Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got healthcare,
Speaker 1: all of it, then you can keep your plan. If
Speaker 1: you are satisfied with President, take it to a bank. Together,
Speaker 1: we will make America great again. We will never sharender.
Speaker 1: It's what you've been waiting for all day. The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck toll free at
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred to eight to five the future of talk radio.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, Welcome to Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, great to
Speaker 1: have you with me. Thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 1: An honor and a privilege to have you with me
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom Hum We've got quite a show
Speaker 1: plan for you. Eight four four eight four eight two five.
Speaker 1: Big story everyone's talking about today is the tariffs, the
Speaker 1: steel tariffs. So Trump and trade and China, it's all
Speaker 1: happening just like just like he said it would, and
Speaker 1: now people are getting upset about it. And here's what
Speaker 1: the President said. We'll be in imposing tariffs on steel
Speaker 1: imports and tariffs on aluminum imports, and you're gonna see
Speaker 1: a lot of good things happen. You're gonna see expansions
Speaker 1: of the companies. I know that, David, you said you'd
Speaker 1: be expanding, Tim, I know you said you were expanding
Speaker 1: it all pretty much all of them of you will
Speaker 1: immediately be expanding if we give you that level of
Speaker 1: playing field and we give you that help. So we
Speaker 1: will see how this works out. Now, we'll see if
Speaker 1: in fact the President's assessment of the situation with China
Speaker 1: and what should be done about it is correct. We've
Speaker 1: got Gordon Chang joining us later to discuss that in
Speaker 1: more detail. Look, a part of this is that up
Speaker 1: until this point, it's been mostly US administrations concerned with
Speaker 1: upsetting China, doing anything that would rock the boat on
Speaker 1: trade with China. And Trump even pointed out that there
Speaker 1: have been some some who came before him in the
Speaker 1: White House who really just they didn't have a clue.
Speaker 1: People have no idea how badly our country has been
Speaker 1: treated by other countries by people representing US that didn't
Speaker 1: have a clue, Or if they did, then they should
Speaker 1: be ashamed of those guys, because they've destroyed the stale industry,
Speaker 1: They've destroyed the illuminum industrict and other industries strictly when
Speaker 1: you look at all the lands to car plants, automobile
Speaker 1: plants that moved down to Mexico for no reason whatsoever
Speaker 1: except we didn't know what we were doing, so we're
Speaker 1: bringing it all back. We will see. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of conservatives that I'm sure some of you will be
Speaker 1: hearing from in the days and weeks ahead. We will
Speaker 1: argue that tariffs are inherently state action that favors some
Speaker 1: industry at the expense of everyone not in that industry. Now,
Speaker 1: in this case, you have the national security considerations of
Speaker 1: a domestic steel industry. I get that, some say that's overblown.
Speaker 1: With aluminum. Uh, you have some companies that are going
Speaker 1: to be upset by this, clearly right, and this will
Speaker 1: just be one example of many, But aluminum producers, I
Speaker 1: think this is great domestic alumen bruisers. But if you're Anheuser,
Speaker 1: Bush or Coca Cola, you will not think this is
Speaker 1: great because your cost of business is going to go
Speaker 1: up as a result of it. Um interesting though, that
Speaker 1: those who will always claim that the government shouldn't be
Speaker 1: picking winners and losers often failed to take into account.
Speaker 1: This is just my feeling on these things. Well, I
Speaker 1: guess I'm doing a radio show, so all this is
Speaker 1: my feeling on things. Um. But the government is already
Speaker 1: always picking winners and losers with the way that it
Speaker 1: regulates and manages the economy. It's a question how much
Speaker 1: and who the winners are, who the losers are with
Speaker 1: regard to a global marketplace. Now, so this will now
Speaker 1: be put to the test because the market dropped four
Speaker 1: hundred plus points or so. People are concerned about this
Speaker 1: one but one one day market dropped because people get
Speaker 1: spooked about what's going to happen in a possible trade
Speaker 1: war with China. You can't you can't take too much
Speaker 1: away from just what the market does on anyone given day.
Speaker 1: But Trump is hey, he's keeping promises, folks. To those
Speaker 1: of you who are like I want I want the
Speaker 1: Trump agenda, I want him to do what he said
Speaker 1: he was going to do. That is certainly that is
Speaker 1: certainly happening right now. This is part of what he
Speaker 1: has been pushing for for quite some time. But I
Speaker 1: want to revisit something from yesterday now as well as
Speaker 1: you have the departure, And I was joking around a
Speaker 1: little bit about how I'm pro hope and we should
Speaker 1: give Hope a chance and don't don't let don't let
Speaker 1: Hope disappear and all that. I've never heard her speak,
Speaker 1: and I don't know her, um I. All I know
Speaker 1: about her is what I've read. I do know, however,
Speaker 1: that there was something something funky about the whole situation.
Speaker 1: There was something wrong with what had gone on in
Speaker 1: this case, and none other other than than than the mooch.
Speaker 1: A the mooch. He was over at CNN and he's
Speaker 1: had the following. The current situation and the current culture
Speaker 1: inside the administration stays exactly the way it is. There's
Speaker 1: literally no change. There will be a lot more departures. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the morale is at an all time low, and it's
Speaker 1: trending lower now. I know a lot of people will
Speaker 1: say that the problems in the White House are of
Speaker 1: dysfunction of the people they've brought in. Some of them
Speaker 1: lack necessary government experience, which that that has been true
Speaker 1: in some cases, folks. I'm not gonna lie to you.
Speaker 1: There have been some people brought in with this administration
Speaker 1: who just couldn't do it. They were the wrong choice.
Speaker 1: And I don't think that now the administration is not
Speaker 1: going to publicly kick people after you kick people in
Speaker 1: the butt once they've already been shown the door, right,
Speaker 1: So there's no point in saying that. But there have
Speaker 1: been people that were not up for the task they
Speaker 1: were initially assigned. That is just a fact. Uh. That's said.
Speaker 1: If the morale is so low on the White House,
Speaker 1: if things are so bad, it's not just because or
Speaker 1: even primarily because of decision making much John Kelly anyone else.
Speaker 1: It is because it has become a clear plan, a
Speaker 1: clear plot in the media. Two as I was saying yesterday,
Speaker 1: isolate and destroy each and every person in the trump
Speaker 1: Ward bit. And that is why they love the Mueller
Speaker 1: probe so much. That is also a major major issue here.
Speaker 1: They're never gonna find this Russia collusion because it didn't exist.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is preposterous. But I can't call it
Speaker 1: a joke because it's a very effective tool of politics
Speaker 1: for the Democrats. The process is the punishment it costs
Speaker 1: for some people tens of thousands of dollars just for
Speaker 1: one appearance in terms of legal fees, which some folks
Speaker 1: brought into this have to pay themselves to sit before Mueller,
Speaker 1: to sit before you know, House Intelligence Committee or whatever
Speaker 1: the case may be. Um, that's a big that's a
Speaker 1: big problem. That's something that doesn't get factored into much
Speaker 1: of the analysis on TV about whether or not this
Speaker 1: was This whole Mueller probe is ethical, whether it's justified
Speaker 1: or not. Democrats love it because how how would you
Speaker 1: like to be somebody in the White House right now
Speaker 1: who has any relevant knowledge whatsoever of the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and Trump situation. You may get called behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: as Hope Picks did, and it seems to me ambushed.
Speaker 1: I thought this was the case as soon as I
Speaker 1: saw the initial reporting, but she was testifying before the
Speaker 1: House Intelligence Committee, I think, for nine hours. And this
Speaker 1: was a setup, folks. It was a setup, just like
Speaker 1: remember how they got Flynn was a leak, and now
Speaker 1: we're finding out that some people in the FBI didn't
Speaker 1: even think he lied. So someone broke the law to
Speaker 1: leak to get Flynn. And then we're seeing, well, I
Speaker 1: don't have tant to go through every administration figure that's
Speaker 1: been pushed out by in one way or another, but
Speaker 1: look at how many other departures have had a at
Speaker 1: least the media's fingerprints on them. If not, they were
Speaker 1: the whole thing, right, they will. They were the fuse
Speaker 1: and the charge. They were the ones that initiated the
Speaker 1: series of events or the political news cycle that got
Speaker 1: the departure going. And with Hope Pix, what we saw
Speaker 1: was based on the reporting today. You had a Democrat.
Speaker 1: Democrats on the House Intellience Committee, we're asking, asked a
Speaker 1: question after nine hours of interrogation. Okay, after nine hours,
Speaker 1: Democrats asked, what have you ever had? Has your boss,
Speaker 1: the president, ever told you to lie? And she conferred
Speaker 1: with her Look, I just read this assessment of today.
Speaker 1: She conferred with her lawyer, and sure enough, the response
Speaker 1: that she gave or initially was well, are we talking
Speaker 1: about any kind of lie? Like if if Trump says,
Speaker 1: do I look fat in this? Do I have to
Speaker 1: give him an honest answer? If someone says is the
Speaker 1: President busy and I had to lie to protect his time?
Speaker 1: Does that does that count? I mean, this is what
Speaker 1: I read today. It was the other part of the
Speaker 1: story that initially wasn't wasn't shared. And to give an
Speaker 1: answer so as not to lie in her own she said, well, yeah, sometimes,
Speaker 1: I mean I've told little I've told white lies. And
Speaker 1: they pounced on this. They leaked it right away to
Speaker 1: the media. They pounced on it. Oh she's a liar.
Speaker 1: Trump's a liar. They're all liars. Lie lie, lie. And
Speaker 1: she was planning on leaving anyway because of the pressure.
Speaker 1: Maggie Haberman of The New York Times was reporting that
Speaker 1: despite everything everyone saying about the Russia probe, but even
Speaker 1: apart from whether it instigated her to this specific incident
Speaker 1: instigated her departure, It just goes to show you what
Speaker 1: is going on here, whether it's the Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: or the media, which is really just the public extension
Speaker 1: of the Democrat agenda, they are taking people out. They
Speaker 1: have a political hit list, and they are removing people
Speaker 1: from this administration as quickly as they can. It is
Speaker 1: an embattled, an embattled White House, and not because of
Speaker 1: the leunges of global national security policy, not because they
Speaker 1: can't handle the economy. No, not that that stuff is
Speaker 1: actually going pretty well. Seeing some of the successes flashing
Speaker 1: on the screen of Fox News a second ago, you know,
Speaker 1: tax reform, keyston XL pipeline, Neil Gorcich, right, Trump is
Speaker 1: getting regardless of the process and what is expected when
Speaker 1: we're talking about things like the personnel around him. Trump
Speaker 1: is getting it done, and yet they just think if
Speaker 1: they can isolate him enough and make it as uncomfortable
Speaker 1: as possible to be an employee of this White House,
Speaker 1: to serve your country as an employe of this White House,
Speaker 1: that is a victory for the left. It's a shame.
Speaker 1: It's a shame. But but more to the point, also
Speaker 1: this Muller stuff, this investigation now, whether it's Muller or
Speaker 1: the Democrats in the House Intelligence Committee, it seems to
Speaker 1: me that it exists mostly for leaks to see an
Speaker 1: N and MSNB and the major newspapers, The Times, Washington Post,
Speaker 1: that's become the m O and it it maybe now
Speaker 1: is really the only reason for their existence. It is
Speaker 1: the rat is the reason for being of these investigations,
Speaker 1: so that we can read day in and day out.
Speaker 1: Oh they're looking at Kusher now. Oh they're talking to
Speaker 1: Ivanka now, Oh they're talking just all these leaks to
Speaker 1: feed this insanity. I was just speaking to a friend
Speaker 1: yesterday affair of a very good buddy, but just speaking
Speaker 1: to him about what's going on, and and he came,
Speaker 1: I mean he's kind of a he's a centrist who
Speaker 1: leans right. I'd say he's a right leaning centrist, not
Speaker 1: a not a staunch Republican, not a you know, I
Speaker 1: guess he would say I'm a hardcore conservative. I think
Speaker 1: I'm just buck. I'm kind of an odd duck. But
Speaker 1: he's just like, you know, I'm really noticing something among
Speaker 1: my friends and among people. He went to a very
Speaker 1: fancy school. He's an Ivy League guy, noticing people, noticing
Speaker 1: something among people that when it comes to Trump, they've
Speaker 1: really lost their minds, and very educated, very um well
Speaker 1: respected people within different communities have just lost it. And
Speaker 1: I think that's true of a lot of journalists. We
Speaker 1: discussed Trump arrangement syndrome. It's a real thing. It's a
Speaker 1: real thing, and it's troubling to me the glee with
Speaker 1: which the media greets every departure now from this White House,
Speaker 1: because whether like it or not, Trump is still the
Speaker 1: president and we want there to be very good people
Speaker 1: in roles like well National Security Council and National Security
Speaker 1: Advisor and all all that, all that White House communications,
Speaker 1: all the things that need to get staffed at that level.
Speaker 1: But they're making it hard. It's part of the obstruction,
Speaker 1: it's part of the never Trump is um and hashtag
Speaker 1: resistance mentality, and it's just we're gonna suffer because of it.
Speaker 1: It's a shame, it really is um. By the way
Speaker 1: I I had, I'm gonna try hard today to get
Speaker 1: us on a whole bunch of topics, including China Russia
Speaker 1: putin saying that there are invincible nuclear missiles that they have.
Speaker 1: Now will get into some of that. We've got some
Speaker 1: special guests joining us today in the third hour of
Speaker 1: the show, But I want to make sure that we
Speaker 1: mix up the topics a bit a bit here and
Speaker 1: not just get onto, you know, the latest with the
Speaker 1: campaign against the n RA and gun control. But there
Speaker 1: was a really interesting, worthwhile series of articles I've read
Speaker 1: in the last day or so on how when I
Speaker 1: talk about systemic law enforcement failure leading up to the
Speaker 1: shooting in Florida, that's clearly true. But when you drill
Speaker 1: down into what's going on in Broward County, and I
Speaker 1: saw this a week ago, and I was trying to
Speaker 1: verify it. When you drill down into what happened in
Speaker 1: Broward County specifically with that Sheriff's office and the policies
Speaker 1: in place, uh, it's a situation where I can tell
Speaker 1: you that with everything we know, FBI missing the tips,
Speaker 1: FBI missing the detailed explanation of the likelihood of Nicolas
Speaker 1: Cruz becoming a shooter, the dozens of calls to Nicolas
Speaker 1: Cruz house by for local law enforcement, and then the
Speaker 1: sheriff's deputies not entering the facility where the shooting was happening,
Speaker 1: the building of shooting is happening at the very first opportunity.
Speaker 1: With all of that, I've said to you, I just
Speaker 1: don't know how it can get worse. You know what,
Speaker 1: it does get worse because when you look at what
Speaker 1: Broward Counties Sheriff Sheriff Scott Israel did as a matter
Speaker 1: of policy in that county, not only is it alone
Speaker 1: a scandal, but it may in fact have had a
Speaker 1: direct and negative impact on the likelihood of the Nicolas
Speaker 1: Cruz shooting happening in the first place. I'll have to
Speaker 1: explain it a bit, and if you stay with me,
Speaker 1: I will, so don't go anywhere. I'll be right back.
Speaker 1: The second issue we identified is that even in law enforcement,
Speaker 1: school administrators or family members believe that an individual post
Speaker 1: is the risk of committing an act of violence they
Speaker 1: have very few options to prevent them from purchasing any
Speaker 1: gun or taking the guns away that they already have. Therefore,
Speaker 1: I intend to present a new law, perhaps in coordination
Speaker 1: and others that are working on it now, that will
Speaker 1: lead to the creation of gun violence restraining orders, something
Speaker 1: that will give law enforcement and close family members the
Speaker 1: option of obtaining a court order to prevent gun sales
Speaker 1: or remove guns from individuals who pose a threat. I
Speaker 1: have been a proponent of this from the beginning. I
Speaker 1: think that if we're going to try to take steps
Speaker 1: to mitigate the threat right to lessen the likelihood of
Speaker 1: a school shooting, gun violence restraining order is completely assuming
Speaker 1: it's crafted properly and there's there is due process. And
Speaker 1: I knew this, yes, Okay, Trump stumbled when he said
Speaker 1: we take the guns first. He got a little out
Speaker 1: of his skis, but obviously not going to do that.
Speaker 1: But a gun violence restraining order would be exactly what
Speaker 1: it sounds like. If somebody like Nicholas Cruz is saying
Speaker 1: I'm going to go shoot people and I'm going to
Speaker 1: do bad things, um that that could be presented to
Speaker 1: a judge and then that individual could be both have
Speaker 1: his firearms taken from him or her, but pretty much
Speaker 1: always a him right or perhaps indefinitely banned from purchasing
Speaker 1: or getting a firearm, and there would be a legal
Speaker 1: process for those who go in front of a judge,
Speaker 1: and you know that would be that. Um. I think
Speaker 1: this is a I think this is a good idea.
Speaker 1: I would also note that, as some others have been
Speaker 1: pointing out, and we're gonna get into this more right
Speaker 1: after the break, you know, threatened to kill somebody's actually
Speaker 1: a felony. And when we're looking at the law law
Speaker 1: force and not doing anything, I'm starting to wonder at
Speaker 1: what point his threats, his specific threats, Nicolas cruzes to
Speaker 1: commit violence, commit acts of violence, we're really not actionable.
Speaker 1: Um I I wonder if that is really a fair
Speaker 1: assessment of what went on there, because I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: that under different circumstances of somebody had posted at a
Speaker 1: threat and the FBI was called and they thought it
Speaker 1: was real, you'd be you'd be in a whole lot
Speaker 1: of trouble. Um, You've been a whole lot of trouble.
Speaker 1: So the gun Violence Restraining Order is I think the
Speaker 1: best single policy change that I've heard of um and
Speaker 1: and as you know, I'm I am skeptical of any
Speaker 1: of the actions that are really getting a lot of
Speaker 1: attention right now preventing attacks, preventing school shootings. I also
Speaker 1: think that we are in a in a frenzy and
Speaker 1: a hysteria right now about school shootings that overstates the threat.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna tell you, I think the threat is
Speaker 1: overstated right now when when people are telling me that
Speaker 1: we need to put highly trained armed security person, I'm
Speaker 1: hearing this from a lot of folks in over two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand schools. Uh. I think that we've gone beyond
Speaker 1: what the threat what the threat is, and we are
Speaker 1: giving into an intentional campaign of fearmongering by the left.
Speaker 1: And I don't like it. I disagree with it. But
Speaker 1: there's another thing that I need to talk to you
Speaker 1: about on that is the Broward County school policy when
Speaker 1: it comes to policing schools in Broward County and what
Speaker 1: the Sheriff's department there got into and what it was
Speaker 1: up to. There's been some very interesting research done on this,
Speaker 1: and here's the short version. Looks like the Broward County
Speaker 1: sheriff was even more responsible and more inept more responsible
Speaker 1: for the disaster than we thought. Team Early on in
Speaker 1: the aftermath of the Florida shooting, I saw the first
Speaker 1: of what seemed to be somewhat conspiratorial postings about the
Speaker 1: actions of the Broward County sheriff Department. Now they weren't
Speaker 1: unbelievable claims out of hand, but it seemed a little
Speaker 1: little murky citations. The sources weren't great, but it was
Speaker 1: a narrative that struck me as plausible, and it was
Speaker 1: certainly one also that you couldn't turn to the mainstream
Speaker 1: outlets to put much time into uncovering because it would
Speaker 1: take away from their primary narrative, which is the n
Speaker 1: r A, which had nothing to do with the floor shooting.
Speaker 1: N RA is the bad guy here. I've heard more
Speaker 1: about the n r A than Nicholas Cruz at this point,
Speaker 1: which is a disgrace, but that is true. I've heard
Speaker 1: more in the media about the n r A than
Speaker 1: the actual evil doer in this case who killed seventeen people. Ah.
Speaker 1: But this storyline that I came across, and actually it
Speaker 1: was brought to my attention by some of you, and
Speaker 1: I really do mean it when I say this is
Speaker 1: a team effort. I've gotten so much great information, both
Speaker 1: personal information. Some of you have been you're listening, have
Speaker 1: been sources in the past, and some of you listening
Speaker 1: have pushed me to other sources and and places to
Speaker 1: get information that have been essential for this show. I
Speaker 1: had the advantage of not rushing on the air with
Speaker 1: just whatever everybody else is saying. I have the data
Speaker 1: to research and think and pull things together. You know,
Speaker 1: if you just want the kind of bare bones, superficial headlines,
Speaker 1: are plenty of places to give you that. I spend
Speaker 1: all day. I marinate in my analysis if you will
Speaker 1: before I come on the air, and you are a
Speaker 1: very important part of that process. Team. You help spice
Speaker 1: it up, and sometimes you are absolutely essential with the
Speaker 1: information you bring to my attention. So don't ever feel
Speaker 1: like I and I know a lot of you semi
Speaker 1: stuff on Facebook, you semi stuff on Twitter. I read,
Speaker 1: I read it all. I can't always respond, especially if
Speaker 1: you're welcome to write. Some of you write twelve words
Speaker 1: or more. Sometimes that's fine, I'll read it. I just
Speaker 1: can't respond with twelve hundred words or else. M Molly
Speaker 1: is She's not gonna be She's not gonna wait for
Speaker 1: a ring. She's gonna be com me so um. Here's
Speaker 1: the storyline, though for Broward County Sheriff's bark is very ah.
Speaker 1: It is a stunning indictment of what was really going
Speaker 1: on there. The storyline was that the Sheriff's department, in
Speaker 1: cooperation with the school system there, had decided that it
Speaker 1: would be both serving the needs of social justice and
Speaker 1: serving their own parochial political needs right their own near
Speaker 1: term benefits and prospects if they were to find a
Speaker 1: way to make sure that there were less arrests of
Speaker 1: juveniles and Broward County, and that this became a policy
Speaker 1: that was agreed upon at the highest level, so at
Speaker 1: the level of uh Sheriff Scott Israel himself and also
Speaker 1: brought together the chief of the Fort Lauderdale Police Department,
Speaker 1: the superintendent of schools, you know, a whole a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of different organizations here that decided that it would
Speaker 1: be best if they changed the way that policing was
Speaker 1: done when it came specifically to that's right, juveniles, teenagers.
Speaker 1: We're going back and looking at what happened with Nicholas Cruz.
Speaker 1: Why didn't they take more action why wasn't more going on? Well,
Speaker 1: this is certainly one explanation for it. And like I said,
Speaker 1: I didn't until I saw the sourcing. And now it's
Speaker 1: come out because people have dug into Miami Herald articles
Speaker 1: and other other newspaper articles that weren't putting together all
Speaker 1: these pieces. But we're establishing some of the basic facts
Speaker 1: necessary for this theory to be true. So you had
Speaker 1: Sheriff Israel's department deciding that they would give a whole
Speaker 1: lot more citations and end the school to prison pipeline.
Speaker 1: Less arrests of juveniles. This would serve a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of different purposes. Less arrests looks good for the school district,
Speaker 1: because why do you have so many kids who are
Speaker 1: either not just engaged in truancy, but also engaged in
Speaker 1: a legal activity outside of the schools. So that doesn't
Speaker 1: look good. Schools, no surprise, our social justice factories in
Speaker 1: these are public schools in Broward County, and the administrators
Speaker 1: and the various superintendent and other school officials wanted to
Speaker 1: be able to say that there were less arrests of students.
Speaker 1: The Sheriff's department wanted to point to the drop in
Speaker 1: arrests and say, hold on a second, we're doing a
Speaker 1: great job. Here. See how many fewer arrests there are
Speaker 1: of juveniles and Broward County. This is for those of
Speaker 1: you who remember the the incredible show The Wire, written
Speaker 1: by David Simon, right, executive reser. I think that's what
Speaker 1: it was. Uh, The Wire is a great show. I
Speaker 1: highly recommended if you haven't seen it. But this is
Speaker 1: a very similar to scheme to what you see in
Speaker 1: The Wire. And it's true of a lot of different
Speaker 1: a lot of different government bureaucracies, including law, enforce and
Speaker 1: once across the country that the fastest way to show
Speaker 1: results is to change the data that gives you the results.
Speaker 1: Don't make don't make a county safer, just change the
Speaker 1: way you count safety in the county. Oh, I would
Speaker 1: note the Obama administration did this on immigration. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. There's Obama was the deporter in chief. They
Speaker 1: were saying, oh, he's deporting so many people, when in fact,
Speaker 1: what they did and this was a an active, active policy.
Speaker 1: This was a decision they made. If you were caught
Speaker 1: at the border and turned around, they were going to
Speaker 1: count that as a deportation. Whereas previously have been considered
Speaker 1: a denial of entry or I forget what the specific
Speaker 1: terminology was, but they made it so that the numbers
Speaker 1: would look bigger. They're doing more deportations than they actually were.
Speaker 1: Similar thing at work here. You have far too many
Speaker 1: juveniles engaged in crime, and so what they decided to do,
Speaker 1: and you know gang activity, we're talking about sixteen seventeen
Speaker 1: year olds. What they decided to do was tell the
Speaker 1: sheriff's department that they're gonna have a new approach to
Speaker 1: public safety and they're going to reduce the crime rate,
Speaker 1: the burglary rate, and the way to do that is
Speaker 1: by saying that kids stay in school, We're not going
Speaker 1: to arrest kids for violent behavior. We're just going to
Speaker 1: issue citations. And they were going to push this notion
Speaker 1: of citations and then they would say, look look at
Speaker 1: how what a great job we're doing in Brower County
Speaker 1: because of the drop in violent crime, when in reality,
Speaker 1: they just were saying there were fewer arrests for burglary, larceny,
Speaker 1: assault because sheriffs are being told if seventeen year old,
Speaker 1: you know, punch of somebody or Rob's you know, Rob's
Speaker 1: a liquor store or something. Give him a citation, don't
Speaker 1: arrest him and process him. You can imagine what that
Speaker 1: did to the actual crimes in the in the county.
Speaker 1: That is not That is not a good way to
Speaker 1: go about not a good way to go about your
Speaker 1: law enforcement tactics. It has also come out that Sheriff
Speaker 1: Israel was using the department as a it's just political machine,
Speaker 1: old school political machine. He was hiring people who are
Speaker 1: doing outreach, who were really just campaigning for him and
Speaker 1: creating deeper roots for him in the community for the
Speaker 1: purposes of re election. Because he's an elected he's an
Speaker 1: elected official. I think people forget that that guy is
Speaker 1: an elected official, Sheriff Sheriff Israel. Uh. And now when
Speaker 1: people start to see this, and there have been a
Speaker 1: bunch of different websites that have pulled us together. Sarah
Speaker 1: rump Over at Red State did and Coulters syndicated column
Speaker 1: this week is just on this issue. Her columns held
Speaker 1: the school to mass murder pipeline and she's pointing it
Speaker 1: out and it's there. I saw it last week and
Speaker 1: I was trying to track it down. Actually reach out
Speaker 1: to a friend of mine, a couple of friends of
Speaker 1: mine in Florida said, you know, do you no need
Speaker 1: journalists who could give me a little background on this
Speaker 1: or anyone who could add a little meet to the
Speaker 1: bones of these theories or of this theory. And sure
Speaker 1: enough others called called wind this as well, because this
Speaker 1: was out there. This was out there, and no one
Speaker 1: wanted to run with it right away because it seemed like, well,
Speaker 1: there's some there's some elements in different stories that support this.
Speaker 1: But what end up happening was a sheriff's department became
Speaker 1: a social justice political organization that was much more concerned
Speaker 1: with the stats and the perception of safety than the
Speaker 1: actual implementation and of safety, particularly with regard to juveniles
Speaker 1: teenage offenders. Why does that matter Because Nicholas Cruse was
Speaker 1: a multiple, multiple time, dozens of calls teenage offender, and
Speaker 1: it is it stands to me at least perfectly reasonable
Speaker 1: to believe that if they had had a different approach
Speaker 1: to dealing with possibly violent teenagers in Broward County, there
Speaker 1: may have been a different outcome with Nicholas Cruz. This
Speaker 1: has been the theory all along. Now there's evidence to
Speaker 1: support it. Now there there's a lot of people have
Speaker 1: been going through the public documents and looking for that.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned, I think Sarah Rump a red state.
Speaker 1: And Sheriff Israel was at one point bragging, bragging about
Speaker 1: telling his deputies that they were not to arrest juveniles,
Speaker 1: and he cited the quote dramatic drop in violent crime
Speaker 1: during his tenure and the issuing of thousands of all
Speaker 1: citations rather than arrest for juveniles specifically, So how do
Speaker 1: you how do you make people think you're doing a
Speaker 1: good job in Broward County? For Sheriff Israel, You change
Speaker 1: who you arrest and that's all you have to do.
Speaker 1: You make the decision that you're going to release juveniles
Speaker 1: with just essentially a warning, right with a citation instead,
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess citation you gotta pay or show up,
Speaker 1: but no more arrests. And oh, you get to feel
Speaker 1: like a community leader and somebody who's socially justice aware
Speaker 1: because what else is a part of this, Oh, a
Speaker 1: disproportioned impact of juvenile arrests on minorities in the Broward community.
Speaker 1: So you looked like a social justice hero, you being
Speaker 1: Sheriff Israel who was dropping the crime rate. Meanwhile people
Speaker 1: were actually suffering. Crime was happening. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: Nicholas Cruz was able to have the cops called to
Speaker 1: his house dozens of times without any real act and
Speaker 1: taken against him. And we are led to believe that
Speaker 1: there was nothing that law enforcem could have done the
Speaker 1: situation that was better or that could have stopped it.
Speaker 1: So this what started out as a conspiracy theory that
Speaker 1: does make its way around the internet. Some of my
Speaker 1: fellow conservative analysts have looked at it, pulled together the
Speaker 1: data and it's it's true. It is true. There was cronyism,
Speaker 1: there was politicization and ineptitude lies at the Broward County
Speaker 1: Sheriff's Department that were it was a systemic issue, systemic.
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to add that to our discussion
Speaker 1: of everything that had happened in Florida. And with that,
Speaker 1: I will take if you want to, if you've got
Speaker 1: any thoughts. Is, by the wayf any of you lived
Speaker 1: down in Brower. I know we've got a lot of
Speaker 1: Florida listeners and you live in Broward County, would really
Speaker 1: be curious to hear if you have any experience with
Speaker 1: this or if you live in a jurisdiction where you
Speaker 1: think something similar has a heard, where they've changed the
Speaker 1: way they count statistics about arrests or the way or
Speaker 1: they change what they're willing to arrest people for. One
Speaker 1: of the big things that got me mad here in
Speaker 1: New York City reviously was I found out that, uh,
Speaker 1: build a Blasio. Who you guys, are anyone listening any
Speaker 1: of the country unless maybe you're in you're in Chicago,
Speaker 1: San Francisco or l A. I feel like we have
Speaker 1: a worse mayor than you. Um, I think we have
Speaker 1: a worse mayor than you. The guy is a clown,
Speaker 1: but he made the decision that told the police department
Speaker 1: here on YPD that they're not going to arrest people
Speaker 1: for public urination anymore. I remember growing up and when
Speaker 1: the city in the bad old days, and it was
Speaker 1: really bad. When I was growing up here. It was
Speaker 1: actually the worst in it ever was was in the
Speaker 1: early nineties when I was a kind of young teenager
Speaker 1: and people would just, you know, they would you'd come
Speaker 1: home and there'll be somebody who was you know, right
Speaker 1: on the front step and just what happened all the time.
Speaker 1: It was disgusting. It was disgrace and de Blasi. I
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, it's kind of mean to arrest people
Speaker 1: for for, you know, urinating on the street in public,
Speaker 1: So we're not going to do that anymore. This is
Speaker 1: what social justice gets you, my friends, and this is
Speaker 1: what the left belief is going to advanced the common good.
Speaker 1: And in Broward it was I think disastrous. If any
Speaker 1: of you listening have any ideas on that, let me
Speaker 1: know eight four five eight four Buck gonna be a
Speaker 1: switching up topics here in just a second, so stay
Speaker 1: with me, all right, team, let's take some calls. We
Speaker 1: have Matthew in Nebraska. Hey Matthew, Hey Buck, thanks for
Speaker 1: having me on. I've been listening to your podcast most
Speaker 1: of the time. I just wanted to mention that there's
Speaker 1: been a program in place since in a couple of
Speaker 1: different states including Ohio and Colorado and a few others
Speaker 1: that have not been named, called the Faster Program, and
Speaker 1: it trains teachers to confront an armed attacker and trauma
Speaker 1: management to try and save as main kids lives as possible. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm all, I'm all fine with the training, and
Speaker 1: I actually like the idea of concealed carry for personnel
Speaker 1: in schools who want to have it. I just think
Speaker 1: the notion of a of a uniformed defense force or
Speaker 1: some kind of official defense force for all schools based
Speaker 1: on the number of shootings and the number of honestly
Speaker 1: that the number of shootings are really talking about, is
Speaker 1: not the not the appropriate solution to the problem. Oh,
Speaker 1: I totally agree. I I used to go to school
Speaker 1: ten years ago with the school that had a resource officer,
Speaker 1: and we all knew where their office was and their
Speaker 1: rough schedule moving around the building. But having teachers who
Speaker 1: you don't know are armed are probably the best way
Speaker 1: to confront an attacker that slipped through every hole like
Speaker 1: we had in Partlet Yeah, and by the way, as
Speaker 1: as soon as you have the first teacher you have
Speaker 1: who has an a D and literally shoots some literally
Speaker 1: shoots himself and a foot, I mean, that'll be a
Speaker 1: national news story. And if you were to put thousands
Speaker 1: of teachers, you know it's gonna happen at some point.
Speaker 1: I always remember that video of I forget I think
Speaker 1: it was a I forget, I think it was a
Speaker 1: D A agent. It was on YouTube where he's showing
Speaker 1: a class is glock. Do you know what I'm talking
Speaker 1: about and oh yeah, there's been many instances where somebody
Speaker 1: who should know what they do completely messes up and
Speaker 1: puts a shop somewhere they weren't put through his back
Speaker 1: and that guy pulling through his knee, I think in
Speaker 1: a classroom full of kids. It's gotten millions and millions
Speaker 1: of views on YouTube, and they show it in gun
Speaker 1: safety class. I mean I was in a gun safety
Speaker 1: class and they showed that clip. So somebody told me
Speaker 1: that guy tried to sue. By the way, I tried
Speaker 1: to sue either the school or the news or somebody,
Speaker 1: but he didn't win. But Matthew, if they want to
Speaker 1: get but federal, you know, federal air marshals. I don't
Speaker 1: believe a federal air marshal has actually foiled a terrorist
Speaker 1: or any kind of violent plot aboard an airplane since
Speaker 1: nine eleven. I don't think that's happened. True. But right
Speaker 1: now we have this program in place and it's a charity.
Speaker 1: So what's the name of the program again, the faster program.
Speaker 1: I have to look at this one. Yeah, yeah, Pastor
Speaker 1: Saves Lives dot org five or one three, and it
Speaker 1: trains teachers. It's been in place after the Sandy Hooks
Speaker 1: shooting started out in Ohio. There's another version in Colorado,
Speaker 1: and they're even training teachers in other states. I'm in
Speaker 1: favorite say the same reason why, Matthew. You know, it's
Speaker 1: it's good to know how to defend yourself with you know,
Speaker 1: if you can, you know, with your hands. It's good
Speaker 1: to know some basic self defense skills. Martial arts might
Speaker 1: be at that's one way of saying it. But it's
Speaker 1: it's good to not to defend yourself. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you have to get into fights, right, It's just a
Speaker 1: good thing to to know, and I think it instills
Speaker 1: a degree of of confidence and make somebody a little
Speaker 1: more uh, you know, self possessed when they're dealing with
Speaker 1: certain situations. And so I feel the same way about
Speaker 1: if adults want to get active shooter training, if adults
Speaker 1: want to conceal carry in schools, I'm all I'm for
Speaker 1: it and fine with it. Um. So if this program
Speaker 1: maybe could be expanded, that's perhaps a way to to
Speaker 1: get us to a better place in all this. Thank
Speaker 1: you for calling Matthew from from Nebraska. Appreciate it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know this is it's been pretty amazing to see
Speaker 1: how quickly this issue was uh turned into well, how
Speaker 1: quickly all of a sudden we're being told that the
Speaker 1: solution is gun control. And I thought we had gotten
Speaker 1: a place where we were past this, but now here
Speaker 1: we are. In fact, there's still you know, efforts at
Speaker 1: gun control and gun restrictions, but then also the notion
Speaker 1: of a massive force. I don't think that's the answer either, um,
Speaker 1: but not a lot of people want to hear the
Speaker 1: problem is not as bad as the meat is telling you.
Speaker 1: And that's what I'm telling you. The administration is going
Speaker 1: to be rolling out policy over the next three weeks,
Speaker 1: and it will be very, very strong. I've also spoken
Speaker 1: with Jeff about bringing a lawsuit against some of these
Speaker 1: sopioid companies. I mean, what they're doing and the way
Speaker 1: the distribution, and you have people that go to the
Speaker 1: hospital with a broken arm and they come out in
Speaker 1: there addicted. You know. As you know, we've been I
Speaker 1: think we've been involved more than any administration by far.
Speaker 1: President Trump earlier today at a White House summit on
Speaker 1: the opioid crisis, welcome to our to the buck sex
Speaker 1: and show everyone this is an issue that from the
Speaker 1: beginnings of this show I've tried to bring attention to
Speaker 1: this is an issue that I have to say, given
Speaker 1: the focus and and outrage and the national convulsion that
Speaker 1: we have just had because of the school shooting, I
Speaker 1: can't help but look at the lack of political momentum
Speaker 1: and media focus on this, which is also a life
Speaker 1: or death issue, and in terms of scale, it is
Speaker 1: not even close when we look at the problem. Um.
Speaker 1: As I mentioned yesterday, the numbers are what they are.
Speaker 1: You have a few ousen people killed in school shootings
Speaker 1: in recent years. For twenty sixteen I think, or maybe
Speaker 1: it's seventeen, the numbers are in over sixty three thousand
Speaker 1: people died of opioid over overdoses, sixty three thousand. To
Speaker 1: put that in perspective, you had a total in of
Speaker 1: seventeen thousand, two hundred fifty people were murdered in the
Speaker 1: United States, So you lost it's all murders, all cities,
Speaker 1: three million people, seventeen thousand, two hundred fifty murders in
Speaker 1: the US UH sixty three thousand people died of opiod overdoses. Now,
Speaker 1: I know with opioids people are there's differences here right there.
Speaker 1: Taking them, they're becoming addicted. But this is an urgent
Speaker 1: national crisis, and it's affecting communities all across the country.
Speaker 1: And I think that this hits home, particularly with the President,
Speaker 1: because of what he went through with his brother, who,
Speaker 1: as is well known, has been described by the President
Speaker 1: in some detail, drank himself to death. And this is
Speaker 1: I just I see these Look I'm not saying we
Speaker 1: can't handle more than one issue, but look at the
Speaker 1: the ferocity of the media's demands for urgent action and
Speaker 1: sweeping change on gun control because of school shootings, and
Speaker 1: the much more muted approach to dealing with a crisis
Speaker 1: that is it is a true pandemic. We have a
Speaker 1: pandemic of addiction in this country right now, particularly to
Speaker 1: these opioids and these different uh, these different chemical compounds
Speaker 1: don't even have to necessarily grown anymore. But you've got
Speaker 1: a perfect storm of a number of factors that have
Speaker 1: come together. One of them is that people have been
Speaker 1: given a lot of prescription drugs for pain, and the
Speaker 1: prescription or the pharmaceutical companies seemed to be way too
Speaker 1: lax in their safeguards in selling enormous quantities of a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of different drugs OxyContin and and others into
Speaker 1: certain parts of the country, certain pharmacies, and that's very,
Speaker 1: very bad. You have, as I've been telling you, the
Speaker 1: Mexican cartels more violent than they've ever been. I was
Speaker 1: just telling a friend this the other day. He said,
Speaker 1: no way. I said, look it up, and it came
Speaker 1: back to me, said, you're right. Most murders ever in
Speaker 1: Mexico because of the cartels right now, violence on a
Speaker 1: scale that is as bad as anything that we've seen
Speaker 1: in that country. Oh and by the way, they're now
Speaker 1: vertically integrated as heroin growers and exporters and importers. I
Speaker 1: mean they're importing into the United States, exporting in from
Speaker 1: Mexico and growing it. And if you look at a
Speaker 1: map of Mexico, there's highlands that kind of form a
Speaker 1: backbone of spine of the country up starting up in
Speaker 1: the Durango and Sinaloa area, Cineloa highlands, and then you
Speaker 1: go all the way down and they can grow poppy
Speaker 1: up there, and they do. They're growing heroin now, I
Speaker 1: mean they don't grow heroin. That heroin is a process
Speaker 1: that you you get it from the paste from the
Speaker 1: poppy plant. But they're doing that now in Mexico used
Speaker 1: to have to come all the way from South Asia
Speaker 1: for the most part. Then you've also got large chemical factories,
Speaker 1: illegal ones operating in Mexico and in China, and they
Speaker 1: can bring pills into the US that are incredibly addictive,
Speaker 1: very very powerful, fentanel and others, these different chemical compounds
Speaker 1: that haven't that have addictive properties, that are just it
Speaker 1: is very very hard to to break. I mean when
Speaker 1: you read the descriptions I have to give so I
Speaker 1: think it was seeing Inn in the New York Times
Speaker 1: was writing just about what addicts are like, what the
Speaker 1: It was profiles of different opioid addicts, and they are
Speaker 1: generally functioning people. We have this notion in the country,
Speaker 1: and I think that's part of why the media is
Speaker 1: not really focused on this issue. And you think about
Speaker 1: there's there were a lot of stories, stories about the
Speaker 1: crack epidemics, stories about the AIDS epidemic. I mean, when
Speaker 1: when there's a national crisis like this, usually because it
Speaker 1: is both important and attention grabbing, media runs with it.
Speaker 1: I see very little coverage of opioids. It hasn't yet
Speaker 1: been addressed as something that needs a really a cultural
Speaker 1: shift and the mobilization of communities across the country to
Speaker 1: deal with it. And I'm not comparing to say that
Speaker 1: one is important and one is into or something. But
Speaker 1: you look at the the the outpouring from both sides
Speaker 1: of the aisle to deal at school shooting, then you
Speaker 1: look at the opioid crisis. Government is not going to
Speaker 1: solve the opioid crisis, folks, governs all, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: solve school shootings. But it's this is from us, this
Speaker 1: is at our level. And I've I've been around people,
Speaker 1: I've seen people in my life, even you know, growing
Speaker 1: up in New York City, there were a lot of
Speaker 1: drugs here. In fact, one of the things I think
Speaker 1: that always surprises. It certainly surprised some of my my
Speaker 1: peers at Langley at the c i a UM. One
Speaker 1: of the things that always surprises was that when I
Speaker 1: tell them stories about and like I had very loving,
Speaker 1: supportive family, had great parents, I went to a great
Speaker 1: Jesuit school here and everything, but just being in the
Speaker 1: city and be you know, going we used to go
Speaker 1: out very young age here. People had fake I d s.
Speaker 1: I think back to this now and it seems crazy,
Speaker 1: but everyone starting around fourteen or fifteen, would try to
Speaker 1: get a fake I d and they're going to bars,
Speaker 1: and there were nightclubs that we would go to here
Speaker 1: in New York. I mean, not me obviously, because I
Speaker 1: was not twenty one yet, but yeah, maybe, but you're
Speaker 1: just around and people started doing drugs that are very
Speaker 1: young age. I think one of the things that's surprising
Speaker 1: for some of my my government friends when I said, well,
Speaker 1: how did you get a how did you get a clearance?
Speaker 1: You know, you know, and I said, I just never
Speaker 1: got mixed up in any of that stuff. It just
Speaker 1: never was for me. You know. I had a a
Speaker 1: big brother to look out for me, and a little
Speaker 1: brother and sister that I wanted to be proud of me,
Speaker 1: and parents that you know, in the same that I
Speaker 1: felt the same about. And it just never And I
Speaker 1: had friends who went to rehab. I knew people very
Speaker 1: well who went to rehab for serious drug addiction, and
Speaker 1: I'm glad that they got help, but some of them
Speaker 1: were never really the same afterwards. I was just speaking
Speaker 1: to a dear friend of mine a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: We actually met up and had had dinner for the
Speaker 1: first time in a while. A guy I've known for
Speaker 1: decades at this point, and we we got into a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of a lot of fun trouble
Speaker 1: together back in the day. You know, we were kind
Speaker 1: of partners and uh and growing up together here in
Speaker 1: the city. And he said that we saw he saw
Speaker 1: another friend he saw in the street who we both
Speaker 1: knew and has been just been through it, addicted to
Speaker 1: the worst addicted to the worst stuff. And by the way,
Speaker 1: a privileged kid. You know, I grew up with a
Speaker 1: life of privilege here in the city, and but just
Speaker 1: had the had multiple trips into rehab. And he said
Speaker 1: he saw him and they were really all friends, and
Speaker 1: he pretended not to see him, meaning the guy who
Speaker 1: had been to rehab tend not to see him, sped
Speaker 1: up and just walked past him and walked away. He
Speaker 1: said he couldn't even bring himself to be mad at
Speaker 1: him because he knew that he just it's just easier,
Speaker 1: it's easier not to get into it. You know, how
Speaker 1: are you doing? Oh? You know, I've you know, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm clean for x amount of days, and you know,
Speaker 1: because we all know, we all know. I think I
Speaker 1: might have been mentioned before in the show. I had
Speaker 1: two friends growing up, both of whom died of drug overdoses,
Speaker 1: one of whom was actually a very very close friend
Speaker 1: of mine when I was on the very young, the
Speaker 1: younger side. Um, Now they were prescription drug overdoses. I
Speaker 1: don't you know, And then you get into it was
Speaker 1: it was it just an of course, in these situations,
Speaker 1: you just respect the family's wishes and try to support them,
Speaker 1: and you know, you don't ask questions, right, But I
Speaker 1: knew that both of them died of drug overdose. Uh.
Speaker 1: And two people I knew, I knew well and spent
Speaker 1: a lot of time with, and also, by the way,
Speaker 1: very very privileged people here in the city. And I
Speaker 1: just always stayed away from that stuff. I never healed me.
Speaker 1: But I'm telling you these stories just because I've I've
Speaker 1: seen it. I've seen what it does to people. I
Speaker 1: knew young women, I knew my peers. When I was
Speaker 1: in high school fifteen sixteen years old, going to rehab
Speaker 1: for cocaine, that was a big one. Um, some others
Speaker 1: would go for alcohol, but cocaine was particularly a big
Speaker 1: issue when I was growing up in the city. And
Speaker 1: you know, that's a dangerous drug, terribly addictive ruins lives. Well,
Speaker 1: we're seeing now is a proliferation of these incredible potent
Speaker 1: pain killers that are even more addictive and more available
Speaker 1: and can come in all different kinds of forms. And
Speaker 1: you've got the car. You can either get it from
Speaker 1: the cartels, which is coming to you from a street dealer, right,
Speaker 1: or you having an unethical doctor who's prescribing too many
Speaker 1: pain killers and not paying attention, or maybe just a
Speaker 1: doctor who doesn't really you know, people are doctor shopping,
Speaker 1: or the pharmacist is not paying attention. They are all
Speaker 1: these different ways to get this, right. That's that's part
Speaker 1: of it too. People talk about gateway drugs. Well, if
Speaker 1: you're on pain medication for your back and it's an opioid,
Speaker 1: it is it is a gateway drug to then getting
Speaker 1: fenttal from so because you become addicted. I mean, I
Speaker 1: actually don't believe that marijuana is a gateway drug too.
Speaker 1: And I trust me more than I feel like more
Speaker 1: than half the people I knew growing up in New
Speaker 1: York City. I want to say we're like three quarters
Speaker 1: of a smoked marijuana way way less than that did
Speaker 1: anything else in terms of drugs. And I couldn't give
Speaker 1: you a percentage. But the notion of it being a gateway,
Speaker 1: I've always thought was kind of a falsehood. But addiction
Speaker 1: is so debilitating and destructive, and the numbers don't lie.
Speaker 1: Sixty three thousand people died, sixty three thousand of our
Speaker 1: fellow Americans. Think of the holes that have been left
Speaker 1: in those families. These are sons and daughters and mothers
Speaker 1: and fathers. And I just don't get any sense of
Speaker 1: the the urgency of national action from the opinion makers.
Speaker 1: I give Trump crad I think Trump is really looking
Speaker 1: at this and trying to tackle this, and I do
Speaker 1: believe it's because he has a personal connection to addiction,
Speaker 1: not to somebody has been affected. But I don't know.
Speaker 1: Maybe he knows people have been affected by opioids too,
Speaker 1: but from my own life knowing some folks who have
Speaker 1: dealt with addiction to particularly to illegal substances, I mean,
Speaker 1: alcohol is debilitating too, but it is it is tough,
Speaker 1: it is uh, it is life shattering for a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of people, destroy his families, destroy his careers.
Speaker 1: And this is if we're gonna start having a natural
Speaker 1: conversation about taking positive action at the most local level
Speaker 1: all the way up to the top of government. I
Speaker 1: feel like this should be the priority. Um, It's only
Speaker 1: gonna get worse, by the way, and unless we start
Speaker 1: finding ways to address it and deal with it. And
Speaker 1: and I have I have theories, by the way, that
Speaker 1: aren't really based in the This is gonna sound bad
Speaker 1: like based in the science as I'm coming up with
Speaker 1: with quackery here. No, but I have my own inclinations
Speaker 1: about why the opioid epidemic has gotten so bad. Why
Speaker 1: A lot of you listening, I know many of you
Speaker 1: across the country listening to show right now are saying, well,
Speaker 1: I know somebody who has been affected by it. You
Speaker 1: might know many people have been affected by it. Um.
Speaker 1: I think it's because of the way that we approach
Speaker 1: our datity lives now and pushing through pain and dealing
Speaker 1: and people are more are want to be active longer.
Speaker 1: People feel like they should be able to. And I
Speaker 1: certainly encouraged that. Right. You want to be as physically
Speaker 1: active as you can as long as you can, but
Speaker 1: you can agging injuries, back pain. A lot of physical
Speaker 1: pain actually comes from stress and from lifestyle issues that
Speaker 1: are just a part of what it is to be
Speaker 1: grinding and out, trying to pay bills, trying to support
Speaker 1: a family, trying to keep the mortgage paid. All of that, right,
Speaker 1: there are physical manifestations of that pain. If you can
Speaker 1: escape it with a pill, that becomes very potent. That's
Speaker 1: hard to that's hard to pass up for a lot
Speaker 1: of people. And it also affects different It affects people differently,
Speaker 1: meaning for some and they're starting to to look at
Speaker 1: the genetics of this more. They're starting to look at
Speaker 1: the biochemistry much more rigorously. Some people. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember I had a it's gonna sound like ridiculous,
Speaker 1: but a long time ago I had the first time
Speaker 1: I was ever given real prescription painkillers was because I
Speaker 1: was doing some cliff jumping and managed to give myself
Speaker 1: an ear infection, which, when you're an adult sounds sounds.
Speaker 1: An ear infection is maddening lye painful. If it gets
Speaker 1: into your inter ear, it's terrible. It's the worst. It Literally,
Speaker 1: the guy the doc had to give you pain killers.
Speaker 1: I took it. I remember feeling kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: a little woozy. It's kind of I remember, and I
Speaker 1: didn't have any inclination afterwards to you know, I remember
Speaker 1: I had leftovers and I just you know, I threw
Speaker 1: them out, right? Who cares? For some people, they're finding
Speaker 1: now that their biochemistry, they're actually the way that their
Speaker 1: brain functions is that once they take it, it's like
Speaker 1: this is all that they this is all that they want.
Speaker 1: They want to read, they want to achieve that feeling again.
Speaker 1: And then once they get in that cycle on opioids
Speaker 1: and they try to withdraw. Opioid withdrawal is described by
Speaker 1: people in a lot of different ways, but the most
Speaker 1: common way is think of the worst flu you've ever
Speaker 1: had and multiplied by a hundred, and that's what that's
Speaker 1: what opioid with all feels like. And that's why people
Speaker 1: make the terrible decisions they do once they become addicted.
Speaker 1: But this is a national this is a true national crisis.
Speaker 1: People are dying in vast numbers, many more than are
Speaker 1: dying from car accidents, many more than are dying from
Speaker 1: any kind of violence, not just gun violence, hammers and
Speaker 1: sharp objects too. And yet you know that you're not
Speaker 1: seeing the pundit class because you know what, on this one,
Speaker 1: this is just about us. Harder for them to find
Speaker 1: a bad guy. You know there's there's no there's no
Speaker 1: n r A for the left to beat up on
Speaker 1: when it comes to opioids. I mean, I guess maybe
Speaker 1: they're trying to make it the pharmaceutical industry. But here's
Speaker 1: the thing. You beat up on the farm on big
Speaker 1: farmer too much. Guess what people need pain pills too, right,
Speaker 1: family members who have been through surgeries recently. You're gonna
Speaker 1: need pain pills sometimes. So it's not not as easy
Speaker 1: as just oh, the big bad farmers the problem we
Speaker 1: have here. So I just think this is she deserves
Speaker 1: a lot more, uh, not just attention, right, that's one
Speaker 1: part of it, but action. We've we've spent a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks there's a country convulse by discussion over how
Speaker 1: to stop uh terrible murders that should never happen but
Speaker 1: are in the dozens, and we've spent far too little
Speaker 1: of our time also thinking about how we can stop
Speaker 1: murders that are in the tens of thousands, over sixty
Speaker 1: three thousand last year. Had a quick break here, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Some countries have a very very tough penalty,
Speaker 1: the ultimate penalty, and by the way, they have much
Speaker 1: less of a drug problem than we do. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to be very strong on penalties. Hopefully we
Speaker 1: can do some litigation against the the opioid companies. I
Speaker 1: think it's very important because a lot of states are
Speaker 1: doing it. But I keep saying, if the states are
Speaker 1: doing it, why isn't the federal government doing it? I
Speaker 1: think the President's got an interesting point whenever he talks
Speaker 1: about more concerted action on opioids. I don't think that
Speaker 1: currently any there's I think US law is pretty clear
Speaker 1: that you can only be killed if you kill someone,
Speaker 1: meaning you can only be put to death if you
Speaker 1: cause if you cause death, um, except for treason, and
Speaker 1: uh yeah, I think that's it. I think I think
Speaker 1: the only crime you can be put to death for
Speaker 1: that does not involve that does not involve killing somebody
Speaker 1: or are you being responsible for someone's death, is treason.
Speaker 1: I think that's correct. John in Whitesboro, New York, Hey,
Speaker 1: what's up, John. I'll be real quick. I used to
Speaker 1: work as a transit company and you can't get a
Speaker 1: bigger in New York City, and you can't get a
Speaker 1: bigger journal than the subway system, and I quote more
Speaker 1: females urinating and guys. But trust me, I would never
Speaker 1: lock anybody up for that at worst, or I throw
Speaker 1: them off the subway system. But I was telling your
Speaker 1: screener that I actually one time got urinated on on
Speaker 1: the Jay train at Lormer Avenue when uh, I guess
Speaker 1: that's like like two stops away from the Williamsburg Bridge.
Speaker 1: Were you in uniform? Yeah, I was hiding in a
Speaker 1: room looking for fair beaters. Two guys came through, one
Speaker 1: one up up onto the platform and the other was
Speaker 1: on the mezzanine. So I stopped the messanine guy I
Speaker 1: said he wanted to use the phone, so I let
Speaker 1: him go. I started going upstairs, and you know how
Speaker 1: like on the elevated lines, was like a landing halfway up.
Speaker 1: As soon as I got the landing, I felt something
Speaker 1: hit my hat, so I stopped, you know, because I
Speaker 1: was wondering what it was. And then all of a
Speaker 1: sudden I got port on by urine. So I continued
Speaker 1: going up the stairs and around, like you know, when
Speaker 1: you get up to the platform you could walk around,
Speaker 1: and the guy was in the corner there at the
Speaker 1: thing that goes around the stairway, and he was urinating
Speaker 1: and it came down on me and he was drunk
Speaker 1: and stuff. But you know, I think I wrote him
Speaker 1: with summons, but he didn't have good idea. He was drunk.
Speaker 1: But I tell me I I he got smacked around
Speaker 1: a little bit and I threw him both the up.
Speaker 1: But no one would lock you up with that buck. Okay,
Speaker 1: Officer John, thank you. I got nothing. Man, I got
Speaker 1: nothing after that. You know I needed I actually really
Speaker 1: needed that car. Thank you, Officer John Eggs. All right, everybody,
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. We should be looking for bipartisan
Speaker 1: solutions to revise the FISA process so that what happened
Speaker 1: to President Trump never happens to a future American president.
Speaker 1: So I went looking for solutions, and I found that
Speaker 1: in the gentleman from California, the ranking member of the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee, wanted to give the President of the United
Speaker 1: States the power to appoint FISA judges. He argued that
Speaker 1: then judges would be more ideologically diverse, they'd come from
Speaker 1: different areas in the United States, and they would be
Speaker 1: subject to Senate confirmation. Today, I filed that legislation, and
Speaker 1: I would encourage the Gentleman from California to join me
Speaker 1: as a co sponsor so that we can advance bipartisan legislation.
Speaker 1: Who wants to guess whether she have joined in that legislation.
Speaker 1: Who wants to guess the answer? Of course you already know. Look,
Speaker 1: this is this is a process that I think, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we'll go out with a whimper and not a bang,
Speaker 1: meaning there's not going to be any day, or I
Speaker 1: can come on the show and they see it's all over.
Speaker 1: We have our answers. And part of the problem here
Speaker 1: is that while some who are opponents of the administration
Speaker 1: pretend that that's the only thing that will that's the
Speaker 1: only thing they want. They want the truth, just the truth,
Speaker 1: nothing but the truth. They know that every day that
Speaker 1: this goes on is a day that slows down the
Speaker 1: administration from building a wall, slows down the administration from
Speaker 1: trying to help with the economy, allows things like this
Speaker 1: to go on challenge and of course I'm just closed
Speaker 1: with talking about the GOP tax scam. Every day that
Speaker 1: goes by, we see more evidence that it is exactly
Speaker 1: that a tax scam. We continue to put out the
Speaker 1: truth on the tax scams, massive giveaways to corporations and
Speaker 1: the wealthy, and its consequences for workers, seniors, and families.
Speaker 1: Every day we see more corporations announcing stuck buy backs
Speaker 1: to enrich their executives and investors instead of increasing the
Speaker 1: wages an ongoing basis of workers. I see. So now
Speaker 1: it has to be a wage increase, A bonus of
Speaker 1: a thousand dollars to employees from all these different companies.
Speaker 1: That's crumbs. But it needs to be a wage increase
Speaker 1: for Nancy Pelosi to be happy. Nancy Pelosi is an
Speaker 1: economic illiterate. She has no idea what she's talking about
Speaker 1: and what's worse, in many ways, she does not care. Uh.
Speaker 1: She has no policy to put forward that would improve
Speaker 1: the economic situation of workers. But she knows that bashing Trump,
Speaker 1: bashing this administration is good politics for her base, and
Speaker 1: that is in fact what she is set on doing.
Speaker 1: But you think that maybe we could spend more time
Speaker 1: explaining to the American people how Nancy Pelosi does not
Speaker 1: have well, she doesn't have a conceptual understanding of how
Speaker 1: wages would go up. So you start with that, but
Speaker 1: also get into why it matters that companies will have
Speaker 1: more cash what that will do for hiring. But know,
Speaker 1: instead of being able to engage there. I mean, we
Speaker 1: can write I just did, but instead of that being
Speaker 1: a focus of the narrative, it is so much more
Speaker 1: on what the latest in the Muller probe is. I
Speaker 1: am so sick and tired of this Muller probe. I'm
Speaker 1: seeing now that there's a breaking news, if you want
Speaker 1: to call it, that, that there will be more indictments
Speaker 1: of Russians. Okay, great, what's that gonna do. These are
Speaker 1: Russians who will never stand trial. These are Russians who
Speaker 1: don't give a crap what Mueller says or thinks or
Speaker 1: does or the the d o J for that matter.
Speaker 1: And this time around it may have to do with
Speaker 1: the theft of Hillary's emails, is what I'm being told.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm well, that's what I'm reading issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: uh so we'll see a hacking scheme to get at
Speaker 1: her emails. But you know, if it's not that, it's
Speaker 1: there's some other bit of leakage from the Muller probes.
Speaker 1: So much leaking it's really hard to feel like there's
Speaker 1: political integrity in this. And I would also not that
Speaker 1: there was an article written by a former FBI agent
Speaker 1: who I think it was a Scarlet is still Read
Speaker 1: or something like that was the title, Or you're saying
Speaker 1: that Mueller has a long history of being one of
Speaker 1: these guys who in internal investigations, even at the FBI,
Speaker 1: would take the truth to an extreme, meaning that even
Speaker 1: if something was not particularly material, or if it could
Speaker 1: be said that you did not give the most specific
Speaker 1: version of the truth possible, he would use that for
Speaker 1: leverage over people in investigations. I think we're certainly seeing
Speaker 1: that democrats are playing games. They're using the bureaucratic machinery
Speaker 1: of the d o J as a weapon against their
Speaker 1: ideological opponents. That's what is happening. Uh. And when they're
Speaker 1: not just grinding people through that process, they are also
Speaker 1: letting America believe because that's the whole purpose of these
Speaker 1: stories that data jar that Jared Kushner took bribes, that
Speaker 1: that's the latest one. Last twenty four hours, he got
Speaker 1: loans because he met with the CEO Sans Companies and
Speaker 1: Kushner got loans, and you know they're going. Oh and
Speaker 1: also a CNN was running that Ivanka's international business transactions
Speaker 1: are under investigation. Another league, more leaks all the time.
Speaker 1: Do you think that they'll run stories at CNN when
Speaker 1: nothing comes of that investigation, when there are no charges
Speaker 1: and no no malfeasants found when they look into these transactions.
Speaker 1: I saw yesterday they're going into Trump's finances. Now I'm
Speaker 1: familiar with the way these with these things actually work.
Speaker 1: And this is what everyone needs to remember. If they
Speaker 1: want to get you bad enough, and they have enough
Speaker 1: leeway and they have the resources, they'll get you. They'll
Speaker 1: find something. People always think. You know, there's actually a
Speaker 1: pretty interesting book. I think it's written by Harvey ever
Speaker 1: his name is Silverstein or Silvergate. I think it's Harvey
Speaker 1: silver Gate, um. Three felonies a day. And it's just
Speaker 1: about how many Americans who because most people don't go
Speaker 1: to law school and don't really have a detailed understanding
Speaker 1: of criminal law and also the justice system like once
Speaker 1: you once they start poking around and asking questions, as
Speaker 1: we know, that becomes its own problem that people are
Speaker 1: committing to Harvey silver Gate. Yeah, Buck human google over here.
Speaker 1: Uh and I should never. I'm gonna make so many
Speaker 1: mistakes tomorrow or probably the next hour. Thank you, John.
Speaker 1: I deserved that. I deserved that. That was I earned
Speaker 1: that one. UM. Anyway, the book that was about the
Speaker 1: accidental felonies that people commit that are look, they're more
Speaker 1: minor stuff, but you know, uh, you know, misuse of
Speaker 1: a computer program or exceeding your authority on a work computer.
Speaker 1: These are all like felonies that people could theoretically be
Speaker 1: charged for. They have no idea, no idea. I don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on your taxes. And that's the
Speaker 1: way that they've been going after people for a long time.
Speaker 1: That was the old Clinton. That was the old Clinton
Speaker 1: move right, just get give somebody a real thorough audit.
Speaker 1: And as you know, if you've ever gone through that process,
Speaker 1: you've done nothing wrong. It's not like you get a
Speaker 1: prize at the end. You don't even get a high
Speaker 1: five from the I R. S. Afterward. It's like, oh wow,
Speaker 1: yours there as clean as Clinton Bay. It's like on
Speaker 1: the onto the next, you know, poor soul, Onto the
Speaker 1: next person who gets to deal with our questioning and
Speaker 1: investigations and has their freedom and their property at risk. Well,
Speaker 1: we get paid, you know, we the bureaucracy, get paid
Speaker 1: to show up no matter what you got breaking news.
Speaker 1: Let's see n I see a right now, Kushner's business
Speaker 1: interest got millions in loans after a White House meetings?
Speaker 1: Did he did he do something? Did he violate ethics
Speaker 1: or not? Because they're they're implying that he violated ethics
Speaker 1: and that he took a bride. If he did, that's
Speaker 1: really bad and you should be in trouble. But you
Speaker 1: know what, I'm willing to bet up. I'm willing to
Speaker 1: bet that no, he didn't. And when they find that out,
Speaker 1: they will not care, They will not cover that. They
Speaker 1: just keep reminding us of who is under investigation and
Speaker 1: what they are using this to sully individuals in the
Speaker 1: administration and as a form of taking out their ideological appeance.
Speaker 1: That's what this all is. That's why I just I
Speaker 1: just don't have any respect for the Muller probe anymore.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear it. You know, they have
Speaker 1: given me nothing so far other than you know, low
Speaker 1: level mickey mouse garbage to work with in terms of
Speaker 1: their prosecutions. And okay, they're going off to manage. We
Speaker 1: didn't need a special counsel to go after maniforts tax returns, folks.
Speaker 1: Any prosecutor could have done that right. We could have
Speaker 1: brought our friend Annie McCarthy out of retirement. He probably
Speaker 1: could have figured out the manifort situation about five minutes
Speaker 1: in his pajamas. Is it's not that hard. You can
Speaker 1: pull the guy's bank records and you know that. That's it.
Speaker 1: That's all she wrote. So why do we have a
Speaker 1: special counsel? Why was it needed? The only reason we
Speaker 1: have a special counsel is because the media demanded one
Speaker 1: because of what Trump said in an interview with Lesser
Speaker 1: Holt after firing James Comeey. Because they said that the
Speaker 1: Justice Department under this president could not be trusted to
Speaker 1: operate as it as it does, and now we're seeing that. Well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, they're just this is operating as
Speaker 1: some some rogue entity that's running around wrapping people up
Speaker 1: for all kinds of things. This guy wasn't in London.
Speaker 1: It was like the married the daughter of a Russian
Speaker 1: oligarch or is he the son of a Russian art
Speaker 1: I forget, but he was. He got nailed for lying
Speaker 1: to the FBI about a meeting five years ago or something.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to feel safer and better at night because
Speaker 1: of this. This is just it's just so frustrating, folks,
Speaker 1: because I was looking. We started out they are talking
Speaker 1: about a very real problem that no, doesn't just have
Speaker 1: live in the balances costing lives every single day, and
Speaker 1: and keep repeating the number sixty three thou dead last year.
Speaker 1: That's a huge number. And people would rather bog the
Speaker 1: president down and all of his top advisors in minutia
Speaker 1: and garbage and nonsense then make some allowance for Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the president. This is the presidency.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should stop trying to starting, uh, stop trying
Speaker 1: to sabotage its functions because we don't like where it
Speaker 1: stands on some issues. Is another part of the whole
Speaker 1: Trump arrangement situation. What has Trump done that really upsets
Speaker 1: these people so much? I think that's important. You have
Speaker 1: to remind yourself. You have to ask that question, you will,
Speaker 1: What has Trump done that makes them hate him so much? Now?
Speaker 1: They really were that excited about Hillary? Yes? Hello, I
Speaker 1: mean they really were just so set on a Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton presidency. I find that hard to believe. And maybe
Speaker 1: they were so set on it, but that's what makes
Speaker 1: them so angry. They're so angry about the tax cat
Speaker 1: like Nancy Nancy Pelosi, Oh, it's a corporate giveaway. It's
Speaker 1: just for the fat cats, you know, I mean talking
Speaker 1: about the pot, calling the kettle black right, Nancy Pelosi's
Speaker 1: huband's worth like fifty million. So what has he done
Speaker 1: that makes them so mad? The way that he speaks,
Speaker 1: the way that he is, the fact that he's not
Speaker 1: a social justice warrior. I guess, yeah, I guess so
Speaker 1: that is, in fact, what is so bothersome to them,
Speaker 1: and that he's a threat to their power and to
Speaker 1: their stranglehold over the national narrative. The fact that he
Speaker 1: doesn't play by their rules, the fact that he calls
Speaker 1: them out, he slaps them around, and he wins. Because
Speaker 1: there's no there's nothing that he has done so far
Speaker 1: that I can look at and say, wow, that's really
Speaker 1: He's gonna really just stepping it with the liberals on
Speaker 1: that one. It's it's tone that they hate so much.
Speaker 1: It's stop ill. It's not the substance of the policies
Speaker 1: that have been implemented maybe eventually. I mean, the idea
Speaker 1: of a wall, I know, keeps liberals up in line
Speaker 1: and makes them cry, makes them sad. What do we do?
Speaker 1: We'll see, I mean, the small thing they'll get ready
Speaker 1: for with the Russian the indictments of more Russians. It
Speaker 1: just feeds, right, and they're gonna be throwing a party
Speaker 1: over at CNN on that one. It just feeds in
Speaker 1: the narrative, Oh my gosh, the election conspiracy, the election conspiracy.
Speaker 1: You'll you'll note that there are some very prominent left
Speaker 1: wing reporters with actual time on the ground in Russia.
Speaker 1: No they're talking about and they're not appearing on these
Speaker 1: big networks because other ones were saying, Okay, yeah, so
Speaker 1: they did this stuff. But this is this is like
Speaker 1: at the kiddie table, and this is nonsense, some social
Speaker 1: media maneuvering. He's information warfare and sock puppets and ah,
Speaker 1: people have lost it, folks, they've lost it. All we got,
Speaker 1: We've got a lot more. Next hour, we are gonna
Speaker 1: be joined by our friend Gordon Chang to talk about
Speaker 1: the China tariff situation on steel and aluminum and also
Speaker 1: just what we should be prepared for when dealing in
Speaker 1: dealing with China going forward here this could be uh,
Speaker 1: some rocky times ahead. I'll talk to you about the Invincible, Invincible,
Speaker 1: the Invincible, the invincible missiles that Vladimir Putin says that
Speaker 1: he has that can get past our radar. And you
Speaker 1: know they can't just nucas now, they can nucas into
Speaker 1: oblivion or something. I don't know. Well, I do know.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you about it. And also we'll be
Speaker 1: joined by our our friends from Black Rifle Coffee. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna tell us a bit of the they've got.
Speaker 1: The company history is fasting. They've got some really cool stories.
Speaker 1: I'm excited to ask them about it. And then we've
Speaker 1: got a roll call coming. So we've got quite a
Speaker 1: little show left for you, folks. Don't go anywhere. I'll
Speaker 1: be right back. I kind of like Goren Hatch a
Speaker 1: little bit more now. Uh. He is quoted here, Nail
Speaker 1: is saying, quote, obiolic Are supporters are the stupidest dumbass people.
Speaker 1: Well he's ever met, Uh like it. That's pretty funny.
Speaker 1: He later had a spokesperson say he said it in
Speaker 1: chess blah blah, but he said it. He said at
Speaker 1: the American Enterprisesitude this tupid as dumb ass people. That's well,
Speaker 1: we'll play at the word hatch Hat tipped to Orange
Speaker 1: Hatch on that one. Pretty funny, all right, Joe in Wilmington, Delaware. Hey, Joe,
Speaker 1: I'm a huge fan. Thank you, sir. This tragedy that
Speaker 1: happened in Florida, you know, it says a lot about
Speaker 1: Republican leadership as well. Um for whatever reason, they just
Speaker 1: allowed that Democrats to control of the narratives. I mean,
Speaker 1: can you believe that instead of the story being Brower
Speaker 1: County Sheriff's Department doesn't protect the community from from people
Speaker 1: like this when when they had because the narrative is
Speaker 1: that it's the n r A spot. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just so logical and every since in the way, and
Speaker 1: true Republicans like myself, we're sticking tired of some Republican
Speaker 1: leaders just running with their heads between their tails. We're
Speaker 1: ready to fight for our message. It's you know, when
Speaker 1: you have this sheriff that was told his department was
Speaker 1: told numerous of times, there was problems when you had
Speaker 1: the FBI notified, But yet the storyline is going to
Speaker 1: be the n r A. And you know, Buck, I
Speaker 1: expect young kids to react emostly, they're they're high school kids,
Speaker 1: are traumatops. But can somebody in the Republican community have
Speaker 1: the guts to really tell them what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on. I mean, you can be empathetic and yeah,
Speaker 1: this this kid was a troubled kid. He gave every
Speaker 1: morning fight imaginable. It could have been a car he
Speaker 1: drove into the school. It could have been a bomb.
Speaker 1: The crime isn't the weapon. The crime is that your community,
Speaker 1: your Shares Department, was supports numerous times they did nothing
Speaker 1: to protect the public. That's what the true storyline is. Well,
Speaker 1: I look, I I agree that they're they're well, I
Speaker 1: agree with what you're saying here. And Joe, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for calling him body y. Thank you for
Speaker 1: kind words about about the show as well. Look, Joe's
Speaker 1: only right. I mean a lot of Republicans have started
Speaker 1: running scared on this right away. You know, they've they've
Speaker 1: just been trying to appease the appease the rage mob,
Speaker 1: and that is never going to be successful. It's never
Speaker 1: a good idea. Daniel in Arkansas, Hey Daniel, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: what's going on? Shield Dame? Not much shield time, My friend,
Speaker 1: I got a two part question for you. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make it quick and then I'm gonna jump the line
Speaker 1: so I can. Let's do you over the radio, Roger
Speaker 1: that Sir. As far as I'm I know, the president
Speaker 1: could only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors if
Speaker 1: he commits said high crimes and misdemeaners while he's president
Speaker 1: of the United States. So if they haven't found anything yet,
Speaker 1: unless they're a fortune teller, they can't charge him with anything.
Speaker 1: I think high crimes and misdemeanors are. It's a pretty
Speaker 1: broad range that even would include some people say argue
Speaker 1: would include even non criminal activity um so or or
Speaker 1: low level criminal activity, I should say, And it's really
Speaker 1: up to the Congress. That's that's the it's a political
Speaker 1: it's much more a political tool than it is a
Speaker 1: criminal justice tool, Daniel. So we'll see. And you want
Speaker 1: to ask if he pardoned everybody in the Rushi investigation,
Speaker 1: because we're going to run a break here in a second. Um,
Speaker 1: he could. There's nothing that the president's pardon power is
Speaker 1: basically absolute, so he could pardon anyone if he just
Speaker 1: did a blanket pardon for anyone that saw on their
Speaker 1: list that they're going to call up, wouldn't they just
Speaker 1: have to end it? Uh No, I don't think he
Speaker 1: that's different than shutting down the investigation. But I have
Speaker 1: to think about that a little bit. But look, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm of the mind that he should pardon General Flynn.
Speaker 1: So I'll just go out there and say it. Daniel,
Speaker 1: thank you for your caugh markets all, my friend. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. We're going to talk about Russian nukes and
Speaker 1: Chinese trade war. You are now entering the Freedom Tactical
Speaker 1: Operations Center. All sensative programs must be cats strictly need
Speaker 1: to know team buckets cleared and ready for the buck brief.
Speaker 1: After the United States withdrew from the A b M
Speaker 1: Treaty unilaterally, we've been working hard to create new, promising,
Speaker 1: repreated systems and this enabled us to make a big
Speaker 1: step forward creating new strategic arms. We have developed a
Speaker 1: new generation of missiles. But currently the Defense Ministry, who
Speaker 1: works together with the defense companies in the space industry,
Speaker 1: and they're testing a new missile system that uses a
Speaker 1: heavy I CBHM. Much scarier when putin saying it through
Speaker 1: a translator, but that was the Premier of Russia talking
Speaker 1: or his translator telling us what he's saying. But he
Speaker 1: was talking about the announcement today from Russia from the
Speaker 1: official account of the President and the various news news
Speaker 1: agencies there that they have developed a new series of
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons, including an undersea drone that has nuclear capability
Speaker 1: and also a a nuclear device that can a missile
Speaker 1: that can go basically through our radar without us being
Speaker 1: do anything about it. That's what they're claiming. Um, this
Speaker 1: is being taken by a lot of folks who watch
Speaker 1: Russia closely. Uh, with a grain assaults putin up there
Speaker 1: we go the little maybe you know, the hunt for
Speaker 1: Red October does come to mind with all of this,
Speaker 1: But the the realities here are this doesn't change the
Speaker 1: nuclear threat to United States from Russia, and it doesn't
Speaker 1: change that we would annihilate Russia in event of any
Speaker 1: kind of nuclear strike. We're still in the same place.
Speaker 1: Does anyone really think of Russia fired all of its
Speaker 1: nukes at us, we'd be able to shoot them all down? No,
Speaker 1: of course not um. Same thing as to a Russia
Speaker 1: if we fire all our stuff, they couldn't shot them
Speaker 1: all down either. So this is a bit of bluster,
Speaker 1: a bit of chest thumping from Putin um, and it
Speaker 1: is in part, at least, I think, driven by the
Speaker 1: fact that one he's got his re election coming up
Speaker 1: in a few weeks. The Russian president is expected to win,
Speaker 1: which is not surprising, but it's important for him for
Speaker 1: domestic political reasons to go out there and say that
Speaker 1: he's got invincible missiles. He is invincible. So that's what
Speaker 1: this is, at least in part, a reflection of right
Speaker 1: now that that's why he's running around talking about his
Speaker 1: invincible missiles that can get past our radar and do
Speaker 1: all this stuff. Um, but this doesn't change our strategic
Speaker 1: calculation about nukes, and it also doesn't change that Russia's
Speaker 1: economy is smaller than Canada's. Okay, Russia is We're gonna
Speaker 1: talking about China in a few minutes. China is scary
Speaker 1: long term. China is a problem, folks, not one that
Speaker 1: has any easy answers, and not one that we can ignore.
Speaker 1: Russia is a country with it's a very big military,
Speaker 1: with a very or at least a very powerful military,
Speaker 1: with a medium two small ish economy, especially given the
Speaker 1: side of the country. It's natural resources and everything else.
Speaker 1: So this is not something to be overly alarmed about. Seeing.
Speaker 1: People the immediate hot takes whenever Putin says anything, knows
Speaker 1: it is Trump gonna condemn it. Well, why should Trump
Speaker 1: condemn it when it's not as big of an issue
Speaker 1: as Putin is claiming? Right, Well, what's the point of that?
Speaker 1: Why antagonize the Russian premier when he's talking about a
Speaker 1: threat that's not even as big of a threat as
Speaker 1: he is trying to lead us, lead us into thinking.
Speaker 1: So that's part of Oh, but but there's the election
Speaker 1: in Russia. There's also what happened And if you listen
Speaker 1: to this show, you know in detail what happened some
Speaker 1: weeks ago in Syria where Russian paramilitaries fighting alongside the
Speaker 1: Assad regime went after a Kurdish base in eastern Syria
Speaker 1: and the Kurds called in artillery and air strikes and
Speaker 1: and it was a it was a blood bath. They lost.
Speaker 1: Estimates are in a couple of hundreds actually um for
Speaker 1: the losses, and it's a question of how many where
Speaker 1: Syrians versus how many were Russians. But that didn't that
Speaker 1: didn't sit well with the Russian government even though they
Speaker 1: were they were paramilitaries, they were contractors working for saw,
Speaker 1: not Russian uniform military. But there are Russian military, uh
Speaker 1: folks in Syria as well. And I mentioned. I think
Speaker 1: it was yesterday that we have our fighter planes coming
Speaker 1: into very close contact with their fighter planes in a
Speaker 1: way that some are saying is far too close for
Speaker 1: comfort and could lead to the shootdown of either a
Speaker 1: US or Russian plane, which would spiral US into a crisis,
Speaker 1: and a minimum and diplomatic, if not military crisis very quickly.
Speaker 1: So look the Russians, they're they're talking about this this
Speaker 1: technology that's out there that people have discussing for some time,
Speaker 1: hyper hypersonic glide vehicles which go I think five times
Speaker 1: the speed of sound and or I could be wrong
Speaker 1: about that, and essentially would allow the Russians to fire
Speaker 1: missile and hit anywhere in the world within a few hours. Now,
Speaker 1: the truth is that the Russians can already pretty much
Speaker 1: hit anywhere in the world in a few hours, so
Speaker 1: or at least they can hit anywhere in the world
Speaker 1: with their missiles, not necessarily as they can't do it
Speaker 1: at the speed of these hypersonic glide vehicles which I've
Speaker 1: been reading up on. I tell you this is where
Speaker 1: I am always very honest with you. I'm a a
Speaker 1: Jehadis and car bombs students, you know. I am not
Speaker 1: a student of advanced missile defense and that that is
Speaker 1: really a sub that is really a specialty within the
Speaker 1: overall discipline of military and national security analysis. This is true.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're at the Pentagon is placed, the
Speaker 1: people that are the missile people are not the people
Speaker 1: that are the counterinsurgency and counter terroris and people generally.
Speaker 1: It's just there's not there's not as much and not
Speaker 1: enough crossover on it. But I I've done research on it,
Speaker 1: and I wanted to just bring up the speed on
Speaker 1: what's going on with this whole Russia situation because the
Speaker 1: truth is that this is not anything to be overly
Speaker 1: concerned about. People are talking about the various treaties that
Speaker 1: this may have implications for, But the Russians have already
Speaker 1: violated the uh sort of the medium range Missile Treaty
Speaker 1: that we have with them, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Treaty,
Speaker 1: and there's the Start Treaty, which has been updated a
Speaker 1: couple of times. There. I think there's an update that's
Speaker 1: supposed to happen at some point the pretty near future. UH. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: we have got two turns with them. This may in
Speaker 1: fact be the nuclear turn is still in place. And
Speaker 1: this could be employed by the Russians to force us
Speaker 1: to the negotiating table to just talk about other things too,
Speaker 1: rite where they're gonna be a little more belligerent with
Speaker 1: the rhetoric on missiles, so that we come and talk
Speaker 1: them more about what's going on in Syria with Ukraine
Speaker 1: with the sanctions that they really do want sanctions gone,
Speaker 1: and we will see how that works out for them.
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't worry about about Putin and as invincible missiles,
Speaker 1: we still sleep soundly despite the fact that there are
Speaker 1: more countries now that have missiles, nuclear missiles and nuclearar
Speaker 1: abilities than did decades ago, and the Russians still have
Speaker 1: a whole lot of nukes, Chinese of nukes. Is plenty
Speaker 1: of countries out there right now that we just assume
Speaker 1: they won't step out of line because they know that
Speaker 1: the response from US would be annihilation. Uh. So we're
Speaker 1: gonna get Gordon Chang joining us you in a second.
Speaker 1: He's gonna weigh in on the tariffs in the steel industry. Uh,
Speaker 1: specifically that we'll deal with China um and some other
Speaker 1: aspects of US China foreign policy. So a lot of
Speaker 1: national security this hour, hour three of the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: and then later on we'll be joined by our friends
Speaker 1: from Black Rifle CEO and vice president. UM and that's
Speaker 1: where we're heading, So stay with me. Big news about
Speaker 1: China coming in today and we want to talk to
Speaker 1: Gordon Chang about it. He is the author of the
Speaker 1: Coming Collapse of China and a Daily Beast columnist. Gordon,
Speaker 1: great to have you, Thank you so much. Buck. So
Speaker 1: first let's let's talk a bit about the tariffs, because
Speaker 1: that's getting a lot of attention because it has people
Speaker 1: are saying cause quite a dip in the stock market
Speaker 1: for the day, but it also could be a harbinger
Speaker 1: of some economic troubles to come. What do you make
Speaker 1: of this? Is this long overdue? Or we play in
Speaker 1: high stakes poker we could lose. What do you think
Speaker 1: of the Trump move? Probably all of the above. UM.
Speaker 1: It's we have to remember that this was These tariffs
Speaker 1: are imposed under the authority of the Trade Expansion Act
Speaker 1: of nineteen sixty two. This is a national security measure. UM.
Speaker 1: These tariffs are set at levels so that the aluminum
Speaker 1: industry and the steel industry can be self sustaining. Because
Speaker 1: we need to make sure that We've got a steel
Speaker 1: and aluminum industry that can supply defense needs, so that's
Speaker 1: important for US apart from trade. You know, when it
Speaker 1: comes to trade, we don't know the details. It's going
Speaker 1: to take about a week for the administration to negotiate
Speaker 1: with other countries and to come up with final rules,
Speaker 1: and we'll just have to see how it goes. But
Speaker 1: I suspect that the harshest rules will be applied against
Speaker 1: China because China has been extremely predatory in flooding the
Speaker 1: world with excess steel and aluminum. They've been subsidizing producers
Speaker 1: in order to put our producers out of business. We
Speaker 1: got to do something. The Chinese may huff and puff,
Speaker 1: but we got to remember that we're the trade deficit country.
Speaker 1: Last year, we had a four d seventy billion dollar
Speaker 1: trade merchandise trade deficit with China. That four billion, by
Speaker 1: the way, was eight point eight percent of China's overall
Speaker 1: trade surplus. We've got an enormous amount of leverage here.
Speaker 1: And what do you think the next moves on the
Speaker 1: Trump team should be Gordon with regard to to dealing
Speaker 1: with China. Mean Trump has been promising and this goes
Speaker 1: all the back to the campaign that he would get
Speaker 1: fair and smart trade with China. From your estimation, what
Speaker 1: would that mean and how would that look? Well, I
Speaker 1: think the first thing that would mean is that we've
Speaker 1: first we've got to go against their theft of US
Speaker 1: intellectual property of the Chinese steel and estimated three hundred
Speaker 1: six hundred billion dollars a year in US i P.
Speaker 1: We've got to put a stop to that, and so
Speaker 1: Robert Lheiser, the US Trade Representative, has now got an
Speaker 1: ongoing investigation pursuingto Section three or one of the Trade
Speaker 1: Act of nineteen seventy four. We need to impose some
Speaker 1: stiff penalties to get the Chinese to stop this. Also,
Speaker 1: we know that China has been engaged in increasingly predatory
Speaker 1: moves to close off their market, especially with their Made
Speaker 1: in China initiative. They've identified ten sectors that they want
Speaker 1: Chinese companies to dominate, and you know they're closing off
Speaker 1: their markets through various means. We can't allow this to continue.
Speaker 1: They can't be allowed to continue to close their market
Speaker 1: while our market is open. That just doesn't work. What
Speaker 1: do you think the responses will be of the Chinese
Speaker 1: government to these actions? By the Trump administration. Well, you
Speaker 1: know they will. UM. They'll try to, for instance, um
Speaker 1: close off their markets even further to US agricultural products.
Speaker 1: Sorghum has been mentioned in this regard. But um, with
Speaker 1: the balance of trade. Um, you know, they could hurt
Speaker 1: us a little bit, we could hurt them a lot. Um.
Speaker 1: We we actually as Americans should know this because in
Speaker 1: the World's Great Trade War in the nineteen thirties, the
Speaker 1: country that got hurt the most was US because we
Speaker 1: were the world's trade surplus country. Now it's China's turn
Speaker 1: to be the trade surplus country. So we shouldn't be
Speaker 1: afraid of trade friction. I'm not welcoming it, but I
Speaker 1: am saying that we've got to protect ourselves and we've
Speaker 1: got to insist on China's adherence to trade bargains that
Speaker 1: it is made and so UM. At some point, you know,
Speaker 1: this has gone much too far. We've allowed the Chinese
Speaker 1: to take advantage of us. There are no longer any
Speaker 1: note cost solutions. Um. But you know, if people want
Speaker 1: to complain, they should be complaining about presidents named Clinton,
Speaker 1: Bush and Obama as much as Trump, because Trump inherited
Speaker 1: this situation. Gordon Chang's author of the Coming Collapse of
Speaker 1: China Gordon. There's also some news about consolidation of power
Speaker 1: by Chinese Premier Shijin Ping. And there are some news
Speaker 1: reports just in the last twenty four hours about the
Speaker 1: banning of some words in China for public discourse that
Speaker 1: seemed like the kind of things that might be used
Speaker 1: to describe she that would not necessarily be to his liking.
Speaker 1: What's going on? Well, yeah, we need the pooh is
Speaker 1: is now banned, so is Disney UM, the words I disagree,
Speaker 1: I mean, there are more and more words that are
Speaker 1: being um taken off the Chinese Internet, and the reason
Speaker 1: is that the Communist Party on Sunday announced that it
Speaker 1: was recommending to the National People's Congress, which will meet
Speaker 1: on starting on the fifth of this month, that they
Speaker 1: will recommend the abolition of the two term term limit
Speaker 1: or President of the country. That's president of the state.
Speaker 1: That's a relatively unimportant post. In China. They've got what's
Speaker 1: called the Trinity uh, and the presidency is only one
Speaker 1: of the trinity. The other two are General Secretary of
Speaker 1: the Communist Party and the chairman of the party's Central
Speaker 1: Military Commission. By far the presidency is the least important
Speaker 1: of the trinity, and what sign Ping has been showing
Speaker 1: the rest of the world is that although this is
Speaker 1: a ceremonial post, he is willing to go to any
Speaker 1: lengths to make sure that he can hang on to power.
Speaker 1: And that's chilling. Um So, at this point, we've got
Speaker 1: to assume that Sijun Ping wants to be, as they
Speaker 1: say in China, emperor for life, and that's going to
Speaker 1: have consequences that are royal in the Chinese political system.
Speaker 1: At the moment um, people in China aren't very happy
Speaker 1: about this for the most part, and China is probably
Speaker 1: gonna end up with a much more coercive political system
Speaker 1: and probably a much more belligerent external policy. Um So,
Speaker 1: this is bad news for everybody. That was the next
Speaker 1: question I was gonna ask you, Gordon, which is what
Speaker 1: becomes the external flash one of the most likely external
Speaker 1: flashpoints as she continues this consolidation of power over a
Speaker 1: country that you know, Russia gets a lot of talk
Speaker 1: these days, and we've been discussing Russian nukes even here
Speaker 1: on the show. But China is a long term, much
Speaker 1: bigger competitor to the United States. Both economically and militarily
Speaker 1: well certainly. Um. You know, and the question is like
Speaker 1: where are we going to see this? I mean it
Speaker 1: could be anywhere. China is trying to grab territory from
Speaker 1: India and and you can see that there's an arc
Speaker 1: of instability to its south and to its east, UM,
Speaker 1: going all the way up to South Korea. In the north. UM,
Speaker 1: you have China engaging in all sorts of dangerous activities
Speaker 1: along that periphery. It's trying to spread into the Indian Ocean.
Speaker 1: It wants to actually establish a base on the Atlantic Ocean.
Speaker 1: From what we can tell it Wallvis Bay in Namibia,
Speaker 1: they're snooping around the Azores. UM. You know, this is
Speaker 1: a country that just sort of thinks that it can
Speaker 1: take whatever it wants. And I can understand why they
Speaker 1: feel that way because we've had a succession of presidents
Speaker 1: who have not effectively opposed this expansion. Is UM. So
Speaker 1: we have emboldened the worst elements in the Chinese political
Speaker 1: system by showing everybody else that aggression works. You know,
Speaker 1: when they look back at this period. I hope that
Speaker 1: things go away and we don't have a global conflict.
Speaker 1: But if we do, buck people are gonna look at
Speaker 1: the United States in the same way they looked at
Speaker 1: Britain and France in the nineteen thirties and just ask
Speaker 1: why didn't you use your power to protect yourself and
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. Um. So I think we're
Speaker 1: going to be vulnerable to that if, um, you know,
Speaker 1: the Chinese actually do something horrible, because we've shown them
Speaker 1: that it's okay to be horrible. We complain about it,
Speaker 1: but we don't do anything about it. And that's for
Speaker 1: the reason why I think we've got to change our
Speaker 1: China policies quickly. Gordon, one more thing, if we let
Speaker 1: you go, tell me about broad coom and the possible
Speaker 1: takeover of Qualcomm and why that's something we should pay
Speaker 1: attention to. Yeah, broad Colm is a Singapore based company. Um,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a proxy fight shareholder vote on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: Broad Common will probably win. Um. What Broadcom has done
Speaker 1: in the past is it sells off parts UM and
Speaker 1: then ruthlessly controls costs. The reason why this is important
Speaker 1: to us is because there is a struggle now for
Speaker 1: setting five G standards for cellular communications. Whoever controls five
Speaker 1: G is going to control communications for the next decade
Speaker 1: or so. The only American company that has a chance
Speaker 1: of establishing and winning the five G race is qual Calm.
Speaker 1: But there's no way Qualcom is gonna win if Broadcom
Speaker 1: takes it over, because they're just going to try to
Speaker 1: um sell it off. And so we have a national
Speaker 1: security issue here because we do not want the Chinese
Speaker 1: controlling self commune vacations for the rest of the world
Speaker 1: for about a decade. So it's in a sense the
Speaker 1: same reason we need a domestic steel industry for national
Speaker 1: security purpose. You're saying this is a commercial issue, but
Speaker 1: it's also a communications and therefore security issue as well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and and um, Qualcom is so much more important than
Speaker 1: the steel or aluminum industries. So um, this is this
Speaker 1: is the lifeblood of America. It's it's innovation technology. And
Speaker 1: you know, we can't allow a state backed Chinese enterprise,
Speaker 1: which is Laweit Technologies, to dominate global communications for obvious reasons.
Speaker 1: So much more important than stealer aluminum. All Right, Gordon Shank,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. We appreciate it. Team.
Speaker 1: We're hitting a quick break. We'll be right back, uh
Speaker 1: and we'll have the folks from Black Rifle Coffee here
Speaker 1: in studio with us. We have the CEO, we have
Speaker 1: the vice president. They are veterans, they are great guys,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna tell us about the founding of their
Speaker 1: company and one of our a great a wonderful sponsor
Speaker 1: of the show, but also a great American story here
Speaker 1: of veterans and entrepreneurship. So we're excited to have up
Speaker 1: their their wave and I say, and they're they're coming in.
Speaker 1: We got the guys coming in right now. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Welcome back, everybody in the Freedom Hut. Today.
Speaker 1: We have a couple of guests with us. I am
Speaker 1: very pleased to bring on Evan Hayfer, CEO and founder
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle Coffee, and Matt Best, vice president and
Speaker 1: chief of Happiness for all Things Black Rifle. We have
Speaker 1: them here with this. As you guys all know, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle is a sponsor of the show. They also have
Speaker 1: a great backstory, a great message and mission, and so
Speaker 1: I want to bring them in to talk to everybody
Speaker 1: about how us all got started. Gentlemen, thank you for joining,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having us. Yeah, thanks for having us. We
Speaker 1: appreciate the opportunity. Mike so as as we went on air,
Speaker 1: I told them that the one thing I have to do,
Speaker 1: and this is important for all of you listening if
Speaker 1: you're ever in an interview situation on radio or TV,
Speaker 1: the one trick, and I've been told this by some
Speaker 1: of the bigger anchors in the business. You have to
Speaker 1: write the name down in front of you, even if
Speaker 1: someone gives you a sheet of paper, because if you
Speaker 1: get the name wrong, that's all anybody remembers. But you
Speaker 1: can call me whatever you want, because you guys are
Speaker 1: wonderful sponsors here of the show, and I'm really pleased
Speaker 1: to have you, Uh Evan tell me about how this
Speaker 1: all got started. I mean, a couple of spec ops guys. Coffee.
Speaker 1: It doesn't necessarily well, yeah, there's the first thing you
Speaker 1: think about. I'm just saying it's not. No, it doesn't,
Speaker 1: I think. And for years guys used to make fun
Speaker 1: of me for being such a coffee head. I started
Speaker 1: roasting coffee ten years ago, but my love affair with
Speaker 1: coffee started twenty years ago. I was an analyst. I
Speaker 1: feel like I'm supposed to be the latte master, but
Speaker 1: apparently you're a time Yeah, I I was, you know,
Speaker 1: I I've spent some time behind an espresso machine. I've
Speaker 1: spent some time on the roaster. For me, coffee started
Speaker 1: twenty plus years ago, you know, n with with falling
Speaker 1: in love with espresso and just diving into the art
Speaker 1: of it and deploying back and forth into Iraq in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: well my entire adult life. Can you tell a little
Speaker 1: about your military? By the way, for a lot of
Speaker 1: the folks listening, they may not know that not just
Speaker 1: a guy who knows a lot about coffee. And then like,
Speaker 1: why is Buck saying he's such a renaissance man coffee?
Speaker 1: Like there are reasons, Yeah, I I suppose so I've
Speaker 1: been called that before. I don't know if I necessarily
Speaker 1: weren't the title, but I was a Green Beret for
Speaker 1: well for several years, and then I transitioned over as
Speaker 1: a contractor to the CIA for a little while. I
Speaker 1: spent about five years on the ground in Iraq and
Speaker 1: another couple in Afghanistan. I did several trips as as
Speaker 1: you know how those trips go, uh, typically around ninety
Speaker 1: twenty days. But I'd spend most of my time overseas
Speaker 1: in Iraq, Afghanistan, a few other places around the world.
Speaker 1: I found that having a great cup of coffee in
Speaker 1: the morning was was really important to me, and I
Speaker 1: started roasting coffee just for that because I couldn't find
Speaker 1: the coffee that I wanted. And you know, uh, and
Speaker 1: Matt knows, the coffee Overseas really just doesn't get it done.
Speaker 1: It's bad coffee. It didn't kind of what they call
Speaker 1: it coffee ruble. I would just throw ice cubes in
Speaker 1: it and just throw it down as quick as possible
Speaker 1: because I didn't care about the taste. I just wanted caffeine.
Speaker 1: And I was the same way I I just I
Speaker 1: fell in love with it. I started diving into the
Speaker 1: roast profiles really deeply around two thousand eight, and one
Speaker 1: of my bags I would take Overseas was full of
Speaker 1: fresh roasted coffee and the other was full of like
Speaker 1: kit So everybody knew when I was coming into the country,
Speaker 1: everybody knew what kind of coffee it was going to
Speaker 1: be bringing. And more importantly, it just it made me
Speaker 1: kind of immerse myself into something completely different than what
Speaker 1: I was doing in in combat zones. It gave me
Speaker 1: kind of a recreational therapy in a way that I
Speaker 1: really could excel at something outside of combat, right, Matt,
Speaker 1: You also have a military background, and tell us a
Speaker 1: bit about that and how you guys linked up to
Speaker 1: start a veteran owned and operated business in this area. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I'm a form arm ranger, did five deployments with Second
Speaker 1: Range of Retalion, got out, didn't really like the civilian
Speaker 1: sector too much because I had a little difficult time
Speaker 1: assimilating back into you know, it's it's difficult especially be
Speaker 1: playing more for so many years. And then I started
Speaker 1: contracting with the agency as well. And then during that time,
Speaker 1: which is actually really funny story, I was um an
Speaker 1: Afford operating base and there was an expresso machine and
Speaker 1: it had to be like fifteen thou dollars And I'm
Speaker 1: sitting there going why did the government waste that much
Speaker 1: money on an espresso machine? Will come to find out
Speaker 1: Evan head course, the uh the guys doing supply to
Speaker 1: purchase that machine just a couple of years before. So
Speaker 1: when I linked up with Evan with Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: is like, of course you did that. Evan. Of course
Speaker 1: you convinced the government to buy this amazing espresso machines
Speaker 1: so you could develop your roast profiles while you were
Speaker 1: playing more. It wasn't hard, It really wasn't. They came
Speaker 1: to me and asked me what kind of machine, and
Speaker 1: literally I was like, well, if you're gonna ask me,
Speaker 1: what kind of a budget do we have? And that's
Speaker 1: your taxpayer dollars hard at work, That's what they wanted.
Speaker 1: The first thing I do every day is drink coffee.
Speaker 1: And as I say on the show constantly, first thing
Speaker 1: I do every day is in fact, to drink some
Speaker 1: black rifle coffee. So thank you, gentlemen very much for that.
Speaker 1: I'm a silencer smooth guy. For the most part. I
Speaker 1: mixed it up a little bit. I'm also freedom Blend,
Speaker 1: but I like the silence smooth. But I wanted you
Speaker 1: to tell me a little bit, Evan, about what you're
Speaker 1: about the mission of hiring veterans. And you have one
Speaker 1: story in particularly really stuck out to me about how
Speaker 1: you don't just have veterans of the United States Armed
Speaker 1: Forces working for you, actually have some foreign auxiliaries who
Speaker 1: worked alongside US forces from Afghanistan who have immigrated to
Speaker 1: the United States. That's a pretty amazing story. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think a lot of guys, you know, we're known for
Speaker 1: hiring veterans because we've we've got above fifty percent hiring
Speaker 1: uh with veterans along our our entire workforce. We're rolling
Speaker 1: out a pretty big expansion over the next year. We're
Speaker 1: gonna try to maintain that fifty Obviously, it's all based
Speaker 1: on how many applicants we can get. So go to
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com and you can take a
Speaker 1: look at, you know, to take a look at the
Speaker 1: job openings that we have. Will be hiring people in Nashville,
Speaker 1: San Antonio, Sparks, Nevada. Uh, and the the Afghans, these
Speaker 1: guys that we actually worked with overseas in Cobba Province.
Speaker 1: They were commandos that worked for the Americans alongside of them.
Speaker 1: One particular, Wally, We did a video on him. You
Speaker 1: could go to YouTube and check that out. But Uh,
Speaker 1: he was with us basically right after the invasion of
Speaker 1: Afghanistan all the way through fifteen. Um so he was
Speaker 1: with us basically for fourteen years, and he had been
Speaker 1: on thousands of direct action missions, which you know is
Speaker 1: basically direct action meek. Yeah, he's a door kicker. Uh.
Speaker 1: He went from private to commander h throughout that fourteen years.
Speaker 1: He was having to move his family every six months
Speaker 1: to protect them, survived multiple ambushes, not only you know,
Speaker 1: with his unit, but with his family. Uh, he applied
Speaker 1: received refugee status. He immigrated into the United States. Um
Speaker 1: was working in a gas station when we when we
Speaker 1: got a hold of him, we my business partner and
Speaker 1: I were talking. He actually thought he was killed a
Speaker 1: couple of years back. So when he reached out, we
Speaker 1: were not only like pleasantly surprised, but we were the
Speaker 1: first thing we said, we let's get him on a plan,
Speaker 1: lets get him out here. So uh, got him on
Speaker 1: a plane, got him a house, got him taking care
Speaker 1: of He's got six kids, so he just had another
Speaker 1: another little one actually. And now we've got a total
Speaker 1: of five Afghan former Afghan commanders that work for us
Speaker 1: in our production shop. So they're printing T shirts and
Speaker 1: doing a bunch of things for us. But fantastic guys.
Speaker 1: And I think that's the thing that Americans really need
Speaker 1: to understand. Two is uh, you know, shoulder to shoulder,
Speaker 1: there's been a heavy burden placed on the American veteran
Speaker 1: but also there's a lot of Afghans and Iraqis that
Speaker 1: were heavy that we're carrying just as much of the
Speaker 1: combat load out there, and those guys were defending your
Speaker 1: freedom just as they were defending mine and defending us
Speaker 1: down range. We do owe them an incredible amount of gratitude,
Speaker 1: and that's a debt that that I'm focused on repaying,
Speaker 1: not only to the veteran community, but in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: This is the single most uh prominent thing in my life,
Speaker 1: which was the American foreign wars that we've been involved in. Uh.
Speaker 1: My ethical responsibility to the nation is to make sure
Speaker 1: that I can primarily focus on the men and women
Speaker 1: that have been fighting the wars that we've been in
Speaker 1: for I mean, we invaded Iraq in two thousand one.
Speaker 1: We can all do math. There's thousands of men and
Speaker 1: women out there, Americans and foreigners that need They don't
Speaker 1: need a hand out, they need an opportunity to hand up.
Speaker 1: And my responsibility as a business is to make sure
Speaker 1: that we're growing the company and maintaining that ethical orientation,
Speaker 1: to make sure that we're always making making sure that
Speaker 1: we can put the veteran first ahead of everything else.
Speaker 1: So that's that's the main mission in Black Rafic Coffee.
Speaker 1: So we've got Evan hey for CEO of Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee in studio with us right now, and Matt Best
Speaker 1: vice president uh and happiness Guru um, as well as
Speaker 1: just all all around, all around God takes care all
Speaker 1: kinds of things. Right. I've seen the videos, my friend,
Speaker 1: the videos are exceptionable. We we definitely have fun and
Speaker 1: it's obviously, say it's a statirical representation of my values.
Speaker 1: You know, we're obviously constitutionalists and pre Second Amendment and
Speaker 1: we like to have fun with it and obviously be safe.
Speaker 1: Tell me a bit about the expansion though, what's going
Speaker 1: on now in eighteen you guys are I mean, I
Speaker 1: know a little bit about it because I'm actually gonna
Speaker 1: be with you in Savannah next week for the opening
Speaker 1: of it with your first brick and mortar store that
Speaker 1: will be actually our third and mortar store, thank you. Um. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're moving our headquarters down to San Antonio, Texas, so
Speaker 1: taking corporate there. There's just gonna be a lot of opportunity,
Speaker 1: and the veteran pool down there is significantly larger, so
Speaker 1: we hope to you know, employ a lot more vegans
Speaker 1: down there, and then we're gonna be rolling out brick
Speaker 1: and mortar and retail and just a lot of cool stuff.
Speaker 1: Expanding the company and just chasing opportunity and trying to
Speaker 1: give it back to the community as well. Bernie folks listening,
Speaker 1: by the way, if they want to join in Savannah,
Speaker 1: how would they find out about the event? If they
Speaker 1: want to come buy some gear and check out the
Speaker 1: bounced castles, the gear or what else is gonna be there. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're doing that with nine Lines. So nine Line Apparel
Speaker 1: is you know, we're opening a coffee shop in side
Speaker 1: of their business, so they can go check nine Line out.
Speaker 1: They can check us out on social media. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be posting throughout that entire time. Uh, March ninth and tenth,
Speaker 1: and I'll be there, a bunch of other cool veterans
Speaker 1: will be there hanging out and shaking hands and just
Speaker 1: having a good time. Yeah, we've got helicopters to get
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff going on out of the bounce castles.
Speaker 1: All right, bounce castles are fine, but helicopters that a
Speaker 1: little spice to things. Well, a right, everybody check them out.
Speaker 1: Evan Hayfer CEO and Matt Best, vice president of Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee and thank you John, by the way, for
Speaker 1: being wonderful sponsors of the show. We are very pleased
Speaker 1: and honored to have you, and thanks for coming in studio.
Speaker 1: Thanks well everyone. I hope you enjoyed our conversation with
Speaker 1: Evan and Matt from Black Rifle. They're they're great guys.
Speaker 1: I'm actually gonna be joining them right after the show
Speaker 1: here for some drinks out on the town, catching up
Speaker 1: about things. And it's always fun to talk to some
Speaker 1: guys who worked on the national security side of things.
Speaker 1: So we can tell tell stories about well they can
Speaker 1: tell war stories about Iraq and Afghanist and I can
Speaker 1: tell uh memo, you know, and and analysis stories about
Speaker 1: a rocket Afghanistan. It's a good it's good time. Nonetheless
Speaker 1: good time. We get to rap on all that stuff. So, uh,
Speaker 1: this is where we get into, as you know, roll
Speaker 1: call tea. So yesterday it was almost an accident. I
Speaker 1: was trying to download one song to use for roll
Speaker 1: call from my desktop and I pulled something that was
Speaker 1: not for roll Call. But what I noticed a lot
Speaker 1: of you were like, you know what, it's better, and
Speaker 1: so we've decided that instead of having the little like
Speaker 1: a little drummer boy thing there. Uh, Instead of that,
Speaker 1: we are gonna try to mix it up a little
Speaker 1: bit and and have a little more a little more
Speaker 1: audio audio variety here on the show. And so we're
Speaker 1: gonna try to spice it up and surprise you with
Speaker 1: our role call tunes and and just in general, we're
Speaker 1: gonna try to mix up some of the what I
Speaker 1: call I guess they call it is imaging the correct term, John, right,
Speaker 1: the yeah, imaging, which is weird because an image is
Speaker 1: something you see, and yet in radio it's all audio.
Speaker 1: But now now I'm talking nonsense. Who cares? All Right,
Speaker 1: these are your thoughts, your whimsical references, whatever you've got
Speaker 1: for me, and you can add to them of course
Speaker 1: at facebook dot com slash buck Sexton, Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slashbuck Sexton, and let's send me your thoughts. Let's get
Speaker 1: into it. Uh. First up, Eric, I was catching up
Speaker 1: on your podcast and heard you are coming to Savannah.
Speaker 1: I am in charge of the Savannah Police Canine Unit.
Speaker 1: It would be cool if we could meet you at
Speaker 1: nine line and get a picture with you and a
Speaker 1: couple of our canine handlers and their dogs. I would
Speaker 1: love to put it on our Facebook page. Savannah Police
Speaker 1: Canain Unit. If you don't mind what day you're gonna
Speaker 1: be here, Eric, not only or not mine? That sounds awesome.
Speaker 1: Count me in. I will be down in Savannah and
Speaker 1: I'll be hanging with Nine Line and Black Rifle on Friday. Um,
Speaker 1: not this Friday, the March nine, I think it is.
Speaker 1: So I'll be and any of you, any of you listening,
Speaker 1: if you wanna, and it's not just me, you'll hang
Speaker 1: out with you know, Matt and Evan, the Black Rifle guys,
Speaker 1: the Nine Line guys. Tyler will be there, he's the CEO.
Speaker 1: His crew will be there. Uh. It should be a
Speaker 1: lot of fun and you can come check it out.
Speaker 1: It's just at the Nine Line apparel store and Black
Speaker 1: Rifles opening a franchise in this store. So it'll be
Speaker 1: a great time down in Savannah. And yes, Eric of
Speaker 1: the Canine Unit, by all means, my friend, please do
Speaker 1: tell folks that I'll be there, and I'll be there
Speaker 1: probably around lunchtime during the day on Friday, and I'll
Speaker 1: just be hanging out for a few hours and I'll
Speaker 1: leave to do my radio show. That's the way it's
Speaker 1: gonna go. Next up here, Um, Frank writes hi Buck Trump,
Speaker 1: saying I like taking guns away first before due process.
Speaker 1: It is is exactly what cops do or try to
Speaker 1: do every time they come upon somebody with a weapon
Speaker 1: who is obviously a threat. Um okay, Frank, I mean
Speaker 1: there's the there is something about officers safety that is
Speaker 1: actually a provisional law that officers have. This is why
Speaker 1: they can ask you have anything sharp on you, even
Speaker 1: if you haven't committed a crime. Do you have anything
Speaker 1: sharp on you? Do you have anything? And they can
Speaker 1: take that for the purposes of the interaction. Now, like
Speaker 1: I was never uniformed officer or on patrol, So if
Speaker 1: I'm messing up any of the I had the patrol
Speaker 1: guy that I had to read it when I worked
Speaker 1: for the NYPD, But I was not the guy who
Speaker 1: was putting the bracelets on cool term for handcuffs. Uh.
Speaker 1: The other thing is I always like the some of
Speaker 1: the cop terminology that I picked up. Like in New York,
Speaker 1: whatever precinct you work in, somebody will ask you and
Speaker 1: you say, that's what I turn out of. What do
Speaker 1: you turn out of? Turn out of the sixteenth I
Speaker 1: turn out of the nineteenth precinct. And if somebody ever
Speaker 1: says you know, I work for the twenty third precinct.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, you didn't, No, you didn't. By the way,
Speaker 1: this is also applies to a whole lot of c
Speaker 1: I a lingo. I could always tell if somebody is
Speaker 1: either embellishing or not really what they say they are
Speaker 1: because of just certain things that people will say who
Speaker 1: worked in the agency versus people who maybe like showed
Speaker 1: up one day for a meeting's you know, as as
Speaker 1: a government counterpart or something. Anyway, Uh, let's see what
Speaker 1: we got here next in the inbox, Um, Mike, Uh,
Speaker 1: just laugh at a joke you talked about the other day.
Speaker 1: I was in the county team meeting today and it
Speaker 1: was announced that we officially are no longer countering ISSL,
Speaker 1: but we will be defeating ISIS. I thought you would
Speaker 1: enjoy the humor in that distinction. Well, yes, I certainly do.
Speaker 1: And I was always on the right side of this issue.
Speaker 1: I was not saying IL because it was pedantic nonsense
Speaker 1: and there was just no reason because here's you don't
Speaker 1: you okay, let me explain, because that people say a
Speaker 1: buckets about it. No, it's not about disrespect to Israel. Guys, Okay,
Speaker 1: it's it's because this Obama would say is because the
Speaker 1: same reason he it's a Pakistan and total Luban, because
Speaker 1: he thought it sounded more sophisticated. And Obama was the
Speaker 1: prophetsorial genius president, right, So that was what I was
Speaker 1: all about. But levant, the purpose of an acronym is
Speaker 1: to simplify things, as you all know, and those of
Speaker 1: you who are military or former intel like me, now
Speaker 1: that you go through this whole period where you can
Speaker 1: have conversations, it just feels like one acronym after another.
Speaker 1: But levant is a term that that honestly, very few
Speaker 1: people know so to use an acronym, and one of
Speaker 1: the words in the acronym you're choosing to use is
Speaker 1: a complex term that isn't even really a geographic It
Speaker 1: isn't really geographically defined. Uh. It's just bizarre. And I'm
Speaker 1: so glad that we finally got rid of it was
Speaker 1: just Obama, the White House and some of the Executive
Speaker 1: branch agencies because Obama random that we're doing that. So anyway, yes,
Speaker 1: it is. Isis the Islamic state of Iraq and Syria.
Speaker 1: I've been saying for a long time we should rebrand
Speaker 1: the al Qaeda franchise in which is obviously not ISIS,
Speaker 1: but we should. It was jabbattal Nusra, and and now
Speaker 1: there's been some realignments and changes, and I forget what's
Speaker 1: going on with it. The I'm out up on the
Speaker 1: g hottest uh war lord is m that's going on
Speaker 1: inside of Syria right now, as as I have been
Speaker 1: in previous months. But I can tell you that we
Speaker 1: should have just called instead of jibbattal Nusra, which was
Speaker 1: the al Qaeda franchise, could have just called them al
Speaker 1: Qaeda in Syria? Why not a q s right there?
Speaker 1: We do this everywhere else. A QUSA is al Qaida
Speaker 1: South Asia, a Qui al Qaeda Iraq, Like why everyone's're
Speaker 1: gonna go jabuttal Nusra? And then everyone's like, oh do
Speaker 1: I spell it with the apostrophes and it gets all complicated.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Um, I did not get through nearly enough
Speaker 1: of your thoughts today, folks. I promised you tomorrow will
Speaker 1: have a more robust roll call and we'll have cooler
Speaker 1: music too, all right, So John, hold me to it.
Speaker 1: We gotta have cool music tomorrow for a roll call,
Speaker 1: because we're hit here in the Freedom Hunt. We know
Speaker 1: how to party. She'll tie h