Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump brings back
Speaker 1: three Americans from North Korea in advance of a summit
Speaker 1: that could change the Korean peninsula and with it alter
Speaker 1: the trajectory of geopolitics around the world. Plus the Iran Deal. Aftermath,
Speaker 1: Israel has gone after Iran in Syria? What does that mean?
Speaker 1: What will look like going forward? A woman decides to
Speaker 1: strip down in front of her class to protest the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about how that worked. And also a consent
Speaker 1: expert who says you need consent from a baby to
Speaker 1: change a diaper. That and more coming up. This is
Speaker 1: the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make No
Speaker 1: Mistake Academy, Great American Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: For CIA analysts, it is more likely than not that
Speaker 1: there is a conflict, possibly a full blown war with
Speaker 1: an emerging nuclear power. We're actually closer, in my view,
Speaker 1: to a nuclear war with North Korea and in that
Speaker 1: region than we've ever been. That we're probably closer to
Speaker 1: an outright war with North Korea than we have been
Speaker 1: in a very very long time. Got chance of war,
Speaker 1: I'd say, from where I sit right now, probably not
Speaker 1: that far off. Could easily construe what he's been saying
Speaker 1: as a declaration or at least a threat of war.
Speaker 1: What is the ignition point for Kim and Moon's fuse
Speaker 1: with this provocative rhetoric, This escalatory rhetoric between the leaders
Speaker 1: of two countries that have nuclear weapons is slipping very
Speaker 1: quickly into something that could become very dangerous for the planet.
Speaker 1: I don't see the opportunities to solve this diplomatically. You
Speaker 1: have reason to be scared of a war that could
Speaker 1: wipe out five people. Think he wants to use nukes.
Speaker 1: That's what I think. He feels welcome to the buck
Speaker 1: sex and show everybody here we go. I just think
Speaker 1: he wants to use nukes. Good call, Mika. I want
Speaker 1: to remind him of that now that he's brought three
Speaker 1: Americans home and is scheduled to have the first sit
Speaker 1: down between a president and the North Korean leader in history.
Speaker 1: Good call. Isn't it quite a week for the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: We had some fun there with that montage. Those were
Speaker 1: some of the revered senior figures of Democrat media and
Speaker 1: Democrat politics, and oh they were just so sure that
Speaker 1: Trump is going to push US toward war with North Korea. Instead,
Speaker 1: they're having to think of ways to convince the American
Speaker 1: people that all stuff that Trump is doing, all the
Speaker 1: results that he's getting, are somehow a bad thing. We
Speaker 1: now have the summit set for Singapore. Talk a bit
Speaker 1: more about that in just a moment. With that, the
Speaker 1: backdrop that that is and why that's why that is
Speaker 1: meaningful in and of itself. We'll get into also the
Speaker 1: Iran deal and many many other things, my friends. But
Speaker 1: I just have to note that at some point the
Speaker 1: rational response to so many not just missed but grotesquely
Speaker 1: wild of the mark, insanely off base predictions from the
Speaker 1: Democrat media establishment, at some point, you you've hear so
Speaker 1: much of it, you've got to say to yourself, I
Speaker 1: shouldn't listen to these people on anything. They really don't
Speaker 1: know anything. They they have no ability whatsoever to bring
Speaker 1: together knowledge and experience to produce insight. They just produce
Speaker 1: nincompooper e on a massive scale. Uh. They're their predictions
Speaker 1: are kakamamie. They are not sensible when it comes to
Speaker 1: this president. I'm not saying on everything, you know, I'm sure,
Speaker 1: some of those folks are great at telling you about
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know other other things. I can't
Speaker 1: think of who it was specific enough. I think Dan
Speaker 1: Rather was one of Them's done here talking like this.
Speaker 1: Somehow people still listen to him even though who journalism
Speaker 1: career ended and one of the biggest repudiations of integrity
Speaker 1: that I've ever seen. Uh, Trump brought background and I know, people, look,
Speaker 1: I I give you. I think I try to give
Speaker 1: you a a full and uh, multi fasciated perspective. Now
Speaker 1: it sounds like I'm the two Bobs and I'm selling
Speaker 1: you on why did TPS reports a multi faceted perspective?
Speaker 1: But really, I try to tell you what's going on
Speaker 1: from the other side too in some ways, so at
Speaker 1: least we're not caught off guard by it. And they
Speaker 1: will tell you, oh, Obama got I think it was
Speaker 1: eleven prisoners released over his eight years, and it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: but no one was saying Obama was about to start
Speaker 1: a nuclear war with North Korea either, right, Plus that
Speaker 1: was over eight years. It's been a year, so if
Speaker 1: you go by oh, I guess eighteen months or so.
Speaker 1: But enough if you're gonna go by by the numbers here,
Speaker 1: you could expect a couple of dozen hostages to get
Speaker 1: for not hopefully haven't forbid. No one else taken a hostage.
Speaker 1: But you know what I mean, this is three in
Speaker 1: the early stages of year two of the first term.
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty good. But nonetheless, Kim Jong un
Speaker 1: could very well have held onto those hostages to give
Speaker 1: him a little extra leverage going to the negotiations, right
Speaker 1: Why I let go of them now? In fact, wouldn't
Speaker 1: it be smarter if you were Kim, wouldn't you want
Speaker 1: to sit down with Trump and say, you know what,
Speaker 1: just as a good faith measure, you do X, Y
Speaker 1: and Z with the same actions right now, and we'll
Speaker 1: give you back these three guys. No, he gave back
Speaker 1: three before even sitting down for the meeting. So it's
Speaker 1: a good faith measure. It doesn't mean the North Koreans
Speaker 1: are acting in good faith. Though. This whole thing could
Speaker 1: blow up. Maybe that's a poor choice of words, but
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. This whole thing could go south.
Speaker 1: I have no illusions about that. But I I start
Speaker 1: the show in the way I did today. I started
Speaker 1: the show the way I did because I wanted to
Speaker 1: really established what the baseline has been with this presidency
Speaker 1: and where we are now. And the truth is, they've
Speaker 1: been telling us that Trump is just a a crazy
Speaker 1: rogue elephant. There's no method to the madness. He's an ignoramis.
Speaker 1: All he does is eat cheeseburgers and watch TV in
Speaker 1: his pajamas, and he's gonna start a nuclear holocaust that
Speaker 1: kills millions of people. That is what the people who
Speaker 1: are paid the most money from the biggest outlets in
Speaker 1: news have been have been peddling for going on two
Speaker 1: years now. And that's why I wanted to start that
Speaker 1: with that montage. If you just start getting into a
Speaker 1: an understanding of how wrong they are and how if
Speaker 1: we're going to judge where Trump is right now, where
Speaker 1: the foreign policy of this administration is visa v all
Speaker 1: the biggest challenges that they've tackled so far. Oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, you know, they got like five of the
Speaker 1: biggest ISIS leaders to just captured him. So Trump somehow
Speaker 1: is getting back hostages and capture and ISIS guys without
Speaker 1: delivering palates of cash, without bowing a lot, without apologizing
Speaker 1: for America all over the world, It's pretty remarkable when
Speaker 1: you think about that way, right, He's not using some
Speaker 1: of the old tricks from the previous administration. He's doing
Speaker 1: it his own way, and it's working. And that has
Speaker 1: the Democrats terrified. Yeah, they're saying yesterday that they can't
Speaker 1: run on the economy. Can't. I mean, it's a joke.
Speaker 1: They're they're gonna try, They're not gonna work, and they
Speaker 1: can say whatever they want. Not gonna work, I think,
Speaker 1: And I mean they're gonna they're gonna lie about it,
Speaker 1: They're gonna do everything they can to misrepresent economy. But
Speaker 1: I just think that they're doomed a failure on that.
Speaker 1: I think I think that they were acting under the
Speaker 1: assumption until pretty recently that national security and foreign policy
Speaker 1: would be a a week spot for Trump, right that
Speaker 1: that he wouldn't have enough accomplishments that counteract the narrative
Speaker 1: that they were going to craft of what what a
Speaker 1: buffoon he is, what a fool he is, all that stuff, Right.
Speaker 1: They that they never anticipated, obviously, given what they were
Speaker 1: saying in the past, that this president would get to
Speaker 1: the place that he has gotten already on Iran, on
Speaker 1: North Korea, on a bunch of these problems, uh, dealing
Speaker 1: with the Islamic state. He doesn't really talk about that anymore. Yeah,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, but Obama did all these things with ISIS.
Speaker 1: Obama waited, he delayed, He was always he was always
Speaker 1: behind whatever was going on in Syria and Iraq. With ISIS,
Speaker 1: the Obama administration was about six months behind where it
Speaker 1: should have been based on what was happening on the ground,
Speaker 1: sometimes more like a year behind. They eventually got to
Speaker 1: once they tried all the failed stalling and oh, let's
Speaker 1: go to the u N. Maybe they'll do something. A
Speaker 1: year later they started to do the right thing, and
Speaker 1: not even in a full measure manner. Trump came in.
Speaker 1: He's just like, all right, we've got the best military
Speaker 1: in the world, got the best generals, colonels, non commission officers,
Speaker 1: up and down the chain, everybody. We got the best.
Speaker 1: Let's let them do it. Go take out ISIS. Do
Speaker 1: what you gotta do, and guess what the pace and
Speaker 1: the target. The pace of the air strikes increased dramatically.
Speaker 1: The speed with which our special forces on the ground
Speaker 1: with Kurdish militia were able to move against the enemy
Speaker 1: increased dramatically. And who knows how any lives were actually
Speaker 1: saying in that process, because remember, it's not like in
Speaker 1: action has no costs. And that's one of the great
Speaker 1: lessons of the Obama era. You see, a classic Obama
Speaker 1: ism was sit around, make sure you sound smart, make
Speaker 1: sure all the other smart people are gonna say that
Speaker 1: you're smart, and then just try to have your media
Speaker 1: buddies ignore the fact that not only was there terrible
Speaker 1: stuff going on in Iraq and Syria because of the
Speaker 1: Islamic State and because of the Syrian civil war with Assad,
Speaker 1: but they were building jihadest terror factories that were exporting
Speaker 1: terror to Europe and through the cyber jihad, radicalizing people
Speaker 1: in our country that we're killing people. So this was
Speaker 1: not a problem that we could have ignored. We should
Speaker 1: not have ignored it as long as you ob administration did.
Speaker 1: But they thought in action. They always conflated in action
Speaker 1: with wisdom, right, delay with patients. These are not the
Speaker 1: same things. Trump shows up and says, all right, let's see,
Speaker 1: let's see who's on her side, let's see who's not,
Speaker 1: and what are what are the problems we have to
Speaker 1: deal with? You know, why why should we why should
Speaker 1: the leader of the United States. I mean, given that
Speaker 1: we keep in money. The media is always saying Trump's
Speaker 1: not tough enough on Putin because they have this Russia obsession.
Speaker 1: Oh they want to they want him to, you know,
Speaker 1: call him out, call him a thug. The media is
Speaker 1: always calling Putin a thug. But we have to show
Speaker 1: some weird deference in respect to Kim Jong un. Now,
Speaker 1: show him respect now, because he's gonna sit down and
Speaker 1: maybe we can get somewhere. But before that, he just
Speaker 1: wants to fire off missiles. He wants to be a
Speaker 1: little punk. The President United States said, all right, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna treat him like a little punk, and you know what,
Speaker 1: here we are. Was there any point in the eight
Speaker 1: years of the Obama presidency. And it's not just that
Speaker 1: I'm trying to beat up on Obama and the and
Speaker 1: the clown car of foreign policy advisors he had, but
Speaker 1: I guess I'm doing that too, But also because I
Speaker 1: want to juxtapose what's going on now versus what happened
Speaker 1: before that. This is new, this is different. Trump approach
Speaker 1: is disruptive. Was there any point in the years of
Speaker 1: the obamaministration that anybody with a straight face was even
Speaker 1: talking about denuclearizing North Korea. I don't even remember it
Speaker 1: as a discussion. It was just, you know, boxed him
Speaker 1: in isolate them sanctions, box him in islanom sanctions, but
Speaker 1: not even enough in terms of the sanctions, because you see,
Speaker 1: here's a critical component of it. Obama didn't want to
Speaker 1: have to deal with China in a way that was
Speaker 1: going to require any real statescraft. The state craft. The
Speaker 1: whole pivot to Asia was a fiction, right. It was
Speaker 1: just it was something that they talked about but never
Speaker 1: really did. With Trump and with the sanctions we have
Speaker 1: in place now against North Korea, if if a Chinese
Speaker 1: flagged vessel or even a Chinese operator vessel under a
Speaker 1: flag of one of these flags of convenience from maritime nations,
Speaker 1: something to talk about with you guys at other time.
Speaker 1: But there's a reason why there are so many ships
Speaker 1: that are registered to these like tiny principalities, right, so
Speaker 1: many ships registered the bahamas Um. But we we we
Speaker 1: go after them and we sanctioned whomever is trying to
Speaker 1: evade the sanctions that we have in place. So this
Speaker 1: is action. This is what happens when you actually tackle
Speaker 1: a problem instead of holding committees, holding meetings, getting the
Speaker 1: two bobs together, talking about the TPS reports, talking about
Speaker 1: how we're gonna have another meeting and another meeting. And
Speaker 1: you know, process cannot be the product for the commander
Speaker 1: in chief of the United States, right, we gotta leave
Speaker 1: that to the rest of them, slothful bureaucracy. But there
Speaker 1: have to be things that are done. They're in the
Speaker 1: best interests of the American people. And I think that
Speaker 1: Trump sees that he's been doing it. It is It
Speaker 1: is a a an old maximum foreign policy that you
Speaker 1: should know who your friends are, know who your enemies are,
Speaker 1: and do they know the difference because of how you
Speaker 1: treat them? Guess what? I can't say it that's the
Speaker 1: Trump doctrine because it's been around for a long time,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly a doctrine that Trump has adopted in
Speaker 1: large part as his own. And seeing the world with
Speaker 1: clarity and acting on that clarity can actually bring about results.
Speaker 1: Are we gonna do denuclear as North Korea? I don't know,
Speaker 1: Probably less than fifty fifties, just gonna be honest with you.
Speaker 1: But it's not zero, and it was zero for the
Speaker 1: previous eight years. While North Korea was firing off missiles
Speaker 1: and imprisoning millions of people in labor camps and engaged
Speaker 1: in weaponizing hunger and starvation and all kinds of horrible atrocities. Okay,
Speaker 1: there was a zero chance under Obama. There is a
Speaker 1: real chance under Trump. And that's because of what this
Speaker 1: administration has done, the actions they've taken. We have so
Speaker 1: much more show. Stay with me. I really think he
Speaker 1: wants to do something. I think he did this because
Speaker 1: I really think he wants to do something and bringing
Speaker 1: that country into the real world. I really believe that, John,
Speaker 1: and I think I think that we're gonna have a success.
Speaker 1: I think this will be a very big success. I
Speaker 1: think our secretary of State, despite the fact that the
Speaker 1: New York Times said he was missing, he was in
Speaker 1: North Korea. But I think our secretary of State has
Speaker 1: done a fantastic job. Mike, did you know that you
Speaker 1: were missing that couldn't find They couldn't find him. They
Speaker 1: couldn't find him because he was in North Korea. That's right,
Speaker 1: that a New York Times piece. I told you about it.
Speaker 1: They were they were angry or you know, Oh, could
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Student not be around? Well, maybe he's
Speaker 1: helping get Americans free. Just just maybe there's some good
Speaker 1: things going on here. Herb in New Jersey has got
Speaker 1: some thoughts on the situation. What's up her good evening, buck, Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm I was very glad to watch this
Speaker 1: morning as the President and the First Lady greeted our
Speaker 1: fellow Americans being returned home, UH, and very pleased with
Speaker 1: the work that he and UH Secretary of State Pompeo
Speaker 1: did to achieve that. UM. And like the President, I'm
Speaker 1: hopeful that maybe Uh Kim has decided that, you know,
Speaker 1: it's better to go along with the program and do
Speaker 1: some better things for his countrymen, UH than has been
Speaker 1: done in the past, because obviously that hasn't worked out
Speaker 1: real well. And what what we're proposing for him and
Speaker 1: his people would be a whole lot better than than
Speaker 1: what they've had. But in that regard, UM, and there's
Speaker 1: also the possibility of the Trojan horse UH, and you,
Speaker 1: being a student of history, UM, are very well acquainted
Speaker 1: with the possibility that UM, this UH, this gift UH
Speaker 1: could be in fact a prelude to something that is
Speaker 1: reminiscent to me of the UH thing that happened to
Speaker 1: was that Kim's brother or uncle? And what Southeast Asian
Speaker 1: country did that occur? In Maia, Malaysia kind of close
Speaker 1: to Singapore in general. Um, you know, I have to
Speaker 1: believe and I have to hope fervently that both the
Speaker 1: Secret Service and the company you used to work for, UM,
Speaker 1: I have given some thought to making sure that nothing
Speaker 1: of the sort could possibly happen uh to our president
Speaker 1: while he's in a foreign country. Yeah, no, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not worried about that. I mean, look, Singapore is
Speaker 1: kind of a benevolent police state, so I don't I
Speaker 1: don't think we have any Plus we got us Secret
Speaker 1: Service and everyone else. Uh, I'm not worried about that.
Speaker 1: But her By, I can appreciate that you you are
Speaker 1: concerned that there might be a might be a bait
Speaker 1: and switch, there might be a trojan horse. There's any
Speaker 1: number of uh construction and thanks for calling in her
Speaker 1: number of constructs here that could be in play where
Speaker 1: this North Korea thing is not really working out the
Speaker 1: way that we we are hoping it will. And like
Speaker 1: I said, I think it's less than fifty fifty. So
Speaker 1: you're not I'm not the uh, you know, the Rosie
Speaker 1: lenses express over here or something. I just think that
Speaker 1: you've gone from a zero percent chance of averting a
Speaker 1: major conflict on the Korean peninsula to like probably a
Speaker 1: thirty percent chance in the first eighteen months of an administration.
Speaker 1: It's pretty amazing. By the way, White House is gonna
Speaker 1: have one of its senior strategists for international affairs and
Speaker 1: agreements calling in a little bit to give us the
Speaker 1: White House perspective on this one. So I stay tuned
Speaker 1: for that and a whole lot more in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton is back.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, everybody. I've been telling you what I think
Speaker 1: about the big moves on Iran and North Korea this
Speaker 1: week from the administration. Now we have someone from the
Speaker 1: White House to weigh in. Special Assistant to the President
Speaker 1: and Senior Director for International Negotiations, Victoria Coates is with
Speaker 1: us now. Victoria, thank you for making the time, Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me on bus. So what do you want
Speaker 1: the want the folks to take away from what's happened
Speaker 1: this week? What should what should we think about the
Speaker 1: trajectory going forward. Let's start first with what this means
Speaker 1: for Iran because I know a lot of people on
Speaker 1: the other side of the aisle are up in arms
Speaker 1: about this. Well they are, and I think one of
Speaker 1: the things that's upsetting them is what you see manifest
Speaker 1: this week is American leadership being exercised in a resolute,
Speaker 1: clear way in the interests of the American people. And
Speaker 1: that is making people absolutely crazy because this president is
Speaker 1: willing to do things that they've told us for many
Speaker 1: years can't be done. He will say things that they
Speaker 1: they've said if you even mentioned that word, the sky
Speaker 1: will fall. Uh. And what has he gotten out of it.
Speaker 1: We've gotten out of the Iran deal, which is disastrous. Uh.
Speaker 1: It was just to wait on our national security. We
Speaker 1: now have the opportunity to reapply pressure to irund We
Speaker 1: can use the model that we've been using on North
Speaker 1: Korea with some incremental success and really try to turn
Speaker 1: that situation around. What can we expect from some of
Speaker 1: the now. I know that it's often left out of
Speaker 1: the mainstream media narrative that there are some allies little
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, the United Air Emirates that are at Israel
Speaker 1: that are quite happy with what's gone on here visa VI,
Speaker 1: the Iran deal. But you see a lot of the
Speaker 1: critics saying, well, what does this mean for our European
Speaker 1: partners that were part of the P five plus one.
Speaker 1: How do you think that's going to play out. What's
Speaker 1: the White House plan to work with them? Well, we
Speaker 1: already are already are coordinating quite closely with them, And
Speaker 1: I just remind everybody that not three weeks ago, we
Speaker 1: had a seamless military action against Syria, closely coordinated with
Speaker 1: Great Britain and France, where all three nations participated, from ships,
Speaker 1: from submarines, from planes. We hit all of our targets,
Speaker 1: hundred and five Tomahawks deployed, and that was a tremendous
Speaker 1: moment of unity. And that doesn't just go away. These
Speaker 1: are these are relationships and alliances of of decades, if
Speaker 1: not centuries duration, and that doesn't go away because we're
Speaker 1: not in one individual agreement. So we'll continue to work
Speaker 1: with them. The French, in particular, have been forward leaning
Speaker 1: in their public statements about their willingness to UH to
Speaker 1: look at an additional deal, and we're very encouraged by that.
Speaker 1: What would an acceptable renegotiated Iran deal look like for
Speaker 1: President Trump and this administration. What are some of the
Speaker 1: key points that would have to be at it in Well,
Speaker 1: he really laid that out clearly in January when he
Speaker 1: set in May fourteenth to deadline um that he needs
Speaker 1: what what he would understand to be in the national
Speaker 1: security interests of the American people would be a deal
Speaker 1: that really did end Iran's path to a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 1: which we thanked thanks to the Israelis now definitively know
Speaker 1: this deal did not h We would have a deal
Speaker 1: that addresses their pouring of resources into ballistic missile programs,
Speaker 1: their sponsorship of terror. I mean, they're basically, as a bastard,
Speaker 1: Bolton said in the Washington Post today, building this arc
Speaker 1: of death and destruction from Yemen to Syria. It's terrible.
Speaker 1: Everything they touch is a disaster um and we have
Speaker 1: to address all of this. Putting one little stovepipe in
Speaker 1: place that might delay their path to a nuclear weapon
Speaker 1: for a couple of years is a band aid on
Speaker 1: it on a terrible wound. We're speaking to Victoria Coach,
Speaker 1: who is the Senior Director for International Negotiations at the
Speaker 1: White House. Victoria moving on to a North Korea for
Speaker 1: a moment. Uh, there are clearly positive signs. And whether
Speaker 1: people want to give this president to this administration credit
Speaker 1: or not, it's impossible to look at the return of
Speaker 1: three American hostages anything but a good thing and perhaps
Speaker 1: a sign of good faith. In addition to that, we
Speaker 1: know when the summit is going to be between Kim
Speaker 1: Jong Own and President Trump, we know where it's going
Speaker 1: to be. What are the what are some of the
Speaker 1: expectations that we should have going into this. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know the administration has been saying they have very
Speaker 1: clear eyes. They're not promising the moon quite yet, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I mean last night was a wonderful night. I
Speaker 1: think you saw the best of President Trump. A huge
Speaker 1: success for him, um how much he cares about these individuals,
Speaker 1: and and this is this has been a top priority
Speaker 1: for our administration from the beginning. And we're going to
Speaker 1: continue to focus on all the other Americans unjustly detained
Speaker 1: from Iran to Turkey to Venezuela. There are others, of
Speaker 1: course out there. We're not forgetting anybody uh in in
Speaker 1: the course of this. But last night was was a
Speaker 1: great victory for bringing folks home. And I just point
Speaker 1: out it happened before the meeting rather than having the
Speaker 1: release of the hostages be some kind of afterthought. It
Speaker 1: was very clear from the beginning that not much was
Speaker 1: going to happen until this took place, and so President
Speaker 1: just wants to make very clear that that he means
Speaker 1: what he says, and when he says he wants a verifiable,
Speaker 1: irreversible removal of North Korea's nuclear weapons, that that's his goal,
Speaker 1: and that's what Secretary Pompeo expressed in his trips. You
Speaker 1: know that that that's what we're negotiating towards, and the
Speaker 1: North Koreans still want to participate, so we're encouraged. H
Speaker 1: We don't have any illusions, but you know, we're going
Speaker 1: to take each incremental success as it comes and hopefully
Speaker 1: build towards success. How bullish are you that China I
Speaker 1: know that chis and Ping had his second meeting with
Speaker 1: Kim Jong ohen kind of a surprise meeting when it
Speaker 1: was first reported, at least to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: How bullish are you that China is going to be
Speaker 1: uh A a completely constructive or let's just say it,
Speaker 1: a predominantly constructive partner in these talks with North Korea
Speaker 1: where they're clearly China client. China is clearly gonna be
Speaker 1: playing a role in the background. Oh, they have to.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't really separate North Korea and China out.
Speaker 1: And you know, China has their interests, we have ours. UM.
Speaker 1: We are interested in cooperation where we can have it. Obviously,
Speaker 1: they you know, they're quite aggressive in the South China.
Speaker 1: See they're doing things on trade that the President seems
Speaker 1: not terribly enthusiastic about. UM, and we're working on those issues.
Speaker 1: But we're hopeful that this is a place where our
Speaker 1: interests in getting this situation resolved, uh is that our
Speaker 1: interests are mutual here and so we've been encouraged so
Speaker 1: far as I'm sure you know, the President and President
Speaker 1: g have a strong working relationship which is come in
Speaker 1: very handy and uh so we we are hopeful China
Speaker 1: will play They will see in their interests to play
Speaker 1: a constructive role. Victoria Coates from the White House. Victoria,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for calling him. We appreciate it anytime. Alright, team,
Speaker 1: We've got a whole lot more coming up in our
Speaker 1: two if you want to call in and chat eight
Speaker 1: four to eight to five, eight four four nine hundred
Speaker 1: buck Later on the show, I'm going to talk to
Speaker 1: you about a story that you're gonna have to hear
Speaker 1: to believe. Is it in fact a reasonable position to
Speaker 1: take that one should strip down to one's underwear in
Speaker 1: order to protest the patriarchy. This is a real thing.
Speaker 1: It really happened. The world's gone mad. I will tell
Speaker 1: you about that and more coming up. You are now
Speaker 1: entering the Freedom Technical Operations Center. Balls sensitive programs must
Speaker 1: be kept strictly. Need to know team buckets cleared and
Speaker 1: ready for the buck brief. So Irani and forward deployed
Speaker 1: forces in Syria fire off some rockets at Israel, twenty
Speaker 1: of them, as reported by the Israeli Defense Forces. Israeli's
Speaker 1: knocked most of them out of the sky and no
Speaker 1: casualties suffered by the Israelis from that barrage. But perhaps
Speaker 1: there's something for America to learn in this, because the
Speaker 1: Israelis didn't just leave it at that, and they didn't
Speaker 1: respond uh in in similar fashion, they responded with an
Speaker 1: even bigger punch than the one thrown by the Iranian
Speaker 1: forces stationed in Syria. Dozens of air strikes over the
Speaker 1: course of last night, targeting all Iranian military infrastructure in Syria,
Speaker 1: turning much, if not most of it two ashes, just
Speaker 1: lighting it up. The Israelis will aptly not tolerate Iranian
Speaker 1: forces using Syria as cover for assaults of any kind,
Speaker 1: and I think that this is going to affect the
Speaker 1: way that the I r g C conducts itself a
Speaker 1: bit going forward. Iran is not going to learn its
Speaker 1: lesson and that they're going to back off. They'll try
Speaker 1: to find other ways to hit it Israel, but I
Speaker 1: doubt they're gonna fire off rockets like that again anytime soon.
Speaker 1: Not worth it to them in terms of the cost extracted.
Speaker 1: I do wonder, and I give give credit today to
Speaker 1: a David French, who says a sometime guest and friend
Speaker 1: of the show, for his piece on why is it
Speaker 1: that America seems to have a very strange almost tolerance
Speaker 1: of Irani and aggression. You go back in history and
Speaker 1: the things that Iran has done and been a part
Speaker 1: of against the United States have been uh barbaric in
Speaker 1: many cases. And you don't have to go back far
Speaker 1: at all, in fact, just a handful of years, and
Speaker 1: many of you listening to exactly what I'm talking about
Speaker 1: because you were over there and you served, and so
Speaker 1: you know what I'm gonna say, the Iranians were actively
Speaker 1: sowing chaos and and murder and bloodshed as far as
Speaker 1: uh and as often as they could in Iraq. You
Speaker 1: had Iranian proxies who were sending e fps explosively formed
Speaker 1: or these are Iranis, I shouldn't even say proxies sending
Speaker 1: explosively formed penetrators into Iraq specifically for the purpose of
Speaker 1: puncturing these You always could remember them when you'd see
Speaker 1: the aftermath UH photos and footage, These cylindrical holes in
Speaker 1: the holes of armored vehicles. Why would you be doing
Speaker 1: that in the midst of a civil civil war? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because they were trying to kill and maime
Speaker 1: American soldiers and we never really hit back at them
Speaker 1: for this, And it's something that you know, I think
Speaker 1: it's just because the Bush administration was so harried with
Speaker 1: trying to deal with the domestic political upheaval over over
Speaker 1: Iraq as well as a very complicated situation in the
Speaker 1: Middle East. But remember there were some people who were
Speaker 1: saying that we should have also taken action against Syria,
Speaker 1: not to invade, but just punitive action for allowing all
Speaker 1: the suicide bombers to just the so called ratlines of
Speaker 1: suicide bombers from Damascus all the way to the Iraq
Speaker 1: Syrian border. Didn't really take much action there either. But
Speaker 1: with Iran, we seem to always want to back off,
Speaker 1: don't want to upset the apple cart even more, don't
Speaker 1: want to do anything that would further upset them. And
Speaker 1: when you look at it, when you look at this country,
Speaker 1: that there is no more anti American regime on the planet.
Speaker 1: In a lot of ways, Iran's regime exists to threaten Israel's,
Speaker 1: threatened Israel's existence, and to proclaim it's hatred for America.
Speaker 1: Beyond that, it's not really that clear to me what
Speaker 1: they want to export. Remember, the Iran Revolution is not
Speaker 1: just for their own country. It's not supposed to stay
Speaker 1: within their borders. The the Molas, the theocracy in Iran
Speaker 1: explicitly wants to export the Iranian Revolution to as many
Speaker 1: countries as it can. It's it's Islamic fundamentalist revolution, and
Speaker 1: that's why it uses proxies that are generally Shia across
Speaker 1: the Mid East. But it will also work with the
Speaker 1: Allo White Assad regime. He will work with Hamas, which
Speaker 1: is a Sunni terrorist organization operating predominantly out of Gaza
Speaker 1: and trying to destroy Israel. It's time that we start
Speaker 1: letting the Iranians know there will be very severe consequences
Speaker 1: when they decide to step out of line. I mean,
Speaker 1: you will remember remember the Obama administration when the Iranians
Speaker 1: seized a bunch of American UH soldiers. Remember this, what
Speaker 1: are we doing response? Again? The Iranians lived by a
Speaker 1: very straightforward set of rules when it comes to how
Speaker 1: far they will push and what they're willing to do.
Speaker 1: And it's when we sends weakness, we go on the attack.
Speaker 1: When we sense the attack, we go on defense. All right,
Speaker 1: they hunker down, they stepped back a little bit. There's
Speaker 1: no shared principle we have the Iranian regime. They don't
Speaker 1: care about life outside of their borders. They don't care
Speaker 1: all that much about life inside their borders in a
Speaker 1: lot of cases, and so we can't find common ground
Speaker 1: with them based on culture or ethics or anything like that.
Speaker 1: So I remember, we're talking about the boss is not
Speaker 1: the Iranian people. An important distinction. Those who are running
Speaker 1: that country, though, are part of a totalitarian theocracy that
Speaker 1: brutalizes its own citizens and that engages in the widespread
Speaker 1: systematic murder of its political opponents abroad. Any anyone, for
Speaker 1: any government in any country, any regime the Iranians don't like,
Speaker 1: they are willing to remove with force, with violence. So
Speaker 1: the the the break away from the Iran deal, I
Speaker 1: think is going to finally put us in a position
Speaker 1: to change not just the structure of the deal, which
Speaker 1: we were just discussing with our our frevoratory coachs who's
Speaker 1: a you know, from the White House on the international
Speaker 1: negotiation side as a special assistant the President, but but
Speaker 1: also to change our approach to Iran in a much
Speaker 1: more wholesale fashion. No longer turning the other cheek to
Speaker 1: their attacks, no longer turning a blind eye to the
Speaker 1: mischief that they sew and the destruction that they are
Speaker 1: responsible for. I think that could really show also some
Speaker 1: of our allies the Mint East that we are we
Speaker 1: are more serious about tackling this problem this time, this
Speaker 1: time around. So I am I am somewhat optimistic about this.
Speaker 1: I'm so I'm optimistic about Iran, I'm optistic about North Korea.
Speaker 1: I'm not the only one. General maddis my main man.
Speaker 1: He's optimistic about some of this stuff. Place six reasserted.
Speaker 1: Certainly their capability concerns us. On the military side, However,
Speaker 1: we see there is some reason for optimism. We said
Speaker 1: all along, this was a diplomatically led effort backed up
Speaker 1: by military force. I think there is reason for some
Speaker 1: optimism that these talks could be fruitful optimism. That's all
Speaker 1: I'm saying. There is the possibility of things getting better. Actually,
Speaker 1: I really like Ari Fleischer had to say on this
Speaker 1: point of optimism as well. You know, he's the former
Speaker 1: White House Press secretary under Bush. Play eight. If Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is right that Kim Jong and wants to bring
Speaker 1: his country into the twenty first century, that is the
Speaker 1: only reason North Korea would change its behavior. That is
Speaker 1: the huge reward, the pot of gold at the end
Speaker 1: of the rainbow for North Korea because they'll have a
Speaker 1: thriving economy and you look at South Korea, they're the
Speaker 1: same people. They'll take time with The North Koreans could
Speaker 1: be a very successful country, just as South Korea is.
Speaker 1: The questions do they want debate, do they have the
Speaker 1: will to be? And when they give up the nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: and the only precedent I can see for this summit
Speaker 1: meeting takes me back to the nineteen seventy eight or
Speaker 1: seventy nine, and it was Manacolm Bagan and Sadat who
Speaker 1: shocked the world once Sadat said Egypt will change each
Speaker 1: of one's peace with Israel. They didn't listen to any
Speaker 1: of the people Underneathan who said, don't have a summit meeting,
Speaker 1: it's too risky. They did it. That's the analogy I
Speaker 1: have in mind here. And whether this will be successful
Speaker 1: or not, that's really gonna be up to King John.
Speaker 1: It is, indeed, so we're in a bit of a
Speaker 1: wait and see on this. I think Singapore, by the way,
Speaker 1: is a very good point, a very good place for
Speaker 1: the meeting to occur. Uh. It's from security standpoints great
Speaker 1: by the way, a lot of very fancy hotels there,
Speaker 1: so the delegation, anyone who's there is gonna have a
Speaker 1: nice time. But Singapore knows how to lock things down,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a very very good venue for
Speaker 1: all this. It's also a place that you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's gonna set the stage properly in many regards. UM
Speaker 1: eight four four to five, you want to chat Team
Speaker 1: eight buck uh, let's maybe check in on what's going on,
Speaker 1: but more in the realm of domestic politics coming up here,
Speaker 1: what's going on with the Mueller probe and all the
Speaker 1: other things. Crack a locking in the background. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: When you're at work, you know your dogs are cooped
Speaker 1: up inside. So if you want to let out Fido
Speaker 1: or Max or maybe Buck. But guess what when you
Speaker 1: let him off to burn some energy. They're running around
Speaker 1: the yard. Sometimes though, they start digging and they can
Speaker 1: get under your fence and you may have tried to
Speaker 1: even put stuff there to stop them. But you know what,
Speaker 1: you should stop all that and just try and dig Defense.
Speaker 1: It's genius and it solves major problems that a lot
Speaker 1: of pet owners have to deal with digging. Dig Defense
Speaker 1: extends the protection of your fence underground, so no amount
Speaker 1: of digging is gonna let your pets out of the
Speaker 1: yard or let predators into the yard. We're talking predators
Speaker 1: like foxes, gunks, and raccoons. You don't want any of
Speaker 1: them there. Dig Defense helps you out with all that
Speaker 1: and more. It's available online at Loews Menard's Wayfair and
Speaker 1: stop the dig dot com. That's right, that's only need
Speaker 1: to go. Stop the dig dot com is a solution
Speaker 1: to pets digging under the fence. Stop the dig dot
Speaker 1: com now, buck Sexton Mission, decoding the news and disseminating
Speaker 1: information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America great, You're
Speaker 1: a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Former CIA analysts, No, Barack Obama created this problem because
Speaker 1: he said, hey, bring your kids here illegally. He never
Speaker 1: tried to do anything to legalize those kids that came here,
Speaker 1: just a come here legally and will look the other way. Well,
Speaker 1: President Trump has said is we're getting back to rule
Speaker 1: of law. But we also acknowledge that there were six
Speaker 1: d and ninety thousand kids that came in under DOCCA,
Speaker 1: and we've to solve that problem. Let's address it in
Speaker 1: a way where you can get the president's signature, rather
Speaker 1: than some show vote where you're not solving the problem.
Speaker 1: Are you just actually making it worse. Here's one of
Speaker 1: the problems. Rule law is not exactly enough here, because
Speaker 1: if you're not gonna have widespread deportation on the table
Speaker 1: for an an interior enforcement, if you're just gonna try
Speaker 1: to catch people at the border. Really, which is what now?
Speaker 1: So you can say, well, buck, now you're already discarding
Speaker 1: the law. I know, but is anyone talking about wide, scared,
Speaker 1: large scale deportation of illegal immigrants in the country. No,
Speaker 1: they are not, at least no one in knowing the
Speaker 1: White House, no one in Congress. And then when you
Speaker 1: add into some of the loopholes and the current laws
Speaker 1: that are in place and how they can be exploited,
Speaker 1: you start to see, oh, wait a second, there's a
Speaker 1: whole lot of ways to come into this country and
Speaker 1: gain the system, scan the system. I mean, dreamers are
Speaker 1: are one of the best examples. I keep saying, guys,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you they do not have to prove anything. Really,
Speaker 1: I'm sure they fill out paperwork. I'm sure technically on
Speaker 1: it it says, you know, you can't lie to the
Speaker 1: federal government. How many Dreamers do you think have or
Speaker 1: even would be prosecuted for falsifying any of the DOCCA paperwork?
Speaker 1: By the way, I don't like calling them dreamers, but
Speaker 1: DOCTA recipients? How many? I think the answer is probably zero.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's one or two, but I'm guessing it's zero.
Speaker 1: I have to prove that they came here through no
Speaker 1: fall to their own. They have to prove they came
Speaker 1: here at a certain age. They just say, yeah, I
Speaker 1: follow within the basic parameters. You know, I'm I'm a
Speaker 1: an illegal immigrant from Mexico or Central America around a
Speaker 1: certain age where I can make this case, and so
Speaker 1: I'm gonna apply for doctor. Notice how we are led
Speaker 1: to believe that there are all these people that could
Speaker 1: have applied but didn't because they were roried about the
Speaker 1: federal government. Maybe just a lot of people realize, oh wow,
Speaker 1: you mean I can just apply for this thing and
Speaker 1: then stay in the country, And definitely I'll sign up
Speaker 1: for that too. You mean, no one ever gets rejected
Speaker 1: from it, or if they're rejected, they're not prosecuted, So
Speaker 1: why not take a shot. It's a scam. Lots of
Speaker 1: stuff about it as a scam. I'm not saying there
Speaker 1: aren't any people that are brought here. Of course, there
Speaker 1: are people are brought here as kids. But I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think it's whatever that I mean. Officially,
Speaker 1: DOC recipients are in the neighborhood of eight hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: but the people that could be covered under doctors a
Speaker 1: few million once you started adding in these and then
Speaker 1: by the way, no one knew was related to somebody
Speaker 1: with doc is gonna be deported, You're gonna legalize them,
Speaker 1: You're gonna regalize them. Lawlessness on immigration begets lawlessness, and
Speaker 1: we got lawlessness all over the place, and we got
Speaker 1: bad laws on top of that. It's a big problem.
Speaker 1: Kirsten Nielsen, DHS secretary, I saw reporting that she's been
Speaker 1: having some back and forth with Trump. And now I
Speaker 1: don't know is that this is it's anonymous sourcing, but
Speaker 1: it's coming from allegedly coming from the White House. But
Speaker 1: you know, Kirsten Nielsen is trying to tell Trump book,
Speaker 1: I'm doing everything that I legally can. What else do
Speaker 1: you want me to do? Right now? With the people
Speaker 1: showing up with the borders saying that they are, you know,
Speaker 1: refugees from Al Salvador or Honduras, guess what we have
Speaker 1: to process them and that's what they're doing. And in
Speaker 1: terms of the illegals that are still crossing the border,
Speaker 1: and there's been a surge recently in those numbers, how
Speaker 1: are we're going to do more than we're doing right now?
Speaker 1: When we don't have a wall. Congress didn't get funny
Speaker 1: for Walt Trump didn't veto the omnibus bill without the
Speaker 1: addition of a wall. You know, there's some very real
Speaker 1: concerns here about how affective we could even be if
Speaker 1: we had the political will to enforce our immigration law US.
Speaker 1: All right. You know, I think we we've been led
Speaker 1: that there's this perception that if only our political class
Speaker 1: uh would enforce the laws in the books, everything get
Speaker 1: a lot easier. There's still be illegals. I mean, we
Speaker 1: get better, but there's still be illegals coming in. There
Speaker 1: still be And if you're not going to do interior enforcement,
Speaker 1: you still have twelve million illegal aliens in this country
Speaker 1: that are are de facto permanent residents. So this is
Speaker 1: why this is such a a thorny issue. Also saw
Speaker 1: this piece in the Washington Times that half, it's a lot,
Speaker 1: half of all Americans live under sanctuary policies that shield
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants for law enforcement. Think about that now, you
Speaker 1: might be saying, punk, how is that possible. The single
Speaker 1: biggest illegal immigrant communities in the country are are this
Speaker 1: sing are the largest metropolitan area's largest cities Chicago, New York,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. In fact, those states, which include two of
Speaker 1: the three most populous states California, New York, but California,
Speaker 1: New York and Illinois are sanctuary states. They're not even s.
Speaker 1: Actually we're not even talking sanctuary cities anymore. So, just
Speaker 1: about just about fifty of the country's population lives in
Speaker 1: the sanctuary jurisdiction. Now and now understand that that then
Speaker 1: gets tied into the political base of the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: in all those cities, and the Democrat Party is if
Speaker 1: not open borders for a state of of poorout borders,
Speaker 1: quasi open borders and legalization and mass amnesty and poorest borders,
Speaker 1: that is what they are in favor of. Because you
Speaker 1: can't compete with that if you're the Republican Party, if
Speaker 1: you're conservatism, you can't compete with new voters all the
Speaker 1: time showing up not picked by the immigration policy we
Speaker 1: have for their skills, for their ability to compete economically,
Speaker 1: and we're going to just as a matter of course,
Speaker 1: need more government assistance, government subsidy and expenditure than immigrants
Speaker 1: who will be picked for their skills. This is not
Speaker 1: a complicated concept, but somehow it is really uh politically
Speaker 1: a third rail for a lot of folks, well for Democrats,
Speaker 1: not for Republicans, although I would note we could also
Speaker 1: toss into this whole situation. There's a lot of in
Speaker 1: fighting right now among Republicans in the Congress over what
Speaker 1: to do, if anything, about immigration, which I find troubling
Speaker 1: but not surprising tensions. This is a piece up on
Speaker 1: the Hill dot Com today. Tensions on immigration erupt in
Speaker 1: House GOP, and this is what it says. House Republican
Speaker 1: leaders are scrambling to stop an effort by rank and
Speaker 1: file members to force votes on immigration, with lawmakers openly
Speaker 1: define their calls to stand down. UH. Centrist representatives Carlos Cubello,
Speaker 1: Jeff Denham, and Will Heard All Republicans facing tough reelection race,
Speaker 1: has introduced a discharged petition on Wednesday morning to trigger
Speaker 1: a series of immigration votes. Discharged petitions are traditionally seen
Speaker 1: as a serious affront to leadership, making members reluctant to
Speaker 1: sign on. AH, so the GOP is not unified on immigration,
Speaker 1: and without getting in the specifics of who thinks what
Speaker 1: and where they are on one issue or another, here's
Speaker 1: what I can tell you. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans that don't want to be pushed on the issue
Speaker 1: too much. You don't want to have to say too
Speaker 1: much about it. But they also favor a highly permissive
Speaker 1: approach to immigration. Highly that's their jam, that's what they
Speaker 1: want to do. I think a lot of Republicans, and
Speaker 1: we don't even really know because they haven't taken a
Speaker 1: vote on it, uh, would vote in favor not just
Speaker 1: of DOCA, but of actual amnesty across the board. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of them want it. However, many of you
Speaker 1: think there are there are many more that want it.
Speaker 1: And I think Trump I mentioned this conversations back and
Speaker 1: forth with Kirston Nielsen DHS. I think his frustration is
Speaker 1: I promised the people of America that I would secure
Speaker 1: the border. We haven't done it yet. I promised them
Speaker 1: a wall. We haven't done it yet. You know, what
Speaker 1: can we do to get things going here? And I
Speaker 1: think Kirsten Nielsen is probably looking back and I saying, look, dude.
Speaker 1: It probably doesn't say that. She probably says looked, Mr President,
Speaker 1: But you know, in Buck speaks, she says, look, dude, Uh,
Speaker 1: there's only so much we can do with the resources
Speaker 1: we have. The laws are the laws right now? And
Speaker 1: there are some loopholes and some some holes in them.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the sanctuary jurisdictions and how
Speaker 1: much political weight they have, there's just simply not the
Speaker 1: political will in the Congress to do more. An absent
Speaker 1: legislation on this, Trump is not going to be able that.
Speaker 1: That's why the wall is so important. The wall is forever,
Speaker 1: right legislation, and it sends can kind of come and go,
Speaker 1: but the wall is forever. You get a wall built,
Speaker 1: it will change the game for enforcement at the southern
Speaker 1: border without a wall. Next time Democrats have the House
Speaker 1: in the Senate, we all know amnesty. They went for Obamacare,
Speaker 1: but they could have gone for amnesty. And I think
Speaker 1: in retrospect some of them might feel like, you know what,
Speaker 1: maybe we should have done amnesty, you know, with Obama
Speaker 1: right away, because then we would have a supermajority of
Speaker 1: Democrat voters. Because by the way they they say, oh,
Speaker 1: they won't be able to vote lies, they'll be able
Speaker 1: to just give it time. We'll change that too. Who's
Speaker 1: gonna want to defy the uh the newly made twelve
Speaker 1: million Americans. Who's gonna want to upset them and their
Speaker 1: children and their constituents and their you know, family members
Speaker 1: and friends and everything. They'll pass additional legislations, say oh yeah,
Speaker 1: and they can vote. If they had the House, the Senate,
Speaker 1: they would absolutely do it if they could. This is
Speaker 1: what we're facing here. I mean, you know, I I
Speaker 1: think we're probably going into the mid terms. Let's be realistic.
Speaker 1: I think we're going to mid terms without major legislation,
Speaker 1: immigration passing, and without the Trump administration. I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it without achieving much on this issue, let's be honest.
Speaker 1: And it is a signature issue. Some would say the
Speaker 1: signature issue of the Trump administration. So I'm not I know,
Speaker 1: right now it sounds like I'm trying to balance out
Speaker 1: that Trump had an awesome week, which he did because
Speaker 1: of Iran and North Korea and a whole whole bunch
Speaker 1: of things which I'll probably run over, run through, run
Speaker 1: over again tomorrow. But on this issue, you there's just
Speaker 1: not the there's not the movement, not the momentum we
Speaker 1: need to see. And you know, I don't want While
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats can't run on messages like the economy,
Speaker 1: I don't think I can run out successfully. They'll do it,
Speaker 1: but don't underestimate their deviousness, right, don't don't think that
Speaker 1: the enemy is less capable than they are. Politically speaking,
Speaker 1: they will have some some narrative concocted here, and if
Speaker 1: they get in a position to push for greater ambassy,
Speaker 1: they'll use it. They'll use it the way you know
Speaker 1: it used to be. And I think Democrats are worried
Speaker 1: about losing certain members of their constituency. Notably, Democrats are
Speaker 1: worried twenty years ago about upsetting uh, Black Americans and
Speaker 1: people in unions with illegal immigration. And I'm not imagining
Speaker 1: this or even you know, just surmising it. The New
Speaker 1: York Times to right editorials about this, about how it
Speaker 1: it hurts the organized labor movement and it hurts the
Speaker 1: black community to have a lot of illegal immigrant, low
Speaker 1: skilled the legal immigration. But now they realized, forget all that,
Speaker 1: because if we bring enough illegals, we can overwhelm, we
Speaker 1: can flood the system and then get anything else we
Speaker 1: want down the line, because they will change the demographic
Speaker 1: makeup of the country to suit there political needs. Why
Speaker 1: convince the American people when you can change the American people.
Speaker 1: That has been the Democrat approach. Now for going on
Speaker 1: twenty years, and all the lip service about, you know,
Speaker 1: securing the border. It's just that was just to low
Speaker 1: list into a false sense of bipartisanship that didn't exist.
Speaker 1: And there are Republicans that were complicit in this too.
Speaker 1: I need Trump to focus on this, and I at
Speaker 1: least need to see the Republicans in the House and
Speaker 1: the Senate fight on this. I mean, if they get
Speaker 1: blocked procedurally, okay, we can talk about maybe they have
Speaker 1: to go Newton. Maybe this is the issue where the
Speaker 1: Senators to say, you know what, no more of this
Speaker 1: we need, but now you need sixty votes to do
Speaker 1: basically anything that's not actually it's not in the constitution.
Speaker 1: That's not the way this is supposed to be. That's
Speaker 1: a self imposed constraint by the Senate that could be erased.
Speaker 1: We need action on immigration. We cannot wait until after
Speaker 1: the mid terms. At a minimum, they need to pass
Speaker 1: legislation to show the American people what it is that
Speaker 1: the Republicans stand for on this and what it is
Speaker 1: that the Democrats do. Make the Democrats get on TV
Speaker 1: and and explain to the American people, Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't really think that there's anybody who's not a
Speaker 1: violent felon that should be barred from coming to and
Speaker 1: staying in this country. Basically open borders, right. Yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: they have to check in with border patrol or with
Speaker 1: with Immigration and Customs enforcement before they come in, but
Speaker 1: you know, they've got to make sure they have access
Speaker 1: to different government programs. And I'm not saying they're not
Speaker 1: gonna stop and check to see who's coming in. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna let everyone in. Where is this team? Where
Speaker 1: is this Trump administration? Immigration? I need more than what
Speaker 1: I'm seeing, and I think you do too. Well, maybe
Speaker 1: I'm wrong. Let me know eight four If you want
Speaker 1: to call in eight four or four five, we've got
Speaker 1: much more. Stay with me. So today we're here to
Speaker 1: send a message to the world that we are not
Speaker 1: going to let the country be overwhelmed. People are not
Speaker 1: going to caravan or otherwise stampede our border. We need
Speaker 1: legality and integrity and our immigration system. That's why the
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security is now referring of illegal Southwest
Speaker 1: border crossings to the Department of Justice for prosecution. I
Speaker 1: have put in place a zero tolerance policy for illegal
Speaker 1: entry on Southwest border. If you cross the border unlawfully,
Speaker 1: then we will prosecute you. Is that simple? Well, they
Speaker 1: got to catch them first. It's not always that easy,
Speaker 1: and we'll see. That was our buddy, Jeff Sessions. I
Speaker 1: wanted to follow up on this though, because that the
Speaker 1: Republican few that's going on right now in the Congress.
Speaker 1: It's over so called centrists, which are really just weak
Speaker 1: Republicans who are trying to force the House leadership to
Speaker 1: take up a vote to protect DOCA recipients. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, These so called moderate Republicans, which I don't
Speaker 1: like that at all, right, because it makes Republicanism feel
Speaker 1: like some kind of a you know, uh an affliction,
Speaker 1: And it's only a moderately bad head cold, right, it's
Speaker 1: a it's a moderate Republican. UM centrist is even better
Speaker 1: than that at least, right, But how about liberal Republicans
Speaker 1: there you go. Now we're getting closer. They want to
Speaker 1: get on the record voting for DOCCA. See, this is
Speaker 1: exactly what I'm talking about. We do not have a
Speaker 1: unified Republican front on this issue at all. There are
Speaker 1: plenty of Republicans that I think would vote for DACA
Speaker 1: and DAPPA defer action of parents of arrivals. And now
Speaker 1: you're talking about five million people, you're already halfway there
Speaker 1: at that complete amnesty. And remember with each amnesty that
Speaker 1: actually happens, you get legal challenges and you get oh
Speaker 1: my god, go on and on and on people in
Speaker 1: the courts. Oh, I should have been covered under it.
Speaker 1: I should have gotten this. And you know, a c
Speaker 1: L you'll just do everything in Canada. You know the
Speaker 1: a c L. You really exists now, along with Media
Speaker 1: Matters and some other terrible organizations, Southern Poverty Law Center,
Speaker 1: just to kick at the load bearing walls of Western
Speaker 1: civiliz Station. That's that's really what they want to do.
Speaker 1: Not helpful, not helpful at all. Disappointing to see some
Speaker 1: of these Republican members of Congress that that want to
Speaker 1: force a vote on on daka Ah because clearly they
Speaker 1: just think that it's going to help them in their districts. Well,
Speaker 1: what about the rest of the country, guys, What about
Speaker 1: everyone else listening to the show, who doesn't live in
Speaker 1: a contested district, who doesn't care about the political future
Speaker 1: of a few people or a few dozen people even
Speaker 1: in the Congress, does anything? Did they get their interests
Speaker 1: protected here at all, though, of course not What matters
Speaker 1: is the Republican machine that wants to make sure that
Speaker 1: it stays the Republican machine, then it stays in power,
Speaker 1: and they will abandon principles and sell out and do
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff, very disappointing. We gotta watch them
Speaker 1: on immigration, folks. I'm telling you they're gonna pull us.
Speaker 1: They're gonna pull a switch a rule on this one
Speaker 1: if we don't hold their feet at the fire Mueller probe.
Speaker 1: It's terrible. It's almost it's one year anniversary. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about it in just a few and how it should
Speaker 1: shut down. He's back with you now, because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: I want to get into all the latest on the
Speaker 1: Mueller probe with you, but before I do that, I
Speaker 1: just want to take a step back and discuss something
Speaker 1: else with you, and that is that you know in
Speaker 1: this business that I'm in, which whatever media, political punditry, analysis, politics,
Speaker 1: all different ways of describing what I've got going on here, right,
Speaker 1: But sometimes you get heated. Sometimes you feel like you're
Speaker 1: under attack, or you maybe feel like you've gone a
Speaker 1: little too far on the attack, it's gonna happen. But
Speaker 1: if you're a decent person, if you're actually somebody who
Speaker 1: needs to maintain a certain level of character and just
Speaker 1: integrity in what you do, there's some things, some places
Speaker 1: you won't go in your public disputes with other political folks.
Speaker 1: There are some things you just wouldn't say. And I
Speaker 1: think it really exposes um a very common problem, not
Speaker 1: among just Democrats in general. Look, I've got a lot
Speaker 1: of friends who are democrats, did a lot of Democrats, right,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't hate democrats. Obviously that's crazy, But
Speaker 1: I do think that there's something in the Democrat ethos
Speaker 1: that is particularly susceptible to acting in a vile manner.
Speaker 1: I do believe that. I call me crazy, and I
Speaker 1: think it's reflected in the way that a lot of
Speaker 1: media media democrats act and how they treat people. You know,
Speaker 1: you also just see this for example, I mean, these
Speaker 1: are what's the word I'm looking for? This isn't like
Speaker 1: a scientific study I'm doing here. These are just this
Speaker 1: is anecdotal evidence. But for example, whenever a liberal steps
Speaker 1: out of line, you can count on conservatives like me.
Speaker 1: But conservatives, uh like Tucker, Carlson and and and many
Speaker 1: many others to say, Okay, hold on a second, folks.
Speaker 1: You know somebody shouldn't lose their job for one mistake.
Speaker 1: Let's let's dial this back a little bit. You know this.
Speaker 1: We don't want people getting fired for what they say.
Speaker 1: You don't really have that with liberals, you really don't.
Speaker 1: They're like Gay's conservative. Give him, finish him off and
Speaker 1: his career no more livelihood. You know, that's their approach,
Speaker 1: Just the way they do things. Happens time and time again.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's fair to say that that
Speaker 1: powerful liberals in the media and politics are nastier. They
Speaker 1: just are. And with all that, I then turn your
Speaker 1: attention to Philippe Rains. I don't know if it's yeah.
Speaker 1: I has to be Philippe because he spells his name
Speaker 1: that way. He is very close confidante of Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: referred to as the gatekeeper in the last election for her,
Speaker 1: he was brought to the State Department. This is by
Speaker 1: the one of the reasons why I had to leave
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy under Obama, because yes, it did bother
Speaker 1: me that Obama was the commander in chief when I
Speaker 1: was at the CIA, I did tell you the truth,
Speaker 1: not like that aspect of the job. Uh. I also
Speaker 1: didn't want to be in a position in the federal
Speaker 1: bureaucracy at all where I'd have to respond to, you know,
Speaker 1: taskings and questions and give briefings to people like Philippe Rains,
Speaker 1: who was brought in to be like deputy deputy UH
Speaker 1: secretary of his deputy assistant secretary of State or something
Speaker 1: like that. I think he was das level UH for
Speaker 1: strategic communications, so he was brought in as a senior
Speaker 1: State Department person. This clown out and out clown, very
Speaker 1: very tight with the Clinton's, very tight with Chelsea Clinton
Speaker 1: and all the rest. Okay, why am I talking about
Speaker 1: this guy? You may have also seen some stories that uh,
Speaker 1: different gossip magazines have been running about the well they separated,
Speaker 1: or the separation of Donnie Trump Junior and his and
Speaker 1: his wife, which you look, it's always said, you know,
Speaker 1: I I don't. I never would be somebody who disagrees
Speaker 1: with someone's pology. And I agree with Donnie Trump Junior's politics,
Speaker 1: and I liked Donnie Trump Junior. But I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: if it wasn't the other side if it was a Democrat,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't dance on the grave of another
Speaker 1: man's marriage. You know, we're a woman. I don't do that.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't cheer. This is also a problem
Speaker 1: I have, by the way, with the whole Democrat ethos
Speaker 1: when it comes to Mueller and the Special Counsel. I
Speaker 1: don't want to see all the Democrats get sent to prison. Look,
Speaker 1: Hillary broke the loss. If you're channing lock her up,
Speaker 1: and she's broken a lot of loss, I mean, she's
Speaker 1: gotten a lot of passes, right, But so it's a
Speaker 1: little different. But in general with Democrats, I don't want
Speaker 1: them sent to prison. I don't want their kids to
Speaker 1: have to see them through like a plexiglass, you know,
Speaker 1: visiting room. I just think they're wrong and they've got
Speaker 1: bad ideas, but that they would, you know, cheer someone
Speaker 1: like me, Oh he fills in for Glenn and Rush
Speaker 1: and Sean and nationally syndicated conservative talk host. You know,
Speaker 1: it would cheer no matter what I got sent to prison. Forth,
Speaker 1: I got to sent to prison for you know, uh,
Speaker 1: going over my allotted group er catch or something. You know,
Speaker 1: they'd be like, that's great, our fisheries are critical. Send
Speaker 1: him to prison. They don't care. I just want to
Speaker 1: see the other side suffer. And I think you see
Speaker 1: a lot of the lack of character of people in
Speaker 1: the media too, with the pylons, and you know who's
Speaker 1: really not who really celebrates the downfall of public figures
Speaker 1: that are their political opposition. You know who really sinks
Speaker 1: their teeth into that, really kind of enjoys it. That's
Speaker 1: why I mean, I think media matters, for example, it's
Speaker 1: just a trash organization full of trash people. I could
Speaker 1: I could not do what they do and feel good
Speaker 1: about myself. Look for the moment to pounce to end
Speaker 1: someone's career for mistakes real and imagined. By the way,
Speaker 1: I mean, I had to laugh and I it wasn't
Speaker 1: even Media matters. Was media which is a They have
Speaker 1: some conservative writers, some liberal writers, and that's just got
Speaker 1: a general media set. Only people in media go to
Speaker 1: the site, by the way, but we're all very aware
Speaker 1: of it. And they said that I compared John Carry
Speaker 1: to the Taliban. It's just laughable. And compare John Kerry
Speaker 1: to the Talibana. Compared acting as a shadow government to
Speaker 1: what the Talibanda, which is set set up shadow governors.
Speaker 1: So I mean, they're just you know, that wasn't a
Speaker 1: big deal. And and and anybody, anyone left eevery wants to
Speaker 1: debate Afghanistan, foreign policy or any of these things, happy,
Speaker 1: happy to give them a free lesson and a buck
Speaker 1: slap at that. But you know, and that's one of
Speaker 1: the reason why I make fun of people here. But
Speaker 1: I look, I punch up. I don't go after people
Speaker 1: that are in a really tough spot, you know. I
Speaker 1: don't go after people that are um suffering through an
Speaker 1: addiction or ill health or you know. I don't do that.
Speaker 1: And if I do, by the way, you always always
Speaker 1: keep me honest in that and I will uh either
Speaker 1: stop or apologize or you know, whatever is needed. Because
Speaker 1: I come to this show, my family listens to the show,
Speaker 1: my parents listen to this show. I come to this
Speaker 1: with an integrity and an honor. And that's a very
Speaker 1: important part of what I do. And it's one of
Speaker 1: the reasons why I feel proud of what I do,
Speaker 1: regardless of the ratings and everything else, which by the way,
Speaker 1: are very good, but don't worry about that for now.
Speaker 1: Regardless of all that, it's important to me and So
Speaker 1: it's with that that I see a senior Clinton aide
Speaker 1: who in reading about the marital troubles of Donald Donald
Speaker 1: Trump Jr. And Vanessa um well, Vanessa Trump, I forget
Speaker 1: what her original name was. And then this article about
Speaker 1: Vanessa Trump's high school boyfriend, who was, according to the
Speaker 1: New York Post, involved in gang activity. That Philippe brains
Speaker 1: a senior State Department officer, Okay, with close ties to
Speaker 1: the Clintons, buddy buddy with Hillary, close to Bill, close
Speaker 1: to Chelsea. I mean, this guy is at the top
Speaker 1: of the Democrat swamp pyramid. This is what he wrote
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump Jr. On Twitter. Quote, Vanessa being with
Speaker 1: a Latin king must have driven you. This is he's
Speaker 1: talking about this man's wife, mother of his five children. Okay,
Speaker 1: Vanessa being with a Latin king must have driven you
Speaker 1: insanely jealous, the machismo, the passion, tough act to follow.
Speaker 1: Did you wonder if she fantasized about Valentine Rivera when
Speaker 1: intimate with you? She did every time? End quote. Now
Speaker 1: I'm just letting that, letting that sink in for a moment.
Speaker 1: That is a dirt bag, scummy thing to say to
Speaker 1: anyone First of all, I mean, it's just it's you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's crazy on a whole lot of levels, right,
Speaker 1: Like for it's it's it's a pathetic thing to say.
Speaker 1: It's a deeply nasty thing to say. But do you
Speaker 1: think that Philip Brains will he won't be invited to
Speaker 1: like the next big you know, vanity fair party with
Speaker 1: all the Democrats, Not he'll be there. Do you think
Speaker 1: that there will say that you know, he needs to
Speaker 1: go on the apology tour as though he maybe said
Speaker 1: a word you know, he referred to like transgender people
Speaker 1: in the wrong way. Has to go bend the knee
Speaker 1: and and kiss everyone's shoes until they finally, you know,
Speaker 1: allow him back into polite society. No. No, because Democrats
Speaker 1: are nasty and Democrats don't feel bad about this, and
Speaker 1: in the era of Trump, anything they can do to
Speaker 1: attack anyone, especially someone in Trump's family, they go for it.
Speaker 1: They go for it. Um, Like I said, this is
Speaker 1: not some random troll on the internet. You know, left
Speaker 1: loves to play that game. Look at this racist thing
Speaker 1: that you know, this Twitter account. Racist clan member seven
Speaker 1: to five seven three said this guy has at least
Speaker 1: fifteen followers on Twitter. Look at what he said. We
Speaker 1: need to tell CNN about this, you know, yeah, this
Speaker 1: is somebody who's important to the Democrat Party, somebody who's connected,
Speaker 1: who should know better who it was. It was this.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'm just it was a guy in communications
Speaker 1: at a senior at the most senior level the state department.
Speaker 1: And this is how we would this is he wrote
Speaker 1: this out. It wasn't like a spur of the moment,
Speaker 1: you know, said it during a heated debater, so not
Speaker 1: that that would be okay, but just a scummy thing
Speaker 1: to say, a lowlife loser comment from a low life
Speaker 1: loser person. Phillip brains. I've never met the guy and
Speaker 1: I don't care to, but this is just way over
Speaker 1: the line. And his apology, by the way, wasn't even
Speaker 1: really an apology. It's even worse, he wrote, with time
Speaker 1: to think. I regret the tweet, but I wrote I
Speaker 1: wrote it. I own it, so leaving it. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: gonna leave it up. Friendly's I'm sorry to disappoint. It's
Speaker 1: a learning moment. Vanessa Valentine wrong to include you, Ma maggots,
Speaker 1: which is maga spelled with a T. Take your vitriolic
Speaker 1: hypocrisy and shove it, Junior. You ain't seen nothing yet.
Speaker 1: So he's not even apologizing to Donald Trump Jr. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, folks, there there are there are limits that
Speaker 1: and every man I know listening to this knows exactly
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter how big you know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter how big you are or the person
Speaker 1: saying it doesn't matter what the circumstances. There are lines
Speaker 1: you cross, and you do so much your peril. You
Speaker 1: make comments like this, like what Philip Rains did about
Speaker 1: a man's wife. You know, he just made said to
Speaker 1: hand you in a in a in a man way,
Speaker 1: however that may be, and you're asking for it. So uh.
Speaker 1: You know, I just I see this and I think
Speaker 1: to myself, it's not even surprising. It comes from Democrats.
Speaker 1: This is just how they are, you know, this is
Speaker 1: how they operate. There's such a there's just a really
Speaker 1: a celebration on the left in this country of the
Speaker 1: of a lack of character, of dishonesty, of fighting dirty,
Speaker 1: whatever it is, as long as it's for the cause.
Speaker 1: As I say to you, it's it feels very Soviet.
Speaker 1: You know if it's if it's for the betterment of
Speaker 1: the party, if it improves the standing of the party
Speaker 1: against its enemies, anything you do is okay, is excusable,
Speaker 1: and and he is even praiseworthy, no matter how grotesque,
Speaker 1: underhanded and disgusting. I mean, Philip Brain should be ashamed
Speaker 1: of himself. He better watch it with comments like this.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Jr. Is obviously remember the first family. You
Speaker 1: know he's gonna just ignore this and take it in stride.
Speaker 1: But he doesn't want to say this to some other
Speaker 1: Republicans about their significant others, their wives. I can tell
Speaker 1: you that much. This guy's a punk, a first class punk.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. It's been about a year since
Speaker 1: this investigation began. Our administration has provided over a million documents.
Speaker 1: We fully cooperated in it, and in the interests of
Speaker 1: the country, I think it's time to wrap it up.
Speaker 1: I gotta agree with like Pens. I know people are
Speaker 1: giving Pens a hard time in the press recently, but
Speaker 1: there there are competing This is one thing that gets
Speaker 1: left out of this whole discussion about Muller and everything else.
Speaker 1: There are competing goods here, competing goals. It's not as
Speaker 1: simple as just you know, were we got our ad justice.
Speaker 1: You're gonna gotta find out the Russia collersion, you know,
Speaker 1: the stuff with its Russia collusion. No, there's a country
Speaker 1: that the president has to run, and they have provided
Speaker 1: no evidence of any kind that President Trump did anything wrong.
Speaker 1: And yet he has people all around him that are
Speaker 1: being pulled into perjury traps and spending hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: and will end up being millions altogether on lawyers and
Speaker 1: going through all this. And you know it's the CNN
Speaker 1: is the Mueller Probe slash Stormy Daniels channel. That's all
Speaker 1: they do. You know, I just I just watched the
Speaker 1: feeds all look at that more Muller, more Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 1: What a surprise. You know, this guy Avannadi is running
Speaker 1: around and being treated like some kind of luminary, like
Speaker 1: he's a thought leader on things. Meanwhile, who's some very
Speaker 1: good analysis today? By the way, is I'm making the rounds?
Speaker 1: Who's paying this guy Avanad? Stormy and Aniels aren't paying him?
Speaker 1: It's not that I'm aware. How's he getting information about
Speaker 1: possible payments to Uncle Cohen? Who leaked that to him?
Speaker 1: Oh he won't say, because's a lawyer, right, I wonder,
Speaker 1: I wonder, I wonder if anyone who has say, subpoena power,
Speaker 1: maybe pushing some information to have a naughty and now
Speaker 1: I know, and he's even backed off saying that he
Speaker 1: had the right Uncale Cohen. But it doesn't make you wonder,
Speaker 1: doesn't it? Who is paying for this guy? And and
Speaker 1: why did all of a sudden a lawyer come along
Speaker 1: who told Stormy Daniels to, yeah, go ahead, violate the
Speaker 1: n d A, that you sign the nondisclosure agreement, possibly
Speaker 1: subjecting yourself to millions of dollars of liability. Yeah, just
Speaker 1: go for it. It's almost like maybe there's some other
Speaker 1: agenda at work here, Right, we can see that this
Speaker 1: isn't really about and and and about what getting to
Speaker 1: the truth of whether the president had an affair ten
Speaker 1: years ago? Who cares? At this point? I have to
Speaker 1: wonder if someone really supposed we're really supposed to dig
Speaker 1: down into that. And the president's dealing with forwarding a
Speaker 1: nuclear armed Iran, stopping ending in nuclear arm North Korea,
Speaker 1: a booming economy, record low unemployment, tackling the media, finally
Speaker 1: humbling many of the pompous jerks in the mainstream media
Speaker 1: that really need a good dose of humble pie. And
Speaker 1: we're supposed to be worried about what some stars ten
Speaker 1: years ago. It just doesn't It just doesn't wash. It
Speaker 1: doesn't work. And like I said, there's the competing good
Speaker 1: here of the country and having a government that can
Speaker 1: actually focus and do its job, which is already tough enough,
Speaker 1: versus finding out more about you know, Russian stock puppets
Speaker 1: and Facebook trolls, and this is just lunacy. It really isn't.
Speaker 1: But I'm I have lost patience with it. I have
Speaker 1: to keep talking about it because we're in a fight
Speaker 1: and it can't be a one way fight or else
Speaker 1: we'll just lose. Right, But I don't want to hear
Speaker 1: about this stuff anymore. Oh, I gotta talk to you
Speaker 1: about this woman who strips down to defeat the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: Quite a way to go. That's up next, Buck Sextons
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistakes, American, You're a great American Again. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show set. No President Trump is speaking.
Speaker 1: Let's go to them. We fight to build their borders,
Speaker 1: but we don't fight and spend no money to build
Speaker 1: our borders. Figure that one hour, we're fighting and we're
Speaker 1: finally putting America first. And remember the last time I
Speaker 1: did this, and this started two and a half years ago.
Speaker 1: When I just started, people were not saying Merry Christmas anymore.
Speaker 1: The big store chains were saying Merry Christmas, Mary Christmas.
Speaker 1: They weren't doing it. They weren't saying Merry Christmas. Now
Speaker 1: they're saying Merry Christmas again. To bring back our jobs.
Speaker 1: Were cracking down on unfair trade. We want trade deals
Speaker 1: that are fair and by the way, reciprocal. And we
Speaker 1: love our farmers. We're taking care of our farmers, and
Speaker 1: we love our factory workers. We love our workers. Blog
Speaker 1: an Elkhart, Indiana. For decades, American presidents responded to foreign
Speaker 1: cheating on trade cheating. There's no other word for cheating.
Speaker 1: They responded with silence. They didn't do anything. They were silent, silentio.
Speaker 1: Let's not rock the boat. Oh that's fine. We have
Speaker 1: a hundred billion trade deficit with Mexico. Think of it,
Speaker 1: hundred billion trade deficit a year with Mexico. We have
Speaker 1: a trade deficit with almost every country in the world.
Speaker 1: We're changing that around rapidly. We racked up trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars in trade deficits also known as losses, while other
Speaker 1: countries stole our factories, stole our plants, stole our wealth,
Speaker 1: and stole our jobs. But America's long silence is over.
Speaker 1: And you see what's happening. Car companies are coming back
Speaker 1: into the United States. They're moving back in. Christ Are
Speaker 1: just announced. Japan is building big ones, were exp ending
Speaker 1: our plants. All right, So the presidents out there in
Speaker 1: El Car, we're gonna I want to jump in here
Speaker 1: because I was I still need to tell you about
Speaker 1: the woman is fighting the patriarchy. Uh, think about the
Speaker 1: economic message you just heard there from the President. What
Speaker 1: are the Democrats gonna yield the mountain opposition to that
Speaker 1: going the mid terms? The answer is not very much.
Speaker 1: And think about the messenger versus whatever they're gonna bring
Speaker 1: up on their side of things. So I was interesting
Speaker 1: to the president out in Indiana, UM, and uh, we
Speaker 1: will maybe come back into it if there's some more
Speaker 1: stuff that we think is central to our discussion here.
Speaker 1: So I imagined that I did want to talk about
Speaker 1: it because I got other things. This hour set up
Speaker 1: that I'm also gonna get to talk about Michelle Obama's
Speaker 1: recent comments on men failing up. We'll get to that,
Speaker 1: and the craziest consent teaching on TV I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: You need to ask your baby before you can change
Speaker 1: it Staper, I kid you not that coming up too.
Speaker 1: But first, Cornell probably best known as the worst of
Speaker 1: the Ivy League schools. I know who you could boo me,
Speaker 1: those of you who went there. You send me the
Speaker 1: emails you can. You can trash stock Ambers for all
Speaker 1: you will, but it's that's fine. Cornell is the worst
Speaker 1: of the Ivy's. It's it's it's still a great school, right,
Speaker 1: It's just you're in a rich neighborhood and you got
Speaker 1: the worst house on the block. But it's still a
Speaker 1: rich neighborhood. I just like the needle Cornell people. I
Speaker 1: can't help it. I know, people you can. You can
Speaker 1: get mad at me for it. I know. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: It also reminds you Andy from the office. It's like
Speaker 1: I went to Cornell. It's an acapella group. Anyway, a
Speaker 1: Cornell senior was giving a uh giving a presentation in
Speaker 1: a class and the professor told her that she maybe
Speaker 1: professor mag Magore is the name or majure, don't know,
Speaker 1: masure Let's I don't know. Um, yeah, masire, let's just
Speaker 1: go with that. Told her that maybe her shorts were
Speaker 1: a little short, and then it might be distracting from
Speaker 1: the presentation she was giving. So this senior at Cornell
Speaker 1: has gotta be twenty one or twenty two years old,
Speaker 1: decided to she said during her acting in public performance
Speaker 1: in Everyday Life class. Uh, you know what, guys, this
Speaker 1: is all I think there's all a high concept fraud.
Speaker 1: That's what this is. I don't think this was I
Speaker 1: don't think this was in earnest. But it's pretty fun
Speaker 1: I mean, it's kind of funny. Anyway. She now has
Speaker 1: gone viral in her underwear, so there's that. Probably has
Speaker 1: a TV career ahead ever. Leticia Chai is her name.
Speaker 1: She set up a fit. Wait, we have audio of this, guys.
Speaker 1: There is audio play the audio of Leticia Chai stripping
Speaker 1: in her Cornell class down to her underwear. To quote
Speaker 1: ro test the patriarchy because this topic transcends all of
Speaker 1: our social identities and top right into the heart of
Speaker 1: who we are. Because I'm more an Asian, I am
Speaker 1: more than a woman. I am more than Letitia Chry.
Speaker 1: I am a human being. Is she in an acting class?
Speaker 1: Do you think that was an artist? I can't really tell.
Speaker 1: This is during her thesis presentation to protest her professor.
Speaker 1: Who wants to guess that she got on a. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you she got it's a female professor. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'm not that's not a sexist comment. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: that the professor has got to give her an a
Speaker 1: now because it's become a big issue, become a big thing.
Speaker 1: She stripped down to her undy's. Now there's photos of
Speaker 1: her undie's all over the internet, and she says she's
Speaker 1: protesting the patriarchy. You know, I got problems with us
Speaker 1: on a on a number of levels. One, somehow third
Speaker 1: wave feminist, radical feminist, whatever you wanna call them, take
Speaker 1: this position that you know, you're not allowed to discuss
Speaker 1: the appropriateness of a woman's dress in any issue at
Speaker 1: any time. Really. Uh, you know this is why you
Speaker 1: also get radical feminists that like to walk around just
Speaker 1: topless just because because they're trying to make some point
Speaker 1: about being topless. But the but the but the point
Speaker 1: is if you're giving a presentation in a class. If
Speaker 1: you are actually in the workplace, there is such a
Speaker 1: thing as appropriate and professional dress for men and for women,
Speaker 1: and that's a legitimate discussion to have. And if you're
Speaker 1: wearing particularly revealing clothing in a professional setting. Uh, like
Speaker 1: the daisy dukes are the short genes right? Yeah? For
Speaker 1: example male or female wearing the daisy dukes. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I feel like I can pull off daisy
Speaker 1: dukes under the right circumstances. Maybe maybe all of your
Speaker 1: wretched right now here we go, correct John, correct? Uh,
Speaker 1: but you know the daisy dukes. Uh, that would be
Speaker 1: not the thing. If you're going up to give up
Speaker 1: a presentation on your you know, neuroscience thesis, I think
Speaker 1: that the professor panel might not necessarily get the full
Speaker 1: depth and gravity of your research and your message. If
Speaker 1: you're up there in a bikini or if you're guying,
Speaker 1: you're up there in uh a mankini, which is also
Speaker 1: a thing known as a bathing suit in Europe. You
Speaker 1: know people who say Speedo Speedo is a brand, It's
Speaker 1: not really. I feel like they said, are you wearing
Speaker 1: a Speedo? Why do we There's a lot of brands
Speaker 1: that make those kinds of of snug. Uh. I have
Speaker 1: a very very close for who insists, by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm wearing the more eurostyle uh bathing suits and I
Speaker 1: can't you know, I'm sorry. I just always think it's funny.
Speaker 1: It never gets older. I'm just like, why do you
Speaker 1: choose to wear the supertight snug little you know? And
Speaker 1: he's just like, this is how I like to roll.
Speaker 1: And I said, all right, go for it. Uh. But anyway,
Speaker 1: so there's appropriate and inappropriate dress for different situations. This professor.
Speaker 1: People have actually stood up for her and said that
Speaker 1: she's um, she's trying to quote impart the importance of
Speaker 1: professionalism in public speaking situations. Quote uh, masure is a
Speaker 1: gift to Cornell, and that shys post and the Shy
Speaker 1: as a student did not adequately represent Majour's past and
Speaker 1: continued advocacy for women and minorities, and that Majore apologized
Speaker 1: on more than one occasion. Eleven of the thirteen students
Speaker 1: in the class issued a statement saying they supported shoes protests,
Speaker 1: but not her version of what happened. You know, this
Speaker 1: is what this is what you end up seeing this
Speaker 1: if your cause is righteous even if you're lying or
Speaker 1: making stuff up or misrepresenting it. If you are quote
Speaker 1: quote raising awareness, the left will come to your side
Speaker 1: and say, yeah, it's great, waits raise awareness. That's all
Speaker 1: you have to do. If you're raising awareness, you get
Speaker 1: a pass and everything else. Find this to be yeah,
Speaker 1: a bit troubling. Also, I don't think the patriarchy gets
Speaker 1: upset if there was, if there was such a thing
Speaker 1: as the patriarchy, I think being a young, uh telegenic
Speaker 1: female twenty two who strips down to her underwear on video,
Speaker 1: I don't think the patriarchy is like, yeah, we feel
Speaker 1: really chastened, and we would we would really never do
Speaker 1: this again. I'd never want to see a lady in
Speaker 1: underwear again. So what we uh we are thoroughly uh
Speaker 1: disabused of patriarchical motions. I don't think that's how they
Speaker 1: react to this if there were, in fact the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, I'm gonna tell you about some Michelle
Speaker 1: Obama comments when we come back if he as women
Speaker 1: are still suspicious of one another, if we're still if
Speaker 1: if if if we still have this crazy, crazy bar
Speaker 1: for each other that we don't have for men, if
Speaker 1: if we're still doing that today, if we're more comfortable with,
Speaker 1: if we're not comfortable with the notion that a woman
Speaker 1: could be our president compared to what you know, I
Speaker 1: wish that girls who could fail as bad as men
Speaker 1: do and be okay, because let me tell you, watch
Speaker 1: men fail up. It's it is. It is frustrating, frustrating.
Speaker 1: It is frustrating to see a lot of men blow
Speaker 1: it and win, and we hold ourselves to these crazy,
Speaker 1: crazy standards. So that's Michelle Obama, who is who is
Speaker 1: treated as the closest thing that America has to royalty.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody would really dispute that. I mean,
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama is among the most uh I know, by
Speaker 1: not a lot of you are probably not all that impressed,
Speaker 1: but by the general media and Hollywood consensus and the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party. I think she's running, by the way. But
Speaker 1: we'll talk about that more another time, or maybe we'll
Speaker 1: talk about it now. She's among the most beloved figures
Speaker 1: in the country. That cross is sort of the political,
Speaker 1: cultural and uh, you know, media sides of things. And
Speaker 1: I just have to say that whole slew of words
Speaker 1: she just put out there was blather. It really was.
Speaker 1: It was nonsense. And what I can see is that
Speaker 1: this is someone who won, is not is used to
Speaker 1: at this point just not being challenged. And I would
Speaker 1: really put that to you. When do you think was
Speaker 1: the last time somebody told Michelle Obama to her face
Speaker 1: you're wrong about about anything. It's been at least eight
Speaker 1: or ten years, right, It certainly hasn't happens since she
Speaker 1: was the First Lady. And I've I've I've actually never
Speaker 1: seen her in a debate, so you know, I I
Speaker 1: understand I've never seen Milanny in a debate either, but
Speaker 1: that's a different thing. Right now, we're talking about somebody
Speaker 1: who's no longer the First Lady, but it's still out
Speaker 1: there and and it's treated like her opinions on everything
Speaker 1: carry tremendous weight. And I would just invite you, and
Speaker 1: I would even say, if you happen to be one
Speaker 1: of my Democrat peeps who listens to this show, be
Speaker 1: honest about it for a second. Her whole thing there
Speaker 1: about women failing as bad as as men, I mean
Speaker 1: badly as men, and be okay, we're talking about half
Speaker 1: of the world versus half of the world. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have to try really hard to take the culture
Speaker 1: of victimology when the Democrat Party and apply it to uh,
Speaker 1: all women against all men, and do it in a
Speaker 1: way that you think you're being constructive or or in
Speaker 1: any way helpful. Uh, this is just the the pandering
Speaker 1: of the politics of frustration from Michelle Obama. Right, crazy bar.
Speaker 1: I mean, I really I wrote down some things that
Speaker 1: she was speaking there. I mean, I heard the clip
Speaker 1: last last night and I wanted to talk about it
Speaker 1: on the show. A crazy bar for each other than
Speaker 1: we have for men. So so she's saying that we
Speaker 1: have a lower standard for men than we do for women.
Speaker 1: That's just not a statement that has any intellectual worth
Speaker 1: in it whatsoever. Meaning there's there's it's not defensible, it's
Speaker 1: not a smart thing to say. It's so broad and
Speaker 1: so flimsy as to be really meaningless except it panders.
Speaker 1: But but yeah, that's right. I'm frustrated because men are bad. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know women in the crowd. Yeah, this is really
Speaker 1: toxic and for for Michelle Obama, who, as I said,
Speaker 1: is among the most revered and look now she's she's
Speaker 1: not just the member of the First Family. She's out
Speaker 1: there given speeches and interviews and very public person very
Speaker 1: much a part of the national discussion on a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of political issues. For her to be out there
Speaker 1: and really playing to the resentment of women and a
Speaker 1: lot of the you know, a lot of you listening now,
Speaker 1: the women listening to show. By the way, we have
Speaker 1: a particularly strong contingent of women for the talk radio
Speaker 1: world who listened to the Buck Sexon show. So ladies,
Speaker 1: high five and thank you. People are like, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: women listen to Buck shows. Like, that's right because Buck
Speaker 1: just does content for everybody. But you're probably thinking yourself, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's so, that's that's like, it's really you're like, you
Speaker 1: think you're talking to a room full of losers, in
Speaker 1: this case, a room full of women who are losers.
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, like men, it's so much easier to
Speaker 1: be men, and we don't hold them the same standards,
Speaker 1: and you know, men fail up. We got an opioid
Speaker 1: epidemic in this country where men are actually declining in
Speaker 1: life expectancy, and we're talking about men failing up. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but it's just if she wants to talk about specifics,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, men are paid more than women
Speaker 1: in this industry or that industry. I'm happy to tackle that,
Speaker 1: but just to speak about it and just in such
Speaker 1: a broad way is not it's the opposite of helpful.
Speaker 1: It's actually hurtful. It's not smart. And I just get
Speaker 1: the sense from Michelle Obama that no one ever tells
Speaker 1: her that what she says is actually not profound at all.
Speaker 1: It's really the opposite of profound. Sometimes I'm not some
Speaker 1: I'm not some Michelle Obama hater, but I'm not a
Speaker 1: fan either, obviously definitely not a fan. But you know,
Speaker 1: she's entitled their opinion, but we're entitled to say that's
Speaker 1: not a very smart opinion on some of these subjects,
Speaker 1: you know. And you can tell to there's kind of
Speaker 1: a practiced tone and everything. And this is where I
Speaker 1: say I would ignore it for the most part, except
Speaker 1: for the fact that you know, Michelle Obama is I
Speaker 1: I would not be Why have her say it now?
Speaker 1: Why have her come out now when it's all there's
Speaker 1: all this focus on Kamala Harris and maybe Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: I'm still here, baby, I'm in the game. Put me in, coach,
Speaker 1: put the helmet on. Uh you know, well, there's all
Speaker 1: this focus with them. Who I mean, who else is
Speaker 1: even really in the company. There's a bunch of other
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be mean, but like be and
Speaker 1: even c team candidates on the Democrats side, I think
Speaker 1: they're gonna run in. I mean, I'm here at all
Speaker 1: kinds of crazies that Biden says he's gonna come back. Maybe. Uh.
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama has the name, recognition, the power, and the
Speaker 1: party behind her the day she decides she wants to run,
Speaker 1: So she is a turn key presidential candidate. And what
Speaker 1: better way to un erase the erased Barack Obama uh
Speaker 1: policy legacy that remember what's going on with Trump right now,
Speaker 1: than to have Michelle Obama come into office and reenact
Speaker 1: a lot of it and push it even further. So
Speaker 1: I'm telling you you didn't hear it here first, but
Speaker 1: you're hearing it from me. Keeping on, I am Michelle
Speaker 1: Obama going forward. I think she's running. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America. Buck Sexton his back. You know, sometimes
Speaker 1: there's a weird story out there that I just have
Speaker 1: to talk to you about because I don't want to
Speaker 1: be alone and knowing about it. So there is this uh,
Speaker 1: this sexual consent expert, which I didn't know. I'm being honestly,
Speaker 1: I didn't even know it was a thing. But she's
Speaker 1: down in Australia and and now a lot and a
Speaker 1: lot of your probably like how to spake Australian, and
Speaker 1: every Australia I know hates Fosters, hates the accents and
Speaker 1: the commercial doesn't like outback steak house. They think that
Speaker 1: it's all just anyway. Um. But there's this woman who
Speaker 1: named Dean Carson or Deanne Carson, Yeah, Deanna, I guess
Speaker 1: who works for an organization which teaches children about consent.
Speaker 1: And she says, we work with parents. Well you know what, actually,
Speaker 1: let me just just play the audio for you. By
Speaker 1: the way, this woman, um, which I thought was interesting,
Speaker 1: has completely bleached purple hair, so if you see her
Speaker 1: on the internet you'll you'll know who she is. Play
Speaker 1: the audio please, How young is some of the children
Speaker 1: you talk to? We work from children from three years old.
Speaker 1: We work with parents from birth. It's from birth. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: just about how to set up a culture of consent
Speaker 1: in their homes. So I'm going to change your nappy now,
Speaker 1: is that okay? Of course the baby is not gonna respond, yes, mom,
Speaker 1: that's awesome. I'd love to have my nappy changed. But
Speaker 1: if you leave a space and wait for body language
Speaker 1: and wait to make eye contact, then you're letting that
Speaker 1: child know that their response matters. What the heck is
Speaker 1: she talking about? And then he wants to change your nappy? Now, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's time to change your nappy? Do you want me
Speaker 1: to change? No, you don't want me. You can't speak yet,
Speaker 1: but perhaps you you will give me morse code through
Speaker 1: your eyelids as to whether I should change your nappy.
Speaker 1: Babies they're like burping and farting up a storm, like
Speaker 1: what is this? This is? I understand that people will
Speaker 1: say anything pretty much if it gets them on TV,
Speaker 1: and she certainly has a unique take on things, but
Speaker 1: establishing a culture of consent when it comes to changing
Speaker 1: your baby's diaper, I I just I mean, it's it's crazy,
Speaker 1: but I even disagree with what she thinks she's trying
Speaker 1: to do, which is I think how weird that is
Speaker 1: for the parent. Look like you're gonna create the this
Speaker 1: notion that like the baby, why is it just changing
Speaker 1: the diaper? By the way, the baby and I don't
Speaker 1: have one yet. So a lot of you have a
Speaker 1: lot more expertise than I do. But I actually visited
Speaker 1: uh my ms Molly's sister's baby recently. It's very, very cute.
Speaker 1: But you know, a baby is not gonna be you know,
Speaker 1: driving you around like a car with a steering wheel,
Speaker 1: right like, you pick it up, you move it around,
Speaker 1: you feed it. It is completely reliant upon the adults
Speaker 1: to nurture it and and yes, to keep it alive.
Speaker 1: So there there actually is no consent when it comes
Speaker 1: to babies, because babies are not actually capable of consent
Speaker 1: and telling parents to ask for consent. It's just one
Speaker 1: of the weirdest things I've ever seen. And keep in mind,
Speaker 1: this isn't someone who just like went on TV and
Speaker 1: said something downb like, oh, like you're stopping in Times
Speaker 1: Square asking strangers let me say something crazy. No, it's
Speaker 1: not that she is allegedly a consent expert who's teaching. Also,
Speaker 1: by the way, consent to children, I understand that it
Speaker 1: is so later on in life they understand what consent means.
Speaker 1: But you know, most senseient adults or or even young
Speaker 1: adults understand like it takes two to tango and the
Speaker 1: other person has to want to dance right like there,
Speaker 1: and you you have to make sure you know that
Speaker 1: and when you know, you know and then you go.
Speaker 1: But instead you've got this just completely bizarrely. If you
Speaker 1: haven't seen it, you gotta watch. Just played John play
Speaker 1: at the beginning again, just so I didn't miss here.
Speaker 1: So just give me the first like twenty seconds of
Speaker 1: how young is some of the children you talk to?
Speaker 1: We work from children from three years old. We worked
Speaker 1: with parents from birth from birth, Yeah, just about how
Speaker 1: to set up a culture of consent in their homes.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to change your nappy now? Is that okay?
Speaker 1: To change nappy now? Is it okay? What? Thank you? Yes?
Speaker 1: Stupid question, well played? What idiocy? But I'm sitting here
Speaker 1: and I'm like, uh, she's a consent expert and she
Speaker 1: thinks that this is it's just such a string. What's next? Like,
Speaker 1: you know, I just want to create a culture of
Speaker 1: surveillance and and lawfulness in the home. So we'll set
Speaker 1: up a little surveillance cameras in every room so the
Speaker 1: parents know they're being watched. Right, craziness. This this one
Speaker 1: kind of viral today because everyone's like, no, this is bonkers.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure you know what the little baby should
Speaker 1: be thankful if someone's changing the stinky diaper. How about that?
Speaker 1: How about teaching the baby to say thank you mommy
Speaker 1: when you change a little diaper. It's craziness, it really is.
Speaker 1: It's uh. I had to play it for you. I
Speaker 1: had to. I couldn't deprive you of that bit of lunacy.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's one of the more crazy things I've
Speaker 1: heard all week. We've got roll call coming up here
Speaker 1: in a second. I don't know if we can top that. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's well cool with your nappy? Would you like me
Speaker 1: to take your nappy and dabit around your mouth after
Speaker 1: your meal for roll call? Or Z? Are you going
Speaker 1: on stage later? We'll be right back. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks. Keeping it real, it's time for role all.
Speaker 1: I just love that we got you, got our buddy Andy,
Speaker 1: our voiceover guy, to to say things like keeping it real.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think he's gotten requests to say
Speaker 1: things like that before. They might. I think I might
Speaker 1: be a first. Uh so, uh, here we have it.
Speaker 1: I'm getting used to the swamp down here. I gotta
Speaker 1: say it's a little steamy, a little misty out, you know,
Speaker 1: but if you embrace it, you can get kind of
Speaker 1: used to it. Just gotta keep lots of lots of
Speaker 1: changes of clothes on hands, you know. Undershirts don't last
Speaker 1: long in the swamp. Uh fun to talk to uh
Speaker 1: Neil Cavudo before today. I don't know if you call
Speaker 1: it that, we'll put it up on Facebook. But I
Speaker 1: got a chance to chat with our buddy Cavudo, and
Speaker 1: I did not wear a tie, you know what. I
Speaker 1: kind of like no tie buck. I wonder what you
Speaker 1: all think about that, you know what I mean. I'm down,
Speaker 1: no tie, no shave. I don't have time for it today.
Speaker 1: I feel like it's a little more authentic sometimes just
Speaker 1: roll into the studio the way I am instead of like,
Speaker 1: oh look at me today. I've combed my hair and
Speaker 1: I have all can spam. I'm so ready to go.
Speaker 1: So yeah, a little bit of a different vibe. Alright,
Speaker 1: your thoughts not mine, Let's do this roll call. I
Speaker 1: actually kind of like that jazzy beat. It's got just enough,
Speaker 1: just enough funk to keep it spicy. Uh, here we go.
Speaker 1: Michael writes about um Mr Vegan Muffin should have told
Speaker 1: them to turn the stuff off. What the hell is
Speaker 1: a vegan muffin anyway, I'm guessing he'd be a brand
Speaker 1: muffin kind of guy. Uh. You know, brand muffins are gross,
Speaker 1: so I agree with Michael here on listen. Brand muffins
Speaker 1: are are pretty gross, and I used to be able
Speaker 1: to eat them, so I know I know what they're like. Um,
Speaker 1: vegan muffin just me wow, Actually that's good. That means
Speaker 1: they use a trying to remember there's something that like, uh,
Speaker 1: some kind of a baking powder thing they use instead
Speaker 1: of um, instead of well, eggs. I know they can't
Speaker 1: use eggs and they can't use dairy. Is it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's like it's is it a yeast that they put
Speaker 1: it in? I don't know. I don't know what it is,
Speaker 1: but one day I'll figure out what's in vegan. Vegan
Speaker 1: is the one thing I just can't do. Vegetarian I
Speaker 1: can't do either, but I could fake it for a
Speaker 1: little while. But if you cut dairy out of my diet,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna be angry. Seven Uh, Bob the next
Speaker 1: up here, Trump was right, I'm getting tired of winning. Well, Bob,
Speaker 1: I know the sentiment, my friend, I know what you're
Speaker 1: talking about here, and uh, I think it's I think
Speaker 1: it's quite a It's been quite a week for the
Speaker 1: trump Ster. I think tomorrow I'll do kind of a
Speaker 1: weekend review. This is not not Trump's best week ever.
Speaker 1: I think election week has to be his best week ever.
Speaker 1: But this has been one of the This has been
Speaker 1: one of the strongest of the administration so far in
Speaker 1: so many ways. And yeah, there's a lot of liberal
Speaker 1: tears because of it, a lot of Obama It's are
Speaker 1: getting big shad faces right now, the very yead because
Speaker 1: Trump is just like swooping in here Conan style. What's
Speaker 1: that line about? Yeah, here, the here the lamentations. You
Speaker 1: know what he takes. You know what I'm talking about
Speaker 1: from Conan the barbarian destroy your enemies here the lamentations
Speaker 1: up something like that, crush your enemies, see them driven
Speaker 1: before you. And they had a lamentation of the women.
Speaker 1: All right, we've got Greg up next, he writes, Um,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, hey, Buck, not sure you knew this,
Speaker 1: but they're making a sequel to one of your favorite movies,
Speaker 1: Braveheart Shields High. What what is this for real? Producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: I need you to do a deep dive into this.
Speaker 1: Is there really gonna be a Brave Heart sequel? Because
Speaker 1: that would just be a great, a great thing for
Speaker 1: freedom and for the world. Um Angus McFadden or mcgea McFadden,
Speaker 1: who played Robert the Bruce, who is actually who Braveheart
Speaker 1: had the nickname Braveheart in in history, so it kind
Speaker 1: of makes sense that they go with the sequel. Heero
Speaker 1: the Yeah, kind of makes some sense. So I think
Speaker 1: that could be very interesting. Um, the Battle of Bannock Burn, Hey,
Speaker 1: Bannock Bartern. It's a fun thing to say with the
Speaker 1: Scottish accent. Betty's next, she writes, enjoy you at night,
Speaker 1: suggest regarding podcasts that you might like to read this
Speaker 1: Silk Road did like I did last summer. Good read. Okay,
Speaker 1: thanks Betty, I'll add that to the list. I got
Speaker 1: a pile and I got a list of books. Paul writes,
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to your assessment about the Iranian attack
Speaker 1: on Israel shields high. Um, well, Paul, good call on that.
Speaker 1: I will certainly be talking about the Iranian attack on
Speaker 1: Israel more and uh we will continue to cover it.
Speaker 1: We have Next up here Chris, who writes Buck, do
Speaker 1: you have any discount code for a Mother's Day gift, say,
Speaker 1: flowers from a sponsor of your show. Chris, you ask
Speaker 1: a very good question, my friend. I don't think we
Speaker 1: have a specific Mother's Day gift promo yet on the show,
Speaker 1: and we really should get a flower sponsor, so I will.
Speaker 1: I'll make some calls. I'll see what I can do
Speaker 1: on that one. So thank you so much, Eric. Next
Speaker 1: up got me with the Hilary thing again. Was already
Speaker 1: laughing at that, and then you mentioned maybe doing the
Speaker 1: whole list in her voice. L O. Well, thanks for
Speaker 1: the great laugh. Also, my favorite Buck slap sound effect
Speaker 1: is the he one she'll sigh. Thanks Eric, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: glad you like that one. Uh so, yeah it. Let's
Speaker 1: see what else next? Um, we have Chris Staffer right.
Speaker 1: This is just an interesting thought from a total civilian.
Speaker 1: The Korean War is already officially over. This is an
Speaker 1: anecdotal historical realization in advance. The reason for Pompeio's visit
Speaker 1: must have been to sign and complete the paperwork in
Speaker 1: the interest of national security. Trump couldn't possibly be expected
Speaker 1: to meet the leader of a foreign country on foreign
Speaker 1: soil that we are still technically at war with. Just interesting.
Speaker 1: If they didn't work that paperwork deal out behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: they should, um, I kinda I kind of got nothing
Speaker 1: on that one, Christopher, Uh sorry, I don't know. Interesting.
Speaker 1: Thanks for thanks for sending John up next year, he writes, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck shield hie, you totally nailed it on the last Jedi,
Speaker 1: and I'm a bigger Star Wars fan than most Wow guys.
Speaker 1: John sent a photo of himself in a straight up
Speaker 1: movie quality Obi wan Kenobi costume, so he is indeed
Speaker 1: a pretty big Star Wars fan. He goes on though
Speaker 1: in this note, But the worst aren't was that a
Speaker 1: ship with no gas in outer space would never fall
Speaker 1: backwards because you know physics and inertia. Keep up the
Speaker 1: great work, looking forward to your future projects, John, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, and thank you for putting out a
Speaker 1: little bit of the astrophysics knowledge there. I like it.
Speaker 1: Dale rights, Hey Buck she woke. Here we go, Hey
Speaker 1: Buck shields hie. I caught some of your discussion last
Speaker 1: week regarding a request for tips of things to do
Speaker 1: in d C. You reply that you weren't that up
Speaker 1: on DC anymore, but you're certainly an expert on NYC,
Speaker 1: which obviously you would be as you were a man
Speaker 1: of the city. As luck would have it, I want
Speaker 1: a hotel reservation for one night in Woodbridge, New Jersey,
Speaker 1: through my company, and obviously thought this would be a
Speaker 1: great time for my wife and I to visit Manhattan,
Speaker 1: one of the few places in the United States that
Speaker 1: we have never been. We're flying into Newark taking the train,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna take the train to Penn Station, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: I'd be really interested in hearing your thoughts. I'll buck
Speaker 1: Secton's guide to a first time weekend in NYC. My
Speaker 1: major concern is not bitting off too much of the
Speaker 1: Big Apple, considering we're flying back Sunday. Ps. I had
Speaker 1: a friend who was on a business trip in the
Speaker 1: DC area, returned the car to b w I and
Speaker 1: realized they were supposed to be leaving from Dullis. They
Speaker 1: made their flight, though, Lord knows how well. Thank you Dale. Okay, so, Bucks,
Speaker 1: I think the New York Times does a thirty six
Speaker 1: hours or forty eight hours in whatever city. So let's
Speaker 1: say a thirty six hours. So you got Friday night
Speaker 1: to Sunday morning Sunday afternoon. UM. I would say for
Speaker 1: a lot of you, obviously pick a show on Broadway
Speaker 1: that you want to see, because it's just an experience
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of them. Pick one that's that
Speaker 1: speaks to you. I would say you should definitely plan
Speaker 1: and plan the route beforehand. Plan a walk through Central Park.
Speaker 1: I personally advocate starting at the south end and then
Speaker 1: going north. The south end is the more tourist end.
Speaker 1: Go for a nice walk through Central Park, make your
Speaker 1: way past the boat Pond all the way up to
Speaker 1: or the rowboat Pond, and then you can make your
Speaker 1: way to the sailboat Pond, which has these little mini
Speaker 1: sailboats in it. You can then cut out east and
Speaker 1: head over to J. G. Mellon's, one of my favorite
Speaker 1: haunts for a fantastic but small so you won't we
Speaker 1: might want to Hamburger. They also have excellent chili, and
Speaker 1: then I would say go for a walk around the
Speaker 1: Upper east Side, stopped by the Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Speaker 1: That's all maybe something you could do, you know, Saturday
Speaker 1: during the day and in the afternoon Friday night you
Speaker 1: got the Broadway show. I would recommend going down for
Speaker 1: dinner to the West Village maybe Saturday night. I think
Speaker 1: that's the most charming part of the city. Also, people
Speaker 1: call it Greenwich Village, and that's also just where you'll
Speaker 1: see a lot of interesting stuff going on. It's the
Speaker 1: most Uh, it's not only bohemian anymore. It's very expensive,
Speaker 1: but it's certainly a culturally rich and dynamic part of
Speaker 1: the city. And in terms of the big tourist e
Speaker 1: stuff like h Statue of Liberty Um Empire State Building.
Speaker 1: That's so I leave that to your own discretion how
Speaker 1: you fit that in. But that's that's an oh oh,
Speaker 1: and go up on the high Line and go walk
Speaker 1: in Chelsea Market, taste some of the food, and go
Speaker 1: for a walk along the high Line park. Uh, those
Speaker 1: are my that's my thirty six hours in New York City.
Speaker 1: That's what I would do. And with that team, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna close up the Freedom Hut for the evening right
Speaker 1: in the middle of the swamp here. I feel like
Speaker 1: Gate isn'tna buy you all over the place here. But
Speaker 1: don't worry. I know I'll be okay because I've got
Speaker 1: the team by my side. So uh, please do some
Speaker 1: of your thoughts Facebook dot com, slash box sex and
Speaker 1: tell somebody about the show. Until next time, my friend,
Speaker 1: no matter what comes your way, you have your orders,
Speaker 1: you have your destiny shields top. I've got early days
Speaker 1: and long days lately. But the good news is that
Speaker 1: I've got all the necessary caffeination I need from my friends,
Speaker 1: from my brothers in arms for freedom over at Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. I'm a subscriber. I get the cake cups
Speaker 1: delivered to me, so it's great because I bring something
Speaker 1: to the office or I've got Black Rifles cake cups
Speaker 1: at home. Couldn't be any easier throwing a little bit
Speaker 1: of cream because I'm not a socialist with some kind
Speaker 1: of soy milk. And I enjoy my Black Rifle coffee
Speaker 1: at the office or when I'm just chilling out at
Speaker 1: home and having a great time. So check it out
Speaker 1: for yourself. Go to Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck that's Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash buck coupon
Speaker 1: code buck one five pipe that in because I've got
Speaker 1: you fifteen percent off. It also tells the Black Rifle
Speaker 1: folks that your team Buck and that you're supporting them
Speaker 1: and this show Black rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck
Speaker 1: coupon code buck one five for fIF percent off