Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. How the left seeks
Speaker 1: to criminalize political speech. Facebook was used to plan the
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill riot, Amazon shutdown parlor because of Trump not violence,
Speaker 1: and the militarized inauguration. Plus Jake Tapper questions, a veteran
Speaker 1: amputeam member of Congress's patriotism. This is the Buck sex
Speaker 1: And Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with assionable intelligence. Make no mistake a
Speaker 1: great American. Again, the Buck Sexon show begins, He's a
Speaker 1: great guy. No, it was never really about stopping violence
Speaker 1: from the big tech companies and from the left and
Speaker 1: the Democrats. We know that because they didn't want to
Speaker 1: shut down violence for months when their side was doing it.
Speaker 1: We know that political violence was something the left was
Speaker 1: willing to embrace. It was about justice, they said, That's
Speaker 1: what they told us. And now when there is an
Speaker 1: outburst of reprehensible political violence that comes ideologically from the
Speaker 1: right in this Capitol Hill riot, they try to leverage
Speaker 1: this for maximum political gain. The best way to get
Speaker 1: all of this to stop, the best way to bring
Speaker 1: us together would be, of course, to be fair minded
Speaker 1: about this, to be honest, and not to immediately seek
Speaker 1: to use this to bash the other side as though
Speaker 1: they're all domestic terrorists, and that's what they're doing. That
Speaker 1: is what you see happening right now. The precedent that
Speaker 1: was set with yesterday's impeachment is awful because it all
Speaker 1: rested on a false premise. If they had teach the
Speaker 1: President of the United States for misleading the American people
Speaker 1: about what he could prove in the election, if they
Speaker 1: were going to say that it was just unpresidential to
Speaker 1: do that, that's their opinion, and they would be on
Speaker 1: much firmer ground. Although would that rise to a high
Speaker 1: crime and misdemeanor. No, But instead what they did was
Speaker 1: say it is a direct incitement to insurrection that President
Speaker 1: Trump is guilty of. It's his fault, you see, he
Speaker 1: called for this, and then they use that to ram
Speaker 1: through an impeachment that really ignored due process, which is
Speaker 1: supposed to exist even in Congress, ignored historical precedent, and
Speaker 1: was all about one thing, and one thing only, creating
Speaker 1: a one party state in America, the destruction of the
Speaker 1: Republican Party. It's always very amusing when Democrats say that
Speaker 1: they want to see Republicans speak truth to their own
Speaker 1: side and reform form when they really just want the collapse.
Speaker 1: And they understand that if the Republican elites and elected
Speaker 1: officials cave in to the Democrat mob on this one
Speaker 1: and cast out Trump entirely, try to erase his legacy
Speaker 1: and humiliate not just him but also his supporters, it
Speaker 1: will be a disaster for the Republican Party. This was
Speaker 1: all based on a lie. How do we know it's
Speaker 1: a lie that Trump incited an insurrection. It's obviously true.
Speaker 1: There was a riot. It's obviously true. It was criminal
Speaker 1: and wrong what happened in the Capitol Building. We've already
Speaker 1: said that. I'm not going to just keep repeating it
Speaker 1: endlessly so that the left wing, you know, destructors of
Speaker 1: conservative media, can't just get away with whatever they want.
Speaker 1: Right that's we're trying to prevent them from because right
Speaker 1: now they're on a witch on they want to ruin
Speaker 1: people on our side. But I have condemned it. I
Speaker 1: condemned it right away, and it was you know that, okay,
Speaker 1: But they're claiming that Trump was the reason for this. Now,
Speaker 1: part of the problem they have is what Trump actually said.
Speaker 1: Let's be very clear. Play clip three and only count
Speaker 1: the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I
Speaker 1: know that everyone here will soon be marching over to
Speaker 1: the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.
Speaker 1: Today we will see whether Republicans stand strong for integrity
Speaker 1: of our elections, but whether or not they stand strong
Speaker 1: for a country peacefully and patriotically have your voices heard.
Speaker 1: If that can be considered an incitement to violence, to
Speaker 1: mob violence for which you will be held legally responsible,
Speaker 1: which is what the Democrats are doing here. That's what
Speaker 1: they're saying. They will use a process of government to
Speaker 1: go after you, and they're even talking about possible criminal
Speaker 1: charges against Trump for this. If go peacefully speak your
Speaker 1: mind is now a criminal act. Political speech in this
Speaker 1: country is over on the conservative side. We're done because
Speaker 1: they'll just say anything that they don't like. Anytime there's
Speaker 1: a rhetorical flourish, we say we must stand up and
Speaker 1: fight for our liberties. Oh, that's a call to violence,
Speaker 1: he said, fight. Oh you think that's extreme, You think
Speaker 1: they won't do it. We saw this coming. You should
Speaker 1: remember that for years the left was running a propaganda campaign.
Speaker 1: It started on the college campuses, then it filtered into
Speaker 1: the rest of the most woke outposts in society, and
Speaker 1: now it's mainstream. Now it's corporate culture. Now it's all
Speaker 1: over the place. Speech equals violence. That was the big
Speaker 1: change you saw the beginning of the Trump administration from
Speaker 1: the left. They were just openly saying that your words
Speaker 1: that I don't like are the equivalent of violence because
Speaker 1: it makes me feel sad or unsafe, or less than
Speaker 1: or whatever. Therefore, not only if speech equals violence, can
Speaker 1: the government shut it down? And as we know, the
Speaker 1: only speech that equals violence is conservative. According to the left,
Speaker 1: that's the way this game works. Not only does that happen,
Speaker 1: but if they use force to shut you down, they're
Speaker 1: justified in doing so. This is how anti fuck came about.
Speaker 1: Remember the origins, they were showing up at college campuses,
Speaker 1: threatening conservative speakers, threatening people that showed up to hear
Speaker 1: conservative speakers, and many of us said, this is a
Speaker 1: terrible harbinger of things to come. And now we see
Speaker 1: this is all the way at the top of the
Speaker 1: Democrat party. Say things that they don't like, and they
Speaker 1: will find a way to use the force of government
Speaker 1: even to shut you down. This is the death of
Speaker 1: free speech if this continues. And that's exactly the plan.
Speaker 1: Democrats think they have all the answers and there's no
Speaker 1: need for robust debate or exchange of ideas because their
Speaker 1: ideas are right and your ideas are violence. This is
Speaker 1: what they really think. This is their actual belief, and
Speaker 1: they are using this. They're taking action on this idea.
Speaker 1: And now with greater information about what really happened on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hills, we see more of the backstory, both in
Speaker 1: preparation for it and the social media giants actions around it.
Speaker 1: A lot of stuff that does not support the overall
Speaker 1: Democrat narrative. Here. What they impeach the president for yesterday
Speaker 1: was essentially Trump called for an insurrection in the Capitol.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. That's not true. He didn't do that,
Speaker 1: And there are many reasons you could point to. I
Speaker 1: played the actual pertinent audio of what he said, should
Speaker 1: happen peacefully. If someone says I call for non violence,
Speaker 1: and then one of that person's adherents says, oh, they
Speaker 1: said non violence, but I'm going to be violent. Is
Speaker 1: it that person's fault? Well, only if you're a Republican,
Speaker 1: only if you're a conservative. This was planned for weeks
Speaker 1: in advance. That's now clear. There were people who were
Speaker 1: gathering together online and this was what they wanted to do.
Speaker 1: So if that's the case, and it is, how can
Speaker 1: Donald Trump be guilty of incitement when there are preparations
Speaker 1: being made by people entirely independent of Trump and that
Speaker 1: that predated the speech in which he called for non
Speaker 1: violence anyway, Right, this is not to excuse all the
Speaker 1: stuff said about the election at all. I've got a
Speaker 1: problem with that. I think we were it was exaggerated
Speaker 1: to us, the information that they were going to be
Speaker 1: able to present. It was exaggerated. The likelihood. Now I
Speaker 1: always thought it was a very small likelihood, as you know,
Speaker 1: but it was adgerated on purpose to Trump voters that
Speaker 1: there was still a real hope here that the election
Speaker 1: was going to go his way. And that's that's actual.
Speaker 1: There should be some political accountability for that. That was wrong.
Speaker 1: But this incitement of violence stuff and attacking the capital
Speaker 1: because of Trump, that's just not fair. It's not true.
Speaker 1: But it's not enough, you see, it's not enough to
Speaker 1: point out what was said about the election afterwards that's
Speaker 1: in retrospect, that was inaccurate, or it was just an
Speaker 1: out and outlie because Democrats lied about the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election for four years. So we'll be able to dismiss
Speaker 1: that very very quickly. A lot of people just say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, Nancy Pelosi claimed the election was hijacked in
Speaker 1: the beginning of twenty seventeen, So what what's that all about.
Speaker 1: Ah No, they have to make it seem as though
Speaker 1: Trump is the leader of a domestic terrorist organization. That's
Speaker 1: what they're openly stating now. And that's because it gives
Speaker 1: them license not only to completely malign all of his supporters,
Speaker 1: which they just get joy from. I mean they like.
Speaker 1: Hating Trump supporters is something that gives great joy to
Speaker 1: the left, to know, deriding them, humiliating them. This Unfortunately
Speaker 1: for America, the Democrat Party really really has a culture
Speaker 1: of looking down on all Trump supporters. That's just the
Speaker 1: way it is. Voters. I mean, anybody, anybody you vote
Speaker 1: for Trump, You're a bad person. They've they've adopted it.
Speaker 1: I don't think everybody votes for Biden's a bad person.
Speaker 1: That's crazy. I think Joe Biden's a clown. And I
Speaker 1: think we're going to see just what a joke this
Speaker 1: whole presidency is when he's actually in charge. But then
Speaker 1: Kamala will take over him. We all know. But here's
Speaker 1: the other issue they've got. The social media companies all
Speaker 1: acted against Trump because they said he was the cause
Speaker 1: of this insurrection. Well, first of all, it was a riot.
Speaker 1: To call it an insurrection is also is also going
Speaker 1: beyond a fair a fair view of the facts here.
Speaker 1: It was absolutely a right and it was criminal. It
Speaker 1: was wrong, and we've said that. But they really thought
Speaker 1: what they were going to overtake the Capitol building and
Speaker 1: hold it. I mean, that's what a coup would be.
Speaker 1: That was the plan. I mean, I haven't seen any
Speaker 1: evidence to suggest that. I've certainly seen there are people
Speaker 1: that were running around taking selfies, and there were people
Speaker 1: that were attacking police officers, which is something that you
Speaker 1: can't do. It's a crime, you can't do that. But
Speaker 1: the social media companies shut Trump down because they said
Speaker 1: that he was a threat of violence. The Democrats then
Speaker 1: used this premise that Trump was himself a threat of
Speaker 1: violence to d platform him. Well, Trump is still in office,
Speaker 1: and the same platforms where most of the planning for
Speaker 1: the riot occurred are very much still in business. Because
Speaker 1: guess what, this won't be a surprise to you. It
Speaker 1: wasn't parlor where most of the actual riot planning occurred.
Speaker 1: According to left wing analysts of this now in the media. Oh,
Speaker 1: it was happening somewhere else on the internet, a very wealthy,
Speaker 1: very very powerful company. In fact, you're in the freedom
Speaker 1: of This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. As
Speaker 1: I have said, the incursion of the US capital struck
Speaker 1: at the very heart of our republic. It angered and
Speaker 1: appalled millions of Americans across the political spectrum. I want
Speaker 1: to be very clear, I unequivocally condemned the violence that
Speaker 1: we saw last week. Violence and vandalism have absolutely no
Speaker 1: place in our country and no place in our movement.
Speaker 1: Making America great again has always been about defending the
Speaker 1: rule of law, supporting the men and women of law enforcement,
Speaker 1: and upholding our nation's most sacred traditions and values. Mob
Speaker 1: violence goes against everything I believe in and everything our
Speaker 1: movement stands for. There's President Trump saying that he condemns
Speaker 1: all of the illegal activity the riot at the Capitol,
Speaker 1: all of it, and that it goes outside of, or
Speaker 1: goes against and is outside of his movement. Entirely. Maybe
Speaker 1: the people that were saying that I was a traitor
Speaker 1: to Trump because I said right away the Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: riot was a disaster and not what Mago was about.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I haven't gotten any apologies from them yet,
Speaker 1: not that I matter, It doesn't matter. But I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: you know, we all have to be clear eyed about this.
Speaker 1: We have to know what is true. And people out
Speaker 1: there who were telling you the day of oh, this
Speaker 1: is not something that's terrible, they were pandering and they
Speaker 1: were lying, and they have bad judgment. I mean talking
Speaker 1: to people in the media, because there were some of them,
Speaker 1: there were some a handful, and then I think even
Speaker 1: they backed off. But that's the President saying that this
Speaker 1: is not something that he would ever condone. He does
Speaker 1: not want political violence. It's against what he stands for.
Speaker 1: He gave an excellent speech, had to release it on
Speaker 1: the White House Official White House Official Twitter page instead
Speaker 1: of the real Donald Trump one because it no longer exists.
Speaker 1: And now why is that Donald Trump was kicked off
Speaker 1: of Twitter? What's the reasoning given by Jack Dorsey, the CEO.
Speaker 1: Why they do this because they said that he was
Speaker 1: a risk of violence but the Iranian revolutionary regime is
Speaker 1: still able to have public pronouncements. There's all kinds of
Speaker 1: awful people on Twitter that call for violence and genocide
Speaker 1: and terrible things. They don't lose their accounts, so we
Speaker 1: know the standard is applied entirely unevenly. A standard is
Speaker 1: used to silence conservatives and to silence Trump most of all.
Speaker 1: But there's something else. You know. They shut down Parlor,
Speaker 1: and we had Dan Bongino want to talk about that.
Speaker 1: They shut down Parlor because they claimed that that's where
Speaker 1: the Capitol Hill riot was being planned and there was
Speaker 1: all this ugly stuff on there. Well, that's a lie
Speaker 1: insofar as there's no more on Parlor than there is
Speaker 1: on Facebook. In fact, most of the violence and awful
Speaker 1: stuff that was being shared online about the Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: riot was wait for it, on Facebook. They've been analyzing
Speaker 1: this looking at it. Facebook was because it has a
Speaker 1: much larger user base. I said this as soon as
Speaker 1: this happened. Is there's crazy stuff on Facebook all the time. Ah.
Speaker 1: But Amazon Web Services Amazon crushed Parlor And did you
Speaker 1: know that Parlor was actually working with Amazon and trying
Speaker 1: to take action to improve its moderation they're saying, yes,
Speaker 1: we want to get rid of bad content. We want
Speaker 1: to get rid of violent and you know, evil racist
Speaker 1: stuff on Parlor, the same way that there's that terrible
Speaker 1: stuff on all the social media platforms. But Parlor doesn't
Speaker 1: have quite the resources. So they were getting behind it,
Speaker 1: they were working to be better on it. They have
Speaker 1: terms of service and they have a rule of law standard.
Speaker 1: But they crushed Parlor. It didn't crush Twitter. It didn't
Speaker 1: shut down Facebook obviously. Now let's let's look at this
Speaker 1: for a second. Here is what is the new standard
Speaker 1: that has been set up. It is now established that
Speaker 1: Facebook book was the place that allowed the Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: riot to be planned more so than any other. Well,
Speaker 1: given what we've been told in recent days, that means
Speaker 1: that Amazon and Google and you name it need to ambush,
Speaker 1: take down and destroy Facebook. It's a question of life
Speaker 1: and death. It's a question of our democracy and preventing
Speaker 1: political violence. Awful things were planned on Facebook. So I
Speaker 1: guess those really moral and ethical major tech companies are
Speaker 1: all going to unite to take down and destroy Facebook.
Speaker 1: That could happen. Amazon and Google could do a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of damage to Facebook if they wanted to, but
Speaker 1: they won't. Oh, you mean the standard isn't really a standard.
Speaker 1: It's an excuse they wanted to shut down Parlor. They
Speaker 1: wanted to destroy it. Why is that? Well, in Parlor's
Speaker 1: lawsuit they show that that one of the questions that
Speaker 1: Amazon was asking them when they were trying to prevent,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to stop them from shutting them down,
Speaker 1: was is Donald Trump moving to Parlor? That's what they
Speaker 1: really wanted to know. Well, here's the problem with that.
Speaker 1: If you have a bunch of companies that work together
Speaker 1: to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't move to Parlor,
Speaker 1: which would then make Parlor go up in growth by
Speaker 1: exponential numbers in just a matter of days. That looks
Speaker 1: like good old fashioned anti competitive collusion, doesn't it. There
Speaker 1: are laws about things like this. Anti competitive practices aren't allowed.
Speaker 1: You're not allowed to price fix and you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to person fix either. When it comes to social media platforms,
Speaker 1: this lawsuit could get a whole lot more interesting. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The bus Essen Show podcasts. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Now what you hear is, well, you
Speaker 1: can't say that everybody who voted for Trump is like
Speaker 1: the people who went into the Capitol. Response, you can't
Speaker 1: say that what everybody's like, everybody who Trumps like them. Now,
Speaker 1: I just explain to you if you if if you
Speaker 1: are on that side, you need to think about the
Speaker 1: sides are on. I'm never on the side of the clan.
Speaker 1: I am net principal people conservative or liberal. Never on
Speaker 1: the clan side. Principal people conservative or liberal, Never on
Speaker 1: the Nazi side. Principal people who are conservative or liberal.
Speaker 1: Never on the side that treats their their fellow Americans
Speaker 1: as less than that says that your fellow Americans should
Speaker 1: not exist, that said, that says your fellow Americans should
Speaker 1: be in a concentration camp, or that sides with slavery,
Speaker 1: or sides with any sort of bigots. Right. And if
Speaker 1: I say I don't agree with those people, I just
Speaker 1: like Trump's policy, well then get out of the crowd
Speaker 1: with him. Get out of the crowd. I wasn't in
Speaker 1: the crowd. I just voted for Trump. You're in the
Speaker 1: crowd who voted for Trump. If you voted for Trump,
Speaker 1: you voted for the person who the clan supported. You
Speaker 1: voted for the person who not sees support. You voted
Speaker 1: for the person who the alt right supports. That's the
Speaker 1: crowd that you are in. You need to hear this
Speaker 1: because I know a lot of you will dismiss that's
Speaker 1: Don Lemon at CNN. He is very dumb, as are
Speaker 1: many anchors at CNN. He is very dumb. Who cares
Speaker 1: what he says? He is vocalizing. The reason he's doing
Speaker 1: this is because it appeals to his audience, and he
Speaker 1: is vocalizing, meaning the CNN CNN viewership, what they feel
Speaker 1: back to them, because that drives ratings. His audience thinks
Speaker 1: exactly what he's saying. You should know that they believe
Speaker 1: that if you voted for Trump, you are guilty in
Speaker 1: the way that he's suggesting. You are guilty of being
Speaker 1: the supporter of a white supremacist. You're guilty being a
Speaker 1: supporter of a I mean, I didn't even say Nazi.
Speaker 1: Now I know that for a lot of you. That
Speaker 1: was also a particularly painful recitation of allegations from Don
Speaker 1: Lemon because those things he's talking about, putting people in camps, slavery,
Speaker 1: the ku klux Klan, those are all things for which
Speaker 1: we have the Democrat Party. The Democrat Party must be
Speaker 1: held responsible. The Democrats were the pro slavery party. The
Speaker 1: Democrats were the Jim Crow Party. The Democrats were the
Speaker 1: segregation party. The Democrats were the Interment of Japanese Americans party.
Speaker 1: That's just fact, that's just true. But notice that now
Speaker 1: they put her all on Republicans. Do you think that
Speaker 1: they care one bit that Donald Trump managed to get
Speaker 1: more of the black and Latino vote than any previous
Speaker 1: GOP candidate in twenty years for the presidency. Does that matter? No,
Speaker 1: that doesn't matter. Do they take any indicator of that
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of people who are black
Speaker 1: and Latino who see Donald Trump and understand that, now,
Speaker 1: this guy's actually not a racist. He's imperfect, he's rough
Speaker 1: around the edges. Not a racist, though, But they need
Speaker 1: to have Donald Trump viewed as somebody who you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to support. It's not even that you have bad
Speaker 1: judgment for doing it. If you do it, you are
Speaker 1: transgressing and should be punished. I've been telling you this
Speaker 1: all week. It's about humiliating Trump voters. It's about forcing
Speaker 1: you into a society where you're basically in a constant
Speaker 1: re education camp online, in the office, for your job,
Speaker 1: online at the grocery store. If you voted for Trump,
Speaker 1: you're a bad person and you have you have something
Speaker 1: to atone for. That's what they want you to feel.
Speaker 1: That's what they want you to think, and it's just wrong.
Speaker 1: It's just wrong on so many levels, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: so there are many people that vote for Trump and
Speaker 1: feel like he's very flawed and has made some bad
Speaker 1: some plenty of bad decisions. But overall they first of all,
Speaker 1: like the Republican Party. With the Democrat Party, I mean,
Speaker 1: we could sit here, we're really going to talk about this.
Speaker 1: I mean, Democrats are are the party of the celebration
Speaker 1: of abortion, for example, which is which is just mora
Speaker 1: le heinous. I mean, they can sit around and try
Speaker 1: to come up with all kinds of rationalizations and justifications
Speaker 1: and slogans and my body, my choice and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Not on vaccines, by the way, my body, my choice
Speaker 1: doesn't apply to that for Democrats. But at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, we realize what abortion is, and the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party has embraced this, and I do believe that
Speaker 1: it's a moral rot at the center of their conscience
Speaker 1: that affects everything else that they do and see, and
Speaker 1: their their view of the world around them starts with
Speaker 1: they have convinced themselves that convenience is more important than
Speaker 1: human life. That's that's a very corrosive moral proposition. But
Speaker 1: if we're really going to do this, we're going to
Speaker 1: hold people accountable. Start to look at what democrats have
Speaker 1: done and what they really believe. I mean that the
Speaker 1: expansion of the term white supremacy. That's that's been underway
Speaker 1: now for years. I've been warning about this. I told
Speaker 1: you this is now just a This is a a
Speaker 1: more weaponized version of the old everything is racist routine
Speaker 1: that Democrats used to do anything that they didn't like,
Speaker 1: all that's racist, that's racist. All through the nineties and
Speaker 1: the early two thousands, that's what they would say. You know,
Speaker 1: you would oppose democrats. Ah, it's because you're a white guy,
Speaker 1: you're racist. Wait what, I just want less government interference
Speaker 1: in my life and lower taxes. That makes me? That
Speaker 1: makes me racist? Ah, that's racist. Now it's your white supremacist.
Speaker 1: Because that lost, that accusation of baseless racism lost its sting,
Speaker 1: It lost its impact over time. So what they what
Speaker 1: they have now is your white supremacist. That's what they say.
Speaker 1: And if you think that's any kind of exaggeration. This
Speaker 1: was yesterday during the another a second sham impeachment process
Speaker 1: against the president. Here's a representative Corey Corey Bush, referring
Speaker 1: to well, you'll hear what he says about Trump, play too.
Speaker 1: Saint Louis and I rise in support of the article
Speaker 1: of impeachment against Donald J. Trump. If we fail to
Speaker 1: remove a white supremacist president who incited a white supremacist insurrection,
Speaker 1: it's communities like Missouri's first District that suffered the most.
Speaker 1: The one hundred and seventeenth Congress must understand that we
Speaker 1: have a mandate to legislate in defensive black lives. The
Speaker 1: first step in that process is to root out white supremacy.
Speaker 1: Is starting with impeaching the white supremacist in chief. This
Speaker 1: is what she said, starting with the white supremacist in chief.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's a New York guy, grew up in Queens
Speaker 1: in Manhattan. Nobody thought he was racist until he ran
Speaker 1: for president, and now he's a white supremacist. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: that's because they're really taking a fair view of any
Speaker 1: of this CNN's Andy McCabe. Oh, you mean, if you
Speaker 1: were part of the resistance and you abused your power.
Speaker 1: Andy McCabe seemed really seems like a sociopath. And this
Speaker 1: is a guy who's a Democrat activist who was the
Speaker 1: acting FBI director and would do anything to protect the
Speaker 1: Democrat establishment, the deep state in the swamp, and was
Speaker 1: sanctimonious about it too, and really believes the MSNBC talking points.
Speaker 1: He's now a purveyor of CNN talking points, which is
Speaker 1: the same thing. Oh, it's all about It's all about
Speaker 1: coded language. The coded language allegation here, this is one
Speaker 1: you've been hearing for quite some time. Play eight. President
Speaker 1: Trump is a master at coded language and the use
Speaker 1: of dog whistles. And there is no question that that
Speaker 1: statement included some of those same references. Simply by leaving
Speaker 1: out the comments that you've mentioned, he sends a signal
Speaker 1: to his folks to fight on. He has never come
Speaker 1: out and formally undercut the central theory of this of
Speaker 1: this domestic terrorist rebellion, which is that the lie that
Speaker 1: the election was stolen from them, and his failure to
Speaker 1: do it last night is absolutely unforgivable. I dismissed that
Speaker 1: statement as as a self serving attempt at damage control.
Speaker 1: So Annie McCabe is a despicable person. We know that.
Speaker 1: And this is a guy that that yells at subordinates
Speaker 1: for leaks that he himself gave to newspapers when he's
Speaker 1: at the FBI. I mean, what a what a scummy
Speaker 1: thing to do. And this is a guy who was
Speaker 1: part of the at the very top of the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion smear against the president, which was more than just
Speaker 1: a mean thing to say in the press. They they
Speaker 1: mobilized the criminal, the criminal investigatory and prosecutorial arms of
Speaker 1: the federal government to go after a president because he
Speaker 1: says mean things about the New York Times and CNN.
Speaker 1: That's what Annie McCabe was at the top of that effort.
Speaker 1: No accountability really for him. I know he was fired,
Speaker 1: but the guys should have been the should have been
Speaker 1: fired and investigated for criminal abuse of power. And you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not a big lock him up guy. I'm not
Speaker 1: all this person you're going to president, you know, because
Speaker 1: I think we have to be very careful with that.
Speaker 1: But Annie McCay, what he did was real abuse, real
Speaker 1: misuse of position. But coded language. You see, even when
Speaker 1: Trump says don't be violent, it doesn't matter because when
Speaker 1: Trump says don't be violent and be peaceful, what he's
Speaker 1: really saying, according to the left and the Libs, is yeah,
Speaker 1: be terrorists mounted insurrection. So it doesn't matter what he says,
Speaker 1: they're gonna stay with this. Oh and you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to believe that the election had any problems whatsoever or else.
Speaker 1: You're also if you think that there was still fraud
Speaker 1: in this election, you Andy McKay wants people to know,
Speaker 1: are are encouraging an insurrection and domestic terrorists agree with
Speaker 1: us on politics, or you're a terrorist. That's the Democrat
Speaker 1: position right now. That's that's being given voice all across
Speaker 1: the media, and it's it's being echoed all throughout the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. And it's disgusting. Oh but they want they
Speaker 1: want unity. Yeah, sure they do. You're in the Hut.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast pushing this idea
Speaker 1: that the attack on the Capitol last week bore any
Speaker 1: resemblance to the Black Lives Matters pro tests over the summer.
Speaker 1: It's not just dumb, it's disgusting. Stop comparing protesters marching
Speaker 1: to protect their rights with anarchists storming an election to
Speaker 1: strip us of ours. Stop it, you sound stupid, Okay?
Speaker 1: So who are the people that were smashing and looting
Speaker 1: stores and throwing rocks and Moltsof cocktails at cops? Because
Speaker 1: because Jimmy Kimmel, late night comedian, seems so sure that
Speaker 1: it's a disgusting thing to talk about blm peaceful marchers.
Speaker 1: So I just want to know who destroyed hundreds and
Speaker 1: hundreds of businesses across the country, looted them, burned some
Speaker 1: to the ground. Who burned that police station to the
Speaker 1: ground in Minnesota. Who threw a Moltsof cocktail into a
Speaker 1: cop car here in New York City? Who shot to
Speaker 1: La County Sheriff's deputies almost killed them, both, shot them
Speaker 1: the neck. Who did all that? Wasn't Trump supporters? Right?
Speaker 1: Who were the people that caused millions and millions of
Speaker 1: dollars of damage to public and private property because they
Speaker 1: were unhappy about policing? I just want to know it
Speaker 1: wasn't Trump voters. But see if you point out that
Speaker 1: there was something nasty about any of that, If you
Speaker 1: point out that there were people spitting in cops faces,
Speaker 1: calling black police officers. This is on video, horrible racial slurs,
Speaker 1: undermining them as human beings doing everything they can. If
Speaker 1: you point any of that out, you're the problem. Jimmy
Speaker 1: Gonna look, Jimmy Kimmel is a moron, but he's a
Speaker 1: very rich comedian because the guy's played in the system
Speaker 1: and done what he's had to do to get ahead.
Speaker 1: But if you take your political advice from this guy,
Speaker 1: you're just not very smart because he's not very smart. Rich, yes,
Speaker 1: has a big audience. Unfortunately is known as a good person. No,
Speaker 1: it's actually considered a really vicious soob inside the industry said,
Speaker 1: how do you know that? Because I know people who
Speaker 1: know people who work in the entertainment industry. I am
Speaker 1: far away from all that stuff. But he's not the
Speaker 1: only one who's got the rhetoric dialed up to the
Speaker 1: act absolute maximum. Here you have somebody who is at
Speaker 1: least smarter than Jimmy Kimmel. Bro Cuomo over at CNN
Speaker 1: talking about how that you know this is it looks
Speaker 1: like war zone stuff going on right now. Play sixteen.
Speaker 1: The Secret Service is now too concerned about violence that
Speaker 1: President elect Biden will no longer be able to travel
Speaker 1: on Amtrak from his home in Wilmington, Delaware. Because of
Speaker 1: the in the wake of what happened and all the
Speaker 1: chatter about potential threats, security is being heightened at capitals
Speaker 1: all across America, all fifty state capitals under thread of
Speaker 1: armed protests in the run up to inauguration. No external
Speaker 1: terrorists ever did this to us. We've never worried like this,
Speaker 1: even after nine to eleven. I didn't read about it
Speaker 1: in a book. I lived it. I was there that morning,
Speaker 1: I was there for days, weeks. I lost people. I
Speaker 1: covered it. I went to train and then I wars abroad.
Speaker 1: I've seen ugly things, but this country now resembles. But
Speaker 1: I've never seen this country more in doubt about safety
Speaker 1: at home than right now. And the enemy is us now.
Speaker 1: I just want to be clear that they are talking
Speaker 1: about what happened at Capitol Hill. The enemy is us.
Speaker 1: He means Trump supporters, by the way, he doesn't mean
Speaker 1: just the general American people. He means Trump supporters. They're
Speaker 1: talking about Capitol Hill the way that they would speak
Speaker 1: about it if men were you know, if men and
Speaker 1: women you know, armed went into the building to take
Speaker 1: it over. And we're firing at police officers. Now there
Speaker 1: are people that storm the building, no question, it's horrible.
Speaker 1: There are people that were pushing through and attack and
Speaker 1: punching cops. But they didn't actually go in there armed
Speaker 1: with rifles as part of a coup to take over
Speaker 1: the building and hold it as that would be an insurrection.
Speaker 1: And they're speaking about this like that is what happened
Speaker 1: is a riot. Let's let's remember it was people planning
Speaker 1: what they what they thought was a violent political spectacle.
Speaker 1: But within the limitations of not actually going force on
Speaker 1: force against say, the National Guard, with guns blazing and
Speaker 1: and all. That's what you see in countries where there's
Speaker 1: actually a coup. I mean, the people that stormed the
Speaker 1: Capitol building didn't think that if the National Guard the
Speaker 1: FBI were called in that they were going to be
Speaker 1: able to fight them off. Now I know these distinctions,
Speaker 1: This honesty about what actually happened is very this is
Speaker 1: very tense right now, you're not allowed to say these things.
Speaker 1: But insurrection would be the overthrow of the United States government.
Speaker 1: The people that ran into that building, were they really
Speaker 1: going to overthrow? Some of them might be deeply mentally
Speaker 1: ill and think that they could accomplish that, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure we'll hear about them and their text messages about
Speaker 1: how they're gonna, you know, they're gonna be putting a
Speaker 1: new dictator in charge something, or that the Trump will
Speaker 1: be president for fifty years or whatever. But overall, you
Speaker 1: had people who made a very bad decision, and as
Speaker 1: we see it has unfortunately played right into Democrat hands
Speaker 1: about authoritarianism and a crackdown on Trump voters and all
Speaker 1: of this. In that sense, it is a disaster. Maxie
Speaker 1: and Waters, speaking of overheated rhetoric, Maxie and Waters has
Speaker 1: said the following about Trump Play twelve. It is reported
Speaker 1: that the President of the United States watch the invasion
Speaker 1: from the Oval office of our capital and seemingly enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: I want you to know we should be concerned that
Speaker 1: the Republicans will not defend him, and he is capable
Speaker 1: of studying a civil war. He must be impeached, He
Speaker 1: must be stopped. Now. The president is not going to
Speaker 1: start a civil war. This kind of talk is not helping.
Speaker 1: This is not this is not making everybody feel better
Speaker 1: about the future of the country. This is not making
Speaker 1: everything calm down and moved to the peaceful transition here
Speaker 1: when you're talking about eighty to nine of Republicans all
Speaker 1: completely condemning what happened at Capitol Hill, the riot, And
Speaker 1: that's what the numbers are those are listening, it's eighty
Speaker 1: to ninety percent of Republicans are saying what happened there
Speaker 1: was was just was awful, that there is very very
Speaker 1: clear condemnation of this. Now they still, I understand, the
Speaker 1: left will still play this game of oh, BLM, there
Speaker 1: were no riots. I mean, it is the the biggest
Speaker 1: gas lighting I think we've ever seen in this country,
Speaker 1: at least in my lifetime. There were no BLM riots.
Speaker 1: Who was doing all the rioting, who was marching around
Speaker 1: in the streets at night, breaking windows, stealing from Lena
Speaker 1: Louis Vuitton stores in sneaker stores, and throwing rocks at
Speaker 1: cops and lighting things on fire. Who's doing all of that?
Speaker 1: Not BLM peaceful protesters. They say, well, who was in
Speaker 1: charge of all of that? But no, Instead we have
Speaker 1: talked now of civil war. And the Democrats think about
Speaker 1: what they were able to do with the Russia collusion lie.
Speaker 1: Now they're going to be taken act taking action on
Speaker 1: the Trump insurrection. Lie, that's their plan. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The Busson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Our friend Sean Parnell is back with us now. He
Speaker 1: is a former Army ranger and bestselling author and was
Speaker 1: a candidate for Pennsylvania seventeenth District for Congress in this
Speaker 1: most recent election. He's also a commentator. You'll see him
Speaker 1: on TV and obviously listen to him here on radio. Sean,
Speaker 1: great to have you. Good to be back, Buck, Thank
Speaker 1: you for having me at what is a very interesting
Speaker 1: time in our country, to say the least. Yeah. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: we're going to a buy inauguration here just days away.
Speaker 1: You're seeing all these photos of that the media are
Speaker 1: sharing all over the place of National guardsmen not just
Speaker 1: being in DC, but but sleeping on the floor of
Speaker 1: the Capitol. I mean as though they're preparing for a
Speaker 1: foreign invasion. I mean, that's that's the the the visual
Speaker 1: that you're supposed to take from this. How are how
Speaker 1: are you seeing the political scene right now? What are
Speaker 1: your what are your just your broad thoughts about where
Speaker 1: where we as conservatives are at this moment. Well, I,
Speaker 1: first of all, I think it's it's America is on
Speaker 1: the brink. As you probably already know. Democrats haven't they
Speaker 1: don't even have all three branches of government yet, but
Speaker 1: they've already proposed a resolution in the House for a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college. Right, So, I
Speaker 1: think what this country can conservatives, uh specifically can expect
Speaker 1: over the next two years are some of the most
Speaker 1: radical pieces of legislation would fundamentally transform America as we
Speaker 1: know it. And you know, you've got this impeachment going
Speaker 1: on in the House and and strategically Buck you know, look,
Speaker 1: I don't think that the president incited a riot. I
Speaker 1: don't think that what he did rises to an impeachable offense.
Speaker 1: And if you read the transcript, indeed you'll see that
Speaker 1: for yourself said peacefully, you know, go peacefully, make your
Speaker 1: voices heard. That doesn't mean that the riot at the
Speaker 1: Capitol was acceptable. It wasn't, But at least have the
Speaker 1: moral courage to say that Antifa and Black Lives Matter
Speaker 1: rioting all year in twenty twenty that wasn't acceptable either,
Speaker 1: you know, violence for political to establish some sort of
Speaker 1: political end. It is never acceptable. But what the president
Speaker 1: did I don't believe rise to an impeachable offense. But
Speaker 1: the Democrats expected response was to impeach the president for
Speaker 1: a second time, sultaneously preaching unity. And here here's the
Speaker 1: problem with that. With that, Buck, I I think that
Speaker 1: this impeachment moved from a tactical and strategic standpoint on
Speaker 1: the Democrat side, I'm speaking just politically. I think that
Speaker 1: they know in their heart of hearts that what the
Speaker 1: president did to not rise to incitement of violence or
Speaker 1: incitement of some sort of riot. But I think that
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do is separate traditional GOP from
Speaker 1: the Trump base. That that makes sense going into twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two because if you're a candidate, whether you're running
Speaker 1: for the House or the Senate, right now, conservatives have
Speaker 1: got to walk a very fine line to bring both
Speaker 1: of those groups out right, traditional members of the GOP
Speaker 1: and the Trump base, especially in states like Pennsylvania. So
Speaker 1: this impeachment, what's going on right now is really, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, from a strategic standpoint, to divide the party
Speaker 1: and separate traditional GOOP from the Trump base. And right
Speaker 1: now it's working, and the GEOP should recognize that and
Speaker 1: not allow them to do it. It doesn't mean, by
Speaker 1: the way, it doesn't mean that we should accept what
Speaker 1: happened as the Capitol as the norm. We shouldn't. It's
Speaker 1: not acceptable. As I mentioned, violence to establish some sort
Speaker 1: of political end is never acceptable. But you know, I conservatives,
Speaker 1: it's it's disheartening to me sometimes buck to seek conservatives
Speaker 1: not circle their wagons and fight. The Democrats always fight.
Speaker 1: They unify and they fight, and they do it quite effectively.
Speaker 1: Republicans don't. And quite honestly, it's a leadership issue that
Speaker 1: I hope moving forward is resolved because we don't win
Speaker 1: elections unless we as a party as united. We as
Speaker 1: a party are united, and that's where I think the
Speaker 1: leadership needs to focus. Now, what do you make of
Speaker 1: the the big tech censorship effort that's still that's still
Speaker 1: ongoing now, especially given we found out that a lot
Speaker 1: of the Capitol Hill riot and this is according to
Speaker 1: left wing analysis, was actually planned on Facebook, not on Parlor.
Speaker 1: But Parlor gets shut down. That seems like, yes, they
Speaker 1: don't like it because it's a place where conservatives can
Speaker 1: speak without the left's not even thumb but elbow on
Speaker 1: the scale for the other side. But also it seems
Speaker 1: like they really wanted to prevent a mass migration from
Speaker 1: Twitter users to Parlor users to create a new conservative
Speaker 1: digital ecosystem. No, you're exactly right. I look, big tech
Speaker 1: censorship is a problem, But perhaps more concerting than that
Speaker 1: is the collusion between big tech I e. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon.
Speaker 1: You know the line of thinking as well. You know
Speaker 1: a lot of people will tell you, oh, they're a
Speaker 1: private company. If you can't follow their terms of service,
Speaker 1: well you don't belong on the platform and deserve to
Speaker 1: get footed. But the problem is their terms of service
Speaker 1: constantly change, right, you never really know what they are,
Speaker 1: and they always end up censoring one group. And so
Speaker 1: the line of thinking as well, start your own social
Speaker 1: media platform. And so with Parlor they did that, and
Speaker 1: then it was Apple saying, well, we're going to remove
Speaker 1: you from the app store. We'll start your own start
Speaker 1: your own website. You can start your own website. And
Speaker 1: then Amazon removed them from the server. Right, So what's
Speaker 1: the next step, meaningful step after that, start your own
Speaker 1: internet company. I don't know. The point is, I do
Speaker 1: recognize the sensitivity of a private company being able to
Speaker 1: call the shots and I don't like the government forcing
Speaker 1: them to do business a certain way, but in this instance,
Speaker 1: I think that there is a monopoly. There was a
Speaker 1: level of collusion going on to crush opposition, and in
Speaker 1: this case what it was is parlor and I think
Speaker 1: separately but also related shutting down the president of the
Speaker 1: United States. Now, his official Twitter account is still active,
Speaker 1: and I think critics would say, well, they left his
Speaker 1: official Twitter account active, but they removed tweets from that
Speaker 1: as well. Right, is this not a national security issue?
Speaker 1: If for some reason there was a national security issue
Speaker 1: that required the president's attention and the president needed to
Speaker 1: reach as many people in the country as he could
Speaker 1: at a specific time. If if a tech company like
Speaker 1: Twitter or Facebook can simply flip a switch and prevent
Speaker 1: him from doing that, does that not have national security implications?
Speaker 1: Especially when Yeah, while Twitter and Facebook there are certainly
Speaker 1: based here in America that they're they're a global company,
Speaker 1: you know, And so how much investment in Twitter and
Speaker 1: in Facebook and in Amazon or how much of the
Speaker 1: marketplace is in communist China, Right, that's a big deal.
Speaker 1: And if the communist Chinese can leverage any sort of
Speaker 1: financial power over some of these big tech companies, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, communist China can do that, and these
Speaker 1: tech tech companies can then flip a switch and prevent
Speaker 1: the president of the United States from from leading this
Speaker 1: country in a crisis. Is that not a national security issue?
Speaker 1: And does that not demand some form of legislation to
Speaker 1: prevent that from happening? And what you're seeing people people
Speaker 1: in countries like Germany have come out and condemned what
Speaker 1: big tech has done to the president. France has come
Speaker 1: out and condemned what big tech is in terms of
Speaker 1: centurying the president, and Poland is really putting forth meaningful
Speaker 1: legislation to ensure that something like that can't happen in
Speaker 1: their country. So I don't think it's as simple of
Speaker 1: saying repeal Section two thirty, because I think that that
Speaker 1: would destroy independent media period right, But there certainly needs
Speaker 1: to be reforms made to make sure that companies like
Speaker 1: this can't ban key leaders. It's being a Sean Parnell,
Speaker 1: former Army Ranger, best selling author, and he just ran
Speaker 1: in this election for Pennsylvania seventeen for Congress in a
Speaker 1: nailbiter and to that and Sean, we've we've had you
Speaker 1: on to talk about your your concerns about election integrity,
Speaker 1: specifically in the state of Pennsylvania. Is it effectively now
Speaker 1: very hard to almost impossible, let's say, to speak about
Speaker 1: pub luckily those things on digital platforms without fear of
Speaker 1: you know, to speak about real Look, they change rules
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania. We've talked about, talked about this many times.
Speaker 1: They they moved around how you know, the how early
Speaker 1: and how late people could vote, and when the votes
Speaker 1: would be counted, and what you had to do with
Speaker 1: the mail in ballot procedures. All kinds of shifts that
Speaker 1: were made. Do you ever get to get dinged or
Speaker 1: do you ever have of a concern that you might
Speaker 1: be shut down and deep platformed just for talking about
Speaker 1: that stuff? Yes? And yeah, and I won't go into specifics,
Speaker 1: but it's already happening. Like you like you, Buck and
Speaker 1: many other conservatives on Twitter, I've lost close to forty
Speaker 1: thousand followers in a week, um, and and more followers
Speaker 1: on Facebook and Instagram and things like that. And I
Speaker 1: think this this brings me to the second point of
Speaker 1: this impeachment. Uh, the democratic strategy behind the impeachment is
Speaker 1: to sort of put forth like like the the idea
Speaker 1: that if you talk about election integrity there are issues
Speaker 1: that pertain to twenty twenty, then therefore you're inciting violence. Right,
Speaker 1: That's a real problem. And I think the Democrats right
Speaker 1: now and again the second tier of their strategy with
Speaker 1: his impeachment is to make any discussion of election integrity
Speaker 1: wold is in a public form on social media a
Speaker 1: thought crime when there are really there, really are valid
Speaker 1: questions to be had here, right. And so your question
Speaker 1: of what's the way forward in Pennsylvania, well, yes, it
Speaker 1: is difficult to talk about in public. Were there issues?
Speaker 1: Were there issues as they pertain to this election? Yes?
Speaker 1: Are those issues resolved right now? What less than a
Speaker 1: week prior to inauguration? No, they haven't been involved. They
Speaker 1: haven't been resolved. In fact, there's still a voter deficit
Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania that's yet to be resolved in what that
Speaker 1: essentially means more votes than voters. Have been criticized for
Speaker 1: that online, saying that it's been debunked. It's not been debunked.
Speaker 1: The only thing that the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: has said is that that the information that I'm presenting
Speaker 1: is based on incomplete data and I turn around and
Speaker 1: I say to the Secretary of State, Well, then if
Speaker 1: the data is incomplete, how then do you certify the
Speaker 1: races in the state of Pennsylvania on November twenty fourth,
Speaker 1: when they're still technically in the state of Pennsylvania more
Speaker 1: votes than voters. Now, she'll probably say, well, as time
Speaker 1: goes on, that gap will close. Well, in Montgomery County,
Speaker 1: for example, Buck, there's still a voter depicit, right, there's
Speaker 1: still a voter depicite of over six thousand votes, in
Speaker 1: other words, more votes than voters. And they've been done
Speaker 1: right for about four weeks. Now. It doesn't mean they're
Speaker 1: not working to resolve that. It doesn't mean that that
Speaker 1: gap won't close, but they've been officially done counting for
Speaker 1: about a month. So moving forward, right, Discussing this stuff
Speaker 1: moving forward for me is not about overturning twenty twenty right,
Speaker 1: it's not about that. But if we don't us this
Speaker 1: stuff now, well, then how can we guarantee you know,
Speaker 1: municipal elections in twenty twenty one, where mail and ballots
Speaker 1: are being sent out for in what a few months
Speaker 1: just for municipal election, and then in twenty twenty two
Speaker 1: there's a gubernatorial election. There will be a gubernatorial election
Speaker 1: in a Senate race here in the state of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: We've got to have these wrinkles ironed out prior to
Speaker 1: that time or the situation will get worse. There's state
Speaker 1: law in Pennsylvania PA statute I think thirty one fifty
Speaker 1: four says that the books at the precinct, county, and
Speaker 1: state state level must be reconciled prior to certification. And
Speaker 1: right now they're not. And so that's a problem we've got.
Speaker 1: We've got to be able to talk about it and
Speaker 1: discussions just like this to make sure that it doesn't
Speaker 1: happen moving forward. You know, I posted on Facebook today
Speaker 1: buck about Look, you know, we're going to see some
Speaker 1: very radical pieces of legislation moving forward. They've already, like
Speaker 1: I said, they've already got a resolution to propose a
Speaker 1: constitutional amendment to abolish the elect to or college. I
Speaker 1: think conservatives can reasonably expect, you know, Washington at Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. And Puerto Rico statehood. I think there's an
Speaker 1: argument to be made the left is going to try
Speaker 1: to pack the Supreme Court all things that you've addressed
Speaker 1: on your show before. Look, these things are coming. And
Speaker 1: when the Democrats wield power and control all three branches
Speaker 1: of government, they are never afraid to wield it. But
Speaker 1: that does not mean that we should stop fighting. In fact,
Speaker 1: what I've called for, you know, my supporters and volunteers
Speaker 1: all across the state of Pennsylvania, they need to lean
Speaker 1: into the fight buck right now. They need to be
Speaker 1: door knocking, organizing fundraising, helping municipal candidates and local candidates
Speaker 1: win at the local level. We win locally, will win congressionally,
Speaker 1: will win statewide. Right, all of that is important. We
Speaker 1: don't have the luxury of off seasons. Now there's going
Speaker 1: to be a redistricting coming in the state of Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: You know, people in constituents across across the state of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania should be calling their state legislators and working with
Speaker 1: them and telling them what their feelings are about redistricting.
Speaker 1: Because it's a Republican controlled legislature, we control the power there.
Speaker 1: We need to wheel it like the Democrats would field it. Right, So,
Speaker 1: there are lots of very productive things that we can
Speaker 1: be doing right now. And yes, our backs are against
Speaker 1: or against the wall, but it doesn't mean we're out
Speaker 1: of the fight. I gotta ask you, Sean before we
Speaker 1: let you go. You are a decorated Army ranger served
Speaker 1: in combat in Afghanistan. Uh CNN's most sanctimonious anchor Jake
Speaker 1: Tapper referring to Brian Mast, who is a member of
Speaker 1: Congress who served in the military and lost his legs
Speaker 1: fighting for this country abroad. Jake Tapper's comment was, quote
Speaker 1: Congressman Brian Mast, who lost his legs, by the way,
Speaker 1: fighting for democracy abroad, although I don't know about his
Speaker 1: commitment to it here in the United States. What do
Speaker 1: you say to that? Yeah, well, Brian Mast is a
Speaker 1: friend of mine and and quite I am so disappointed
Speaker 1: in Jake, right, It's Jake is someone to It's just
Speaker 1: an event that your listeners don't know. Um, Jake is
Speaker 1: someone that that writes books about military veterans, that talks
Speaker 1: about military veterans a lot publicly, and and and acts
Speaker 1: as if he's a big supporter of military makes money
Speaker 1: right on the backs of military members service. So but
Speaker 1: then to turn around and say something like that about
Speaker 1: a Republican member of Congress who you know, you can
Speaker 1: disagree with the method, but there's there's still a constitutional
Speaker 1: process and structure to raise those questions on the House floor.
Speaker 1: Brian mass spot for his country. He lost his legs
Speaker 1: overseas defending democracy. And believe me when I tell you,
Speaker 1: the man loves freedom of speech, loves the Constitution. May
Speaker 1: not always agree with what others have to say about him,
Speaker 1: but he'll he'll go to his grave trying to protect it.
Speaker 1: And for Jake Tapper to single him out as a
Speaker 1: double amputee, as somebody who has sacrificed so much for
Speaker 1: his country, it's just disgusting. It's just disgusting. Sean Bornell,
Speaker 1: every buddy, check out Outlaw Platoon. If you haven't already,
Speaker 1: you should get it on wherever you get books. Sean,
Speaker 1: good to see you. My friend will talk soon. Thanks, Buck,
Speaker 1: take care you're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show podcast because Congressman Brian Masked, a
Speaker 1: Republican from Florida who lost his legs by the way,
Speaker 1: fighting for democracy abroad. Although I don't know what his
Speaker 1: I don't know about his commitment to it here in
Speaker 1: the United States. He said, did anybody say that, Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: we heard him. Answers, Yes, there you go. That's that's
Speaker 1: that's Jake Tapper, all about the vet said all about
Speaker 1: all about the troops. Jake Tapper, sure, sure, you know
Speaker 1: if you criticize John McCain, his favorite thing to do
Speaker 1: was always John McCain's a hero. And remember he only
Speaker 1: was doing that because he hates Trump so much and
Speaker 1: was using the McCain, the McCain wing of the GOP
Speaker 1: as a as a way of attacking Trump, and Trump
Speaker 1: said things about McCain that we're not nice. We all
Speaker 1: know that, but it was always a shield. You can't
Speaker 1: actually criticize John McCain, the Democrats would say when it
Speaker 1: was useful for bashing Trump because of his military service.
Speaker 1: But now here you've got a guy that lost his
Speaker 1: legs in honorable and brave service first country overseas. And
Speaker 1: Jake Tappers as well, he fought first country overseas, but
Speaker 1: it's not clear that he cares about democracy here at home.
Speaker 1: Oh oh, okay, just just remember the next time Jake
Speaker 1: starts tweeting out, I love the troops. I love the
Speaker 1: troops so much. I'm all about the troops. I've never
Speaker 1: seen anybody in media who has never actually spent any
Speaker 1: part of his life anywhere near serving the country, in
Speaker 1: the military, in the state department, you know, anywhere. I've
Speaker 1: never seen somebody who was such a fixation on promoting
Speaker 1: others service. It seems as a means of promoting how
Speaker 1: great he is. But that all falls away the moment
Speaker 1: that you see an opportunity to attack somebody who was
Speaker 1: a Trump supporter in Congress, right, that's that's that's what
Speaker 1: you have here. So it's gross, folks, but you're gonna
Speaker 1: see a lot more of this. Remember the left, the
Speaker 1: left didn't have any principles before. They're not gonna have
Speaker 1: any now. I have principles on say, condemning political violence.
Speaker 1: And that's why I know that some people don't like
Speaker 1: hearing the truth about that, but it is true. Democrats
Speaker 1: don't have that problem. They're just hypocrites. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the Buses and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. What's going on within the Republican Party right now?
Speaker 1: We had a number of folks in the GOP in
Speaker 1: Congress who voted to impeach Trump. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: talk about the intramural fighting that's going on. Well, one
Speaker 1: group that has been trying to capitalize on that in
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of ways is the Lincoln Project. Our
Speaker 1: guests right now, Ryan Gurduski joins us. He's got a
Speaker 1: piece in the American Conservative called the Lincoln Projects Predator,
Speaker 1: and Ryan, thanks for joining. First, just tell folks, in
Speaker 1: case anyone doesn't know is listening to this, what is
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Project and what has it been doing. Lincoln
Speaker 1: Project is an organization of never Trump Republicans led by
Speaker 1: George Conway, Steve Schmidt, Rick Wilson. More famously, they're the
Speaker 1: ones who go in television a lot, and they've raised
Speaker 1: well over seventy five million dollars from very gullibal donors
Speaker 1: to attack Trump. They've paid their own firms millions upon
Speaker 1: millions dollars. I believe it is. Steve Schmidt was paid
Speaker 1: over one point five or was paid exactly one point
Speaker 1: five million dollars for one month's work between November and December,
Speaker 1: so after the presidential election, he was already paid one
Speaker 1: point five million dollars for one month of work. They
Speaker 1: raised millions upon millions of dollars to attack Trump and
Speaker 1: all Republicans. They spent millions against Susan Collins millions against
Speaker 1: Tom Tillis. I mean, it's not just Trump, it's ball Republicans. Now,
Speaker 1: who were they raising before we get to your article,
Speaker 1: which is I think we could describe as as um
Speaker 1: sillacious the content where we're talking about here with this guy.
Speaker 1: Who are they raising? Because people say that they're raising
Speaker 1: some of them from left wing donors, so it's kind
Speaker 1: of a false flag style project where they're pretending to
Speaker 1: be one thing, but they're actually getting money from the left.
Speaker 1: But are there conservative donors who are giving the Lincoln
Speaker 1: Project money or you know, Republican donors we're giving additional
Speaker 1: Republicans who are like the Cindy McCain Republicans who are
Speaker 1: just repulsed by Trump's behaviors, so they give them money.
Speaker 1: It's I mean, and who gives to campaigns? Who gives
Speaker 1: the path? I mean most of them are most people
Speaker 1: who donate a lot, not most, but a lot of
Speaker 1: people who donate. Our older people who maybe some are
Speaker 1: Republicans or from a Republicans who were turned off by
Speaker 1: Trump's attitude or behavior, so they gave, you know, their
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars and they're being swindled out of it,
Speaker 1: and they deserve as much as anybody does to know
Speaker 1: the truth of this organization. Now, I mean, seventy five
Speaker 1: million dollars seems like a lot of money for something
Speaker 1: like this, A lot of money, and tell me what,
Speaker 1: what do we need to know about John Weaver? Right, So,
Speaker 1: one of the organization's founders. His name is John Weaver.
Speaker 1: He was a former McCain consultant. He ran the John
Speaker 1: Huntsman campaign. He was on the John Casa campaign. John
Speaker 1: Weaver followed me on Twitter over the summer, which I
Speaker 1: have a fairly large Twitter following, but I didn't. But
Speaker 1: I thought I thought it odds since I'm openly supportive
Speaker 1: of the president um and he runs his anti President
Speaker 1: Trump organization. Well, within a day of him following me,
Speaker 1: young men were messaging me saying, you know, be on
Speaker 1: the lookout. He uh. He reaches out to younger guys,
Speaker 1: is that they're offered them career advice, and then changes
Speaker 1: to approaching them to asking them for sex or questioning
Speaker 1: about sex and wanting to show them to call him
Speaker 1: and an approach him in some kind of sexual manner.
Speaker 1: This was the accusation lobby. So I try to get
Speaker 1: a month trying to get a source on record because
Speaker 1: I needed one. I'm not the Washington Post, so I
Speaker 1: need one on record source to come forward to admit
Speaker 1: that this happened to them and to make this accusation public.
Speaker 1: I can't just use anonymous sources. Well, I couldn't get one.
Speaker 1: People were afraid. These are young guys. You guys in
Speaker 1: their early twenties, and John Weavers man who's sixty one
Speaker 1: years old and has a lot of money and a
Speaker 1: lot of lawyers, and they were afraid of their careers
Speaker 1: being destroyed before they started. Finally, over the weekend, I
Speaker 1: was so frustrated with some of the tweets out the
Speaker 1: Lincoln Project that they were going to start tracking every
Speaker 1: employee of the Trump White House. Some of these people
Speaker 1: are in their twenties and thirties and just trying their life,
Speaker 1: trying to make them unhirable, that I said, maybe I
Speaker 1: should reveal the story of a Lincoln Project founder who
Speaker 1: was approaching young men for sex and promising them work
Speaker 1: that never materialized, or maybe his wife would like to know.
Speaker 1: And then and then within and I included the favorite
Speaker 1: euphemism that John Weaver uses in most his messages which
Speaker 1: he calls these young men my boy, which is really
Speaker 1: gross and creepy, but he does it all the time. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I tweet this out and people started coming forward and
Speaker 1: claimed saying, this is what happened to me that John
Speaker 1: Weaver did. So I finally I had on the record
Speaker 1: people because people were posting on their own social media,
Speaker 1: and I was able to write the story of all
Speaker 1: these men. There's a writer name by the name of
Speaker 1: Scott Steedman. He runs a website called forensic News. Never
Speaker 1: heard of it. He's a left winger. He wrote a
Speaker 1: book about Trump and Rushigate and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: But but John Weaver wrote a blur for his book.
Speaker 1: He has a professional relations with John Weaver, and he
Speaker 1: admitted John Weaver did this to him, and he wrote
Speaker 1: an article and between Steadman's article and how many how
Speaker 1: many sources he claims the number of people have come
Speaker 1: to be able to privately empily and people who posted
Speaker 1: on their own social media John Weaver's messages, it's well
Speaker 1: over sixty young men have come forward and said John
Speaker 1: Weaver approached him in a sexual manner, offering career advice
Speaker 1: or career opportunity. Is an exchange for sex, so so
Speaker 1: so to be clear, this would be under the h
Speaker 1: This would be under the general umbrella of of of
Speaker 1: gross and harassing behavior. But there's no there's no allegation
Speaker 1: of actual illegality in any of this. Right. The men
Speaker 1: are of age and everything out there's no manner of
Speaker 1: age that I know of, But I cannot comment on
Speaker 1: if there's nothing illegal because I don't know everyone's story.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are this is a four day old
Speaker 1: story that sixty people have come forward sharing messages, and
Speaker 1: it's always with the context of I know there are
Speaker 1: worse and I know this is this is much worse
Speaker 1: than what I experience, and I do know cases that
Speaker 1: are much worse. But until any young man comes forward
Speaker 1: with anything and is willing to go on record, I
Speaker 1: can't say if anything is illegal. UM. That being said,
Speaker 1: the promise of UM of professional help in exchange for
Speaker 1: sexual favors um, and then that it's a form of grooming.
Speaker 1: I mean they he was, he was approaching these men
Speaker 1: and one clearly clearly highly clearly highly unethical and disgusting.
Speaker 1: But just just for all the listeners to make sure
Speaker 1: we're talking about uh, we're still all these children. These
Speaker 1: are men, These are these are adults Tres Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: these are not children. These are young men who are
Speaker 1: in range. The age ranges usually from nineteen to twenty four. Um,
Speaker 1: that's most of the men. Have you already gotten? Have
Speaker 1: you already gotten some some backlash about this amount? I
Speaker 1: know you are a Laura Ingraham show talking about it.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, I mean people liberals are like, how dare you?
Speaker 1: You didn't attack Trump? Well, I wasn't reporting on the
Speaker 1: Trump story. I couldn't make heads or tails of any
Speaker 1: of his alley at any allegations against him, And saying
Speaker 1: you are you can't be mad at You can be
Speaker 1: mad at one and not the other. Or because you
Speaker 1: didn't speak up against one, but you can't sea you
Speaker 1: cant speak against the other. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1: I reached out to Lincoln Project. Um, they have not
Speaker 1: made any single statement. They never they never responded to
Speaker 1: all my inquiries. Um. John Weavers not responding to any
Speaker 1: inquiries on the SOCICT matter. He blocked me from Twitter
Speaker 1: right afterwards, ed as a few other high level link
Speaker 1: In Project members. The Lincoln Project has not said anything,
Speaker 1: but they did take down their web page that show
Speaker 1: John Weaver as a founding member. They got rid of
Speaker 1: it completely, and then they posted a link up the
Speaker 1: accounts you can Trust and ironically they posted every Lincoln
Speaker 1: member founder except for John Weaver. We're speaking to Ryan Grudusky,
Speaker 1: author of They're Not Listening. They's also got a piece
Speaker 1: up on the American American Conservative for talking about Now
Speaker 1: why should people in general? Now, No, forget about the
Speaker 1: John Weavers story, which is a powerful DC insider abuse
Speaker 1: abuse of power story. Right, That's that's why you wrote that. Well,
Speaker 1: why should people know about the link in project? How
Speaker 1: much of a problem has it been and will it be? Well,
Speaker 1: they haven't been very successful on their campaigns. Most of
Speaker 1: it is a grip. Most of their money goes to
Speaker 1: themselves or their companies or their LSU. They have. They
Speaker 1: spent a lot of money against Susan Collins, they failed,
Speaker 1: against Tom Tillis, they failed. They failed on many aspects
Speaker 1: of their campaigning. But nonetheless, this is not an unusual
Speaker 1: situation for people to grift. Grifting is very, very, very real,
Speaker 1: and I think there's a lot of people who give
Speaker 1: their their hard earned dollars to organizations thinking they're furthering
Speaker 1: um what their beliefs are, and most of it's going
Speaker 1: to salaries and lawyers, and very little of it goes
Speaker 1: to actually making a difference. And Lincoln Products not alone
Speaker 1: in that in that perspective um, but we are having
Speaker 1: We're at a point right now where we're having I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how any journalists are working on stories about,
Speaker 1: you know, Turning Point USA and what goes on their conferences,
Speaker 1: or Young Americans for Liberty, what goes on their with
Speaker 1: their institution, looking into right wing institutions, for anything in
Speaker 1: the discreet when you have a major, major player, I mean,
Speaker 1: the Lincoln Projects founders were on television as of as
Speaker 1: of today, almost a dozen times since the story broke
Speaker 1: on Monday, and no one has asked them even asked them, Hey,
Speaker 1: you have a co founder who's been accused dozens of
Speaker 1: times of sexual harassment, of offering jobs for sex, of
Speaker 1: approaching young men in a creepy manner dozens of times
Speaker 1: in just a few days. Do you have a comment
Speaker 1: on that. Nicole Wallace didn't ask it, Joe Scarbo didn't
Speaker 1: ask it, no one has asked it. Well, I think
Speaker 1: this raises a bigger issue right as well of what
Speaker 1: we can expect in the Biden administration in general from
Speaker 1: the press, whether it's a story that would fall under
Speaker 1: me too, or grifting or just general abuse of power.
Speaker 1: If it's not, if it's not a think I think
Speaker 1: the question, I think the question goes to even bigger
Speaker 1: part of it. They're running on this whole Trump is
Speaker 1: an unethical man. This is an unethical administration. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: you want to make that claim. Make that claim. Who
Speaker 1: else in the Lincoln Project knew about John Weaver and
Speaker 1: his actions? So I could tell you I've had four
Speaker 1: people make accusations that at least four other Lincoln Project
Speaker 1: members knew about it openly and tried to suppress it.
Speaker 1: Now only did they try to They didn't try to
Speaker 1: tell John Weaver or out John Weaver. They tried to
Speaker 1: kill the story because they didn't want it to come forward.
Speaker 1: So this is and they are complicit then in sexual harassment,
Speaker 1: every single one of them that knew, and I guarantee
Speaker 1: you knew. And by the way, I will say this
Speaker 1: other thing about the John Weavers story. When I was
Speaker 1: getting close to publishing it the first time, over the summer,
Speaker 1: John Weaver had a heart attack quote unquote where the
Speaker 1: Lincoln Project cities as a heart at attack and whatever.
Speaker 1: I hired a private detective to reach out and to
Speaker 1: look at the nearby hospitals near his home in Texas
Speaker 1: and in Washington, DC. And there was no record of
Speaker 1: a John Weaver ever going to the hospital. But they
Speaker 1: didn't know why I was getting close to publishing the story.
Speaker 1: So I don't I think that this is a very
Speaker 1: nefarious organization that is doing things and suppressing stories. And
Speaker 1: if it happened, if it's now sixty accusations of either
Speaker 1: creepy texting or strange behavior or open harassment or you know,
Speaker 1: promising jobs for sex, and there's dozens and dozens in
Speaker 1: just a few days, what else is there? And unfortunately
Speaker 1: journalists in America they're looking for any other story that
Speaker 1: they could possibly do, rather than looking to an organization
Speaker 1: theories over seventy five million dollars in a single solitary year,
Speaker 1: take on the president and the Republican Party. Ryan Gerdusky,
Speaker 1: he's digging in, it's getting answers. Go check out his
Speaker 1: piece on the American Conservative the Lincoln Projects predator. Ryan,
Speaker 1: good to talk to you, Thank you so much. You're
Speaker 1: in the Freedom mud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: We should be focused on bringing the nation together. Instead,
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to impeach the president for a second
Speaker 1: time one week, one week before he leaves office. Why
Speaker 1: Why politics and the fact that they want to they
Speaker 1: want to cancel the president. The president who cut taxes,
Speaker 1: the president who reduced regulations. The president prior to COVID
Speaker 1: had the greatest economy, lowest unemployment in fifty years. The
Speaker 1: president who got us out of the Iran deal, put
Speaker 1: the embassy in Jerusalem, rod hostage is home for North Korea,
Speaker 1: put three great justices on the Supreme Court, gave us
Speaker 1: a new NAPTA agreement, the Abraham Accords, the COVID vaccine,
Speaker 1: and who built the wall. It's about politics. This is
Speaker 1: about getting the president of the United States. They spied
Speaker 1: on his campaign before he was elected. Nineteen minutes into
Speaker 1: his presidency, they started the impeachment push. Three year Muller investigation,
Speaker 1: nineteen lawyers, forty agents, five hundred witnesses, twenty five hundred subpoenas,
Speaker 1: forty million dollars to find nothing. Impeachment Round one based
Speaker 1: on an anonymous whistle blower with no firsthand knowledge, who
Speaker 1: was biased against the president and who worked for Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: and now it's impeach a round two. It is Indeed,
Speaker 1: it has always been about getting this president, has always
Speaker 1: been about destroying Donald Trump, his presidency, his political movement, everything.
Speaker 1: And that's why it's so hard for many people now
Speaker 1: to see this as anything other than the last ditch
Speaker 1: effort to it. It wasn't enough to win the election.
Speaker 1: They have to get rid of Trumpism as an idea,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying to you, and that's why there's
Speaker 1: such a frenzy right now. On the one hand, they're
Speaker 1: telling us about unity, and on the other hand, they
Speaker 1: continue with this this push to divide us and to
Speaker 1: say that Trump supporters are bad people, that Trump supporters
Speaker 1: are on the wrong side of history because they voted
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump. That's what they're telling us, and that
Speaker 1: what they really want to see is a big breakup
Speaker 1: in the Republican Party. They want a GOP, a GOP
Speaker 1: that's at war with itself. Tom Friedman of the New
Speaker 1: York Times people still read this guy apparently play eighteen.
Speaker 1: I believe that the most important thing that can happen
Speaker 1: right now for the health of the country is that
Speaker 1: this rotten Republican party fracture, and that this is a
Speaker 1: party that is now marinated in and dominated by conspiracy theorists.
Speaker 1: It's been able to hold together basically under Trump because
Speaker 1: it had power. So, because it had the control of
Speaker 1: the Senate and control of the White House, Republicans could
Speaker 1: tell themselves this lie. I wouldn't let Trump babysit my
Speaker 1: kids or coach my kids little league team. But I
Speaker 1: love what he did on taxes, or what he did
Speaker 1: for Israel, or what he did for any number of issues.
Speaker 1: He doesn't have that power anymore. The Senate a Republicans
Speaker 1: don't have that power anymore. So I think this part
Speaker 1: is right for fracture. I can't think of anything more
Speaker 1: important right now, Brian, than that this party fracture between
Speaker 1: what I call principal Republicans, people like mc romney, Lisa Murkowski,
Speaker 1: and the unprincipled ones, because this is now Trump's party,
Speaker 1: and as long as it is Trump's party, it must
Speaker 1: be kept out of power. They're telling you what they're
Speaker 1: hoping for here, and they view this as essential. They
Speaker 1: want a weekend and almost annihilated GOP right now, and
Speaker 1: they think they can get it. And a suppressed GOP
Speaker 1: that is just steamrolled by the Biden Harris agenda, and
Speaker 1: they can get that too. This is not pie in
Speaker 1: the sky stuff they This is achievable for them, This
Speaker 1: is realistic for them. And that's why we have to
Speaker 1: take take stock of what the political calculations are here
Speaker 1: in trying to pull Republicans apart, why they want to
Speaker 1: do that so very badly. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Our
Speaker 1: country is divided. We all know that there are lies
Speaker 1: abroad in the land, spread by a desperate president who
Speaker 1: feels his power slipping away. We know that too. But
Speaker 1: I know this as well, that we here in this
Speaker 1: half have a sacred obligation to stand for truth, to
Speaker 1: stand up for the Constitution, to stand as guardians of
Speaker 1: the republic. Yeah, that's what Nancy Pelosi is, a guardian
Speaker 1: of the republic. Sure, sure, and all about the truth
Speaker 1: as well. Just ask her if she stood in the
Speaker 1: way of Americans getting checks to help them out during
Speaker 1: the pandemic, because, as we know, the government shut down
Speaker 1: people's businesses and shut down whole sectors of the economy.
Speaker 1: How good of an idea was that, By the way,
Speaker 1: just taking a little digression here, was that a smart
Speaker 1: thing to do to shut down so much? Did that
Speaker 1: really help us? You know, you have countries all over
Speaker 1: Europe now that are going into even more extreme shutdowns.
Speaker 1: In Italy is having finally a mass restaurant civil disobedience moment.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing this online where thousands of Italian restaurants are
Speaker 1: going to say, enough is enough. We're opening for business breakfast, lunch,
Speaker 1: and dinner. This is crazy. We're not doing this anymore.
Speaker 1: Switzerland is going into a greater degree of restriction, but
Speaker 1: they've tried to stay mostly open. I mean, all these
Speaker 1: countries having terrible issues with COVID nineteen, and remember when
Speaker 1: we were told that they had the answers. That's one
Speaker 1: reason why I'm so angry about all of this. Pelosi
Speaker 1: was one of the people saying this. But they made
Speaker 1: it seem all summer like if we just wore our
Speaker 1: masks and we did what the authorities told us, we'd
Speaker 1: all be okay. We wouldn't have this huge second wave.
Speaker 1: That was a lie that wasn't true. We all see it.
Speaker 1: They can tell us a million different ways, Oh we
Speaker 1: didn't you didn't do it the right way, or we
Speaker 1: didn't do it enough, or whatever. That's not what we
Speaker 1: were told. It was. Listen to us, do what we say.
Speaker 1: Now everything will be okay. That's clearly not what happened,
Speaker 1: and I'm really angry about it. I'll tell you I
Speaker 1: went last night to uh, I went last night to
Speaker 1: try to have a dinner with the with the with
Speaker 1: my girlfriend, who whose name is Deborah. I feel like
Speaker 1: I should not just refer to as the snow princess
Speaker 1: all the time. And we went to go to a
Speaker 1: restaurant here in the city and I got there before
Speaker 1: she did. And I walk in and I'm thinking, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a good guy, because well I was just hungry.
Speaker 1: I I'm not some hero. But you know, I'm thinking, okay,
Speaker 1: I want to support local restaurants and you know, keep
Speaker 1: them going. And I could just order in, but I'm
Speaker 1: actually gonna go and pay us or you know, pay
Speaker 1: I'm giving bigger tips than I ever had to anyone
Speaker 1: who is a server at a place these days that
Speaker 1: I could eat. And this was an outside but kind
Speaker 1: of inside but really outside restaurant. And I show up
Speaker 1: and the guy just looks at me, who's the running
Speaker 1: the plays with a manager, And he's got his mask on,
Speaker 1: and I've got my mask on and and it's and
Speaker 1: and he says, uh, we're not seating anymore. I said, okay,
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's you're you guys say you're you
Speaker 1: close uh your or rather, you stopped seating at nine.
Speaker 1: He goes, no, we stopped seating at eight thirty, as
Speaker 1: of like you know now. And I look at my
Speaker 1: I look at my uh my clock on my phone.
Speaker 1: It's it's eight thirty one. So I'm like, okay, so
Speaker 1: you guys, your your website says you stopped seating at nine.
Speaker 1: You're say you stopped seating at eight thirty. I'm clearly here,
Speaker 1: I've clearly showed up, gone through the trouble of dressing
Speaker 1: warmly enough that I could eat at your restaurant. It's
Speaker 1: eight thirty one. I'm literally a minute, and you know,
Speaker 1: and then I just realized, you know what, also fine
Speaker 1: the guy was being, but he's probably had a bad
Speaker 1: day his restaurants. But I recognize I had a I
Speaker 1: had to sort of suppress it. Right away. I had
Speaker 1: a really a short fuse that was going off inside me.
Speaker 1: That usually isn't the case. I'm usually not somebody that
Speaker 1: gets I didn't get into the guy said oh okay,
Speaker 1: well that's a shame, and I just walked away. I didn't.
Speaker 1: I didn't make any problems or anything, but it was
Speaker 1: a reminder to me of we're all really sick of
Speaker 1: this nonsense. You know, we've all we're all losing patience
Speaker 1: with this and if we're not, we should be. Now
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean we take it out on people who
Speaker 1: are also struggling and try to get through their business.
Speaker 1: And to be clear, I didn't, but I could feel
Speaker 1: that this stress of this lockdown insanity is it's wearing
Speaker 1: on me now, even too, because usually a situation like that,
Speaker 1: I'd be like, oh, you know, okay, fine, you know,
Speaker 1: it's New York. There's plenty of places to go. But
Speaker 1: my first thought of my brain was was to get
Speaker 1: I got very I got very annoyed about it. It
Speaker 1: was a minor thing we had that having a great
Speaker 1: dinner at taifou went to another. I found another place
Speaker 1: that would deliver and it was fine, But I can
Speaker 1: I'm I'm impatient in a way, and I have a
Speaker 1: shorter temper than I than I know I know myself,
Speaker 1: and I'm not a short tempered person. And I was
Speaker 1: just on the edge of you know, really, it's sixty
Speaker 1: seconds late, why don't you go, you know, sixty seconds late,
Speaker 1: you don't want my money? Why don't you go blank yourself?
Speaker 1: And I'm saying, and that would have been wrong. I wouldn't.
Speaker 1: I'm not claiming that that's the right reaction there. Although
Speaker 1: the guy was being a little you know, but he's
Speaker 1: under pressure. I'm under pressure, that's the point. I'm trumaic
Speaker 1: trying to make. He's feeling the heat of keeping this
Speaker 1: business going. And they didn't, you know, they only had
Speaker 1: a few people eating there, and clearly they wanted more
Speaker 1: and and you know, and I'm trying to do my
Speaker 1: part for the for my own community by going to
Speaker 1: these businesses, even though I freeze my butt off when
Speaker 1: I'm sitting outside eating, but I'm trying to, you know,
Speaker 1: And we're all frustrated. As the point, we're all feeling it.
Speaker 1: And I had to take a step back and recognize
Speaker 1: that that it's affecting me even now too. Here we
Speaker 1: are a middle of January, and it just feels like,
Speaker 1: you know, it feels like there is no end in sight.
Speaker 1: I know, there's the Johnson and Johnson vaccine that's coming
Speaker 1: out today or sorry, that's coming out. The news story
Speaker 1: pardon me, came out today that the Johnson Johnson vaccine
Speaker 1: is looking good and that's a one dose vaccine which
Speaker 1: will be really a really big advantage. And it also
Speaker 1: I think can be stored at like forty degrees instead
Speaker 1: of the crazy low temperature that the other the moderna
Speaker 1: of vaccine and the fiser vaccines have to be stored at. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I just I was reminded in my own
Speaker 1: way of all we've gone through and the tension in
Speaker 1: this moment in the country. We're thinking about it so
Speaker 1: much in political terms, and that's certainly a big part
Speaker 1: of it right now, but there's also just this backdrop
Speaker 1: of we have not had normal human contact, normal human interaction,
Speaker 1: the back and forth that we rely on in our
Speaker 1: day to day. I mean, it's so much easier not
Speaker 1: to get all wrapped up in politics and unhealthy ways
Speaker 1: when you go out and you can see you know,
Speaker 1: family members for a great meal. It's at some place
Speaker 1: you want to go, you know, where you go out
Speaker 1: and you grab drinks with your buddies or with the
Speaker 1: ladies or whatever, you know, after work or just because
Speaker 1: you feel like it or whatever that really helps, you know,
Speaker 1: going to birthday parties, going to weddings, going to this.
Speaker 1: This keeps us all sane. It really does keeps us
Speaker 1: all saying. I mean, producer, I haven't I haven't seen
Speaker 1: my buddy here, my Radio Wingman producer Mark. I haven't
Speaker 1: seen Radio Wingman Mark in It's gonna be almost a
Speaker 1: year now, right, I mean, I haven't seen you in person.
Speaker 1: I think since is it February? It might be end
Speaker 1: of February, maybe very beginning in March. Yea. So so
Speaker 1: somebody that I'm talking to, and Mark and I are
Speaker 1: working together, you know, every day for hours, hours on end,
Speaker 1: and really just the two of us pulling together this show.
Speaker 1: I haven't even been able to see the guy in
Speaker 1: person in must a year. This is crazy. I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember when this first happened to us and the
Speaker 1: restaurants we're getting shut down. I thought I was being
Speaker 1: maybe a little too cautious. I figured, all right, you know,
Speaker 1: Mark and I'll be having Marguerite Is and Guac at
Speaker 1: a sidewalk cafe in New York by June or July. Nope,
Speaker 1: here we are now. They did open some things. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that wouldn't have been possible, but I thought
Speaker 1: we'd be pretty much through the worst of it. When
Speaker 1: I was thinking about this in February and the initial lockdown,
Speaker 1: I thought, all right, maybe six months of this of
Speaker 1: this is going to be what we're dealing with. But no,
Speaker 1: now we're going on a year, and I'm just trying
Speaker 1: to tell you, I think that everybody, you all need
Speaker 1: to give yourself a break. You know, you all just
Speaker 1: think about how this is affecting you, even if you're
Speaker 1: in parts of the country that have been more open,
Speaker 1: even if you're in parts of the country that are
Speaker 1: less affected by this. Overall, let's all keep in mind
Speaker 1: that you're you're still feeling the stress or seeing the
Speaker 1: stress that other areas that are in most of your
Speaker 1: lockdowns are going through. And and you know that America
Speaker 1: is in a bad spot. And of course a lot
Speaker 1: of the economic stuff, the impacts of that are felt
Speaker 1: by everybody, are felt by everybody right now. So it's
Speaker 1: it's a tough time. I mean, it's this is not
Speaker 1: an easy period. So give yourself a break. Make sure
Speaker 1: that you're doing things that allow your mind to relax.
Speaker 1: Make sure you're doing things that let you reset that
Speaker 1: part of you that might get a little bit too
Speaker 1: overwhelmed or run down, or that's really necessary right now
Speaker 1: because the usual stuff is just not happening. I mean,
Speaker 1: the usual stuff out there is has been taken away
Speaker 1: from all of us, and if you're like me, it's
Speaker 1: starting to fray. It's starting to phray some of your
Speaker 1: nerves a little bit. You're starting to get starting to
Speaker 1: get really frustrated in ways that you're not even aware
Speaker 1: of until it starts to come out a little bit,
Speaker 1: you say to yourself, Wait a second, what what the
Speaker 1: heck is at? You know, I'm I'm usually very even tempered,
Speaker 1: and I feel like I haven't lost my temper recently,
Speaker 1: but I feel like it's closer to happening than it
Speaker 1: normally would be for much more minor things. And it's
Speaker 1: just because I'm sick of wearing my damn mask. I'm
Speaker 1: sick of not being able to see people. I'm sick
Speaker 1: of my family members being worried about their health and
Speaker 1: the lockdowns and all this stuff. And then on top
Speaker 1: of that you have Republicans are all terrorists, and you
Speaker 1: know Trump is hitler, and you know the government could
Speaker 1: fall at any moment because the right wing is about
Speaker 1: to have another violent insurrection. All this overheated, unfair, really
Speaker 1: damaging rhetoric out there, and it's a challenge. It's a
Speaker 1: challenging time in a lot of ways. And I think
Speaker 1: we're allowed to take a moment, take a pause to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that's real. And I'm actually planning going out tonight
Speaker 1: to outdoor dining in New York and and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to get all dressed up, and you essentially it's
Speaker 1: producer Mark. Have you ever been to a at old
Speaker 1: school Giants foot I don't know if the stadium is
Speaker 1: better now, but I remember going to Giants Stadium when
Speaker 1: I was a kid in like winter, like December, right.
Speaker 1: I remember going to Giant Stadium going and I I
Speaker 1: was so cold and we were wearing I wore so
Speaker 1: much clothing that it was difficult to move. But you
Speaker 1: sat in these unheated seats out in the open air,
Speaker 1: and you sit there for three hours. We had a
Speaker 1: blanket on us, and I still remember freezing my butt off.
Speaker 1: Do you you've ever done that? I have not, but
Speaker 1: I have done it at City Field or Scha Stadium
Speaker 1: any April or September game because it's right on the bay,
Speaker 1: just like the meadow Lands, it's right on the water.
Speaker 1: You get the winds and it's freezing. I'll I say
Speaker 1: to myself over and over again, never ever going to
Speaker 1: another April Mets game, and yet I still end up
Speaker 1: there every year. I mean, I've done it. I've done
Speaker 1: a few times. I remember going. I think it was
Speaker 1: a West Point Army Navy football game when I was
Speaker 1: a kid, and I'm pretty sure I went to that
Speaker 1: unless I'm unless getting I'm talking about being eight or
Speaker 1: nine years old. But I just remember being freezing at
Speaker 1: these games. And yeah, the wind coming in in the
Speaker 1: Metal Lands is like nothing else. Don't they have Aren't
Speaker 1: they kind of bougie? Now? Aren't there some some stadiums
Speaker 1: that kind of have either heated seats or at least
Speaker 1: they're padded seats because I was sitting on you know,
Speaker 1: like the plastic bleacher fold down seats that we all know. No,
Speaker 1: the new stadium they built is just a monstrosity. It's awful.
Speaker 1: And they didn't put a roof on, which is probably
Speaker 1: the dumbest thing. Is that just a cost thing? I mean,
Speaker 1: why would they know the cost thing? Yeah, because like
Speaker 1: the Mets and Yankees both wanted retractable roofs. New York City,
Speaker 1: New York State would not pay for it. MetLife. I
Speaker 1: think a similar kind of thing in New Jersey where
Speaker 1: they wouldn't pay the extra money to get the retractable roof.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, that's that's nuts, because yeah, they're I
Speaker 1: don't know if I've ever been so cold as being
Speaker 1: a kid sitting in the stands at Giants Stadium watching
Speaker 1: an NFL game, and and I even think I was
Speaker 1: wearing like uh, like no pets. It was still the coldest,
Speaker 1: still the coldest I think I've ever been in my life.
Speaker 1: You've been to more NFL games than I have. I
Speaker 1: might mights and my dad. I've got two brothers and
Speaker 1: a dad, and they're like normal, They're normal American. They're
Speaker 1: normal red blooded Americans who like professional sports and uh
Speaker 1: and driving fast cars and things like that. I'm the
Speaker 1: one that's you know, I don't know, I don't really
Speaker 1: care yeah, I'm the weird one. But my my two brothers,
Speaker 1: my I've my brothers win their fantasy football leagues in
Speaker 1: many years, and there's real money. There's like ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen grand on the line for the winner. I mean
Speaker 1: there's actual money involved here. Uh so they do very
Speaker 1: well with that. Yeah, I mean that's not obviously the
Speaker 1: buying fee, but that if you win the whole thing.
Speaker 1: I think I think one of my brothers got something
Speaker 1: like that one year, So they're really into all that stuff. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be freezing tonight, but I'll be with my
Speaker 1: little sister who has a brand new little baby. I
Speaker 1: don't know our baby's brand new, but sounds like a
Speaker 1: p yes, newborn, thank you. Brand new. Sounds like a
Speaker 1: product I'm selling, brand new, fresh off the shelf. Baby.
Speaker 1: That's my little nephew. But but I'm gonna be out it.
Speaker 1: We're going to a beast a night and we're just
Speaker 1: gonna be huddling. You know, they have these outdoor lamps,
Speaker 1: and that's great if you're in like Charleston, South Carolina.
Speaker 1: You know these heat lamps they have outside and it's
Speaker 1: you know, sixty degrees at night and you want a
Speaker 1: little extra toasty warmth near you. Uh, you know, it's
Speaker 1: like being at a fire pit in Dallas, Texas or
Speaker 1: something in you know, during a fifty five or sixty
Speaker 1: degree day, when it's thirty or twenty five degrees outside
Speaker 1: that heat lamp. It just keeps you alive. It doesn't
Speaker 1: make you comfortable. It just keeps you from actually having
Speaker 1: icicles form over your eyelids. But I'm going for it tonight,
Speaker 1: producer Mark. So, let's let's hope that I'm let's hope
Speaker 1: that I don't actually, you know, get frostbite. That will
Speaker 1: be good. Luck with that. I will be home and warm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: stay home and warm. You're in the Freedom Heart. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. I got diverted
Speaker 1: from talking about Nancy Pelosi. She's she's projecting herself as
Speaker 1: some great defender democracy, arbiter of truth, standing for the
Speaker 1: Republic and all this. I mean, Nancy Pelosi is a
Speaker 1: is a ruthless politician. You know that if you ask
Speaker 1: her what are her principles, this very rich, almost eighty
Speaker 1: year old woman from San Francisco, what what does she
Speaker 1: really care about? She would say things like I care
Speaker 1: about it wibbits liberated abb it's right to choose, and
Speaker 1: Beto elevating the people and the children. And you know,
Speaker 1: she would say stuff like that, and you would say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean that that those are the slogans, but she
Speaker 1: doesn't really care. No one actually thinks she really cares
Speaker 1: about any of that, right, No, no one really believes.
Speaker 1: And then you get to a step beyond that, where
Speaker 1: what has she said in the past. Right now, we're
Speaker 1: in this great moment of moral panic over what Trump
Speaker 1: said about, you know, in the moments before that Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill riot. But do Democrats always make sure that they're
Speaker 1: opposed to political violence? Is that something they do? Here's
Speaker 1: Pelosi talking about uprisings across the country. This was in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, so it's not reached a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: Polay clip one. I just don't even know why there
Speaker 1: aren't uprisings all of the country. Maybe there will be.
Speaker 1: Why would there be uprisings, Nancy Pelosi? Oh, because Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is president. You're not getting what you want. I mean,
Speaker 1: uprising is a very specific thing to say. She didn't say,
Speaker 1: I don't know why there aren't more people, you know,
Speaker 1: organizing get out the vote. Drives or something she said uprising.
Speaker 1: But it's the same thing you see with BLM and
Speaker 1: the way that that the violence and the destruction from
Speaker 1: that is always excused. Here's a member of Congress, Spanburger,
Speaker 1: who's saying that the rights has had this violent, extremist
Speaker 1: ideology take hold. I doubt you's ever said something similar
Speaker 1: about BLM Play seven. The large concern that I have
Speaker 1: is not about a particular date. It's not just about
Speaker 1: January twentieth. It's not just about this upcoming weekend where
Speaker 1: it's expected that there's going to be events, be they
Speaker 1: violent altercations or anything else, at capitals across the country.
Speaker 1: The real issue that I think we need to focus
Speaker 1: on as an American people is that there is a
Speaker 1: violent and extreme ideology that has taken hold, that has
Speaker 1: been given safe harbor, if you will, in the political space,
Speaker 1: and we saw the results of what happens when that
Speaker 1: is able to fest and come to the forefront. We
Speaker 1: saw those results on January sixth. We're certainly preparing for
Speaker 1: those potential results over this weekend and at the inauguration.
Speaker 1: But it doesn't end there. Because it's an ideology and
Speaker 1: my background, as you mentioned, I'm a former CIA case
Speaker 1: officer and my background is a focus on on terrorism
Speaker 1: and the domestic violent extremists who took siege and and
Speaker 1: okay me, I'm a former CI analyst and her analysis
Speaker 1: of this as partisan trash. So there you go. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the bus Sex and Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcast at the iHeartRadio app for
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts like Soft Butter on Warm Toast.
Speaker 1: Time to spread some freedom coast to coast. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll Call. Roll Call. Thasbook dot com, slash buck
Speaker 1: Sex go to Bucksexton dot com for updates on stories.
Speaker 1: You can also always listen to the podcast there. Please
Speaker 1: please tell somebody, Tell somebody out there about the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show Past the Buck. Biggest favor you can do
Speaker 1: for me, best thing you can do for the freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: Tell somebody about what's what's going on. And we're also
Speaker 1: on Instagram. I'll sit we're on Parlor but parlors still down,
Speaker 1: so that's you know, that's sad. I think it's coming
Speaker 1: back though, what's coming back? And uh yeah, we're we're working.
Speaker 1: We're working on all kinds of exciting projects going forward.
Speaker 1: Let's now jump into all this, although I did want
Speaker 1: to check in on our on our buddy producer Mark
Speaker 1: and see if he has any exciting plans for the
Speaker 1: rest of the week or the weekend. Oh yeah, the
Speaker 1: Rangers play the Islanders tonight. So that's the first game
Speaker 1: of the season for the Rangers. I'm very excited. So
Speaker 1: how how does one spot what what is? Now? I'm
Speaker 1: asking you to stereotype. Okay, I'm asking you to give
Speaker 1: me but what is the difference between your prototypical your
Speaker 1: standard Rangers fan and your standard Islanders fan. I had
Speaker 1: a feeling this and I'm not going there. Nope, no, no,
Speaker 1: you're not doing it. You're not doing it all. Come on,
Speaker 1: it's a great setup, but I'm not doing it. Oh man,
Speaker 1: Ranger fans tend to be from the city. Islander fans
Speaker 1: tend to be from Long Island. Oh look at that.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, I'll give you that one. Yeah, gee, really
Speaker 1: going on? I'm alledge there. Well, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: anger any listeners. If you're an Islander fan, good for you.
Speaker 1: But I'm a Ranger fan and I think the Rangers
Speaker 1: are a better franchise and their little brother is that better.
Speaker 1: There you go. Look at that. That's very, very very
Speaker 1: You heard a little brother, right, Yeah, I don't know
Speaker 1: how you would give him a noogie. That's kind of
Speaker 1: like the Rangers franchise against the Islanders franchise. I get you.
Speaker 1: What about the New Jersey Devils, they don't exist? Come on,
Speaker 1: are they a real things? They're a real thing, but
Speaker 1: oh nobody cares. They're not good. They've been bad the
Speaker 1: last couple of years. They were very good early two
Speaker 1: thousands they beat the Rangers. Wants to get to the
Speaker 1: finals instead of them in twenty twelve. I try to
Speaker 1: forget about that. But in terms of the New York
Speaker 1: sports landscape, if I'm being honest, there's one team, and
Speaker 1: there's one hockey team in New York. But there is
Speaker 1: that great Sinefeld episode where he's a big Devil's fans,
Speaker 1: David Putty, Yes, El Diablo the priest. That is actually
Speaker 1: a very funny. That's a very memorable Sinefeld episode. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to what folks thoughts are here in roll
Speaker 1: Call and thank you again all of you for a
Speaker 1: writing Again, we appreciate it. Brad Hey Bucker, producer Mark.
Speaker 1: Last week was a disaster for the conservative movement. I
Speaker 1: agree with you that President Trump handled the post election poorly.
Speaker 1: I agree what happened at the Capitol was one percent wrong.
Speaker 1: But what we conservatives must not lose sight of is
Speaker 1: our man in the swamp, the one who is there
Speaker 1: to drain it but is getting swallowed by the vastness
Speaker 1: of it. Fifty years from now, we'll look back on
Speaker 1: our greatest president we ever had. Right now everyone is
Speaker 1: turning their backs on him. I really hope we can
Speaker 1: all use this time to be to peacefully refocused and
Speaker 1: find that lockstep that the left has been so successful with.
Speaker 1: Shield's Eye. Brad, really really thoughtful note to us, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. And yeah, I look at the totality
Speaker 1: of the Trump presidency, I still think that Trump was
Speaker 1: overall a very successful president that pursued policies that I
Speaker 1: agree with. I think the pandemic was awful for the
Speaker 1: whole world and really made uh, you know, it created
Speaker 1: enormous challenges for successful governance in the economy and everything
Speaker 1: else in Trump's final year of his first term. And
Speaker 1: I think that the the approach that he took after
Speaker 1: the election, with the way he was talking about things,
Speaker 1: it it went too far. Now, it didn't go too far,
Speaker 1: as in he caused the insurrection, but saying that he
Speaker 1: won in a landslide and repeating that constantly and telling
Speaker 1: everybody the election was stall and that that was and
Speaker 1: I actually would have been I wouldn't have even said
Speaker 1: much about that for a week or two after the election,
Speaker 1: or maybe a little beyond that, with the idea that
Speaker 1: he was going to have the presentation of evidence to
Speaker 1: prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Fashion we never got it.
Speaker 1: We never got it. That doesn't that's not the same
Speaker 1: thing as saying it doesn't exist. But we never got it.
Speaker 1: And we have to base our analysystem. We have to
Speaker 1: base the way we treat the system on the facts
Speaker 1: that we have in evidence. So I heard from people
Speaker 1: the DOJ. I was asking them about this off the record,
Speaker 1: talking to people about this the DOJ when it was
Speaker 1: when the Trump legal team was out there, and then
Speaker 1: there were the some of the freelancer types with the
Speaker 1: release the cracking stuff. DOJ was looking at the different
Speaker 1: voter fraud allegations and there were people that thought they
Speaker 1: saw something in good faith that was wrong or whatever,
Speaker 1: and they followed up on a lot of it, and
Speaker 1: it was people were making they were mistaken. And these
Speaker 1: are Trump. These are Trump supporting people within the DOJ
Speaker 1: that I'm talking to. I mean, these are conservatives that
Speaker 1: I know with the DJ and they say, look, we
Speaker 1: looked at this and it's not there. You know that
Speaker 1: doesn't Again, that's what they found, That's what they looked at.
Speaker 1: I don't know why people love to tell me, but book,
Speaker 1: you're saying there wasn't fraud. I'm knots I've never said
Speaker 1: there wasn't. Of course, there was fraud, but there's a
Speaker 1: difference between knowing that statistically it is a certainty that
Speaker 1: there was some degree of fraud at a national election
Speaker 1: and insisting and believing action must be taken at the
Speaker 1: highest level of government that there was so much fraud
Speaker 1: that the election had a different outcome without being able
Speaker 1: to prove it. Those are not the same thing. And
Speaker 1: that's where we are now. So now I'm not turning
Speaker 1: my back on Trump. I don't think he should be impeached.
Speaker 1: I think that he lost, and we're having an honest
Speaker 1: conversation now about what that means and what happens next
Speaker 1: and what his future will be in the movement, and
Speaker 1: we did every look, we did everything we could on
Speaker 1: this show to help Trump win four more years, as
Speaker 1: did a lot of other shows. I know wasn't enough.
Speaker 1: We tried, We tried, Mitch Hey bucking producer Mark. I
Speaker 1: am a little down, but I have not and will
Speaker 1: not give up the fight to keep and save our
Speaker 1: republic from the communists. I want to get your opinion
Speaker 1: about the next two years. I know we're a similar
Speaker 1: position in the first years of the first two years
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration, with the Commies holding the House,
Speaker 1: Senate and the presidency. The left pretty much squandered that time.
Speaker 1: I'm afraid they will not do the same this time around.
Speaker 1: They'll ram through all the laws and policies they want to,
Speaker 1: including the annihilation of the Second Amendment, and will lose
Speaker 1: the First Amendment as well. These are crazy times. Please
Speaker 1: give me your trusted and valued opinion. Well, Mitch, I
Speaker 1: share a lot of your concern, so we got to
Speaker 1: start with that. I can't tell you that I don't
Speaker 1: also have a high degree of concern about what's going
Speaker 1: on right now and think that things are going to
Speaker 1: get Things are going to get worse politically and before
Speaker 1: they get better. That's that's certain, and it's going to
Speaker 1: happen quickly here. That all said, I also think you
Speaker 1: need to remember that the Obama administration didn't really squander
Speaker 1: the first two years from their perspective. They rammed through Obamacare,
Speaker 1: which was a massive, a massive overhaul of healthcare, and
Speaker 1: there was a lot, there was a lot involved in that.
Speaker 1: So I just think everyone needs to be you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think everyone needs to be very clear about this.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a real, there's a real effort
Speaker 1: to pass Obamacare and happened. They did it. They uniform
Speaker 1: the Democrats executed on it, and they're going to do
Speaker 1: a whole lot more now. They're gonna get a whole
Speaker 1: lot more done in the next two years. So let's
Speaker 1: get ready for it. That's my opinion. Man. I wish
Speaker 1: I could say that I had some magic wand to
Speaker 1: wave to have a better political situation for us, but
Speaker 1: I don't. David hey Buck, when I was a kid,
Speaker 1: the WWE was known as the WWF. Well, I remember
Speaker 1: that too, David. Same thing for me. I remember Ravishing,
Speaker 1: Rick Rude and super Fly, Jimmy Snuka and Andre the
Speaker 1: Giant and Macho Mann Randy Savage and the Undertaker and
Speaker 1: Hulk Hogan, and I remember all that stuff. I remember
Speaker 1: watching back in the day, David says, when there was
Speaker 1: a distinct line between the good guys and the bad guys.
Speaker 1: It seemed every time the good guy was in the
Speaker 1: verge of finally defeating the bad guy during a championship match,
Speaker 1: bad guy manager Captain Lew Albano would enter the ring
Speaker 1: and toss salt in the referees eyes just before bashing
Speaker 1: a ladder over the head of the reff. The reff
Speaker 1: would be knocked out cold. All the while the bad
Speaker 1: wrestler was regaining his mojo to the point that, along
Speaker 1: with Captain Lou, they were able to knock the good
Speaker 1: guy unconscious. As a kid, I'd be throwing things to
Speaker 1: the TV in an outrage, knowing the good guy was
Speaker 1: about to get jobbed again and there was nothing I
Speaker 1: could do about it, And predictably, the ref would regain
Speaker 1: consciousness and see the bad guy on top of the
Speaker 1: good guy and would give a quick three count if
Speaker 1: the bad guy once again one. To me, That's how
Speaker 1: life in twenty twenty and twenty twenty one feels. For
Speaker 1: three years, Trump kept doing one good thing after another
Speaker 1: for America. But in the end, the bad guys, Democrats
Speaker 1: and their accomplices in the fake news media ended up
Speaker 1: victorious again. I eventually stopped watching the WWF. I think
Speaker 1: I'm about to do the same with politics. Seems like
Speaker 1: a waste of time for a middle aged, white Catholic
Speaker 1: American male like me to have a president that loves America.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it seems like a waste of time for
Speaker 1: a middle aged, white Catholic American male like me to
Speaker 1: be allowed to have a president that loves America as
Speaker 1: much as I do. It feels like the fix is in. Well,
Speaker 1: David guy, totally understand your frustrations. I share your frustrations,
Speaker 1: and I think there was a lot of good stuff
Speaker 1: that Trump did. I think that one of my big points,
Speaker 1: and I know that that some folks aren't gonna want
Speaker 1: to I've said this and they every time I say
Speaker 1: it there maybe cringe a little bit. But there was
Speaker 1: no space for making Trump's presidency better from his team
Speaker 1: and on on his side. You know, It's what I've
Speaker 1: been saying about the coach at halftime with the team
Speaker 1: in the locker room. If you were on Team Trump.
Speaker 1: You were only allowed to talk about how we were
Speaker 1: going to always win and we're awesome and everything is perfect.
Speaker 1: That's not That's not how you get a sustainable, long
Speaker 1: term movement that achieves really important goals to conservatism. And
Speaker 1: I think we should remember that going forward, right. I remember,
Speaker 1: I remember someone wrote in saying that I was a
Speaker 1: waffler on Trump once, that I was waffling on trumpets.
Speaker 1: That never I never wavered to my support for the agenda,
Speaker 1: but on particularly personnel choices, there were there were mistakes made,
Speaker 1: and those personnel mistakes had further ramifications and policy focused mistakes.
Speaker 1: It's not just oh, I don't like you know, I
Speaker 1: don't like I don't know the mooch, I don't care, right,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I'm Arosa, I don't care. The point
Speaker 1: is that, and now those are two that come to mind.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people in that White House
Speaker 1: that never should have said foot. Never should have set
Speaker 1: foot in a serious administration. It wasn't a good thing.
Speaker 1: But when I said that, I knew that most of
Speaker 1: the people listening, we were getting mad at me. Don't
Speaker 1: stand in the way of Trump. He knows what he's doing.
Speaker 1: He knows what he's doing. No, Trump actually needed people
Speaker 1: that know more about politics than he do to help
Speaker 1: shape some aspects of the policy agenda. That he didn't
Speaker 1: need anyone's help to win the campaign in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: that's for sure, right, So that's what I always said.
Speaker 1: This guy has had a political genius for campaigning, clearly,
Speaker 1: but getting the job and doing the job we're not
Speaker 1: the same thing. And I think that that conservatives in
Speaker 1: general were not comfortable hearing from people who were trying
Speaker 1: to push Trump in a more productive policy direction to
Speaker 1: help him achieve victory in the trade war with China,
Speaker 1: to help him achieve the building of a wall from
Speaker 1: C to C, not fourteen miles that's the number. Fourteen
Speaker 1: miles of new wall and a few hundred miles of
Speaker 1: upgraded wall. We need a lot more new wall than
Speaker 1: we got, and these were areas where it should have
Speaker 1: been stronger, but nobody wanted to hear it. Now, when
Speaker 1: you're in the media business, remember you you have to
Speaker 1: speak the truth. But you also there's no point in
Speaker 1: antagonizing your listeners because one, you love and respect them
Speaker 1: right there, your extended family in a sense. But also
Speaker 1: they'll just tune it out. They'll tune it out. You
Speaker 1: know you can only you have to pick your spots.
Speaker 1: I can tell this audience things that I know that
Speaker 1: that when I say they obviously there's a tremendous We've
Speaker 1: got hundreds of thousands of listeners. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a there's a diverse, very diverse, truly diverse group of
Speaker 1: people listening to this show. But I know when I'm
Speaker 1: saying things, they're going to push some of the wrong
Speaker 1: some people's buttons the wrong way. But I do it
Speaker 1: for a purpose. I do it because I want to
Speaker 1: be honest and I think that I have to get
Speaker 1: it off my chest and I have to tell people
Speaker 1: what I really think. And that mechanism was too small
Speaker 1: within the Trump presidency. Wasn't enough space for that from
Speaker 1: his team people trying to help. You're in the hut.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast more roll call
Speaker 1: here with Wesley Buck. It's so disheartened to know that
Speaker 1: you're facing backlash, angry backlash from your own team for
Speaker 1: the sin of being principled enough that could down the
Speaker 1: DC riots. It's the same niche of die hard Trump
Speaker 1: supporters who came for Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly for
Speaker 1: the high crime of expecting actual proof of rampant voter
Speaker 1: fraud from Trump's lawyers. I support Trump, but I support
Speaker 1: this country and the conservative movement. More people need to
Speaker 1: remind themselves of what's at stake and maybe reevaluate what
Speaker 1: hills they want to die on. Like you, I believe
Speaker 1: in law and order, peaceful protests, and conservative populism. We
Speaker 1: must condemn all forms of lawlessness. You made the right
Speaker 1: call shields high. Oh Wesley, I appreciate that. I really do.
Speaker 1: You know, I haven't been reading, we haven't really been
Speaker 1: going for the you know, angry. Why are you betraying
Speaker 1: Trump stuff as much? On roll Call? There's there is
Speaker 1: some of that for sure, just because you know it's
Speaker 1: not productive, it's not helpful. And the people who are
Speaker 1: writing that to me for condemning the DC protests, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you they're out there and some of them listen
Speaker 1: to this show. But I just think they're wrong. I
Speaker 1: actually don't think. I don't think it's a um. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a worthwhile opinion to have to attack
Speaker 1: people for standing on what is clear principle here right
Speaker 1: to say that you're a bad person because you condemn
Speaker 1: the DC right. I don't think that that's a that's
Speaker 1: not an opinion that I'm I feel the need to
Speaker 1: have shared on the air here, you know, from other people. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I don't feel that. I don't feel that is helpful. Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Kyle, I'm Buck. I'm not in a conspiracy theories,
Speaker 1: but I think the goal of Democrats the upcoming impeachment
Speaker 1: might be to provoke more riots and throwing more rocks
Speaker 1: at the hornets nest causes more outbursts from the right.
Speaker 1: It would enable the left to crack down even harder
Speaker 1: than they already are. It's win win for them. I
Speaker 1: know that's Machiavellian, but I'm pretty sure Pelosi's made name
Speaker 1: was Machiavelli. It isn't it frustrating that people like us
Speaker 1: feel shame for the violence under the Capitol building while
Speaker 1: the left took righteous pride in the violence that took
Speaker 1: place over the summer. We are victims of our principles, Kyle.
Speaker 1: I've said this before. The great advantage of Democrats have
Speaker 1: is they have no principles to protect, which gives them
Speaker 1: a lot of options, endless options. They have no principles
Speaker 1: to protect right. It's political violence. Bad the left says,
Speaker 1: depends on who does it. But we can't be them
Speaker 1: a right otherwise, what's the point why people are saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: but buck, it gets in the way. Of course, it
Speaker 1: gets in the way. Being a good and honorable and
Speaker 1: honest person always comes at a cost. It's cost we
Speaker 1: have willing to pay ourselves. It's central to who we are.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for listening. Please do pass the buck.
Speaker 1: Tell people about what we're doing here, send them a
Speaker 1: bucksx and dot com or wherever podcasts currently live online.
Speaker 1: Shields High