Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. We have a sneak
Speaker 1: peek into what a sit down between Robert Muller and
Speaker 1: President Trump would look like. The questions have leaked, but
Speaker 1: who leaked the questions? Also, we will get into an
Speaker 1: update on the Iran nuclear deal within a couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: will know if it is re certified. Plus a deep
Speaker 1: dive into was marks a good thing? You know the answer,
Speaker 1: But I'll give you some of the history of may
Speaker 1: Day to go along with it. That and more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence
Speaker 1: magnor mistake American, You're a great American? Again The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. SECTI no gree names, my friends, my
Speaker 1: fellow patriots. Another day down here in this swamp. I
Speaker 1: feel like I need one of those boats that has
Speaker 1: the big fan on the back. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: know if you call it a fan boat or whatever
Speaker 1: it is. I've actually been on them. They go very fast.
Speaker 1: But I need one of those to get around the swamp. Um.
Speaker 1: But it is another day of back and forth between
Speaker 1: Trump and Muller. We have all these questions that were
Speaker 1: released that are purportedly leaked to The Times, purportedly about
Speaker 1: what Muller would ask Trump if they were to have
Speaker 1: a sit down. Now, I don't think there are much
Speaker 1: in the way of surprises here. Um. The questions run
Speaker 1: the gamut of what you would expect Muller to ask
Speaker 1: Trump if he was trying to just ask him everything,
Speaker 1: which is really what's the best description of it that
Speaker 1: I can think of. Um, they're looking into a lot
Speaker 1: about the possible obstruction, and then some questions dealing with Russia,
Speaker 1: and you know, Mueller wants to ask him everything. He
Speaker 1: wants to ask him about everything. Um, I have to
Speaker 1: think that Trump is not going to do this sit down.
Speaker 1: But the more it becomes a possible showdown between Trump
Speaker 1: and Mueller a kind of mono amano vibe, then I think,
Speaker 1: you see, there's the possibility that Trump will do it,
Speaker 1: but he's not going to show any fear here, that
Speaker 1: he is not afraid of it. And I just bring
Speaker 1: myself back to this repeated thought on it time and again,
Speaker 1: what a giant waste this whole thing is. They're not
Speaker 1: going to find any inclusion. We've known that for so
Speaker 1: many months. There only doing this because of this holy
Speaker 1: alliance between Mueller and Komy and Patrick Fitzgerald, these head
Speaker 1: hunter prosecutors that have really thought they were able to
Speaker 1: play God at different times in our political process by
Speaker 1: nailing one person or another in obvious partisan ways. And
Speaker 1: yet we can't seem to get past this. We can't
Speaker 1: seem to get beyond it. The Mueller inquiry, as I
Speaker 1: see it, is intended to do exactly what it is doing,
Speaker 1: which has grind away at people, the processes, the punishment
Speaker 1: cause them to spend untold millions on legal fees and
Speaker 1: lost night's sleep, And it's just part of the obstruction effort.
Speaker 1: Really there, there is a big collusion that is going on.
Speaker 1: It is the collusion of the mainstream media, the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: the judiciary to obstruct Trump in every way possible that
Speaker 1: they can. That's why, as I see this, I just
Speaker 1: get so very frustrated that we even have to waste
Speaker 1: time in it as a country. Uh, it's not even
Speaker 1: really possible for there to be obstruction when it comes
Speaker 1: to the president firing somebody who works from because the
Speaker 1: president is just allowed to do this. The president has
Speaker 1: the right, the constitutional right to fire. Uh. To fire
Speaker 1: Comy for no reason or any reason. So how can
Speaker 1: how can we be in a place where the Special
Speaker 1: Counsel is looking into this? It's just a waste. It's
Speaker 1: all premised on a lie. And the lie is that
Speaker 1: this is about protecting our democracy and finding out what's
Speaker 1: that the you know, finding out how we could stop
Speaker 1: the next one. By the way, have we is there
Speaker 1: anything that's really been raised on that one? Oh? Well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have Facebook now put a little more information
Speaker 1: out there about what ads people are buying. Oh, let
Speaker 1: us how Facebook is now also asking a lot of
Speaker 1: people to self identify if a post has hate speech
Speaker 1: in it. It's kind of a weird thing to ask.
Speaker 1: Talk to you more about that one later. Uh, But
Speaker 1: you know, I just see this as an obvious political
Speaker 1: fight that's playing out through the very top end, meaning
Speaker 1: the Mueller probe and the Special Council, that's playing out
Speaker 1: in front of all of America day in and day out,
Speaker 1: and it's just going to nowheresville. It will eventually be
Speaker 1: a nothing burger on the substance. But the process of
Speaker 1: getting there in this case, the cooking to sort of
Speaker 1: take the analogy and stretch it out a little further.
Speaker 1: Is meant to be crappy, it's meant to be painful,
Speaker 1: It's meant to make people not want to work for
Speaker 1: the administration. You know, I look at how the lack
Speaker 1: of lawyers lining up to defend Trumps just indicative of
Speaker 1: what they've been able to accomplish at this point. On
Speaker 1: the other side, which is to scare good people away
Speaker 1: from the administration. They have this whole Oh look at
Speaker 1: the big ORG chart. Look at all the people who
Speaker 1: have left Trump's side don't want to work near him anymore.
Speaker 1: And I come at this and say, that's because of
Speaker 1: what they do to people. Look at how they go
Speaker 1: after Scott Pruett. Look at how they go after Ronnie Jackson.
Speaker 1: Ronnie Jackson, a guy who everyone that I've heard, who
Speaker 1: I trust in the media says and who knows him says,
Speaker 1: is a guy of tremendous character. And it's just a
Speaker 1: good a good dude. It's a good dude and a professional.
Speaker 1: But they ruin people's lives and you don't want to
Speaker 1: be around that. And I can understand why people who
Speaker 1: are happy and you know, you only get to go
Speaker 1: get to go through this whole thing once it's tough
Speaker 1: to want to sacrifice yourself if you don't even feel
Speaker 1: like you're gonna be able to make that much of
Speaker 1: a difference in the machine now, or how much you
Speaker 1: like Trump, no matter how much you think the agenda
Speaker 1: is important, it's tough to make that decision that you're
Speaker 1: gonna just sacrifice your own well being in happiness and
Speaker 1: give it everything that's going on. You know, it really is.
Speaker 1: So I look at this now and I just see
Speaker 1: the continued, slow grinding gears of this whole Mueller probe,
Speaker 1: and uh, and I see that when it's all over,
Speaker 1: you know what's gonna end up happening. The people that
Speaker 1: have been telling you for the last two years, the CNN's,
Speaker 1: the the MSNBC s and all the like, all the rest,
Speaker 1: they're gonna act like they haven't been doing that. And
Speaker 1: this was necessary to get to the point where we
Speaker 1: can all, oh, that's right, start thinking about what what
Speaker 1: Democrat we're going to elect or place Trump, because I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna stretch well beyond the midterms. This is
Speaker 1: gonna be I would not be surprised at this stretch
Speaker 1: into Trump's third year in office. More on a special
Speaker 1: Council or on the Special Council look ing at this
Speaker 1: now for obstruction, think about what that would do to
Speaker 1: the country. Imagine for a moment, Muller tried to bring
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice charges against the President United States for
Speaker 1: firing sank to Comey. That's what we're really talking about here.
Speaker 1: You fire, you fire Sancta Comey. And there's there's a
Speaker 1: big problem, says who how Why there's a guy who
Speaker 1: is a political infighter who plays dirty. We all know
Speaker 1: this now, never mind the fact that he's really the
Speaker 1: opposite of charismatic and confidence inspiring and does not It
Speaker 1: should not sit well with all the patriotic special agents
Speaker 1: out there for the FBI across the country that this
Speaker 1: was the guy who really tied himself Comey, really tied
Speaker 1: himself into being the FBI. You know, louis the fourteenth,
Speaker 1: Late tat Lata six and late Tad. I know you're
Speaker 1: like Buck, you're americanizing it. The state is me, uh
Speaker 1: for call me the FBI is me. And that's the disgrace.
Speaker 1: And it's not true. It's first of all, it's not true.
Speaker 1: But also it's not helping. It's not helping the FBI
Speaker 1: to have us be the case. But but all these
Speaker 1: different questions that Mueller wanted up allegedly as assuming this
Speaker 1: is correct, all these questions um would get us nowhere
Speaker 1: as a country, doesn't help us, doesn't prepare us for
Speaker 1: the future, doesn't do anything. It just plays into the
Speaker 1: mania that the anti Trump forces have and that guide
Speaker 1: so much of their decision making and their thinking. Uh
Speaker 1: And and this is a fixation. I mean, they really
Speaker 1: have a a Trump debasement addiction. Right, Anything that is
Speaker 1: a slam on Trump, that hurts Trump, that goes after him,
Speaker 1: they are in favor of. Sarah Huckaby Sanders was asked
Speaker 1: about this League of questions, by the way, and here's
Speaker 1: what here's what she had to say in place seventeen
Speaker 1: that the league was just graceful. But a former assistance
Speaker 1: to Special Counsel Robert Mueller has suggested that the White
Speaker 1: House was behind them any wrong. Once again, I can't
Speaker 1: comment on anything regarding those questions, and I would refer
Speaker 1: you to the presidents As a question about about specifically
Speaker 1: the White being involved today, it was actually specific to
Speaker 1: the president and that's why I'm referencing and referring you
Speaker 1: to the president's personal attorneys who can speak on that better. Uh.
Speaker 1: Who leaked the questions is much less important than why
Speaker 1: are these questions even in play? Why are we even
Speaker 1: at this point? This is all just going to turn
Speaker 1: into another partisan spat at other partisan dispute, And I
Speaker 1: will never forget what's going on here. I won't forget
Speaker 1: the journalists who salivate, who get just so excited at
Speaker 1: the prospect of you know, Paul Man of Work going
Speaker 1: to prison for thirty years. Oh, we'll all sleep better
Speaker 1: at night now, who have no problem with the damage
Speaker 1: that's been done to General Michael Lynn, that he faces
Speaker 1: prison time, that he's gonna be a convicted felon. They
Speaker 1: think this was all great over what over nothing? How
Speaker 1: I would not McCabe could not face prison time FBI
Speaker 1: acting director for what he did, but Flynn is facing
Speaker 1: prison time for what he did. Is just it's just
Speaker 1: beyond my comprehension or I understand it. It just makes
Speaker 1: me really mad and makes me want to use some
Speaker 1: some foul language, which of course I will not do.
Speaker 1: But on another day in the news cycle, it's just,
Speaker 1: you know, let's see how much we can talk about
Speaker 1: how they're gonna get Trump. You know. There's other stuff
Speaker 1: that I want to discuss with you, though, like what's
Speaker 1: going on with these assi lees, those who are requesting
Speaker 1: asylum as they're now being processed. What are we finding
Speaker 1: out about them? We'll talk about that at the border.
Speaker 1: Also some follow up to the bombshell Net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: presentation on Iran's nuclear program and how the the left,
Speaker 1: how the Democrats are reacting to it. A lot of Oh,
Speaker 1: is it wrong really better than rather? Is Israel really
Speaker 1: better than Iran? Yeah, it's really better than I wrong, Democrats,
Speaker 1: that is That is the case. We'll spend some time
Speaker 1: on that there, and then just Marxism and may Day.
Speaker 1: We've got that coming up too. So I would love
Speaker 1: to hear from any of you out there that to
Speaker 1: have some thoughts on whether the leaked questions are going
Speaker 1: to affect I think they won't really one way or
Speaker 1: the other. I don't see how this changes anything, but
Speaker 1: you have a theory on why the questions were leaked,
Speaker 1: who leaked them, and what it will do now that
Speaker 1: they're out there. I've got to assume that anyone's got
Speaker 1: to look at this and think that it would be
Speaker 1: completely insane for for Trump to sit down with Mueller,
Speaker 1: because I just see it as all. I see it
Speaker 1: as all one big perjury trap. I really do. But
Speaker 1: if you have thoughts on any of that, I would
Speaker 1: love to hear it. Eight four four eight to five
Speaker 1: eight four buck quick break and we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Give me reaction to the news that certain members of
Speaker 1: the House Freedom Caucus have talked about drafting up articles
Speaker 1: of impeachment. Despite your best efforts to comply with their
Speaker 1: document requests, they can't even resist leaking their own drafts.
Speaker 1: I elaborate on that. I saw that draft. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know who wrote it. It really does illustrate, though,
Speaker 1: a really important principle about the rule of law and
Speaker 1: a distinction between the way we operate in the Department
Speaker 1: and we make mistakes. That's not to say we're flawless,
Speaker 1: but the way we operate in the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: If we're can accuse somebody of wrongdoing, we have to
Speaker 1: have admissible evidence and credible witnesses. We need to prepare
Speaker 1: to prove our case in court, and we have to
Speaker 1: fix our signature to the charging document. That's something that
Speaker 1: not everybody appreciates. There's a lot of talk about PISA applications,
Speaker 1: and many people that I see talking about it seemed
Speaker 1: not to recognize what a pies applicat. Well, I think
Speaker 1: Rosenstein uh departing would be a good thing, but he
Speaker 1: seems very confident that he doesn't have to worry about
Speaker 1: getting impeached. There we have it. Um, that was Rosenstein
Speaker 1: obviously top d O J official now that in this
Speaker 1: matter because Jeff Sessions has recused himself. Mark in Ohio,
Speaker 1: get to talk to you, sir, good hey, listen, I've
Speaker 1: been practicing law thirty years, uh fourteen is the litigator
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles. Um, lawyers do not write questions like that.
Speaker 1: They don't use words of thinking and how did you
Speaker 1: react and how did you feel? I mean, if that's
Speaker 1: if that's the experienced lawyer writing questions like that and
Speaker 1: the Justice Apartment, then we got even bigger problems because
Speaker 1: that's that's written by a first year law student or
Speaker 1: just my feeling, there's no way that could have come
Speaker 1: out of Fueler's office, I mean Muller's office. I mean
Speaker 1: that that's just written like such a first year law
Speaker 1: student that um, you know, it's just it's just nonsensical.
Speaker 1: I mean, my my conclusion, and nothing's crazy at this point?
Speaker 1: Is this here at times or somebody just dropped them
Speaker 1: up and throw them out there and keep this issue
Speaker 1: a lot. But I cannot imagine I came from Mueller's office.
Speaker 1: I could promise you that that's shame that how it's
Speaker 1: simplistic and that's written written like a lawyer. Yeah, people
Speaker 1: said that. And also I know even on up on
Speaker 1: the Drudge Report, they were saying that the the grammar
Speaker 1: was was a big issue. Right, yeah, it's just it's
Speaker 1: just he's just reading it. You can tell HER's not
Speaker 1: written by an experience litigator. I mean, they don't write
Speaker 1: like that, and and they're not gonna accomplish anything with it.
Speaker 1: But but why so, why would the New York Times
Speaker 1: go forward? Let's let's assume it is a forgery, right,
Speaker 1: let's meaning that it's just somebody made up questions. What's
Speaker 1: the what do you think the purpose of of releasing
Speaker 1: it is? I mean, you know, because from my angle,
Speaker 1: it's it shows that they want to ask Trump a
Speaker 1: little bit of everything. So maybe he shouldn't sit and
Speaker 1: talk to them. Oh no, way, she didn't talked to him,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. I mean, incredible evening even have him sit
Speaker 1: down to talk to anybody. I mean, show us that
Speaker 1: evidence first, and then then maybe he'll talk. But now
Speaker 1: he'd be crazy to do anything. I mean, and uh,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I don't know. Maybe New York Times are
Speaker 1: still trying to phone newspapers. I mean, it's allays been
Speaker 1: doing the whole time anyway, and whatever the hell they
Speaker 1: want up there. So that well, what do you say, Marks,
Speaker 1: And since you seem to have a handle on this one,
Speaker 1: what do you think about the allegation that Trump himself
Speaker 1: leak or not himself, but someone on the Trump team
Speaker 1: leaked this out there? Well, yeah, I heard that too,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I mean that would you know that?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know that
Speaker 1: that one. I just don't see how that benefits Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't really get. Uh, yeah, I have
Speaker 1: no Yeah, I mean, it wouldn't be it wouldn't be
Speaker 1: in the direction of Trump certainly. And how could you
Speaker 1: get how could you get the New York Times. By
Speaker 1: the way, if you're a Trump surrogate, you get the
Speaker 1: New York Times to run with this. I find that hard. Yeah, yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: I'm sure he'd be stipped out immediately. You know, only
Speaker 1: a few people can work on that document, So I
Speaker 1: think that's bs. Be honest with the guy. It it
Speaker 1: seems nothing more than just you know, somebody trying to
Speaker 1: you know, can't create this. We're getting close to a union.
Speaker 1: You know. If he doesn't sit down, then therefore he's
Speaker 1: goody and they don't know what they're playing. He shouldn't.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't sit down and do it for sure. Thanks
Speaker 1: for calling in, Mark Matt in Pittsburgh. Hey, but great show.
Speaker 1: You're a great American. I actually worked in law enforcement,
Speaker 1: and key point that I'd like to make more public
Speaker 1: and people understand is when they went after Trump, they
Speaker 1: used search warrants, and they violated what attorneys never do
Speaker 1: and go after their own attorneys. But they used the
Speaker 1: search warrant, not when to win at When they went
Speaker 1: after everyone else on the other side, with the Democrats
Speaker 1: and Hillary and everything, it was always administrative subpoenas. And
Speaker 1: how I'd like to make people understand it if they
Speaker 1: don't know the difference, that is, if you have a
Speaker 1: sex defender who has kitty porn on a computer or
Speaker 1: phone or device, all law enforcement uses a search warrant,
Speaker 1: nobody sends them a letter in the mail and says, hey,
Speaker 1: we're coming to see on the fifteen because that evidence
Speaker 1: will be on But that's exactly what they did on
Speaker 1: the other side with this. Wait, it did it on
Speaker 1: the other side, meaning how the Democrats when they went
Speaker 1: after Hillary. Oh yeah, Hillary, okay, yeah, not with not
Speaker 1: with not with Cohen and the Trump side. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: sure of course. Yeah, they gave Hillary every advantage in
Speaker 1: the process. I mean, that's I think been well well documented.
Speaker 1: Not just every advantage. I think they've been over backwards
Speaker 1: to make sure it was basically impossible to indict her. Um.
Speaker 1: But I look, I appreciate yeah started it. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: had already decided it. Matt. I appreciate you calling him man,
Speaker 1: but we actually gotta run a new quick break. Thank you, sir. Um.
Speaker 1: When we come back, I have well, we definitely talking
Speaker 1: about the border, but I've got some of the thoughts
Speaker 1: view on the Proud situation too, So start right there.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America, Buck Sexton his back.
Speaker 1: People think of border security in very different ways, but
Speaker 1: to me, it's very simple. Border security as national security.
Speaker 1: We see fifteen terrorists either planning to travel or actually
Speaker 1: traveling to the United States each day, known as suspected terrorists.
Speaker 1: So that means they're coming through our legal landport and
Speaker 1: uh an air that they could be coming across that border.
Speaker 1: The border is a national security issue, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: It's a lot more of that. It's also an economic issue,
Speaker 1: a political issue, cultural issue. It touches in so many
Speaker 1: different parts of our lives. And the administration says a
Speaker 1: lot of very good things on immigration, on particularly illegal
Speaker 1: immigration and border security, but I can't say that we
Speaker 1: have really seen the results yet, and I think that
Speaker 1: the rhetoric is starting to really outpace the reality. And
Speaker 1: that's a problem. You have this caravan, which you will
Speaker 1: note I've been telling you it's not going to stop.
Speaker 1: It might dissipate a bit, as it has. But this
Speaker 1: caravan now at the UH Tijuana San Diego border crossing. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, you have this caravan that's gotten there, and
Speaker 1: now you have some of them that are already being processed.
Speaker 1: Now there's a there's a lot of different angles I
Speaker 1: want to come out here, but one of them is
Speaker 1: just this. Just think about this for a moment. The
Speaker 1: way the media portrays this, it's people who are fleeing
Speaker 1: their country of origin because they just have no choice.
Speaker 1: Asylum is not supposed to be for Hey, the country
Speaker 1: I come from is in is in a pretty crappy
Speaker 1: condition right now. Things are bad, So I just want
Speaker 1: to be an American instead. That's called an immigrant. It's
Speaker 1: happened millions and millions of times over long period in
Speaker 1: our country's history. Fine, but that would be people going
Speaker 1: through the immigration process. The asylum process is a separate
Speaker 1: wing if you well, it's it's a separate entry pathway
Speaker 1: for those to come into this country, and it's not
Speaker 1: supposed to be. Well, the country I'm coming from has
Speaker 1: a lot of crime and it's a bad, a bad
Speaker 1: place right now. Because that's true of way too much
Speaker 1: of the world that can get here um either on
Speaker 1: foot or even coming to one of our ports of
Speaker 1: entry by boat or plane for us to be able
Speaker 1: to handle. Right, if it were just my country is
Speaker 1: not a place I want to live. I'd rather be
Speaker 1: in America. We would be inundated. And what's the point
Speaker 1: of the legal immigration process then, you know, well, what's
Speaker 1: to stop somebody from saying, well, you know, yeah, I
Speaker 1: live in You know, I don't know Russia. Russia has
Speaker 1: got a high crime, right, all kinds of corruption. Oh,
Speaker 1: I can't go back to Russia because of all that stuff.
Speaker 1: If you think that I'm just assuming that people are
Speaker 1: gaming the system, I can. I can give you some
Speaker 1: statistics courtesy of the Washington Post. Here the number of
Speaker 1: foreigners making a claim of quote credible fear rose almost
Speaker 1: nine hundred percent between two thousand and eight and twenty
Speaker 1: x twenty times more people are now coming to the
Speaker 1: country saying I have a credible fear of going back.
Speaker 1: This is a learned statement. This is what you say
Speaker 1: when you want to be in the process. And now
Speaker 1: another way that they lie to us about this. And
Speaker 1: remember they're processing some of these asylum requests already from
Speaker 1: the caravan. Another part of this, though, is that you
Speaker 1: have those who are given asylum status, and then you
Speaker 1: just have those who get into the country and then
Speaker 1: just kind of disappear into the system. We have an
Speaker 1: enormous backlog of immigration cases in this country. No one
Speaker 1: is gonna be chasing down someone who just got denied asylum.
Speaker 1: So that means that if you can get into the
Speaker 1: country at all, Uh, then you can in fact stay
Speaker 1: in the country. And this is why interior enforcement is
Speaker 1: so important. This is why e verifying the workplace is
Speaker 1: so important. You need to have a multifaceted, multi pronged
Speaker 1: approach to immigration, or else it's just one big con.
Speaker 1: You will have so many different ways to exploit the
Speaker 1: system and exploit all the different points of entry in it,
Speaker 1: literally and figuratively. Now, I know that the Justice Department
Speaker 1: is highlighting that they are doing some enforcement here. That
Speaker 1: d J put out a release today that they have
Speaker 1: filed criminal charges against eleven different suspected members of the
Speaker 1: so called caravan. According this is Jeff Sessions today, and
Speaker 1: these are people who have entered illegally in violation of
Speaker 1: eight USC. One of these guys was previously deported and
Speaker 1: he was charged with illegal reentry. So I just want
Speaker 1: to note that, you know, part of the caravan are
Speaker 1: people that have already been told you are not allowed
Speaker 1: to be in this country, and they are coming back.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that's happening? And this is just
Speaker 1: the one that we've heard about. Oh, because there's this
Speaker 1: moment now where people realize you show up and you
Speaker 1: convince somebody you have a credible fear and try to
Speaker 1: play the system. And I would note, is there anyone
Speaker 1: in al Savador, for example, which has an astronomically high
Speaker 1: per capita murder rate? Is there anyone in UH Honduras
Speaker 1: that cannot claim credible fear? You know, I actually had
Speaker 1: a very interesting UH drive when I was in San
Speaker 1: Diego a few weeks ago. I know this is this
Speaker 1: now now I'm pulling a page from the Tom Friedman book.
Speaker 1: I was talking to my cab driver, but I was
Speaker 1: speaking with my uber driver, who was very eloquent and
Speaker 1: talk to me about the neighborhoods of San Diego. And
Speaker 1: we did quite a drive around because I wanted to
Speaker 1: see it, and I think San Diego is very lovely.
Speaker 1: And I was talking to her and I could tell
Speaker 1: that she was of Latina extraction, and she was the
Speaker 1: Spanish speaker, and I didn't jump to any conclusions, but
Speaker 1: turned out she was Mexican and we we we had
Speaker 1: a chat about it. I thought it was really interesting
Speaker 1: case I said to her, you know, so is it
Speaker 1: because she was surprised that I knew as much as
Speaker 1: I did, of course, about the levels of violence and
Speaker 1: cartel activity in Mexico because it doesn't get very much
Speaker 1: attention here anymore. And it's, as I've been telling you,
Speaker 1: as bad as it's ever been, seventeen worst year ever
Speaker 1: in Mexico for murders. And I said, well, is this
Speaker 1: something where if you're in certain parts of the country
Speaker 1: you feel like it doesn't effect you, it's not really
Speaker 1: your problem, because you do see this in some major
Speaker 1: urban areas of this country with regard to crime within
Speaker 1: the city. I know people who live in Chicago, for example,
Speaker 1: and they say, well, yeah, Chicago has a really high
Speaker 1: murder rate, but it's all in the south and some
Speaker 1: I think somewhat in the west of the city. Um
Speaker 1: in New York City, place I know very well from
Speaker 1: living there but also from working from the for the
Speaker 1: m y p D. Vast majority of the violence there
Speaker 1: is clustered in the South Bronx and a part of
Speaker 1: what is essentially central eastern Brooklyn. That's where you have
Speaker 1: most of the homicide still. And and so people who
Speaker 1: live in Manhattan, for example, or Staten Island, they don't
Speaker 1: they don't go to those areas, and so they don't
Speaker 1: really pay much attention to it. So I asked her,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to test out the thesis. I said, well,
Speaker 1: so you know you you come from She told me
Speaker 1: she came from a pretty middle or upper mineral class
Speaker 1: background in Mexico by Mexican standards. I said, does this
Speaker 1: really affect you? What's going on there? As we were
Speaker 1: talking with the violence? I said, or is it just
Speaker 1: if you don't live in uh Guerrero or I'm trying
Speaker 1: to think of some of the Uh yeah, some of
Speaker 1: the rougher areas right Tijuana actually, I mean you go
Speaker 1: down the Baja Peninsula, uh and Cabo and that whole area.
Speaker 1: Tremendous amount of violence there and uh I said, you
Speaker 1: know if you stay out of those areas, She said, oh, no,
Speaker 1: it affects you everywhere. What do you mean that, Well,
Speaker 1: one of the things that goes on in Mexico I've
Speaker 1: never even heard of this before, is something called well,
Speaker 1: actually forget what the term is that you use, but
Speaker 1: it's essentially speed kidnapping. What's that? Well, imagine that you
Speaker 1: get a phone call and they have to do they
Speaker 1: can do very minimal surveillance on you to get this information, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, think about how many people would know this
Speaker 1: just your number and that you have kids, your phone number,
Speaker 1: that you've got kids. Not hard to do. And they
Speaker 1: call you and they say, well, um, uh, you know
Speaker 1: MS so and so. If you don't go to this
Speaker 1: sight and deposit five thousand dollars into a bank account
Speaker 1: in the next five minutes, uh, you'll never see your
Speaker 1: daughter again. Now, you might say, well, the person could
Speaker 1: just call it up, but are you going to test
Speaker 1: that theory out. They don't want a million dollars, they
Speaker 1: want five thousand dollars. You know, we've got her, she's
Speaker 1: across the street with us right now. We'll let her
Speaker 1: go if you give us five thousand dollars. If you don't,
Speaker 1: we're gonna you know, we're gonna cut her hand off.
Speaker 1: Or if you don't, you're never gonna see her again.
Speaker 1: A really insidious addition to what we know of is kidnapping,
Speaker 1: which has been a terrible plague in Mexico for a
Speaker 1: long time. And she said, this has been happening, And
Speaker 1: I said, well, you know, I've never even heard of this.
Speaker 1: The idea of being they haven't kidnapped, they actually haven't
Speaker 1: kidnapped anymore. But kidnapping is such a credible, credible threat
Speaker 1: we'll get back to this in a second credible thread
Speaker 1: in Mexico right now that if somebody calls you and says, look,
Speaker 1: just give us five thousand and everything, will you know
Speaker 1: we'll give you back your family member, I said, daughter,
Speaker 1: could be your husband, could be anyone. Be well, just
Speaker 1: in a panic pay it. It's just a scam. It's
Speaker 1: a particularly evil and vicious scam. But it's just a scam,
Speaker 1: and that's how bad thing. And then she also told
Speaker 1: me that you know, you'll see that she saw people
Speaker 1: in broad daylight who were in fact abducted, were kidnapped,
Speaker 1: and you see dead bodies. And this happens in some
Speaker 1: of the major cities of Mexico. It just happens, and
Speaker 1: it's a part of a of an day to day
Speaker 1: life there that I don't think it is nearly reported
Speaker 1: on enough, and and in our country, so I try
Speaker 1: to tell you about it here. I find it very
Speaker 1: interesting that I think that most Americans know a lot
Speaker 1: more about this scale and scope of violence in Syria,
Speaker 1: for example, then they do about what's going on in Mexico.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not I know Mexico hasn't had five hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people killed in the last six seven years, it's
Speaker 1: had probably close to a hundred thousand though, and it's
Speaker 1: right next door. And it's a problem for us, a
Speaker 1: national security and economic and h and and cultural issue
Speaker 1: in this country that we don't see them able to
Speaker 1: really grasp the full extent and weight of UH. I
Speaker 1: bring all this up one because I just want to
Speaker 1: share that with you. There was eye opening to hear
Speaker 1: that from somebody who had just been living in Mexico
Speaker 1: until I think about six seven months ago, she said.
Speaker 1: And also because can anyone in Mexico now, I know
Speaker 1: there's designations and right now all Salvador and Honduras is
Speaker 1: under some designation that you know Central American countries are,
Speaker 1: which is why they're moving in these caravans through Mexico.
Speaker 1: But if it's just really about my country has a
Speaker 1: lot of violence and crime, and I don't want to
Speaker 1: go back. Can anyone in Mexico credibly claim that they can?
Speaker 1: You know, they shouldn't have to go back credible fear.
Speaker 1: I have a credible fear of the cartels. I don't
Speaker 1: want to be a Mexican anymore. I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: look at this from the perspective of what are we
Speaker 1: really doing right now with our asylum policy and what
Speaker 1: is it really based on. You can leave the Central
Speaker 1: American countries because they're really bad shape. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of places that are really bad shape. Why is
Speaker 1: this the designation that's being used right now? And Trump
Speaker 1: made a lot of noise and talked a lot about
Speaker 1: how he wasn't going to allow this. And now I
Speaker 1: look at the processing of these immigrants and you've got
Speaker 1: to think, are these asylum seekers? Notice that they always
Speaker 1: call them migrants. I don't think that that's an accident.
Speaker 1: I've always thought that the term migrant was made to
Speaker 1: make it seem like, you know, they're just moving from
Speaker 1: one job to another. You think of migrant workers. No,
Speaker 1: these are people that are trying to come into the
Speaker 1: country through, in this case, a legal process that I
Speaker 1: think they're scamming, though many of them are scamming the
Speaker 1: legal process. Uh. And it's a a loophole. It's the
Speaker 1: exploitation of a system that needs an overhaul and that
Speaker 1: Congress just won't touch. I think the cowardice in Congress
Speaker 1: on immigration is only superseded by their cowardice on spending
Speaker 1: and the debt, which nobody's really serious about dealing with
Speaker 1: it all. It's just a complete joke. I mean, one
Speaker 1: day I'll be sitting here doing a radio show for
Speaker 1: you when the stock market has plaunged thirty in a
Speaker 1: very short period of time and everyone's freaking out because
Speaker 1: of you know, rising interest rates and what are we
Speaker 1: gonna do about the dead? And how is growth gonna
Speaker 1: make uh? And then then we can actually talk about
Speaker 1: the Until then that nobody wants to hear about it, right,
Speaker 1: No Republican is serious about cutting spending, and Democrats feel
Speaker 1: like spending us into oblivion is a good idea. But
Speaker 1: immigration is a close second for just complete congressional cowardice.
Speaker 1: They don't want to deal with that, they don't want
Speaker 1: to talk about it. And the asylum process, as you
Speaker 1: see it here is just another way to get around
Speaker 1: the system. Alright, eight four, eight to five, Stay with me, team.
Speaker 1: We got David in Allentown, Pennsylvania wants to get on
Speaker 1: the action. Hey David, what what obligation does the United
Speaker 1: States have to grant asylum If they haven't asked Mexico
Speaker 1: for it, shouldn't they be asking the first country to
Speaker 1: come to form for asylum? Isn't there an interesting point.
Speaker 1: It also came up, by the way, when you had
Speaker 1: all of these refugees leaving Syria who were making their
Speaker 1: way through Turkey, which is a pretty developed and reasonably
Speaker 1: well off country itself, and wanted to go not just
Speaker 1: to Europe. But they were like, no, no, no, we
Speaker 1: don't want Greece, we don't want Bulgaria. Uh, we want Sweden.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're like they're picking, like from a catalog.
Speaker 1: I want asylum in either Germany or Sweden where they
Speaker 1: have a really nice, cushy welfare state. That was the
Speaker 1: decision that was being made in many cases. Well, would
Speaker 1: be interesting to note the international law is um in
Speaker 1: this case. Yeah, I can't. I can't speak to the
Speaker 1: international law. It's a it's a very good question. I
Speaker 1: mean I would I would assume the Mexican government would say, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, who knows what they're gonna say, but I
Speaker 1: would guess they'd say something like, uh, you know, we
Speaker 1: we don't have a program in place for central I
Speaker 1: mean that they try to keep and they have for
Speaker 1: a long time, try to limit the entry in New Mexico,
Speaker 1: particularly of Guatemalans. And there's been some tension because the
Speaker 1: Mexican UH, Mexican authorities have been trying to keep Guatemalans
Speaker 1: out of the country. And I think you can actually
Speaker 1: do a pretty you can do a pretty long stint
Speaker 1: in Mexican prison if you are called in the country
Speaker 1: working illegally as a Central American. But if you're just
Speaker 1: passing on through to go to America, no problem. By
Speaker 1: the way, if if Mexico was really trying to help
Speaker 1: us out, think about how different the border security situation
Speaker 1: would really be. Sure, well, I wouldn't hang a big
Speaker 1: fox to be you sign on the border fence and
Speaker 1: say turn around and ask ask the guy behind you
Speaker 1: because we have no abligation. Well, right right now, we
Speaker 1: have this law in place, and thank you for calling in, David.
Speaker 1: We got this law in place. Until that changes, Um,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have more of this. Remember it starts with
Speaker 1: a caravan of a hundred getting a lot of news coverage.
Speaker 1: The next caravan could be thirty thousand, who knows. Remember
Speaker 1: when the unaccompanied minor surge happened some years ago. You
Speaker 1: had a huge spike and all these quote unaccompanied miners
Speaker 1: showing up at the border. Um, I wanted to. I
Speaker 1: gotta talk you about Iran because that got so much
Speaker 1: attention yesterday. That'll be coming up in a second. But first,
Speaker 1: just I was happy to see that Matt Groening, who
Speaker 1: is the creator of the hit multi decade. Uh, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say, I don't know, cartoon. There you go,
Speaker 1: the Simpsons multi decade extravaganza, There you go, the Simpsons. Uh.
Speaker 1: He's saying over the whole controversy that, you know what,
Speaker 1: people just like to quote pretend they're offended. Nice to
Speaker 1: see somebody who's who's clapping back here, you know, who's
Speaker 1: had enough. I'm glad that the Simpsons is not completely
Speaker 1: you know, after that whole Hankers area thing where look,
Speaker 1: he's an actor. I get it, he doesn't want the heat.
Speaker 1: But don't throw in the towel on on a beloved
Speaker 1: Simpsons character just because of some social justice words. Total nonsense.
Speaker 1: So uh, high five for macroning of the Simpsons. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network is the best in the background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting business, and on top of it, they are dual certified,
Speaker 1: veteran owned. Global Verification is all headquartered here in the US,
Speaker 1: so unlike a lot of the other guys in this business.
Speaker 1: They don't outsource your data, and they don't outsource the
Speaker 1: work on it either. They keep it here on US
Speaker 1: based servers, and they have US based personnel headquarters in
Speaker 1: Chicago and spread out throughout the country that will handle
Speaker 1: your case. Whenever you're talking about working with risk mitigation experts,
Speaker 1: you really want people that you can get on the
Speaker 1: phone and that will handle your case with care. That's
Speaker 1: Global Verification comes in. Go to my g VN dot com.
Speaker 1: That's my g v N dot com or call eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five nine. That's eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five eleven seventy nine Global Verification Network. Leave
Speaker 1: no stone on turn. Buck Sexton Mission Decoding the news
Speaker 1: and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Mag Noor mistake, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Activit analysts. Sexton No. A lot of fall out after
Speaker 1: yesterday's uh NET and Yahoo presentation hit the air waves.
Speaker 1: People are saying that the US has verified a lot
Speaker 1: of this and ports are it is. It is as
Speaker 1: we thought that the Irans are very much in the
Speaker 1: let's wait and get nukes when we can business and
Speaker 1: have been for a long time. The Obama administration was interesting.
Speaker 1: Some of you say, I remember our caller yesterday that
Speaker 1: the whole intent is to create a pathway, really in
Speaker 1: a pathway that can't be altered for Iron to get nukes,
Speaker 1: Which isn't that crazy when you read some of the
Speaker 1: scholarship on the left on this issue, didn't you have?
Speaker 1: I think you had Chris Quota today. Guys, see if
Speaker 1: you can pull this for me. I think he was
Speaker 1: pushing I forget if it wasnt Yaho. I just saw
Speaker 1: the headline as I was doing all my reds today
Speaker 1: for whether Israel has nukes? Didn't that happen today? Am
Speaker 1: I crazy? I think that might have happened? Maybe I
Speaker 1: imagine it. Producer might tell me if you see that.
Speaker 1: But here's where we are with this whole thing. You got,
Speaker 1: obviously Net and Yahoo, who's trying to push as much
Speaker 1: as possible to get United States de certify the Iran
Speaker 1: nuclear deal. Play three. Iran is gobbling up one country
Speaker 1: after after the other. It's threatening to annihilate as well.
Speaker 1: It's trying to put its army in Syria UH in
Speaker 1: the service of a tyrannical regime. It's putting the precision
Speaker 1: guided munitions in Lebanon. That means that they can fire
Speaker 1: rockets into Israel that can hit the office I'm speaking
Speaker 1: and everything else. Uh, they're trying to foment terrorism in Gaza.
Speaker 1: They're firing rockets into Riyad, into Saudi Arabia right now
Speaker 1: from Yemen, which they are also seeking to conquer. This
Speaker 1: tyrannical anti American regime should not have nuclear weapons. You're
Speaker 1: familiar with the b B point of view on this, clearly.
Speaker 1: I would want to note that Obama chief National security
Speaker 1: propagandist Ben Rhodes responded earlier today to all this hullabaloo
Speaker 1: with the following quote by reminding everyone of the well
Speaker 1: known pre Iran deal, Street Net and Yahoo inadvertently made
Speaker 1: the case for why the Iran Deal needs to stay
Speaker 1: in place. Without it, all the restrictions on Iran's program
Speaker 1: and the inspections regime that verify compliance go away. A
Speaker 1: few things here. First of all, the pre Iran Deal
Speaker 1: history UH is not well known in the way that
Speaker 1: he's suggesting it is. And the notion that UH violating right,
Speaker 1: violating the initial terms of the agreement. Let me put
Speaker 1: it this way, Here's the way I think about this.
Speaker 1: Iran had to come clean in order for this agreement
Speaker 1: to be complied with, and what we now know from
Speaker 1: the net and Yahoo presentation is that they did not
Speaker 1: come clean. This is kind of like if you've got
Speaker 1: a job and you lied on the resume for the job,
Speaker 1: and then after you'd had the job for a few months,
Speaker 1: somebody said, hey, hold on a second, you you lied
Speaker 1: about all your previous work experience. He said, yeah, but
Speaker 1: doesn't that prove that you want to keep me in
Speaker 1: this job though, right, because otherwise some really bad stuff
Speaker 1: can happen. No, that doesn't really make sense. Right. We
Speaker 1: are here under false under a false premise that there
Speaker 1: has been an honesty in the case of the job,
Speaker 1: and now in the case of the Iran nuclear program,
Speaker 1: that j c p O a Joint Comprehensive plan of
Speaker 1: action most boring acronym. Ever, and I know some boring acronyms.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you, UM so I understand the need
Speaker 1: to or the the desire to include some parts of
Speaker 1: this Iran deal um that weren't included, to turn up
Speaker 1: the heat, the pressure, and to try and uh, remember,
Speaker 1: I don't just want better Rannie behavior on the nuclear deal.
Speaker 1: I think we should be pushing for Iran not to
Speaker 1: do the things that it's doing across the Middle East
Speaker 1: right now, that that's where the real problem lies in
Speaker 1: the short term, Iran and Yemen, Iran and Syria, in Iraq,
Speaker 1: in name a name a country right now in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, and you'll be able to find some destroy
Speaker 1: the Irani in hand or intention at work. So that's
Speaker 1: all parts. But then I also get this other You
Speaker 1: hear this other point of view here, and you had
Speaker 1: you had Pat Buchanan, I haven't heard it. I feel
Speaker 1: like Pat hasn't really gotten much attention a while. I
Speaker 1: haven't really seen much of patting the headlines, you know.
Speaker 1: But Pat Buchanan's out there, and he's making the following
Speaker 1: case play six. Maybe has been crying wolf for decades,
Speaker 1: and US intelligence agencies in two thousand seven and again
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eleven said with high confidence quote
Speaker 1: that they have no evidence of a nuclear weapons program
Speaker 1: in Iran. Subsequent to that, we had the deal. Now,
Speaker 1: if Iran has a nuclear weapons program and is working
Speaker 1: on it and it's secret, that would be an abject
Speaker 1: failure on the part of American intelligence Natanya who would
Speaker 1: respect wants the United States to fight a war against
Speaker 1: Iran on Israel that he's talking about fighting a war
Speaker 1: my country, getting into another world. It was Buchanan. I
Speaker 1: didn't realize I was actually on Shawan show earlier. Um,
Speaker 1: I gotta I agree on the point about how we're not,
Speaker 1: you know, unless unless we think Iran is about to
Speaker 1: hit us with something, and I mean like in a
Speaker 1: matter of hours or days, maybe we cannot get involved
Speaker 1: in a war where they're on we We absolutely cannot.
Speaker 1: I mean, you see the way this is played out Iraq, Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: It is a it is a nightmare scenario. It's a
Speaker 1: terrible idea for many many different reasons. And and I
Speaker 1: do not want to get dragged into it a fight
Speaker 1: with her on either now. I think that's many many
Speaker 1: steps down the pathway, right, that's not something that we're
Speaker 1: talking about right now with the nuclear certification issue, because
Speaker 1: there was a false choice offered by the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: which was this deal or war? What about the status
Speaker 1: quo before of sanctions and international isolation on Iran? Why
Speaker 1: wasn't that an option? It was, but the Obama administration
Speaker 1: decided to throw throw it aside um. In part for
Speaker 1: ideological reasons. They want to bring Iran into the community
Speaker 1: of nations. They think Iran was uh the victim of
Speaker 1: some bad American foreign policy in the past, you know,
Speaker 1: pre seventy nine pre Iranian Revolution foreign policy. And you know,
Speaker 1: I think that they also obviously wanted a very clear legacy,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying, we were all in the legacy
Speaker 1: item for Obama. That was a big reason for the
Speaker 1: push here um. But you know, I don't think I
Speaker 1: don't think that the choices here are continue with this
Speaker 1: rewar that all said, there cannot be a U. S.
Speaker 1: Military incursion, invasion, any of that stuff into Iran. It
Speaker 1: just it cannot happen. And we need to be very
Speaker 1: clear that we don't get pushed closer and closer to
Speaker 1: that in some way. And that's I do feel like
Speaker 1: that needs to be said. So in that sense, I
Speaker 1: think of Buchanan is making a valid making a valid
Speaker 1: point um. But it may be a bit early. But
Speaker 1: is it really ever too early to say, hey, we're
Speaker 1: not going to war in that country. We're just not
Speaker 1: doing it. We've been through so much already. I mean,
Speaker 1: you see what happened in Afghanistan earlier the week. It
Speaker 1: barely gets to mention in most of the most of
Speaker 1: the major news sites. But you have a massive double
Speaker 1: suicide bombing in Cobble, nine journalists killed. Afghanistan. I think
Speaker 1: I started that. Trump said we're getting out. We should
Speaker 1: get out, we should go leave behind what we have
Speaker 1: to leave behind in order to support the obligations that
Speaker 1: we've already made. But this, this has gotta this has
Speaker 1: got to come to a conclusion one way or another.
Speaker 1: Uh And, And I'm just being honest with you. There
Speaker 1: is no strategy to win an Afghanistan that has not
Speaker 1: been tried five times before. Under preview is leadership in country,
Speaker 1: There just isn't. So what are we doing exactly? What
Speaker 1: what's the purpose of of this continued mission in that country?
Speaker 1: And I think people would start to I've heard this all.
Speaker 1: I've heard this now for almost a decade since the
Speaker 1: Obama administration did its first Afghanistan interview. I know I'm
Speaker 1: getting down a rabbit hole here with Afghanistan. Maybe I'll
Speaker 1: spend more time on that later in the week, but
Speaker 1: it's time to go. It really is. I know people
Speaker 1: are worried about what happened in the rock and the vacuum.
Speaker 1: And at some point, though, we can't be we can't
Speaker 1: be all that's left between complete chaos and collapse in
Speaker 1: the country. And Uh, I think we've reached that point.
Speaker 1: I think it's time for us to really think long
Speaker 1: and hard about withdrawing any considerable US military combat presence
Speaker 1: from Afghanistan. I think we're at seven or eight thousand
Speaker 1: right now. So on on Iran, though, I think the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is do I make a prediction today? Um,
Speaker 1: I think you got a figure at this point they're
Speaker 1: gonna de certify the deal, right otherwise, what's all this
Speaker 1: noise about. And I'm just gonna say this now, so
Speaker 1: I'm on the record with all of you listenings. I
Speaker 1: try to keep it real, try to keep it one. Uh.
Speaker 1: We've seen now on immigration on the dead on a
Speaker 1: number of issues. On this omnibus bill, great stuff, great
Speaker 1: talking from the administration, but the action is not exactly
Speaker 1: followed the rhetoric. And on this Iran deal, you know,
Speaker 1: we've got everyone saying it's the worst deal ever. Uh.
Speaker 1: Trump saying it's the worst deal ever, should never been done.
Speaker 1: That means he's got to de certify, right, I mean
Speaker 1: that the time has come because you know, Pelosi thinks
Speaker 1: she's gonna be Speaker of the House starting in the fall.
Speaker 1: We're gonna beet a whole different political world this time
Speaker 1: next year, as we're talking whole different universe. So the
Speaker 1: presidential or or the the political power the president has
Speaker 1: a mass needs to be used, needs to be used now.
Speaker 1: Condi Rice, by the way, way in on this one. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't hear that much from former Bush
Speaker 1: administration officials. Here's what she said about a play five.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have signed this agreement to begin with. I've
Speaker 1: said that before. I think it was a weak agreement,
Speaker 1: particularly on verification. Uh. It allows Iran to break out
Speaker 1: after a specific period of time. I probably would have
Speaker 1: stayed in for alliance management reasons more than anything else.
Speaker 1: But I don't think that it's the end of the
Speaker 1: world if the administration leaves the agreement. Clearly right, trying
Speaker 1: to the end of the world. You got a lot
Speaker 1: of people out there saying the sky is falling on
Speaker 1: this if if we were to have a change in
Speaker 1: the policy here. But I just I just don't buy it.
Speaker 1: I really don't I think that if we were to decertify,
Speaker 1: Trump will be in a position kind of like what
Speaker 1: he's in with Kim Jongo. Now, which is our right.
Speaker 1: Let's really talk this through. Let's really negotiate this one.
Speaker 1: What are the Iranian's gonna do? Send missiles to bad
Speaker 1: actress throughout the Middle East? They already doing that back
Speaker 1: up the Assad regime creates greater secturnal strife in Iraq,
Speaker 1: be the the silent hand and the the arm behind
Speaker 1: the who the militia and Yemen. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: they're already doing all that, folks, training, equipping, subsidizing, Hesbellah,
Speaker 1: They're doing all that, and they're doing it in a
Speaker 1: way that shows they do not have any regard for
Speaker 1: what we think about what's going on in that neck
Speaker 1: of the wood. So I think it's probably a good idea.
Speaker 1: I think that this is it is. It is time. Um,
Speaker 1: but we will have to We'll have to see. But yeah, no,
Speaker 1: no war, no wrong. I'll tell you this. If I
Speaker 1: had it, let's say it was five or ten years
Speaker 1: down the line and I had well, now that wouldn't
Speaker 1: be enough time. Oh gosh, I can think about this. Uh,
Speaker 1: if I ever have to sit down with Buck Jr.
Speaker 1: My as yet imaginary son, and he says, you know, Dad,
Speaker 1: I want to sign up. I want to go fight
Speaker 1: in Iran. I'm telling you right now, I'm telling him no,
Speaker 1: no fighting, No unless Iran has attacked this or something.
Speaker 1: But you're not going over there to try and topple
Speaker 1: the top of the Mullas and rebuild that country. Because
Speaker 1: my youth was changed and my life, the course of
Speaker 1: my life was changed by trying to help deal with
Speaker 1: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we had, and
Speaker 1: I would say none of this going over there and
Speaker 1: trying to make a better country for people that aren't
Speaker 1: making it for themselves, just not having not having our
Speaker 1: young men and women from you know, Florida, Virginia, Maine, Kansas,
Speaker 1: all the way out to California north and south down
Speaker 1: and around. Nope, not doing it. So I do think
Speaker 1: that there's a need to at least voice that concern
Speaker 1: in the interim. Uh, if you want to give us
Speaker 1: a ring eight four four eight to five eight four four, Buck,
Speaker 1: we'll talk to you about Roseanne on the flip side here,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure yet. I'll sort of sort of do
Speaker 1: a grab bag coming up here to but I do
Speaker 1: want to know the third hour, we're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: may Day, a deep dive into uh the history of
Speaker 1: may Day and also how you still have why the
Speaker 1: the left still plays this game of you know, maybe socialism,
Speaker 1: maybe it's kind of a good thing because they do
Speaker 1: it um and and then I have an update for
Speaker 1: you on the bro coll story. That actually was Brian
Speaker 1: Williams home broke Call. That's broke call. There's Brian Williams
Speaker 1: who's kind of up there, and there's home broke Call
Speaker 1: who's down here. And then there's Adriana who's like over here,
Speaker 1: very different sounds from the brock car and the Brian
Speaker 1: Williams say, we can get we move all over the
Speaker 1: place here, We'll be right back. I mentioned before that
Speaker 1: there was an exchange between Mean Chris Cuomo CNNs bro
Speaker 1: in Chief, Hey Chris Cuomo to bro uh and Prime
Speaker 1: Minister net and Yahoo of Israel. Here's how it went played. Yes,
Speaker 1: no question for you. Does Israel have nuclear capabilities and
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons? Yes or no. We've always said that we
Speaker 1: won't be the first to introduce it, so we haven't
Speaker 1: introduced it. But that's not an answer to the question
Speaker 1: do you have them or going to country? It's as
Speaker 1: good and answers you're gonna get. But I'll tell you
Speaker 1: one thing, Chris, and I think it's important. You know,
Speaker 1: Iran signed MPT. Iran signed all sorts of commitments. Iran
Speaker 1: said that they don't have this nuclear weapons program, and
Speaker 1: Iran calls daily for the annihilation of my country. First
Speaker 1: of all, Cuomo here, this is amazing. It is known
Speaker 1: that Israeli policies they will not discuss the issue of
Speaker 1: their nuclear program. They want to talk about it. So
Speaker 1: what does he think he's gonna accomplished by doing that? Hey,
Speaker 1: you got nukes or what? Hey, I want to know
Speaker 1: you got like the missiles with the the go boom,
Speaker 1: with the mushroom cloud or what. But he didn't get
Speaker 1: an answer because of course he wasn't going to get
Speaker 1: an answer because we already know where's Reel stands on that.
Speaker 1: But I think the mentality forget about the stupidity of
Speaker 1: the question for a moment. I mean, look, you can ask,
Speaker 1: but we just know that the Prime Minister is not
Speaker 1: gonna answer. So this is like you know, asking any
Speaker 1: number of questions where you're you're sure or not so so.
Speaker 1: Israel is already the record saying they won't the government
Speaker 1: will not discuss this. But yeah, ask anyway, just to
Speaker 1: remind everybody that they won't discuss it. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: allowed to do it. I just think it's pretty pointless.
Speaker 1: But then there's also a mentality beneath the two, isn't
Speaker 1: there Like, hey, like, well, Israel you got nukes, maybe
Speaker 1: Ran should get nukes too. Seems to be to me,
Speaker 1: at least what he's trying to get at there. Um.
Speaker 1: And this is where you start to see some of
Speaker 1: the ideological reasons behind the Iran deal and urging. They
Speaker 1: meaning the left, the Democrats, and the so called progressive intelligentsia.
Speaker 1: They think that really all nations are morally morally equivalent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we all have our good stuff and our bad stuff.
Speaker 1: We're all basically pretty close to the same. Is this
Speaker 1: a smart thing? No? Is it true? No? But they
Speaker 1: kind of think this, and they are much closer to
Speaker 1: thinking that there's a moral parity between Israel and Iran
Speaker 1: than they're willing to admit publicly. The left in this
Speaker 1: country thinks that Israel is. They will say things like
Speaker 1: Israel's that apartheid state Israel should be. Uh, there's the
Speaker 1: whole divestiture campaign to divest Israel of of you know,
Speaker 1: trying to find waste wage economic warfare against the state
Speaker 1: of Israel. So don't those are just the the symptoms
Speaker 1: of the larger disease among on the American left side
Speaker 1: of things, thinking that Israel's inn a press or state,
Speaker 1: a vestige of colonialism. All of this is churning, believe,
Speaker 1: beneath the surface. And so that's how you get to
Speaker 1: a point where the Israeli uh nuclear program in the
Speaker 1: eyes of some journalists, and a possible Irani nuclear program
Speaker 1: or in any way, shape or form somewhat similar equivalent.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe they should get nukes too. Is at
Speaker 1: the end of the day that the real which I
Speaker 1: would notice what some of you have been telling me,
Speaker 1: You think that Obama wanted to make sure that it
Speaker 1: was impossible to prevent Iran from getting news. Um, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's I don't think that's the case, but
Speaker 1: I'm I'm open to being persuaded that somewhere in his
Speaker 1: head that might have been the thought process, because I
Speaker 1: know it's true if some leftists, I know there's a
Speaker 1: piece in the Council on Foreign Relations Foreign Affairs Journal. Now,
Speaker 1: I know I'm getting wonky here about exactly that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Iran should get nukes, and then there'd be strategic parody
Speaker 1: with Israel. This is believed by many more people on
Speaker 1: the left than you will hear about. And I think
Speaker 1: with Cuomo there you've got a little tap, a little
Speaker 1: a little sense of a Ron's got nukes, Maybe Israel
Speaker 1: get nukes? Do The American left is defined by hypocrisy
Speaker 1: as much as anything else these days. We know this,
Speaker 1: you know this. And on the issue of school choice
Speaker 1: and just our education system in general, it's hard to
Speaker 1: look at these people and take them seriously anymore. You
Speaker 1: have these mantras on the left about well, you need
Speaker 1: more money for teachers. Teachers are our future. Yeah, yeah, teachers,
Speaker 1: And what they really mean is that there needs to
Speaker 1: be more tax dollars going to teachers, unions, UM and
Speaker 1: the various bureaucrats who sit atop the educational system who
Speaker 1: have great gigs by the way, because they're basically unfire able.
Speaker 1: They're paid way more than they would make for comparable
Speaker 1: hours in the private sector. But it's always you know, oh,
Speaker 1: don't you care about the children, Well, I care about
Speaker 1: the children, but not making administrators more money and giving
Speaker 1: them bigger pensions than everything else. And we're just lied
Speaker 1: to constantly about the education system. On top of that,
Speaker 1: we are lied to about what people really do when
Speaker 1: it comes to their own children and the school system
Speaker 1: and school choice. There have been some excellent examples of this,
Speaker 1: I mean, really amazing stuff in recent years, and one
Speaker 1: of them had to do with a plan in a
Speaker 1: part of Brooklyn, New York. Now, for those who don't know,
Speaker 1: Brooklyn maybe the most left wing, hipster part of any
Speaker 1: city on the East Coast. I mean, you know, there's
Speaker 1: a reason Hillary's campaign headquarters was in Brooklyn, right And
Speaker 1: there is a part of Brooklyn called Dumbo, uh down
Speaker 1: under Manhattan Bridge overpast. I believes what it stands for
Speaker 1: because I'm a New Yorker, so I know these things,
Speaker 1: although I'm a swamp dweller right now in d C.
Speaker 1: And there are only two high schools there. One high
Speaker 1: school was majority minority and I believe majority black, and
Speaker 1: the other majority white. One high school had very high
Speaker 1: test scores, the other very low test scores. Well, if
Speaker 1: you're a leftist, if you're a Democrat, don't you think
Speaker 1: that the obvious answer them would be to do what
Speaker 1: Democrats say should happen all the time, which is, well,
Speaker 1: let's further integrate the schools. Let's let's push for diversity.
Speaker 1: They were screaming bloody murder in Dumbo. This is maybe
Speaker 1: two or three years ago. Over this, we have another
Speaker 1: incident of this, and this time it is in really
Speaker 1: the heart of the Democrat wealth and power structure in Manhattan,
Speaker 1: particularly with regard to the media, which is the Upper
Speaker 1: west Side, I mean the Upper east Side, which is
Speaker 1: you know, look, I actually grew up on the Upper
Speaker 1: east Side, so I not really well, but the Upper
Speaker 1: west Side is where you're gonna find the people who
Speaker 1: are UM running CNN, the people who are running ABC,
Speaker 1: the people who are making these decisions about what's going
Speaker 1: on the news and everything else. Uh, because the bureaus CNN,
Speaker 1: ABC are on the Upper west Side, are close to it,
Speaker 1: some of them are kind of in Midtown. You think though,
Speaker 1: that this absolutely blue is blue can get and very wealthy,
Speaker 1: very elite part of our largest city would be really
Speaker 1: open to the idea of increasing Yes, that's right, diversity
Speaker 1: in the school system. On the Upper West Side. You
Speaker 1: would think that, given how devoted they are to diversity
Speaker 1: for everyone else and how much lip service they give
Speaker 1: to the need for diversity in schools, the need for
Speaker 1: diversity in hiring, that they would love the opportunity to
Speaker 1: lead from the front on this issue. But recently, uh,
Speaker 1: some audio made the rounds or video actually too, made
Speaker 1: the rounds of what it was like at a at
Speaker 1: a school board meeting when the topic of increasing diversity
Speaker 1: in some of these Upper West Side public schools came up.
Speaker 1: Here's how some of the parents reacted. Play clip eighteeneral
Speaker 1: you were and you didn't get that what you needed?
Speaker 1: Or like you're telling them school it's not going to educate.
Speaker 1: You can just say you've been educated. Sucks? Is that
Speaker 1: what the deal wants to say? Now, I'm sympathetic with
Speaker 1: this woman in a sense, right because, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that people should have vouchers. I think there should be
Speaker 1: school choice. I think that there should be uh that
Speaker 1: you should have a much greater say than just you
Speaker 1: live in this district, this is what your zone for,
Speaker 1: this is where you're going. But I would I can't
Speaker 1: help but note that most if not all, of the
Speaker 1: parents that are at these teacher these not teacher conferences,
Speaker 1: but these school board meetings. Parent teacher conference is something else.
Speaker 1: Are Democrats just based on the party registration of the
Speaker 1: Upper West Side? Okay, it is. It is the stronghold
Speaker 1: of progressivism in Manhattan, in New York City, And yet
Speaker 1: here you are and there's by the way, that was
Speaker 1: just one bit of audio we played. There's tremendous pushback
Speaker 1: now and they're covering it in local news there, but
Speaker 1: they don't want to cover it too much because it
Speaker 1: shows the hypocrisy at work here. The same people who
Speaker 1: will vote for Democrats, who will say that the school
Speaker 1: system should just always be pushing for diversity. I mean,
Speaker 1: diversity is one of the primary talking points you will
Speaker 1: hear among progressives on any issue. But when it comes
Speaker 1: to their own kids, all of a sudden, when it
Speaker 1: comes to their own children, it's a little different. When
Speaker 1: it comes to how they feel about their own kids
Speaker 1: being in an environment with increased diversity, there is far
Speaker 1: less enthusiasm for this, all of a sudden. And I
Speaker 1: have to note that the one of the principles or
Speaker 1: chancellors or whatever is I think the superintendent it was
Speaker 1: he whatever. I think. He's a superintendent of this school system. See,
Speaker 1: there's it's tough to keep it straight. Principal, chancellor, superintendent,
Speaker 1: you know, school board, advisor, etcetera. I mean, there's all
Speaker 1: these people that are getting paid by the taxpayer to
Speaker 1: shuffle a lot of paper out and say it's all
Speaker 1: about the kids. But here's his response to this room
Speaker 1: full of parents on the Upper West Side who are
Speaker 1: worried about diversity in there in the schools for their kids. Right,
Speaker 1: they're suggesting, and let's just be very clear about this,
Speaker 1: these parents who are so upset, are saying, WHOA hold on.
Speaker 1: If you make my school a greater proportion of or
Speaker 1: my kids school a greater proportion minority, the school is
Speaker 1: going to be worse academically. That is what those parents
Speaker 1: are saying. That is their fear. That is their statement.
Speaker 1: I'm just pointing it out, but they're saying, whoa whoa
Speaker 1: more diversity meaning more non white students at the school
Speaker 1: in the Upper west Side means a worse academic environment.
Speaker 1: That is what they are claiming. Here is what the
Speaker 1: principle or whatever he has said to them. Nineteen. There
Speaker 1: are kids that are tremendously disadvantaged that I would love
Speaker 1: to be able to offer somebody mentioned five thousand dollars
Speaker 1: worth of tutoring for to raise their test course, and
Speaker 1: to compare these students and say, my whole already advantaged
Speaker 1: kids eats more advantage didn't to be kept away from
Speaker 1: those kids is tremendously offensive to me. Tremendously offensive, he says. I.
Speaker 1: I know what this principle, who I'm sure is a
Speaker 1: died in the wool deep blue progressive, I know what
Speaker 1: he's saying to these folks. He's saying, Hey, guys, come on,
Speaker 1: step up. You know, now is your chance to atone
Speaker 1: for your white privilege. You know, you're a bunch of
Speaker 1: Hillary voters, probably a bunch of Bernie voters. I'm sure
Speaker 1: they all loved Obama in that room, all voted for
Speaker 1: Obama two times. But now is your chance to really
Speaker 1: put your money where your mouth is. And their mouths
Speaker 1: are saying really, really astonishing things like, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: want diversity in my child's school. They say, we've got
Speaker 1: enough diversity. Maybe a little less diversity would be good.
Speaker 1: We'll hold on a second, folks. I thought diversity was
Speaker 1: always a good thing. According to Democrats. I thought that
Speaker 1: they love diversity. They wanted for you, They wanted for
Speaker 1: your children's schools. They want the Department of Education in Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. To be making policy that affects you wherever
Speaker 1: you are in the country. Now, if your child goes
Speaker 1: to public school and diversity is you know, the strength
Speaker 1: of the school system, they will tell you, Oh, but no,
Speaker 1: they they seem to have a problem with this. We've
Speaker 1: all been told so much about our white privilege and
Speaker 1: the need to check that privilege. But the parents in
Speaker 1: that room that they seem to want to hold on
Speaker 1: to that privilege, whatever it may be. They're they're not
Speaker 1: willing to give that up. And this is an experiment
Speaker 1: that I can tell you plays out time and again
Speaker 1: in so many ways across the country with Democrats who
Speaker 1: talk this big game about how they want diversity and
Speaker 1: they want uh, multiculturalism in the schools. You know, they
Speaker 1: want English as a second language, they want as many
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, the more refugee and asylum claiming families
Speaker 1: and students into the country the better, just not in
Speaker 1: their neighborhood. I think we all see what's at work here.
Speaker 1: I think we see the hypocrisy, and we see what
Speaker 1: in if other people were doing this right, if you
Speaker 1: listen to this wherever you are, though I know a
Speaker 1: lot of live in cities that are very blue. But
Speaker 1: if you were saying this about diversity in the school
Speaker 1: these parents on the Upper West Side or in Dumbo,
Speaker 1: or I'm sure in l A or Chicago, you name it,
Speaker 1: they would say that when you were claiming was racist.
Speaker 1: But for them, it's just they don't want to cheat
Speaker 1: their children out of the best education possible. They're just
Speaker 1: doing the best for their kids. Oh, maybe other people
Speaker 1: take that approach to Maybe school choice would be better
Speaker 1: for everyone. Maybe empowering parents of any ethnic background, minority students,
Speaker 1: white students, anybody to make choices about where they go
Speaker 1: to school would be better for everyone. It would force
Speaker 1: the schools to be better. Maybe that's one solution. That's
Speaker 1: instead of sacrificing other people's kids for the diversity worship
Speaker 1: that has been that has become such a central feature
Speaker 1: of the Democrat party. That would require some honesty, right,
Speaker 1: That would require looking at the situation for what it is,
Speaker 1: not as Democrats wish it to be. But you gotta
Speaker 1: I'm telling you go and check this out. Um, you
Speaker 1: had seventeen middle schools, uh that we're supposed to be
Speaker 1: reserving their seats for low scoring students. That's that's one
Speaker 1: way they're going to do this and uh to try
Speaker 1: to increase diversity. And the parents at these schools were
Speaker 1: freaking out and their Democrats no surprise. In a few minutes, team,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna give you the background of May Day, which
Speaker 1: is a history that I like to tell here on
Speaker 1: the show. Take you back to the Haymarket massacre, the
Speaker 1: origins of the workers movement in Chicago, and I think
Speaker 1: you'll you'll enjoy some of that. Will do a bit
Speaker 1: of a deep dive into it. I just first wanted
Speaker 1: to note though, that while here May Day is kind
Speaker 1: of a wawaw situation, the news from the day shows
Speaker 1: you that overseas it is it is still very much
Speaker 1: a thing that gets the radical left out and mobilized.
Speaker 1: You had May Day protesters that we're marking International Workers Day, which,
Speaker 1: as we will discuss, is what it's called in the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. Um, it's and it's it is
Speaker 1: a socialist holiday. And you had marchers that were holding
Speaker 1: banners of of stalin. Now you know that there's there's
Speaker 1: a part of me that that initially sees this and says,
Speaker 1: perhaps this is just the result of tremendous ignorance, historical ignorance,
Speaker 1: not knowing, not understanding what Stalin really did. I would
Speaker 1: be willing to bet that none of these Brits. Oh
Speaker 1: and in Paris there were also riots today, so it's
Speaker 1: not just it's not just Britain. There are other countries too.
Speaker 1: There's all over the place. You had anarchists smashing windows,
Speaker 1: looting and rioting in Paris. So I don't think that
Speaker 1: that this is limited to any one place. It's all
Speaker 1: across Europe. But there's this historical ignorance that I would
Speaker 1: assume is the result of well, a lot of people
Speaker 1: holding up Stalin photos and banners who don't read much
Speaker 1: in the way of books, and haven't read very much,
Speaker 1: don't know things. Um and sure that's true. I doubt
Speaker 1: any of these people in London, in Paris, or any
Speaker 1: of the little kind of piddley, unimportant marches that have
Speaker 1: occurred in this country today as well. They haven't read
Speaker 1: The Great Terror by Robert conquests. They don't understand the
Speaker 1: full depth of Stalin's decool accusation policy, where there was
Speaker 1: the liquidation of farmers really as a class that occurred.
Speaker 1: The cool Locks were kind of the peasant farmers, how
Speaker 1: that was an official policy of the Soviet state, and
Speaker 1: the mass executions of of peasants that occurred during the
Speaker 1: Great Terror, and then the purges that occurred within the
Speaker 1: Soviet regime and the military more specifically and then amounted
Speaker 1: to millions of people, millions and millions of people killed
Speaker 1: by Stalin Um. There's a part of me that would
Speaker 1: like to think that these imbeciles in London and Paris
Speaker 1: and elsewhere marching with Stalin banners with Soviet flags just
Speaker 1: don't know this. But there are these radicals that you'll see,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna talk to you in a few minutes
Speaker 1: about the yes, the backstory, the history of May Day
Speaker 1: in this country. But also there's a New York Times
Speaker 1: piece on how Marx was right editorial piece. But there
Speaker 1: are PhD s, There are ostensibly really educated people out
Speaker 1: there who still cling to this and who must know
Speaker 1: the history, at least in broad strokes of what happened
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union, what happened in China. Uh Mao's
Speaker 1: Great Leap Forward was one of the greatest man made disasters.
Speaker 1: In fact, some argue the greatest man made disaster by
Speaker 1: any one government to its own people in history. Uh
Speaker 1: sixty million dead, they asked him forty to sixty They
Speaker 1: can't really intract. But but that's like the number that
Speaker 1: died in all of World War two, and many of
Speaker 1: them died through starvation. And if you go back and
Speaker 1: read about the Great Leap Forward, under how there was
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of a violence that occurred. Because when
Speaker 1: people are starving, they get desperate. And when the Party
Speaker 1: apparatus was dealing with millions of starving peasants in the
Speaker 1: in the countryside, what they did to maintain order was
Speaker 1: just the height of brutality and savagery. I have to
Speaker 1: think that these PhDs that are pro marks, that are
Speaker 1: pro communism know about this stuff. So then I guess
Speaker 1: the only way to explain their thinking is that they
Speaker 1: think that that cost was worth it, that at some
Speaker 1: point there will be a glorious and beautiful future for us.
Speaker 1: All that will only come through I suppose, more bloodshed,
Speaker 1: more loss, more starvation, but at some point we will
Speaker 1: reach this worker's paradise that was promised by Lennon and
Speaker 1: Marx and others. This utopia, um the you know that
Speaker 1: the the proletariat's paradise will be awaiting or I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's a fundamentalism. Really, it is a a delusion that
Speaker 1: relies on all kinds of blindness, and the blindness of
Speaker 1: what's going on today too. I mean, Venezuela is a
Speaker 1: country that I think is such a clear marker of
Speaker 1: what happens when people take a redis a redistributionist view
Speaker 1: and a status view. And remember, Venezuela had good intentions.
Speaker 1: It was a social justice warrior run country, and it
Speaker 1: was run right into the ground and now right into
Speaker 1: the sewer beneath it. It is in desperate circumstances. So
Speaker 1: we don't even have to look back into history. You
Speaker 1: can just do a Google searcher. Look at the news today.
Speaker 1: How is it possible that you have these idiots marching
Speaker 1: in praise of the Soviet Union and pray, and not
Speaker 1: not a handful, not a couple here, and there thousands
Speaker 1: of them breaking things. This radical left element that I
Speaker 1: would note also exists in this country. In Antifa, you
Speaker 1: have the the great irony of antipas. Of course they
Speaker 1: use fascist tactics to oppose fascism, but um Marxism has
Speaker 1: killed so many people over the twentieth century, and we'll
Speaker 1: kill so many more of thee unless we actually stand
Speaker 1: up to this. I'm gonna tell you about the history
Speaker 1: of May Day though when we come right back. Welcome
Speaker 1: to our three of the Buck Sexton Show. And I
Speaker 1: would say happy May Day to all of you. But
Speaker 1: once you know more of the back story of how
Speaker 1: we got may Day, how this became something of a holiday,
Speaker 1: you feel a little different about it. It is in
Speaker 1: fact a socialist tradition, socialist holiday. But before I get
Speaker 1: into that, some more necessary history of of this whole thing.
Speaker 1: First of all, uh, may Day is also an international
Speaker 1: distress call, and I always know people say, well, does
Speaker 1: that have to do with May one? The answer is no.
Speaker 1: The call out so when someone's in a plane, may day,
Speaker 1: may Day that comes from the French vine a day
Speaker 1: which means come and help me. And as you know,
Speaker 1: this is repeated three times if a plane is going
Speaker 1: down there's any any problems. Back in seven the International
Speaker 1: Radio Telegraph Convention of Washington made may Day the official
Speaker 1: voice distressed call So that's when things are really really bad.
Speaker 1: The most serious call out you can put out there
Speaker 1: is May Day may Day. But let's talk about Socialists
Speaker 1: Workers Day, the May Day that we're currently in. And
Speaker 1: before we even get into that, I want to give
Speaker 1: you a little bit of a of an additional history
Speaker 1: of how we got to the the one incident, the
Speaker 1: Haymarket affair, that led to the commemoration on May one
Speaker 1: of May Day. See it happened back in Chicago. It
Speaker 1: all started in Chicago in the eighties. Chicago was a
Speaker 1: totally booming city, but you can go a bit before
Speaker 1: that to get a sense of how quickly the workers
Speaker 1: struggles of Chicago came to be based on the incredible
Speaker 1: growth of the city of Chicago itself. The ways, Chicago
Speaker 1: is the French version of the Miami and Illinois tribes
Speaker 1: word Chicaqua, which means stinky onion, not to be confused
Speaker 1: with millie woke, which means the good land. So that's
Speaker 1: because of the plants along the Chicago River. So for
Speaker 1: some of you, Chicago really means uh, stinky town in
Speaker 1: the Native American tongue. Initially, but there were only some
Speaker 1: small settlements there. It was a military post called Fort Dearborn.
Speaker 1: The Brits destroyed that one back in the War of
Speaker 1: eighteen twelve, but it was an eighteen thirty The Illinois
Speaker 1: legislature set up a town that by eighteen thirty three
Speaker 1: only had three fifty residents. And that's remember Chicago's now
Speaker 1: America's third largest city. But as it's true in real estate,
Speaker 1: only three things really matter. Location, location, location, Chicago was
Speaker 1: on a great piece of land, and so the boom
Speaker 1: happened with incredible speed. There. They already had the lake
Speaker 1: traffic because of the opening of the canal in eighteen
Speaker 1: forty eight. So the Great Lakes traffic that connected the
Speaker 1: Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico with Chicago at
Speaker 1: the nexus meant that at a time before automobile travel,
Speaker 1: when things could really only go over river, at least
Speaker 1: in bulk, it was a phenomenal time to be in
Speaker 1: in that region of the country, in that particular portion
Speaker 1: of the country on the Chicago River. So in eighteen
Speaker 1: sixties he had a city of a hundred nine thousand.
Speaker 1: By the n eighteen eighties it was at a million.
Speaker 1: See what a ten x increase in about thirty years
Speaker 1: in the city of Chicago. Back in eighteen seventy one,
Speaker 1: there's a huge fire. It burned actually from a Sunday
Speaker 1: until a Tuesday. This is bad when things were all
Speaker 1: made of wood, most not everything that is are mostly
Speaker 1: made of wood. So you had a quarter of all
Speaker 1: the homes in Chicago burned down. And that's what allowed, though,
Speaker 1: for the city planning to occur, where you've got all
Speaker 1: these parks now along the Chicago Lakefront. But then the
Speaker 1: railroads came along, and that's when things got really really intense.
Speaker 1: The boom really hit hard in Chicago because Chicago was
Speaker 1: the hub of the railroad network that reached the Pacific
Speaker 1: in eighteen sixty nine. So you had all these raw
Speaker 1: materials from the newly open West that were being shipped
Speaker 1: to the East. And guess what, where you have raw
Speaker 1: materials and the transport of them, you have a need
Speaker 1: for manufacturing, or rather you have an opening for manufacturing.
Speaker 1: So you had all these factories that popped up in
Speaker 1: Chicago with just vast amounts of new workers, and a
Speaker 1: lot of these workers were in fact immigrants. So the
Speaker 1: immigrants to Chicago in the eighteen seventies eighteen eighties were
Speaker 1: first Germans actually, and then you had a lot of
Speaker 1: Irish Catholics during the Potato famine, and then you had Scandinavians,
Speaker 1: and then you had Polish, Italians, Jews, and then it
Speaker 1: was after the First World War that you had the
Speaker 1: great migration of African Americans to Chicago. But this is
Speaker 1: why the city of Chicago became a major center of
Speaker 1: the labor movement. You had all these factories, and you
Speaker 1: had a lot of new immigrants showing up, and those
Speaker 1: immigrants came from countries where oh yes, indeed, you had
Speaker 1: already had the spread of some Marxist socialist, redistributionist ideas,
Speaker 1: and they brought them. They brought those ideas with them. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it wasn't a hard time to
Speaker 1: be a worker in Chicago. Back in the eighteen eighties,
Speaker 1: you had a sixty hour, six day a week work
Speaker 1: week was pretty standard. So there there was a labor
Speaker 1: and management conflict that was constantly flaring up. There. You
Speaker 1: had firings and walkouts and workers would be blacklisted, and
Speaker 1: newspapers fake news no surprise here, played a big role
Speaker 1: in all these tensions. Most of the papers, though, because
Speaker 1: you know who's buying papers and who owns papers. We're
Speaker 1: always taking the side of the capitalists. And so you
Speaker 1: had radical leftists and this is a part of the
Speaker 1: Chicago history. I think it's really interesting radical leftists that
Speaker 1: began producing their own publications. So they created these underground
Speaker 1: workers newspapers which really basically commy ish uh. And you
Speaker 1: had one in particularly our Bitter Zeitung, which was edited
Speaker 1: by August Species. Looks like spies, but I think it's species,
Speaker 1: although I don't know where they would write about this
Speaker 1: workers struggle. And remember we think of the major threats
Speaker 1: now against us, well, we are in an era of
Speaker 1: concern over ge hottest terrorsm and infiltration. But back in
Speaker 1: the eighties eighteen nineties, it was actually anarchists who were
Speaker 1: very closely ideologically tied to radical socialists that were the
Speaker 1: big bad guys on the block. Remember nineteen o one,
Speaker 1: you had the assassination of William McKinley that occurred on
Speaker 1: September six, nineteen o one by Leon Chaw Goosh. And
Speaker 1: you know, Theodore Roosevelt went and said that after the assassination,
Speaker 1: he said the following, when compared with the suppression of anarchy,
Speaker 1: every question since sinks into insignificance. The anarchist is the
Speaker 1: enemy of humanity, the enemy of all mankind, and his
Speaker 1: is a deeper degree of criminality than any other. No
Speaker 1: immigrant is allowed to come to our shores if he
Speaker 1: has an anarchist and no paper published here or abroad
Speaker 1: should be permitted in circulation in this country if it
Speaker 1: propagates anarchist opinions. That was from the White House back
Speaker 1: in eight Teddy Roosevelt. So just remember the Some people say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, we can't have any we can't have any
Speaker 1: ideological tests, we can't have any test for immigration. Well,
Speaker 1: actually we've had numerous ideological tests stretching back to periods
Speaker 1: in our history when we really didn't want the infiltration
Speaker 1: of communists and socialists into this country because of the
Speaker 1: very real subversions they were engaged in. Uh And there
Speaker 1: was also a couple of very big anarchist bombings that
Speaker 1: came after that. Los Angeles Times was bombed in nineteen
Speaker 1: ten of that that killed twenty one newspaper employees. Although
Speaker 1: people weren't really at the time sure about it, um
Speaker 1: they were labor radicals, anarchists, socialists, wasn't really it wasn't
Speaker 1: really clear who was behind that at the time. And
Speaker 1: then in nine twenty you had that big bomb on
Speaker 1: Wall Street twelve o one pm on September six, a
Speaker 1: horse drawn carriage kind of the I E D or
Speaker 1: the v I E ED of its day, pulled up
Speaker 1: a five hundred pounds of dynamite cast iron weights. Those
Speaker 1: were used as a shrapnel, and it was an enormous
Speaker 1: I E D. And that was anarchists that killed thirty
Speaker 1: people and then eight died of wounds thereafter, and damaged
Speaker 1: the stock exchange pretty badly. And that was carried out
Speaker 1: by a faction of Italian and anarchists called Galleanists. All
Speaker 1: about they were all about labor struggles and anti capitalist agitation.
Speaker 1: So the Convention of Labor, now why am I telling
Speaker 1: you about us? Well, the Convention of Labor Movements in
Speaker 1: eighty four decided that May one, six would be gay
Speaker 1: would be the beginning of the eight hour work day.
Speaker 1: They also prepared for a general strike, which happened in
Speaker 1: cities across the country. And this is where then we
Speaker 1: will get into what happened in Chicago, and therefore more
Speaker 1: of the backstory of how we got to the celebration
Speaker 1: of May Day. That became a thing that's kind of faded,
Speaker 1: but people still talk about it now, certainly in socialist circles.
Speaker 1: I will give you that and uh and more, what
Speaker 1: was the violent incident commemorated on May one? And what
Speaker 1: what does it mean when we think about socialism today.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that coming up. All right, we're back
Speaker 1: with our discussion of the history of May Day. My
Speaker 1: friends and I wanted to just you know, I think
Speaker 1: it's important because you've got pieces getting published, for example,
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. Here's one Happy Birthday, Karl Marks.
Speaker 1: You were right, that was obviously meant to coincide with
Speaker 1: the May Day anniversary here. And while you and I
Speaker 1: are kind of like who cares about May Day, a
Speaker 1: lot of socialists and uh an anarchists and other folks
Speaker 1: who are of the of the far radical left think
Speaker 1: that May Day is still a pretty big deal. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Occupy All Street movement not long ago made sure
Speaker 1: that Maydea was something they commemorated with some big rallies
Speaker 1: in New York City, thousands, tens of thousands of people
Speaker 1: at rallies across the country. I was at the covered
Speaker 1: them for the blaze at the time. So but back
Speaker 1: to the Haymarket affair and May Day and what happened there. Um,
Speaker 1: you had striking workers in Chicago that gathered near the
Speaker 1: McCormick harvesting machine plant where there were strikers and strike breakers,
Speaker 1: and there was a face off, and there were hundreds
Speaker 1: of police brought in and this then led to some
Speaker 1: some violence. The police open fire and killed two people.
Speaker 1: And the anarchists in Chicago back in the eighties figured
Speaker 1: that this was gonna be a good time to start
Speaker 1: making noise about how they need to fight back against
Speaker 1: these rapacious capitalists. So he had spies, Albert Albert Spies, however,
Speaker 1: writing the arbiter Zeitung, the radical left paper of Chicago,
Speaker 1: that blood has flowed. It had to be, and it
Speaker 1: was not in vain. Has order drilled and trained its bloodhounds.
Speaker 1: It was not for fun that the militia was practiced
Speaker 1: in street fighting. The robbers, who know best of all
Speaker 1: what wretches they are, who pile up their money through
Speaker 1: the misery of the masses, who make a trade of
Speaker 1: the slow murder of the families of working men, are
Speaker 1: the last ones to stop short at the direct shooting
Speaker 1: down of working men end quote. So there you go. Oh,
Speaker 1: but he finishes this with but the working men are
Speaker 1: not cheap and will reply to the white terror with
Speaker 1: the red terror. Huh. So things were getting a little intense, obviously,
Speaker 1: and then we get to the Haymarket affair, which actually
Speaker 1: happened on May four. But you had a group that gathered,
Speaker 1: uh and a series of speeches were given to them,
Speaker 1: and the police showed up. Remember this is all about striking,
Speaker 1: strike breaking workers movement, and the police ordered everyone at
Speaker 1: this rally to disperse. And this came after the previous
Speaker 1: violent incident I mentioned to you where you've already had
Speaker 1: some workers get killed in exchange with the cops and
Speaker 1: a bomb was thrown into the the path of these
Speaker 1: officers um so and people then later called this the
Speaker 1: Haymarket riot or the Haymarket massacre, and a dynamite bomb,
Speaker 1: dynamite bomb was thrown into that group. It killed uh seven,
Speaker 1: and there was gunfire from the police in response. Scores
Speaker 1: of people were wounded and three workers were killed. And
Speaker 1: from that, obviously, and now now you get a lot
Speaker 1: of attention and people started referring to these protesters the
Speaker 1: left started ferning these protesters as Haymarket martyrs, and uh.
Speaker 1: They they were obviously very very upset about this. The
Speaker 1: eight anarchists eight anarchists were convicted of conspiracy and seven
Speaker 1: were sentenced to death. One was only sentenced to fifteen years.
Speaker 1: This is all about the Haymarket affair now, and nobody
Speaker 1: knows really who threw the bomb. To this day, it
Speaker 1: is not really known who threw the bomb, but there
Speaker 1: are a lot of conspiracies about conspiracy, theories at least
Speaker 1: about whether there was any infiltration of the group, and
Speaker 1: on all the rest of it. The governor ended up
Speaker 1: coming in and pardoning some of these. This was Governor
Speaker 1: John Peter Altgeld. He came in and pardoned some of them,
Speaker 1: and uh. In eighty nine, a FL president Samuel Gompers
Speaker 1: wrote to the first Congress of the Second International. They
Speaker 1: were all having a meeting in Paris, and he said
Speaker 1: that the World Socialists planned to propose an international fight
Speaker 1: for universal eight hour day. And also, oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: the International then decided to adopt May first, eighteen nine
Speaker 1: as the date for the demonstration. So you had kind
Speaker 1: of some back and forth over this. So you have
Speaker 1: the International Workers Day and Socialist Communists of the Second
Speaker 1: Internationale to commemorate the Haymarket affair in Chicago, UH commemorated
Speaker 1: this as May Day. Um. So there you have it there,
Speaker 1: you there there, you have some of the uh, some
Speaker 1: of the back story here, and you had the americanization
Speaker 1: of it that has occurred to this point where they
Speaker 1: called it. They started calling it loyalty Day, right because
Speaker 1: they realized and we shouldn't really have a commie holiday,
Speaker 1: so they started calling it Loyalty Day for a while,
Speaker 1: but that didn't really stick. So May Day is not
Speaker 1: something that you and I can get all that excited about,
Speaker 1: because it's really about international labor movements, socialism and Marxism,
Speaker 1: and the Haymarket affair in six is what got really
Speaker 1: got it on the map, um, because the movement then
Speaker 1: had their martyrs in a sense, right, the movement then
Speaker 1: became something that could point to bloodshed and say, see
Speaker 1: and now you know why we have a have have
Speaker 1: made day on the schedule, you know, on your calendar.
Speaker 1: But I just want to mention this New York Times
Speaker 1: piece on Karl Marks since it is May Day, since
Speaker 1: the international and all that is part of this history. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is how the piece ends the transition to a
Speaker 1: new society. So this was just published New York Times,
Speaker 1: I think yesterday the day before. The author, right, Jason Barker,
Speaker 1: who's a professor of philosophy New Surprise Rights. The transition
Speaker 1: to a new society where relations among people, rather than
Speaker 1: capital relations finally determines an individual's worth is arguably proving
Speaker 1: to be quite a task. Marks, as I have said,
Speaker 1: does not offer a one size fits all formula for
Speaker 1: enacting social change, but he does offer a powerful intellectual
Speaker 1: acid test for that change. On that basis, we are
Speaker 1: destined to keep citing him and testing his ideas until
Speaker 1: the kind of society that he struggled to bring about
Speaker 1: and that increasing numbers of us now desire is finally realized. Um.
Speaker 1: You see among academics it's it's still that Marks is right.
Speaker 1: He just we just haven't gotten Marks right yet. A
Speaker 1: pretty scary way for those who are supposed to be
Speaker 1: studying this and and have some knowledge, it's pretty frightening
Speaker 1: and terrifying that this is where they are on it.
Speaker 1: But they will never learn on this one. Um. They
Speaker 1: don't seem to understand that as much as it would
Speaker 1: be nice if we could all just share or have
Speaker 1: the government share on our behalf. It goes against human
Speaker 1: nature that if you try to order a society absent
Speaker 1: self interest, which is what Marxism is based on. Right,
Speaker 1: If you're trying to order a society where your own
Speaker 1: pursuit and destiny is not the central characteristic of how
Speaker 1: individuals interact with each other, you are you are going
Speaker 1: to fail because that will overcome whatever system you put
Speaker 1: in place. Whatever you know, revolutionary proletariat you think you're
Speaker 1: going to have, or or profession revolutionaries in the case
Speaker 1: of communism, who will do things on behalf of the proletariat,
Speaker 1: it is destined to failure. But even to this day,
Speaker 1: a lot of people on the left in this country,
Speaker 1: I think that Mark's got it right. We just haven't
Speaker 1: figured out how to do Marxism right yet. So that's
Speaker 1: my May Day message for you, how crazy and wrong
Speaker 1: they all are. I'll be back with you in just
Speaker 1: a second. So I wanted to follow up with the
Speaker 1: latest alagons about Tom brocong Now I'm gonna make fun
Speaker 1: of this guy. Um, I've never thought that Brokaw was impressive.
Speaker 1: I've never found him interesting and whenever I've heard him
Speaker 1: on a panel or when he when he goes off
Speaker 1: script to share his thoughts, it's just pabloments. Most contrary
Speaker 1: from on Bolger Shon to drag the bush snow journalism,
Speaker 1: and uh sure with the American people, it's just not good.
Speaker 1: Bro bro Call is just not impressive. He's a lucky,
Speaker 1: very lucky guy, and sometimes better to be lucky than
Speaker 1: good a lot of industries. Um So I don't have
Speaker 1: any reverence for him whatsoever. I know a lot of
Speaker 1: other people in the news business do for whatever reason. Um,
Speaker 1: I think that the news business has changed so much
Speaker 1: since people like Brokaw could make enormous salaries and were
Speaker 1: celebrated all over the world. Um that I don't even
Speaker 1: think bro Call would would like get a job in
Speaker 1: the BuzzFeed newsroom if he were on the scene today.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just so different. You have to be
Speaker 1: able to do so much more and anyway. But but
Speaker 1: bro Call rong. Here's don some trouble. As you know,
Speaker 1: he's been accused of of assaulting two women. Now, whether
Speaker 1: it was it sounds to me more like sexual harassment
Speaker 1: would be the claim. Although she said that try to
Speaker 1: kiss her and then try to use force. You know,
Speaker 1: so we're getting into ah, is it just sexual harassment
Speaker 1: or does it actually cross the boundaries into sexual assault? Um.
Speaker 1: But what I think is interesting about this case, because
Speaker 1: I initially came to it, as you know last week
Speaker 1: and want to follow up on it, was I said, well,
Speaker 1: you know, what are we to do about an allegation
Speaker 1: from the nineties that there's no proof about and cannot
Speaker 1: be proven one way or the other. And this is
Speaker 1: somebody who is a luminary on the left right, Broke
Speaker 1: brow Call. I'm gonna stop now or stamp and bark
Speaker 1: it's not nice. But Broke Call is a guy who
Speaker 1: you know, is celebrated by Democrats for a long time,
Speaker 1: was carrying water for the Democrat Party for a very
Speaker 1: long time. But they have this whole thing about women
Speaker 1: are to be believed? So what do we make of this?
Speaker 1: What are we to say about this? And it was
Speaker 1: interesting that NBC, which remember is the Matt Lour network
Speaker 1: and also the let's not have the Weinstein story break
Speaker 1: on our network that Rodan Farrow was doing doing because
Speaker 1: we have too many people that have connections to Weinstein.
Speaker 1: And I guess at the senior level. Um, Now, you
Speaker 1: had a lot of people signed this letter defending Brokaw,
Speaker 1: which I would note, I don't really know how you
Speaker 1: can defend somebody about an allegation that you weren't present
Speaker 1: for that you know nothing about. Well, what does that
Speaker 1: even mean? Right to say that you're gonna you're gonna sign,
Speaker 1: You're gonna say that he was overall a great guy
Speaker 1: other than this, Okay, that doesn't really matter though, it's
Speaker 1: you know, this, this whole notion of all these people
Speaker 1: rushing forward. And by the way, they're big names, Andrea Mitchell,
Speaker 1: Meeka Brazinsky, Rachel Maddow, A lot of people signed. I
Speaker 1: think over a hundred people signed this letter that they
Speaker 1: were supporting bro call. So I guess women are not
Speaker 1: to be believe, even if it's a big Democrat target,
Speaker 1: that you can't proved anything wrong. Right at that point
Speaker 1: they gotta draw the they're drawing the line there. I
Speaker 1: think we all know that if this were somebody who
Speaker 1: was considered a conservative or unfriendly to the cause, there
Speaker 1: would not be this push to sign some letter that
Speaker 1: would be intended to I suppose call his accuser a liar,
Speaker 1: which is I don't know what what else do they
Speaker 1: think they're accomplishing by writing this letter. Um, they have
Speaker 1: no knowledge whatsoever of this incident. Question. You have one
Speaker 1: named woman, one woman who has not been named but
Speaker 1: has as an anonymous source that she was also assaulted
Speaker 1: by Brokaw. I find it completely plausible that Tom broke All,
Speaker 1: who is a pompous wind bag, thought that it was
Speaker 1: a little additional perk of his power and his job
Speaker 1: to be able to, you know, come on to females
Speaker 1: in his business without any without any problem. Right, So
Speaker 1: I'd say I find it plausible. I wasn't there. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but I just find the hypocrisy from the
Speaker 1: left here to be really illuminating. Uh And and I
Speaker 1: have to say that now the news that is being
Speaker 1: reported on hereby our friend Emily's anati over in the
Speaker 1: Daily Wire that a lot of these women have now
Speaker 1: come out. Women who signed this letter said they were
Speaker 1: pressed into service to defend Brokaw. Oh gosh, here we go.
Speaker 1: We're pressed un to serve us. I mean that they
Speaker 1: were told, or they they felt at least that they
Speaker 1: had to sign this. If they didn't sign this letter,
Speaker 1: they would be on the wrong side of NBC management.
Speaker 1: So well, what does that tell you about the culture
Speaker 1: at NBC right now? By the way, just putting that
Speaker 1: out there that for some people, they're gonna put out
Speaker 1: this notion of a well, well, you're seeing this all
Speaker 1: over the place. See with MSNBC enjoy read, you see
Speaker 1: it with with NBC, Big NBC in the way it's
Speaker 1: responding to the allegations against Tom Brokaw. They're just some
Speaker 1: people who were kind protected who get the benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt. And there are other and they are on
Speaker 1: the left and they're useful to the left, and then
Speaker 1: there are other people who have to get fed to
Speaker 1: the lions. Whether they're guilty or not, it doesn't even matter. Right,
Speaker 1: they're toasts, they're gone, they're out, they're fired. And uh,
Speaker 1: I just think it's so interesting that NBC is now
Speaker 1: being accused of of pressuring women in designing a statement
Speaker 1: meant to undermine a claim made by a woman pressured
Speaker 1: by the biggest name at NBC for decades. That's what's
Speaker 1: really going on here, isn't it? Roll Call up? Next
Speaker 1: Day two of my Swamp visit extravaganza is underway here.
Speaker 1: Team very much enjoying my time here, even though it's
Speaker 1: a bit boggy. It's a bit of a of of
Speaker 1: a dense fog around this city of all the self
Speaker 1: congratulation and inside dealing and and all kinds of puffery
Speaker 1: and income poo bury. But I wanted to get into
Speaker 1: our roll call here straight away. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of the wonderful
Speaker 1: thing known as roll call, you just go to Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton and send us a message there.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow I'll try to remind try to remind producer Mike
Speaker 1: to send me the emails as well. I know, I
Speaker 1: feel like the emails don't get as much love as
Speaker 1: the Facebook account does. But then again, Facebook these days
Speaker 1: is making me sad with its nonsense, Like is this
Speaker 1: hate speech? On all these different posts that you can
Speaker 1: put up there. My guess is that most people who
Speaker 1: would be writing hate speech would click no, is this
Speaker 1: hate speech? But perhaps I'm perhaps I'm missing something. There's
Speaker 1: always that possibility, all right now, we have all kinds
Speaker 1: of wonderful messages here. We got Paul up here, rights
Speaker 1: Buck love your show. Don't let April go by without
Speaker 1: remembering the minute men at Lexington Green and conquered Bridge.
Speaker 1: People talked about the Oklahoma City bombing and don't name
Speaker 1: the bomber. Talk radio talked about him, but nobody talked
Speaker 1: about our real memory of April the nineteen when the
Speaker 1: patriots that took the shot around the world was heard. Uh,
Speaker 1: thank you Paul from Michigan. All right, Paul, Well, I
Speaker 1: appreciate the feedback and the thoughts on things so great.
Speaker 1: Oh look at this Kiara, who has a very intricate
Speaker 1: spelling of her name, which is which is fun. Kiara
Speaker 1: writes Buck, I just got this shirt from my best
Speaker 1: friend for my birthday. I was so excited when I
Speaker 1: opened it that I jumped up and down. Go Team
Speaker 1: Buck love your show. She sent a purple Ladies Fit
Speaker 1: Team Buck t shirt photo, which you can indeed get
Speaker 1: on buck Sexton dot com. So check that out please,
Speaker 1: and Kiara, thank you so much for your support and
Speaker 1: I'm glad you enjoyed the tea shirt. They're very comfortable,
Speaker 1: they're very well made. I will say I I wear
Speaker 1: I wear them, ms Molly wears them. I tend not
Speaker 1: to wear Team Buck t shirts out of the house
Speaker 1: because I think that if you're if you're in the band,
Speaker 1: you don't. There's there's a special rule. If you're in
Speaker 1: the band, you don't wear the T shirt of the band.
Speaker 1: But you want everybody else who likes the band obviously
Speaker 1: wearing the T shirt. Right. But if I if I
Speaker 1: wear my own gear outside the house, I wear it
Speaker 1: around the house. I wear to work out into. But
Speaker 1: I think that people would maybe make fun of me
Speaker 1: a little bit for that. But the T shirts are great.
Speaker 1: Please do check them out buck sexton dot com if
Speaker 1: you have any interest in seeing for yourself. Sean rights. Wait.
Speaker 1: Cultural appropriation is not okay, but gender appropriation is fine.
Speaker 1: I'm getting confused. Well, you're not the only one, my friend.
Speaker 1: As I have said in the last twenty four hours
Speaker 1: on Twitter, cultural appropriation is an indefensively stupid concept that
Speaker 1: cannot be defined, enforced, or understood. You can't get people
Speaker 1: to explain to you what it is. You can't get
Speaker 1: people to offer up when it is appropriate and not
Speaker 1: appropriate for someone to quote borrow part of a different culture.
Speaker 1: And also, anyone who has even the faintest understanding of
Speaker 1: what a culture is knows that there aren't clear boundaries.
Speaker 1: There aren't in fact, borders between cultures. All cultures tend
Speaker 1: to spill over. I mean, think about this. If you
Speaker 1: live in uh parts of let's say, Arizona or New
Speaker 1: Mexico and you uh you you have uh you're you're
Speaker 1: wearing a sombrero, for example, are you appropriating culture or
Speaker 1: is that just something that people and you're part of
Speaker 1: the world do. Right? If you are wearing any number
Speaker 1: of different garments from around the world outside the boundaries
Speaker 1: of whatever the specific country is, are you appropriating culture
Speaker 1: or is that just something that you guys have adopted
Speaker 1: over time? Right? You know, you think about this. There's
Speaker 1: appropriation of weapons, there's appropriation of food of and that's
Speaker 1: another thing. Am I not allowed to eat Indian food now?
Speaker 1: Or Vietnamese food or these are some of my favorites.
Speaker 1: I don't need a lot of Chinese food. But that's
Speaker 1: beside the point. Is that now appropriation that I'm supposed
Speaker 1: to feel bad about? Who do I ask for permission
Speaker 1: to be able to eat ethnic food now? As a
Speaker 1: white guy? Oh? I guess it's okay because I'm paying
Speaker 1: for it. So does that mean if I pay to
Speaker 1: rent a costume of another culture and wear it for
Speaker 1: whatever reason is that is that Okay, I also want
Speaker 1: to know who gets to wear three piece suits and
Speaker 1: a necktie and who doesn't comes from Western Europe, but
Speaker 1: it's common around the entire world. So was someone now
Speaker 1: going to tell me that any businessman from Shanghai who's
Speaker 1: wearing a several row suit, those you who are fancy
Speaker 1: and booge. You know, what I'm talking about? Is that
Speaker 1: cultural appropriation? I know, I'm running in circles. He and
Speaker 1: it almost feels incoherent. But that's the point. It isn't coherent.
Speaker 1: There's no such thing as cultural appropriation. No one really
Speaker 1: knows what it is. It's just away, quite honestly, of
Speaker 1: finding and not Yet another means to criticize what is
Speaker 1: supposed to be the or what is alleged to be
Speaker 1: the dominant paradigm in this country, which is white males,
Speaker 1: and how and in this case white females too, and
Speaker 1: how they adopt other cultural traits or other treasures from
Speaker 1: other cultures without bending the knee and asking for permission
Speaker 1: and or forgiveness. But it's complete and utter nonsense. It's
Speaker 1: a nonsense concept. So next up here we have Stephen
Speaker 1: who sent a photo of a baby over hoshly goat.
Speaker 1: Very cute, Stephen. I'm assuming this is out a farm
Speaker 1: where either you work or own the farm. The baby
Speaker 1: goat is adorable. Jeremy writes, hey, bok got a photo
Speaker 1: of our family corgy Walter when he was four weeks old. Jeremy's, uh,
Speaker 1: Corgy is adorable as well. And we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: take some of these and put them on the Facebook
Speaker 1: page so people can can hear them. I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: can see them. Hearing the photos would not be all
Speaker 1: that much fun. And now we have a guy we
Speaker 1: got William who writes, uh, this is the fastest egg
Speaker 1: cracker from Nick's delhi uh seal beach and los alamitos. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: this guy's cracking eggs super fast. William is telling me here,
Speaker 1: go sit in the corner. I didn't say, William that
Speaker 1: I I cracked eggs faster than anybody else. I just
Speaker 1: said that I can do it one handed now and
Speaker 1: not get shell in the omelets. So the joke's on you, sir,
Speaker 1: or something like that. Just kidding William, thanks for writing,
Speaker 1: uh randy rites. I've heard time and again that Obama
Speaker 1: wanted the Iran nuclear deal as a major foreign policy
Speaker 1: the legacy. What kind of legacy did he want? Was
Speaker 1: he trying to outdo Neville Chamberlain's Well, Randy, the left
Speaker 1: sees this, you gotta you gotta remember. The left sees
Speaker 1: all Obama foreign policy maneuvers in the context of what
Speaker 1: the George W. Bush foreign policy was before it, And
Speaker 1: so they were always operating from a premise of not
Speaker 1: Bush is a great thing, and so whatever you do
Speaker 1: that is not Bush is in fact something to be celebrated.
Speaker 1: And they would argue that by Obama not doing anything
Speaker 1: in Syria, uh, that's a brilliant maneuver. Libya as a
Speaker 1: disaster of the Obama administration's making, but the media just
Speaker 1: kind of cast that aside. They don't really care. But
Speaker 1: not Bush was the Obama foreign policy mantra. And also,
Speaker 1: and this was literally the case, don't do stupid stuff,
Speaker 1: except they didn't use the word stuff. Even Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: herself said that that was not an organizing principle for
Speaker 1: foreign Polessey, So what does that mean? Means the Obama
Speaker 1: team was not nearly as clever as they thought they
Speaker 1: were on the world stage. But Obama like to think
Speaker 1: of himself as creating peace in or the long term
Speaker 1: prospect of peace in the Middle East via an Iran deal,
Speaker 1: and that was what they were going for. It was
Speaker 1: a failure, but that was the that was the plan.
Speaker 1: Hank writes, Wow, he's got a lot of stuff here.
Speaker 1: My Peruvian long hair guinea pigs mom and baby. Mom's
Speaker 1: head is to the left, and then another pick of
Speaker 1: my three week old Peruvian guinea pigs. Uh. Check out
Speaker 1: my Facebook page Hank's Piggy's for Peruvian guinea pigs. These
Speaker 1: are some funky looking little dudes. I have never seen
Speaker 1: a Peruvian guinea pig before, so yeah, go check out
Speaker 1: its photos. It's kind of tough to tell what they
Speaker 1: are when you look at them and like, what is this.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit like if you took the Abominable
Speaker 1: Snowman and shrunk it down so that it was able
Speaker 1: to fit in the palm of your hand. I think
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good description. They're like this big furry ball. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, thank you, Hank, Very very cool, very cute. Um.
Speaker 1: Monica rights in with hey, Buck, you said, send small
Speaker 1: pet pictures. This is what a rabbit looks like in Japan.
Speaker 1: Husband of Monica delivers as always from Monica. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is rabbits in Japan. Look quite different. Actually, looks more
Speaker 1: like a cross between a hair and your traditional rabbit.
Speaker 1: I guess not that I'm a rabbit expert, and you're
Speaker 1: probably like, bucket hair is a rabbit, schooner is a sailboat.
Speaker 1: I don't know. These are things that you need to
Speaker 1: I need to do some more research on. Roberto. Also
Speaker 1: in here with a photo of Sasha four months old.
Speaker 1: Looks like a Chihuahua, maybe a Chihuahua mix shields high.
Speaker 1: Roberto writes, Sasha is very cute, all right, Team, I've
Speaker 1: got so many cute photos here, but describing them on
Speaker 1: radio doesn't do them justice. So we'll have to take
Speaker 1: a whole slew of them and post them on the
Speaker 1: Facebook page. Will be Team Bucks Cute Pets, and this
Speaker 1: will get We'll get a thread going on that. And
Speaker 1: with that, I'm gonna have to close up the doors
Speaker 1: to the Freedom Hunt Swamp edition today from down here
Speaker 1: in our nation's capital, My friends, my extended family, my
Speaker 1: fellow patriots. Always an honor, privilege, and pleasure to be
Speaker 1: here with you. I will see you tomorrow, same time,
Speaker 1: same swampy place as always Shields High. Well, my friends,
Speaker 1: it is getting swampy here in Washington, d C. They're
Speaker 1: saying that it might be up in the ninety degrees
Speaker 1: area in just a few days. Uh. Now that's not
Speaker 1: something I like. I'm more of a cool weather guy.
Speaker 1: But at least I can cool off with the best
Speaker 1: tequila on the market right now, G four Tequila. G
Speaker 1: four taste incredible and once you understand the backstory, you
Speaker 1: know that this is a company that is multi generational.
Speaker 1: The agave that they use in this process, the water
Speaker 1: they even used in the distillation, and all the different
Speaker 1: steps make sure that this is an artisanal liquor that
Speaker 1: you are going to absolutely savor and enjoy. You can
Speaker 1: mix it to market reads, you can drink it straight
Speaker 1: or throw some salt on the rim and some rocks
Speaker 1: in the glass. However you like it. Go to G
Speaker 1: four dot life G four Tequila dot life. That's G
Speaker 1: four tequila dot life for more details. Also, you can
Speaker 1: give them a like on Facebook at facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash G four Tequila's