Speaker 1: Strike Force Energy veteran owned, American made, and one of
Speaker 1: the hottest new energy products on the market. Strikeforce Energy
Speaker 1: was developed by veterans for one simple reason. The fight
Speaker 1: will always follow you, and it waits for no one
Speaker 1: buck sex in here force strike Force, and I invite
Speaker 1: you this summer to join us in giving back to
Speaker 1: America's troops. Over the last three years, Strikeforce Energy has
Speaker 1: shipped millions of packets to our troops, both at home
Speaker 1: and abroad. And now we're bringing this battlefield proven liquid
Speaker 1: directly to your door. Strikeforce Energy Liquid packs, available in
Speaker 1: four flavors, have zero sugar, zero calories, and are made
Speaker 1: with only the finest ingredients. For the fuel to power
Speaker 1: through your toughest fights, simply adds strike Force to sixteen
Speaker 1: to twenty ounces of water, tea, lemonade, yogurt, even a
Speaker 1: nice cold beer. Go to strike Force Energy dot com,
Speaker 1: enter discount code buck at checkout, and for every packet
Speaker 1: you buy, we will donate a packet to military members
Speaker 1: around the globe. Strike Force Energy dot Com discount code buck.
Speaker 1: Because strike Force Energy is the fuel for the fight
Speaker 1: you are entering the freedom hunt. Donald Trump enters a
Speaker 1: NATO summit with a mic drop moment, decides to let
Speaker 1: some of our European allies no no more free rides
Speaker 1: Montfrere no more. Deciding that somebody else is going to
Speaker 1: pay the bills for your defense. Time to step up. Plus,
Speaker 1: the anti Kavanaugh resistance is increasingly unhinged. Will hit that
Speaker 1: and much more coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. No. Two roll wars on their
Speaker 1: full ward vocal stuff. The real storment together not a
Speaker 1: part um. But how can you be together? What in
Speaker 1: country is getting its energy from the person you want
Speaker 1: protection against or rumber teams that you wanted to say
Speaker 1: that you understand that when we stand together. Also in
Speaker 1: dealing with Russia, we are stronger. I think, well, we
Speaker 1: have seen it's not you're just making Russia richer. Well,
Speaker 1: they're dealing with Russia making the rest of richer. So
Speaker 1: we're supposed to protect Germany, but they're getting their energy
Speaker 1: from Russia. Explained that Germany is totally controlled by Russia.
Speaker 1: Because they will be getting from sixty to seventy percent
Speaker 1: of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline. And
Speaker 1: you tell me if that's appropriate, because I think it's not.
Speaker 1: And I think it's a very bad thing for NATA
Speaker 1: and I don't think it should have happened. And I
Speaker 1: think we have to talk to Germany about it. On
Speaker 1: top of that, Germany is just paying a little bit
Speaker 1: over one, whereas the United States and actual numbers is
Speaker 1: paying four point two percent. Welcome to the buck, sex
Speaker 1: and show everybody. Donald Trump coming out swinging at this
Speaker 1: uh NATO summit, And I gotta tell you, I think
Speaker 1: it's about time. Why not have a heart to heart,
Speaker 1: Why not have an honest, no frills conversation with their
Speaker 1: European allies. They can handle it, right. These are developed countries.
Speaker 1: They've got serious militaries, they've got serious econoties. Remember d
Speaker 1: EU in its totality, has a bigger county than the
Speaker 1: United States. So why do they look to us for
Speaker 1: their collective defense? Right? Why is this a just an
Speaker 1: article of faith in the international relations? Smart set? Well?
Speaker 1: Trump is asking these questions, and I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: it is. It is one of these days where you
Speaker 1: see some people are willing to ask why. Other people
Speaker 1: just want to sound smart. They just want to say
Speaker 1: what they're told to say, just want to be with
Speaker 1: the cool kids in the cafeteria. And with with NATO,
Speaker 1: we we have a situation wherever it agrees, the Europeans
Speaker 1: are in defense terms being something of freeloaders. And if
Speaker 1: nothing else, why do we have NATO? I asked that
Speaker 1: question in all seriousness. The Soviet Union no longer exists,
Speaker 1: the Warsaw pack is not our concerned. NATO's the reason
Speaker 1: for NATO's existence no longer exists unless somebody really and
Speaker 1: truly believes that Russia is going to invade a sovereign
Speaker 1: European nation anytime soon. Uh, there's no real explanation for
Speaker 1: what NATO is going to do. We can still have
Speaker 1: multilateral and bilateral defense treaties with any countries you want.
Speaker 1: And when you really get down to it, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to be a little contrained, a little provocative because Trump's
Speaker 1: out there, and so that means that you get the
Speaker 1: hysterical reaction from liberals there. Oh he's gonna destroy that,
Speaker 1: He's gonna destroy nd On, what's gonna happen here, Oh,
Speaker 1: here we go. Christian arman Pool thinks it's unprecedented, blatant.
Speaker 1: It is unprecedented. It violates every norm of an alliance
Speaker 1: norm specifically, I'm talking about the captive and controlled by
Speaker 1: when he refers to Germany and Angela Merkel being controlled
Speaker 1: by Vladimir Putin and Russia. It is unprecedented language. It
Speaker 1: is a real threat to the alliance. Is it threats
Speaker 1: to the alliance? Why? Why is it a threat to
Speaker 1: the How is it a threat to the alliance? No
Speaker 1: one saying alliance is going anywhere? But can't we think
Speaker 1: about this? Can we have a discussion about what the
Speaker 1: future of US European military cooperation should be. People keep
Speaker 1: saying this, They say, oh, you know he's doing He's
Speaker 1: doing Putin's bidding. And I say, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: Not only is that unfair and skipping way down the
Speaker 1: line and act No one's saying we're abandoning your European College.
Speaker 1: The one thing we're breaking alliances with with these countries.
Speaker 1: We don't want to work with them anymore. We have
Speaker 1: deep bonds with our European partners, particularly the UK, but
Speaker 1: other countries too, The French, are Okay, A bunch of
Speaker 1: those European countries are nice, nice places to visit. But
Speaker 1: I also have to ask, you don't really think about this.
Speaker 1: Would you want if if trying, if there was an
Speaker 1: incident involving Russian masca rof car, which is you know,
Speaker 1: warfare via concealment, right, trying to do some kind of
Speaker 1: they would create some disturbance, and then Russian paramilitaries are
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, you know, in a country like Latvia.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying we would abandoned. I'm not saying we
Speaker 1: wouldn't put sanctions on Russia, we wouldn't do things, But
Speaker 1: would you really would you want your son or daughter
Speaker 1: to you know, get get para dropped. I know we
Speaker 1: don't really do that anymore, but you know I'll get
Speaker 1: get dropped off by see one thirty next door. And
Speaker 1: now we're we're gonna be fighting these Russian paramilitaries in
Speaker 1: lat Villa on on behalf of the Latvians. Um. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying no, I'm just saying, can we think about
Speaker 1: this a little bit? We think beyond just the the
Speaker 1: screeds in the hysteria, because what you see is anything
Speaker 1: that trumps involved in People don't want to have a
Speaker 1: rational conversation. They don't want to have a reasonable discussion.
Speaker 1: NATO somehow becomes oh, it's terrible. Uh, look this is
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. And I'll be honest
Speaker 1: with you. Not a lot of people will. I'll be
Speaker 1: honest with you. The NATO conversation. It's just nothing's gonna change.
Speaker 1: It's just not really that interesting. What's interesting is the
Speaker 1: reaction to Trump being there and and Trump being Trump.
Speaker 1: But in terms of the policy shifts, what's really going
Speaker 1: to come from this? You know, they just they're so dishonest.
Speaker 1: You know, they skip over this all the time. Putin
Speaker 1: for example, they say, is so close with Trump, and
Speaker 1: I know there's this meeting coming up, and everyone's like, oh,
Speaker 1: what are they gonna say to each other? The Trump
Speaker 1: administration has been willing to arm Ukrainian military with lethal weapons.
Speaker 1: The Obama administration refused those weapons, including UH sniper rifles
Speaker 1: that we've been giving and an anti tank missiles, javal
Speaker 1: and anti tank missiles to the Ukrainian National Army to
Speaker 1: fight against Russian backed and Russian UH irregular separatists in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: Obama's team wouldn't do that. They backed off of that.
Speaker 1: You have sanctions in place on Russia. Still, you have
Speaker 1: the administration very clear that Russian aggression and bellicost behavior
Speaker 1: is unacceptable. But there is this still, this, this this
Speaker 1: mass hysteria over Prutin and Trump. Putin and Trump they're
Speaker 1: they're best friends. I mean, does anybody really think for
Speaker 1: a second that Trump wouldn't turn on Putin on let's
Speaker 1: even assume they were friends. Trump wouldn't turn on Putin
Speaker 1: on a dime if he felt the least bit disrespected
Speaker 1: by him. You think Trump plays second fiddle the Putin
Speaker 1: at all in his mind, or would even would even
Speaker 1: consider such a thing. No. I think what you had
Speaker 1: before with the Obama administration was eight years of a
Speaker 1: president who looked, acted, and sounded weak on foreign policy matters,
Speaker 1: and who Putin thought he could take to the cleaners
Speaker 1: and on foreign policy did just that right that he
Speaker 1: could just you know, just school them, Just school the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, take what they want, get away with a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. You'll notice that the sanctions they put
Speaker 1: on Obama didn't come until really, I mean the latest
Speaker 1: round of sanctions to say it was for election interference,
Speaker 1: but didn't happen the very late in the administration, and
Speaker 1: the stuff that they it about Georgia and about Crimea
Speaker 1: didn't have any effect on Russian foreign policy what the
Speaker 1: Russians accomplished in Syria because Obama was too busy appeasing
Speaker 1: the Iranians, you know, I mean, that's not discussed nearly enough.
Speaker 1: I'm actually reading almost finished with a book right now
Speaker 1: which I will very I very much recommend all of you.
Speaker 1: It's called red Notice. Now, red notice is what they
Speaker 1: call an international arrest warrant an interpoll. So when a
Speaker 1: red notice is out on you, it means that INTERPOL,
Speaker 1: the international police agency, has been notified that you are
Speaker 1: to be arrested and you are to be uh. You
Speaker 1: are to be transferred right extradited to a specific country. UH. Browder,
Speaker 1: who wrote the book Red Notice, talks about what it's
Speaker 1: like doing business in Russia and then leads you through
Speaker 1: the story of the Magnitsky Act for Sarah Gai Magnitsky,
Speaker 1: who was a mild man nerds patriotic Russian. By the way,
Speaker 1: I really believed in the Russian state, believe in the
Speaker 1: Russian law, a model man of tax attorney who got
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of the Kremlin and some of
Speaker 1: the oligarchs because of a massive fraud that Browder helped
Speaker 1: expose through his business dealings. And then Magnitsky was held
Speaker 1: in the worst and most sort of inhumane Russian prison conditions.
Speaker 1: He had all kinds of infections and was losing weight,
Speaker 1: and they would they they intentionally denied him medical treatment.
Speaker 1: He was in horrific suffering. And then when they finally transferred,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the Russian way of doing this.
Speaker 1: I have no illusions about Russian Right. The Russian government
Speaker 1: is bad and does bad things. They're thugs, but they're
Speaker 1: thugs with a lot of nukes. We can't just you know,
Speaker 1: kick them around and treat them like they are a
Speaker 1: bunch of punks. You know. We gotta let them know that,
Speaker 1: yeah we've got you know, we we can hit back too,
Speaker 1: but we can't just get injured with them every time
Speaker 1: we see them. Right. But I have no illusions about
Speaker 1: the Russian state. Neither's Trump. Now that's Pao. Back to
Speaker 1: mcnittskey for a moment here, and this was about a
Speaker 1: decade or so ago, actually, no less than that. Now, um, well,
Speaker 1: I think it was two thousand and it was during
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. I'm forgetting this specific year. But so Magnitsky,
Speaker 1: this lawyer, is in Russian custody. They deny him medical treatment,
Speaker 1: and then finally, wh they're gonna give him medical treatment,
Speaker 1: and all the while you've got these press stories, the
Speaker 1: journalists are saying that Magnitsky is being held he's being held,
Speaker 1: uh in illegal detention. They in Russia, by the they
Speaker 1: can hold you for a year without charging. You. Think
Speaker 1: about that next time you think that the U S
Speaker 1: system is not that great, just remember it's it's the
Speaker 1: best of very bad systems. Ah. But then they finally
Speaker 1: gonna give him medical treatment. Instead, they sent a bunch
Speaker 1: of riot police into his UH cell and beat him
Speaker 1: to death with the tons after he had been writhing
Speaker 1: in pain for months because of untreated he had kidney stones.
Speaker 1: I mean, just terrible stuff. Uh. And the Russians are
Speaker 1: trying this is what the Russians do. They try to
Speaker 1: make examples of people. It's why they put you know,
Speaker 1: polonium and people sushi or whatever and whatever that radio
Speaker 1: radio active isotope was that they poisoned lit Vanenka was
Speaker 1: so and and and now Nova Chuck right, the the
Speaker 1: nerve agent that is has greatly sickened a number of people,
Speaker 1: including a an enemy of the Russian state. So I
Speaker 1: have no illusions about how bad the Russians are. Also,
Speaker 1: for my time in the CIA, trust me, I am
Speaker 1: very aware. A lot of the top people in the agency,
Speaker 1: because of the Cold War, because the main adversary was
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union, had very colorful thoughts about the Russians,
Speaker 1: about the KGB, then the FSB uh and and yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of there's a lot of viciousness and
Speaker 1: a lot of thuggery that is part of the enterprise
Speaker 1: of the state in Russia. But there's one part of
Speaker 1: all that. And you know, as you said, you're talking
Speaker 1: about NATO, one part of the in this book that
Speaker 1: comes out. I think it's so interesting. It doesn't get
Speaker 1: nearly enough attention that Obama didn't want to push the
Speaker 1: Magnetski Act. John Kerry didn't want to push the Magnetski Act.
Speaker 1: They didn't want to ruffle feathers. Obama wanted the Russian reset.
Speaker 1: Obama wanted to play kate the Russians. Obama was caught
Speaker 1: on the hot mic saying you know, you know, I
Speaker 1: will I'll have more flexibility at the next election. And
Speaker 1: then you know, uh Medvedev was like, remember all that.
Speaker 1: I mean, we you've had nothing with Trump that's in
Speaker 1: the same universe of appeasement like that. You know, once
Speaker 1: I basically what Obama said was, once I fool the
Speaker 1: American people one more time into thinking that, you know,
Speaker 1: I'll do something that I won't do with you guys,
Speaker 1: then then you know we can actually really talk Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton with a stupid reset button. Obama then carry they
Speaker 1: didn't even want to push the Magnetski Act after Sarage
Speaker 1: Madnisky rotted and then was murdered in a prison cell.
Speaker 1: International news story. A lot of people knew about it,
Speaker 1: they didn't really care because they thought they had more important,
Speaker 1: better things to focus on and to do. John Kerry
Speaker 1: tried to stop the Magnetski Act. Barack Obama his administration
Speaker 1: tried to stop the Magnetski Act. They were soft on
Speaker 1: Russia because they were soft on everybody because their foreign
Speaker 1: policy was weak. So and I don't need all the
Speaker 1: former Obama types, all the former you know Obama officials.
Speaker 1: Two lecture us on foreign policy. And I also don't
Speaker 1: need the Bush people, thanks for the wars that you
Speaker 1: know never end. Push folks, I don't really need them either,
Speaker 1: to be telling all the rest of us how this
Speaker 1: needs to go. I'm gonna get more in this specifics
Speaker 1: and NATO here in just a moment, and you'll probably
Speaker 1: hear you talk more about Red Notice another time. Excellent
Speaker 1: book though highly highly recommend and I think you'll all
Speaker 1: be very glad if you pick up a copy and
Speaker 1: check it out for yourself. Eight four four n eight
Speaker 1: to five eight four four we'll talk more about this
Speaker 1: whole NATO Kerfoffel coming up. There's no question that he
Speaker 1: was beating up on on the end Stoltenberg in a
Speaker 1: deliberate way. He was playing to the camera and he
Speaker 1: knew what he was doing. And I can only think
Speaker 1: that he was setting on a trajectory that we're going
Speaker 1: to see throughout this meeting in Brussels, and it's only
Speaker 1: going to, you know, further sour his welcome in the
Speaker 1: UK for the next leg of his trip. So I
Speaker 1: think he is determined to blow up an alliance that
Speaker 1: has America created, as you have pointed out there at
Speaker 1: the creation Uh, we are now witnessing what could be
Speaker 1: the destruction just the coolest spade to spade. The President
Speaker 1: says it's unfair to the US and to the taxpayers.
Speaker 1: But NATO's budget is determined on the size of each
Speaker 1: individual economy. That's why the US spends more. The US
Speaker 1: wants to spend more of domestic g EP on its
Speaker 1: own military. Europe thought that Europe was safe after the
Speaker 1: collapse of the Soviet Union. It was after Russia changed
Speaker 1: the rules of the game that they realized they had
Speaker 1: to spend more. And yes, Saltenburg told President Trump that
Speaker 1: that's exactly what I've been doing. So not that it matters,
Speaker 1: I guess to CNN, but I'm a poor is wrong there.
Speaker 1: The the the budget is is by percentage of of
Speaker 1: g d P, so each state there has to is
Speaker 1: supposed to meet two of their gross domestic product. Uh.
Speaker 1: And the NATO estimate is that about fifteen members a
Speaker 1: little over half of the twenty nine total members. Remember
Speaker 1: we got Montenegro in there. Oh uh, we'll actually meet that.
Speaker 1: But it's more than just the money. Of the money
Speaker 1: is important, it's about the mentality. The mentality being that
Speaker 1: these Russian I mean, these European states have this idea
Speaker 1: that they get to spend all this stuff on their
Speaker 1: social welfare programs, and then they get to kind of
Speaker 1: thumb their noses that America knowing that we are the big,
Speaker 1: benevolent brother across the ocean that will come save their
Speaker 1: butts when need be, because we've done it before a
Speaker 1: couple of times. Actually, And by the way, Andrea Mitchell's
Speaker 1: comment about blowing up the alliance, does anybody want to
Speaker 1: place a bet about whether there'll be any significant change
Speaker 1: to the NATO alliance because of what Trump is doing
Speaker 1: right now? I would. I would place a large bet
Speaker 1: if I could. The only change is that we've already
Speaker 1: gotten a change, which is that NATO has pledged because
Speaker 1: of the tough talk from Trump, NATO has pledged to
Speaker 1: boost their spending. Well, gee whiz, isn't that something of
Speaker 1: a of a massive surprise, right? I Mean, Trump is
Speaker 1: over there, he's saying enough is enough. But you see,
Speaker 1: here's one of the reasons why Trump has the freedom
Speaker 1: of action here to actually do something. Most presidents, really,
Speaker 1: all presidents in the post Soviet era, have advisors around
Speaker 1: them and have a media complex that is on the
Speaker 1: same sheet of music when it comes to NATO. NATO
Speaker 1: has established the greatest period of global security and it
Speaker 1: is amazing. Trump shows up and he he doesn't care
Speaker 1: what people think about the consensus, the conventional wisdom. He
Speaker 1: wants to know what are we doing and what are
Speaker 1: we getting out of this? Is this worthwhile? Is this
Speaker 1: something we should do? It's oddly enough for so many people,
Speaker 1: an intellectually more honest way to approach an issue like this,
Speaker 1: what's really going on with NATO. But the other part
Speaker 1: of this, too is that the left, they don't really
Speaker 1: care about NATO. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton his back. Germany is a rich country. They talked
Speaker 1: about they can increase it is tig e bien by well,
Speaker 1: they could increase it immediately tomorrow and have no problem.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's fair to the United States. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to do something because we're not gonna
Speaker 1: put up with it. We can't put up with it,
Speaker 1: and it's inappropriate. I think it's very unfair to our country.
Speaker 1: It's very unfair to our taxpayer, and I think that
Speaker 1: these countries have to step it up. Not over a
Speaker 1: ten year period have to step it up immediately. Let's
Speaker 1: a very small amount of money relative to what they
Speaker 1: owe and to what they should be paying, and it's
Speaker 1: an unfair burden of the United States. So we're here
Speaker 1: to talk about that, and I'm sure it will be resolved.
Speaker 1: We all agree that you have to do more. Law
Speaker 1: scale was the biggest thing to in defense spending inclse
Speaker 1: youfin on the in the generation? Why was that last year?
Speaker 1: It's also your leadership to be close to a message
Speaker 1: on on hey Wall, right that I've sent it to
Speaker 1: fort This has gotten in decades, by the way, this
Speaker 1: has gotten from many presidents, but no other president brought
Speaker 1: it up like I bring it up. Trade, NATO, ally, spending, immigration.
Speaker 1: These are issues where we have been told one thing
Speaker 1: for decades, and that thing we've been told is at
Speaker 1: least partially untrue, in some cases largely untrue. All Right,
Speaker 1: That that that we can't just have a more honest
Speaker 1: discussion about all of this is to our detriment until
Speaker 1: Trump came along, and now we can finally talk about it.
Speaker 1: You know, you see a lot of people go, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, he's he's being so mean. He's saying this
Speaker 1: stuff about how Germany gets. Yeah, Germany gets about thirty
Speaker 1: of its natural gas, primarily used for heating. It gets
Speaker 1: its natural gas from Russia from Russian pipelines, and the Russians,
Speaker 1: by the way, are not unwilling to shut down those
Speaker 1: pipelines occasionally to kind of show people whose boss. And
Speaker 1: from what I understand, it's very cold and Dusseldorf in
Speaker 1: like January. So yeah, there is a real connection there.
Speaker 1: There's Russian influence. Russia is going to have influence, particularly
Speaker 1: in former Soviet states that is difficult for us to
Speaker 1: counter on a cultural level. I'm not saying it's I
Speaker 1: possible to saying that there there's gonna have there's gonna
Speaker 1: be influence. I mean there are countries like Latvia where
Speaker 1: there are Russian, large numbers of Russian speakers, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think what you're seeing happening here is the the
Speaker 1: final recognition from a lot of people who have been
Speaker 1: criticizing Trump about NATO along that he's right. Stoldenberg said it.
Speaker 1: He's like, yeah, we're spending more Monday because of you. Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, you guys need to spend more money. It's
Speaker 1: it's also a question of put your money where your
Speaker 1: mouth is, have more skin in the game. The European
Speaker 1: states spending more on their own defense makes them think
Speaker 1: differently about their foreign policy, makes them think differently about
Speaker 1: there uh, their expenditures across the board. And there is
Speaker 1: no reason why we should be in a position to
Speaker 1: think that if something were to go really bad in
Speaker 1: Europe with the Russia visa, be the Russians, that it
Speaker 1: would fall on us to really counter the Germany is
Speaker 1: an industrial powerhouse, huge population, very wealthy. I know some
Speaker 1: people get a little nervous about the Germans, you know,
Speaker 1: building up their military for obvious reasons, right, history and
Speaker 1: all that. But you know this, this is the kind
Speaker 1: of conversation that can actually move the needle. Senator Barosso,
Speaker 1: by the way, spoke about this issue of German energy.
Speaker 1: He's totally correct. Place seven. The President is unique and
Speaker 1: unconventional in his approach, but he is absolutely right in
Speaker 1: what he is saying. You know, Germany decided to get
Speaker 1: rid of all its nuclear power plants and as a
Speaker 1: result became more dependent on Russia for energy, and energy
Speaker 1: is called the master resource for a reason. It powers
Speaker 1: economies at powers countries. It is a forced multiplier. It
Speaker 1: is an instrument of power, and when Germany is more
Speaker 1: dependent on Russia for energy, that gives Russia that much
Speaker 1: more power over Germany and over the European Union as well.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely true so the German decision making. And
Speaker 1: for those who are wondering, black block the tactic that
Speaker 1: you will see, this is a little fun. This is
Speaker 1: why you listened to this show because I know all
Speaker 1: kinds of random fun stuff. Black block is actually schwartzer block.
Speaker 1: It comes from Germany. Remember this is where you have
Speaker 1: these guys, the anarchists, dressed in black from head to toe,
Speaker 1: and they run around and they act like street protest paramilitaries. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, and Antifa uses black block as a tactic.
Speaker 1: Now an antiphon black block almost feel indistinguishable. Where's my
Speaker 1: Antifa call out, John, You've got nothing for me? Uh.
Speaker 1: It started though in Germany as a protest against nuclear
Speaker 1: energy back and I think the eighties. So they have
Speaker 1: the left in Germany get rid of nuclear power plants
Speaker 1: and as a result, there's a much greater reliance on
Speaker 1: the fossil fuels coming in from Russia, which means that
Speaker 1: Russian and German economic interests are more intertwined, which means,
Speaker 1: by the way, the Russians have a lot more leverage
Speaker 1: to apply to the the industrial and economic powerhouse of
Speaker 1: the EU, which is Germany. So you know, while everyone's
Speaker 1: running around lecturing, lecturing Trump about lecturing the NATO alliance,
Speaker 1: the truth is, you know, Europe needs to get its
Speaker 1: act together a little bit here on geopolitics and the
Speaker 1: strategy that it has to counter Russia's moves here. Not
Speaker 1: something that you know, you just don't hear the from
Speaker 1: other people. By the way, Barroso also had some good
Speaker 1: comments on Putin. Not people don't sit around saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Putin's our good friend, he's our buddy. Everything's gonna be fine. No,
Speaker 1: we understand what we are up against here with Putin.
Speaker 1: The thing Putin's a thug. Pud's a thug. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: know that. What do we do about it? What do
Speaker 1: all the people chest? Something? I saw him? Was it
Speaker 1: Donna bash? Don't call her Dana Donna Bash? Asking Vice
Speaker 1: President Pence earlier in the week. You know, is Russia
Speaker 1: a foe? Can you? Will you call them a foe?
Speaker 1: It's like, no, lady, He's not gonna call Russia a foe.
Speaker 1: The Vice President Nited States is not gonna basically say yeah,
Speaker 1: Russia is an enemy before the president is about to
Speaker 1: sit down with their president and have a conversation about
Speaker 1: US Russia relations. He's not gonna do that, all right.
Speaker 1: So as as cute as that as that game is,
Speaker 1: by the way, she doesn't do it for Clara for
Speaker 1: cation purposes. The reason CNN asks the VP of that
Speaker 1: question is so when they won't call Russia and enemy,
Speaker 1: everyone goes, oh my gosh, he's in Putin's pocket. Look
Speaker 1: at this, Look at that. It's so bad. Look what
Speaker 1: he's doing. It's just all a game to them. They're
Speaker 1: not even serious about NATO. Are the same the same
Speaker 1: leftists who completely recoil at the use of any US
Speaker 1: military power that's actually in our interests. That they love it,
Speaker 1: that they love to put our guys in some third
Speaker 1: world hellhole where we have no national security interests. But
Speaker 1: you know, people over there there's some kind of tribal
Speaker 1: warfare going on or something. You know, the left loves that,
Speaker 1: but they don't actually like the projection of US military
Speaker 1: power as a general idea. And with NATO, they're just
Speaker 1: pretending to care about this, right now because it's another
Speaker 1: opportunity to get hysterical and freak out about Trump. Barossa
Speaker 1: though on pute I mentioned this, I learned is this
Speaker 1: the sentator Borrossa a brassa rather up rosso barosso on
Speaker 1: Putin pliclibate. And it seems like it's more than half
Speaker 1: of German energy is coming from Russia. NATO was established
Speaker 1: for the right reasons in nineteen nine as a deterrence
Speaker 1: against then the Soviet Union, with the same applies today
Speaker 1: with Russia and Vladimir Putin is cunning, he's aggressive, who's
Speaker 1: he's opportunistic. He will use everything he can to gain
Speaker 1: an advantage, and when he has an opportunity to use
Speaker 1: energy as a geopolitical weapon to gain an advantage, he
Speaker 1: will do so. That's why I believe President Trump is
Speaker 1: absolutely right to bring the fight as he is. I agree.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this also goes to how you
Speaker 1: can thank conservatives and their capitalist approach for the single
Speaker 1: greatest weapon deployed in the last twenty years against authoritarian
Speaker 1: states from Russia to Saudi Arabia to Venezuela to Iran.
Speaker 1: Oh By that's right, fracking and the shale oil revolution.
Speaker 1: In this country, which the environmentalist nut job left and
Speaker 1: the the Democrat progressive media apparatus opposed tooth and nail
Speaker 1: everything they had putin, would be in a much stronger,
Speaker 1: much more aggressive place right now if we were not
Speaker 1: the hydrocarbon superpower that we've become, and if the price
Speaker 1: of oil per barrel had not dropped so precipitously because
Speaker 1: of the glut in supply thanks to a bunch of
Speaker 1: American oil companies and engineers and and oil workers who
Speaker 1: are using the economics of the energy industry as one
Speaker 1: of our single most important foreign policy tools. It is
Speaker 1: is absolutely essential. Uh. And you don't hear nearly by
Speaker 1: the Obama was opposing that he you know, not only
Speaker 1: the Russian reset. Do you ever hear them talk about
Speaker 1: that anymore? By the way, the Russian reset, Yeah, we
Speaker 1: know Obama was bowing to everybody. But do you ever
Speaker 1: hear about the Russian recent No, the answer is no,
Speaker 1: not only here about that, but the Obama administration was
Speaker 1: opposing shale, was opposing the very kinds of oil technologies
Speaker 1: and the exploration that allowed by it that has put
Speaker 1: us in this position right now. Not only are you
Speaker 1: paying less at the pump because of it, but also
Speaker 1: foreign dictators have less cash to throw around to fund paramilitaries,
Speaker 1: to fund nuclear and missile technology research. Our economic advantage,
Speaker 1: our technological advantages is everything right, it's it's it's essential
Speaker 1: to our role in the world, and the Left is
Speaker 1: everything they can to try and stifle that. One more
Speaker 1: thing I just have to note here, and it goes
Speaker 1: back to this Donna Bosh interview with Pence. Vice President Pence,
Speaker 1: think about what we really want in Russia. It's enormous country.
Speaker 1: It spans what seven time zones, population over a hundred
Speaker 1: million people. It's got thousands of nuclear weapons. It is
Speaker 1: from a land and resources, uh perspective, still something of
Speaker 1: a superpower, right from a resources perspective, not as an economy.
Speaker 1: It's its economy is pretty pretty weak. What do we
Speaker 1: really want? We want modernization, liberalization and rule of law there.
Speaker 1: We want a real political opposition, and we want people
Speaker 1: to stop supporting Vladimir Putin. Putin has been very lucky.
Speaker 1: You don't hear about this from other analysts because they
Speaker 1: don't know crap. But Putin, for all of his flaws,
Speaker 1: has presided over the creation of a Russian Middle class,
Speaker 1: something that did not exist before. The Russians in the
Speaker 1: nineties after the collapse of the Soviet Union, were utterly humiliated. Humiliated. Okay,
Speaker 1: you had guys with pH ds that were trying to
Speaker 1: sell t shirts on the street and driving cabs literally,
Speaker 1: that's what was going on. And with Putin and then
Speaker 1: the privatization, which was there was massive theft and that's
Speaker 1: how the oligarchs became billionaires. But with privatization you had
Speaker 1: Russians who finally had cash in their pockets. And then
Speaker 1: over time, overall there was more wealth in Russian society.
Speaker 1: And now you'll see Russians out, you know, and if
Speaker 1: you go to any global vacation spot, you'll see Russians
Speaker 1: wearing fancy track shoots, track suits with you know, very
Speaker 1: very expensive watches. And that's just you know how some
Speaker 1: of them roll, right, the rich Russians. But we want
Speaker 1: a situation where the Russian people say, hey, you know
Speaker 1: Putin and his guys, they're actually a bunch of corrupt jerks.
Speaker 1: That's not gonna happen. We don't help the Russian opposition
Speaker 1: having the press in this country pretend that Russia is
Speaker 1: a boogeyman, that hides under every bed that the Russians
Speaker 1: are our enemies now and forever, that Russia is an
Speaker 1: enemy state. They want to talk I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: clowns like Joe Scarborough saying that Trump is doing Putin's
Speaker 1: work here. They want to talk about doing Putin's work
Speaker 1: convincing the American people that Russia is not an opportunity
Speaker 1: for us, that the Russian people are never going to
Speaker 1: be friends and allies of ours. The way that European
Speaker 1: states are is doing more to help Putent than anything
Speaker 1: Trump has ever imagined. And that's the truth. Like I said,
Speaker 1: you won't to hear that because they just you know,
Speaker 1: I I'm really amazed I see this. There are so
Speaker 1: many multi millionaire journalists out there who I just get
Speaker 1: the feeling haven't read a book in about ten years.
Speaker 1: It's just the truth, paid all this money, have these platforms,
Speaker 1: don't know a damn thing. But you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know they're they're friends with Jeff Zucker or something. I
Speaker 1: don't know what to say. It's just it's astonishing what
Speaker 1: goes on out there. Uh. And the ignorance that is
Speaker 1: on display from our press corps on these issues, and
Speaker 1: and the games they play too. They pretend to care
Speaker 1: about NATO and US national security. Meanwhile they're doing so
Speaker 1: much to actually undermine it. It's just just incredibly frustrating.
Speaker 1: Eight four to eight to five, eight four four, nine
Speaker 1: hundred buck team. I've got much more, including the the
Speaker 1: fight against Kavanaugh. We're gonna get into that in the
Speaker 1: second hour. So stay right there, ol man. You know,
Speaker 1: we we have launched this uh this network hill dot TV,
Speaker 1: and it is wild down here my friends. Just want
Speaker 1: to take a moment to tell you all, I really
Speaker 1: really appreciate all the support you've been give me. Launching
Speaker 1: a a digital TV network is is quite an undertaking.
Speaker 1: Let me let me tell you this is uh uh,
Speaker 1: you know, it requires a lot of long nights. I
Speaker 1: actually have my first time where I had to bust out.
Speaker 1: I've got a a camping pillow and a pad that
Speaker 1: you blow up, you know, one of those things you
Speaker 1: put on the ground when you're out camping. I had
Speaker 1: to take a nap in the office because I put
Speaker 1: it requires here. It's an all hands on deck scenario.
Speaker 1: But you know we had LANDI Davis on earlier this
Speaker 1: week for a great interview, got picked up by all
Speaker 1: these different outlets across the country that we're talking about it. Um.
Speaker 1: Obviously we kicked it off with the Jeff Sessions interview,
Speaker 1: and I think we're really in a groove. And for
Speaker 1: those of you who are OSS who have been listening
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sexton Show for a while, uh, and
Speaker 1: if you go back to the Saturday show and when
Speaker 1: I was still doing The Blaze, something fun that's going on.
Speaker 1: We've got a panel now that we're doing daily where
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get in as many of my old
Speaker 1: Blaze buddies as possible. You know, I'm really pushing and
Speaker 1: doing everything that I can, uh, in order to get
Speaker 1: to a place where we're having all those old Blaze
Speaker 1: names you know and love. Right. We've had Lawrence Jones on,
Speaker 1: Tara set Mayor, We've been having on you know, so
Speaker 1: many people that I used to get to work with
Speaker 1: the Blaze, and I'm telling you we are having some
Speaker 1: of the very best political discussions, best political panels. Uh.
Speaker 1: It's so much fun. And I really think you should
Speaker 1: check it out. It's great. By the way, no subscription
Speaker 1: or anything, it's just hill dot tv, slash rising to
Speaker 1: check out the show. If you can't watch it live,
Speaker 1: don't worry. It's meant to be watched in segments whenever
Speaker 1: you want throughout the day. So thank you all, by
Speaker 1: the way for the the support and and the the
Speaker 1: emails and the Facebook messages about it. It really means
Speaker 1: a lot. And we know we have our launch party
Speaker 1: tonight later on in d C, which would be fun.
Speaker 1: I've never had a launch party. Before launch party, I
Speaker 1: feel like I should be wearing a top hat and
Speaker 1: a monocle. But it's gonna be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: All right. I'm gonna get back into the substance here
Speaker 1: of what's going on in the country. You have this
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh opposition that is completely unhinged. It's completely out of control,
Speaker 1: and and I want to I want to take this
Speaker 1: and give you there's some important um conclusions that we
Speaker 1: need to draw from this. There are some important things
Speaker 1: that I want you to keep in mind as we
Speaker 1: think about just why they're so anti Kavanaugh. Why are
Speaker 1: they so completely and utterly divorced from reality, from any
Speaker 1: sense of morality. Uh, They're just they're attacking this guy
Speaker 1: with everything they've gotten. And I really do want to
Speaker 1: get into what I see as the meetings, the meeting
Speaker 1: behind this and also where all that's gonna go, So
Speaker 1: that is coming up in the second hour. Team stay
Speaker 1: right there, listen. Do you have animals digging under your fence,
Speaker 1: pets escaping, or predators and pests coming in? Are you
Speaker 1: tired of trying bricks, wood or concrete. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you about dig Defense. It's genius. It extends the protection
Speaker 1: of your fence underground. Just installed at the base of
Speaker 1: any fence to protect your pet and your property. A
Speaker 1: hammer and gloves are all that is needed to install
Speaker 1: dig Defense and stop that digging. No more chasing Fido
Speaker 1: as he runs around the backyard. Chase him around the
Speaker 1: backyard enclosed and safe. That's what you want to do.
Speaker 1: It stop the dig now with dig Defense available online
Speaker 1: at Loews, Tractor Supply Menards Wayfair and stop the dig
Speaker 1: dot com. And now for the month of July, is
Speaker 1: it Stop the dig dot com and use the promo
Speaker 1: code buck for ten percent off that stop the dig
Speaker 1: dot Com and use promo code b U c K.
Speaker 1: That's promo code Buckets. Stop the dig dot com for
Speaker 1: ten percent off your entire order. Buck Sexton Permission decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show, analysts,
Speaker 1: no judge Kavanaugh, if he has abjuctive would be the
Speaker 1: swing boat in deciding whether he can pardon himself get
Speaker 1: out of jail free path. Amazingly, he said the court
Speaker 1: should consider a constitutional challenge to the health care law,
Speaker 1: the Affordable Care Act, and openly criticized the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. This is about
Speaker 1: replacing the authority of government, putting the government's authority ahead
Speaker 1: of the authority of a woman to make a decision
Speaker 1: about her own body and her future. They don't have
Speaker 1: a single line of attack against Kavanaugh. They really don't.
Speaker 1: They don't know what they're gonna do. The don't know
Speaker 1: what they're gonna say other than just oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: she's hitler. They got nothing. And I've realized something I've
Speaker 1: been telling you for some time that I believe that
Speaker 1: liberalism has entered a phase where it is a mass delusion.
Speaker 1: That we've entered her a realm where liberals are engaged
Speaker 1: in a a true disassociation from reality, a hysteria. And
Speaker 1: what I'm realizing now is also they have a compulsion.
Speaker 1: Notice how you're hearing a lot of stuff about how
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh is bad, but he's really bad because of Trump.
Speaker 1: And not only is Kavanaugh bad because of Trump, he's
Speaker 1: bad because Trump may need Kavanaugh because of the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation, to save him from criminal jeopardy. Everything somehow
Speaker 1: on the political left turns into a a screed about
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Everything on the political left is somehow tied
Speaker 1: to the notion that Donald Trump is the worst human
Speaker 1: being ever. He's coming, He's oken so many They really
Speaker 1: take the position that Trump has broken so many laws
Speaker 1: that they can't even name one because they're overwhelmed by
Speaker 1: all the laws. It's really the most intellectually dishonest framing
Speaker 1: of an issue I've I've ever seen, I could I
Speaker 1: could ever imagine. But this is where we are now. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is in fact what we see from them. Here's
Speaker 1: a guy named uh varad Met. How he writes what
Speaker 1: Capital's edition to the Supreme Court would mean for environmental
Speaker 1: law is that all the fantasy climate change suits the
Speaker 1: environl loons are pushing, like the Children's Entrustment suit will
Speaker 1: die if they ever make it discotis. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: You see, Liberals were able to get away with a
Speaker 1: lot of their fantasy land nonsense for a long time.
Speaker 1: And now they realize that, you know, the gravy train
Speaker 1: is coming to an end. You might actually have to
Speaker 1: get the American people to agree with you, um and
Speaker 1: and you might have to get things passed through the legislature.
Speaker 1: And then oh, by the way, they can be changed
Speaker 1: when things go back. See. One of the things that
Speaker 1: that I think often gets overlooked here, very very important
Speaker 1: is that for liberals, Supreme Court judgments that go their
Speaker 1: way are better than laws. They're better than laws because
Speaker 1: laws can be repealed, loss can be easily overturned. Right
Speaker 1: there there. They have not yet made the argument, well
Speaker 1: not openly at least, But the left is not yet
Speaker 1: made the argument that, well, what one Congress does, another
Speaker 1: congress cannot undo. But they do make the argument that
Speaker 1: what the Supreme Court gives the left once can never
Speaker 1: be taken away. So they view this like whenever they
Speaker 1: get a a by judicial fiat from a Supreme court,
Speaker 1: whenever the progressives, the Democra that party has some you know,
Speaker 1: major win, they can they can count on that that's
Speaker 1: in the bank for them forever. That moves the political
Speaker 1: and cultural trajectory of the United States in their direction irrevocably.
Speaker 1: So it's not only and this this really came to
Speaker 1: me last night. It's not only that they can't get
Speaker 1: some of these things that they wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: get nationwide abortion, nationwide same sex marriage, nationally. A lot
Speaker 1: of this stuff has been or you know, pretending affirmative
Speaker 1: action is constitution, all these things that are that are
Speaker 1: national level, top down policy from the Supreme Court. It's
Speaker 1: not just that they don't have to go through the legislature,
Speaker 1: which they are very happy about. It's that, on top
Speaker 1: of that, they feel like it is always and forever
Speaker 1: going to be that way. Clearly that's the case with
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade. I mean, the way that the American
Speaker 1: left speaks about Row the Wade right now is with
Speaker 1: a great deal more reverence than they speak about the
Speaker 1: actual constitution of the United States, because you're seeing a
Speaker 1: lot of ah, gosh, should we really have lifetime appointments
Speaker 1: for Supreme Court justices? Is oh gosh, you know, did
Speaker 1: people really know stuff in seventeen seventy six that that
Speaker 1: should affect us today. You know, they they will question
Speaker 1: and I am you know, I'm not exaggerating this is
Speaker 1: this is true. Liberals will question the importance and the
Speaker 1: wisdom of the Supreme Courts, I mean of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: But Roe v. Wade is sacred. Roe v. Wade is
Speaker 1: the closest thing the Left has to a sacred text,
Speaker 1: and the fact that it has led to a demonic
Speaker 1: outcome that has killed millions and millions and millions of
Speaker 1: tiny babies is a truth that I don't think that
Speaker 1: the progressive left can ever allow itself to face up to.
Speaker 1: Another part of this as well. It's not just that
Speaker 1: they think that their Supreme Court handed down victories are forever.
Speaker 1: There's also that part in the back of liberals minds
Speaker 1: that tells them whether they benefited from a from action
Speaker 1: and they know it, or they chose to have an
Speaker 1: abortion and they know it, or any number of things
Speaker 1: that are that could in fact be that could in
Speaker 1: fact be reversed by a court with Kavanaugh on it.
Speaker 1: I think it's hard for some liberals to think of
Speaker 1: a future in which they don't have the ability to
Speaker 1: point at the Supreme Court and say they told me
Speaker 1: it's okay. They told me it's just They tell me
Speaker 1: still to this day, that I have a right to
Speaker 1: do it. I have a right to do what I
Speaker 1: did without that cover, without that veneer of you know,
Speaker 1: nine really five most of the time. Although in the
Speaker 1: case of Row seven, judges wearing robes pretending that what
Speaker 1: millions of Americans have done or have benefited from is
Speaker 1: right and ethical and moral, I think many people are
Speaker 1: going to have some, let's just say self doubt going forward.
Speaker 1: There is a massive psychological component. Two, the Supreme courtinates
Speaker 1: decisions for the liberal left. I have a code that
Speaker 1: I live by. You don't you do as well. I
Speaker 1: don't really care what the Supreme Court says except as
Speaker 1: an effects policy. But for a lot of the left,
Speaker 1: and particularly on the issue of abortion, they look to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court as the ultimate sanction or their behavior.
Speaker 1: And if that were to go away, not only would
Speaker 1: it affect future behavior, I think it would affect the
Speaker 1: way people look at their own actions in the past,
Speaker 1: and that would be a very difficult thing or millions
Speaker 1: of our fellow Americans to handle. We've gottahit a quick
Speaker 1: break here. I got more on this Kavanaugh opposition, which
Speaker 1: is insane. So stay with me. I'm a coffee drinker.
Speaker 1: It's honestly something I need to get through my day.
Speaker 1: But I don't want you to ever have the feeling
Speaker 1: that you need to spit out some weak sauce comie blend.
Speaker 1: You should be drinking the good stuff. Have the taste
Speaker 1: of freedom in your mouth, my friends, via Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: They're not a bunch of left leaning hipsters that pretend
Speaker 1: to care so much about their French roast. No, no,
Speaker 1: my friends, Black Rifle is v coffee for you. I
Speaker 1: drink it every day. I like their Freedom Blend. I
Speaker 1: like the k cups. You can get decalf two if
Speaker 1: you want, and all. So when you go to the site,
Speaker 1: you'll see they've got great gear, great t shirts. Check
Speaker 1: out Black Rifle for yourself. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck and receive percent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck forcent off. I
Speaker 1: introduced Joe Contra by the way to it today and
Speaker 1: he loves it. He's gotta actually probably break it up.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck for percent off
Speaker 1: your whole order. There are many messages, and it will
Speaker 1: and Kavanaugh was danger will resonate with many groups. Women's freedom,
Speaker 1: health freedom, and healthcare would resonate. And because Kavanaugh is
Speaker 1: so extreme on the issue of presidential power to the
Speaker 1: time when we have a president who has overreached more
Speaker 1: than any president in history, the third one resonates too.
Speaker 1: I wonder if Chuck Schumer ever gets tired of lying.
Speaker 1: I don't mean that he would ever stop lying, but
Speaker 1: I mean if he actually gets fatigued by the mental
Speaker 1: process of telling so many lies, of making so much
Speaker 1: stuff up. First of all, how is Trump just with
Speaker 1: that last part of what he said? Someone tell me
Speaker 1: how Trump has overreached more than any presidents in history? Uh?
Speaker 1: Is Trump putting people in internment camps the way that
Speaker 1: FDR did? No, didn't happen? Is he locking up his
Speaker 1: political opponents, including journalists, the way that Woodrow Wilson did? No, No, No,
Speaker 1: I mean, we we don't even have to go earlier
Speaker 1: than the twenty century to find presidents who were overreaching
Speaker 1: in ways that are just not even the same stratosphere,
Speaker 1: not not even in the same supercluster as what Trump
Speaker 1: is doing. Because Trump isn't doing anything wrong. What is
Speaker 1: the overreach? The Supreme Court just came out and said, yeah,
Speaker 1: his travel ban totally fine. So how is it overreach?
Speaker 1: Where is the overreach? Isn't it quite a an incredible
Speaker 1: twisting of logic, reality and the law. When enforcing immigration law,
Speaker 1: for example, is considered to be overreached, when enforcing immigration
Speaker 1: law is radical. I thought the law was something that
Speaker 1: we were all bound by, and it had meaning, and
Speaker 1: it was something that we were supposed to support. I
Speaker 1: thought that the law was actually a necessary component of
Speaker 1: a free society. But they're so desperate with this Kavanaugh situation,
Speaker 1: they really are, that they're embarrassing themselves. And and this
Speaker 1: is not like anything else that we've seen on the
Speaker 1: on the legal front, for sure, this is not like
Speaker 1: anything else that I can point to and and say
Speaker 1: that there have been similarities here before. Um, you know
Speaker 1: this is Oh, this is great, by the way, So
Speaker 1: Emily Peck, this is a perfect example. I mean, the
Speaker 1: self ownage that you're getting from journalists to borrow term
Speaker 1: from the left here when they when they own themselves
Speaker 1: so to speak, uh is unparalleled with anything else I
Speaker 1: can think of. Emily Peck who is a journalist for
Speaker 1: I think Slate, but I don't know who cares, but
Speaker 1: she's somebody who wrote she she has one headline here
Speaker 1: from playing up Brett Kavanaugh as a good dad to
Speaker 1: girls is shameless subheading. Trump Supreme Court pick will likely
Speaker 1: play a key role in gutting reproductive rights, no matter
Speaker 1: how many girls basketball games he coaches. And then with
Speaker 1: Obama a year and change ago, the same author rights
Speaker 1: men really do get less sexist when they have daughters.
Speaker 1: A new study offers the most compelling evidence yet of
Speaker 1: the daughter effect. And who is the big photo of
Speaker 1: with his daughter? Barack? Who's sane? Obama? Now? Do we
Speaker 1: think that Emily Peck I've I've never heard of before
Speaker 1: and it's clearly a hack. Do we think that she
Speaker 1: doesn't care that we can google this? Does she think
Speaker 1: that it? Does it not matter that she has no uh,
Speaker 1: you know, absolutely no honesty in her writing and her
Speaker 1: thinking and her reporting. I just want to know. I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering. But we're seeing so much of this. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Do do we have that Colbert SoundBite if
Speaker 1: you guys could grab it, I mean, you know what,
Speaker 1: it's not even worth It's not even more grabbing forget it.
Speaker 1: Colbert on his show said, I don't know much about Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: but his first name sounds more like a waiter at
Speaker 1: Ruby Tuesday. Is that is that the best they can do?
Speaker 1: Is that supposed to be a joke. His name is Brett,
Speaker 1: and Colbert is making fun of the name Brett. I mean,
Speaker 1: if his name was Bark, I could understand. His name
Speaker 1: is Brett? Is the name Stephen Funny? I know you're
Speaker 1: probably sitting there scratching your head, like, are they Are
Speaker 1: they such complete idiots? Are they really incapable of understanding
Speaker 1: how foolish they sound? Um? I don't I don't have it.
Speaker 1: I don't really have all the answers here anymore. That
Speaker 1: this is we are in un unexplored and inexplicable territory.
Speaker 1: Uh and And I just think that the the opposition
Speaker 1: to Kavanaugh is a level of hysteria and lunacy that
Speaker 1: is is troubling no matter what happens here, because they're
Speaker 1: not even trying to make good faith arguments. They're not
Speaker 1: they're not even trying to convince us that they have
Speaker 1: anything to say about this that's worthwhile. They're just completely
Speaker 1: off the rails, and I just wonder, you know what
Speaker 1: it is gonna take for them to understand that they're
Speaker 1: we will remember this, we will remember this. Um ah man,
Speaker 1: I don't know. We're in a We're in kind of
Speaker 1: a crazy place right now, we really are. This is this,
Speaker 1: this opposition to Kavanaugh that's coming from people because there's
Speaker 1: nothing they can sink their teeth into. You know, I
Speaker 1: was a Barrett person. Originally I was somebody who is like,
Speaker 1: you know what, Barrett is a great pick, and I
Speaker 1: really like it. But now I'm thinking it's actually better
Speaker 1: that it's Kavanaugh because he's so squeaky clean, he's so
Speaker 1: smart and so perfect for the court. And they will
Speaker 1: do they will say anything about him anyway, And what
Speaker 1: is this. In an unusual move, Rosenstein asks federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: to review Kavanaugh documents. I just saw this break and saying.
Speaker 1: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein has asked prosecutors to help
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice review Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: government documents. According to report in The New York Times
Speaker 1: that notes the request is an unusual injection of politics
Speaker 1: in the law enforcement duties of the Department Rosenstein made
Speaker 1: the request in an email sent to the nation's U
Speaker 1: S attorneys. In it, Rosenstein asks each office to provide
Speaker 1: up to three federal prosecutors who can make this important
Speaker 1: project a priority for the next several weeks. Huh. Asking
Speaker 1: U S attorneys to do this is indeed seen as unusual. Um, guys,
Speaker 1: I don't trust Rosenstein at all. I think there's I
Speaker 1: think there's a big problem here, and I thought that
Speaker 1: for quite a while. But this this stuff, you're seeing
Speaker 1: the unhinged nature of the opposition to Kavanaugh. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're they're upset because somebody wrote a piece about how
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh is a nice car pool dad and a nice guy.
Speaker 1: And you know, we we can see they do this
Speaker 1: all the time. They do this all the time for
Speaker 1: different but when when it's for a liberal justice, it's fine. Uh.
Speaker 1: CBS News writing here, Friends like former law clerk Alison
Speaker 1: Barkoff say that Soda Mayor has a big, engaging New
Speaker 1: York personality. Yeah, she's fun, she works hard and plays hard,
Speaker 1: Barkoff said. Melissa Murray clerk for two federal judges, including
Speaker 1: sodomai Or, and when both judges came to Melissa's wedding,
Speaker 1: So do major challenge the other judges to a dance off?
Speaker 1: Ha ha ha. Look, I'm fine with these pieces to
Speaker 1: talk about the human being that's gonna be sitting on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. I get it, right, That's that's okay.
Speaker 1: But I'm not fine with people freaking out because Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: is being treated like a human being too. We have
Speaker 1: we have a problem. We have a a country where
Speaker 1: a good twenty five or so, about a quarter of
Speaker 1: this nation has completely lost its mind. And they watch
Speaker 1: MSNBC and they think CNN is honest news, and they
Speaker 1: believe that their standards aren't constantly shifting with the wind somehow.
Speaker 1: I I don't know what else to say. The opposite
Speaker 1: of the Kavan although is truly and utterly insane. It is.
Speaker 1: It is insane. And it's just if we're not even
Speaker 1: in the in the hearings phase yet, right, Uh, they're
Speaker 1: not even the hearing s phase. This is just gonna
Speaker 1: get nuttier and nuttier as we go forward. So we'll see.
Speaker 1: And yeah, the truth is, at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they just they got nowhere to go with this Kavanaugh hate.
Speaker 1: He's too good, he's too good for the left. But
Speaker 1: they'll be lucky enough to live in a country where
Speaker 1: he sits on the Supreme Court. He's back with you now,
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. I've been telling you all for a
Speaker 1: while that elite universities in this country are overrated, wildly overrated,
Speaker 1: that they don't represent what they pretend to, that they're
Speaker 1: churning out a lot of self entitled babies, weren't nearly
Speaker 1: as smart as they think they are. And look, I mean,
Speaker 1: for those of you I've gotten a few of you
Speaker 1: said emails local book what Amorus is considered the umber
Speaker 1: one or number two best liberal arts college in the country.
Speaker 1: It's where I went. And everything that I'm saying about
Speaker 1: these other schools is applicable to AMers as well. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I'm not like picking on other This isn't a
Speaker 1: rivalry thing, although with Cornell and Brown I do have
Speaker 1: special ire. But in general and the U S News
Speaker 1: and Rules Reports study, I said that that's about college
Speaker 1: is not universities, right, So generally in the u S
Speaker 1: News and Ruled Report, the number one university is Harvard,
Speaker 1: Number two is you know m I T. Three is Yale,
Speaker 1: or something like that. And then with colleges it's usually Amerst.
Speaker 1: Williams Haverford. I'm here to tell you all those rankings.
Speaker 1: And and this this obsession with academic elitism is reallyant
Speaker 1: turning into a joke. These schools are turning out, are
Speaker 1: are churning out a lot of people who are not
Speaker 1: very smart, not very impressive, haven't learned very much. What
Speaker 1: they have is some means of via the system getting
Speaker 1: into these places which are overwhelmingly not hard to stay
Speaker 1: in and are not training people for the real world.
Speaker 1: And this is a problem, and they're the indoctrination that
Speaker 1: goes on. To me, the ideological polarization that's occurring and
Speaker 1: on the most elite campuses in the country is is
Speaker 1: bad news, folks, because because all these little social justice
Speaker 1: warriors that are you know, coming out of Stanford and
Speaker 1: Duke and Harvard and Yale and all these places. Now
Speaker 1: they are going to use that credential to try and
Speaker 1: be in a position in a matter of you know, decades,
Speaker 1: maybe just a matter of years were they're telling you
Speaker 1: what to do with your life and trying to tell
Speaker 1: the rest of us they know better. Because Lily went
Speaker 1: to whatever right, although you don't you want to know
Speaker 1: why people get into schools these days, They get into
Speaker 1: school because of legacy admission. That's true. That's a real thing.
Speaker 1: Although if you look at and this is what no
Speaker 1: one ever likes to talk about, I know, the admission
Speaker 1: thing backwards and forward, so people rarely like to debate
Speaker 1: it with me. But if they ever want to give
Speaker 1: it a shot, legacy admissions are generally within the round,
Speaker 1: with within the realm of of all or within the
Speaker 1: average of all admitted students, meaning that you generally not
Speaker 1: you don't have people to get in a legacy who
Speaker 1: have much lower sets, are much lower grades. They're in
Speaker 1: the same range, and the legacy thing is what puts
Speaker 1: them above. That is not true of two other categories,
Speaker 1: diversity and athletics. Uh. With diversity, I mean with the
Speaker 1: athletics thing. Depending on the school, you can get people
Speaker 1: that are way below the academic average who are especially
Speaker 1: for the big sports, so football, basketball, uh, some schools
Speaker 1: ice hockey, you know, but way below the academic average.
Speaker 1: They get in because of their an athletic admit and
Speaker 1: infects some places that aren't even d one schools have
Speaker 1: spots set aside and the coach basically gets to pick
Speaker 1: people and just bring them in as long as they
Speaker 1: have bare minimum requirements. And then with diversity, where when
Speaker 1: you look at and this is why Harvard so up
Speaker 1: in arms right now, and they don't want to share
Speaker 1: their internal information because what you'll see is that preferred
Speaker 1: minorities are way below the average on s a t
Speaker 1: S and AIDS for the rest of their class. And
Speaker 1: the preferred minorities are basically everybody who is not white
Speaker 1: or Asian or kind of Eastern European or Middle Eastern
Speaker 1: or or South Asian, you know, so East Asian, South
Speaker 1: Asian not preferred. Um, it's if you are Native American, Hispanic,
Speaker 1: African American, you know, Latino Pacific islander, or just an
Speaker 1: international student. You although it's different from the national students
Speaker 1: with the s a t S, but those are the
Speaker 1: those are the special admits, and so people are getting
Speaker 1: in for reasons that have nothing to do with being
Speaker 1: so hard working, being so smart. There's just all this
Speaker 1: different stuff that goes into it. Okay, I'm telling you
Speaker 1: all of this because I think it's necessary to background
Speaker 1: to understand how Yale Law School could have an open
Speaker 1: letter from tons of It's Ye Law School is very
Speaker 1: very small. It's it's in the it's it's like a
Speaker 1: couple of hundred, a few hundred of class. So this
Speaker 1: isn't isn't even just underground. This is Yale Law School,
Speaker 1: which is where Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court nominee, went
Speaker 1: to school, and it is considered the most elite law
Speaker 1: school in the country. And here we have Yale Law
Speaker 1: School students who have written an open letter regarding Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: I want to read this to you so that you
Speaker 1: understand just what we're up against, because all these kids
Speaker 1: and these alumni from Yale are gonna say, look at me,
Speaker 1: I went to Ye Law School. I'm so smart. I'm
Speaker 1: so smart. A lot of them are not nearly as
Speaker 1: antellection as impressive as they think they are. Many of
Speaker 1: them aren't impressive at all, and they have a serious
Speaker 1: case of Trump's arrangement syndrome going on. Here. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna read you this is not in I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: read the whole thing because it will take the entire
Speaker 1: segment of the entire hour practically, but I'll read you
Speaker 1: some very important segments from this just to show you
Speaker 1: that apparently they don't teach the law at Yale Law really,
Speaker 1: or they don't teach critical reasoning and sound thinking, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. Here's what they write two Dean Gherkin and
Speaker 1: the Yale Law School leadership. We write today blah blah
Speaker 1: blah about Judge Kavanaugh's intellect, influence and mentorship of students. Uh.
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh's nomination presents an emergency for democratic life, for
Speaker 1: our safety and freedom, for the future of our country.
Speaker 1: His nomination is not an interesting intellectual exercise to be
Speaker 1: debated among classmates and scholars in seminar. Support for Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: is not a political It is a political choice about
Speaker 1: the meaning of the Constitution and our vision of democracy,
Speaker 1: a choice with real consequences for real people. Without a doubt,
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh is a threat to the most vulnerable. He
Speaker 1: is a threat to many of us, despite the privilege
Speaker 1: bestowed by our education, simply because of who we all are.
Speaker 1: We just stopped for a second there. Kavanaugh is a
Speaker 1: threat to them. Are these people children? These are law
Speaker 1: students there at least in their mid to late twenties,
Speaker 1: right the most elite law school in the country. He's
Speaker 1: a threat to them. This is what they write. These
Speaker 1: are the people, by the way that you know during
Speaker 1: the next Democrat administration. And it's like World Show and
Speaker 1: so went to Yale Law School and you're supposed to say,
Speaker 1: oh wow, it must be really smart. There's not. They're
Speaker 1: just not. Let me go with a little bit more here,
Speaker 1: Judge Kavanaugh would act as a rubber stamp for President
Speaker 1: Trump's fraud and abuse. Despite working with Independent Council Ken
Speaker 1: Start to prosecute Bill Clinton, Kavanaugh has called upon Congress
Speaker 1: to exempt sitting presidents from civil suits. He has also
Speaker 1: noted a serious constitutional question exists with regarding whether a
Speaker 1: president can be criminally indicted. This reversal does not reflect
Speaker 1: high mining consideration, but rather naked partisanship at a time
Speaker 1: when the president and his associates are under investigation for
Speaker 1: various crimes. Blah blah. This is all the same thing, folks.
Speaker 1: These these kids are a bunch of These kids are
Speaker 1: a bunch of clowns. And these this alumni. And this
Speaker 1: is what I've been telling you though, it's very important
Speaker 1: what you see at the undergrad level on these campuses,
Speaker 1: whether they're all you know, whose streets are streets Atifa,
Speaker 1: you know, all that stuff. What you see happening on
Speaker 1: these college campuses has now extended into the law schools too.
Speaker 1: The law schools have become little laboratories of progressivism as well.
Speaker 1: And if you want to get good grades, if you
Speaker 1: want to get uh, certain kinds of jobs, you know,
Speaker 1: elite positions, you need to be in good standing with
Speaker 1: that law school community, which means you need to talk
Speaker 1: to talk about diversity and about social justice and all
Speaker 1: this stuff. These are these are all really increasingly becoming
Speaker 1: code words for power in the hands of the left,
Speaker 1: the eradication of actual merits and excellence and its replacement
Speaker 1: with rule by the mob up oh, colocracy, rule by
Speaker 1: you know, the rabble on the street, whoever happens to
Speaker 1: have power at any given moment. They closed this this letter,
Speaker 1: which is full of just sheer idiocy. Kavanaugh is the
Speaker 1: gold standard, folks. This is what this is why it's
Speaker 1: so important to look at this. There there's no high
Speaker 1: minded arguments to be made here. There's nothing that they
Speaker 1: can say that will change this. Kavanaughs the gold standard
Speaker 1: of what you can get as as a Supreme Court justice.
Speaker 1: And anything to the contrary, anything else that they're saying
Speaker 1: is complete and utter nonsense. Okay, Kavanaugh was actually hired
Speaker 1: by Justice Kagan, who sits on the Supreme Court. Okay,
Speaker 1: This is a quote from the Boston Globe. When Elana
Speaker 1: Kagan was dean of Harvard Law School, she was in
Speaker 1: search of rising conservative legal stars. They're traditionally liberal campus
Speaker 1: could use a little ideological diversity, she thought, with more
Speaker 1: robust debate and the challenge of different viewpoints. Among Kagan's
Speaker 1: hires as a visiting professor was a newly appointed Federal
Speaker 1: Appeals Court judge from Washington named Brett Kavanaugh. Not only
Speaker 1: did Kavana go to Yale undergrad annual law school, not
Speaker 1: only did he clerk for Justice Kennedy, whom he is replacing,
Speaker 1: but a sitting leftist Supreme Court Justice. Elana Kagan hired
Speaker 1: him specifically because of his intellect, his pedigree, his honesty.
Speaker 1: This is a slam dunk. This is a slam dunk.
Speaker 1: And all you see are liberals saying there's no there's
Speaker 1: no hoop, there's no net. Oh no, I just saw
Speaker 1: him dunk. Gres. Nope, there's no hoop, there's no net.
Speaker 1: They are denying the obvious reality. It is pathetic, but
Speaker 1: it's also scary because what you see in this Yale
Speaker 1: Law open letter about how Kavanaugh is a threat to them,
Speaker 1: that that is their verbians, that their word a threat
Speaker 1: to them. What you see is the truth of the
Speaker 1: modern progressive position, which is not that conservatism and constitutionalism
Speaker 1: are an alternative viewpoint or even just a different way
Speaker 1: of thinking. It is increasingly clear, and I really want
Speaker 1: you to listen to this, and I want you to
Speaker 1: remember it because it is critical. It's critical for the
Speaker 1: future of this country. It's critical for your own debates
Speaker 1: with people on this issue, and it's critical also to
Speaker 1: keep you safe on the streets these days, depending on
Speaker 1: what parts of the country you are in. Progressivism has
Speaker 1: seeped into this other realm where they no longer oppose
Speaker 1: you on the battlefield of ideas, but they seek to
Speaker 1: make your ideas unacceptable entirely in the public square. And
Speaker 1: the way they do that is by saying that you
Speaker 1: are in fact a threat, that your ideas are tantamount
Speaker 1: to violence. And you know how I break this down
Speaker 1: and how I reason through this. What is a legitimate
Speaker 1: response to something that people believe is effectively the same
Speaker 1: thing as violence. You know the answer. It is violence.
Speaker 1: That's where we are heading. If they don't stop, if
Speaker 1: someone does not wake them up, if they do not
Speaker 1: get a dose of reality, calm down, stop lying, stop
Speaker 1: the hyperbole, stop the psychosis about TROMP and fascism and
Speaker 1: all of this. We are heading for a very dangerous place.
Speaker 1: That the most elite law school in the country could
Speaker 1: have so many students produce such a buffoonish, childish and
Speaker 1: stupid letter is a very disconcerting sign of where we
Speaker 1: are heading. And I think we would be remiss if
Speaker 1: we did not pay some did not pay much closer
Speaker 1: attention to what's going on with us. I mean this, folks,
Speaker 1: this could be a very big problem. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: I have never been going on radio before saying this,
Speaker 1: but this is going to get ugly. This is going
Speaker 1: to spiral out of control. They cannot be reasoned with anymore.
Speaker 1: They don't want to convince you, they don't even just
Speaker 1: want to mock you. They are trying to seize the
Speaker 1: moral high ground by telling each other, by brainwashing each
Speaker 1: other into thinking your ideas are a threat to them.
Speaker 1: What do people do in response to a threat? Generally
Speaker 1: not write a strongly worded letter or tweet. We've got
Speaker 1: a lot more stay with me. It does appear that
Speaker 1: Lisa Page apparently has something to hide. Uh. She has
Speaker 1: been in complete defiance of cooperation with the House Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee and the Oversight and Government of Committee for seven
Speaker 1: months now. There have been two subsequent letters and two
Speaker 1: subpoenas issued for her appearance, and she has defied all
Speaker 1: of that. This subpoena is still in effect. I think
Speaker 1: it's very important for her to understand that, and she
Speaker 1: should comply with it, and she should comply with it
Speaker 1: now before she's held in contempt of Congress, which could
Speaker 1: happen as soon as Friday. You know, you'd think a
Speaker 1: former FBI agent or current I'm sorry, current FBI agent,
Speaker 1: you think that maybe she would understand that that a
Speaker 1: subpoena is not a suggestion A A subpoena is not
Speaker 1: something that you get to just say, you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't feel like doing that today. And yet we
Speaker 1: see once again this double set of laws here where
Speaker 1: on the one side, if you were to not go
Speaker 1: along with a subpoena, if you were to skip and
Speaker 1: just decide that you know, you didn't really care about
Speaker 1: something like this, you would probably have a warn out
Speaker 1: for your arrest. But here you go with anti Trump
Speaker 1: FBI lawyer Lisa Page deciding she can defy a congressional
Speaker 1: subpoena because you know, she hasn't had the time to
Speaker 1: review the documents. How hard is this? She's an FBI lawyer, folks, Well,
Speaker 1: what does she think they're gonna ask her? She's stalling,
Speaker 1: She is trying to find a way out of this.
Speaker 1: And yeah, you know, I don't like when people play
Speaker 1: the game about you know, oh well they're pleading the
Speaker 1: fifth they might have they have something to hide. Okay,
Speaker 1: in this case, it does sort of feel like she
Speaker 1: has something to hide because she's not even if why
Speaker 1: can't you show up and plead the fifth She won't
Speaker 1: do that, probably because she knows how bad that would look.
Speaker 1: But so instead of doing that, she's claiming that she
Speaker 1: needs more time to uh look over these documents. She
Speaker 1: she refused to attend the House judiciaryan Oversight committee UH
Speaker 1: hearing today, and she's got into a Friday or she'll
Speaker 1: be held in contempt. Look, they the FBI has tried
Speaker 1: so hard to cover for We've been seeing this time
Speaker 1: and again. They tried to cover for Page and Struck,
Speaker 1: and I just have to keep throwing in there. Struck
Speaker 1: was an FBI counterintelligence senior officer, that he would be
Speaker 1: writing the stuff that he wrote on his work device.
Speaker 1: I was an NYPD Intelligence Division specialist. It was essentially
Speaker 1: a civilian contractor working counter chairs and I never would
Speaker 1: have been writing the kind of stuff this guy was writing.
Speaker 1: All my work device. Everything is every it's part of discovery.
Speaker 1: I'm working for law enforcement organization. It's searchable. And people
Speaker 1: would say, well, oh, but you know, he can't be
Speaker 1: that this page and Page is a lawyer. All she
Speaker 1: does is look through this stuff. They can't be that
Speaker 1: stupid buck Well, I see you. It's not stupidity, it's hubris.
Speaker 1: It's hubris. Just like Hillary with the email. It's not
Speaker 1: that they forgot that they could get caught. It's that
Speaker 1: they assumed they would never get caught, and if they did,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't matter because they have a different set of rules.
Speaker 1: That is at the heart of so much of what
Speaker 1: we've seen with d o J, with FBI, with this
Speaker 1: whole uh effort, this deep state, police state effort to
Speaker 1: stop the Trump presidency, to undermine the Trump presidency once
Speaker 1: it was actually happening. And I think people have realized
Speaker 1: that this is just far too much and we want answers.
Speaker 1: And if they hold her in contempt, I think they
Speaker 1: can send the sergeant sergeant at arms of the Congress.
Speaker 1: I think there is a process where they can arrest her.
Speaker 1: I say, arrest her now, teach her a lesson. She's
Speaker 1: had plenty of people arrested for a lot less I
Speaker 1: can promise you that it's time. DJ has to play
Speaker 1: by the rules too. And the FBI buckets decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information, who is actionable intelligence, make no mistakes,
Speaker 1: are great American Again, this is the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: No welcome back everybody. As you know, I work for
Speaker 1: the Hill and do this show called Rising, which you
Speaker 1: can see at Hill dot tv slash Rising. We had
Speaker 1: a great paneled, a lot of fun, but we also
Speaker 1: have access to some fantastic reporters, some great commentary people,
Speaker 1: and a media reporter in particular comes to mind, the
Speaker 1: one and only Joe Kanscho. Folks. Not only is he
Speaker 1: joining us here on the buck Sexton Show, he is
Speaker 1: in studio in the d C Freedom Hunt Swamp Studio,
Speaker 1: which is exciting, Joe, welcome. Is that what this place
Speaker 1: is called the Freedom Hunt Swamp Studio pretty much to
Speaker 1: to differentiate it from the New York Studio, which I
Speaker 1: tell people the politics and New York are bad, but
Speaker 1: at least everybody if there is kind of a capitalist,
Speaker 1: whereas here they're all just leeches off of the taxpair.
Speaker 1: Well let's let's let's talk about capitalism just for a moment,
Speaker 1: just just in the side. Guys, I come in today
Speaker 1: and I'm dead tired. I came from New York. I
Speaker 1: come down to Washington and I said, Buck, we'res some
Speaker 1: good coffee around here, and you offered up the Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee Company, and it is incredible. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: awake for days now. I tell you, guys this. I
Speaker 1: didn't tell him to say this. I did give him
Speaker 1: the Black Rifle and now he's a Now he's a devotee,
Speaker 1: if you will, so much better than that comic coffee
Speaker 1: that they keep up as strongest clubber Lang man, this
Speaker 1: is some good stuff. That's what I'm talking about. So so, Joe,
Speaker 1: I want you to by the way, club er Lang,
Speaker 1: this also was not planning folks, you will think it
Speaker 1: is is the name of producer Mike the EP of
Speaker 1: this radio show in New York. His dog is named
Speaker 1: clubber Lang named four clever movie Ted right, then the
Speaker 1: bear want to name himself Ted Clever Lang something right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: if he worked it in there. But Joe actually knows
Speaker 1: more pop culture than I do. He's also ageless, folks,
Speaker 1: so I don't know he could tell me he's twenty
Speaker 1: five to sixty five. I have no idea how old
Speaker 1: Joe Consche is, so his pop culture references can come
Speaker 1: from anywhere. I don't know what I'm dealing with. Here
Speaker 1: is Rocky three, by the way, there you go. That's
Speaker 1: my talent. You can ask me any movie. They'll tell
Speaker 1: you the year, as long as the movies after. Let's
Speaker 1: just do that once for your audience and the well,
Speaker 1: we'll go. Just give me a movie, give you a movie.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, I love this game, all right? Um Predator.
Speaker 1: Predator was obviously Schwarzenegger, and Apollo Creed was in that
Speaker 1: as well, And Predator was nineteen eighty six. Yes, you,
Speaker 1: you son of a gun. I cannot believe you pulled
Speaker 1: that off on the fly. I would probably think I
Speaker 1: was good. No, I'm odd. Guys. I'm here in studio
Speaker 1: watching him and he had no Google in the hand. Wow,
Speaker 1: I'm impressed. Actually, thank you. It's scary because you know,
Speaker 1: we do action movie quote Friday on this show where
Speaker 1: people call in and just quote an action movie to
Speaker 1: me and I just name it on the fly. Really yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, I mean, I'm a twelfth degree black belt
Speaker 1: in action movie quotes. Can we play that once? Just
Speaker 1: give me a quote and I'll see if I can
Speaker 1: name it. You want to do that right now? Right now? Um,
Speaker 1: we're totally off on a tangent. So okay, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, Uh, come out to the coast, have a
Speaker 1: few left. It's obviously John McClain is the first time. Okay, okay, guys,
Speaker 1: we got another player in the mix here. This is
Speaker 1: gonna be a recurring thing here. I'm gonna bring savor
Speaker 1: the flavor because next time it's gonna get a little tougher. Buddy.
Speaker 1: But I do need you because you are Joe Concha
Speaker 1: of the The Hill and you and you do the
Speaker 1: media stuff. I'm a big Shannon Breen fan. I'm open
Speaker 1: about this. I think Shannon is one of the nicest
Speaker 1: people period and also one of the best broadcasters period,
Speaker 1: and not just because she has me on her show.
Speaker 1: Sometimes I thought that even before I had ever even
Speaker 1: ever even been on her show. But she was down
Speaker 1: at the Supreme Court. Yeah, it's one of these things
Speaker 1: not controversial because everybody who knows anything says it. She
Speaker 1: was down at the Supreme Court. Said she felt like
Speaker 1: it was unsafe for her voluble mood, and she felt threatened.
Speaker 1: She said, I've I've never felt threatened in the field
Speaker 1: like this before. And this isn't like a Jim Acosta
Speaker 1: who likes to draw attention to herself like oh, I'm
Speaker 1: the victim, you know, or or she she rarely makes
Speaker 1: herself the story. She does a very good job at
Speaker 1: a show called buck Hole the Fox News at night.
Speaker 1: I've been on it. It's at eleven o'clock. Uh, and
Speaker 1: she she acts like an anchor and doesn't inject her
Speaker 1: opinions into everything, which is refreshing. That's how things used
Speaker 1: to be. She asked questions her guests give answers, and
Speaker 1: audiences can decide what what they feel about those answers,
Speaker 1: and that it's it's almost an antiquated model compared to
Speaker 1: everything we see in broadcasting these days, and uh, she
Speaker 1: was actually mocked. I don't know if it was mocked.
Speaker 1: I don't know how. I quite a how i'd put it.
Speaker 1: But after she said she felt threatened front of Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: Terry Moran of ABC News, a veteran has been around
Speaker 1: for a while, said, you know, I didn't feel threatened everything.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there are some protesters there, but I don't
Speaker 1: think that's really the way things were. It's like, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, man, Ay, she wouldn't have left unless she
Speaker 1: felt unless she felt threatened, and b you don't say
Speaker 1: those things publicly. I don't think and see when you're
Speaker 1: the ABC News reporter. This is the biggest point I
Speaker 1: think by the way it's I was building up to it.
Speaker 1: You're the benign kind of unknown guy. I know it's broadcast,
Speaker 1: but things are different now. It's not like Fox. Fox
Speaker 1: to liberals is like what CNN is the conservatives. It's
Speaker 1: it's a polarizing network to a certain part of the population.
Speaker 1: And of course the Fox person, regardless of who it is,
Speaker 1: is gonna get a lot of the grief, while the
Speaker 1: ABC guy is gonna be ignored because it's ABC. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well you've seen this before. I I think Haraldo, who
Speaker 1: probably goes out with Neon, signs wearing Fox on him
Speaker 1: because he likes it when the crowd. Yeah, he likes
Speaker 1: it when the crowds agree with Fox News. He's like,
Speaker 1: you want a piece for all those A boxer back
Speaker 1: that did it, by the way, I bet that's you
Speaker 1: can handle himself. He fought Frank stallone on the Howard
Speaker 1: Stern Show. Ones. Yeah, you cand YouTube that sometime. It's
Speaker 1: it's bizarre. But yeah, he's always in shape. When I
Speaker 1: see him at Fox. He actually bikes to work, which
Speaker 1: is kind of cool because I think he lives in Jersey,
Speaker 1: so that's pretty impressive. And he's sixty eight Heraldo, and
Speaker 1: he's he's out in you know, riot riot situations and basically, yeah,
Speaker 1: he likes the comforence. He's like Bolton, he gets special
Speaker 1: powers from the mustache. Is that true? Bolton definitely does.
Speaker 1: You should grow a mustache. He he Bolton rubs that
Speaker 1: mustache and all of a sudden, foreign policy just changes.
Speaker 1: He's rally fingers that that's kind of funny. There you go. Oh,
Speaker 1: but since we're talking media world and and giving some
Speaker 1: much needed sanity injecting so much needed sanity and the
Speaker 1: discussion Jeffrey Tuban I said yesterday on the show, just
Speaker 1: to to put the proper context out there, that it
Speaker 1: feels like Jeffrey tubans brand is to say things that
Speaker 1: are obviously incorrect with so much confidence that people who
Speaker 1: don't know any better think he knows what he's talking about.
Speaker 1: I think he's completely lost his marbles on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court thing. Oh God, like, the things that he has
Speaker 1: written recently have been something something short of remarkable for
Speaker 1: a senior legal analyst for a major international network like CNN.
Speaker 1: He actually went on the air in said, and I'm
Speaker 1: trying to find the quote here. Of course my phone
Speaker 1: is frozen, so I'll just have to paraphrase this unfortunately,
Speaker 1: but he said that gays will be barred from restaurants,
Speaker 1: African Americans will be thrown out of elite schools, that
Speaker 1: gun control will be banned in fifty states, regulatory state gone.
Speaker 1: He makes these arguments based on the Supreme Court nomination
Speaker 1: of Brett Kavanaugh. And you're then to be so stupid
Speaker 1: to think that the other four conservative judges on there,
Speaker 1: not the Kavanaugh, would ever vote for any of these things,
Speaker 1: but that Gorsch and Alito and Roberts that they would
Speaker 1: vote also to do all these things, banned gaze from restaurants,
Speaker 1: and no one, no one checks him on that network.
Speaker 1: That's what kills me. He says it, and they just
Speaker 1: shake their heads like you're at Babla head Knight at
Speaker 1: Nationals Park. Where's the nasty Jake Tapper tweet? Mr facts
Speaker 1: first all the time? Where's the Jake Tapper tweet on
Speaker 1: this one? Folks? It's just all about that that going
Speaker 1: down the line. I'm just asking questions. I'm just asking
Speaker 1: He's a journalist and he should be fact checking his
Speaker 1: own people. You would you would think big ja journalists
Speaker 1: who oh gosh, must be hard. I would note the
Speaker 1: tube and also made the argument, which I mocked and
Speaker 1: enjoy doing so yesterday, that the founders thought everybody was
Speaker 1: gonna die in their fifties. And you look at the
Speaker 1: founders Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, that's pretty much into their eighties,
Speaker 1: lived to ninety, which is impressive. I mean we're talking
Speaker 1: like an average of about eighties something. That Yeah, I
Speaker 1: got the quote. He said when the Constitution was written
Speaker 1: in the late eighteenth century people were expected to die
Speaker 1: in their fifties. The Framers, because he can get into
Speaker 1: the Framer's heads. The Framers never contemplated that these terms
Speaker 1: would regularly go thirty plus years as they do now,
Speaker 1: and that lord's and lifetime terms, which to have been
Speaker 1: made that exact argument when President Obama had to Supreme
Speaker 1: Court and now, oh, that's right, he didn't make that argument.
Speaker 1: And that's what people see. Its selective outrage and suddenly
Speaker 1: coming up with excuses as to why Supreme Court justices
Speaker 1: shouldn't have lifetime lifetime terms because of the guy who's
Speaker 1: appointing them, not because he's actually concerned about them being
Speaker 1: there for thirty years, which back way back when they
Speaker 1: could have been mainstream media hysteria. Now Joe is worse then,
Speaker 1: or not as bad as the height of the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion hysteria. It's worse. You think it worse now, Yeah,
Speaker 1: because there's no accountability for when you say reckless things,
Speaker 1: irresponsible things, pushed conspiracy theories, all those things. No one
Speaker 1: gets fact checked because everybody's loving the ratings too much.
Speaker 1: Even though I don't know I see how you make
Speaker 1: that case with CNN, because they are down from May
Speaker 1: have two thousand seventeen and may have two thousand total
Speaker 1: viewers one and four gone. And it hasn't exactly been
Speaker 1: a slow news cycle, right, how do you sewers in
Speaker 1: this news cycle? It's impossible unless people are saying this
Speaker 1: is nuts. This is not the CNN that I grew
Speaker 1: up with. Seeing then the reason why I got into
Speaker 1: journalism there. Their coverage of the first goal for it
Speaker 1: was incredible. People ask me why I would go work
Speaker 1: for CNN. I also had the perception as somebody who
Speaker 1: really was a Fox and MS watcher. I thought of
Speaker 1: MS is kind of the opposition and Fox's home team.
Speaker 1: I was like, well, CNN, before I worked there, it's
Speaker 1: it's you know, it's it's the down the middle. And
Speaker 1: then having been there and now seeing no, it is
Speaker 1: not that is a That is a complete falsehood. It's
Speaker 1: just MSNBC with less honesty. It's now A and n
Speaker 1: By the way, have an audi news network. There you go.
Speaker 1: You gotta have him on. By the way, I've heard
Speaker 1: some interesting things. Uh, you are a worthy adversary in
Speaker 1: the action movie quotes, You're we're going to have you
Speaker 1: back some time, and we're gonna set this up so
Speaker 1: that callers can come into both of us and will
Speaker 1: be like Jeopardy style, who can get the action movie
Speaker 1: quote on the flow? And people don't insult my intelligence
Speaker 1: with like get to the chapa and everything right that?
Speaker 1: All right, give me something challenging concha. If you're already
Speaker 1: you follow him on Twitter, you should. What's what's the handle? Joke?
Speaker 1: Think about it? Joke? Gunch a TV? Joke guncha TV.
Speaker 1: Give me real followers, check it out. Everybody, Thanks so much.
Speaker 1: We've got so much more coming. We'll be back right
Speaker 1: after this break. Strike Force Energy veteran owned, American made,
Speaker 1: and one of the hottest new energy products on the market.
Speaker 1: Strike Force Energy was developed by veterans for one simple reason.
Speaker 1: The fight will always follow you, and it waits for
Speaker 1: no one buck. Section here for Strikeforce. Strike Force, and
Speaker 1: I invite you this summer to join us and giving
Speaker 1: back to America's troops. You know, Strikeforce for three years
Speaker 1: now has shipped millions of packets to our troops both
Speaker 1: at home and abroad. And now we're bringing this proven
Speaker 1: battlefield liquid directly to your door. It has zero calorie
Speaker 1: zero made with only the finest ingredients fuel for you
Speaker 1: through your toughest fights. My friends simply adds strike force
Speaker 1: to water, tea, lemonade, yogurt, even an ice called beer.
Speaker 1: Going to strike Force Energy dot com and our discount
Speaker 1: code buck at check out and for every packet you buy,
Speaker 1: we will donate a packet to military members around the globe. Again,
Speaker 1: strike Force Energy dot com, discount code buck. Strike Force
Speaker 1: Energy is fuel for the fight. How does the administration
Speaker 1: fight the optics on this? Because policy wise and practice wise,
Speaker 1: they're back to catch and release. But do pictures like
Speaker 1: Rosa just showed us of this little boy being reunited
Speaker 1: with his father after forty three days, Well, those haunt
Speaker 1: this administration. Well, I think the the pictures of the
Speaker 1: cruelty of this administration are a very deliberate part of this.
Speaker 1: They're they're a feature, not a bug, of the of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's policy. And so I think that we're
Speaker 1: in a situation where where no one inside the administration
Speaker 1: is unhappy about these things because they're only talking to
Speaker 1: their base. They're only talking to their core supporters and
Speaker 1: their core supporters. You know, want anybody who's darker than
Speaker 1: a latte deported, come on you know, it's just it's
Speaker 1: just not helpful, right, It's not true, it's not helpful.
Speaker 1: It's the Slanders against Trump supporters. It gets so uh,
Speaker 1: it's just so frustrating at this point. And you know
Speaker 1: they put somebody like that on CNN. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: calling sixty plus million people racists racist. That's you know,
Speaker 1: that's Rick Wilson. I I worked with Rick on different
Speaker 1: TV shows years ago, and you know he was a guest.
Speaker 1: I mean we weren't. I've never met him in person.
Speaker 1: I don't know him, but you know I've done. He
Speaker 1: used to be a pretty standard issue GLP guy, well spoken,
Speaker 1: had some had some inscifled things to say. And now
Speaker 1: he goes on TV and threatens to you know, he's
Speaker 1: gonna gut a Trump supporter like a fish on air.
Speaker 1: I mean you know he meant that metaphorically, but you
Speaker 1: know he's talking about how anybody darker than a latte
Speaker 1: they I mean, just first of all, these are lines
Speaker 1: that he's right. I can tell you this, and and
Speaker 1: a lot of the the CNN Conserve, the CNN Republican
Speaker 1: Trump bashers, they're writing out these lines before they go
Speaker 1: on TV. They know they're gonna get picked up by media,
Speaker 1: and I guess they know people like me are gonna
Speaker 1: sit here and say, well, you know, so and so
Speaker 1: said this thing, but they can't be serious about thinking
Speaker 1: that this is helpful to anything or anyone other than themselves.
Speaker 1: I really am at a point now where I think
Speaker 1: that people in the media who just refer to Trump
Speaker 1: supporters as racist in in some way, whether very racist
Speaker 1: or little racist, they're either just very selfish or very dumb.
Speaker 1: I think for some of the more clever ones it's
Speaker 1: a selfishness issue. They realized that this is a way
Speaker 1: to get on TV there, and for the other ones,
Speaker 1: it's just stupid because without counties that went for Obama,
Speaker 1: without states that went for Obama twice, Trump doesn't win
Speaker 1: the election. So can someone explain to me how how
Speaker 1: racism is the prime factor in Trump's election when the
Speaker 1: way that Trump beats Hillary Clinton is to have former
Speaker 1: Obama voters that are, like, you know what, the Democrats
Speaker 1: just don't do a good job. Isn't that possible, folks?
Speaker 1: You know, isn't it fair to take a step back
Speaker 1: and say, where do the Democrats just run everything? I mean,
Speaker 1: where do the Democrats have complete and total sway. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's look at some cities, shall we. Baltimore disaster, Detroit disaster,
Speaker 1: increasingly the state of California disaster. Right, you start to
Speaker 1: look at places that are unipolar, Democrat controlled deep blue
Speaker 1: areas of the country, whether it's a city or a state,
Speaker 1: and you just have bad governance. You know, people say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: but what about us. You know, there's like a state
Speaker 1: like Massachusetts. No, there's enough, there's enough Republicans in Massachusetts
Speaker 1: that you actually still have, you know, some hope of
Speaker 1: the Democrats having to behave themselves, right, you have there's
Speaker 1: enough there to push back. When you look at a true,
Speaker 1: pure Democrat political machine in this country, you find yourself
Speaker 1: looking at a place that is generally very poorly run
Speaker 1: and poorly governed. Isn't it just possible that after eight
Speaker 1: years of the Obama administration, the American people, or at
Speaker 1: least a large portion of the American people, felt like
Speaker 1: these folks meeting the Democrats and their allies and the
Speaker 1: and the media that we're telling us, I mean, the
Speaker 1: media was telling us everything was so great when Obama
Speaker 1: was in office. Obama's economic quote recovery was the slowest
Speaker 1: and most mnemic recovery since the Great Depression. The economy
Speaker 1: ragged along for years. People lost years of productivity, years
Speaker 1: of advancement in their careers because Obama's idea was, let's
Speaker 1: spend a whole lot of money on things that Democrats like,
Speaker 1: and let's also put a ton of regulations and a
Speaker 1: lot of state burdens on people and on businesses that
Speaker 1: are trying to be productive. Because that's fair. And fair is,
Speaker 1: in the context of the Democrat Party, just a way
Speaker 1: of saying, whatever my whims maybe at the moment, whatever
Speaker 1: my emotions tell me, that's what's fair. Right. Fair is
Speaker 1: a feeling. Fair isn't an argument. There's an important difference there,
Speaker 1: and that's when you get into you know, all this
Speaker 1: talk about pay your fair share. You can remember all this,
Speaker 1: you can you can remember what it was like with
Speaker 1: the Obama years. Remember they were trying to tell us
Speaker 1: folks that very slow to know GDP and economic growth
Speaker 1: was the was the only it was gonna be for
Speaker 1: the future. You know, we were we were told to
Speaker 1: get used to lackluster results for the American economy as
Speaker 1: an excuse for eight years of Obama. And instead of
Speaker 1: dealing with that reality and looking at what's going on
Speaker 1: with Trump, who is pro business, pro commerce, pro the
Speaker 1: American worker in a way that's not just rhetorical, right,
Speaker 1: it's not just oh, I'm pro unions or I'm pro
Speaker 1: teachers unions, right. Pro the guy or gal who shows
Speaker 1: up to do a job is doing things the way
Speaker 1: they're supposed to be done, wants to elevate himself, herself
Speaker 1: or their family and doesn't want to feel like the
Speaker 1: thumb of government is constantly pushing down on them. And
Speaker 1: they also don't want to be award of the state.
Speaker 1: They don't you know, they don't want Obama phones, they
Speaker 1: don't want uh handouts from the government, right, they don't
Speaker 1: want any of that. They just don't want the government
Speaker 1: in the way. It's an important philosophical difference, and we're
Speaker 1: seeing what it means with Trump. We're seeing how that
Speaker 1: actually can play out for the American people. But instead
Speaker 1: you get, you know, jokes about how you know that
Speaker 1: all the Trump supporters are just so racist, just a
Speaker 1: bunch of racist, toothless hillbillies who don't know anything playing
Speaker 1: banjo with their toes ha ha ha. You know, it's
Speaker 1: just terrible folks, it really is. And you know, some
Speaker 1: of these people, I understand. Look, everyone's you know, everyone's
Speaker 1: got to pay the rent of the mortgage. People gotta eat.
Speaker 1: And I know that a lot of this stuff you
Speaker 1: see on the various non Fox cable networks is just
Speaker 1: performance art, right, It's just theater for people that are
Speaker 1: formerly all about limited government and formerly all about uh,
Speaker 1: you know, doing what is best for the American economy
Speaker 1: and getting government away. Now now all they're about is
Speaker 1: trashing Trump and it's tiresome. It's unhelpful, and I mean,
Speaker 1: I just think it's it's stupid, lazy and selfish, and
Speaker 1: I'm just getting sick of it. You know, at least
Speaker 1: come up with some ideas or go the Max Boot route,
Speaker 1: who was still chirons by media as a conservative who's like,
Speaker 1: I'm going to vote for a Democrat. I want the
Speaker 1: Democrats to win. Well, that's quite a conservative they like
Speaker 1: to put on TV. Over at CNN, we got much
Speaker 1: more team. I gotta tell you about this this movie
Speaker 1: that's coming out that I might have to I actually
Speaker 1: might have to boycott. I'll tell you why I stayed
Speaker 1: with me. Years ago. I would have told you that
Speaker 1: I thought that Borack, the character played by Sasha Baron
Speaker 1: Cohen was was a pretty pretty funny thing, you know.
Speaker 1: And and and you had frat boys across America. We're
Speaker 1: all going m strong on plow and all that stuff, right,
Speaker 1: we all. And And in fact, it became such a
Speaker 1: cultural phenomenon for a short period of time that to
Speaker 1: do Borat accents was past a I'm one of the
Speaker 1: few people's ever noticed by the way that Borat as
Speaker 1: a Kazakh from Kazakhstan, clearly had to be Muslim. But
Speaker 1: that was somehow never mentioned and never brought up, and
Speaker 1: it just flew under the radar because I'm sure otherwise
Speaker 1: people would have made fun of the incredible amounts of
Speaker 1: misogyny by the character ignorance anti Jewish stuff going on.
Speaker 1: Right But but because he was just from Kazakhstan, a
Speaker 1: Muslim country, but people didn't really make that connection, he
Speaker 1: was able to get away with all this stuff, which
Speaker 1: is pretty amazing in retrospect. I don't know if he'd
Speaker 1: be able to do quite the same thing today, but
Speaker 1: he's trying to. Uh, we we have this this news story.
Speaker 1: It's all over the place. Now, it's Hollywood reporter I
Speaker 1: think is the New York Post. It's it's getting a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of play where you have Sasha
Speaker 1: Baron Cohen, who's the guy who plays Bored. He also
Speaker 1: does Ali g and a few other characters. I used
Speaker 1: to watch the HBO show way back in the day
Speaker 1: where he did all these different characters. And he is
Speaker 1: doing the same thing that he's on before with Borad.
Speaker 1: He's doing these kind of ambush interviews. And the movie
Speaker 1: is called Who Is America? But here's the problem. And
Speaker 1: and I am not overly sensitive. I'm not somebody who goes,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh. You know, I don't pull the snowflake stuff.
Speaker 1: But there are limits, you know, you you there are
Speaker 1: certain places you just don't go. You don't make Holocaust jokes,
Speaker 1: you don't ever in any way put down or mock
Speaker 1: or drive somebody with with down syndrome. I mean, there
Speaker 1: are red lines, and they're red lines for me, the
Speaker 1: red lines for any decent person. And I think a
Speaker 1: red line for all of us is not only do
Speaker 1: not mess with veterans, you do not mess with disabled veterans,
Speaker 1: or you are in for a world of hurt. And
Speaker 1: I don't know if that's just metaphorical. And this is
Speaker 1: the report. Now, I don't you know, this hasn't been
Speaker 1: all fully confirmed, but the report says that Sasha Baron
Speaker 1: co or Sasha Cohen, what's you call him that now,
Speaker 1: met with are A Palen and she flew across the
Speaker 1: country to meet with him. He posed as a disabled
Speaker 1: veteran in a wheelchair, and he got her to sign something.
Speaker 1: I think he's also gotten. He got Dick Cheney to
Speaker 1: sign a quote waterboarding kit. But he posed a disabled
Speaker 1: veteran to Sarah Palin and Sarah Palin uh is furious
Speaker 1: about this now, and she has written the following out
Speaker 1: of respect for what I was led to believe would
Speaker 1: be a thoughtful discussion with someone who would serve in uniform.
Speaker 1: I sat through a long interview full of hotty Hollywood
Speaker 1: is ms, disrespecting sarcasm, but finally had enough and literally
Speaker 1: physically removed my mic and walked out, much to Cohen's chagrin.
Speaker 1: The disrespect of our US military and middle class Americans
Speaker 1: via Cohen's foreign commentaries under the guise who interview questions
Speaker 1: was perverse. If he really posed as a veteran, I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you this this I'm hoping this is going
Speaker 1: to be the end of this guy doing this kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. If he posed as a disabled vet in
Speaker 1: a wheelchair for the purposes of this interview, I just
Speaker 1: think that that's I do think that's crossing a red line.
Speaker 1: And and you know, it's a shame on so many levels.
Speaker 1: First of all, the biggest problem is the disrespect, but
Speaker 1: also comedy is such a an avenue for relief and
Speaker 1: actually for bringing people together. And I really mean this.
Speaker 1: Comedians in this country have abandoned their posts. They've become
Speaker 1: political hacks, they become nasty, and they become unfunny, and
Speaker 1: it's a real loss to our culture. It looks like
Speaker 1: Sashakhn is a part of that problem. I know he's
Speaker 1: a brick, but same idea. Anyway, I'll keep an eye
Speaker 1: on this story. And we have roll call coming up.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks. Here's where you take over,
Speaker 1: keeping it real, Team Buck, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: It's that time for the funky roll call action. My friends.
Speaker 1: You know how we do it here in the Hut.
Speaker 1: Let's get into it. Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: I'm just realizing today it has been Hawhile since I
Speaker 1: have managed to get into the official team look at
Speaker 1: gmail dot com inbox, so I will make sure the
Speaker 1: next time around we will get to that which is
Speaker 1: gonna be fun. First, up here we have Eric, who
Speaker 1: writes hey Buck paraphrasing Rush Limbaugh on his show today.
Speaker 1: The left hysteria about Kavanaugh has nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: It has to do with the fact that he will
Speaker 1: abide by the Constitution. They don't want the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: to be bound by the U. S. Constitution. They want
Speaker 1: judges who will ignore the Constitution and make decisions that
Speaker 1: enable the left to post there will on us. Isn't
Speaker 1: that horrifying? The very thing that we love the U. S.
Speaker 1: Constitution for that it protects us from bad people forcing
Speaker 1: bad policies on us. Is what the Democrats hate about
Speaker 1: the Constitution. PS love the Soroce impression. Eric Shields high
Speaker 1: let Edic, thank you very much for a din Sous
Speaker 1: would like to send you a large crate of gold bars,
Speaker 1: unmarked of course, so you can put it whatever you want.
Speaker 1: You can hide it from your government, for when the
Speaker 1: end comes, we bring it all come crashing down, Adam.
Speaker 1: Next up here, personally. When it comes to Democrats, the
Speaker 1: momentum has shifted so far to the right that they
Speaker 1: may see no alternative. The old adage applies here. There
Speaker 1: is no worse enemy than one who has nothing left
Speaker 1: to lose. I don't know where the line is exactly,
Speaker 1: but I fear we are marching toward it shields high,
Speaker 1: you know, Adam, I agree, man, I this is gonna
Speaker 1: get the Democrats lose this midterm election, meaning that they
Speaker 1: don't take control of the House with the Senate. Right
Speaker 1: if if they don't pick up control of any government,
Speaker 1: what do they tell themselves? How is it possible that
Speaker 1: their fellow Americans could not just elect Trump and let
Speaker 1: him lead the Republican Party, but then there could be
Speaker 1: an affirmation of that vote at the ballot box. After
Speaker 1: two years of Trump at the head of the GOP,
Speaker 1: It's almost like Trump's doing a good job and the
Speaker 1: GOP is better at governing than the Democrats are. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh crazy, Who knew? Right? Who knew? Matthew up
Speaker 1: here rights? Great movie quote. Ever, notice how you come
Speaker 1: across somebody once a while, you shouldn't have messed with
Speaker 1: That's me um, Matthew. I don't know what that movie is.
Speaker 1: I don't know what that is, So somebody else is
Speaker 1: going to have to tell me what that one is.
Speaker 1: We will have to do a quick look upon that one.
Speaker 1: Brian writes, enjoy the show, buck great Brexit segment. Please
Speaker 1: explain why liberals think Rob Wade is settled law, but
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment, which is specifically spelled out, is not.
Speaker 1: You know, Brian, I it's a completely valid question, it's
Speaker 1: intelligent question. But there's a part of me that almost
Speaker 1: grows too tired. I grow weary of dealing with all
Speaker 1: the liberal hypocrisy when it comes to the Constitution and
Speaker 1: constitutional rights and the the Bill of Rights and the
Speaker 1: various amendments. It's just they make it up as they
Speaker 1: go along. It's a different argument every day. There's no consistency. No,
Speaker 1: it's it's like you're wrestling with jello all the time
Speaker 1: when you're talking about left wing jurisprudence. Wrestling with the
Speaker 1: jello sounds like fun. No, really, it's something that I
Speaker 1: think is uh, it's tedious. It's becoming tedious, you know.
Speaker 1: On the one on the one hand, you've got I mean,
Speaker 1: I couldn't even believe this today this was amazing. You
Speaker 1: have an NBC reporter named Katie tur who who said,
Speaker 1: uh an MSNBC owned by NBC. Quote, based on where
Speaker 1: Americans stand on the issues, Americans have really moved in
Speaker 1: a much more progressive direction over the years. Do you
Speaker 1: think it's appropriate to continue to take such a strict
Speaker 1: originalist view of the Constitution given its eighteen and not
Speaker 1: seventeen seventies six and quote because I and every sentence
Speaker 1: with a little bit of raising my voice because that
Speaker 1: like sounds really like I know what I'm talking about. Um, Yes, Katie,
Speaker 1: we do think that the plain English language of the
Speaker 1: Constitution from seventeen seventy six, that was just a compilation
Speaker 1: of ideas that led to the greatest, most prosperous nation
Speaker 1: not just on the planet, but on the in the
Speaker 1: history of the planet. I think that that Constitution is
Speaker 1: still valid. I think that universe stal truths are still
Speaker 1: universal truths. I think that universe universal uh natural law
Speaker 1: is still applicable today. I don't think we have like
Speaker 1: gotten beyond that because like just because like but I mean,
Speaker 1: the founders didn't have like Twitter and stuff, so like
Speaker 1: how could they know what ammdents to right? Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know, Katie, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I got I got ahead of myself there
Speaker 1: for a second. Okay, here we go back to roll call,
Speaker 1: back to roll call, Sexton. Ah, here we go, Josh, right, hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: longtime listener, all the way back to just the Saturday Show. Oh, Josh,
Speaker 1: we have a name for that. It is called O
Speaker 1: s S for Original Saturday Squad. I'm not sure if
Speaker 1: you've covered it or not, but why can't Trump just
Speaker 1: apply the travel band to countries south of the border?
Speaker 1: Any thoughts, Josh, Well, Josh, there would be massive eckl
Speaker 1: nomic ramifications of I don't know if you're including Mexico
Speaker 1: on that or not. He could do it with Central America,
Speaker 1: Central American countries, and given the rapidly deteriorating situation in
Speaker 1: Nicaragua right now, there's a case to be made that
Speaker 1: maybe that's not a terrible idea. But uh, if he
Speaker 1: banned Mexico under national security, under his National security authority,
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats would completely lose their minds. You'd
Speaker 1: have massive protests in the streets, you pay a huge
Speaker 1: political costs, and also the economic costs would be very real. Look,
Speaker 1: we do a lot of trade with Mexico. Okay, there
Speaker 1: there's a lot of good things. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: this gets lost in this. There's so much good that
Speaker 1: happens as a result of cross border activity of all kinds.
Speaker 1: There's bad as well, but there's a lot of good too, right,
Speaker 1: And you know, I want entrepreneurial Mexicans who can come
Speaker 1: into America and are gonna work hard. I'm gonna do,
Speaker 1: But I also want entrepreneurial Canadians. I want entrepreneurial bots Swannin's.
Speaker 1: I want entrepreneurial Turks. You know, I just want the
Speaker 1: best of the best from everywhere. I don't want them
Speaker 1: to become legally, but even in a day to day
Speaker 1: since in terms of the economic activity across the border,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of you know, we're we're selling stuff
Speaker 1: to Mexico, Mexico selling stuff to us, so we we
Speaker 1: couldn't just do that. But I understand you're trying to
Speaker 1: think outside the box, and I appreciate it. Aries just
Speaker 1: writes office Space, because yes, Aries, you're correct, that was
Speaker 1: the movie reference that I made yesterday. Aries just he
Speaker 1: Arias just goes for the mic drop Facebook message just
Speaker 1: like Boom office Space. I'm money. I'm not even gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna at you, just office space. Dawn. Right, Hello,
Speaker 1: my husband listens to your show. He tells you that
Speaker 1: tells us that he's OSS and was telling me how
Speaker 1: much you love dogs. Our dog, Daisy was hit by
Speaker 1: a car a few weeks ago, and the vet bills
Speaker 1: have gone beyond what we have what we could afford.
Speaker 1: We set up a go fund me paid to raise
Speaker 1: money and hope you may be able to share it
Speaker 1: on your Facebook page. I understand that it's something you
Speaker 1: can't do, but any kind of explosion we can get
Speaker 1: would be helpful. You know what, Dawn, we will put
Speaker 1: this up in the Freedom Hunt because there's a Team
Speaker 1: Bucks Freedom Hunt page with a lot of OSS folks,
Speaker 1: and and we will will see if we can get
Speaker 1: some get some help for Daisy. It looks like you're adorable,
Speaker 1: black lab. It is also the name of my brilliant
Speaker 1: and beautiful and wonderful recently married little sister, so I'm
Speaker 1: particularly partial to the name Daisy. But Dawn, you know,
Speaker 1: if I can ever help, I will, and don't ever
Speaker 1: hesitate to reach out and ask for help here in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. William right buck, been listening to you
Speaker 1: for a few months. I'm also a former I see member.
Speaker 1: I saw the headline your reference. I see intelligence community folks.
Speaker 1: I saw the headline your reference earlier. Was the FBI
Speaker 1: bamboozled on Fox News only moments before? And I noticed
Speaker 1: something instantly. If this notion is being promoted by the
Speaker 1: FBI itself, is clearly their attempt at an out from
Speaker 1: the treachery they committed and are being exposed for. To
Speaker 1: believe that the FBI was bamboozled by bad information is
Speaker 1: to completely disregard common sense and reality. Even a rank
Speaker 1: amateur would have recognized the lack of veracity in such
Speaker 1: intel reporting as the dossier. No one in the FBI
Speaker 1: is that gullible. And I say that as no fan
Speaker 1: of the FBI whatsoever, William, I will say this. I'm
Speaker 1: probably getting in trouble for this. But FBI agents, the
Speaker 1: guys carrying the guns to do good work. God bless
Speaker 1: most of the FBI analysts that I dealt with. We're
Speaker 1: not the best in the intel community. I'll I'll be
Speaker 1: I will be charitable, second tier, maybe third tier within
Speaker 1: that community. Just I call it like it is. Not this.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about the special agents, talking about the analysts.
Speaker 1: I was an analyst too, so I'm you know, analysts
Speaker 1: are allowed to make fun of other analysts, right, so
Speaker 1: FBI analysts were not blowing my blowing my socks off? Uh,
Speaker 1: where were we here? They may not have they may
Speaker 1: have many faults, but being that incompetent in intelligence vetting
Speaker 1: is just not one of their faults. And they're trying
Speaker 1: to sell this line of crap that they were bamboozled.
Speaker 1: It's a cheap attempt to wash their dirty hands at
Speaker 1: the intentional subversion of a legitimate election. Kindness regards, will
Speaker 1: keep fighting the good fight, will shields high, and thank you,
Speaker 1: and I agree with you. And good to have an
Speaker 1: i C brother writing in one of my favorite things
Speaker 1: about this show. I get emails and messages from people
Speaker 1: downrange military special operations community. I get people from from
Speaker 1: within the i C. Let's say former, let's just say
Speaker 1: always former for our purposes within the i C reach
Speaker 1: out to me and yeah, it's it's just good to
Speaker 1: have that connectivity. And I take a special pride in
Speaker 1: knowing that practitioners, people who know what it is to
Speaker 1: be involved in counter terrorism, be doing real national security
Speaker 1: work and law enforcement. Although I'm really a national security analyst, guys,
Speaker 1: I I I kind of dabbled in law enforcement for
Speaker 1: a little while, but I'm really a national security analyst. Um.
Speaker 1: But that they listen to the show and respect this
Speaker 1: show means a tremendous amount to me. Dale. Uh, Mike
Speaker 1: Lee would have been a bad choice for scotus. You
Speaker 1: lose a Senate vote on that, right do I don't
Speaker 1: think Mike Lee would be a bad choice for Senate. Look,
Speaker 1: Utah is pretty safe red. At least we don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about things going blue in Utah. That's nice.
Speaker 1: But Mike Lee would have been a very good choice.
Speaker 1: I think that that actually would make sense. But thanks
Speaker 1: for Sharon gen great show and loving the live streams.
Speaker 1: What the left is doing is really getting scary. People
Speaker 1: attacking others in restaurants, people telling politicians they know where
Speaker 1: they live. Most of these people don't even know or
Speaker 1: care to learn what it is they are yelling about.
Speaker 1: Someone is going to get seriously hurt and we will
Speaker 1: get blamed for it by the left sad times, but
Speaker 1: I have hope it will get better with Trump, you,
Speaker 1: Rush and others leading the way. I have faith we
Speaker 1: will make it out of the end and still have America. Well, Jen,
Speaker 1: I hope, I hope that faith is correct. I have
Speaker 1: it too, and I think we're all gonna be all right.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm positive, you know, I deal with problems here
Speaker 1: in the Hut, but I'm positive in the long run,
Speaker 1: and I'm bullish on America, that's for sure. Please do
Speaker 1: uh subscribe to the podcast of the show. Folks. Also
Speaker 1: get ready for a Freedom Hut podcast this week. It
Speaker 1: will be out. We will have a special guest that'll
Speaker 1: be out Thursday night. I have to go rush off
Speaker 1: to a hill dot tv event, So check out Hill
Speaker 1: dot tv Slash Rising tomorrow morning. Until next time. You
Speaker 1: know what's up, Shield Hie. Information is power, and you
Speaker 1: want the best and you want the most powerful on
Speaker 1: your side when it comes to background investigations and vetting.
Speaker 1: That's where Global Verification Network comes in. If you are
Speaker 1: a property owner or if you're a business owner, you
Speaker 1: have to know what are you getting into, what are
Speaker 1: you getting involved with, or who are you getting involved with.
Speaker 1: You need somebody who can pull all of the relevant
Speaker 1: data and facts and present it to you in a
Speaker 1: way that lets you make the best business decisions possible.
Speaker 1: That's why you want Global Verification Network. They're the only
Speaker 1: dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company out there.
Speaker 1: You can see for yourself. They are headquartered in Chicago.
Speaker 1: These risk mitigation experts will work with companies of any size.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven, seven six nine, five seven nine. That's
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine,
Speaker 1: or go to my g VN dot com again, that's
Speaker 1: my g VN dot com. Global Verification Network leave no
Speaker 1: stone unturned.