1: Al Sharpton is somebody who has said horrific things about
Speaker 1: Jewish Americans and has never reputed reputated any of that.
Speaker 1: And if that's not enough, Al Sharpton also used to
Speaker 1: talk about how much he hated cops and bruser Mike
Speaker 1: pulled this audio from nineteen ninety two where he's telling
Speaker 1: people to off pigs, which my street lingo is not
Speaker 1: that strong. But I believe offing pigs means killing police officers.
Speaker 1: Here's Al Sharpton in nineteen ninety two. You can hear
Speaker 1: for yourself. Play one. I don't believe in marching. I
Speaker 1: believe in offering the pigs, he said at a rally
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety two. I believe in killing cops. That's
Speaker 1: what that's what that means. They can try to Oh, no,
Speaker 1: he didn't mean he met something. He said it is
Speaker 1: ever apologized for it. No, he's got Joe Scarborough running
Speaker 1: around like the just the absolute turncoat, ideological traitor that
Speaker 1: he is not a traitor to his country, trader to
Speaker 1: his party and saying that you know, Sharpton is a
Speaker 1: change man and he forgives him because of the Bible
Speaker 1: or something. I mean, just it's pathetic. I mean, Sharpton
Speaker 1: is a travesty of a human being and the fact
Speaker 1: that Democrats still go to him shows you a lot
Speaker 1: about who they are. Buck sex in here. So I
Speaker 1: I met Representative Josh Holly from Missouri. And if you're
Speaker 1: from do you see Missouri or is it Missouri? I
Speaker 1: always got to get the state names because people say
Speaker 1: these things different ways. And never forget the Nevada Nevada
Speaker 1: controversy of twenty seventeen, when I had to learn finally
Speaker 1: that it's not, in fact Nevada. It is Nevada. But
Speaker 1: I think I can say Missouri and that's all right anyway.
Speaker 1: Josh Holly is a freshman member of Congress, and he's
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of attention for his stance on social
Speaker 1: media and social media regulation. He's one of these people
Speaker 1: who says, one of these members of Congress who's saying, look,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't have it both ways. Facebook, Google
Speaker 1: and these other These are the most powerful media companies
Speaker 1: in the world now, I mean the other the legacy
Speaker 1: media is stuff places like CNN and ABC and all that.
Speaker 1: They're they're on the way out, you know, they're they're
Speaker 1: just little subsidiaries now of the mega conglomerates, the technology
Speaker 1: and infrastructure providers, places like AT and T. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's where it's all heading. You're you're not gonna have
Speaker 1: the same sway, you know. I mean you you've seen,
Speaker 1: for example, how much the movie production studios, I mean
Speaker 1: movie production studios back in the nineteen nineties were among
Speaker 1: the most powerful iconic cultural institutions in the whole country
Speaker 1: because American the American movie market is global, and if
Speaker 1: you could make a really big budget film and you
Speaker 1: could pack theaters across the country, I mean that that
Speaker 1: was the power they had was tremendous. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: people don't even need them, and lot of the studios
Speaker 1: even really exist. They're just trying to stay alive, trying
Speaker 1: to keep up with the netflix is and the Amazons
Speaker 1: of the world, who have these enormous budgets and can
Speaker 1: distribute their own content digitally. Right, So the most powerful
Speaker 1: media companies in the world, they're digital media companies. That's
Speaker 1: already happened. That's there's no question. That's that's what's going on. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I mean, here I am speaking to you on radio,
Speaker 1: and there are all kinds of regulations about radio, you know,
Speaker 1: what I can say and where we can broadcast, and
Speaker 1: broadcasting licenses and FM and AM and all the stuff.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of regulations on traditional cable TV. And
Speaker 1: yet the Internet giants, these megacorporations, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter,
Speaker 1: they want to be completely left to their own devices.
Speaker 1: Oh no, we'll self police, thank you very much. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll be in charge of our own situation. Oh Holly,
Speaker 1: and others have said no, sorry, not so fast. I
Speaker 1: do think that they are. I think the Googleism monopoly,
Speaker 1: for example, and that we should be aware of that.
Speaker 1: I think the Googleism monopoly. I think that these companies
Speaker 1: should be should be looked at, and if in fact
Speaker 1: it would be of benefit to not just the consumer's
Speaker 1: bottom line but also consumer freedom, then I think that
Speaker 1: you should break them up. Probably. I know right now
Speaker 1: a bunch of libertarians they're slapping their foreheads. Oh buck,
Speaker 1: how could you? Oh I'm sorry. This reminds me a
Speaker 1: bit of the tariff debate. Oh, tariffs are terrible. We
Speaker 1: can't have tariffs, okay, but a lot of places have
Speaker 1: tariffs against us. So what do we do. Do we
Speaker 1: just sit around saying, well, it can't have tariffs they're terrible,
Speaker 1: because they do. China does, the EU does, Canada? Does
Speaker 1: we just sit around and take it because tariffs are terrible?
Speaker 1: And then they never really had an answer for me
Speaker 1: on that one. The digital media is a province now
Speaker 1: of the left. I mean, they dominate in these digital
Speaker 1: media companies. Should we just say, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot you know somehow, here, here's a perfect
Speaker 1: example of what I'm talking about. Somehow the FCC is
Speaker 1: able to block a merger between Tribune and Sinclair to
Speaker 1: create another conservative major channel. But we can't have any
Speaker 1: regulations on Facebook or Twitter or anything else. We can't
Speaker 1: have any expectation of neutrality as a platform instead of
Speaker 1: as a publisher with them. Right, So someone explained that
Speaker 1: to me, Well, why is the FCC approving mergers of
Speaker 1: companies because oh, it'll give them too much reach and
Speaker 1: local markets and blah blah blah. That's exactly that's how
Speaker 1: they shut it down. Too much reach and local markets,
Speaker 1: and the digital media reaches everywhere all the time, and
Speaker 1: it doesn't make any sense. So we live and this
Speaker 1: is part of a part of the problem is, you know, conservatives,
Speaker 1: and there's the our intelligencia tends to be very happy
Speaker 1: to just think that they're right and exist in this
Speaker 1: think tank culture where they just they spew this stuff.
Speaker 1: And there's some more elite conservative opinion journals that then
Speaker 1: repeat this stuff, and you know, whatever somebody at at
Speaker 1: CATO or whatever, somebody at Heritage or wherever, you know,
Speaker 1: puts out as a research paper. That's that's treated by
Speaker 1: much of the conservative intelligencia as gospel. Meanwhile, you just
Speaker 1: look around and say, well, hold on a second. You
Speaker 1: know we're getting our teeth kicked in on this thing.
Speaker 1: Can we do something about that? Oh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: Let the free market decide. I agree with you. Free
Speaker 1: market deciding would be great. The free market is not
Speaker 1: deciding right now. In all other aspects of communication and media.
Speaker 1: There's tons of regulation. All right, Well, let me get
Speaker 1: back to Josh Holly less till I get a little
Speaker 1: fired up about this one. So Josh Holly look very
Speaker 1: nice guy, by the way, He's got a big future
Speaker 1: ahead of my I think in politics. He has introduced
Speaker 1: these Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act, and it would
Speaker 1: make it illegal for social media platforms to hook users
Speaker 1: by offering them more content they requested in order to
Speaker 1: get them to continue on their respective platforms. Here, according
Speaker 1: to the Hell, it would also require the companies to
Speaker 1: build user friendly interfaces with features allowing users to limit
Speaker 1: the amount of time they spend the platform and offering
Speaker 1: reminders about how much time they've already spent perusing the site.
Speaker 1: Quote big tech has embraced a business model of addiction.
Speaker 1: Holly set in a statement, too much of the innovation
Speaker 1: in this space is designed not to create better products,
Speaker 1: but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks that
Speaker 1: make it difficult to look away. Holly would empower the
Speaker 1: Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys to take action against
Speaker 1: companies that do not remove addictive features. I think Holly's
Speaker 1: just look. I think that he's just doing this as
Speaker 1: a kind of awareness raising. He is. No, he's not
Speaker 1: seriously thinking that this bill is going to come and
Speaker 1: do it. I mean, I could be wrong. I could
Speaker 1: be wrong, but I think he's just trying to make
Speaker 1: a point with this because this build is a bad idea.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say this builds a bad idea. I mean,
Speaker 1: what constitutes being an addictive Some people watch TV eight
Speaker 1: hours a day. Some people don't have a TV. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm actually going to tell you this right now because
Speaker 1: I'm probably gonna be doing a little virtue signaling here
Speaker 1: on the radio show once it happens. I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm gonna when I move in New York, I don't
Speaker 1: not think I'm gonna have cable. I'm gonna be digital only.
Speaker 1: Now is that really virtue signaling no. But you know,
Speaker 1: it makes people like to be like, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: even have cable. I used to not have those of
Speaker 1: you who listen to the show in the early days. No,
Speaker 1: I didn't have a TV for ye years, and I
Speaker 1: read so many more books than I'm just gonna be honest,
Speaker 1: it was. You know, my book reading has probably been
Speaker 1: it probably dropped in a half because for me, it's
Speaker 1: so easy to justify, oh, I'm gonna watch I'm gonna
Speaker 1: watch TV because I have to for my job, right,
Speaker 1: I have cable news on. I've got to know what's
Speaker 1: going on. But you learned so much more from reading
Speaker 1: the news than you do from watching it. Don't let
Speaker 1: anyone know I told you that. But one of the
Speaker 1: reasons why I love radio as a format us because
Speaker 1: I get to spend enough time with you where there's
Speaker 1: real substance to the conversation. It's not you know, a
Speaker 1: five minute radio show is worth nothing. A five minute
Speaker 1: you know TV segment is standard. So why do I
Speaker 1: think that this is a bad idea? Well, because how
Speaker 1: would you even enforce this and what is it? But
Speaker 1: it does raise an interest. This is a more philosophical
Speaker 1: question that there's there's an experiment, there's a reality right
Speaker 1: now all around us. If human beings are a new
Speaker 1: kind of lab rat, and social media is that little
Speaker 1: pedal that we're pushing to get the pellet that we eat.
Speaker 1: You know, social media is more influencing our day to
Speaker 1: day perceptions and lives than anybody has ever lived within
Speaker 1: the history of humanity. And I obviously right because the
Speaker 1: technology is new and now it's pervasive, it's everywhere, and
Speaker 1: I think about what this would what this means, you know,
Speaker 1: the the commoditization, for example, of of female attractiveness that
Speaker 1: is going on here. I mean there are there are
Speaker 1: women who are on Instagram and all these different things
Speaker 1: they got millions of followers, are generating very large incomes
Speaker 1: from themselves, which is great for them, but you know,
Speaker 1: what is it What does it now mean into society
Speaker 1: where this is now essentially, being really, really attractive is
Speaker 1: a job in a way that you don't have to
Speaker 1: go to a modeling agency and all that. You just
Speaker 1: you just start taking photos of yourself all the time.
Speaker 1: You know, we're running a new kind of vanity experiment here,
Speaker 1: We're running a new experiment. And how much we're supposed
Speaker 1: to be constantly engaging with each other, and you know,
Speaker 1: you end up engaging on social media with a lot
Speaker 1: of people that you really wouldn't want to talk to
Speaker 1: you in real life. You know, people tweet horrible things
Speaker 1: at me on a regular basis. I don't want to
Speaker 1: talk to those people. I want to talk to you.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to people that are interesting and
Speaker 1: want to learn and have good intentions and become a
Speaker 1: difficult challenging questions with a good heart and a sound mind,
Speaker 1: not you know, just running around flailing and screaming, and
Speaker 1: you know, all the stuff that libs do these days.
Speaker 1: I don't want that. I don't really need to deal
Speaker 1: with those people. I'd rather not. I mean, a crushing
Speaker 1: libs can be kind of a fun pastime, but no
Speaker 1: one really knows where all the social media stuff is going, folks.
Speaker 1: That's and it is addictive. It is addictive, and you
Speaker 1: know you need to force yourself. I will tell you
Speaker 1: just one little trick, one little thing to make sure
Speaker 1: that when you're not when you have time that is,
Speaker 1: you know, with the wife, the husband, the kids, and
Speaker 1: you don't want to engage in social media, put your
Speaker 1: phone out of your reach, not just off out of
Speaker 1: your reach, off your person. It makes a difference. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you you may even feel a little, a little
Speaker 1: twinge of anxiety because I've felt this before. Oh what if?
Speaker 1: What if someone needs to reach me? If it's fine,
Speaker 1: the house is not on fire. If someone needs you,
Speaker 1: you'll get back to them. But keep your device out
Speaker 1: when it's downtime. Keep it out of your reach and
Speaker 1: at meals that unless it's like a working lunch or something,
Speaker 1: which is basically just being in the office but at
Speaker 1: a table instead, that that phone should never come out
Speaker 1: until the end. Till the end, until the check is paid,
Speaker 1: the phone stays away. These are rules that I try
Speaker 1: to live by. I'm not perfect with them, but I
Speaker 1: really do, and I think it's better for everybody as well.
Speaker 1: Put the device out of your reach and away. There
Speaker 1: have been two big wins for the Trump administration on
Speaker 1: dealing with the crisis at our southern border, but probably
Speaker 1: haven't heard much about them. The media doesn't like to
Speaker 1: cover Trump wins. I don't like to cover scandal Trump tweets.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, did you see the thing that he tweeted?
Speaker 1: It was terrifying. I don't know how I can sleep
Speaker 1: at night because of Trump's tweets. That's what they like
Speaker 1: to cover. They don't like to tell you what's really
Speaker 1: going on, especially in an issue as important as securing
Speaker 1: our southern border. So here or here two very important developments.
Speaker 1: One is the wall, the other is third Safe Country Agreement.
Speaker 1: Let's start with the wall, shall we. The very short
Speaker 1: version of a very complicated long story is that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration signed an executive order to use funding that
Speaker 1: is counternarcotics funding in the Department of Defense budget to
Speaker 1: build a wall. This is a pretty straightforward idea. The
Speaker 1: wall is preventing a lot of or would prevent a
Speaker 1: lot of cross border illegal narcotics traffic. So spending money
Speaker 1: for that purpose, well, that's counternarcotics money. Rights. Oh, it
Speaker 1: all makes sense some federal judge, because as we know,
Speaker 1: all it takes is one usually Obama appointee judge to
Speaker 1: issue a nationwide injunction. So one federal judge anywhere in
Speaker 1: the country, there's hundreds of them, can just say yeah, sorry,
Speaker 1: President can't do that because I say so, And then
Speaker 1: it has to go all the way up through and
Speaker 1: the fact that these federal judges keep getting overturned and
Speaker 1: overturned and overturned doesn't matter because they're in areas of
Speaker 1: the country where they think that the politics are on
Speaker 1: their side. And these judges are activists. They're not applying
Speaker 1: the law. How could someone sue the Trump administration to
Speaker 1: prevent the construction of a wall using funds in the
Speaker 1: Department of Fence that the executive branch has discretion over
Speaker 1: how to spend. Well in a five four decision, looks
Speaker 1: like a couple of billion dollars now are freed up
Speaker 1: to be used on the wall. And part of this,
Speaker 1: part of the reason for this is that those who
Speaker 1: are trying to stop the president have no standing. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't just get to say I don't like what
Speaker 1: the president is doing, therefore he can't do it. There
Speaker 1: has to be a concrete harm and you have to
Speaker 1: have standing. There's no individual American who gets to be like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't want a wall, so I'm
Speaker 1: gonna sue the president. Doesn't work that way. There's no
Speaker 1: standing here. And because there's no standing, there should have
Speaker 1: been there never should have been an injunction to stop
Speaker 1: this from happening. But of course there was, and this
Speaker 1: is a big victory for Trump. He was right. Members said, oh,
Speaker 1: he can't do this, he can't use the money for this,
Speaker 1: or no, no, actually he can. Remember this is you know,
Speaker 1: a couple billion dollars. Libs are dead set again spending
Speaker 1: this money on a wall. We have a massive crisis
Speaker 1: at our southern border, drugs, human trafficking, illegal immigration, all
Speaker 1: this stuff coming together, and the one thing that Democrats
Speaker 1: are sure of is that they don't want money spent
Speaker 1: that could stop those things from happening. Why because Democrats
Speaker 1: oppose enforcement of our immigration laws and sovereignty and security
Speaker 1: at our southern border all the time. Find an issue,
Speaker 1: they're on the open border side of it, Find an
Speaker 1: issue that touches on immigration. They're opposed to punishment, They're
Speaker 1: opposed to law and order every time without exception. And
Speaker 1: then that brings me to so so you have the
Speaker 1: one Trump victory as in funding for the wall, five
Speaker 1: four Supreme Court decision. Now there's gonna be more. The
Speaker 1: Court's gonna look at it again because this just means
Speaker 1: that they have a stay on the injunction, which allows
Speaker 1: the administration to go forward and spend the money while
Speaker 1: the full merits of this are under consideration for an
Speaker 1: eventual decision. But at least he means that the wall
Speaker 1: can get going. Have you heard that? By the way,
Speaker 1: you people who are saying, oh, Trump hasn't built a wall,
Speaker 1: hasn't build the wall, Well, looks like a couple billion
Speaker 1: dollars will get you a lot wall, folks. I've been
Speaker 1: to that wall. You know you don't need one hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars for the wall you need you need, you know,
Speaker 1: in the billions to get you all though, and you
Speaker 1: only need a few hundred miles of real wall put
Speaker 1: in place, or fence. It's known to wall's a fence.
Speaker 1: It's what people say when they have nothing else to say.
Speaker 1: I want to sound like they have an argument to make.
Speaker 1: The other part of this the other victory for the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, But the Democrats are trying to undo it
Speaker 1: again because they they are four open borders. They do
Speaker 1: not they do not want this situation to stop. They
Speaker 1: don't want this to get better. But the other place
Speaker 1: is the third Safe Country agreement that we now have
Speaker 1: with Guatemala. This is a pretty straightforward one. Third safe
Speaker 1: country means that people need to once they get out
Speaker 1: of the country of origin in this case, usually Honduras
Speaker 1: or El Salvador, they have to they have to either
Speaker 1: wait or they have to apply for asylum, and that
Speaker 1: means that they're not in the United States waiting for
Speaker 1: the case to go through. So in this instance, and
Speaker 1: it varies a little bit from country to country, a
Speaker 1: third safe country with Mexico would mean that while you're
Speaker 1: applying for solom you stay in Mexico. A third safe
Speaker 1: country with Guatemala means that if you don't actually stop
Speaker 1: in Guatemala and apply there and go all the way
Speaker 1: through Mexico although the United States, you are in violation
Speaker 1: of our asylum procedures. What this stops is effectively country
Speaker 1: shopping by economic migrants who are claiming asylum when what
Speaker 1: they really want is to do an end run on
Speaker 1: the immigration system, which is what's really happening. So this
Speaker 1: this prevents that, it says, Okay, if you're in Al Salvador,
Speaker 1: you're in Honduras, and you're you need an asylum, real asylum,
Speaker 1: you gotta ask for it in Guatemala first. See if
Speaker 1: Guatemala will give it to you. Ah, let's see this.
Speaker 1: This then is a way to shut down the fraud
Speaker 1: because the fraud is at the These are people that
Speaker 1: are really seeking asylum, and what they are seeking is
Speaker 1: just to immigrate to America. That's all. This is under
Speaker 1: the pretense of fleeing violence and everything else. So you
Speaker 1: know what ilhan Omara and others are spreading today, Guatemala
Speaker 1: is not a safe enough country. Okay. If Guatemala is
Speaker 1: not safe enough for people from El Salvador, Honduras to
Speaker 1: seek refuge in, then I guess we have to accept
Speaker 1: the whole country of Guatemala's refugees. And if Guatemala is
Speaker 1: not safe enough, why is Mexico safe enough? These are
Speaker 1: all countries with very high homicide rates. Do we have
Speaker 1: to accept anyone from Mexico wants to? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the dissolution of our system of immigration. Democrats know that,
Speaker 1: That's why they want it, so they oppose. They oppose
Speaker 1: the third Safe Country agreement with Guatemala on the grounds
Speaker 1: that Guatemala is not a safe enough country. Ah yeah,
Speaker 1: that's going to be news to the millions of people
Speaker 1: who live there, feed their families, go about their day
Speaker 1: to day. I'm sorry, we cannot just take responsibility for
Speaker 1: all of the problems of the third world in Latin America.
Speaker 1: It's not going to work. Our country cannot sustain itself
Speaker 1: if that is going to be our posture going forward.
Speaker 1: But Democrats don't care if they want open borders. Mitch O'Connell,
Speaker 1: the hawkish foreign policy conservatives who spent decades pushing back
Speaker 1: on Russia every way I can think of, was to
Speaker 1: accuse of what amounts to treason multiple media outlets within
Speaker 1: a couple of hours. These people have worn out the
Speaker 1: volume knobs so badly that they have nothing left but
Speaker 1: the most unhinged smears. Welcome to modern day McCarthyism. So
Speaker 1: just to give you a little backstory on why Mitch cocaine,
Speaker 1: Mitch is upset and he may, in fact, he may
Speaker 1: have to go to war and tell everyone to say
Speaker 1: hello to his little friend because he's very upset about
Speaker 1: what's happening right now. And then what's happening is that
Speaker 1: you have a media offensive just out of basically nowhere,
Speaker 1: with multiple outlets all running with how Mitch McConnell is
Speaker 1: a Mitch McConnell folks is a Russian stooge. This reminds
Speaker 1: me of when you would hear stories back in the
Speaker 1: day about how about how the Attorney General Jeff Sessions
Speaker 1: may also This was a rumor you'd hear in DC.
Speaker 1: Maybe Jeff Sessions was compromised by the Russians. I mean,
Speaker 1: could you imagine that meeting. Oh, yes, Jeff, we would
Speaker 1: like you to give us influencing the top of the
Speaker 1: Thromp administration. And yeah, I'm I'm not sure I'm on
Speaker 1: to do that, mister, mister Sergey Yablabadov. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't you know, I don't think anybody really believed that
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions was a Russian asset. And yet that was
Speaker 1: something you would hear, and there were people there were
Speaker 1: journalists would say, oh, they must have something on Jeff Sessions.
Speaker 1: What would they have ever had on Jeff Sessions? That
Speaker 1: he was he was late to church by five minutes
Speaker 1: once back in nineteen eighty seven. I mean, really, who
Speaker 1: thinks that there's compromat on Jeff Session. But this was
Speaker 1: a story you would hear. I'm pretty sure if you
Speaker 1: did a Google search on and some of it would
Speaker 1: pop up. But this was the rumor, and that was
Speaker 1: just an indicator of the Trump derangement syndrome that had
Speaker 1: gripped the Acela corridor, the journals in New York, in
Speaker 1: DC and across the country. It was just a version
Speaker 1: of that, just another data point. And yet here we
Speaker 1: are again. They're still reeling from the loss of their
Speaker 1: favorite anti Trump toy, which is the Russia collusion narrative.
Speaker 1: That's been the number one that that's the one that
Speaker 1: they really believe. They know that there's no the Libs
Speaker 1: know there's no mechanism for removing a president for racism.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's you're just they just do that to
Speaker 1: defame him, to make him unelectable again, to you know,
Speaker 1: to also just to vent their spleen their rage at
Speaker 1: the president. But they know that, you know, they're really
Speaker 1: not going to get the president or removed from office
Speaker 1: with accusations of races. I'm not just not going to fly.
Speaker 1: They did think, I believe a lot of liberals believed
Speaker 1: that Muller was going to deliver them freedom from Trump,
Speaker 1: that Muller was going to end the Trump presidency, and
Speaker 1: that the Russia collusion conspiracy was going to bring the
Speaker 1: entire thing crashing down. And as we know, no, that's
Speaker 1: not the case. So they've gone on to something else.
Speaker 1: And and people who have made promises to their audience.
Speaker 1: And I really mean this, you know, where, whether we're
Speaker 1: talking about Democrat politicians or prominent Democrat members of the media,
Speaker 1: they made promises to their audience that there would be
Speaker 1: a big Russia bombshell that would, you know, really strike
Speaker 1: a blow against the Trump administration, against Trump and his family.
Speaker 1: They can't now say, well, you know, Muller's had his
Speaker 1: shot and it turns out that he wasn't who we
Speaker 1: said he was and it was kind of all a lie,
Speaker 1: and we're just gonna move on past this. No, so
Speaker 1: what do they do. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Speaker 1: They've decided that Mitch McConnell is the new He's the
Speaker 1: new Russia collusion chess piece. He's the new mastermind, right,
Speaker 1: the guy that maybe they have some compromat on him.
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not I'm not making this up. I'm
Speaker 1: not exaggerating. You had a piece in I want to
Speaker 1: find it for you here. I'm pretty sure that it
Speaker 1: was Dana Millbank in the Washington Post wrote a piece
Speaker 1: with the headline I'm just trying to find the headlines.
Speaker 1: I don't get it wrong, but I thought. It's basically, Jeff,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset. That's what
Speaker 1: now the term asset. And Dana Millbank knows enough. He's
Speaker 1: one of these journals that kind of fakes fakes the
Speaker 1: you know, the insidery knowledge stuff to people. Oh, we
Speaker 1: must know a lot about how the dark side of
Speaker 1: you know, the intelligence world works and all that. To
Speaker 1: call somebody an asset in that context, I'm sorry, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Mitch mcconell's a Russian asset. It was um, it was
Speaker 1: in the Washington Post. I'm right. Obviously, Buck's always right
Speaker 1: and just kidding him, very humble, but that's essentially at
Speaker 1: least alluding to Mitch McConnell as a as a as
Speaker 1: a spy, as a traitor, which is why Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: so upset. This is a thing that only a moron
Speaker 1: could write or say. Dana Milbank isn't a moron. I
Speaker 1: think he's just deeply cynical. It's a hired gun for
Speaker 1: the left. No ethics, no honor, common among Democrats, common
Speaker 1: among leftists these days, the most prominent ones. To call
Speaker 1: a fellow American a trader is something that should be
Speaker 1: reserved for only the most serious offenses with substantial evidence.
Speaker 1: I don't run around calling Democrats traders. I think that
Speaker 1: some of them, a lot of them are dumb. What
Speaker 1: they're doing is bad for the country. I think that
Speaker 1: they're venal. I think they're not as smart as they
Speaker 1: think they are. I think that they're shallow at But
Speaker 1: I don't run around calling them a trader. That's a
Speaker 1: horrible allegation in politics. It's like the equivalent of calling
Speaker 1: someone a wife beater. You know, you say that to
Speaker 1: a civilian in day to day life, You've ruined that
Speaker 1: person's reputation. They're gonna call h Mitch McConnell a trader
Speaker 1: and say that he's doing Russia's bidding. The idiots that
Speaker 1: have been saying Trump has been doing Russia's bidding all along,
Speaker 1: where is that? Where's that happening? I might add, they've
Speaker 1: had to move away from that because there's no basis
Speaker 1: in reality. He just likes to Trump likes to troll
Speaker 1: the press by not doing what they tell him. He
Speaker 1: has to do with his meetings with Putin by not
Speaker 1: dancing to the required tune of the Libs, and his
Speaker 1: skepticism of the senior ranks of the intelligence community in
Speaker 1: this country are well founded. Well, we're supposed to trust
Speaker 1: that that Brennan and McConnell I mean, sorry, Brennan and
Speaker 1: Coomy and what Clapper that's the name I was trying
Speaker 1: to think of that those guys are just totally squirt
Speaker 1: away and on the up and up, totally honest, know
Speaker 1: what's going on? No Pole, of course not, it's idiocy.
Speaker 1: But Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset. Is a headline
Speaker 1: that was published in one of the biggest newspapers in
Speaker 1: this country by a columnist who knows no shame. And
Speaker 1: it's all because Mitch McConnell doesn't want to support the
Speaker 1: latest frenzied effort to create a new Russia collusion headline,
Speaker 1: which is from you know Warner who. I used to
Speaker 1: think that Mark Warner. I guess the Libs got to him.
Speaker 1: I guess he's a he's a radical leftist asset now
Speaker 1: because I used to think that he was at least
Speaker 1: somebody you could reason with. I'm not saying that he
Speaker 1: was reasonabull, but you could reason with him. You could
Speaker 1: hope that maybe you'd have a normal conversation with them,
Speaker 1: but he's become a he's a Russia collusion truther at
Speaker 1: this point, and he's pushing this federalized election security bill
Speaker 1: because of the threat of oh, Russian interference in the
Speaker 1: election once again. And Mitch mcconnaugh's like, no, this is
Speaker 1: left to the states. States are securing their elections, and
Speaker 1: think about it, just logically, what puts at risk our
Speaker 1: federal election system more, our federal election more if the
Speaker 1: system is entirely centralized, or if the system is decentralized
Speaker 1: and individual states are left to protect the integrity of
Speaker 1: their systems. I think we all know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you can just hack into one system,
Speaker 1: get into one one pipeline, and have access to everything,
Speaker 1: that would be very different than getting into one state,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, if the Russians sneak into the
Speaker 1: ballot boxes in Rhode Islands somehow, that's a very different
Speaker 1: thing that they could sneak into all fifty states. But
Speaker 1: it's just it's unnecessary. They just want to pass this
Speaker 1: bill so that they can have more time to talk
Speaker 1: about Russian interference in our election again. And by Russian interference,
Speaker 1: they just mean that someone somewhere posting memes about how,
Speaker 1: you know, Hillary needs to be locked up and Trump
Speaker 1: is awesome. This is really what we're supposed to be
Speaker 1: so terrified of lock her up memes. The left is
Speaker 1: terrified of pro Trump memes on Facebook and fake news
Speaker 1: stories that spread like wildfire, as if the propaganda of
Speaker 1: The New York Times the Washington Post isn't its own problem.
Speaker 1: And they do that every day, and they've planned printed
Speaker 1: plenty of fake news. But they're smearing Mitch McConnell. It's
Speaker 1: a disgrace. I'm just glad Mitch's is sticking up for
Speaker 1: himself because cocaine. Mitch don't play very happy with the
Speaker 1: fact that Dan Coats. I like Dan. He's a friend
Speaker 1: of mine. I mean, I think he's a terrific person.
Speaker 1: I like him a lot. And there really wasn't conflict.
Speaker 1: I think it was confusion more than conflict. Dan made
Speaker 1: statements and they were a little confused, but that was
Speaker 1: not conflict. Dan is a friend of mine, he's a
Speaker 1: he's a good man. But I think that John Ratcliffe
Speaker 1: is going to do an incredible job if he gets approved.
Speaker 1: He's got to get approved, but I think he'll do
Speaker 1: a great job. I hope he gets approved. I think
Speaker 1: we need somebody like that there. We need somebody strong
Speaker 1: that can really rain it in because, as I think
Speaker 1: you've all learned, the intelligence agencies have run them up.
Speaker 1: They've run them up a lot of preparation for what's
Speaker 1: expected to be a somewhat nasty confirmation battle now over
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence position that will now that
Speaker 1: the President has is trying to fill with Congressman Ratcliffe.
Speaker 1: Now Ratcliffe, I didn't really know much about the guy
Speaker 1: until the Muller hearings when he had one the better
Speaker 1: showings of anybody there. But you can just a few
Speaker 1: things that come to mind here. One is the DNI.
Speaker 1: The Director of National Intelligence is a job that shouldn't
Speaker 1: really exist, doesn't need to exist. It didn't exist before
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. It hasn't done anything since nine eleven.
Speaker 1: It's a bureaucratic post. You got more than enough national
Speaker 1: security advisors and this and that and the other thing,
Speaker 1: coordinators and blahdih blah, they're running all I mean the
Speaker 1: government is. There's so there're more. There's like a hundred
Speaker 1: people working on terrorism for every terrorist around the world.
Speaker 1: That much. I can tell you. And on the national
Speaker 1: security side that is magnified on every issue, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know you've got all these people working on this stuff.
Speaker 1: How many individuals can the president really listen to and
Speaker 1: believe and trust in on any national security matter? The
Speaker 1: numbers not that high, folks. We don't really need a
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence. But I'll put that aside for
Speaker 1: a second. The job is there. And as you know,
Speaker 1: government never gets smaller. We never contract the federal government.
Speaker 1: I was riding an electric scooter, I know, I'm a nerd,
Speaker 1: passed the Department of Labor over the weekend. I just
Speaker 1: looked at him, just like, why does I'm sorry that
Speaker 1: Department of Labor Department of Education, although this could be
Speaker 1: true too for that, and I was like, why does
Speaker 1: this place even exist? It doesn't have to exist. There's
Speaker 1: no reason for it, really, but it does. The Director
Speaker 1: of National Intelligence NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, that's another
Speaker 1: place doesn't need to exist. It's just a big, bloated,
Speaker 1: unnecessary agency that was created after nine to eleven. So
Speaker 1: there's plenty of that, all right, But now what's the
Speaker 1: real fight. Why is this going to get all political?
Speaker 1: Put aside? My woe is me. The bureaucracy's out of
Speaker 1: control stuff, which is all true. Well, it's because now
Speaker 1: the media is upset at anyone being in a position
Speaker 1: of authority in the executive branch who is not of
Speaker 1: buy and for the bureaucracy, and preferably a clear lib
Speaker 1: that they're going to pretend is just an unbiased public servant,
Speaker 1: just an unbiased nerve. Yeah, right, you mean like Brennan
Speaker 1: and Clapper and Komi and McCabe, all these very unbiased Hayden,
Speaker 1: the CIA, unbiased public servants. No person can really believe this.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats are upset about it. I mean, here's
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer, for example. He's telling you that, you know, oh,
Speaker 1: this is something to be so worried about fifteen. He
Speaker 1: is so partisan and he has believed in so many
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories that he's exactly the wrong person to handle DNI.
Speaker 1: You need someone to speak truth to power, You need
Speaker 1: someone to tell the president if you do this, there's
Speaker 1: a danger of war or a danger of Americans being killed.
Speaker 1: And Ratcliffe shown no inclination to speak truth to power.
Speaker 1: He's just gone along with all of Trump's ways. They
Speaker 1: don't want anybody who isn't ideologically opposed to the president
Speaker 1: in a position of authority and executive branch. And now
Speaker 1: they play the game. The New York Times, I believe
Speaker 1: it was today rent an editorial about how we need
Speaker 1: a nonpartisan Director of National Intelligence. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a joke. Friends, John Brennan was a CIA director. John
Speaker 1: Brennan was like Obama's best buddy. He was a true believer,
Speaker 1: a superlib and he was at the CIA and was
Speaker 1: very involved we don't know the full extent yet in
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion hoax creation. And I mean, now we're
Speaker 1: going to get lectured from the other side about how
Speaker 1: we need a nonpartisan person in this role. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: like who who would be would be acceptable to do?
Speaker 1: But this is the same game they play with judges,
Speaker 1: Like we're all a bunch of idiots, Like we can't
Speaker 1: see what's really going on. We can't really have any
Speaker 1: understanding of how the other side is playing the game.
Speaker 1: You know, they say, oh, this judge is a right
Speaker 1: wing extremist. No, the judge is a kind you know.
Speaker 1: Whenever we have a Supreme Court battle. And I'm not
Speaker 1: even talking about the Kavanas stuff specifically, any Supreme Court
Speaker 1: seat that opens up, or any federal judge if they
Speaker 1: think they can make an issue of it. Altho, now
Speaker 1: with the thank you Democrats with a nuclear option, and
Speaker 1: they can't do what they used to do, which was
Speaker 1: just obstruct, obstruct and prevent fantastic conservative judges, especially if
Speaker 1: it was a female or minority conservative judge, from from
Speaker 1: getting on the bench. But they would always act like
Speaker 1: our side has you know, conservatives have bias and have
Speaker 1: problems being fair minded. Their side is always oh, their
Speaker 1: side is never an issue. Now they're they're just public servants, man,
Speaker 1: They're just there to do the job. Bull. Bull. But
Speaker 1: you're going to see a lot more of this. Ratcliffe
Speaker 1: scored some points against the Muller narrative in that congressional hearing,
Speaker 1: just doing his job as a congressman. But they haven't
Speaker 1: forgotten that one. I'm telling you, they're they're gonna make
Speaker 1: a lot of noise. They're gonna try to get him
Speaker 1: to pull his nomination. I wouldn't be surprised, just like
Speaker 1: I mean, they did have that guy. He was in
Speaker 1: the Pentagon, he was going to be Secretary of Defense
Speaker 1: and he had some issue with it was a domestic issue.
Speaker 1: I forget what it was, but he withdrew from consideration.
Speaker 1: And I think that they believe, the Democrats believe that
Speaker 1: they can get Ratcliffe to withdraw. I mean, look, he's
Speaker 1: got The good news is he's got cocaine Mitch, who
Speaker 1: despite the Democrats saying all kinds of crazy and mean
Speaker 1: things about cocaine, Mitch, Mitch's got Ratcliff's back, which will
Speaker 1: certainly be helpful in this process. Play sixteen. I haven't
Speaker 1: met him yet. I look forward to meeting with him.
Speaker 1: We'll go through the confirmation process, and generally speaking, I
Speaker 1: would laying toward presidence nomination and I'd rather not addressed
Speaker 1: out until I've actually had a chance to meet him
Speaker 1: and discuss in his background and qualification. Oh that's right.
Speaker 1: They're also saying he's not qualified. Now, you know, somehow
Speaker 1: Leon Panetto was qualified to run Defense and the CIA,
Speaker 1: but this guy who's also a congressman, you know, he's
Speaker 1: not not qualified for the job. It's basically a bureaucratic
Speaker 1: post anyway. But this is what they'll say, and I
Speaker 1: would just want you will hold to remember that we
Speaker 1: have seen what happens. One of the biggest One of
Speaker 1: the biggest lessons that Trump should have taken from his
Speaker 1: first two years in office was you can't leave behind
Speaker 1: the other guy's guy. You can't leave behind deep state
Speaker 1: entrenched Libs and establishment you know, establishment firsters, and then
Speaker 1: hope that you're going to get a fair shake if
Speaker 1: you're a president who's come in explicitly to shake things
Speaker 1: up and do things differently. I mean, Comy should have
Speaker 1: been gone right away, no hesitation. I know that all
Speaker 1: FBI directors, Yeah, we should. We should abandon that whole pretense.
Speaker 1: Comy should have been gone right away. Sessions. As much
Speaker 1: as I like Jeff, and you know, I appreciate that
Speaker 1: he did my show numerous times, we had a great
Speaker 1: interview back in the day on the Hill, Jeff was
Speaker 1: not the right pick for attorney general he needed. Jeff
Speaker 1: was a peacetime consoliery and Donald Trump needed a wartime
Speaker 1: consoliary as his attorney general and Jeff just did which
Speaker 1: just wasn't that guy one of the biggest mistakes of
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency because that really led to that, you know,
Speaker 1: the domino effect. Imagine if you would have had Bill
Speaker 1: Barr from the beginning in that attorney general rule. Do
Speaker 1: you think that any of this crap would have gone.
Speaker 1: He would have said, Okay, you guys would think we're
Speaker 1: going to start a special counsel here. Let's let's first
Speaker 1: figure out how this whole lie got started, and then
Speaker 1: we'll begin the lie about Russia Trump collusion. Let's investigate
Speaker 1: the dossier, let's investigate all these You know, it would
Speaker 1: have been that first, and he just never would have
Speaker 1: allowed what was clearly a political hit. But hopefully the
Speaker 1: Trump administration's learned its lesson. I think Rackliffe will be
Speaker 1: a good I wonder how many in the major in
Speaker 1: the mainstream, the big media are going to care about
Speaker 1: the USA Soccer Federation's statement that it put out today.
Speaker 1: I think the answer is very, very few. Just as
Speaker 1: we see so many times with the left, it's not
Speaker 1: about being correct, it's not about telling the truth. It's
Speaker 1: about spreading information that can be false, but it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter to a purpose, and as long as it was
Speaker 1: useful at that point in time for that purpose, the
Speaker 1: left and the mainstream media are fine with it. They
Speaker 1: see no need to go back and correct, They see
Speaker 1: no need to apologize. Is to retract any of those things, well,
Speaker 1: just yesterday, the USA Soccer Federation Soccer Federation put out
Speaker 1: a statement, a fact sheet because they're sick of what
Speaker 1: the narrative has become, because the narrative is a lie.
Speaker 1: Here is what we are told that the women's national
Speaker 1: team for soccer, and a lot of you don't care
Speaker 1: about soccer, but put that aside for a second, because
Speaker 1: you know, we could be talking about shuffle board for
Speaker 1: all I care. It's just the gender equality nonsense that
Speaker 1: we're getting into here, all right, So forget about I know,
Speaker 1: all your soccer jokes. It's a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: it's two hours of passing and no goals, and I know,
Speaker 1: I know, But this is about the stories that we
Speaker 1: were told. And at the World Women's World Cup going on,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of coverage of this. Megan Rappino,
Speaker 1: who is laughing about her wokeness all the way to
Speaker 1: the bank, I mean, has now become a has become
Speaker 1: a household name by being strangely anti American and somewhat
Speaker 1: odious in her approach to the flag and to the
Speaker 1: national anthem. But she's now famous. I know who she is.
Speaker 1: You know probably who she is if you're listening to
Speaker 1: the show you do. But it was all started or rather,
Speaker 1: the primary storyline we would always hear about the women's
Speaker 1: national soccer team is that they are underpaid compared to men.
Speaker 1: And there was always a pretty clear jab about the
Speaker 1: men's national team here because the women would point to
Speaker 1: how they were world champions, right, they were a top team.
Speaker 1: They beat poor Thailand like fourteen to nothing, which they
Speaker 1: should be embarrassed about. That not Thailand, the United States
Speaker 1: women's team. There's no need to be to beat another
Speaker 1: team in international competition of the World Cup by you know,
Speaker 1: more than eight goals. Okay, that's enough. If you're really
Speaker 1: going to need the goal differential going down the line,
Speaker 1: then you weren't a good enough team and don't deserve
Speaker 1: to win the whole thing. I mean, if you're just
Speaker 1: going to run the score up against clearly a very
Speaker 1: crappy team. But oh then that was sexist to say that.
Speaker 1: It's not sexist, it's true now the women's the women's
Speaker 1: team that we were told they're underpaid. USA Soccer has
Speaker 1: put out a statement today and here's what the on compensation.
Speaker 1: They say. Over the past decade, US Soccer has paid
Speaker 1: our women's national team more than our men's national team.
Speaker 1: From two thousand and ten through twenty eighteen, US Soccer
Speaker 1: paid our women thirty four point one million dollars in
Speaker 1: salaries and game bonuses, and we paid our men twenty
Speaker 1: six million. Twenty six point four million, not counting the
Speaker 1: significant additional value of various benefits that our women's players
Speaker 1: received but which our men do not. And then they
Speaker 1: go in to the pay. These are the facts, folks,
Speaker 1: This is the real story. Think about all the time
Speaker 1: Rappino running around equal pay, equal pay and all these women,
Speaker 1: you know, girl Power and raw Ron. It was all crap.
Speaker 1: If anything, the women in the US national team are overpaid.
Speaker 1: That's right, overpaid. You could say you don't care. But
Speaker 1: the media was telling this this. This was supposed to
Speaker 1: be raising awareness about gender disparity and how terrible it is,
Speaker 1: and oh it's so hard, and you know, women have
Speaker 1: to work twice as hard as a man to get
Speaker 1: thirty percent of the or you know, seventy two cents
Speaker 1: on the dollar. I don't even know the number because
Speaker 1: that numbers will lie too. This is just not true.
Speaker 1: People get connected, they get attached to these narratives, these storylines,
Speaker 1: and then they don't care when it's not true. This
Speaker 1: is facts, folks, This is numbers. Numbers don't lie. The
Speaker 1: women have made more money. I've been paid more money
Speaker 1: by the Usaccer Federation than the men. The some very
Speaker 1: interesting additional information that comes out here. This is from
Speaker 1: the US Soccer Federation. This isn't like some you know,
Speaker 1: right wing blog somewhere. The women wanted a different pay structure.
Speaker 1: The women wanted guarantee and got because they have different
Speaker 1: collective bargaining agreements. The female players have guaranteed salaries. The
Speaker 1: female players also want full dental and health and vision
Speaker 1: and lots more in benefits. The male players are more
Speaker 1: willing to have a backloaded structure where they get essentially
Speaker 1: higher pay for better performance. The women want guarantees. Now.
Speaker 1: At the risk of being considered sexist, anybody who's ever
Speaker 1: worked in financial management will tell you that, generally speaking,
Speaker 1: not always, you know, you know, to the ladies out
Speaker 1: there running a hedge fund of their own or whatever,
Speaker 1: running a four to one hundred company, I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about you, But generally speaking, women are more fiscal, you
Speaker 1: could say, fiscally prudent, more risk averse than men are.
Speaker 1: It's men who generally financially like to swing for the
Speaker 1: fences because men and women generally view money in different ways.
Speaker 1: For men, it is often a function of status, and
Speaker 1: for women it is often more a function of necessity.
Speaker 1: And essentially they want the money to pay the bills,
Speaker 1: to live nicely, and for everything to be okay and
Speaker 1: be stable. And men are more prone psychologically to say
Speaker 1: I want to bet the farm, I want to go
Speaker 1: all in. Well, this collective bargaining structure reflects that general,
Speaker 1: that general breakdown, and it just goes on in greater
Speaker 1: detail than I need to tell you about right now.
Speaker 1: But the per game comparison they get into here, I mean,
Speaker 1: the women are paid more than the men. Think about that,
Speaker 1: The women are paid more by the way women sock
Speaker 1: are compared to men's soccer. At the at the FIFA level,
Speaker 1: men's soccer is generating billions and billions and billions of
Speaker 1: dollars of revenue. Women's soccer then a FIFA is the
Speaker 1: International Soccer Federation, right, but women's soccer is in the
Speaker 1: you know, in like a hundred million. It's a tiny fraction,
Speaker 1: tiny fraction of what the men generate in advertising revenue
Speaker 1: and that's just a function of eyeballs on the games. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a total, a total refutation of the story
Speaker 1: that we were all told by the media. Did any
Speaker 1: of the media ever think to pull these numbers? You know,
Speaker 1: all these journals. I live in a city full of
Speaker 1: people who are journalists, refer to themselves that way, take
Speaker 1: themselves very seriously, and never seem to actually want to
Speaker 1: do the work of journalists. They want to be advocates,
Speaker 1: they want to be partisans, but with the shield of
Speaker 1: journalism so you can't go after them for this, and
Speaker 1: so that their own their own side of the issue
Speaker 1: politically can say they're not partisans. They're just telling us
Speaker 1: the facts. They're just giving us the truth, which is nonsense.
Speaker 1: And anybody who's sophisticated and they're reading and their understanding
Speaker 1: of the media already knows that women's soccer has also
Speaker 1: received substantially more investment in recent days. So I just
Speaker 1: think that this is something that we all need to
Speaker 1: be in recent years, rather we need to be aware of.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was a it was a lie, this
Speaker 1: whole thing about women aren't paid the same and this
Speaker 1: is not this is not true. This is a lie.
Speaker 1: The numbers have come out. The numbers show it, and
Speaker 1: this is where we are. So I like to tell
Speaker 1: you the truth, folks. One of the reason why I
Speaker 1: want you to come here and listen to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. And that's enough women soccer talk for one day,
Speaker 1: probably hopefully forever. We'll be right back. It's going to
Speaker 1: be quite a while before the left abandons its quest
Speaker 1: to pretend that there can be absolute an absolute equality,
Speaker 1: not under the law, but equality of genetics, of biology, sameness,
Speaker 1: which is a different thing than equality for law. There
Speaker 1: can be a sameness of the genders, that there's no
Speaker 1: distinction between male and female. Libs have made this an
Speaker 1: article of faith. You cannot reason with them, you cannot
Speaker 1: change their minds. There's nothing that you can say when
Speaker 1: you point out, as as a parent, as many of
Speaker 1: my friends have done, that there their little boy, their
Speaker 1: little girl just acted differently and generally in line with
Speaker 1: what boys and girls want to do. We're told that, oh,
Speaker 1: that's that's an environmental situation, even though all of the
Speaker 1: literature that looks at this, the scientific literature, will tell
Speaker 1: you that, no, there are differences in how they interact
Speaker 1: with authority, how they interact with each other, aggressiveness, behavioral
Speaker 1: tendencies between male and female. Of course there are we
Speaker 1: have different biochemistry. But the left has just decided that
Speaker 1: no longer is the case. And that's why you have
Speaker 1: pieces like this in the Washington Post, which publishes a
Speaker 1: lot of insanity these days. Perspective, let's have a gender
Speaker 1: reveal party that reveals gender is a construct. I don't
Speaker 1: even want to read this article. I'm actually reacting to
Speaker 1: the headline because it does not matter what their argument is.
Speaker 1: I've read the argument many times in many different places.
Speaker 1: Gender is not a construct. Gender is rooted in science
Speaker 1: and reality. And the moment that they start to play
Speaker 1: this game of well what about people who are intersects
Speaker 1: or have some other then you have to come back
Speaker 1: at them with But that's not what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: You're not discussing biological anomaly as what is the outlier
Speaker 1: here in gender situations. No, you're saying that when someone
Speaker 1: decides as a male that they are female, they are female,
Speaker 1: that there is no such thing as a as gender.
Speaker 1: It is purely a state of mind. It is a
Speaker 1: psychological state. There's just simply no evidence for this this
Speaker 1: other than as a mental illness. There's no evidence for it.
Speaker 1: It does not exist. And you could say, well, we
Speaker 1: should let people be people and do what they want.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with people doing what they want as adults.
Speaker 1: I'm not fine with children being told that they're gonna
Speaker 1: give they're gonna have hormones before they've even hit puberty
Speaker 1: because they think that their their gender. They have a
Speaker 1: gender dysphoria. I don't think that's okay. By the way,
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as a scientist who can tell
Speaker 1: you what the long term effects of that are because
Speaker 1: we don't know because it's now just beginning. Has never
Speaker 1: been done before. So and somebody say, oh, buck, I'm
Speaker 1: sure they'll point to some study where someone tried in
Speaker 1: the nineties. Yeah, but I mean there's no real scientific foundation,
Speaker 1: no no basis of research for these claims. It might
Speaker 1: have been done once or twice here or there, but
Speaker 1: nobody really knows what the long term effects are. But
Speaker 1: they still they still stick to this, even in areas
Speaker 1: of professional sports competition. As we've been discussing, the left
Speaker 1: wants us to bend the knee on this issue because
Speaker 1: it is forcing you to accept untruth and that makes
Speaker 1: you question everything else about yourself, about your own judgment,
Speaker 1: about your autonomy, your intellectual freedom. When someone insists on you,
Speaker 1: I remember, they want to force you. Now, they want
Speaker 1: to use law, They want to use the power of
Speaker 1: the state to compel you to say that an individual
Speaker 1: is a female when that individual's actually male. And overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: the most aggressive people about this, in terms of litigation
Speaker 1: and in the media, it's always the male to female transition.
Speaker 1: I find where there's a real, a real self righteousness
Speaker 1: about the female to male transition seems to be much
Speaker 1: more The people advocating for that are much more muted
Speaker 1: in how they approach it, or at least more more subdued.
Speaker 1: But I don't know how much longer, folks, I can
Speaker 1: even tell you the truth about this before I'm going
Speaker 1: to get banned from Twitter. I'm going to get told
Speaker 1: that there's some corporate problem with me writing this, saying this,
Speaker 1: believing this, and that's that's a scary precedent to set.
Speaker 1: When corporate America is going to force down our throats,
Speaker 1: or when our social media's ares are going to are
Speaker 1: going to tell us make us say things that are false,
Speaker 1: what else can they make us do? The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks, keep it up real it's time for
Speaker 1: Roll Call, Roll Call time. I guess the debate's going
Speaker 1: on right now, so hopefully you're listening to this while
Speaker 1: the debate is on mute. But nonetheless, at this point
Speaker 1: you're probably seeing that Joe Biden's coming out swinging. That's right,
Speaker 1: blue collar Joe's rolling up the sleeves, gonna be a
Speaker 1: tough guy. I'm gonna challenge somebody to push up competition
Speaker 1: or some other nonsense. All right, let's get to your
Speaker 1: thoughts here. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton is how
Speaker 1: you can send us your thoughts for all things roll Call,
Speaker 1: and I always always appreciate when you do, so, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for that. And we read everything comes in.
Speaker 1: I get to as much of it on Arrow as
Speaker 1: I can. All Right, Rob, Short and Sweet, Rob thick
Speaker 1: cut bacon is the best. Rob. That is absolutely correct.
Speaker 1: I did post a short video on the Gram today,
Speaker 1: which I think is what the cool kids call Instagram
Speaker 1: of some thick cut bacon in my pan getting cooked.
Speaker 1: And this is what I always tell people. Bacon should
Speaker 1: not be some tasteless grease strip that has some faint
Speaker 1: vague smell of bacon. Bacon should in fact taste like pork.
Speaker 1: Bacon should be something that is a pork product when
Speaker 1: you're eating it, and the thick cut just maintains flavor better.
Speaker 1: And I always tell you if you go to a
Speaker 1: butcher and they have or you know, the butcher counter
Speaker 1: at your grocery store, and they have any ability to
Speaker 1: slice the bacon off for you in real time, that's,
Speaker 1: my friends, that's the way to do it. You want
Speaker 1: to slice that bacon off and eat that bacon, We'll
Speaker 1: just eat the bacon in general. A friend of mine
Speaker 1: Today's SEMy a message saying, you mean your cancer sticks.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, look, if bacon gives me cancer, you
Speaker 1: know what, I'm going to enjoy life and go out happy.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to say. I'm not giving it up. Erica,
Speaker 1: right instead of the squad, can we call them the heathers.
Speaker 1: They're treating the Congress like it's a high school and
Speaker 1: American citizens like we are all Martha dump truck. Erica,
Speaker 1: I think you're the second person who has made a
Speaker 1: reference to the Heathers, which I believe is if we're
Speaker 1: gonna be fair, a gen X or Gen y reference
Speaker 1: US millennials are unfamiliar with the Heathers, so don't I
Speaker 1: don't know what the heathers are this show. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I appreciate it. Nonetheless, you're making a pop culture
Speaker 1: reference here. Let us see John right Shield's high Fantin's
Speaker 1: the real news days. Gosh, guys, we're coming up on
Speaker 1: some of you have been with me now for almost
Speaker 1: ten years. It's not amazing. It's like we're all groans
Speaker 1: up together now. I do really appreciate it though. It's
Speaker 1: an honor that you've been willing to give me your
Speaker 1: time over all these years. I hope you've learned a
Speaker 1: lot and will continue to learn a lot and have
Speaker 1: a lot of fun while we do it. Disney World
Speaker 1: is for anyone who has the money to pay for it.
Speaker 1: John writes. One of the number one things to do
Speaker 1: is taking your picture with the characters. Oh sorry, one
Speaker 1: of a number of things to do rather is to
Speaker 1: take your picture with the characters. It's a rare thing,
Speaker 1: and the more photos you get with more characters makes
Speaker 1: you better than your friends who didn't get any photos
Speaker 1: with Donald and Goofy, your Chip and Dale, John, thanks
Speaker 1: so much. People have strong views on Disney world Susie
Speaker 1: and Andy. As a German American, my German grandmother would
Speaker 1: never have taken us anywhere if we were not very
Speaker 1: well behaved. Children. Undisciplined must be a newer problem. I
Speaker 1: keep coming across this, and I'll tell you when it's
Speaker 1: really the worst offenders are where. You know. It's whenever
Speaker 1: I hear somebody has a fancy European accent. You look, oh,
Speaker 1: is the children and they're going to make so much
Speaker 1: noise my children a fancy restaurant. They will spit on
Speaker 1: your head from behind. They will throw their little toy
Speaker 1: for the children in your in your VICI sUAS. You know,
Speaker 1: they just don't care your Europeans. I don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on, but they think that children. They think that
Speaker 1: the rest of society finds their ill behave children either
Speaker 1: adorable or is too oblivious to care, which is probably
Speaker 1: more likely what the rest of society thinks of their
Speaker 1: ill behaved children. I do. I do think this is
Speaker 1: a cultural thing. It's it's just you know, I do
Speaker 1: not come across this the same way. Look, anyone from
Speaker 1: anywhere can have badly behaved children. But I really believe
Speaker 1: that Western Europeans have convinced themselves that kids can just
Speaker 1: act up and that's just kids being kids. That's not true.
Speaker 1: My mom never would have allowed us to cause a
Speaker 1: scene in public, and we never would have done it.
Speaker 1: It just wouldn't have happened. Gabrielle rights. Oh, here we go.
Speaker 1: Hold on a second. The mental aspects you've been talking
Speaker 1: about the last few days are easily explained in neuro research.
Speaker 1: It's because they've actually suffered brain damage. This is not
Speaker 1: a joke. This will explain the clinical data. In somewhat
Speaker 1: Layman's terms, the Left is creating massive fake stress by
Speaker 1: making their followers constantly think the world is ending. This
Speaker 1: forces people to feel a significant stress over time by
Speaker 1: constantly reinforcing the delusion. The stress then gets to be
Speaker 1: internalized because there's no end to the perceived threat. Internalizing
Speaker 1: the emotions then causes the amygdala to go into high
Speaker 1: gear on a constant basis and shrinks the temporal lobe.
Speaker 1: The Left has basically perfected a way of creating a
Speaker 1: fake form of PTSD and mercilessly unleashed it on its
Speaker 1: own supporters. It's literally causing psychosis in the same way
Speaker 1: as someone being victimized by an abusive narcissist for long
Speaker 1: periods of time. It is the neuro equivalent of a
Speaker 1: stress ulcer. This is exactly why the left Is followers
Speaker 1: live in such a mental bubble and are incapable of
Speaker 1: understanding basic truths. So in the end, the idea of
Speaker 1: Trump's arrangement syndrome is actually legit. Do a quick search
Speaker 1: on suppressed emotion and its effect on the brain, and
Speaker 1: it will all start to make sense. Gabriel, I don't
Speaker 1: know if any of what you've written here is is
Speaker 1: scientifically true or not, but it certainly was convincing or interesting.
Speaker 1: Sounds it sounds plausible. One thing that I do know
Speaker 1: from the very very very soon perficial reading that I'm
Speaker 1: able to do sometimes on biochemistry and brain structure, I
Speaker 1: find these these are very interesting areas because we know
Speaker 1: so little about them. So you can approach these with
Speaker 1: a built in with a built in humility that all
Speaker 1: people should have, because even the world's greatest brain surgeon
Speaker 1: doesn't really understand very much about the human brain. Folks
Speaker 1: understand some of the functioning and the tissue, but how
Speaker 1: does a get to b get to see not a
Speaker 1: whole lot there. We really don't understand the underlying functions.
Speaker 1: We don't understand the underlying functions, or rather, we can't
Speaker 1: replicate the underlying functions of a basic cell. So just
Speaker 1: keep in mind the miracle of life. There's not something
Speaker 1: we're able to replicate. As for the yeah, the PTSD
Speaker 1: that it creates. I do believe that libs are in
Speaker 1: the midst of a mass psychosis, a mass delusion. And
Speaker 1: I don't say that to be funny or to be
Speaker 1: is to sound extreme. I really think that that is
Speaker 1: happening and that we should take into account. That is
Speaker 1: the reality that we now face. And it wouldn't be
Speaker 1: the first time. And there have been different periods in history.
Speaker 1: Go back and do some reading. You know, we always
Speaker 1: think of the Salem witch trial and the hysteria around it, right,
Speaker 1: the Salem Salem with trials. That was just a little
Speaker 1: American version of it. There were witch trials throughout medieval
Speaker 1: Europe over the course of centuries that you know, would
Speaker 1: would ended up putting countless numbers of women to death,
Speaker 1: usually burning at the stake. All there are other ways
Speaker 1: too that they would execute women based on what was
Speaker 1: effectively a village, a spreading village, hysteria from one village
Speaker 1: to another village to another. You know, they'd be completely
Speaker 1: terrified of witchcraft and of witches, and they'd put them
Speaker 1: to death. This was for centuries in Europe. This was
Speaker 1: a real thing. That's where the whole storyline of cats
Speaker 1: as the as the familiars, as the little assistance of
Speaker 1: witches goes back to medieval times. And it's also why
Speaker 1: cats have had a in European historical tradition. They've had
Speaker 1: a very different treatment than in more Eastern cultures. Discussion
Speaker 1: for another time. See you learn all kinds of interesting
Speaker 1: things here on the Buck Sex and Show. I tell you,
Speaker 1: this is the greatest part of my job, other than
Speaker 1: getting to hang out with all of you, because the nicest, smartest, coolest,
Speaker 1: best people listen to this show, which is it's just
Speaker 1: it's nice that that's the reality, it's the truth. But
Speaker 1: that's the number one greatest thing. The number two greatest
Speaker 1: thing is that everything that I learned that is interesting
Speaker 1: and worth knowing, I have an opportunity to share with
Speaker 1: a whole lot of people, and that just makes it
Speaker 1: that just makes my job every day much more fun.
Speaker 1: Less right, if you ever bake your bacon on a
Speaker 1: wire rack, you're never gonna fry it again, Mummy less,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, my bacon's skills on the grills
Speaker 1: are they're they're excellent. I cook really good bacon. The
Speaker 1: secret for me to cooking the perfect bacon, the cooking
Speaker 1: cooking the perfect eggs on both counts is a bit
Speaker 1: of patience with the heat. We tend to want to
Speaker 1: cook things far too quickly. We figure, oh, bacon, you
Speaker 1: just cook it through because you hit a very you
Speaker 1: hit a point where you have to remember the pan,
Speaker 1: even if you turn the heat off, will have a
Speaker 1: lot of residual heat in it and will continue to cook.
Speaker 1: And even internally the meat itself will continue cooking when
Speaker 1: the outside has reached a certain temperature. So if you
Speaker 1: if your heat is way too high, and this is
Speaker 1: definitely true of eggs, eggs go from you know, looks
Speaker 1: like something that you blew out of your nose to
Speaker 1: a little rubbery, tasteless things they serve you in a
Speaker 1: lot of diners across the country in like thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: If the heat's too high, I mean you can really
Speaker 1: you know, or rather, if you don't turn the heat
Speaker 1: down at a certain point within thirty seconds, you're gonna
Speaker 1: you're gonna overcook them. So I think you've got to
Speaker 1: go go slow. Low and slow is the secret to
Speaker 1: bacon and eggs cooking in my humble opinion. But I'm right,
Speaker 1: and I know what I'm talking about here, and I
Speaker 1: cook amazing bacon and eggs. Will, all right, Buck, Seapack
Speaker 1: registration is now open. Are you gonna be moderating a
Speaker 1: few discussions? Like last time? I was one of your
Speaker 1: listeners who talked, you're right before the China security on
Speaker 1: cyber Gordon Chang was on that panel. Will. I haven't
Speaker 1: been asked yet to speak at Sea Pack, but the
Speaker 1: fine folks who run the American Concervative Union and put
Speaker 1: Seapack together, I'm hoping we'll reach out again, and I'd
Speaker 1: love to do Seapack again. It was a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: I really really enjoyed. It's a great event, and if
Speaker 1: I am in fact invited, I will certainly let you
Speaker 1: all know. That's it for today's same talk to you
Speaker 1: tomorrow from Baltimore. No less shields up