Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Buck is back team,
Speaker 1: and I'm excited to be here, of course, to break
Speaker 1: down all the latest like shutdown, impeachment. Now Hillary torches,
Speaker 1: Burney says nobody likes him, AOC wants billionaire power. Harward
Speaker 1: goes to CNN, and of course Ivan Nati might be
Speaker 1: in el Chapo's former self, added Moore. Coming up. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake, American great, You're a great American Again, the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, now
Speaker 1: he used to impeach this president. You did not allow
Speaker 1: him to call any witnesses. He could not have a
Speaker 1: lawyer present during the House Intel Committee. This has been
Speaker 1: a partisan railroad job, and you're asking for fairness and Senate.
Speaker 1: You violated every norm of what we do. It took
Speaker 1: five years for Star to look at Clinton, Mueller looked
Speaker 1: at Trump for almost two years, and you took forty
Speaker 1: eight days. So here's what I would say. The sooner
Speaker 1: this is over, the better for the country. When get
Speaker 1: back to the business of the American people and do
Speaker 1: things that really matter to them. I've seen. I've been
Speaker 1: very consistent. I supported Mueller. I trusted him to be fair.
Speaker 1: This has been a political hit job. This is political revenge,
Speaker 1: and what they're doing to the presidency is a danger
Speaker 1: to the institution itself. Welcome everybody to the Buck Sections Show.
Speaker 1: Hopefully you recognize the voice after a few days of
Speaker 1: being out, very successful and somewhat relaxing trip in California.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you about later on in the show. That's
Speaker 1: the most that I plan on being absent the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut until after election Day. So that's it. It's just
Speaker 1: me and producer Mark here in the Hut. Ride or die.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, We're not going anywhere, my friend. We ride together,
Speaker 1: We die together. Bad boys for life. Oh, I'm taking
Speaker 1: a couple of days off here. Okay, well he's gonna
Speaker 1: take a couple of days off. But I'm back, baby,
Speaker 1: and I'm excited about it. Yeah, my man, Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: there laying down for you the truth of what's really
Speaker 1: going on with this impeachment sham. And it is a sham,
Speaker 1: as I have been telling you. We've seen now the schedule,
Speaker 1: we know more or less how this is going to
Speaker 1: shake out. The President's not going to be removed from office.
Speaker 1: That's been understood from the beginning. But Democrats are increasingly desperate.
Speaker 1: They know it's not really going to work, and what
Speaker 1: was this all about. There's fighting among Democrat candidates that's
Speaker 1: getting nastier and nastier as the Iowa Caucuses approaches. The
Speaker 1: tension is rising and people are more linth than ever
Speaker 1: to lie to misdirect. That's why you come here to
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut, because we will crush all those commies.
Speaker 1: We will slash and burn all the lies. That is
Speaker 1: what we do here. So we know that there's going
Speaker 1: to be a apparently truncated Senate trial that could change
Speaker 1: depending on how the witness portion of this goes. But
Speaker 1: over the next couple of days, you're going to have
Speaker 1: the Senate producing Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, looking at the
Speaker 1: different components of the trial and coming to a conclusion.
Speaker 1: And this just reminds me of what I've been saying
Speaker 1: all along, which is that I don't think that they
Speaker 1: should allow for there to be more witnesses to be called.
Speaker 1: I don't think that they should do the work that
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives the Democrat House was unwilling to do.
Speaker 1: To borrow from John Madden because producer Mark is always
Speaker 1: teaching me about sports and his video game Circa two
Speaker 1: thousand and two thousand and four on PlayStation. Don't try
Speaker 1: to intercept it. Just wap it down. Just wap it down.
Speaker 1: It's not my new favorite thing to say. Some of
Speaker 1: you will remember that. Others you're like, what is Buck
Speaker 1: talking about? It means don't try to get cute, don't
Speaker 1: try to make the Democrats marinate in the agony of
Speaker 1: their hypocrisy. Just shut this thing down. That's what should
Speaker 1: be done here. That it should be dismissed with prejudice.
Speaker 1: And that is also what is said in the trial memorandum.
Speaker 1: I read the trial memorandum. It's about one hundred and
Speaker 1: ten pages. It's it's worth at least reading executive summary
Speaker 1: if you get a minute. Well, actually know, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you about it. You don't read it, That's why I'm here.
Speaker 1: But then the rest of it goes into some greater detail.
Speaker 1: Here the top lines on it. Here, here's the most
Speaker 1: important stuff, because this is finally the president getting people
Speaker 1: on his side to present their case formally in a
Speaker 1: written document about I guess all documents are written in
Speaker 1: some way, right, but about how this whole thing is absurd,
Speaker 1: it's wrong, it's unethical, it's a desperation play by very
Speaker 1: desperate Democrats. And here's one line from it that I
Speaker 1: particularly liked. The articles of impeachment quote should be rejected
Speaker 1: and the president should immediately be acquitted according to his
Speaker 1: trial memorandum, at least none by the White House. He's
Speaker 1: got his legal team, he's got people that have finally
Speaker 1: come together to make the argument. This is what I've
Speaker 1: been saying. No, No, the Democrats want this to be
Speaker 1: a circus. A circus is better for them, even if
Speaker 1: it doesn't work out in the end with the president
Speaker 1: being removed. They know that won't happen. But they also
Speaker 1: don't want people to pay too close attention to the
Speaker 1: arguments that Democrats are going to be making against each other.
Speaker 1: Right now, you see one of the problems they have
Speaker 1: is that anyone and you see this, and we'll get
Speaker 1: into this in more detail, who tries to take down
Speaker 1: Biden as the front runner is going to make arguments
Speaker 1: that by their very nature tie into the arguments Trump
Speaker 1: will make about Biden's corruption. For example, about Biden being
Speaker 1: too old, out of touch, too white, too male, too whatever.
Speaker 1: These are things that Trump will be saying down the line,
Speaker 1: so there's that risk. Democrats would rather have this just
Speaker 1: fought out among primary voters and in the Democrat friendly media.
Speaker 1: They don't want too many people paying attention to the
Speaker 1: nastiness among these candidates on the left. They also don't
Speaker 1: want people to look at what's really going on in
Speaker 1: this country. Oh, the war you were on that didn't happen,
Speaker 1: the genocide of the Kurds that didn't happen, the collapse
Speaker 1: of the economy that didn't happen, the trade war with
Speaker 1: China that we are winning. By the way, where is
Speaker 1: it exactly that Trump is such a massive failure, I
Speaker 1: mean a point of failure. They don't really have much,
Speaker 1: do they. And if they didn't have the ability, if
Speaker 1: the media, the Democrats one and the same, if they
Speaker 1: couldn't fill the airwaves with all of these stories about
Speaker 1: the impeachment and how Trump is so evil and must
Speaker 1: be removed and fighting out about all this detail, treating
Speaker 1: this like a criminal, leading legal proceeding when it suits them,
Speaker 1: and then abandoning any pretense of due process. That's what
Speaker 1: the Democrats do the second that it won't work out
Speaker 1: in their favor. Anyone who is fair minded looks at
Speaker 1: this and understands exactly or is this has been a
Speaker 1: partisan hitch job from day one. Lindsay Graham is correct.
Speaker 1: The articles should be rejected, the president should be immediately acquitted.
Speaker 1: The plan, by the way, is Senate trial to start
Speaker 1: at one pm Eastern Tuesday. McConnell wants to give each
Speaker 1: side twenty four hours to make their case. Of course,
Speaker 1: of a couple of days. Democrats, well, this could end
Speaker 1: before Trump even gives the State of the Union address,
Speaker 1: and I certainly hope that it does. It's going to
Speaker 1: be quite a State of the Union address, by the way.
Speaker 1: We'll be entertaining that much, I can't assure you. But
Speaker 1: there are some very important parts of this trauma, random
Speaker 1: about the impeachment that I wanted to spend some time
Speaker 1: with you on. And then we'll move on to AOC
Speaker 1: as a Marxist, a full on Marxist. Okay, this is now.
Speaker 1: We're now past the oh we're gonna be Sweden. We're
Speaker 1: not gonna be Sweden. You've got Democrats now that really
Speaker 1: do want this place to be much closer in structured Eventezuela.
Speaker 1: They just think that it's going to work out differently
Speaker 1: this time, as well as the Democrat in fighting. I'll
Speaker 1: give you my thoughts on the rally of Second Amendment
Speaker 1: patriots at the Virginia State House yesterday. We got a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff to get into today, but just here
Speaker 1: here if you will, is I thought the most important
Speaker 1: if you're looking for a consolidation of the case that
Speaker 1: this whole impeachment is absurd and really quite damaging to
Speaker 1: the country, and the Democrats who are involved in this
Speaker 1: are involved in something that is shameful. Not only are
Speaker 1: they incorrect, it is shameful what they are doing. Here's
Speaker 1: what is said in this defense of Trump that has
Speaker 1: finally been released after focus group testing, charges House Democrats
Speaker 1: settled on two flimsy articles of impeachment that allege no
Speaker 1: crime or violation of law whatsoever, much less high crimes
Speaker 1: and misdemeanors as required by the Constitution. They do not
Speaker 1: remotely approach the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office.
Speaker 1: The diluted standard asserted here would permanently weaken the presidency
Speaker 1: and forever all to the balance among the branches of
Speaker 1: government in a matter that offends the constitutional design established
Speaker 1: by the founders. House Democrats jettisoned all precedent and principle
Speaker 1: because their impeachment inquisition was never really about discovering the
Speaker 1: truth or conducting a fair investigation. Instead, House Democrats were
Speaker 1: determined from the outset to find some way, anyway to
Speaker 1: corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a
Speaker 1: political tool, to overturn the result of the twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election and to interfere in the twenty twenty election. All
Speaker 1: of this is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that
Speaker 1: the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn end. Quote yep,
Speaker 1: pretty much says it all, doesn't it. I Mean there's more,
Speaker 1: and we'll get into a bit more of it, but
Speaker 1: let's just start with this one House Rather, the abuse
Speaker 1: of power is a made up standard. This is not
Speaker 1: a standard for removal from office. That they made this
Speaker 1: a standard of impeachment just goes to show you that
Speaker 1: they don't care what the precedents are, what the rules are,
Speaker 1: what any sense of fairness would mandate here. They just
Speaker 1: want to do it their way. They want to result
Speaker 1: the process here is meaningless to them unless the process
Speaker 1: gives them the conclusion that they seek in all of
Speaker 1: this abuse of power is a made up standard. There
Speaker 1: are some headings in the memorandum that give you a
Speaker 1: good overview of what the defense here is of the president.
Speaker 1: And I want you to be familiar with this team.
Speaker 1: I want you to know about this because the media
Speaker 1: is going overtime here. I mean, they know this is
Speaker 1: their last chance in their minds to at least turn
Speaker 1: this impeachment into some kind of political win for the
Speaker 1: Democrats and their hopes to gain the presidency in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: The rest of us look at this and say, what
Speaker 1: a joke the media is saying, Come on, everybody, it's
Speaker 1: all hands on deck. Have to do everything we can
Speaker 1: against Trump. For the Democrats, that's the plan. Ultimately, they
Speaker 1: recognize the likelihood of Donald Trump winning four more years
Speaker 1: in office, they find this untenable. I don't know what happens.
Speaker 1: They've already been emotionally broken. Now they're emotionally broken, and
Speaker 1: Trump would be rubbing salt in their emotional wounds for
Speaker 1: four more years. I don't know what happens to them
Speaker 1: if they have to deal with this president again for
Speaker 1: another term. They've already lost their sense of rationality, of decency,
Speaker 1: of normalcy. I don't know what else they have left
Speaker 1: to give or to lose, and they know that too.
Speaker 1: So there's a desperation. That's an important word to keep
Speaker 1: in mind, your desperation to make a case that is
Speaker 1: absurd on its face. Here is one of those subheadings
Speaker 1: in the memorandum. House democrats can coct the theory that
Speaker 1: the president can be impeached for taking permissible actions if
Speaker 1: he does them for what they believe to be the
Speaker 1: wrong reasons. This would also expand the impeachment power beyond
Speaker 1: constitutional bounds. It would allow a hostile house to attack
Speaker 1: almost any presidential action by challenging a president's subjective motives.
Speaker 1: This has been a feature of hashtag resistance opposition to
Speaker 1: President Trump for his entire time in office. If Trump
Speaker 1: does something, it's illegitimate because they can see into Trump's
Speaker 1: hard and find illegitimate motive, even if he has the power,
Speaker 1: even if as a function of his office he's allowed
Speaker 1: to do something, When Trump does it, it's wrong. This
Speaker 1: is kind of the opposite of Nixon Enough, the president
Speaker 1: doesn't it's not illegal. Right. This is now President Trump
Speaker 1: who is breaking the law by doing things that another
Speaker 1: president would be allowed to do. But you see he's Trump.
Speaker 1: There are federal judges Obama pointees of course, who have
Speaker 1: taken the same approach. Well, because the President said something
Speaker 1: that leftist didn't like during this was a real judicial opinion, folks,
Speaker 1: This was a real federal judge writing this down and
Speaker 1: making a determination using his power to this end. Because
Speaker 1: Trump said things during the campaign that showed a bias
Speaker 1: against certain people. According to this judge, he was not
Speaker 1: allowed to institute a ban on people traveling from seven
Speaker 1: countries under certain conditions for a certain period of time,
Speaker 1: even though that is an executive that is a presidential prerogative.
Speaker 1: But you see he's Trump. Same thing applies here. They've
Speaker 1: created a make belief standard where well, even if he's
Speaker 1: allowed to have the conversation with Zelenski about Ukraine that
Speaker 1: he did, because it's Trump, we know it's illicit. It's
Speaker 1: Trump derangement syndrome. That's what is undergirding, that is the foundation,
Speaker 1: the underlying architecture of impeachment against this president is Trump
Speaker 1: derangement syndrome. The defensness memorandum makes it clear. And the
Speaker 1: people that are still attacking the president are getting sillier
Speaker 1: and sillier and as I said, more desperate. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sex and Show podcast.
Speaker 1: The question of witnesses in any trial. In any trial,
Speaker 1: all relevant witnesses must be heard. Whether if you're accused
Speaker 1: of robbing a bank, testimony that I saw him robbed
Speaker 1: the bank or he was somewhere else he couldn't have
Speaker 1: ribbed the bank is admissible. It's not negotiable whether you
Speaker 1: have witnesses. And this whole controversy about whether there should
Speaker 1: be witnesses is really a question of does the Senate
Speaker 1: want to have a fair trial or do they or
Speaker 1: are they part of the cover up of the president.
Speaker 1: Any Republican senator who says there should be no witnesses,
Speaker 1: or even that witnesses would be negotiated is part of
Speaker 1: the cover up. So you're saying, no way would Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden ever be called to testify. Well, I'm saying that
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden has no knowledge of the accusations against the president.
Speaker 1: So wait, I'm sorry, I thought Jerry Nadler there, you
Speaker 1: know he wants the witnesses, But I mean not witnesses.
Speaker 1: It doesn't want you gotta have witnesses, you see, that
Speaker 1: would be a principle, by the way, a principal Democrats
Speaker 1: already abandoned in the House when they had the votes,
Speaker 1: when they had the authority to make this process up
Speaker 1: as they went along. No, no, forget forget about calling
Speaker 1: certain witnesses right, forget about adjudicating that through the court system.
Speaker 1: Just just move the thing through as fast as you can.
Speaker 1: Just ram it through. That was the approach. Why didn't
Speaker 1: they ask for these the witnesses that Democrats think are
Speaker 1: important for the Senate to here from. Why didn't the
Speaker 1: House try to push that issue because they had to
Speaker 1: create impeachment. They had to get it across the goal
Speaker 1: line and then try to add to it. Oh but
Speaker 1: hunter Biden, Hunter Biden is irrelevant. This goes to the
Speaker 1: heart of the matter in many ways. And this is
Speaker 1: now going to be a moment where I tell you
Speaker 1: I've been telling you this the whole time. The defense
Speaker 1: that many Republicans were trying to use of this president
Speaker 1: was there a quid pro quo? Was it? They have
Speaker 1: skipped over a critical fact here, and that is there
Speaker 1: is nothing wrong with the president asking a foreign counterpart
Speaker 1: to look into corruption that, by the way, would happen
Speaker 1: to touch upon real allegations against the Biden family. Sorry,
Speaker 1: they have no immunity. There's no special Biden clause in
Speaker 1: federal law. It's just too darned bad. That is the
Speaker 1: ground that Republicans should have been defending President Trump on
Speaker 1: from the beginning. It's what I've been saying from the beginning.
Speaker 1: Why do we concede that they're oh, yeah, it was well,
Speaker 1: he could never have asked about Hunter Biden, you know,
Speaker 1: in a quid pro quo way. He could never asked
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden and what was going on there, and
Speaker 1: that was you know, that was something that was a problem. No, no,
Speaker 1: he must ask those questions. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. It's
Speaker 1: been the whole issue has been a sham. It shouldn't
Speaker 1: have gotten this far. The House acted improperly in passing
Speaker 1: it on to the Senate. Why is your party dragging
Speaker 1: this thing out? Why is this happening? Why go through
Speaker 1: all this business about witnesses. Do we really need more witnesses?
Speaker 1: It's going to add months to this thing. We should
Speaker 1: stop this, this bogus, inflated case and get on with
Speaker 1: business of governance. Will these people just get down to
Speaker 1: business and leave this impeachment thing alone. It's going to
Speaker 1: be an enormous distraction to the White House and all
Speaker 1: kinds of issues that the Congress ought to be considering it.
Speaker 1: There's a long line of the people's business. It seems
Speaker 1: to have been put aside, and apparently it's going to
Speaker 1: be put aside for weeks, if not months now. Oh wow,
Speaker 1: so many voices in the media speaking out against what
Speaker 1: the House did and against witnesses, and this is a distract. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. Those were some of the biggest voices in
Speaker 1: the media. A bunch of leftist Democrats, of course, a
Speaker 1: bunch of smug libs. Oh, but they were referring to
Speaker 1: all these different processes when a Democrat, Bill Clinton was
Speaker 1: going through an impeachment. Okay, And now some of those
Speaker 1: same voices, by the way, are very much involved in
Speaker 1: this today and it's just completely a question for them
Speaker 1: of whose ox is being gored. You know, this is
Speaker 1: not a what's good for the goose is good for
Speaker 1: the gander. Situation, right, this is not a standard that
Speaker 1: is applicable to both sides. There's a Democrat standard, that
Speaker 1: a Republican standard. And this is why the people that
Speaker 1: always claim that Trump supporters use what about ism? What
Speaker 1: about ism? Is destroying this country right now? In so
Speaker 1: far is we have to always say, what about the
Speaker 1: same standard being applied? You know, it's it's one thing
Speaker 1: to bring up something that's a non secret or distraction.
Speaker 1: Of course, that's a logical fallacy. If I'm talking about
Speaker 1: what's going on with this impeachment and someone else says, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, you know, what about what about
Speaker 1: what Barack Obama did in Libya? It's like, well, that's
Speaker 1: not that has nothing to do with anything right now.
Speaker 1: But if we're talking about an impeachment of a president
Speaker 1: and what the process should be and what is fair
Speaker 1: for that president, what is due process in a political process,
Speaker 1: which impeachment inherently is, you would think that it would
Speaker 1: be an applicable standard of both sides. Right. The law
Speaker 1: at its core is not really law, it's not moral
Speaker 1: order if it is not applicable irrespective of who it
Speaker 1: affects and what the politics of the situation may be. Right,
Speaker 1: you establish things that are true or are not true.
Speaker 1: You know, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal.
Speaker 1: It's not thou shalt not kill unless you know, we
Speaker 1: think that you're doing some really good policy work, and
Speaker 1: then maybe we'll let it slide. People say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: but what about it about when you kill someone at
Speaker 1: self defense? Right? That's a universally applicable standard. If you
Speaker 1: kill somebody in self defense, no matter who you are,
Speaker 1: what political background you have, what race, creed, or color,
Speaker 1: any of those things, we all, as human beings have
Speaker 1: a right to self defense. And these are universal standards.
Speaker 1: This is very simple stuff, and I know it almost
Speaker 1: feels like a waste of time to go through it.
Speaker 1: But Democrats have been in this as though it's nothing.
Speaker 1: They make this standard up as they go along. Oh well,
Speaker 1: that's not like that. They're the party of cry baby,
Speaker 1: whiney children. You know, if you tell kid and I
Speaker 1: don't have kids, so I have to I have to
Speaker 1: do this from the perspective of, you know, seeing other
Speaker 1: people dealing with their kids. And I also did a
Speaker 1: little babysitting for my silding's growing up. And if you
Speaker 1: tell kids, okay, you know, if you want, you know,
Speaker 1: if you also want to play with you Bobby's bicycle
Speaker 1: or what a tricycle let's say, sounds more like a
Speaker 1: kid thing. You know, if he has to share his
Speaker 1: toy with you, you have to share your toys with him.
Speaker 1: Democrats the party of Now, he shares his toy, I
Speaker 1: don't have to share my toys. No applicable standard to
Speaker 1: both sides, No principle. There's a principle involved there. They
Speaker 1: don't don't have principles. They have a loss for power.
Speaker 1: That's it. That's what has been so obvious, so clear
Speaker 1: in this impeachment proceeding. They just changed the rules as
Speaker 1: they go. Does anyone really think what the House did
Speaker 1: was intended to be fair to the president? No, no
Speaker 1: counsel for the president, no representation the president. The Democrats
Speaker 1: get to bring whatever witnesses they want. The Democrats get
Speaker 1: to just have this these hearings where they put forward
Speaker 1: a bunch of of deep state Democrat cry babies. Oh,
Speaker 1: Trump was violating the policy. He sets the policy. Oh
Speaker 1: but I'm an expert on Ukraine. Great, this is really
Speaker 1: the buck defense that has now come to the forefront
Speaker 1: though in this impeachment fiasco. This is from the memorandum.
Speaker 1: House Democrats. Charges rest on the false premise that there
Speaker 1: could have been no legitimate purpose to ask President Zelenski
Speaker 1: about Ukrainian involvement in the twenty sixteen election and the
Speaker 1: Biden Barisma affair. It was entirely appropriate for President Trump
Speaker 1: to ask about possible Ukrainian interference in the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: It would have been appropriate for President Trump to ask
Speaker 1: President Zelenski about the Biden Burisma affair. The only reason
Speaker 1: that the only reason for raising them would have been
Speaker 1: to obtain an improper personal political benefit is obviously false.
Speaker 1: Even if the president president had raised those issues, there
Speaker 1: were legitimate reasons to do so. Bam, who's been saying
Speaker 1: this all along? Every just stopped with Oh, but he
Speaker 1: wasn't really and he was just general corruption. No, Hey,
Speaker 1: did the Bidens do some sketchy stuff? Find out for me,
Speaker 1: you know, ask your guy. Let me know what he's
Speaker 1: not allowed to ask that? What if the Bidens did
Speaker 1: do some sketchy stuff? Ah, This is where the media
Speaker 1: apparatus leaps in discredited, debunked, conspiracy theory, says who how,
Speaker 1: I don't know. They just jump right to it, though
Speaker 1: the propaganda effect keep repeating it. Debunked, discredited conspiracy, debunked,
Speaker 1: discredited conspiracy. Hunter Biden, as is noted in this defense
Speaker 1: of Trump, had no qualifications whatsoever. In fact, he's a
Speaker 1: crackhead who impregnates strippers in the back room of sketchy
Speaker 1: DC striptease establishments. Look, that's that's just fact, Okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: kicked out of the military for doing crack, kept doing
Speaker 1: crack at all, kinds of problems. Welcome. The guy's a
Speaker 1: sad case. Let's be honest. I mean, he's got a
Speaker 1: lot of problems. I don't I don't mean to me mean,
Speaker 1: but you know, the future of the Republic is being
Speaker 1: called into question here if Trump get to win reelection
Speaker 1: and Hunter Biden somehow in the center of this. So
Speaker 1: we've got to deal with reality. Hunter Biden has no
Speaker 1: qualifications whatsoever for the seat that he sits on. He
Speaker 1: is compensated, as the report points out, more richly in
Speaker 1: that role than board members at Fortune one a hundred.
Speaker 1: Energy giants like Conico Phillips, so serious energy companies that
Speaker 1: are in the top one hundred most valuable companies in
Speaker 1: the world are not paying board members eighty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month. Nope, that's not what happens. So why is
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden getting paid that much money? Why? Okay questions,
Speaker 1: why is he on the board at all? We know
Speaker 1: the answers because of who his dad was, and the
Speaker 1: at least the appearance of invincibility from corruption investigation at
Speaker 1: Burisma because of who his dad was. Okay, that's one.
Speaker 1: And then too, why is he making so much money?
Speaker 1: Because they knew it was shady? They knew it was shady.
Speaker 1: This is this is where we are, my friends. This
Speaker 1: is absurd. But these are the defenses that need to
Speaker 1: finally be raised. I've been saying, Oh, I'm so happy
Speaker 1: that these lawyers who have gathered, who finally circle the
Speaker 1: wagons necessarily in defense of Trump as he's being ambushed
Speaker 1: by these insane Democrats. I'm so glad to see that
Speaker 1: they understand what the real defense is here, that there's
Speaker 1: no special invincibility or in vulnerability for the Bidens just
Speaker 1: because Biden is leading in the polls now for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: which tells you all I can know of this Democrat
Speaker 1: Party is pathetic. The best they can do. They know
Speaker 1: this is the best they can put forward. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: not even sure what state he's in. Some of the time,
Speaker 1: the guy's too old and too dumb. But this is
Speaker 1: the best we've got as Joe Biden. People always they
Speaker 1: love the Oh I love people they put They put
Speaker 1: Trump down for his businesses that failed here and there.
Speaker 1: First of all, I know tons of ask any entrepreneur,
Speaker 1: either personally or how many other entrepreneurs here she knows
Speaker 1: who ended up being really successful? How many failed ventures
Speaker 1: they had? First? Are they losers because they took a
Speaker 1: long shot and it didn't work the first time out?
Speaker 1: Or the idiots? You know? Because Trump has had failed
Speaker 1: businesses here and there? See, well, somehow he was a
Speaker 1: part of the most successful reality ran really effectively was
Speaker 1: the centerpiece of the most successful reality TV show of
Speaker 1: I think his generation, maybe American Idols the early days,
Speaker 1: is more successful. Somehow, his name is on buildings all
Speaker 1: over the world. His brand obviously has a value. I mean,
Speaker 1: the market has spoken. Trump is a very very wealthy guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he inherited money, but he also did a lot with
Speaker 1: the money he inherited. I know plenty of rich kid
Speaker 1: wastrels hanging out all over New York City. They know
Speaker 1: they're not They're not Trump. Okay, so Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: what they're offering us. Where the where's the record of
Speaker 1: success for Biden? Now people are starting to look at
Speaker 1: what other Biden's got rich. By the way, what other
Speaker 1: members of the Biden family all of a sudden, through
Speaker 1: connection and through the assumption of access, became very wealthy people,
Speaker 1: while Joe is just doing his best for America. Please, like,
Speaker 1: we're all supposed to be a bunch of complete and
Speaker 1: utter buffoons. That's what they're assuming here. This is what
Speaker 1: the Democrats offer up to you. That you cannot use
Speaker 1: your powers of deduction here. You cannot actually sit and
Speaker 1: think about this. It's disturbing, my friends, it's disturbing to
Speaker 1: say the least. But the truth is, the case that's
Speaker 1: being made against the president all rests on false assumptions, misdirections,
Speaker 1: faulty premisses. The eradication of fairness is central to this effort,
Speaker 1: and that is what they are doing. There's no due process,
Speaker 1: there's no effort to make this seem like it's anything
Speaker 1: really other than what it is. If you're paying attention
Speaker 1: the last gasp of the hashtag resistance weaponizing the bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: weaponizing the process against the President United States in an
Speaker 1: election year, why are they so terrified of voting? Because
Speaker 1: what would it mean to all the people who have
Speaker 1: told us that Trump was basically hitler, which, as you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of very prominent Democrats and pundits and writers
Speaker 1: have been saying for quite some time. What would it
Speaker 1: mean if they've been telling us that he's the worst
Speaker 1: person in the world, and then when it comes time
Speaker 1: for voting, the American people step forward and say, actually,
Speaker 1: a majority of us, as seen through the Electoral College,
Speaker 1: I think the president has done a really good job.
Speaker 1: Eight years of Trump. That's what you get. Establishment, that's
Speaker 1: what you get. Swamp, deep state, hashtag resistance. They can
Speaker 1: handle it. They are in a panic. This is not
Speaker 1: brilliant strategy. This is the kitchen sink strategy. Pelosi and
Speaker 1: Schiff and Schumer and Naddler, they're just they're flailing now.
Speaker 1: They're just someone who's just trying to keep throwing whatever
Speaker 1: they can at Trump, anything that they can come up with.
Speaker 1: This isn't going to work, So what are they doing.
Speaker 1: They're just hoping that something catches, which is why I
Speaker 1: go back to my initial premise cocaine Mitch should just
Speaker 1: wap it down and this farce put it to bed.
Speaker 1: Let's see the Democrats trying to mount a real campaign
Speaker 1: in the public to try and defeat this president at
Speaker 1: the ballot box. That's what needs to happen. If they're
Speaker 1: serious about about the republic that they claim so much
Speaker 1: to care about. We know what they care about. They
Speaker 1: care about power. They do not care about what they
Speaker 1: have to do in order to get there. That's what
Speaker 1: impeachments really have really all about. You're in the Freedom Hud.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. There's been some
Speaker 1: discussion about lately. For I'll just say various reasons. A
Speaker 1: Minnesota euphemism is about a woman dealing with him. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people think, oh, look at him,
Speaker 1: can a woman beat him? I first point out the
Speaker 1: facts that Nancy Pelosi does it every single day. The
Speaker 1: second is that you don't have to be the tallest
Speaker 1: person in the room. You don't have to be the
Speaker 1: skinniest person in the room. We need to start thinking
Speaker 1: about these women that have been incredible that have one
Speaker 1: racist in really hard districts and brought people with them.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Democrats with the woman car. All of a sudden,
Speaker 1: here they got a run with something. Not a diverse field.
Speaker 1: We know that no racial diversity of the Democrat candidates left. Oops.
Speaker 1: For people who preach about this constantly, Democrats certainly seem
Speaker 1: to fall short when it really matters. Huh. And now
Speaker 1: we have Democrats who are saying, well, it's all about
Speaker 1: we have to elect a woman because the best candidates
Speaker 1: that they have right now, according to the New York
Speaker 1: Times who endorsed the editorial board, they're endorsed editorial board.
Speaker 1: Endorsements matter in so far as it gives other people,
Speaker 1: the media something to point to and either say yay
Speaker 1: or nay. That doesn't doesn't move the needle. Nobody really cares,
Speaker 1: I think, But they endorsed. This happened while I was
Speaker 1: still out Clobe Shar and Warren a double endorsement, which
Speaker 1: isn't that really no endorsement at all? If neither candidate
Speaker 1: is good enough for you to say this is the candidate,
Speaker 1: maybe just don't endorse anybody. But to endorse both of
Speaker 1: them seems to be an admission of sorts that they
Speaker 1: don't have one candidate who's good enough to endorse. And yeah,
Speaker 1: they skip over Bernie and Biden because well, Biden is
Speaker 1: too old and really just not up for it. Biden's
Speaker 1: just not somebody that we really want to be making
Speaker 1: any important decisions. And who knows what Biden even really
Speaker 1: stands for him. He's just a Democrat who will say
Speaker 1: whatever Democrats tell him to say in any important time.
Speaker 1: He's almost like a puppet Democrat. He just does what
Speaker 1: the apparatus wants him to do, has no area where
Speaker 1: he breaks from the party consensus. Is not a maverick
Speaker 1: on anything. Remember, if you're a Republican and you trash
Speaker 1: your own party, you're a maverick. If you're a Democrat
Speaker 1: and you break with the Democrat party in any way,
Speaker 1: you're a traitor. They're very clear on that. Those So
Speaker 1: I'll talk about rules that are different depending on who
Speaker 1: you are, But they won't say that. The New York
Speaker 1: Times won't endorse Biden, won't endorse Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: I think it's understandable why. I mean, the Democrats now
Speaker 1: are going to have a very tough time going forward,
Speaker 1: especially if Bernie Sanders becomes their nominee, that their party
Speaker 1: is not a socialist party. Bernie Sanders is advocating for
Speaker 1: socialist policies flat and calls himself a socialist. The Democratic
Speaker 1: Party platform is very close to socialism on most of
Speaker 1: these issues, and as an outright socialist advocacy on others.
Speaker 1: So where exactly is it written that we can't say
Speaker 1: that Democrats are now socialists. I need to understand this.
Speaker 1: They are socialists. They are American socialists a little different,
Speaker 1: not Venezuela and not sweetist. You know something else. We
Speaker 1: got our own version of it here. But all socialism
Speaker 1: is subject to time and place. Difference is subject to
Speaker 1: the way it is implemented in one particular nationality or another,
Speaker 1: in one period or another. It's never exactly the same,
Speaker 1: even if you're talking about a hardcore communism. Is North
Speaker 1: Korea the same as the Soviet Union? Know? Very different
Speaker 1: in many important ways, but similar enough in certain ways
Speaker 1: that you can call both systems socialist. Democrats are a
Speaker 1: socialist party, and there are some who are smart enough
Speaker 1: now to realize the party has been hijacked. They are
Speaker 1: smart enough to understand the implications of this at the
Speaker 1: ballot box. You see, they want power. They want power
Speaker 1: so that they can eradicate a lot of cultural norms
Speaker 1: that are considered more traditional. They want powers they can
Speaker 1: have planned parenthood and a woman's right to choose, as
Speaker 1: they say, to be an unrestricted right that is untouchable
Speaker 1: that can never be changed. They want the federal government
Speaker 1: to be more involved in every aspect of your life
Speaker 1: than every before. They want climate change to become an
Speaker 1: enforced secular religion of sorts. They want you to pay
Speaker 1: for other people's stuff. They want anyone from anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world who comes here to be able to stay here,
Speaker 1: and you have to pay for whatever they need. That's
Speaker 1: the party, the Democratic Party has become. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The bus Essen Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: We're providing unprecedented support to ethanol, support like they've never
Speaker 1: had before yet. The radical left in Washington wants to
Speaker 1: demolish these games, and they frankly wanted to destroy your
Speaker 1: way of life. They are not for the farmer, they
Speaker 1: are not for our military, They are not for secure borders,
Speaker 1: they want open borders, they want sanctuary cities. Is that
Speaker 1: too strong? Is that too much? What President Trump says?
Speaker 1: There the Democratic Party, the radical left, is that really
Speaker 1: what they've become? Well, you know, I think the answers
Speaker 1: of course, yes, But letting me make the case to you,
Speaker 1: because you will receive a tremendous amount of a pushback
Speaker 1: of outrage. Dare how dare you? How dare you? Sir?
Speaker 1: Chill Greta chill, As Trump says, if you were to
Speaker 1: suggest the Democratic Party has become a socialist party, and
Speaker 1: yet when you line it up and you look at
Speaker 1: what they say, you look at their beliefs and what
Speaker 1: they suggest should happen in this country, the kind of
Speaker 1: kind of power that they want to have, you'd have
Speaker 1: to ask yourself, Well, hold on a second, how exactly
Speaker 1: are they different from socialists? President Trump says that they
Speaker 1: want to destroy many aspects of your way of life.
Speaker 1: If you view economic systems as inextricably linked with individual
Speaker 1: freedom and choice, as I do, then the way the
Speaker 1: Democrats approach controlling more and more of our economic system
Speaker 1: so that they can engage in endless social engineerings that
Speaker 1: they can dictate every little aspect of your life in
Speaker 1: whatever way that they can, my friends, that is a
Speaker 1: threat to your freedom. It's not an overstatement to say that.
Speaker 1: It's not an overstatement to say that they are using
Speaker 1: the force of law so much of what they get
Speaker 1: away with rhetorically. The Bernie Sanders, the Elizabeth warrens is
Speaker 1: they suggest that this is all just going to happen
Speaker 1: because people will understand these are good ideas once they
Speaker 1: pass these laws, and then everything will be fine. But no,
Speaker 1: if you don't want to go along with their plans.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, who was a plan for everything, I think
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren has a five year plan for everything. If
Speaker 1: they suggest these things, though, and then they make them laws,
Speaker 1: and then you say I don't want to you will
Speaker 1: not comply, then they will send eventually men with guns
Speaker 1: who work for the state to take away your property
Speaker 1: and perhaps your freedom. That's how this works. That's what
Speaker 1: laws are, you know, if you're serious about laws, not
Speaker 1: like immigration law, which Democrats think somehow is not the law.
Speaker 1: And we saw and we'll get into the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: rally in Virginia yesterday. People understand that there is a
Speaker 1: real threat to freedom now from socialists in America. This
Speaker 1: is a socialism versus freedom election in twenty twenty, make
Speaker 1: no mistake about it. And if you think, if you
Speaker 1: think that that's too much, oh no, Bak, it's not true. Really,
Speaker 1: who is the single most beloved by the media and
Speaker 1: by the by the left, and by most of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. He's a single most beloved figure in elected
Speaker 1: office in the Democratic Party today. I would argue it's
Speaker 1: not Nancy Pelosi, the one that they think is the
Speaker 1: future of the party. Obviously that Nancy Pelosi is not
Speaker 1: the future of the party. Not to but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone believes that who's the future of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party? Oh well, we know that there are
Speaker 1: a few possible answers here, but there's one answer that
Speaker 1: really comes to mind. Aoc She had an interesting discussion
Speaker 1: over the weekend. Ocasio Cortez, someone who has not even
Speaker 1: a working knowledge of economics, has no idea or I
Speaker 1: don't know if she's you stupid to know or doesn't
Speaker 1: care that she does not know how the American economy
Speaker 1: works and why it is so good, why it has
Speaker 1: been such a powerful force for raising standards of living
Speaker 1: across the board. Yes, even poor people in America today
Speaker 1: are better off than poor people were fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: It's not even close. But she doesn't seem to us.
Speaker 1: She either doesn't understand or doesn't care that she doesn't
Speaker 1: know and has no real sense of what works and
Speaker 1: what doesn't. Here's her view of politics in America today.
Speaker 1: You have to hear this to believe it. Please play
Speaker 1: fifteen and what you said earlier too. I wanted to
Speaker 1: go back to what you said about our left party.
Speaker 1: We don't have a left party in the United States.
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is not a left party. The Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is a center or center conservative party. We do not
Speaker 1: advocate for we do not We can't even get a
Speaker 1: floor vote on Medicare for all, not even the floor
Speaker 1: vote that voted down. We can't even get a vote
Speaker 1: on it. So this is not a left party. There
Speaker 1: are left members inside the Democratic Party that are working
Speaker 1: to try to make that shift happen. She's telling you explicitly.
Speaker 1: She's saying there are leftists in the Democratic Party. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there are socialists the Democratic Party. But so that's one
Speaker 1: revelation that I think is important for us all the year.
Speaker 1: These are socialist folks. There's a word for the left
Speaker 1: and the context of the policies we're talking about. These
Speaker 1: are socialists, and they can try to tell you that
Speaker 1: they're going to be socialists along the lines of what
Speaker 1: you see in Europe, But the reality is that everybody
Speaker 1: in Europe in those countries that we look for. First
Speaker 1: of all, the reality in places like Sweden and Denmark
Speaker 1: is that there's a lot of free market capitalism at work,
Speaker 1: and that true socialism was tried much or much something
Speaker 1: much closer to true socialism in Sweden, and then when
Speaker 1: they basically started running out of money and realize the
Speaker 1: economy is stagnating, they said, okay, let's try the capitalist
Speaker 1: thing for a while. They just have a massive welfare state.
Speaker 1: But everybody pays into that welfare state, everybody, middle class,
Speaker 1: lower class, everybody. That tax twenty five I think in Sweden,
Speaker 1: which is highly obviously a high regressive tax, right, it
Speaker 1: goes after anyone who buys anything. And so then you
Speaker 1: have to ask yourself, We'll hold on a second. We
Speaker 1: keep getting told that the rich will pay that. The
Speaker 1: rich people, it's all their fault, you see, they'll fund
Speaker 1: all this stuff that's Marxist. Now, now we're getting into
Speaker 1: class warfare. Now we're getting into the evolution that Marx
Speaker 1: believed would occur from capitalism into socialism. And there were
Speaker 1: arguments among the Marxists in the early days about whether
Speaker 1: or not that was the proper path, or whether the
Speaker 1: revolutionary dictatorship, that's the word they used to use, the
Speaker 1: dictatorship of the proletariat of the working class. Yes, that's
Speaker 1: what needs to happen, a dictatorship made up of a
Speaker 1: collective commune of people. There were arguments as to whether
Speaker 1: or not they should even go through the stage of capitalism.
Speaker 1: See the helpful thing for socialists when they try to
Speaker 1: transition from capitalism as capitalism accumulates wealth and creates prosperity. Right, people,
Speaker 1: there's more stuff, So you want to have that period
Speaker 1: of more stuff before the socialists, the statists, the authoritarians
Speaker 1: come in and start just contracting and siphoning and contracting
Speaker 1: and siphoning. California, for example, very rich place takes a
Speaker 1: long time to ruin it. Democrats are ruining it. I
Speaker 1: was just out there. I'll tell you some of my
Speaker 1: observations about that later. They're ruining it. Socialists are ruining California.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening here. But she says, we don't have us.
Speaker 1: We don't have a left party, we have a centrist
Speaker 1: Democrat party or center conservative. I mean, from her perspective,
Speaker 1: you have to think, well, maybe that's true, because she's
Speaker 1: so far left that nothing would be considered left to
Speaker 1: her except for going you know, full che Givara. I
Speaker 1: don't know. It's tough to understand really where she thinks
Speaker 1: she's going to take this country, other than down a
Speaker 1: pathway of misery, collectivism, and despair, like those things. Collectivism
Speaker 1: equals misery and despair. These are things that always go together.
Speaker 1: But then there was a moment when the mask slipped.
Speaker 1: There was a moment when you saw what's really at
Speaker 1: the heart of this. There are some things that I
Speaker 1: repeat to you frequently on this show, things like, oh,
Speaker 1: democrats don't care about principle per se. Democrats don't really,
Speaker 1: it doesn't really bother them. What they do to the process,
Speaker 1: what they do to fair play, good faith, and what
Speaker 1: the law term ramifications that the republic may be from
Speaker 1: their actions, that doesn't really bother them. What bothers them
Speaker 1: is the lack of power. They want power. They perhaps
Speaker 1: have a psychological and emotional attachment to it. I would
Speaker 1: even argue perhaps an obsession with it. That's what drives
Speaker 1: so much of their desire on a policy level and
Speaker 1: just in general, the discourse, the way that they present
Speaker 1: their arguments to the public. AOC, while she's engaged in
Speaker 1: a Marxist class warfare demonization of rich people, AOC told
Speaker 1: you exactly what motivates her, exactly what she thinks needs
Speaker 1: to happen here play thirteen to be ethical. If you're
Speaker 1: a billionaire today, the thing that you need to do
Speaker 1: is give up control and power. So I don't want
Speaker 1: your money as much as we want your power. The people,
Speaker 1: not me. That's going to get cut and clip. We
Speaker 1: want your power. Yeah, it is gonna get cutt and clip,
Speaker 1: because who says that? What does that mean? We want
Speaker 1: your weave? The people want your power? What people does?
Speaker 1: Ay AOC really thinks she represents, oh, a congressional district
Speaker 1: here in New York full of leftists who don't know
Speaker 1: anything great. No, she means much more than just that
Speaker 1: we want your power. You also have to wonder does
Speaker 1: does Jeff Bezos, who owns the Washington Post, is he
Speaker 1: have to give up his power? Does Mike Bloomberg, who
Speaker 1: is making more waves in this Democratic primary than many
Speaker 1: people thought. Does he have to give up his power?
Speaker 1: Who are these mythical billionaires that get to control everything
Speaker 1: and have no accountability whatsoever and can just enforce their
Speaker 1: wi their whims of the American people? Ross Pero ran
Speaker 1: for president? How did that go? Oh? He was a Republican?
Speaker 1: Thought he's a bad guard. I'm sorry. He was an
Speaker 1: independent or whatever we call him, a kind of a libertarian.
Speaker 1: He was a ross Pero. So she wants their power.
Speaker 1: Also fascinating to pros some mark. Do we have the
Speaker 1: clip where she talks about how making making widgets? Did
Speaker 1: we get that one? Now? Okay? She goes on in
Speaker 1: this She's sitting there with Tanessie Coats and he says
Speaker 1: to her, it's a reasonable question. You know, well, don't
Speaker 1: billionaires make a lot of widgets? And they get to
Speaker 1: And she says no, because they pay slave level wages,
Speaker 1: she says to people today in order to become billionaires.
Speaker 1: So she takes the very Marxist proposition that capitalism is
Speaker 1: exploitation and that this is a form of theft. And
Speaker 1: then it's not really that anyone who has become a
Speaker 1: billionaire has engaged in an exploitation that is inherently immoral.
Speaker 1: I mean, as I sit here and I've got an
Speaker 1: iPhone on my desk, and I think about all the
Speaker 1: things I've ordered from Amazon that are going to be
Speaker 1: waiting for me at home. Three that saved me maybe
Speaker 1: an hour at the store. How many hours of my
Speaker 1: life have I gotten back? How much more enjoyment and
Speaker 1: how much more ease of communication have I had because
Speaker 1: of my iPhone, because of Amazon, because of these different
Speaker 1: things that have made billionaires of people. Microsoft, they've got
Speaker 1: an IBM, and right there's an IBM in front of me.
Speaker 1: I know that's not Microsoft, but it runs on Windows.
Speaker 1: So don't they get rewarded for those things? Shouldn't they
Speaker 1: be rewarded for those things? No, it's theft. It's theft
Speaker 1: people who oh and she goes. You also suggest that
Speaker 1: billionaires just sit on their couches while other people work
Speaker 1: really hard. Like, I gotta tell you something, I've come
Speaker 1: across a lot of low level employees in the government
Speaker 1: and the private sector who are really lazy. It's a
Speaker 1: real thing. People don't do a good job. People who
Speaker 1: mess around at work all day. People don't really care.
Speaker 1: It's a real thing. They're also people who work really hard,
Speaker 1: right you know, you know, we have to try to
Speaker 1: to try to motivate people to be those people who,
Speaker 1: even at the low end of the wage scale are
Speaker 1: working very hard. We have wages, and you hope that
Speaker 1: the system, the market will reward people more for diligent
Speaker 1: work over time. Now there are pressures on this. It's
Speaker 1: not perfect, but what's the what's the alternative? The alternative
Speaker 1: is AOC think there needs to be a redistribution, a
Speaker 1: redistribution of Well, look, some companies recognize that giving their
Speaker 1: employees a little bit more, a little bit extra is
Speaker 1: good business for them, keeps them, retains them, keeps a
Speaker 1: good work wars. Delta Airlines had a great year last year,
Speaker 1: and I think now they're giving out over a billion
Speaker 1: dollars dividend. People are going to get who are employees
Speaker 1: for Delta, not including senior executives and people who are
Speaker 1: high are up the chain. They're gonna get a think
Speaker 1: sixteen percent of their salary and a lump sum producer mark.
Speaker 1: Are we getting that? Not that I'm aware of. That
Speaker 1: sounds like fun, though, I think we would both. You'd
Speaker 1: take me to a Rangers game if we got a
Speaker 1: sixteen percent lump sum of the salary, that'd be nice. Okay,
Speaker 1: an Islanders game close enough? Why would I get around?
Speaker 1: Are game disgusting because it's cheaper? Oh yeah, yeah, thank you.
Speaker 1: It's all the other option. Now, you're definitely gonna taking
Speaker 1: the Islanders game Forget the Rangers for you. So AOC
Speaker 1: is effectively advocating for socialism based on the Marxist principle
Speaker 1: of capitalist exploitation of the laboring class. It's like we've
Speaker 1: learned nothing. It's like society hasn't gone through, we haven't
Speaker 1: run this experiment over and over again and places all
Speaker 1: over the world. Do you want know nothing? Authoritarian idiots
Speaker 1: like AOC to determine who gets what money and when
Speaker 1: and what they do and what's enough and how much
Speaker 1: taxation they get, and all these different components are left
Speaker 1: to them, the central planners. They get to be the
Speaker 1: ones who devised the plan. And anything that goes with
Speaker 1: the plan is good, anything goes against the plan is bad.
Speaker 1: Or do we want individuals pursuing their own destinies, using
Speaker 1: their talents and leveraging whatever assets they have as best
Speaker 1: they can, to be as productive as they can and
Speaker 1: be rewarded in the marketplace. This is the choice, my friends,
Speaker 1: This is the choice of twenty twenty. This is the
Speaker 1: choice of the direction of this country. Even if AOC
Speaker 1: were to win, if AOC were to become president tomorrow,
Speaker 1: which I know she can't for a whole bunch of reasons,
Speaker 1: would have phase your president tomorrow and she are present
Speaker 1: for the next ten years, and the country would be
Speaker 1: in bad shape. It it'll take a law long time,
Speaker 1: I don't think a long time to see, because of
Speaker 1: all the accumulation of intellectual and financial capital in this country,
Speaker 1: of all the social cohesion which is constantly being afraid
Speaker 1: these days to really destroy this place. But I promise
Speaker 1: you socialism can do it. History tells us beyond any
Speaker 1: doubt socialism can do it. And AOC is advocating for that.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party is advocating for socialist policies. It's just
Speaker 1: a question of whether it's incremental or revolutionary. Is it
Speaker 1: step by step? Is it the way that Biden and
Speaker 1: Hillary want to take you there? Or is it as
Speaker 1: overnight as they can make it. It will never really
Speaker 1: be overnight. But is it leaps towards socialism. That's what
Speaker 1: AOC and Sanders and Warren want to do. But it's
Speaker 1: all taken us to the same place, my friends, socialism.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hud. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. I always said on a communist I'm ready
Speaker 1: to start tearing bricks up, and I started fighting. I'm not.
Speaker 1: I don't know, no con brom I'll start. I'll started
Speaker 1: to get arms. I want to swim on our shoe
Speaker 1: and go Trange. I'm ready to revolution, right, So do
Speaker 1: we just see we just just hold the Senate also
Speaker 1: use grants and had some day like Bernie Sanders and
Speaker 1: you're havinge to people make all the decisions for the finding.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm serious, Shops. When we send all the
Speaker 1: Republicans to the re education in the con oh god,
Speaker 1: he would survive into twinty Grahamitian I'm like him, stre
Speaker 1: founded as re education right, the first fool of those opened.
Speaker 1: Have you heard about the Bellam working out from America
Speaker 1: solo working out for the Soviet Project for the Omnist
Speaker 1: proct There's another video from Project Veritas of another Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders Field organizer speaking in really stark Marxist terms, Communist terms,
Speaker 1: actually guillotine the rich now. And look, I know it's off.
Speaker 1: You know, he's off. He thinks he's off the clock,
Speaker 1: and he's probably in a conversation with someone. He's letting
Speaker 1: some things fly. But who says that guillotine the rich?
Speaker 1: I mean, that's you know, that's chopped the heads off
Speaker 1: for rich people. And I know he thinks he's being
Speaker 1: rhetorically edgy or something, but he's also speaking with fondness
Speaker 1: and laughing about sending Republicans to the gulag. This is
Speaker 1: somebody who's working for the Bernie Sanders campaign, somebody's politically
Speaker 1: active in this country. What exactly are we supposed to
Speaker 1: take another one different than the one from before? Can
Speaker 1: you imagine for a moment if Trump had anyone working
Speaker 1: for his campaign who was sitting around laughing about rounding
Speaker 1: up Bernie Sanders supporters and putting them in camps. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. Thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. Right now, thousands of
Speaker 1: gun rights activists, white nationalists, militia groups all swarming the
Speaker 1: Virginia State Capitol. There are a lot of people nervous
Speaker 1: about what's going to happen. Authorities in Richmond are on
Speaker 1: a high alert. It could be a tense stage polarization.
Speaker 1: What may happen in Virginia. Several hate groups supposedly some
Speaker 1: white nationalists, white nationalists, white nationalists, white nationalists, white nationalist groups,
Speaker 1: white supremacists, white supremacists, white supremacists, white extremists. This entire
Speaker 1: rally stands in opposition to the meaning of this day,
Speaker 1: Virginia on the edge. How concerned are you that there
Speaker 1: might be some people in this crowd that may want
Speaker 1: to get violent. There's certainly a lot of concern here,
Speaker 1: raising fears of a dangerous confrontation that could be violence,
Speaker 1: and there is real concern there about what the intention
Speaker 1: is behind them. Zero violence, not a mostly peaceful assembly
Speaker 1: of tens of thousands of American patriots, many of whom
Speaker 1: open airing firearms in order to show the exercise of
Speaker 1: their Second Amendment rights, that the Virginia State Legislature is
Speaker 1: now trying to unconstitutionally infringe on no violence, none, no,
Speaker 1: no even arrest that I'm aware of. I mean, my
Speaker 1: understanding is that afterwards many of the people in attendants
Speaker 1: try to help make sure they cleaned up. This is
Speaker 1: why when I tell you that the left is full
Speaker 1: of self indulgent cry babies, and there really is an
Speaker 1: emotion first political ideology, you see it play out that
Speaker 1: way time and time again. I mean, I came into
Speaker 1: political analysis, then I left the CIA, build the Bergs Illuminati.
Speaker 1: I left the CIA, and all of a sudden I
Speaker 1: found myself in media. But it was right at the
Speaker 1: time of the ascendency of the Tea Party, and right
Speaker 1: after the mid term election of the Tea Party swept
Speaker 1: into power. But the Tea Party was a major force
Speaker 1: in American politics, and people a Tea Party rallies were overwhelmingly,
Speaker 1: almost entirely, almost without exception, kind respectful of laws, assembling
Speaker 1: in large numbers. And they weren't They weren't assaulting people,
Speaker 1: they weren't kicking in the windows of stores. They weren't,
Speaker 1: you know, saying that Starbucks is oppressive. I want my
Speaker 1: loft tabe, but then I want to kick in the door.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's what leftists do. That's what leftists
Speaker 1: did when they lit a limousine on fire on Trump's
Speaker 1: inauguration day in downtown Washington, d C. The leftist culture
Speaker 1: of protests involves people saying horrifically nasty things to even
Speaker 1: things like the Women's March, and the march for signs
Speaker 1: by the Women's March was just an anti Trump march.
Speaker 1: People have finally realized that. But should we knew that
Speaker 1: all along? Were just women who don't like Trump marching
Speaker 1: a thing. We're women, we don't like Trump and other stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was it. That was all oh knows
Speaker 1: about something, And of course not it was classic a
Speaker 1: Lynskyite mobilization though right, used people's identity, affinity and then
Speaker 1: just get a big group of them together and with
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of different causes. But then you've mobilized
Speaker 1: them for something and you can use them for what
Speaker 1: you want, which was anti Trumpism. That's what was really
Speaker 1: going on there. And then you have this Second Amendment
Speaker 1: rally and the media. How could you think that they
Speaker 1: weren't in some ways really rooting for there to be violence.
Speaker 1: Do we believe that there are any members of the
Speaker 1: mainstream media who if there had been violence on Martin
Speaker 1: Luther King day after Virginia State Capital from the thousands
Speaker 1: of people assembled, many of whom had guns, as a
Speaker 1: whole lot of semiomatic rifles being open carried by people
Speaker 1: in compliance with law there. If there had been any violence,
Speaker 1: the media would have absolutely loved the ability to blame
Speaker 1: it on Trump, to blame it on white nationals. Also,
Speaker 1: I thought it was so intriue. You'll see a lot
Speaker 1: of people in the media who will just dismiss a
Speaker 1: group for being if there are too many white people
Speaker 1: at an event. Now it has become somehow a point
Speaker 1: of criticism. So now whiteness, according to the left wing media,
Speaker 1: is inherently a cause for concern. And I just mean
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to be entirely with just there're too
Speaker 1: many white people. That's now a concern. This does not
Speaker 1: exist with any other racial group in America. You can
Speaker 1: get any other group of people together if they have
Speaker 1: an issue that they care about, and there being too
Speaker 1: many of them together is not considered a problem. But
Speaker 1: whiteness is a problem. Too many white people white nationalists, Well,
Speaker 1: they're not white nationalists, they're people that were just gathered
Speaker 1: there because I mean, they've got a guy who dressed
Speaker 1: in clan robes and black face. We're not sure which
Speaker 1: one is. The governor who's a Democrat. They got a
Speaker 1: guy below him accused by two women of sexual assault,
Speaker 1: Oh what happened to me too? And a guy below him,
Speaker 1: Mark Harring, who was also not sure if he ever
Speaker 1: wore black face, after saying the guy at the top
Speaker 1: north of should have stepped down because he had a
Speaker 1: photo of him in blackfaced or a clan robe. We're
Speaker 1: not sure which one. He's not sure which one. These
Speaker 1: Democrats for your friends, absurd, right, they're so worried about
Speaker 1: all these all these these racist white people getting together.
Speaker 1: But there were also I saw the photos, I saw
Speaker 1: the videos, had a lot of friends covering this, a
Speaker 1: lot of minorities there. In fact, the history of gun
Speaker 1: control and liberals absolutely hate this and they just ignore it,
Speaker 1: they prevent it's not there. The history of real gun
Speaker 1: control efforts in America, where they're trying to take the
Speaker 1: guns out of people's hands. You're not laws as a citizen,
Speaker 1: you're not lawfully allowed to arm yourself was very much
Speaker 1: pushed by Democrats in reconstructions in the Reconstruction era South,
Speaker 1: who did not want black Americans to be able to
Speaker 1: defend themselves against for example, the clan, so they did
Speaker 1: not want them to be able to arm themselves. We
Speaker 1: want all Americans to be armed. We want our fellow
Speaker 1: Black Americans to arm themselves who are lawful citizens. We
Speaker 1: want Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans. We want everyone to be
Speaker 1: able to be armed, because an armed citizenry is a
Speaker 1: reminder to the state not to transgress too far. Because
Speaker 1: there is, in fact a bulwark against tyranny. We can
Speaker 1: fight back if we need to. And when you hear
Speaker 1: people who are involved in the political process laughing and
Speaker 1: joking about guillotines and goolags, people who are working for
Speaker 1: socialists who are doing very well, by the way, in
Speaker 1: getting enough very foolish and unwise Americans to support them,
Speaker 1: we're really supposed to believe that they would not try
Speaker 1: to control us. They would not never underestimate government's power
Speaker 1: to destroy and be unrepentant about it. Governments always have
Speaker 1: an excuse. You see, no one's responsible. It's the accumulation
Speaker 1: of power without really any individual responsibility. Necessarily, governments will
Speaker 1: do things that individuals would never be able to bring
Speaker 1: themselves to do. The collective is usually so much more
Speaker 1: dangerous than the individual. And for those who are saying, well,
Speaker 1: what about individuals who become despots, who become totalitarians? Right,
Speaker 1: they always leverage the collective. The way they trample on
Speaker 1: individual rights is saying I represent me, I represent I embody,
Speaker 1: everyone and their will is evidenced or is put through me.
Speaker 1: You the individual that I have to make disappear from
Speaker 1: his home in the middle of the night, that I
Speaker 1: have to disarm so that I can more easily make
Speaker 1: him disappear in the middle of the night, you don't
Speaker 1: count because I represent the collective. I am the collective.
Speaker 1: It's a dangerous word. You should be concerned whenever somebody
Speaker 1: wants to tell you that they themselves can interpret and
Speaker 1: can then therefore wheel the will of the people. Here's
Speaker 1: MSNBC's Chris Hayes, who looks like somebody who reads a
Speaker 1: lot of books but says a lot of really stupid things.
Speaker 1: But all you have to do is look if you
Speaker 1: look like a walk liberals inherently think you're smarter. This
Speaker 1: is kind of like I get mad at Americans. I
Speaker 1: think I've got a British accent, and actually you've got
Speaker 1: to have a fancier accent. If you're going to think
Speaker 1: you're really smart. No, having British accent doesn't make you smart.
Speaker 1: Looking like a nerd with glasses doesn't make you smart.
Speaker 1: People need to stop with this stuff. But here's here's
Speaker 1: Chris Hayes. He says stupid things on TV all the time.
Speaker 1: And I heard he used to be a nice guy.
Speaker 1: I've heard he's gotten really full of himself. Actually not surprising,
Speaker 1: you know, because the Libs have elevated him, And I'm like,
Speaker 1: who is this guy? Reminds me of every annoying left
Speaker 1: wing nerd I went to college with who thought that
Speaker 1: they had great arguments and never had to really argue
Speaker 1: with anybody. Their arguments were garbage. Here's fourteen. The inescupable
Speaker 1: fact of this kind of event is that, yes, it's
Speaker 1: peaceful protest, it's First amend and protected speech. But the
Speaker 1: implicit and explicit message of a bunch of have we
Speaker 1: armed marsh going to says capital is this, don't you
Speaker 1: dare and act your policies. If you do, we will
Speaker 1: use these guns against you. Oh, it's a threat of force.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem. Every firearm in this country in private
Speaker 1: hands of a citizen is a reminder it's a little
Speaker 1: personal rebellion against the government's ability to just come in
Speaker 1: and force you and your family to do what they want.
Speaker 1: It is a reminder that you do have as a
Speaker 1: citizen an alternative option, and that if they were going
Speaker 1: to violate your rights in a way that you would
Speaker 1: have to think about using that option against the state.
Speaker 1: There would much there would very likely be the violation
Speaker 1: of many more people's rights. That is the check, That
Speaker 1: is the check on tyranny. The Second Amendment exists for
Speaker 1: liberals reject this. Liberals reject this. It makes them. It
Speaker 1: makes them uneasy that there are people out there who
Speaker 1: do not just accept that whatever whatever the big s
Speaker 1: state tells them to do, they must comply with. No. No,
Speaker 1: there are limitations, there are things that there are laws
Speaker 1: that could be passed. What if they passed a forced
Speaker 1: sterilization and forced abortion law in this country because of overpopulation,
Speaker 1: because of climate change. If someone came into your if
Speaker 1: agents of the state were sent to your home they
Speaker 1: tell you, sorry, you have to We're going to sterilize
Speaker 1: you or perhaps your children because too many, too much population.
Speaker 1: We got to save the world. Right, Listen to the
Speaker 1: crazy crap they say about climate change. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: into that in a little bit. Would you let those
Speaker 1: agents of the state do that. They've on this in
Speaker 1: China for decades. This isn't just something that I've concocted
Speaker 1: out of nowhere. No, there's a limit. There is a
Speaker 1: place at which tyranny crosses the threshold. There is a
Speaker 1: place at which this state is no longer able to
Speaker 1: safely and without reprisal, trample on your rights. This is
Speaker 1: central for many of us to what it actually means
Speaker 1: to be a free citizen of the United States of America.
Speaker 1: That idea is very basic. It is very central. Democrats
Speaker 1: who think, and they are socialists, who think now that
Speaker 1: they should have control of every aspect of your life.
Speaker 1: That nothing is beyond the whims of the majority wielded
Speaker 1: by Nancy Pelosi. And if they get the Senate, Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer and some Democrat in the White House, there's nothing
Speaker 1: that you can count on as a right that is inviolate.
Speaker 1: There's nothing that they will not be able to do
Speaker 1: if they choose to do so. They like that they
Speaker 1: are pettitotalitarians, and if you let them, they'll just be
Speaker 1: outright totalitarians. This is why they hate the Second Eiment
Speaker 1: rally so very much, because it does remind people of
Speaker 1: something that just because you have the votes does not
Speaker 1: mean you have the right, And if you try to
Speaker 1: do something that is not right in a free society
Speaker 1: with an armed citizenry, the state can find out the
Speaker 1: hard way that they have gone too far. You're in
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: I do not support in any way, shape or form
Speaker 1: Governor Northam's and the Democrats gun control. What I also
Speaker 1: don't support is the fact that every news piece you've
Speaker 1: seen on this this weekend, they've always brought up the
Speaker 1: issue of race, as though it's nothing but white rednecks
Speaker 1: and hillbilly's out here who care for the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: Would actually Black Americans, Asian Americans, Hispanic Americans, Americans in
Speaker 1: general care about the Second Amendment. I work in a
Speaker 1: gun store part time, and I can't tell you the
Speaker 1: number of customers I see of all races, all colors,
Speaker 1: all creeds who care about the Second Amendment and who
Speaker 1: just want to peaceably live their lives, enjoy their rights
Speaker 1: and the Second Amendment. So that's why I'm out here
Speaker 1: and big media mainstream media. Be damn. If you take
Speaker 1: a good look at me, you can see I'm a
Speaker 1: black American and all I'm out here for is to
Speaker 1: enjoy my Second Amendment rights. An excellent explanation of why
Speaker 1: that particular patriotic American was at that rally. There were
Speaker 1: minorities and attendants in support of the rally. They were
Speaker 1: welcomed with open arms by their fellow Americans because their
Speaker 1: fellow Americans recognize that the Second Amendment is not about race.
Speaker 1: The Second Amendment is about individual dignity, the right to
Speaker 1: defend one's home, one's family, and yes, the right to
Speaker 1: defend against tyranny, which every human being deserves and should have.
Speaker 1: Governments go tyrannical. This isn't just something that's theoretical. You know,
Speaker 1: we always are told by the Libs to pretend like,
Speaker 1: you know, history has only been around for twenty or
Speaker 1: thirty years. He and I know a big deal. Yeah.
Speaker 1: How long ago was it that the Soviet Union enforced
Speaker 1: a near half of the globe in some kind of
Speaker 1: communist tyranny? I mean, how long ago was it that
Speaker 1: we've had Look at that Azuelo today, look at North Korea. Mean,
Speaker 1: there are tyrannical regimes scattered around the world. Still, what
Speaker 1: do you think can prevent Oh, America's too sophisticated, America's
Speaker 1: too wealthy in order to go to tyrannical. Well, what
Speaker 1: about Germany in the nineteen thirties, my friends, an industrial superpower,
Speaker 1: probably the third in you know, the third greatest industrial
Speaker 1: output at that period of any country in the world,
Speaker 1: just behind the United States, the United Kingdom. I think
Speaker 1: it actually very quickly exceeded the UK's production in certain areas.
Speaker 1: But if you look at even just steel output, for examples, America, Britain,
Speaker 1: then Germany, and Germany went utterly tyrannical, and it happened
Speaker 1: very rapidly. So and never look at the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: the First World War and the Russian Revolution. These things
Speaker 1: can happen quickly. And if you think that there won't
Speaker 1: be enough ideologically brainwashed officers of the state who will enforce,
Speaker 1: will even enforce the will of the quote collective, even
Speaker 1: if it is in violation of what we should all understand,
Speaker 1: our basic moral truths, you're mistaken. Historically, there will be
Speaker 1: people who are willing to do that. They'll be scared,
Speaker 1: they'll be doing it for their own self interest. They'll
Speaker 1: be a variety of reasons for it, but they will
Speaker 1: do it. And so that is why that second rally
Speaker 1: so important. And then there's just also on the policy level.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm getting into the underlying secondment philosophy, but
Speaker 1: on the policy level, all the stuff they're talking about
Speaker 1: doing is just gonna harass people that don't break any
Speaker 1: laws and don't hurt anybody. I mean, they're serious about
Speaker 1: gun violence, which they always claim they are. You're gonna
Speaker 1: go after assault rifles. Assault rifles are less than one
Speaker 1: percent naturally of homicides every year. So what should you
Speaker 1: really be going You should be going after handguns. And
Speaker 1: what is the primary area of society where handguns are
Speaker 1: used for violent crimes? Of course, drug and a lot
Speaker 1: of it is drug and gang activity. That's where you
Speaker 1: have most of the homicides occurring across the country. It's
Speaker 1: why you have these places like Baltimore, in Chicago and
Speaker 1: Philadelphia where there's a lot of gun violence, still New
Speaker 1: Orleans and a lot of it revolves on the drug trade.
Speaker 1: But that's not what they're doing. They want to harass people.
Speaker 1: This is a way for Northam and the libs in
Speaker 1: the Virginia State legislature to just stick their fingers in
Speaker 1: the eyes of people that had never broken any law.
Speaker 1: Does anyone really think that they're they're in danger because
Speaker 1: their law abiding neighbor Phil or Bob or Bill or
Speaker 1: Tony or Jamal or you know, Diego or whoever, their
Speaker 1: law abiding neighbor has an AAR fifteen, they're scared because
Speaker 1: of that. Law Abiding gunners I mean concealed carry permit
Speaker 1: holders for example, are more law abiding on a per
Speaker 1: capita basis then law enforcement sent My law enforcement friends
Speaker 1: don't like that statistic, but it's true. But yeah, let's
Speaker 1: just pass a bunch of laws to turn them into felons.
Speaker 1: By the way, felons, you know people, they get incarcerated.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to The bus Essence Show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. But to embrace the possibilities if
Speaker 1: tomorrow we must reject the perennial profits of doom and
Speaker 1: their predictions of the apocalypse. They are the heirs of
Speaker 1: yesterday's foolish fortune tellers. And I have them, and you
Speaker 1: have them, and we all have them, and they want
Speaker 1: to see us too badly, but we don't let that happen.
Speaker 1: They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the nineteen sixties, massed
Speaker 1: ovation in the seventies, and an end of oil in
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties. These alarmists always demand the same thing,
Speaker 1: absolute power to dominate, transform, and control every aspect of ours.
Speaker 1: We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck
Speaker 1: our country, or eradicate our liberty. America will always be
Speaker 1: the proud, strong, and unyielding best of freedom in America.
Speaker 1: We understand what the pessimists refuse to see, that a
Speaker 1: growing and vibrant market economy focused on the future lifts
Speaker 1: the human spirit and excites creativity strong enough to overcome
Speaker 1: any challenge, any challenge by far, they've ever heard of
Speaker 1: Republican president speak the way that Trump does about the left.
Speaker 1: I've been through a couple of Republican presidents in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: I don't remember anyone who would say things like these
Speaker 1: are radical socialists who want to control every aspect of
Speaker 1: your life. That is what they want to do. Trump
Speaker 1: gets it. He's right, and he speaks about it the
Speaker 1: way that he should because it's reality and climate I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the this is the place now where I
Speaker 1: just cannot I cannot see. I mean, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: think worth it. I have to take them seriously because
Speaker 1: they're crazy and they're dangerous. Their ideas are wrong and dangerous.
Speaker 1: But I think that they're worthy of ridicule. These people
Speaker 1: that believe the world's gonna end in eight years unless
Speaker 1: we do this, that the other thing, they're worthy of ridicule.
Speaker 1: This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Unless we
Speaker 1: do what. Oh, there's this great article by Walter Russell
Speaker 1: Meade over the Council and Formulations the Wall Street Journal,
Speaker 1: all Aboard the Crazy Train, and it's about Davos. It's
Speaker 1: a quick step back for a second. You know, Davos
Speaker 1: is this gathering of the global elite. Quinn of England,
Speaker 1: the Builderberg, the Illuminati, buck section came out of CFAR
Speaker 1: and CIA. Google it. But the Davos set is this
Speaker 1: group that gets together. It's world leaders, celebrities, you know,
Speaker 1: social entrepreneurs, whatever the heck that means, billionaires, fancy fancy,
Speaker 1: fancy people. That's what Dabos is. And it's a little
Speaker 1: little town nestled up in the Mountains of Switzerland, your leo.
Speaker 1: That was for your producer Mark. And this is where
Speaker 1: they get together to discuss a couple than global poverty
Speaker 1: and global climate change. But really global climate change has
Speaker 1: become the big thing. To give you an idea of
Speaker 1: the intellectual seriousness is what Walter Russell Mead points out.
Speaker 1: The intellectual seriousness of this Davos conference where a renting
Speaker 1: a one bedroom, one bedroom apartment in a certain part
Speaker 1: of town in Damos, a small town, can go for
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars a night. All right, it's a very
Speaker 1: very expensive proposition to go to this this conference. I
Speaker 1: think I forget what the fee. I think the fee
Speaker 1: is like fifteen or thirty thousand dollars a person or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's very expensive. But when you arrive this year,
Speaker 1: everyone is being told that at the conference they are
Speaker 1: not distributing paper maps of the town of Davos because
Speaker 1: of climate change. Not making this up. Wow, that's really
Speaker 1: going to show that climate change gods. No paper maps, folks.
Speaker 1: This is what this is what we are supposed to
Speaker 1: take as what we should the kind of mentality we
Speaker 1: should all embrace about this issue. And this is absurd.
Speaker 1: People I don't know how any who would say this
Speaker 1: with a straight face. Think about how much trash you
Speaker 1: throw out of your apartment or your house in any
Speaker 1: given week. You think that them giving out what would
Speaker 1: it be a few hundred, a few thousand pieces of
Speaker 1: paper producer Mark Prince sent out probably in a week
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom Hut, just giving me all the
Speaker 1: different you know, cutsheets and live reads and things we have.
Speaker 1: It is absurd, maybe not quite that much, but that's
Speaker 1: because he's very environmentally conscious. So when do we get
Speaker 1: to just recognize this for what it is, for it
Speaker 1: being foolish. I mean, this is this is not a
Speaker 1: serious ideology. They take it very seriously, but it could
Speaker 1: only be believed in by unserious people. And they think
Speaker 1: they're so smart. They think I'm crazy. They're the ones worried.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that have set projections for the world
Speaker 1: being put on a path to extinction unless we do
Speaker 1: things that I guarantee you we are not going to do.
Speaker 1: The world is not going to do the things that
Speaker 1: I promise you. I need it. Plays a bet on this.
Speaker 1: I've got an idea where I can do it. It's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. But the people that believe that
Speaker 1: unless we do the thing that I guarantee you we
Speaker 1: are not going to do, the human species is on
Speaker 1: a glide path to extinction. Those people think I'm crazy
Speaker 1: and you're crazy, and I think science is on their side.
Speaker 1: Oh wow, science, huh. They also think that we should
Speaker 1: be lectured on this issue by a I think now,
Speaker 1: sixteen year old girl. I guess so when she's eighteen,
Speaker 1: then we can really criticize her, right, that's I guess
Speaker 1: there will. But when you're sixteen, if you're a global
Speaker 1: icon for a political movement being used as a human
Speaker 1: shield against criticism for adults too stupid and cowardly to
Speaker 1: make the case themselves, then you're you're not supposed to
Speaker 1: be criticized if you're sixteen. Here is Gretta Thunberg. I'm
Speaker 1: not child bashing here. Okay, the Daily Beast and those
Speaker 1: other idiot publications can say that all the much child bashing.
Speaker 1: We're gonna hear from her, and we're going to discuss
Speaker 1: the ideas she's putting forward. Play eighteen. Yeah, we've talked
Speaker 1: a lot about the inspiration and hope you're bringing to others,
Speaker 1: But obviously there's a flip side to that, and what
Speaker 1: can we all learn from all of you about how
Speaker 1: you deal with the haters. I would like to say
Speaker 1: something that is, there's think people need to know more
Speaker 1: than how I deal with haters. In chapter two, on
Speaker 1: page one hundred and eight, in the SR one point
Speaker 1: five IPCC report they came out in two and eighteen,
Speaker 1: it says that if we are to have a sixty
Speaker 1: seven percent chance of limiting the global average TEMPERATUREIZE to
Speaker 1: below one point five degrees celsius, we had on January first,
Speaker 1: two and eighteen, about four hundred and twenty giga tons
Speaker 1: of C or two left to emit in that budget.
Speaker 1: With today's emissions levels, that remaining budget is gone within
Speaker 1: less than eighty years. These numbers aren't anyone's opinions or
Speaker 1: political views. This is the current best available science. Though
Speaker 1: many scientists sages these figures are too moderates, these are
Speaker 1: the ones that have been accepted through the IPCC. I
Speaker 1: know you don't want to report about this. I know
Speaker 1: you don't want to talk about this, but I assure
Speaker 1: you I will continue to repeat these numbers until you do. Well.
Speaker 1: We're reporting on it right now. So guess what she's
Speaker 1: at Davos. That's why I brought up Davos before lecturing
Speaker 1: the world on this issue. And this is where you
Speaker 1: don't have to be a scientist to understand that this is,
Speaker 1: this is preposterous, preposterous. I'm sorry, there's only a sixty
Speaker 1: seven percent chance, a sixty seven percent chance that you know,
Speaker 1: the four hundred and twenty giga tons of CO two
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, really not not a seventy percent chance,
Speaker 1: not a sixty two percent chance, A sixty seven percent
Speaker 1: chance according to the IPCC that if we want to
Speaker 1: avoid a one point whatever degree you're this is all
Speaker 1: made up nothing. They don't know, they can't predict this,
Speaker 1: the numbers. They're just pulling this stuff together. They put
Speaker 1: garbage into the models, and they get garbage out of
Speaker 1: the models for adicting climate. They don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: a weatherman cannot predict the weather accurately ten days in advance,
Speaker 1: but they're going to tell you what the global climate
Speaker 1: temperature is going to be, an average climate average temperature reading. Rather,
Speaker 1: this is this is the best, the best available science today.
Speaker 1: It's because it's not science. Science is not about prediction.
Speaker 1: Science about fact and the ability to repeat to repeat
Speaker 1: results through experimentation using the scientific method. It's not a science,
Speaker 1: it is not about prediction. This is this is a
Speaker 1: the club. This is all crap. It is all nonsense.
Speaker 1: And here's the other part of this, that they just
Speaker 1: don't know how to deal. We're not We're not this
Speaker 1: four hundred and twenty, you know, gigatons of CO two.
Speaker 1: We have eight years. I mean, you know, God willing,
Speaker 1: I'll still be on the air, Producer Mark will be here,
Speaker 1: We'll be on the air in eight years, and I'll
Speaker 1: be able to tell you I I guarantee, I would bet,
Speaker 1: I would bet every dollar I have if there are
Speaker 1: a way to do this, that we are not going
Speaker 1: to meet this this eight year standard that they, you know,
Speaker 1: are of reduction in order. No way, no way. And
Speaker 1: yet we're told if we don't meet that we're going
Speaker 1: to be past the point of no return. We're being
Speaker 1: told us by a sixteen year old with no background
Speaker 1: in science whatsoever. We're being told us by a human
Speaker 1: being who, in a normal circumstance would still be told
Speaker 1: by her parents when to go to bed and when
Speaker 1: she could leave her room. If she's been naughty or something.
Speaker 1: You know, she could be grounded. That's who's telling them.
Speaker 1: And that's where the media is like, please tell us
Speaker 1: more about this, and yeah, I mean yeah, is it
Speaker 1: a little humorless when an interviewer is asking you a
Speaker 1: question trying to get to know you, and you're just
Speaker 1: gonna like read off the IPCC report again. But this
Speaker 1: is this is what this girl is being trained to do.
Speaker 1: She is being trained to do this so that idiot
Speaker 1: lives in places like California where I just was, can
Speaker 1: have someone championing, you know, getting all this attention from
Speaker 1: the media and cannot be a sale because ultimately there's
Speaker 1: a deep intellectual insecurity that people who believe this stuff
Speaker 1: must have because they can't they can't actually have this debate.
Speaker 1: They can't actually sit down with somebody and look at
Speaker 1: the look in the eye and say, yeah, unless we
Speaker 1: do these things, though, we're going to be on an
Speaker 1: extinction path no more human beings. Well within, by the way,
Speaker 1: we went within a hundred years, been fifty years, two
Speaker 1: hundred years, five hundred years. Come on, this is the
Speaker 1: best available science, right, sixty seven percent chance they're telling
Speaker 1: us about they don't know. Of course, they don't we know,
Speaker 1: they don't know. Here's another problem. This is where they
Speaker 1: the Davos set really has no answers for you. China
Speaker 1: is building a coal fired power plan every week on
Speaker 1: average the new CO two emissions globally for the last
Speaker 1: certainly the last decade. I think it's the last twenty years.
Speaker 1: Sixty percent of it is due to China. You add
Speaker 1: India in there, and India and China are the country
Speaker 1: is responsible for the most CO two emissions by far.
Speaker 1: And do you think that they're going to And China,
Speaker 1: by the way, is in the Paris Accord. China is
Speaker 1: a yeah, sure we'll do that, Yeah right, sure, though
Speaker 1: we like the good press. Yeah we'll sign up for
Speaker 1: that thing that no one's going to enforce. But whole
Speaker 1: Trump is evil for leaving them. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: think the Paris Accords were important, you're just not very smart.
Speaker 1: You're just not very smart. I don't care. They can
Speaker 1: show me all the degrees in the world and I'll
Speaker 1: look at this and you know, I got a eight
Speaker 1: hundred on my SAT math or whatever. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't care. They're just not very smart. They're not able
Speaker 1: to have the synapses in the brain fire in such
Speaker 1: a way that they can come up with a very
Speaker 1: obvious but important conclusion here that this fear mongering is laughable,
Speaker 1: that they're wrong, they're wrong. I'm right, they're wrong again.
Speaker 1: Oh you turn on all the journalists. I remember at
Speaker 1: CNNA once or twice I got to discussing climate change.
Speaker 1: Oh you don't believe and you don't believe in climate
Speaker 1: ever gets so huffy. You don't believe in climate change?
Speaker 1: What does it even mean? Yeah, the climate change is
Speaker 1: all the time, not worried about it. I have my
Speaker 1: level of anxiety, and I'm somebody who you know. I
Speaker 1: do want to I do want to have kids. I
Speaker 1: do want a good future for all of humanity. Believe
Speaker 1: it or not. The level of anxiety I have a
Speaker 1: climate is zero. But that's why I also, I think
Speaker 1: the people that really worry about this, unfortunately, it's a
Speaker 1: it's a psychological disorder. This is not this is not
Speaker 1: the result of people who are thinking logically and soundly
Speaker 1: about things. I do think it's a mass hysteria. It's
Speaker 1: a mass delusion, and there should be much better studies
Speaker 1: done of this. I start to think that there's a
Speaker 1: kind of psychological contagion that can occur. We know it
Speaker 1: can happen in totalitarian societies, but I'm starting to think
Speaker 1: that this happens within the bubble of liberalism or leftism.
Speaker 1: I don't like calling them liberals, where people can finally,
Speaker 1: people have finally reached this conclusion that we're all going
Speaker 1: to die unless we give the government the power. The
Speaker 1: government that can't that is inept, invariably inept in what
Speaker 1: it does. But the government should have the power to
Speaker 1: declare to do anything that wants in your life in
Speaker 1: order to save the world. And we're all the governments
Speaker 1: the world there to come together. I mean, Davos is
Speaker 1: a joke, by the way, folks is a laughing stock.
Speaker 1: These are just people that are desperate to feel important
Speaker 1: and cool. That's what Dabos is does nothing of any value.
Speaker 1: People still go globalize. It is virtue signaling for globalists
Speaker 1: and private jets, and at least they get to go
Speaker 1: on a fancy trip. The rest of us just get
Speaker 1: to get lectured about climate change that no one's going
Speaker 1: to do. Oh that's right. They all took private jets
Speaker 1: to get the Davos. By the way, they care so
Speaker 1: much about the climate. So they're using more CO two
Speaker 1: in one day than you will use probably in a year.
Speaker 1: But they're the good people, you see, they're the messengers
Speaker 1: of the movement. These people are people are just just absurd.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Henty. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. I think, what's it? The heart of it
Speaker 1: is who you ask to be a judge? Who do
Speaker 1: you want on your list to be a judge? And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what the esra's been for Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: because I've seen this guys homophobic, that's in racist, that's
Speaker 1: in sexist, Oh yeah, most definitely, and anti voter. That's
Speaker 1: been a big qualification. He has named one person after
Speaker 1: another who And I don't mean we have kind of
Speaker 1: a sense that that's who those people are. I don't
Speaker 1: even look at their written records. Look at the activities
Speaker 1: they've already engaged in, Look at the fights they've been in,
Speaker 1: in which side they were on. I like that. Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren were described in the New York Times and Door
Speaker 1: spent up her, but also Klobuchar as a good dude storyteller,
Speaker 1: a gifted storytell That's right, it's a fake Native American gifted,
Speaker 1: a telling that story for about fifty years. Good job.
Speaker 1: Oh just remarkable. Good good. She can just spin a
Speaker 1: great yarn and I would just just tell the tale.
Speaker 1: Oh man. I also have to say I love the
Speaker 1: Babylon Bee, which has done something. The Babylon b is great.
Speaker 1: I really impressed they had this. One of their tweets
Speaker 1: was that it was this Elizaeth Warren quote. Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: once told me in private that The Princess Bride is
Speaker 1: a garbage movie and those who enjoy it are human trash. This,
Speaker 1: of course a reference to the private conversation she had
Speaker 1: about whether with Bernie Sanders or whether or not a
Speaker 1: woman could be president, which then she made public in
Speaker 1: an effort to take him down, which I think is gross.
Speaker 1: Of course, people who love Warren will somehow defend this,
Speaker 1: but I think it is quite gross that she did that.
Speaker 1: And I think it's The Princess Bride, it's not a
Speaker 1: garbage movie. But I do not think now people are
Speaker 1: gonna get mad at me. I think it's great when
Speaker 1: you're a kid. It's a great thing to watch when
Speaker 1: you're a kid homesick from school. It's not like a
Speaker 1: movie as an adult that I'm in a rush to watch. Ever,
Speaker 1: I mean it's gets a little so, you know, some
Speaker 1: of the effects. I don't know, people have every nostalgic
Speaker 1: about it. All right, all right five, But you're certainly
Speaker 1: not a guardage. I like it just just saying just saying, oh,
Speaker 1: but Hillary came out, Hello, Hillary came out recently. She's
Speaker 1: got this documentary that's all about how amazing Hillary is
Speaker 1: and how wonderful and warm and brilliant and fantastic he
Speaker 1: is on Hulu. You know, these platforms other dominated by
Speaker 1: lives again Republican billionaires. Where are you. I'll start it.
Speaker 1: I'll start a conservative based entertainment platform tomorrow. We will
Speaker 1: start making good movies, good shows, things about you know,
Speaker 1: stories that people care about, where there are good guys
Speaker 1: and bad guys, and there's drama and there's really you know,
Speaker 1: it's not all just going to be like elevating democrats
Speaker 1: and you know, making everybody bend the need of that,
Speaker 1: trans writes Agenda. I mean, this is what you see
Speaker 1: and all the latest entertainment that comes out. Whenever there's
Speaker 1: anything political, it's always left wing politics, as you know.
Speaker 1: But they got this Hulu documentary and Hillary says I'm
Speaker 1: trying to find the quote. It was pretty amazing, but
Speaker 1: it was basically, nobody likes Bertie Sanders. He was in
Speaker 1: Congress for years, he had one center to support him.
Speaker 1: Nobody likes him, nobody wants wants to work with him.
Speaker 1: He got nothing done? Ouch, Hillary, what happened? Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to The Bus Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Hey, team Buck, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: A lot of roll call stuff sort of closed the
Speaker 1: show out with today First producer Mark Scalp one to ten.
Speaker 1: How much did you miss your favorite radio host? It's
Speaker 1: very important that everyone knows. I haven't listened to Howard
Speaker 1: in a while. That's cold, it's cold, It's rough. Dude,
Speaker 1: He what does he making? Like? One hundred million year?
Speaker 1: He doesn't. He doesn't need three shows a week? Now?
Speaker 1: Oh man? Can I get on? Can I get on?
Speaker 1: One hundred million dollars a year? Slash three shows a week?
Speaker 1: Make Yeah? You'd be down for once you get really old,
Speaker 1: that's what you do, oh Man, three shows a week?
Speaker 1: That would be great. But these guys, you know he's
Speaker 1: gonna be doing radio for the next twenty years. He guys,
Speaker 1: never want to retire. He's gonna be like Larry King, Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm coming back. I was surprised when he said he
Speaker 1: wanted to retire. Larry King, He's on like Oracle or whatever.
Speaker 1: He's like, hey, yeah, or a TV Oracle TV Larry Larry.
Speaker 1: I don't know. He's never gonna give up. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: I did watch Ghostbusters recently and I figured Larry King
Speaker 1: makes an appearance there, doesn't Yeah, yeah he does. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a great movie. So what else? Oh yeah, California,
Speaker 1: by the way, California was was actually kind of cold.
Speaker 1: I was a little sad about that. It was the sixties,
Speaker 1: it was not really Wait were you there too? It
Speaker 1: was in San Francisco. We went, I was colder for you.
Speaker 1: What's okay? So what I want to ask you about?
Speaker 1: And now I remember, Um, did you you know how
Speaker 1: there's this whole thing with conservative about how these places
Speaker 1: the California is being ruined. Sure, which I will say
Speaker 1: I have a couple of anecdotes about that. But I
Speaker 1: want to hear did you see any of the mess
Speaker 1: in San Francisco or do you just stay away from it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I saw some homeless people here and there
Speaker 1: I did. The only thing that bothered me about San Francisco,
Speaker 1: besides the hills and walking around that that is absolutely awful.
Speaker 1: I don't know how people walk up and down those
Speaker 1: hills that that's awful. That's just geography. That has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with me. Yeah, the liberals, But the garbage, like,
Speaker 1: you can't you can only have one bin of garbage
Speaker 1: or two bins of garbage per household, and if you
Speaker 1: have more than that, you have to wait and leave
Speaker 1: it in your house. And if you find if you
Speaker 1: put too much garbage out like that that was just
Speaker 1: weird to me. Oh yeah, gress. So I will tell
Speaker 1: you a couple of things. First is that when I
Speaker 1: was in La I spoke to a lot that's a
Speaker 1: bunch of friends who are La natives, and they said
Speaker 1: that they're hearing now more than ever before, from lifelong
Speaker 1: Los Angelinos that they're thinking about leaving the state. That
Speaker 1: it's actually it's actually become too much. The traffic has
Speaker 1: gotten so bad, the taxes are so high, and the
Speaker 1: dysfunction so consistent, so present around everyone of the people
Speaker 1: who are lifelong California is like I'm out. So that
Speaker 1: was interesting because you're starting and there is this big
Speaker 1: outflow of people who are leaving. The problem is, of course,
Speaker 1: not everyone can leave, right if you own a home there,
Speaker 1: and they might raise taxes a bunch on properties there,
Speaker 1: which makes it really hard to sell your home. I
Speaker 1: mean if you've got to Let's say you got a
Speaker 1: two hundred I mean, just to make it easy, two
Speaker 1: hundred thousan dollars home, which in California would get you, yeah,
Speaker 1: cardboard box to live in. But let's say you had
Speaker 1: a two hundred thousand or in Los Angeles, a two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars home, and and you you know the
Speaker 1: taxes on that are going to get jacked up. So
Speaker 1: you know the taxes are ten or fifteen grand a year.
Speaker 1: I mean that really hurts the value of your home. Yeah, dramatically, right,
Speaker 1: So I mean that's obviously a rough approximation of what
Speaker 1: but there's a concern that that's what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: So now people who want to leave can't leave, and
Speaker 1: then you just get duck rent. See the problem with
Speaker 1: property taxes, you're really renting your home from the government,
Speaker 1: even if you have no mortgage. You don't own your home.
Speaker 1: You're renting it from the government. You're not allowed to
Speaker 1: own that property without giving money to the government every year.
Speaker 1: So that's a big problem. The other thing, and this
Speaker 1: is I gotta tell everybody this. I don't know to say.
Speaker 1: I did Fox at a Tucker Show on Friday, and
Speaker 1: we're sort of poll we were, you know. I was
Speaker 1: in a suburban, as one does, and and I'm driving
Speaker 1: along and we stop at a red light in an
Speaker 1: area where there's it's like a you know, mini mall
Speaker 1: or whatever. You know, there's one of those malls. I'm
Speaker 1: from New York City. I don't know what you call
Speaker 1: these things. You know, a strip mall. Yes, it's kind
Speaker 1: of like a strip ball. But there are people milling about,
Speaker 1: walking around the shopping center area. So there's some people
Speaker 1: walking around and and it's not a not a like
Speaker 1: a particularly dodgy part of town. And by the way,
Speaker 1: just just safety warning for everybody. What I'm gonna tell you.
Speaker 1: For those of you who are eating, you may want
Speaker 1: to just turn them the volume for a second or whatever,
Speaker 1: because but I do need to share this. I would
Speaker 1: drive along and there's a guy who is near like,
Speaker 1: I think he's near a tent that is probably the
Speaker 1: tenth that he's now, you know, inhabiting, and he just
Speaker 1: goes up and stands and is making a lot of
Speaker 1: is sort of making a lot of noise and again
Speaker 1: content warning for everybody, and he he drops trou right
Speaker 1: there in full view of like thirty people, and I'm
Speaker 1: just the whole thing happens right there on the street
Speaker 1: with you know, it's nighttime, but they were you a light,
Speaker 1: you could see everything. Whatever. He just goes and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I I've seen that before. I have no no, no,
Speaker 1: it does not happen in New York City like that.
Speaker 1: He's not happy number one. Yeah, yeah, well no, no,
Speaker 1: that's different. That's different. I've seen it in the Third World.
Speaker 1: I've seen it. I've seen it in the nastiest countries
Speaker 1: I've ever been to, and I've been to some very
Speaker 1: nasty ones. I've seen people do that where they just
Speaker 1: will go. This was in like Los Angeles, you know,
Speaker 1: near Century City or whatever. It was crazy and nobody
Speaker 1: was even phased by it. So I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: just for a personal anecdote standpoint, all the stuff you're
Speaker 1: hearing about California, San Francisco, La, Ten Cities MESSI all
Speaker 1: the stuff. Yep, it's real. I guess I didn't go
Speaker 1: to the right part to San Francisco or you did
Speaker 1: go to the right part to San Francisco. Uh. And
Speaker 1: then I got on anything for you? Are you a
Speaker 1: UFC person? Is that a part of your I mean,
Speaker 1: I'll watch the big fights, did you. I mean, this
Speaker 1: was an easy one to watch because it lasted forty seconds.
Speaker 1: I saw was gonna say so the highlights. I watched
Speaker 1: the fight on Twitter. Yeah, after the fact, I was thinking,
Speaker 1: it's funny. I mean, people, I know that I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get yelled at by some UFC watchers for this, but
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting to hear people do the analysis
Speaker 1: of UFC. I'm like, yeah, I know when someone's gotten
Speaker 1: hit hard too, they're like, oh man, you know what
Speaker 1: really you know what really set him up for the knockout.
Speaker 1: There was that like right cross to the face and
Speaker 1: then the knee like into his temple. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, I don't I'm not gonna beat the crap benefit. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he beat him up really badly, and that is how
Speaker 1: he got the knockout. It's kind of kind of an
Speaker 1: interesting way to look at it. Um, but you had
Speaker 1: Connor McGregor, who was the victor tweet out phenomenal president,
Speaker 1: quite possibly the USA greatest of all time. He put
Speaker 1: a goat symbol in there, which I just because I'm cool,
Speaker 1: I know that that means greatest of all time. I'm glad,
Speaker 1: thank you most certainly one of them. Anyway, as he
Speaker 1: sits atop the shoulders of many amazing giants that came
Speaker 1: before him, no easy feat early stages of term, also incredible,
Speaker 1: congrats and happy Martin Luther King Junior Day America. Connor McGregor,
Speaker 1: are they going to try to cancel Connor? Now? He
Speaker 1: says Trump is one of the greatest, perhaps the greatest
Speaker 1: of all time. I mean, I think everyone kind of knows.
Speaker 1: And this isn't saying this is nothing derogatory against Trump,
Speaker 1: but Connor's kind of out there. Not that only out
Speaker 1: there people would you know, vote for Trump. I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to say that I got to pick on the
Speaker 1: Irish guy. I wasn't, but you know, Connor's out there,
Speaker 1: so yeah, he says, everything just goes over everyone's end.
Speaker 1: It didn't he make one hundred million dollars for fight
Speaker 1: fighting Floyd Mayweather, which wasn't that great. It wasn't right now,
Speaker 1: the whole time, I was like throwing knee yeah, spin kicks.
Speaker 1: I would like to see them UFC. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: want to see the box Connor. I think Connor McGregor
Speaker 1: would would would completely like just crush him at a
Speaker 1: UFC style fight. But it was not good for him
Speaker 1: in the boxing match. But my point is because he's
Speaker 1: a little out there, nobody cares what he says. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine that if you had paid like I
Speaker 1: mean front row seats. I'm sure at a UFC event
Speaker 1: like that amounts of thousands of dollars, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean that's not the only card. Obviously you're gonna
Speaker 1: get five or six fights, right, but but the big
Speaker 1: fights count in the last forty seconds. Yeah. And it
Speaker 1: wasn't even like it wasn't even like the end of
Speaker 1: like a Bruce Lee movie where he finishes off the
Speaker 1: main bad guy with like a giant like yeah, like
Speaker 1: kick in the face or something. You know. It was
Speaker 1: kind of like, you know, hit him with the shoulder
Speaker 1: a couple of times. He did have one high kick
Speaker 1: that he sort of blocked a little bit, you could
Speaker 1: tell connected, and then the guy just sort of stumbled
Speaker 1: and felled to the ground and was getting punched in
Speaker 1: the face. Would you pay money to see UFC fight?
Speaker 1: Like I feel like i'm because I know that I
Speaker 1: loved Team Buck and so many of them loved the UFC. Yes,
Speaker 1: of course I would pay money. No, I'm talking about
Speaker 1: in person or on television, because I feel like you
Speaker 1: in person, you don't see much. You say, you go
Speaker 1: into Madison Square Garden, they have fights there. You're in
Speaker 1: the top row. You're not seeing a thing. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you something. I back in the day with a
Speaker 1: bunch of friends. I forget even what it was called.
Speaker 1: But it wasn't called uf it was pre UFC. It
Speaker 1: was a different There was like, you know, there were
Speaker 1: these early fighting leads and they were trying to ban it.
Speaker 1: There was this whole argument around, you know, whether it
Speaker 1: was like, you know, two too brutal. And I went
Speaker 1: to see I forget what it was called, but it
Speaker 1: was a similar thing to UFC. And I had some
Speaker 1: friends over and we ordered it on pay per view.
Speaker 1: It was like fifty dollars, and this is back in
Speaker 1: the nineties, and it was the most boring thing I've
Speaker 1: ever seen in my life because it just turned into wrestling,
Speaker 1: like it turned into like Olympic style wrestling without actually
Speaker 1: Olympic wrestling where you have guys like like essentially it
Speaker 1: was all on the ground. It was all ground and
Speaker 1: pound and it was just dudes like wrestling each other
Speaker 1: to one and gets exhausted and then he like hit
Speaker 1: him a couple of times in the face and the
Speaker 1: guy would tap out. Yeah, it was like, this is
Speaker 1: the most boring thing I've ever seen in my life.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't think you can do that in UFC.
Speaker 1: Yeah no, no, now that's right. They changed it because
Speaker 1: of that. But I saw it in the early days
Speaker 1: and it was a really bad like what I saw
Speaker 1: was a really bad product. So the Olympic college style
Speaker 1: wrestling boring. I don't know how people watch that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've never even tried. Although Fox Catcher is a very
Speaker 1: good movie. If you haven't, you would like it, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna put that out there for you would like it.
Speaker 1: And Steve correll who Steve Carrells, is incredible. He plays
Speaker 1: the main guy. And if you you would you have
Speaker 1: to do is watch Fox Catcher and then watch on
Speaker 1: YouTube or something. Just watch the guy that he plays,
Speaker 1: because there's a video of him and you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: he becomes him. It's it's crazy how well he does
Speaker 1: this character who's a really weirds a billionaire, really weird
Speaker 1: guy from the from the DuPont family and a fox
Speaker 1: Catcher is a good movie. Yeah, so UFC thing happened,
Speaker 1: um California. I saw a guy do that thing that
Speaker 1: he did. Trying to think what else? Oh and I
Speaker 1: saw any I saw an iHeart concert? Oh which one
Speaker 1: m I saw? Alter? Ego, Ah, wasn't Coldplay there? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I'm so jealous. Yeah, Coldplay was great. Well invite me.
Speaker 1: I mean I only could get one ticket. H Coldplay
Speaker 1: was great. You know that's my favorite band. I did
Speaker 1: not know. Yeah you like cold love Play? Did you
Speaker 1: not hear my first dance song on my wedding Yellow?
Speaker 1: I thought that was her choice? No? It was yeah
Speaker 1: really yeah, it's right. The range is hot today producer
Speaker 1: Mark Um. Yeah, I think Coldplay was great. Also. Billie
Speaker 1: Eilish Haylish, I've never seen before a little weird, little
Speaker 1: out there. It was interesting. I don't like her music.
Speaker 1: I don't care what she looks like or anything. There
Speaker 1: was a woman named Shade who performed, who actually is
Speaker 1: amazing vocals. I was very impressed just with her vocal talent.
Speaker 1: Um Blink one d eighty two. They're they're a little old.
Speaker 1: It's a little old, and they're not good anymore. It's
Speaker 1: just it's like dudes who look like they're all, you know, dads,
Speaker 1: and they're like late forties, early fifties who are still
Speaker 1: playing that kind of music are still performing. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a little bit. It's a little bit like they're a
Speaker 1: little like I don't know about this anymore. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not like classic rock. It's a little of like
Speaker 1: punk rock in that style. Whatever you call Blink with
Speaker 1: eighty two, you know, I don't know if it called emo.
Speaker 1: Music is not emo? Emos? Yeah? Is it green Day?
Speaker 1: Blink one eighty two emo? The audience is gonna call
Speaker 1: you out on this disco like all that. Well, packs,
Speaker 1: I'm different now I'm throwing a flag. Emo is like boy,
Speaker 1: Emo is like, uh um, what's it? What's it called?
Speaker 1: You know? Better than Ezra? Yeah? Yeah, yeah, emos? Emo?
Speaker 1: In my arrow, it was green Day in the like, well, anyway,
Speaker 1: So I saw him trying to think who else? Oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't it was Black Keys was too late and
Speaker 1: they're actually my favorite. And I was like, I'm too tired.
Speaker 1: It's past. It's like past eleven thirty left the concert.
Speaker 1: It was like it was past eleven pm. So and
Speaker 1: I had enough. Also, why does everyone stand? We have seats?
Speaker 1: It was a seeded venue. Why does everyone stand? There
Speaker 1: were you in the venue? I was like in the back,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no, I'm not important kind of have to stand. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well no, but everyone was standing. Everyone was standing out
Speaker 1: a country. You want to dance. No one was dancing.
Speaker 1: They're just standing. But they have seats. Sit in the seat,
Speaker 1: don't stand in the seat. Very frustrating. So there was that,
Speaker 1: But you know, I think I'm missing one. Im just
Speaker 1: happy I heard that you said cold Play was great. Yeah,
Speaker 1: lou and Ears were actually good too, but Coldplay was
Speaker 1: the best by far. Cold Player was. I mean just
Speaker 1: and I'm not They're not even my favorite band. I
Speaker 1: like Black He's a lot more personally, but in terms
Speaker 1: of a live performance, they were on a whole other
Speaker 1: like there was a whole other level from the other stuff.
Speaker 1: Just what they did the presentation, the you know, the
Speaker 1: song choice and everything else, so um yeah, they were
Speaker 1: they were very very good. And uh oh and now
Speaker 1: we'll actually do some role call. Sorry you're in the
Speaker 1: Freedom hud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast team.
Speaker 1: I promise we'll do it. We'll do a double session
Speaker 1: because I've been out for a few days that I've
Speaker 1: missed you. Also, we'll do a double session of roll
Speaker 1: call tomorrow because I know we producer Mark and I
Speaker 1: got a look excited about talking about the things. So
Speaker 1: let's get to your messages now they're on Facebook. Brandon
Speaker 1: is first up. Welcome back, brother Buck. Our shields are
Speaker 1: high in Virginia. Yesterday I was at the VCD l
Speaker 1: Lobby Day in Richmond. It was amazing. We a small
Speaker 1: group about seven patriots, mostly with medical background than I,
Speaker 1: the only grunt of the group, showed up prepared for
Speaker 1: the worst with backpacks full of medical supplies. We left
Speaker 1: Richmond with all our equipment, along with smiles on our
Speaker 1: faces and hope in our hearts. The mood of the
Speaker 1: event was of hope, friendship, brotherhood, and patriotism. I believe
Speaker 1: the reason the event was peaceful. I had little to
Speaker 1: do with Virginia's governed declaring a state of emergency, and
Speaker 1: more to do with people like my beautiful bride who
Speaker 1: led over fifty people from all over the country to
Speaker 1: pray and fast for our protection. I had credit God
Speaker 1: and people like my bride for the peace and safety
Speaker 1: of yesterday's event. Thank you all. We wrestle not against
Speaker 1: flesh and blood, but against power and principalities. By the way,
Speaker 1: I shared your podcast with many patriots yesterday. Take care
Speaker 1: of Brother Airborne all the way. Well, Brian, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for your note. Also appreciate you very much
Speaker 1: sharing my podcast. As I always say, that's the single
Speaker 1: most helpful thing any of you who want to see
Speaker 1: the Bucks Exton show thrive, telling a friend or ten
Speaker 1: or two or fifty about it is the most helpful
Speaker 1: thing to say. They can listen to the iHeart app
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple Podcasts. Producer Mark is going to be
Speaker 1: in charge of putting up our YouTube channel soon, which
Speaker 1: is going to be up. So we're gonna watch you
Speaker 1: all the subscribe and it's not quite there, are we are?
Speaker 1: We are? We No, We're not quite ready to launch.
Speaker 1: Close by next week. I think we'll be ready to
Speaker 1: launch on YouTube. So that is the plan, and that
Speaker 1: way you'll be able to watch the show the Pluto.
Speaker 1: The Pluto TV show we have we will put on
Speaker 1: YouTube as well. So that's the plan. You can check
Speaker 1: it out and please do subscribe to the podcast and
Speaker 1: then the YouTube channel. Brian rights Buck, Ben did a
Speaker 1: great job filling in. I was wondering if you had
Speaker 1: plans to give him a slot on Pluto cheat TV
Speaker 1: channel to forty eight the first. If you do, he
Speaker 1: should call his show Ben's wind Garden where the roses
Speaker 1: are always read and the analysis bears fruit. Wompomp. I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't think he's going to all at
Speaker 1: that right, Ben's wind Garden. What do you think? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so, but I do appreciate your writing
Speaker 1: in thank you. I'm glad that Ben benja buddy of mine,
Speaker 1: is a great dude, very smart, good man. Should we
Speaker 1: always try to have the best host we can in here,
Speaker 1: Jesse buck Sexton showing us me with your co workers.
Speaker 1: But CNN stands stands for Certified nutty Network. Okay, Jesse,
Speaker 1: thank you. Daniel rights Buck enjoy your commentary and listeners.
Speaker 1: It doesn't change the message, But as a former US
Speaker 1: n R, I'd like to remind you that it was
Speaker 1: General Yamamoto. I'm sorry, Admiral Yamamoto, not General. My bad,
Speaker 1: sorry about that. Yes, still a vala target for US
Speaker 1: Air Force. P. Thirty eighth. Just finished the book Wounded Tiger.
Speaker 1: It's good, okay, it's astonishing, true story, showering our faith
Speaker 1: and changed to follow Christ can have I no, okay,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Daniel, appreciate it man, thank you
Speaker 1: for writing in the story is about a capture Doolittle raider,
Speaker 1: a missionary's daughter he never met, and others. Huh, okay, interesting,
Speaker 1: I've never heard of that before. Let's see here, Steven Buck,
Speaker 1: you're discussing the movie nineteen seventeen the other night. It
Speaker 1: sounds like a good movie. However, the real deal, literally
Speaker 1: from movies about World War One is They Shall Not
Speaker 1: Grow Old, which takes actual footage. I suggest you see it, Steve,
Speaker 1: and I saw it. It is fantastic. You are correct.
Speaker 1: They Shall Not Grow Old by Peter Jackson is amazing
Speaker 1: and if you care about the First World War, the
Speaker 1: history and really what was going on, you absolutely should
Speaker 1: watch it. I watched it on a plane it was great,
Speaker 1: highly highly recommend teams. So good to be back. I
Speaker 1: won't be out for that many days again till after
Speaker 1: the election. So excited to be with you in this
Speaker 1: journey ahead. As always, Shield's High