Speaker 1: Team Buck Welcome to the Freedom Hut. Got a packed
Speaker 1: podcast today for you, Biden goes anti gun again, Kamala
Speaker 1: finally heading to the Border, and Chris Rufo schools MSNBC
Speaker 1: on CRT, among other topics. I just want to say
Speaker 1: it's very interesting timing to see that the same day
Speaker 1: you have a pro police democrat in New York City
Speaker 1: effectively win the Democrat primary there, which means he is
Speaker 1: ninety five percent assured to be the next mayor of
Speaker 1: America's largest city. And you also have the data finally
Speaker 1: all coming together for a twelve if you want to
Speaker 1: look at the last twelve months, which would coincide with
Speaker 1: the rise of BLM, and what has happened right BLM
Speaker 1: started in June, BLM two point zero in June of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty and here we are twenty twenty one, end
Speaker 1: of June, and you can do a twelve month data
Speaker 1: not just compiling but analysis, and what does it show
Speaker 1: you Misery increases in shootings, homicides, lawlessness, anarchy, real problems
Speaker 1: all over the country, major cities even relatively you know,
Speaker 1: medium sized cities, and law enforcement feeling in a lot
Speaker 1: of communities like nobody has their back. In fact, if anything,
Speaker 1: the Biden administration looks like it's ready to feed law
Speaker 1: enforcement to the wolves. So we'll get into all of
Speaker 1: that in just a moment, but I wanted to first
Speaker 1: talk to you because we know it's getting to me
Speaker 1: that time a year where you're going to start to
Speaker 1: see some flags, and I really want you to have
Speaker 1: a flag out there. You should be showing your patriotism
Speaker 1: with a brilliant, beautiful American flag. Independence Day is less
Speaker 1: than two weeks away, and that's why if you don't
Speaker 1: already have a flag from Allegiance Flag Supply, you really
Speaker 1: need one right now because have an American flag flying
Speaker 1: in front of your home, your doc or out on
Speaker 1: your boat is just a way to show your love
Speaker 1: for this country. And you want a flag that's made
Speaker 1: in America. A vast majority of them aren't, and you
Speaker 1: want someone one that's really high quality so it doesn't
Speaker 1: get tangled up, torn shredded like a lot of the
Speaker 1: cheap ones you can get online do. That's why I
Speaker 1: want you to go with Allegiance Flag Supply. Their commitment
Speaker 1: to making these flags in the US, with the incredible
Speaker 1: craftsmanship done by their team of seamstresses in Charleston, South Carolina.
Speaker 1: Makes this the flag that I've been recommending to everyone
Speaker 1: this summer. I've got one at home. My parents are
Speaker 1: setting up theirs on their balcony and NYC. We're all
Speaker 1: about allegiance, patriotism and America. So show your allegiance. Now,
Speaker 1: got to show allegiance dot com and enter promo code
Speaker 1: for ten percent off your order. Again, go to show
Speaker 1: allegiance dot Com. That's the website. Enter promo code buck
Speaker 1: for ten percent off your order and get yours in
Speaker 1: time for Independence Day. Show allegiance dot com and make
Speaker 1: sure at check out you enter promo code buck for
Speaker 1: ten percent off. Oh but Biden's not about defunding you See,
Speaker 1: That's what they really want you to know. That's that's
Speaker 1: the new the new centerpiece of this White House's talking
Speaker 1: points about law enforcement and police and everything else. Even
Speaker 1: have you know, I haven't heard all that much from
Speaker 1: her recently, but Susan Rice remember her from the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: In case you were wondering if this is in fact,
Speaker 1: In case you're wondering if this is in fact the
Speaker 1: third term of the Obama administration, just look around and
Speaker 1: see how many people, how many senior officials from Obama's
Speaker 1: time is presidents are now in similar or usually elevated
Speaker 1: roles with Biden as president. That's why it was all
Speaker 1: about telling the public whatever eyes they had to about
Speaker 1: Trump and pretending that Joe Biden was an impressive leader,
Speaker 1: a uniter, all all the trojan horse propaganda. This is
Speaker 1: why the Democrats were all in on it, because they
Speaker 1: knew they just had to get him in place. They
Speaker 1: knew that was the whole point, that was the whole purpose,
Speaker 1: And here he is. Anyway, Susan Rice wants everyone to
Speaker 1: make sure they know Biden's approach is not to defund
Speaker 1: the police. Play three. President Biden's approach is not to
Speaker 1: defund the police. He's been very explicit in opposing that.
Speaker 1: He wants to invest in our communities and in safety.
Speaker 1: That includes investing in public safety and giving police and
Speaker 1: police forces the resources they need. But it's much broader
Speaker 1: than that, because you can't just deal with this problem
Speaker 1: through law enforcement. You need to deal with its root cause. Ah,
Speaker 1: you can't deal with the problem with law enforcement. You
Speaker 1: need to deal with root causes. This is a repeating
Speaker 1: fallacy of the Democrats. You see this, it's on law enforcement,
Speaker 1: it's on the border. Oh, let's not actually apply a
Speaker 1: direct approach. Let's not try to treat and dress the wound,
Speaker 1: so to speak. Let's have a committee hearing. Let's all
Speaker 1: sit around in a circle with our birkenstocks on and
Speaker 1: our thick glasses that aren't actually prescription in the faculty lounge,
Speaker 1: and sit around and just wonder aloud about, well, what
Speaker 1: were the years leading up to this wound really like
Speaker 1: for this individual? Now? I would prefer if we stopped
Speaker 1: the bleeding. I would prefer if we took action at
Speaker 1: the source of the problem. And that's not to say
Speaker 1: that we can't also discuss root causes. But shouldn't you
Speaker 1: stop the bleeding before you say? Maybe you shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been on your motorcycle. You know, maybe you shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been out there. Next time, wear a helmet. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: the guys on the sidewalk, he's been in an accident.
Speaker 1: I don't think now's the time for a helmet lecture.
Speaker 1: I think the ambulance needs to arrive. You get what
Speaker 1: you get my drift here, folks, You see what I'm
Speaker 1: throwing down. This is the constant fallacy of Democrats on
Speaker 1: these issues. They keep saying stuff like this, at the border, Oh,
Speaker 1: Kamala's going to the border, don't worry, we'll get into that.
Speaker 1: At the border, you had a situation where people are
Speaker 1: coming in illegally, Drugs are running across the border, being
Speaker 1: run across the border in large numbers, and everybody's saying,
Speaker 1: how do we stop this? Border patrol is overwhelmed and
Speaker 1: Kamala goes to Central America? Why? Because they view that
Speaker 1: as a root cause issue. It's all so a distraction tactic,
Speaker 1: isn't it, Because why is the border so wide open? Well,
Speaker 1: because of decisions made by the Buying administration. We will
Speaker 1: come back to this. We will come back to this.
Speaker 1: But I just want to note for all that this
Speaker 1: isn't the only place they use this law enforcement. It's
Speaker 1: not the only time you'll hear about the root causes
Speaker 1: because that also allows them Why do they want to
Speaker 1: distract and create this step away from why do they
Speaker 1: want to move to something else? Because this allows them
Speaker 1: to go after a political issue that they find valuable
Speaker 1: to their side, even if it will do nothing. And
Speaker 1: it will do nothing. This is why yesterday, when you
Speaker 1: have in many ways a repudiation of defund the police
Speaker 1: in the largest city in America, which also, folks, I
Speaker 1: mean New York is the place where single greatest crime
Speaker 1: turnaround in the nineties eighty and into the early two thousands,
Speaker 1: over two thousand murders, two under three hundred murders annually.
Speaker 1: That's a reflected in all different kinds of crimes across
Speaker 1: the board. That was an amazing, a miraculous shift. I
Speaker 1: think everyone needs to be quite aware of that. And
Speaker 1: so when New York is trending in the wrong direction,
Speaker 1: it's a harbinger of things to come for other cities.
Speaker 1: And you had defund the police essentially slapped down at
Speaker 1: something not entirely but because the second place finisher was
Speaker 1: Maya Wiley, who's a defund the policer. She wants to
Speaker 1: get rid of she wants to get rid of law
Speaker 1: enforcement weapons. If she cannamy, she's really at that whole
Speaker 1: next level. But what do they decide that yesterday was
Speaker 1: was going to be the or what were they were
Speaker 1: going to focus on yesterday? Oh, you guessed it. Guns.
Speaker 1: The problem is guns. Play clip one for folks at home,
Speaker 1: here's what you need to know. I've been at this
Speaker 1: a long time, and there are things we know that
Speaker 1: work to reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things
Speaker 1: that we don't know about. But things we know about.
Speaker 1: Background checks for purchasing a firearm are important. Ban on
Speaker 1: assault weapons and high capacity magazines. No one needs to
Speaker 1: have a weapon that can fire over thirty, forty fifty,
Speaker 1: even up to one hundred rounds, unless you think the
Speaker 1: deer wearing kevil art vests or something. Hey, you know, YoY,
Speaker 1: nobody wants you fifty rounds or hundred rounds. You know
Speaker 1: it's come on, man, no joke, no joke. Come on
Speaker 1: over here, sit on my knee. I'll tell you a
Speaker 1: story about deer wearing keV larvist's having those little what
Speaker 1: do they call it, like a dear buzuka instead of
Speaker 1: firing out of rocket or whatever, it's like an antler.
Speaker 1: It's crazy, man, no joke. Joe Biden is whatever the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party wants him to be. That's what he has
Speaker 1: always been. So he is a long lasting mediocrity. And
Speaker 1: to take this moment in time when they could very
Speaker 1: well remember Joe Biden's not for defund the police, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to upset the twenty percent of Americans
Speaker 1: who think it's a good idea, because that's about what
Speaker 1: we're talking about. That's about what we're talking about about
Speaker 1: twenty give or take, and that's what it was in
Speaker 1: New York City for the defund the police candidate in
Speaker 1: the mayoral race, Maya Wiley, but twenty percent of the vote.
Speaker 1: So yeah, there is about a little less than half
Speaker 1: we'll call it, of the Democrat Party that's insane and
Speaker 1: that really thinks defund the police is a good idea. Yeah,
Speaker 1: unfortunately that is millions of people, but it's also a
Speaker 1: small minority overall of the American people, and it should
Speaker 1: be something we all have in the back of our
Speaker 1: minds that everyone, including the African American population in America,
Speaker 1: based on all the relevant polling, wants the same or
Speaker 1: more police presence in their neighborhoods. Because really the question
Speaker 1: is would you like about the same or more safety
Speaker 1: in your neighborhood. That's what it really comes down to.
Speaker 1: The areas where people live where defund the police is
Speaker 1: trendy and hip. Yeah, there's quality of life crimes, but
Speaker 1: they're not seeing drive by shootings, they're not seeing home
Speaker 1: invasions and things like that. You know, the area where
Speaker 1: all of that is occurring is usually far away from
Speaker 1: the people who are walking around making the most noise
Speaker 1: about defund the police doesn't affect them, doesn't affect them,
Speaker 1: and so that's why they feel so very comfortable going
Speaker 1: off on that. And uh, there's more from from Biden here.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was so much that was said in
Speaker 1: his speech that was that was just dumb, that was absurd.
Speaker 1: He even went to the oh, you better have nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons and planes. He pulled that card, which is so stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's as though he's never heard of, Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know Vietnam or Afghanistan. You don't need planes
Speaker 1: and nuclear weapons to deal with a government that you
Speaker 1: find hostile and make an untenable for them to control territory.
Speaker 1: But Biden is a sub mediocrity and a buffoon. And
Speaker 1: here he is, for example, here he is talking about
Speaker 1: how the Second Amendment has always limit did the weapons
Speaker 1: you could have play eleven? The Second Amendment from the
Speaker 1: day it was passed limited into the type of people
Speaker 1: could own a gun and what type of weapon you
Speaker 1: could own. You couldn't buy a cannon. Those who say,
Speaker 1: the blood of the blood of patriots, you know, and
Speaker 1: all the stuff about how we're gonna have to move
Speaker 1: against the gunment, what all? The tree of liberty is
Speaker 1: not warner the blood of patriots. What's happened is that
Speaker 1: they're never been. If you wanted to think you need
Speaker 1: to have weapons to take on the government, you need
Speaker 1: f fifteens and maybe some nuclear weapons. The point is
Speaker 1: that there's always been. They're building to limit, rationally limit
Speaker 1: the type of weapon that can be owned and who
Speaker 1: can own it. It's just not true that you need
Speaker 1: to have nuclear weapons to fight back against a government.
Speaker 1: You know, a lot of you, I'm sure are already
Speaker 1: thinking about about the the quote about the rifle behind
Speaker 1: every blade of grass, right, remember remember this one. We've
Speaker 1: people say that it's Admiral Yamamoto, although there's some dispute
Speaker 1: and they say it's really not. Look, it's a great quote.
Speaker 1: It's one of these quotes that you we all kind
Speaker 1: of wish was true, but there's not really definitive, definitive
Speaker 1: proof of it. But it's also it just goes to
Speaker 1: show you that Biden talks about something here like the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment, and he has not it's like he's neither
Speaker 1: read nor understood the Second Amendment. It's as though he
Speaker 1: has no real interest in what it means, what the
Speaker 1: purpose of it is. Because okay, let's take aim the
Speaker 1: other direction. So can everyone only have a double barrel shotgun?
Speaker 1: You know that's you can maybe defend your home pretty
Speaker 1: well with that, if you know you got like an
Speaker 1: old school Elmer Fudd style double barrel, you know, a
Speaker 1: side by side. I'm not even saying over under side
Speaker 1: by side? Is that enough? Why? Why isn't that enough? Well,
Speaker 1: this is where we get into the actual constitutional jurisprudence
Speaker 1: here about things like common usage. And this is where
Speaker 1: semi automatic rifles come into play. Remember when when the
Speaker 1: colonists in America were fighting against the British, it was
Speaker 1: muskets against muskets. So the notion of firearm parody was
Speaker 1: very straightforward. It was very unlikely that you were going
Speaker 1: to have a situation then where you just had a
Speaker 1: total mismatch. You could have a mismatch in training and
Speaker 1: in the numbers of personnel, certainly, but yeah, there was
Speaker 1: an understanding that if you got together a bunch of
Speaker 1: American patriots, which is what happened, you could actually overthrow
Speaker 1: the British Empire's control in the New World. That's that's
Speaker 1: the actual founding of our country is a bunch of
Speaker 1: guys who had guns, who got rid of a tyrannical government.
Speaker 1: That's what our founding is. And yet Joe Biden's like,
Speaker 1: I mean, you couldn't go up against a major military
Speaker 1: really because in seven seventy six the British in particularly
Speaker 1: the British Navy, but the British were the preeminent power
Speaker 1: in the world, second perhaps only on land to the French,
Speaker 1: at least in the western world, and we had gunpowders,
Speaker 1: so that would be on a global scale. You could say,
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody was going to go muzzle for now.
Speaker 1: Someone's gonna say, Buck, what about the Prussians or you know, Okay,
Speaker 1: but you get what I'm saying. I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: get into a battle over who's who had the best
Speaker 1: military in the late eighteenth century. But the British worthy
Speaker 1: preeminent global power. Okay, they were the preeminent global power.
Speaker 1: And I have to say it's so clear to anybody
Speaker 1: who pays attention to the Second Amendment that having rifles
Speaker 1: that are in common usage is what this was all about.
Speaker 1: And so you get to R fifteen. The always want
Speaker 1: to get rid of assault rifles. R fifteenth it just
Speaker 1: doesn't stand up to scrutiny. And if you look at
Speaker 1: DC V Heller. We could talk about this all day,
Speaker 1: but if you look at DCV Heller that was in
Speaker 1: Scalia's In Scalia's opinion, he wrote about how, yeah, you
Speaker 1: couldn't necessarily walk around with a headsman's axe, and maybe
Speaker 1: you couldn't have a you know, an eighteen inch or
Speaker 1: whatever the size of mortars were. Then you couldn't have
Speaker 1: a mortar in your backyard necessarily. But you know, if
Speaker 1: it was just a rifle, a standard a standard implement
Speaker 1: of self defense and a standard firearm for the day,
Speaker 1: yeah you could. But Joe Biden wants to pretend that
Speaker 1: it's about telling people they can't have fifty round magazines.
Speaker 1: You know what the real limitations are. They've tried in
Speaker 1: states like New York and California ten round magazine. Ten
Speaker 1: rounds a whole lot different than fifty, isn't it. And
Speaker 1: you have to be sub ten You have to actually
Speaker 1: get like a special thing to put this is how
Speaker 1: stupid it is. In a place like New York, you
Speaker 1: have to get an insert that you put into a
Speaker 1: magazine to make it so you have fewer you have
Speaker 1: few rounds that you can load. And that's the way
Speaker 1: that that's the way the magazines, I guess, have to
Speaker 1: be sold. It's so ridiculous. And all it means is
Speaker 1: that the millions and millions and millions of magazines for
Speaker 1: different firearms that are capable of holding above ten rounds
Speaker 1: just become more valuable to people. They either get grandfathered
Speaker 1: in depending on where we're talking about, or they become
Speaker 1: really popular on what is technically then the black market.
Speaker 1: So it's the whole thing. Friends, it's I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: there's a reason that they are focusing on this right now.
Speaker 1: There's a reason they're doing this, and I'll get into
Speaker 1: it in just a second. I was just checking my
Speaker 1: stocks today. I gotta tell you, it's been a really
Speaker 1: good year for the Buckster when it comes to investing
Speaker 1: and trading day to day. And I just want you
Speaker 1: to know that I've been relying on my friends at
Speaker 1: Carnivore Trading for a lot of this because Wall Street
Speaker 1: has been lying for years saying that a measly few
Speaker 1: percent is a good return on our stocks and it's not.
Speaker 1: And they say that trading is super complicated. You need
Speaker 1: a financial advisor. You know, all you need is Carnivore Trading.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm using for my day to day trades,
Speaker 1: and they're crushing it this year, even though the market's
Speaker 1: been a litt choppy sometimes. Carnivore Trading is an anonymous
Speaker 1: team of elite strategists. They're legends among Wall Street heavy hitters,
Speaker 1: and they've gone a bit rogue for the first time.
Speaker 1: They're inviting everyday folks just like you and me to
Speaker 1: see and mirror their explosive trades. And right now, Carnivore
Speaker 1: will let you see the trades they're making for two
Speaker 1: weeks free. Go to get our Trades dot com and
Speaker 1: use promo code buck for two free weeks. If you join,
Speaker 1: you'll get carnivores industry leading promise that you'll generate three
Speaker 1: times your fees after your annual paid subscription, or you'll
Speaker 1: get a one hundred percent refund. Go to get our
Speaker 1: Trades dot com promo code buck. That's get our Trades
Speaker 1: dot Com promo code buck. See website for guarantee terms
Speaker 1: and conditions past performance, not a guarantee of future earnings.
Speaker 1: All right, why is it so important for the Democrats
Speaker 1: now to do this whole folk on through, this whole
Speaker 1: focus on firearms because they don't want to have to
Speaker 1: openly go against the radical left of their party that
Speaker 1: is pro defund police. That's what's really playing out of here,
Speaker 1: That's what's actually happening. And so this is why all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it's oh, let's do the let's let's
Speaker 1: have the shiny object, I guess kind of literally in
Speaker 1: the case of guns, but let's have guns. Talk about
Speaker 1: that as a topic, not they don't want you to
Speaker 1: have guns. Of course, they want you to not have guns.
Speaker 1: Because they're scrambling right now, what are they gonna say
Speaker 1: about the rising crime rates that not only have continued
Speaker 1: under the Biden administration and really post pandemic, but keep
Speaker 1: going up. There is a deterioration underway here is joy
Speaker 1: behar You know I've missed you, Bark. Why aren't you
Speaker 1: just talking about me more? I'm overall the view saying
Speaker 1: stupid gangs. Well, you know, I'm old enough to remember
Speaker 1: many decades where crime spiked, and I was afraid to
Speaker 1: go out at night, and you know, you were scared
Speaker 1: you were going to be mugged in New York City.
Speaker 1: And then and then I have another statistic here that's
Speaker 1: interesting because from nineteen ninety three to twenty nineteen, and
Speaker 1: that is a period that I was not scared to
Speaker 1: go out, crimes steadily decreased in the United States. Every
Speaker 1: every president since Clinton inherited a basically a declining crime rate,
Speaker 1: and then continue it continued to decline until Trump came along.
Speaker 1: Because Trump resided over the greatest crime rise in modern
Speaker 1: American history. The murder rate shot up twenty six percent,
Speaker 1: and mass shootings as spiked. Hate crime spiked more than
Speaker 1: twenty percent during his president's day. Now, I don't want
Speaker 1: to lay the whole thing at his feet, but he
Speaker 1: did create four years normalizing. They consider themselves the law
Speaker 1: and order party, But all I see is more crime
Speaker 1: coming out of that administration where he seemed to let
Speaker 1: everybody who off the hook. Isn't it remarkable Democrats with
Speaker 1: the anti police narrative, they are the arsonists who then
Speaker 1: stand back and watch the house burn that they have
Speaker 1: lit and say, where's the fire department, Fire department is
Speaker 1: not doing a good enough job. That's what they've done
Speaker 1: with law enforcement and policing across the country. That's what
Speaker 1: they're doing now. That's what you see here. They push
Speaker 1: the anti police narrative, they push for defunding in the
Speaker 1: final year of Trump's presidency and now it's you know,
Speaker 1: Trump presided over the worst increasing crime. Well, that's because
Speaker 1: Democrats decided to be pro criminal. That's what actually happened. Anyone,
Speaker 1: Does anyone care? And do the facts matter at all
Speaker 1: on this one? You know you have to want end.
Speaker 1: The answer to that is no. It's a fun rhetorical question,
Speaker 1: especially when you're talking about somebody from the view. No,
Speaker 1: the facts do not matter, not in the least, not
Speaker 1: even a little bit. But they know that the American
Speaker 1: people are seeing enough here, there's a clear enough understanding
Speaker 1: of what's actually occurring that they have to find alternatives.
Speaker 1: If you were like a leftist who lives in like
Speaker 1: Sena Monica, and he's like, I want to give you
Speaker 1: the police man, like ten years ago, I got like
Speaker 1: a speeding ticket, and they have a seal up set
Speaker 1: about it and like caps your bad man, Like structural racism,
Speaker 1: and like, you know BLM. Yeah, man, Like, if you're
Speaker 1: one of those liberals, you've got to have something that
Speaker 1: you tell yourself is the reason for the crime rise.
Speaker 1: It's now becoming unavoidable. So they're they're giving an excuse
Speaker 1: to people. It's almost like a form of emotional plausible deniability. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: it's not that the movement that I pushed for for
Speaker 1: all this time is so bad and actually so destructive.
Speaker 1: It's there's other stuff in fact that allows them when
Speaker 1: they create these avenues of additional, additional causation, which are false,
Speaker 1: but they do it. When they do that, you know,
Speaker 1: what ends up happening is that there will be people
Speaker 1: in that twenty percent or less of the country that
Speaker 1: want to defund police in any capacity. There'll be people
Speaker 1: among that group, among that cadre who decide that they
Speaker 1: need more BLM. Oh. You see, the problem is we
Speaker 1: didn't do enough of the anticop stuff. And I understand
Speaker 1: that that's crazy, but I just want you to be
Speaker 1: prepared for that eventuality. That certainty. Really there'll be some
Speaker 1: people who just give it some time. Right now, they
Speaker 1: may lay a little low on it, but in a
Speaker 1: few months they'll come back and you know they've got
Speaker 1: a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell, except
Speaker 1: in this case it's more defund police. Doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: the results were, It doesn't matter what ended up happening.
Speaker 1: So what critical race theory suggests is that American racism
Speaker 1: is not simply the product of individual biases, right, but
Speaker 1: is actually embedded in the structure of American institutions. That is,
Speaker 1: by the way, not a theory. That is a fact
Speaker 1: and historical fact. We need to talk about what is it?
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Mara Gay of The New York Times.
Speaker 1: Embedded in institutions? Notice that when they talk about things
Speaker 1: like systemic racism institutional racism, there's always a clear hesitation
Speaker 1: to get into the details. Okay, how and I don't
Speaker 1: want to hear about what was? I want to hear
Speaker 1: about what is? Tell me which institutions today are racist
Speaker 1: in what way? And who is doing the racism. If
Speaker 1: we want to fix a problem, shouldn't we be able
Speaker 1: to identify the problem. If we want to handle something
Speaker 1: like this, shouldn't we all be able to come together
Speaker 1: and agree what the primary cause is? Right? And can't
Speaker 1: we look at where is this thing happening. Where is
Speaker 1: this systemic racism occurring? And don't say in law enforcement? Okay,
Speaker 1: where who, what police department? What law that is being enforced?
Speaker 1: And the more you drill down into this, what you'll
Speaker 1: find is you'll hear people say things like, well, the
Speaker 1: war on drugs is racist. Let's unpack that for a moment.
Speaker 1: Shall we today? Do we want people as a society
Speaker 1: in America? Do we want people to be able to buy?
Speaker 1: And there are people who argue this absolutely anything they
Speaker 1: want and use anything they want, and sell anything they
Speaker 1: want to other people, including fentonel, which is incredibly addictive
Speaker 1: and very easy to overdose and die on. You know,
Speaker 1: notice how democrats want to regulate everything. Do they want
Speaker 1: to regulate this? Well, you would think that there be
Speaker 1: a lot of them who would agree that we should
Speaker 1: at least have some substances. Marijuana is almost legal non nationwide,
Speaker 1: but there are some things that are too dangerous. So
Speaker 1: is there a good faith, understandable reason for laws against
Speaker 1: certain narcotics? Yes, so then where where does the racism
Speaker 1: come in? And by the way, I understand this is
Speaker 1: a This could be a longer conversation and some of
Speaker 1: the left could sit here. We could start to go
Speaker 1: through it, but what you'd find is that it's always
Speaker 1: a little vague. You dig into the details, and you say,
Speaker 1: I would assure anybody, any leftist, that if I were
Speaker 1: caught at the border, let's say, trying to bring in
Speaker 1: a few hundred pounds of illegal fentanyl, I'd be in
Speaker 1: a whole lot of trouble. They wouldn't say, well we
Speaker 1: enforce this differently based upon skin color. I'd be in
Speaker 1: a whole lot of trouble as I should be for
Speaker 1: breaking the law. So I just want to want to
Speaker 1: force us to start to see that this systemic race racism.
Speaker 1: It's like saying everybody who doesn't agree with the left
Speaker 1: is racist, so agree with us and let us have
Speaker 1: more power in all institutions or else. That's really at
Speaker 1: the heart of systemic racism, because when there's actual racism,
Speaker 1: I say, well, that must be dealt with right away.
Speaker 1: And this is what you see among conservatives all the
Speaker 1: time when there's a when there's a real case an
Speaker 1: instance of racism that occurs, whether it's you know, something
Speaker 1: you know, a bigoted police officer, or some guy who
Speaker 1: you know owns a restaurant and you know, is not
Speaker 1: treating it like a public accommodation that serves people irrespective
Speaker 1: of skin color. Anything that's racist, racist, right, clearly racist.
Speaker 1: We all say, well, that needs to be dealt with.
Speaker 1: You know, that's there's an equal protection clause in the
Speaker 1: Constitution for a reason. There is a constitution protecting all
Speaker 1: of us as individuals and all of our rights as
Speaker 1: individuals for a reason. And this is how we approach it.
Speaker 1: But the left will always say, no, it's about systemic racism. Here,
Speaker 1: here's another way of going about this. Chris Ruffo, who
Speaker 1: has done so much great work on the critical race
Speaker 1: theory issue, Chris Ruffo had been called out by Joy Reid.
Speaker 1: I believe she called it at one point a white
Speaker 1: man's demand that he go on her show to debate her.
Speaker 1: She was maligning his reputation publicly, she was going after him,
Speaker 1: and then she pretends like she wasn't. And I just
Speaker 1: want you to hear some of this exchange, because this
Speaker 1: is a classic you have so rarely are there actual
Speaker 1: debates that occur on television these days. Here is a
Speaker 1: classic left right exchange on the issue of critical race
Speaker 1: theory with Joy Read of MSNBC and Chris Rufo play too.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Okay, so let's let's start out and did
Speaker 1: the elephant in the room. So so we knew when
Speaker 1: I started off on a little bit of a Twitter beef,
Speaker 1: I talked about you. I quoted you in an article
Speaker 1: that one of our great journalist here at NBC had
Speaker 1: quoted you in a piece, and I quoted that on TV.
Speaker 1: And then you tweeted that you wanted to come on
Speaker 1: the show and said, you know, I didn't have the
Speaker 1: courage to put you on. Now, I will just note
Speaker 1: that Twitter's as a hyperbole zone, so you know whatever,
Speaker 1: it's all water under the bridge. But I just want
Speaker 1: to just get to a couple of little factual things.
Speaker 1: Why would I need courage to have you on? Are
Speaker 1: you like an expert in race or racial history? Are
Speaker 1: you a lawyer? Are you a legal scholar? Is that
Speaker 1: part of your background? Yeah, I'm a senior fellow at
Speaker 1: the Manhattan Institute, where I'm running their initiative on critical
Speaker 1: race theory. And the reason that I reached out on
Speaker 1: Twitter to you, and I appreciate you having me on.
Speaker 1: I enjoy this kind of cross artisan dialogue. But the
Speaker 1: reason is not just because you were attacking me on air,
Speaker 1: which I think is fine. It's politics. One second, just
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I wasn't attacking. I was reading your quote,
Speaker 1: so that's what I said. I read you were reading
Speaker 1: it with the framing calling me a political operative, which
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm actually a think tank scholar. But let's
Speaker 1: put all that aside. The problem that I have is
Speaker 1: that you've really spread, for I think, key false pieces
Speaker 1: of information about critical race theory. You've claimed in recent
Speaker 1: weeks that critical race theory isn't being taught in schools.
Speaker 1: You've claimed that most American public school students learned what
Speaker 1: you call Confederate race theory and are taught that slavery
Speaker 1: was quote not so bad. You've claimed that state legislation
Speaker 1: will prevent schools from teaching about the history of racism.
Speaker 1: And finally, you've claimed that critical race theory isn't rooted
Speaker 1: in the philosophical tradition of Marxism. And I think that
Speaker 1: all four of those claims are wrong. Wrecked r ekt
Speaker 1: wrecked in one clip. Didn't take very long. Get it now, now,
Speaker 1: let's just unpack it for a moment. Rufo. First of all,
Speaker 1: this this very disingenuous thing of why would I need
Speaker 1: to be afraid of you? Well, you were calling him out,
Speaker 1: and you didn't invite him on your show. And if
Speaker 1: you're going to call somebody out, I think, and they
Speaker 1: want to debate you, I think you should at least
Speaker 1: consider and usually should have them on your show, especially
Speaker 1: when they're he's newsworthy, He's not some Twitter troll. Chris
Speaker 1: Ruffo has done great work and has helped spark a
Speaker 1: wide conversation which the left haines, don't you see. They
Speaker 1: don't want you to know what kids are being taught
Speaker 1: in school about this stuff. They want the right to
Speaker 1: shut up and argue about when we can get Republicans
Speaker 1: in power again to pass a two or three percent
Speaker 1: tax cut and have a lot of long talks about
Speaker 1: we'll deal with the debt one day. That's what they want.
Speaker 1: They want control of the cultural the culture. They want
Speaker 1: cultural hegemony, to borrow from Gramsky, the Italian socialist. They
Speaker 1: want to have control of the national conversation at the
Speaker 1: cultural level. So this is very unsettling to them. But
Speaker 1: back to the actual RUFO exchange here, Notice the why
Speaker 1: should I be scared to have you? Are you and
Speaker 1: then libs love to do this, goes right at his credentials.
Speaker 1: Credentialism is their first move, right enjoy Read feels very
Speaker 1: comfortable doing this because she went to Harvard. Now, is
Speaker 1: Joy Read somebody who is a talented academic If you
Speaker 1: read some of her writing, particularly some of her writing
Speaker 1: from ten years ago that she claimed was the result
Speaker 1: of a time machine based hacking that had somebody right
Speaker 1: homophobic stuff in her writing style. Yeah, Joy Reid is
Speaker 1: not an impressive academic. I don't think Joy Reid is
Speaker 1: impressive at anything. But nonetheless she goes after credentials because
Speaker 1: that's where she feels most comfortable. And he says, well, actually,
Speaker 1: I'm a think tech scholar. You can call me a
Speaker 1: political operative, but I assure you if Joy Reid had
Speaker 1: somebody on from the Brookings Institute, she would show deference
Speaker 1: and say, a Brookings Institute scholar or you know, I
Speaker 1: can't even think of some of the more radical left
Speaker 1: wing think tanks out there right now, but you get
Speaker 1: the idea, that's that's our first move. But she also
Speaker 1: has really just brought to the forefront somebody with Chris
Speaker 1: Ruffo here who just points out, I mean these are
Speaker 1: these are direct things? These are did you lie about
Speaker 1: the following? And he just goes one after the other.
Speaker 1: I mean to say, and these are the different lies
Speaker 1: that the left is telling right now about critical race theory.
Speaker 1: Did you say this? Did you say that they don't
Speaker 1: teach this in school? Did you say that it's not
Speaker 1: routed in Marxism? These are yes or no things? And
Speaker 1: he just rattles it all off. And when you hear
Speaker 1: his allegations, you know that, I mean, it's it's game over.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just the left does not have on
Speaker 1: those on those points. In this case, joy Reid does
Speaker 1: not have responses worth hearing. And it's because she has
Speaker 1: said all those things, and she was I think, being
Speaker 1: disingenuous with him from really the moment that he came on.
Speaker 1: I really just like, because this is a classic liberal
Speaker 1: news anchor trick. Have somebody on and pretend you're going
Speaker 1: to show them respect so that you throw them off
Speaker 1: for a second, and then you just try to try
Speaker 1: to passive aggressively gut them on TV and then go
Speaker 1: to commerci before they have a chance to realize what's
Speaker 1: even happened. I absolutely hate that, and the libs do
Speaker 1: it all the time. Kamala's going to the border folks.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we will talk about this in just a moment.
Speaker 1: I want to make sure that your privacy online is
Speaker 1: something that you could actually count on, because your online
Speaker 1: data always seems to be under the magnifying class by
Speaker 1: big tech. The Internet is the biggest surveillance system ever created,
Speaker 1: and big tech is big brother in this context, so
Speaker 1: you should have some concern over this. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: real anxiety from not having control of your online data
Speaker 1: while it's manipulated and sold to advertisers. And as you know,
Speaker 1: you can get shut down too for saying or thinking
Speaker 1: the wrong things. But now there's a new way with
Speaker 1: the ultimate privacy and cybersecurity communications tool Secure okay. Secure
Speaker 1: is an instant messaging and email platform hosted in Switzerland,
Speaker 1: protecting your data with the strictest privacy laws in the world.
Speaker 1: Secure spelled sek you are uses prietary encryption technology, an
Speaker 1: independent platform and Swiss privacy laws to ensure complete privacy
Speaker 1: and security of your data on desktop and in transit.
Speaker 1: This is secure and private instant messaging and email sek
Speaker 1: you are Secure assures your conversations, messages, and data are
Speaker 1: kept completely safe in private and Secure does not mine
Speaker 1: your data and is not subjected to the Cloud Act.
Speaker 1: Take back your freedom, privacy and online security with Secure
Speaker 1: by going to sekure dot com. That's Secure dot com
Speaker 1: and use coupon code buck for one week free and
Speaker 1: twenty five percent off. Be sure to use coupon code
Speaker 1: buck buc k go to Secure dot com sekure dot
Speaker 1: com and regain your privacy. Today, Jensaki had to try
Speaker 1: to explain why the border all of a sudden was
Speaker 1: on Kamala's radar. Oh, why is that play seven about
Speaker 1: today's announcement? Why is the vice president visiting the boarder
Speaker 1: this week? When earlier this month she dismissed a trip
Speaker 1: like that, saying it would be a grand gesture. She
Speaker 1: also said in an interview with NBC that she would
Speaker 1: be open to going to the border if it was
Speaker 1: an appropriate time. She said that after she said that,
Speaker 1: So that's important context to her, an important context. I've
Speaker 1: got the NBC interview right here. She was talking about
Speaker 1: how that she hasn't been to the border. She hasn't
Speaker 1: been in Europe either, So does she think that these
Speaker 1: two things are the same and again, Peter. I think
Speaker 1: she also said in the same interview that she would
Speaker 1: be open to going to the border at an appropriate time.
Speaker 1: I mean, Peter Doocy has one of the best jobs
Speaker 1: in media right now. I gotta tell you, it's just
Speaker 1: it's just so fun. He gets to verbally joust with
Speaker 1: Saki bomb and he's, Look, he's doing a great job.
Speaker 1: He really is, because he's not aggressive, he's not he's
Speaker 1: not stomping on her words. He's not he's not man splaining,
Speaker 1: not that that's really a thing, but he's just asking
Speaker 1: straightforward questions. And it's funny to watch Saki try to
Speaker 1: smile through her teeth at him, and she's like, I
Speaker 1: just hate this guy, but he's doing great work. Yeah.
Speaker 1: Why is it suddenly worthwhile for Kamala to go to
Speaker 1: the border. Why was it not an appropriate time for
Speaker 1: the first you know, ninety days or whatever it was
Speaker 1: that she was the borders are and she decided not
Speaker 1: to go. She could fly over it to go to
Speaker 1: Guatemala and Mexico, but couldn't actually go to US soil
Speaker 1: at the US Mexico border and speak with the people
Speaker 1: that are facing the problem there, understand that they're going
Speaker 1: to have a bit of a of a downturn in
Speaker 1: crossings because over the summer months, fewer people want to
Speaker 1: make the trek, and there'll be some effort in the
Speaker 1: media to say, see what Biden and Kamala are doing
Speaker 1: is working, see and or Biden Harrison. And turns out
Speaker 1: that what'll end up occurring is in the fall, when
Speaker 1: the weather is more favorable, there'll be a big increase
Speaker 1: again in crossings. And you'll all see that this is
Speaker 1: because the Democrats don't want this to go away. I mean,
Speaker 1: here's Lindsey Graham, for example, who's just straight out saying it.
Speaker 1: Democrat Party likes this play for because the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is pro illegal immigration. What happened at the border between
Speaker 1: January and June one hundred and sixty percent increase in
Speaker 1: illegal crossings because the Biden administration wiped out all the
Speaker 1: Trump policies that we're working. They're basically rolling out a
Speaker 1: welcome app for illegal administer Crump to come by the
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands. On crime, the modern Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: anti coup. There's no other way to say it. The
Speaker 1: liberal left is the energy of the Democratic Party on
Speaker 1: policing and immigration and Joe Biden is refusing to stand
Speaker 1: up to the left, and he's in denial about what
Speaker 1: the problems at the border really are. It's got nothing
Speaker 1: to do with the conditions in Central America. The Biden
Speaker 1: administration is going to an open border policy. They change
Speaker 1: all the Trump policies about remaining in Mexico and morning
Speaker 1: cops a crime. They're declaring war on the cop and
Speaker 1: the prosecutor. Declaring war on cop and the prosecutor. Although
Speaker 1: I'll note there are a lot of I agree with
Speaker 1: pretty much everything Lindsay Graham says here, although there are
Speaker 1: a lot of left wing activist prosecutors out there who
Speaker 1: actually make the crime problem much worse. It's the front
Speaker 1: line of dealing with criminals, the front line of law
Speaker 1: and orders, clearly cops, but right behind them. You've all
Speaker 1: seen the show Law and Order, Right there's the detectives,
Speaker 1: the cops investigating the detectives, and cops investigating crimes, and
Speaker 1: the and the justice system that prosecutes them. Or I
Speaker 1: forget what the line is. It's something like that, producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: what is it you've seen? Come on, you've had some
Speaker 1: days where you must have watched like ten episodes of
Speaker 1: Law and Order and realize, oh my god, where did
Speaker 1: my day go? Yeah, my wife's favorite show is Law
Speaker 1: and Order SVU. So I've watched a lot of it.
Speaker 1: I'm a mate. There are there are so many of these.
Speaker 1: I've met many women I will say for they love.
Speaker 1: I guess it's Morisco Hargeta, the actress who plays Olivia Benson.
Speaker 1: They love Law and Order SVU. I'm like, this show
Speaker 1: is is like horrifying. It's like these these terribly graphic,
Speaker 1: frightening crimes and I know all these all these uh
Speaker 1: you know, female millennials in particularly like I love Olivia Benson.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know, keep me up at night. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't get the obsession with the show. But if
Speaker 1: they like it, sure let them. Hey what I mean, Look,
Speaker 1: the original Law and Order is a great show for
Speaker 1: what it is, you know, dun Dune, you know the
Speaker 1: we don't have the noise, but the original Law and Order,
Speaker 1: and it's the pacing of it is so good because
Speaker 1: you can sit there and they get you in the
Speaker 1: first You're like, well, I mean if the guy who
Speaker 1: owns the nightclub is found in the dumpster behind the
Speaker 1: you know, the the fair going on out in the suburbs.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like they bring you in right away.
Speaker 1: You're like, well, I gotta find out who put who
Speaker 1: killed this guy who strangled them and throw him in
Speaker 1: the dumpster. You know. Was it the college professor, was
Speaker 1: it the wealthy guy on the yacht? You know they
Speaker 1: always go through that too. I'm like, yeah, it's basically
Speaker 1: like a murder mystery, but not one that you do
Speaker 1: at home with your friends, one you watch on TV. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's real solid. So anyways, good good show.
Speaker 1: I will say. I remember in college some days was
Speaker 1: freezing in central Massachusetts, and my roommates and I at
Speaker 1: the time, we would just sit there and eat eat
Speaker 1: chicken wings and watch Law and Order for like four
Speaker 1: or five hours at a time. It's probably why I
Speaker 1: got pretty rode on junior year. Anyway, it was a
Speaker 1: great show. It still is a great show. So, but
Speaker 1: the point here is that you get people on the
Speaker 1: law enforcement side who are being undermined, people on the
Speaker 1: prosecutorial side who are working really against the system that
Speaker 1: they're supposed to uphold. And then beyond that, beyond that,
Speaker 1: you have the border the lawlessness at the border from
Speaker 1: a willingness to enforce the laws there. This problem will
Speaker 1: not go away. This problem is only going to get worse.
Speaker 1: And in the meantime, you're going to hear a lot
Speaker 1: of nonsense justifications. You're gonna hear a lot of absurd
Speaker 1: garbage from the left because people know the crime stuff
Speaker 1: is a big problem. So what's the Democrat explanation for it? Well,
Speaker 1: here's Jensaki trying to tell you that it's the Republicans
Speaker 1: who are actually for defunding police. Oh yeah, get ready
Speaker 1: for it. Play eight. Well, I think the president believes
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't and we shouldn't allow access to guns
Speaker 1: to those criminals who are currently illegally builing them from
Speaker 1: some dealers across the country, and part of his announcement
Speaker 1: is taking steps to do exactly that. But part of
Speaker 1: his announcement is also ensuring their specific guidance to communities
Speaker 1: across the country to ensure that they have funding to
Speaker 1: get more community police around the country, something that was
Speaker 1: supported by the American Jobs Plan. That was support that
Speaker 1: was voted until a lot of buy Democrats just a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago. Some might say that the other
Speaker 1: party was for defunding the police. I'll let others say that,
Speaker 1: but that's a piece. Why do they say community police?
Speaker 1: How about is police community police? Is that like violence
Speaker 1: interrupters or something. Doesn't make any sense, does it. The
Speaker 1: whole thing is frankly absurd. All right, everybody, make sure
Speaker 1: that you pass the buck, and thank you all, by
Speaker 1: the way for all your support. I see, I read,
Speaker 1: I know. There are hundreds and hundreds of messages, particularly
Speaker 1: on Facebook, about how much you love the Clay and
Speaker 1: Buck show, and we really appreciate that, especially you know,
Speaker 1: stepping into this time slot, the fact that all of
Speaker 1: you are like, you're doing a great job, and I
Speaker 1: try to pass that along to Clay, So thank you
Speaker 1: for that. Please pass the buck. As you know, this
Speaker 1: podcast is going to keep coming out first thing in
Speaker 1: the morning, and that's going to be our show for today.
Speaker 1: I'll be back with you tomorrow producer Mark and I
Speaker 1: will do some roll call shield tie