Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. We've got a Thanksgiving
Speaker 1: Eve extravaganza plan for you, my friends in the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut today, including Trump's latest feud with the Ninth Circuit,
Speaker 1: the allegation that he actually wanted to have Hillary prosecuted
Speaker 1: for breaking the law when it comes to her emails.
Speaker 1: We've got updates on the caravan crisis, and some pre
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving thoughts coming up on the Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American Again, The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins hut on, Well, you go to the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit and it's a disgrace. And I'm going to
Speaker 1: put in a major complaint because you cannot win if
Speaker 1: you're us a case in the Ninth Circuit. And I
Speaker 1: think it's a disgrace when people file every case gets
Speaker 1: filed in the Ninth Circuit because they know that's not law,
Speaker 1: that's not what this country stands for. Every case that
Speaker 1: gets filed in the Ninth Circuit, we get beaten and
Speaker 1: then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: Like the travel ban, and we won. This was an
Speaker 1: Obama judge. And I'll tell you what, It's not gonna
Speaker 1: happen like this anymore. Everybody that wants to sue the
Speaker 1: United States, they file their case in almost they file
Speaker 1: their case in the Ninth Circuit. And it means in
Speaker 1: automatic laws, no matter what you do, no matter how
Speaker 1: good your case is. And the Ninth Circuit is really
Speaker 1: something we have to take a look at. Welcome the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton show. Trump criticizing the Judiciary Public League. Oh my,
Speaker 1: all the all clutching now from across the media spectrum,
Speaker 1: how could he? Oh no, nothing, judges too. You're going
Speaker 1: to hear a lot of how he's undermining our institutions.
Speaker 1: This from people who, as we'll talk about later in
Speaker 1: the program, are still acting like there were stolen elections
Speaker 1: where Republicans won, and they have no evidence they were stolen,
Speaker 1: but they're still gonna say they're stolen because that doesn't
Speaker 1: undermine our elections. Someone needs to explain that one to me.
Speaker 1: This from people who claim that Marco Rubio and others
Speaker 1: who were merely pointing out that in Florida there were
Speaker 1: election irregularities, there were failures of the people in charge
Speaker 1: of the elections in Broward County, in Palm Beach County.
Speaker 1: That just doesn't that doesn't count. In fact, to bring
Speaker 1: it up was to be doing Putin's work, according to media,
Speaker 1: because they didn't. They didn't want too much light to
Speaker 1: be shown on the situation. There. Maybe find some Democrats
Speaker 1: doing some shady stuff. Wouldn't be the first time, certainly
Speaker 1: not give the last either. But this is a very
Speaker 1: important debate. Actually at the national level. There's a lot
Speaker 1: that we need to look at here, a lot to unpack,
Speaker 1: and it's been elevated a little bit because Chief Justice
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court, John Roberts has gone after the
Speaker 1: president a little bit. As a result of this. He
Speaker 1: released a state Marie. He said, quote, we do not
Speaker 1: have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges, or Clinton judges.
Speaker 1: What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges
Speaker 1: doing their level best to do equal right to those
Speaker 1: appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should
Speaker 1: all be thankful for. I think Justice Roberts is wrong.
Speaker 1: I think it's obvious that he's wrong. I think that
Speaker 1: he probably knows that he's wrong, but he believes that
Speaker 1: this is one of those lies that for the for
Speaker 1: the good of society, we all have to tell each other.
Speaker 1: Are there left wing judges? This is a very straightforward question.
Speaker 1: Are there left wing judges that have an entirely different
Speaker 1: interpretation of what the Constitution says and also just an
Speaker 1: entire different approach to how one interprets the Constitution? The
Speaker 1: answers yes, and anyone who says otherwise would have to explain.
Speaker 1: How is it that I always know how Ruth Bader
Speaker 1: Ginsburg is going to rule on a major issue. I
Speaker 1: always know. I always know how Sonya Soda my oer
Speaker 1: is going to rule on a major Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: by the time it's gotten up to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: there's been back and forth in courts, often different judges,
Speaker 1: different opinions. But I always know how the Libs on
Speaker 1: the Court are going to vote. I always know how
Speaker 1: they're going to come down with. You know, exceptions on
Speaker 1: certain issues that are not as hot button for Libs.
Speaker 1: But you know, if it's affirmative action, I know, Sodomer
Speaker 1: is going to go to the mat for that. You know,
Speaker 1: if it's abortion, I know, and Ginsburg is going to
Speaker 1: do everything she can to continue to prop up that
Speaker 1: fake constitutional right. So this is just I wish we
Speaker 1: could speak to each other like adults. Why did we
Speaker 1: the left wing completely lose their mind over Kavanaugh over
Speaker 1: the summer engage in the worst, most disgraceful character assassination
Speaker 1: on national TV I have ever seen in my life.
Speaker 1: Because there's no such things as Obama judges or Trump judges.
Speaker 1: There's just judges. Please don't speak to us like we're idiots, Roberts.
Speaker 1: This is also why I've been saying all along, the
Speaker 1: court is not nearly as conservative as many people pretend
Speaker 1: that it is. Roberts isn't isn't really a conservative. He's
Speaker 1: an institutionalist, So that means that some of his some
Speaker 1: of his inclinations will line up with conservatism. I think personally,
Speaker 1: ideologically he may be somewhat conservative. He does seem conservative,
Speaker 1: but in terms of his view of the judiciary, he
Speaker 1: is very much He's kind of like a journalist at
Speaker 1: this point who believes that journalists don't have a bias.
Speaker 1: That's a nice ideal, that's a nice position to espouse
Speaker 1: and to It's a nice hope. It's not rooted in reality, though.
Speaker 1: What Trump is saying is rooted in the reality, and
Speaker 1: we the American people, we need to understand this that
Speaker 1: judges are now in politicized roles. I wish it weren't
Speaker 1: the case. The Left has done this. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that have the living Constitution, and they're the ones that
Speaker 1: have this open ended view of jurisprudence that means that
Speaker 1: social justice overrides the will of the founders, judicial precedent,
Speaker 1: and the plain language meaning of written law. Words aren't words,
Speaker 1: words are whatever the Left says they are. They've been
Speaker 1: doing this for decades. It's how they've gotten some of
Speaker 1: the biggest victories handed to them by the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And that's why when Trump responded to Chief Justice Roberts,
Speaker 1: I entirely agree with Trump's sentiment. Here he says, sorry,
Speaker 1: Chief Justice Roberts, but you do indeed have Obama judges,
Speaker 1: and they have a much different point of view than
Speaker 1: the people who are charged with the safety of our country.
Speaker 1: It would be great if the Ninth Circuit. This was
Speaker 1: all on Twitter from our president. It would be great
Speaker 1: if the Ninth Circuit was indeed an independent judiciary. But
Speaker 1: if it is, why are there's so many opposing views
Speaker 1: on border and safety cases filed there, and why are
Speaker 1: a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers.
Speaker 1: They are shocking. We need protection and security. These rulings
Speaker 1: make our country unsafe, very dangerous, and unwise. Exclamation point.
Speaker 1: Trump is right, Trump is right here. John Roberts is wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't think we need to beat around the bush.
Speaker 1: I think we can just say it. Trump has apparently
Speaker 1: a more if not sophisticated, more realistic understanding of what
Speaker 1: the judiciary and the judic branch overall has become. It's
Speaker 1: now a political battleground on political issues. I mean on
Speaker 1: issues of interpretation, things about you know, you know processes,
Speaker 1: you know, criminal procedure and things. Yeah, I mean you
Speaker 1: can get into some more specific stuff where there's not
Speaker 1: really an ideological inflection point. It's not dictated by people's
Speaker 1: overall political ideological framework. And you know, the points of
Speaker 1: law that are arcade and you know, we need a
Speaker 1: bunch of legal scholars to figure out, well, what's fine
Speaker 1: on the big issues. On the important issues, the court
Speaker 1: is politicized. And one of the problems we run up
Speaker 1: against is that a conservative jurisprudence does mean that people
Speaker 1: get a fair hearing before the judge. A conservative jurisprudence
Speaker 1: in the contemporary context is the law is the law,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to try to apply the law without favoritism,
Speaker 1: without idea logical proclivity entering into this. And you know,
Speaker 1: essentially conservative judges do what Robert says all judges do.
Speaker 1: Liberal judges look at the law and they go, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: what do I think the what do I think the
Speaker 1: outcome here needs to be? And then they reverse engineer
Speaker 1: from that the decision they come up with. That's that
Speaker 1: tells you really what the difference is. And that's why
Speaker 1: there's this frustration on the right with well, our you know,
Speaker 1: our side, our judges, so to speak. You know. And
Speaker 1: by the way, just because you're appointed by it, let
Speaker 1: me Bush appointed, uh what was it? I think suitor
Speaker 1: was a Bush appointed? I mean, George H. W. Bush
Speaker 1: had some terrible judges that he appointed. Reagan might have
Speaker 1: even I mean, I mean it was either George H. W.
Speaker 1: Reagan Reagan appointed a you know some I got to
Speaker 1: look back at the list of Supreme Court appointees. Make
Speaker 1: sure I'm not community any I mean, I'm right, I'm
Speaker 1: just I might be on this specific picks off the
Speaker 1: top of my head. Republican here, here's what I can
Speaker 1: tell you for sure, there have been Republican presidents who
Speaker 1: have appointed very bad, very left wing judges to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. That has happened, and it never happens. On
Speaker 1: the other side. You find me a Scalia or a
Speaker 1: Thomas that was appointed by Barack Obama, by Jimmy Carter,
Speaker 1: by Bill Clinton, and doesn't happen. They always get They
Speaker 1: always get what they're going for, which is somebody who's
Speaker 1: going to pursue liberal policies for them. And this is
Speaker 1: going to be a big issue going forward because the Democrats,
Speaker 1: there's no legislation that's going to happen for the next
Speaker 1: two years. Really, you're just going to have political fights
Speaker 1: in Congress and the executive branch battling with the courts,
Speaker 1: and courts may have to weigh in here pretty soon
Speaker 1: on some aspects of the Muller probe. They may have
Speaker 1: to weigh in on some of these congressional hearings. And
Speaker 1: you know what if the Democrats force a constant they
Speaker 1: keep talking about a constitutional crisis, well, a real constitutional
Speaker 1: crisis is going to be what if Democrats just think
Speaker 1: that they're gonna subpoena the Trump administration into submission. You
Speaker 1: know what if Democrats in the House decide that they're
Speaker 1: just going to start calling senior members of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration before them for all their crazy fever swamp inspired
Speaker 1: conspiracy theories, do they get to just weaponize that process
Speaker 1: without any with without any pushback from the executive branch.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's where we're heading. That's what I think
Speaker 1: you're you're going to see. So, I mean, I agree
Speaker 1: with Trump, and I think that Roberts, you know, is
Speaker 1: fighting a losing battle here to try to make us
Speaker 1: all believe that the judiciary is still this you know
Speaker 1: organization that or you know this really this brotherhood and
Speaker 1: sisterhood that has that acts apart from political considerations. It's
Speaker 1: just false. It's not the case. And I and I
Speaker 1: know that. People say, oh my gosh, Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: he's undermining the judiciary by doing this, and he's undermining
Speaker 1: our democratic norms. And they say all this it's the
Speaker 1: same talking points all the time. It's all boring. It's
Speaker 1: annoyance what they do when I come at this and
Speaker 1: I say, can't we can't we start from position of
Speaker 1: honesty about the judicial system that we have and the
Speaker 1: way that it is trending and how judges are often acting.
Speaker 1: Can't we do that? Do we have to speak to
Speaker 1: each other like we're like we're frightened children and can't
Speaker 1: handle the truth. I know I had to go there.
Speaker 1: But that's what we're doing right now. That's what's happening here.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think Trump is doing us all a
Speaker 1: service by at least forcing this conversation out into the
Speaker 1: light of day and get a better discussion going over this.
Speaker 1: But there's also the issue that came out of the
Speaker 1: New York Times at a piece some others about what
Speaker 1: what Trump may or may not have said with regard
Speaker 1: to Hillary and the emails and all that. So, oh,
Speaker 1: we've got some of that coming your way. Mueller Probe
Speaker 1: updates the caravan crisis at our border, the crisis they
Speaker 1: said wasn't going to happen. Oh, it looks like it's happening.
Speaker 1: We also got Sean Parnell joining to talk about how
Speaker 1: does Howard's Trump dohm with the military, at least on
Speaker 1: in terms of perception and optics and some of the
Speaker 1: stuff recently, you know, he hasn't visited the military in
Speaker 1: the war zone. You're here in this this constant criticism
Speaker 1: of the president on that issue. You know, to folks,
Speaker 1: the military care as sean about that and some other stuff.
Speaker 1: So we've got a fantastic text Thanksgiving Eve show planned
Speaker 1: for your enjoyment and entertainment, So stay with us. This
Speaker 1: is what happens in authoritarian countries. The president orders the president,
Speaker 1: the leader orders the investigation and prosecution of his political enemies.
Speaker 1: I think it's prima facia evidence of abusive power. This
Speaker 1: is absolutely Donald Trump is basically running his office like
Speaker 1: he's ahead of a banana republic. I think this is
Speaker 1: a scandal at a fifteen on a one to ten level.
Speaker 1: He was essentially trying to use the apparatus of the
Speaker 1: state to punish his political enemies. So this is another
Speaker 1: another story out of the he did even true files.
Speaker 1: But they're saying the big, big New York Times, A
Speaker 1: big New York Times piece yesterday from Maggie Habermann and
Speaker 1: Schmidt over the New York Times is that President Trump
Speaker 1: told the White House Council last spring that he wanted
Speaker 1: the Justice Department to prosecute Hillary Clinton and former FBI
Speaker 1: Director James Comey, according to two people who are familiar
Speaker 1: with the conversation. Now this then starts all the usual stuff.
Speaker 1: Oh he's authoritarian, Oh he's he's a despot, he's a dictator.
Speaker 1: Notice how this stuff never happens. We always we always
Speaker 1: get the Trump wanted to do this authoritarian thing, where
Speaker 1: Trump wanted to do this monarchical thing, but he never
Speaker 1: does it. When I ask what is the what is
Speaker 1: the dictatorial thing that Trump has done? They go, he
Speaker 1: pulled the cost Us press pass. That's not that doesn't count.
Speaker 1: That's not enough. Sorry. Instead they say, oh, well Trump
Speaker 1: said this thing one time to someone that won't be named.
Speaker 1: That sounded like he wanted to be a dictator, but
Speaker 1: he's really not going to do it. A lot of
Speaker 1: those stories, well, I would note that to be a
Speaker 1: dictator you have to actually do stuff that's bad. You don't.
Speaker 1: You can't just be saying things behind closed doors that
Speaker 1: make some people uncomfortable and take no actions based on them.
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean to actually be in the dictator club. Right,
Speaker 1: it's a little more involved than just you know, hears
Speaker 1: say about conversations happened a long time ago. But let's
Speaker 1: take a look for a second at the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: side of this for a moment. And this this also
Speaker 1: is an important time to have this discussion, because we're
Speaker 1: being told, oh, the judiciary is not political, and James Comey,
Speaker 1: who we were being told until very recently not political.
Speaker 1: We were lied to about that Comy is an anti
Speaker 1: Trump hack. He has been all along. He's also a comyus.
Speaker 1: So he was willing to suck up to the President
Speaker 1: when he thought he could keep his FBI job. But
Speaker 1: he's an anti Trump hack and he bailed Hillary Clinton out.
Speaker 1: He bailed the Democrats out and engaged in improper behavior
Speaker 1: to do it. So you know, I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: thinks that the truth should be hidden from the public
Speaker 1: about judges or about the senior reaches, the senior most
Speaker 1: echelon of the FBI. And they essentially saved Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: chances for the presidency at least. And now we're being
Speaker 1: told that the real problem is that Trump has a
Speaker 1: problem with that, that Trump thinks it's unacceptable that they,
Speaker 1: for obviously political purposes, bailed Hillary out for obviously political reasons,
Speaker 1: they decided that the law didn't really apply when it
Speaker 1: comes to Hillary Clinton. You know the journalists just that
Speaker 1: they have curiosity about things that support their narrative, they
Speaker 1: have no interest in things that don't. And then they
Speaker 1: turn around and look at you and me and say,
Speaker 1: you know, why don't you trust us more? Maybe because
Speaker 1: they're not trustworthy? Has that ever occurred to them? Has
Speaker 1: that thought ever been there? Perhaps that we are just
Speaker 1: paying attention. And that's why we like when Trump refers
Speaker 1: them as fake news. And that's why I say that
Speaker 1: they are the enemy of truth, which they most certainly are.
Speaker 1: Did Trump want to prosecute Hillary? I don't know. Should
Speaker 1: Hillary have been prosecuted? Abs so frigging lutely, How about
Speaker 1: the media focus on that for about five seconds. That
Speaker 1: would be a bit of balance, don't you think the arrogance,
Speaker 1: the incredible arrogance, as with a little measuristidity. It's possible
Speaker 1: that Jesus considered a princess and totally separate from the
Speaker 1: rest of the rules that the American government and the
Speaker 1: president's cabinet and advisers would go by. When the new
Speaker 1: Congress get sworn in the House Oversight Committee, they need
Speaker 1: to seek nothing less of Ivanka Trump and her lawyers
Speaker 1: and the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Speaker 1: She really are in my family. They basically took what
Speaker 1: they were doing in the business, the Trump Organization, and
Speaker 1: brought it to the White House and didn't care at
Speaker 1: all with what the rules were and what they can
Speaker 1: and cannot do. This is the Ivanka email scandal that
Speaker 1: wasn't my friends, you've you've been hearing it from me.
Speaker 1: I'm going to be very consistent on this issue. Trust me.
Speaker 1: This is a giant nothingburger a vec fromage. This is
Speaker 1: just a total waste of everyone's time. But they they
Speaker 1: are giving the left wing base what they want, uh
Speaker 1: and and it also gives them an opportunity to really
Speaker 1: go after Ivanka, which which they want to do, which
Speaker 1: they really that's the plan. I mean, I see piece here,
Speaker 1: a piece here, Ivanka. Um. You know, Ivanka Trump ignores
Speaker 1: rules because she doesn't treat the White House as a
Speaker 1: real job. You know that's They're gonna just pile on
Speaker 1: now and go after Ivanka. And I think so funny
Speaker 1: is Ivanka is from what most people would tell you,
Speaker 1: a liberal folks. Okay, so they have a very senior
Speaker 1: advisor in the White House who is sympathetic to their
Speaker 1: aims and sympathetic to their ideology. But they're just gonna
Speaker 1: trash her anyway because she's Trump's daughter and because she's
Speaker 1: tied to Trump. Now I cannot defend and I will
Speaker 1: not defend the nepotism that has involved here. And for
Speaker 1: those of you who are gonna say to me, oh
Speaker 1: but buck, you know whatever you'd say, let me just
Speaker 1: tell you this. Just wait until there's a Democrat who
Speaker 1: makes his or her son or daughter like the you know,
Speaker 1: chief of staff of the White House, and conservatives and
Speaker 1: the right we're gonna sit there and say nothing. We're
Speaker 1: gonna say nothing. Well, let's let's understand we have principles
Speaker 1: the other side doesn't. And it's now been established. You
Speaker 1: can take your kids and make them senior advisors in
Speaker 1: the White House, give them big government jobs with a
Speaker 1: lot of power and a lot of authority. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have to live with the consequences of that. There's there's
Speaker 1: just no way around it. I let's just be honest
Speaker 1: about that. So that all said, I think it's interesting
Speaker 1: that Ivanka is a target for so much hatred and
Speaker 1: the left, considering that she's really just working on issues
Speaker 1: that are generally in the bipartisan realm of jobs and
Speaker 1: women and women in employment, women CEOs, entreprene nerves, trying
Speaker 1: to push trying to push for criminal justice reform along
Speaker 1: with Jared. I mean, Jared's also not particularly conservative, right,
Speaker 1: So you've got two liberals that are very senior advisor
Speaker 1: not maybe not liberals, but at least center left that
Speaker 1: are senior advisors in this White House, and the left
Speaker 1: and the left still hates them, just hates them, cannot
Speaker 1: stand them. And it's because they're tied to Trump. But
Speaker 1: they on the email, I mean, this is just there's
Speaker 1: nothing here, folks. The emails all exist, they've all been
Speaker 1: recorded or lawyers already talked about this. This has been
Speaker 1: out there for a little while. They known about this.
Speaker 1: You know, this was a it's a rookie mistake. It's
Speaker 1: a rookie mistake, but it wasn't. The difference between you know,
Speaker 1: classified email and just using email that is personal is
Speaker 1: night and day, call me use some personal email for
Speaker 1: his professional business of the FBI. I mean, lots of
Speaker 1: people did this. Lots of people have done this. It
Speaker 1: just happens. I have a phone right now in my
Speaker 1: hand where I've got multiple email accounts, and you know,
Speaker 1: if I'm responding quickly, I might not pay attention to
Speaker 1: which email account I'm responding from. That's just that's a normal,
Speaker 1: everyday mistake. This is all just about record keeping too.
Speaker 1: There's there's no undue influence, there's no corruption. The records
Speaker 1: were kept. It's not that big a deal. But they're
Speaker 1: trying to make it a huge deal. And and you know,
Speaker 1: I appreciate there was some other conservatives people were a
Speaker 1: little weak on this. Yesterday, I thought I was a
Speaker 1: little surprised. Look around, people say, oh, she made such
Speaker 1: a mistake. Like, no, it's not such a mistake. It's minor.
Speaker 1: It's just that they've blown this completely out of proportion
Speaker 1: because it involves somebody in Trump's family. And the ultimate
Speaker 1: goal here, now I really believe this. The left is
Speaker 1: they realized that going after Trump. Trump's such a fighter.
Speaker 1: They realized that by going after him, you know, he's
Speaker 1: just going to roll up his sleeves, crack his knuckles
Speaker 1: and say bring it. But if they can, if they
Speaker 1: can really damage his kids, that's I think the plan
Speaker 1: they want to. They want to ruin his family, you know,
Speaker 1: they want to put his and especially his kids, because
Speaker 1: they look the First Lady, there's still she has a
Speaker 1: little bit of protection because we at least culturally. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying there's nicetories. They were to Michelle. Obama's
Speaker 1: so amazing, right, please don't. I'm gonna throw up. But
Speaker 1: the First Lady is is on a little bit of
Speaker 1: a separate, separate area because that's not as a government
Speaker 1: position of real power. Yes, influence, but you don't have
Speaker 1: power as first Lady that's designated to you, but to
Speaker 1: be senior White House advisors that people either in the
Speaker 1: chain of command have to answer to. You know that
Speaker 1: for me is that's the opening that they need in
Speaker 1: order to really try to take They want their top
Speaker 1: targets going into the twenty twenty election, and I mean
Speaker 1: targets for prosecution if they can, even if they know
Speaker 1: that Trump would eventually part them, doesn't matter. The prosecution
Speaker 1: would be humiliating. Think about that, you're a senior White
Speaker 1: House advita. Their dream scenario is to get Jared on
Speaker 1: money laundering or tax fraud. Their dream scenario is to
Speaker 1: get Donald Trump junior on lying under oath in the
Speaker 1: Russian investigation or you know, or to get Ivanka on
Speaker 1: trademark infringement, you know, whatever it is, and to humiliate
Speaker 1: one of Trump's children or a family member of his,
Speaker 1: because it's deeply personal for the left. And that's why
Speaker 1: when this email thing comes out, they abandon all objectivity
Speaker 1: right away. I mean, no serious person can tell me
Speaker 1: that Ivanka's email situation is even the same stratosphere as
Speaker 1: what He'll Clinton did and just lay out the facts,
Speaker 1: destroying the destroying the different hard drives with hammers, using
Speaker 1: bleach bit erasing thirty thousand emails, only using that email.
Speaker 1: By the way, this wasn't oh sometimes I used the
Speaker 1: wrong email because I was going between different accounts. Only
Speaker 1: Hillary only used that email because she wanted to control
Speaker 1: over her entire record. Why oh, As I've told you along,
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation was why which Now, by the way,
Speaker 1: the Congress says they're going to look into this more.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be some investigation here at the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 1: There's got some stuff. But the Clinton Foundation was the
Speaker 1: real vulnerability, because all it took was one shady email
Speaker 1: to come into Hillary Clinton about somebody saying, hey, this
Speaker 1: donor wants a meeting with you and wants this policy.
Speaker 1: When you're president or whatever it may be. And that
Speaker 1: gets foyed because once it's in her inbox as a
Speaker 1: government official, it's in her inbox. So she wanted to
Speaker 1: control that. The Clinton Foundation was always the vulnerability for
Speaker 1: her when she was running, but she set up a
Speaker 1: separate email server and only use that. And she was
Speaker 1: secretary of State. The Secretary of State gets the PDB.
Speaker 1: The Secretary of State has access to the most classified
Speaker 1: stuff in the United States government. If Anka was like
Speaker 1: in the transition, I don't even know. I don't even
Speaker 1: know if she was had an interim clearance at this time.
Speaker 1: The idea that she was, you know, seeing all this
Speaker 1: really sensitive. She's seeing classified information about our employment numbers.
Speaker 1: I mean, give me a break. It just doesn't add up.
Speaker 1: But that's where I have to remind myself. It's it's
Speaker 1: not going to add up because it's not about being accurate,
Speaker 1: it's not about being fair. It's just part of the
Speaker 1: destroyed Trump effort. And I've the same way that I'll
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you a little bit later on the show.
Speaker 1: We'll have some Thanksgiving cheer. You know, I've got a
Speaker 1: couple of buddies joining later. We got a couple of veterans.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk to us about well the news,
Speaker 1: but also about some Thanksgiving thoughts, So that'll be fun.
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell my buddy Shampar, I was gonna do with
Speaker 1: us later on the show. It's always good to hear
Speaker 1: from Sean. But the same way that I've just grown,
Speaker 1: I know so many of you have as well, tired
Speaker 1: of this Russia collusion blah, it's just all crap. We're
Speaker 1: gonna get so tired of the attacks on Trump because
Speaker 1: they're gonna be hyperbolic, dishonest, exaggerated, false. I mean, just
Speaker 1: throw throw in your your prediction here, because you know
Speaker 1: it's going to happen. And what's so disgraceful about is
Speaker 1: that they won't care about any of that. They will
Speaker 1: not say, oh, you know what, maybe we shouldn't, maybe
Speaker 1: we shouldn't have such an oppositional attitude of the presi
Speaker 1: United States that doesn't take facts into account. Now they're
Speaker 1: gonna say, it's great, let's destroy let's destroy Trump whatever
Speaker 1: we have to do to destroy I mean, and that's
Speaker 1: why the Ivanka email thing, they're saying, that's gonna be
Speaker 1: what is Trey Goudy doing. By the way, what are
Speaker 1: some of these Republicans doing? Oh, we have to investigate this, now,
Speaker 1: why what do they have to investigate. They're gonna they're
Speaker 1: gonna hold the hearings over over Ivanka's emails. And also,
Speaker 1: does anyone think that if the shoe were on the
Speaker 1: other foot, if the very fancy high heeled shoe with
Speaker 1: a classic Italian leather. No, But I mean, if we're
Speaker 1: on the other foot, would would Democrats be calling for
Speaker 1: an investigation of, you know, a member of the Obama
Speaker 1: family Again, if the Obama family member was actually in
Speaker 1: a senior government position. But the answers no. We all
Speaker 1: know that Republicans love to play, you know, who can
Speaker 1: out boy scout the other one at exactly the wrong moment.
Speaker 1: And you know, you do enough of that you end
Speaker 1: up in Jeff Flake situation where it's like, Oh, you're
Speaker 1: not a boy scout, You're actually just you're actually just
Speaker 1: a turncoat that no one can trust. I worry about,
Speaker 1: But the email, like I said, it's going nowhere except
Speaker 1: they're gonna make something out of it. Sometimes the story
Speaker 1: catches my eye. Team that's not in the usual realm
Speaker 1: of what we discuss said, this is definitely one of them.
Speaker 1: But I've just got I've got some questions. So a
Speaker 1: tourist and he's actually a really a I guess, a
Speaker 1: self styled traveling missionary was killed on this island called
Speaker 1: North Sentinel Island, which is on the Andaman Islands, deep
Speaker 1: deep in the Indian Ocean. And this, this is this
Speaker 1: whole story just it's it's worth reading about. It's pretty
Speaker 1: it's pretty bizarre, but some interesting stuff going on in
Speaker 1: the background of it. So you have the the Ediman Islands,
Speaker 1: this American tourist who was killed by arrows by the
Speaker 1: local tribesmen as soon as he set foot on shore.
Speaker 1: And that's because the Sentinel Lees, which is what they
Speaker 1: call the inhabitants of North Sentinel Island, are one of
Speaker 1: the very few tribes in the world who are completely
Speaker 1: cut off from the outside world. They have no contact
Speaker 1: with the outside world whatsoever. They have no electricity. They
Speaker 1: became famous a few years ago. Some of you may
Speaker 1: have seen this where a helicopter flew over the island
Speaker 1: and the Sentinels were firing arrows at the helicopter. You know,
Speaker 1: I mean wooden bow and arrows like stone Age weapons
Speaker 1: stuff at the at the helicopter. But as you know
Speaker 1: stone Age, you get hit with a stone Age arrow,
Speaker 1: you're still hit with an arrow obviously, and that's what
Speaker 1: happened with this guy got killed. They also apparently wrapped
Speaker 1: a rope around around his neck. John Chow twenty seven
Speaker 1: years old. He was an American and he was killed.
Speaker 1: And you have this tribe that's completely cut off from
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. In fact, the Indian Navy
Speaker 1: isn't even allowed to spend any time on the island,
Speaker 1: not allowed to approach the inhabitants. There's only one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty of them. So it's it's this small tribe
Speaker 1: of people and they're they're known to be very hostile
Speaker 1: to anyone. I mean, they essentially attack anyone who comes
Speaker 1: on the island, which you know, I would note that
Speaker 1: we have this idea of of the you know, of
Speaker 1: indigenous peoples around the world, as you know, in the
Speaker 1: pre colonial, pre Western expansion era, of living at some
Speaker 1: level of peace and harmony with nature and with each other.
Speaker 1: And actually there was a lot of constant warfare. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of fighting over land and hunting grounds, and
Speaker 1: people have been killing people, uh, killing each other for
Speaker 1: as long as they've been able to lift rocks and
Speaker 1: throw stones. Okay, so we have this very very out
Speaker 1: of out of touch with reality view often especially from
Speaker 1: the Academy and from the media, of how, you know,
Speaker 1: well before before the European explorers shut up, it's like, well,
Speaker 1: the Aztecs actually were eating each other. So I wouldn't
Speaker 1: go so far as to say that they were that
Speaker 1: advanced as a society by our modern standards, which is
Speaker 1: what we're judging so much by these days. Right. You know,
Speaker 1: we can't even watch sitcoms from the nineties because they're
Speaker 1: so offensive, So we're constantly changing our standards. But back
Speaker 1: to this North Centinel lease, I mean, I just wish
Speaker 1: that I had some sense of what this guy's what
Speaker 1: this guy's thinking was. Who you know, it's tragic he
Speaker 1: was killed and what a waste and he lands twenty
Speaker 1: seven years old. He got a ride with some local fishermen.
Speaker 1: They've arrested the fisherman as responsible for his murder. They're
Speaker 1: not actually going to arrest any of the Centinel lease.
Speaker 1: I don't know how you know Indian law applies here,
Speaker 1: but this is essentially a situation where if you land
Speaker 1: on this island and they kill you, like, too bad
Speaker 1: you landed on their island. You know, if you were
Speaker 1: shipwrecked here and you got full of spears, you're bad
Speaker 1: luck that you landed on North Centinel Island. But then
Speaker 1: there's this this other part of me that just wants
Speaker 1: to know whose idea is it to this one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty people will live this way, almost like it's
Speaker 1: some kind of an exhibit at a you know, at
Speaker 1: a museum or something. You know, who thinks that there
Speaker 1: should be people that are cut off from the world.
Speaker 1: You know, they're definitely living in much greater poverty and
Speaker 1: a much greater difficulty than they would with the modern
Speaker 1: conveniences we have for medicine and other things. I just
Speaker 1: think this is so strange. What what is the thinking here?
Speaker 1: You create this, this tiny enclave, this island where you know,
Speaker 1: there's no contact, no one's allowed to land there, not
Speaker 1: even the military's allowed to land there, and you've preserved this,
Speaker 1: this ancient way of life. You know, one day someone's
Speaker 1: gonna do like a vice special or something from North
Speaker 1: Central Island, and you know, all of a sudden, they'll
Speaker 1: be walking around wearing I don't know, you know, T
Speaker 1: shirts from the twenty twenty twenty two you know, world
Speaker 1: series or something, and we'll be like, oh, okay, so
Speaker 1: you know, another one, another one that is part of
Speaker 1: the rest of the world of commercialism and everything else
Speaker 1: we've got going on. But this is just a fascinating
Speaker 1: little story. The fact that there's even a place in
Speaker 1: the world where there's an island where people who are
Speaker 1: one hundred fifty people live and they have no contact.
Speaker 1: I mean, they've never they've never seen an iPhone, they've
Speaker 1: never seen a television, they've never used a phone, They've
Speaker 1: in in the year twenty eighteen soon to be twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: I just think that's pretty remarkable. They're still hunting with
Speaker 1: not compact mean some of you are like buck Ey
Speaker 1: bow hunt. No, no no, not composite compound bows with you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty pound poll pressure at all. No, no no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: they're using an old school It's just it's just a
Speaker 1: really interesting story. So if you haven't seen it, check
Speaker 1: it out. And it's sad. Obviously this guy's family. I
Speaker 1: guess he thought he was gonna convert all one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty members of this island and was a true
Speaker 1: believer and all that, but it's not a good plan.
Speaker 1: I'm here to t tell you today that the reality
Speaker 1: is that there are currently over six thousand, two hundred
Speaker 1: individuals camped out south of the US border in Tijuana. Today,
Speaker 1: as I stand here in Mexicali, there are more than
Speaker 1: three thousand caravan members. The crisis is real and it
Speaker 1: is just on the other side of this wall. We're
Speaker 1: the most welcoming country in this world. We welcome more
Speaker 1: refugees in the United States and every other country in
Speaker 1: the world combined. So enough, and you can't want to
Speaker 1: be a part of the greatest country on earth to
Speaker 1: not respect our laws. Seeking the better life doesn't qualify
Speaker 1: for asylum, so they're committing fraud. So that's just a
Speaker 1: stone cold fact this president needs to do, which hasn't
Speaker 1: happened in the pass is once they if they get
Speaker 1: to the United States and enter, they need to be
Speaker 1: detained until they see a judge. Because the Central American
Speaker 1: population is run around eighty nine to ninety one will
Speaker 1: lose their case because they don't qualify for asylum, but
Speaker 1: they have to be in customy when they lose the
Speaker 1: case so they can be removed, which sends a strong
Speaker 1: message to the rest of the world that we are
Speaker 1: a nation of laws. We'll give you a due process,
Speaker 1: but you got to live by the judge's decision. Also,
Speaker 1: gotta stop this catch and release process. By the way,
Speaker 1: notice how there's what six thousand now at the border.
Speaker 1: Two weeks ago we were being mocked for even talking
Speaker 1: about the caravan by the left wing media. Oh, there's
Speaker 1: not going to be a caravan at the border. It's
Speaker 1: all gonna break up. There's not gonna be there. They're
Speaker 1: never gonna get there. They can't walk there. These people
Speaker 1: were idiots. Okay, it was obvious what was going to
Speaker 1: happen once the caravan informed they were going to get
Speaker 1: assistance and help, which they did to take transport to
Speaker 1: the border, you know, of the US and Mexico instead
Speaker 1: of the USA, I mean the in Mexico Guatemala border.
Speaker 1: That's exactly what happened. I said, that's what was gonna
Speaker 1: happen here. I've been asking about all this. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're probably gonna hop on a bus, which is what
Speaker 1: they're trains, which what they did. But you know, the
Speaker 1: people that were mocking, mocking the notion of the caravan
Speaker 1: crisis a week or two ago. Now they're experts on
Speaker 1: asylum law. See, they've just switched their expertise from caravan
Speaker 1: and travel routes to asylum because ultimately, this is one
Speaker 1: of these issues where if you're willing to just separate
Speaker 1: yourself from the reality, if you're willing to just forget
Speaker 1: about what we all know is obviously going to be
Speaker 1: the case, which is that these people are not going
Speaker 1: to be they're not going to be kicked out of
Speaker 1: the country. Once they're letting into the country, there won't
Speaker 1: be the Interior enforcement to actually follow through on the law.
Speaker 1: You get to just be the person. It's like, I
Speaker 1: just want to welcome everybody. I just want to welcome
Speaker 1: everybody to America. I'm so welcoming. Yeah, that's a more
Speaker 1: you know, self indulgent position, to be sure. I mean,
Speaker 1: it'd be nice to just say, you know, but I
Speaker 1: also feel like I wish that the uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I wish that the government would just pay for everyone's
Speaker 1: housing and everyone's food and everyone's medical care and everything's
Speaker 1: fun and I wish all that were the case. But
Speaker 1: you know what, it's not the case. It's not a
Speaker 1: good idea either. The government would it wouldn't work that way.
Speaker 1: You know. This is it's just like what Thomas Soul
Speaker 1: said socialism. The best reason for it is it sounds good.
Speaker 1: The biggest reason against it doesn't work. And open borders
Speaker 1: and the destruction of sovereignty may make some people feel good,
Speaker 1: but over the long term, and in fact, depending on
Speaker 1: where you live in the country, over the short term,
Speaker 1: it's really destructive and it is lawless. The biggest difference
Speaker 1: between our country and our society and our southern neighbors Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala,
Speaker 1: The biggest difference we have other than our language is
Speaker 1: rule of law. Laws here count. Laws here are enforced
Speaker 1: not perfectly, but overall and in general, with the exception
Speaker 1: of a lot of immigration law. That's where the that's
Speaker 1: where the big hole is. That's where you got you know,
Speaker 1: twenty million people in the country illegally. Yeah, those laws
Speaker 1: don't count. And then you've got the dish run around.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I think the dish is great on stuff. At
Speaker 1: times Durst lets me down a little bit. Dursh is,
Speaker 1: you know, run around and he's saying that this is
Speaker 1: different than the travel ban play clip nine. It's not
Speaker 1: like the travel ban. The travel ban, the president was
Speaker 1: explicitly authorized by statute to decide which countries to prohibit
Speaker 1: immigration from on asylum. The president doesn't have that authority statutorially,
Speaker 1: but he has the broad constitutional authority to control our borders.
Speaker 1: That's right, That's what I've been saying the president. The
Speaker 1: president is correct here. He can say hey, he can't
Speaker 1: come into the country. Sorry. He has that constitutional authority
Speaker 1: to defend this country. See this is this is where
Speaker 1: the real disconnect is with the left, with the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Borders are an issue of security, of national security. Who's
Speaker 1: coming into this country and who doesn't. The commander in
Speaker 1: chief has a say in that that can override specifics
Speaker 1: of some of these congressional statutes. You know. This is
Speaker 1: this would be like, you know, if Congress passed a
Speaker 1: law that said the president can't repel an invasion, the
Speaker 1: President turn around and say, oh, sorry, Constitutionally, I can
Speaker 1: act to repell and invasion without you know, your say so.
Speaker 1: I have an absolute right as the commander in chief
Speaker 1: to defend this country and its immediate national security interests. Now,
Speaker 1: I know people say, oh, buck that would have to
Speaker 1: be litigated and argued. Well, yeah, but but there is
Speaker 1: there is a very well established jurisprudence around that. And
Speaker 1: that's why this Ninth Circuit, this Ninth Circuit judge, it's
Speaker 1: just the same thing you always get. It's the hashtag
Speaker 1: resistance judiciary. It's the last line of Obama is to
Speaker 1: defense against Trump's executive authority, and they'll abuse it as
Speaker 1: much as they can. They don't care that they're wrong,
Speaker 1: just like they don't care that the Russia probe is
Speaker 1: going nowhere. At the end of the day, the point
Speaker 1: is to do it. The point is to abuse your authority.
Speaker 1: The point is to go for it when you can.
Speaker 1: So you know, I think the Trump is gonna win
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court level on this issue. But also
Speaker 1: you look at the Congress and you know, look, this
Speaker 1: should have been dealt with. This should have been dealt
Speaker 1: with by the Republican majority. I'm sorry, but they're not
Speaker 1: getting a good grade from me on immigration here. All right.
Speaker 1: They had a majority in the House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: and you know, damn it, if there needed to be
Speaker 1: a shutdown of the government, oh yeah, the one that's
Speaker 1: there's not going to be a shutdown coming up. Please now,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. But they needed to have this fight,
Speaker 1: they needed to change some of the immigration laws, and
Speaker 1: they didn't do it. They weren't willing to do it.
Speaker 1: And now we're going to suffer the consequences. We're going
Speaker 1: to be right back to where we were before Trump
Speaker 1: got elected, where it's going to be a question of
Speaker 1: is America over or not in the next election, because
Speaker 1: if amnesty happens, America is never the same. It's never
Speaker 1: the same. You might have heard me talk about snippy
Speaker 1: dot com. Well, it's a new social media site that
Speaker 1: doesn't have any of the left wing bias you see
Speaker 1: with many of those other platforms you already know about.
Speaker 1: If you've looked at snippy dot com in the past
Speaker 1: and left, you need to look again. Yesterday I was
Speaker 1: on posting. I gotta tell you they've done some great
Speaker 1: new stuff. Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. See Snippy's
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
Speaker 1: users the ability to discuss topics freely, with no suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. Snippy dot com is a place where everyone
Speaker 1: is free to express their thoughts and share their opinions, and,
Speaker 1: by the way, totally free to join. You got nothing
Speaker 1: to lose, Go check it out. Find some members of
Speaker 1: Team Buck there to chat with, free to join, open
Speaker 1: to everyone. Snippy dot com again with an updated user
Speaker 1: interface and exciting new features. It's also available in the
Speaker 1: Apple App Store and now available for Android. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com is your new alternative social media. I think it
Speaker 1: is winding down. The President's answering of these questions doesn't
Speaker 1: happen in a vacuum. The other things we see off.
Speaker 1: For example, Special Counsel Maler is evidently going to allow
Speaker 1: General Flynn to be sentenced. It looks like Manaford is
Speaker 1: heading towards sentencing. I can tell you, as an experienced
Speaker 1: former or prosecutor, that if you're intending to bring another
Speaker 1: big case and you think you have these witnesses who
Speaker 1: would be cooperating witnesses in that case, you don't let
Speaker 1: them get sentenced. You have them testify first, and then
Speaker 1: they get sentenced down the road. Just the fact that
Speaker 1: we have indictments that abroad, he's letting the witnesses or
Speaker 1: the potential witnesses get sentenced. That's sure signals like things
Speaker 1: are winding down. I certainly hope our friend Andy McCarthy
Speaker 1: is right. I know he's not the only one who's
Speaker 1: sang it. But you know what Andy says that it
Speaker 1: adds a little oomph, you know, it adds a little
Speaker 1: there's a little more gravitas behind it. This analysis says
Speaker 1: that the Mueller probe is winding down. What a what
Speaker 1: a just a circus. The whole thing has been, I mean,
Speaker 1: what a waste of resources, a waste of time. Our
Speaker 1: elections are not any safer. We haven't any change in
Speaker 1: US Russia posture. Russia still is gonna meddle when it
Speaker 1: wants to meddle and do weird things on the internet.
Speaker 1: And you know it's up to us to try to
Speaker 1: offset that with whatever defensive and countermeasures we have. Right,
Speaker 1: but the whole thing, I mean, this was in my
Speaker 1: first year on syndicated radio, which was twenty seventeen. This
Speaker 1: was the story that you just you couldn't escape, right,
Speaker 1: it was all the time, and day after day, Oh,
Speaker 1: this Russia theory, that Russia theory. This person. I remember
Speaker 1: when the Don Trump Junior Kushner Trump Tower meeting came out.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, it was the end of the Trump prey.
Speaker 1: It was the end of the Trump presidency. Over and
Speaker 1: over again. Of course, all that was just hyperbolic crap.
Speaker 1: It was nonsense. It was not actually what we were
Speaker 1: at least if you believe the media led to believe.
Speaker 1: It was just them playing out this fantasy in real
Speaker 1: time about how Trump didn't really win the election, how
Speaker 1: there was this Russian hand behind it all. And I
Speaker 1: have become exhausted with this story because there's so little
Speaker 1: new information they ever add to it. Either oh you know,
Speaker 1: they're now and the information we want they're either redacting
Speaker 1: or we haven't gotten yet, you know, the information we
Speaker 1: really want to get, things like, oh, did General Flynn
Speaker 1: actually lie to the FBI or did they just decide
Speaker 1: to claim a scalp early on here to make this
Speaker 1: whole thing seem more legitimate and and make a very
Speaker 1: shady judgment call that, Yeah, he kind of lied, so
Speaker 1: let's act like he lied. They're gonna be sentencing him soon.
Speaker 1: But oh, I think Flynn should be pardoned. I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna come out and say it. I think Flynn should
Speaker 1: be pardoned. I don't think they'd lied about anything that
Speaker 1: was material or right. People say, oh, he love, he love. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Well guess what. There are actually some distinctions in what
Speaker 1: the lie. There's some distinctions in the law about what
Speaker 1: lie is prosecutable and what lies not. And and if
Speaker 1: they said, you know, did you discuss sanctions with Sergey
Speaker 1: Kisliak on the phone, he goes, no, I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't think. I don't think we talked about that, or
Speaker 1: you know, that could be a misremembering, that could be
Speaker 1: And it all depends on the context. Right, is it
Speaker 1: a willful and you know, knowingly and willfully lying about
Speaker 1: a material fact. That's what he would have to That's
Speaker 1: the threshold that the prosecutors would have to cross to
Speaker 1: get him. I just I don't believe, based on what
Speaker 1: we know, they crossed that threshold. I think that they
Speaker 1: just they wanted to get Flint. That's what I think,
Speaker 1: quite obviously has been the case here. And you know,
Speaker 1: he's been really good on this and just barely held
Speaker 1: on to his congressional seat. If one I understand is
Speaker 1: Devin Newness who has been talking about this for a
Speaker 1: long time, and you know he's been a warrior on
Speaker 1: this issue. You gotta get the guy credit. He's taken
Speaker 1: so much heat from the left wing media. He's been
Speaker 1: willing to stand up and say, I mean, this is
Speaker 1: just this is just nonsense. And here's here's Devin Nunez
Speaker 1: with the latest on this play clip ten. I mean,
Speaker 1: there was never any collusion between the Trump campaign in Russia. Sadly,
Speaker 1: you have like half of the Democrats in this country
Speaker 1: that believe that somehow the Russians change votes in the
Speaker 1: last election, and the people who have been spreading this
Speaker 1: poison out to be a shamed of themselves. So I'm
Speaker 1: glad that that maybe this is coming to an end.
Speaker 1: But I will I will stress I still don't believe it.
Speaker 1: I won't believe it until I see it. I think
Speaker 1: there's some reluctance in the White House to actually to
Speaker 1: actually go out and release all the documents, the four
Speaker 1: buckets now as we call them, of the the Carter Page, FISA,
Speaker 1: the third Renewal, we have the Bruce or three O two's,
Speaker 1: we have the exculpatory evidence, and now we also have
Speaker 1: a fourth bucket of emails that the FBI was sending
Speaker 1: around that shows that clearly they knew what they were
Speaker 1: doing before they went to the FISA court. I wonder
Speaker 1: why there is that reluctance. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: every everything that Newness is saying here, I essentially sign
Speaker 1: off on agree with. You know, I think people should
Speaker 1: be ashamed, but they're not because this was always about
Speaker 1: partisan payback and they've achieved that. If Muller, if the
Speaker 1: Muller Final Report comes out next week and it and
Speaker 1: it entirely clears Trump of any personal wrongdoing, which maybe
Speaker 1: it will, maybe it won't. It'll probably say something about,
Speaker 1: you know, interference with government something or something, not obstruction,
Speaker 1: but close to obstruction. That's what the Muller Report will
Speaker 1: probably say about Trump. And then they'll leave it up
Speaker 1: to the impeachment process, which is what they want to,
Speaker 1: you know, be the only mechanism of justice that can
Speaker 1: be applied. So it won't be a criminal issue. It'll
Speaker 1: be a political judgment issue. But even if that happened,
Speaker 1: you gotta stand, the left has gotten their way here.
Speaker 1: They have really hampered, they've really slowed down, they've weighed
Speaker 1: down the administration, and they've I mean, when I spoke
Speaker 1: to Trump about this a couple of months ago, he
Speaker 1: was fuming, and he should be. He's like, these people
Speaker 1: are nuts. I colluded with Russia to win the election.
Speaker 1: The guy was doing three, you know, rallies, four rallies,
Speaker 1: five rallies a day, sometimes tens of thousands of people.
Speaker 1: He's a political phenomenon. And the secret sauce is some
Speaker 1: Facebook ad buys with Vladimir Putin given a wink and
Speaker 1: a nod. The secret sauce is somebody releasing some John
Speaker 1: Podesti emails that showed that they you know, didn't really
Speaker 1: the DNC wasn't fair to burning which by the way,
Speaker 1: they weren't. It was the truth. It's not even like
Speaker 1: it was a disinformation campaign. The Podesta emails, the DNC hack.
Speaker 1: All that we found out from that was stuff that
Speaker 1: was actually true. So, you know, what are we even
Speaker 1: really talking about with that? But Democrats got their way here.
Speaker 1: The process is the punishment. The whole purpose of this
Speaker 1: investigation was to conduct the investigation, to squeeze people, to
Speaker 1: put them under duress, to isolate the president, to scare
Speaker 1: away his allies. That was the motivation behind this from
Speaker 1: the start. Yeah, maybe in their in their dreams, they
Speaker 1: thought we could, you know, Trump will make some misstep,
Speaker 1: you know, I know a lot of them were hoping
Speaker 1: that Mueller would have this one on one showdown with
Speaker 1: Trump under oath, and Mueller would finally get him with
Speaker 1: a perjury trappe. Think about how that would have imagined.
Speaker 1: For a moment they'd actually gotten their wish and Trump
Speaker 1: got a little trumpy and was a little bit fast
Speaker 1: and loose with an unimportant thing, you know, with but
Speaker 1: something that Muller might be able to make stick as
Speaker 1: a as lying under oath. Think of how divided the
Speaker 1: country would have been over that. I mean, think of
Speaker 1: the ramifications of we're going to bring criminal charges against
Speaker 1: the president for this, you know, under perjury, underlying under oath,
Speaker 1: because we had him sit down for this bogus bullcrap
Speaker 1: Russia collusion investigation. I mean, think about the way that
Speaker 1: people would react to that. Who were Trump, think might
Speaker 1: be me and you, I mean, how would we feel
Speaker 1: about that? This is really what they pull. This is
Speaker 1: the nonsense that's going on. You know, there's so much
Speaker 1: rewriting of the Bill Clinton saga to make it seem
Speaker 1: like there was this javert like ken Starr who was
Speaker 1: going after him and Monsieur Valjean Da Da da da
Speaker 1: those you whore lay miss fans. You caught that weird
Speaker 1: reference I just made. But the rest of your life
Speaker 1: is Buck having some kind of a breakdown. But the
Speaker 1: truth is that the Clinton stuff was all self inflicted.
Speaker 1: The Clinton stuff was corrupt beyond anybody's you know, beyond
Speaker 1: anyone's imagining. And you know, I think that that's that's
Speaker 1: often as part of the retelling of things now, we're
Speaker 1: always led to believe that, oh, there's something so you know,
Speaker 1: it was so unfair what they did to the Clintons. No,
Speaker 1: it's unfair what what they did to themselves. Unfair. They
Speaker 1: didn't selves, by the way, the the Clinton Foundation report
Speaker 1: is out, and I you know, this is one of
Speaker 1: these things where I've been saying for a very long
Speaker 1: time that that you will see how corrupt the Clintons
Speaker 1: are and it will be very apparent. And I was
Speaker 1: at c a end doing on air analysis in the election.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, the Clinton Foundation, the fact that no one's
Speaker 1: looking into this is appalling, the fact that nobody is
Speaker 1: really digging into what is clearly a pay to play scheme,
Speaker 1: and they're there, they're full. You know, donations and everything
Speaker 1: for twenty seventeen have now been have now been put
Speaker 1: out there, and you know, they went from getting basically
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty million dollars plus and donations to
Speaker 1: twenty million dollars plus. Yeah, that's right, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: no one cares about charity. All of a sudden, no
Speaker 1: one cares about these causes that oh, oh, you mean
Speaker 1: they weren't donating to the Clintons because they wanted to
Speaker 1: help the world. You mean they were buying access and influence.
Speaker 1: You mean the Clintons created a charity that was really
Speaker 1: affront for buying a seat at the table with the
Speaker 1: Clintons when she was going to be president, which is
Speaker 1: what everybody thought. It is disgusting. And there were so
Speaker 1: many people and I could even I could even name
Speaker 1: some names, so many people who were just a part
Speaker 1: of the Clinton lies, the Clinton lies around this issue
Speaker 1: and said, oh, yeah, that's right, it's all just about
Speaker 1: charity work. That's why when she's not going to be
Speaker 1: president anymore, all of a sudden, the donations almost just
Speaker 1: just evaporate. The whole thing was a corrupse game. I'm
Speaker 1: glad that Congress says that they're going to look into this.
Speaker 1: I like this announcement for Mark Meadows. We broke it
Speaker 1: on the hill that there's going to be more because
Speaker 1: we should look deeper at the Clinton Foundation. There's there's
Speaker 1: not just smoke there, there's fire. Fundamentally, we have returned
Speaker 1: to a nation that has decided it should be very
Speaker 1: difficult for people of color to vote. It was racially driven.
Speaker 1: I'm going to say if she'd had a fair election,
Speaker 1: she already would have won. Brian Camp, the man who
Speaker 1: basically pickpocketed Jim Crow and turned this election into a
Speaker 1: voter suppression election. He has been blocking African Americans from
Speaker 1: voting for some time now. I think that Stacy Abrams
Speaker 1: election is being stolen from her using what I think
Speaker 1: are insidious measures to disenfranchise certain groups of another party
Speaker 1: is the law and order party, but clearly Republicans always
Speaker 1: tried to posture and position themselves that way, but they
Speaker 1: used the law when it benefits them. They cheat to
Speaker 1: win elections, they disenfranchise voters. If Stacy Abrams doesn't win
Speaker 1: in Georgia, they stole it. It's clear. It's clear how
Speaker 1: the branch stole Christmas aka the elections down in judge
Speaker 1: all lies. By the way, I want to just remind
Speaker 1: you that yes, in the end, Kemp defeated Abrams, and
Speaker 1: that's the way it's going to be. But the same
Speaker 1: media that always tells you they're just there to just
Speaker 1: speak the facts, man, just tell you the truth. They're
Speaker 1: there to just make sure that we all know exactly
Speaker 1: what's gone on and what happened and everything else. That
Speaker 1: same media is not at all feeling chastened or in
Speaker 1: any way like they should change their attitudes about anything
Speaker 1: after running with these wild accusations about the Georgia election
Speaker 1: based in no actual information, nothing, nothing, what's up they have?
Speaker 1: There's no evidence that kempt in any of these things. None.
Speaker 1: And all you have to do is look at Georgia
Speaker 1: election law and no, this is all mythology. It was
Speaker 1: spread by the media in an echo chamber fashion without
Speaker 1: the most basic fact checking. I was astonished. Look, I
Speaker 1: have to research state by state how elections, who's in
Speaker 1: charge of Ward and what's going on. I mean, you
Speaker 1: know there's a lot of states. You know. Obama says
Speaker 1: fifty seven. I say fifty. There's a lot of states
Speaker 1: out there, and when you look into what the truth
Speaker 1: is about Georgia, you find out that Kemp had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with the move you know, the moving polling
Speaker 1: places which have been moved since twenty twelve. Kemp had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with these different voter suppression measures which
Speaker 1: were all approved at the county level by different elected
Speaker 1: boards of you know, election people. There's nothing to do
Speaker 1: with him. And this would be like blaming me for
Speaker 1: the crappy prime time lineup at CNN. I agree that
Speaker 1: CNN Prime time lineup is full of clowns and jokers,
Speaker 1: but it's not my fault. I didn't do that, right,
Speaker 1: don't yell at me. They're blaming Kemp and they're telling
Speaker 1: all these stories of voter suppression. Meanwhile, they had record turnout,
Speaker 1: So if there was a voter suppression effort, it was
Speaker 1: the worst voter suppression effort ever because it would have backfired.
Speaker 1: You had a higher turnout then you usually would have
Speaker 1: in Georgia for governor's election, much higher turnout in fact,
Speaker 1: depending on the year you compare it to. And just
Speaker 1: the recklessness of these media allegations and they don't. They
Speaker 1: don't go back and correct anything. I mean, that's why,
Speaker 1: in the immortal words of the one and only mister
Speaker 1: Rush Limbaugh, the drive buys. Yeah, they just leave wreckage
Speaker 1: in their way, through wreckage and destruction and misery, and
Speaker 1: they just keep on driving. Just they just destroy, destroy,
Speaker 1: and then they go on to the next thing. They
Speaker 1: don't go back and correct. They were spreading lies about
Speaker 1: this Georgia election. You know who was at the very
Speaker 1: forefront of spreading those lines. The Democrat candidate herself, Stacy
Speaker 1: Abrams play cliped four. It was not a free and
Speaker 1: fair election. It was not fair to the thousands who
Speaker 1: were forced to wait in long lines. It was not
Speaker 1: fair to the thousands that were put on hold with
Speaker 1: their registration. Is he the legitimate governor elect of Georgia?
Speaker 1: He is the person who won an adequate number of votes.
Speaker 1: But you're not using the word legitimate. Is he the
Speaker 1: legitimate governor elect of Georgia? He is the legal governor
Speaker 1: of Georgia. Won't say legitimate. Won't say legitimate because she
Speaker 1: doesn't think he is, or she at least is telling
Speaker 1: people he's not. That's disgusting, that's disgusting. I remember when
Speaker 1: the big knock on on Trump was that he wasn't
Speaker 1: going to accept the twenty sixteen election results. Remember that.
Speaker 1: And now we've gone through as a nation, been dragged
Speaker 1: through two years of left wing delusion where they've been
Speaker 1: refusing to accept election results, and we see that they've
Speaker 1: learned nothing as a result of all of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: nothing has changed with them. They still very clearly have
Speaker 1: a sore loser attitude anytime there's an important election that
Speaker 1: doesn't go their way. And yet I'm quite sure the
Speaker 1: next time around they'll say, well, if Trump doesn't win
Speaker 1: re election, he may refuse to accept the results. You know,
Speaker 1: this is just something that they say, This is something
Speaker 1: that they will push out there, and the rest of
Speaker 1: us are supposed to just accept this for some for
Speaker 1: some reason, we're supposed to accept that this is you
Speaker 1: know that there's this. I mean, Jonah Goldberg actually wrote
Speaker 1: about it this week for National Review. Hes like, there's
Speaker 1: just a huge double standard of the media coverage this.
Speaker 1: Of course there is. Yeah, there's a huge double standard,
Speaker 1: you know, And as I've said in the last few days,
Speaker 1: for Democrats, it's you know, heads we win, tales you lose.
Speaker 1: That's the way elections go. You either you either didn't
Speaker 1: win legitimately you know, you cheated, or we're gonna still
Speaker 1: bash you for not accepting the election results even if
Speaker 1: you accept them, right, because we're gonna say that you
Speaker 1: weren't going to accept them ahead of time. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's and they're gonna say it the next time too,
Speaker 1: even even when the Conservatives, even when Republicans go, okay,
Speaker 1: lost that, when they go, oh well, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: they will, they're gonna try to suppress the next one.
Speaker 1: They're gonna try to cheat in the next one. You know,
Speaker 1: there's no good faith that they offer on this ever.
Speaker 1: I you'll notice this is a recurring theme. A left
Speaker 1: doesn't doesn't approach our side with good faith on much,
Speaker 1: on much of anything these days. So and it's troubling,
Speaker 1: it's troubly. But this whole Oh by the way, Mia
Speaker 1: Love actually ended up losing out in Utah, which was
Speaker 1: a surprise to some folks. So I guess Trump was
Speaker 1: right when he said maybe she should have been a
Speaker 1: little nicer to Trump. It looked like maybe Mia was
Speaker 1: gonna get the last laugh. But nope, that is not
Speaker 1: that is not, in fact, what happened. It turned out
Speaker 1: that she probably would have been better off being a
Speaker 1: little more pro Trump and a little less off on
Speaker 1: her own there. Um, speaking of the speaking of the
Speaker 1: way that these elections have have shaken out, I've just
Speaker 1: got to say, you know, there there's also, um this
Speaker 1: this sentiment that that continues to get this attentional left
Speaker 1: that there's no such thing as voter fraud. You know,
Speaker 1: they always say, they always say this, they'll say, there's
Speaker 1: no voter fraud. To speak, voter fraud is not a problem, folks, right,
Speaker 1: there's there's no why would anyone do it? They say?
Speaker 1: And this reminds me of when they talk about how
Speaker 1: women don't lie about sexual assault. Well, there are actually
Speaker 1: are very important, prominent cases where women have lied. Doesn't
Speaker 1: mean all women do, mean some women do. Very few
Speaker 1: people engage in voter fraud as a percentage, but people
Speaker 1: do engage in voter fraud. And you know, this is
Speaker 1: a story that's going to get just the most superficial treatment,
Speaker 1: most superficial coverage. And it's out of California, no less.
Speaker 1: Here's the story from from NBC. Nine people were charged
Speaker 1: in connection with a voter fraud scheme in which homeless
Speaker 1: people in Los Angeles' skid Row neighborhood were given cash
Speaker 1: and cigarettes in exchange for fraudulent signatures on ballot initiatives,
Speaker 1: petitions and voter registration forms. Prosecutors Tuesday. The Los Angeles
Speaker 1: County distric Attorney's office wouldn't identify a motive or details
Speaker 1: of the alleged scheme, but in May, two news organizations
Speaker 1: discovered that initial allegations connected to three of the nine
Speaker 1: suspects involving gathering signatures four ballot initiatives. This is voter fraud,
Speaker 1: which we talk about and we know it exists, but
Speaker 1: it isn't exactly something that patrol officers deal with. LAPD
Speaker 1: Detective Megan Aguilar said on said back in May, so
Speaker 1: you know, this is a felony complaint about people circulating
Speaker 1: petitions with false names, voter fraud, registering a fictitious person,
Speaker 1: registering non existent persons. And you could say, Buck, why
Speaker 1: would anyone take this risk? Why would anyone be so
Speaker 1: dumb as to risk their own freedom and you know,
Speaker 1: their own future. They try to get some extra signatures
Speaker 1: for a ballot initiative, and I say to you, I
Speaker 1: don't know you know, some people will rob a convenience
Speaker 1: with a gun for twenty dollars and go to jail
Speaker 1: for twenty years. I mean, people do things. But in
Speaker 1: the elections that we just saw, the margin of victory
Speaker 1: was so narrow in some of these cases that you
Speaker 1: wouldn't need a big scheme of fraud at all to
Speaker 1: throw the election to one side or the other. I mean,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about a separation of just the thousands
Speaker 1: or even hundreds of votes, that's not hard to do.
Speaker 1: That's not hard to rig. So I highlight the story
Speaker 1: just because you will continue to hear the left never
Speaker 1: budgetes on this. They start off with there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as voter fraud, and they hope that people just
Speaker 1: believe that, and then when they're called out on that lie,
Speaker 1: they say, well, voter fraud is not a big problem.
Speaker 1: It's not a real problem. No, it's a problem. It happens,
Speaker 1: people cheat in elections. Don't forget because they what they
Speaker 1: want to do is make it seem like any voter
Speaker 1: integrity measures are about racism and voter suppression. That's their
Speaker 1: preferred storyline here, that's what they say it is. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: oh no, it's actually about fraud and preventing it. Don't
Speaker 1: bring in the prospecting. I say, we trust until we don't.
Speaker 1: We got ourselves. Indeed, brother, you're in this Getting Out.
Speaker 1: That's from Mayans MC, a new show on FX just
Speaker 1: had its first season out this year. We have one
Speaker 1: of the actors from Mayans joining us now, Vincent Vargas.
Speaker 1: He's an Army vet and also the author of a
Speaker 1: new book, Light the Fuse, that is out now. Vincent,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for forgiving us some time. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I'm just honored to be out on hire. First of all,
Speaker 1: tell us how did you transition from being in the
Speaker 1: s VIS to being on a show that's a spinoff
Speaker 1: of Sons of Anarchy? How that happened? It was crazy.
Speaker 1: I started out doing YouTube about six years ago. YouTube
Speaker 1: videos and if they're kind of progressed, you know, me
Speaker 1: and my friends producer own movie, and if they're kind
Speaker 1: of continue to progress and trying to grow in the space.
Speaker 1: So I didn't want to be a YouTube guy in
Speaker 1: my whole life. I want to try and step into
Speaker 1: the mainstream media. And I went to one audition. They
Speaker 1: needed a big Mexican with tattoos, and luckily I fit department.
Speaker 1: Wait did you did you get? Did you really get
Speaker 1: your first audition? It went your way? That's and I
Speaker 1: feel like in Hollywood that's like impossible. It never happened. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's unheard of me. I've done so much work on
Speaker 1: my own from filming my own stuff, producing my own stuff.
Speaker 1: They had enough content to find to see what I
Speaker 1: was able to do in my capacity of acting and
Speaker 1: so um, you know, for the character it worked perfectly.
Speaker 1: So I was just very fortunate. And what do you
Speaker 1: do when you were in the army? Who was the
Speaker 1: second of the twenty fifth Range of Regiment. I did
Speaker 1: that for four years, deployed three times with them, and
Speaker 1: then I got out and I'm still currently in the
Speaker 1: reserves right now. I'm an Army drill sergeant. Wow, okay, man, Well,
Speaker 1: tell me tell me a bit about this book that
Speaker 1: just you just have it out now, Light the fuse. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know. Um, throughout the years of being being on
Speaker 1: social media and becoming you know, someone that people follow,
Speaker 1: you know, and being out there to influence, I decided
Speaker 1: I wanted to bring a lot of my life experiences
Speaker 1: and put them on paper for others to follow. I've
Speaker 1: been doing a lot of public speaking about transitioning out
Speaker 1: of the military and and some of the toxic mindset
Speaker 1: I've had myself. And what I wanted to do is
Speaker 1: put that on paper, you know. I wanted to give
Speaker 1: people the honest answer. Here's what happened to me. Here's
Speaker 1: the things that I went through. Here's the negatives and
Speaker 1: the positives. What went well, what didn't go so well?
Speaker 1: You know, And I felt that, you know, since I
Speaker 1: am in the limelight right now, if I can provide
Speaker 1: some kind of value to two other veterans getting out
Speaker 1: and having trouble transition, then so be it. Well, what
Speaker 1: were some of your challenges? I mean to talk us
Speaker 1: through some of this? Oh man? You know, being Special
Speaker 1: Operation for so long, I was so dedicated to the job.
Speaker 1: I committed to it more than I did my family. Um,
Speaker 1: and it cost me that, you know, I went through
Speaker 1: I've been through two divorces now because of my addiction
Speaker 1: to being good at my job, choosing work over family.
Speaker 1: And now at my age, I've missed so many years
Speaker 1: of my kids' lives, from birthdays to recitals, to to
Speaker 1: to to births, that I refused to do that anymore.
Speaker 1: And I choose to say yet the family more often.
Speaker 1: And this is something I talk about in the book
Speaker 1: and balance. I try and balance my life. Uh, and
Speaker 1: it was never so balanced before, and so that's why
Speaker 1: I was. You know, one of my struggles was, you know,
Speaker 1: I became a single parent for kids, and now I
Speaker 1: had to balance my life. And so when that happened,
Speaker 1: it really changed my mindset of all the decisions i've
Speaker 1: i've I've made throughout the years of my career, and
Speaker 1: in that in that career transition, Vincent, when when you
Speaker 1: finally decided you were going to get into the content
Speaker 1: creation business, how do you make that jump? It was tough.
Speaker 1: You know, my friend is one of my friends, Matt Best.
Speaker 1: We were arranged the town together. Oh your friends of Matt.
Speaker 1: I love Matt from Black Rifle. I don't realize your
Speaker 1: matter of friends. That's great. I'm the big Mexican guy
Speaker 1: in all his videos. I didn't realize that something fun
Speaker 1: at it. You know, we were connected through Nick Irving
Speaker 1: the Reaper. I didn't realize you and Matt Best are friends.
Speaker 1: Now now you're like family. But continue on. You were
Speaker 1: saying yeah with me and Matt, we were in a
Speaker 1: second right of the town he started Article fifteen clothing.
Speaker 1: I lived in El Passo at the time. We started
Speaker 1: doing videos together because he said they need can help it.
Speaker 1: From there, it grown, it grew, you know, and I
Speaker 1: learned office by watching Matt and JT, the two guys
Speaker 1: who started article fifteen with the other guys, and so
Speaker 1: as I continue to watch their progress and how they
Speaker 1: did it, you know, I was learning. I was just
Speaker 1: like a private on a job. I was sitting there
Speaker 1: and learning from them, learning what they do. And as
Speaker 1: they got to the point where I wanted to branch
Speaker 1: off and focus on what I felt more passionate about
Speaker 1: was my family and helping veterans in my aspect and
Speaker 1: where I believed that was more powerful, and I decided
Speaker 1: to go my own route, you know. And you know
Speaker 1: we still owned less fingers with you together. You know,
Speaker 1: we still work on several ventures together. But you know,
Speaker 1: I had to focus on what I was more passionate about,
Speaker 1: and it was it was trying to speak on the
Speaker 1: transition side of things for veterans. If you could go
Speaker 1: back and tell younger you, we're speaking of Vincent Vargas,
Speaker 1: author of A light Diffuse Vincent do you go back
Speaker 1: and tell younger you, right when you were making that
Speaker 1: initial at that initial period, when you're transitioning out of
Speaker 1: special operations, what would that one piece of advice be,
Speaker 1: And it would be not to slow down. I felt
Speaker 1: that once I got stagnity, man, I started pointing fingers,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. And when I started pointing fingers,
Speaker 1: you know, I let drinking uh slow me down and
Speaker 1: then and then it was just this downward spiral of
Speaker 1: crap because, you know, because I was, oh, the fear
Speaker 1: of missing out. I felt like I was missing out
Speaker 1: of what the guys are doing overseas. I was so
Speaker 1: worried about what they're doing. I stopped thinking about what
Speaker 1: I was doing, and as they're continuing their lives I was,
Speaker 1: I was detweeting. I was not. I was not improving,
Speaker 1: and that killed me because it set me back several years,
Speaker 1: I believe, you know, it's set me back a while
Speaker 1: and for me to finally figure it out, I've actually
Speaker 1: gotten into the border control and that started my path,
Speaker 1: but it really that was still just another I was
Speaker 1: still just doing the same job it was doing the
Speaker 1: military and NAT border control, you know. But I would
Speaker 1: definitely tell myself. Just keep going towards the mission. Keep
Speaker 1: keep moving, because once I got stagnant is when I
Speaker 1: really started feeling more depressed and having a lot of
Speaker 1: issues with that. I hear you. I always tell myself,
Speaker 1: and it's been a mantra that I've adopted for last
Speaker 1: ten years. Just take action. Take action much better than
Speaker 1: the alternative. First of all, Vincent, thank you for your service.
Speaker 1: Good luck to you with the show Mayans, and also
Speaker 1: with the book Light Diffuse. You can get it on Amazon.
Speaker 1: It's Vincent's stories, some advice and Vincent really appreciate you
Speaker 1: joining and happy Thanksgiving to you and yours my friend.
Speaker 1: Come back anytime for sure. Thank you very much. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it all right, team, We'll be back in just
Speaker 1: a few moments here with the Sean Parnell. So. Trump
Speaker 1: has gotten a lot of attention recently from people that
Speaker 1: want to criticize him over what he says about people
Speaker 1: with military some people with military service, what he's done
Speaker 1: with regard to the troops and all of that. And
Speaker 1: there's even this poll that they Hill where I work
Speaker 1: put out that says that eighty eight percent of people
Speaker 1: want or believe the president should visit troops in war zones.
Speaker 1: So I figured, let's actually bring somebody on. He's got
Speaker 1: combat service in the military. Also a bestselling author, decorated
Speaker 1: war hero, all around kick ass guy, a great American.
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell is with us now, everybody. He is the
Speaker 1: author of Outlaw Platoon, which is a nonfiction about his
Speaker 1: time in Afghanistan. Great book. I've read it cover to cover.
Speaker 1: Also the author of the new novel Man of War,
Speaker 1: which is very highly regarded and doing very well. Mister
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell, great to have you back. Hey, it is
Speaker 1: great to be here. You're excited to be with you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, my friend. So let's just start with some
Speaker 1: of this, okay, because I feel like, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: you know, you hear all this stuff about Trump all
Speaker 1: the time, about how you're hearing from the media. Of
Speaker 1: course they're saying, well, Trump hasn't visited our troops in
Speaker 1: the war zones. He hasn't been overseas to visit them.
Speaker 1: And I always want to say, Okay, the poll about
Speaker 1: whether Americans think that president should do that matters less
Speaker 1: to me than if we could get a poll of
Speaker 1: do the troops want him to visit do they really
Speaker 1: care about him visiting them in the war zones? Per se?
Speaker 1: I just want to pose this to you, man, what
Speaker 1: do you think I mean? Is this? Is this a
Speaker 1: miss Is this a misstep by the president? You know
Speaker 1: what I do? It does bother me a little bit
Speaker 1: that he hasn't visited the troops in either Iraq, Afghanistan
Speaker 1: or somewhere else. Um. You know, his title was commander
Speaker 1: in chief, and so I think that the president, whether
Speaker 1: it's a Republican or Democrat, buck, I don't care, but
Speaker 1: I think that the president has a duty and obligation
Speaker 1: to our troops before anything else. He's their commander. And
Speaker 1: you know, it would be kind of a pain when
Speaker 1: you're when you're in combat, you know, a VIP comes,
Speaker 1: it's always kind of a pain to sort of seize
Speaker 1: combat operations and get out of your get out of
Speaker 1: your rhythm a little bit to accommodate those types of visitors.
Speaker 1: Everybody hates the dog and pony show, but I do
Speaker 1: think that deep down inside the troops, like when you're
Speaker 1: in those types of situations, it does matter that it
Speaker 1: does matter to them, man. I mean, it's really important
Speaker 1: to know that the president your commander in chief has
Speaker 1: your back when you're in the field and you're putting
Speaker 1: I mean, you're putting your life on the line every
Speaker 1: single day when you're over there. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: in many cases, I mean, you you convince yourself that
Speaker 1: you're living on borrowed time, and you want to know
Speaker 1: that the mission worth it. And I think I think
Speaker 1: the President communicates that the mission is worth it by
Speaker 1: simply showing up, you know. And so you know. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, that the president's only been in office,
Speaker 1: I mean, what two years now, so he has some time,
Speaker 1: but I would like him to make it a priority
Speaker 1: because I do think it's important. Why do you think
Speaker 1: he hasn't gone. I mean, I feel like the two
Speaker 1: groups that this president deep down does have a lot
Speaker 1: of respect for at his core and is pretty unwavering
Speaker 1: on in terms of the way he feels about them
Speaker 1: in general, our military and law enforcement. I agree, I agree,
Speaker 1: And it's it's difficult to know. I think, you know,
Speaker 1: I read an article today about Maddis telling him that
Speaker 1: he should be hesitant about visiting war zones, and I'm
Speaker 1: not entirely sure why, uh SECTF Mattis gave him that advice.
Speaker 1: But if I if I were advising the president, I
Speaker 1: would I would tell him, Look, you know, the Secret
Speaker 1: Service is gonna is gonna have your back when you're
Speaker 1: over there. They're gonna make sure that you're safe while
Speaker 1: you're in these war zones. But you gotta go. We
Speaker 1: gotta make time for it on the schedule. Uh, just
Speaker 1: to sho Like I said before, like so much of
Speaker 1: being a leader, whether you're a combat leader or some
Speaker 1: sort of political leader in Washington, it's just you just
Speaker 1: gotta show up. You gotta show up and show that
Speaker 1: you care. And it's inconvenient, you know, it takes time.
Speaker 1: On there's a lot of things that the president needs
Speaker 1: to be focused on here domestically. In fact, his agenda
Speaker 1: putting it putting America First is a major part of
Speaker 1: his agenda. But there are troops serving in harm's way,
Speaker 1: and I do think he needs to make the time
Speaker 1: to go talk to them and meet them because it
Speaker 1: is important. Do you think that he's also is he
Speaker 1: starting to develop a problem with you know, he went
Speaker 1: after McRaven a little bit, and mcgraven goes after him, right,
Speaker 1: and mcgraven's a Democrat, just you know, he's a Democrat
Speaker 1: and served his country only. But the guy's a Democrat
Speaker 1: and he got into the political realm, right. I mean
Speaker 1: this is you know, we can try to we can
Speaker 1: walk and cho gum, we can separate these things as
Speaker 1: as adults do. But that said, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: now people always saying, you know, he went after McCain's service,
Speaker 1: he made that crack about you know, getting bin laden faster,
Speaker 1: and you know there's some of this stuff. Do you
Speaker 1: think he is he creating a problem for himself with
Speaker 1: this where even even some of his Look, I mean
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here, I'm I'm a pretty strong Trump defender,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, I kind of wish he would just
Speaker 1: not do that thing. Sometimes I agree. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I didn't like when he went after McCain. I thought
Speaker 1: that was tasteless and unnecessary, and I called him out
Speaker 1: on it. Then. Um, you know, but I think that
Speaker 1: the mcgraven comment, you know, I mean, people don't like
Speaker 1: Trump's style. I get that, but everybody wanted to catch
Speaker 1: Bin Lauden sooner, and I think, what Trump? You know,
Speaker 1: He later Clarifier's remarks to say, like, look, we had
Speaker 1: ample opportunity from Clinton to president Bush or well, mostly
Speaker 1: under Clinton's presidency, we had ample opportunity to go after
Speaker 1: and catch Bin Lauden before nine to eleven happened. And
Speaker 1: while I think his comments could have been phrased better
Speaker 1: and made into less of an attack on McRaven, I
Speaker 1: mean I think everybody. I think everybody would have liked
Speaker 1: to catch Bin Ladden sooner and faster than that. I
Speaker 1: just think that one that was more of a of
Speaker 1: a the way Trump speaks thing instead of it. I
Speaker 1: don't think Trump is trying to be disrespectful to anybody
Speaker 1: in uh yeah. But but I also I'm always torn
Speaker 1: with this say I don't have a problem. I don't
Speaker 1: have a problem with Trump. I don't have a problem
Speaker 1: with with the president. You're exercising his First Amendment right
Speaker 1: to criticize who he wants to criticize, like this, this
Speaker 1: idea that you know, oh well, it's it's not presidential,
Speaker 1: And I guess I just I find myself scratching my
Speaker 1: head at well, who gets to define what's presidential? You know?
Speaker 1: To me, I part of what I like about Trump,
Speaker 1: and I think part of what his appeal is to
Speaker 1: the masses. And believe me, I'm surrounded by blue dog
Speaker 1: Democrats out here that are gonna vote for him again
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. There's no question about it. Part of
Speaker 1: his appeal is that he doesn't always say the things
Speaker 1: that you like, but at least you know he means
Speaker 1: what he's saying, you know, And there's a certain appeal
Speaker 1: to that. And whether whether or not it's it's you know,
Speaker 1: people just think that he's authentic Buck, and I think
Speaker 1: that that is the appeal. Whether you like what he
Speaker 1: says or not, people people feel that he is being
Speaker 1: honest with them. Yeah, well that's for sure. Definitely definitely
Speaker 1: lets it fly. So you know, there's some interesting, interesting
Speaker 1: shades here to the conversation with the president. But I
Speaker 1: want to switch gears because obviously, Sean, we're all going
Speaker 1: to be stuff in our faces here pretty soon. It
Speaker 1: is the one day of the year, I guess, other
Speaker 1: than your birthday with birthday cake, when it's just expected
Speaker 1: that you're going to loosen up the belt and go
Speaker 1: for it big time. What are some of the either
Speaker 1: culinary secrets or wonderful Thanksgiving traditions of the the Parnell
Speaker 1: Crew stretching back for generations. Well, we all I mean,
Speaker 1: we always do turkey, and we always do gravy, we
Speaker 1: always have ham, and on occasion we'll we'll have pasta,
Speaker 1: right because I come from you know, half of my
Speaker 1: family as Italian, so we do spaghetti with meatballs as well. Um,
Speaker 1: it's you know, and I think, I think for us,
Speaker 1: the most important thing about Thanksgiving is you know, getting
Speaker 1: together with your family and celebrating family. You know, all
Speaker 1: too often in our culture today, I mean it's like,
Speaker 1: I mean, we I feel like in many cases, we
Speaker 1: don't focus on the things that matter to us enough
Speaker 1: and just like take a deep breath and look around
Speaker 1: and appreciate the things that we have. And part of
Speaker 1: what I try to do with with with my family
Speaker 1: and my kids, especially as teach them to appreciate the
Speaker 1: food on the table, because I mean, you know, having
Speaker 1: been deployed to Afghanistan and was in Korea and really
Speaker 1: been all over the world during my time in the army,
Speaker 1: the other countries don't have the same things that we do.
Speaker 1: And while it's while you do appreciate other cultures and
Speaker 1: the time spent in those countries, for the most part,
Speaker 1: it's always nice to come home and just be able to,
Speaker 1: like go to the grocery store and get every type
Speaker 1: of food you can possibly imagine and spread it all
Speaker 1: over the table and eat and then eat again, and
Speaker 1: then eat again right before you go to bed. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just something that other countries don't have, and it's
Speaker 1: something that I think that our kids, especially the next generation,
Speaker 1: need to learn to appreciate real quick. Sean, before to
Speaker 1: let you go to the top of mind, what are
Speaker 1: you thankful for right now? The two sentence version. I'm
Speaker 1: just thankful for my family. You know. Every year, I
Speaker 1: just consider myself so blessed that that I had a
Speaker 1: family that always supported me no matter what, you know,
Speaker 1: and and also friends, you know, So I'm appreciative and
Speaker 1: thankful for those things. All right, man, I'm with you
Speaker 1: on that Sean part. Now, everybody check out Man of
Speaker 1: War is new novel if you can get on Amazon.
Speaker 1: It's a great read. And also if you haven't not
Speaker 1: already read his memoir of the front lines Afghanistan Outlaw Platoon. Sean,
Speaker 1: thankful for you, buddy, thanks for coming on the show.
Speaker 1: As always, We'll talk to you soon. Thanks Buck, Happy
Speaker 1: thanksgiving everybody you two man. All right, Timmy, I'm more
Speaker 1: on the way stay with us. Background checks can be
Speaker 1: a sensitive situation. Usually you go through with them, they're fine, right,
Speaker 1: But what about those murkier cases. What about where there's
Speaker 1: a red flag that comes up. You don't want your
Speaker 1: HR department to make any mistakes. You want them to
Speaker 1: have the information they need. That's why you need Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified
Speaker 1: veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. They are federally
Speaker 1: certified as a veteran owned small business. I know the
Speaker 1: CEO personally, Mark Buckman. He is a great guy and
Speaker 1: his whole team will make sure that you get the
Speaker 1: best service and the most efficient possible answers to your
Speaker 1: cases when it comes to background investigation and vetting. This
Speaker 1: is who you want, no matter how big or small
Speaker 1: your company is, to be doing your background checks. And
Speaker 1: if you're gonna have a company, you gotta have background
Speaker 1: checks for employees. Go to MYGVN dot com. That's MYGVN
Speaker 1: dot com or call eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine Global Verification Network. Leave no stone
Speaker 1: unturned this case. We have students that are not prepared
Speaker 1: or not doing Also, we say perhaps we can solve
Speaker 1: the problem by capital or not capital letters. And it's
Speaker 1: kind of like it's a depressing moment the entire life
Speaker 1: in academian. We used to think that British intellectual life
Speaker 1: was the hallmark of the Western world and that whatever
Speaker 1: mistakes we made, we could look toward Britain. This was
Speaker 1: TS Eliott and C. S. Lewis and the Regions professor
Speaker 1: of Greek at Oxford. And to think that they've fallen
Speaker 1: into the same sad political correctness that we have is
Speaker 1: really depressing. Maybe too many people are going to college,
Speaker 1: you know, you think that we're losing this generation in
Speaker 1: the West that is worried about capital letters. They're not
Speaker 1: having children, they're not getting married, they're not buying homes,
Speaker 1: they're prolonging their adolescence. And maybe it's they shouldn't be
Speaker 1: in university and they could be much better and noble
Speaker 1: professions like plumbing, electricity, that we really need trade schools.
Speaker 1: But something's gone wrong with the university and it's not
Speaker 1: just pernicious to the student, but it's starting to affect
Speaker 1: the entire society at aren't Victor Davis Hansen make making
Speaker 1: a lot of sense? There? I would not Major Davis
Speaker 1: Hansen saying a lot of things that well, we've been
Speaker 1: noticing for a while here in the Freedom Hut. But
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you this was a new one for me,
Speaker 1: the banning of capital letters. I had never come across
Speaker 1: this as a thing before. It turns out that at
Speaker 1: Leeds Trinity University, which I guess is in the UK,
Speaker 1: they've been told in the journalism department to avoid capital letters,
Speaker 1: and I just I don't that's usually ago, Okay, I
Speaker 1: know why they think this is offensive or that is offensive,
Speaker 1: but they think in the journalism department, remember, journalism is
Speaker 1: supposed to be about getting to truth. Journalism is supposed
Speaker 1: to be about the exchange and dissemination of ideas, and
Speaker 1: in that department they think that that capital letters could
Speaker 1: quote scare them into failure and instead suggesting using a
Speaker 1: friendly tone and avoid the use of negative language in general.
Speaker 1: I gotta say, if you're going to be a journalist
Speaker 1: who's worth reading, you're going to have to use a
Speaker 1: very very negative toad on a lot of issues, and
Speaker 1: certainly on the modern academy's view of creating a completely
Speaker 1: cloistered life of the mind, I mean creating this life
Speaker 1: of the mind that doesn't have to deal with the
Speaker 1: trials and tribulations of being an adult who is engaging
Speaker 1: with the world around him. This is the snowflake syndrome.
Speaker 1: And we know all about this, but this was a
Speaker 1: new one for me. I've never heard of banning capital
Speaker 1: banning capital letters before, and I just had to note that.
Speaker 1: Victor Davis Headson is like, what is going on? It's
Speaker 1: not just here in America. I don't know if we
Speaker 1: take comfort in that or if it should make us
Speaker 1: even more scared. But it's not only in America that
Speaker 1: we have this. It's it's in broader Western society now,
Speaker 1: and and it just makes me think about how there
Speaker 1: are these other countries where they don't they don't have
Speaker 1: this problem. You know, they're they're very sure of themselves.
Speaker 1: Maybe those countries and those cultures shouldn't be, but they're
Speaker 1: not constantly being taught and teaching their next generation to
Speaker 1: undermine them, undermine themselves, you know, to think less of
Speaker 1: their abilities in the world, think less of their role
Speaker 1: in the world. I found this New York Times piece
Speaker 1: speaking of all this really interesting on China and how
Speaker 1: China is influencing our culture American culture in one of
Speaker 1: the most powerful ways that it can. Think about this
Speaker 1: for a moment. How many movies have you seen the
Speaker 1: last ten years where China are only near peer economic
Speaker 1: and military competitor. How many movies have you seen where
Speaker 1: China isn't even necessarily the bad guy but is depicted
Speaker 1: in an unflattering light. How many times have you seen
Speaker 1: a major Hollywood picture recently where China was, you know,
Speaker 1: in any way being undermined, or you know, you talked
Speaker 1: about Chinese human rights issues things like that. Oh, there's
Speaker 1: a reason for that, and it's that the Chinese market
Speaker 1: is so large and so powerful that now they're making
Speaker 1: demands about how the American market depicts them. That's right,
Speaker 1: China is dictating to Hollywood how Hollywood will show Chinese
Speaker 1: issues in movies. And I don't mean Chinese language movies.
Speaker 1: I don't mean movies specifically about China. I mean blockbusters
Speaker 1: like Mission Impossible series, movies, stuff like that. You'll start
Speaker 1: to look at the list here, or if you go
Speaker 1: to this New York Times article and go, wow, China's
Speaker 1: involved in some very very big movies, and you know,
Speaker 1: the most the most clear example of this is that
Speaker 1: in Red Dawn Wolverines in Red Dawn, which is about
Speaker 1: the Soviet and Cuban invasion of the United States. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a cult film. I mean a lot of
Speaker 1: you like book. It's amazing. I mean it's okay, it
Speaker 1: has its moments. They made they did a remake of
Speaker 1: it in twenty twelve, and Red Dawn remade was supposed
Speaker 1: to have the Chinese invading an American town. But guess what.
Speaker 1: MGM spent a million dollars digitally erasing evidence of the
Speaker 1: Chinese army in every single frame and substituted North Korea
Speaker 1: for China. That's originally it was an invasion by China,
Speaker 1: and then they changed it's that it was an invasion
Speaker 1: by North Korea. And this was at the request of
Speaker 1: the Chinese government slash Chinese market, meaning their box office.
Speaker 1: They even got rid of a character called the Ancient
Speaker 1: One from Marvel Comics, who was an elderly Tibetan man,
Speaker 1: and replaced him in the Doctor Strange movie in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: with the actress Tilda Swinton playing a Celtic version of
Speaker 1: the Ancient One. So they turned a Tibetan into an Irishman,
Speaker 1: which probably was a surprise to fans of the comics,
Speaker 1: and the movie Seven Years in Tibet, for example, really
Speaker 1: upset Hollywood so much so that Brad Pitt isn't welcome,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, upset China so much so that Brad Pitt
Speaker 1: isn't welcome in China now because he starred in that movie.
Speaker 1: So they're involved in co financing more and more of
Speaker 1: our own films. Now. Part of this is obviously an
Speaker 1: economic incentive, but politics is downstream of culture and our
Speaker 1: perception of ourselves visa each China in the world are
Speaker 1: affected by the mass media depictions that we see. Oh
Speaker 1: it also explains why the movie Great Wall was made.
Speaker 1: I told you that Matt Damon Great Wall movie was
Speaker 1: so bad that I couldn't get through ten minutes of it.
Speaker 1: That was Chinese financed one hundred and fifty million dollar
Speaker 1: China Hollywood coproduction, and it was a complete flop. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was a true it was an unintentional disaster movie
Speaker 1: as in the movie itself was a disaster. But you
Speaker 1: see these indicators, these early indicators right now, and there's
Speaker 1: only one way this is going, and that is that
Speaker 1: there's going to be a cultural and perception struggle that
Speaker 1: we have with China. And I just note that while
Speaker 1: we're being told don't use capital letters because it could
Speaker 1: scare us, and you know, we need to deal with
Speaker 1: our history of colonialism and racism, China is being told
Speaker 1: your rightful place in the world is number one. All
Speaker 1: their kids, all their generations coming up, that's going to
Speaker 1: have an effect. So Thanksgiving as a holiday, but is
Speaker 1: it non controversial? Is the notion of coming together with
Speaker 1: friends and family to show our thanks for the blessings
Speaker 1: and the good things in our lives? Is that something
Speaker 1: that we can all get behind? Or are there social
Speaker 1: justice warriors a little bit upset at the prospect of
Speaker 1: this thing called Thanksgiving? Is there some basis upon which,
Speaker 1: or for which through which whatever the proper preposition is
Speaker 1: that they can express their outrage about Thanksgiving? And now
Speaker 1: was there something? Oh, that's right? There is a sense
Speaker 1: out there amongst some on the left that Thanksgiving is,
Speaker 1: in fact not just a day when we all eat
Speaker 1: too much. I think the average Thanksgiving feast comes in
Speaker 1: at something like thirty two hundred calories. There's something just
Speaker 1: very gluttonous. Don't worry I'll top that. But is that?
Speaker 1: Oh no, that's right. There's more than that, because Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: according to some folks on the social justice left, is racist.
Speaker 1: The hosting event called thanks but no Thanksgiving. It's about
Speaker 1: decolonizing all of it, about finding the racial problems and
Speaker 1: the cultural problems with it. What do you think about that?
Speaker 1: That's great? I mean, but like doesn't help natives, does it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's definitely a racial history or a racist history to Thanksgiving, Okay,
Speaker 1: and that should probably definitely be addressed more um in education.
Speaker 1: The whole concept of like taking land and assigning of
Speaker 1: value to it through costs, just like it was different
Speaker 1: through European cultures. Oh, I mean, yeah, sure there are
Speaker 1: racist aspects of its history that What would you find racist? Um,
Speaker 1: the fact that we're celebrating taking away land from natives? Okay, Okay,
Speaker 1: it's pretty racist. Well, it's just about like honestly, like,
Speaker 1: I'm not super ucated on the topic, but I just
Speaker 1: know that it has to do with the way that
Speaker 1: the settlers kind of treated the the native the natives
Speaker 1: who lived here. Now that audio comes to us from
Speaker 1: Campus Reform, and they do this, right, they go around
Speaker 1: on college campuses and they ask people questions to illustrate
Speaker 1: prevailing attitudes among college kids, usually about political issues, but
Speaker 1: on this one Thanksgiving, and it goes on and on,
Speaker 1: and to be fair, there are some young people they
Speaker 1: ask who go, well, you know, I really think it's
Speaker 1: more about giving thanks and coming together as families, really
Speaker 1: not about racism or colonialism. But I also want to
Speaker 1: point out that, you know, for a lot of these
Speaker 1: young folks, and myself and my peer group and really
Speaker 1: anyone included in this, sometimes it's it's I think too easy,
Speaker 1: and we can be too quick to point at them
Speaker 1: and be like, oh, they're so ignorant, Look at them.
Speaker 1: They don't know anything about this, and so just saying
Speaker 1: it's racist because they're so dumb, I mean, sometimes that's
Speaker 1: really warranted. But there's a component here that I can't
Speaker 1: help but notice, and that is like, how many of
Speaker 1: us really know a detailed history of Thanksgiving off the
Speaker 1: top of our head. Very few, very few? In fact,
Speaker 1: you know, we kind of know something about, you know,
Speaker 1: the Pilgrims and Squanto and the natives, and there's some
Speaker 1: food exchange and there was maybe a tough harvest that
Speaker 1: you know, we don't really get too into the details.
Speaker 1: And I think that instead of viewing this all the
Speaker 1: time as oh, look at these look at these kids
Speaker 1: who have been brainwashed, I also think it's look at
Speaker 1: on a college campus, for example, look at the kind
Speaker 1: of totalitarian left wing echo chamber that they all live in,
Speaker 1: such that it's not strange and it's not even beyond
Speaker 1: our comprehension why they would take this position. You know,
Speaker 1: if they have any doubt, say it's ray. And I
Speaker 1: don't mean that because they think it's racist. I mean
Speaker 1: as a form of self preservation. That's where the culture
Speaker 1: is these days. You see what I mean. It's really
Speaker 1: about how if they don't immediately say well, you know,
Speaker 1: you could always say oh, it's not racist, okay, and
Speaker 1: walk away from that. But if something is considered on
Speaker 1: the left to be racist or full of oppression and
Speaker 1: colonialism and white privilege and all these these terms and
Speaker 1: ideas that the left doesn't just embrace but enforces them,
Speaker 1: I mean that's the really key distinction. So as a
Speaker 1: as a safe bet, if you're on a college campus
Speaker 1: and you're being asked about something and you know there's
Speaker 1: some generally vaguely racial aspect to it, you might as
Speaker 1: well err on that side, right. So I have some
Speaker 1: sympathy for these college kids who don't know the history
Speaker 1: of Look, they should know, maybe a little more of
Speaker 1: the history of Thanksgiving they do. And some of them
Speaker 1: are obviously ideologues who are oh my gosh, it's so racist.
Speaker 1: But you've also got to leave open the possibility that
Speaker 1: there are some who just don't want to be accused
Speaker 1: of being racist themselves, and so when they when something
Speaker 1: comes up and it triggers that part of their mind
Speaker 1: that goes, oh, I think that there's I'm being asked
Speaker 1: if this thing is racist. Maybe I should just be
Speaker 1: safe and go, yeah, this is kind of racist. Yeah.
Speaker 1: On the one hand, it's funny and it's worth pointing out,
Speaker 1: and that's why we're doing it. But there's also a
Speaker 1: part of me that wants everyone to understand at least
Speaker 1: that that's not really a silly position for them to
Speaker 1: take under the circumstances. Better to be the person who
Speaker 1: goes along on a college campus and says, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's racist, right than be the person who goes, no,
Speaker 1: that's not racist and have everyone started yelling at you.
Speaker 1: So I try to take different things from some of
Speaker 1: these encounters that we see on the on the college campuses,
Speaker 1: and that would be one of them. And yes, Thanksgivings
Speaker 1: about being thankful. So it's a pretty for holiday. A
Speaker 1: lot of people I know say it's their favorite holiday,
Speaker 1: which is interesting. I also maybe another time we'll talk
Speaker 1: about how the Christian roots of Thanksgiving seem to often
Speaker 1: get lost in our contemporary culture. For another time, Roll
Speaker 1: calls up. The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time
Speaker 1: for Roll Call, our last roll call before Thanksgiving. Team Man,
Speaker 1: how the time does fly? I'm looking forward to it.
Speaker 1: I'm heading up to New York City to be with
Speaker 1: the fam, be with my family up there. I have
Speaker 1: two brothers who have birthdays this week, So Mason Man
Speaker 1: if you're listening, also known as Mason, my older brother,
Speaker 1: happy Happy Birthday in advance because I won't be on
Speaker 1: air for your birthday or the greatest big brother guy
Speaker 1: I could ever ask for. And I'm gonna be celebrating
Speaker 1: with both my brothers, Mason and Keats this weekend in
Speaker 1: New York. Mom is going to be cooking a fantastic turkey.
Speaker 1: She's incredible with her her turkey cooking skills. So I'm
Speaker 1: really looking forward to that. And you know, my only
Speaker 1: thing is I feel like sometimes I want to mix
Speaker 1: the sweet potatoes and the mashed potatoes. And the thing
Speaker 1: about that is they're good on their own. I don't
Speaker 1: know if they're really good mixed together. They get a
Speaker 1: little accidentally mixed up. But do I want to intentionally
Speaker 1: mix sweet potatoes and mashed potatoes? These are the questions
Speaker 1: that keep me up at night. The good news is
Speaker 1: there's no arguing about politics in my family because everyone
Speaker 1: in my family is a sane, well read, and thoughtful patriot.
Speaker 1: So we don't have to worry about that. That's nice,
Speaker 1: isn't it. At least everyone of my immediate family falls
Speaker 1: into those those categories. So we have Oh, I put
Speaker 1: up a poll on Facebook, by the way, the best
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving side dish, sweet potatoes or stuffing? I have? I
Speaker 1: don't know, a thousand votes so far. We'll see what
Speaker 1: ends up. We'll see what the total total is when
Speaker 1: it when it comes in. Now, I said, roll call,
Speaker 1: So let's do the roll call. Hold on, where where
Speaker 1: did it go? Here we go? We have If Marie writes,
Speaker 1: if dressing had been an option, I would have chosen
Speaker 1: that I do not like stuffing but love dressing. Isn't
Speaker 1: that just another word for stuffing? Mark writes smashed potatoes
Speaker 1: and gravy. Yeah, I can't argue with potatoes are fantastic.
Speaker 1: Jeff writes green bean casserole. Josh writes stuffing is trash.
Speaker 1: In the South, we eat dressing, and dressing is not
Speaker 1: a side. So a dressing is what you call stuffing
Speaker 1: in the South. I did I did not know this.
Speaker 1: I was not aware of this. Joshua writes, cornbread dressing
Speaker 1: buck okay. Jerry writes, you misspelled whiskey in the second box, Nates. Now,
Speaker 1: if you would have said mashed potatoes, Jeremy, right, sweet
Speaker 1: potatoes belong in the trash can Jeremy, they do not.
Speaker 1: They belong in my belly. Mashed potatoes. I see here
Speaker 1: another mashed potatoes. James wrote, Romaine let us salad. Now,
Speaker 1: James trying to be funny because right now there is
Speaker 1: a warning out there for folks to not eat romaine.
Speaker 1: You are not supposed to eat romaine lettuce. It is
Speaker 1: considered a no no because of the possibility of E.
Speaker 1: Coli contamination out there, So avoid romaine. But really, what
Speaker 1: this is is a public service announcement telling you all
Speaker 1: that salad is dangerous. Let's see, Scarlet, right, who are
Speaker 1: these pagans that like stuffing better than yummy buttery, brown
Speaker 1: sugary cinnamony, sweet taters, barbarians, the whole lot of you? Well, Scarlet,
Speaker 1: I don't have the same reaction to this that you do,
Speaker 1: but I like that you're you're getting fired up about it,
Speaker 1: a lot of you telling me that it's called dressing
Speaker 1: and not stuffing. I did not know that green bean
Speaker 1: casserole gets a bunch of votes in here too. Green
Speaker 1: bean casserole. Really, I don't know, Carrie says the roles.
Speaker 1: I know the hot rolls are nice, but if you've
Speaker 1: got Celiac disease like me, you tend not to have
Speaker 1: a lot of roles. All right, now, I'll get into them.
Speaker 1: That was all on the poll people given their comments there.
Speaker 1: Now we'll get into the more traditional side of pre
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving role called Rob writes, turkey wrapped in bacon, pickle
Speaker 1: on the side. Happy Thanksgiving, and thank you for your insight.
Speaker 1: You are chosen for this time. Rob. Well, Rob, you
Speaker 1: are very kind man, and thank you for writing in.
Speaker 1: And I have to say Happy Thanksgiving to you as well,
Speaker 1: Timothy Right, Buck Shields High. Thanks for reading my comments
Speaker 1: about pickles on hamburgers. Let us agree to dis agree,
Speaker 1: and Romaine calm. Since I am a Polish Jew from Michigan,
Speaker 1: I put pickles on everything now. As for Thanksgiving, I
Speaker 1: thank God daily that Hillary Clinton is not president. Regarding
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving dinner sides, I'll put my wife's sweep potato casserole
Speaker 1: up against anything anytime, anywhere, oatmeal, honey, eggs, brown sugar, marshmallows,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera. You and miss Molly have a
Speaker 1: wonderful Thanksgiving. Shields High, Timothy, Well, Timothy, thank you. And
Speaker 1: I've got to say I am a sweet potato fan
Speaker 1: in general, so I can't disagree. Can't disagree with you there,
Speaker 1: Ken Right. What's the name of your new show with
Speaker 1: a liberal co host? I can't seem to find it. Well,
Speaker 1: Ken the new show, it's about six months old now,
Speaker 1: is called Rising, And if you want to watch it,
Speaker 1: it's a TV show on the web. If you want
Speaker 1: to watch it, it is at hill dot tv slash
Speaker 1: Rising on the Internet. That's the easiest way to go
Speaker 1: check it out and my liberal co host name is
Speaker 1: Crystal Ball. That is, in fact her name. Her name
Speaker 1: is Crystal Ball. John writes, Hey Buck podcast listener here.
Speaker 1: I love your show, but I must challenge on one thing.
Speaker 1: You mentioned that we have been reducing carbon emissions globally,
Speaker 1: and one of the things you mentioned was that contributing
Speaker 1: to decline was not burning wood. I supplement my propane
Speaker 1: furnace heat with a wood stove. Would heat is carbon neutral.
Speaker 1: That is, through the lifetime of a tree, it absorbs
Speaker 1: carbon and produces oxygen. Whether it rots on the ground
Speaker 1: or burns in my stove, it releases the same amount
Speaker 1: of carbon in the atmosphere, whereas burning coal, propane, or
Speaker 1: natural gas releases carbon. That was one sequester below the
Speaker 1: ground shield tige from John. John, you may be correct
Speaker 1: on this one. I was trying to say that in
Speaker 1: terms of the fuel sources we use, we're certainly more
Speaker 1: it's certainly more efficient and less carbon intensive in the
Speaker 1: when you burn it off. I mean, let's CO two
Speaker 1: in the air. Keep in mind, I don't think that
Speaker 1: CO two emissions are a problem. So that's also a
Speaker 1: whole other thing as to how you would gauge carbon
Speaker 1: over the life of of what is over a tree
Speaker 1: versus when it's burnt. I don't know. I've never heard
Speaker 1: that argue before. It's interesting. Thank you for thank you
Speaker 1: for writing in and telling me something I didn't know.
Speaker 1: Larry writes, Hey, Buck, I don't know if you agree
Speaker 1: to go along with the traditional turkey trappings on Thanksgiving
Speaker 1: or if you insist on the ribi rigamarole, But in
Speaker 1: either case, wishing you and Miss Molly and your family's
Speaker 1: a fantastic Thanksgiving day with family and friends. Have a
Speaker 1: great one, but hurry back to the Hut. Well, Larry,
Speaker 1: Same to you from me, the Sex and family, I
Speaker 1: miss Molly. We send you a big, big hug and
Speaker 1: a happy Thanksgiving. It a shield tie and same thing
Speaker 1: to all of you listening. Thank you. You know. One
Speaker 1: thing I will say is I am thankful each year
Speaker 1: that I've had this show for all of you who listen,
Speaker 1: who support me and support what I do here, and
Speaker 1: support this whole endeavor of the Buck Sexton Show and
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut is those of us who are a
Speaker 1: part of it call it. It really does mean a lot.
Speaker 1: I feel blessed to be able to do this job.
Speaker 1: Every time that I can come up to this mic
Speaker 1: and say what I want to say to all of
Speaker 1: you and interact with all of you. I'm very, very lucky,
Speaker 1: and I never forget it. And I appreciate all the
Speaker 1: time that you give me, every one of you who
Speaker 1: listens on radio, on a live stream, or via podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm thankful for all of you. So you are very
Speaker 1: much appreciated. And the time you spend with me means
Speaker 1: a lot, and it's why I try to put as
Speaker 1: much as I can into the show, to make it
Speaker 1: as informative and as worthwhile and entertaining as I possibly
Speaker 1: can every single day. Richard all Right. Season three of
Speaker 1: The Last Kingdom just dropped on Netflix. Excellent. Well, Richard,
Speaker 1: I got I tell you, that is pretty exciting. I
Speaker 1: did not know that season three was even in the
Speaker 1: works for The Last Kingdom, and I really love the
Speaker 1: first season of that show. I thought the second season
Speaker 1: was not quite as good as the first, but I
Speaker 1: did enjoy it, so I'm excited. I've got a pretty
Speaker 1: stacked queue right now. I've got kind of an embarrassment
Speaker 1: of Netflix and Hulu and HBO. Go riches. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: watch Narcos season four, the season it takes place in Mexico.
Speaker 1: That's definitely on my media list. I gotta finish up
Speaker 1: Peaky Blinders. Really enjoying that series, by the way, I
Speaker 1: think it's great. I didn't really like The Haunting of Hillhouse.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a little sanctimonious, a little boring,
Speaker 1: a little slow, and I just don't think you can
Speaker 1: have a movie that's that scary where there's really no
Speaker 1: threat of anything bad happening to anybody. It's just like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, I saw a ghost. I mean, if
Speaker 1: the ghost isn't making people disappear or pushing people out
Speaker 1: of windows or doing scary stuff like that, bo, it
Speaker 1: looks like a ghost just called me there. Scary stuff.
Speaker 1: But no, if you don't have any imminent threat from
Speaker 1: the evil spirits or monsters or whatever, I just think
Speaker 1: it's not that it's just not that scary. At The
Speaker 1: Haunting a Hill House, I cannot recommend. I thought it
Speaker 1: was boring. I might go and watch American Horror Story.
Speaker 1: I've been told that that's really good does a really
Speaker 1: really good job, so I might. I might be willing
Speaker 1: to go check that one out, but I will have
Speaker 1: to see what I also have a lot of work
Speaker 1: to do over the weekend, so I can't say that
Speaker 1: I'm going to get through all that much. But I've
Speaker 1: got some plants, Jason. Jason writes, Buck, you said nuts
Speaker 1: have no place in brownies, and I agree. But what
Speaker 1: makes a brownie go from good to the best you
Speaker 1: ever had are Reese's peanut butter cups, and Jason sent
Speaker 1: a photo of the brownies that he makes with Reese's
Speaker 1: peanut butter cups in them. I, Jason, I think you
Speaker 1: might be honest something here. My friend Riese's peanut buttercups
Speaker 1: are incredible, and I think that there's a I think
Speaker 1: that you're on a something all right, team, have a
Speaker 1: very happy Thanksgiving. Enjoy if you've got some time off,
Speaker 1: Enjoy time with friends and loved ones. Eat a lot
Speaker 1: of delicious food. We are back into the breach together
Speaker 1: next week. Shields Hie