Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, let make
Speaker 1: sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to the Buckbury
Speaker 1: first of twenty twenty five, and let's dive right into
Speaker 1: these wildfires in California and what we're seeing so far
Speaker 1: when it comes to their response and what we can
Speaker 1: learn about this going forward. First off, it's a tragedy.
Speaker 1: Thoughts and prayers go to everybody who is affected by this.
Speaker 2: I truly mean that I know people.
Speaker 1: Who are just a step or two removed from this wildfire.
Speaker 1: I've been corresponding with people who have been afraid they
Speaker 1: were going to lose their homes, have family members who
Speaker 1: did lose their homes to the fire, or at least
Speaker 1: were severely damaged by this fire.
Speaker 2: These fires, it's multiple fires breaking.
Speaker 1: Out across this area of Greater Los Angeles and mostly
Speaker 1: in the Palisades area. And look, I always feel feel
Speaker 1: like we should focus on what matters most first and foremost,
Speaker 1: and so I will and I have, which is making
Speaker 1: sure that everyone gets out who needs to get out.
Speaker 1: And that's the primary concern that we all have, and
Speaker 1: that our first responders that our frontline personnel are given
Speaker 1: the resources that they need, and that's what we're primarily
Speaker 1: focused on. There is also a discussion that is happening
Speaker 1: about how this could get so out of control so
Speaker 1: quickly and do so much damage. And it's not as
Speaker 1: though California and specifically the Los Angeles area shouldn't be
Speaker 1: in some way prepared for this or hasn't been preparing
Speaker 1: for this. They've been upping the budget of the last
Speaker 1: twenty years substantially for fire prevention and protection, and that
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to have had anywhere near the intended effect.
Speaker 1: Because fire of this level of catastrophic damage, you have
Speaker 1: to ask, well, what would it look like if they
Speaker 1: hadn't deployed the or rather, if you know, if this
Speaker 1: is the best they can do, how have they deployed
Speaker 1: the resources? You know, what has it gone to. They
Speaker 1: don't have enough fire, they don't have enough water, they
Speaker 1: don't have enough preparations in place. And it's also a
Speaker 1: moment where you look at the leadership of the state
Speaker 1: and the leadership of the Democrat Party at some level,
Speaker 1: because Biden's turned this into a photo op. You have
Speaker 1: Mayor Karen bass As everyone is pointing out on a
Speaker 1: trip to Ghana in West Africa as this is all happening,
Speaker 1: and she's now made her way back. I believe as
Speaker 1: I speak to you, but it's absurd that somebody in
Speaker 1: her position would first of all go on a trip
Speaker 1: to Ghana on the taxpayer dime.
Speaker 2: I'm assuming that's what happened.
Speaker 1: I haven't checked that this isn't paid for by some
Speaker 1: third party organization or something, but if the people of
Speaker 1: Los Angeles paying for her to go to Ghana, you
Speaker 1: should want to know why. And beyond that, there has
Speaker 1: been a focus on diversity, equity and inclusion in this
Speaker 1: fire department for.
Speaker 2: In recent years.
Speaker 1: Not a surprise, everything that is associated with the State
Speaker 1: of California, any kind of hiring personnel, there's going to
Speaker 1: be that DEI component, but they've really been pushing it
Speaker 1: heavily for fire fire fighters, and that's something that I
Speaker 1: think everybody also is allowed to look at now and say, really,
Speaker 1: that's the focus that people could have in this It's
Speaker 1: it's heartbreaking the whole situation, but it also is a
Speaker 1: reminder that leadership matters, that decision making for a state matters.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that they can stop all fires. Of
Speaker 1: course they can't, but can they be called upon to
Speaker 1: try to stop you know, a fire from getting to
Speaker 1: this extent and destroying this many homes and causing severe
Speaker 1: injuries to a lot of people, killed a couple of
Speaker 1: people already. I mean, it's really awful stuff, inferno across
Speaker 1: LA stuff, and this just can't be the best that
Speaker 1: they can do. That's really what it comes down to.
Speaker 1: This cannot be the best response that they can have.
Speaker 1: And the fire fire chiefs are already saying that there's
Speaker 1: not enough of us. We can't handle all these fires
Speaker 1: in all these places. They have to come up with
Speaker 1: a better system. They have to come up with provisioning
Speaker 1: water in advance so that they can fight these things
Speaker 1: more effectively. And that's just the way. That's the way
Speaker 1: that this has to go going forward. There have to
Speaker 1: be I know, they're not going to be consequences, right,
Speaker 1: No one's good. Well, I mean, we might find out
Speaker 1: how this fire was started. I've heard people say it
Speaker 1: maybe down power lines from the wind, could be fireworks.
Speaker 2: We'll see, But consequences in terms of the response, that's
Speaker 2: not going happened.
Speaker 1: But could we at least get the accountability of better
Speaker 1: preparation for the next time while we're still focused on this.
Speaker 1: I know it's oh, it's still going on, so why
Speaker 1: would we think, well, yeah, but everyone's paying attention now,
Speaker 1: and California and the liberal media that dominates there and
Speaker 1: dominates in so many places across the country, they're going
Speaker 1: to say, this is about climate change, and that's absurd.
Speaker 1: That's an absurdity. It is not climate change. And even
Speaker 1: if it were, that's like saying, well, there's nothing we
Speaker 1: can do about it. So no, that's that's that's an unacceptable,
Speaker 1: unacceptable viewpoint on this, and it just falls into their usual,
Speaker 1: you know, ideological orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: They just want to believe it so badly. So yeah,
Speaker 2: there's that, and.
Speaker 1: Now we'll move next here to something that's far less serious, well,
Speaker 1: at least in the in the assuming that it continues
Speaker 1: as it is. I don't think we're going to invade
Speaker 1: Greenland or Canada, but there's been a change in the
Speaker 1: way that people in the media and just in the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party in general, I think, are having to respond
Speaker 1: to Trump and some of the stuff he's been saying.
Speaker 2: About Greenland and Canada and elsewhere. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: The Fed's actions a couple of weeks ago in December
Speaker 1: are all you needed to see to seriously consider making
Speaker 1: an investment in gold. They telegraph the message those of
Speaker 1: the know think that we'll see inflation this year. That
Speaker 1: means the value of our dollar will be worth less
Speaker 1: a year from now. How do you protect the value
Speaker 1: of your savings account? You invest a portion of it
Speaker 1: in gold. Having both dollars and gold in your savings
Speaker 1: account and four oh one K has proven to be
Speaker 1: the most effective way of maintaining value. That's the single
Speaker 1: best way for you to protect the overall value of
Speaker 1: your savings account.
Speaker 2: And four oh one K.
Speaker 1: Birch Gold is the company I'm going to suggest you
Speaker 1: work with. Be in touch with them today. You can
Speaker 1: text them, call them, or visit their website Birch Gold Group.
Speaker 1: You can convert an IRA or four oh one K
Speaker 1: into an IRA in physical gold. Go to Birch Gold
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck that's Birch gold dot com slash buck,
Speaker 1: or text that's my name buck to ninety eight ninety
Speaker 1: eight ninety eight and get the information today that you need.
Speaker 1: Text buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight today.
Speaker 1: So Trump has been talking a lot about last few days,
Speaker 1: some different possibilities for expanding the US map.
Speaker 2: And I know.
Speaker 1: That for a lot of people this is let's just say,
Speaker 1: they find this a little bit.
Speaker 2: Too much. They don't think it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: And the probability of it is different than whether it's
Speaker 1: a worth a discussion. I would say that the probability
Speaker 1: of this occurring is something other than what that's We
Speaker 1: don't have to focus on that necessarily, because why does
Speaker 1: Trump want to accomplish this?
Speaker 2: What is the purpose is?
Speaker 1: What is it that he sees in this possibility. Well,
Speaker 1: first let's start with Greenland. It's a lot of land
Speaker 1: with a lot of resources. It's obviously covered in ice
Speaker 1: mostly but glaciers, but there's strategic value to it because
Speaker 1: of the desire for sea lanes through the Arctic as
Speaker 1: well as just Arctic competition, particularly with Russia. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of resources there to be mined and to be
Speaker 1: used for the good of humanity. And it gives us
Speaker 1: more strategic depth, it gives us more land, it gives
Speaker 1: more access to natural fresh water. And it's so funny, mean,
Speaker 1: people just act like maps are are these things that
Speaker 1: are written in stone. Maps just look through history. Maps
Speaker 1: change all the time of countries. You know, there are
Speaker 1: maps that are content. Maps are in flux over the
Speaker 1: long haul. They're all in flux. Really, we look at
Speaker 1: our own history in this country. We started out pretty small,
Speaker 1: and then things grew, and then we bought some things,
Speaker 1: and we took some things, and we bought some things,
Speaker 1: and we took some things, and then, as we know,
Speaker 1: we have some far flung possessions. I mean, that's really
Speaker 1: the If there was going to be a roadmap for this,
Speaker 1: it would be something along the lines of you know, Guam,
Speaker 1: the US Virgin Islands, Puerto rican Go. You could turn
Speaker 1: Greenland into a territory. You wouldn't want to make it
Speaker 1: a state. I wouldn't want to have fifty five thousand
Speaker 1: people getting two Senate votes, right, I mean, so we're
Speaker 1: not trying to make it the fifty first state, but
Speaker 1: making it a territory. I don't know why that strikes
Speaker 1: anyone strange. Why should Denmark have it as a territory.
Speaker 1: Think about that. Turn it around for a second. Denmark
Speaker 1: is this small European country that has this massive land
Speaker 1: mass that has administered for however many years it is now,
Speaker 1: so Denmarket's to have it, but we don't. It doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, this is all It should be all up
Speaker 1: for discussion. It's not like we're going to be uprooting
Speaker 1: ten million people from their homes or something by doing this,
Speaker 1: and it should be something that could be considered and discussed.
Speaker 2: Now Denmark says, oh no, we'd never do this. Why
Speaker 2: what is Denmark doing with this thing? Right? They've got
Speaker 2: some great attachment to Greenland? Give me a break. Now.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to go through. Probably not, but
Speaker 1: it's an interesting idea. Yeah, it's an interesting idea. The
Speaker 1: Canada stuff is just pure trolling. I will say, that's
Speaker 1: pretty funny. And Trump is just trolling Canada having fun
Speaker 1: with it.
Speaker 2: I know. I think Pierre Polyev knows that.
Speaker 1: Although you're saying, you know, well, yeah, will never be
Speaker 1: the fifty first state, but will be a great ally
Speaker 1: to America, It's like, yeah, no, I mean that's what
Speaker 1: Canada is and that's what we would expect. But yeah,
Speaker 1: no one's actually thinking that we're going to take No
Speaker 1: one's actually think that we're going to take Canada. That's
Speaker 1: that's not happening, right, the Greenland idea is I think
Speaker 1: a little bit more, a little bit more serious. I
Speaker 1: think looking at the relationship with Canada and trying to
Speaker 1: streamline it for the purposes of trade, which Trump barready
Speaker 1: did with the US Mexic Canada Agreement. But that certainly
Speaker 1: makes a degree of sense to me. But the the
Speaker 1: effort to get Greenland, I don't know.
Speaker 2: I don't. It's not going to go anywhere. But it's
Speaker 2: fun to think about.
Speaker 1: It's fun to think about, and it's also Oh and
Speaker 1: then of course my favorite thing was actually the Gulf
Speaker 1: of America.
Speaker 2: Instead of the Gulf of Mexico.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are there are plenty of places actually that
Speaker 1: have multiple place names, and that there is some disagreement
Speaker 1: about what they should be called.
Speaker 2: And really, shouldn't we be able to call it what
Speaker 2: we want? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, we're not, you know, we're not saying we're
Speaker 1: trying to change sovereignty over it. But the left is
Speaker 1: so obsessed with controlling what things are called. And yet
Speaker 1: they turn around and then when we say hold on,
Speaker 1: we're going to change some names too, or we're going
Speaker 1: to change some things back.
Speaker 2: Why do you care so much about this? Why does
Speaker 2: it matter? To you.
Speaker 1: Well, clearly there's something in a name, and that's that's
Speaker 1: something they have recognized themselves, I think, in the past,
Speaker 1: and pretend not to now for their own reasons. So anyway, sorry,
Speaker 1: I've been sick all week, as you might know if
Speaker 1: you've listened to the radio show. So still trying to
Speaker 1: battle through a little bit here. I've got a lot
Speaker 1: of congestion and my voice is not great yet, but
Speaker 1: I want to join you all for a buck brief today,
Speaker 1: so I appreciate you hanging out with me for that.
Speaker 1: Will be a lot more coming up this week, and
Speaker 1: obviously all of twenty twenty five. Among the new year's
Speaker 1: wishes and thanks for a great twenty twenty four that
Speaker 1: I've received. One comes from Bear Creek Arsenal, and they
Speaker 1: want to have a record setting twenty twenty five in
Speaker 1: terms of more gun owners discovering quality firearms manufactured by them,
Speaker 1: Barckcreek Arsenal. Their mission has been to provide affordable firearms
Speaker 1: products for everyday Americans. I own a number of their
Speaker 1: firearms myself, and they give me great shooting and fantastic performance.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you their mission has seen them slowly but
Speaker 1: surely become a leader in firearms innovation with an ever
Speaker 1: growing catalog of high quality products. Stay updated about everything
Speaker 1: happening with Bear Creek Arsenal. You'll find them online at
Speaker 1: Bear Creekarsenal dot com. That's Bearcreekarsenal dot com, Bear Creek
Speaker 1: Arsenal dot com. Thanks for hanging out with me for
Speaker 1: a short buck brief today, Team Shields High