Speaker 1: If you're gonna run a great business, you've got to
Speaker 1: have great people, and finding them is a huge part
Speaker 1: of that puzzle. Zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire.
Speaker 1: Zipp recruiter dot com has a platform that finds the
Speaker 1: right job candidates for you. It identifies people with the
Speaker 1: right experience and invites them to apply to your job.
Speaker 1: Eight percent of employers who post a job on zipp
Speaker 1: recruiter get a quality candidate through the site in just
Speaker 1: one day. The right candidates are out there, you can
Speaker 1: find them, But zipp recruiter is how right. Now my
Speaker 1: listeners can try zip recruiter for free. That's right free.
Speaker 1: Just go to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: zipp recruiter dot com, slash buck. One more time, try
Speaker 1: it for free. Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck, zip recruiter.
Speaker 1: It's the smartest way to hire. Once you check out
Speaker 1: their interface and you see those candidates come right into
Speaker 1: your inbox, you're gonna realize it's a great choice. Zipp
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com, slash buck. You are entering the freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: The deep State is running out of excuses for the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. Are we finally going to get the
Speaker 1: answers we need about spying on the Trump campaign and
Speaker 1: what some of those Obama administration holdovers were really plotting
Speaker 1: all along. Plus the North Korea's summit. They're saying it's
Speaker 1: in jeopardy, but are they just trying to root for
Speaker 1: failure here? And a follow up to Starbucks deciding that
Speaker 1: all of its various locations will be turned into the
Speaker 1: equivalent of a public restroom in a bathroom. Uh, we'll
Speaker 1: talk more about that coming up. This is the bus
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes, American rank,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: Dame Buck, what is going on? What a day? What
Speaker 1: a day? Great to have you here with me. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Freedom, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. An
Speaker 1: honor of privilege and a pleasure. As always, it has
Speaker 1: been been quite a week. We are we're seeing more
Speaker 1: and more very interesting things come together here. After so
Speaker 1: many months of coverage and discussion over just what the
Speaker 1: deep state was up to with regard to Trump, They're
Speaker 1: running out of room to maneuver. I think they running
Speaker 1: out of delay tactics, and I think they're also running
Speaker 1: out of lies. That's gonna be very difficult for them
Speaker 1: because there's really not that much more that they can
Speaker 1: come up with and try to prevent us from finding
Speaker 1: out the truth. Increasingly, it seems I think an inescapable conclusion,
Speaker 1: meaning that you you could not look at this with
Speaker 1: an honest mind, You could not look at this as
Speaker 1: a person of integrity and come away thinking anything other
Speaker 1: than Wow. There were very senior bureaucrats, That's what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, bureaucrats in the federal government who took
Speaker 1: it upon themselves to bail out Hillary and stop Trump
Speaker 1: at all costs. That's it. This should not be nearly
Speaker 1: as controversial an opinion at this point as it seems
Speaker 1: to be, considering that I think in the last election
Speaker 1: you had of civil service donations, the federal government went
Speaker 1: to Hillary or went or went to a Democratic theset
Speaker 1: Hillary or Bernie. This is huge campus level ideological infiltration
Speaker 1: and control. Once you start to see the federal government
Speaker 1: through that lens of wow, you mean that most of
Speaker 1: the bureaucrats who work in the federal government are in
Speaker 1: fact pro Hillary pro doesn't mean all and I'm basing
Speaker 1: this on donations to the campaigns everything. This is not
Speaker 1: fool proof, but there's clearly a problem. There is clearly
Speaker 1: a tendency among these bureaucrats to go for the party
Speaker 1: of the state. The Democrat Party is the party of
Speaker 1: the state. So if you are working for the state
Speaker 1: in a big essense, if you are a statist ideologically,
Speaker 1: it stands to reason that you would want to support
Speaker 1: the political party that believes in enlarging the state, giving
Speaker 1: it more authority, allowing to take more of people's tax dollars,
Speaker 1: more of their stuff, and bind them with further regulation
Speaker 1: on everything all the time. Right that the solution to
Speaker 1: everything is government. The answer everything has to be a
Speaker 1: government regulation, mandate, or law. So it's not surprising when
Speaker 1: you start to extrapolate, when you start to think this through.
Speaker 1: There are so many people that work for the government
Speaker 1: that are really all about Hillary that she is. In fact,
Speaker 1: they're preferred candidate. And that's the way that this went in.
Speaker 1: At the very highest levels. You had former Obama administration
Speaker 1: officials who were quite involved in all of this. We
Speaker 1: now know that there was an actual human spy leveled
Speaker 1: against Trump administration. I mean, that's been out there for
Speaker 1: a few days, but it's increasingly clear. Oh but but
Speaker 1: don't think that the Democrats, we're gonna come clune on
Speaker 1: this until they absolutely had to write. You get Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: you know him. He goes on TV to just say
Speaker 1: whatever the MSNB see watching Crab wants him to say.
Speaker 1: Here's a little bit of a flashback too, before we could,
Speaker 1: without any real doubts, say that there was some human
Speaker 1: intelligence operation being run by the US federal government against
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign. Here's what shift was saying about a
Speaker 1: place too that's claimed by the present. Suggestion by Juliani
Speaker 1: that there is a political spy embedded in the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign is nonsense, and you hear it in the same
Speaker 1: terms that Trump often speaks, which is people are saying,
Speaker 1: or I'm hearing, or we're being told that's another way
Speaker 1: of saying, this is patently untrue, true, but we would
Speaker 1: like to spread it anyway. Uh. And it's singlely destructive
Speaker 1: of our institutions. But then that's the point. These people
Speaker 1: don't care about our institutions. As a means of supporting
Speaker 1: principles of limited government, separation of powers, the Constitution. They
Speaker 1: care about the stranglehold on the levels of hour in
Speaker 1: the federal government in these institutions that the Democrat Party has.
Speaker 1: That's what they can and they want to maintain that power.
Speaker 1: They don't want to relinquish their grip on the levels
Speaker 1: of control. What do we make now if people like shift,
Speaker 1: he's what on the House Intelligence Committee? He's supposed to
Speaker 1: know stuff? So is he just out there lying? Remember
Speaker 1: whether it's Schiff or Clapper or Brandan, there are a
Speaker 1: lot of these guys comey who have decided to make
Speaker 1: a lot of public pronouncements about this that I've turned
Speaker 1: out to be false, whether knowingly or not. We could
Speaker 1: dive into the specifics, but they also could just be professionals.
Speaker 1: They could just be quiet. You know, I promise you
Speaker 1: you will never see General Jim Mattis in the months
Speaker 1: after he leaves as Secretary of Defense, whether it's in
Speaker 1: a year or in six going after the sitting president
Speaker 1: United States, suggesting the sitting president United States is somehow
Speaker 1: a trader, is untrustworthy, is a criminal? You know how?
Speaker 1: I know that because the Secretary Defense is a warrior,
Speaker 1: an honorable man, and a professional. But what does that
Speaker 1: tell us about some of these Obama acolytes who are
Speaker 1: acting like they've just been aspiring CNN pundits for you know,
Speaker 1: their whole lives, and now finally they get the big job. Right.
Speaker 1: Forget about being the Director of National Intelligence like Clapper,
Speaker 1: forget about being the CIA director like Brannan, or the
Speaker 1: FBI director like Comey. The job they really want is
Speaker 1: to be patted gently on the head by Anderson Cooper.
Speaker 1: Is to get an out of boy from Jake Tapper. Uh,
Speaker 1: this is you want to talk about institutions, This is
Speaker 1: destroying I mean ce IA, institution I used to work for,
Speaker 1: is destroying these institutions. They are within the executive branch.
Speaker 1: Another thing we have to talk about here. They are
Speaker 1: within the executive branch. Does every president now have to
Speaker 1: assume that if there's anyone who was appointed by his
Speaker 1: predecessor from the other party, that he or she, as
Speaker 1: a sitting president, may be subjected to the Trump effect
Speaker 1: where anything goes leagues, criminal leagues. You know, as long
Speaker 1: as it hurts the sitting president, people will do it. Brennan, Comey, Clapper.
Speaker 1: They have a responsibility, a higher responsibility than just getting
Speaker 1: a lot of retweets from left wing activists and the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. They have a higher responsibility than being revered
Speaker 1: heroes of the hashtag resistance. By the way, you know
Speaker 1: who another revered hero the hashtag resistance was Schneiderman from
Speaker 1: New York State. How did that go for you, Samantha
Speaker 1: B and company? You know, Schneiderman as hero. Maybe people
Speaker 1: need to slow their role a little bit, not buy
Speaker 1: into the nonsense running some of these self serving, glorified bureaucrats,
Speaker 1: which is what we are often dealing with here. So
Speaker 1: with all of that said, now we now we see
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice, despite all the editorials and
Speaker 1: all the stuff that's being said, is in fact under
Speaker 1: the care and oversight, the authority and oversight of the
Speaker 1: executive branch and Congress. I was seeing all this stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, from feine Stein and Brandon and all the
Speaker 1: independence of the New York Times, washingtonst The independence of
Speaker 1: the d J is is that at stake here? How
Speaker 1: So Trump wanted to have a meeting yesterday. Christopher Ray
Speaker 1: was their FBI director, Rosenstein the deputy By the way,
Speaker 1: you know, it's really a shame that not only the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel but it's a shame that you had Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions attorney general. You know, you know, I like him.
Speaker 1: We appreciate when Jeff calls in, but it's a shame
Speaker 1: that he recused himself. I know you can say, Buck,
Speaker 1: it was the ethical thing to do, but under the circumstances,
Speaker 1: I think the ethics were a lot more complicated than
Speaker 1: allow the Democrats to run a get Trump at all
Speaker 1: cost campaign via the d o J and used the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel's authority special Counsel's tools to get after Trumpet
Speaker 1: all the rest of them. By way, I'm seeing this
Speaker 1: year it just broke actually, I think while I'm on air, UM,
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen's business partner, Eve Guinny Friedman agrees to cooperate
Speaker 1: as part of a plea deal. This is all coritesies
Speaker 1: of CNBC. So Freedman is a Cohen's business partner. He's
Speaker 1: agreed to cooperate with federal and state prosecutors. One is
Speaker 1: under criminal investigation. So I'm trying to see if you
Speaker 1: know this is about maybe the taxi stuff. We're not
Speaker 1: really sure. Freedman was arrested last June on charges that
Speaker 1: he and another business partner stole more than five million
Speaker 1: dollars in state search charges that are imposed on taxi
Speaker 1: rides in New York City, but the amount of taxes
Speaker 1: he pleaded guilty to evading was much less than that,
Speaker 1: just fifty dollars. So they must think that they've got
Speaker 1: him on something against Cohen. Here's what I see happening.
Speaker 1: Here's how I see this playing out. They're they're gonna
Speaker 1: bring charges against Cohen most likely, and they're gonna have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Russia collusion. Once again. They're just
Speaker 1: gonna get Cohen on something, and they're gonna turn around
Speaker 1: and just say, see, he's a criminal, See he broke
Speaker 1: the law. Trump where they're smoked, there's fire, all these
Speaker 1: bad people, and then those of us were looking at
Speaker 1: this with clearer eyes, we'll say, well, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: Once again, you have a massive prosecutorial operation that is
Speaker 1: looking for people to convict, that has near unlimited investigatory power.
Speaker 1: If you've been in contact with Donald Trump in the
Speaker 1: last ten years, you could all of a sudden find
Speaker 1: yourself or his campaign, find yourself in the crosshairs of
Speaker 1: this investigation. And they're racking up prosecution after prosecution for
Speaker 1: non Russia collusion related crimes for for generally speaking, very
Speaker 1: mickey mouse low level crimes, you know, lying about a
Speaker 1: meeting or lying about a phone call or something. And
Speaker 1: you cannot help but see this and compare it to
Speaker 1: the treatment that Hillary Clinton and her cronies got from
Speaker 1: this not just the same Department of Justice, but the
Speaker 1: same people in the d J. So if people want
Speaker 1: to play the Michael Cohen's a criminal, therefore look at Trump.
Speaker 1: He has criminals around him, he must be a criminal too.
Speaker 1: I just want to say Hillary was Hillary is a criminal,
Speaker 1: and not just because of the emails. Folks. There a
Speaker 1: lot of different ways I could have brought charges against Hillary.
Speaker 1: The emails were just you know, this is the equivalent
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton getting caught with, you know, a big
Speaker 1: bag full of drugs somewhere and they're like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they're not she didn't really. Yeah she had the bag,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't really her bag, you know, because somehow
Speaker 1: somebody else had possession or something. I mean, they're just
Speaker 1: refusing to force the law. So this is why they're
Speaker 1: they're gonna see the Cohen prosecution as all. It proves
Speaker 1: everything we're saying. It's so dirty, and you and I
Speaker 1: are gonna look at this and say, what what are
Speaker 1: we even talking about here? TAXI cab uh, tax issues?
Speaker 1: Who the heck cares? What does this have to do
Speaker 1: with you or me? And by the way, anyone who
Speaker 1: knows anything about prosecutors and their powers and their ability,
Speaker 1: especially at the federal level, knows if they want to
Speaker 1: get you, they can get you. It is very unusual
Speaker 1: for somebody who has complicated business relationships and business dealings
Speaker 1: to not be at least somewhat vulnerable just on the
Speaker 1: tax issue if they want to make an example of you.
Speaker 1: I know, I have a friend who was a federal
Speaker 1: prosecutor for years and years and then was in private practice,
Speaker 1: and he told me a story about a friend of
Speaker 1: his who was facing three years in federal prison for
Speaker 1: essentially attack shelter that not only did he think was legal,
Speaker 1: but that he had legal opinions telling him were completely legal.
Speaker 1: And a federal prosecutor goes, well, he's some rich guy.
Speaker 1: We're gonna make an example of him. Sorry, we read
Speaker 1: the statute another way. Yeah, that's the reality of what
Speaker 1: Muller and the rest of his team have at their disposal.
Speaker 1: And so that's where the fact that they're gonna jam
Speaker 1: up how In doesn't really mean anything other than they're
Speaker 1: gonna ruin this guy's life if they can. That's what
Speaker 1: they're gonna do, unless, of course, well I was gonna
Speaker 1: say Trump pardons In. But that's ah, that's why they're
Speaker 1: getting the state prosecutors involved here. That's a that's an
Speaker 1: interesting addition here. They're intentionally making sure that they're trying
Speaker 1: to because sometimes there's a gray area because it's the
Speaker 1: federal case is a state case. They're gonna make sure
Speaker 1: they have some of this stuff ready to go at
Speaker 1: the state level so they can hit him with charges
Speaker 1: the president can't pardon him for you watch you watch
Speaker 1: that's coming eight four four to five eight four Buck,
Speaker 1: We have so much more team, stay with me. This
Speaker 1: is a multi year effort that has two different fronts,
Speaker 1: and people need to always remember that one front was protecting,
Speaker 1: propping up, covering up for Bill and Hillary Clinton. The
Speaker 1: other front, well, as as Trump became more and more serious,
Speaker 1: the other front was to stop Trump at any cost. Now,
Speaker 1: I believe that the reason you see people like Sally
Speaker 1: hs Goberg Cirque, you see John Brennan gober cerc you
Speaker 1: see General Clapper gober they're all guilty. When you see
Speaker 1: somebody in the Obama team who gets that rattled and
Speaker 1: is that angry, what you know is they're scared to
Speaker 1: death that they're gonna get drawn into all this and
Speaker 1: their role is going to come out and it will
Speaker 1: involve I think felonies, and frankly, I suspect it reaches
Speaker 1: to the President Obama. We've seen the less they come
Speaker 1: up with, the more they investigate instead of the opposite.
Speaker 1: And there doesn't seem to be a real concrete intelligence
Speaker 1: origin for this investigation. And without a foundation, one wonders,
Speaker 1: what did we spend an entire year on? What did
Speaker 1: we disrupt? Everyone who was in the campaign, everyone who
Speaker 1: was in the administration. And I think this thing is
Speaker 1: just playing wrong. It's got to be ended and stopped.
Speaker 1: Let's throw the dirt in there too while we're out
Speaker 1: of play. Clip one, This was a legitimate investigator. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have no evidence that it wasn't. Let's find out
Speaker 1: there was ample evidence of collusion between Russia and the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign. Now what you're saying is there was already
Speaker 1: evidence of collusion, so it was legitimate to put on
Speaker 1: an informer in the FBI. I want to know what
Speaker 1: the evidence was. No judges found probable cause. I think
Speaker 1: the American public has to be assured that there was
Speaker 1: a basis. There's not enough for Jeffrey Tubman to say
Speaker 1: there was collusion already at that time. I want to
Speaker 1: know what the facts were to justify that they want
Speaker 1: to hide the facts they want on this. I wrote
Speaker 1: about this today on the Hill dot com that they
Speaker 1: very clearly are trying to be in control of who
Speaker 1: has access to the information that they then will turn
Speaker 1: around and tell us, Oh, the stuff that we can't
Speaker 1: show you is what our justification is for spying on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign. Folks, we're talking about now going on
Speaker 1: two years ago. What are they holding onto this stuff for?
Speaker 1: They're keeping this behind closed doors for sore is a
Speaker 1: methods that's a lie. That's a lie. Classification is often
Speaker 1: used by those in government who want to keep what
Speaker 1: they've done out of public view. It's just the truth.
Speaker 1: It's not supposed to be the case, but it often
Speaker 1: is on any politically sensitive matter. It is a huge
Speaker 1: temptation for the state, and that's what we see happening here. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm completely and utterly exasperated with all of this. Oh,
Speaker 1: the d o J doesn't have it, doesn't shouldn't have
Speaker 1: to give over this information because because what they don't
Speaker 1: want to. I'm sorry, Just because it may embarrass Comie Rosenstein, Yates, Brennan, Clapper, whomever,
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the American people don't have a right
Speaker 1: to it. In fact, we have an even bigger right
Speaker 1: to it. He's holding the line for America, Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: his back. Yeah, it's inconceivable that President Obama could have
Speaker 1: had this many things going on and not known it
Speaker 1: because his administration was very controlling and very tight. And
Speaker 1: I think we're going to discover all this stuff in
Speaker 1: the end ends up at the Obama White House and
Speaker 1: has the President and his senior staff's fingerprints all over it.
Speaker 1: It's rapidly becoming the biggest and the most sobering political
Speaker 1: scandal in American history. I gotta agree with Nude on
Speaker 1: that one, at least on the Obama component of all
Speaker 1: this stuff. We're going to find out that Obama was
Speaker 1: way more involved in this than anybody up to this
Speaker 1: point has been willing to say much out loud or
Speaker 1: and we've been able to prove. But it certainly seems
Speaker 1: likely that Obama is very involved. In fact, it seems
Speaker 1: like it would be impossible for him not to be. Remember,
Speaker 1: Brennan was very tight with Obama before he was CEI director.
Speaker 1: He was Obama's counter terrorism czar. I don't like that term, right,
Speaker 1: but Obama's kind of terrorism advisor at the White House. Uh.
Speaker 1: The people that we've seen that are very much involved
Speaker 1: in either the Hillary email investigation or the Trump Russia
Speaker 1: collusion debacle, people ties to the Obama White House and
Speaker 1: ties to Obama himself. There's just no way. And we've
Speaker 1: seen some reporting on this. You know, they can only
Speaker 1: shape the narrative so much. There's been some reporting that shows, oh,
Speaker 1: this was being run through the White House. That's what
Speaker 1: Peter Struck said and one of his text messages the
Speaker 1: FBI agent when he was talking to his mistress Lisa Page. Right,
Speaker 1: it's being running of the White House. M hmm. I
Speaker 1: wish I had it with me. I don't right now.
Speaker 1: But there's a whole analysis of how some of the
Speaker 1: recent New York Times pieces and all the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: stuff are in act riddled with errors, just riddled with them,
Speaker 1: errors all over the place. Uh, and the kind of
Speaker 1: errors that are intentional, right, making it seem like Struck
Speaker 1: was suggesting there would be no leaks, when in fact,
Speaker 1: the context of what he was writing to Page showed
Speaker 1: that he was very worried about leaks or that he
Speaker 1: expected leaks about what they were doing. Looking at the
Speaker 1: at the Trump campaign, this is all obviously very very political,
Speaker 1: and it's it's amazing when you think about how Democrats
Speaker 1: have chosen to fight on the battleground of Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and the propaganda that surrounds it, instead of making this
Speaker 1: an issue, making this about the I mean the issues.
Speaker 1: It sounds like I'm, you know, running for local dog catcher.
Speaker 1: There should be the issues, but running on policies that
Speaker 1: are post Trump, they're really not concerns, particularly with non
Speaker 1: Trump policies. Very hard for them to say much about
Speaker 1: the economy, because the economy is better now than when
Speaker 1: Obama was in office, full stop. Very hard for them
Speaker 1: to say that the world's ending, because it hasn't ended.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about North Korea, the summit. You know, people
Speaker 1: are having so much fun analyzing something that hasn't even
Speaker 1: happened yet. You know, this is turning into like the
Speaker 1: five hour pregame analysis show before some of these football,
Speaker 1: uh football games, you see where you're just like, Okay,
Speaker 1: there's only so many ways you can talk about the
Speaker 1: the game before. We just need to see what happens
Speaker 1: in the game. I think we're entering that territory with
Speaker 1: some of what's going on here on North Korea, but
Speaker 1: I'll get to that in the next hour. Ah. This
Speaker 1: is and I mean, does anyone really think at this
Speaker 1: point we're not going to find out that there were
Speaker 1: very senior Obama figures who were well aware of what
Speaker 1: they were doing and we're working against, working against the
Speaker 1: Trump campaign and using their government positions to get there.
Speaker 1: I think it's just beyond obvious. Uh. Joe Di Genova
Speaker 1: goes specifically after Yates, Brennan Comy. You guys all know this.
Speaker 1: I've been saying Yates for a long time because what
Speaker 1: she did with the you know, her role in the
Speaker 1: whole Logan Act, General Flynn ambush, and you know, she
Speaker 1: has been a partisan hit woman against Trump's people from
Speaker 1: the get go and the whole Oh, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to enforce the travel ban on select Muslim states, even
Speaker 1: though she was the acting Attorney General, as she was
Speaker 1: an Obama partisan. I'm you're gonna there's more from her
Speaker 1: telling you she's not just angling for a CNN contributorship.
Speaker 1: She's actually she is hashtag resistance through and through. But
Speaker 1: Dijonova sees this in very similar terms to me play six.
Speaker 1: She watched someone like Sally Yates complained about the rule
Speaker 1: of law, when she and Brennan and Comy and others
Speaker 1: destroyed the rule of law. It is going to take
Speaker 1: a decade to rebuild the public trust in the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice. The disgraceful performance of her,
Speaker 1: and of course even more disgraceful John Brennan, who led
Speaker 1: a conspiracy against the campaign of the opposing party's presidential
Speaker 1: nominee and then when he won, did everything they could
Speaker 1: to frame him and his compatriots with false crimes. It
Speaker 1: is the greatest political scandal in American history, and shame
Speaker 1: on Sally Yates and shame on John Brennan. Very important
Speaker 1: the I I think his whole rant there was bought on,
Speaker 1: but very important point that he raises. You know, it's
Speaker 1: one thing to play dirty, all right, it's not good.
Speaker 1: Not okay. It's one thing to play dirty, it's it's
Speaker 1: an even worse than though two as part of your
Speaker 1: dirty tricks, trying to make it seem like somebody else
Speaker 1: is the bad guy. Right. You know, if if you
Speaker 1: want to, like, you know, break into the bank, that's bad.
Speaker 1: But that's on you. If you weren't breaking the bank
Speaker 1: and you're gonna pain it on somebody else, it's even worse.
Speaker 1: And what we're seeing from those senior Obama figures, and
Speaker 1: we should think of them in that context. These are
Speaker 1: people that they're coming coming in out of the White
Speaker 1: House all the time, they're briefing President Obama. What let
Speaker 1: me ask you this question too, And I know we're
Speaker 1: bounced around something. There's so much to cover your there's
Speaker 1: so much to sink our teeth into. What issue in
Speaker 1: the summer of twenty six, going into that election, mere
Speaker 1: months from Obama's lame duck status, what national security issue
Speaker 1: could have been more front of mind for Obama's national
Speaker 1: security team. Then this effort that they're conjuring up of
Speaker 1: Russia and Trump and all this, you're gonna tell me
Speaker 1: that they weren't they weren't bringing this to Obama's attention.
Speaker 1: I'll also tell you that if they were ever doing
Speaker 1: any of that in the context of a PDB briefing,
Speaker 1: for example, Presidents Daily briefing, you're you're never gonna find
Speaker 1: out about that. No court will ever, no court will
Speaker 1: ever force them to disclose it that they're gonna They
Speaker 1: are ironclad with so so there is already a channel
Speaker 1: built in for Obama's top intel people to fill him
Speaker 1: in on all of this, and there is an absolute
Speaker 1: zero percent chance of that being disclosed unless somebody in
Speaker 1: the meeting decided to do that, and they would actually
Speaker 1: be breaking the law. Notice how Comy and CNN and McCabe.
Speaker 1: You know, they'll all talk about what they're briefing the
Speaker 1: briefing President Trump on. There will be some discussion about
Speaker 1: CNN needs a news hook, right, We've also seen that.
Speaker 1: But there was a there was an ironclad channel for
Speaker 1: covert communication between Obama's top intel officials and then sitting
Speaker 1: President Obama that could have I'm not saying it did.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I wasn't in the room, and we
Speaker 1: have no way of finding out, but just understand that
Speaker 1: it was wide open. There So this idea that Obama
Speaker 1: wasn't informed of what was going on here, it's just
Speaker 1: not plausible. It's just not plausible. Remember when d and
Speaker 1: I Clapper wild goes are this should happen, are known
Speaker 1: about it, I can deny it. You remember that whole thing.
Speaker 1: Not the best Clapper impression, but you know close enough,
Speaker 1: and uh, this is something that the president absolutely we
Speaker 1: don't know about. Okay. But one other thing here. I've
Speaker 1: been discussing this with you for the for the last
Speaker 1: few weeks, and we're seeing it come to fruition, and
Speaker 1: that is they are losing ground there. They're losing the
Speaker 1: patience of the American people. I can't speak to the
Speaker 1: crazy who just you know, they they think that, uh,
Speaker 1: any day now that Trump is gonna get frog marched
Speaker 1: out of the White House and he's like Putin's best friend.
Speaker 1: And I can't speak to crazy, or at least I
Speaker 1: won't speak to crazy right now. Sorry, Crazy, where where
Speaker 1: you're doing? Um can't do it. I can't do it. Uh.
Speaker 1: But I do know that for most Americans who are
Speaker 1: paying attention to trying to be honest about what's going
Speaker 1: on here, they are losing patience with all of the
Speaker 1: shenanigans and the mistruth, the half truth, the the false explanations,
Speaker 1: and just just all of this when it comes to
Speaker 1: this whole investigation around Trump. I mean, if they don't
Speaker 1: have something, now, are we really supposed to believe they're
Speaker 1: they're going to find some bombshell in the next few months.
Speaker 1: They've already go and through the financial records, they're interviewing everybody.
Speaker 1: Why we all know they want an interview of Trump
Speaker 1: so badly so they can force a perjury trap and
Speaker 1: then create a constitutional crisis of can we can we
Speaker 1: bring charges against the president for perjury that he should
Speaker 1: not have been subjected to in the first place by
Speaker 1: a subordinate government official and a subordinate agency, which is
Speaker 1: what the Special Council is. Is this, you know, this
Speaker 1: is what we think is really supposed to happen, or
Speaker 1: this is good for the country. But they're losing ground,
Speaker 1: they're losing momentum. They know that, and that's why you
Speaker 1: have people like Lawrence Tribe. But by the way, is
Speaker 1: he's a professor at Harvard Law School. Every time I
Speaker 1: see this guy's name pop up and I see his
Speaker 1: analysis right here, him speaking, I'm like, well, that's just wrong.
Speaker 1: It's not even that he strikes me as incorrect so
Speaker 1: much as just sloppy. But he can't really believe this.
Speaker 1: Uh he's a rank partisan, no question about that. But
Speaker 1: he understands that they've got to move fast on going
Speaker 1: on offense. Democrats have to get on offense against Trump
Speaker 1: soon because they are losing the initiative here because anyone
Speaker 1: who's paying attention to saying this whole thing is not
Speaker 1: working out the way that they said it would. But
Speaker 1: here's how Laurence Tribe of Harvard University put this into words.
Speaker 1: Play eight. If the evidence that Robert Mueller is collecting
Speaker 1: forms a kind of compelling case that a overwhelming bipartisan
Speaker 1: majority of the American people find convincing that this guy
Speaker 1: is just too dangerous to keep in power, then we
Speaker 1: do have the emergency power of impeachment available, But it
Speaker 1: will be available only if we don't use it loosely
Speaker 1: and kind of ring the bell every time something looks amiss.
Speaker 1: You can't use it over and over again against the
Speaker 1: same president. If you're gonna shoot him, you've got to
Speaker 1: shoot the pill. Now. I know he's not making a
Speaker 1: thread against the president as Harvard law professor. But we
Speaker 1: all know that if it wasn't President Trump and you
Speaker 1: went on TV and you said something like that, be
Speaker 1: a lot of trouble, right, Like, there'd be big problems,
Speaker 1: probably gonna visit from the Secret Service, all that stuff. Right.
Speaker 1: But with Trump, there's different rules. This is true, not
Speaker 1: just what you say on TV. This is true with
Speaker 1: everything with Trump. The rules are different. This is the
Speaker 1: world we're operating in now. H Lie, cheat, steal, sell
Speaker 1: your integrity, do whatever you want. As long as you
Speaker 1: are against Trump, there are people who will come to
Speaker 1: your defense. They will justify what you're doing. They will
Speaker 1: have your back. So it's a dispiriting set of circumstances.
Speaker 1: But on the upside, I want to give you a a
Speaker 1: little positive here. Deep State can't hide that much longer.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get more of this information. We're gonna see
Speaker 1: and and eventually what will become all too clear is
Speaker 1: that it's not just that they exaggerated the case of
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. They really fabricated it knowingly and willfully. That's
Speaker 1: legal language that you use before you actual start charging people.
Speaker 1: Just saying we'll be right back, play a team, my friend,
Speaker 1: my specific concern deals with the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
Speaker 1: I think Mr Rosenstein is deeply conflicted. I think that
Speaker 1: in many cases he is playing Jeff Sessions. I think
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions has been functionally, uh, you know, set off
Speaker 1: into a corner at the Justice Department on these critical issues.
Speaker 1: I don't think that there was a legal or factual
Speaker 1: basis for his recusal, and I think that it's really
Speaker 1: hurt the country. Oh man, you know, I like Attorney
Speaker 1: General Sessions, but think about what would happen if you
Speaker 1: had if you had somebody who took the approach as
Speaker 1: attorney general for Trump, that say, Eric Holder took for Obama,
Speaker 1: or Lauretta Lynch for that matter. But Eric Holder a
Speaker 1: perfect example of this. Eric Holder's number one job in
Speaker 1: his own mind as the Attorney General was to watch
Speaker 1: Obama's back. Now you can say, Buck, it should be
Speaker 1: rule of law, that's not I understand all that. But
Speaker 1: Eric Holder was Obama's man at the d J right.
Speaker 1: He he was his guy on the ground running things
Speaker 1: and making sure that there were no legal threats to
Speaker 1: the Obama white House. There were no legal scandals that
Speaker 1: would that would come up that would be an issue,
Speaker 1: and Trump doesn't have that. He got Rosenstein and a
Speaker 1: Muller and a bunch of other so called comy you know,
Speaker 1: former Republicans who are never Trump Republicans who are running
Speaker 1: amuck and causing real problems for the administration, real us
Speaker 1: to the White House. It's not It's just not fair.
Speaker 1: It's not right. And I kind of wish that there
Speaker 1: was a a pit bull, a conservative pit bull, at
Speaker 1: the top of the d o J who could get
Speaker 1: involved here. I don't think any of us have any
Speaker 1: doubt that if you had somebody who, I mean, what
Speaker 1: were they gonna pretend that the president's appointee doesn't try
Speaker 1: to protect the president's interests. Come on, right, we're all
Speaker 1: adults here. We all know, we all know how the
Speaker 1: game is played, how this goes, I manage if you
Speaker 1: had somebody I don't know, if you had Rudy Rudy
Speaker 1: Juliani as the Attorney general, even maybe that wouldn't be
Speaker 1: great for some other reasons, but wouldn't after wouldn't recuse
Speaker 1: himself because of Russia collusion, that's for sure. And the
Speaker 1: Rosenstein and and Mueller crowd have a much freer hand
Speaker 1: then they otherwise would because Jeff Sessions a step aside.
Speaker 1: And that's how you can have them stone stonewalling and
Speaker 1: and slow rolling and engaged in all of this obfiscation
Speaker 1: and bureaucratic you know, tiptoeing or tiptoeing around and pretending
Speaker 1: everything has to be so secret because there's not somebody
Speaker 1: to drop the hammer and say no, we're gonna get
Speaker 1: the truth. I know they're having this meeting, you know
Speaker 1: that they're supposed to get you a very top secret
Speaker 1: meeting together, and they look at all this stuff. But
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised if you saw d o J
Speaker 1: still try to withhold someome information. In fact, what you've
Speaker 1: seen in recent weeks is that Republicans who meet with
Speaker 1: d o J half the deal with d o J
Speaker 1: based leaks about the meeting afterwards so that the narrative
Speaker 1: can get out there first. That's most favorable to the
Speaker 1: anti Trump side. I mean this, folks, it's just all
Speaker 1: a political food fight, it really is. And one side
Speaker 1: is just been cheating the whole It's a political food fight.
Speaker 1: On one side is acting like it's you know, uh,
Speaker 1: an existential issue for the republic all the time. And
Speaker 1: that's why they've started the fight. But man, they really
Speaker 1: wanted Hillary to win. I guess I don't know. They
Speaker 1: really can't handle trumps Um at all. We gotta speak
Speaker 1: up North Korea coming up. It's not that much to
Speaker 1: say about it, but I'll say what needs to be said,
Speaker 1: and so I think you want to stick around for that,
Speaker 1: plus maybe some Iran talk and a follow up on
Speaker 1: Starbucks and it's public restrooms that's coming up. So I've
Speaker 1: got a story for you team. I just met our
Speaker 1: new video editor today at the project I'm working on.
Speaker 1: And do you know how we found this very talented
Speaker 1: young woman to come and work with us Zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com. That's right, we use zip recruiter. We posted
Speaker 1: the job online, we went to zip recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: and we were able to find somebody who fit our
Speaker 1: needs perfectly. She couldn't be happier and we couldn't be happier.
Speaker 1: And the whole process was so straightforward and easy. I
Speaker 1: was using the interface and I'm not a very tech
Speaker 1: savvy guy. I'm also somebody who doesn't have a whole
Speaker 1: lot of patients for waiting through resumes that are no good.
Speaker 1: But you know what, Zip recruiter has an algor of them,
Speaker 1: so you don't waste time. You just get the kind
Speaker 1: of resumes you want to look at, and then you
Speaker 1: make the best picks possible. Go check it out for yourself,
Speaker 1: just like I did. Go to zip recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. It's
Speaker 1: the smartest way to hire. Zip recruiter dot com slash buck,
Speaker 1: Buck Sextonssion decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, American Great, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts. No, we're moving
Speaker 1: along and we'll see what happens. There are certain conditions
Speaker 1: that we want and I think we'll get those conditions,
Speaker 1: and if we don't, we don't have the meeting. And frankly,
Speaker 1: it has a chance to be a great, great meeting
Speaker 1: for North Korea and a great meeting for the world.
Speaker 1: I will say I'm a little disappointed because when Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un had the meeting with President she in China,
Speaker 1: the second meeting, the first meeting, we knew about the
Speaker 1: second meeting. I think there was a little change in
Speaker 1: attitude from Kim Jong un, so I don't like that.
Speaker 1: I don't like that. I will guarantee his safety. Yes,
Speaker 1: we will guarantee his safety, and we've talked about that
Speaker 1: from the beginning. He will be safe, he will be happy,
Speaker 1: His country will be rich, His country will be hardworking
Speaker 1: and very prosperous. They're very great people. They're hard working,
Speaker 1: great people. Will the summit happen? As playing President Trump?
Speaker 1: They're talking a lot about this whole North Korea situation,
Speaker 1: which I would know. Jimmy Carter came out and said
Speaker 1: that Trump may, in fact, if he manages two a
Speaker 1: great deal with North Korea, he would be worthy of
Speaker 1: a Nobel Peace Prize, which I would also know that.
Speaker 1: Trump has responded, I think already and said, you know what,
Speaker 1: I think that the deal is the most important part.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really matter he gets the Nobel Peace Prize.
Speaker 1: But we're a long way from that. I've been telling
Speaker 1: you all along fifty fifty shot at best that the
Speaker 1: meeting even goes well, meaning that there's anything that comes
Speaker 1: out of it that we could care about or celebrate.
Speaker 1: Most likely scenario, North Korea makes demands we refuse, they
Speaker 1: keep their nukes status quo grinds on. That's what's most
Speaker 1: likely happened. But if there's somebody who could break us
Speaker 1: out of this, uh, this inertia, I think it would
Speaker 1: have to be President Trump. If there's someone who is
Speaker 1: able to take on the conventional wisdom, flip it on
Speaker 1: its head, shake it out, and make something happen here,
Speaker 1: President Trump's is good as as good a case for
Speaker 1: this as as anybody I think could be. So we
Speaker 1: will see. I have to just note that the analysis
Speaker 1: that comes out whenever there's even the most minor setback
Speaker 1: in advance of these negotiations are just it's just all, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump's you know, he's such a fool, he has no
Speaker 1: idea you Oh, here we go, Vanity fairer as a piece,
Speaker 1: Trump is just a moron. How the President played himself
Speaker 1: on North Korea. Now you might say, any buck Vanity
Speaker 1: fair who cares what they say about anything? And I
Speaker 1: respond to you, correct, random team buck friend that I'm
Speaker 1: pointing out here. But this gives you a sense of
Speaker 1: where the media is on the issue of how this
Speaker 1: summit with Trump is gonna go. Uh. They they would
Speaker 1: like to see it not happen. They would rather North
Speaker 1: Korea continue to be a society it locked in totalitarianism
Speaker 1: and violence and poverty and despair, then have an opening.
Speaker 1: If that opening for North Korea entailed some kind of
Speaker 1: proud moment for Trump himself, that's where we are with
Speaker 1: all this, that's they're thinking. So I think that's problematic,
Speaker 1: and I think that it's worth pointing out that they
Speaker 1: are rooting against the country. As I have said, now,
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen with North Korea? We simply don't know. Uh,
Speaker 1: they could change, you know, anything we agree to today
Speaker 1: could be changed tomorrow. Anything that seems like it's forward
Speaker 1: progress now could be erased in a day. But they've
Speaker 1: got to do what they can to set the groundwork.
Speaker 1: And I think I was on Fox maybe last week
Speaker 1: and I said that this is really a three per
Speaker 1: It's really a three party negotiation. You could say it's
Speaker 1: a four party negotiation. It's not Um and Kim Jong un.
Speaker 1: It's not the US and North Korea. It's the United States,
Speaker 1: North Korea, South Korea, China, maybe Japan gets in there too.
Speaker 1: Those are the parties that are really pushing this thing
Speaker 1: in a meaningful way, that have interest that will affect
Speaker 1: the outcome, and China specifically, think about how this plays
Speaker 1: out for them. They really don't want a North Korea
Speaker 1: that has elections. Think about the message that this would
Speaker 1: send inside of China. North Korea finally strikes some deal
Speaker 1: with America and over the process of a period of
Speaker 1: a few years. I don't know, I'm just I'm moving
Speaker 1: this thing forward down the line here. Right, over a
Speaker 1: period or a few years, they have some form of
Speaker 1: political liberalization. And this is fantasy land stuff, don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong, but it's possible. Chinese have to be aware
Speaker 1: of it. And then you have two you get your
Speaker 1: first North Korean election, and there's also newfound prosperity and
Speaker 1: rights and all the good things that come with rule
Speaker 1: of law and a liberal society. Right, What the heck
Speaker 1: is the Chinese Communist Party gonna say to Chinese citizens
Speaker 1: at that point time? How's that going to look for them?
Speaker 1: Because the whole oh yeah, we brought you prosperity, shut up,
Speaker 1: which is what China China's Communist Party basically says to
Speaker 1: the one billion plus people of that country right now,
Speaker 1: you know, you better like our prosperity or else. And
Speaker 1: that becomes a less sailable proposition. If North Korea all
Speaker 1: of a sudden goes from being this impoverished backwater to
Speaker 1: a state that I'm not it's not going to turn
Speaker 1: into Switzerland overnight, probably ever. But when you look at
Speaker 1: what happened in South Korea, it's like an economic miracle.
Speaker 1: Sure it took a few generations, but South Korea is
Speaker 1: very advanced, very prosperous, you know, liberal the mock to
Speaker 1: see all that stuff, same land, mass folks, same people,
Speaker 1: same language. What's the difference in North and South Korea?
Speaker 1: Political ideology, the political system, the state, that's the difference.
Speaker 1: And if that so, that's already an experiment that the
Speaker 1: Chinese don't particularly like. They prefer having a North Korea
Speaker 1: that is dependent on them, that is under their thumb,
Speaker 1: and that is a bulwark against American ideology, economic ties,
Speaker 1: everything else right there. They want a buffer, and North
Speaker 1: Korea is the buffer. So so their interests in our
Speaker 1: interests are not quite the same. And and China's hand
Speaker 1: in all of this, everyone knows it's very important. I
Speaker 1: get that. How are the Chinese really gonna play this out?
Speaker 1: I don't think they want to deal with America and
Speaker 1: North Korea under any circumstances. I really don't um. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure you'd ever find that out in public, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think the Chinese leadership will ever say it
Speaker 1: like that. But China prefers the status quo. This is
Speaker 1: a country that has a one child policy, a country
Speaker 1: that does force sterilization, an abortion. I mean, China has
Speaker 1: got a very Chinese governm's got a very dark soul.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of really bad stuff that's going on
Speaker 1: in that country in recent decades. It's been papered over
Speaker 1: with the massive increase in the standard of living for
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of people. And we know there are
Speaker 1: Chinese billionaires now, which must have seemed like crazy talk,
Speaker 1: you know, even twenty or thirty years ago. But the
Speaker 1: character of the Chinese state is uh. It still needs
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of work, and it's something
Speaker 1: that you can't discount when you're looking at how this
Speaker 1: is gonna play out with Trump and North Korea and
Speaker 1: these other other parties that are involved here. They do
Speaker 1: not feel bad that. When I say they, I don't
Speaker 1: mean the Chinese people. I mean the Chinese Communist Party
Speaker 1: doesn't particularly care about the suffering of North Korean people
Speaker 1: at all. All they're thinking about is geopolitics, great game
Speaker 1: strategy stuff, and they do not want a unified Korean
Speaker 1: peninsula that is pro American, pro Western and liberalized with elections.
Speaker 1: That becomes a threat to the Chinese Party's group on
Speaker 1: power that this this gets into some pretty scary stuff quickly.
Speaker 1: So when Trump is saying that there's a second meeting
Speaker 1: with Shijin Ping, and then after that meeting, Kim Jong
Speaker 1: LUN's approach, mentality, his vibe on all this has changed somewhat,
Speaker 1: It's not surprising. And this is the you know, unknown
Speaker 1: unknown what was said behind those closed doors. What does
Speaker 1: China really want here? That plays a huge factor in
Speaker 1: all of this. With the negotiations, Trump understands that there's
Speaker 1: economic incentive staffer here though, I mean they're there are
Speaker 1: ways to sweeten this deal. I think they're ways to
Speaker 1: get around some of the hurdles. Here's what he said
Speaker 1: about actually some of that economic liberalization. A play clip
Speaker 1: nine South Korea, China, and Japan. And I've spoken to
Speaker 1: all three one I happen to have right here. They
Speaker 1: will be willing to help, and I believe invest very
Speaker 1: very large sums of money into helping to make North
Speaker 1: Korea great now. People are given this, you know, they're
Speaker 1: they're being really harder than President and all Trump wants
Speaker 1: to make North Korea great again, how do they expect
Speaker 1: him to approach negotiations with a foreign power, foreign country.
Speaker 1: This is a similar thing I see whenever it comes
Speaker 1: to Trump and poot is he just supposed to be
Speaker 1: insulting all the time, just supposed to be nasty. Let's
Speaker 1: talk about how how bad that country is. Terrible they are.
Speaker 1: You know, that doesn't strike me as a productive strategy,
Speaker 1: doesn't strike me as an effective way to go about
Speaker 1: any of this. M play clib ten. Actually, North Korea
Speaker 1: has a chance to be a great country. And it
Speaker 1: can't be a great country under the circumstances that they're
Speaker 1: living right now. But North's career has a chance really
Speaker 1: to be a great country, and I think they should
Speaker 1: seize the opportunity. And we'll soon find out whether or
Speaker 1: not they want to do that. He doesn't say they
Speaker 1: have a chance to be a great country next week
Speaker 1: or next year. But from what we see with South Korea,
Speaker 1: there's every reason to believe that if the political situation
Speaker 1: changed in the North, that that they could be on
Speaker 1: a trajectory to to prosperity and happiness and much better
Speaker 1: stuff than what they've got right now, that's for sure.
Speaker 1: But the media is piling on all make make North
Speaker 1: Korea great again. You know Kim Jongo and the founding father,
Speaker 1: he's basically George Washington. I mean, you know, this is
Speaker 1: the stuff that you can expect from a stuff you
Speaker 1: can expect from a left wing media that is really
Speaker 1: and thinks that Trump is a greater tyrant and a
Speaker 1: greater threat than Kim Jong un. That would actually be
Speaker 1: a fascinating study. I should probably just walk around k
Speaker 1: Street here. I should just walk around downtown d C
Speaker 1: and ask people will be kind of a fun thing.
Speaker 1: Who is a bigger threat to world peace? And I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be asking like just anyone on any street in
Speaker 1: the country. This would be this is right near the
Speaker 1: White House where all the shady swamp dealings are going on,
Speaker 1: or not all of them, but a lot of them.
Speaker 1: Who do you think is the greater threat to world peace?
Speaker 1: Trump or Kim Jong Gun? A lot of people with
Speaker 1: high levels of education, high income earners, with political connections.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't guarantee it, because that maybe gets wrong. I
Speaker 1: would be willing to bet, though a lot of them
Speaker 1: would say it's Trump. Trump is a greater threat than
Speaker 1: Kim Jong Gun. And if you ask who's more authoritarian,
Speaker 1: you might even get some random passers by on the
Speaker 1: street who vote for Clinton or Bernie Sanders to say
Speaker 1: that Trump has a big authoritarian even than Kim John Gun.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be surprised. I can't guarantee it, but I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprised. This is what Trump's arrangement syndrome does.
Speaker 1: It disconnects people from the reality of what's actually going
Speaker 1: on in the world around them, particularly here at home,
Speaker 1: where you gotta love this while all this stuff is
Speaker 1: going on Russia, collusion, North Korea and all these different storylines,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to just bash Trump, bash Trump all
Speaker 1: the time, saying that he intentionally has his staff put
Speaker 1: typos in his tweets because you know, Trump people are
Speaker 1: so dumb the whole thing. You see this all the time.
Speaker 1: Now all that's gonna Meanwhile, I just saw a poll
Speaker 1: that GOP generic ballot at this stage mid terms looming
Speaker 1: doing better than Democrats, and as you know, the party
Speaker 1: out of power is supposed to do well in the
Speaker 1: mid term. You could see forget blue wave, you could
Speaker 1: have a red surge, my friends, and it would make
Speaker 1: it would make perfect sense to me why that would
Speaker 1: be the case. I I show up to this this
Speaker 1: uh studio, should I come into the Freedom and every
Speaker 1: night and I'm just I'm ready to dive into the
Speaker 1: arguments over policy that Democrats want, and they don't make them.
Speaker 1: It's not happening. There is no effort right now in
Speaker 1: the media to do anything other than discredit and destroy
Speaker 1: Trump as a person and tear down his administration. They're
Speaker 1: not offering better ideas, they're not offering better deals, they're
Speaker 1: not offering new deals. They're just saying Trump is the worst.
Speaker 1: He's the worst, He's the worst. They've learned nothing since
Speaker 1: nothing I even saw last night. Uh. I was just
Speaker 1: looking at kill some time for a few minutes, let
Speaker 1: my brain rest. Turn on Comedy Central and the Trevor
Speaker 1: Noah guy comes on a Comedy Central just not not
Speaker 1: a funny guy at all. I mean, I wish somebody
Speaker 1: would give me a job where I make millions of
Speaker 1: dollars that I'm bad at. That sounds like fun. Uh,
Speaker 1: and then I haven't earned but you know, in the
Speaker 1: way of being successful and then getting a big job. Uh.
Speaker 1: They did something though, on how translators like U N
Speaker 1: translators and others don't like Trump. I'm like, oh, this
Speaker 1: is great, guys, this is good. You should run this
Speaker 1: a campaign ads for the midterms. Foreigners who are doing
Speaker 1: translation at the United Nation or just people in general
Speaker 1: who are doing translation at the United Nations, they don't
Speaker 1: like Trump. And you think this is worthy of a
Speaker 1: comedy segment because they're making fun of what it's like
Speaker 1: to translate what Trump says in real language. They've learned
Speaker 1: nothing since. In fact, they've just doubled down on that failure.
Speaker 1: Eight four or four buck eight four, eight to five.
Speaker 1: Let's talk Iran and how that deal is gonna go
Speaker 1: coming up. I love canines of all shapes and sizes,
Speaker 1: but you know they can all dig, and once they
Speaker 1: start getting under your fence, you've got a problem because
Speaker 1: if they get outside, now you've got a safety hazard.
Speaker 1: They can run out in the street. They could just
Speaker 1: run away, and now you've got to find your up.
Speaker 1: Guess what, there is a solution for you. You can
Speaker 1: stop dogs from digging under the fence. With dig Defense,
Speaker 1: it's all you need. Dig Defense keeps your furry kids safe.
Speaker 1: It comes in a bunch of different models and sizes
Speaker 1: to fit your needs exactly. You can install it with
Speaker 1: a pair of gloves and a hammer. It solves the
Speaker 1: problem of dogs going und your fence, and it also
Speaker 1: prevents predators from coming in to your enclosed yard. Go
Speaker 1: check it out for yourself. It's available online at lows Men.
Speaker 1: Ared's wayfair and stop the dig dot com. That's right,
Speaker 1: you can go online stop the dig dot com now
Speaker 1: to solve that problem of pets digging under your fence
Speaker 1: and getting out. Dig Defense Senator Schumer re leieves called
Speaker 1: it a wet goodle solution. What's the White House's response
Speaker 1: to that criticism. Like I've said a few times before,
Speaker 1: Senator Schumer is not somebody this White House is probably
Speaker 1: ever gonna take advice from on how to negotiate or
Speaker 1: get a good deal on anything, particularly based on his
Speaker 1: track record and certainly I think his weakness when it
Speaker 1: comes to China. We finally have a president who's actually
Speaker 1: uh calling out China on their unfair trade practices, and
Speaker 1: not just calling them out, but actually doing something about
Speaker 1: it and aggressively pushing forward in negotiations, something that we
Speaker 1: haven't seen uh in decades, And so Senator Schumer is
Speaker 1: probably the last person we would call and ask for
Speaker 1: on how to make a deal. It's not just Senator Schumer.
Speaker 1: A lot of a lot of folks, A lot of
Speaker 1: folks out there seem to think that they're in a
Speaker 1: position Democrats, they're in a position to give all kinds
Speaker 1: of advice two Trump and his people about how to
Speaker 1: approach foreign policy issues negotiations. In general, the Obama administration
Speaker 1: was full of people who did not know what the
Speaker 1: heck they were doing, did not have the experience that
Speaker 1: they would have needed to be good at their jobs,
Speaker 1: and was just full of a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of happy talk and nonsense, a lot of resume puffery
Speaker 1: without anyone actually being able to deliver the goods. I mean.
Speaker 1: On foreign policy, the Obama administration was an abject failure.
Speaker 1: You look at every region of the world with the
Speaker 1: United States had an active national security interest. That was
Speaker 1: a problem, and the problem got worse while Obama was there, well,
Speaker 1: well while Obama was in office, not while he was
Speaker 1: actually physically there. Libya worse, Syria worse, Iraq worse, Afghanistan worse,
Speaker 1: Russia worse, China worse. I mean, I'm tell me where
Speaker 1: I'm going. Nigeria worse. If you tell me where I'm
Speaker 1: going wrong, Venezuela worse. I mean, I could do this
Speaker 1: all day right, Mexico worse. Oh man, we're having fun,
Speaker 1: We're really getting into it. But those former Obama administration
Speaker 1: foreign policy brahmins are running around acting like they're the
Speaker 1: ones that should be lecturing the current team about how
Speaker 1: to get things done. What do they have to point
Speaker 1: to the Iran deal? Oh yeah, keep all your stuff
Speaker 1: and we'll take the sanctions off and we'll just see
Speaker 1: how stuff goes in a few years. Great deal. Obama team,
Speaker 1: everything else that it was a complete disaster. Didn't even
Speaker 1: get up to bat on Israeli Palestinian negotiations got nothing,
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing. But they're on the sidelines now. Oh this
Speaker 1: is so bad. They have no idea what they're doing.
Speaker 1: Trump's falling on his face with North Korea. Please we
Speaker 1: we we don't need to see team telling the A
Speaker 1: team how to get stuff done. And whether you think
Speaker 1: that Trump's approach works or not, we at least have
Speaker 1: to give him a chance to make it work right,
Speaker 1: whether we at least have to see what the results are.
Speaker 1: This is the guy that everyone said couldn't win the primary,
Speaker 1: couldn't win the general, no chance of all that stuff,
Speaker 1: and somehow he did that. I think he's earned the
Speaker 1: right at this point to have the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt with the way he approaches complicated issues that people
Speaker 1: say he can't fix, because he keeps fixing them. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth, the fuck never stops. The tasks that
Speaker 1: ran needs to undertake aren't that difficult. We asked them
Speaker 1: to stop firing missiles into ri odd, This is not
Speaker 1: It's not a fantasy to imagine the Iranians making a
Speaker 1: decision not to fire missiles into another nation and threatening
Speaker 1: American lives to travel through that airport. Um, it's not
Speaker 1: a fantasy to ask them to cease engaging in terror.
Speaker 1: If it was the case that some other country in
Speaker 1: the Middle East desired to build a nuclear weapons system,
Speaker 1: we would work to stop them too. Uh. These these
Speaker 1: are These are a set of simple requirements that the
Speaker 1: Iranian regime could quite easily comply with. And it would
Speaker 1: benefit the Iranian Iranian people to an enormous extent. Secretaria
Speaker 1: State Pompeio I have to say, is I think one
Speaker 1: of the bright lights of the administration in terms of
Speaker 1: well knowledge as well as forceful personality, strikes me as
Speaker 1: a very sharp guy. I was very supportive of of
Speaker 1: the move to put him not just at CIA, but
Speaker 1: then later on move him to Secretary of Defense. You know,
Speaker 1: he's saying, look, every needs to stop, and we means
Speaker 1: every we're talking about here exactly what we were discussing before.
Speaker 1: Former Obama officials were like, oh no, the Irandio, what
Speaker 1: are we gonna do. Every stop pretending like the Trump
Speaker 1: admin requests or you could say demands, because there's there's
Speaker 1: teeth behind them. If they don't do them, that they're unreasonable,
Speaker 1: that they're unworkable, that there's just some major misstep that's
Speaker 1: at work here, because they're never gonna get what they're
Speaker 1: asking for. Asking Iran not to fire missiles, for example,
Speaker 1: at at other countries in the region, asking Iran not
Speaker 1: to make our life more difficult in Syria, in Iraq.
Speaker 1: You know, this is not unreasonable because we actually hold
Speaker 1: the cards here. We can make their economy flourish, or
Speaker 1: we can make their economy anemic. We can not completely
Speaker 1: shut it down, but certainly put the damper on it.
Speaker 1: Their it's their choice up to them. Um. And everything
Speaker 1: that the US is now saying, everything that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is requiring from the Iranian state, is completely within
Speaker 1: the balance not just of reason but ob sanity. Right
Speaker 1: to not demand this stuff is or would be strange,
Speaker 1: I think, to not insist on ballistic missile as part
Speaker 1: of the discussions with Iran over its nuclear program. To me,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just silly, it really is. It just
Speaker 1: doesn't It doesn't make sense unless you're desperate for a deal,
Speaker 1: unless you're taking the Obama administration approach of showing up
Speaker 1: and saying I'm not leaving here without a deal, which
Speaker 1: is not good. It's not good, not a good approach. Pompeo,
Speaker 1: by the way, got some a little bit of heat
Speaker 1: from a reporter on this, and this is how, this
Speaker 1: is how our secretary of State responded. Place seventeen. The
Speaker 1: demands or whatever you wanna call them, that you laid
Speaker 1: out for Iran yesterday, it seems like there's partially because
Speaker 1: you've laid them all out, and partially because of what
Speaker 1: they are, there's not going to be much room for
Speaker 1: negotiation if any on any of those, would you agree
Speaker 1: with that? And because of the way that was put
Speaker 1: out there, what makes you think that Iran is going
Speaker 1: to be willing to work with the U S on this?
Speaker 1: If it's sanctions, wouldn't that take a very long time?
Speaker 1: At this point, I don't know which of those demands.
Speaker 1: Should we allow them to be harris that is that
Speaker 1: one we should compromise on. Should wait? How many messiles
Speaker 1: are they allowed to fire? I mean, the the answer
Speaker 1: is what the benchmark? The benchmark I set forward yesterday
Speaker 1: is a very low standard. It's the standard behavior we
Speaker 1: expect from countries all around the world. Isn't this very
Speaker 1: trumpy and its approach? Forget about all the all the jargon,
Speaker 1: all the group think, all the conventional this is what
Speaker 1: the smart people do. Just look at what's going on.
Speaker 1: What would a normal rational human being think of what
Speaker 1: Iran is doing the way that it acts as a state,
Speaker 1: as a country, The answer would be, it acts terribly.
Speaker 1: Why can't we demand that Iraq, that Iraq, that Iran
Speaker 1: act like other countries act. We have leverage, we're negotiating.
Speaker 1: We're just saying, be a normal country, stop doing these things.
Speaker 1: How is that strange? Right? But notice that they're the reporter.
Speaker 1: I don't know which one that was, but the reporters
Speaker 1: inclination here is like, oh my gosh, like they're just
Speaker 1: shutting down negotiations before they even happened. The Iranians are
Speaker 1: never gonna go for that. Yeah, that's why we put
Speaker 1: pressure on them so that over time they can make
Speaker 1: a choice. They understand what's at stake, they understand what
Speaker 1: the ins and outs youre are, and they can either
Speaker 1: suffer the consequences of refusing to play ball the way
Speaker 1: we want them to, or they can start to slide
Speaker 1: into the community of nations and be more prosperous. But
Speaker 1: you see, one of the problems here is that prosperity
Speaker 1: for the Iranian people would mean the end of the regime,
Speaker 1: and the regime knows that, right. If the Iranian people
Speaker 1: were able to really fully integrate into the international community economically,
Speaker 1: and the malocracy, I don't think would be able to
Speaker 1: withstand it. It's all. There's already a lot of opposition,
Speaker 1: there's all. And now we start to get into the
Speaker 1: regime change discussion, which feels like it's tired and old
Speaker 1: because people have been having it for thirty years, but
Speaker 1: or more than that now. But it's only tired and
Speaker 1: old because it hasn't happened yet. Right, It would have
Speaker 1: been a completely bizarre discussion to have regime change, that
Speaker 1: is in Egypt until about eleven. Then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: it felt pretty normal to have that discussion. It wasn't
Speaker 1: a whole lot of a warning, including for Mubarik himself.
Speaker 1: So I can see things changing here, uh, and I
Speaker 1: certainly hope that they do. But the administration just wants
Speaker 1: I really do believe this. I think Pompeo and Trump
Speaker 1: and the member of the members of the Foreign policy
Speaker 1: team Bolton now is National Security Advisor. They just want
Speaker 1: to be judged on the results of the policies that
Speaker 1: they're putting into place, and they want the leeway, they
Speaker 1: want the space to engage in negotiations with countries that
Speaker 1: up to this point have stimy all efforts to get
Speaker 1: them to do what we want them to do. Really,
Speaker 1: North Korea or on I mean, I don't even talk
Speaker 1: to you about the sham election in Venezuela that just happened,
Speaker 1: but yet another example of the problems of putting social
Speaker 1: justice and redistribution of wealth above basic human nature, rule
Speaker 1: of law, and capitalism. If you go back and look
Speaker 1: at the art and the archives of what reporters were
Speaker 1: saying and writing around twenty eleven about Venezuela, a lot
Speaker 1: of yeah, they've got this all figured out, from people
Speaker 1: who still think that they're smart, by the way, and
Speaker 1: still want to give the Trump administration advice on how
Speaker 1: to deal with all these other countries. I'm talking to
Speaker 1: you about ultimately, how much does this really affect all
Speaker 1: of us? I try to always keep that in mind
Speaker 1: you with these discussions. It's interesting, but I think the
Speaker 1: discussions that the media has about foreign policy, and I'm
Speaker 1: really curious about how many of you agree with me
Speaker 1: on this. So this is one of these where I'm
Speaker 1: asking for any of you who are with me, or
Speaker 1: if you think I'm way off on this one, let
Speaker 1: me know right right to me on Facebook. But I
Speaker 1: just feel like the media elites I am not a
Speaker 1: part of, although I am in the media. Uh, they
Speaker 1: love to talk about foreign policy because they think that
Speaker 1: they get to sound smart when they do it. Most
Speaker 1: of them don't know a darned thing. They're complete clowns.
Speaker 1: But it's one of these areas where it doesn't really
Speaker 1: affect all of us all that much. Very rarely is
Speaker 1: there a foreign policy challenger issue that matters your day
Speaker 1: to day life. When I talk to you about healthcare, immigration, taxes, culture,
Speaker 1: things like that in this country, that's for all of us. Right,
Speaker 1: that affects all of us. Know us foreign policy visa
Speaker 1: I Iran, it could really affect us. We don't want
Speaker 1: to go to war. There could affect local oil markets,
Speaker 1: but probably won't. It probably won't, And I like to
Speaker 1: be honest about that too. This is a much more
Speaker 1: an area of intellectual interest for a lot of us
Speaker 1: than it is one that is dealing with imminent problems
Speaker 1: that all of us face day today. Right, you're not
Speaker 1: worried about the I R g C kicking in your
Speaker 1: front door, and neither am I. So perhaps that's a
Speaker 1: good way of putting all this in perspective. Speaking of
Speaker 1: perspective the culture, I mentioned that before Netflix, the Obama's
Speaker 1: Why is this so important? I'll tell you? Coming up
Speaker 1: threats of a boycott because Netflix, the streaming video giant,
Speaker 1: has UH signed a deal with Barack and Michelle Obama,
Speaker 1: a multi year deal to produce original shows. Let me
Speaker 1: just first say that this goes to show you a
Speaker 1: few things. One, apparently you don't need any experience in
Speaker 1: TV to produce TV shows or they're just using the
Speaker 1: Obama brand to push these things, which is also quite possible.
Speaker 1: But this is a reminder through all of us, as
Speaker 1: I keep saying, culture is essential in the struggle over
Speaker 1: our political future, and it's all going digital. The the
Speaker 1: cable networks are going to be losing market share. Cable
Speaker 1: providers are gonna just turn into internet service providers, basically
Speaker 1: gonna be glorified technology companies that that give you Internet access.
Speaker 1: And maybe they're gonna work very closely with some of
Speaker 1: the major digital content providers like Hulu and Netflix and
Speaker 1: you know, Hbo Go and all the all the rest
Speaker 1: of them. But having five channels, UH, and having a
Speaker 1: cable company decide what channels are on and what what
Speaker 1: channels aren't, I think that's going away and sooner rather
Speaker 1: than later, folks, not gonna be all that long. But
Speaker 1: this is how the left re establishes the information dominance
Speaker 1: that it had for decades. Almost unchallenged in the media
Speaker 1: space by putting very prominent they're most prominent political voices
Speaker 1: in the top positions of these digital content companies. It's
Speaker 1: so easy, right, This is where this is the the
Speaker 1: unseen hand as to how is it that you have
Speaker 1: so many liberal shows with such a clear left wing
Speaker 1: agenda that are getting greenland time and time again, and
Speaker 1: they don't do well. It's not even like they're profitable,
Speaker 1: but it's it's very obvious that there's an effort underway
Speaker 1: to to push this progressive content, to just keep pushing
Speaker 1: it and pushing it. And you see now that it's
Speaker 1: because they understand this is how the game is played.
Speaker 1: They understand that when you bring in the Obama's and
Speaker 1: put them in Netflix and start giving them shows, it
Speaker 1: draws a whole lot of other social justice types to Netflix.
Speaker 1: But it also means that their entire the apparatus around
Speaker 1: the Obama's right, a lot of their senior advisor types
Speaker 1: and hangers on, fundraisers and bundlers. They can evolve in
Speaker 1: the entertainment side of things, and this is where they
Speaker 1: create a space where they think they can win because
Speaker 1: it's an uneven space that want to they don't want
Speaker 1: to even playing field. They want Barack and Michelle Obama
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't know, David Axel Rod and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, just go whoever, Valerie, Jared and the Clinton's,
Speaker 1: and they want all these Democrat heavyweights to have their
Speaker 1: hands in the entertainment side of media too, because you know,
Speaker 1: you might want to make a show about I don't know,
Speaker 1: maybe uh Secretary of State who's too busy taking big
Speaker 1: donations from some of the worst countries in the world
Speaker 1: for her quote foundation while she's not really paying attention
Speaker 1: to a diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, And you know,
Speaker 1: you might want to do a whole show, a scripted
Speaker 1: series about that. You're that's gonna get made at Netflix
Speaker 1: with the Obama signed on. I don't think so. This
Speaker 1: is why we lose on culture on these When I
Speaker 1: say we lose, I don't mean that they've won the argument.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying this is why they have an advantage
Speaker 1: in these cultural arenas because they do they cheat, They
Speaker 1: stack the deck. Well, the cheat too. They're not trying
Speaker 1: to have a may the best content win attitude. They're
Speaker 1: trying to control the content so they can control the messaging.
Speaker 1: That's why the Obama is going there. Um is so
Speaker 1: it's so noteworthy. We we were starting to learn all
Speaker 1: this folks, Facebook and Twitter and Netflix, and these are
Speaker 1: left wing outfits, left wing, dogmatically progressive, and they are
Speaker 1: suppressing conservative information, messaging and thought for ideological reasons. They
Speaker 1: can say they're not, but they are. And that's why
Speaker 1: when I see here on a Business Insider the Obama's
Speaker 1: claim it's unlikely that their programs are going to be
Speaker 1: overtly partisan. But that's not that's just not true. Right,
Speaker 1: Even if they don't do a political show, they'll be
Speaker 1: political decisions about what gets made in to a show.
Speaker 1: There'll be political decisions about who who gets to be, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the next executive producer of of a show
Speaker 1: that captures the imagination of a generation in this country.
Speaker 1: Who who's in a position to get the budget from
Speaker 1: Netflix and other backers to spend tens of millions, maybe
Speaker 1: even over a hundred billion dollars on a season of television. Right,
Speaker 1: who's going to have that ability? Oh, that's right. The
Speaker 1: politically connected democrats who are being seeded into positions of
Speaker 1: authority and all these digital platforms, I wish I could
Speaker 1: say I have an answer, because we've got a long
Speaker 1: way to go before we can catch up to the
Speaker 1: facebooks and the Twitters and the Netflix. Is we don't
Speaker 1: have any conservatives running any of these things. And I
Speaker 1: don't even want a place that is necessarily right wing.
Speaker 1: I would just like some of these digital platforms that
Speaker 1: are reaching so many people here in this country and
Speaker 1: around the world. But I'm first and foremost concerned with
Speaker 1: this country. I just want a place where I know
Speaker 1: that it's not just completely and utterly stacked against us.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't even need a playing field in
Speaker 1: our favor. I just don't want it in their favor.
Speaker 1: And that that would be nice, that would be a
Speaker 1: step in the right direction. Uh, you know you had
Speaker 1: you and Ambassador Susan Rice joined the Netflix board of directors.
Speaker 1: Remember she took she took very good care of the
Speaker 1: Obamba legacy. National security advisor went on that went on
Speaker 1: the Sunday Show, lied about terrorist attack in Benghazi, said
Speaker 1: it was a protest, you know, but she knew. Democrats
Speaker 1: take care of their own. It's one of their more
Speaker 1: impressive skills or decisions. But they have institutionally a very
Speaker 1: good record. They're kind of like the Lanisters and the
Speaker 1: Lanisters and Game of Thrones. Lanisters always pay their debts.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows the Lanisters are dirt bags. But if you
Speaker 1: do is something for the Lanisters, you're actually gonna get paid.
Speaker 1: You know, they always pay their debts. Very powerful Democrats
Speaker 1: pay their debts to those who carry water for the party.
Speaker 1: They really do. They go to bat for them, they
Speaker 1: protect them, and even if you take hits for the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party that seem rough at the time, they will
Speaker 1: make sure you get on the boards of companies, which
Speaker 1: is one of the greatest gigs in the world. You
Speaker 1: probably call in once a quarter at a conference, call,
Speaker 1: make two or three grand, and it's this, this is
Speaker 1: the best stuff you can get, right. That's that's another
Speaker 1: way they win. But that's a separate discussion. Don't ignore
Speaker 1: these uh left wingers who are running these organizations and
Speaker 1: are now trying to merge the digital content culture with
Speaker 1: our digital left wing political culture in this country, because
Speaker 1: it is happening. It's happening right now, and it has
Speaker 1: really profound long term effects in the direction of politics
Speaker 1: in this country as a whole. It really really does
Speaker 1: UH speaking of left wing politics and trajectories and what's happening.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you know what's coming up. You know what
Speaker 1: I've got for you. We're gonna follow up on Starbucks
Speaker 1: with its whole Let's turn our restaurants into bus depots
Speaker 1: of thirty years ago and see how that goes for us. Right,
Speaker 1: A lot of crack dealers and runaways and people evading
Speaker 1: the law. That's what bus depots were. Let's see what
Speaker 1: happens with Starbucks. The corporate office has decided they need
Speaker 1: to pay a little more attention to this. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that a more coming up in a few Don't
Speaker 1: buy your coffee from a bunch of commies. Don't decide
Speaker 1: that you're going to be supporting social justice warriors just
Speaker 1: because they promise you the fanciest fruit fruit brew. Get
Speaker 1: your coffee from a bunch of patriots who love this country,
Speaker 1: love freedom, and we'll make sure that you are drinking
Speaker 1: absolutely delicious coffee in the process. That's right, I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the veteran owned and operated Black Rifle Coffee Company.
Speaker 1: It's what I drink. I I like their k cups personally,
Speaker 1: but I also in the summertime use Black Rifle coffee
Speaker 1: for cold brew. It's not hard to do it all.
Speaker 1: Give it a shot. You can even set up a
Speaker 1: subscription service. That way, Black Rifle gets delivered to your
Speaker 1: door each month. Go to Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck use the coupon code buck fifteen. That's buck
Speaker 1: one five again Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck
Speaker 1: coupon code buck fifteen for fifteen percent off. Join the
Speaker 1: coffee or die revolution with Black Rifle. Seem Welcome to
Speaker 1: our three of the Buck Sexton Show. It has been
Speaker 1: quite a ride, hasn't it discussed all kinds of things.
Speaker 1: We cover a lot of ground here on the show,
Speaker 1: but I want to spend some time on a on
Speaker 1: a follow up, if you will, something that's a little bit,
Speaker 1: a little bit too different from what a lot of
Speaker 1: other folks are talking about. I'm talking about the Starbucks
Speaker 1: bathroom and overall cafe usage policy. Now I gave them
Speaker 1: a hard time yesterday's you know. And occasionally occasionally I
Speaker 1: find myself without my k cuffs from Black Rifle, or
Speaker 1: without access to my Black Rifle coffee that I make
Speaker 1: for colbrew, and I have to walk into a Starbucks
Speaker 1: location and actually I know the coffee is not bad.
Speaker 1: It's not great, but it's not bad, and check it out.
Speaker 1: So I'm familiar with how the Starbucks world functions. I
Speaker 1: know they even have an app now, and they're getting
Speaker 1: fancier and fancier with their coffee. I think there's even
Speaker 1: like a super expensive not the bat guano coffee, which
Speaker 1: is the most expensive in the world. That's a real thing.
Speaker 1: By the way, producer Mike fact check me on it.
Speaker 1: People pay extra money to drink steamy bat poop. It's true,
Speaker 1: like a lot of money, like thirty dollars a cup
Speaker 1: for bat poop coffee. They don't call it that. Of course,
Speaker 1: there's a mother. There's some other name you can uh
Speaker 1: you can, Yeah, well we'll get you the name in
Speaker 1: a second point here is um point whild bat guano coffee.
Speaker 1: You can actually you can actually get that on on eBay.
Speaker 1: Oh man, yeah, it's uh, I'm sorry, Yeah, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a few different ways to all right, I'm getting
Speaker 1: off the rails here. I wanted to tell you about
Speaker 1: this uh special coffee that you can drink, but it
Speaker 1: comes from is it civits or bats Civit coffee is
Speaker 1: really expensive. Anyway, Starbucks has this big issue with not
Speaker 1: wanting to be an exclude a place where there's any
Speaker 1: bias to exclude anyone. So they had this whole policy
Speaker 1: they and not only does can anyone use the bathrooms?
Speaker 1: And I would note that's pretty much the policy already
Speaker 1: most places. If you go in and say you got
Speaker 1: to use the bathroom, they're gonna let you use the bathroom.
Speaker 1: And even if they don't, guess what, you can wait
Speaker 1: till somebody goes in the bathroom, and then you can
Speaker 1: just go in when they're done, right when the door
Speaker 1: is open. So it's not really a complex problem. But
Speaker 1: show it's the chairman. And I gave him a hard
Speaker 1: time for this, and I'm certainly not the only one.
Speaker 1: He was in a position where he felt like he
Speaker 1: had to take a dramatic action here to make sure
Speaker 1: it did not look like Starbucks was biased. So what
Speaker 1: did he do? What do you do? Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: he said, Well, our new policy will be that you
Speaker 1: don't have to buy anything, and you can sit there
Speaker 1: as long as you want, you can use the bathroom,
Speaker 1: you don't even have to be a customer anymore. Effectively,
Speaker 1: Starbucks gets turned into a public use facility like the
Speaker 1: local public library. Now a lot of you are probably like, wow, buck,
Speaker 1: my local public library, if you live in a city,
Speaker 1: is not a place you want to spend much time
Speaker 1: and you don't want to be there alone. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: you don't know what's gonna happen in there. Uh, and
Speaker 1: that's gonna happen with Starbucks. So now they've decided because
Speaker 1: of the backlash, because people like me were mocking them
Speaker 1: for it, understandably, So this is a crazy This is
Speaker 1: a crazy idea. The whole thing is nuts. They're like, well,
Speaker 1: now we're gonna have some policies. So here they go, Okay, uh,
Speaker 1: you can't sleep and you can't do drugs. Those are
Speaker 1: the old those are the red lines. Now for the
Speaker 1: usage of Starbucks thousands and thousands and thousands of stores
Speaker 1: across the country. So short of those two things, it
Speaker 1: is up to manage your discretion of individual locations. Remember
Speaker 1: they're not on a franchise model. They are corporate owned
Speaker 1: Starbucks is if it's a Starbucks, it's owned by the
Speaker 1: Starbucks corporation. So this isn't like you know, McDonald's, for example,
Speaker 1: has a policy in place of letting individual franchisees. This
Speaker 1: is also a way to outsource the decision making risk
Speaker 1: here in case there's any bad press. Franchisees can decide
Speaker 1: do people get to hang out without paying or do
Speaker 1: they have to pay? It's up to them corporate McDonald's
Speaker 1: doesn't have to worry about it. But Starbucks has this
Speaker 1: whole model of you know, we're also a meeting place
Speaker 1: in a workspace. And and but I mean, the understanding
Speaker 1: has when you've got at least by over priced five
Speaker 1: calorie five dollar and fifty cent uh frappuccino before you're
Speaker 1: allowed to sit down for a long time. So but
Speaker 1: they're gonna make the problem worse though. Now they keep
Speaker 1: digging right there. They're getting themselves into a hole, and
Speaker 1: they won't stop digging, to keep on digging. And what
Speaker 1: you see happening here is that they're doing this. And
Speaker 1: now they're trying to come up with a way to
Speaker 1: put you know, some stop gap or some some guidelines
Speaker 1: in place so it doesn't just turn all these thousands
Speaker 1: of Starbucks locations into a glorified here. I mean, you
Speaker 1: ever been to a bathroom in a public park? I
Speaker 1: don't know what it's like where you are. Some of you,
Speaker 1: I know, live in like lovely places where there's not
Speaker 1: that many people, and you know, your parks are really clean,
Speaker 1: in your streets are really nice. Yeah, And I know,
Speaker 1: I know, give yourself a pad on the back because
Speaker 1: I'm a city dweller from big cities run by Democrats,
Speaker 1: so everything is like filthy. That's public. I mean, the
Speaker 1: public stuff tends to be really gross. But I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember, even as a kid, if I had to
Speaker 1: use the restroom in Central Park or something, there weren't
Speaker 1: very many of them, but you go in and there
Speaker 1: was this smell. It smells kind of like you had
Speaker 1: walked into a a mausoleum and there were jars of
Speaker 1: thousand year old urine that had been sitting there just
Speaker 1: marinating for for millennia. And it's a smell unlike any
Speaker 1: other I've ever really come across. You're not gonna have
Speaker 1: quite that in the Starbucks bathroom, but it's gonna be
Speaker 1: pretty close if they keep up with this policy. So
Speaker 1: now they say you can't sleep, you can't do drugs.
Speaker 1: Guess what this is gonna lead to the First time
Speaker 1: a manager and tries to enforce the policy beyond someone
Speaker 1: sleeping or someone doing drugs, They're gonna get called out right,
Speaker 1: There's gonna be problems. And do you think that this
Speaker 1: is really going to stop someone who is a vagrant,
Speaker 1: let's say, from going in there. No, of course not,
Speaker 1: because it's going to create a culture of no longer
Speaker 1: do you have to be a patron, you can just
Speaker 1: be a transient and use them as a location. I
Speaker 1: actually think this is gonna affect Starbucks is bottom line.
Speaker 1: And like I don't know any Starbucks stock. I'm not
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to, you know, get it going one
Speaker 1: way or the other. But I think this is gonna
Speaker 1: be a problem for Starbucks. Uh, you know, they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to They've got to walk this one back and
Speaker 1: they've got there. What they're really trying to do is
Speaker 1: just keep this whole thing going for another week, you know,
Speaker 1: keep it, keep themselves on the good side of the
Speaker 1: social justice warriors, because once they've had their big diversity
Speaker 1: training day, then ever just gonna forget about it. And
Speaker 1: what really takes hold is the coffee addiction that America has.
Speaker 1: Because we are addicted to coffee. Don't even get me
Speaker 1: started on this I'm addicted to coffee, I think, I mean,
Speaker 1: certainly to caffeine. Is it really possible that my two
Speaker 1: favorite things to ingest in the planet just happened to
Speaker 1: be coffee and chocolate. Red meat? Yeah, but there's only
Speaker 1: so much red meat, you can you know, if I
Speaker 1: was eating red meat five times a day, some of
Speaker 1: your like you'd be a hero buck. Yeah. No, I know,
Speaker 1: but that's a little bit excessive. It might have something
Speaker 1: to do with the caffe nation that that is part
Speaker 1: of the process of drinking coffee and of eating chocolate.
Speaker 1: I mean, I actually have a chocolate stash here. I'm
Speaker 1: currently bouncing around to hotels and airbnbs and things in
Speaker 1: d C as I find a find more permanent accommodations,
Speaker 1: and I have to carry a coffee a chocolate stash
Speaker 1: with me, kind of carrying my black rifle as a stash,
Speaker 1: and if need be, I gotta get coffee on the run.
Speaker 1: So there's a sense there. I just have a feeling
Speaker 1: that caffeine plays a role at all this. But that's
Speaker 1: why it's such a successful business model. That's why Starbucks
Speaker 1: has been doing so well. There's no other substance that
Speaker 1: people it's completely socially acceptable, and in fact, I think
Speaker 1: it does assist in productivity for lot of folks. It
Speaker 1: certainly does for me, show up, get ready, drink your
Speaker 1: coffee every day every day. And the personalization that goes
Speaker 1: into it too is amazing. People have really specific, um,
Speaker 1: really specific needs when it comes to their coffee. Also,
Speaker 1: what is it with the person that will be in
Speaker 1: the line and just thinks that they're the only one.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the line where they have a little
Speaker 1: stirs and the different milks which there should really only
Speaker 1: be one milk. It's called milk, m I l k.
Speaker 1: It comes from a cow and it's delicious and it's
Speaker 1: good for you. Skim milk, as we know, it's just
Speaker 1: water that's lying about being milk. And then you have
Speaker 1: almond milk, which is almond juice. It's fine if you
Speaker 1: want to drink it, but it's a juice, it's not
Speaker 1: a milk. And then you have soy milk, which is
Speaker 1: just another that's just just poison. Soy milk probably gives
Speaker 1: us all well, gives the gentleman list into this what
Speaker 1: is uh known in course languages man boobs soy milk
Speaker 1: is bad, bad, bad, increases estrogen. You don't want to
Speaker 1: be drinking soy milk. Um. I have no idea what
Speaker 1: it does the ladies. But so if you want to
Speaker 1: drink swy milk, go for it. But for dudes, soy
Speaker 1: milk is bad. But there's always the guy in the
Speaker 1: line for the coffee or or for the the the
Speaker 1: station where you get the milk, and the stirs. By
Speaker 1: the way, I'm not a big stir fan. I've I've
Speaker 1: seen funky things happen to those little wooden stirs who's
Speaker 1: just so freaking slow, And you have to think yourself,
Speaker 1: how hard is this, buddy? Is this really? It's it's
Speaker 1: eight am. You got a line of twenty people. We're
Speaker 1: all trying to get coffee before we get into our
Speaker 1: office or go to work. Is this your first? Is
Speaker 1: this really your first rodeo? Like? Is this the first
Speaker 1: time you've had to look for skim or half and
Speaker 1: half or you don't know, But someone always assigns to
Speaker 1: go in super slow speed, kind of like the super
Speaker 1: slow speed that people want. A plane finally lands and
Speaker 1: they have to pull their luggage down from overhead the suddence.
Speaker 1: I'm growing fast as kidd I mean they slow motion,
Speaker 1: slow motion the whole thing. Yeah, it's not that hard.
Speaker 1: You know your lugg you just pull it down. You
Speaker 1: know where the milk is, pour it. Let's go, buddy.
Speaker 1: Time is money. Speaking of time is money, Starbucks gonna
Speaker 1: find out letting people sit in your facility all day
Speaker 1: and not spend any money, it's not good. It's not
Speaker 1: it's not gonna work out for the bottom line. So
Speaker 1: anyway they realize as a mistake, I'm wondering how they're
Speaker 1: gonna back out of it. Um, Speaking of mistakes, a
Speaker 1: millennial who's thirty who doesn't want to move out, what
Speaker 1: ends up happening? I'll tell you in just a moment
Speaker 1: before I get too deep into this analysis, I gotta
Speaker 1: start here. Uh, Producer, Mike and and Brandon, how old
Speaker 1: are you allowed to be now and still consider yourself
Speaker 1: a millennial? I mean that's I need to know. I
Speaker 1: would like you both to weigh in. Mike, how old
Speaker 1: is the oldest millennial allowed to be? I would say,
Speaker 1: like it's a I've been told it's a gray line
Speaker 1: because I have friends who are thirty five thirty six
Speaker 1: who fall in that range and refused to be millennials
Speaker 1: and say it's their choice not to be. See, I'm
Speaker 1: I always say I'm a Gray Beer millennial because I'm
Speaker 1: at the absolute upper limit. I'm right there, I'm thirty six,
Speaker 1: Brandon millennials, how old. See I kind of understand what
Speaker 1: Mike is saying. I'm thirty four. I consider myself a cusper.
Speaker 1: I've heard that word before. I'm the cusp of gen
Speaker 1: X and millennialssper. Okay, that's what I tell myself. We're
Speaker 1: we're kind of rejected by both the millennial and gen
Speaker 1: X communities. Guys, we're all we're all roughly the same
Speaker 1: age here, so it's a little little sad. But anyway,
Speaker 1: although Bruser Mike is a little more firmly gen X
Speaker 1: and the rest of us brand and we can high
Speaker 1: five each other. Nonetheless, gen X, gen Y, all these
Speaker 1: different things, they come together, and everyone always likes to
Speaker 1: to pretend that the whatever the generation is that they're
Speaker 1: talking about is, oh, look at them, they're ruining this,
Speaker 1: or they're they're the worst right this, But sometimes it
Speaker 1: does seem like millennials are kind of the worst. There
Speaker 1: are some things that are specific to the millennial set,
Speaker 1: and it has to do with with liberals and social justice.
Speaker 1: Worst almost always right. You never have some bad story
Speaker 1: about a millennial who's like, I've been saving my money
Speaker 1: and like building houses and being a capitalist. It's always
Speaker 1: something about someone who needs a safe space, doesn't wanna
Speaker 1: go out and actually have to earn a living. And
Speaker 1: this one we see here in New York State, my
Speaker 1: home state, is a perfect example of millennials gone wrong.
Speaker 1: A judge this is getting this is getting an attention
Speaker 1: all over the place. A judge has sided with parents.
Speaker 1: Check that out. Man parents in trying to evict their unemployed,
Speaker 1: millennial thirty year old son from from their family home.
Speaker 1: A judge has literally had to weigh in here for
Speaker 1: oakes and tell a thirty year old that he's not
Speaker 1: allowed to just stay in the parents home. He's not
Speaker 1: allowed to continue to refuse to do anything, refuse to
Speaker 1: pay rent. This is crazy until you see a photo
Speaker 1: of the guy. And I'm telling you Daily Mail has
Speaker 1: this up. You've got to check it out. Because when
Speaker 1: you hear that a thirty year old dude refuses his
Speaker 1: parents multiple entreaties for him to move out, that he remember,
Speaker 1: he won't pay rent, he won't do chores. He just
Speaker 1: wants to stay in his family home and refuses to leave.
Speaker 1: You're like, who would do such a thing? And then
Speaker 1: you see a photo and you're like, oh, that guy
Speaker 1: would do such a thing. Michael Rotondo, that is his name.
Speaker 1: Thirty Uh. He looks kind of like Yanni, not Laurel,
Speaker 1: but Yanni. He looks like a dude who, let's just say,
Speaker 1: is not exactly crushing it in the ladies department. And
Speaker 1: sure enough he refuses refuse. He's got super long. Here
Speaker 1: is super long. He's kind of got a Gandalf thing
Speaker 1: going on, long Beard, and he won't leave. And you
Speaker 1: read these different notices, right, you read these different things
Speaker 1: as parents. They note after note you are hereby evicted.
Speaker 1: Here is from us. So you can find a place
Speaker 1: to say that parents are desperate to get him out,
Speaker 1: and he won't leave. I've never heard of such a
Speaker 1: thing that this may be the most millennial thing ever.
Speaker 1: In some ways, I've never even heard of this before.
Speaker 1: But it reminds me of how we all go through this,
Speaker 1: all these I think I did. I don't know if
Speaker 1: all do you go through this life cycle where, of course,
Speaker 1: initially your parents provide for you to take care of you,
Speaker 1: to give you a home. Then you're a little older
Speaker 1: and you're just like, oh gosh, you know, you you
Speaker 1: want your freedom, you want your space. You know, you
Speaker 1: want to be able to spread your wings a little
Speaker 1: bit and not have not have their rules and their
Speaker 1: curfew and everything else. And then I feel like you
Speaker 1: move out and maybe it's before college, maybe it's after college,
Speaker 1: and you established this rhythm where you're like, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: that's right, I'm out of my own. But after a
Speaker 1: few years, especially if you're like me and you're from
Speaker 1: a major city and you've had to have roommates and
Speaker 1: roommates and roommates, you're like, you know, man, it was
Speaker 1: really nice living at home. It was it was great.
Speaker 1: You know, Mom is a really good cook, and uh,
Speaker 1: it's great food in the house. Like just the notion
Speaker 1: of having good food to eat in the home that's
Speaker 1: just there for you. You take that for granted when
Speaker 1: you're a kid and you're a teenager, you get in
Speaker 1: your twenties and thirties and all of a sudden, you're like,
Speaker 1: I have to grocery shop. That was one of the
Speaker 1: real moments. It hit me, by the way, when I
Speaker 1: realized that if I did not, in fact go get
Speaker 1: toilet paper or paper towel, there wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: any this is I know it's a part of growing up,
Speaker 1: it's a part of the maturation process. But you know,
Speaker 1: you come to a point where you realized, Wow, I
Speaker 1: wish I could go back in time and tell like
Speaker 1: four teen year old me, hey, buddy, none of this.
Speaker 1: I'm not that I was a rebellious kid, but you know,
Speaker 1: none of this. Oh man, I need my freedom and
Speaker 1: everything else. Like, enjoy it while you can, because well,
Speaker 1: you don't want to be the thirty year old who
Speaker 1: literally refuses to leave his parents home. This guy is
Speaker 1: quite a piece of work. They actually described in the
Speaker 1: Daily Mail article failure Launch Syndrome, which I think was
Speaker 1: also a completely terrible movie with I want to say,
Speaker 1: Matthew McConaughey and uh, Jennifer Aniston, maybe does that sound right?
Speaker 1: I think that's right anyway, Failure to launch is a
Speaker 1: real thing. I didn't know this. Um, well, it's become
Speaker 1: a real thing. At least now doctors will diagnose somebody
Speaker 1: with a failure to launch. So you don't want to
Speaker 1: be the three year old guy. But you want to
Speaker 1: appreciate the fact that, man, if you have parents and
Speaker 1: you have a family that run a nice home for you,
Speaker 1: it's comfortable, safe and warm, and you can just get
Speaker 1: to like hang out and go to school. That's a
Speaker 1: great set up. I can't really appreciate it when you're
Speaker 1: a kid. It But this guy, as I said, Yanni's
Speaker 1: stunt double that has to leave. You gotta see you
Speaker 1: gotta see this dude to believe it. It looks like
Speaker 1: he's he's out. The judge said that he is, in
Speaker 1: fact evicted. He tried to say that that the law
Speaker 1: was on his side and that he needs at least
Speaker 1: a six month at least a six month window before
Speaker 1: he could be asked to move, which that that's obviously
Speaker 1: quite a bit excessive. So he's he's out. He is gone,
Speaker 1: all right. I know, I've got I've got roll call
Speaker 1: coming up, which I am excited to talk to you about.
Speaker 1: And I've I've got a little bit of science before that, though,
Speaker 1: What do women find attractive and what does science say
Speaker 1: about eating eggs? I have the latest in these hot
Speaker 1: off the press's stories coming right up. Got good news
Speaker 1: for you, team. I like to be able to bring
Speaker 1: you good news. This goes in the oh wait, you
Speaker 1: mean the stuff that you've been hold for a long time,
Speaker 1: isn't true? File? Eggs are delicious. There are many different
Speaker 1: ways to eat eggs, as you know. I've been on
Speaker 1: television one time showing America how to make eggs great again.
Speaker 1: But we were for a long time in a position
Speaker 1: where we were told that they cause heart disease, that
Speaker 1: they are bad for cholesterol, and that you should really
Speaker 1: limit your intake of eggs and in fact choose things
Speaker 1: like cereal and other high carbohydrate, high sugar breakfast alternatives.
Speaker 1: This is the exact opposite of a good idea. But
Speaker 1: I have some science here to back up what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: This courtesy of Royter's, the major news our service. People
Speaker 1: who eat an egg just about every day have a
Speaker 1: lower risk of heart attack and stroke than individuals who
Speaker 1: don't eat eggs at all. This is based on a
Speaker 1: large study out of China. China, as Trump says, Uh,
Speaker 1: you had forty four hundred two or thirteen adults in
Speaker 1: their fifties part of this survey, very very big survey,
Speaker 1: and on average they ate a half an egg daily,
Speaker 1: About nine of them avoided eggs altogether eight roughly egged day.
Speaker 1: And the good news is eating eggs is better for
Speaker 1: you than not eating eggs. So there you go. There
Speaker 1: you go, folks. I'm just wondering where they're going to
Speaker 1: do a huge study of bacon to prove the truth
Speaker 1: that we already know, and that is that bacon is
Speaker 1: not only delicious, but in reasonable quantities is good for you.
Speaker 1: That's one bit of science today. I got another thing
Speaker 1: on this on the science side that I wanted to
Speaker 1: share with you, and that is what do this is
Speaker 1: according to science? This is not like my opinion right
Speaker 1: later in the show. Sometimes I like to just talk
Speaker 1: to you about the science e stuff out there. You know,
Speaker 1: what are the people in the lab coats doing all
Speaker 1: the fancy calculations. What are they coming up with? Here's
Speaker 1: what we since found out. Science tells us that what
Speaker 1: women find most physically attractive is Now, I'm gonna leave
Speaker 1: you hanging there for a second, because I feel like
Speaker 1: there are a lot of different things that you might
Speaker 1: have tossed into the mix. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: different possibilities you might think to yourself, you know, a
Speaker 1: great head of hair, a winning smile, a square set jaw.
Speaker 1: These are the things that women find attractive. But if
Speaker 1: you thought all those things, you would in fact be wrong,
Speaker 1: because according to science the study this is the Royal
Speaker 1: Society uh Journal Open Science Journal said that a man's
Speaker 1: the length of a man's legs in proportion to the
Speaker 1: rest of his body is in fact a single most
Speaker 1: important indicator of whether females will find him attractive. This
Speaker 1: was a study. Roots study says wrote, got it right, buck.
Speaker 1: Women don't care about men's elbows or knees, and male
Speaker 1: arms are generally sidelined their relative their relative length to
Speaker 1: the male body had no effect on a woman's pulse,
Speaker 1: but when it came to legs, hearts would race if
Speaker 1: they look to be close to half the male figures height,
Speaker 1: a little more, a little less, and the women's eyes
Speaker 1: began to wander. I don't know how this is possible, folks.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I've never consciously, and of course
Speaker 1: I'm male looking at females, but I've never thought, oh,
Speaker 1: the ratio of leg to the rest of the body
Speaker 1: is what I'm really looking for here. So this has
Speaker 1: to be some subconscious stuff. This has to be the
Speaker 1: kind of thing that you're not aware of, but it's
Speaker 1: influencing the way you perceive things. I don't know, Ladies,
Speaker 1: you tell me, I guess tall, dark, and handsome. It's
Speaker 1: really just tall and proportional to the rest of the body.
Speaker 1: That's what that's what's supposed to be exciting. I don't know.
Speaker 1: You look at all the different standards of beauty across society.
Speaker 1: I I thought that we had already settled with the
Speaker 1: science that it has to do with the proportionality of
Speaker 1: the face, and that's how people determine whether or not
Speaker 1: they find somebody physically attractive. And there's all this science
Speaker 1: and research, by the way, about how physical attraction has
Speaker 1: roots in genetics and passing on well, I mean that
Speaker 1: all makes sense, right, but but also with with health
Speaker 1: and passing on gender information that is likely to be
Speaker 1: good for the next generation. They've done studies to show
Speaker 1: that men are more attractive to women who for having
Speaker 1: a greater level of testosterone, and that that's also that's
Speaker 1: where you get the whole square jaw and I think
Speaker 1: deeper set eyes. And there's a few things about that
Speaker 1: that manifest themselves physically, that testosterone does to the male
Speaker 1: body that women tend to find more attractive, even though
Speaker 1: it is also the case that men with higher levels
Speaker 1: of testosterone are more likely to cheat, more likely to
Speaker 1: get divorced, and more likely to get into a fight. So, ladies,
Speaker 1: if you're wondering why do you like those bad boys
Speaker 1: so much, turns out it's uh got a biochemical origin,
Speaker 1: and it has to do with what you find attractive
Speaker 1: versus what will be what kind of mail will be
Speaker 1: the best mate, the best protector and provider for children.
Speaker 1: So the genetic material component of it is in a
Speaker 1: state of um contradiction, so to speak, or is in
Speaker 1: a state of tension with the behavioral aspects of the
Speaker 1: greater testosterone. So no, see a little little nerdy science stuff.
Speaker 1: I like to work that into the conversation sometimes. Bottom line,
Speaker 1: eggs are good for you, says science. Bacon is good
Speaker 1: for you, says Buck. And you want your legs to
Speaker 1: be roughly in proportion of your body, which sounds like everybody,
Speaker 1: but that's what they're telling me. All right, roll call
Speaker 1: up next. The show ain't over yet, folks, it's time.
Speaker 1: Oh man, it was so sad today. I wanted to
Speaker 1: try something different than what I always have for lunch
Speaker 1: around here, which tends to be I'm not gonna lie
Speaker 1: to you. I found a place that serves bacon and
Speaker 1: eggs all day, and so I just have baking and
Speaker 1: eggs for lunch a lot of the time. But I
Speaker 1: went into a place today that makes b bim bop
Speaker 1: and I'm all excited. It's a Korean dish, usually rice space.
Speaker 1: You get some kim chi in there, exciting things, a
Speaker 1: little little egg on top. I'm thinking, I'm gonna like
Speaker 1: this be bimbop. And then I look at their gluten
Speaker 1: free menu at this place, and it's b bim bomp
Speaker 1: without the protein. Only protein you can have as an egg.
Speaker 1: And I already have eggs every day. No Korean barbecue,
Speaker 1: no chicken, no pork. It's a sad day for me.
Speaker 1: So that was my disappointment. But you know what makes
Speaker 1: me excited hearing from all of you, my wonderful team Buck,
Speaker 1: all of you folks weighing in with your thoughts on
Speaker 1: all the latest here. All right, with that in mind,
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton, if you want to
Speaker 1: get in on some of this roll call action, you
Speaker 1: know you know how to do a team You know
Speaker 1: how it goes also official Team Buck at gmail dot com.
Speaker 1: One of you pointed out to me with a bit
Speaker 1: of snark that I would say what was in fact
Speaker 1: necessary that having a Gmail account for my official nationally
Speaker 1: syndicated radio show is only slightly cooler than having an
Speaker 1: a o L account. So I will remind us Mike
Speaker 1: John Buck to get a more and an email commensurate
Speaker 1: with the level of our show as and it's actually
Speaker 1: the company we work for. But let's get into this. Uh,
Speaker 1: Jerry rights Hey Buck been jones ing for a history
Speaker 1: deep dive and downloaded The Great Siege of Mall to
Speaker 1: buy Bruce Allen when I saw it on sale for
Speaker 1: one dollar. Couldn't pass it up at that price. So far,
Speaker 1: so good. One thing I keep catching myself doing is
Speaker 1: reading it in Buck's voice. When the war story starts
Speaker 1: getting intense, the Buck voice comes out, just needs some
Speaker 1: sound effects to go with it. Also came across a
Speaker 1: cool podcast episode from No Dumb Questions about siege warfare.
Speaker 1: Check it out sometime. Good info about old time war tactics. Well, Jerry,
Speaker 1: I will check that out. That sounds really cool actually,
Speaker 1: and uh, thank you for one telling me about this
Speaker 1: book on the Siege of Malta, and to the reminder
Speaker 1: that we will, in fact come back with some roll call.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, we're doing roll call right now. Come back
Speaker 1: with some shield tie very very soon, t J. Next
Speaker 1: up here, Buck, Your scrutiny of a number of folk
Speaker 1: pop classic rock bands baffles me slightly. I e. Bob Dylan,
Speaker 1: The Beatles, The Stones, and Springsteen. By no means am
Speaker 1: I offended, but I am in read. Anyways, if I
Speaker 1: could give you a quick list of bands, could you
Speaker 1: give you uh, could you give your opinion on each?
Speaker 1: Just a quick one word answer will suffice Wow, t J.
Speaker 1: This is actually a fun game, you know, I would
Speaker 1: invite people. You know, this is kind of like asked
Speaker 1: Buck anything. But it's really we'll come up with a
Speaker 1: with a cooler name for this, but it's like testing
Speaker 1: the curmudgeonliness here as to see what I like and
Speaker 1: don't like. Um I okay, so we can do this
Speaker 1: with one word um Ero Smith, epic A C, D
Speaker 1: C amazing, bad company, I don't know, Leonard skinnerd couple
Speaker 1: of great songs. I don't really have just one word
Speaker 1: for that one. Queen some good songs. Ted nugent interesting
Speaker 1: fellow thirty eight special. I don't even know what band
Speaker 1: that is. I know that that's what people refer to
Speaker 1: a type of revolver as. Anyway, t J writes, if
Speaker 1: you enjoy playing this game, I'll come up with another
Speaker 1: list in a few days. Well, t J sounds good,
Speaker 1: come up with another list do TV shows? I like
Speaker 1: this game though the test bucks? Uh critical skills here
Speaker 1: or skills as a critic, Daniel? Anyway, shield side t J.
Speaker 1: Daniels up next. You're right, Buck is a child of
Speaker 1: the nineties. I pretty much have the first ten years
Speaker 1: of The Simpsons memorized. That being said, the cryptic references
Speaker 1: to your coming announcement reminds me of the Gabbo is
Speaker 1: Coming commercials that were used to drum up anticipation for
Speaker 1: an audience to compete with Krusty. Sorry for the esoteric,
Speaker 1: esoteric reference, Daniel, I, I'm familiar with Krusty the clown,
Speaker 1: and I think that gosh I was gonna say Frasier Crane,
Speaker 1: but his actual name was Kelsey Grammer is fantastic in
Speaker 1: that role. Uh when he right? Because isn't he the
Speaker 1: actual voice of Krusty that you know? Actually I sound
Speaker 1: like Moe the bartender there. What are you doing? Alma?
Speaker 1: That was actually pretty good off the top of my head.
Speaker 1: But I don't know about gabbo is coming, so I
Speaker 1: will have to check it out. But thank you very
Speaker 1: much for writing Monica up next. You are so uh
Speaker 1: you are so correct on gut feelings about people. Bad
Speaker 1: apartment story. We moved everything we owned, Okinawa. I had
Speaker 1: a bad feeling about the landlord, no lease. Move was
Speaker 1: last minute, paid rent for a few months, and got
Speaker 1: a postcard in the mail from the actual owner addressed
Speaker 1: to the guy I was paying rent to, saying he
Speaker 1: hadn't paid rent for three months. Had to move again,
Speaker 1: shields I from team buck Okinawa. Yeah, Monica, I've made
Speaker 1: some of the mistakes with apartments, but you know, it's
Speaker 1: so much easier as you go on in life when
Speaker 1: you have more experience, maybe even have a little more
Speaker 1: financial resource at your disposal. Because when I was looking
Speaker 1: for apartments in New York in d C, I don't
Speaker 1: have any money. And when you don't have any money,
Speaker 1: you and when I mean when I say I don't
Speaker 1: have any money, I'm not talking about like thirst on
Speaker 1: hal the third money. Oh I'm smacking around blows with
Speaker 1: a hundred dollar bills. No. I mean, you know, my
Speaker 1: first and last month rent to move into an apartment
Speaker 1: was like all the money I had in the world.
Speaker 1: So if I got it wrong, I don't have any money. Uh,
Speaker 1: that makes it a bit a bit harder. That raises
Speaker 1: the stakes a little bit. But yeah, that gut instinct
Speaker 1: about it's not just about the management company, the landlord
Speaker 1: or the owner about the place too. When you walk
Speaker 1: into a place, you get a feeling about it, and
Speaker 1: you don't want to ignore that feeling. You really should.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, if there's some specific reason why, you know,
Speaker 1: as soured you want a place, that isn't relevant. You know,
Speaker 1: if you walk in and there's like another couple looking
Speaker 1: at the apartment or something, or the house, well, that
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad place. It might
Speaker 1: actually mean it's a great place. You just need to
Speaker 1: get get a perspective on it. Anyway, I don't ignore
Speaker 1: that gut feeling. You know. My dad always says don't
Speaker 1: ignore your instincts, and that's true. It doesn't mean obey
Speaker 1: your instincts all the time. It just means don't ignore them.
Speaker 1: Be aware of them, be aware of the feeling you're getting.
Speaker 1: Next up here, William, who writes, Uh, you just read
Speaker 1: one of my messages. Sometimes it's hard to explain what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to say. I'm not Buck Sexton, thanks for
Speaker 1: reading my posts. Love you man shield Side Well, William,
Speaker 1: love you too, buddy, Thanks for the thanks for always
Speaker 1: writing in. Oh, he writes another message. By the way,
Speaker 1: I always listen to Joe Rogan. He's had his head
Speaker 1: beat in on a lot and done a lot of drugs.
Speaker 1: Somehow he's still able to get his point across. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I to check out these roguan podcasts. A few of
Speaker 1: you have told me that that you really like the
Speaker 1: work he's doing with podcasting, and then I should check
Speaker 1: it out. And also that I should be a guest
Speaker 1: on this podcast. I'd love to, but I don't have
Speaker 1: any contact with Joe, so I'll have to just wait.
Speaker 1: Sandy writes, Oh, Buck sprang all over the place like
Speaker 1: an elephant. Did you really mean to say that? Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh. Every time I think of that, it makes
Speaker 1: me crack up again. I love that you're so comfortable
Speaker 1: with all your fans. It makes me feel like we're
Speaker 1: one big family. I'm still laughing. Love, prayers and great
Speaker 1: appreciation from Sandy Well Sandy, thank you so much. I
Speaker 1: can neither confirm nor deny whether the elephant comment was
Speaker 1: meant as stated or just was it was it happenstands
Speaker 1: funny or intended to be funny. Neither confirmed nor denied.
Speaker 1: Right now, I'm gonna leave it out there. Um but
Speaker 1: speaking of leaving it out there, that's gonna be it
Speaker 1: for the Freedom Hunt today. Um. But, by the way,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to get you all ready for the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt with Buck Sexton podcast, which is launching the
Speaker 1: first week of June. We are locked and loaded on it,
Speaker 1: my friends. It's gonna be kind of like a chill
Speaker 1: out session be on Wednesdays when we're planning to drop
Speaker 1: them each Wednesday, so I'll be telling you more about it.
Speaker 1: It's also gonna be the home of Commy Bear for
Speaker 1: those of you who have been asking where is Commy
Speaker 1: Bear the podcast. That's where you're gonna have Commy Bear.
Speaker 1: That's the way it's gonna go, as well as some
Speaker 1: other characters that might make appearances occasionally on this show.
Speaker 1: But it's gonna be mostly the Freedom hut that you're
Speaker 1: hearing some of the wackier stuff that I that I
Speaker 1: do here on the show, or more insightful, depends on
Speaker 1: how you look at it. Appreciate you being with me
Speaker 1: team as always and looking forward to hanging out tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Every day this week, have a fantastic rest of your
Speaker 1: evening or rest of your day, depending on when you're listening.
Speaker 1: Until next time, Team Shields Hig