Speaker 1: If you're gonna run a great business, you've got to
Speaker 1: have great people, and finding them is a huge part
Speaker 1: of that puzzle. Zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire.
Speaker 1: Zipp recruiter dot com has a platform that finds the
Speaker 1: right job candidates for you. It identifies people with the
Speaker 1: right experience and invites them to apply to your job.
Speaker 1: Of employers who post a job on zipp recruiter get
Speaker 1: a quality candidate through this site in just one day.
Speaker 1: The right candidates are out there, you can find them.
Speaker 1: But zipp recruiter is how right Now my listeners can
Speaker 1: try zipp recruiter for free. That's right free. Just go
Speaker 1: to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zipp recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck one more time, try it for free.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck, zip recruiter. It's the
Speaker 1: smartest way to hire. Once you check out their interface
Speaker 1: and you see those candidates come right into your inbox,
Speaker 1: you're gonna realize there's a great choice. Zipp recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. M you are entering the freedom hunt. Seattle
Speaker 1: passes a law that says that some mega corporations with
Speaker 1: very progressive politics might have to contribute just a little
Speaker 1: bit to help with the homeless this problem. Guess what
Speaker 1: those lefty corporations are freaking out. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: And also the latest with the upcoming North Korea US
Speaker 1: summit Trump and Kim Jong own there are some threats
Speaker 1: passing back and forth. The media continues to lie about
Speaker 1: what had transpired in last forty eight hours between Israelis
Speaker 1: and Palestinians at the border of Gaza. And also the
Speaker 1: social justice warriors have taken over the sciences including medicine.
Speaker 1: That and more coming up. This is the bus Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with passionable intelligence. Make no mistakes American. Let brank,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody's great to have
Speaker 1: you with me. Is always live from the Swamp. We've
Speaker 1: gotta get some cool swamp sound effects. You know, Gate
Speaker 1: is in the Bayou, that kind of thing. Although this
Speaker 1: isn't a charming swamp like what you have in Louisianna.
Speaker 1: This is uh. This is a swamp of lobbyists and
Speaker 1: influence seekers. You know, if I had to give you
Speaker 1: a a tagline on our nation's Captain Washington d C.
Speaker 1: It's where tremendous ambition meets relentless mediocrity. That's really what
Speaker 1: I think of when I think of DC. That that
Speaker 1: should I don't think they're gonna put that up on
Speaker 1: the on the board of tourism anytime soon for the
Speaker 1: District Columbia. But that's the do you want to know
Speaker 1: what's really going on here? There? You have it. So
Speaker 1: I've got a lot of stuff that I'm excited. I'm
Speaker 1: excited to talking about today. I had so much time
Speaker 1: to read it. I was up late last night reading
Speaker 1: in doing research, and then today uh, getting situated here
Speaker 1: in in the district, in in the swamp. Um. But
Speaker 1: the story I want to leave with is not one
Speaker 1: that I think you're seeing grabbing all the headlines. Right.
Speaker 1: I know that there's a lot of attention on North Korea.
Speaker 1: Will we'll get to that and the possibility of a
Speaker 1: cancelation of the summit. This is where we're seeing the
Speaker 1: Kim Jong on that we expected. Right, He's gonna be KG.
Speaker 1: He's not someone we can trust. Administration knows all this
Speaker 1: um I want to start, though, with a continuation on
Speaker 1: a theme that we often have here in the Hut,
Speaker 1: the freedom Hut, as it were, and that is that
Speaker 1: progressives espouse certain beliefs. They tell us that they really
Speaker 1: care about certain things, and yet when it affects them directly,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden is whoa hold on a second, all,
Speaker 1: what's all this, what's all this status m going on here?
Speaker 1: What's all the latest here? With big government? In effect,
Speaker 1: settle down with those taxes. Great examples of this that
Speaker 1: we've been discussing recently schools. Liberals are all about just
Speaker 1: the social experimentation by social justice warriors in the public
Speaker 1: school system in all schools if they can until it
Speaker 1: affects like their kids school, then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: there like, you know, I don't want to just bring
Speaker 1: in a bunch of low performing students and make the
Speaker 1: better performing students in this school, the school that you
Speaker 1: know my kid goes to have to deal with that,
Speaker 1: but everybody else should have to deal with that. But
Speaker 1: I don't want to deal with that. You know, this
Speaker 1: is for thee but not for me. A definitional slogan
Speaker 1: for modern democrats and progressivism also true amount illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: I remember and when we talked, yes in Alibu, hey
Speaker 1: do you come here at the booze goes syr feing, Right,
Speaker 1: That's not what anyone Malibu talks like. They're like, well,
Speaker 1: where's the butler. The chardonnay has gone warm. That's what
Speaker 1: they sound like in Malibu. But they don't like it
Speaker 1: when homeless people are camping out down the street from them.
Speaker 1: They want the city of Los Angeles, for example, to
Speaker 1: allow there to be ten cities that pop up and
Speaker 1: and no ordinances enforced about not Remember it's not just
Speaker 1: the tents on the street. Then the cooking occurs on
Speaker 1: the street, urination, defecation, uh, sexual activity. This is all
Speaker 1: occurring intense on the street. Do you want to walk
Speaker 1: past that? I remember New York City in the late eighties,
Speaker 1: really nineties, I tell you, you you know, as a little kid,
Speaker 1: you know, holding my dad or my mom's hand real
Speaker 1: tight as we walked past and open there homeless shelter
Speaker 1: that wasn't actually a shelter. It just was people that
Speaker 1: had set up a city on the street, you know,
Speaker 1: yelling at each other, fights would break out, their sexual
Speaker 1: assaults would happen, And I'm like a six seven eight
Speaker 1: year old kid. I remember walking past that. It was
Speaker 1: not something that we wanted, but it was in our neighborhood.
Speaker 1: What are you gonna do. You're gonna cower and fear,
Speaker 1: you're gonna hide. The city authorities didn't want to clean
Speaker 1: it up. And I was in liberal New York by
Speaker 1: the way. But that's a whole other discussion. Now you
Speaker 1: get all these liberals that have managed to separate themselves
Speaker 1: in the rest of society. So they're all in favor
Speaker 1: of illegal immigration, but they don't want I legal immigrants.
Speaker 1: They don't want asylum seekers for example from Nicarago or
Speaker 1: a Salvador being put in their school system. Right. They
Speaker 1: don't want those undocumented miners, right, those dreamers, if you will, UH,
Speaker 1: in their school system. They want them in your school system.
Speaker 1: They want the taxpayer to pick up the bill for them,
Speaker 1: but not them as a taxpayer. They don't want to
Speaker 1: have to deal with the hit. And here we are.
Speaker 1: So with all of that lined up, here we are
Speaker 1: with a UH and a completely unsurprising circumstance of two
Speaker 1: of the biggest most progressive corporations out there, Amazon, owned
Speaker 1: by Jeff Bezos and Starbucks. Remember, don't forget Bezos about
Speaker 1: the Washington Post. He has tremendous influence on elite opinion
Speaker 1: as a result of that. But you have Amazon and
Speaker 1: also Starbucks, two of the biggest companies in the country
Speaker 1: right to the and very progressive ones at that. You know,
Speaker 1: Starbucks just decided that you no longer have to be
Speaker 1: a customer to use the bathrooms. You know what that's
Speaker 1: gonna mean for the bathrooms at Starbucks. They're going to
Speaker 1: make the Port Authority bus terminal in Manhattan's Circle like
Speaker 1: five when it was for you know, people fleeing the law,
Speaker 1: runaways and and homeless uh, you know, homeless vagrance right there,
Speaker 1: a lot of that in the Port Authority Buster. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be the bathroom like you'd find there. That's what's
Speaker 1: gonna end up and a lot of Starbucks, not all
Speaker 1: of them, but because people don't care, there's no longer
Speaker 1: any relationship between the customer and the establishment. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna follow my sword over Starbucks bathrooms. I
Speaker 1: don't really care all that much, but it's not gonna
Speaker 1: be good total aside. But this goes in the buck
Speaker 1: wisdom category. I I think it was Anthony Boordain, but
Speaker 1: I forget who it was who wrote that. You can
Speaker 1: tell everything you need to know about the bathroom in
Speaker 1: a restaurant, everything if you just pay attention. I used
Speaker 1: to think that was silly. I've actually found it. I've
Speaker 1: gotten older, it's true. Just that's just file that one
Speaker 1: away on the random Buck Random Buck Nuggets of Wisdom. Um,
Speaker 1: there are some other things, you know, there's some other things.
Speaker 1: If if the soup is good, you're usually in very
Speaker 1: good shape. If the bread is good they bring out,
Speaker 1: you're usually in very good shape. But stories for another time.
Speaker 1: Back to Starbucks and Amazon. Seattle is a very very progressive,
Speaker 1: left wing city has a big problem with homelessness. So
Speaker 1: the Seattle City Council has introduced a way of alleviating
Speaker 1: that problem. And here's what it is. We gotta we
Speaker 1: got some affiliates on Washington State. So if any of
Speaker 1: you folks by the way, you're listening eight four four
Speaker 1: two five eight four four nine buck, light light it
Speaker 1: up here and tell me what it's like. Oh you're
Speaker 1: I think a lot of our affiliates are in interior
Speaker 1: Washington State, not not out in Seattle, are anyway, they've
Speaker 1: got a lot of homeless people in Seattle. Homelessness is
Speaker 1: a very serious problem, and you know, all of us
Speaker 1: listening have a lot. I look, I have a lot
Speaker 1: of sympathy for the homeless. I think a lot should
Speaker 1: be done to help the homeless. And the more you
Speaker 1: learn about homelessness, what you find out is that you know,
Speaker 1: the media often portrays it. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: depending whether you have a Democrat or Republican as president,
Speaker 1: the home listness problem. I think Bernie Goldberg did a
Speaker 1: whole chapter on this in his book Bias many years ago.
Speaker 1: And it's true, the problem of homelessness gets highlighted when
Speaker 1: you have Republican in office, even though the same number
Speaker 1: of homeless may have been there a week before when
Speaker 1: it was a Democrat in office. It's used as a
Speaker 1: political as a political tool, political cudgel. And the truth
Speaker 1: about homelessness is that a vast majority of the homeless
Speaker 1: now and this is a little bit different where you
Speaker 1: have these kind of able bodied occupy wall street vagrant
Speaker 1: types who carry around iPhones and iPads while they're like
Speaker 1: sleeping on the street and camping around. That's different. That's it.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about real long term homelessness. It is overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: tied to alcohol abuse, drug abuse, and mental illness over whelmingly.
Speaker 1: Now that's not to say that that means that we
Speaker 1: shouldn't care or we shouldn't help whatever, but you know,
Speaker 1: we need to understand what the problem really is. Because
Speaker 1: also once you get that the homeless population are not
Speaker 1: people who just like lost their job at the middle
Speaker 1: and now couldn't make ends meet. That's very it can happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, and people say, oh, buck, I know this
Speaker 1: story about a person who lived in his car for
Speaker 1: a year. By the way, I think I'm being serious
Speaker 1: with you there, there's a term um actually think used
Speaker 1: it in here somewhere when you're when you're living in something,
Speaker 1: but you know, like a car, you're not homeless. You're
Speaker 1: like considered unhoused, I think, is what they say. Um.
Speaker 1: But yeah, it can happen, you lose your job, hit
Speaker 1: hard times, but long term what you could consider the
Speaker 1: same way there's structural unemployment, there's kind of structural homelessness
Speaker 1: in the sense that there's a certain um, you know,
Speaker 1: long term homeless population that we're dealing with. Uh. And
Speaker 1: if you're gonna look at the problem. Realistically, it's not
Speaker 1: a downturn in the stock market that calls it. It's
Speaker 1: not you know, the the unemployment rate affects it a
Speaker 1: little bit, but not all that much. It's really alcohol abuse,
Speaker 1: drug abuse, and mental illness. Okay. That also means that
Speaker 1: those people really need help that are on the streets.
Speaker 1: It's not a you know, you get some people and
Speaker 1: some of my more radical libertarian friends are like, you know,
Speaker 1: leave them alone, like they can do whatever they want. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, urinating and defecating and sexual activity in public
Speaker 1: and you know, setting fires because you're cooking stuff and
Speaker 1: unsafe way like, these are municipal issues. These are problems
Speaker 1: for cities and towns that to deal with because it's
Speaker 1: a problem for everybody else. And also there are these
Speaker 1: cases of um, you know, a majority of vast majority
Speaker 1: of the homeless even more than that, right whatever. Overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: the homeless are nonviolent, but there are cases where some
Speaker 1: pretty terrible stuff happens because somebody's mentally ill and a
Speaker 1: threat to the public and they don't get dealt with.
Speaker 1: So that's just some back backstory for this issue of
Speaker 1: the tax. Because what is the government's first, well, government's
Speaker 1: first rule, have had a deal. The problem is is
Speaker 1: hold the committee right or have hearings? You know, have meetings.
Speaker 1: What's the second? The second thing that the government always does.
Speaker 1: That's right, find a way to spend your money. You
Speaker 1: gotta hold the meetings. You figure out where you're spending
Speaker 1: the money. Not that it's going to be spent well,
Speaker 1: but then they take your money. That's how government solves problems.
Speaker 1: They think, that's what government thinks it is doing. We're
Speaker 1: gonna spend money on this, it will solve the problem.
Speaker 1: You would think though, that Amazon, which is one of
Speaker 1: the largest most powerful companies in the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's on track to be a trillion dollar company in
Speaker 1: terms of its value. And you think that Starbucks as well,
Speaker 1: which is I think just after McDonald's in terms of
Speaker 1: number of franchises across the country. Um that they would
Speaker 1: be all in favor of attacks to deal specifically with homelessness.
Speaker 1: And the Seattle City Council must to figure the same
Speaker 1: thing that they're gonna raise tens of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: by having a head tax on those on on any
Speaker 1: company with revenues of over twenty million dollars. By the way,
Speaker 1: that's not just Amazon and Facebook, but they're just two
Speaker 1: companies that have gotten very vocal about this. And it's
Speaker 1: gonna be roughly two. Originally they said five dollars a person.
Speaker 1: So for every if you make over twenty million dollars
Speaker 1: a year, you have to give five hundred dollars a
Speaker 1: person in taxes to this fund in Seattle deal with homelessness.
Speaker 1: And then they cut it down two fifty dollars a person.
Speaker 1: But what they're seeing is, sure enough, the biggest companies
Speaker 1: involved here are losing their minds over this. Starbucks and
Speaker 1: an Amazon specifically all of a sudden feel like they
Speaker 1: need to call out how the government is inefficient. Oh,
Speaker 1: they're saying, the government's not going to spend the money. Well,
Speaker 1: whoa hold on a second? Starbucks and Amazon, you guys
Speaker 1: are pushing progressive agenda all the time. You know. Now
Speaker 1: now all of a sudden, you're worried about the government
Speaker 1: being inefficient, about taxes that are punitive, About the effect
Speaker 1: on employment. Oh when the tax affects you, meaning you
Speaker 1: mega corporations of the left. Now it's a problem. Now
Speaker 1: it's anti business, Now, it's anti competitive. You know, couldn't
Speaker 1: that be said to be true of other taxes that
Speaker 1: are instituted with the best of intentions. You know, things
Speaker 1: that any social justice warrior would be pleased about. You
Speaker 1: see the moment that it starts to affect them, the
Speaker 1: loudest voices in the Democrat Party, in the left, they
Speaker 1: start to change their tune. It is so very, very
Speaker 1: predictable because you know where I'm going. Hypocrisy is the
Speaker 1: defining characteristic on an individual level, and now is if
Speaker 1: you're on a corporate level of the modern progressive hypocrisy
Speaker 1: is they're defining characteristic. They want all these things to
Speaker 1: be done by the government in their name that they like,
Speaker 1: but not be done to them and not to affect them. See,
Speaker 1: I got a problem with that. We also got to
Speaker 1: talk about going on in Illinois with their system here,
Speaker 1: we got a lot more show team. I mean, we
Speaker 1: just got started, but I'm just getting started. We haven't
Speaker 1: even gotten into North Korea, fallout from Gaza yesterday, a
Speaker 1: whole lot more stuff. Oh and the I think the
Speaker 1: single silliest thing that Kirsten Gillibrand has ever said, which
Speaker 1: is really saying something that are more coming up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is getting in on and play their team.
Speaker 1: The move toward oligarchy in our country not only impacts
Speaker 1: our political system, it impacts our economy and the standard
Speaker 1: of living of working people. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon,
Speaker 1: saw his wealth increase by two hundred and seventy five
Speaker 1: million dollars every single day. Meanwhile, thousands of Amazon employees
Speaker 1: are forced to rely on food stamps, medicaid in public
Speaker 1: housing because their wages are just too low. Moving toward oligarchy,
Speaker 1: baby um, Bernie's wrong in the economics, but he's right
Speaker 1: about this debases a lot of power. But I wonder
Speaker 1: where he is on, where Ernie is on what he
Speaker 1: thinks about the pushback on this proposal? Right, you know, Bezos,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, and and the the folks who run Amazon,
Speaker 1: the folks who run Starbucks, And I would note a
Speaker 1: lot of other companies that make over twenty million dollars
Speaker 1: in Seattle. Those these are just the two super big
Speaker 1: you know, those are the two companies most associated with Seattle,
Speaker 1: along with UH. I think Microsoft moved out of Seattle, right,
Speaker 1: it's somewhere else now, I don't know, I forget what
Speaker 1: Microsoft is headquartered out of. But they're making a lot
Speaker 1: of noise about this, and you would think that if
Speaker 1: they agree with Bernie on all these issues, that here's
Speaker 1: an opportunity to do more about the problem of homelessness.
Speaker 1: I just thought it was so interesting to see the
Speaker 1: that Amazon's vice president wrote or said, quote, the city
Speaker 1: does not have a revenue problem. This is Seattle and
Speaker 1: has a spending efficiency problem. We are highly uncertain whether
Speaker 1: the city council's anti business positions or it's spending inefficiency
Speaker 1: will change for the better end. Quote well, how is
Speaker 1: that any different than any of us who have to
Speaker 1: pay taxes on all kinds of uf feeling like, uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: Microsoft is in Redmond, Washington. Producer Mike has told me
Speaker 1: so different place. Um, but how is that any different
Speaker 1: than all of us who feel like, yeah, they're just
Speaker 1: gonna take more of my stuff and spend it poorly
Speaker 1: on crap. You know, remember the Obama stimulus, a trillion dollars, folks,
Speaker 1: just to give away to left wing Democrat interests. Didn't
Speaker 1: do anything for the economy. Just spend a lot of
Speaker 1: your money, That's the Democrat answer to everything. But when
Speaker 1: it hits home, when the progressive corporations that love to
Speaker 1: push social justice policies all over the place. When they
Speaker 1: gotta pay a little more in taxes, though specifically they
Speaker 1: have to pay more, not everybody. They go, what do
Speaker 1: you mean, I don't like this anymore? I got another
Speaker 1: tax problem to talking about. Stay with me. He's holding
Speaker 1: the line for America, Buck Sexton his back. So not
Speaker 1: only do you have this idea of listeners or or
Speaker 1: I should say, addressing to be fair to the the
Speaker 1: liberal redistributionists do gooders out there in Seattle and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: They want to address the problem of homelessness with us.
Speaker 1: They know it's not gonna fix it. Okay, fine, but
Speaker 1: just tax people, tax the rich. It's the Bernie plan. Baby.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Bernie. Thanks you tax rich people enough, you're
Speaker 1: gonna get You're gonna get more of what you need.
Speaker 1: The problem with doing things like that in cities and
Speaker 1: and Amazon, by the way, is big enough that it
Speaker 1: did throw its weight around. It threatened to stop building
Speaker 1: a headquarters because of this tax specifically. But you know,
Speaker 1: Amazon is a company that can do that. Not all
Speaker 1: companies can. But sometimes they'll be able to fight back.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they will find a means of trying to push
Speaker 1: back and refused to just get pillaged by the government
Speaker 1: for its own needs, for its own reasons. But it's
Speaker 1: not just in Seattle. It's happening all over the all
Speaker 1: of the country in different ways, different times, different places. Illinois,
Speaker 1: Illinois is a is the the blue readout in the Midwest, right,
Speaker 1: it's the it's the fortress of liberalism because of Chicago
Speaker 1: in the Midwest. And Illinois has got a massive budget
Speaker 1: crisis that it's dealing with, right It's it's got it's
Speaker 1: billions and billions of dollars in the whole and it's
Speaker 1: been run by Democrats, as you know, for a very
Speaker 1: long time. It is a it is a big problem.
Speaker 1: What do you think the biggest issue they have is
Speaker 1: when it comes to budget in the state of Illinois. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, pensions, the because as I've told you, there
Speaker 1: is an unholy alliance. It's not just the Illinois, it's
Speaker 1: a number of states, but an unholy alliance between Democrat
Speaker 1: party politics and public sector unions. And the way this
Speaker 1: works is the best way to get benefits, to give
Speaker 1: benefits the public sector unions is to back end it, right,
Speaker 1: juice up the back end of the deal by giving
Speaker 1: people cushier long term benefits than just you know, if
Speaker 1: you start paying third grade teachers a D fifty grand
Speaker 1: across the board, people are gonna start asking questions. Right,
Speaker 1: But if you give them pensions where they pay very
Speaker 1: little into their health care, they have health care for life,
Speaker 1: their family has health care for life, all paid for
Speaker 1: by the taxpayer, and some formula where it's you know,
Speaker 1: sevent of the last of the average of the last
Speaker 1: three years, or you know, it depends where you are.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I knew what it was in New York.
Speaker 1: I forget what it is, or I don't know what
Speaker 1: it is in other states. But they have unfunded pension
Speaker 1: liabilities and the taxpayers just can't keep up. Now you
Speaker 1: may be seeing yourself, well, hold on a second, but
Speaker 1: now this is at the state level, mind you, and
Speaker 1: so you do have some redress here. And that's what's
Speaker 1: going on with California, with Illinois, with New York. People
Speaker 1: are saying I'm out, I'm done. Those who can not
Speaker 1: everyone can. People if you're you know, underwater on your mortgage,
Speaker 1: or if you're even just you know, you don't have
Speaker 1: that much equity in your home, and it's the market
Speaker 1: goes this the market for sellers go soft, and there's
Speaker 1: all kinds of reasons why leaving is not impossible from
Speaker 1: a certain state when it embraces more confiscatory tax model.
Speaker 1: But it's hard. It's not that easy, you know. I
Speaker 1: I wish that there were some conservative friendly, low tax
Speaker 1: parts of the country that we're also major media capitals,
Speaker 1: but I've yet to find one, have yet to find one. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: where where there's media, there are liberals. And that's just
Speaker 1: the reality that I have to deal with right now.
Speaker 1: But Illinois is as really decided to to up the
Speaker 1: stakes here a little bit with how they're going to
Speaker 1: approach their pension, their unfunded pension liabilities. And this courtesy
Speaker 1: of of zero Hedge, a site that does a lot
Speaker 1: of interesting particularly bearish and uh dare I say, catastrophe
Speaker 1: leaning analysis, but they also do some interesting stuff. It's
Speaker 1: a site that does affirm a good amount of traffic
Speaker 1: and has some insightful posts. But they talk about this
Speaker 1: this uh last month a pension event with the Civic
Speaker 1: Federation and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and what
Speaker 1: they decided is okay, so there's the Federals are big Chicago,
Speaker 1: They're like here, here's the way we fix the pension
Speaker 1: crisis in Illinois. Right, Remember we just talked about out Seattle.
Speaker 1: How do you fix the homeless crisis? Tax corporations, which
Speaker 1: could cause corporate corporations to leave the state. But the
Speaker 1: way they want to fix the the the looming catastrophe,
Speaker 1: the ticking time bomb of unfended, unfunded pension liability in
Speaker 1: Illinois is Oh, that's right, you guessed it. Taxes on
Speaker 1: the individual. What is the way that they are choosing
Speaker 1: to up to raise tax of individuals to really go
Speaker 1: after you, and that is property taxes. Now I have
Speaker 1: a problem with this, folks, and I always have before
Speaker 1: I get into what Illinois is doing. Just just philosophically speaking,
Speaker 1: I think it is wrong. It is fundamentally wrong that
Speaker 1: the government will only really tax one asset you have
Speaker 1: as an asset in this way that it can change
Speaker 1: as it sees fit. Right, you don't submit to the
Speaker 1: government every year. Eight. Hey, I'm worth You know, I
Speaker 1: have a net worth of uh let's just say by
Speaker 1: the way I wish, right, but let's just say it's
Speaker 1: a million dollars. Right, you have a net worth of
Speaker 1: a million dollars. I wish that was my networth. I'm
Speaker 1: worth a few thousands. Bring it um. But if you
Speaker 1: have a net worth of a million dollars and you
Speaker 1: had to submit every year a check based on that network,
Speaker 1: that would be a wealth tax. We don't have that.
Speaker 1: We have an income tax. So wealthy people like Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and John Kerry and other people that are wealthy
Speaker 1: based on money that other people made, but they get
Speaker 1: to have long term capital gains, which is tax at
Speaker 1: a much lower rate. They have, you know, tax shelters
Speaker 1: and and just ways of living off of the interest
Speaker 1: of unearned income. So they don't really care, right, they
Speaker 1: don't care what the income tax rate is. I promise
Speaker 1: you they would care a whole lot more if all
Speaker 1: of a sudden it was, you know what, every every
Speaker 1: uh asked every dollar you're worth over ten million, there's
Speaker 1: a two percent surcharge on that you sent a check
Speaker 1: to the government every year. All the limousine liberals, you know,
Speaker 1: would be I mean, they'd be like, lay miss baby.
Speaker 1: There'd be pitchforks and yelling on the top of the barricade,
Speaker 1: and you know, Monsieur Valjean, you know all that stuff, right,
Speaker 1: they'd be freaking out right. You know, you know you're coming.
Speaker 1: You saw the movie, you guys saw it. Don't look
Speaker 1: at me like you saw the movie with Wolverine and
Speaker 1: Maximus in it, whatever their real names are. Um, But
Speaker 1: what they're doing is is a is a version of
Speaker 1: the wealth tax bits on homes, which is where a
Speaker 1: vast majority of people have most of their money. And
Speaker 1: I I just disagree this because the government should not
Speaker 1: be able two force you out of your home that
Speaker 1: you own because they are raising the taxes on that
Speaker 1: as an asset. Right. So if your home is worth
Speaker 1: two year in some places you have to pay on
Speaker 1: property taxes. A lot of you, I know right now,
Speaker 1: are not on your heads. You're like, yep, buck, it's stinks.
Speaker 1: I gotta send a check property taxes. He send a
Speaker 1: check for whatever one percent of the assess value. By
Speaker 1: the way, the assessed value depending on where you are,
Speaker 1: but based on what the assessor thinks, assess value can
Speaker 1: be way beyond what the market value of your home.
Speaker 1: It's depends on where you are. But they'll say, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: this this house is worth a half million dollars. You're like,
Speaker 1: what I paid to fifty for it? And They're like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: but you're gonna pay taxes as though it's worth a
Speaker 1: half million. You're like, but I can't even get I
Speaker 1: can't get a half million dollars. I'm gonnak at two
Speaker 1: fifty for this house. Oh no, sorry, you're gonna pay
Speaker 1: at And that's it. Fighting and in court is very
Speaker 1: there's a problem in New York State, by the way,
Speaker 1: I no, no, people that have had to go through
Speaker 1: this fight very difficult to deal with the assessor's whims.
Speaker 1: But in in Illinois, they are taking this to the
Speaker 1: next level where you're gonna be paying about one percent
Speaker 1: they estimate of actual property value each year for the
Speaker 1: next thirty years, straight up tax on the on the
Speaker 1: overall asset that is your home. What this really means
Speaker 1: is you're renting the home you own from the government.
Speaker 1: You don't really own it, You rent it from the government.
Speaker 1: This means the state of Illinois is a landlord. You
Speaker 1: have to send them a check every year or else
Speaker 1: you lose your home. It will be repossessed. This is wrong,
Speaker 1: This is fundamentally wrong. And I you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: only a few blocks away from the White House here.
Speaker 1: I know some people down here I want to start.
Speaker 1: You know, we we gotta I know people's a buckets
Speaker 1: at the state level, but this needs to be a
Speaker 1: much louder, much more forceful conversation. Government should not be
Speaker 1: allowed to come along. And I think remember the outrage
Speaker 1: if you try to touch Nancy Pelosi's you know, bank
Speaker 1: account with twenty million dollars in it, just take a
Speaker 1: percentage of it, She'd she'd freak out. She only wants
Speaker 1: to pay a percentage. I know, I like picking on
Speaker 1: Pelosi because she's a rich elitist, but she'll wants to
Speaker 1: pay a percentage on the unearned income she gets from
Speaker 1: her assets. Right. But that it's really hard because the
Speaker 1: private jets really expensive. But you got what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: if you were taking a percentage of of of her wealth,
Speaker 1: she'd be very upset. Anyway, a lot of these liberals,
Speaker 1: they're very wealthy. You know Tom Styre, well once again
Speaker 1: the billionaire category. I guess you probably don't character you're
Speaker 1: so wealthy that you know whatever, But otherwise wealthy people
Speaker 1: would start to have a big issue with this. But
Speaker 1: they're gonna start charging people in Illinois property taxes three
Speaker 1: four five depends on where you are. That's crazy. That
Speaker 1: is crazy. And also government bureaucrats get their pensions. And
Speaker 1: here's the part of this that's really stinky. A zero
Speaker 1: head zero Hedge points this out, you might say, well, back,
Speaker 1: they should leave. We got plenty of room down here
Speaker 1: in the Carolinas, plenty of room in Texas or in Florida,
Speaker 1: and Florida is pretty crowded these days, but you know,
Speaker 1: plenty of places they can go. Nevada, right, no state
Speaker 1: income tax and more favorable taxation regime across the board.
Speaker 1: Problem is, property taxes are also tied to the value
Speaker 1: of the home, so it becomes harder to Once they
Speaker 1: raise the property taxes, becomes harder to sell the home,
Speaker 1: which means you've got to lower the price, which is
Speaker 1: just another form of confiscating wealth from people to give
Speaker 1: it to the government, and confiscating wealth from those who
Speaker 1: are working hard. This is it's going to affect affect
Speaker 1: people at the you know, at the everyman, you know,
Speaker 1: working class level, all the way up the chain in Illinois,
Speaker 1: and it's just it's just an outrage, you know, and
Speaker 1: you're seeing this in other states too. The taxes are
Speaker 1: gonna go up, and this I'm gonna put a pin
Speaker 1: in this. Now. We're gonna move on to some other
Speaker 1: stuff I got. We gotta talk Gaza, North Korea, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of that coming up. But you know,
Speaker 1: your pocketbook matters, right your Your money matters to me.
Speaker 1: My money matters to me. Tax increases are coming at
Speaker 1: the state level in I think you gonna see a
Speaker 1: lot of this, and it is only a matter of time,
Speaker 1: and it could be a lot sooner than it feels
Speaker 1: right now before federal income taxes are gonna get raised.
Speaker 1: I know, right now, we're still kind of filling the
Speaker 1: high of Trump's tax cuts, and it's been a good thing,
Speaker 1: great for the business, great for business, grip of economy.
Speaker 1: Do any of you listening for one second think that
Speaker 1: the Democrats will turn around after this and say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what tax cuts were that that that that worked,
Speaker 1: Let's try that again, or let's keep it going. No,
Speaker 1: my friends, they want to turn right around and make
Speaker 1: up for lost time and just tax and tax you
Speaker 1: into oblivion. Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and others. They want
Speaker 1: to take more of your money, if not to fund
Speaker 1: pension liabilities in the state. In states which they're not
Speaker 1: going to do that. Obviously, they're doing it too pay
Speaker 1: for the twenty trillion dollars plus of debt we've run up.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it's coming. They just remember the words of Amazon.
Speaker 1: Right now. We're worried about how the UH money will
Speaker 1: be allocated and spent by the state in this instance. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm worried, my man, about how the money is allocated
Speaker 1: and spent in every instance by the federal government. Well,
Speaker 1: I want to give them the bare minimum of my
Speaker 1: cash because Buck needs it. Buck needs a new pair
Speaker 1: of shoes too. We'll be right back. We have yet
Speaker 1: to see any credible evidence or intelligence that led to
Speaker 1: the opening of this investigation. I believe they never should
Speaker 1: have opened a counterintelligence investigation into a political party. Counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigations are are very very rarely do they happen, and
Speaker 1: when they do happen, you have to be very careful
Speaker 1: because you're you're using the tools of our intelligence services
Speaker 1: and relationships with other countries in order to spy on
Speaker 1: a political campaign. Probably not a good idea, Yeah, I was,
Speaker 1: Devin noonez you know, I think that one one separation,
Speaker 1: one difference between the way a lot of conservatives I know,
Speaker 1: of you all this stuff, and the way the left
Speaker 1: views it is that if I were to find out
Speaker 1: on all this, with the Mueller probe and everything, the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion stuff, if I were to find out that
Speaker 1: I had been in in any way really wrong about this,
Speaker 1: meaning that there there really was a credible and serious
Speaker 1: effort to work with I mean, I can't say with
Speaker 1: a straight face, but yeah, I would be um very
Speaker 1: upset at people working in the administration. I'd be very
Speaker 1: upset at the Trump administration, and I would want answers
Speaker 1: and I would want justice. That all said, it's kind
Speaker 1: of like saying, well, okay, what what would I do
Speaker 1: if if space aliens landed tomorrow and like try to
Speaker 1: take over the human race? It's not something that I
Speaker 1: worry much about. But on the other hand, if in
Speaker 1: fact it becomes irrefutably true, as I believe it is
Speaker 1: increasingly the ace, if it becomes irrefutable cannot be debated
Speaker 1: by any honest and serious person that the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: the f behind the d o J were embroiled in
Speaker 1: a plot two undermine the Trump administration weaponized the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: weaponized the spying and the fires the process, everything and
Speaker 1: by the way, I know you're like buck already there.
Speaker 1: But but but I mean, when we get the real, the
Speaker 1: smoking gun that not even MSNBC can ignore, right, the
Speaker 1: small game gun that cannot be explained away, Here's the
Speaker 1: part of this that I know is true, and I
Speaker 1: just want to psychologically prepare you and me for it.
Speaker 1: No matter what we find out about what Comy and
Speaker 1: Struck and Page and McCabe and Yates and all these
Speaker 1: different characters, no matter what we found out they did,
Speaker 1: no matter how obvious sleep police state and authoritarian and
Speaker 1: wrong and deep state, and the left will be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it was necessary, though under the circumstances you cannot shame them.
Speaker 1: There will be no shame if, in fact, it becomes
Speaker 1: clear as it already I think is almost there to
Speaker 1: anyone looking at this, that that the real, the real,
Speaker 1: underhanded effort was to stop Trump, not to help Trump,
Speaker 1: from within our own government, using sources in the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: run by the FBI, the d o J, and perhaps others.
Speaker 1: If we get to that that day, when it's just
Speaker 1: all there and clear and clear as day for us,
Speaker 1: they won't care. They will think that all this had
Speaker 1: been worthwhile. They'll be happy with what's going on, and they,
Speaker 1: in their view, they wouldn't matter what folks, I need
Speaker 1: you to remember that they're not playing this game to
Speaker 1: be ethical. They're not playing this game to defend our democracy,
Speaker 1: to uphold their institution. That's just the facade. That's just
Speaker 1: what they tell each other. Many of them do so
Speaker 1: with a bit of a snide sneer. They have no
Speaker 1: interest in the facts or the truth about any of this. Really,
Speaker 1: it's just meant to tie down, bog down, and harass
Speaker 1: Trump and his administration. And that's what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Nine Line Apparel is a veteran owned and operated patriotic
Speaker 1: lifestyle brand. It's also a giveback company, So the folks
Speaker 1: that run nine Line are proud to announce a partnership
Speaker 1: with NASCAR driver Jeffrey Earnhardt to give back to children
Speaker 1: of our nation's fallen. Now until tonight, go to nine
Speaker 1: Line apparel dot com to get there. Remember the Fallen
Speaker 1: Memorial Day shirt and with each shirt purchase, you'll have
Speaker 1: the option of submitting the name of a fallen soldier.
Speaker 1: These heroes names will cover Jeffrey Earnhardt's car at the
Speaker 1: Coca Cola six hundred over Memorial Day weekend in Charlotte, Nineline.
Speaker 1: By the way, they're partnering with a rules of America's
Speaker 1: fallen who support the children of those laws through the
Speaker 1: military service. So please help honor and support our fallen
Speaker 1: heroes and their families. Go to nine line apparel dot
Speaker 1: com to get this exclusive Moral Day T shirt. And
Speaker 1: you've only got till tonight to do at nine line
Speaker 1: apparel dot com. Buck Sexton Mission Decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence. No mistake, America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. Activity Analysts. Sexton,
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody. I want
Speaker 1: to follow up with what happened with Hamas yesterday at
Speaker 1: the Israel Gaza border. First of all, the way that
Speaker 1: the media talks about this stuff, it's it's astonishing to
Speaker 1: me that so many people in New York and d
Speaker 1: C have such a soft spot for vicious terrorists. Based
Speaker 1: on the way they talk about it, I don't know
Speaker 1: what else to say. They seem to really bend over
Speaker 1: backwards to do the minimum of means. Speaking about Hamas,
Speaker 1: an organization that, if it could, would launch suicide bombing,
Speaker 1: attacks against Israeli women and children and the elderly at
Speaker 1: weddings in pizzerias and discotheq every day. That's what Hamas
Speaker 1: would do if it could every single day. We know
Speaker 1: this because they've done it before, not every day, but
Speaker 1: as often as was possible for them, and the Israeli's
Speaker 1: outflanked the bad guys, created a wall, created barriers, created
Speaker 1: security for themselves. Sorry, Hamas, go live in the misery
Speaker 1: that you create for yourselves in Gaza. It really is
Speaker 1: in exemple are It's a case study the whole world.
Speaker 1: Do you want to be a rule of law, civilized
Speaker 1: Western style democracy Israel, or do you want to be
Speaker 1: an authoritarian theocracy based on hatred and jihad Gaza? One
Speaker 1: of them is a nice place to visit, a nice
Speaker 1: place to live. The other is not. It doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be that way. Gaza actually could be a nice
Speaker 1: place to live. The problem with Gaza is hermas in
Speaker 1: the ideology of a lot of people who live there.
Speaker 1: Media doesn't seem to get the hint on this though.
Speaker 1: I really don't, and I mean here, here's just a
Speaker 1: montage producer Michael together play clip too. These were peaceful protesters,
Speaker 1: and a lot are saying that Israelis didn't necessarily have
Speaker 1: to use live fire on them. Tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: young people crossing fields between the urban part of Gaza
Speaker 1: and the Israeli border unarmed. The protesters, including six children
Speaker 1: who were reportedly killed today, seem to be losing their
Speaker 1: lives for nothing. An unarmed protesters is not what it
Speaker 1: is about. Is no justification for the shooting and killing
Speaker 1: of unarmed Palestinian protesters, the IDEF snipers shooting kids, people
Speaker 1: in wheelchairs behind that on, the Israeli authorities killing will
Speaker 1: All of those babies are dead. All of those people
Speaker 1: are dead. They're dead. All right, let's unpack this, shall
Speaker 1: we Let's work through this together for a moment here. Oh,
Speaker 1: what we know is that actually there were Hamas operatives.
Speaker 1: This was released today. At least about a dozen Hamas
Speaker 1: operatives killed people that work for Hamas internal security at
Speaker 1: that fence. Reporting from a Jerusalem Post is As follows
Speaker 1: uh the id F cant disturbances of the fence. Intelligence
Speaker 1: was received that a Hamas squad was planning to place
Speaker 1: an explosive charge on the fence to allow for a
Speaker 1: mass infiltration into Israel. They are trying to do kind
Speaker 1: of a prison break from Gaza into Israel to create chaos, bloodshed, anarchy.
Speaker 1: That was that was what they were trying to do,
Speaker 1: and they opened fire in order to prevent that. Now
Speaker 1: the Israeli I d F. Rules of Engaged, by the way,
Speaker 1: this reminds me of the movie Rules of Engagement was
Speaker 1: actually pretty good. Um, if any of you have seen it,
Speaker 1: it's got Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel Jackson and it's
Speaker 1: at an embassy in I think they're in Yemen. I
Speaker 1: forget if they specify that or not, but I think
Speaker 1: it's in Yemen. And there's a protest outside the embassy.
Speaker 1: But there are also bad people with guns killing marines
Speaker 1: outside the m c u S marines, And so Samuel
Speaker 1: j Action tells his guys to open up and they
Speaker 1: kill a whole lot of people because there there are
Speaker 1: snipers in the crowd, people with weapons in the crowd.
Speaker 1: And then it turns into a whole political fiasco afterwards
Speaker 1: of did this marine, you know, execute all these people
Speaker 1: who are just peaceful protesters and you see the same
Speaker 1: stuff unarmed, Oh they're unarmed. Well, first of all, that
Speaker 1: wasn't the case in the movie, which I actually think
Speaker 1: it's pretty good at worth going back and watching that
Speaker 1: rules some engagements called um and they weren't unarmed in
Speaker 1: this case either. See a lot of people in the
Speaker 1: press don't understand they have no tactical training whatsoever. They
Speaker 1: don't understand how firearms work. They don't understand how ballistics work.
Speaker 1: So for example, when you were dealing with a crowd
Speaker 1: of people, if someone has a Molotov cocktail and they
Speaker 1: were running at a soldier, they keep saying, all the
Speaker 1: snipers were shooting them. The snipers were shooting them. Um,
Speaker 1: you can hit that person, and the bullet can actually
Speaker 1: very easily go and hit someone behind them. It depends
Speaker 1: on what kind of weapons we're talking about here, And
Speaker 1: you know, is this a ghalil, what what kind of rifle?
Speaker 1: Or the Israelis are trained to shoot at the legs
Speaker 1: so that they're using less than or trying to use. Look,
Speaker 1: you can still hit it from moral artery. Can You
Speaker 1: can pretty easily die from and shot a leg too,
Speaker 1: but a lot less likely than if you're shot center
Speaker 1: master in the head. Then then you know, the odds
Speaker 1: of mortality go up dramatically. But the Israelis are trying
Speaker 1: to use less than lethal force when they could. They
Speaker 1: were shooting at legs when they could, and then if
Speaker 1: they felt an imminent threat, yeah, they're gonna take out
Speaker 1: Hamas operatives trying to get to the border, trying to
Speaker 1: get through the border, throwing molots off cocktails. You even
Speaker 1: you had Matt Bradley over at MSNBC again with this
Speaker 1: unarmed talking point, but then he had to actually address
Speaker 1: that a little more plicklipic one. What I've seen here
Speaker 1: just yesterday and last Friday was horrible violence. You saw
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of young people crossing fields between the
Speaker 1: urban part of Gaza and the Israeli border, essentially trying
Speaker 1: to walk across this heavily militarized border um unarmed. Now
Speaker 1: as you know, it's it's easy to say they were
Speaker 1: completely unarmed. They had some light weapons. A lot of
Speaker 1: them would be burning tires or rolling tires to try
Speaker 1: to melt the razor wire. They had sling shots. Uh.
Speaker 1: They had a new and crazy invention incendiary kites, where
Speaker 1: they would try to loft kites and set them on
Speaker 1: fire to try to light up some of the agricultural
Speaker 1: fields beyond the border with Israel. Well, according to the
Speaker 1: I d F, a pistol, grenade launchers, charges and preparations
Speaker 1: for opening defense were all found where the where the
Speaker 1: main firefight was between I d F and this so
Speaker 1: called unarmed, unarmed mob but a few hundred people with
Speaker 1: rocks and molotov cocktails and makeshift weapons. Would you want
Speaker 1: to face them down? Would you feel like that was
Speaker 1: a threat to you? Would you want to let them
Speaker 1: pass you? If you were in charge of security, if
Speaker 1: you were in charge of secure this nation's border, let's say,
Speaker 1: from an angry rabble threatening to go in as they
Speaker 1: were chanting. But how they wanted to kill the first American?
Speaker 1: In that case they're talking about Jews, but the first
Speaker 1: American they saw. Would you just let them through and
Speaker 1: be like, well, you know, they didn't have that, they
Speaker 1: didn't have semi aumatic rifles, and I didn't I didn't
Speaker 1: think it was a fair fight, So we just let
Speaker 1: them through. They can burn down the first house they
Speaker 1: come to, and you know, kill all the inhabitants. But
Speaker 1: at least I didn't shoot them. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I don't think you do that. I don't think I
Speaker 1: would do that, right. How does the media not get
Speaker 1: this and why do they play into the propaganda of
Speaker 1: Hamas here in a way that's just so blatant, so obvious.
Speaker 1: And not just the news media, also in pop culture
Speaker 1: Hamas has become a resistance movement that Hollywood celebrities are like, oh,
Speaker 1: look at what's going on with and they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's not Hamas, it's just the Palestinian people. Who do
Speaker 1: they think is behind this? Who runs Godzas, Godzas not
Speaker 1: a big place, Who is the law, who is the
Speaker 1: state such as it is in Gaza's Hamas? Who wins
Speaker 1: elections there? Although you know it's not a free society,
Speaker 1: I know, but I'm just people. There are people who
Speaker 1: vote for her Moss Okay, I understand that this is
Speaker 1: not just some tyranny and force at the end of
Speaker 1: a gun. There are Hamas supporters, lots of them. What's
Speaker 1: the real number of stuff to say? But you you have,
Speaker 1: for example, Chelsea Handler, who is I think charitably described
Speaker 1: as an idiot um but she's out there with her
Speaker 1: you know, he's got millions of Twitter followers. She's writing
Speaker 1: this about what happened yesterday. Now the bb crazys are
Speaker 1: running the show unchecked and will effectively turn Gaza and
Speaker 1: the Left Bank into starvation camps or mental asylums if
Speaker 1: not already, and bomb Iran into submission. There will be
Speaker 1: a religious term for this. I think the evangelicals call
Speaker 1: it the rapture. So, I mean, it's not even really
Speaker 1: worth dissecting her stupidity. It's I just wanted to share
Speaker 1: with you this is what American celebrities say about this.
Speaker 1: There so hateful about Israel. Other she wrote much worse
Speaker 1: stuff than that, but I didn't want to read all
Speaker 1: of it on the air. Judd Apatow somebody who's, you know,
Speaker 1: responsible for making some movies that are someone pretty funny,
Speaker 1: someone are pretty good. I don't like, you know, some
Speaker 1: of the stuff stinks. But he wrote it on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Why would the US not want to investigate all of
Speaker 1: this killing? If our people were killed somewhere, wouldn't we
Speaker 1: want an investigation? What are we becoming? I mean that's
Speaker 1: in response to the shootings at the fence, and we
Speaker 1: all know. I mean this is because America supposedly shut
Speaker 1: down this attempt by the u N to characterize the
Speaker 1: Palestinian protesters as peaceful. They are not peaceful. But this
Speaker 1: this word game that they play with unarmed, right people
Speaker 1: are unarmed protesters. It's just meant to automatically set the
Speaker 1: conversation a certain direction, which is well that if they're unarmed,
Speaker 1: they must be innocent, they must be not a threat.
Speaker 1: This happens with Black Lives Matter and the anti cop
Speaker 1: protest movements in this country all the time. Oh so
Speaker 1: and so was unarmed? Really? Well, was he trying to
Speaker 1: punch the officer in the face and take his service
Speaker 1: weapon because then he could really easily kill the officer.
Speaker 1: Was that happening? Well, yeah, but he was on armed
Speaker 1: during the struggle, he didn't get the gun because the
Speaker 1: officer had to use force to defend himself. Okay, so
Speaker 1: you know we see this time and again Mike Brown
Speaker 1: ferguson unarmed guys like six pounds trying to pummel an officer,
Speaker 1: and all accounts were that that's what happened, is that
Speaker 1: officer supposed to let him get tackled the ground completely
Speaker 1: outweighed outside. I you know, a big size differential with
Speaker 1: Mike Brown, and see who wins that wrestling match with
Speaker 1: a gun in play. I think not all right. I
Speaker 1: have a patrol officer now retired in my family. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't want him to wrestle with somebody of Mike Brown
Speaker 1: size and see who ended up with the gun at
Speaker 1: the end of it. Sorry, that's not how this goes.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's all these different threads that come together.
Speaker 1: Why the media loves to loves to just go along
Speaker 1: with the Oh, the Palestinians are such victims, and you
Speaker 1: know Hamas has misunderstood, and the Israelis are these big,
Speaker 1: bad bullies. Part of it is just there. Uh well,
Speaker 1: I do that. Look, there is a lot of anti
Speaker 1: Semitism that's involved in this, certainly in the case of
Speaker 1: European media. I think a lot of the a lot
Speaker 1: of American journalists have problems with Israel that go beyond
Speaker 1: its foreign policy as well. But then beyond that, you
Speaker 1: have the the idea of the Palestinians. Then we're gonna
Speaker 1: talk a lot about intersectional politics, identity politics, and how
Speaker 1: it affects medical school and science by the way, in
Speaker 1: this country. That's gonna be a conversation we'll get into
Speaker 1: later this hour. And then I'll go you know, probably
Speaker 1: going to the next hour to I think this is
Speaker 1: such an important topic. But even the Palestinians abroad and
Speaker 1: the way that we the way that the American left
Speaker 1: and media views them, goes through this lens of intersectional politics.
Speaker 1: So because Palestinians are Muslim and and brown, in the
Speaker 1: parliace of the left right, this is other. They'll say
Speaker 1: their Muslim, they're brown. Uh, they are victims and worthy
Speaker 1: of greater support and uh excuse making you know, whatever
Speaker 1: we have to do versus the Israelis. Now, anybody who
Speaker 1: knows anything would be like, well, the Israelies are Jews,
Speaker 1: it's the Jewish state, and goes about saying Jews have
Speaker 1: faced more than their share of persecution throughout history and
Speaker 1: in recent history too. Uh. But yet because Jews are
Speaker 1: or Jews in Israel are um predominantly white, not all,
Speaker 1: but predominantly white. And you know, they're not victims of colonialism.
Speaker 1: In fact, in the in the left wing framing of
Speaker 1: the Israeli Palestinian issue, Israel is a colonial outpost in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, despite the fact that the Jews have
Speaker 1: been in Jerusalem and and and in uh Juday and
Speaker 1: Samaria for you know, thousands of years, they still think
Speaker 1: of it as a colonial issue, and so there's a
Speaker 1: kind of a white oppression of the non white world
Speaker 1: inherent in the Israeli project. I mean this. I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you. I studied with left wing radicals on campus
Speaker 1: on this very issue. I specifically took seminars in Arab
Speaker 1: Israeli conflict from people that took this, so I know
Speaker 1: how they think. They write papers on how Israel is
Speaker 1: an apartheid state. They want it to be divested from
Speaker 1: the international financial system. They want Israel to be a
Speaker 1: pariah state, and that's taught here in this country in
Speaker 1: elite schools. Trying to get to the y behind all
Speaker 1: of it. But they're really embarrassing themselves on this. In particular,
Speaker 1: NICKI Haley had some uh someone, particularly a student commentary
Speaker 1: on this. I want to I want to hear from
Speaker 1: her for a second. Pla cliff ten. They light molotov
Speaker 1: cocktails attached to kites on fire an attempt to fly
Speaker 1: them into Israel to cause as much destruction as possible.
Speaker 1: When asked yesterday why he put a swastika on his
Speaker 1: burning kite, the terrorists responded, quote, the Jews go crazy
Speaker 1: when you mentioned Hitler. This is what is endangering the
Speaker 1: people of Gaza. Make no mistake, Hamas is pleased with
Speaker 1: the results from yesterday. No country in this chamber would
Speaker 1: act with more restraint than Israel has. Radical Islam is
Speaker 1: a death cult. Hamas is a radical Islamic terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: Death cults push for as many martyrs as possible to
Speaker 1: justify more violence from their side later on. So yes,
Speaker 1: it is in fact true when Nikki Hilly said there,
Speaker 1: Hamas is pleased. Could not be more pleased with what
Speaker 1: happened at that border fence between Gaza and Israel. Um,
Speaker 1: like I said, we'll talk about intersectional politics later on
Speaker 1: in the show that's coming up. And uh, I've got
Speaker 1: a whole lot more for you teams to stay with me.
Speaker 1: We put the onus squarely on Hamas here. This is
Speaker 1: an organized, purposeful propaganda technique by a mass to try
Speaker 1: and garner support and sympathy from media outlets and from
Speaker 1: the rest of the global community. But when they have
Speaker 1: a clear disdain for life by using human shields repeatedly,
Speaker 1: as you just saw Nicki Haley testifying to the fact
Speaker 1: that they were putting molotov cocktails on kites, and trying
Speaker 1: to fly them over the border. This is the type
Speaker 1: of action so that they will in fact get shot.
Speaker 1: So it looks as though it's somehow someone else's fault
Speaker 1: for their action. Yep, exactly what happened. It's exactly what's
Speaker 1: going on our buddy Kenny, and Boston has some thoughts.
Speaker 1: What's up Kenny? Hi Buck? First off, I am beholding
Speaker 1: that Buck has not suspended my Team Buck membership, and
Speaker 1: I take solace, my leach and your bombitable magnant entity.
Speaker 1: But anyway, um, I was wondering why hummus uh Is
Speaker 1: named them solved after a bunch of sherode gabonzos and
Speaker 1: sesame seats, and I know it's hamas. Anyway, I had
Speaker 1: a comment earlier about that taxation thing in Seattle. Yep,
Speaker 1: and um, well, I know I don't want me to
Speaker 1: be a dead equine or anything like that, but isn't
Speaker 1: this just another slide way that they can put a
Speaker 1: hidden tax on the middle class, Well, the the the
Speaker 1: the corporations they're talking about, especially like a Starbucks or
Speaker 1: ah Amazon, is it a perfect position to go, Okay,
Speaker 1: you want to put that tax on us? If it
Speaker 1: affects our BottomLine, we're just gonna pass that onto consumers.
Speaker 1: So yeah, and the politicians know that. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: not like they they're trying to like hide it and think, yes,
Speaker 1: we're going after those big evil corporations, but when in fact,
Speaker 1: really they know the money. Yeah, the big evil corporations
Speaker 1: are in the are in the best position, Kenny, to
Speaker 1: just socialize the cost of the taxes by passing it
Speaker 1: on to all the rest of us. Right. I buy
Speaker 1: stuff from Amazon all the time, so I don't am
Speaker 1: I now going to be subsidizing Amazon's taxes in Seattle.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they're a big enough company where
Speaker 1: I probably wouldn't feel it over here. But that's how
Speaker 1: it works. It does get passed on to the consumer.
Speaker 1: Thanks for calling it from Boston, my friend, stay strong
Speaker 1: up in Boston. Good to talk to you. Um Christian Jilbrand.
Speaker 1: What is the dumbest thing she's ever said? Now? I mean,
Speaker 1: actually the dumbest. If you stay through this, uh quick
Speaker 1: break here, you'll find out he's back with you now.
Speaker 1: Because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. North Korea is threatening to cancel the
Speaker 1: Trump summit. Uh. This is because of the quote provocative
Speaker 1: military RUCKUS of joint US South Korea drills, which North
Speaker 1: Korea is saying is our rehearsal for invasion. So you
Speaker 1: have the June twelfth summit in Singapore, and now you
Speaker 1: got North Korea that is making noises about our joint
Speaker 1: military exercises with the South. UM. Look, this is not surprising. Uh.
Speaker 1: They also the news state of North Korea started to
Speaker 1: dismantle a nuclear test site. They're they're posturing and they're
Speaker 1: trying to negotiate, and there this We need to get
Speaker 1: ready for this and strap in for this. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna be smooth sailing to some kind of obvious choir
Speaker 1: of angels singing moment at the summit with Trump and
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un. It's gonna be a lot of back
Speaker 1: and forth. It is high stakes poker. Is gonna be bluffs.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be calls. There's gonna be things that happened
Speaker 1: that call this whole thing in a doubt, and the
Speaker 1: eventual result may not be what we want, but we're
Speaker 1: in the game. We're trying trying to find a better
Speaker 1: path forward North Korea. I might have more more thoughts
Speaker 1: on this tomorrow. I just I feel like there's updates
Speaker 1: to this, and then there's also just the media obsession
Speaker 1: with North Korea. Let's just talk with North Korea. Well,
Speaker 1: this is a negotiating tactic on their part. We'll see
Speaker 1: what they come up with. We'll see what the U
Speaker 1: S response is. There's not really much more to it
Speaker 1: than that that someone has not been called off. I
Speaker 1: think right now it is unlike the summit will be
Speaker 1: called off, but it's gonna be a bumpy road, so
Speaker 1: maybe we'll get more in North gree tomorrow. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about Kirsten Gillibrand, not to be confused with Kristen.
Speaker 1: Kirstin and Christine are the toughest names to keep a
Speaker 1: part of anything in the English language that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: But she was at some kind of a forum. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'll just so I can give you the yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna live Nashal Syndicator radio show and like over
Speaker 1: a hundred and twenty five stations or something, and my
Speaker 1: computer just froze. So that's that's cool. That's the thing
Speaker 1: that happens. But I was gonna look up where she said.
Speaker 1: That doesn't really matter. Gillibrand was at some kind of
Speaker 1: a forum talking about some stuff, and she said this
Speaker 1: play fifteen if we don't value women in society, and
Speaker 1: that's just the fact, and it's not just you know,
Speaker 1: I feel exposed because I'm cheering up because I'm not
Speaker 1: like a man. Now, how about I'm cheering up because
Speaker 1: I'm so angry and frustrating and my emotional intelligence is
Speaker 1: gonna what make this company succeed. You know, if it
Speaker 1: wasn't Lehman brother but Lehman's sisters, we might not have
Speaker 1: had the financial collapse. I think that's one of the
Speaker 1: dumbest things I've ever heard. If it wasn't Lehman brother
Speaker 1: it's that Lehman's sisters. Yeah, girl power. It's like the
Speaker 1: dumbest they ever heard. I mean it's not the dumbest,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly in in the pantheon of stupid quotes
Speaker 1: from US politicians. I think that's close. I think that's
Speaker 1: up there. It wasn't Lehman Brothers but Lehman sisters. This
Speaker 1: is a recurring theme now there is this movement to
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party of what I think you'd have to
Speaker 1: just call a brainless feminism. It there's no thought that
Speaker 1: goes into it. There's no uh, no philosophical foundation for it.
Speaker 1: It's just you know, yeah, like we're so oppressed and
Speaker 1: like the wage gap and yeah, so off angry yelling.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that, oh, we don't value women
Speaker 1: in society. That was another quote, we don't value women,
Speaker 1: and that we don't value women. Ah, that's a fascinating thing.
Speaker 1: So we don't value our our mothers, our sisters or
Speaker 1: wives are our our life partners. We don't value the
Speaker 1: women we work with. That that's there's like a level
Speaker 1: of stupidity that sometimes is reached. Where she was speaking
Speaker 1: at the Center for American Progress Ideas conference, Okay, there
Speaker 1: you go, but there's a there's a level of which
Speaker 1: you have to say to yourself, I'm I'm overwhelmed by
Speaker 1: the stupidity. I'm overwhelmed by, as I said, the brainless feminism.
Speaker 1: And that's where cure and by the way people talk
Speaker 1: about her as a presidential candidate, folks, Yeah, women have
Speaker 1: like no value in America, And I think we're like
Speaker 1: Lehman's sisters, really who these women have no value in America.
Speaker 1: Women are more valued in America than anywhere else in
Speaker 1: the world. Okay, start with that there's greater equality between
Speaker 1: the sexes here than anywhere. I don't know. People say, oh,
Speaker 1: but what about Sweden or something. Please all right, give
Speaker 1: it a rest. It's it's just amazing to see this.
Speaker 1: And it was like, you know, Michelle Obama about how
Speaker 1: you know women are you know, have to be better
Speaker 1: than men and everything else? Did get the same job? No,
Speaker 1: this is this is not you do not try to
Speaker 1: create a special victim class of half of the planet
Speaker 1: called women. You know. And I know if I started
Speaker 1: saying things like actually, in America we revere women, and
Speaker 1: you know, I feel like guys like me, a lot
Speaker 1: of our are drive in life is to be a
Speaker 1: good father, a good a good husband, a good you know,
Speaker 1: protector and provider, and to be worthy of the women
Speaker 1: in our lives. Don't value them. Be like for a
Speaker 1: lot of us, guys, uh, women are like a big
Speaker 1: part of the reason we get up every day and
Speaker 1: do the stuff we do, the good stuff we do.
Speaker 1: It's for women, the women in our lives, to be
Speaker 1: worthy of them. They're not valued. Chris and Jillibrand he's
Speaker 1: just an income poop. We'll be right back where is
Speaker 1: the left really wrong. I know that's a question that
Speaker 1: a lot of you probably are either thinking to yourself
Speaker 1: or maybe even shouting out a bunch of answers right away.
Speaker 1: But there's a big battle being waged right now, ideological
Speaker 1: intellectual struggle over identity politics, and not just are they
Speaker 1: a good idea? Are they a moral idea? Are they ethical?
Speaker 1: Are they the right thing? From a philosophical perspective? Are
Speaker 1: they the right thing? Also? Then from a policy perspective.
Speaker 1: Right is treating people part of a group. This is
Speaker 1: at the heart of identity politics based on a racial
Speaker 1: and sexual orientation, and you know some other categories of
Speaker 1: of different of a hierarchical nature. Right, some people are
Speaker 1: this category. You know you have, Uh, Black people go
Speaker 1: into interse sectionality in one place. Uh, the LGBT community
Speaker 1: goes into intersectional politics in another place. And you know,
Speaker 1: Latinos and Asians and and and everyone is treated like
Speaker 1: they are a part of some group that's determined by
Speaker 1: their their birth and their um, their skin color or
Speaker 1: their ethnicity, right, all these different things. Is it just
Speaker 1: wrong on its face to make decisions about people based
Speaker 1: upon that and to treat people as though there are
Speaker 1: immutable characteristics that come along with that identity. Right, people
Speaker 1: think of, well, isn't that racist, Buck Well, certainly it
Speaker 1: is when you're talking about negative characteristics, But what about
Speaker 1: when you're imputing positive characteristics, or what about when you say,
Speaker 1: because you are part of this larger group, you should
Speaker 1: have certain benefits. Right now, we're getting into something of
Speaker 1: the affirmative action discussion or the diversity discussion, which is
Speaker 1: even broader than just affirmative action. But there are some
Speaker 1: places where this doesn't really seem to hold sway. Professional sports,
Speaker 1: for example, is an interesting how we never really hear
Speaker 1: about the need to diversify professional sports teams. They just
Speaker 1: are what they are because there's an understanding that whoever
Speaker 1: is the most elite in that sport, and therefore whoever
Speaker 1: can compete at the highest level and draw the most
Speaker 1: viewership on TV and at at events is the person
Speaker 1: that should be yeah, elevated. We understand that with sports,
Speaker 1: and that's why you don't have calls for diversity at
Speaker 1: sporting events whatever, you know, whether we're talking ice hockey
Speaker 1: or basketball or you name it, it is what it is.
Speaker 1: We all kind of accept that, which is interesting and
Speaker 1: unique about the Sports World. One other place where until
Speaker 1: recently I think you could have made the same claim
Speaker 1: is in medicine, and the science is more broadly sometimes
Speaker 1: it's referred to as STEM, the STEM profession science, Technology, engineering,
Speaker 1: and math. But there is a blockbuster of a piece
Speaker 1: out from Heather McDonald, who we've had many times before
Speaker 1: on the show, and it's sent in City Journal, and
Speaker 1: it's called how identity politics is harming the sciences? And
Speaker 1: what she's talking about is, look, there is an effort
Speaker 1: underway that has become really pervasive to just straight up
Speaker 1: change the qualifications full or high level math, and you
Speaker 1: know for high level math graduate school or engineering or medicine.
Speaker 1: Medical schools, medical schools now are very much concerned with
Speaker 1: diversity in a way that you're gonna start to see
Speaker 1: some pushback on it, because, hold on a second, do
Speaker 1: we really want to play games with who get to
Speaker 1: be the next generation of brain surgeons? Don't we just
Speaker 1: all want the best brain surgeon? And this is what
Speaker 1: I mean by comparing it to professional sports. I think
Speaker 1: you see where I'm going with this one. I don't
Speaker 1: think that any rational human being would say to himself
Speaker 1: or herself, you know what this doctor who went to
Speaker 1: Harvard and Harvard and you know, all the best schools
Speaker 1: for medical school. But I don't like his or her
Speaker 1: uh ethnic background, so I wouldn't want that. No, you
Speaker 1: just want the best doctor, period. You don't care what color,
Speaker 1: you don't care what gender, you don't care what gender identity.
Speaker 1: You just want the best doctor. But how can you
Speaker 1: think you're getting the best doctor when medical schools are
Speaker 1: actively changing the criterion of who they accept, and then
Speaker 1: at higher levels within the medical community who gets certain
Speaker 1: fellowships and research positions, and it's elevated within the hospital
Speaker 1: hierarchy too. I'm sorry, folks, but I don't care what
Speaker 1: the social justice warriors say. I don't want somebody getting
Speaker 1: pushed along and pushed along who's gonna be operating on,
Speaker 1: you know, my great great grand Pappy's heart. I don't
Speaker 1: want that, although that would be quite a surgery, because
Speaker 1: you know, that's a few generations back. But you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, right, I don't want my my imaginary
Speaker 1: on Ethel to get somebody to come in there who,
Speaker 1: for the purposes of making liberals feel good, is being
Speaker 1: held up as as the best in the field of
Speaker 1: and by the way it is fiercely competitive to just
Speaker 1: get into medical school. But as Heather bricking autod rights
Speaker 1: in this piece on identity politics and the sciences, they
Speaker 1: are just straight up rigging the system. And this is
Speaker 1: going to have very negative ramifications and the left. This
Speaker 1: is where they're just wrong. They're just wrong because what
Speaker 1: they're doing is creating an objective set of facts that
Speaker 1: essentially non white males and non Asian males. By the way,
Speaker 1: so Asian males and white males go in this category
Speaker 1: of we've got too many of you, But everybody else
Speaker 1: in the medical field going forward could reasonably be suspect
Speaker 1: in the level of their skill because they are straight
Speaker 1: up across the board at the best to the worst
Speaker 1: medical schools changing the way that they assess the skills
Speaker 1: of people who are non white, non Asian males. So
Speaker 1: all female doctors, that's right, it's all women now, because
Speaker 1: they're pushing really hard to get women into. Uh, the
Speaker 1: the higher fields of mathematics as well as the higher
Speaker 1: fields of medicine. Medicine will focus on that. This, by
Speaker 1: the way, also applies to engineering. You know, the people
Speaker 1: that are involved in like making sure that a bridge
Speaker 1: can hold the weight. That kind of stuff, um higher
Speaker 1: level mathematics, rocket scientists and physicists and people that do
Speaker 1: all that. But with medicine, it really hits home because
Speaker 1: I know the one thing we feel like in this
Speaker 1: country we have going for us is it's really hard
Speaker 1: to be a doctor. Doctors are well paid. We want
Speaker 1: the best of the best. I do not want. And
Speaker 1: I remember Ward Connolly, by the way, African American who
Speaker 1: was very prominent in getting rid of racial preferences in
Speaker 1: the California school system. I remember him saying that, And
Speaker 1: this is back when I was in college. I want
Speaker 1: highly paid and the best when it comes to a surgeon,
Speaker 1: I don't care what the demographic breakdown of his medical
Speaker 1: class was. I don't care if it feels like this
Speaker 1: is nice for society. I want the best. I feel
Speaker 1: the same way you and I feel the same way.
Speaker 1: On this team, we want the best. Pe cool. But
Speaker 1: when you start to look under the hood and Heather
Speaker 1: McDonald has done it, they are really uh playing games here.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the worst kind of do good
Speaker 1: or virtue signaling social engineering, because the long term ramifications
Speaker 1: are gonna be one. You've got people that are just
Speaker 1: not qualified for the jobs they have and they literally
Speaker 1: hold people's lives in their hands. And two people are
Speaker 1: gonna start to change their perceptions of this. And this
Speaker 1: is what I mean by the left is wrong, because
Speaker 1: people are gonna say, hold on a second, is this
Speaker 1: you know person who's uh, you know who is this
Speaker 1: doctor who is a you know, transgender Latin American? Uh
Speaker 1: and and disabled? Is this doctor the best that's about
Speaker 1: to come into the operating room? Or is this doctor
Speaker 1: somebody that was being helped along the whole way because
Speaker 1: of the identity politics involved here? And the left will
Speaker 1: just say you're racist or you're you're bigoted for saying that. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: it is just a reflection of the reality they are creating.
Speaker 1: Here's what Heather rights in this piece quote applicants and
Speaker 1: uh or this is about admissions into medical schools that
Speaker 1: they will employ holistic review in order to engineer a
Speaker 1: diverse class. Quote. The result is a vast gap in
Speaker 1: entering qualifications. From twenty sixteen, medical schools nationally admitted fifty
Speaker 1: seven percent of black applicants with a low m cat
Speaker 1: of twenty four to twenty six, but only eight percent
Speaker 1: of whites and six percent of Asians with those same scores.
Speaker 1: Individual schools have larger disparities. This achievement gap does not
Speaker 1: close over the course of medical school, but the underrepresented
Speaker 1: minority students you are, m students who do complete the
Speaker 1: medical training will be fanatically sought after anyway. UH think
Speaker 1: to the medical school's diversity woes is the fact that
Speaker 1: the number of male, underqualified, underrepresented part of me under
Speaker 1: represented minority student applicants has been declining in recent years,
Speaker 1: making it even well end quote there. So you know
Speaker 1: how think about this. They're they're changing the you know
Speaker 1: you're a doctor now, they're changing the the m CAT
Speaker 1: scores of people that get to be doctors based on
Speaker 1: their ethnicity because they think that that's making the world
Speaker 1: a better place. I think that that's making the world
Speaker 1: actually a way worse place for all the reasons that
Speaker 1: I'm that I'm stating and telling you about. UM, But
Speaker 1: I want to go on a little more into some
Speaker 1: of what what Heather has to say here. UM. She
Speaker 1: she makes some really good cases. And it's more than
Speaker 1: just uh, it's more than just the idea of admissions.
Speaker 1: It's also in the coursework. UM, they're now teaching scientists
Speaker 1: to be inclusive. Here, here's what she writes. There's a
Speaker 1: course that maintains instead that all students are scientifically brilliant.
Speaker 1: Science is a practice of collective sense making that calls
Speaker 1: forth inclusive ways of being brilliant. Students In this inclusive
Speaker 1: chemistry one a coursework uh in groups, arranging data cards
Speaker 1: and the proper sequence represent blah blah. Let's give that
Speaker 1: for a second. Chemical terms of art are avoided wherever
Speaker 1: did wherever possible to accommodate different students academic backgrounds. This
Speaker 1: the instructors hold teams accountable to group thinking. A team
Speaker 1: can't question and instructor unless it is collectively arrived at
Speaker 1: the question and poses it in we language, folks, this
Speaker 1: is like, this is Marxist medicine. That's what this is.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on here. Look, I want to get
Speaker 1: more into this, so stay with me. We're gonna talk
Speaker 1: more about ident any politics and the medical profession. I
Speaker 1: think this is the biggest story in the country that
Speaker 1: no one's talking about right now. I really do. Uh.
Speaker 1: How do how do they then teach the hard sciences
Speaker 1: and how do they grade it? Oh? That's right, they
Speaker 1: start changing it based upon what they think the ethnic
Speaker 1: composition of some of these incoming classes should be. I'll
Speaker 1: finish this up team on the other side. Uh in
Speaker 1: just a moment. Stay with me. I absolutely love dogs,
Speaker 1: all kinds, all different breeds, shapes, sizes, but one thing
Speaker 1: that all dogs have in common. They can dig. And
Speaker 1: if you've left your dog at home and you want
Speaker 1: to let him out in the yard at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, uh, guess what, they can start digging
Speaker 1: under your fence. And you might have tried a couple
Speaker 1: of different things to stop them from doing so. But
Speaker 1: you know what, I've got the answer for you, dig Defense.
Speaker 1: Dig Defense takes care of the problem of pets being
Speaker 1: able to dig out under the fence or predators trying
Speaker 1: to get into your enclosed yard, your fenced in the
Speaker 1: area by making it impossible to get on are there.
Speaker 1: It's easy to install with a hammer and a pair
Speaker 1: of gloves, and it comes in a bunch of different
Speaker 1: models and sizes to fit your needs exactly. So go
Speaker 1: check out dig Defense now available online at Loews, Menards,
Speaker 1: Wayfair and Stop the dig dot Com. Check out their website.
Speaker 1: Dig Defense is your solution for pets digging under the fence,
Speaker 1: go to stop the dig dot com. Now, welcome to
Speaker 1: our three team. Great to have you here. So I
Speaker 1: want to continue about identity politics and the sciences because
Speaker 1: again this is this ties into so much of what
Speaker 1: is animating intellectual conservatism right now. People talk about the uh,
Speaker 1: the the the conservatism that's gaining followers online and you
Speaker 1: see some of these names out there are people that
Speaker 1: are making the you know, the what is the intellectual
Speaker 1: dark web. I'm trying to think of what they call it.
Speaker 1: But this is where you see that the left just
Speaker 1: has no answers. You're all, they have our accusation and anger,
Speaker 1: and they can't deal with the substance because what are
Speaker 1: we to say about not just changing the way. Remember
Speaker 1: there's a couple of things going here. One of them
Speaker 1: is they're changing how we gauge merit, right that so
Speaker 1: so that right now eight and look it's it's male
Speaker 1: female too, folks. So this goes beyond just uh, you know,
Speaker 1: racial and ethnic identity politics. This is also an issue
Speaker 1: of male female's just gender politics, if you will. But
Speaker 1: what ends up happening is that these schools are run
Speaker 1: by these deans, these and diversity educators and all these
Speaker 1: different all these different people who are making determinations, by
Speaker 1: the way, determinations that have a real effect on the
Speaker 1: lives of the young people who, in the case of
Speaker 1: medical school, are taking out quarter of a million, half
Speaker 1: a million dollars of loans if they're really gonna go
Speaker 1: all the way through. So it's a huge, huge deal
Speaker 1: where you go to school. And I have friends who
Speaker 1: I friends who were very smart who didn't get into
Speaker 1: medical school. So these are life changing decisions that these committees,
Speaker 1: these schools get to have. But not only are they
Speaker 1: changing the way they gauge merit and with admissions committee,
Speaker 1: they also change the way they're teaching science. As I said,
Speaker 1: it is Marxist medicine. Now you've got to sit there
Speaker 1: and before you can ask the professor question, you have
Speaker 1: to get the agreement of your group to ask the question.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the collectivization of of day to
Speaker 1: day class work, right, This is collectivizing the individual's ability
Speaker 1: to think for himself or herself. I mean, think about
Speaker 1: the message that this is setting. I mean, they've done
Speaker 1: this already in law. This is what I'm trying that
Speaker 1: people say to mean Buck, why why is the intelligence
Speaker 1: community so left wing, and I say to them, well,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of conservatives in it, but there it
Speaker 1: is at the high level very left wing. And it's
Speaker 1: because people that study international relations and foreign policy and
Speaker 1: political science are overwhelmingly going through these liberal indoctrination centers.
Speaker 1: Same thing is true of law schools now. I mean
Speaker 1: law schools have all turned a hard left, and now
Speaker 1: we're seeing it in medical schools, which means that your
Speaker 1: doctor ten years from now is gonna be a Bernie
Speaker 1: bro who probably wasn't so slick when it comes to
Speaker 1: getting into medical school depending on what category, or maybe
Speaker 1: it's a Bernie Ciss, you know, depending on what category
Speaker 1: here she fell into in the in this whole application process,
Speaker 1: but also the way they're learning, the way they're teaching.
Speaker 1: Remember this is in this article. As you can tell,
Speaker 1: I was up late and last start reading this and
Speaker 1: I was just wow, this article is just crazy stuff
Speaker 1: going on here. You know, hat tip Heather McDonald for
Speaker 1: what she wrote in City Journal, But you know, I
Speaker 1: want to give you some more of the details of
Speaker 1: how they're teaching in these actual classes. Um. For example,
Speaker 1: she she touches on well, you know, she touches on
Speaker 1: how all male research teams are mocked. And this is
Speaker 1: now just in general with STEM industry leaders, right, So
Speaker 1: this is in addition to the medical community which has
Speaker 1: this going on. This is what's happening at the biggest
Speaker 1: tech companies with science, technology, and math quote. STEM industry
Speaker 1: leaders are fully on board the diversity juggernaut, having absorbed
Speaker 1: academic identity politics. The giant Silicon Valley companies offer gender
Speaker 1: and race exclusive mentoring programs and give special consideration to
Speaker 1: females and underrepresented minorities in hiring and promotions. Managers go
Speaker 1: through the same costly, implicit biased training as faculty committees.
Speaker 1: In August, Google fired computer engineer James Daymore for questioning
Speaker 1: the premises of Google's diversity training. The discrimination lawsuit he
Speaker 1: subsequently filed against Google reveals a work place culture infused
Speaker 1: with academic victimology. Employees denounced the advocacy of a gender
Speaker 1: and race blind policy as uh, sorry, I cut off.
Speaker 1: I cut off my own quote there, so I don't
Speaker 1: know what it says. I'm assuming as bad all male
Speaker 1: research teams are mocked. Employees self righteously offer to protect
Speaker 1: Google's oppressed females and underrepresented minorities from ignorant conservative opinion.
Speaker 1: I mean, this stuff is and so so, this stuff
Speaker 1: is now at the top tech companies, it's at the
Speaker 1: top universities, It's all over the place. I mean, this
Speaker 1: virus of identity politics and social justice, the social justice
Speaker 1: ification of class work in science, math, medicine, and the
Speaker 1: professional tracks that it puts people on is well underway.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is one of the reasons I
Speaker 1: keep talking about the left. They're just wrong here. They
Speaker 1: can talk about it as much as they want, but
Speaker 1: it's just wrong. And then Heather really gets into well,
Speaker 1: I'll hold off on that part of her second She writes,
Speaker 1: underrepresentative minorities are encouraged to apply, indeed beg to apply
Speaker 1: to medical school and postgraduate medical training programs. Everyone at
Speaker 1: this level is trying incredibly hard to be fair, generous
Speaker 1: for giving thoughtful, kind and encouraging to these applicants. But
Speaker 1: if the pool of candidates is actually declining, no amount
Speaker 1: of effort will achieve diversity. It's one thing to do
Speaker 1: poorly on the MCAT, it's another to not even bother
Speaker 1: taking it. The latter is now the bigger problem, because
Speaker 1: the academy has already relaxed its standards and come up
Speaker 1: with all kinds of ways to explain away they need
Speaker 1: to do well on these tests. It's what she's saying is,
Speaker 1: not only has the diversity craze, the diversity mania really
Speaker 1: set in and all these institutions, but they have changed
Speaker 1: the standards so much that now their biggest problem is
Speaker 1: they literally do not have the applicant pool that they
Speaker 1: think they need for diversity. So think about this. If
Speaker 1: you're a white or Asian male and you're applying to
Speaker 1: medical school, you are very unlikely, you know, unless you
Speaker 1: have phenomenal m cats and grades something, you're very unlikely
Speaker 1: to get into a top medical school just by the numbers.
Speaker 1: But at some of these medical schools, they're so desperate
Speaker 1: for underrepresentative minorities and yes, females in the medical profession
Speaker 1: that they are they don't know what to do because
Speaker 1: they don't even have the applicants. So now they're going
Speaker 1: they're doing outreach. So think about this. Imagine if you
Speaker 1: know you're you're some son of you know, Filipino immigrants,
Speaker 1: and you apply to Harvard Medical School, you don't get in.
Speaker 1: In fact, you don't get into any medical school despite
Speaker 1: having pretty solid m cats. Meanwhile, those same m cats,
Speaker 1: by the way, the admission tests, it's like the S
Speaker 1: A T for medical school. Those same schools are doing
Speaker 1: outreach programs begging minority students to apply to medical school.
Speaker 1: And you're like, where's my white privilege? Right, you're a
Speaker 1: Filipino immigrant and your or your parents are and your
Speaker 1: first generation American. Huh. That's where the left is wrong.
Speaker 1: They're just wrong here. It's unjustifiable. They cannot that, they
Speaker 1: cannot defend these policies other than to say that they
Speaker 1: think it's good and if you disagree, you're racist and
Speaker 1: you're a bad person and you're a sexist too. Uh.
Speaker 1: This is another part of this I thought was really interesting.
Speaker 1: Heather McDonald writing this. I'm just quoting her. This is
Speaker 1: a national journal um the This is about the belief
Speaker 1: that every scientific field would show gender parody. This is
Speaker 1: what she says. That belief is ungrounded. Males outperformed females
Speaker 1: at the highest reaches of mathematical reasoning and are overrepresented
Speaker 1: at the lowest level of mathematical incompetence. Differences in math
Speaker 1: precocity between boys and girls show up as early as kindergarten.
Speaker 1: For decades, males in every ethnic group have scored a
Speaker 1: higher than females in their same ethnic group on the
Speaker 1: math s a T. In twenty sixteen, the percentage of
Speaker 1: males scoring above seven hundred was nearly twice as high
Speaker 1: as the percentage of females in that range. There are
Speaker 1: two point five males in the US in the top
Speaker 1: point zero one percent of math ability for every female. Now. Funders,
Speaker 1: industry leaders, and academic administrators maintain that scientific progress will
Speaker 1: stall unless we pay close attention to identity and try
Speaker 1: to engineer proportional representation in schools and laboratories. The truth
Speaker 1: is exactly the opposite. Lowering standards and diverting scientists energy
Speaker 1: into combating phantom sexism and racism is reckless in a
Speaker 1: highly competitive, ruthless and unforgiving, unforgiving global marketplace. China is
Speaker 1: catching up to the the US and science and technology. We
Speaker 1: need to pa attention. So there's a few different things
Speaker 1: she works in here. One is, as you know, by
Speaker 1: the way, that got Larry Summers just for bringing that up.
Speaker 1: He got fired from being like the provost or dean
Speaker 1: or whatever he was at Harvard. At Harvard University saying well,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe in general, all you know, men actually
Speaker 1: just in the aggregate, have more, look, more people that
Speaker 1: fall into the realm of like math genius basically just
Speaker 1: because he got fired for that. Heather is like, well,
Speaker 1: that's actually what the numbers show. This is the same
Speaker 1: same discussion that gets in different ways, gets people like
Speaker 1: Sam Harris and Charles Murray and Heather McDonald and others
Speaker 1: into all this trouble because they're just like, well, this
Speaker 1: is what the science says. And then they go, how
Speaker 1: dare you you can't discuss that? And you get the
Speaker 1: voxes of the world, you know, the the the shrieking
Speaker 1: beta males of the digerati coming after people were just
Speaker 1: trying to actually have a real discussion about what's what's happening.
Speaker 1: But then the point she makes about our our competitiveness, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I agree with Heather that this is an issue with
Speaker 1: trying to, you know, stay ahead of China and science
Speaker 1: and math, and that's our biggest civilizational advantage other than
Speaker 1: our general respect for rule of law, which Democrats are
Speaker 1: also rooting. Legal immigration, the Mueller probe and all the
Speaker 1: recklessness with the prosecutorial misconduct. But at the level of
Speaker 1: our day to day What do they think it's going
Speaker 1: to do for people's sense of the victimology and intersectionality? Right,
Speaker 1: the idea that all these different groups are oppressing one another.
Speaker 1: When all of a sudden people are saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: I just I I want a doctor who falls into
Speaker 1: these categories because I know that he, and it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a he in most cases didn't get a leg
Speaker 1: up and had to earn it. What's the left gonna
Speaker 1: tell us when in ten years we're looking back and saying,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, what about these doctors who just
Speaker 1: aren't as talented and aren't as good. Why did they
Speaker 1: get pushed through? Who is that benefiting? Do you want
Speaker 1: to be the one getting open heart surgery from the
Speaker 1: affirmative action doctor or the gender parody doctor. I think
Speaker 1: we all know the answer to that question. So this
Speaker 1: is where the left is wrong. The thing about critical
Speaker 1: information for your business is when you need it, you
Speaker 1: need it right away, and you need to get from
Speaker 1: people that you can trust. For the best in the business.
Speaker 1: That's Global Verification Network. They're the only dual certified, veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and vetting company for your hiring needs,
Speaker 1: if you've got a business larger or small and you
Speaker 1: want to make sure that you can have the proper
Speaker 1: background checked down on everybody, or if you need vetting
Speaker 1: of a perspective client, if you're involved in any kind
Speaker 1: of corporate transaction where you need to know more about
Speaker 1: the other side, Global Verification Network is your answer. Call
Speaker 1: them at eight seven seven six nine five one one
Speaker 1: seven nine, or go to my GVN dot com. That's
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com or eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five eleven seventy nine. Headquartered here in Chicago, Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network has risk mitigation experts that will work with startups
Speaker 1: all the way up to Fortune one hundreds. Check them
Speaker 1: out for yourself. Global Verification Network leave no stone unturned.
Speaker 1: One of the things that Trump learned in New York,
Speaker 1: in the toughest media market in America is at back down.
Speaker 1: Apologizing never worked because the people who are your enemies
Speaker 1: just take that pocket and come at you again. And
Speaker 1: so I think he has a very clear pattern. He's
Speaker 1: he's done this all the way through. He doesn't apologize,
Speaker 1: he doesn't back off. You know, Nude has become one
Speaker 1: of the most stalwart defenders of this administration, and and
Speaker 1: he's saying here what I was just saying yesterday about
Speaker 1: the whole Kelly Saddler situation, which is I understand why
Speaker 1: the White House isn't isn't giving into this whole You
Speaker 1: must apologize for the bad but private comment of one
Speaker 1: of your employees after she's made an apology to the family,
Speaker 1: because it just means that that by the way, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know what Kelly Soundly looks like right now. Um,
Speaker 1: she's slowly fading out of the news cycle. I mean,
Speaker 1: the media is trying to keep her in there as
Speaker 1: much as possible, the non Fox media, right the CNN,
Speaker 1: MSNBC anti Trump accident us out there. By the way,
Speaker 1: we should the access networks, you know, kind of like
Speaker 1: the access powers. We should really come up with something here.
Speaker 1: But the the truth is that when you apologize, it
Speaker 1: used to be the case. And I think this is
Speaker 1: a cultural shift, And this is what got me thinking
Speaker 1: about this today. I think there's been a real change here.
Speaker 1: It used to be that if you apologized, there was
Speaker 1: some hope that the other side would say, okay, if
Speaker 1: you if we think you're you're sincere. If you've done
Speaker 1: enough penance, so to speak. We will let you go
Speaker 1: on with your life, will let you go on and
Speaker 1: do what is you think you you know, should be doing.
Speaker 1: But now your apology is kind of like being forced
Speaker 1: to testify against yourself. Right, there's a reason why we
Speaker 1: have a constitutional right not to, uh, to give testimony.
Speaker 1: That could be a problem for us, because there's something
Speaker 1: particularly debasing, right you. You you have a right against
Speaker 1: self incrimination. You have a right to remain silent, as
Speaker 1: you know, and take you plead the fifth and that
Speaker 1: and a right to man silent is miranda. It's differently,
Speaker 1: but it's a similar concept, right that you can just
Speaker 1: be quiet and the police can make you talk, that
Speaker 1: can make you testify in a court. Uh. What the
Speaker 1: left wants now is not just the apology and to
Speaker 1: hold that up like some kind of a trophy of
Speaker 1: victory over you. But they want to force you to
Speaker 1: apologize King Geoffrey style from Game of Thrones. They want
Speaker 1: to force you to admit your treason so then they
Speaker 1: can lop your head off and say, but I mean
Speaker 1: he admitted it, folks. Right, the game has changed now
Speaker 1: and and you can never, never, never apologize look, we
Speaker 1: we saw this with Laura ingram Over at Fox News,
Speaker 1: who I didn't think step down the line at all.
Speaker 1: First of all, really, I mean, you know, there's a
Speaker 1: difference between not my cup of tea and out a
Speaker 1: line and what she got in trouble for initially with
Speaker 1: the with the media wasn't out a line. It just
Speaker 1: wasn't you know, it wasn't what I would a said
Speaker 1: or done. But you know, and then she said, all right,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that, and
Speaker 1: and they used that admission against her, right the I'm sorry, Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I could have been taking the higher road
Speaker 1: or something that was that was used against her, just
Speaker 1: like you know, anything you can, anything you say, Kennan
Speaker 1: will be used against you. That's what apologies are now.
Speaker 1: And that's why I understand the hesitation from the White House,
Speaker 1: because the moment the White House and you know this
Speaker 1: as well as I do. I mean, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of posturing going on over this the moment, by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, put this aside for a moment. The the
Speaker 1: Democrats on the left have made a particular I've almost
Speaker 1: become like professional John McCain defenders insomuch as it's a
Speaker 1: useful cudgel against Trump and this administration. You know, I
Speaker 1: remember when you know they were they were trashing John
Speaker 1: McCabe when he was running against Obama me. But you
Speaker 1: know now now it's it's useful for them. So there.
Speaker 1: I don't mean on this specific incident, but even those
Speaker 1: that came before this, with this administration, they always take
Speaker 1: McCain's side. I think it's interesting. I think it's obviously opportunistic.
Speaker 1: But the hesitation to apologize, I understand where it comes
Speaker 1: from because I see what happens. Uh. The good faith
Speaker 1: apology is no longer rewarded by the left. The good
Speaker 1: faith apology no longer gets you anything, and in fact
Speaker 1: that it works against you a lot of the time.
Speaker 1: So the moment the White House were to come out
Speaker 1: and say, you know what, we want to give a
Speaker 1: formal apology on behalf of Kelly Sadler, who has apologized
Speaker 1: to Megan McCain, Uh, the moment they come out and
Speaker 1: say that it is the only news story you're gonna
Speaker 1: see the country subjected to with any consistency for about
Speaker 1: forty eight hours, Oh, this White House, Look at how
Speaker 1: terrible it will be as though Trump said it himself
Speaker 1: and has had to apologize for it. And this is
Speaker 1: where narrative and framing and contacts and all the things
Speaker 1: the media, all the games they like to play, really
Speaker 1: come into effect. As you know, you know, a comment
Speaker 1: made by you know, Joe Biden saying'm gonna put you
Speaker 1: all back in chains for example, I mean comments that
Speaker 1: really are out of line, and he will say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know he's speaking. Look, they they made a science
Speaker 1: of this practically with Joe Biden. Joe Biden would say something.
Speaker 1: He'd be like, yeah, you know, if you're an Indian
Speaker 1: and you own a seven eleven, I mean, that's just
Speaker 1: what he said. You know, you remember this. We we
Speaker 1: could probably even grab a clip of of of some
Speaker 1: bidenisms and just played here for you on the air.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll do that later on UM. But you know,
Speaker 1: Biden would say something that was offensive over line, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, that's just Joe b and Joe uh uh.
Speaker 1: That were Republican, it would be he needs to be
Speaker 1: run out of office. This is an outrage. So it's
Speaker 1: just it's changed the game aim with apologies, That's all
Speaker 1: I'm really trying to say. It is a different world
Speaker 1: now for this, and you only apologize if you feel
Speaker 1: it is it is what honor and ethnics demand, not
Speaker 1: what they demand, not what the other side is demanding
Speaker 1: of you, because the apology is just used as the
Speaker 1: rope to finish off your career, your your dunzo when
Speaker 1: you apologize now, because that's the way the left is
Speaker 1: playing the game. UM. So with that, I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about Tom Wolfe, who just passed away.
Speaker 1: That's coming up. I usually don't spend much time on
Speaker 1: the show talking about those who have recently departed, um
Speaker 1: in terms of people that are well known celebrities, political figures,
Speaker 1: but you may have seen that Tom Wolfe passed away
Speaker 1: today at the age of and this this was one
Speaker 1: that I have to say, I kind of had to
Speaker 1: stop and think for a little bit about how this
Speaker 1: guy had an influence on me. If you haven't read
Speaker 1: Bonfire of the Vanities, I think that it's a book
Speaker 1: that to this day maintains a lot of it's political salience.
Speaker 1: It still gives you a real sense of how the
Speaker 1: game is played when it comes to criminal prosecution, the
Speaker 1: way the media deals with them, and just the social
Speaker 1: and political dynamics at work in an American city. I
Speaker 1: think that wolfs Bonfire the Vanity is really captured that.
Speaker 1: You know, you get people that are all pushing, They're
Speaker 1: all pushing their own agendas, and that has some very
Speaker 1: real effects for folks who are caught up in the Maelstrom.
Speaker 1: I think it's a good book. I was assigned it
Speaker 1: years ago in in school, and I had already read
Speaker 1: it on my own, so that was kind of a
Speaker 1: fun one, you know whenever. I used to love that
Speaker 1: when I had beaten the teacher to the punch, but
Speaker 1: then I up having to read again because you know,
Speaker 1: reading comprehension tests, you've gotta remember if you know the
Speaker 1: lady wore a pink bone or hair or not or else,
Speaker 1: they think you didn't read it. But you know, Wolf
Speaker 1: was Wolf was a really gosh I was gonna say
Speaker 1: profound author. That sounds pretty hackneyed, but it's true. Doing
Speaker 1: for Bonfire very bad movie. I was actually just talking
Speaker 1: to my family about that over the weekend. The film
Speaker 1: adaptation of Bonfire the Vanities is pretty much total garbage,
Speaker 1: and as Tom Hanks in it, yeah, that's right. Tom
Speaker 1: Hanks is capable of clunkers. Don't think that Hanks is
Speaker 1: above uh dropping some pretty bad stuff out there, because
Speaker 1: it has certainly happened. Um, Bonfire is a case in point.
Speaker 1: Just it was miscast, poorly written. The whole thing. It
Speaker 1: was just bad. It was just really bad. And uh
Speaker 1: electro kool Aid acid test Um. I Am Hooking Up
Speaker 1: was another book that he really I think that was
Speaker 1: a collection of essays that right, that one, Uh and
Speaker 1: then I Am Charlotte Simmons, which was really based on
Speaker 1: Duke University maybe ten or fifteen years ago, and he
Speaker 1: got some of the dynamics that we see today we're
Speaker 1: talking about political correctness and uh, he he got some
Speaker 1: of that very right. He wrote a sex scene in
Speaker 1: the book that people gave a very hard time to
Speaker 1: the book for just and that it was the whole
Speaker 1: thing was kind of uncomfortable for people to read. And uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I think he gotta I think he got
Speaker 1: a Razzie for it, like the Award for the Worst. Um.
Speaker 1: But I Am Charlotte Simmons also was concerned with something
Speaker 1: that I always talked about, which is that universities have
Speaker 1: turned into I don't know, people get mad at me
Speaker 1: for this and that's fine. I'm okay with that because
Speaker 1: I think I'm right, and I'll tell you what I
Speaker 1: think is right, that a lot of colleges universities have
Speaker 1: turned into minor league sports franchises that also have classes,
Speaker 1: and that needs to not be the case. I was shocked,
Speaker 1: even when I got to a little rinky dink D
Speaker 1: three athletic program at Amherst, that this was a centerpiece
Speaker 1: of campus life, that we were all supposed to care.
Speaker 1: How are terrible football team did each year, why they
Speaker 1: weren't very good at all, and no one cares although
Speaker 1: we were all supposed to care. I was, I guess,
Speaker 1: a a school spirit, malcontent in that sense. But at
Speaker 1: a school like Duke, where you're talking about being national
Speaker 1: champions and things like basketball and across UH, it's it's
Speaker 1: even more powerful a force on the campus. And I
Speaker 1: just think it's gotten completely out of control. And and
Speaker 1: he dealt with that in the book. He referred to
Speaker 1: some of these D one athletes as essentially mercenaries who
Speaker 1: go through the motions of being students but really are
Speaker 1: very leading, very separate lives and have a very different
Speaker 1: emphasis from their fellow students, especially if there's a prospect
Speaker 1: of going pro so yeah, Wolf, Um, you know Wolf fastuated.
Speaker 1: He was known for wearing white suits all the time
Speaker 1: and for Oh he also was the author of The
Speaker 1: Right Stuff by the Way, which you know what, I
Speaker 1: actually haven't read that one, and a lot of people
Speaker 1: say that's actually his his est. Uh. He worked at
Speaker 1: the Washington Post New York Harold Tribune. Um. He wrote
Speaker 1: a literary style known as the new journalism. So yeah,
Speaker 1: he was, he was, he was a big deal. Say
Speaker 1: he was kind of a big deal. Tom Walt years
Speaker 1: of age. Um, I have to say, you know, there
Speaker 1: there are only a few books that I remember reading
Speaker 1: when I was really young and thinking it would be
Speaker 1: the greatest job, imagine will to be a novelist, And
Speaker 1: Bonfire the Vanities is one of them, um, and also
Speaker 1: really captured a kind of eighties zeitgeist of being in
Speaker 1: New York City for those of you care about that
Speaker 1: kind of stuff. Bonfire and the movie Wall Street are
Speaker 1: two that I would really recommend. In fact, you should
Speaker 1: watch Wall Street and then read Bonfire or vice versa.
Speaker 1: But being a novelist has got to be one of
Speaker 1: the greatest jobs of all time. If you can do it.
Speaker 1: I feel like now it's you know, e books, and
Speaker 1: there's all this different competition, so there are only a
Speaker 1: few writers. I mean, with Ristopher Hitchens passed away, I
Speaker 1: felt like, wow, I'm not gonna read any more of
Speaker 1: that guy's stuff. So it affected my life in that regard, right, wow,
Speaker 1: I'm not not of course he feels sorry for anyone's
Speaker 1: family and it. But these guys had lived. Hitchens and
Speaker 1: well he was a bit younger, but a wolf certainly
Speaker 1: at his age, led a very full, very successful life.
Speaker 1: But you think about how for folks who really look
Speaker 1: forward to the next article or the next book by
Speaker 1: some of these people, it affects you a little bit.
Speaker 1: You're like, oh, wow, I'm not going to read anymore.
Speaker 1: But as I said, the right stuff now I think
Speaker 1: has to be put on my list of books that
Speaker 1: I will have to tackle going forward. Although that list,
Speaker 1: right nows is huge, It's really big. I gotta find
Speaker 1: a way to start cutting it down to size. I've
Speaker 1: fallen off the wagon the last few days. I've been
Speaker 1: so ensconced and other projects. I haven't been reading books,
Speaker 1: which I forced myself to do every day at least
Speaker 1: um some portion of the day roll calls up. Next team,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. Swampy, my friends, it is
Speaker 1: swampy down here in d C. I just was talking
Speaker 1: to Brandon's running the board today and I told him,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm schwitzing way too much. I walk around and
Speaker 1: it's just a constant schwitz And it's not in the
Speaker 1: fun way where you feel like you're releasing toxins. I'm
Speaker 1: just walking around in a state of dampness, which is
Speaker 1: neither fun nor nor particularly attractive. I think. Nonetheless. Uh,
Speaker 1: down here in the swamp, and a lot to talk
Speaker 1: to you about here on roll call. If you want
Speaker 1: to be involved in the roll call, it is a
Speaker 1: pretty straightforward process. It's gonna face book dot com, Book
Speaker 1: dot com. Uh, slash buck Sexton, Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Donald first up here. Love the show, Buck
Speaker 1: listen live every chance I get. But your podcasts are
Speaker 1: great to have too. Well, thank you, Donald. Regarding yesterday's
Speaker 1: show where you were playing news clips about the embassy
Speaker 1: in Israel, it was just eight years ago and we
Speaker 1: were told that we had to change our traditions. Just
Speaker 1: an observation of the media's hypocrisy once again. Well, Donald.
Speaker 1: Let's see. I see what you're going for there. And yes,
Speaker 1: in fact, it is the case that the way things
Speaker 1: were done in the past. Uh, that's unbreakable tradition. When
Speaker 1: it's something that the left likes and the way things
Speaker 1: were done in the past that the left doesn't like,
Speaker 1: we're told that's on the wrong side of history. That's
Speaker 1: the phrase that the Obama administration particular liked to use. Uh.
Speaker 1: Seth is next up here, Hey, Buck, I agree with
Speaker 1: your Roll Call contributor from Monday's episode regarding Joe Rogan.
Speaker 1: I had to stop listening to him because he was
Speaker 1: Trump bashing too much. Plus, you're both wicked smart, and
Speaker 1: I bet you'd make for a great guest. I'd love
Speaker 1: to hear that podcast from Seth. Seth, thank you so much. Yeah, man, Look,
Speaker 1: tell Joe, send him a note, send him an email.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to do it, and I will. I'll reach
Speaker 1: out to him. I don't think we follow each other
Speaker 1: on Twitter, but I'll send him a note and go
Speaker 1: for it. So yeah, but but please help me spread
Speaker 1: the word it is. UH is really appreciated. Whenever you
Speaker 1: can get my name out there to other hosts, other
Speaker 1: folks who have a platform that you think I should
Speaker 1: join in on. Next up is justin. Every time you
Speaker 1: bring up homeless in Malibu, all I can think is
Speaker 1: stay out of Malibu. Labowski. Uh, there you go, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the big Lebowski. I'll I'll tell you the truth. I
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was a great movie the first
Speaker 1: time I saw it. I had to see it a
Speaker 1: few times, and then as time went on, I liked
Speaker 1: it more and more. H Um, don't ever do this
Speaker 1: is from John. Don't ever do that teenage girl voice again. Okay, Sorry, John,
Speaker 1: They're not all they can all be winners. Michael. Next
Speaker 1: up here, Black Rifle Coffee now has decalf pods. Dude,
Speaker 1: I'm on it. Buck one five. It is true, folks,
Speaker 1: if you're now a decalf person, you can get your
Speaker 1: decaf coffee from Black Rifle. Go to Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck coupon code buck one five. Make
Speaker 1: it happen and thank you Michael. Next up here, Live Rights.
Speaker 1: Just heard your Mother's Day brunch issue with frying roast potatoes,
Speaker 1: get an air fryer my new favorite kitchen appliance. Healthy
Speaker 1: way of frying adds great flavor to any food. Shields
Speaker 1: High Live. Um, I've never even heard Brandon. You ever
Speaker 1: heard of an air fryer. I've never even heard of
Speaker 1: an air fryer before. But I feel like I've had
Speaker 1: at some frou frou fancy places in New York, like
Speaker 1: air air fried French fries or something. I think maybe
Speaker 1: I'm making that up, but that sounds right anyway. Love,
Speaker 1: it sounds like a great suggestion. I just don't know
Speaker 1: anything about it, so I'll look into it and I
Speaker 1: will get back to you. Michael. Next up here, Buck,
Speaker 1: I got beef with you. Bogus Journey was no excellent adventure,
Speaker 1: but it's just as ridiculously awesome. Death's character was hilarious.
Speaker 1: It has some redeeming qualities. Station Um. You know, I
Speaker 1: have to go back and watch Bogus Journey. I just
Speaker 1: remember it being disappointing, and I was young when I
Speaker 1: saw it. Maybe maybe it's age better than I thought.
Speaker 1: But Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures is just fantastic. I
Speaker 1: always like actually the scene where the dad right uh
Speaker 1: Ted Theodore Logan I and Bill s Preston esquire. Um,
Speaker 1: but when Ted's dad is who's the police chief? Or
Speaker 1: maybe it's Bill's dad. I forget which one has the
Speaker 1: police chief dat. I think it's Ted, who played by
Speaker 1: Keanu Reeves, and he brings the well I was gonna
Speaker 1: say the historical character of but he brings Sigmund Freud
Speaker 1: in the office and he's like, He's like, so he's like,
Speaker 1: tell me your name, and he's like Sigmund Freud. And
Speaker 1: then Freud's like, so tell me about your mother. I
Speaker 1: have to say, like, you know, there's some good stuff
Speaker 1: in there. You know, there's some good stuff in there.
Speaker 1: And the Napoleon character, the best part of the whole
Speaker 1: movie is when they take Napoleon to the water park.
Speaker 1: I think, I don't know why, but the guy who
Speaker 1: plays Napoleon actually is a pretty good look alike and
Speaker 1: just does a great job. It's a fun movie, man,
Speaker 1: it you know, it's it's crazy, but George Carlin's in it.
Speaker 1: If you haven't seen it, obviously it's a little bit
Speaker 1: out there, but I would recommend it. I think it
Speaker 1: is fun and you can watch what the whole thing family.
Speaker 1: Joe next up in roll call, Hey Buck, you mentioned
Speaker 1: a leaker in the White House regarding the McCain controversy,
Speaker 1: and I'm wondering, hasn't anyone ever heard of a polygraph?
Speaker 1: As a CIA alumni, don't they ever use it? If no?
Speaker 1: If not, why not? I was going to be an
Speaker 1: FBI agent after college, but I smoked some drugs and
Speaker 1: assumed i'd be polygraph so I didn't try. Ironic considering
Speaker 1: on the same age as Bill Clinton from Joe, Um,
Speaker 1: you know, Joe, the truth is that the polygraph is
Speaker 1: not the cure all for uh for lies that a
Speaker 1: lot of people think it is. It's as much art
Speaker 1: as it is science. And it also takes a trained
Speaker 1: polygrapher to apply the darned thing, so it's not that easy. Um.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, uh, yeah they could. They could probably polygraph people,
Speaker 1: just take a long time and to polygraph people though
Speaker 1: for non criminal behave if you're in the White House,
Speaker 1: that that would I think that would be seen rightly
Speaker 1: as a as a bit extreme. Next up here is Dave.
Speaker 1: He writes Italy is great right by the flat Iron building.
Speaker 1: We stay at the Hotel Henry across the street. Went
Speaker 1: in the city. Well, Dave, that is yes. The flat
Speaker 1: Iron neighborhood named for the flat Iron Building which is
Speaker 1: on uh the corner of twenty three where Broadway and
Speaker 1: Fifth Avenue, uh meet and it is or no way
Speaker 1: where they actually diverge, not where they meet. Um. The
Speaker 1: flat Iron Building was I think initially called the Fuller Building. Um,
Speaker 1: and it was supposed to be an office tower to
Speaker 1: create in in that part of Manhattan, which is roughly
Speaker 1: st a a new financial center. So didn't happen, but
Speaker 1: it is a trendy fun era. If you're ever in
Speaker 1: New York City, I do really recommend the flat Iron district.
Speaker 1: A Madison Square Park is beautiful, a lot of great
Speaker 1: restaurants around there, a really nice place to take a stroll.
Speaker 1: And if you go further west into Chelsea, if you're
Speaker 1: in the galleries, lots and lots of really funky and
Speaker 1: in some cases very very expensive and high end art galleries.
Speaker 1: All right, Next up we have Victor. Um, here we go,
Speaker 1: and hello Buck. I believe Canada has had legal sports
Speaker 1: gambling for many years now. Um, I did not know that, Victor. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing that to my attention. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's destroyed Canada, so we'll be okay.
Speaker 1: Canadians are nice people, so sports gambling. Look, it's already
Speaker 1: legal here, it's just a question of uh qui bono?
Speaker 1: Who benefits? Is it the state? Is it the gambling houses?
Speaker 1: Is it bookies? Is it organized crime? You know who?
Speaker 1: Because there's gambling going on all the time, Like the
Speaker 1: stock market is just gambling with thoughts attached to it,
Speaker 1: gambling with research. But stocks are a form of gambling too, Alan,
Speaker 1: next up here, Hey Buck, you're probably too young to
Speaker 1: remember when the hashtag sign meant pound not hashtag. Look
Speaker 1: what I just did there? Uh yeah, now, imman, imagine
Speaker 1: using the old meaning with the current popular um meme
Speaker 1: hashtag me too. That would create quite a stir. Alan,
Speaker 1: get your mind out of the gutters, sir, Eric, next
Speaker 1: up here, Oh man, you cracked me up with your
Speaker 1: spot on imitation of that Mike quickly character Well, I
Speaker 1: have no proof of that assertion. But can you prove
Speaker 1: my no proof assertion is unproven, sir? I think not.
Speaker 1: Your show is great for the analysis, but the hilarious
Speaker 1: impressions are perfect icing for the cake. Looking forward to
Speaker 1: the official unveiling of the new d C gig this week,
Speaker 1: keep up the great work from Eric. Well, Eric, thank
Speaker 1: you so much. Great to have you on board and
Speaker 1: appreciate having you as a remember Team Buck. We've got
Speaker 1: a whole lot more messages here, but I can not
Speaker 1: get to them today, but I would just say thank
Speaker 1: you to all of you for writing in. Please do
Speaker 1: download the podcast and share it with a friend if
Speaker 1: you get a chance. You know, if someone's ever like, hey,
Speaker 1: listen to podcast, it'd be like, Oh, I listened to
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton's podcast. It's great, the Buck Sexton Show. The
Speaker 1: d C announcement is stalled still, but we'll have it
Speaker 1: for you soon. Until then, my friends, I know that
Speaker 1: we all have our our challenges, are trials and tribulations.
Speaker 1: But the good news is we have our orders and
Speaker 1: we know the way forward, and as always it is
Speaker 1: shields high.