Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt team in September eleventh.
Speaker 1: We will talk about what this day means and what
Speaker 1: we should do about it going forward. Coming up from
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. This is the bus Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence, what magnor mistake American enemy? You're
Speaker 1: a great American again, The buck Sexton Show begins analyst,
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. No. Eighteen years ago, the terrorists
Speaker 1: struck this citadel of power and American strength. But the
Speaker 1: enemy soon learned that they could not weaken the spirit
Speaker 1: of our people. In times of distress, the heart of
Speaker 1: the American patriot only grows stronger and more determined. The
Speaker 1: American people will never forget or ever fail to be
Speaker 1: inspired by the courage of the men and women to
Speaker 1: Flight ninety three. We honor them by remembering them, and
Speaker 1: we honor them by resolving here and now that we
Speaker 1: will do as they did, each of us and all
Speaker 1: of our varied roles, to prevent such evil from ever
Speaker 1: reaching our shores again. Even in the midst of the attack,
Speaker 1: the world witnessed the awesome power of American defiance. Forty
Speaker 1: passengers and crew on Flight ninety three rose up, fought back,
Speaker 1: and thwarted the enemy's wicked plans. In their final moments,
Speaker 1: these American heroes thunderously declared that we alone decide our fate.
Speaker 1: We saw American perseverance in the valued New York firefighters,
Speaker 1: police officers, first responders, military, and every day citizens who
Speaker 1: raced into the crashing towers to rescue innocent people. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck Section show. Everyone. September eleventh, the day
Speaker 1: that we all remember. I'm sure every single one of
Speaker 1: you recalls exactly where you were on that day, what
Speaker 1: you were thinking. I have told you before. I was
Speaker 1: walking to a class up at Amherst College. The professor
Speaker 1: looked at us all very gravely and said that there
Speaker 1: has been a plane that has run into has flown
Speaker 1: into one of the twin towers, and I think you
Speaker 1: should all go back and turn on the news. And
Speaker 1: we did, and I remember seeing the second plane hit.
Speaker 1: Because my dorm was right next to the where the
Speaker 1: classroom was, I was able to get back very quickly,
Speaker 1: and I saw that second plane hit, and then I
Speaker 1: watched and watched, and then saw the towers collapse. Born
Speaker 1: and raised in this city, but first and foremost an American,
Speaker 1: not a New Yorker. I knew that we had been
Speaker 1: attacked and we were going to war. I remember saying,
Speaker 1: actually to my friends, we're going to war. I didn't
Speaker 1: know against two or what at the time, just was
Speaker 1: quite obvious that this was the worst attack we had
Speaker 1: suffered since Pearl Harbor. I didn't know at the time,
Speaker 1: but I would end up finding myself in two wars
Speaker 1: that would result from that day, one in a rock,
Speaker 1: one in Afghanistan. And here we are now eighteen years later,
Speaker 1: and the memory is very fresh for me. I'm sure
Speaker 1: this form many of you as well. I also remember
Speaker 1: being on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, where I
Speaker 1: grew up and seeing the first and only time in
Speaker 1: my life. I think I still have photos of it
Speaker 1: somewhere all up and down the Avenue American flags. There
Speaker 1: were something different in the era. President Trump and Vice
Speaker 1: President Pence were referring to it today in their remarks.
Speaker 1: We knew we had been hit. It was devastating, we
Speaker 1: lost many thousands of our own. We also knew that
Speaker 1: we would rally, and that the greatest country, really the
Speaker 1: greatest civilization the world has ever known American civilization was
Speaker 1: going to show the world our resolve and not be
Speaker 1: cowed by this, not be broken by it. And then
Speaker 1: it led to many people from my generation and a
Speaker 1: generation or two above me as well, joining the fight
Speaker 1: in one way or another, whether in the military or
Speaker 1: deciding that they wanted to be heroes, like those NYPD
Speaker 1: and f D and Y individuals who gave their lives
Speaker 1: trying to evacuate those towers that day. Then you also
Speaker 1: had people who saw the courage of what happened on
Speaker 1: flight ninety three and recognize that it is on all
Speaker 1: of us to stare down and take action against evil
Speaker 1: when evil presents itself. It is on all of us
Speaker 1: to understand that there can be no bystanders when you
Speaker 1: are faced with a threat like we were that day
Speaker 1: of Islamic jihadism that viewed itself as in a civilizational
Speaker 1: war against us, and that was seeking our destruction, the
Speaker 1: downfall of our society, the elimination of our freedoms, and
Speaker 1: with it, who knows how many generations, not just here
Speaker 1: in America but around the world left to much lesser
Speaker 1: lives than they would have otherwise, had much less liberty, freedom,
Speaker 1: prosperity hope. I still remember very well what it was
Speaker 1: like that day. I'm sure you do too. I believe
Speaker 1: some of you, I would assume we're directly affected by
Speaker 1: what happened. I think that unfortunately the country has reached
Speaker 1: a point now where we don't think of nine to
Speaker 1: eleven the way that we should all the time, which
Speaker 1: is a reminder of how fragile our liberty really is.
Speaker 1: That there are people, there are forces in this world
Speaker 1: that would seek to take it away, and that we
Speaker 1: have to be willing to meet evil head on. That
Speaker 1: there is no international body, there's no way of just
Speaker 1: finding agreement common ground with everyone all over the world
Speaker 1: who would otherwise seek to take up arms against Sometimes
Speaker 1: we have to actually meet force with force. Nine to
Speaker 1: eleven is a day that we say we will never forget.
Speaker 1: I think unfortunately, far too many of our fellow Americans
Speaker 1: have started to forget it. There is a strain of
Speaker 1: left wing ideology in this country. I think the dominant
Speaker 1: belief among the American left is that we overreacted to
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. I even remember, on the day of
Speaker 1: the attacks, I was told by, or rather in front
Speaker 1: of the whole school a professor stood up and claimed
Speaker 1: that this was a response to US foreign policy, that
Speaker 1: more or less we got this because we deserved this.
Speaker 1: That was a sentiment that you heard in some quarters
Speaker 1: the day it happened, and the days after it happened,
Speaker 1: when it was quite fresh that we had lost almost
Speaker 1: three thousand of our own in cowardly, disgusting, psychotic suicide,
Speaker 1: murderer tax. My friends, this world that we live in, now,
Speaker 1: this reality that we all inhabit, who are in this country,
Speaker 1: of the good guys win, that's only the case because
Speaker 1: there are good guys who are willing to give their
Speaker 1: lives so it will continue to be true. And gals,
Speaker 1: of course, it's only the case because there are people
Speaker 1: who stand up and are ready to do violence on
Speaker 1: our behalf, two men who would seek to destroy us
Speaker 1: because of our liberty, because of our freedom. I remember
Speaker 1: we used to call it the Global War on Terror,
Speaker 1: and then after fighting it for a number of years,
Speaker 1: leftists came along and try to change it so that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't call it that it's a fight against a tactic.
Speaker 1: And then there were even movies that were made that
Speaker 1: seemed to want to shift this into being almost a
Speaker 1: natural disaster. It was not a natural disaster. It was
Speaker 1: a day that the that its dates was hit with
Speaker 1: evil and we were caught napping. Let's be very clear
Speaker 1: about it. We were not prepared for what was coming
Speaker 1: our way. That's another lesson we should never forget. It's
Speaker 1: certainly something that we had never experienced since Pearl Harbor,
Speaker 1: and I hope we never have to experience it again.
Speaker 1: I hope that my children and your children and so
Speaker 1: forth never have to have a day where they wonder,
Speaker 1: is the world ever going to be the same and
Speaker 1: is it only going to get worse from here? I
Speaker 1: had that thought. I thought maybe we would be involved
Speaker 1: in endless wars, mass casualties, massive casualties on our side.
Speaker 1: Who knew where this was really going to go. What
Speaker 1: if the enemy had gotten weapons of mass destruction already?
Speaker 1: What if they had acquired nuclear material. What if they
Speaker 1: were going to destroy a US city, unleash biological weapons
Speaker 1: that could kill thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or more.
Speaker 1: What does the world look like then, What happens to
Speaker 1: global markets, what happens to rule of law? It was
Speaker 1: a scary day. It's very easy now to look back
Speaker 1: on it and think well, we were going to be fine.
Speaker 1: We're the most powerful country in the world, and then
Speaker 1: you get into this lulling ourselves into a sense of
Speaker 1: fall security today, as if this could not happen again,
Speaker 1: as if there's no scenario in which the United States
Speaker 1: could be the victim of a sneak attack that kills
Speaker 1: thousands and upends our very way of life and makes
Speaker 1: us feel at a core level deeply unsafe, makes us
Speaker 1: all worry if the future that we thought we would
Speaker 1: have as Americans was really going to be ours anymore.
Speaker 1: So I wish that they would spend an hour every
Speaker 1: year replaying exactly what happened in that first hour of
Speaker 1: the attack on the various news channels. I think that
Speaker 1: would be a way to pay proper Homa chair in
Speaker 1: addition to the different memorials. And but I think that
Speaker 1: that's something that we will forget what it really felt
Speaker 1: like that day as time passes, and there are lessons
Speaker 1: that we should never ever forget. We'll get into more
Speaker 1: of this team in just a moment, stay would me
Speaker 1: my son, Kenneth Joseph Marino. Being a firefight is not
Speaker 1: a job, it's a calling. Not everyone can do what
Speaker 1: a firefight it does, and especially what they did on
Speaker 1: September eleven, running into burning buildings when everyone else was
Speaker 1: running out, knowing that they may not make it out themselves.
Speaker 1: Yet they continue to do what they were called upon
Speaker 1: to do and saved many lives on a horrific day.
Speaker 1: As we all know, many firefighters did not make it out,
Speaker 1: and my son, Kenny was one of them. He left
Speaker 1: behind his wife, a twenty month both son and the
Speaker 1: three year old daughter, but his spirit lives within his
Speaker 1: children and he would be so crowded them to day. Well,
Speaker 1: we are hungled by Kenny's actions and the actions of
Speaker 1: all the first responders. Eighteen years has not listened, our laws,
Speaker 1: our lives have been forever changed, but we hold on
Speaker 1: to and cherished the moment fields shared. I remember during
Speaker 1: my time at the NYPD Intelligence Division, occasionally there would
Speaker 1: be some reference by MYPD veterans, guys who've been in
Speaker 1: the force a long time. They would just come up
Speaker 1: that they knew somebody who was in the tower that day,
Speaker 1: that they lost one of one of ours. They would say,
Speaker 1: one of the police officers who rushed into the buildings
Speaker 1: tried to evacuate people, and it's very likely. I mean,
Speaker 1: they can never know the exact number, but the estimates
Speaker 1: are that our first responders law enforcement saved perhaps a
Speaker 1: few thousand lives that day by the orderly evacuation. It's difficult,
Speaker 1: it's traumatic when you go back and read the transcripts,
Speaker 1: listen to just exactly what happened. Then I today heard
Speaker 1: a voicemail. You know, they had these voicemails that were
Speaker 1: left behind of people that were on one of the
Speaker 1: planes that after it was clear they were being hijacked
Speaker 1: and used as weapons, and that it was unlikely that
Speaker 1: anybody on the plane was going to survive. And that
Speaker 1: choked me up today actually still does just thinking about it.
Speaker 1: So you have to at some level go back there.
Speaker 1: You have to remind yourself of exactly what we faced
Speaker 1: and what happened and the losses that we sustained. Then
Speaker 1: you also have to take away from it the bravery
Speaker 1: that was on display by our own the first responders,
Speaker 1: the Todd Beemer and those with him on flight ninety
Speaker 1: three that day. It was a reminder that we are
Speaker 1: never we are never without recourse, that the bravery of
Speaker 1: the righteous can overcome anything. But man NYPD, F D
Speaker 1: and y they were. They were never really quite the
Speaker 1: same after that in terms of cherishing. I think the
Speaker 1: work that each and every one of them was doing
Speaker 1: every day. There was a feeling here in the city.
Speaker 1: I came into New York soon after nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: there was a sense that this country had come together,
Speaker 1: and I do think we missed that sometimes now I
Speaker 1: think we missed it a lot. It didn't last all
Speaker 1: that long. We're going to talk about the politics of
Speaker 1: this in a moment, because there are idiot leftists out there,
Speaker 1: including members of Congress and also major media outlets that
Speaker 1: have acted like fools today, total fools. And what's perhaps
Speaker 1: even more unsettling is they've shown us what they really
Speaker 1: think of nine to eleven, that they still don't get it,
Speaker 1: or perhaps they reject some very important realities of that day.
Speaker 1: There is a movement right now. I cannot even I
Speaker 1: can't say it without getting angry. But I'll just tell
Speaker 1: you today you had over at CNN on the anniversary
Speaker 1: of nine to eleven doing a quote reality check under
Speaker 1: the headline America's nine to eleven Amnesia, and then in
Speaker 1: the big screen behind one of their one of their
Speaker 1: anchors was right wingers are America's deadliest terrorists. That's right,
Speaker 1: on today, of all days. We have to be told
Speaker 1: this idiotic lie. It is not true, But we have
Speaker 1: to be told that conservatives are the real threat. Yet
Speaker 1: nineteen hijackers, fifteen of them Saudi Arabia, nineteen of them Muslims,
Speaker 1: and we have to be told that it is our
Speaker 1: own domestic American conservatism that we should all be worried about.
Speaker 1: And there were some corrections that different media outlets have
Speaker 1: had to make in the last few days that I
Speaker 1: think we're particularly illuminating. Perhaps foremost among them was the
Speaker 1: New York Times today. This was you couldn't if you thought,
Speaker 1: if you said this might happen, people would tell you no,
Speaker 1: They're not that obvious about trying to make this seem
Speaker 1: like it was a natural disaster, like this wasn't the
Speaker 1: result of an enemy that had been at war with
Speaker 1: us for a long time. In fact, really an ideology
Speaker 1: that has been at war with us, with America in
Speaker 1: one form or another, stretching back to the founding, you
Speaker 1: can go back to the war against the Barbary pirates,
Speaker 1: Jeff and Adams and the emissary from the Barbary States,
Speaker 1: telling our own Secretary of State that they make war
Speaker 1: on us because the Koran tells them that they can,
Speaker 1: and that we are infidels, and that that is just
Speaker 1: the way it is going to be. A lot of
Speaker 1: people reject this history and say that that's not really
Speaker 1: something that we need to focus on. I mean, I
Speaker 1: didn't learn anything about the Barbary pirates in school. I've
Speaker 1: had to learn on my own. The New York Times meanwhile,
Speaker 1: has a different view of what happened that day, it seems,
Speaker 1: because they shared from their official Twitter account on September
Speaker 1: eleventh today. Earlier today, eighteen years have passed since airplanes
Speaker 1: took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today,
Speaker 1: families will once again gather and grieve at the site
Speaker 1: where more than two thousand people died. Airplanes took aim. Folks,
Speaker 1: it was those rogue airplanes. Perhaps there was a mechanical
Speaker 1: failure on all of them at once. Something must have
Speaker 1: gone wrong in the airplanes because they took aim. These
Speaker 1: inanimate objects. No nineteen human beings who are part of
Speaker 1: a coherent aggressive, colonialist and world dominating if they get
Speaker 1: their way ideology, came up with a plan to try
Speaker 1: to ruin this country where people live in freedom and
Speaker 1: happiness and decency in civilized fashion. They try to ruin
Speaker 1: that it was human beings, it was an enemy, it
Speaker 1: was an ideology, It was radical Islam. New York Times
Speaker 1: wanted us to forget that. Today I have to ask why,
Speaker 1: how could they make that mistake. We'll get into that
Speaker 1: Care was founded after nine eleven because they recognized that
Speaker 1: some people did something and that all of us were
Speaker 1: starting to lose access to our civil liberties. Some people
Speaker 1: did something. It's a sitting member of the United States
Speaker 1: Congress Democrat from Minnesota. Some people did something. I think
Speaker 1: it's a pretty big damn thing that they did, and
Speaker 1: a horrible one and a life altering life taking in
Speaker 1: so many thousands of cases. One but this mentality, this
Speaker 1: idea that there should be a revisiting, a revisionism around
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. It's not new. It's been there for
Speaker 1: quite some time. And there are people on the left
Speaker 1: who have never really been honest about what happened that day.
Speaker 1: There are many people in the Democratic Party who still
Speaker 1: think that the biggest problem was, in fact, the Islamophobia
Speaker 1: that resulted from nine to eleven now I will tell
Speaker 1: you this, and I've said in years passed on radio,
Speaker 1: I think it's I think it bears repeating the fact
Speaker 1: that we had nineteen hijackers, all of whom were Muslim,
Speaker 1: engage in this mass casualty attack, this act of war
Speaker 1: and cowardice against the American people, and there were so
Speaker 1: few cases I'm not saying there were none, but so
Speaker 1: few cases of retaliation of violent bigotry against the Muslim
Speaker 1: community in this country is just a testament to who
Speaker 1: we are as people. Who we are as Americans. We
Speaker 1: recognize that every individual is is only responsible for his
Speaker 1: or her actions. You don't punish people because someone else
Speaker 1: did something who looks like them, praised like them, comes
Speaker 1: from the same place as them. That would be immoral,
Speaker 1: and you can't fight immorality by becoming evil yourself. But
Speaker 1: I don't think we get enough credit as a country,
Speaker 1: if anything, for that that it was a reminder of
Speaker 1: just how decent, intolerant, and kind and generally speaking loving
Speaker 1: the American people are to each other day to day.
Speaker 1: Instead the narrative you often hear from the left as well,
Speaker 1: there was a rise in hate crimes that we you
Speaker 1: know that that's the biggest threat today. The New York
Speaker 1: Times had a whole page of editorials that had only
Speaker 1: one only one editorial on September eleventh, on the anniversary
Speaker 1: of this attack that even dealt with the attack, and
Speaker 1: it was to talk about the first person perspective of
Speaker 1: somebody who was concerned about the otherness and loss of
Speaker 1: civil liberties that he was concerned about as a Muslim American.
Speaker 1: That's it. Nothing about the sacrifice of so many who
Speaker 1: served in our military who went over to root out
Speaker 1: these terrorists, which was absolutely needed. Was the right response
Speaker 1: to go into Afghanistan and eradicate al Qaeda and their
Speaker 1: Taliban hosts. We lost people in that fight. And yes,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of terrorists, by the way, in
Speaker 1: Iraq as well. We could talk about whether they showed
Speaker 1: up after Saddam fell or whether they were there in
Speaker 1: the first place, depends on who and what we're what
Speaker 1: we're looking at specifically. But some of the most evil
Speaker 1: jihadest imaginable were taken off the battlefield in Iraq as well,
Speaker 1: and that was by our military, particularly our Special Operations community,
Speaker 1: going after high value targets. Yes, there are liberals today
Speaker 1: who would rather move past this and pretend that it
Speaker 1: was something other than what it was. It was a natural,
Speaker 1: Desig asked her. It was aberrant. It had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Islamic radicalism specifically. It was just this one group,
Speaker 1: this one small subset of radical Islam that attacked us
Speaker 1: on that day, and maybe US foreign policy had been
Speaker 1: a little too hubristic for a while and this was
Speaker 1: a way of keeping us in check. There are liberals
Speaker 1: who make those arguments, there are leftists who believe this stuff.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine anybody saying in reference to nine to eleven,
Speaker 1: you know, some people skipping past it like it's a footnote.
Speaker 1: Some people did something, and this from someone who had
Speaker 1: to flee a country that is a mess to come
Speaker 1: to this country, which welcomed her not just with open arms,
Speaker 1: but made her a member of our elected body. But
Speaker 1: nine to eleven's a footnote. Nine eleven is something that
Speaker 1: you just referenced in passing as though it was really
Speaker 1: just in the course of normal American history and things happen.
Speaker 1: Some people did something stunning. But there's a lot that
Speaker 1: you can look to today to show you that the
Speaker 1: politics of nine to eleven are still being fought out
Speaker 1: in public. There are leftist media organizations that really think
Speaker 1: that they should focus they should use Not eleven to
Speaker 1: focus on the real threat, which is Trump's fascism and
Speaker 1: right wing extremism. And as I've done before, if we're
Speaker 1: going to talk about where we have to look for
Speaker 1: the real threat of terrorism, let's look, for example, at
Speaker 1: the percentage of the population that would be fall under
Speaker 1: under the white conservative male that the media outlets want
Speaker 1: to tell us is the main terrorist threat, and then
Speaker 1: the percentage of the population that would fall under what
Speaker 1: could be radical Islam. And then you crunch the numbers,
Speaker 1: you say, wow, there's definitely a disparity here, isn't there.
Speaker 1: That's perhaps a conversation we'll get into more another day.
Speaker 1: But it's a hard day to day. I really mean
Speaker 1: that I think about I go back in my mind
Speaker 1: every year, and I'm not particularly active on social media.
Speaker 1: I don't write a reflection every your My reflection is this.
Speaker 1: It's this show and what I consider throughout the day,
Speaker 1: and like so many of you, how it changed my life.
Speaker 1: I remember, before nine to eleven, I thought America was
Speaker 1: just the good guys had won and everything the world
Speaker 1: was just going to keep getting better and wealthier and
Speaker 1: safer and happier, and the fights that my generation would
Speaker 1: have would be around, you know, minor things or manageable
Speaker 1: domestic things. You know, how do we almost entirely eliminate
Speaker 1: violent crime? How do we make sure that, you know,
Speaker 1: everybody has access to a good home and education and
Speaker 1: all the things that we talk about as a country
Speaker 1: all the time. And then this happened, and a few
Speaker 1: million of my fellow Americans answered the call and decided
Speaker 1: that they were going to show up and fight for
Speaker 1: their country. I have to say, for all this talk
Speaker 1: that you hear, it has become very commonplace to have
Speaker 1: all this stuff about how you know, millennial, oh, millennials this,
Speaker 1: and millennials that millennials are so bratty and Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I'm technically a millennial, and I know a lot of
Speaker 1: millennials that said, sign me up for my country. I
Speaker 1: will give my life. You tell me where to go,
Speaker 1: you tell me where the bad guys are. Let's do
Speaker 1: this the bar from Todd Biemer, Let's roll. I think
Speaker 1: we have to remember those millennials and Gen X and
Speaker 1: jen Y and boomers and everybody else who showed up.
Speaker 1: But I'm part of what I think you could term
Speaker 1: the nine to eleven generation, people who were adults and
Speaker 1: of military fighting age when this thing happened, and there
Speaker 1: were a lot of people who their lives changed, and
Speaker 1: people also gave their lives in response to this one event,
Speaker 1: this one day. It is a formative, a formative day
Speaker 1: for America, one that will be with us forever. And
Speaker 1: it's a question of what we do as a result
Speaker 1: and how we go forward. So we must remember what
Speaker 1: the attack was, who came after us, and why, and
Speaker 1: then take courage and take some degree of hope from
Speaker 1: the fact that we rallied as the nation that we
Speaker 1: know we are and men. We should be proud of
Speaker 1: all those who served and took the fight to the enemy,
Speaker 1: and also just proud of the way that America responded
Speaker 1: as a country. Overwhelmingly, we rallied as one. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about a little bit of the aftermath of the bull
Speaker 1: the situation. I've got more for you. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Some people did something, said a freshman congresswoman from Minnesota,
Speaker 1: to support and justify the creation of care. Today, I
Speaker 1: am here to respond to you exactly who did what,
Speaker 1: to whom madam. Objectively speaking, we know who and what
Speaker 1: was done. There is no uncertainty about that. Why your confusion?
Speaker 1: On that day, nineteen Islamic terrorists, members of al Qaida
Speaker 1: killed over three thousand people and caused billions and dollars
Speaker 1: of economic damage. Is that clear? But as to whom
Speaker 1: I was attacked? Your relatives and friends were attacked, Our
Speaker 1: constitutional freedoms were attacked, and our nation's founding on Judeo
Speaker 1: Christian principles were attacked. That's what some people did. Got that.
Speaker 1: Now we are here today, foundress woman, to tell you
Speaker 1: in the squad, just who did what to whom? I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's a fact in honoring them? Please, American patriotism,
Speaker 1: I mean your position demanded for God in country. Amen.
Speaker 1: Nine eleven victims Son there calling out the words of
Speaker 1: a representative Omar today at a nine eleven remembrance ceremony.
Speaker 1: I just I thought you should hear those words. So
Speaker 1: I told you we would talk about Bolton. I don't
Speaker 1: want to talk about him much more, just a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes and then we'll move on to some other things.
Speaker 1: The warn't Afghanistan, ending the war in Afghanistan, which I
Speaker 1: think is in some ways, that would be the most
Speaker 1: fitting takeaway after this week of rememberance would be Okay,
Speaker 1: let's remember what happened, and then let's also remember that
Speaker 1: we should not expend one more life in that country
Speaker 1: than is absolutely necessary. I've had too many losses already,
Speaker 1: too much mission creep, too much drift, too much lack
Speaker 1: of focus, lack of a strategic imperative. Enough is enough.
Speaker 1: Then you have to think about who makes these decisions
Speaker 1: and who's in charge Bolton and I think you know
Speaker 1: where I stand on Bolton in general. But all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, now the left is very concerned that Democrats
Speaker 1: are so concerned? How could you get rid of Bolton?
Speaker 1: If you had asked any Democrat six months ago, what
Speaker 1: do you think of Ambassador John Bolton? They would their
Speaker 1: national security advisor slash Ambassador Bolton. They would have said,
Speaker 1: you know, he's a madman, wants to invade countries, bloodthirsty's
Speaker 1: a warmonger. That if it all kinds of horrible things. Ah.
Speaker 1: But this week, this news cycle, there's some possibility that
Speaker 1: attacking Bolton is a way, or rather, defending Bolton is
Speaker 1: a way of attacking Trump, And so it all changes. Actually,
Speaker 1: they say, Bolton's like really smart and an adult in
Speaker 1: the room, and getting rid of him is a terrible
Speaker 1: thing for Trump. That who just goes to show that
Speaker 1: Trump is in disarray and you can't trust his judgment
Speaker 1: and doesn't know anything, doesn't understand anything you have. For example,
Speaker 1: Senator Chris Coons is very upset at the prospect of,
Speaker 1: or rather at the news of Bolton's firing. Well, Bolton
Speaker 1: was President Trump's third national security advisor. Obviously Flynn had
Speaker 1: the briefest tenure. I think there's a lot that we
Speaker 1: need to know about what caused this abrupt firing by
Speaker 1: tweet of the president's national security advisor, what the policy
Speaker 1: differences were, and what this means about stability America's place
Speaker 1: in the world and the decision making team that surrounds
Speaker 1: our president. This is all nonsense. First of all, the
Speaker 1: little swipe that he took at Flynn, who was set
Speaker 1: up by deep staters at the dj and FBI, people
Speaker 1: like Sally Yates, who abused the spirit of the law,
Speaker 1: if not the letter of the law, in order to
Speaker 1: take out someone they politically disapproved of. It was disgusting
Speaker 1: what they did to Flynn. I don't care if you
Speaker 1: lie or not. You never should have been put in
Speaker 1: that position in the first place. But here you have
Speaker 1: Senator Coon saying that we have to worry about stability. Well,
Speaker 1: you could have one national security advisor for a really
Speaker 1: long time. It doesn't mean that any decisions are good.
Speaker 1: And this is also where people have a very limited
Speaker 1: understand including members of Congress, and most people in Congress
Speaker 1: to talk about foreign policy are intellectual dilettants on the subject.
Speaker 1: At best. They're not knowledgeable. They're not thoughtful. They don't
Speaker 1: know history, they don't know policy. They just know what
Speaker 1: they have to say to stay in good stead with
Speaker 1: their own party and to keep the donation dollars rolling
Speaker 1: in and get reelected. That's what they're concerned about when
Speaker 1: it comes to foreign policy. They're really not thoughtful on
Speaker 1: the issue at all. I'm actually usually deeply unimpressed with
Speaker 1: Congress on matters of statecraft abroad. Most members of Congress
Speaker 1: I have on some issues, really very much agreed with
Speaker 1: Senator Lindsey Graham. Sometimes on foreign policy we do not
Speaker 1: particularly see, although I think as foreign policy changes quite
Speaker 1: a bit, I do agree with them on this. Whether
Speaker 1: Bolton resigned or was fired. It doesn't matter, and he's
Speaker 1: darn right on that one. Did you Buller resigned or
Speaker 1: the president? I don't know, And again I don't think
Speaker 1: it matters. I think he served honorably and I appreciate
Speaker 1: his service to our country. And the president has right
Speaker 1: to choose somebody has trust in, and we'll get a
Speaker 1: new national security advisor here soon. Plenty of people can
Speaker 1: do this job. There are a lot of folks who
Speaker 1: have fantastic intellectual, academic, and service credentials to do this job.
Speaker 1: You know, they've served their country in one role or
Speaker 1: another and would be an excellent Remember, this is an
Speaker 1: advisory role to the president. The President's got plenty of advisors.
Speaker 1: There's lots of information out there for him to glean.
Speaker 1: And this is not some crisis they want to make
Speaker 1: it seem like, oh my gosh, without a bolt and disarray.
Speaker 1: How many White House disarray stories have you seen? Has
Speaker 1: any of it mattered? You know? Does it matter that
Speaker 1: they told Taylorson to pass his bags and hit the road?
Speaker 1: Does it matter they told Scaramucci a rivederci? I mean,
Speaker 1: does it matter that they vooted? Uh? You know, you
Speaker 1: know who? I can't even think of what's his name, Kelly.
Speaker 1: I mean, these people served, some of them longer than others,
Speaker 1: some of them more honorably than others. But they served,
Speaker 1: and then the President's like, I don't want you to
Speaker 1: do this anymore. Go do something else. That's it. They
Speaker 1: try to overcomplicate this with these stories of oh, there's
Speaker 1: a lock of stability. There are tons of people in
Speaker 1: DC and across the country who could be very fit
Speaker 1: advisors for the president on national security, where this is
Speaker 1: not a crisis. It's not a problem. The only crisis
Speaker 1: is that my phone hasn't rung yet. President Trump, I
Speaker 1: don't know what to tell you, buddy. I'm here for you.
Speaker 1: You need me. You're a lot better than Bolton. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you that much can be right bad. We had
Speaker 1: peace talks scheduled a few days ago. I called them
Speaker 1: off when I learned that they had killed a great
Speaker 1: American soldier from port Rico and eleven other innocent people.
Speaker 1: They thought they would use this attack to show strength,
Speaker 1: but actually what they showed is unrelenting weakness. The last
Speaker 1: four days, we have hit our enemy harder than they
Speaker 1: have ever been hit before. And that will continue, and
Speaker 1: if for any reason they come back to our country.
Speaker 1: We will go wherever they are and use power the
Speaker 1: likes of which the United States has never used before.
Speaker 1: And I'm not even talking about nuclear power. They will
Speaker 1: never have seen anything like what will happen to them.
Speaker 1: President Trump is right on the very important, very fundamental
Speaker 1: position here of ending the war in Afghanistan, and in
Speaker 1: my opinion, it needs to be done. I also understand
Speaker 1: what that would mean, and I have said to you
Speaker 1: we should all be quite clear on this. I did
Speaker 1: not agree with the President inviting the Taliban to Camp David,
Speaker 1: but perhaps he thought that that was just going to
Speaker 1: get the final, you know, that final piece in place
Speaker 1: for a truce. I did not think that was the
Speaker 1: right move, But I think that he's right on a
Speaker 1: much more important issue of what should happen now. How
Speaker 1: should we end America's longest ever war, and whatever agreements
Speaker 1: that we have from the Taliban, assurances we receive from
Speaker 1: the Taliban, we should be very clear on this is
Speaker 1: likely they will break some, if not all, of It
Speaker 1: is likely that they will double cross whatever diplomatic agreements
Speaker 1: we reach. It's just a question of when they think
Speaker 1: it's in their interest to do it, how long we
Speaker 1: wait for it to happen, and how bad the damages
Speaker 1: when it happens. But that's where we are. The alternative, though,
Speaker 1: is to just continue to think that if we have
Speaker 1: about ten thousand or so troops stationed in this country,
Speaker 1: things are going to get better. They're not going to
Speaker 1: get better. We need to be willing to say that
Speaker 1: we will end the war in Afghanistan. Remember the Taliman's
Speaker 1: not in charge. Now, We've done a tremendous amount spent
Speaker 1: so many billions of dollars mentoring training, assisting Afghan military,
Speaker 1: Afghan police. At some point you have to take the
Speaker 1: training wheels off this country and let it ride on
Speaker 1: its own. And I think we're there and if something
Speaker 1: goes wrong, and I do believe there's a very decent
Speaker 1: chance that that may be the case. If something does
Speaker 1: in fact go wrong, we know this going into it,
Speaker 1: that there is that risk. So I do believe that
Speaker 1: President Trump is correct in trying to end this war
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. But I also think that and people have
Speaker 1: asked me, why why do I feel differently, for example,
Speaker 1: about the true presence in Iraq than I did about
Speaker 1: troops troops in Afghanistan rather versus Iraq, and I would
Speaker 1: just say that in the case of Iraq, you have
Speaker 1: a much you had a much more established central government, bureaucracy, infrastructure.
Speaker 1: Iraq compared to Afghanistan, was a much more developed country
Speaker 1: and had far greater resources. Remember, Iraq has a lot
Speaker 1: of oil, folks, Iraq is not is not some you know,
Speaker 1: dirt poor third world country that can't get any revenues going.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're doing, they're doing. I think in recent
Speaker 1: years they've gotten upwards of eighty or ninety billion dollars
Speaker 1: in oil revenue, and it might be even higher than
Speaker 1: that now I should probably check and see exactly what
Speaker 1: it is. But you know, Afghanistan has nothing like that.
Speaker 1: In fact, the only real revenue stream that enough Stan
Speaker 1: has ever had that started to feel like it could
Speaker 1: go in that direction was the illegal heroin trade through
Speaker 1: the opium poppies that they were growing. So I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you, it's just a different it's a different country,
Speaker 1: it's a different situation, just because those are two wars
Speaker 1: that we that we started, or in the case of Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: we were retaliated. But those are two wars that happened
Speaker 1: close to each other. It doesn't mean that they're similar
Speaker 1: strategic situations. It doesn't mean that the likelihood of success
Speaker 1: is the same in both places. And we've done everything
Speaker 1: we can do in Afghanistan. I have not heard one
Speaker 1: person credibly say that the outcome at Afghanistan is likely
Speaker 1: to be different if we stay longer. I haven't heard
Speaker 1: a single person take that position, not one. What does
Speaker 1: that tell you? What does that mean to you? Have
Speaker 1: we learned the lesson? This is a time for this discussion.
Speaker 1: It is the day of September eleventh. We remember what
Speaker 1: it was to be attacked on that day. We have
Speaker 1: been in Afghanistan for almost twenty years. I think that
Speaker 1: Trump's warning to anyone who would use Afghanistan again as
Speaker 1: a platform for a similar attack is well put. I
Speaker 1: think that's exactly what our position should be. I'm here
Speaker 1: in New York City. I grew up in this town.
Speaker 1: Those were America. It was America who's attacked on that day,
Speaker 1: but it was New Yorkers who were and DC area
Speaker 1: residents for the most part. I know there are also
Speaker 1: people on the plans who comprised the mass of the
Speaker 1: casualties and if we got hit again anywhere in this
Speaker 1: country or anywhere around the world that killed Americans in
Speaker 1: a mass casualty attack, and we found out that it
Speaker 1: was because the Taliban was harboring them. We're going to
Speaker 1: go back and our ferocity is going to be a
Speaker 1: thing that people will, I think be a bit astonished
Speaker 1: at for the ages, but that's what we should do.
Speaker 1: Otherwise we're just going to be in this country forever
Speaker 1: trying to make it a better place than it is.
Speaker 1: It's not on us. We can't make them have a
Speaker 1: decent civil society. We can't make them have a country
Speaker 1: with rule of law. I mean, I would just point,
Speaker 1: I would point to look at the situation, say in
Speaker 1: Japan or in France after the Second World War. Those
Speaker 1: are countries that got up and running very quickly after
Speaker 1: the war, and both have done very well since then.
Speaker 1: But they were far more established nation states, much further
Speaker 1: along developmentally in terms of their civil society, in terms
Speaker 1: of their national identity. Look, Afghanistan has a big problem
Speaker 1: with where the loyalty of the population realies. Is it
Speaker 1: to tribe or is it to country. If you are
Speaker 1: a Pashtun from the South, from Hellman, from Kandahar, you
Speaker 1: care more about fellow Pashtuns or do you care about
Speaker 1: what the sent government in Kabble tells you. These are
Speaker 1: problems for them to work out, not for us to
Speaker 1: work out. So I do think that President Trump is
Speaker 1: is correct here, and he's going to get a lot
Speaker 1: of heat. I also worry that there are some people
Speaker 1: with very loud voices in this debate who have not
Speaker 1: just ideological but maybe even financial incentives for us to stay.
Speaker 1: And as difficult as that even to just think about
Speaker 1: anyone trying to direct US foreign policy toward a continued
Speaker 1: military presence where we're taking casualties, where we're having to
Speaker 1: engage the enemy because of dollars and cents. It's a
Speaker 1: real thing, unfortunately, and I do believe that there are
Speaker 1: some out there who would like to see a continued
Speaker 1: presence in Afghanistan for that reason. But Trump wants to
Speaker 1: get us out. I hope he's I hope he's successful.
Speaker 1: There's no better takeaway from this this week in terms
Speaker 1: of an immediate policy response than ending the war in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: I try to keep my politics separate from the stuff
Speaker 1: that I write. The stories, because I think people like story,
Speaker 1: people want story and you know, if they want the
Speaker 1: news they want to, you know, the stuff, they can
Speaker 1: go on and get on MSNBC, or they can go
Speaker 1: on Fox or whatever. But sometimes life comes along and
Speaker 1: imitates art steady the other way around. And as I
Speaker 1: was rewriting this book, all at once I find out
Speaker 1: Unlocking little Kids up in caging on the border, and
Speaker 1: I'm thinking to myself, this type my book. Wow, that's
Speaker 1: Stephen King. I've never read a Stephen King books. I'll
Speaker 1: just be honest, but I've never read a novel by
Speaker 1: Stephen King, so I can't speak to whether they're worthwhile
Speaker 1: or not. I know he's been very, very very successful financially,
Speaker 1: he sold a lot of books. But I thought that
Speaker 1: was it was interesting one that you catch this with
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of liberals out there in
Speaker 1: the entertainment media, where they say, well, you know, I
Speaker 1: understand I should be entertaining people, but then I something
Speaker 1: so important comes along, something so important comes along that
Speaker 1: I had to just make a connection to politics. I
Speaker 1: couldn't stand back from it. And I tell you, these days,
Speaker 1: I just don't even want to know sometimes because it'll
Speaker 1: ruin something for me to find out that an individual
Speaker 1: involved in it. You know, we'll say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't even clearly in the Trump era. This is
Speaker 1: why we need to know, you know, it's always this
Speaker 1: is why I won't watch the what's the show where
Speaker 1: the women go around and the bonnets, you know, because
Speaker 1: they're all they're all super oppressed. They're actually oppressed, but
Speaker 1: unlike women in America today. But you know, I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the show with the bonnets and the weird they
Speaker 1: look like a bunch of Puritans. Handmaid's Tale, the Handmaids.
Speaker 1: I refuse to watch it because it's all, oh, this
Speaker 1: is what would happen if Mike Pence were president. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: all right, let's not be completely insane. Like Pence is
Speaker 1: a very nice man, very nice family. He's not going
Speaker 1: to make America into the Handmaid's Tale. He couldn't even
Speaker 1: if he wanted to, and he doesn't want to. So
Speaker 1: what are we even talking about? But I digress. Stephen
Speaker 1: King here is saying that, you know, he has a
Speaker 1: story and I don't even know what it is. That
Speaker 1: there's a crossover or there's a connection between you know,
Speaker 1: kids in cages and some of you who watched when
Speaker 1: I was on Bill Maher a few weeks or now
Speaker 1: about a month ago, and the former governor of Michigan,
Speaker 1: Jennifer Granholm, at one point just turn I was trying
Speaker 1: to talk to Bill about immigration and talk about it.
Speaker 1: I wasn't. I wasn't, you know, shouting or being aggressive
Speaker 1: or anything. She just turned me and just yelled kids
Speaker 1: in cages, kids in cages, as though that was the
Speaker 1: argument ender that she had been looking for all night.
Speaker 1: And I looked at her, like, this person was a
Speaker 1: governor of a major state, Michigan, and we gotta have
Speaker 1: a talk Michigan. Wherever you are, we gotta have a
Speaker 1: chat about how well, then again, you're probably like yahbo,
Speaker 1: you're in New York where the Cuomo's are a dynasty
Speaker 1: and they run everything, and if you don't like it,
Speaker 1: the lesser Cuomo will threaten to ruin your bleep and
Speaker 1: bleeping throw you down a flight of bleeping stairs because
Speaker 1: he's a bleeping CNN anchor. Do not call him Fraido.
Speaker 1: So I guess it's not fair to hold Michigan responsible
Speaker 1: for it's governor if we're not gonna hold New York
Speaker 1: responsible for its governor. Governor Cuomo Oh my I feel
Speaker 1: like one day I'm gonna meet him and he's gonna
Speaker 1: be like, are you the one who does the very
Speaker 1: loud and stupid impersonation of me? Nobody needs a bazuka
Speaker 1: to kill a squirrel. We need bazuka reform. Now you'll
Speaker 1: remember that too. He didn't exactly say that. It's a
Speaker 1: little bit of exaggeration, but he did give quite a
Speaker 1: speech about that back in the day. But you have
Speaker 1: Graham looked at me and said that about kids in
Speaker 1: cage and Stephen King is talking about how art imitates
Speaker 1: life or life imitates art or whatever it is with
Speaker 1: a book he wrote, and kids in Cages, And to
Speaker 1: this I always want to ask, and I really mean this,
Speaker 1: It would be an interesting exercise for me if I
Speaker 1: could get one of these libs that is so just
Speaker 1: freaked out about what's gone on in our southern border
Speaker 1: with the enforcement of existing immigration laws. I would like
Speaker 1: to walk them through what is really happening there and
Speaker 1: ask what they think the policy should be, because I
Speaker 1: think what you would invariably find out from some very
Speaker 1: loud and opinionated leftists on the matter of immigration is
Speaker 1: that anything short of open borders is going to be
Speaker 1: insufficient for them, meaning any real enforcement of immigration laws
Speaker 1: is unacceptable. But the moment you say to them, but
Speaker 1: you are four open borders, there's a no, I'm not no,
Speaker 1: of course not I can of that all right, Well,
Speaker 1: that means that people don't just get to show up,
Speaker 1: and not everyone who comes here, especially those who come
Speaker 1: here in violation of laws, are going to get to stay.
Speaker 1: And if they don't get to stay, that means you
Speaker 1: have to deport them. And if you're going to deport them,
Speaker 1: you have to detain them. If you're going to detain them,
Speaker 1: you have to arrest them. And if you're going to
Speaker 1: arrest them, you do have to hold them in some
Speaker 1: form of restricted movement facility, which is going to involve
Speaker 1: fences or wires or walls or whatever. Not cages per se,
Speaker 1: but some form of restricted movement domicile. You're I have
Speaker 1: to or else. Well, we're on the honor system. Yeah,
Speaker 1: show up tomorrow. We're gonna have a bus here, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna deport you. If you don't show up, we're
Speaker 1: gonna find you. We're gonna ask you again. Because we
Speaker 1: can't detain you, that's mean we can't hold you. In
Speaker 1: a facility that you don't want to be in, that's
Speaker 1: not comfortable, and where things you know aren't the way
Speaker 1: you'd like them to be. The reality when I was
Speaker 1: in the when I was at the border in at
Speaker 1: Tijuana and San Diego, Sport of Patrol told me that
Speaker 1: some of the illegals that would cross over and surrender,
Speaker 1: remember that's illegal. You can't do that. It's cutting it's
Speaker 1: quite literally cutting the line because you're supposed to go
Speaker 1: to a port of entry and wait at that port
Speaker 1: of entry, and if there's too many people at the
Speaker 1: port of entry that day, you got to come back
Speaker 1: the next day. If you surrender, it means you just
Speaker 1: walk across the border and say here I am. That's
Speaker 1: illegal because we have a system, because there are rules.
Speaker 1: But I remember the border patrol agents telling me in
Speaker 1: San Diego they would have a legal show up and
Speaker 1: would start demanding I mean they would demand food right
Speaker 1: away and they'd have to the border patrol aldience were
Speaker 1: being told, you know, so when are you when are
Speaker 1: you bringing me before they've even been processed, when are
Speaker 1: you bring him my food? As if they're like a
Speaker 1: maitre d service for illegal aliens I'm being serious. They
Speaker 1: told me that this happened. Oh wow, I mean that's you.
Speaker 1: Don't You don't hear that story in the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: do you? Yeah? Going to McDonald's. I know, I know
Speaker 1: you're supposed to arrest me, because that's what you do
Speaker 1: when someone breaks the law for violating the sovereign territory
Speaker 1: of America and breaking US federal law, and they're supposed
Speaker 1: to arrest me. But really, I know that Pelosi and
Speaker 1: the Democrats and AOC are calling the shots here. So
Speaker 1: why don't you Border Patrol Go get me a McDonald's
Speaker 1: sandwich and I'll wait here. Thanks. That's a thing that
Speaker 1: has happened. So while we're always being told how it's
Speaker 1: about kids in cages, Stephen King is claiming that he's
Speaker 1: clearly he's clearly making a comparison between a horror movie
Speaker 1: or horror book or whatever it is and the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: I just would like to know what is supposed Let's
Speaker 1: take the kids in cages out of the out of
Speaker 1: the equation for a second, because it has been out
Speaker 1: of the equation because they don't hold children separately from
Speaker 1: their families anymore. What is the acceptable degree of enforcement
Speaker 1: of our border. What should the law say. Should the
Speaker 1: law be that anybody who shows up across our border
Speaker 1: just gets to stay? So oh no, no, no no, they
Speaker 1: have a process. Okay, what if they don't show up
Speaker 1: for the process, did they get to ported? And what
Speaker 1: if after they show up for the process, they don't
Speaker 1: get what they want, which is a legal claim to
Speaker 1: stay in America? Do they don't get to bord? If
Speaker 1: you're going to keep saying no, then you're just you're
Speaker 1: you're at an open border status, and you should as
Speaker 1: a Democrat, as a lib and some Republicans like this stuff,
Speaker 1: you should just admit that. But they never have any
Speaker 1: answers about it. They just like the moral posturing of
Speaker 1: we don't want kids in cages, as Democrats Republicans do.
Speaker 1: They're the bad guys. Trump is the ultimate bad guy
Speaker 1: because of this. All right, Well, that has that policy,
Speaker 1: which was just enforcing the laws on the books. And
Speaker 1: if anyone in this country gets arrested and they have
Speaker 1: a baby with them, you know what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a separation from that infant. There's
Speaker 1: going to be a separation from that child. That's what
Speaker 1: happens to citizens every day in this country, So there's
Speaker 1: a different set of laws I suppose we're supposed to
Speaker 1: accept for illegal aliens. I'm not there yet. I'm not
Speaker 1: willing to just accept that. And I do think that
Speaker 1: if we were just able to have liberals sit down,
Speaker 1: if we could just talk to them a bit more
Speaker 1: about what it is that they really want to happen
Speaker 1: at the border, a lot of them would recognize that
Speaker 1: they've just been fed lies, and a lot of them
Speaker 1: would recognize that no, they're four open borders. At least
Speaker 1: then we would have honesty. Right now, what we have
Speaker 1: is talking points, moral grandstanding, and people like Stephen King
Speaker 1: saying Trump has created a nightmare at our border, worthy
Speaker 1: of one of my books. It's just not true. There's
Speaker 1: also been when it comes to communities of immigrants and
Speaker 1: undercurrent of racism or nativism that was always under the
Speaker 1: surface to some degree. Not that that was unfelt by
Speaker 1: the people against whom it was directed, but at least
Speaker 1: we attempted to form a more perfect union. We attempted
Speaker 1: to live by the ideals that were foundational with the country,
Speaker 1: that we're all created equal. We never quite got there,
Speaker 1: but we never stopped trying until now, where you have
Speaker 1: a president who is so openly nativist and racist. Betto
Speaker 1: just says the same thing every day. I don't know
Speaker 1: when he assumes that this is going to be profound.
Speaker 1: I don't know when he thinks this is going to
Speaker 1: be a thing that all of a sudden, We're going
Speaker 1: to pay attention to. Betto. But this is the dumbest
Speaker 1: talking point that you will hear from the left. Is
Speaker 1: just some variation of OMG, Trump and the Republicans are
Speaker 1: so racist and this country has to deal with its
Speaker 1: legacy of racism, and let's just talk more about racism
Speaker 1: and how racist everything is. This is the most This
Speaker 1: is the most brainless thing that you will hear from
Speaker 1: all the Democrat candidates all the time. They just do
Speaker 1: different variations on the theme of, oh, well, all I
Speaker 1: oppose racism, therefore I'm a good person. Republicans op post
Speaker 1: racism too. I've said this before, and I think that
Speaker 1: maybe it's doesn't really bear repeating on this show. But
Speaker 1: the truth is, because I've said it so many times,
Speaker 1: racism is anti conservative. You can't believe in individual dignity,
Speaker 1: individual rights that we are created in God's image and
Speaker 1: then we are all equal as human beings. Things that
Speaker 1: you must think if you're a conservative, because if if
Speaker 1: that's not true true, then why do we have inalienable rights?
Speaker 1: Why are we created in God's image? I mean, if
Speaker 1: we're not all equal, then that doesn't make it, That
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. You have to believe that every
Speaker 1: individual human being is of equal worth as a human
Speaker 1: being to every other in the eyes of the law
Speaker 1: and in the eyes of God. Otherwise, what is conservatism
Speaker 1: based on? Because why not just have us a superstate? Then?
Speaker 1: Because human beings have no inherent dignity, there's there's this
Speaker 1: separation based on where we're from and everything. No, it
Speaker 1: is anti conservative to be to be racist, and we've
Speaker 1: done so much in this country to overcome racism. And also,
Speaker 1: if we're going to really look at this for a moment,
Speaker 1: the truth is we actually get along really well as
Speaker 1: a country and as a country that is quite diverse.
Speaker 1: And I'm here in New York City and I'm walking
Speaker 1: around on the streets, I'm on the subway. You see
Speaker 1: people from every kind tree, every color, ethnicity, race, you
Speaker 1: name it here and we're all just walking around doing
Speaker 1: our things. No one's stopping and noticing and oh, look
Speaker 1: at that person. That just doesn't happen here. It really
Speaker 1: feels like Beto O'Rourke and the Democrats on the race issue,
Speaker 1: it's like they've created a fake version of America, a
Speaker 1: version of America that's not what we're experiencing every day.
Speaker 1: And this is why I think they've largely transitioned toe.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that the President is racist all the time,
Speaker 1: even though the President will say he's not racist. He
Speaker 1: believes all people are equal. He thinks that racism is terrible.
Speaker 1: I wish that they would stop lying about what he
Speaker 1: said at Charlottesville. They will not stop lying about it.
Speaker 1: This is now. It's an unfortunate case study in how
Speaker 1: repetition by an anti Trump media can overcome the fact
Speaker 1: just you can do it yourself. Look at the transcript
Speaker 1: of what was said what Trump said in Charlottesville. No
Speaker 1: honest person could read that transcript and say, oh, he
Speaker 1: was praising white nationalists. He explicitly said I am not
Speaker 1: praising white nationalists. But but they still pretend that he
Speaker 1: was praising white nationalists. That's the storyline that you always
Speaker 1: get if racism in this country was so bad, maybe
Speaker 1: we wouldn't have so many race hoaxes that occur. As
Speaker 1: we know, this is a much greater frequency than the
Speaker 1: lip media ever wants to admit to. If racism was
Speaker 1: so bad in this country, maybe they wouldn't have to
Speaker 1: manufacture evidence of it from the President and the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: which is what they do on a regular basis. But
Speaker 1: I sit here and I just say to you, I
Speaker 1: really hope that Peto Aurorica has gone soon because it's pathetic. Now.
Speaker 1: It's not cute really anymore. It's not funny. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know I like to do the betto impression, but
Speaker 1: this is a guy who has abandoned any sense of
Speaker 1: decency and fairness in his campaign to the other side,
Speaker 1: to the other side's ideas, and it's just all it's
Speaker 1: all posturing and nonsense, you know. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a guy who, first of all, his whole affect of mbutu,
Speaker 1: no you're you're Robert Francis O'Rourke man like this This
Speaker 1: thing is is if he wasn't first of all, if
Speaker 1: he wasn't a Democrat, he would not it would not
Speaker 1: be okay from to pick up what would be considered
Speaker 1: an ethnic Latino name like this and use it. If
Speaker 1: you were a Republican, people would mock him for this,
Speaker 1: or they wouldn't even mock him. They would say it's
Speaker 1: a problem. They would criticize him all the time. So
Speaker 1: you have to also remember that you have to keep
Speaker 1: that in mind. Here he gets a pass on this
Speaker 1: because I know we've been called it for a long time. Whatever,
Speaker 1: he still gets a pass on it because he is
Speaker 1: a Democrat, as we know. Speaking of Democrats, there's some
Speaker 1: movement here with Elizabeth Warren, who is all of a sudden.
Speaker 1: Here is what Jim Kramer over at CNBC had to
Speaker 1: say about a war in presidency from the perspective of
Speaker 1: Wall Street guys. Why, look, I've gotta tell you, when
Speaker 1: you get off the desk you talk to executives, they're
Speaker 1: more fearful of her winning. I mean, I've never heard
Speaker 1: anybody say, look, she's gotta be stopped. She's gotta be stopped.
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's she's very she keeps going up
Speaker 1: through the poles, She's raised a ton of money. It's
Speaker 1: gonna win out. I believe she's a very compelling figure
Speaker 1: on the stump. By the way. I hear it too,
Speaker 1: And it's another reason why companies are being implored to
Speaker 1: do things now. If you want to get something done,
Speaker 1: you really think M and A or anything, think about
Speaker 1: doing it soon, because come early to mid twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: if Eliza mclauren's rolling along, everybody's gonna be like, that's it.
Speaker 1: She You hearing it too? Oh yeah, I wonder what
Speaker 1: China says about that exact question. Oh yeah, boy, she
Speaker 1: is so anti pollution in China, they're all saying they're
Speaker 1: worried about Elizabeth Warren. I'm all street, I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm I don't buy it. I don't buy it. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe they're worried, but I don't think that they have
Speaker 1: anything really to be worried about. And here's why Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren is very much a transactional progressive. She's someone who
Speaker 1: has made a very nice living for herself as a
Speaker 1: law professor, making about a quarter million dollars a year.
Speaker 1: I think just to teach one class a week, that's
Speaker 1: a nice gig I would take. You know, can't get
Speaker 1: fired making a quarter of a million dollars, getting up
Speaker 1: in front of a classroom and saying a bunch of stuff.
Speaker 1: It's probably not even particularly useful from a legal perspective,
Speaker 1: but you know, she's Elizabeth Warren, so first Cherokee law
Speaker 1: professor on the Harvard faculty. She had that going for,
Speaker 1: which is nice. But here's a reminder about the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party is full of rich. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of rich people in Democratic part In fact, Wall Street
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly gives you the biggest firms Goldman, Saxons, they give
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton last time around. They're they're not. This
Speaker 1: is one of these myths that we have to deal
Speaker 1: with on the right that will never go away, and
Speaker 1: that is that the the rich are Republicans. It's just
Speaker 1: not true. There are rich people in both parties, right, oh,
Speaker 1: the Republican billionaires funding everything they have. What about Soros?
Speaker 1: What about Tom stey Er, what about you know, go
Speaker 1: down the list, what about Oprah? What about Steven Spielberg?
Speaker 1: If you get all these people were fabulously wealthy, huge Libs,
Speaker 1: huge Libs. The Liberals have plenty, plenty of money. And
Speaker 1: yet we hear this story about how Wall Street is
Speaker 1: a Republican. Wall Street is in its politics left of center,
Speaker 1: and in it based on its giving. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not guessing about this. This is where you know, this
Speaker 1: is where the money goes. And that's because, yeah, they
Speaker 1: don't want higher taxes, but the tax issue is less
Speaker 1: important than the regulatory climate and environment, and the very
Speaker 1: big firms just want to make sure that whoever wins,
Speaker 1: they're going to be taken care of. Big government loves
Speaker 1: big business. Because big government sees big business as a
Speaker 1: means of instituting policies that it wants, it can make
Speaker 1: it complicit in the expansion of government in many ways.
Speaker 1: And remember the regulatory burden, a lot of the anti
Speaker 1: competitive measures that come into play when you're talking about
Speaker 1: a big government apparatus, which is what Elizabeth Warren. We
Speaker 1: already have too much of that, but Elizabeth Warren would
Speaker 1: want you dramatically expanded. But Goldman Sachs is going to
Speaker 1: make plenty of money no matter what. Goldman Sacs employees
Speaker 1: are gonna go home with fat paychecks regardless of what
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren says, she wants to do whatever tax she
Speaker 1: puts in place, And there are a lot of ways
Speaker 1: I think that you could argue that the people that
Speaker 1: are going to get hurt are those who are trying
Speaker 1: to be up and comers, going to be competitors. They're
Speaker 1: the ones that have the deal with Oh now there's
Speaker 1: all these new accounting regulations. Now there's all these new
Speaker 1: you know, legal and administrative hurdles to trying to compete
Speaker 1: with some of these megabanks. But the megabanks, the mega corporations.
Speaker 1: But look at that you've got. Ge was practically a
Speaker 1: subsidiary of the Democratic Party for years, for years, Goleman,
Speaker 1: Sachs Democrats. I mean, if you find me Facebook Google,
Speaker 1: these are these are Democrat companies. You know, where's the
Speaker 1: where's this evidence that you would think would exist of
Speaker 1: republican Republican Party dominance in the corporate sphere. It's just
Speaker 1: not there. I wish, you know, I wish that we
Speaker 1: could get past this. But they'll continue to say this,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren will do Wall Streets bidding, because Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is gonna want powerful influential people and she's gonna make
Speaker 1: a show of doing bad stuff to Wall Street. Oh
Speaker 1: you know, she's going to clean it up and everything else.
Speaker 1: That's all crap. And think about it this way. Think
Speaker 1: about this, what's happened to the health insurers post Obamacare.
Speaker 1: Have they have? They all gone bankrupt. Oh, but the
Speaker 1: Democrats talk about how they hate the big bad health insurers. Oh,
Speaker 1: they're terrible. They're taking all the profits. Actually, their profits
Speaker 1: percentage wise are relatively small. But you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: somebody that loves the health insurance companies. I think they
Speaker 1: do do some shady stuff sometimes. That said, they're a
Speaker 1: bad guy according to Democrats. And yet have you seen
Speaker 1: the health insurers suffering a lot of pain? And no,
Speaker 1: they did Obama's you know, they agreed to go along
Speaker 1: with Obama's whole Affordable Care Act disaster as long as
Speaker 1: they got theres as long as they got paid backstopped
Speaker 1: you know, by the taxpayer, and forced forced people to
Speaker 1: become customers of theirs. So they were finally that So
Speaker 1: that's that's a perfect example what I'm talking about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren is gonna come together. She's gonna say, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna reform, I've gotta reform Wall Street. And I
Speaker 1: shound like someone has grabbed a turkey by the neck
Speaker 1: and is waving it around. You know, squawk, squawk man.
Speaker 1: She is not charming. She really isn't. It is not charismatic,
Speaker 1: forget charming, whatever you want to say. But she's gonna
Speaker 1: make this big show of how much she's gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: rock wall streets world that the truth is she's gonna
Speaker 1: do some things. But then wall st will say, Okay,
Speaker 1: we'll go along, but then leave us alone and let
Speaker 1: us make our big profits, you know, maybe even give
Speaker 1: us some way to get in on transactions that the
Speaker 1: government is you know, forcing the government's making people engage
Speaker 1: in whatever that may be. So I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: there's there's this there's this storyline out that the Democrats
Speaker 1: tell themselves that, oh, we're going to be able to reform.
Speaker 1: You know, Democrats don't like big money in politics. That's
Speaker 1: that's just a lie. Oh we want to reform, we
Speaker 1: want we don't want dark money and politics. Oh, they're
Speaker 1: all about it. Elizabeth Warren's a perfect example. Oh here's
Speaker 1: a great one, Elizabeth. Well, you know what, let me
Speaker 1: hit this when I come. I've got I got to
Speaker 1: tell you a little Elizabeth Warren fundraising story that that's
Speaker 1: a perfect example of exactly what I'm talking about. Hold on,
Speaker 1: I'll come right back. Stay with me. So I was
Speaker 1: going on a little bit of Elizabeth Warren ran. I
Speaker 1: think it's important because I believe that's where I'm putting
Speaker 1: my money for the Democrat nominee. I think it's gonna
Speaker 1: be Warren. I still I'm still standing firm on my
Speaker 1: it will not be Biden. But there was a story
Speaker 1: from the New York Times No Less a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago how Elizabeth Warren raised big money before she
Speaker 1: denounced big money. Oh look at this. It's exactly the
Speaker 1: hypocrisy that I'm talking to you about. So back in
Speaker 1: twenty eight or twenty eighteen Senate race, she was doing
Speaker 1: what Democrats do, going to very rich people and saying,
Speaker 1: you write me a check. That's my Elizabeth Warren impersonation.
Speaker 1: It's like Hillary but louder Hello. She wanted wealthy people
Speaker 1: to write her checks for her race then, and guess
Speaker 1: and so she went to people that are, you know,
Speaker 1: the high rollers, the big dollar donors. And now she's
Speaker 1: talking about how she's only a grassroots funded campaign, they're
Speaker 1: not taking big dollar donations. But guess what, she's a
Speaker 1: total hypocrite because she's using ten point four million dollars
Speaker 1: that she's rolling over from her twenty eighteen Senate race
Speaker 1: to underwrite her twenty twenty presidential bid. So I mean,
Speaker 1: but this is a classic moment of exactly what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. Warren is going around on the stump saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, people shouldn't be able to shouldn't be reliant
Speaker 1: on big dollar donors, and oh, the wealthy and the
Speaker 1: elite are just buying everyone off and blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: all this crap. And it turns out that back in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, she was raising money bite doing exactly that,
Speaker 1: and she's using that money now to fund her campaign.
Speaker 1: So this would be like if I was running around saying, hey,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, you can't rob a bank and
Speaker 1: then use that money to fund your political campaign. You
Speaker 1: can't do that. That's terrible. And people were like, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: you robbed the bank a couple of years ago and
Speaker 1: you're using that money. And I'm like, yeah, yeah, but
Speaker 1: that was then. This is now. What do we always
Speaker 1: say defining character ristic of the contemporary liberal is just
Speaker 1: unbridled hypocrisy, hypocrisy that is punch you in the face,
Speaker 1: obvious hypocrisy from which there is no escape, and you
Speaker 1: come away from it thinking how could they? How could
Speaker 1: they expect any person to take their word on any
Speaker 1: of this, given how obvious it is that what they
Speaker 1: say is so different from the way that they themselves act,
Speaker 1: whether it's on money and politics, on climate change, on
Speaker 1: you know, the education system, on you know, immigration, in
Speaker 1: all these areas where whenever you see libs out there
Speaker 1: who are professing how much they care about an issue,
Speaker 1: it's not a surprise at all to find out that
Speaker 1: if there's any sacrifice involved in really doing something about that,
Speaker 1: they're not going to do that. They just want other
Speaker 1: They want to talk about it, they want other people
Speaker 1: to do it. Elizabeth Warren raised tons of money from
Speaker 1: rich people, and now she's saying other candidates are relying
Speaker 1: on rich people for their donations. He's using rich people
Speaker 1: money and saying it's bad. She's a huge fraud, folks,
Speaker 1: a fraud, and not just because of the fake Indian stuff.
Speaker 1: She's a fraudt not bringing a house back to August
Speaker 1: to keep the we did the Senate was supposed to
Speaker 1: come back. Why does you all get that straight? Because
Speaker 1: the Senate did not come back to pass the bill.
Speaker 1: I'm getting very angry about the word silliness of these questions,
Speaker 1: why is there at stake Senator McConnell was standing in
Speaker 1: the way. We passed our bill in February. Members had
Speaker 1: events all over the country to ask him to bring
Speaker 1: up the bill. Don't ask me what we haven't done.
Speaker 1: We have done it. And if you are annoying, it's
Speaker 1: my impatience. It's because people are dying. But the Senator
Speaker 1: McConnell hasn't acted. Why don't you go ask him if
Speaker 1: he has any regrets to all the people who died
Speaker 1: because he hasn't packed do what the Democrats say on
Speaker 1: gun control, or you don't care about people dying, same
Speaker 1: argument every time ever, really seems to change very much.
Speaker 1: That's what we keep getting told that you do with
Speaker 1: the Democrats want you to do, or you don't care
Speaker 1: about dead children, you don't care about gun violence, you're
Speaker 1: a bad person. And they wonder why we don't trust
Speaker 1: them for any kind of middle of the middle of
Speaker 1: the road solutions. They say that we're terrible people if
Speaker 1: we don't do exactly what they say, and then we're
Speaker 1: supposed to believe that if we gave them more power,
Speaker 1: say with red flag laws or any number of these
Speaker 1: other restrictions, that they talk about that that would somehow
Speaker 1: result in Democrats being more fair minded about this. I
Speaker 1: think that that's just silly. I think that's entirely unrealistic.
Speaker 1: But President Trump is still out there talking about this,
Speaker 1: still discussing this as a possibility. I'm not really sure
Speaker 1: what Trump's Trump's plans are here. We're looking at background checks,
Speaker 1: and we're looking at putting everything together in a unified
Speaker 1: way so that we can have something that's meaningful. At
Speaker 1: the same time, all of us want to protect our
Speaker 1: great Second Amendments, so important to all of us. So
Speaker 1: we are now in meetings. The meetings are going to
Speaker 1: go in tonight. I'm going to speak with them again tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And I think progress is being made, I hope. So
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that I actually scratch that. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure that we don't want this kind of progress to
Speaker 1: be made because it's not progress. I haven't heard a
Speaker 1: single policy that would be that would be a good
Speaker 1: idea from the perspective of ending gun violence. There's nothing
Speaker 1: that I listened to and I say, oh, yeah, that
Speaker 1: that's In fact, there's a terrifying idea that's out there
Speaker 1: right now called Harpa and this is just astonishingly bad.
Speaker 1: It's going to be the what the Health Advanced Research
Speaker 1: Project I mean, yeah, the Health Advanced Research Project Agency
Speaker 1: sort of like DARPA, but for health. And they say
Speaker 1: they want to here we go. Former NBC Chairman Bob Wright,
Speaker 1: a longtime friend that associated President Trump's, has brief top officials,
Speaker 1: including the President, the vice president, and Ivanka Trump, on
Speaker 1: a proposal to create a new research agency called HARPA
Speaker 1: to come up with out of the box ways to
Speaker 1: tackle health problems, much like DARPA does for the military. Say,
Speaker 1: several people who have been briefed, Yeah, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: some new agency that looks into this and tries to
Speaker 1: come up with something that how many debates, now, how
Speaker 1: many times have we had to have it out in
Speaker 1: public over whether or not there's there's a way to
Speaker 1: make this stuff, make mass murder with firearms more illegal
Speaker 1: than it already is. It's already very, very illegal. But
Speaker 1: this HARPA organization would be out there looking at ways
Speaker 1: that you could try to intervene in, specifically the realm
Speaker 1: of mental illness. Anyone who thinks that the government would
Speaker 1: ever be able to monitor mental health accurately enough that
Speaker 1: they would they could intervene to stop a mass shooting
Speaker 1: and not create a near totalitarian surveillance state for everybody
Speaker 1: who has any form of mental illness. And really, when
Speaker 1: we talk about mental illness, there is there's mental illness.
Speaker 1: Mental health is something that everyone struggles with, and I
Speaker 1: think this is often lost in the conversation. Everyone listening
Speaker 1: to this has at one time or another. Most likely
Speaker 1: some of you perhaps are perfect and had at least
Speaker 1: a little bit of what could be considered depression, a
Speaker 1: little bit of the symptoms of anxiety, a little bit
Speaker 1: of undue stress in your life that cause anxiety symptoms,
Speaker 1: and then you get too well. Is it at a
Speaker 1: level that's clinical where you have to go see you
Speaker 1: have to go seek professional help and support, And you
Speaker 1: know people do this, whether it A lot of people
Speaker 1: do this for you know, marital counseling will do this,
Speaker 1: for alcohol abuse, they'll do this. These are all mental
Speaker 1: health related issues. So when you say monitoring people for
Speaker 1: mental health, this is such a broad spectrum of things
Speaker 1: that the government would have to be looking at. It involved,
Speaker 1: and it's just it's absolutely insane. No serious person can believe,
Speaker 1: no serious person should believe that there's a way to
Speaker 1: monitor the mental health of the American people and prevent
Speaker 1: somebody base based on that monitoring program, from taking violent
Speaker 1: action because of their mental illness. You have tens of
Speaker 1: millions of people in this country with diagnosed mental illnesses
Speaker 1: of one kind or another. Yes, PTSD is classified as
Speaker 1: a mental illness, anxiety disorders, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, bipolarity.
Speaker 1: There's all these different things out there that people deal with.
Speaker 1: Some of its genetics, some of its situational, and the
Speaker 1: stigmatization that it seems the Democrats are willing to engage
Speaker 1: in now just because they're so set on getting new
Speaker 1: gun laws. Past just goes to show you. I think
Speaker 1: that they were never serious about any of this in
Speaker 1: the first place. They were never serious about reaching out
Speaker 1: and having laws that could stop people from engaging in
Speaker 1: mass shootings that also respect civil rights, that all so
Speaker 1: respect privacy and dignity of individuals. They're just looking for
Speaker 1: the political leverage in the moment to get what they want,
Speaker 1: which is some form of restrictions on guns. That's it.
Speaker 1: Everything else is noise. Everything else is just filler. So
Speaker 1: you know, I don't think the Democrats come to this
Speaker 1: issue with any good faith. I don't think that it's
Speaker 1: really about ultimately stopping gun violence, because if it was,
Speaker 1: then we've been focused on handguns and inner city crime.
Speaker 1: If it was really about stopping gun violence, that's where
Speaker 1: the push would be. No, it's on mass shootings and
Speaker 1: assault rifles, which are rare, meaning mass shootings statistically speaking,
Speaker 1: at a small percentage of the overall gun violence problem
Speaker 1: in this country. So we will keep having this. I
Speaker 1: don't know why Trump. Well, I'm hoping that he's doing
Speaker 1: a little bit of you know, ropodope here. You know,
Speaker 1: is okay, sure, we'll talk, we'll talk, we'll talk, and
Speaker 1: then when the Democrats, you know, when their audiences and
Speaker 1: their instituents are tired of the same talking points, we
Speaker 1: can move on to something else. If they had a
Speaker 1: good idea, I'd be open to it. They don't have
Speaker 1: good ideas. They just have status takeover. I don't like that.
Speaker 1: And I'm also sick of being told all the time
Speaker 1: that because look, let's be honest, the conservative side keeps
Speaker 1: winning this argument on the merits over the gun control
Speaker 1: case that they make. They don't understand these weapons, they
Speaker 1: don't know the laws that are already on the books.
Speaker 1: They don't understand or care much for Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Speaker 1: They keep losing the argument and then just they want
Speaker 1: to shout at us and tell us, well, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter that they lose the argument. They still they still
Speaker 1: should be able to get whatever they want from a
Speaker 1: policy perspective. And to this, I just say, I just
Speaker 1: say no, sorry, not signing up for that. Not okay
Speaker 1: with being emotionally ambushed and bludgeoned by the left every
Speaker 1: time there's a very bad thing that happens in this country.
Speaker 1: When it to gun violence, which is unfortunately going to happen,
Speaker 1: there's no there's no way around this. There's going They're
Speaker 1: going to be shootings. There are three hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: million people in this country. There are going to be shootings.
Speaker 1: What laws do we have and how well do we
Speaker 1: enforce those laws? That's a question to ask. Enough concerned
Speaker 1: that we're making ducto, we treated fairly well. They become
Speaker 1: very rich companies very fast. And the whole thing with
Speaker 1: vaping is is a very profitable and I want companies. Look,
Speaker 1: you know that I fight for our companies very hard.
Speaker 1: If I fight That's why I'm fighting with China. That's
Speaker 1: why I'm fighting with other countries. If you look at
Speaker 1: European Union, and if you look at Japan, and if
Speaker 1: you look at so many others, including South Korea and
Speaker 1: many others, were constantly dealing with them to make it
Speaker 1: good for our companies because I view it as jobs.
Speaker 1: I viewed as in them for our country and jobs.
Speaker 1: Vaping has become a very big business, as I understand it,
Speaker 1: like a giant business in a very short period of time.
Speaker 1: But we can't allow people to get sick, and we
Speaker 1: can't have our youth be so affected. Looks like they're
Speaker 1: getting ready for a band, folks. The Trump administration no less.
Speaker 1: Now we must adhere to principle. We have to be
Speaker 1: honest here. This is a little This attrikes me as
Speaker 1: a little a little nanny state, like maybe very Nanni state. Like.
Speaker 1: I cannot get behind this. I have never smoked a cigarette,
Speaker 1: I have never vaped, but I just don't I don't
Speaker 1: see why this is the answer. I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people who use vaping because it's less dangerous, it's
Speaker 1: less problematic than say the actual traditional cigarettes, old school cigarettes,
Speaker 1: and people this uh current frenzy seems to be around
Speaker 1: individuals who have died. I don't know how many ROSA mark,
Speaker 1: how many vaping deaths have there been. Let me just
Speaker 1: be clear, I think it's very few. Overall. Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal says doctors and officials urge people to stop vaping.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of potential cases of pulmonary illnesses. Six deaths, six
Speaker 1: deaths have been associated with this with this illness. And
Speaker 1: my understanding of this so far, and they're still figuring
Speaker 1: this out, is that they think that there's a an
Speaker 1: issue here with THHC lace products. I think essentially black
Speaker 1: market versions of these products that have gotten out there,
Speaker 1: and that may be the cause of this. I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you, you you know, six from the many, many
Speaker 1: people that are used this across the country, that doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like. Look, I'm just gonna say that six people
Speaker 1: dying from an illness related to something doesn't strike me
Speaker 1: as in and of itself a crisis. It strikes me
Speaker 1: as something worthy of inquiry and investigation. And I'm not like,
Speaker 1: I'm not a pro vaping guy. I don't vape myself.
Speaker 1: I just know that there's no way in my mind. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's just let's just back this up for a second.
Speaker 1: There's no way that vaping isn't at least better for
Speaker 1: you than smoking old school tobacco. I mean, producer Mark,
Speaker 1: am I missing something? Does anyone think that? I mean,
Speaker 1: it's water vapor. How can that be anywhere near as
Speaker 1: bad for you as burning tobacco leaves and inhaling acrid
Speaker 1: smoke all the time. It could be something in the
Speaker 1: vapor that's making people sick, but it's I don't think
Speaker 1: it's as bad. But I mean, if it's causing some
Speaker 1: certain lung diseases, I see why the alarm. No. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying there shouldn't be alarm, But to me,
Speaker 1: a nationwide ban on this strikes because think of how
Speaker 1: many people might use this stuff and then it might
Speaker 1: be vaping and that's going to prevent them from getting
Speaker 1: lung cancer. You know, when you start to look at
Speaker 1: the aggregate benefit of something that is safer than what
Speaker 1: you know, the alternative is. I just don't see it.
Speaker 1: I don't understand why they want to ban it. I look,
Speaker 1: I know they're saying, they're saying that there's a you know,
Speaker 1: what do you call it? There's h it is a
Speaker 1: gateway where we always hear about this. This is a gateway,
Speaker 1: and that's why they have all these flavors like you know,
Speaker 1: bubble yum and pomegranate and all this stuff. This is
Speaker 1: what we keep hearing about, is that we don't want
Speaker 1: kids to be vaping, which is probably true. But if
Speaker 1: we're going to have this discussion, I think we also
Speaker 1: have to have a discussion about we don't want kids
Speaker 1: to be drinking either. You know, we don't want people
Speaker 1: to be doing these things. We just don't. So are
Speaker 1: we gonna you know, bands are a bad idea, You're
Speaker 1: going to force this underground and if in fact it's
Speaker 1: from faulty products. Now people are saying, oh, buck, but
Speaker 1: what about you know, what about people that are taking fentonel.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not saying banning anything is a bad idea,
Speaker 1: but there's there's not enough evidence yet that this is dangerous.
Speaker 1: This is dangerous at a level where a band is required,
Speaker 1: I think we'll do more harm, more harm than good.
Speaker 1: And if it is in fact the case that you
Speaker 1: have black market vaping products, and that's what the essentially
Speaker 1: faulty products out in the system are what is really
Speaker 1: causing these illnesses, the few hundreds of illnesses, and then
Speaker 1: people with six people that have died. Then by banning,
Speaker 1: you're just going to increase the black market. And people
Speaker 1: seem to really like this. That's why it's a big business.
Speaker 1: And you know, Jewel and these other companies continue to
Speaker 1: make a lot of money doing this. So I just
Speaker 1: don't I don't see how the ban is going to
Speaker 1: be a good idea. And I'm a little surprised that
Speaker 1: this is the response you're getting from from President Trump.
Speaker 1: You don't producer mark, You don't smart smart, You don't.
Speaker 1: You don't smart, do you? You don't never never smarked
Speaker 1: in your life. No, I don't smoke either. Have you
Speaker 1: ever smoked a cigarette? No? I never would. It never
Speaker 1: appealed to me. I mean, I had a lot of friends.
Speaker 1: I knew a lot of girls growing up. We were
Speaker 1: teenagers who smoked Marlborough retts. They were getting after it
Speaker 1: with Marlborough rets. That's that's some pretty strong stuff. I
Speaker 1: also remember being a teenager here in New York City
Speaker 1: and and going out to bars and nightclubs, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, in my teens. Um, you're from around here,
Speaker 1: so you know that's that's not that weird. But I
Speaker 1: think if I ever walked into a bar and saw
Speaker 1: a bunch of fifteen year olds and sixteen year olds
Speaker 1: in there, I'd be like, what is this place nowadays? Yes? Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: that needs to be very normal. Yeah, were at fake IDs.
Speaker 1: Everybody would go into these places here in New York
Speaker 1: City and you walk everybody would be in high school
Speaker 1: taking shots at tequila and getting into bar fights, which
Speaker 1: really just involved like grabbing each other and fall into
Speaker 1: the ground and being like you stop it, mean person.
Speaker 1: In our fights, Catholic school fights were not usually particularly badass.
Speaker 1: But anyway, the smoking band that Bloomberg, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it, when Bloomberg enacted that smoking band, this is
Speaker 1: where this is where my nanny state kicks in. And
Speaker 1: I'm like, you know, I kind of like it. I
Speaker 1: liked it. Change the city it was, it was better.
Speaker 1: And I know that you could argue, oh, but what
Speaker 1: about establishments that are that want to do it differently?
Speaker 1: And I understand that I'm violating principle and I own that.
Speaker 1: I own it, But I also think that there was
Speaker 1: a little bit of a war in restaurants between the
Speaker 1: smokers and the non smokers. And you know, you had
Speaker 1: one group of people that really believed very very strongly
Speaker 1: that should be able to smoke at a restaurant. So
Speaker 1: everybody else has to smell their smoke, and and it's
Speaker 1: a physical compulsion. Obviously any of other people who really
Speaker 1: didn't want to be smelling that. It just wasn't. It
Speaker 1: wasn't a recipe for anyone to be happy. It really wasn't.
Speaker 1: It's a bad move. To this day, you can't walk
Speaker 1: down the street without smelling cigarette smoke somewhere, and weed smoke.
Speaker 1: I'm shocked by how often a lot of smoke you're
Speaker 1: in New York. Yeah, and the cops do nothing about it. Now,
Speaker 1: I guess it's not a felin man. Sometimes it's like
Speaker 1: the weed brownies. And like weed cookies, you don't smell those.
Speaker 1: Though you don't smell him, you taste him. It taste delicious. Man,
Speaker 1: he's getting the back of a little weed truck. You're like, hey,
Speaker 1: do you have like a blondie with the weed? Anyway?
Speaker 1: I wonder if they're really going to go forward this band.
Speaker 1: It strikes me as a bad idea, but you know what,
Speaker 1: we do have to find out more of what's by
Speaker 1: the way, you know what else we never found out about.
Speaker 1: If we're talking about mysterious illnesses, that are people dying
Speaker 1: from from mysterious circumstances. Whatever happen they did Medican Republic.
Speaker 1: Did we lose like nine Americans there dying from? No
Speaker 1: one knew what they thought. Maybe it was bootleg liquor.
Speaker 1: I had to change my whole honeymoon because I did
Speaker 1: you really. Yeah, we were originally going to dr got
Speaker 1: a great deal and then my soon to be wife
Speaker 1: was like, Nope, not doing it and not taking the risk.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to Jamaica. Yeah, you and a lot
Speaker 1: of other people. Yeah, they lost a lot of money.
Speaker 1: I can imagine. Well, we'll see if this band goes through.
Speaker 1: I hope it doesn't because I don't like banning products
Speaker 1: that come with stated risks. But we'll see. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back with Roll Call. Hey, team bug, it's time
Speaker 1: for Roll Call game. We are gonna do a double
Speaker 1: sesh of the Roll Call tonight just because I feel
Speaker 1: like it, just because I figure I want to hear
Speaker 1: from all of you on this day that a day
Speaker 1: of remembrance. You know, what do we do? How do
Speaker 1: we refer to it obviously refer to as nine a
Speaker 1: love in September eleventh. That's I suppose it is a day,
Speaker 1: just a day of national remembrance. Um, sadness in rage
Speaker 1: are the main things that I tend to conjure up
Speaker 1: when I think about it. But I want to know
Speaker 1: what all of you are thinking, and so with that
Speaker 1: in mind, I will get to the roll call Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck sex. Then I'm every day I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep saying, why don't we get our email producer Mark?
Speaker 1: Do we know no update yet? Who do? Who? Do
Speaker 1: I have to like pay off? Here? You know what? What?
Speaker 1: What wheels do I have to grease? I'm going to
Speaker 1: send an email right now. I will, I will, I will,
Speaker 1: But you can grease my wheels anytime. Hey now, I will,
Speaker 1: I will. You know, bribe people with bagels, with croissant,
Speaker 1: with Danish, whatever it may be. I just hired a
Speaker 1: personal trainer. Don't do that, He'll yell at me. Oh
Speaker 1: good for you, though, dude, I've been thinking about doing
Speaker 1: the same thing. Maybe we'll start working out together. What
Speaker 1: do you think team buck workouts? We could live stream
Speaker 1: that stuff. Man, you might kill we'd be like Hans
Speaker 1: and Franz. My name is producer Mark and I'm host
Speaker 1: Buck and I'm here to pomp you up. We could
Speaker 1: do that sure viral content. It's worth worth. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying it's worth thinking about. All right, another time, Well,
Speaker 1: when's the wedding by the way, No, damn soon. That's
Speaker 1: why I hired the personal training. It's go. Time's time.
Speaker 1: Yeah you should. When you do the walk down the aisle,
Speaker 1: do it, you know, walking like a handstand like that.
Speaker 1: I'll have some dumbells in my hand out there exactly exactly.
Speaker 1: You know. I hear that it's very fashionable now to
Speaker 1: do your wedding wearing athletic attire. So that's what I've
Speaker 1: heard too, exactly. So yeah, Lula Lemon makes a lovely tux.
Speaker 1: All right, Uh, what have I been talking about here?
Speaker 1: We've got the things, We've got all of the discussions
Speaker 1: to be at your Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: Two weeks actually less than two weeks until you can
Speaker 1: start downloading the Buck Sexton Show at three Eastern every
Speaker 1: day on podcast. So I would recommend that you at
Speaker 1: least subscribe that way if you are ever late on
Speaker 1: your radio station, or you're not in the car, or
Speaker 1: you want to listen on your own time. You can
Speaker 1: listen that away, and I would very much appreciate it
Speaker 1: if you would. So, even if you're a radio listener,
Speaker 1: go on iTunes, type in the Buck Sexton show in
Speaker 1: the search bar, and we roll from there. Thomas rides Buck.
Speaker 1: My wife and I were on vacation and missed a
Speaker 1: few days of your show. When we got back home,
Speaker 1: I told her you were we were going to binge
Speaker 1: listen to you. To my comments, she said, Buck that
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've heard that one before. Shields High Well funny,
Speaker 1: but can't we get her to maybe listen to the
Speaker 1: old shows with you? Because I feel like that's that's
Speaker 1: the best way that this should go. I mean, that
Speaker 1: would be my if you're asking me what my preference is,
Speaker 1: that's my preference. That's how you guys would catch up. No,
Speaker 1: we want them to listen on different iPhones or different
Speaker 1: exactly multiple iPhones and get other family members to join in.
Speaker 1: Have a whole buck listening part. Thomas just watched a
Speaker 1: merit ups now that was old. Sorry, hey Bock, thanks
Speaker 1: for keeping us warm and safe at night or safe
Speaker 1: and warm at night. You must add one more place
Speaker 1: to your list of flip flop acceptable places, which could
Speaker 1: be seen as a New Yorker looking down on casual fashion. Whoai.
Speaker 1: In Hawaii, they're called slippers and are worn everywhere all
Speaker 1: the time, So please don't discount the Hawaii slipper legitness.
Speaker 1: Hawaii actually has a completely different fashion sense from the mainland,
Speaker 1: So there's that disclosure. My wife was born and raised there,
Speaker 1: Thomas Oss. Well, Thomas, let's just let's revisit what I said.
Speaker 1: I said that there are only certain places going to
Speaker 1: the pool, going to the beach. Hawaii is essentially one
Speaker 1: giant beach. Wherever you are in Hawaii, you are within
Speaker 1: striking distance of a beautiful beach. So yes, of course,
Speaker 1: if you are a resident of the state of Hawaii
Speaker 1: and you choose to wear flip flops wherever you go,
Speaker 1: you are theoretically on route to the beach. It's just
Speaker 1: to question how long it takes you to get there.
Speaker 1: Whereas if you are a resident of the great state
Speaker 1: of Iowa and you were wearing flip flops in November,
Speaker 1: to me, you should probably put shoes on. I'm just
Speaker 1: putting it out there. I think. I think that's the
Speaker 1: way I used to walk around New York City and
Speaker 1: flip flops. I'll tell you this is the truth. I
Speaker 1: don't know why. I just used to think that it
Speaker 1: was kind of cool to just kick around on my
Speaker 1: flip flops, and then I realized that my feet were
Speaker 1: getting dirty. And all it takes, and this is going
Speaker 1: to get gross, but I'm giving you a public safety announcement.
Speaker 1: All it takes is stepping into one gross huddle of
Speaker 1: stuff with a flip flop on instead of a shoe,
Speaker 1: and then going home and thinking like, oh, I wonder
Speaker 1: if flesh eating bacteria maybe seeped into this blister that
Speaker 1: I have, or oh like maybe the chemicals that my
Speaker 1: foot has been subjected to from the New York City
Speaker 1: streets will slowly erode it until there's nothing but a
Speaker 1: nub left. You know, these are the thoughts you have
Speaker 1: so you don't want to go flip flopping around New
Speaker 1: York City streets? Am I right? Producer Mark, I don't
Speaker 1: even like to touch a subway pull without using hand
Speaker 1: sanitizer afterwards. Never mind my foot. You're a man after
Speaker 1: my own heart, dude. Yeah, that's what I'm talking about
Speaker 1: that's for sure. Let's see here, Dale Rights hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I actually ask for a stand up desk at work.
Speaker 1: I've had it for two weeks and love it. I
Speaker 1: feel my productivity is up and I don't get fatigued
Speaker 1: like I thought I would standing up most of the day.
Speaker 1: Getting the right matt to support your feet is very important.
Speaker 1: I would highly recommend you give it a shot. I'd
Speaker 1: like to. I just think I'm gonna whimp out, but
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe I'm gonna get a standing desk,
Speaker 1: And in fact, it would be great to get a
Speaker 1: standing desk sponsor. So maybe I'll reach out to the
Speaker 1: sponsor and say, hey, I'm gonna start using your standing desk,
Speaker 1: and if I like it, I'll tell every but on
Speaker 1: Team Buck to buy it. I think that's the plan.
Speaker 1: I think that's what we should do. But yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: having better posture is important. That's also something that we've
Speaker 1: all learned. That's another real, a real thing. Harry hey Buck.
Speaker 1: Trump's tweet advocating zero or negative interest rates is very disappointing.
Speaker 1: It leads one to begin to believe he doesn't know
Speaker 1: as much about the economy and finance as he would
Speaker 1: have us think superficially what he tweeted makes sense, but
Speaker 1: in the long run it will destroy the American dollar
Speaker 1: and economy. Have you been reading what your friends at
Speaker 1: Stansbury and others have to say about ZERP and NERP
Speaker 1: shields high, Harry. I read a lot of Stansbury stuff,
Speaker 1: but I have not read about ZERP and NERP. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I am assuming that's zero interest rate policy
Speaker 1: and near I don't know what neutral interests. I don't
Speaker 1: know what NERP is old on. Let me let me
Speaker 1: do a quick let's see what it says about NERP.
Speaker 1: Negative interest Okay, negative interestrate policy and zero interest rate policy.
Speaker 1: That makes sense? Yeah, now, I haven't reputs Deansbury says
Speaker 1: about that, so I should check that out. Run now right,
Speaker 1: Love the show, Buck, love the show. Any thoughts on
Speaker 1: the Vatican saying no communion for pro abortion politicians. I
Speaker 1: haven't seen this, Ronald, But that's what the Vaticans should do.
Speaker 1: That should be the response. If you're a politician and
Speaker 1: you say you're a Roman Catholic and you are pro abortion,
Speaker 1: they should say no, I'm sorry, you're you're outside the
Speaker 1: community now or else? What's the point of having any
Speaker 1: of these rules, Like, what's the point of any of
Speaker 1: this if we're just gonna say, yeah, everything's fine. Remember,
Speaker 1: it's one thing to engage in wrong action yourself. We
Speaker 1: are all sinners, we are all fallen, we all make mistakes.
Speaker 1: It's another thing to openly advocate for what is evil
Speaker 1: as though it were good, as though it's a right,
Speaker 1: and to have power to enact that beyond even just
Speaker 1: the platform of spreading that wrongness. So yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that that's I think that's real. I think, Ronald, that
Speaker 1: they should all of a sudden, you to have Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Joe Biden, and they're a bunch on that
Speaker 1: would be left sans communion. Now, I also think that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't really care all that much except for how
Speaker 1: it affects them politically. I know I'm making a judgment
Speaker 1: about how Catholic they are, but Nancy Pelosi doesn't strike
Speaker 1: me as a as a deeply religious person. I think
Speaker 1: she thinks that it's necessary for her political brand. But
Speaker 1: I believe that there are a lot of politicians who
Speaker 1: look down on truly religious people, and they think that
Speaker 1: they're really that the politicians are engaged in a necessary ruse. Essentially,
Speaker 1: they are fooling people that need to be fooled in
Speaker 1: order for the politicians to get away with what they're doing.
Speaker 1: That's the plan, that's what they do. Jane Right's listening
Speaker 1: to Beto today, I'm reminded of Jim Rouse's dream for Columbia, Maryland.
Speaker 1: Columbia is now one of the richest places in the
Speaker 1: metropolitan area. They are gradually pushing the middle class out. Well,
Speaker 1: I gotta take your word for I don't know anything
Speaker 1: about Columbia, Maryland, so sounds like a thing that's happening.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I do know that New York City
Speaker 1: gets more expensive all of the time, all the time,
Speaker 1: and that just seems like it's not possible, Like, how
Speaker 1: is it that New York could just continuously be more
Speaker 1: and more expensive? But that's that is in fact where
Speaker 1: we are. Am Ethan right Buck. I couldn't agree more
Speaker 1: with your feelings on Red Eye. Absolutely fantastic show. I
Speaker 1: got hooked on it in two thousand and eight while
Speaker 1: station in Korea because it was on at five pm there,
Speaker 1: so I'd catch it like almost every day after work.
Speaker 1: Greg Gutfeld's show now is good, but it's no Red Eye.
Speaker 1: John Bolton wasn't just a guest. He was actually named
Speaker 1: the president of Red Eye. Look, I gave him credit
Speaker 1: last night on Y's show. I think that Bolton, you know,
Speaker 1: and I want to be very clear about this. I
Speaker 1: don't think that John Bolton is anything but a patriot
Speaker 1: and and somebody who thinks that he's doing a lot
Speaker 1: of good in the world. And he's a smart guy.
Speaker 1: He's a knowledgeable guy. You know. I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: trashes Bolton the person. I think Bolton is wrong on
Speaker 1: some things, or perhaps a bit stronger on some things
Speaker 1: than is wise. And I think that he's not a
Speaker 1: good choice for this administration. But you know, John Bolton,
Speaker 1: I've I've interacted with him. He's always been a perfect gentleman.
Speaker 1: He was funny on Red Eye, and he's very smart,
Speaker 1: and I believe that he thinks he's serving his country
Speaker 1: in the best way possible. He's not a bad guy.
Speaker 1: So I think right now there's a lot of oh,
Speaker 1: because there's a little bit of a of a spat
Speaker 1: between Trump and him, a lot of people are pushing him,
Speaker 1: you know, under the bus. I don't think that that's
Speaker 1: I don't think it's fair to say that he's a
Speaker 1: bad guy. I think it's fair to say he's wrong
Speaker 1: or he's he has been wrong on some key issues.
Speaker 1: And you know, we thank him for his service, but
Speaker 1: it's time for him to, you know, teach at university
Speaker 1: and write books and hang out. That would be mine
Speaker 1: no more, no more John Bolton positions of authority. You know,
Speaker 1: if we get invaded by the North Koreans Wolverines, some
Speaker 1: of you will catch that reference, actually almost all of
Speaker 1: you will. Then maybe we bring Bolton back and say
Speaker 1: that it's it's go time. Keith. Right, thanks for all
Speaker 1: you do. Come to Austin again, bro Shields High Well, Keith,
Speaker 1: I haven't been to Austin yet, so I'm working on it.
Speaker 1: I have a wonderful audience down there. KLBJ. Austin I
Speaker 1: hear from a lot of you. Austin is the city
Speaker 1: that I dream of moving to one day. There's a
Speaker 1: few of them. Austin would be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: Charleston would be a lot of fun. But for now,
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm a city dog fighting the Libs. Fighting
Speaker 1: the Libs here from n why see, and that is
Speaker 1: how we go That is how we roll It's what
Speaker 1: we do here in the freedom und all right, Oh wait,
Speaker 1: we got to take a moment to catch our breath
Speaker 1: before we continue with your wonderful, insightful quips on roll call.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back, and we're back with Oh, this
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show. In case you didn't know
Speaker 1: if you got to this point, he didn't know that
Speaker 1: that would be kind of a surprise. But here we are, Kathy,
Speaker 1: right Buck, Which Pluto app I've looked in? There are several.
Speaker 1: I did download the Pluto TV app for free TV
Speaker 1: and found a channel dedicated to doctor Who, so I
Speaker 1: am happy about that. However, I'd like to make sure
Speaker 1: I download the correct Pluto app to be able to
Speaker 1: watch you. Thanks, Kathy o SS Kathy. Yes, it is
Speaker 1: the Pluto TV app. That is where my channel will be.
Speaker 1: Will be announcing more details of that soon. You'll be
Speaker 1: able to stream the Buck Sexton Show for free on
Speaker 1: that app within a couple of weeks. So it's the
Speaker 1: Pluto TV app. Get it, Get it started to just
Speaker 1: download it on your smartphone, folks. Doesn't cost you a dime,
Speaker 1: and it's not just my show. There's other stuff that
Speaker 1: you can watch too if you want so. Yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: Brian right, I wonder how upset Betet would be if
Speaker 1: I set up a trailer in his yard. Well, Brian,
Speaker 1: that's what you keep seeing with all these libs. They
Speaker 1: pretend like they want poor people living next to rich people,
Speaker 1: but never them. They don't want it. You know. It's
Speaker 1: the same with refugees. Oh, America should take in just
Speaker 1: as many refugees as want to come here, but they
Speaker 1: can't go to the schools of the rich Libs that
Speaker 1: say that, no, no, no, no no. They have to
Speaker 1: go to schools with people who are working class. They
Speaker 1: have to go into neighborhoods where people work very hard
Speaker 1: to try to save up more money, moved to a
Speaker 1: bigger house, being a better school district. Those are the
Speaker 1: people that end up getting refugee populations, generally speaking, you know,
Speaker 1: distributed there by the federal government. It's not happening in
Speaker 1: a Nancy Pelosi's neighborhood in San Francisco, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Or not, they're not putting them up in mansions. Pelosi
Speaker 1: would not would not approve Kyle rights Buck. I've got
Speaker 1: a strong stomach. But the segment you did on the
Speaker 1: twenty eight week elective abortion made me a bit queasy.
Speaker 1: I remember feeling a kick through my wife's stomach at
Speaker 1: twenty three weeks, and I just can't imagine someone waiting
Speaker 1: another five weeks to kill the baby for their own
Speaker 1: personal convenience. I know it's a hyperbolic statement, but I
Speaker 1: don't know how it is to classify that action as
Speaker 1: other than murder. I hope that in one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty years, Americans will look back on Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: the same way we look back on dread Scott. That
Speaker 1: case is a stain on the moral fabric of our country.
Speaker 1: Anyone who reads the majority opinion of that case should
Speaker 1: be disturbed by the parallel lines of logic in it
Speaker 1: that exists in the modern pro choice movement. Kyle, I
Speaker 1: think you're absolutely correct. I actually found out from some
Speaker 1: of them very close to that someone that he's very
Speaker 1: close to was born three months premature, born at six months,
Speaker 1: and survived in its perfect healthy and happy and fine today.
Speaker 1: Pretty remarkable. Yeah, I get Look, look, we always you
Speaker 1: say what is good. When it is good, you give
Speaker 1: credit where it is due in the instance that is
Speaker 1: that is appropriate. You know, Tulsie Gabbard. At least she's
Speaker 1: willing to say third trimester abortion is not okay. I
Speaker 1: give her credit for that. I mean, she's gonna get
Speaker 1: crushed by the left for it. But that's where we are.
Speaker 1: Benny rides Buck. I laughed out loud when I saw
Speaker 1: the new James Bob Vaniette aka Valerie planes Ad, but
Speaker 1: it was also sobering because she made a provably false
Speaker 1: statement in response to Scooter Libby. What I don't understand
Speaker 1: is how the vast majority of Democrats are able to
Speaker 1: lie with such impunity, i e. Pelosi, Nadler, Schumer, etc.
Speaker 1: My moral compass does not allow me to state that
Speaker 1: something is true when it obviously isn't. How do they
Speaker 1: do this? If you watch any of the liberal punnits
Speaker 1: on Fox, they're also guilty. And I can't fathom how
Speaker 1: liberals are able to throw their reputations away so flippantly.
Speaker 1: She'll tie Benny in Mississippi, Benny in Mississippi. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that was close enough to was that did
Speaker 1: that across? Yeah? Too many syllables for Benny. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: we tried, team. We're gonna have a great show tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And the next day, so be sure to tune in,
Speaker 1: then talk to you. Then you know what comes next.
Speaker 1: She'll tie