Speaker 1: You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart Radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Hey, everybody, welcome to
Speaker 1: another episode of The Buck Sexton Show. We have a
Speaker 1: fantastic guest for you on this one, very exciting. Liz Wheeler,
Speaker 1: the host of The Liz Wheeler Show, is with us
Speaker 1: now and we've got a lot of things to talk about. Liz.
Speaker 1: The country needs our help. I think we got to
Speaker 1: save America. How are you doing, Hi, Bog, Thanks for
Speaker 1: having me. I appreciate it. Jay six, Let's start with that, because,
Speaker 1: as you and I both saw, there's this footage that
Speaker 1: Tucker and his team over Fox are releasing in pieces.
Speaker 1: For me, my top line on this was I thought.
Speaker 1: I mean, I wrote an op ed a couple of
Speaker 1: what was it now a couple of years ago saying
Speaker 1: that anyone who says January six was an insurrection is
Speaker 1: an idiot. And that's coming from somebody who kind of
Speaker 1: studied insurrections and coups in the intelligence world, so I
Speaker 1: have some sense of what an insurrection looks like. That
Speaker 1: was the actual title. Anyone who calls it an insurrection
Speaker 1: as an idiot, and people are like, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: So it didn't There was nothing that changed my mind
Speaker 1: about it. I just felt like we're seeing even more
Speaker 1: that they called this an attempt to overthrow the United
Speaker 1: States government, and there's all these people who are just
Speaker 1: walking around like calmly, chatting with cops and being friendly
Speaker 1: and respectful. Apart from the vandals and the people, there
Speaker 1: were some people who were doing the bad stuff. But
Speaker 1: this is not how a coup happens. No, I mean,
Speaker 1: I would take it even one step further. Now, maybe
Speaker 1: the second installment of your op ed says that anybody
Speaker 1: who anybody who perpetuated the myth, the falsehood that this
Speaker 1: was an insurrection, should should be banished from at least
Speaker 1: public commentary, because it's not just idiotic. You're not just
Speaker 1: stupid if you fell for this. This was an outright line.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was information warfare that bureaucrats and elected
Speaker 1: officials in the United States government, people who are supposed
Speaker 1: to represent us, waged against us. They told us deliberate lies,
Speaker 1: knowing information that contradicted their lies, but knowing that we
Speaker 1: didn't have the information to directly contradict I mean, the
Speaker 1: Brian Sicknick video that Tucker played is probably the best
Speaker 1: example of this. The whole narrative that this was a
Speaker 1: deadly insurrection, that people died, that these Trump supporters murdered
Speaker 1: police officers was false, and they knew it was false.
Speaker 1: They knew that the man Brian Sickness, this police officer
Speaker 1: who died a couple of days later of natural causes,
Speaker 1: was not murdered by Trump supporters who broke into the Capitol.
Speaker 1: They had accessed that tape. That was the jaw dropping
Speaker 1: moment for me, Buck when I was watching this Tucker investigation,
Speaker 1: is they can see on the Capital computers who else
Speaker 1: has viewed particular moments on this tape? And other people
Speaker 1: had already viewed this meeting. The January sixth Committee knew
Speaker 1: they were lying and lied anyway because you and I
Speaker 1: didn't have this video footage to disprove them. And there's
Speaker 1: also this part of me that as this all comes out,
Speaker 1: they lied and were completely unrepentant about it. With the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion stuff too. I mean, at this point you
Speaker 1: have to wonder, why would anyone believe any major allegation
Speaker 1: of Democrats like Saint Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and
Speaker 1: Schumer and all the rest. They still go about their
Speaker 1: days acting like they didn't fabricate that. Really, what was
Speaker 1: a crazy story? I mean, it wasn't just false, which
Speaker 1: it obviously was about Tromp working with the Kremlin and
Speaker 1: stealing the election and all this stuff. In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: it was an insane story. It didn't make any sense
Speaker 1: from the beginning. And yet now we see those people
Speaker 1: have created a narrative of oh, well, you guys tried
Speaker 1: to overthrow the government. No honest person can look at
Speaker 1: those videos and think this was an attempt to overthrow
Speaker 1: the United States government, Like that's just that's a crazy
Speaker 1: thing to say, Well, it's it's of course cars And
Speaker 1: it's like the psychological experiment, the thought experiment of people
Speaker 1: who lie. Do they know that they're lying after they've
Speaker 1: told the lie the first, the second, and the third time,
Speaker 1: or do they actually start believing their lie and thus
Speaker 1: just become peddlers of delusion. I have no idea When
Speaker 1: it comes to Adam Schiff, he seems both dishonest and dogmatic.
Speaker 1: Maybe he believes the lies that he has invented, just
Speaker 1: like maybe Liz Cheney believes the lies that she's invented.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the January sixth committee and the
Speaker 1: narrative that they tried to paint in prime time produced
Speaker 1: by a former what was it, an NBC producer telling
Speaker 1: the American people that this was an attempt to overthrow
Speaker 1: the government. It clearly was not. These people were looking
Speaker 1: for a constitutional remedy. But that's the part that always
Speaker 1: gets me about this when the left says, oh, Trump
Speaker 1: was talking to his lawyers, was reading briefs from different people,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out if there was a way that
Speaker 1: he could stop the certification of the Electoral College. You
Speaker 1: can argue that there was something he could do, or
Speaker 1: you can argue in good faith that there wasn't anything
Speaker 1: that he can do. But the fact of the matter
Speaker 1: is is he was trying to wiggle around within the
Speaker 1: bounds of the constitution to find a way to delay
Speaker 1: the certification until he could investigate what more thoroughly what
Speaker 1: happened in the twenty twenty election. And it's funny to me,
Speaker 1: it's the same thing with January sixth. It's funny to
Speaker 1: me when these people say, oh, they were trying to
Speaker 1: violently overthrow the government. No, they weren't. They were trying
Speaker 1: to work within the bounds, except for, you know, the
Speaker 1: few hooligans that committed vandalism, and that was wrong. Most
Speaker 1: people were peacefully protesting, exercising their rights peaceable assembly in
Speaker 1: order to redress grievances with the federal government, which is
Speaker 1: codified into our founding documents. I don't ever like to
Speaker 1: engage in exaggeration, because when I say something that's really forceful,
Speaker 1: I want everyone who hears it, who listens to me,
Speaker 1: to know that I really mean it, right, And I
Speaker 1: try to keep that in mind doing radio or you know,
Speaker 1: even doing a podcast like I am now. But to me, certainly,
Speaker 1: for any of the January six defendants who did not
Speaker 1: engage in violence against the cops, and let's be clear,
Speaker 1: the violence was not it was not lethal violence. They
Speaker 1: did not beat sick Nick to death with a fire extinguisher,
Speaker 1: which was reported at nauseum in the very beginning of this.
Speaker 1: It was constantly, oh they beat sixty three death, which
Speaker 1: was a horrible thing. And I remember when I heard
Speaker 1: that report, thought, oh my gosh, what what are these
Speaker 1: guys doing. Of course, total lie, as we find out,
Speaker 1: but on any of the non violent January sixth defendants.
Speaker 1: To me, they're political prisoners. I mean, when you hold
Speaker 1: somebody for months at a time in solitary confinement, in
Speaker 1: special administrative segregation or whatever they're calling in in the
Speaker 1: DC gulog that they're operating and they haven't actually hurt anyone,
Speaker 1: you have to wonder, what can we call this other
Speaker 1: than political prisoners. I mean, I think that is the
Speaker 1: accurate term. It certainly is the accurate term. One of
Speaker 1: the things that I was thinking when Tucker was airing
Speaker 1: the part about the qan on shaman Jacob Chanzley, who
Speaker 1: became kind of the face of the whole thing, at
Speaker 1: least in the mainstream media's narrative that they were perpetuating,
Speaker 1: is when they were when they were show this video
Speaker 1: of him just like basically powling around with these Campital
Speaker 1: police officers. They were trying to open doors for him,
Speaker 1: they were walking next to him. They weren't doing anything.
Speaker 1: They even try to verbally tell him, hey, hey, dude,
Speaker 1: you can't be in here, let alone restraining him or
Speaker 1: being more forceful. They were very casual. Their demeanor was
Speaker 1: very unthreatened. I thought to myself, was this video footage
Speaker 1: used during his trial, because he's in prison right now.
Speaker 1: He was sentenced to four years in prison. He has
Speaker 1: currently incarcerated, and this is, in my opinion, exculpatory evidence
Speaker 1: to the extreme. I'm not sure how he could have
Speaker 1: been convicted given this evidence, especially when he said he said, listen,
Speaker 1: I didn't realize that I wasn't supposed to be in
Speaker 1: there because police officers were opening doors for me. How
Speaker 1: can you sendence a man to four years in prison,
Speaker 1: make him the face of this so called deadly insurrection
Speaker 1: that wasn't deadly and wasn't an insurrection when this video
Speaker 1: footage exists. Yeah, there are people, you know MSNBC host
Speaker 1: or analysts or I guess analysts, you know commentators. Steve Schmidt,
Speaker 1: as you may recall, all said we should shoot people
Speaker 1: like like Chansley, and I mean, not only is that horrific,
Speaker 1: but but also when you think about how at Ashley
Speaker 1: Babbitt was shot, I mean that woman was murdered, and
Speaker 1: they made it. They made it go away effectively from
Speaker 1: illegal from the legal side of things, the system made
Speaker 1: it go away. Because if people realize that they just
Speaker 1: that someone opened fire on these protesters, you would say, really,
Speaker 1: this is the protest that they opened fire on, they
Speaker 1: just start shooting people. Yeah, I find it really strange
Speaker 1: that one of the only places on the Capitol that
Speaker 1: doesn't have multiple angles of camera surveillance as outside the
Speaker 1: Speakers Lounge. That seems really shady to me. And I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is just another level of security
Speaker 1: that we're not supposed to know about, that it's a
Speaker 1: different camera system, or why would there be a blind
Speaker 1: spot outside of the speakers Longe. That's where the shooting
Speaker 1: of Ashley Babbitt happened, and that's why we didn't have
Speaker 1: video footage. Why Tucker couldn't air any footage of it
Speaker 1: because he doesn't have it, because that's a blind spot
Speaker 1: in the Capitol And that's seems really suspect to me.
Speaker 1: Everything else that we've seen makes me one hundred percent
Speaker 1: sure that the narrative coming from the mainstream media in
Speaker 1: the January sixth Committee about what happened to her, that
Speaker 1: she was threatening someone's life and that the police officer
Speaker 1: essentially acted justly in his use of lethal force, makes
Speaker 1: me sure that that's incorrect. But how are we ever
Speaker 1: supposed to prove this if there's a blind spot in
Speaker 1: front of the speaker's lounge. Is that? Am I wrong? Here?
Speaker 1: Is that strange? It's only strange if you think that
Speaker 1: the two cameras outside of Epstein cell malfunctioning when he
Speaker 1: was supposed to be under twenty four seven surveillance and
Speaker 1: captain you know that they just had and the guards
Speaker 1: were asleep, and the cameras malfunctioned, you know, and the
Speaker 1: first person to ever commit suicide in the Manhattan Correction
Speaker 1: of Federal Correctional facility just happened to be a guy
Speaker 1: with a rolodex full of names of people. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: don't know if you think one is strange, Liz, I
Speaker 1: think you can think. I think the other one looks
Speaker 1: a little strange too. I do think that that's a
Speaker 1: fair thing to point out. Want to ask you about
Speaker 1: a story that you've been shedding at a lot of
Speaker 1: light on out of Ohio and elementary school and students
Speaker 1: there who well we'll get to this, as a students
Speaker 1: who who were made to pledge allegiance to Black Lives matter.
Speaker 1: Why don't you tell everybody about that story? So, ladies,
Speaker 1: tell everybody about this story. Out of the elementary school
Speaker 1: in Ohio. Tell everybody what happened. Yeah, so this happened
Speaker 1: about an hour and a half north of where I
Speaker 1: grew up. I grew up in the suburbs of Cincinnati, Ohio,
Speaker 1: and at an elementary school in Springfield, Ohio. This elementary
Speaker 1: school is called Kenwood Elementary School. People in Ohio are
Speaker 1: probably gonna be familiar with this. There was video footage
Speaker 1: that was requested based on based on anecdotal reporting, video
Speaker 1: footage that was requested by the local affiliate that showed
Speaker 1: several black students at this school. Keep in mind the
Speaker 1: background of the story is it is an elementary school,
Speaker 1: meaning this is not seventeen and eighteen year old thugs
Speaker 1: who are still in high school. These are small children.
Speaker 1: Several black students at this elementary school were caught on
Speaker 1: camera taking white students on the playground outside, physically assaulting them,
Speaker 1: throwing them to the ground and punching them in the head,
Speaker 1: making them kneel, and then pledge allegiance to black lives matter,
Speaker 1: saying those words black lives matter. The videos of this
Speaker 1: are obviously horrible. There is not audio, but you can
Speaker 1: plainly see what's going on here. Thankfully, police are pressing
Speaker 1: charges here. And when I saw this, I thought, probably
Speaker 1: the same as everyone else thought. I thought, well, this
Speaker 1: is truly horrendous. It's so despicable to think of this
Speaker 1: happening to children. But my first thought was, it's shocking
Speaker 1: to me that this kind of violence happens in an
Speaker 1: elementary school. It seems to me that you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not to date myself, not to sound too old here,
Speaker 1: but it seems to me that when we would hurt
Speaker 1: hear stories back from my day about violence in school,
Speaker 1: it usually was in schools in the inner city. It
Speaker 1: was usually in lower income areas where there was a
Speaker 1: higher crime rate, and it was usually sixteen, seventeen, eighteen
Speaker 1: year old men who were committing the violence in this school.
Speaker 1: And I thought, why is this happening out of an
Speaker 1: elementary school? So I ponder this. I watch this video
Speaker 1: about one hundred times, and I think to myself, you
Speaker 1: know what the conservative movement, including myself may a culpa here,
Speaker 1: has missed, as we've missed the manifestation of critical race
Speaker 1: theory when it comes to black students. Right, So we
Speaker 1: constantly talk about critical race theory in our schools and country.
Speaker 1: How it's this poisonous ideology that tells white children that
Speaker 1: they're inherently racist based on the color of their skin,
Speaker 1: not based on their thoughts or their actions, but just
Speaker 1: based on the fact that they're whites, and therefore they're
Speaker 1: enjoying privileges that have been built on the shoulders of
Speaker 1: white supremacy before them. This ridiculous notion. And we tell
Speaker 1: black children through critical race theory that they are fundamentally
Speaker 1: oppressed and victimized, but buck so often we focus on
Speaker 1: the false accusation that's levied against the white children. That
Speaker 1: they're told that they're racist, they're told they're evil, they're
Speaker 1: told they're irredeemable, there's nothing they can do about this.
Speaker 1: But we forget the impact that this has on black children.
Speaker 1: That black children are being told through schools by teachers
Speaker 1: as if it's truth, that they're less, they're being told
Speaker 1: that they're victims, they're being told that they're they're being
Speaker 1: demeaned on this cultural level based on the color of
Speaker 1: their skin. And this is the outgrowth of that. The
Speaker 1: outgrowth of that is a almost racial revolution where black
Speaker 1: children assault white children in the name of Black Lives Matter, which,
Speaker 1: as we know, is an organization built on critical race theory.
Speaker 1: If we as conservatives don't recognize this, we're going to
Speaker 1: start seeing this pop up not just in schools but
Speaker 1: in our culture all across the country. What do you
Speaker 1: think can be done in response to this? I mean,
Speaker 1: is this an all of the above effort from parents,
Speaker 1: to teachers, to administrators rethinking the obviously getting rid of
Speaker 1: CRT in schools, But you know, how do we address this?
Speaker 1: I just feel like for so many parents out there,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not a parent yet, but there's this
Speaker 1: sense of Okay, so these things are happening. Kids are
Speaker 1: being told this. White kids are being told this. Black
Speaker 1: kids are being told this. You know, they're different, different
Speaker 1: narratives about how they're supposed to think about each other
Speaker 1: and about race relations in America. And it's poisonous stuff.
Speaker 1: So how do we change that? Like? What is what
Speaker 1: is changing that actually look like? Well, I think there's
Speaker 1: a cultural change and then there's political change, right, cultural changes.
Speaker 1: If you possibly can homeschool your kids, get them out
Speaker 1: of these institutions, don't let them on TikTok, don't send
Speaker 1: them to public school where this is firmly embedded into
Speaker 1: If not the curriculum. Then the counselors and the administrators
Speaker 1: in the idea of right and wrong injustice, don't send
Speaker 1: your kid. It's it's too toxic. It's it's not possible
Speaker 1: for them to go to public school right now and
Speaker 1: escape this kind of this kind of poison. So homeschool them,
Speaker 1: pull them out of school, and they will be much
Speaker 1: better for it. That's sort of the cultural side of things.
Speaker 1: The political side is we should ban this. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is racial superiority and racial inferiority ideology. This is
Speaker 1: something states can ban from public schools. This isn't even
Speaker 1: controversial to think that it can be banned because critical
Speaker 1: race there is not being taught as some abstract idea
Speaker 1: in public schools. Teachers aren't saying, Okay, this is critical
Speaker 1: race theory, and critical theory teaches A, B and C.
Speaker 1: They're teaching it as if it's true. They're teaching it
Speaker 1: the same that they would teach one plus one equals two.
Speaker 1: And they don't have any kind of right, any kind
Speaker 1: of any kind of protected privilege that allows them to
Speaker 1: teach falsehood as truth. We should absolutely ban this. Have
Speaker 1: you noticed the trend where we keep at different at
Speaker 1: different moments when we find what the teaching the teaching
Speaker 1: curriculum may be at a certain school with regard to
Speaker 1: CRT or you know, diversity, equity and inclusion stuff in
Speaker 1: the workplace, we find these manuals, we find these these lectures,
Speaker 1: and so often we hear from the left is, well,
Speaker 1: that's not really happening, or this isn't really a thing,
Speaker 1: And then it reaches this critical mass where we've had
Speaker 1: enough of them over let's say like a three month
Speaker 1: period or a six week period, and they say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, we're teaching this stuff because this is the truth.
Speaker 1: And it just feels like it goes through this cycle
Speaker 1: because they don't really want to defend it, but they
Speaker 1: want to keep doing it. So when we find enough
Speaker 1: of where this indoctrination is happening, for a moment in time,
Speaker 1: they'll actually have to say, yeah, that's right, this is justice,
Speaker 1: this is truth, this is social justice. But then as
Speaker 1: time passes they go back to the what are you
Speaker 1: talking about, we're not really Basically, it's like a cycle
Speaker 1: of gaslighting that the left engages in. Yes, that's the
Speaker 1: exact phrase that I was going to use. It's a
Speaker 1: cycle of gaslighting. They go from gaslighting to digging their
Speaker 1: heels in. But you can tell Buck that it's a
Speaker 1: farce because whenever there is a state that bands critical
Speaker 1: race theory from the school curriculum in public schools in
Speaker 1: the state, like Florida did, you'll hear the left simultaneously
Speaker 1: claim that they don't teach critical race theory in school,
Speaker 1: in which case it shouldn't be a problem if it's banned, right,
Speaker 1: And at the same time they'll say, but these bands
Speaker 1: mean we won't be able to teach the reality of
Speaker 1: slavery in our nation. So they're contradicting themselves right there.
Speaker 1: They're hoping just to distract people and confuse people as
Speaker 1: they continue to indoctrinate our children. Fortunately, I think the
Speaker 1: last two years with COVID, as brutal and as tyrannical
Speaker 1: and as damaging as they were, I mean, they really
Speaker 1: did open parents eyes to what's going on in the
Speaker 1: school system, and parents on the left and the right,
Speaker 1: it's not just a purely partisan divide, don't like what's
Speaker 1: been going on and are motivated to change it because
Speaker 1: they don't want their children turned into racists or having
Speaker 1: their gender mutilated behind their back. Well, yeah, on that point.
Speaker 1: By the way, the other that same cycle I see
Speaker 1: happening a little bit of a variation on it with
Speaker 1: the transgender agenda for kids stuff or adolescence, where there's this,
Speaker 1: You know, why are you so focused on it? Why
Speaker 1: do you care so much? This isn't happening that much.
Speaker 1: You're exaggerating, it's not happening everywhere. Why are you saying it?
Speaker 1: And they act like we're the ones who are obsessed
Speaker 1: with it, when meanwhile they're doing it all over the place.
Speaker 1: I mean they actually this is happening in states all
Speaker 1: across the country and institutions all over. They're pushing this
Speaker 1: in different hospital systems, they're pushing this in different school systems.
Speaker 1: And of course there's the hairy middle aged men dressing
Speaker 1: up like women and putting fishnets and thongs on and
Speaker 1: are shaking their behinds in front of small children. And
Speaker 1: somehow we're supposed to be okay with this, which of
Speaker 1: course is completely insane, and we're not okay with this.
Speaker 1: But they do the same thing. They push and when
Speaker 1: we notice what they're pushing, it's why are you Why
Speaker 1: are you so obsessed with it? Why do you notice that? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: let's be very clear about one thing. The left with
Speaker 1: their LGBTQ plus agenda, never wanted a quality. They never
Speaker 1: wanted tolerance. They never wanted to simply be included in
Speaker 1: polite society and otherwise mind their own business. That was
Speaker 1: always just a camouflage to trick well meaning but naive
Speaker 1: conservatives and to shrugging their shoulders and being like, okay,
Speaker 1: sure will allow gay marriage. But that was never the
Speaker 1: true intention of the lobby. The true intention of the lobby.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's an ideology, right, It's not just a
Speaker 1: sexual orientation, as they would have you believe. The LGBTQ
Speaker 1: plus lobby is an ideology that wants to force you
Speaker 1: and I not just to tolerate it, not just to
Speaker 1: celebrate equality under the law, but to celebrate the ideology.
Speaker 1: And the ideology is queer theory. It's no coincidence that
Speaker 1: critical race theory and the transgender stuff surfaced at just
Speaker 1: about the same time. The racial superiority or inferiority stuff
Speaker 1: that's taught to kids in school. The foundation, the underpinning
Speaker 1: of that, the ideological underpinning is critical race theory, just
Speaker 1: like the transgender stuff that's taught in school. The ideological
Speaker 1: underpinning of that is queer theory. It's intentional because critical
Speaker 1: race theory first comes in and destroys the sort of
Speaker 1: inherent identity of a child, saying, hey, you should hate
Speaker 1: your parents, you should hate your grandparents. Everything of who
Speaker 1: you are based on the color of your skin is
Speaker 1: wrong and evil and you can't redeem yourself. And so
Speaker 1: it creates this idea entity crisis quite literally in children,
Speaker 1: and then in swoops queer theory saying, actually, your identity
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be tied to an immutable characteristic. You
Speaker 1: can redeem yourself if you separate your identity from your essence.
Speaker 1: If you choose a neo Marxist transgender ideology, then you
Speaker 1: become a victim instead of being the oppressor in this
Speaker 1: whole system. So it's so messed up. But it's not
Speaker 1: a coincidence that they surface at the same time, because
Speaker 1: one without the other wouldn't truly both destroy children and
Speaker 1: simultaneously transform them into Marxist revolutionaries. So you are a woman,
Speaker 1: I am not. What do you think when somebody who
Speaker 1: is as not a woman as I am, decides, maybe
Speaker 1: a couple of months ago, that he is in fact,
Speaker 1: now is she and a woman and wants to lecture
Speaker 1: the world. I mean, I'm not even talking about people
Speaker 1: who just do this privately but want to go out
Speaker 1: on TikTok and interviews, say the President of the United
Speaker 1: States and explain their their womanhood. Two people like you
Speaker 1: who are an actual woman. What's that like? Yeah, it's insulting,
Speaker 1: it's demeaning. You're talking about Dylan mulvaney, the TikTok star.
Speaker 1: What does he have? Like? Ten million? Ten million followers
Speaker 1: on TikTok went so viral with his Days of Girlhood
Speaker 1: series that President Biden invited him to the White House,
Speaker 1: and Dylan Mulvaney got President Biden to say that he
Speaker 1: doesn't think that that states should have the right or
Speaker 1: parents should have the right to decline bodily mutilation surgery
Speaker 1: in the name of gender ideology and identity. It's truly awful.
Speaker 1: It really does a race. It really does a race women.
Speaker 1: There's sort of a funny thing going around on Twitter
Speaker 1: in since International Women's Month started in March whenever that
Speaker 1: is supposed to be, and the spokespeople for a couple
Speaker 1: of these organizations are actually transgender, meaning born male now
Speaker 1: dressed as women in call themselves by women's names, but
Speaker 1: still a man, of course. And it's funny because International
Speaker 1: Women's Month has become Women Plus month, like LGBTQ added
Speaker 1: a plus for all the other all the other identities
Speaker 1: and ideologies. The idea of being a woman has become
Speaker 1: women plus. So my friend James Lindsay likes to say,
Speaker 1: the future is not female. The future is female plus,
Speaker 1: where biological men who dress as women have taken over
Speaker 1: taken over the roles in the achievements and the spaces
Speaker 1: of actual, actual women. It's funny that the Left, who
Speaker 1: claims to be a champion of women, latches onto this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I just I know that if I were to say,
Speaker 1: want to give a public lecture, if I said I
Speaker 1: self identify as a as a Hispanic American, I mean
Speaker 1: I am not, and I do not. But if I
Speaker 1: were to say that and say on a day, you know,
Speaker 1: and Sanco de Mayo is not really that big of
Speaker 1: a day for the Latino community in this country. But
Speaker 1: if I were to pick a day and say, well,
Speaker 1: let's say it's Latino Appreciation Month, we'll just which might
Speaker 1: even be a thing I didn't even know and I
Speaker 1: went around saying, speaking as a Latino. Here's what I
Speaker 1: think people would rightly both be. They would think it
Speaker 1: was bizarre and they would be like offended. That's just
Speaker 1: really weird, right Why? But in this case, it's supposed
Speaker 1: to be wonderful that somebody who's been a woman for
Speaker 1: never mind that they're not actually that Dylan mulvanny is
Speaker 1: not actually a woman, been a woman for a couple
Speaker 1: of months. Like maybe maybe learn you know, a woman
Speaker 1: in quotes, maybe learn a few things before you're going
Speaker 1: around telling everybody about womanhood. But even you know, that's
Speaker 1: obviously piling crazy at top crazy. The stereotypes that Dylan
Speaker 1: mulvaney traffics in are actually really insulting, Like that you
Speaker 1: prance around in a sports braw on high heels in
Speaker 1: the middle of a field, doing your blush in a
Speaker 1: high falsetto voice, and that you cried sending an email.
Speaker 1: All of these different things are actually like sexist, negative
Speaker 1: stereotypes that that have been trotted out against women, and
Speaker 1: yet he's embracing them, pretending that that's what makes him
Speaker 1: a woman. Listen, I'm actually not trying to personally nye
Speaker 1: Dyan Mulvanny. I feel very sorry for him. I think
Speaker 1: that criticism against him is certainly warranted and even harsh criticism,
Speaker 1: because he's merged his personal psychiatric disorder, his personal mental
Speaker 1: health struggle, with political activism, and therefore political activism is
Speaker 1: always one percent okay to criticize, but on a personal level,
Speaker 1: like these people need help. These people are suffering from
Speaker 1: serious mental disorders, and we as a society are harming
Speaker 1: them further by indulging them. Yeah, well, at some point
Speaker 1: you either speak the truth about who Dylan mulvany is
Speaker 1: and to the mental health issues that are clearly on display,
Speaker 1: or you have very little argument to deploy in defense
Speaker 1: of why a fourteen year old shouldn't get puberty blockers.
Speaker 1: That this is where we actually have to understand that
Speaker 1: the battle goes next. It's not just like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is somebody who's an adult and it's fine and they're
Speaker 1: doing their thing. No, the same ideology and the same
Speaker 1: agenda is used to convince, as you know now that
Speaker 1: the thing that I want to talk about the medical community,
Speaker 1: scientific community, world health organization. A second, it's just before
Speaker 1: we get to the WHO pandemic treaty, which I know
Speaker 1: you've been diving deep into the fact that you have
Speaker 1: doctors going along with the assigned at birth gender thing. Right,
Speaker 1: Like the most basic thing in the world when a
Speaker 1: baby is born is you know, the doctor holds the
Speaker 1: baby up or whatever it, looks at the parts and
Speaker 1: says it's you know, it's these parts or it's those parts,
Speaker 1: assigned gender at birth. And they have they have people
Speaker 1: with mds now that go along with this stuff, and
Speaker 1: they should be ashamed of themselves. I want to ask
Speaker 1: you with the who in a second, But first the
Speaker 1: award from our sponsor of the Tunnel of the Towers Foundation,
Speaker 1: Tunnleton Towers Foundation has been honoring America's heroes ever since
Speaker 1: the tragic events of nine to eleven. The foundation honors
Speaker 1: fallen and severely injured heroes and their families with mortgage
Speaker 1: free homes. This year alone, hundreds of gold star and
Speaker 1: fallen first responder families with young children, and our nation's
Speaker 1: most severely injured veterans and first responders are receiving homes.
Speaker 1: More than five hundred homeless veterans received housing and services
Speaker 1: last year, and more than fifteen hundred are receiving housing
Speaker 1: and services this year, and the Tune of the Towers
Speaker 1: also educates the next generation through the Nine to Eleven Institute,
Speaker 1: telling children from kindergarten up through twelfth grade about our
Speaker 1: nation's darkest day and the history that came after. Joined
Speaker 1: Tunne oftha Towers on its mission to do good, Please
Speaker 1: help America to never forget its greatest heroes. Join me
Speaker 1: in donating eleven dollars a month to Tunnel of the
Speaker 1: Towers at t twot dot org. That's t the number
Speaker 1: two t dot org. All right, Liz, let it rip.
Speaker 1: The World Health Organization Pandemic treaty. A lot of these things.
Speaker 1: I hear any of these things and I think, hmmm,
Speaker 1: I don't know you put them together. I'm worried. What's
Speaker 1: going on? Yeah, those are three words you never want
Speaker 1: to hear together. World Health Organization, Pandemic can treaty. It's
Speaker 1: a recipe for disaster. So negotiators from the Biden administration
Speaker 1: last week traveled to Switzerland to negotiate what is called
Speaker 1: the zero Draft of a Pandemic Accord. That's what the
Speaker 1: word health organizations calling it, because they're trying to avoid
Speaker 1: using the word treaty because if it were a legitimate treaty.
Speaker 1: It would need to be ratified by the US Senate.
Speaker 1: There's nothing the Biden administration wants less than to put
Speaker 1: this in front of a vote in the United States Senate.
Speaker 1: So the World Health Organization is calling it a Pandemic Accord.
Speaker 1: The Biden administration sent negotiators to Switzerland and along with
Speaker 1: other member states of the World Health Organization, they approved
Speaker 1: this zero draft. It's the rough draft of this Pandemic Accord.
Speaker 1: What this Pandemic Accord does is it centralizes a response
Speaker 1: to future pandemics and before a pandemic even happens. It
Speaker 1: gives the World Health Organization the unilateral power to declare
Speaker 1: a global pandemic emergency. So, say we have another virus
Speaker 1: that leaks from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Say we
Speaker 1: have another virus that was funded by FAUCI. Say we
Speaker 1: have another virus that was tinkered with with gain a
Speaker 1: function experiment or directed evolution experiments, if you want to
Speaker 1: use the words of Fiser, and that it becomes unleashed
Speaker 1: on the world somehow World Health Organization and not the
Speaker 1: US government, the World Health Organization and not the CDC,
Speaker 1: The World Health Organization and not. State governors would have
Speaker 1: the power to declare over the United States a pandemic emergency.
Speaker 1: Once they have done that, once they have declared unilaterally
Speaker 1: this emergency in our sovereign territory, then they get to
Speaker 1: decide the political response, not just the medical response that too,
Speaker 1: but the political response. They get control over lockdowns, over
Speaker 1: force masking, potentially over vaccine mandates. They get the first
Speaker 1: an authoritative stance on what kind of therapeutics are used,
Speaker 1: what kind of supplements are recommended, whether a vaccine is
Speaker 1: developed in order to combat this particular virus that the
Speaker 1: World Health Organization has declared constitutes a global pandemic emergency.
Speaker 1: This Pandemic Accord, which is not a legitimate treaty because
Speaker 1: Biden refuses to have the Senate ratify it, we actually
Speaker 1: takes control of our country in this event. It it
Speaker 1: usurps our sovereignty, our representative republic, and gives it to
Speaker 1: a World Health organization that right now is controlled by
Speaker 1: a man named doctor Teddros who himself is controlled by
Speaker 1: the Chinese Communist Party. Buck. There has rarely been anything
Speaker 1: that the Biden administration has done, and they've done a
Speaker 1: lot of bad things. That's as dangerous as this. Do
Speaker 1: you think that the Fauci's ted drows go down the list?
Speaker 1: Rachelle Wilenski board members of FISER, Right. I mean, throw
Speaker 1: anybody you want in the mix here that was involved
Speaker 1: at a high level with the COVID policies and response
Speaker 1: that were really it was really globalized as we know, right,
Speaker 1: There's a reason why you had similar things going on
Speaker 1: here and in Australia and in Europe and in South America,
Speaker 1: and you go all over the place. Do you think
Speaker 1: they think they did a good job or do you
Speaker 1: think they don't care because they should be in charge
Speaker 1: no matter what, so results don't matter. I don't think
Speaker 1: they were measuring on the same standards that we are.
Speaker 1: They weren't looking for a balance between protecting public health
Speaker 1: and using government resources to respond to an emergency and
Speaker 1: balancing that or marrying that with civil rights of Americans
Speaker 1: and the limited power of our government as codified in
Speaker 1: our constitution and in state constitutions. They're not judging themselves
Speaker 1: by the same standard. They're technocrats. They think that our
Speaker 1: representative Republic is bad. They don't like our form of government.
Speaker 1: They think that we should be ruled by the fiat
Speaker 1: of the so called experts. I'm putting that in quotation marks.
Speaker 1: They think that they know better than we do. They
Speaker 1: think they should control our lives. I think they're delighted
Speaker 1: with how the pandemic response went. They successfully coerced the
Speaker 1: federal government to issue vaccine mandates on a vaccine that
Speaker 1: they rushed through, that had no efficacy, that had a
Speaker 1: harmful side effect profile against a virus that wasn't equally
Speaker 1: harmful for every single person in our country. In fact,
Speaker 1: wasn't harmful to the vast majority of people, had a
Speaker 1: very high survival rate. Really just harmed vulnerable populations like
Speaker 1: overweight people and extremely elderly people, are immunocompromise people. They're
Speaker 1: delighted that they were able to squash free speech and
Speaker 1: shutter people's businesses, take hold of the economy in the
Speaker 1: name of an emergency, that they instilled fear in us,
Speaker 1: and that in our fear we willingly surrendered our freedom,
Speaker 1: our individual sovereignty, our state sovereignty. This is exactly what
Speaker 1: they've been trying to do, slowly, inch by inch, grain
Speaker 1: by grain for decades, and yet here we have this pandemic,
Speaker 1: This COVID nineteen virus unleashed around the world, and they
Speaker 1: were able to do it in a matter of months.
Speaker 1: That's how they are grading themselves. That's why they are
Speaker 1: unashamed of all of our concerns, like our businesses being
Speaker 1: closed down and our children being masked at school and
Speaker 1: all of the rest of it. They're delighted because they
Speaker 1: finally got what they want, which is all the power.
Speaker 1: I want to ask Liz Wheeler about how Liz Wheeler
Speaker 1: got into this whole game of trying to save America
Speaker 1: and the Liz Wheeler Show and all the other things
Speaker 1: are up to. So I want to finish up with
Speaker 1: that in just a moment. But for all the Team
Speaker 1: Mobile subbers out there, they're investigating a data breaks that
Speaker 1: expose the sensitive personal information of thirty seven million customers.
Speaker 1: But after the New year, cyberhackers grab that data without notice.
Speaker 1: Could include customers names, emails, billing addresses, phone numbers, a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of stuff that if cyber thieves get a
Speaker 1: hold of, they can take out loans or credit cards
Speaker 1: in your name. How do you protect yourself against this?
Speaker 1: One way is with lifelocks help their online identity theft
Speaker 1: protection includes monitoring the web twenty four to seven for
Speaker 1: regular activities and new account openings. If they see unusual
Speaker 1: activity in your name and your LifeLock customer, you'll get
Speaker 1: an alert. It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity
Speaker 1: theft are affecting our lives, and no one can prevent
Speaker 1: all identity theft or a monitor all transactions at all businesses.
Speaker 1: But it's easy to help protect yourself with LifeLock. I've
Speaker 1: relied on them for years. They come through time and
Speaker 1: time again. Join now. Save up at twenty five percent
Speaker 1: off your first year with promo code buck at lifeflock
Speaker 1: dot com or call one eight hundred LifeLock. That's promo
Speaker 1: codebuck when you go to LifeLock dot com or just
Speaker 1: call the number one eight hundred LifeLock. When you used buck,
Speaker 1: You've got a twenty five percent discount. Liz wheel There. So,
Speaker 1: where'd you come from? How did all this happen? How
Speaker 1: do you get? You know? A massive Twitter following digital
Speaker 1: show TV podcast following How did the Masses come to
Speaker 1: learn of Liz Wheeler? Tell me the story? Oh my goodness, Well,
Speaker 1: it seems like it's been a long time in the making,
Speaker 1: but I really wasn't that interested in politics until very
Speaker 1: late in high school. I started following the presidential primary
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seven, This is right before Barack
Speaker 1: Obama was elected, and I remember this, this newcomer Obama
Speaker 1: to the national stage. Sure he was a senator, but
Speaker 1: he was a newbie. I remember watching him compared to
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. Everyone thought Hillary Clinton was the shoe in
Speaker 1: for the nominee, and she, of course was not. And
Speaker 1: the moment that he won that primary, the moment he
Speaker 1: became the nominee, I remember sitting there and thinking, Wow,
Speaker 1: all of the things that are important to me are
Speaker 1: at risk if this man becomes president. I'm going to
Speaker 1: do what I can to fight for our country. And
Speaker 1: when I say that, it's it's a little bit ironic
Speaker 1: because when I said do what I can to fight
Speaker 1: for our country. In high school, I was diagnosed with
Speaker 1: a really serious autoimmune disorder, autoimmune disease. And the reason
Speaker 1: that I was able, the reason I'm able to do
Speaker 1: what I do today, is because of the free market economy.
Speaker 1: Because we had my family, my parents, specifically my mom
Speaker 1: and dad had the freedom to My dad operates a
Speaker 1: small business. He was able to save and invest his
Speaker 1: money how he saw fit versus the government telling him
Speaker 1: what he needed or not. And when insurance companies didn't
Speaker 1: cover the treatments that I needed to manage my autoimmune disease,
Speaker 1: he was able to use his money in the free
Speaker 1: market to get me the alternative treatments that weren't offered
Speaker 1: by big pharma that enable me to live the life
Speaker 1: that I live today. And I was sitting there watching
Speaker 1: this primary, watching them talk about socialized medicine, watching them
Speaker 1: talk about high taxes, watching them talk about Barack Obama
Speaker 1: and the Democrats about all of these big government policies,
Speaker 1: that I realized it was kind of like that aha
Speaker 1: moment for me that Wow, the Democrats aren't just immoral
Speaker 1: when it comes to abortion, They're not just immral when
Speaker 1: it comes to gay marriage. They actually threaten the life
Speaker 1: that I have been able to enjoy. So from there,
Speaker 1: I just started reading everything I could get my hands
Speaker 1: on from the left and from the right, educating myself.
Speaker 1: I wrote a book in college with a group of
Speaker 1: young conservatives from around the country about why we are
Speaker 1: Young Conservatives. I served in local government in college as well.
Speaker 1: I was a commissioner on the Board of Zoning Appeals,
Speaker 1: which was just as just as funny and quirky as
Speaker 1: it sounds. After college, I worked actually for a veteran
Speaker 1: advocacy company, not in politics at all, but I was
Speaker 1: always itching to get back in politics. Kind of wanted
Speaker 1: to be a speech writer, but came to the conclusion
Speaker 1: that if I wanted what I wrote to be read
Speaker 1: in the way that I wrote it, then I would
Speaker 1: need to be the one that presented it myself, because
Speaker 1: you know how speech writers they make these beautiful documents
Speaker 1: and then politicians rip them up and tear them up.
Speaker 1: So I ended up getting into media. If anyone's listening
Speaker 1: in there a young young man or woman college age
Speaker 1: or maybe just in their twenties, and they were to
Speaker 1: ask you, how do I get into this game? Should
Speaker 1: I get into this game? What would you say? I
Speaker 1: would say, yes, if you have the fire in your
Speaker 1: belly to actually fight the fight, and if you are
Speaker 1: well equipped to do it. Don't get into this game
Speaker 1: for fame and fortune. Get into it because you want
Speaker 1: to be a public servant, because you know this book,
Speaker 1: of course, but it's not always pretty. You know, you
Speaker 1: get threats against your family, your reputation gets unfairly smeared.
Speaker 1: It's a grind to work, to work in media and
Speaker 1: to work in politics, So all the fame and all
Speaker 1: the glory and all the money does not take that away.
Speaker 1: If you want to get into this business, especially media,
Speaker 1: first educate yourself. I'm not talking about going to college.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about study. Read everything every book that you
Speaker 1: can get your hands on. Because what we don't need
Speaker 1: in the conservative movement tour in politics in general, it's
Speaker 1: just another person bloviating another another bit of hot air.
Speaker 1: We need people who not only understand what they stand for,
Speaker 1: but they understand why they believe what they believe, and
Speaker 1: are unflappable in their principles. If you feel like that
Speaker 1: is you to a t then please come and join us.
Speaker 1: We can always use more young people in the conservative
Speaker 1: movement in media who are committed truly to what makes
Speaker 1: our nation great. But think very carefully about what you're
Speaker 1: getting yourself and your family into, because it's not always
Speaker 1: a better roses. I usually ask, especially if it's people
Speaker 1: from former intelligence community and I was never in the military,
Speaker 1: about a fair number of people from the military side,
Speaker 1: because it's some similarities in the transition of being military
Speaker 1: going civilian to being a former CIA person and civilian,
Speaker 1: you know, just working for the federal government in that
Speaker 1: kind of realm and capacity. And I would just tell them,
Speaker 1: I'm like, do you have a wife, do you have
Speaker 1: a mortgage? Do you have debts? Think about all those
Speaker 1: questions first before you start a media career, And then
Speaker 1: do you love this? Do you love the work meaning
Speaker 1: the research, the writing that do you of it so
Speaker 1: much that you're willing to do it a lot of
Speaker 1: the time for free? Do it a lot of the
Speaker 1: time for very few people watching or caring and being
Speaker 1: told the whole time while you're not making much money
Speaker 1: and not a lot of people are seeing you that
Speaker 1: you're probably not that good at this and maybe you
Speaker 1: should do something else. And if the answer all those
Speaker 1: questions and it is I love it anyway, I don't care. Great,
Speaker 1: Come join the circus. That's what I usually tell people,
Speaker 1: because the first few years usually suck, not suck in
Speaker 1: terms of like it's not amazing and important and cool
Speaker 1: and great, you know, for the work. But I think
Speaker 1: people see, like in everything, people see the end product
Speaker 1: and they think, oh, that would be awesome. I like,
Speaker 1: I want to have a show. And as you know,
Speaker 1: from having a show for years at One America and
Speaker 1: now a show on your own, it's like having a show.
Speaker 1: I think when I started radio, I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: actually guessing. I had like, well, it was less than
Speaker 1: twenty people listening to my first radio show three hours.
Speaker 1: People look at that, you know what I mean. But
Speaker 1: it was like because and I knew that number, by
Speaker 1: the way, because it was streaming. It was digital so
Speaker 1: we can actually see it on a website. It was
Speaker 1: in a terressa radio show. So that's what I always
Speaker 1: tell people. But I mean, I love it, and you
Speaker 1: love it too, and here we are, so you know
Speaker 1: there is I'm like, I agree with you the more
Speaker 1: than marrier as long as people know what the merriment
Speaker 1: actually looks like, especially in the early stages. Liz Wheeler,
Speaker 1: everybody check out her show. Where's the best place people
Speaker 1: to go to see the Liz Wheeler Show. You're gonna
Speaker 1: go to Liz wheelershow dot com. But it's everywhere you
Speaker 1: find your podcast. You can go to Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Rumble,
Speaker 1: look me up Liz Wheeler Show. Subscribe. Let me know
Speaker 1: what you think. If you're If you're new, I can't
Speaker 1: wait to meet you. If you're If you're an old follower,
Speaker 1: then you know we've been We've been together for years.
Speaker 1: Let's keep up fighting the good fight. Liz, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for being here hanging out. Appreciate it. Thanks Buck,
Speaker 1: appreciate it.