Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Golden Globes get
Speaker 1: roasted and toasted. Iran retaliation is on the minds of
Speaker 1: everyone across the country right now. Pelosi's real enemy will
Speaker 1: find out who that is. Also the wildfires in Australia,
Speaker 1: and so much more coming up. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence, magnor mistake America. You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's
Speaker 1: a great guy. No. Season two is on the way,
Speaker 1: so in the end he obviously didn't get in sound
Speaker 1: just like Jeffrey Extein. Shut up. I know he's your friend,
Speaker 1: but I don't care. Got about your own way? Are
Speaker 1: you signed the fire? Welcome the Buck Saxon Show, everybody.
Speaker 1: It was quite a weekend, quite a day to get to.
Speaker 1: I know. The most important, the biggest story in the
Speaker 1: world is certainly the anticipation of what is going to
Speaker 1: come from Iran. Will spend some time on that today,
Speaker 1: but I didn't want to lead off with that. There's
Speaker 1: going to be plenty of time in the days ahead.
Speaker 1: Right now, it seems like it's just mostly speculation as well.
Speaker 1: There's not a whole lot that people really know. How
Speaker 1: could anyone know? So instead, I want to talk to
Speaker 1: you about the Golden Clubs for a moment. I, like
Speaker 1: many of you, i'm sure, do not care at all
Speaker 1: to sit and watch people in Hollywood talk about how
Speaker 1: amazing they are get awards, discuss their courage. But I
Speaker 1: do like watching a very talented comedian who I would
Speaker 1: not It is no particular friend of conservatives. It's not
Speaker 1: like he is someone who, for ideological read decided to
Speaker 1: make a big thing of making fun of Hollywood. It's
Speaker 1: not like he's a conservative who finally got a chance. No. No,
Speaker 1: he makes fun of Christianity constantly in his stand up.
Speaker 1: He makes fun of everybody. But I can respect that
Speaker 1: because he's a comedian and he'll go after whomever. He's
Speaker 1: making fun of things. He's not pandering, he's not bending
Speaker 1: the knee. Ricky Gervais is one of it feels like
Speaker 1: the very few comedians left these days, and so that's
Speaker 1: why what he did last night was so entertaining. And
Speaker 1: I think there's more than just the entertainment factor, which
Speaker 1: is why I wanted to talk to you about it today.
Speaker 1: Although his Epstein joke was pretty fantastic. There were some
Speaker 1: other moments as well. Harvey Weinstein, as you may see,
Speaker 1: is his trial begins today, and there was a great
Speaker 1: Ricky Gervais joke specifically about Harvey Weinstein, saying that the
Speaker 1: movie Bird Boxes about people who pretend not to see
Speaker 1: anything so they can survive, kind of like working for
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein. That was his joke that I thought was
Speaker 1: among the very best. He did a fantastic job, but
Speaker 1: it was amazing to see because they panned around the room.
Speaker 1: This is the fifth time this guy has done this.
Speaker 1: This is the fifth time he's hosted the Golden Globes.
Speaker 1: The Hollywood Foreign Correspondence or Foreign Press Association or whatever
Speaker 1: it's called. Who even knows who these people are. I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it's just foreign journalists that cover media, but
Speaker 1: they've created this Golden Globes awards ceremony that is their
Speaker 1: most well known. I guess it's the reason this association
Speaker 1: even exists. And I would I would just point out
Speaker 1: that you would think these different luminaries of our entertainment industry,
Speaker 1: you would think that they would be in a place
Speaker 1: that they would understand they're going to get made fun of.
Speaker 1: That's why they bring this guy in because people like me,
Speaker 1: Because people across the country. The day after you have
Speaker 1: one of these Ricky Gervase monologues, people talk about it.
Speaker 1: It's great press. People care all of a sudden because
Speaker 1: he's a war Awards ceremonies are ridiculous. Look, I don't
Speaker 1: go to the Washington Correspondence dinner. I don't care to
Speaker 1: go to the Correspondence dinner. I will not go to
Speaker 1: the Correspondence dinner. It's boring mostly, but also I think
Speaker 1: the whole thing is kind of bizarre. Well, what's with
Speaker 1: giving out giving out awards like we're all in grammar
Speaker 1: school and need a little plastic trophy to put on
Speaker 1: the shelf? Who cares? That makes no sense at all
Speaker 1: of me, especially as our cultural elites have gotten so
Speaker 1: divorced in their taste from the rest of the country.
Speaker 1: This is how you have movies that get nominated and
Speaker 1: win Oscars. I've even heard of these movies. I'm not pretending.
Speaker 1: I mean producer Mark has more of his finger on
Speaker 1: the pulse of pop culture than I do. And he
Speaker 1: would tell you that he's probably not the most pop
Speaker 1: culture immersed guy around by a long shot. He is
Speaker 1: shaking his head vigorously right now, side to side. But
Speaker 1: the fact that I haven't even heard of these movies
Speaker 1: just goes to show you that they're is no question
Speaker 1: that the people that are making these decisions do not share,
Speaker 1: broadly speaking, the sentiments and the sense of what's good.
Speaker 1: In fact, now it's become a point of mockery if
Speaker 1: you say, why is it that twenty years ago movies
Speaker 1: that one best picture were universally generally beloved? You know,
Speaker 1: movies like I Don't Know Shakespeare and Love Saving Private
Speaker 1: Ryan the Pianist. I mean, these are great movies. They
Speaker 1: used to win Oscars I'm talking about now. But you
Speaker 1: look at the goal, you look at the golden globes
Speaker 1: the Oscars today, and it's all this wokeness. It's just wokeness.
Speaker 1: It's all just self performance, even outside of the performative
Speaker 1: acts of being a Hollywood celebrity. And because social media
Speaker 1: has created a circumstance for us where we can see
Speaker 1: who these people are and what they really think, we
Speaker 1: recognize that a bunch of big Aramises and so Ricky
Speaker 1: Gervais standing up there and marking them he also offend out.
Speaker 1: I mean, we didn't pull that many of his joke
Speaker 1: do we pull any other sprucer mark of his jokes
Speaker 1: specifically because I mean, he's going to deliver them better
Speaker 1: than I do. But it's all right if we don't
Speaker 1: want to just yeah, but play, they'll play that one.
Speaker 1: Apple rolled into the TV game with a morning show,
Speaker 1: a superb drama. Yeah, a superb drama about the importance
Speaker 1: of dignity and doing the right thing, made by a
Speaker 1: company that runs sweatshops in China. So well, you say
Speaker 1: you woke, But the companies you work for, I mean unbelievable. Apple, Amazon, Disney.
Speaker 1: If Isis started a streaming service, you'd call your agent,
Speaker 1: wouldn't you. So if you do win an award tonight,
Speaker 1: it don't use it as a platform to make a
Speaker 1: political speech. Right, You're in no position to lecture the
Speaker 1: public about anything. You know nothing about the real world.
Speaker 1: Most of you spend less time in school than Greta Thumberg.
Speaker 1: So if you win, right, come up except a little awards,
Speaker 1: thank your agent and your gods. Second best joke of
Speaker 1: the night for me after Everstein right there, Many of
Speaker 1: them have spent less time in school than young Greta Thundberg,
Speaker 1: who is sixteen maybe now seventeen. Many of them left
Speaker 1: to be full time actress were thirteen or fourteen years old. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who believes that you have to have
Speaker 1: formal education of any kind to be an educated person.
Speaker 1: It's clearly not the case. In fact, we have the
Speaker 1: democratization of information in a way now that would have
Speaker 1: been unthinkable for autodidacts even what one hundred years ago,
Speaker 1: fifty years ago. And you can give yourself as long
Speaker 1: as you have someone to guide you along with the
Speaker 1: basic skills. You have to learn how to read, and
Speaker 1: probably can't just do that without you can just flip
Speaker 1: on a computer and although maybe we'll get to the
Speaker 1: point where it's all automated, but you have the skill
Speaker 1: set now. If you have the basic skill set now
Speaker 1: rather to operate the information machinery around you, you you can
Speaker 1: teach yourself almost anything. That all said, Hollywood stars and
Speaker 1: celebrities are not an intellectually curious bunch. They generally speaking,
Speaker 1: the very very well known ones have actually made it
Speaker 1: where they are largely by winning the genetics lottery in
Speaker 1: a sense, by being really, really good looking, we're talking
Speaker 1: about this room of people. They're all, you know, physically,
Speaker 1: some of them have gotten, you know, considerably older now,
Speaker 1: but you know, the ladies were bombshells and the guys
Speaker 1: were you know, leading men, handsome you know whatever we
Speaker 1: call the handsome leading men of today, I don't know.
Speaker 1: But the point is they've done nothing to get where
Speaker 1: they are other than be very lucky in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways starting at birth, and then happen to operate
Speaker 1: within a Hollywood machinery that is as left wing as
Speaker 1: the faculty lounge of Wesleyan University. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: what is the reality of Hollywood today, and unfortunately, it
Speaker 1: has already made its way into that wokeness has made
Speaker 1: its way into these major digital b emits places like
Speaker 1: Amazon and Netflix and although Disney Plus I gotta give
Speaker 1: a little credit, Man Lauran is awesome, and Baby Yoda,
Speaker 1: this is the way. It's amazing. Man Laurian's an excellent show.
Speaker 1: If you haven't seen it any The Witcher is trash.
Speaker 1: If you want to just avoid that, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: help you out here, save your time. But we already
Speaker 1: know there's a left wing tilt to these places. I mean,
Speaker 1: Jake Karney got hired by Amazon Content as though like
Speaker 1: he knows something about doing scripted content. He got hired
Speaker 1: right of the Obama administration. The Obamas have this Netflix deal.
Speaker 1: So it's not like it's getting better because the studio system,
Speaker 1: the Hollywood movie studio system, has broken down and is
Speaker 1: not what it used to be. I mean they use
Speaker 1: that used to be the top of the entertainment pyramid.
Speaker 1: You'd go to Universal Studios, you go to I guess MGM,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what. They're all called Warner Brothers.
Speaker 1: So you go to these places, and you know they
Speaker 1: could they could write a check effectively to spend one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars on a movie. Well, Netflix and Amazon,
Speaker 1: they'll spend one hundred million dollars on a brand new
Speaker 1: TV show no one's ever heard of. So that's or
Speaker 1: a movie. And I saw this movie with Will Smith
Speaker 1: called Bright. It was very strange movie. It spent one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars on that. Many of you have probably
Speaker 1: most of you, I'm sure I've never even heard of it.
Speaker 1: It's on Netflix. Watch it your own risk. My little
Speaker 1: brother hated it. I think that it was had its moments.
Speaker 1: It wasn't terrible. I mean it was bad, but it
Speaker 1: wasn't like the word. It wasn't the witcher bad. The
Speaker 1: witcher should not now be an epithet like yo, man,
Speaker 1: that that thing you just did that was worse than
Speaker 1: the Witcher. You should just be able to say that
Speaker 1: to people. But why does this also have a broader
Speaker 1: How does this tie into things that matter more to
Speaker 1: us than just trashing Hollywood. Well, for one, I think
Speaker 1: that what we've seen is that the cultural elites in
Speaker 1: this country, just like just like it has been the
Speaker 1: case with news media elites, we are now more aware
Speaker 1: than ever because they exposed themselves to us. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean that in like a whoa kind of way,
Speaker 1: although they do that too. They exposed themselves to us
Speaker 1: more than they have and so we're more aware of
Speaker 1: the politics the beliefs of the people that make entertainment.
Speaker 1: And this is why even those of you who you know,
Speaker 1: you read a ton, you read books all the time,
Speaker 1: you care about the constitution, and you listen to talk radio.
Speaker 1: If you listen to this, even if you ignore pop culture,
Speaker 1: pop culture doesn't ignore you. This has a tremendous effect
Speaker 1: a tremendous effect on perceptions of tens of millions of people,
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of people across the country. It affects
Speaker 1: the way they think. And you live in this country
Speaker 1: with those people, so it should it has to matter
Speaker 1: to you at some level what's going on with these individuals.
Speaker 1: They are incredibly sanctimonious but also deeply insecure, which you
Speaker 1: tend to see among elites who are largely unearned in
Speaker 1: their placement in society. This is true of TV journalists
Speaker 1: that I talked to you about a lot of the time.
Speaker 1: I mean people like Chuck Time What's what's impressive? People
Speaker 1: like Jake Tapper or or what was his name? The
Speaker 1: guy that was there in a rock except he wasn't,
Speaker 1: you know, on the plane that got or the helicopter
Speaker 1: hit by Always I always forget his name, but you
Speaker 1: know he's the was the biggest newsman at NBC News
Speaker 1: producer Nick is going to send me the name in
Speaker 1: a second. I'm just blanking on it. But those individuals
Speaker 1: either just sucked up to the right people in the
Speaker 1: news media chain of command. Todd Tapper. I was gonna
Speaker 1: say Jennings, but he passed away a long time and
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of the guy. Who's the guy
Speaker 1: Brian Williams. Brian Williams. That guy looks and sounds like
Speaker 1: a news anchor supposed to and I think I might.
Speaker 1: I've be sure the guy again. Being an autodidact is fun.
Speaker 1: I've taught myself much more than I learned in college
Speaker 1: as an adult, no question about it. I learned not
Speaker 1: a whole lot in college, and I actually tried to study.
Speaker 1: But it's one thing if you leave, you know, if
Speaker 1: you don't finish high school, you don't finish the tenth grade,
Speaker 1: and then you spend the rest of your life going
Speaker 1: to cocktail parties and try to tell everybody how brilliant
Speaker 1: you are, but you haven't done the work. And these
Speaker 1: people in the news media and these people in Hollywood
Speaker 1: who want to lecture us on women's rights and diversity
Speaker 1: and climate change and all this stuff, they haven't done
Speaker 1: the work. And it used to be that we had
Speaker 1: to take that from we had to be able to
Speaker 1: extrapolate that on our own, from watching, from being a
Speaker 1: viewer of the product that they put out there. But now,
Speaker 1: because of social media and they like to put out
Speaker 1: their tweets, and like to do little FaceTime or Facebook
Speaker 1: videos or videos on Instagram. TikTok, this Chinese site that
Speaker 1: I still don't really understand what it is, but I
Speaker 1: have seen it, but I don't really get why people
Speaker 1: like it so much. I was right, by the way
Speaker 1: about Snapchat, that normal adults don't want to put fake
Speaker 1: cat faces on themselves and have their vices go really high,
Speaker 1: like that's not cool or cute if you're a teenager.
Speaker 1: If you're twelve, fine, But that that's why I knew
Speaker 1: Snapchat was toast years ago, so I feel good about that.
Speaker 1: I also knew that the Huffington Post was basically built
Speaker 1: on a foundation of sand, and that it wasn't going
Speaker 1: to grow, and that wasn't making money, that BuzzFeed wasn't
Speaker 1: glorified cat blog, which we've all been calling it for years.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can see what these things are, but
Speaker 1: if they raise enough venture capital funds that they have
Speaker 1: enough money, they can just force feed themselves to you,
Speaker 1: so you have no way to escape, no way to
Speaker 1: get away from whatever it is that they're trying to
Speaker 1: present to you. Mike dot Com I remember that Mike
Speaker 1: dot Com actually try to hire me years ago, believe
Speaker 1: it or not, Yeah, I know. And then I saw
Speaker 1: the front page of their website right before I went
Speaker 1: down for a meeting, and it was like the most
Speaker 1: anti cop, absurd Black Lives Matter is saving the country
Speaker 1: kind of stuff I've ever seen in my life. And
Speaker 1: I was like, I can't. I was supposed to be
Speaker 1: an opposition sort of columnists from anyone. I was like,
Speaker 1: this site isn't gonna work either. But the media that
Speaker 1: we have now, especially the entertainment medium, is going through
Speaker 1: a phase that I would say is somewhat similar to
Speaker 1: the dissolution of monarchy, which now I think they're about
Speaker 1: a dozen or so monarchy still technically in existence in Europe.
Speaker 1: But up until World War One you had all you
Speaker 1: had monarchies that had real power, and then eventually over
Speaker 1: those serious It really took a couple of centuries, but
Speaker 1: people started saying, hold on a minute, why are these
Speaker 1: people in charge, what's so what's so good about them?
Speaker 1: Why should we listen to them? Why should they be
Speaker 1: able to determine my future or my fate. Now I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that, you know, Salmahiac or Brad pitt Or,
Speaker 1: and I actually kind of like those two. I'm sure
Speaker 1: I should think of someone ones that I hate off
Speaker 1: the top of my head, or I shouldn't say hate
Speaker 1: too strong a word that I that are worthy of
Speaker 1: particular ridicule. Jennifer Anderson looking like she was going to
Speaker 1: cry talking about, uh, you know, Russell Crowe and the
Speaker 1: climate change problem. I mean, yeah, the brush fires in Australia.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that. That's incredibly serious. It's deeply saddening
Speaker 1: that there's all these animals that are burning there. But
Speaker 1: claiming that we all have that that Hollywood is going
Speaker 1: to lead the charge to change the world and climate
Speaker 1: change in the economy, and that's really what Russell crow wants.
Speaker 1: These people are such blowhearts, and they must know it
Speaker 1: at some level too, which is why they stand up
Speaker 1: there and say the things that they do in the
Speaker 1: way that they do. I don't mean it might be subconscious,
Speaker 1: but most of them have been revered for the most
Speaker 1: superficial of things imaginable, and yet they have much more
Speaker 1: sway among superficial and I think you could say low
Speaker 1: information audiences, and so they use that, they wield that.
Speaker 1: But the monarchy of Hollywood, the monarchy of the Hollywood
Speaker 1: studio system is breaking down and movies aren't what they
Speaker 1: used to be, as Ricky Gervais said, and we are
Speaker 1: entering into a phase here where as long as we
Speaker 1: can start to wrestle control back from some of the
Speaker 1: major digital the online, the internet gatekeepers, maybe we won't
Speaker 1: have to be force fed this garbage by the Hollywood
Speaker 1: media anymore. Anyway, that was what I took from Ricky
Speaker 1: Gervases each last side you're in the Freedom Hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Just to know that
Speaker 1: there's a there's a part of me that still feels
Speaker 1: a little sad for people who I can't tell. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they're really brainwash or not. But the
Speaker 1: La Times media critic wrote this whole piece in the
Speaker 1: La Times after Golden Globes about how those celebrities it's
Speaker 1: it's been really hard for them because of all the
Speaker 1: issues because of Trump and climate change in the Australia, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, wildfires and all this stuff. That it was
Speaker 1: really a solemn night actually, and that Ricky Gervais would
Speaker 1: go in there and be disrespectful, he missed the mark
Speaker 1: and everyone else is like nope, it was amazing. But
Speaker 1: I think for a lot of people still. Unfortunately, you know,
Speaker 1: while monarchies are crumbling, there's so a lot of court jesters,
Speaker 1: and some people like this La Times columnist still have
Speaker 1: to bend the knee. It's one of the things I
Speaker 1: love about this show and never have to bend the knee.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The bus Sexton Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: just scribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. What the United States did yesterday
Speaker 1: should have been done long ago. A lot of lives
Speaker 1: would have been saved. Just recently, Soloman he led the
Speaker 1: brutal repression of protesters in Iran, were more than a
Speaker 1: thousand innocent civilians were tortured and killed by their own government.
Speaker 1: We took action last night to stop a war. We
Speaker 1: did not take action to start a war. I was
Speaker 1: President Trump On Friday after the show, he gave a
Speaker 1: little speech, and I wanted to share it with you
Speaker 1: because there's so much bad analysis out there right now,
Speaker 1: and so much stupidity and recklessness and dishonesty among those
Speaker 1: who are supposed to bring clarity and facts and necessary
Speaker 1: context to a moment like this. Because the stakes are
Speaker 1: quite high, I don't think we are heading to war
Speaker 1: with Iran. I would put the percentage at less than
Speaker 1: ten that we are going to get into any kind
Speaker 1: of protracted escalation with Iran that involves US military use
Speaker 1: of force on a consistent basis and large numbers numbers
Speaker 1: of casualties. You see, we have to start to define
Speaker 1: this because one aspect of this whole exchange, and this
Speaker 1: does get into some of the most important it's among
Speaker 1: the most important things we as a people. We the
Speaker 1: American people, can consider and think about war, but also
Speaker 1: cannot allow to be exaggerated. It can't just be well,
Speaker 1: we do nothing or we have all out war. That's
Speaker 1: not the reality of the situation Iran. It's almost never
Speaker 1: the reality that we face anywhere. But a part of
Speaker 1: the context that gets lost here is that the Iranians
Speaker 1: have been doing things for such a long time that
Speaker 1: would be in other circumstances with another country, an act
Speaker 1: of war that would lead to open military hostilities that
Speaker 1: we've almost become numb to it. We just take it.
Speaker 1: We're sort of like Gulliver being you know, tied down
Speaker 1: by the little Aputians. With the Iranians, well, of course
Speaker 1: they were able to time down for a while. But
Speaker 1: you know, they're just throwing things at us and trying
Speaker 1: to agitate us, and because we're so much more powerful
Speaker 1: than they are, we always say, okay, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't want to we don't want to overreact, we
Speaker 1: don't want to miscalculate. People who have been talking a
Speaker 1: lot about the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps the Kud's Force,
Speaker 1: which is just the external operations arm right IRGC internally,
Speaker 1: is part of the repression machinery the Iranian people. It's
Speaker 1: very much, very similar to what you would have had,
Speaker 1: say in the Soviet era with the KGB, and the
Speaker 1: KGB was an intelligence service, was also really a paramilitary service,
Speaker 1: and it was it was just the action arm the
Speaker 1: concentrated violence and brutality of the state, that's really the
Speaker 1: purpose of it. And so the KOODS Force is an
Speaker 1: extension of that beyond Iranian boundaries and territory and has
Speaker 1: been spreading misery and destruction across the region for quite
Speaker 1: some time, for decades. Really, remember Iran seized our embassy
Speaker 1: and took our people hostage. Did we engage in massive
Speaker 1: military retaliation as a result of that? When that happened
Speaker 1: to the Carter administration, go all the way back to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy nine. No, no, we did not. Iran was
Speaker 1: involved in the Khobar Towers attack in Saudi Arabia against
Speaker 1: US military person. Was there anything done major in response
Speaker 1: to that? No, there was not. Now, there have been
Speaker 1: some moments in time where we have taken action against
Speaker 1: the Iranians. I mentioned the tank award you before, and
Speaker 1: there was a very unfortunate incident where a US guided
Speaker 1: missile destroyer shot Iranian civilian jetliner out of the sky
Speaker 1: thinking that it was an enemy fighter plane killed I
Speaker 1: think almost two hundred people. Very a very tragic day.
Speaker 1: So I'm not saying that there has not been use
Speaker 1: of force and that have not been miscalculations. Clearly that
Speaker 1: was a major miscalculation. But this has been going on
Speaker 1: for a very long time. At what point do we
Speaker 1: decide that just sanctions and just terse words are not enough.
Speaker 1: At what point do we turn around and say, you know,
Speaker 1: this is not going to stand anymore. I mean, Kasam
Speaker 1: Salamani was a designated terrorist, a designated terrorist by the
Speaker 1: United States government. He was openly plotting against American and
Speaker 1: it's now You could say that our government is lying
Speaker 1: to us about this, and to that I would say,
Speaker 1: you know, there are lies that you could excuse, or
Speaker 1: rather you could understand how somebody in the apparatus could
Speaker 1: excuse for reasons of politics or things that somebody might
Speaker 1: push aside and say there's something bigger here, there's something
Speaker 1: greater here. In this case, I'm not saying this is impossible.
Speaker 1: The government has lied to us about things before, and
Speaker 1: the government has been wrong before and sometimes wrong and
Speaker 1: lies are a very close call which one you're really
Speaker 1: dealing with. We were wrong about the weapons of mass
Speaker 1: destruction as presented by Colin Powett, the United Nations, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: Under the Bush administration. We were wrong. And we have
Speaker 1: to look at the Iraq War now and wonder what
Speaker 1: exactly has been accomplished here. When you have the Iraqi Parliament,
Speaker 1: it's a non binding resolution they voted on but saying
Speaker 1: they want the United States to leave. Understand this a
Speaker 1: shift in US national security posture that is meaningful would
Speaker 1: result in the United States taking an approach where not
Speaker 1: only are we not going to rebuild other countries, We're
Speaker 1: not going to do Afghanistan anymore. We're not going to
Speaker 1: do Iraq anymore. Starting to get a little bit of
Speaker 1: that serious situation. Oh, remember when we abandoned the curds
Speaker 1: and it was the worst thing ever, you know it.
Speaker 1: It was the most most depraved act by a US
Speaker 1: president in history. And all this crazy stuff they were saying,
Speaker 1: it seems like everything's kind of just continuing on. Life
Speaker 1: has gone on. There has not been some mass genocide
Speaker 1: that Turks haven't, you know, dropped gas all over Syria
Speaker 1: to kill all the curds. I mean that this has
Speaker 1: not happened. Remember when people were all historical about this
Speaker 1: and there was oh, there was so much rending of
Speaker 1: garments and gnashing of teeth by the Democrats over there
Speaker 1: were so very, very upset. Did they really care about
Speaker 1: the curds? I was telling you. The answer was no.
Speaker 1: Do we think that I was probably right about that.
Speaker 1: If we have to look at it at this point,
Speaker 1: you probably have to say, well, I think it's clear
Speaker 1: that that was all done as a as a show
Speaker 1: against President Trump. That was all meant to just be
Speaker 1: an opportunity to attack him domestically. But if we and
Speaker 1: I'll get into the politics of this morning moment, because
Speaker 1: it look there's a lot of moving pieces here, and
Speaker 1: I'm trying to avoid just the there's always all the people,
Speaker 1: the speculation I see we're in Oh, you know, they
Speaker 1: might hit us here. The mine is there. We've done
Speaker 1: a little bit of that just to fill out our
Speaker 1: conversation here. But until they do something, we don't know
Speaker 1: what the Iranians have done. It's the most simple, straightforward
Speaker 1: it's so blatant, it's so obvious. It feels weird even
Speaker 1: saying it. But sometimes you have to repeat and you
Speaker 1: have to be very clear with statements like that, because
Speaker 1: people are getting way ahead of themselves, racking like we're
Speaker 1: already in some elevated state of hostilities. Kasam Solamani is
Speaker 1: one man the Iranians when they were fighting the Iraqis
Speaker 1: in the Iran Iraq War of the nineteen eighties went
Speaker 1: on for nine years, they trained Iranian youth to run
Speaker 1: across mine fields to try to clear them. How do
Speaker 1: you things that worked out? It's effectively telling people it's
Speaker 1: it's a suicide bomber. We're not taking anyone out but yourself.
Speaker 1: Effectively using human beings to clear mind fields, because that
Speaker 1: was the mentality. That's the truth of what's in the
Speaker 1: heart of these mullahs, these theocrats, right, these they're religious fanatics,
Speaker 1: which is frightening. Now, religious fanatics, you know, they still
Speaker 1: deal with some of the same day to day They
Speaker 1: deal with many of the same day to day constraints
Speaker 1: the rest of us do if they if they want
Speaker 1: to live. But a true religious fanatic along the lines
Speaker 1: of the Iranian mulas, who believe that they are in
Speaker 1: a protracted war with non Muslims, with the West, with Israel,
Speaker 1: with America, they're willing to do effectively anything. And that's
Speaker 1: why we have this big problem of course of Iran
Speaker 1: possibly getting nuclear weapons and what would it mean and
Speaker 1: what would happen after that. But if we're going to
Speaker 1: change the policy, and this is where this is where
Speaker 1: the Trumps disrupt or fact has to come into the conversation.
Speaker 1: If we're going to change the policy of the United
Speaker 1: States when it comes to foreign relations, national security, international affairs,
Speaker 1: however you want to put it, that means not only
Speaker 1: are we going to avoid the reconstruction of these other
Speaker 1: countries trying to create flower essentially the neo Khan approach
Speaker 1: on the right done can't do that anymore. But that's
Speaker 1: going to mean something else as well. There will be
Speaker 1: countries where terrible things happen. There will be countries where
Speaker 1: we will be quite aware. I mean, this was certainly
Speaker 1: the case for almost all of Obama's time in office.
Speaker 1: The Syrian Civil War turned into the eighth circle of
Speaker 1: how how much worse could it really have been? Hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands dead, mass rapes, mass murders, gas attacks, whole
Speaker 1: cities leveled. I mean, how much worse could the Syrian
Speaker 1: Civil War have been? And keep in mind that we
Speaker 1: took this under the obaministration. We took this position that
Speaker 1: our leadership was going to try to bring this to
Speaker 1: a close sooner, and that there would be a UN mandate.
Speaker 1: There was a UN mandate to make sure the violence
Speaker 1: would end a political settlement. This was the stuff they're
Speaker 1: talking about now. It seems preposterous because they didn't do
Speaker 1: a thing. And then Obama's Pentagon Plan they spent I
Speaker 1: think it was five hundred million dollars to put five
Speaker 1: actual fighters into the conflict. And then there are people
Speaker 1: who still talk about the running of weapons from Libya
Speaker 1: to Syria or try to help the anti assad Syrian
Speaker 1: forces geehotists under the Obamaster. I mean, it's just a
Speaker 1: complete mess, a nightmare. Here's the part of this that
Speaker 1: gets complex, that gets difficult for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: because we just have the Iraqi problem, a non binding
Speaker 1: vote for us to leave Iraq. If we leave Iraq,
Speaker 1: things You're going to get very very ugly there. It's
Speaker 1: going to get very messy. If we leave Afghanistan things.
Speaker 1: I will tell you the truth about this. A lot
Speaker 1: of people will, you know, thump their chests, especially a
Speaker 1: lot of the think tankers out there. They'll thump their
Speaker 1: chests and say, you know, no, no, we should say
Speaker 1: forever and or they'll say we should pull out and
Speaker 1: everything will be fine. I'm here to tell you know,
Speaker 1: we should pull out, and everything's not going to be
Speaker 1: fine because we no longer I mean, this was this
Speaker 1: was a promise that Trump was making. No more endless war,
Speaker 1: no more wars that are unnecessary in the first place,
Speaker 1: an endless occupation of these foreign countries. I remember, occupation
Speaker 1: is different from having a base. I hate when people
Speaker 1: do this so well, we have troops. We have troops
Speaker 1: in South Korea. Yeah, because South Korea is a stable
Speaker 1: nation state under threat from an external regime. I understand that,
Speaker 1: but no one's really worried that South Korea is going
Speaker 1: to dissolve anytime soon, or that our troops are going
Speaker 1: to come under assault, you know, driving down the streets
Speaker 1: of Seoul. They are worried about that. In Kabble, in
Speaker 1: Jalalabad and coast, in different parts of Afghanistan, they are
Speaker 1: concerned about that is that is a problem. So I
Speaker 1: think that this is where we have to say, you're
Speaker 1: going to see you're going to see a decision point
Speaker 1: here for the up administration in Afghanistan and for Iroq.
Speaker 1: This is forcing our hand that we will have to
Speaker 1: be willing to leave these places and leave them knowing
Speaker 1: that very bad things will happen, and that yes, eighty
Speaker 1: second Airborne, Yes a marine expeditionary force. Our soldiers are
Speaker 1: troops who are good people, who do good things, who
Speaker 1: are the most talented, exceptional and humane fighting force the
Speaker 1: world has ever known. We could stop it, but we
Speaker 1: would have to take responsibility again and we would have
Speaker 1: to lose our people, and we don't want to do
Speaker 1: it anymore. Maybe other countries need to start figuring out
Speaker 1: some stuff on their own. They're going to be messy,
Speaker 1: messy places, and maybe all of a sudden Trump has
Speaker 1: brought to the fore the possibility that we won't be
Speaker 1: building these countries anymore, we won't be responsible for their elections,
Speaker 1: and they're no done with that. And by the way,
Speaker 1: if anybody in those countries then, or if those countries
Speaker 1: are used as launch pads for attacks, or even if
Speaker 1: the national government decides to wage war in the United States,
Speaker 1: as Iran has been doing, we will go back at
Speaker 1: them in a way that right now feels perhaps excessive
Speaker 1: to some of us, but that excess may bring about
Speaker 1: a new reality where countries know that will no longer
Speaker 1: cross us. Or the idea of a Kassams Solimani, a
Speaker 1: very senior government official from a foreign nation state, wouldn't
Speaker 1: dream of taking selfies and smiling while he's thinking about
Speaker 1: the next operation against US interests US troops, that somebody
Speaker 1: with the blood of so many hundreds of American soldiers,
Speaker 1: soldiers who never made it home to this country, because
Speaker 1: Kassams Solimani wanted to do the bidding of the mulas
Speaker 1: in a country that is not Iran, that nobody would
Speaker 1: ever consider doing that again, because they understand if you
Speaker 1: harm us like this, we will come after you, we
Speaker 1: will kill you. We don't care what bureaucrats in Europe say.
Speaker 1: We don't care what the so called international consensus of
Speaker 1: media elites, unfortunately overwhelmingly staffed with vain cowards. We don't
Speaker 1: care what they say. The country is going to take
Speaker 1: a different approach because the approach we have been taking
Speaker 1: on a bipartisan basis for the last twenty years has
Speaker 1: not worked, I would say for last seventy years. But
Speaker 1: a different conversation. So what I think comes next, Well
Speaker 1: for that, I might as will turn to what some
Speaker 1: of the Democrats are saying. You're in the freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. As president, would
Speaker 1: you not prioritize the US military killing the leaders of
Speaker 1: organizations designated terrorist organizations? Look, the job as the president
Speaker 1: is to keep us safe. And we know in this
Speaker 1: circumstance that Donald Trump was presented with a range of
Speaker 1: options by way of response. But the point is not
Speaker 1: to try to move us closer toward the point is
Speaker 1: to move away from nim. Well. You see, if NIFF,
Speaker 1: if Donald Trump is for something, I have to be
Speaker 1: against it, even if that means taking out terrorists. Who
Speaker 1: have done terrible things. Elizabeth Warren's commander in chief. Folks.
Speaker 1: That's that's what a lot of Democrats, at least about
Speaker 1: getting up on around twenty percent of them, give for take,
Speaker 1: that's what they think should happen. You see this with
Speaker 1: all these different Democrats coming out now saying things that
Speaker 1: are simply absurd. They don't care. They don't care about
Speaker 1: what the reality is of the strike so much as
Speaker 1: they care about what the politics of the moment demand
Speaker 1: of them. To say that is the simple truth. That's
Speaker 1: what really motivates them one way or the other. Here is,
Speaker 1: for example, Senator Chris Murphy, who does confer upon Kastam
Speaker 1: Solomani a kind of special immunity play clip twenty eight place.
Speaker 1: It is an assassination. I mean, this is a top
Speaker 1: official of a foreign government, is in the head of
Speaker 1: a non state terrorist group. No matter how bad a
Speaker 1: guy he is, how evil he was, he was a
Speaker 1: commanding general of a sovereign foreign nation and we executed him.
Speaker 1: So I don't think you can call it anything other
Speaker 1: than an assassination. It's not the first time that America
Speaker 1: has been involved in assassinating a foreign official, but it's
Speaker 1: probably the most high profile foreign official that the United
Speaker 1: States military has ever executed. He seems to forget that
Speaker 1: when we declared warren Sadam Hussein, we blew up all
Speaker 1: of his palaces, not just because we wanted to see
Speaker 1: them glow in the dark. We were trying to kill him.
Speaker 1: This is the reality. This is why, in fact, even
Speaker 1: if we're talking about civilian control of a military, when
Speaker 1: you are the commander in chief of a foreign nation
Speaker 1: and you are in a state of war, guess what
Speaker 1: you are in jeopardy. That is the truth. We can
Speaker 1: persue that there's international law that prevents this and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. But does anyone really believe if
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un was about to tell his you know,
Speaker 1: missile brigades to launch on South Korea, and we knew
Speaker 1: that taking him out would prevent that launch, does anyone
Speaker 1: really think that we'd beginning lectures about how it's a
Speaker 1: war crime to take out Kim Jong on. I just
Speaker 1: pose this to you. First of all, he's wrong on
Speaker 1: the merits as well about calling this, or just wrong
Speaker 1: technically about calling this an assassination. This was a military
Speaker 1: figure in a declared war zone, engaged in active hostilities
Speaker 1: against the United States. Do you think that we could, like,
Speaker 1: you know, we could deploy a three star general just
Speaker 1: you know, air drop him into into Iran and have
Speaker 1: him walk around and try to start calling in air
Speaker 1: strikes on targets in Tehran, and then if someone you
Speaker 1: know took him out, we'd say, whoa hold on, that's
Speaker 1: a three star general. You can't do that. That's actually
Speaker 1: not how it works, But Chris Murphy doesn't care. It's
Speaker 1: all about trashing Trump. Thanks for listening to The Bus
Speaker 1: Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Iran announced
Speaker 1: today that is accelerating this nuclear program. Guests, who loses
Speaker 1: that America and its allies. There was an airtight agreement
Speaker 1: we had with inspectors on the ground, the most intrusive
Speaker 1: inspection and all of human history, not hyperbole. We knew
Speaker 1: exactly We're in every single facility the International Toomic Energy Agency,
Speaker 1: and they were not violated. They're not good guys, but
Speaker 1: they were not moving toward a nuclear weapon and there
Speaker 1: was no chance they could get there without us knowing it.
Speaker 1: At least a year to two years in advance, giving
Speaker 1: us plenty of options. Joe Biden's delusional. But remember, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has been liably and in this way he's actually
Speaker 1: very useful on foreign policy. He has been reliably wrong
Speaker 1: on every foreign policy issue of any importance for forty years.
Speaker 1: Whatever Joe Biden wanted to do or didn't want to do,
Speaker 1: the opposite of that thing was the good idea. So
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's great in this way. Just make sure you
Speaker 1: oppose Joe Biden on any foreign policy issue and you'll
Speaker 1: be in good shape. And here he is saying this
Speaker 1: irandeal was ironclad and air tight. And well, hold on
Speaker 1: a second. What happens when the Iranians want to just
Speaker 1: decide to restart their nuclear program. It's just like, okay,
Speaker 1: let the assembly line start going again. We're supposed to
Speaker 1: live with that as the reality of the Iranian state.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to let the Iranians. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they always leave this out, there were sunset provisions in
Speaker 1: this process. No sunset on the Iranian nuclear program. Mind
Speaker 1: you just if you obey. If you do, you know
Speaker 1: what we've outlined in this agreement, which allows them to
Speaker 1: keep their nuclear program, keep sending aid to terrorist regimes
Speaker 1: all across the Middle East, threatening our people, taking our
Speaker 1: navy sailors hostage, making a mockery of them. All the
Speaker 1: stuff that they've done, all the things, all the provocations
Speaker 1: from Iran, and with all of that, they could still
Speaker 1: at any point in time do exactly what they're now
Speaker 1: threatening to do, which is just start spinning the center
Speaker 1: fugues again. And they think this was a good agreement.
Speaker 1: Why should we live within Iranian state that is already there,
Speaker 1: that is at that point. Oh, I'm sorry, We're gonna
Speaker 1: wait five or ten years till Costam Solomani, for example, Well,
Speaker 1: this isn't a problem anymore because he's he's taking a
Speaker 1: very long nap. But while Kastam Solomani, he was going
Speaker 1: to come off this sanctions list. They were saying at
Speaker 1: one point come off a nuclear sanctions list. Other individuals
Speaker 1: are going to get removed from it in time. And
Speaker 1: there were all these inducements and all along Iran gets
Speaker 1: to keep the essential infrastructure for its nuclear program, and
Speaker 1: eventually the agreement just sort of isn't an agreement anymore.
Speaker 1: Oh so that's great, So let's Iran develop much more
Speaker 1: of its critical military infrastructure, become much wealthier, become entrenched
Speaker 1: in the international financial system, find all kinds of ways
Speaker 1: to hide assets, to build up its coffers, to modernize
Speaker 1: its military. Let's give her on a decade of no
Speaker 1: worries of external strikes, keeping their military, I mean, keeping
Speaker 1: their nuclear program in place, while their military gets stronger,
Speaker 1: their government gets richer. And then at the end of that,
Speaker 1: we'll just come up with some other idea of what
Speaker 1: we're going to tell them. You see, no at the
Speaker 1: end of that, and then we have to say, hold
Speaker 1: on a second. A bigger, wealthier iron with better weapon systems,
Speaker 1: a better military could just decide, you know what, we're
Speaker 1: going nuclear now, what are you going to do about it?
Speaker 1: So here's the other problem. Rogue states that get nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: then we're in the North Korea situation where it becomes
Speaker 1: very very different. You know, we're ever going to get
Speaker 1: her on to give up its nukes once they have them,
Speaker 1: It's never going to happen. So all they have to
Speaker 1: do is get to that place. And if they raised
Speaker 1: the calculation, if they make it hard enough for us
Speaker 1: to be able to eradicate their nuclear program because their
Speaker 1: military advances because they become a much stronger country. They
Speaker 1: were greatly weakened when Obama came in. Their economy was
Speaker 1: in free fall. Things are not good in Iran. There's
Speaker 1: all kinds of tumult. They just had to execute in
Speaker 1: the streets hundreds of protesters, right, so there is real
Speaker 1: instability in this country the young people. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is often forgotten. There were such great losses from the
Speaker 1: Iran Iraq and keep bringing this up, but it's important
Speaker 1: to understand where we are now with Iran. There were
Speaker 1: such great losses from the Iran Iraq civil War that
Speaker 1: the Molas decided that they needed to pay major state
Speaker 1: subsidies so that Iranian women would have more children. And
Speaker 1: so what you have is post the horrific war, I
Speaker 1: mean over a million casualties killed wounded, is a horrific war.
Speaker 1: In the eighties in Iran, with Iran and Iraq, they
Speaker 1: lost so many young people. They were actually using them
Speaker 1: as cannon fodder, I mean, using them as landmine fodder.
Speaker 1: They lost so many young people that they've moment said, okay,
Speaker 1: we're going to start subsidizing children to be women to
Speaker 1: have children, families to have children. And now you have
Speaker 1: this this youth bulge, which is why we keep talking
Speaker 1: about the young in Iran. You have this youth bulge
Speaker 1: a lot of people in Iran, you know, demographically, there's this,
Speaker 1: you know, there's the fat end of the wedge demographically
Speaker 1: for the Iranians is you have all these young people
Speaker 1: in their twenties and their thirties and they're like, what
Speaker 1: is this regime stinks? Your dam's terrible? What are we
Speaker 1: doing here now? Can they say that openly? Of course not.
Speaker 1: You know, the Iranian security and military apparatus is very
Speaker 1: invested and has become unfortunately quite adept at suppressing those voices.
Speaker 1: But they got a problem because eventually enough young people
Speaker 1: have no real future, no economic mobility, no freedom. You
Speaker 1: know what, exactly does a twenty year old Irani today
Speaker 1: really have to look forward to under the current circumstance.
Speaker 1: So we had there are these pieces in play that
Speaker 1: would make it harder for the regime to continue doing
Speaker 1: what it does. Now. Maybe the regime isn't topple, maybe
Speaker 1: the regime just changes internally. Who knows what ends up happening.
Speaker 1: And we've been waiting for this now for over thirty years,
Speaker 1: over forty years going on fifty years, but by throwing
Speaker 1: them a lifeline. Because Obama and the Democrats and the
Speaker 1: left in this country really still have a guilt complex
Speaker 1: over Mosadek. They really feel like everything bad that's happened
Speaker 1: in Iran is somehow really the fault of the United States.
Speaker 1: You'll see some leftists who think this, it's the fault
Speaker 1: of the United States because we were involved in the
Speaker 1: coude to remove Mosadek, because we were still playing great
Speaker 1: game politics with the Soviet Union and we did not
Speaker 1: want Mosadek to be in charge in Iran. But they
Speaker 1: never then explain how it is that when the Shaw,
Speaker 1: who we helped keep in or who was a bad guy,
Speaker 1: although of course the Moullas are much worse guys, the
Speaker 1: Mola is effectively hijacked, hijack the revolution against the Shaw
Speaker 1: for their own purposes. And this so often happens in
Speaker 1: countries where a regime is ousted with force. Right that
Speaker 1: there's a legitimate grievance, of course, because that's how you
Speaker 1: have popular mobilization against a government for government's doing really well.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, there's a reason why I'm not
Speaker 1: seeing popular mobilization against the Swiss or against Singapore against
Speaker 1: Norway or something people like, Yeah, things are pretty good.
Speaker 1: A government has to be inept, decrepid, ineffectual, oppressive, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that the people that end up in
Speaker 1: power once that government is gone are in any way
Speaker 1: really an improvement. And that's what you have in Iran.
Speaker 1: So it is in effect the fault of the Iranian
Speaker 1: it is, you know, Iran is an Iran problem ultimately,
Speaker 1: and again we're going to some pretty basic as some
Speaker 1: truisms here, some things that are self evident, but sometimes
Speaker 1: self evident truth need to be repeated. It is the
Speaker 1: Iranian people who have or it is Iranians who hijack
Speaker 1: the Iranian revolution against the Shah and have made this
Speaker 1: country into a place that is an abysmal failure in
Speaker 1: so many ways as a state. After you know, millennia
Speaker 1: of withstanding cultural onslaught dealing with I mean, you go
Speaker 1: back through through Persian history and the fact that Persians
Speaker 1: even just maintain their language and this cultural distinctiveness from
Speaker 1: the huge surge of what was effectively Arab Muslim expansionism'm
Speaker 1: starting in the seventh century with the Propah Muhammad and
Speaker 1: then going all the way the fact that the Persians
Speaker 1: were able to maintain this Persian identity, and that Persia
Speaker 1: as a polity, as a as some form of state,
Speaker 1: has existed for so long, in fact, that predates Islam.
Speaker 1: Right there's and dealt with a Mongol invasion. Some really
Speaker 1: crazy stuff happened back then. They have main attained this,
Speaker 1: and yet they continue on. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: We will defend American in the strikes we took over
Speaker 1: this past week, including killing the terrorist Solomoni. We will
Speaker 1: continue to take if we need to. The American people
Speaker 1: should know we will always defend them, and we'll do
Speaker 1: so in a way that is consistent with the international
Speaker 1: rule of law. You can always tell who you should
Speaker 1: like in this administration based on how much Democrats hate
Speaker 1: that person. Very important. It's an ironclad rule at this point.
Speaker 1: The more they despise a member of Trump's cabinet, inner
Speaker 1: circle and advise or anybody, the more effective that person
Speaker 1: is and the more a threat that person is to
Speaker 1: the progressive left wing agenda. And so that's why I
Speaker 1: can tell you that Pompeo is good at what he
Speaker 1: does and is a good choice, has been a good
Speaker 1: choice for the administration because man who lives hate him
Speaker 1: almost as much as they hate Bill Barr, who is
Speaker 1: probably the single biggest threat to left wing attempts to
Speaker 1: ouse this president using the weaponization of the bureaucracy and
Speaker 1: the abuse of congressional power and the dj and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. Russia, Russia, all that stuff. But
Speaker 1: the strike that was taken here has obviously set up
Speaker 1: a situation where we could see a major retaliation. I
Speaker 1: don't know what exactly is going to happen, as I've
Speaker 1: been telling you, I do know that there are hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of protesters that are going on the streets
Speaker 1: in Iran, and from that we are supposed to take
Speaker 1: take the Democrats word that this is representative of the
Speaker 1: broad opinion of the Iranian people, which I don't think
Speaker 1: is true. And we're also supposed to believe that this
Speaker 1: is somehow a marked departure from what existed before. Oh
Speaker 1: and also you have to I didn't get to this before.
Speaker 1: They say that Trump is lying. That is of course
Speaker 1: a part of this, that there was no imminent attack
Speaker 1: of this is all all a fraud. Here here is
Speaker 1: the President just speaking his mind on what exactly pushed
Speaker 1: him to take this very decisive action. Clay Clip forty two. Please,
Speaker 1: Salomany was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats
Speaker 1: and military personnel, but we caught him in the act
Speaker 1: and terminated him. Under my leadership, America's policy is unambiguous.
Speaker 1: To terrorists who harm or intend to harm any Americans,
Speaker 1: we will find you, we will eliminate you. We will
Speaker 1: always protect our diplomats, service members, all Americans and our allies.
Speaker 1: For years, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and it's ruthless
Speaker 1: kud's force under Solomoni's leadership, has targeted, injured, and murdered
Speaker 1: hundreds of American civilians and servicemen. The recent attacks on
Speaker 1: US targets in Iraq, including rocket strikes that killed an
Speaker 1: American and injured for American servicemen very badly, as well
Speaker 1: as a violence assault on our embassy in Baghdad, were
Speaker 1: carried out at the direction of Solomny. Solomny made the
Speaker 1: death of innocent people his sick passion, and yet the
Speaker 1: Democrats seem to mourn his passing. They will say, we
Speaker 1: don't mourn his passing. But then they'll say, this is
Speaker 1: a terrible decision. We're now close to war. Trump never
Speaker 1: should have done this. And some of the media referred
Speaker 1: to him was what was it, the most revered military
Speaker 1: figure in Iran. That was how they referred to him.
Speaker 1: Oh wow. And then you have, of course, the conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories wagged the dog. Perhaps they say, here is Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren trying to pull this all together in one perfect
Speaker 1: little package for insane Trump deranged Democrats play thirty eight.
Speaker 1: The question is why now? Why not a month ago?
Speaker 1: Why not a month from now? And the administration simply
Speaker 1: can't keep its story straight. It points in all different directions.
Speaker 1: The last time we saw this was this past summer
Speaker 1: over Ukraine, when people started asking questions about what had
Speaker 1: happened on the phone call between Donald Trump and the
Speaker 1: President of Ukraine and why a to Ukraine had been stopped.
Speaker 1: The administration did the same thing. They pointed all different
Speaker 1: directions and give a whole lot of different answers. And
Speaker 1: of course what it turned out to be is that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was doing what Donald Trump does, and that
Speaker 1: is he was advancing his own personal political interests. And
Speaker 1: I think the questioning reasonably question people reasonably ask is
Speaker 1: next week Donald Trump faces the shark potentially of an
Speaker 1: impeachment trial, and all why Now, that's Elizabeth Warren in
Speaker 1: the most slimy, dishonest, passive, aggressive way possible, saying that
Speaker 1: Trump killed Custom Solimani because of the impeachment trial. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the impeachment that, by the way, makes Democrats unless you're
Speaker 1: unless you're somebody who's just delusional. This whole impeachment thing
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. Nancy Pelosi saying there's urgency. Now they're saying,
Speaker 1: whoa wha, we don't get the witnesses we want. We're
Speaker 1: not even going to hand over the articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: I'm also seeing that they might add a third article
Speaker 1: of impeachment, probably killing Cosum Solimani. Well, first, first, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are waiting for the Ninth Circuit of Appeals to
Speaker 1: rule the Kossum Solimani strike unconstitutional, I'm sure. And then
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi, will you know, add add on
Speaker 1: to this right then she'll make it another article of impeachment.
Speaker 1: They'll stack what they already have with the third article impeachment,
Speaker 1: and he killed Kasum Solamani, a revered military leader and
Speaker 1: austere religious scholar. According to Libs, we could see something
Speaker 1: like that happened. In fact, Nancy Pelosi is as if
Speaker 1: we haven't seen enough just ridiculous politics from the Democrats. Recently,
Speaker 1: Pelosi has announced that she and the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to pass a war Powers Resolute or have I should say,
Speaker 1: a Warpowers resolution vote because the Democrats who march in lockstep.
Speaker 1: You gotta give Democrats credit. They're like the borg from
Speaker 1: Star Trek. I mean, they're just like a machine that
Speaker 1: is always unified and in lockstep on these issues. We
Speaker 1: have all these fights. You know, in the Republican sign
Speaker 1: people that are, oh, I know, but this I know
Speaker 1: about that? Democrats, it's oh, is that? What is that? What?
Speaker 1: The status the socialist, the progressives, the wokeness is that
Speaker 1: what they want? Boom, everybody does it, Obamacare, everybody on
Speaker 1: board for it, getting rid of Trump or you know,
Speaker 1: impeaching him, which they know won't really get rid of him.
Speaker 1: But almost all of them were I think what there
Speaker 1: was one Tulsie Gavard was a voted presence. Right. Then
Speaker 1: there's that one Democrat who switch sides, but people have
Speaker 1: already kind of mean. Look, I forgot the guy's name.
Speaker 1: People have already forgotten his name. Maybe he'll do more stuff.
Speaker 1: Point here being that the Warpowers resolution is this is
Speaker 1: just a this is for show, this is theater. No
Speaker 1: serious person thinks otherwise, Oh yeah, we're Pelos. The Democrats
Speaker 1: so worried about the Warpowers Act and the thirty days
Speaker 1: of military action for a president before having to actually
Speaker 1: cease it unless Congress continues it. Were they worried about
Speaker 1: that during oh, I don't know, Libya. Were they worried
Speaker 1: about that during the Clinton administration and in the Balkans?
Speaker 1: I just want to know where does the principle begin
Speaker 1: and the politics and the Democrats we all know the
Speaker 1: answer is that there is no place where principle exceeds politics.
Speaker 1: Politics always dictates everything that they care about, everything that
Speaker 1: they do. This is simply utterly absurd, It is dishonest.
Speaker 1: I do think that the Secretary of State Pompey would
Speaker 1: bring it back to him for a moment. Here is
Speaker 1: correct when he says, play a clip twenty four if
Speaker 1: you're an American in the region days and weeks. This
Speaker 1: is not something that's relevant. We have to prepare, we
Speaker 1: have to be ready, and we took a bad guy
Speaker 1: off the battlefield. We made the right decision. There is
Speaker 1: a less risk today to American forces in the region
Speaker 1: as a result of that tech. I'm proud of the
Speaker 1: effort the President Trump undertook and the execution while our
Speaker 1: military was phenomenal, and the work that's been done by
Speaker 1: our diplomats in the region to prepare and to work
Speaker 1: diplomatically in the region has been powerful, important and effective. Indeed,
Speaker 1: Democrats say all of that is essentially a lie, that
Speaker 1: it's not We're not better off, We're not safer. We'll
Speaker 1: see in the days and weeks ahead. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Well, here's a headline that will certainly excite
Speaker 1: many many of those on the left who are hoping
Speaker 1: that President Trump crashes on the rocks of this impeachment fiasco.
Speaker 1: Former National Security Advisor Bolton is willing to testify in
Speaker 1: the Senate impeachment trial if he has subpoenaed reference. Wondering
Speaker 1: who always Bolton going to be the one who Finally,
Speaker 1: Here's where I have to say, We've been so consistent
Speaker 1: here for a long time on this. I don't care
Speaker 1: if the President did have a quid pro quo for
Speaker 1: the aid to Ukraine. I don't. I don't see this
Speaker 1: as the problem that so many other people see it as.
Speaker 1: I think the President had a legitimate interest in corruption.
Speaker 1: I think the Bidens are a legitimate target of inquiry.
Speaker 1: And you know it's interesting is that the Democrats will
Speaker 1: just aside some people are off limits, like all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, Kosam Solomoni is off limits for a military strike,
Speaker 1: for investigations, the Bidens are off limits just based on
Speaker 1: what they want. I mean, what's really the principle here,
Speaker 1: what's the separating you know, that the definitional difference between
Speaker 1: why somebody should be subject to investigation or to military
Speaker 1: strike in the case of Kasum Solomany versus somebody who
Speaker 1: isn't just the whims of the Democratic Party. It seems
Speaker 1: that is the single most important thing that we're all
Speaker 1: supposed to believe determines everything everything else. So we might
Speaker 1: have boltin test, fine, but we also don't know if
Speaker 1: there's ever going to I still have that bat with
Speaker 1: my man, Jesse Kelly, my buddy. I got to see if,
Speaker 1: in fact I'm right that Nancy Pelosi does transmit Remember
Speaker 1: I said that she would. She has to transmit them
Speaker 1: at some point otherwise it's just becomes too ridiculous. Now
Speaker 1: we're saying they're trying to maneuver after doing it. You know,
Speaker 1: they wanted the impeachment done, and now they're maneuvering to
Speaker 1: bolster the case around impeachment. Now they're maneuvering so that
Speaker 1: they can try to come up with some rationale, some
Speaker 1: explanation beyond what they've already offered for why the President
Speaker 1: of the United States should be removed from office. But
Speaker 1: they know that it's weak. They have to know at
Speaker 1: this point because it's in their interest to know that
Speaker 1: this is absurd. This is bizarre in fact, that Democrats
Speaker 1: have presented this to the American people thinking if they
Speaker 1: do think that it's going to make anyone safer, I mean, sorry,
Speaker 1: it's going to make anyone change in their mind. It
Speaker 1: will not. I saw a clip that had to do
Speaker 1: with gun safety, and all of a sudden got jumbled
Speaker 1: in my brain for a second now shift, shifty, shift.
Speaker 1: We have not heard the last of him when it
Speaker 1: comes to this impeachment fiasco. Now, Democrats still believe it.
Speaker 1: They're in a position to dictate the way the Senate
Speaker 1: is going to conduct the Senate trial. Now, So Democrats,
Speaker 1: when they're in the majority, it's their way or the highway.
Speaker 1: When Democrats are in the minority, it's oh no, but
Speaker 1: you have to do what we want because a bunch
Speaker 1: of stuff we say. But wait a second, I thought
Speaker 1: we'd already no, no no, no, because a bunch of things
Speaker 1: that we've said, Oh okay, here's Adam shift. And by
Speaker 1: the way, they also like to talk about how the
Speaker 1: election can't have any there's no election integrity going forward.
Speaker 1: If Trump wins. They're setting the groundwork for this right now.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake about it. Trump, I do believe is going.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop saying Trump's Look, here's my prediction. Brusen
Speaker 1: Margaret Market. Trump's gonna get re elected. Okay. I have
Speaker 1: confidence he's gonna get it done. We got four more years. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna say anymore because you know what, I
Speaker 1: don't want us to be overconfident. I don't want people
Speaker 1: to stay home. I don't want people to think that
Speaker 1: they don't have a voice that matters in this process
Speaker 1: because Trump's got it. No. In fact, I'm worried that
Speaker 1: that will lead to Trump losing. So I'm not no
Speaker 1: more no more. I think Trump's gonna win. But now
Speaker 1: we're all in. You gotta win it. We can celebrate
Speaker 1: the victory as long as you want. After right, we
Speaker 1: can celebrate the four more years for forty years after it.
Speaker 1: I mean, looking out, we still talking about Reagan. But
Speaker 1: we got to get there first. And I do have
Speaker 1: my concerns that, look at Trump. If the wall isn't built,
Speaker 1: you know, people might get a little complacence. Democrats were
Speaker 1: caught napping in twenty sixteen, no question, and that's why
Speaker 1: they were such a outrage, such an outrage and a
Speaker 1: freak out about this. It's also why you know, all
Speaker 1: this Russia stuff that they concocted. Yeah, they knew some
Speaker 1: of them beforehand, a little you know, the Internet stuff
Speaker 1: that was going on. They didn't freak out about it, though.
Speaker 1: Why didn't they freak out because Russian interference wasn't such
Speaker 1: a big well, it wasn't such a big deal in
Speaker 1: the sense that it didn't change anything. But well, because
Speaker 1: I assumed Hillary was gonna win, so it didn't really matter.
Speaker 1: Russian interference would not have mattered. Keep this in mind,
Speaker 1: Democrats would not have cared about Russian interference in the election.
Speaker 1: Off Hillary Clinton had won, it wouldn't have mattered, Okay,
Speaker 1: because that's the right outcome. How can you be upset
Speaker 1: about the right outcome? Right? If you have a binary
Speaker 1: event one of two things, one is good, one is bad.
Speaker 1: You know if I told if I told you, you
Speaker 1: know you have a terminal disease, and you know I
Speaker 1: gave you the antidote to save you. But turns out
Speaker 1: that I stole that antidote, but you're still saved. Do
Speaker 1: you care? No, If you do not, You're just happy
Speaker 1: that you're saved. That's the way the Democrats viewed the
Speaker 1: Russian interference. The election didn't matter because Hillary was gonna win.
Speaker 1: Ohop snope, turns out Hillary didn't win. They still think
Speaker 1: she did, but she did not win. And then you
Speaker 1: have you have Shift running around being as just disingenuous
Speaker 1: and dishonest as he ever has. I mean, Shift is
Speaker 1: Shift is an abject to grace. I mean he is
Speaker 1: the worst of the worst as far as I'm concerned
Speaker 1: when it comes to any Democrat on I mean, I
Speaker 1: know he's a leading Democrat in this impeachment thing, but
Speaker 1: the guy will say anything and his whole like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm just so upset about this, and oh, I don't
Speaker 1: want to do this. Nancy Pelosi's prayerful except when she's
Speaker 1: waving her hand to people like this, app don't do that,
Speaker 1: don't cheer. Kind a fool the remaining five morons in
Speaker 1: this country who don't realize that this is all a
Speaker 1: sham that Democrats are running against the president because the
Speaker 1: president has been so effective. There's a part of me
Speaker 1: that feels a little bit of I mean, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna say sympathy, but I kind of get where some
Speaker 1: of the Democrats are coming from on this stuff, because
Speaker 1: what they're gonna say, we hate all this economic prosperity,
Speaker 1: relative peace and effective governance. We hate all the deregulation,
Speaker 1: the rising wages, the low unemployment, the booming stock market,
Speaker 1: the no new wars, we hate it. Securing the border,
Speaker 1: we hate it. Well, the Democrats do hate that, But
Speaker 1: the other stuff they're supposed to at least pretend, pretend
Speaker 1: that they don't hate. Although economic misery, as you know,
Speaker 1: is the most fertile ground for socialists. So economic misery
Speaker 1: if it were to continue, or rather misery if it
Speaker 1: were to arise all of a sudden in this country,
Speaker 1: if we were to have people that were really out
Speaker 1: of work, big unemployment search, then Democrats would have some
Speaker 1: kind of a case to make about how they should
Speaker 1: be in power. And that would also then allow the
Speaker 1: socialists within the Democrat ranks, although I think increasingly it's
Speaker 1: hard to tell the difference between a Democrat and a socialist,
Speaker 1: if there is any difference at all, it's just a
Speaker 1: question of degree maybe. But they don't have a case
Speaker 1: to make on the merits. So that's why they've relied
Speaker 1: on all this other stuff, the process weaponized against the president,
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy used as a check on the president of
Speaker 1: the United States. And that's also why Adam Schiff has
Speaker 1: been given all of us leeway by Democrats to run
Speaker 1: around just saying all kinds of absurd and stuff. I
Speaker 1: mentioned that he's not willing to let the election play
Speaker 1: out without first undermining election. For Mark, please play clip
Speaker 1: fifteen if you would, But what the House Council is
Speaker 1: saying is we have been trying to get testimony from
Speaker 1: people like Don McGann. We've been trying to get the
Speaker 1: grand jury material as part of the appeachment inquiry. And
Speaker 1: for those Senators who say, well, why didn't the House
Speaker 1: wait on the Ukraine articles until you exhausted the court remedies,
Speaker 1: the reason is because on those articles the president was
Speaker 1: trying to seek foreign help in the election. Is not
Speaker 1: sufficient to say let's wait another year or two years
Speaker 1: to get these witnesses in if the president is trying
Speaker 1: to cheat in the next election, So we move forward
Speaker 1: with those articles that had the greatest sense of urgency.
Speaker 1: We continue to press the case with McGann, with gran
Speaker 1: jury material, with those that weren't as urgent. And I
Speaker 1: think that makes all the sense in the world. That's
Speaker 1: a stunning, wildly dishonest charge from chef presidents trying to
Speaker 1: cheat in the next election. That's what he's That's what
Speaker 1: he's saying here. I mean, you heard him cheat. How
Speaker 1: exactly what was the cheating? Get me an answer about
Speaker 1: a thing if you can, if you have the time.
Speaker 1: At some point, thanks, Oh, no answer was given, nothing
Speaker 1: was done that's cheating an election. This is absurd. But
Speaker 1: they know Chief knows that the case was weak. This
Speaker 1: is a repeat, isn't it? These people? You know, what
Speaker 1: is the Yogi bearrah deja vu all over again? Right?
Speaker 1: Who Yogi Yogi bearra? Was? I mean he was the
Speaker 1: baseball What was the Yankee? Yes? Yeah yankee? Was he
Speaker 1: a player or manager? Is a player and he managed
Speaker 1: the Mets both, that's why Yankees. Yeah, yeah, okay, he
Speaker 1: recently passed away a couple of years ago. Oh is
Speaker 1: that so? Yeah? I was not aware of that. Maybe
Speaker 1: when its nice weather, we'll have to go you and
Speaker 1: produce a brand then also a baseball game. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I love to see you what a basic would experience America?
Speaker 1: Have you ever been to city field or arrange they serve?
Speaker 1: Do they serve rose in the stands or just beer?
Speaker 1: They have wine and stuff city field. I will say
Speaker 1: I got food and may beverages that can make it happen.
Speaker 1: That's food in baseball city field level. It's really is fantastic.
Speaker 1: It's not just ballpark hot dogs and shading fingers anymore.
Speaker 1: It's that's other stuff, fun things. A little digression here
Speaker 1: from from shift being gross. No, no no, no, no, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say. I actually went because I'm a real American.
Speaker 1: I'm wanted my family to PBR on Friday. You know
Speaker 1: what PBR is, Yeah, professional bullwriting. Yeah, why, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: How how can you add proustark thinking of anything more?
Speaker 1: I mean, you're You're grumpiness is legendary at this point.
Speaker 1: But you get to watch this amazing animal like contored
Speaker 1: and jump and do all this crazy stuff. And you
Speaker 1: got some dude who's just there with like a kevlar
Speaker 1: vestall and a cowboy hat. Try not to get him paled,
Speaker 1: trying to protect you know, his ability to have future
Speaker 1: generations of cowboys if you will. It's not an easy thing.
Speaker 1: I just worry about the mental health of these people
Speaker 1: that are doing why. I mean, it's awesome, it's so fun. Sure,
Speaker 1: it's fun to watch the super as a person who's
Speaker 1: doing it doing it. I mean, why do people jump
Speaker 1: out of planes? Man? Because it's awesome? I guess that's true.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly, so you know, you know, I was, I
Speaker 1: like the guys that do the they wear the suit,
Speaker 1: you know, and they like fly through the air with
Speaker 1: their arms out inside wear what that's what that's called.
Speaker 1: Like the human flying sing no, no, no no, no, human
Speaker 1: flying squirrel thing. That's super dangerous. But people definitely die
Speaker 1: doing that, and there was like, oh well it's very
Speaker 1: danger I jumping out of planes. PBR is awesome for
Speaker 1: a bunch of reasons. One is it's everyone's there just
Speaker 1: have a good time. And there's no there's no like
Speaker 1: one team hating the other team thing. There's no like,
Speaker 1: oh well we can't we can't be friends because you're
Speaker 1: an island as fan, for example, and I'm a a
Speaker 1: Maple Leafs. Are they still a team? They are? They
Speaker 1: want to be a Leaf fan? A How many of
Speaker 1: the original six hockey teams? Can you name the original
Speaker 1: six National Hockey League teams? The Maple Leafs, Yeah that ball,
Speaker 1: I just gave you one. The Kings, No, LA did
Speaker 1: not get hockey till the seventies. The New York Rangers, Yes,
Speaker 1: that is one of them. The Red Wings. Wow. Yeah
Speaker 1: you know I know this. By the way, why because
Speaker 1: I used to relay Nintendo hockey game back and like
Speaker 1: the Ladies when there were like only a few teams.
Speaker 1: Remember that. I'm trying to remember the team that was
Speaker 1: right after expansion. Yeah, but I'm but I'm just saying
Speaker 1: like it was. You know, so I just remember some
Speaker 1: of those teams. The Oilers. No, no, that's wait, no,
Speaker 1: what am I trying to think? I'm not the Oilers.
Speaker 1: There's a team that's they were they? Honey? The Oilers
Speaker 1: are a hockey Yeah, they are not an original Okay,
Speaker 1: I was Oilers. You're missing the Montreal Canadians. That's a team, yes,
Speaker 1: Boston Bruins. Okay, the Bruins. I should have gotten the Bruins. Okay,
Speaker 1: and the Chicago Blackhawks. That's the last one. I never
Speaker 1: I didn't even know that was it. I've never even
Speaker 1: heard of that. Wow. Yeah, I thought that was like
Speaker 1: a Triple A baseball team. Wait, anyway, learning learning new
Speaker 1: things that we go. I'm just telling you all, PBR
Speaker 1: is really fun. I had a great time. Family was there.
Speaker 1: You get to see the bulls, and you know, you
Speaker 1: also you kind of like if you want to get
Speaker 1: up and go get a drink, it's one of these
Speaker 1: things too. Were like, you're not missing that much because
Speaker 1: like there'll be another bull ride in a a minute, you know,
Speaker 1: so it's not like you've missed a big touchdown or something.
Speaker 1: How long does that take? Like? How long is a
Speaker 1: whole event? It's like it's like a two hour, hour
Speaker 1: forty five it's not in the long it's not long.
Speaker 1: It's not like a football game. When you arrived for
Speaker 1: the tailgating, you're there all day, you know, it's like
Speaker 1: it's like an hour and forty five whatever. It's like
Speaker 1: a quick entertainment. A question for you, though, this is
Speaker 1: one that I talked to my family members about. Um,
Speaker 1: how much would I have to pay you without any training?
Speaker 1: But you got it and you gotta get on the
Speaker 1: bull and you have to try your very best to
Speaker 1: stay on for eight seconds. That's gonna be on for
Speaker 1: eight seconds to score? How long would I How much
Speaker 1: would I have to pay you to get you to
Speaker 1: get on that bull? Did you ask your family about
Speaker 1: me specific No, I have them about themselves. One of
Speaker 1: their individual price point for this it had it would
Speaker 1: have to be in the six figures. Oh yeah, that's
Speaker 1: oh yeah, because you're risking correct terrible injury exactly. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm not to pay my medical bills plus something.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying. I was like, I was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean you think you do it for like a
Speaker 1: couple of thousand bucks. I'll think you're like, except if
Speaker 1: I separated my shoulder, I had like a lifelong injury
Speaker 1: from it. So have you ever done one at a bar? Like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's one in Dallas. There's a place in Dallas on
Speaker 1: McKinney Street where I am legendary for both my buck
Speaker 1: hunter skills as well as being able to ride the
Speaker 1: mechanical bowl like a superstar. Before we're after alcohol only after.
Speaker 1: I'm great at both only after all right, shifty Shift
Speaker 1: is coming back. You're in the freedom hud. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. But that's not what the
Speaker 1: American people want. It's not what the founders contemplated. And
Speaker 1: if you ask even a majority of Republicans around the country,
Speaker 1: they want the evidence to come out. And so I
Speaker 1: think that withholding the articles has thus far flushed out
Speaker 1: where Mitch McConnell's coming from. It's required senators go on record,
Speaker 1: and it's my hope that that pressure will result in
Speaker 1: a real trial fairly American people. That's right. You've got
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff here telling you that everyone wants the evidence
Speaker 1: to come out, which is such a dishonest way of
Speaker 1: framing the issue, because yeah, of course, of course everyone
Speaker 1: wants the evidence to come out, but they don't want Democrats,
Speaker 1: if they were asked this question in a way that
Speaker 1: was more honest, the situation. No, they don't want a
Speaker 1: situation where Democrats get to determine what evidence has presented,
Speaker 1: what evidence is suppressed, what witnesses get call, what witnesses don't.
Speaker 1: We've already gone through this. Democrats got to do exactly
Speaker 1: what they wanted, exactly the way they wanted to do
Speaker 1: in the House, and now in the Senate they're doing
Speaker 1: everything that they can to try and gain this process too,
Speaker 1: even though they don't have the votes. They are not
Speaker 1: in charge, but they think they can still act like
Speaker 1: they are in charge. These people are all right, disgrace.
Speaker 1: I still think that Nancy Pelosi is going to transmit
Speaker 1: the articles of impeachment, but now I'm thinking that and
Speaker 1: this might be a way that we'll have to see
Speaker 1: how the judges would rule on this. In my little
Speaker 1: wager here or their friend Jesse Kelly, they may add something,
Speaker 1: so they may kind of hold it and then add
Speaker 1: to it and then transmit it, which is a middle
Speaker 1: way path between transmitting it as is, or just not
Speaker 1: transmitting the articles of impeachment at all. And this is
Speaker 1: also you have more evidence of this, bind them claiming
Speaker 1: that there's more evidence. Play a sixteen here, here's more
Speaker 1: shifty shift. But we also start out by having the
Speaker 1: documents come out. And the documents that have been coming
Speaker 1: out lately are increasingly incriminating of the president. You can
Speaker 1: see why they want to cover those up. Those documents
Speaker 1: ought to be provided as well. Just fantasy land stuff.
Speaker 1: Just make up whatever you have to make up now
Speaker 1: to try to increase the political pressure, to try to
Speaker 1: create a change in perception that's advantageous to democrats. That's
Speaker 1: what is, That's what's underwear. That's what they are trying
Speaker 1: to do. And I've got to tell you, folks, if
Speaker 1: we start an app it on this one, there's nothing
Speaker 1: these Democrats are There's nothing that is too shameful for
Speaker 1: them to do if it's going to hurt Trump in
Speaker 1: this selection year. I mean, they are completely insane with
Speaker 1: their hatred of this president and his supporters, and they
Speaker 1: really do. I think that a lot of them have
Speaker 1: convinced themselves. I never know who is being cynical as
Speaker 1: a Democrat and who is a true believer. I think
Speaker 1: there are enough true believers who really think that the
Speaker 1: country is at stake here unless they cheat to win.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. They're raging bushfires all over Australia
Speaker 1: right now. It has been getting a lot of international attention.
Speaker 1: And this is a moment, a moment in time when
Speaker 1: I think we could all try to learn a few
Speaker 1: things about what is useful conversation and situation like this
Speaker 1: and what is just more virtue signaling by leftists. There's
Speaker 1: certainly no shortage event going on these days. Here's the
Speaker 1: latest update. I mean, you've got the death toll from
Speaker 1: Australia's bush fires at twenty five. The Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: Australia has said that there'll be an additional one point
Speaker 1: four billion dollars in recovery efforts. And so you have
Speaker 1: these little horrible fires all across Australia. Keep in mind
Speaker 1: the landmass of Australia is absolutely enormous, but the destruction
Speaker 1: I think is already double in terms of acres burned
Speaker 1: it's double what you had in the worst fire season
Speaker 1: in recent years in California. So these are really out
Speaker 1: of control of bush fires and it's clearly a major problem.
Speaker 1: It is terrible what's going on because of wildlife can't
Speaker 1: escape this stuff. Now there is an environmental, major environmental
Speaker 1: factor here. You have a particularly dry season, not a
Speaker 1: lot of rain, and it's hot, very hot, very dry,
Speaker 1: and so yes, you are having a number of fires.
Speaker 1: And this even came up in the Golden Globes when
Speaker 1: you had Russell Crowe got an award in absentia and
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, Rachel from Friends Jennifer Aniston also
Speaker 1: known as Rachel from Friends, which is no longer on
Speaker 1: Netflix by the way, which is a bummer. She stood
Speaker 1: up and she took read a statement from him about
Speaker 1: how he's defending his family, which of course respect and
Speaker 1: appreciate that in Australia, making sure they're safe during the
Speaker 1: bush fire, what the bushfires going, and but that we
Speaker 1: need to take dramatic action, of course, to come back line,
Speaker 1: here we go climate change once again, it's climate change.
Speaker 1: You have green Peace. I'm trying to find this statement
Speaker 1: they put out. You know, here we go the fires
Speaker 1: are still burning. This is green Peace Australia and they'll
Speaker 1: be burning for months to come. That's why I outlined
Speaker 1: this is an initial investment of two billion dollars. The
Speaker 1: more is needed, the more is needed, and the cost
Speaker 1: is higher, they'll be provided. I'm sorry, that's Prime Ministers Morrison.
Speaker 1: Green Peace responded to that, saying every single sense of
Speaker 1: that money should be contributed by the coal, gas and
Speaker 1: oil companies whose carbon pollution has caused the climate crisis
Speaker 1: that has created these extreme fire conditions right across the country.
Speaker 1: Slugging everyday taxpayers with the bill for this just adds
Speaker 1: insult to injury. These big polluters have become rich by
Speaker 1: trashing our climate and it's time they start coughing up
Speaker 1: for the repair bill. Now. I want to get into
Speaker 1: this because this is now part of the global collectivist
Speaker 1: and socialist surge that we are seeing of all these
Speaker 1: different people that want there to be massive transfers of
Speaker 1: wealth determined by massive transfers of wealth determined by these
Speaker 1: environmentalist bodies, by government agencies and bureaucracy. These and the
Speaker 1: consequence of this, of course will be severe. But I
Speaker 1: want to put something else out because you have to really,
Speaker 1: you have to really look to find this because right
Speaker 1: now you might say just a hold on second, buck,
Speaker 1: I mean, if we're really and look, I saw, and
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, there are a few things.
Speaker 1: I was actually just talking to friend about this over
Speaker 1: the week, and there a few things that get me
Speaker 1: choked up as quickly as any anything that's bad that's
Speaker 1: happened to an animal, particularly a cute animal like not
Speaker 1: you know, snakes, I can't get that, you know, emotional about,
Speaker 1: but anything involving dogs, I completely lose it. And Koala's
Speaker 1: I'm also quite fond of bears, so anything anything with
Speaker 1: those you know, furry animals that are are mammalian cousins,
Speaker 1: including marsupials, which are very widespread across Australia as we know,
Speaker 1: any even a million cousins out there, and bad things
Speaker 1: are happening with them, and that makes me, That makes
Speaker 1: me very very sad. That's sad what's causing all of this?
Speaker 1: Because if we want, if we're upset about it, we
Speaker 1: want to stop it, shouldn't we understand what the And
Speaker 1: this is the same thing samesation we've had recently about California.
Speaker 1: We're just seeing this now in the context of Australia. Now,
Speaker 1: Australia is like eight thousand miles away from California. It's
Speaker 1: a long I think that's about right, maybe seventy five
Speaker 1: something like that, But it's a long, long flight. I
Speaker 1: haven't made the flight, but I know it's a very
Speaker 1: long flight. But we're having the mirror image discussion on
Speaker 1: Australia what we've already had in California. By the way,
Speaker 1: crazy California Lass. We will have to get to that soon.
Speaker 1: But here you have a situation where you could say,
Speaker 1: hold on, we're hearing about climate change all the time.
Speaker 1: We have these environmentalist groups. All they do is think
Speaker 1: about this issue and related issues. Right, this is, this
Speaker 1: is right in their wheelhouse. So they must know what's
Speaker 1: going on here, right, they must be in the know
Speaker 1: about this circumstance, this situation and be honest with the public,
Speaker 1: because if they're going to try to help us prevent
Speaker 1: this from continuing on as is, we have to know
Speaker 1: what the real cause is. Right. We can't be placed
Speaker 1: in a circumstance where we are trying to stop something
Speaker 1: by doing a thing that isn't related to the cause
Speaker 1: of the thing we're trying to stop. It's a very
Speaker 1: complicated way of saying, to waste your time, waste your effort.
Speaker 1: But here's what I was able to find from poking
Speaker 1: around a little bit of the most recent studies. There
Speaker 1: are over fifty thousand bushfires in Australia every year. The
Speaker 1: Australian National Center for Research in bush Fire and Arson
Speaker 1: I want to repeat that for Australia has a thing
Speaker 1: you probably haven't heard of this before, called the National
Speaker 1: Center for Research in Bushfire and Arson ARSON the intentional
Speaker 1: creation of or intentional lighting of fires a crime. Why
Speaker 1: would those two things be related, Well, because when you
Speaker 1: look at the numbers, you look at what's really going
Speaker 1: on in Australian hasn't been going on for years. Here's
Speaker 1: what you find out. At least according to the Institute
Speaker 1: in Australia, all they do is look at this issue.
Speaker 1: At least thirteen percent are one hundred percent, meaning at
Speaker 1: least we know for a for sure because of prosecutions
Speaker 1: and because of the evidence that thirteen percent of the
Speaker 1: fifty thousand plus fires in Australia every year. Remember Australia's
Speaker 1: a continent, it's huge, so it would be like fifty
Speaker 1: thousand fires in the entirety of the continental United States,
Speaker 1: right roughly speaking. Same, So it's not we think of
Speaker 1: it as a country, but it's a huge service. You
Speaker 1: can actually fit really all of I saw map Mo
Speaker 1: Strong as the weekend. You can fit effectively all of
Speaker 1: Western Europe, the landmass of it in Australia pretty close,
Speaker 1: not including Russia obviously, which is not really Western Europe.
Speaker 1: That's another conversation for another time. Thirteen percent of these
Speaker 1: fires are definitely thirty seven percent are suspicious, which means
Speaker 1: probably started by human beings. Right, Why would a fire
Speaker 1: be suspicious, Well, you'd have to have some reason for suspicion.
Speaker 1: If you have reason for suspicion, there's evidence that it
Speaker 1: wasn't just you know, a lightning strike or something along
Speaker 1: those lines. And that means that you add those two
Speaker 1: things together and you have half about half of the
Speaker 1: bushfires in Australia every year are deliberately set by human beings.
Speaker 1: So by the way, you might be saying, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second buck, that's that's got to be What
Speaker 1: about people who you know they are camping and they
Speaker 1: have a camp fire and an ember goes you know,
Speaker 1: I mean that must happen all the time. Oh yeah, no,
Speaker 1: that does happen all the time. And you do have
Speaker 1: a very dangerous environment where you have, you know, a
Speaker 1: lot of dry tinder, you've got a tremendous amount of heat.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of boys, sure, because there hasn't been
Speaker 1: a lot of rain. So that happens. But guess what
Speaker 1: all of those cases for everybody who leaves a campfire burning,
Speaker 1: or who burns some brusher, who does something that are
Speaker 1: not intentionally setting a fire, that's not even included in
Speaker 1: the fifty percent figure according to the Australian National Center
Speaker 1: for Research in bush Fire and Arson. So and they
Speaker 1: don't even know, by the way, I mean, they can't
Speaker 1: even you gotta assume. I think it's just fair to
Speaker 1: say that if if roughly half of the bush fires
Speaker 1: are either certainly or most likely intentionally set in Australia,
Speaker 1: which is what this boy, this is from how to
Speaker 1: Dig Deep in the BBC. I mean, this is like
Speaker 1: it's out there. If you want to find this information,
Speaker 1: you're not being reported on very much. Why you come
Speaker 1: here because I actually look for suff So I'm like,
Speaker 1: this just seems weird that many fires. Huh, they're just
Speaker 1: popping up all of a sudden. So you cut the
Speaker 1: number in half right away based on people not setting fires,
Speaker 1: and get in a discussion why would people set fire?
Speaker 1: What we'll get to that maybe in a moment. But
Speaker 1: then you add to it accidental not arson, accidental fires
Speaker 1: a safe estimate. They don't even know what the stimo
Speaker 1: a safe estimate is going to be. That's gotta be
Speaker 1: half of the remaining right, half of the half that's left.
Speaker 1: So I feel like I'm back in grammar school doing
Speaker 1: fractions here. But that would mean that based on my
Speaker 1: back of the envelope, I'm just you know, but back
Speaker 1: of the envelope calculation of the using the very real
Speaker 1: number of about fifty percent are intention People are setting
Speaker 1: fires in Australia on purpose. That is what this research
Speaker 1: body that all they do is look at this issue.
Speaker 1: That's what they're telling you. When you add on to
Speaker 1: that accidental fires, you're looking at roughly let's say seventy
Speaker 1: five percent of all these fires are nan caused in
Speaker 1: one way or another, meaning human beings are responsible. We're
Speaker 1: just like setting these fires because they either meant to
Speaker 1: or accidentally messed up. Have you seen that reporter anywhere? No?
Speaker 1: You know why, because they would so much rather show you. Look,
Speaker 1: I saw the video of the koala that was like
Speaker 1: singe and I like choked up as horrible and I
Speaker 1: feel terrible about it. But they show you the koala
Speaker 1: that has gotten badly burned. They show you people giving
Speaker 1: water to ke mean, there's video of this all over
Speaker 1: the place in the Internet. They show people giving little
Speaker 1: bottles of water to a kangaroo that's parched and has
Speaker 1: been burned from the flames and trying to escape them.
Speaker 1: They'll show you this stuff and then they'll immediately turn
Speaker 1: around and say it's because of climate change. And if
Speaker 1: you don't see that, you're a bad person and you
Speaker 1: don't care about the burning koalas and kangaroos. It's emotional blackmail.
Speaker 1: It's probably this is propaganda. It's very effective techniques of
Speaker 1: propaganda being deployed by libs on all of this stuff.
Speaker 1: This is what they are doing. This is the way
Speaker 1: they approach all of this. And I would just say
Speaker 1: to you, you've got us. This is why it's so
Speaker 1: important to have alternative sources of information. Do your own,
Speaker 1: do your own thinking about this come to places like
Speaker 1: this where I do, and it's just me and Proson Mark.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're just doing our own thing in here,
Speaker 1: doing our own research, pulling our own information and presenting
Speaker 1: it to you so that you can be informed in
Speaker 1: a way that you won't be if you rely on,
Speaker 1: certainly the Golden Globes, which is really just a like
Speaker 1: a you know, special society of self indulgent idiots, And
Speaker 1: you won't be if you rely on the mainstream media either,
Speaker 1: because they think, Remember, the baseline assumption that they're operating
Speaker 1: from is that climate change is going to destroy the world,
Speaker 1: and so how they respond they're feeling on this is
Speaker 1: that anything that they have to do then in order
Speaker 1: to stop climate change, including lying to you about the
Speaker 1: reality of the bush fires youeple want to say brush
Speaker 1: fires bush fires in Australia is entirely is moral. The
Speaker 1: lie becomes moral, the propaganda becomes self justifying. I mean,
Speaker 1: it isn't that stunning. I mean, sitting here and just
Speaker 1: you actually look at this, it's this terrifying thing. The
Speaker 1: countries inflame. People are dying, animals are being some species
Speaker 1: they say in Australia are being wiped out. This is
Speaker 1: all very sad, and then you have to get to okay, well,
Speaker 1: what's really causing this in the answer is human being
Speaker 1: setting fires. That's what's really causing the setting fires in
Speaker 1: a in a situation where the weather is conducive to
Speaker 1: particularly conducive. It is dry and hot there right now,
Speaker 1: unseasonably dry and hot. It is not because you know,
Speaker 1: you aren't riding a tricycle to work every day. That's
Speaker 1: not what's causing the bush fires in Australia. People need
Speaker 1: to understand this. Okay, The soupid libs at the Golden
Speaker 1: Globes don't want to wrestle with the facts here, but trying,
Speaker 1: you know, giving gaseous speeches about trying to stop COO
Speaker 1: two gas from getting into the atmosphere is helping nobody.
Speaker 1: And then you have on top of this the socialist
Speaker 1: agenda of these different environmentalist groups that really want major
Speaker 1: corporations to fund them and then they'll leave them alone.
Speaker 1: It's it's like a protection racket they're running. You know, Exonmobile,
Speaker 1: You've got to fund our wacko environmentalist green energy you know,
Speaker 1: advocacy group, or else we're gonna tell everybody how terrible
Speaker 1: you are, but if you fund us, you know, we'll
Speaker 1: probably leave you alone a little bit. Nice capitalism you got,
Speaker 1: there be a shame if something happened to it. This
Speaker 1: is what these green groups are doing all over the world,
Speaker 1: not just here. They're doing in Australia, any any developed country,
Speaker 1: any places where there's like the fatted cow of capitalism
Speaker 1: to be slaughtered. These green groups find a way to
Speaker 1: pretend that the answer is to turn it into hamburgers,
Speaker 1: right ruin. What has been working so well for us,
Speaker 1: has made us all so much more prosperous and comfortable
Speaker 1: and live longer and all these other things. This is
Speaker 1: the truth of the situation us. Rather, it's just something
Speaker 1: and then and then I just just briefly, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think you'd have to be a
Speaker 1: a psychologist to understand this, or I mean I'm not
Speaker 1: even Also a lot of psychologists I see them on TV,
Speaker 1: I'm like, well, that guy didn't tell me anything I
Speaker 1: didn't already know. It's really yeah, you know, not particularly
Speaker 1: impressive a lot of time with the diagnoses of different
Speaker 1: psychoses and such. But here's what I would say. There
Speaker 1: are remember the scene in Batman Begins where Michael Caine.
Speaker 1: I's got that really like you know Cookney accent, Like
Speaker 1: no one actually talks like that, but except for Michael
Speaker 1: Caine and the movie talks like this, excuse me, excuse me, governor,
Speaker 1: you know the whole thing. Um. He's like, you know,
Speaker 1: when I was always in the Imperial Service in Burma
Speaker 1: and there was there was this bloke who was running
Speaker 1: a rebel group who had a ruby the size of
Speaker 1: a tangerine. Some people just want to see the word burn.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much it, folks. Some people see an opportunity
Speaker 1: to destroy, and for very deep seated reasons, they seize
Speaker 1: upon it. And for some individuals that is through fire.
Speaker 1: This is why there are people who are arsonists. They
Speaker 1: like that momentary sense or that continuing sense of power
Speaker 1: they get from being the originator, from being the cause
Speaker 1: of tremendous destruction. There is perhaps a hole in their soul.
Speaker 1: I can't begin to understand why anybody would do this,
Speaker 1: especially given the danger it puts fellow human beings in
Speaker 1: the destruction of property and the animals that will all
Speaker 1: be burned are being burned as a result of this.
Speaker 1: But there are some very bad people out there, and
Speaker 1: there are people who have various kinds of sickness of soul.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we call it even mental illness, just
Speaker 1: a sickness of soul. And that's the only explanation I
Speaker 1: can come up with for why anybody would set a
Speaker 1: fire like this, especially under these conditions and circumstances. It's
Speaker 1: so obviously dangerous. But that's what's really happening here. For
Speaker 1: all the all the stuff about how we have to
Speaker 1: combat climate change, which now I no longer can take
Speaker 1: the intelligence of any person seriously, who really thinks that
Speaker 1: combating climate change is something we have to do. I
Speaker 1: just I just don't think it's possible to be I
Speaker 1: don't think it's possible to have good judgment. You may
Speaker 1: you may be someone who has ability in other areas,
Speaker 1: you do not have good judgment. If you believe that
Speaker 1: combating climate change is something we all have to do,
Speaker 1: you're in the freedom hud. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. Now we have really we have great support,
Speaker 1: but we have tremendous views and much of it so
Speaker 1: much of it is just honest on the other side.
Speaker 1: But we're plowing through it, and I really do believe
Speaker 1: we have got on US side. I believe that. I
Speaker 1: believe that. You know, first of all, I love that
Speaker 1: just because when Trump says, if we have got on
Speaker 1: our side, you know that the drive's liberals completely insane,
Speaker 1: which is an exciting thing for me. So let's begin there.
Speaker 1: That's great. I mean, it triggers the Libs for Trump
Speaker 1: to say we have got on our side. And I'm
Speaker 1: not going to pretend that Trump is. It would be absurd,
Speaker 1: It would be it would be ridiculous to pretend that
Speaker 1: Trump's life pre president was the Christian ideal. But none
Speaker 1: of us are the Christian ideal. It's also true I
Speaker 1: am not the Christian ideal. I doubt any of you
Speaker 1: listening would claim to be. And increasingly, when I see
Speaker 1: the opposition to US, I have to say. Trump maybe
Speaker 1: meant it a bit as a job, but I think
Speaker 1: he also meant it because it's true. I do think
Speaker 1: that if God is picking sides in this election, he's
Speaker 1: hoping to keep America great. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: bus Essen Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app for war ever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Team Buck, It's time for roll call Facebook dot COM's
Speaker 1: Last Buck Sexton if you want to send it on
Speaker 1: Facebook or we can go into the email inbox which
Speaker 1: is team buck at iHeartMedia dot com. That is how
Speaker 1: we get this party roll and wanted to do a
Speaker 1: little double roll call today. And by the way, you
Speaker 1: will be able to see me at least unless there's
Speaker 1: a cancelation or change, which there always can be in
Speaker 1: TV world. But I'm supposed to be on Outnumbered on
Speaker 1: Fox News tomorrow at twelve pm Eastern for the full
Speaker 1: hour with the four lad I don't know who the
Speaker 1: four ladies are of Fox News who will be on
Speaker 1: the couch and have me as their as their esteemed
Speaker 1: guest or hopefully esteemed, but definitely their guest. But that
Speaker 1: be tomorrow at twelve pm EASTERNS. So there we have
Speaker 1: it now, just like you, I appreciate. Also, whenever you
Speaker 1: get a chance, you can check out we put a
Speaker 1: I did a hit on Howard Kurtz's show on Sunday
Speaker 1: on Media Buzz and we'll put that up on the
Speaker 1: website buckxxon dot com and also on Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton. Okay, sorry, I've gotten you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of stuff to get through
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff to say and see and do.
Speaker 1: And there we go. We have wait where did the
Speaker 1: where did it go? We have the inbox with the team. Ah,
Speaker 1: there we go, the team bucking box. I was trying
Speaker 1: to find it. Here we go. We have somebody who
Speaker 1: just calls himself Nebraska. Nebraska. Okay, buck big fan? Here?
Speaker 1: Quick question? Why do you refer to cocaine Mitch? I'm
Speaker 1: sorry that just happened. Why do you refer to Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell as cocaine Mitch? I can't stop scratching my head. Please,
Speaker 1: I need to know my scalp is getting a rash um. Okay,
Speaker 1: So this is this is because of a fellow name
Speaker 1: and I know I call him, I just it's such
Speaker 1: a fun nickname. But it's a guy named Don Blankenship
Speaker 1: who ran the series of ads, and he's just trying
Speaker 1: to I guess he's trying to primary Mitch McConnell. And
Speaker 1: he referred to Mitch McConnell's wife has some ownership interest
Speaker 1: or you know, owns a piece of a shipping company.
Speaker 1: I believe it was the backstory here. She's she's Chinese
Speaker 1: or her family she is of Chinese background, and there
Speaker 1: was some somebody on the ship was arrested for like
Speaker 1: on one of these ships for this global shipping company
Speaker 1: was arrest for cocaine I think or something. Anyway, Don
Speaker 1: Blankenship came up with this thing that Mitch McConnell it's
Speaker 1: like part of this international cocaine distribution conspiracy, and he
Speaker 1: ransom ad on it and referred to him as Cocaine Mitch.
Speaker 1: And in this campaign ad which producer mark we should
Speaker 1: find this the original the original blankets ship. Not for now,
Speaker 1: well maybe later this week. It's kind of a little
Speaker 1: fun I'd like to give the team someone to look
Speaker 1: forward to, you know what I mean. But we will, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we will do a update on all things Cocaine Mitch
Speaker 1: for for your listening enjoyment. But that's where it comes from.
Speaker 1: Don Blanketship referred to him as Cocaine Mitch, and it's
Speaker 1: a nickname that kind of stuck. And I heard from
Speaker 1: somebody who was very close to Mitch McConnell that he
Speaker 1: actually thinks the nickname is pretty funny. So because if
Speaker 1: there's anybody who's involved in the international international cocaine distribution,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell will be very very very low on that list.
Speaker 1: But that's why, so totally legitimate question, and it's from
Speaker 1: Don Blanketship running ads against Mitch McConnell where he called
Speaker 1: him cocaine. Mitch, Zach, who is oss Buck? You're the best? Well, Zach,
Speaker 1: I think you're the best, no surprise. Your analysis on
Speaker 1: current around Iraq, Iran and Sulimani has been spot on.
Speaker 1: I think you should bring Joe Kent on your show
Speaker 1: to discuss further. He's a retired Green Beret Chief Warrant
Speaker 1: Officer out of Fifth Group with extensive experience in the
Speaker 1: Iraqi Shia. He's also a gold star husband. He lost
Speaker 1: his wife shan And in Syria last year. He brings
Speaker 1: a very sober and realistic perspective of this situation. He's
Speaker 1: done some quick hits on Fox. I think your show'd
Speaker 1: be a better format shieldside. Zach, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for the suggestion. I'm not familiar with Joe Kent, but
Speaker 1: we will take a look and we'd love to have
Speaker 1: him on the show to talk about this, given the
Speaker 1: background that you've presented that he has. So anytime you
Speaker 1: guys have somebody that you particularly think would be good
Speaker 1: for this format. We are going to start doing more
Speaker 1: long form interviews in the future and we're gonna put
Speaker 1: them up on podcast. But also we're going to have
Speaker 1: a YouTube going. And so we're getting all these things moving.
Speaker 1: I've been telling many of you for you know, it
Speaker 1: always happens. It just takes me to time because we
Speaker 1: it's just a team of two in here in the
Speaker 1: hot right now, and it is not easy to get
Speaker 1: all these things. And I got a book, I gotta right,
Speaker 1: I got a YouTube channel, like a lot of things
Speaker 1: I got to do all the time. So, um, I
Speaker 1: did tell you that, for example, we would start getting
Speaker 1: the podcast of a show out earlier, and now we do.
Speaker 1: Now it's out every day by three eastern so those
Speaker 1: of you who want can listen much earlier, which has
Speaker 1: been a plan of mine all along. So yeah, But
Speaker 1: you can always send along any any guests suggestion that
Speaker 1: you have. We are happy to have you present that
Speaker 1: to us here, So just send it presented to us.
Speaker 1: By sending it to present it to us, you don't
Speaker 1: have to give it to us on like a you know,
Speaker 1: silver platter or anything like that. Just send us into
Speaker 1: the thing. Loll loll. The email is taken way too
Speaker 1: long to load. I don't really know. While there we
Speaker 1: go book I know people always ask for recommendations of
Speaker 1: books or movies. I have one. The TV series murder
Speaker 1: In is a British fantasy adventure drama television program BBC
Speaker 1: drama series between two thousand and eight and twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming it aired then not takes place. Then I
Speaker 1: like it because it has basic humor, swordplay and magic.
Speaker 1: Plus it is clean and the whole family can watch.
Speaker 1: This program helps when you want to turn the brain
Speaker 1: off for a while. Well, oh, thank you for that.
Speaker 1: That's certainly sounds pretty cool. I like all that you know,
Speaker 1: medieval magic, sword, dungeons and dragon stuff, usually as a genre,
Speaker 1: not the Witcher, which is the worst thing ever. But
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop. I'm gonna stop. Some of you like
Speaker 1: it and you get mad at me. Fine, you're allowed
Speaker 1: to like it. You're allowed to look team. I love
Speaker 1: all of you. You're allowed to be wrong. Sometimes you
Speaker 1: can be wrong about the Witcher. That's cool, Marina Rights,
Speaker 1: I trust you in Producer Mark kind a lovely holiday
Speaker 1: season and you had a fun birthday celebration. Well, Marina,
Speaker 1: I was a little sick, but thank you. Nonetheless, I've
Speaker 1: been watching some of the comments the Democratic already presidential
Speaker 1: hope pols and ridiculous celebrities have made regarding Trump's decision
Speaker 1: to take out Sulimani with that drone strike, and I
Speaker 1: couldn't help but recall Hillary Clinton's glib comments and giggles
Speaker 1: about the death of Muamar Kaddafi. We came, we saw
Speaker 1: he died. That's the thing about lying. It's very hard
Speaker 1: to keep track of what you said previously. Love life
Speaker 1: and freedom to you both. In twenty twenty, Marina of
Speaker 1: the esteemed group of Patriots known as OSS, the original
Speaker 1: Saturday Squad people that have been with me, now, gosh,
Speaker 1: it's going on with going on eight years Marina, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean they have a different This is one of
Speaker 1: the main things that we have to call out and
Speaker 1: talk about here on the show, as the Democrats have
Speaker 1: different standards of what's acceptable for Democrats versus what is
Speaker 1: acceptable for Republicans. That's true all the time. I mean,
Speaker 1: variety of context is true all the time. Really, they
Speaker 1: do not have a universal standard because if there was
Speaker 1: a universal standard that could be held to account, they
Speaker 1: do not want to be held to account. They want
Speaker 1: to be able to do whatever they want to do,
Speaker 1: pursue power, get away with things. Double standards are fun,
Speaker 1: being a hypocrites fun get away with a lot. And
Speaker 1: it's certainly true about Hillary and the intervention in Libya
Speaker 1: and what was the point and what were we doing there?
Speaker 1: And where was the congressional boabbli blah. I don't know,
Speaker 1: None of that matters. It's all about how Democrats absolutely
Speaker 1: want power. Guyle writes, Hey, Buck, if Sean Parnell was
Speaker 1: listening good luck on your run for office, Buck, you
Speaker 1: asked Sean about the best flavor of ice cream? You
Speaker 1: know what? I found it out producer Mark. To just
Speaker 1: have a little diversion here from this for one second,
Speaker 1: you know, my parents told me, and like they kind
Speaker 1: of had to tell me this solemnly because I was
Speaker 1: over there obviously for the holidays hanging out with them. Now,
Speaker 1: you know what, Buck, we like strawberry ice cream. I
Speaker 1: don't know, man, I was then. I just I thought
Speaker 1: everybody understood the strawberry ice cream is the worst. But
Speaker 1: my own family there are strawberry, all of them. They're strawberry.
Speaker 1: And my parents, my siblings understand my parents are strawberry
Speaker 1: ice cream eaters, though I don't just know, Like my
Speaker 1: dad respects, and so there's my mom a good pistachio.
Speaker 1: Like they know the real ice cream flavors too, but
Speaker 1: they'll eat strawberry ice cream, and I just think at
Speaker 1: some point it's actually my wife's favorite. Like there's a
Speaker 1: very famous ice cream plates we go to where where
Speaker 1: we live. Give it a sacio. What's it called Marvel
Speaker 1: Marvell ice cream in Long Beach, New York. Not a
Speaker 1: play on Carvel. No, No, it's just itch called Marvin.
Speaker 1: It's like Carvel with an m oh, it's much better.
Speaker 1: What is the best flavor of ice cream there? I
Speaker 1: like chocolate, but my wife goes pistachio. I see, I
Speaker 1: think pistachio is just like it's a special thing. I
Speaker 1: get very excited about it. But anyway, you asked Sean
Speaker 1: about the best flavor of ice cream. Thank God he
Speaker 1: did not say strawberry. I add that in his cookies
Speaker 1: and cream is almost a perfect answer. I have a
Speaker 1: local dairy queen trained to add bacon to the blizzards.
Speaker 1: What all I have to do is say, will you
Speaker 1: guile that for me? And they blend in bacon bits.
Speaker 1: I do prefer it with carmel chunks, but it works
Speaker 1: with any thing. I'm serious. If you try it, you
Speaker 1: won't be disappointed. Also, you've got two more dedicated listeners
Speaker 1: already for you this year Shieldside Gyle, Well Gyle, thank you.
Speaker 1: Gyle gave me a birthday present and a Christmas present
Speaker 1: by bringing more people into Team Buck. I don't know
Speaker 1: about the rest of you haven't and I haven't gotten
Speaker 1: you know, A notification of a day or two about
Speaker 1: it makes me sad. Would you what do you think
Speaker 1: about bacon ice cream? I would try it. I'm not
Speaker 1: much of a sweet and savory guy together. I have
Speaker 1: had chocolate cover bacon that is delicious. There is a
Speaker 1: bacon bar in Midtown and Midtown Manhattan that's a thing. Yes,
Speaker 1: I haven't been to it yet, but I really want
Speaker 1: to go. I really want to go to I'm actually going.
Speaker 1: I don't have to go check that. I literally just
Speaker 1: started a diet today too, so we really shouldn't be
Speaker 1: talking about this stuff. Yeah, I gotta I gotta get
Speaker 1: healthy too. Man, December was a bad month for me
Speaker 1: man eating wise. Yeah, from a honeymoon on it just
Speaker 1: I just don't understand why they can't figure out a
Speaker 1: way to make Bree a health food, Like, like cheese,
Speaker 1: My weaknesses are cheese and chocolate. Cheese. Isn't that bad
Speaker 1: for you? This protein? Yeah, a little fatty color, it's
Speaker 1: you know, sure, you eat like a wedge of You
Speaker 1: eat a wedge of any cheese, and you've pretty much
Speaker 1: done your damage for the whole in moderation. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what they tell me about everything. So you've talked have
Speaker 1: you talked to people want to be healthy? They'll say
Speaker 1: you can eat anything, just eat it in moderation. Like,
Speaker 1: where's the fun I want to stuff my face? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I love We got Jesse Kelly's a Keto diet expert.
Speaker 1: Do you ever see his Twitter account with that? Yes,
Speaker 1: it's amazing, all right, it's funny. We actually have somebody
Speaker 1: just wrote this in I did not pick this out
Speaker 1: headline cheese don't worry buck, you aren't the only one
Speaker 1: with a cheese problem. And they send me huge cheese
Speaker 1: platter photos. You see. This is amazing. It's a real thing.
Speaker 1: I did see that one. Yeah, yeah, I like it.
Speaker 1: So perfect timing on that one. All right, Now, we
Speaker 1: got for roll call Robert, who writes in deer Buck
Speaker 1: on your show Thursday afternoon, as you said you were
Speaker 1: not feeling well. To help prevent the colds and flu
Speaker 1: of winter, I take two natural remedies which I can recommend.
Speaker 1: The first is Echinatia, which is an over the counter
Speaker 1: remedy that helps strengthen the immune system. I take it
Speaker 1: if I start to feel run down. Its value was
Speaker 1: confirmed when I was speaking with Congressman Andy Harris, a
Speaker 1: practicing anesthesiologist, who said it's the first thing he takes
Speaker 1: when he starts feeling bad. The second item of value
Speaker 1: for specifically helping to prevent influenza is an Elderberry and
Speaker 1: black current preparation. The product which I buy is Immune
Speaker 1: take Care by New Chapter, a very reputable nutraceutical company.
Speaker 1: About ten years ago, I had the flu, began recovering,
Speaker 1: and then had a relapse. Elderberry was recommended, and I
Speaker 1: took the product and the next day had no flu symptoms.
Speaker 1: While I am no longer employed, I do take it
Speaker 1: when I'm out among people and had not had the
Speaker 1: flu since that episode. Keep talking, Robert, Robert, thank you.
Speaker 1: I've certainly heard a lot about echinatia over the years,
Speaker 1: I have never heard of taking elderberry and black current.
Speaker 1: Though I've heard of elderberry. I don't know what it does,
Speaker 1: but I've definitely heard the term. Did you see, by
Speaker 1: the way, do you look when you're in CVS or
Speaker 1: something of the weekend? The oslaccana? But what Ossilla coconham again,
Speaker 1: that sounds like something I'm telling you. It's I'm telling
Speaker 1: you it's a thing as I'm looking it up right. Yeah,
Speaker 1: here it's type it O S C I L L
Speaker 1: O O C C I n U M. What does
Speaker 1: this do for me? Is you know, protects your Assla coconham?
Speaker 1: What do you mean? It's just it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: it's an important immune component. Sure that has you know
Speaker 1: you gotta it's I'm telling you it's a product. They
Speaker 1: sell it all the time, homeopathic remedy. I've never never
Speaker 1: think we need this behind us. Okay, fair enough, fine,
Speaker 1: I'm just a conversation. I'm just trying to tell you, man,
Speaker 1: it's an important you gotta have enough Assila coconham in
Speaker 1: your immune system or else bad things happen. You're getting
Speaker 1: good at saying yeah, I'm well, it's it's a long word.
Speaker 1: It's out of the fact that I could actually read it.
Speaker 1: Producer producer Nick. I mean, she's got kids. He knows
Speaker 1: all the cold remedies out there that you've got. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he could send us some of his homeopathic best
Speaker 1: which were probably about chicken soup, Jewish staple. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: now some of the matzo ball is the real thing.
Speaker 1: Producer Nick takes Elderberry. We got Nick, he takes Elderberry's
Speaker 1: a real thing. Yeah. By the way, I keep saying
Speaker 1: it's too I mean, we got producer Nick too, but
Speaker 1: he's he's not in the studio. So yeah, he doesn't
Speaker 1: have a microphone. But there's actually three of us that
Speaker 1: are always on this, on this little express train to
Speaker 1: insanity here. All right, anyway, enough about that, Andrew, enough
Speaker 1: about I'm not eve gonna saying at homeopathic flu flu medicine.
Speaker 1: There you go, Can I say it right? You did? Wow,
Speaker 1: well done, Andrew writes Buck. Okay, before we start, I
Speaker 1: am pre og team Buck, going back to twenty thirteen. Oh,
Speaker 1: so he's he's making me. He knows that I love him. Now,
Speaker 1: he knows he's like family. Now he knows my og
Speaker 1: my oss. These people have been with me forever, he says,
Speaker 1: before we start on po Okay, your review of The
Speaker 1: Witcher on Netflix was harsh. It is a respected of
Speaker 1: someone who is unfamiliar with the source material, So I
Speaker 1: don't blame you anyway. The Witcher on Netflix is absolutely
Speaker 1: amazing when you came from the gamer or book reader's perspective.
Speaker 1: Without going too deep, Eastern European folklore is a very
Speaker 1: strange thing compared to what we think of with monsters
Speaker 1: and magic fantasy. But when you are familiar with what
Speaker 1: The Witcher is, the show is so great. Andrew, your
Speaker 1: bro from Indiana. PS. If you get to a point
Speaker 1: in your life where there is time for video games,
Speaker 1: play which or three on PlayStation four? Okay, I mean Andrew,
Speaker 1: Because I have not I have no knowledge of this
Speaker 1: video game. I can't say that, well, you're wrong. I
Speaker 1: just I think that you have to when you present
Speaker 1: a show on Netflix, it has to be a good
Speaker 1: product for what it is. It can't just be a
Speaker 1: good product for some very small subset of the population
Speaker 1: that is familiar. But I don't know. I guess they
Speaker 1: make some things for the fans out there. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna lie to you guys. I hate when I say
Speaker 1: that because I never lied to you, but it's a
Speaker 1: phrase that people use. I watched Doom. I forget what
Speaker 1: it was like the New Doom movie, which was so
Speaker 1: bad but like so brainless that it was kind of
Speaker 1: okay to watch. It's like a bad rip off of
Speaker 1: the movie Aliens. But you know, Doom was a video game.
Speaker 1: It is like they opened ah it's like futuristic, but
Speaker 1: they opened a portatal hell. It's the first person shooter.
Speaker 1: I think it was one of the original reminds me
Speaker 1: of Wolfenstein. Another did you ever play Wolfenstein? That was great.
Speaker 1: That was a fun game. You just ran around shooting Nazis.
Speaker 1: It was pre inglorious bastards, which I feel I kind
Speaker 1: of just stole the basic idea from Wolfenstein was the
Speaker 1: name of the video game. Okay, we ran into some
Speaker 1: interesting stuff today on the show. Tomorrow show is going
Speaker 1: to be amazing. If you can tune out at twelve
Speaker 1: pm Eastern or tape it with your DVR. I guess
Speaker 1: you don't tape, then you you record record with your
Speaker 1: DVR out number tomorrow, Jill. Then Shields High