Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The liberal left is
Speaker 1: still chanting about the need to abolish ice. It's a
Speaker 1: stupid idea, but they seem to be running with it.
Speaker 1: Why obviously unwise, but they must have a plan in
Speaker 1: mine or do they will get into that. And also
Speaker 1: a victory for the far left in our neighbor to
Speaker 1: the south, Mexico. What this could mean for cartels, for
Speaker 1: human smuggling, and for the US economic relationship with Mexico.
Speaker 1: And also looking at everything else going on with the
Speaker 1: North Korea deal to date. We'll talk about that and
Speaker 1: much more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistakes America. Ready, you're a great American Again. The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show. Everybody. Great to have you here, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining. So we have a lot of
Speaker 1: folks running around right now who are who are talking
Speaker 1: about the need to abolish immigrations and customs enforcement. We
Speaker 1: discussed this last week and here's what I see happening. Um,
Speaker 1: Because it seems on its face to be so dumb.
Speaker 1: It seems like such a a political loser that there
Speaker 1: must be some way that they're planning to make sense
Speaker 1: of this. Right and and you know, you also have,
Speaker 1: at the same time as all this abolished ICE stuff
Speaker 1: is happening, a resurgence in the idea that millennials, young
Speaker 1: people are are comfortable with socialism. And you have the
Speaker 1: victory of this far left social justice warrior Ocasio Cortes
Speaker 1: in New York City, and that has led to think
Speaker 1: pieces like this one at Slate, which is kind of
Speaker 1: a hip left wing website of news and you know,
Speaker 1: analysis or whatever. Why young Democrats are so open to socialism?
Speaker 1: M hm. So you have young democrats so open to socialism,
Speaker 1: you have the abolition of ice as a rallying cry
Speaker 1: on the left. It certainly feels quite a bit like
Speaker 1: there is a a radical leftism that is emerging right now,
Speaker 1: or that perhaps we're just seeing more clearly something's going on. Uh,
Speaker 1: something is is changing. I mean, why democrats are so
Speaker 1: open to socialism? And this is fascinating because I think
Speaker 1: that young people are only open to socialism well for
Speaker 1: a couple of reasons. One, Uh, the media keeps telling
Speaker 1: them that it's cool. So that's very important because or
Speaker 1: whatever they're told is cool, they're gonna believe must be
Speaker 1: a good thing. Two, they don't know the history of socialism,
Speaker 1: right they don't know what this has led to in
Speaker 1: the past. And three and in some ways it's most important.
Speaker 1: They have no ability to look forward into their own
Speaker 1: future and conceive of what it would mean to live
Speaker 1: in a truly socialist country or a country that is
Speaker 1: trending much more radically towards socialism than where we are
Speaker 1: right now in this country. And so that there's a
Speaker 1: a left wing radicalism that is resurgent right now. There's
Speaker 1: something happening, and I'm gonna time that's also into Mexico
Speaker 1: and just a few moments because there he had a
Speaker 1: far left guy, a far left guy one there presidential election,
Speaker 1: and no one in the in the mainstream media is
Speaker 1: gonna want to touch this. But I I obviously will.
Speaker 1: I think this is going to be a big, a
Speaker 1: big problem for us. I think this is going to
Speaker 1: be an issue because of what his plans are going
Speaker 1: forward for dealing with particularly dealing with cartels. But for
Speaker 1: let me stay on this socialism is cool meme and
Speaker 1: you've seen this in the past. Read Bernie Sanders was
Speaker 1: the first effort to really run at a national level
Speaker 1: a pro socialism presidential campaign. And they'll call it democratic
Speaker 1: social and whatever. That's what do they really mean and
Speaker 1: what are they really saying. They're talking about a much
Speaker 1: more radical redistribution of wealth done by the state, and
Speaker 1: with the idea that it's about equality, even at the
Speaker 1: expense of freedom and prosperity. Right, equality is a more
Speaker 1: important goal then prosperity and individual freedom. This is the
Speaker 1: this is the essential fundamental conflict we have with socialism.
Speaker 1: And in this you know, hipster millennial socialism we're seeing now.
Speaker 1: But also it's a fundamental conflict of the twenty and
Speaker 1: now in the twenty century in developed countries right now,
Speaker 1: in countries that are mechanized, countries that have seen the
Speaker 1: industrial revolution, countries that are that that have created the
Speaker 1: material the circumstances of material prosperity such that we don't
Speaker 1: worry about having to feed ourselves really right were we
Speaker 1: we don't have the same concerns as as we used to.
Speaker 1: Now there there are people that are just focusing well,
Speaker 1: let's just spread the instead of increasing the wealth let's
Speaker 1: spread the wealth. And Obama was very favorable to this
Speaker 1: notion as well. Right, Obama was somebody who would go
Speaker 1: out there and say, you know, we need to you know,
Speaker 1: prayer Fair, Sure, yeah, I needed to spread the wealth
Speaker 1: around payer Fair, Sure and all of us. But they,
Speaker 1: the the young Democrats, as we see here in this
Speaker 1: slate piece, are are are quote so open to socialism
Speaker 1: because they don't know what socialism has meant in the past.
Speaker 1: They don't understand what socialism really would mean in practice,
Speaker 1: and they even don't understand what socialism would mean for them.
Speaker 1: You know, it does not mean everybody gets an iPhone
Speaker 1: and all the avocado toasts they can eat, you know,
Speaker 1: Socialism and the contact in the case of Venezuela, I
Speaker 1: think is a very that's a very important story that
Speaker 1: doesn't get told enough in this country because to take
Speaker 1: a relatively well off and sophisticated country like Venezuela with
Speaker 1: the law are just proven oil reserves in the world
Speaker 1: larger than Saudi Arabia's, and to turn it into the
Speaker 1: the eighth Circle of Hell with massive violent crime problems,
Speaker 1: shortages of of bread and milk in the stores, and
Speaker 1: just in every at every possible stage, though, there was
Speaker 1: a justification for the government's position and the Venezuelan government
Speaker 1: under Maduro that the the Venezuelan governments basic rallying cry
Speaker 1: for everything it was doing was, well, it's the it's
Speaker 1: someone else's fault and we're just trying to help people.
Speaker 1: You know, it's someone else's fault, and we are doing
Speaker 1: the best we can for the poor people, you know. Uh.
Speaker 1: And that and that that gives them a lot of
Speaker 1: you know that there's a lot of places they can
Speaker 1: take that they can run with that. And when you
Speaker 1: look at someone like Ocazio Court Orcasio Cortez here in
Speaker 1: New York City, you here or not. I'm in d C.
Speaker 1: I'm in the swamp, but up in New York City.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they get confused about where I am. You're seeing
Speaker 1: something similar. I saw over the weekend that, uh, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Socialists of New York City. Um, the Democratic Socialists
Speaker 1: of New York City are an organization that Occasio Cortes is,
Speaker 1: you know, is a is in good standing with and
Speaker 1: on their official side, they will have they have the following,
Speaker 1: they have all these things. This is on their on
Speaker 1: their site via Twitter. New York City Democratic socialists want
Speaker 1: to abolish profit, abolish prisons, abolish cash bail, abolish borders
Speaker 1: and abolish ice. This whole abolition of immigrations and customs
Speaker 1: enforcement rhetoric. This is not happening in a vacuum. This
Speaker 1: is not just a an emotional response to all the
Speaker 1: images and the audio of children being separated from parents
Speaker 1: at the border, which I would note, you know, children
Speaker 1: separated from parents when they commit crimes and do bad
Speaker 1: things all the time in this country. But you know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are way less interested in that because it's
Speaker 1: not politically useful for them right now. But trying to
Speaker 1: abolish all these things, you start to see that this
Speaker 1: is this is a radical agenda in the in the true,
Speaker 1: in the truth, in the true sense of the word. Uh,
Speaker 1: the abolition of ice and the abolition of borders, this
Speaker 1: goes side by side, So you know, and this is
Speaker 1: why I have to be so careful when you're talking
Speaker 1: about democrats, or trying to talk to a Democrat who
Speaker 1: is on the left and and in good standing with
Speaker 1: the progressives, you'll say, you know, you guys are so
Speaker 1: hustle immigration and customs enforcement because you don't want to
Speaker 1: you just don't want the laws to be enforced. Period.
Speaker 1: They'll say, oh, buck, you know, Immigrations and Customs enforcement,
Speaker 1: it was just constructed in two thousand and three, and
Speaker 1: you know it's okay. Well before that it was US
Speaker 1: US Customs, right. All the consolidation two thousands three did
Speaker 1: was for bureaucratic reasons. They brought it under the overall
Speaker 1: umbrel of Homeland Security and was supposed to be streamlined
Speaker 1: and more effective. Whether it is or not, it's not
Speaker 1: really doesn't really matter for our purposes right now. It's
Speaker 1: just all the functions that Immigrations and Customers enforcement do
Speaker 1: existed before the reorgan two thousand and three and would
Speaker 1: have to exist going forward. Unless you really believe in
Speaker 1: the abolition of borders, unless you want to be an
Speaker 1: open borders country, and they keep saying we're not. We
Speaker 1: don't want open borders, we don't want open borders. I'm
Speaker 1: here to tell you that a lot of Democrats, a
Speaker 1: lot of leftists are lying on that issue. They do
Speaker 1: want open borders. They just know the American people are
Speaker 1: not there with them. Yet they use this among them.
Speaker 1: You know, this is what they say among themselves. This
Speaker 1: is what they'll say at rallies, abolished ice, abolished borders,
Speaker 1: probably abolished profit. That's the scariest one of all. And
Speaker 1: I have I mean this, I'm looking at this right
Speaker 1: now on their Twitter account. I'm I'm reading this abolished profit.
Speaker 1: Think about that. You know, those of us are sitting
Speaker 1: around like working ourselves, you know, probably into it early gray,
Speaker 1: but working ourselves crazy because they're trying to do better
Speaker 1: for ourselves, for our families. Uh, they would probably stop.
Speaker 1: We would probably stop doing that if there was no profit.
Speaker 1: Our society which has so much prosperity. I mean, we
Speaker 1: are so well off you look back. I mean, one
Speaker 1: of the reasons I love history so much is because,
Speaker 1: as you know, you understand history better, you understand the
Speaker 1: present better. You also have a context for how you
Speaker 1: should view our current moment in history. And it always
Speaker 1: keeps you humble because you know, you know, we come
Speaker 1: and go pretty fast, your folks mean a lot of times.
Speaker 1: It might as well be nice to people and do
Speaker 1: your best to be a good person. Right, These are
Speaker 1: these are important lessons you can take from story. But
Speaker 1: the system of capitalism that the left, including in America
Speaker 1: and more openly now that we've seen a long time.
Speaker 1: This system of capitalism that they rail against us unjust
Speaker 1: as unequal, as has brought more people out of poverty,
Speaker 1: has given more people hope and comfort and happiness than
Speaker 1: any other economic system in the history of the planet.
Speaker 1: And it's not even a close call. And socialism has
Speaker 1: condemned generations and countless hundreds of millions of people to
Speaker 1: misery and poverty. And yet somehow in this country there
Speaker 1: are folks who are powerful, who are wealthy. By the way,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren lives in a three million dollar house. Do
Speaker 1: you know that maybe two point eight at current market value,
Speaker 1: But she's a millionaire, folks, and she's running around, oh
Speaker 1: you know, but she's in good standing with these abolished
Speaker 1: profit people. This is an insidious ideology we're talking about here,
Speaker 1: you know, abolishing profit, abolishing borders, abolishing immigrations and customs enforcement.
Speaker 1: This is destructive. And they want to run around and
Speaker 1: cry about Trump and Trump is m and they say
Speaker 1: it's fascism and Nazism and they're just delusional. But when
Speaker 1: I see this, I see people that are effectively being
Speaker 1: openly Marxist. I have real concerns about where this country
Speaker 1: is going to ahead unless we confront this stuff head on,
Speaker 1: and that's what we'll do here on the show. A
Speaker 1: four to five eight four buck. I will be right back.
Speaker 1: I hope they keep thinking about it, because they're gonna
Speaker 1: get beating so badly. I love that issue. If they're
Speaker 1: going to actually do that, they're obviously talking about that,
Speaker 1: because they you are going to have a country that's
Speaker 1: crime written, the Border Patrol, the Border Patrol agents ice,
Speaker 1: these people are incredible. Hashtag abolish Ice has made a
Speaker 1: lot of rounds on social media. You know that the activists,
Speaker 1: set and the media are really focused on this, But
Speaker 1: even the Huffington Post realizes it's not a great idea.
Speaker 1: Abolishing ice isn't very popular yet, it says in the
Speaker 1: Huffing Your Post, which is another way of saying it's
Speaker 1: just not very popular. So I can't really tell at
Speaker 1: this at this stage of the game, if this is
Speaker 1: just a leftist temper tantrum in the era of Trump
Speaker 1: and it's unwise and there's no method to madness, or
Speaker 1: they think this is part of the long game of
Speaker 1: moving the country slowly, but in their minds and a
Speaker 1: kind of you know, marks a sense of the inevitability
Speaker 1: of history moving us toward a more radical left wing society,
Speaker 1: and it will take time. And you know the fact
Speaker 1: that whatever percentage, uh, you know, whatever percentage of people
Speaker 1: are in favor of this here here we go, favor
Speaker 1: abolishing ice is according to Huffing and Post folks left
Speaker 1: wing sites. Yeah, I go root around on these left
Speaker 1: wing sites, so you don't have to waste your time
Speaker 1: doing it. Uh. The percentage of of um Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: supporters here who favor ah, who strongly favor abolishing ice
Speaker 1: is about That's what I guessed. The radical left, of
Speaker 1: the radical love which unfortunately runs a Democrat party, and
Speaker 1: most of the media, but that's who favors of Hillary supporters,
Speaker 1: So you're sort of standard Democrat is in favor of this. Basically,
Speaker 1: no Donald Trump supporters are in favor of this. I
Speaker 1: mean the Donald Trump supporters that say they're in favor
Speaker 1: of either probably didn't hear the question or just trying
Speaker 1: to be provocative to the to the people who conducting
Speaker 1: the survey. And then you know, you see the non
Speaker 1: voter that they pulled here, it's again it's like four
Speaker 1: or five. So it's just the radical left that wants
Speaker 1: to do this. But the Democrat Party is being run
Speaker 1: increasingly by the radical left, and this goes to show
Speaker 1: you that they can't be honest about their real intentions.
Speaker 1: And so when they put forward someone like Ocasio Cortez,
Speaker 1: who is all about abolishing profit prisons, cash bail, borders,
Speaker 1: and ice, they want to destroy all this stuff. Meanwhile
Speaker 1: the rest of government they want to grow endlessly. I
Speaker 1: always find this fascinating about leftist The parts of government
Speaker 1: that we actually need they are hostile to, and the
Speaker 1: parts of government that we don't need at all they
Speaker 1: can't get enough of. You know, the military, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we need a smaller military, less funding. The military is
Speaker 1: a problem. Department of Education, Oh my gosh, there's not
Speaker 1: enough money for teachers. And Department of Education, Oh no,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do? You know that they're exactly
Speaker 1: the polar opposite of correct on all of this, and
Speaker 1: they're radicalism when it comes to the abolition of these
Speaker 1: different members. I mean, abolished prophet is just that's something
Speaker 1: that people say and they're either too stupid to know
Speaker 1: what it means, or or they're just I don't know,
Speaker 1: they really want their advocating. There's such malcontents that they're
Speaker 1: advocating for the misery and suffering that has been on display,
Speaker 1: and every country that has ever even begun to try this.
Speaker 1: You know, we don't have to reach far back into
Speaker 1: antiquity for this. You just look at what's going on
Speaker 1: in Venezuela and you figure that Democrats can never they
Speaker 1: never learn their lesson about this, They never have a
Speaker 1: real understanding of what needs to be done, and they
Speaker 1: are completely willing to use this stuff at a minimum
Speaker 1: for base turnout. But but I also think that, you know,
Speaker 1: if if they had their way, if the left had
Speaker 1: their way, they would implement some of this they have been.
Speaker 1: Abolished ice and replace it with what you're gonna call
Speaker 1: it something, Abolish ice and replace it with nice. Everyone's
Speaker 1: gonna be so nice to each other. It doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. This has been the primary political issue we're
Speaker 1: heading into a mid term. Are they are the Democrats
Speaker 1: telling you anything about how they're going to increase jobs,
Speaker 1: how they're gonna, you know, help raise wages, how they're gonna,
Speaker 1: you know, produce better health. People say, oh, buck, well,
Speaker 1: they're not in power. Yeah, but they're not even talking
Speaker 1: about what they would do if they were in power.
Speaker 1: They got nothing except Trump hatred and Jay Guivera wanna
Speaker 1: be is um so a big election here in uh
Speaker 1: in Mexico, and one that I think has implications that
Speaker 1: you're certainly not going to hear from most of the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. But they are troubling, my friends. They are troubling,
Speaker 1: to say the least. Mexico is in many ways are
Speaker 1: most important immediate security challenge. And I know that it's
Speaker 1: not framed that way. It's not discussed as though that
Speaker 1: is the case, but it is the case. When you
Speaker 1: look at the drug cartels, the human smuggling, the importation
Speaker 1: of lethal substances that are killing tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: people of our fellow Americans, Mexico is a massive security challenge.
Speaker 1: And you you also have to wonder over the long term,
Speaker 1: will there be a strain of Mexican irredentism, meaning they
Speaker 1: don't want to that they want to regain lost territory.
Speaker 1: That will become a political problem as well. I'm seeing
Speaker 1: here that there's already an effort to split where people
Speaker 1: keep talking about this that the splitting California into three states,
Speaker 1: which it's not going to happen because it's just complicated,
Speaker 1: but it would certainly be an interesting situation if it
Speaker 1: were to happen. Uh. And you wonder if over the
Speaker 1: long term, there's the possibility that maybe a separatist movement
Speaker 1: from within the American Southwest or along the US Mexico
Speaker 1: border will be a problem we have to deal with.
Speaker 1: But that's further done the line. For now. Let's look
Speaker 1: at what happened here with this Mexican national election. Now
Speaker 1: you have a far left guy, Obrador, Lopez Obrador, who
Speaker 1: has won this thing. You know, he beat he beat
Speaker 1: the competition. The New York Times refers to him as
Speaker 1: an a typical leftist mm hmm, a typical leftist, okay.
Speaker 1: And they're saying that he wrote a wave of populist
Speaker 1: anger fueled by rampant corruption and violence. Uh, and he
Speaker 1: wanted a landslide victory. And now they're saying he has
Speaker 1: a sweeping mandate two uh, change things with the country,
Speaker 1: all right, and and that this is a huge rejection
Speaker 1: of the status quo and that he will Uh. This
Speaker 1: is ac cording to the the Times, end corruption, reduce violence,
Speaker 1: and address Mexico's endemic poverty. Folks, we have been to
Speaker 1: this dance before. With some of our Latin American friends
Speaker 1: and and regional partners, we have seen this play out.
Speaker 1: You've got countries with all this corruption, with a lot
Speaker 1: of poverty, a lot of problems, and they come out saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're going to find a way to
Speaker 1: address this. And the way they want to address it
Speaker 1: is usually the redistribution of wealth and more state spending
Speaker 1: and state programs that the productive class will have to
Speaker 1: subsidize them one way or another. Is a recipe for failure.
Speaker 1: What ends up happening is that the government and I
Speaker 1: know we were talking to Venice, we are the earlier
Speaker 1: this hour, but this is true. The government comes in
Speaker 1: and says, hey, we're gonna fix your problems, and they
Speaker 1: don't fix a problems and they need to find a scapegoat. Well,
Speaker 1: who's the scapegoat? If you're a populist, socialist government, far
Speaker 1: left radical regime, whoever is doing well is the obvious scapegoat. Right,
Speaker 1: The people that are managing to be prosperous and successful,
Speaker 1: they're the problem. They're the ones keeping you, don't you see,
Speaker 1: from having a better life. So we'll just take more
Speaker 1: of their stuff and give it to you and you'll
Speaker 1: be better off. And then all of a sudden, people realize,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, well, now there's less foreign investment.
Speaker 1: Now there's less productive activity going on. Now the people
Speaker 1: that know how to run farms, you know, how to
Speaker 1: run factories, aren't really doing it anymore, which means there's
Speaker 1: less fruits and vegetables in the market. Stall means there
Speaker 1: isn't milk in the grocery aisle anymore. You know, you
Speaker 1: start to see all these problems. They come and they go, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it's goo, and then the prices start to go up, right,
Speaker 1: because prices are set by the market, no matter what
Speaker 1: a government says. The government can say whatever, it can say,
Speaker 1: the prices whatever it wants, but the price is what
Speaker 1: the price is. People get on the black market, they'll
Speaker 1: find a way. And then the government says, well, they're
Speaker 1: being greedy. That's why you don't have more access to
Speaker 1: you know, produce and products. It's because the greedy capitalists.
Speaker 1: So now we're just gonna start seizing their assets and
Speaker 1: we're we're going to take it from them. We're not
Speaker 1: just gonna do it through redistribution, through taxation and other
Speaker 1: mechanisms of the state. We're gonna actually try to run.
Speaker 1: Now you're once you have control of the means of production.
Speaker 1: Now you're with straight up socialism. And it's the question
Speaker 1: do you have a revolutionary elite in charge? Then you're
Speaker 1: at then you're at communism. Right then you're at the
Speaker 1: hardcore level. Now even Venezuela is not communist. But there
Speaker 1: is nothing to be gained from going down this pathway.
Speaker 1: And Mexico's problems are are vast as we know. Let
Speaker 1: me just say this, We had it. We just had
Speaker 1: a an election where Lopez Obrador was the winner. And
Speaker 1: this is a country that has for us. The implications
Speaker 1: of this national election are more important than I think
Speaker 1: any other country I can think of off the top
Speaker 1: of my head. I mean, maybe you could argue, you know, China,
Speaker 1: but hey, you know, we don't know who we really
Speaker 1: want to run China of the possible options, right, we've
Speaker 1: got hijin Ping right now. But do we want Is
Speaker 1: there somebody better that we know of? But a a
Speaker 1: far left government in Mexico is something to be concerned about.
Speaker 1: And Victor Davis Hansen, one of my favorite writers, pointed
Speaker 1: out a National Review that once you start to look
Speaker 1: at what Andrea's Manuel Lopez Obrador has said recently about
Speaker 1: the relationship with the US and Mexico. You're concerned and
Speaker 1: you start to worry, and you realize that there's some
Speaker 1: stuff that needs to be addressed real fast. Um. He says,
Speaker 1: for example, that Mexicans have a human right to enter
Speaker 1: the United States as they please. Well, that doesn't that
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like our border is going to be particularly respected,
Speaker 1: does it. Uh. He says that this is in innate
Speaker 1: privilege that we will defend about the right of Mexicans
Speaker 1: that come to America as they please. He has urged
Speaker 1: his fellow Mexicans to leave their towns and find a
Speaker 1: life in the United States. So he says that basically
Speaker 1: Mexicans can come to America as they please and that
Speaker 1: should be the status quo. Do you think this guy
Speaker 1: is gonna be helpful or not helpful on the issue
Speaker 1: of a border wall or a border that actually is
Speaker 1: a border, right? I mean, do you think he's gonna
Speaker 1: be working with us on this or is he gonna say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, it's the Americans, the gringos problems, the Americans
Speaker 1: problem mhm um. Hansen goes into some detail here, I
Speaker 1: think is important background for the US Mexican relationship. In
Speaker 1: the stands now by the way press is completely they
Speaker 1: are on the issue of Mexico. They're not telling you anything.
Speaker 1: They're not telling you anything. There was just an election
Speaker 1: of Mexico for the president. How many places have you
Speaker 1: seen and read that there have been over a hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty assassinations of Mexican politicians and political figures, people
Speaker 1: that work for them, political aids in the last year.
Speaker 1: Hundred and twenty, folks, they are knocking off politicians, they're
Speaker 1: left and right. Doesn't even not even a news item here.
Speaker 1: No one even cares. No one even cares, and we
Speaker 1: pay no attention to this. I'm sitting here and others
Speaker 1: have started to raise the alarm too, saying that the
Speaker 1: Mexican state has just suffered in seventeen. I don't, I
Speaker 1: haven't seen the numbers. Eighteen. Well, I guess we're still
Speaker 1: in twenty, right. Seventeen was the worst year for murders
Speaker 1: in the history of Mexico. This is a country that
Speaker 1: I remember back in two thousand and seven, two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, we were seeing videos on YouTube of decapitations
Speaker 1: and torture and straight out of the ice this playbook.
Speaker 1: Right the the way al Qaeda was operating, the way
Speaker 1: that the cartels were operating, were felt like they were
Speaker 1: very much aligned. And you're not seeing much reporting about
Speaker 1: this now, are you. You're not seeing a lot of
Speaker 1: big news stories on how there are cartels that are
Speaker 1: engaging Mexican Marines military units in fixed uh fixed position
Speaker 1: gun battles in large numbers and winning and driving off
Speaker 1: the Marines or forcing the Marines have to call in
Speaker 1: close air support helicopter gun ships so they don't get overrun.
Speaker 1: That's happening now, that's happening in the current situation. Mexico. Man,
Speaker 1: this is a country that you know, it's on a
Speaker 1: board a lot of listening to show. You're like, yeah, buck,
Speaker 1: I you know I can drive to Mexican in a
Speaker 1: couple of hours right here. You're not seeing reporting on
Speaker 1: the hundreds of millions of dollars that cartels are making
Speaker 1: from human smuggling. Just a lot of kids. It's all
Speaker 1: about kids crying. It's not about what does it mean
Speaker 1: to have a border that's not strong enough that we
Speaker 1: can keep these coyotes from smuggling people into this country?
Speaker 1: What does it mean that the cartels now are smuggling
Speaker 1: people in And by the way, what do you think
Speaker 1: the preferred method of payment is for someone who's being
Speaker 1: for an illegal either Central American or Mexican being smuggled
Speaker 1: into the United States by a cartel connected coyote. Well,
Speaker 1: if you run out of cash, what do you think
Speaker 1: they do if you're a woman, by the way, I
Speaker 1: won't even get to know, but you can imagine they
Speaker 1: do terrible things if you're you know, woman or a
Speaker 1: man in some cases. I mean, this is the other
Speaker 1: option that they all taken with. With men, they tend
Speaker 1: to take this option. Strap you with drugs, send you
Speaker 1: across the border laden with heroin or fenton all or
Speaker 1: a drug that when it makes its way into the
Speaker 1: American market could very well end up killing somebody's son, daughter, wife, husband.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on. I mean, we need to think
Speaker 1: much more about Mexico as a national security concern and
Speaker 1: one that affects you, you know, as much as I
Speaker 1: do like to spend some time for you know, reasons
Speaker 1: of the global struggle against jehadis Um And it's you know, ideologically,
Speaker 1: it's clarifying, it's important Boco Haram is not about to
Speaker 1: show up at your house and you know, kidnap you.
Speaker 1: The cartels might. Boco Haram is not connected to people
Speaker 1: that are going to rape and murder teenagers at your
Speaker 1: kids school. M S. Thirteen is in fact that cartels
Speaker 1: are connected to m S. Theirteen and m S thirteen
Speaker 1: recruits in schools all across the country. But they don't
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about this narrative. They don't
Speaker 1: want this to be something that America. If Americans were
Speaker 1: more familiar with it, then all the stuff though, the
Speaker 1: weepy eyed stuff about valid it's nothing but valedictorians and
Speaker 1: people chasing the American dream. There's no downside. That wouldn't
Speaker 1: be a tenable position anymore for them. They'd have to
Speaker 1: tell us the whole story and not just some glossy
Speaker 1: version of the story that they want to present for
Speaker 1: their own reasons of power politics, which is Democrats just
Speaker 1: want more voters. That's all. This is. Everything else's secondary.
Speaker 1: Here's what Hansen writes about Mexico. Facts are stubborn things
Speaker 1: and reveal Mexico not the United States, as a day
Speaker 1: facto aggressor and belligerent on many fronts. Mexico runs a
Speaker 1: NAFTA protected seventy billion dollar trade surplus with the US,
Speaker 1: larger than that of any single American trade partner, including
Speaker 1: Japan and Germany except China. The architects of NAFTA long
Speaker 1: ago assured America that such a trade war would not
Speaker 1: break out, or that we should not worry over trade
Speaker 1: and balance is given the desirability of outsourcing to take
Speaker 1: advantage of Mexico's cheaper labor costs. A supposedly affluent Mexico
Speaker 1: was supposed to achieve near parody with the US as
Speaker 1: immigration and trades who neutralized despite Mexico's economic growth. No
Speaker 1: such symmetry has followed NAFTA. What did, however, thirty four
Speaker 1: years later, was the establishment of a dysfunctional Mexican state
Speaker 1: eight who's drug cartels all but run the country on
Speaker 1: the basis of their enormous profits from unfettered dope running
Speaker 1: and human trafficking into the United States. NAFTA certainly did
Speaker 1: not make Mexico a safer, kinder and gentler nation. Folks,
Speaker 1: Mexico is a problem for this country. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: it's only a problem, but it poses many serious problems
Speaker 1: And here's what I wanna talk about the other side
Speaker 1: of the break. What do you think this new president
Speaker 1: Obrador is going to do about it? He's a radical
Speaker 1: leftist with some really nasty things to say about this country.
Speaker 1: You think he's going to be not just a good
Speaker 1: trade partner, but a good security partner. Oh, here's a hint.
Speaker 1: He has a way of dealing with the cartels that
Speaker 1: I have a feeling is going to make things much
Speaker 1: much worse. And this is the kind of security challenge.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of criminal challenge, criminal issue that
Speaker 1: could affect you no matter where you're in the country,
Speaker 1: because the tentacles of the cartels extended into even now
Speaker 1: midden small as US cities and towns. What is over
Speaker 1: door going to do? All addresses on the side of
Speaker 1: the break, stay with me. We are committing human rights
Speaker 1: abuses on this border and separating children from their families,
Speaker 1: and that, you know, is part of the structure of
Speaker 1: the agency. We can replace it, and we can replace
Speaker 1: it with a humane agency. I don't think ICE today
Speaker 1: is working as intended. You think you should get rid
Speaker 1: of the agency. I believe that it has become a
Speaker 1: deportation force. UM and I think you should separate the
Speaker 1: criminal justice from the immigration issues. And I think you
Speaker 1: should reimagine ICE. ICE was established in two thousand three,
Speaker 1: right at the same time at the Patriot Act, the
Speaker 1: a U m F, the Iraq War, and we look
Speaker 1: back at a lot of that time and legislation as
Speaker 1: a as a mistake. Now. Yeah, see there's that talking
Speaker 1: point again about how two thousand three, Yeah, they consolidated agencies,
Speaker 1: but the functions of the federal government did not change
Speaker 1: at all. It's crazy, oh man. But also on on
Speaker 1: O Brador, the new president of Mexico, I think this
Speaker 1: is really really important. Um. It is believed that the
Speaker 1: likeliest approach he will take to the cartels is one
Speaker 1: of trying to negotiate with them. That so he'll pull
Speaker 1: the security services, He'll pull the in federales, the Mexican Marines,
Speaker 1: and all the different units that are trying to fight
Speaker 1: against the cartels. He'll just start to pull them back
Speaker 1: and say, you know what, keep the violence down and
Speaker 1: we'll leave you alone. What do you think that means
Speaker 1: for us? Do you think that means that will be
Speaker 1: more or less drugs flooding into our streets? You think
Speaker 1: that will be more or less funerals from people overdosing
Speaker 1: from fentonel and heroin. This is our problem, Mexico. You
Speaker 1: know a lot of the countries you talk about over Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean North Korea's our problem at that fire nuctus.
Speaker 1: But you know there are other countries that could try
Speaker 1: that to right, unlikely that that's ever gonna happen. Mexico
Speaker 1: is our problem right now. The Mexican government's policies, it's approached.
Speaker 1: Did you think with the cartels this is something that
Speaker 1: we have to handle. This is something that's on us. Uh,
Speaker 1: And we do not. I do not think we have
Speaker 1: a strong partner. Trump said some nice things about over door,
Speaker 1: because look, he's a new president. He's gonna try to
Speaker 1: get a good relationship going with him. Maybe he will
Speaker 1: surprise me, maybe he will take a a different approach
Speaker 1: to this than I would think. Here's a here's a
Speaker 1: line that Victor Davis Hansen writes just write just reading
Speaker 1: you from what he wrote a National Review. Here, as
Speaker 1: we're talking about our relationship with Mexico. Quote, there appears
Speaker 1: to be little real self reflection in Mexico about how
Speaker 1: and why such a naturally rich country blessed with good soil, climate,
Speaker 1: natural resources, ports, and a strategic geography remains so dismally poor.
Speaker 1: Does anybody, uh, I want to take a stab at
Speaker 1: starting that discussion. Anybody think that it's something we can
Speaker 1: we can begin to address. Why is our neighbor to
Speaker 1: the north so rule of law and orderly and our
Speaker 1: neighbor to the south has such tremendous problems. By the way, Canada,
Speaker 1: you know they've been growing weird. I mean they've got
Speaker 1: a legal drugs right there, stuff that they but it's
Speaker 1: just not the same. Why is that? Does anybody have
Speaker 1: any ideas as to why that is? The gig? Um?
Speaker 1: I think that you know this this piece by Viker
Speaker 1: Davis Hanson, I really think you should check it out. Um.
Speaker 1: And he also refers to the kids being sent to
Speaker 1: the border as levers for one owns later on entry.
Speaker 1: So he's saying that the kids are being used as
Speaker 1: a trojan horse situation, which nobody else will say that.
Speaker 1: There is a huge range in home security systems out there,
Speaker 1: and there are thousands and thousands of customer complaints that
Speaker 1: come into the Better Business Bureau about the alarm companies
Speaker 1: that you don't want to do business with. Well, I
Speaker 1: have a fix for you, and it's the one that
Speaker 1: I use simply Safe Home Security. Simply Safe could not
Speaker 1: be easier to use, It could not be less obtrusive
Speaker 1: in your home. In fact, it looks cool, it fits
Speaker 1: in neatly with your decor. It's small, it's portable, works
Speaker 1: off your WiFi, and simply Safe as a company that's
Speaker 1: all about customer service. They treat me right and they'll
Speaker 1: do the same for you. They're no long term contracts,
Speaker 1: they don't try to lock you into things. Checking out
Speaker 1: for yourself. Learn more about simply Safe today at simply
Speaker 1: safe dot com, slash bucked that simply safe dot com.
Speaker 1: Slash buck to protect your home and family with an
Speaker 1: A plus home security system simply safe dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck buck Sexton permission decoding the news and disseminating information.
Speaker 1: We have actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes, American. You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the buck Sexton Show, analyst.
Speaker 1: No welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. You would think, maybe,
Speaker 1: if you didn't spend much time watching them, you might
Speaker 1: you might think that the uh SO, the legal analysis
Speaker 1: world would be full of sober minded thinking. But in
Speaker 1: our current era of an open Supreme Court seat, now
Speaker 1: that Justice Kennedy has announced his retirement, things are getting wacko,
Speaker 1: my friends, things are getting crazy out there. Arazy ah ory. Well,
Speaker 1: first you had the President mentioned that he met with
Speaker 1: a few before I get into the crazy, Let's hear
Speaker 1: the scene. Here's the President said about meeting with nominees,
Speaker 1: played thirteen. During the morning, I interviewed and met with
Speaker 1: four potential justices of our great Supreme Court. They are
Speaker 1: outstanding people. They are really incredible people in so many
Speaker 1: different ways, academically and every other way. And I had
Speaker 1: a very very interesting morning, very very interesting morning. Indeed. Now,
Speaker 1: the expectation is that all of the judges that Trump
Speaker 1: has picked, all the judges that he has looked at
Speaker 1: um so far on his list, are people who are constitutionalists.
Speaker 1: And the left is is terrified, quite honestly, that this
Speaker 1: is going to affect a Roe v. Wade, one of
Speaker 1: the worst judicial decisions of all time, one of the
Speaker 1: very very worst in this country, and that includes a
Speaker 1: dark history with some really bad stuff. A Senator Collins, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: who wants to make sure that we all know that
Speaker 1: she is a woman of uh, no conviction that she
Speaker 1: is someone who you know, as as the senior U S.
Speaker 1: Senator from Maine, is looking first and foremost to protect
Speaker 1: her own political career, is really a collinsist before anything else.
Speaker 1: She wants to make it sure, make make it clear
Speaker 1: that she has a litmus test, you know, she she
Speaker 1: wants a certain kind of person that has a certain
Speaker 1: view of specific cases on the Court play nine. Justice
Speaker 1: Roberts has made very clear that he considers Roe v.
Speaker 1: Way to be settled law. I would not support a
Speaker 1: nominee who demonstrated hostility to Roe v. Wade, because that
Speaker 1: would mean to me that their judicial philosophy did not
Speaker 1: include a respect for established decisions, established law, established decisions
Speaker 1: like star a decisive established decisions. I'm just gonna say that,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be mean. Seems to be a
Speaker 1: deeply unimpressive person, this Susan Collins. Oh not not anybody
Speaker 1: who is laying the world on fire with her intellectual prowess.
Speaker 1: I I just I'm keeping it real, okay. Beside that, though,
Speaker 1: beside that point, this is the dumbest argument that there is. Well,
Speaker 1: that's the way it was decided, so it should still
Speaker 1: be decided that way. Yes, the Supreme Court has a
Speaker 1: has a guideline because they don't want you know, it
Speaker 1: would be bad if you know, one year this, the
Speaker 1: next year, that, one year this, the next year that. Right,
Speaker 1: there's a a willingness to respect precedent, but that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean a complete deferral the precedent, because then what's the
Speaker 1: point of the Supreme Court? Right? You know that the
Speaker 1: people that really talk about established law when it comes
Speaker 1: to Row are the same people who will who will
Speaker 1: celebrate oh Berg fell on gay marriage. Gay marriage had
Speaker 1: not been a law of land in this country for
Speaker 1: a long time, but a change, right, same people who
Speaker 1: view Heller the case dealing with a gun ownership in
Speaker 1: washing d C. Where I am here in the swamp,
Speaker 1: that's a target to be overturned. I mean, there's just there,
Speaker 1: there's no foundational principle to talk about with these people
Speaker 1: that are saying, oh, you know, it's established law, it's
Speaker 1: established law. So that's just idiocy. It's idiocy in the
Speaker 1: guise of uh, some kind of real argument. Um, you know, okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, dread Scott. Some would probably if you asked
Speaker 1: what was the worst Supreme Court decision of all time,
Speaker 1: you would probably get uh dread Scott, which held that
Speaker 1: a person of African heritage brought the United States uh
Speaker 1: could not be an American citizen, could not sue in
Speaker 1: federal court. Um. And yeah, so, I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: looking for the worst, that was a decision, that was
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court case. You know they're there Karamatsu, which
Speaker 1: we've been talking about, the Japanese intern INTERMITTI Japanese Americans.
Speaker 1: That was a case that the Supreme Court looked at.
Speaker 1: And yeah, so because it was decided, isn't an argument,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just not. It's it's a factor in
Speaker 1: an overall argument. You could say, but this is the
Speaker 1: the stupidity, it's gonna be on display. But I mentioned that.
Speaker 1: You know that an the legal profession, or in the
Speaker 1: legal analysis side of things, you might think to yourself,
Speaker 1: these are lawyers, they're trained, they come at this from
Speaker 1: from a place of knowledge and intellect, and so they're
Speaker 1: not just out there staying crazy stuff to get attention.
Speaker 1: But if you thought that, you'd be wrong. Chief CNN
Speaker 1: legal analyst Jeffrey Tubin, writing The New Yorker, Uh, he
Speaker 1: wrote that see the new year, and see the new U. S.
Speaker 1: Supreme Court clearly abortion, illegal doctors, prosecuted, gay people, barred
Speaker 1: from restaurants, hotels, stores, African Americans out of elite schools,
Speaker 1: gun control band in fifty states, the end of the
Speaker 1: regulatory state. If this is not the legal analysis equivalent
Speaker 1: of wild fearmongering, I don't know what is. And on
Speaker 1: some of these things, I'd be like, well, yeah, that actually,
Speaker 1: you know, that sounds the end of the regulatory state.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a good thing. Gun control band in
Speaker 1: fifty states, you know. Now, now we're getting somewhere. But
Speaker 1: some of these other things are just he's just made up.
Speaker 1: It's just not true. Gay people are not going to
Speaker 1: be barred from restaurants, hotels, and stores. That's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: That's not I don't I don't think he even makes
Speaker 1: a good faith, serious argument that anyone is on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would allow that to happen. But he's trying
Speaker 1: to scare people. They are doing everything they can to
Speaker 1: frighten everyone into thinking that there is some terrible calamity
Speaker 1: will befall us unless we pick a kind of squishy
Speaker 1: moderate to to put on the Supreme Court, and that
Speaker 1: would be and un forgivable betrayal of Donald Trump's promise
Speaker 1: and his presidency. And he knows that, and that's why
Speaker 1: we're looking at these uh. That's why we're looking at
Speaker 1: these candidates now and know that no matter what the
Speaker 1: other side says, no matter what they present to us
Speaker 1: as their rationale for why the the sitting president doesn't
Speaker 1: have the right UH to pick a Supreme Court nominee,
Speaker 1: we need to just stay away from it. We need
Speaker 1: to not allow them to get into our heads with
Speaker 1: this garbage. It is just a lie. UM. I know
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and Barrett are considered leading contenders for the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: I will say it will be really interesting, is you know,
Speaker 1: one of the last acceptable bigotries out there for the media,
Speaker 1: one of the last ones that they'll they'll just throw
Speaker 1: it around and they've got no problem with whatsoever is
Speaker 1: anti Catholic um. And now there are a lot of
Speaker 1: Catholics I know who are culturally you know they were
Speaker 1: raised I mean anti Catholic for those who who go
Speaker 1: to church and who believe in church doctrine, they can
Speaker 1: be attacked, they can be smeared. And with Amy Barrett,
Speaker 1: I think she's a Catholic. I think Kavanaugh was a
Speaker 1: Catholic too. I think there are a couple of folks
Speaker 1: out there who are a couple of Supreme Court possibilities
Speaker 1: who are Catholics, and they are gonna get so hammered
Speaker 1: by the Senate, by the Senate Democrats on this issue.
Speaker 1: And you'll notice that they don't they don't pull back
Speaker 1: at all with the whole you're a Catholic, so you
Speaker 1: basically you're a Catholic like Scalia was, So you really
Speaker 1: can't be a Supreme Court You really can't be a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court judge. M hmm. And I'm assuming so do
Speaker 1: my or, but I could be wrong. I'm guessing I
Speaker 1: should say so do my or was raised Catholic. But
Speaker 1: I don't know how you can square being pro choice
Speaker 1: with being a Catholic. I don't understand that. I just
Speaker 1: I don't get it. So, I mean, the Church hasn't moved.
Speaker 1: There's some issues you can talk about. Same sex marriage
Speaker 1: the churches is at least the pope is speaking about,
Speaker 1: and the popes has a lot of things with a
Speaker 1: little more a different tone than in the past. On life,
Speaker 1: on abortion, there is no mm hmm. There has been
Speaker 1: no shift in Catholic doctrine. So I just wonder, and
Speaker 1: I'm Pelosi and these others they should be denied communion.
Speaker 1: I mean, they actually should be excommunicated. But that's now
Speaker 1: I start to sound like Torquamana, who we talked about
Speaker 1: on the Freedom Hunt podcast. By the way, for those
Speaker 1: of you who listened, you should check out The Freedom
Speaker 1: Home with Buck Sexton. It's a lot of fun. We
Speaker 1: talked about all kinds of things. Writing history, one of
Speaker 1: our new segments that we'll be doing sometimes Commy Bear
Speaker 1: makes it appearance. It's good stuff. You should check it out.
Speaker 1: But but here's here's the real, the real road map
Speaker 1: of what's gonna happen. And you know, Collins and others
Speaker 1: are are given us a sense of this already. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is going to be one of the nastiest political
Speaker 1: fights that we have ever seen over the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: And it's gonna be so nasty and part I think
Speaker 1: because there's really no mechanism for the Democrats to stop it.
Speaker 1: There's nothing they can really legitimately do to shut this
Speaker 1: thing down. So they're just gonna rely on hysteria and
Speaker 1: pressure campaigns, and it's gonna get very very ugly. But
Speaker 1: I want you to always keep an eye on the
Speaker 1: way that they're making, the way that they're talking about
Speaker 1: these different Supreme Court picks, and and understand that they're
Speaker 1: not making good faith arguments. Liberals have become far too
Speaker 1: accustomed to having a Supreme Court that gives them what
Speaker 1: they cannot get through the legislature, and they think that
Speaker 1: that has been the status quo for a long time,
Speaker 1: and whenever the liberals get from the Supreme Court is sacrosanct,
Speaker 1: cannot be changed, cannot be touched. Conservative victories are always temporary.
Speaker 1: Liberal victories are forever. That's the way they look at it,
Speaker 1: and that's the Supreme Court that they want to have
Speaker 1: in place, and anything short of that they will view
Speaker 1: as unacceptable. I even saw a a legal scholar, I
Speaker 1: forget what the guy's name is. Um. I even saw
Speaker 1: a legal scholar out there who was recommending that the
Speaker 1: Democrats when they come back into power, engage in court packing,
Speaker 1: meaning that they they put more that they create more
Speaker 1: Supreme Court seats and then just put more leftists on there.
Speaker 1: So this is they're they're not operating from a place
Speaker 1: of good faith or honesty. They're just operating from place
Speaker 1: of we want judges who give us what we want,
Speaker 1: not to interpret the law, not to be faithful to
Speaker 1: the Constitution. We want people to stand up there and right.
Speaker 1: I mean in the case of someone like so do
Speaker 1: mayor semi coherent screeds that our policy papers dressed up
Speaker 1: as legal interpretation. But that's what we want and we
Speaker 1: want it now. That's their approach. So make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it. This is going to get, uh, particularly ugly,
Speaker 1: as we've been saying. And you know this week it's
Speaker 1: fourth of July week, and so things are gonna when
Speaker 1: we come back after the holiday, although it's kind of
Speaker 1: a weird holiday this year, you know fourth. What do
Speaker 1: you do on a on a wend? What do you
Speaker 1: do with a Wednesday? I mean, John and Mike, do
Speaker 1: you guys even have anything? What do you do when
Speaker 1: you got Wednesday off? You know, you rock out on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: I'm an old man. If I rock out on Tuesday,
Speaker 1: it takes me till the least Thursday or Friday to recover.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I can't go out Wednesday night really
Speaker 1: because I gotta do us Uh, you know, six am,
Speaker 1: call here at the office, Mike John, you guys have anything,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna see fireworks. Yeah, I'll see fireworks, and people
Speaker 1: get mad at me over I always say fireworks are overrated,
Speaker 1: you know, no, I know it goes oh, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm like, look, if you're there with your kids, I
Speaker 1: get it, you know, the wonder and all that stuff. Fine,
Speaker 1: But I'm always amazed when I see adults sitting there,
Speaker 1: you know, drink and shiv us on the rocks with
Speaker 1: a bunch of other adults, and they go, oh, it's like,
Speaker 1: are we caveman if we never see we've never seen
Speaker 1: fireworks before. Folks like, I don't know how exciting this
Speaker 1: really is. I know, come at me, tell me all
Speaker 1: you're you know, every gets mad at me whenever I
Speaker 1: say this. But but but then people will secretly on
Speaker 1: the side say, you know what, You're right, fireworks are
Speaker 1: kind of boring. You know, it's fine from a distance
Speaker 1: either sitting there. If I'm sitting there drinking my my chardonney,
Speaker 1: that's right, bougie style, and I see some fireworks. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's nice, it's fine. But I don't know, I just
Speaker 1: can't get that. I can't get that excited about it.
Speaker 1: New York. He got a rooftop party you go to
Speaker 1: you know, you know there's stuff. Look, I'm here in
Speaker 1: the district. I'm sure there's gonna be all kinds of things. Uh,
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's gonna be all kinds of stuff going
Speaker 1: on where people are talking about America and freedom. I
Speaker 1: don't look, any excuse to barbecue gets me excited, So
Speaker 1: I will say that. But having a having a holiday
Speaker 1: on a Wednesday, this is this is the world. It
Speaker 1: just seems un American to me, And we're celebrating the
Speaker 1: most American of holidays in an un American way because
Speaker 1: we should have a long weekend, folks. We should all
Speaker 1: be piling into cars, getting on you know, the inner state,
Speaker 1: and having to go see in laws that we wish
Speaker 1: we could avoid seeing. But we've got no choice, right, Like,
Speaker 1: that's what a holiday is supposed to be in America's Thanksgiving. Well, yeah, John,
Speaker 1: that's Thanksgiving too, I agree. But that's what's happening right
Speaker 1: now with this. So I'm a little i' a little
Speaker 1: disappointed at the calendar right now. I've got I've got
Speaker 1: problems with this calendar. They need to either give us
Speaker 1: off Monday Tuesday or Thursday Friday. Yeah, exactly, And we
Speaker 1: need this to be a long weekend because we're not savages.
Speaker 1: This is not non there are rules. Ask me take
Speaker 1: an extra days off getting paid for it. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, I know. I agree. Alright, guys, we gotta
Speaker 1: all in a quick break. We'll be right back. Listen, folks,
Speaker 1: do you have animals digging under your fence, either pets
Speaker 1: escaping or predators and pests coming in? If you're tired
Speaker 1: of trying bricks, would or concrete, let me tell you
Speaker 1: about a solution, Big Defense. It's genius. It extends the
Speaker 1: protection of your fence underground. You install at the base
Speaker 1: of any fence to protect your and your property. All
Speaker 1: you need to get this done, folks, a hammer and gloves.
Speaker 1: You can install dig Defense yourself. And stop the dig.
Speaker 1: No more chasing after Fido as he leaves the backyard,
Speaker 1: chase him around the backyard instead, stop the dig now
Speaker 1: with dig Defense available at Lows Tractor Supply, Minard's Wayfair
Speaker 1: and stop the dig dot com Minard's and stop the
Speaker 1: dig dot com And now for the month of July,
Speaker 1: is it Stop the dig dot com use the promo
Speaker 1: code Buck for ten percent off. That's stop the dig
Speaker 1: dot com and use promo code buck b U c
Speaker 1: K for ten percent off your whole whole order at
Speaker 1: stop the dig dot Com. Look, I just don't even
Speaker 1: know how you can trust anything that this administration says
Speaker 1: or does. Through this debacle that has been this entire
Speaker 1: family separation from says. The one thing that has been
Speaker 1: revealed is that this government, this administration, is incompetent. And
Speaker 1: in the event that you didn't know it before, you
Speaker 1: know it. But certainly now. They lie. They lie, They lie,
Speaker 1: they lie, they life pathologically. They lie with impunity, They
Speaker 1: lie constantly, They lie one time right after the other,
Speaker 1: like if they hadn't said anything before. Sometimes to think
Speaker 1: that Anna Navarro over at CNN, I mean maybe maybe
Speaker 1: it's just a lack of word dexterity, you know, running
Speaker 1: short of the vocabulary, the way that she does her analysis.
Speaker 1: It's just like, is that really the best we can do?
Speaker 1: But uh, you know, they put her on TV all
Speaker 1: the time, like we're supposed to listen to her. I
Speaker 1: don't understand it, but they do. They treat her with
Speaker 1: a lot of respect. They quote Republican over there, seeing
Speaker 1: all she does is bash the administration among the dumbest
Speaker 1: people I know of. On television today, Carol in Pittman,
Speaker 1: New Jersey, Carol, good to have you. Hello about care
Speaker 1: are you? I'm good, happy to be here, Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for going in. So many things I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about. But the thing foremast in my
Speaker 1: mind is cast I'm very worried that this could be
Speaker 1: against the administration. UM. I feel like there needs to
Speaker 1: be strategic patients. You know who agrees with you, by
Speaker 1: the way, you know agrees with you? Johnson and New
Speaker 1: play clip three, my friend, I think in the long run,
Speaker 1: the president is a free trader, but he does understand
Speaker 1: that over the years we have drifted into this horrible position. Uh.
Speaker 1: He's using attack that that might be different than than
Speaker 1: some of us would use, but it is attacked to
Speaker 1: get this process back to a free trade structure, both
Speaker 1: with China and the EU. We may not like this
Speaker 1: transition and the policies involved in the transition, but I
Speaker 1: think the target is to get to a free trade
Speaker 1: policy in the long run, and that's what I think
Speaker 1: we ought to be keeping our eye on. I agree
Speaker 1: with the new new Carol Um and I'm gonna talk
Speaker 1: more about this in just a little bit. We're probably
Speaker 1: gonna talk trade in the third hour of the show
Speaker 1: today with some more specificity about the upcoming tariffs on China.
Speaker 1: But so is that that's what you want us to
Speaker 1: get into that, right? Yes, okay, I'm worried. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: your wishes our command here in the Freedom Huod Carol.
Speaker 1: We will get to the issue of tariffs, and don't
Speaker 1: worry yet. I think everybody's gonna be all right. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you more about that in just a view um
Speaker 1: our conservatives weaponizing free speech? Is that even a thing?
Speaker 1: Liberals seem to think it is? How is there a thing?
Speaker 1: What are they saying? If you stay with me through
Speaker 1: this break, my friends, I will tell you he's holding
Speaker 1: the line for America, buck Sexton, his back. Is free
Speaker 1: speech a conservative weapon? This is uh an astonishing piece
Speaker 1: of not not editorial, my friends, This is a reporting.
Speaker 1: This is reporting courtesy of the New York Times on
Speaker 1: the issue of free speech and how they think now
Speaker 1: that free speeches where where being weaponized by conservatives. Let
Speaker 1: me read you some of this. This is, remember, folks,
Speaker 1: not an up ed. This was reported in the Politics
Speaker 1: section of The New York Times as a news story
Speaker 1: and I quote. On the final day of the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court term last week, Justice Elena Kagan sounded an alarm
Speaker 1: the courts five conservative members, citing the First Amendment had
Speaker 1: just doubt public unions, a devastating blow. The day before,
Speaker 1: the same majority had used the First Amenment to reject
Speaker 1: the California law requiring acquiring religiously oriented crisis pregnancy centers
Speaker 1: to provide women with information about abortion. Conservatives, said Justice Kagan,
Speaker 1: who is part of the Court's four member liberal ring,
Speaker 1: were weaponizing the First Amendment. The two decisions were the
Speaker 1: latest in a stunning ring of victories for a conservative
Speaker 1: agenda that has increasingly been built on the foundation of
Speaker 1: free speech. Conservative groups barring and building an arguments developed
Speaker 1: by liberals, have used the First Amendment to justify unlimited
Speaker 1: campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples, and attacks on the
Speaker 1: regulation of tobacco, pharmaceuticals and guns. Liberals, my friends, and
Speaker 1: that's so that's the end of the quote there. Liberals
Speaker 1: are not in favor of free speech. They're in favor
Speaker 1: of what they're in favor of, meaning that liberals interpret laws.
Speaker 1: And this is very important for you to keep this
Speaker 1: in mind. Liberals interpret laws based upon what they want
Speaker 1: the law to say. You will be hard pressed to
Speaker 1: find a progressive leftist who comes along and says, you know,
Speaker 1: I really disagree with this outcome of this law, but
Speaker 1: that is what the law says. You'll notice that the
Speaker 1: liberal wing and this, this is where their distinction is.
Speaker 1: This is how there's a separation betwo conservatives and liberals.
Speaker 1: You will see sometimes or many times when there's a
Speaker 1: contentious issue in front of the Supreme Court, and this
Speaker 1: is also just the way this is beyond the court.
Speaker 1: This is the way liberals and conservatives see the world right,
Speaker 1: but the conservative justices will say, well, you know, this
Speaker 1: seems like an unwise thing, this policy that you have,
Speaker 1: but this is what the law says, and it is constitutional.
Speaker 1: There's nothing the constitution that prohibits this. The way liberals
Speaker 1: approach the law, the way liberals approach issues of constitutional interpretation,
Speaker 1: they say, well, this is what the law should say,
Speaker 1: and so we're going to say that that's what the
Speaker 1: law sets, which is just other way of saying the
Speaker 1: law is non existent. Really, it's just a question of
Speaker 1: what day it is and what any particular progressive power
Speaker 1: feels like instituting as the law. This is very troubling.
Speaker 1: But you see this with free speech. You know, it
Speaker 1: wasn't long ago that you thought of the liberal left
Speaker 1: in this country as being the big free speech. They
Speaker 1: held themselves up as the free speech champions, right, the
Speaker 1: Berkeley free speech movement. Now there are in in a
Speaker 1: tremendous irony. There are a few places in the country
Speaker 1: where there's less free speech than a college campus. Berkeley
Speaker 1: high up on that list. These these uh liberal institutions,
Speaker 1: these leftist institutions, places like the a c l U.
Speaker 1: It wasn't long ago the a c l U would
Speaker 1: sue anybody so that they could promote you know, radical
Speaker 1: free speech. Right, that would be one way of calling it.
Speaker 1: You know, the more insulting you can be too, you know,
Speaker 1: if you can put a crucifix in urine with public dollars,
Speaker 1: you know, go for right. Whatever it was that was
Speaker 1: an insult of Christianity, to established societal norms. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I'm pretty I try to be as close
Speaker 1: to to a a free speech hardliner as possible, So
Speaker 1: I do believe that speech that's insulting, that's enraging even
Speaker 1: is protected. I do believe that the most grievous religious
Speaker 1: insults are completely protected speech. And I also believe that
Speaker 1: calling you know, one political party, for example, in the
Speaker 1: American in the current American context, essentially you know, socialism
Speaker 1: with the face of of democracy is or with the
Speaker 1: face of the Democrat party is fair to say, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that very harsh political criticism as
Speaker 1: well is is protected speech. I mean, liberals, Democrats, the left,
Speaker 1: they don't buy into that. They believe that. And this
Speaker 1: is why I'm always so opposed to hate speech re
Speaker 1: um regulations. This is why I'm opposed to any efforts
Speaker 1: to qualify speech based on the desirability of the content. Right,
Speaker 1: That's why I have I have concerns about this. That's
Speaker 1: this is why as I see what's going on, what's
Speaker 1: happening right now, I understand that the left is abandoning
Speaker 1: the notion of free speech because they're losing the argument.
Speaker 1: They're losing the argument over religious freedom, they're losing the
Speaker 1: argument over forced compelled speech. You know, they're saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, why can't it's just a medical procedure. No,
Speaker 1: abortion is not just a medical procedure and forcing somebody
Speaker 1: who at least professionally exists to avoid something, forcing them
Speaker 1: to you know that This would be like saying, you know,
Speaker 1: all doctors are mandated by the state of California to
Speaker 1: tell people who are in the early stages of developing,
Speaker 1: you know, or are showing warnings for lung cancer. You know,
Speaker 1: you could you could just keep smoking and maybe nothing
Speaker 1: will happen to you. That would seem pretty antithetical to
Speaker 1: what what they're trying to accomplish, right, That would seem
Speaker 1: to be quite as stratch. But that's really what's going
Speaker 1: on here. That's what has been happening. Compelled speech when
Speaker 1: it comes to abortion. By the way, they they wish
Speaker 1: if liberals could, they would outlaw criticism of abortion, they
Speaker 1: would outlaw nasty speech about abortion providers. Uh. Abortion is
Speaker 1: the this is why things are gonna get so ugly.
Speaker 1: Of the Supreme Court nominee. Abortion is the single issue
Speaker 1: that is of greatest psychological importance to the left right now.
Speaker 1: And I think it's because they realize that once the
Speaker 1: country comes to its senses on this, there will have
Speaker 1: to be a reckoning with what Ney roll and planned
Speaker 1: parenthood and these organizations have been pushing and what Hollywood
Speaker 1: has been a part of here and what they have done,
Speaker 1: it is an egregious, egregious, uh violation of all the
Speaker 1: most basic human decency and our obligations to each other
Speaker 1: as human beings. But I don't want to get too
Speaker 1: far into that conversation right now, because that's all I
Speaker 1: end up talking about. But just this whole notion as
Speaker 1: I sit here, that the First Amendment has been weaponized?
Speaker 1: What does that even mean? That conservatives will push their
Speaker 1: ideas even if it upsets liberals and so that's weaponizing it.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is crazy. I mean, Kagan is a
Speaker 1: perfect example of leftist jurisprudence. When you see this, you know,
Speaker 1: they they just want to find a way to outlaw
Speaker 1: stuff they don't like, you know, they they want to.
Speaker 1: By the way, they'll extend this to making you use
Speaker 1: pronouns for people that aren't actually even pronouns, but you'll
Speaker 1: be required, under under pain of state sanction, to use
Speaker 1: pronouns that are uh, completely and utterly made up come
Speaker 1: out of nowhere? You did? You know Canada has just
Speaker 1: been dealing with this as well. This is how Professor
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson became so well known. He's like, I'm not
Speaker 1: using like Z to refer to somebody. Sorry, that's just weird.
Speaker 1: You know. I'm not changing speech because people have this
Speaker 1: belief in their minds about who they are and what
Speaker 1: they should be all about. But I do just think
Speaker 1: it's so interesting that the the ground has entirely shifted
Speaker 1: and conservatives want to be able to make the argument
Speaker 1: and want to make the argument freely, and they also
Speaker 1: want to be able to express their ideas, and liberals
Speaker 1: are constantly turning. I mean, it's fascinating because they'll say,
Speaker 1: all Trump's a fascist. Liberals are constantly turning to the
Speaker 1: power of the state to shut down speech that they
Speaker 1: do not like. You know, liberals will turn around and
Speaker 1: find every justification imaginable for them to be able to
Speaker 1: dictate what you can say right there there. They'll they'll
Speaker 1: move around the law however they have to. And this
Speaker 1: piece just really struck me as at least it's honest, right,
Speaker 1: at least the weaponization of speech is something that they'll
Speaker 1: talk about openly now, and and it's gonna get a
Speaker 1: lot worse, folks, because as they continue to and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna talk about the political losses that I think they're facing.
Speaker 1: But as they continue to not get their way, you're
Speaker 1: going to be in a situation where or we're going
Speaker 1: to be in a situation where they're grasping to try
Speaker 1: and stack the deck in their favor. They're they're gonna
Speaker 1: try to find ways to um even out the political
Speaker 1: momentum and and tilted towards their side because they're losing
Speaker 1: on some of these things. They're just losing, and so
Speaker 1: they're losing it as a result. Uh, they are they
Speaker 1: are not committed to freedom of any They're not committed
Speaker 1: to freedom of any kind. Unfortunately, the only freedom they
Speaker 1: really believe it is the freedom to to terminate a
Speaker 1: pregnancy and end of human life. That is the most
Speaker 1: ancord freedom of Democrats, and it's why they are so utterly,
Speaker 1: uh freaked out about the Supreme Court situation. But I
Speaker 1: want to talk about what I think is coming on
Speaker 1: the political side to here some interesting insight, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, from Chuck cod Here's what here's the short version.
Speaker 1: Trump is winning. We'll get to that in a moment.
Speaker 1: The announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy this
Speaker 1: week helped make one political reality clear despite his overall
Speaker 1: on popularity, President Trump is winning and the Democrats right
Speaker 1: now are reeling. The Supreme Court, Mr Trump is about
Speaker 1: to shape the Court for generation by choosing a possible
Speaker 1: tie breaking conservative justice, and he's already filled the lower
Speaker 1: courts with like minded conservatives. About the Republican Party, the
Speaker 1: President's approval rating among Republicans is around elected Republicans fear
Speaker 1: criticizing him, and the party has become a cult of personality.
Speaker 1: His how about fake news? Mr Trump has turned that phrase,
Speaker 1: which initially refer to the phony Russian generated stories designed
Speaker 1: to support his campaign in and to an applause line,
Speaker 1: now to discredit responsible reporting, showcasing his misdeeds about credibility.
Speaker 1: If reporters faithfully fact checked the President's serial misstatements, they
Speaker 1: risk being considered biased. If they don't, the misstatements gain traction.
Speaker 1: Either way, Mr Trump wins. So they have Chuck Todd,
Speaker 1: who at least is smart enough to figure out that
Speaker 1: indeed Trump is winning. And this is a recurring theme
Speaker 1: here on the Bucks Action Show, as you know, but
Speaker 1: it's one that that I do like to spend some
Speaker 1: of our time on because certainly the mainstream media does
Speaker 1: not want to do it all that much. They've thrown
Speaker 1: everything they have at this guy, every dirty trick in
Speaker 1: the book. They had the October surprise before the election
Speaker 1: with the Billy Bush tape. They've run a special counsel
Speaker 1: investigation of him. They're hounding all of all of his
Speaker 1: White House employees. They're the entire Washington, d C and
Speaker 1: Ascella Corridor, which is for the Ascella train that runs
Speaker 1: from Boston to d C. It's supposed to be a
Speaker 1: high speed train. It's really not that fast. Uh. That
Speaker 1: entire set of the country is all those reporters are
Speaker 1: are effectively an oppo research team against this president. That
Speaker 1: is what they view as their role. That is what
Speaker 1: they do. They do not tell positive stories. They do
Speaker 1: not want to tell positive stories. But this is really
Speaker 1: a warning from Chuck Todd about how despite all of that,
Speaker 1: despite everything that they have done to try and derail
Speaker 1: this president, to try and you know, get his associates
Speaker 1: arrested and imprisoned people and drive a wedge between Trump
Speaker 1: and the most important members of his team, guess what,
Speaker 1: he is still thriving as president and the country. No
Speaker 1: matter what they try to tell you. The country is
Speaker 1: absolutely pause Ativley doing well. The country is doing well
Speaker 1: right now. The country is not in a place where
Speaker 1: we should be worried about fascism, where she we should
Speaker 1: be worried of. I mean, that's just crazy talk, right,
Speaker 1: And Chuck Todd is sitting here saying, well, we think
Speaker 1: he's terrible and he's so scummy, but meanwhile he's winning.
Speaker 1: You know. Also, um our our friend Michael Goodwin writes
Speaker 1: The New York Post. He wrote a comma the weekend
Speaker 1: about how, yeah, that's right. Despite all the stuff that
Speaker 1: they say, all the stuff that they do, it it
Speaker 1: is in fact the case that Trump is winning, and
Speaker 1: this is driving them even crazier and crazier. What is
Speaker 1: it that they think that they are going to accomplish
Speaker 1: at this point by continuing the same stale there just
Speaker 1: by the way, the whole thing of oh we fact
Speaker 1: check his lizer. You know, when Trump says something like,
Speaker 1: you know, this is gonna be the great this is
Speaker 1: gonna be the greatest night of of you know, of
Speaker 1: all time. Folks, when he's like, you know, giving a
Speaker 1: speech an event or something, Oh it's not the greatest
Speaker 1: note of all time. They think that up too. Literalism
Speaker 1: is an important bulwark of our democracy now, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: he said this, and it really meant that, you know,
Speaker 1: we we get what he's saying. It's not that he's
Speaker 1: taking us intentionally in a direction and then switching directions
Speaker 1: on issues that are important to us at least I
Speaker 1: don't mean unless I'm forgetting something, you know, um. But
Speaker 1: but also given how arrayed against him they are, given
Speaker 1: that he does, you know, he does a little bit
Speaker 1: of exaggerating. He's infelicitous. I think sometimes with with his words.
Speaker 1: He does not use an economy of words, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: But given what they've tried to do to take him
Speaker 1: down that they haven't succeeded, I think this is throwing
Speaker 1: the left into something of a panic. I think this
Speaker 1: makes them really worried because what will it mean for
Speaker 1: them if you have Republicans do very well in the
Speaker 1: mid terms. Now, not only did we have this this
Speaker 1: blip of oh, Russia and all these excuses and comy,
Speaker 1: what's the excuse gonna be in Republicans win the mid terms? Folks?
Speaker 1: What are Democrats gonna tell themselves? Then? I mean, you
Speaker 1: and I can go just go bathe in liberal tears
Speaker 1: all day. But there is no real excuse that's ready
Speaker 1: for them. There's nothing that they'll be able to come
Speaker 1: up other than what just just keep calling the country racist.
Speaker 1: Keep telling people who voted for Obama twice but now
Speaker 1: they vote for Trump because they were disappointed with the
Speaker 1: policies of obama Ism that they're racist. That's really gonna
Speaker 1: win hearts and minds. They've just got nothing, and they
Speaker 1: refuse to really look at the underlying truths here, which
Speaker 1: is one The Democrat Party, and this is something we've
Speaker 1: been talking about, particularly today on the show, is a
Speaker 1: far left party. Now the the notion of it as
Speaker 1: a centrist technocratic party as a joke. It's a joke.
Speaker 1: What a Democrats stand for? Well, you could say they
Speaker 1: stand for these They stand for concepts, and they use
Speaker 1: that in order to gain recruits. And they've also got
Speaker 1: a lot of social cash a right. But the concepts
Speaker 1: are you know, equality and helping the poor. These are
Speaker 1: things and you go, oh, buck those also. That sounds good, right,
Speaker 1: that sounds good. Okay, how does that work in practice? Oh,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have this the force. You're going to use
Speaker 1: the force of the state to seize property from some
Speaker 1: people to give it to others. It's worked, wonders for Venezuela.
Speaker 1: This is not a good idea, folks. Their ideas are bad. Uh.
Speaker 1: The the progressive left hasn't had a good idea in
Speaker 1: this country in in a while. Uh. And I think
Speaker 1: that's really what the problem is. Now, what are they
Speaker 1: promoting in opposition to Trump? What are they saying that
Speaker 1: they what would they do for the country better than
Speaker 1: what Trump is currently doing for the country. And I
Speaker 1: just don't think they have an answer. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd, as much as I think he's yeah, he
Speaker 1: falls in that category of pretending to be just a
Speaker 1: journalist when in reality, you know, he's a Democrat. Okay,
Speaker 1: just a journalist, but happens to be a Democrat pushing
Speaker 1: a Democrat narrative all the time. But at least he
Speaker 1: sees this for what it is, which is that there
Speaker 1: their efforts to stop Trump and their efforts to bring
Speaker 1: down this administration have not only failed. Trump is popular
Speaker 1: with they say he's unpopular. That's naturally, but all presidents
Speaker 1: are like in the forties in America, because we're just like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we blame that guy. Right, but we just need to
Speaker 1: hang on, folks. I ain't mad. Terms uh would be sweet.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling buck Sexton remssion decoding the news
Speaker 1: and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America,
Speaker 1: you're a great American again. This is the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Thoma CIA analysts. No, we don't back down on the
Speaker 1: tariffan No. I look, we're in for you know, we
Speaker 1: put in two hundred and fifty billion dollars worth of product.
Speaker 1: The tariffs are infected could go up to five hundred. Frankly,
Speaker 1: if we don't make a deal and they want to
Speaker 1: make a deal, I will tell you China wants to
Speaker 1: make a deal, and so do I. But it's got
Speaker 1: to be a fair deal for this country. One of
Speaker 1: the hard things is our presidents and our business leaders.
Speaker 1: They were missing in action. The European Union is possibly
Speaker 1: as bad as China, just smaller. Okay, it's terrible what
Speaker 1: they do to us. European Union. Take a look at
Speaker 1: the car situation. They send the Mercedes in we can't
Speaker 1: send our cars. And look what they do to our farmers.
Speaker 1: They don't want our farm products an all fairness, they
Speaker 1: have their farmers. So they want to protect their farmers,
Speaker 1: but we don't protect ours and they protect theirs. We've
Speaker 1: been very nice to Canada for many years um and
Speaker 1: they've taken advantage of that, uh, particularly advantage of our farmers.
Speaker 1: And at the G seven the President actually proposed that
Speaker 1: they get rid of all tariffs and drop all barriers
Speaker 1: and have a really great trade and they refuse that.
Speaker 1: And escalating tariffs against the United States does nothing to
Speaker 1: help Canada and it only hurts American workers. The President
Speaker 1: is working to fix the broken system and he's going
Speaker 1: to continue pushing for that. This is going to be
Speaker 1: a defining issue for the Trump presidency. This is also
Speaker 1: going to be where you're gonna see, I think some
Speaker 1: of the most unexpected success with the Trump administration. Or rather,
Speaker 1: this is where the conventional wisdom is likely to be
Speaker 1: proven wrong once again when it comes to an issue
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has become fiery on, become attached to
Speaker 1: that that he wants to solve. Now I understand that
Speaker 1: this Friday, I believe it is, there's going to be
Speaker 1: some tariffs that go into effect visa via China. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be something that people look at as the as
Speaker 1: a possible. Yeah, fifty billion dollars of Chinese products starting
Speaker 1: this Friday teriff on them. Now that's a fraction of
Speaker 1: just overall US China trade. Let's understand that. And we also,
Speaker 1: I think have finally come around to the recognition that
Speaker 1: we do that to say free trade, I like free
Speaker 1: trade is meaningless because trade right now is not free.
Speaker 1: Countries are gaming the system. Countries are using every means,
Speaker 1: every mechanism at their disposal in order to try and
Speaker 1: help their own domestic industries to engage in, you know, what,
Speaker 1: what they view as best for their people. Right The
Speaker 1: EU does not have does not have the tariffs on
Speaker 1: or even total block on US import of certain meat products,
Speaker 1: for example, because they're really worried about contamination or GMOs
Speaker 1: or whatever. That's not why they're doing it. They're doing
Speaker 1: because I think it's better for their own domestic meat
Speaker 1: producers as a total. Aside. By the way, there's a
Speaker 1: real problem now with French vegan terrorists, which is something
Speaker 1: that I think I'll have to address on the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut podcast this week. But these vegan terroriffs are going nuts,
Speaker 1: and I just always want to say, you know what
Speaker 1: you do if you see a vegan terrorist Feediam cheeseburger,
Speaker 1: and he won't be a vegan anymore. Problem solved. But
Speaker 1: the EU has these things in place because they think
Speaker 1: it's best for them. The same with China. China's GDP
Speaker 1: has taken off like a rocket ship since the eighties.
Speaker 1: Lots of tariffs, lots of predatory trade practices. Trump is
Speaker 1: not saying I just want to put tariffs in place,
Speaker 1: because tariffs sound like faun He is coming out and saying,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. We need to be in a
Speaker 1: situation where other countries play fair with us, where other
Speaker 1: countries are going to respect that we have our own
Speaker 1: economic interests, and that means a willingness to go to
Speaker 1: the mat on some of this stuff and push back.
Speaker 1: You know, it's it's so fascinating, it really is. The
Speaker 1: the elevation of the internationalist obama Is point of view
Speaker 1: on these things, where it's just agreement becomes its own end.
Speaker 1: We would just need to find a way to all
Speaker 1: agree on something and then that's great, right, Oh, everyone's
Speaker 1: gonna like this together. Well, you know, it's a multilateral
Speaker 1: trade deal. What could go wrong? I keep telling people
Speaker 1: that anyone will listen people who get mad at Trump
Speaker 1: for abolishing NAFTA. NAPTA existed before the Internet. I mean
Speaker 1: NAFTA was created before the Internet. Think about how much
Speaker 1: commerce has changed, and any revisiting of a massive trade
Speaker 1: agreement that clearly affects American jobs and workers is something
Speaker 1: to be afraid of. I just don't get it. I
Speaker 1: think that a lot of this is driven by a
Speaker 1: sense that you know, well, one of course Trump hatreot,
Speaker 1: people hate Trump, but also things are good right now
Speaker 1: and people don't want to mess that up. And I
Speaker 1: think Trump feels very strongly about this too. He doesn't
Speaker 1: want to mess things up. Economy is really strong, Unemployment
Speaker 1: is really low. The Democrats got nothing. They don't have
Speaker 1: a pray air of a blue wave in the fall.
Speaker 1: If if the election were held tomorrow, my friends, I
Speaker 1: think we're all quite clear. I think Republicans would gain
Speaker 1: seats House, hand Senate if it were held tomorrow. The
Speaker 1: only way that really changes is if there's major disruption
Speaker 1: to economy. So I understand the need for caution here.
Speaker 1: I would add this though, to our conversation. If you're
Speaker 1: going to do something about trade and trade and balance
Speaker 1: long term, if you are going to get China to
Speaker 1: stop some of its predatory practices and behaviors. Then you
Speaker 1: need to do it from a position of strength, and
Speaker 1: you need to be willing to take action when you
Speaker 1: can afford some disruption. What I mean by this is
Speaker 1: stock market dips maybe right, you know s and p
Speaker 1: all of a sudden crashes out. You've got a lot
Speaker 1: of unemployment surges. Do you think anyone's gonna want to
Speaker 1: risk any trade disruption? Then you think, and you think
Speaker 1: they'll be the political will to engage in the kind
Speaker 1: of brinksmanship, because that's what this is is this is
Speaker 1: a game of chicken. Trump is playing chicken with the
Speaker 1: EU and chicken with China. Now we got the biggest,
Speaker 1: baddest car on the road. And in the past with
Speaker 1: the Obama team and people before him as well, the
Speaker 1: idea was, oh, well, no, we just we don't want
Speaker 1: to We don't want to scare you into driving off
Speaker 1: the road. So we'll just what do you want and
Speaker 1: we'll pull off the road. You can win our game
Speaker 1: of chicken, so to speak. That was the approach. Approach
Speaker 1: is very different. Now is it gonna work? I can't
Speaker 1: tell you it's gonna work. You know, maybe China is
Speaker 1: absolutely hell bent on keeping things the way they are,
Speaker 1: even if it means that they're gonna you know, I
Speaker 1: don't know. One of the problems you have in any
Speaker 1: negotiation is that your opponent is not necessarily smart or rational.
Speaker 1: I think the Chinese government is rational in many ways.
Speaker 1: I do think the government is smart in many ways.
Speaker 1: But they also have a different long term outlook than
Speaker 1: we do, right, I mean, do they really want shared
Speaker 1: global prosperity or is it just China at all costs
Speaker 1: that everyone else's expense. I'm not sure how to answer
Speaker 1: that question, and I think a lot of people would
Speaker 1: have to think long and hard about it before they did.
Speaker 1: But Trump has the capital now, and the economy has
Speaker 1: the leeway now to absorb some some disruptions. The economy
Speaker 1: has the ability now to take some take some heat
Speaker 1: and not have everyone freak out because there's gonna be
Speaker 1: some rough days. I mean, you know, if this thing
Speaker 1: goes into effect on Friday, yes, stock market is probably
Speaker 1: gonna take a hit. Your four oh one came, I
Speaker 1: take a little hit. You might see a little bit
Speaker 1: of a pullback in the jobs numbers or something. And
Speaker 1: but this is all for a purpose, and Trump thinks
Speaker 1: we can get there. I don't know if we can,
Speaker 1: but he thinks we can, and that purpose is okay.
Speaker 1: China decides, you know what, we're gonna pull back our
Speaker 1: tariffs too, and we're going to start negotiating in good
Speaker 1: faith on issues of trade with the United States. And
Speaker 1: what would that do? What would that do for us?
Speaker 1: What would that do for China? Sometimes, trying to get
Speaker 1: to a better future, you've gotta push through some tough times.
Speaker 1: I think that's a very simple but important way to
Speaker 1: look at what's going on here with trade. If Trump
Speaker 1: is wrong, if this thing blows up in our faces,
Speaker 1: I assure you, we'll come on the show and we'll
Speaker 1: talk about it. We'll deal with it. But I think
Speaker 1: Trump's are in the leeway that we gotta give him
Speaker 1: a chance on this one. He is all in. Let's
Speaker 1: see how the Donald does. We'll be right back. Summertime
Speaker 1: it's always a good time to get yourself some new gear.
Speaker 1: I've got an idea for you. How about you get
Speaker 1: some incredibly comfortable t shirts performance where I mean performance
Speaker 1: where Polos lightweight tease, long sleeve teas that are top
Speaker 1: quality fabrics, and also have designs that are all about
Speaker 1: patriotism and America. Nine Line Apparel is what you want,
Speaker 1: it is what you need if those are things that
Speaker 1: you're interested in. My friends, the founder and CEO sm
Speaker 1: Special Operations Community and the nine line team is all
Speaker 1: about supporting veterans and supporting a lifestyle of patriotism, love
Speaker 1: of freedom, and love of America. They've got a wide
Speaker 1: range of apparel, gear and accessories for the patriotic American
Speaker 1: available at nine line apparel dot com. Please use the
Speaker 1: coupon code buck twenty that's buck to zero to save
Speaker 1: off your entire next order. That's nine line apparel dot
Speaker 1: com coupon code buck twenty for a great deal twent off.
Speaker 1: It's like a special buck sale. For years now, I
Speaker 1: have watched as the left has devolved into intolerant, inflexible, illogical, hateful, misguided,
Speaker 1: I'll inform un American, hypocritical menacing callous, ignorance, narrow minded,
Speaker 1: and at times blatantly fascistic behavior and rhetoric. Liberalism has
Speaker 1: been co opted and absorbed by the very characteristics that
Speaker 1: claims to fight against. For years now, I've watched as
Speaker 1: people on the left have become innestetized to their own
Speaker 1: prejudices and bigotry and the prejudices and bigotry of those
Speaker 1: around them who echo their values. I have watched this.
Speaker 1: Formerly sensible people who claim to reject racism have come
Speaker 1: to embrace the principles of universally hating and blaming all
Speaker 1: of society's problems on all people who have white skin.
Speaker 1: In an effort to gain voters and maintain power, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that I once loved has joined forces with
Speaker 1: the extremists left. The Democratic Party in the liberal media
Speaker 1: now believe their own ill gotten conclusions and have ominously
Speaker 1: decided that they and only they know the remedy for
Speaker 1: societies ills. The left has decided that the solution to
Speaker 1: problems with race relations in America is more racism. The
Speaker 1: left believes that attacking, insulting, into humanizing one group of
Speaker 1: people elevates another. The left now believes that there are
Speaker 1: no boundaries when telling lies, omitting the truth, or misrepresenting
Speaker 1: facts when telling the news, because their end justifies their means.
Speaker 1: So that is from the the video that has now
Speaker 1: become something of a viral sensation and lead to the
Speaker 1: hashtag walk away movement, which is a video of those.
Speaker 1: It's about renouncing liberalism. Video created in late in May,
Speaker 1: so it's kind of been gaining steam over last month
Speaker 1: or so by Brandon Straka, who is a hairdresser and
Speaker 1: aspiring actor. So this guy made a video about leaving
Speaker 1: liberalism and it is going viral and now people are saying,
Speaker 1: and I was asked about this last week, and to
Speaker 1: be honest with you, as I always am, I didn't
Speaker 1: know anything about this. So I, as I say, I will,
Speaker 1: I went and checked this out. And now I see
Speaker 1: that this is something that's, you know, getting a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of attention from a lot of folks.
Speaker 1: People are very interested in this notion of walk away,
Speaker 1: and we're by the way, we're gonna get the the
Speaker 1: other side of it, which is people who pretend to
Speaker 1: be one thing and they're not. That will happen in
Speaker 1: a moment with Jennifer Ruben on the wash and Post,
Speaker 1: who's just just disgraceful, completely and utterly appalling the way
Speaker 1: that she writes what she says not a not an
Speaker 1: ounce of integrity in that woman. But I'll get to that.
Speaker 1: Washington Post loves her, of course, right because you know,
Speaker 1: putting a bad conservative on air, even if they're if
Speaker 1: they're bashing conservatives, great, But even if they just look clownish,
Speaker 1: even that that's good too. But back to walk Away. Here,
Speaker 1: this guy is talking about how he, you know, the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party doesn't stand for what he thought it stands for.
Speaker 1: And you know he's hoping for a People are saying
Speaker 1: this may help him. Who knows hoping for a blue
Speaker 1: um or rather a red wave in November instead of
Speaker 1: a blue wave. You know, I gotta tell you that
Speaker 1: these these meme based political movements tend not to last
Speaker 1: all that long. Here's the truth of it. Um. Conservatives
Speaker 1: are always happy when somebody comes over to our side,
Speaker 1: and we don't make them debase all their ideology of
Speaker 1: the past. We don't. We don't make them, We don't
Speaker 1: break them over the coals, and I'll make them walk
Speaker 1: through broken glass. If you want to be on the
Speaker 1: right and be in the right, you're welcome. We we
Speaker 1: we are looking for converts. We are not hunting for heretics.
Speaker 1: That's a very important distinction between modern liberalism and modern conservatism.
Speaker 1: And I think that this attempt to use social media
Speaker 1: and pop culture to reach folks and tell them that
Speaker 1: it is okay. You know, you you don't have to
Speaker 1: believe there are thirty seven genders. You really don't have to.
Speaker 1: You don't have to believe that climate change is the
Speaker 1: most imminent national security threat that faces this country. I mean,
Speaker 1: those are things that you could only believe if you
Speaker 1: had been brainwashed and indoctrinated. And no normal rational person
Speaker 1: would think those things. Left to his or her own devices,
Speaker 1: no one's gonna think there's thirty seven genders. No one's
Speaker 1: gonna think the world's gonna end because of c O
Speaker 1: two in the air. Right, So it's okay, we want, oh,
Speaker 1: we want people to come over to our side. And
Speaker 1: as to the effectiveness of and by the way, that's
Speaker 1: one of the missions that I'm engaged in now. I mean,
Speaker 1: I try, and I try, and at least I'm trying
Speaker 1: on my show rising each day to make Crystal see
Speaker 1: my side as it is. It was a really interesting
Speaker 1: study that came out recently in which, you know, is
Speaker 1: a a blog that does a lot of metrics and
Speaker 1: engages UH sentiment and you know, it's it's really a
Speaker 1: polling side made famous by Nate Silver. But it was
Speaker 1: fascinating the number of people who were of the impression,
Speaker 1: uh that can well on the left. On the left,
Speaker 1: they think that if you're a conservative, you make over
Speaker 1: two and fifty dollars a year. Meanwhile, about two p
Speaker 1: of conservatives, you know, they thought something like, you know,
Speaker 1: thirty or some huge number. So the left has been
Speaker 1: brainwashed into thinking that the um that that conservatives are
Speaker 1: rich and we're the party of Wall Street where the
Speaker 1: fat cat party you want. We're just the party of
Speaker 1: like working and trying to keep enough money to pay
Speaker 1: your bills. We're just the party of wanting to pay
Speaker 1: the mortgage and raise a family and not feel like
Speaker 1: the government is completely emptying out your pockets all the
Speaker 1: time to pay for illegals, to pay for you know,
Speaker 1: the massive welfare stay, to pay for all kinds of stuff. Right. So,
Speaker 1: and then the study also said that conservatives are of
Speaker 1: the mind that liberals are there though there's a much
Speaker 1: greater percentage of liberals who fall in the LGBT community,
Speaker 1: essentially liberals. There are many more liberals who are gay
Speaker 1: and lesbian, uh than is actually reflecting the population. I
Speaker 1: think according to this five thirty study, we thought we
Speaker 1: conservatives thought it was and in reality. It was like,
Speaker 1: that's what the reality is. But I would respond to
Speaker 1: that with, well, that's because on the left that's raised
Speaker 1: to such a big issue, gender identity issues, gender equality issues.
Speaker 1: These are talked about as being massively important issues that
Speaker 1: need a tremendous amount of focus, and there's all these
Speaker 1: hurdles that must still be overcoming. A lot of us
Speaker 1: look at this and say, well, there must be something
Speaker 1: we're missing. You know, there must be a lot more
Speaker 1: transgender folks than I thought, because we spend a lot
Speaker 1: of time talking about the transgender community. Turns out, transgender
Speaker 1: communities less than one percent of the population, right, But
Speaker 1: there must be a lot of them because the left
Speaker 1: talks about it all the time. Oh no, it's for
Speaker 1: largely political reasons that they do, but that they think
Speaker 1: that we are rich or very well off overwhelming. It
Speaker 1: just goes to show you that one a lot of
Speaker 1: liberals don't really know any conservatives, which is troubling, and two,
Speaker 1: they certainly don't know why we believe what we believe.
Speaker 1: And this is why I get to the what I'm
Speaker 1: doing on Rising every morning. I'm trying to make Crystal
Speaker 1: and therefore anybody because she brings her own audience to
Speaker 1: this Right, there are progressives will watch that show. I
Speaker 1: won't want them to have a better understanding of what
Speaker 1: our side thinks. I am hoping that I will get
Speaker 1: an email at some point in time that someone who
Speaker 1: was a progressive when they started watching that show, or
Speaker 1: maybe who listens to this radio show too. I have
Speaker 1: liberals who listen to this show. I have never made
Speaker 1: a liberal convert on this show that I know that
Speaker 1: I know of yet that has come out and said
Speaker 1: you converted me. I do have liberals, though, and let's say,
Speaker 1: you know, I think you're smart and I appreciate what
Speaker 1: you do, even though I I don't agree with you.
Speaker 1: But I am hoping that on Rising, which is hill
Speaker 1: dot TV slash Rising Thills, you wanna watch it, I
Speaker 1: will make a full on conversion of somebody, brings somebody
Speaker 1: over from being a progressive to being a conservative. It's
Speaker 1: gonna take it. I've all been to the year three weeks, right,
Speaker 1: It's gonna take six months. But I think I'll get there,
Speaker 1: and that's what I'm trying to do. I don't really
Speaker 1: know if it's possible, don't really know if it's a
Speaker 1: fool's errand and that's why. And I'll tell you this.
Speaker 1: The only I only agree to do that TV show
Speaker 1: if it was understood it that my radio show is sacred, untouched, unchanged.
Speaker 1: I'm in charge. No one touches this. This is a
Speaker 1: totally separate entity, and it's just me, Premiere Networks, and
Speaker 1: all of you. And that's so that was a ironclad
Speaker 1: and that is the case. Right, So I don't think
Speaker 1: this show never changes. Um wondering if I can make
Speaker 1: the other show work with what I'm trying to do,
Speaker 1: which is to bring over some converts and explain to
Speaker 1: the other side why we think what we think because
Speaker 1: we're right. We're right. So that's my version of of
Speaker 1: hashtag walk away. What I'm doing on Rising each morning,
Speaker 1: on on this show on hill Dot TV, that is
Speaker 1: my version of the walk away meme. I want liberals
Speaker 1: because remember I gotta I've got a far left progressive
Speaker 1: co host with a with a considerable following. I want
Speaker 1: some of her people to see the world the way
Speaker 1: I see understand why I see the world way way
Speaker 1: I do, and you as well, why you see it
Speaker 1: that way, and they'll come join our team. And that
Speaker 1: to me is real success. Anybody can just yell and
Speaker 1: scream and talk about how crappy the other side these days,
Speaker 1: and anyone can slice and dice them, although not as
Speaker 1: well as we do here in the Hut. We'll be
Speaker 1: right there. He's back with you now, because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: Fake news and enemy of the people. I would suggest
Speaker 1: one of two things. Either the entire press corps walk
Speaker 1: out of the briefing room. Why should they put on
Speaker 1: air a message that is a coded word to every
Speaker 1: nutcase in America to come after them, so get up
Speaker 1: and leave, or in unison, holler back. They sit there,
Speaker 1: they take it, they recorded. We have to be there.
Speaker 1: We have to let them say their peace. No, you
Speaker 1: don't um. Your lives are all in danger. Your lives
Speaker 1: are on the line. We're not going to let these
Speaker 1: people go through life unscathed. Sarah Huckaby has no right
Speaker 1: to live a life of no fuss, no muss, after
Speaker 1: lying to the press, after inciting against the press. These
Speaker 1: people should be made uncomfortable. And I think that's a
Speaker 1: life sentence. Frankly, that's supposed to be a conservative everybody.
Speaker 1: According to Washington Post at least, that is Jennifer Rubin,
Speaker 1: who exists only to antagonize people that she pretends to
Speaker 1: be fighting alongside. Ideologically, she is a trojan horse conservative.
Speaker 1: I've talked about them for a long time. The mainstream media,
Speaker 1: the fake news love to use these people because they're
Speaker 1: such They think effective propaganda tools against their ideological enemies.
Speaker 1: You see, to have a defect or from the right
Speaker 1: is oh so much more fantastic, Uh, is owe so
Speaker 1: much more fantastic for their purposes, is than to actually
Speaker 1: have somebody who has to make a fair and honest
Speaker 1: argument about why conservatism is wrong. And Reuben though, on
Speaker 1: this issue in particular, it's just a nutcase saying that
Speaker 1: a life sentence of making Sarah Sanders uncomfortable is something
Speaker 1: that this is somebody who says she's a conservative, she
Speaker 1: would advocate for. That just goes to show you that
Speaker 1: there is no there is no decency anymore, there is
Speaker 1: no morality anymore. There's only anti Trumpism and uh and
Speaker 1: she continues, she goes a bit further on this. This
Speaker 1: is again the Washington Posts favorite conservative columns. She has
Speaker 1: a blog They're called right Turn at the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: Here's what she has to say about the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: and abortion play five. Ms Collins and Ms Murkowski. The
Speaker 1: two women Republicans um that they will be held responsible.
Speaker 1: They are doing the dance. They are pretending that because
Speaker 1: nominee says this is all about president, that they can
Speaker 1: vote for him. No, the message to those two women,
Speaker 1: by Democrats, by pro choice women in those two states,
Speaker 1: by the entire states of Maine and Alaska, has to
Speaker 1: be simple. You vote for this Ms Collins, Ms Murkowski,
Speaker 1: you have voted to criminalize abortion. This is on you,
Speaker 1: and we're not going to accept these nonsense excuses that well,
Speaker 1: because he said he was in favor of presidentis won't
Speaker 1: count you can vote for him. No, it has to
Speaker 1: be all out on the ground in those states. Those
Speaker 1: women have to be put under a glaring light um,
Speaker 1: so that they finally have to make a choice that
Speaker 1: actually does go against their party, unless they were just
Speaker 1: phony pro choice women all along, which is distinctly possible.
Speaker 1: Phony Huh, you mean like writing under the vine line
Speaker 1: of being on the right when you are in fact
Speaker 1: a trojan horse operating for the other side. She's the
Speaker 1: equivalent of an ideological spy. Right she pretends to be
Speaker 1: on our side of the aisle, so she can just
Speaker 1: get as much information as she can, and she can
Speaker 1: she can fight in our uniform, right this is it
Speaker 1: reminds me of an Afghanistan. You know, you'll have uh
Speaker 1: green on blue violands where you of somebody who is
Speaker 1: you know, like Afghan military who were an Afgan military
Speaker 1: uniform or sometimes is Afghan military, and we'll try to
Speaker 1: take out and sometimes does take out some of our guys.
Speaker 1: You know, she's like that. I mean, she's not a
Speaker 1: a Trump Conservative, but she's not a conservative at all.
Speaker 1: She's not a Republican at all. She is fight actively
Speaker 1: fighting for the other side. And that the Washington Post
Speaker 1: still holds her up as a conservative is an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: I mean they should be embarrassed, but I think they're
Speaker 1: incapable of embarrassment. Uh, it's atrocious. There's no attempt at honesty,
Speaker 1: there's no intellectual integrity unless whatsoever. And I mean to
Speaker 1: have somebody on the right these days who is advocating
Speaker 1: not just for abortion, which this woman is, which Jennifer
Speaker 1: Rubin is, I mean she may be that she in
Speaker 1: some ways, she may be the most dishonest calumnist in America.
Speaker 1: My friend Charles Cooke over at National Review. If you
Speaker 1: haven't seen it, just did a I mean it is.
Speaker 1: It is truly an epic takedown, and people use that
Speaker 1: and it wasn't mean or nasty. It was just she
Speaker 1: wrote this a year ago. This is what she writes now.
Speaker 1: She wrote this eighteen months ago, this is what she
Speaker 1: writes now. A woman has no ideological core, no principles, nothing,
Speaker 1: but that makes her effective for the left, don't you see,
Speaker 1: Because the fact that she's such a disaster and only
Speaker 1: attacks her own makes her the perfect conservative in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the Washington Post. And this is the best
Speaker 1: they can do. I'm sure they pay her real money
Speaker 1: to write a blog or write her columns over there.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they pay her pretty well, the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: and they got that Bezos money. This is why I
Speaker 1: just don't want to hear the Washington Post, the New
Speaker 1: York Times. They're not just revered papers that are doing
Speaker 1: their best to prevent the facts. They are propaganda organs.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of lyne going on on a on
Speaker 1: a regular basis at these organizations. I don't mean about
Speaker 1: the facts, I mean about editorial bent. I mean about
Speaker 1: the way they construct the narrative. And then just on
Speaker 1: anyone who advocates for this harassed Trump administra Asian officials
Speaker 1: as a means of protest, is somebody that I've got
Speaker 1: a problem with. Anybody that's really advocating that I want
Speaker 1: have words with them, because it's completely over the line.
Speaker 1: All right, we got we got roll call come out
Speaker 1: up here in just a moment, team, so stick around,
Speaker 1: rock and roll, fellow patriots. Time to spread some freedom
Speaker 1: coast to coast. It's time for roll call. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get into the roll call. But first, of course,
Speaker 1: please do download the Freedom Hunt with Buck Sexton podcast
Speaker 1: if you are a podcast listener already, it's under the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. You'll see that extra podcast thrown in there.
Speaker 1: And also we should be getting it up on Stitcher.
Speaker 1: If it's not there already, please do download and listen
Speaker 1: to it whenever you get a chance. Planning on another
Speaker 1: one this week, probably by Thursday Friday at the latest. Alright,
Speaker 1: first up here, Karen right watching only the Strong Fun movie.
Speaker 1: I have done lots of work with underprivileged kids. Their
Speaker 1: parents often don't get them routine dental care. Let alone
Speaker 1: orthodontia and tooth bleaching, so they usually don't have perfect
Speaker 1: teeth like all the actors in the movie. Uh, but
Speaker 1: you don't watch martial arts movies for grim reality. Alright, Karen,
Speaker 1: Well that's thank you for sharing your thoughts on that one.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm happy but surprised you like only the strong
Speaker 1: It is funnest thing along though, bah no, no way,
Speaker 1: bah not. You know what I mean. If you see
Speaker 1: the movie. There's a lot of that going on. All right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I've noticed this is from Sean. Every time you do
Speaker 1: your commercial for dig Defense, you list off the places
Speaker 1: it's available, and one of those men Areds you always
Speaker 1: pronounce in correct equally, it's pronounced Minard's, and you can
Speaker 1: hear their jingle at the link below. Oh man, I've
Speaker 1: been staying wrong Minard's, Menard's Minards. Sorry Minard's. There we go.
Speaker 1: All right, You're right on this one. Let's save her
Speaker 1: the flavor because it won't happen again. But no, seriously, Sean. Thanks.
Speaker 1: I I do appreciate being corrected when I'm doing live reads.
Speaker 1: Need to get all that stuff right. Next up here
Speaker 1: we have Caroline, who writes I was viewing the text
Speaker 1: messages between Peter Struck and Lisa Page, which are re
Speaker 1: enacted and available in their entirety on YouTube, and was
Speaker 1: amused to see Lisa Page say that Mitch McConnell reminds
Speaker 1: her of a turtle. Regular listeners to your show note
Speaker 1: that you will also. You have also noted this likeness,
Speaker 1: calling him yourle the turtle. You and miss Page could
Speaker 1: not be more ideologically supposed opposed. So if you agree
Speaker 1: on this one thing, it must be pretty evident Mitch
Speaker 1: is in fact a turtle. She'll tie well, Carol, I
Speaker 1: just tease Mitch a little bit. We hope that he
Speaker 1: comes on Well Radio maybe, but really want to get
Speaker 1: him on my TV show Hill dot TV Slash Rising.
Speaker 1: We are hoping to get the majority leader to come
Speaker 1: and hang out with us. That is the plan, Michael, right. Uh,
Speaker 1: today's modern gypsies media gypsies are pretty much rootless, and
Speaker 1: I count myself among them. No place ever felt particularly
Speaker 1: like home, and I've always lamented that. So that's one
Speaker 1: of the reason why I missed these old guys who
Speaker 1: wrote and reported on the place as they called home.
Speaker 1: Oh look at you. Back to rolled up shirt sleeves
Speaker 1: with tie slightly Askew Indeed, Michael, Indeed, and yeah, it's
Speaker 1: true about media these days. Everyone has to bounce all
Speaker 1: over the place. You only advance your career by making
Speaker 1: your way into bigger markets usually. And if you're gonna
Speaker 1: just be operating in the digital space, then in a sense,
Speaker 1: you're in every market. You know, if you're not local,
Speaker 1: if you're in local news, you gotta keep pushing to
Speaker 1: it's a bigger and bigger places. If you're in national
Speaker 1: level digital news, you're competing against everybody else off the bat,
Speaker 1: and so your local sense sensibility doesn't really matter all true,
Speaker 1: Keith rights Buck. When are we going to see a
Speaker 1: direct link to your show in the Hills phone app? Keith,
Speaker 1: that is a very good question. Um I will find
Speaker 1: out from our tech team here at the Hill dot com.
Speaker 1: I do not know, but you ask an important questions,
Speaker 1: so I will look into it. Thomas writes, swoop here
Speaker 1: we go, good show today on Rising Buck, Crystal Ball
Speaker 1: and the louder voices on the left support this insane
Speaker 1: campaign to abolish ice, using their mantra of caged babies
Speaker 1: to exaggerate concern. It's a maid to order optics gift
Speaker 1: for the media. What they failed to discuss is all
Speaker 1: the activity behind the curtains by ICE to secure this
Speaker 1: country from terrorists and violent illegal criminals. The effort by
Speaker 1: the media and bias politicians to reignite fear of a
Speaker 1: nuclear war with North Korea is fabricated shields. Hie from
Speaker 1: Thomas Thomas, Look, I totally agree, and media is playing
Speaker 1: all kinds of games with this stuff. They're not being
Speaker 1: honest about what's really going on to the border. They're
Speaker 1: also not being honest about what's really going on with
Speaker 1: the North Korea deal. But we would expect nothing less, right,
Speaker 1: And this is how they are, This is who they are,
Speaker 1: and this is the way things will continue from the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, No no question about it, alright. Next up here,
Speaker 1: Liam rights buck love the show and the taste of
Speaker 1: black rifle coffee. Will Liam, you are? You are a
Speaker 1: man of exceptional taste. Question is it a feasible scenario
Speaker 1: and desirable one for Trump to just fire Sessions, special counsel,
Speaker 1: the Deputy Attorney General, end it all and just publish
Speaker 1: all the documents, especially all the texts between the two
Speaker 1: FBI as plotting his downfall. I'm sorry, but in the
Speaker 1: court of public opinion, to me the documents with Trump,
Speaker 1: anything the liberal media coul launch against him. Your thoughts, Liam,
Speaker 1: I understand the complete lack of willingness to sit around.
Speaker 1: It's not even lack of patients, right, because we've been patient.
Speaker 1: I understand the desire to just get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of this and make it all end. But I do
Speaker 1: think that it would in some ways be playing into
Speaker 1: the left hands for Trump to just go all in,
Speaker 1: all out and take all the information and just put
Speaker 1: it out there, right because there would be some stuff
Speaker 1: that's probably legitimately sensitive, some of it, most of it not.
Speaker 1: But now there would be some things that we should
Speaker 1: definitely uh want to keep from public view for reasons
Speaker 1: of safety or sources and methods. But I think that
Speaker 1: the best thing now is to let this thing play out,
Speaker 1: because it's just going to continue on as is, and
Speaker 1: it's going nowhere, folks, It's going nowhere. And when we
Speaker 1: turn back and look at this, you know, one thing
Speaker 1: that the left doesn't really understand is that we remember stuff.
Speaker 1: We remember the way the mainstream media completely debase themselves
Speaker 1: in order to worship at the altar of Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: and that effects our willingness to listen to them now
Speaker 1: on other issues. Right, we know that for eight years,
Speaker 1: like Obama's a genius, is incredible, he's perfect and so
Speaker 1: now and they say, oh, no, we're just doing our jobs,
Speaker 1: are just speaking truth to power on the White House, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we know what truth to power is when it's a
Speaker 1: Democrat you like in the White House. Very different thing.
Speaker 1: So we also will remember how nasty and underhanded and
Speaker 1: disrespectful they've been in this whole Special Council process, the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion fantasy. They're gonna hope that it just fades away,
Speaker 1: that they can just move on to the next thing
Speaker 1: after they've after they've tried this, they'll move on to
Speaker 1: something else. Right, They'll have some other scandal they'll sink
Speaker 1: their teeth into. And I think it's because the modern
Speaker 1: left really can't win the argument on any important national
Speaker 1: issue based on their position right, based on the facts.
Speaker 1: They have to come up with these emotionally compelling narratives
Speaker 1: to take the place of real policy debate. That's what
Speaker 1: I see happening. Alright, Chuck is next here. Let's try
Speaker 1: this roll call question. Buck Love the new show. What
Speaker 1: are your thoughts on am Low winning the Mexican election?
Speaker 1: Will he make it worse if possible, or better for Mexicans? Shields,
Speaker 1: hie and Maga from Chuck. Well, Chuck, I talked a
Speaker 1: bit about this on the show, as you know, so
Speaker 1: if you missed that, please go back and check out
Speaker 1: that part of it. This is a good plug for
Speaker 1: the podcast, but I would also say that, you know,
Speaker 1: it's I'm very just to repeat, I'm very skeptical that
Speaker 1: am Low is going to be a good thing for
Speaker 1: Mexico and a good thing for us. I think you're
Speaker 1: gonna see some big problems that come out of this.
Speaker 1: I really do all right. Next up here, Steve Shields
Speaker 1: hie Buck. I've been a loyal fan for many years
Speaker 1: and greatly appreciate all that you do to get out
Speaker 1: the conservative message. The problem that I have with rising
Speaker 1: is that it is an other opportunity for liberals to
Speaker 1: propagate their nonsense. They already have the mainstream media, Hollywood,
Speaker 1: and universities as mouthpieces. They don't need any more outlets
Speaker 1: for their dangerous message. I know you're just being an
Speaker 1: honorable guy, but we don't need to give the left
Speaker 1: more opportunities to damage our country. I consider myself a
Speaker 1: constitutional libertarian, and I would rather see you and a
Speaker 1: libertarian host on Rising rather than just another misguided left.
Speaker 1: Is just my two cents. Keep up the good work.
Speaker 1: Cember five, from a United States Marine Corps Vietnam vet. Well, Steve, like,
Speaker 1: I totally respect to appreciate your opinion on this one,
Speaker 1: and I'll just say that you know, if you want,
Speaker 1: if you want unfiltered, unadulterated, pure, uh freedom Hunt, you
Speaker 1: just come here to the show and of course the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt podcast, but just come here to the Bucks
Speaker 1: Exton show, because this is where I just get to
Speaker 1: give you exactly what it is, how it is. I
Speaker 1: don't have to be polite to anyone. I don't have
Speaker 1: to play any games. I'm trying something else with this show.
Speaker 1: We'll see if it works. You know, I'm watching many
Speaker 1: of the show I was back, and I certainly feel
Speaker 1: like sometimes, you know, my polite nature is. It's something
Speaker 1: I need to need to keep an eye on and
Speaker 1: and ultimately we'll just see if it's if it's functioning well.
Speaker 1: The point of it is to create a dialogue on
Speaker 1: air with Rising Hill dot TV slash rising, or we
Speaker 1: can see if we can actually have an exchange of
Speaker 1: ideas and maybe I can bring Crystal over to my
Speaker 1: side a little bit on some things, and maybe she
Speaker 1: can do the same thing with me without shaming conservatives
Speaker 1: or owning libs. That's our mantra. That's our mantra every
Speaker 1: day on the show. We do not shame conservatives. We
Speaker 1: do not own the libs. Uh. Is it possible, though,
Speaker 1: my friend? I don't know. It's really hard the especially
Speaker 1: these days, you know, and there are just some issues
Speaker 1: as we get deeper and deeper into the fight over
Speaker 1: abortion and the Supreme Court, for example, I don't I
Speaker 1: don't have a moderate you know, moderation button really on
Speaker 1: abortion issues. I don't have that. Well, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: I'm kind of okay that. No, I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: have that. It just doesn't exist. So that could be
Speaker 1: something we're gonna I'm gonna have to watch out for
Speaker 1: in the show. And I don't know what that really means.
Speaker 1: The good news is though, that you're listening to radio show,
Speaker 1: and the radio show is always going to be this,
Speaker 1: which is just me getting to tell you what matters
Speaker 1: and us to have a discussion about how we feel
Speaker 1: about all the things that are happening in this country.
Speaker 1: I have a discussion about liberty and constitutionalism and just
Speaker 1: the truth. Isn't that so nice? Isn't that such a
Speaker 1: feels almost like a quaint thing to say these days.
Speaker 1: Let's have a discussion where we focus on the truth.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for today. Friends, Please do us
Speaker 1: spread the word about that podcast. It is on Apple iTunes,
Speaker 1: uh store The Freedom out with Buck Sexton. Please check
Speaker 1: it out until tomorrow. My friends, shields Hot ver find
Speaker 1: yourself wincing at the taste of some weak sauce comi coffee.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you don't have to deal with anymore. Friends,
Speaker 1: Join the Freedom will Die Revolution with Black Rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: I drink it every day. In fact, right now I'm
Speaker 1: sitting here with a box of Black Rifle cake cups
Speaker 1: in my hand because that's what I drink. This stuff
Speaker 1: is absolutely delicious. I'm all about the different flavors they have.
Speaker 1: And by the way, because I drink a lot of coffee,
Speaker 1: sometimes I just want to taste They even have decaf
Speaker 1: now too. It guarantees every month, by the way, that
Speaker 1: you're gonna get fresh premium coffee if you join their
Speaker 1: special Coffee Club, So go check it out for yourself.
Speaker 1: Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck received fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck for fiercent off. Please go check it out. Team.
Speaker 1: I want everybody listening to this right now to go
Speaker 1: make this your coffee company. Black Rifle Coffee dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck