Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Trump's deep state enemies
Speaker 1: are running for cover as he calls them out over
Speaker 1: the weekend and says, it's time for answers. Why were
Speaker 1: they spying on the Trump campaign? How were they spying
Speaker 1: on the Trump campaign? Department of Justice seems to think
Speaker 1: that it is independent of the rest of government. That
Speaker 1: is false. Will discuss what it all means. Plus, Starbucks
Speaker 1: now has a new bathroom policy that I don't think
Speaker 1: it's gonna work out very well for the huge company.
Speaker 1: And we're going to talk about what is going on
Speaker 1: with China and trade and a whole bunch of other issues.
Speaker 1: Much more coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with action intelligence. Make no mistakes, you're a great
Speaker 1: American Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. No, indeed, welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody live from the swamp Washington,
Speaker 1: d c our Nation's capital. Actually starting to get acclimated
Speaker 1: down here. I mean it's still swampy, don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: but at least it's not something of a monsoon, which
Speaker 1: is what it was for for days and days last week.
Speaker 1: I I'm reaching a point now where I'm wondering some
Speaker 1: of the next moves that the deep state, anti Trump
Speaker 1: left has in store for us. I can see them
Speaker 1: coming a mile away, and I've been trying to prepare
Speaker 1: you for a while with don't think that just because
Speaker 1: we get to the truth that we will get justice.
Speaker 1: They will completely disregard any sense of fairness, fair play,
Speaker 1: a decency, honor, integrity when they're finally caught. And we're
Speaker 1: seeing a little bit of I think a panic that
Speaker 1: is setting in among some of the media who have
Speaker 1: been running with this fairy tale for going on two
Speaker 1: years now, and a lot of former Obama administration senior
Speaker 1: government officials who have some explaining to do, at a minimum, Uh,
Speaker 1: the issue of the possibility of a spot. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's been reported all over the place. People are naming
Speaker 1: the informant. We'll just refer to him as the informant
Speaker 1: guy who was meeting with Page and Papadopoulos, and that
Speaker 1: that he was trying to ingratiate himself with some of
Speaker 1: these Trump campaign officials, that he was pushing some of
Speaker 1: these issues. This is entrapment. This is an intelligence operation.
Speaker 1: That's what was being run to hear against people tied
Speaker 1: to a presidential campaign. There's no way around this anymore.
Speaker 1: And that's why you've seen a remarkable shift, unbelievable really,
Speaker 1: from if you think. I mean, this was a year
Speaker 1: ago when people like you and me were saying that
Speaker 1: it looked like somebody was spying on Trump and there's
Speaker 1: oh no, it's crazy. It was a crazy thing to say.
Speaker 1: It was an irresponsible thing to say a year ago.
Speaker 1: Now here we are and all of a sudden, the
Speaker 1: anti Trump left is like, yeah, sure they were spying.
Speaker 1: Of course there were spying. No big deal. Are we
Speaker 1: supposed to pretend that we don't know that? A year
Speaker 1: ago we were crazy to think that was happening, and
Speaker 1: now we're told we'd be crazy not to think that
Speaker 1: was happening. You see what they're doing here. You see
Speaker 1: how the propaganda is just constantly evade responsibility for their
Speaker 1: delusions there, myth making their dishonesty. Because that's what's happening, right.
Speaker 1: They just keep changing the story as it as it
Speaker 1: moves along, as it fits their political needs, not as
Speaker 1: it pertains to the reality of what has come before it.
Speaker 1: What do they have to say today? That's what they'll
Speaker 1: say whatever works, whatever gets them through another twenty four
Speaker 1: hour news cycle, but uh, this is very serious stuff. Also,
Speaker 1: note that the leaks that came out about this informant
Speaker 1: reported in a whole bunch of different places. Uh, New
Speaker 1: York Times Daily Caller actually been doing and and hat
Speaker 1: tip to them, fantastic work on this one. And they're
Speaker 1: just down the street here for me in d C.
Speaker 1: Daily Caller has been doing some great stuff on this
Speaker 1: getting answers. But we know that the has been going
Speaker 1: on now for a few days. We know that this
Speaker 1: information gets out there, and now you have the sanctimonious
Speaker 1: anti Trump left after using these police state tactics, which
Speaker 1: is what this is. I mean, this is the there's
Speaker 1: a reason, folks, and I try to remind all of
Speaker 1: us at this from Tim and Tom, I try to
Speaker 1: bring it into our conversation. The reason that a lot
Speaker 1: of countries, the most feared apparatus in the country is
Speaker 1: not in fact the military all that's the single greatest
Speaker 1: concentration of force, But the most feared apparatus is the
Speaker 1: intelligence agency or agencies, and sometimes in fact the country
Speaker 1: ends up being run by the person who had previously
Speaker 1: occupied the job. Of top top spy, Vladimir Prutins one example,
Speaker 1: but Saddam Hussein. You go through history, plenty of cases
Speaker 1: of either the person running the country was formerly running
Speaker 1: the intelligence agencies, or really the most powerful person in
Speaker 1: reality in the country was in fact the one running
Speaker 1: the intelligence agency, not the president of the prime minister
Speaker 1: of whomever. Because the ability to spy, to gather information,
Speaker 1: especially when you're talking about by extra legal nice way
Speaker 1: of saying illegal means, gives tremendous power. As we know,
Speaker 1: power corrupts, and that's what you see happening here. They
Speaker 1: are now acting like this was all fine, this was necessary,
Speaker 1: There were plenty of reasons to do this spying on
Speaker 1: the Trump admistry. After telling us we were crazy before,
Speaker 1: now there's plenty of reasons to have this spying on
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. And oh, by the way, they also
Speaker 1: think that they that they can play this game of
Speaker 1: league information about the informant to get ahead of the
Speaker 1: story and then act like, how dare anyone talk about
Speaker 1: this informant? I mean, I'm seeing people with a straight
Speaker 1: face who are prominent government officials. Here's here's your Senator
Speaker 1: Mark Warner is a perfect example play clip seven. When
Speaker 1: individuals want to try to reveal classified information about the
Speaker 1: identity of an FBI or c I a source that
Speaker 1: is against the law. And I find it outrageous that
Speaker 1: the president's allies are in effect playing uh fast and
Speaker 1: loose with confidential information and don't take my work. Take
Speaker 1: the president's own FBI director Mr. Ray, who said, if
Speaker 1: you go out and start exposing classified information about informants,
Speaker 1: that you will make America less safe. I I am,
Speaker 1: I find this totally outrageous. On some of the actions
Speaker 1: of these albums. Who do we think expose this reported source? Uh,
Speaker 1: we know who did near times anti Trump newspapers relying
Speaker 1: on government as they say, believe them, take it or
Speaker 1: leave it, government officials. So I need someone who explain
Speaker 1: to me who's the one who's then endangering the source.
Speaker 1: By the way, based on who we think the source
Speaker 1: is not in danger at all. It's a complete and
Speaker 1: utter lie. This is so flimsy. But you'll notice there's
Speaker 1: a lot of hiding behind there's there's there's a lot
Speaker 1: of um hiding behind the bureaucracy going on here. A
Speaker 1: lot of all the sort of sources and method sources
Speaker 1: and methods. Oh, now we're going to play that game
Speaker 1: right now, We're going to play the All classified information
Speaker 1: is sacrosancing can never, can never be justified to be released,
Speaker 1: even when it's a question about should the president even
Speaker 1: be under investigation? Right now? Don't we think that these
Speaker 1: are competing competing goods? Right? Uh? Should we know the
Speaker 1: truth about this one source so that we know if
Speaker 1: this whole investigation of Trump is a sham put on
Speaker 1: by senior Obama administration officials. That's what this is, folks.
Speaker 1: Obama's guys and a few gals that I can think
Speaker 1: of may have been the ones it almost it seems
Speaker 1: certain they were the ones that created this whole collusion
Speaker 1: Russian narrative out of out of almost nothing. I mean,
Speaker 1: they were stretching this stretching credulity to its limits in
Speaker 1: order to get this thing going. But now it's the
Speaker 1: source to source? Please, okay a lot. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of sources in a lot of places. There are
Speaker 1: no danger whatsoever. And this guy, I mean, especially now
Speaker 1: that where we're finding out of this guy is based
Speaker 1: on media reports? Are we all? So? Am I not
Speaker 1: allowed to talk about the sources? This is this? I
Speaker 1: want to know. Senator Mark Warner. I don't want to
Speaker 1: ask him. So people like me and allowed to say
Speaker 1: that it's been published everywhere. So is that a threat?
Speaker 1: You know, there's a real underhanded litigiousness, you know, a
Speaker 1: desire to try to ensnare people in the law. It's
Speaker 1: kind of like Mueller trying to get people lying on
Speaker 1: about non crimes. Officiousness is at the heart of this mentality, right,
Speaker 1: Oh no, you can't sources of methods, sources methods. The
Speaker 1: sources has been blown all of the media. You all
Speaker 1: know who the sources, the sources being written about newspapers
Speaker 1: all over the country. You do a Google search, you
Speaker 1: see his photos and then everything. So we're just gonna
Speaker 1: sit around and be like, can't talk about you can't
Speaker 1: talk about the source. Why do you think they really
Speaker 1: care about this? Oh, that's right, because of how terrible
Speaker 1: it looks that from what we know, this was an
Speaker 1: individual who was run at the Trump campaign. This would
Speaker 1: be like, think about how easy this is. I'm somebody
Speaker 1: who wants to get at Hillary Clinton. Let's just say politically,
Speaker 1: I want to. I want to I want to mess
Speaker 1: up her campaign. So what do I do? I hire
Speaker 1: some people to go and try and talk to some
Speaker 1: of Hillary's campaign aids about, uh, you know, hey guys,
Speaker 1: you know, do you know, like, do you do you
Speaker 1: have any friends you know where This is not a
Speaker 1: perfect example, but I'm just trying to put this in
Speaker 1: some kind of context. Do you know anybody who might
Speaker 1: be able to, you know, help me get some weed?
Speaker 1: You know? Think about that, right, Think about easy that
Speaker 1: would be. And and by the way, the Hillary's campaign
Speaker 1: aids could well say well, you know, no, no, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't smoke or I don't do that or you
Speaker 1: know whatever. But then I could turn around and I
Speaker 1: could say, hey, guys, um, you know, I could talk
Speaker 1: to d A and say, you know, there's some senior
Speaker 1: Hillary people who are talking about about doing about some
Speaker 1: drug deal stuff going on. I think you guys should
Speaker 1: really look into this. All of a sudden, there's a
Speaker 1: drug investigation Hillary Clinton's campaign aids. Right, That's basically what
Speaker 1: we're talking about here. Against the Trump campaign. You get
Speaker 1: some guy to be like, hey, do you know anything
Speaker 1: about Russia and emails? And you want to talk to
Speaker 1: me about that a little bit? And these guys were like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't really you know, nah, Papadopolis and and Paige
Speaker 1: not exactly not to be me, but not the sharpest
Speaker 1: tools in the ship. And they're like, non, I got nothing.
Speaker 1: Oh there's somebody here talking about Hillary Clinton emails. Guys,
Speaker 1: we need to we need to investigate this. You see,
Speaker 1: they really fabricated this narrata. That's what we're not just
Speaker 1: finding out that they exceeded that that the deep state,
Speaker 1: anti Trump left, exceeded their authority, that they abused their power.
Speaker 1: All of that is all we know that's true. Now
Speaker 1: what we're facing is the possibility, the likelihood I would
Speaker 1: say that they basically fabricated this that they did. They
Speaker 1: did the equivalent of running a confidential informant up to
Speaker 1: somebody to start a conversation and then use that conversation
Speaker 1: as the basis for an investigation. Well, I can tell
Speaker 1: you because I've been involved in counter terrorism cases, you
Speaker 1: can do this with anyone. It's not hard, trust me.
Speaker 1: You know, you run somebody a radical of let's just
Speaker 1: say any ideology to not make this too political right now,
Speaker 1: but you run somebody up to somebody that you know
Speaker 1: has pretty unorthodox views on certain things, you say, hey,
Speaker 1: you get them engaged in conversation, you can get them
Speaker 1: to say things. If you're trained, you know what you're doing,
Speaker 1: that would at least create a pretext for further investigation
Speaker 1: if you really really want to. But isn't this what
Speaker 1: they and I'm not trying to exact, isn't this what
Speaker 1: they did with the Stazi? I mean, it isn't that
Speaker 1: what you would expect? And in an actual police state,
Speaker 1: running informants into people's homes or running you a person
Speaker 1: to person human intelligence operations also something I'm very familiar with.
Speaker 1: And then use that interaction as the basis for remember
Speaker 1: not a criminal investigation, a counterintelligence investigation, which needs an
Speaker 1: even looser pretext. It's all coming together now, isn't it.
Speaker 1: And this is why, by the way, there there's there's
Speaker 1: a desperational left to make this go away, to hide
Speaker 1: the information. But when I come back, I want to
Speaker 1: talk about my other so that the whole informant thing.
Speaker 1: People like Mark Warner, all those guy's in Jeopardy, they're liars.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. It's preposterous. The name is already out there.
Speaker 1: We all know the guy's name. And they need they
Speaker 1: need to stop playing these games. Right left. The Democrats
Speaker 1: need to stop, but they won't. But even in addition
Speaker 1: to that, you have the notion of the independent d
Speaker 1: o J. I've the constitutional illiteracy on display from senior
Speaker 1: Democrats and major media figures right now. He's a complete
Speaker 1: and utter debacle. I will give you details in just
Speaker 1: a moment. But long term Republican call me was a
Speaker 1: long term Republican. They're all long term Republicans who hated Trump.
Speaker 1: So that doesn't help a Trump. You won't have any
Speaker 1: doubt about that at the end of this because may
Speaker 1: he'll find no but maybe maybe he and Comey are
Speaker 1: so close. Their history is so close together that when
Speaker 1: you read Comey's book and you see what he has said,
Speaker 1: you really wonder about the objectivity of the investigation. Look,
Speaker 1: there was never a need for a special counsel. Special
Speaker 1: counsel have targets. They're looking to try to find crimes
Speaker 1: against people that doesn't serve the interests of America. Get
Speaker 1: in there there, love it, there's getting frisky in there.
Speaker 1: It was him versus Dan Abrams. I think he's like
Speaker 1: an NBC News analyst. But yeah, I hate that talking
Speaker 1: about By the way, Oh, these are lifelong Republican and
Speaker 1: comy was actually call me is not a lifelong Republican,
Speaker 1: or at least not a GOT anymore. He changed his
Speaker 1: party affiliation to independent years ago. But it's as though
Speaker 1: they the people who say that, expect us not to
Speaker 1: ever think about. Oh, there are Republicans who hate Trump
Speaker 1: more than any Democrats that I know. There are Republicans
Speaker 1: who are people whose names you would all know, Folks
Speaker 1: who I know for a fact, are angrier Trump than
Speaker 1: a lot of the Democrats I know, because they feel
Speaker 1: like Trump has stolen their party, stolen their prerogative, stolen
Speaker 1: their power, and they take it very personally the whole
Speaker 1: There there are people and never Trump who are crazier
Speaker 1: than almost not all, but almost any Democrats I know
Speaker 1: in terms of their Trump arrangement syndrome. So how does
Speaker 1: this talking point persist? I just want to know how
Speaker 1: does this continue on all the Republicans? So what does
Speaker 1: that mean? There are Republicans who hate Trump more than
Speaker 1: any Democrat. But on the independence of the d o J.
Speaker 1: This is my favorite one. You get all these people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Congress can ask the d o J for information about
Speaker 1: the investigation. Wrong Trump can't even communicate with the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice about any investigation. You can't fire in either wrong.
Speaker 1: This is just basic constitutional Well, this is illiteracy when
Speaker 1: it comes to the Constitution. This is a lack I
Speaker 1: can't even say of understanding. It's not so much that
Speaker 1: they misinterpret the Constitution when it comes to DJ Right now,
Speaker 1: it seems to be a reminder that there are people
Speaker 1: who work in media and in the federal government who
Speaker 1: don't really know or respect much the notion of the
Speaker 1: Constitution and the whole idea of oversight. Think about what
Speaker 1: it would mean if the d o J was beyond
Speaker 1: so they can just prosecute anybody for any reason. Right
Speaker 1: And there's what is the check on the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice if not the Congress? You know what the answer is,
Speaker 1: There isn't one. And we're tiring a counter intelligence investigation.
Speaker 1: I didn't even have a criminal predicate for this stuff.
Speaker 1: They're just saying, oh, you know, we think national security,
Speaker 1: YadA YadA, let's do whatever we want, we'll keep it secret.
Speaker 1: This is not okay. This is police state stuff, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm familiar with the tools and techniques and
Speaker 1: how these things can go. You do not want federal
Speaker 1: prosecutors operating at the highest levels of government who don't
Speaker 1: have to answer to anybody. But but that's what Democrats
Speaker 1: are saying. They want to no, no, all an independent
Speaker 1: do o J. You mean, like how the president can
Speaker 1: fire all the U S. Attorneys at the start of
Speaker 1: his administration independent like that, he's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sex is back. If they ran a spy ring
Speaker 1: or an informant ring and they were paying people within
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, if any of that is true, that
Speaker 1: is an absolute red line. There is not an honest
Speaker 1: person in this country who can believe that taxpayer dollars
Speaker 1: going to to fund this ring and and operate like this,
Speaker 1: like what said in the New York Times. If any
Speaker 1: of that is true, this is a red line in
Speaker 1: this country. You can't do this to political campaigns. This
Speaker 1: was done in in the spring, I mean before the
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigation was even open. If that's true, we need
Speaker 1: to know about it. If they paid someone, it's an
Speaker 1: absolute red line. And this is over with. This is
Speaker 1: over with, He says. Um, we'll have to see if
Speaker 1: Devin Nounez is right on this one, and to give
Speaker 1: his perspective on this and a lot of other stuff
Speaker 1: going on right now with Russia collusion and the Muller
Speaker 1: probe and all the rest of it. Andy McCarthy is
Speaker 1: with us now. He's a National Review columnists also served
Speaker 1: as as an assistant United States Attorney for the Southern
Speaker 1: District of New York. Check out his latest column on
Speaker 1: National View dot Com and politicized Justice, Desperate times call
Speaker 1: for disparate measures. And you're great to have you back,
Speaker 1: Great to be with you. Um let's start. I mean,
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed your column right it over the weekend
Speaker 1: where you just lay out the the enormous differences between
Speaker 1: how the Hillary email investigation was handled by the same
Speaker 1: people in in in many cases in d O J
Speaker 1: versus what's going on with Trump at each at every
Speaker 1: stage of the game. But before we get into that
Speaker 1: side by side comparison, which I think everybody should be
Speaker 1: familiar with and they should read your work on it,
Speaker 1: what do you make of this whole, this whole informant situation.
Speaker 1: And yet Noon is saying, well, if this happened, it's
Speaker 1: a red line. I'm looking around, I'm seeing a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats that are saying well, you know, we maybe
Speaker 1: kind of needed an informant because Trump is so dirty
Speaker 1: or something. Well that's the problem, bucket's the or something.
Speaker 1: You know. Um, I'm not in the same place as
Speaker 1: Chairman Nunez of the Intelligence Committee, although I think he's
Speaker 1: uh a good right, because I can imagine certain scenarios
Speaker 1: as I'm sure you can, where if we had really
Speaker 1: strong evidence to believe that a political campaign was in
Speaker 1: cahoots with adversarial foreign power, that that would cry out
Speaker 1: to be investigated, and I would be you know, it
Speaker 1: would be something that you would hope responsible people would
Speaker 1: would think long and hard and be sure about it
Speaker 1: before they took the what would be a grievous step
Speaker 1: of of using our counter intelligence powers, which are meant
Speaker 1: not to spy on Americans but to protect the country
Speaker 1: from hostile foreign powers, you know, before you would take
Speaker 1: the step and use those powers in this kind of
Speaker 1: a situation. One would hope that, you know, people would
Speaker 1: think long and hard about it. But I could imagine
Speaker 1: if there was such evidence uh doing that. I just
Speaker 1: don't see that kind of evidence here, right, and and
Speaker 1: so what when we look at this though, Andy, I
Speaker 1: have to I have to know that there are some
Speaker 1: people I think I saw an analysis in the Washington
Speaker 1: Post actually saying that if there was, and there's also
Speaker 1: a lot of games being played here with well was
Speaker 1: there an informant or wasn't there? Right, You've got major
Speaker 1: newspapers that are running with what they say or U
Speaker 1: S officials, d J leaks about this this individual that
Speaker 1: allegedly was reporting on Trump, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: specific details about his name that's already out there all
Speaker 1: over the place. Also with the specific people about whom
Speaker 1: he met with your Carter page and Papadopolis and with
Speaker 1: all that, now I'm seeing people say, well it was
Speaker 1: it was to protect Trump, And I'm seeing some desperate
Speaker 1: lines out there from the media on this, which which
Speaker 1: to me raises even more suspicions because there's just no
Speaker 1: way this was to protect Trump. Yeah. Plus, you know,
Speaker 1: when when you're gonna do things like we've seen done
Speaker 1: in this case, and we know that there were, for example,
Speaker 1: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wire taps that were done. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a part of federal law whether you do with
Speaker 1: this on the intelligence side or the or the criminal side,
Speaker 1: that before you take a step like that, you have
Speaker 1: to consider and in the case of wire taps, show
Speaker 1: to a chord that you've that there are alternative investigative
Speaker 1: techniques that you've thought about using or tried to use,
Speaker 1: and they won't work or don't work, and that's why
Speaker 1: you need to do something. You know, this intrusive and
Speaker 1: that should back everybody up because there's usually always a
Speaker 1: way to to use a more benign procedure, particularly if
Speaker 1: you're trying to protect the person, not investigate them. I mean,
Speaker 1: and I'm familiar with mafia cases where the FBI has
Speaker 1: approached people whose names came up and wire taps to say, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't want to blow our investigation here,
Speaker 1: but you better be careful, um, because you know you're
Speaker 1: you're in cahoots with not nice people and they're yeah,
Speaker 1: they're talking about they're talking about your name and sleeping
Speaker 1: with the fishes. I get it. Yeah, right. So I
Speaker 1: don't know why you rate that kind of a kind
Speaker 1: of behavior or that kind of treatment if you're mixed
Speaker 1: up with wise guys, But you don't rate that kind
Speaker 1: of treatment, you know, if you're running for president of
Speaker 1: the United States. So why couldn't they have gone to
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign and said, you know, we're a little
Speaker 1: concerned here that the Russians are making efforts to infiltrate
Speaker 1: your campaign, and we were going to speak to a
Speaker 1: couple of people, but we want to alert you that
Speaker 1: that there's a problem or you know, you've got a
Speaker 1: guy like Carter Paige, who's one of the guys that
Speaker 1: this informant evidently spied on. Paige had a prior history
Speaker 1: of cooperating with the FBI and the Justice Department in
Speaker 1: connection with a Russian investigation where they were trying to, uh,
Speaker 1: evidently recruit him to be an informant. So they had
Speaker 1: they had standing ties with this guy to the point
Speaker 1: where they had used his information in a criminal complaint
Speaker 1: against the Russian spy. So why don't you bring Page
Speaker 1: in and sit him down at the table and say,
Speaker 1: Carter or what's going on here? Um? Instead, it looks
Speaker 1: to me like they jumped to the you know, to
Speaker 1: the sort of you know, Defcon one where they say, uh,
Speaker 1: we need to infiltrate this campaign with spies and we
Speaker 1: need to do national security wire taps. And I've been
Speaker 1: resisting leading to that conclusion, Buck, because I don't want
Speaker 1: to believe that that's what they did. I believe, I
Speaker 1: want to believe that if they did those kinds of tactics,
Speaker 1: that there must have been, you know, really strong evidence
Speaker 1: that Trump or people in Trump's campaign were in some
Speaker 1: kind of a nefarious conspiracy with the Kremlin. But I
Speaker 1: ain't seeing it. We're speaking to Annie McCarthy. He's at
Speaker 1: a National Review. You should read his his it is
Speaker 1: work on this issue, especially where he lines up the
Speaker 1: pieces in politicized justice, desperate times call for disparate measures.
Speaker 1: Read it. I read the more than once. It really do.
Speaker 1: Please check it out. But any I want to ask
Speaker 1: also about I mean, I got a lot of questions
Speaker 1: I want to ask you. I know, we we can't
Speaker 1: trespass too much on your time, but oversight, I'm also
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of Trump is not Trump is not
Speaker 1: allowed to say anything to the d o J. Trump
Speaker 1: is not allowed to fire anyone in the d J.
Speaker 1: Congress is not allowed to get information from within the
Speaker 1: d o J. Who do some of these people running
Speaker 1: around it? And you know I'm talking, You've got fine
Speaker 1: steins and our fine stign You got others out there
Speaker 1: who do they think has oversight over the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: I mean, correct me if I'm wrong. The Department of
Speaker 1: Justice was created by an Act of Congress, and it's
Speaker 1: an executive practice, executive branch agency. That's exactly right, and
Speaker 1: it it answers to the politically accountable political representative. In
Speaker 1: the executive branch, it's the president and of course, and
Speaker 1: in Congress it's the representatives elected by the American people.
Speaker 1: So of course they're supposed to have oversight. And Buck,
Speaker 1: I want to make one other point, which is kind
Speaker 1: of up the alley, um of of your experience in intelligence. Um,
Speaker 1: but is he is getting lost? I think in all
Speaker 1: of this talk about how we need the independence of
Speaker 1: law enforcement YadA YadA, YadA, um intelligence, especially counter intelligence,
Speaker 1: the FBI's um mission to protect the country against foreign threats.
Speaker 1: That's not law enforcement activity. That is a mission that
Speaker 1: the Justice Department and the FBI have which is completely
Speaker 1: to support the president's most important duty to protect the
Speaker 1: United States against and and screams for oversight, Andy, because
Speaker 1: it's so such a potent weapon in the wrong hands. Yes,
Speaker 1: so you know, when the president wants to wants to decide,
Speaker 1: you know, should we take this or that measure against
Speaker 1: some foreign country? That might be a threat to the
Speaker 1: United States or one of our interests. It's a commonplace
Speaker 1: through the president to say I want an investigation of
Speaker 1: this or I want information about that. This is not
Speaker 1: law enforcement, you know, it's it's perfectly well and good
Speaker 1: to say in the four corners of a criminal prosecution,
Speaker 1: we don't want politics intruding because we want the public
Speaker 1: to understand that the rule of law is what governs
Speaker 1: us in that realm, and it's not the whims of politics.
Speaker 1: But when you're talking about the counter intelligence mission of
Speaker 1: the United States, that's holy in service to the president.
Speaker 1: So the thought that he can't interfere with it is like, well,
Speaker 1: why do we have it? Ben? Yeah? I mean, and
Speaker 1: you spend decades at the Southern District of New York
Speaker 1: as an assistant U S Attorney. Was is there any
Speaker 1: way where if you were working on a case that
Speaker 1: was really politic the sensitive and Congress is like, well,
Speaker 1: we we want we want to have Andy come down
Speaker 1: and talk to us about this, where you could say, Nona, guys, sorry,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice is independent of Congression. Congress. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think Buck. Usually the way these things work out, Um,
Speaker 1: Congress is sensitive to the idea that if it asks
Speaker 1: intrusive questions about an active investigation or an active prosecution,
Speaker 1: like a case that's on trial, it could screw up
Speaker 1: the investigation or it can screw up the courtpor sitting,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't want to be politically responsible for that.
Speaker 1: So generally speaking, Congress is responsible about what it asks for.
Speaker 1: And if there's a problem, the Justice Department comes to
Speaker 1: them and says, you know, we'd love to be able
Speaker 1: to help you here, but here's the you know, here's
Speaker 1: the three reasons why it would really hurt our case. Right.
Speaker 1: But but but absolutely any but but could they Stone Wall,
Speaker 1: I mean, rather, could you have you know, in this
Speaker 1: theoretical example, the answer is no. You gotta give Congress
Speaker 1: the information they want. That's exactly right. The Justice Department
Speaker 1: has an entity within the Justice Department that if you
Speaker 1: get if you're a line prosecutor in New York and
Speaker 1: you get a question from a congressman, you're supposed to
Speaker 1: get in touch with main Justice and they get in
Speaker 1: touch with Congress, so that you know, Congress isn't being ignored.
Speaker 1: But those things are getting worked out. What about on
Speaker 1: the presidentials? And then then we'll let you go any
Speaker 1: But on the on the president's side of things, he
Speaker 1: put out this tweet he said he wants he wants
Speaker 1: the d o J to look into interference, and people
Speaker 1: are saying he can't do that. The Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: once again is independent. Well, it is part of the
Speaker 1: executive branch. So how does that work out when when
Speaker 1: push comes to shove, I don't mean when everyone's playing
Speaker 1: nice with each other, Well, there is no independent you know,
Speaker 1: the the Justice Department, the FBI are not a fourth
Speaker 1: branch of the government. There politically accountable there. There they
Speaker 1: answer to the president. He's the politically accountable person. And
Speaker 1: if they commit misconduct, it's the president who's accountable for it.
Speaker 1: So of course they answer to the president. And those
Speaker 1: who say that, you know, they have to be totally independent.
Speaker 1: There's you know, there's a dark history of law enforcement,
Speaker 1: awesome enforcement power being completely divorced from political accountability, and
Speaker 1: it usually is the history of tyranny. It's a pretty
Speaker 1: dark place. So, you know, I think I understand the
Speaker 1: good faith of people who say we have to resist
Speaker 1: political interference with law enforcement. And again, I think what
Speaker 1: that means is that if there's a prosecution. We don't want,
Speaker 1: you know, politics deciding who gets prosecuted, and we don't
Speaker 1: want it intruding into a trial or an investigation. But
Speaker 1: the thought that these people don't answer to the political
Speaker 1: leadership of the executive ranch in our system is just wrong. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm seeing a lot of that wrongness though right now. People.
Speaker 1: H yeah, I think almost you think that they're committing
Speaker 1: politics here. Yeah, you get a sense that has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with with the laws. Everybody Annie McCarthy on
Speaker 1: this stuff has been doing fantastic job. In fact, the
Speaker 1: President himself has mentioned Anthony uh and and and he's
Speaker 1: writing on this in recent weeks. So check out on
Speaker 1: nash review dot com. Andy, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: making the time. We appreciate it. Thanks so much fun.
Speaker 1: All right, team eight four four to eight to five,
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred buck. We have much much
Speaker 1: more show coming for you, including perhaps discussion of some
Speaker 1: foreign policy in the next hour. What the latest is there?
Speaker 1: I was right on China. We'll get to that. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. Politicizing what is a legitimate activity on the
Speaker 1: part and an important one on the part of the FBI.
Speaker 1: They use foremant informants and have strict rules and protocols
Speaker 1: under this. And but the big, the big thing here
Speaker 1: is this is not about spying on on his campaign.
Speaker 1: It's about what the Russians are doing. Were they attempting
Speaker 1: to infiltrate the campaign? And that was the concern. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the former director of National Intelligence. Is he serious?
Speaker 1: They're not spying on the campaign. They're spying on the
Speaker 1: Russians who are trying to infiltrate and therefore ally with
Speaker 1: the campaign. But that means you're spying on the campaign, right,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm not just you know, watching the back alley.
Speaker 1: I'm watching the back alley to see if the you know,
Speaker 1: illegal drug deal goes on. It's like, yeah, of course it.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, this doesn't even make sense anymore. I also,
Speaker 1: I know I asked any about him. I gotta try
Speaker 1: to find it. I think it was one of CNN's
Speaker 1: analysts and whatever they're paying or it's not enough who
Speaker 1: wrote in the Washington Post. I think that if they
Speaker 1: were spying on Trump, it was for his own good.
Speaker 1: That's the new that's the new hotness, the the old
Speaker 1: and busted like no longer cool to say if you're
Speaker 1: an anti Trump leftist. Is there was no spying. Now
Speaker 1: the new hotness is there was spying, but it was
Speaker 1: actually pro Trump spying. Kind of like they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: the FBI investigation shows how favorable they were toward Trump
Speaker 1: because there weren't more leaks about the investigation. Meanwhile, that's
Speaker 1: because they didn't find anything. If they had found stuff,
Speaker 1: they would have ended Trump's campaign. We all get that.
Speaker 1: But there's just this desperation of storylines, narratives, talking points
Speaker 1: out there that never mind, aren't true, don't make sense.
Speaker 1: And the former director of National Intelligence who's a clear
Speaker 1: anti Trump partisan, there's no question about it. Same thing
Speaker 1: with Brennan. Whether these are people, you know, if you say, oh,
Speaker 1: their career, buck their career. Yeah, just like Comey's a
Speaker 1: career prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald's a career prosecutor. Just because you
Speaker 1: worked in the government forever doesn't mean you're impartial. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe that's one of the myths that we have to
Speaker 1: just completely tear apart here. Oh so and so we
Speaker 1: don't work for you know, Clapper is a career, a career,
Speaker 1: whatever career, military, career you name. It doesn't mean you're impartial,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you don't have you can't beat partisan, have
Speaker 1: political biases that affect the way you do your job.
Speaker 1: But I just have to love that. Yeah, they weren't
Speaker 1: spying on Trump. They were spying on the Russians allying
Speaker 1: with Trump. Oh well, well in that case, you know,
Speaker 1: and now we we We didn't set up a video
Speaker 1: camera in your bedroom to watch you. It was to
Speaker 1: watch you and your spouse. Oh well, I guess then
Speaker 1: it's like, no problem, no big deal. Do they do
Speaker 1: they hear themselves when they say these things. I guess
Speaker 1: at this point the storylines are collapsing more and more,
Speaker 1: and now the presidents saying He's gonna get some answers,
Speaker 1: get the truth. He met with Director rat to day
Speaker 1: of the FBI, So maybe we'll finally get those answers.
Speaker 1: Are you an employer, property manager, or financial company that
Speaker 1: needs somebody who you can absolutely trust to do background checks, tenants, screening,
Speaker 1: or vetting and investigative services, then you need Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Global Verification is the only dual certified veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company. They are headquartered here in Chicago.
Speaker 1: A lot of the companies in this space. They send
Speaker 1: stuff overseas, not just your data, which by the way,
Speaker 1: means it's easier for it to get hacked and get
Speaker 1: all out there. But also a lot of the work
Speaker 1: will be offshore. You want veterans, you want people in
Speaker 1: this country working on your case. Global Verification Network is
Speaker 1: the best in the business. Go to my GVN dot com.
Speaker 1: That's my g VN dot com. Or call eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five nine that's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five eleven seventy nine. Leave no stone on turn
Speaker 1: buck Sexton mission, decoding the news and disseminating information with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, great, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again. This is the buck Sexton Show. Analyston, No,
Speaker 1: let's call it like it is. The horrifying and action
Speaker 1: of Congress Slaughter after slaughter has become a green light
Speaker 1: to would be shooters who pervert silence into endorsement. Guns
Speaker 1: are probably not that hard to get despite the laws
Speaker 1: in place. Oliver Northern's head of the n r A,
Speaker 1: they're not a constructive group here. They're just trying to
Speaker 1: protect the Second Amendment and use the gun issue as
Speaker 1: a proxy for government encroaching on individual rights. The only
Speaker 1: difference between us and everybody else is our gun culture.
Speaker 1: But this is just straight out of their traditional n
Speaker 1: r A playbook. And they want to talk about riddling,
Speaker 1: They want to talk about video games, they want to
Speaker 1: talk about culture. They want to talk about anything except
Speaker 1: easy access to guns. Until the political leadership, you know,
Speaker 1: is not the holy opened subsidiary of the gun lobby.
Speaker 1: When kids are telling us they know their next we're
Speaker 1: doing something wrong. This is just the bottom line. Have
Speaker 1: you guys done unspeakable? Have you guys done enos? Not?
Speaker 1: Of course not. But it's like every other issue. The
Speaker 1: American people are united overwhelmingly gun owners, gun gun owners,
Speaker 1: uncommon sense, gun safety legislation, expand background checks. The way
Speaker 1: with a gun show doesn't ever pass. It's a three
Speaker 1: letter word. It's the n r A, and it's Trump
Speaker 1: and the Republicans who don't have the it's to stand
Speaker 1: up to these people. And that's pretty pathetic. The n
Speaker 1: RA as a boogeyman, and the whole gun debate is
Speaker 1: really now just a talking point for stupid people. What
Speaker 1: what is well? How is the n r A to
Speaker 1: blame for some evil little malcontent stealing his father's guns
Speaker 1: illegally right a minor, and possession of firearms illegal, bring
Speaker 1: them onto a school property illegal, Killing a bunch of
Speaker 1: innocent people, shooting a much of other people, all very
Speaker 1: very illegal. Why is this the n race fall? This
Speaker 1: is why I always come back to the only policy
Speaker 1: that could be advocated that is intellectually consistent. Put aside
Speaker 1: for a moment that it's not feasible that it's unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: that I think it's a bad idea in a hundred
Speaker 1: different ways, But the only one that at least is
Speaker 1: work discussing at this point, considering all the gun laws
Speaker 1: that are already in place, would be an all out
Speaker 1: ban on private firearms ownership. Really, and that's it, because
Speaker 1: short of that, how do you stop the guy owns
Speaker 1: a hand gunning a shotgun, his kids stole them. I
Speaker 1: think he also might have don't quote me on this
Speaker 1: when producer might fact check him in this. I think
Speaker 1: he also saw down the barrel again illegal. Uh So,
Speaker 1: everything else they're talking about is just virtue signaling. It's
Speaker 1: just emotion masquerading as policy discussion. Bernie Sanders, by the
Speaker 1: Way Center from Vermont, I think they've recently got a
Speaker 1: little stricterer. But Vermont has some of the loosest gun
Speaker 1: laws in the country and some of the lowest. I
Speaker 1: believe it actually might be the lowest per capita violent
Speaker 1: crime in the country as well. So it's really easy
Speaker 1: to buy a gun in Vermont and there's almost no
Speaker 1: crime that is, you know, violent gun crime in Vermont.
Speaker 1: So I don't understand what's I thought it was about
Speaker 1: the laws, right, Oh, maybe it's not about the laws.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's something else going on. Yeah, thanks Mike, Mike,
Speaker 1: check me saught off. So add that to the list
Speaker 1: of illegal things that this little mass murderer did. So
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? Work on parents better securing
Speaker 1: their farms. Sure, you can pass a law that say
Speaker 1: it's gotta secure farms in New York and you've gotta
Speaker 1: have your gun in a lockbox with a trigger guard
Speaker 1: on it in the lock box and separate lock box
Speaker 1: for ammunition, which is gonna be great when the burgler comes.
Speaker 1: Burgler comes through the door and you can throw not
Speaker 1: one but two lock boxes at him because you're not
Speaker 1: gonna have time to actually get your weapon. But you
Speaker 1: can pass a lall like that. So much dishonest around
Speaker 1: this issue. I'm seeing that this one's not gonna last
Speaker 1: quite as long though. I think they've got other problems
Speaker 1: trying to prop up the whole Russia collusion fantasy narrative
Speaker 1: right there. There are other things that the media is
Speaker 1: got to exert its energy on right now, then just
Speaker 1: bashing the n r A. It is not an overstatement
Speaker 1: to say that that are mainstream media in this country
Speaker 1: is more comfortable using really harsh language, defamatory language about
Speaker 1: the National Rifle Association that they are about hamas or
Speaker 1: members of m S thirteen. That's just a fact at
Speaker 1: this point. You know, you never see someone in the
Speaker 1: media challenge somebody from their side or the Democrat left
Speaker 1: side on being too mean about the n r A
Speaker 1: on maybe don't call them terrorists. You will see people say, oh,
Speaker 1: hold on, I miss their tea, and they're God's children too,
Speaker 1: or you know, Gaya's children. I don't want to exclude
Speaker 1: people who are pantheists or whatever. So yeah, there's that.
Speaker 1: There's that, uh CNN and on others. By the way,
Speaker 1: I've been running around, their whole thing is that they're objective,
Speaker 1: they're honest, their journalists and look, there are some good
Speaker 1: journalists at all these places because it's tough to get
Speaker 1: a job in journalism and you gotta go where the
Speaker 1: money is if you want to actually support yourself and
Speaker 1: make a living. I get that, you know, people like, look,
Speaker 1: why do you go work at CNN for a couple
Speaker 1: of years because they were gonna pay me and I
Speaker 1: wanted to go in there and fight the lines. Then
Speaker 1: I didn't realize that every time I went in the
Speaker 1: lines then I was gonna have about thirty seconds and
Speaker 1: my arms and my legs were gonna be shackled, and
Speaker 1: you know, it was never actually a fight, a fair fight. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so I left. But you take the opportunities where you
Speaker 1: can express your opinions and try to convince and try
Speaker 1: to engage in polemical combat where you can. But seeing
Speaker 1: in these other places, they they've got a lot of
Speaker 1: problems with the truth, as you know, fake news. There
Speaker 1: is a reason why they get so upset about fake news.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why they will now actually canceled guests
Speaker 1: who have ever publicly referred to SENN as fake news.
Speaker 1: Think about that. Wow, really really sensitive, you know, really
Speaker 1: sensitive indeed. Um, But on this issue of guns specifically,
Speaker 1: they just repeat a line now that is so blatant
Speaker 1: and so obviously false that it can't be a mistake.
Speaker 1: It has to be intentional, and it has to do
Speaker 1: with the the the the idea that there have been
Speaker 1: twenty two and this was from CNN's official account, twenty
Speaker 1: two school shootings. Uh this year, two school shootings. You
Speaker 1: might say, Buck, that's that's a lot of school shootings,
Speaker 1: and you'd be right that that is a lot of
Speaker 1: school shootings. And then you also may see the statistic
Speaker 1: where they'll say school shooting since two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: and it's like Mexico eight, South Africa six, Russia one.
Speaker 1: By you believe that Russian number, I don't think so
Speaker 1: Russia in Germany one, Japan, Switzerland, Netherlands, etcetera. Zero, the
Speaker 1: United States two eight, oh my gosh, eight, more than
Speaker 1: a bunch of other countries like Japan. They want to
Speaker 1: show us. Okay, what's the truth of this number they
Speaker 1: keep putting out there. Let's just focus on this year
Speaker 1: before I get into this. Since two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: they refer to these incidents as school shootings. But what
Speaker 1: they mean by a school shooting is someone is shot
Speaker 1: by any kind of firearm, I believe, including a baby
Speaker 1: gun in one incident. I kid you, not uh anywhere
Speaker 1: on a campus of any kind in the United States.
Speaker 1: You might say, well, Buck, that sounds like a you know,
Speaker 1: school shooting. I said, Okay, just understand that they used
Speaker 1: the number of twenty two to make it seem like
Speaker 1: there have been twenty two cases like Parkland, like what
Speaker 1: just happened in Texas, right, whether you had a mass
Speaker 1: casualty event many students killed and wounded. Uh, And and yes,
Speaker 1: one of these incidents is too many. But that being
Speaker 1: the case, why do they have to lie about how
Speaker 1: many incidents there are? And what does that do to
Speaker 1: their credibilities news networks? Because what they are saying, you know,
Speaker 1: count as twenty two shootings include things like a gang
Speaker 1: fight on a university campus, or someone pulls out a
Speaker 1: gun and shoots at somebody else. Okay, it's a school shooting,
Speaker 1: but not not really it occurred on school grounds somewhere.
Speaker 1: They include and this is what really they include completely
Speaker 1: legally owned guns but obviously you can't bring them on
Speaker 1: school property in most cases, but accidental discharge, including one
Speaker 1: incident this year of an accidental discharge in a classroom
Speaker 1: by somebody giving a gun safety instruction. There's a very
Speaker 1: famous video. I'm sure many of you I've seen it
Speaker 1: in my gun safety classes. I've taken many of them
Speaker 1: over the years. Very famous video of a guy I
Speaker 1: think he's in Florida who pulls out a glock. I
Speaker 1: think he was d e A but I you know,
Speaker 1: I can't remember what the what the letters were in
Speaker 1: his chest. I think it was a d age and
Speaker 1: he's giving a lecture in front of a class and
Speaker 1: you know, with with a glock, many of you know
Speaker 1: where this is going. You can remove the magazine. I
Speaker 1: still have one of the chamber, right, so he uh
Speaker 1: if members, I think he cleared his weapon, but then
Speaker 1: rack the slide and then pulled out the magazine and
Speaker 1: there was one of the chamber or he might have
Speaker 1: actually just pulled the magazine out and left one of
Speaker 1: the chamber forgot, but anyway, and then he goes to
Speaker 1: a holster's weapon and finger on the trigger and blows
Speaker 1: off his kneecap basically or part you know, shoots himself
Speaker 1: in the knee. They include kind of incident here as
Speaker 1: a school shooting. Okay, so now if you have a
Speaker 1: professional law enforcement person who shows up at a school
Speaker 1: and happens to have an a D, which, by the way,
Speaker 1: is pretty terrible. I mean in terms of safety issues.
Speaker 1: I mean, you really an a D at a school.
Speaker 1: You're there to teach safety anyway, Yeah, it was it,
Speaker 1: Mike says, it was a D. A guy. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: where I thought. I remember that video very well. I
Speaker 1: think that guy tried to sue, By the way, I
Speaker 1: forget who he. I think he tried to sue the
Speaker 1: school or something didn't work. But they're including accidental discharges.
Speaker 1: They're including people getting hit with BB guns. They're including
Speaker 1: gang fights on Some universities are sprawling huge campuses. So
Speaker 1: if anyone at a at a you know, the university
Speaker 1: of huge, huge state school somewhere, pulls out a gun
Speaker 1: and shoots at somebody, even if it's like a robbery
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night, they call that a
Speaker 1: school shooting. And that's how you get to twenty two.
Speaker 1: If you want to know how many shootings there are
Speaker 1: that you would think of a school shootings this year
Speaker 1: where somebody has gone into a cool to kill students.
Speaker 1: I think the number is either three or four. I
Speaker 1: think it's four for the year for too many. I
Speaker 1: get it, but four is not twenty two. So while I, oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because they're not really journalists on this issue,
Speaker 1: they are activists. They're openly pushing an agenda and for
Speaker 1: a place like CNN. As I said, they put this
Speaker 1: out from their official Twitter account, this line number or
Speaker 1: this very misleading maybe put it that way. Number of
Speaker 1: twenty two just goes to show you that they're not
Speaker 1: willing to just deal with the facts as they are.
Speaker 1: They have they feel the need to stack the deck
Speaker 1: on this one for policy change purposes, or they just
Speaker 1: want or the expression additional ammunition to go after the
Speaker 1: n r A. We want to make the number twenty
Speaker 1: two so we can really hammer the n r A.
Speaker 1: Would also note that they have to be aware of
Speaker 1: the fact that the n r a's donations from its
Speaker 1: membership go up when the media completely trash Is the
Speaker 1: n r A right that it's a fundraising bonanza for
Speaker 1: the n r A When Democrat politicians like Pelosi and
Speaker 1: others are out there talking about how the problem here
Speaker 1: is the n r A. They have to know that too, right,
Speaker 1: But you know, I'd be okay with c N and
Speaker 1: saying we are a we are a d n C
Speaker 1: media operation. Basically, I'd be okay with that in terms
Speaker 1: of at least there's on I mean, I think it's
Speaker 1: bad and pushing bad ideas, but least there's honesty. No,
Speaker 1: they act like we're we're big j journalists. But they'll
Speaker 1: then run the twenty two number. It's a lie. We've
Speaker 1: already been here by the way after park when they
Speaker 1: were lying about the number. Again, they just keep doing
Speaker 1: it and it camp be an accident. But they do
Speaker 1: the whole apple banana thing when they want to tell
Speaker 1: us about how they're objective and just the facts right,
Speaker 1: it's preposterous. Uh, there's not gonna be any gun control
Speaker 1: legislation that comes out of us because no one can
Speaker 1: think of any gun control legislation that would have stopped
Speaker 1: what happened in Texas. That's a pretty straight for discussion.
Speaker 1: And there already is a lot of gun legislation on
Speaker 1: the books. And this kid, this little murderer, violated many
Speaker 1: many laws in another law. I'm not gonna do anything.
Speaker 1: This is actually not that hard when you break it
Speaker 1: down to the reality of what's going on. All right,
Speaker 1: I've got a lot more on this. I know I
Speaker 1: got deeperness than I thought. We'll be right back, team.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. If you're hiring, I know what you're
Speaker 1: going through right now because I've been going through it
Speaker 1: in the last few weeks, and I know there's a
Speaker 1: lot of different ways you can go about this. You
Speaker 1: can hope to go word of mouth, you can post
Speaker 1: something in your local grocery store bulletin board, or you
Speaker 1: could get the best candidates the fastest way. That's what
Speaker 1: I did. I've hired now multiple candidates, specifically from zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com, and that's after going through dozens and
Speaker 1: dozens of excellent resumes. I now have colleagues that I'll
Speaker 1: be working with from the zip cruider pool. Zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com knows what you're looking for and knew what
Speaker 1: I was looking for, and it brought me the right people.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself. I can tell you from
Speaker 1: personal experience it works incredibly well. It is a success.
Speaker 1: Try it out good to zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's zip recruiter dot com slash buck. You're gonna find
Speaker 1: great candidates for those jobs, just like I did. Zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot Com slash buck. This is not an appropriate
Speaker 1: call for an investigation by this president. This is a
Speaker 1: very autocratic, dictator style move on behalf of this president
Speaker 1: who believes that any government agency within his purview can
Speaker 1: be used against political opponents. He should go live in
Speaker 1: a dictatorship, which it clearly is something that I believe
Speaker 1: that he really wants. The way that he has conducted
Speaker 1: himself in public underscores just how inept, clueless, out of
Speaker 1: the loop, and uninformed he is about how the FBI functions.
Speaker 1: Oh man, that's the CNN analyst Rick Cardona. Oh my god,
Speaker 1: you want to talk about uninformed? How does you just know?
Speaker 1: I mean they put her on TV all the time,
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper, Jake Tapper, very respectful of her. It doesn't
Speaker 1: know anything. I mean, just just a could be a
Speaker 1: very nice lady. I'm sure she you know, sure has
Speaker 1: some lovely qualities. A complete and utter ignoramus, but kind
Speaker 1: of sort of sounds sometimes like maybe she knows something
Speaker 1: because of all the words strung together, like, you know,
Speaker 1: go live in a dictatorship? What how who They're gonna
Speaker 1: go on TV with this stuff? It's amazing who you
Speaker 1: don't I always tell you that that the big problem
Speaker 1: with over at CNN is that they refused to accept
Speaker 1: the very obvious reality that they're everybody is left wing.
Speaker 1: As MSNBC, Kelly and Conway took him a task on
Speaker 1: this one, Kelly and well done, Placlibate. You're trying to
Speaker 1: break news here and it's not working. I'm sorry. Did
Speaker 1: you just say something that a lot of people on
Speaker 1: your side of the isle are not willing to say.
Speaker 1: I'm not on the did you vote for Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump? The president? I left that spot blank
Speaker 1: on the ballot that day. But it's not appropriate. Voted
Speaker 1: for No, It's all appropriate to ask me things, but
Speaker 1: not people. It's a it's that appropriate. It's good. Brad
Speaker 1: Stelter doesn't vote. Brian Stoulter doesn't have political opinions. His
Speaker 1: objective down the middle. Sarah's journalists, whoa, whoa, whoa, that's
Speaker 1: out alive. I mean to see kidding. Stelter is a Democrat,
Speaker 1: Tapper is a Democrat, Cooper is a Democrat, Lemon is
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Burnett is a Democrat. I mean, am I
Speaker 1: proved me wrong? Exactly? I mean, is anyone and forget
Speaker 1: about even just being Democrats? Do we think that a
Speaker 1: single one of them, if they were not in there,
Speaker 1: I don't vote mode would have voted for Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, right, this this is a fiction. This all.
Speaker 1: I'm just a journalist. I don't have a pageant. I
Speaker 1: don't think about things. I just present the facts. I
Speaker 1: love that who'd you vote for? Probably whoa whoa whoa Letty.
Speaker 1: That's really personal. It's really personal. Oh my gosh, that
Speaker 1: guy who good times? Good times. That's the question I
Speaker 1: always want to ask them. I mean, you know, they'll
Speaker 1: never they'll never have me on these shows anymore, obviously
Speaker 1: because they know what they're in for. Um questions, Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: But I just want to know, did really think like
Speaker 1: like does does Anerson Cooper? Does anyone ever get a
Speaker 1: chance to ask him? Hey, do you realize you're you're
Speaker 1: opposed to Trump, like you're you're actively working against the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, That your editorial and your story choice, your tone,
Speaker 1: you're all of it is anti Trump? Or do you
Speaker 1: really think that people watching you don't know that? I
Speaker 1: think that, you know, the journalists asked questions all the time.
Speaker 1: Why don't we get to ask journalists these questions? They
Speaker 1: can ask me the question, what do you think? Well, Buck, well,
Speaker 1: what do you think our support Trump? Yeah, doesn't mean
Speaker 1: I think everything knows great. Doesn't mean I support every
Speaker 1: aspect of his policy or everything that he does. But yeah,
Speaker 1: supports Trump. And then I give you my thoughts as
Speaker 1: somebody's sports Trump. Okay, well, why can't they do that?
Speaker 1: We're just churnalists. Excuse me, sir, You're a way out
Speaker 1: of line with this. We're not democrats at the CNN.
Speaker 1: We're just hn just facts, apples and bananas and stuff
Speaker 1: and stuff, that's for sure. Wow, we have a lot.
Speaker 1: I was talking about China. Let's get some policy for
Speaker 1: a moment here. I've got a little silly we'll get
Speaker 1: into that in just a few Well, the framework went
Speaker 1: into a number of potential legislative changes. It's a very
Speaker 1: all encompassing thing. But for the moment, it's kind of
Speaker 1: at the forty thousand foot level. This is not a
Speaker 1: definitive agreement. This is a what we hope will be
Speaker 1: a path forward. If it doesn't work, the tariffs will
Speaker 1: go into effect. So nothing's been lost at all. Trump
Speaker 1: and China. I've been telling you guys. Everyone else is
Speaker 1: running around, running around saying I shouldn't say everyone else.
Speaker 1: A lot of people run around saying, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: the trade wars coming. We're all it's gonna destroy the
Speaker 1: stock market. Say goodbye your four oh one k. Everyone's
Speaker 1: all upset about it. And what a good old bucks say?
Speaker 1: What did what a buck tell you? Other then it's
Speaker 1: all in the reflexes. Uh buck told you that sure enough,
Speaker 1: this would get worked out, or at least it wouldn't
Speaker 1: go in the direction of just a senseless trade war
Speaker 1: without any attempt at negotiation. China has been doing bad
Speaker 1: stuff for a long time when it comes to intellectual
Speaker 1: property theft, when it comes to the terrorists that it
Speaker 1: puts in place, and has managed a fantastic amount of
Speaker 1: growth in a very short period of time for its people.
Speaker 1: But it has been doing so getting a not a
Speaker 1: free ride, but riding a little bit on the coattails
Speaker 1: of other countries, notably US. Right, and we now have
Speaker 1: an administration that sees us for what it is, and
Speaker 1: it's saying, well, hold on a second, maybe maybe we
Speaker 1: should revisit some of these issues. Maybe we should look
Speaker 1: at the trade disparity between our two countries. And you know,
Speaker 1: Trump has been saying all along since the early days
Speaker 1: of the campaign, and is killing us on trade. They're
Speaker 1: they're beating us so badly on trade. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: think that a trade deficit is as zero samas Trump
Speaker 1: makes it sound. Sometimes. I understand that it's not. But overall,
Speaker 1: there are certainly ways to get a better trade deal. Right.
Speaker 1: It's it's kind of like the climate change folks. I
Speaker 1: know this sounds like a digression, but it's not. They
Speaker 1: act like, whatever the temperature is, that's the perfect temperature.
Speaker 1: Well maybe the world, like, you know, half a half
Speaker 1: a degree celsius warmer is a little bit better. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe things actually improve a bit. There's still all the
Speaker 1: bad things. Well, yeah, sure, you might have an increase
Speaker 1: in microbial growth in some inhabited parts of the world.
Speaker 1: You may have greater problem with malaria. You also probably
Speaker 1: have a longer growing season. Right, these are not static issues.
Speaker 1: These are these are goalposts that do move in fact.
Speaker 1: And with China, what's to say that the trade regime
Speaker 1: that we've had in place visa be this country that
Speaker 1: doesn't gage in a bit of predatory state capitalism here
Speaker 1: and there. We know about it, right, We're all very
Speaker 1: aware of it. Who's to say that the deal can't
Speaker 1: be better? In fact, isn't it nonsensical to assume that
Speaker 1: whatever our relationship with China has been, that that is
Speaker 1: in fact the best way for it to be. No.
Speaker 1: Trump has come after this and said, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: let's look at this, let's take a different approach. And
Speaker 1: people are saying, oh, trade war trade When I said no, no,
Speaker 1: you can go back and listen to the shows. You know,
Speaker 1: I said, I think that Trump's onto something here and
Speaker 1: a lot. And this is where I break with some
Speaker 1: of my very some very smart friends of mine who
Speaker 1: are conservatives in the media world, who are so they said, no, no,
Speaker 1: on this one, Trump is just you know, he's out
Speaker 1: of his depth. He doesn't understand the trade deals whatever.
Speaker 1: Oh well, as of right now, we're hearing that there
Speaker 1: could be a very constructive conversation between Trump and China
Speaker 1: on a whole bunch of things, including agricultural, farm and
Speaker 1: agricultural products. Trump tweeted out over the weekend that quote
Speaker 1: China has agreed to by massive amounts of additional farm
Speaker 1: and agricultural products would be one of the best things
Speaker 1: to happen to our farmers in many years. Uh and
Speaker 1: also said on China barriers and tarroiffs to come down
Speaker 1: for the first time. So what if he is opening
Speaker 1: up some of those four markets more to our you know,
Speaker 1: agricultural output. Right, what are some of the benefits we
Speaker 1: could see here? It's at least worth of conversation and
Speaker 1: more to the point, just as we see with the
Speaker 1: way that people criticize him on North Korea, they're not
Speaker 1: they're not willing. The Trump critics are not willing to
Speaker 1: see how his approach to China, never mind plays out,
Speaker 1: how it even begins. Really, the moment that he talks
Speaker 1: about China and trade, you have all these this whole
Speaker 1: echo chamber effect out there of oh, he doesn't know
Speaker 1: what he's doing. It's gonna be terrible, he's gonna destroy things,
Speaker 1: and ah, no, he's not. He's just not. And don't
Speaker 1: you see a recurring theme here? You know, whether you
Speaker 1: think trade with China is particularly interesting or not, although
Speaker 1: I would note it's it's an important up relationship that
Speaker 1: it really does affect our economy. So whatever business you're in,
Speaker 1: or you know, whatever whatever savings account you have at
Speaker 1: the bank, I mean, what's going on with China is
Speaker 1: important at a level that we can't really ignore. Economically speaking,
Speaker 1: we can't totally ignore it. They buy a lot of
Speaker 1: US treasuries, as we know, and we have a whole
Speaker 1: relationship with them where they're they're buying up treasuries and
Speaker 1: buying up treasuries, and we're selling them a lot of
Speaker 1: our debt via that that process. But it's just another
Speaker 1: reminder that you have this conventional wisdom machinery in place
Speaker 1: on immigration, on North Korea, on Iran, on trade with
Speaker 1: China that is not only I think, going to be
Speaker 1: proven wrong in the long term, but is is really
Speaker 1: impatient and immature in the short term. They act like
Speaker 1: they go way beyond It's one thing to say I
Speaker 1: don't like what the end result of what Trump's doing
Speaker 1: on any of those issues is going to be, which
Speaker 1: I would not. Also require some degree of prognostication. You
Speaker 1: have to be able to tell what the future is
Speaker 1: to know because not the future right pretty straightforward. But
Speaker 1: they won't even look at what's happening in the short
Speaker 1: term and be honest about it. They act like it's
Speaker 1: already a failure. They speak about these things, they speak
Speaker 1: about Trump's approach to China on trade as though it's
Speaker 1: already a disaster, not that it could be in the future,
Speaker 1: but oh my gosh, look what he's done. And now
Speaker 1: we see that there's the possibility that not only is
Speaker 1: not a disaster, but could be yet a yet another
Speaker 1: economic boon for America. I saw today that the people
Speaker 1: I'm trying to remember what the exact statistic was, but
Speaker 1: people are more optimistic, more or less about getting a
Speaker 1: good job today than they have been in a very
Speaker 1: long time. And the sense of prosperity that the American
Speaker 1: people have, this is why it just drowns out all
Speaker 1: the hating, all the from the left about Trump. It
Speaker 1: doesn't drown out hate in this country. Spent two minutes
Speaker 1: on social media talking about Trump, and you'll see how
Speaker 1: nasty everybody can be. But it this is what they
Speaker 1: didn't count on. It's one thing to have to struggle
Speaker 1: against Trump's messaging and his counterpunching media is still really
Speaker 1: twisting up and knots about that. It's another thing to
Speaker 1: have no answer, no effective countermeasure to Trump's economic results.
Speaker 1: My friends, The mid terms loom large in all of this.
Speaker 1: If things continue on the trajectory they're on right now.
Speaker 1: Not only is the blue wave a myth, you could
Speaker 1: actually see Republicans gain seats, mark my words, and gain
Speaker 1: them we come back. I want to talk about starbucks
Speaker 1: new newest bathroom policy and how it could result in
Speaker 1: smelliness for all. Stay with me and Starbucks. It's a
Speaker 1: story I've been following closely t him. As you know,
Speaker 1: there were some allegations of racism a while ago, and
Speaker 1: Starbucks responded with, well everything that it could at the time,
Speaker 1: right it said they're gonna They said they're gonna hold
Speaker 1: a a day of diversity training for every single one
Speaker 1: of their tens of thousands of employees across the country.
Speaker 1: They also said that they were very sorry about the
Speaker 1: the in students in question. But there's a new policy
Speaker 1: now too. Who wants to guess, because you remember the
Speaker 1: problem with Starbucks was that they said that some people
Speaker 1: were allowed to use the bathroom without a purchase and
Speaker 1: others were not, and the claim was that this was
Speaker 1: based on race. Well, let me just put this out there.
Speaker 1: Does anybody right now think that Starbucks is gonna just
Speaker 1: let that continue on without taking action? No, of course
Speaker 1: not so. Starbucks decided that they are going to now
Speaker 1: make all Starbucks is open to people without having to eat,
Speaker 1: uh drink or buy any well, without having to buy
Speaker 1: any food or drink. Quote, any person who enters our spaces,
Speaker 1: including patios, cafes, and restrooms, regardless of whether they make
Speaker 1: a purchase, is can sidered a customer. So yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: eight thousand stores, by the way, are gonna be closed
Speaker 1: on May for racial not even diversity training, racial bias
Speaker 1: training now here. Here's what he said. He said, we
Speaker 1: don't want to become a public bathroom, but we're gonna
Speaker 1: make the right decision a percent of the time and
Speaker 1: give people the key because we don't want anyone at
Speaker 1: star Wucks to feel as if we are not giving
Speaker 1: access to that bathroom because you are less than we
Speaker 1: want you to be more than. This is Schultz, the CEO.
Speaker 1: So let me tell you, Yeah, Starucks Chairman, Howard Schultz,
Speaker 1: let me tell you something about this. They're gonna be
Speaker 1: the public bathroom now, folks. This is gonna be one
Speaker 1: of these liberal policies that some C suite group, you know,
Speaker 1: the the chairman and a bunch of his buddies are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we have a solution and they get to feel like
Speaker 1: it's a smart thing. When there are cocktail parties that
Speaker 1: can seem very progressive, very forward thinking on the issue
Speaker 1: of bathroom usage, which, as you know, on are other circumstances,
Speaker 1: can become quite a contentious thing, right, male female bathroom
Speaker 1: issue and all the rest of it. Uh, But here
Speaker 1: what we see is a situation where the Starbucks bathroom
Speaker 1: is going to become the closest thing in existence today.
Speaker 1: Do you just give it some time, the closest thing
Speaker 1: that exists today to a rest stop circuit on the
Speaker 1: inner State. Now, a lot of you listening are you know,
Speaker 1: within let's say, ten to fifteen years of my age,
Speaker 1: and so you know what I'm talking about here. With
Speaker 1: when your parents would take you on long trips, you know,
Speaker 1: and this is before we all had smartphones and even
Speaker 1: game boys and all that stuff. There's nothing to do,
Speaker 1: but you'd have to stop. If it was a really
Speaker 1: long drive, you'd have to stop and go to one
Speaker 1: of these designated rest stops along on the East Coast here,
Speaker 1: which goes all the way from Maine to Florida. It's
Speaker 1: basically the Holy East Coast. You go to one of
Speaker 1: these rest stops, and I remember, I mean some of
Speaker 1: the bathrooms there you go into and they were so gross, right,
Speaker 1: they were so putrid and filthy and unkempt, uh that
Speaker 1: you didn't want to even touch it with your the
Speaker 1: bottoms of your shoes. And then you had to make
Speaker 1: that I mean as and as a like a teenager,
Speaker 1: you know, you're like probably not necessarily the best personal hygiene. Right,
Speaker 1: Let's just be honest, folks, Right, teenagers can be a
Speaker 1: little be a little uh on the sloppy side. I
Speaker 1: know I was as a teenager. I mean I was clean,
Speaker 1: but you know I could have been cleaner. You go
Speaker 1: into that bathroom, though, and you don't want to touch anything,
Speaker 1: and then you gotta think yourself, do you even want
Speaker 1: to touch the door handle? And you do that thing
Speaker 1: where you grab your shirt, you know, and you use
Speaker 1: your shirt as a barrier for your hand on the
Speaker 1: door handle. But then if you're like me and you
Speaker 1: get O c D, You're like, oh gosh, but now
Speaker 1: whatever is on that door handles on the inside of
Speaker 1: my shirt, which is touching my you know, my belly,
Speaker 1: and now I'm gonna get some weird skin rash on
Speaker 1: my belly. So there's really no way around it. But
Speaker 1: the point here is that those rest stops were we're disgusting, uh,
Speaker 1: And there was a real like you know there here,
Speaker 1: like a couple of flies buzzing around. It's just the
Speaker 1: whole thing because no one cared. This is not gonna
Speaker 1: happen at every Starbucks, not gonna happen at Starbucks in
Speaker 1: nice neighborhoods necessarily, but in high traffic and high traffic areas,
Speaker 1: people are gonna know they're just allowed to go in
Speaker 1: and use the Starbucks bathroom. And that means and by
Speaker 1: the way, I think that there's also this is just
Speaker 1: my opinion, so I could be wrong, but how often
Speaker 1: is that really true? That I'm wrong? But when people
Speaker 1: are at least paying as customers, they have a different
Speaker 1: relationship with the establishment. I just think that there's a
Speaker 1: when when you create that connection of capitalism in a place,
Speaker 1: you're just less likely I'm not saying you won't, but
Speaker 1: you're less likely to trash the join and you know,
Speaker 1: you know, when you're in the bathroom, you're less likely
Speaker 1: to spray all over the place like an elephant, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, You're less likely to just not
Speaker 1: I'm talking when you're washing your hands, don't be gross,
Speaker 1: but you know you're You're just more likely to be uh,
Speaker 1: a little more respectful to the place, whereas if you
Speaker 1: just walk in and use a restaurant, I feel like
Speaker 1: you're less likely to be clean about so you know,
Speaker 1: clean about your your habits. But then you also have
Speaker 1: the issue of now people are just gonna use Starbucks
Speaker 1: forget about the bathrooms. Now people are gonna use Starbucks
Speaker 1: as there. I don't know if you know this company
Speaker 1: we work, but you can rent office space why. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a nice company, but why would you rent office
Speaker 1: space If you've got a local Starbucks, you can now
Speaker 1: just show up there and set up all day, no
Speaker 1: expectation that there has to be commerce going on. Thanks
Speaker 1: to the chairman of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, you don't have
Speaker 1: to buy your Mocha frapp soy thing. You can just
Speaker 1: sit there and hang out. You no longer have any
Speaker 1: obligation whatsoever to purchase anything to to engage in commerce.
Speaker 1: You can just be a squatter. Now. I see this
Speaker 1: is where you you get liberals. Very prominent progressive company
Speaker 1: run by liberal lots of liberals at the top ranks
Speaker 1: of this thing. Probably all liberals, I would guess, but
Speaker 1: I don't know that for a fact. And they have
Speaker 1: this idea that and it sounds good to them. They figure, Hey,
Speaker 1: you know, why not give this a shot. Let anybody
Speaker 1: use the bathroom, let anyone stay in our place. They
Speaker 1: don't have to buy anything at all. And it sounds
Speaker 1: really good, right, especially when you feel like you've been
Speaker 1: in a in a in a situation where there could
Speaker 1: be some bias against you or you know people that
Speaker 1: rather people think you've engaged in bias. Pardon me, so
Speaker 1: I switched that around. Um so deals with that problem.
Speaker 1: But now you've got the problem, how do you run
Speaker 1: a business when you're not actually conducting business necessarily? And
Speaker 1: I think that this is gonna fall by the wayside.
Speaker 1: And more to the point, this is gonna mean that
Speaker 1: some Starbucks, particularly the bathrooms, are going to be the
Speaker 1: equivalent of a porta potty at a construction site in
Speaker 1: the southwestern United States in mid July that nobody has
Speaker 1: done anything about for like many months. That's that's what
Speaker 1: it's gonna be like in Sunday Starbucks bathrooms. Very unpleasant,
Speaker 1: very very unpleasant. I'm not thinking back the most unpleasant
Speaker 1: facilities I have ever used, which considering some of the
Speaker 1: places I've been overseas, it's kind of amazing. I'm still
Speaker 1: here to talk to you actually, all right, um, we're
Speaker 1: gonna come back and talk about a really interesting map
Speaker 1: of what states hate what foods the most. We got
Speaker 1: a Hillary Clinton running around. We should pay for Hillary
Speaker 1: to go give speeches and we we should be all
Speaker 1: about Hillary running round promoting the cult of Hillary, which
Speaker 1: is dwindling with each and every day. So we got that,
Speaker 1: and then my review of the movie Black Panther, which
Speaker 1: I promise will not take too long but will be
Speaker 1: worth your worth your time. Uh, that are more coming up.
Speaker 1: I love dogs. You love dogs, but you gotta make
Speaker 1: sure that you keep an eye on what they're up to.
Speaker 1: You gotta take care of those little furry fellows, because
Speaker 1: if you don't, you could have a problem on your hands.
Speaker 1: And digging is one of those issues. My friends. You
Speaker 1: got a yard and it's fenced in, that's great, But
Speaker 1: what happens if your dog, after a long day of
Speaker 1: being cooped up inside, or just because it's got a
Speaker 1: little bolt of energy, tries to go under that fence,
Speaker 1: or what if predators like foxes or raccoons try to
Speaker 1: come under your fence. I've got a solution for you
Speaker 1: that takes care of all these problems. Dig Defense. Dig
Speaker 1: Defense extends the protection of your fence underground. No amount
Speaker 1: of digging is going to get under there. It comes
Speaker 1: in a bunch of different models and its size is
Speaker 1: to fit your needs exactly. You can all with a
Speaker 1: hammer and a pair of gloves. It's available online at
Speaker 1: Loews Menards Wayfair and you can go online to Stop
Speaker 1: the dig dot Com. That's Stop the dig dot Com.
Speaker 1: Check out dig Defense. You're gonna love it. Welcome to
Speaker 1: our three of the Buck Sexton Show. Team Man, it's
Speaker 1: flying by today. I gotta say it's a bright and
Speaker 1: sunny day in the swamps, so that makes things a
Speaker 1: whole lot easier. It was just raining cats and dogs.
Speaker 1: You know. They don't really know where that expression comes from.
Speaker 1: The most widely accepted explanation of raining cats and dogs
Speaker 1: is that in London circa nineteen century, the houses in
Speaker 1: the poorer areas were thatched roof houses, and when they
Speaker 1: would get wet, dogs and cats could walk across the
Speaker 1: tops of the of the roofs because they were so
Speaker 1: close together. But when we get wet, sometimes they would
Speaker 1: walk on part of the thatched right the grass that
Speaker 1: they would use for roofing, and and it would let
Speaker 1: them fall down. This sounds way too cute to be real,
Speaker 1: but they don't have an actual better explanation for it
Speaker 1: than that. So so here we are. Um but but
Speaker 1: back to uh the swamp. I've got some news for you.
Speaker 1: This is not important, by the way, and I keep
Speaker 1: holding off on my big announcement because I have to
Speaker 1: What can I tell you, folks? You know I've I've
Speaker 1: got I've got bosses. Uh buck Buck is a little
Speaker 1: has to be a little corporate. Sometimes it's not because
Speaker 1: I mean to put it off, but we're just waiting
Speaker 1: to get some things aligned on our announcement and it's
Speaker 1: coming soon though coming very soon, I'm told this week,
Speaker 1: but I can't be certain about that. But as an
Speaker 1: acide of that, what did I have no idea how
Speaker 1: they get this information? And this is not an important story,
Speaker 1: but it's a fun story. So I just want to
Speaker 1: switch gears. We're gonna talk about Hillary coming up in
Speaker 1: just a little bit. And then because she's out there still,
Speaker 1: that's right. Um. And also Black Panther, the movie which
Speaker 1: I saw. I will give you my review of it.
Speaker 1: It will not take along, and then we'll get into
Speaker 1: some roll call. But I found this chart and it
Speaker 1: comes from Mental Flaws. It could be complete nonsense. I
Speaker 1: don't know how they could possibly do this, but this
Speaker 1: is a um a shared This is what they say
Speaker 1: on mental flaws. A shared hatred of something has a
Speaker 1: funny way of bringing people together. That's the idea behind Hater,
Speaker 1: a dating app launched earlier this year. The app might
Speaker 1: match users based on their mutual disdain for certain pop stars,
Speaker 1: fashion styles, or something. Many of us have strong opinions
Speaker 1: about food. According to the Hoffey and post, Hater put
Speaker 1: together this map of every states most hated food, using
Speaker 1: data collected from it's more than six hundred thousand users.
Speaker 1: This was really interesting, folks. I gotta tell you, I
Speaker 1: don't have time to go through through absolutely all of them,
Speaker 1: but some of them were I find totally believable. At
Speaker 1: others deserve a high five. First of all, let's get
Speaker 1: right to it. So remember this is state by state
Speaker 1: the highest concentration of food hatred based on a sample
Speaker 1: size of six hundred thousand people across the country. In Texas,
Speaker 1: you guys know what time it is. You guys know
Speaker 1: what's up. Steak cooked well done. And this is the
Speaker 1: one place where I cannot defend President Trump at all.
Speaker 1: I can't deflect, I can't explain it. You can't do
Speaker 1: your steaks well done with ketchup. I'm sorry, we're not barbarians,
Speaker 1: but Texas knows that they refused to go with steaks
Speaker 1: well done. Although, not to be completely left out of
Speaker 1: the conversation, Oklahoma hates veggie burgers, and you know what, Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: I'll put a point for you up on the board
Speaker 1: based on that one. In Florida they say liquor rish,
Speaker 1: which I didn't even know anyone still ate liquorice, So
Speaker 1: that just strikes me as completely and utterly bizarre. Michigan
Speaker 1: hates cold pizza. What's I mean? I don't know why
Speaker 1: that's so bad. Cold pizzas is can be actually quite delicious.
Speaker 1: So Michigan, you get, you get minus points on that one. California,
Speaker 1: I think some of you can guess what food does
Speaker 1: California hate the most? Think political thing? Political Chick fil a.
Speaker 1: I know right. Oh, I'm sorry you hate a company
Speaker 1: that treats its workers really well, has built an amazing
Speaker 1: American franchise and serves people incredibly tasty chicken sandwiches. And
Speaker 1: I actually had Chick fil A in my pre bea
Speaker 1: well before I knew that I was ciliac. So I
Speaker 1: have tasted the glory that is Chick fil A, and
Speaker 1: it is it is quite amazing. In the state of Nevada,
Speaker 1: they hate Lacroix, which is is a fruit flavored but
Speaker 1: sugarless soda drink that I will not lie to you.
Speaker 1: I have cases of uh back home in New York City.
Speaker 1: I think it's quite delicious. So Nevada, I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe you just maybe there's too much Lacroix going on there,
Speaker 1: but I think it's it's quite excellent. We've got some
Speaker 1: other ones here. Oh, New York City hates ranch dressing
Speaker 1: on pizzas. For New York State, I should say, Um,
Speaker 1: first of all, I didn't know that was a thing
Speaker 1: that people really knew about or cared about, but that's
Speaker 1: what they say in New York. I think that's quite strange. Um.
Speaker 1: This is the one that really just upsets me, though,
Speaker 1: and this is uh Massachusetts. Oh no, I'm sorry, this
Speaker 1: is Connecticut, not Massachusetts. I can't see on this chart
Speaker 1: mayonnaise on fries. There's some things about me, team, I
Speaker 1: tell you the truth. There's some things about me that
Speaker 1: make me seem not particularly American, and this is one
Speaker 1: of them. I think mayonnaise is way better with good
Speaker 1: crispy French fries than catch up. I know, I know, Producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: don't don't give me the look. It's there's nothing I
Speaker 1: can do about it. Man, It's just good. Mayo with
Speaker 1: French fries is amazing. Yes, it's very very French. I
Speaker 1: get it. But I I now do actually go to
Speaker 1: the extent of ordering ordering my French fries with a
Speaker 1: side of mayo, so I can't pretend to hate on
Speaker 1: that one. Um. Who oh, Virginia, I'm sorry, West Virginia
Speaker 1: here hates tofu, which is fine, except I feel like
Speaker 1: that's about twenty years behind the food trend because tofu
Speaker 1: is not a particularly new thing. Um, and it's not
Speaker 1: a particularly popular thing these days. But hey, I'm with you,
Speaker 1: as Virginia. Tofu is disgusting and people shouldn't eat it
Speaker 1: unless they like it. In which case, what am I
Speaker 1: even talking about? Uh? Then you have in yeah, Montana,
Speaker 1: and this is very America pumpkin spice anything, that's right.
Speaker 1: The state of Montana just hates pumpkin spice, which I
Speaker 1: can understand. It's pumpkin spice, of all the flavors you
Speaker 1: can think of, has to be among the most fruit
Speaker 1: fruit and bougie, So totally understandable, uh for me. And
Speaker 1: then you have I think this is I can't tell
Speaker 1: if the map is pot No, No, it's pointing at Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. Turkey bacon. Why do they hate turkey bag?
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously it's inferior to bacon, but in a pinch,
Speaker 1: you know, it's like Canadian bacon, also inferior to bacon,
Speaker 1: but better than no bacon, right, and better than tofu bacon.
Speaker 1: For example, Pennsylvania. That's right, all my Pennsylvania listeners, what
Speaker 1: do you think you hate? Not cheese whiz Chai lattes?
Speaker 1: You are chai latte haters, And you know what I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go. I'm gonna go with that's okay. Lats are
Speaker 1: quite delicious until you find out that they have like
Speaker 1: forty grams of sugar in them, and well, assuming that
Speaker 1: you get the sweeten kind some of you probably drink.
Speaker 1: But why do you drink unsweetened chi latte's? That just
Speaker 1: seems un American to be Uh. Then I get to
Speaker 1: New Mexico, which hates chicken nuggets. New Mexico, seriously, get
Speaker 1: it together. What is wrong with you? Chicken nuggets are amazing.
Speaker 1: This isn't even a There's not even a discussion to
Speaker 1: be had here. I don't know what's going on in
Speaker 1: New Mexico. I feel like there's a problem. My single favorite, though,
Speaker 1: and I really did want to get to this, my
Speaker 1: single favorite of all of the options here, gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: um was the state of Louisiana. You get congratulations and
Speaker 1: had a boy in a high five. State of Louisiana
Speaker 1: hates cookies with raisins. Totally true. By the way, Oh oh,
Speaker 1: you show me a cookie with raisins in it and
Speaker 1: you're like, oh, buck, but tasted it's so good. I'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: excuse me, excuse me? Would chocolate chips not be better?
Speaker 1: You know the answers, Yes, you know the answer. Don't
Speaker 1: even pretend Mike and John they're with me on this one.
Speaker 1: The raisins are, Raisins are gross. Kentucky doesn't like hummus.
Speaker 1: I like hummus, although it's it's um kind of sneaky
Speaker 1: with how fatty it is. Oh, of course. Washington State,
Speaker 1: because we're where Starbucks comes from, we're so fancy. Washington
Speaker 1: State doesn't like curig k cups because they just like
Speaker 1: their French press. They're so they're just all about being
Speaker 1: coffee purists. Please please, Washington State. All right, I don't
Speaker 1: need to hear about how you're you're too fancy for
Speaker 1: your cake cups up there, but makes sense you'd be
Speaker 1: you'd be opposed to that one and trying to see
Speaker 1: who else is on here? Uh? Some people hate In Minnesota,
Speaker 1: they hate beans. Is that just because you don't want
Speaker 1: to be offensive Minnesota? A Uh? In Iowa they hate Keenwa.
Speaker 1: What's wrong with Keemwa? I like Keenwa, I disagree with
Speaker 1: I disagree with that one. And in uh, what else
Speaker 1: do we have her? Main? They hate Asian fusion. That's
Speaker 1: just because you don't have any main. Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: I said it, deal with it. Uh, and and I'll
Speaker 1: leave I'll leave it there. But that's your that's your
Speaker 1: smattering of food hatreds across the country. This I thought,
Speaker 1: this is really interesting. Oh New Jersey hates gas station
Speaker 1: wine because it's too fancy. Oh take that, and we
Speaker 1: got Hillary Clinton up next. Stay with me switching gears
Speaker 1: for a second. I want to tell you about our
Speaker 1: sponsor this half hour, nine Line Apparel. It's a veteran
Speaker 1: owned and operated patriotic lifestyle brand. Now what does that mean?
Speaker 1: Go to nine Line up parel dot com and check
Speaker 1: them out for yourself. They are relentlessly patriotic, they are
Speaker 1: veteran inspired. They've got designs all about support of the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, support of freedom, liberty, and love of America.
Speaker 1: The conton is incredibly soft. I've got one of their
Speaker 1: Veteran Lives Matters t shirts. I wear it all the time.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you this is going to be your apparel
Speaker 1: company of choice. Go check them out for yourself. Go
Speaker 1: to nine line apparel dot com. Use the coupon code
Speaker 1: buck twenty that I'll get you twenty percent off. That's
Speaker 1: a great deal, twenty percent off your next order. That's
Speaker 1: nine Line apparel dot com coupon code buck to zero
Speaker 1: for twenty percent off your next order. Check them out team.
Speaker 1: Just in case you missed it, Hillary Clinton over the
Speaker 1: weekend gave a speech at Yale's class day and here
Speaker 1: was the big joke in front of the assembled grads,
Speaker 1: to be a Russian. If you can't beat them, join them.
Speaker 1: If you can't beat them, join them. Yeah, Russian hat
Speaker 1: because Russia collusion. It gets worse, though, because Hillary is
Speaker 1: speaking to these young future leaders of America. If you
Speaker 1: believe all that crap about where you go to college
Speaker 1: and how it matters for the future of you know,
Speaker 1: your success or not. Hillary, though, wanted to play kate
Speaker 1: their political prejudices as much as she possibly could. No
Speaker 1: surprise there, thrilled for all of you, even the three
Speaker 1: of you who live in Michigan and didn't request your
Speaker 1: absentee ballots in time. No, this may seem like a
Speaker 1: relatively minor point, but once again, it's this idea that
Speaker 1: Democrats are obsessed with that they really won somehow, or
Speaker 1: really should have won somehow, that the American people were
Speaker 1: with Hillary, that it was either stolen from her, or
Speaker 1: it was the popular votes fault, or it was Russia's fault,
Speaker 1: or it was James Comby's fault, or maybe it was
Speaker 1: somehow al Gore's fault for not making a strong enough
Speaker 1: case that it was the Supreme Court's fault in two thousand.
Speaker 1: I think you catch my drift. Somehow. There's always an
Speaker 1: excuse for a loss by a Democrat when it comes
Speaker 1: to a presidential election, and Hillary likes people to know
Speaker 1: that she's going to continue on with that tradition. And
Speaker 1: by the way, she also let everybody know that this
Speaker 1: isn't an act. This is still a big deal for
Speaker 1: her personally. I'm not over it. We know, Hillary, Oh,
Speaker 1: we know. Indeed, you are not over it. I'm not
Speaker 1: over it. That's not surprising. I don't think there's anybody
Speaker 1: who would believe for a second that you were over it,
Speaker 1: even if you said I'm over it. I'm totally past it.
Speaker 1: I'm done. I'm just gonna drink shardonnay and chop a qua.
Speaker 1: I still think about the election. I still regret the
Speaker 1: mistakes I made. Does she really, though, do we believe
Speaker 1: that she regrets the mistakes that she made or does
Speaker 1: she have yet? So many close at hand excuses as
Speaker 1: to why she did not in fact win the second
Speaker 1: presidential election for which she was considered inevitable. Seems quite
Speaker 1: strange to me that we are to believe that there
Speaker 1: is a reason other than Hillary's ineptitude as a politician.
Speaker 1: This is somebody with no actual record of accomplishment, just
Speaker 1: really a record of compiling a record. It was all
Speaker 1: built on resume, but the resume was built on the
Speaker 1: resumes of other people, most notably that of her husband.
Speaker 1: She went from first Lady to senator, to secretary of State,
Speaker 1: to or to presidential candidate, to secretary of State to
Speaker 1: presidential candidate. Nowhere in that whole process do you have
Speaker 1: somebody who manages on her own to beat the odds
Speaker 1: in a fair contest or show in any way that
Speaker 1: there is real excellence. Oh eight, you may say, buck,
Speaker 1: what about the Senate race. She was running against Giuliani,
Speaker 1: as you will recall, and Juliani, because of a cancer diagnosis,
Speaker 1: had to back out, so she effectively won that one
Speaker 1: without having much of a fight either. But understand that
Speaker 1: her qualifications were that she had been the first lady,
Speaker 1: and I feel like if Milania, as lovely and kind
Speaker 1: as she is, were to say that she wanted to
Speaker 1: be a senator, a lot of Democrats would have quite
Speaker 1: a problem with that, But just the notion that Hilary
Speaker 1: somehow makes responsibility for all this I find objection able
Speaker 1: because to me, at least, it is so very very
Speaker 1: clear that she takes absolutely no responsibility in this process,
Speaker 1: that she flatly and completely rejects the notion that she's
Speaker 1: not in fact the president of the United States because
Speaker 1: of anything that has to do with her. And just
Speaker 1: when you think, well, buck, what about that speech she gave,
Speaker 1: she says she took responsibility. How was my fault? Uh?
Speaker 1: Then she went on and as you can imagine, she
Speaker 1: starts out by putting on a furry Russian hat to
Speaker 1: make a joke about Trump and if you can't beat them,
Speaker 1: join them, And then speaking to these Yale grads who
Speaker 1: have been indoctrinated in leftism for four years at least,
Speaker 1: she is going to give them a taste of Oh
Speaker 1: this is all about you know where this is going
Speaker 1: defending our democracy. I still think though, that understanding what
Speaker 1: happened in such a weird and wild election in American
Speaker 1: history will help us defend our democracy in the future.
Speaker 1: This has become a mindless talking point. I guess it's
Speaker 1: been a mindless talking point all along. But for all
Speaker 1: the discussion we hear about how we need to know
Speaker 1: what happened with Russia so we can stop it the
Speaker 1: next time around, what have we learned that's new in
Speaker 1: this process? They say, Russia set up social media accounts
Speaker 1: that push certain ideas, so the Russians push propaganda using
Speaker 1: social media. A lot of people push propaganda using social media.
Speaker 1: Unless you're gonna cut the Internet off from or America's
Speaker 1: Internet off from the rest of the world. This is
Speaker 1: not something that anyone has even begun to come up
Speaker 1: with an idea about how to really stop. And for
Speaker 1: all the yelling about Russian fake news, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of us who said around saying, well, there are
Speaker 1: major American news media organizations that engage in fake news.
Speaker 1: But this is just a facade right the whole Oh,
Speaker 1: we have to figure out what went wrong with Russia
Speaker 1: to stop the next time or whatever. This is just
Speaker 1: a way to keep talking about it and make it
Speaker 1: sound virtuous when all this is being sore losers. Hillary
Speaker 1: is a sore loser, the ultimate sore loser. In fact,
Speaker 1: I hate Moses and a lot of Democrats go along
Speaker 1: with her because they'd rather cling to the belief that
Speaker 1: they are not just on the right side of history,
Speaker 1: as Obama says, but on the right side of the law,
Speaker 1: on the right side of constitutional norms, on the right
Speaker 1: side of all of these very important, profound sounding issues,
Speaker 1: when in reality they just can't get on the right
Speaker 1: side of Hey, this is what's going on, folks. Trump
Speaker 1: won the election. Hillary lost. She was a terrible candidate.
Speaker 1: There was actually no good reason for there to be
Speaker 1: a political momentum behind her, and time to move on.
Speaker 1: She won't move on, though, She'll continue giving these speeches
Speaker 1: that I think are increasingly sounding almost like a cry
Speaker 1: for help, because I waited my entire life for this.
Speaker 1: The world's gonna start over, I'm gonna burn it all.
Speaker 1: What happens now, what happens to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: So that's from the movie Black Panther. Now. I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be a hater. Okay, sometimes I get accused
Speaker 1: of that because I do enjoy being the guy who,
Speaker 1: on some issues will be a bit contrarian, Like I
Speaker 1: will tell you, for example, that Bruce Springsteen isn't just overrated,
Speaker 1: he's not good. I will tell you that nobody should
Speaker 1: actually pretend that they enjoy listening to Bob Dylan because
Speaker 1: they don't like I will say these things because they
Speaker 1: are true. Oh, vanilla ice cream is not as good
Speaker 1: as chocolate ice cream. This isn't an opinion, this is
Speaker 1: a fact. And yet here I am once again in
Speaker 1: a position where, despite what I think is the most
Speaker 1: objective opinion ever, I feel like there's some controversy around it.
Speaker 1: So the movie Black Panther, let's get to it. It
Speaker 1: rained for days here in d C. Rained for days.
Speaker 1: I had very little to do, because well, what are
Speaker 1: you gonna do in DC when it's raining, right when
Speaker 1: the swamp is so murky already. But I watched Black
Speaker 1: Panther over the weekend. And now there is a movie
Speaker 1: that I went into feeling like, First of all, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm open to comic book movies. I have no problem
Speaker 1: with comic movies. I tend to like comic book movies.
Speaker 1: So there's nothing about this that automatically should be an issue, right.
Speaker 1: I like that. I think iron Man is a great movie,
Speaker 1: not just a good movie. I think iron Man is
Speaker 1: a great movie. I really enjoyed the movie Blade. I
Speaker 1: like Batman begins, I go to a whole list of
Speaker 1: superhero movies. I want to like superhero movies. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: not somebody goes what you have magic powers that understand?
Speaker 1: Excuse me, sir, but DELI human dig could actually fly,
Speaker 1: so you know I'm not that guy. I'm all right
Speaker 1: with superhero movies. I like superhero movies. I like the escapism,
Speaker 1: so I'm rooting for it to be a good movie
Speaker 1: going into it. And I see that Black Panther has
Speaker 1: nineties seven percent critics approval on Rotten Tomatoes. I also
Speaker 1: see that it had one of the biggest movie openings
Speaker 1: of the end of the year and one of the
Speaker 1: biggest movie openings I believe of all time. And I've
Speaker 1: told you I don't go see movies in the theater
Speaker 1: for the most part because of people, because people ruin them,
Speaker 1: because they talk, because they hold their iPhones up. They
Speaker 1: ruin the experience, and I do not enjoy it when
Speaker 1: people do that. So I watched things on my own time.
Speaker 1: I don't usually go to the movie theater. So I
Speaker 1: finally got a chance to watch Black Panther, and I
Speaker 1: was shocked because it is so bad as a movie
Speaker 1: that I don't understand how any critic never mind anyone
Speaker 1: of the audience thinks it's a good movie. It's one
Speaker 1: thing to say you enjoy it, like there are there
Speaker 1: are terrible movies that I enjoy watching, nonetheless for for
Speaker 1: all kinds of different reasons. But I know that they're bad.
Speaker 1: I don't sit there and try to tell you that
Speaker 1: that blood Sport is a good movie. I love the movie,
Speaker 1: but I know that the acting is is horrific, the
Speaker 1: screenplay is garbage, and the whole thing doesn't really make
Speaker 1: any sense, including the realism of the fight scenes, which
Speaker 1: are preposterous. But but I can very clearly pick up
Speaker 1: that Black Panther is supposed to be not just entertaining
Speaker 1: for some folks, but also a good movie, and it's
Speaker 1: just not. I mean, and how can so many people
Speaker 1: get this wrong? Why are we all supposed to sit
Speaker 1: around and act like this is actually a worthwhile thing
Speaker 1: for anyone, worthwhile thing for anyone to watch. I mean,
Speaker 1: just a few things that come to mind. For example,
Speaker 1: I could do this all day. So so Wakanda from
Speaker 1: the movie Black Panther is the most advanced, technologically advanced
Speaker 1: society on on the face of the earth, Yet they
Speaker 1: choose their leader by having a couple of shirtless guys
Speaker 1: fight to the death in what is basically a kiddie pool.
Speaker 1: It's like water up to their ankles or something. That
Speaker 1: doesn't strike me as what you would expect from a
Speaker 1: society that's so advanced that it could promote peace for
Speaker 1: all the rest of the world just based on its knowledge.
Speaker 1: It also struck me as a little strange. And look,
Speaker 1: I'm a hey with Wakanda, this this place in Africa
Speaker 1: that has this incredible technology at all. I can buy
Speaker 1: into some of the backstory and all that, but the
Speaker 1: best weapon they have is a magic rhinoceros that comes
Speaker 1: out of the ground and runs people over. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you what I saw in the movie.
Speaker 1: There's no plot, The dialogue is laughable, the action sequences
Speaker 1: aren't good. There's way too much c G. I I
Speaker 1: really ask who can think this is a good movie.
Speaker 1: It's not that it's not good. It's bad, but everyone
Speaker 1: pretends they like it. Strikes me it's very very odd.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm excited for Deadpool too. That will
Speaker 1: be a very good movie. When we've got roll Call
Speaker 1: coming up, team, this party is about to get lit.
Speaker 1: Feel those it's time for roll call now. Don't lie.
Speaker 1: You were stamping your foot on that one. You were
Speaker 1: enjoying a little bit of those funky, funky roll call beats.
Speaker 1: You want to be a part of the action, you
Speaker 1: know what to do, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: and we will hopefully get a chance to read your thoughts, critiques,
Speaker 1: uh praises, high coups, sonnets, all the rest of it
Speaker 1: on the air. So thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 1: All right, um, let's go. We have first up here
Speaker 1: Monica who writes iPod subscriber Here, Buck, I guess iTunes subscriber. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've been removed from your automatic subscription three times last month.
Speaker 1: Not sure, but you might want to check it out
Speaker 1: shields high. Um, all right, I will look into that one. Monica,
Speaker 1: don't know what to say. Oh, then we'll have the
Speaker 1: tech team check it out. Next up here we have Matt,
Speaker 1: who writes The thing I love about your show is
Speaker 1: that can be a deep dive into history or theory
Speaker 1: one hour and something lighthearted the next. I want to
Speaker 1: give credit to America now for seeing the potential and
Speaker 1: all the work your team is doing to go big.
Speaker 1: In the past, you occasionally did science segments more. Please
Speaker 1: as you fight the dad bod, maybe bring on Dr
Speaker 1: Jason Fung, who's questioning a lot of diet conventions. I
Speaker 1: work in the Space program, so I'm tempted to say
Speaker 1: shields up, but shield's eye sounds better. Matt down in
Speaker 1: Texas well, Matt, thank you so much. You know, I
Speaker 1: try to come at science from the perspective of somebody
Speaker 1: who has no scientific background whatsoever, but really likes reading
Speaker 1: and learning and thinking through problems. And I have to
Speaker 1: tell you it's it's been one of the more interesting
Speaker 1: part of my journey, particularly on on health and nutrition,
Speaker 1: to just see how often the conventional wisdom has been wrong. Now,
Speaker 1: not always diametrically opposed right, not always the exact polar opposite,
Speaker 1: but not not nearly as correct as they say it is,
Speaker 1: and in some cases almost entirely incorrect. I've talked to
Speaker 1: you about the food pyramid, for example, and how twelve
Speaker 1: servings of grain and rice and bread to day is insane.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's disastrous for anyone. And then also
Speaker 1: the war on fat and its replacement with sugar, meaning
Speaker 1: the war on fat in food. Throughout my childhood really
Speaker 1: remember people always eating these fat free foods and fat
Speaker 1: free cookies. We used to have margarine, which was and
Speaker 1: I knew this as a kid. I'm like, what is
Speaker 1: that grotesque, mutant looking neon yellow that they're putting out
Speaker 1: a bar of in the middle of the table. I
Speaker 1: just want butter. But they gave us margarine in my school,
Speaker 1: which is absolutely disgusting. So yeah, I'll try to bring
Speaker 1: more of the science segments in where I'm approaching it
Speaker 1: as a lay person, and we'll have some experts on
Speaker 1: when we can. But people who say things like the
Speaker 1: science is settled are a lot of times just complete ignoramuses.
Speaker 1: They have no idea what they're talking about. Science until
Speaker 1: really about the last hundred years or so new very
Speaker 1: very little, which is a pretty remarkable thing when you
Speaker 1: when you consider it, human beings have been around for
Speaker 1: a really long time, and we're just starting to figure
Speaker 1: stuff out, and we were just mapping human genomes and
Speaker 1: and we're just beginning to get some insight into the
Speaker 1: full depth and scope of what goes on at the
Speaker 1: cellular level in the world around us. Anyway, A lot
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff, a lot of stuff there, thank you,
Speaker 1: So much Matt and Shields high Uh Mark, next up here,
Speaker 1: he writes, Buck or Buck Staff. No, it's me, Mark,
Speaker 1: I'm here. I'm on the air live from talking to you.
Speaker 1: I was wondering if you were going to comment on
Speaker 1: the passing of one of the eminent Middle Eastern scholars,
Speaker 1: Bernard Lewis. I read his Crisis of Islam while in
Speaker 1: college and found it equally informative and insightful. The book
Speaker 1: was such a good example of responsible and simple scholarship.
Speaker 1: He was a rare man in this modern age and
Speaker 1: will be missed. Perhaps his passing could be a good
Speaker 1: opportunity to chat around the state of Middle Eastern studies
Speaker 1: on campus and the competing theories and approaches of Orientalism.
Speaker 1: I know that as an unpc word by some, but
Speaker 1: that's a but that's nonsense, and I'm a bit old school.
Speaker 1: I hope you have a great day. Keep up the
Speaker 1: great work. God bless Shields high Mark, who also writes
Speaker 1: ps more history. Um, well, Mark, I'm I'm working on it.
Speaker 1: I promise you, I've I'm working on it. I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not gonna lie to you, guys. I'm overwhelmed
Speaker 1: these days I've got so many things I'm trying to do,
Speaker 1: and the good news is a priority one is always
Speaker 1: this show. But I'm launching another video project that any
Speaker 1: day now i'll be able to give you guys all
Speaker 1: the details of. Uh, we're launching another podcast here which
Speaker 1: is gonna be a kind of Buck unplugged segment. We're
Speaker 1: gonna call it The Freedom Hunt with Buck Sexton, So
Speaker 1: you're getting a preview of that. That should hopefully be
Speaker 1: out weekly starting in uh about two weeks, and I'm
Speaker 1: hoping all of you will download that. We're we haven't
Speaker 1: even created don't look for it yet. We haven't even
Speaker 1: created the iTunes iTunes landing page, but that will be
Speaker 1: coming out as well. Just be an opportunity for me
Speaker 1: to kind of fly off the cuff, not be bound
Speaker 1: by news of the day and do some I don't know,
Speaker 1: the kind of biggest thoughts of the week stuff, you
Speaker 1: know what's just in general, it'll be like we're all
Speaker 1: sitting around hanging out talking. That's that's my You know,
Speaker 1: when when Seinfeld pitches their show to show about nothing
Speaker 1: where they just do but but it's really a show
Speaker 1: about everything. The Freedom Halt with Buck Saxton is just
Speaker 1: gonna be a shorthand version of here's what I think
Speaker 1: is really going on. And if you say about what
Speaker 1: the answer is, well, what do you want? What do
Speaker 1: you want to talk about? Because it could be anything. Uh.
Speaker 1: And oh, as to Bernard Lewis, Yes, he passed away.
Speaker 1: I saw that Secretary of State Pompeo made note of
Speaker 1: it in a tweet. Um, Bernard Lewis was was probably
Speaker 1: the greatest contemporary American scholar of the Middle East, so
Speaker 1: that I think that there's no more fitting epitaph for
Speaker 1: him than that. And I was just talking about him
Speaker 1: last week because we had a member of Team Buck
Speaker 1: Israel who pointed out and I conceded rightfully that Bernard
Speaker 1: Lewis is a far better example of somebody to read
Speaker 1: on the issue of the Middle East then say Segev
Speaker 1: or Freedman or some of the other well known leftists
Speaker 1: on this stuff. Uh. Next up, I'm trying to load
Speaker 1: this up. Um. This is from Sean he writes book.
Speaker 1: It would really meet a lot if you took the
Speaker 1: same stance that a number of other news media outlets,
Speaker 1: including The Daily Wire, have taken and pledged to not
Speaker 1: disclose the name or post any photos of shooters and
Speaker 1: mass shootings, especially school shootings. The fame just encourages others
Speaker 1: to follow in their footsteps. If the media as a
Speaker 1: whole would pledge to never show their faces or disclose
Speaker 1: their names, I believe it would help cut down on
Speaker 1: the glory they feel they receive when committing these heinous acts. Sean,
Speaker 1: I I agree with the thinking on that. I think
Speaker 1: in practice it's very very difficult to do because what
Speaker 1: ends up happening, and that's really a function of the Internet.
Speaker 1: What ends up happening is people want to see the photo,
Speaker 1: and they want to see the name, and so even
Speaker 1: if it's really only published in one place, it gets
Speaker 1: spread everywhere because of the nature of human interest in
Speaker 1: these events. And I just don't really think it's possible
Speaker 1: to suppress. Now that said, I do think that the
Speaker 1: way we cover it can be responsible or irresponsible. I
Speaker 1: an example of this would be when Rolling Stone put
Speaker 1: uh Jahar Sarneyev, the one of the two Boston Marathon bombers,
Speaker 1: on their cover, looking like some kind of young rock star.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's kind of the that's really the height
Speaker 1: of disgraceful and irresponsible coverage of a murdering terrorists psychopath.
Speaker 1: So it's clearly possible to go well beyond any journalistic
Speaker 1: standards or integrity. So that's my focus with these things.
Speaker 1: It's just to try to cover it in a way
Speaker 1: where we're being accurate. It's on it's about the facts.
Speaker 1: It's analysis that is in no way doing anything other
Speaker 1: than discussing the event and the ideology behind it from
Speaker 1: the perspective of wanting to combat, combat, defeat and destroy it.
Speaker 1: So but Sean, I'll think about it. Um, I'll give
Speaker 1: it some thought for sure, and I'm not saying it's wrong.
Speaker 1: I just I don't know if it's really feasible. I
Speaker 1: don't know if it is really possible. Next up here
Speaker 1: we have William who writes the following that uh here
Speaker 1: he writes, after watching Cobra Kai and Donald Trump becoming president,
Speaker 1: a lot of folks just don't give a crap anymore.
Speaker 1: PC what. It's a dangerous game the left is playing
Speaker 1: now and it's and when you apologize for racism, you
Speaker 1: lose listeners. I'm married with children to a non white
Speaker 1: Samoan and have dated lots of minorities. You're playing into
Speaker 1: the left when you call folks racist shields high Uh Okay,
Speaker 1: William I don't know who I called racist. I mean
Speaker 1: there are racists. There are people who are racists. So
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure who are specifically referring to. But
Speaker 1: I appreciate the the note. Thanks for reaching out. We
Speaker 1: have hold on one second here, some folks, eric right buck.
Speaker 1: We had some protests in Savannah. People were laying down
Speaker 1: in front of busses. It got a little harry. We
Speaker 1: had to escort the busses out of Savannah. Uh oh.
Speaker 1: I think the tactical unit was our canine unit. Interesting,
Speaker 1: I gotta check this story out. There was a it
Speaker 1: was a deportation buss people lying down in front of it.
Speaker 1: That's illegal, folks, that's not uh, that's not engaging in
Speaker 1: peaceful protests. That's actually breaking the law when you block
Speaker 1: streets and block cars for moving. I think this is
Speaker 1: one of the more annoying tactics the left uses. And
Speaker 1: it's so called protest culture or it's protest culture, it's
Speaker 1: not so called. We've got a lot more great stuff
Speaker 1: in the role call. The good news is we got
Speaker 1: it every day this week to get into all the
Speaker 1: latest I just want to say thank you to all
Speaker 1: of you for joining me here. I have so much
Speaker 1: more news and exciting stuff tell you about in the
Speaker 1: days ahead. Uh. Please do tell a friend or two
Speaker 1: about the show when you get a chance this week.
Speaker 1: Share it with them. Uh, send them an email with Hey.
Speaker 1: Check out this guy Buck Sexton on iTunes. It's how
Speaker 1: folks learn about the show. Until tomorrow, my friends, you
Speaker 1: know what we all have to do. Shields high,