Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hut. Trump has canceled the
Speaker 1: summit with North Korea's Kim Jong lun. People are making
Speaker 1: a very big deal out of this, but it's not
Speaker 1: all that unexpected and doesn't necessarily mean that we can
Speaker 1: still see progress there. Plus a traffic stop that led
Speaker 1: to some horrific allegations against a Texas Highway patrolman. Turns
Speaker 1: out they were all false, and we know this because
Speaker 1: of body camera footage. We'll get into that, and also
Speaker 1: what words are you allowed to say and what words
Speaker 1: are you not? A debate, a discussion based on what
Speaker 1: happened at a concert in Atlanta. We'll talk about that
Speaker 1: and more coming up. This is the Bus Sets and Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable and intelligence. Make no mistake, America, you're
Speaker 1: a great American Again. The Buck Sexton Show begins. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, great to have
Speaker 1: you here with me as always. Oh boy, quite a day.
Speaker 1: This is one of these days where you see that
Speaker 1: one story break and you go, all right, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be what everyone's talking about all day. That isn't an
Speaker 1: amazing everybody's a North Korea expert today or even an
Speaker 1: international relations, international affairs expert. Lots and lots of opinions
Speaker 1: on this one. People getting into the Wikipedia, the deep
Speaker 1: dive analysis of Wikipedia going on with with North Korean
Speaker 1: nuclear negotiations in the past, and I mean journalists must
Speaker 1: just be wearing their fingers down to the bone doing
Speaker 1: Google searches over this stuff. What have what have we
Speaker 1: been saying here all along? Team less than fifty all along?
Speaker 1: It's a gamble. It was a long shot, long bomb
Speaker 1: into the end zone, however you want to phrase it,
Speaker 1: and doesn't look like it's going on ahead right now.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean now this is some kind of uh disaster.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that anything has been lost. By the way,
Speaker 1: I completely uh disagree with those who are coming out
Speaker 1: and saying that this is we we've lost something here,
Speaker 1: anything else but play sixteen and seventeen John just to
Speaker 1: folks and hear from Trump himself. Based on the recent
Speaker 1: statement of North Korea, I have decided to terminate the
Speaker 1: planned summit in Singapore in June twelveth Well, many things
Speaker 1: can happen in a great opportunity lies ahead. Potentially I
Speaker 1: believe that this is a tremendous setback for North Korea
Speaker 1: and indeed a setback for the world. I've spoken to
Speaker 1: General Matters and the Joint chiefs of Staff, and our military,
Speaker 1: which is by far the most powerful anywhere in the world,
Speaker 1: that has been greatly enhanced recently, as you all know,
Speaker 1: is ready if necessary, if and when Kim Jong un
Speaker 1: chooses to engage in constructive dialogue and actions. I am waiting.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, our very strong sanctions, by far the
Speaker 1: strongest sanctions ever imposed, and maximum pressure campaign will continue
Speaker 1: as it has been continuing. But no matter what happens
Speaker 1: and what we do, we will never ever compromise the
Speaker 1: safety and security of the United States of America. There
Speaker 1: you have it from the President. Look tried, Still a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure in North Korea. They may, they may
Speaker 1: come back to the table. Did anyone think this is
Speaker 1: gonna be easy? Now? At least we didn't think it
Speaker 1: was gonna be easy. And I can't speak for Democrats.
Speaker 1: They were just rooting against Trump, which in this case
Speaker 1: really does mean they were rooting against America, though its
Speaker 1: tough to separate those two things. Right when the president
Speaker 1: United States is approaching a foreign country about an issue
Speaker 1: of such critical national security importance. It was pretty clearly
Speaker 1: we should all be at least hoping for the best.
Speaker 1: That wasn't the case. In fact, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of media chin wagging and chest dumping over this whole situation.
Speaker 1: Plate The art of diplomacy is a lot ard than
Speaker 1: the art of the deal. Nobel Peace Prize. He was there.
Speaker 1: The letter that the President said is it sounds like
Speaker 1: a thirteen year old stream of consciousness in a breakup
Speaker 1: letter from Overnight Camp. Failure of the Trump administration's approach,
Speaker 1: it's impulsive actions is the big winner. When you run
Speaker 1: international affairs like it's a TV reality show and you
Speaker 1: don't prepare, things fall apart. I mean, what are they
Speaker 1: basing any of this on? Every administration before Trump has
Speaker 1: been completely swindled in schooled by North Korea, every single one.
Speaker 1: There has not been a presidency that has had to
Speaker 1: deal with a nuclear North Korea that hasn't failed to
Speaker 1: do anything meaningful to stop their missile program, to stop
Speaker 1: their nuclear research, and just their general hyper militarism. So
Speaker 1: you know, they can trot out as many I mean
Speaker 1: the Democrats, right, Obama's foreign policy legacy is a joke.
Speaker 1: It really is. It's just a joke. It's garbage. A
Speaker 1: lot of people sitting in a room with around Obama
Speaker 1: think they're really smart. They just weren't that smart, used
Speaker 1: to being in the faculty lounge, used to getting a
Speaker 1: lot of cheering for them on various left leaning news networks,
Speaker 1: which is basically all but one of them. No real
Speaker 1: world successes to point to you. A foreign policy team
Speaker 1: of the likes of Ben Rhodes, Susan Rice, Samantha Power,
Speaker 1: not brilliant people, not trustworthy people, not honorable people. We're
Speaker 1: going to listen to what they have to say, and
Speaker 1: their supporters and their enablers, the Nancy Pelosi's of the world.
Speaker 1: You know, I just want to hear from Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: about where I can get the best butler service. You know,
Speaker 1: she really doesn't have anything to add to this conversation.
Speaker 1: Oh but she thought she did, didn't she weighing in
Speaker 1: on this one a lot Blake. Clip six. We got
Speaker 1: the President's letter. The copy of the President's letter, um
Speaker 1: chumming up. It's kind of like a Valentine. I think
Speaker 1: it's a good thing for Kim Jong un here you
Speaker 1: had a thug, a person who killed his own family members,
Speaker 1: a person who has runs a police state, being legitimized
Speaker 1: by the President of the United States. They were on
Speaker 1: a par with each other. He got the global recognition
Speaker 1: and regard. And when he got this letter from the
Speaker 1: President saying okay, never mind, he must be having a
Speaker 1: giggle fit right there now in North Korea. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: has a long history of rooting against this country. By
Speaker 1: the way, I remember what she was like during the
Speaker 1: Iraq War. I remember what she was like during briefings
Speaker 1: from senior government analysts during the Iraq War. And let
Speaker 1: me tell you, it was hard not to feel a
Speaker 1: little twinge of rage when you got the sense that
Speaker 1: she didn't want good news, even if that good news
Speaker 1: meant lower casualty numbers of US troops abroad, meant stabilization
Speaker 1: of provinces in Iraq. That would mean yes, lower casualties
Speaker 1: for Rockies, but also a few of our guys coming
Speaker 1: back wounded and maimed. She just wanted to make sure
Speaker 1: that come back. In being the majority, keep her seat.
Speaker 1: Hang out with fancy types out in Marin County in California,
Speaker 1: I'm rooting for the country. I mean, she's a hack
Speaker 1: and it has been, but she doesn't know it yet.
Speaker 1: It's very frustrating to see her waxing philosophical on this issue.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you this. The the whole oh,
Speaker 1: you can't meet or you can't even do any outreach
Speaker 1: to Kim jong and keep him on. The sanctions were
Speaker 1: all in place. Nothing was given to Kim Jong un
Speaker 1: here all right, people, Let's say, look Whoabama and in
Speaker 1: raw and look what how the Republicans are so mad
Speaker 1: over that. Yeah, that's because we showed up and said
Speaker 1: we'll do anything to get a deal. We'll just give
Speaker 1: you all this stuff. You don't have to do anything painful.
Speaker 1: Iron Obama really wants this. Trump says, you want to talk,
Speaker 1: let's talk. I'm still gonna keep all the sanctions on.
Speaker 1: It's still gonna have the most crippling sanctions against your
Speaker 1: regime ever. But we'll talk if you want the whole
Speaker 1: legitimizing Kim Jong un thing. It's a pariahs state already.
Speaker 1: How how are we going to chip away at this
Speaker 1: problem by by what pretending it's an even worse country
Speaker 1: or having more u N summits orre we talked about
Speaker 1: how bad North Korea is, legitimizing it. That's been the
Speaker 1: talking point for those with nothing better to say, stretching
Speaker 1: back for multiple least three administrations, three different presidencies, both parties.
Speaker 1: I don't want to legitimate as Kim joung owned, don't
Speaker 1: want to legitimize them. Well, while we're so worried about
Speaker 1: legitimizing him or not, the guy's getting missiles that are
Speaker 1: he's gonna be able to, you know, drop a nuke
Speaker 1: in the middle of Kansas By the time we finally
Speaker 1: figure out, well, maybe we should have tried the legitimizing
Speaker 1: talking to him process. What they've done before hasn't worked.
Speaker 1: We really don't want to have a military incursion, which
Speaker 1: is a general way of saying military strikes to what
Speaker 1: degree and how? And I I don't know. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: an academic on the subject of of Korea. I'm not
Speaker 1: a former practitioner. Right, this wasn't part of my AO
Speaker 1: back in my government days. What would a strike looked like?
Speaker 1: How bad would it be? We know it would be catastrophic.
Speaker 1: We know a lot of people would die. And you
Speaker 1: also know that any time you engage a military conflict
Speaker 1: like that with a country with a vast military apparatus.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, a lot of their stuff is old,
Speaker 1: dusty a K forty sevens and artillery pieces from you know,
Speaker 1: the fifties. Those things still fire, still kill a lot
Speaker 1: of people. So it would have been a really great
Speaker 1: thing if Trump had been able to move the football
Speaker 1: down the field here. It would have been And it
Speaker 1: really wasn't about whether you get a Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 1: And I know people like to mock him and Joey Behr,
Speaker 1: who I don't think could find Pyeong Maang on a
Speaker 1: Pyongyang on a on a map. Um if if you
Speaker 1: just you know, gave her the Korean peninsula, Where's where
Speaker 1: is pyong yang? Joy, Well, I know where it is.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you where it is. Imbeciles all over the
Speaker 1: place that are celebrating the failure of a diplomatic initiative
Speaker 1: that one hasn't even failed yet. Just this is where
Speaker 1: it is right now. It's eighteen months into the Trump presidency.
Speaker 1: Unlike Obama, we don't get to look back at eight
Speaker 1: years of failure and make a declarative and final judgment that,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, it's a failure. This is different. This is
Speaker 1: something else. This is the early stages of what will
Speaker 1: certainly be I've told you all along and I know
Speaker 1: you know this too. It's a process. It is a process.
Speaker 1: There was no way this was going to be a short,
Speaker 1: easy win. No one thought that was going to be
Speaker 1: the case. But they're trying to hold Trump to this
Speaker 1: and and it's just so frustrating to watch them gloat
Speaker 1: over America's loss, because that is what they're doing. That
Speaker 1: is what's happening today. It's not the end of the world.
Speaker 1: We didn't legitimize anything. Trying to talk you know, the
Speaker 1: same people I I just I have to point this out.
Speaker 1: The exact same people right now who are all ha
Speaker 1: ha ha ha nanna a boo boo about this summit
Speaker 1: getting called off, are people who would tell you, well,
Speaker 1: anyone who has anything about Afghanistan says, we need to
Speaker 1: talk to the Taliban. You know, you know this general
Speaker 1: and that general. They say, we have to talk to
Speaker 1: the Taliban. Okay, So that doesn't legitimize the Taliban in
Speaker 1: the Democrat foreign policy media industrial complexes eyes, right, that
Speaker 1: doesn't somehow give it. But talking to Kim Jongan, who
Speaker 1: who is head of state of a country with nuclear missiles. Folks,
Speaker 1: we can pretend he's not, but he is, and we
Speaker 1: can act like he's he's as I legitimate as you
Speaker 1: want to. But it doesn't change the situation. But just
Speaker 1: note that inconsistency. No, the only consistency that liberals give
Speaker 1: you is their hypocrisy. Right, smart people, I e. Obama's
Speaker 1: foreign policy team and generals that Obama was working with
Speaker 1: in his administration, and I'm sure some generals now I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not saying that this isn't. This has become
Speaker 1: kind of a consensus issue, but the Democrats will certainly defend. Yeah,
Speaker 1: talk to the Taliban affixed Afghanistan, I can tell you
Speaker 1: right now, and I don't care in any general says
Speaker 1: that's preposterous. U never gonna work unless you think working
Speaker 1: means eventually the Taliban runs Afghanistan, because that's what's gonna happen.
Speaker 1: But that they think is okay talking to Kim John Owner,
Speaker 1: even trying to talk to him face to face, that's
Speaker 1: legitimizing him, undermining our authority, all all all that stuff,
Speaker 1: all that stuff. Oh, or maybe it's just because they
Speaker 1: hate Trump eight four four eight to five eight four buck.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about some other subjects here today
Speaker 1: beyond just North Korea. I promise you that. But we
Speaker 1: have Michael also enjoining us. He's one of my favorites
Speaker 1: on on all issues of East Asia geopolitics. He's from
Speaker 1: the Hoover Institute. He'll be with us probably the next hour. Uh.
Speaker 1: Not having Gordon Chang on today just because we couldn't
Speaker 1: get him, but we'll get him. We'll get him, come
Speaker 1: hang out with us another time. Um, you know, Gordon's
Speaker 1: always welcome. And Uh, this traffic stoff that I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about is it should be a national
Speaker 1: media story and it's not. And I find that very
Speaker 1: very frustrating. And then some footage from a concert where
Speaker 1: where a young woman said something and got called out
Speaker 1: for it because of the rules we have around who
Speaker 1: is allowed to say what words. So we're gonna get
Speaker 1: into a whole bunch of different stuff today, but we're
Speaker 1: still sticking sticking with North Korea for a bit more.
Speaker 1: Eight four four to five, eight four buck, Stay with me, team.
Speaker 1: This takes preparation, This takes the knowledge, this takes judgment,
Speaker 1: and clearly it takes preparation, which the President didn't make
Speaker 1: It's clear he didn't know what he was getting into
Speaker 1: and now he's walking away from it. In this very
Speaker 1: chummy palsy wellsy letter to Kim Kim jongman, Kim Dan
Speaker 1: is the big winner. This is a blame America first statement.
Speaker 1: Financy Pelosi. When she has a choice between playing Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Kim Jong in, she picks Donald Trump to
Speaker 1: blame for no reason other than she's a Democrat and
Speaker 1: she wants to score points against Donald Trump on an
Speaker 1: issue where Americans should be unified against Kim Jong un.
Speaker 1: She's so anti Trump. But there you could tell there
Speaker 1: was a tenor to this. And I said this last
Speaker 1: week that if Trump cancels, the press will blame Trump,
Speaker 1: and Kim Jong ung chancels, the press will blame Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Fleisher's right on that one. It's true if they can pick.
Speaker 1: I've said to you before, I think that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of liberals. If I walked around washing d C.
Speaker 1: And asked them who's a bigger threat to world peace?
Speaker 1: Trump or Kim Jong n, They'd say Trump. Who's a
Speaker 1: bigger fascist? Kim Jong Under Trump? They would say Trump
Speaker 1: and think they're smart for saying it too. This is
Speaker 1: just yet another sign of Trump arrangement syndrome. But let's
Speaker 1: hear you know who's I like on this. Let's hear
Speaker 1: from the DIRSH on this one, play fifteen. This is
Speaker 1: playing into Donald Trump's strong suite. He knows how to
Speaker 1: make a deal, he knows how to walk away from
Speaker 1: the table, he knows how to offer to come back
Speaker 1: to the table. I am certainly not going to second
Speaker 1: guess our president when it comes to negotiating with North Korea.
Speaker 1: I don't think he had any choice once he heard.
Speaker 1: But I think once he heard what the leader of
Speaker 1: North Korea said about the United States said about our
Speaker 1: vice president, he had no choice but to walk away.
Speaker 1: But he's walked away in a conditional sense, and he said,
Speaker 1: I welcome you to come back, but on my terms. Remember,
Speaker 1: we have most of the cards in this negotiation, and
Speaker 1: I think the president's playing them. Well. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: so too. I like I like that. I like what
Speaker 1: the DIRSH has to say on this one, not not
Speaker 1: just on the legal stuff. He's good on North Korea
Speaker 1: to look at that. I agree with them on this one.
Speaker 1: Trump administration is playing the cards that they have. I
Speaker 1: think they playing them pretty well, on the circumstances, I
Speaker 1: think it's so funny. You really have to be his worically,
Speaker 1: either ignorant or just not care about history to look
Speaker 1: at what Trump has done so far in North Korea
Speaker 1: and say, oh, yeah, he's failed. Oh really, what do
Speaker 1: we get with eight years of Obama? Let's be honest,
Speaker 1: what we give it? The eight years of Bush? And
Speaker 1: what we get with eight years of Clinton? Massive fail?
Speaker 1: As the kids say on North Korea, no question, no
Speaker 1: question at all. Oh is it epic fail? Gosh, whenever
Speaker 1: I say as the kids say, there's a good chance
Speaker 1: I'm getting it wrong. Um eight four. If you want
Speaker 1: to chat, what do you think about Trump and North Korea?
Speaker 1: And uh, then we got some other stuff to discuss
Speaker 1: as well. He's holding the line for America buck sex
Speaker 1: in his back. All right, we got lines lit here
Speaker 1: in the freedom hunt. Let's get chew it? Uh do
Speaker 1: we in Georgia? Welcome sir, Hey, bug Shield time? How
Speaker 1: are you doing, buddy Shield time? My friend? I'm good,
Speaker 1: Thank you for calling in. Uh yeah, I just wanted
Speaker 1: to make a comment on what you were saying about
Speaker 1: the Taliban and Afghanistan and North Korea. Now you're right
Speaker 1: on the fact that if we if we talked to
Speaker 1: Taliban Engram do nothing but run Afghanistan. And I think
Speaker 1: that if we would have march to Korea instead of
Speaker 1: politicizing and the way we did, we wouldn't have to
Speaker 1: be talking to him. Now. It's the same thing they
Speaker 1: do over and over and over again. They politicize wars
Speaker 1: and still letting people fight them. And we would have
Speaker 1: this problem if we could take care of stuff at
Speaker 1: the beginning. Well, I I think that the Democrats legacy
Speaker 1: in general, on national security, on on issues of war
Speaker 1: and peace. Uh, it's it's really bad. So there you go,
Speaker 1: I mean, on on their positions stretch back in dealing
Speaker 1: with the North Korea. In fact, you go all the
Speaker 1: way back to the Korean War. I think it's interesting
Speaker 1: when you see some of the debates and discussions around
Speaker 1: what should happen there and people forget. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: called the Forgotten War for a reason. Right, this is
Speaker 1: under a U. N mandate. We lost large numbers of soldiers.
Speaker 1: It just gets for whatever reason, lost by the wayside.
Speaker 1: And you know, that was a conflict that very easily
Speaker 1: could have spiraled even beyond what it was had had
Speaker 1: we decided to retaliate against China more aggressively than we
Speaker 1: did on the Chinese and go after them the Chinese mainland.
Speaker 1: But but do we I hear you? Man? I mean,
Speaker 1: this is stuff we're seeing from people now about how
Speaker 1: it's legitimizing Kim Jong un. Do we think that he's
Speaker 1: gonna just crawl up into a ball in the corner
Speaker 1: and cry himself to sleep because we're delegitimizing him all
Speaker 1: the time. I mean, this is nonsense. Indeed, well, shield side,
Speaker 1: do we thank you? Thank you for calling him man?
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Bobby in Mississippi, you're up, sir, Hey,
Speaker 1: but sheels high fields high listen, Uh, I gotta something
Speaker 1: to tell the lift. In order to fail at something,
Speaker 1: you actually have to have a negotiation first. Nothing ever
Speaker 1: got started, So how can it be a failure? You know?
Speaker 1: I mean they're just they're nuts, Yeah, I mean, what
Speaker 1: how do they think this is gonna get any better?
Speaker 1: But we've had sanctions for a very long time. Trump
Speaker 1: has put on even more sanctions. But if you don't
Speaker 1: open the purpose of sanctions, I think the Democrats forget this,
Speaker 1: or they don't understand this, or it could be all
Speaker 1: the above, or they just pretend not to know the
Speaker 1: purpose of sanctions is to create the circumstances for dialogue
Speaker 1: on favorable terms for us and our partners, and the
Speaker 1: sanctions right, it's not. You don't just sanction people because
Speaker 1: you feel like it. I think the idea is to
Speaker 1: get a change in their behavior, and to get that
Speaker 1: change in behavior, you have to have a negotiation. Well,
Speaker 1: if we're if our negotiating point is we won't talk
Speaker 1: to your leader because he's a you know, a big
Speaker 1: fat dummy head, we're not gonna get anywhere. The rocket man, yeah,
Speaker 1: rocket man no, But I mean, you know, Tremmy, you
Speaker 1: you make a very valid point. What I'm saying is, Okay,
Speaker 1: he'll call him rocket man. But if rocket rocket man
Speaker 1: there there you go. You know he'll he'll call him that.
Speaker 1: But the moment he wants to stop being a little
Speaker 1: rocket man and start being the guy who could lead
Speaker 1: North Korea away from being a a ghoulish relic of
Speaker 1: the Cold War and the world's largest freestanding goolag, I
Speaker 1: mean that's he could be that guy if you want,
Speaker 1: you know, Kim Jong und could or he can be
Speaker 1: a little rocket man, right, But Trump opens up those
Speaker 1: those pathways. I can't even remember the Obama administration having
Speaker 1: a serious moment in the national conversation about how to
Speaker 1: deal with North Korea. It was like, yeah, sanctions, you know, sanctions,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats gave him everything they wanted and that
Speaker 1: was to them, that was a big win. But the
Speaker 1: United States really lost because they've gotten so far ahead
Speaker 1: the two to four billion dollars we gave him, and
Speaker 1: only in one area to be more against United States.
Speaker 1: I hear you, Bobby, thank you for the calling and
Speaker 1: good to talk to you down in Mississippi. Ah yeah,
Speaker 1: there you go. Um go to uh. We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about this later, but play eleven for me for a second.
Speaker 1: One one more thing on North Korea. Well, I'm just
Speaker 1: interested in Wait, Donald Trump did not explicitly answer what changed.
Speaker 1: It makes me think that's not just a straight United
Speaker 1: States North Korea matter, that there's something involving China and
Speaker 1: North Korea that the President doesn't like, but he's not
Speaker 1: ready yet to come out and blame China for That's
Speaker 1: just my guests, based on what the President said and
Speaker 1: how he said it. Because it's logical you should explain
Speaker 1: what changed? Why didn't he? I I've been saying that
Speaker 1: all along, all day to day here in the office,
Speaker 1: and China is not helpful, not helpful on this one.
Speaker 1: Cannot trust the Chinese to have never mind the u
Speaker 1: S interests, but the world's interests at art on North Korea.
Speaker 1: You just can't um they They're playing their own game
Speaker 1: and they're playing for keeps on this one. So I
Speaker 1: think that's that's important for us all to keep in mind.
Speaker 1: I do want to talk about the the situation with
Speaker 1: the NFL. This is getting so much tension everybody. You know,
Speaker 1: it's sports, it's politics. What do you what do you
Speaker 1: guys think about that. I didn't really ask for calls
Speaker 1: on this earlier. I'm curious if any have thoughts on
Speaker 1: this one. I feel like this is I gave you
Speaker 1: a straight up analysis of it yesterday. It's a private organization,
Speaker 1: it hurts ticket sales. A majority, a huge majority of
Speaker 1: Americans don't want them to be protests during the national anthem.
Speaker 1: It's not preventing protests in a public park or a
Speaker 1: public square. This isn't government action. This is private party action.
Speaker 1: They're allowed to set their own rules for conduct. Just
Speaker 1: as I said that the same way they're allowed to
Speaker 1: say no excessive end zone celebrations, they can say no
Speaker 1: messing around during the national anthem, and that this is
Speaker 1: a sensitive area for a lot of players or a
Speaker 1: lot of people watching, or whatever the case may be.
Speaker 1: Doesn't negate the rights that the owners and the people
Speaker 1: involved in the private enter enterprise the National Football League.
Speaker 1: Half I don't understand. I'm seeing some other folks out
Speaker 1: there saying, oh, this is like the right now acting
Speaker 1: like the left, and it's d platform ng no, no, no, why.
Speaker 1: I mean, I won't say this isn't that complicated. It's
Speaker 1: a complicated issue, but I also think it's a clear
Speaker 1: issue right once you think through it. Maybe I'm missing something.
Speaker 1: Usually when I say that, though I'm not missing anything,
Speaker 1: I'd just like to say that. So it seems like
Speaker 1: I'm willing to be intellectually humble about the subject at hand.
Speaker 1: Um I have other things I say when I really
Speaker 1: don't know, but maybe I'm missing something. Is like, we
Speaker 1: know I'm right, But feel free to challenge me on
Speaker 1: this one if you want, or or feel free to
Speaker 1: tell me what I'm missing. Eight four If you want
Speaker 1: to call in on those lines talk about this and
Speaker 1: some other various topics. I really, you know, I almost
Speaker 1: lad the show today with this uh traffic stop, because
Speaker 1: these stories never get the attention they deserve. And police
Speaker 1: have been so unfairly treated in general, law enforcements so
Speaker 1: unfairly treated in the media, with the exception of the
Speaker 1: FBI and FBI spying stuff that is like sacro sanct.
Speaker 1: I think we all know why. But actual law enforcement.
Speaker 1: Forget about the James Comeys and the mccave's, the guys
Speaker 1: who are walking down the street keeping people safe, making
Speaker 1: sure that you know, nobody comes breaking into grandma's house
Speaker 1: with a baseball bat or something. They get treated very
Speaker 1: badly by the media and their stories don't get told
Speaker 1: when it doesn't fit the narrative. And I have I'm
Speaker 1: telling you when you hear what went on and what's
Speaker 1: gonna be in the next hour, This this case in
Speaker 1: Texas just happened this week, just happened. It's just eye
Speaker 1: opening about one how the media is almost complicit in
Speaker 1: the lie that law enforcement, you know, gets away with
Speaker 1: all kinds of really bad stuff all the time. Well,
Speaker 1: we're learning because of the information and and basically the
Speaker 1: constant surveillance state we now all live in. But learning
Speaker 1: is that a lot of citizens actually mistreat officers and
Speaker 1: lie about officers. Jarring there. What a shocker, that is, right,
Speaker 1: lie about what happens to them during encounters with police.
Speaker 1: And this is why I'm I. You know, body cameras
Speaker 1: and dash cameras everywhere everybody. We should have a record
Speaker 1: of all this. No more guessing, no more insinuations from
Speaker 1: you know, either civil rights groups or pro police groups
Speaker 1: or anything. Just just facts that we can sort out. Um, alright,
Speaker 1: eight four nine Buck, I gotta talk to you about
Speaker 1: this NFL thing though, just because I guess for North Korea,
Speaker 1: this is like the primary thing that people in the
Speaker 1: country want to talk about. So this is the freedom
Speaker 1: of We will talk about what the folks want. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. I would be more okay with it
Speaker 1: if they had consulted with the players. This is over.
Speaker 1: I didn't think the players agreed to this. This is
Speaker 1: the owners. And by the way, the owners, who would
Speaker 1: be fine talk a little bit about what the national
Speaker 1: anthem protests actually refers to their an expression of paint.
Speaker 1: I think we have to understand the notion that the
Speaker 1: protests are saying, we have something happening that does not
Speaker 1: conform to our American values and has to end and
Speaker 1: can end. Nobody likes to be ordered around less you're
Speaker 1: in the military, and they feel like this is being
Speaker 1: put upon them, and it's putting a lot of pressure
Speaker 1: on them to choose between something that's constitutionally protected and
Speaker 1: going with the team. And I understand teams of corporations,
Speaker 1: but right now we're living in a time where um, nobody,
Speaker 1: especially on the right, it's standing up to the statement
Speaker 1: that he put out today. That's Joseph McCarthy. I mean, wow,
Speaker 1: First of all, whenever you have somebody talking about the
Speaker 1: First Amendment and they do this, I understand lobbity, lobby law,
Speaker 1: First Amendment, but you know, you know you're not gonna
Speaker 1: hear anything particularly insightful after the butt, right. I understand
Speaker 1: the technically they have a right to do to butt. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you have a right to say that you wish that
Speaker 1: this rule didn't exist, but they have a right to
Speaker 1: make the rule. This is people are trying to make
Speaker 1: this a much more ah difficult issue to understand. I
Speaker 1: think just because it's there, there's a lot of clarity here.
Speaker 1: I also just can't help but point out that these
Speaker 1: protests were occurring before Trump came into office, and then
Speaker 1: Trump said something about them, and then you get all
Speaker 1: these players, much larger numbers of players who were taking
Speaker 1: a knee, and also the media's interest in the taking
Speaker 1: a knee by players became, you know, infinitely more intense
Speaker 1: all and now they really want to see what's going on,
Speaker 1: was all taking anything or a lot of interest in that.
Speaker 1: I really want to know, And I just can't help
Speaker 1: with but sit here and say to myself, Okay, so,
Speaker 1: how much of this is really just become not even
Speaker 1: a proxy for police brutality or whatever they say it is,
Speaker 1: how much of this is really just about protesting Trump?
Speaker 1: Now for a lot of players in the media, this
Speaker 1: has become a proxy for that, I think. And I
Speaker 1: don't follow the NFL all that closely. It is one
Speaker 1: of the few professional sports I will tell you. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not actually a communist. I do watch the NFL.
Speaker 1: But that's my sense of this is that this is
Speaker 1: one of these issues where people have now wrapped this up.
Speaker 1: This is the same way like why are there women's
Speaker 1: marches now, Women's rights haven't been changed. The women are
Speaker 1: you know, better off now, more of them in school,
Speaker 1: more them in grad school, more CEOs. Women are literally
Speaker 1: in a better position now, at least economically and rights
Speaker 1: wise speaking, then they've ever been in the history of
Speaker 1: the United States and the history of the world. Why
Speaker 1: are the women's marches, Well, because it's just an emotional
Speaker 1: response to Trump, and Trump is um right, and and
Speaker 1: that third wave feminism or you know, left wing feminism
Speaker 1: whatever we want to call it. Right, the stuff you
Speaker 1: see in and Mary Claire and that's uh Democrat Party
Speaker 1: dogma about women, that is gathering people together and mobilizing
Speaker 1: them against Trump. That's what That's what's happened, Okay. But
Speaker 1: on the NFL side, I think that you're seeing a
Speaker 1: similar thing that the kneeling, because Trump mentioned something about it,
Speaker 1: and kneeling was a time when players all of a
Speaker 1: sudden felt like they needed within you know, their own communities,
Speaker 1: their circles of friends, to show that they will not
Speaker 1: cave to this Trump awra. I guess, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: that's how I that's at least what I see happening here.
Speaker 1: But I also think that the players don't understand you know,
Speaker 1: you may view this one way, but a lot of
Speaker 1: people viewed it another way. And I would just note
Speaker 1: that a lot of the same people that I hear
Speaker 1: who say, for example, who will bring up, oh um,
Speaker 1: the Confederate flag may mean states rights, or it might
Speaker 1: be historical symbol or it might be all the things
Speaker 1: that people say about the Confederate flag to you, but
Speaker 1: two people from its heart and communities in this country,
Speaker 1: it symbolizes, you know, racism, slavery, segregation. When the national
Speaker 1: anthem is being played and you take that as a
Speaker 1: moment to make your own political statement in criticism of
Speaker 1: the country, you may think when you're doing that players
Speaker 1: that you are protesting in justice, inequality, whatever. But a
Speaker 1: lot of people watching who have had family members killed
Speaker 1: in combat in recent years, who have had family members
Speaker 1: that will carry the wounds of warfare psychological and physical
Speaker 1: with them for the rest of their lives, or who
Speaker 1: themselves watching served and lost friends, lost lost family, they
Speaker 1: see this as blatant disrespect for their service and their sacrifice.
Speaker 1: And I gotta say, you know, you can't it. You
Speaker 1: can't make the one claim and not see how people
Speaker 1: can make the other claim. Right, You can't say, well,
Speaker 1: you may think of it as this, but to the
Speaker 1: rest of of this community, on the Confederate flagpoint, it
Speaker 1: represents all these really really hateful and destructive and bad things.
Speaker 1: Therefore it should be banished from the public square. The
Speaker 1: same people that make that argument seem completely unwilling to
Speaker 1: understand it doesn't matter if they think that. And now
Speaker 1: I'm I'm talking about this on the the ideology involved, right,
Speaker 1: not on the legal the legality as clear as day.
Speaker 1: They can tell them to stay in the locker room,
Speaker 1: they can they can tell them they can't play football anymore,
Speaker 1: they can fire people or you know, based on whatever
Speaker 1: the contracts allow. Uh. It is really disrespectful too. And
Speaker 1: I know this, and I've seen a lot of people
Speaker 1: speak about this, a lot of current and former service members,
Speaker 1: like it just comes across as really disrespectful during the
Speaker 1: national anthem because of what it means to all the
Speaker 1: rest of us. And by the way, because the NFL
Speaker 1: has made a very conspicuous effort have military president games,
Speaker 1: to have military flyovers during games. You know, they were
Speaker 1: not stretching here to connect these things. The beginnings of
Speaker 1: the beginnings of NFL games are treated largely a lot
Speaker 1: of it is like a rally for our rallying support
Speaker 1: of our military. I've been I went to a game
Speaker 1: this past year. That's what I saw, right. They bring
Speaker 1: service members out, They go to service members in the
Speaker 1: in the audience, and they salute them, and they as
Speaker 1: they should. And I think there's all great. I think
Speaker 1: it's the right thing to do. I think it's brilliant
Speaker 1: for the NFL to do it. But because they're doing that,
Speaker 1: to cause a scene and make a scene of yourself
Speaker 1: during the anthem, when other people watching and in that
Speaker 1: audience are having flashbacks to Fallujah and Hellman's and you
Speaker 1: name it, I think it's time for these NFL players
Speaker 1: to get a little of a wake up call on this.
Speaker 1: One's got a lot more coming up. I bet there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people listening to the show right
Speaker 1: now who drink coffee. And maybe you've been drinking the
Speaker 1: same coffee for a long time. Maybe you like drinking
Speaker 1: coffee that is basically brought to you by Bernie Sanders supporters.
Speaker 1: But I've got a much better idea for you, and
Speaker 1: that is Black Rifle Coffee. You should just go online
Speaker 1: check it out for yourself, go to Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot Com slash Buck. Once you see what they've got,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this is going to be your coffee
Speaker 1: company of choice. By the way, they've also got apparel
Speaker 1: and gear up there on the site. But they have
Speaker 1: a K forty seven espresso blend. They've got a blend
Speaker 1: that's literally called Freedom Blend. What could be more perfect
Speaker 1: for their freedom hut. Just go check it out and
Speaker 1: you'll see for yourself. Make sure you use the coupon
Speaker 1: code Buck fifteen for fifteen percent off. That's Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot Com slash Buck coupon code Buck fifteen for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off. Join the Coffee your Diet Revolution, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck. Buck Sexton Mission decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, Rank,
Speaker 1: you're a great American again. This is the Bucks Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Analysts No, welcome to our two of the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show team. I'm gonna tell you about this, uh, this
Speaker 1: traffic stop. It's quite a story and it should be
Speaker 1: a national news story. I think Fox News did pick
Speaker 1: it up today, so it's getting more traction. But this
Speaker 1: would be wall to wall. If it were a different narrative,
Speaker 1: this would be something that would be the lead story
Speaker 1: and a lot of networks if, for example, the accusations
Speaker 1: level against the officer were true, but because they're completely untrue,
Speaker 1: as proven by the video evidence, you want to hear
Speaker 1: much about this case at all, and this needs to
Speaker 1: stop there. There is a a real, uh slew of
Speaker 1: these kinds of cases. I mean, I really wish that
Speaker 1: there was a better database out there of how many
Speaker 1: accusations false accusations of racism or level a level against
Speaker 1: police officers only to be found out to be untrue
Speaker 1: later because of dash camera bodycam footage, and then how
Speaker 1: many assaults uh and sexual assaults alleged against officers turn
Speaker 1: out to be fabricated later on. But we'll get to
Speaker 1: that in just a few moments. We have a couple
Speaker 1: of calls here I wanted to take so I always
Speaker 1: enjoy hearing from all of you, and then we'll move
Speaker 1: on to that story and uh and a whole lot
Speaker 1: more in just a few moments. We have Jackie and Idaho. Hey, Jackie, Hi,
Speaker 1: hi h. I wanted to comment on what you were
Speaker 1: saying about the women's march in the women's lib movement. Um,
Speaker 1: you think that Trump appointing the first female deputy director
Speaker 1: of the CIA would be a major deal director actually
Speaker 1: director of the CIA. Yeah, and no one's saying anything
Speaker 1: about it. It seems like it's not even about women
Speaker 1: in general anymore. It's about certain women in particular with
Speaker 1: ideals the media agrees with. Oh yeah, the left wing
Speaker 1: media thinks that they can in this in a sense,
Speaker 1: you know, take away a woman's woman card. You know
Speaker 1: what I mean. You don't count anymore if you're not
Speaker 1: part of the left wing feminist agenda, which increasingly, by
Speaker 1: the way, is just is just incoherent, nasty, and I
Speaker 1: think self defeating. When you when you see a lot
Speaker 1: of what's promoted these days as what would essentially be
Speaker 1: radical feminism, it's really destructive and it is actually expressly
Speaker 1: anti male as well. Yeah yeah, I mean they talk
Speaker 1: about toxic masculinity. What does that even mean? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead, Jackie. I'm just saying I love your show.
Speaker 1: I listened to it every day. Well, thank you so much, Jackie,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. She don't say thanks for calling. Hi
Speaker 1: from Wydaho. Good to hear from you. Dan in Detroit. Up. Dan,
Speaker 1: how you do a box? It's great to talk to
Speaker 1: you too. I listened to you a few times on
Speaker 1: in the Blaze and then you kind of disappeared, and
Speaker 1: then I found John iHeart radio and I'll tell you what.
Speaker 1: I've been listening daily for about the last two three
Speaker 1: months now and I and that's the three best hours
Speaker 1: of my day. Well, thank you so much, Dan, that's
Speaker 1: really kind to you. Thank you. So what's on your mind?
Speaker 1: I was when you came back in with the Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi comments about well, I wish they would have consulted
Speaker 1: the players. It's like, well, I guess that's how we
Speaker 1: should run our jails and our schools, and you know,
Speaker 1: we'll consult the inmates and see what the rules ought
Speaker 1: to be. It's just such ridiculousness coming out of the
Speaker 1: routes now. And oh yeah, look, I would love it
Speaker 1: if if my boss is that I've always had, would
Speaker 1: consult me on every ruling regulation. But you know, if
Speaker 1: they tell me to show up at eight o'clock in
Speaker 1: the morning, guess what I don't get to say, whoa, whoa?
Speaker 1: Did you insult me on that beforehand? I mean I
Speaker 1: could say that and then they could fire me, all right,
Speaker 1: exactly exactly exactly. Yeah. I mean people are so desperate
Speaker 1: to find a way to twist this, to make this
Speaker 1: a big First Amendment issue. It's not. This is a
Speaker 1: this is a an employment issue. So I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty straight for but Dan, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: the kind words. Man, I really do appreciate it. She'll
Speaker 1: tie it to you well. But he mentioned Pelosi, by
Speaker 1: the way, and I wanted to get to that before
Speaker 1: we switched to a very very serious topic, which is
Speaker 1: what happened to this police officer. And I just in
Speaker 1: one of my missions here is to tell you all
Speaker 1: stories that you won't hear elsewhere, or certainly won't hear
Speaker 1: in the same way elsewhere, and this falls in that category.
Speaker 1: But for first, let's just have some fun with with
Speaker 1: where Pelosi is on things. Play clip five Plaseosi. More
Speaker 1: than half of the Senators running through re election this
Speaker 1: year are over sixty five years old. If they win,
Speaker 1: their term of service will be six years. Their constituents
Speaker 1: are about twenty years younger. Isn't it time for some
Speaker 1: members to return to private service and to encourage younger
Speaker 1: folks to run for office? For me, I don't think
Speaker 1: age has that much to do with it. I think
Speaker 1: it wor out and especially as a woman. I know
Speaker 1: as I want women to know that whether they're going
Speaker 1: from college to Congress, well they can't really do that.
Speaker 1: But twenty five years old to congress, Uh that whatever
Speaker 1: you're bringing, it's new and fresh and different because you're
Speaker 1: a woman talking to like the ultimate swamp creature there.
Speaker 1: Or Nancy Pelosi, Uh, you know she she doesn't want
Speaker 1: to give up her power, her prerogatives, no interest in
Speaker 1: that at all, and she doesn't want any of the
Speaker 1: other big name long term congressman congressman the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: stepsode either. I mean they think that this is this
Speaker 1: is where I get into my whole term limits discussion,
Speaker 1: and or I'm just I just get so agree. You know,
Speaker 1: it shouldn't be that you're a legislature for thirty or
Speaker 1: forty years. I just really don't. I don't believe in that. Um.
Speaker 1: I think that it would be better off to have
Speaker 1: people who come and serve and do their time in
Speaker 1: the legislature and don't view it as a means to
Speaker 1: be famous or means to become rich. Even I really
Speaker 1: would like to see that change, and I think I
Speaker 1: think termoments would be great idea, But then we always
Speaker 1: running a buck. We won't get term limits because the
Speaker 1: people that would have to vote for it. I know,
Speaker 1: I know. But it's nice to dream, isn't it. Team.
Speaker 1: It's nice to have those moments where we can wish
Speaker 1: for something a little better from our elected officials. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you about the story in Texas with this
Speaker 1: highway patrolment, very very important story and it's a it's
Speaker 1: a much bigger problem even than this one incident. Uh,
Speaker 1: stay with me for that, But first I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about our sponsor team. Or sponsor this
Speaker 1: half hour is your one stop shop for polo shirts,
Speaker 1: hoodie's jackets, fleece headgear, athletic youth, infant, women's, all the
Speaker 1: apparel needs you have. If you're into patriotism, supporting veterans,
Speaker 1: and really fresh designs that are going to be the
Speaker 1: envy of all of your friends, go to nine line
Speaker 1: Apparel dot com. Nine Line is a veteran owned and
Speaker 1: operated patriotic lifestyle brand. It tries to bridge the gap
Speaker 1: between civilians and service members, whether military, law enforcement or
Speaker 1: first responders, and encourage a conversation between those who serve
Speaker 1: and those who support them. Plus they've got fantastic gear.
Speaker 1: Go check it out for yourself. They've got pro Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: pro patriotism, pro America designs a plenty. Go to nine
Speaker 1: line apparel dot com use the coupon code buck twenty
Speaker 1: to save twenty per so off. It's a great deal.
Speaker 1: Nine line apparel dot com coupon code buck twenty for
Speaker 1: twenty percent off. Ye. Body cameras. Some people talk about
Speaker 1: them like they are controversial. I see them as an
Speaker 1: unmitigated good thing when we're talking about police officers and
Speaker 1: police citizen relations. I keep coming across these cases of
Speaker 1: I mean when I say bodycam, by the way, dash cam,
Speaker 1: body cam just video footage of law enforcement activity that
Speaker 1: is on the on the vehicle and on the actual officer.
Speaker 1: It's a good thing. Protects a citizen, protects the cop.
Speaker 1: And you keep seeing these cases though, of people who
Speaker 1: lie about cops. You know, we've played recently. We had
Speaker 1: the uh woman in Oh gosh, where was it now?
Speaker 1: I can't even remember. It was a New Jersey Thank you,
Speaker 1: John in New Jersey, who you know, referred to the
Speaker 1: cops as a skin head, and you know it's it
Speaker 1: was threatening the officers. And there's all these different cases
Speaker 1: that come up and people say, oh, well, I was
Speaker 1: racially profiled, that's why I was pulled over. What turns out, actually, no,
Speaker 1: you were speeding and the officer pulled you over didn't
Speaker 1: even know what what skin color you had and until
Speaker 1: they pulled the vehicle over. So and the officer is
Speaker 1: completely respectful during the encounter. Anyway, there there are lots
Speaker 1: of these cases, lots and lots of them, but generally
Speaker 1: they're not as serious as this one. And I have
Speaker 1: to just note that this would, if the situation were different,
Speaker 1: be a national news story. But because it doesn't fall
Speaker 1: into the narrative that the mainstream media prefers, you won't
Speaker 1: hear about it except here on this show. Uh you
Speaker 1: had just last week a woman pulled over in Texas
Speaker 1: named Sharia Dixon Coles thirty seven, just about my age.
Speaker 1: She was arrested for a d w I and charged
Speaker 1: and just we we have there's over an hour of
Speaker 1: this just happened on May twenties. This is last week, Folks,
Speaker 1: is a very new case, and there's about an hour
Speaker 1: and and change of video of the event. So from
Speaker 1: the initial stop all the way through the arrest and processing,
Speaker 1: it is all on video, all of it. I don't
Speaker 1: think that this woman knew that. I'll get to that
Speaker 1: in a moment, but here's how some of the exchange went.
Speaker 1: It's a pretty boring d you want d w I stop,
Speaker 1: but play the audio. Where are you coming from? That man? Okay,
Speaker 1: what are we doing it? Downtown bellas friend? How much
Speaker 1: alcohol you consume this evening when this one? What was it?
Speaker 1: Ck on? Okay? What time did this drink? Have this drink?
Speaker 1: Do not know where you driver license is? Okay? So
Speaker 1: she sounds not not where he did, but it sounds
Speaker 1: a little tipsy, right she slurred her s there. I
Speaker 1: mean it's and she later on was just below just
Speaker 1: below um the level needed to pass the breathalyzer, but
Speaker 1: it had been two hours had passed, so she was
Speaker 1: actually considered drunk at the time of the incident because
Speaker 1: she did have alcohol in her system. Anyway, we'll get
Speaker 1: to that in a moment. But this officer, it's about
Speaker 1: as routine a d w I stop as you can imagine.
Speaker 1: As I said, all on video. But here's what I
Speaker 1: end up happening. This is from the office of Lee
Speaker 1: Merritt Esquire and he held a joint press conference and
Speaker 1: this is what the press conference said. On May twenty one.
Speaker 1: This office has been retained to represent Miss Sharita Dixon
Speaker 1: Cole concerning certain civil rights violations arising from sexual assault
Speaker 1: allegations she has levied against Officer Daniel Hubbard of the
Speaker 1: Texas Department of Public Safety. MS Cole was pulled over
Speaker 1: on suspicion of d w Y. She alleges that while
Speaker 1: Officer Hubbard administered a field sobriety test, he suggested uh
Speaker 1: She suggested that she could go home in exchange for
Speaker 1: sexual favors. According to her statement, when she declined, she
Speaker 1: was taken to Hubbard's cruiser and forcefully groped, fondled, and
Speaker 1: and penetrated sexually during a prolonged arrest that including assaults
Speaker 1: outside and inside of the police vehicle. And then he
Speaker 1: continued to make sexual advances and suggested he would take
Speaker 1: her to a remote location where he could where she
Speaker 1: could provide sex in exchange for her release, um et cetera.
Speaker 1: It goes on in some greater detail here. So this
Speaker 1: is an allegation against a Texas police officer of what
Speaker 1: would constitute kidnapping and rape. So this law enforcement officer,
Speaker 1: if if those things were true, is probably facing twenty
Speaker 1: five years in prison, maybe life. I mean his life
Speaker 1: is over either way, right, I mean, his his career
Speaker 1: is over. He's spending decades in prison because the statutes
Speaker 1: for law enforcement officers that sexually abused people in custody.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it is specifically in Texas. I
Speaker 1: know in New York you you go away for a
Speaker 1: long time, as you should if you're guilty of it.
Speaker 1: But see, here's the problem. Remember this was they hailed
Speaker 1: a press conference about this one. Uh. Shaun King, the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter activist, tweeted this out. This got a
Speaker 1: lot of traction, and national media people were really talking
Speaker 1: about this case for last week. It was just beginning
Speaker 1: to become one of these national causes, right, police brutality,
Speaker 1: police violence, sexual violence, African American woman at the center
Speaker 1: of this white male police officer. Oh, but then the
Speaker 1: do came out. There aren't any gaps in the video,
Speaker 1: there are any questionable moments in the video. The video
Speaker 1: is comprehensive and it is conclusive, and what the video
Speaker 1: shows is a completely professional and by the book d
Speaker 1: w I stop and arrest in in every way I
Speaker 1: mean textbook like they could use the way the officer
Speaker 1: spoke to the woman, the way he went through procedure,
Speaker 1: everything about it completely by the book. And now the
Speaker 1: police have come out with a statement. Here's what they say.
Speaker 1: On and approximately one two a M Texas Highway Patrol
Speaker 1: officer observed the vehicle, etcetera, etcetera. She was charged with
Speaker 1: d w I. Following the arrest, Spurious and false accusations
Speaker 1: related to this traffic stop were made against the tech
Speaker 1: his trooper. Upon learning of those allegations, the Texas Department
Speaker 1: of Public Safety immediately took action to review the video.
Speaker 1: The video shows absolutely no evidence to support the egregious
Speaker 1: and unsubstantiated accusations against the trooper. Department of Health is
Speaker 1: a pall that anyone would make such a despicable, slanderous,
Speaker 1: and false accusation against a peace officer who willingly risks
Speaker 1: his life every day to protect and serve the public um.
Speaker 1: They've reviewed this, etcetera, etcetera, and and they've decided to
Speaker 1: I I agree with this, by the way, release the tape.
Speaker 1: It's probably it's you know, it's public record release that tape.
Speaker 1: So stop with law enforced, and they did. And what
Speaker 1: you have here is a woman who is not just
Speaker 1: a liar, but who tried to ruin a man's life.
Speaker 1: And I mean absolutely and completely destroy his life. Even
Speaker 1: if he wasn't found guilty in a court, just the accusation,
Speaker 1: without exonerating proof, would have would have effectively destroyed and
Speaker 1: ended this public servant, this law enforcement officers. Uh day
Speaker 1: to day existence be all over form, folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I didn't look up his background. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna assume he's got a wife, kids, family, and this
Speaker 1: woman almost took all that away from him over a
Speaker 1: d W I stop now. Few thinks here one. People
Speaker 1: that make false accusations about serious crimes should be held accountable.
Speaker 1: They should be held accountable. It should not just be
Speaker 1: swept under the rug. Because bearing false witness in this
Speaker 1: way could send somebody to prison for the rest of
Speaker 1: his or her life. You can't let that slide. You
Speaker 1: can't let that go. This has to be prosecuted. It
Speaker 1: is a crime to knowingly accuse somebody else of a
Speaker 1: crime against you, especially one where there's no question. This
Speaker 1: is there's not a gray area here. It's not like,
Speaker 1: you know, this was a who started it fight or something.
Speaker 1: She just lied, just lied about this. And I have
Speaker 1: to wonder what would make a woman in her position
Speaker 1: do that? What is going on right now in our
Speaker 1: culture that when somebody has pulled over by a law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer, the response is not what have I done?
Speaker 1: Have I broken the law? How can I comply and
Speaker 1: be respectful with this officer, assuming the officers engaging in
Speaker 1: a professional manner, but instead what can I do to
Speaker 1: even the score or or get back at this guy?
Speaker 1: Where can you know she had to have this thought process, folks,
Speaker 1: where could she take this right away where it was
Speaker 1: essentially that the nuclear option for her, you know, to
Speaker 1: ruin this officer's life, to ruin his career. Just because
Speaker 1: by the way, that that lawyer the office of of
Speaker 1: Lee Merit, that lawyer that really released that statement initially
Speaker 1: um has come out and said that quote, the body
Speaker 1: camera footage directly conflicts with the accounts reported to my office.
Speaker 1: And so he's, uh, you know, he says, we are
Speaker 1: thankful the members of this community for demanding transparency and justice. However,
Speaker 1: it seems you were righteous vigilance was abused. Yeah, that's correct,
Speaker 1: Lee merit esquire was abused. Maybe it's a bad idea
Speaker 1: to try officers in the court of public opinion before
Speaker 1: any facts are really in. Maybe we shouldn't rush to
Speaker 1: make every lawn for every accusation against law enforcement if
Speaker 1: it fits a certain narrative, particularly one of racial bias,
Speaker 1: a national news story, without waiting for any of the facts,
Speaker 1: any of the facts at all. In this case, I'm
Speaker 1: just glad that this officer is, you know, sleeping soundly
Speaker 1: to night, as he should. But this is a real plague,
Speaker 1: my friends. False accusations against officers are much more widespread
Speaker 1: than a lot of people realize. And thank Heavens, there
Speaker 1: are body cameras increasingly present with these departments to make
Speaker 1: sure that these allegations can be rooted out and officers
Speaker 1: don't have their careers in their lives ruined over lies. Overlie.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. So the
Speaker 1: dialogue was good until recently, and I think I understand
Speaker 1: why that happened, and I won't say that some day,
Speaker 1: l we'll give it to you can write about it
Speaker 1: in a book, but I really believe we have a
Speaker 1: great opportunity. We'll see whether or not that opportunity is
Speaker 1: seized by North Korea. If it is great for them
Speaker 1: and great for the world. If it isn't, it'll be
Speaker 1: just fine. Thank you all very much. All Right, So
Speaker 1: President has made it quite clear, as we've been discussing,
Speaker 1: the summit for now is off. But what does this
Speaker 1: really mean and what can we expect going forward. We've
Speaker 1: got Michael Oslin on the line. He is a fellow
Speaker 1: at the Hoover Institution and author of the End of
Speaker 1: the Asian Century, which I have read. By the way,
Speaker 1: I can commend it to all of you, and also
Speaker 1: coming out in paperback this summer. Michael, great to have
Speaker 1: you back. Thanks, great to be with you. All right.
Speaker 1: What do you make of where we are right now
Speaker 1: and these much anticipated and now at least seemingly much
Speaker 1: delayed talks between Trump and Kim Jong un? Well, you
Speaker 1: know this was also unprecedented that I think you could
Speaker 1: have been surprised either way. You would have been surprised
Speaker 1: if it had actually gone forward, given the decades of
Speaker 1: mistrust and enmity between North Korean America, and you would
Speaker 1: have been surprised that, after all the hype and the
Speaker 1: build up, that it would have been canceled. Honestly, I
Speaker 1: actually thought the North Koreans would probably be the ones
Speaker 1: to pull the plug. But you know, you could look
Speaker 1: at it and say that if if they were starting
Speaker 1: to get cold feet, if they were feeling that, uh,
Speaker 1: they weren't getting from the United States beforehand what they wanted,
Speaker 1: then they were just going to ramp up the rhetoric
Speaker 1: and the insults and the outrageous demands and essentially forced
Speaker 1: the Americans to cancel it. And you know that's what happened.
Speaker 1: What would it take for there to be an actual
Speaker 1: chance of success here, Well, if you mean success by
Speaker 1: the actual d nuclearization, right, depends what what you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Who wants what? Right, What the Americans wanted what the
Speaker 1: North Koreans want is very very different. And that's of
Speaker 1: course the nub of the problem. That's why we're talking
Speaker 1: about this after a quarter century, why we haven't solved it. Uh,
Speaker 1: If you're talking about what the Americans want, it's essentially
Speaker 1: for Kim Jong into accept that the fact that he's
Speaker 1: got these nuclear weapons doesn't help him that the Americans
Speaker 1: are very serious about denying him the ability to keep them,
Speaker 1: and so they better cut a deal that preserves the
Speaker 1: regime and preserves Kim Jong un today in exchange for
Speaker 1: these weapons. And and so from the American perspective, it
Speaker 1: would be anything that forces the North Koreans to say,
Speaker 1: we don't know what the future is gonna hold, so
Speaker 1: we better make a deal today. For the North Koreans,
Speaker 1: of course, it's to get the Americans to say, well,
Speaker 1: the North Koreans have these weapons, and there's nothing we
Speaker 1: can do about it anymore. They've got them, they're going
Speaker 1: to keep them, and so we've got to figure out
Speaker 1: a way to protect ourselves. And maybe that means getting
Speaker 1: out of Korea withdrawing some of our troops in order
Speaker 1: to have a quote unquote peace treaty, and maybe the
Speaker 1: North Koreans will agree and at some point in time
Speaker 1: to to cap these weapons or something like that. So
Speaker 1: what you can see is that the two sides were
Speaker 1: as far away yesterday uh from getting an agreement as
Speaker 1: they were twenty five years ago. Nothing changed except our
Speaker 1: perception that Kim Jong un serious about sitting down at
Speaker 1: the table and As it turns out, we were really
Speaker 1: a long way from getting to that table. Speaking to
Speaker 1: Michael Osland, author of End of the Asian Century, which
Speaker 1: comes out in paperback, he's a fellow at the Hoover
Speaker 1: Institution that comes out in paperback this summer. Um, Michael,
Speaker 1: the way forward now for the Trump administration if they
Speaker 1: want to resurrect the prospect of these talks or what
Speaker 1: could they do? What should they do? Yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: a great question, right part of it. You know, the
Speaker 1: letter that President Trump wrote to Kim Jong un that
Speaker 1: was released left open um the possibility of having this
Speaker 1: summit somewhere down the road. And obviously, uh, the prerequisite
Speaker 1: of that is that the North Korean stopped making demands, Uh,
Speaker 1: stop these outrageous insults. You know, you can't really go
Speaker 1: into a meeting like this after they've insulted your vice president,
Speaker 1: called him a dummy and the like. You know, that
Speaker 1: would have shown Trump is just eager for any type
Speaker 1: of meeting, and that would have put him on the
Speaker 1: back foot. So in a way, whether the norths wanted
Speaker 1: this or not to go through, Trump was right to
Speaker 1: pull the plug at this point. And in essence, if
Speaker 1: you want to go forward. It gives you a breathing
Speaker 1: time to see how the North Koreans are gonna act.
Speaker 1: So there's there's basically three things that can happen. Number One,
Speaker 1: the North Koreans decide, you know, we pushed too far.
Speaker 1: Trump's not like the other presidents, so we better cool
Speaker 1: it and and try to get him back to the table.
Speaker 1: Number Two, they ratchet up the rhetoric and maybe even
Speaker 1: try some sort of aggressive act against South Korea or
Speaker 1: Japan or who knows more missile launches for example. That
Speaker 1: that's an easy one to do, uh, in order to
Speaker 1: basically try to blackmail the Americans to come back say, see,
Speaker 1: it's worse if you don't talk to us, we're gonna
Speaker 1: act worse. And that's something they've done many times in
Speaker 1: the past. Number three is that the two sides decide
Speaker 1: quietly behind the scenes to continue high level talks, you know,
Speaker 1: Mike Pompeo or or a very senior member of the administration,
Speaker 1: to try to figure out if they can get to
Speaker 1: a starting point. And the starting point would be a
Speaker 1: mutually agreeable definition of the nuclearization at least the rudiments
Speaker 1: the outlines of a timetable in an agreement on when
Speaker 1: USAID would be given. And if you can get that
Speaker 1: behind the scenes, then you can come back and say
Speaker 1: we've we've you know, smoothed out the bumps and and
Speaker 1: figured out these problems. Now we can go forward with
Speaker 1: a meeting. Is there any situation in which you could
Speaker 1: see Kim Jong un shocking the world and agreeing to
Speaker 1: de nuclearization as I think all Americans at least understand it,
Speaker 1: which is he allows inspections, no more nuclear weapons, no
Speaker 1: more missile program. It's just it seems, even as I'm
Speaker 1: saying it to you, like it's just not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: And this has been my concern all along, although I
Speaker 1: think it was it's worth trying. I think it's worth
Speaker 1: continuing to try. But I can't see that future. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, look, if if they were going to happen,
Speaker 1: it would have happened, right. He doesn't need an inducement
Speaker 1: really to give up the weapons. And if he really
Speaker 1: wants to give up the weapons, and he'll he'll take
Speaker 1: a deal that's offered him. Uh So we don't see
Speaker 1: real indications of change in the nature of the regime.
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, you know, this is not
Speaker 1: East Germany, where the whole regime was beginning to liberalize.
Speaker 1: And if that's the case, that there's no change, then
Speaker 1: it's highly unlikely to see Kim deciding to give up
Speaker 1: these weapons on his own accord. The only way he's
Speaker 1: going to do it, obviously, short of a of a
Speaker 1: change of heart, is if he feels threatened enough, if
Speaker 1: he feels that his future as leader of this nation
Speaker 1: uh is in doubt enough that he has to cut
Speaker 1: a deal. Now, that's the type of message that Secretary
Speaker 1: of State Pompeo was giving, Mike Pence was giving, John
Speaker 1: Bolton was giving, And there's gonna be a lot of
Speaker 1: debate as to whether they overdid it, whether they stepped
Speaker 1: over the line by sort of embarrassing in a sense,
Speaker 1: if you can put it this way, embarrassing the North
Speaker 1: Koreans by saying, look, if you don't do this, remember
Speaker 1: what happened in Libya. Remember what happened to Momar Ghadafi.
Speaker 1: You know, they know what happened. And I don't think
Speaker 1: that they need to be reminded all the time of it,
Speaker 1: meaning I don't think the administration had to necessarily give
Speaker 1: that message out in public repeatedly that back to the
Speaker 1: North Koreans into a corner. But you know, short of
Speaker 1: of any sense on the North Koreans that these guys
Speaker 1: are serious, serious about taking this regime down in fire
Speaker 1: and fury or whatever it's going to be, Uh, then
Speaker 1: they've probably figured they can just play them the way
Speaker 1: they played Obama and Bush and Clinton, which is to
Speaker 1: drag out negotiations for years. Trump may have upset that
Speaker 1: calculus again by saying he's not going to go along
Speaker 1: with that script. He's not desperate for a meeting at
Speaker 1: any price, and so he's canceled the summit for now.
Speaker 1: What we'll have to see do you think that China,
Speaker 1: if we could get insight, which of course we won't
Speaker 1: be able to, but if we could get insight into
Speaker 1: what was said in those two meetings between Kim Jong
Speaker 1: owen and Es and Paying of China, were they on
Speaker 1: the whole constructive from the US position or do you
Speaker 1: think that they were basically scuttling this from behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a great question because you have the
Speaker 1: foreign minister come UH to the U. S and and
Speaker 1: and talk very openly about or make statements openly about Uh,
Speaker 1: they really want this to go forward and the two
Speaker 1: sides can come together, and you know, we have to
Speaker 1: keep this moving forward. Um. Given the fact that the
Speaker 1: Chinese have been extremely unhelpful overall in the past twenty
Speaker 1: five years with North Korea, I think you have to
Speaker 1: take such statements with at least a grain of salt. Now,
Speaker 1: they may have wanted these talks to go forward because
Speaker 1: they thought Trump was gonna cave. Maybe they thought that
Speaker 1: with the right type of pressure from North Korea and
Speaker 1: some support from Beijing, Uh, that Trump would agree to
Speaker 1: some sort of grand bargain and pull the troops out
Speaker 1: or something like that. Um. But I think your question
Speaker 1: is the right one. Uh. Can we believe what they say? Um?
Speaker 1: They certainly don't want to see the US take a
Speaker 1: harder line, They don't want to see the US more
Speaker 1: engaged in the region, and this might in fact be
Speaker 1: the result of that. But do they want to scuttle
Speaker 1: the talks outright? You know, it's an open question at best.
Speaker 1: I think we can say they certainly didn't want anything
Speaker 1: that was going to make the US stronger in Asia.
Speaker 1: Michael Osla and everyone he is the author of the
Speaker 1: end of the Asian Century Fell at the Hoover Institution. Michael,
Speaker 1: really appreciate you joining, and good luck with the paperback release.
Speaker 1: Thanks Buck anytime. Yeah. See, like I was saying, folks,
Speaker 1: it's it's not really it's not a loss. It's not
Speaker 1: a win at this point with North Korea. It's just
Speaker 1: it just didn't happen. You know. It's like it's like
Speaker 1: applying for a job he didn't get. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's largely at this point, I think, no harm, no
Speaker 1: file situation. But to that question that I posted Michael
Speaker 1: on China, I just I think that they're working against
Speaker 1: our interests in ways that if we were fully aware
Speaker 1: of it, and I don't know where the I don't
Speaker 1: want the administration our administration really thinks about this question.
Speaker 1: But I get the sense that if we were aware
Speaker 1: of what China is doing behind the scenes, they are
Speaker 1: much more favorable towards the status quo in North Korea
Speaker 1: than certainly they will outwardly say. But then I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people are even willing to believe. You know,
Speaker 1: the Chinese government is not a moral entity. I don't
Speaker 1: know how to put the Chinese Communist Party. It's not
Speaker 1: moral they do not care at all about the misery
Speaker 1: in North Korea. That they do not care about you
Speaker 1: know what Kim Jong un is doing anybody. They just
Speaker 1: look at this purely as a power play for them
Speaker 1: in Asia and and visa VI the United States on
Speaker 1: the world stage. So I just don't see how you know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna talk to us about how they're gonna be
Speaker 1: so helpful and they want things to get better there.
Speaker 1: But the end of the day, that the Chinese really
Speaker 1: wanted to create change in North Korea, they could do it.
Speaker 1: In fact, China really just wanted to topple the regime
Speaker 1: in North Korea and install well they already kind of
Speaker 1: do have a puppet regime there. But if they wanted
Speaker 1: to install something that was not quite as belligerent and
Speaker 1: crazy is what the current Kim dynasty is, I think
Speaker 1: they could do it. So I just have a feeling
Speaker 1: that those two meetings with China it did not help
Speaker 1: us one bit. All Right, I gotta move to uh
Speaker 1: a different topic here. We're gonna we're gonna switch it
Speaker 1: up in just a moment, So um, stay with me, team,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk to you about other things. I've got
Speaker 1: some news for you from the world of cuisine. I
Speaker 1: can't say it's prickly good news, but I've gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: a team, I feel like I have an obligation to
Speaker 1: bring you the truth about what we are putting in
Speaker 1: our bellies. Come with me. First of all, you have
Speaker 1: this report out of the United Kingdom that says, quote
Speaker 1: no amount of alcohol, sausage or bacon is safe. This
Speaker 1: is according to the War World Cancer Research Fund, which
Speaker 1: has to update its guidelines every decade, and they have
Speaker 1: a ten point plan to cut your cancer risk. They
Speaker 1: say buy up and that includes you know what's coming, folks,
Speaker 1: cutting out bacon, ham burgers, hot dogs. And I just
Speaker 1: want to say to this organization and to the authorities
Speaker 1: in the UK who are pushing this, what good is
Speaker 1: waking up every day if you can't have a little bacon,
Speaker 1: a hot dog or a hamburger. I mean, let's be
Speaker 1: real here, folks. I'm sure steak is on there too. Oh,
Speaker 1: red meat, so bad for you. The dietary wisdom of
Speaker 1: these big organizations is just so full of holes. It
Speaker 1: gets very tiresome after a while, it really does. And
Speaker 1: I'm telling you you know, we're gonna keep digging into
Speaker 1: this on the show. We're gonna keep looking at what
Speaker 1: the truth is of a catosis diet, it and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff. Ketogenic diet rather ketosis is a different thing,
Speaker 1: and and the paleo diet. I'd love to actually have
Speaker 1: a paleo expert on at some point talk about this.
Speaker 1: But this notion that your body couldn't process even small
Speaker 1: amounts of these different meats and alcohol, it just strikes
Speaker 1: me as well. First of all, you know that when
Speaker 1: you whenever you see one of these people that's like
Speaker 1: she's a hundred and forty years old, chased the oldish
Speaker 1: person on the planet. Uh, and they asked, you know,
Speaker 1: are great, great great on Dethel? You know, Ethel, how
Speaker 1: what do you think the secret is to living so long?
Speaker 1: I find that a lot of the time in those
Speaker 1: news stories which you end appearing is well, I start
Speaker 1: every day with a big bagel or toast with bacon,
Speaker 1: and uh, sometimes I smoked some stogies, you know, some cigarettes.
Speaker 1: That's it, not not like healthy of it. I don't
Speaker 1: remember hear like, oh she lived a hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: and all she drank was soy milk. You know, you
Speaker 1: never hear that it's always like, yeah, I live life
Speaker 1: pretty hard. You know the truth this, folks, are Genetics
Speaker 1: play a much larger role in all of this than
Speaker 1: any of us are told or even want to believe.
Speaker 1: That's the real that's the real legit, honest. What's what
Speaker 1: of what's going on here is that these things affect
Speaker 1: people in different ways. But I just can't imagine cutting
Speaker 1: all sausage, all bacon, all ground meat out of my
Speaker 1: life entirely alcohol. I'm not gonna lie. I could probably go.
Speaker 1: I could probably go without any boast if if I
Speaker 1: could cut alcohol out of my life and not really.
Speaker 1: I drink maybe once a week, once or twice a week.
Speaker 1: That's why I make it count with G four tequila.
Speaker 1: But I really don't. I drink very infrequently. I don't
Speaker 1: find it to be It's just not my thing. I
Speaker 1: don't know, it's not my thing speaking, and not my thing.
Speaker 1: Also in the food realm. I'm not making this up,
Speaker 1: all right, and I'm not trying to gross you out, guys,
Speaker 1: but there is a new health craze that is uh.
Speaker 1: I can't say it's like sweeping across America like that,
Speaker 1: but it's definitely a thing that has been happening. I
Speaker 1: just gonna tell you that cockroach milk is now a
Speaker 1: new thing. Cockroach milk is comprised of the nutrient rich
Speaker 1: milk crystals found inside the Pacific beetle cockroach, according to
Speaker 1: Mary Clare Magazine, and people believe that it might be very,
Speaker 1: very healthful for humans. It is quite high in calories,
Speaker 1: four times as much protein as cow's milk, and contains
Speaker 1: essential amino acids that promote cell growth, lipids that keep
Speaker 1: our bodies healthy, and sugars that fuel energy. Can I
Speaker 1: just say drinking cockroach milk? And I'm a milk drinker,
Speaker 1: as you know, drinking cockroach milk is the start of
Speaker 1: either a sci fi or horror movie full stop. If
Speaker 1: you drink cockroach milk and all of a sudden you
Speaker 1: start growing six legs out of your now hardening thorax
Speaker 1: abdomen that is from a insect, you know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. That's on you because you're not supposed to
Speaker 1: drink milk from a cockroach. I'm just gonna say it.
Speaker 1: There's just no way that that's a good idea for anybody.
Speaker 1: I don't care, I don't care how how healthy it
Speaker 1: is supposed to be for you. But yeah, cockroach milk.
Speaker 1: As if it wasn't bad enough that soy milk is
Speaker 1: out there, they've doubled down. They've made it even worse.
Speaker 1: They're destroying the concept of milk entirely. You know, it
Speaker 1: has to come from an animal, that is a mammal.
Speaker 1: That's those are the rules. Okay, cannot from a fruit,
Speaker 1: it cannot come from a nut, and it cannot come
Speaker 1: from a cockroach. Buck Sexton mission decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence. No American rank, You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show activity
Speaker 1: Former CIA analysts remember the Sexton It is Buck Sexton. No,
Speaker 1: you're ready, lay right? Scene like the whole City Gone.
Speaker 1: It gives meet wait wait wait wait wait wait wait
Speaker 1: wait wait? What's up? Bro? You gotta bleep one single word?
Speaker 1: Oh I'm sorry, don't do it. Yeah, I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: Should say so. That was at an Alabama concert for
Speaker 1: the the hip hop artist Kendrick Lamar. I can't say
Speaker 1: I'm particularly familiar with Mr. Lamar's work, but I'm sure
Speaker 1: I know his name, I know who he is, and yeah,
Speaker 1: uh what happened there, and producer Mike make sure I
Speaker 1: don't get this wrong because I've just seen this clip
Speaker 1: and I I'm not familiar with the full you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the full context of everything that happened here. So
Speaker 1: Lamar brings this woman and sorry if the audio sound
Speaker 1: a little choppy there, but instead of bleeping, we cut
Speaker 1: out some of the profanity because the song has some
Speaker 1: profanity in it. And he brings a woman on stage,
Speaker 1: she's white, and invites her two wrap his lyrics, write
Speaker 1: the lyrics to his song. This is a fan Okay,
Speaker 1: this this has been like if I said to one
Speaker 1: of you, you know, like shields high and like I
Speaker 1: expect you to say shields side right like you. This
Speaker 1: is supposed to be kind of within the within the
Speaker 1: family of your supporters and the family of of fandom.
Speaker 1: And what ended up happening, as you might have gathered there,
Speaker 1: was that she uh, she said, because it is one
Speaker 1: of the lyrics in the song, the N word. Now
Speaker 1: this I am different than other folks on this issue.
Speaker 1: As you know, I I uh, I bend the knee
Speaker 1: to this convention, right I I say in reference to
Speaker 1: that word, I will say the N word to there
Speaker 1: are also our limitations on radio for me, of course,
Speaker 1: literally regulations, because this is broadcast on twenty terrestrial stations
Speaker 1: across the country. But I gotta tell you, I think
Speaker 1: that banning words for people to say in any context
Speaker 1: is intellectually inconsistent. I think it's inherently problematic. Um. And
Speaker 1: I think you see this here. So he wanted her
Speaker 1: to self censor. She was supposed to rap. He invites
Speaker 1: her to say, you know, his rap lyric, and she
Speaker 1: says the rap lyric, but then because she's white, she's
Speaker 1: actually not allowed to say his lyrics. That's what happened, Mike,
Speaker 1: Am I getting all this writer? I'm missing any important details? Now,
Speaker 1: you're right? Um? And in the actual written lyrics, the
Speaker 1: the N word is written four times, and there's also
Speaker 1: an F bomb in there in in the actual written lyrics,
Speaker 1: So you're right. Okay, So so this is exactly So
Speaker 1: he invites her on stage, says, you know, what would
Speaker 1: you like to uh? Would you like to be a
Speaker 1: part of this? And and you know it's supposed to
Speaker 1: be fun for her. She's at a concert, she's trying
Speaker 1: to have a good time, and I gotta I gotta imagine,
Speaker 1: you know, he called out Kendrick Lamar is probably you know,
Speaker 1: if not her hero, I mean, somebody that she admires,
Speaker 1: looks up to. She's paid money to be at this concert.
Speaker 1: And there is no way you can tell me that
Speaker 1: she was in any way trying to be disrespectful, derogatory,
Speaker 1: even provocative. Like she just thinks, okay, well, I know
Speaker 1: the lyrics to the song. I'm supposed to say the
Speaker 1: lyrics to the song. And then he calls her out,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, the music cuts off and she says,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got to bleep this word. And then
Speaker 1: she clearly feels a little embarrassed, and the concert goers
Speaker 1: are booing her and telling her not to be on
Speaker 1: the stage anymore. And and now she's you know, now
Speaker 1: she's like getting some heat for this. Now, to Lamar's credit,
Speaker 1: he allowed her to perform the song again end this
Speaker 1: time without the alert, so he wasn't he would. He
Speaker 1: didn't come down on her super hard. I don't want
Speaker 1: to overstate this. It's not like he turned on her
Speaker 1: and you know said, you know, bleep you, and it
Speaker 1: made a big thing of it, but it was, you know,
Speaker 1: it was one of these things where clearly she was
Speaker 1: a little embarrassed, and clearly there was a a problem here.
Speaker 1: And I just do not believe that there are words that,
Speaker 1: because of your skin color, you are not allowed to say.
Speaker 1: And I keep in mind, I wouldn't say it right
Speaker 1: because I understand the way that we are now, all
Speaker 1: the social conventions, the expectations that are in place. I'm
Speaker 1: also like, Okay, you know, I'm not going to be
Speaker 1: the guy. It's not worth running up the hill and
Speaker 1: getting mowed down by the machine gun. So to speak
Speaker 1: on this right doesn't serve anyone, That doesn't serve any purpose.
Speaker 1: What I'm talking about is the usage of the word
Speaker 1: in specific context. Right. So if if I, let's say,
Speaker 1: was in a uh in a classroom setting and we
Speaker 1: were reading Um Inventors Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, for example,
Speaker 1: or if we were reading Richard Wright, by the way,
Speaker 1: up celebrated African American author but also a former communist,
Speaker 1: which is very interesting discussion for another time. He's profiled
Speaker 1: is one of the writers that leave Seven writers in
Speaker 1: The God That Failed, which is one of the most
Speaker 1: important ideological takedowns of communism, Marxism, redistribution, and state is
Speaker 1: um you could ever read? It's really profound, really important.
Speaker 1: I think it's like you can get it online for free.
Speaker 1: It's one of these books where you I don't think
Speaker 1: you can even get it these days in print, but
Speaker 1: you can download a digitally for free. The God That Failed.
Speaker 1: It's very very important work anyway. But if you were
Speaker 1: some of richard writes books, the N word appears. If
Speaker 1: you were in a class and you were told, you know,
Speaker 1: we're all reading from this book. You know, we're all
Speaker 1: reading from this Are you supposed to if you're a
Speaker 1: white student say the N word? But if you're a
Speaker 1: black and you can read the full word as written,
Speaker 1: what if you're a Hispanic student? By is it only?
Speaker 1: Are we really now saying that there are words that
Speaker 1: only some people, by as determined by skin color, are
Speaker 1: allowed to say in any context? Okay, I can take
Speaker 1: this even a step further, and I know that this
Speaker 1: is Look, it's a sensitive issue for people. I understand
Speaker 1: all this. What about in a court situation if if
Speaker 1: someone is going to read, you know, let's say there's
Speaker 1: a fight and someone says that the one person claims
Speaker 1: the other used a racial slur in fact, that came up.
Speaker 1: I can talk about that in just a moment, but
Speaker 1: in a court situation when the you know, if a
Speaker 1: white lawyer is reading the accusation, if a white prosecutor
Speaker 1: is reading the accusation, does he have to say he
Speaker 1: called her the or he called him the the N word.
Speaker 1: But a black prosecutor would just be allowed to say
Speaker 1: in an open court. You know, I really, I really
Speaker 1: mean this, like I'm curious to know what we're supposed
Speaker 1: to because keep in mind, if you make a mistake
Speaker 1: on this, you your grounds of forgiveness are are very slim. Right,
Speaker 1: You're you're the chance of you being given either not
Speaker 1: just not being given a pass, being given a second chance.
Speaker 1: You better hope that you know you're you're lucky that day.
Speaker 1: And I I think that we're inherently in a problematic
Speaker 1: zone of thought when we can't you and I sitting here,
Speaker 1: maybe you have an answer to this, and by all means,
Speaker 1: send me on Facebook or call in and tell me.
Speaker 1: But when we can't even determine what the expectations are
Speaker 1: for the usage of or or for what is acceptable
Speaker 1: usage of the N work, you know, I feel badly
Speaker 1: for that woman. I think she was She clearly when
Speaker 1: she realized what happened, was really embarrassed. I don't think
Speaker 1: she said it to be disrespectful. She was invited by
Speaker 1: the rapper to say it. And I'm sure she's probably
Speaker 1: listening to his songs hundreds of times and it's just
Speaker 1: steered into her brain that what the lyrics are and
Speaker 1: everything else, and it's just it's just another example is
Speaker 1: by the way, there's a story out of an I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna play this audio for you because it's so heinous,
Speaker 1: but this is this is when you find out are
Speaker 1: you really in favor of free speech or or not?
Speaker 1: Meaning free speech in the government intervention sense. I don't
Speaker 1: mean free speech as a concept, because this is about
Speaker 1: government action. A guy on the Long Island Railroad in
Speaker 1: New York, Um who was on a we're not playing
Speaker 1: the audio for it's out there if you want to
Speaker 1: see the audio, uh, Edward Ruggierio. He was having it.
Speaker 1: He had a dispute on the on the Long Island
Speaker 1: Railroad with an African American woman. I think I might
Speaker 1: have actually been two women, you can't really tell from
Speaker 1: the video. And he said the stuff that you can
Speaker 1: never you know that you can never say that, no
Speaker 1: human beings should ever say really vile racist stuff of
Speaker 1: the kind of things that would be and should be
Speaker 1: a reputation destroying for someone to say to another person.
Speaker 1: Uh And and I won't repeat them on air, but
Speaker 1: they were on video that all said. He is being
Speaker 1: charged with third degree menacing as a hate crime and
Speaker 1: second degree aggravated harassment, punishable by up to a year
Speaker 1: in jail. He did not physically hurt either of the
Speaker 1: women he argued with. He did not threaten to physically
Speaker 1: hurt the women. He just had a dispute with them.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry, but no matter how much somebody says mean,
Speaker 1: nasty things that cannot and should not be a crime,
Speaker 1: there has to be more than just it's really mean.
Speaker 1: There has to be more than it's just really racist,
Speaker 1: because once you start to walk down that path. Okay,
Speaker 1: so if I say abortion is murderer? Is that am
Speaker 1: I now committing a crime? I mean, we we don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on this one. Right calling someone
Speaker 1: an a legal immigrant that's mean? Is that a crime?
Speaker 1: What's the boundary here? If it's not about the about
Speaker 1: actual force or the imminent threat of force, If it's
Speaker 1: just gonna be saying something really nicet. This case was
Speaker 1: just this week. I mean, this is in the headlines.
Speaker 1: Queen's DA in New York City charged this guy up
Speaker 1: to a year in prison. He is being threatened by
Speaker 1: a state or you know, state authority with imprisonment for
Speaker 1: saying nasty, racist things. I'm sorry, but hate speech is
Speaker 1: in fact protected under the First Amendment. We've been through this,
Speaker 1: the Nazis marching and Skokie, Illinois. We we've been through this.
Speaker 1: But right now, in our current moment, there's an effort
Speaker 1: to try and use the law to police speech even
Speaker 1: when it's the worst. And this guy said the worst stuff,
Speaker 1: by the way, the worst, no question. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: this guy's scummy, but he shouldn't face prison for saying
Speaker 1: bad things. And I don't believe that some people should
Speaker 1: be allowed to say words and other people are literally
Speaker 1: never allowed to say it, because it's going to create
Speaker 1: inconsistencies that lead to further problems and a lot of
Speaker 1: aggravation on all sides. We'll be right back. Morgan Freeman
Speaker 1: is the latest person to get caught up in the
Speaker 1: me too movement. Uh. This is courtesy of CNN. A
Speaker 1: young production assistant, I thought she had landed the job
Speaker 1: of her dreams when in the summer of two thousand
Speaker 1: and fifteen, she started work on Going in Style, a
Speaker 1: bank heist comedy starring Morgan Freeman and some others. The
Speaker 1: job quickly devolved into several months of harassment, she told CNN.
Speaker 1: She alleges that Freeman subjected her to unwanted touching and
Speaker 1: comments about her figure and clothing on a near daily basis.
Speaker 1: Freeman would rest his hand on her lower back or
Speaker 1: rub her lower back. In one incident, he kept trying
Speaker 1: to lift up her skirt and asking and asked if
Speaker 1: she was wearing underwear. Okay, pretty amazing. Um that this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff was kept quiet as long as it was.
Speaker 1: Once again, I I gotta tell you, eight women came
Speaker 1: out here, eight different women accusing Freeman of stuff that
Speaker 1: this is not like oh maybe there was a misunderstanding,
Speaker 1: or you know, maybe he thought that there was that
Speaker 1: this was all in good fun. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this is harassment. This is abusive stuff. Yeah, eight eight
Speaker 1: women have come forward. Freeman has uh sense apologized. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure of the specifics of his apology. Um, but
Speaker 1: he definitely, uh, he definitely got caught up in this one.
Speaker 1: I gotta say, I wouldn't have guessed, you know, but yeah,
Speaker 1: you have no idea with with these actors. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't know who's who's being a good who's a
Speaker 1: good guy, and who's actually a creep until you find out.
Speaker 1: Speaking of creeps, though, this big, big headline on on
Speaker 1: Drudge and other places to Harvey Weinstein, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the Remember the Morgan Freeman stuff is bad, But
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody's alleging unless I'm missing something, any
Speaker 1: kind of criminal conduct. So while that falls into the
Speaker 1: very broad umbrella of me too, when you look at
Speaker 1: what's going on with Harvey Weinstein, that is as serious
Speaker 1: as it gets, and it looks like he may finally
Speaker 1: face the music. Looks like Harvey Weinstein is expected to
Speaker 1: a surrender as as early as tomorrow in New York
Speaker 1: City to face sex assault charges in connection with an
Speaker 1: attack on a student actress. According the Daily News, he
Speaker 1: is expected to be charged with praying on Lucia evans
Speaker 1: Um for forcible well forcible sexual act in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four. So there you have it, looks like he
Speaker 1: he could in fact finally go to prison. We'll see. Um,
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's He hasn't even been arrested yet,
Speaker 1: so we can't even say whether or not he has been,
Speaker 1: whether or not he has been is likely to be
Speaker 1: found guilty. More than fifty women, by the way, over
Speaker 1: fifty have accused Weinsteine of sexual harassment. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is that's an astonishing list. I mean, it's reminiscent in
Speaker 1: the sense of Bill Cosby, who just went uh just
Speaker 1: went down and and is facing really really long stretch
Speaker 1: in prison. So the you know, the this me too movement,
Speaker 1: it's not just it's not just people that are being
Speaker 1: held to account in the public square. It's not just
Speaker 1: that now they're they're reputations are having to come to
Speaker 1: grips with the reality of their actions. But but there's
Speaker 1: real criminal ramifications for some of the people that have
Speaker 1: been outed as as part of this whole situation that
Speaker 1: is now unfolding, which I gotta say, you know, these
Speaker 1: are people who are really protected, had been really protected.
Speaker 1: Weinstein is another example. Oh Schneiderman, by the way, I
Speaker 1: don't think he's facing any criminal stuff, but Schneiderman was
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of New York, New York State, and
Speaker 1: you know, he's a guy who's holding himself off as
Speaker 1: a ME two hero. A lot of this stuff coming.
Speaker 1: I know, people are gonna say it's not a partisan issue,
Speaker 1: and you know they're they're they're gonna point at conservatives
Speaker 1: who have been involved in you know, when you when
Speaker 1: you look at the conservatives and media, I mean, I
Speaker 1: know what, I know what the left would say here,
Speaker 1: but when you look at the really uh really egregious
Speaker 1: cases that have been recently in the last twelve months
Speaker 1: or so that that have come to light here, there's
Speaker 1: some very prominent and very well, very connected left dists
Speaker 1: in this in this whole. I mean, Weinstein is the
Speaker 1: best example. And I gotta think that, you know, if
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein isn't poling around with the Clintons and engaged
Speaker 1: in all kinds of fundraising and doing things that he
Speaker 1: would have gotten jammed up sooner. I really think. So
Speaker 1: this is a pretty incredible turn of events here where
Speaker 1: you have very rich, very powerful men. It's really predominantly
Speaker 1: in media and politics that are finally having to uh
Speaker 1: own up or at least finally being held to account
Speaker 1: or what they've done in the past. Yeah, Weinstein, we
Speaker 1: might be talking about it tomorrow. If we do, UH,
Speaker 1: let's get on one of our favorite legal and us.
Speaker 1: We'll reach out to UH. I will reach out to
Speaker 1: Emily Camponior. Maybe the dersh will come talk to us
Speaker 1: about it. But that would be that would be quite
Speaker 1: a trial, my friends. If Weinstein actually ends up facing charges,
Speaker 1: assuming he doesn't take a deal, which who knows, but
Speaker 1: hasn't been arrested yet. Well, he's gonna turn himself in,
Speaker 1: they say, But that hasn't happened yet. We will have
Speaker 1: to keep an eye an eye on that one. He's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back, so
Speaker 1: Jane Buck here on the show. We have some fantastic
Speaker 1: sponsors and partners, as you know, and one of them
Speaker 1: is nine Line Apparel. I've been talking to you about
Speaker 1: the upcoming race where nine Line has partnered with Angels
Speaker 1: of America's Fallen and Jeffrey Earnhardt altogether here to raise
Speaker 1: money for the children of America's fallen service members. We
Speaker 1: actually have the NASCAR Cup driver on the line with
Speaker 1: us now, Jeffrey Earnhardt, to talk to us about this
Speaker 1: partnership with nine Line Apparel and Jeffrey Earnhart and NASCAR
Speaker 1: with it. Uh So, Jeffrey, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: calling and we appreciate it. Yes, sir, I appreciate you
Speaker 1: having me on. All right, so the first we'll tell
Speaker 1: us about this race and and what what's gonna be
Speaker 1: on the car, what it represents to you, and how
Speaker 1: Angels of America's Falling plays into all this well, and uh,
Speaker 1: everything kind of came about with you know, uh Mon
Speaker 1: and Nonline Apparel's partnership and uh and seeing what we
Speaker 1: could do together, and um, you know they're they're an
Speaker 1: amazing company. Tyler Mary the owner, he uh he continues
Speaker 1: to try and give back. He's a he's a service member.
Speaker 1: Uh what was the service member? Now retired? But um,
Speaker 1: you know their whole entire company, Matt Latta, everyone there,
Speaker 1: they're all they're all veterans and um, you know they
Speaker 1: continue to try and give back. So, uh, this whole
Speaker 1: deal came about with you know, partner with Angels Angels
Speaker 1: of America's Falling and uh trying to help raise money
Speaker 1: and raise awareness for you know, those who paid dultimate sacrifice,
Speaker 1: and uh what better race to do it on than
Speaker 1: the Cocola six hundred on the borial day weekends. So, uh,
Speaker 1: it's an awesome opportunity. Really looking forward to our partnership
Speaker 1: together and and help them bring awareness to uh to
Speaker 1: those people, and and and continuing to show our respects
Speaker 1: and uh our our thank yous to all these men
Speaker 1: and women who who have paid ultimate sacrifice and their
Speaker 1: family and and your your car driving in this NASCAR
Speaker 1: race this weekend, you're going to have the names of
Speaker 1: falling service members represented on the car. And what's the
Speaker 1: actual representation going to be as part of this partnership
Speaker 1: with Angels of America's Fallen Yeah, so we uh we
Speaker 1: did a fundraiser deal where you could go and purchase
Speaker 1: a Niline T shirt and submit a name and that
Speaker 1: name appear on our car for this weekend race and
Speaker 1: you would also receive a T shirt. Has we we've
Speaker 1: we've been partnered with them as well that to get
Speaker 1: the word out about this. But so that's so those
Speaker 1: names are going to be on your on your car
Speaker 1: this weekend. So, I mean, how many people, Jeff watch
Speaker 1: a NASCAR race like this, By the way, you have
Speaker 1: some rough idea uh shoot, uh, millions, right, I mean
Speaker 1: it's gotta be millions. Yeah, it's Uh, it's a ton
Speaker 1: of people. You know, NASCAR obviously got a huge following,
Speaker 1: huge fans support and UH and you know what better
Speaker 1: what place to show respects than than a sport that's
Speaker 1: so patriarch and American as Nascar now. Jeff also, is
Speaker 1: there gonna be a presentation of of funds in partnership
Speaker 1: with nine Line for America's Falling or is there gonna
Speaker 1: be some kind of a ceremony, a big check or something?
Speaker 1: And what can folks see? Yeah, we're gonna be doing
Speaker 1: uh presentation of a check for Angels of Americans Falling
Speaker 1: for fifteen thousand dollars. UH presented their their foundation on Saturdays.
Speaker 1: Really excited to present him with this check and um,
Speaker 1: you know, show our our appreciation to to what they're
Speaker 1: doing and what they continue to do with trying to
Speaker 1: support and take care of the family members and kids
Speaker 1: of this who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country.
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Earnhardt, NASCAR cup driver and UH partner of Nineline
Speaker 1: Apparel and Angels of America's Falling. Jeffrey, appreciate you joining us,
Speaker 1: my friend. Good luck this weekend and thank you for
Speaker 1: all the work you're doing on this. Yes, sir, I
Speaker 1: appreciate your having me on. Thank you. We'll team. You know,
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk more about UH what's happening you know
Speaker 1: this this coming weekend. Tomorrow. I'm hoping to have on
Speaker 1: some friends from the UH, from the Armed Forces community,
Speaker 1: former military and talk to us about what memorial they
Speaker 1: means for them. You know. I I I think we're
Speaker 1: gonna have a show. We cover a lot of ground tomorrows,
Speaker 1: we always do, but I think some degree of reflection
Speaker 1: going into the world weekend is a good thing. So
Speaker 1: that's that's our plan. Um. But that's one of the
Speaker 1: things I really like about some of the sponsors that
Speaker 1: we work with is that they have such a a
Speaker 1: focus and look there their partners with this show they've got,
Speaker 1: you know, we we really believe in their mission overall.
Speaker 1: But the mission goes beyond just a great product and
Speaker 1: a great company. And when you can combine support for
Speaker 1: veterans with a great veteran owned company, and and and
Speaker 1: support for the families of the fallen with a veteran
Speaker 1: known company, I mean, I think that there's just a
Speaker 1: lot of this is win win all around. So, um,
Speaker 1: we're we're gonna go into a roll call here in
Speaker 1: just a few minutes. So that is that is coming up.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to share with you that we can.
Speaker 1: You know, I I'm gonna watch this NASCAR race. I
Speaker 1: am gonna be honest with you. I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: watched this a lot of Nascar. I don't know if
Speaker 1: I've ever actually watched a full NASCAR race all the
Speaker 1: way through. Um, but I'm gonna check it out this
Speaker 1: weekend and support of our our friend Jeffrey Earnhardt, Angels
Speaker 1: of America's Fallen and uh, of course our brothers and
Speaker 1: sisters over at nine Line Apparel. Roll call coming up.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Bucks turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Whoa funky Beats?
Speaker 1: Please do not forget that coming soon to a theater
Speaker 1: near you. We will, in fact have the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: with Buck Sexton first week of June. Gonna be a
Speaker 1: fun show, a little little more of a laid back vibe,
Speaker 1: more characters, more voices, more just random thoughts and stories,
Speaker 1: a little less traditional radio feel than this show. And
Speaker 1: I'm really hoping all of you, especially those of you
Speaker 1: who are currently not even podcast listeners at all. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm asking you as a as a favor to the squad,
Speaker 1: as a favorite of Team Buck. Please, uh just when
Speaker 1: when I when I give you the go word, go
Speaker 1: on iTunes, subscribe to that podcast and give it a shot.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be quick and easy, thirty or forty minutes
Speaker 1: roughly of content once a week. But i really want
Speaker 1: everyone listening to this show to be a part of
Speaker 1: that Freedom Hunt experience. So I'm gonna keep talking about
Speaker 1: it until we get there. But um, thank you for
Speaker 1: letting me do my thing. Okay, here we go. First,
Speaker 1: up Patrick for a roll call. Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, if you want to be included, Buck, you
Speaker 1: asked last week what generation we are associated with. To
Speaker 1: answer and us you already googled it. We are Zennials.
Speaker 1: It's a micro section of kids born from seventy three.
Speaker 1: We are a crossover that grew up with the first
Speaker 1: Apple computers and we're the first to experienced dial up Internet,
Speaker 1: yet still retain the social skills of our parents to
Speaker 1: not be unkind to others. We were the first to
Speaker 1: use the internet, yet last to use it as a
Speaker 1: bullying tool. PS. You never gave me your view of
Speaker 1: Springsteen's Nebraska. Did you listen to it? Patrick? I have
Speaker 1: not listened to it yet, but I will give it
Speaker 1: a shot. And yes I've I've been told a little
Speaker 1: bit about this zennial phenomenon, and I will certainly look
Speaker 1: into it some more. So with that now established, let's
Speaker 1: get to uh Amy, who writes, don't lose the Valley
Speaker 1: Girl voice. It's perfect for reading Comy memos and book
Speaker 1: X serves, uh, we must have this read the one
Speaker 1: where Comy talks about the size of Trump's hands. Also, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: great show. I've got a question. What kills more Americans
Speaker 1: each year? School shooters or illegal immigrants? Shouldn't we ban
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants using their logic? I mean, if it would
Speaker 1: prevent one senseless death of a child, isn't it worth it?
Speaker 1: Just curious because I suspect liberal hypocrisy. Um Amy, you
Speaker 1: raise an interesting point, and it's I think related to
Speaker 1: what I was saying, which is that I don't get
Speaker 1: into the debate or the discussion over who or what
Speaker 1: what the percentages of illegal immigrants that are committing violent crimes.
Speaker 1: The point is that the percentage should be zero because
Speaker 1: they shouldn't be in the country in the first place.
Speaker 1: We should not have a problem of massive illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: So another way of saying this is if we have
Speaker 1: ten million illegal immigrants in the country and they are
Speaker 1: responsible for year in and year out. I'm just picking
Speaker 1: a random number, folks, So this is not based on
Speaker 1: any Let's just say a grand total of fifty thousand relatively,
Speaker 1: you know, serious crimes, right, not parking ticket stuff. And
Speaker 1: I have no idea. That could be very low, that
Speaker 1: could be high. I don't know. I'm just picking the
Speaker 1: number at random. Uh, that's fifty crimes that shouldn't be
Speaker 1: happening in this country. So that's how I look at it.
Speaker 1: I have a different perspective on this. H Paul writes
Speaker 1: Buck fantastic show. Only been listening for a few months,
Speaker 1: but I'm a dedicated podcast listener and have already recommended
Speaker 1: your show to some friends. Well, thank you so much, Paul,
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. That means a lot. And by
Speaker 1: the way, that's how the show grows and it's successful.
Speaker 1: I really when I ask you, I hope you don't
Speaker 1: a team. I hope you don't view it as a throwaway,
Speaker 1: And especially in the weeks and months ahead, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be carrying a very heavy load here on the content
Speaker 1: side doing I got a TV project I'm announcing for you.
Speaker 1: We're gonna start live streaming the radio show. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have the Freedom Hut podcast. I mean, we're really ramping up.
Speaker 1: So you know, when you're watching Fox News with a
Speaker 1: friend end or if you're just you know, having a
Speaker 1: chat about politics with somebody, try to try to throw
Speaker 1: the Bucks x in podcast in the mix. You know,
Speaker 1: it's try to say, hey, check out the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: check out the Freedom Hut. And it really does help anyway.
Speaker 1: Paul writes, the best recommendation I've ever received about instincts
Speaker 1: is this. The hairs on the back of your neck
Speaker 1: are there for a reason. That's from a buddy on
Speaker 1: the Secret Squirrel side of Ops Shields High Paul from
Speaker 1: Team Buck Korea. Thank you so much, Paul, and I
Speaker 1: totally agree. Uh, do not ignore. You ignore your instincts
Speaker 1: at your peril. Remember that doesn't mean you're a slave
Speaker 1: to your instincts. It doesn't mean that you give your
Speaker 1: instincts priority and your decision making process. But it is
Speaker 1: a data point that should be used for the purposes
Speaker 1: of decision making. And and you're getting those feelings for
Speaker 1: a reason, whether it's about a person, a place, a situation,
Speaker 1: do not ignore them. Next up, Paul Buck regarding the
Speaker 1: judge ruling that President Trump cannot block people on Twitter.
Speaker 1: The First Amendment only protects free speech, but does not
Speaker 1: protect having to listen to speech. Just because you can
Speaker 1: say something doesn't give you the right to have it heard. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: the government could mandate that we must listen to all
Speaker 1: government mandated speech. Can you imagine being forced to have
Speaker 1: to listen to Nancy Pelosi speeches? Yes, everybody should have
Speaker 1: to listen to Nancy policy. Uh. Another thing I didn't
Speaker 1: get into yesterday on the whole Twitter judge ruling is, uh,
Speaker 1: it's not a government platform. Twitter is a private entity,
Speaker 1: and so the fact that the president is engaging with
Speaker 1: a private entity, he doesn't really control anything. The government
Speaker 1: does not control anything with Twitter. Uh, He's only interacting
Speaker 1: with Twitter as an individual. Under their terms of service,
Speaker 1: Twitter is in control. If if Twitter was a government
Speaker 1: on enterprise, then yeah, there would be a problem with
Speaker 1: blocking people because they're you know, the the government can
Speaker 1: engage in that kind of speech selection. But you know,
Speaker 1: the president can watch one channel, he can watch another.
Speaker 1: That's up to the cable companies. He's opera, he's he's
Speaker 1: interacting with them as an individual. All right. So there
Speaker 1: you have it, Ah, there you have it. Next up,
Speaker 1: Brian writes, heard you talking about the ketogenic diet. My
Speaker 1: daughter's doctor put her on a due to some health issues.
Speaker 1: In a show of support. My wife and I are
Speaker 1: joining her. Downside for me is that I like beer,
Speaker 1: which is a no no on this diet. However, I
Speaker 1: can drink vodka, jin bourbon, Scotch, whiskey and tequila, so
Speaker 1: I am good shields high well Brian, hopefully hopefully you're
Speaker 1: drinking some of our G four tequila if you're gonna
Speaker 1: be trying some tequila, and yeah, let us know how
Speaker 1: the ketogenic diet goes. I know for some people it's works. Wonders.
Speaker 1: Really interesting book that I read when I first got
Speaker 1: diagnosed with Celiac disease, gosh, six seven years ago now,
Speaker 1: is called wheat Belly. And I'm not gonna say that
Speaker 1: this is necessarily a balanced perspective on it. You gotta
Speaker 1: read it's written by a doctor. But man, there are
Speaker 1: some people think that genetically modified wheat also known as
Speaker 1: dwarf wheat because it's very short and thick and grows
Speaker 1: very quickly versus traditional wheat, which is longer and looks
Speaker 1: And by the way, if you look at photos of
Speaker 1: what genetically modified wheat stalks look like now grain you know,
Speaker 1: wheat stalks versus what they looked like before the genetic
Speaker 1: modification looks like an entirely different plant. So there's something
Speaker 1: going on. I can't say that I have all the answers,
Speaker 1: but it is worth looking into um anyway. That wheat
Speaker 1: bellies an interesting book and makes them pretty astonishing claims.
Speaker 1: Here we go. We have hold on a second slurpy slushy?
Speaker 1: You say tomato, same differences from Michael Um. Okay, So
Speaker 1: slurpy and slushy are the same. All right, there we go.
Speaker 1: Bub If you ever had a fresh gen bang utah
Speaker 1: from a sidewalk cart that has washed down with warm doujiang,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't say, soy milk is poison. My wife makes
Speaker 1: her own doujiang with a machine that grinds up the soybeans,
Speaker 1: adds hot water and produces the real deal. American soy
Speaker 1: milk you buy in a carton is a pale imitation.
Speaker 1: Not sure I'd ever take food advice from a guy
Speaker 1: who ate sticks of butter. Also, don't think I'll take
Speaker 1: your advice on natural history. A civit doesn't look like
Speaker 1: a bat without wings. It's a freaking cat. Well, excuse me, Michael.
Speaker 1: Of First of all, I think I ate a stick
Speaker 1: of butter when I was like four. Okay, so I
Speaker 1: don't think that's really fair. And the civit, I I
Speaker 1: will leave that to the judgment of the audience what
Speaker 1: a civitt looks like. But yes, civit coffee comes from
Speaker 1: their poop. It's very very expensive. And homemade soy milk
Speaker 1: I will I will concede this. Homemade almond milk, homemade
Speaker 1: brazil nut milk can be absolutely delicious. Um. Stuff you
Speaker 1: get in the store, though, with soy milk is really gross.
Speaker 1: Just I'm just saying, does not taste good. You know,
Speaker 1: soy milk is poison. I stand behind it. Uh Mary.
Speaker 1: Next up here, mass State Senate, Massachusetts just voted to
Speaker 1: make us a sanctuary state, be as something called the
Speaker 1: Immigrant Civil Rights Protection Act disgusted and disheartened. Well, Marie,
Speaker 1: it's it's just lawlessness. And and you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know how people can see there's anything other than that.
Speaker 1: You're you're trying to you're using state and local government
Speaker 1: to obstruct a lawful exercise of the federal government's law
Speaker 1: enforcement authorities. And that's what that's what it is. So
Speaker 1: the Massachusetts not surprising, Massachusetts very blue, you know, but
Speaker 1: you know, sanctuary city, we will be a sanctuary city.
Speaker 1: We will not allow to cause to um can't do
Speaker 1: a Boston. I know. We got a very robust team
Speaker 1: Buck Boston contingent, and they're like, Buck, come on, keep
Speaker 1: keeping in your wheelhouse on stay in New York. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's go to Jen who writes great show. There you go,
Speaker 1: Jenuine learning question. If Trump cannot block people harassing him
Speaker 1: on YouTube, then uh, why can't YouTube, Facebook and Twitter
Speaker 1: defund and terminated accounts of conservatives because they feel it's
Speaker 1: hate speech. It's also absurd, Jen, I agree, it all
Speaker 1: is absurd, And you're raised some very insting points. All right,
Speaker 1: seem it's gonna be for today. Thank you for being
Speaker 1: here with me. In the Freedom Hut tomorrow a freestyle
Speaker 1: Friday in advance of the holiday weekend. Get into that
Speaker 1: and much more until next time. Shields Hot. When you're
Speaker 1: at work, your dogs are cooped up all day inside,
Speaker 1: so you know when you get home they want to
Speaker 1: burn off some energy and start running around. But you
Speaker 1: know what if they get under your fence, now you've
Speaker 1: got a safety problem. The dog can be running around,
Speaker 1: who knows how close they are to the spree. That
Speaker 1: could just disappear into the woods. You don't want that headache.
Speaker 1: You don't want that problem. That's where dig Defense comes in.
Speaker 1: Dig Defense is genius. It solves the problem that pen
Speaker 1: others have of digging. It also means by the way
Speaker 1: that predators like boxes, raccoons, skunks, you name it, they
Speaker 1: can't dig under the fence to get into your yard.
Speaker 1: It comes in a bunch of different models. It's easy
Speaker 1: to install with the hammer and pair of gloves. It's
Speaker 1: available right now at Loews Menard's Way There and online.
Speaker 1: Check out dig Defense at stop the dig dot Com.
Speaker 1: That's stop the dig dot Com. No more pets going
Speaker 1: out under the fence, no more predators coming in. Dig
Speaker 1: Defense