Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Our democrats helping illegals
Speaker 1: exploit immigration loop poles. Also, you've got another federal judge
Speaker 1: who's decided to overrule the executive branch because they're legislating
Speaker 1: from the bench. We'll talk about that. And also ending
Speaker 1: the Afghanistan war is difficult. Should we be meeting with
Speaker 1: the Calivan? Has the President made the right call? Here?
Speaker 1: We've got that and much more coming up on The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American. You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. Everybody. I hope you
Speaker 1: had a great weekend. Thank you so much for being here.
Speaker 1: I want to start the show off with some good news,
Speaker 1: but of course we're talking about politics and what's going
Speaker 1: on in the country, so it's always going to be
Speaker 1: somewhat mixed. But we do have some good news to
Speaker 1: speak of and good news at the border. No less,
Speaker 1: it will be mixed with some not so good news.
Speaker 1: But let's start with what's good. The numbers are in
Speaker 1: and according to CBP Commissioner at Mark Morgan, immigration authorities
Speaker 1: apprehended sixty four thousand people at the southwest border in August.
Speaker 1: Now that's a drop for three months running, a huge
Speaker 1: drop from May, a sixty percent decrease from May when
Speaker 1: you had over one hundred and thirty thousand who are
Speaker 1: apprehended at our southern border. And this is the result
Speaker 1: of a few things. One is that it seems President
Speaker 1: Trump's threat to shut down trade at our southern border
Speaker 1: with Mexico and to do what he can to get
Speaker 1: some improved compliance from our Mexican counterparts, and trying to
Speaker 1: stop all these caravans, these discontinued infiltration through Mexico of predominantly,
Speaker 1: but not entirely, Central American legal aliens in the United States.
Speaker 1: The Mexican government has deployed soldiers to its border with
Speaker 1: Central American countries, and that may have had it seems
Speaker 1: to have had a real effect here. It seems to
Speaker 1: have mattered. There's another thing that the administration has done,
Speaker 1: and that is the remain in Mexico policy. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: it was tariffs, by the way, with the southern border
Speaker 1: that the President was really talking about putting tariffs. At
Speaker 1: one point he said he was going to shut it down,
Speaker 1: but then it moved on to tariffs. The remain in
Speaker 1: Mexico policy, Well, this is interesting. What is the remain
Speaker 1: in Mexico policy. It's really just the implementation of what
Speaker 1: is called a safe third Country agreement. Safe third country
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is all this is all
Speaker 1: gonna make a lot of sense. It I'll be very
Speaker 1: important in a second. There's a reason why I'm getting
Speaker 1: into this. Of course, the Democrats oppose this, showing us
Speaker 1: who they are, showing us that we've been right about
Speaker 1: them all along, etc. Etc. But a Safe Third Country
Speaker 1: Agreement means that while somebody is waiting for their asylum
Speaker 1: claim to be adjudicated, because we do, in fact have
Speaker 1: a a process for this. It's not just oh, I
Speaker 1: want asylum, so I get asylum. And this isn't This
Speaker 1: isn't shopping for milk in the grocery store. You don't
Speaker 1: just take it and leave. But while you're waiting for
Speaker 1: that to be adjudicated, you're supposed to be able to,
Speaker 1: or we're supposed to believe that you will show up
Speaker 1: for your hearings and then abide by whatever is decided
Speaker 1: by the system. Problem for the Central American migrants, which
Speaker 1: we have known from the beginning, which I have been
Speaker 1: telling you from the beginning, is that nine plus of
Speaker 1: them will not get asylum. So why were they all
Speaker 1: showing up at the southern border saying they want a symble?
Speaker 1: Because based on the Floras Settlement Agreement from nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: seven that says that you can't hold a minor more
Speaker 1: than twenty days. Unaccompanied miners who show up at the
Speaker 1: southern border get transferred into the Office of Refugee Resettlement
Speaker 1: actually under HHS, and they're given to adult relatives or
Speaker 1: an adult guardian of some kind, so they get into
Speaker 1: the country easily. But then adults that bring a minor
Speaker 1: a thumb, because again Floraz twenty days, you have to
Speaker 1: release them rapidly. That means they're obviously not going to
Speaker 1: get in front of a judge in that time, So
Speaker 1: they're let into the interior of the United States, never
Speaker 1: to be seen again in a court, or if they
Speaker 1: are seen in a court, never to be seen again.
Speaker 1: What it's time for them to get sent home after
Speaker 1: they've had their judicial process. Deportation comes after that judicial process,
Speaker 1: and guess what, they don't show up for that. And
Speaker 1: we don't have the political will in this country to
Speaker 1: enforce the laws in the books and say no, you're
Speaker 1: not really allowed to just stay in the country because
Speaker 1: you want to. So the Safe Third Country Agreement, or
Speaker 1: rather the Remainder in Mexico policy that we have tells
Speaker 1: people that show up at the border who cross illegally surrender,
Speaker 1: so they're not waiting at a port of entry. They're
Speaker 1: breaking the law. And then they surrender. They say they
Speaker 1: want asylum. The Trump administration says no, no, Now you
Speaker 1: have to wait in Mexico and when it's time for
Speaker 1: you to have your hearing, then you show up at
Speaker 1: the border, present yourself. And what a shock to nobody.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, the numbers are dropping. Wait a second,
Speaker 1: I thought that people from Central America were fleeing murderous
Speaker 1: thugs and gangsters. I thought they were fleeing for their lives.
Speaker 1: I thought they needed asylum. This wasn't just a backdoorway
Speaker 1: to skip through the immigration process. Oh but you mean
Speaker 1: when you have to wait in Mexico for your hearing
Speaker 1: and therefore don't just get released to establish yourself and
Speaker 1: do whatever you want to do in the United States
Speaker 1: with a handshake agreement, you're going to show up for
Speaker 1: a hearing later. All of a sudden, a lot less
Speaker 1: people are showing up at the border. It's almost like
Speaker 1: all along this was about pretending that they were going
Speaker 1: to go through the asylum process when really they just
Speaker 1: wanted to get waved into the country, knowing that they
Speaker 1: would be no enforcement afterwards and that the Democrats would
Speaker 1: stop any enforcement efforts every step of the way. Oh
Speaker 1: but then, what have we seen? This is the This
Speaker 1: is where things get more mixed, that this is the
Speaker 1: good story down sixty four to sixty four thousand. I
Speaker 1: know that it's the summertime. You're going to expect fewer
Speaker 1: crossings than just because of the heat and the environmental
Speaker 1: factors that make a crossing more difficult, more dangerous. But
Speaker 1: keep in mind they're generally not these surrenders are not
Speaker 1: occurring in the remote areas of the border. They're showing
Speaker 1: up at well patrolled areas of the border that in
Speaker 1: places like the Tijuana San Diego separation, that fence line
Speaker 1: where you're going from one urban area to another, you
Speaker 1: just show up and say all right, I want to
Speaker 1: claim asylum. So I don't know how much the weather
Speaker 1: really is impacting those It's the people that are going
Speaker 1: out into the desert and trying to evade border patrol entirely.
Speaker 1: That's where you be. We're concerned, I think about the weather,
Speaker 1: but we should have what would be a win across
Speaker 1: the board here. Now you have a more orderly immigration
Speaker 1: process for asylum seekers from Central America. They still get
Speaker 1: their day in court, they still get their due process,
Speaker 1: but they don't just get to come into America and
Speaker 1: then we ask politely that they will show up when
Speaker 1: it's time for their hearing. They get to stay in
Speaker 1: Mexico until the hearing happens. And guess what Democrats hate this.
Speaker 1: In fact, there's a story in the Washington Examiner that
Speaker 1: makes a very explosive claim that there have been some
Speaker 1: members of a House staff House Oversight Committee staff looking
Speaker 1: at what's going on at our southern border and deciding
Speaker 1: that they would have some staffers who would interview and
Speaker 1: even try This is Congresswoman Escobar's team, I believe, as
Speaker 1: quote sought interviews with six thousand people who are returned
Speaker 1: last month. According to CBP, officials. The Union learned from
Speaker 1: intelligence unit within CBP that those doing the interviews are
Speaker 1: wearing recording devices. They went through and interviewed everybody, cherry
Speaker 1: picked them, brought them back, and now are using them
Speaker 1: as taglines. They're going over there and manufacturing a lot
Speaker 1: of these issues. This is all according to Customs in
Speaker 1: Border Patrol. This is a US congresswoman's office is going
Speaker 1: down there and trying to tell people how to get
Speaker 1: through the system. This was published in the Washington Examiner. Quote.
Speaker 1: By opposing a system that assists migrants and speeds wait times,
Speaker 1: these individuals are exposing a cause that looks more like
Speaker 1: a cover for their political motivations. Any efforts to subvert
Speaker 1: and obstruct federal law enforcement operations should receive a full
Speaker 1: federal review. The piece here is the Democratic congresswoman secretly
Speaker 1: sending staff into Mexico to coach asylum seekers. That's right,
Speaker 1: Democrat member of Congress has staffers going down to Mexico
Speaker 1: to tell people waiting for their day in court. Oh,
Speaker 1: here's how you can get there more quickly. Here's what
Speaker 1: you say. And now people are showing up and claiming
Speaker 1: to Customs and Border Patrol or Border patrol agents. Oh well,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't have to wait because I have a learning disability,
Speaker 1: or I shouldn't have to wait because I don't speak
Speaker 1: Spanish and I'm stuck in Mexico Spanish speaking country or whatever.
Speaker 1: They're trying to help them find loopholes. That's right. This
Speaker 1: is just encouraging fraud and lawlessness from Democrats because they
Speaker 1: never wanted the process to work better. They always knew
Speaker 1: what was going on here. They were completely lyne about
Speaker 1: this from the start. They said, Oh, we don't want
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, we just want a side least to have
Speaker 1: their day in court. Will Now they're getting their day
Speaker 1: inn court, but they just can't run the scam anymore.
Speaker 1: I've told you what the scam is. The scam is
Speaker 1: you say you're gonna show up in court, you don't.
Speaker 1: You're in America, You're good to go. So this clearly
Speaker 1: has had an effect. You have a huge drop in
Speaker 1: illegal crossings over the last few months. Some of it
Speaker 1: due to Mexican government efforts, I'm sure, but a lot
Speaker 1: more of it. It It is just less people showing up
Speaker 1: because guess what, the loophole is a lot smaller now,
Speaker 1: it's a lot harder to pull this off. What are
Speaker 1: democrats doing actively doing? Oh, that's right, subverting this, subverting
Speaker 1: the rule of law. And then they get an assist
Speaker 1: from a federal judge. I don't want to guess where
Speaker 1: this federal judge is. Where is he located. It's kind
Speaker 1: of remarkable, isn't How many times does the Trump administration
Speaker 1: take action, right, action, just action on immigration, only to
Speaker 1: have it overturned by some judge somewhere? Where do these
Speaker 1: judges tend to be from? Let's write a federal judge
Speaker 1: in California, what a surprise? Restored a nationwide injunction today
Speaker 1: that blocks the Trump administration from enforcing restrictions designed to
Speaker 1: curb asylum claims by Central Americans seeking entry into the US.
Speaker 1: So even when we win, folks, federal judge comes along,
Speaker 1: Even when the rule of law looks like it has
Speaker 1: some glimmers of life, glimmers of hope. All it takes
Speaker 1: is one Obama or Carter or Clinton appointee to come
Speaker 1: along and say, yeah, no, I'm in charge of federal
Speaker 1: immigration policy now, not you, not the federal government, not
Speaker 1: President Trump, not the White House, not the Executive branch.
Speaker 1: Just one lowly federal judge somewhere can decide that we
Speaker 1: can't secure our southern border. And this is where I
Speaker 1: say to you, one We've seen now without question, you
Speaker 1: have the hashtag judiciary, the hashtag resistance judiciary, rather working
Speaker 1: against the rule of law, which is, if there's anything
Speaker 1: that undermines our court system, it's the lawlessness of libs
Speaker 1: in these black robes sitting on judges benches right that
Speaker 1: undermines the rule of law. And now we see the
Speaker 1: truth of both what these so called asylum seekers and
Speaker 1: the Democrats knew all along, which was that this was
Speaker 1: never really about asylum, was always about using asylum as
Speaker 1: a pretext, as a scam to get into America illegally,
Speaker 1: to break faith and trust with the American people, and
Speaker 1: just do it. Because people want access to our markets,
Speaker 1: they want access to our welfare benefits, they want, you know,
Speaker 1: a better economy, and yes, they want to live in
Speaker 1: a country that actually has rule of law, unlike some
Speaker 1: of these Central American states we're talking about. But we're
Speaker 1: not going to have rule of law for very long
Speaker 1: if people can violate it with impunity systematically, hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands of them, with a complicit Democrat party That is
Speaker 1: what we face right now, Make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: I was an undercover CIA operative. My assignment was preventing
Speaker 1: rogue states and terraces from getting nuclear weapons. You name
Speaker 1: a hotspot, I lived it. Then Dictainey's chief of staff
Speaker 1: took revenge against my husband and leaked my identity. His
Speaker 1: name Scooter Livy. Guess who pardoned him last year. I
Speaker 1: come from Ukrainian Jewish immigrants. Dad was in the Air Force.
Speaker 1: My brother almost died in Vietnam. My service was cut
Speaker 1: short when my own government betrayed me. We left Washington
Speaker 1: to raise our kids in New Mexico, one of the
Speaker 1: best places on Now. I'm running for Congress because we're
Speaker 1: running backwards on national security, healthcare, and women's rights. We
Speaker 1: need to turn our country around. Yes, the CIA really
Speaker 1: does teach us how to drive like this. You've probably
Speaker 1: heard my name, and mister President, I've got a few
Speaker 1: school Okay. Yeah. We get the idea of Valerie Plaie
Speaker 1: running for Congress as a Democrat, of course, which we've
Speaker 1: known all along, is what she was. That was her
Speaker 1: campaign at her campaign launch. It's an utter absurdity, full
Speaker 1: of outright lies, silly exaggerations and make believe badassery. I
Speaker 1: had the same driving training that she did, folks, and
Speaker 1: let me tell you it's not nearly as impressive as
Speaker 1: she wants to pretend. It is that same a lot
Speaker 1: of training as she did. And I would never run
Speaker 1: around doing all this like whoa look at me? It
Speaker 1: shuts ridiculous, ridiculous. And yet here we are, she's inflating
Speaker 1: her resume, lying about Scooter libby lying about what happened there,
Speaker 1: which is that Armitage accidentally leaked her name to a
Speaker 1: journalist and felt horrible about it and told and told
Speaker 1: people about it right away. But the special counsel, though,
Speaker 1: that's right, Fitzgerald, Oh, Patrick Fitzgerald, Do you mean James
Speaker 1: Comey's lawyer and close friend that guy. Yeah, he knew
Speaker 1: who leaked the name, and guess what, he decided to
Speaker 1: have a special counsel investigation to just find somebody. Democrats
Speaker 1: understand this game. We never learn our lesson, folks. They
Speaker 1: used the special counsel or just trying to jam up
Speaker 1: anybody who's close to the Republicans in power with nonsense,
Speaker 1: trumped up charges Assi like Valerie plan there was I'm
Speaker 1: the what are the send of Ukrainian Jewish immigrants or something. Okay,
Speaker 1: so we're supposed to forget about the whole retweeting of
Speaker 1: the anti Semitic, nasty article that she shared, right clear,
Speaker 1: some clear anti semitism that was supposed to just get
Speaker 1: swept aside. Now, journalists are all very very much invested
Speaker 1: in this narrative, though, the Valerie play narrative, because they
Speaker 1: they ran this. This was the Russia collusion story of
Speaker 1: its day. My friends, this was Bush and Cheney are
Speaker 1: traitors who would out a CIA officer, as we know,
Speaker 1: not agent, we don't say agent, a CIA officer to
Speaker 1: get back at her because her husband was writing editorials
Speaker 1: the New York Times. I mean, the story was ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It was ridiculous. And now all this, oh, I learned
Speaker 1: how to do cool driving, and I'm a badass. I mean,
Speaker 1: give me a break, folks, I don't know. Some of
Speaker 1: you say, oh, you know, but she's an operative, Folks.
Speaker 1: The operatives sit around and drink a lot of coffee
Speaker 1: and read a lot of reports. I hate to be
Speaker 1: the one that actually tells you this, but this is
Speaker 1: the truth. All right. Here's a fun fact for you.
Speaker 1: Nine nine out of ten operatives that I met in
Speaker 1: my day, you would rather have had Buck at your
Speaker 1: side in a bar fight or a gunfight, trust me, okay,
Speaker 1: And that's not saying much about me. It's like a
Speaker 1: nerd society anyway. Valerie playing giant, fraud, nasty person and
Speaker 1: Democrat hero though, and the media loves her, or at
Speaker 1: least they did. We'll see if she can resurrect herself here.
Speaker 1: They're dead. They're dead, as far as I'm concerned. They're dead.
Speaker 1: They thought that they had to kill people in order
Speaker 1: to put themselves in a little better negotiating position. When
Speaker 1: they did that, they killed twelve people. One happened to
Speaker 1: be a great American soldier, a wonderful young man from
Speaker 1: Puerto Rico. Families from Puerto Rico. And you can't do that.
Speaker 1: They can't do that with me. So they're dead as
Speaker 1: far as I'm concerned. And we've hit the Taliban harder
Speaker 1: in the last four days, and they've been hidden over
Speaker 1: ten years. So that's the way it is. President Trump
Speaker 1: has shut down the plant talks with the Taliban in
Speaker 1: at Camp David. You're gonna be the Taliban leadership at
Speaker 1: Camp David. This was gonna be done in secret, but
Speaker 1: came out of the week and the President said no more,
Speaker 1: not gonna happen. After there was a large terror attack
Speaker 1: by the Taliban, and I think that was the right move. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say this to you because I always
Speaker 1: tell you what I really think. I think it was
Speaker 1: a mistake. I think it was a mistake for President
Speaker 1: Trump to have ever invited the Taliban to Camp David. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, people say, what about aarra Fat bucket. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's a different situation at a different time. Just because
Speaker 1: that was done then doesn't mean this should be done now.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I'd be open to maybe Aara
Speaker 1: Fat wouldn't be invited to Camp David didn't work, by
Speaker 1: the way, But here we have a situation where our
Speaker 1: enemy in active hostilities is being invited to a place
Speaker 1: that I think is generally reserved for more civilized discussions
Speaker 1: with a more civilized enemy. The Talent Band is a disgrace.
Speaker 1: It is a terrorist organization. We I don't have to
Speaker 1: go through all the things that it does that offend
Speaker 1: the conscience of any decent human being. They kill women
Speaker 1: and children on purpose, they mutilate, they torture, they engage
Speaker 1: in the worst kinds of battlefield atrocities, and now we're
Speaker 1: supposed to think that President Trump should invite them to
Speaker 1: Camp David. Look, I think that Trump on the main
Speaker 1: issue here is correct, which is end this war. And
Speaker 1: this war it's just we need to stop. I don't
Speaker 1: know what it's going to take to get some it's
Speaker 1: fellow conservatives in many cases that disagree with me on this,
Speaker 1: but no more. And people will say that let me
Speaker 1: work through a few of the objections here. They say, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: if we if we don't leave a presence there, then
Speaker 1: it will be used again as a platform for mass
Speaker 1: casualty attacks. I can tell you this. If the Taliban
Speaker 1: decides that they're season territory and then they're going to
Speaker 1: use that as training camp areas and areas for plotting
Speaker 1: and all that for al Qaeda, then I think that
Speaker 1: they should understand that the first time it doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be on a nine to eleven scale either. The
Speaker 1: first time there's an attack planned off of Afghan soil.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're going in and they're just going to
Speaker 1: be a carpet bombing campaign. We're just gonna lay waste
Speaker 1: to places. And I know right now that might sound
Speaker 1: a little bit oh my gosh, buck, but what about
Speaker 1: the we're done with this. We're done with this. You know,
Speaker 1: at some point when you're gonna have to fight wars
Speaker 1: the way wars used to be fault, which is break
Speaker 1: the other side until they submit. That's what you gotta do.
Speaker 1: We fight wars very differently now because we are a
Speaker 1: just and honorable and kind society. But if the Taliban
Speaker 1: plots another or allows I should say, and it's complicit
Speaker 1: in another mass casualty terror attack against Americans against our interests,
Speaker 1: working with al Qaeda, ay, any external terrorist plotting like
Speaker 1: that that gets after us or our people, the plan
Speaker 1: should be to lay absolute waste to whatever they're at
Speaker 1: control of. I mean, it would be what we did before,
Speaker 1: except this time around there would be very little mercy.
Speaker 1: So we can just tell them. We make this very clear,
Speaker 1: you guys, they learned the hard way the first time.
Speaker 1: It's worth noting they were not expecting us to do
Speaker 1: what we did after nine to eleven. They did not
Speaker 1: think that we would have special forces on the ground
Speaker 1: in a matter of weeks, and that we would with
Speaker 1: our air power, just turn the tide of war against them,
Speaker 1: and that was not the expectation, and I think that
Speaker 1: that did rattle them. But this time around it wouldn't
Speaker 1: just be that. So that's one part of this. Now
Speaker 1: that's not a perfect solution, but I think that that's real.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind that there are also plenty of places,
Speaker 1: unfortunately far too many places around the world where gee
Speaker 1: hottests already have the ability to plot, train equip There
Speaker 1: are safe haven areas certainly in Yemen, in Sinai Peninsula,
Speaker 1: in Syria, in Iraq, in well in Iroq, not as much,
Speaker 1: but certainly in Syria. And there are places, you know, Nigeria, Somalia,
Speaker 1: places where there's external plotting going on on the global
Speaker 1: ge hottest attacks being planned. So we're not invading every place,
Speaker 1: you know. We have this sense that Afghanistan is the
Speaker 1: place where all the terrorists want to plan the attacks,
Speaker 1: but they can plant attacks from inside Pakistan. They can
Speaker 1: plant attacks from inside a basement in New Jersey. They've
Speaker 1: done that. So keep that in mind as well. That
Speaker 1: the set mission, the counter terrorism mission, was accomplished a
Speaker 1: long time ago in Afghanistan. We are not really there
Speaker 1: primarily now in a counter terrorism function. We are there
Speaker 1: rebuilding a country that is from a civil society, infrastructure
Speaker 1: and just developmental perspective, about a hundred years behind the
Speaker 1: First World at Afghanistan from an infrastructure and development perspective
Speaker 1: is probably somewhere in the nineteen twenties or nineteen thirties.
Speaker 1: And some of you might say that's being kind, but
Speaker 1: that's the truth. We're going to rebuild this country, rebuild
Speaker 1: it into what and then we get into, okay, well,
Speaker 1: what's acceptable when it comes to negotiation with the Taliban.
Speaker 1: This is really this is really where this gets uncomfortable, folks.
Speaker 1: The truth is, we don't have to negotiate anything with
Speaker 1: the Taliban. We could just leave. All we're doing is
Speaker 1: trying to get assurances and put in place measures trip wires,
Speaker 1: if you will, for our diplomacy, to make them think
Speaker 1: twice before doing what I am almost certain they are
Speaker 1: going to do, which is, as soon as they think
Speaker 1: that they have a clear path, try to take over
Speaker 1: the rest of the country. Again, I won't be easy.
Speaker 1: There are still the remnants of the old Northern Alliance
Speaker 1: and then the non Pashtun northern reaches of Afghanistan would
Speaker 1: still resist that. And you know, there's there is an
Speaker 1: Afghan National Army, there is an Afghan National Police that
Speaker 1: have received a lot of training, and how much better
Speaker 1: are they now they were then? I know that's that's
Speaker 1: a complicated discussion of itself, but there's no future in
Speaker 1: which we leave in Afghanistan that does not have a Taliban.
Speaker 1: And there is no future in which when we deal
Speaker 1: with the Taliban we can be dealing with people who
Speaker 1: are honorable and who are decent. Because they're not, they're not.
Speaker 1: That's never going to change. So where does that leave us, Well,
Speaker 1: do we want to end this war or not? Do
Speaker 1: we want to stop having responsibility for holding this place together?
Speaker 1: Or are we just going to say that this is now.
Speaker 1: It's been almost twenty years, almost twenty years of US
Speaker 1: troops in this country, and people who say, oh buck,
Speaker 1: what about Germany and South Korea and Japan? Those are
Speaker 1: stable societies. We're not getting, you know, suicide bombers driving
Speaker 1: into our barracks in Japan and South Korea. This is different.
Speaker 1: This is US soldiers deployed in an active combat zone,
Speaker 1: taking casualties, taking the fight to the enemy. And I
Speaker 1: mean it's good to hear that. As President Trump was
Speaker 1: pointing out they have been fighting the Taliban even while
Speaker 1: these talks are ongoing, so we're they're taking battlefield casualties.
Speaker 1: But here's the other part of this. Taliban doesn't care
Speaker 1: about battlefield casualties. They use young people as cannon fodder.
Speaker 1: Tell them they're mujahideen, and they're you know, they're badasses,
Speaker 1: they're tough, go out there, fight some Americans do a
Speaker 1: suicide attack. Whatever. They don't care. Every life is cheap
Speaker 1: to the Taliban. They they'll lose people fighting and not
Speaker 1: thing twice about it. So that's not We're not gonna
Speaker 1: We're not gonna shoot our way out of the out
Speaker 1: of the Taliban or out of dealing with the Taliban.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna happen. So then there became this big
Speaker 1: media frenzy, not just around the strategy and what should
Speaker 1: be done here, because the meetia would usually you would think,
Speaker 1: be in favor of what the administration is trying to do,
Speaker 1: which is get us out of a war zone. But
Speaker 1: get us out of a war zone is a secondary
Speaker 1: consideration to the media's favorite thing to consider and think
Speaker 1: about here, which is how does this make Trump look bad?
Speaker 1: And that's why they're pushing him on who, well, who
Speaker 1: called for this meeting and who canceled this meeting and
Speaker 1: how did all of it go? No, Actually, in terms
Speaker 1: of advisors, I took my own advice. I liked the
Speaker 1: idea of meeting. I've met with a lot of bad
Speaker 1: people and a lot of good people during the course
Speaker 1: of the last almost three years, and I think meeting
Speaker 1: is a great thing. I think that meeting with you know,
Speaker 1: you're talking about war, there are meetings with war. Otherwise
Speaker 1: wars would never end, you'd have them go on forever.
Speaker 1: We had a meeting schedule. It was my idea, and
Speaker 1: it was my idea to terminated. I didn't even I
Speaker 1: didn't discuss it with anybody else. When I heard, very
Speaker 1: simply that they killed one of our soldiers and twelve
Speaker 1: other innocent people, I said, there's no way I'm meeting
Speaker 1: on that basis. There's no way I'm meeting. They did
Speaker 1: a mistake. And by the way they are telling people
Speaker 1: they made a big mistake, they're saying it loud and
Speaker 1: clear that they made a big mistake. A president made
Speaker 1: the right move here by canceling the talk. So I
Speaker 1: agree with him on that. I just think the talks
Speaker 1: never should have been scheduled for Camp David on US
Speaker 1: soil in this way. I think, if anything, you meet
Speaker 1: them in some third party venue, in some third country,
Speaker 1: maybe Europe, in the Middle East, have discussions there, but
Speaker 1: not invite them as guests of the administration on the
Speaker 1: US soil. I started to get worried. I hope Trump
Speaker 1: isn't gonna do this with Kim Jong Own. I see
Speaker 1: here in North Korea is also saying they're ready to
Speaker 1: resume nuclear or talks with President Trump. You know, he
Speaker 1: does need a win here at some point, folks. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that we have passed that, we have passed
Speaker 1: a phase where if he doesn't get a win, it's
Speaker 1: he's he's clearly already failed. But you know, whether it's
Speaker 1: China or North Korea or the Taliban, we do need
Speaker 1: some We do need the ball to move here. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to just keep saying, well, give him time,
Speaker 1: give him time, give him time. He's got four years
Speaker 1: to make something happen to get us to another four years.
Speaker 1: And I think that right now on you know, our
Speaker 1: chief negotiator, the pressure is definitely getting stronger. There's more
Speaker 1: pressure now because he has not yet delivered on any
Speaker 1: of these very high stakes negotiations. And I also think
Speaker 1: that we need to be just psychologically prepared as a
Speaker 1: country for things too. If we do end the war
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, we do so, we should do so knowing
Speaker 1: that things may be very bad. It might get very
Speaker 1: bad very quickly there, and that's still the choice that
Speaker 1: we're making. Otherwise, we just have troops there that are
Speaker 1: keeping this country from boiling over forever, and that should
Speaker 1: not be our role. That's not what our military should
Speaker 1: be doing, and it's not a mission set that we
Speaker 1: should take on. Whereas Press sees this, all is just
Speaker 1: an opportunity to bash Trumps. No surprise there. They see
Speaker 1: this as Oh, in the days leading up to nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, the President of the United States was going
Speaker 1: to hold a meeting at Camp David with the Taliban.
Speaker 1: It's so outrageous that he would do this. I think
Speaker 1: it was a bad move. I don't think it was
Speaker 1: an outrageous move. I think it was the wrong decision.
Speaker 1: I don't think it was a decision made for the
Speaker 1: wrong reasons. I do have this for you, though, as
Speaker 1: a thought. If the President's stance on this, because I
Speaker 1: don't always agree with Trump, especially on some foreign policy areas.
Speaker 1: I think that he goes back and forth. Right if
Speaker 1: the president is correct, and I think he is in
Speaker 1: this regard, that it was the right move to shut
Speaker 1: down talks with the Taliban after they killed innocent people
Speaker 1: in a terror attack in order, in their own words,
Speaker 1: to gain more leverage for these talks, essentially to show us, see,
Speaker 1: we still can kill a dozen people at will. We
Speaker 1: still the Taliban can murder and maime and cause death
Speaker 1: and destruction. So you know, you better do what we
Speaker 1: want and take o take our concern seriously in these negotiations.
Speaker 1: That is the mentality of a group that is never
Speaker 1: going to be decent, It's never going to be honorable.
Speaker 1: Why should we think that the Taliban is going to
Speaker 1: wake up in six weeks, six months, six years and
Speaker 1: be an entity that would keep its commitments, that would
Speaker 1: engage honorably in diplomacy and negotiations. It's not going to
Speaker 1: It's just not going to happen. So I would prefer
Speaker 1: that we all prepare for that reality. Understand the enemy
Speaker 1: that we are dealing with and what they're going to
Speaker 1: do as soon as they can as soon as they
Speaker 1: have the opportunity. It is very likely that they're going
Speaker 1: to try to make a run on the rest of
Speaker 1: the country or ways we can help, but we're not
Speaker 1: helping by having our men and women in uniform in
Speaker 1: that country doing the fighting that afghan should be doing.
Speaker 1: It has been almost twenty years. What do we really
Speaker 1: think is going to change this time. I was in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan a decade ago, my friends. I can tell you
Speaker 1: I saw the highest level assessments and information in that
Speaker 1: country for the military, for the intelligence community just wasn't
Speaker 1: going to happen. Then we cannot create a stable, peaceful
Speaker 1: Afghanistan for the Afghan people. We can't and we don't
Speaker 1: want to because the US would be too high for us.
Speaker 1: It's not our fight. And if we leave, and we should,
Speaker 1: and that means that bad things happen. We need to
Speaker 1: understand that. So be it bad things happen, I'll be
Speaker 1: right back. It's just another example of the president treating
Speaker 1: foreign policy like it's some kind of game show. This
Speaker 1: isn't a game show. These are terrorists. Yeah, Democrats now
Speaker 1: lecturing everybody on taking terrorism seriously. That's right, Democrats that
Speaker 1: have so many times in the past, taking the position
Speaker 1: that what we are doing to fight against terrorists, that's
Speaker 1: the cause of terrorism. You know, it's our fighting back
Speaker 1: against this that creates it all in the first place.
Speaker 1: But I suppose, even in these very clear areas of
Speaker 1: what should be some degree of if not bipartisan agreement,
Speaker 1: at least bipartisan respect and the air of Trump, anything
Speaker 1: anything goes now. Insult him on foreign policy, insult the
Speaker 1: commander in chief, Say he's a traitor, Say he's a
Speaker 1: more on Sai coward. I mean, here, here's Joe Biden
Speaker 1: getting in on it too. Our president isn't up to
Speaker 1: this moment. We all know that where he lacks the
Speaker 1: moral authority of the league. This president has more in
Speaker 1: common with George Wallace than George Washington. A disgusting smear
Speaker 1: said by an idiot who will repeat whatever smear as
Speaker 1: somebody else tells him to. That's all you really need
Speaker 1: to know about Joe Biden. Guy is just intellectually worthless
Speaker 1: and doesn't seem to have a backbone to speak of either.
Speaker 1: But this Horowitz thing is important when you think about
Speaker 1: what Jim Comey did. He's the guy solely responsible for
Speaker 1: putting the country through three years of this saga we
Speaker 1: have now lived through. Jim Comey's a guy who started
Speaker 1: the Trump Russia investigation. Jim Comey's the guy who put
Speaker 1: Peter Struck, the guy with this bias against the president,
Speaker 1: the guy who ran the Clinton investing, the guy who
Speaker 1: put him in charge. Jim Comey's the guy who's responsible
Speaker 1: for the dossier being used to go get a warrant
Speaker 1: to spawn a fellow American citizen. And Jim Comey's the
Speaker 1: guy who linked the information to the New York Times
Speaker 1: through his friend to get the special counsel in the
Speaker 1: first place. So he's the guy who created this hol
Speaker 1: darned mess. And yet we're not going to bring him
Speaker 1: in after the scathing report by Michael Horrors, We're not
Speaker 1: going to bring in the Inspector General to answer questions.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous. So they're so focused on impeachment they're missing
Speaker 1: I think the important things that we should be that
Speaker 1: we should be addressing. Remember when the Russia collusion story
Speaker 1: was the most important thing in the world to about
Speaker 1: ninety percent of the media. It's important to go back
Speaker 1: and just take a little trip down memory lane. Here.
Speaker 1: It was the biggest story in the world, according to
Speaker 1: the press, the most important thing. Best sellers were written
Speaker 1: about how Trump was a pawn of the Russians working
Speaker 1: with them to steal an election. Careers were built on
Speaker 1: this fraud, this outright fraud, and now we're supposed to
Speaker 1: just walk away from it because Democrats can't make it stick.
Speaker 1: People simply who normal people, I should say, I mean,
Speaker 1: the media still believes that they can make it go
Speaker 1: of this. Normal people don't care. Normal people don't want
Speaker 1: to be put through this, don't want to listen to this,
Speaker 1: don't want to hear about how there's a new theory
Speaker 1: of Trump Russia collusion, or there's some other level of
Speaker 1: this that we haven't seen before. I think that one
Speaker 1: of the underlying premises that many people who are in
Speaker 1: the positions of authority and power our society, who hate Trump,
Speaker 1: who think that people like you and me that support
Speaker 1: Trump do so out of ignorance or bigotry or hatred
Speaker 1: or whatever it is, because we're just not smart, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever it is that they say. I think they haven't
Speaker 1: figured out yet that it's never going back to what
Speaker 1: it was. We're not going back to a point in
Speaker 1: time where oh yeah, CNN, they're kind of a moderate
Speaker 1: down the middle journalistic enterprise. Whether you believe that was
Speaker 1: ever true or not, no serious well informed person couldn't
Speaker 1: believe that anymore, and no serious well informed person could
Speaker 1: believe that going forward. You know, is the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: really just concerned with working people and believes in many
Speaker 1: of the same fundamental americanisms that the rest of us do,
Speaker 1: but they just have a different a different approach to
Speaker 1: get us there. Or are they really a bunch of socialists?
Speaker 1: We all know the answer is number two, and that's
Speaker 1: never going to change. That's not We're not going back
Speaker 1: to a time before that. We're not going to a
Speaker 1: period in history when all of a sudden we're gonna
Speaker 1: We're not going back to a period of history where
Speaker 1: we can have a conversation with them and we say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we want the same thing, So let's just start from
Speaker 1: that assumption. I don't think we do want the same
Speaker 1: thing as the Democratic Party. I don't want them in
Speaker 1: charge of everything in my life. I don't want them
Speaker 1: making huge decisions about winners and losers, about the trajectory
Speaker 1: of the economy, about everything, anything about how America is
Speaker 1: not really any better than any other country, and we
Speaker 1: should probably just fall in line let the UN call
Speaker 1: the shots. I'm not on board for that. I do
Speaker 1: not believe that that's a good idea. But they still
Speaker 1: think that we're going back to this other place there,
Speaker 1: that pre Trump America is just one election away, and
Speaker 1: it's not true. It's not true. I do wonder still
Speaker 1: what we're supposed to make of all that, all that
Speaker 1: wasted breath, all that bullcrap about impeachment that we heard
Speaker 1: from them so many times, so much of it. Where
Speaker 1: did that all go? The Michael Cohen hearing didn't work
Speaker 1: out the way they wanted, the John Dene hearing didn't
Speaker 1: work out the way they wanted, and of course the
Speaker 1: Bob Muller hearing and that investigation did work out the
Speaker 1: way they wanted. But that doesn't stop them. They're going
Speaker 1: to continue to push this ridiculous impeachment narrative at the
Speaker 1: cost of I mean, one of the first things you
Speaker 1: learn in college economies class one on one is opportunity costs.
Speaker 1: So when they're focused on this warrantless impeachment inquiry, you're
Speaker 1: not getting done the things we need to be doing,
Speaker 1: like fixing the border situation, dealing with the intellectual theft
Speaker 1: of intellectual property, theft of China, things we're supposed to
Speaker 1: deal with on the Judiciary Committee. And they're also not
Speaker 1: going back and saying, you know what, we were wrong.
Speaker 1: We were wrong about some of this stuff. We probably
Speaker 1: shouldn't have chased down these things the way that we did.
Speaker 1: But Democrats can't change who they are. I suppose they
Speaker 1: still really believe that this is something the American people
Speaker 1: want to see. They still really believe that this is
Speaker 1: something that could be of the I should say, they
Speaker 1: haven't decided yet is it of political benefit to them?
Speaker 1: And that's what we'll make the final termination as to
Speaker 1: whether or not there is an impeachment hearing. I think
Speaker 1: if they impeach Trump, they guarantee his reelection because it
Speaker 1: shows that this all along was fixed. Now they're saying
Speaker 1: that the reason they want to impeach him is there's
Speaker 1: a well, you know, it's a combination and now it's
Speaker 1: the combo platter, it's the Emolument's clause, the twenty fifth Amendment,
Speaker 1: Russia collusion, racism, didn't show his tax return, There's all
Speaker 1: these things. It's like, no, just because you don't like
Speaker 1: him doesn't mean that he should be impeached. But that's
Speaker 1: where the Democrats are. They can't get beyond their their
Speaker 1: anti Trump emotions. They've gone truly pathological with this stuff now,
Speaker 1: right now, they hold everybody in line with this one
Speaker 1: kind of a piece of doctrine about abortion, right, which
Speaker 1: is obviously a tough issue for a lot of people
Speaker 1: to think through morally. Then again, you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of parts of the Bible to talk about how
Speaker 1: life begins with breath, and so even that is something
Speaker 1: that we can interpret differently, and me too. But I
Speaker 1: think no matter where you think about the kind of
Speaker 1: cosmic question of how life begins, most Americans can get
Speaker 1: on the board with the idea of all right, I
Speaker 1: might draw the line here, you might draw the line there,
Speaker 1: But the most important thing is the person who should
Speaker 1: be drawing the line, is the woman making the decision. Nope, wrong,
Speaker 1: ethnically wrong, morally morally wrong, spiritually wrong, doctrinally wrong. I
Speaker 1: don't I don't know how much more wrong he could
Speaker 1: get bringing up life begins at breath? Is he serious?
Speaker 1: That is such a a's a barbaric and utterly stupid
Speaker 1: and I have been deeply unimpressed with Mayor Pete, who
Speaker 1: went to fancy schools and has a road that was
Speaker 1: a road school. I've tolbably the RhoD scholarships are very political,
Speaker 1: and you know Bill Clinton was a RhoD scholar, and
Speaker 1: people get all excited about this. It's really a lot,
Speaker 1: a lot of nonsense. Mayor Pete has been very unimpressive
Speaker 1: to me this entire time, and I just like to
Speaker 1: call him Mayor Pete really because I don't his last
Speaker 1: name is complicated. Otherwise I would just refer to him
Speaker 1: as Buddha judge. It's hard to say. What he said
Speaker 1: there though, is barbaric. And it's interesting that he doesn't
Speaker 1: defend the position, but he puts it out there. He
Speaker 1: kind of floats this, Well, maybe life begins at at breath, huh.
Speaker 1: I wonder how Mayor Pete would feel if he had,
Speaker 1: let's say, a great aunt who was on a respirator.
Speaker 1: Otherwise totally fine, and somebody went and just said, you
Speaker 1: know what, can't breathe on your own life? Life requires breath,
Speaker 1: and you can't breathe on your own. So we're just
Speaker 1: gonna pull the plug. Yeah, she's gonna make a full recovery,
Speaker 1: but don't worry about that. We're gonna pull the plug
Speaker 1: because life begins at breath or life continues at breath.
Speaker 1: Anybody who believes in medical ethics or just ethics period
Speaker 1: would have to hear what may Or Pete said and
Speaker 1: think that this is horrific and this is barbaric. This
Speaker 1: isn't even an area where we would have a good
Speaker 1: faith disagreement. We're not having an argument with may or
Speaker 1: Pete here about whether life begins at conception, which some
Speaker 1: would say, there's a oh okay, well what is the conception?
Speaker 1: And when you know, there's all this is an implantation,
Speaker 1: and people get into this. I mean, I think life
Speaker 1: the only consistent position is that life begins a conception.
Speaker 1: But at least you could see that there's a discussion
Speaker 1: to be had, maybe to explain to the other side
Speaker 1: that life begins at conception. But I don't want to
Speaker 1: sit around and have a conversation about how a baby
Speaker 1: that has its own heart, its own brain, its own
Speaker 1: central nervous system, its own genetic material, its own everything,
Speaker 1: but it's just waiting to be brought out into the
Speaker 1: world is not really a baby. I don't know how
Speaker 1: we can have an honest, good faith discussion with the
Speaker 1: other side about this, because if they won't concede this,
Speaker 1: then they're just living in a fantasy. The left has
Speaker 1: really lost its mind. We see this. Now they've lost
Speaker 1: their mind on climate change, they've lost their mind on
Speaker 1: open borders, they've lost their mind on socialism, and now
Speaker 1: they've lost their mind on abortion too. This is not
Speaker 1: in the gray area. This is not oh, what are
Speaker 1: we going to do? How do we handle this? This
Speaker 1: is complicated. This isn't complicated at all, and it's not
Speaker 1: a moral stance to say, oh, well, it's just up
Speaker 1: to the choice of the individual involved. Should mean an
Speaker 1: ancient Rome, for example, I mean I could I can
Speaker 1: tell you this, as you know, I like history. In
Speaker 1: ancient Rome, the head of household, the father, had the
Speaker 1: power of life and death over everybody in his household,
Speaker 1: could kill a slave. You know, Slavery was widespread throughout
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire. We often think of slavery in this
Speaker 1: country because of things like the New York Times sixteen
Speaker 1: nineteen project. We think it's a uniquely American institution, when
Speaker 1: in fact, we fought a very large war to end slavery,
Speaker 1: and we're part of the revolution in world affairs away
Speaker 1: from slavery, which had been the norm for societies stretching
Speaker 1: back for millennia around the globe. Obviously wrong on ethical
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, murder and pillaging your neighbor's village
Speaker 1: was also the norm. Doesn't mean it's okay, but it
Speaker 1: just this was the way it was and then it changed.
Speaker 1: But to say that, to say that Pope Pete here
Speaker 1: has some moral high ground is stunning. And I think
Speaker 1: that he must be a panderer because he can't be
Speaker 1: this intellectually inept the things that he said when he
Speaker 1: goes to the Bible to justify his things. He loves
Speaker 1: to do this. He's obsessed with talking about Mike Pence
Speaker 1: and obsessed with the Bible says this, and the Bible
Speaker 1: says that, you know, the Bible says some things that
Speaker 1: I'm sure Mayor Pete really doesn't like, well, like thou
Speaker 1: shalt not kill, for example. And if we have any
Speaker 1: question about whether or not this is a real you
Speaker 1: know what we were told when you had that the
Speaker 1: mayor who not the mayor, the governor Northam who wore
Speaker 1: the black face, but of course it's still the mayor,
Speaker 1: still the governor. Rather, he said that did make an
Speaker 1: infant comfortable before they killed an infant outside the womb
Speaker 1: if the mother didn't want it. And then we were told,
Speaker 1: oh no, but that's not a real thing, that's not
Speaker 1: a real concern. That doesn't really happen. No, no, it does,
Speaker 1: it does. Here's a story from the Associated Press, as
Speaker 1: mainstream of news outlet as you'll find, about a woman
Speaker 1: who got to be twenty eight weeks pregnant without realizing
Speaker 1: that she was pregnant, and then chose to go across
Speaker 1: state lines to have an abortion. This story is supposed
Speaker 1: to be a sympathetic tale of a woman who had
Speaker 1: trouble getting access to her constitutional right to an abortion,
Speaker 1: which just I choke on the words, because only a
Speaker 1: moron thinks that the constitution gives somebody a right to
Speaker 1: an abortion. But we have to live in a moronic
Speaker 1: society because of people's choice to pervert the law and morality.
Speaker 1: But here's here's what the Associated Press quotes, or here's
Speaker 1: what they talk about in this piece where this woman
Speaker 1: is going to have an abortion at twenty eight weeks
Speaker 1: into a pregnancy. What I would learn the hard way
Speaker 1: is when you first started taking first control, the first
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, that first like a few days, you're
Speaker 1: your most fertile. So I got pregnant in early February,
Speaker 1: and I wouldn't know have the suspicion I was pregnant
Speaker 1: until about late July. I wasn't really talking to my
Speaker 1: family and so there wasn't any support there. I was
Speaker 1: feeling pretty isolated, pretty pretty panicky. I was housing insecure
Speaker 1: at the time, like I had just started a job.
Speaker 1: I didn't have any support, and so she then had
Speaker 1: to in her mind find a way to relieve herself
Speaker 1: of this burden, the burden of bringing life into this world.
Speaker 1: And here is what she said happened thereafter. I said
Speaker 1: that they would be able to help me, but I
Speaker 1: had to get there before I turned twenty eight weeks,
Speaker 1: and so I had less than ten days. And they
Speaker 1: said that my procedure would cost about ten five hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: so they know who's going to pick them up. It's
Speaker 1: not a decision to be made lightly because on top
Speaker 1: of or like I didn't make it lightly because it
Speaker 1: was on top of a large emotional like turning point,
Speaker 1: like decision to make in my life. It was a
Speaker 1: large financial decision to make. When I started to put
Speaker 1: my story out there, it's then people started reaching out
Speaker 1: to me. They're like, oh, I'm so glad you said,
Speaker 1: like you you're open about this because I went through
Speaker 1: something similar and I've never known anyone else. This is
Speaker 1: right here. What makes it worth it Because if I
Speaker 1: can give back to people the one thing that I
Speaker 1: wanted more than anything when I was going through this,
Speaker 1: then my work is then I've done what I've set
Speaker 1: up to do it like my work is done. This
Speaker 1: is a very sad story. It's very sad that she
Speaker 1: chose just shy, what was it a few days shy
Speaker 1: of twenty eight weeks then you have an abortion. It's
Speaker 1: very sad that she has been convinced by leftists here
Speaker 1: in America and by liberals, by the abortion lobby, by
Speaker 1: you know, nay rowl and planned parenthood and all the rest,
Speaker 1: that a baby that is seven months old, if you
Speaker 1: would like, and it will be a difficult thing to do,
Speaker 1: but you can google what a seven month old baby
Speaker 1: looks like. It looks like a baby, and not only
Speaker 1: does it look like a baby, overwhelmingly babies at seven
Speaker 1: months are entirely viable outside the womb. They could do
Speaker 1: a quick cesarian section if they had to, and have
Speaker 1: that baby out and breathing and crying and being a
Speaker 1: little baby with little tiny hands, a little tiny feet
Speaker 1: kicking around in minutes. But she thinks that this was
Speaker 1: a moment of coming together, and she received support for
Speaker 1: the decision to terminate the babies, terminate her own baby's life,
Speaker 1: and the Democratic Party has convinced young women across the
Speaker 1: country that this is a good thing. In fact, it
Speaker 1: is something to be celebrated. It's a right to be cherished.
Speaker 1: Whenever you have your doubts about which side is morally
Speaker 1: in the darkness, which side is confused, which side is
Speaker 1: fighting for the wrong things, remember this story and think
Speaker 1: about all the people that you know that you think
Speaker 1: of as conservatives, whether friends in your day to day life,
Speaker 1: whether your pastor people that you see on TV, that
Speaker 1: you listen to on radio. Who knows that this is wrong,
Speaker 1: what this woman did, what happened here, and who doesn't.
Speaker 1: And it really is a very important test because if
Speaker 1: someone doesn't know that this is wrong, they don't know
Speaker 1: that anything is wrong. And this society has really lost
Speaker 1: its way that we even have to have this conversation
Speaker 1: that May or Pete other Democrat candidates all think that
Speaker 1: what happened here is okay. There will come a time
Speaker 1: I've said this to you before where we will look
Speaker 1: back on the abortion regime in this country the way
Speaker 1: that people now look back on slavery as a horrific, immoral,
Speaker 1: inhumane regime of terror and genocide and oppression. That will happen.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it will happen in my lifetime,
Speaker 1: but it will happen because one thing I am very
Speaker 1: sure of, science is on our side here, folks, seven
Speaker 1: month old baby. We were told that this doesn't happen. Well,
Speaker 1: here the AP is telling us it does happen. Seven
Speaker 1: month old baby. At least you're on the right side
Speaker 1: of this one. We'll be right back. Well. I think
Speaker 1: there's no question that US economy is in very good shape.
Speaker 1: Look around the world. There's no question that China is
Speaker 1: slow and is slowing. The US is the right spot
Speaker 1: of the world. And regards to a middle class tax cut,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll be looking at tax cuts two point zero.
Speaker 1: It's something that will be something next year. But right now.
Speaker 1: The economy isn't very very good changed. It was just
Speaker 1: announced that we had a record setting jobs report for
Speaker 1: the month of August, and African American jobs were the
Speaker 1: lowest unemployment rate in the history of our country. Likewise,
Speaker 1: Hispanic job report just came out, lowest unemployment rate in
Speaker 1: the history of our country. The women are doing great,
Speaker 1: Asians also lowest in the history of our country. It's
Speaker 1: incredible what's happening. Our economy is strong, our country is great.
Speaker 1: We've never been at a better position. More people are
Speaker 1: working today in the United States than at any time
Speaker 1: in the history of our country, almost one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty million people. So to all fellow American citizens, I
Speaker 1: say one simple word, congratulations. Sometimes I do a segment
Speaker 1: with you here on the Buck Sexton Show where I
Speaker 1: feel like, maybe this isn't going to be the most
Speaker 1: This isn't the most compelling radio it's not. It's not
Speaker 1: a new insightful idea, but I think you need to
Speaker 1: hear it. And maybe it's just I think I need
Speaker 1: to say it too. The economy is booming. Remember if
Speaker 1: you will, the narrative after Bill Clinton dragged the country
Speaker 1: through all kinds of his personal mess is lying under
Speaker 1: oath and you know all that stuff. What you would
Speaker 1: hear from from so many Democrats was but we were
Speaker 1: at peace and we were prosperous, and that was that.
Speaker 1: That was all that you had to say. That was everything.
Speaker 1: We were at peace and we were prosperous. Whatever Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton did in the Oval Office, whoever he did it with,
Speaker 1: and whatever he said about it didn't matter. This was
Speaker 1: the story. So I just got so excited. I just
Speaker 1: like whacked the microphone by accident. Hopefully it didn't make
Speaker 1: too much noise. Take that to microphone. It's gonna cost
Speaker 1: us money buck watching. Oh yeah, they're gonna find me
Speaker 1: microphone abuse. I've heard some other radio shows. They gotta
Speaker 1: tell you a lot of microphone abuse going on there,
Speaker 1: but not with anyone's hand. So just saying, here's the
Speaker 1: situation the media. The media is focusing in on the
Speaker 1: most minute, nonsensical stories in part to distract, I think,
Speaker 1: to prevent any coverage of the really strong economy, and
Speaker 1: also just because they can't help themselves. They think that
Speaker 1: their audiences really just want to see anti Trump propaganda,
Speaker 1: that that's what matters. Everything else is secondary to that,
Speaker 1: and I do believe that they have convinced themselves and
Speaker 1: not just bad Stouter. It's like, I just understand how
Speaker 1: the President doesn't think they were. It's all fair. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're stell fair. But I also think that we need
Speaker 1: to double down at batch the president even more because
Speaker 1: he's a terrible Okay, this is what we're heading into, though,
Speaker 1: the most important decisions about news coverage in the country
Speaker 1: leading into an election, and I don't you know, if
Speaker 1: you're listening to this show, you must care about the
Speaker 1: news somewhat, But the most important decisions will be what
Speaker 1: is and is not covered. That's even more powerful than
Speaker 1: how they cover things. Although as you know, based on
Speaker 1: what we saw with Trump, you know, they always find
Speaker 1: a way to make it about how he's bad. And
Speaker 1: that's why the coverage of the of Hurricane Dorian was
Speaker 1: interesting because it was decided before any before the first
Speaker 1: rain drops had fallen on dry land anywhere, it was
Speaker 1: decided that Trump needed to have a this needed to
Speaker 1: be used as a weapon against Trump. And that's when
Speaker 1: you Molly Hemingway, she was on I was on Fox
Speaker 1: on Sunday and Molly was on right before me. Yet
Speaker 1: she had a great, a great mini rant on this.
Speaker 1: They're completely beclowned themselves. And think about that Chiron. It says,
Speaker 1: as people die, Trump is doing this, So as people die,
Speaker 1: CNN and other media outlets are focusing on what exactly
Speaker 1: almost because you almost get the feeling that the media
Speaker 1: decided at the beginning of the week they were going
Speaker 1: to make Trump's handling the hurricane a major story, and
Speaker 1: then it turned out that the hurricane didn't make landfall
Speaker 1: in a way that was as devastating as they planned,
Speaker 1: and so all they were left with was the map,
Speaker 1: and then they went with that. Anyway, at some point
Speaker 1: you have to, you know, a you shouldn't have just
Speaker 1: an oppositional stance as you as your approach, but if
Speaker 1: you need to have better news judgment, I mean I
Speaker 1: would I would like to ask any of the and
Speaker 1: Molly's totally right, although I think that this is now
Speaker 1: our expectation is that they're always they've always decided what
Speaker 1: they're going to do when it comes to Trump before
Speaker 1: he does anything. But I would like to know does
Speaker 1: anyone hold the position, does any serious person hold the
Speaker 1: position that CNN is not oppositional that The New York Times,
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, MSNBC, NPR, ABC News, CBS News. Does
Speaker 1: anyone hold the position that they are not oppositional through
Speaker 1: this president? I would love to have that. There's not
Speaker 1: a person in America that I would be the leastmit
Speaker 1: concerned about debating on that point. In fact, I would throttle,
Speaker 1: I would shellack, I would annihilate anybody in public on
Speaker 1: that debate because it's so obvious, it's so clear, and
Speaker 1: yet they don't agree to it. They still keep this
Speaker 1: this facade going of oh no, though, we're just covering
Speaker 1: Trump as he needs to be covered. I don't think so,
Speaker 1: not on my watch. Not acceptable, not true. It's time
Speaker 1: for a woman in the White House. They're yelling, whoa
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren fans there, everybody, buddy, time for a woman
Speaker 1: in the White House? Can we just can we just
Speaker 1: may the best man or a woman win the race?
Speaker 1: That do we have to segregate this contest by gender
Speaker 1: all of a sudden or or right at the at
Speaker 1: the outset, do we have to do that? I'd rather not.
Speaker 1: I'd rather see who is good at this. I'd rather
Speaker 1: see who the best option may be for the American people.
Speaker 1: But no identity politics going to be very very strong
Speaker 1: in this whole thing, and that's not going to change.
Speaker 1: That's not going to change at all. In fact, Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: I mean, you have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, two
Speaker 1: of the despite what Elizabeth Warren said, for most of
Speaker 1: her professional life, two of the whitest human beings you
Speaker 1: will ever see anywhere. I mean, they are, you know,
Speaker 1: there is nothing but whiteness when you're talking about Warren
Speaker 1: and Sanders. And yet they're both obsessed with appealing to
Speaker 1: the tenets of diversity, multiculturalism, and identity politics all all
Speaker 1: put together, I mean here here, And what's amazing is
Speaker 1: that they think that those who don't embrace that, who
Speaker 1: don't think that skin color determines political or should determine
Speaker 1: political beliefs as Democrats do, that individuals of different ethnicities
Speaker 1: should not think for themselves, they should think the way
Speaker 1: that they are told to think based on their skin color,
Speaker 1: as Democrats do. That the people that have a problem
Speaker 1: with that, they're they're the ones that are dividing us
Speaker 1: up right, the people that believe in individual thought, who
Speaker 1: believe that we all should be able to think through
Speaker 1: what matters to us what's important, what is just, and
Speaker 1: what is good as human beings, we're the bad guys
Speaker 1: whore he send us for example, he's the good gun
Speaker 1: because you know, it's Trump who wants to divide us.
Speaker 1: I think that all the Democrats do is divide us
Speaker 1: because the things that should be neutral in American life
Speaker 1: with respect to with respect to race and gender. You know,
Speaker 1: we all want a strong economy, we all want rule
Speaker 1: of law. We all want a secure or at least
Speaker 1: we used to all want a secure border. Those things
Speaker 1: that it used to be that we would argue with
Speaker 1: the other side over how to get there. Now we're
Speaker 1: increasingly told no, we want fundamentally different things. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, the Democrats want you to think that
Speaker 1: we want fundamentally different things based upon ethnic origin, background,
Speaker 1: skin color, etc. That there's only one acceptable belief that
Speaker 1: people of certain skin colors can have, and if you
Speaker 1: veer outside of that, you're you know, you're a tool
Speaker 1: of the right, you're a conservative, you're a fake, you're
Speaker 1: a phony. Here's Bernie Sanders hitting the identity politics issue.
Speaker 1: So gad, we are going not only to win this election,
Speaker 1: but together we are gonna build an unprecedented grassroots movement.
Speaker 1: Trump wants to divide us up. We're gonna bring our
Speaker 1: people together, black and white, Latino, Native American, Asian American,
Speaker 1: gay and strike immigrant Native board. I don't think that
Speaker 1: that's really what Democrats want to do. I think that
Speaker 1: they would much prefer a coalition of different identity politics
Speaker 1: based constituencies that they can call upon. But it's gonna
Speaker 1: be very hard for them to pretend that they want
Speaker 1: unity when they will tell people, one, if you voted
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump, even if you voted for Obama once
Speaker 1: or twice before, if you vote for Donald Trump this
Speaker 1: time around, then you're clearly a racist. It's a very
Speaker 1: divisive and very nasty thing to say, an unfair thing
Speaker 1: to say. And you look at the way that they
Speaker 1: talk about any number of policy initiatives and they break
Speaker 1: it down by race, they talk about, well, you know,
Speaker 1: there must be a different focus. You know, communities of
Speaker 1: color will view this this way versus everybody else will
Speaker 1: view it that way. I always I just stumble for
Speaker 1: a moment. I'm flabbergasted by how much that strikes me
Speaker 1: as wrong and often really condescending from Democrats. That is
Speaker 1: what they do but you know what, what might actually
Speaker 1: unite us, the reality that Medicare for all is a
Speaker 1: horrible idea, a terrible idea. I'm going to complain to
Speaker 1: you later about my latest trials and tribulations with the
Speaker 1: cable guy. And this is what The problems with moving
Speaker 1: are always the little things that turn into nightmares and
Speaker 1: you feel like you're losing your life to little, unimportant
Speaker 1: squabbles when you want to be focusing on the big stuff.
Speaker 1: But when you I have no recourse, when you are
Speaker 1: only given one option for a product and that is it,
Speaker 1: things are bad all of a sudden. You know, I
Speaker 1: walk into a restaurant in New York City, and if
Speaker 1: I feel like they're being rude, you know, the staff,
Speaker 1: the matre d or the that makes it sound like
Speaker 1: I go to a fancy places. Oh buck, the matre
Speaker 1: d is being very rude. Do you no? But you know,
Speaker 1: if you're going somewhere and you don't like it and
Speaker 1: you feel like they're being weird you or you don't
Speaker 1: like the table, and this is true in most places
Speaker 1: now where there's at least some critical massive population. You
Speaker 1: don't like the place, get up, leave, go find somewhere else.
Speaker 1: There's always somewhere else to eat in America. I mean,
Speaker 1: with very few exceptions, there's always somewhere else you can go.
Speaker 1: But that's a good thing because it means that when
Speaker 1: you go into a restaurant, there's a real incentive for
Speaker 1: the people in that restaurant to keep your business. This
Speaker 1: is a this is a real thing that you see
Speaker 1: working in your own life all the time, whether you're
Speaker 1: going into Shay Fancy Pants or you know, the staff there,
Speaker 1: the individuals there. You know, is the place clean, is
Speaker 1: it well kept? Are they being nice to you? Is
Speaker 1: it welcoming? The answers, no, you go somewhere else. And
Speaker 1: so because of that cause and effect, there's a real
Speaker 1: effort to keep you when you have a Medicare system
Speaker 1: that is entirely that that becomes the whole system. Get
Speaker 1: ready to wait forever for practitioners to start retiring early
Speaker 1: and not get replaced, for government bureaucrats to tell you
Speaker 1: what services you can and can't get, how long you
Speaker 1: will wait, and that's going to be it. And unless
Speaker 1: you are and this is what this is what's true
Speaker 1: of so many of the libs that are pushing this.
Speaker 1: Unless you are wealthy enough and part of the elite
Speaker 1: such that you will just pay out of pocket for
Speaker 1: whatever services you need. That's always going to be an option.
Speaker 1: There's always somebody that won't take any insurance who will
Speaker 1: be able to give you. And but you'll create a
Speaker 1: multi tiered medical system, gonna have everybody that's in the
Speaker 1: government medicare program, and then you're going to have people
Speaker 1: who are paying out of pocket who can afford to
Speaker 1: do it, and then they're gonna be the ones, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: because there'll be a lot of lives saying, oh, but
Speaker 1: isn't it a great system we have? I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to get healthcare in this system, but isn't
Speaker 1: it a great system we have? Interesting to hear a
Speaker 1: voice from the Democrats side of things who is considered
Speaker 1: a kind of a tough as tough as nails guy,
Speaker 1: and he was very very tight with Obama. So you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of a lot of baggage, a lot
Speaker 1: of problems there. But he's not dumb. I don't think
Speaker 1: anyone has ever said that Ram Emmanuel is dumb. He's
Speaker 1: not a dumb guy. He's a sharp guy. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: he's a good guy. But he's sharp. He knows that
Speaker 1: Medicare for All is for the Democrats, just bonkers positions
Speaker 1: so far in the candidates have through the process. If
Speaker 1: you have not about on basically Medicare for all, which
Speaker 1: is we're going to eliminate one hundred and fifty million
Speaker 1: people's healthcare and we're going to provide healthcare for people
Speaker 1: that just come over the border. That is an untenable
Speaker 1: position for the general election. As you know, George, I
Speaker 1: just biked around Lake Michigan, nearly a thousand miles through
Speaker 1: Michigan and Wisconsin, two really important states. Nobody had a
Speaker 1: diner ran at me and said take my healthcare away.
Speaker 1: Nobody is this is reckless as it relates to and
Speaker 1: you don't have to take the position to win the primary,
Speaker 1: and you're basically literally hindering yourself for the general election.
Speaker 1: It is a loser idea, the loser policy that the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is I think so stuck in the throes
Speaker 1: of anti Trump psychosis that they couldn't figure this out.
Speaker 1: It tells you a lot about where the modern left
Speaker 1: has really gone. I mean tells you about where the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is today in this country. But this is
Speaker 1: a non starter, and you're gonna hear on third say
Speaker 1: the Democratic debate, You're going to hear them talk about
Speaker 1: Medicare for all like it's not crazy, it's a horrible idea.
Speaker 1: It would be incredibly expensive, and it would be very,
Speaker 1: very bad healthcare. And every doctor that I know that
Speaker 1: I've asked about this is said, yeah, this is And
Speaker 1: I know a lot of I know some lefty doctors too,
Speaker 1: but I've talked to a few a few mds about
Speaker 1: this and they say, yeah, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a big problem as it is. A lot of them
Speaker 1: don't want to take Medicare as it is. They don't
Speaker 1: want to deal with it. So now now basically ninety
Speaker 1: percent of the people walk in their office are going
Speaker 1: to be on some kind of a Medicare program. It's
Speaker 1: not going to work. It's a something for nothing situation.
Speaker 1: And then back to my initial point about incentives, there's
Speaker 1: no incentive for anybody to give you good care. You
Speaker 1: don't matter. It have to be a systematic catastrophic failure
Speaker 1: in the Medicare for All system for anyone to pay
Speaker 1: attention to anything. You think that if all of a
Speaker 1: sudden you can't get the surgery you can't get the
Speaker 1: medical treatment that you need. That Nancy Pelosi or Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer are going to lose a night's sleep, absolutely not.
Speaker 1: All they care about is what does it look like
Speaker 1: on the scoreboard for the Democratic Party? Does everybody now
Speaker 1: have health insurance? It might might mean that you can't
Speaker 1: get care. But if everyone's got insurance, that's a compelling
Speaker 1: story that gets people re elected. Central planning is flawed.
Speaker 1: It fails because it has to fail. This will fail too.
Speaker 1: This will be healthcare central planning on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: It's a terrible idea. Even Democrats who know anything though,
Speaker 1: it's a terrible idea. But man, get ready for Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren and Bernie Sanders to battle it out on Thursday.
Speaker 1: Really worthwhile peace that I would recommend for all of
Speaker 1: you in the Wall Street Journal. I'll tell you about
Speaker 1: it now, though, so you can just listen to me
Speaker 1: if you don't feel like starting a journal subscription to
Speaker 1: see it. It is by Robert Pondicio and the title
Speaker 1: is the Secret of a Charter School Success Parents. This
Speaker 1: is a controversial topic. It shouldn't be. It's obvious. I've
Speaker 1: said to you before. I mean, the greatest advantage that
Speaker 1: I feel I've had in life is having parents who
Speaker 1: were involved, who cared, who stayed married, who kept the
Speaker 1: family together, and who made the family a priority. Greatest
Speaker 1: advantage I've had in life, more than anything else. And
Speaker 1: you see this in all of the research. Whenever there's
Speaker 1: an honest study done about what the most important factor is,
Speaker 1: for example, in charter school success, just to take that
Speaker 1: as a subset's parental involvement. That's the secret to the
Speaker 1: success here, because the parental involvement generates greater student involvement,
Speaker 1: and it means everyone's on board from the household during
Speaker 1: the commute to this school to picking them up. This
Speaker 1: was a fascinating piece because Success Academy, of which there
Speaker 1: are fifty of these charter schools called Success Academy in
Speaker 1: New York City, serves seventeen thousand students, over ninety percent
Speaker 1: of them or minorities. I mean, the Success Academy is
Speaker 1: almost entirely black and Hispanic students. And these are Black
Speaker 1: and Hispanic students that come from socioeconomic backgrounds that are struggling. Right.
Speaker 1: These are not wealthy people. A lot of them are unwelfare,
Speaker 1: a lot of them are struggling financially, vast majority of
Speaker 1: them would be considered low income. That was the phrase
Speaker 1: I was looking for. And their kids are kicking butt,
Speaker 1: kicking butt in math and in English in the statewide
Speaker 1: tests that are the only real metric that anybody could
Speaker 1: look at. They're doing great. Over ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: young African American students in Success Academy are proficient math.
Speaker 1: Over eighty five percent are proficient in English, you know,
Speaker 1: in language arts, whatever the specifics are, what they call it.
Speaker 1: Why is that the case? Well, the way they've set
Speaker 1: up Success Academy, and this is this is controversial, They say, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's controversial. Why is it controversial? The way they set
Speaker 1: it up is that there's it's a lottery system, but
Speaker 1: the lottery system gets winnowed down very quickly, so that
Speaker 1: if you do everything you're supposed to do, you have
Speaker 1: a very good chance about fifty fifty of being able
Speaker 1: to get into a Success Academy school. But you have
Speaker 1: to show up. The parents have to show up, parents
Speaker 1: have to pick you up. There's no after school programs.
Speaker 1: This isn't a glorified all day long babysitting program, which
Speaker 1: is what you have in a lot of these public schools,
Speaker 1: they say, oh, we need you know, this and that
Speaker 1: program and this and that. You know, the kids have
Speaker 1: been in school for a long time already to say
Speaker 1: that the expectation should be that they could be taken
Speaker 1: care of by the state until six or seven o'clock
Speaker 1: at night. That's a very long day. That's asking a
Speaker 1: lot from a school district. But a lot of parents
Speaker 1: don't show up, even those who initially enter their kids
Speaker 1: into lottery, even those who seem to want a better
Speaker 1: future for their kids, they're not willing to do the
Speaker 1: basic work of show up and do what you say
Speaker 1: you're gonna do, be involved. The parents who do that
Speaker 1: their kids overwhelmingly successful. And this just gives the lie
Speaker 1: to oh, if only we had more money in the
Speaker 1: school system, if only we had different or better resources,
Speaker 1: or you know, whatever the case may be, then everything
Speaker 1: would be better. Then everything would be fun. It's not
Speaker 1: about more money in the schools. I have friends here
Speaker 1: in New York City who teach in some of the
Speaker 1: most well funded public schools you can find anywhere. They
Speaker 1: have this whole school school renaissance program, and there's there's
Speaker 1: these exceptional teachers and they have brand new, brand new
Speaker 1: laptops and computers in every classroom, and the classrooms are spotless,
Speaker 1: and there's the kids show up and they're rowdy, and
Speaker 1: they're disrespectful, and they don't want to learn, and they
Speaker 1: don't care to learn, and they're just glorified babysitting programs
Speaker 1: where in many cases the teachers are being asked to
Speaker 1: be in loco parentis in place of parents. That's never
Speaker 1: gonna work. Every veteran teacher I know in the school
Speaker 1: system who's not just a little automaton of the teachers
Speaker 1: unions and doesn't view it hasn't just taken all the
Speaker 1: look because public schools are a form of socialism. It
Speaker 1: is a form of central planning. Everybody who hasn't just
Speaker 1: completely drank all the kool aid on how great our
Speaker 1: public school system is. If only there was more money,
Speaker 1: if only there was more money. They'll tell you that
Speaker 1: you don't even really need to know much about the kids.
Speaker 1: You know, if they have a chance of success. Did
Speaker 1: the parents show up to parent teacher Knight, Is there
Speaker 1: an adult, a guardian who will pick the child up
Speaker 1: after school and who's on time after school? Oh but no,
Speaker 1: you see, no one wants to hear this. This is
Speaker 1: not a politically popular thing to say. It's a much
Speaker 1: better narrative for the teachers in the schools to say
Speaker 1: that they just need more money, which of course we
Speaker 1: know goes to the adults. And there's been an explosion
Speaker 1: of non teaching adults making all kinds of salaries, getting
Speaker 1: all kinds of benefits in the system for doing very
Speaker 1: very little that you would consider real educating. There's been
Speaker 1: a sixfold increase of the last I think ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen years in an administrative staff in these schools and
Speaker 1: in failing schools. Parents don't want to be told that
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be involved in their kids' education. They
Speaker 1: think that that's what the school does. Parents don't want
Speaker 1: to be told that they need to encourage their children
Speaker 1: and to read at home, they need to make sure
Speaker 1: the homework is done. They think that's what the school
Speaker 1: is for. But that's wrong, that's wrong. By the time
Speaker 1: the kid shows up and sits down in the classroom,
Speaker 1: it has already been largely decided what his or her
Speaker 1: fate is going to be. And the decision is not
Speaker 1: the states, it's not the localities. It is the home
Speaker 1: who is raising this child, who's in charge of this child?
Speaker 1: What is he or she being told about his education?
Speaker 1: About respect for authority, about trying to better oneself, about
Speaker 1: trying to learn to be a good citizen, a good person.
Speaker 1: Those are the that's really all you need. That's those
Speaker 1: are the data points that will tell you whether or
Speaker 1: not there's a real prospect of academic success for the student.
Speaker 1: And that's what this charter school. These charter schools prove.
Speaker 1: If the parents show up and care and they're involved,
Speaker 1: the kids don't just have a shot, they do very well.
Speaker 1: The parents who think that this is a taxpayer funded
Speaker 1: babysitting program, they don't care. They're too busy, they don't
Speaker 1: want it to they don't want to back the teacher
Speaker 1: up and say yes you need to learn, yes you
Speaker 1: need to be quiet. They are never going to have
Speaker 1: the results they want, and we're just going to keep
Speaker 1: being told there needs to be more marty, They needs
Speaker 1: to be more money. We've been shoveling money to the
Speaker 1: Department of Education and to the public school system now
Speaker 1: for decades. Scores don't budge charter school school. Charter school
Speaker 1: scores do. There's a reason for that, as this guy says,
Speaker 1: parental involvement is the secret sauce. We must change almost
Speaker 1: everything in our current societies. The bigger your combon footprint
Speaker 1: is the bigger your more duty, the bigger your platform,
Speaker 1: the bigger your responsibility. Adults keep saying we owe it
Speaker 1: to the young people to give them hope. But I
Speaker 1: don't want your hope. I don't want you to be hopeful.
Speaker 1: I want you to panic. I want you to feel
Speaker 1: the fear I feel. At least she's being honest. She's
Speaker 1: holding press conferences here. I'm not looking for this stuff.
Speaker 1: This is a a global climate change celebrity. And she
Speaker 1: is a child. I don't mean, oh, she's really young,
Speaker 1: like she's twenty four or something. No, I mean she's
Speaker 1: literally a child. I think she's ten, eleven, twelve, something
Speaker 1: like that. She is a preadolescent who is giving lectures
Speaker 1: two major media outlets about how we need to change
Speaker 1: everything in our society. They are creating a platform for
Speaker 1: this child to tell us about one of the most
Speaker 1: complicated issues that you could ever conjure up. I mean,
Speaker 1: we might as well have a twelve year old tell
Speaker 1: us all about the meaning of life and that we
Speaker 1: need to you know, get get rid of all law
Speaker 1: and possessions, and just prepare for the end of days tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's really on the same intellectual plane
Speaker 1: as that. It is absurd beyond absurdity, And yet here
Speaker 1: we are media is treating it like she knows what
Speaker 1: she's talking about, but she's in a sense giving away
Speaker 1: the game here. She said, I don't want you to
Speaker 1: be hopeful. I want you to panic. That's what so
Speaker 1: much of the climate change hysterius driven by, I want
Speaker 1: you to panic. They believe that it's better if people
Speaker 1: think that the world is going to end, because then
Speaker 1: you'll listen to anything. I mean, what won't you do
Speaker 1: if somebody tells you that you know your your house
Speaker 1: is on fire and they're the only person who can
Speaker 1: put it out, You're not really going to think long
Speaker 1: and hard about, well, are you a good firefighter? And
Speaker 1: what's in my house? And do I have fire insurance?
Speaker 1: And know you're just anything to get that problem dealt with.
Speaker 1: But this is textbook propaganda and using a child to
Speaker 1: do it. I notice that you have some journalists who
Speaker 1: like to do the How dare you criticize her? She's
Speaker 1: just a child? How dare you elevate her. She's just
Speaker 1: a child. As I've said, I don't blame her. She
Speaker 1: does she doesn't know anything if somebody took and I
Speaker 1: don't think that. I know that liberals are not beyond this.
Speaker 1: This is a a desperation that they have psychologically. This
Speaker 1: is why you have many blue checks and this became
Speaker 1: a joke in response to it. Many blue checks will
Speaker 1: tell you, you know, I just think that I don't
Speaker 1: know how to respond to my four year old when
Speaker 1: she looked into the eyes and said, I think that
Speaker 1: Trump's fighting against universal injunctions in the federal courts is
Speaker 1: undermining our constitutionality and destroying our democracy. Like your four
Speaker 1: year old didn't say that clearly, right. I mean these
Speaker 1: journals that pretend this, but they believe that there's some
Speaker 1: there's some purity, some authenticity, some some emotional secret weapon
Speaker 1: that comes from a child holding certain political beliefs. I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember when I was four or five years old.
Speaker 1: I think my parents were trying to keep me from,
Speaker 1: you know, picking my nose too much and making sure
Speaker 1: that you know everything that needed to win in the
Speaker 1: potty or I don't know. I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: when you're four or when you're two. I'm not good
Speaker 1: with the kids stuff. But I know that I wasn't
Speaker 1: lecturing people on climate change though, But I have seen
Speaker 1: I have seen libs running around at gun rallies. It's
Speaker 1: just not just climate change. Gun rallies too, with their
Speaker 1: kids have big placards on. You know, I want to
Speaker 1: live vote against guns. Kid didn't make the placard. This
Speaker 1: is like people trotting out their babies and onesies. That's say,
Speaker 1: you know, vote for Elizabeth Warren because your baby has
Speaker 1: a onesie on. That says so. I mean, look, people
Speaker 1: can dress their however they want, but it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that I could take the political messaging seriously. Oh it's
Speaker 1: really stunning, it really is. But you have a child
Speaker 1: that's still lecturing the whole world. It's not just the
Speaker 1: American people. She's a global she's a global celebrity who
Speaker 1: knows nothing about this, but she does want you to panic.
Speaker 1: This is about panicking. This is like the little kid
Speaker 1: from what's that m Night Shamalan movie I see dead people?
Speaker 1: Remember that what was that one called producer Mark? You
Speaker 1: know I'm talking about forget what it's didn't remember the
Speaker 1: name yet. I don't remember the name either, but it's
Speaker 1: the one with Bruce Willis when oh, big spoiler, he's
Speaker 1: actually the ghost. This is like the little girl who's saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I see climate change. It's like, well, okay,
Speaker 1: so what Meanwhile, there's somebody with childlike intelligence who's not
Speaker 1: a child at all. He's actually quite old, who's essentially
Speaker 1: parroting the same kind of rhetoric she uses. But the
Speaker 1: greatest crisis of our time is climate change. We must
Speaker 1: begin to get this under control, ladies and gentlemen. I
Speaker 1: immediately would call for a four hundred billion dollars increase
Speaker 1: in funding for alternatives, the new science and technology that
Speaker 1: will bring us down to zero net zero emissions by
Speaker 1: twenty fifty. And I'll immediately immediately rejoin the Paris Climate Accord,
Speaker 1: which our administration put together because the rest of the
Speaker 1: world is accountable for eighty five percent of the problem
Speaker 1: and we need to lead them and there's no leadership. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. China, India, the developing world, they're really going
Speaker 1: to make themselves much poorer because of climate change. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. What they're going to do is swindle
Speaker 1: the developing world into transfer payments, which is just nationality
Speaker 1: based redistribution of wealth from us to them, and they
Speaker 1: can laugh all the way. And then what happens when
Speaker 1: there are emissions are how do they how can we
Speaker 1: even measure the emissions in these countries? They don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. When I was in China, it is.
Speaker 1: It is really unsettling when you see the skyline over
Speaker 1: Shanghai or the skyline over Beijing and it has a
Speaker 1: when the pollution is really dense and the sun is
Speaker 1: trying to break through it but can't. It does have
Speaker 1: a post apocalyptic feel to it. It looks like you're
Speaker 1: you're seeing the the horizon in a movie where people
Speaker 1: are rolling around in modified pickup trucks with like big
Speaker 1: axes and scythes and things coming out of the sides,
Speaker 1: desperate to find, you know, whatever little water there is.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of you have seen the
Speaker 1: Mad Max movies, but it feels a little bit like that,
Speaker 1: like it's a post nuclear situation. It's and you see
Speaker 1: it and that's answer it. But that's pollution. That's actual
Speaker 1: pollutants in the air. It's not CO two. Does anybody
Speaker 1: really think that they're going to curb all their CO
Speaker 1: two emissions because Joe Biden tells them to. Who can
Speaker 1: believe this, But I'm prepared for even greater degrees of lunacy.
Speaker 1: At the Democrat debate coming up this Thursday, they're going
Speaker 1: to try and out lefty one another because the current
Speaker 1: trend is that some of the lower level left wing
Speaker 1: candidates are losing some support. And it's going to that's right,
Speaker 1: it's going to Warren, and it's going to Bernie. It's
Speaker 1: not going to Biden. Biden's support so far seems to
Speaker 1: be what it is the Democrat left wing base, a
Speaker 1: true progressives the Democratic Party. They're not for Biden. And
Speaker 1: so as you have fewer candidates, you'll see I think
Speaker 1: that that's a bigger percentage than certainly they're going to
Speaker 1: pretend it is. When it comes time for the general election,
Speaker 1: they're gonna act like, oh, they're a normal party. But
Speaker 1: on climate change, you just you hear them say these things.
Speaker 1: Biden says, four hundred billion dollars, four hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: of your money, it's taking money from you spend on
Speaker 1: a make believe problem. And with that four hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars spent. I would want to know how many lives
Speaker 1: for example, and I understand that this has now become
Speaker 1: a thing that I'm repeating for you, but I think
Speaker 1: it's important. How many lives could be saved with four
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars spent on opioid making sure that first
Speaker 1: responders have the drug, I forget what it's called, that
Speaker 1: will save somebody if they're going through an overdose. How
Speaker 1: many lives are saved from the treatment programs that could
Speaker 1: be set up, the law enforcement efforts to eliminate this
Speaker 1: stuff from the streets. You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: mislabeling of these drugs that goes on. In fact, the cartels,
Speaker 1: as I've told you before, try to make the opioids
Speaker 1: that they are selling look like they come. They copy
Speaker 1: the imprints of pharmaceutical grade opioid, so it looks like
Speaker 1: a pharmaceutical grade, but it's not. It's just what they
Speaker 1: made in some that somewhere in the hinterlands of Mexico,
Speaker 1: and then people take it and it's the dosage is
Speaker 1: rog or the chemical compound is stronger, and then they die.
Speaker 1: How many lives would be saved, the number of lives
Speaker 1: that would be saved by the government spending four hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars to try to transition us even faster than
Speaker 1: we are currently transitioned to green energy. The number of lives,
Speaker 1: says is zero. It will save zero lives. The benefit
Speaker 1: to all of us from that spending will be nothing.
Speaker 1: It's just a lot of spending. It's like taking a
Speaker 1: lot of money, putting it in a hole in the
Speaker 1: ground and lighting it on fire. That's what Biden wants
Speaker 1: to do because climate change. So I had a victory today,
Speaker 1: victory day, after four consecutive appointments Producer Mark, four of
Speaker 1: them spanning many hours I must have spent. I think
Speaker 1: it was I would conservatively estimate three hours on the
Speaker 1: phone in addition, in addition to the four appointments with
Speaker 1: the Verizon FiOS to try to get them to just
Speaker 1: install my cable and internet properly. And this morning they
Speaker 1: finally did it. They finally did it after they had
Speaker 1: some glitch in the system where they kept listing me
Speaker 1: as part of a group outage. But I wasn't part
Speaker 1: of a group outage. So every time I'd make an
Speaker 1: appointment to get this fixed, they would cancel it. Out
Speaker 1: the last second, because that's how their system works, because
Speaker 1: they thinking, oh, you're part of this group outage. I
Speaker 1: wasn't part of the group out it's I was starting
Speaker 1: to turn into Jack Nicholas in the Shining, like I
Speaker 1: was losing my mind. And then I'd have to explain
Speaker 1: to somebody on the phone for thirty minutes, you know,
Speaker 1: I have to wait for fifteen minutes and then get
Speaker 1: on the phone what happened. And then they would do
Speaker 1: another appointment, and then they would cancel it out again,
Speaker 1: and you know what, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: do you know what my prize is for getting cable
Speaker 1: and internet installed properly? A really expensive bill correct, way,
Speaker 1: way way more money than I should be spending on
Speaker 1: cable and internet, of which they will waive none of
Speaker 1: the fee they had. Their Their official Verizon FiOS Twitter
Speaker 1: account keep sending me these dms being like, We're so sorry,
Speaker 1: we know we're messing up. I'm like, first of all,
Speaker 1: you're not sorry, and second of all, your multi billion
Speaker 1: dollar corporation, you know, how about free cable and internet
Speaker 1: for a couple of months. That would make me feel
Speaker 1: like you're sorry, but they're not sorry. I bring this
Speaker 1: up not just because it's very frustrating, and I like
Speaker 1: to point out the frustrations of massive companies because I
Speaker 1: hate them, but also because it is a little bit
Speaker 1: of a reminder of what happens when you have a
Speaker 1: marketplace without competition. What are really what are my options
Speaker 1: than a building that a that's wired for Verizon FiOS?
Speaker 1: What are my options in dealing with them? The option
Speaker 1: is don't have Internet, which is a tough thing to
Speaker 1: do in this modern era we live in, or just
Speaker 1: deal with them, deal with them and choke on whatever
Speaker 1: nonsense they tell you you have to choke down. By
Speaker 1: the way, the guy came today, you know what he
Speaker 1: told me, the original tech two weeks ago. It's taken
Speaker 1: me two weeks to get this resolve. The original tech
Speaker 1: had forgot to plug in a plug in the you know,
Speaker 1: in the other server room or whatever down the hallway
Speaker 1: where they have the one plug. The guy just didn't
Speaker 1: do it. And you know, you sit here, you say
Speaker 1: to yourself, what can I take from this? I don't
Speaker 1: get any benefit from it. Nothing good happens as a result,
Speaker 1: except there's this. Now I know what it would be
Speaker 1: like to be in a centrally planned economy, and imagine
Speaker 1: everything that you were buying, every medical service, everything you
Speaker 1: were dealing with day in and day out on a
Speaker 1: consumer basis, was like dealing with Verizon FiOS. You wait,
Speaker 1: you wait, they screw up, doesn't matter, it's on you
Speaker 1: wait more, wait around for three hours, guy doesn't show up.
Speaker 1: You know, the the abuse that we have of the
Speaker 1: cable guy, which has been a long standing thing. I
Speaker 1: mean I remember this from even my youth, right, I
Speaker 1: mean you you know that the cable they they have
Speaker 1: you in their grip if you if you want cable,
Speaker 1: and now for I mean Wi Fi, you just can't
Speaker 1: function as a professional person in media. And if you
Speaker 1: don't have Wi Fi, just can't do it. There's no escape,
Speaker 1: there's and there's no justice. And that's that's my reminder
Speaker 1: of what we would all be dealing with. And I
Speaker 1: know this seems like a bit of a leap, but
Speaker 1: it's not. If you had single payer healthcare, every time
Speaker 1: you went to the doctor, it would be like a
Speaker 1: dealing with Verizon. Sometimes it's fine, sometimes it's you get
Speaker 1: through it, it's all. But when there's a problem, you
Speaker 1: are totally screwed. And there is no. There is no way.
Speaker 1: You have no recourse nothing. So Verizon FiOS, you're terrible.
Speaker 1: Slash Central planning is bad. Let's do roll call. Ain't
Speaker 1: no party. Look a Team Buck party, because a Team
Speaker 1: Buck party. Don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up
Speaker 1: to eleven. It's time for roll call. Facebook dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton plus appending email address that we'll be
Speaker 1: able to give you for roll call, right, producer Mark soon,
Speaker 1: I promise soon. The request is in. The request is in.
Speaker 1: So that's what we got. Let's see what else we
Speaker 1: got here? All right? John John rides by the way
Speaker 1: Saturday Original Squad Here. I remember when I missed the
Speaker 1: Overseas Deep Dives. I still love the show. Um yeah, man,
Speaker 1: I wish the Deep Dive. I don't know if if
Speaker 1: Overseas Deep Dives were more of a national crowd pleaser,
Speaker 1: I think I could do them. But people like their
Speaker 1: news of the day stuff. It seems. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm these days. I'm just trying to trying to keep
Speaker 1: all the people happy. And sometimes you're trying to keep
Speaker 1: When I say all the people, I mean all of
Speaker 1: Team Buck happy. And it's not an easy not an
Speaker 1: easy go to know what is going to get that done?
Speaker 1: Brian rights Buck. I hope people are documenting the extreme
Speaker 1: weather events of today. According to the twelve year timeline
Speaker 1: Democrats have set, by the time people start running for
Speaker 1: president for the twenty twenty four election cycle, we should
Speaker 1: be a third of the way to absolute disaster. I
Speaker 1: wonder what that will look like, probably a lot like today.
Speaker 1: Democrats have become the new doomsday predictors. At some point
Speaker 1: everyone just needs to admit just how ridiculous they are. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm already at that point. I am here to tell
Speaker 1: you that they are ridiculous. So there is that I
Speaker 1: can tell you. They are a RIDICULOUSO. Kristen, Well, actually,
Speaker 1: before I go to Christen, I just say, it's not
Speaker 1: possible for somebody who has not been brainwashed to watch
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes or more of that climate change bonanza, that
Speaker 1: extravaganza that went on what was it last week on CNN.
Speaker 1: It's not possible to watch more than fifteen minutes of
Speaker 1: that and come away from thinking anything other than these
Speaker 1: people are nuts. That's what you come away from that thinking.
Speaker 1: If you're a normal person, they are nuts. It is true,
Speaker 1: all right, Kristen writes, I heard Sheldon from Texas Is
Speaker 1: comment about paper straws. I have to wonder, is that
Speaker 1: Sheldon Cooper from the Big Bang Theory Christian Wow? Wow,
Speaker 1: thanks for writing in, Karen, Let's see live. The left
Speaker 1: has no desire to do anything about the opioid problem
Speaker 1: that plays directly into population control Live. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's why the left doesn't care about the opioid
Speaker 1: problem as much as they should. Just based on the
Speaker 1: body count, just based on how many people have lost
Speaker 1: their lives, you would think there'd be a much a
Speaker 1: much greater number of journalist stories on this, just much
Speaker 1: more of a focus on it. But the opioid epidemic
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly hurts people who are in rural areas or outlying
Speaker 1: areas of cities or suburbs. And it is mostly, although
Speaker 1: not certainly, not entirely, but as mostly affecting the white
Speaker 1: working class community. And so that's why the media doesn't
Speaker 1: really see an urgent need to tell those stories. I
Speaker 1: think that at some level, the mainstream media believes that
Speaker 1: people who have white privilege and don't aren't able to
Speaker 1: use that white privilege to get beyond the trials and
Speaker 1: tribulations of substance abuse. Well, that's that's on them at
Speaker 1: some level, right. I really believe that there's a bit
Speaker 1: of a cold heartedness from much of the media toward
Speaker 1: the opioid epidemic because they don't view white working class
Speaker 1: Americans as victims of anything. So there is a sense that,
Speaker 1: especially in elite media corridors New York, DC, LA, that
Speaker 1: people that are caught up in the opioid epidemic it's
Speaker 1: on them to deal with it and get beyond it,
Speaker 1: that there's no need to raise the alarm. So and
Speaker 1: if you think that I'm being too harsh, just tell me,
Speaker 1: why is it that you've seen so much more coverage
Speaker 1: and fervent coverage. I mean people acting like it's the apocalypse,
Speaker 1: over climate change or over any number of issues, then
Speaker 1: you do over something that is a public health crisis
Speaker 1: that has direct to illegal immigration, by the way, obviously
Speaker 1: enormous impact on law enforcement. They don't tell these stories.
Speaker 1: They don't want the American people to focus on this
Speaker 1: because it doesn't fit into a narrative of the media likes.
Speaker 1: It's just the truth, and it's uncomfortable to think about
Speaker 1: because there are so many people who have lost their
Speaker 1: lost their lives. This I had to I've mentioned this
Speaker 1: before on air. I had two very good friends of
Speaker 1: mine growing up here in New York City who both
Speaker 1: died of what were accidental prescription drug overdoses. Not I
Speaker 1: was never told specifically what the drugs were, but there
Speaker 1: are only so many drugs that one can be prescribed
Speaker 1: that are likely candidates for a possible overdose. One happened
Speaker 1: when I was in college. One happened right after college,
Speaker 1: so and I still remember being at one of those
Speaker 1: funerals and seeing that family and hearing the father give
Speaker 1: the eulogy for his son, and it was completely heartbreaking.
Speaker 1: I still remember the sounds that he made to this
Speaker 1: day at that microphone, and it haunts me to this day.
Speaker 1: So the opioid epidemic is something that you would think
Speaker 1: journalists would really want to dig into and try to raise,
Speaker 1: not just raise awareness, raise public action, raise public funds,
Speaker 1: and by the way, raising awareness of something that does
Speaker 1: have an individual action component is really useful. People should
Speaker 1: know that one pill, one pill can kill you. They
Speaker 1: should know that. I don't think everyone knows that. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that till a few years ago. I had
Speaker 1: assumed that if you were overdosing on opioids, you must
Speaker 1: have been Look, I'll just say it, you must have
Speaker 1: been an addict. You know that it was primarily something
Speaker 1: that would affect people who were who were almost you know, junkies.
Speaker 1: It's just not true affects people that take the drugs
Speaker 1: because they're prescribed and then they developed dependence. And if
Speaker 1: people die because they take the drug one time more
Speaker 1: than they should or one time and the dosage just
Speaker 1: wasn't wasn't properly, you know, properly meet it out because
Speaker 1: they're doing it recreationally and they certainly shouldn't because it's very,
Speaker 1: very dangerous. So there's just there's a lot more to it.
Speaker 1: And yet look at how upset the Libs get when
Speaker 1: they talk about climate change versus the opioid epidemic, which
Speaker 1: they treat the opioid epidemic like it's, you know, the
Speaker 1: same as dealing with traffic fatalities or something. There's much
Speaker 1: there should be much more urgency in this issue. But
Speaker 1: all right, let's see we have Adam who writes buck
Speaker 1: on the millennials, strangely talking all taking all the factor
Speaker 1: into account and deciding tear down the mountain instead of climate.
Speaker 1: From their point of view, with crushing debt and all avenues, difficult,
Speaker 1: not impossible, one might say, I'm not playing shields high
Speaker 1: Adam usually very astute, not really sure what you're going
Speaker 1: for here, by you write again, my friend, maybe I'm
Speaker 1: just a little, a little distracted that I've got I've
Speaker 1: got a lot on my mind, which usually the good
Speaker 1: thing about radio is that it forces you to focus
Speaker 1: on not things that are in your own personal life
Speaker 1: on your mind for the most part, but sometimes especially
Speaker 1: for the end of the show, can creep in, like, oh,
Speaker 1: I've still I've still got to deal with that thing.
Speaker 1: Steven Right's best action movie is Raid two. Check it
Speaker 1: out well, Stephen. It sounds like something used to kill cockroaches.
Speaker 1: In fact, I believe it is something used to kill
Speaker 1: cockroaches thrucer mark fact check. I'm right, aren't I? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I use right to kill cockroaches exactly. So Raid two
Speaker 1: doesn't sound that awesome just based on that. But I
Speaker 1: suppose we could look beyond that and see what is
Speaker 1: next on the best action movie list. Perhaps then Buck
Speaker 1: I personally cannot wait until the podcast is out earlier,
Speaker 1: so that I'm not at the mercy of my low station.
Speaker 1: Also be interested in seeing the Buckman in action when
Speaker 1: you get your video stream. All that and an email
Speaker 1: address too. Talk about safe and warm. I truly enjoy
Speaker 1: your second with Sean Parnell. I too, love the Jack
Speaker 1: Reacher book series. I certainly have to check out Shawn's
Speaker 1: books as well. Shields High. Yeah, I mean, Van, thank
Speaker 1: you for your kind words about it. The thing about
Speaker 1: doing a second with Shawn is we're friends. We've been
Speaker 1: friend now for years. So it's fun when you get
Speaker 1: to do work like that with a friend, you know,
Speaker 1: when you get to sit and have a conversation. And
Speaker 1: that's part of part of what my job is here,
Speaker 1: which is just to do a show. And Shaan's just
Speaker 1: he's such a good guy. He's never there's no false
Speaker 1: bravado in him. I mean, he was a decorated combat
Speaker 1: veteran and he was right right in this stuff. And
Speaker 1: you hang out with them, you have a burger, you know,
Speaker 1: you have a drink, and you're just like, this guy
Speaker 1: is totally cool and chill and nice dude. Nice dude,
Speaker 1: and it writes great books. I mean, the Outlaw Platoon
Speaker 1: is fantastic. I might. I might read some fiction just
Speaker 1: so I can read my buddy Sean Parnell's book. I
Speaker 1: might actually put it into the mix. I'm very It's
Speaker 1: very rare for me to do fiction, very rare. I've
Speaker 1: done it in recent years, but it's not a usual thing.
Speaker 1: Buckman shields High and the Shield. I think it's fate.
Speaker 1: This is from Benny. Shield was great on the first show.
Speaker 1: That conflicted me mentally and emotionally because I found myself
Speaker 1: rooting for Vic even though he is clearly not a
Speaker 1: good guy the way I expect law enforcement protagonist to
Speaker 1: be happy viewing Benny in Mississippi. All right, I mean
Speaker 1: the Shield is going to have to get I don't
Speaker 1: know where I can watch it exactly, so I gotta
Speaker 1: I gotta check it out. I gotta make it, gotta
Speaker 1: make it happen. Kyle, do you know it's probably as
Speaker 1: I gotta be on Hulu or Netflix, gotta be one
Speaker 1: of the other Kyle rides Buck. I have a ton
Speaker 1: of professional respect for General Mattis that being said, I
Speaker 1: think the American public has a tendency to revere their
Speaker 1: generals too much because they're perceived to be different and
Speaker 1: ahaps more respectable than our politicians. A clause of its
Speaker 1: observed that war is just a continuation of politics by
Speaker 1: other means. So if we consider our generals to have
Speaker 1: mastered the art of war, then we shouldn't forget that
Speaker 1: by extension, many have also risen to that rank in
Speaker 1: part by mastering the art of politics. And as any
Speaker 1: adept politician knows, the perception of persona you create for
Speaker 1: others is an important component of the political process. I'm
Speaker 1: sure someone as well read as General Mattis is quite
Speaker 1: aware of that. Yes, you know, I agree with you,
Speaker 1: my friend. I think that the Kyle, I mean, no
Speaker 1: one can ever take away, nor should they try to,
Speaker 1: the really outstanding career of service to his country the
Speaker 1: General Madnis Habit. That doesn't mean that he's an emperor,
Speaker 1: god king. It doesn't mean that he can't be wrong,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't mean that sometimes perhaps he focuses a
Speaker 1: bit more on his own reputation and image then one
Speaker 1: would expect for a your military figure. I mean, at
Speaker 1: that level, you are talking about somebody who's acting often
Speaker 1: like a has to be acting like a politician when
Speaker 1: you're somebody who's running a combat in command when you're
Speaker 1: somebody who's the Secretary of Defense. Politics is a reality
Speaker 1: of your day to day life, so I think it's
Speaker 1: impossible to completely extricate that. That's going to be it
Speaker 1: here in the Hut. For today, we're getting our countdown
Speaker 1: to earlier podcasts, So please everybody download the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I'd rather subscribe to the Buck Sexton Show on iTunes.
Speaker 1: Just go on your iTunes and type in the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, or however you listen to podcasts, subscribe there
Speaker 1: because you're going to start seeing it popping into your
Speaker 1: feed by three Eastern with the next two weeks exciting stuff.
Speaker 1: Shields Eye