Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The crazy left is
Speaker 1: not backing down from its calls to abolish ice. In fact,
Speaker 1: the protests and the calls for this insanity are getting
Speaker 1: louder from those who call themselves democrats. Also, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is rolling back some Obama era rules about affirmative action.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that. And the politically motivated stalking of
Speaker 1: Trump officials continues. Why have the progressives completely lost all
Speaker 1: sense of the quorum? Well, I guess maybe they've lost
Speaker 1: their mind. That and more coming up. This is the
Speaker 1: bus Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, honor and privilege.
Speaker 1: A pleasure as always to be here with you. We've
Speaker 1: got some things to talk about today. Today is one
Speaker 1: of these days where we don't have some one all
Speaker 1: encompassing news story. You know, it's not all gosh testimony
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill and I have to sit there for
Speaker 1: six hours and watch, you know, members of connors. I'm
Speaker 1: pretending to care about the law, but really I'm just
Speaker 1: doing this for the cameras. You know. There's gonna be
Speaker 1: more of that, by the way, when they get into
Speaker 1: the final stages of the Muller Probe, trust me. But
Speaker 1: this is this is one of these days where I
Speaker 1: can look at what's going on in the new cycle
Speaker 1: and talk to you about whatever just comes to mind,
Speaker 1: which I think sometimes is our most interesting, our most
Speaker 1: fun days actually here on the show, and I want
Speaker 1: to dig deep into some things that certainly if grab
Speaker 1: my attention, I think we'll grab yours as well. Oh
Speaker 1: but if you want to call in, I love to
Speaker 1: take some some calls today. Eight four folks. I know
Speaker 1: some of you're gonna be busy tomorrow with your you know,
Speaker 1: your barbecuing, you're grilling, your red, white and blue apparel
Speaker 1: wearing cocktail party, you know, whatever you got planned. Or
Speaker 1: the July is a great holiday, isn't it. I gotta
Speaker 1: love Fourth of July. Also, grilled meat is just the
Speaker 1: best kind of meat. It just is. You can talk
Speaker 1: to me about the smokiness and but I just taste better.
Speaker 1: But since a lot of you, I'm sure tomorrow are
Speaker 1: gonna be doing that, you know, tonight's a good night
Speaker 1: for you to call in and tell me what your
Speaker 1: thoughts are about the subject matter of the day, or
Speaker 1: the things that are on your mind, whatever that may be.
Speaker 1: This role abolished ICE thing, I want to start with that.
Speaker 1: As I've been I came at this from the perspective of, well,
Speaker 1: hold on, this policy doesn't make any sense. This is
Speaker 1: this is a nonsensical thing to say. And then I
Speaker 1: walked you through how there's the you know, the history
Speaker 1: of US customs enforcement before immigrations and customs enforcement were
Speaker 1: merged together, you know, United States custom Service, and how
Speaker 1: you need to have this to abolish ICE would mean
Speaker 1: you would not have anyone there to do vetting for
Speaker 1: people who are actual asylum seekers. So if you want
Speaker 1: to talk about being heartless and mean, there will be
Speaker 1: none of that. You would have no one to work
Speaker 1: on these cases that come into the country or people
Speaker 1: say that you know, they've they've you know, their family
Speaker 1: has been separated, or anything else. It's just it doesn't work.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work. And then also interior enforcement because customs
Speaker 1: or rather border patrolled it isn't driving around the country,
Speaker 1: although they will go I think up to a hundred
Speaker 1: miles in the U s interior. They won't drive around
Speaker 1: the country going into meat processing plants and other plays
Speaker 1: and try to do these roundups of illegal, illegal alien labor,
Speaker 1: so they have no interior force. It's just not But
Speaker 1: you know, I have to stop myself because it's really
Speaker 1: not about a policy. And that's why you've got Kirsten
Speaker 1: Gillibrand and a bunch of other Democrat politicians now repeating
Speaker 1: this refrain about how it's times. I think Corey Booker
Speaker 1: has also said, you know, abolish ice. Time to abolish ice.
Speaker 1: I spoke earlier today to the Democrat would be governor
Speaker 1: of Maryland. You know, Maryland's kind of a funky state
Speaker 1: in that way. It is overwhelmingly blue, very blue, and
Speaker 1: very anti Trump, but it also has it really popular
Speaker 1: governor who's a Republican. Now, he's a moderate Republican. Some
Speaker 1: of you might refer to him uncharitably as a rhino,
Speaker 1: and I don't think that would be I don't think
Speaker 1: he'd be far off with that one. But to be
Speaker 1: a rhino in Maryland is a is a tough act
Speaker 1: to pull off, I think. But this, uh, this challenger said,
Speaker 1: you know, no, we shouldn't abolishize. We need we need ice.
Speaker 1: So I say to myself, oh, look, some people are
Speaker 1: figuring this out, but it's not. It was never about
Speaker 1: the policy. I need to stop thinking about what's happening
Speaker 1: from the perspective of legislation at law and and just
Speaker 1: look at this much more through a community organizer, a
Speaker 1: Lynskyite lens, and then it all starts to make sense.
Speaker 1: Then you understand why they're chanting abolish ice, and then
Speaker 1: you know where this comes from when when they're uh
Speaker 1: and hat tip Peter Hassan at The Daily Caller for
Speaker 1: this that vandals at an abolish ice protest through a
Speaker 1: brick through the window of the Nebraska Republican Party's headquarters
Speaker 1: in Lincoln, Nebraska. So now you have an understanding for Okay,
Speaker 1: well this isn't really just they know they're not going
Speaker 1: to abolish ice, so why say it? What is the point?
Speaker 1: But then I take this to what we discussed yesterday
Speaker 1: with Okazio Cortes and how she is part of this group.
Speaker 1: These democrats are the socialist rather of New York City
Speaker 1: that want to abolish prophet the You're never going to
Speaker 1: do that, so why say it? Oh, that's right, it
Speaker 1: is because it's about mobilization. This is why you have
Speaker 1: ICE protesters berating cops. For example, what do cops have
Speaker 1: to do with immigrations and customs enforce but local law
Speaker 1: enforcement doesn't do the functions of ICE. In fact, what
Speaker 1: we see overwhelmingly is because of sanctuary city jurisdictions across
Speaker 1: the country, local police are largely prohibited from doing even
Speaker 1: the bare minimum of assisting in immigrations and customs enforcements.
Speaker 1: Bare minimum. They don't want to do it. So you
Speaker 1: have ICE pro You have these pro testers against ICE.
Speaker 1: They want to abolish ICE, and now they're getting angry
Speaker 1: at police. Here's what it sounded like in Philadelphia, play
Speaker 1: third team. You wouldn't have you have you or you
Speaker 1: have your shape, you have you have your You said
Speaker 1: if we do at sent down, you would have rest,
Speaker 1: no right, but you still arrested. You have no shame,
Speaker 1: you have no work. That's why you're up. That's why
Speaker 1: you're not high school. That's why you're here. You can't
Speaker 1: that's the only way you give me any They didn't
Speaker 1: do anything anything. That's why they cops could have such
Speaker 1: loans not to stay. Now for a woman to go
Speaker 1: up to police officers and say that they have just
Speaker 1: because their police officer. Remember, the cops are at a protest,
Speaker 1: usually to keep the protesters safe. Okay, they're there to
Speaker 1: protect the First Amendment rights of the protesters. I've seen
Speaker 1: it time and again in New York work. So they
Speaker 1: often lose sight of this though, and somehow they think
Speaker 1: the cops are the enemy. But that woman was saying
Speaker 1: to this police officer, you have no shame, you have
Speaker 1: no worth. You didn't finish high school, that's why you're here.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do with abolishing ice and
Speaker 1: immigrations and customers forcement? Why why be verbally abusive to
Speaker 1: police officers who, by the way, even the most idiotic
Speaker 1: leftists would have to admit, if we didn't have cops,
Speaker 1: it would be mad Max, right, if we didn't have
Speaker 1: law enforcement on the streets, we would have big problems
Speaker 1: in this country. Immediately, I think, I think anybody who
Speaker 1: has a you know, a functioning brain knows that. So
Speaker 1: why be so nasty to a police? Why take this tone?
Speaker 1: It wasn't just there also there were chances about how
Speaker 1: police are racist played twelve. I've heard that chap before.
Speaker 1: This is all a retread you've heard it as well,
Speaker 1: not just the Black Lives Matter protests, but before that
Speaker 1: at the very virulently anti cop protests that were a
Speaker 1: part of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Folks, these are
Speaker 1: all this is just all the community activists left coming
Speaker 1: back together and trying to get energized and chance. This
Speaker 1: is a Lynsky one oh one. It's not about policy.
Speaker 1: It's such a stupid thing to say that could only
Speaker 1: be about saying it, not doing anything right. They literally
Speaker 1: just want to chant this because they know it's never
Speaker 1: gonna happen. But the chant becomes its own justification because
Speaker 1: people feel good and they feel fired up, and they
Speaker 1: want to go abolish ice, Abolish ice. What comes after that?
Speaker 1: Why abolish ice? Wouldn't you want more people in immigrations
Speaker 1: and customs enforcements so they can process asylum claims. Wouldn't
Speaker 1: you want more people involved in this process so that
Speaker 1: it could be more orderly and efficient and therefore people
Speaker 1: with the right to come into this country would be
Speaker 1: able to or those who have an honest claim for asylum.
Speaker 1: But it's about you see there. They know that the
Speaker 1: whole game at the border has been overwhelming. The system
Speaker 1: also straight out of the Olynsky playbook. Overwhelm the system,
Speaker 1: bring it down to its knees, find the scenes, find
Speaker 1: the weak points and attack and abuse them. Don't win
Speaker 1: the argument, don't win people over to your side, collapse
Speaker 1: the system, and then and then you'll have control. I
Speaker 1: know it sounds almost conspiratorial, but Rules for Radicals is
Speaker 1: one of the most important books I think any of
Speaker 1: us could read. It's certainly in the top and for
Speaker 1: American politics today, it's in the top twent of your thirty.
Speaker 1: If you remember, in a in Olynsky's writings, he said
Speaker 1: that once you have a people mobilized on one issue,
Speaker 1: and I'm paraphrasing, you have the mobilized on all issues,
Speaker 1: abolish ICE is just a chant to channel the rage
Speaker 1: of the left and the idea of being The more
Speaker 1: you get them fired up over this, and the more
Speaker 1: you get people out there and seeing protests, and the
Speaker 1: greater the demonization of immigrations and customs enforcement, but really
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party and the Trump administration that is
Speaker 1: in charge of ICE, as it is an executive branch agency.
Speaker 1: The more they can do that, the more they can
Speaker 1: pull that off, the greater they think is the possibility
Speaker 1: that they will win seats and then have power. So
Speaker 1: it's not a policy argument, it's an emotion argument. It
Speaker 1: is a it is a fire up the base approach,
Speaker 1: but it is also scorched earth as a means of
Speaker 1: firing up the base because it does real damage to
Speaker 1: people's perceptions of immigrations and customs of federal law enforces.
Speaker 1: The same people, the same activist groups in some cases
Speaker 1: who or just so upset about any criticism of senior
Speaker 1: FBI leadership, obviously involved in highly politicized decision making against Trump,
Speaker 1: against the Trump administration. Oh, you're undermining democracy, and you
Speaker 1: know those same people are now saying, oh, how you
Speaker 1: know this is iis terrible. Iis for losers, for bad people.
Speaker 1: They're they're criticizing the individuals who work for the agency.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's also a tactic of border extremists,
Speaker 1: including groups like Larazza. They we'll go after people who
Speaker 1: work for the border patrol, will call them traitors, they'll
Speaker 1: call them evil, all kinds of things you see on
Speaker 1: this notion of an a Lynskyite collapsing of the system.
Speaker 1: One of them. Either there are two obvious ways that
Speaker 1: you can do it. There are two ways you can
Speaker 1: bring America down without military force, in fact, without firing
Speaker 1: a shot. At least two ways that I know of.
Speaker 1: One collapse our financial system. The best way to do
Speaker 1: that is to create a debt time bomb, that is
Speaker 1: that eventually makes our currency workless. And if you look
Speaker 1: at the history of currency over the course of centuries
Speaker 1: a fiat currency, there is a hundred percent success rate
Speaker 1: with fiat currencies of being eventually worth nothing. Not something
Speaker 1: that you'll hear many people say, but it is true.
Speaker 1: Fiance currencies all go under at some point, just a
Speaker 1: question to when. So that's one way that the system
Speaker 1: can collapse on itself. People will say, oh buck, how
Speaker 1: far out of it? I don't know, but they're playing
Speaker 1: the long game, folks. Another way is to so overwhelm
Speaker 1: our borders and the immigration system with new arrivals, constant arrivals,
Speaker 1: illegal crossings, drugs smuggling, human smuggling, illegal activity, that the
Speaker 1: American people no longer have faith and law enforce ins
Speaker 1: ability to have borders, and then everything from there just
Speaker 1: begins to crumble. Well, you know what I'm gonna I'm
Speaker 1: gonna trust law enforcement when they can't actually tell me
Speaker 1: who's in the country and who's not. You're gonna pay
Speaker 1: your taxes knowing people are coming and going as they
Speaker 1: please without paying any taxes and facing any penalties. Are
Speaker 1: you going to feel bound by the law? And this
Speaker 1: is really what it comes down to, when the law
Speaker 1: has been so decimated, when people have been able to
Speaker 1: run rough shower of the law and essentially make it
Speaker 1: irrelevant when it comes to our borders and our sovereignty.
Speaker 1: Are you going to want to hear from, you know,
Speaker 1: federal bureaucrats about how the pond in your backyard is
Speaker 1: a wetland and you're gonna get a forty dollar a
Speaker 1: day fine for it. I don't think so. I mean,
Speaker 1: you don't want to hear that now, but you definitely
Speaker 1: don't want to hear it if if we become a
Speaker 1: near open border state. Open borders is the end of
Speaker 1: this country, if we ever get there. There are activist
Speaker 1: groups that are pushing for it, and they think that
Speaker 1: if they're able to seize power maybe one more time,
Speaker 1: if they're able to be in charge, they'll push us
Speaker 1: so far down the pathway that it will be irretrievable
Speaker 1: for us to actually be a rule of law society
Speaker 1: with some hope of the incredible run we've had. We
Speaker 1: think it's gonna last forever. This prosperity, this unique political culture,
Speaker 1: this experiment that we have as a republic. We think
Speaker 1: it will just go forever. Remember a republic if you
Speaker 1: can keep it. These olynskey eye types, whether it's the
Speaker 1: border or any number of issues, they're trying really hard
Speaker 1: to make sure that we can't keep it. Something to
Speaker 1: remember as we go in to the fourth of July.
Speaker 1: Here eight four four to five, eight four four nuck.
Speaker 1: If you would like to chat, I would love to
Speaker 1: chat with you. Give me a ring. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: The Democrats message right now, which is oppose everything and
Speaker 1: do nothing. It's frankly gotten really sad that their party
Speaker 1: has no message, no leadership, no solutions, and they want
Speaker 1: to fighter president who's trying to lead and who's doing
Speaker 1: amazing things for our country. Uh, and things that are
Speaker 1: really hard to argue with. Yeah, they do have. The
Speaker 1: Democrats have no message right now about anything. And I
Speaker 1: think they're gonna find out that quote Trump is hitler
Speaker 1: end quote is not inspiring to anybody who's not a
Speaker 1: little deranged. It's not gonna work, especially with the country
Speaker 1: that is doing as well as as this country is.
Speaker 1: And I'm wondering when they think this is going to change,
Speaker 1: when they think that there's going to be a a
Speaker 1: moment for the message to all of a sudden come through.
Speaker 1: Oh it's July. Nothing happens in d C in August,
Speaker 1: and no one's really paying attention to the national political
Speaker 1: race in August either, So we got September October, two
Speaker 1: months really for them to make the case the American people.
Speaker 1: I just think it's not going to be a case
Speaker 1: that they're able to make. And I also think that
Speaker 1: all of these, all of these incidents, and I'll talk
Speaker 1: about the latest ones of what I call politically motivated stalking,
Speaker 1: where you have members of the Trump administration who are
Speaker 1: followed around by people harassed, and Prue is the latest one.
Speaker 1: Although bru It's make him a little too easy for
Speaker 1: the left to pick him apart. I'm a bit frustrated
Speaker 1: with the guy is not helping himself with some of
Speaker 1: his decision making. But it's we've we've reached a point
Speaker 1: here where there's obviously something really off about a lot
Speaker 1: of people in the left, there's obviously a real problem
Speaker 1: with the way that they're approaching politics discourse, trying to
Speaker 1: be respectful, trying to be people who have manners. I
Speaker 1: know that sounds like, oh, do you have manners? But no, really,
Speaker 1: we got to be decent enough to each other. We
Speaker 1: can't have folks getting a costed every time they go
Speaker 1: out in public and the EPA administrator, you're gonna go
Speaker 1: off the EPA administrator. Really, we will talk about that
Speaker 1: proved situation, but I always feel like that's a that
Speaker 1: is an in kind donation the Republican Party in many
Speaker 1: ways when they're really nasty to Betsy Divorce, when they
Speaker 1: get up in Mitch McConnell's wife's face, and then when
Speaker 1: a lad and Chow is like, oh oh really you
Speaker 1: want you want to mess with on of this? She
Speaker 1: was pretty awesome. I think it is a life goal
Speaker 1: find somebody who's got your back, like a Lane has
Speaker 1: mitches back. But it just shows us that they're not
Speaker 1: making a case. They're not making an argument based on
Speaker 1: what's gonna make your life better? So why would you
Speaker 1: show up and vote for them? Why would you care?
Speaker 1: If you're an independent and there are a lot of
Speaker 1: independents who listen to this show because you know, they
Speaker 1: like smart stuff. If you're an independent, you think that
Speaker 1: this is a good idea. You're gonna hand power over
Speaker 1: these people. All they talk about us that everything should
Speaker 1: be free and Trump is Hitler. Well, everything isn't gonna
Speaker 1: be free, and free is often the most expensive thing
Speaker 1: of all in any country. Uh, and Trump is not Hitler.
Speaker 1: And people who say so, we're idiots. So I think
Speaker 1: we can defeat the d n C messaging machine pretty easily.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton is act.
Speaker 1: It's a call for anarchy, and it's amazing that it
Speaker 1: has caught on and it has been spreading even abug
Speaker 1: um what we're thought to be mainstream democrats. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's insane. You don't have borders, you don't have a country,
Speaker 1: and when you're a welfare state like the US has become,
Speaker 1: it is just a giant sucking sound from all over
Speaker 1: the world. You can't control it. And it means anarchy.
Speaker 1: It means Mike makes right and then that ultimately leads
Speaker 1: to a totalitarian dictator coming in and uh rounding up
Speaker 1: the military taking over. It's it's the way countries end
Speaker 1: and a new dictatorship begins. Louis Gohmert's worried about it,
Speaker 1: for sure. I think he's on the right track here
Speaker 1: abolishing borders. What it would actually lead to some pretty
Speaker 1: some pretty scary stuff, folks. Now, it's not gonna happen overnight,
Speaker 1: and they're not going to be open about the end
Speaker 1: state here, the end goal. But make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: Every empire before ours, and yes America is an empire,
Speaker 1: just is a benevolent one. But every empire is before
Speaker 1: ours has fallen. Every empire has crumbled. So if we
Speaker 1: want to be the exception, we gotta fight, and we
Speaker 1: gotta keep things. We have to well support the founding
Speaker 1: principles and stay within our charter. What is this country
Speaker 1: all about? What are we really trying to do? You
Speaker 1: don't have borders, We don't have a country. It's just
Speaker 1: the truth. Trump says it all the time. He's right, says,
Speaker 1: straightforward statement of an absolute truth that everyone needs to understand.
Speaker 1: And we also need clarity on which side believes in
Speaker 1: it and which side doesn't. But I want to move
Speaker 1: for a second here to this this Pruitt situation, this guy.
Speaker 1: You know, I want to I want to like, I
Speaker 1: want to like prove it because I know he's doing
Speaker 1: good things. I know he's doing good things at a
Speaker 1: policy level at the e p A. But he keeps
Speaker 1: getting hit on with all these different things of where
Speaker 1: he's you know, he's just looking a little bit like
Speaker 1: he's a little grasping, always trying to get a little
Speaker 1: extra on the side, always trying to line his pockets
Speaker 1: a bit. And but you know, at the policy level
Speaker 1: ep A side, he's doing great stuff. I mean, the
Speaker 1: Obama era of regulations on the environment, we're just it
Speaker 1: was just all pushed by this crazy quasi religious belief
Speaker 1: on climate change, and it's just it's nonsense, right. It
Speaker 1: just slows down industry, it hurts us. Everybody wants clean air,
Speaker 1: everybody wants clean water. It's not about that. This is
Speaker 1: other stuff. This is about government regulation and control of
Speaker 1: your day to day lives because of this narrative that
Speaker 1: the world is the world is literally coming to an
Speaker 1: end because of c O two in the air. It
Speaker 1: is when you just just step back from all the
Speaker 1: noise and all the politics, it's a crazy thing to believe.
Speaker 1: It is more rational to be worried about the prospect
Speaker 1: of a large asteroid hitting the Earth and killing all
Speaker 1: life in it. That actually has happened, right, that that
Speaker 1: we could face again. We are not going to have
Speaker 1: to worry about c O two choking the planet, all right,
Speaker 1: it's just not that's that's not a rational belief. But
Speaker 1: they're basing policy now on that. So so prud is
Speaker 1: rolling back all kinds of things. The e P A,
Speaker 1: the abadministration did bad stuff, and that makes me want
Speaker 1: to defend the guy. But then he does some dumb
Speaker 1: things and he's you know, taken a little too cozy
Speaker 1: with lobbyists and everything else. Then what you see is
Speaker 1: one of these instances that I call politically motivated stalking.
Speaker 1: That's what it is, politically motivated staw sing, where somebody
Speaker 1: finds a Trump administration official, goes up to that person
Speaker 1: and harasses them in public because they work for the
Speaker 1: Trump administration, which is the United States government, folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's getting lost in a lot of these discussions.
Speaker 1: This is not Trump's EP administrator. This is the e
Speaker 1: P administrator of the United States. Right when you're talking
Speaker 1: about the disrespect shown to the White House press secretary,
Speaker 1: or disrespect shown to the attorney general. These are the
Speaker 1: these This is the government we have. You know, you
Speaker 1: wake up day in and day out with the government
Speaker 1: you have. This is who we've got. And you don't
Speaker 1: have to agree with people. But some respect for the
Speaker 1: office would be nice. If you can't manage some respect
Speaker 1: for the office, well then at least some basic human
Speaker 1: decency would be that would be good. But you know,
Speaker 1: you had a woman who was this exactly. She went
Speaker 1: up to uh Scott Prue was at teaism. There's a
Speaker 1: place here in d C. I'm here in the swamp.
Speaker 1: So I'm all these swamp cases of the politically motivated
Speaker 1: stalking that come up. I'm like, oh that place. I
Speaker 1: walked past that place yesterday. Right, I'm here, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: among I'm among the crazies. And a woman was ranked.
Speaker 1: This is from the Washington Post. Wrangler two year old
Speaker 1: into his seat waiting for her pancake. A thirty thirty
Speaker 1: three year old teacher. She saw the EP administrator um
Speaker 1: and somebody with this woman, This teacher named last named Mink.
Speaker 1: She saw the climate change skeptic turned environmental chief. As
Speaker 1: it says here in the Washington Post and decided to
Speaker 1: go across and and accost him. All right, and this
Speaker 1: is and then and then she you know, she videotaped
Speaker 1: this too, and this is how it went play clip
Speaker 1: one count. This is my son. He loves animals where
Speaker 1: he wants your air water. Meanwhile, you're slashing sails for
Speaker 1: cars and trucks for the best racially played. You've been
Speaker 1: hanging out her names Mexican while her jerky stands hedn't
Speaker 1: deserve psibody. Who actually does to protect our environment? Somebody
Speaker 1: who believes in climate change and keep it seriously benefit
Speaker 1: all of us from her children. Um, he's all I
Speaker 1: would urge to resign before your scandals show ye urging
Speaker 1: him twos. Now, I will say that she spelled that
Speaker 1: was an after action where she was taking it a
Speaker 1: pawn herself. Uh to tell everybody what she said to him, right,
Speaker 1: that was kind of her her version. It sounds like
Speaker 1: she was reasonably uh i'd I mean, she she wasn't
Speaker 1: overly aggressive. Pebba will say it that way. You know
Speaker 1: she's but it's annoying. It's just annoying. It's not a
Speaker 1: it's not a cool thing to do. It's not. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a respectful thing to do. It really
Speaker 1: bothers me. And it's a trend. You did not see
Speaker 1: this during the Obama years. You know, you didn't see
Speaker 1: it during the Obama years. After it was clear that
Speaker 1: Obama completely and utterly lied, straight up lied to the
Speaker 1: American people on if you like your health care plan,
Speaker 1: you can keep your health care plan. That was an
Speaker 1: intentional lie to fool people so that they would not
Speaker 1: oppose a legislative action that Obama was pushing for that
Speaker 1: would bear his name. It was the worst kind of
Speaker 1: life for a politicians, the kind of lie that affects
Speaker 1: you and your day to day life. Nobody was tracking
Speaker 1: down the different Obama figures involved in that and harassing them.
Speaker 1: We don't do that. You know. There was this huge
Speaker 1: surge of of political activism with the Tea Party. I
Speaker 1: remember I really came into media at the height of
Speaker 1: the Tea Party. Um that was right what or right
Speaker 1: around then. It was right after the mid terms when
Speaker 1: the Tea Party had swept into power and or had
Speaker 1: put in power. Tea Party back candidates, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. Made it sound like the Tea Party one
Speaker 1: and some kind of a coup, like we are in charge.
Speaker 1: But but I can't even that. And I just remember
Speaker 1: there are all these huge rallies, all the stuff going on.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't about individual harassment, wasn't about being nasty
Speaker 1: to people. Was it about tracking down uh, you know
Speaker 1: Valerie Jared or David axel Rod or you know Jay
Speaker 1: Carney or any of these people and being mean to
Speaker 1: them as a means of trying to express some kind
Speaker 1: of a political view. And I really do think that
Speaker 1: you saw that the difference between those who become politically
Speaker 1: active on the left and those who are politically active
Speaker 1: on the right. We just approached the things differently. We
Speaker 1: view this as a part of our duty of citizens.
Speaker 1: And but there's always a restraint in our respect for
Speaker 1: our fellow Americans in our political discourse. It's just not
Speaker 1: mirrored on the other side. They just don't agree that
Speaker 1: they act like maniacs. This woman brings over to your daughter.
Speaker 1: You know, this is such a This is another thing
Speaker 1: that you see on the left you don't see on
Speaker 1: the right. Using kids as political props. This is a
Speaker 1: favorite tactic on the left, whether it's using kids at
Speaker 1: the border and their plight in order to ram through
Speaker 1: what is effectively an open borders policy. Right, Oh, just
Speaker 1: let everybody into the interior of the United States. Don't
Speaker 1: worry about it. Oh, if you don't, if you don't
Speaker 1: agree with that, you must not like crying children, um,
Speaker 1: the kids at the Parkland shooting, using them to push
Speaker 1: a gun control agenda. And now you just have people
Speaker 1: that will write and it's become pretty widely mocked by
Speaker 1: conservatives because you'll have writers for some big newspaper, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the big left wing media outlets, and they'll say,
Speaker 1: you know, my, my, my five year old daughter came
Speaker 1: up to me and said, what's going to happen to
Speaker 1: the constitutional precedent of Roe v. Wade when this this
Speaker 1: monster of jurisprudence in the mold of Scalia overturns it.
Speaker 1: They'll share this publicly. It's like, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: think you're five year old said that. I don't think
Speaker 1: that that's I don't think that's the thing that happened.
Speaker 1: But you know, this woman brings her two year old
Speaker 1: with her, and it's not enough for her to just say, Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm an adult and I disagree with you. It's like
Speaker 1: you know, here's my two year old. My two year
Speaker 1: old likes clean air and clean water and animals. It's like, lady,
Speaker 1: we all like clean air, clean water, and animals. But
Speaker 1: her mind has been poisoned against prude and against this administration.
Speaker 1: You notice she didn't come up that she has. She
Speaker 1: has no idea what she's talking about. And this is
Speaker 1: what you see with all these activists. They hear things,
Speaker 1: they hear phrases. They are being mobilized in a nsky
Speaker 1: i'd fashion by placards and memes and social media hashtags
Speaker 1: and phrases and rage on TV and the virtue signaling
Speaker 1: that you see everywhere on social media. But she didn't
Speaker 1: she she didn't go off to him and say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, this is really up. This is up. This
Speaker 1: regulation let's say that deals with uh, you know, cold
Speaker 1: uh coal power plants. I'd really like you to reconsider
Speaker 1: this because I'm concerned about the damage that will do
Speaker 1: uh to the you know, to the environment in West
Speaker 1: Virginia for people in the air quality there. That's like
Speaker 1: what a serious person would say. Whether you agree with
Speaker 1: or disagree that, but that's at least a discussion to
Speaker 1: be had, not you know, you're selling out for interest.
Speaker 1: You don't care about cleaner you don't care about clean water.
Speaker 1: It's just a caricature. And what you find increasingly is
Speaker 1: that one of the reasons the left is so angry
Speaker 1: and so mad is the only version of the right
Speaker 1: that they can intellectually tangle with is a caricature. It
Speaker 1: is a It is a giant wrestle main with straw men.
Speaker 1: That's what we're up against now, or that's what they're
Speaker 1: up against. The borrow from Churchill. There are pyromaniacs in
Speaker 1: a field of straw men that they're not looking at
Speaker 1: the country as it is and as it's actually being
Speaker 1: handled by the Trump administration. They have this contorted, cartoonist
Speaker 1: view of what's going on, and that's why they'll go
Speaker 1: up and harass people and say things to people that
Speaker 1: are just you know, this woman looks she she didn't
Speaker 1: call you know, she didn't curse you. I I will
Speaker 1: give her some credit for not being a complete moron.
Speaker 1: But you know, the guy can't have a You can't
Speaker 1: go to teas m in d c here and have
Speaker 1: a drink or have have tea whatever it was he
Speaker 1: was doing, got to be harassed there are so many ways.
Speaker 1: You can tweet at him, you can email him, you
Speaker 1: can write his people, you can write him emails. But
Speaker 1: now you see him, and you see everybody seems to
Speaker 1: think that their opinion is the one that gets to
Speaker 1: determine national policy. Their feelings the ones that have to
Speaker 1: be heard by national level politicians. It does and work
Speaker 1: that way, It just doesn't. You can share your thoughts,
Speaker 1: but you cannot force your thoughts. And this showing up
Speaker 1: and berating people in public is a childish tantrum in
Speaker 1: the guise of political engagement. That's what it is. Eight
Speaker 1: four four eight to five, eight four four nine, buck
Speaker 1: much more show, Come and stay with me. Do you
Speaker 1: consider yourself today proudly be an American? Oh? Boy, that's
Speaker 1: a question. No. No, not in the America we have
Speaker 1: right now. I'm not proud. Now are you proud to
Speaker 1: be an American? Definitely not. No, I'm not proud of America.
Speaker 1: I'm not proud of what weirds, what we've done. I
Speaker 1: think we need to stop thinking that we're the best
Speaker 1: nation on earth, because that's just egotistical and it's not accurate.
Speaker 1: Pretty great, though, we're closed, really comes down to it.
Speaker 1: I feel like it's more just like a tool to
Speaker 1: be used to get people to join the army. And
Speaker 1: what what about America right now? Would you consider yourself
Speaker 1: not proud of I mean, I think the answer is
Speaker 1: pretty obvious. Um, It's like at the news there's a
Speaker 1: platfora of things that are going wrong, orphan border issues.
Speaker 1: So were you not proud? And Obama did it five
Speaker 1: years ago? I think that it's different now. A lot
Speaker 1: of the not proud of being an American comes from,
Speaker 1: like the history of the US. Any places that come
Speaker 1: to mind that would be better better than the US.
Speaker 1: Probably some nice little socialist country in Europe had tip
Speaker 1: campus reform for that video. You know who wants to guess?
Speaker 1: I mean, if we had, if we had to just
Speaker 1: put it out there. How many of those college kids
Speaker 1: do you think are Democrats that are not proud of you?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get the ones that said they're not proud
Speaker 1: of this country? Are not proud to be an American?
Speaker 1: Our democrats. This is a big cultural divide you have this.
Speaker 1: You know, on the right, people are proud to be Americans.
Speaker 1: On the left, people are proud to think they're better
Speaker 1: than America and that they are the only ones who
Speaker 1: can fix it. It's very important psychological separation between right
Speaker 1: and left in this country. And and look, it's just true.
Speaker 1: Patriotism isn't cool on the left the same way it
Speaker 1: is in the right. You know, support for the military
Speaker 1: is not as widespread and universal on the left as
Speaker 1: there's in the right. You find somebody who doesn't support
Speaker 1: our military or or has anti military sentiment, I'll show
Speaker 1: you somebody who, if they vote, votes Democrats. I have
Speaker 1: never in my life actually met a conservative who was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't support the military. Right think the military is
Speaker 1: not And never I've met plenty of Democrats who think
Speaker 1: that we're you know, uh, we're al Qaeda's air force
Speaker 1: in Syria and we're doing all kinds of terrible stuff
Speaker 1: here and there, and you actually al Qaida's effort. I
Speaker 1: think that might have been a rand pau comment now
Speaker 1: that I think about it, that was in a specific
Speaker 1: policy context. Strike that from my barrage of commentary there.
Speaker 1: For a second point I'm making is that the left
Speaker 1: is predisposed to be much more critical of this country
Speaker 1: and also predisposed to view, uh, presupposed to view what's
Speaker 1: going on here as a function. You know, do you
Speaker 1: love America? Are you proud of this country? I mean
Speaker 1: fourth julyes tomorrow? You and I say yes. That didn't
Speaker 1: change when Obama was president. I did not love this country.
Speaker 1: I did not think this was amazing. I didn't cease
Speaker 1: to feel incredibly lucky to be an American because Obama
Speaker 1: was president. I thought that I wasn't a very good president.
Speaker 1: But it's temporary and we got through it, and you know,
Speaker 1: we're all gonna be fine. On the left though, now
Speaker 1: it's they it's not just that they don't like Trump.
Speaker 1: They don't like America because of Trump. And this is
Speaker 1: a widespread sentiment. You have way more people on the
Speaker 1: right who are proud of proud to be American than
Speaker 1: you have on the left. And it is indicative of
Speaker 1: much larger ideological and culture role trends, ones that we
Speaker 1: should not just pass over and ignore. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: why is that the case? What has to do with
Speaker 1: the fundamental views of right and left? About our views
Speaker 1: in this Our views are role in society or role
Speaker 1: in America? The relationship between subject or citizen and state.
Speaker 1: Our two coming up, Hey, do you have the problem
Speaker 1: of your pets digging under your fence or predators from
Speaker 1: outside trying to dig under the fence to get at
Speaker 1: your pets. You're probably tired of trying bricks and wood
Speaker 1: and concrete. I can solve this problem for you folks.
Speaker 1: Dig Defense. It's amazing. It extends the protection of your
Speaker 1: fence underground. You installed the base of any fence to
Speaker 1: protect your pet and your property. It is so easy
Speaker 1: to install a hammer and golfer all that you need
Speaker 1: to install dig meat defense and stop the dig. No
Speaker 1: more chasing after Fido or Max or Buck or whatever
Speaker 1: you call your dog as he leaves the backyard. You
Speaker 1: can now make sure that he stays in there safe
Speaker 1: with dig Defense. Go to stop the dig Uh stop
Speaker 1: the dig dot com and during the month of July
Speaker 1: you can get promo code buck ten up there for
Speaker 1: ten percent off that stop the dig dot com used
Speaker 1: promo code buck for ten percent off your dig Defense
Speaker 1: order stop the dig dot Com promo code buck for
Speaker 1: ten percent off. Buck Sexton Permission decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American rank
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Analyst No Welcome back to the Bucks Exton Show, July fourth.
Speaker 1: Eve went all through the house, not a creature of stirring,
Speaker 1: not even a mouse until you lit off that m
Speaker 1: A D that you've been saving for this time, and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, everybody sterned because those things are loud.
Speaker 1: Be careful, folks, Safety first, fireworks you producer, Mike. I've
Speaker 1: never really been one for fireworks, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: not even just the uh, the fireworks displays that you
Speaker 1: go out and see places people you know, Look, you
Speaker 1: got kids, It's fine. You gotta do the oozing the
Speaker 1: odds with the kids there because it's exciting and the
Speaker 1: wonder of youth and everything. I get it right. But
Speaker 1: I got friends who used to be like, do you
Speaker 1: do my gosh, like a guy like like ten m
Speaker 1: eighties and you put them together and it's like a
Speaker 1: stick and a half of dynamite or whatever. And I'm like,
Speaker 1: I mean, like ten sticks of dynamite and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take him and I'm gonna like put him in the
Speaker 1: trunk in my car and just like light them and
Speaker 1: see what happens. I'm like, I think that's a bad idea,
Speaker 1: Like fireworks and poor decision making is something you really
Speaker 1: want to avoid. I think we can agree all that.
Speaker 1: I agree with that. Yeah, have you if you ever?
Speaker 1: I mean, I did see somebody once. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: get it to wear decide to use a a what's
Speaker 1: the thing where like it? It kind of shoots as
Speaker 1: I think it's not a sparkler, It's like it shoots
Speaker 1: out Roman candle. I saw. Yeah, I saw somebody with
Speaker 1: a Roman candle shoot one way too close to one
Speaker 1: of his buddies. And that was not good. It's not good, is,
Speaker 1: by the way, what I have. No, I'm guessing d
Speaker 1: C because everything. The only thing that's allowed here is communism.
Speaker 1: Every everything is banned in d C. But like you're
Speaker 1: a Pennsylvania guys, pennsyl. I think Pennsylvania is one of
Speaker 1: those states where New Yorkers will drive to it like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, they sell so many fireworks. You're right,
Speaker 1: you're allowed by the Pennsylvania I believe. So. Yeah, uh yes,
Speaker 1: I've seen the five fireworks here at Billboards when I'm
Speaker 1: driving that because I think in New York it's not
Speaker 1: even I don't think you can do it. I don't
Speaker 1: think you do it, you know, the close thing to
Speaker 1: get too fireworks? Remember those little snap things used to
Speaker 1: throwing your kid snap things like you know you throw
Speaker 1: those What was that all about? I used to I
Speaker 1: used to love those things, man, run around throw them.
Speaker 1: I think they got banned from my school. They also
Speaker 1: been slap bracelets, which was a period of time time
Speaker 1: when every like adolescent guy that I you know, adolescent
Speaker 1: male I knew, was like, I'm gonna wear a I'm
Speaker 1: gonna wear a neon pink slap bracelet. We didn't really
Speaker 1: think much about maybe this is a sharpened metal thing
Speaker 1: that you should be careful with, because you know, they
Speaker 1: started breaking. Do people even know? What? Do you remember
Speaker 1: slap bracelets? It was a phenomenon for a while. It's
Speaker 1: a piece of metal that they would paint and you
Speaker 1: would slap it over your wrists. You know I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: And don't I generally stayed away the things that were
Speaker 1: neon though. Yeah, I'm just saying it, you know, you know, hey, hey, alright,
Speaker 1: style icon quinn. That's that's enough out of you anyway. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just thinking of like the funky oh you remember
Speaker 1: Reebok pumps. I'm really getting into the nostalgia. Now, did
Speaker 1: you answer me honestly here? Did you believe the Reebok
Speaker 1: pumps when you pump them up would help you jump
Speaker 1: a little higher? Um? Because the commercials made it seem
Speaker 1: like they would. Yeah, I kind of I was. I
Speaker 1: tried to convince myself that there was some way that
Speaker 1: it was like air cushing for your foot would help. No. False,
Speaker 1: I still had zero ups, buck could not jump. I
Speaker 1: did play basketball for a while. All right side, let's
Speaker 1: get us thank you Mike for the fireworks expertise. You've
Speaker 1: no no fireworks mishaps for you to share with us,
Speaker 1: right like you've never you've never been that kid that
Speaker 1: blew up his garage trying to build a homemade fireworks
Speaker 1: I'm assuming no, no. But I did like four the July,
Speaker 1: and I did like fireworks because usually, yeah, that's accompanied
Speaker 1: by burgers and steaks. And of course you love Fourth
Speaker 1: of July because you work on this show and you
Speaker 1: love America. Of course this is That's the only I mean,
Speaker 1: when we get resumes, they basically better say at the top,
Speaker 1: like I love America or else. There's no no chance.
Speaker 1: I didn't even know my resume was us an American flag.
Speaker 1: That's all I sentence, That's all you needed. Obviously worked there, alright,
Speaker 1: So let's get into the latest tier on the Trump
Speaker 1: administration doing something else. It's gonna upset people who are
Speaker 1: worried about the erasing of the Obama legacy. H And
Speaker 1: but this also ties into the judicial nominee situation and
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen there, And as a a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff here, A lot of stuff here.
Speaker 1: So as some of you, well, I guess all of
Speaker 1: you who listen to the show, no, I think that
Speaker 1: affirmative action as it is currently enacted. I mean, affirmative
Speaker 1: action as it stands today is constitutionally, ethically and logically indefensible. Indefensible.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know how they defend it. They'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: but it's about it's about diversity, you know, diversity, and
Speaker 1: when you know, when there's there's more diversity, and that's all.
Speaker 1: It's just like they repeat the same word. That's it.
Speaker 1: You say, well, what does that even mean? Diversity of what?
Speaker 1: What's the proper amount of diversity? What what's going on here?
Speaker 1: And and over time, if you look at decisions, because
Speaker 1: remember this and and don't let them get away with this.
Speaker 1: Affirmative action is is not about from uh predominantly anymore.
Speaker 1: It's not about making up for the legacy of slavery.
Speaker 1: It's not about uh, you know, kind of an emergency,
Speaker 1: short term legislative action to help African Americans in this
Speaker 1: country after centuries of discrimination, actual legal discrimination, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: and and the ownership of human beings is property. That
Speaker 1: was the initial But affirmative action now is Look, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'll tell you some stories. Affirmative action is people
Speaker 1: getting into Stanford who have blonde hair and blue eyes
Speaker 1: and claimed to be from Polynesia based on like some
Speaker 1: great aunt somewhere or something. You know. A case that
Speaker 1: I know about affirmative action now is a friend of
Speaker 1: mine applying to Harvard claiming that she was in fact
Speaker 1: African American and being told that she was not because
Speaker 1: she was born in Egypt and while Egypt is Africa
Speaker 1: and there or she had adopted America, she had become American.
Speaker 1: But you know, she claimed this uh hyphenated nationality of
Speaker 1: being actually African and then American. They did not buy that.
Speaker 1: That that did not flo I mean, you look at
Speaker 1: all these different ways the system is being abused now
Speaker 1: and people are trying to game the system, and that's
Speaker 1: what this is now. People are gaming the system left
Speaker 1: and right. And you know, no whatever comes up with
Speaker 1: an explanation for me of why is just just putting
Speaker 1: this ound there like on my freshman floor. And I
Speaker 1: can only speak from my own experience in college with
Speaker 1: what I saw, But you know, we had, uh, we
Speaker 1: we had students from all kinds of different backgrounds, but
Speaker 1: there was clearly an effort underway to even just bring
Speaker 1: in more international students, like that's going to make our
Speaker 1: school a better place. And I kind of felt like,
Speaker 1: and when I mean bringing more to the national students,
Speaker 1: I mean that's a leg up in the admissions process.
Speaker 1: If you apply from a country what they don't have somebody,
Speaker 1: if you happen to be, you know, the the one
Speaker 1: applicant from Eritrea, you're probably getting in. And I sit
Speaker 1: down and I'm like, I mean, look at least I
Speaker 1: guess it's a different background. But do we really want
Speaker 1: to a lot of America I'm talking about selective institutions,
Speaker 1: selective universities, they really want to do that? Why is
Speaker 1: don't we want to have the most Americans we can
Speaker 1: graduating from American schools. I will also tell you this
Speaker 1: doesn't get much attention, but foreign nationals getting into UH
Speaker 1: the top programs at places like Harvard and M I.
Speaker 1: T and and then going back to places like China
Speaker 1: is a national security concern. Okay, we have the best
Speaker 1: universities in the world, and we are training our competition.
Speaker 1: In many cases, you know, these schools overwhelmingly disregard any
Speaker 1: notion of patriotism or dare I say nationalism in their
Speaker 1: admissions processes. I think that's a problem. And now bringing
Speaker 1: back into the affirmative action discussion, UH affirmative action now
Speaker 1: applies to and this is from the admissions product. Like
Speaker 1: I I've I will tell you I had it out
Speaker 1: once with the admissions director of a school because it
Speaker 1: wasn't about me, but on a on a personal note,
Speaker 1: somebody they did not take. That was it was just
Speaker 1: an outrage that they didn't take somebody. And I actually
Speaker 1: got the admissions director of a very selective and and
Speaker 1: we just had it out on the phone. I wish
Speaker 1: to this day have been fun if I could have
Speaker 1: recorded the conversation. But the buck went wild, and but
Speaker 1: I had friends on the admissions committees of UH at
Speaker 1: least a couple of friends of the missions committee of
Speaker 1: a major university and Ivy League university. And also so
Speaker 1: I speak of what I know on this all right,
Speaker 1: and and they all play these games. If that's not
Speaker 1: how and we have no breath. They keep the the
Speaker 1: inner workings of these admissions committees like it's a black
Speaker 1: box that no one's allowed to peek into. And I
Speaker 1: would note that you gotta remember, member that for a
Speaker 1: lot of professions, a lot of different industries, it's really
Speaker 1: just a credentialing program. It's all about getting in folks.
Speaker 1: What you do there, unfortunately doesn't really matter. That's why
Speaker 1: you get all these people that go to Brown that
Speaker 1: don't get grades, that come out and think that their
Speaker 1: geniuses because I went to an Ivy League school and
Speaker 1: you're like, well, it's really full of a bunch of
Speaker 1: rich hippies who don't do anything for four years. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna get yelled at for that one, I know, but
Speaker 1: it's true. It's true. The two schools. I like to
Speaker 1: make fun of a Brown and Cornell just because I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people that want to both and
Speaker 1: they deserve to be made fun of UH. So, you know.
Speaker 1: But the way the system breaks down is that this
Speaker 1: is now, as Scalia put it, it's turned into a
Speaker 1: racial spoil system that some their favorite groups put aside
Speaker 1: for just for the time being. Although it's a discussion
Speaker 1: on its own, a firm of action for UH, for
Speaker 1: black Americans, right, put that aside from them because it
Speaker 1: extends to Native Americans, it extends to Hispanics and Latinos.
Speaker 1: It is against Asians. And that's It's not that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is going to be tearing down affirmative action.
Speaker 1: It's that a bunch of Asians who have come together
Speaker 1: who are like, hey, why are we being discriminated against
Speaker 1: in these schools just because you have some notion of
Speaker 1: diversity that we don't fit into. It's still discrimination, It's
Speaker 1: not okay. So a bunch of high achieving Asians are
Speaker 1: the ones who are actually going to tear down the
Speaker 1: edifice of affirmative action in this country, I think in schools.
Speaker 1: But this is important has implications for government hiring, government
Speaker 1: contracting as well, and it will be yet another instance
Speaker 1: of the Left losing the source of of political power
Speaker 1: and patronage. A lot of people really like affirmative action.
Speaker 1: They support Democrats because of a firm of action I
Speaker 1: have even mentioned. I got all fired up about this.
Speaker 1: What the the the news tie in here is that
Speaker 1: the Obama administration laid out these guidelines, laid out these
Speaker 1: guidelines for more or less how to get away with
Speaker 1: doing racial balancing using quotas without actually using quotas, because
Speaker 1: quotas are not allowed. That has been the Screme Court said,
Speaker 1: you can have quotas. You can't say we're taking ten
Speaker 1: of our class will be black, of our class will
Speaker 1: be Asian, etcetera, etcetera. You can't do that. But if
Speaker 1: you look at the schools year in, year out, they
Speaker 1: have basically the same number of people these different backgrounds. Oh,
Speaker 1: isn't that curious? Yeah, that's quite a lucky we have
Speaker 1: place like Harvard has twenty or thirty thousand applicant between
Speaker 1: twenty and thirty thousand applications year, I forget the exact number. Now,
Speaker 1: it's kind of strange that they have basically, within within
Speaker 1: a percentage point or two, the same number of Black students,
Speaker 1: the same number of Latino students year in and year out.
Speaker 1: That's just because the applicant pool is or or maybe
Speaker 1: are they engaged in some dishonest stealth quota. Ah, that's
Speaker 1: what they're doing. So the Obama administration put out this,
Speaker 1: these guidelines, under these these Affirmative Action policy document, guidelines
Speaker 1: that told colleges and universities how to use race and
Speaker 1: emissions processes and essentially not run a foul of the law.
Speaker 1: But Jeff Sessions, my main man, I lacked but very much.
Speaker 1: He he's out there and he cited improper rulemaking. He
Speaker 1: has said about this quote, the American people deserve to
Speaker 1: have their voices heard and a government that is accountable
Speaker 1: to them. When issuing regulations, Federal agencies must abide by
Speaker 1: constitutional principles and follow the rules set forth by Congress
Speaker 1: and the President. In previous administrations, however, agencies often tried
Speaker 1: to impose new rules on the American people without any
Speaker 1: public notice or comment period, simply by sending a letter
Speaker 1: or posting a guidance document on a website. That's wrong
Speaker 1: and it's not good government. So this but this is
Speaker 1: another way of getting on how this this There's a
Speaker 1: lot at the heart of what's going on in from
Speaker 1: an action right now, which is that race is not
Speaker 1: a major factor in admissions decisions. It is a huge
Speaker 1: factor in admissions decisions at these schools. And because of
Speaker 1: these constructs, the left is created on white privilege and
Speaker 1: you know, his systemic racism, historic racism, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: White people have not been able to make an argument
Speaker 1: without being told, oh, you're just racist and you want
Speaker 1: white privilege, you know. But Asian Americans are the ones
Speaker 1: that the left just has no answer for this. Why
Speaker 1: is it fair under if you're not engaged in racial quotas,
Speaker 1: and this is at the heart of the matter, why
Speaker 1: is it fair for a you know, a son of
Speaker 1: Filipino immigrants applying to Yale University to have much better
Speaker 1: grades and s A T s Than the son of
Speaker 1: you know, let's say, uh, Honduran immigrants to the United States,
Speaker 1: and the Honduran immigrant gets in and the and the
Speaker 1: Filipino immigrant does not, or you know, the son of
Speaker 1: Philippino ormants does not. Why is that fair? What is
Speaker 1: the what is the justification for that? The answers, there
Speaker 1: is no real justification. The answer is the left likes things.
Speaker 1: The left feels like there's some groups that are aggrieved,
Speaker 1: that are oppressed, and they make those distinctions and they
Speaker 1: make those decisions, and they like that power, and they
Speaker 1: don't want to give it up. Trump administration might start
Speaker 1: to chip away at this even more and make them
Speaker 1: give it up. I'll get it a little more that
Speaker 1: I find that. I think it's really important by the
Speaker 1: way Supreme Court pick could play into this as well,
Speaker 1: which would also be I think great affirmative action should
Speaker 1: be illegal, gone done, It had its day, It's over with.
Speaker 1: In fact, Sander Day O'Connor and one of her Supreme
Speaker 1: Court opinions, wrote that basically around now, this is really
Speaker 1: not something we should continue to have. Well, we're there,
Speaker 1: and I say time's up. We'll be right back. You
Speaker 1: have a lot of choices in coffee. Don't drink that
Speaker 1: comy stuff that served you by a bunch of guys
Speaker 1: that think that Bernie Sanders isn't left wing enough. All
Speaker 1: you need is Black Rifle Coffee. This is a company
Speaker 1: founded by veterans and patriots, people that love America and
Speaker 1: love delicious coffee. I drink Black Rifle every day. It
Speaker 1: is my cake cup of choice. I also use some
Speaker 1: of their ground blends in order to make ice coffee
Speaker 1: in the summer. It's so easy and so delicious. And
Speaker 1: these are guys who really care about the coffee that
Speaker 1: they're offering and this country. So it's a two for folks.
Speaker 1: Check them out for yourself. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. Receive fifteen percent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck off Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot Com slash buck fifteen percent off your whole order.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you get it delivered if you want monthly
Speaker 1: to your front door. Just joined the Black Rifle Coffee Club.
Speaker 1: Check it out. We got some lines lit here in
Speaker 1: the hut. Let's get into it. Uh. Judy in Pittsburgh, Hey,
Speaker 1: Judy Young, but he'll tie. Hey, Um, what's commy there doing?
Speaker 1: Uh for sport or July? Oh, he's out promoting his
Speaker 1: new vodka called Deep State. It will crush you for
Speaker 1: a special Crimlin announcement. There you go. Yeah, I've been
Speaker 1: wondering what's going on with you, and I haven't heard anything.
Speaker 1: I only get two hours of you, and I'm pulling
Speaker 1: it in. I'm in Pittsburgh and I'm pulling this station
Speaker 1: in from West Virginia, and well, you gotta listen to
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut podcast. That's where commy bear has been
Speaker 1: hanging out the freedom of Glemma. Judy can afford the internet,
Speaker 1: and I mean she doesn't have a computer right now,
Speaker 1: maybe some day down the road, who knows. Right now?
Speaker 1: Would you have a cell phone though? Right have an
Speaker 1: Obama boone? Well you have a cell phone, so they
Speaker 1: should be able to download. You know, the data is
Speaker 1: not much. You can download the podcast that way, Judy.
Speaker 1: But we're glad you can join us whenever you can.
Speaker 1: And thank you for calling into freedom and happy fourth
Speaker 1: of July and shield our brother Kenny up in Boston.
Speaker 1: What's up, brother, Kenny? My hip, my shield is held
Speaker 1: in a lofty position. Anyway, Listen, what I think about
Speaker 1: what we were talking about earlier is I think the
Speaker 1: left is an engaged in a sort of attrition warfare.
Speaker 1: So they're wearing down of the wills and they're causing
Speaker 1: increased convolution. If you noticed, everything is just hot to
Speaker 1: comprehend what's going on. And of course the lack of
Speaker 1: ability and that fuels their base and it detracts from
Speaker 1: the will of Trump supporters, right and so, but what
Speaker 1: I really wanted to say is if the open borders
Speaker 1: who results in an inevitable ultimate collapse of the country,
Speaker 1: which I do kind of feel that way myself. What
Speaker 1: do all these politicians and media who were clearly pushing it,
Speaker 1: what did they get out of it? They did? They
Speaker 1: get like a golden parachute escape. But they pot us
Speaker 1: some hierarchy of government that happens in its wake. Right
Speaker 1: do they have Do they have special keys to the
Speaker 1: Suros bunker when America gets overrun and destroyed? No? I
Speaker 1: I uh. I think that they're just thinking about this
Speaker 1: very short term. And in the short term, open borders
Speaker 1: means Democrat votes and Democrat power, and that's all. And
Speaker 1: also the enlarging of the of the state that comes
Speaker 1: along with it, which is something they always want. Right,
Speaker 1: If you have more people that are more dependent on
Speaker 1: the state, you need a bigger state to administer to them.
Speaker 1: Who is the party of the state and for the state,
Speaker 1: the Democrats. So that's that's how they view it, uh.
Speaker 1: And also I think there's a they don't view this rationally.
Speaker 1: It's it's very emotional for them, Kenny, And they've really
Speaker 1: convinced themselves at the poem of the Statue of liberty,
Speaker 1: give me your poor, your non English speaking, you're non vetted,
Speaker 1: and whoever shows up, that's that's the way they should be.
Speaker 1: And that's obviously a approximation of how they think about
Speaker 1: it and what the poem says. But that's where we are.
Speaker 1: Kenny and Boston Shield saw my friend more Coming. The
Speaker 1: Thread is a new hit podcast from Azzi Media that
Speaker 1: explores history surprising connections in order to discover how one
Speaker 1: thing leads to another, like how John Lennon's murder connects
Speaker 1: all the way back to communist leader Vladimir Lenin. Get
Speaker 1: it on iHeart Radio or wherever you listen. He's back
Speaker 1: with you now. Because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the fuck never stops. So the Democrats are
Speaker 1: still really upset about the fact that Trump is going
Speaker 1: to get a Supreme Court nominee. Um, oh wait, can
Speaker 1: we can we play clip seven please? Here's what Huckaby
Speaker 1: Sanders said. Trump is is looking for for us, go
Speaker 1: to pick place seven. Look, the main thing the president
Speaker 1: is looking or are people that fit the qualifications that
Speaker 1: you would want in a Supreme Court justice, tremendous intellect,
Speaker 1: someone who will stick to upholding the Constitution, and somebody
Speaker 1: who has great judicial temperament. Those are the big things
Speaker 1: the president is looking for in a candidate. Yeah, but
Speaker 1: you see that the thing that the Democrats are looking
Speaker 1: for somebody who will give them what they want, or
Speaker 1: at least give them the possibility of getting what they
Speaker 1: want on the most major issues, which is what they
Speaker 1: have with Kennedy, right. Somebody who is not going to
Speaker 1: overturn some of the major uh cultural and political shifts
Speaker 1: that occurred as a result of Supreme Court decisions that
Speaker 1: in some cases are terrible. By the way, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have David French, who's lawyer, senior writer National Views, gonna
Speaker 1: join us in the third hour tonight talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about what he thinks is going on here and
Speaker 1: what we can expect from the anti conservative judge opposition
Speaker 1: out there. But you know, they're just gonna say a
Speaker 1: lot of really terrible stuff and no one's gonna be
Speaker 1: held to account for it. And it's all about our
Speaker 1: team versus their team in their eyes, that's it. There's
Speaker 1: there's no deference to the Constitution here. It's not about
Speaker 1: what's best for the country and rule of law in
Speaker 1: with respect to a system of a system of judicial interpretation.
Speaker 1: That is not about outcomes, but about the law. They
Speaker 1: don't want that. They want a super legislature, legislature with
Speaker 1: at least five votes on it out of nine to
Speaker 1: give the left what they want things they would never get.
Speaker 1: Does anyone really think they would have ever gotten abortion?
Speaker 1: All nine months of a pregnancy in all fifty states
Speaker 1: in the country. Not never right and never would have happened.
Speaker 1: There was never a time when Congress would have pushed
Speaker 1: pushed that there. It's just not gonna happen. Wouldn't have happened.
Speaker 1: And now here we are it's been the law of
Speaker 1: the land for decades. Uh. At a stain on the
Speaker 1: on the moral and ethical conscience or a standard world
Speaker 1: ethical history of this country, they're gonna say stuff like this.
Speaker 1: Uh this person over at MSNBC about some of the
Speaker 1: different justices. Uh. Here, here's what qualifies for political analysis
Speaker 1: that ms play ten. His list is all people who
Speaker 1: we we have an understanding are in opposition to Row.
Speaker 1: You know. Amy Barnett is a went to Notre Dame.
Speaker 1: She is very Catholics. At a famous moment with a
Speaker 1: former centaer Al Franken during her hearing is about how
Speaker 1: she spoke essentially to hate group without really understanding the
Speaker 1: full um context. There just slander people right, just say
Speaker 1: say whatever you gotta say to impugne their character, to
Speaker 1: damage them in public, uh, to find a way to
Speaker 1: create a perception that there unethical bad people. Whatever they
Speaker 1: have to say to that end, the will do. And
Speaker 1: it is deeply troubling to see this going on. It
Speaker 1: is deeply troubling, and it's gonna get as we know
Speaker 1: it's it's gonna get much uglier and much much worse. Um.
Speaker 1: But there's a fundamental principle here, and I want to
Speaker 1: make sure we establish it. There's something that really does
Speaker 1: matter about all the Supreme Court stuff, and that is
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court is not supposed to be a
Speaker 1: place where judges sit there and decide what is best
Speaker 1: for the country. This is where you have the divide
Speaker 1: in liberal and conservative jurisprunce. It's not about I like
Speaker 1: this thing. I'm in a position to make this thing
Speaker 1: happen through the law by changing the law. As a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court judge, it should be about what is true
Speaker 1: and what is lawful. Um, here's what dirsh. The dirsh.
Speaker 1: We haven't had the dirsh on in a while. I
Speaker 1: kind of want to have the Dirsh on a podcast
Speaker 1: where I can just talk to him about like the
Speaker 1: life of Dirsh, you know what I mean. I feel
Speaker 1: like that would be a good Like, Hey, so, what
Speaker 1: was really what was it really like on O J's
Speaker 1: defense team back in the day? You know? How is
Speaker 1: how was that whole thing going on? A lot of
Speaker 1: questions I gotta ask, But here's what you said about
Speaker 1: judicial activism. The president makes these kinds of decisions based
Speaker 1: on his personal interaction with the individuals more than recommendations.
Speaker 1: Obviously he's going to take into account the recommendations as well.
Speaker 1: I hope he's looking for a libertarian conservative, a true
Speaker 1: conservative who elevates the rights of individual over the power
Speaker 1: of government. A true conservative also respects precedent, doesn't come
Speaker 1: to the court with an agenda with a list of
Speaker 1: issues that he wants to see change. A true conservative
Speaker 1: is not a judicial activist. So I think he can
Speaker 1: broaden his base, help unite the country if he picks
Speaker 1: a true conservative who really believes in liberty and who
Speaker 1: believes in precedent. That's what true conserv itism is. On
Speaker 1: the bench, well, I think that Trump's nominees are gonna
Speaker 1: fit that just five. I think that the people that
Speaker 1: he's thinking about fall into those categories. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm I am hopeful that you know, this is here
Speaker 1: we are. We're eighteen months into the Trump presidency, and
Speaker 1: already there are people I know who were cautious about this,
Speaker 1: maybe cautiously optimistic, or maybe just weren't sold, and they're
Speaker 1: seeing what is happening here and they're saying, wow, never
Speaker 1: Trump was a mistake for some of them. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying all of them feel that way, but I'm gonna
Speaker 1: feel that way, like maybe I shouldn't have written this
Speaker 1: off because this will stay with us for a very
Speaker 1: long time and as I've as I've been saying to you,
Speaker 1: it has tremendous implications for the future. So look, I
Speaker 1: don't want to get, you know, too deep into the
Speaker 1: you know, oh what the judge is and this and
Speaker 1: that the other thing, because we're gonna this is gonna
Speaker 1: be the main event, the main show, folks, once it
Speaker 1: gets into the Senate and you got all these senators
Speaker 1: and you have you know, Chuck Schumer and all the
Speaker 1: rest of them trying to you know, I gotta say Lahy.
Speaker 1: I really I talked about gurgling with Gurgen, but actually
Speaker 1: Lay so you know, if Grgen is kind of up here,
Speaker 1: Lay is kind of down. I can't understand the guy
Speaker 1: city u S. Senator Pat Lay Vermont. He's he's apparently.
Speaker 1: I think he does pretty well actually in terms of
Speaker 1: approval ratings. I'm like, what is this guy talking about?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, I feel like being able
Speaker 1: to communicate effectively should be a necessary prerequisite to be
Speaker 1: in the Senate. But he's been there a long time,
Speaker 1: and he has a very prominent, prominent dome. I mean,
Speaker 1: his he embraces you know, he's he's like me. He's
Speaker 1: got a seriously large cranium and he just goes with it.
Speaker 1: You know, he's not trying to do a comb over
Speaker 1: anything else. Lay owns the Mr clean thing up top,
Speaker 1: and you know what, some respect for that I got.
Speaker 1: I gotta go with it. So the judicial thing is
Speaker 1: going to turn into a lot of a lot of athletes,
Speaker 1: a lot of back and forthes. You know, we'll follow
Speaker 1: that more closely, but in the meantime, it's just they're
Speaker 1: gonna try to make an issue of particularly if it's
Speaker 1: Amy Barrett. They're gonna make an issue of her Catholicism
Speaker 1: in a way that we'll be talking about I think
Speaker 1: for years to come. Uh. There, there's gonna be big,
Speaker 1: big problems there. Eight four four nine to eight to
Speaker 1: five eight four Buck, Oh my gosh, we have so
Speaker 1: much more to discuss, my friends, much more show on
Speaker 1: the way, and don't forget. You can download the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt podcast on iTunes, are on Stitcher. Just go to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton show. It is in that same feed, folks,
Speaker 1: it is in that same feed. And oh wait, here,
Speaker 1: wait a couple of things before I before I go
Speaker 1: to the next one. I was looking for these for
Speaker 1: a moment. I was verbally stalling to find this. So
Speaker 1: here's here's what Trump was saying about that upcoming fight playing.
Speaker 1: And I think, yes, I think we will go very quickly.
Speaker 1: I actually believe that a lot of people think it's
Speaker 1: going to be a very Look, it's probably going to
Speaker 1: be vicious because the other side all they could do
Speaker 1: is obstruct and resist. You know, the whole thing is resist.
Speaker 1: But and maybe someday we'll be able to get along
Speaker 1: with the other side. I don't know, But right now
Speaker 1: it's only resists. That's all they want to do is
Speaker 1: stop things from happening. So they're going to try very hard.
Speaker 1: But I think it's going to go actually very quickly.
Speaker 1: If I picked the right person, they're gonna be vicious.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna go quickly. I like the
Speaker 1: President's optimism on this, but it is going to be very,
Speaker 1: very ugly. And I want to just put this out there,
Speaker 1: and maybe this is one of these things where we
Speaker 1: should mark this for the show going forward so we
Speaker 1: have it. Imagine what it feels like if Republicans maintain control.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're gonna game seats in the House,
Speaker 1: but imagine what it's like if they maintain control of
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate two years into the Trump
Speaker 1: presidency and you get a constitutional conservative on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: a second one all the Supreme Court courtesy of President
Speaker 1: Donald J. Trump in year all of done in year
Speaker 1: by a year two of the presidency. What are liberals
Speaker 1: gonna tell themselves? Then? You know, when, when do you
Speaker 1: think this iceberg starts to melt of liberal delusion when
Speaker 1: they have to confront their misconceptions about this country, about themselves,
Speaker 1: about the popularity of their beliefs and about why people
Speaker 1: voted for Trump in the first place. I don't know
Speaker 1: if we're ever going to get there. I don't know,
Speaker 1: if you know, Mike says no. Mike thinks that they're
Speaker 1: just is never gonna change. It's never gonna change. Uh,
Speaker 1: you might be right, man, you know, I think that
Speaker 1: they there's been a radicalization of the liberal mind that
Speaker 1: only only through continuous law us is only until we
Speaker 1: are in fact sick of winning, tired of winning, will
Speaker 1: that change. And we're aways from that. We've still got
Speaker 1: a lot of things to accomplish, a lot of things
Speaker 1: to do. All right now, I really will give you
Speaker 1: some a second to catch your breath. Eight four four
Speaker 1: I guess let me catch my breath eight four four
Speaker 1: to five eight fo buck Uh, David French come up
Speaker 1: in the next hour. Much more show on the way,
Speaker 1: stay with me team. We're not going to be threatened
Speaker 1: by the Democrats. I mean, look, they they're the ones
Speaker 1: that have all this blood on their hands. They're the
Speaker 1: ones who have completely destroyed the FBI and d o J.
Speaker 1: How did they do that? They did that by digging
Speaker 1: up dirt. The Clinton campaign dug up dirt, put it
Speaker 1: into a dossier, fed it into the FBI, and the
Speaker 1: FBI used our counterintelligence capabilities against a political campaign. Is
Speaker 1: there really any dispute left about that? You know? That
Speaker 1: seems to be just a stayed in a fact at
Speaker 1: this point. But Devin Nounez has become something of a
Speaker 1: boogeyman on the left. They hate new Nets because he's
Speaker 1: been out there fighting the fight, the good fight on
Speaker 1: this issue. And you'll notice there's been a bit of
Speaker 1: a silence on this that. Yeah, that the Cohen flip
Speaker 1: issue has come operationally because Cohen gave his interview two.
Speaker 1: Uh what was George Stephanopolis Mike. We don't have any
Speaker 1: of that audio, handy, do we this the Cohen speaking?
Speaker 1: I don't know if it was just written interview or
Speaker 1: I read the transcript of it. Was it written or
Speaker 1: was it a video interview with Stephanopolis and Cohen? You
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about it earlier in the week.
Speaker 1: I do. Yeah, they do not have a video of it.
Speaker 1: It was to sit down. I think that was the agreement,
Speaker 1: just to okay, yeah, so because I remember I read
Speaker 1: what was said. So you know, everyone's all jumped on
Speaker 1: this oh, Cohen's gonna flip. And Cohen said stuff like,
Speaker 1: it's not a witch haunt. I'm not gonna put Trump
Speaker 1: ahead of my family. Which when you are in the
Speaker 1: crosshairs of a federal prosecutorial well, I was gonna say,
Speaker 1: which hunt overreach? You say whatever you gotta say to
Speaker 1: try to save yourself. Really, that that's what ends up happening, folks.
Speaker 1: You know, it's kind of like an interrogation. Everybody breaks,
Speaker 1: just a question when and how when the Feds come
Speaker 1: after you. You know you're eventually gonna start singing the
Speaker 1: tune they want you to sing. I mean, maybe you
Speaker 1: won't say your guilty stuff you didn't do. But if
Speaker 1: if it's gonna help you to say I think the
Speaker 1: Feds are doing a great job here, you know, if
Speaker 1: it's going into your possible plea bargain, then yeah, of course.
Speaker 1: But everyone's saying Cohen's gonna flip. He's gonna flip, I say, flip.
Speaker 1: The problem he's gonna have is he has nothing to
Speaker 1: flip with. Yeah, they want him to flip on Trump,
Speaker 1: that's very obvious. But what's he gonna say? There was
Speaker 1: Russia collusion that didn't happen. He can't do that. But
Speaker 1: if he lies, then he loses any any deal. So
Speaker 1: he can't make stuff up. Even if he says what
Speaker 1: they want him to say, you have to wonder what's
Speaker 1: that even gonna be. We're gonna get back to the
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels payoff issue, and you know CNN was covering
Speaker 1: that almost like the lost plane. I mean it was
Speaker 1: on twenty four seven, day in, day out. But known
Speaker 1: is the enemy of truth, so they have no problem
Speaker 1: with these things. Uh. Mike was just telling me before
Speaker 1: that they had the woman who was harassing Prude on
Speaker 1: and she's now a hero. This is what ends up happening.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is find somebody affiliated with
Speaker 1: Trump and do a Facebook video of yourself talking about
Speaker 1: how you curse them out or yelled at them, and
Speaker 1: you're you're like a celebrity. You know, you need to
Speaker 1: get an agent to negotiate your book deal. I find
Speaker 1: it very I find it very distasteful, I must say.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean they're going after Cohen. I saw.
Speaker 1: I didn't I didn't mentioned earlier in the show, you know,
Speaker 1: because I feel like this is a story that gets
Speaker 1: more attention that or it's something it gets more attention
Speaker 1: than it deserves. It's the way people always take this.
Speaker 1: Every step in the Muller Probe is treated like, oh,
Speaker 1: we're right, you know any day now that that other
Speaker 1: shoe has been waiting to drop four months and months.
Speaker 1: I just want you all to remember when the day
Speaker 1: comes to the Molder probe finally is you know, they
Speaker 1: released their report and the whole thing happens. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna talk about the Senate Intel report on Russia
Speaker 1: at a few moments get the Senate Intel Committee says, oh,
Speaker 1: we're the Russia conclusions from the Intel community. I'll get
Speaker 1: into this again. Not something that people are making a
Speaker 1: bigger deal out of it than it is. But I
Speaker 1: want you to remember who along this whole process was
Speaker 1: telling you this isn't what they say it is. It's
Speaker 1: not going to result in some soft coup against the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. They're trying it. It's not it's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: There's no they're there. And remember who has been running
Speaker 1: around hair on fire about how Trump was you know,
Speaker 1: Trump as a trader and worked with Russia. Yeah, like
Speaker 1: it's it's been discouraging and I have. I have, really,
Speaker 1: this is the first time in my professional career in media,
Speaker 1: I have just lost respect for the judgment of people
Speaker 1: over this one issue. People have gone off the rails
Speaker 1: with this Russia Trump collusion stuff in a way that
Speaker 1: I never could have imagined. And I just refused to
Speaker 1: believe that it's really about belief in some international conspiracy
Speaker 1: with Trump and other people to try and throw the election.
Speaker 1: I think it's just a much deeper issue for people.
Speaker 1: They take Trump's They've taken Trump's election personally. They think
Speaker 1: it's a repudiation of what they think about themselves, right
Speaker 1: that now someone is challenging their beliefs in a way
Speaker 1: that has rattled them, and they're hoping for some panacea.
Speaker 1: And the panacea in this case would be that Trump
Speaker 1: is really a Kremlin candidate, that he was run by
Speaker 1: putting all this other stuff. M It just must be
Speaker 1: exhausting to keep that hope alive so long in spite
Speaker 1: of all the facts and everything that we've seen so far.
Speaker 1: It's got to be tiring after a while. But I
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, they are going to see it
Speaker 1: through to the end. I will say that they're gonna
Speaker 1: stay on this thing, and there's I do not have
Speaker 1: much faith that there will be any real increase in
Speaker 1: insanity from the anti Trump left on this Russia stuff.
Speaker 1: But you know, I feel a guy like Cohen, they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna get him on something, because it's not
Speaker 1: that hard to get people. They're gonna find some speak
Speaker 1: agetting people. Didn't they just Mike, did they just get
Speaker 1: the what is it? An Rwan? That guy the house
Speaker 1: work for Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the I T guy he
Speaker 1: pled to a loan fraud thing, pleaded to a loan
Speaker 1: fraud thing. I feel like there's more going on. I
Speaker 1: know there's been a lot of reporting daily College and
Speaker 1: reporting on that. I gotta dig into a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Feels like they're just making that go away. This guy
Speaker 1: who was into some shady stuff and he's just doing
Speaker 1: a loan fraud charge. M okay, But the Senate Intel
Speaker 1: Committee report on Russia talk about that for a few
Speaker 1: minutes coming up. And then we got David French joining
Speaker 1: on all things Supreme Court. He's gonna help me own
Speaker 1: the lips to code in the news and disseminating information
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. You're a great
Speaker 1: American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. I've got
Speaker 1: very important news to tell all of you stuff. It's
Speaker 1: really gonna blow your mind. Alec Baldwin and Martin Sheen
Speaker 1: are going on a twenty four hour hunger strike for immigrants.
Speaker 1: Oh no, how will they ever make it through twenty
Speaker 1: four hours? They're so dedicated to immigrants. This is the
Speaker 1: thing that I saw today. It's a real thing that
Speaker 1: people are talking about actually going to twenty four hour
Speaker 1: hunger strike. They're not actually fit into my bathing suits
Speaker 1: from last summer anyway. Goals, hashtag goals, hashtag dad bod fight. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know the big thing today? And I saw this
Speaker 1: on Fox. It's getting a lot of attention to People
Speaker 1: are like, oh gosh, what does this all mean. Here's
Speaker 1: the quick and dirty. The Senate Intel Senate Intel Community
Speaker 1: Committee has been looking at the findings of the intel
Speaker 1: community in the presidential election that quote, do you they
Speaker 1: wanted to help Donald Trump? The intelligence community findings were
Speaker 1: quote accurate and on point, according to an unclassified report
Speaker 1: and accompanying statement by the Senate Select Committee Intelligence released Tuesday.
Speaker 1: So they are saying sure enough that yeah, Russia wanted
Speaker 1: to help Russia wanted to help Trump in the election.
Speaker 1: This is from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. They
Speaker 1: released this and they go into some stuff about the
Speaker 1: disputes between FBI, CIA, and n s A. By the way,
Speaker 1: I used to be a part of these disputes on
Speaker 1: different NIL products. I've been in the room. I've fought
Speaker 1: it out with people from different That stuff can get heated,
Speaker 1: by the way, you can imagine when some bureaucrat feels
Speaker 1: like the stakes are the national security interests of the
Speaker 1: United States, you can get very passionate. You can get
Speaker 1: very sanctimonious too, in some of these inter agency intelligence
Speaker 1: assessment meetings. I remember things getting real heated on some
Speaker 1: Irrock related stuff back in the days. You can imagine, so, uh,
Speaker 1: looking at this now, people are gonna say, oh, gosh,
Speaker 1: Russia wanted to help Trump. Here's the thing Russia was
Speaker 1: trying to say chaos. Russia was doing what it has
Speaker 1: been doing for decades. This you can either make it
Speaker 1: sound like a really big deal, or you can put
Speaker 1: it in the proper context, which is this is a
Speaker 1: continuation of rough Russian provocations against the US and a
Speaker 1: lot of other countries, by the way, stretching back for decades,
Speaker 1: This is a way that they pursue what they view
Speaker 1: as their foreign pe interests by trying to so chaos
Speaker 1: in the electoral processes of other countries, and chaos made
Speaker 1: me too strong a word, just to try to gum
Speaker 1: up the works a little bit and to push those
Speaker 1: candidates that they feel like, maybe you're more aligned with
Speaker 1: their interests in some ways on some matters, to downplay
Speaker 1: or uh engage in propaganda against candidates they don't like.
Speaker 1: I mean, but they've been doing this forever. I wish
Speaker 1: they would teach kids in school about what the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union was really up to and it's ties to the
Speaker 1: Communist Party USA and all of the different Soviet aigents
Speaker 1: in this country. Instead you get some five line paragraph about,
Speaker 1: you know, McCarthy was really bad and he did bad
Speaker 1: things and he lied about people. It's like, no, McCarthy
Speaker 1: was actually mostly right, Alger Hiss was a spy, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: You go down the line, you see that there were
Speaker 1: deep and very serious, very senior penetrations in the United
Speaker 1: States governed by the Communists, and there are a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans who were Communist fellow travelers and working with
Speaker 1: the Communist Party. That was a real thing and a
Speaker 1: very serious national security threat to us. But that's not taught.
Speaker 1: People don't know about it, and so they see this
Speaker 1: Russian meddling and they say, oh, my gosh, they're creating
Speaker 1: Facebook accounts that's say mean things about Hillary among hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of Facebook accounts out there. You know, when
Speaker 1: you start to look at the money that was spent
Speaker 1: on this, and you look at the Facebook puppets and
Speaker 1: what what they were, what Russia was actually up to.
Speaker 1: To call this a drop in the bucket is an overstatement.
Speaker 1: It was a drop in the ocean. And the notion
Speaker 1: that this could have moved the electro wom with the
Speaker 1: other is just fantasy. But also, now you have you
Speaker 1: can take it beyond that into the what are we
Speaker 1: what are we really supposed to do about it? How
Speaker 1: is this really supposed to get dealt with? I asked
Speaker 1: James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, you know,
Speaker 1: what do you think? And he's like, well, we should
Speaker 1: put out a strong statement. Oh okay, we put out
Speaker 1: a strong statement about Russia, and then we've handled the problem.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's gonna cut it. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's gonna do it. How do we stop Russian middling
Speaker 1: going forward? No one has any idea. You're gonna have
Speaker 1: more transparency and Facebook accounts. Guess what, Russia will just
Speaker 1: get more sophisticated about how they set up those Facebook accounts.
Speaker 1: And if nothing else, one of the best things that
Speaker 1: they've gotten out of this whole process is the magnification
Speaker 1: of their propaganda efforts in the minds of a lot
Speaker 1: of Americans because of the narrative that Hillary would have
Speaker 1: won if it weren't for the Russians, which is just
Speaker 1: again crazy, But this is what they're saying. So this
Speaker 1: is the Senate panel. Okay, they're saying that they think
Speaker 1: the Russia wanted to help Trump. So what Russia wanted
Speaker 1: to help Trump? Every every country's government, by the way,
Speaker 1: has a favorite in most of our elections, and usually
Speaker 1: for adversaries. Guess what, it's the Democrat that they want
Speaker 1: to win. So we just deal with that. We just
Speaker 1: recognize that and do our best to work within that reality. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I just this is this report today. They
Speaker 1: released it before Trump's gonna go meet with with Putin.
Speaker 1: In a few weeks, and you know they want this
Speaker 1: stuff out there. This is it doesn't really change anything,
Speaker 1: doesn't really move the football downfield. You know what, will
Speaker 1: our friend David French who is joining us here momentarily
Speaker 1: talk a bit about Spreme Court nominees and then we'll
Speaker 1: get into some other interesting stuff including roll call, your
Speaker 1: thoughts and so much more. UH, teams, stay with me.
Speaker 1: Environment is very fast paced. You don't have time to waste,
Speaker 1: and you need to make sure that when you're making
Speaker 1: a decision about a possible tenant, about a possible higher
Speaker 1: or business partner, you have all the information you need
Speaker 1: and somebody who's there that's going to treat each case
Speaker 1: as very important will answer each question, and you know
Speaker 1: you can get them on the phone. Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: is the answer for all your background investigation and vetting needs.
Speaker 1: There the only dual certified veteran owned background investigation company.
Speaker 1: They're federally certified as a veteran owned small business. They
Speaker 1: have all their stuff done here in the States, headquarters
Speaker 1: in Chicago. All their personnel or US based. They do
Speaker 1: not offshore any of your client information. They do not
Speaker 1: offshore any of your data. This is who you want
Speaker 1: to have your back for all background investigations and vetting.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven, seven, six nine, five eleven seventy nine
Speaker 1: or go to my g VN dot com. That's m
Speaker 1: y g v N dot com. Are you going to
Speaker 1: ask your nominees beforehand how they might vote on versus ways? Well,
Speaker 1: that's a big one, and probably not. They're all saying,
Speaker 1: don't do that, you don't do that, you shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: But I'm putting conservative people on. On the campaign trail,
Speaker 1: you said you would leave it to the states. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe someday it will be to the states. You never
Speaker 1: know how that's going to turn out. That's a very
Speaker 1: complex question. We'll see what happens, but it could very
Speaker 1: well end up with states at some point. Could indeed,
Speaker 1: it depends what is the likely path here? Assuming we
Speaker 1: we get a conservative constitutionalist somebody from the list that
Speaker 1: Trump has put out there on the Supreme Court, what
Speaker 1: do we think can happen with Roe and what's the
Speaker 1: opposition to that pick going to look like? We have
Speaker 1: David French with us now. He is a lawyer, a
Speaker 1: veteran of Operation of Rocky Freedom, and also a senior
Speaker 1: writer for National review. He's got a piece out Progressive
Speaker 1: deploy religious ignorance and bigotry to stop Amy Coney Barrett, David,
Speaker 1: great to have you back. Thanks so much for Hamy.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Let's just let's start with so. So
Speaker 1: Barrett is female, Catholic, and by all objective measures, eminently
Speaker 1: qualified for the role of a Supreme Court justice. Right,
Speaker 1: I mean, she's she's checking all the boxes, but there's
Speaker 1: one box she checks that is likely to cause some
Speaker 1: problems on the left. What would that one be? Which
Speaker 1: he's a very faithful Catholic. Um and not only a
Speaker 1: very faithful Catholic. She's involved with a Christian community, a
Speaker 1: Christian parachurch organization called People of Praise that has come
Speaker 1: up in the New York Times, has been has come
Speaker 1: up recently on Twitter where they're casting aspersions on her,
Speaker 1: almost like she's in some sort of cult, when she's
Speaker 1: plainly not. They I mean, they bring this up and
Speaker 1: this comes after who was it Feinstein? Who was remember
Speaker 1: she grilled? I wish we had that audio handy, but
Speaker 1: we don't. But that was during Oh, we do play it.
Speaker 1: We've got it well done. When you read your speeches,
Speaker 1: the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly
Speaker 1: within you, and that's of concern when you come to
Speaker 1: big issues that large numbers of people have fought for
Speaker 1: for years in this country. I assume if you were
Speaker 1: on the list that you would be a no vote
Speaker 1: on Row, and that puts a number of us, just
Speaker 1: very honestly and Layman's language, in a very difficult position.
Speaker 1: I'm being considered for a position and a Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: and there would be no opportunity to be a no
Speaker 1: vote on Row. And as I said to the committee,
Speaker 1: I would faithfully apply all Supreme Court. President. Well, so
Speaker 1: there we have it, David. We had a Feinstein saying
Speaker 1: when you read or when you read your speeches, the
Speaker 1: dogma lives loudly within you. That was quite a moment.
Speaker 1: That's definitely quite a moment. And it's something that even
Speaker 1: when it happened, even though you know this is an
Speaker 1: appellate court judge, judge, not something that a whole lot
Speaker 1: of people pay attention to other than sort of legal nerds. Uh.
Speaker 1: It actually caused quite an up war uproar when it
Speaker 1: happened last year because it was so blatant, such a
Speaker 1: blatant religious test. I mean, it's it turned to one
Speaker 1: into one of these things where you could tell that
Speaker 1: you're dealing with a conservative legal nerd when they were
Speaker 1: walking around with coffee bugs. That says the dogma lives
Speaker 1: loudly within you. But yeah, it was a preview of it.
Speaker 1: What would happen if she is nominated for the Supreme Court? Um?
Speaker 1: And and here's why it's a preview. Um, if you
Speaker 1: go by objective qualification, how is this person qualified? She
Speaker 1: checks all the boxes? I mean, did did very well
Speaker 1: at an elite law school, was on law review, propellate
Speaker 1: court clerkship, Supreme Court clerkship, worked atn elite law firm,
Speaker 1: became a law professor, published peer review articles, and then
Speaker 1: became a federal judge. I mean, it's it's very similar
Speaker 1: in some ways to the Elena Kagan path to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. So here's a person universally recognized as as brilliant,
Speaker 1: universally recognized as someone who really is a star in
Speaker 1: the conservative legal world. There isn't a qualification based objection
Speaker 1: to our nor because most of our work has been
Speaker 1: in academia. Is there a paper trail of a lot
Speaker 1: of court, this decisions for the left to pick apart,
Speaker 1: like the way they tried to pick apart the Gorsets
Speaker 1: Trucker case back in ten. And so what what are
Speaker 1: you left with? Your left of the brilliant young legal
Speaker 1: scholar who's done everything she's supposed to do well regarded
Speaker 1: by her peers. The Notre Dame law faculty signed in
Speaker 1: a letter unanimously in her support, which included progressive, what
Speaker 1: are you left with? And and for some progressives, what
Speaker 1: they're left with is she's just too darned Christian. And
Speaker 1: that's where we are in public debate in this country
Speaker 1: in right when we still have what sevent of America
Speaker 1: I think still at least identifies as Christian. Whether they
Speaker 1: go to church or not and pay attention to the
Speaker 1: dogma is a separate issue, But but it is I
Speaker 1: think where we can expect David that if it's bear
Speaker 1: by the way, do you have are you putting out
Speaker 1: odds on this at all? Do you think it's gonna
Speaker 1: be Barrett? Are you a Kavanaugh person? I think you know.
Speaker 1: I think I've heard it's between Barrett and Kavanaugh, but
Speaker 1: I've also heard between it's between Barrett kvan On, Raymond Catholic.
Speaker 1: So I think there is there's some resistance to Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: that I have seen. Um. I think Keithlage and Barrett
Speaker 1: have the kind of records and the clearly articulated judicial
Speaker 1: philosophy that an awful lot of Conservatives will look at
Speaker 1: their nomination and say this is a home run on
Speaker 1: the order of van Neil Gorsig. Uh. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know where I am on it right now.
Speaker 1: I would say, between Kethledge, kavan On, Barrett, do you
Speaker 1: have a prefer equal odds between the three? Look if
Speaker 1: I could wave that, if I could wave a magic one,
Speaker 1: tomorrow would be Barried or Ketholic. I think either one
Speaker 1: of those is sort of like this deep errand Judge
Speaker 1: home run that causes the conservative crowd to you and awe. Now,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I'm already seeing and I do
Speaker 1: a show now in the mornings with a very very
Speaker 1: uh great and very kind progressive. But you know, we're
Speaker 1: going back and forth a lot on this stuff, and
Speaker 1: I'm hearing the arguments against say, one of those nominees
Speaker 1: and one of these Trump nominees getting through, and David
Speaker 1: I I try to put on my most objective, honest
Speaker 1: hat possible. It just all to me sounds a bit
Speaker 1: like whining, And I wonder if you know there doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to be a ground. They say, oh, well it's
Speaker 1: there's no litmus test, but you have to be in
Speaker 1: favor of Roe v. Wade. They say, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Star a decisive previously just decided things you know can't change,
Speaker 1: but dread Scott was really bad, so maybe bad things
Speaker 1: actually should change. When the Supreme Court handles them, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, it should have been Marrick Garland and we say,
Speaker 1: well it wasn't. I mean, I just I don't see
Speaker 1: a real argument emerging. I just see a bundle of
Speaker 1: angry emotions that people don't They don't want Row overturn,
Speaker 1: but they also just don't want a conservative on the
Speaker 1: on the High Court. I mean, am I missing? What is? Is?
Speaker 1: There is there an argument I need to take seriously
Speaker 1: for why Trump should not be able to pick from
Speaker 1: this list? No, there is no serious argument as to
Speaker 1: why I shouldn't be able to pick from this list.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, a lot of people have remarked on
Speaker 1: this and noted this, so this is hardly original but look,
Speaker 1: the bottom line is that the nomination and confirmation process
Speaker 1: is more partisan than it's ever been. And it's also
Speaker 1: the bottom line that the judicial philosophies, the different judicial
Speaker 1: philosophies between four progressive jurists and conservative jurists, the differences
Speaker 1: in the philosophies is sharper than it's ever been. And
Speaker 1: so it's it's a reflection of the increased partisanship in
Speaker 1: the United States. And I was just on MS and
Speaker 1: B in the MSNBC talking to a uh debating a
Speaker 1: progressive on this very topic, and he was showing poll
Speaker 1: numbers showing that the Americans didn't want this this decision
Speaker 1: overturned or that decision overturned, or pull number, pull numbers
Speaker 1: regarding Roe v. Way, and this look, pull numbers are interesting.
Speaker 1: Election results are binding, And the bottom line is people
Speaker 1: voted for Donald Trump and large numbers because of this
Speaker 1: court and because of the court. And Trump knows it,
Speaker 1: his team knows it, and they know that they've got
Speaker 1: to come through here. And the fact that he's come
Speaker 1: through so well with Gorset and other federal judicial nominations
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why the Republican base is
Speaker 1: still so bonded to him in spite of you know,
Speaker 1: many other missteps and in scandals. I appreciate it, by
Speaker 1: the way, David, and I think you know that because
Speaker 1: I retweeted earlier today you just saying what I think
Speaker 1: some people dance around I say it here on the
Speaker 1: show on a regular basis. In fact, the most uh
Speaker 1: storied progressive law and jurisprudence professor at my college would
Speaker 1: walk around saying that he thinks that abortion should be legal.
Speaker 1: You know all mine months. But Roe is just crap
Speaker 1: as as law goes, and there's just no defending it.
Speaker 1: It's garbage, it's make believe and and you you don't
Speaker 1: use those words, but you're only to go out there
Speaker 1: and said the same thing. I think that's important for
Speaker 1: people to hear right now that this isn't a this
Speaker 1: wasn't a close call thing. This was a Supreme Court
Speaker 1: made it up and they need to unmake this up. Right.
Speaker 1: A lot of people call abortion a constitutional right. I
Speaker 1: I have acted that what abortion is is it the
Speaker 1: right to abortion is secured not by the Constitution. It's
Speaker 1: secured because you'll see it nowhere in there. It's secured
Speaker 1: by a lousy judicial precedent. It's secured by a badly reasoned,
Speaker 1: results oriented activist judicial precedent that should be overturned. It's
Speaker 1: terrible constitutional law. And look, I'm a conservative, I'm pro life,
Speaker 1: I freely admit that. But you know what, there were
Speaker 1: progressives who have agreed with that for a very long time.
Speaker 1: That Row is just a bad it's bad constitutional law.
Speaker 1: It's a badly reasoned court decision. Look, you know, and
Speaker 1: as I said to you know, my friend I was debating,
Speaker 1: I said, hey, if you think that that the right
Speaker 1: to an abortion is so darn't popular, well then what
Speaker 1: do you have to fear from overturning Row. You'll just
Speaker 1: go ahead and win all the elections and you'll, you know,
Speaker 1: the states will, the states will protect the right to
Speaker 1: an abortion. But I think the fact of the matter
Speaker 1: is the radical pro abortion side of the argument knows
Speaker 1: that in many, if not most, American states, the American
Speaker 1: people want greater restrictions on abortion, and in some states
Speaker 1: are willing to outright ban the practice. And so this
Speaker 1: is something that never should have been taken out of
Speaker 1: the democratic process. It never should have been rendered beyond
Speaker 1: democratic debate by judicial president and it's something that's ripe
Speaker 1: for reversal. Now. I don't think any of Trump's nominees
Speaker 1: will get up and say that the reverse row because
Speaker 1: judicial nominees never say how they're going to rule on
Speaker 1: potential future cases, either the nominees from the left or
Speaker 1: the right, so they're not going to say that. But
Speaker 1: I do hope that whoever the nominee is will when
Speaker 1: the if and when the day camps have the courage
Speaker 1: to do the right thing. David French and senior writer
Speaker 1: National Review. Check out his peace Right Now nastional view
Speaker 1: dot com Progressive deploy religious ignorance and bigotry to stop
Speaker 1: Amy Coney Barrett before I let you go, David, for
Speaker 1: the July Hamburgers or hot dogs, you only get one choice,
Speaker 1: Hamburgers always, unless I'm out of ballpark. I totally agree
Speaker 1: hot dogs are in a coudrement for hamburgers. That's what
Speaker 1: you eat when you're not totally full after your hamburger.
Speaker 1: You get that one right, gold big gold star on
Speaker 1: a high five. Thank you so much, David. Great to
Speaker 1: have you on. Thanks for having me same. We're gonna
Speaker 1: head a quick break. We'll be right back. Answer that question.
Speaker 1: The President's executive order has uh bought some time for Congress,
Speaker 1: but the clock is ticking and Congress needs to act
Speaker 1: to fix this process because we're running out of time
Speaker 1: on what we have the ability to do, particularly with
Speaker 1: the district court that weighed in just last week. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration never released the So we were Laurence o'donald
Speaker 1: producer Mike, what what happened here? He just dropped an
Speaker 1: F bomb in response to Sarah huckby Sanders or did
Speaker 1: you just drop something I couldn't tell? I thought, you know,
Speaker 1: when I read that headline, I figured that maybe there
Speaker 1: was a situation where he was responding to huck Sanders
Speaker 1: because he but it sounded like he smelled his coffee
Speaker 1: on himself or something. Well, Originally, what I was thinking
Speaker 1: with this segment, folks, was I was gonna tell you
Speaker 1: about how you need to keep in mind that some
Speaker 1: of these TV pundit types they hate the president as much,
Speaker 1: of these as much as these left wing activists, uh
Speaker 1: that that it's not really an act with them, which
Speaker 1: I find even more terrifying. It makes me more uncomfortable
Speaker 1: to know that there are people out there who really
Speaker 1: believe who who are multi multi millionaires with huge platforms
Speaker 1: who believe that the president of the United States is
Speaker 1: trying to take this country and turn it into some
Speaker 1: fascist dystopia. I'd rather they were just doing this as
Speaker 1: some kind of you know, em ploy just to get
Speaker 1: people to watch. I'd rather this was performance art, performance theater.
Speaker 1: But I don't know, Mike, do you have any for
Speaker 1: me here? Man? Was it was that? What happened there?
Speaker 1: Why did he? Why did why did o'donald drop an
Speaker 1: F bomb on live air? Do we know he didn't
Speaker 1: like what Sanders was saying? Oh? It was in response
Speaker 1: to Huck Sanders. Yeah, she she They went to a
Speaker 1: clip of her and like, it looks like they came
Speaker 1: back from the clip a little sooner than he thought
Speaker 1: they were coming back, and he got caught dropping the
Speaker 1: F bomb. Oh so it's a it's an open mic
Speaker 1: moment then, Okay, reminds me of the guy who said
Speaker 1: during the Romney Obama campaign, the guy who said that
Speaker 1: Romney and this was caught on an open mic. Romney
Speaker 1: was happy to have a party while quote black people
Speaker 1: drowned end quote, And that guy got fired. You know
Speaker 1: what happened to him? He wasn't drummed out of of
Speaker 1: political analysis life. He's got a huge job over at See,
Speaker 1: a big job over at CNN. Now he was at Yahoo.
Speaker 1: So there's that he actually got guys, he got an upgrade.
Speaker 1: He got a more important, higher paying job after being
Speaker 1: a quote objective journalist and accused mit Romney of being
Speaker 1: a heinous racist based on no informational than he's a Republican.
Speaker 1: But there, yes, okay, so it was O'donnald just just
Speaker 1: hate huckeb Sanders. I mean, she has become after Trump,
Speaker 1: I think, the most by the left wing media. They're
Speaker 1: they're the nastiest to Sarah Hackeby Sanders. They really are they.
Speaker 1: You know, they've gone after her in a way that is,
Speaker 1: it tells us so much more about the people that
Speaker 1: are going after her than it does about Sarah Hackaby Sanders, right,
Speaker 1: tells us so much more about what it is right
Speaker 1: now that is animating the left. And it's just animous.
Speaker 1: They are full of hate and bile and nastiness. I'm
Speaker 1: not hearing ideas from the left at all. I'm just
Speaker 1: hearing a lot of rage and if nothing else, I
Speaker 1: think maybe this is a necessary Catharsis for the country
Speaker 1: just just to have. Maybe the real secret of of
Speaker 1: Trump's brilliance is that he will exhaust the rage functions
Speaker 1: of the left, will become exhausted in time, and then
Speaker 1: they'll have to be normal people that we can have
Speaker 1: a discussion with about things that matter. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: they're gonna go on TV and curse and be angry
Speaker 1: and hateful and full of all this crazy stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: people trying to compare what's going on now with the
Speaker 1: Tea Party. I get so angry about that. Like, the
Speaker 1: Tea Party was peaceful rallies. People were respectful and there
Speaker 1: was a there were policy goals behind what they were doing,
Speaker 1: and it was all about showing up and voting. They
Speaker 1: weren't harassing people at restaurants. They weren't, you know, threatening
Speaker 1: people's families. Rand Paul sentator. Rand Paul just had somebody
Speaker 1: had to be arrested because someone threatened to kill his
Speaker 1: family and chop them up with an ax. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are maniacs running around now, and it doesn't help
Speaker 1: when you've got multi millionaires going on TV acting like
Speaker 1: they're part of the resistance against Nazism aka Trump is
Speaker 1: um now too. It really doesn't help folks, all right,
Speaker 1: roll calls next. They're right there the show folks keeping
Speaker 1: it real time for roll call. I gotta say that's
Speaker 1: my favorite role call I think I was. I was
Speaker 1: originally a dub a dubstep guy. That roll call has
Speaker 1: now become numero you know for me. Thank you as
Speaker 1: always for sending me your thoughts and sharing what you
Speaker 1: think is working here on the show, what you want
Speaker 1: to hear more of, maybe even what you want to
Speaker 1: hear less of all the above. By the way, if
Speaker 1: you guys have any ideas, any feedback on the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt podcast, let me know. Um I'm curious to see
Speaker 1: what what you like about it, what you want more of,
Speaker 1: because I'm toying with the idea of making the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut podcast just a really well yeah, Commy Bearon needs
Speaker 1: to be in it because he's our special Russia correspondent,
Speaker 1: but like a one subject deep dive for you know,
Speaker 1: thirty or four minutes. I mean, just really dig into
Speaker 1: it instead of trying to cover a few things. I'm
Speaker 1: experimenting with it. The Freedom on is something I just
Speaker 1: wanted to do on my own as a UH as
Speaker 1: a you know, something to add into the mix of
Speaker 1: what we got going on. So let me know what
Speaker 1: you think. All right, First up here, Brandon buck my
Speaker 1: buck fifteen coupon code Black Rifle Coffee or I've just
Speaker 1: in time for Independence Day. I hope you didn't take
Speaker 1: offense the other day when I commented on your Facebook
Speaker 1: live that as a bald guy, I don't like the swoop. No,
Speaker 1: of course, no offense taken, my friend, Brandon, totally understand. Uh,
Speaker 1: the swoop is not for everyone. The swoop is a
Speaker 1: lot smaller today. By the way, it got d swooped. Really,
Speaker 1: as I like to say, it looked like they It
Speaker 1: looked like they shaved a yak when I went to
Speaker 1: the barber shop. But there you have it. And by
Speaker 1: the way, thank you for buying some black Rifle, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle coffee, black beards. Uh uh what is this black
Speaker 1: Beard's Delight. I can't really see this. This is a
Speaker 1: new I don't actually know that one of the flavors.
Speaker 1: I gotta check that one out. Yes, all, please go
Speaker 1: to uh black Raffle Coffee dot com slash block coupon
Speaker 1: code buck fifteen. Drive up those numbers, folks, shows my
Speaker 1: you know, I really I talked to you about some
Speaker 1: of this. I'm actually friends with the Black Rifle guys.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're just great guys. I know, their
Speaker 1: their wives, their girlfriends, they're there are people running that company.
Speaker 1: You would here's what we'll tell you about Black Rifle,
Speaker 1: nine Line and some of the other sponsors we have
Speaker 1: here on the Buck Sexton Show. You all listening would
Speaker 1: like the people who were on those companies. You would
Speaker 1: like them, you'd want to hang out with them. That's
Speaker 1: pretty cool. It's nice. You know. It's not like I'm
Speaker 1: sitting around when I have meetings with my sponsors. It's
Speaker 1: not like we're sitting around in a room full of
Speaker 1: guys with suits who are all stuffy and asking for
Speaker 1: power point presentations. They're like, Hey, let's just all meet
Speaker 1: and go out for drinks and like, you know, talk
Speaker 1: about what it was like being over in the sandbox.
Speaker 1: All right. Next up here, Duke Duke writes, Buck love
Speaker 1: your show. I really think rising will catch on considering
Speaker 1: our current climate. See how I did that. Considering shareable segments.
Speaker 1: People today have short attention spans. Sad but true. If
Speaker 1: we could get short segments like I'm too old. The
Speaker 1: party on Wednesday, it would take me until Friday to recover,
Speaker 1: and you all sound communist to me. Taking days off
Speaker 1: and getting paid was hilarious. I want to send that
Speaker 1: tidbit to friends, et cetera to get them to listen
Speaker 1: to your tired diet tribe. Well, thank you, Duke, and yeah,
Speaker 1: we're always trying to think of more ways to make
Speaker 1: the show better and more share able, So thank you
Speaker 1: for your feedback. It is much appreciated. Seth. He writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: you mentioned a couple of episodes back, but it's hard
Speaker 1: to do an impression of kirston Jila Brand because there
Speaker 1: isn't much to work with. She should be called Kirston
Speaker 1: Jilla Bland, whoa still loving the podcast Shields High. Thank you, Seth,
Speaker 1: you're a scholar and a gentleman. Uh. Next up here,
Speaker 1: Michael writes, it's a fool's errand to think you'll ever
Speaker 1: convince cab All of the wrongness of reviews and the
Speaker 1: rightness of yours ain't gonna happen. Michael, I know, but
Speaker 1: the exercise is the point, right, the the act, the
Speaker 1: exercise intellectually of making the case, making the argument, but
Speaker 1: to try to persuade instead of trying to assault, bludgeon
Speaker 1: with words and undermine. Right, that's this is what we're
Speaker 1: trying to do. I've been saying this to it is experimental.
Speaker 1: Nobody else is doing this out there right now. Everybody
Speaker 1: else is doing steel cage match. Everybody else is you know,
Speaker 1: my side, your side? That's it. So is this gonna
Speaker 1: work a long term? Who knows, But it's in the
Speaker 1: meantime at least you're trying something different. You know, Crystal
Speaker 1: and I get along really well, so we're able to
Speaker 1: operate in this space of we can share our ideas
Speaker 1: and thoughts without it, you know, turning into a melee
Speaker 1: out there, although you know there'll be a melee at
Speaker 1: some point, just hopefully not a really bad one. Emery Rights,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, curious if you have seen the movie Cicario two.
Speaker 1: If so, wondering what you think of the angle of
Speaker 1: the movie. They seem to take a little stab at
Speaker 1: Fox News, but overall I was not sure if it
Speaker 1: was left or right. Emory, I have not seen Cicario two.
Speaker 1: I thought that there were a couple of really excellent
Speaker 1: scenes in Cicario one. I did think overall, though the
Speaker 1: movie was a little bit grim and a little bit relentless,
Speaker 1: and that was not not in a good way. So
Speaker 1: I will just put that out there. Um, yes, indeed
Speaker 1: I do want to see it though, I really do
Speaker 1: want to check it out. Jonathan, Next up here, Buck.
Speaker 1: Isn't it amazing how the media went from saying Trump
Speaker 1: was guilty of human rights violations for separating children from
Speaker 1: their parents to freaking out about the possibility of a
Speaker 1: potential new Supreme Court justice voting voting against abortion. It
Speaker 1: seems like they care more about possibly losing the right
Speaker 1: of killing babies than caring for abused children. You know, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: there are there's really no area right now of American
Speaker 1: life that I think has become more, ah more polluted
Speaker 1: by immorality and and illogic and poor thinking and dishonesty
Speaker 1: than the abortion debate. It's it's just terrible. It's terrible
Speaker 1: what goes on. It's terrible that people lie about it,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's it's it's terrible that there is
Speaker 1: such a massive industry. Now, remember it is an industry
Speaker 1: around planned parenthood in these other organizations. And I will
Speaker 1: tell you, even on the right, it is considered a risk,
Speaker 1: and I have been told in the past when I've
Speaker 1: wanted to do segments on abortion, not ever here. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm giving free rein. One of the reasons why
Speaker 1: I love the company I work for. Here on radio,
Speaker 1: I'm giving complete free rein to talk about whatever I want.
Speaker 1: No one ever ever gives me any direction or take
Speaker 1: this position or anything else. So you know, God bless
Speaker 1: Premiere Radio Networks for that. But in my previous life,
Speaker 1: at some other places I've been without getting into it,
Speaker 1: I have been told, uh that you know, abortion segments,
Speaker 1: you know they don't rate, we don't want to talk
Speaker 1: about it, We shouldn't do it. And it's one of
Speaker 1: those areas we'll look at them and say, I don't
Speaker 1: care if it doesn't rate. You gotta talk about this.
Speaker 1: I have a I have a platform here, I have
Speaker 1: the ability to reach people. We're talking about this. But
Speaker 1: just just remember that there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: that say, especially with TV. Actually with TV, uh, the
Speaker 1: moment you have a segment about abortion, everyone turns it off.
Speaker 1: That's that's the conventional wisdom about it at least. So uh,
Speaker 1: here we go. Next up, Chris Right, truckers don't have holidays.
Speaker 1: Enjoy your day. I'll be behind the wheel well, Chris,
Speaker 1: thank you for keeping America moving and supplied appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Kevin rights, Hey, buck, Uh, can we grab drinks tomorrow afternoon.
Speaker 1: I just got into d C for a heritage fellowship.
Speaker 1: Just throwing it out there. Let me know, Uh, Kevin
Speaker 1: really appreciate it, buddy. But I am gonna be trying
Speaker 1: to go up to a New York for at least
Speaker 1: part of this week, so I don't think I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be in town, but we will see. And thank you
Speaker 1: for the very kind offer. And if I wasn't well,
Speaker 1: I'm not allowed to talk about my schedule anymore, nor
Speaker 1: am I allowed to talk about any sense of fatigue.
Speaker 1: Because I am here. I am rocking and rolling in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hull. We don't talk about it's I'll sleep
Speaker 1: when I'm dead, But thank you, Kevin, and if I'm around,
Speaker 1: I'll certainly reach out and we can hang out and
Speaker 1: talk some more. Cheryl writes Real News, Yes, that is
Speaker 1: where I first saw you and was relieved to find
Speaker 1: true conservative values in the next generation. I love that
Speaker 1: show and I'm glad to hear good things have come
Speaker 1: to the careers of those who were part of it.
Speaker 1: Please Buck, take care of yourself. You're doing great things
Speaker 1: in radio and TV, but you need time to rest
Speaker 1: and renew. Hopefully that's coming um and she says, now
Speaker 1: you know how the parents of newborns feel. Cheryl, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your kind words and your support.
Speaker 1: And you know, in this business where you get a
Speaker 1: lot of you're constantly told you're I'm sure a lot
Speaker 1: of you have this in whatever business you're in, right, whatever,
Speaker 1: whatever you do, you know what I'm talking about. Rejection.
Speaker 1: You have to get not just used to rejection, but
Speaker 1: embrace rejection as a necessary part of the learning process.
Speaker 1: For me, it's one of the most one of the
Speaker 1: most important parts of of maturation, of becoming a a
Speaker 1: fully functioning and you know, well adjusted adult. It's just
Speaker 1: you get people that tell you know, you get people
Speaker 1: to tell you you're not you're not good enough, you're
Speaker 1: not smart enough, and gosh darn it, people don't really
Speaker 1: like you. I mean that, especially in my business. But
Speaker 1: I know it's true in a lot of businesses, you're
Speaker 1: always gonna be told no, no, no. But I have
Speaker 1: the great advantage of doing this show and speaking to you, uh,
Speaker 1: just a group of people that I have come to
Speaker 1: to know one by one into the now. You know,
Speaker 1: football stadium's worth of people who listen to this show
Speaker 1: in terms of the size, but I've gotten to know
Speaker 1: the kind of people who listen to this show. I've
Speaker 1: got to know some of you on an individual basis
Speaker 1: actually pretty well. And you all are amazing so and
Speaker 1: you're very supportive and kind and um and brilliant, and
Speaker 1: you all give me Actually, you know, sometimes people write
Speaker 1: and they say that I give them hope for the future,
Speaker 1: and that's very kind that I appreciate it. But actually,
Speaker 1: the people who listen to this show are the reason
Speaker 1: that I think we're all gonna be okay, because I
Speaker 1: know you all are the ones that are actually manning
Speaker 1: the front lines of freedom in your own ways, in
Speaker 1: your towns and cities across the country. And you're good people.
Speaker 1: You're kind, and you actually care about what's happ putting
Speaker 1: to this nation, and you want to help everybody and
Speaker 1: do the best you can day in and day out.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm if that sounds a little corny, folks,
Speaker 1: I apologize, but it's really the way I feel, um
Speaker 1: and as somebody who's dealing with things in the in
Speaker 1: the TV world. I can tell you TV world is disgusting.
Speaker 1: I mean the stuff you have to deal with, the
Speaker 1: people you have to deal with a lot of the time. Look,
Speaker 1: there's some amazing people to write, but you know you're
Speaker 1: you're up and you're up against it and it's not fair,
Speaker 1: it's not right. Uh. Radio for me is the purest
Speaker 1: connection for somebody who has a message and really wants
Speaker 1: to become it, really wants to have an audience that's
Speaker 1: like an extended family. So that's my way of saying,
Speaker 1: this is what I look forward to every day. So
Speaker 1: thank you so much for spending your time with me. Um.
Speaker 1: We are going to have a special show tomorrow. Uh
Speaker 1: it is fourth of July, so we'll pull together a
Speaker 1: a best of which will be the best we can
Speaker 1: make it. I'll certainly be back with you live here
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hunt on Thursday, and then the Godfather
Speaker 1: Michael Pelco will be in for me this Friday. I
Speaker 1: have some business to attend to, so you'll have the
Speaker 1: Godfather Michael Pelca. Everybody, have a very happy Fourth of July,
Speaker 1: have a great holiday with family and friends. Really, really
Speaker 1: please enjoy yourselves. We'll see you back here in the hut.
Speaker 1: As always, shields high. You're gonna have peace of mind
Speaker 1: if you have a good security system. But you're not
Speaker 1: gonna have peace of mind if your security system company
Speaker 1: isn't dealing with you fairly and is trying to get
Speaker 1: you jammed into a long term contract where they're just
Speaker 1: extracting fees without giving you service. Forget all of that.
Speaker 1: I have simply Safe at home, and simply Safe has
Speaker 1: revolutionized the home security business. The interface is incredibly easy
Speaker 1: to use. You just download an app, you set it
Speaker 1: up in your home. It runs off the WiFi. Folks,
Speaker 1: if you can run a smart TV, you can run
Speaker 1: simply Safe. I do it, and I can't recommend it
Speaker 1: more highly to you. Go check it out for yourself.
Speaker 1: Learn more about simply say today at simply safe dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. That's simply safe dot com slash box.
Speaker 1: To protect your home and family with an A plus
Speaker 1: home security system. Simply safe dot com slash buck. No
Speaker 1: contracts are hidden fees. It just is the best security
Speaker 1: system you can get, the easiest one to use, and
Speaker 1: the best customer service. Simply Safe dot com slash buck