Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Cheerio. Trump is visiting
Speaker 1: the UK and the liberal media's freaking out about it.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that and oh so much more coming
Speaker 1: up on The buck Sexton Show. Bucks Sexton Remission, Decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence, magnor mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the bucks Sexton
Speaker 1: showtiate former CIA analysts. I can speak for three hours
Speaker 1: without a phone call. Try doing that. Sometimes it is
Speaker 1: buck Sexton, No, mister President. As we look to the future,
Speaker 1: I'm confident that our common values and shared interests will
Speaker 1: continue to unitus. Tonight we celebrate an alliance that has
Speaker 1: helped to ensure the safety and prosperity of both our
Speaker 1: people's for decades, and which I believe will endure for
Speaker 1: many years to come. While the world has changed, we
Speaker 1: are forever mindful of the original purpose of these structures,
Speaker 1: nations working together to safeguard a hard one piece. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the buck sections Share everybody. Oh hello, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. Indeed you have Queens Queen of
Speaker 1: England telling everybody about the very important relationship between England
Speaker 1: Great Britain and the United States. Yeah, it's interesting. Our
Speaker 1: producer Mike told me some some facts about this before
Speaker 1: we came out earlier. Mike, how many, how many people?
Speaker 1: How many presents have been invited to this special banquet
Speaker 1: with the Queen. Trump's the third. Yeah, it seems to be.
Speaker 1: It's a rare honor for a US president. I'm pushing
Speaker 1: Obama have been the only two others, and I think
Speaker 1: they only hold two banquets a year, So I bet
Speaker 1: they serve tea and crumpets. Yeah, I hope they do,
Speaker 1: not to be concerned with not to be rather confused
Speaker 1: with tea and strumpets, which is a whole other things.
Speaker 1: So yes, indeed we have, Yes, indeed, everyone we have
Speaker 1: Trump over in the UK. We'll talk later on about
Speaker 1: some of the some of the fallout from this with
Speaker 1: the media baiting Trump into and it's so easy and
Speaker 1: of course he's gonna do it, getting into it with
Speaker 1: Sadiq Khan and getting into it with not really getting
Speaker 1: into with Megan Markle. They're being being fake fake news.
Speaker 1: They're being fake news on that one. Don't trust them,
Speaker 1: You can't trust them, a bunch of sketchy libs. You
Speaker 1: haven't never know what they're up to. Ah, let's now
Speaker 1: get into though, the latest in the saga of spying
Speaker 1: and Trump campaign undermining, the abuse of authority, and all
Speaker 1: the other terrible things that happened as a result of
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion to illusion. We have a little a
Speaker 1: little bit of movement on this because the preparations are
Speaker 1: underway for the left to try and convince the American
Speaker 1: people that there was really nothing, nothing to see here,
Speaker 1: no big issue other than how how Barr is a
Speaker 1: terrible person. Of course he's a terrible person, and that's
Speaker 1: because he has said some things that are that really
Speaker 1: hit home. I mean I discussed with you a little
Speaker 1: bit last week that that interview where Bar he was
Speaker 1: dropping bombs. I mean, you go back, it's worth watching
Speaker 1: the whole thing. It was on CBS. And he's not
Speaker 1: over excited about anything. He's not. He's not stretching the truth,
Speaker 1: he's not grandstanding. He's just saying, look, this is this
Speaker 1: is the deal. You know, everybody dies. That's his line.
Speaker 1: But that was awesome. That was awesome. I think that
Speaker 1: this is the guy we need in this role. But
Speaker 1: here are just just a few of as we get
Speaker 1: into the effort to counter message it over the weekend,
Speaker 1: which a lot of Democrats will get Mark Warner and
Speaker 1: others running around trying to make this guy seem like he's, Oh,
Speaker 1: he's a toady for the president and he's a bad guy.
Speaker 1: He's doing all these things he shouldn't be doing. They
Speaker 1: never tell us what he's doing that's bad, just that
Speaker 1: he's the president's man, and yeah, stuff like that. But
Speaker 1: here's what Bill Barr had to say about the ruling
Speaker 1: class here in DC played twelve. You don't think that
Speaker 1: they permitted treason. That is a legal matter, right, But
Speaker 1: you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation. Yes,
Speaker 1: but you know, when you're dealing with official government contact
Speaker 1: and intent is frequently a murky issue. I'm not suggesting
Speaker 1: people did what they did necessarily because of conscious nefarious motives.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is
Speaker 1: in the higher interests, the better good. They don't realize
Speaker 1: that what they're doing is really anathetical to the democratic
Speaker 1: system we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians
Speaker 1: of the people that are more informed and sensitive than
Speaker 1: everybody else. The guardians of the people that are more
Speaker 1: informed and sensitive than everybody else. Who does that sound
Speaker 1: like a perfect description of from this whole saga of
Speaker 1: the last two years. Doesn't that sound quite a bit
Speaker 1: like James Comey, doesn't sound quite a bit like Bob Muller,
Speaker 1: Brennan at the CIA, Clapper at the DNI, Yates at
Speaker 1: the DOJ. Doesn't that describe their mentality? Haven't we seen
Speaker 1: this on full display? They just thought they knew better
Speaker 1: and that justified whatever it is that they did then,
Speaker 1: and they think it still justifies what they have done
Speaker 1: even looking back at it now. Barr understands this. The
Speaker 1: current Attorney General knows who we're dealing with when you
Speaker 1: talk about the establishment Arrians. He knows this mentality that,
Speaker 1: in his sense, in order to save our democracy, they
Speaker 1: had to undermine it. That's what they were willing to do.
Speaker 1: That was the gamble that they took. That was the
Speaker 1: position that they put themselves in. And Barr recognizes this
Speaker 1: as a very real threat, as a very serious problem,
Speaker 1: one that we have to get to the bottom of.
Speaker 1: The same people who were screaming for two years about
Speaker 1: how we must know the full extent of Russian interference
Speaker 1: in the election shouldn't we know the full extent of
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracies interference in our own election. Shouldn't we
Speaker 1: know if law enforcement powers were abused to try to
Speaker 1: turn a presidential election. Shouldn't we get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of it, at least even for those people who don't
Speaker 1: believe that that happened, shouldn't they want that to be verified?
Speaker 1: Why the change all of a sudden, Why the move
Speaker 1: away from transparency and accountability to something else, to a
Speaker 1: position of indifference to abuse? That seems all but certain
Speaker 1: to have occurred. I mean, I am certain it occurred. Well,
Speaker 1: once we start to have a discussion at the national
Speaker 1: level about the motives that were involved here, once you
Speaker 1: have people of Barr's stature who will make the case that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not that they thought that they were
Speaker 1: being little Hillary stooges in this process. They really believed
Speaker 1: they had convinced themselves they being the deep state operatives here,
Speaker 1: the Komis and the mccabees and the Yates and the Brennans,
Speaker 1: and they really thought that what they were doing was
Speaker 1: the stuff of great patriots who would be forever remembered
Speaker 1: fondly by their countrymen. I mean, I think that they
Speaker 1: had convinced themselves of it. They were wrong, They're delusional,
Speaker 1: But did they believe it? Do you think do you
Speaker 1: think Komy thinks for one second that anything that he
Speaker 1: has done is really questionable and maybe makes him even
Speaker 1: a bad guy? Of course not Coomy looks down on
Speaker 1: all of us literally and figuratively because he is like
Speaker 1: seven foot four, But he does look down on the
Speaker 1: rest of the people while thinking simultaneously that he defends
Speaker 1: the rest of the people with his actions, the abuses
Speaker 1: that he and others engaged in, and we know there
Speaker 1: were abuses. Releasing memos from your time as FBI director
Speaker 1: to the New York Times, that's an abuse, all right,
Speaker 1: there's no way around it. McCay lying three times the
Speaker 1: Inspector General about contacts with the media, that's an abuse.
Speaker 1: There's no way around this. We will find out the
Speaker 1: full extent of it, I hope from this Inspector General
Speaker 1: report we will find out if there was a praetorianism
Speaker 1: on display here or a praetorian effect. Praetorianism is a
Speaker 1: pretty specific thing, but a praetorian effect where well here here,
Speaker 1: here's how the attorney general, I think rather astutely and
Speaker 1: elegantly put it himself Play thirteen. When we talk about
Speaker 1: foreign interference versus say, a government abuse of power, and yes,
Speaker 1: wishes more troubling, Well, they're both. They're both troubling equally
Speaker 1: in my mind, they are sure. I mean, republics have
Speaker 1: fallen because of praetorian guard mentality, where government officials get
Speaker 1: very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own
Speaker 1: political preferences, and they feel that anyone who you know
Speaker 1: has a different opinion, you know, somehow an enemy of
Speaker 1: the state, and and you know there is that tendency
Speaker 1: that they know better, and you know that they're there
Speaker 1: to protect as guardians of the people, that can easily
Speaker 1: translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and
Speaker 1: getting your own way as a government official. Does anyone
Speaker 1: at this point really even dispute that there were senior
Speaker 1: government officials under the Obama administration who believed that Trump
Speaker 1: was a clear and present danger to the United States.
Speaker 1: Isn't it quite obvious? I mean, some of them have
Speaker 1: come out and said as much since then, but I
Speaker 1: think it's obvious from the actions they took at the time,
Speaker 1: and you might say, well, Buck, how could they view
Speaker 1: it as such, Well, he's a threat to the very
Speaker 1: established structures and power dynamics that many of those individuals
Speaker 1: have relied upon and called upon and supported and defended
Speaker 1: their entire lives, certainly their whole careers. They don't want
Speaker 1: to see that dash. They don't want it to be
Speaker 1: the case that you don't need to have ever held
Speaker 1: elected office to be the president. You know, some of
Speaker 1: these things we take for granted now, But at the
Speaker 1: time it was unthinkable to not just Libs, but a
Speaker 1: lot of center right Republican types, you know, GOP establishmentarians.
Speaker 1: It was the case with a lot of them that
Speaker 1: they thought that Trump would just be pulling down the
Speaker 1: very fabric of American society by being president, that he
Speaker 1: would that he would tear us apart, that there'd be
Speaker 1: that the stock markets would crash, and there'd be race
Speaker 1: riots in the streets, and there'll be you know, a
Speaker 1: war with well, not Russia, because of course we're Russia's puppet, right,
Speaker 1: but a war with North Korea, and a trade war
Speaker 1: with China and all there'd be all these things that
Speaker 1: would happen that would result in the most the most
Speaker 1: catastrophic consequences. None of that has happened. That country's doing
Speaker 1: really well, which is the single biggest slap in the
Speaker 1: face that these deep staters could ever have. So that's
Speaker 1: why they turned to the ad hominum. That's why. Then
Speaker 1: it's all, well, if we can't win just by trashing Trump,
Speaker 1: maybe we trash Bar and the American people won't believe
Speaker 1: what he has to say. Play fourteen, our bipartisan committee,
Speaker 1: the last bipartisan effort on the Hill looking at this issue,
Speaker 1: reaffirmed unanimously that the Russians massively intervened. If we had
Speaker 1: not acted, if our intelligence community and law enforcement had
Speaker 1: not acted, they would have been irresponsible and candidly, mister
Speaker 1: Barr has very little credibility with me, and I think
Speaker 1: the vast majority of candidly, not just Democrats, but many Americans,
Speaker 1: because he, timing again, is not acting as our attorney
Speaker 1: general but as a personal advocate for Donald Trump. The smear,
Speaker 1: it's a lie. It's a stupid one from Mark Warner,
Speaker 1: but I guess he has nowhere else to run with it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he has no credibility. Mark Warner says, here's somebody who
Speaker 1: seems to think Bill Barr has credibility to play fifteen.
Speaker 1: I like and respect Bill Barr. I know he's an
Speaker 1: institutionalist who cares deeply about the integrity of the Justice Department.
Speaker 1: So I'm sure he'll use the standard career resources. He
Speaker 1: has to judge what he should be involved in, what
Speaker 1: he shouldn't be involved in. But Bill Barr is a
Speaker 1: talented person who was a good attorney general the first time.
Speaker 1: I liked him very much. Then I think he'll serve
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. Weather Wait, I thought Bill Barr had
Speaker 1: no credibility. There's James Comey talking about how talented and
Speaker 1: good and respectable and everything else he is. Oh, but
Speaker 1: because he didn't deliver Trump's impeachment on a silver platter
Speaker 1: to the Democrats like Muller did, he's a bad guy.
Speaker 1: Now could this be any more obvious? I mean, I
Speaker 1: do hope that you take a great degree you listening
Speaker 1: to this across the country. I hope you take great
Speaker 1: pride and solace and knowing that at least you're right
Speaker 1: and you're not one of the people that's been fooled.
Speaker 1: You have him in Hoodwinn, you have him been deluded
Speaker 1: in this whole process. I think for so many liberals
Speaker 1: out there, they can't admit to themselves what has really happened.
Speaker 1: They can't accept that in this whole process they've been
Speaker 1: swindled intellectually, they've been made to look like fools, they've
Speaker 1: been turned into hysterics. So they'd much rather cling to
Speaker 1: the possibility that somehow, even with all the facts as
Speaker 1: they're out now, even seeing the actions of Muller and
Speaker 1: knowing the truth of Komi and others, we're supposed to
Speaker 1: think that this was all fine, this was all on
Speaker 1: the up and up. I'm sorry, that's just not going
Speaker 1: to cut it, not going to work. I get more
Speaker 1: on this, and then also the possible breakup of Facebook.
Speaker 1: The FTC took a step in at least investigating Facebook
Speaker 1: for a possible trade violation. Very interesting stuff there. And
Speaker 1: we will get into the latest on Democrats freaking out
Speaker 1: over gun control. Yes, they do, in fact want to
Speaker 1: take your guns. That's not just a thing that we
Speaker 1: tell each other. And if I have time, maybe even
Speaker 1: get into some of the latest on China tariffs and Mexico.
Speaker 1: Mexico tariffs too. A lot of tariffs flying around. We
Speaker 1: have a busy, busy show my friends much to discuss,
Speaker 1: and is racism against anyone possible or is racism only
Speaker 1: possible against certain groups, certain individuals. That's all coming up.
Speaker 1: If you want to be dogs and big progressive goals,
Speaker 1: socialism is not the accident. I was reelected. I was
Speaker 1: reelected in a purple stay in two thousand and fourteen,
Speaker 1: one of the worst years for Democrats, and a quarter
Speaker 1: sent I was we should thrive with a universal coverage
Speaker 1: by removing private insurance from over one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: million of error. We should not try to time uplimate
Speaker 1: change by guarantee. Hold on, hold on, I love it.
Speaker 1: Oh that's hick and Looper running for Democrat president and
Speaker 1: he's speaking in San Francisco and he said socialism is
Speaker 1: not the answer. And they go boom boom all over
Speaker 1: the place. Oh, because they think socialism is the answer.
Speaker 1: Boom boom with your socialism, with your antisocialism. Oh man,
Speaker 1: I really do think that Donald Trump could just run that.
Speaker 1: I mean that that should be rnc ads going forward.
Speaker 1: This this is what happens when when a center left Democrat,
Speaker 1: as he said, hick and Looper is from a purple state.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's look, he's a Democrat, but he's just
Speaker 1: not among the far left, fringiest of Democrats. He says
Speaker 1: socialism is not the answer, and they just terrupt into
Speaker 1: boop boop. Now what are we to make of this?
Speaker 1: When I talk about how socialism is on the rise
Speaker 1: in this country? A lot of my Democrat friends and
Speaker 1: colleagues will, of whom it feels there are fewer and
Speaker 1: fewer these days, will say to me, but that's not true.
Speaker 1: And I would point out, well, you have Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: running as a Democratic socialist and he's number two out
Speaker 1: of twenty three candidates the Democratic Party right now, and
Speaker 1: you also have incidents like this. You know that we
Speaker 1: can't entirely ignore. You've an entire auditorium full of people
Speaker 1: in San Francisco, in a liberal stronghold, and socialism comes up,
Speaker 1: and they're clearly very favorle to it. Never mind Great
Speaker 1: New Deal and single payer. There is a far not
Speaker 1: just a far left fringe, there is a far left
Speaker 1: control center of the Democratic Party. Now. The far left
Speaker 1: is calling the shots for them. And whether the rest
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party goes along with all of it
Speaker 1: as a function of doctor and doesn't really matter because
Speaker 1: this is what the Democratic Party stands for now. This
Speaker 1: is that the party principles are increasingly socialist, increasingly far left.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Green New Deal is socialism. It's just
Speaker 1: they don't call it that, but it is a socialist program.
Speaker 1: And the stuff they're talking about coming. You could look
Speaker 1: at the Soviet Constitution. Some of it looks like it's
Speaker 1: borrowed liberally from that. So there you high it all right, team,
Speaker 1: I've got a little more, a little more on the
Speaker 1: bar Muller throwdown stuff. And then we got to talk
Speaker 1: the NRA, guns Democrats, Oh my, so much more. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. I got questions for him. When did you
Speaker 1: know there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Speaker 1: We knew when we deposed Jim Comey. When we deposed
Speaker 1: Jim Comey, he said, all the way up until the
Speaker 1: day he was fired May nine, twenty seventeen, he told
Speaker 1: us they had no evidence of any type of conspiracy,
Speaker 1: clusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. And
Speaker 1: that was after ten months of the FBI investigating him.
Speaker 1: That that was, that was after putting out returned next
Speaker 1: to George Papadopplas. That was after using the dossier to
Speaker 1: spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page. So after
Speaker 1: ten months, if they couldn't establish collusion, how long did
Speaker 1: it take Bob Muller? And if you learned this early on,
Speaker 1: why did you wait almost two years before you told
Speaker 1: the country that there was no conspiracy between the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and Russia to influence the election? After all, that
Speaker 1: was your central focus, your central task of this entire
Speaker 1: special Counsel investigation. So that's a question I think the
Speaker 1: whole country has for Bob Muller. He didn't. I got
Speaker 1: a lot of questions for Bob Muller. I would like
Speaker 1: to see them answered under oath in a public setting
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill. Why should Muller get away without his
Speaker 1: time in the hot seat? This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But it shows us that all along the claims of
Speaker 1: letting the process play out in transparency, and you know,
Speaker 1: this is how democrats are are really Like if I
Speaker 1: don't know how many of you ever been to in
Speaker 1: some countries, there'll be a tennis match and you're not
Speaker 1: supposed to make noise during a tennis match. You know
Speaker 1: when the point is being played. But some places they'll
Speaker 1: make a lot of noise. And imagine, you know, one side,
Speaker 1: every time the player they don't like is about to
Speaker 1: hit the ball, they all yell, oh, they make a
Speaker 1: lot of noise. But then when the player they do
Speaker 1: like is about to hit the ball that they're totally silent.
Speaker 1: And then when the other side that's rooting for the
Speaker 1: guy that's had the noise says, well, we're gonna make noise,
Speaker 1: do this, and now, how dare you show respect? Be respectful?
Speaker 1: They only want respect when it goes their way. They
Speaker 1: only want the process to play out when it hurts Trump.
Speaker 1: The moment that it doesn't hurt Trump or whatever, then
Speaker 1: then the processes is irrelevant to them, or the moment
Speaker 1: the process will help Trump. They want to disregard it
Speaker 1: right away. What they know in the meantime is that
Speaker 1: they thoroughly, thoroughly do not want to get answers from
Speaker 1: Bob Muller in front of the American public because it's
Speaker 1: pretty there's some questions that that would immediately come up.
Speaker 1: Immediately come up, and what could the answers possibly be.
Speaker 1: Why is it, Mueller that you held that very weird
Speaker 1: press conference was completely unnecessary unless you were trying to
Speaker 1: just give a shove to the Democrats in Congress to
Speaker 1: impeach the president. I no fair minded, serious person can
Speaker 1: look at what Bob Muller has done and come away
Speaker 1: from it thinking, oh, yeah, this guy didn't have an
Speaker 1: AXA grind against the president. He's fine. No, there's no
Speaker 1: problem here. Of course, he did a two year long
Speaker 1: investigation for laying out, essentially laying out obstruction the whole
Speaker 1: Russia interference thing that could have been done on the DJ.
Speaker 1: There was no need for a special counsel on that.
Speaker 1: The only reason and remember they all you don't remember,
Speaker 1: they hope that no one pays attention. The only reason
Speaker 1: for a special counsel was the inability of the DOJ
Speaker 1: working for President Trump to be trusted, according to some
Speaker 1: people in the J who are Obama pointees, because of
Speaker 1: the possibility of Russia and the President working together. If
Speaker 1: it were just Russian interference the election, you could have
Speaker 1: had a DJ investigation of that, no problem. Still brought
Speaker 1: the same charges that Mueller brought against those Russian troll
Speaker 1: farms that are just really just showboating, don't don't do anything,
Speaker 1: have no real effective force. But no, they spent all
Speaker 1: this time putting together eleven cases of possible obstruction that
Speaker 1: when you read them, you see there there's only one
Speaker 1: where you could even make a vague and tortured and
Speaker 1: stretched case of even really never mind obstruction, even impropriety.
Speaker 1: The other ones are ridiculous, ridiculous, and yet Mueller put
Speaker 1: them in there. But they're gonna be running over time,
Speaker 1: my friends, to try to prevent this from getting out.
Speaker 1: It's where you're here. We are in June, and you've
Speaker 1: got some people that are very concerned about just what
Speaker 1: is going to be found out in this whole process.
Speaker 1: Here's former Attorney General Michael Mukazee on exactly what is
Speaker 1: at work here when it comes to the anti bar
Speaker 1: anti Bill Barr narrative out there played twenty one. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of nervous people in Washington when he
Speaker 1: decided that he was going to investigate how this ule
Speaker 1: got started. I think a lot of people got very nervous.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you that the Mulla report, the first line
Speaker 1: says that they opened the file in twenty sixteen after
Speaker 1: Papadopolis had this conversation in the bar. That's not what
Speaker 1: started the investigation. He's saying. The first line of the
Speaker 1: Mulla report is a lie. It's a former attorney general,
Speaker 1: it's a very smart guy. It is a lie, of
Speaker 1: course it is. Think about what the claim is here
Speaker 1: that you have so called legal experts and former senior
Speaker 1: Obama administration officials who go on TV and pair at
Speaker 1: this stuff. Papadopoulos allegedly and disputedly claims that he heard
Speaker 1: something from some guy who allegedly and disputedly said something about,
Speaker 1: you know, Russia getting emails from Hillary or whatever, and
Speaker 1: they opened up a full FBI field investigation based on that.
Speaker 1: I mean to think that that's reasonable and rational, you'd
Speaker 1: have to say, Buck, did you every time you got
Speaker 1: a an anonymous tip when you're at the NYPD about
Speaker 1: how bin Laden was hiding under was hiding under someone's bed,
Speaker 1: you know in Queens, why didn't you investigate that right away?
Speaker 1: Why didn't you put all your best guys on it? Well,
Speaker 1: because you'd think there's some degree of verification and some
Speaker 1: professionalism in the approach of people that have these kinds
Speaker 1: of powers. But if you thought that about the FBI
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration with the Trump campaign in full swing,
Speaker 1: you'd be wrong. This is what we are told this
Speaker 1: is what happens. This is the reality that we were
Speaker 1: all facing. We have uh to talk about how Dems
Speaker 1: hate the NRA, how Libs hate gun owners. That's coming up.
Speaker 1: If I can't get, I'm the only candidate calling for
Speaker 1: a band and buy back on every single assault weapon.
Speaker 1: But I also believe that's invested in jobs and education,
Speaker 1: block by block. If I can't get, because of course
Speaker 1: you mentioned, you mentioned your plan for a mandatory buyback
Speaker 1: of assault weapons, weapons of war as you call them.
Speaker 1: You told my colleague Jake Tapper that you'd be willing
Speaker 1: to support criminal prosecution of people who don't follow if
Speaker 1: that that requirement, if it were to become law. So
Speaker 1: under a president Swalwell, you are saying that some Americans
Speaker 1: would indeed have to give up their guns. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: I'm proposing something that Australia. Did you know in the nineties,
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell, he's a zero percenter, meaning he's not yet
Speaker 1: at one percent support. I believe he's in the zero percentile.
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell, there is letting it be known that he
Speaker 1: does he wants to take your guns. Let's let's not
Speaker 1: let's not get this confused. Let's not get this to us.
Speaker 1: He wants to take your guns. He believes the guns
Speaker 1: should be taken from your home. It talks about Australia's
Speaker 1: mandatory buyback program. Okay, how many times do you have
Speaker 1: to go over this? Australia's buyback program involved the grand
Speaker 1: total of a few million firearms and a much smaller country,
Speaker 1: and in fact there was less There are more firearms
Speaker 1: in private hands today than at the height of the
Speaker 1: buyback or the moment right after the buyback program essentially
Speaker 1: wound out, although it kind of went on for many
Speaker 1: years because the buyback program didn't do anything because criminals
Speaker 1: don't care about the buyback program and it's not a
Speaker 1: successful way of not an effective way of trying to
Speaker 1: reduce gun crime. But if we were really serious about
Speaker 1: about reducing gun crime, wouldn't we Instead of Eric Swalwell
Speaker 1: talking to us about how semi automatic rifles which is
Speaker 1: what he's discussing and calls them weapons of war, which
Speaker 1: you know, a bolt action those of you who actually
Speaker 1: have some familiarity with firearms, which I know is a
Speaker 1: large law percentage of this audience, you know a bolt
Speaker 1: action rifle can be a weapon of war. There are
Speaker 1: there are marine snipers that still use a bolt action rifle.
Speaker 1: Weapons of war is a nonsense term. What does it
Speaker 1: even mean? Is a side arm? Is a nine millimeter
Speaker 1: or a forty five caliber hand got a weapon of war?
Speaker 1: Of course? It is. How many people you know in
Speaker 1: war zones? I've carry a side arm in a war zone.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty darned sure it's a weapon of war if
Speaker 1: I needed to, and what have shot somebody with it
Speaker 1: in a war zone? It's a weapon of war. So
Speaker 1: why do they use that term, Well, because they're trying
Speaker 1: to stigmatize Second Amendment supporters and Second Amendment or gun
Speaker 1: owners across the board. And that's really what this is about.
Speaker 1: And I want to you know, while there's a part
Speaker 1: of it wants to talk about the specifics of this
Speaker 1: band or that band and how it doesn't really doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter. They they do this, meaning Democrats, they push
Speaker 1: this stuff. They stigmatize gun owners because they want to
Speaker 1: show their base that they don't like those people. If
Speaker 1: it were about dealing with gun violence, don't you think
Speaker 1: you'd hear from these democrats a lot more people like
Speaker 1: Swallow and Jilabrand about how fifty people were shot in
Speaker 1: Chicago over the weekend. Fifty people in just a couple
Speaker 1: of parts of Chicago. Five zero that's a lot of
Speaker 1: ten of them were killed. Fifty shot at and Chicago
Speaker 1: is one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the country
Speaker 1: for guns. And then they say, oh, but fuck, that's
Speaker 1: because of neighboring jurisdictions. All right, Well, neighboring jurisdictions don't
Speaker 1: have a oh you can bring your gun into Chicago loophole.
Speaker 1: It's still illegal to have your gun in Chicago. So
Speaker 1: why we'll passing more gun laws do anything about the
Speaker 1: neighboring jurisdiction problem. No, what it means is that you'll
Speaker 1: have someone who's allegal concealed carry permit holder who drives
Speaker 1: into the wrong I'm sorry, producer might tells me it's
Speaker 1: actually fifty two were shot in Chicago for the weekend. Mike,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, fifty two one city. Why can't they
Speaker 1: more effectively deal with that violence? That is another question
Speaker 1: that I never never get a worthwhile answer to. I
Speaker 1: ask people about gun violence in Chicago, and I've had
Speaker 1: this conversation with Democrats and the immediately turn to police violence.
Speaker 1: No, no no, no, no, it's not the police that shot
Speaker 1: fifty two people. That's not it's not a police violence problem.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you don't get to. But they don't want
Speaker 1: to talk about what's causing violence in Chicago because that's
Speaker 1: not a fun talking point for Democrats. They want their base,
Speaker 1: they want the left to know that they don't like
Speaker 1: gun owners, that gun owners are bad people, they're mean people.
Speaker 1: They are you know, foolish, simple minded, xenophobic, racist a
Speaker 1: lot and live in the Bible Belt and in the
Speaker 1: South where that's what they think of gun owners, or
Speaker 1: they live in you know, Texas, places like that that's
Speaker 1: what they think of gun owners. And this is why
Speaker 1: you have someone like Kurston Jilla Brand, who is really
Speaker 1: that she's trying to be the Pandora in chief. I mean,
Speaker 1: she'll say anything. I mean, I wish I could sit
Speaker 1: in on the Gila Brand consultant meetings that happened, I'm
Speaker 1: sure every day, or they say, you know, here's your
Speaker 1: messaging for today, and she just goes okay. I will
Speaker 1: say that it's like they're programming some kind of a
Speaker 1: brainless Democrat robot. Whatever it needs to be said, I
Speaker 1: will say, doesn't matter what I used to say here,
Speaker 1: she is really trying to outdo the competition, the crazy
Speaker 1: left wing competition on guns. And you can hear for
Speaker 1: yourself play nine. And I think the most outrageous thing
Speaker 1: that's happened to our democracy is how much fear and
Speaker 1: division and hate has been spread. I think the NRA
Speaker 1: is the worst organization in this country for doing exactly that.
Speaker 1: They care more about their profits than the American people.
Speaker 1: They care more about selling guns to someone on the
Speaker 1: terror watch list, or someone with grave mental illness, or
Speaker 1: someone who has a violent criminal background, all lies. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know if she's so stupid
Speaker 1: that she does not realize that these are lies, or
Speaker 1: if she's so reckless she just does not care. It
Speaker 1: is a tough call. It is not something that I
Speaker 1: could easily tell you one way or the other. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a case you made that maybe she is such
Speaker 1: an airhead that she doesn't know what she's saying. Isn't
Speaker 1: true that that the NRA absolutely does not does not
Speaker 1: advocate for selling weapons to people that are gravely mentally ill.
Speaker 1: It is already illegal to sell a fire and the
Speaker 1: NRA does not try to change any laws where a
Speaker 1: violent criminal could or where bands a violent criminal from
Speaker 1: buying a firearm. But the facts are not something that
Speaker 1: Kristin Kirstin and see Kristin Kirsten Kirsten Gillibrand troubles herself
Speaker 1: much with it. Remember, this is the woman, folks, who
Speaker 1: one of the women, I should say, who wants to
Speaker 1: be the next president of the United States. That's right,
Speaker 1: We're supposed to feel like we'll sleep better at night
Speaker 1: if we replaced Trump with her? Why exactly? She's what
Speaker 1: do you get? What's the improvement with Jelo? If you
Speaker 1: just want classic left wing non thinking, brainless talking points,
Speaker 1: but you want the progressive policy apparatus behind it, then
Speaker 1: I guess, yeah, Jila Brand's fine. He just check the
Speaker 1: identity politics box by being a woman. That's all they
Speaker 1: really care about right now. I guess finding somebody they
Speaker 1: can shoehorn into the White House who gives them some
Speaker 1: claim to democrats, some claim to diversity. At least that's
Speaker 1: what the left wants. You know, they're still clinging to
Speaker 1: Bernie and and Biden at the top of the at
Speaker 1: the top of the polls right now. So who knows.
Speaker 1: But here's what Jilla Brand said about the bum stock
Speaker 1: band play ten. Is there anything you could have done
Speaker 1: that would have stopped this terrible incident? Yeah, stopping beholden
Speaker 1: to the NRA, like President Trump is. He does President
Speaker 1: Trump's bidding. Remember after the shooting in Las Vegas, he said, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna ban the bum stocks. Did he ban the
Speaker 1: bum stocks? No? Because the NRA came crashing down. She's wrong.
Speaker 1: They did band bump stocks. They are now illegal to own,
Speaker 1: by or sell. President Trump took that action and issued
Speaker 1: the band gave them ninety days to turn them in
Speaker 1: or bump stocks, as some of you know, it's really
Speaker 1: just a thing that allows you to engage in a
Speaker 1: type of a method of firing a weapon. But does
Speaker 1: do you think that the fact checkers the Washington Post
Speaker 1: are running around with their hair on fire. I mean
Speaker 1: maybe they put it on some back page somewhere, But
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, Juliah Brand lied about Trump and bumping now,
Speaker 1: of course not because it's when Julah Brand lies, you see,
Speaker 1: it's a good lie. This is the way the media
Speaker 1: breaks this stuff down. This is how the Democrats view it.
Speaker 1: They are good lies and bad lies. When Trump lies
Speaker 1: bad and it's not even necessarily a lie. When Trump
Speaker 1: says that he's the handsomest they call him a liar.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you think Trump is the handsomest
Speaker 1: man in the world or not. But the President is
Speaker 1: allowed to think that and say that without everyone jumping
Speaker 1: down is you know, jumping on his chest yelling about
Speaker 1: how he's a liar. He's not a liar. He may
Speaker 1: be may have a little bit of a high self regard,
Speaker 1: perhaps a little narcissistic, but it's not a liar. Jilla
Speaker 1: Brand is a liar saying things about the NRA that
Speaker 1: aren't true. The worst organization in America, though, isn't that remarkable?
Speaker 1: You know, I'm somebody who's paid NRA dues. Really, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm the worst. I'm I'm supporting the worst organization of
Speaker 1: America in might dollars. It's it's a remarkable thing for
Speaker 1: them to say. But this is this is Democrats, all
Speaker 1: the stuff about guns, and this is why I'm so
Speaker 1: I just have no patience for these stupid Democrats on
Speaker 1: this issue. It's really not about gun violence. That's not
Speaker 1: the that they say. That is their concern. That is
Speaker 1: not true. It is not about gun violence. The real concern,
Speaker 1: the primary concern, is showing the left and the base
Speaker 1: of the left that they dislike gun owners. It is
Speaker 1: tipathy for you who listen to this show who own firearms.
Speaker 1: They want all their little voters in the most blue
Speaker 1: cities in the country to know gun owners are bad
Speaker 1: people and we don't like them. The NRA is the
Speaker 1: worst organization in the country because that gets donations going,
Speaker 1: It gets media coverage from foolish libs who work for
Speaker 1: all these different news organizations who don't know anything about firearms,
Speaker 1: who don't know anything about guns. They just know guns
Speaker 1: bad and gun owner's bad too. Remember that. Don't let
Speaker 1: them try to create this artificial separation, because as far
Speaker 1: as they're concerned, there is no separation guns and gun owners.
Speaker 1: Leftists hate them both, my friends, unfortunately, but that's the reality.
Speaker 1: Let's kick this one off with a Trump tweet, shall we.
Speaker 1: I believe that if people stop using or subscribing to
Speaker 1: A T and T, they'd be forced to make big
Speaker 1: changes at CNN, which is dying in the ratings anyway.
Speaker 1: It is so unfair, such bad fake news. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: they act when the world watches CNN, it gets a
Speaker 1: false picture of the USA said, he is absolutely right
Speaker 1: about CNN, and I like that he goes after them
Speaker 1: here and just says what needs to be said CNN
Speaker 1: is is American anti American propaganda, and it's time that
Speaker 1: finally we are open to the discussion about what that
Speaker 1: what that should mean for them going forward. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I like the Trump let's let's it rip
Speaker 1: on this stuff. And I just I'll note that after
Speaker 1: my time in China, where I was seeing so much
Speaker 1: of the anti American nous on CNN International, Trump pushing
Speaker 1: back on this and saying that people should put pressure
Speaker 1: in at and T. You know, this is where you
Speaker 1: have the conservatives who jump out and say, oh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we don't do that, we don't do that. Not to that,
Speaker 1: I say, well, what do we do? Suffer in silence?
Speaker 1: Why is it that corporate culture has been in my
Speaker 1: in my adult lifetime, effectively taken over by the left.
Speaker 1: Why does Disney feel so fine with saying that George
Speaker 1: They're going to punish the entire state of Georgia for
Speaker 1: a completely legitimate legislative act of the Georgia State Assembly.
Speaker 1: Why do they think that that's okay, meaning that they
Speaker 1: won't even have any pushback, meaningful pushback from it. Why
Speaker 1: why do we know that cities or different localities discriminating
Speaker 1: against Chick fil A because it is a company that
Speaker 1: tries to promote Christian values. Why do we know that
Speaker 1: that they feel very safe, they feel very safe doing
Speaker 1: these things, that they can hound people out of their jobs,
Speaker 1: they can get them fired, they can ruin them because
Speaker 1: they don't support leftist orthodoxy or because they run a
Speaker 1: foul of in some way leftist orthodoxy. Do we just
Speaker 1: allow this to continue? You know? This brings me into
Speaker 1: something of the discussion over wartime versus peacetime conservatism that
Speaker 1: has broken out recently. I don't know how much of
Speaker 1: how many of you have been. This is kind of
Speaker 1: deep in the weeds, blue check journo stuff. But apparently
Speaker 1: the peacetime conservatives are coming from me. Hear the sirens
Speaker 1: in the background. But no, this is this is something
Speaker 1: that has blown out in the open the last week
Speaker 1: or so as a function of the debate between David French,
Speaker 1: somebody who you know well who listened to the show
Speaker 1: from when he used to appear pretty regularly. He is
Speaker 1: a senior writer at National Review, and Sir Rob Amari,
Speaker 1: who you also know. I mean, these are two guys
Speaker 1: I've had on the show a lot. Sir Rob is
Speaker 1: a writer at Commentary and recently put a book out,
Speaker 1: And I cannot do justice to both of their individual
Speaker 1: conservative political philosophies. And I have invited Sir Rob, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to invite David on and I want them
Speaker 1: to speak for themselves. But the issue boils down at
Speaker 1: some level too. You know, do you sometimes have to
Speaker 1: just roll up the sleeves and win? You know, do
Speaker 1: you have to be willing to use the state to
Speaker 1: achieve conservative ends instead of just the taking this hands
Speaker 1: off attitude of well, if we create an even playing field,
Speaker 1: then conservative ideas will win out on the other side
Speaker 1: keeps winning victories using the mechanisms of the state, And
Speaker 1: not only do they win, but then they run around
Speaker 1: and bayonet the survivors. I mean that then they run
Speaker 1: around and really ram it into our faces. You know, Oh,
Speaker 1: not only do we need laws that say that, you know,
Speaker 1: a man can compete in women's athletics, but if you
Speaker 1: have a problem with that, you're violating that individual civil rights.
Speaker 1: And you know, you should be prosecuted. And it's not
Speaker 1: enough to get their way. They want to get their
Speaker 1: way and crush those who dissent. What's the best way
Speaker 1: to deal with it? The frenchie in way, although I
Speaker 1: know I'm sure David would would quibble with this, disagree
Speaker 1: with this, is to use the processes that are in place.
Speaker 1: Take it to court, you know, fight it out and
Speaker 1: try to make the case, try to persuade the other side.
Speaker 1: Try to use the more Sarabamari way is how do
Speaker 1: we smash the argument of the other side. Take power,
Speaker 1: take the power of the state into our own hands
Speaker 1: for limited purposes, and achieve conservative ends, to achieve conservative
Speaker 1: policy solutions. You know, it's it's really the more the
Speaker 1: more Trumpian approach. And I think it's it's a fascining debate.
Speaker 1: I think there's very interesting dynamics on both sides, and
Speaker 1: I do believe it also revisits that schism that we
Speaker 1: all saw from when during that and look, I was
Speaker 1: you know this who listened to the show. I was
Speaker 1: initially a Ted Cruise supporter, and I was skeptical of Trump.
Speaker 1: I was never anti Trump, but I was skeptical in
Speaker 1: the early days and then I realized over time, oh wait,
Speaker 1: this is something, This is different. This is a movement,
Speaker 1: and this is a sea change. This is a separation
Speaker 1: from the politics of the past. This needs to be
Speaker 1: taken very, very seriously. Not every word that Trump breathes
Speaker 1: need to be taken seriously, right we learn this, don't
Speaker 1: take Trump literally, but take him seriously. But that that
Speaker 1: debate within conservatism and the kind of Romney asque losing
Speaker 1: like a gentleman, that is something that is going to
Speaker 1: peat itself now, I think heading into the general election,
Speaker 1: and we see it with things like how to respond
Speaker 1: to the very aggressive comments of Disney, one of the
Speaker 1: most powerful and iconic American companies in the world, clearly
Speaker 1: saying that you know, if you're pro life, we don't
Speaker 1: like you. That's what Disney. You know, this is up
Speaker 1: there with Coca Cola. I mean, this is up there
Speaker 1: with the most iconic American brands. You know, this be
Speaker 1: like Ralph Lauren saying, and I don't even want to
Speaker 1: know Ralph Lauren thinks on a corporate level, but Ralph
Speaker 1: Lauren saying, you know, if you're pro life, you're not
Speaker 1: welcome in our stores. You're not welcome to shop with
Speaker 1: us if you're pro life. I'm sure that there are
Speaker 1: plenty of people at the very top of corporate America
Speaker 1: who feel that way about about those who are pro life.
Speaker 1: And you'll note that the the converse there is the
Speaker 1: obverse to converse. The contrary position is almost never articulated.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can't think of one off the top
Speaker 1: of my head where a major corporate official in America
Speaker 1: says that if you are a conservative, you are not welcome.
Speaker 1: You are not you know, part of our family. Sorry,
Speaker 1: if you are a liberal, pardon me. If you're a liberal,
Speaker 1: you are not welcome. You're not part of our family.
Speaker 1: You're not somebody that can be involved in what we're doing.
Speaker 1: I can't think of that being the case. So how
Speaker 1: do we respond to that? I mean, Trump's saying that
Speaker 1: AT and T should be pressured because of CNN. How
Speaker 1: badly for cn AM I supposed to feel When I
Speaker 1: know that CNN anchors will individually reach out and use
Speaker 1: the power of their organization behind the scenes to try
Speaker 1: to crush conservative voices. I know about this personally. CNN
Speaker 1: on a corporate level will exert its influence and its
Speaker 1: power to try and crush, not just any competitors that
Speaker 1: it can, but obviously to stifle and ostracized conservative voices.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a lib propaganda outlet, that's what it is.
Speaker 1: So shouldn't we be willing to take our dollars elsewhere
Speaker 1: and show you know, this is really a conversation about
Speaker 1: should conservatives start to boycott two folks? Do we need
Speaker 1: to fight fire with fire. I've been around for a
Speaker 1: long time now in this game, We're not that long
Speaker 1: compared to others, but I've been around for a while
Speaker 1: and us making the Burkean HIJACKI in, let's just level
Speaker 1: the market and let's just let things play out while
Speaker 1: we make our good arguments. You know, we're making that
Speaker 1: argument sometimes while they're stomping our face into the curve.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that this really has the intended effect.
Speaker 1: And I do think that that is the recognition of
Speaker 1: the Trump era that we've been getting crushed on the
Speaker 1: government by the government when it comes to social issues
Speaker 1: for a long time. You know, we have now on
Speaker 1: the fight over gender and gender binarity. I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's a word, but the gender binary construct male female.
Speaker 1: You know, they're not just making a social argument there,
Speaker 1: leveraging the power of the state so that your kids
Speaker 1: now are going to be learning, you know, in the
Speaker 1: fifth grade in California that if if they're at if
Speaker 1: they feel like a woman, one day they're actually a woman.
Speaker 1: And this is gonna be this stuff is gonna get mandated,
Speaker 1: This stuff is gonna be jammed down your throats. Is
Speaker 1: the response to that to ask them to get a
Speaker 1: subscription to you know, the Weekly Standard R I p uh.
Speaker 1: You know what are you supposed to do? Are we?
Speaker 1: Are we to take action in response to the aggression
Speaker 1: of the left or not? And I mean action on
Speaker 1: a corporate level, financial action. Look, there's there's a degree
Speaker 1: of this. The conservative versus liberal corporate sphere right now
Speaker 1: reminds me a little bit of the way that the
Speaker 1: US and China trade has gone. You know, on US
Speaker 1: China trade, we're told we want to be free traders.
Speaker 1: Free trade creates well, free trade creates, free trade creates prosperity,
Speaker 1: and you know, we need to really focus in on
Speaker 1: this stuff. And to that, I say, okay, but China
Speaker 1: is not a free trade country with US. China has
Speaker 1: all kinds of tariffs and there are other ways too,
Speaker 1: that they they stack the deck in favor of their
Speaker 1: state owned or state supported enterprises, and they are getting
Speaker 1: a free ride on our products through intellectual property theft.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's all kinds of bats. So we
Speaker 1: can sit here and just stamp our feet and say
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, we're not going to do anything in
Speaker 1: response because we're free traders. There's a little bit of
Speaker 1: that with corporate America and the liberal dominance, the dominance
Speaker 1: of liberal narratives in the in the C suite across
Speaker 1: the country. We don't we don't want to be punitive
Speaker 1: and nasty to people because they're liberals. But can we
Speaker 1: at least penalize corporations that are going to take these
Speaker 1: this kind of a line. Are we going to push
Speaker 1: back or just keep getting slapped around? I mean there
Speaker 1: is a there's a little bit of a of a
Speaker 1: conservative uh you know, overtolerance of well, if we just
Speaker 1: you know, if we just engage in you know, peaceful resistance,
Speaker 1: if we go the Gandhi the Gandhi routine, you know,
Speaker 1: eventually the other side will see the light if we
Speaker 1: do peaceful resistance and make our case. And to that,
Speaker 1: I say, well, you know, not if you're dealing I
Speaker 1: was gonna go with this, but you know, not if
Speaker 1: you're dealing with the Nazis is not going to make
Speaker 1: the case for you. You know, we got to remind
Speaker 1: ourselves a little bit of Bonhofer here. You know, there
Speaker 1: comes a time when and I know we're going to
Speaker 1: the Nazi path. I'm not saying they're dealing with Nazis,
Speaker 1: but just there are there are times when you realize
Speaker 1: that you got to change up your tactics because the
Speaker 1: other side is just gonna cheat and they're just gonna
Speaker 1: keep winning. They're just gonna keep winning. So Trump's tweet here,
Speaker 1: I don't got a lot of attention about stopping subscription
Speaker 1: to AT and T in order to bring bring about
Speaker 1: change at CNN. I mean, you know, Jeff, Jeff Zucker
Speaker 1: at CNN should go. CNN has become, to anyone paying attention,
Speaker 1: who's honest, a laughing stock. It's not a news organization anymore.
Speaker 1: It is a It is a straight up propaganda channel.
Speaker 1: They say all kinds of terrible things about Fox News
Speaker 1: on their air, and yet they get all all huffy
Speaker 1: when you know, in response, the President says, well, look
Speaker 1: at you guys, you're you're the opposite of State TV.
Speaker 1: You're you're something else. You're anti State TV, You're anti
Speaker 1: Trump TV. I do want us to fight back. I
Speaker 1: do think it's not enough to sit around and hope
Speaker 1: that the market will the market as it stands now, right,
Speaker 1: not a free market that is fair and open the
Speaker 1: marketers that stands now, which has all kinds of inefficiencies
Speaker 1: and bureaucracies and biases built into it. I do think
Speaker 1: that's a problem, speaking of how we fight back and
Speaker 1: the not fair free market of ideas social media. I
Speaker 1: got some thoughts on this one that a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of attention being paid to the fact that
Speaker 1: you have the FTC, Federal Trade Commission going to be
Speaker 1: looking at Facebook. Everybody. This could be a big thing,
Speaker 1: a big deal, big situation. I have important thoughts on this.
Speaker 1: And also we'll be joined by my friend Will Chamber
Speaker 1: from Human Events to discuss more coming up. The Federal
Speaker 1: Trade Commission, which would be leading any anti trust action
Speaker 1: into Facebook. They now have they now have gotten this
Speaker 1: thing started, folks. They're going to lead any anti trust
Speaker 1: investigation to Facebook. This is the early stage of what
Speaker 1: could be the breakup of the social media giant. Now
Speaker 1: will it be broken up? Who knows. We have to
Speaker 1: see how this shakes out. I'm sure Facebook will fight
Speaker 1: very hard to prevent that. But this is an issue
Speaker 1: that everyone has to If you care about politics in America,
Speaker 1: if you care about culture and an American society in
Speaker 1: the future of this country, you are forced to care
Speaker 1: at some level about these social media giants. Even if
Speaker 1: you don't. And I know some of you who listen
Speaker 1: don't have a Facebook account, have a Twitter account, have
Speaker 1: an Instagram account. This stuff affects all that's going on
Speaker 1: around you. It affects the affects elections, it affects our discourse,
Speaker 1: how we discuss issues, what we learn, what we know,
Speaker 1: how we communicate, and the amount of power that has
Speaker 1: concentrated in the hands of just Facebook is pretty staggering.
Speaker 1: There's nothing in the in the history of humanity that
Speaker 1: can really rival Facebook's ability to censor, magnify, disrupt, deflect, conversation,
Speaker 1: information flow. It is incredible, incredible in the sense that
Speaker 1: it's hard to believe it's not incredible. Is an awesome
Speaker 1: So what Facebook has offered so far as well, We're
Speaker 1: gonna We're gonna come up with some kind of internal
Speaker 1: rules and commissions, we won't rules the road because they've
Speaker 1: been playing this game where they're platform and publisher. So
Speaker 1: they don't want to be held responsible for what is
Speaker 1: on their platform because it's obviously content generated by users
Speaker 1: and you don't know what crazy people and all kinds
Speaker 1: of people are going to put on there. But they
Speaker 1: so they don't want to be responsible for that. But
Speaker 1: they also want the ability to censor what some people
Speaker 1: do and establish these terms of service. So they to me,
Speaker 1: it seemed like they really want to have it both ways.
Speaker 1: And yet this is a company that is worth over
Speaker 1: five hundred billion dollars and by some estimates has about
Speaker 1: three quarters of all social networking revenue. And it is
Speaker 1: a true giant. And you know we're talking about Trump
Speaker 1: before and how he wants pressure on AT and T. Well,
Speaker 1: the Justice Department precedent that most people will point to
Speaker 1: for a breakup a possible breakup of Facebook is that
Speaker 1: of AT and T back in the nineteen fifties. Right,
Speaker 1: AT and T many of us now think of as
Speaker 1: a self own cell phone company provider. Right they give
Speaker 1: your cell service or your phone service. But they used
Speaker 1: to be old landline phones, as you know, and they
Speaker 1: provided all kinds of telecommunications equipment. The government sued AT
Speaker 1: and T under antitrust and then there was all there
Speaker 1: was a whole you know, there's a consent aim out
Speaker 1: of it, and AT and T had to put out
Speaker 1: its its patents and also wasn't allowed to just jump
Speaker 1: into and try to control the computer industry you look
Speaker 1: at So that was then, and now you know, AT
Speaker 1: and T is still around today, still a very large company,
Speaker 1: and I believe the stock did well after the initial break.
Speaker 1: But if there is any case to be made ever
Speaker 1: that somebody is too powerful, a guy like Mark Zuckerberg
Speaker 1: who has sixty percent of the voting shares of Facebook,
Speaker 1: and Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp billion of users and
Speaker 1: can determine, you know, what the algorithms do, what news
Speaker 1: people see, what the privacy settings are. You know, what
Speaker 1: is protected speech is what is beyond the protection First
Speaker 1: Amendment protection, or rather Facebook's First Amendment protection. Who knows
Speaker 1: what that even is. There's some really problematic stuff going
Speaker 1: on here, and we can hope that somebody else is
Speaker 1: going to come along with another platform and we'll be
Speaker 1: able to compete with Facebook as it stands now. But
Speaker 1: Facebook acquires at their platforms, copies aspects of their tech,
Speaker 1: and then just runs them out of business. So what
Speaker 1: does it mean in the meantime? You know, what is
Speaker 1: it to Caines who said in a long run, we're
Speaker 1: ald dead. Yeah, maybe they'll be a Facebook competitor in
Speaker 1: fifty years, but Facebook right now could pretty much if
Speaker 1: it wanted to turn the next election. Do you want
Speaker 1: one company to have that kind of power, especially as
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley left wing company. They're regulating all of our companies.
Speaker 1: There's all kinds of regulation in place that we deal
Speaker 1: with our company, or not even our companies, just American
Speaker 1: companies deal with day in and day out. Should Facebook
Speaker 1: be immune from all that? For some reason? Why we've
Speaker 1: got my friend Will Chamberlin joining us to talk more
Speaker 1: stay with me. So is there a conservative case for
Speaker 1: breaking up some of these mega social media corporations out there?
Speaker 1: Facebook top of the list, but Google also right there too.
Speaker 1: Some people are pointing at Amazon. Let's talk to our
Speaker 1: friend Will Chamberlain about this. He's the publisher of Human Events,
Speaker 1: which has been revived and is making all kinds of
Speaker 1: waves on the interwebs. Telling people good things about conservatism.
Speaker 1: Mister will, great to have you back, good to be
Speaker 1: with you, Buck as always. All right, man, So what's
Speaker 1: the what's the move that should be made here about Facebook?
Speaker 1: What is the conservative case? Because you know, usually, as
Speaker 1: you know, you'll hear from most mainstream, mainline conservatives makes
Speaker 1: it sound like they'll wear monocles and ascots. But you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, you'll hear from the conservative establishment
Speaker 1: that there's no such thing as a monopoly, a monopo.
Speaker 1: These only possible if the government allows it to be,
Speaker 1: or rather enforces a monopoly, and so social media cannot
Speaker 1: be a monopoly. You say, what, sir, I mean, let's
Speaker 1: deal of that first. As a matter of economics, I
Speaker 1: think these companies are very clearly monopoly. You know, Facebook
Speaker 1: as a market cap of something like five hundred billion dollars,
Speaker 1: Google closer to a trillion. Those are the market caps
Speaker 1: that are not a product of people who think that
Speaker 1: these companies are in a competitive market and are facing
Speaker 1: serious competition that will reduce their profits. These are You
Speaker 1: get a market cap like that because you've got a
Speaker 1: monopoly and can essentially control pricing. And that's why not
Speaker 1: only do you have these massive market caps, but nobody
Speaker 1: in the right mind thinks about competing with Google or Facebook.
Speaker 1: Like if you try to go to a venture capitalist
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley, even somebody who subscribes to the idea
Speaker 1: that competition here was the way to go. And you said,
Speaker 1: I'm going to compete with Google. This is I'm going
Speaker 1: to set up a new company. We're going to beat
Speaker 1: them in search stayed laugh you out of the room.
Speaker 1: Same thing with book. Yeah, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: ways they go about this, right, They buy, they buy
Speaker 1: people out, they crush people, they copy people. I mean,
Speaker 1: they the idea that anyone could could compete with them
Speaker 1: does seem to be but you know, but they would
Speaker 1: point well, and by the way, I mean, I I've
Speaker 1: already made my case, you're in the show. I do
Speaker 1: think that there should be regulation of this, or rather
Speaker 1: there should be a breakup of this for a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of different reasons. But the other side would say, well,
Speaker 1: what about you know, friends stir and what about what's
Speaker 1: what's the other one called MySpace? And you know they
Speaker 1: could make a comeback, right, I mean, the problem is
Speaker 1: there are network effects here, Like you know, MySpace never
Speaker 1: had a dominant monopoly in the way Facebook does now.
Speaker 1: And once you have a network like this where everyone
Speaker 1: is there's no reason for people to leave. And moreover,
Speaker 1: the advantages you get in terms of the data collection
Speaker 1: you have and the information you have on your users,
Speaker 1: they just create this massive competitive mode that's almost impossible
Speaker 1: to surmount. And I think the unique dynamic of the
Speaker 1: unique winner take all dynamics is really prevalent in tech
Speaker 1: makes it so that these anti monopoly arguments just aren't
Speaker 1: very good. So why should conservatives care about this? Well,
Speaker 1: because it's not that these companies are using monopoly power
Speaker 1: to price gouge so much that's the normal lefty case
Speaker 1: about regulating monopolies. This is a new problem. Instead of
Speaker 1: price gouging, these companies are using their massive power to
Speaker 1: sway politics. And because they're not in a competitive environment,
Speaker 1: you can't just set up a competitor to outcompete them
Speaker 1: when they're doing things that hurt their bottom line for
Speaker 1: political ends. So the ability of a company like Facebook
Speaker 1: to tweak its algorithm to disabor conservative candidates, or a
Speaker 1: Google to demonetize conservative YouTube creators so that conservative commentators
Speaker 1: are discouraged for making videos you know, all these things
Speaker 1: add up to essentially changing the landscape, the battlefield where
Speaker 1: where politics is, where politics is resolved. And unless Conservators
Speaker 1: are willing to use government power to remedy that, to
Speaker 1: impose punishments on these companies when they decide the sense
Speaker 1: of conservatives, then we're going to be a structural disadvantage
Speaker 1: in elections. And I don't see a reason why the
Speaker 1: conservative movement should tolerate that. I also always wonder how
Speaker 1: the because you know, we get on our side, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of Conservatives who oppose this, and this
Speaker 1: reminds me a bit of the debate over tariffs, where
Speaker 1: they'll just say, you know, free trade and tariffs or taxes.
Speaker 1: And the response to that now has become we'll hold
Speaker 1: on a second, free trade sounds great, we don't. We
Speaker 1: don't have free trade. That's that's not the status quo.
Speaker 1: So to start from this position of well, just our
Speaker 1: answer to everything is free trade is to ignore the
Speaker 1: reality of what is happening. This is specifically with China,
Speaker 1: but actually with the EU, with Canada, with a lot
Speaker 1: of places. And I think there's a similar dynamic at
Speaker 1: work with the Facebook monopoly break up question because they
Speaker 1: don't seem to understand that Facebook operates as both as
Speaker 1: a publisher and as a platform, right, So sometimes wants
Speaker 1: publish or protection, sometimes it wants platform protection. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here talking to you on terrestrial radio. There
Speaker 1: are all kinds of regulations on what I can say.
Speaker 1: There are all kinds of limitations and issues and FCC
Speaker 1: and this and that and the other thing. So why
Speaker 1: should Facebook be exempt and write its own rules? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, usually this argument about not using the government,
Speaker 1: people say it's a principle, but really it's just as
Speaker 1: your ristic It's like, as a rule of fun, we
Speaker 1: shouldn't use government to regulate things. But these people aren't
Speaker 1: objecting to things like civil rights laws that say, to
Speaker 1: you know, hotel owners and restaurant owners, you can't just
Speaker 1: turn away black people. Like I don't think most of
Speaker 1: the people who talk about the virtues of the free
Speaker 1: market are going around thinking like, wow, we really need
Speaker 1: to get rid of these civil rights laws that are
Speaker 1: impinging on freedom of association. So for the same token
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, to have meaningful free speech, you need
Speaker 1: to have Facebook and Twitter. You do if you don't
Speaker 1: have those things it's just very difficult your downstream of communication,
Speaker 1: it's very difficult to have any sort of impact. And
Speaker 1: so to protect the constitutional right under the First Amendent
Speaker 1: of free speech, to make that meaningful, we need to
Speaker 1: think about platform access as a civil right. Now, why
Speaker 1: can't we see a breakthrough of some of the more
Speaker 1: specialized platforms. Yeah, people have been saying this for well,
Speaker 1: why why doesn't conservative Facebook work? I mean, conservative Facebook
Speaker 1: is just why would you move on to a different
Speaker 1: another platform when the point of Facebook is really friends
Speaker 1: and family communication. You know, that's where everybody already is.
Speaker 1: So it's just a it's a hasshole to have one
Speaker 1: more app that isn't nearly as functional that doesn't provide
Speaker 1: the same benefit that Facebook does because you can't easily
Speaker 1: reach out the people you want to reach. So that's Facebook.
Speaker 1: Conservative Twitter has problems because the entire journalistic you know,
Speaker 1: industry is on Twitter, along with almost every politician and
Speaker 1: most major public figures. So meaning most serious public square
Speaker 1: debate happens on Twitter. If you go on your own
Speaker 1: little conservative Twitter website, like you create consort of alternative
Speaker 1: then all you end up with is talking with a
Speaker 1: few people who've moved over there when the important I guess,
Speaker 1: the important or the really contested public discussion is happening
Speaker 1: on the platform you left. So it just it doesn't
Speaker 1: really get anywhere that That's what I mean by network effect.
Speaker 1: There's a winner take all dynamic, and Facebook and Twitter
Speaker 1: have kind of won already, and what's your prescription for
Speaker 1: what should happen now? Right? So, I think that it's
Speaker 1: a very good start to see that President Trump is
Speaker 1: starting these anti trust investigations. I think that you know,
Speaker 1: from his perspective, he should be looking at Facebook and
Speaker 1: Twitter as adversarial institutions and essentially using levers of power
Speaker 1: against them until they decide to start playing fair and
Speaker 1: not censoring conservatives. In terms of the ideal goal, the
Speaker 1: kind of law that I want to see in place,
Speaker 1: I want it to be the case that if you
Speaker 1: are wrongfully banned from social media, I mean your banned
Speaker 1: for something that wasn't unlawful, then you should be able
Speaker 1: to walk into court and get your account back the
Speaker 1: very next day and actually instantiate the idea that platform
Speaker 1: access as a civil right, and if a company takes
Speaker 1: that away from you without a really really good reason,
Speaker 1: then the laws should step in and force them to
Speaker 1: give you your account back. Sounds good to me, all right, everybody,
Speaker 1: will Chamberlain over at human Events go to human events
Speaker 1: dot com to see what they are up to over there.
Speaker 1: The site has been doing great work. And will we
Speaker 1: appreciate your time, sir, Thank you so much. Buck, All right, team,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back and nasty start to President Trump's
Speaker 1: trip to England. He called Megan Marcole nasty and then
Speaker 1: denied it, even though there is actually sound of him
Speaker 1: saying it. Nasty is a word Trump has used before
Speaker 1: to dismiss Hillary Clinton present term called the American Princess
Speaker 1: nasty Megan Marcle, referring to her as nasty nasty. Trump
Speaker 1: denied that on Twitter, but roll the tape falling a
Speaker 1: woman nasty is not news now, especially when it comes
Speaker 1: to women of color. What did Trump do? Oh? Good, heavens? Oh?
Speaker 1: Did he did he step out of line with the
Speaker 1: with the royal family? Did he say something that was
Speaker 1: untoward about miss Megan Markle? Oh? No, he called her nasty,
Speaker 1: That's what they're saying. Media was so upset Megan Markle.
Speaker 1: How could he? How could he? Sir? Have you no decency, sir, Well,
Speaker 1: does the media have any accuracy? Let's put aside the
Speaker 1: decency question for a moment. Does that Does the media
Speaker 1: care if they're if they're in fact representing a story accurately,
Speaker 1: because you know, will notice that, you know the line
Speaker 1: you take away and I saw fake Jake Tapper over
Speaker 1: at CNN spreading this over the weekend, among others, the
Speaker 1: line you'll take away from missus, Well, he just called
Speaker 1: her nasty. And oh because she's they say, a woman
Speaker 1: of color, because she is half I believe half African American.
Speaker 1: That makes this sin even worse. Meanwhile, Trump calls everybody names.
Speaker 1: Trump calls you know, white, black, Asian Latino. Trump will
Speaker 1: swat at you on Twitter or with a sound bite,
Speaker 1: no matter what, even if he used to be your friend. Sometimes,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, You know, you messed with
Speaker 1: Trump at your peril. Trump is an equal opportunity Twitter stomper.
Speaker 1: All right, let's let's just skip past the nonsense. It's
Speaker 1: very obvious, right, Trump is equal opportunity about that stuff.
Speaker 1: We know this, all right, So what did Trump really say? Though?
Speaker 1: You know, this is really a case study of sorts
Speaker 1: in fake news. What did Trump say play clip six. Megan,
Speaker 1: who's now the Duchess of Sussex. RIGHTO, we've done a
Speaker 1: different name. She can't make it because she's got maternity leave.
Speaker 1: Are you sorry to see her because she wasn't so
Speaker 1: nice about you during the campaign. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you saw that. I don't. I didn't know that. No, yeah,
Speaker 1: I didn't know. No. I hope she's okay. I did
Speaker 1: not know that. She said she moved to Canada if
Speaker 1: you got elected. Turned out she moved to Britain. Think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people moving here, So can I
Speaker 1: say no, I didn't know that she was nasty an
Speaker 1: American princess. I think it's nice. I think it's nice,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure she'll do excellently. She'll be she'll be
Speaker 1: very good, should be very good. I hope she does.
Speaker 1: It is a misrepresentation of the context and of the
Speaker 1: spirit of what that exchange was. Just to just pull
Speaker 1: out that he called her nasty. He was responding. I
Speaker 1: mean he was pushed into this. They're saying this woman
Speaker 1: said something bad about you, and his response was to say,
Speaker 1: in full well, I didn't realize she said that not
Speaker 1: nice thing about me. But I think she'll be great
Speaker 1: in this role here in Britain. That's what he really said. Now,
Speaker 1: is it as as a function of pure um, you know,
Speaker 1: a pure one word quotation. Is it true to say
Speaker 1: that he referred to Megan markle In with the word nasty. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, even that's a little bit of stretch, because
Speaker 1: he really was referring to what she had said as
Speaker 1: nasty if you listen in context, which this matters, right,
Speaker 1: this is the I'm sure some of you, with your
Speaker 1: husbands and wives, significant others, you know, there's a difference
Speaker 1: between you were being a jerk and you are a jerk. Right,
Speaker 1: this is and this is a right, producer Mike, This
Speaker 1: is an important distinction, absolutely, man, Yeah, right, Like you know,
Speaker 1: I will freely admit that, like sometimes I act like
Speaker 1: a jerk, I will also tell people that I am
Speaker 1: not a jerk though, right, I mean, you know these
Speaker 1: are different things, yeah, different contexts. This is where you're
Speaker 1: supposed to say, yeah, Buck, you're not a jerk. Thanks,
Speaker 1: that's that's a given, you know, that's right, And we
Speaker 1: love you, producer Mike, thank you all right. Fishing for
Speaker 1: compliments here on the Buck Sexton Show, But no really
Speaker 1: like there's a difference in context, there's a difference in
Speaker 1: how it was portrayed, but they don't care. They just
Speaker 1: want to go with the with the fake news. They
Speaker 1: just want to continue to right. I mean, Mike, I
Speaker 1: mean when you saw this, they were running with this
Speaker 1: all weekend. It was insane. It was insane. Actually when
Speaker 1: you when you called me there, I was actually looking
Speaker 1: for There are several articles and several times previous to
Speaker 1: this where Markle has slammed the president and she has
Speaker 1: gone out of our way. This is, I think, to me,
Speaker 1: is another example of Trump counterpunching. She has blasted him
Speaker 1: in the past, much as other people in the UK have,
Speaker 1: and this is this Trump turning around saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't know. She was nasty whatever it was telling mischaracterized,
Speaker 1: but she has taken the first punch at him, and
Speaker 1: nobody's talking about that. Yeah. And it's also just such
Speaker 1: a stupid, spoiled brat thing to say if somebody becomes president,
Speaker 1: really you're gonna bail on your country that quickly someone
Speaker 1: comes president, you don't like he's probably only gonna last.
Speaker 1: I mean, according to libs four years in the role, Right,
Speaker 1: you can't handle. For you, there's such this thing. Libs
Speaker 1: are such emotional babies. You see it over and over again.
Speaker 1: Such a bunch of babies. I had to sit here
Speaker 1: for eight years of Obama. Oh oh, he's brilliant, he's
Speaker 1: a juniors, he's amazing, he's perfect, he's like a god. No,
Speaker 1: that guy's actually full of himself, pretty boring, doesn't have
Speaker 1: any good ideas, and you know, managed to play the
Speaker 1: system really well to get where he was. But I
Speaker 1: wasn't like, I'm gonna leave America. You know, I think
Speaker 1: you conservatives don't threatened to leave America every time. I
Speaker 1: wasn't even gonna leave America. Have Hello, Hillary became president
Speaker 1: and that shows dedication. That's how much I love this place.
Speaker 1: So I just telling people, man, you know, they gotta lives,
Speaker 1: need to take a chill pill. You know, plenty of
Speaker 1: them take all kinds of pills. They should take a
Speaker 1: chill pill. That would be a better way for them
Speaker 1: to handle the stuff going forward. Did we also the
Speaker 1: president of Mike talking about just how things are gonna
Speaker 1: go with Well, here here's Nigel Farage in saying that
Speaker 1: the people in the UK are like in the trump'ster
Speaker 1: playing nineteen. I mean, look three years ago I was
Speaker 1: almost the only person in Britain starting up fighting with
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and saying he was the right person. It
Speaker 1: was a very lovely place. What people have seen in
Speaker 1: this country are governments that get elected on promises and
Speaker 1: then break them. And in America you've got a president
Speaker 1: who was what he said he was elected to do.
Speaker 1: The label on the tin is right and he is
Speaker 1: earning credibility. His approval rating in Britton is now a third,
Speaker 1: but it was way less than that three years ago,
Speaker 1: so people are beginning to understand that he is the
Speaker 1: right guy. People are starting to get at the UK.
Speaker 1: According to Nigel Farage, to the polls back that up.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't really know, but at least Nigel's
Speaker 1: out there making the case for Trump. And Nigel's got
Speaker 1: that he's got that great British accent. But it's very
Speaker 1: like inspiring, like oh like, let's go take that let's
Speaker 1: go take that hill, good sir. You know, he's very
Speaker 1: h he's got the kind of upbeat Britta thing going on.
Speaker 1: Well hello, then he got Sudi Khan, who no surprise,
Speaker 1: is crashing the president United State. This is the mayor
Speaker 1: of London. How many of you even really care as
Speaker 1: the mayor of London. There's a reason I'm bringing this
Speaker 1: up that we'll have some problem in the play eighteen.
Speaker 1: Some of the things that Trump is owner than lost
Speaker 1: two three years London is find upon and offensive, rolling
Speaker 1: back the reproductive rights of women, separating children from their
Speaker 1: parents on the Mexican border, introducing a band on Muslim
Speaker 1: majority countries, standing up and defending white supremacists, Neo Nazis
Speaker 1: and artic mights in Charlesville, amplifying messages from racists in
Speaker 1: this country, walking away from the Paris climate a court
Speaker 1: and I could go on, and by frustration with our
Speaker 1: Prime Minister is she's I wouldn't say boo to a goose.
Speaker 1: That's so he's just trashing the president and then the
Speaker 1: media trying to get all upset. When Trump responded, let
Speaker 1: me just give you Trump's response to the Mayor of London,
Speaker 1: Connor reminds me very much of our very dumb and
Speaker 1: incompetent mayor of New York City, build A. Blasio, who
Speaker 1: has also done a terrible job. Only Zadig's half his height.
Speaker 1: In any event, I look forward to being a great
Speaker 1: friend of the United Kingdom, and I'm very much looking
Speaker 1: forward to my visit Landing now. You know, I look
Speaker 1: stand where the presidents supposed to just take it from
Speaker 1: the mayor of London. I don't think so. I think
Speaker 1: Trump is right swat back at this guy, you know,
Speaker 1: Sadik Khan, if you want to, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna come at the Trump, you better be ready for
Speaker 1: the CounterPunch, my friend, and Trump Trump throws them with
Speaker 1: the best of them. It is just a disgrace what
Speaker 1: happens onto people based on their sexual orientation, particularly around
Speaker 1: the globe, including countries where, by the way, a lot
Speaker 1: of media companies film their movies. So those who are
Speaker 1: talking about pulling other georgiinality happen to film their movies
Speaker 1: and places that aren't particularly very kind to people of
Speaker 1: different orientations. But that aside, the President just tweeted out
Speaker 1: and said a couple of tweets about Pride Month and
Speaker 1: about and specifically trying to call try trying to bring
Speaker 1: other countries along with what we are doing in the
Speaker 1: United States from America and decriminalizing homosexuality. Notice how there's
Speaker 1: no credit that you see in immediate least given to
Speaker 1: the administration for efforts to promote the decriminalization of homosexuality
Speaker 1: around the world. Also note how Kelly and Conway there
Speaker 1: without getting too deep into the into the details, just
Speaker 1: pointed out how for so many Democrats and leftists who
Speaker 1: are willing to hurt economically, hurt cost jobs in the
Speaker 1: state of Georgia because the state legislature there did what
Speaker 1: it should be able to do, which is write laws
Speaker 1: about abortion. So interesting, isn't it that there are so
Speaker 1: many Democrat females in particular in Hollywood that you'll see
Speaker 1: who say, oh, you know, women of women of Georgia,
Speaker 1: we are standing with you. Majority of women in Georgia
Speaker 1: agree with the bill. So what does that mean women
Speaker 1: of Georgia were standing with you. Well, I think if
Speaker 1: you ask most of the Hollywood and media libs who
Speaker 1: are disdainful toward Georgia because of this bill, and he said,
Speaker 1: what do you think the percentages of support from women
Speaker 1: in Georgia for this bill? They have absolutely no idea
Speaker 1: and they wouldn't even care if they found out the
Speaker 1: number was a clear majority. They think that this is
Speaker 1: this is the fundamental woman's rights issue and This is
Speaker 1: then also echoed by Kamala Harris, who is at a
Speaker 1: planned Parenthood event in San Francisco, San Francisco, where they
Speaker 1: boo you for saying you don't think socialism is the
Speaker 1: answer to this country's problems. Here's what Kamala Harris has
Speaker 1: to say about planned parent or at a planned parenthood event,
Speaker 1: which remember, you cannot be a democrat of any power
Speaker 1: or a good standing unless you are absolutely supportive of
Speaker 1: planned parenthood. Play too. This is a party about our conviction,
Speaker 1: our conviction to make sure that every woman has the
Speaker 1: right to do whatever she chooses to do with her
Speaker 1: life and her body. Every woman has the right to
Speaker 1: do whatever she chooses to do with her life and
Speaker 1: her body. That's interesting because there are a lot of
Speaker 1: things that the state says that a woman cannot choose
Speaker 1: to do with her life and her body. All right,
Speaker 1: we know this. It is in fact, and it should be.
Speaker 1: It is in fact illegal to try to take your
Speaker 1: own life. For example, you know, if someone standing on
Speaker 1: a bridge and the police arrive, you don't get to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm making this decision. It's okay, you guys can go home. No,
Speaker 1: they're going to try to stop you from taking your
Speaker 1: own life. You know you could not. You could not
Speaker 1: say as a you know, as a thirteen year old, well,
Speaker 1: it's you know, my body, my choice. I want to
Speaker 1: get married to an eighty year old man. You know
Speaker 1: that that would not the state will not allow you
Speaker 1: to do that. That would be illegal. There there are
Speaker 1: plenty of things that already or not. So this is
Speaker 1: this is this reductionist strong man. You know, it's it's
Speaker 1: always when you talk about the the pro life versus
Speaker 1: versus pro abortion issue, it's never straightforward. There's never a
Speaker 1: willingness to engage on the actual Is this a baby?
Speaker 1: Is this a human being? If it's a human being
Speaker 1: doesn't have rights, that that's the whole discussion. Everything else
Speaker 1: is is some secondary propagandistic nonsense. It does not really
Speaker 1: mean any It has no meaning except for the fact
Speaker 1: that it is drummed into people's heads as being what
Speaker 1: is so very very important, particularly for women and those
Speaker 1: of you who have heard me talking to the National
Speaker 1: Organization for Women president and ask her some very straightforward
Speaker 1: questions about why do men get to have opinions on
Speaker 1: some things and not on others. According to her, she
Speaker 1: was flustered because she's just not used to answering a
Speaker 1: real question for a person who's thought about the issue.
Speaker 1: But Kamala Harris is not going to come up with
Speaker 1: anything worthwhile interesting to say on this, on this because
Speaker 1: she has to be doing exactly what Planned Parenthood wants
Speaker 1: her to do, just the way it's going to be.
Speaker 1: And Kelly and Conway pointing out that Democrats have far
Speaker 1: less of an issue with the practices of foreign countries,
Speaker 1: I mean foreign governments, especially, let's be honest, Islamic countries
Speaker 1: get a pass from the left on how they deal
Speaker 1: with homosexuality. In particular, Islamic countries are just not because
Speaker 1: they're they're non white, non Christian majority countries, although there
Speaker 1: are both white people and Christians in many Muslim countries,
Speaker 1: but as they are majority and they're considered non white,
Speaker 1: non Christian, non Western leftists don't want to have too
Speaker 1: much nasty stuff to say about what they do, the
Speaker 1: terrible things that they will do to same sex couples,
Speaker 1: to same sex individuals, same sex attracted individuals. So there's
Speaker 1: just a huge double standard because the so called liberalism
Speaker 1: of the left in this country is full of contradictions
Speaker 1: the moment we take it outside US borders, all of
Speaker 1: a sudden they fall into this anti colonial and anti
Speaker 1: Western dialectic. I mean, they turn into this, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't want to be pushy about what we think.
Speaker 1: They'll push be pushy about everything here in America, fundamental rights,
Speaker 1: they'll call them. But then abroad when it comes to
Speaker 1: homosexuality and the decriminalization of it, they get very all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, they get very confused, very quiet. They
Speaker 1: don't have much to say about it at all. By
Speaker 1: the way, I mean, this is all really just unfortunately
Speaker 1: a function of how crazy the left has become in
Speaker 1: the era of Trump. Because of Trump's arrangement syndrome, you
Speaker 1: can't expect to have a civil conversation with people anymore.
Speaker 1: It's one of the reasons why I'm I'm just I can't.
Speaker 1: I can't just sit around playing footsie with leftists. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm a wartime conservative. Now. Ideologically speaking, here's what lunatic
Speaker 1: leftists do in places like DC. This happened in DC
Speaker 1: because the guy I was wearing a Maga hat play
Speaker 1: clip four. That creates cruelty. So let me tell you
Speaker 1: a little mister, white male primis mother. When was America
Speaker 1: great for you? You? Huh? When was America great for you?
Speaker 1: When they stuck a little in all of the sick
Speaker 1: people who wearing in the slave ships? When was America
Speaker 1: great for you? That's the price you pay for wearing
Speaker 1: a you know, getting yelled at like that. That is
Speaker 1: the price you pay for wearing a make America Great
Speaker 1: Again hat in DC. That's the price, That's what That's
Speaker 1: what you subject yourself to. People have asked me, would
Speaker 1: I be willing to walk around DC? Someone actually just
Speaker 1: said it to me over the weekend. Would I walk
Speaker 1: around here? I am in what is now the town
Speaker 1: that I call home, although New York is still really
Speaker 1: my home. Would I feel comfortable with the answers? No?
Speaker 1: I mean I wouldn't feel comfortable because somebody would say
Speaker 1: something and I would say something back, and we would
Speaker 1: have an incident, and you never know, I know a
Speaker 1: lot of people would say, oh fuck, you know, you
Speaker 1: gotta just you know, tell those libs and you know
Speaker 1: if they lay a hand on you. And yeah, those
Speaker 1: of you who have been in scraps and issues in
Speaker 1: the street, you know, you know, you just want to
Speaker 1: avoid that stuff. You don't know what's gonna happen. Who's
Speaker 1: gonna pull what, who's gonna say you said what or
Speaker 1: did what? Or you know? But you can't even wear
Speaker 1: a hat that the President United States wears in Washington,
Speaker 1: DC and feel safe. That's the America we live in now.
Speaker 1: We have a problem with racism in America today. If
Speaker 1: this country wasn't racist, Stacey Abrams would be governor. Ah
Speaker 1: go to the racism well when in doubt, Candidate Seth
Speaker 1: Molton would be Democrat nominee for the presidency. He knows
Speaker 1: that that the move the maneuver. If you want to
Speaker 1: get everyone clapping for you, just talk about how racist
Speaker 1: America is racist compared to what I would always want
Speaker 1: to know. Find me a country that has our level
Speaker 1: of ethnic and ideological and nationality based diversity, and tell
Speaker 1: me and show me that they get along better, are
Speaker 1: more decent to each other than we are in this country.
Speaker 1: It does not exist. This is the This is the
Speaker 1: little secret that leftist never talk about here, but we
Speaker 1: are actually an incredibly agreeable with each other nation state,
Speaker 1: especially given the degree of diversity and everything else that
Speaker 1: we have. You know, yeah, there's not a lot of
Speaker 1: day to day struggles with racism in Japan because it's
Speaker 1: basically all Japanese people. It's a little different, you know,
Speaker 1: they don't they don't have different races that have the
Speaker 1: possibility of day to day racism. But if you ask
Speaker 1: a lot of people in some of these countries or
Speaker 1: have spent time in these countries, well, what are the
Speaker 1: attitudes of the people like they are truly xenophobic in
Speaker 1: those other countries? They do not like outsiders, they do
Speaker 1: not want outsiders, They do not have immigration, they do
Speaker 1: not allow immigration. So I just think just start from
Speaker 1: this premise that we're always being told how racioust America is.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the the talking point for liberals
Speaker 1: when they have either nothing to say or you know,
Speaker 1: just want to make sure that they get a cheap
Speaker 1: round of applause. It is the ultimate cheap applause line
Speaker 1: that America is a racist country. And Seth Molton is
Speaker 1: a guy who look, I mean, he's running for president
Speaker 1: for his own reasons. I couldn't begin to understand what
Speaker 1: they are because he's not gonna win. He's not even
Speaker 1: gonna get above one percent. So why but I suppose
Speaker 1: here I am talking about him on national video. So
Speaker 1: maybe there's that, But he says that the country wasn't racist,
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrams would be governor. There was record turnout for
Speaker 1: the governor's race in Georgia. Why is racism? And the
Speaker 1: reasons Stacy Abrams didn't win? What great background of achievement
Speaker 1: in politics or in leadership? It's Stacy Abrams? Hap, No, no
Speaker 1: no one even really seems to ever start there. Why
Speaker 1: would Stacy Abrams be governor if the country wasn't racist.
Speaker 1: It's the country's fault that she didn't win the governorship.
Speaker 1: And this is a stupid statement. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a dumb thing to say. But Malton, I'm sure as
Speaker 1: a bright guy, I mean, I'm you know, I think
Speaker 1: he has fancy schools and everything. But as you know,
Speaker 1: I always tell you the fancy schools and it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean what it used to. That's all changed a lot.
Speaker 1: But it also brings me to ask the question, you know,
Speaker 1: is it is it even possible in the mind of
Speaker 1: a leftist in America today to be racist a white people?
Speaker 1: Is is that possible? I wonder? I asked the question
Speaker 1: just because over the weekend there was a tweet from
Speaker 1: a verified account named Sarah raw So she's a blue check.
Speaker 1: She's one of the journalism Cadre online, and she shared
Speaker 1: this tweet, this gem of analysis. White people have done
Speaker 1: everything to make my life miserable, Yet I'm supposed to
Speaker 1: not hate white people. She's a writer and columnist for
Speaker 1: Brown Girl magazine and she's verified. Is that okay to say?
Speaker 1: You know, when I say, is that okay? I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not calling for censorship of it. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that it's hate speech. But isn't that racist? Isn't it
Speaker 1: for somebody who's saying that white people make her make
Speaker 1: her life miserable, and why shouldn't she hate white people?
Speaker 1: That's kind of racist, right? I don't know. If you
Speaker 1: talk to leftists, they'll tell you that it's not possible
Speaker 1: because of the power dynamics at work in intersectionality. It is,
Speaker 1: in fact, not possible for a non white person to
Speaker 1: be racist in America against white people. Maybe it's possible
Speaker 1: in some other country, although I think that's probably doubtful.
Speaker 1: Democrats would find that doubtful too. But if you want
Speaker 1: to test out the theory, here's an example. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the question, is it possible in this country
Speaker 1: to be racist against white people, and that's can you
Speaker 1: be hateful toward white people in a way that would
Speaker 1: be described as racism? I obviously think the answer is yes.
Speaker 1: I think this is one of those topics of discussion
Speaker 1: that we're it's so radioactive. You know, you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to you're not allowed to go there and not allowed
Speaker 1: to have this. Why why can't we talk about this? Why?
Speaker 1: Why isn't it worth our time to delve into whether
Speaker 1: or not America is a country where it is possible
Speaker 1: to be racist against and then if it's possible, is
Speaker 1: there as arising tide of racism against white people from
Speaker 1: some non white individuals in America? Is that a conversation
Speaker 1: that's even possible to you have? You might say, oh no, Buck,
Speaker 1: we can't have a conversation. Okay, fine, Well I would
Speaker 1: want to know that how do we deal with this?
Speaker 1: There was a concert up in Nova Scotia, and this
Speaker 1: is from the Daily Wire. Ledo Pimienta, a Colombian Canadian singer,
Speaker 1: asked audience members of color, Now this is in Canada,
Speaker 1: so don't people you don't have the yellow me o everybody?
Speaker 1: I mean Canada, America were pretty much the same deal,
Speaker 1: asked audience members of color to move to the front
Speaker 1: and white members to move to the back. Unlike other
Speaker 1: times she made that request, some white members of the
Speaker 1: audience refused to act in accordance with her command, including
Speaker 1: a white female volunteer who was reportedly there to photograph
Speaker 1: the show. Now, this is really interesting, According to the
Speaker 1: National Post, ali Omanic quay, I don't know how to
Speaker 1: say that. Who shares management with Pimienta said, a female
Speaker 1: photographer would not budge from her position near the stage,
Speaker 1: prompting anger from some crowd members. Omenk Kay, whose version
Speaker 1: of events was confirmed by festival spokesperson Trevor Murphy, said
Speaker 1: that Pimienta, the performer here, just kept saying, moved to
Speaker 1: the back. Finally, after saying it about ten times, white
Speaker 1: people moved to the back and the woman refused to move,
Speaker 1: Pimienta said, you're cutting into my set time and you're
Speaker 1: disrespecting these women, and I don't have time for this.
Speaker 1: So you now can be at a concert in Canada,
Speaker 1: but this could apply to America too, and the person
Speaker 1: who is there to entertain you could say, white people,
Speaker 1: you have to go and have let's be honest, back
Speaker 1: of the concert, you're gonna have a worse view. So
Speaker 1: give up your place, moved to the back of the
Speaker 1: venue and let people of color take your place in
Speaker 1: the front. And if you, as a paying customer at
Speaker 1: the concert, have an issue with that, you're the problem.
Speaker 1: This is the and you're supposed to take away from this.
Speaker 1: You are the problem. White people go to the back.
Speaker 1: I'm white. I don't think that I should be judged
Speaker 1: by my skin color. I'm here, I got here early.
Speaker 1: I I like my position in the crowd. No, no,
Speaker 1: you have to give up your position in the credit
Speaker 1: if you give it up to a person of color.
Speaker 1: If you don't, you're racist and you're part of the problem.
Speaker 1: That seems quite extreme, doesn't it. I wonder what the
Speaker 1: the concert organizers thought of this. Oh, we know what
Speaker 1: they think of this. Again, thanks to some very good
Speaker 1: work from the Daily Wire quote the board of directors
Speaker 1: for Halifax Pop Explosion that sounds like quite a party,
Speaker 1: issued this statement, we will not accept this behavior, and
Speaker 1: neither should you be responsible for your friends. Talk to that. Wait,
Speaker 1: hold on, you might be thinking, buck. They said they
Speaker 1: will not accept this behavior. Whose behavior do you think
Speaker 1: they have a problem with the music. Act. That's telling people,
Speaker 1: if you're white, go to the back of the room
Speaker 1: where you can't see. Oh no, that's not the person
Speaker 1: who had a problem with quote. Be responsible for your friends,
Speaker 1: talk to them and support them as they move toward
Speaker 1: unpacking their racism. People of color deserve safe spaces, and
Speaker 1: it is your responsibility to help. It is also ours
Speaker 1: to the performer. Leto Pimienta, we are sorry that one
Speaker 1: of our volunteers interrupted your art, your show, and your
Speaker 1: audience by being aggressive and racist. We have so much
Speaker 1: respect for the art and music you create and the
Speaker 1: space you make for women, people of color, transgender and
Speaker 1: non binary people. The way you interact with the world
Speaker 1: provide such a thoughtful example. You're a role model to us.
Speaker 1: We see it, we feel it. We hope you work
Speaker 1: with us again. That's right, folks, the woman who says
Speaker 1: white people go to the back of the venue so
Speaker 1: other people can see better because white people are racist
Speaker 1: than a problem, this is what they want. They want
Speaker 1: to work with her again in the future. She's a
Speaker 1: model for a role model for others. Now, did one
Speaker 1: of the white people who in the crowd say something
Speaker 1: really nasty. There's some report that someone said something that
Speaker 1: was bad or a gross or racist. I don't know
Speaker 1: that's not I have not seen the specifics on it.
Speaker 1: I have not seen a quote about it. And it's
Speaker 1: tough to tell. I mean, is it nasty and racist
Speaker 1: for a white person to say I pay the same
Speaker 1: ticket price as everybody else? This is a standing show,
Speaker 1: and I'm standing where I'm standing, and I'm not going
Speaker 1: to just go to the back because I'm told to
Speaker 1: go to the back back of the room at the concert.
Speaker 1: It's what you're told now if you're white, and if
Speaker 1: you don't do it, you're a problem. I think you
Speaker 1: might recognize this mentality is not limited just to this
Speaker 1: one concert. Confront your privilege. You're told now, confront your privilege,
Speaker 1: which means, oftentimes be lectured by very stupid people on
Speaker 1: the left about how you need to do what they say,
Speaker 1: you need to agree with different social policies, different political positions,
Speaker 1: or else you're a racist. This is a position of
Speaker 1: white and non white leftists. And if you fight back
Speaker 1: against this or you reject this, you are automatically a problem.
Speaker 1: This is the country that we are living in now, Folks,
Speaker 1: This is what we are dealing with. And that's why
Speaker 1: someone like Seth Moulton can get up and just say
Speaker 1: America is a racist country. Because of the country wasn't racist,
Speaker 1: Stacey Abrams would be governor, and there's wild cheering for
Speaker 1: him saying something that is just baseless and stupid and
Speaker 1: pandering Americans working into their seventies. This is becoming really common.
Speaker 1: I was just talking to somebody about this over the weekend,
Speaker 1: and now I see there's some new data in a
Speaker 1: news story. Here. Let me just give you some of
Speaker 1: the facts and figures about this that we can talk
Speaker 1: about how this is. My expectation is this is going
Speaker 1: to become the norm, and that retirement is going to
Speaker 1: be something that people will think of in some ways
Speaker 1: the way we now think about like working a seven
Speaker 1: day workweek or so. It's just not gonna not going
Speaker 1: to be the norm. But here's this piece on courts.
Speaker 1: Catherine Abraham, and economic professor at the University of Maryland
Speaker 1: with was chatting with her hairdresser one night about her
Speaker 1: retirement plans. The economists said she plans to continue working
Speaker 1: because she wants to and has no plans for retiring.
Speaker 1: The hairdresser agreed, but for different reasons she needs the money.
Speaker 1: Both scenarios are contributing to a big increase of the
Speaker 1: number of people in US working into their seventies. Over
Speaker 1: the past twenty years, the share of Americans working in
Speaker 1: their seventies has risen from less than ten percent to
Speaker 1: nearly fifteen percent, according to Census data. Now, this is
Speaker 1: there are some good reasons for this, or at least
Speaker 1: some reasons that are are only really positive as people
Speaker 1: are living longer and healthier lives. So folks who are
Speaker 1: in their seventies now are very sharp mind, feeling healthy
Speaker 1: and fit, and plenty of energy, and they got all
Speaker 1: they got a lot of stuff to do, whereas even
Speaker 1: thirty forty years ago, people in their seventies tended to
Speaker 1: just have more wear and tear on their bodies, not
Speaker 1: quite the same energy level. You know, the met has improved,
Speaker 1: not as much as I would like it to have
Speaker 1: improved in that period, but medicine has improved somewhat. And
Speaker 1: now looking at the way forward, I mean, there's obviously
Speaker 1: also a major economic incentive for people to work even later.
Speaker 1: But I mean my expectation is that unless you're in
Speaker 1: a unless you're in a job that has a defined
Speaker 1: benefit plan and you know you hit You're certain. This
Speaker 1: is true for a lot of public sector workers, although
Speaker 1: I think fewer now than it used to be the case.
Speaker 1: You know, you hit your end date and you're done.
Speaker 1: You know, you hit that golden retirement day, and it's
Speaker 1: all over for you in terms of having to show
Speaker 1: up to an office. A lot of people are going
Speaker 1: to work in their seventies. I don't know how much
Speaker 1: that's a bad thing. I think people who choose to
Speaker 1: work in their seventies it's probably a great thing. You
Speaker 1: stay active, you stay But by the way, I believe
Speaker 1: how old is Warren Buffett? For example? Now he's super rich,
Speaker 1: I know, but he's just an example of somebody who
Speaker 1: really likes what he's doing, and what would he do
Speaker 1: if he wasn't doing it? Eighty eight, folks, Warren Buffett
Speaker 1: is eighty eight years old, and he's worth tens of
Speaker 1: billions of dollars, still drives an old car. You know,
Speaker 1: I think he likes living this persona. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's he's not oblivious to the fact that everyone thinks
Speaker 1: of him like America's super rich grandfather but he's a
Speaker 1: guy who likes what he's doing it and this retirement
Speaker 1: for some people if you've been working in an a
Speaker 1: manual labor job or yeah, I get it. You know
Speaker 1: you need to rest your body and you want to
Speaker 1: go and play bocci ball and tennis and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: If you're somebody who shows up to an air conditioned
Speaker 1: office and you're looking at a screen and you like
Speaker 1: what you do, you like your colleagues, and you're making
Speaker 1: good money. And I think a lot of people you
Speaker 1: know that that number is fifteen percent of Americans working
Speaker 1: into their seventies. I think you're gonna see you go
Speaker 1: to twenty and then twenty five. I really do. I
Speaker 1: think you're gonna have almost My guests would be the
Speaker 1: next ten years, you're gonna have a quarter of people
Speaker 1: working into their seventies, and that will get closer to
Speaker 1: being you know, and I think from there it probably
Speaker 1: just keeps going up too. People are living longer and
Speaker 1: just changing. Just in an interesting little side note that
Speaker 1: came up in a conversation with a friend this week,
Speaker 1: and he was like, hey, man, like, you know, when
Speaker 1: when would you want to retire? I was like, I
Speaker 1: don't know. Do I get to keep doing radio. If
Speaker 1: I get to keep doing radio, I don't think I
Speaker 1: retire at all, retire when I don't have a voice,
Speaker 1: which hopefully that's not going to happen. Speaking of voices,
Speaker 1: I will use mine to tell you about Roll Call
Speaker 1: coming up here in just a moment. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks, keeping it real, It's time for roll call, man.
Speaker 1: It really does feel like summer finally. Isn't that nice?
Speaker 1: Isn't that a good thing? It's about time. Let's see
Speaker 1: here we have Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton. If people
Speaker 1: want to get in on the roll call party, Matt
Speaker 1: you up first here, Hey Bucky. If you need an
Speaker 1: idea for a good show, check out the expanse on
Speaker 1: Amazon Prime. They've got three seasons and the fourth one
Speaker 1: is on the way. If you're looking for something like
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones only hard sci fi, this is the
Speaker 1: show for you. It's not like Star Trek where they
Speaker 1: have gravity panels and force fields and photon torpedos. It's
Speaker 1: way more grounded in a way that we might actually
Speaker 1: achieve someday. You check it out. I can't recommend it
Speaker 1: strongly enough. PS If you're not hooked by the second episode,
Speaker 1: the show is not for you. Well, I appreciate the
Speaker 1: very thorough and helpful endorsement, my friend. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for writing in with it and good to chat
Speaker 1: with you about it. Thank you so much. I will
Speaker 1: check out the expense. I like I like escapist fair
Speaker 1: on the various channels that I watched now and I
Speaker 1: am increasingly now a digital on demand person. With my viewing,
Speaker 1: I'm i'm I'm, I think I'm gonna. I think I'm gonna. Well,
Speaker 1: the only reason I don't is the news. But there
Speaker 1: must be ways that I can watch news without being
Speaker 1: a cable subscriber. I think I'm gonna bail on cable.
Speaker 1: If I could just get the major news channels Fox
Speaker 1: for information, CNN for comedy, I would be a cord
Speaker 1: cutter because I don't watch the other cable channels. I
Speaker 1: watched digital shows a la carte, So I'm one of
Speaker 1: these great Beard millennial types. Clay right, hey, Buck, great show.
Speaker 1: One night. Not too long ago, you mentioned something about
Speaker 1: Drudge Report smartphone app not working. Well, there's an alternative
Speaker 1: called The Report. It has Drudge and other conservative newspeeds.
Speaker 1: Thanks and shields high. Well, Clay, I was unaware of that,
Speaker 1: so I will check it out. Apparently there weren't that
Speaker 1: many of us who were really interested in the Drudge app,
Speaker 1: or at least I guess it wasn't popular enough that
Speaker 1: they would keep it. I love the Drudge app. I
Speaker 1: used it on my phone all the time. I don't
Speaker 1: know why it had to go away. Now they want
Speaker 1: people to go to the site site and not use
Speaker 1: the app. Well, it is what it is, Bob, Buck.
Speaker 1: I've tried to call you via iHeart. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: call you about a new technology we're developing, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. Personal information, Personal information. All right, Bob, let
Speaker 1: me let me take a look and don't check it out, Jean, right,
Speaker 1: howdy Buck. I rather the President made a comment on
Speaker 1: suppressors that was not positive. He said I don't like
Speaker 1: them when asked about the reason shooting. One of the
Speaker 1: reasons I voted for him in twenty sixteen was to
Speaker 1: protect and expand the Second Amendment. I understand expansion is
Speaker 1: hard because of Congress, but if he were to banned suppressors,
Speaker 1: which are highly regular through the NFA, I will not
Speaker 1: vote for him. In twenty twenty, was wondering what your
Speaker 1: thoughts are, well, John, as somebody who has both fired
Speaker 1: a lot of suppressed weapons and has even advertised for
Speaker 1: suppressors in the past in my radio on my radio program,
Speaker 1: I'm obviously I'm obviously in favor of suppressors. I think
Speaker 1: the hearing damage from shooting, and this would make me
Speaker 1: sound maybe a little whimpy, but I'm somebody who wants
Speaker 1: to hear as well as I can see as well
Speaker 1: as I can have my teeth for his long as
Speaker 1: I can. And the hearing damage from from firing guns
Speaker 1: is very real unless you have good ear pro which
Speaker 1: I know of those of you who are shooting, I'm
Speaker 1: sure you use that, but it would be nice to
Speaker 1: even dampen it down more. And anybody who's ever fired
Speaker 1: a rifle with a suppressor on it knows that this
Speaker 1: is not it's not p pup, not at all. And
Speaker 1: even a twenty two calibers with a silencer on it,
Speaker 1: that can sound pretty pretty darn quiet. But anything above
Speaker 1: that caliber you're gonna hear it, and they're already heavily regulated.
Speaker 1: So look, I just think the president doesn't really know
Speaker 1: anything about I'm just gonna say it. I just don't
Speaker 1: think he knows anything about suppressors and probably has a
Speaker 1: action movie view of them, as you can run around
Speaker 1: with a silencer on an MP five, for example, and
Speaker 1: it just goes pupe pup. It does not go pupu.
Speaker 1: So as you can tell it like making that noise,
Speaker 1: it's much louder than that. Josh, Right, how about love
Speaker 1: the show. I've been listening since the early Blazed days.
Speaker 1: On Friday, you hinted at a founding father that family
Speaker 1: lore says you're related to. You said the forgotten Founder.
Speaker 1: So my guess is John Jay. He was a huge
Speaker 1: contributor to early America. You never hear his name. Am
Speaker 1: I close? Shields high? Josh, Josh, it's a good guess,
Speaker 1: but I can't say it's close, because that's not, in
Speaker 1: fact the one that I am, according to family were
Speaker 1: related to. According to family lare I am related to
Speaker 1: George Mason pretty directly. I mean the family tree is
Speaker 1: like a well it's not a telephone pole. That would
Speaker 1: be weird, but it's a pretty straight line according to again,
Speaker 1: according to family law, I don't know. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't spend as much time on these things, as some
Speaker 1: other folks do. But that is at least a story
Speaker 1: that we tell people drinking mint julips the cocktail parties
Speaker 1: in the South out on a lawn, because that's how
Speaker 1: we do. John right shields high Fan since the real
Speaker 1: news days, Man, so many of you the listen have
Speaker 1: been with me for many, many years now, and that
Speaker 1: is a huge testament, and I really really do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I heard that the sharn Noble guy, a Russian, said
Speaker 1: something about gun deaths in America. I find this amazing
Speaker 1: that someone from mother Russia, where a gun was made
Speaker 1: that has killed countless numbers of people, tries to make
Speaker 1: America and American guns the problem. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of times folks like this just like to throw this
Speaker 1: stuff out so they get invited to the elite parties
Speaker 1: where they serve bacon rap shrimp. Combie Bear leaves John.
Speaker 1: First of all, bacon rap shrimp are incredible, So we
Speaker 1: start with that fundamental truth. I cannot just let that
Speaker 1: go without noting. Now the real question, though, is if
Speaker 1: you could only have one, do you go bacon rap
Speaker 1: shrimp or scalop rap shrimp or I'm sorry, wait, bacon
Speaker 1: rap scalops, scalop rap shrimp. WHOA, that was weird. I
Speaker 1: don't know about that. That's the different dish. No bacon
Speaker 1: rap scallop or bacon rap shrimp. I probably go the scalop.
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you. It's a little bougie of me.
Speaker 1: As to your point about Russia, I don't know who
Speaker 1: this Russian is that had this about the guns. But
Speaker 1: a lot of people all over the world try to
Speaker 1: dump on America because they make it makes them They
Speaker 1: think it makes them sound more sophisticated, more in touch
Speaker 1: with you know, blah blah whatever. So that's not unusual,
Speaker 1: but we tend to ignore them. Ben writes, your Bill
Speaker 1: Barr impression is on point. Great work. Did I do
Speaker 1: a Bill Barr impression? I don't remember if I did,
Speaker 1: and it was on point. That's great, But I feel
Speaker 1: like I don't remember doing that, but I might have
Speaker 1: done it. I don't remember a lot of things that
Speaker 1: I say on this show, which is always sometimes the
Speaker 1: better things I say just come out of my mouth
Speaker 1: because that stream of consciousness, and somebody will point out
Speaker 1: to me that thing you said last week about the thing,
Speaker 1: and I'll say Yeah, that was amazing. Did I really
Speaker 1: say that? Did that really come out of my mouth?
Speaker 1: But that does tend to happen. Here we go, Sean says,
Speaker 1: I think it's rather appropriate and hilarious that your Joy
Speaker 1: beharror impression sounds like Harvey Fierstein. Well, look, it's Joy
Speaker 1: bay Aha on the View. You know here. She is
Speaker 1: just getting paid millions to talk like this to everyone
Speaker 1: you know here, I am. It's got to go a
Speaker 1: little higher, you know. Yeah, why is Trump so terrible?
Speaker 1: Why is Trump awful? I don't read anything, I don't
Speaker 1: know anything, but I'm on the View, and people listen
Speaker 1: to me because I wear glasses like a person who
Speaker 1: knows things. That's pretty much Joy Behar. I think you've
Speaker 1: got joy right there. I think I managed to nail it.
Speaker 1: Roger Rites, watch the Americans. It's a great show, Roger.
Speaker 1: That is my plan. It is top of my queue
Speaker 1: as soon as I finished Billions. The Americans as of
Speaker 1: now will be next. Mike Rites, Hey back, I turned
Speaker 1: my wife Peggy onto your show. She's a fan. Well, Mike,
Speaker 1: good job marrying a woman who has good taste in
Speaker 1: radio shows. One of our many activities together now includes
Speaker 1: you full disclosure. She saw you for the first time
Speaker 1: on Fox the other night and said, oh boy, he
Speaker 1: needs to do something with that hair and lose the beard. Personally,
Speaker 1: I don't care what you look like. Just keep doing
Speaker 1: a great job. Shields shields high and Mike, you know, man,
Speaker 1: it's I'm just I do need to get a haircut.
Speaker 1: I will, I will. She's right about that. The hair
Speaker 1: is out of control right now. I mean it is,
Speaker 1: the poof is, the swoop is major. And as to
Speaker 1: the beard, you know, it's getting hot, so the beard
Speaker 1: may go. The beard may go. I've kept it for
Speaker 1: a while. I don't know. And some of my Original
Speaker 1: Saturday Squad is like, stop talking about your stupid beard
Speaker 1: and tell us things that are worth hearing. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, your voices have been heard. Original team Buck
Speaker 1: gets very salty with me sometimes, but then I know
Speaker 1: that it's I know that it's all love, so I'm
Speaker 1: okay with it. But you know, they'll say, like, you
Speaker 1: look like you put on a few pounds time to
Speaker 1: get a hair cut. That last segment was boring. But
Speaker 1: I know that they're the ones who love me, so
Speaker 1: it's you or that they are some of those who
Speaker 1: love me, so I'm okay. But they're not the only ones, hopefully.
Speaker 1: Sometimes their love is tough, it's little. It's a little
Speaker 1: bit of salty love. Sandra Rights enjoyed the shout out workouts.
Speaker 1: By the way, the only guy who makes sense to
Speaker 1: me and thousand of others is the natural bodybuilder and
Speaker 1: coach Tom Venuto. And he's got a bunch of books.
Speaker 1: He's excellent. He's won eight top competitions for natural bodybuilders. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, Sandra, I'm somebody who has never had any
Speaker 1: interest in taking these uh, I mean quite obviously, I've
Speaker 1: never done it, so I don't have an interest in
Speaker 1: taking this stuff that makes you get like really big.
Speaker 1: But I'm I'm trying to see there. Everything's funny when
Speaker 1: the other conversation about well, I don't want to get
Speaker 1: too big with muscle. No, no, the problem is I
Speaker 1: don't want to get too big with chubb So I'm
Speaker 1: just trying to put on some muscle to avoid getting
Speaker 1: the big with the chubbiness. It's a different problem of bigness.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's all about health. It's all about
Speaker 1: feeling good about yourself, feeling good in your skin, looking
Speaker 1: good in your clothes. You know, everyone to each his own.
Speaker 1: You know, some people look better with a little a
Speaker 1: little extra going on, or you know, they got their
Speaker 1: own thing going on. And we live in this man
Speaker 1: society is more superficial than ever be for it is
Speaker 1: absolutely true. And physical beauty is more highly prized and
Speaker 1: monetizeable than ever before too. So you know, there's all
Speaker 1: this pressure on all of us all the time. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's just like we need to all just start wearing sweats,
Speaker 1: just start hanging out. I'll worry about it. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure that's the idea, but it might be an idea.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, Corey, Sir Buckman, I feel I've held
Speaker 1: my thoughts back long enough on the Uber issue. Though
Speaker 1: I find myself more in the middle of the road,
Speaker 1: leaning toward your viewpoint. I also could see where it
Speaker 1: could have the potential to encourage discrimination. The phrase try
Speaker 1: hailing an myc taxi at two Amasa black Man comes
Speaker 1: to mind. So long as Uber employees honest brokers, it
Speaker 1: shouldn't be an issue. Shields a shields high onwards and upwards.
Speaker 1: Tally ho, Well, Corey, the whole getting a cab at
Speaker 1: two am thing. I've actually done some research on this
Speaker 1: and talked about on the past. It's not true the
Speaker 1: way people think it's true, meaning that it's not a
Speaker 1: discrimination against against African American passengers by white drivers. It's
Speaker 1: actually almost entirely South Asian drivers in the city of
Speaker 1: New York, and the discrimination issue is not nearly as
Speaker 1: clear cut as people are led to believe. A lot
Speaker 1: of times they just don't want to go far out
Speaker 1: of Manhattan, where they have generally the fastest and the
Speaker 1: quickest trips, because they don't want to get stuck in traffic,
Speaker 1: or they're signing off at the end of their shift.
Speaker 1: So I just I have a lot of thoughts in
Speaker 1: the NYC taxi issue. And as for uber No, I
Speaker 1: still think that it's better. It's better for people to
Speaker 1: have accountability in their business transactions. You know, if you're
Speaker 1: if you're really if you're somebody who's a really bad tipper.
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's a problem with people knowing
Speaker 1: that you're a bad tipper. I don't know. I think
Speaker 1: that that's fair if we're allowed to if we are
Speaker 1: allowed to assess the other side, if I'm allowed to say,
Speaker 1: and I have that this doctor was terrible, was a
Speaker 1: jerk and didn't know anything. For example, like yet the
Speaker 1: doctor'd be like, this patient always shows up late, isn't
Speaker 1: you know, doesn't want to play ball, and isn't going
Speaker 1: to listen to me? I don't I know. I look,
Speaker 1: you got a lot of you disagree with me on this,
Speaker 1: and I like that. I like it when we keep
Speaker 1: things spicy in the family. But I am not backing
Speaker 1: down on this position yet. I have not yet had
Speaker 1: the compelling moment of Oooh, I guess. I guess they
Speaker 1: were right and I was wrong because I'm a radio
Speaker 1: hosts willing to say that, unlike many of them who
Speaker 1: always talk about how fantastic and perfect they are. That's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for the Show Today team. You're all fantastic,
Speaker 1: wonderful and perfect. That I do know for sure. I'm
Speaker 1: excited to talk to you all, same time, same place.
Speaker 1: Shield's high