Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. CNN is in the
Speaker 1: midst of a seven hour climate change extravaganza of insanity.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about that and also the latest on Walmart
Speaker 1: caving to the far left on guns. There's also now
Speaker 1: going to be a renewed discussion over universal background checks.
Speaker 1: We got that and much more coming up on The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Mag No mistake, America, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, Remember an
Speaker 1: unprecedented Democratic Prince sinential town hall event, climate crisis, Biden,
Speaker 1: Warren Sanders, Paris, boot Y, Yang Castro, ten candidates, ten
Speaker 1: town halls, all on one night, tonight, five Eastern, seven
Speaker 1: hours of climate change madness. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Everybody tonight, Yang Cloba, Shore, Biden, if he remembers to
Speaker 1: show up, it's amazing. It's amazing. Seven hours. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we made detainees watch this CNN climate change town hall,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure it would be a violation of a
Speaker 1: Geneva convention. Like I think there's a real case to
Speaker 1: be made that being forced to watch this CNN climate
Speaker 1: change town hall under any circumstances might be a crime
Speaker 1: against humanity. You can't make this stuff up seven hours now.
Speaker 1: I know that they expect those are all, but we're aren't,
Speaker 1: you know, expecting people. No, No, I'm sure there's some
Speaker 1: CNN people like I need to watch all of this
Speaker 1: otherwise the climate's just going to destroy us all. Wow,
Speaker 1: that does feel a bit like there might be some
Speaker 1: exploitative timing here as well, with a hurricane that is
Speaker 1: just shy of being a category three. Now it's a
Speaker 1: category two, but very close to being a three, and
Speaker 1: it has strengthened in the last few hours to propagate
Speaker 1: this narrative that what we are doing is the cause
Speaker 1: that we are the cause of this destruction. Our activity,
Speaker 1: meaning our economic day to day activity, is the reason
Speaker 1: that this is befalling us. You have to just marvel
Speaker 1: at the disconnect from reality that liberals are engaged in here,
Speaker 1: and just also seven hours. As if that wasn't enough, MSNBC, oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. They want to get in on this action too.
Speaker 1: They announced earlier today Climate Forum twenty twenty, a two
Speaker 1: day event featuring the twenty twenty presidential democrats. Now to this,
Speaker 1: I just want to say, excuse me, MSNBC, but if
Speaker 1: you really cared about climate change, wouldn't your two day
Speaker 1: climate change event be more like a week? Oh? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: don't have enough time to save the world. What a oh,
Speaker 1: what a bunch of what a bunch of lunacy. This
Speaker 1: is Andrew Yang, who has some good somebody I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say he doesn't have good ideas. He has interesting ideas.
Speaker 1: You know, Andrew Yang is the guy who's like, you know, like,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we could build you know, I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe we could build a sports stadium the floats in
Speaker 1: the air, and we're all like, oh interesting, probably really
Speaker 1: expensive and can't work. But you know, you like to
Speaker 1: debate and discuss some of the things that he puts
Speaker 1: out there. And he also comes across like a reasonably earnest,
Speaker 1: nice guy, so you know he's not mean. You know,
Speaker 1: he comes across as really mean to me all the time.
Speaker 1: Is boodha judge. I just seems mean, never seems to
Speaker 1: smile and make a joke, do anything even vaguely funny
Speaker 1: and self aware. He's just always like lecturing everybody, and
Speaker 1: especially about the Bible, which he has a seemingly loose
Speaker 1: familiarity with. But Yang wants a carbon tax of forty
Speaker 1: to one hundred dollars per ton. This is just this
Speaker 1: is just a massive, a massive government takeover of whole
Speaker 1: sectors of the economy. That's all. That's all that's going
Speaker 1: to happen. That's what's going to come from this. You know,
Speaker 1: that's going to be the reality. And they're going to
Speaker 1: try to enrich themselves here. I mean, they're going to
Speaker 1: try to enrich government coffers by telling you that the
Speaker 1: world is going to end. You know, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: and they all release their climate change proposals in advance
Speaker 1: of this whole town hall thing, right, and these candidates
Speaker 1: you look at them, it's all the same, because what
Speaker 1: are you really going to say, other than let's abandoned prosperity.
Speaker 1: Let's abandon what has brought more people as a function
Speaker 1: of technology and the impact on our day to day lives.
Speaker 1: Fossil fuels have done more to bring people out of poverty.
Speaker 1: And because also you have to see the system of
Speaker 1: capitalism that we have is built upon industrialized economies that
Speaker 1: rely on fossil fuels. So really, the attack on CO
Speaker 1: two such as it is, is an attack on capitalism,
Speaker 1: which is why there's so much crossover with Marxist rhetoric
Speaker 1: and thinking with all of it. But yeah, Yang's up there.
Speaker 1: I mean, clubush are all of them, And you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats in the audience, I really wish that I
Speaker 1: could sit down with them, one after the other. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about the people that watch this and say to them,
Speaker 1: you really, you really believe that the world is going
Speaker 1: to that the whole cities will be underwater. You know,
Speaker 1: these are people, mind you that make fun of anybody
Speaker 1: who reads the Bible for the most part and says, oh,
Speaker 1: you believe that this thing happened, you know, two thousand
Speaker 1: years ago or three thousand years ago, and you know
Speaker 1: in ancient Israel and at all that they Meanwhile, they're
Speaker 1: the ones that think that because AOC claims that cow
Speaker 1: farts are doing too much damage to the atmosphere, we're
Speaker 1: all going to be threatened with extinction if we don't
Speaker 1: decide to radically upend the economy all the things that
Speaker 1: have brought us comfort and food and travel and air conditioning.
Speaker 1: Let's let's make that much more expensive, which means much
Speaker 1: more inaccessible, much more inefficient, and let's do it all
Speaker 1: because the people that keep telling us we're running out
Speaker 1: of time are extending the time. Whenever we've run out
Speaker 1: of the time. They said we didn't have seven hour
Speaker 1: town halls, you know, I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: what you expect because this is this is turned into
Speaker 1: a radical belief. It has gone from something that is
Speaker 1: in the background and now it is. It is a necessary,
Speaker 1: a necessary precondition for being a Democrat, for being a
Speaker 1: leftist in good standing, you must support abortion, you must
Speaker 1: support climate change, and increasingly you must support open borders.
Speaker 1: But climate change is an absolute Now you are not allowed.
Speaker 1: You cannot be a heretic on this and be in
Speaker 1: good sending with the left because they have so much
Speaker 1: riding on this. They really do view this as a
Speaker 1: way to seize more power in your life via the
Speaker 1: government than would have ever been thought possible before. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're trying to create a benevolent Green East totalitarian society.
Speaker 1: That's why they're having a seven hour town hall at
Speaker 1: CNN and a two day town hall at MSNBC. We've
Speaker 1: got more on this day with me. The hurricane. We
Speaker 1: got lucky in Florida, very very lucky. Indeed, we had
Speaker 1: actually our original chart was that it was going to
Speaker 1: be hit hitting Florida's directly. Maybe I could just see that, Kevin,
Speaker 1: it was going to be hitting directly, and I would
Speaker 1: have affected a lot of other states. But that was
Speaker 1: the original chart, and you see it was going to
Speaker 1: hit not only Florida, but Georgia could have was going
Speaker 1: toward the Gulf. That was what we what was originally projected,
Speaker 1: and it took a right turn and ultimately hopefully we're
Speaker 1: going to be lucky. It depends on what happens with
Speaker 1: South Carolina, North Carolina, but it's heading up the coast.
Speaker 1: The President giving an update there on the US mainland
Speaker 1: damage of Hurricane Dorian, as he was saying, it looks
Speaker 1: like Florida did not get hit his badly as could
Speaker 1: have been the case. The Bahamas got hit very hard though,
Speaker 1: and you know, the footage of that devastation is just
Speaker 1: it's a reminder of the power of Mother Nature despite
Speaker 1: all of our technological advances, also that the world is
Speaker 1: still a very uncertain and can be a very dangerous
Speaker 1: and unforgiving place. And you think about the Bahamas, a
Speaker 1: locale generally associated in most people's minds with paradise. That's
Speaker 1: where they go to get away from all their problems.
Speaker 1: And then you see what's happened to the people who
Speaker 1: live there, Bahamians, and it's just it's heartbreaking. Home's gone.
Speaker 1: I think there's one I think on Grand Bahama Island.
Speaker 1: If I read correctly today, half of structures are either
Speaker 1: gone or severely damaged, which is just an astonishing number.
Speaker 1: Will hopefully beginning them aid as quickly as possible. I
Speaker 1: know that there are some states in the southeastern United
Speaker 1: States that are also facing this thing, and just want
Speaker 1: everyone down there to know, you know, you're in our prayers,
Speaker 1: and please just air on the side of caution. You know.
Speaker 1: I always feel like it's easy to tell people, oh,
Speaker 1: just listen to the authorities. Well, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: as a conservative, I'm always also saying, you understand your situation.
Speaker 1: You have the ability to improvise at the local level,
Speaker 1: especially for yourself and your family, that no government could
Speaker 1: ever have. But you should take into account the warnings
Speaker 1: and the assessments that are given to you. And I
Speaker 1: think that err on the side of caution is just
Speaker 1: a good, a good rule when dealing with storms. And
Speaker 1: I remember here in New York City a number of
Speaker 1: times getting ready for very big storms and people had
Speaker 1: we had all this water on hand, and you know,
Speaker 1: once or twice it turned out to just be a
Speaker 1: pretty windy rain storm. And then there was Hurricane Sandy,
Speaker 1: which was the big one that people had been worried
Speaker 1: about for some time. But any my thoughts and prayers
Speaker 1: everybody down there and the southeast United States, and we
Speaker 1: will keep following the story as this goes through the week.
Speaker 1: One other part of the new cycle that is getting
Speaker 1: very little attention this week. I mean, I told you
Speaker 1: yesterday about the story of the labor department labor department
Speaker 1: employee who was fired and was fired because of what
Speaker 1: is a really a false and defamatory allegation from a
Speaker 1: lib reporter at Bloomberg. The border wall is getting built.
Speaker 1: This this is going to happen. There is going to
Speaker 1: be new border wall construction. Now, there could be some
Speaker 1: challenges in the courts, but here's what the here's what
Speaker 1: the president president says about this appropriation of funds from
Speaker 1: within the DoD budget. It was a few billion dollars presidents.
Speaker 1: This if this goes forward, folks, this is delivering or
Speaker 1: at least in the process of delivering on a promise.
Speaker 1: And the wall is being built. It's going up rapidly.
Speaker 1: It's I guess most of you have been able to
Speaker 1: We're building very large sections of wall. It's a big
Speaker 1: factor was we just won the big Supreme Court case,
Speaker 1: as you know, and we we're building in different sections.
Speaker 1: We're building different sections simultaneously, and we think by the
Speaker 1: end of next year, which will be sometime right after
Speaker 1: the election, actually, but we think we're going to have
Speaker 1: close to five hundred miles of wall which will be complete.
Speaker 1: That'll be what we wanted to do, is about five
Speaker 1: hundred miles that will take care of all of the
Speaker 1: areas that we wanted, including some of the marginal areas
Speaker 1: that we didn't necessarily need. But if we could have
Speaker 1: gotten it done, we were looking to do about a
Speaker 1: five hundred mile stretch. We should have it almost complete,
Speaker 1: if not complete, by the end of next year. By
Speaker 1: the end of next year, just in time for the
Speaker 1: American people to assess whether President Trump keeps his promises.
Speaker 1: It is essential and I really, I really think this
Speaker 1: needs to be emphasized that is essential that the president
Speaker 1: deliver on the promise of building a wall at the
Speaker 1: southern border. He was mocked for this endlessly by his opponents,
Speaker 1: including a lot of Republican opponents, really all of them.
Speaker 1: In the early days, he has been ridiculed on this
Speaker 1: matter in the press. Even though I've spoken to border patrol,
Speaker 1: been down to the border. They think that wall in
Speaker 1: a lot of areas is very helpful. And all the
Speaker 1: border patrol officers that I've spoken to are quite supportive
Speaker 1: of President Trump. That's including border patrol that has about
Speaker 1: a twenty five percent of border patrol or veterans and
Speaker 1: about thirty percent I believe or Latino and they're all
Speaker 1: very supportive of President Trump's overall approach to the border.
Speaker 1: Feelings in the border, and you know, they understand what
Speaker 1: the mission said is and what's going on down there.
Speaker 1: But this is big. I mean, if he can get
Speaker 1: if he can get even a up one hundred miles
Speaker 1: of wall built, now, it's going to be challenging the courts.
Speaker 1: It's going to be challenged the courts. I have to wonder, though,
Speaker 1: at what point, uh, you know, at what point is
Speaker 1: the executive branch going to say that, you know, we're
Speaker 1: not going to be constrained in day to day actions
Speaker 1: that are within our purview by a solitary federal judge
Speaker 1: somewhere that you know, you're gonna have a universal injunction
Speaker 1: from some judge who's gonna say you can't do this.
Speaker 1: Federal government's not allowed to all the things one judge
Speaker 1: and to say sorry, you know, I I gotta wonder
Speaker 1: at what point, at what point does the administration say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll see you in court, but we're we're not going
Speaker 1: to we are not going to concede that a federal judge.
Speaker 1: You know, what if a federal judge says that the
Speaker 1: president's uh, you're not allowed, not allowed to sign a bill,
Speaker 1: not allowed to sign bills anymore, you know, the president
Speaker 1: under some interpretation of the Procedure Act, you know, the
Speaker 1: president's not allowed to sign a any more laws. Sorry,
Speaker 1: Is the executive branch going to respect that and say, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: the President's not the president anymore? What if a federal
Speaker 1: judge says that the that the president United States, all
Speaker 1: of the laws passed while he's in office, everything he
Speaker 1: signed is null and void because he's not really the
Speaker 1: president because of Russia collusion. I mean, federal judge could
Speaker 1: could take that opinion. I mean they've they've taken opinions
Speaker 1: that are obviously wrong on other matters of executive branch
Speaker 1: activity under Trump. So what happens then, is the administration
Speaker 1: really obligated to just say, yeah, you know what, you're right?
Speaker 1: Not even and I'm not saying that they just ignore entirely.
Speaker 1: They go to court, but you know, pending pending review
Speaker 1: is no longer going to just be okay, you say,
Speaker 1: we can't do this, So let's wait nine months, let's
Speaker 1: wait a year as this makes its way through the courts,
Speaker 1: so that a higher court not packed with Obama appointed lunatics,
Speaker 1: you know, leftist uh, leftist activists in judges robes, is
Speaker 1: not in place to just say yeah, sure, you know,
Speaker 1: we're hashtag resistance. You know. I think at some point
Speaker 1: the administration gets gets to a level or they say, um, sorry,
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're gonna we'll meet you in court
Speaker 1: on this one, and if we're found to have overstep,
Speaker 1: we'll stop. But you cannot tie the hands of the
Speaker 1: executive branch on any matter you want, for pure for
Speaker 1: pure political spite just because you happen to be a
Speaker 1: federal judge. And you know, maybe maybe this, maybe what
Speaker 1: I'm saying isn't the answer. But if that's not the answer,
Speaker 1: then you know what has to be the answer. Start
Speaker 1: impeaching federal judges. You got to start having consequences for
Speaker 1: the lawlessness of left wing judges on the bench who clearly,
Speaker 1: and you see it, an opinion after opinion, and they
Speaker 1: can overturned time and again, clearly view their role as
Speaker 1: stopping Trump from enacting policy and using his executive authority.
Speaker 1: And that's not their job. So if they are betraying
Speaker 1: their offices, they're betraying the power entrusted to them as
Speaker 1: federal judges by viewing their role as hashtag resistance in
Speaker 1: judges robes. And you're going to see it on this
Speaker 1: wall because you know, it's it's not the wall so
Speaker 1: much that bothers the Libs. It's that tramp, although it
Speaker 1: does it does certainly bother them. And also keep in
Speaker 1: mind that once that thing goes up and illegal crossings
Speaker 1: go down in sector after sector. Let's just remind ourselves
Speaker 1: of how many journalists wolves don't work. Wolves don't work.
Speaker 1: The dumbest talking point you've ever heard in your life,
Speaker 1: were repeated ad nauseum on CNN and MSNBC. But there
Speaker 1: must be consequences for this judicial activism that's meant to
Speaker 1: just stymy Trump. They are terrified, really, I mean the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the left are terrified that Trump will follow through on
Speaker 1: this promise, proving that their claims that he was it
Speaker 1: was all a fraud. He never intended to build a wall,
Speaker 1: and that he was just going to betray his base
Speaker 1: was wrong, that they were, that they were wrong, and
Speaker 1: perhaps they were lying. So that's why they, for political
Speaker 1: reasons for winning in twenty twenty, they're going to do
Speaker 1: everything they can to stop construction of this wall because
Speaker 1: if Trump, if he in my mind, if Trump follows
Speaker 1: through on this promise, he could withstand anything for reelection,
Speaker 1: including a recession. I think if he gets the wall built,
Speaker 1: he could even get reelected if we hit a recession.
Speaker 1: That's how important this is. Right back, there is no
Speaker 1: divide among scientists. Less than two percent of climate scientists
Speaker 1: are skeptical about climate change. We have twelve years from
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen until twenty and thirty to either address this
Speaker 1: or if we're going to have a versable damage. There
Speaker 1: is a growing danger that the ice cap will melt
Speaker 1: in Greenland and we will have you know, there won't
Speaker 1: be a big ice cap in the summer UH, and
Speaker 1: that the net result of that is that we're going
Speaker 1: to have a rise in sea levels UH that will
Speaker 1: be significant coming from Greenland and added to other sources
Speaker 1: of new new water, higher water, we could have cities
Speaker 1: in the United States engulfed UH and floods or or
Speaker 1: gergen um or a climate change from Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Melton,
Speaker 1: Greenland and were gurgling gurgan over there at sea and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden, he's a he's a climate
Speaker 1: change guy. Climate climate catastrophe, climate crisis. I think that's
Speaker 1: what they've settled on more recently. I pose this to
Speaker 1: you again. I think any fair minded person could ask
Speaker 1: this question and would have the same reaction I did
Speaker 1: to it, which is, how how crazy are they allowed
Speaker 1: to get before we can just tell them that we're
Speaker 1: not We're not going to listen to this anymore. Cities
Speaker 1: are going to be underwater. Why would anyone believe that
Speaker 1: by the time the cities would actually be underwater? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: in five hundred years and five thousand years. I don't know. Maybe,
Speaker 1: but then we'll have you know, floating floating buildings or something,
Speaker 1: or you know, or we'll have a way to create
Speaker 1: giant hair dryers in a thousand years that basically like
Speaker 1: mop up all the excess moisture. Who knows, you don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe my giant hair dryer ideas probably about as sound
Speaker 1: as the science from that movie Armageddon. I don't want
Speaker 1: to clothe my eyes. You don't talking about Mark. You
Speaker 1: saw that one, that's right, the animals, the animal crackers scene.
Speaker 1: We all remember it. So uh yeah, man, I look,
Speaker 1: Gergan's over there. Everyone has to has to march to
Speaker 1: the same crazy climate tune over there or shittys under
Speaker 1: irreversible dammers. They were saying this ten years ago, there's
Speaker 1: like this ten years before that. How many times we
Speaker 1: have to go through a ten years cycle? And they're wrong.
Speaker 1: And even if we did everything that they think they
Speaker 1: want to do, it wouldn't do anything unless you're going
Speaker 1: to invade India and China and tell them to stop carbonizing.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's another part of this, the restriction on
Speaker 1: wealth creation in the third world, that you have to
Speaker 1: be okay with In order to make a serious dent
Speaker 1: in CO two emissions, I mean, to really turn around
Speaker 1: CO two emissions, you would have to tell the third world, hey,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to go through the same processes of
Speaker 1: wealth creation and the attendant prosperity for your people that
Speaker 1: we did in the developed world. Oh and so they're
Speaker 1: aware of this, and that's why I guess what we
Speaker 1: start doing Global Marxism, the redistribution of wealth from the
Speaker 1: First world as penance, as a as a form of
Speaker 1: it's like in indulgence back in the day in the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church, right, we would pay off the third world
Speaker 1: because we've gotten so rich putting all this CO two
Speaker 1: in the air, which is now I mean just that
Speaker 1: they call CO two, which is a naturally occurring gas,
Speaker 1: which is a small percentage of the overall atmosphere. I
Speaker 1: think it's less than I don't want to say it.
Speaker 1: It's definitely less than two percent, and I don't want
Speaker 1: to say what the exact numbers off the top of
Speaker 1: my heads. I forget Producer Mark, tell me how much
Speaker 1: CO two? What percentage of our atmosphere is? In fact?
Speaker 1: CO two, if you would please, because I'll lose my
Speaker 1: train of thought otherwise. But these these changes in the designation,
Speaker 1: that changes in the rhetoric. You know, this is all.
Speaker 1: This is all because they keep getting it wrong and
Speaker 1: they have to come up with a new This is
Speaker 1: narrative creation in real time. And I just when it
Speaker 1: comes to individuals changing their behavior. You know, I I
Speaker 1: am forced by the City of New York. I know
Speaker 1: you guys get I get so bitter about this, but
Speaker 1: I hate recycling. I freaking hate recycling. It's so stupid.
Speaker 1: It is such a waste of everybody's time. But there
Speaker 1: I am washing out my milk, my milk carton and
Speaker 1: like putting it in the recycling band of blah BLI
Speaker 1: blah blah blah blah. Way, what is the CEO two?
Speaker 1: It seems like less than one percent? Okay, I said
Speaker 1: less than two Yeah, less than one percent. There we go,
Speaker 1: Thank you, producer mark less than one percent of the the atmosphere.
Speaker 1: We really think that a minor percentage change and less
Speaker 1: than one percent of the world's atmosphere is worth All
Speaker 1: of this, all this uh you know, a hubbub, All
Speaker 1: this all this noise from the left, I mean, CNN
Speaker 1: is is like doing the equivalent of reading war and
Speaker 1: Peace in its entirety on air, except it's about the climate,
Speaker 1: and we are basing this on what exactly. The people
Speaker 1: that are the most vocal about it won't even change
Speaker 1: their own behavior. Look at what they do. I think
Speaker 1: it was recently one of the you know, the British
Speaker 1: Royal family, and I think all that British Royal family
Speaker 1: stuff is ridiculous. I know people get all, oh, but
Speaker 1: but they're so fancy and they're like a part of
Speaker 1: a tradition for UK and all this other it's so no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not into it. I don't like it. It's weird.
Speaker 1: Not into monarchies. Um, not into people hiring family members either,
Speaker 1: but uh, you know for political from elected office. But anyway,
Speaker 1: there's that's a conversation for another time. Uh. This stuff
Speaker 1: that people like David Gergen is saying is just manifestly
Speaker 1: in saying, but this is what is expected of you,
Speaker 1: this is what you're told to do. I will say
Speaker 1: that there's a there's a we need a climate, and
Speaker 1: maybe this would be the But the problem is if
Speaker 1: I wrote this book, they would say, first of all,
Speaker 1: I have to take time off from doing things like
Speaker 1: this show, which I love. So that's a no one
Speaker 1: has really written on the right, and someone's going to
Speaker 1: send me a link to a book that has ten
Speaker 1: Amazon reviews and has been read by like thirty people.
Speaker 1: So please don't do that. Okay, I can do an
Speaker 1: Amazon search too. On climate change, no one has written
Speaker 1: the equipped, the game changing conservative perspective on climate change
Speaker 1: in book form. Yet, you know, no, we need we
Speaker 1: need a an inconvenient truth from the right. You know,
Speaker 1: we need something that becomes a cultural and political phenomenon
Speaker 1: that is the argument against this crazy that will reach everyone,
Speaker 1: that everyone can understand and work with and and rely
Speaker 1: on for the facts that it presents, but also the
Speaker 1: argument that it makes. We don't really have that, you know.
Speaker 1: You you see, here's a examples you have, you know,
Speaker 1: Jonah Goldberg with liberal fascism. I mean that book, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden people realize, Hold on a second, the
Speaker 1: fascists were leftists. I mean history proves this, and yeah,
Speaker 1: there's national socialists and people have been aware of this
Speaker 1: for a while, but that book was a was a
Speaker 1: conversation changer on that issue. And Culter Audios America on immigration,
Speaker 1: illegal immigration specifically and the Wall. That book was a
Speaker 1: conversation changer. And I've said to you it's really why
Speaker 1: Trump became president. So whether you know what lover or
Speaker 1: don't lover her, you guys all know, I think she's
Speaker 1: pretty great. But you know, and Culter is the single
Speaker 1: author who is probably most responsible for the rise of
Speaker 1: Trump to the presidency. And also whether you love that
Speaker 1: or not, I leave that to you. But there are
Speaker 1: other books that are like this that are changed. You know,
Speaker 1: Whittaker Chambers Witness. That's a masterpiece. But that changed national
Speaker 1: perception about communist infiltration of America. It was real, it
Speaker 1: was happening, it was systematic. You know, we don't have
Speaker 1: that for climate change yet, and we need that. I mean,
Speaker 1: we need someone who goes, look, here are the predictions
Speaker 1: they've made. Here's all the quotes, here the you know,
Speaker 1: even when they when they start out, you know, Gergan
Speaker 1: goes ours, there's no where or separation or science community weber, uh,
Speaker 1: well except for the two percent of scientists. Well, do
Speaker 1: two percent of scientists not believe in gravity? Do two
Speaker 1: percent of scientists? Uh, not believe that the world is round?
Speaker 1: Because if two percent of scientists think that climate change
Speaker 1: alarmism is not supported by the science and is in
Speaker 1: fact nuts. Shouldn't we do a little bit of investigation
Speaker 1: into why that is instead of saying, well, regard or
Speaker 1: regarding our three eight percent or ninety eight, there's ninety
Speaker 1: rush eight, which there's one hundred, except there's two and
Speaker 1: two percent or two hundred ninety eight, we're I I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but I just will never forget being on panels at
Speaker 1: them and they're like, wait, wait, everybody be quiet, gurgling
Speaker 1: Gurgen has some political insights to share contrens Democrats from
Speaker 1: Reager Niction forward. So it's like, who is this guy?
Speaker 1: I know he's worked for every presidents in Zabraham Lincoln,
Speaker 1: but I really just don't I really just don't think
Speaker 1: I need to hear this. But we need that, though,
Speaker 1: and someone has to someone has to step up and
Speaker 1: do it, and preferably what it really has to be
Speaker 1: is a person who understands the messaging and the political fight,
Speaker 1: and probably teaming up with somebody who, in a way
Speaker 1: that is undeniable, has the background and facility and capacity
Speaker 1: to understand the full scope of the science. You know,
Speaker 1: I wish there's a way I could I could help
Speaker 1: this come about, but this needs to be done. There
Speaker 1: are trillions of dollars at stake because of this insanity
Speaker 1: from or Left, literally trillions of dollars. And they still
Speaker 1: tell us all this stuff. They still keep claiming that
Speaker 1: if we don't make massive changes to our lifestyles, if
Speaker 1: we don't do all these things at the telling us
Speaker 1: we have to do, you know, the world's going to end.
Speaker 1: This is what they're saying. The world is going to end.
Speaker 1: Unless you believe that Ocasio Cortez knows how to remake
Speaker 1: the American economy to save the world and make it better.
Speaker 1: And if you believe that, well then you probably deserve
Speaker 1: to live in the crappy country that she's going to create.
Speaker 1: That's just this is it's a republic if we can
Speaker 1: keep it. It's a capitalist, prosperous society if we're not
Speaker 1: too stupid to let it keep doing what it does.
Speaker 1: But that's you know, with all these little socialists running around,
Speaker 1: that's increasingly that's increasingly a problem. The truth is that
Speaker 1: these storms that are hitting the Caribbean with this intense
Speaker 1: magnitude are historic, unprecedented, and these storms are man made.
Speaker 1: Storm the Virgin Islands was hit by two Category five
Speaker 1: storms only two years ago while President Trump indeed was
Speaker 1: our president. The people who are most vulnerable to these
Speaker 1: man made storms are the ones who, in all cases
Speaker 1: are not the contributing factors to the carbon emissions that
Speaker 1: are causing these storms. These storms are being caused in
Speaker 1: huge part because of capital US. North American capital and
Speaker 1: places like the Virgin Islands and the Bahamas are the
Speaker 1: ones that are most vulnerable to these things. You see, folks,
Speaker 1: the developed world is responsible for this. That's what they
Speaker 1: developed world is creating these man made storms. There is
Speaker 1: no evidence, it does not exist that any particular storm
Speaker 1: is manmade. This is a complete fabrication. There is no
Speaker 1: evidence for this at all. They say that overall global
Speaker 1: overall global temperature is they're talking about a point zero
Speaker 1: one degree rise over the last couple of years, and
Speaker 1: that's going to Oh now, the storms are really crazy. There.
Speaker 1: There have been storms for as long as there have
Speaker 1: been storm systems. Okay, I mean this is but the
Speaker 1: people going to be This was a professor at Emory.
Speaker 1: But she's giving away a bit more of the game here,
Speaker 1: which is that this is ultimately about a global Marxist approach.
Speaker 1: And this is where the redistribution of wealth comes in,
Speaker 1: because a developed economy for the last one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty years, an industrialized economy is inextricably linked, is in
Speaker 1: fact built upon a foundation of carbon emission. So if
Speaker 1: you can isolate carbon emission as destroying the planet, every
Speaker 1: more developed, wealthy society in the world is going to
Speaker 1: bear a greater share of that burden and therefore has
Speaker 1: to pay the equivalent of environmental reparations to the developing
Speaker 1: world to repair the damage that has been done to
Speaker 1: the environment by a world where we have smartphones and
Speaker 1: computers and everyone drives around in a very you know,
Speaker 1: comfortable car with all kinds of electronics that can drive,
Speaker 1: you know, for hundreds of thousands of miles pretty much
Speaker 1: before it really falls apart. I mean the cars these days.
Speaker 1: One of the problems of car industry has cars can
Speaker 1: last twenty years easily, so, you know, but but to
Speaker 1: leave in though and then play. People always think of
Speaker 1: fossil fuels. Then they think, oh, it goes in the car,
Speaker 1: maybe I'll just bicycle to work. Half half of oil
Speaker 1: specifically is used in products, you know, from plastics to
Speaker 1: petroleum jelly to so you are buying things all the
Speaker 1: time that are reliant on fossil fuels in their very creation,
Speaker 1: never mind in their transport or their refrigeration or of
Speaker 1: the guys getting to work. This is an attack on capitalism.
Speaker 1: You have to see it in those terms. You have
Speaker 1: to understand why it is so essential to the left
Speaker 1: that they can brainwash people and just just bludging them
Speaker 1: into this belief that you know, CO two is a
Speaker 1: global threat and we're all living on borrowed time unless
Speaker 1: we hand the keys of our economy over to AOC,
Speaker 1: which is that that's a terrifying thought. It should be
Speaker 1: a terrifying thought for anyone that the people that are
Speaker 1: pushing this the most that they don't know what the heck.
Speaker 1: They don't know what they're talking about on the science,
Speaker 1: and they don't understand the impact on the economy. And
Speaker 1: what's perhaps even more frightening, they don't care. They have
Speaker 1: a messianic vision of themselves here that they are saving
Speaker 1: the planet. And therefore, if you really believe at pushing
Speaker 1: this climate change nonsense, you're going to save the planet.
Speaker 1: What would you not be willing to do? This is
Speaker 1: the the challenge whenever you're dealing with extremism is that
Speaker 1: the extremist is always able to justify any behavior because
Speaker 1: they decontextualize their own thoughts and their own actions from
Speaker 1: reality around them, and they create an alternative reality where
Speaker 1: whatever they think is necessary must be done because of
Speaker 1: the threat, whether it's Antifa with fighting against fascism or
Speaker 1: a climate change alarmist with fighting against CO two in
Speaker 1: the air, and the rest of us, the sane, rational
Speaker 1: adult world look at them and say, what is wrong
Speaker 1: with you people? What do you what are you not
Speaker 1: able to understand here? Climate change is a religious belief.
Speaker 1: I mean you can go back and do it. Do
Speaker 1: an anthropological study of civilizations throughout history, and they have
Speaker 1: their their creation myths, and they also have their end
Speaker 1: of day's stories, all of them do. And you know
Speaker 1: this ties deeply into the human psyche as well. You know,
Speaker 1: we we want to believe or you know, our minds
Speaker 1: attached to this notion that, uh, there could be an
Speaker 1: end coming, because then it makes it feel like we
Speaker 1: aren't so insignificant, because once we're gone, perhaps everything is gone. Right,
Speaker 1: once we're gone, the whole world is going down. No,
Speaker 1: the world is going to go on and on and on,
Speaker 1: and we will be long since forgotten. There is a
Speaker 1: soleopsism that is also at the heart of the psychology
Speaker 1: of the climate change alarmists. You know this. This gives
Speaker 1: them a greater sense, a greater sense of purpose in
Speaker 1: their day to day they're fighting against climate change, but
Speaker 1: also a purpose in the cosmos. Oh, everything is going
Speaker 1: to end. No, it's not, folks, I'm here to tell you.
Speaker 1: It's just nothing about It is not a bottle, it's
Speaker 1: not about it's about costating. The US settleson the gig,
Speaker 1: take us blaying, I'll sit out of my way. Was
Speaker 1: and none. This is over in this tat of New York.
Speaker 1: The room and puck detti. That's true. That's how I'm who.
Speaker 1: I want this US Americans freedoms. You got the write
Speaker 1: and do that. I have the right to do this.
Speaker 1: That's why I do not like white libras a Democrats.
Speaker 1: They are the worst owned this earth. A white liberal
Speaker 1: and a Democrat wants to control you. That's what they
Speaker 1: want to do. They are puck debting. So there you
Speaker 1: had in Grand Central right here in New York City,
Speaker 1: a an African American Trump twenty twenty supporter called in
Speaker 1: this video exchange with a Democrat I believe also African
Speaker 1: American Democrat. They're getting into the back and forth over
Speaker 1: more or less you know, how could you be a
Speaker 1: how could you be black in this country and support Trump?
Speaker 1: That's what the Democrat was saying. And I want to
Speaker 1: step back for a moment from the the the specifics
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty election and whether Trump has been
Speaker 1: good or bad for the black community in this country.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at unemployment numbers, you look at
Speaker 1: overall economic metrics, and those are clearly favorable for Trump,
Speaker 1: specifically with African American and Latino communities. It's it's always
Speaker 1: lost in the discussion about the Latino vote and how
Speaker 1: Trump is such an anti Latino racist that you had
Speaker 1: almost thirty percent of Latino's vote for him in the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. Was I think twenty eight or twenty
Speaker 1: nine percent overall, So that's a lot of people when
Speaker 1: you added up nationally who are Latino and support Trump.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats have to borrow one of their words
Speaker 1: normalized what is and inherently and inherently unethical, And I
Speaker 1: would argue irrational point of view, and that is that
Speaker 1: you have there is an acceptable and aptible perspective to
Speaker 1: have based upon one's ethnicity, skin color, national origin, and
Speaker 1: that that should be replicated throughout society. On pain of
Speaker 1: social ostracism, on being pushed out of your community, on
Speaker 1: being cast out from whatever group you may mean. They
Speaker 1: used to call them when I was in college, they
Speaker 1: called it an affinity group. I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: still a phrase that's used on college campuses, but an
Speaker 1: affinity group was. You know, if you are a member
Speaker 1: of the Latino Coalition or the African American Coalition, that
Speaker 1: was your affinity group on a college campus. You you
Speaker 1: are pushed out from that group if you think differently
Speaker 1: about certain matters. And I do think it's so interesting
Speaker 1: that it's not even issue by issue, it's not even
Speaker 1: issue specific. It's you must support a democrat. Now we
Speaker 1: know why. I mean, none of this is surprising to us.
Speaker 1: And you will see this be a centerpiece. I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're gonna talk about free this and free that, and uh,
Speaker 1: they're gonna be pushing the socialism that someone else will
Speaker 1: pay for. And remember every time socialism has been tried
Speaker 1: in any country it's always told to the majority that
Speaker 1: someone else is going to pay. It's always that you know,
Speaker 1: this isn't gonna cost you, It's going to cost somebody else,
Speaker 1: which is why, at least for in a short term
Speaker 1: sense and in a society where there are enough people
Speaker 1: who can be fooled, it can be a powerful political appeal.
Speaker 1: Someone else is gonna pay. You're gonna get all the
Speaker 1: free stuff, someone else will pay for it. Uh. In
Speaker 1: our country, though, in into twenty twenty, what you're going
Speaker 1: to see is a focus on identity politics that is
Speaker 1: the strongest it has it has ever been in the
Speaker 1: sense of a negative focus toward the Republican Party, you know,
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration and when President Obama was running
Speaker 1: clearly identity politics. It's very powerful to have and and
Speaker 1: this was understandable that you know, as an African American
Speaker 1: in this country, the first black president. That's it. Look,
Speaker 1: it is a compelling story. Let's just be honest about it.
Speaker 1: It is. It's a compelling story. And I can understand
Speaker 1: why the black community reacted in the way that it did,
Speaker 1: not just the first time around, but the second time around.
Speaker 1: Although the second time around for Obama's reelection. I do
Speaker 1: think there's more of a casema that. Okay, well, but
Speaker 1: was he a good president? I mean, forget about the
Speaker 1: historic nature of it. Was he a good president? You're
Speaker 1: going to have all that enthusiasm and energy to vote
Speaker 1: for Obama is going to now be turned against Trump
Speaker 1: in the next in this next election cycle. And you know,
Speaker 1: with they tried to do enthusiasm for Hillary last time
Speaker 1: around because people still thought of Trump as a joke.
Speaker 1: But this isn't Trump as a joke. Vote for the
Speaker 1: Democrat that was twenty sixteen, twenty twenty is going to
Speaker 1: be Trump is an evil racist like Hitler, vote for
Speaker 1: anyone other than him. And if you are a minority
Speaker 1: and you vote for Trump, there you know you are
Speaker 1: part of his evil. You are helping to destroy this
Speaker 1: country and oppress people from within your own, your own
Speaker 1: community of color. That's that's going to be the narrative storyline.
Speaker 1: It's going to be this deeply negative approach to all
Speaker 1: things Trump. And I would just note that they start
Speaker 1: with a fallacy here, and the fallacy is Democrats start
Speaker 1: with a fallacy that you should think about your relationship
Speaker 1: to the state, You should think about politics very broadly
Speaker 1: based upon your skin color, first and foremost, that that
Speaker 1: is a determining factor in how you would vote, how
Speaker 1: you think, how you think of things like as varied
Speaker 1: as abortion, border security, healthcare, tax rates, foreign policy. That
Speaker 1: skin color should be a defining factor for human beings
Speaker 1: in how they approach all these different issues. And it's
Speaker 1: an astonishingly in my view, it's an astonishingly destructive approach
Speaker 1: for this country to our political fabric. I think all
Speaker 1: this talk about how divisive things are, there is really
Speaker 1: I think you could argue no area of our politics
Speaker 1: that is more divisive, and largely because of the way
Speaker 1: it is exploited by the ruling class. There's nothing that
Speaker 1: is more divisive than racial politics in this country. Which
Speaker 1: is why you know CNN likes to fan the flames
Speaker 1: of this literally in the cases of the coverage and
Speaker 1: the and the enthusiasm and the real encouragement that many
Speaker 1: CNI and reporters had for the Black Lives Matter movement,
Speaker 1: even when there were instances of it burning down neighborhoods
Speaker 1: and looting stores, CNN was, oh, look at this, this
Speaker 1: is this is people speaking out against police suppression and violence.
Speaker 1: But we should never accept that the way that they
Speaker 1: approach this is okay. And more, we should never accept
Speaker 1: that the basic, the basic approach that Democrats insist on
Speaker 1: from minorities is you are Asian, you are Black, you
Speaker 1: are Hispanic, you're anything. Therefore you must vote Democrat. And
Speaker 1: if you don't, no one wants to hear your reasons.
Speaker 1: No one wants to have a conversation. You are voted out,
Speaker 1: so to speak. You are cast out from your community,
Speaker 1: so damaging, and they do it so frequently that we
Speaker 1: almost don't notice it anymore. And I'm just I'm imploring
Speaker 1: you to keep that in your mind as we enter
Speaker 1: what's going to be the most contentious election. It's I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's the most important. You know, everybody says
Speaker 1: no, No No, I do believe this will be the most
Speaker 1: contentious election cycle of my lifetime. You will never see
Speaker 1: a nastier, more bitterly fought political contest than Trump versus
Speaker 1: whoever's up against him. Because they're trying to prop up
Speaker 1: a whole squad of losers with these this Democrat field,
Speaker 1: most notably Joe Biden, and the only way they really
Speaker 1: think they're gonna win is to just heap so much
Speaker 1: trash on top of Trump that it's it's it's overwhelming.
Speaker 1: And one of the ways they're going to try to
Speaker 1: create that enthusiasm for dumping on Trump is going to
Speaker 1: be by exploiting racial division and playing to identity politics.
Speaker 1: Do you correctly say you have to a little bit?
Speaker 1: Excuse me? Could somebody please silence the crying baby. I
Speaker 1: know I look like a cuddly grandpa, but I'm trying
Speaker 1: to spread Marxism here. It's hard work. I get tired,
Speaker 1: I get grouchy. No no babies, No little capitalist babies
Speaker 1: making noise in the background. Please, only little Marxist babies
Speaker 1: with you know, hammer and sickle Onesie's on. Please. Bernie Sanders, Man,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders still a top contender for the for the race.
Speaker 1: It's it's amazing, It really is. You have to think
Speaker 1: to yourself, what what is this country coming to when
Speaker 1: someone with so little connection to the reality of our
Speaker 1: economy and such a a completely inadequate and inadequate understanding
Speaker 1: and unacceptable understanding of basic you know micro economics, right,
Speaker 1: which is a study of the specifics of how economics
Speaker 1: plays out in transactions and for businesses, and you know
Speaker 1: this is this is the basics of supplying demand. Uh.
Speaker 1: Someone who doesn't understand this at all has has no
Speaker 1: connection to the realities of how an economy functions. He's
Speaker 1: still a very viable presidential candidate. It's it's madness. But
Speaker 1: you know, I know that we're still supposed to be
Speaker 1: focused on the on the gun issue, and I don't
Speaker 1: think anything is going to change. Although we'll have my
Speaker 1: friend David Harsani joining here to second, we'll talk about
Speaker 1: universal background checks. There is this story that the Odessa
Speaker 1: shooter got a firearm from a private sale after being
Speaker 1: denied a firearm through a background check. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: there is there is that story. I would just say
Speaker 1: that we are going to eventually reach a point where
Speaker 1: we've heard every talking point from the Democrats so many
Speaker 1: times that we are we are numb to it. And
Speaker 1: then the question becomes, are we going to just say
Speaker 1: enough as enough, well we'll just do something to shut
Speaker 1: them up, or will we be able to tune it out.
Speaker 1: I hope it is the latter, but there are If
Speaker 1: you're looking at this from the piece by piece perspective
Speaker 1: gun rights, uh, you know there's some loosening of restrictions
Speaker 1: in Texas, and that there are places where you see
Speaker 1: action being taken at the state level. And certainly the dcv.
Speaker 1: Heller decision at the Supreme Court was very helpful to
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment at the federal level, but it really
Speaker 1: just kept a Second Amendment from being eradicated. I think
Speaker 1: people need to remember that dcv. Heller just meant that
Speaker 1: you do have the right as a law abiding citizen
Speaker 1: to have a firearm in your home, and that and
Speaker 1: that they can't just say no guns for you anywhere,
Speaker 1: because it's a right. Okay, so that's but if that
Speaker 1: wasn't a right, then there's no such thing as a
Speaker 1: second and then the Second Amendment is is null and void.
Speaker 1: So it was really taken from life support to intensive care.
Speaker 1: But it was definitely a minimal, a minimal victory at
Speaker 1: the corporate level, which is where I do think we
Speaker 1: have to increasingly devote our attention because you know, democrats,
Speaker 1: Democrats view the culture war and really the political war
Speaker 1: that's going on in this country as an across the
Speaker 1: board affair that they make no distinctions. There's no difference
Speaker 1: to them whether they're pushing for corporate action, political government action,
Speaker 1: they just want their way. And that's why you have
Speaker 1: Walmart and Kroeger, for example, who are coming out and
Speaker 1: saying they no longer want anyone to openly carry in
Speaker 1: their stores. Now they have a right to do this,
Speaker 1: but let's understand what this accomplishes. It accomplishes nothing from
Speaker 1: the perspective of safety. I mean, there's no such thing
Speaker 1: as a mass shooter or a criminal of any kind
Speaker 1: who goes, oh wow, you mean Walmart would prefer I
Speaker 1: don't open carry in the store. I guess I'm gonna
Speaker 1: forget about my diabolical shooting plan. That's never gonna have
Speaker 1: that that does not exist. And uh, you know, you
Speaker 1: have the establishment of some of these or rather some
Speaker 1: of these stores have established new rules where they are
Speaker 1: limiting law biding gun owners in, you know, in their stores,
Speaker 1: things like open carry. And now I know Walmart is
Speaker 1: no longer going to sell handgun ammunition and it will
Speaker 1: not sell small I think it's small rifle ammunition or something.
Speaker 1: They said, I you know, not even clear on what
Speaker 1: the what the specifics are of the restriction, but they're
Speaker 1: restricting ammunition sales now in response in response to what
Speaker 1: has happened here. This follows after Dick Sporting Goods has
Speaker 1: also dramatically restricted firearms that will be sold, and Dick
Speaker 1: Sporting Goods did pretty well sales wise. I think the
Speaker 1: stock is actually up, so it used to be a
Speaker 1: used at least be the percept that companies that take
Speaker 1: action based upon the outrage mob will suffer the consequences
Speaker 1: when normal Americans express their displeasure with them don't shut
Speaker 1: But that doesn't seem to be the case anywhere. There's
Speaker 1: been a shift. You see this with Nike and Colin Kaepernick,
Speaker 1: and it's a different issue than the gun issue, but
Speaker 1: they've gone very deep on the social justice side of things,
Speaker 1: very publicly. And the fact of the matter is that
Speaker 1: if you're not a social justice warrior, are you not
Speaker 1: going to buy your dry fit running shorts from Nike
Speaker 1: now because of Kaepernick? The answer, let's be honest, folks,
Speaker 1: answer is probably that no, you're still gonna buy it.
Speaker 1: And if you are a Walmart customer now because you
Speaker 1: can't get your ammo there, are you not going to
Speaker 1: go buy your ammunition from wal I mean, are sorry?
Speaker 1: You're not going to go buy your milk forget your ammunition?
Speaker 1: You can go buy your socks from Walmart. I think
Speaker 1: the answer there once again is probably Nope, you're still
Speaker 1: going to go. And so the risk tolerance, the corporate
Speaker 1: calculation has shifted out. And this is what this is
Speaker 1: the This is the type of incrementalism that the left
Speaker 1: is trying to accomplish with the gun issue. But now
Speaker 1: the corporate calculation is, look that the pro gun people
Speaker 1: are still going to shop in our store if we
Speaker 1: just say, look, can we you know, we don't want
Speaker 1: any part We're not taking a position on it, we
Speaker 1: just don't want any part of this. We're not going
Speaker 1: to sell ammunition or we're not going to sell handguns
Speaker 1: or whatever it may be, and the anti gun people
Speaker 1: will leave us alone. So this then becomes the safer
Speaker 1: option for them, even for a place like Walmart, that
Speaker 1: I believe is generally associated, at least in the minds
Speaker 1: of people on the coasts with more red state and
Speaker 1: rural areas. Now, is that not if it's probably not
Speaker 1: fair of Walmart's really just the biggest retailer. It's very
Speaker 1: big in some inner city locations, and I understand that,
Speaker 1: but people think of Walmart as you know, very all
Speaker 1: American store that serves all kinds of communities, but especially
Speaker 1: in a lot of rural communities, it's a it's almost
Speaker 1: a superstore where you get all your stuff. There're not
Speaker 1: gonna sell guns. So these companies now are changing there,
Speaker 1: they're changing their risk parameters. And it's not necessarily that
Speaker 1: they want to be woke. They just don't want to
Speaker 1: get attacked by woke and they feel like our side
Speaker 1: of this equation is less mobilized against them, you know,
Speaker 1: or we won't mobilize against them just because they don't
Speaker 1: want to get in the middle of this. And then
Speaker 1: of course you have the other side of or you
Speaker 1: have the additional side of this, where you know, San
Speaker 1: Francisco is now declaring the nra AT a domestic terrorist
Speaker 1: organization and people have completely lost their minds. They there's
Speaker 1: so much, there's so much ignorance on the issue of
Speaker 1: gun culture, the Second Amendment in this country, and I'm
Speaker 1: I'm right in the midst of it here in a
Speaker 1: place like New York City where if I can tell
Speaker 1: you this, if I now, I couldn't legally open carry
Speaker 1: in New York from my understanding of New York laws
Speaker 1: under any circumstances, you can conceal carry a handgun if
Speaker 1: you get a very tough to get permit and it's
Speaker 1: really hard. Um. But let's just say if I could
Speaker 1: open carry in New York, if that changed law and
Speaker 1: I walk, people would look at me like I was
Speaker 1: a threat and it might actually lead to an incident.
Speaker 1: I mean, somebody might assume that I would have ill
Speaker 1: intent if I were open carrying in this city and
Speaker 1: they didn't think that I was a law enforcement officers
Speaker 1: of some kind. So, you know, the cultural changes, the
Speaker 1: corporate changes. Even though I don't think there are any
Speaker 1: massive legal changes coming to the Second Amendment and to
Speaker 1: the right to bear arms, there's all this other stuff
Speaker 1: and the left is achieving that we'll get more into
Speaker 1: this in just a moment. President. What is it define
Speaker 1: what an assault weapon? Ass Yeah, well, the assault weapons
Speaker 1: is where you can send my own amount of because
Speaker 1: and also when you put in the high high capacities
Speaker 1: on days, what is an assault weapon? Well, I would
Speaker 1: say the team definitely qualified. But what is an assault weapon?
Speaker 1: Can you define what an assault weapons? Got an interview?
Speaker 1: I think you know it's the weapon that killed assault
Speaker 1: weapon is the weapon that killed nine people, nine people
Speaker 1: in Dayton in thirty second. Can you I just want
Speaker 1: him to answer what an assault weapon is? Can you
Speaker 1: define what an assault weapons? I certainly can't be legislation.
Speaker 1: Can you define it? Can you define it? Uh? They're
Speaker 1: having some trouble there defining what an assault weapon is,
Speaker 1: which is not surprising, but they still want to ban them.
Speaker 1: Our friend David Harsani joins now. He's the author of
Speaker 1: First Freedom, A Ride through America's Enduring History with the Gun,
Speaker 1: an excellent book on the history of guns in this country.
Speaker 1: And also he's a senior editor at The Federalist. A
Speaker 1: very excellent sight. Mister Harsan, You're great to have you back, sir,
Speaker 1: good to be here. Thanks. All right, so let's let's
Speaker 1: start with this. There seems to now just be this uh,
Speaker 1: this push among particularly among the journos, but Democrats too,
Speaker 1: Democrat lawmakers that the specifics don't really matter it, you know,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, assault, rifle, assault, you know, schmifele, it's
Speaker 1: we just need to ban the guns to stop the violence.
Speaker 1: Is this a change in anything you think? Is this
Speaker 1: going to move the ball for them? No, it's not
Speaker 1: right now. I think their plan is long term. You know,
Speaker 1: as you just saw, people can't define assault weapons. And
Speaker 1: that's I think in a way on purpose. I mean,
Speaker 1: you want to have this elastic word that can mean
Speaker 1: anything you want it to mean, so it becomes something
Speaker 1: that's just the bad thing. You know, it's an evil
Speaker 1: thing to have an assault weapon. And what do they mean, Well, basically,
Speaker 1: it's just about aesthetics right now, and it's an incremental
Speaker 1: way to get to every semi automatic weapon, which is
Speaker 1: what I think they really want to ban or at
Speaker 1: least very very strictly restrict. You know, let's take into
Speaker 1: one part of this because the CNN I think, initially
Speaker 1: broke the story on this. But we're being told now
Speaker 1: that the shooter in Odessa bought the gun he failed
Speaker 1: a background check to buy a firearm, and then when
Speaker 1: and bought the gun in a private sale. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't I haven't seen more specifics. If you have
Speaker 1: more specifics, by all means, let us know. But this
Speaker 1: is quite obviously going to turn into a major data
Speaker 1: point that is used for why we need universal background checks. Now, David,
Speaker 1: a lot of people it sounds like, well, we already
Speaker 1: have background checks, why not have universal background checks. I
Speaker 1: posed that I have my own version, but I want
Speaker 1: to hear the Harsani version. Well, I just want to
Speaker 1: say I saw that story as well. There are really
Speaker 1: very little specifics, but whatever happened there, he broke the
Speaker 1: he's not supposed to have a weapon, and through a
Speaker 1: private sale either. So you know, I'm opposed to universal
Speaker 1: background checks because I think they will lead to a
Speaker 1: data national database of people. I don't understand how else
Speaker 1: that can be done. And I also think it will
Speaker 1: inhibit depending on how it's done, but most of these
Speaker 1: bills will inhibit people from being able to lend their
Speaker 1: gun to someone, to give their gun to their relative
Speaker 1: or a good friend if they want to, without going
Speaker 1: through some kind of government check. And I just don't
Speaker 1: I just don't think that comports with the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: and the freedom of owning a firearm. I think that
Speaker 1: the laws that we have on the books already are
Speaker 1: enough to stop most of these shooters. You're never going
Speaker 1: to stop all of them. And even if the case
Speaker 1: here was that he went through a private sale, it's
Speaker 1: an incredibly rare event. I can't think of another one
Speaker 1: of these mass shootings, high profile mass shootings, that happen
Speaker 1: in that way. I can think of a few right
Speaker 1: off the bat that could have been stopped by just
Speaker 1: follow the laws that we already have. And if this
Speaker 1: was a private sale, and that's the way of getting around,
Speaker 1: you know, people are gonna say, well, why why can't
Speaker 1: we just require someone to go in and have the
Speaker 1: background check done at a federal firearms license you know,
Speaker 1: or a federal firearms licensee. Why not just go through
Speaker 1: that process, you said, because essentially a registry and it's
Speaker 1: just unconstitutional. Is there anything else? Well, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's already illegal to sell to someone who shouldn't have
Speaker 1: a gun, a to to buy someone a gun, uh
Speaker 1: you know, to buy the phrases escaping me. But to
Speaker 1: buy a gun for someone who's straw purchase, yeah, straw
Speaker 1: purchase of a gun. And uh so, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: what this does other than stop people who are law
Speaker 1: abiding citizens from just you know, get you know, giving
Speaker 1: their gun to their relative or selling their gun to
Speaker 1: someone they know. If you're selling guns all the time,
Speaker 1: you have to have you have to have a license
Speaker 1: to do It's that's simple. Is there what's your what's
Speaker 1: your idea? Why why do you oppose it, why do
Speaker 1: I mean? I think that they're definitely going to create
Speaker 1: a registry. So that's I think the moment that you
Speaker 1: have every every single gun transaction that goes across the country,
Speaker 1: they're going to say, okay, well now we have a
Speaker 1: record of every gun transaction that's occurring. Any but I mean,
Speaker 1: they already do have a lot of those guns. But
Speaker 1: I also think then you start to get into this
Speaker 1: area of well, if I if I do give you know,
Speaker 1: am I now breaking the law? If I give a
Speaker 1: gun to somebody to go sporting clay shooting and I
Speaker 1: haven't gone under a federal firearms licensee and that person
Speaker 1: for some reason get stopped and checked by a state
Speaker 1: trooper or whatever, Am I going to prison now for that?
Speaker 1: I mean, I want to know. You see, that's exactly
Speaker 1: what they want. They want to make it harder. It's
Speaker 1: like a Maryland near d See where I live, getting
Speaker 1: a gun is incredibly difficult. That's what they want to do.
Speaker 1: They just want to make it more and more difficult.
Speaker 1: When we all know is this shooter and every other
Speaker 1: shooter does they ignore those laws any win do whatever
Speaker 1: they like? It is is anything gonna you know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I feel like part of my frustration year is that
Speaker 1: I come on radio and it's it's the same Liberals
Speaker 1: make the same arguments about this after every mass shooting.
Speaker 1: There's never you know, they usually completely ignore, Well, what
Speaker 1: you want to do wouldn't have even stopped the shooting
Speaker 1: you're talking about. It's a very small percentage mass shootings
Speaker 1: overall of gun violence in the country, which is over
Speaker 1: from handguns and crime related, especially drug and gang related.
Speaker 1: But why they just think they're going to beat us
Speaker 1: into submission with the repetition? Is that the plan? What
Speaker 1: do you think the plan is? Well, I think that
Speaker 1: that a r fifteens because that you're used often by
Speaker 1: these derained psychopaths is an easy way to scare monger
Speaker 1: people about guns. The truth of the matter is, like
Speaker 1: you just mentioned, uh, all all rifles are I think
Speaker 1: account for a very small percent you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know the exacting seven hundred of all the gun homicides
Speaker 1: last year or something like that, and within that that's
Speaker 1: not even a fifteens. You know, that's just rifles in general,
Speaker 1: more people are kicked to death, more people are punched
Speaker 1: to death, more people are killed with blunt objects and knives.
Speaker 1: But it's an easy way to scare people because of
Speaker 1: the aesthetics of the gun and then of the horrible
Speaker 1: things that they're used for. But in the end, as
Speaker 1: far as gun violence goes, it won't do much. My
Speaker 1: my theory is, and I don't think this is you know,
Speaker 1: some some huge This not surprised you. I just think
Speaker 1: this is incrementalism. They blatch onto whatever they can, whatever
Speaker 1: they think is popular. You see the poll numbers on
Speaker 1: this stuff, and that's what they want to do. Buybacks,
Speaker 1: assault weapon bands and universal back and buybacks aren't really
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a very gentle way of saying, you're
Speaker 1: going to give us your gun or you're going to prison.
Speaker 1: That's all. Yeah, it's called a lie. It's not a
Speaker 1: buy back because you never owned it in the first place.
Speaker 1: It's it's confiscation. First, gun confiscation plans since as I
Speaker 1: wrote in a comm today, since Lexington van Concord, so never, never,
Speaker 1: not in the thirties or any other times, the government
Speaker 1: to pass the law that meant confiscating the guns of
Speaker 1: law abiding citizens, making millions of people into criminals instantaneous.
Speaker 1: I mean Connecticut, Connecticut I think I saw an assessment
Speaker 1: years ago, and they banned a lot of semi automatic
Speaker 1: rifles at the state level. They expect that there are
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of people a couple of hundred thousand
Speaker 1: I think was the number, two hundred or maybe hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand that just didn't comply. So technically those
Speaker 1: people are all now in the state of Connecticut felons.
Speaker 1: But they don't go door to door question that's soft
Speaker 1: and elsewhere, you know, assault weapons of people don't come
Speaker 1: and hand them in. I mean you're gonna have to
Speaker 1: go get them at some point. Yeah. Absolutely, first freedom
Speaker 1: arrived through America's and during history with the gun. David
Speaker 1: Harsani is the author. Checkout his columns The Federalists. David
Speaker 1: always appreciate you making time for us, sir, anytime. Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. See, we'll be right back art. We
Speaker 1: haven't talked more tonight about how we're going to beat
Speaker 1: Donald's Trump. I have an idea about Donald Trump. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is not going to be beaten just by insider
Speaker 1: politics talk. He's not going to be beaten just by
Speaker 1: somebody who has plans. He's going to be beaten by
Speaker 1: somebody who has an idea what this man has done.
Speaker 1: This man has reached into the psyche of the American
Speaker 1: people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes. So,
Speaker 1: mister President, if you're listening, I want you to hear me. Please.
Speaker 1: You have harnessed fear for political purposes, and only love
Speaker 1: can cast that out. So I, sir, I have a
Speaker 1: feeling you know what you're doing. I'm going to harness
Speaker 1: love for political purposes. I will meet you on that field.
Speaker 1: And sir, all right, So you remember that that was
Speaker 1: Mary Williamson's big moment, and I have a I wouldn't
Speaker 1: quite say a soft spot, but I have a familiarity
Speaker 1: with miss Williamson because she was on the episode of
Speaker 1: Bill Marshaw with me. But we will recall that she
Speaker 1: had that moment and then she talked about the dark
Speaker 1: psychic force the Donald Trump has harnessed to do bad
Speaker 1: things to America. Here's the thing about Mary and Williamson.
Speaker 1: She has unexpectedly stumbled upon a very important underlying truth
Speaker 1: about the Left that she, before running for president, was
Speaker 1: apparently not familiar with, and that is that the left
Speaker 1: is really mean and that they will lie about you,
Speaker 1: that they will lie, and they're very mean. I thought
Speaker 1: this was particularly interesting. This was from a New york
Speaker 1: An interview in The New Yorker with David Remnick. He said, quote,
Speaker 1: I know this sounds naive. I didn't think the left
Speaker 1: was so mean. I didn't think the left lide like this.
Speaker 1: I thought the right did that. I thought we were better.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a real insight here, folks. I know
Speaker 1: so many liberals who really do think, really do believe
Speaker 1: that their side is where as for all the nice people.
Speaker 1: It's not even that their side is right, that their
Speaker 1: side is smarter, they believe that too, but that the
Speaker 1: nice people are on their side. I mean, I can
Speaker 1: just tell you, and I'm I'm giving this to you
Speaker 1: as objectively as I possibly can. You know, look the left,
Speaker 1: for example, I mean I can tell you this and
Speaker 1: some of you who are going to get annoyed at
Speaker 1: me for saying it, but you know, the left is
Speaker 1: probably because they control the platforms and have take far
Speaker 1: more at bats than we do. But they're better at
Speaker 1: creative than we are. Meaning you know, they dominate Hollywood,
Speaker 1: they dominate TV shows, they do all this stuff, and
Speaker 1: they have just more people in the game. Do I
Speaker 1: think conservatives could could make better shows that of course,
Speaker 1: But if we're just gonna look at the scoreboard, they're
Speaker 1: dominating us in those areas. And if it comes to
Speaker 1: if it comes down to making entertaining, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: fictional content, the left, generally speaking, manages to just do
Speaker 1: a do a good job on the creative. And you
Speaker 1: can argue with me about whether that's entirely because they
Speaker 1: control the platforms and or if it's just a function
Speaker 1: of that's the way their minds think. And they're more
Speaker 1: you know, they're more willing to do the sex, drugs
Speaker 1: and rock and roll thing than conservatives are. I think
Speaker 1: that's one way to you know, with the left running things,
Speaker 1: you get a lot of you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of booze, boobs and violence, you know, when
Speaker 1: it comes to the creative. So if you like that
Speaker 1: or not, I leave that to you. But if you're
Speaker 1: talking about what goes on on the right, our people
Speaker 1: are nicer, nicer than their people are. In the media,
Speaker 1: I'm talking. I'm not overall, I can't I can't say.
Speaker 1: I mean in the media, though, conservatives that I come
Speaker 1: across in news media are by a factor, I'd say
Speaker 1: of three to one. You know, there are three nice
Speaker 1: conservatives for every nice liberal I come across. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: more like five to one. They are really really nasty
Speaker 1: people on the left, really nasty that and you see
Speaker 1: this in some of these organization. I mean you see
Speaker 1: this with Media Matters a as scummy an outfit as
Speaker 1: exists in the media landscape. Gawker, very left wing, disgusting,
Speaker 1: fortunately now defunct, but a horrible organization, ruined people, destroyed reputations,
Speaker 1: and took real glee in it. The young Turks with
Speaker 1: that psychopath who had the total meltdown about Dan Crenshaw.
Speaker 1: Guy's horrible. Is an unethical, stupid, bad person. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of that, unfortunately in left wing media. Now I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it doesn't exist in the right, but for
Speaker 1: whatever reason, it is elevated on the left. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have these people. You know, Keith Olberman here's a
Speaker 1: perfect example, was universally known as a mean person, as
Speaker 1: a bad guy. Uh, you know, I mean there are
Speaker 1: others that I could I could talk about as well.
Speaker 1: You know, Jake Tapper, universally by those at least who've
Speaker 1: ever dealt with him, knows is one of the most
Speaker 1: thin skinned human beings you will ever come across. And yet,
Speaker 1: you know, we're all supposed to be like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: that's you know, because he plays a news anchor on TV,
Speaker 1: We're all supposed to think that he's got gravitas. Mary
Speaker 1: Anne Williamson has found out the hard way that the
Speaker 1: left is really mean. They're just mean, you know, they're
Speaker 1: coming after her, and she's she says that they falsely
Speaker 1: accused her of having told AIDS patients not to take
Speaker 1: their medicines. She's they say that she they false He's
Speaker 1: told her that lovelessness causes disease and that love is
Speaker 1: enough to cure their diseases. You know. They say that
Speaker 1: that she has been smeared by her own side in
Speaker 1: a way that shows a real vicious is now no
Speaker 1: a lotty like Buck the crazy Crystal Lady? What do
Speaker 1: we care? I'm just saying I think that her awakening
Speaker 1: to our own side is something that we need to
Speaker 1: encourage more. We need to encourage more of this to happen,
Speaker 1: because Libs are really mean. There's a nat because of
Speaker 1: the self righteousness and the emotionalism and the sense that
Speaker 1: this isn't a difference in politics, is a difference between
Speaker 1: the good people and the bad people. They have no problem,
Speaker 1: they have no compunction watching the other side get destroyed.
Speaker 1: And then that reminds me of this guy, Ben Penn
Speaker 1: and the story that he wrote about Laife Olsen got
Speaker 1: him fired from the Department of Labor. And now it
Speaker 1: to any person with basic reading comprehension skills, Laife Olsen
Speaker 1: did nothing wrong. It was a joke. He did not
Speaker 1: cross any line. He is not an anti Semite. He
Speaker 1: was not being anti Semitic. And this guy lost his job.
Speaker 1: And you know what, the Department of Labor is even
Speaker 1: now said, as far as I understand it, that they
Speaker 1: agree that you know, he didn't actually cross any lines
Speaker 1: to do anything wrong. Bloomberg is standing behind the report.
Speaker 1: Better to be a party to a false better to
Speaker 1: be wrong than to have to admit that they ran
Speaker 1: a hit piece that was fake news and deal with
Speaker 1: a blow or the organization's credibility that would come from that.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's a It's a terrible thing to do.
Speaker 1: I would I would not sleep at night if I
Speaker 1: had gotten somebody fired from their job in the government
Speaker 1: just because I felt like getting some clicks for a
Speaker 1: website and I and I lied about a person and
Speaker 1: ruin their reputation to do it. I would not I
Speaker 1: would not be able to handle that. Left is fine
Speaker 1: with it. Ben Ben hasn't apologized. Bloomberg hasn't apologized. Look
Speaker 1: at the way that you know they talk about it.
Speaker 1: In the gun debate. We say things like, oh, they
Speaker 1: don't understand, you know, they don't understand what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: Their ideas are wrong, their ideas are bad. What do
Speaker 1: they say to us, Oh, you don't care about dead children,
Speaker 1: you don't care about stopping mass shootings and the horrible
Speaker 1: violence from it. Can they really believe that about their
Speaker 1: fellow Americans? I think, unfortunately the answer is yes. I
Speaker 1: think unfortunately there is so much There has been so
Speaker 1: much viciousness on the left for so long that they
Speaker 1: can't even see it for what it is. They can't
Speaker 1: even tell and it has been incubated on the left,
Speaker 1: so now we're dealing with the consequence of it. But yeah,
Speaker 1: do you mean to marry Anne the crystal lady who
Speaker 1: says that she doesn't even ever use crystals? So that's
Speaker 1: an unfair sme but comes from the left, folks. They're
Speaker 1: very mean. Aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine's
Speaker 1: testimony brought about more good than the horror misogynist Republicans
Speaker 1: caused by allowing Cabinet on the court. We were going
Speaker 1: to have a conservative Elections have consequences. But he will
Speaker 1: always have an asterisk next to his name when he
Speaker 1: takes a scalpel to Robi Wade. We will know who
Speaker 1: he is. We know his character, and we know what
Speaker 1: motivates him, and that is important. It is important that
Speaker 1: we know, and that was part of what motivated Christine.
Speaker 1: That is Christine Blasi Ford's lawyer, Deborah Katz telling you
Speaker 1: what we have known all along. That is the motivation.
Speaker 1: Now she said motivated in part, I would say motivated
Speaker 1: almost entirely by And the only part of that that
Speaker 1: you could add into the mix would be that she
Speaker 1: was motivated almost entirely by politics. But then also the
Speaker 1: desire to be viewed among her fellow supporters of the
Speaker 1: hideous regime of abortion in this country, to be seen
Speaker 1: as a hero, to be on the cover of magazines
Speaker 1: which she was put on. I mean, that's what ended
Speaker 1: up happening, and this is This is a frustration because
Speaker 1: yet again it reminds me of the Clinton Foundation situation,
Speaker 1: where I would go on CNN and say, we all
Speaker 1: understand that the Clinton Foundation is really a front for
Speaker 1: laundering money to the Clintons to buy access and contact
Speaker 1: with them, right, that this isn't really about charity, that
Speaker 1: the Clintons don't give a crap about charity. We all
Speaker 1: know that, right, and it's CNN. They they'd all pretend
Speaker 1: to be very, very stupid when I would have this
Speaker 1: conversation with some of their anchors, and and punnits on
Speaker 1: another said, oh, what do you mean the Clintons. They're
Speaker 1: just doing good charity work, That's what There's no there's
Speaker 1: no other motive. And I said, okay, Well, the real
Speaker 1: test of this will be once it's clear that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton's not going to be president the United States, the
Speaker 1: donations dry up, because if it's about charity, then it
Speaker 1: shouldn't matter at all. And as we saw, not only
Speaker 1: did the donations the Clinton Foundation dry up, they fell
Speaker 1: off a cliff and they had just shut down whole
Speaker 1: sectors of the Clinton When was the last time you
Speaker 1: heard about the Clinton Foundation at all in the news well,
Speaker 1: they're trying to cover up at some level there they
Speaker 1: don't have shame, but try to cover up the blatant
Speaker 1: nature of the pay to play scammut they were running.
Speaker 1: Why do I bring this up in the context of
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford. A similar circumstances took place during the whole
Speaker 1: character assassination attempt of Brett Kavanaugh, which was still one
Speaker 1: of the most horrific things that I have ever watched
Speaker 1: in a political arena on TV. I think it actually,
Speaker 1: if we're talking just politics, it was the ugliest political
Speaker 1: thing I've ever seen on TV. Was the ritualized and
Speaker 1: sadistic psychological torture that and all was subjected to for
Speaker 1: allegations that were clearly false to anyone who's not a
Speaker 1: liar or a moron, allegations that had no evidence to
Speaker 1: back them up, no substance in reality whatsoever. But I
Speaker 1: remember when that was happening, and you'll remember this too,
Speaker 1: that you had all these journalists that would say that
Speaker 1: this became a common talking point. Oh but but why
Speaker 1: would she lie? She has no reason to lie? And
Speaker 1: they would say this, to which many of us would
Speaker 1: point out, other than being written about in the history books,
Speaker 1: forever as somebody who saved perhaps a women's a woman's
Speaker 1: right to choose, or as was said by Deborah Katz
Speaker 1: here at least will always have cast a cast in aspersion,
Speaker 1: created a question mark or an asterisk or whatever they
Speaker 1: want to say around any decision involving Judge Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: just to create the the basis for a multigenerational smear.
Speaker 1: Also knowing that the left wing dominance in media and
Speaker 1: in the academy will mean that Blasi Ford give it
Speaker 1: ten years, She's going to be the hero of the
Speaker 1: narrative for all leftists, and they're going to teach us
Speaker 1: in schools just like you know, you always will hear
Speaker 1: that Clarence Thomas is the bad guy and Anita Hill
Speaker 1: is a hero. You know, Anita Hill has Kerry Washington
Speaker 1: player in the HBO movie and defending women and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, and no one even really knows who gets
Speaker 1: all excited about it now the subject matter, in any
Speaker 1: detail of those allegations. They just know Anita Hill was
Speaker 1: the hero, the heroine, and Clarence Thomas was the bad guy,
Speaker 1: the bad guy because he's a conservative, and they want
Speaker 1: to make that the story as well. With Kavanaugh, and
Speaker 1: with blasi Ford, they will try. I would just note
Speaker 1: that the media pretended to be completely a bunch of morons.
Speaker 1: All the issue of why would why would blasi Ford
Speaker 1: do this? Why would she come forward and lie, which
Speaker 1: is what she did about somebody to ruin his reputation,
Speaker 1: to defame him in front of the whole nation. Why
Speaker 1: I put herself through this? And it's because she got
Speaker 1: to be the center of attention. She was considered a
Speaker 1: hero by everybody who is on the left, everyone who
Speaker 1: doesn't like Kavanaugh, an anyone who's ever had an abortion
Speaker 1: in the country and still believes in abortion as a
Speaker 1: sacred right of womanhood, which is a pretty terrifying notion,
Speaker 1: but that's a very widely held one. They thought that
Speaker 1: blasi Ford was being a hero, so it was obvious.
Speaker 1: And the point is it was obvious why she would
Speaker 1: do this? Why would she lie? I got a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons why she'd lie, But all the journalists go,
Speaker 1: I don't know what she'd like. She's telling the truth.
Speaker 1: She has no reason to lie, That's what they would
Speaker 1: always say, no reason to lie. Well, here's her lawyer
Speaker 1: giving you at least one reason. Now that the battle
Speaker 1: is over, or at least the initial phase of it
Speaker 1: is over, and it's to create a smear of Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: in case he is part of overturning Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: or in case there's any decision that comes down involving
Speaker 1: Judge Brett Kavanaugh that the Left doesn't like, they'll just say, oh,
Speaker 1: you mean Kavanaugh, the sexual assaulter. Havanall the would be rapist.
Speaker 1: That's what they're going to do. And I just feel
Speaker 1: that there should be so much more accountability for the
Speaker 1: cowardly and idiotic journalists out there who, in moments where
Speaker 1: character would really matter, they feign or some of them
Speaker 1: perhaps are just the stupid, but most of them just
Speaker 1: feigned stupidity because it is politically more convenient for them
Speaker 1: in the moment. All of a sudden, they can't figure
Speaker 1: out what any normal human being paying attention to any
Speaker 1: situation like this would be able to figure out. Why
Speaker 1: would a person come forward like this? Oh, because it's
Speaker 1: been so hard for Anita Hill since she came forward,
Speaker 1: She's been treated so poorly by by the press and
Speaker 1: by the establishment. Now she's gotten very cushy jobs. HBO
Speaker 1: show made, our HBO movie made about her where she's
Speaker 1: the heroine, and saything's gonna have with blasi Ford, And
Speaker 1: keep in mind that they've really just pushed away the
Speaker 1: other two. I can't even remember. I Sweatnick was the third.
Speaker 1: I can't remember the name of the second accuser, an
Speaker 1: accuser who came forward despite not even being able by
Speaker 1: her own, by her own admission, being able to remember
Speaker 1: on her own, whether Cavana did anything to her, you know,
Speaker 1: she came forward and made this allegation against him. And
Speaker 1: then in the third instance, with Sweatnick, a crazy person
Speaker 1: who anyone could see, who had their eyes open and
Speaker 1: was being honest, was just a liar. Blasi Ford was
Speaker 1: a moderately a mildly convincing liar, meaning she was still
Speaker 1: clearly lie. But there was there was a little she
Speaker 1: was better coach, There was a little bit more preparation
Speaker 1: in it. It was it sounded more plausible. Sweatnick came
Speaker 1: after Supreme Court judge, a Supreme Court justice now would
Speaker 1: be Supreme Court justice, of course, with the help of
Speaker 1: Michael Avanati. Who can it get scummier? I mean, the
Speaker 1: way that that guy goes after people on Twitter, if
Speaker 1: you haven't seen it, is hilarious. Got after some friends
Speaker 1: of mine. They're not you know, you're not famous enough, basically,
Speaker 1: is what he likes to say to people. I mean,
Speaker 1: Avanadi is famous and almost the way that you know,
Speaker 1: Anthony Weener is famous for being a disgusting creep, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're famous for being bad people. They're not.
Speaker 1: They're not famous because everyone loves them. So you know,
Speaker 1: that's a distinction I think worth keeping in mind. But yeah,
Speaker 1: Christine Blasi Ford her lawyers come out and told us
Speaker 1: what what I knew, what you knew all along. But
Speaker 1: now now we have greater confirmation. And the people that
Speaker 1: pretended they could not figure this out at the time,
Speaker 1: I do think that there should be accountability. I think
Speaker 1: we should bring them forward in the press and say,
Speaker 1: excuse me, I'm just wondering, were you really unable to
Speaker 1: figure out what the motivations here were. Now, of course
Speaker 1: we know that they would lie about it, but I
Speaker 1: would like to see them lie again. The American people,
Speaker 1: I mean, many of the worst people you come across,
Speaker 1: and any prominent public role, our journalists, and this is
Speaker 1: just another another example of that. Over the last i'd
Speaker 1: say fifteen twenty years we've seen this increasing what many
Speaker 1: people call tribalism, and basically you can sum that up
Speaker 1: with contempt for other people's views and saying I disagree
Speaker 1: with you, and by the way, you're wrong about everything.
Speaker 1: I think. In the past, we had elections, and yeah,
Speaker 1: they're pretty, they're pretty raucous, and they're pretty rough and tumble,
Speaker 1: and sometimes they're not civil. But welcome to democracy. But
Speaker 1: in the old days, the old days of being in
Speaker 1: why I didn't have this color hair. In the old days,
Speaker 1: when the election was over, we buried the hatchet, we
Speaker 1: got down to governing. It's like today all we stay
Speaker 1: in is locked in this election cycle and we're constantly
Speaker 1: finding reasons not to cooperate. And no democraphy can survive
Speaker 1: that sort of a style. It does won't work. General
Speaker 1: Maddis there speaking of christiano'man pool who has the fanciest
Speaker 1: accents of any human being ever on the history of
Speaker 1: the world. It's really her calling card. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Maddis is political analysis here is especially as stute
Speaker 1: and I know I've been. I wouldn't even say I'm
Speaker 1: critical of General Maddis. I'm just I just have questions
Speaker 1: I've been asking those questions. I don't want to naked
Speaker 1: seem like I'm bashing Maddis by any stretch. He's clearly,
Speaker 1: very very well respected throughout the military. I should when
Speaker 1: I say clearly, it's really what the journalists who cover
Speaker 1: the Pentagon, and you know that we go by what
Speaker 1: they say. I mean, I don't know. I haven't really
Speaker 1: spoken to that many rank and file soldiers about what
Speaker 1: they think of Maddis. They might say is fantastic, they
Speaker 1: might say that, you know, I can tell you a
Speaker 1: lot of people thought that General Petreus was kind of
Speaker 1: a jerk. So we were always told, oh, he's a genius,
Speaker 1: he's gonna save well. I mean, he got things right
Speaker 1: in Iraq when he was in command, didn't exactly get
Speaker 1: things right in Afghanistan, But that never really gets talked about.
Speaker 1: General General Madister though, saying that we used to get
Speaker 1: to the business of governing. Really, I think you could
Speaker 1: argue that that has been in recent memory, that has
Speaker 1: been the exception more than there. It certainly wasn't the
Speaker 1: case under the Bush administration, where I have not forgotten
Speaker 1: that there were efforts, real efforts to try to get
Speaker 1: criminal charges brought against someone like Dick Cheney where there
Speaker 1: was a special counsel about a non event leak of
Speaker 1: a non event person's name, and then that led to
Speaker 1: the charges against Scooter Libby. There were it was. It
Speaker 1: was complete political trench warfare in the Bush years, and
Speaker 1: that was when we were under attack by radical Islam
Speaker 1: and the global Jihad. We were united for about six
Speaker 1: months after nine eleven as a country, and then it
Speaker 1: very quickly turned into anything to destroy Bush. Bush is Hitler.
Speaker 1: I was in college and there were leftists on my
Speaker 1: campus and in the area of Amburst College who were
Speaker 1: making the case that they thought that Bush was basically
Speaker 1: a fascist along the lines of along the lines of Hitler,
Speaker 1: you know, that Bush. Bush had fascistic tennant just like
Speaker 1: you know. And they would say that Cheney was really
Speaker 1: running the country and that Haliburton was going to around
Speaker 1: us all up any day now. I mean, it's saying
Speaker 1: crazy stuff. So it was maddest not really around for that.
Speaker 1: Its maddest not a part of that situation. I would
Speaker 1: have to wonder during the Clinton years when there was
Speaker 1: a very acrimonious impeachment fight, you know, when when were
Speaker 1: we getting down to the business of governing. I look,
Speaker 1: I will tell you. I saw my friend Ben Dominic
Speaker 1: tweeted this out today and he's read Mattis his book.
Speaker 1: I haven't yet. I just told you what others tend
Speaker 1: not to say, which is that these books are a
Speaker 1: waste of time, They're boring, They're often either money grabs
Speaker 1: or just self aggrandizing, pedestal creation for the former government officials.
Speaker 1: You know, there was a time when the expectation was
Speaker 1: you served in the government and you just went into
Speaker 1: private life afterwards. And that was that he didn't need
Speaker 1: to create a post governmental cult around oneself. And there
Speaker 1: was a time when that was the norm. And I
Speaker 1: really mean that, right, we have seen and you can
Speaker 1: measure this. Unlike Mattis saying that politics used to be
Speaker 1: much more civil, I don't. I'm not even talking about
Speaker 1: you know, civil like meaning the Civil War, when we
Speaker 1: were literally killing our fellow Americans over at political political differences,
Speaker 1: so to the doing of hundreds of thousands of US
Speaker 1: I don't think. I don't think his politics very stute.
Speaker 1: I think that the analysis, I should say, is very stute.
Speaker 1: And then Ben Dominic was saying that the maddest book
Speaker 1: is just boring, which doesn't surprise doesn't surprise me at all,
Speaker 1: and given that I already know that without reading it.
Speaker 1: And also, you know how much work it would really
Speaker 1: is somebody who's in the process of writing a draft
Speaker 1: of a book right now, how much work, how much
Speaker 1: time it really takes. These individuals who have been used
Speaker 1: to having staffs do a lot of work for them
Speaker 1: and people writing speeches for them and doing all these things,
Speaker 1: they're gonna They're gonna sit at a computer at a
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, a typewriter. That's really kicking at
Speaker 1: old school Rusa Mark. Have you ever even used the typewriter?
Speaker 1: You know, I've never even touched a key on a typewriter,
Speaker 1: only keyboards. I haven't used one, but I've seen one
Speaker 1: and like touched the ya. I mean it's not a
Speaker 1: dinosaur like of course you've probably seen one, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you've ever actually tried to type with one? No? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I had computer class in elementary school. Yeah, I did too,
Speaker 1: I remember, and I remember thinking that this, you I
Speaker 1: was really smart and forward leaning in elementary school in
Speaker 1: that I was like, writing things out by hand is
Speaker 1: obviously way smarter and better. So this computer thing is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Turns out that we were all gonna have to worry
Speaker 1: about carpal tunnel syndrome for the rest of our adult
Speaker 1: lives pretty soon. So so Mattis' book is pretty boring.
Speaker 1: But when he says that based on Ben Dominant's assessment,
Speaker 1: which I trust, I haven't read it yet myself, but
Speaker 1: I kind of know it. It was like when you
Speaker 1: see a movie trailer, you know, you know if it's
Speaker 1: good or not. Yea, not really, you know, yeah, technically
Speaker 1: you should see the movie, but yeah, you know, usually
Speaker 1: knows being in which the right I love this. On
Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes, I told you all to go and see
Speaker 1: Dave Chappelle's comedy special. I told you to go check
Speaker 1: it out. And just to give you a sense of
Speaker 1: what the score ratings were earlier today on Rotten Tomatoes,
Speaker 1: Sticks and Stones on Rotten Tomatoes has a Tomatometer score
Speaker 1: based on critics reviews of twenty nine percent positive. So
Speaker 1: that's that's that's a very low critics score. Who wants
Speaker 1: to guess, christer mark, what percentage of the three thousand,
Speaker 1: seven hundred and fifty three people who rated on Rotten
Speaker 1: Tomatoes liked Sticks and Stones the Dave Chappelle comedy specially.
Speaker 1: I told you about what's the percentage? Eighty two ninety nine. Wow. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So everybody who saw this thing who was a viewer
Speaker 1: thought it was hilarious, and seven out of ten critics
Speaker 1: who reviewed it and review things officially for their livelihoods
Speaker 1: thought it was bad. This is a microcosm of what
Speaker 1: woke culture does to you being woke, being a social
Speaker 1: justice warrior, you are not allowed to find funny things
Speaker 1: funny anymore. You're not allowed to laugh at anything other
Speaker 1: than white Christian males and mockery of them. You know
Speaker 1: that that's it. Anything. If you mock anybody else, you
Speaker 1: can't make jokes. You can't make jokes about women, you
Speaker 1: can't make jokes about any particular ethnic group, anything else.
Speaker 1: You are going to get slammed by the social justice left.
Speaker 1: We know that the good news is that people like
Speaker 1: what they like, and I'm happy to see that the
Speaker 1: public at large, left, right and everything, everything altogether, everyone
Speaker 1: thinks that Sticks and Stones by Dave Chappelle is hilarious.
Speaker 1: Because it is hilarious. We can't let this go on.
Speaker 1: They would take it out five hundred billion dollars a
Speaker 1: year out of this country, including tellectual property theft which
Speaker 1: was rampant. So our farmers will be helped. Nobody that
Speaker 1: we've done more for it than our farmers, and they understand.
Speaker 1: You have to win the war with This is a
Speaker 1: trade war, trade battle. You can call it anything you want.
Speaker 1: And this should have been done by presidents before me,
Speaker 1: and not just President Obama. This should have been done
Speaker 1: by President Bush and President Clinton. This should have been
Speaker 1: done a long time ago. China has been absolutely the
Speaker 1: World Trade Organization has been a disaster for the United States.
Speaker 1: China has taken advantage of it and US, and that's
Speaker 1: not happening anymore. But the farmers have been taken care
Speaker 1: of sixteen billion dollars and twelve billion dollars each year. Okay,
Speaker 1: everything that Trump just said there about the US posture
Speaker 1: towards China under his administration, everything said there's true. Previous
Speaker 1: administrations should have dealt with this and didn't. China is
Speaker 1: ripping us off, is playing dirty. The World Aid Organization
Speaker 1: should never have let China in, and it has been
Speaker 1: a disaster. Everything he's saying there is true, and we
Speaker 1: are supposed to skip past all of that in our
Speaker 1: assessment of this president as it relates to trade and
Speaker 1: just more generally. I mean, yet, Bernie Sanders today saying
Speaker 1: probably the most dangerous president in the history of presidents, Well,
Speaker 1: why is it that this president is supposed to be
Speaker 1: so dangerous? Is the only one who understands what we're
Speaker 1: really dealing with when it comes to China? Why did
Speaker 1: it come to the why why did it fall on
Speaker 1: this president to have to be the one who's willing
Speaker 1: to deal with this, willing to be in a position
Speaker 1: where he'll take the political heat. You know, what was
Speaker 1: the last time you can think of any of any
Speaker 1: politician who was doing something that he was right, He
Speaker 1: knew he was right, he was paying a political price,
Speaker 1: and he said, I know I'm gonna pay a political
Speaker 1: price for this anyway, but I want to do it.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying it never happens. But that kind
Speaker 1: of leadership is rare. It is not the norm. Much
Speaker 1: more common for people to say, well, what's the most
Speaker 1: what is the most popular thing thing I can do here?
Speaker 1: The thing that will most most likely result in my
Speaker 1: continued continuation in power, my continued ability to hold the
Speaker 1: office I hold and they do that thing, and that's
Speaker 1: not what Trump is doing on China now. I do
Speaker 1: think that because of the focus on getting on getting
Speaker 1: a trade deal done, or at least on continuing to
Speaker 1: wage the trade war, the White House hasn't been as
Speaker 1: vocal and Trump hasn't been as vocal in support of
Speaker 1: the protesters in Hong Kong as I would like. But
Speaker 1: I understand he's trying to balance those two very important things,
Speaker 1: and ultimately, for us, here's the reality a trade war
Speaker 1: is more important than what's going on in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: Might sound harsh, but that's true. Hey Dean Buck, it's
Speaker 1: time for Roll Call. I'm still very partial job Stall call.
Speaker 1: I always will be. I don't know why. I think
Speaker 1: it gets me the most fired up of our various
Speaker 1: Roll Call intros. So some fun news for all of you.
Speaker 1: As of end of this month, the show is going
Speaker 1: to be available via podcast earlier on in the day.
Speaker 1: We're hoping by three pm Eastern, so you can start
Speaker 1: to get this thing in your daily routine in time
Speaker 1: to drive home, in time for your commute or a
Speaker 1: prepping dinner. You no longer have to wait for the
Speaker 1: podcast until late at or nine pm, eastrom which is
Speaker 1: what it had been until pretty recently. Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton. That's how we get this party started.
Speaker 1: Let's get to it. Owen Buck listening to yesterday's podcast,
Speaker 1: and you asked about a movie. I think you were
Speaker 1: thinking of Army of Darkness, Ding ding ding. You are correct, sir,
Speaker 1: I was thinking about Army of Darkness and I've never
Speaker 1: I've still never seen it. Producer Mark, you can just
Speaker 1: you can just give me the nod here. Did you
Speaker 1: ever see Army of Darkness? No, he doesn't. He doesn't
Speaker 1: mess with that childish nonsense, producer Mark only. He only
Speaker 1: sticks at the classics. H William next up here. I
Speaker 1: think you're missing the point about sleepy Joe. I think
Speaker 1: the reason he is still topping the polls is simple.
Speaker 1: The Democratic voters are not as crazy left as the
Speaker 1: party thinks they are. So the average dem won't vote
Speaker 1: for Trump, but also doesn't want to vote for a
Speaker 1: radical leftist. So Joe, with all of his false gaffs
Speaker 1: and senior moments, looks like the most sane person to them.
Speaker 1: She'll tie, that is, William. I mean, you're certainly correct
Speaker 1: from the perspective of why Joe Biden has the support
Speaker 1: that he does up to this point, even though it
Speaker 1: is quite clear that Biden is not a really a marquee,
Speaker 1: a first tier national level politician. And it is because
Speaker 1: he does have the name recognition thanks to his eight
Speaker 1: years as Obama's vice president, and he seems like a
Speaker 1: dogmatic but not insane Democrats. That's the best thing you
Speaker 1: could say for Joe Biden. Now he's also very old,
Speaker 1: he seems like he gets lost a lot, and there's
Speaker 1: all of that stuff. But here we have it. Jason,
Speaker 1: all right, buck, I've got to say I find it
Speaker 1: pretty disgraceful that Betto would be running on the backs
Speaker 1: of those killed in El Paso and elsewhere. He's using
Speaker 1: the slaughter of innocence to try and keep himself in
Speaker 1: the race for the presidency. Shame on him, and the
Speaker 1: sooner he drops out, the better it would be for
Speaker 1: the nation. I saw, Paul Jason, it was pretty fantastic.
Speaker 1: It was my favorite poll that I've seen in quite
Speaker 1: a while, because the pole had Betto at a whopping
Speaker 1: zero percent nationally at this point. Now, I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's an accurate pole or not, but I did
Speaker 1: see it, and it feels like betto Beto is a zero,
Speaker 1: so he should be at zero. Buck, Why are you
Speaker 1: so mean? I'm totally just singing this song to your
Speaker 1: girlfriend because I want to be her friend. I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not that guy at the front party with a
Speaker 1: guitar who's just heading to be your girlfriend's friend. But like,
Speaker 1: how's other things in mind? I'm not that guy, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'd give myself an eight exactly exactly. He would always
Speaker 1: give himself an A. But he's a zero zero for
Speaker 1: betto Susan. Here we go. Hey, Before I started my business,
Speaker 1: I had a bumper sticker that read halt climate Change,
Speaker 1: I like seventy and Sonny. Before that, I worked for
Speaker 1: the government going to public sector businesses, and I had
Speaker 1: another bumper sticker that read government adult supervision required. Because
Speaker 1: of a union flap, we could have any bumper stickers
Speaker 1: we wanted. I also copied a bumper sticker I saw
Speaker 1: annoy a liberal work succeed be Happy. I got the
Speaker 1: most positive comments on that one. Love the show Shields High.
Speaker 1: I mean, I used to have a mug with Rumsfeld
Speaker 1: on it. Back in the day. I had a lot
Speaker 1: of right wing kitch I think you could say I
Speaker 1: had a lot of collectibles and Bush Gewat. I was
Speaker 1: big into the GWAT, the Global War on Terror At,
Speaker 1: a lot of Gewat memorabilia. I don't really have much
Speaker 1: of it anymore. I've got I've reached the point now
Speaker 1: where all my old CIA stuff, all my stuff from
Speaker 1: countries all over the world, and photos of me, you know,
Speaker 1: briefing the president and doing other cool stuff, that's all
Speaker 1: just like locked away in a closet now. I don't really,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I used to have a little almost
Speaker 1: like a shrine to government service in my very small apartment,
Speaker 1: but now it's it's an under the bed in a
Speaker 1: plastic tupperware bin kind of thing shrine. So yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: not as I'm not as into the remembrance of those
Speaker 1: government days. C k hey buck, you mentioned General Mattis
Speaker 1: saying he had seven thousand books and read them all.
Speaker 1: I wasn't sure if you meant you didn't think he
Speaker 1: could have read that many. My my love of book
Speaker 1: second only to my love of Dalmatians. I don't know, ck,
Speaker 1: that's already, that's strike one. I'm just kidding. Dalmatians are fine.
Speaker 1: They're very pretty if you like dogs that don't necessarily
Speaker 1: have the Swedish temperament. I'm just I'm gonna lose. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna lose a listener here. I'm kidding. Ck, I'm kidding.
Speaker 1: Dalmatians are great, and I'm guessing I have thousands of
Speaker 1: books myself, she writes, I'm kind of afraid to attempt
Speaker 1: to count them. With bookcases in almost every room in
Speaker 1: my house, including the garage and the basement, finding books
Speaker 1: for ten cents at a thrift shop is like hitting
Speaker 1: the lottery. For me, I read approx. Me a one
Speaker 1: hundred books a year. It seems quite possible for General
Speaker 1: Matters to have read seven thousand over the course of
Speaker 1: his life so far. Good Reads is a fun app
Speaker 1: to keep track of what you've read. Even if I
Speaker 1: live to one hundred, they'll still be books awaiting in
Speaker 1: my shelves. Fill your house with stacks of books and
Speaker 1: all the crannies and all the nooks doctor Seus's words
Speaker 1: of wisdom. Love your show, buck Ck, thank you for
Speaker 1: your note. And maybe maybe I'm just annoyed at myself
Speaker 1: because I feel like I used to rip through more
Speaker 1: books and more quickly than I have in the last
Speaker 1: couple of years because I've been very busy trying to
Speaker 1: do this whole media thing. I still read. I still
Speaker 1: read books. I actually just finished I just finished the
Speaker 1: Kevin Williamson's book on Socialism, which I found very very interesting.
Speaker 1: It's pretty he deep dives, that's for sure. And I'm
Speaker 1: actually in the process right now. I've really died. I
Speaker 1: kind of want to read this book just on salt
Speaker 1: that I downloaded. It's just salt, but the history of
Speaker 1: it and how important. I know it sounds weird, but
Speaker 1: it was a best seller. I think Kurlanski, I think
Speaker 1: the name of the author I might read that. We'll see.
Speaker 1: I'll let you guys know. You know, I did see
Speaker 1: something yesterday the guy who is behind the Goldman Sacks
Speaker 1: elevator account, which at one point was one of the
Speaker 1: funniest parody accounts on Twitter period. Now the funniest parody
Speaker 1: account on Twitter is Titanium McGrath, No question, Titany McGrath
Speaker 1: is the best social media parody account on Twitter that
Speaker 1: I have seen. And I'm a fan. I like to
Speaker 1: think that I'm a social media parody connoisseur. May we
Speaker 1: be a seer, but Titaniy McGrath is woker than woke,
Speaker 1: is the way I would describe it. But Goldman Sachs Elevator,
Speaker 1: especially in the aftermath of the two thousand and eight
Speaker 1: financial meltdown, was just a really funny and biting satire
Speaker 1: of investment banker attitudes. That guy published a list of
Speaker 1: the hundred books that you have to read if you're
Speaker 1: that every man has to read. And I looked at
Speaker 1: it was a pretty good list. But there's a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff on there that I think that people just
Speaker 1: believe they have to read because everyone else said so.
Speaker 1: So maybe I'll come up with a little list of
Speaker 1: my own at some point. I know, I keep saying,
Speaker 1: I'll post all the books you guys want. I just
Speaker 1: post all the books are all my Kindle online on
Speaker 1: a list, and you can see what I've read and
Speaker 1: see what I'm still hoping to get to. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot that look at. If I could, I would
Speaker 1: just spend three hours a day reading a book reading
Speaker 1: books two hours if I if I had my way,
Speaker 1: two hours a day of just reading books. But it's
Speaker 1: very hard to carve out. I got two hours day
Speaker 1: to read the books. I gotta go to the gym
Speaker 1: for an hour I gotta And then some days I'm
Speaker 1: just in sweats, trying to prepare for radio and TV
Speaker 1: and things, and I never get any of these things done.
Speaker 1: It's tough, you know what it's like, folks. Procrastination is
Speaker 1: the devil that sits on all of our shoulders all
Speaker 1: the time, Steph, book, could you move into the belly
Speaker 1: or rather, how could you move into the belly of
Speaker 1: the beast? No matter how much I love the culture there,
Speaker 1: I would never live there. I go to Amorous to
Speaker 1: visit family and can't get out of there quick enough.
Speaker 1: I love lefty hippies as long as they are three
Speaker 1: states away. Shields Hill. Well, Steph, I'd say, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm from New York, and so I can't seed this
Speaker 1: place to the commies entirely. You know, I can't bring
Speaker 1: myself to be completely I can't abandon my hometown, even
Speaker 1: though I know they are all these leftists running around
Speaker 1: and who run everything and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: So we'll see Thorburn. Hi there, Buck, if you'd like
Speaker 1: to discuss the more recent mass shootings are Thorburn. That's
Speaker 1: a cool Thorburn sounds like the name of a character
Speaker 1: from Game of Thrones, you know, Thorburn of the North,
Speaker 1: Thorburn of the Two Swords. You know that's kind of cool.
Speaker 1: Maybe not all right? Whatever either, Buck, if you'd like
Speaker 1: to discuss the more recent mass shootings across the country
Speaker 1: and perhaps the why and the how behind their frequency,
Speaker 1: I know of a man who's spoken on the topic
Speaker 1: more than once and is, to say the least, very insightful.
Speaker 1: So with the possibility that you'll have another segment where
Speaker 1: you decide to talk about America's endless mass shootings, and
Speaker 1: you'd like to bring him on the name, the guy
Speaker 1: is Tom Freel. Okay, thanks, I've never heard of this guy,
Speaker 1: but I will. I'll google him. Google it. That's what
Speaker 1: Alex Jones used to say, and he get really fired
Speaker 1: up about something. You google. It's on Google Illuminati to
Speaker 1: build the birds. It's all It's all there. It's all
Speaker 1: there if you just want to read it, if you
Speaker 1: just do do the research. Don't don't don't listen to
Speaker 1: that Maintree media telling you all that other stuff. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton infiltration a conservative media guy. That guy's a CIA plant.
Speaker 1: Buck Sex. I know I know what he's I know
Speaker 1: his game. He's got that smug face. Looks like that
Speaker 1: guy from Parks and Wreck. Looks just like him, except
Speaker 1: a little, a little bigger. It's like Parks and Wreck
Speaker 1: with poofy your hair. You can't trust a man his
Speaker 1: hair is that poofy. He may have a point about that.
Speaker 1: Actually he may have a point. Nicola spell flik Nikola.
Speaker 1: If the premise of an old horror movie revolted you
Speaker 1: that much, A thousand dollars says, it's the Human Centipede.
Speaker 1: If it is, I'll send the money anyways, if you
Speaker 1: promise to not watch it. Thank you for your work. Buck.
Speaker 1: I've heard The Human Centipede is really gross, but I
Speaker 1: wasn't even I can't even begin to tell you or
Speaker 1: remember what exactly it was that That producer Brandon, who
Speaker 1: now is doing more, he guessed DJ's for us sometimes
Speaker 1: in the show, but we don't see much of him
Speaker 1: these days. But he's very into horror movies, and I
Speaker 1: just I can't horror movies depressed me. I watched that
Speaker 1: movie The Witch, and I told you guys about it,
Speaker 1: and I was a little freaked out for a couple
Speaker 1: of days. And I'm a grown man, it's not afraid
Speaker 1: of nothing to nobody except apparently scary movies on the
Speaker 1: television screen. That gets me scared. I don't like it,
Speaker 1: so yeah, Brian, whoa, here we go. Buck. Not sure
Speaker 1: how most people in the States, how much most people's
Speaker 1: it's realized that how badly the Bahamas was hit. I've
Speaker 1: been fortuit have spent a lot of time working in
Speaker 1: the in the Bahamas of the years, Marsh Harbor, the
Speaker 1: major town that area, has been completely wiped off the map.
Speaker 1: The people of Bahamas are some of the nicest, most
Speaker 1: genuine people I've ever met. The government of the Bahamas
Speaker 1: is bloated, corrupt and bankrupt, so recovery is not going
Speaker 1: to be easy for them. Would be nice to see
Speaker 1: a few major cruise lines pony up, who've been profiting
Speaker 1: from the Bahamians generosity for so many years, send a
Speaker 1: few boats over to support these good people alongside our
Speaker 1: armed forces are already there to pray for the Bahamas. Brian. Well, Brian,
Speaker 1: that's a very important note to end the show on today,
Speaker 1: so thank you for writing it in. We are sending
Speaker 1: thoughts and prayers and if there's a way to send
Speaker 1: more resources, food, medicine assistance. We should all certainly consider
Speaker 1: doing so in the ways that we can. Team has
Speaker 1: always an honor and a privilege to be here with
Speaker 1: you in the Freedom Hut. Thank you so much for listening,
Speaker 1: for hanging out. We'll be here time, same place tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Shields High