Speaker 1: Strikeforce Energy, veteran owned, American made, and one of the
Speaker 1: hottest new energy products on the market. Strikeforce Energy was
Speaker 1: developed by veterans for one simple reason. The fight will
Speaker 1: always follow you, and it waits for no one buck
Speaker 1: sexit here force Strikeforce, and I invite you this summer
Speaker 1: to join us in giving back to America's troops. Over
Speaker 1: the last three years, Strikeforce Energy has shipped millions of
Speaker 1: packets to our troops, both at home and abroad. And
Speaker 1: now we're bringing this battlefield proven liquid directly to your door.
Speaker 1: Strifeforce Energy Liquid packs, available in four flavors, have zero sugar,
Speaker 1: zero calories, and are made with only the finest ingredients.
Speaker 1: For the fuel to power through your toughest fight, simply
Speaker 1: add Strikeforce to sixteen to twenty ounces of water, tea, lemonade, yogurt,
Speaker 1: even a nice cold beer. Go to Strikeforce Energy dot com,
Speaker 1: enter discount code buck at checkout, and for every packet
Speaker 1: you buy, we will donate a packet to military members
Speaker 1: around the globe. Strikeforce Energy dot Com discount code buck.
Speaker 1: Because Strikeforce Energy is the fuel for the fight you
Speaker 1: are entering. The Freedom Hudge another day of media meltdown
Speaker 1: over the possibility that some of their favorite talking heads
Speaker 1: who are part of the anti Trump resistance may have
Speaker 1: their clearances revoked. Why should this be a national crisis?
Speaker 1: I'll address that also. We know that the deep state
Speaker 1: will continue on no matter what. But what should we
Speaker 1: take from the investigation as it goes on and the
Speaker 1: reality and the possibility that there could be a whole
Speaker 1: lot more Folks, We've got a fantastic show coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again, the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins giving Remember the White House wanted
Speaker 1: to target for this punishment of stripping security clearances, and
Speaker 1: this very much looks like an enemy's list people that
Speaker 1: the presidents of the administration feel have been criticizing him unfairly.
Speaker 1: This is really disturbing. What we're seeing is not surprising
Speaker 1: because it's the next troubling step on this downward spiral
Speaker 1: toward weaponizing and politicizing intelligence for political purposes. It's a
Speaker 1: very dangerous day for American democracy. This is the move
Speaker 1: of an autocrat, not an American president. Stripping them of
Speaker 1: their security clearance. That is not what you've seen in
Speaker 1: a democracy. That is exactly what you see in authoritarian
Speaker 1: regimes and an autocratic kind of move. It's the kind
Speaker 1: of thing you'd seen of an Anna republic. I mean,
Speaker 1: I find it horrifying. Obviously, welcome to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: No surprises, they're my friends. You have people who are
Speaker 1: completely and utterly devoted to this idea that President Trump
Speaker 1: is an authoritarian, is a fascist. Even they've decided that
Speaker 1: the President of the United States is not able to
Speaker 1: exercise Article to power without them saying that there's something
Speaker 1: terrible going on. I have yet to read a legal
Speaker 1: analysis out there where they say the president does not
Speaker 1: have the right to take away somebody's security clearance. He is,
Speaker 1: in fact the superuser, the end user in a sense,
Speaker 1: when it comes to classification, the president is dare I say,
Speaker 1: the alpha and the omega. He's the beginning. In the end,
Speaker 1: he gets the final. Say. The courts have deferred for
Speaker 1: a long time to the executive branch on issues of clearances.
Speaker 1: So this is not a civil rights issue, This is
Speaker 1: not a criminal procedure issue. This is just does the
Speaker 1: government want to give you a clearance or not. Does
Speaker 1: the executive branch, which has control over secrecy and all
Speaker 1: related classification protocols, do they want to give you a
Speaker 1: clearance or not? And I know people are saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it's that's a bad precedent. I understand that there is
Speaker 1: a precedent here that other presidents could use for nefarious purposes.
Speaker 1: But let's put this into context, shall we. How concerned
Speaker 1: should we really be that former intel chiefs wouldn't have
Speaker 1: their clearances anymore. Also, let's keep this, let's keep it real.
Speaker 1: The next president, if it were a Democrat or even
Speaker 1: a Republican that felt differently, could reinstate those clearances or
Speaker 1: could reinstate the And this is where you get into
Speaker 1: and I don't want to bore you with too much
Speaker 1: of this, but there's a whole there's eligibility versus access. Right.
Speaker 1: Access is hey, here here's classified information. You are allowed
Speaker 1: to see it. Here it is you are a government
Speaker 1: employee that has a need to know here's your classified information. Right.
Speaker 1: Eligibility is more you know you could get it. You
Speaker 1: know you are cleared to work in a place where
Speaker 1: you can do that. You know you could show up
Speaker 1: a government building if they had a need for you
Speaker 1: and have access to classified information. Now that that comes
Speaker 1: into play more for people that leave government service, someone
Speaker 1: like me. For example, if I left the CIA and
Speaker 1: I immediately want to go to another agency, you know
Speaker 1: what happens with my clearance. But what Trump is talking
Speaker 1: about and what has now gone the media, you heard
Speaker 1: all that, Oh he's an autocrat, He's terrible, he's the worst,
Speaker 1: all these all these bad things. What Trump is talking
Speaker 1: about are these former senior I mean as seniors a guest, right,
Speaker 1: the DNI, former DNI Clapper, former CIA director Brennan, former
Speaker 1: actor Attorney General Yates. I think Susan Rice was on
Speaker 1: there too. You know, He's got a whole list of
Speaker 1: people that just because of some courtesy or some notion
Speaker 1: that they are special, they keep not just the eligibility
Speaker 1: of a clearance, but also continued access. They can be
Speaker 1: called and they call them courtesy briefing. So if you
Speaker 1: were the pharmacy I directed, they will bring you in
Speaker 1: for meetings and you can see everything and anything that
Speaker 1: you well that they deemed to show you, right, that
Speaker 1: they deem worthy to show you, are necessary to show you.
Speaker 1: Why is that the case people say, oh Buck, all
Speaker 1: the institutional knowledge. We need. The institutional knowledge. This is
Speaker 1: what I have a fun advantage today, folks. I do
Speaker 1: not know of another radio host anywhere in the country
Speaker 1: who was once a holder of a top seaker clearance.
Speaker 1: There probably are a couple, I just I can't think
Speaker 1: of them, but I am not aware of one who
Speaker 1: ever had a top sea clearance. I did, so I
Speaker 1: have some sense of what goes on here, not just
Speaker 1: from reading about it, but from having to deal with it,
Speaker 1: from knowing it. So that is an advantage that will
Speaker 1: hopefully give me a little special something during today's discussion
Speaker 1: of this, because they've made this the biggest this is
Speaker 1: now the centerpiece of hashtag resistance this week. Last week
Speaker 1: it was Trump has destroyed NATO and Helsinki and he's
Speaker 1: Putin's puppet and all this stuff. Nonsense, But that's what
Speaker 1: they were saying. This week, it's he's a tyrant and
Speaker 1: he's creating a police state because he's taking the security.
Speaker 1: He hasn't even done it, he just brought up the
Speaker 1: possibility of doing it. I think he's got I don't
Speaker 1: even think he's going to be Honestly, I think I'll
Speaker 1: probably walk away from this because who really cares. Well,
Speaker 1: hold that thought for a moment, Who really cares? When
Speaker 1: you have the kind of relationship that former intelligence chiefs
Speaker 1: have with news organizations today, given that those news organizations
Speaker 1: are in full tilt doing everything in their power to
Speaker 1: tear down and destroy this presidency, I think it's fair
Speaker 1: to ask some questions. How sure are we that these
Speaker 1: people that have no more actual need of a clearance
Speaker 1: to do a job because they don't have jobs with
Speaker 1: the government. How sure are we that they are not
Speaker 1: abusing or exceeding they're mandated in some way? How certain
Speaker 1: can we be? Senator round Paul, Clearly, it's not sold
Speaker 1: that this is something we can skip over that we
Speaker 1: can assume is not a profit at all. Play clip
Speaker 1: three place. I think there's a great danger to having
Speaker 1: people on television who are speaking off the cuff, who
Speaker 1: are getting classified information. There's a great danger that they
Speaker 1: could reveal something that they shouldn't reveal. And so yes,
Speaker 1: I think this should apply really to most people who retired.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm gonna say this right now. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's really I think that's much
Speaker 1: less the concern that one should have than that they're
Speaker 1: intentionally giving information to the media to think this president.
Speaker 1: You know, it's one thing if you're a former Intel
Speaker 1: officer and not forget intel officer, former Intel chief, and
Speaker 1: you're going on TV, you know that you're gonna be
Speaker 1: held to account ats some level for your words. Right
Speaker 1: if you start talking about, you know, all of our
Speaker 1: super secret plans to colonize Jupiter, you might get yourself
Speaker 1: into some trol because you know that's not a good idea.
Speaker 1: But if you pass information along and it is referenced
Speaker 1: only as a national security source, you know, with the
Speaker 1: close access or who was involved in the matter or whatever,
Speaker 1: and you were the source for news that damages the administration,
Speaker 1: you're probably gonna get away with that. And I have
Speaker 1: never seen in my lifetime what's going on right now
Speaker 1: where you have the people that were just in charge
Speaker 1: of the CIA, just in charge of the Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence Office, who are not just speaking out or
Speaker 1: writing the occasional editorial, they are in house talent essentially
Speaker 1: for CNN, for NBC. This is the new normal. And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you when I first did this, a meaning
Speaker 1: that I made the switch in the media One it
Speaker 1: was an accident, and two it was much less commonplace
Speaker 1: at the time. There were some other people who were
Speaker 1: former CIA. There were some of the people former INTEL
Speaker 1: and I always knew that I had to draw right
Speaker 1: red line between my former work and what I could
Speaker 1: talk about on air, and that I would be held
Speaker 1: to account. And I had no expectation that I could
Speaker 1: ever leverage what I only knew because of my time
Speaker 1: at the CIA for a news story or anything else. Look,
Speaker 1: I was on air. Here's a perfect example. I was
Speaker 1: on air the night of the Benghazi attack on TV
Speaker 1: on cable TV that night without getting the details. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that I could have said that
Speaker 1: night that I did not because I was I had
Speaker 1: in my obligations in the very front of my mind
Speaker 1: the whole time, and that's still the way that I
Speaker 1: approached this. But I will say that when you see
Speaker 1: some of these other folks out there, and I mean
Speaker 1: I've mentioned Brennan did this in particular, they go, well,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll ask him, do you think the president
Speaker 1: that the Russians might have something the president? He'll say, well,
Speaker 1: I know, I was the former CI director, and yes,
Speaker 1: I do think it is certainly possible, imply or giving
Speaker 1: the impression that maybe he does know something because of
Speaker 1: his time at the agency that would obviously be highly
Speaker 1: classified and he won't say what it is. But it
Speaker 1: uses it as a kind of, you know, a secret,
Speaker 1: a secret rhetorical weapon against Trump that is unprecedented. I've
Speaker 1: never seen this before. I never thought I would see it,
Speaker 1: and it's all over the place now. In fact, you're
Speaker 1: really you know, you've got all these intel chiefs. You
Speaker 1: get the sense that they're just biding their time before
Speaker 1: they can write books, go to the Aspen Institute and
Speaker 1: appear on CNN a lot that's there. That's now their
Speaker 1: life's work. That's what they want to do with themselves.
Speaker 1: There's an even more important later here though. On the
Speaker 1: one on the one hand, I just find that unseemly,
Speaker 1: and people say, oh, Buck, but you know whatever, Look,
Speaker 1: and it's it's different when you're when you go in,
Speaker 1: you work there for a few years, you come out
Speaker 1: or whatever, ten years, fifteen years, whatever it may be,
Speaker 1: you come out, and overtime also your your knowledge of
Speaker 1: any classified fades, so the risks of you even having
Speaker 1: any also over in your mind evaporate with a matter
Speaker 1: of years almost nothing. That's why to go right away
Speaker 1: from being CIA director out into the public sphere that's
Speaker 1: really aggressive. To go right away from being FBI director
Speaker 1: to being a hyperpartisan political actor is damaging. Is damaging.
Speaker 1: Dare I say to our institutions and to our sense
Speaker 1: that we can trust these organizations? And then there's the
Speaker 1: specifics of this moment in time, this case that we
Speaker 1: are dealing with here. Not only do we have these
Speaker 1: individuals who still hold their clearances and have access if
Speaker 1: they wanted or if they're called upon for their insights
Speaker 1: or whatever, as if we really need, like James Comey
Speaker 1: to wax philosophical for us. But these are not just
Speaker 1: individuals who have become very partisan. They are out there
Speaker 1: shaping public opinion on a scandal that a number of
Speaker 1: them have their fingerprints all over from their time in government.
Speaker 1: So you have Clapper and Brannan and Komey and others
Speaker 1: who are appearing on TV leveraging the gravitas that they
Speaker 1: have because their most recent title and also the perception
Speaker 1: that they must know everything that's going on and everything
Speaker 1: that's so, you know, when you have the most recent
Speaker 1: CYI director accusing the sitting president of treason. That's really
Speaker 1: damaging because the public's mind set on this issue is
Speaker 1: going to be, well, he's a ci he must know
Speaker 1: something we don't know. That's the whole game they're playing.
Speaker 1: That's what they're up to, and Trump knows it and
Speaker 1: he's sick of it. They were not only making this
Speaker 1: case publicly, but they were involved in the construction of
Speaker 1: this narrative from inside of government. They're coming at it
Speaker 1: from both sides. They are all in on tearing down
Speaker 1: this president. So people are really going to tell me
Speaker 1: that the current commander in chief has no prerogative to
Speaker 1: say I'm gonna put an end to this, or at
Speaker 1: least I'm gonna send a message. I'm gonna send a
Speaker 1: message by doing what I am constitutionally empowered to do.
Speaker 1: Trump's not saying they can't spa This is what people say, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's silence saying no, no no, no. He's not saying they
Speaker 1: can't criticize him. He's just saying they don't get to
Speaker 1: criticize him and maintain their access that they only have
Speaker 1: because they were political appointees of the previous administration. In
Speaker 1: some cases and in others, you say, well, Buck, their life,
Speaker 1: their lifetime civil servants. Well, actually they were leftist the
Speaker 1: whole time. We've just now seen them for who they
Speaker 1: really are and all that stuff about you know, mission
Speaker 1: first and honor and duty and somehow in the era
Speaker 1: of Trump, none of that matters. It stopped Trump at
Speaker 1: all costs to give us Hillary. Hello, are these people
Speaker 1: really serious? You know, I have to deal with sanctatomy
Speaker 1: and all the sanctimony from the rest of them, Clapper
Speaker 1: and brennanal because Hillary would have been our great ethical choice,
Speaker 1: the champion of this country and the national security stage
Speaker 1: that we also desperately need. These people are unserious, but
Speaker 1: they're also dangerous. And I'm glad that the President is
Speaker 1: willing to ruffle some feathers and then some And I'm
Speaker 1: glad that he is making an issue of this, because
Speaker 1: you know, it is disingenuous to say that the media
Speaker 1: having but these guys are. Clapper is terrible on TV.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's gurgling with Gurgan is more articulate. Clapper
Speaker 1: is terrible. Why is he on TV while he's the
Speaker 1: director of National Intelligence? He saw everything his decade is
Speaker 1: a government service. Someone When he says that the president
Speaker 1: is basically destroying the country and a trader, he must
Speaker 1: know something we don't know. That's why these guys are
Speaker 1: also valuable to these networks. That's where they've gotten I'm
Speaker 1: sure big contracts as contributors. And it's wrong. It's wrong.
Speaker 1: Remember Bush, for all the bad stuff about the Bush
Speaker 1: administration and the stuff that I would have changed, he didn't,
Speaker 1: you know, he didn't take cheap shots at the Obama
Speaker 1: administration because he thought that there was just that was
Speaker 1: just dishonorable. Forget about Obama taking cheap shot of the administrator.
Speaker 1: You got the whole former government national security apparatus taking
Speaker 1: cheap shots the Trump administration. It's appalling. It's appalling. Eight
Speaker 1: four four nine two eight two five eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred buck. We have a fantastic show, so much
Speaker 1: more coming your way. Stay with me this next time
Speaker 1: had explode, which, by the way, I hope Democrats do
Speaker 1: run a democratic socialistation. We don't know, because I think
Speaker 1: you'll lose spectacularly, and then I will look forward to
Speaker 1: election night when I finally get to sell everybody I
Speaker 1: told just so, if you end up running a radical
Speaker 1: problem with socialism in the words of Margaret Thatcher. At
Speaker 1: a certain point, you run out of spending other people's money.
Speaker 1: Venezuela one of the richest countries in the world in
Speaker 1: the seventies. Now the average Venezuela has lost twenty four
Speaker 1: pounds because they're starving. To name one country that socialism
Speaker 1: has ever worked. And also, every every democratic socialist was
Speaker 1: going on TV saying that it's good needs to start
Speaker 1: paying ninety percent in tax I think you should start
Speaker 1: paying the amount of taxes that every socialist in this
Speaker 1: country thinks you need to. Because if you think the
Speaker 1: government is so good at spending money, look at the vehicle.
Speaker 1: Is dangerous. I'm just dangerous. I like it, Megan, Megan
Speaker 1: McCain over there, fired up, all of you dropping dropping
Speaker 1: bombs on socialism. I like it. I gotta say, job Megan. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is also a moment where we're having a lot
Speaker 1: of talk about radicals on the left, because you know,
Speaker 1: you've got Alexandria Occagio Cortez, the new darling of the
Speaker 1: progressive wing of the Democrat Party, and my old Blaze
Speaker 1: colleague Ali Beth's Stucky has made a video of and look,
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a satire. Right, she clearly cut
Speaker 1: up an interview and pretends to interview her. It's just like,
Speaker 1: it's what the Daily Show did four years and Ali
Speaker 1: put this video up. It's a CRTV video on Facebook.
Speaker 1: It's gotten over a million views, and you've got left
Speaker 1: wing politicians and journalists freaking out about the satire video there.
Speaker 1: They are either humorists or they're idiots. They're saying that
Speaker 1: it should be taken down or that it's unfair. You know,
Speaker 1: here you go, Shane Goldmocker, this faked interview of Ocazio
Speaker 1: by CRTV as nearly woman interview didn't happen. It takes
Speaker 1: clips from Margaret Hoover show and edits in faux questions,
Speaker 1: not labeled as satire. Well, it's obviously satire, dude, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not. They're not in the same room. And then
Speaker 1: and then Okazio Cortez weighs into Republicans are so scared
Speaker 1: of me that they're faking videos and presenting them as
Speaker 1: real on Facebook because they can't deal with reality anymore.
Speaker 1: Here's one bona fide truth. Election day is November six.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, miss Okasi acquatas, we can deal with reality.
Speaker 1: People that are still clinging to the notion that socialism
Speaker 1: is going to be a better pathway for this country
Speaker 1: than the capitalism that has created unprecedented and almost unbelievable
Speaker 1: wealth and prosperity. Those are the people that I think
Speaker 1: have a reality problem. I want more of this, though.
Speaker 1: I want more humorless left wing democrats coming forward to
Speaker 1: advocate for why we should have socialism. By the way,
Speaker 1: remember I've told you they'll they point to Norway, they
Speaker 1: point to Sweden, they point to these countries. All right,
Speaker 1: the middle class pays massive taxes in those countries. The
Speaker 1: middle class is carrying the burden of the welfare state
Speaker 1: that they have in those countries. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they're not sustainable. He's holding the line for America. But
Speaker 1: Sexton is back. All right. We got some calls coming
Speaker 1: in on the lines, doctor Rick in Maryland with another
Speaker 1: diagnosis of America. Doctor Rick. How you doing. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: it's a pretty grim pog This is for the short term,
Speaker 1: at least to a mainstream media. I'm doing good. Hey, um,
Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you a question. You know. I
Speaker 1: keep waiting for the tipping point on this thing where
Speaker 1: the evidence mounts and mounts that there that defies of
Speaker 1: warrant was completely unwarranted, and that this is just a
Speaker 1: witch hunt. But it's not happening yet, and they're even
Speaker 1: double tripling down. Um. And I was wondering your thoughts of,
Speaker 1: you know, when when is it going to flip, because
Speaker 1: when it does, I think people are going to be
Speaker 1: really upset at the mainstream media and how you know
Speaker 1: they weren't getting the proper information. Now I would I
Speaker 1: would say this, there there are uh, doctor Rick, there
Speaker 1: are multiple answers to your question. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: a choose your own adventure here, right, So let's assume
Speaker 1: let's assume that the Democrats take the House, in which
Speaker 1: I know terrible, but let's assume that that happens. Then
Speaker 1: I think we never get any answers because they will
Speaker 1: prevent any serious investigation the House from going on, and
Speaker 1: we will switch into impeachment mode very quickly, and they'll
Speaker 1: be all kinds of just grandstanding and nonsense, just lots
Speaker 1: of nonsense, because they're not going to remove Trump from
Speaker 1: office because they're not gonna take the Senate. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna have two thirds in the Senate. Even if they
Speaker 1: did take the Senate, but there'll be a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of political grandstanding and just wasted time on
Speaker 1: how you know Trump should be impeached? Why should it
Speaker 1: be impeached? They're not even just because you know, not
Speaker 1: because of Russia collusion. They can't prove that that's not why.
Speaker 1: They'll have some other make believe reason why so. But
Speaker 1: let's assume that that doesn't happen. At what point do
Speaker 1: we have a real turning point with the media where
Speaker 1: they no longer will be able to claim that there's
Speaker 1: any possibility of this whole Russia collusion farce being on
Speaker 1: the up and up. That's a good question. I think
Speaker 1: they're going to be dead enders on this one because
Speaker 1: they there's no way they can admit they were wrong
Speaker 1: on this without permanently and forever damaging whatever credibility they
Speaker 1: have left with people who aren't just complete progressive bots,
Speaker 1: you know, who don't just buy it at all, hook
Speaker 1: line and sinker. So I think it's h M. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to think of what it would take for them
Speaker 1: to finally agree because the Muller probe is I've already
Speaker 1: I've said this all along. When Mueller doesn't have any
Speaker 1: Russia collusion charges, doctor Rick. You know what they're gonna say, Well,
Speaker 1: he just didn't find them because of all of Trump's obstruction.
Speaker 1: He just didn't find them because of all the you know,
Speaker 1: payoffs from Putin to whomever. I mean, they'll make something up. Well,
Speaker 1: my hope is in science is there's this theory that
Speaker 1: science doesn't change in a nice, meet upward way. It's
Speaker 1: by revolution Coon's theory of revolutions in science, and I'm
Speaker 1: hoping the same thing here that that and maybe we're
Speaker 1: seeing it in this hashtag walk away movement, which I
Speaker 1: think is a reality. I think that the reasoned people
Speaker 1: are looking at this insanity and just leaving. I think
Speaker 1: that's why ratings like CNN is in the basement. So
Speaker 1: maybe they maybe they'll become irrelevant and the populace will
Speaker 1: move past the mouthpieces of my hope. Well, doctor Rick,
Speaker 1: I'm hoping with you. Thank you so much for calling in.
Speaker 1: Good to talk to you as as always. So let's
Speaker 1: talk the Justice Department for a second. Jeff Sessions, who
Speaker 1: is my favorite cabinet official because occasionally he just pops in.
Speaker 1: He's just like I want to hang out in the
Speaker 1: freedom hood and he shows up and I'm like, Jeff, buddy,
Speaker 1: what's going on with my friends? Good to talk to you.
Speaker 1: And he's like, he's like, Buck, your radio shows the
Speaker 1: bitch radio show in the country. I'm like, I know
Speaker 1: it is, Jeff or mister Attorney General, I know it is,
Speaker 1: but thank you so much for for your kind words
Speaker 1: in this imaginary conversation we're having. But Jeff actually showed
Speaker 1: up today to speak to a Turning Point USA rally
Speaker 1: or a conference or whatever whatever the specific designation is
Speaker 1: here in DC, and there was a moment that, oh,
Speaker 1: this got the attention to some of the liberal journals
Speaker 1: out there. Play it lock all right, well, lock her up,
Speaker 1: they say, lock her up talking about Hillary Clinton, And
Speaker 1: I know a lot of you were chanting along with them,
Speaker 1: and that's cool, that's fine, But Jeff didn't really chant
Speaker 1: with them, all right. The Attorney General just kind of
Speaker 1: like kind of chuckled at you know, anyone listening to
Speaker 1: that clip. If you watch it, it's even more clear
Speaker 1: he's just kind of like, oh gosh, they're saying, you know,
Speaker 1: he's a whole lock her up. I see what you
Speaker 1: guys are saying. You know, it took him a second
Speaker 1: and process what the chant was, and that's all he said.
Speaker 1: But they reported this as Oh my gosh, he joined
Speaker 1: laugh as he joined chance of lock her up. That's
Speaker 1: what's being reported all over the place. Oh, the chief
Speaker 1: law enforcement officer joined as he was laughing. Over Look,
Speaker 1: I mean it's you know, it's a little funny. No
Speaker 1: one's locking Hillary up. You'll notice that Jeff Sessions could
Speaker 1: restart the whole probe into Hillary's emails. I mean, they
Speaker 1: could go back to that if they really wanted to,
Speaker 1: They could reopen it. Just because there was a decision
Speaker 1: made previously not to press charges, that does not mean
Speaker 1: another administration can't can't come along and say, you know what,
Speaker 1: we're actually gonna Obama thought about doing that with so
Speaker 1: called torture or enhanced interrogation with intelligence officers. Obama thought
Speaker 1: about that. Remember, Bush was of course not going to
Speaker 1: do it, but then Obama was putting it out there.
Speaker 1: He decided not to. But the argument at the time
Speaker 1: wasn't Obama can't. It's that he shouldn't. So I would
Speaker 1: just note that Hillary Clinton is a no jeopardy of
Speaker 1: even being an investigated again by the DJ for all
Speaker 1: the things that happen for all the stuff that went
Speaker 1: on there, and then I think about this one. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't we don't often get as clear a picture
Speaker 1: of how the left is deluded when it comes to
Speaker 1: the way they report on things in this But this
Speaker 1: was from CNN Politics just as I was on air.
Speaker 1: Here they're writing a story on how the Justice Department
Speaker 1: instructs US attorney's offices not to use the term undocumented
Speaker 1: immigrants and instead refer to somebody illegally in the US
Speaker 1: as an illegal alien. Okay, how is this controversial? How
Speaker 1: many times do I have to explain this to the left?
Speaker 1: Illegal alien is the actual term under federal law. And
Speaker 1: we're talking about the Justice Department here, which is supposed
Speaker 1: to care about federal law. It's not supposed to care
Speaker 1: about what the latest social justice warriors have to say
Speaker 1: about this, or what the no no, no, no, no no.
Speaker 1: It's supposed to be what is the law and how
Speaker 1: do we enforce it? And you know, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I think there's a willful ignorance here from the media
Speaker 1: on this one, because this is so easy, This isn't
Speaker 1: even really a discussion to be had. What they want
Speaker 1: the Justice Department to start referring to them as undocumented
Speaker 1: immigrants just because they said, just because the media has
Speaker 1: decided to do that. They really think that that's how
Speaker 1: this works. Unfortunately, I think the answer is, yes, they
Speaker 1: do believe it, that is how this works. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think this is a much This is a much
Speaker 1: more important story. This is a much bigger story about
Speaker 1: what's going on, which is that there are a lot
Speaker 1: of people out there who are journalists. Here in the
Speaker 1: swamp of me. I'm in the swamp, and let me
Speaker 1: tell you, it is swampy. It is. The closer you
Speaker 1: are to all this stuff. New York feels very unswampy
Speaker 1: by comparing Harrison, because you don't have all the you know,
Speaker 1: the I walk down the street, I walk past the
Speaker 1: Washington Post offices. I see journalists all the time. I
Speaker 1: was on a train today. I saw a guy from Axios.
Speaker 1: I see people from Politico. I walk down the street.
Speaker 1: You know, everywhere you go, you get journalists everywhere. It's
Speaker 1: like journalists and politicians run this city. And they do.
Speaker 1: But the fact that they are reporting on this is
Speaker 1: it's even a story. Here's a headline for you, folks.
Speaker 1: Justice Department thinks the law is the words written on
Speaker 1: the page that are the law. WHOA, that's crazy some
Speaker 1: of these folks. I guess it is. It is crazy
Speaker 1: to them. By the way, we're gonna talk about the
Speaker 1: status of the global gehags. I think that's kind of
Speaker 1: slipped from most people's consciousness of these days. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that coming up in just a little bit. We
Speaker 1: also have Sean Davis joining from the Federalist. Hey will
Speaker 1: be dropping truth bombs like it's going out of style,
Speaker 1: so that'll be coming up here too. The Federalist dot
Speaker 1: com is so much great stuff that they're writing these days.
Speaker 1: And then the third Hour, if you stick around, which
Speaker 1: you obviously should, we'll talk about all kinds of fun stuff,
Speaker 1: including paying for college by a revenue share program of
Speaker 1: your salary. Oh yeah, that. I'm more coming up to
Speaker 1: perpetuate unfair trade practices. I think there are better tools
Speaker 1: to use to get them to play fairly. So I
Speaker 1: just don't think the tariff route is the smart way
Speaker 1: to go. I understand the president's plan. I understand what
Speaker 1: he's trying to do, and and the goal he's trying
Speaker 1: to achieve is a good one. A better deal for Americans,
Speaker 1: better trade agreements. I just don't think tariffs are the
Speaker 1: way to go, and our members are making that pretty clear.
Speaker 1: Chinese are convinced that they can cause enough pain to
Speaker 1: the American farmer that the Trump administration will blink. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration sent an important signal today was Secretary produced
Speaker 1: announcements that we're not going to back down. And frankly,
Speaker 1: if you look at the total behavior of the Chinese
Speaker 1: since nineteen ninety one, it is an absurdity to allow
Speaker 1: it to continue. But when you start to change it,
Speaker 1: they're going to fight it. I don't look, they've had
Speaker 1: a great deal. They have ripped us off every single year.
Speaker 1: They've stolen our intellectual properties, they've rigged the game, and
Speaker 1: of course they don't want it to change. But I
Speaker 1: think President Trump is right and we had better figure
Speaker 1: out how to engage in this kind of a fight
Speaker 1: and win it. Making tremendous progress. They're all coming. They
Speaker 1: don't want to have those tariffs put on them. They're
Speaker 1: all coming to see us, and the farmers will be
Speaker 1: the biggest beneficiary. Watch we're opening up markets. You watch
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. Just be a little patient, they're
Speaker 1: all aiming at anybody that likes me, and they have
Speaker 1: lobbyists like nobody's ever seen, fighting to win. That's what
Speaker 1: Trump is doing here on tariffs. Folks. This is important.
Speaker 1: It's important to all of us that you see how
Speaker 1: this is playing out and you get the honest, the
Speaker 1: honest scoop if you will, on what's really going on
Speaker 1: when it comes to this teriff fight. Okay, here's just
Speaker 1: a quick update from Trump today. The Trump Administrations Court
Speaker 1: of the New York Times here announced up to twelve
Speaker 1: billion dollars an emergency relief for farmers hurt by the
Speaker 1: president's trade war, moving to insulate food producers from looming
Speaker 1: financial losses that could be a direct result of Trump's policies.
Speaker 1: The aid to farmers, announced by the United States Department
Speaker 1: of Agriculture will come through a direct assistance program, one
Speaker 1: designed to help with food purchase and distribution, and one
Speaker 1: specifically geared toward promoting trade. So you got the president saying,
Speaker 1: all right, look, if you're gonna, if they're gonna allow
Speaker 1: this to go forward, right, if these countries won't pull
Speaker 1: down their trade bears China is can't we see what's
Speaker 1: happened here. China is specifically targeting parts of the country
Speaker 1: with its retaliatory measures on our retaliatory measures, because that's
Speaker 1: what our tariffs are. Our tariffs are in retaliation. This
Speaker 1: is not a fight that we really started, and that's
Speaker 1: an improper framing of it. In the discussion, we are
Speaker 1: saying to other countries, if you're going to have this tariff,
Speaker 1: we're going to have that tariff. If you're going to
Speaker 1: do this, we will respond. And then you know, it
Speaker 1: goes back and forth. People say, well, Box, that's a
Speaker 1: trade war. Well yeah, but right now, it's just a
Speaker 1: one way trade war. Right now, it's just China does
Speaker 1: whatever they want and we say, okay, China, that's fine,
Speaker 1: No big problem there now. Trump tweeted out today that
Speaker 1: tariffs are the greatest. Either a country which has treated
Speaker 1: the United States unfairly untrade negotiates a fair deal, or
Speaker 1: it gets hit with tariffs. It's as simple as that.
Speaker 1: And everybody's talking. Remember we are the pig piggy bank
Speaker 1: that's being robbed. All will be great. The presents ready
Speaker 1: to fight this one. And he knows it's a risk, folks.
Speaker 1: Any negotiation comes with the possibility of failure. Though it's
Speaker 1: not a negotiation. Any negotiation could go badly. This is
Speaker 1: negotiation is a performance in and of itself, and the
Speaker 1: fact that the President isn't backing off this and it
Speaker 1: is trying to take measures to make sure that our
Speaker 1: farmers aren't just bearing the whole brunt of this because
Speaker 1: the Chinese are doing and hoping that we're going to
Speaker 1: fold quickly. They're hoping that the response from the administration
Speaker 1: is going to be, Okay, we got the midterms coming up.
Speaker 1: They're going after states where you know, there's some real
Speaker 1: toss ups and some close races. So why don't we
Speaker 1: just forget about this whole thing and let the Chinese
Speaker 1: continue to do what they're doing. The response of that
Speaker 1: is what you're getting from this team, from Trump and
Speaker 1: his people, is no, that's not going to happen. And
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but you know, Larry could Low and Trump
Speaker 1: and the people that are pushing this the hardest on
Speaker 1: the world stage, they know that if this doesn't work out,
Speaker 1: They know that if the economy tanks and we end
Speaker 1: up getting the worst end of this whole situation and
Speaker 1: dealing with these trees on trade, they're gonna be judged
Speaker 1: for it, and there will be consequences at the ballot box.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that there would be consequences. You know. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying Trump is gonna win this. It could go wrong.
Speaker 1: By'm like, what's with Paul Ryan? Well? Why is he
Speaker 1: always out there? You know me? You know, you just
Speaker 1: don't have this with Democrats. You never had Nancy Pelosi. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I attackted you and the radio show. You never had
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi during Obama's first two years in office, going
Speaker 1: out and just publicly and completely undercutting him on a
Speaker 1: policy issue. You just didn't have it. I mean, maybe
Speaker 1: I'm forgetting something, but you just it wasn't there. Democrats
Speaker 1: have discipline, maybe because they're obsessed with power and exercising
Speaker 1: state power and so at least they can all agree
Speaker 1: on that. But Democrats have discipline on these issues. In
Speaker 1: the Republicans, we've always got to watch what's happening on
Speaker 1: our own side. We've always got to watch our flank
Speaker 1: for the next Republican turn code to go. Oh, I
Speaker 1: don't want to. I don't know if I want to
Speaker 1: go along with that one. Paul Rynas where he's not
Speaker 1: he's not helping our team, that's for sure, doesn't It
Speaker 1: doesn't make our lives any easier with this stuff. But
Speaker 1: you know, I suppose this is this is what we
Speaker 1: should just expect. Now that you're going to have Republicans
Speaker 1: who are running for cover. Don't want to be associated
Speaker 1: with this. We want to stick the consensus. I just
Speaker 1: come back to this. The consensus is apparently other countries
Speaker 1: can have whatever tariffs they want on US products, and
Speaker 1: we will not put those tariffs on their products come
Speaker 1: into this country. And that's the way that it's going
Speaker 1: to be. That's the consensus. And China can get away
Speaker 1: with all of its manipulative practices and all of its
Speaker 1: predatory mercantilist actions around the globe, and we're just gonna say,
Speaker 1: you know what, let's not rock the boat. Well, Trump
Speaker 1: is saying, let's rock the boat. And if that has
Speaker 1: some effect on the EU in Canada and Mexico as well,
Speaker 1: we'll deal with it. We'll deal with it. But you know,
Speaker 1: the markets, folks, you know the money money talks, and
Speaker 1: the markets are not really spooked by this. The markets
Speaker 1: seem to understand what's going on here. Maybe they've priced
Speaker 1: in the risk at some level. But they're not nearly
Speaker 1: as concerned about this as much of the media wants
Speaker 1: to pretend that they are. So, you know, we'll see
Speaker 1: how this, we will see how this plays out. There's
Speaker 1: just like with North Korea, just like with so many
Speaker 1: different things that, so many different initiatives that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has under way. We are being told to judge
Speaker 1: these things before we actually have the results of it.
Speaker 1: We're being told to judge it before we know if
Speaker 1: in fact it was a success. And that's just a
Speaker 1: reflection of the fact that people in the media hate
Speaker 1: this president. I mean, they just hate him. They just
Speaker 1: hate him. That's why he doesn't get the credit really
Speaker 1: from the me. You when North Korea starts dismantling an
Speaker 1: ICBM facility, it's right, intercontinental ballistic missile that was reported today.
Speaker 1: They don't really focus on that. Last week it was
Speaker 1: North Korea is already a failure, The deal is already
Speaker 1: a failure. This week it's okay, well maybe it's not
Speaker 1: a failure, but let's not talk about it. Look, this
Speaker 1: is why nobody trusts him. But you know, the good
Speaker 1: thing is Trump's a fighter on this one. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about how he fights against the mainstream media when we
Speaker 1: come back. The FBI calls home title theft one of
Speaker 1: the fastest growing crimes. Brace yourself because having your credit
Speaker 1: card stolen is nothing compared to the hell you're in
Speaker 1: for once an identity thief takes control of your home title.
Speaker 1: Look the folks at home title Lock make sure that
Speaker 1: this isn't a concern that you're gonna have to have. Right.
Speaker 1: But I've seen if you don't have home title Lock,
Speaker 1: how easy it is to transfer your home's title to
Speaker 1: a thief. They can forge your signature, they can get
Speaker 1: all the information online, and it is such a straightforward process.
Speaker 1: I've seen a demo where they've done it. Folks, if
Speaker 1: you don't think it can happen to you, I'm telling
Speaker 1: you eighties shocking. The steps that they have to go
Speaker 1: through are not difficult at all. Protect yourself for just
Speaker 1: pennies a day. Home title Lock protects my most valuable asset,
Speaker 1: my family's home. Register now for a free analysis and
Speaker 1: discover if your home's title has been compromised. That's a
Speaker 1: sixty dollar value. Free Visit home titlelock dot com. Again,
Speaker 1: that's home titlelock dot com. Buck Sexton Permission Decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton show.
Speaker 1: The CIA analysts. No, but it's all what you want.
Speaker 1: And just remember what you're seeing and what you're reading
Speaker 1: is not what's happening. And I'll tell you, I have
Speaker 1: so many people that are so infavable because we have
Speaker 1: to make our country truly great again. Remember make America
Speaker 1: great again, and then in two and a half years
Speaker 1: it's called keep America Great. So the way we keep
Speaker 1: America great is to make at least reasonable I'm not
Speaker 1: saying at least reasonable, at least fair drade deals, not
Speaker 1: stupid Drede deals like we've put up with the twenty
Speaker 1: five years. So we're changing it, or we're changing it rapidly.
Speaker 1: The thing that feels new after Helsinki is that the
Speaker 1: country's shook up and freaked out about it. There is
Speaker 1: something about him doing that to Putin's face rather than
Speaker 1: presumably just on his batphone with him or however it
Speaker 1: is they up in constant phone communication, which is what
Speaker 1: we hear from the Russian side. Did the president get
Speaker 1: help from Russia to win his election, Yes he did.
Speaker 1: Is our president subordinate to a foreign power? Does our
Speaker 1: president answer to a foreign government and a foreign leader?
Speaker 1: The worst case scenario that the president is a foreign
Speaker 1: agent suddenly feels very powerful. You don't need a pay
Speaker 1: me back, pay me back, pay me back transactional interaction
Speaker 1: in order to live as a compromised person in betray
Speaker 1: your country in that way. Welcome back to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. I wanted to really give you a compare
Speaker 1: and contrast there for a moment. You know, you have
Speaker 1: the president the United States who is who is just
Speaker 1: straight up warning people what you're seeing on the news
Speaker 1: is not what's happening. Don't trust them. They don't have
Speaker 1: your best interest at heart. They are pushing an agenda
Speaker 1: and being dishonest about it. And then you have you know,
Speaker 1: Matta who's saying that the President United States is a
Speaker 1: foreign agent. Think about the disparity here. You have a
Speaker 1: president whose entire campaign time in office is defined by
Speaker 1: really a kind of superpatriotism, a president who, if nothing else,
Speaker 1: anyone who's around him, for whatever flaws he may have.
Speaker 1: He's not perfect. I don't pretend he's perfect. You know
Speaker 1: he's not perfect, But he definitely loves this country. But
Speaker 1: the left wing media that was madaw there, who's getting
Speaker 1: millions of viewers of night folks? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: finally in MSNBC is catching catching up on some nights
Speaker 1: to Fox after so many years of just getting completely
Speaker 1: schooled in the ratings. But you have people that are
Speaker 1: watching as she says that the president of United States
Speaker 1: may in fact be an agent of a foreign power,
Speaker 1: which is another way of saying a trader. They're calling
Speaker 1: this president on cable news a trader, without evidence and
Speaker 1: without any reason or sanity behind this, but they keep
Speaker 1: doing it. You know, this is what our president sounds
Speaker 1: like when he's talking about America. This is the president
Speaker 1: that the left wing is calling this guy a turncoat,
Speaker 1: guilty of treason, and a trader. Play ten, play ten,
Speaker 1: and eleven. For more than a century, the VFW has
Speaker 1: represented American heroes who promoted American values, and they did
Speaker 1: so with honor. You are the universal symbol of the
Speaker 1: patriotic pride that beats loudly in every single American heart.
Speaker 1: We don't apologize for America anymore. We stand up for America.
Speaker 1: We stand up for the patriots who defend America. Remember
Speaker 1: Washington's advice that the best way to preserve the peace
Speaker 1: is to be prepared for war, and that is exactly
Speaker 1: what we do all the time. My thinking is always
Speaker 1: on military and military strength. That is why I'm proud
Speaker 1: to report that we are now undertaking the greatest rebuilding
Speaker 1: of our United States military in its history. We have
Speaker 1: secured seven hundred billion dollars for defense this year and
Speaker 1: seven hundred and sixteen billion dollars next year. Approved. That's
Speaker 1: the guy they say can't be trusted. That's the person
Speaker 1: who's unfit to be commander in chief. You know, you
Speaker 1: saw in that room day speaking of the veterans of
Speaker 1: foreign wars, and you saw the way that veterans look
Speaker 1: at him, the way that our active duty military responds
Speaker 1: to him. They know they're the ones putting their lives
Speaker 1: in line for this country day in and day out.
Speaker 1: They know what this president thinks when it comes to them,
Speaker 1: no doubts. And yet the media calls him a traitor,
Speaker 1: a puppet of Putin doing their bidding. This is so
Speaker 1: far from reality that I really do worry, as I've
Speaker 1: said to you so many times now, but that there's
Speaker 1: been some kind of a break from reality that the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party in the left in this country is having
Speaker 1: something of a nervous breakdown. Collectively, They're having a collective
Speaker 1: nervous breakdown because you can't make sense of this otherwise.
Speaker 1: This is the president that they say is not a patriot.
Speaker 1: This president's all about patriotism, you know. This is the
Speaker 1: one that they say is doing Russia's bidding, how by
Speaker 1: building up our military, by having more aggressive policies towards
Speaker 1: Russia than any of his predecessors. That's the way that
Speaker 1: he's doing Putin's work for him. You know, I do
Speaker 1: you really do believe these are not serious people in
Speaker 1: the sense that they should not be taken seriously. But
Speaker 1: we have to take the threat of their lies and
Speaker 1: of their undermining of the administration seriously because they're very
Speaker 1: powerful still. They get away with this kind of stuff
Speaker 1: all the time, you know. And you know that's why
Speaker 1: having a president who will just say, you know what,
Speaker 1: enough is enough, and I'm not going to stand for
Speaker 1: this anymore. I keep saying. I remember what it was
Speaker 1: like during the eight years of the Bush administration. It
Speaker 1: was like watching your little brother get get weggies all
Speaker 1: the time, and you weren't able to help him. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just stunk. Bush was getting pummeled in the media
Speaker 1: and just took it and just took it. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: well at least Bush was a gentleman. They'd say, Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: Bush just got rolled. They went after him with everything
Speaker 1: that they had. They tried to throw his vice president
Speaker 1: in prison on some BS charge. Scooter Libby got the
Speaker 1: brunt of that one, unfortunately, but you know the whole thing. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's how they were playing the game. And Bush was like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I just don't want to be a you know,
Speaker 1: a bad guy. You know, we were in two wars,
Speaker 1: a brawl, but Bush didn't realize that we were in
Speaker 1: a political street fight here at home. Trump knows that
Speaker 1: he knows what he's up against. Play sixteen. Just stick
Speaker 1: with us. Don't believe the crap you see from these people.
Speaker 1: To fake news. I mean, I saw a piece on
Speaker 1: NBC today, NBC not just CNN. CNN is the worst,
Speaker 1: but I saw a piece on NBC. It was hot throppy.
Speaker 1: They were interviewing people. They probably go through twenty and
Speaker 1: then they picked the one that sounds like the worst.
Speaker 1: But they went through a group of people. In fact,
Speaker 1: I wanted to say, I gotta do something about this.
Speaker 1: Trump terrible. You know, he's got a tremendous command of
Speaker 1: the room, and he understands, he understands his people, he
Speaker 1: understands his base, his voters, and the fact that he
Speaker 1: will just say it. I mean, CNN, they are the
Speaker 1: most smug, disingenuous bunge. I'm talking about the TV. Look,
Speaker 1: there's good people at all these different organizations. Right, there's
Speaker 1: nice people working off camera. There's nice people who are
Speaker 1: correspondents you wouldn't remember I've never heard of before. Right,
Speaker 1: this is a tough business. People take jobs where they can.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the big wigs. I'm talking about the
Speaker 1: people over there that are multi millionaires, that are somewhat
Speaker 1: household names, and they're pushing along with the network execs
Speaker 1: an agenda that's dishonest. Up until now, we've had all
Speaker 1: Republican presidents say, well, the means you know, the media
Speaker 1: is kind of bias, but you know, we're hoping we'll
Speaker 1: work with them more. Up until now, you would see
Speaker 1: that presidents would just take this on the chin and
Speaker 1: then hope that their goodwill to the other side would
Speaker 1: be reciprocated. It never is. It's so refreshing to have
Speaker 1: a president who rolls up as sleeves and says, Okay,
Speaker 1: you want to do this, you want to scrap, let's scrap.
Speaker 1: You want to play dirty, Let's play dirty. And that's
Speaker 1: what I think is one of the one of the
Speaker 1: truly great things about this administration is that we don't
Speaker 1: have to just sit around anymore and just take it,
Speaker 1: just take it, just deal with it. And that's why
Speaker 1: they're freaking out so much. That's why you get mattaw
Speaker 1: going on our shows saying it was an agent of Russia.
Speaker 1: An agent of Russia. In what universe if Trump had
Speaker 1: if the Russians had something on Trump that could really
Speaker 1: bring him down, He's gonna run for president? Why he's
Speaker 1: a billionaire. None of this makes sense, folks. You don't
Speaker 1: even have to get into the fis and the nounz
Speaker 1: and all will do that too, But you don't even
Speaker 1: have to do that. It just doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: The motives don't add up, the storyline doesn't hold together,
Speaker 1: because ultimately, the real storyline here is and always has been,
Speaker 1: that Hillary was supposed to win that election. Hillary was
Speaker 1: supposed to be in power, giving liberals what they want,
Speaker 1: reaffirming their worldview. CNN, MSNBC and the other broadcast networks,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have all kinds of access, and they'd have
Speaker 1: this pinnacle moment in their careers where they'd be all
Speaker 1: cozy with Hillary's White House for eight years, and that
Speaker 1: was stripped for from them. They feel and whether they
Speaker 1: have to pretend it's unfair or really believe it's unfair,
Speaker 1: that's what they're gonna do. That the election was unfair.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna say. It's pretty pathetic, but it's
Speaker 1: also dangerous for this country. We're gonna talk about jihad
Speaker 1: the moment. What's happening to the global jihad right now?
Speaker 1: You don't hear about it very much anymore. We'll discuss
Speaker 1: that with an expert. So stay right there. I'm sure
Speaker 1: we have some hr specialists listening. People who are property owners,
Speaker 1: those who are either hiring or think about leasing out
Speaker 1: a property that they have to somebody. You know what,
Speaker 1: you gotta do a background check, and you better trust
Speaker 1: whoever's doing that check for you, and know that there's
Speaker 1: anything that comes up, You're gonna get somebody on the phone.
Speaker 1: Who will handle the problem with care. That's what Global
Speaker 1: Verification does. Global Verification is the only dual certified, veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and vetting company. They are headquartered in
Speaker 1: Chicago with offices across the nation. All the work is
Speaker 1: done here. It is never off short. So for the
Speaker 1: business owners or people that are in the HR departments
Speaker 1: of business listening to this, I'm telling you give Global
Speaker 1: Verification a shot. They will be your background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. Go to MYGVN dot com. That's my GVN
Speaker 1: dot com or call eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: eleven seventy nine eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine Global Verification Network. What has happened in
Speaker 1: the global ghat everybody? I was talking about this yesterday.
Speaker 1: During the Obama administration, you will recall there was a
Speaker 1: period where we had a major attack. It felt like
Speaker 1: every month for over a year. I mean there were
Speaker 1: just mass casualty terror attacks in Europe and here at home.
Speaker 1: Isis inspired, isis directed remote control plots. It's died down
Speaker 1: so much, and I'm wondering why that is. We have
Speaker 1: somebody who can help address that question. A whole lot
Speaker 1: more joining us right now. Robert Spencer is with us.
Speaker 1: He is the director of Jihadwatch. He is a new
Speaker 1: book out as well, The History of Jihad or Robert,
Speaker 1: thanks for making the time for us great to be here, Buck,
Speaker 1: Thank you. Well, let me ask you that question first
Speaker 1: before we get into the history. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: present of jihad, if you will, are things right now?
Speaker 1: Isis is not entirely defeated eradicated, but it certainly is
Speaker 1: a shadow of what it formerly was. Is the Trump
Speaker 1: administration taking the fight to the Jihadis in a way
Speaker 1: that's quiet them down? Or should we we getting ahead
Speaker 1: of ourselves? What do you make of the current situation? Oh?
Speaker 1: This is very much the Trump effect. And it shows
Speaker 1: that Jihadis understand strength and they understand weakness, and that's
Speaker 1: really the only calculus that they deal with non Muslims upon.
Speaker 1: And so they looked at Obama and all his goodwill
Speaker 1: gestures to the Muslim brotherhood and to Iran and aiding
Speaker 1: Jihad forces in Syria against Assad, and they thought he
Speaker 1: was weak and they took advantage, and so the Jihad
Speaker 1: was advancing. They see Trump, they see that he is strong,
Speaker 1: and that's why it's been a bit in abeyance since
Speaker 1: he's become president. But as I show in the book,
Speaker 1: this is a fourteen hundred year old struggle as far
Speaker 1: as they're concerned. It has ebbs and flows, it has
Speaker 1: periods of activity and periods of relatively less activity, but
Speaker 1: it never goes away because it is based on fundamental
Speaker 1: Islamic doctrines. Do you get into or could you, Lisa,
Speaker 1: just tell us now what you make of this ongoing
Speaker 1: discussion and debate about how jihad has no military meaning.
Speaker 1: I know you've heard this, Robert, I've heard this too.
Speaker 1: I've heard this my prior life as a canter terrorism
Speaker 1: mans to hear this all the time. No military meaning,
Speaker 1: It just means striving. What do you make of it, Well,
Speaker 1: it does mean striving or struggle in Arabic, and it's
Speaker 1: true that you know, you can have struggles or strivings
Speaker 1: that are great and some that are trivial. You can
Speaker 1: try to you can struggle or strive to quit smoking,
Speaker 1: and you can struggle or to defend your civilization. It's
Speaker 1: the same word in Arabic jihad, and it also has
Speaker 1: that same kind of shade of meaning. But there is
Speaker 1: no denying that the primary meaning of jihad in Islamic
Speaker 1: law and Islamic theology is warfare against unbelievers to establish
Speaker 1: the rule of Islamic law over them and render them
Speaker 1: second class, discriminated against on an institutionalized basis. And what
Speaker 1: I show in the book is that this is not
Speaker 1: just some small groups idea, or some idea that al
Speaker 1: Qaida invented, or some reaction to the United States foreign policy,
Speaker 1: or reaction to the establishment of Israel, or any of
Speaker 1: these fashionable explanations. But this is something that goes all
Speaker 1: the way back to the beginning of Islam fourteen hundred
Speaker 1: years and has been a constant warfare around the world
Speaker 1: everywhere Hulsums have gone where they're a non Muslim. We're
Speaker 1: speaking of Robert Spencer, who's got a new book out,
Speaker 1: The History of Jihad. Robert, if you had to pick
Speaker 1: a place right now that we should be watching, perhaps
Speaker 1: more than we are, where jihad could become a major
Speaker 1: problem not just for that country of the region, but
Speaker 1: perhaps a global threat, as we have seen with Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: with Syria, with Iraq, with Egypt. I mean all these
Speaker 1: different countries around the world. But if there was one
Speaker 1: place that you were saying, keep your eye on this one.
Speaker 1: Things could go bad. There is there one that comes
Speaker 1: to mind. Yeah, absolutely, Jordan is the one that immediately
Speaker 1: leaps to mind. Most people think of it. They think
Speaker 1: it's a moderate Muslim country. We've got this king who's
Speaker 1: on our side, and that's the end of the story.
Speaker 1: But actually Isis, the Islamic State has considerable support in
Speaker 1: Jordan even now, and the president you may recall, not
Speaker 1: the president, I'm sorry, the king. A few years back,
Speaker 1: you may recall, after the Jordanian pilot was burnt alive
Speaker 1: by ISIS on a video that they circulated around the world,
Speaker 1: the king of King Abdullah of Jordan actually vowed to
Speaker 1: take the fight to them, but he never actually followed up.
Speaker 1: And he did not follow up because of the significant
Speaker 1: support that Isis enjoys in Jordan. That country is a
Speaker 1: tinderbox that could very easily be destabilized the king overthrown
Speaker 1: right now. Saudi Arabia is facing the same threat. That's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why they are modernizing, letting women
Speaker 1: drive all these things, trying to let steam off some
Speaker 1: of the reform pushes in that country, and also to
Speaker 1: gain international support against Iran. Which is a very serious
Speaker 1: threat for Saudi Arabia with Shiis all across the eastern
Speaker 1: seaboard of Saudi Arabia, right near Iran, and that's where
Speaker 1: the oil fields are. And so you're talking about if
Speaker 1: Jordan goes, Saudi Arabia could go or vice versa, and
Speaker 1: the whole area could be engulfed in a large scale
Speaker 1: war very easily. What do you what should we know?
Speaker 1: What should we be thinking about with regard to Iranian
Speaker 1: jihad at this point, we know people always talking about
Speaker 1: Iran as a hardline reactionary Islamist regime, which which it
Speaker 1: clearly is. But I think in the popular conception, jihad
Speaker 1: is thought of more war with Sunni Jihaddest groups like
Speaker 1: al Qaida in the Islamic State and others. But the
Speaker 1: Iranians don't just want to have Jihaday don't just want
Speaker 1: to have radicalism at home. They want to export it
Speaker 1: abroad as well. Yes, that's right, and that's why Iran
Speaker 1: has a significant part of the last part of this book,
Speaker 1: because they are pursuing jihad purposes, jihad goals around the world.
Speaker 1: They don't do your right, They don't have with the
Speaker 1: exception of his Bala jihad group in Lebanon. They don't
Speaker 1: go in for terror groups like al Qaida and the
Speaker 1: Taliban and so on, although they actually do support them,
Speaker 1: because Iran is trying to position itself even though it's
Speaker 1: Shiite and the Shiites are a small minority among Muslims worldwide.
Speaker 1: Iran's trying to position itself as the leader of the
Speaker 1: entire Islamic world, so they fund Sunni Islamic terror groups
Speaker 1: like Hamas, al Qaida, the Taliban, and more. And they
Speaker 1: are also pursuing a geopolitical strategy of destabilization of the West.
Speaker 1: For example, there is a communist party in Spain that
Speaker 1: is funded by the Iranian regime and it has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Islam. But the Iranians are calculating that
Speaker 1: if they can destabilize the government in Spain and destabilize
Speaker 1: the governments in general around the West, then they can
Speaker 1: help to advance their own agenda. One of the other
Speaker 1: examples of this is that his Bala, they're wholly owned
Speaker 1: and operated subsidiary, is operating in northern Mexico with the
Speaker 1: drug cartels. Obviously, that's not the perp the end goal
Speaker 1: of being there. They're ultimately working toward getting here. If
Speaker 1: you want more details on this, folks, if you want
Speaker 1: to know more about what we're talking about, you can
Speaker 1: get the book History of Jihad by Robert Spencer, who's
Speaker 1: with us now. He's director of GIHI Watch. Robert, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for making time. Good luck with the book,
Speaker 1: and come back on the show soon. Thanks. Buck, always
Speaker 1: a pleasure. Call me anytime, all right, team eight four
Speaker 1: four nine two eight two five eight four four or
Speaker 1: nine hundred Buck, we have so much more coming. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now, because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops. And Grennan leaked
Speaker 1: the information to Harry Reid. Rice goes on TV after
Speaker 1: Benghazi in lies on five different networks about the cause,
Speaker 1: the catalyst of the attack in Benghazi. Clapper Light under
Speaker 1: oath Comy leaked information through a friend to create momentum
Speaker 1: for a special Council McCabe Light three times under oath
Speaker 1: faces a criminal referral. And we know Peter struck it
Speaker 1: and telling the truth because he couldn't even admit that
Speaker 1: there was bias in his statements too. In his text
Speaker 1: messages to Lisa Page in the committee hearing, two weeks ago.
Speaker 1: So the president is fighting back just like he should.
Speaker 1: And what we also know is this past weekend, everything
Speaker 1: that we saw in this in this FIS application confirms
Speaker 1: what we've all been saying for say, you have to
Speaker 1: really desperately try to put the words together the way
Speaker 1: that they did. Instead of just having a simple definition,
Speaker 1: which could have been candidate to hired hired fusion, GPS
Speaker 1: right or US person one to hire source one to
Speaker 1: go get the information. That was really simple to explain.
Speaker 1: The courts would have understood it easily. And I think
Speaker 1: the courts would have at that point well they should
Speaker 1: have rejected. I'm not sure they would have, but they
Speaker 1: should have. I don't blame the judges. I think that
Speaker 1: judges were misled. Well what really happened here. I want
Speaker 1: to bring on somebody who has a very well informed
Speaker 1: point of view on this. You read through all the
Speaker 1: stuff and he's fierce on Twitter. We've got Sean Davis
Speaker 1: with a co founder of The Federalist. Check out his
Speaker 1: latest at the Federalist dot com. Sean' good to have
Speaker 1: you back, good to be here, Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1: So so you actually have to deal with the with
Speaker 1: the Twitter rage mobs coming after you for saying things like, Okay,
Speaker 1: so this FISA, well, what do you think The FISA
Speaker 1: information that came out over the weekend tells us. It
Speaker 1: tells us that dj and FBI willfully deliberately misled the
Speaker 1: FISA court. They lied to it. They claimed that an
Speaker 1: article that had been sourced directly to steal not only
Speaker 1: corroborated steel this circular reasoning, but that Steele wasn't the
Speaker 1: source of it. They deliberately withheld material facts from the court,
Speaker 1: like the fact that the DNC and the Hillary campaign
Speaker 1: funded Fusion GPS, which had hired the source one they
Speaker 1: the FISA application. For anyone who has followed the story, corroborated, confirmed,
Speaker 1: and backed up everything that people like Nunez and Jim
Speaker 1: Jordan and people like us that the federals who have
Speaker 1: actually read the documents knew from the beginning was that
Speaker 1: the Russian collusion investigation, from the very beginning, was a
Speaker 1: setup job started by spurred by false information put together
Speaker 1: by a Hillary Clinton campaign contractor. And I'm seeing a
Speaker 1: return of the Oh no, it wasn't Carter Page. It
Speaker 1: was Papadopolis that got this whole thing started. And I
Speaker 1: keep coming back to you if they can open up
Speaker 1: a FISA or a surveillance operation of any kind. Quite honestly,
Speaker 1: never mind FISA. Because of what they had on Popidopolis.
Speaker 1: There's no such thing as a Fourth Amendment anymore, because
Speaker 1: the FBI can just be like, yeah, we heard you
Speaker 1: talking about a thing, and we want to know more,
Speaker 1: so we're just gonna mike you up. I mean, it's Shawn,
Speaker 1: It's crazy. No it is. And if you actually listen
Speaker 1: to the words of the people involved in the alleged
Speaker 1: Popadopholis meeting which gave rise to the investigation, their rationale
Speaker 1: makes no sense. We were told that it was a
Speaker 1: meeting between Alexander Downer and George Popadopolis in which Hillary's
Speaker 1: emails being offered by the Russians were explicitly mentioned, and
Speaker 1: then two late two months later, Alexander Downer brings that
Speaker 1: to the attention of the FBI, and then they immediately
Speaker 1: spring into action and they start this investigation. But even Downer,
Speaker 1: who is allegedly the guy who started this whole thing
Speaker 1: by having this conversation with Popagopoulus, says that conversation didn't
Speaker 1: even happen, that way that emails never even came up.
Speaker 1: So when you have the guy whose information was allegedly
Speaker 1: used to start the investigation saying no, I never actually
Speaker 1: said that stuff. And when you combine that with everything
Speaker 1: else we know about the cavalcade of lies that we've
Speaker 1: been given, you can come to no other informed conclusion
Speaker 1: other than that this was a setup, hack, political job
Speaker 1: from day one that never should have been approved by
Speaker 1: any court with a lick of sense or understanding of
Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. Now, I saw also
Speaker 1: that there were some there, some defenders of the deep
Speaker 1: state or just anti trumpers out there who were saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this proves that the new Nez memo was wrong, the
Speaker 1: New nes memo for many months ago, I looked at this,
Speaker 1: and I read this over the weekend. I read the
Speaker 1: four unter page report. A lot of it was redactive,
Speaker 1: which made it easier, but I remember reading through and thinking,
Speaker 1: I don't see how this, How does that disprove? I mean,
Speaker 1: what is the case they're even making seawan that because
Speaker 1: it mentioned somebody that they should have you know, because
Speaker 1: they didn't specify Hillary Clinton here or there, but they
Speaker 1: kind of should have known that it was Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: that they did talk about it. I don't even understand
Speaker 1: what the cases they're trying to make about this. No, no,
Speaker 1: the case they're trying to make is that Trump deserved it,
Speaker 1: and everything flows from that. The most ridiculous assertion I've
Speaker 1: seen that so divorced from reality, is that, oh no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: you can't claim that they withheld the origins of the
Speaker 1: report from the fires the coort because they included in
Speaker 1: a footnote a tiny note that said they think us
Speaker 1: identified person one, which by the way, is Glenn Simpson. Incusion.
Speaker 1: GPS might have wanted to discredit the Trump campaign, as
Speaker 1: if somehow that encapsulates, you know, saying, you know, explicitly,
Speaker 1: this was funded by a political party two and candidate
Speaker 1: two who were seeking to defeat candidate one in the election. Okay,
Speaker 1: even if if somebody who wanted to discredit a campaign
Speaker 1: could be an ex wife, could be an embittered neighbor,
Speaker 1: could be a political rival, could have been a business rival,
Speaker 1: to say that that somehow stified the standard of honest
Speaker 1: disclosure is offensive and nonsensical. Yeah, I'm amazed that people
Speaker 1: are even trying to hold this up, But I would
Speaker 1: just note that the that the the privacy of all
Speaker 1: these people that were not Trump associates was apparently very
Speaker 1: high up on the fives are, you know, on the
Speaker 1: minds of these FBI agents, But the privacy of Carter
Speaker 1: Page or George Poppadoppolis that doesn't matter at all somehow,
Speaker 1: right Like everyone who's involved here, all the shady characters
Speaker 1: that are sicking the FBI on Carter Page, they're fine.
Speaker 1: They we need to make sure that their names that
Speaker 1: appear in this When when an eighth grader could read
Speaker 1: some of this five and stuff and go, okay, well
Speaker 1: we're talking. We know who we're talking about here, right
Speaker 1: like we know which presidential presidential campaign won, we know
Speaker 1: who you know, who we're dealing with. So it just
Speaker 1: seems like it's there's a dishonesty at the heart of
Speaker 1: a lot of the and that's not even including the redactions.
Speaker 1: That's just the places where they, you know, try to
Speaker 1: hide the specific identity of a name or an unnamed person.
Speaker 1: Right in getting into carter Page, anyone who has paid
Speaker 1: attention to him, listened to him and also read the
Speaker 1: case against him presented in the application and the dossier.
Speaker 1: The idea that this guy was somehow a secret Russian
Speaker 1: spy is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.
Speaker 1: And it's funny that, in addition to the silly dossier
Speaker 1: nonsense and all the circular referential self referential corroboration of
Speaker 1: the dossier, the FBI and dj cited a case without
Speaker 1: telling the court what actually happens that involved some corrupt Russians,
Speaker 1: and they said that Carter Page had been involved with it,
Speaker 1: without telling the court that he had actually assisted the
Speaker 1: FBI in bringing those people to justice. I mean, the
Speaker 1: whole thing, from beginning to end is a joke, and
Speaker 1: anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest or they're incompetent
Speaker 1: or illiterate. Now, what do you think about the stripping
Speaker 1: of the possible stripping of clearances. I'm taking a lot
Speaker 1: of heat shown. I'm like, why, first of all, why
Speaker 1: is this defcon one for the media all of a sudden.
Speaker 1: A clearance is not a civil rights issue. It's not
Speaker 1: a constitutional issue. It's a privilege, not a right of
Speaker 1: any kind. The presidence of commander in chief. He can
Speaker 1: strip clearances if he wants to. And when you've got
Speaker 1: people that were in the government using their high, high
Speaker 1: level access to undermine the incoming presidency. I don't think
Speaker 1: they should have clearances. That seems to make sense to me. Well,
Speaker 1: I think you can get broader than that. If the
Speaker 1: only reason you had a clearance is because you were
Speaker 1: working in government, you don't need that clearance anymore when
Speaker 1: you leave government. I don't care if you're James Comey
Speaker 1: or James Clapper or John Brennan. Once you're out of government,
Speaker 1: especially if you're a political appointee, especially if you're a
Speaker 1: political appointee and you're eighteen months out, there is no
Speaker 1: reason on Earth why you should get to keep your
Speaker 1: security clearance. And it's rather obvious if the only reason
Speaker 1: these reporters are just so up in arms about it
Speaker 1: is because as soon as these guys lose their clearances,
Speaker 1: these reporters lose their access to classified leaks. Yeah, Sean
Speaker 1: said it, everybody, and I think Sean's right. So there
Speaker 1: you go, Sean Davis, everybody of the federalists. Check out
Speaker 1: what he's written at the federal dot Com and also
Speaker 1: all the other fine writers over there. Sean, keep owning
Speaker 1: the libs on Twitter, all right? You make me proud.
Speaker 1: This administration is on a crusade against people who they
Speaker 1: do not consider original Americans. What they've done at the
Speaker 1: border is an example of it. What they've done in
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico, and they are on a jihad to deport
Speaker 1: as many people as they can who they believe are
Speaker 1: not in the United States legally. And the fact is,
Speaker 1: instead of supporting our ICE officers, many of these Democrat
Speaker 1: politicians who are really disciples of a very low IQ person,
Speaker 1: Maxine Waters and perhaps even worse Nancy Pelosi, they've launched
Speaker 1: vicious smears on the brave men and women who defend
Speaker 1: our communities. ICE officers work in dangerous conditions to protect
Speaker 1: our communities, and more than a third of ICE officers
Speaker 1: happened to be veterans themselves. Thank goodness for ICE, because
Speaker 1: we have some of the worst drug dealers, terrorists, criminals,
Speaker 1: and MS thirteen gang members and we're either throwing them
Speaker 1: the hell in jail, are throwing them out of our country.
Speaker 1: And ICE goes up there and they walk in like
Speaker 1: it's another day in the office. Thank goodness for ICE.
Speaker 1: The Democrats that's want to abandon ICE, they want to
Speaker 1: end ICE. ICE is tough and smart and they track
Speaker 1: them down and they stop tremendous amounts of crime and
Speaker 1: these are great people and then not being treated properly.
Speaker 1: So that's the president on Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, the
Speaker 1: federal agency known his ICE. You know, Democrats picked this fight.
Speaker 1: They picked this fight with regard to ICE. They were
Speaker 1: the ones who decided that they were going to make
Speaker 1: this a campaign issue for the midterms. A'mbolish abolish ICE
Speaker 1: like they decided to do that. They did not have
Speaker 1: to do that. This was a choice that they made.
Speaker 1: And looking at this now, I have to say that
Speaker 1: this is going to be I would hope a hindrance
Speaker 1: for them. I hope that this hurts them in the
Speaker 1: mid terms because it should. Don't think that their propaganda
Speaker 1: has not had a market effect. Though they're anti IIS
Speaker 1: agitation have resulted in people really thinking poorly of Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement and what this is. That's why Trump's
Speaker 1: so important there. You know, I played that Cuomo. No
Speaker 1: bother likes ye because that's very cold. You put it
Speaker 1: in your hand and it feels like, oh no, I
Speaker 1: can't feel my fingers. Oh wait, that is a different
Speaker 1: kind of ice. I'm the Governor of New York. I
Speaker 1: should know better, but I played that where he said
Speaker 1: crusade in geehad. First of all, he's trying to be
Speaker 1: provocative with that whole thing, right, A crusade a geehad.
Speaker 1: All of it is harder when it's icy outside because
Speaker 1: of coldness with ice, you know. The the governor was
Speaker 1: saying that the Governor of New York was saying that
Speaker 1: stuff because he thinks that this is going to be
Speaker 1: good for Democrats right now. Trump though, points something out
Speaker 1: that this whole abolished Ice mantra, this mania about abolishing
Speaker 1: immigrations and customs enforcement, does not take into a count
Speaker 1: or at least most people don't understand that when they
Speaker 1: are defaming Ice and calling them, you know, tyrants and
Speaker 1: thugs and all these terrible things. They're saying, abolish ice,
Speaker 1: it's it's guilty of war crimes or inhumanity, not war crimes, sorry,
Speaker 1: in humanitarian acts. Inhumane acts. Although the sum have said
Speaker 1: that it is effectively like a concentration camp down there,
Speaker 1: So don't don't think that there's any rhetoric that's really
Speaker 1: beyond the pale for them. But with the decision to
Speaker 1: make abolish ice, a campaign issue. But I remember Democrats
Speaker 1: did this. This was all Democrats. They created this whole narrative.
Speaker 1: What they are going to have to live with now
Speaker 1: is that immigrations and customs enforcement is, as was mentioned,
Speaker 1: a large percentage of about a third or veterans. So
Speaker 1: these Democrats are defaming and in a sense rhetorically spinning
Speaker 1: on veterans. They're definitely defaming and spitting on law enforcement here.
Speaker 1: And I can't help but notice that the respect that
Speaker 1: they feel, the reverence, Oh my gosh, the FBI is incredible,
Speaker 1: especially FBI leadership and DJ leadership amazing when it comes
Speaker 1: to the Russia collusion probe. You know, the FBI and
Speaker 1: the intelligence community are all of a sudden beyond criticism.
Speaker 1: By the way, for people like me that were in
Speaker 1: the intel community when there was a Republican president before,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't in the interests of the mainstream media
Speaker 1: to prop up some narrative of infallibility for the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: I just I want to laugh and cry about what's
Speaker 1: going on right now. Oh, we were mocked for getting
Speaker 1: I Rock wrong. We were mocked for black sites for torture.
Speaker 1: Not just mock, I mean they were talking about throwing
Speaker 1: some of us in prison for that, Black Sites, torture, WMD,
Speaker 1: all these different debacles that's all forgotten now Now it's
Speaker 1: how could you ever question the intelligence community assessment on Russia?
Speaker 1: How dare you, sir? And Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, which
Speaker 1: is also law enforcement in law enforcement agency that doesn't
Speaker 1: get the benefit of the doubt, that doesn't get any
Speaker 1: special consideration or protection or anything else. No. No, they
Speaker 1: think that anything that they can do to undermine it
Speaker 1: at this point is somehow justified. They think that that's
Speaker 1: a fair thing. And Trump is the only Republican politician
Speaker 1: I know of right now, the only Republican leader period
Speaker 1: who is really making the case about what Democrats do want.
Speaker 1: The forgotten men and women of our country are forgotten
Speaker 1: no more. The Democrats are trying to find out who
Speaker 1: are these people that came out to vote. Where did
Speaker 1: they come from? Remember that, where did they come from?
Speaker 1: Now they know, But they're not going to the Democrats
Speaker 1: who are going so far left that nobody can believe it.
Speaker 1: They want open borders and crimes. Okay, we want strong
Speaker 1: borders and we want no crime. That's other than that.
Speaker 1: We're very similar other than that, we're very subject. We
Speaker 1: also know that to be a strong nation, we have
Speaker 1: to have these strong orders. We cannot send our military
Speaker 1: to confront threats abroad only to allow those same threats
Speaker 1: to cross our borders and to threaten us right here
Speaker 1: at home. Trump understands what's really going on with immigration,
Speaker 1: and he makes the case in a way that we
Speaker 1: get it, We hear it. It's sensible. We know that
Speaker 1: the Democrats have been lying on this. We know that
Speaker 1: you can trust Democrats on this issue. It couldn't be
Speaker 1: any more clear. He says it. He doesn't dance around
Speaker 1: the issue. He's not saying, oh, let's do work permits,
Speaker 1: or let's find a way to increase visas or no, no, no,
Speaker 1: let's deal with the fact that the Democrat party right
Speaker 1: now doesn't want to send anyone home was here illegally.
Speaker 1: In fact, I'm seeing people say why do they even
Speaker 1: call them illegals? Well, because the official term is illegal alien.
Speaker 1: If people who come into the country illegally aren't going
Speaker 1: to be deported, I want to know, should we even
Speaker 1: have that law on the books. A law that is
Speaker 1: not enforced very quickly ceases to be a law. But
Speaker 1: what Democrats want for the purposes of trying to take
Speaker 1: back power so they can then win the House and
Speaker 1: then move right onto impeachment. Is getting their base fired
Speaker 1: up with promises of abolishing an agency that's only doing
Speaker 1: what Democrats until about a minute ago, we're pretending they
Speaker 1: wanted too, which was enforcement of immigration laws. You know
Speaker 1: you need a home security system, right, but which one
Speaker 1: should you get? A lot of them will lock you
Speaker 1: into long term contracts, The customer service is garbage, and
Speaker 1: you didn't even know how to use this system. He
Speaker 1: ends up getting police sent to your house because you
Speaker 1: can't type in the code. Forget all of that. Make
Speaker 1: your life as easy as possible when it comes to
Speaker 1: the best around the clock protection you can find Simply Safe.
Speaker 1: Simply Safe is all about making sure that you are
Speaker 1: in charge. You are in control, your home is safe,
Speaker 1: your family is safe, and if you have any questions
Speaker 1: or any problems, they are there for you. Okay. This
Speaker 1: system is also designed so that you don't even have
Speaker 1: to notice it. It's so intuitive and easy. You can
Speaker 1: download an app. I have it at home. Once you
Speaker 1: check it out, you'll see is the only home security
Speaker 1: system you will ever need or ever want. Once you
Speaker 1: check it out, visit simply safe dot com slash buck. Now,
Speaker 1: that's simply safe dot com. Slash buck again, protect your
Speaker 1: home by visiting simply safe dot com slash buck. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American again. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show. CIA analysts Sexton. No welcome back, everybody.
Speaker 1: Why is it that of all of the transgressions in
Speaker 1: our modern society that seemed to be the most likely
Speaker 1: to be made up? There are there's a there's a
Speaker 1: category of racist or xenophobic, you know, various transagressions related
Speaker 1: to the isms racism, sexism, etc. But particularly racism. And
Speaker 1: we find out that they are hoaxes. This is something
Speaker 1: that you can't help but but pick up when you
Speaker 1: see enough of what's going on in the news. There's
Speaker 1: no way to avoid this. And we've got another one here,
Speaker 1: another one here about a server at a steakhouse in
Speaker 1: Texas who made up the viral story about a customer,
Speaker 1: a customer who who allegedly wrote, we don't tip terrorist
Speaker 1: on a receipt. This was in Odessa, Texas. He wrote
Speaker 1: in zero for his tip. This was what the story
Speaker 1: initially said, and at the top of the receipt decided
Speaker 1: to write that, you know, we don't tip terrorist his story.
Speaker 1: This story became international. Okay, this got international attention. People
Speaker 1: all across the country. We're being told about this terrible
Speaker 1: situation at the Salt Grass Steakhouse of this server who
Speaker 1: has you know, we don't tip terrorists and he gave
Speaker 1: him zero. And I know I would note that a
Speaker 1: lot of us read this and thought to ourselves. Myself
Speaker 1: myself included no, no, I'm buy it. But you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to say that. Oh no, no, not allowed to
Speaker 1: say that ever, No allowed to suggest that maybe we
Speaker 1: before we jumped to conclusions and possibly rule in someone's life.
Speaker 1: Right Once, once you've been branded a racist in the
Speaker 1: in the kind of viral moment of the media, you're done.
Speaker 1: I mean not only you're gonna lose your job, you're
Speaker 1: gonna lose your reputation and you may be unemployable. I
Speaker 1: mean it's if you write don't tip terrorist on a
Speaker 1: Muslim guy's receipt at at at a restaurant, you may
Speaker 1: find yourself unemployable until you change your name. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is gonna have real ramifications. But a lot of
Speaker 1: us saw this and thought to ourselves, you know that
Speaker 1: just I don't know, it just seems too Who would
Speaker 1: be so stupid as to do that? Right, You're because
Speaker 1: remember it's with a credit card, so they know who
Speaker 1: you are. You're gonna take that risk in this day
Speaker 1: and age, in this media environment. Put it aside whether
Speaker 1: somebody would would just decide to be such a jerk,
Speaker 1: because there are people who are you know, look, I
Speaker 1: know they're a racist and bigots and all that. And
Speaker 1: this is where the left always comes in and says, oh,
Speaker 1: the racism is real. I know, racism is real. We
Speaker 1: all know racism is real. It's real around the world,
Speaker 1: by the way, it's real, and every society, at every
Speaker 1: place on the planet, there is no such thing as
Speaker 1: a race free society. It does not exist in fact.
Speaker 1: And when you actually go into countries that are particularly homogeneous, well,
Speaker 1: when you have a country where there's very little racial uh,
Speaker 1: you know, very little in terms of racial diversity, you
Speaker 1: see that the people there can be particularly uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: outsiders and those different from themselves. Anyway, So this guy,
Speaker 1: he wrote this, or he claims that that the waiter
Speaker 1: in this restaurant attacks this, claims that the guy wrote,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't tip terrorist, and it was a fake.
Speaker 1: It was a hoax. It was a hoax. What awe surprise.
Speaker 1: A lot of us feel like this is in fact
Speaker 1: something that we should come to expect at this point.
Speaker 1: There's there's a lot of these, whether it's a girl
Speaker 1: in New York making up a story about two guys
Speaker 1: attacking her wearing aga hats while they're on the train.
Speaker 1: You know, we see these these incidents that just sound
Speaker 1: too perfect out of the left wing playbook and you know,
Speaker 1: a playbook of victimology. And we say, well, I just
Speaker 1: don't think I just don't think that that is a
Speaker 1: likely scenario. And if you suggest that, if you say that,
Speaker 1: you're a bad they want you to know you're a
Speaker 1: bad person. You know. If you say, well, I've got
Speaker 1: some questions, can we ask for further details? Can we
Speaker 1: have the victim actually tell us a bit more about
Speaker 1: who who did this or why or what they think
Speaker 1: really happened, then you're a bad person. Meanwhile, this keeps happening,
Speaker 1: and you know, you got to ask yourself this question,
Speaker 1: if racism in this country is really as bad as
Speaker 1: they say it is, and if anti Muslim bigotry is
Speaker 1: as terrible as they are suggesting all the time, why
Speaker 1: do we have so many of these hoax hate crimes
Speaker 1: that come up? And why is it that after an incident,
Speaker 1: for example, of Jihada's terrorism, I'll see on the you know,
Speaker 1: the huffy and posts, the sitesvox dot com and others,
Speaker 1: they'll run some statistic about a rise in hate crimes.
Speaker 1: Then I'll look and the hate crimes will include someone
Speaker 1: who allegedly said something mean to someone wearing a headscarf somewhere. Well,
Speaker 1: that's that's not exactly a five alarm fire. I mean,
Speaker 1: I feel like that, that's not nice. But we could
Speaker 1: probably use more details before we go much further. That said,
Speaker 1: you do take risks. Now, there's no question that there
Speaker 1: have been a number of instances of people attacked for
Speaker 1: wearing Trump garb, for wearing things that associate them with
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. And what's even more astonishing, well, perhaps
Speaker 1: it shouldn't be astonishing. I guess we should be at
Speaker 1: a point now where I suppose we accept this kind
Speaker 1: of behavior, not behavior, but approach from the media. They
Speaker 1: will push it aside, they'll try to do the minimum
Speaker 1: of coverage on it, and you can't help but get
Speaker 1: the sense that for the mainstream media, whenever somebody wearing
Speaker 1: a MAGA hat is in fact attacked, there is a
Speaker 1: sense that, you know, maybe that person had it coming,
Speaker 1: maybe they you know, maybe they should have thought twice
Speaker 1: before they decided to show their support for this president.
Speaker 1: So this is when when we get into why people
Speaker 1: don't trust the media, why they think the media is dishonest.
Speaker 1: This is one of the areas where they really do
Speaker 1: show their bias. The way that different vetim different victims
Speaker 1: are treated by different media outlets. That really shows you
Speaker 1: what their political biases are, and it's something that they
Speaker 1: can't help themselves. They'll do this all the time. Republicans,
Speaker 1: particularly white male Christians, are just not victims that the
Speaker 1: media wants to talk much about. It's not something they
Speaker 1: want to spend much time on. And these racism hoaxes,
Speaker 1: it's a version of what you see on Twitter. You
Speaker 1: see on Twitter you'll have a left wing journal journalist
Speaker 1: who will write something inflammatory about President Trump. It'll be
Speaker 1: completely untrue, but they'll write something about Trump or his administration,
Speaker 1: and then they will issue a correction, perhaps of the tweet,
Speaker 1: but they want to leave the initial tweet up usually
Speaker 1: and that's because the initial tweet got you know, thirty
Speaker 1: thousand retweets, went viral. The correction tweet got ten retweets.
Speaker 1: Nobody cares. So you you, you benefit from being a
Speaker 1: partisan who is dishonest. You benefit from being someone who's
Speaker 1: a political actor pretending not to be. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is when I look at what's going on with
Speaker 1: the way that these different you know, media outlets treat
Speaker 1: these incidents of you know, a hate crime hoax. They
Speaker 1: just don't want to talk about it. They don't have
Speaker 1: an interest in it, they don't have any focus on this.
Speaker 1: And you know, you just you know, the initial story
Speaker 1: and this is what I mean by the Twitter comparison.
Speaker 1: The initial story about the incident of racism, National News,
Speaker 1: all these outlets covering it, the correction when it's a
Speaker 1: complete and utter hoax. Okay, the employer found out that
Speaker 1: his employee made it up. That doesn't get nearly as
Speaker 1: much attention. This is all you have to see to
Speaker 1: understand the narrative formation that is at work here, and
Speaker 1: This is how the other side is always is playing
Speaker 1: the game. I want to talk to you speaking on
Speaker 1: narrative formation. I want to talk to you about this
Speaker 1: shooting up in shooting up in Canada where you know,
Speaker 1: they were very quick to tell us right away, they
Speaker 1: were very quick to tell us that this was a
Speaker 1: mental health issue. And I'm not saying it's not. I
Speaker 1: know I read that the guy was you know, had
Speaker 1: a long history, had a history of mental illness. But
Speaker 1: they've immediate they turned this into a gun control discussion
Speaker 1: in a city that has very tight gun control, in
Speaker 1: a country that has tight gun control. That's what they
Speaker 1: are switching to right away. I just wonder, is there anything,
Speaker 1: you know, ideologically speaking, is there anything that we need
Speaker 1: to take a look at here other than just mental illness?
Speaker 1: Could it be mental illness plus radicalization of some kind.
Speaker 1: I want to walk through that with you coming up
Speaker 1: here in just a moment, team, so stay with me
Speaker 1: for that. So, there was a shooting that did not
Speaker 1: get a whole lot of attention in in Toronto. Initially
Speaker 1: it did. To be fair, initially it did. And the
Speaker 1: shooting was in a crowded area that I'd leave It's
Speaker 1: called like the Greek town or a Greek area of Toronto,
Speaker 1: and you had a lot of people were hit and
Speaker 1: thirteen wounded, two people killed, including a ten year old girl.
Speaker 1: So this is a multiple person fatality shooting with over
Speaker 1: a dozen people who were hit by bullets. And immediately
Speaker 1: people started to get into their position for okay, how
Speaker 1: do we make this a political fight? What do we
Speaker 1: do to I'm just being honest about this. Every time
Speaker 1: there's a mass shooting now of any kind, people try
Speaker 1: to establish some means of using it for political gain.
Speaker 1: Right there, They're gonna infuse it with their narrative, whatever
Speaker 1: that may be. However it is that they see it,
Speaker 1: they come together and come up with some way to
Speaker 1: attach it to their favored, their favored talking one. And
Speaker 1: I saw this one, I thought to myself, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen here is it's immediately going to turn
Speaker 1: into a gun control versus terrorism struggle in the news media.
Speaker 1: That's what they were going to make of it, and
Speaker 1: sure enough they did. But I would note that, you know,
Speaker 1: there is this period where we're all told now to
Speaker 1: wait with the motive, and sometimes you see why that's
Speaker 1: a good idea there was a a vehicular attack in
Speaker 1: Canada that was one of these involved what is it,
Speaker 1: involuntary in cell, involuntary celibate, you know, maniacs who just
Speaker 1: who couldn't get any female attention, so he just ran
Speaker 1: a bunch of people down with his car. That's yeah.
Speaker 1: That was April ten. In April ten people were killed.
Speaker 1: That was when the driver of a rental van struck
Speaker 1: all these people on the sidewalk. So, you know, you
Speaker 1: don't always know. And I'm not somebody who jumps right
Speaker 1: to the oh, it's terrorism, it's terrorism, because sometimes it's
Speaker 1: not terrorism. Sometimes it's just a crazy person, and sometimes
Speaker 1: it is some form of extremism that is not gee
Speaker 1: hootism or the most likely, you know, the most likely
Speaker 1: situation which has given these kinds of shootings, you would
Speaker 1: expect it, you'd expect it to be a gee hottis right.
Speaker 1: So I look at this one, and sure enough the
Speaker 1: name came out of the shooter, twenty nine year old
Speaker 1: Toronto resident. The gunman has been identified as Faisal Who's sin.
Speaker 1: Now I have to ask you what are we to
Speaker 1: make of the motive here? This guy is dressed in black,
Speaker 1: He walks up to a walks up to this restaurant
Speaker 1: area in a trendy neighborhood and just shoots as many
Speaker 1: people as he possibly can. Now they are telling us
Speaker 1: that this is psychosis, that he is somebody who has
Speaker 1: a long history of mental illness. I am not denying
Speaker 1: that is the case. He may have a lot of
Speaker 1: he may have a long history of mental illness. But
Speaker 1: I would just be cautious about this new trend that
Speaker 1: I'm seeing in a mass shooting that perhaps involves somebody
Speaker 1: of Islamic extraction, that there may be a reactionary move
Speaker 1: to label these things as mental health related, because then
Speaker 1: everyone feels everyone feels sympathy for the family, right, everyone
Speaker 1: feels like, oh, well, it was no one's fault, this
Speaker 1: was just a very deeply mentally ill person or not.
Speaker 1: Everyone feels sympathy for the for the family of the shooter.
Speaker 1: But you know what I mean, there's there's a greater
Speaker 1: sense of this was just a terrible tragedy, severe mental illness,
Speaker 1: and that's what led us. But you know, when you
Speaker 1: look at the statistics, millions and millions of Americans, for example,
Speaker 1: I'm it's true in Canada as well. I have some
Speaker 1: form of ment of a mental health challenge, whatever it
Speaker 1: may be, it's on a tremendous spectrum, right, And we
Speaker 1: see this from physical health too. There's a huge difference
Speaker 1: between you know, I have a cold and I have ebola. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a huge spectrum of what constitutes illness, and that's
Speaker 1: true of mental illness as well. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: I can't diagnose this guy. I don't know his history,
Speaker 1: but I do sense. Okay, Well, here's a guy who
Speaker 1: is clearly he is of Islamic extraction, shoots up a
Speaker 1: bunch of people, and immediately we're being told, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we don't know the motive, but he has a history
Speaker 1: of mental illness. Okay. Is it so extreme that he
Speaker 1: was completely that he was not of sound mind and
Speaker 1: would not be able to stand trial in a court.
Speaker 1: Or did he have a history of you know, abusing
Speaker 1: some alcohol or drugs and some tough times and he
Speaker 1: turned to radical Islam. You know, I just would keep
Speaker 1: an eye on this. I'm I'm not suggesting I don't
Speaker 1: know the full details here, No one does yet Moore's
Speaker 1: coming out, but I sense that, in an effort to
Speaker 1: always make these incidents that could involve somebody who may
Speaker 1: have been a radicalized jihadist. To make it about mental
Speaker 1: health and guns is a much more comfortable position for
Speaker 1: a lot of people doing the reporting and everything else
Speaker 1: than to talk about Islamic radicalization. I'm just noting this
Speaker 1: because I'm wondering, I mean, what are the chances that
Speaker 1: this guy involved the mass shooting. Canada does not have
Speaker 1: a vast population of Muslim Canadians. It does seem like
Speaker 1: a coincidence that this guy who you may look at
Speaker 1: and say, hold on, he has an Islamic background. Was
Speaker 1: there Islamic radicalism involved here? Oh no, no, don't even
Speaker 1: ask that question. Let's just go right to mental health
Speaker 1: and let's throw everybody, by the way, who has any
Speaker 1: kind of a mental health issue into this position where
Speaker 1: oh so, now that's the you know, anytime it's anytime
Speaker 1: there's a mass shooting in the US or in Canada,
Speaker 1: we have to have a discussion about how mental health
Speaker 1: recorded to be more accessible to the authorities, and mental
Speaker 1: health treatment perhaps needs to be a closer in line
Speaker 1: with law enforcement. And you know, there's a tradeoff there, folks,
Speaker 1: there's a tradeoff that's being made. You know, when we
Speaker 1: decide that. I don't know if it's the case here,
Speaker 1: but I'm just trying to get ahead of where I
Speaker 1: think some of this may be going. When we decide
Speaker 1: that somebody who may have turned to radical Islam but
Speaker 1: has a background that has some mental health issues in it,
Speaker 1: if it's going to be just a focus on mental health,
Speaker 1: then you can see that, oh, we're not going to
Speaker 1: talk about radicalization and what really occurs. And by the way,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be counter radicalization efforts that we
Speaker 1: focus on. It's going to be well, how do we
Speaker 1: have better information sharing with law enforcement personnel about you know,
Speaker 1: people who have substance abuse issues, people who have PTSD,
Speaker 1: people a whole host of very common, very widespread, and
Speaker 1: very understandable and treatable mental health problems. So there's politics
Speaker 1: of all, I'm not even going down the Oh Canada
Speaker 1: says tighter gun laws. Toronto is very strict gun laws.
Speaker 1: But now they're staying tighter gun laws. We all, we
Speaker 1: all know they're going to do that no matter what.
Speaker 1: But I thought it was it was just not worthy
Speaker 1: that here, everywhere there's no talk of even the possibility
Speaker 1: of radicalization, and the press it's just oh, he has
Speaker 1: a background with mental health health issues. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you a lot of Jihadas have a background that you
Speaker 1: could point to and say there are mental health problems there.
Speaker 1: But that's not to say that the primary problem is
Speaker 1: mental health. The primary problem is the radicalization that they
Speaker 1: go through to become mujahideen, to become holy warriors. Right,
Speaker 1: Maybe that has nothing to do with this. Maybe this
Speaker 1: guy didn't even pray. Maybe this guy's not even Muslim.
Speaker 1: I'm not even religious. I'm just looking at this and
Speaker 1: asking some questions and urging some caution before we accept
Speaker 1: the narrative and move on, because that's what they always
Speaker 1: want you to do with these Even when it turns
Speaker 1: out it is radicalization, we've already moved on. Right, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's guns and mental health. Move on. Oh it's guns
Speaker 1: and mental health. Move on. That to me seems a
Speaker 1: bit convenient for people who are very political in how
Speaker 1: they cover these cases. All right, I'll be right back.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back.
Speaker 1: How to pay for college? The topic that a lot
Speaker 1: of folks are focused on these days, because I think
Speaker 1: that as we've got more and more people than ever before,
Speaker 1: going off to college and we're not seeing that it
Speaker 1: is necessarily a wise decision from from a return on
Speaker 1: investment perspective. At least you know that the earnings are
Speaker 1: not necessarily keeping up with the expectations of a lot
Speaker 1: of people that are taken on these debt burdens. Remember
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars a trillion dollars student debt burden, which
Speaker 1: a student loan burden. Well, the same thing which is
Speaker 1: out there and people are are understanding now that maybe
Speaker 1: there needs to be a rethink of some of these
Speaker 1: policies about student loans. Well, here's at least something you
Speaker 1: got to give credit for it being thinking outside the box.
Speaker 1: The Boston was Boston Herald or Boston Club. Boston Herald
Speaker 1: reporting that colleges are asking for a share of future
Speaker 1: salary in lieu of loans. Here's what they say. As
Speaker 1: more students baka the debtloads they face after graduation, some
Speaker 1: colleges are offering an alternative, will pay your tuition if
Speaker 1: you offer us a percentage of your future salary. Norwich
Speaker 1: University announced Tuesday it will become the latest school to
Speaker 1: offer this type of contract, known as an income share agreement.
Speaker 1: An origeous program is starting out on a small scale,
Speaker 1: mainly for students who do not have access to other
Speaker 1: types of loans or who are taking longer than the
Speaker 1: traditional eight semesters to finish their degree. So you know,
Speaker 1: in this case they're gonna be paying a percentage of
Speaker 1: their salary. I gotta say that, you know, maybe this
Speaker 1: is a good idea, Maybe it'll work better for people.
Speaker 1: You know, Milton Friedman, in fact, was the one who
Speaker 1: offered income share agreements back in nineteen fifty five. Yale
Speaker 1: University had some experiments with a back in the seventies,
Speaker 1: So this is not a completely new idea, but you're
Speaker 1: seeing it come back because people are realizing that, you know,
Speaker 1: the the term of the agreement and everything else can
Speaker 1: be favorable in comparison to a massive debt load with
Speaker 1: a set percentage rate on it. So they cite someone
Speaker 1: here is paying back eight percent of his income. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's less than less than agents take. I can tell
Speaker 1: you that. And the federal loans allow people to also,
Speaker 1: you know, you can do part federal loans and part
Speaker 1: this way. But you know, this is a good at
Speaker 1: least this is moving in the right direction. You know,
Speaker 1: at least you've got people here were thinking about how
Speaker 1: they're going to be able to service their debtload, how
Speaker 1: they're gonna be able to meet the expectations of repayment
Speaker 1: that they have set up for themselves or that they
Speaker 1: have been set up with. And you know, that makes things, uh,
Speaker 1: I think down the line, it could make things a
Speaker 1: bit easier. But I would also note that if you
Speaker 1: have to go through such extreme lengths to pay for
Speaker 1: an undergraduate program, it is worth asking a question. When
Speaker 1: I've asked here many times, how valuable is that undergraduate
Speaker 1: program really? You know, I can tell you this and
Speaker 1: the graduate level, what you're talking about, law school, business school,
Speaker 1: those kinds of programs people are not shy about saying
Speaker 1: if you're gonna pay for it yourself, If you're gonna
Speaker 1: pay for it yourself, you better be in a position
Speaker 1: to say that it's an elite school. It better being
Speaker 1: elite school, because if you're going to pay for it
Speaker 1: out of pocket and it's a second or third tier institution,
Speaker 1: it's not about snobbery. It's just about the marketplace value
Speaker 1: of it. You know, you don't want to go to
Speaker 1: the worst law school in the country. Some of you're
Speaker 1: probably yelling at me. Yeah. I saw that piece on
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen too, and they're saying it's the worst accredited
Speaker 1: law school in the United States. I think Cohen's a
Speaker 1: great lawyer. No, but I thought that piece was. There
Speaker 1: was some snobbery in that one. But there is an
Speaker 1: overall point here, which is, if you're going to take
Speaker 1: out loans, you should understand that this is a product
Speaker 1: that you were buying. That these degrees, whether the advanced
Speaker 1: degrees or an undergraduate degree, it's it's a product. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's an education, but you're in a better position now.
Speaker 1: Anyone is in a better position now than ever before
Speaker 1: to educate himself or herself. There are more resources, more
Speaker 1: free knowledge, and more self training than ever. And I
Speaker 1: do think that there's a lot of Look, I wish
Speaker 1: I knew computer coding. I wish there were a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of things that I have no background and whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I still think it's amazing. I don't know how I'm
Speaker 1: gonna you have had this experience. I think it's astonishing
Speaker 1: that we get people that graduate, they go all the
Speaker 1: way through college and have never taken a basic finance
Speaker 1: and you know, financial management, class. I don't mean managing
Speaker 1: the assets of millionaires and hanging out with Thurston how
Speaker 1: the third on the yacht. I'm talking about what should
Speaker 1: you do for your long term financial future? How should
Speaker 1: you structure if you're going to rent? How much of
Speaker 1: your how much of your income should you be spending
Speaker 1: on rent? If you're out of four oh one k?
Speaker 1: What's the proper percentage? What's a ETFs? Every American should
Speaker 1: actually know these things, and a lot of us and
Speaker 1: myself included, have had to be self taught with this
Speaker 1: after all that schooling. You know, I think I had
Speaker 1: the you know, the history of Ancient Rome three or
Speaker 1: four different times in my academic career. I think we
Speaker 1: could have taken one semester to say, hey, here's how
Speaker 1: not just you balance a checkbook, but here's how you
Speaker 1: should think about your long term finances. Here's what different
Speaker 1: career ears can provide you in terms of compensation, what
Speaker 1: you can do with that compensation, how you can structure
Speaker 1: your long term you know this kind of like you
Speaker 1: see these commercials, and they've always got these commercials. Everyone
Speaker 1: looks like, oh, we're just hanging out on a beach,
Speaker 1: and they're like we'll take care of your long term investments.
Speaker 1: All these financial management companies, they should be teaching us
Speaker 1: that stuff anyway. And also some of these people that
Speaker 1: are involved in these loan share programs. I think the
Speaker 1: schools are going to find out. I think the schools
Speaker 1: are gonna find out the hard way that women in
Speaker 1: gender studies doesn't exactly pay well. And now that they're
Speaker 1: going into business with these students, they'll see that. But
Speaker 1: we got roll call coming up, Team Buck, It's time
Speaker 1: for roll call. All right, let's look at the latest
Speaker 1: in roll call. If you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of it, Facebook dot com, slash buck, sextant, send me
Speaker 1: your thoughts, your ideas, your wants, your knee needs, all
Speaker 1: of the above. Let's get into it, Troy. Right, dude,
Speaker 1: Oss here original Saturday Squad. You have to go grab
Speaker 1: Marie Haarf's interview last night on Martha McCallum show and
Speaker 1: see what an atrocity it was. She was actually arguing
Speaker 1: that helping the Iranian people in their plight actually helps
Speaker 1: the Mullahs. It was a train wreck, and frankly sad
Speaker 1: to see Fox News try to pass that off as credible.
Speaker 1: Then right after her is Lindsey Graham and watch what
Speaker 1: he says first Firsthandbuck, It makes a great SoundBite, great
Speaker 1: for a laugh on tonight's show. Lastly, during last night's show,
Speaker 1: the radio network kept playing news updates from NBC News
Speaker 1: during the break. I'm with you since the Saturday, but
Speaker 1: I have to be honest and tell you that I
Speaker 1: think your audience deserves better than having to sit and
Speaker 1: be forced to listen to such subbar media coverage during
Speaker 1: commercial breaks. Waiting to hear you again. We are listening
Speaker 1: to you because we don't want to have to listen
Speaker 1: to the MSM. So why is your company forcing us
Speaker 1: to Troy on the stream? Do we know? Or is
Speaker 1: that on your local station? Because I have no you
Speaker 1: know the local stations, because we're affiliated over one hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty markets. Local stations can air whatever they want
Speaker 1: to in the breaks. If it's on the stream, I'd
Speaker 1: have to check out and see what's going on there.
Speaker 1: But I can't speak intelligently to it, obviously, Otherwise I would,
Speaker 1: at least I'm honest. William writes, Buck, why don't you
Speaker 1: talk about all the missing children in this country in
Speaker 1: other countries as well? Why don't you ever talk about
Speaker 1: the child trafficking that is running rampant. Please help these children. Well, William,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just cover what I see in the
Speaker 1: news cycle and what I think is in any given
Speaker 1: day top of mind for folks. If there's a particular
Speaker 1: story you think I should be aware of, or if
Speaker 1: there's a narrative here that people need need to know,
Speaker 1: by all means, send it to me. But I'm not.
Speaker 1: I just don't. I'm not not covering it. I just
Speaker 1: don't know what story you want me to talk about.
Speaker 1: But I do appreciate the thought. Greg right Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: the Northern Newcastle County Republicans, the largest Republican group in
Speaker 1: the state of Delaware, invites you to our Rolling on
Speaker 1: the River annual fundraiser event. If you can't make it,
Speaker 1: please feel free to donate some extra stuff you found
Speaker 1: in the process of moving. We could use it from Greg. Well, Greg,
Speaker 1: let me look into this one and if I can
Speaker 1: make it, Delaware is not that far away. Sounds great,
Speaker 1: But I gotta check the schedule and I will get
Speaker 1: back to you, and I'll write back to you when
Speaker 1: I'm not in the midst of a live or radio show. Melvin,
Speaker 1: what's up? Melvin. It's a cool name. I like the
Speaker 1: name Melvin. Hey Buck, I'm at the gym listening to
Speaker 1: CNN and Cooper's interpretation of the released docks is that
Speaker 1: it supports the Russia investigation. And they showed a CNN
Speaker 1: reporter trying to interview an angry Devin Neunez. Did you
Speaker 1: see that? And what do you think Shields high Melvine?
Speaker 1: I did not see that. I can't say that in
Speaker 1: any way surprises me. And as to Nunez, I can
Speaker 1: tell you that I'm supposed to be interviewing the man
Speaker 1: myself tomorrow on Rising, so I'll I'm sure be able
Speaker 1: to get answers to questions you would actually want asked tomorrow,
Speaker 1: So you should check that out. So it's a perfect
Speaker 1: transition there. Next up here, what's Trump's around tweet? Maybe
Speaker 1: the greatest tweet ever? This is oh from Michael. He's
Speaker 1: so right to call them out in a very provocative
Speaker 1: and public way. Michael. I have no problem with him
Speaker 1: calling out the mulas, And I don't really understand why
Speaker 1: people seem to think it's such a bad idea, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's saying that they're part of the axis
Speaker 1: of evil. Is that any Is that better than saying
Speaker 1: that what Trump did? I think that people get so
Speaker 1: caught up in their Trump's Arrangement syndrome they lose they
Speaker 1: lose some context here. Next up is Alex. You mentioned
Speaker 1: a book a while back and I was trying to
Speaker 1: read it. I can't remember the title, but I thought
Speaker 1: it was something like the Death of the Gods and
Speaker 1: was about the failure of communism. I could be way
Speaker 1: off on the name, but I was wondering if you
Speaker 1: might know what I am looking for. Well, yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: what you're asking about is a compendium of essays from
Speaker 1: former Communists called The God That Failed. So it's a
Speaker 1: book from nineteen forty nine that has six essays that
Speaker 1: are that are brought together by or that are pulled together.
Speaker 1: And it's from former it's from former communists, some very
Speaker 1: prominent ones at that. And it's also a song by Metallica.
Speaker 1: Those of you who are like exist lie that was
Speaker 1: the closest I can get to kind of do Metallica
Speaker 1: here on the show. But yeah, that's The God That
Speaker 1: Failed as a song by Metallic as well. But I
Speaker 1: don't know about that song. I do know about the book.
Speaker 1: It is powerful, and it tells you a lot about
Speaker 1: communism and why it's so terrible, and all the falsehoods
Speaker 1: and the inhumanity that is the core of communist ideology.
Speaker 1: I highly recommend the God that Failed. You will be glad.
Speaker 1: I think you can. I mean, look, I don't know
Speaker 1: if somebody owns the if someone's estate is getting money
Speaker 1: from the rights to it or something, but I think
Speaker 1: you can just download a PDF of it online pretty easily.
Speaker 1: It might even be one of those things that on
Speaker 1: your kindle you can download for free, like I downloaded
Speaker 1: recently what was it that was free? Treasure Island for free?
Speaker 1: Never never signed it in school, I felt like I
Speaker 1: should read it. So there's plenty of things. A lot
Speaker 1: of the Penguin classics are available as free kindle downloads.
Speaker 1: Sean Rights, Hey Buck, do you even lift bro? So
Speaker 1: many things I'd like to comment on, but so little time.
Speaker 1: I like how your morning show is really rising up
Speaker 1: to its challenge. Crystal, however, seems to keep taking left
Speaker 1: jabs at you while you write the ship's course. Maybe
Speaker 1: parlay with the young lass and ask her to play
Speaker 1: more by the rules, unless banter is par for the
Speaker 1: course you know, Sean, We're we're a work in progress
Speaker 1: with rising and I'm always trying to be constructive and
Speaker 1: friendly and additive. That's how I approach it and others.
Speaker 1: Some of you have been listening to this show long
Speaker 1: enough that you know There's been an extra fire in
Speaker 1: my belly since I've been down here in the swamp one.
Speaker 1: I think because of my proximity to a lot of
Speaker 1: the government stuff that's going on here. Now. I'm right,
Speaker 1: I'm right near it. You know, I could. I could
Speaker 1: walk from where I am to the White House in
Speaker 1: five minutes. I could walk to the Capitol Building in
Speaker 1: fifteen or twenty minutes. But there's also the sense of
Speaker 1: freedom that I have when I get on the air
Speaker 1: waves at night and get to talk to all of you.
Speaker 1: So yes, indeed, Bill right, Gutfeld called you Tucker l
Speaker 1: m aoh, yes, Bill, that is a thing that happened.
Speaker 1: Gutfield did call me Tucker. One's kind of by accident,
Speaker 1: and then he just leaned into it and called me
Speaker 1: Tucker again. Brittany writes Buck, I made it to Roll
Speaker 1: Call a few weeks ago, and you totally made my day.
Speaker 1: I rate your opinion as highly as Russia's thank you
Speaker 1: for everything you do question. Was there ever an official
Speaker 1: statement put out for why Russia invaded Crimea. Someone suggested
Speaker 1: they are trying to take back the old Soviet land.
Speaker 1: But I needed to ask you, Shields High, well, Brittany,
Speaker 1: Russia hasn't really invaded Crimea so much as they put
Speaker 1: up what people believe was a rigged referendum that allowed
Speaker 1: for a vote in the territory of Crimea, which does
Speaker 1: have some major Russian naval base and it is also
Speaker 1: very strategically important territory. But that referendum allowed the people
Speaker 1: of Crimea to go back and join the well, whether
Speaker 1: it was the people or was the Russian state the
Speaker 1: point people say it was a rigged referendum, but it
Speaker 1: was in Crimea, and they they were the international monitors,
Speaker 1: and people who look at the stuff said they're irregularities,
Speaker 1: and they're cheating and all kinds of stuff. Ukraine is
Speaker 1: where you've had Russian paramilitaries essentially involved in a stealth invasion.
Speaker 1: So that's a bit a little different and a bit
Speaker 1: more severe, to be sure, And I hope that that
Speaker 1: for now at least answers the question. Craig writes, good afternoon, guys.
Speaker 1: In response that I say good afternoon, Craig Sean writes,
Speaker 1: buck love the Hillary screech. What if you were to
Speaker 1: record I should be president or something like that and
Speaker 1: play it every time HRC comes up in a news
Speaker 1: story or whenever. And two, I live in the live
Speaker 1: free or die state New Hampshire. You should come to
Speaker 1: New Hampshire during presidential primary season for a remote broadcast
Speaker 1: and interview candidates. Shields high Well, Sean, I actually did that.
Speaker 1: I went up to New Hampshire interviewed all but Trump
Speaker 1: and Cruise at the New Hampshire primary in the last election.
Speaker 1: I sat down with Rand Paul Marco Rubio, that guy
Speaker 1: from Ohio that I do not find particularly persuasive forgetting
Speaker 1: to k sick there you go rhymes with basic and
Speaker 1: yeah everybody else. I'm trying to remember who else was
Speaker 1: even up there for that, but I interviewed a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of them, like six or seven candidates, maybe so
Speaker 1: as it wasn't the full fifteen. I'm trying to think
Speaker 1: of the off the top of my head who else.
Speaker 1: There were a couple of others, but I can't remember,
Speaker 1: And that tells you a lot about the Republican field
Speaker 1: again't remember exactly who they were, so yeah, I'd be
Speaker 1: happy to go back there though with rising James right
Speaker 1: looking good on the Greg Gutfeld Show. Keep up the
Speaker 1: good work. This Cortez lady will destroy New York. Capitalism
Speaker 1: is good. We were always brought up to earn your
Speaker 1: pay and the things you buy, like a car in
Speaker 1: a house. This shows you work hard for your money.
Speaker 1: If the liberal socialists want free things, how do you
Speaker 1: value things that you have? Not because you did not
Speaker 1: earn it, there will be no value. Thanks for taking
Speaker 1: your time listening to your voices. Your shield tie from
Speaker 1: James up in New York. Well, thank you very much
Speaker 1: James for writing in. I do appreciate it. Good to
Speaker 1: hear from you. All Right, that's gonna be it for
Speaker 1: Roll Call today. Obviously tomorrow we'll be hanging out quite
Speaker 1: a bit more. I'm planning a very special Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: podcast this week. The plan right now, if we can
Speaker 1: make it work, is to have Jesse Kelly and Sean
Speaker 1: Parnell basically come on air. So we're gonna have a
Speaker 1: former Army ranger and a former marine just talk a
Speaker 1: lot of smack to each other. And I just get
Speaker 1: to stand there and laugh while they make jokes. So
Speaker 1: that's the plan for later on this week. If you
Speaker 1: missed last week's please do check it out. I have
Speaker 1: a fun chat with Jedediabila about Trump and politics and
Speaker 1: media and all kinds of stuff. Until next time, my friends,
Speaker 1: you have your orders, shield tie. Don't drink comie coffee.
Speaker 1: You want to make sure that whatever you're putting in
Speaker 1: your cup every day to get your day started or
Speaker 1: keep you going. If you're a coffee guyline me, you
Speaker 1: want to make sure that you're drinking stuff that is
Speaker 1: from veterans, and all about veterans. That's Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: They've got fresh, premium coffee that comes to you. By
Speaker 1: the way, if you want every month courtesy of a
Speaker 1: coffee club that you can join, I highly recommend I'm
Speaker 1: a member. I highly recommend you do that. This is
Speaker 1: a company that, as you know, is formed by former
Speaker 1: Special Operations vets and Black Rifle simply is the best
Speaker 1: in the business when it comes to roast to order
Speaker 1: coffee delivered right to your door. All Right, you will
Speaker 1: love these guys and you will love their coffee. I
Speaker 1: drink Black Rifle every day, and I want people listening
Speaker 1: to this show to do the same. Visit Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck