Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Seven hours of Democrat
Speaker 1: insanity on display. They had their town hall on climate change.
Speaker 1: It was the wackiest thing I've seen in TV in
Speaker 1: a long time. We'll break down different aspects of it
Speaker 1: and tell you everything you need to know. Coming up
Speaker 1: on the Buck Sexton Show. Bucks Sexton Mission, decoding the
Speaker 1: news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Former CIA analysts, Remember I can speak for three hours
Speaker 1: without a phone call. Try doing that sometime. It is Sexton.
Speaker 1: No whife on Earth is at risk. Climate change the
Speaker 1: single greatest concern for war. We are fighting for the
Speaker 1: survival of the planet Earth. It is a monumental crisis.
Speaker 1: It's about an existential threat to who we are as
Speaker 1: human beings. The UN has told us that we have
Speaker 1: about twelve years to get this right, for the consequences
Speaker 1: could be catastrophic. It is the issue the lens through
Speaker 1: which we must do everything that we do. It is
Speaker 1: an everyday mission. We can lead the world on the
Speaker 1: greatest challenge that we've ever had. I would end all
Speaker 1: fossil fuel subsidies and I'm gonna take it a step further.
Speaker 1: I propose a constitutional amendment that makes it the responsibility
Speaker 1: in United States government to safeguard and protect our environment
Speaker 1: for future generations. This is on par with winning World
Speaker 1: War Two, perhaps even more challenging than that. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the book Sex and Show. Wow, folks, Wow. I rarely
Speaker 1: I'm a radio host that ever really had a loss
Speaker 1: for words? Hopefully not. But does it get any crazier
Speaker 1: than what those Democrats were saying last night? Can you
Speaker 1: think of anything that is too extreme or exaggerated for
Speaker 1: them to say about the threat of climate change? What
Speaker 1: could be a bigger threat than existential in the end
Speaker 1: of existence, the end of humanity, the end perhaps of
Speaker 1: a habitable planet. This is not an exaggeration. They say
Speaker 1: this repeatedly, explicitly, and they say it with a certainty
Speaker 1: that should be terrifying to everybody, because who the heck
Speaker 1: are all these people that think that they understand what
Speaker 1: the world's gonna be like in fifty years. I don't
Speaker 1: know the world's gonna be like in five years. I
Speaker 1: was overwhelmed. Now I did not watch all seven hours.
Speaker 1: I don't know if any human being in America watched
Speaker 1: all seven hours. I doubt it, but I did watch
Speaker 1: as much of it as I could stomach a lot
Speaker 1: of the clips of it. And this is where the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is right now. This is what they're really
Speaker 1: all about. This is what they believe. They think that
Speaker 1: we are in an existential battle for the future of
Speaker 1: the human race. They don't act like it as individuals,
Speaker 1: but they want the control as a government body. They
Speaker 1: want the control from up above to tell us all
Speaker 1: how to live our lives, what we can do, how
Speaker 1: the economy should function. This is where the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: has gone to an extreme that should be worrying through
Speaker 1: all of us. I mean, I go back and forth.
Speaker 1: I'm not always sure if we should laugh or cry
Speaker 1: about this. That this is a position that is supposed
Speaker 1: to be held by the intelligent, by the well educated,
Speaker 1: by the well meaning. That climate change means we only
Speaker 1: have ten years to make massive changes to our lives
Speaker 1: in this country that would make us much poorer, that
Speaker 1: would all kinds of technological growth and prosperity that have
Speaker 1: real consequences, good and bad in people's lives. They're willing
Speaker 1: to do all of this. Here's what I'm going to
Speaker 1: tell you this. Unfortunately, this hysteria is not really new.
Speaker 1: It is cyclical. There was a book that was written
Speaker 1: back I think it was a nineteen sixty eight The
Speaker 1: Population Bomb, by doctor Paul Erlic. I'll just read to
Speaker 1: you a little bit from the prologue of this. This
Speaker 1: book sold millions of copies and had a very real
Speaker 1: impact on the scientific community around the world. Some even
Speaker 1: say it led to some of the horrific population control
Speaker 1: policies that many countries around the world implemented, most well
Speaker 1: known as China's one child policy, but there are other
Speaker 1: countries too, with forced sterilization. These bad ideas that democrats
Speaker 1: are trotting out last night, keep in mind, if they could,
Speaker 1: they would, they're serious about this stuff. Well, here's what
Speaker 1: doctor hashtag science Erlic was writing back in the late
Speaker 1: nineteen sixties, and then in the nineteen seventies this became
Speaker 1: a phenomenon. Quote, the battle to feed all of humanity
Speaker 1: is over. In the nineteen seventies and nineteen eighties, hundreds
Speaker 1: of millions of people will starve to death in spite
Speaker 1: of any crash programs embarked upon. Now, at this late date,
Speaker 1: nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate,
Speaker 1: although many lives could be saved through dramatic programs to
Speaker 1: stretch the caring capacity of the earth by increasing food
Speaker 1: production and providing for more equitable distribution of whatever food
Speaker 1: is available, But these programs will only provide a stay
Speaker 1: of execution unless they are a companied by determined and
Speaker 1: successful efforts at population control. Population control is the conscious
Speaker 1: regulation of the numbers of human beings to meet the needs,
Speaker 1: not just of individual families, but of society as a whole.
Speaker 1: End quote. Now, I don't have to tell you this
Speaker 1: guy wasn't a little bit wrong. He was totally wrong,
Speaker 1: as wrong as wrong gets. Not only do we not
Speaker 1: have mass die off of hundreds of millions of people,
Speaker 1: population growth has exploded globally, and our biggest health crisis
Speaker 1: in the developed world in particular is overeating is too
Speaker 1: many calories. We have more people than ever before, we
Speaker 1: have more food than ever before. So he couldn't have
Speaker 1: been more wrong. He was wrong in a way that
Speaker 1: would be hard to replicate. And you may be saying, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: but that's population control. How does that? Well? Of course,
Speaker 1: there's the the scientific movement here. Zierra Club involved in
Speaker 1: the publication of this, a lot of scientists saying, you know,
Speaker 1: we're and oh, some of you are probably saying, wait, buck,
Speaker 1: what about what about Mauthis? Back in the nineteenth century.
Speaker 1: Didn't Mauthis have a similar thesis, the Malthusian thesis, that
Speaker 1: we would population would reach a point where we could
Speaker 1: not feed it anymore, and then there'd have to be
Speaker 1: massive reduction over time in population because we can't feed
Speaker 1: all the people, and there might be if there's famines
Speaker 1: and things, mass die off that occurs as well, because
Speaker 1: our food supply will be so precarious and overstretched. Oh
Speaker 1: that's right. John Thomas Mouthis he thought that too. He
Speaker 1: was a really smart guy hashtag science. People thought he
Speaker 1: was right. Yeah. There are many, many times more people
Speaker 1: globally in the world now than there were when Mouthis
Speaker 1: was writing that. What does it have to do with
Speaker 1: population control? Oh? I don't know. Maybe because last night
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, when he was asked about how we have
Speaker 1: to fight climate change, explicitly said, yeah, you know, we
Speaker 1: should probably have abortions in third world countries so there
Speaker 1: are less people. This is what he's saying. We should
Speaker 1: have abortions in third world we need more population control
Speaker 1: to help fight with climate to help fight climate change,
Speaker 1: So that means America needs to start pushing and funding
Speaker 1: abortions all over the world. Let's kill more babies to
Speaker 1: stop climate change. I'm not making this up, folks, this
Speaker 1: is what he said. Human population growth has more than
Speaker 1: doubled in the past fifty years. The planet cannot sustain
Speaker 1: this growth. I realize this is a poisonous topic for politicians,
Speaker 1: but it's crucial to face. Empowering women and educating everyone
Speaker 1: on the need to curb population growth seems a reasonable
Speaker 1: campaign to enact. Would you be courageous enough to discuss
Speaker 1: this issue and make it a key feature of a
Speaker 1: plan to address climate catastrophe Monthly d answers Yes. I think,
Speaker 1: especially in poor countries around the world, where women do
Speaker 1: not necessarily want to have large numbers of babies, and
Speaker 1: where they can have the opportunity through birth control to
Speaker 1: control the number of kids, they have something. I very
Speaker 1: very strongly support population control, folks, and weren't want to
Speaker 1: get into more specifics about abortion, but population control, that's
Speaker 1: what they're advocating. They were advocating population control fifty years ago.
Speaker 1: Then it was because we were going to run out
Speaker 1: of food. They said, this is the scientists or we're
Speaker 1: going to run out of food now. And you might say, buck,
Speaker 1: that wasn't all scientists, Yeah, but the people that study
Speaker 1: food and population growth. This became the fad. This became
Speaker 1: what if you were in this area, just like with climatologists.
Speaker 1: Now you want to have the loneliest, loneliest professional life
Speaker 1: in the world. Be a climatologist who says, you know,
Speaker 1: we really can't predict the future. We don't know, and
Speaker 1: we shouldn't make We shouldn't take drastic measures that we
Speaker 1: know will absolutely have a major cost associated with them
Speaker 1: based on what is at best and educated guests about
Speaker 1: what the future of climate will be. You want to
Speaker 1: be that guy. You're gonna have no friends, no grant money,
Speaker 1: probably get death threats. This end of times based on
Speaker 1: science ideology is not new. We've been through this before.
Speaker 1: These people are wrong, they're wrong. They can't tell what
Speaker 1: the future of the world will be. They can't tell
Speaker 1: you what science is going to be able to do.
Speaker 1: And yet they want us to make decisions right now
Speaker 1: that would be horrifically counterproductive and that would have very
Speaker 1: real costs that that fad of population control as necessary
Speaker 1: to save us for mass starvation in the seventies that
Speaker 1: led into forced sterilization in India, China's one child policy.
Speaker 1: You know, you can trace this thinking all the way,
Speaker 1: all the way back to the origins of the eugenics movement,
Speaker 1: that we have to control the population. Eugenics was coined
Speaker 1: by Francis Galton back in eighteen eighty three with inquiries
Speaker 1: into human faculty and its development. Galton took the term
Speaker 1: as deriving from the Greek eugenes, namely good in stock
Speaker 1: hereditarily endowed with noble qualities. The original eugenicists were all
Speaker 1: about population control, and they thought they were doing a
Speaker 1: good thing. Oh, we're just going to have only the
Speaker 1: healthiest and the best people. We need to control the undesirables.
Speaker 1: This led to some of the most twisted and horrific
Speaker 1: government government instituted. Mind you, eugenics is not something that
Speaker 1: people do in their spare time on the weekends. It's
Speaker 1: governments that do this, governments that seize control and force sterilization,
Speaker 1: governments by law, including our own folks. But it was
Speaker 1: for our good, you see, That's what they told us.
Speaker 1: Going after people who had mental health issues, who were
Speaker 1: born with different disabilities or infirmities. In other parts around
Speaker 1: the world, it was people who are from the wrong group,
Speaker 1: whatever that may be, from some out group within the society. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they should be sterilized. Maybe there should be forced abortions too,
Speaker 1: depends on which country we're talking about. If they really believe,
Speaker 1: if the left really believes what they are telling us
Speaker 1: and what they are selling us right now, and that
Speaker 1: is that we face an existential crisis. We must turn
Speaker 1: around the coo to curve or else we're all gonna die.
Speaker 1: Why would we think that it's too much for them
Speaker 1: to advocate for population control. Why would we think that
Speaker 1: it's in any way a surprise that they would want
Speaker 1: to get rid of the Mexico City policy that says
Speaker 1: that we can't support used tax para dollars to support abortions.
Speaker 1: Broad of course they're going to want to get rid
Speaker 1: of all of that if they really believe what they're saying.
Speaker 1: This was lunacy on display last night, and it's something
Speaker 1: that we all should remember as we think about who
Speaker 1: we really want in charge in this country. President Trump
Speaker 1: is not perfect. I've never said he is. You know
Speaker 1: he's not. And we have to do our part as
Speaker 1: supporters of the president, those of you who are listening,
Speaker 1: who are, and I know not all of you are,
Speaker 1: but a supporter is to guide him toward the best
Speaker 1: policy decisions possible, to govern as well as he can
Speaker 1: while protecting fundamental individual freedoms and constitutional rights. The other side,
Speaker 1: forget about not being perfect. The other side or a
Speaker 1: bunch of status petty totalitarians, and there's nothing that they
Speaker 1: think is outside the bounds of what they're allowed to do,
Speaker 1: if only they come up with a creative narrative to
Speaker 1: justify it. You do not want those people in charge.
Speaker 1: Just look at the history of what happens when they
Speaker 1: acquire that much power in any country anywhere in the world.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. What you described is the most
Speaker 1: existential threat to our country's future, and the UN has
Speaker 1: told us that we have about twelve years to get
Speaker 1: this right or the consequences could be catastrophic. The most
Speaker 1: existential threat this country faces, I can tell you know
Speaker 1: what is an existential threat to this country open borders.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the dissolution of the polity, the sense that
Speaker 1: this is no longer a community of citizens and Americans,
Speaker 1: that this is just a place where anyone can come
Speaker 1: and go as they please, without any loyalty, without any
Speaker 1: respect for sovereignty and the rule of law that this
Speaker 1: entity has. What is americanness if anyone just shows up
Speaker 1: whenever they want to these whenever they want to That's one.
Speaker 1: Another one was the Fiat currency we have, which, as
Speaker 1: I've told you, and I'm somebody who likes history, all
Speaker 1: of the Fiat currencies of the past have all gone
Speaker 1: to zero. You know, we're now at I remember we
Speaker 1: were not even a twenty trillion dollars in dead and
Speaker 1: people were very concerned. I remember the Tea Party movement
Speaker 1: very well. It's when I got into media. And sure enough,
Speaker 1: now we're at a twenty three heading to twenty four.
Speaker 1: I think gonna be a thirty before long, folks. That's
Speaker 1: this is gonna be a problem. So there are real
Speaker 1: possible and look, I'm an optimist, and maybe that's probably
Speaker 1: it's probably not good for radio. I should be here
Speaker 1: like we're all gonna die and everything is terrible, and
Speaker 1: oh the commies are gonna like can overthrow the government
Speaker 1: any day down all that kind of stuff. Some people
Speaker 1: do that. I don't like to do that. I respect
Speaker 1: and admire this audience too much to just try to
Speaker 1: hit hit fear centers in people. Whenever, Oh, look at this,
Speaker 1: this is so bad, it's so crazy. The Democratic Party, though,
Speaker 1: has gone socialist, and that is very concerning. That's real.
Speaker 1: It is now a socialist party. They won't call themselves
Speaker 1: that because they understand the connotations and enough people still
Speaker 1: have some connection to history, some understanding of history that
Speaker 1: just to openly say that the democratic parties of socialist
Speaker 1: parties problematic for them. But the mentality that you see
Speaker 1: of mobilizing us behind this climate change idea, there's a
Speaker 1: reason that they use martial rhetoric. There's a reason that
Speaker 1: this is being set up as the the moral and
Speaker 1: political equivalent of war, and that is because Democrats, stretching
Speaker 1: back to clearly Woodrow, Wilson and FDR, think that that's
Speaker 1: the best way, the best way to be able to
Speaker 1: control people and get them to do what you want
Speaker 1: and mobilize the collective. In fact, you could even look
Speaker 1: back at the French Revolution, that was the idea, the
Speaker 1: mobilization of the people, an army of the people. Is
Speaker 1: this is right at the center of Marxist and socialist
Speaker 1: rhetoric that the collective needs to act as one in
Speaker 1: the furtherance of the revolution. In this case, the collective
Speaker 1: will be acting as one against climate change. But because
Speaker 1: climate change is all encompassing, it means that the will
Speaker 1: of the people, as determined by the Green new deegal cadre,
Speaker 1: whoever that may be in any given time, will decipher
Speaker 1: for all of us what needs to be done in
Speaker 1: every aspect of our lives. Because this is a war.
Speaker 1: You can't sit out the war on climate change. You see,
Speaker 1: there's no conscientious objectors. There's no one on the sidelines.
Speaker 1: You're not allowed to opt out. You're not allowed to
Speaker 1: choose to not participate. You will be made to. This
Speaker 1: is why they like it, this is why they use
Speaker 1: the rhetoric they do, And people like Beto O'Rourke say
Speaker 1: things like this. My son, Henry, who's eight years old,
Speaker 1: when I was talking to him the other night, he
Speaker 1: asked me, Dad, if you win and you become president,
Speaker 1: we get to live in El Pasto, right, And I
Speaker 1: said no, if we win the way this works, we
Speaker 1: would live in Washington, d C. But he knew because
Speaker 1: I had told him about the warming that we face,
Speaker 1: that our community will be uninhabitable, not sustain human life
Speaker 1: along this current trajectory unless something dramatically and fundamentally changes.
Speaker 1: And that's like a form of child abuse to lie
Speaker 1: to your kid that way. But maybe he's just lying
Speaker 1: about the kids saying that that's more likely. So what's
Speaker 1: the most outrageous thing if we're going to talk about
Speaker 1: the martial rhetoric of libs when it comes to climate change,
Speaker 1: what is the thing that they could say that there's
Speaker 1: got to be a party of There's like, they're not
Speaker 1: really gonna They're not really gonna do that, right, They're
Speaker 1: not really gonna make that comparison, are they. They've already
Speaker 1: said that it's an existential crisis, that it's the biggest
Speaker 1: threat we face. You will hear people who think of
Speaker 1: themselves as intelligent and well informed say that it's the
Speaker 1: biggest national security threat we face. The biggest national security
Speaker 1: threat we face is climate change. So in that vein
Speaker 1: I said before, they like they like the martial rhetoric
Speaker 1: of you know, this is a fight we all have
Speaker 1: to be in and we need to mobilize, And what
Speaker 1: are they going to say it's like, Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: they're gonna say, it's like fighting the Nazis in the
Speaker 1: Second World War. I'm asking Americans to make this our priority.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons I love the framing of the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal is it uses some of the language
Speaker 1: that we might associate with the way that we met
Speaker 1: the response of Nazi Germany in World War Two, all
Speaker 1: of this country coming together with a singular focus of
Speaker 1: making sure that we overcome what was at that time
Speaker 1: an existential threat to this country and to our democracy.
Speaker 1: Mass mobilization, folks. He's even saying that we like to
Speaker 1: use these words. We like to make it sound like
Speaker 1: that's what's going on here, mass mobilization. Interesting, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Oh he's not that, you might say, Oh, bet Joe,
Speaker 1: he's a clown. That is not the only one who
Speaker 1: brought up the World War two fighting analogy last night
Speaker 1: at this climate change debacle. We have to actually unify
Speaker 1: the country around this project, and that means bringing people
Speaker 1: to the table who haven't felt that they've been part
Speaker 1: of the process. I mean, this is the hardest thing
Speaker 1: we will have done, certainly in my lifetime as a country.
Speaker 1: This is on par with winning World War two perhaps
Speaker 1: even more challenging than that. Does anybody really think we're
Speaker 1: going to meet that goal? If between now and twenty
Speaker 1: fifty we are still at each other's throats, it's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. We've got to figure out a way
Speaker 1: to rally, and that means everybody, from cities to farms,
Speaker 1: to the federal government to the international community. Might be
Speaker 1: harder than World War Two. I mean, you do have
Speaker 1: to SubTime just say, wow, these people really there's a
Speaker 1: better A Rourke and mayor Pete Mayor Pete's you know,
Speaker 1: he's a veteran, a Rhodes scholar, And how could someone
Speaker 1: who is theoretically so well read and are you died
Speaker 1: Theoretically at least Rhodes scholars are not nearly as impressive
Speaker 1: as people like to pretend they are. But that's a
Speaker 1: whole other conversation. How can they say things like this
Speaker 1: and expect anyone to take them seriously afterwards? Sixty million
Speaker 1: people died in World War two. Climate change is what exactly.
Speaker 1: There's going to be some melting glaciers that will make
Speaker 1: the sea levels rise, will be okay, it's not even
Speaker 1: going to happen. The way they say it's going to happen,
Speaker 1: and who knows, maybe in ten years there'll be some
Speaker 1: way that we can just clean all the co two
Speaker 1: out of the atmosphere. They don't know. Father that wouldn't
Speaker 1: be a good thing because then all the plants would die.
Speaker 1: But you know what I'm saying, Maybe there's something that
Speaker 1: is going to happen then we don't even know about.
Speaker 1: They don't know. But this is the central fallacy of
Speaker 1: the central planner. They don't know what they don't know,
Speaker 1: and they refuse to accept. But there are things that
Speaker 1: they can't know, and yet they want to take dramatic
Speaker 1: They want to force us. It's they're not asking. This
Speaker 1: is why they're using the rhetoric about immobilization and work.
Speaker 1: They want to force us to listen to them, to
Speaker 1: bend the need to do what they tell us to do.
Speaker 1: It'll make us poorer. And there's no upside here, you know.
Speaker 1: At least the upside of socializing healthcare is theoretically some
Speaker 1: people will get healthcare, although eventually it'll just collapse and
Speaker 1: then nobody's getting the healthcare they should. But theoretically some
Speaker 1: people will get healthcare that wouldn't so so it's a
Speaker 1: bad idea, but there's some offset of good that will
Speaker 1: come from the bad idea, at least with climate change.
Speaker 1: This is the worst of ideas in many ways because
Speaker 1: it's only downside, because the upside that they think exists
Speaker 1: does not exist. There is nothing about reduction of CO
Speaker 1: two via government fiad I keep saying, this is already
Speaker 1: happening as a natural technological process. We are decarbonizing. It's
Speaker 1: easy to figure out. It's anyone knows this that spends
Speaker 1: two seconds thinking about it. But for the government to
Speaker 1: do this great leap forward into a carbon free future
Speaker 1: is utterly insane. But they don't. They refuse to accept
Speaker 1: that they don't know. They don't know what they don't know.
Speaker 1: And here we are, the central planners telling us how
Speaker 1: we should live our lives. And it's not even like
Speaker 1: there's something that we get from it that would make
Speaker 1: that would be worth anything. This is utter worthlessness, massive
Speaker 1: destruction of wealth and freedom and technological advancement and so
Speaker 1: much that has made human beings healthier and wealthier and
Speaker 1: better off. They want to push against all of that,
Speaker 1: just like you know, mouthis didn't like that people were
Speaker 1: having so many kids and all of a sudden, these
Speaker 1: industrialized societies could support much larger populations in cities, and oh,
Speaker 1: can't have that. Paul Aerlic, you know, oh, we can't
Speaker 1: have all these people. And he would, by the way,
Speaker 1: was very down on all the people. Airlick was down
Speaker 1: on all the people in the Third world, specifically they're
Speaker 1: having too many kids. But scientists try to sweep some
Speaker 1: of that under the rug. Now we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Do you ban plastic straws? I think we should. Yes.
Speaker 1: So would you ban offshore drilling? Yes? We have to
Speaker 1: take to take combustion engine vehicles off the road as
Speaker 1: rapidly as we can. Let's talk about off shords drilling
Speaker 1: for would you ban it? Yes? Would you ban offshore
Speaker 1: drilling absolutely? Yes. We will transition off of fossil fuels
Speaker 1: natural gas, coal oil. What about the export of fossil
Speaker 1: fuels from the United States? Did you ban that? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: We must get to that point. There's no question I'm
Speaker 1: in favor of banning cracking. I'm in favor of a
Speaker 1: carbon free America. In my administration, we're not going to
Speaker 1: build any new nuclear power plants. We set out the
Speaker 1: rules for what kind of plant you know, coal burning plants.
Speaker 1: No one's gonna build another coal burning We gotta shut
Speaker 1: the ones down we have. We're gonna end factory farming
Speaker 1: because that is not only that is a danger to
Speaker 1: the environment and to climate change. You know, there will
Speaker 1: be a transition. There will be a transition, and there
Speaker 1: will be some pain left. Yeah, but motive, but pain.
Speaker 1: Have you ever seen all those chickens, one chicken after another,
Speaker 1: role on top of each other. It's all crowded, you know,
Speaker 1: the little chickens. They're going cluck cluck, and it's like
Speaker 1: was taking care of those chickens? They're all in there.
Speaker 1: Are they getting enough exercise? Has anyone taking them out
Speaker 1: for a little walk? Do they have little leashes for
Speaker 1: the chickens? I don't think so. Bernie raises some very
Speaker 1: interesting points. I'll tell you this. There was a common
Speaker 1: theme in this seven hour long climate change lunatic asylum.
Speaker 1: That's the un ended last night, I should say really
Speaker 1: last after late afternoon slash into the night, and the
Speaker 1: theme is they just want to ban things. They want
Speaker 1: to stop things. They want to tell you what to do,
Speaker 1: and control is a major component of the leftist mindset.
Speaker 1: But banning you can't have this ban this, not allowed
Speaker 1: to do this. This is where we see there is
Speaker 1: a real debate, a real argument going on in this
Speaker 1: country about freedom. This is about personal, individual, corporate, business,
Speaker 1: commercial freedom. That's what's at stake here. Because if they
Speaker 1: can get this stuff through, they'll tell you that there's
Speaker 1: no end to what they think they're allowed to dictate
Speaker 1: for you. They want to ban I just can't even
Speaker 1: think of anything right now, any consumer product they'll be
Speaker 1: able to put their foot on, put their foot on
Speaker 1: the pedal and tell you yes or no anytime. Oh
Speaker 1: and also they find a way to tie climate change
Speaker 1: into things that just no reasonable person thinks that anything
Speaker 1: to do with climate change, Okay, this is just nuts.
Speaker 1: Betto for example, still I'm at like zero percent in
Speaker 1: the polls, but like I'm gonna drop another f bomb
Speaker 1: on TV and then everybody will want to watch me.
Speaker 1: Beto says, for example, that the not only is climate
Speaker 1: change causing the refugee crisis, but because we are the
Speaker 1: prime driver of climate change. This is this logic goes,
Speaker 1: we are responsible for creating the conditions that forced the
Speaker 1: refugees to come to this country or go We have
Speaker 1: an obligation to take anybody who shows up. We have
Speaker 1: an obligation to bring them into this country and pay
Speaker 1: for their stuff. And it doesn't matter what the American
Speaker 1: people want. We owe it to people and countries that
Speaker 1: are going through droughts, for example. This is our opportunity.
Speaker 1: That is the threat that we face, and so we
Speaker 1: must be an international leader on these issues. In Brazil,
Speaker 1: in Guatemala, where we've helped to precipitate a drought that
Speaker 1: they have never seen before, which has forced families to
Speaker 1: travel two thousand miles to come to this country seeking
Speaker 1: asylum and refuge and salvation, only to have their children
Speaker 1: placed in kids and their parents supported back. We have
Speaker 1: to understand that we are all connected on this planet.
Speaker 1: We all have a responsibility, and the United States, especially
Speaker 1: the indispensable country, has the opportunity to lead better. Doesn't
Speaker 1: know anything about history. I really start to think he
Speaker 1: doesn't know anything about anything. I don't know what this
Speaker 1: guy's wheelhouse is other than just sanctimonious crap, just saying
Speaker 1: things that he thinks sound good to people who also
Speaker 1: don't know anything. The history of humanity is just a
Speaker 1: series of movements and migrations over time, drought, famine. I mean,
Speaker 1: has this guy ever read the Bible? As you read
Speaker 1: a history book, people move around all the time, often
Speaker 1: because they're looking for something better, because where they are
Speaker 1: is having problems. This is not new, folks at all.
Speaker 1: What is new is this pseudoscience of well, they're moving
Speaker 1: because it's our fault. By the way, why isn't it
Speaker 1: Why isn't it China's fault? Why shouldn't China take in
Speaker 1: all the Guatemalan and Brazilian refugees as he's referencing here,
Speaker 1: Why why shouldn't India take them in? Because we're wealthier.
Speaker 1: They're those countries are belching out all kinds of CO
Speaker 1: two and and real pollutants by the way, in the
Speaker 1: air all the time. But you know, there's there's just
Speaker 1: no shortage of ways that democrats will tie climate change
Speaker 1: into any issue they want. Here's Joe Biden for example.
Speaker 1: Look what happened in darfour? What's darfour all about? Darfour
Speaker 1: is all about the fact that the sub Saharan doesn't
Speaker 1: because of the change in climate, no longer had enough
Speaker 1: areable land. Look what's happened in Indonesia. They're talking about
Speaker 1: moving their capital because it's going to sink. What happens
Speaker 1: if you get ten, twelve, thirteen, fifteen, one hundred million
Speaker 1: people on the move, that causes wars? And so it's
Speaker 1: well beyond whether or not it affects me personally, which
Speaker 1: it does, and it did my family and still does,
Speaker 1: just like your families. This is personal personally. Every one
Speaker 1: of you probably have a story that can talk about
Speaker 1: what's happened to something you care greatly about, whether it's
Speaker 1: a species or it's your son or daughter coming down
Speaker 1: with cancer because of it. I'm sorry. So the genocide
Speaker 1: in darfour and cancer are now tied to climate What
Speaker 1: isn't tied to climate change? That's a better question. I
Speaker 1: think what is not something you can blame you can
Speaker 1: blame climate change for I'm wondering. I think it's an
Speaker 1: I think it's a fair and open question. This is
Speaker 1: just This is lunatic blather. This is Joe Biden. He
Speaker 1: might as well be walking around and saying the world's
Speaker 1: gonna end tomorrow. Look what's happened in the Midwest. We
Speaker 1: have a number of significant bases that relate to military
Speaker 1: bases that relate to our national security that in fact
Speaker 1: we're rendered almost useless, including I can't win the great
Speaker 1: detail to say it, but my point is it significantly
Speaker 1: reduced our national security. I'd say, what is he talking about?
Speaker 1: But I can tell you Joe Biden doesn't know what
Speaker 1: he's talking about, so how could we decipher it? You know,
Speaker 1: there is no Rosetta stone here for for bidenisms, because
Speaker 1: it's just what the heck is he talking about? You
Speaker 1: understand that this is what it was was playing to
Speaker 1: a This is the religion of the left, and this
Speaker 1: was all meant for the base, and this was all
Speaker 1: meant for people to reinforce this belief system that people
Speaker 1: should and if you really believe in climate change catastrophe,
Speaker 1: you should be embarrassed. It should be an embarrassing thing
Speaker 1: for people if you really think the world's going to
Speaker 1: end in ten years because a bunch of talking heads
Speaker 1: and pseudoscientists who, if it wasn't for climate change, would
Speaker 1: have no grant money and nothing to do with themselves.
Speaker 1: You know, no great scientist is like, hey, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna be one of those
Speaker 1: guys that's you know, working with the climate change panels
Speaker 1: or whatever. No, people that really have scientific skills and
Speaker 1: are gifted are going to want to try to, you know,
Speaker 1: do real things like pure cancer, real stuff that helps
Speaker 1: real people. Speaking of different topics, Look, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: LGBT issues are important, and that's a totally totally fine
Speaker 1: ground for another town hall. I mean, they announced last
Speaker 1: night at CNN they're going to do an LGBT town hall.
Speaker 1: This is the CNN is partnering with the Human Rights
Speaker 1: Campaign Foundation for our next series of presidential town halls
Speaker 1: on issues that are important to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
Speaker 1: and queer community. So make sure you tune into that.
Speaker 1: That's going to be next month. It'll be in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: There's real, real issues. Fine, you know that, But I
Speaker 1: think it's noteworthy. What is what does CNN? What do
Speaker 1: these networks MSNBC choose to hold these town halls on
Speaker 1: what issues get over that threshold? And one issue that
Speaker 1: has not gotten over that threshold yet. And this came
Speaker 1: up today because I tweeted this out at some people
Speaker 1: on the left, why isn't there an opioid town hall?
Speaker 1: And I would offer to you that the fact that
Speaker 1: there has been before, or rather the fact that there
Speaker 1: hasn't been an opioid town hall before the climate change
Speaker 1: town hall just goes to show you that there are
Speaker 1: real problems with this fixation on a fake fight. This
Speaker 1: takes resources away, this takes attention away. Opioids are killing
Speaker 1: sixty to seventy thousand Americans a year in this country.
Speaker 1: It's a public health crisis, yes, but it's also a
Speaker 1: crisis within our culture. It's a crisis of meaning. It's
Speaker 1: a there's a lot that goes into it, and people
Speaker 1: are dying. Our fellow Americans are dying by the thousands,
Speaker 1: and it's we're just counting the dead in that number.
Speaker 1: Think of all the families that need support, all the
Speaker 1: people who or trying to get treatment. What are ways?
Speaker 1: What are new ways scientifically, psychologically, emotionally, religiously, what are
Speaker 1: the ways that we could we could tackle that crisis
Speaker 1: and really save lines. Libs think that this climate change fantasy,
Speaker 1: they they do ask them. They think it's more important
Speaker 1: than the opioid crisis. And that's where I have a problem.
Speaker 1: That's where things just start to turn into this is
Speaker 1: not just nonsense, but it's now immoral. The diversion of time,
Speaker 1: the diversion of resources away from much more important stuff
Speaker 1: that really matters. The opioid epidemic in this country is
Speaker 1: real and we should address that. And the fact that
Speaker 1: these Democrat primaries spend so little time on that and
Speaker 1: so much more telling us that they're going to ban
Speaker 1: straws and tell us that we can't eat hamburgers tells
Speaker 1: you a lot about the Democratic Party. What saved is
Speaker 1: not worth it. For the little they saved and what
Speaker 1: people were going through, it is not worth it. And
Speaker 1: price was another lightbulbs, different light bulbs. Now you should think,
Speaker 1: is this really how big a deal is this? Should
Speaker 1: we really care all that much about the president of
Speaker 1: the United States? I mean, why are people all so upset? Well,
Speaker 1: they're upset about Trump doing absolutely anything. But let's just
Speaker 1: dig into this light bulb rule for second, because there's
Speaker 1: a bigger takeaway from these very small things. There you go,
Speaker 1: the Department of Energy, this is on the Hill. Hey,
Speaker 1: I used to work at the Hill. Farm of Energy
Speaker 1: finalize a controversial rule this week that would erase Obama
Speaker 1: era efficiency standards for light bulbs. The regulation eliminates efficiency
Speaker 1: standards for about half the bulbs in the market. It
Speaker 1: leaves in place rules for standard pear shaped bulbs, while
Speaker 1: removing such requirements for recess lighting, chandeliers and other shapes
Speaker 1: of bulbs. When first proposed, the rule was supported by
Speaker 1: light bulb manufacturers, but consumer groups estimate continuing to use
Speaker 1: less efficient bulbs will cost the average household more than
Speaker 1: one hundred dollars a year and create more pollution as
Speaker 1: utilities produce more energy that would otherwise not would not
Speaker 1: be needed, produce energy rather that would otherwise I need.
Speaker 1: The Energy department flat out got it wrong today. Blah blah.
Speaker 1: People are freaking out about this. The rule will increase
Speaker 1: US electricity use by eighty billion kilowatt hours over the
Speaker 1: course of a year, roughly the amount of electricity needed
Speaker 1: to power all the households in Pennsylvania and New Jersey,
Speaker 1: according to analysis by the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. That's
Speaker 1: a sexy outfit if I've ever heard one. You want
Speaker 1: to get invited, Producer Mark, you want to get invited
Speaker 1: to the Appliance Standards Awareness Project Christmas party. It's wild
Speaker 1: sounds like a great time. They give away that. I'm
Speaker 1: sure they give away a washer dryer to somebody in
Speaker 1: the raffle. I mean, is that really a bad energy efficient. Bam,
Speaker 1: you know it. I don't have a washer dryer, do
Speaker 1: you really? I have a I have a one. I've
Speaker 1: been told I've got a little closet, and I have
Speaker 1: very little closet space. But I gotta wash your dryer
Speaker 1: in my closet. I feel like, you know, I feel
Speaker 1: like something of a baller, a very clean and downy,
Speaker 1: fresh baller. I just bring it to the laundry map.
Speaker 1: The nice lady does it for me. Well, there you go.
Speaker 1: So why am I telling you about light bulbs? You
Speaker 1: might be asking that question. There's a very good reason
Speaker 1: for it. This is the evidence, or part of a
Speaker 1: much larger evidentiary finding of all the little things that
Speaker 1: libs want to dictate in your life. I do think
Speaker 1: this is very important. There is no area of your
Speaker 1: life if you adopt the left wing positions of the
Speaker 1: Democrat primary candidates. There is no area of your life
Speaker 1: that is outside their purview. There is no area of
Speaker 1: your life that they can't insert themselves into. What you eat,
Speaker 1: what you buy, what you can wear, how you know,
Speaker 1: how you use your energy, what you do in your
Speaker 1: own home, what your nothing, Nothing is outside of their
Speaker 1: of their ability to inflict themselves on you in some way.
Speaker 1: I mean, nothing of any consequence. So you know, we
Speaker 1: had this light bulb rule. It's a little bit of
Speaker 1: of a who cares situation? And how about this? We
Speaker 1: need to produce, you know, produce a little more energy.
Speaker 1: Who cares? This shouldn't be that hard everything that we
Speaker 1: have seen. Forget about the signs, as I keep saying,
Speaker 1: it's about the history. Look at what has happened, Look
Speaker 1: at where we are going. The amount of additional electricity
Speaker 1: and bandwidth and food and prosperity and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, all of it that is orders of magnitude,
Speaker 1: orders of magnitude more then you know what we would
Speaker 1: have expected fifty years ago. I mean, I can't imagine
Speaker 1: imagine sitting down with your for any of you listening,
Speaker 1: you know, two generations back, so you're great your grandparents,
Speaker 1: rather and saying, you know, I'm gonna be able to
Speaker 1: walk around with this little thing that I can hold
Speaker 1: in my hand, that I can I have access to
Speaker 1: two billions and billions of websites, data points, social media accounts,
Speaker 1: I can talk to anyone anywhere in the world. I
Speaker 1: can order you know, I could pretty much order a
Speaker 1: jumbo jet delivered to my home if I got the
Speaker 1: cash for it. I mean, you can do all this
Speaker 1: crazy stuff, all these different apps and connects you and
Speaker 1: this amazing technological march forward that we've had, and it's
Speaker 1: it's getting it only has gone in one direction in
Speaker 1: the post World War two period, you could argue, only
Speaker 1: in one direction since industrialization in the eighteen fifties or
Speaker 1: you know, eighteen seventies, really, but in that direction has
Speaker 1: been more wealth, more prosperity, better stuff, more stuff. And
Speaker 1: what do they keep doing? Oh no, we're gonna we're
Speaker 1: gonna take a chart and we're gonna tell you what
Speaker 1: it's gonna be like in fifty years. How much energy
Speaker 1: can be can we produce in fifty years? How much
Speaker 1: CO two will be there? They have no idea whenever,
Speaker 1: and this is one of my maxims. Whenever someone tells
Speaker 1: you they can predict the future, you know they're wrong.
Speaker 1: They can't. They don't know. If they could predict the
Speaker 1: future and any of these things, they could all become billionaires.
Speaker 1: Because if you can predict the future in fifty years,
Speaker 1: you should be able to predict the future next year.
Speaker 1: This is very straightforward, just to apply logic and reason
Speaker 1: to their arguments. It makes no sense. This light bulb
Speaker 1: rule is ridiculous. So Trump is rolling it back. Trump
Speaker 1: is deciding that he's, you know, not gonna go forward
Speaker 1: with this Obama era regulation was the country and grave
Speaker 1: jeopardy of electricity overuse or something before Obama stepped in
Speaker 1: with us, of course not. But nothing is too small
Speaker 1: for them, Nothing is outside of their purvy. That's what
Speaker 1: you have from her. That's why I mean, here, here
Speaker 1: you go. Here's Mayor Pete. We should start calling him
Speaker 1: Smarmy Pete because he's just a smarmy fellow talking about
Speaker 1: how if you eat hamburgers or you eat straws. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the Democratic Party as the environmental schoolmarm of
Speaker 1: the world. If you eat hamburger, eat straws, and and
Speaker 1: uh snort hamburgers or not, they can't snort the What
Speaker 1: do you do with a straw anyway? You suck on them.
Speaker 1: It's a fair point. But if anyway, if you snort
Speaker 1: hamburgers and eat straws, let's just stay with that. I
Speaker 1: kind of like that you are part of the problem,
Speaker 1: because yes, we can all do away with our plastic straws,
Speaker 1: and I haven't drank out of a straw for the
Speaker 1: past six months because I'm so worried about what's happening
Speaker 1: in the ocean. But people feel helpless when it's something
Speaker 1: that existential, right, And that's about that. That's one of
Speaker 1: the things. I think The downside to us facing just
Speaker 1: how colossal of a challenge this is is it can
Speaker 1: feel paralyzing, but we can rise to meet this and
Speaker 1: be proud of it. That's part of what my climate
Speaker 1: plan is about. It's not only about all of the
Speaker 1: things we've got to do technologically and with regulation and
Speaker 1: so on. It's about summoning the energies of this country
Speaker 1: to do something unbelievably hard. If you look at the
Speaker 1: moments when this country rose to a major challenge, overcoming
Speaker 1: the Great Depression, winning World War Two, going to the Moon,
Speaker 1: it required something out of all of us, and I
Speaker 1: think we could be standing taller. See right now, we're
Speaker 1: in a mode where we're I think we're thinking about
Speaker 1: it mostly through the perspective of guilt, you know, from
Speaker 1: using a straw to eating a burger. Am I part
Speaker 1: of the problem in a certain way? Yes? But the
Speaker 1: most exciting thing is that we can all be part
Speaker 1: of the solution in a certain way. Yes, that's the
Speaker 1: real payoff there. I mean, if I'm eating a burger
Speaker 1: and using a strong I'm part of the problem. Well yeah,
Speaker 1: you're you're you're part of the problem, all right, But
Speaker 1: but you can be part of the solution. Oh you
Speaker 1: mean you mean I can be cleansed of my environmental sins.
Speaker 1: Pope Pete, you can wave your hand above above me
Speaker 1: and tell me that it'll all be okay as long
Speaker 1: as I do everything that you say. I eat what
Speaker 1: you tell me to eat. I use a lightbulbs you
Speaker 1: tell me I can put in my home. I drive
Speaker 1: the car you tell me is fuel efficient enough, using
Speaker 1: the fuel that you dictate for me. It's just wild,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I mean, the stuff that they have convinced
Speaker 1: themselves is of I feel badly. I feel badly for
Speaker 1: all of these libs who get up every day and
Speaker 1: are so lacking in purpose in their lives that they
Speaker 1: have to conjure up this this fake battle again, something
Speaker 1: that will never be overcome and doesn't need to be overcome.
Speaker 1: It's it's a it's an illusion, and the whole thing
Speaker 1: is in illusion. I would say they're tilting at windmills,
Speaker 1: but at least that looks cool. They're not. They're not
Speaker 1: even uh you know, don Quixote. There's something else here.
Speaker 1: They've gone off the deep end little things that they
Speaker 1: should have no interest or business in. They will tell
Speaker 1: you yes, oh h Kamala Harris I see her often
Speaker 1: referred to as Kamala the Cop because she liked to
Speaker 1: put people away in prison when she was a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: She had a very rough record for that. She also
Speaker 1: wants to tell you no more straws to lead and
Speaker 1: are a big thing right now. Yeah, do you ban
Speaker 1: plastic straws? I think we should, yes. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be honest, it's really difficult to drink out
Speaker 1: of a paper straw when you had if you're just like,
Speaker 1: if you don't bump it down immediately, it starts to
Speaker 1: bend and and then you know, the little thing catches
Speaker 1: it and then you know, so we got to kind
Speaker 1: of perfect that one. A little bit bit. More on innovation,
Speaker 1: I mean we got we got it. Yeah, innovation is
Speaker 1: a process, right, you don't just do it. It's not
Speaker 1: really funny though, it's annoying. Actually, you know this is yah.
Speaker 1: You know she's laughing about it, but you know it's
Speaker 1: not funny. It's an irritation. Libs like to do this stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, paper straws suck, well, I guess that makes sense.
Speaker 1: Paper straws are bad quality. They're not good. I've had
Speaker 1: I had to use them in my favorite little coffee
Speaker 1: shop in DC. And it's true. You gotta you gotta
Speaker 1: down that whole moca soy latte right away or else, man,
Speaker 1: you are out of luck. Nothing is too petty for them,
Speaker 1: nothing is too small. And it is because this is
Speaker 1: part of a narrative not just of being better than
Speaker 1: the other, but also of creating purpose for people who
Speaker 1: lack it. And I'm not going to sit here and
Speaker 1: pretend that I'm at the pulpit and I'm going to
Speaker 1: preach about maybe these people need, maybe they need Jesus,
Speaker 1: maybe they need God of I'm kind, but they need
Speaker 1: more than their warriors in an imaginary war, which is
Speaker 1: what they And it's a war by the way that
Speaker 1: even though the enemy is imaginary, as I've been describing to,
Speaker 1: the casualties for fighting this war are very real. Bad
Speaker 1: things happen to people because of stupid decisions with climate change.
Speaker 1: People don't just get poor. People are people are sick,
Speaker 1: people lose their lives because of changes from these policies.
Speaker 1: And one of the great examples of this is, and
Speaker 1: I know some of you know what I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: is DDT. DDT was vilified, vilified by the same nineteen
Speaker 1: seventies lent environmentalist movement that was all about the population
Speaker 1: bomb and the Sierra Club and all this stuff. You
Speaker 1: know how many people have died of malaria directly because
Speaker 1: of the unwillingness the bands on DDT. You can't even
Speaker 1: you can't even out it. Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions,
Speaker 1: who knows, huge numbers of people dead from a very
Speaker 1: painful disease that we actually could eradicate or could have
Speaker 1: much more thoroughly eradicated. But the environmentalists whackos, didn't want
Speaker 1: to let us do it. Nothing is too small for
Speaker 1: them to inflict themselves upon nothing. Just remember that. That's
Speaker 1: one of our biggest takeaways here, your straws, your hamburger, everything.
Speaker 1: So you rightly point out about nuclear energy it's not
Speaker 1: carbon base, but the problem is it's got a lot
Speaker 1: of risks associated with it, particularly the risks associated with
Speaker 1: the spent fuel rods that nobody can figure out how
Speaker 1: we're going to store these things for the next bazillion years.
Speaker 1: So here's how I see it. In my administration, We're
Speaker 1: not going to build any nuclear power plants, and we
Speaker 1: are going to start weaning ourselves off nuclear energy and
Speaker 1: replacing it with renewable fuels. Over we're going to get
Speaker 1: it all done by twenty thirty five, but I hope
Speaker 1: we're getting it done faster than that. Completely scientifically illiterate
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren taking this position that is a pure environmentalist
Speaker 1: prejudice here against nuclear power. Nuclear power is the serious
Speaker 1: answer to the energy needs of the future for this world.
Speaker 1: It's just that's just reality. Nuclear power plants should be
Speaker 1: much more, much further along in their evolution than they
Speaker 1: are because of people like Elizabeth Warren who are scaremongering
Speaker 1: over it. But if she's not going to talk about
Speaker 1: nuclear in the future, then there's just there's no seriousness
Speaker 1: to getting us off of fossil fuels in the next
Speaker 1: fifty years. Now, I'm doing the same thing they do
Speaker 1: right fifty years who knows, Okay, maybe not fifty years,
Speaker 1: five to ten years. Yeah, that I can tell you
Speaker 1: we're nowhere near the level of the efficiency and the
Speaker 1: ubiquity of renewable energy sources that would be required. And
Speaker 1: remember they don't understand that these are all moving targets
Speaker 1: that our energy needs today are going to just get larger.
Speaker 1: There's going to be more need for energy, more need
Speaker 1: for transportation, refrigeration, climate, climate control not changed, like keeping
Speaker 1: your house hot or cold, building things, mechanization, There's just
Speaker 1: going to be more you know, AI and all this
Speaker 1: machine learning stuff that we're going to be hopefully enjoying
Speaker 1: in the relative in near future. We're going to need
Speaker 1: more energy, not less. There's no way around that's that's
Speaker 1: just the truth. And when you look at our renewable
Speaker 1: renewables right now, producer markets to do a quick I
Speaker 1: can't because I'm on are what percentage of the US
Speaker 1: energy grid is renewable? I think it's somewhere in the
Speaker 1: five to seven range right now. Five to seven percent.
Speaker 1: I could be that might just be solar and solar
Speaker 1: and wind, but I think it's five to seven percent.
Speaker 1: It's it's not a lot. And when you start to
Speaker 1: tally up all the emissions and all the technology and
Speaker 1: all the all the waste and all the energy that
Speaker 1: goes into creating those energy sources. And this is why
Speaker 1: electric cars is a fund. I mean, it's like, okay,
Speaker 1: now you're driving electric car. That's good. It doesn't you know,
Speaker 1: doesn't produce the carbon dioxide you know problem in the
Speaker 1: air fine, which I don't think is much of a
Speaker 1: problem that they do. But you still need electricity from something,
Speaker 1: and you know, the solar panel stuff, and it doesn't work,
Speaker 1: though it doesn't work as well as people want it to.
Speaker 1: Is that funny Goldman Sacks elevator account that I told
Speaker 1: you about yesterday. I had a joke that solar has
Speaker 1: been the next big thing for the last thirty years.
Speaker 1: It's true, solo solar. It's gonna break out at any time. Now. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a reason it hasn't broken out because there's some
Speaker 1: problems like nighttime, like getting this getting the energy once
Speaker 1: you have, once you have generated it through a solar panel,
Speaker 1: where do you store it, how do you transmit it?
Speaker 1: And how difficult and energy intensive are those processes? This
Speaker 1: is these are all things that would have to be
Speaker 1: worked out. The market is already handling this. This at
Speaker 1: its core the whole Green New Deal and the climate
Speaker 1: change lunacy. It is about control, but it's also about
Speaker 1: central planning. This is the fundamental fight of our error
Speaker 1: right now in politics. Is really about those who want
Speaker 1: to let human beings make their own choices to the
Speaker 1: greatest degree possible. It doesn't mean you can do everything right.
Speaker 1: There's oh buck, can you have a nuclear weapon in
Speaker 1: your living room? No, just wherever possible. You know, the
Speaker 1: the greatest amount of individual freedom should be afforded people
Speaker 1: in this country versus those who really think, and they're
Speaker 1: called democrats and they really should be called socialists, that
Speaker 1: every aspect of your life should be planned out for you.
Speaker 1: You don't get a say they know better than you.
Speaker 1: The elites have already worked this all out for you.
Speaker 1: They save you from having to worry your little heads
Speaker 1: about these problems. See, but they have a problem too.
Speaker 1: We are now more aware than ever, because of the
Speaker 1: technologies that we have, because of the free flow of information,
Speaker 1: that the elites are not nearly as clever and not
Speaker 1: nearly as wise as they think they are, and that
Speaker 1: their desire for increased control is at odds with their
Speaker 1: record of continuous and often abject failure to centrally plan. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean just like you know, you can sit here
Speaker 1: and think of things, think about like Celindra. Remember that
Speaker 1: huge solar energy scandal the Obama administration that the mainstream
Speaker 1: press didn't want to touch. They were taxpayer backed and
Speaker 1: they were just selling solar panels at a loss. But
Speaker 1: they figured they didn't enough, they'd make it up on volume.
Speaker 1: It was crazy. Oh real quick, team producer Mark just
Speaker 1: told me eleven percent renewable. I said five to seven,
Speaker 1: a little bit off, but eleven percent in total. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. The NRA has done more to perpetuate
Speaker 1: and create the sick gun violence epidemic terrorizing our country.
Speaker 1: They buy off politicians, prevent common sense gun violence legislation,
Speaker 1: prevent gun violence research. It is time to rid this
Speaker 1: country of the NRA and call them out for who
Speaker 1: they really are. They are a domestic terrorist organization. That
Speaker 1: is a San Francisco Board of Supervisors member named Katherine
Speaker 1: Stefani who is calling the NRA a domestic terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: It is not possible to think of a more baseless, unfair,
Speaker 1: just crazy. I run out of the words, folks, crazy, insane, lunacy,
Speaker 1: this is what we are dealing with now with this
Speaker 1: Democrat Party. They're just they're not all there. It's it's worrisome,
Speaker 1: it really is. I've become concerned now. I like to,
Speaker 1: you know, joke around about it sometimes here on the show.
Speaker 1: But but these people that are the really committed leftist
Speaker 1: people like this miss Stefani from the San Francisco Board
Speaker 1: of Supervisors, what are they capable of? Really? You know,
Speaker 1: what are they willing to do because they they think
Speaker 1: they know things that ain't so a domestic terrorist organization
Speaker 1: based on what NIRA is. He's got millions of Americans remembers.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I never fib My NRA membership has lapsed,
Speaker 1: lapsed just because um, I've forgot to send in the check.
Speaker 1: But I have been in the past. I have my card,
Speaker 1: I've been an NRA member and now I'm now I'm
Speaker 1: reminding myself and I need to get my membership up
Speaker 1: and running again. I've, oh my gosh, next to you,
Speaker 1: I tell you I got a register to vote or something.
Speaker 1: What's wrong with you? Buck? But no, I've I've I
Speaker 1: was an nraber for years and would like to be
Speaker 1: like to be back in the fold, I just am
Speaker 1: reminding myself. Now it's I've been very busy with the move.
Speaker 1: But to call the NRA terrorist organization is to say
Speaker 1: that the people that are NRA members are supporting a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization. So therefore, this person in San Francisco, I
Speaker 1: remember this was a city council designation or something. They've
Speaker 1: decided that, you know, the NRAs a domestic terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: And this means then I suppose they view the National
Speaker 1: Rifle Association as in some way morally on the same
Speaker 1: plane as or similar to you know, Hamas or you
Speaker 1: know al Qaeda, or these organizations that are devoted to
Speaker 1: killing people. I mean, that's when you're talking about a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization. Let's be very clear. Terrorist organization is a
Speaker 1: group that uses violence to achieve a political goal. That's
Speaker 1: the most baseline. You can add some nuances to it,
Speaker 1: and some some greater specificity, but that is the most clear.
Speaker 1: That is the most clear, or I should say, the
Speaker 1: most basic and perhaps the most clear definition that we
Speaker 1: have for it. So in what way, in what way
Speaker 1: has the NRA ever advocated violence for a political end?
Speaker 1: Has anyone who supports or or you know, I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say supports because those are millions of people. Has any
Speaker 1: NRA platform or NRA official ever ever advocated for violence?
Speaker 1: Is it now the same? Are we to conflate the
Speaker 1: moral stance of you can defend yourself with the immorality
Speaker 1: of you can harm people or are going out and
Speaker 1: harming people for no reason? Because if that is the
Speaker 1: position that leftists are going to take now, we might
Speaker 1: as well be explicit about that. We should know that
Speaker 1: if there's no difference between saying you should be able
Speaker 1: to defend yourself and oh, someone's going to be a
Speaker 1: mass shooter, then we're living in a world where there
Speaker 1: is no there is no morality, there is no down.
Speaker 1: It's just whatever the left says it is. And I
Speaker 1: do not accept that that's going to be the future
Speaker 1: for this country, that they can declare people to be
Speaker 1: terrorists on the basis of nothing nothing. I mean the
Speaker 1: things that are said to my old colleague and friend,
Speaker 1: Dana Lash that I see because she'll reteet it on Twitter.
Speaker 1: And you know, I've no her husband, I've spoken to
Speaker 1: him before about this stuff. I mean the things that
Speaker 1: are said because of her associations with the n R
Speaker 1: and there are other people too, but friends of mine
Speaker 1: who are supportive of the Second Amendment. You will have
Speaker 1: people without a trace of irony, without any sense of
Speaker 1: self awareness. You will have libs say things like you
Speaker 1: know you support violence against kids, like you know you
Speaker 1: should go shoot yourself or something. They'll say horrible things.
Speaker 1: They'll say horrible things to you, violent things, because they
Speaker 1: oppose violence so much. We have now a we have
Speaker 1: a different media environment. And I don't mean that just
Speaker 1: in terms of, you know, the platforms are changing and
Speaker 1: the social media giants and all that. It is now
Speaker 1: possible if you want to be immersing yourself in very
Speaker 1: powerful political ideologies of different kinds really twenty four to seven,
Speaker 1: if you want you have an endless stream of this stuff.
Speaker 1: You can live in this virtual world where you're the
Speaker 1: good guy and anyone who doesn't agree with you is
Speaker 1: the bad guy. And if you embrace that because of
Speaker 1: the feeling of I don't know, COMMI solidarity you have
Speaker 1: with your fellow leftists, because it's nice to feel like
Speaker 1: you're just morally superior to other people. If you really
Speaker 1: believe in that, and you stop seeing the decency that
Speaker 1: is so apparent to anybody being honest in the other side,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's so many of the nicest, best people
Speaker 1: I know. I mean, let me just let me just
Speaker 1: say it. Most of the nice and best people that
Speaker 1: I'm the nicest and best people I know, are gun owners.
Speaker 1: Most of them. I'm not saying there aren't some wonderful
Speaker 1: libs out there, but most of the great people I
Speaker 1: know are gun owners. So when I hear some wouldn't say,
Speaker 1: how could you own a gun? It's so immoral only
Speaker 1: and really implying that only bad people own guns. It's
Speaker 1: just it's just ignorance that is tearing at the very
Speaker 1: basic belief that we should always have in this country,
Speaker 1: in each other's essential goodness. Right Like we're all Americans,
Speaker 1: We're all we're all on the same team when push
Speaker 1: comes to shove. If someone believes that I'm part of
Speaker 1: a domestic terrorist organization because I support the NRA, and
Speaker 1: if they think that they have a right to send
Speaker 1: men with guns to my home to take well, I
Speaker 1: don't have firearms because I live in New York City.
Speaker 1: But if I did, and I know I've got to
Speaker 1: work on that. Actually I'm gonna get and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you about it on the show. I've been planning to
Speaker 1: do this for a little while. I'm going to get
Speaker 1: a premise permit, I think in New York, and you
Speaker 1: know that will mean that I will be a lawful
Speaker 1: gun owner here in the city. And it's going to
Speaker 1: be a hellish process because I know people who have
Speaker 1: done it. But I'll tell you about what that's really like.
Speaker 1: By the way, just a quick news update on the
Speaker 1: possible gun law legislation. This from Fox Today. The Department
Speaker 1: of Justice has sent a package of legislative proposals on
Speaker 1: gun violence to the White House, a person familiar with
Speaker 1: the matter told Fox News, as the debate rages over
Speaker 1: how lawmakers and the president should respond to a recent
Speaker 1: spate of deadly mass shootings. The White House has had
Speaker 1: the proposals for two weeks, according to the source, but
Speaker 1: has not yet sent anything along to Capitol Hill. It
Speaker 1: was not immediately clear what proposals are included in the
Speaker 1: DJ package. President Trump has signaled a willingness to at
Speaker 1: least consider new measures, while insisting he will also defend
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights. And I think I think that the
Speaker 1: I mean, the problem, so the universal background checks is
Speaker 1: what they're really going to go for I don't think
Speaker 1: they're going to get an assault weapons ban, and I
Speaker 1: don't think they're gonna get red flag laws either, because
Speaker 1: of the obvious room for a use by the state,
Speaker 1: and that should make everybody uncomfortable. And now the state,
Speaker 1: in a prejudicial or a predue process, I should say
Speaker 1: hearing could take away a constitutionally protected right. You know
Speaker 1: what's next, prior restraint. Oh, you can't publish that until
Speaker 1: you go before a judge in a month and then
Speaker 1: you can decide if it can be published. But the
Speaker 1: universal background checks that, that's what I think they're going
Speaker 1: to dig in on. And I don't know if this president. Look,
Speaker 1: let's all understand this President Trump is not a gun guy.
Speaker 1: He doesn't come from a gun culture. He's not somebody
Speaker 1: who is steeped in the Second Amendment. He's you know,
Speaker 1: I think he believed the right to defend oneself and
Speaker 1: so he has some cultural affinity for firearms owners and
Speaker 1: understands that impulse. But you know, I'm I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to keep a close eye on this, and we all are.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if Trump is really going to hold
Speaker 1: the line against unnecessary and constitutionally problematic legislation. The left
Speaker 1: is really digging in on this. We'll have to see. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're compiling the August numbers now, we'll be releasing those
Speaker 1: early next week. But we're looking at a reduction of
Speaker 1: over fifty percent from May to today. Continued partnership with Mexico,
Speaker 1: and the wall is being built. It's going up rapidly.
Speaker 1: It's I guess most of you have been able to see.
Speaker 1: We're building very large sections of wall. It's a big
Speaker 1: factor was we just won the big Supreme Court cases,
Speaker 1: you know, and we we're building in different sections. We're
Speaker 1: building different sections simultaneously, and we think by the end
Speaker 1: of next year, which will be sometime right after the
Speaker 1: election actually, but we think we're going to have close
Speaker 1: to five hundred miles of wall, which will be complete.
Speaker 1: As I've been saying, a big promise for the President
Speaker 1: the United States to keep, and you know, you had
Speaker 1: strong jobs numbers the last month. Everything is is very
Speaker 1: much on track. And as the President continues with his
Speaker 1: the winds that he's racking up here, as he continues
Speaker 1: to deliver on promises for the American people, you're you're
Speaker 1: gonna see even more shrill and angry stuff from the Libs.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm overwhelmed right now by the amount of crazy
Speaker 1: that we have been subjected to with this climate change debate.
Speaker 1: And there's going to be more. MSNBC's doing a two
Speaker 1: day town halls, as we've been talking about. But I
Speaker 1: do think that we are going to see a whole
Speaker 1: new level, and I worry. I worry what it will
Speaker 1: really do to the country because there's no there are
Speaker 1: no lessons learned for the left about all the crazy
Speaker 1: that has happened thus far. There are no lessons learned
Speaker 1: that really indicate in any way they think that it's
Speaker 1: time to scale things down a little bit, to sort
Speaker 1: of scale things back. They think that the way that
Speaker 1: they should actually try to stop Trump is to be
Speaker 1: even more maniacal. And I you know, usually the progression here,
Speaker 1: and this is just a little bit of of of
Speaker 1: a preview of I think what we're going to see.
Speaker 1: Usually the progression is that they have this far left
Speaker 1: wing primary, or at least people go to the left
Speaker 1: during the Democrat primary, and then they try to tack
Speaker 1: back to the center, and they try to go back
Speaker 1: to the center because they want to get voters from Ohio,
Speaker 1: and and from Florida and etc. Etc. They they're looking
Speaker 1: to to do what is necessary to win. And so
Speaker 1: that's when you get the Democrats that that are more
Speaker 1: reasonable in their positions. You know, this is where that's
Speaker 1: where the Biden effect is supposed to come in handy. Well,
Speaker 1: it's tried and true, been around a long time. This
Speaker 1: guy's not going to upend the world and it'll all
Speaker 1: be okay. Meanwhile, they've been telling you what they really think,
Speaker 1: what they really believe is the stuff that's in the primary.
Speaker 1: This is what we've learned with the Democratic Party. You know,
Speaker 1: if they could get their way with all of these things,
Speaker 1: they would do it. I do think it's a little
Speaker 1: bit terrifying when you go to that next level of okay,
Speaker 1: assuming that they could get away with these things, assuming
Speaker 1: that they could do these things, would they would they
Speaker 1: actually go forward with a green new deal at all?
Speaker 1: And I believe the answers. Yes. There was a time
Speaker 1: with the Democratic Party used to talk a very big game.
Speaker 1: Some of them would they'd flirt a little bit with
Speaker 1: open borders, and then they would say, oh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we need border security. You're right, we can have a
Speaker 1: welfare state and open borders. You know, they would do
Speaker 1: these things. But now what we see he's a Democratic
Speaker 1: party that has taken position that it will be impossible
Speaker 1: to move away from come the general election. It's just
Speaker 1: it's not realistic to believe that they're going to pretend
Speaker 1: that this whole insanity of the Green New Deal happened.
Speaker 1: And that also means that some of the things that
Speaker 1: Trump is doing well, they're going to have to find
Speaker 1: a way to oppose. And the only way so, you know,
Speaker 1: the wall obviously that they're completely against. Even though and
Speaker 1: this is what maybe maybe think of this today. You know,
Speaker 1: even though the wall was initially Trump was the crazy one.
Speaker 1: Trump was the one that had this idea that you know,
Speaker 1: no normal, sane person could ever think. It turns out
Speaker 1: that the more time you spend with the professionals of
Speaker 1: border patrol, with the people that work in border security,
Speaker 1: the more clear it is that walls do work, have worked,
Speaker 1: and would continue to work if there was an expansion
Speaker 1: on them. All of that is true, and yet none
Speaker 1: of that will factor into the way Democrats talk about
Speaker 1: the wall next year. It's going to be as though
Speaker 1: none of the things that have happened in the last
Speaker 1: three years in terms of the debate and where the
Speaker 1: country is and what we've learned in this process has happened.
Speaker 1: They're just going to go back to the same false
Speaker 1: points about how walls don't work and how you know,
Speaker 1: Trump puts kids in cages and he's horrible, and they're
Speaker 1: not going to be able to pull the moderation game.
Speaker 1: And I think that that's going to have really interesting
Speaker 1: implications for the general election, because then the only way,
Speaker 1: if they can't become moderate, the only way that they
Speaker 1: can defeat Trump really is a base turnout model that
Speaker 1: is going to be getting even more left wing crazies
Speaker 1: and you know, getting enthusiasm up to even greater levels.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that will work. It depends on
Speaker 1: the state we're talking about, but it's just we're dealing
Speaker 1: with a radical Democratic party that cannot deradicalize in term
Speaker 1: in time for the next election, and things like the
Speaker 1: wall and other other things that the President is going
Speaker 1: to be pushing over the next year. They will act
Speaker 1: like this is some catastrophe, some calamity, even though as
Speaker 1: we know, the President was right all along, has been
Speaker 1: right all along about the wall, he's been right. This
Speaker 1: debate has been had in public. We know that walls work,
Speaker 1: We know that it helps border security. Border patrol across
Speaker 1: the board will tell you that in sectors where they've
Speaker 1: had wall it has been incredibly useful. And we're just
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna pretend that nothing, none of this ever happened.
Speaker 1: They're also, i think, although I'm not quite sure how
Speaker 1: they're going to play this one yet, I think you'll
Speaker 1: see the left return to some of the Russia collusion stuff,
Speaker 1: even though the Muller probe didn't find it. In you know,
Speaker 1: we had this whole summer. We went through this cycle
Speaker 1: of will there won't they? On on impeachment, will there
Speaker 1: won't they? And this was just Democrats playing a political game,
Speaker 1: trying to figure out whether or not it would be,
Speaker 1: you know, possible for them, whether or not it would
Speaker 1: be realistic for them to impeach the president and have
Speaker 1: that be a political win for them. Right, they had
Speaker 1: to assess that that's all it was. They pretend to
Speaker 1: be all about principle, but as soon as the principle
Speaker 1: gets in the way of their relentless lust for power,
Speaker 1: that all of a sudden, the principle doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: So you'll you'll see some of these themes returning. You'll
Speaker 1: see this coming back time and again over the next
Speaker 1: really the next now thirteen months, and so we will
Speaker 1: have to see, we'll have to see what is going
Speaker 1: on there. So we have my friend Sean Parnell who'll
Speaker 1: be joining us here in studio in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Sean is the Swan is a great dude. He's got
Speaker 1: a new book out. We're gonna have a very a
Speaker 1: very relaxed conversation here just about a whole bunch of things,
Speaker 1: and I think you're gonna want to hear that. So
Speaker 1: stick around team everybody. I have a special treat for
Speaker 1: you today. Everyone in Team buckets very excited, especially all
Speaker 1: the Team Buck ladies. We have Sean Parnell here in
Speaker 1: the flesh, author of All Out War. Sean Parnell also
Speaker 1: wrote Man of War. His books are fantastic. He's a
Speaker 1: great Guy's a former Army ranger, best selling author, Patriot
Speaker 1: Man about time, mister Parnell, Good to have you here, sir.
Speaker 1: This is exciting anytime I get to be in studio
Speaker 1: with the great Buck Sexton in the Freedom Hut is
Speaker 1: in honor and a privilege. Yeah, man, absolutely, So why
Speaker 1: don't we start if we can, just to tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about this book, and then we're just
Speaker 1: going to talk about some other random things. We're gonna
Speaker 1: keep you here for a while. Well, so you know,
Speaker 1: this book starts six months after Man of War and
Speaker 1: Eric Steele is wounded pretty seriously in the first book,
Speaker 1: and he is he's got to recertify to get back
Speaker 1: on active status. He reas certifies and the first thing
Speaker 1: he does is to go have dinner with his mom
Speaker 1: and all hell breaks loose. He's attacked at his home.
Speaker 1: Assailants destroy his house, burn his house down, critically wound
Speaker 1: his mother, and knock Steel unconscious. And Eric Steel wakes
Speaker 1: up thinking to himself, why was I attacked? What did
Speaker 1: they want? What was their target? Why was my mom
Speaker 1: implicated the attack? He goes off the rails and he
Speaker 1: goes out for revenge, and as he's hunting these assailants down,
Speaker 1: he realizes that he's been drawn into a much larger
Speaker 1: conspiracy with global potential, global implications to where there are
Speaker 1: targets on the back of some of the leaders of
Speaker 1: the greatest Western powers. Very cool, man, let's just get
Speaker 1: into some of the nuts and bolts of this for
Speaker 1: a second. How long did it take you to write this?
Speaker 1: I'm curious. So the first book a long time, So
Speaker 1: Outlow Batune came out, which is my first book, in
Speaker 1: two thou and twelve, but it took six years from
Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve to when Man of War is
Speaker 1: published to get that story right. I was lucky enough
Speaker 1: to have an editor sort of take me under his wing,
Speaker 1: and David hiphil At William Morrow. He just said, hey,
Speaker 1: if you want to write, write fiction, I'll be there
Speaker 1: for you to help teach, coach and mentor you. And
Speaker 1: so so I've read every word of Outlaw Patune. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and because I even tell you like I love Doc Pentoy,
Speaker 1: I'm like, I know the characters. Yeah, you're dude, you're
Speaker 1: a great You're a huge supporter of that. All true.
Speaker 1: But the transition from writing your story essentially to writing
Speaker 1: fiction obviously informed by your experience in the military, how
Speaker 1: did that go. It's it's like learning to ride a
Speaker 1: bicycle without a seat while it's on fire. It's monumentally difficult.
Speaker 1: And so the story of Man of War that's on
Speaker 1: the shelves right now is like the fourth iteration of it.
Speaker 1: I mean I had to start over from scratch four
Speaker 1: times to rewrite the intro just to get just to
Speaker 1: get the tone right, the economy of words right, the plotting,
Speaker 1: the pacing, the character development right. There's so much that
Speaker 1: goes into telling a good fiction story that just takes
Speaker 1: a heck of a lot of practices. Do you get
Speaker 1: a little nervous about the possibility that you'll make some
Speaker 1: minor error, yea, when it comes to a caliber or
Speaker 1: some gear or something like that, because you know, some
Speaker 1: folks might think, oh, well, you'll get the benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt from the milk community if you no, expectations
Speaker 1: are high for you, like if you if you if
Speaker 1: you write clip when you mean magazine in this book,
Speaker 1: you're done. No, it's so well. Or or if you
Speaker 1: have if you have Eric Steele changed out the magazine
Speaker 1: when he's carrying a revolver, you lose your entire military
Speaker 1: hot You wouldn't do that well. Sometimes sometimes you just
Speaker 1: make mistakes. You're in the writing process, you're tired, you've
Speaker 1: been up all night, and you accident. You know, sometimes
Speaker 1: you just get these phrases in your mind where you know,
Speaker 1: Steel flicks the safety off or he changes the magazine.
Speaker 1: So it's just those phrases to sometimes come out. So
Speaker 1: that's where good proofreading comes in. But yes, if you
Speaker 1: make one mistake like that in this genre of books,
Speaker 1: you will lose your entire military audience. And one fell swoop,
Speaker 1: that's that's for sure. Do you get people that write
Speaker 1: in with cool ideas to you? Now you're you're an
Speaker 1: established author out he comes in here, it's got an entourage,
Speaker 1: like seven people. It's radio, so I can lie about this.
Speaker 1: He's got seven people in here, the bodyguard with the sunglasses,
Speaker 1: the whole thing. But you know, you know, on my
Speaker 1: own bodyguard, you're going, you're going the full mc hammer.
Speaker 1: You have a revenue of like fifteen people you know
Speaker 1: following you. I wish that were so yeah, me too.
Speaker 1: Well that's I'm hanging out until that happens. But then
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be one of them. Actually I wish this
Speaker 1: buck he used to do radio. Now he's part of
Speaker 1: the Parnell entourage. Hey listen, when I'm a Hannity level
Speaker 1: baller where I have my own helicopter in private, and
Speaker 1: you're going to actually run the free world, because that's
Speaker 1: pretty hard. That dude rolls around like he's Tony Stark,
Speaker 1: you know, and hey, that's that's the goal right there
Speaker 1: for us. When that day comes, you will be a
Speaker 1: part of my entourage. I appreciate that. But hopefully hopefully
Speaker 1: you reach that level before me, and then I get
Speaker 1: to be a part of your I could do strategic communications,
Speaker 1: or I could be like Turtle from Entourage, where I
Speaker 1: just you know, just get drunk and or do Johnny
Speaker 1: Drama's job and make eggs. I'm actually very good at
Speaker 1: making eggs, but so so I'm intrigued by that. But
Speaker 1: do people ever give you ideas what I would the
Speaker 1: real question? I was going to ask that someone ever
Speaker 1: write in and say, you know, it would be really
Speaker 1: cool if drawing upon obviously you have a big military
Speaker 1: on their experience, if Eric Steele like work this in
Speaker 1: or like I got this crazy story from my platoon,
Speaker 1: you know? Does that stuff ever? No? I haven't. I
Speaker 1: haven't had that yet. But what I will say, what
Speaker 1: I have been getting a lot of with this second book, especially,
Speaker 1: people have been binge reading this book. It's only been
Speaker 1: out for three days and people are already writing to
Speaker 1: me asking, you know, a major subplot of this book
Speaker 1: is what happens with Steele's father. Steele grows up without
Speaker 1: a dad. His dad disappears when Steele's nine years old.
Speaker 1: Steele believes young Eric Steele believes his dad just left
Speaker 1: him and his mom defend for themselves. But that's not
Speaker 1: the case. You learn that's not the case in this book.
Speaker 1: So that subplot about what happens to Eric's father becomes
Speaker 1: a major, a major plot element in this book and
Speaker 1: especially in Steel three, which is what I'm working on now.
Speaker 1: So I guess why I say all this to say,
Speaker 1: it is surreal to me that I have fans of
Speaker 1: this series that are writing me, what's happening with Steele's dad?
Speaker 1: What are you gonna do with Steal's dad? You should
Speaker 1: have them, you know, swing in and save the day
Speaker 1: on a repelling seat and save steels a lot. I mean,
Speaker 1: I get a lot of ideas like that off of
Speaker 1: already existing subplots that I've created. But man, I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: I never thought that this. I mean, like being a
Speaker 1: writer and coming up with my own stories in subplots
Speaker 1: and drama and suspense and intrigue. It was never in
Speaker 1: the cards for me, man, Like, it was not part
Speaker 1: of my life's plan. So you know, as an aficionado
Speaker 1: of books, fiction books, I love fiction books, and I
Speaker 1: love television and I love movies. Who do you think?
Speaker 1: I mean? People always ask me for book rex on
Speaker 1: this show, and I keep promising that I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: put my entire kindle library out publicly. And it's not
Speaker 1: that I don't want to do it. I just get
Speaker 1: lazy and I had like sit there and count it
Speaker 1: all off. You should totally have a book sex and
Speaker 1: books book club. I well, obviously Sean Parnell all out
Speaker 1: war would be a topic, I hope. So that's amazing.
Speaker 1: I love it. But for you, you know, people ask
Speaker 1: me how'd you learn? How'd you learn radio? And with
Speaker 1: all due respect to the other great hosts, I mean
Speaker 1: I learned for Rush right, if you're asking me who
Speaker 1: taught me how to do radio? Or who did I
Speaker 1: try to learn and pattern myself after? For you a
Speaker 1: fiction writing are there one or two maybe maybe even
Speaker 1: three if you want to be diplomatic who you read
Speaker 1: and you're like this change, this changed the game for me,
Speaker 1: or this is how I wanted to be like this
Speaker 1: one day in terms of money, fluency, and skill. This
Speaker 1: is a great question. And so I started reading Lee
Speaker 1: Child in the mid nineties and I just was captivated
Speaker 1: by his stories and some of the stories that Jack
Speaker 1: Reacher would get himself into. Like the idea that Lee
Speaker 1: Child's stories are essentially Westerns, modern day Westerns, where Jack
Speaker 1: Reacher walks into a town, faces an unanswered question. Answers said,
Speaker 1: unanswered question gets the girl and walks out of town
Speaker 1: onto the next adventure. I just loved that format and plot.
Speaker 1: But I have to say the moment where I decided
Speaker 1: to like sort of dedicate myself to writing fiction, which
Speaker 1: has always been a lifelong dream of mine, was on
Speaker 1: Combat Outpost Marga in Afghanistan. My unit built the very
Speaker 1: first combat outpost and as we were building that, it
Speaker 1: was finishing up a book called Lions of Lucerne by
Speaker 1: Brad Thor and I read that in Switzerland, right, is this, yeah,
Speaker 1: like this was early on? Yeah, I've never I've actually
Speaker 1: never I like Brad. I know Brad a little bit.
Speaker 1: I've never read any of his books. That's not a
Speaker 1: knock on Brad. I just don't read a lot of fiction, right,
Speaker 1: but I know the Lucerner. That's the Swiss Guards, right, yes, well,
Speaker 1: I mean the Lions of Hope Swiss Guards. Well, the
Speaker 1: Lions of Lucerne is a monument in Switzerland or something.
Speaker 1: It's like in Switzerland, and it's just this cool little
Speaker 1: monument statue of lions. And that's that was early on
Speaker 1: in brad Thor's career when a lot of his books
Speaker 1: were heavily based on the geographic setting of where Scott
Speaker 1: Harvath would operate. But I'm telling you, man, I read
Speaker 1: that book, I put it down and I said to myself,
Speaker 1: how never forget this? Like, Okay, you know I've been
Speaker 1: here in this country for over a year. We just
Speaker 1: got extended. We're gonna be here for another four months
Speaker 1: or until mission complete. Right at that point, I was like,
Speaker 1: I'm not making it out of here alive. But if
Speaker 1: I do, I I'm going to live a life worthy
Speaker 1: of the sacrifice of my men around me. Writing fiction
Speaker 1: was something that I always wanted to do, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna every day that I wake up and I draw breath,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna work hard to earn it every single day.
Speaker 1: And so I just put my nose to the Grindston.
Speaker 1: When I got back, I mean, I mean initially, you know,
Speaker 1: I got back from the war in Afghanistan. Eighty five
Speaker 1: percent of my platoon were wounded, some wounded twice, some
Speaker 1: three times. I came back and most Americans had no
Speaker 1: idea that a war was even going on. So my
Speaker 1: first foray into writing was just attempting to capture and
Speaker 1: preserve the legacy of my troops, to make sure that
Speaker 1: it could be passed down from generation to generation. And
Speaker 1: so that was out law patuone, right, And so that
Speaker 1: book came out, was a New York Times bestseller in
Speaker 1: its first week, and I think since it's been out,
Speaker 1: it's been on the Times best seller list for thirty week.
Speaker 1: Don't get a big habit. It's one of the best
Speaker 1: military memoirs I've read. But don't don't get all and
Speaker 1: you know we're still just friends, all right. I'm not
Speaker 1: a fan, but man, Buck, it is one of the
Speaker 1: best military Thank you, I really and I've read a
Speaker 1: lot of them for whatever that's worthy. Man, you're a
Speaker 1: voracious nonfiction reader for sure, So like that means a
Speaker 1: lot coming from you, really it does. But you know,
Speaker 1: nobody was more surprised about the reception that that book
Speaker 1: received than me. I mean, I was blown away by it.
Speaker 1: But because of that book's success, I think it gave
Speaker 1: me a platform to really shoot for the stars and
Speaker 1: write fiction. And you know, and the Outlaw Patune had
Speaker 1: been out for a week and my editor was like, hey, look,
Speaker 1: I know because I've got a great relationship with him.
Speaker 1: He's like, look, I know you want to write fiction.
Speaker 1: You've been wanting to do it your whole life. I
Speaker 1: think that you could do it, and I'm willing to
Speaker 1: help you get there if you're willing to do the work.
Speaker 1: And so I said, okay. Six years later, Man of
Speaker 1: War was published, and All Out War a year later.
Speaker 1: So now I'm on a rhythm where I've got to
Speaker 1: churn out one of these books a here. So All
Speaker 1: Out Work came out a week ago, and I'm in
Speaker 1: the weeds trying to publish this book the right way
Speaker 1: and make sure it's launched properly. But I'm twenty five
Speaker 1: thousand words into Steal three now, so it's sort of
Speaker 1: a NonStop grind. Sean Parnell, everybody, the book is All
Speaker 1: Out War, it is out right now. He's a new
Speaker 1: York Times best selling author from Outlaw Platoon. This book
Speaker 1: is also a best seller, All Out War. We're gonna
Speaker 1: come back and talk to Sean about who's gonna play
Speaker 1: him in the movie. He doesn't know that yet, but
Speaker 1: that's what we're gonna talk about. We'll be right back,
Speaker 1: all are we here in studio in the Freedom Hut, NYC?
Speaker 1: With my friend Sean Parnell, best selling author. His latest
Speaker 1: is All Out War? What's the best? Let me start
Speaker 1: with this, actually, what's the best war movie or TV
Speaker 1: show you've seen in the last two years, two or
Speaker 1: three years? Let's say anything? Anything good? I feel like
Speaker 1: they'll make I feel like there hasn't been anything in
Speaker 1: a little while. There's certainly nothing on the scale of
Speaker 1: like saving Private Ryan Blackhawk Down. I actually think Master
Speaker 1: and Commander is one of the true military masterpieces of
Speaker 1: cinema of all time, which is not as popular movies
Speaker 1: some of those other movies, but it's incredible for what
Speaker 1: it is. What do you think? Okay, so I would
Speaker 1: say Jack Ryan is by far the coolest spot. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The preppie analyst who lived in Georgetown rose Crew in
Speaker 1: college as a swoop has a hair did you see
Speaker 1: it thin just the of course I saw you didn't
Speaker 1: like it? It was my life story? Oh well, well,
Speaker 1: of course, I mean the CIA analysts right exactly. That
Speaker 1: guy's a little he's a little too handsome, though he's
Speaker 1: a little too hand he's Jack's awesome six pack, and
Speaker 1: you know, all right, all right, I'll get to the
Speaker 1: gym more settled down. But I thought that as in
Speaker 1: terms of a story and a show, that was one
Speaker 1: of the most brilliant plots and fast moving, most technical,
Speaker 1: technically accurate in terms of combat shows I've seen in
Speaker 1: a long time on Amazon, And I just saw the
Speaker 1: preview for the next season of Jack, Ryan and Man.
Speaker 1: It looks great. Focuses on socialist country of Venezuela and
Speaker 1: the Russians offending US, uh, giving arms to Venezuelans, and
Speaker 1: creating armed insurrections in Central America. It looks hot. Man,
Speaker 1: all right, good now, because you're the author of all
Speaker 1: our wars, you've obviously had to do a lot other
Speaker 1: than actual war fighting yourself. Uh, study a lot from
Speaker 1: the genre, seeing a lot. I mean, you and I
Speaker 1: grew up watching action actually started that. You and I
Speaker 1: grew up watching action movies we did for you? What
Speaker 1: is the action not war movie? And you're the greatest
Speaker 1: action movie of all time? Is what the greatest action
Speaker 1: movie of all time? Movie? Okay, so you are really
Speaker 1: really putting me on the spot. Um, but I gotta
Speaker 1: give me an answer. You'll probably laugh at this. I'm
Speaker 1: I will give you an answer, but I'm afraid to
Speaker 1: give it to you, because I don't want you to
Speaker 1: make fun of me when I give it to you.
Speaker 1: But so I will say one, I think one, giving
Speaker 1: one or the other, you can give me top two
Speaker 1: if you are okay. Okay, So just Classic Predator. I
Speaker 1: just think that it's one of my answers. So obviously
Speaker 1: it's just amazing, right, it's such a great movie with
Speaker 1: a simple plot. I love I just love that movie,
Speaker 1: everything about that movie. But I also love the movie
Speaker 1: True Lies. Wow, I think it's so everybody. He's throwing
Speaker 1: out a sleeper off listen, listen Tom Arnold today is
Speaker 1: just he's clinically insane. He's insane, Like I don't agree
Speaker 1: with him together because he'll out he totally will. But
Speaker 1: he was so hysterical and true Lies he was he
Speaker 1: will he's he to me, he made that movie and
Speaker 1: his his career, his his dynamic with Arnold Schwarzenegger in
Speaker 1: that movie as his handler. And as you know, Arnold
Speaker 1: was a singleton operator. He was a clandestine operator and
Speaker 1: Tom Arnold was his handler. Hysterical, but the plot was awesome.
Speaker 1: They wove Jamie Lee Curtis into the story in a
Speaker 1: really creative and fun way. So it was I think
Speaker 1: it was the perfect mix of like levity fun but serious,
Speaker 1: like serious action thriller stuff. So so we obviously agree
Speaker 1: on Predator, which makes me very happy because that movie
Speaker 1: is is absurd but amazing, right, Like, like the plot is,
Speaker 1: it's like sci fi, but in the jungles there's kind
Speaker 1: of logan contra thing going on there. But like all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, there's this weird monster. You know, the
Speaker 1: original monster that the suit was too big and it
Speaker 1: was gonna look much more animated, much more like almost
Speaker 1: like the Terminator. It was much more metallic, but the
Speaker 1: suit was too big and heavy in the jungle, so
Speaker 1: then they had to switch to that like you know,
Speaker 1: lizard looking get up. They had to change. I've watched
Speaker 1: the backstory of the well, it's it's on YouTube, that's
Speaker 1: on YouTube you can watch. And those guys, by the way,
Speaker 1: Jesse Ventura, forget what he's done since then, But like
Speaker 1: Jesse Mature at the time, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carl Weathers, you
Speaker 1: just had specimens together there. I mean, guys who were
Speaker 1: at the peak of their physical prowess in a way
Speaker 1: that you know, you just don't have that in any
Speaker 1: other movie. Really. Yeah, when Arnold Schwartzenegger and Carl Weathers
Speaker 1: meet and they slap arms and see, ia got you
Speaker 1: pushing too many bets. Favorite line in the movie, you
Speaker 1: just see these big hulking biceps right there on the screen.
Speaker 1: That is a at that right there. That was my child.
Speaker 1: But it's Americana, right, they'll tell you my two brothers.
Speaker 1: So we all we can quote any any line from
Speaker 1: that movie and immediately jump into the scene, like start
Speaker 1: playing the different characters. Because we've seen it so many times.
Speaker 1: We owned it on VHS. I think we made the
Speaker 1: tape explode, we watched it so many times. But uh,
Speaker 1: for me, the Matrix, by the way, oh my god,
Speaker 1: the Matrix part one, I pretend that the second one
Speaker 1: didn't really happen. In the third one definitely, So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'm gonna go I love that movie. I just
Speaker 1: I guess I didn't really consider as an action film.
Speaker 1: It certainly is. I sort of these legendary films like
Speaker 1: The Matrix. I feel like transcend genre. So I love
Speaker 1: The Matrix. I think that it is just an amazing
Speaker 1: iconic story. And I'm gonna go out on a limb
Speaker 1: and say, I actually love Matrix Reloaded. I don't like
Speaker 1: Matrix Revolutions. I don't. I'm not a fan of the
Speaker 1: third one. I don't like how they concluded it. But
Speaker 1: I love the second one. Those two twins with like
Speaker 1: the those guys that are like all white headed toe
Speaker 1: whatever that's car chase scene ever that it is the
Speaker 1: most amazing car chase scene of all time. But so
Speaker 1: this was all just a big It's all just a
Speaker 1: big pre animal to find me. Who's going to play
Speaker 1: Eric Steele? Well, so I'm sorry, because it actually might happen.
Speaker 1: We don't have to talk about that right now. Yeah, mine,
Speaker 1: would you want to play Eric Steele? Well, I mean
Speaker 1: I wrote Eric Steele's personality to have a very star
Speaker 1: Lord esque quality. So, like Chris Pratt and Guardians of
Speaker 1: the Galax scene where where he faces very serious situations,
Speaker 1: almost impossible situations, but he never really loses his sense
Speaker 1: of humor, at least in these early books when he's
Speaker 1: not as jaded as he will be in book three.
Speaker 1: He goes through some serious stuff in book one and
Speaker 1: even worse in book two. Um, so book three he's
Speaker 1: going to be a little bit more jaded. But I
Speaker 1: thought Chris Pratt would be great unfortunate, Um, I don't
Speaker 1: think that's gonna happen, but I would love to see
Speaker 1: like a Ryan Reynolds character as Eric Steele. It'd be great,
Speaker 1: or somebody even lesser known that just like has the
Speaker 1: work ethic and believes in the story. I mean, who's
Speaker 1: gonna play the sarcastic but very wise ci analyst who's
Speaker 1: making his coffee and uh, basically a buck Sexton is
Speaker 1: my first choice. That's gonna say. He's gonna be like
Speaker 1: watching back from headquarters like, yep, looks like we just
Speaker 1: lost another one today. Sorry, well, I've got this. I've
Speaker 1: got this character in book three. His name is Ralphie,
Speaker 1: and Ralphie I told you listen to me. His name
Speaker 1: is Ralphie. I don't think I don't think of you
Speaker 1: as Ralphie. His name in the story is Ralphie. But
Speaker 1: you said you said you wanted a little intelligence whacker,
Speaker 1: like the guy in the computers. That's the guy, all right,
Speaker 1: the guy and you heard it here first on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Ralphie modeled after you. Fantastic Sean Parnew Everybody,
Speaker 1: All Out War is the book. You should go pick
Speaker 1: it up now because his books are great. We're gonna
Speaker 1: come back and just chat with Sean about some things
Speaker 1: going on in the world, and then we're gonna let
Speaker 1: him go on his way to do some other There
Speaker 1: are fun media things here in NYC. We will continue
Speaker 1: in just a moment, all right, to h round things
Speaker 1: out here in the freedom that we've got our friend
Speaker 1: Sean Parnell, who's joined us. We've been talking about his
Speaker 1: book All at War, which you should all check out.
Speaker 1: But who who was the first I know I was
Speaker 1: gonna talk to you about like current events. We would
Speaker 1: do that on the show every day. Maybe I'll get
Speaker 1: to that a second. We talk about something gun stuff
Speaker 1: that's going on right now. The first author that you
Speaker 1: read forget about any specific genreor anything else that made
Speaker 1: you like books. J R. R. Tolkien. First book I
Speaker 1: ever read was a Hobbit, and I could call I
Speaker 1: read it, and I read it and well, my dad
Speaker 1: read it to me in first grade, you know. Um,
Speaker 1: I read it myself for the first time in third grade,
Speaker 1: and then every year I read the entire trilogy like
Speaker 1: four or five times in a row as I just
Speaker 1: was upset. Do you think of the adaptation that that
Speaker 1: Peter Jackson did. I mean, it is a that was
Speaker 1: a monumental challenge to do, but I think he did okay.
Speaker 1: It's pretty good. Yeah, I thought he did okay. And
Speaker 1: Lord of the Rings. I'm not as fan. I'm not
Speaker 1: as big a fan of The Hobbit, you know. I
Speaker 1: think that that movie. That movie was a disaster. They
Speaker 1: really just like went on and on and on. It
Speaker 1: did not yea, and it didn't really And they made
Speaker 1: up large swaths of the movie, which again I understand
Speaker 1: why sometimes they have to do that for just dramatic license,
Speaker 1: but there's no need to do it in a story
Speaker 1: like The Hobbit, where you have smog and the Battle
Speaker 1: of five Dragons and you've got battles with trolls and
Speaker 1: all this other fun stuff. In that book felt like
Speaker 1: there was a lot of fire, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of filler. But I think Peter Jackson did an admirable
Speaker 1: job on Lord of the Rings. Yeah, for me, it
Speaker 1: will be I've talked about this before on radio, but
Speaker 1: it's it's really a tie between Tom Clancy and Michael Crichton.
Speaker 1: I was like in the third fourth grade and I
Speaker 1: started picking up some of their some of their Creton
Speaker 1: was a freaking genius. He was a genius. His the
Speaker 1: premise of all of his books. I love so Michael
Speaker 1: Crechton is a case study of why it's important for
Speaker 1: young authors to start out with a premise, and so
Speaker 1: Jurassic Park, for example, Michael Crichton's premise and how he
Speaker 1: came up with that. It's like, Okay, what would it
Speaker 1: be like if we put human beings in a cage
Speaker 1: with dinosaurs and made them fight to the death. That
Speaker 1: was the simple premise that became Jurassic Park. He is
Speaker 1: the expert at coming up with really interesting premises like that,
Speaker 1: and you know, I have not been able to do
Speaker 1: it yet, but I love I love his premises of
Speaker 1: all of his stories. He's an absolute genius in everything
Speaker 1: that he does. Well. If you see West World amusement park.
Speaker 1: Science goes awry. There's a theme there right west Well,
Speaker 1: he wrote When People Forget That was a Michael Crichton, yep,
Speaker 1: Michael Crichton project. He wrote that before he wrote Jurassic Park.
Speaker 1: So genius. Westworld is like Jurassic Park is West World
Speaker 1: with dinosaurs, which pretty much anytime you're doing in the
Speaker 1: entertainment business and you can add dinosaurs in seamlessly totally
Speaker 1: good to go, You're good to go. I know, I
Speaker 1: totally agree. Michael Crichton was a genius, and especially you
Speaker 1: know so much of writing and creativity is collaborative. He he,
Speaker 1: He never ceased to amaze me with the creative team.
Speaker 1: He was able to just imagine Missus Doubtfire with velociraptors,
Speaker 1: you know, running around and the old woman body feeling
Speaker 1: in the bodysuit raps. You'd watch basically the Shark Nato formula.
Speaker 1: But we would we would do it better if we
Speaker 1: worked on these things together. Um, real question for you
Speaker 1: think anything's gonna change with guns in this country? Do
Speaker 1: I think it no better or not? I mean, you
Speaker 1: know what really upsets me is this is whole Beto
Speaker 1: O'Rourke and oh, the government's gonna buy we'll buy it
Speaker 1: back yours. How can you buy back something that you
Speaker 1: never owned in the first place, And what sort of
Speaker 1: mental leaps of logic do you like? The real perverse
Speaker 1: logic of that mentality is is the idea that the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment was written to protect liberty from tyranny, and
Speaker 1: a gun buy back is precisely the kind of government
Speaker 1: overreachs the Second Amendment was written to protect. And so
Speaker 1: I sure sect better or not, I I will retain
Speaker 1: my right to I was gonna ask me, you know,
Speaker 1: if if your state, let's say, banned assault, right, come
Speaker 1: and take your your your your molan lay on. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: Megan McCain is absolutely right when she asserted on the
Speaker 1: view that there would be lence if government officials came
Speaker 1: to my if they came to my door and tried
Speaker 1: to take my stuff, like I would say that not
Speaker 1: only we have a duty and obligation to rise up
Speaker 1: against that government, that sort of government treachery and tyranny.
Speaker 1: And that was why the Second Amendment was written. That
Speaker 1: was precisely why it was written. And you know, if
Speaker 1: you think that the idea of owning The people that
Speaker 1: go out there and say, well, you should not be
Speaker 1: able to own an a R fifteen and these high
Speaker 1: capacity of magazines, Well, let me tell you this. You
Speaker 1: might find yourself in a situation where you might need one,
Speaker 1: Like just recently. What if you live in a city
Speaker 1: where the Portland mayor throws up his hand and says, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, police stand on the sidelines and let Antifa
Speaker 1: run all over your city and throw firebombs everywhere. You
Speaker 1: might need to protect your family with thirty rounds if
Speaker 1: you have fifty thugs surrounding your house. Look at what
Speaker 1: happened to Tucker Carlson. He wasn't even there, His wife
Speaker 1: and his small children were there when left this thugs
Speaker 1: came to his house and banged on his door. I
Speaker 1: want her to have the ability to own an AR
Speaker 1: fifteen with a thirty capacity thirty round magazine if she
Speaker 1: chooses to do so. Yeah, I mean a snubnos revolver
Speaker 1: looks cool in old cop movies, but that's really not
Speaker 1: That's not what you want to go out and defend
Speaker 1: your own with it. And if you if you ban
Speaker 1: AAR fifteens, you you take away It is a it's
Speaker 1: the most widely owned and most versatile rifle in American history.
Speaker 1: It's a quintessentially American I dive to several of them. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and so it's a quintessentially American innovation. And it's very
Speaker 1: easy for women to use and operate. And so why
Speaker 1: would we want to hurt a woman's ability to protect
Speaker 1: herself by taking away a rifle by the way, in
Speaker 1: the mid nineties, that had no discernible impact on crime
Speaker 1: when it was banned in the mid nineties. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was banned in the mid nineties, had no effect
Speaker 1: on crime. So why do we continue to ram this
Speaker 1: political nonsense down our throats in the wake of horrible
Speaker 1: tragedies like this? It makes me sick to my stomach
Speaker 1: that God, people like Beto O'Rourke aren't up in arms
Speaker 1: about that. I mean, you never hear these guys say,
Speaker 1: you know what, after this mass shooting, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do. I'm going to create a task force
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna go after illegal guns in Chicago. Why
Speaker 1: why I reject the notion that somehow society is guilty
Speaker 1: just because some thug, murderous, cowardly thug commits a crime.
Speaker 1: Why take my rifle as a law abiding citizen just
Speaker 1: because a criminal commits a crime. What do you say
Speaker 1: when they when they pull out the weapons of warline,
Speaker 1: I'm always amazed when they Occasionally they'll they'll have I think, uh,
Speaker 1: well what may or pete He'll use that he was, Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I served. I've seen I've seen uh Rob
Speaker 1: Rob o'deill from Fox point out that you know, there's
Speaker 1: like and I can see if you're if you're not
Speaker 1: from within the community, you're never allowed to speak about this.
Speaker 1: But there there are people that are kicking indoors, and
Speaker 1: there are people that are in the rear with the gear.
Speaker 1: I was in the far rear with the cappuccino machines.
Speaker 1: But like you know, I think that people get a
Speaker 1: little bit loose with the truth about who these are
Speaker 1: the weapons, like harried and no, it's not the weapon
Speaker 1: you care, So why are you It's not it's a
Speaker 1: sent I don't care if you served. If you're gonna
Speaker 1: lie about something, that's this is what. This is what
Speaker 1: the left does. They twist language to make it almost
Speaker 1: impossible for you to understand what position they're coming from.
Speaker 1: I mean, the whole like again, perfect example is the
Speaker 1: government buy back You know, how can you buy back
Speaker 1: something that you never own or the weapons of war?
Speaker 1: You know, I've done some deep dive into the Australian
Speaker 1: buyback program. That's always the model that though, that's what
Speaker 1: they always throw in your face. Let's talk about so
Speaker 1: so the fun fact about that is that the number
Speaker 1: of guns in private hands in Australia is higher now
Speaker 1: than it was before the buybacks. You have even more
Speaker 1: guns in more people's hands. And guess what's happened with
Speaker 1: violence for the last fifteen skyrocketed? No down, wait, oh
Speaker 1: more people, no more guns, that's all right? No right,
Speaker 1: I was thinking no, no, no no, I was thinking about
Speaker 1: like the I was thinking crime skyrocketed because nobody owned guns.
Speaker 1: I know, I completely jumped over your point. Every more
Speaker 1: guns in more hands and there's less. I misunderstood your point. Yes,
Speaker 1: an armed society is a polite society. And I would
Speaker 1: go one step further to say an armed and trained society.
Speaker 1: I just had I said a piece come out in
Speaker 1: American Consequences, right that that argues great magazine that everybody
Speaker 1: should subscribe to the way it's free. It is that
Speaker 1: he cannot rely on the NRA and Republican politicians to
Speaker 1: protect our Second Amendment rights. The best way to protect
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights is being a good ambassador for the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment. Learning how to use your weapon and handle
Speaker 1: it safely, and not only that, reach out to people
Speaker 1: that have never fired a rifle before, take them to
Speaker 1: the range and teach them how to operate efficiently that
Speaker 1: weapon system. There's never a worse time in this country
Speaker 1: than after a mass shooting. They're tragic in every way,
Speaker 1: but those mass shootings are exacerbated only by people's ignorance
Speaker 1: on Twitter when they start talking about banning things that
Speaker 1: they don't know anything about. The vast majority of people
Speaker 1: that are calling for gun bands think a clip in
Speaker 1: a magazine are the same thing. Well, they think that
Speaker 1: you're running around with a chainsaw bayonet, Nefkin, That's exactly
Speaker 1: which when you wanted to scare, when you wanted to
Speaker 1: scare the Taliban Gears of War video games, you rev
Speaker 1: up that chainsaw bayonet and they're like, oh no, there man,
Speaker 1: it's so true. And so all the people that are
Speaker 1: calling for gun bands are also synonymous. Are also the
Speaker 1: people that don't know anything about firearms, and it drives
Speaker 1: me in saying and they always say that doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: Your stupidity is not a reason to take my freedom away,
Speaker 1: my hard fought for freedom people bled for and fought for.
Speaker 1: This freedom is preserved and enshrined in the Constitution, passed
Speaker 1: down to us, not by man, not by government, but
Speaker 1: by our God. So you're not coming and taking my stuff.
Speaker 1: Mulan Labba cham Parnell style, everybody, the book is all
Speaker 1: out war. You should pick it up now. Champarnell buddy, author,
Speaker 1: American Patriot Army Ranger. Thanks for coming to hang out
Speaker 1: in the freedom up. Man. We always enjoy you. Gotta
Speaker 1: come here more, I know, I love. We'll do the
Speaker 1: Parnell Hour anytime you're in town. We'll just we'll just
Speaker 1: do a whole hour of NonStop Parnell. So there we go, man,
Speaker 1: anything I would love this. Thank you for having me,
Speaker 1: and you always are so gracious to me and give
Speaker 1: me so much time. Buck, So thank you, and thank
Speaker 1: you to your listeners who are who are just so
Speaker 1: dedicated and wonderful. All right, in best of luck with
Speaker 1: a book team. We'll be back with some close out
Speaker 1: roll call in just a second the show. Keeping it real,
Speaker 1: it's time for Roll Call. Sean Parnell, he's one of
Speaker 1: the obviously, he's a friend of mine, so I think
Speaker 1: very highly of him. He's one of the nicest, nicest
Speaker 1: guys you'll come across in the media business. And I'm
Speaker 1: glad that his books are doing so well. They are,
Speaker 1: They're doing very well, and people really really dig them.
Speaker 1: And I think I might have to read his fiction
Speaker 1: because I've already read his nonfiction. It was excellent. Well,
Speaker 1: let's get two because we don't have a long time
Speaker 1: for Roll Call today. Some of you, by the way,
Speaker 1: we are and producer Mark can confirm this. We are
Speaker 1: trying to get a new email address set up so
Speaker 1: people can email about the show. Right, this is going
Speaker 1: to happen, right Mark, Yes, it is being worked on
Speaker 1: as we speak. There we go, There we go. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. Boom, all right, Susie and Andy. Right,
Speaker 1: thanks to drop of the podcast. Sooner I work until
Speaker 1: seven pm Eastern and we'll finally be able to enjoy
Speaker 1: my shift. Well, there you go, my friend. Yep, the
Speaker 1: podcast it's gonna start going early. I even have a
Speaker 1: day for you as of September twenty third podcast is
Speaker 1: going to be up every day by three eastern Bam.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right, Producer Mark, get excited. Maybe earlier
Speaker 1: if I'm good at my job. Maybe a little earlier,
Speaker 1: if Producer Mark doesn't have to, you know, take a
Speaker 1: cigarette break. You don't smoke, do you? I don't know. No,
Speaker 1: I don't want to kill myself. Wow. Look at you
Speaker 1: smokers across the country here flicking their cigarettes at producer Mark.
Speaker 1: From Afar Ryan Rights. You talked about the rotten Tomatoes
Speaker 1: ratings of Sticks and Stones versus the ratings of viewers.
Speaker 1: Rotten Tomatoes ratings come mostly from critics writing for lefty
Speaker 1: papers and magazines. I find their ratings are often in
Speaker 1: conflict with the ratings of viewers, and this, to me
Speaker 1: shows the disconnect between the woke media and normal citizen.
Speaker 1: Very rarely will a movie or show get good Tomato
Speaker 1: ratings unless there's a left wing agenda, if it's a drab,
Speaker 1: artsy and super boring. In fact, I find the ratings useful.
Speaker 1: I can generally determine if it's going to be a
Speaker 1: good show by the low ratings you think critics would
Speaker 1: rate on a consensus mindset, but it seems most critics
Speaker 1: want to virtue signal and appear to be intellectually superior
Speaker 1: to the general viewer. Yeah, no, I agree. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of people who are in
Speaker 1: the ratings business are now. I mean, you get the
Speaker 1: woke left wing crowd, there's no question about that. You
Speaker 1: have people who are overwhelmingly going to be you know,
Speaker 1: democrats left and now they also I think there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of fear involved too. I think there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of you know, if you say a movie
Speaker 1: is good and it's among your peers considered not woke
Speaker 1: or social justice problematic or anything else, you know, then
Speaker 1: I think you might suffer. People are worried about suffering consequences.
Speaker 1: You know that you won't be considered part of the
Speaker 1: of the in crowd anymore. So yeah, no, I agreed. You.
Speaker 1: I mean a lot of very good movies. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure that three hundred, for example, had like terrible, terrible
Speaker 1: critics ratings and was just a you know, three hundred
Speaker 1: was amazing. It's an amazing movie. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not like high cinema anything, but it's so entertaining
Speaker 1: it's so fun. And there you go. Benjamin Writ's book,
Speaker 1: you mentioned you might be visiting Nashville in the near future.
Speaker 1: When might that be? My wife and I would love
Speaker 1: to meet you since we live nearby Shields High. Um, well,
Speaker 1: ben I'm gonna be at politic Con, which is a
Speaker 1: big political event for pundits pretty much in Nashville. So yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I think. Uh, there you go. You can
Speaker 1: you can show up at I think politicons open to
Speaker 1: the public because they want viewers. I'm pretty sure. Then
Speaker 1: you just buy a ticket, so I'll be a Politicon.
Speaker 1: There you go. That's the next time I will be
Speaker 1: in Nashville. Jeremy, I'm gonna stop doing that, sorry, Jeremy.
Speaker 1: On the Dicks Sporting Goods and Walmart gun sales, Dick
Speaker 1: decided to make a public announcement supporting gun bands and
Speaker 1: refused to sell certain guns in February twenty eighteen. Their
Speaker 1: stock just had a major drop in the past two years,
Speaker 1: from sixty dollars to twenty five dollars a share. When
Speaker 1: they made the announcement, they were at thirty four dollars.
Speaker 1: Since then, they've been between thirty four to thirty six,
Speaker 1: with a peak for a week around forty. Nike took
Speaker 1: a hit for a couple months, but is back to
Speaker 1: where they were when they signed Kaepernick, although I still
Speaker 1: buy all their brands. Walmart, on the other hand, has
Speaker 1: been phasing firearms out of their stores for a while.
Speaker 1: They decided to quietly stop selling certain ammunition after the
Speaker 1: El Paso shooting, but the media found out and made
Speaker 1: a big deal about it. Firearms is not their major
Speaker 1: selling points, so I don't see them taking a hit
Speaker 1: over this. I'm just gonna have to believe your numbers, Jeremy,
Speaker 1: because I don't. I don't know. I'll top my head.
Speaker 1: I'm not an investor in Walmart or in Dick's Sporting Goods.
Speaker 1: So yeah, let's see we have Sandy. I just wrote
Speaker 1: an email to Walmart that I will no longer shop there.
Speaker 1: I let them know my gun harms. No one bad
Speaker 1: people do well. Sandy. You're allowed to voice your opinion
Speaker 1: in this way, and there you have it. I got
Speaker 1: a little testy today on Twitter with Verizon FiOS because
Speaker 1: they made me wait for three hours for somebody who
Speaker 1: had turned out was never going to show up in
Speaker 1: the first place. The mistake was on their end. You know,
Speaker 1: that's three hours of my life sitting around, you know,
Speaker 1: gotta have the phone there. Yeah, I was able to
Speaker 1: read and prep for the show, but you know, I
Speaker 1: wasn't planning on being home for three hours and not
Speaker 1: able to leave my apartment. So I don't like that.
Speaker 1: So I let them know, and then I love the
Speaker 1: DMU if if you tweet at them, the dmure like,
Speaker 1: how can we help you? I'm like, can you give
Speaker 1: me three hours of my life back? No? Okay, how
Speaker 1: about how how about just waive my cable fee which
Speaker 1: is outrageously high for one month or even one week?
Speaker 1: Oh no, we can't do that. So in what way
Speaker 1: are they really offering with these customer service things? Are
Speaker 1: they really offering to help you? Maybe all of the
Speaker 1: answer is they're not. They're not offering to help. So
Speaker 1: that's just that's the way it is. Sean The Army
Speaker 1: of Darkness, starring Bruce Campbell, is a cult classic. I
Speaker 1: had sounding boards full of movie quotes and sounds back
Speaker 1: in the mid nineties. The movie is the third in
Speaker 1: the original Evil Dead series, but can be watched by
Speaker 1: itself due to the quick history scene at the beginning
Speaker 1: of the movie. If you do find it enjoyable, you
Speaker 1: may also appreciate the series Ash Versus Evil Dead that
Speaker 1: is currently available on Netflix. All right, Sean, well, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, and I will give I'll give that
Speaker 1: a go. I'll give it a go. That's gonna be it.
Speaker 1: From the Freedom Hunt for Today, my friends get ready
Speaker 1: to get psyched. A couple of weeks, we start dropping
Speaker 1: the podcast every day at three pm. So subscribe on
Speaker 1: iTunes to the Buck Sex and Show. Subscribe now you'll
Speaker 1: get that show early. She'll tie