Speaker 1: If you're gonna run a great business, you've got to
Speaker 1: have great people, and finding them is a huge part
Speaker 1: of that puzzle. Zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire.
Speaker 1: Zipp recruiter dot com has a platform that finds the
Speaker 1: right job candidates for you. It identifies people with the
Speaker 1: right experience and invites them to apply to your job.
Speaker 1: Of employers who post a job on zipp recruiter get
Speaker 1: a quality candidate through the site in just one day.
Speaker 1: The right candidates are out there, you can find them.
Speaker 1: But zipp recruiter is how right. Now my listeners can
Speaker 1: try zip recruiter for free. That's right free. Just go
Speaker 1: to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck. One more time, try it for free.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck, zip recruiter. It's the
Speaker 1: smartest way to hire. Once you check out their interface
Speaker 1: and you see those candidates come right into your inbox,
Speaker 1: you're gonna realize it's a great choice. Zipp recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. You are entering the freedom hunt. Disney cancels
Speaker 1: Roseanne because of racist tweets. We'll talk about that and
Speaker 1: how some are trying to make this a First Amendment issue.
Speaker 1: Also some photos of children in detention at my immigration
Speaker 1: centers over the weekend that had a lot of media
Speaker 1: interest until all of a sudden they didn't. Plus a
Speaker 1: senior North Korean former intelligence official on his way to
Speaker 1: New York City to kick start what could be a
Speaker 1: restarted summit on June twelve. That and much more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence,
Speaker 1: Make no mistakes America Ready to a great American again?
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, everybody. Great to have you here with me.
Speaker 1: As old We very much appreciate your time, appreciate that
Speaker 1: I got a chance to be with all of you.
Speaker 1: Find patriots once again near and far. I'm here in
Speaker 1: the swamp, live from the swamp as I as I
Speaker 1: tend to be these days. I will give you more
Speaker 1: details on that as soon as I can. Still waiting
Speaker 1: for the all clear on it. I think it will
Speaker 1: be probably now next week when the official announcement comes out.
Speaker 1: Some of you probably have already figured out what's going on.
Speaker 1: Why I'm down here in the swamp, but it's not officially.
Speaker 1: I mean, and some of you might have even read
Speaker 1: it in some places. Can neither confirm nor deny what
Speaker 1: has been written in say the Washington Post about what
Speaker 1: I'm doing right now. But nonetheless, there are some there's
Speaker 1: some stuff to to get to, and we will get
Speaker 1: to it. I don't plan on spending too much time
Speaker 1: today of our show. I find that we have so
Speaker 1: much to get to of substance, so much that is
Speaker 1: worth our our effort and energy and thought processes. That
Speaker 1: something that's very obvious and straightforward and clear cut, we'll
Speaker 1: talk about it, but not something that we have to
Speaker 1: spend too much time on. And that is what happened
Speaker 1: with Roseanne today. ABC has canceled the reboot of Roseanne's
Speaker 1: show because, in case you didn't see it, as she
Speaker 1: wrote something a very openly overtly racist about about Valerie
Speaker 1: Jarrett specifically, So she's done. It's it's all over. I mean,
Speaker 1: the show is is, and I think the show at
Speaker 1: one point I had eighteen million viewers, so this was
Speaker 1: going to be they expect a big money maker for ABC.
Speaker 1: And she was dropped. She was dropped by her talent agency.
Speaker 1: She's the show has been dropped. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this is complete and utter career self immolation by by
Speaker 1: Rosanne Barr. And it's in no way surprising given what
Speaker 1: she said. It's not not a surprise. And the tweet
Speaker 1: and this is from Fox news dot com. Uh, there
Speaker 1: was a politically charged tweet she sent linking Chelsea Clinton
Speaker 1: to donor George Soros, and a racially charged tweet saying Jarrett,
Speaker 1: who is African American and born in Iran, is like
Speaker 1: the Muslim Brotherhood. And Planet of the Apes had a
Speaker 1: baby end quote. That's it. You're you're done, and you
Speaker 1: know you're Roseanne. You're done. There there, You're you're fired.
Speaker 1: There's nothing, There's no way around it. There shouldn't be
Speaker 1: any way around it. We live with the consequences of
Speaker 1: our actions. I'm seeing some out there in social media
Speaker 1: commentary land. Some people say, well, it's a it's a
Speaker 1: First Amendment issue. No, I take you to exactly where
Speaker 1: I did with the NFL's policy on kneeling during the anthem.
Speaker 1: Not that these are similar situations, but I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: with the free speech episode that I used to illustrate
Speaker 1: how a private employer has to be able to set
Speaker 1: boundaries and there can't be zero standards for speech and
Speaker 1: conduct in in the workplace. As I said to you,
Speaker 1: does anyone really think that you could walk up to
Speaker 1: your boss, as much fun as it may be for you.
Speaker 1: Although I'm sure some of you think your boss is
Speaker 1: a lovely person um and perhaps more perhaps all of
Speaker 1: you think you're boss a lovely person, but I don't
Speaker 1: believe that any of you are under the impression. I'm
Speaker 1: certainly not under the impression. And I can walk up
Speaker 1: to my employer and say and say whatever I want.
Speaker 1: I mean, curse him out or curse her out, tell
Speaker 1: him or her what I really think of of that person,
Speaker 1: and just let it rip, and then walk away and
Speaker 1: be like, well, you know, I was just expressing my
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights. The First Amendment only applies to government
Speaker 1: action as a function of law. We always separate this
Speaker 1: out because that's important, right. It's a different thing. You know.
Speaker 1: The government cannot come in and say, hey, Roseanne, uh,
Speaker 1: you know we're we're now gonna find and we're now
Speaker 1: gonna punish you even more and send you to prison
Speaker 1: or something because of your racist week government can't do that.
Speaker 1: And that's now. I will note that there are some
Speaker 1: people who think that the First Amendment doesn't protect hate
Speaker 1: speech or racist speech. I think those people are wrong,
Speaker 1: and you know that that's another component of this debate,
Speaker 1: this discussion. As I told you the the guy who
Speaker 1: was on the Long Island railroad recently, which I was
Speaker 1: actually on. UH, I was on that railroad this past weekend.
Speaker 1: Side note. UH, that guy said really nasty racist stuff,
Speaker 1: but I didn't commit a crime. And when they started
Speaker 1: to say, well, it was racial menacing or something, No,
Speaker 1: there was an argument between a jerk and UH, I
Speaker 1: think two women and he said things he shouldn't say.
Speaker 1: He'll be publicly shamed forks. It was all on video.
Speaker 1: But you can't threaten to lock people up for that.
Speaker 1: Private employer is different. Private employer can make decisions about
Speaker 1: you based on your conduct that are that. This is
Speaker 1: separate from UH. This is separate from the issue of
Speaker 1: whether the government can intervene based on the content of
Speaker 1: your speech or your activism or whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: And you know, anyone who wants to sort of test
Speaker 1: this theory out, is there a job you think in
Speaker 1: America right now? Where you could walk around and just
Speaker 1: say the most racist thing imaginable and face zero consequence.
Speaker 1: I think the answer is obviously no. In fact, we
Speaker 1: really have the other issue in this country, which is
Speaker 1: now you have people who are getting in trouble for
Speaker 1: of alleged racial incidents or things that are much more
Speaker 1: in a gray zone on the borderline, not clear, not intentional.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as
Speaker 1: two you know, two racists in this case, two racist
Speaker 1: for not just TV, but you know, any any job
Speaker 1: or profession. Right, there's gonna be consequences, and she has
Speaker 1: now faced the consequences, and and that's that. I would
Speaker 1: just note a few more things about this, and like
Speaker 1: I said, by the way, if any of you have
Speaker 1: more thoughts you want to add on to this, if
Speaker 1: you think I've there's a part of this that I'm missing,
Speaker 1: or there's something else that you I would like to
Speaker 1: add intoor discussion eight four four nine buck eight four
Speaker 1: or four nine to eight to five. I'm just say
Speaker 1: this rose in Um, I feel I feel badly. Valerie
Speaker 1: Jarrett's already uh spoken on the issue. By the way,
Speaker 1: I don't know if do we have do we have
Speaker 1: that audio producer Brandon, and she's we don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think if we get it we can play it maybe later.
Speaker 1: But I heard the audio and she just said, look,
Speaker 1: you know, racism is real, and it was racist and
Speaker 1: nothing surprising. Um. And I think she's likely to just
Speaker 1: want to know, move on with her life, as she should.
Speaker 1: Uh you know where Zan has already been fired. The
Speaker 1: show has been canceled. I feel badly, and actually Valley
Speaker 1: Jarrett said, you know, other people don't have friends and
Speaker 1: allies who come to their defense immediately, so you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, Valery Jarrett's a prominent public person with a
Speaker 1: lot of you know, public relations firepower at her disposal
Speaker 1: as we've seen today. Other people don't have that. But
Speaker 1: I feel badly for the I'm assuming the people that
Speaker 1: had nothing to do this tweet who lost their jobs.
Speaker 1: You know, a show like this gets canceled, people will
Speaker 1: have jobs also. Fellow actors that appear with her in this,
Speaker 1: you know, this may have been really a big, big
Speaker 1: break in their career. It may have been something that
Speaker 1: and now they're all kind of tainted by this too,
Speaker 1: even though they didn't, you know, they had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with this this is Rosanne tweeting herself, you know,
Speaker 1: late at night. So I feel badly for them. And
Speaker 1: then just I've said this so many times before for
Speaker 1: a lot of people, you know Twitter, Twitter gets people
Speaker 1: into trouble, you know, Twitter, people don't they don't think
Speaker 1: through what they're gonna write, they don't think through how
Speaker 1: something will come across. And in some cases it's just
Speaker 1: a window into a person's mind that it is not
Speaker 1: it is not to their benefit that the public knows
Speaker 1: what they think. I think that's what that's what we
Speaker 1: had here. I mean that's you know, there are closed
Speaker 1: there are jokes that are close calls, there are jokes
Speaker 1: that are misconstrued. There are sometimes when you say, okay,
Speaker 1: somebody could have said that and you know it's off
Speaker 1: the cuff. Or with Rosanne, this this was this wasn't
Speaker 1: just over the line. This was across the you know,
Speaker 1: the red line. I mean this is ah, there's a
Speaker 1: no go zone and and she she went there and
Speaker 1: she's suffering the consequences. I know. Much more on that, Uh,
Speaker 1: I think that really covers it. This is now dominating,
Speaker 1: dominating the news coverage for the day. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a twenty four hour Roseanne a thon. Now, as
Speaker 1: a result of this, a lot of people on the
Speaker 1: left are going to say that this is an indicative
Speaker 1: of the realities of of racism. You know, racism today
Speaker 1: it's much more prevalence. So that's going to be certainly
Speaker 1: be a part of this discussion. UM, left wing activists,
Speaker 1: a lot of people will just be pointing at this
Speaker 1: and saying, see, it really reminded me actually a little
Speaker 1: bit of the um meltdown that I forget it he
Speaker 1: played Cramer on Siginfel. I forget his Michael Richards, Thanks Brendan.
Speaker 1: Michael Richards had if you remember when he was a
Speaker 1: stand up where he just he just went into just
Speaker 1: like racial hatred mode up on stage out of nowhere. Um,
Speaker 1: and you know that guy has never been the same, understandably,
Speaker 1: So you know, so this is Uh, They're gonna continue
Speaker 1: talk about this, But I don't think there's much much
Speaker 1: more to take away from other than yeah, there's still
Speaker 1: people that say very dumb racist things. And I had
Speaker 1: Herman Kane on right before me on Fox and he said,
Speaker 1: you know that he said that he doesn't believe and
Speaker 1: this is what Herman Kane said that Roseanne is a racist,
Speaker 1: but what she wrote was definitely racist. Well, I'll let
Speaker 1: Mr Kane let Mr Kane's quote speak for itself there
Speaker 1: on that one. Um, And with that, I want to
Speaker 1: get to a whole bunch of other policy issues today,
Speaker 1: other things that are just up on the radar. We
Speaker 1: should be talking about the Starbucks training that happened today
Speaker 1: they shut down for a few hours. What I really
Speaker 1: think about that A reparation's happy hour. Talk about that
Speaker 1: in the third hour. North Korea obviously it is going
Speaker 1: to be part of our discussion today and and certainly
Speaker 1: will spend some time on what is going on at
Speaker 1: the border with parents being separated from their children, and
Speaker 1: people are very heated over whether this is a a
Speaker 1: new Trump initiative. There are photos that are making the
Speaker 1: rounds among journalists, are getting shared. A lot of stuff
Speaker 1: going on there at the border I want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about. And oh yes, also of course Russia
Speaker 1: spying and all that stuff. It's getting worse and worse
Speaker 1: for the other side. Uh. They they're really getting desperate here. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm seeing analysis now are people saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll just never really know what happened here. Because classified,
Speaker 1: no such things, super duper classified in in all cases
Speaker 1: even the president can actually get to this information. That doesn't.
Speaker 1: That's not how it works. So if they're hoping you
Speaker 1: just hide in the oh it's also classified, uh, that's
Speaker 1: not gonna work. That's that's gonna be an issue for them.
Speaker 1: And we'll get into that spy gate stuff coming up
Speaker 1: here in just a few minutes. Eight four four eight
Speaker 1: fo to five much more coming. Stay with I think
Speaker 1: we have to turn into a teaching moment. I'm fine.
Speaker 1: I'm worried about all the people out there who don't
Speaker 1: have a circle of friends and followers who come right
Speaker 1: to their defense. The person who's walking down the street
Speaker 1: mining their own business and they see somebody cling to
Speaker 1: their purse or water across the street. For every black
Speaker 1: parent I know who has a boy who has to
Speaker 1: sit down and have a conversation, but talk, as we
Speaker 1: call it, and those as you say, those ordinary um
Speaker 1: examples of racism that happened every single day. That was
Speaker 1: Valerie Jared's statements. So I told you we would play,
Speaker 1: and there you have it. We got a couple of callers.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to Roseanne and then we will
Speaker 1: move on to the issue of parents being separated from
Speaker 1: children at the border. What's really happening here? What's not
Speaker 1: so much social media? Dare I say fire and fury
Speaker 1: over this one? Uh? Over the past weekend. But we
Speaker 1: have Denver calling in from Houston. One day, we'll have
Speaker 1: Houston calling in from Denver. Good to talk to you.
Speaker 1: How you doing a Buckshel brother Shields. Hi, thank you
Speaker 1: for calling. Oh your sir. Uh. What I want to
Speaker 1: mention is about the Roseanne issue. You know, obviously that
Speaker 1: was a pretty harsh comment that she made, but you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, and she considered a comedian. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but there have to be standards, you know. I look,
Speaker 1: I'm very I'm very open to the idea that people
Speaker 1: should get a second chance, but this you also have
Speaker 1: to enforce some standards. And her her joke was it
Speaker 1: was you know what I mean, It was just so
Speaker 1: there are there's a place where it's silver line. Right.
Speaker 1: There's a difference between telling your boss like I thought
Speaker 1: your presentation was bad and telling your your boss to
Speaker 1: go blank himself, like one of them is gonna get
Speaker 1: you fired. You know what I mean exactly? But you
Speaker 1: watch all the stand up comedians, they're African Americans out there.
Speaker 1: They have shows like ABC, NBC and all those programs.
Speaker 1: They can stand up there and make harsh comments about
Speaker 1: whites and nothing has ever said. That's that's a double
Speaker 1: that's an issue that I'm talking about. They're allowed to
Speaker 1: still go on their programs say whatever they want to say,
Speaker 1: attack whoever they want to attack, but nothing's ever said
Speaker 1: about that. Well, look, you know, Denver, this is where
Speaker 1: this is where you get into. You have you have
Speaker 1: a you know, a legacy of slavery in this country,
Speaker 1: which it's very very real and still very it's still
Speaker 1: a very painful part of our history. People would also
Speaker 1: describe how, you know, the the African American community in
Speaker 1: this country is still uh still oppressed. There's racism is
Speaker 1: still real. I mean, these are things that you'll hear
Speaker 1: all the time. But just because I think some people
Speaker 1: exploit those kinds of dynamics for their own political game
Speaker 1: doesn't mean they're not real dynamics. And and I think
Speaker 1: that there, I think it's understandable that the African American
Speaker 1: community and in fact, in fact, I'd say it's to
Speaker 1: be expected the African African American community is going to
Speaker 1: be more sensitive on racial jokes directed at them, then
Speaker 1: say the white or or just non African American community
Speaker 1: in this country would. So I don't think these are
Speaker 1: I don't think there's a straightforward comparison, is what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to say. Um, and I and and and if
Speaker 1: you gave me, you know, if you gave me something
Speaker 1: where you know, we could look at the specifics of
Speaker 1: one comment that one comedian made, I could say, Okay,
Speaker 1: well we'll look at but we're speaking and kind of
Speaker 1: broad generalities. But but Denver, I do appreciate you calling in.
Speaker 1: I want to get to Mike in Pennsylvania because we're
Speaker 1: gonna move on from this topic afterwards. Mike, thanks for calling.
Speaker 1: Oh Mike dropped, Okay, fair enough? Um, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I uh, you know, I just you know, I know
Speaker 1: people are gonna say that there's one comment and you know, okay,
Speaker 1: can't she apologize? And it brings the she's in the
Speaker 1: media business, she's had quite a career up to this point,
Speaker 1: but she's a bad representation for ABC's brand at this point.
Speaker 1: And and they're they're gonna it's a it is a
Speaker 1: business decision to people are saying it's a it's an
Speaker 1: it's what's right decision, which I think is fair, but
Speaker 1: it's also a business decision. There are places that are
Speaker 1: just gonna be too um it's two one. There are
Speaker 1: comments that are unf that are too unforgivable, unforgivable, unforgivable
Speaker 1: professionally speaking, Um, you know, personally, you can always ask
Speaker 1: for forgiveness to you you from your community and from God,
Speaker 1: and you know, move on as a person. But professionally
Speaker 1: there are things that go too far. That's all I
Speaker 1: got on that. I don't really have much more to
Speaker 1: add to it other than other than that, although I did,
Speaker 1: uh really want to get into this immigration situation in
Speaker 1: the border, which I think is very, um, very interesting,
Speaker 1: largely because the way the media initially thought it was
Speaker 1: a huge, huge story, specifically so they could bash Trump,
Speaker 1: and then the reality was more complicated than what they
Speaker 1: had initially expected and then things change. We'll get to
Speaker 1: that and and uh and also the latest on spy Gate.
Speaker 1: That's all coming up. He's holding the line for America
Speaker 1: buck sex in his back. So we had a holiday weekend, obviously,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to take some time and I did,
Speaker 1: and I was away with with Miss Molly and her
Speaker 1: family and her dog Harold, or as I have taken it,
Speaker 1: calling him had rolled because he's so cute. Uh. He
Speaker 1: is a boxer pit bull mix and he's a very
Speaker 1: he's a very robust fellow. He likes to likes to
Speaker 1: jump up on the on the couch or on the
Speaker 1: chair and snuggle with you and forgets that he's you know,
Speaker 1: about seventy seventy pounds of of muscle and teeth. But
Speaker 1: he's very cute, very cute fellow. So I took some
Speaker 1: time away this weekend and it was nice. So it
Speaker 1: was a lot of rain where where I was, I
Speaker 1: think it was nice. Another Chicago would looked like people
Speaker 1: were wearing walking around in bating suits and getting a
Speaker 1: tin and the whole East Coast was just like a
Speaker 1: monsoon practically out there. So I spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time indoors, read, read, finished off a couple of books,
Speaker 1: which maybe this Friday i'll talk to you about some
Speaker 1: of the interesting stuff from them, some good reads to
Speaker 1: share with all of you. But this came up on
Speaker 1: my radar, this story about how Trump is the administration
Speaker 1: that he leads. There's such monsters when it comes to
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. I mean, they're they're so dehumanizing that they
Speaker 1: have this policy of separating parents and children. Just you
Speaker 1: can see the footage in your mind of parents just
Speaker 1: grasping their child's hand as they're pulled apart, and who
Speaker 1: knows when they'll see each other again. It's so traumatic
Speaker 1: for the kids. And they're putting cages and they're put
Speaker 1: in uh busses with restraints specifically for the children. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was truly scary stuff I was seeing over the weekend.
Speaker 1: Problem is it's all basically lies. I mean, might I
Speaker 1: say basically, I'll give the explanations of you know, the
Speaker 1: specifics in a moment. But the problem is what we
Speaker 1: saw on the weekend is that when a few journalists,
Speaker 1: and this is a recurring theme, when they see an
Speaker 1: opportunity to be anti Trump, they take it. They don't
Speaker 1: verify facts, they don't look into the backstory, they don't
Speaker 1: want to hear from both sides, or even be clear
Speaker 1: on one side. They just know, if it's bad for Trump,
Speaker 1: it's good for me. I'm gonna go for it. And
Speaker 1: this has led to all these embarrassing retractions in the
Speaker 1: past or these did these appended corrections to news stories
Speaker 1: where it's like a chapter of a book. They put
Speaker 1: at the bottom, well, we got this wrong and this wrong,
Speaker 1: and this wrong, and that wrong and that wrong. But
Speaker 1: you know, we don't want to retract the story that's
Speaker 1: an anti Trump story, because then it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: little too obvious that we got a problem. We've got
Speaker 1: an anti Trump compulsion. It really is a compulsion. It's
Speaker 1: like the people that hate Trump in the media and
Speaker 1: more broadly, I think across the country just can't control
Speaker 1: it anymore. You know that. It's like it bubbles up
Speaker 1: from inside them. Traumb I hate Traum, but I can't stop.
Speaker 1: They have an anti Trump addiction. And that's what was
Speaker 1: pushing a lot of this story at the boarders. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you what really happened, all right, This is
Speaker 1: you can imagine, and there were all these initial tweets,
Speaker 1: and you had one of the Obama Obama bros, like
Speaker 1: one of the frat brows from the Obama administration. Um
Speaker 1: they do, uh Favreau, there you go. Uh. He he
Speaker 1: was one that that kind of fell for this whole situation,
Speaker 1: and that was saying, oh, look at this photo of
Speaker 1: these children in cages, and that was that was what
Speaker 1: initially got it going. A New York Times, not just
Speaker 1: a New York Times employee, the editor in chief of
Speaker 1: New York Times magazine. So look, that's a in the
Speaker 1: left wing media world. That's a big that's a big job,
Speaker 1: that's a big name position. He shared these photos of
Speaker 1: children's sleeping in cages and use that to go after
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, you know, he he took this as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to show his, uh, his distaste for Trump.
Speaker 1: And look, you see these photos and they're about children
Speaker 1: in cages at the border, you know, in holding cells essentially,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't it's not it's a photo that has
Speaker 1: emotional impact. The problem though, with blaming Trump for these
Speaker 1: photos was that they were taken in Now. I bet
Speaker 1: everyone listening to this, as much faith as you have
Speaker 1: in Trump, would probably be willing to agree with me
Speaker 1: that it is unlikely that you could blame national immigration
Speaker 1: policy in the year twenty fourteen on Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: in fact, I know here it comes, here, it comes.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be tough. You're ready for a little bit,
Speaker 1: a little bit. Uh. In fact, there's only really one
Speaker 1: person if you're going to look at this as an
Speaker 1: extension of an administration who you could blame for what happened,
Speaker 1: and that person would be Barack Obama. Oh gosh, what
Speaker 1: do they do now? New York Times is sharing a
Speaker 1: photo from the Obama administration era of children in cages
Speaker 1: at the border, separate from their parents, saying how terrible
Speaker 1: it is. And then they find out that, based on
Speaker 1: the very obvious timeline, it can't be blamed on Trump,
Speaker 1: and a remarkable thing happens. I bet you're gonna guess
Speaker 1: what this is. I'm telling you. I'm gonna tell you,
Speaker 1: but you already know. The interest level that the media
Speaker 1: had in that story magically plummeted, like all of it.
Speaker 1: It went from all over the place, sharing, sharing, retweeting, commenting,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, look at Trump. He's locking up He's
Speaker 1: locking up undocumented immigrants in these cells, illegal alien children,
Speaker 1: the same idea, he's locking them up in these cells.
Speaker 1: Oh it was actually Obama's administrator. Oh I guess, uh,
Speaker 1: I need to correct this wasn't under Trump's tenure. And
Speaker 1: let's just move on. But wait, I thought I thought
Speaker 1: the treatment of these children was so terrible and that's
Speaker 1: what was Oh oh, it was really only a story
Speaker 1: to them as long as it was useful against Trump,
Speaker 1: or it was only an important story as long as
Speaker 1: it was useful against Trump. Isn't that interesting? Don't we
Speaker 1: note that with some degree of well disdain for the
Speaker 1: ethics of the media, which I think we all should
Speaker 1: have right now. I think that's definitely something to keep
Speaker 1: in mind here. Uh. Let me also tell you, though,
Speaker 1: that it gets worse. I mean, there's more. I shouldn't
Speaker 1: even say it's worrise, but there's more. Oh, Hadas Gold,
Speaker 1: who's a new reporter over at CNN, she had been
Speaker 1: at Political beforehand. She also shared that, you know, it
Speaker 1: was all about migrant children in cages and it was
Speaker 1: so h you know, so terrible, and then they kind
Speaker 1: of just moved on from it. Um. But there was
Speaker 1: another photo out there where they were sharing a I
Speaker 1: mean this one you had to see you to believe it.
Speaker 1: They shared a bus, a photo of a bus that
Speaker 1: was an immigration detention facility owned bus or or Immigration
Speaker 1: and Customs enforcement owned bus. And it was shared as quote,
Speaker 1: a prison bus for babies. Okay, you can imagine. And
Speaker 1: this this was again from a a a blue check verified.
Speaker 1: You know journalist Okay Um from ABC in Houston, a
Speaker 1: prison buster for babies. Now, I saw this and I
Speaker 1: initially thought to myself, come on, like who who really?
Speaker 1: Because you look at it and you've got these chairs
Speaker 1: that have restraints in them, right, I mean not not
Speaker 1: like a strait jacket, but you know they there car seats. Now,
Speaker 1: if you say that a car seat for a baby
Speaker 1: is for its or or you know, young child is
Speaker 1: for its safety, you're a good person. If you say
Speaker 1: that it is a scary looking restraint as part of
Speaker 1: a prison program, people are gonna go, oh gosh, that
Speaker 1: seems really severe. That's really scary. We can't have that.
Speaker 1: And you know what what it turns out is true
Speaker 1: about about those uh And then I wish I could
Speaker 1: show you. I wish I could show you this Um.
Speaker 1: But this is from a story that was published on April.
Speaker 1: That's where they got this photo. They were shared again
Speaker 1: about Trump's monstrous border policy separating parents from children. He's
Speaker 1: a monster, He's so scary. But the photos are from April. Now,
Speaker 1: everybody who wants to join me in this one was
Speaker 1: BARACKO was Barack Obama president then? Or was Donald Trump
Speaker 1: president then. And by the way this got shared, I
Speaker 1: mean this was all over the meat. Don't think I'm
Speaker 1: not picking on some little thing here that no one
Speaker 1: paid attention to. This was everywhere over the weekend. I
Speaker 1: was trying to stay off Twitter. I did not do
Speaker 1: a good enough job. I'm really gonna try to enforce
Speaker 1: Twitter free Saturday for myself going forward, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: build up to Twitter free weekends and you and I
Speaker 1: we get to hang out via the show Monday through Friday.
Speaker 1: I can check the Facebook inbox for Team Box. You
Speaker 1: can write to me. But you know, I do think
Speaker 1: that that we, you know, especially those of us who
Speaker 1: do commentary for a living, need to just and for
Speaker 1: all of you really social media, social media free at
Speaker 1: least one day of the weekend, at least one day.
Speaker 1: We gotta get there. But it's another conversation. So this
Speaker 1: story circulated on April and the prison bus for babies
Speaker 1: that was being shared. You know, it's really for educational
Speaker 1: field trips. Do you know where this prison bus for
Speaker 1: young children went went? It's a prison, but it's a
Speaker 1: prison bus or taking barribies, putting them in prisons in
Speaker 1: a little babysuit. Prison is scary, you know, the illuminating
Speaker 1: in the builderbergs are taking all these kids putting him
Speaker 1: in prison. No this quote prison bus took these children
Speaker 1: in the custody of hh S. By the way, Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement turns over miners in the immigration system
Speaker 1: to HHS. You know where they were taking terrifying places.
Speaker 1: I mean this is real, uh, you know, fascist level
Speaker 1: stuff we're talking about here. They went to see a
Speaker 1: movie at a local theater. They went for an excursion
Speaker 1: to a local park to play kick around the ball.
Speaker 1: You know, we'll play a little whiffleball. They went to
Speaker 1: the San Antonio Zoo to see cool animals when you're
Speaker 1: a kid man, I mean, there are a few things
Speaker 1: that I remember. I went to Bronx zoo camp. That's right.
Speaker 1: I went to a camp in a zoo for like
Speaker 1: two weeks. All we did was just walk around and
Speaker 1: learn about the animals, and they would let's let us
Speaker 1: play with some of the animals. Um mostly like very
Speaker 1: large if very large insects, which I was not particularly like.
Speaker 1: They brought over a beatle that I still have nightmares about.
Speaker 1: But anyway, Yeah, the zoo is a nice place to go.
Speaker 1: It's not a prison program. The seats that they were
Speaker 1: reporting on that were pre Donald Trump any way, for
Speaker 1: Irtegrations and Customs Enforcement, were child safety seats because they
Speaker 1: don't want kids when the bus stop short to smack
Speaker 1: their faces either into the chair in front of them
Speaker 1: or you know, into the windshield or anything else. They
Speaker 1: want them safe. That's it. But it was. This was
Speaker 1: a remarkable series of errors that were magnified and shared
Speaker 1: and magnified and shared and the echo chamber effect, and
Speaker 1: no one stopped to do the bare essentials of journalism.
Speaker 1: No one stopped to think, wouldn't we maybe know if
Speaker 1: the Trump administration had instituted a new program that had
Speaker 1: prison buses for babies, which is such a crazy concept
Speaker 1: when you really think about. It's amazing at anybody shared
Speaker 1: thousands of time all over the place. But all reason,
Speaker 1: all mental faculties, all ability to be honest, to be
Speaker 1: national to the media loses all of it if it
Speaker 1: is against this administration. It actually has gotten to a
Speaker 1: point for me where it makes me uncomfortable because what
Speaker 1: I'm seeing and I do not say this to overstated.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be a provocateur here or something.
Speaker 1: What I'm seeing when people talk about trumps arrangement syndrome
Speaker 1: I see from some of these people in the media
Speaker 1: does seem to be pathological. It does seem to be
Speaker 1: a mass hysteria along the lines of a mental illness,
Speaker 1: a collective mental illness that is influencing the way that
Speaker 1: people are approaching their jobs and their perception of reality.
Speaker 1: Because of this administration. There are no prison buses for babies,
Speaker 1: and the detention centers for children that we've seen these
Speaker 1: photos of existed during the Obama era. So we've got
Speaker 1: a lot of talking to do about who's really rough
Speaker 1: on immigrants and who's not. We'll have more also on
Speaker 1: parents and children being separated and whether that's true and
Speaker 1: how it's true. In just a moment, I'm gonna talk
Speaker 1: more about the truth of the Obama I mean, sorry,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Pardon me, look what I just did, uh,
Speaker 1: getting all mixed up here with the children being separated
Speaker 1: from parents at the border. I want to get into
Speaker 1: that in some detail. And I went a littlong and
Speaker 1: the last segments, so that means that I got to
Speaker 1: hold that for the next hour. I really want to
Speaker 1: work through that with you. I think it's important. You're
Speaker 1: gonna see a lot more about this because on the
Speaker 1: issue of immigration, the left, the Democrats going into the
Speaker 1: mid terms absolutely have to emotionalize the issue. If people
Speaker 1: know what's really going on and what had been going
Speaker 1: on at the border, they will be much more meaning
Speaker 1: the electorate will be much more with Trump, at least
Speaker 1: in my estimation. If it just turns into who who
Speaker 1: cares about kids more, who's nicer when it comes to immigrants,
Speaker 1: who's nicer about these things? Then I think you're very
Speaker 1: likely to have not a Democrat overall advantage necessarily, but
Speaker 1: their fortunes will be better on immigration if that's the case.
Speaker 1: But I want to take a moment or just stop
Speaker 1: and tell you about a a happy story from across
Speaker 1: the pond. Here you had this. They're calling him spider Man,
Speaker 1: twenty two year old Mama do Gussama who If you
Speaker 1: haven't seen the video, By the way, I mean, this
Speaker 1: guy is agile. It was it was impressive. He climbed
Speaker 1: up four floors of an apartment building to save a
Speaker 1: dangling child. I mean, by the way, this is a
Speaker 1: thing that I feel like a lot of people dream
Speaker 1: that like one day maybe you know when you're thinking
Speaker 1: about i'd be great to be a hero, do you
Speaker 1: think you know it's saving a dangling child and the
Speaker 1: child was literally holding on for dear life on the
Speaker 1: edge of a holding four floors up. Very likely could
Speaker 1: have been killed if if the child had lost lost
Speaker 1: his grip and Gassama just I mean, he he got
Speaker 1: up there. It was it was pretty it was pretty remarkable,
Speaker 1: and the guys in you know, it was very good shape.
Speaker 1: And he got he climbed up the four floors. Um.
Speaker 1: But he's now been made a or he's about to
Speaker 1: be made by Emmanuel macroll. May we be as mccron.
Speaker 1: I just anytime I can do that with mccrow's name,
Speaker 1: I like to get a little French. Uh. He's gonna
Speaker 1: make him a citizen. And you know, I any of
Speaker 1: these stories and it's it's true of those who served
Speaker 1: in the in the military here, and I think it
Speaker 1: should be true of anyone brought any of these stories
Speaker 1: where someone gets their citizenship because of an act act
Speaker 1: of uh bravery, patriotism or service or all the above.
Speaker 1: I think it's just a good message to send about
Speaker 1: the citizenship is a valuable thing. It should people should
Speaker 1: be able to earn it. It should be something that
Speaker 1: is earned, not that's just distributed out as as a
Speaker 1: political favor. And this guy in France, in France, Mama
Speaker 1: duga sama uh, they're calling him spider Man or perhaps
Speaker 1: spider man Um. Congrats to him. It was really cool
Speaker 1: and he saved someone's life. I've got a cup of
Speaker 1: it in my hand right now, Black Rifle Coffee. I
Speaker 1: drink coffee every day. It's just something that I need
Speaker 1: to help get me going. I also think coffee is delicious.
Speaker 1: It's one of my favorite flavors out there. But there
Speaker 1: are so many different options for where you get your coffee.
Speaker 1: Put all that out of your mind. If you want
Speaker 1: to support veterans, if you want to support a great
Speaker 1: American small business that's all about patriotism and liberty, and
Speaker 1: drink some phenomenal coffee in the process. Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: is for you. I'm a subscriber. I get it delivered
Speaker 1: in a box every month of k Cup rounds. You
Speaker 1: should check it out for yourself. They've got all different
Speaker 1: kinds of flavors and blends. Have you even got decalf? Now?
Speaker 1: Go to black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck very important.
Speaker 1: Use that coupon code Buck fifteen. That's buck one five.
Speaker 1: We'll get you fifteen percent off at checkout. Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot Com slash Buck coupon code Buck fifteen. Joined
Speaker 1: the Coffee or Die Revolution. Buck Sexton permission decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake,
Speaker 1: American r You're a great American again. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Analysts Sexton. So if you cross the
Speaker 1: border unlawfully, even a first offense, and then we're going
Speaker 1: to prosecute you. Those cases that are up about double
Speaker 1: last year and they were going to go higher this year. Uh. You,
Speaker 1: it's an offense to enter the country unlawfully. If you
Speaker 1: smuggle an illegal alien across the border, then we'll prosecute
Speaker 1: you for smuggling. If you're smuggling a child, then we're
Speaker 1: gonna prosecute you, and that child will be separated from you,
Speaker 1: probably as required by law. If you don't want your
Speaker 1: child to be separated, then don't bring him across the
Speaker 1: border illegally. It's not our fault. There an Attorney General,
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, just the last couple of weeks, they're talking
Speaker 1: about how the Trump administration is approaching the issue of
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, when it involves children, when involves miners. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a complicated issue with a lot of different
Speaker 1: things going on. I want to break it down for
Speaker 1: you so you really understand because I spend time over
Speaker 1: the weekend researching this. Make sure I'm up to speed,
Speaker 1: and I like to bring you the facts and the
Speaker 1: truth you want. You know, nonsense and hyperbole, there's plenty
Speaker 1: of that on social media. And with that in mind,
Speaker 1: you may have seen some again journalists, people with followings,
Speaker 1: people that are entrusted, you know, their careers are all
Speaker 1: about bringing information to the public. They started run around
Speaker 1: with this meme or this storyline that the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has lost has lost, uh, almost fifteen hundred immigrant immigrant children.
Speaker 1: It did not lose them, folks, But this is what
Speaker 1: people saying. They lost them. Now they're just lost. We
Speaker 1: don't know where they are and can't find them. Trump
Speaker 1: is It's like Trump took dred immigrant kids to the
Speaker 1: movies personally, and he left them there and no one
Speaker 1: knows where they are now, right, It's like, oh, they're lost.
Speaker 1: That's not what happened. But that was that was what
Speaker 1: people were saying. You know, do the illistration lose all
Speaker 1: these kids? How do they lose the word are there?
Speaker 1: We have to find where are they? We have to
Speaker 1: find them? No, no, no, no, no, no no no.
Speaker 1: This is where we have to step back for a
Speaker 1: moment and look at what's really going on here, because
Speaker 1: it matters. You're going to have a major debate over
Speaker 1: immigration leading into the mid terms, that's for sure. Whether
Speaker 1: you know whether the Republicans are serious about this or
Speaker 1: not this time around, I don't know. You're your guess
Speaker 1: is as good as mine, and Republicans are not not
Speaker 1: to be trusted on the issue of immigration. I just
Speaker 1: I just gotta say it. You don't know what you're
Speaker 1: getting with the GOP on immigration enforcement. They want to
Speaker 1: call it reform. You know, it's just a matter of
Speaker 1: time before you get Marco Ruby out there again running
Speaker 1: around talking about the Gang of eight bill that died
Speaker 1: a while ago. They'll try to bring it back, a
Speaker 1: different gang of eight than the usual here in d C.
Speaker 1: So that's all gonna happen. So, but here's here's what's
Speaker 1: happened at the border with regard to these children and
Speaker 1: the separation of the children and all this other stuff. Okay,
Speaker 1: first of all, the Trump administration has not actually changed
Speaker 1: the rules. And one thing you've always got to remember
Speaker 1: is that Republicans or conservatives more specifically, get in trouble
Speaker 1: for literally saying, well, the law that says we have
Speaker 1: to do this, We're we're going to do what that
Speaker 1: law says. Democrats on immigration take a position of allah
Speaker 1: Caharte lawlessness. It's just the way they approach it, the
Speaker 1: way they do it, and so you have to remember that.
Speaker 1: Now we get into what's going on here. The rules
Speaker 1: are the same. You separate adults from children under certain
Speaker 1: circumstances at the border. If if an adult and a
Speaker 1: child show up to the border, for example, as they
Speaker 1: have from Central America and claim, uh, you know, and
Speaker 1: claim as well, hold off on the asylum status for now.
Speaker 1: We'll get I'll get into that in a moment. See
Speaker 1: this is I'm honest with you. There's a bunch of
Speaker 1: different ways this plays out. It's complicated. Of course. The
Speaker 1: media is just Trump, We hate Trump. Trump's separating children
Speaker 1: from parents. That's all they can think about. What's really happening.
Speaker 1: What are the policies. What are the implications legally? How
Speaker 1: does this work out? They don't care. There's an anti
Speaker 1: Trump story there for it. There's a pro Trump story
Speaker 1: they don't know anything about. So if you show up
Speaker 1: at the border and you falsely claim you you pretend
Speaker 1: to be the parent of a child there, which is
Speaker 1: going on with uh trafficking and trafficking of children, which
Speaker 1: you know can involve horrific crimes against children. Right. But
Speaker 1: but if an adult shows up pretending to be a parent,
Speaker 1: then yeah, they're gonna separate them, all right, because of
Speaker 1: all the implications there, what could be going on? What
Speaker 1: is this, what's happening if you're smuggling children? If you're
Speaker 1: an adult who was smuggling children, they will separate you
Speaker 1: if they in any way believe or estimated. Remember we're
Speaker 1: talking about children were under eighteen here, folks, right, so
Speaker 1: we could have teenagers in world. If there's a threat
Speaker 1: to the child, they'll separate them. That's the These are
Speaker 1: the obvious cases, right, I mean clearly, if if a
Speaker 1: coyote is smuggling a ten year old across the border
Speaker 1: and you catch them together, you're not gonna keep the
Speaker 1: coyote with a ten year old, right, And if the
Speaker 1: smuggler is or just any adult is with a child
Speaker 1: at the border and you and law enforcement is able
Speaker 1: to ice, is able to figure out that there's some threat.
Speaker 1: That's all straightforward, obvious. Okay, But these are scenarios. We
Speaker 1: understand these scenarios. Put them out there, all right. Now,
Speaker 1: here's where it gets a little more complicated. What if
Speaker 1: the adult is put into the criminal justice process. And
Speaker 1: this is where ever been saying, oh my gosh, you
Speaker 1: know they're separating adults. You're separating parents from their children.
Speaker 1: You know, you can just see like tiny hands grabbing
Speaker 1: the parents finger and like mean law enforcement people in
Speaker 1: this country pulling them apart. You just see the imagery
Speaker 1: they're trying to conjure up here. Well, here's where here's
Speaker 1: where this actually what this actually turns into. If, in fact, uh,
Speaker 1: someone shows up at the border and tries to cross
Speaker 1: illegally into the country with a child, they will be
Speaker 1: criminally processed. If they are a first time offender, it's
Speaker 1: a misdemeanor. You can get up to six months. But
Speaker 1: as anybody knows anything that the criminal justice system knows,
Speaker 1: first time offenders for non violent crimes don't get the maximum.
Speaker 1: In fact that generally don't even get the minimum. I mean,
Speaker 1: they just usually get a slap on the wrist and
Speaker 1: I don't do this again. So for people who are
Speaker 1: first time uh trying to cross the border and are
Speaker 1: caught illegally, they can temporarily be separated from their child.
Speaker 1: The child goes in the custody of Health and Human Services.
Speaker 1: The child is fatted, clothed, and cared for and by
Speaker 1: the way, all courtesy of the taxpayer, all courtesy of you, uh.
Speaker 1: And and the process if the parent wants to just say, okay,
Speaker 1: you know what, I want to go back. I'll turn
Speaker 1: around and go back to my home country, is basically immediate.
Speaker 1: It's very very quick, and it's like same day proceedings.
Speaker 1: And if the person says, okay, we'll turn back, I
Speaker 1: want to be with my kid. Ever ever gets reunited
Speaker 1: the same day. So yeah, I mean they're separated, but
Speaker 1: they may be separated for a few hours. I would
Speaker 1: note that if you're criminally processed, and this is what,
Speaker 1: this is what the media, you know, they don't like
Speaker 1: to think hard about these things. If any of you
Speaker 1: listening were arrested, let's say, you know, you you're in
Speaker 1: a traffic stop situation. You very in very unwise fashion,
Speaker 1: decided to get physical with the officer and they arrest you.
Speaker 1: And you've got like, you know, little little junior in
Speaker 1: the in the back seat who's ten years old. They
Speaker 1: don't say, okay, Junior, we're taking your dad downtown. Take
Speaker 1: the wheel. You know you don't have a license, but
Speaker 1: see how it goes right, No, you know, and if
Speaker 1: they're gonna take another parent, I know to come because
Speaker 1: but if there's no one you can come take care
Speaker 1: of the child. If there's no if they can't get anyone,
Speaker 1: there's no other family member, no other person, then they
Speaker 1: are going to have to temporarily take custy of the
Speaker 1: child while the parents process. And there's no other way.
Speaker 1: What are you're gonna You're gonna leave this, you know,
Speaker 1: eight year old or ten year old or whatever, just
Speaker 1: by the side of the road. So you know, this
Speaker 1: is not completely unique to the circumstances of crossing at
Speaker 1: the border. So if you're willing to go back, if
Speaker 1: you're will to be turned back right away, and remember
Speaker 1: the administration now is enforcing the law about illegal crossing.
Speaker 1: So if you try to cross illegally and they get you,
Speaker 1: they're going to put you in the criminal system. If
Speaker 1: you are a repeat offender, you can be charged with
Speaker 1: a felony, meaning if this is not the first time
Speaker 1: you've tried to illegally cross, you can be charged with
Speaker 1: the felony. But if you're charged with any felony, guess what,
Speaker 1: You're gonna be separated if you go to prison, You're
Speaker 1: gonna be separated from your kid, right if you If
Speaker 1: you don't pay your taxes, I love to get to
Speaker 1: that one, because we all know doesn't matter if you
Speaker 1: pay your taxes, No, just like one person crossing the
Speaker 1: border illegally doesn't really matter to the country. No, But
Speaker 1: if everybody does, it matters a whole lot. If enough
Speaker 1: people to do it, it it matters a whole lot. And
Speaker 1: it is never a defense that the government will accept
Speaker 1: about not paying your taxes to say, I mean, come on,
Speaker 1: you really need like my my fifteen grand this year?
Speaker 1: Is ever really gonna make a difference to you, guys,
Speaker 1: Uncle Sam, Even though the answer is no, it makes
Speaker 1: zero difference none. It is it is literally completely irrelevant.
Speaker 1: But they are strict on the black letter straightforward law
Speaker 1: of tax evasion, whereas an immigration they'll say, oh, there's
Speaker 1: human rights and all this other stuff that they pretend
Speaker 1: the law is in the law anymore. But if you
Speaker 1: don't pay your taxes and you go to prison, somebody else,
Speaker 1: hopefully it's a family member, somebody else takes care of
Speaker 1: the kid. The state will take custody of the kid
Speaker 1: if nobody else will. So this is not you know
Speaker 1: that they've created this circumstance for like Trump and administration
Speaker 1: or these monsters. It's just not true. It's just not true.
Speaker 1: It gets a little bit more complicated because of the
Speaker 1: Flores Consent Decree, which says that unaccompanied children can be
Speaker 1: held only for twenty days. And then there's a ruling
Speaker 1: by the Ninth Circuit that says the twenty day limit
Speaker 1: um extends to children who come as part of a
Speaker 1: family unit. So there's there's some variations, but that's from
Speaker 1: been around for a long time, and that comes in
Speaker 1: for for when somebody's claiming asylum. If you claim asylum,
Speaker 1: that process can take a little bit longer, and so
Speaker 1: there can be a separation longer than a day or
Speaker 1: even a few days between the adult and the children.
Speaker 1: If you're claiming asylum. So that's where this starts to.
Speaker 1: But it's not new, it's uh, it's not Trump specific.
Speaker 1: And you know, I also think that claiming asylum, you know,
Speaker 1: it should be because you're in fear of your life.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't just be, Hey, this is an easy way
Speaker 1: to get me in my family the United States, which
Speaker 1: is a better economic situation than what I'm coming from
Speaker 1: it in my home country. So because of the abuse,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, of asylum claims that surge under Obama
Speaker 1: and have continued under the Trump administration, you have this
Speaker 1: one area where there's yes, if you show up at
Speaker 1: the border you're claiming asylum, you might be separated from
Speaker 1: your children while that processing is going on, and that
Speaker 1: can last for up to up to twenty days again
Speaker 1: not months, not years, not, but there can be a
Speaker 1: separation that occurs there. So that's where all this comes together.
Speaker 1: There is Oh, there's nothing specific about Trump with this,
Speaker 1: and Congress should fix this if they want to fix this, right,
Speaker 1: there's something that they they can take action here. They
Speaker 1: don't like to take action because then there on the
Speaker 1: record actually doing something, and they'd rather just fundraise and
Speaker 1: be a bunch of clowns in the Congress. Okay on
Speaker 1: the lost children thing, because this also then turned into
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, Trump, Trump is separating families and then
Speaker 1: they're losing the children. Not what's happening. Okay, what is
Speaker 1: happening is you've had about immigrant immigrant kids who are
Speaker 1: out and are put with adult sponsors. This often happens,
Speaker 1: by the way, a lot of kids when they get
Speaker 1: to the border, they actually get passed along to their
Speaker 1: adult sponsors, the unaccompanied miners, that's what or even a
Speaker 1: company miners, that's what ends up happening. They get given
Speaker 1: to an adult sponsor. It's usually a family member. So
Speaker 1: all that's happened here is that h h S has
Speaker 1: made follow up calls, has made follow up calls to
Speaker 1: UH these immigrant children, and there are about and this
Speaker 1: happened last year. There are about that that we're placed
Speaker 1: with sponsors in the United States, And what they found
Speaker 1: out is that they've had a percentage of them that
Speaker 1: did not respond. Right. So this was the New York
Speaker 1: Times rest in This losing track of children arrived at
Speaker 1: the border alone is not a new phenomenon. Inspector General
Speaker 1: Ports show the federal government was able to reach only
Speaker 1: a four percent of children it had placed, leaving four
Speaker 1: thousand one nine accounting for all that means, folks, And
Speaker 1: then everyone's freaking out about this. So Trump, they're losing
Speaker 1: the kids. Where are the kids? Are they hiding somewhere?
Speaker 1: What's when they when HHS? When government bureaucrats called the
Speaker 1: sponsor families, not all of them responded. That's all. This
Speaker 1: isn't like missing children, like put up a photo of
Speaker 1: them on the back of a milk cart. No one's
Speaker 1: seen them in years. This isn't that kind of like
Speaker 1: really serious stuff. This is just they didn't respond to
Speaker 1: the phone call. Um, maybe because they weren't there, maybe
Speaker 1: because they're busy, maybe because they've moved. So they reached
Speaker 1: eight of the children they had place sixteen per end,
Speaker 1: they didn't respond. They're not missing kids. That's just missing
Speaker 1: phone calls. But what's our what's our common theme? Folks? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. If it's anti Trump, run with the story,
Speaker 1: figure out the details later. If it makes the Trump
Speaker 1: administration look bad, run with the story, figure out the
Speaker 1: details later. Do you have to run a correction? Do
Speaker 1: it in the dead of night with no one's paying attention.
Speaker 1: That is what they do. And now I think we
Speaker 1: finally dug in deep on what's going on at the
Speaker 1: border when it comes to adults and children and separation
Speaker 1: and the administration. Who that was. That was some work.
Speaker 1: We just did their team. We'll be right back when
Speaker 1: we went up to Trump Tower to brief then present
Speaker 1: elect and his team on the Intelligent Community Assessment and
Speaker 1: right away. Uh. I think the president has been very
Speaker 1: consistent ever since that anything that casts out on the
Speaker 1: legitimacy at his election he has problems with. And so
Speaker 1: that was the you know, the bad news, the truth
Speaker 1: to power we were serving up to him. And that's
Speaker 1: that's that's been an issue where you know, we have
Speaker 1: alternative facts or relative truth, you know, this kind of thing,
Speaker 1: and that is anathema to anyone that's in the information business.
Speaker 1: For me, if you're going to use the word term spy,
Speaker 1: which I number have white but anyone, let's assume it's
Speaker 1: a valid term to me that suggests using intelligence tradecraft,
Speaker 1: employing an operative who has been formally trained in uh
Speaker 1: clandestine collection, uh, someone who's masking their identity, or someone
Speaker 1: who is recruiting. And this informant was none of that,
Speaker 1: So that to me, the informant is the most benign
Speaker 1: form of intelligence collection that you can do. Look at
Speaker 1: the gymnastics the former d n I is going through
Speaker 1: on that one, folks, Um benign intelligence collection? Do we
Speaker 1: think there's such a thing as benign intelligence collection? When
Speaker 1: the most powerful intelligence agencies in the world are looking
Speaker 1: into you, looking at your stuff, is it ever benign?
Speaker 1: What nonsense? Now? One thing he said that I will
Speaker 1: admit is is true. I've been saying it for a
Speaker 1: long time. Everyone pretends there's no such thing as spying anymore.
Speaker 1: Spying is what bad people do. That is wrong. The
Speaker 1: intelligence community spies, the c i A spies. These are
Speaker 1: spying organizations. Right, we can say we can call it
Speaker 1: intelligence collection, but that's just another way of saying spying.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing. We can get into the semantics
Speaker 1: all day long. Right, Even had I think Brennan, who
Speaker 1: was the CIA directors segment, we don't steal secrets, he
Speaker 1: said that publicly. Yeah, dude, actually you do. This is
Speaker 1: when you're intercepting phone calls from around the world. They're
Speaker 1: looking at people's emails or whatever. That's stealing information. You're
Speaker 1: not like, hey, can I hear your phone call? Like
Speaker 1: this is just craziness. But notice how he gets into
Speaker 1: the semantics game of yeah, you know, it's an informant,
Speaker 1: not a spy. Uh so they're running informed they were
Speaker 1: running an informant against the Trump campaign. Can I just
Speaker 1: be clear on was there an informant or was there
Speaker 1: not an informant? Because you have people saying Marco Ruby
Speaker 1: over the weekend says there was no spine. So is
Speaker 1: this now the talking point they'll use because they'll first
Speaker 1: they'll define away spying like there's really no such thing,
Speaker 1: like we never spy. This country doesn't spy, law enforcement
Speaker 1: doesn't spy. In talentcuted isn't spy. So once they define
Speaker 1: that away, well of course there's no spine, right because
Speaker 1: they've changed the definition. But running an informant at somebody
Speaker 1: to get information to possibly use for a prosecution, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a form of spying. And the former Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence should know that. I think he does know that,
Speaker 1: which means that what he's doing right now is just
Speaker 1: being dishonest. He's back with you now because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the funk never stops.
Speaker 1: You're suggesting he's running a pretty fair investigation right now. Correct.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's fair. I think it's designed to
Speaker 1: to punish the president, to ruin the president, to ruin
Speaker 1: his family, to ruin his businesses, to ruin his friends.
Speaker 1: You think it fair at all? What would be the
Speaker 1: reason not to tell people with top security clearances? The
Speaker 1: reason it would quiet down many people who have questions,
Speaker 1: like you and like the president. Yeah, well, the obvious
Speaker 1: reason is that they didn't have an adequate basis to
Speaker 1: do it. And that's fortified. That suspicion is fortified by
Speaker 1: the fact that every time they tell us they can't
Speaker 1: tell us something, they claim it's because of national security.
Speaker 1: And then when the pressure gets ratcheted up and that
Speaker 1: stuff gets unredacted, we find out it's got nothing to
Speaker 1: do with national security. It's that they're embarrassed by what
Speaker 1: what they've done. So to two points there that came
Speaker 1: from two different sources. First, I'll take them in well,
Speaker 1: actually i'll take them in order. You had Michael Caputo,
Speaker 1: who's and we need to keep reminding each other of this.
Speaker 1: You need to keep this front of mine. The Mueller
Speaker 1: probe is, if nothing else, catharsis for angry Democrats who
Speaker 1: cannot accept that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and became president,
Speaker 1: and so as part of their goal for the probe
Speaker 1: is just that it exists, that it's painful, that it's expensive,
Speaker 1: and that it hurts people around Trump. And we cannot
Speaker 1: ignore that because that is one of the reasons they
Speaker 1: pushed for this and why they defend it. It's not
Speaker 1: because they want to get to the truth. It's because
Speaker 1: they want the process to be the punishment. Okay, Then
Speaker 1: on to Andy McCarthy's point. Our friend Andy McCarthy from
Speaker 1: National Review, he was talking on Fox there. We cannot
Speaker 1: ignore that. Time and again the FBI plays this game
Speaker 1: where they say, oh, we can't tell you that it's
Speaker 1: super secret, it's supersensitive, and then we find out more
Speaker 1: information turns out it wasn't super secret sensitive at all.
Speaker 1: It's just as something they don't want to tell us
Speaker 1: that is explicitly forbidden in the federal rules about what
Speaker 1: is classified and what is not, and they keep on
Speaker 1: doing it because there's no consequence. There are no consequences
Speaker 1: for overclassification. So one of the ways that government protects
Speaker 1: itself of the bureaucracy that the deep state covers its
Speaker 1: own butt is to overclassify as much as it possibly can,
Speaker 1: and specifically to make things classified that no reasonable person
Speaker 1: could ever believe would be classified. Case in point, they
Speaker 1: redacted that Andrew McCabe spent seventy thousand dollars on a
Speaker 1: conference table for his for his like senior executive FBI
Speaker 1: conference room or whatever. Now, I'm a fan of interior
Speaker 1: decorating in so far as I like a comfy couch
Speaker 1: and a big TV to watch. Seventy thousand is a
Speaker 1: lot of money for a table anywhere anytime. Do I
Speaker 1: think that the Russians do? I think the Chinese now
Speaker 1: have a national security advantage over us because we know
Speaker 1: that Andy McCabe clearly has a tendency to think highly
Speaker 1: of himself as when he was acting FBI director, when
Speaker 1: he was number two at the FBI, and believes that
Speaker 1: you know, he's earned that taxpayer funded seventy was on
Speaker 1: our table. Of course, the answers, no, not a national
Speaker 1: security issue. It's an Annie McCabe is a self important
Speaker 1: jerk issue, and they didn't want people to know. So
Speaker 1: when we see that on something that's relatively minor like
Speaker 1: that in the Grand scheme of things. What are we
Speaker 1: to think the other redacted information that's out there or
Speaker 1: withheld information. I keep going back to this. I hear
Speaker 1: all these stories, I see all these articles about how
Speaker 1: any day now we're gonna see the really bad stuff
Speaker 1: right there. Mueller didn't want to initially share, his team
Speaker 1: didn't want to share with a federal judge the full
Speaker 1: extent the full orders authorization for the Mueller probe. They
Speaker 1: eventually shared it. But what could possibly be in there
Speaker 1: that is of such high national security value that it
Speaker 1: could not be publicized? So far? The international men of
Speaker 1: mystery that we're supposed to believe are the justification for
Speaker 1: this entire year long plus mess. Our Carter Page and
Speaker 1: George Papadopoulis, neither of whom has been charged with espionage, conspiracy,
Speaker 1: or anything of the kind. Papadopoulos has been charged with
Speaker 1: being caught up in the Muther probe and Lyne, but
Speaker 1: no no international conspiracy, no espionage, no collusion with Russia. Nothing.
Speaker 1: And I think that the unwillingness of the FBI to
Speaker 1: share this information is in large part not just about politics. Sure,
Speaker 1: it's about that a lot of people in the FBI clearly.
Speaker 1: Did you know they wanted Hillary to win, They thought
Speaker 1: she'd win. They don't like Trump, I get it. But
Speaker 1: on on top of that, they want to protect the bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: And this is a very powerful sentiment that you have
Speaker 1: in these large federal organizations. They want they can justify
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff to themselves. If it's protecting the institution,
Speaker 1: then that becomes its own mission. Right when you show
Speaker 1: up and when I was showing up the c I
Speaker 1: c I A day in and day out, you know,
Speaker 1: we mission first, mission first, we gotta be all about
Speaker 1: the mission right, protecting America, giving policymakers the best information
Speaker 1: so they can make smart decisions of all that stuff, right,
Speaker 1: all that good stuff. Rab role, that's why you join. Okay,
Speaker 1: once you're there, once you're in the bureaucracy, once you
Speaker 1: are a part of the mega state, once of the
Speaker 1: deep state, but the mega state that is our federal bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: you start to see that protecting your specific tribe within
Speaker 1: that larger unit of the federal government becomes its own mission,
Speaker 1: and one that can be corrosive over time, one that
Speaker 1: can make otherwise very very clear thinking, reasonable and ethical
Speaker 1: people start to act in ways that are dubious. You know,
Speaker 1: they'll they want to protect the bureau, protect the agency,
Speaker 1: protect the department, whatever it may be, and suppression of
Speaker 1: information to that end becomes very self justifying. Right. Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, the public doesn't really need to know this.
Speaker 1: We keep them safe. This is just gonna be embarrassing
Speaker 1: and difficult for us. I think that's a big part
Speaker 1: of what's driving the foot dragging over the FBI, because
Speaker 1: even people that have nothing to do with the whole
Speaker 1: collusion debacle make believe fiasco. Right. Forget about the Coombys
Speaker 1: and the yates Is and the McCabe's and the Structs
Speaker 1: and all the rest of them for a second. Even
Speaker 1: other folks at the FBI, I worry, have been brought
Speaker 1: into this mindset of well, look, obviously some shady stuff happened.
Speaker 1: They were trying to set Trump up. They were trying
Speaker 1: to have a pretext to use spine tools against him.
Speaker 1: But we we were gonna need the FBI tomorrow, in
Speaker 1: the next year, in the next decade, so to the
Speaker 1: extent we can, we gotta protect it. To the extent
Speaker 1: we can protect the American people's perception of d O J.
Speaker 1: We gotta keep some information out THEA and and that
Speaker 1: I think that's happening a lot here. So it's a
Speaker 1: variation on oh, we don't want them to know the
Speaker 1: truth because I let's see the bad things we did.
Speaker 1: That's a big part. That's the the page. I mean,
Speaker 1: the uh Yates and McCabe and all them that that's
Speaker 1: what they're doing. Comey obviously, But there are others that
Speaker 1: are just like, well, you know, we need to protect
Speaker 1: our institution. If that means that we play a little
Speaker 1: fast and loose with the information and the truth of
Speaker 1: the American people, so be it. Problem with that is
Speaker 1: it's really not their call, and we really do need
Speaker 1: transparency and we do need the truth. Here there's a
Speaker 1: uh this is from NBC News quote c I. A
Speaker 1: report says North Korea won't de nuclearize but might open
Speaker 1: a burger joint. Okay, some c I has been wrong
Speaker 1: in the past, and I used to work there. Let's
Speaker 1: look at this so called report that NBC has and
Speaker 1: what's going on with North Korea that's coming up. As
Speaker 1: we've always said, with moving the embassy from Jerusalem, having
Speaker 1: historic tax cuts, um pulling out of Paris. This President
Speaker 1: keeps the promise of other presidents. Now this president in
Speaker 1: that letter last week, I thought really got some kinetic
Speaker 1: energy coing folks all of a sudden said Wow, this
Speaker 1: may actually not happen, and if we wanted to happen,
Speaker 1: then we're going to start moving it. Ever since, I'm
Speaker 1: practically North Korea, South Korea and the United States have
Speaker 1: been making very positive moves. But let's see what happens.
Speaker 1: As the President says, if he's satisfied it will go forward,
Speaker 1: his number one concern is not prosperity, not economics. Certainly
Speaker 1: that's important to him. I'm not suggesting us not, but
Speaker 1: clearly this has always been about security. Why nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: why ballistic missiles, why pointing them out the United States?
Speaker 1: All because he wants his regime to be secure and
Speaker 1: stay in power. He's a young man and he's looking
Speaker 1: out many, many years down the road, and he wants
Speaker 1: this regime to stay in power. Will there be a
Speaker 1: summit on June twelfth or not between the Trump administration
Speaker 1: between the United States of America and North Korea. The
Speaker 1: answer is, we don't have an answer. We just simply
Speaker 1: do not know. At this point. A lot of media
Speaker 1: attention on this. I was actually over on Cavudo showing
Speaker 1: Fox News or today on this specific issue where you
Speaker 1: have Kim Young Choll, who is the vice chairman of
Speaker 1: the Central Committee of the North Korean Communist Party. He
Speaker 1: is also the former head of their biggest intelligence organization. Uh.
Speaker 1: The I think it's the National Reconnaissance Directorate. Uh. I
Speaker 1: forget my my North Korean. My North Korean and TELL
Speaker 1: organizations are rusty. I don't remember exactly which one it is.
Speaker 1: I think that's right. But he's a guy who's now
Speaker 1: heading to uh, New York City. I'm sorry. The Reconnaissance
Speaker 1: General Bureau is what North Korea is. Intelligence agency is
Speaker 1: called the American and European ones I'm very good on
Speaker 1: and some of the Mid East ones. But there you
Speaker 1: have it, the Reconnaissance General Bureau. But Kim Young is
Speaker 1: heading to New York City's gonna meet with Secretary of
Speaker 1: State Pompeo, and they're gonna start talking about some stuff.
Speaker 1: Here's here's part of what I think is gonna be
Speaker 1: up for discussion. Hey, North Korea, don't let China use
Speaker 1: you in ways that are against your own interests. This
Speaker 1: is a a very complicated negotiation over very straightforward things.
Speaker 1: North Korea can either agree to dismantle its nuclear program
Speaker 1: and be integrated into the international community and have way
Speaker 1: more economic prosperity than they do, right, you know that
Speaker 1: just a better forget about prosperity, hey, livable economic situation
Speaker 1: compared to what they have right now, or they can
Speaker 1: stay on this path of instability and see if it
Speaker 1: actually leads to war. Right, that's a very quick distillation
Speaker 1: of what's at stake here. What's a play. I think
Speaker 1: that Pompeo and whoever else is gonna talk to Kim
Speaker 1: yong chol. They're gonna be saying, look, don't list, don't
Speaker 1: think that China has all of your best interests at
Speaker 1: heart on this one. Now, China's got all the leverage
Speaker 1: in the world north Korea. I think North Korea's economy
Speaker 1: is based on trade and important export with China. So
Speaker 1: without China, there really is no North Korea. It would
Speaker 1: cease to be. It would be in a state of
Speaker 1: economic and literal starvation. I think there's also why you've
Speaker 1: got the US now saying, hey, you know what, China,
Speaker 1: maybe we will put fifty billion dollars of of tariffs
Speaker 1: on the table. You know, maybe we will start charging
Speaker 1: a twenty five import tax on certain goods that come
Speaker 1: from China. And by the way, that could be the
Speaker 1: beginning of a whole lot more in terms of terroriffs.
Speaker 1: Just a few days ago, the administration was saying the
Speaker 1: Trump administration was saying, you know what, We're gonna ease
Speaker 1: off on China with all the stuff We're gonna you
Speaker 1: know where, We're gonna try to give these negotiations a
Speaker 1: chance and let's see how things go with not just
Speaker 1: on the Chinese side with trade, but also with the
Speaker 1: North Koreans. And now you've got a bit of whiplash
Speaker 1: because Trump and his team come along, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: hold a hold on a second. China doesn't want to
Speaker 1: be constructive and helpful here. We're gonna have to bring
Speaker 1: back we'll we'll bring back those tariffs, and then you'll
Speaker 1: have the specter of trade war once again, which I
Speaker 1: think is still overblown a lot of people's minds. But
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm not saying there's there's
Speaker 1: no way we get to that. I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: don't think it's likely we get to that. But how
Speaker 1: would this, How would this go? You know, what would
Speaker 1: it look like for us to do a a process
Speaker 1: to de nuclearize the Korean peninsula. You have a General
Speaker 1: Jack Keane, he's a Fox News analyst that's going He
Speaker 1: gave a pretty good one to three on this today.
Speaker 1: So just I'll let you hear from him and I'll
Speaker 1: break it down a bit more. Play five. I think
Speaker 1: everyone now China, North Korea, and even South Korea know
Speaker 1: that this president is not going to be played after
Speaker 1: a lot of the shenanigans has been going on in
Speaker 1: the last the last couple of weeks. Here's what they
Speaker 1: would want by a plan One? Is there full accounting
Speaker 1: of all your nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles? Can we
Speaker 1: see that too? Are you willing to open up that
Speaker 1: entire disarming and dismantling process so we have full verification
Speaker 1: of the entire process? And number three, well we do
Speaker 1: this in a reasonable amount of time? Are you gonna
Speaker 1: drag this out over many years, way beyond the president's
Speaker 1: term of office so that it's more of a promise
Speaker 1: than it is a delivery? All right, Well you heard
Speaker 1: it from the general. There we'll see. But one thing
Speaker 1: you can definitely pick up from this is that it's
Speaker 1: gonna be a long process. They're not gonna be quick
Speaker 1: no matter what happens here, no matter what the early
Speaker 1: indicators are, a lot of ways this thing could go
Speaker 1: go south or sideways, and that's something we have to
Speaker 1: keep in mind as well. What do I think is
Speaker 1: gonna happen here? Hi, It is a coin flip right
Speaker 1: now that the summit even happens. It's hard to imagine
Speaker 1: a world for me where North Korea will give up
Speaker 1: its snooks because I do believe that the paranoia about
Speaker 1: outside invasion and the hyper militarism of the regime. And
Speaker 1: remember the regime is is a a dynasty of of
Speaker 1: the Kim's right, Kim Il sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim
Speaker 1: Jong On. It's only been three guys, not that many.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this uh latest visitor um y'all,
Speaker 1: Kim Young chol. He is one of those officials within
Speaker 1: the Korean regime, North Korean regime that spans all three
Speaker 1: of the chemis before him. So he worked for the
Speaker 1: founder of North Korea, the son of the founder and
Speaker 1: the son of the son of the founder. But we
Speaker 1: will have to see I am I am withholding some
Speaker 1: judgment here, because I know it's gonna be very tough.
Speaker 1: I think that when you look at regimes like this one,
Speaker 1: any transfer of power isn't just an issue of betraying.
Speaker 1: They feel like betraying it would betray the country's interest,
Speaker 1: North Korea's interest, but also everyone who's at the top
Speaker 1: of the power pyramid would lose power and might lose
Speaker 1: their lives. You know, Coups are dangerous and messy things,
Speaker 1: and once a government doesn't once in a government that
Speaker 1: has had an iron grip loosens it, there's always a
Speaker 1: fee or that. You know, they don't get to just
Speaker 1: live out their days on the chan's lise in a big,
Speaker 1: fancy apartment, but they end up heading to the guillotine,
Speaker 1: if you know what I mean. I think that's a
Speaker 1: part of this whole North Korea situation as well. I
Speaker 1: gotta keep that in mind all in our three is coming.
Speaker 1: We're talking about the Starbucks today, these Starbucks uh racial
Speaker 1: bias training that happened. To give you some thoughts on
Speaker 1: that one. Also a letter from a Looney English teacher
Speaker 1: that's a response to a form letter from Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're now making news stories out of people that are
Speaker 1: basically yelling into their closets or yelling out and uh
Speaker 1: into the woods with no one around them and saying
Speaker 1: this is a new story, it's crazy. And then we'll
Speaker 1: get into some roll call. Obviously, so much much more,
Speaker 1: come and stay with me. Are any background investigation or
Speaker 1: screening service union people that you can trust. You want
Speaker 1: them to be here in the States, and you want
Speaker 1: to make sure that not only do they keep confidence
Speaker 1: with all of the information you give them, but they
Speaker 1: make sure that information is stored safely and securely. That's
Speaker 1: where Global Verification Network comes in. Global Verification is the
Speaker 1: only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company
Speaker 1: and they are risk mitigation experts that are headquartered right
Speaker 1: here in Chicago. It's a small business dedicated to delivering expert,
Speaker 1: high quality screening services to the employments, tennant, tenant screening
Speaker 1: and financial services sectors. Check it off for yourself. Go
Speaker 1: to my g VN dot com. That's my g VN
Speaker 1: dot com or call eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one seven nine Global Verification Network. Leave no stone unturned.
Speaker 1: We all have had a life experience, and at that
Speaker 1: life experience has provided us with a level of understanding
Speaker 1: that may be different than the level of understanding you have.
Speaker 1: And it doesn't have to be about race. It could
Speaker 1: be about ethnic background, sexual orientation, your station in life.
Speaker 1: But so ill about trying trying to provide a level
Speaker 1: of empathy and compassion, a new level of sensitivity. So
Speaker 1: has President Trump's rhetoric personally on race exacerbated racism in America?
Speaker 1: I would say on a personal level, it probably has
Speaker 1: given license two people to feel as if they can
Speaker 1: emulate and copy the kind of behavior and language that
Speaker 1: comes out of this administration. There you have Howard Schultz
Speaker 1: CEO of Starbucks or is he chairman of star Wars whatever?
Speaker 1: Close enough, big big wig over at Starbucks, who is uh,
Speaker 1: you know, doing the whole virtue signaling routine. Now with
Speaker 1: this training um that that happened today, eight thousand locations
Speaker 1: across the country closed today for racial bias education. It
Speaker 1: is expected to cost star Bucks twelve million dollars in revenue,
Speaker 1: and according to NBC, here owners of small coffee shops
Speaker 1: from Philadelphia to Sacramento see both a an opportunity and
Speaker 1: a chance to emphasize their value to the community. So
Speaker 1: there you have it. You had this training that came
Speaker 1: after a couple of incidents of alleged racial bias, and
Speaker 1: I just want to I just want to know. I mean, everybody,
Speaker 1: come on, okay, I'm I'm sitting here. I'm thinking to myself,
Speaker 1: what could anyone learn in three hours of of training
Speaker 1: about about bias? What are they gonna teach? I really
Speaker 1: mean this, think this one through. What are they going
Speaker 1: to teach baristas? You know, people who are earning a living.
Speaker 1: Honorable they show up, they provide a service, earning a living,
Speaker 1: giving people coffee and food and snacks and things, selling
Speaker 1: them food and coffee and snacks. But they're gonna learn
Speaker 1: about racial bias in a few hours, and that's really
Speaker 1: going to change anything. I can just tell you that
Speaker 1: I would be curious to see what the actual statistics are.
Speaker 1: But Starbucks are very from my own personal experience of
Speaker 1: drinking coffee for a very long time, Starbucks a very
Speaker 1: diverse workforce. You don't get the sense that this is
Speaker 1: a place that very well, it's a progressive company, right,
Speaker 1: The company culture is very progressive. They were going to
Speaker 1: go out there and hire refugees your call. So they
Speaker 1: like to wait in on politics and always from the
Speaker 1: perspective of the left, but racial bias education in an afternoon.
Speaker 1: You see, I'm always told by the social justice left
Speaker 1: that racism is a very you know, multifasted and complicated issue.
Speaker 1: There's subconscious bias, there's more overt biased, their systemic racism,
Speaker 1: the's historical racis. There's only different things. And you said
Speaker 1: to me, well, Buck, maybe Starbucks wants to teach its
Speaker 1: employees about all those things as much as it can.
Speaker 1: I just say, but doesn't it seem like kind of
Speaker 1: a big show, you know, is isn't It doesn't have
Speaker 1: the feeling of this is all for a show with
Speaker 1: one afternoon they're gonna shut down and do this why
Speaker 1: And this comes after they had that whole policy which
Speaker 1: I was early in skewering, and now many many others
Speaker 1: decided that obviously it was gonna be a disaster where
Speaker 1: they're just gonna let you come in use the facility,
Speaker 1: not just the bathroom, just sitting Starbucks, don't buy anything,
Speaker 1: you have to do anything. That's gonna be their policies.
Speaker 1: And they said, well, you know, no no sleeping, no
Speaker 1: drug dealing and and probably like no robbing old ladies
Speaker 1: or you know, urinating on the on the cappuccino machine.
Speaker 1: And you know none of that either, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: there there's something things that we all understand. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: Starbucks had a draw lines somewhere, but this just feels
Speaker 1: highly to me, highly un serious and and I think
Speaker 1: you can't leave out of this that this is a
Speaker 1: branding exercise for Starbucks now to you. Now, this company
Speaker 1: has decided, you know, there's there's a there's a commercial
Speaker 1: aspect to virtue signaling. To day decided, well, yeah, we're
Speaker 1: gonna shut down all these stores, um, and but we're
Speaker 1: gonna have people like everybody in the media, including you
Speaker 1: know Bucks, exit yours truly, we're gonna talk about what's
Speaker 1: going on in our stores and talk about how we're
Speaker 1: gonna have more of this unconscious or racial bias, not
Speaker 1: unconscious necessarily that. I'm sure they touched on that too.
Speaker 1: You know, I had a fair amount of progressive bias
Speaker 1: training when I was a resident counselor in college. We
Speaker 1: had to do it. You know, we had a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks where they bring in these people, diversity educators
Speaker 1: and just all different manner of expert and and speaker
Speaker 1: from a left wing perspective on race relations, gender relations,
Speaker 1: transgender relations, and all of it. Now, this was a
Speaker 1: while ago. I'm sure things have evolved quite a bit
Speaker 1: since then, but much of it felt very, very hollow
Speaker 1: to me, and I als always felt like it was
Speaker 1: the things that they say in these racial biased training modules,
Speaker 1: the ones that I've seen and by the way, had
Speaker 1: you know I had this when I worked in the government.
Speaker 1: You know, there was it's huge efforty of the what
Speaker 1: the I forget what they call it, but the federal
Speaker 1: government has a whole diversity and inclusiveness initiatives and programs.
Speaker 1: It is all over the place. I have never sat
Speaker 1: in one of these classes or sat through these modules.
Speaker 1: And I didn't get a chance to do the Starbucks
Speaker 1: training today, although I would have been very curious. I
Speaker 1: had other stuff to do, but it would have been
Speaker 1: interesting to be a fly on the wall, were able
Speaker 1: to sign on and say, hey, I wonder what they're
Speaker 1: actually teaching people about them there. But I've never sounded
Speaker 1: one of these trainings and said to myself, you know what, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I never thought of it that way. It's a lot
Speaker 1: of well, you know, okay, it's either obvious or honestly
Speaker 1: the obvious stuff. You know, Treat people like individuals. Don't
Speaker 1: be a racist, don't be a jerk, don't be insensitive
Speaker 1: or unnecessarily you know, aggressive or terse with all this
Speaker 1: stuff that I just feel like normal people in this
Speaker 1: country are are aware of the people who have biased
Speaker 1: I always find who really do have an issue with
Speaker 1: other races or other and you know, other religions or
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. They hear this stuff and they're
Speaker 1: just like, yeah, well that's all they rejected all so
Speaker 1: I just don't see it it reaching anybody. And they
Speaker 1: did this when I was in college, and this when
Speaker 1: I was the government, and I have to have all this,
Speaker 1: you know. I keep saying unconstant because that's the one
Speaker 1: that really gets you where. It's like, well, you may
Speaker 1: not think in racist terms, you may not take racist action,
Speaker 1: but may still be a racist. I think yourself. By
Speaker 1: the way, uh, the with Schultz, the CEO of US
Speaker 1: or whatever, chairman of Starbucks saying that you know, Trump
Speaker 1: has made racism worse, it's definitely note. You know, I
Speaker 1: think people put way too much emphasis on what one
Speaker 1: president would do good or bad for racism. I mean, Obama,
Speaker 1: first black president, very historically momentous for you know, for
Speaker 1: that and a whole bunch of reasons didn't end racism.
Speaker 1: And in fact, there were a lot of really ugly
Speaker 1: racial incidents that occurred under the eight years of Obama's presidency,
Speaker 1: including the whole uh anti police movements that were burning
Speaker 1: down neighborhoods. And so let's not pretelling the president is
Speaker 1: the driver of this one way or the other. So
Speaker 1: that is that's how I feel about that. Anyway, we've
Speaker 1: got a lot more teams stay with me. So we
Speaker 1: had an all hands meeting at my new venture down
Speaker 1: here in Washington, d C. We got a big staff
Speaker 1: of folks. But as I looked at on the room today,
Speaker 1: you know what, I saw a few folks that we
Speaker 1: got specifically from zip recruiter. That's right. When I was
Speaker 1: out there trying to find the very best and I
Speaker 1: didn't want to spend a lot of time and energy,
Speaker 1: in fact, waste time and energy sifting through all different
Speaker 1: kinds of resumes. I went to zip recruiter dot com.
Speaker 1: I'm a user, and I can tell you it has
Speaker 1: been phenomenal in terms of the quality of candidates, the
Speaker 1: speed and efficiency that it gets me, those candidates couldn't
Speaker 1: be any easier. See for yourself. Start an account. Go
Speaker 1: to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck. You can try it for free.
Speaker 1: I tried it and I can't say enough good things
Speaker 1: about it. And now I have colleagues that are with
Speaker 1: me here in the office every day that we got
Speaker 1: using zip recruiter. Try it out and see for yourself.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. Have you ever heard
Speaker 1: of a reparation's happy hour? I guess you have now.
Speaker 1: But it's a real thing. So I'm thing that just
Speaker 1: happened last week. In fact, in Portland, Oregon. The reparations
Speaker 1: happy hours reported here about the New York Times invited black, brown,
Speaker 1: and Indigenous people to a bar and hand them ten
Speaker 1: dollar bills as they arrived, a small but symbolic gift
Speaker 1: mostly funded by white people who are asked not to attend. Okay,
Speaker 1: more more specifics on this in a second. But this
Speaker 1: is a real thing, folks. This is something that happened
Speaker 1: and being covered in national newspaper. Indigenous people, what is
Speaker 1: that supposed to mean. Does indigenous people include You know,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about the indigenous people in the United Kingdom,
Speaker 1: do we refer to them white people in the UK?
Speaker 1: Is that? Well? What are we talking about here? I
Speaker 1: mean what indigenous mean? No? I really mean this that
Speaker 1: the terminology that they will use is always very spec effic,
Speaker 1: very important to them indigenous in this country. Okay, So
Speaker 1: we've now gone beyond native American, which is also a
Speaker 1: problematic term because the Natives originally had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the whole concept of America and Amerigo Vespucci and
Speaker 1: the European colonial movement, right, so they call them native Americans.
Speaker 1: Is But now we're just saying indigenous people. But are
Speaker 1: only non white people able to fall into the term
Speaker 1: indigenous people? I don't know if anyone has an answer
Speaker 1: for that. I guess if we're talking about like Stockholm,
Speaker 1: then the indigenous people stretching back as far as we
Speaker 1: know would be white. But I just I think it's
Speaker 1: interesting that they're there. This is an evolution the term.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing it more and more. Okay, Anyway, I don't
Speaker 1: want to get too hung up on the whole indigenous
Speaker 1: people thing, but it's not worthy. But see we get
Speaker 1: this reparations happy hour. You have people showing up, they're
Speaker 1: given ten dollars, and white people are asked not to attend,
Speaker 1: but are asked to give money for the happy hours.
Speaker 1: So this is a racially and intentionally racially segregated, UH
Speaker 1: activists function. I'm trying to think of even how to
Speaker 1: describe this. That's to raise awareness about financial compensation for
Speaker 1: black people. But now, see here's what and by this
Speaker 1: is I'm reading you from what they say here. This
Speaker 1: is from the Times. Uh. They hope the event, in
Speaker 1: addition to building community, would call attention to reparations, the
Speaker 1: concept that black people should be financially compensated for the
Speaker 1: generations of trauma that preceded them. Oh, by the way
Speaker 1: of well, sixty eight percent of Americans opposed reparations as
Speaker 1: of polling, and uh of white people oppose it. Fifty
Speaker 1: eight percent of black people in the poll support it.
Speaker 1: But here's before I even get into reparations as a topic.
Speaker 1: Notice how they have this reparation they call it. This
Speaker 1: is the term reparations happy hour. White people not allowed
Speaker 1: or not ask not to attend. This is very similar,
Speaker 1: folks to the the day of absence that happened at
Speaker 1: Evergreen State College. That got so much attention when white
Speaker 1: students were told just stay off campus, You're not welcome
Speaker 1: here on this day. Some people I thought that was strange.
Speaker 1: You could even say it was not particularly inclusive or tolerance.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that got a lot of natural attention. But
Speaker 1: I think they've continued to or at least the Evergreen
Speaker 1: School Evergreen administrators wanted to keep doing that. But the
Speaker 1: reparations happy Hour is a is more specific to a policy,
Speaker 1: which is the policy of reparation, that there should be
Speaker 1: financial compensation for black people today in this country because
Speaker 1: of the legacy of oppression and tyranny under slavery. Now,
Speaker 1: before I dive too deeply into that idea, I would
Speaker 1: also note that brown and this is a quote from
Speaker 1: the piece Brown and Indigenous people were invited to the
Speaker 1: reparations happy Hour. So do they get reparations? To do
Speaker 1: Native Americans or as they say in people, do they
Speaker 1: get reparations? When they say brown? I think activists, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Actually, the left, I think defines brown
Speaker 1: as not black and not white, and I believe brown
Speaker 1: includes South Asian for example, but it also includes Latino. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's a very I mean, brown is a and you
Speaker 1: could say this about I guess any skin color that
Speaker 1: we designated. It's a very imprecise term, or at least
Speaker 1: I'm not clear on where brown stops and starts with
Speaker 1: the outer boundaries of quote brown people would be. But
Speaker 1: would Latinos be a part of a reparations movement If
Speaker 1: they're not a part of reparations and they certainly there's
Speaker 1: no legacy of slavery with Latinos in this country, why
Speaker 1: are they at this event? You see? It feels very
Speaker 1: um It's obviously meant to not just raise awareness but
Speaker 1: to be provocative, I think, but to to get attention
Speaker 1: from places like the New York Times from me on
Speaker 1: the other side of the political aisle here on this show.
Speaker 1: But these ideas that the left runs around, but they're
Speaker 1: not particularly well thought out. In fact that many cases,
Speaker 1: it feels like they have not been thought out at all.
Speaker 1: And when we're looking at reparations that and reparations events
Speaker 1: like this that include non black Americans in them, I
Speaker 1: have to I just have questions like, well, who gets
Speaker 1: reparations and who doesn't. And then for the specifics of
Speaker 1: this specifics of the policy, Well, what would be sufficient reparations?
Speaker 1: Who's going to pay for it? By the way, where
Speaker 1: will the money come from? And do you get reparations?
Speaker 1: What if you're an African migrant to this country, immigrant
Speaker 1: to this country in the last five years? To you
Speaker 1: do you know you don't qualify for reparations? So is
Speaker 1: it a lineage issue? How long have you had to
Speaker 1: be None of these, none of these actual implementation concerns
Speaker 1: are ever addressed by the community who talks about this
Speaker 1: on the left, at least from what I've seen. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe there's some plans out there that are more specific
Speaker 1: than I'm not aware of, but it feels like it's
Speaker 1: un serious as a policy matter to me. It just
Speaker 1: feels more like it is it is used as a
Speaker 1: wedge on the left as a means of of antagonizing
Speaker 1: political adversaries, as a means of getting attention, and of
Speaker 1: separating and dividing people. And that's what this talk about
Speaker 1: reparations seems to turn into. Every time it comes up,
Speaker 1: the left will discuss it. There'll be some virtue signaling,
Speaker 1: you'll have the you know, the Chris Hayzes and the
Speaker 1: Ezra Kleins of the world. You know, they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, we should take this very seriously, or maybe
Speaker 1: they're in favor of it. I don't even know, but
Speaker 1: they'll certainly talk about it. Those are MSNBC guys for those,
Speaker 1: one of them at Vox now. But same, it's like
Speaker 1: the same thing, uh tanahassee Coates is the among the
Speaker 1: most celebrated Black American authors on the left today. He's
Speaker 1: very much uh well has has at least made open
Speaker 1: cases for reparations in the past. So it gets talking,
Speaker 1: but it never goes anywhere. And I hear about it
Speaker 1: and it feels like it's just another version of the
Speaker 1: virtue signaling you see from people on the left. And
Speaker 1: also a way of separating it. It's a way of saying, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not racist because I'm for reparations. What would it
Speaker 1: what would it look like, what would it mean? What,
Speaker 1: how would it be completed? How would we actually do this? Uh?
Speaker 1: In terms of reparations and the answers that they don't
Speaker 1: know that no one really knows. Um. I think it's
Speaker 1: I think it's actually immoral because what you're talking about
Speaker 1: is taking property from people today who have no fault
Speaker 1: in the matter and giving proper after you've seized it.
Speaker 1: So you're talking about seizing private property and giving it
Speaker 1: to people based upon the oppression that their ancestors received.
Speaker 1: And you have to start asking questions like, well, why
Speaker 1: does this only apply then to uh African Americans in
Speaker 1: this country? Or does it only apply to African Americans
Speaker 1: in this country? Um? Do we have other reparations movements
Speaker 1: that we have to reckon with? And then we start
Speaker 1: to wonder who does the accounting here? It all falls
Speaker 1: apart once you start to look at it and you
Speaker 1: try to implement this thinking. But I get the sense
Speaker 1: that it's just about just like the this reparation is
Speaker 1: happy hour, it's just about bringing it up. I think
Speaker 1: it's toxic, I really do. I think the the the
Speaker 1: ideas that it promotes and the results that it will
Speaker 1: create our our toxic. But reparations happy hour. It's now
Speaker 1: a thing that people are doing. I have a feeling
Speaker 1: you're gonna see more of it too. But you know,
Speaker 1: there's Trump arrangement syndrome out there. Is not unusual at all.
Speaker 1: I see a lot of it these days. But sometimes
Speaker 1: what I see now is the Trump arrangement syndrome magnifies
Speaker 1: what is a non story into a national news story
Speaker 1: just because someone takes a petty swipe at Trump of
Speaker 1: some kind of another. I'm gonna tell you about a
Speaker 1: an English teacher who seems rather rather impressed with herself
Speaker 1: for no apparent reason, who wanted to take the White
Speaker 1: House to task on a form letter that's coming up.
Speaker 1: You know, there's fake news and then there's non news.
Speaker 1: And what I mean by that is, I've seen a
Speaker 1: habit recently of people or or let's just say news organizations,
Speaker 1: although people who work for the news organizations, who will
Speaker 1: decide that they're going to make something that is clearly
Speaker 1: not newsworthy a news item. And I have to stop
Speaker 1: and say to myself, well, hold on a second, Uh,
Speaker 1: what exactly is pushing this? Why would a major news
Speaker 1: organization pick up some of these stories? And what you
Speaker 1: see as a uh a tie in as a overall
Speaker 1: characteristic of this trend is you've got people who hate
Speaker 1: Trump so much that they'll essentially report on the scrawls
Speaker 1: in a bathroom of arrest stop if it's mean about Trump.
Speaker 1: They really have nothing nothing to govern them from just
Speaker 1: running with anything that's a great example of this. And
Speaker 1: I tweeted out earlier today, I was like, this is
Speaker 1: not news, okay, but you have Yvonne Mason, who received
Speaker 1: a form letter from Trump. And Mason, who was a
Speaker 1: retired school teacher in Atlanta, quote thought the riddle. Thought
Speaker 1: the letter was so riddled with errors that she marked
Speaker 1: it up, posted a photo of it on Facebook, and
Speaker 1: sent the corrected version back to the right House, the
Speaker 1: White House, UM and the New York Times. I thought
Speaker 1: that this was a story. I mean, the New York
Speaker 1: Times reported on this, folks. I need somebody to to
Speaker 1: explain to me how anyone could believe that this was
Speaker 1: somehow newsworthy at a lab at a national newspaper letter.
Speaker 1: And this is the most crappy and you're probably buck
Speaker 1: we're even talking about it because is it's so crappy
Speaker 1: and boring. This woman writes back a form letter to
Speaker 1: the president. I mean, this is up there with reporting
Speaker 1: on what somebody wrote on on their like cardboard sign
Speaker 1: in the subway proclaiming the end of the world is near.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is really this is just loser stuff
Speaker 1: from New York Times. CNN reported on it too, and
Speaker 1: on top of that you have that some of what
Speaker 1: she thinks need to be corrected are probably the New
Speaker 1: York Times put a put a photo up of it.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really ran this wasn't just a little
Speaker 1: side news item. They really tried to go with this.
Speaker 1: And she corrects things that aren't really even wrong, right,
Speaker 1: She's just she thinks she's folks. She's looking at this
Speaker 1: like she's a teacher, and she's trying to uh tell
Speaker 1: Trump or tell the person that wrote this letter. It's
Speaker 1: a form letter from the White House, not a letter
Speaker 1: from Trump. But she's correcting Trump's why House, not just
Speaker 1: on grammar, but as though she's supposed to grade this thing.
Speaker 1: There's a sentence, for example, about a rule banning devices
Speaker 1: that turned legal guns into illegal machine guns. She writes,
Speaker 1: explain rule. Um, no, that's not how this works. And
Speaker 1: then at the end she writes, for example or in
Speaker 1: response the letter is thank you again for writing as
Speaker 1: president one of my top priorities the safety of America's youth.
Speaker 1: Who are the future leaders of our great nation? Um?
Speaker 1: And she writes, OMG, this is wrong, I guess because
Speaker 1: the capitalization of nation there. But there's a couple of things. First,
Speaker 1: of all, who the heck cares? The second of all,
Speaker 1: the White House style guide is actually different than as
Speaker 1: I understand I've never worked in the White House. Is
Speaker 1: different than the style guide you have for uh, for others,
Speaker 1: for AP for drunken white if I remember those guys. Um,
Speaker 1: so this is all just crap, she writes at the
Speaker 1: very top. Have you tried grammar and style check? And
Speaker 1: she she's correcting their their capitalization this letter? Okay, So
Speaker 1: why is the New York Times reporting on this? There's
Speaker 1: a whole piece on this, folks, and seeing in reports
Speaker 1: on it as well. I mean, this woman is is
Speaker 1: really engaged in what I think you could call a
Speaker 1: cry for help. You're correcting a form letter that wasn't
Speaker 1: sent to you for any particular reason, right, she writes
Speaker 1: in with her views on gun safety. She gets this
Speaker 1: form letter in response? You know? Does she also respond
Speaker 1: when she like does a customer feedback survey to the
Speaker 1: thank you email like you know that says thank you
Speaker 1: for taking our service, She's like, well tell me this,
Speaker 1: mr survey man. No, there isn't a survey man or woman.
Speaker 1: It's an electronic program. It's it's not really even a courtesy.
Speaker 1: It's just a sheen that's sending this to you. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's pretty amazing. This is reporting like it's a story,
Speaker 1: and it just goes to show you that Trump's arrangement
Speaker 1: syndrome is not just for individuals. The Trump derangement syndrome
Speaker 1: of one person will then be magnified by the anti
Speaker 1: Trump media complex to pretend that it's a story. How
Speaker 1: different is this really from them saying, you know, we
Speaker 1: saw someone write something on a bathroom wall about how
Speaker 1: terrible Trump is this president. We're just bringing you the news, sir,
Speaker 1: just the facts, sir. I didn't need to know about
Speaker 1: this lady's bizarre and delusional response to a White House
Speaker 1: form letter, but the biggest news outlets in the country figured, yeah,
Speaker 1: Trump can't spell yeah. Even though Trump didn't write, this
Speaker 1: kind of forced you to ask the question when you
Speaker 1: look at all this, who's really the idiot here? It's
Speaker 1: not Trump. The show ain't over yet, folks. Here's where
Speaker 1: you take over, keeping it real, Team Buck. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll call. Yeah, Tom for some roll call. Oh my,
Speaker 1: oh my, so excited to hear from all you Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com. Slash Buck Sexton on the Roll call that's
Speaker 1: how you get in on this action. I'll have producer
Speaker 1: Mike remind me to get to our email in box
Speaker 1: as well later this week, but today it's gonna be
Speaker 1: via the Facebook, let me tell you. Also, next week
Speaker 1: will be the first week of our the fireside Chill Chat.
Speaker 1: That will be The Freedom Hunt with Buck Sexton. The
Speaker 1: podcast is launching, very excited to have a relaxed format
Speaker 1: where you know what I don't. I don't have any
Speaker 1: commercial breaks. Um, I can pretty much say whatever is
Speaker 1: on my mind. I don't have to worry about any
Speaker 1: of that FCC stuff. Although no, it will be keep
Speaker 1: it clean lyrics obviously, but I'm just saying some of
Speaker 1: the jokes occasionally that I would like to make on air,
Speaker 1: I'm like, is that a little too much of the
Speaker 1: uh scatological? A little little too much potty humor for
Speaker 1: a nationally broadcast radio show. I'm just saying the podcast
Speaker 1: is gonna be a little more experimental, a little more
Speaker 1: laid back, and I'm very much hoping you'll all check
Speaker 1: it out. The Freedom Hup with Buck Sex and it's
Speaker 1: not up yet, you can't find it yet, but I
Speaker 1: just want you all to know about it. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get to your thoughts. William up first. Okay, I've
Speaker 1: got a way that the NFL NFL players can express
Speaker 1: themselves and not lose more fans. Stand for the flag,
Speaker 1: but never talk about football in an interview again? Huh what?
Speaker 1: Never talked with football again. I'd be interested to hear
Speaker 1: what they have to say. To be honest, all they
Speaker 1: do in interviews talk about how great they are. Anyway,
Speaker 1: these are all allege educated men with what appears to
Speaker 1: be a strong constitution. I'd love to hear their grievances
Speaker 1: in a sane, constructive manner. I'd love to have them
Speaker 1: stand for the flag and talk about the plight of
Speaker 1: black men in America today. Um hm hmm. I can't
Speaker 1: tell if William is even I'm doing this in real time.
Speaker 1: If I think he's being I don't know if he's
Speaker 1: being sarcastic or serious. So I'm just gonna say, Okay, William,
Speaker 1: thank you for your note, and there you go. Um
Speaker 1: I really I couldn't tell from the way he wrote it,
Speaker 1: and it was rather long. So next up is Dan.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, hey, Buck, love your show. I
Speaker 1: voted for Hillary. I got over the election results in
Speaker 1: a couple of minutes, I volunteered in Pennsylvania bringing Hillary voters.
Speaker 1: My volunteer position was terminated abruptly. Love your show again.
Speaker 1: Lots lots and lots of hours behind the mic talent. Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you, Dan, It's very nice of you. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thanks for the words of support. Thomas. Hey, what's up,
Speaker 1: buddy Buck. Don't you think it's time for you and
Speaker 1: all the other conservative TV and radio show host to
Speaker 1: stop referring to the politicians and activists and their campaign
Speaker 1: to destroy this country as being on the left and
Speaker 1: call them what they really are, radical socialists. They don't
Speaker 1: hide it anymore, So why do you and all the
Speaker 1: others continue to portray them as misdirected liberals or the left.
Speaker 1: It's pretty obvious when they openly opposed defending our borders,
Speaker 1: were collectively collectively to undermine the country and defend terrorists
Speaker 1: like M. S. Thir teen, and they have no interest
Speaker 1: in the US as a sovereign nation. Call them radical socialist,
Speaker 1: that's what they are. Well, Thomas, you know there's there's
Speaker 1: some people on the left who are radical socialists. In fact,
Speaker 1: I spoke to a big Bernie Sanders supporter today, not
Speaker 1: just support, somebody very involved with Bernie Sanders, And I
Speaker 1: asked him, I said, look, are you guys, do you
Speaker 1: think that you've rehabilitated for the purposes of the American electorate,
Speaker 1: the concept of uh, you know, democratic socialists and they
Speaker 1: think that they have, which I don't know if you
Speaker 1: know what the polling would show on that. My guess
Speaker 1: is that they haven't. And I guess is that that
Speaker 1: is not, in fact, uh, an accurate portrayal of the
Speaker 1: America of American public opinion on the notion of democratic socialists.
Speaker 1: But I could be wrong on that. It's a crazy
Speaker 1: world we live in. But the left covers, my friend Thomas,
Speaker 1: a broad range of things, and that I think would
Speaker 1: include some ideologies that you couldn't well, I know, it
Speaker 1: would include some ideologies that you couldn't necessarily accurately describe
Speaker 1: as radical socialists. Right, so there's a span on the left.
Speaker 1: You know, there are well what we call moderate democrats.
Speaker 1: Maybe you never hear that term. There are some uh
Speaker 1: next up here we have Matthew wrote, we wrote in
Speaker 1: a movie quote. You know, we haven't been doing as
Speaker 1: many movie quotes on Fridays because I feel like that
Speaker 1: was for a lot of us that was getting to
Speaker 1: know you thing right For I was new here in
Speaker 1: this role, on this on this time slot in so
Speaker 1: many different radio stations across the country, and I felt
Speaker 1: like it was for folks who were new to the
Speaker 1: team away for us to get acquainted. Although I do
Speaker 1: love my movie quotes, but if you guys think it's
Speaker 1: something we should bring back, I'm happy to do it,
Speaker 1: maybe even doing more of them via written in versus
Speaker 1: calling in, because I know a lot of you listen
Speaker 1: to the podcast. You're listening a little bit delayed later on,
Speaker 1: so that's an option as well. But anyway, Matthews movie
Speaker 1: quote for Friday is, uh, maybe you're not keeping up
Speaker 1: on current events, but we just got our our asses
Speaker 1: kicked pal and shields high. He wrote, Oh yes, that
Speaker 1: is from Aliens, which is a fantastic movie. Holds up
Speaker 1: very well, I think, and it's still really really fun
Speaker 1: to watch. Uh, let's see Paul next up here, you know, Buck,
Speaker 1: I think Congress should spend of their time in their
Speaker 1: own jurisdiction. With today's technology, all members of Congress can
Speaker 1: video chat with other members to get the business of
Speaker 1: the people done, this would have the representatives in the
Speaker 1: places with their the people they represent. It should cut
Speaker 1: down on lobbying and bring more attention to their own
Speaker 1: districts rather than to themselves. I think this would better
Speaker 1: represent the people. Also, term limits are a must. Um well, Paul, Yes,
Speaker 1: I agree with term limits. I think we'll never We're
Speaker 1: never going to get them. But it's a really nice idea.
Speaker 1: I think in principle it's absolutely correct. And as the
Speaker 1: Congress effectively telecommuting, I like that idea too. But I
Speaker 1: think a lot of members of Congress they're all, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm so happy to be back in my district. It's
Speaker 1: so great here. But they like the swamp. The swamp
Speaker 1: is where they can have the fancy steak dinners, they
Speaker 1: can hang out with the lobbyists. They they feel important here.
Speaker 1: And you know, you think about most Americans don't even
Speaker 1: know who their congress went. A congressman or congresswoman is right,
Speaker 1: So I think there are a lot of swamp dwellers
Speaker 1: that don't like leaving here. And then they go back
Speaker 1: to their district and they act like they're all about that.
Speaker 1: But I don't know. Although I did have a conversation
Speaker 1: offline recently with a member of Congress and his grasp
Speaker 1: of the demographics and just the rundown of numbers for
Speaker 1: you know, uh, age, race, ethnicity, average income, population distribution.
Speaker 1: This guy was encyclopedic in his knowledge of his district,
Speaker 1: which a lot of you're probably saying, yeah, buck, because
Speaker 1: he wants to get reelected. True, but I was impressed
Speaker 1: with his grasp of of the facts. It was like, Oh,
Speaker 1: this guy really pays attention. So uh next up here
Speaker 1: we have whoops, Sorry, Nathaniel, Hey Buck, I love my
Speaker 1: daily trips to the Freedom Hut. I'm seeing a lot
Speaker 1: about immigrant families split up, children lost, etcetera. Is this
Speaker 1: you what in the law allows this needs some info
Speaker 1: before besides the liberal uh Trump's arrangement syndrome crowd Well, Daniel,
Speaker 1: hopefully I've I've addressed this in enough detail today to
Speaker 1: answer the question. But it's much more. First of all,
Speaker 1: it's not just a Trump thing, and second of all,
Speaker 1: it's much more complicated then. Oh Trump wants parents and
Speaker 1: babies separated from each other at the border, So here
Speaker 1: we go. Um, Monica wrote hug your news person day.
Speaker 1: Husband of Monica would hug all the girls on Fox News,
Speaker 1: but sorry not you. Shields High. Hey, I'm very huggable,
Speaker 1: but you know no one has to hug me. I
Speaker 1: didn't know that hug your newsperson Day happened again this year.
Speaker 1: I didn't. I was not aware that that was a
Speaker 1: thing that happens. So yeah, Dale. Next up here, he writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: really appreciated your segment about the self phones at meal time.
Speaker 1: It annoys me to no end. I don't know how
Speaker 1: you feel about reference TV shows, but as this one
Speaker 1: is now defunct, it may not make a difference. Chip
Speaker 1: and Joanna gains a fixer upper. H G TV fame
Speaker 1: started up a cafe in Waco, Texas, and put pouches
Speaker 1: beside each table for patrons to place their cell phones
Speaker 1: as they dine. I think there's a major backlash going
Speaker 1: on regarding the cell phones at meal time. Thank you
Speaker 1: for flagging this, Dale, Well, buddy, I totally agree, and
Speaker 1: and I it's something that I'm I'm working on. I
Speaker 1: don't pretend to be perfect, but I'm trying to get
Speaker 1: better at it. And it's one of those things where
Speaker 1: if you're gonna be annoyed when other people do it,
Speaker 1: you really have to start with your own house, right,
Speaker 1: start with yourself on it. And so I try to
Speaker 1: be pretty cell phone free at meals and be very
Speaker 1: if I have to check my phone, be very discreet
Speaker 1: about it and quick and not habitual. Right, not numerous times,
Speaker 1: So I gotta pick up my phone now. Not acceptable? Uh.
Speaker 1: As to h GTV. By the way, I do love
Speaker 1: some of these shows where they're like, you know, Bob
Speaker 1: and Tania are like looking for a house under three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars a year and they want beach front
Speaker 1: and it's like, oh, let's see what they could get, right, Uh,
Speaker 1: house Hunters, I guess is that the one. Anyway, it's
Speaker 1: you sit down, you're like, how could this be an
Speaker 1: issue show? And you're like, no, don't go with the
Speaker 1: popcorn ceiling and the small kitchen without the island, like
Speaker 1: you get. I get pretty animated about it. Maybe I
Speaker 1: should have been in real estate. Ah, there you have it,
Speaker 1: all right, that's gonna be it for today. In the
Speaker 1: hunt my friends every other day this week, we're gonna
Speaker 1: be rocking out. I missed you because we had off.
Speaker 1: We had a long weekend on Monday. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: really pack in a lot and get ready for the
Speaker 1: Freedom up with buckx Exton next week. Please do download
Speaker 1: the current podcast of the show, share it with their
Speaker 1: friend until tomorrow, my friends Shields High