Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Conan the Wonder Dog
Speaker 1: visits the White House, the impeachment timetable, and the wishful
Speaker 1: Frenzy Democrats are actually Putin's puppet. Let's be thankful for
Speaker 1: incredible employment in this country. A federal animal cruelty law
Speaker 1: goes into effect, and Twitter suspending people for putting out
Speaker 1: facts that are more coming up. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins, analysts,
Speaker 1: he's a great guy. Now, so this is right now
Speaker 1: probably the world's most famous dog. I don't think I
Speaker 1: have to use the word probably. And Conan is a
Speaker 1: incredible It's an incredible story. I learned a lot about
Speaker 1: this particular type of dog, and we just gave Conan
Speaker 1: a medal and a plaque and it's really uh And
Speaker 1: I actually think Conan knew exactly what was going on.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bucks Acton show. Conan the dog that
Speaker 1: chased down Abe Baker bug Daddy who went to the
Speaker 1: White House yesterday. One thing that I'm I'm just surprised.
Speaker 1: We can't see to get an answer on and people
Speaker 1: keep saying Conan is male, Conan is female. I understand
Speaker 1: that we are in a time of a particular sensitivity
Speaker 1: about about about gender, but I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: very straightforward process. Do we know, guys, I've seen it
Speaker 1: reported that Conan's a boy dog and Conan's a girl dog. Well,
Speaker 1: Conan's a wonder dog. That much is for sure. We
Speaker 1: know that. And there were a lot of folks that
Speaker 1: were smiling yesterday as the President brought Conan, the Special
Speaker 1: Operations dog to the White House. Sure enough, if you
Speaker 1: thought that, there would be no way that the journos
Speaker 1: would make this something that Trump did wrong or that
Speaker 1: Trump is to be criticized for. There were people who
Speaker 1: were saying that they didn't like Trump bringing the dog
Speaker 1: to the White House. They didn't like that Trump made
Speaker 1: a joke about the dog going after reporters. Nothing is
Speaker 1: allowed to be funny, nothing is allowed to be lighthearted.
Speaker 1: It all has to be always and at all times
Speaker 1: destroy the Trump residency if you deviate from that for
Speaker 1: even a moment, even just to say wow, look at
Speaker 1: look at the really cool Belgian Malinois that is at
Speaker 1: the White House that was involved in a very high
Speaker 1: level and successful US military raid to go after the
Speaker 1: most wanted terrorists really in the world. I think you
Speaker 1: would argue, or you could argue, Abubakara Baghdatis more wanted
Speaker 1: than I'm in Olswaheri. By the way, as we are
Speaker 1: here in New York City, there is also a I
Speaker 1: don't know what is going on down the hallway. There's
Speaker 1: a whole a slew of puppies from what is it,
Speaker 1: from the ASPCA. This is a sign They come to
Speaker 1: iHeart once a year, I believe. And I just went
Speaker 1: to walk and get water and there were just a
Speaker 1: bunch of puppies that just adorable. There's just a whole
Speaker 1: there's just little puppies all play with. There's like six
Speaker 1: of them. They're all they're they're about fifteen feet from
Speaker 1: our studio right now and they're absolutely adorable and they
Speaker 1: want they need homes. They need exactly. They do adoption
Speaker 1: drives every year before the holiday. You know, it would
Speaker 1: be a great wedding wedding gift. Producer Mark I live
Speaker 1: in an apartments. A dog I held is going to
Speaker 1: be huge if you look at its pause. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: gonna be huge. He's gonna make him get a get
Speaker 1: a house though. Yeah, you gotta you gotta have room
Speaker 1: for the puppies and for a little marks and little
Speaker 1: marquettes that are gonna be coming. Puppies first, then we'll
Speaker 1: talk about That's what I always say, Puppies first, all right.
Speaker 1: So the good news about this week is that the
Speaker 1: journos are all pretty much on early Vaca because they
Speaker 1: work so hard, so we get to talk about whatever
Speaker 1: we want here in the Freedom up. There are some
Speaker 1: interesting things breaking. There's some stories that we can dive
Speaker 1: into a little bit more deeply because we're not in
Speaker 1: the midst of I saw. I think it was Jonathan
Speaker 1: Swan over at Axios who referred to democrats impeachment mania
Speaker 1: as a wishful frenzy. I've said that was very as
Speaker 1: a nice turn of phrase from mister Swan. I agree
Speaker 1: with that, a wishful frenzy. Indeed, Oh it's coming, it's happening.
Speaker 1: That's why we had producer Mark play a montage. We
Speaker 1: need a montage. I haven't seen Team Americans so long
Speaker 1: that I might actually go back and watch it again
Speaker 1: over the holidays, and they never made a sequel, which
Speaker 1: I was promised. I was told there would be a sequel,
Speaker 1: and there was not a sequel. But we had a
Speaker 1: montage for you and it was from twenty seventeen and
Speaker 1: it was everybody from you know, Don Lemon to Joe
Speaker 1: Scarborough and everybody else. The walls are finally closed again
Speaker 1: on this president. He's gone too far. It's all over
Speaker 1: for him. The beginning of the end. That's what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to think. What the other ken phrases are that
Speaker 1: we always hear. It turns out it's not the beginning
Speaker 1: of the end, to borrow from Churchill, it is the
Speaker 1: end of the beginning. However, in this impeachment process, we
Speaker 1: are now in the midst of it. And some interesting
Speaker 1: notes on the timeline. I wanted to establish today where
Speaker 1: it's all just going for a moment, so that we
Speaker 1: can have an expectation as they try to they're going
Speaker 1: to come back. Congress is going to come back, and
Speaker 1: right now they're in recess. They're staffs that were working
Speaker 1: furiously on this report. So I want us to know
Speaker 1: what to expect going forward, because there's going to be
Speaker 1: a race to the finish, because you know, the members
Speaker 1: of Congress are not going to spend Christmas and the
Speaker 1: holiday in DC working. No, no, no, Congress doesn't do
Speaker 1: that kind of thing. So they're going to have to
Speaker 1: cram and ram all this stuff so that it gets
Speaker 1: done within the timeline. It's almost like politics and the
Speaker 1: political time line, specifically of a Democratic primary. He's pushing
Speaker 1: this whole thing and that it's not about the sanctity
Speaker 1: of our republic and protecting the foundations of our constitution.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi's weeping, weeping at the notion that they have
Speaker 1: to impeach the president. They really don't want to. He's
Speaker 1: just such a big, mean meaning that they have to
Speaker 1: impeach him. No, they don't really have to impeach him
Speaker 1: at all. As we know, they were going to impeach
Speaker 1: him no matter what. But let's now look at what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. There's been a clear drop in the
Speaker 1: polls in support for certainly removal of the president and
Speaker 1: even impeachment of the president. Some are saying, I believe
Speaker 1: it was Ari Fleischer, who's a savvy political observer. He said,
Speaker 1: perhaps now would be a good time for them to
Speaker 1: just go for a vote of censure instead of going
Speaker 1: all the way here and voting for a an actual
Speaker 1: impeachment of the president. And I'm telling you Democrats can't
Speaker 1: do that because we have to remember what the first
Speaker 1: purpose of all of this is. It's not to get
Speaker 1: to the truth. It's not to protect the Constitution. It's
Speaker 1: not to give a full accounting of the facts to
Speaker 1: the American people about an incident that no one's even
Speaker 1: really going to remember. And six months, maybe even six
Speaker 1: days after at least this whole thing is over. It
Speaker 1: is about trying to make sure the president of the
Speaker 1: United States is at a disadvantage in the election, using
Speaker 1: the process as a weapon against President Trump's reelection chances.
Speaker 1: That's all this is. That's all this is, ultimately, in
Speaker 1: terms of its purpose. The left demands this. The Democrat base,
Speaker 1: the progressive maniacs who stand outside of college amphitheaters and
Speaker 1: chant by the thousands of curses and swears and call
Speaker 1: everyone racist, and all that component of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: which is increasingly the Democratic Party, the mainstream of it.
Speaker 1: They insist that a president that they have called a traitor,
Speaker 1: a criminal, a rapist, certainly a liar, many many many
Speaker 1: times crazy. I can't think of I'm probably leaving a
Speaker 1: few out that they've called all those things. How could
Speaker 1: the Democrats say all that and then not impeach him
Speaker 1: as far as the left is concerned, So we are
Speaker 1: going to an impeachment vote that is I think a
Speaker 1: fate at Holm Plea. There's not a better way to
Speaker 1: say it than the French way. Sometimes the French have
Speaker 1: got it. It's like the Germans. Sometimes the Germans have
Speaker 1: some super long word that means something very specific, and
Speaker 1: when you need that word, say it in the German.
Speaker 1: You know, is there a better way to say zeitgeist
Speaker 1: than zeitgeist? I don't think so. That's not a long one,
Speaker 1: but there's some really long ones too. So the timeline
Speaker 1: then becomes really important. As we're going into the holiday,
Speaker 1: we have a moment to catch our breath here and say,
Speaker 1: tomorrow we'll talk about turkey, stuffing, coffee, you know, no
Speaker 1: big whoop, We'll talk about all those things too. The
Speaker 1: the perennial fight year and in year out. Is turkey
Speaker 1: a worthwhile primary protein on your Thanksgiving table? I'm seeing
Speaker 1: some people start some noise on the on the Twitter
Speaker 1: and on the Facebook that maybe you just maybe just
Speaker 1: see her Ribbi and just stop with all this gobble
Speaker 1: gobble nonsense. You know, maybe just go with your favorite
Speaker 1: food and be thankful that you can eat it and
Speaker 1: celebrate in that way. Or is that sacrilege? I don't
Speaker 1: even want to know a producer Mark Things, producer Brandon.
Speaker 1: We'll find out from him tomorrow where he stands out.
Speaker 1: But you're a turkey guy, aren't you. Of course you've
Speaker 1: probably you're probably one of those maniacs who eats turkey,
Speaker 1: not on Thanksgiving. I mean, what do you mean, maniacs
Speaker 1: that eats turkey out? I'm like a whole turkey or
Speaker 1: like like you'll eat turkey at other points of the year.
Speaker 1: You will skip over the far superior meats and eat
Speaker 1: turkey anyway. Yeah, I'll have a turkey sandwich like slice
Speaker 1: Deli meat, maybe a turkey burger occasionally. This is part
Speaker 1: of this is part of the problem here. We need
Speaker 1: we need truth in turkey. I don't see what the
Speaker 1: problem is. Turkey's just not worthwhile. Now, are you gonna
Speaker 1: hate me that I say I'm a dark meat turkey
Speaker 1: type of guy. No, no, no, I like the dark meat,
Speaker 1: dark meat turkey, dark meat chicken. You only live once
Speaker 1: go with the dark meat. It's more that's it's higher
Speaker 1: fat content that who cares, it's delicious, Brandon, you a
Speaker 1: turkey guy. I guess we're getting this done today. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: I like turkey, turkey and cheese because I told you
Speaker 1: I eat like a ten year old nice turkey and cheese,
Speaker 1: And I like the one you gonna have like a slice.
Speaker 1: Are you gonna have like turkey and then some mashed
Speaker 1: potatoes then like a slice of American cheese? Is that
Speaker 1: what you go for? What's your Yeah? That sounds good.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, all right, yeah, lunches on you good talk.
Speaker 1: So the impeachment timeline instead of the turkey timeline, this
Speaker 1: is what's gonna happen. If you look back at the
Speaker 1: impeachment process from the Clinton era when I was I
Speaker 1: was just a young lad. I was in high school.
Speaker 1: I don't remember much about this. I do remember seeing
Speaker 1: some of the snippets of the interview on TV and going, whoa,
Speaker 1: there's some stuff that happens with the president that's really surprising.
Speaker 1: But it started and finished within a matter of a
Speaker 1: few months. This time around, they're going to have to
Speaker 1: do the same thing. Why it's not because democracy dictates
Speaker 1: it be. So it's not because the vision of the
Speaker 1: founders blah blah, it's none of that. It is because
Speaker 1: Democrats have to get this thing done before. You have
Speaker 1: a bunch of Democrats senators who need to be showing
Speaker 1: up in the Iowa caucuses and in the first New
Speaker 1: Hampshire primary in early February. This thing has got to
Speaker 1: get done before then. Now question that. I so. So
Speaker 1: that's why they're trying to ram this thing through. They're
Speaker 1: going to have the report out, maybe as soon as
Speaker 1: next week. I'm seeing you're also going to have the
Speaker 1: Horowitz report schedule. This is the report from within the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice looking into Fiser abuse. We've already talked
Speaker 1: about this a little bit on the show. I believe
Speaker 1: it's December or ninth or the tenth of the eleventh,
Speaker 1: something like that. Second week December, you have the Fiser
Speaker 1: Report coming out. I don't know how they're going to
Speaker 1: try to time this with the release of the impeachment report,
Speaker 1: but we already know what the impeachment report's going to say.
Speaker 1: It's just going to be another version of the recitation
Speaker 1: of bloviation and exaggerated disconnected factoids that Adam Schiff has
Speaker 1: been reading out at the start of each proceeding. All
Speaker 1: that's all it will be. They may tack onto it
Speaker 1: some other things. And right now they're probably furiously looking
Speaker 1: at the data to decide do we call it bribery,
Speaker 1: do we call it extortion? Do we call it abuse
Speaker 1: of power? Abuse of power has the most leeway. It's
Speaker 1: not bribery and it's not extortion, so they can call
Speaker 1: it that. But now they're just making now and now
Speaker 1: they're just crazy, and which I guess they are. But
Speaker 1: that's a leap. Everybody knows that's a leap. But they
Speaker 1: have to get this thing done before the Iowa CAUCUSUS
Speaker 1: rolls around or else they're going to start to have
Speaker 1: some problem. It's going to look like they didn't really
Speaker 1: think this thing through. I think it's quite possible they
Speaker 1: didn't really think this thing through. That brings me to
Speaker 1: my main man, Cocaine, Mitch Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 1: He and his Senate Republican colleagues will be in a
Speaker 1: position to drag using the process just like Democrats do.
Speaker 1: To drag the Democrats through an annoying, difficult stretch just
Speaker 1: to sort of show the country as much dirty laundry
Speaker 1: from the Democrats side as possible on all of this.
Speaker 1: Get Hunter Biden out there, call Adam Shift. I worry
Speaker 1: that this is where Republicans say, oh, well, we're just
Speaker 1: Republicans in the Senate. I mean we'll say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we're through all that, We're too good to do that.
Speaker 1: Now we're not going to do that. No, No, this
Speaker 1: is we are going into the twenty twenty election. My friends.
Speaker 1: This is an eye for an eye territory. This is
Speaker 1: time to make the Democrats live by the rules that
Speaker 1: they established for all of us. And the only rule
Speaker 1: is that there are no rules when they have power.
Speaker 1: So maybe it's time they get a taste of their
Speaker 1: own medicine. I hope cocaine Mitch decides to exact a
Speaker 1: terrible price from the Democrats through the Senate trial. We
Speaker 1: will see if he does. But now you know it's
Speaker 1: got to happen really in a matter of weeks. They
Speaker 1: do not have months unless they plan on just allowing
Speaker 1: the impeachment proceeding in the Senate to hijack the Democrat primary.
Speaker 1: And given that Bloomberg just got in, everybody understands that
Speaker 1: this Democrat primary, there's no front runner. There's no one
Speaker 1: who's particularly inspiring or great. I don't think they want
Speaker 1: to add to their troubles, unless, of course, you want
Speaker 1: to make the argument that Hillary Clinton is behind all
Speaker 1: of this on the sidelines, you know, be in the shadows,
Speaker 1: just waiting for her moment to emerge as the consensus candidate.
Speaker 1: But let's not get too conspiratorial. Not today, maybe tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure if we came to an agreement
Speaker 1: today that it would be enough time. I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure if we came to an agreement today that it
Speaker 1: would be enough time. I'm not even sure if we
Speaker 1: came to an agreement today. So we had Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: there talking about the US Mexico Canada Agreement, and we
Speaker 1: kind of turned it into the remix. It's fine, whatever
Speaker 1: I might even today enough time. You get the idea.
Speaker 1: Our point here is that they feel like they don't
Speaker 1: have time for this in the Congress. I'm here to
Speaker 1: just remind everybody that they got time for this sham
Speaker 1: and beachment trial. The US Mexico Canada Agreement, which does
Speaker 1: need a cooler name. I am not gonna lie to you.
Speaker 1: It needs a cooler name. For sure, would benefit American workers,
Speaker 1: would help this economy, would help the country. It's the
Speaker 1: dare I say, the right thing to do. If Congress
Speaker 1: took its job seriously, if the Democrat majority in the
Speaker 1: House wasn't entirely consumed with and only concerned with harmon
Speaker 1: President Trump's electoral prospects, then they would most certainly take
Speaker 1: action on this item. They would do what they could
Speaker 1: to pass this. But it seems they have no interest
Speaker 1: whatsoever in that because legislation that would pass going into
Speaker 1: an election year would benefit the president. I think this
Speaker 1: is necessary context for evaluating all of the sanctimonious speeches
Speaker 1: you will hear from Democrats in the days ahead about how, oh,
Speaker 1: our duty to protect the American people, we have to
Speaker 1: protect them from trumpy so evil. Well, they could still
Speaker 1: say all the horrible things they say about Trump and
Speaker 1: try to damage him in all the ways that they
Speaker 1: do and do business that helps the American people. They
Speaker 1: don't have to make these things mutually exclusive. They make
Speaker 1: it mutually exclusive because anything that is good that comes
Speaker 1: out of government right now is to the benefit of Trump,
Speaker 1: and he is the president of the United States, despite
Speaker 1: their delusions otherwise, so they have no interest in really
Speaker 1: helping people. I also mentioned I believe that not the
Speaker 1: show that we should be thank full for the employment
Speaker 1: numbers at this time of year. A lot of people
Speaker 1: going into this Thanksgiving and have jobs that we were
Speaker 1: told would not exist based on the numbers of even
Speaker 1: the projections back in twenty fourteen. We are at you know,
Speaker 1: for people to try to say, this is the Obama economy,
Speaker 1: and that's preposterous, that's a joke. We are at a
Speaker 1: fifty year low. It has been fifty years since we
Speaker 1: have had so many people, particularly of prime working age
Speaker 1: from twenty five to fifty four, which I leave is
Speaker 1: also the demo for media stuff, right, twenty five fifty four, Yeah,
Speaker 1: consider that prime working age two. It's been fifty years
Speaker 1: since we've had so many people of that age range
Speaker 1: in the workplace gainfully employed. The country right now, despite
Speaker 1: the absence of this narrative in the media, the country
Speaker 1: is doing very well. Trump's policies and decision making has
Speaker 1: been working. It is bringing benefits to you and to me.
Speaker 1: We should be a bit thankful if the fact remains
Speaker 1: we have a president, a commander in chief who has
Speaker 1: no respect for the rule of law and no concern
Speaker 1: whatsoever for ethics or honor or for the values that
Speaker 1: truly make America great. No respect for law. That's what
Speaker 1: they say about this president. Meanwhile, you have had forty
Speaker 1: nationwide injunctions by liberal activist judges against this president. That
Speaker 1: is twenty x what you had under the Obama presidency.
Speaker 1: Because people who are of the leftist mindset, they are
Speaker 1: increasingly totalitarian in their aims. They want control of everything.
Speaker 1: They want to punish you for speech, for thoughts, even
Speaker 1: if they can, if they can find a way. I
Speaker 1: do believe as we find out more about the way
Speaker 1: the Chinese use algorithms and the mass surveillance state to
Speaker 1: try and demand obedience of people and even do education
Speaker 1: in real time online of anyone who would dissent from
Speaker 1: the dominant view, that a lot of liberals look at
Speaker 1: that with some degree of envy. If only we could
Speaker 1: do that here. Meanwhile, a lot of us look at
Speaker 1: this and say, they already have near information dominance because
Speaker 1: of the way social media works, because of the way
Speaker 1: are broadcasting networks have just they have adopted this narrative
Speaker 1: that liberalism is now liberalism and the truth are synonymous.
Speaker 1: So anything a liberal thinks must be true. It's not
Speaker 1: that they're liberal, it's that it's just the way it is.
Speaker 1: This is a stunning, stunning departure from good faith journalism,
Speaker 1: from good faith provision of information. But meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg
Speaker 1: runs around saying that we are to be terrified of
Speaker 1: what the president will do in this country, and he
Speaker 1: has no respect them for the rule of law, no
Speaker 1: respect for ethics or honor. You mean like the Clintons.
Speaker 1: That's a family with a lot of respect for ethics
Speaker 1: and honor. Right, that was what we were told we
Speaker 1: should That was the option we should have taken the
Speaker 1: last time around. The same people lecturing you right now
Speaker 1: about how Trump is so unethical and so they're also
Speaker 1: the same people who pretend that Hunter Biden getting millions
Speaker 1: of dollars to do a no show job in Ukraine
Speaker 1: while his dad is pointment on policy there. That's fine,
Speaker 1: it's fine, no problem, nothing to see there. It's not illegal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well neither us. What the president did with Ukraine is it?
Speaker 1: Is that the standard or not. I'm just curious. The
Speaker 1: standard changes every day, though, depends on whatever they want.
Speaker 1: I wonder what changed here. It wasn't long ago that
Speaker 1: Michael Bloomberg, who was the latest entry into the Democrat primary,
Speaker 1: Michael Bloomberg, said that he was too old. Would you producer, Brandon,
Speaker 1: would you play clips seventeen? Please? But it's just not
Speaker 1: going to happen on a national level for somebody like
Speaker 1: me starting where I am, unless I was willing to
Speaker 1: change all my views and go on what CNN called
Speaker 1: an apology tour. Joe Biden went out and apologized for
Speaker 1: being male over fifty white. He apologized for the one
Speaker 1: piece of legislation which is actually a pretty good anti
Speaker 1: crime bill, which if the Liberals ever read it, most
Speaker 1: of the things they like would be easy in that bill.
Speaker 1: They should have loved that. They don't even bother to
Speaker 1: read it. Your anti crime, you must be anti populist,
Speaker 1: and so everybody else. And Betto whatever his name is,
Speaker 1: he's apologized for being born I don't mean van kind
Speaker 1: and people's a lot of people love him and says
Speaker 1: a smart guy, and if he wins, I'd certainly support him.
Speaker 1: I just like him, so sorry that I was born
Speaker 1: a sis gender hetero male who is white named Betto
Speaker 1: even I mean, I took the name betto, but I'm
Speaker 1: still a white sis Nermel. It's true what he says
Speaker 1: here about how you have to go around and apologize
Speaker 1: all the time. In fact, there's data that Andy know
Speaker 1: who will be talking about again here in a minute.
Speaker 1: There's data that is circulating right now that the only
Speaker 1: the only racial group in America that views its own
Speaker 1: racial group negatively white liberals. White liberals do have white
Speaker 1: liberal guilt. This is a real thing. And this is
Speaker 1: a poll that's been circulating all week. And my friend
Speaker 1: and you know, if he is no longer suspended from Twitter,
Speaker 1: we'll get to that. You could see it in his
Speaker 1: in his feed. Now, let me just first say that
Speaker 1: no one should ever feel badly about their race. It is.
Speaker 1: It is a bizarre and immoral thing to take the
Speaker 1: view that one race is is. Let you know that
Speaker 1: your own race would be less than another race. This
Speaker 1: is This is completely contrary to sound and ethical thinking
Speaker 1: for anybody. All races are the same, All race are
Speaker 1: just human beings. It doesn't these are superficial characteristics of
Speaker 1: no importance to us as people. And yet white liberals
Speaker 1: think that there's something wrong with being white we've all
Speaker 1: had this suspicion for a while. People have talked about
Speaker 1: white guilt since I was remember hearing the phrase eman
Speaker 1: back when I was in high school, and it's a
Speaker 1: very real phenomenon. You have these these white liberals they've
Speaker 1: adopted because they believe so much in the power of
Speaker 1: victimhood and victim's status. They talk about this for all
Speaker 1: these other individuals. The only way that they can then
Speaker 1: leverage the victimhood status of other so called the press
Speaker 1: groups is for them to say that they're sorry, that
Speaker 1: they realize they are, by nature white liberals, by nature
Speaker 1: of their skin color, are part of the oppressive class,
Speaker 1: and therefore they have to make amends. And to make
Speaker 1: amends they want to elevate all of the allegedly victimized
Speaker 1: classes and all that way they become the good people,
Speaker 1: and the good people who also need to be in power.
Speaker 1: I might add, this is where you get these sanctimonious
Speaker 1: white liberals who will walk around constant people like Betto
Speaker 1: orc a perfect example. It's country is so racist. It's
Speaker 1: just like the most racist country ever. And I just
Speaker 1: understand that by telling everybody how racist in his like,
Speaker 1: Betto is not racist because he's saying it's always like
Speaker 1: so racist. That's where we are. That is where white
Speaker 1: liberals are and their beliefs about all of this. But
Speaker 1: you know, Bloomberg is right on some things, and the
Speaker 1: things that he's right on will be a problem for
Speaker 1: him in the prim area, the Democratic primary. You're not
Speaker 1: allowed to say stuff like lower more aggressive policing to
Speaker 1: lower crime can be a good idea, whether you believe
Speaker 1: in stopping frisk or not. There was a lot of
Speaker 1: other stuff that went on in New York City to
Speaker 1: bring the crime rate down down dramatically, down, so dramatically
Speaker 1: that it feels like an entirely different city from what
Speaker 1: it did when I was when I was growing up here.
Speaker 1: But I mentioned to you, Andy know before, and I
Speaker 1: didn't want to touch on this topic because it ties
Speaker 1: into a few things. One of my favorite podcasts, as
Speaker 1: you know that, I've listened to it a long time,
Speaker 1: and I don't I don't have the time to listen
Speaker 1: to really any other because this is the best podcast.
Speaker 1: I don't only have a lot of time to listen
Speaker 1: to other podcasts, but once in a while someone will say,
Speaker 1: you gotta listen to this, and I listened to Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan and Neval Ravocant talk to each other on the
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan Show. And since that, I've been following Nevall's
Speaker 1: work a little bit more when I can, and he
Speaker 1: tweeted out I think it was earlier this week that
Speaker 1: they want to police your speech because they can't police
Speaker 1: your thoughts. The idea of being if they could police
Speaker 1: your thoughts, they would they would like to get into
Speaker 1: that is the ultimate control. And for people who think
Speaker 1: that controlling others is necessary for a good society, for
Speaker 1: people who think that control of the population through government
Speaker 1: that is benevolent but all powerful, right, this is the
Speaker 1: government in place of God. This is central to the
Speaker 1: entire progressive thesis, a progressive approach to America, to any country.
Speaker 1: And this is why they also want one world government.
Speaker 1: They'll be one super government that has all the right ideas,
Speaker 1: that takes care of us all so well. I mean,
Speaker 1: this has resulted in misery, deprivation, slaughter, and genocide in
Speaker 1: other countries, the same thinking taken to its ultimate ends.
Speaker 1: But liberals still think in this country that they'll get
Speaker 1: it right, and so they're just creeping along. There's just
Speaker 1: this edging along toward total control and control of thoughts
Speaker 1: is certainly a part of that process. We see this
Speaker 1: in China. I mean they're trying to leverage technology. Now
Speaker 1: you have the social credit system, you have a mass
Speaker 1: surveillance state, and now they're using algorithms to determine who's
Speaker 1: a problem, who is not on board with the ideology
Speaker 1: that they are supposed to be or that they are
Speaker 1: told they need to be. We see this working all
Speaker 1: the time, and unfortunately has also seeped into our own,
Speaker 1: our own system of censorship. It's not quite as pernicious here,
Speaker 1: it's not quite as as powerful as it is in
Speaker 1: the context of China. But Andy No, who is best
Speaker 1: known for being a guy who will go out there
Speaker 1: and cover Antifa, well, Andy No responded to somebody who
Speaker 1: said that essentially transgender individuals are under murderous assault in
Speaker 1: this country, that there is a plague of violence against
Speaker 1: trans gender Oh, by the way, he also I found
Speaker 1: here Andy's this is a twenty eighteen survey from a
Speaker 1: n S. I don't even know what that is, but
Speaker 1: Andy tweeted this out. Mean in group bias by Raith resnicity,
Speaker 1: and you have a huge disparity of white liberals who
Speaker 1: do not like do not like the fact that they
Speaker 1: are that they are white, which is a thing that
Speaker 1: it's not surprising to any of us, but it is
Speaker 1: noteworthy as we see what's going on. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find this other one where you have an Andy No
Speaker 1: Twitter suspense conservative journalist Andy Know and here's why he
Speaker 1: committed hateful conduct according to Twitter. You might wonder, what
Speaker 1: does a journalist. By the way, Andy is, Andy is
Speaker 1: a minority, He's Asian American. He's also openly he's gay.
Speaker 1: What did Andy No do that was hateful such that
Speaker 1: in response to a Chelsea Clinton tweet, ah, white liberal,
Speaker 1: there we go. In response to a Chelsea Clinton tweet,
Speaker 1: Twitter would suspend him. Well, Chelsea Clinton tweeted out the following.
Speaker 1: Since twenty thirteen, more than one hundred and fifty trans
Speaker 1: people have been murdered in the US. The majority are
Speaker 1: black transgender women. An epidemic of violence and hate. Now
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty over the course of six years.
Speaker 1: To call that an epidemic in a country of three
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty million people would seem to be a
Speaker 1: bit of a stretch, right, What is the overall number?
Speaker 1: What is the overall population and how much What is
Speaker 1: the homicide rate for them versus the homicide rate for
Speaker 1: black transgender females. It turns out that there is no
Speaker 1: particularly high rate. But see you start to ask these
Speaker 1: questions and people get angry at you. What are you saying?
Speaker 1: It's not no, of course, it's it's a horrible thing
Speaker 1: that anybody would would murder anyone of any gender identity
Speaker 1: or endy, any race, anything. It's the most heinous crime
Speaker 1: out there. You cannot murder people. We're all opposed to murder.
Speaker 1: But if we're talking about public policy, and if we're
Speaker 1: talking about the numbers, then can't we be honest about it?
Speaker 1: Andy wrote that the one hundred and fifty deaths over
Speaker 1: several years, we're in a nation of more than three
Speaker 1: hundred million people. That's hardly an epidemic. He said, the
Speaker 1: US is one of the safest countries in the world
Speaker 1: for trans people. The murder rate of trans victims is
Speaker 1: actually lower than for the CIS population, meaning for the
Speaker 1: for the heterosexual population. And he also then tweeted out
Speaker 1: the following, also, who is behind a vast majority of
Speaker 1: these murders of black transgender females, African American males not allowed.
Speaker 1: By the way, this this is statistically he is correct,
Speaker 1: This is true, This is a fact. This is not
Speaker 1: a for debate. In fact, there's only a handful of
Speaker 1: these one hundred and fifty murders that Chelsea Clinton that
Speaker 1: she's going to run for Senate and then president. By
Speaker 1: the way, just you heard it here if I haven't
Speaker 1: heard it somewhere else. Chelsea Clinton, she thinks she should
Speaker 1: be the leader of the free world because mommy and
Speaker 1: daddy are famous. But and we're politicians. Obviously Dad was president.
Speaker 1: Mom thought she was going to be president, still does.
Speaker 1: But one hundred and fifty murders over the course of
Speaker 1: six years, we're told this is an epidemic. It's not
Speaker 1: an epidemic. Every single life lost is sad, is wrong,
Speaker 1: and there should be a full investigation and the perpetrator
Speaker 1: should be punished. But this is not an epidemic. So
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton has millions of followers. Why is she saying this, Oh,
Speaker 1: because it's about it. It's the virtue signaling of look
Speaker 1: at this particularly oppressed group, and how concerned Chelsea Clinton
Speaker 1: is with this oppressed group. Andy Know comes out and says, well,
Speaker 1: that's actually not a lot of people. By the numbers
Speaker 1: per capita nationwide, it's not and it's lower than the
Speaker 1: national average for people being killed in this country outside
Speaker 1: of any victimized group, and a vast majority of the
Speaker 1: perpetrators happened to be African American males, which he just
Speaker 1: pointed out. That's just a sit that's also true. So
Speaker 1: the people that are killing these black transcender females are
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly and I think was only a handful of acceptance
Speaker 1: to this blackmails just he just shared that, and this
Speaker 1: is data. You can check it up on the check
Speaker 1: it out on the FBI website. You can check it
Speaker 1: out online. This is data. Twitter suspended him for this
Speaker 1: for hateful conduct. Why is this hateful? Why is this hateful?
Speaker 1: We're talking about numbers. We're talking about a public policy
Speaker 1: issue of importance. Why is the number okay to share
Speaker 1: and then analyze it, but then contra or rather other numbers,
Speaker 1: additional numbers to give context, are not allowed to be shared, all,
Speaker 1: my friends, because unfortunately the left has already adopted this
Speaker 1: position for a long time, and you're going to see
Speaker 1: more and more of it. Facts can be hateful. Numbers
Speaker 1: can be hateful. It's whatever they determine, that's what is hateful. Twitter, Facebook, Google,
Speaker 1: all the different news organizations. They get to decide what
Speaker 1: is hateful because they get to decide what is speech
Speaker 1: and what is allowable. We getting pushed closer and closer
Speaker 1: to a society where we no longer really have freedom
Speaker 1: of speech. We seem to be forgetting this. They tell
Speaker 1: us what, oh, we're going to get into, by the way,
Speaker 1: pronoun users Later on in the show, too, they tell
Speaker 1: us what we can say about other individuals, and they
Speaker 1: tell us, now the force of law will be used.
Speaker 1: They're openly advocating for hate crime laws that criminalize speech.
Speaker 1: Say the wrong word and you can go to prison.
Speaker 1: Journalists who are supposed to live and die by the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. Anything to protect the First Amendment. Journalists are saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: well except for really hateful stuff. This is the country
Speaker 1: we are increasingly living in. And I think we are
Speaker 1: a bit of the boiling frog in the pot here.
Speaker 1: We are not paying close enough attention to how quickly
Speaker 1: our rights are routing on this at all. I hope
Speaker 1: Andy gets his Twitter account back. I got to check
Speaker 1: and see, but it's just a matter of time before
Speaker 1: yours truly gets suspended. You watch God's used imperfect people
Speaker 1: all through history. King David wasn't perfect, Saul wasn't perfect,
Speaker 1: Salomon wasn't perfect. And I actually gave the president a
Speaker 1: little one pager on those old Testament kings about a
Speaker 1: month ago, and I shared with him. I said, mister President,
Speaker 1: I know there are people that say, you know, you
Speaker 1: said you were the chosen one, and and I said
Speaker 1: you were. I said, if if you're a believing Christian,
Speaker 1: you understand God's plan for the people who rule and
Speaker 1: and and judge over us on this planet, in our
Speaker 1: in our government, pretty uncontroversial stuff if you're a believing
Speaker 1: Christian from Governor Rick Perry, now energy sectary Rick Perry
Speaker 1: and liberals freak out about it. Why because they're okay
Speaker 1: with Democrats in office talking about God. But when Republican
Speaker 1: does it, the theocracy has arrived. I just had to do.
Speaker 1: But this was so absurd, so silly. This became a
Speaker 1: news story yesterday that Rick Perry. Christians is that God
Speaker 1: chooses leaders and that God's hand is at work in
Speaker 1: all things in the world. God has a plan. This
Speaker 1: is now controversial. Got to have background checks done for
Speaker 1: your business. That's where my friends at Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: come in. They're the only dual certified, veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company. Now, I understand that there are
Speaker 1: a lot of other people out there who are doing
Speaker 1: background checks by getting the work to people overseas. You
Speaker 1: don't want that. You want someone who's doing it all
Speaker 1: here in the US of A. You want to support
Speaker 1: a veteran owned company and a company that does not
Speaker 1: outsource its work its investigations overseas. It also means better
Speaker 1: control over the data and better customer service. When you
Speaker 1: call Global Verification Network, you're going to get somebody on
Speaker 1: the phone who can answer any questions you have fast
Speaker 1: whatever size business you're in anywhere across the country. Please
Speaker 1: use my friends at Global Verification Network for all of
Speaker 1: your background check needs. Give them a call at eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine again
Speaker 1: that's eight seven seven six nine five eleven seventy nine.
Speaker 1: Or you can go to MYGVN dot com. Again, that's
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com. Cisgender, fat shaming, heteronormativity, intersectionality, patriarchy,
Speaker 1: rape culture. These are all terms that you have probably
Speaker 1: become familiar with, if not from listening to this show,
Speaker 1: just because they're out there now in the discourse. They
Speaker 1: sound like they should mean something because you hear them
Speaker 1: a lot. But where did they come from? In fact,
Speaker 1: I told you all, what was it now? Maybe a
Speaker 1: couple of years ago, that I had just heard this
Speaker 1: term cisgender for the first time, which struck me as
Speaker 1: odd because, starting at a very young age, I had
Speaker 1: a pretty expansive vocabulary. I'd never heard of this thing before.
Speaker 1: Where did it come from? Intersectionality? Where did it? Where
Speaker 1: did it come from? Well, there is a fantastic article
Speaker 1: in the Wall Street Journal by Peter Bagozian about something
Speaker 1: called idea laundering. This really matters, by the way, even
Speaker 1: if you don't care about what crazy academics are saying
Speaker 1: on campuses, this is you often have heard me say
Speaker 1: that campuses are the laboratories for left wing craziness. That's
Speaker 1: where they're doing the most experimentation, in a place where
Speaker 1: there are really no constraints on the stupidity, on the
Speaker 1: absurdity of their ideas, and they come out of these
Speaker 1: laboratories with these ideas. The campuses propagate these different words
Speaker 1: and concepts into the broader society with the stamp of
Speaker 1: approval of well, it's comes from university professors who have
Speaker 1: peer review journals, and Bogosian walks us through what he
Speaker 1: calls idea laundering. This is really interesting because this is
Speaker 1: how it all happens. The reason why your kids, for
Speaker 1: those of you who have kids about this age, will
Speaker 1: be coming home from school, certainly from high school, being
Speaker 1: told about gender identity versus sex. What's the difference? The
Speaker 1: reason your kids will come home and be told that
Speaker 1: intersectionality is the truth of all American society, that there
Speaker 1: are different groups that are constantly in a battle for
Speaker 1: who is oppressing who. Heteronormativity a fancy way of saying
Speaker 1: most people are heterosexual, that's all that, that's what, and
Speaker 1: then they extrapolate all these things from that concept. That's
Speaker 1: the heteronormativity is that the dominant culture, the dominant perception
Speaker 1: that people have of sexuality is that men are attracted
Speaker 1: to women and women are attracted to men. It's not
Speaker 1: the case that that's the only way things are in
Speaker 1: this or any other society, but that has been the
Speaker 1: dominant paradigm. How do you get these ideas. Oh, fat
Speaker 1: shaming is the one that actually Bogosian singles in on here.
Speaker 1: What do you do if you are a particularly activist
Speaker 1: minded academic, how do you create concepts that then will
Speaker 1: get fed into the broader society and have a real influence.
Speaker 1: I mean you look at, for example, the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: The Obama administration's policy on bathroom usage for people that
Speaker 1: have gender identity issues was you better allow the you know,
Speaker 1: the twelve year old boy to use the twelve year
Speaker 1: old girls locker room, or else we will consider pulling
Speaker 1: Department of Education funding under discrimination discrimination accusations that you're
Speaker 1: being discriminatory. So this goes all the wayp About rape culture,
Speaker 1: This was another one I kept hearing about all the time,
Speaker 1: rape culture on college campuses. CNN even had a documentary.
Speaker 1: I didn't watch it because it's CNN and CNN's crap,
Speaker 1: but CNN had a documentary I think called The Hunting
Speaker 1: Ground about college campuses. There were these journals who were
Speaker 1: so very gullable, not just in the Duke lac Loss
Speaker 1: case where there was no rape and there was a
Speaker 1: really a deranged accuser who tried to ruin a bunch
Speaker 1: of people's lives and a power mad Democrat prosecutor knifeong
Speaker 1: try to ruin some young boys lives. Media went along
Speaker 1: with that, because you know, there's this culture of rape
Speaker 1: on campus. Rape is a felony. You know, you sit
Speaker 1: down to have lunch with somebody and you tell them
Speaker 1: that you got caught up in a stock scam ten
Speaker 1: years ago, you served a little time. They might say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we all make mistakes. You know, you served
Speaker 1: your debt. Decide you sit down and say that you
Speaker 1: were convicted of rape. The person's going to rightly want
Speaker 1: to end the lunch and say, what the heck is this?
Speaker 1: It's a rape culture that just the notion that that's
Speaker 1: a phrase that should be in common usage is absurd
Speaker 1: on college campuses, That's what they say. Where does all
Speaker 1: of this come from? It comes from campuses. It comes
Speaker 1: from the takeover of academia by left wing activists with
Speaker 1: degrees in social studies without really much to add to
Speaker 1: the discourse, and who don't really view their role as
Speaker 1: making sure that people who go to school know things
Speaker 1: and gain certain skills. They view their role as making
Speaker 1: sure they only know certain things that they tell them.
Speaker 1: They have to know for the purposes of being the
Speaker 1: shock troops of the left, when they are going through
Speaker 1: adulthood and then raising their own children, they are indoctrination factories.
Speaker 1: You see this all the time. How often do you
Speaker 1: have a left wing speaker show up at a college
Speaker 1: campus and thou people challenge me on this. By the way,
Speaker 1: when we talked about the a Culter speech at Berkeley,
Speaker 1: I said I had brought this up in the show,
Speaker 1: and someone, some blue check journal idiot was saying, to me,
Speaker 1: who this happens, look at the look at a Trump rally? Said, well,
Speaker 1: am I talking about political rallies, talking about invited speakers
Speaker 1: to a college campus. Name me one time that a
Speaker 1: left wing speaker has shown up at a college campus
Speaker 1: and there have been a thousand, two thousand, angry, screaming, profane, shrill,
Speaker 1: shrieking conservatives saying you're not allowed to speak here. How
Speaker 1: many I could sit here and run through, off the
Speaker 1: top of my head, dozens of speeches where that has
Speaker 1: happened with leftists. I mean, I don't know if the
Speaker 1: number was one thousand or one hundred protests, but you
Speaker 1: know where they try to shut it down, shut it down,
Speaker 1: don't allow people to be heard. The ideas are too dangerous,
Speaker 1: you see, including ideas that in many cases have been
Speaker 1: considered consensus or status quo within the academy, stretching back
Speaker 1: for decades. How do they do this? How do they
Speaker 1: change the conversation so abruptly so that now we have
Speaker 1: to use terminology that they set for us. Ah, let
Speaker 1: me bring you back to this Pagosian piece, an idea
Speaker 1: laundering its fabulous piece, really important, because this is why
Speaker 1: you're again while your kids are coming home saying sis
Speaker 1: gender and gender idea and all the stuff. You're like,
Speaker 1: what it all starts in the campus. Here's what they do.
Speaker 1: You got a bunch of people that feel a certain
Speaker 1: way in academia. We feel like fat shaming, for example,
Speaker 1: is wrong. Now being mean to anyone is wrong. Being
Speaker 1: mean to anyone because their weight. I think I'll vast
Speaker 1: majority of us all have different times or we're struggling
Speaker 1: with weight, or we're trying to get a little healthier,
Speaker 1: we're trying to drop some pounds. There's a lot that
Speaker 1: goes into weight, including genetics, including people's socioeconomic circumstances. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just not as simple as oh, just show willpower.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's there's a lot that goes into it,
Speaker 1: and people should be considered about that, and it's a
Speaker 1: struggle that I think a lot of us all share.
Speaker 1: But that's different than creating an academic discipline around fat shaming,
Speaker 1: which is what colleges have done. How they do it
Speaker 1: will they start a journal, an academic journal. In this case,
Speaker 1: it was called Fat Studies. They created an academic periodical
Speaker 1: called Fat Studies. And they had than other academics right
Speaker 1: about how talking about fat as a bad thing, or
Speaker 1: being overweight or obesi is a bad thing was psychologically
Speaker 1: harmful and distressing and all. And then they have other
Speaker 1: academics who peer review this. But they see the peer
Speaker 1: review process is supposed to be, and this goes back
Speaker 1: to the roots of the academy. It's supposed to be
Speaker 1: a process of distilling truth through opposition to what is
Speaker 1: being written there or looking for flaws, looking for counter arguments,
Speaker 1: looking for ways that this that the peer review is
Speaker 1: supposed to be. Is this thing unassailable? Is it true?
Speaker 1: Try to show us that it's not true. That's not
Speaker 1: how peer review works. And social social studies departments or whatever,
Speaker 1: social science is rather which are not science. As a
Speaker 1: political science major, it can tell you there was no
Speaker 1: science to it at all. The few times we looked
Speaker 1: at regression analysis and statistics and things, everybody's eyes rolled
Speaker 1: that in their head and they said, let's argue more
Speaker 1: about you know, abortion rights. Nobody cared about any of
Speaker 1: that other stuff. There's really no science to it. But
Speaker 1: if you look at the social sciences across the academy,
Speaker 1: which you find out is that as long as you're
Speaker 1: taking a left wing point of view, the peer review
Speaker 1: process for these journals that they just make up is
Speaker 1: meant to just consolidate the opinion around whatever is being promulgated.
Speaker 1: So they all they all go, yeah, it's great. You know,
Speaker 1: the kind of fat shaming is a terrible thing. And
Speaker 1: then when people say, well, what about the health risks
Speaker 1: and the I mean, that's the biggest public health epidemic
Speaker 1: we really face actually now has to do directly with
Speaker 1: diseases of excess, disease of excess calories and the type
Speaker 1: two diabetes, among other things, and they just shout all
Speaker 1: that down with excuse me, we have a fat studies
Speaker 1: journal that explains all of this. It is peer reviewed.
Speaker 1: It is the science now, but it's not the science.
Speaker 1: It's just the consolidation of like minded opinion in something
Speaker 1: they are calling a journal that they are saying is
Speaker 1: peer reviewed that is really just there forwarding of a narrative,
Speaker 1: a narrative based on emotion and feeling, a narrative that
Speaker 1: is not rooted in any reality. Here's an example in
Speaker 1: Fat Studies, the Journal Toward a Fat Pedagogy, a study
Speaker 1: of pedagogical approaches aimed at challenging obesity discourse in post
Speaker 1: secondary education. Does anyone even know? I mean, I just
Speaker 1: read that to you, dude. I read it. I've read
Speaker 1: it before, I read the piece before it came on error.
Speaker 1: I don't evenally know what they think they're saying here.
Speaker 1: And that's part of this as well. They dress up
Speaker 1: flimsy thoughts with fancy words because then most people just
Speaker 1: sort of say, Okay, it looks it looks like it's academic,
Speaker 1: and therefore there's some impremature on the fact that this
Speaker 1: is coming out of a college or a university. There
Speaker 1: must be some truth to it. I always say that
Speaker 1: word a little bit funny because I feel like I
Speaker 1: say it wrong sometimes. But whatever, I learned words by
Speaker 1: reading them, not by hearing them. These articles tell us
Speaker 1: that obesity is a narrative such as being healthy at
Speaker 1: and there's another narrative such as being healthy at ever
Speaker 1: at every size, and there's no reason to privilege one
Speaker 1: narrative over another. Is to see this. The reason why
Speaker 1: he focused in on fat studies here in this piece
Speaker 1: is because that's just not true. Being morbidly obese is very,
Speaker 1: very dangerous for your health. There is no alternative. There
Speaker 1: is no scientific alternative narrative about how being morbidly obeses
Speaker 1: is okay for your health. This is not the same
Speaker 1: thing as don't be mean to people that are struggling
Speaker 1: with weight. I've struggled with weight. Lots of people want
Speaker 1: to struggle with weight. Everybody struggles with weight. Really, that
Speaker 1: you know you come across in a day to day
Speaker 1: basis just they don't necessarily talk about it. But to
Speaker 1: say that, yeah, you know you weigh you weigh a
Speaker 1: thousand pounds, that's fine, that's the way you know, that's
Speaker 1: the way God made you is not This is not
Speaker 1: based in any science. This is just narrative. And then
Speaker 1: when you start to take this and look at Okay,
Speaker 1: what about cis gender and heteronormativity and all these other
Speaker 1: concepts that come out they're giving fancy words to. Well,
Speaker 1: we have a feeling that people shouldn't just think that
Speaker 1: being heterosexual is the normal thing. Well, normal is a
Speaker 1: word that it views some value judgment on things, but
Speaker 1: it is certainly the majority, and then there's no reason
Speaker 1: to believe that that's going to change anytime soon. Intersectionality,
Speaker 1: they're different groups that are all filled with oppression against
Speaker 1: each other, and that there's an actual hierarchy of oppression
Speaker 1: that the left looks at throughout American society. You know,
Speaker 1: are you black? Are you Latino? Are you white? Are
Speaker 1: you Asian? Are you trans? Are you? All these different things?
Speaker 1: And that every discussion of politics has to the first
Speaker 1: thing you do is put somebody on that board, if
Speaker 1: you will, not chessboard, on that playing field, before you
Speaker 1: can discuss the merits of an argument, the drawbacks of
Speaker 1: an argument, what's true, what's fair, it's good, what's decent?
Speaker 1: Now forget all that first, Where where does this person
Speaker 1: go in the intersectional hierarchy? This all comes from academia.
Speaker 1: This is a problem for the kids who have to
Speaker 1: study these places. This is from the Bogosian piece. Quote.
Speaker 1: Students leave the academy believing they know things they do
Speaker 1: not know. They bring this knowledge to their places of employment,
Speaker 1: where over time laundered ideas and the terminology that accompanies
Speaker 1: them become normative, giving them even more unearned legitimacy. This
Speaker 1: is why you've heard of some of the terms we
Speaker 1: began with sis, gender, fat shaming, heteronormativity, intersectionality, patriarchy, rape, culture,
Speaker 1: and whiteness. They've been laundered through the pure reviewed literature
Speaker 1: by activist scholars, then widely taught for years before being
Speaker 1: brought into the world. This is not knowledge. These are
Speaker 1: just feelings dressed up by academia to make it seem
Speaker 1: like if you argue with this, you are breaking with
Speaker 1: the consensus of the super smart people who all they
Speaker 1: do is sit around thinking about this stuff, and yet
Speaker 1: it's full of jargon and absurdity. This is where you
Speaker 1: got that piece that was published in a peer review journal,
Speaker 1: and the title of the piece was and I quote
Speaker 1: the penis as social construct end quote. It was published
Speaker 1: and peer reviewed by an academic journal that claimed to
Speaker 1: be the authority on different genders studies and they put
Speaker 1: this thing out there because they're so steeped in this
Speaker 1: kind of thinking, and they're so used to taking ideas
Speaker 1: that are that are just really about either political or
Speaker 1: cultural proclivities and prejudices and make it seem like there's
Speaker 1: something behind this, or then will I feel this way.
Speaker 1: It would be like if I if I created an
Speaker 1: academic journal about how marzipan is a greatly underrated food
Speaker 1: that everybody should eat more and should be more readily
Speaker 1: available because it's delicious and I just don't see it
Speaker 1: in enough places. And I got a bunch of other
Speaker 1: people that love marzapan to come together and say, hey,
Speaker 1: we reviewed this, and he's right, you should have more marzapan,
Speaker 1: especially around the holidays. I'm starting a movement. I'm not
Speaker 1: building any science. This is a Lynskyite community organizing in
Speaker 1: place of academic intellectual rigor and pursuit of the truth
Speaker 1: that it has overtaken our college campuses and universities. It's
Speaker 1: why these kids come out spouting these things, and they
Speaker 1: get so defensive and so angry when you challenge it,
Speaker 1: because these ideas are not supposed to be challenged. It's
Speaker 1: peer reviewed, it's put out in the journal. Professor so
Speaker 1: and so and Professor so and so use this and
Speaker 1: you get to sound smart because use these big, new
Speaker 1: fancy words. But what does it all mean? Nothing? I
Speaker 1: antand what it's like to go through the process of
Speaker 1: buying life insurance. I had to do it before I
Speaker 1: went overseas. It felt a little bit weird. But that's
Speaker 1: why you need to check out my friends and Ethos
Speaker 1: Life Insurance because they make sure that there's no hassle,
Speaker 1: no nonsense, and they'll find a plan that allows you
Speaker 1: to make sure that your family is prepared for an
Speaker 1: uncertain future. This is something you've got to do. It's
Speaker 1: the responsible choice and Blink makes it easy for you.
Speaker 1: There's no fine print or silly appointments or fees that
Speaker 1: you just really can't afford. Ethos Is approach is simple
Speaker 1: to blend industry expertise, technology and the human touch that
Speaker 1: helps you find the right policy for you to protect
Speaker 1: your loved ones. It only takes about ten minutes to
Speaker 1: apply and ethos is already trusted by thousands. Get a fast,
Speaker 1: free and personalized quote right now at Ethoslife dot com. Again,
Speaker 1: that's Ethoslife dot com. Ethos Life Insurance is life insurance
Speaker 1: that actually fits your life. That's what I don't know.
Speaker 1: This is a real story. Because I mentioned marzipan and
Speaker 1: my my activism in favor, I wanted to pick something
Speaker 1: kind of random, but I do really, I mean, marzipan
Speaker 1: and chocolate. You ever eat it? No, that's too it's
Speaker 1: like way too, You're not. That's not a burger with
Speaker 1: no bun and American cheese on it. I don't even
Speaker 1: know what marzipan is. Are you serious? Sweetened almond paste,
Speaker 1: it's amazing. It's liking candy sometimes anything with paste. So
Speaker 1: you usually you think you can. You can give your
Speaker 1: your takes on food, and you're allowed because food is
Speaker 1: literally about taste, right. We use the word taste for
Speaker 1: things we like. Food though, is like how does this
Speaker 1: taste to me? And it is inherently subjective and people
Speaker 1: have different taste buds. And don't use too much hot sauce, folks.
Speaker 1: Over time, it starts to you you're the burning and
Speaker 1: everything that can actually dully. I'm just telling you hashtag science.
Speaker 1: I like hot sauce too, but don't go too crazy
Speaker 1: with it, Tom Nichols. Tom and I know each other
Speaker 1: a little bit. I've had them on the show in
Speaker 1: the past. Tom is now a Democrat, he used to
Speaker 1: be a conservative, umbroke him. I don't know what to say,
Speaker 1: he tweeted out. I think people often pretend to like
Speaker 1: non American cuisines as a way of showing sophistication. I'm
Speaker 1: honest enough to say, my mostly Irish taste buds cannot
Speaker 1: handle whatever it is, whatever's called Indian food in the
Speaker 1: US and the UK. You may continue with your outrage.
Speaker 1: And you know what's amazing. There was outrage. People were
Speaker 1: saying this was racist. People were saying should get fired.
Speaker 1: You are not allowed to not like Indian food. I
Speaker 1: guarantee you. If you trashed American food as a white male,
Speaker 1: people would say, oh yeah, so of course America America
Speaker 1: people like you know, what's considered sophisticated among liberals to
Speaker 1: say America has no culture. Yeah, We're just the most wealthy, powerful, sophisticated,
Speaker 1: culturally dominant country in the history of the planet, and
Speaker 1: we have no culture. That's a really, that's a smart take.
Speaker 1: People say this stuff all the time, but this is
Speaker 1: a BBC News story. All right, Say you don't like
Speaker 1: Indian food and you get trashed globally for being a racist.
Speaker 1: This is the world we live in now. I also
Speaker 1: wanted to just point something out here, you know, I
Speaker 1: like to dive into the left wing desire to control
Speaker 1: speech and to make us use certain words. And I
Speaker 1: do think we're heading into a place where the idea
Speaker 1: laundering that the grievance scholars engages in has already become
Speaker 1: the way that you are judged by in social media interactions.
Speaker 1: You can now be banned. We talked about Andy No
Speaker 1: getting suspended because of hateful posts. It's not hateful, it's
Speaker 1: just stating facts. But stating facts can be hateful to leftists.
Speaker 1: But also if you have to remember that even if
Speaker 1: you give them what they want, in some cases, what
Speaker 1: the left wants now in discourse is often absurd and
Speaker 1: self contradictory. It is destined to only result in more
Speaker 1: demands about what you can say and how you can
Speaker 1: say it. So don't think that you buy them off
Speaker 1: by just by conceding on this or conceding on that issue.
Speaker 1: You concede to what you think is right, what you
Speaker 1: think is morel For example, I've always said if somebody
Speaker 1: wants to change their name, everyone has a right to
Speaker 1: change their name. So if a guy named Bob now
Speaker 1: wants to be called, you know, Claudette's, I will call
Speaker 1: Bob Claudette the same way that you know. My middle
Speaker 1: name is Buckman, and people call me a buck and
Speaker 1: everyone goes, why do you such a weird name? I
Speaker 1: don't know. Ask my parents. They wanted to make life
Speaker 1: harder than it had to be. I love you, mom
Speaker 1: and dad. But you know it's this is people allowed
Speaker 1: to choose you allowed to choose your name. You're allowed
Speaker 1: to choose your name. That's different though, than saying you
Speaker 1: have to be a party to falsehood or a fraud.
Speaker 1: To say that, you have to be willing to agree
Speaker 1: to say things that you know to be untrue. And
Speaker 1: here's something that I that I thought was very very
Speaker 1: interesting today looking at the argument around announcing your pronouns
Speaker 1: is thing you're supposed to do. You know, my pronouns
Speaker 1: are he and him, and people do this and you
Speaker 1: know you're at a It's really become something like the
Speaker 1: secret handshake at a left wing rally group. Anything you
Speaker 1: stand up and you say, and this reruinds me. During
Speaker 1: the Occupy Wall Street days, remember that protest movement people
Speaker 1: would do. They would do this thing where they would
Speaker 1: twinkle their fingers in the air as a way of
Speaker 1: showing applause. Um. They would also they would snap instead
Speaker 1: of clap, and they would do this thing called mic check.
Speaker 1: They go mike check, my check. And you know, one
Speaker 1: person says something that everyone repeats it as a way
Speaker 1: of amplifying the message. These were These were cultural signifiers
Speaker 1: of being and good being in the in group with
Speaker 1: the left, of being in the in the cool kid group,
Speaker 1: if you will. For most people, because a very very
Speaker 1: small percentage of the country has a problem with its gender,
Speaker 1: doesn't understand its gender. It's less than one percent of
Speaker 1: this country. For most people, saying what your pronouns are
Speaker 1: would seem to just be an enormous waste of time.
Speaker 1: But here's the issue with that. The reason that you
Speaker 1: are supposed to say what your preferred pronouns are now,
Speaker 1: and this is according to leftist doctrine, this is now
Speaker 1: if you're going to be you know, you've had this
Speaker 1: at you know, CNM when they had their town hall
Speaker 1: and Chris Cuomo pro Cuomo made his joke a year
Speaker 1: here my pronouns, and everybody's like, not funny, not funny.
Speaker 1: But the reason you say it is that it is
Speaker 1: meant to show that there's nothing out of the ordinary,
Speaker 1: and therefore there should be no disapproval heaped on people
Speaker 1: who do not seem visually to align with whatever their
Speaker 1: preferred pronouns are. So so the point here is to
Speaker 1: make it that if everybody announces their pronouns, then when
Speaker 1: people feel compelled to announced their pronouns, they won't be
Speaker 1: automatically singled out for being strange for announcing their pronouns.
Speaker 1: So it's like we all do it, and therefore, um,
Speaker 1: you know, nobody should feel left out. I mean, it
Speaker 1: kind of reminds me of I think it Wasn't Saved
Speaker 1: by the Bell where Lisa Turtle Sprain. Remember this, Lisa
Speaker 1: Turtle sprained her ankle and she had to go to
Speaker 1: prom and they did a dance called the Sprain where
Speaker 1: everybody was pretending that they because she didn't want to
Speaker 1: feel left out, so everyone showing the sprain. You know
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about? Remember that? Yeah? Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: she went with Screech right, yes, but grudgingly. Yeah, who
Speaker 1: had quite a career afterwards, career in jail of Stuffy
Speaker 1: Dustin Diamond. I watched that show so many times I
Speaker 1: even remember their names. I believe her name was Lark Vorhees, Yes,
Speaker 1: and there was Mark Paul Goslar and of course Mario Lopez.
Speaker 1: I believe. I believe it was a little right of center,
Speaker 1: by the way, I I've been the host of the
Speaker 1: Vecture or something like that of those anyway, So everyone
Speaker 1: danced like they had a spring ankle, because then no
Speaker 1: one felt like they were left out with the spring.
Speaker 1: That was the whole idea. If everyone announces their pronouns,
Speaker 1: then no one's left out when they have to announce
Speaker 1: their pronouns. That's the or it feels feels weird. Here's
Speaker 1: the problem. This is why I'm starting with. This is
Speaker 1: why I'm trying to tell you the left is absurd.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense when people announce their pronouns,
Speaker 1: and everyone is announcing their pronouns and the pronouns align
Speaker 1: with what you would expect them to be in a
Speaker 1: vast majority of cases. Then when someone is expected to
Speaker 1: announce their pronouns and they have a different gender identity,
Speaker 1: they will clearly be different than the people that are
Speaker 1: announcing their pronouns. So just by announcing, and it doesn't
Speaker 1: change the basic fact that you have somebody who perhaps
Speaker 1: appears to be male who says, my pronouns are you know, she,
Speaker 1: her and hers, So you haven't dealt with the issue
Speaker 1: at all. And then when it just turns into is
Speaker 1: well now you're being Now everyone is announcing their pronouns,
Speaker 1: is therefore playing into perhaps the stereotypes around who does
Speaker 1: and does not conform to their general identity. So we're
Speaker 1: just back where we started. It doesn't do anything. It
Speaker 1: makes no sense to announce your pronouns. It's supposed to
Speaker 1: be some kind of concession to a group that feels
Speaker 1: aggrieved and put upon. But if we all actually did
Speaker 1: what they tell us to do, the next demand would be, well,
Speaker 1: you know, now we can't announce our problems because when
Speaker 1: we do, it's just showing the people that announce them
Speaker 1: that they're different. It's like they're having to proclaim it
Speaker 1: to everybody, their differentness. It changes nothing. This is stupid,
Speaker 1: it is absurd. But it's really not about being kind.
Speaker 1: It's not about being decent. If it were, i'd be
Speaker 1: in favor of those things. It's about getting you to
Speaker 1: bend the knee. You bend the knee on announcing your pronouns,
Speaker 1: and then you bend the knee on nobody announces your pronouns.
Speaker 1: You know, you bend the knee on saying that somebody
Speaker 1: is a she when it's a he. And then you've
Speaker 1: bend the knee when you say that we're not allowed
Speaker 1: to use any gender specific pronouns for anyone anymore. And
Speaker 1: then this of course also influences how we can talk
Speaker 1: about policy. You know, are you are you allowed to
Speaker 1: object to a transgender female biologically male being the counselor
Speaker 1: for a day camp for you know, a bunch of
Speaker 1: you know, young girls. Is that is that's on there?
Speaker 1: You're allowed to look at gender identity that way? It's
Speaker 1: you know, and they just expect you bend the knee
Speaker 1: or they will destroy you. And this is why we
Speaker 1: spend time on these issues here on the show, because
Speaker 1: the way you're allowed to talk about things, and the
Speaker 1: way that society insists that you only use certain words,
Speaker 1: whether it's undocumented or you know, cis gender or any
Speaker 1: of these things. This is all for a purpose, and
Speaker 1: the purpose is not being polite. The purpose is getting
Speaker 1: you to bend. The purpose is getting you to say, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: I submit, I'll do what you tell me to do,
Speaker 1: because once they get you to start the habit of
Speaker 1: submitting to their absurd and constantly changing demands, then they
Speaker 1: can just continue on with that momentum and get you
Speaker 1: to just start conceding to other things too. And they
Speaker 1: know that. You know, once you say fine, fine, leave
Speaker 1: me alone, then you'll say, fine, leave me alone. I'll
Speaker 1: do it on this other thing too. You know, I
Speaker 1: won't go to Chick fil A anymore because you know
Speaker 1: the Chick fil A is so big at it. You know,
Speaker 1: I won't do this. I want to just please just
Speaker 1: let me live my life in peace. I'll do whatever
Speaker 1: you want. This is what they want, that sentiment, that
Speaker 1: feeling of I'll do anything in order to prevent the
Speaker 1: continue to intellectual psychological harassment. That's what they want. Don't
Speaker 1: give it to them. Think this stuff through on your own.
Speaker 1: That's why we've got the Freedom Hunt Friends, big headline
Speaker 1: right now on foxnews dot Com Collision Course long Away
Speaker 1: to report on Five's abuse from the Inspector General could
Speaker 1: scramble DEM's impeachment plans. Some of us have been saying
Speaker 1: by some of us I mean, certainly me all along
Speaker 1: that perhaps the imperative for impeachment at all costs isn't
Speaker 1: only driven by the desire to thwart the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: election that's the primary one, but also perhaps to get ahead.
Speaker 1: I believe I said this on Brett Bear Show a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, to get ahead of the report
Speaker 1: that's going to make things look pretty bad for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Here's where we are right now on the whole fish abuse.
Speaker 1: People call it spygate. I think that's a little too broad.
Speaker 1: It's like almost calling it like bad gate or something
Speaker 1: like spygate is it's not. That doesn't really work for
Speaker 1: me as a term. But you know, look, there's no
Speaker 1: good term for it, I understand. But the effort, the
Speaker 1: effort to use the intelligence apparatus of the United States
Speaker 1: government against a presidential campaign, that that has somehow been
Speaker 1: treated as is normal, that that has found its way
Speaker 1: into our discussions about what's going on with the presidency.
Speaker 1: And people say, yeah, well, of course, of course they
Speaker 1: surveiled Carter Page, and of course they did. No, it's
Speaker 1: not an of course situation, this low level lawyer. That
Speaker 1: was the report we had last week from within the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice who was removed and maybe criminally prosecuted
Speaker 1: for changing something that went into a Fizer report. They're
Speaker 1: going to try to say that this was just a
Speaker 1: lone actor once again, somebody else doing something that only
Speaker 1: makes sense if they have a feverish hatred of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and are willing to do anything, including getting fired
Speaker 1: and losing their job and losing perhaps their freedom, to
Speaker 1: stop Trump. But we're told that this is this is
Speaker 1: a one off, this is a one off. This isn't
Speaker 1: somebody this lawyer that they're saying, change the FIZA. There's
Speaker 1: nothing to be worth about here, nothing to be concerned
Speaker 1: about here. I disagree. I disagree. The problem that we're
Speaker 1: going to face here is that they first of all,
Speaker 1: they've brought over to CNN, so anything you can see
Speaker 1: from CNS is kind of hilarious. They've got McCabe over there,
Speaker 1: They've got the former General Counsel Baker I believe, of
Speaker 1: the FBI. This guy is over there on CNN all
Speaker 1: the time, and they were the ones in power, and
Speaker 1: CNN has people analyzing essentially their own actions as though
Speaker 1: they're fair minded experts on these issues. They're putting them
Speaker 1: in front of you, because CNN was in on this
Speaker 1: whole thing too. Tapper found out about the dossier being
Speaker 1: brief to Trump, you know, within two days, and then
Speaker 1: he got all mad at Ben Smith from BuzzFeed because
Speaker 1: Ben Smith actually showed people what the dossier was. And
Speaker 1: Tapper wanted to squeeze as much as he could out
Speaker 1: of that whole dossier story as long as he could
Speaker 1: because he's a hack and a fraud. But yeah, that
Speaker 1: was the that was the way this thing was all going.
Speaker 1: And yet now we look at it and say to ourselves, huh, maybe,
Speaker 1: just maybe what we will see when this Fiser report
Speaker 1: comes out is that there was an effort to pretend
Speaker 1: that people were very dumb and had very bad judgment
Speaker 1: at senior levels of the United States government, when really
Speaker 1: what they were doing was playing dumb as that they
Speaker 1: could make mistakes that what happened to be negative for Trump.
Speaker 1: That would allow, for example, different communications that Carter Page
Speaker 1: had with anybody in the Trump campaigned to be looked
Speaker 1: at to be part of the collection process under that
Speaker 1: fires a warrant, and you know, Papadopoulos and these different
Speaker 1: investigations that were going at this time. This is not possible.
Speaker 1: None of this is possible in a good faith law
Speaker 1: enforcement effort, where people would say, we'll hold on a
Speaker 1: second carter Page, who had worked alongside the FBI against
Speaker 1: Russian spies, was known to the FBI, I'd already met
Speaker 1: with the FBI, and who the FBI knew Russian spies,
Speaker 1: said was kind of an idiot. He's the nexus for
Speaker 1: this whole Russia Trump conspiracy. And remember this, my friends,
Speaker 1: even if they tell you that they had a legitimate
Speaker 1: justification for looking at Russian interference in the election, which
Speaker 1: I believe they did, that is a big leap from Okay.
Speaker 1: We also have to make sure that we can investigate
Speaker 1: the presidential campaign and then the presidency itself of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump because of this theory that Trump and his campaign
Speaker 1: were working with the Russians. Where does that come from?
Speaker 1: Who originated that idea? This is what we really have
Speaker 1: to know. I mean, I think people would say, right now,
Speaker 1: you might be guessing, you know, Brandon and Clapper and
Speaker 1: there are a few people that come to mind, but
Speaker 1: we're what were the real origins of all of this.
Speaker 1: We may get closer to that with this report that
Speaker 1: comes out on FISA We'll also find out those of
Speaker 1: us who were saying the dossier was necessary. Without the dossier,
Speaker 1: it probably wouldn't have been able to get to the
Speaker 1: level of the FISA request they had on Carter page.
Speaker 1: We'll see how accurate that was. We also, though, have
Speaker 1: the problem of the bureaucracy covering for itself, which I
Speaker 1: think is you're going you're going to see that that's
Speaker 1: that's going to happen here. I wish it weren't the case.
Speaker 1: It will be the case. The bureaucracy will be covering
Speaker 1: for itself at some level. They will say that bad
Speaker 1: judgment is not criminal, and bad judgment in matters of
Speaker 1: using the fearsome powers of the federal government against the
Speaker 1: presidential campaig that just comes down to bad judgment, that's all.
Speaker 1: Bad judgment isn't about politics, it's not about criminality. You
Speaker 1: can't think that there really is a deep state just
Speaker 1: because these guys kept on bending the rules and making
Speaker 1: poor decisions that all happen to go toward getting dirt
Speaker 1: on Trump. That's right. They love to talk about Trump
Speaker 1: getting dirt on Hunter Biden. Our own FBI under the
Speaker 1: Obama administration was trying to get dirt on President Trump
Speaker 1: and use FISA to do it if they can. Let
Speaker 1: me let me just say this. If they can get
Speaker 1: a fis a warrant on Carter Page, they can get
Speaker 1: a FIS A warrant on anybody. You can always come
Speaker 1: up with some pretext. You again, any friends in a
Speaker 1: foreign country. Yeah, you know those friends probably have foreign
Speaker 1: friends who are bad. Let's just run a FIES on.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. It's absurd. You know they talk to
Speaker 1: people like me. Oh well, he has friends in foreign countries,
Speaker 1: and he knows in the intelligence services, and we know
Speaker 1: we better, we better monitor him. So I'm I don't
Speaker 1: have high hopes, which now reminds me of the Buddha Judge,
Speaker 1: like the Buddha Judge song and d have seeing this
Speaker 1: the the high hope stance that everyone's doing now for
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge. This is like his followers did. They was
Speaker 1: mocked on SNL this weekend. Oh it was. They said
Speaker 1: he was trying to get a negative percentage of the
Speaker 1: black vote. Wow, I did not see that. But I
Speaker 1: do not have high hopes for the Inspector General report
Speaker 1: being a massive blow to the deep state. I do
Speaker 1: think though, that they're gonna want us to swallow. It'll
Speaker 1: be like the other Inspector General report where they said
Speaker 1: that there was no bias in the Hillary Clinton email investigation,
Speaker 1: which was not true. There was bias. They showed us
Speaker 1: all this bias and they said there wasn't bias. They're
Speaker 1: gonna show us all kinds of abuse of FISA, but
Speaker 1: then in order to protect the institution of the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice and the FBI, they're gonna say it wasn't
Speaker 1: political though, So there really isn't any abuse that went
Speaker 1: on here. Oh no, there was abuse a team. I know,
Speaker 1: we're going into the Thanksgiving holiday and a proser Marketer's
Speaker 1: football over the Thanksgiving holiday, Right, that's the thing that
Speaker 1: happens that people. I see it in the background sometimes
Speaker 1: at the various homes where I've been for Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: the football thing that happens. But there's been some big
Speaker 1: stories in the news for football, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to skip over them entirely. But I figured i'd bring
Speaker 1: somebody in who, for example, unlike me, knows that the
Speaker 1: Rams now play in Los Angeles and not Saint Louis.
Speaker 1: You learned something new every day, especially for me in
Speaker 1: the world of sports. We got a sports expert with
Speaker 1: us though our friend Clay Travis is with us now.
Speaker 1: He is the OutKick, the coverage host, also author of
Speaker 1: the book Republicans by Sneakers. To Clay, thanks for coming back, hey, ap.
Speaker 1: So let's start with this editorial New York Times editorial,
Speaker 1: which is how it came into my vision my daily
Speaker 1: deep dive here from Tennessee Coates the cancelation of Colin Kaepernick.
Speaker 1: He's making the argument here that Colin Kaepernick is a
Speaker 1: victim of cancel culture. After well everything but also this tryout.
Speaker 1: What really happened with Colin Kaepernick both at this tryout
Speaker 1: and also tell me, what do you think the reality
Speaker 1: is of whether he's part of cancel culture? Well, I
Speaker 1: think that Colin Kaepernick has realized that as a barter
Speaker 1: he is more valuable than he is as a backup
Speaker 1: quarterback in the NFL, which is the job that he
Speaker 1: would have if he really wanted to continue to play sports.
Speaker 1: And so I think he made a conscious decision to
Speaker 1: where the Consequente T shirt and to perform in the
Speaker 1: fashion that he did with his own camera crew there
Speaker 1: and everything else because he wanted to continue to be
Speaker 1: a social justice warrior martyr for the woke sports media
Speaker 1: out there, and the reality is what this guy is
Speaker 1: a backup quarterback, and backup quarterbacks are not necessarily given
Speaker 1: a lot of attention in the NFL, certainly not if
Speaker 1: their starting quarterback is healthy. And I think Colin Kaepernick
Speaker 1: is aware that if he is on the sideline, not
Speaker 1: actually playing, that his value as a martyr declines precipitously,
Speaker 1: and so I think in many ways he sabotaged the
Speaker 1: tryout that the NFL tried to set up for him. Now,
Speaker 1: one of the things that comes up when people talk
Speaker 1: about about Kaepernick, I mean, it was pretty amazing reading
Speaker 1: this this New York Times piece, and if you saw
Speaker 1: the Coats editorial I read, I read it. I mean
Speaker 1: it was it was totally absurd and ridiculous. And the
Speaker 1: fact that that guy is considered to be some sort
Speaker 1: of intellectual heavyweight oftentimes just kind of bottles my mind. Yeah,
Speaker 1: because well, what I've told from my friends who actually
Speaker 1: paid pretty close attention to the NFL is that Kaepernick,
Speaker 1: before the whole taking anything, he was already dropping down
Speaker 1: the depth chart and people didn't really care, and his
Speaker 1: career wasn't looking so good, that's correct, he get in fact,
Speaker 1: had lost his starting job to blame Gabbert, who is
Speaker 1: not a well known or well received quarterback in his
Speaker 1: own right. And so yeah, well the baling was I
Speaker 1: think a trans parent employ to draw attention to himself
Speaker 1: when he recognized that he was otherwise not going to
Speaker 1: be receiving very my attention. And again, I mean, he
Speaker 1: had a contractual obligation to stand for the national anthem,
Speaker 1: just like the NBA players do, and and to equate
Speaker 1: him with cancel culture is frankly just absurd. Look everybody
Speaker 1: in the NFL, whether you are the most talented quarterback
Speaker 1: in the league or the guy hanging on by his
Speaker 1: flinges to a special stop, they're all subject to an
Speaker 1: equation that I would like to say, which is, so
Speaker 1: long as your talent exceeds of problems, you will always
Speaker 1: be employed. And the problem that Colin Kaepernick has is
Speaker 1: if Aaron Rodgers or Russell Wilson or Patrick Mahomes couk
Speaker 1: a need to protest anything, they would still be employed
Speaker 1: in the NFL because they're three of the best, arguably
Speaker 1: the three best quarterbacks in the NFL right now in
Speaker 1: this league right historically and proven wise. And so if
Speaker 1: if those guys decide that they wanted to make a
Speaker 1: political statement, they might get fined, they might face a
Speaker 1: substantial blowback, But every team, I believe, would continue to
Speaker 1: employ them because they're that good at playing the position
Speaker 1: in which is so difficult to find talent quarterback. The
Speaker 1: problem Colin Kaepernick had was not that he took a knee.
Speaker 1: It was that he took a knee, and his talent
Speaker 1: no longer was sufficient enough for teams to be willing
Speaker 1: to put up with the challenges he brought to bear
Speaker 1: from a protest perspective. And I've kind of made this
Speaker 1: joke before, using it from a hyperbolic sense, but look,
Speaker 1: I mean, Aaron Rodgers could take a knee and say
Speaker 1: that he thinks Isis was unfitly treated by the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: and somebody would probably still employ him to play quarterback
Speaker 1: because he's just that good of a quarterback. And people
Speaker 1: would roll their eyes and say, I really don't care
Speaker 1: about the politics that he espouses. And the problem for
Speaker 1: Colin Kaepernick is he's not that good of a quarterback,
Speaker 1: so people do care because again, his problems exceed his
Speaker 1: talents now speaking of people that are having problems on
Speaker 1: and now off the field. I did see because it
Speaker 1: became a viralo moment that dominated the news cycle for
Speaker 1: a few hours. This incident with Myles Garrett where he
Speaker 1: swung his helmet. Just tell us give us the quick
Speaker 1: backstory of what happened there and then the aftermath, because
Speaker 1: I did see the storyline percolate for at least a
Speaker 1: few hours. A couple of days ago, there was a
Speaker 1: claim that there might have been a racist component that
Speaker 1: led to the swing of the helmet, which a lot
Speaker 1: of people, myself included thoughts sounded rather dubious under the circumstances.
Speaker 1: But what happened and where are we now? Well, for
Speaker 1: six days there was no succestion. After the swarm helmet
Speaker 1: hit Mason Rudolf on the head Miles Garrett place in
Speaker 1: the Cleveland Grounds, Mason Rudolfs beclore the Backs floy to
Speaker 1: the Spokes Steelers and at the end of their Thursday
Speaker 1: night football game, which happened what I guess a week
Speaker 1: or almost two weeks ago. Now, as we moved closer
Speaker 1: the Thanksgiving we had Mason reactive in the head with
Speaker 1: a helmet which kind of unheard of falling at him
Speaker 1: by this defensive player, And for six days nothing was
Speaker 1: said about the motivation other than Miles Garrett lost his temper,
Speaker 1: he apologized, he was saying all of that, and then
Speaker 1: at the end of that six day window, suddenly news
Speaker 1: came out that he was claiming that somebody, Mason Rudolph,
Speaker 1: had said a racial flaurer to him and that was
Speaker 1: what prompted the attack, and the NFL said they had
Speaker 1: investigated it, found no evidence, and upheld his suspension. He
Speaker 1: made that claim in an appeal to hearing. So what
Speaker 1: I just described it as was a racism hail Marry
Speaker 1: that his attempt at the last minute was to try
Speaker 1: in some way justify his behavior by sighting the way
Speaker 1: that he had been treated, and I think that's just
Speaker 1: laughably absurd. Is the punishment appropriate here for Miles Garrett
Speaker 1: for the crime. I mean, I think it's a significant punishment,
Speaker 1: But I think the NFL knows that the importance of
Speaker 1: setting a precedent here is that using a helmet as
Speaker 1: a weapon in the dangerous position to be in. Mason
Speaker 1: Rudolph was not seriously injured, luckily for him, but he
Speaker 1: could have been, and I think the FL needs to
Speaker 1: have its players know that this is this behavior that
Speaker 1: is simply unacceptable. So make Miles Garrett's going to be
Speaker 1: out for the rest of the season. Uh, And we'll
Speaker 1: see what happens at the end of the year with
Speaker 1: whether he's allowed to return to start next year, which
Speaker 1: I think you will. And the six game suspension feels
Speaker 1: about right to me. Can I just ask you a
Speaker 1: quick lightning round of some stuff before Thanksgiving so I
Speaker 1: can pretend that I know something got football and I'm
Speaker 1: with my aldish yeshoho. Who is the best quarterback in
Speaker 1: the NFL right now? Oh man, you just stepped into
Speaker 1: a huge debate. I think the best quarterback in the
Speaker 1: NFL right now is Russell Wilson. I think there's a
Speaker 1: strong argument for Patrick Mahomes, for Aaron Rodgers. Those are
Speaker 1: the three best. Lamar Jackson is having an incredible season
Speaker 1: and he may be the favorite for the MVP, but
Speaker 1: those are the four that I would that I would
Speaker 1: name off the top. Tom Brady interestingly not having that
Speaker 1: great of a season. So if you want those five
Speaker 1: names and that information I just gave you, you can
Speaker 1: fake it to your make it there. Yeah, well I
Speaker 1: got one more. What is the what is the worst
Speaker 1: coach team in the NFL right now? Yeah? Well, no
Speaker 1: team that's under fire the most right now. Jason Garrett
Speaker 1: is the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys and they
Speaker 1: just lost to the New England Patriots. And he has
Speaker 1: done a really poor job of maximizing his talent. He's
Speaker 1: been on sort of the chopping block for a long
Speaker 1: time now, and the Dallas Cowboys sort of perpetually swing
Speaker 1: from you know, the excitement and enjoy and pure jubilation
Speaker 1: of hey, We're going to go to the super Bowl
Speaker 1: to the depths of despair after every loss. They're six
Speaker 1: and five, may win their division, likely to make the playoff,
Speaker 1: but Jason Garrett has not endured himself to the fan
Speaker 1: base for yet another season. And who do you think
Speaker 1: is going to win the Super Bowl? I gotta ask? Yeah. So,
Speaker 1: if if I were predicting right now, I think it's
Speaker 1: hard to say anything against the Patriots. So I picked
Speaker 1: the Patriots out of the AFC, and I would pick
Speaker 1: the forty nine ers out of the NFC, And god,
Speaker 1: I mean it sinks to continue to pick him. But
Speaker 1: Brady and Belichick of the greatest coaching player combo in
Speaker 1: NFL history. And they aren't dead yet, and so as
Speaker 1: long as that's the case, I feel like they will
Speaker 1: find a way to triumph into the season. Even know,
Speaker 1: I think, like a lot of your listeners, i'd prefer
Speaker 1: that not be the case. If you guys want somebody
Speaker 1: who knows about sports and really breaks it all down
Speaker 1: for you, you've just heard it here. But Clay Travis
Speaker 1: has his own podcast out Kick the Coverage, or you
Speaker 1: can check out Also his book is Republicans Buy Sneakers two,
Speaker 1: which I know is true because I'm a Republican and
Speaker 1: I buy sneakers. Clay, I have a very happy Thanksgiving man,
Speaker 1: Thanks for giving us your time, and we'll talk to
Speaker 1: you after the holiday. I appreciate that I have a
Speaker 1: good Thanksgiving as well with everybody else out there as well.
Speaker 1: If everybody has a green holiday, all right, geem When
Speaker 1: you want to spot that burglar when he's casing your
Speaker 1: home or after he's in, well you could ask John
Speaker 1: who's blink camera alerted him to burglars trying to break
Speaker 1: in while he and his family were home, Or Shannon,
Speaker 1: who's blink camera caught a feat stealing packages. Both times,
Speaker 1: Blink video clips were sent to police to help convict
Speaker 1: the crooks. Blink Motion activated indoor and outdoor cameras are
Speaker 1: wire free, set up in minutes, and run on two
Speaker 1: lithium batteries that last up to two years. And when
Speaker 1: you're away, blinks Live feed option lets you monitor your
Speaker 1: home and checking on kids and pets from anywhere using
Speaker 1: your smartphone app. No contracts, totally affordable. In fact, Blink
Speaker 1: systems start at just seventy nine ninety nine. Thanks to
Speaker 1: Blink home security just got easier. Visit blink Protect dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck, blink Protect dot Com, slash Buck one more time.
Speaker 1: Team Blink Protect dot Com slash Buck also available on
Speaker 1: Amazon and at best Buy. Blink is an Amazon company,
Speaker 1: and it works with Alexa, blink Protect dot Com, slash Buck.
Speaker 1: So there's a story team that's making the rounds right
Speaker 1: now in some places on on the right. I haven't
Speaker 1: really seen it elsewhere, but here's the basics of it.
Speaker 1: And I just want to say that I can't really
Speaker 1: assess this other than to say that people that I
Speaker 1: know and think have good judgments say this is probably crap.
Speaker 1: But even when there's a story that is not true,
Speaker 1: sometimes there are some elements in the background of the
Speaker 1: story that are worth noting. But I also I don't
Speaker 1: know that it's not true. So, and it's reported the
Speaker 1: Jerusalem Post, which is a reputable publication, and it is
Speaker 1: about whether or not Ilahan Omar is an asset of Cutter.
Speaker 1: This is the story that's out there. A witness in
Speaker 1: a deposition in a federal court in Florida has gone
Speaker 1: on the record to say and give some details about this.
Speaker 1: Here's the basics of the story. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar was
Speaker 1: recruited by a foreign government, received funding from a foreign government,
Speaker 1: and passed sensitive information through intermarries intermediaries to Iran. A
Speaker 1: Florida court has been told that's not That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: the court has found nor has anyone brought charges. Okay.
Speaker 1: The claims came during testimony by Kuwaiti born Canadian businessman
Speaker 1: Alan Bender, who was giving evidence in the trial of
Speaker 1: Sheikh Khalid Binhamed Alfani, the Qatari Emir's brother, stand is
Speaker 1: accused of ordering his American bodyguard to murder two people
Speaker 1: and of holding an American citizen hostage. His deposition obtained
Speaker 1: by Al Arabia English was authenticated by the attorney for
Speaker 1: the plaintiffs, according to the publication. All right, now, a
Speaker 1: lot of people on the right really don't like ilhan
Speaker 1: Omar because of her politics, because of what she says,
Speaker 1: because of the anti Semitic stuff she has said in
Speaker 1: the past. So people see this and they immediately jump
Speaker 1: with the story. I've seen a lot of people that
Speaker 1: follow the follow ilhan Omar's career and they've been following
Speaker 1: some of the other controversies, possible campaign finance stuff, the
Speaker 1: whole situation with her, you know, the husband, and then
Speaker 1: the other situation with the brother and the what's going
Speaker 1: on with the possible the allegation, I should say, of
Speaker 1: a marriage fraud, which believe in marriage fraud is a
Speaker 1: crime punishment about the five years in federal prison when
Speaker 1: it involves an immigration vile. So if you marry somebody
Speaker 1: but you're not really getting married, you're just doing it
Speaker 1: so they can get a green card to be here,
Speaker 1: and you're found out, you're going to prison for that,
Speaker 1: and they do occasionally enforce that, which is so interesting
Speaker 1: because so much of the rest of immigration law is
Speaker 1: left as like, you know, who cares, doesn't matter. We
Speaker 1: don't have to really enforce this stuff. But the Ilhanomar story,
Speaker 1: people are saying this is it's flimsy. It's an allegation
Speaker 1: in court. Yeah, the guy's under oath, but you know
Speaker 1: who knows if they can and he's just saying he
Speaker 1: was told this. There's no there's no proof, so I'm
Speaker 1: not there no proof. Usually what I want to know
Speaker 1: about ill Hanomar. It is a bad thing when it
Speaker 1: is so very clear that the press has no interest
Speaker 1: in vetting, investigating and looking at a person in politics
Speaker 1: because of that person's political political beliefs and also because
Speaker 1: of that person's background. The media does not want to
Speaker 1: be seen as even investigating. And you could say that
Speaker 1: through an investigation of ilahan Omar, not just on this
Speaker 1: Qatari thing, because this might be complete garbage. And I'm
Speaker 1: being honestly that it doesn't seem to me like it's
Speaker 1: I mean, is it theoretically possible. I mean maybe sure,
Speaker 1: given her view of American foreign policy and her view
Speaker 1: of the rest of the world, could you see maybe
Speaker 1: some people using her as an agent of influence in
Speaker 1: the United States against foreign policy that would be in
Speaker 1: the us interest. Yes, but that's very different than having
Speaker 1: any actual proof of the allegation, which which we don't have.
Speaker 1: But these stories, a story like this, get more oxygen,
Speaker 1: get more attention, in part because we know we cannot
Speaker 1: trust the mainstream press to do what they would normally
Speaker 1: say they're doing, which is to vet a person, looking
Speaker 1: to that person's background and bring the public the truth
Speaker 1: about a situation which they don't know. I mean, we
Speaker 1: know that they don't do that as a general rule,
Speaker 1: but they particularly are hands off about certain people, and
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar as one of them. So I would just
Speaker 1: note that I don't know the story is true or not.
Speaker 1: It strikes me as unlikely. But I also know that
Speaker 1: we can't trust the press to tell us how much
Speaker 1: investigation has there been of ilhan Omar by journalists regarding
Speaker 1: a campaign finance issues and also the situation with the
Speaker 1: brother and the husband and the I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: even know the but nobody wants. Nobody wants to touch
Speaker 1: that stuff. Nobody wants to go near any of it.
Speaker 1: Usually journalists when they have am This is a member
Speaker 1: of Congress, a public figure elected office. You would think
Speaker 1: that there could be some belief some understanding that this
Speaker 1: person would be subject to a degree of scrutiny that's
Speaker 1: not dictated by politics and by intersectionality and wokeness and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. But no, that is, in
Speaker 1: fact the the overriding consideration that they that they have here.
Speaker 1: So for those who were going to ask me about this,
Speaker 1: I just I don't. I don't have much more, m
Speaker 1: much more on this than just to say it doesn't
Speaker 1: strike me as particularly, it doesn't strike me as likely.
Speaker 1: But you can't trust the press to find out any
Speaker 1: truth about ilhan Omar that would be problematic for her.
Speaker 1: So that's kind of where that's kind of where we are.
Speaker 1: I was iding you to mention this before I find it,
Speaker 1: you know, I know I keep saying nice things about
Speaker 1: Yang and Tulsi on the show, and I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to just do this as a as a
Speaker 1: as a thing, as a bit that I do on
Speaker 1: the show. Where we get we get into why Yang
Speaker 1: and Tulsi are the most likable of Democrats, although I
Speaker 1: think they are. I saw this piece though the weekend.
Speaker 1: It was so remarkable to me that Andrew Andrew Yang
Speaker 1: hashtag Yangang Andrew Yang makes jokes, sometimes self deprecating jokes
Speaker 1: about Asian American stereotypes. And this was interesting because usually
Speaker 1: what you see is that you're never allowed to make
Speaker 1: jokes about any even if it's it's really meant to
Speaker 1: be playful and it's not supposed to be degrading in
Speaker 1: any way, but you're not allowed to make jokes about
Speaker 1: it about any non white ethnicity, as as particularly as
Speaker 1: a white person anymore. It had been the case. I
Speaker 1: had thought that you could, though make self deprecating jokes
Speaker 1: about an ethnicity if you were of that ethnicity, But
Speaker 1: even that rule in this current era of extreme wokeness
Speaker 1: seems to be changing a little bit. There is a
Speaker 1: concern that was is Andrew Yang quote reclaiming stereotypes with
Speaker 1: Asian jokes. Experts say not so much. First of all,
Speaker 1: experts in jokes, Who are these people? This is NBC News,
Speaker 1: experts in being funny? Well, what were they experts? We're
Speaker 1: talking about here? That's always good expertise is a very
Speaker 1: abused claim. But they're saying that he isn't doing a
Speaker 1: good thing by trying to reclaim stereotypes. They see, this
Speaker 1: is what they change the rules all the time. You
Speaker 1: know some ethnicities, for example, can use slurs against that
Speaker 1: ethnicity as a means of reclaiming the term. We're told
Speaker 1: that all the time, But you can't use it if
Speaker 1: you're not of that ethnicity. But you can if you are.
Speaker 1: But now you can't make jokes about your own ethnicity.
Speaker 1: And I think the reason that they feel this way,
Speaker 1: although who knows, they probably changed the logic beyond this
Speaker 1: all the time, is because then it lightens everybody up
Speaker 1: a little bit where they might think it's they don't
Speaker 1: have to be quite so woke and quite so on guard.
Speaker 1: And maybe somebody would get the idea that you could
Speaker 1: make some jokes based on stereotypes we are laughing with
Speaker 1: and not at an ethnicity. That would be an idea
Speaker 1: that the left considers dangerous. So I can't have that.
Speaker 1: So Yang is not allowed to make jokes about Asian stereotypes,
Speaker 1: even as an Asian American. That's the reality of the
Speaker 1: left today. I just want to note that what we
Speaker 1: will do is have what we will do. What we
Speaker 1: will do is have a four percent tax on income
Speaker 1: excepting the first twenty nine thousand dolls. All right, good,
Speaker 1: you're better at arithmetic than I am, guess what that
Speaker 1: means is if you have that average family in the
Speaker 1: middle will make sixty thousand a year, that means we're
Speaker 1: going to tax you on thirty one thousand at four percent.
Speaker 1: Anybod who believes this is a fool, that this is
Speaker 1: where this will stop. They're going to create just a
Speaker 1: little carve out tax to give you free healthcare. This
Speaker 1: is the Bernie Plan. Now, this is the latest version
Speaker 1: of what we're being told the Bernie Plan is going
Speaker 1: to be. But what they're saying here is that or
Speaker 1: Bernie saying rather, is that four percent above twenty nine
Speaker 1: thousand and you'll never have to worry about healthcare again.
Speaker 1: My friends, No way, no way, it's not gonna work.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna happen. That four percent tax won't be enough.
Speaker 1: Then you know what happens. It becomes a five percent
Speaker 1: and then a six percent tax. You have to fund
Speaker 1: the programs that Bertie Sanders is talking, but even begin
Speaker 1: to fund them, you would have to raise taxes dramatically,
Speaker 1: not just on millionaires and billionaires, this is the essential
Speaker 1: lie that they keep telling, but on everybody, and taxes
Speaker 1: that get raised that much, on people across the board.
Speaker 1: Are going to have all kinds of implications for jobs,
Speaker 1: for productivity, for just wealth creation. Overall. We are in
Speaker 1: a remarkable period right now, the longest bullmark in the
Speaker 1: history of the United States, lowest unemployment in fifty years.
Speaker 1: Things are very prosperous right now. Why would we start
Speaker 1: listening to the socialists at this point in time? You know,
Speaker 1: if America goes down this path of socialism in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: you know we're gonna get what we deserve. We're gonna
Speaker 1: get along and hard. It's going to be a rough
Speaker 1: way forward. We have all the empirical evidence we need.
Speaker 1: We have all of the data, and just look around
Speaker 1: you what's going on in the country right now, Look
Speaker 1: at all the ways that we can try to judge
Speaker 1: on the numbers, how things are going. You're going to
Speaker 1: hand over control of the economy to Bernie Sanders wing
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party. I mean, I know you won't
Speaker 1: listening to the show. There's some liberals who listen, which
Speaker 1: I appreciate. Liberals are like, he's he's a bit of
Speaker 1: a savvy fellow, this sexton. We've got to keep an
Speaker 1: eye on him, make sure it doesn't get a little
Speaker 1: too puppulo listen too powerful. But the truth is Bernie Sanders'
Speaker 1: plan would be a disaster for you. And I know
Speaker 1: you know that, but there's so many people who don't
Speaker 1: believe it. When I was at Politicon debating Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: healthcare spokesperson, the person a Signers campaign, she's just living
Speaker 1: in a fantasyland. You're gonna have great doctors, great healthcare.
Speaker 1: Everything can be super efficient. It's gonna be it's gonna
Speaker 1: be fantastic, and you never have to worry about paying
Speaker 1: for any of this ever. Again, well, it's not true.
Speaker 1: By the way. By the time you figure out it's
Speaker 1: not true, you'll have had one You'll probably have had
Speaker 1: one generation that has gotten used to having their healthcare
Speaker 1: paid for by the government. It won't be very good,
Speaker 1: but they'll get used to paying for it, and then
Speaker 1: they'll just put this unsustainable burden on future generations of
Speaker 1: paying for the health that they've already gotten. This is
Speaker 1: the doomsday machine within our own political and economic system
Speaker 1: that no one is willing to face up to. Nobody
Speaker 1: is willing to diffuse the debt bomb. Nobody is willing
Speaker 1: to say that you can't keep doing this promising things,
Speaker 1: giving things today and then promising that somebody else will
Speaker 1: pay for it in the future. And this becomes the
Speaker 1: easiest scam in the world. I mean, if your taxes
Speaker 1: are never going to get raised in your lifetime, why
Speaker 1: wouldn't you say, yeah, give me all the benefits you
Speaker 1: want right now. Make it somebody else's problem. This is
Speaker 1: just intergenerational socialism, that's all it is. And this is
Speaker 1: what Bernie Sanders is promising you without saying as much,
Speaker 1: by claiming that they're going to pay for your healthcare
Speaker 1: and everything's going to be fine and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. But this might even be a worse analysis
Speaker 1: from the guy who's supposed to be the smart one
Speaker 1: of the Democrat candidates or the smartest one of the
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates now mayor Pete Buddha judge. He has this
Speaker 1: to say about the Syrian Civil War play Cliff ten Oh.
Speaker 1: This is very important because we are already seeing evidence
Speaker 1: that a conflict in migration crisis are increased because of
Speaker 1: things like drafts and fires that are accelerated by the
Speaker 1: problems in our climate. There's some evidence that this contributed,
Speaker 1: true example, to the Syrian Civil War. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is an absurd stupidity. Climate change contributed to the Syrian
Speaker 1: Civil War? What this is? This is so beyond bonkers.
Speaker 1: But I've heard other people say this too, because you know,
Speaker 1: climate climate chan is a religions climate change. Climate involves everything, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's warmer outside, so then it's more likely that people
Speaker 1: might be outside. And then you know, climate change is
Speaker 1: called using murders in the streets of Chicago because it's warmer, right,
Speaker 1: and murders in the streets of New Orleans or New
Speaker 1: York or wherever. I mean, it's kind of true. But
Speaker 1: is a climate change it's causing people to murder people
Speaker 1: or people murdering people. This is absurd. This is The
Speaker 1: fallacies of causation here are truly mind blowing. And you
Speaker 1: know when you have this supposedly the supposed genius really
Speaker 1: of the Democrat, I always a Rhode scar but I
Speaker 1: told people are RhoD Scholar. Not that impressive, don't that's all.
Speaker 1: It's like, it's the RhoD Scholar now is like the
Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize. Anybody who knows anything knows that was like,
Speaker 1: come on, very political, But yeah, climate change is the
Speaker 1: cause of the Syrians Civil War. You have to stretch
Speaker 1: hard to think of ways that liberals could be crazier
Speaker 1: these days. And this is why, you know, I saw
Speaker 1: the segment last night the Tucker did on his show
Speaker 1: where he said that the only person in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party who could unify the entire Democratic Party has the
Speaker 1: national recognition and favorables and everything to wipe away all
Speaker 1: the Democrats problems right now from the primaries is Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1: And she says she doesn't want oh, but he played
Speaker 1: a clip of Obama saying in two thousand and six, oh, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not running. Of course, I'm definitely not running. And
Speaker 1: if we end up having Obama's president for eight years,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm talking about the outlie or possibility of
Speaker 1: a Hillary Hillary Clinton run and I don't think it
Speaker 1: is likely, but I don't think it's impossible. I think
Speaker 1: you also would have to say it is not impossible
Speaker 1: for there to be a Michelle Obama candidacy and a
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama presidency. She would be make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: She would be formidable, my friends. And you know, we're
Speaker 1: used to seeing these deeply uninspiring Democrat candidates with all
Speaker 1: kinds of problems and negatives. And unfavorables and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama is a widely beloved figure and has all
Speaker 1: the connections and all the name recognition the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: could ever want. And then some do I think she's
Speaker 1: going to get into I wouldn't put money on it,
Speaker 1: but if she did, I do believe she would be
Speaker 1: the candidate, and I do believe that Trump would have
Speaker 1: his handsful. I think that that's true. You've got to
Speaker 1: just think back to, you know, the narratives of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration and the feelings of the you know, what
Speaker 1: Obama left the Democratic Party with after he was no
Speaker 1: longer in office. I mean, you know, we've been saying
Speaker 1: the only way to set right twenty sixteen is if
Speaker 1: Hillary somehow becomes a candidate and beats Trump. Now in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. That's one narrative, for sure, But think about
Speaker 1: the narrative of Michelle Obama and the Democratic Party going
Speaker 1: forward if she were to run. I don't I don't know. Look,
Speaker 1: I've never talked to Michelle. I don't know. Everyone says, oh,
Speaker 1: she'll never do it, she'll never do it. Does anyone
Speaker 1: doubt that if Michelle Obama announced that she would first
Speaker 1: of all, Joe Biden support would evaporate overnight. Everybody right
Speaker 1: now that would vote for Joe Biden would be like,
Speaker 1: oh sorry, Joe back there now. Now we're going to
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama. See you let so so in the national poll,
Speaker 1: she would be the front runner at that I am
Speaker 1: absolutely confident of. And then look at some of the
Speaker 1: other candidates out there too. You know what, what what support? Really?
Speaker 1: What support lingers for Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris and
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama and I we're thinking a little bit outside
Speaker 1: the box here, my friends. The way the Democrats can
Speaker 1: turn this whole thing around is something like a game
Speaker 1: change moment. And in this case, the game change candidate
Speaker 1: would be would be Michelle Obama. And you know, look,
Speaker 1: I was not a fan of the Obama presidencies policies
Speaker 1: at all. As you know, I went, I went to
Speaker 1: the mat trying to fight against them when I first
Speaker 1: got into this world of media. This is the one
Speaker 1: thing that I don't think Democrats have the strategic foresight
Speaker 1: to bring, you know, to make this happen. I don't think.
Speaker 1: I think the Democratic Party is too at war with
Speaker 1: itself in too many ways. And maybe Michelle Obama just
Speaker 1: also doesn't want to do it. She'd rather just be
Speaker 1: super famous and super rich and like have everyone talked
Speaker 1: about how wonderful she has all the time when she
Speaker 1: just had to be the first lady. That's it, just
Speaker 1: had to be first lady. He's the most wonderful person ever.
Speaker 1: But you never know. Tucker did a segment on the
Speaker 1: last time I was watching it, and I was like,
Speaker 1: I think this is uh. I think I think he
Speaker 1: would be onto something if this a reality, But right
Speaker 1: now it is just speculation, which pundits in political season
Speaker 1: love to do. Like soft butter on warm toast. Time
Speaker 1: to spread some freedom coast to coast. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call, Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton for roll
Speaker 1: call or team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com. So, by the way,
Speaker 1: it's one quick note. I got a little I got
Speaker 1: a tweet last night. This is very nice. I said.
Speaker 1: I just said something about my friend Sarah Carters. I
Speaker 1: saw her. I watched a little Fox last night. Usually
Speaker 1: I'm too busy, but I watched some Fox last night
Speaker 1: and I said something. I said, I was watching my
Speaker 1: buddy Sarah Carter be awesome on the Hannity Show. She's
Speaker 1: a great journal lit some one of the nicest people
Speaker 1: out there you'd ever meet. And Johnny Joey Jones, who's
Speaker 1: also a super nice guy, Purple Heart recipient, military EO
Speaker 1: D veteran. He responded to me, from my experience, buck
Speaker 1: climbs the ladder with one hand and reaches down with
Speaker 1: the other. That's rare in this business. And I applaud
Speaker 1: it when I see it, and I told him that
Speaker 1: was very nice, and then I made my day. It
Speaker 1: was very nice of very nice of Johnny Joey Over.
Speaker 1: He's now a Fox contributor, Very nice of him to
Speaker 1: say that. And you know, not that I do, and
Speaker 1: not that I help people behind the scenes for accolades,
Speaker 1: but I've helped a lot of people behind the scenes
Speaker 1: for somebody without a lot of cloud in the business.
Speaker 1: So it was nice to get a I do because
Speaker 1: I like to do it. I think it's the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. But it was nice to get a
Speaker 1: shout out from jj Over at Fox News, Johnny Joey
Speaker 1: Jones about that, well, I guess that would be JJJ,
Speaker 1: but about that one, So it was very nice of him.
Speaker 1: All Right, let's uh let's get into the royal call,
Speaker 1: shall we. Justin, it's going to kick us off here.
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, working in pharmaceutical supply chain, I can tell
Speaker 1: you how to reduce prescription medication costs starting today with
Speaker 1: no effort by the government. Today, our patents expire after
Speaker 1: twenty years, and it can take up to ten years
Speaker 1: from filing to get them into the market. That means
Speaker 1: the millions and billions of dollars we spend on R
Speaker 1: and D and other activities have to have to be
Speaker 1: recouped and a profit made in ten years before a
Speaker 1: product goes generic. Is actually hurts the early adopters of
Speaker 1: a new treatment the most, as they are the most
Speaker 1: likely as they are most likely the most sick and
Speaker 1: the current treatments aren't working. As such, they pay the
Speaker 1: brunt of this. If the patents were extended another ten years,
Speaker 1: that could literally cut the costs in half, as we
Speaker 1: would we could amortize the cost even further and reduce
Speaker 1: the cost produced as we'll be living more prior to
Speaker 1: losing our patents. Justin, that's interesting. I mean, I just
Speaker 1: feel like you're kind of dispersing the cost more over
Speaker 1: a longer period of time, which ultimately means that consumers
Speaker 1: are still paying the same amount, but it would mean
Speaker 1: that in the short term, as you point out, people
Speaker 1: that are desperate for very for new drugs for things,
Speaker 1: and when they have drugs that aren't working that might
Speaker 1: help them. So certainly interesting an interesting way to approach it.
Speaker 1: I'd have to look at how the math would work
Speaker 1: out on that. Let's keep in mind, I mean patents
Speaker 1: are in the sense of government intrusion in the marketplace, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you're giving people to incentivize research and development.
Speaker 1: You are giving a temporary monopoly to a company, monopoly
Speaker 1: via government regulation, government legislation, so you know, you're not
Speaker 1: really you know, it's not just the market operating and
Speaker 1: you've got a product, somebody else can make that product. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, patents are open to interpretation and there's a
Speaker 1: balancing test that has done of how long. But I mean,
Speaker 1: for example, I think like Mickey Mouse or is still
Speaker 1: under I mean things that are there are things that
Speaker 1: are patented that are now going on like one hundred
Speaker 1: years old that are still a copyrighted I'm sorry, not
Speaker 1: patented so and people argue that that wasn't initially supposed
Speaker 1: to be the way the copyrights worked. You know the
Speaker 1: fact that the Beatles catalog from the sixties is still
Speaker 1: worth billions of dollars or whatever it is, At what
Speaker 1: point does it fall into common usage? And you know,
Speaker 1: we could play a Beatles song here and not worry
Speaker 1: about getting sued. I'm just saying, TJ. Did producer Mark
Speaker 1: say that he shucked corn and skinned a cow over
Speaker 1: the weekend? Wow? What a standard American? Sounds like. Buck
Speaker 1: needs to hang out with Mark Moore in the off time.
Speaker 1: I bet Mark catches catfish from dust till dawn. Not
Speaker 1: to mention, he can probably skin a buck and run
Speaker 1: a trot line. Uh yeah, do you know how to
Speaker 1: do all those things? Yeah? Of course. I go fishing
Speaker 1: in the Hudson River often. I just have to get
Speaker 1: rid of the dead bodies. Also, so I'm actually part
Speaker 1: NYPD agent. I help them with the dead bodies and
Speaker 1: I go fishing at the same time. Well, funny man,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that I've actually gone fishing in
Speaker 1: the East River. Why for what? Stripe bass that you
Speaker 1: would eat that? We took it to a fancy restaurant
Speaker 1: on the Upper east Side and they fillated for as. No,
Speaker 1: it's an estuary comes in right from the ocean. Do
Speaker 1: you know the disgusting things that are probably in that river? Yeah,
Speaker 1: But if you're saying the fish, they have a filtration process,
Speaker 1: the gills and stuff, it's fine. Next you say you're
Speaker 1: gonna drop something on the floor of the subway and
Speaker 1: then eat it, that's the same thing. I mean, I
Speaker 1: have a strong immune system, you know. Trying to make sure.
Speaker 1: Even Producer Brandon look back on that one. He was
Speaker 1: like that, I need to get some glass between you
Speaker 1: and I here. I mean, it's gonna be flu season soon,
Speaker 1: so get after it. And by the way, do you
Speaker 1: get a flu shot? No? Are your flu shot? Guy Brandon?
Speaker 1: I think I'm gonna get one because I don't want
Speaker 1: to miss a whole week of the show because I
Speaker 1: had the flu three years ago and for a week
Speaker 1: I was immobilized. I couldn't do anything. What happens if
Speaker 1: both of us get the flu and then Producer Brandon
Speaker 1: gets to run the show and do the show, and
Speaker 1: you'll hear a lot about guns n' rosie. Yeah, appetite
Speaker 1: for distraction? What is it? Distortion? Yeah? You can yell,
Speaker 1: we could. I'll repeat what you say after the mic. Aaron, WHOA,
Speaker 1: this is long buck. I was wondering if you could
Speaker 1: address COPA when you return from the holiday. It was
Speaker 1: all pass in nineteen ninety eight, of course, authored by Democrat. Recently,
Speaker 1: YouTube had to settled with the FTC for one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy million and changes rules as a result. That
Speaker 1: means that a lot of good, clean family content will
Speaker 1: be wiped out financially, for one, because they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to use targeted ads. This makes no sense to me,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. I love free market. I hate
Speaker 1: to see regulation. Aaron, I don't know much about COPA.
Speaker 1: All I know this is Coppa, not like COPA Ka
Speaker 1: band different, Right that's a different or the right, Yes,
Speaker 1: that's a different, or the COPA mundial the World Cup
Speaker 1: for those of us who like to watch little soccer
Speaker 1: because we're barely American, Uh, Aaron, I don't know much
Speaker 1: about the CEO PPAM other than what I saw on
Speaker 1: the show Silicon Valley, which I do find to be
Speaker 1: a very funny show, quite quite a clever show. Um
Speaker 1: So I got nothing for you on that right now?
Speaker 1: Then I'll have to look at it. Maybe'll come back
Speaker 1: to it after the holiday. A producer Mark reminds me.
Speaker 1: Usually he guilts me and he says, you promised the audience.
Speaker 1: He's he's your advocate here in the hut. I just
Speaker 1: want to do what I want to do. I'm an
Speaker 1: artiste here in the hut. He makes sure that I
Speaker 1: keep promises to the degree that I can all up
Speaker 1: to Producer Brandon after Thanksgiving. That's sure. Actually, Producer Mark
Speaker 1: is going to be not thinking about us as he
Speaker 1: is downing. You know, mudslides and my ties in Jamaica,
Speaker 1: love those, all of those things. We are going to
Speaker 1: do a live show tomorrow, my friends, so you should
Speaker 1: listen tomorrow. We'll have a special Thanksgiving extravaganza. Also over
Speaker 1: the holiday, when you're talking to friends and family, what
Speaker 1: are you going to tell them? Download the buck sect
Speaker 1: and show. Subscribe on iTunes. Best podcast out there. Talk
Speaker 1: to you tomorrow. Shields High. I understand what it's like
Speaker 1: to go through the process of buying life insurance. I
Speaker 1: had to do it before I went overseas. It felt
Speaker 1: a little bit weird. But that's why you need to
Speaker 1: check out my Friends and Ethos Life Insurance because they
Speaker 1: make sure that there's no hassle, no nonsense, and they'll
Speaker 1: find a plan that allows you to make sure that
Speaker 1: your family is prepared for an uncertain future. This is
Speaker 1: something you've got to do. It's the responsible choice, and
Speaker 1: Blink makes it easy for you. There's no fine print
Speaker 1: or silly appointments or fees that you just really can't afford.
Speaker 1: Ethos's approach is simple to blend industry expertise, technology and
Speaker 1: the human touch that helps you find the right policy
Speaker 1: for you to protect your loved ones. It only takes
Speaker 1: about ten minutes to apply, and Ethos is already trusted
Speaker 1: by thousands. Get a fast, free and personalized quote right
Speaker 1: now at Ethoslife dot com. Again, that's Ethoslife dot com.
Speaker 1: Ethos Life Insurance is life insurance that actually fits your life.