Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Joined the conversation
Speaker 1: and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram, or email team bucket
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. He may read it on the show.
Speaker 1: We warned you about this, told you that this was coming,
Speaker 1: that the Democrats weren't going to respect any of the
Speaker 1: rules of the road, that there wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: some coming together or unity. That didn't last long at all,
Speaker 1: did it. They couldn't even go a couple of months
Speaker 1: pretending that Biden was really going to unify the country. Now,
Speaker 1: that was what people were sold, right. We were in
Speaker 1: a very difficult year, the pandemic. Folks were scared, and
Speaker 1: in response, the media knew, the Democrat Party knew they
Speaker 1: had to put a guy who just seemed somewhat non
Speaker 1: threatening forward and who promised to be America's grandfather. You know,
Speaker 1: just no joke here. I am Joe Biden. And we
Speaker 1: see what that really results in. And it's just the progressive,
Speaker 1: left wing administration that you would have gotten with any
Speaker 1: number of other Democrat candidates. In fact, I kind of
Speaker 1: wish it had been Bernie Sanders instead, so at least
Speaker 1: they'd be honest about their socialist intent. But another place
Speaker 1: where there's not a lot of honesty these days is online.
Speaker 1: There are people who are doing a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: things you need to be aware of. They're targeting you.
Speaker 1: For one, they want to get access to your private
Speaker 1: information to sell you know, that's happening everything you're doing online.
Speaker 1: That's happening all the time too. There are people that
Speaker 1: are trying to get access to your information to steal
Speaker 1: it to make money, meaning that they're going to actually
Speaker 1: take your credit card or whatever they can get off
Speaker 1: your computer and engage in criminal fraud. And then you've
Speaker 1: also got, on top of all that the censorship from
Speaker 1: big tech and from the social media companies. How can
Speaker 1: you protect yourself from this? It's actually really easy. Express VPN.
Speaker 1: Express VPN gives you a virtual private network. Of virtual
Speaker 1: private network means that you have protection for your web activities.
Speaker 1: Everything you're doing on your phone your laptop can be
Speaker 1: protected from snooping, from spying, from theft because they encrypt
Speaker 1: your data and they hide your IP address so that
Speaker 1: companies can't just track and spy on you. It's so easy.
Speaker 1: It costs you less than six bucks a month, give
Speaker 1: or take, and you just download the app to your phone,
Speaker 1: you set it up and you're protected. You need this
Speaker 1: level of protection and Express VPN is by far the
Speaker 1: best in the business. Stop handing over your data to
Speaker 1: big tech companies. Go to the VPN that I trust
Speaker 1: for online protection. Visit Express vpn dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: to get three months free on a one year package.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash buck to get three
Speaker 1: extra months free Express vpn dot com slashbuck right now
Speaker 1: to learn more. We keep telling ourselves that they won't
Speaker 1: go all the way right, That's what the Conservatives, that's
Speaker 1: what the go along to get along GOP wants to
Speaker 1: tell themselves at nights so that they can sleep and
Speaker 1: that they won't worry that much about the future of
Speaker 1: the country. And yet the Democrats show their hand and
Speaker 1: sure enough, institutions respect for our norms. All that stuff
Speaker 1: that they talked about during the Trump administration, it was
Speaker 1: just that empty words in the pursuit of Democrat power.
Speaker 1: I bring you the latest here with Democrats planning to
Speaker 1: unveil a bill that would add Supreme Court justices. That's right,
Speaker 1: a court packing bill, and it's going to go from
Speaker 1: nine to thirteen if they get their way, and I
Speaker 1: just dramatically expand the court. This hasn't happened in over
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty years. And this is a reminder
Speaker 1: of just who the Democrats really are. They are authoritarians.
Speaker 1: They believe in one thing and one thing only, and
Speaker 1: that is the mansion of their power. They are absolutists.
Speaker 1: They act with a certainty that they know what is best.
Speaker 1: They know what is right for everyone in the country.
Speaker 1: They know what's right for you, and you're not really
Speaker 1: allowed to say anything about it. You're just told what
Speaker 1: to do. And if they get a clear majority on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, then there will be no break in
Speaker 1: their minds. Because do you think they're gonna think about
Speaker 1: it this way? You think they go for court packing
Speaker 1: and not break the filibuster. I think you could say
Speaker 1: this is the Democrat break the glass plan. They've decided
Speaker 1: to just go for it. If not, now, when think
Speaker 1: about what they could do here, think about the cast
Speaker 1: scading effect. If they say, well, we're actually gonna We're
Speaker 1: actually gonna pack the Supreme Court, and then they decide, well,
Speaker 1: we've already we've already crossed the rubicon, Because that's exactly
Speaker 1: what this is this is the rubicon my ends for
Speaker 1: our government. And they say, well, we've already done that,
Speaker 1: so why not take it a step further and also
Speaker 1: get rid of the filibuster, So then you would have
Speaker 1: no legislative check on the Democrat Party and no judicial
Speaker 1: check on the Democrat Party. Are they could get rid
Speaker 1: of both of these? They could very easily do this
Speaker 1: if they want to. And really what may happen, of course,
Speaker 1: is they do the filibuster first and then do the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court bill. But these are the steps that they
Speaker 1: can take to create a one party state. And I
Speaker 1: want I want you to ask yourself this question. Now,
Speaker 1: put aside what you think is normative, put aside what
Speaker 1: you think we're supposed to believe. If the Democrat Party could,
Speaker 1: if the Democrat Party could get rid of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party right now in one fell swoop, couldn't they do that?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't they do that? Right? What would stop them? You
Speaker 1: don't think they'd want to get rid of Republicans. You
Speaker 1: don't think that they would like to be a party
Speaker 1: with seventy or eighty percent control of the electorate. And
Speaker 1: then then there's this gop, this rump, this old vestige
Speaker 1: of a GOP that exists as just the controlled opposition
Speaker 1: that happens in other democracies around the world. You know,
Speaker 1: this is not something that's unprecedented. A one party state
Speaker 1: with no real check on the control of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: and at that point it just grows and grows. We've
Speaker 1: already got an open border, friends, We've already got modern
Speaker 1: monetary theory at work. As far as the Democrats are concerned,
Speaker 1: spend whatever they want to spend. Where are we able
Speaker 1: to slow them down? Where is our tag resistance? Well,
Speaker 1: as you're seeing, doesn't doesn't seem very effective at all,
Speaker 1: doesn't haven't been able to really figure out how to
Speaker 1: get this going. And those of us who were warning
Speaker 1: about this from the very beginning now point to this
Speaker 1: and just say we told you, for those independence for
Speaker 1: those never Trump or Republicans, for whatever moderate Democrats that
Speaker 1: are in the country, you don't get a moderate administration
Speaker 1: just because you have an old, boring politico like Joe
Speaker 1: Biden at the top. That's not what happens with the
Speaker 1: modern Democrat Party. That's not how this goes. And all
Speaker 1: the things that we talk about that the Democrats want
Speaker 1: to do, the most radical Green New Deal agenda, that
Speaker 1: taking of your guns. What's to stop them if they
Speaker 1: eliminate the filibuster, which they can they can very well do.
Speaker 1: What's to stop them if they eliminate the filibuster? And
Speaker 1: if they pack the Supreme Court from enacting any part
Speaker 1: of their agenda, Who's going to tell them no? And
Speaker 1: I sit here and I'm very frustrated, of course by
Speaker 1: what happened in the last election, and the fact that
Speaker 1: we have to come to grips as a party, with
Speaker 1: the fact that we are in a very weak position
Speaker 1: right now, right after having a president that we believe
Speaker 1: to be part of the beginning of a political movement.
Speaker 1: Now I think there's a comeback in our future. And
Speaker 1: if I were to have guessed after this last election,
Speaker 1: when would we feel, I'll just say it, feel the
Speaker 1: most depressed to be a conservative, it was going to
Speaker 1: be right about starting now and going into the fall.
Speaker 1: Here's my case for optimism, though, because yeah, right right,
Speaker 1: right at this moment, it feels pretty bleak. I get it.
Speaker 1: But here's my case for optimism. The Democrats aren't good
Speaker 1: at governing. In fact, the greatest enemy that the Biden
Speaker 1: administration has is the observation of the American people with
Speaker 1: respect to what Joe Biden's doing. There is nothing, There
Speaker 1: is nothing that will make people turn on this administration
Speaker 1: more than actually having to live through the policies and
Speaker 1: decision making of the socialist Democrat apparatus. That is the
Speaker 1: single best machine for Republican turnout and for flipping independence
Speaker 1: and even some moderate Democrats to our side in the midterms.
Speaker 1: What's going on at the southern border, where I will
Speaker 1: be next week for a few days, is a disaster,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats cannot and will not stop it. What's
Speaker 1: going on with our spending will lead to inflation. This
Speaker 1: will lead to real economic pain for people, particularly the
Speaker 1: particularly those who live off of wages and have been
Speaker 1: trying to save money, to try to build assets, to
Speaker 1: get ahead of the paycheck to paycheck cycle that so
Speaker 1: many millions of Americans are in. It's going to hurt
Speaker 1: them because everything food, gas, housing gets more expensive. These
Speaker 1: things are going to occur. And never mind the foreign
Speaker 1: policy challenges that we're seeing a rise here, the Biden
Speaker 1: team is simply not up to it. Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: not up to it. You think this is a smart guy,
Speaker 1: You think this is somebody who really has wisdom and
Speaker 1: good judgment. He never did before now, and even the
Speaker 1: Democrats knew it. But we're supposed to forget all of that.
Speaker 1: We're to pretend that Joe Biden's actually a winner just
Speaker 1: because he happened to win this last election after losing
Speaker 1: so many attempts before to be president, because he was
Speaker 1: the man for the moment of fraud that the Democrats
Speaker 1: were perpetrating against the American people, pretending that we were
Speaker 1: going to get a different administration from what we got.
Speaker 1: Think of all the times they lectured us about how
Speaker 1: Trump was undermining our sacred institutions, and now, in your
Speaker 1: own head, just take a moment to consider what institution
Speaker 1: did Trump really undermine? What institution was Trump willing to
Speaker 1: put through the kind of upheaval the Democrats are talking
Speaker 1: about now, whether it's the filibuster in the Senate or
Speaker 1: even bigger the Supreme Court. I mean, can't Democrats understand
Speaker 1: what this leads to? But there's there's a childishness, a selfishness,
Speaker 1: and a short sightedness at the heart of so much
Speaker 1: of the Democrat parties aid so much of its emotional thinking.
Speaker 1: Harry Reid decided to invoke the nuclear option when they
Speaker 1: had a Senate majority of the Democrats side, and then
Speaker 1: that led to changes the Democrats didn't like, because all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it was a simple majority vote to
Speaker 1: get through judges. They started it, and then when it
Speaker 1: happened exactly as everybody warned it would, that there would
Speaker 1: be an equal and opposite reaction in a sense, to
Speaker 1: their usurpation, to their power grab, and they decided, well,
Speaker 1: now we're just going to just escalate it even more.
Speaker 1: And that's the phase we're in right now. We were
Speaker 1: told they'd never use the nuclear option, and then they did.
Speaker 1: Under the Obama administration, Harry Reid hit the nuke button
Speaker 1: for the filibuster in the Senate on judicial nominees. And
Speaker 1: now we're at a point where they're just saying, maybe
Speaker 1: we should get rid of that entirely, the filibuster, and
Speaker 1: and we should pack the Supreme Court. Do they really
Speaker 1: think that it would stop at thirteen? No, of course
Speaker 1: not the Republican Party. The Republican Party would be a
Speaker 1: bunch of cowards and whimps if they didn't decide the
Speaker 1: next time they were in power that they would add
Speaker 1: a few judges of their own. You know this is
Speaker 1: what happens. Give it. You know ten years you're gonna
Speaker 1: have twenty Supreme Court justices, or you know you have
Speaker 1: to have twenty one. I guess you haven't odd number,
Speaker 1: but you understand what I'm saying. Just keeps ratcheting up
Speaker 1: because they've abandoned shared principle in the pursuit of power
Speaker 1: central to the Democrat ethos these days, they simply don't care.
Speaker 1: And here's the other part of this, and this is
Speaker 1: why I brought up the one party state idea. There
Speaker 1: is a belief among Democrats that if they go scorched
Speaker 1: earth right now, it won't matter. It won't matter what
Speaker 1: the Republican Party thinks or wants to do in response
Speaker 1: when power switches hands, because they think they can prevent
Speaker 1: that from ever happening. That's what really is in the
Speaker 1: back of the minds of the leftist socialist strategists who
Speaker 1: are actually making the calls behind the scenes. Can they
Speaker 1: effectively neuter and cast aside the Republican Party once and
Speaker 1: for all if they just go for it, and under
Speaker 1: the Biden administration, you'll notice it really is just a
Speaker 1: continuation of the Obama administration approach, which was whatever you
Speaker 1: gotta do to win, and whatever you gotta do to
Speaker 1: crush the other side. Break any rules you got to break,
Speaker 1: sick the irs on your political opponents, you know, use
Speaker 1: executive orders in ways that are clearly abusive of constitutional
Speaker 1: separation of powers, and whatever you gotta do, pen and
Speaker 1: a phone, just go for it. I hope everyone is
Speaker 1: waking up to what is happening around us right now.
Speaker 1: As I said, this is the rubicon. The Democrats are
Speaker 1: looking at the water as it rushes by, and the
Speaker 1: only question remains as to what we will do if
Speaker 1: and when they cross it. Parts of our country are
Speaker 1: backsliding into the days of Jim Crow, passing laws that
Speaker 1: harken back to the air of poll taxes on black
Speaker 1: people are made to guess how many beans, how many
Speaker 1: jelly beans in the jar, or count the number of
Speaker 1: bubbles in a bar of soap before they could cast
Speaker 1: her ballot. Backsliding into the days of Jim and Crowe.
Speaker 1: What a horrific, awful, dishonest thing for the President of
Speaker 1: the United States to say, reckless, absolutely reckless demagoguery. But
Speaker 1: this is what Joe Biden has done. His whole career.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is at his core just a slimy fraud.
Speaker 1: He's always just done whatever would be most beneficial for
Speaker 1: him within the Democrat apparatus. That's his whole career. He
Speaker 1: stands for nothing. He stands for Bidenism, which stands for
Speaker 1: whoever is going to either write him the biggest check
Speaker 1: or provide him the biggest political boost. This guy is
Speaker 1: effectively a weather vane. He goes wherever the forces around him.
Speaker 1: He is inept at anything else, and this is why
Speaker 1: he has this long history of gaffs, they say, But
Speaker 1: really the gaffs are just a result of this being
Speaker 1: a man of poor judgment who's not very bright. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's just not a very smart guy. We all know it.
Speaker 1: We all can see it. He's never been impressive in
Speaker 1: any way. I mean to be the senator from a
Speaker 1: state of Delaware, Okay, you know whoop d who cares?
Speaker 1: And yet Joe Biden is President of the United States.
Speaker 1: What a sad state of affairs? Right A? What a
Speaker 1: sad situation. This is Joe Biden saying just destructive things
Speaker 1: at this moment in time when we all know that
Speaker 1: there's an expectation of riots going beyond what's already happening.
Speaker 1: I mean, you think the riots of Minneapolis are bad, now,
Speaker 1: think about what they'll be like next week after the
Speaker 1: Chauvin trial. And now you know, who knows what the
Speaker 1: final outcome will be. I don't believe. I mean, if
Speaker 1: they charge Chauvin with felony murder, I mean they're just
Speaker 1: then now we're just actually going beyond what any reasonable
Speaker 1: person could think to punish people for the benefit of
Speaker 1: the mob. But where a country that now is increasingly
Speaker 1: operating at the whims of the mob. You see this,
Speaker 1: You see how this happens. Look at the response you
Speaker 1: get from our media apparatus. Look at what's said by
Speaker 1: the journos and the elected Democrats, from Biden to Pelosi,
Speaker 1: to Schumer to AOC to to Lead to all of them.
Speaker 1: Look at the way they speak about this movement, this
Speaker 1: BLM movement, and these rioters. Let's just all be honest
Speaker 1: about this. And I've written about this today at buck
Speaker 1: Sex and let's just say it. Riots are self indulgent idiocy.
Speaker 1: Not only do they break laws and hurt people, they
Speaker 1: don't even bring about an outcome of benefit for anyone
Speaker 1: other than a very small circle of elites and activists
Speaker 1: who either cheer this on from afar or gather social
Speaker 1: capital for themselves by making excuses for it. I mean,
Speaker 1: does anybody really think that there has been a single,
Speaker 1: a single benefit from all of this, a single worthwhile
Speaker 1: aspect of it. I mean, put aside for a moment
Speaker 1: the appalling immorality of looting businesses because people are upset,
Speaker 1: or systemic oppression, or whatever childish justification is offered at
Speaker 1: that moment. For baham, right, what has come out of
Speaker 1: BLM that has made anything better for anyone? Could any
Speaker 1: of the BLM organizers name a single concession or change
Speaker 1: resulting from their agitation that actually made lives better? Of
Speaker 1: course not. And let's be honest about this. Defund the
Speaker 1: police is possibly the most moronic, reckless political slogan uttered
Speaker 1: in living memory, but the BLM movement acts as though
Speaker 1: it's the rallying cry of a new civil rights struggle.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's hard to take the BLM activist claim
Speaker 1: seriously when so many times these mostly peaceful protests end
Speaker 1: with mobs stealing sneakers and designer handbags. A healthy nation
Speaker 1: does not feel under siege at the whims of the mob,
Speaker 1: and that is where we are friends. People get angry,
Speaker 1: they take to the streets. Are political class tries to
Speaker 1: placate them or treats them as heroes. They should be
Speaker 1: universally condemned. And it's not about protests. Nobody cares that
Speaker 1: protest all day, get out with your plaque, or do
Speaker 1: whatever you want. Protests are fine, but they know that
Speaker 1: won't actually have the intended effect. Why because their argument
Speaker 1: is weak. What they're claiming that law enforcement is evil
Speaker 1: and racist is not true, and most Americans know that.
Speaker 1: So what do they do. They add a layer of
Speaker 1: intimidation to it. Antifa BLM. They decide that it's not
Speaker 1: just their voices that must be heard. It's the feeling
Speaker 1: of the bricks hitting cops in the face. It's the
Speaker 1: sound of shattered glass from stores in your neighborhood, and
Speaker 1: the sense that you cannot trust the political class to
Speaker 1: protect you and they want to disarm you simultaneously. I
Speaker 1: believed that our presidence in Afghanistan should be focused on
Speaker 1: the reason we went in the first place, to ensure
Speaker 1: Afghanistan would not be used as a base from which
Speaker 1: to attack our homeland. Again, we did that. We accomplished
Speaker 1: that objective. I said, among with others, we'd follow some
Speaker 1: and been laden to the gates of hell if need be.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what we did, and we got him. It
Speaker 1: took us close to ten years to put President Obama's
Speaker 1: commitment in the form, and that's exactly what happened. Well,
Speaker 1: some have been lauden was gone. That was ten years ago.
Speaker 1: Think about that. We delivered justice to have been lauden
Speaker 1: a decade ago, and we've stayed in Afghanistan for a
Speaker 1: decade since he says they're all going to be out.
Speaker 1: All of our troops will be out by September eleventh
Speaker 1: of this year. Should be noted that this is on
Speaker 1: a timeline that was put forward by Trump before the
Speaker 1: Biden administration even came into office. But like I've said before,
Speaker 1: I'm not changing my opinion on this because we have
Speaker 1: a different commander in chief. I think enough is enough,
Speaker 1: and I want to also make sure I'm very clear
Speaker 1: when I say that I believe that the situation Afghanistan
Speaker 1: will will likely deteriorate after US troops are pulled out.
Speaker 1: Now to what extent that's anybody's guests right now, but
Speaker 1: it's it's not going to be good. But we also
Speaker 1: shouldn't establish not only a pattern of staying in a
Speaker 1: country and trying to build it, trying to create stability
Speaker 1: in a foreign country that we don't have an immediate
Speaker 1: national security interest in, and that's putting it, you know,
Speaker 1: that's one way of just saying we can't do this
Speaker 1: nation building thing. And then beyond that, there's always the
Speaker 1: possibility that if you were there, your mission set will
Speaker 1: escalate and the Taliban's not going anywhere. We figured that out.
Speaker 1: There's that old I think it's attributed to mullah Omar
Speaker 1: that you know, we have all the clocks, but they
Speaker 1: have all the time, which is true in a sense.
Speaker 1: And so we're going to go through this process of
Speaker 1: a withdrawal. Remember the Obama administration withdrew from Iraq and
Speaker 1: that did lead to the rise of ISIS and we
Speaker 1: ended up having a huge mess in the region. That
Speaker 1: is also possible here with Afghanistan. We need to be
Speaker 1: very straightforward about that that this could have some rapid
Speaker 1: deterioration and then you'll you'll have another major problem on
Speaker 1: your hands. But the alternative is to just stay there. Forever,
Speaker 1: and all of I can tell you this. I don't
Speaker 1: I'm not doing some official polling or anything like that.
Speaker 1: But all of the Afghan combat vets that I know
Speaker 1: that I've talked to you about this say that they
Speaker 1: just feel like it's it's time. Enough is enough here
Speaker 1: and we need to get out. And so here's Biden
Speaker 1: telling us all that, you know, the Afghans have got
Speaker 1: to take command here and do their thing. Play eight,
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, weeks before we swore the oath
Speaker 1: of office, President Obama and I were about to swear
Speaker 1: President Obama asked me to travel to Afghanistan and report
Speaker 1: back on the state of the war in Afghanistan. I
Speaker 1: flew to Afghanistan to the Kunar Valley, a rugged mountainous
Speaker 1: region on the border with Pakistan. What I saw on
Speaker 1: that trip reinforced my conviction that only the Afghans have
Speaker 1: the right and responsibility to leave their country. And then
Speaker 1: more and endless American military force could not create or
Speaker 1: sustain a durable Afghan government. I believed that our presidence
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan should be focused on the reason we went
Speaker 1: in the first place. The mission has been accomplished in
Speaker 1: afghanist of destroying al Qaeda. For a long time, we
Speaker 1: did transition into this other mission of trying to make
Speaker 1: Afghanistan a successful country that can defend itself and maintain
Speaker 1: its own borders and have a functioning government. And then
Speaker 1: it turned into you know, school for girls and human
Speaker 1: rights and things like this, all worthy goals, but not
Speaker 1: our fight. And there has been no real way to
Speaker 1: take the mission beyond where it's been for about the
Speaker 1: last decade. And I can tell you, having seen the
Speaker 1: assessments at the very highest level from a decade ago
Speaker 1: when I was in the CIA and working in the
Speaker 1: Afghan issue and in Afghanistan for months, that there was
Speaker 1: no realistic plan to get us to the point where
Speaker 1: the conditions based approach would let us leave. There was
Speaker 1: a realistic plan. We kept having people come forward who
Speaker 1: would say, oh, well, we're just going to do this.
Speaker 1: We're gonna train the Afghan Army and we're gonna train
Speaker 1: the Afghan National Police, and somebody would then probably bring
Speaker 1: up in the conference room or wherever. Hey, But that
Speaker 1: was the plan two years ago. And this is where
Speaker 1: we are now, and it's be quiet, We'll do it
Speaker 1: better this time, and it just kept happening and happening.
Speaker 1: So we had the Obama administration, if you remember, search
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand troops at one point in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: massive force escalation. And here we are again having a conversation,
Speaker 1: what can we pull out the last three or four
Speaker 1: thousand soldiers from Afghanistan. You know, they told us if
Speaker 1: we didn't have a bigger military presence in Syria, remember that,
Speaker 1: after we crushed after Trump crushed the Islamic State, there
Speaker 1: was a debate. I remember it, Oh, we need to
Speaker 1: maintain a longer term presence there. I know there's some
Speaker 1: there's some small number of you know, US operators, US
Speaker 1: special forces and others who are still in the region.
Speaker 1: But they did not. There was not this long term,
Speaker 1: large scale military presence to hold it all together, and
Speaker 1: we had to fight against that. I think it's fast
Speaker 1: that Biden is claiming that this decision is not a
Speaker 1: tough one for him. Here's what he said, play six
Speaker 1: hard to say. That wasn't me. It was absolutely clear,
Speaker 1: absolutely clear. We went for two reasons. You real have
Speaker 1: been larned. The man in the safe had from the
Speaker 1: very beginning to take you, Mary call I never thought
Speaker 1: we were there too. Somehow you given the fire right,
Speaker 1: I mean, excuse me a few step. It's never been done.
Speaker 1: It's never been done. It's never it's never been done.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, this is the guy who's making decisions.
Speaker 1: But I'll say this, I think it is. I think
Speaker 1: it's the right decision. But let's frame this in the
Speaker 1: right way. Joe Biden is fulfilling the timeline and the
Speaker 1: plan set forth by the Trump administration before him. And
Speaker 1: I just want to put this out there. Do you
Speaker 1: think there's a very different approach in the way the
Speaker 1: media is covering this? Did you just I mean, I
Speaker 1: know this is a silly question because you know the answer,
Speaker 1: but really, just just take a moment, you know it.
Speaker 1: Is it really the case that our national media believes
Speaker 1: that when Joe Biden does something, it is brilliant, but
Speaker 1: when Trump wanted to do the same thing, or Trump
Speaker 1: wanted to do it before Joe Biden did, it was reckless.
Speaker 1: It was spur of the moment. Oh yes, friends, that
Speaker 1: is absolutely the case. Hats appear to Drew Holden for
Speaker 1: pulling together from a from dec He's a prelance commentary writer.
Speaker 1: Pulling together this thread on Twitter. Here's what he had today,
Speaker 1: President Biden announced his intention. I'm sorry, this is from yesterday,
Speaker 1: to end the war in Afghanistan, a great media fanfare.
Speaker 1: You may remember way back in twenty nineteen and twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: President Trump said the same thing. Let me know if
Speaker 1: you can spot the difference in coverage then versus now.
Speaker 1: When Trump said we were leaving, CNN quoted the NATO
Speaker 1: Secretary General with a stark warning about how dangerous the
Speaker 1: move would be. But when Biden's decision was announced, well,
Speaker 1: that one was different. Here here's here is the way
Speaker 1: CNN covered. I mean, this is a fun game, isn't it.
Speaker 1: CNN covered Trump's announcement of the desire to withdraw from Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Quote NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenborg or I guess it's yen's.
Speaker 1: Stoltenberg issued a stark warning that any premature withdrawal from
Speaker 1: Afghanistan could be dangerous a day after reports that President
Speaker 1: Trump is eyeing a troop drawn out against the advice
Speaker 1: of the nation's top military official. So Trump says it,
Speaker 1: and they CNN runs off to NATO and NATO's secretary
Speaker 1: General and then just has this general. You know, America's
Speaker 1: top military officials disagree. So basically Trump is reckless. Trump
Speaker 1: is doing this, okay, CNN when Joe Biden announces it. Quote.
Speaker 1: As President Biden prepares to lay out his plan to
Speaker 1: withdraw US troops from Afghanistan, a source familiar with his
Speaker 1: thinking tells CNN's Christiane am Umpur that he thinks no
Speaker 1: amount of US troops in the country could be a
Speaker 1: game changer anymore. So it's just when Biden does it,
Speaker 1: it's let's let's tell everybody. What is thinking is, let's
Speaker 1: be the pr team for a president Joe Biden. But
Speaker 1: when Trump announced that, it's let's go to a foreigner
Speaker 1: and get his opinion and then say that the whole
Speaker 1: US military apparatus is opposed against him, it's amazing. On
Speaker 1: CNN yesterday, this is just reckless and it is really risky,
Speaker 1: says Brett Bruin of Trump's planned to withdraw troops from
Speaker 1: Iraq and Afghanistan. You're not sharing information with the incoming administration,
Speaker 1: so the likelihood that something could go wrong is very
Speaker 1: very high. CNN reporting That was when Trump announced it.
Speaker 1: CNN reporting on Biden's announcement. Former President Obama praised President
Speaker 1: Biden's bold leadership for his decision to withdraw US troops
Speaker 1: from Afghanistan by September eleventh, saying that it is time
Speaker 1: to recognize that we've accomplished all that we can military
Speaker 1: and military in America's longest war. A little more here, CNN.
Speaker 1: Diplomats worried Trump's desire to withdraw US troops risk success
Speaker 1: of Afghan Taliban talks. CNN Again, President Biden has announced
Speaker 1: his decision to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan before September eleventh.
Speaker 1: The twentieth anniversity of the terrorist attacks in the World
Speaker 1: Trade Center and the Pentagon that led the US into
Speaker 1: its longest war. All right, let's now, let's look over
Speaker 1: the New York Times. Let's look over the New York
Speaker 1: Times news analysis. The Taliban wanted the US to leave Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: Turkey wanted the US out of Syria, and North Korea
Speaker 1: wanted them to stop military exercise with South Korea. Trump has,
Speaker 1: to some extent obliged all three, but without getting much
Speaker 1: in return. New York Times, we went to war in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened twenty years ago.
Speaker 1: President Biden said, I'm announcing a full withdrawal from the
Speaker 1: country that cannot explain why we should remain there in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty one. I mean, it just it just goes
Speaker 1: on and on and on the way see that. But
Speaker 1: this is a clinic in the propaganda from the Democrat media.
Speaker 1: You see, when Trump announces something, let's get all of
Speaker 1: the quote experts and former you know, former Obama regime
Speaker 1: officials and other you know, internationalist foreigners together, and let's
Speaker 1: have them trash the decision that Trump makes. But then
Speaker 1: the same decision under Biden. It's let's just let Biden's
Speaker 1: words be heard, and let's present this as statesmanship. How
Speaker 1: anyone can think that CNN still qualifies as a news
Speaker 1: organization that even makes a pretense of being objective is
Speaker 1: just is just beyond imagination, right, I mean, how anyone
Speaker 1: could cling to such an obvious fiction is just flatly embarrassing.
Speaker 1: But there are people, and a lot of them live
Speaker 1: here in New York where I am, or they live
Speaker 1: in washingtonc they live in LA. They still think CNN
Speaker 1: is you know, where the real information and journalism gets done.
Speaker 1: Don't China administer rations tough talk has been welcome, but
Speaker 1: it's proposal to cut defense spending after inflation suggests there's
Speaker 1: less interest in walking. The walk will not keep pace
Speaker 1: with China and Russia by cutting defense spending to place
Speaker 1: a fringe parts of the far left. The American people need,
Speaker 1: and they deserve, a foreign policy that puts our security,
Speaker 1: our partners, and our interests ahead of the reflective desire
Speaker 1: to break with the last four years at any cost,
Speaker 1: at any cost. If this administration wants a successful legacy
Speaker 1: on the world stage, if they want accomplishments that will endure,
Speaker 1: they need to put American strength back at the center
Speaker 1: and come back to a bipartisan mainstream. Ah yes, Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: the bipartisan mainstream in our foreign policy. And that's what
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about now. Now when it comes
Speaker 1: to strength abroad, What are the central principles, the central
Speaker 1: tenets of Trumpist foreign policy? If you will, it's America first, right,
Speaker 1: That's where you start from. So is this in America's interest?
Speaker 1: Does this work, this decision work for the American people?
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, who are friends? Who are enemies?
Speaker 1: Do they know the difference and does the difference matter?
Speaker 1: And that's a very straightforward place I think for US
Speaker 1: to start on all these issues. Russia right now, let's
Speaker 1: just take a look around. Russia is getting more aggressive
Speaker 1: against Ukraine. Has put out a very a very clear,
Speaker 1: saber rattling statement about how the US should not deploy
Speaker 1: some of its naval forces around Crimea. And now it's
Speaker 1: it's been reported today the bidenministration is actually backing off that,
Speaker 1: but going to announce more sanctions, more targeted sanctions and
Speaker 1: expelling some diplomats is anyonething that's going to do anything,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, let's be honest, we had four
Speaker 1: years of Russia hysteria. Now a democrat comes into office
Speaker 1: and Russia's getting more aggressive than when Trump was in
Speaker 1: office against US and NATO and European interests in general.
Speaker 1: But you're hearing it very muted criticism of what's going
Speaker 1: on here from the Democrat side of things, because what
Speaker 1: do they really want to do? Ultimately, the Democrat mindset
Speaker 1: about foreign policy runs into this problem. The world is
Speaker 1: a dangerous place and there are bad actors and bad
Speaker 1: people in it, and you have to be willing to
Speaker 1: make them face consequences for that. And they have to
Speaker 1: believe you're willing to do that. Otherwise it's all just
Speaker 1: sitting around talking over lattes at you know, Davos or
Speaker 1: in Brussels or wherever, having a bunch of diplomats, you know,
Speaker 1: chit chatting while the bad guys just do what they
Speaker 1: want to do. What do you think the Chinese approach
Speaker 1: is going to be to the Biden administration. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this right now, I am betting
Speaker 1: on Chinese ascendency against this Biden foreign policy team for
Speaker 1: the next four years. And I don't like to say
Speaker 1: that as an American, but I think that's what we're
Speaker 1: heading for. And then on the Republican side, we need
Speaker 1: to remember that the foreign policy establishment for the GOP
Speaker 1: is still largely dominated by Bush holdovers and neo cons
Speaker 1: and interventionists, people who think that, you know, US military
Speaker 1: power should be projected around the world in ways that
Speaker 1: don't immediately benefit US interests, and there's always another country
Speaker 1: to invade. Me. I look at Iran and I get
Speaker 1: worried because there are still people think, you know, let's
Speaker 1: take this generally militarily insignificant and economically battered country and
Speaker 1: let's consider how we could maybe invade and overthrow and
Speaker 1: do a rock two point Oh. There are still people,
Speaker 1: I can assure you, unfortunately, who believe that more data
Speaker 1: coming out about where we are vaccinations and how effective
Speaker 1: they are and what the risks are and everything else,
Speaker 1: And I don't know what to tell you. Then I
Speaker 1: keep being right, and the Fauci it's keep being wrong.
Speaker 1: It's it's a really consistent, a consistent situation at this
Speaker 1: point just continues on like that, and I'm hoping more
Speaker 1: and more people wake up to this. It's been so
Speaker 1: damaging the way that they've shut down our ability to
Speaker 1: actually speak about this on the or in the public
Speaker 1: forum that is the digital town square that the social
Speaker 1: media folks have made these decisions. But I'm gonna keep pushing.
Speaker 1: I'm going to keep pushing even though it hurts. It
Speaker 1: hurts my bottom line, hurts my reach, hurts, my ability
Speaker 1: to push my podcast and other things out there on
Speaker 1: social media platforms, because I think this issue is too important.
Speaker 1: My own digital team, my own people say, Buck, you
Speaker 1: got to lay off the Fauci stuff or else. You know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get throttled, We're gonna get shadow band. We've
Speaker 1: already been and I say, I'm sorry, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to do that. I'm not going to back off this.
Speaker 1: It's too important. It's also really important that you know
Speaker 1: how to take care of HR issues in your company
Speaker 1: effectively and inexpensively, because when you're running a business, as
Speaker 1: you know, especially for all the small business owners out
Speaker 1: there listening to this right now, HR issues can kill you.
Speaker 1: You got wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations,
Speaker 1: and HR manager salaries are not cheap, paying about an
Speaker 1: average of seventy thousand dollars a year. Bambi spelled b
Speaker 1: Ambee was created specifically for small business. You can get
Speaker 1: a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your
Speaker 1: compliance all for just ninety nine dollars a month. With Bamby,
Speaker 1: you can change HR from your biggest liability to your
Speaker 1: biggest strength month to month, no hidden fees. Cancel any
Speaker 1: time you didn't start your business because you wanted to
Speaker 1: spend time on HR compliance. Let bamb help get your
Speaker 1: free HR audit today. Go to bambie dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck right now to schedule your free HR audit. That's
Speaker 1: Bambie dot com, slash buck b ambee dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: The numbers are in on vaccine infection rate, meaning people
Speaker 1: who have been vaccinated and still have some COVID infection.
Speaker 1: Who wants to Who wants to guess? Whether the numbers
Speaker 1: indicate that this is something that justifies continued masking and
Speaker 1: other restrictions for those who are vaccine Who wants to guess?
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering if you think you think it's incredibly rare,
Speaker 1: A little bit rare, yeah, point zero zero eight. If
Speaker 1: you do some back of the napkin math on this one,
Speaker 1: you've got about sixty some odd million Americans vaccinated so
Speaker 1: far and five thousand cases of infection according to the
Speaker 1: CDC's that's where the number currently stands. That's pretty remarkable,
Speaker 1: isn't it. That's a pretty astonishing, astonishingly low number of
Speaker 1: people who and this is great news. Let me just
Speaker 1: say this is great news. We are now we're looking
Speaker 1: at real world data. And if you if you get
Speaker 1: the vaccine, you got like a one in ten thousand
Speaker 1: chance of still getting infected, And if you get infected
Speaker 1: after getting the vaccine, your chances you know, even less
Speaker 1: than that. I mean, you know, I haven't crunched the
Speaker 1: numbers on that one, but maybe one or one on
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand, maybe one in a million that you
Speaker 1: will die if you get COVID after getting the vaccine, right,
Speaker 1: So you know, there's a lot of different layers, you're
Speaker 1: a lot of different levels. If somebody is vaccinated and
Speaker 1: yes they technically contract COVID, but they end up having
Speaker 1: a mild version of the disease, Okay, well that's still
Speaker 1: a win, especially if they're an older person who is
Speaker 1: at higher risk. So why is there still this this
Speaker 1: unease and this unwillingness to allow people to go back
Speaker 1: to a normal life. Remember Fauci said just recently, you
Speaker 1: know you shouldn't you shouldn't eat indoors, avoid congregate settings
Speaker 1: for vaccinated people. They are taking away your rights. They're
Speaker 1: taking away and forget about even just a right. They're
Speaker 1: taking away your ability to live a normal life based
Speaker 1: on one in ten thousand and above risk factors. They're
Speaker 1: taking away your ability to live a normal life because
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to make basic risk risk analysis decisions
Speaker 1: for yourself. This is tyrannical. I mean, this is not
Speaker 1: it's not an overseaming. This is crazy. These people are
Speaker 1: out of their minds, and it's wrong what they're doing.
Speaker 1: It's wrong and people should understand it as such. They're not,
Speaker 1: you know, careful trying to save all the lives and
Speaker 1: be a good public health servant or whatever. No, this
Speaker 1: is their mentality, the endless busybodying of the American people
Speaker 1: being a hall monitorization of America is almost complete now,
Speaker 1: where you have people who really think that they should
Speaker 1: be walking around outside double masked after being vaccinated. And
Speaker 1: when people like me point out how stupid that is,
Speaker 1: I'm attacked. You don't care if people die. Social media
Speaker 1: shuts down my accounts. Fauci. Fauci has had to address
Speaker 1: the rare instances of people who are vaccinated getting infected.
Speaker 1: I want to walk you through some of the not
Speaker 1: so good doctor, the little fascist Fauci, the lab coat tyrant.
Speaker 1: We're walking through his explanation here and then and then
Speaker 1: we can all talk about how, okay, why are they
Speaker 1: coming to the conclusions they're coming to based on what
Speaker 1: we know about this. Here's how we starts. Thank you
Speaker 1: very much, doctor Lensky. I'd like to spend a few
Speaker 1: minutes now talking about the concept of breakthrough infections. Could
Speaker 1: I have the first slide. I think it'll be important
Speaker 1: to put this into perspective. It's very important with some definitions.
Speaker 1: A breakthrough infection or a vaccine failure is when a
Speaker 1: person contracts an infection despite being vaccinated against it. We
Speaker 1: see this with all vaccines in clinical trials and in
Speaker 1: the real world. No vaccine is one hundred efficacious or effective,
Speaker 1: which means that you will always see breakthrough infections regardless
Speaker 1: of the efficacy of your vaccine. Let's stop right there.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing as a one percent effective vaccine. Okay,
Speaker 1: doesn't exist. So let's just remember that. So anyone who's
Speaker 1: sayingvaccines not one hundred percent effective, that's never going to happen.
Speaker 1: It has never happened, it will never happen. So this
Speaker 1: is all about risk assessment and analysis. There is no
Speaker 1: perfect safety does not exist. So when anyone's saying, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know the vaccine it's only ninety five percent,
Speaker 1: there's still five percent of people getting factored. So we
Speaker 1: still have to wear the masks. They are emotionally unwell,
Speaker 1: they have been brainwashed. Okay, that's what's going on. That's
Speaker 1: the situation as it's playing out. So let's continue here
Speaker 1: with Fauci as he's explaining more about the truth of
Speaker 1: vaccines according to the CDC and the health experts out there.
Speaker 1: Here's what he says. There has primary vaccine failure when
Speaker 1: the body actually doesn't amount an adequate immune response for
Speaker 1: a number of reasons. Could be immune status, health status, age,
Speaker 1: medications you're on, or something wrong with the vaccine storage, delivery, composition.
Speaker 1: Secondary vaccine failure may occur when immunity fades over time. Now,
Speaker 1: a vaccine may fail also if a person is exposed
Speaker 1: to a newer, a different strain, or a variant. For example,
Speaker 1: influenzas the most common of this, which mutates rapidly in
Speaker 1: drifts genetically generally from season to season. However, even if
Speaker 1: a vaccine fails to protect against infection, it often protects
Speaker 1: against serious disease. Now, this is important. One area that
Speaker 1: I'm telling you there's been an intentional that there's been
Speaker 1: a decision not to update the public on is this
Speaker 1: notion of asymptomatic spread. Asymptomatic spread certainly does happen from
Speaker 1: what we know, but it's very difficult to separate truly
Speaker 1: asymptomatic spread from say, pre symptomatic spread, meaning that you're
Speaker 1: somebody like For example, when I got COVID, I have
Speaker 1: felt a little off, but I didn't feel sick. I
Speaker 1: would say about a day or two before I got wrecked.
Speaker 1: And some of you who were listening to the show
Speaker 1: remember that I essentially found out that I felt like
Speaker 1: I was really sick, and then I found out I
Speaker 1: had COVID while I was doing the radio show. But
Speaker 1: I had felt a little iffy for a day or
Speaker 1: two before then, and I was very concerned that I
Speaker 1: had seen some friends and family members in that period
Speaker 1: of time and that I was worried that that they
Speaker 1: could have been exposed. Fortunately, nobody I was in close
Speaker 1: contact with came down with any illness, and I have
Speaker 1: both my parents are vaccinated. And I was a very
Speaker 1: happy day when, you know, the threshold period had passed
Speaker 1: when I didn't have to think about whether I know
Speaker 1: my parents might have been exposed to COVID. Unbeknownst to
Speaker 1: me that I had had it, but I was pre
Speaker 1: symptomatic before I got I got, you know, walloped by it.
Speaker 1: But we're led to believe that, oh, you could feel great,
Speaker 1: you can feel fine one hundred percent and you're spreading
Speaker 1: COVID all over the base. Remember when they look at
Speaker 1: the R number, are one means you give it on
Speaker 1: average if you're sick to one other person. That's what
Speaker 1: we're talking about, give it to one other person. And
Speaker 1: if you have a low level of virus in your
Speaker 1: system and your systems handling it very well, it is
Speaker 1: less likely that you will transmit this virus to other people.
Speaker 1: So why I think this really matters is that not
Speaker 1: because what you hear from people, And you know, I
Speaker 1: saw Tucker Carlson. He keeps digging in and I appreciate
Speaker 1: that he's asking these questions. I appreciate that he's raising this.
Speaker 1: He keeps saying, why can't we go back to normal
Speaker 1: if the vaccine works? And I agree with this premise.
Speaker 1: The answer the left gives that the Fauciites give to
Speaker 1: this is because there's still so much virus out there
Speaker 1: that even a five percent failure rate of the vaccine
Speaker 1: is too high a risk for people to go about
Speaker 1: their lives who have been vaccinated. And to that, I say, bullcrap.
Speaker 1: Now is where we have to start saying we balance
Speaker 1: out risk with our lives. Now is where we have
Speaker 1: to be willing to say enough is enough. We're not
Speaker 1: going to live, you know, in fear. And because if
Speaker 1: you're talking about getting rid of all COVID in the
Speaker 1: community to the point where you don't have to think
Speaker 1: about it, if you're talking about waiting until COVID is
Speaker 1: you know, like like polio or measles or something in
Speaker 1: this country, we are going to be going through lockdowns
Speaker 1: and mitigation and all this stuff for at least another year,
Speaker 1: maybe two or three, who knows, who knows. And then
Speaker 1: there's also the what about the what about the variants? Right?
Speaker 1: What about these other things? Next line? If you look
Speaker 1: get these group of selected vaccines, take a look at
Speaker 1: the chicken pox through shingles, highly highly effective vaccines. If
Speaker 1: you look at influenza, even on a very good year's
Speaker 1: forty to sixty percent effective. But let's drill down on
Speaker 1: that for a second next slide, because it really is
Speaker 1: important to COVID, which are getting to in a moment,
Speaker 1: the benefits of the flu vaccine and the importance of
Speaker 1: hartial protection. If you get vaccinated, no doubt, you're less
Speaker 1: likely to get the flu. But even if you do
Speaker 1: get flu and get sick, vaccination can reduce the severity
Speaker 1: and duration of illness and could help get you out
Speaker 1: of trouble if you get a little bit more granula. Granula. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you see, friends, this is why they don't. This is
Speaker 1: why they don't want to have this debate in public. Now,
Speaker 1: this is why you won't see FOUNC you go on
Speaker 1: Tucker's show, because what they'd have to say is we
Speaker 1: are making arbitrary decisions about what is an acceptable percentage
Speaker 1: of risk of spread in society for you, and that
Speaker 1: they're unreasonable in this. Now we know that you are
Speaker 1: your chance of giving someone COVID. I'm sorry, that's not
Speaker 1: even true. Your chance of getting COVID if your vaccinated
Speaker 1: is one in ten thousand, give or take. Based on
Speaker 1: the CDC zone numbers, your chance of getting is one
Speaker 1: in ten thousand. Your chance of giving it to somebody
Speaker 1: after that one in ten thousand is also lessened because
Speaker 1: you'll have less viral load in your system and you
Speaker 1: are less likely to be infectious. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: this is so deadly among seniors and it's been so
Speaker 1: bad when it gets into nursing homes is that very
Speaker 1: critically ill people in the early phase of the of
Speaker 1: the fight against the virus, are shedding more virus. It
Speaker 1: has taken over more of their system. There's there's a
Speaker 1: higher viral load that they're constantly expelling, and they're around
Speaker 1: those higher risk people. That's why it's so dangerous to
Speaker 1: the elderly. But the Fauciites will not allow an honest,
Speaker 1: open discussion about this, because if if we're not at
Speaker 1: at a place now where we can agree that vaccinated
Speaker 1: people should go back to normal life, when are we
Speaker 1: ever going to be there when our health policy tyrants
Speaker 1: decide that it's okay again. I think that's I think
Speaker 1: that's unacceptable. I think that's not something that we can
Speaker 1: or should concede to them. And it's it's time people
Speaker 1: finally push back and say this is madness, this is crap.
Speaker 1: We can't do this anymore. All right they are. They
Speaker 1: are psychologically breaking millions of people with this outsized fear
Speaker 1: campaign all the time, and the public health experts have failed.
Speaker 1: They have failed to protect us. Their ideas, their policies
Speaker 1: did not get it done. Just look at what happened
Speaker 1: over the last year. Enough is enough. Fauci's a bum,
Speaker 1: and it's time from the go and It's an indication,
Speaker 1: an illustration of just how challenging and diverse this particular
Speaker 1: threat is. We have now over two thousand investigations that
Speaker 1: tie back to the Chinese government, and on the economic
Speaker 1: espionage investigation side alone, it's about a thirteen hundred percent
Speaker 1: increase over the last several years. We're opening a new
Speaker 1: investigation in China every ten hours, and I can assure
Speaker 1: the Committee that's not because our folks don't have anything
Speaker 1: to do with their time. China is going to just
Speaker 1: pillage our economy, our intellectual property, our state secrets, everything
Speaker 1: over the next four years, and has been for many
Speaker 1: years now, already for decades really stretching back to the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties. The Chinese Communist Party is our most aggressive,
Speaker 1: most serious opponent on the world stage. And yet what
Speaker 1: was the focus for the last four years Trump and Russia.
Speaker 1: Remember that Trump and Russia. Oh my gosh. Yeah, they
Speaker 1: just constantly misled people into thinking that there was some collusion.
Speaker 1: And as long as it benefited the elites in DC
Speaker 1: in New York, as long as they felt like their
Speaker 1: their friends, their buddies, we're gonna, you know, grin at
Speaker 1: them at cocktail parties for writing stories about Trump Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: As idiotic and false as that was, they were motivated
Speaker 1: to do it. And so we took our eye off
Speaker 1: off the ball with dealing as a country, not the
Speaker 1: not the Trump administration. As a country. We were much
Speaker 1: less focused on China than we should have been. Trump
Speaker 1: was right to confront China on its trade of practices.
Speaker 1: He was right to take action against the Chinese Communist
Speaker 1: Party and its economy. And now with the Biden administration,
Speaker 1: which you're going to see is just whatever's not Trump
Speaker 1: they will want to do. That's the the guiding light,
Speaker 1: if you will, of the Biden administration. Foreign policy is
Speaker 1: going to be whatever Trump was doing, we're going to
Speaker 1: do the opposite. Whatever Trump says was important, we say
Speaker 1: is unimportant. I've also got one other, one other thing
Speaker 1: here on the Russia collusion delusion, just just breaking today.
Speaker 1: US intelligence has walked back claims that Russians put bounties
Speaker 1: on American troops in Afghanistan. Do you remember that story
Speaker 1: I was during the election, Remember that story that they ran.
Speaker 1: The media ran about how there were Russians that were
Speaker 1: paying the Taliban to kill Americans in Afghanistan and why
Speaker 1: isn't Trump doing more about this? It was a lie, folks,
Speaker 1: A lie. I told you it was at the time.
Speaker 1: You know it a lie. You know what else was
Speaker 1: a lie. The story they ran about how Trump said
Speaker 1: that the people that died serving this country and where
Speaker 1: military cemeteries were losers. Another lie, a smear. And these
Speaker 1: people in the corporate media, they wonder why when they
Speaker 1: kept complaining about how Trump lies so much, we didn't
Speaker 1: listen to them. They wonder why we said, shut up.
Speaker 1: We've heard enough of this from you, okay, Because it's
Speaker 1: always about well, what is this lie? Is the lie
Speaker 1: an inflated opinion? Is the lie something unimportant? Or is
Speaker 1: it something meant to really mislead on an important issue
Speaker 1: so that Democrats can get away with more of their nonsense.
Speaker 1: These are the questions that we need to ask. These
Speaker 1: are the things that come up and require our attention.
Speaker 1: But yeah, us intel, it's the Daily Beast. The Daily
Speaker 1: Beast is one of the most trash publications online, which
Speaker 1: is remarkable when you think about it. But it's true.
Speaker 1: The Daily Beast is a garbage website with a lot
Speaker 1: of garbage people writing for it. But now after Biden
Speaker 1: has one it's all over now we're told, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess it wasn't true. There was no Russian bounty
Speaker 1: on Americans in Afghanistans. The Taliban would kill more of
Speaker 1: our soldiers. Just a fabrication, folks, just a rumor that
Speaker 1: they weaponized against Trump intellection season to defeat him. Journalism
Speaker 1: in this country is a laughable, laughable thing. Corporations are
Speaker 1: starting to realize that it's not gonna be a good
Speaker 1: idea to spit in the face a half the country.
Speaker 1: Not in the long term. It's just the early stages
Speaker 1: right now. But I do believe that we have reached
Speaker 1: a turning point and it's going to take time. It's
Speaker 1: going to take care for it. But we can push
Speaker 1: back against them on the other side. And a big
Speaker 1: part of this is going to be pushing back against
Speaker 1: social media. And a way you can do that is
Speaker 1: by denying social media and big tech the ability to
Speaker 1: track you by your IP address. The best way to
Speaker 1: do that is with a VPN. Let me explain what
Speaker 1: a VPN is. It's a virtual private network. It's just
Speaker 1: a way of saying that it's a computer program. Think
Speaker 1: of it almost like anti virus. Back in the day.
Speaker 1: But this is a computer program you download as an
Speaker 1: app and you put it on your phone, and it
Speaker 1: protects your smartphone and your laptops, all of your electronic
Speaker 1: devices from IP tracking so that the big tech companies
Speaker 1: don't know who you are, where you are. And it
Speaker 1: also encrypts your data so that hackers and other thieves
Speaker 1: online can't get access to your stuff. So this is
Speaker 1: about privacy and security of your data. And all you
Speaker 1: have to do is download Express vpn. This is an app.
Speaker 1: You go in the app store, you set it up,
Speaker 1: you'll have it within a minute or two, and then
Speaker 1: you're good. You're protected. Cost about six bucks a month,
Speaker 1: so easy to set up. This is a must for
Speaker 1: your devices. Go to Express vpn dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: and when you sign up with my link, you'll actually
Speaker 1: get three extra months free on a one year package
Speaker 1: Express vpn dot com slash buck. You'll get a great
Speaker 1: deal right now and you'll protect your devices. Express vpn
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck. Let's talk to our friend Pedro Gonzalez.
Speaker 1: He's a senior writer at American Great is going to
Speaker 1: have him way in on all the latest, including this
Speaker 1: court packing scheme that seems to have at least moved
Speaker 1: a little bit down the field. Let's get Pedro in
Speaker 1: the mix. Pedro man, thanks so much. Oh hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: it's always going to be here. So I see this
Speaker 1: and I say, I wonder, at what point, as we
Speaker 1: have effectively an open border, we have what really is
Speaker 1: looking more and more like a modern monetary theory philosophy
Speaker 1: from the Bide administration. The Democrats about spending whatever money
Speaker 1: they want, trillions and trillions of dollars. Everything is infrastructure.
Speaker 1: They're redefining terms. They're taking a scorched earth approach on
Speaker 1: so many things. They talk about elimiting the filibuster, and
Speaker 1: now here we are being told, oh no, they're at
Speaker 1: least taking seriously the idea of a straight up Supreme
Speaker 1: Court packing scheme. When are we going to listen and
Speaker 1: really pay attention to the fact that the other side,
Speaker 1: for all their flaws, Pedro, they mean business, while Republicans
Speaker 1: kind of wring their hands and say, well, where's the moderates? Right, No,
Speaker 1: that's absolutely right. I think this is why I try
Speaker 1: really hard to avoid complaining about double standards. Calling for
Speaker 1: fairness and stability were so far beyond that in reality.
Speaker 1: But nevertheless, you keep hearing the GOP call for that
Speaker 1: every single time the Democratic Party does exactly what they
Speaker 1: said they were going to do. And it's funny because
Speaker 1: maybe that is actually shocking to the GOP people who
Speaker 1: do what they say they're going to do, Because the
Speaker 1: GOP's notorious for backpedaling on issues or finding ways to
Speaker 1: kind of self destruct. The Democratic Party does is too,
Speaker 1: but they're a lot more serious and a lot more committed,
Speaker 1: a lot more ideological, and much more determined to do
Speaker 1: what they say they're going to do. And I think
Speaker 1: the court packing thing illustrates the lengths to which that
Speaker 1: party is willing to go to do what they want
Speaker 1: to reimagine the country. And I think that this makes
Speaker 1: conservatives a little bit uncomfortable the idea of a willingness
Speaker 1: to use power, but that's the world we live in.
Speaker 1: No amount of good arguments and calls for civility things
Speaker 1: like that that's not going to stop the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: In my view, only power checks power, and until the
Speaker 1: GOP or someone figures this out, the Credit Party is
Speaker 1: going to continue doing what it's doing. And I just
Speaker 1: find it remarkable as well, Padro, that what I'll hear
Speaker 1: from so many conservatives, including those who make a living
Speaker 1: sharing their thoughts and the media is, Oh, they would
Speaker 1: never do They would never do that. And you know,
Speaker 1: they would never really push for amnesty, they would never
Speaker 1: really get rid of the filibuster, they would never pack
Speaker 1: the court. I see you're saying, what makes you think
Speaker 1: that what part of their approach, which is having the
Speaker 1: entirety of the media and now corporate woke America on
Speaker 1: their side, breaking norms, up ending institutions, bringing ridiculous impeachments
Speaker 1: against the former president twice in one year? Like what
Speaker 1: what part of their actions makes it seem like they
Speaker 1: care about playing fair right? And I think the law
Speaker 1: of non contradiction doesn't apply here because Conservatives will try
Speaker 1: to catch Democrats contradicting themselves. You know, they held a
Speaker 1: position five years and this year they're demming the GOP
Speaker 1: for it or something like. That doesn't work. They don't
Speaker 1: care that these kinds of rationalistic positions that their conservative movement,
Speaker 1: the GOP thinks are going to protect them and save them,
Speaker 1: they don't work. The Democratic parties is going to run
Speaker 1: over you like they're doing now. It's I guess you
Speaker 1: could say it's shameless in a way what they do,
Speaker 1: but it means it works for them. And maybe one
Speaker 1: reason why the GOP will always put itself in that
Speaker 1: position where they're saying, well, you know, we didn't think
Speaker 1: they were actually going to do what they do is
Speaker 1: because ultimately the GOP will will compromise and kind of
Speaker 1: take the moderate position of the Democratic Party from ten
Speaker 1: minutes ago. So if the Democrats want to pack the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court with fifteen judges or thirteen judges, the Republican
Speaker 1: Party will stand a ForwArt history and demand eleven instead
Speaker 1: of thirteen. It's it's amazing that there is this tendency
Speaker 1: that we see time and again on the right and
Speaker 1: amongkans deservatives to think that just slowing down the Progressives
Speaker 1: a little bit, not even stopping them from their ultimate goal.
Speaker 1: But just you know, we're we're telling the bank robbers
Speaker 1: as they flee in the getaway car, no speeding please. Right, yeah, yes,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. That is and that and that is
Speaker 1: as far as the GOP is concerned, a win, I
Speaker 1: mean like that, that's how they tell their constituents. And
Speaker 1: I think you see this with Christy Nome and Assa Hutchinson.
Speaker 1: Basically telling their constituents, Look, I know you voted for
Speaker 1: me to do what you want, but you have to
Speaker 1: take this loss because it's the it's the best thing
Speaker 1: you're going to get. And actually, I'm taking the very
Speaker 1: moderate position of allowing kids to you know, chemically castrate
Speaker 1: themselves or allowing men to compete in female sports, as
Speaker 1: long as we're taking the fiscally responsible position of not
Speaker 1: having the government subsidize that. We're speaking to my friend
Speaker 1: Pedro Gonzalez, who's a senior writer in American Greatness. Make
Speaker 1: sure you check out his is that American Greatness dot
Speaker 1: com and Pedro. We've had a couple of of, you know,
Speaker 1: relatively prominent Republican politicians recently Christy Gnome of South Dakota
Speaker 1: and Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas, who not only seemed to
Speaker 1: think that that you know, essentially abandoning what had been
Speaker 1: considered their their conservative values or conservative positions was okay,
Speaker 1: but then kept kept digging into this further as though, no,
Speaker 1: we're not smart enough to understand that they've actually sold out.
Speaker 1: And I feel like that that used to work pretty well.
Speaker 1: I think that might be right. I think that actually
Speaker 1: most everyday people have always been angry at the GOP,
Speaker 1: but I think the stakes just seemed so much higher now,
Speaker 1: And the position for a lot of Americans was the
Speaker 1: GOP is gutless and corrupt and craven, but they're the
Speaker 1: lesser of two evils. That I think is starting to
Speaker 1: wear thin for a lot of people, because the lesser
Speaker 1: of two evils is actually not that much less evil anymore.
Speaker 1: And I think what's really remarkable is that both Hutchinson
Speaker 1: and Nome went on Tucker Carlson, doubled down on their positions,
Speaker 1: like you said, expecting their constituents to be stupid, basically,
Speaker 1: and then subsequently committed suicide on live television, and then
Speaker 1: continued doubling down on their positions. No went so far
Speaker 1: as saying that she's the victim of conservative cancel culture,
Speaker 1: which is another way of saying, my constituents are holding
Speaker 1: me accountable and I don't like it because I'm not
Speaker 1: used to it. It was remarkable. I mean, the the
Speaker 1: Hutchinson interview in particular was political. It wasn't even self flagellation.
Speaker 1: It was self immolation. I mean it was just this
Speaker 1: guy sit there saying, you know, yeah, you know, I
Speaker 1: just you know, we're not going to get in there,
Speaker 1: not going to get between twelve year olds and their
Speaker 1: doctors when they want to be chemically castrated or have
Speaker 1: their their sex organs removed. It's like, yeah, you're you're
Speaker 1: not going to get in the way of that. Why
Speaker 1: because we want to expand the big tent. According to Hutchinson,
Speaker 1: it is just and it's it's difficult to know what
Speaker 1: he's really thinking. Do you really believe this or are
Speaker 1: you just saying this because it's in your interest because
Speaker 1: you've got donors and you're afraid of the Chamber of
Speaker 1: Commerce and the NC double Way or whatever. But it's
Speaker 1: it's ultimately irrelevant. The outcome is the same. We are
Speaker 1: better off or sorry, we are worse off. Our children
Speaker 1: are worse off because of people like Hutchinson. And no,
Speaker 1: it's amazing. I want to ask you to tell me
Speaker 1: about something that I don't think is getting a lot
Speaker 1: of attention right now. But the America First Policy Institute.
Speaker 1: You know what, I know that you keep it real, Pedro.
Speaker 1: It's one of the things I like about your work.
Speaker 1: This sound sounds great, right, America First Policy Institute. It's like, hey,
Speaker 1: do you want to go root for you know, Team
Speaker 1: America and defeat all the commies. You must love this, right,
Speaker 1: what's the truth of the America First Policy Institute? So far?
Speaker 1: So all of the very worst people in the Trump
Speaker 1: administration that I think most of your listeners would agree
Speaker 1: are bad, like Jared Kushner and so many of his
Speaker 1: proxies like Brook Rowlands, who is really just a kind
Speaker 1: of empty vessel for coke industries. Which means that Brook
Speaker 1: Rollins and Kushner and their cadrea within the White House,
Speaker 1: they were the ones that were pushing things like criminal
Speaker 1: justice reform. They were the ones that told Trump to
Speaker 1: stand down while cities were being burned to the ground
Speaker 1: by Black Lives Matter agitators. Tucker Carlson did a segment
Speaker 1: on this. He named specifically Brook Rollins and Jared Smith
Speaker 1: and Jared Kushner. All three of those people are involved
Speaker 1: in the America First Policy Institute. And so basically, you
Speaker 1: took the worst people in the White House that everyone
Speaker 1: can agree we're just bad, and now they're the ones
Speaker 1: leading the largest post administration Trump think tank. And if
Speaker 1: you look at the roster of who's involved, it's incredible.
Speaker 1: There's another organization called gen Z gen Z's GOP and
Speaker 1: they arose specifically to counter Trump and Trump is m
Speaker 1: who they view as authoritarian and xenophobic and racist and
Speaker 1: all this stuff. And the America First Policy Institute actually recruited.
Speaker 1: One of these people's name is Javon Prince, and now
Speaker 1: he's a policy analyst at the America First Policy Institute.
Speaker 1: So it's not just that you have the worst people
Speaker 1: from the White House doing this. You also have people
Speaker 1: that actually resented the Trump Agenda, the mandate of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: and by extension, Trump supporters who are now policy analysts
Speaker 1: at the America First Policy Institute. And so I think
Speaker 1: it's important to get beyond the name America First and
Speaker 1: see that this is this is extremely misleading, and that
Speaker 1: everyone should know that if you give money or attention
Speaker 1: or time to this, to this institute, it's you might
Speaker 1: as well burn it, because it's not going to go
Speaker 1: toward what you think it's going. It feels like Pedro.
Speaker 1: There's just there are there are more people right now
Speaker 1: on the right who seek to turn you mentioned America First,
Speaker 1: for example, but to seek to turn it into not
Speaker 1: only just a brand that's highly transferable for commercial purposes,
Speaker 1: but really into a kind of grift. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the country is heading in the wrong direction in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways. I mean, the border is the
Speaker 1: biggest mess it has ever been. I mean I've talked
Speaker 1: now to the people who have been working either for
Speaker 1: border patrol or ice or going back on this issue
Speaker 1: for for years, for decades. They said, this is the
Speaker 1: worst it has ever been right now. And that's just
Speaker 1: one of many problems that are they are unfolding right
Speaker 1: now for us. And yet where's our hashtag resistance? You know,
Speaker 1: it's frestrated to me to see that. You say what
Speaker 1: you about the left, they had the machinery of anti
Speaker 1: Trumpism in place literally the day after the election. There
Speaker 1: were marches and protests and riots, and you know, the
Speaker 1: whole media, and I know that they control some of
Speaker 1: these institutions, but it feels to me like we never
Speaker 1: learned that we need the machinery on our side that
Speaker 1: we can gather together to oppose the Biden agenda. Because
Speaker 1: this agenda is real, folks, this is this is not
Speaker 1: an administration we can just sort of batten down the
Speaker 1: hatches and ignore and hope everything's okay in four years, Right, no,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. And I think again, this is something
Speaker 1: that makes conservatives uncomfortable, but it's true and they should
Speaker 1: hear it. What we call cancel culture, which is a
Speaker 1: kind of just a way of holding people accountable. I
Speaker 1: think conservatives have a misunderstanding of it in that will
Speaker 1: make fun of the left for eating each other alive,
Speaker 1: and they do do that. It is amusing when that happens.
Speaker 1: But the conservative movement has the opposite problem. We're obsessed
Speaker 1: with this idea of the big tent and what that
Speaker 1: really what really happens in practices, is that we invite
Speaker 1: people into the big tent that we shouldn't invite because
Speaker 1: they're either opposed to us or they're totally unserious grifters.
Speaker 1: And it just so happens that those kinds of people
Speaker 1: are the ones that will end up taking over the show,
Speaker 1: and they're the ones that will end up in the
Speaker 1: limelight and then pushing you out. And I think that
Speaker 1: conservatives have this problem where they don't cancel people that
Speaker 1: they should cancel enough, and I think that that is
Speaker 1: something to consider going forward, is we really need to
Speaker 1: have more what you could call movement discipline to avoid
Speaker 1: these people because this is kind of the paradox the
Speaker 1: grifters and the subversives you want to call them that,
Speaker 1: they're usually really ambitious, so naturally they're going to be
Speaker 1: the ones that will, through charisma or through connections, end
Speaker 1: up hijacking movements and then turning them against you and
Speaker 1: then framing you as organizations like gen z GP and
Speaker 1: Brooke Rowlands do you're the one that's behind the times,
Speaker 1: like there's something wrong with you, And that's the position
Speaker 1: that we so often find ourselves in. Pedro Gonzalez, everybody
Speaker 1: check out his ladies, that American greatness dot com. Pedro
Speaker 1: always a pleasure man. Talk to you soon. Thank you.
Speaker 1: He halted construction of the border wall, and he rescinded
Speaker 1: a Trump administration order that called for the government to
Speaker 1: faithfully execute our immigration laws, including removals for visa overstays
Speaker 1: and limiting funding to sanctuary cities, all on his first day,
Speaker 1: mister President. And that's not all. The presence Department of
Speaker 1: Homeland Security also issued guidelines that same day pausing deportations
Speaker 1: accept under certain conditions, Miss President. The effect of President
Speaker 1: Biden's actions was to declare to the world that the
Speaker 1: United States borders are effectively open. That may or may
Speaker 1: not have been what President Biden and his administration intended,
Speaker 1: but it certainly has been the effect. The message received
Speaker 1: by prospective migrants has been, if you can make it,
Speaker 1: If you can make it to the US border and
Speaker 1: claim asylum, whether legitimate or not, even if you illegally
Speaker 1: cross the border, you're in. Senator Thune is absolutely correct,
Speaker 1: and this is why the border situation continues to be
Speaker 1: such an abject mess and a disaster. It's a disaster
Speaker 1: not only in the sense that you have people in
Speaker 1: very crowded conditions, spreading COVID and overwhelming facilities, and the
Speaker 1: whole thing is straining or resources, costing hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: billions of dollars. There's that aspect of it, But then
Speaker 1: there's also the we don't have border security friends. Oh,
Speaker 1: and who's supposed to be in charge of restoring national
Speaker 1: sovereignty and control of our border. Who's going to be
Speaker 1: in charge of that? Yeah, Kamala Harris. We are told
Speaker 1: here is White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on that
Speaker 1: play five. Vice President Harris just said that her first
Speaker 1: trip abroad, and it looks like it's going to be
Speaker 1: in Mexico and Guatemala, but she suggested she won't be
Speaker 1: visiting the order, and so I'm wondering, first off, if
Speaker 1: the president is considering a trip to the order, and
Speaker 1: the second play, it's not important for one of you know,
Speaker 1: the president's main sort of people that he's tasking dealing
Speaker 1: with this to visit the Order. Well, what the presidents
Speaker 1: asked the vice president to do is run point on
Speaker 1: the Northern Triangle and be a high level conduit in
Speaker 1: having discussions with leaders in the region. That's exactly what
Speaker 1: she is doing and we'll do when she goes and
Speaker 1: visits countries in the region. And obviously she's had discussions
Speaker 1: that I've been read out as well with some leaders
Speaker 1: in the region. Secretary of Homeland Security has visited the border.
Speaker 1: Our secretary, other secretaries who run points on these issues
Speaker 1: will and we expect will in the future. I don't
Speaker 1: have any visits to preview for you of the presidents,
Speaker 1: but his focus is on solution. What a mess. Yeah,
Speaker 1: she can't get down she's the borders are can't get
Speaker 1: down to the border though, more important stuff to do. Okay,
Speaker 1: Harsani time, our friend David Harsani from National Review joining
Speaker 1: us with all the latest news of the day, including
Speaker 1: a story he's written about all National Review dot com.
Speaker 1: There is absolutely no evidence that Kristin Clark's racist letter
Speaker 1: was satire. You've got to hear about this one, David.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, always a pleasure. Thanks for having so.
Speaker 1: First talk, Tell everybody who Kristen Clark is. She is
Speaker 1: Biden's nominee for Assistant Attorney General to run the Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Division. I get the exact name, which you know,
Speaker 1: prosecutes civil rights crimes and things like that for the
Speaker 1: United States government. And this is an important role. The
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Division on the DOJ, I will say, stretching
Speaker 1: back for many years, including under Republican administrations, is known
Speaker 1: to be a place where careers civil servants within the
Speaker 1: DOJ get get a lot of activism going on with
Speaker 1: left wing causes. Just for all those listening, this tends
Speaker 1: to be a place within the institution of the DOJ
Speaker 1: where you have very progressive tendencies. But this goes well
Speaker 1: beyond anything like that. Kristen Clark was recently questioned about
Speaker 1: a letter to the editor she wrote for the Harvard
Speaker 1: Crimson when she was at Harvard and David, just tell
Speaker 1: some folks a little bit about this. So the letter is,
Speaker 1: and this from a long time ago, just everyone who
Speaker 1: said she was in college. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's in
Speaker 1: the mid nineties. I think it was ninety five or four.
Speaker 1: And you know, it's about the Bell Curve, was a
Speaker 1: big book that came out at the time. I don't
Speaker 1: really want to get too far into that she misrepresents
Speaker 1: what that books about, but I don't like arguing about
Speaker 1: that too much. But anyway, she she she lays on
Speaker 1: some kind of like pseudoscientific racist you know, blacks are
Speaker 1: superior because of chemicals, and there's you know, their skin
Speaker 1: color and things like that that were very popular around
Speaker 1: that time. There were a bunch of professors Leonard Jeffrees,
Speaker 1: I don't know if any how many people remember his name,
Speaker 1: but there were others Anthony Martin, and she lays this out.
Speaker 1: So anyway, fast forward and someone finds this letter. I
Speaker 1: think it was a freebekend. You know, she's confronted by
Speaker 1: about it, and she says it was satire. And she
Speaker 1: was asked yesterday in front of the the Judicial Committee of
Speaker 1: Senate Judicial Committee about it, and she said it was
Speaker 1: satire and everyone mocked. Who was it who asked her
Speaker 1: a senator or even believing momentarily or at all that
Speaker 1: you know this. You know, he's totally it's a total
Speaker 1: gotcha moment. He was sent corn right, so that this
Speaker 1: was a complete you know, he made a fool of
Speaker 1: himself because this was satire. But the problem with all
Speaker 1: of this is that it was not satire. There was
Speaker 1: no proof at all that that what she wrote with satire.
Speaker 1: In fact, there's tons of evidence to the contrary. Let
Speaker 1: me just give some I want to give the folks
Speaker 1: at home listening to this an idea of what So
Speaker 1: this is the the head of the dj Civil Rights
Speaker 1: Division under the Biden administration. Right now, that's what we're
Speaker 1: talking about. She was at Harvard. And now we could
Speaker 1: all say, oh, it was long time ago, she was
Speaker 1: in college, whatever you girls say that, but let's remember that,
Speaker 1: you know, Brett Kavanaugh's yearbook and bluefing was the subject
Speaker 1: of serious Senate inquiry not long ago. So but anyway,
Speaker 1: this is what this is what she wrote, and this
Speaker 1: is the quote in response to those who defend a
Speaker 1: bell curve and by the way, this does not have
Speaker 1: oh yeah, in response to those who defend the Bell curve.
Speaker 1: Please use the following theories and observations to assist you
Speaker 1: in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between
Speaker 1: blacks and whites. I'm quoting here, folks, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: from the Harvard Crimson website. Nineteen ninety four October twenty eighth. One.
Speaker 1: Doctor Richard King reveals that at the core of the
Speaker 1: human brain is the locus coriulius, which is a structure
Speaker 1: that is black because it contains large amounts of neuro melanin,
Speaker 1: which is essential for its operation. Two Black infants sit, stand, crawl,
Speaker 1: and walk sooner than whites. Three. Carol Barnes notes that
Speaker 1: human mental processes are controlled by melanin, that same chemical
Speaker 1: which gives blacks their superior physical and mental abilities. Four.
Speaker 1: Some scientists have revealed that most whites are unable to
Speaker 1: produce melanin because their penneal glands are often calcification or
Speaker 1: nonfunctioning pineal asification. Rites with Africans are five to fifteen percent,
Speaker 1: with Europeans at sixty to eighty percent. This is the
Speaker 1: chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites.
Speaker 1: We can readily admit. She writes that an abused child
Speaker 1: is less likely to achieve academically than a child that
Speaker 1: has grown up in a supportive atmosphere. Black children, whether
Speaker 1: rich or poor, grow up with an added abuse with
Speaker 1: white children never have to face, etc. Etc. In addition,
Speaker 1: it is completely naive to say that blacks have achieved
Speaker 1: economic equality with whites. It's just ridiculous. Black people are
Speaker 1: not asking for political correctness, but truthfulness, fairness, and an
Speaker 1: end of this abuse. Signed Kristen Clark, President of the
Speaker 1: Black Students Association. In what way is that sad? I
Speaker 1: mean I cut a little bit of it out because
Speaker 1: I wanted to keep people too long. But David, I mean,
Speaker 1: in what way is that satire? No, it's not at all.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. She also invited. Anthony Martineau was
Speaker 1: a weird a quack like who basically spread what she
Speaker 1: wrote in that letter. I forgot where he taught, but anyway,
Speaker 1: he used to speak to the colleges in the nineties.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a bit older than you and I
Speaker 1: remember these people, and you know, why would she do that?
Speaker 1: If she didn't if this letter was satire, then there
Speaker 1: are subsequent letters in which does not typically published satire
Speaker 1: at all from you know, the editorial board staff of
Speaker 1: the Crimson Saints. She should retract it that they couldn't
Speaker 1: find might not be quoting exactly, but they couldn't find
Speaker 1: a hint of sarcasm or satire in it, and others
Speaker 1: as well. So I just I'm going to say this, Listen,
Speaker 1: she was young when she did this, and we all
Speaker 1: believed dumb things when we're young. However, if any kind
Speaker 1: of Republican, Donald Trump or any other Republican nominated someone
Speaker 1: who had David or someone like that speak at of
Speaker 1: college their career, they would never in a million years
Speaker 1: be nominated to begin with. But they never in a
Speaker 1: million years make it through and sit overseeing anything in
Speaker 1: the US government. I know that for sure. And more
Speaker 1: than that, she when in her of Commerce and lied, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what she did when she said this
Speaker 1: was satire. It is not satire anyway. So there's multiple levels.
Speaker 1: I mean, I agree, there's multiple levels here in which
Speaker 1: it's a problem. And we're speaking to David Harsani everybody
Speaker 1: of National Review. I mean, David, to your first point,
Speaker 1: she's she's she's asserting what would what would accurately be
Speaker 1: described in this. Granted she's in college, she's young, but
Speaker 1: you know she is an adult when she's writing this.
Speaker 1: She's asserting what would be described accurately as as a
Speaker 1: black supremacist ideology. That's a fair description of what that black,
Speaker 1: that they are inherent and innate superior traits of people
Speaker 1: who are black over all other races. By the way,
Speaker 1: so that's in this. That's not like the normal level
Speaker 1: of wrong, you know, bad thinking that people have in college.
Speaker 1: This is some other one. But put that aside for
Speaker 1: a second. Just point this out beyond that. She's lied,
Speaker 1: as you say before Congress, and now we have to
Speaker 1: sit around and listen to people in the media go
Speaker 1: ha ha ha. You don't get that it's satire, as
Speaker 1: if we're all morons. Yeah, yeah, it's it's gas lighting, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I asked some of the reporters who said
Speaker 1: it was satire to to provide evidence for me, contemporaneous
Speaker 1: evidence of it being satire. Happily correct the record if
Speaker 1: that were so. But there is literally not any inkling
Speaker 1: within the text or in any other way that it
Speaker 1: was satire. She you just read that letter. She mentions
Speaker 1: two specific experts. Does that sound like satire to you.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's she's she's citing experts, supposed experts on
Speaker 1: this issue. Um, so it's a joke. I'm listening. I like,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned as well before, there's going to be
Speaker 1: some nut in that position no matter how you slice it.
Speaker 1: And that's fine. But you know, I don't somehow, you know,
Speaker 1: being lied to in this way and gaslighting people in
Speaker 1: this way and just journalistically, uh you know, having no
Speaker 1: ethics in this I think that's a big problem for us.
Speaker 1: So it needs to be pointed out. Yeah, I just
Speaker 1: refuse to just go along with these lies because people
Speaker 1: keep compeating them over and over again. And I think
Speaker 1: that I'm always reminded of the souls and eats and lecture.
Speaker 1: Actually at Harvard lived not by lies, where the basis
Speaker 1: of the Soviet tyranny in so many ways was just
Speaker 1: you were constantly forced to accept things you knew not
Speaker 1: to be true, and not just to accept them, but
Speaker 1: to celebrate them, to espouse them. And everything was lied
Speaker 1: about all the time, and that was really the basis
Speaker 1: of the Soviet tyranny. I'm not saying America's in a
Speaker 1: tyranny right now. You know, you know, it's still a
Speaker 1: good country and everything, but we have had some really
Speaker 1: tyrannical impulses on display over the last year, and a
Speaker 1: lot of it is rooted in lies. Yeah, no, I
Speaker 1: mean everything you said there's right, and you know the
Speaker 1: thing is I mean, as you also mentioned, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is not some kind of normal nuttiness, like you're
Speaker 1: a crazy libertarian and you want to smoke pot or
Speaker 1: big build you know, make hemp rope or something you're
Speaker 1: this is she's the president of the Black Students Association,
Speaker 1: and these people that she's inviting, by the way, were
Speaker 1: huge anti Semites. And this was in the middle of
Speaker 1: a time where there were riots and deaths in New
Speaker 1: York over this sort of thing, and it was it
Speaker 1: was a pretty ugly time and new riots in LA
Speaker 1: and elsewhere where. She was saying this sort of stuff.
Speaker 1: So you know, maybe she should have to answer as
Speaker 1: to how she changed her mind. She should say, listen,
Speaker 1: I was young and it was stupid. I believe some
Speaker 1: terrible things and now you know this and that. But
Speaker 1: of course she's a big fan of the Women's March
Speaker 1: people too, who are facing knights, and you know, so
Speaker 1: I'm pretty skeptic. I always remember right now too. I
Speaker 1: always remember, David, you know, when I was at Amorous
Speaker 1: Justice Scalia came to speak and there were all these
Speaker 1: protests and people wearing black armbands and stood up and
Speaker 1: turned their backs to them and all this stuff. And
Speaker 1: it was, you know, some years before I was there,
Speaker 1: But just down the road at University of Massachusetts, Lewis
Speaker 1: Farakon was invited to speak. You know, it's like that,
Speaker 1: that's just this was even before college just got as
Speaker 1: crazy as they are right now. But I you mentioned
Speaker 1: the journalistic malpractice thing. We just got a couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to hit on this because as soon
Speaker 1: as that story came out during the right in the
Speaker 1: middle of the presidential campaign, that there were bounties being
Speaker 1: put on American soldiers by Russians to the Taliban, So essentially,
Speaker 1: the Russians are paying Taliban to kill Americans. I said,
Speaker 1: this story doesn't make sense. I don't believe it. It's
Speaker 1: not there's this just it doesn't add up the Talimans
Speaker 1: trying to kill Americans all the time. Russians don't need
Speaker 1: to pay the Taliban to kill him. The whole thing
Speaker 1: was idiotic. But now they've basically retracted it right now,
Speaker 1: they've said, well, it turns out we actually probably shouldn't
Speaker 1: have run that story. But David, it was more than
Speaker 1: just a news store, wasn't it. Yeah, I mean it
Speaker 1: was in the middle. If you're remember of when there
Speaker 1: was a there were a slew of stories about how
Speaker 1: Donald Trump hates the troops, and you know, in the
Speaker 1: Atlantic and elsewhere, you know, thinly sourced, and I don't
Speaker 1: even know if there are any sources. Frankly, how do
Speaker 1: I know, because they never ever, you know, put sources
Speaker 1: on the record, and you know, so as part of
Speaker 1: that whole thing. But honestly, as you know, it's been
Speaker 1: part of five years of slew and of stories that
Speaker 1: are the stereo that mislead Americans about the veracity of
Speaker 1: their elections and the veracity of the president's patriotism and
Speaker 1: things like that that were planted by intelligence people and
Speaker 1: spread by a compliant media. And it's unprecedented and it
Speaker 1: was truly a disaster I think, in many ways for
Speaker 1: the United States. So you know, this is just one
Speaker 1: of many, and David, I just I feel like there
Speaker 1: has been even if it's not admitted a real shift
Speaker 1: in the mentality of your run of the mill, your
Speaker 1: your standard journalists working for a news publication these days,
Speaker 1: where it really is about getting a result, and the
Speaker 1: result is not the provision, is not providing truth and
Speaker 1: context for people to make their own That that we've
Speaker 1: we've seen a shift, a true shift in the ethics
Speaker 1: where they're not even they don't even feel the need
Speaker 1: to pretend anymore. They're they're out to get the other side,
Speaker 1: whatever it takes. I mean, if they cared, We'll put
Speaker 1: it this way, they are biased journalists and they are
Speaker 1: the good ones now, and that there are corrupt journalists
Speaker 1: who do this kind of thing, and if they weren't,
Speaker 1: then they would burn any source who set them up
Speaker 1: with a lie like this, but happens over and over again.
Speaker 1: And if the institutions cared, people would have there would
Speaker 1: be repercussions for spreading this sort of thing. This is
Speaker 1: this is a dangerous story to spread. Russia has nuclear weapons, right,
Speaker 1: You're talking about world power, and you're spreading stories about
Speaker 1: them Americans, So I mean, this is sort of dangerous
Speaker 1: stuff to be doing. And I'm not defending Russia. I
Speaker 1: think Russia are you know, I think they're bad guys
Speaker 1: over there, but you know, it's still we have to
Speaker 1: deal with them and live in a truthful world in
Speaker 1: some extent. In essence, you know, they were doing they're
Speaker 1: doing exactly what they were saying the Russians were doing
Speaker 1: to us, and they were doing it over and over
Speaker 1: and over again. David Arson everybody National Review dot com
Speaker 1: for his latest David, always your pleasure. We'll talk to
Speaker 1: you soon. Thank you. I'm disappointed that there's this significant
Speaker 1: amount of hesitancy, but I agree with you, Whoopie. The
Speaker 1: reason that people are getting vaccinated and still need to
Speaker 1: be so causcious is because of the growing number of
Speaker 1: white male Republicans that continue not to want to wear
Speaker 1: their mask, that continue not want to get vaccinated because
Speaker 1: they consider it some sort of freedom ride. And it
Speaker 1: just doesn't really make sense. And I think people like
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson are being very irresponsible by sending out this messaging.
Speaker 1: By sending out the messaging I think he sent out
Speaker 1: yesterday that maybe the vaccines just don't work. That is irresponsible,
Speaker 1: it's misinformation, and it's causing I think, in the long run,
Speaker 1: people to die. People need to be more concerned about
Speaker 1: the virus. More scared of this virus than the vaccine.
Speaker 1: This has been This has been the game all along
Speaker 1: from the lockdowners. Do what I say. Agree with everything
Speaker 1: that we tell you to do, no matter how stupid
Speaker 1: it is, no matter how completely absurd it is. Mask
Speaker 1: up between bites, wear that mask outside social distance thing,
Speaker 1: but a social distance or now they're calling it physical distancing.
Speaker 1: Sometimes this is just a pseudo scientific way of telling
Speaker 1: people avoid other human beings. Does does that sound like
Speaker 1: a really? Does that sound like a real virus, you know,
Speaker 1: virus beating strategy. Just avoid other people for a year,
Speaker 1: don't be around other human being, family members, anyone. Don't
Speaker 1: be around anyone for a year. That's really what this
Speaker 1: comes down to. You could say, oh, but they just mean,
Speaker 1: you know, because no, they told you not to see
Speaker 1: family at Thanksgiving. That you know they're they're telling you
Speaker 1: stay away from humans. And then that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: great scientific advice. It makes a lot of sense. Tucker
Speaker 1: didn't say the vaccines don't work there. This is Sonny hosta,
Speaker 1: but she's a fraud and it's the intellectual level in
Speaker 1: general on the show. The view is honestly Jerry Springer
Speaker 1: was a show that brought together, you know, a higher
Speaker 1: level of discourse than what you often see on the
Speaker 1: view guys. One of the Jerry Springer show back in
Speaker 1: the day, that was actually that that was a real
Speaker 1: phenomenon for a while, people always fighting and tackling each other.
Speaker 1: That show was crazy, oh man. And then you'd always
Speaker 1: edit with you know, take care of yourselves and each
Speaker 1: other or something like that. It's like, yeah, after you've
Speaker 1: showed us that you know, so and so impregnated so
Speaker 1: and so's brother who was married to the sister who's
Speaker 1: the cousin of the you know whatever. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the whole thing was just such a mess that it was,
Speaker 1: you know, take care of yourselves at each other. I
Speaker 1: always remember that with Jerry Springer. But anyway, Tucker did
Speaker 1: not say that the vaccines don't work, but he is.
Speaker 1: He's posing the question, if the vaccines work, and they
Speaker 1: seem to work very well, why are we all still
Speaker 1: being told that nothing changes? When does it change? Now?
Speaker 1: Remember they'll concede that the so it's the vaccines work.
Speaker 1: The vaccines work very well, but the vaccines don't work perfectly.
Speaker 1: To that, you go back to the argument, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: they're never going to work perfectly. We all understand that.
Speaker 1: So if the vaccines work very very well and it's
Speaker 1: never going to be perfect, they'll always be some risk,
Speaker 1: There'll always be some people will still get sick, and
Speaker 1: there'll always be some covid endemic in the population. Why
Speaker 1: can't vaccinated people just live their lives? Because you see,
Speaker 1: if you take this to its logical conclusion, you get
Speaker 1: to a place where you realize, if you obey what
Speaker 1: the faucciotes are telling you, there is a clear pathway
Speaker 1: for them to make you deal with this, to make
Speaker 1: this something that is a problem forever. You never actually
Speaker 1: get to put that mask away. You know, we have
Speaker 1: to finally tell them enough, you're irrash, channel hysteria about
Speaker 1: minute about you know, low risk situations and possibilities is
Speaker 1: not allowed to infringe upon the most most basic rights.
Speaker 1: We have the right to breathe fresh air, folks, That's
Speaker 1: what's actually at stake here. But I'm a view you know,
Speaker 1: just just keep worshiping fauci like the people who are
Speaker 1: just unable to think for themselves on this stuff. Set
Speaker 1: no party like a team Buck party, because a Team
Speaker 1: Buck Party. Don't stop. It's time for roll call. Get
Speaker 1: those funky tunes, rolling proucer, Mark, I got good news
Speaker 1: for you, don't The good news is what it's the
Speaker 1: good news. It's Thursday, my man, which means that we
Speaker 1: are almost working for the weekend, or about to be
Speaker 1: at the weekend, which is nice. At this point, we're
Speaker 1: just working for the summer, right, Yeah, I think so,
Speaker 1: it's probably true. What's going on? A producer? Mark, Will
Speaker 1: you got anything to tell the folks, the fans, the
Speaker 1: listeners all across America? No, I'm very boring. I don't
Speaker 1: really do much. I don't. I feel like no one
Speaker 1: really does much these days. I feel like we're all
Speaker 1: just being constantly anesthetized by the abundance of delicious food,
Speaker 1: electric entertainment, you know, electronic entertainment options, and you know,
Speaker 1: very comfortable ath leisure. You know what I'm saying. Yeah,
Speaker 1: all I do is wear sweatpants and watch a lot
Speaker 1: of TV nowadays. Yeah, it's just not really a lot
Speaker 1: of exciting stuff. I'm okay with the sweatpants, but I
Speaker 1: wish I would do more stuff. I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm I think I need to just give away like
Speaker 1: half of my suits because I just I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm going back to being a suit guy. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't see it happening. It's just as suit as
Speaker 1: I've always said this, suits are not comfortable. No, I
Speaker 1: don't care. You know, if you have it made to
Speaker 1: measure and its suits are just not that comfortable. You're
Speaker 1: gonna walk around with a with a suit jacket on.
Speaker 1: That's that's not fun. You know, that's not good. I
Speaker 1: have walked around many hockey and basketball arenas with full
Speaker 1: suits on, and it was never pleasant. Yeah, you're like,
Speaker 1: what am I doing with this? We'd all be better off.
Speaker 1: And this is this is a big change in the
Speaker 1: same way that people are realizing that all along, a
Speaker 1: lot of us could have been doing our work from
Speaker 1: home and not just getting all sweaty. I mean, for
Speaker 1: those who've never experienced this, there's something particularly humbling about
Speaker 1: being a person who has to get on the New
Speaker 1: York City subway in the middle of July, because you
Speaker 1: will stand on a crowded subway platform on the way
Speaker 1: into your office and you will just sweat through whatever
Speaker 1: you're wearing. I mean, it's like being in a sauna.
Speaker 1: And then you get to get on the subway car
Speaker 1: where the air conditioning is turned all the way up,
Speaker 1: and then you're like freezing. You practically have you know,
Speaker 1: icicles coming off your nose. And then you get so
Speaker 1: after after sort of getting you know, sweaty and damp
Speaker 1: on the subway platform because the subway itself is not
Speaker 1: air conditioned, I mean the subway uh you know area. Uh,
Speaker 1: then you get to get like wet and cold on
Speaker 1: the subway train. And then you go into your office,
Speaker 1: which is probably also very air conditioned, and you sit
Speaker 1: there and you just feel like a damp, cold, swamp body.
Speaker 1: And then you got to sit there for eight hours,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about. Of course, I can
Speaker 1: still like in my brain when I think about it,
Speaker 1: smell a hot subway station. Yeah, that there's a certain smell.
Speaker 1: You can't describe it, but whenever you experience it, you
Speaker 1: know it. There's a very is a very unique essence
Speaker 1: to the New York City subway smell mid July. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a mixture of old old pizza cartons, rat feces,
Speaker 1: and human urine all in this this wonderful brew. You know.
Speaker 1: That's that's what you got subway station below our building,
Speaker 1: and we had a building in Manhattan, our work office.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, Oh yeah, disgusting. Yeah yeah. So I
Speaker 1: don't know. I wonder what people are gonna want to
Speaker 1: go back to in life and what they're gonna say. Man,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say something, you know, crowded bars, crowded restaurants.
Speaker 1: M I don't know. I don't know how much I
Speaker 1: really I was thinking I would, I would want to
Speaker 1: go to a crowded bar, just be around people and stuff.
Speaker 1: But I realized, nah, man, I don't need it. I
Speaker 1: don't need it. You get amazing, at least in a
Speaker 1: city like New York, and I know there's a lot
Speaker 1: of places like this cross the country. You get amazing
Speaker 1: food delivered, you know, and you get to be your
Speaker 1: own home. The same reason why I don't look, I've
Speaker 1: I've changed a lot of these behaviors over over time.
Speaker 1: I'm not a movie guy going I should say, going
Speaker 1: to the movies guy anymore. I just won't do it.
Speaker 1: It's expensive, it requires effort. I have a I don't know,
Speaker 1: fifty five inch flat screen TV. I've got an incredibly
Speaker 1: comfortable couch that we call old gray because it's old
Speaker 1: and gray. So that makes sense. And you know, I
Speaker 1: can I got my fridge, I got my own restroom,
Speaker 1: I can press pause, I can take a phone call
Speaker 1: if I have to, you know. And so I just
Speaker 1: feel like these behaviors are shifting, and I wonder what
Speaker 1: behaviors are going to continue, Like, Mark, what do you
Speaker 1: think you're going to keep doing that's a change from
Speaker 1: the pandemic that you're gonna keep going forward with even
Speaker 1: let's say this time next year. I'd say for like
Speaker 1: social settings, Now, me and my friend group, we prefer
Speaker 1: hanging out in each other's homes. Like I don't care
Speaker 1: how many people are in it, but rather than going
Speaker 1: to a bar or going out to dinner or doing
Speaker 1: all that, just because why would I pay all this
Speaker 1: extra money for food when we can have food delivered
Speaker 1: to make our own food and get our own booze
Speaker 1: or whatever, you know, just group outings in your own home.
Speaker 1: That will be the thing that I want to stay from. COVID. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think people have gotten very used to comfortable and
Speaker 1: controlled environments and it's tough to go back. I mean,
Speaker 1: I took the snow Princess out because she just got
Speaker 1: a great a great new job. And so she's in
Speaker 1: business school and she's got a great new job and
Speaker 1: I'm so proud of her, and which I took her
Speaker 1: out and it was kind of like a special occasion
Speaker 1: dinner place, and you know, they kind of messed up
Speaker 1: the food. The service was bad, the music was way
Speaker 1: too loud. You know, we had some issues, and it
Speaker 1: was pricy. I mean, I feel like I got rinsed,
Speaker 1: and I'm sitting here thinking I could I could have
Speaker 1: actually ordered steaks for my favorite steakhouse in all of
Speaker 1: New York and just had them delivered to my apartment
Speaker 1: and had a perfectly quiet, nice even just you know,
Speaker 1: it's so this. I think this is gonna change for
Speaker 1: some folks. I know, we have a lot of audience
Speaker 1: that you know, lives in the suburbs or lives in
Speaker 1: rural areas, and so that's not really but if you
Speaker 1: live in a city, I mean, I don't know, I've
Speaker 1: kind of gotten used to not being crammed in a
Speaker 1: subway car full of I've gotten used to not being
Speaker 1: around people I don't really want to be around, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. I think it's gonna be tough
Speaker 1: to go back. Yeah. I don't want to be a
Speaker 1: shoulder a shoulder with strangers anytime soon. And it has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with COVID, just unenjoyable. Yeah. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: no matter who you are, at some point in the subway,
Speaker 1: you're just you're going butt to butt. I don't know
Speaker 1: how else to say it. You're gonna your butt is
Speaker 1: gonna be pushed up against some random some random guy
Speaker 1: or gals. But because you're squashed in like sardines, and
Speaker 1: that's the way it's gonna be. But that's the one
Speaker 1: that's crammed against something somebody else. Wait, what, you're lucky
Speaker 1: if it's just your butt that's cram Oh yeah, We'll
Speaker 1: just saying you get squashed in on all sides. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't need to be butt to butt
Speaker 1: with strangers. You know, I want to. I want someone to,
Speaker 1: you know, take me out to dinner in a movie
Speaker 1: before we go butt the butt, you know what I mean.
Speaker 1: It's not we don't need that. So just saying, all right, Dan,
Speaker 1: let's get into it here. Dan, i'n go buck your
Speaker 1: struggle to find something good to watch on Netflix with
Speaker 1: the snow Princess struck a nerve with me. Seems like
Speaker 1: the kids today are inundated with very racy content like
Speaker 1: that sexy killer Babysitter movie you described, or literally anything
Speaker 1: Cardi b does. We come from the same era the nineties,
Speaker 1: back then edgy content. Men Jesse Spano was hooked on
Speaker 1: caffeine pills, or Uncle Phil and Will were thrown in
Speaker 1: jail for being African American. It's strange to think the
Speaker 1: nineties were simpler time, but it was. I miss it.
Speaker 1: Where do we go from here? Dan, I think I
Speaker 1: missed the nineties a lot. I missed the nineties culturally.
Speaker 1: I think it was you know, I just think it
Speaker 1: was a better time in a lot of ways. I
Speaker 1: think the my my belief is that the absolute peak
Speaker 1: of technology for for life to be convenient, but you
Speaker 1: just still have some privacy. The absolute peak was like
Speaker 1: late nine, like ninety nine, two thousand, when everybody could
Speaker 1: have a cell phone, because that is really nice, that
Speaker 1: is really you know, convenient and helpful. But we didn't
Speaker 1: have smartphones and we it was just it was just
Speaker 1: a better time, man. I don't know, I missed I
Speaker 1: missed the music of the nineties. I gotta tell you know,
Speaker 1: Prouser Mark. I've I've just complained Producer Mark everybody that
Speaker 1: I've been going to the gym pretty consistently. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm very today, I'm like very, I've got doms which
Speaker 1: is delayed onset muscle soreness because I'm actually going to
Speaker 1: the gym pretty hard, pretty consistently, and I've been eating
Speaker 1: a little bit cleaner, which is really a bummer. And
Speaker 1: I'm just sitting here like, well, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: can either just sort of wear sweats and be a
Speaker 1: cuddly radio host and eat all the cookies and pad
Speaker 1: tie I want, or I can go to the gym
Speaker 1: and and you know, eat small the worst. And the
Speaker 1: thing for me is really, honestly, it's not even the
Speaker 1: food choice, it's just smaller portions. That's really that I've
Speaker 1: learned that this is if you're really going to do
Speaker 1: this and try to cut it's smaller portion. Because I mean,
Speaker 1: you can sit there, you can have Penala vodka. You
Speaker 1: just have you know, whatever it is, you know, six
Speaker 1: ounces of it or something. But I don't want six ounces,
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, I want like fourteen ounces of Penala vodka. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, if you're eating Penela vodka. What are you
Speaker 1: eating six ounces of? Let mean, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: Yeah you eat? What do you bring me my Penala vodka?
Speaker 1: Like a little little tiny salad bowl or something. No,
Speaker 1: I wanted a big up play to basta. I want
Speaker 1: a pet a lavaca with a brachut though, and the
Speaker 1: I want the whole you know, I want the whole thing.
Speaker 1: And anyway, but I was, I was in the gym,
Speaker 1: and I'm trying to think I've also recognized and this
Speaker 1: is something that always comes to me when I start
Speaker 1: getting more consistent that lifting weights without music, I just
Speaker 1: I'm just more focused. I do a better job without
Speaker 1: blasting music. But I do need music for cardio because
Speaker 1: I'm just punishing myself and I hate it. But so
Speaker 1: I was looking for music to listen to and I
Speaker 1: picked up some you know, I mean not nineties, of course,
Speaker 1: nineties would be amazing. I picked up some Top forty
Speaker 1: I'm just curious, Top forty twenty twenty one, you know, playlist,
Speaker 1: and it was just garbage. It's just bad. And it's
Speaker 1: amazing how much music from the nineties is now being
Speaker 1: recycled as some kind of a techno remix, which I
Speaker 1: think just goes to my theory that a lot of
Speaker 1: music today's just not very good. And I know people
Speaker 1: want to say, oh, it's just because things. No, I
Speaker 1: think it's just not very good. I don't think anyone's
Speaker 1: gonna be listening to I'll tell you this. I don't
Speaker 1: think anyone's gonna be listening to Ed Shearing in ten years.
Speaker 1: I just don't think your tongue. Yeah, I know, I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, have you ever seen the old man yells
Speaker 1: at cloud meme? What as you? No? Probably is yeah,
Speaker 1: But you know, I'm trying to think of some of
Speaker 1: the other I don't even know. There's this there's the
Speaker 1: Dua Dua Lipa. I was I learned of this of
Speaker 1: the dua lipa artist I believe is that the name? Yes,
Speaker 1: she's big nowadays, Yeah, she's big nowaday. I just I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't think this stuff is good. I
Speaker 1: really don't. And I know it's like I'm having to
Speaker 1: get off my lawn moment. But I'll agree with you
Speaker 1: most of the new people, but like, give me Ed
Speaker 1: Sheeron and Taylor Swift at least, whose are the only
Speaker 1: two current artists I can think of that are fine, well,
Speaker 1: T Swift, I'll always have sort of a soft spot
Speaker 1: for but Ed Sheer okay, and Ed Shearon's actually a
Speaker 1: talented musician whatever, so that way, he wasn't really but
Speaker 1: he was in a bunch of these things. But I'm
Speaker 1: talking to see. The thing is I was listening to
Speaker 1: Ed Sheer and techno remixes Mark because it's for workouts
Speaker 1: and so that you're just like, uh, you know, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: Calvin Harris, Calvin Harris is it's good if you like
Speaker 1: if you like electronic music, but you know it's Calvin
Speaker 1: Harris is just the Paul Oakenfold of today. And you know,
Speaker 1: people from the nineties, you guys all remember Paul Oakenfold. Ready,
Speaker 1: Steady go, and you all remember Paul Okenfold. Anyway, I
Speaker 1: know I'm I haven't. We'll get off my long moment.
Speaker 1: But there's the The Sexy Killer Babysitter movie was just
Speaker 1: so bad. But I'm telling you, the Sexy Killer Babysitter
Speaker 1: said He's Sexy Killer Baby Sitter movie on Netflix is
Speaker 1: actually better than the guy who is like a weird
Speaker 1: fish monster who wants to hold women and use them
Speaker 1: to create more fish Monster. I mean, it's the worst
Speaker 1: crap I've ever seen in my life. So there you go.
Speaker 1: That is That is my movie review session for you today.
Speaker 1: All right, continuing with role Call, I remember if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of Roll Call, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton, or you can write us an email
Speaker 1: at Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. Francis and if
Speaker 1: you're on Instagram by the follow me on Instagram send
Speaker 1: me messages there just Buck Sexton. You'll find me very easily.
Speaker 1: And it is me. I read it. I mean, producer
Speaker 1: Mark curates it for Roll Call, but I'm reading it.
Speaker 1: I'm going through it, so I always think it's so funny.
Speaker 1: More people write in like I know you're never going
Speaker 1: to see this and like to write in, well, I'm
Speaker 1: seeing it right now, so I see it. That's where
Speaker 1: you say, yes, Buck, Yes, Buck, you do read the messages.
Speaker 1: But I read all of them. Yeah, he reads all them.
Speaker 1: I read as many as I can get to Francis Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm listening to an older podcast and you're speaking about
Speaker 1: United Airlines statement how in ten years fifty percent of
Speaker 1: their pilots will be female and minority. The only way
Speaker 1: that's going to happen is if they open their own
Speaker 1: flight school and admit only females and minorities and probably
Speaker 1: subsidize the cost as well. Flight training is very, very expensive,
Speaker 1: and they're just not enough females and minorities and the
Speaker 1: pilot training pool to come up in the ranks to
Speaker 1: qualify for the airlines. I wish there were, but there
Speaker 1: just aren't. At any given time, there's between five to
Speaker 1: seven percent of the certificate of pilots in the United
Speaker 1: States who are female. I know you commented on the
Speaker 1: qualification part of this, but it's not just United Soul
Speaker 1: decision on what the qualifications are. The FAA and the
Speaker 1: insurance company for the airlines are two of the loudest voices. Francis,
Speaker 1: you know a lot more about this than I do,
Speaker 1: so thank you for writing and telling us about it.
Speaker 1: But yeah, this is this is the constant battle that
Speaker 1: we see happening about this stuff. Is they tell us, oh,
Speaker 1: we won't lower standards, and then when the numbers don't
Speaker 1: add up and the way they want them to, they
Speaker 1: lower the standards. I mean it's like you can set
Speaker 1: your watch by it. I mean it's just like you said,
Speaker 1: an egg timer they say, oh, we'll never lower the standards,
Speaker 1: no way, and then they lower the standards. And this
Speaker 1: is why when you're talking about things like, you know,
Speaker 1: surgeons in the oar, pilots for the airplanes. You know,
Speaker 1: we want the best people. I don't care. I don't
Speaker 1: care what skin color, what gender, what you know, sexual orientation.
Speaker 1: I don't care at all. I just want the person
Speaker 1: who's the most competent at the essential task of keeping
Speaker 1: me alive. And whatever objective metrics we have in place
Speaker 1: to help determine that, we have to protect those metrics.
Speaker 1: And hey, Buck, really enjoy your show. Sad this weekend
Speaker 1: to see corporations like Target, Starbucks, LinkedIn, and United gathering
Speaker 1: to discuss limiting donations to political candidates who vote in
Speaker 1: what the corporations designate as incorrect voter laws. Who's running
Speaker 1: the United States now, corporations or the people and they're
Speaker 1: honestly elected legislative representatives. Corporations are considering restricting my voter
Speaker 1: rights by telling candidates how they must interpret voter rights
Speaker 1: and how they must craft voter laws in their states.
Speaker 1: This is a shocking situation. Corporations are Corporations need to
Speaker 1: stick to their products and services and let our honestly
Speaker 1: elected representatives debate, vote and do things on behalf of us,
Speaker 1: like established laws corporations, not MC laws for people honestly
Speaker 1: elected legislators do. I agree, and it's a bad situation.
Speaker 1: And it only stops when we take action and put
Speaker 1: our dollars where where our minds are on this stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, support, support companies that support our principles and
Speaker 1: punish those that don't. That's the only way this change.
Speaker 1: It's the only way this will change. Buck About the
Speaker 1: chance of getting COVID office surfaces. This is from Richard.
Speaker 1: When I have my gallbladder out, I asked the doctor
Speaker 1: world by chances were for death. He told me about
Speaker 1: one in ten thousand. I survived and felt safe. The
Speaker 1: odds are getting hit by lightning in your lifetime or
Speaker 1: one in fifteen thousand or one hundred and fifty two
Speaker 1: thousand round. Why are we worried about services. I'm fully vaccinated,
Speaker 1: I'm not wearing a mask. I will not participate any
Speaker 1: passport craziness shield's high, Richard. I know people have lost
Speaker 1: it and they're not understanding these things. It's just crazy.
Speaker 1: So risk mitigation, folks, we got to do it ourselves.
Speaker 1: Stop using a fauci. That's part one, all right, Everybody
Speaker 1: back tomorrow for a Friday show. Shields Hi