Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Some fireworks on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Corey Lewandowski wasn't gonna take it lying down today when
Speaker 1: Democrats tried a little show trial action against him. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about that. And also, oh that's right to New
Speaker 1: York Times is doubling down on the bombshell story that
Speaker 1: blew up in their face. We'll get into that. And
Speaker 1: Iran versus Saudi Arabia is a war on the horizon.
Speaker 1: Who got so much more coming up on the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Bucks SEXTONSI decoding the news and disseminating information.
Speaker 1: Who is actionable intelligence? Make no mistake American? Great, You're
Speaker 1: a great American again. This is the Bucks Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: The CIA analysts. I can speak for three hours without
Speaker 1: a phone call. Try doing that sometime. It is bucks Sex. No,
Speaker 1: he called the Attorney General to ask him to unrecuse
Speaker 1: himself from the Special Counsel's investigation. Session said no. His
Speaker 1: White House counsel said there should be no contact with
Speaker 1: Session because of his recusal. So what does the president do.
Speaker 1: He calls you in to do what everyone else wouldn't do.
Speaker 1: He called you in to do his dirty work in
Speaker 1: secret because he knew it was wrong. Well, we will
Speaker 1: expose the truth. And President can hot eye behind you
Speaker 1: any longer? If you should be here to be telling
Speaker 1: the truth, because the truth will set you the American people.
Speaker 1: I ye back time and the general lady has expired.
Speaker 1: The witness may answer the question. I don't believe there
Speaker 1: was a question, Congressman, Yes there was. Could you repeat
Speaker 1: the question and hear it. I'll be happy to repeat
Speaker 1: the just a rant him, just a rant. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the buck Sex and show everybody. Tombstone's one of my
Speaker 1: favorite movies. Top twenty. I'd say I wouldn't put in
Speaker 1: the top ten, but I think it probably makes in
Speaker 1: the top twel I've seen it one hundred times. There's
Speaker 1: a really there's a bunch of very very good lines
Speaker 1: in it, right, And one of my favorites is when
Speaker 1: Kurt Russell tells the kind of weasily sheriff guy, I
Speaker 1: don't think i'll let you arrest us today, be hand
Speaker 1: remember that, well, Korey Lewandowski, when the Democrats decided to
Speaker 1: go after him today and try to make a scene
Speaker 1: and try to basically stood up there in Capitol Hill
Speaker 1: and said to all the assembled Democrats going after him
Speaker 1: with everything had. I don't think I'll I'll let you
Speaker 1: arrest arrest me today. You could try to do the
Speaker 1: whole You could try to do holding him in contempt,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that's gonna work. That they could
Speaker 1: call the sergeant in arms. Technically they could go for it,
Speaker 1: but that would make quite a scene. Here's the real
Speaker 1: point of all those folks. It was a total mess today,
Speaker 1: a total mess on Capitol Hill. And I think that
Speaker 1: there's a lesson to be learned here. Jerry Nadler, for example,
Speaker 1: got very frustrated at one point by all of this.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what Jerry Nadler said. Ever suggests to the
Speaker 1: President or anyone else that you thought your communications with
Speaker 1: him were official White House communications? Congress from the White
Speaker 1: House is directed not. I'd not disclose the substance of
Speaker 1: any discussions with the President of his advisors to protect
Speaker 1: executive branch concientiality. And I recognize this is not my privilege,
Speaker 1: but I am respecting the White House's decision. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you some questions about your relationship with the president
Speaker 1: after he assumed office. How many times does the President
Speaker 1: asked you to meet him in the White House. The
Speaker 1: White House is directed not disclose the substance of discussions.
Speaker 1: Did you meet with the President alone in the White
Speaker 1: House in twenty seventeen. I don't know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: How many times did he direct you to deliver a
Speaker 1: message to a member of his cabinet? The White House
Speaker 1: is directed not disclose the substance of any discussions. Did
Speaker 1: he ever discuss with you any concerns that he may
Speaker 1: have committed a criminal offense? The White House is directed
Speaker 1: not disclose the substance of any discussions with the President
Speaker 1: or his advisors to protect Executive branch confidentiality. I recognize
Speaker 1: this as not my privilege. I make a point of
Speaker 1: order pursuing to clause to J two one eleven. We
Speaker 1: get it, we get enough enough, we get it, we
Speaker 1: get it. That's more or less what the hearing was today.
Speaker 1: That is what was going on at the House Judiciary
Speaker 1: Committee hearing with Korey Lewandowski, former UH advisor to Trump
Speaker 1: campaign manager for President Trump. And I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I think that Korey Lewandowski was taking the right approach here.
Speaker 1: The process is the punish with them with the processes,
Speaker 1: the punishment with Democrats. We know this, This is why
Speaker 1: they keep bringing back the same different the same narratives
Speaker 1: at all. But let's have more hearings, Let's have more investigation. Oh,
Speaker 1: the FBI didn't investigate Kavana enough. Now they want a
Speaker 1: new investigation. We'll get to the Kavanaugh stuff. The Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller, he didn't investigate enough around around Trump
Speaker 1: and Russia collusion and an obstruction, And let's have more investigation.
Speaker 1: There's never enough investigation because it's just harassment, it's undermining.
Speaker 1: It's the absence of good faith, the absence of seriousness,
Speaker 1: of decency, of worthwhile purpose from these congressional Democrats, just
Speaker 1: just needling, going after poking at every person around Trump,
Speaker 1: just trying to do everything that they can to try
Speaker 1: to undermine them, rattle them. And so Korey Lundowski was
Speaker 1: just not having it today. It's like I've been told
Speaker 1: by the White House not to answer your a coequal
Speaker 1: branch of government. Take it up with the White House,
Speaker 1: Korey Lundowski, all these guys, they've already spoken to the
Speaker 1: Special Counsel that they've been through. How much interrogation is enough?
Speaker 1: You know, what if? What if Congress wanted to have
Speaker 1: somebody to call a witness, you know, every day the
Speaker 1: Congress was in session. I mean, is there a point
Speaker 1: at which it's obvious that this is harassment to everybody,
Speaker 1: because it should be there right now, Let's have more
Speaker 1: more hearings on impeachment. Let's talk. They have the full
Speaker 1: report for Muller. They have the report, and today there
Speaker 1: were some moments where you know, they were telling they
Speaker 1: were telling Korey Lewandowski, you know, oh, well, well you
Speaker 1: need to read this, and he just said, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna read it. I'm not gonna play your game.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna stand here and or sit here. Rather,
Speaker 1: it's not standing. I'm not gonna sit here and just
Speaker 1: jump when you say jump, do whatever you tell me
Speaker 1: to do. He's a citizen, he has rights. He doesn't
Speaker 1: have to sign up for the humiliation humiliation session that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are insisting on. So he stood his ground.
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I've I've never I've never been
Speaker 1: impressed by Kory Lewandowski before. Now that's not to say
Speaker 1: that I just I've never been impressed by the guy.
Speaker 1: I've never heard him say anything particularly insightful. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I also I've interviewen a couple of times.
Speaker 1: Nice enough guy, fine, But today I was like, wow,
Speaker 1: I kind of understand now why Trump feels the way
Speaker 1: he does about Korey Lewandowski. He's a fighter. This is nonsense.
Speaker 1: The Democrats don't. The Democrats in Congress don't deserve respect
Speaker 1: when doing the things that they were doing today. Oh,
Speaker 1: read this section of the mull report. It was all
Speaker 1: about just trying to get their their cable news moment. Oh,
Speaker 1: look at that sound bite, really showing us how strong
Speaker 1: they are at the resistance. It's not about good government,
Speaker 1: it's thought about fixing anything. And in fact, Korey Lewandowski
Speaker 1: made that case in conclusion. And it's sad to say
Speaker 1: this country has spent over three years and forty million
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars on these investigations, and it's now clear that
Speaker 1: the investigation was populated by many Trump haters who had
Speaker 1: their own agenda to take down a duly elected president
Speaker 1: of United States. As for actual collusion or conspiracy, there
Speaker 1: was none. What there has been, however, is harassment of
Speaker 1: this president. From the day he won the election. We
Speaker 1: as a nation would be better served if elected officials
Speaker 1: like yourself concentrated your efforts to combat the true crises
Speaker 1: facing our country as opposed to going down rabbit holes
Speaker 1: like this hearing, instead of focusing on petty and personal politics.
Speaker 1: The committee, folks, on solving the challenges of this generation.
Speaker 1: Imagine how many people we could help or how many
Speaker 1: lives we could save. Democrats don't want to do any
Speaker 1: of that stuff. They don't want to try to fix problems.
Speaker 1: They want to create more problems for anybody who ever
Speaker 1: worked for Donald Trump. They want to drag them through
Speaker 1: them all. They want to ruin them. I mean, look
Speaker 1: at look at how the Democrats do their version of
Speaker 1: opposition to the Republican Party at this point, their ideas,
Speaker 1: their responses that are supposed to make things better for
Speaker 1: the American people, that's all an afterthought. What they really
Speaker 1: want to do is just destroy the other side. It's
Speaker 1: just a ferocious hatred for Trump, for anybody who's worked
Speaker 1: for Trump, and they want to humiliate people and they
Speaker 1: want to destroy them if they have no common decency
Speaker 1: whatsoever in this process. And so that's why when krey
Speaker 1: Lewandowski decides that he's going to take the position that
Speaker 1: this is a sham, that the people that are asking
Speaker 1: these questions have no interest in getting to the truth,
Speaker 1: that this isn't about illuminating any subject for the American people,
Speaker 1: that this is just meant to humiliate someone, to make
Speaker 1: them make their life more difficult, in order to prop
Speaker 1: up the political fortunes of a bunch of status Democrat
Speaker 1: loons who are completely consumed with anti Trump hatred. He's
Speaker 1: just not having it. You know, they do this thing
Speaker 1: where they ask him a question, and I guess members
Speaker 1: of Congress because oh, it's in the Congress, and you know,
Speaker 1: people really have to treat it like it's this sacred place.
Speaker 1: I mean, Congress is full of clowns. Unfortunately, there are
Speaker 1: clowns on the Republican side too, but not as many
Speaker 1: as the Democrats side, but full of clowns. And that's
Speaker 1: really on us. I suppose the American people. We're voting
Speaker 1: for them. So I'm sitting here in New York and
Speaker 1: we're not exactly putting forward the best congressman and congresswoman here.
Speaker 1: I'm coming to you from the place that gave America
Speaker 1: elected official AOC. So she's the boss. Apparently, at least
Speaker 1: of what one congressional district. So Corey decided that he
Speaker 1: was going to punch back. He was gonna fight back.
Speaker 1: And you could tell Democrats were a little flummixed by this.
Speaker 1: They're used to just being able to talk over witnesses,
Speaker 1: you know, oh, the Muller Report, let's talk about more.
Speaker 1: They ask questions, they don't want answers. They ask questions
Speaker 1: merely as a form of attack so that they can
Speaker 1: then overtalk and override whatever the response was going to be.
Speaker 1: And this is, for example, the classic CNN anchor maneuver
Speaker 1: that I used to deal with. Explain to me why
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is racist and worse than Hitler, the CNN
Speaker 1: anchor would ask, and I'd say, well, I think that's
Speaker 1: really a proproblem. But he's worse than Hitler. We all
Speaker 1: know this. Let's have another guest come in and say it.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what the members of Congress do. It's
Speaker 1: like they're all these Democrats are auditioning for, you know,
Speaker 1: a little weekend show at MSNBC or there, or they're
Speaker 1: a morning show at CNN or whatever. They're not being
Speaker 1: respectful to Lui Is And it's so funny too. You
Speaker 1: see the way that Democrats when when someone like like
Speaker 1: James Coomey is testifying in front of the Congress, or
Speaker 1: or someone like Bob Mullard's home hush tones, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, serve for your service. What you've done is amazing.
Speaker 1: So you're just such a patriot. Now tell us why
Speaker 1: Donald Trump should be destroyed and everybody around him has
Speaker 1: betrayed the country. I mean, you know, this is what
Speaker 1: they do, and it's so tiresome. And I can imagine
Speaker 1: for people that are engaged in what's going on in
Speaker 1: the country and I don't know about politics insofar as
Speaker 1: it affects them and it affects their families and their communities,
Speaker 1: they've got to look at this and just think, is
Speaker 1: this the best we can do? And if not that
Speaker 1: at least they can look at Corey Lewandowski with the
Speaker 1: line of the day here when Eric Swalwell, who is
Speaker 1: just he's a he's just an empty suit, guy's got nothing.
Speaker 1: When Swalwell decides to do exactly what all these Democrats
Speaker 1: were doing, just trying to poke at Lewandowski, trying to
Speaker 1: make him look bad. Corey for the win, I'm happy
Speaker 1: to have you read a congressman well, why don't you
Speaker 1: want to read it? Mister Lewindowski, I think you should
Speaker 1: afford me the same privilege you afforded Director Muller. Would
Speaker 1: you like to read it? No, you're welcome to read it.
Speaker 1: Are you ashamed of the words that you wrote down?
Speaker 1: President Swallowell, I'm very happy of what I've written, But
Speaker 1: you're welcome to read it if you'd like you. Are
Speaker 1: you ashamed to read it out loud? I'm not ashamed
Speaker 1: of anything of my life, Congressman, an't you then? Why
Speaker 1: don't you read the words? Congressman, I've asked and answered
Speaker 1: your questions. Why won't you read the words aloud? I've
Speaker 1: asked and answered your question. Courressman, if you'd like to
Speaker 1: read the words, you're welcome to. Well, you were ashamed
Speaker 1: to read them out loud, and you didn't deliver those
Speaker 1: words to the person the president asked you to. President Swallowell,
Speaker 1: I think that's the only time that that guy's going
Speaker 1: to hear that for a very long time. That was
Speaker 1: fun telling him read these words? Do this? Do that?
Speaker 1: What an embarrassment. The embarrassment here is all on the
Speaker 1: Democrat side. I'm acting like a bunch of total jerks today,
Speaker 1: all of them no respect, no decency, and by acting
Speaker 1: the way that the Democrats were, they undermine the very
Speaker 1: institution that gives them their authority and their power in
Speaker 1: the first place. But there's another lesson here. We don't
Speaker 1: have to just allow the other side to constantly weaponize
Speaker 1: the process against us. We don't have to just be
Speaker 1: the ones that say, well, these are the rules, and
Speaker 1: we always play by the rules exactly as written in
Speaker 1: the best spirit possible. So you know, that's what we're
Speaker 1: gonna do. You know, look look at what the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: for example, did during the Muller probe. Gave them you know,
Speaker 1: no claims of executive privilege during the Muller probe, access
Speaker 1: to every whatever, documents, all this stuff. Did that get
Speaker 1: them anything? Was there any good faith that resulted from
Speaker 1: that from the Democrats? No, You give the Democrats something
Speaker 1: out of good faith and they just think that you're weak.
Speaker 1: They think that there's an opening. Now. So I like
Speaker 1: the way Lewandowski did it, you know, go Leonitis style.
Speaker 1: I'll come and take it. I mean, you know, if
Speaker 1: they want to fight, give them a fight. And this
Speaker 1: should be the way that everybody who goes in front
Speaker 1: of Congress, and they shouldn't just sit there and yes,
Speaker 1: yes sir, no sir, yes, ma'am, no, ma'am. They're gonna
Speaker 1: make fun of you, they're gonna talk over you, they're
Speaker 1: gonna act in ways that are inappropriate. Make them call
Speaker 1: the sergeant at arms or whatever in the Congress and
Speaker 1: arrest you. Let's see how that goes. We got a
Speaker 1: whole lot more show. By the way, we can take
Speaker 1: some calls because we have Brewster Mark and producer John
Speaker 1: here in studio. So if you want to call in,
Speaker 1: we are live. If you would like to call in today,
Speaker 1: we can screen the calls, we can throw them on air,
Speaker 1: we can chat eight four four nine hundred two eight
Speaker 1: two five eight four four nine hundred buck. We hope
Speaker 1: that is John is at the right number. We don't
Speaker 1: give it out that often. It's like the secret now,
Speaker 1: it's like the formula for Coca Cola. We don't We
Speaker 1: don't share it. Eight four four nine hundred two eight
Speaker 1: two five. We will be right back today about your
Speaker 1: favorite football team. I'm not Patriots. Patriots, so you're pretty
Speaker 1: happy right now. Right Tom's a winner. Again. The problem
Speaker 1: we have here is we don't follow procedure because if
Speaker 1: it gets in the way of a good story, we
Speaker 1: don't like it. Around here. Tom is a winner. Tom
Speaker 1: Brady gets a shout out from Corey Lewardowski today. You know,
Speaker 1: I saw a video of Rob Gronkowski firing a mini gun.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you it made firing a minigun look
Speaker 1: like a lot of fun. It's making the rounds on
Speaker 1: social media. So I didn't know this. So every single
Speaker 1: line lit up right away as soon as we ask
Speaker 1: for calls, so we'll start Apparently people want to call
Speaker 1: in because we got we got calls. Every line's lit
Speaker 1: and we got like seven lines in here. So we
Speaker 1: will take some calls now and after the break two
Speaker 1: and then we'll get us some other things. First up,
Speaker 1: Matt in Ohio. Hey, Buck, good to talk to you, Budd,
Speaker 1: you too, Man, thanks for calling in. Hey. I wanted
Speaker 1: to bring something up that I have not heard anybody
Speaker 1: since the election of President Trump. Bring up one of
Speaker 1: the best biggest victories. Think he's been able to accomplish
Speaker 1: and only he could do this. Two thousand and eight,
Speaker 1: I was changing jobs and my financial adviser told me.
Speaker 1: I was telling him it seems like we're coming down
Speaker 1: on hard times in two thousand and eight, and he says, yeah,
Speaker 1: but Matt, you have to understand that corporations right now
Speaker 1: are record levels, cash rich like never have ever been before.
Speaker 1: The problem is they're hanging on to their money. And
Speaker 1: since that year, the government and the Democrats have been
Speaker 1: trying to find ways to get the capitalists to release
Speaker 1: their money to energize the economy. And President Obama couldn't
Speaker 1: do it in two terms. We got sixty seconds, Matt,
Speaker 1: So we got to get to a point here. Okay,
Speaker 1: The point is President Trump was able to do it.
Speaker 1: He was able to do it by giving them a
Speaker 1: reason to invest back into the country. He made several
Speaker 1: maneuvers when he got elected to bring work back into
Speaker 1: the US and keep work here in the US, and
Speaker 1: they had to reinvest to do it. I do remember, Matt,
Speaker 1: thanks for calling from Ohio, my friend. I do remember
Speaker 1: people saying at the end of the Obama last couple
Speaker 1: of years of the obaministration, it was, you know, get
Speaker 1: ready for GDP to not be that great, get ready
Speaker 1: for an economic future that's not going to be what
Speaker 1: it used to be. And then Trump comes in and
Speaker 1: it's like, Oh, of course the economy is booming. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's the Obama economy now, I don't think so. We'll
Speaker 1: take some more calls eight four four nine hundred two
Speaker 1: eight two five eight four four nine hundred, Buck, we'll
Speaker 1: light them up. We're live. We'll be right back, all right,
Speaker 1: team lines lit. We're taking some calls, not because we
Speaker 1: are live here in New York City. On the Buck
Speaker 1: Section show. We will get to the possibility of a
Speaker 1: war between Saudi Arabia and Iran, hopefully not a war
Speaker 1: between the US and Iran. We'll discuss that. Also, we
Speaker 1: got a whole lot more fallout from the Cavanaugh bombshell
Speaker 1: that blew back in the faces of those who thought
Speaker 1: it was going to take down the Supreme Court justice
Speaker 1: or at least further hurt his reputation. We will talk
Speaker 1: about that and then uh, we got some other interesting
Speaker 1: things here. Two. Um. But first matta, Oh wait, Charles,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry Charles in Massachusetts. Y're up next? Or what's up? Yes? Well,
Speaker 1: the reason I'm calling is because of a lot of
Speaker 1: concern about the situation, as you say, in between Saudi
Speaker 1: or Radio and Iran. And the fact is is that
Speaker 1: if we get involved with a bombing rage in Iran.
Speaker 1: Of course we would have with Russia and China supporting Iran.
Speaker 1: And the result is that if we get involved, then
Speaker 1: it'll just give the Democrats and everybody a chance to
Speaker 1: oppose Trump, and it may very well jeopardize his reelection.
Speaker 1: He's in other words, if we get into a war,
Speaker 1: he's out. This is what I've been hearing. It's a well,
Speaker 1: it's a big it's a big risk for him. Look,
Speaker 1: it's a big risk for the American people. First and foremost, right,
Speaker 1: we don't want another war. We've had enough of these wars.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, the president really broke with the GOP
Speaker 1: establishment on foreign policy. That having a muscular foreign policy
Speaker 1: where people can't mess with America isn't the same thing as, Okay,
Speaker 1: this country's got problems, let's go in to topple the
Speaker 1: dictator and try to rebuild this country largely from the
Speaker 1: ground up. That's not the same thing. And Trump had
Speaker 1: a different approach, a more non interventionist, which is not
Speaker 1: the same as an isolationist, a non interventionist approach to issues,
Speaker 1: particularly in the Middle East. So yeah, if he gets
Speaker 1: drawn into a war, Charles to your point in Massachusetts,
Speaker 1: that would be I'm sorry, in the Middle East. You're
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, that would be a betrayal in a sense
Speaker 1: of a major campaign promise. So he can't do that.
Speaker 1: I mean politically, it's a terrible idea, and it's a
Speaker 1: bad idea just because it's a war that we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be fighting. So I hear man, Charles, thank you for
Speaker 1: calling in, Tim in Ohio, double Ohio tonight. What's going on? Tim? Hey,
Speaker 1: that's been gosh a couple of months since I talked
Speaker 1: to you last Well, great to have you back, my friend. Hey, listen, uh,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you something. I gotta two clips are
Speaker 1: Brad Pascal. I was listening out there. But we want
Speaker 1: to get the president elected. Okay, So these are just
Speaker 1: my my kind of key ideas that get it gone,
Speaker 1: all right. Number one, I've worked for steel workers, but
Speaker 1: I worked in manufacturing under middle medical manufacturing, but steel
Speaker 1: workers I know that actually worked for steel production. It's slow.
Speaker 1: And also I'm a I'm a hobby farmer, but I
Speaker 1: have a lot of real farmers per se, and I'm saying, hey,
Speaker 1: what's a pulse man? You guys pissed off? Because it's
Speaker 1: China deal. You've hissnel to the trade deals. And you
Speaker 1: know what, we know Donald Trump's trying to do the
Speaker 1: right thing. Giving him time. So here's the deal, though,
Speaker 1: He's got to go into I think, on his next
Speaker 1: couple of trips, go into rust belt areas and tell
Speaker 1: them we're turning to get this MCA pushed through, that
Speaker 1: everything's going to be better for everybody wants mcass through.
Speaker 1: Flip this thing on the Democrats, same in the Democrats
Speaker 1: for not helping out the farmers and the workers and
Speaker 1: manufactures of this country. He's got to start flipping this
Speaker 1: thing one into areas and purposing on them and one
Speaker 1: of them putting it up, Nancy putting it up for
Speaker 1: a vote. You know what I'm saying. I hear you, man,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, Jim for calling from Ohio. And yes,
Speaker 1: I think that there has been a uh how do
Speaker 1: I put this? There's well, there's certainly been a delusion
Speaker 1: on the left for a while and among the Democrats
Speaker 1: that the status quo on trade was good. That's not true.
Speaker 1: Trump is right that the status quo on trade with
Speaker 1: China specifically, but also with some other countries was unacceptable,
Speaker 1: needed to be changed, needed to be updated, or needed
Speaker 1: to be dramatically shifted, as we see with China, where
Speaker 1: we have these ongoing now this back and forth on
Speaker 1: making making a fair deal with China un necessity on
Speaker 1: their end by saying, Okay, if you're gonna play rough,
Speaker 1: we're gonna play rough. So I think that there is
Speaker 1: some some wisdom in Trump getting he's going to though.
Speaker 1: I mean this to Tim's point. He will be telling
Speaker 1: the American people, and specifically farmers and steel workers, people
Speaker 1: that have been directly affected by the tariffs, by the
Speaker 1: trade war, which called a trade war seems a little
Speaker 1: extreme given how small a component of our economy is
Speaker 1: and how limited has been up to this point. But
Speaker 1: let's say the trade mute that is playing out via tariffs.
Speaker 1: Trump will make the case that this was short term
Speaker 1: pain for long term gain, and that ultimately he's doing
Speaker 1: what we always say we want politicians to do. We
Speaker 1: want politicians to lead, we want them to make tough
Speaker 1: choices that need to be made. Right. That's what he's
Speaker 1: doing on China. And is he gonna win? I hope so.
Speaker 1: But he is doing something the right thing to do. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's true as well. James and Boston. What's
Speaker 1: going on? James and Boston. Hello, Buck, Hey buddy, before
Speaker 1: it gets lost, shield tie shield tie love love the show.
Speaker 1: Thank you, thank you so much, pleasure. Thanks thanks for
Speaker 1: taking the call. And I know that I know that
Speaker 1: the audience has split on taking calls and not, but
Speaker 1: I appreciate you taking minds. Uh, taxes in two quick
Speaker 1: very more, two more quick points. If I may, if
Speaker 1: I can, I'll be very efficient. I know you're a
Speaker 1: student of history, very clear, You're You're terrific. You're you're
Speaker 1: the future talk radio, the president also, but definitely the future. Um.
Speaker 1: The income tax is not what we think it is.
Speaker 1: It dates back to eighteen sixty two. It's an exercise tax.
Speaker 1: You can research it if I may give a website,
Speaker 1: Lost horizons dot com. Okay, and uh, if you if
Speaker 1: you'll do the research, you'll find out that it's only
Speaker 1: people exercising federal privilege who owed federal income tax. I
Speaker 1: don't want to get you know, overly complex, but for
Speaker 1: those that are interesting, I hope you do it yourself
Speaker 1: because I know you'd love to stop paying taxes and
Speaker 1: you can do it lawfully. I've been studying this for
Speaker 1: three years. I've filed. I cannot recommend anybody try this,
Speaker 1: be honest with you. I'm pretty sure that oh gosh,
Speaker 1: you cameber the guy's name now. But there's a there's
Speaker 1: a finance guy that I used to do some work
Speaker 1: with back the day at the Blaze, and his dad
Speaker 1: tried this and they send him to prison for a
Speaker 1: long time. So I would not recommend this. Well, Buck,
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is, don't do it. Research it, Okay,
Speaker 1: research it comfortable, then you can do it. To two
Speaker 1: more quick points. Don't be comfortable with it as from
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, but go ahead, I'll be, I'll be,
Speaker 1: I'll be real fast. I first interacted with you on Facebook,
Speaker 1: and I'm the guy that, yes, can correct your celiac.
Speaker 1: I won't go any further, but I can do that,
Speaker 1: all right. And last point and last point, uh, And
Speaker 1: I've been I've had the tools. This is what is
Speaker 1: my mission of life is helping people heal. Last point
Speaker 1: is the second Amendment. Talk to some of your friends
Speaker 1: who've commanded troops in the military. If the government's coming
Speaker 1: after us, they're not come with them with them for it.
Speaker 1: They're gonna come with Abrahams. They're gonna come with a
Speaker 1: Patchrie helicopters eight tens. So the right to bear arms,
Speaker 1: we would need to turn back Tyranny. We'd need Stinger milions,
Speaker 1: we'd need javelin men. I'm not sure that's true either,
Speaker 1: But James, I do appreciate your colm words about the show.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much for calling in. Um all right, you
Speaker 1: know we we we open up the lines. If he
Speaker 1: could cure Celiac disease, he should be a billionaire. And
Speaker 1: if we need Stinger missiles, I need to know why
Speaker 1: we can't pacify Afghanistan. They don't. I mean they have
Speaker 1: like one hundred Stinger missiles that don't work anymore because
Speaker 1: the batteries are dead. But you know, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Should we do one more? Should we do it? You
Speaker 1: know what? I think we're gonna get back to the show.
Speaker 1: I think we're gonna go back through the actual radio
Speaker 1: show here, so a team. When we come back, let's
Speaker 1: discuss where these where the latest is with the New
Speaker 1: York Times debacle, and then also we'll get into some
Speaker 1: of the Iran versus Saudi Arabia situation. So stay with me,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. I think this is sort of
Speaker 1: ground zero for why so many people mistrust the media,
Speaker 1: why the New York Times has the nickname for New
Speaker 1: York slimes with many people in conservative circles. The Times
Speaker 1: actually had to run an editor's note following up, how
Speaker 1: did this vital fact get left out? Okay, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for the question. We're eager to clear the
Speaker 1: air on this. First of all, there was no desire
Speaker 1: to withhold important information from our readers. We have all
Speaker 1: of it in the book, and the essay is an
Speaker 1: adaptation of the book that, of course we had to
Speaker 1: edit for length and clarity. The thrust of the essay
Speaker 1: was about probably a bad word choice. The point of
Speaker 1: the essay was about Deborah Ramirez, a woman who had
Speaker 1: gone to college with Justice Kavanaugh and had this experience
Speaker 1: where she alleged that he exposed himself to her and
Speaker 1: it was a very troubling event, and we lay out
Speaker 1: all the reasons why that was not just the moment itself,
Speaker 1: but the experience she was having at Yale being very difficult.
Speaker 1: Within that, we talked about this new, as yet unreported
Speaker 1: allegation because we thought it was germane it was a
Speaker 1: similar type of situation to the Ramirez one. During the
Speaker 1: editing process, there was an oversight, and this key detail
Speaker 1: about the fact that the woman herself has told friends
Speaker 1: she doesn't remember it and has not wanted to talk
Speaker 1: about it got cut and it was an oversight and
Speaker 1: the Times adjusted it and we're very sorry that it happened.
Speaker 1: And not buying it. That is bull That is not
Speaker 1: something that you or I should believe for one second,
Speaker 1: my friends. First of all, if it was an oversight,
Speaker 1: why did it take them over twenty four hours after
Speaker 1: it was published to add that editor's note. If it
Speaker 1: was just if it just got cut in the normal
Speaker 1: editing process. First of all, it takes a very special
Speaker 1: kind of journalist to think that the way do you
Speaker 1: enhance your journalistic integrity when it has been called into
Speaker 1: questions to say, oh, it was my editor's fault. Oh really,
Speaker 1: it was the editor's fault. That's very interesting because it
Speaker 1: wasn't a little detail. This wasn't a spelling error, this
Speaker 1: wasn't a typo that was that was a naughty word
Speaker 1: by accident or something you know that can happen that
Speaker 1: then that can be the editor's all right, but this
Speaker 1: was and absolutely critical, essential detail that undermined the entire
Speaker 1: point of the article, which was that, oh, yeah, we
Speaker 1: corroborated Deborah Emirazes allegations against Kavanaugh. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: there's this other allegation that seems very similar, and this
Speaker 1: other allegation added to the Debi Ramirez allegation. You know
Speaker 1: that they all remember, they always want multiple accusers because
Speaker 1: multiple accusers feels, at least to the public, like, well,
Speaker 1: there must be some truth to this. Now, even though
Speaker 1: with Kavanaugh there were three accusers and they were all
Speaker 1: they were all wrong. They were not telling true stories,
Speaker 1: different degrees of crazy in terms of the details, the
Speaker 1: lack of details, the lack of corroboration, and different degrees
Speaker 1: of outlandish. But none of them had credible stories. Remain
Speaker 1: accusers against Kavanaugh. And oh remember it wasn't just three accusers.
Speaker 1: There was also the Kavanaugh raped day woman in a
Speaker 1: boat in Rhode Island accuser that came forward to the Senate.
Speaker 1: You didn't hear about her, You know why, because even
Speaker 1: Senate Democrats knew that's gonna be tough, because he's never
Speaker 1: been to Rhode Island at that point in his life.
Speaker 1: So if we can't put him in the state, if
Speaker 1: he can say, definitely, I've never been in the state
Speaker 1: of Rhode Island up to the point when this allegedly happened.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, I have never been to Montana.
Speaker 1: So it's pretty easy for me to prove that, like,
Speaker 1: I've never killed anybody in Montana. But there were other people.
Speaker 1: Did she have a right to be believed? The woman
Speaker 1: who claimed that she was raped in a boat in
Speaker 1: Rhode Island, did she have a right to be But no,
Speaker 1: she did not. She had a right to be told
Speaker 1: you're lying, go away, And that's what happened. So remember
Speaker 1: that there is such a thing as entire not credible
Speaker 1: and malicious. And oh, by the way, there can be
Speaker 1: legal penalties for that if you swear under oath, if
Speaker 1: you swear out a statement against somebody to the police,
Speaker 1: and those legal penalties should be enforced. Perhaps that's a
Speaker 1: little further down the line here in the conversation. Let's
Speaker 1: get back into the New York Times debacle. So they
Speaker 1: today tried to double down. They were not backing. Okay,
Speaker 1: I guess they feel like they have no choice. I mean,
Speaker 1: the New York Times, if you are paying attention and
Speaker 1: and you're not a leftist who believes that anything that
Speaker 1: advances the cause of the left is inherently justified, then
Speaker 1: you find yourself saying The New York Times cannot be
Speaker 1: trusted on politically sensitive issues. When I trust the New
Speaker 1: York Times to tell me, you know where I can
Speaker 1: get the best ruben sandwich in New York City, I mean,
Speaker 1: the food stuff that they do is good, and I
Speaker 1: think they probably don't I think they probably don't cheat
Speaker 1: on the weather, although heaven forbid we start talking about
Speaker 1: climate change. You know, there's some utility to the New
Speaker 1: York Times. Some of you are saying, yes for the
Speaker 1: bottom of my bird or a rabbit cage. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are some things you can do with the New
Speaker 1: York Times where the politics don't really matter. But anything
Speaker 1: that is even remotely politically sensitive and then includes the
Speaker 1: arts book review, you know, you name it. It is
Speaker 1: a left wing propaganda machine, full stop. And that was
Speaker 1: what you saw yesterday with the this claim of an oversight. Ooh,
Speaker 1: in the editing process, we just happened to miss this
Speaker 1: absolutely essential detail. You know what else they seem to
Speaker 1: leave out of that essay? Which comes up in the book.
Speaker 1: And by the way, will be joined by Tiana Lowe,
Speaker 1: who's really an up and coming star reporter over at
Speaker 1: the writer over at the Washington Examiner. You know what,
Speaker 1: She's done research on this and she read through the
Speaker 1: whole book, so she'll join us to tell us what
Speaker 1: we need to know about the education of Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Leland Kaiser was the best friend of Christine blasi Ford
Speaker 1: and Leland Kaiser according to this book that just came out,
Speaker 1: and they didn't want to focus on this part of
Speaker 1: the story, but this is information. I believe this was
Speaker 1: already out there a bit. And and thank heavens, Molly
Speaker 1: Hemingway who wrote her book before, and Kerry Savorino, who
Speaker 1: wrote their book before this one came out. They've already
Speaker 1: done all the research. And they're the ones who are
Speaker 1: pointing this out. They're the ones who are pointing out
Speaker 1: when these unbelievable lapses in the liberal anti Kavanaugh narrative,
Speaker 1: you know, the unbelievable lapses and omissions of essential fact
Speaker 1: or fabrications even occur. At least Carrie and Molly are
Speaker 1: out there saying, Nope, that's not what happened. Nope, that's
Speaker 1: not true. That's why they had to append that editor's note.
Speaker 1: But Leland kai Or had some there's some very interesting
Speaker 1: things about her situation. One is that she has more
Speaker 1: recently come forward and said that she just did not
Speaker 1: believe does not believe that this happened. This is Christine
Speaker 1: Blasi Ford's best friend who was supposed to be at
Speaker 1: the party, doesn't believe that it happened. And beyond that,
Speaker 1: and this maybe tells us even more, said that she
Speaker 1: was subject to the worst kinds of threats, intimidation, abuse
Speaker 1: in order to lie and back up Christine blasi Ford.
Speaker 1: That's what the left was reduced to here, my friends,
Speaker 1: finding innocent people beyond Kavanaugh saying you better back up
Speaker 1: this woman who's either crazy or lying or else. Radicals
Speaker 1: have a habit, a habit of finding a way to
Speaker 1: justify anything that they want. You will probably be familiar,
Speaker 1: I'm sure with the Castro quote. Within the revolution, everything
Speaker 1: against the revolution, nothing. Any time in the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: somebody was to become a target of the state and
Speaker 1: enemy of the state, they would say that the person
Speaker 1: was a counter revolutionary. And that's all you had to say.
Speaker 1: If you were a counter revolutionary, then you were against
Speaker 1: the single most important purpose of life within the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: which was the revolution itself, the workers paradise that would come,
Speaker 1: the socialist Marxist utopia of the future. How could you,
Speaker 1: how could anything be allowed to stand in the way
Speaker 1: of that. When radicals decide something is important enough, then
Speaker 1: they can justify absolutely anything. I bring this up just
Speaker 1: because I do not think it is a stretch at all.
Speaker 1: When you see, when you think about how devoted to
Speaker 1: the cause of abortion and Roe v Wade, many particularly
Speaker 1: many women of a certain age roughly you know, the
Speaker 1: Boomers and a gen X and gen y, when you
Speaker 1: see how devoted to abortion they are. They believe it
Speaker 1: is sacred. They believe that they would enter a period
Speaker 1: of virtual enslavement as women if they did not have
Speaker 1: the right to term it a pregnancy at any point
Speaker 1: during the nine months of a pregnancy up to and
Speaker 1: including the day of birth. So when you understand the
Speaker 1: radicalism behind the mentality, then of course someone could justify
Speaker 1: in their own head ruining a man's reputation, lying about
Speaker 1: someone ridiculing him, destroying him in front of the entire country,
Speaker 1: in front of his own family, sure, you may find
Speaker 1: that that's unsavory, might make you uncomfortable, But if you're
Speaker 1: a true revolutionary, if you really believe that a fundamental
Speaker 1: woman's right is on the line, as an abortion radical,
Speaker 1: what would you not be willing to do? What would
Speaker 1: you not be willing to say? We know it came
Speaker 1: out recently that Christine blasi Ford's own lawyer said that
Speaker 1: one of the reasons. Now they would say, oh, it's
Speaker 1: just one of them, but one of the motivations was
Speaker 1: to protect rov wait, that's why. That's why she felt
Speaker 1: the need to step forward. So there there's no question
Speaker 1: that there was a political motivation that The only outstanding
Speaker 1: issue is was that political motivation so powerful that it
Speaker 1: was used to wipe away any concern, any compunction, any
Speaker 1: hesitation at the most horrific and despicable character assassination of
Speaker 1: a good man that I think any of us can
Speaker 1: can think of it. It was truly heinous. They try
Speaker 1: to do and are still trying to to Kavanaugh and
Speaker 1: the members of the Democrat Congress who are saying that
Speaker 1: they want to impeach Kavanaugh, that they want to have
Speaker 1: a new investigation, even they should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: they are I'm sure not in the least ashamed of themselves,
Speaker 1: because why the most important, the most important thing to
Speaker 1: them is that there is a symbolism here that if
Speaker 1: nothing else, if you are in the Kavanaugh seat, if
Speaker 1: you're the person that the left asides is a threat
Speaker 1: to the agenda, you will go through hell and even
Speaker 1: if you survive, you will be scarred for life by it.
Speaker 1: That's the message that has been sent here. Even though
Speaker 1: Kavanas sits on the Supreme Court, the message that I
Speaker 1: think Justice Roberts, for example, who also sits on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, pays very close attention to. He is a waffler,
Speaker 1: he is an institutionalist. He's somebody who does not want
Speaker 1: mean things to be said about him in the press
Speaker 1: and on law campuses all across the country. Don't think
Speaker 1: that the left gets nothing out of all of this. Sure,
Speaker 1: there's a kind of psychotic Catharsis for them, of just
Speaker 1: trying to destroy somebody they disagree with. But it's more
Speaker 1: than that. They have sent a message, and the message
Speaker 1: will resonate and as people consider the possibility of Ruth
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsburg's seat at some point undetermined in the future
Speaker 1: opening up what has happened here with Kavanaugh, they will
Speaker 1: be willing to replay this. I think they'll be willing
Speaker 1: to go at this again. But to the point about
Speaker 1: hardliners and revolutionaries being willing to do whatever it takes,
Speaker 1: because nothing can be more important than the revolution. I
Speaker 1: just bring you the some of the additional information that
Speaker 1: has come to light now about these two writers who
Speaker 1: put out this book at the New York The New
Speaker 1: York Times writers now are authors of this book, and
Speaker 1: the formidable and wonderful Molly Hemingway is on the case
Speaker 1: once again, and she writes the following. Robin Poel Graben
Speaker 1: and Kate Kelly wrote the much discussed and later corrected
Speaker 1: essay in The New York Times. A New Atlantic published
Speaker 1: adapted excerpt of the book attempts to resurrect Poel, Grayban
Speaker 1: and Kelly's anti Kavanaugh smears, but once again has a
Speaker 1: major error. In a section explaining why they believe the
Speaker 1: accusers despite the lack of evidence, they write that their
Speaker 1: emotional reaction to the claims was that the claims rang true,
Speaker 1: but they get major facts wrong. This is from the book.
Speaker 1: Remember the book that the essay adaptation left out that
Speaker 1: they that the woman has no memory of it, according
Speaker 1: to her friends, and has not gone on the record
Speaker 1: to say that this thing ever occurred. Not Ramira as
Speaker 1: the other the other woman quote using Martha's common sense test.
Speaker 1: The claims of Deborah Ramirez, while not proven by witnesses,
Speaker 1: also ring true to us. Ramirez, who was a Yale
Speaker 1: classmate of Kavanaugh, said he drunkenly thrust his blank at
Speaker 1: her during a party in their freshman year dormitory. The
Speaker 1: people who allegedly witnessed the event, Kavanaugh's friends, Kevin Genda,
Speaker 1: David Todd, and David White, have kept mum about it.
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh has denied it. HM, that's interesting. It's interesting because
Speaker 1: it's not true. It's pretty important, isn't it. The implication
Speaker 1: here is that, well, Kavanaugh's friends who are there, they
Speaker 1: haven't said anything about it. The problem is there was
Speaker 1: the New Yorker article that was the first attempt, the
Speaker 1: first character assassination shot taken in Kavanaugh's direction on the
Speaker 1: Ramirez case, not the Blasi Ford smear, but in that
Speaker 1: regional New Yorker piece remembered by Ronan Pharaoh and Jane Mayer,
Speaker 1: this is what they wrote. So this is already out
Speaker 1: there on the record, has been for a long time. Quote.
Speaker 1: One of the male classmates who Ramirez said egged on
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh denied any memory of the party. I quote, I
Speaker 1: don't think Brett would flash himself to Debbi or anyone
Speaker 1: else for that matter. Asked why he thought Ramirez was
Speaker 1: making the allegation up, he responded, I have no idea.
Speaker 1: The other male classmate who Ramirez said was involved in
Speaker 1: the incident commented, I have zero recollection. In a statement,
Speaker 1: two of those male classmates who Ramira's alleged were involved
Speaker 1: in the incident, the wife of a third male student
Speaker 1: she said was involved, and one other classmate, Dan Murphy,
Speaker 1: disputed Ramirez's account of events. Quote. We were the people
Speaker 1: closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale.
Speaker 1: He was a roommate to some of us, and we
Speaker 1: spent a great deal of time with him, including in
Speaker 1: the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of
Speaker 1: us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after
Speaker 1: her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that
Speaker 1: if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have
Speaker 1: seen or heard about it, and we did not. The
Speaker 1: behavior she describes to be completely out of character for Brett.
Speaker 1: In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale,
Speaker 1: and she never described this incident until Brett's Supreme Court
Speaker 1: nomination was pending. Editors from The New Yorker contacted some
Speaker 1: of us because we are the people who would know
Speaker 1: the truth, and we told them that we never saw
Speaker 1: or heard about this. Does that sound like keeping mum?
Speaker 1: How could this new book? This ten months of thorough
Speaker 1: research for The New York Times, writers have declared that
Speaker 1: that is the people around Brett, you know, his friends.
Speaker 1: They kept mum about this. They didn't keep mum. They said,
Speaker 1: no way, this is crap. Brett wouldn't do this, This
Speaker 1: didn't happen. We never heard about this. This is a lie.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not exactly what they said. That's what
Speaker 1: they're saying. Why would she lie? Well, that's why I
Speaker 1: started out with, Well, because she's would you what would
Speaker 1: we say? She's responding to a higher power here. Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 1: Rovie Wade is the revolution in this case. Roe v.
Speaker 1: Wade is all that really matters to people of a
Speaker 1: certain liberal mindset. Anything that would keep it would be justified.
Speaker 1: I think it's what's even more unfair to Kavanaughs. I
Speaker 1: don't believe Kavanaugh is going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to be a part of that.
Speaker 1: I think Kavanaugh is much less of a doctrinaire right
Speaker 1: winger than many of the the left. Many on the
Speaker 1: left seem to just assume. But because he's not, you know,
Speaker 1: one of the far left activist judges on the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: he is a target. Isn't that a pretty big though?
Speaker 1: The the that the Friends kept mum, isn't that a
Speaker 1: pretty big error to have? Once again, another error and
Speaker 1: just as we see when they run these fake news
Speaker 1: stories that the media that has to retract and we
Speaker 1: know this is information that is left out or that
Speaker 1: they lie about that would be helpful to the pro
Speaker 1: Cavanaugh calls. Once again just like oh yeah, the woman
Speaker 1: that we claim that this guy, Max whatever's name is,
Speaker 1: you want to hear about Max Max Steyer is a
Speaker 1: good governance advocate here here, this guy is. We need business,
Speaker 1: we need nonprofits, we need universities, we need all these
Speaker 1: associations who care about a policy issue, associate of government
Speaker 1: to take some peace of their advocacy and make it
Speaker 1: not about the policy, but make it about the execution,
Speaker 1: and make it about building capacity in our government. Okay,
Speaker 1: let me just jump in right there. Does anybody think
Speaker 1: that a guy that spends spends his time talking about
Speaker 1: building capacity in our government is anything other than a liberal? Okay?
Speaker 1: Can we just can we just get that out there
Speaker 1: right now? Guys a lib? All right, guys, a liberal?
Speaker 1: Start with that. And he did defend the Clintons, and
Speaker 1: they left that I defend Bill Clinton and they left
Speaker 1: that off the essay. Now, you might say, buck, but
Speaker 1: these these errors. They would never do this on purpose
Speaker 1: because it would make them look bad. No, sometimes the
Speaker 1: smear only has to last a few days to have
Speaker 1: the intended effect. People will believe it anyway. You see
Speaker 1: this with Twitter all the time. Some leftist in the
Speaker 1: media will say, oh, you know, there's video of Trump
Speaker 1: taking a bribe, and then they'll say, oh, no, sorry,
Speaker 1: that was that was somebody made that up on a blog.
Speaker 1: And the first tweet gets fifty thousand retweets and the
Speaker 1: second tweet gets five. Still feeds into the perception that
Speaker 1: Trump is corrupt. People will still think, oh, maybe that
Speaker 1: was true. I don't know. I didn't see the other thing. Folks.
Speaker 1: We know what they're doing to Kavanaugh. We figured it
Speaker 1: out out, We've seen it coming all along. Nothing has changed.
Speaker 1: These people are radicals, and they're willing to completely cast
Speaker 1: aside any decency, any ethics, in order to destroy a
Speaker 1: man that even the authors of this book said, after
Speaker 1: college and I don't even know if I have the
Speaker 1: time to get into this, but after college he was Okay,
Speaker 1: here we go twenty We have found that we corroborate
Speaker 1: these stories of Debrah Ramirez and Christine Blasi Ford. But
Speaker 1: in the thirty six years since, Bret Cavanaugh has been
Speaker 1: a better man. You know, whether he realized the error
Speaker 1: of his ways, whether and he consciously reformed himself or
Speaker 1: he grew up and simply matured. He has been an
Speaker 1: exemplary judge. Everyone we talked to couldn't speak more highly
Speaker 1: of him on both sides of the aisle. And he
Speaker 1: actually has a much more nuanced view kind of position
Speaker 1: on the court. He's not a right wing idealogue either.
Speaker 1: He's actually in a st aublishment conservative who has promoted
Speaker 1: women on the court. So that's something else I want
Speaker 1: to So what's more likely that psychotic leftists in the media,
Speaker 1: which the media is full of psychotic leftists, have created
Speaker 1: this whole series of lies and propped out these lies
Speaker 1: about Kavanaugh, who then without anyone, without ever getting in trouble,
Speaker 1: without ever having anybody say hey, you can't do that,
Speaker 1: when he was a you know, a man in high school,
Speaker 1: in college, becomes an absolute exemplar of good behavior, becomes
Speaker 1: the guy that you want coaching your daughter's basketball team,
Speaker 1: living next door to you, teaching Sunday school, and is
Speaker 1: brilliant and is wildly successful. What's more likely that he
Speaker 1: just randomly became that guy after being the crazy grabby
Speaker 1: want to be rapist flasher man through high school and college,
Speaker 1: or that these leftists are lying don't let the whole
Speaker 1: oh we're being fairedom lives do this in the media
Speaker 1: all the time. They throw out a little this is
Speaker 1: the Jake Tapper maneuver. One one real question and then
Speaker 1: ninety bits of prop ninety questions of propaganda. But oh
Speaker 1: I asked a real question. Oh yeah, sure, as an adult,
Speaker 1: he's been like the most amazing human being ever. But
Speaker 1: you know, must have been that he turned it all
Speaker 1: around after what he did in high school and college.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, no, I have a different idea, Libs, you're
Speaker 1: lying about this. Man corroborated, Ramirez corroborated. We didn't corroborate crap.
Speaker 1: People were out of their minds, out of their minds.
Speaker 1: But they cannot admit that they were wrong about him
Speaker 1: all along because they were willing to be bad people,
Speaker 1: because they were so devoted to his destruction, and to
Speaker 1: admit that they're wrong now would be you were bad
Speaker 1: people without any justification really whatsoever. As you can tell,
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh thing pushes some buttons. It gets me upset
Speaker 1: because it's terrible and the people in the media that
Speaker 1: were involved in this process and the Democrats involved this
Speaker 1: process are disgusting. I don't disagree with them, they are disgusting.
Speaker 1: We'll get us slightly less less buck point of view
Speaker 1: on this later on in the show. But I want
Speaker 1: to move on to Iran and Saudi Arabia, and I
Speaker 1: mean there's a whole bunch of other topics I want
Speaker 1: to talk about it too. I got a little fired
Speaker 1: up today. We will be right. See This's what happens
Speaker 1: when I take calls, I lose, I lose my sense
Speaker 1: of time, and we go we lose. Yeah, no more
Speaker 1: calls for a while. We'll be right back, mister President.
Speaker 1: As you know, I have never engaged in hateful rhetoric
Speaker 1: against you or your family, and I never will. But
Speaker 1: you're offering our military assets to the dictator of Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia to use as he sees fit is a betrayal
Speaker 1: of my brothers and sisters in uniform who are ready
Speaker 1: to give our lives for our country, not for the
Speaker 1: islam as dictator of Saudi Arabia. And for you to
Speaker 1: think that you can pimp out our proud servicemen and
Speaker 1: women to the Prince of Saudi Arabia is disgraceful and
Speaker 1: it once again shows that you are unfit to serve
Speaker 1: as our commander in chief. You know, sometimes I think
Speaker 1: Tulsa Gabbard is substantially less awful than the other Democrat candidates.
Speaker 1: This is not one of those times. When did the
Speaker 1: president ever say that we were going to hand over
Speaker 1: troops to the dictator of Saudi Arabia to do with
Speaker 1: as he sees fit. I mean, this is just this
Speaker 1: is hyperbolic garbage. This isn't reality. Here's what should happen,
Speaker 1: or here's a bit of a backstory. We'll spend more
Speaker 1: time with this, but the sun we got to run
Speaker 1: to a break here in a second. What's happening in
Speaker 1: the Middle East right now is a war between Sunni
Speaker 1: and Shia Islam. It's playing out in many different Middle
Speaker 1: Eastern Muslim majority countries. It's playing out in Syria, in
Speaker 1: Iraq between Iran and Saudi Arabia, and it's playing out
Speaker 1: in Yemen. It's playing out and you name a major
Speaker 1: player in the region. There are issues between Sunni and Shia.
Speaker 1: And this goes back for to say centuries doesn't even
Speaker 1: cover It goes back for oh going on fifteen hundred
Speaker 1: years now, since the original Sunni Shia split. We and
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, I hope is going to take this approach.
Speaker 1: We care about this insofar as we do not want
Speaker 1: this to be our problem. This is not our fight.
Speaker 1: We do not want to get involved. But we also
Speaker 1: don't want the Iranians to be able to bring the
Speaker 1: global economy to not a screeching halt, but to really
Speaker 1: put a dent in it by attacking oil supplies. And
Speaker 1: that's a concern, what should we do about that? Then
Speaker 1: how do we balance this out. I we'll get into
Speaker 1: some of those specifics and some thoughts on the way
Speaker 1: forward and the strategy here between Iran and Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: in just a moment. We need to have a conversation
Speaker 1: as a country and as a Congress about whether or
Speaker 1: not this is an attack so directly relevant to America's
Speaker 1: interest as to justify military action. Diplomatic action is what's
Speaker 1: called for first, and our president should come to Congress
Speaker 1: and make that case if he is determined that this
Speaker 1: is what calls for military action. And we have to
Speaker 1: be very cautious about the way that we move forward.
Speaker 1: And I think that's why it's important for Congress to
Speaker 1: be able to investigate and take the lead on whether
Speaker 1: it makes sense for us to engage. It's really important
Speaker 1: for us to remember this is our intelligence is war
Speaker 1: tainted towards Iran. Take military advice from Ilhan Omar. I'll
Speaker 1: start there. I don't think I'm going to listen to
Speaker 1: what she thinks is the right move here. If I
Speaker 1: want to know how America is bad and we do
Speaker 1: all the bad things in the world, will then I'll
Speaker 1: listen to I'll hunt on more. And then we also
Speaker 1: had the Democrat there was it, Chris Coons. You didn't
Speaker 1: have a conversation as a country. Yeah, dude, that's right.
Speaker 1: That's what we're doing. We're having a conversation as a country.
Speaker 1: I think conversations actually much more straightforward than Democrats want
Speaker 1: to accept. That it is we don't want to war.
Speaker 1: The run that, no, we don't want to war. A
Speaker 1: lot of people right now. What I mean by this is,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't want to war with North Korea either,
Speaker 1: but if North Korea blows a couple of you know,
Speaker 1: US airliners out of the sky or something, or if
Speaker 1: North Korea attacks US interest in well, then we got
Speaker 1: a war with North Korea. Right. It doesn't just say
Speaker 1: we don't want a war with someone doesn't mean that.
Speaker 1: Well now they now they have you know, an open field.
Speaker 1: It's open season on America because we said we don't
Speaker 1: want to war with that country. This is all about
Speaker 1: the choice of whether or not to fight, or the
Speaker 1: choice of whether we want to start what is going
Speaker 1: to be a military conflict that could have unintended consequences
Speaker 1: take us much further down the road of nation building
Speaker 1: than we would ever want to go again, and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. The conversation right now that Senator
Speaker 1: Coon's is saying we should have I would offer that
Speaker 1: we are having it. And here's where I come down
Speaker 1: on this. If the Saudis are and of course we're
Speaker 1: going to be helping them, other allies are going to
Speaker 1: be helping them make sure that they have this lined up,
Speaker 1: it looks like they were cruise missiles. In fact, that's
Speaker 1: our report today that there were cruise missile components that
Speaker 1: were found and that the hoothy militias don't have that capability.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, maybe it's a bad thing that the Obama
Speaker 1: deal allowed Iran to continue testing missiles short range missiles. Right,
Speaker 1: maybe that was a bad thing that it didn't touch
Speaker 1: the conventional missile program. But anyway, the Iranians pretending to
Speaker 1: be the Hooties or however you want to you want
Speaker 1: to frame it, attacks Saudi Arabia. Guess what. Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: has been buying billions and billions of dollars of military
Speaker 1: hardbreak for some time. I remember there was a few
Speaker 1: months ago people said, oh, we can't sell the Saudies
Speaker 1: more munitions. We you know, in Congress wanted to stop
Speaker 1: you know, the Democrats, and I think Rand Paul is
Speaker 1: in there too, probably because I don't always agree with
Speaker 1: Senator Paul, I like him on some stuff. If he'd actually,
Speaker 1: I think, be a pretty good president because he just
Speaker 1: wouldn't ruin things. And that's really all you have to
Speaker 1: do these days for a lot of these jobs. Just
Speaker 1: don't ruin, you know, just don't ruin everything. And even
Speaker 1: if you try to ruin everything, like Deblasio was doing
Speaker 1: here in New York, it's still pretty hard to ruin everything.
Speaker 1: And I think that the do no harm approach. He
Speaker 1: is a doctor, after all, that Senator Rand Paul has
Speaker 1: that that would put us in goodstead. If you're present
Speaker 1: anyway as to what we should do here. We've been
Speaker 1: selling the Saudis all these very sophisticated weapon systems. We
Speaker 1: help them maintain and train on these weapon systems. Guess what,
Speaker 1: maybe the Saudi's need to tell the Iranians back off
Speaker 1: with more than just words. And could this, you know,
Speaker 1: spiral into a broader conflict or whatever. Yeah, of course,
Speaker 1: But I gotta tell you this, what would our response
Speaker 1: be if we thought that the Iranians had just blown
Speaker 1: up a couple of US oil refineries, right, what would
Speaker 1: we would we sit there and be like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: let's not get ahead of ourselves. Of course we would.
Speaker 1: We would respond militarily, and we absolutely should. The Saudis,
Speaker 1: as far as I'm concerned, should absolutely respond militarily to
Speaker 1: Iranian aggression. It should be proportionate, it should be within
Speaker 1: the you know, within what would be understood as punitive
Speaker 1: action as opposed to right. I mean, if they if
Speaker 1: they fire on some Iranian missile ships or something and
Speaker 1: they take them out, that's saying, hey, don't fire missiles
Speaker 1: into our refineries. If they start lobbing missiles into the
Speaker 1: center of Tehran, well that's obviously a different situation. So
Speaker 1: this stuff happens, Right, we fired missiles at Syria and
Speaker 1: we are not at war with Syria. These things do occur.
Speaker 1: I think that we overcomplicate this by assuming that America
Speaker 1: has to be the one that does the strike. I
Speaker 1: think it would be a mistake if we did it.
Speaker 1: Why we weren't attacked an ally, that is fully you know,
Speaker 1: it's one thing if an allies attack that can't defend itself.
Speaker 1: And now we get into the whole discussion about Kuwait
Speaker 1: and Saddam's invasion, and then we had that huge coalition
Speaker 1: because you know, we wanted that. You know, we want
Speaker 1: to make sure we kept those Middle East and oil
Speaker 1: supplies going. We can be a little more leis a
Speaker 1: fair about geopolitics in the Middle East now, specifically because
Speaker 1: of fracking and natural gas and America's energy producers, who
Speaker 1: despite all the nonsense they have been subjected to politically speaking,
Speaker 1: and during the Obama administration, all the efforts to make
Speaker 1: it even harder for anyway, they we become an energy
Speaker 1: superpower that really matters. That's why we can sit here
Speaker 1: and say, all right, maybe the Sadies do something, maybe
Speaker 1: they don't. But the Democrats want to make this sound
Speaker 1: like Trump is a war monger. Oh, he's trying to
Speaker 1: draw us into another war. You know, we don't have
Speaker 1: Bolton as a national security advisor. I think his influence
Speaker 1: on this president was dramatically overstated anyway, but you would
Speaker 1: assume that that means there's one less hawkish vote, so
Speaker 1: to speak, not really a vote, just an advisory role.
Speaker 1: But in the White House, we're doing something here, and
Speaker 1: the Iranians are clearly feeling the heat. And one of
Speaker 1: the ways that if you are a despotic and sclerotic autocracy,
Speaker 1: one of the things that you do is, okay, well,
Speaker 1: our economies going, you know, going down the tubes. Let's
Speaker 1: lash out, let's start some conflict with someone, so that
Speaker 1: that's a possibility here. We shouldn't always assume that the
Speaker 1: Iranians approach everything with a strategy worthy of Tallyrand or
Speaker 1: Metternich or you know whoever, the great geostrategists of their era.
Speaker 1: They're not geniuses on this stuff. They're very they're actually
Speaker 1: quite thuggish. The Iranian Guardian Council, the people that make
Speaker 1: the real decisions, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the IRGC.
Speaker 1: They respond to force, and they use force. That's pretty
Speaker 1: much where you start with them. In this case, we've
Speaker 1: been using economic sanctions for a long time, and we
Speaker 1: want to continue doing so. I think the Trump administration's approach,
Speaker 1: by and large is correct here. I would hope that
Speaker 1: Trump and you know what, I'm I'm confident that he's
Speaker 1: not going to get drawn into I can't say I'm sure,
Speaker 1: and you know, I don't do future. I don't predict anything.
Speaker 1: I mean, I make I make predictions for fun, but
Speaker 1: I don't tell you that I can predict anything. But
Speaker 1: I think that it is likely that if anything happens here,
Speaker 1: it'll be the Saudis that do it, and that will
Speaker 1: be up to the Saudis. You know, there have been
Speaker 1: other wars in the Middle East that we were not
Speaker 1: involved in, plenty of them, and life went on just
Speaker 1: fine here in America. The Saudis and the Iranians want
Speaker 1: to want to duke it out a little bit. We've
Speaker 1: already sold the Saudis very advanced systems. The Saudis are
Speaker 1: a very wealthy country. They want to fight it out
Speaker 1: with the Iranians, you know, Manoamano, that's not our fight.
Speaker 1: And I think that we have clarity in that. I
Speaker 1: think that Trump has clarity in that as well. So
Speaker 1: we'll see if there's any further escalation here could come
Speaker 1: any day. We'll keep watching the story. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: So team I often have people on the show where
Speaker 1: I'm going to talk to them about the book that
Speaker 1: they've written, and I've read it. I didn't have time
Speaker 1: to read this education or Brett Kavanaugh book yet. In fact,
Speaker 1: I don't even have a copy. I don't know if
Speaker 1: it's out, maybe it's out today. But I want to
Speaker 1: bring on somebody who won has been following the Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: story all along from DC and also has in fact
Speaker 1: read this latest Kavanaugh screed. We're joined now by Tiana Lowe.
Speaker 1: She is a commentary writer at the Washington Examiner. Tiana,
Speaker 1: how's life down in the swamp? You know, it's gross
Speaker 1: and growny as always, but that's that keeps it interesting. Fantastic.
Speaker 1: Tell me about this book is what are some of
Speaker 1: the biggest takeaways? Is somebody who read cover to cover
Speaker 1: every page of this New York Times I guess two
Speaker 1: New York Times writers that put this education of Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh together? What are the big takeaways? What really happens
Speaker 1: in this book? So from just a writing perspective, it's
Speaker 1: a bit of a frustrating book because there's no index.
Speaker 1: The way that the story is told is extremely confusing,
Speaker 1: so it's hard to figure out what exactly the sourcing
Speaker 1: on each claim is. But went through and my first
Speaker 1: story of the book was trying to figure out, you know,
Speaker 1: all the hoopla over the weekend was that now apparently
Speaker 1: seven people corroborate this Debbi Ramirez story and all we
Speaker 1: heard about. If seven people corroborate it, then it must
Speaker 1: be true. I went through each of the seven and
Speaker 1: it is as thinly sourced as the original New Yorker
Speaker 1: story was last year. So of the seven, only one
Speaker 1: person claims to have heard that Kavanaugh was the person
Speaker 1: in the story about Ramirez at the time. And even then,
Speaker 1: this witness, Keen uphold he only heard about it from
Speaker 1: someone who he says claimed to be at the party,
Speaker 1: but that person has never come forward, and four people
Speaker 1: who were at the party at the time issued a
Speaker 1: statement last year that they deny this ever happening at
Speaker 1: the party. So the ramirest thing it's a bust. Then
Speaker 1: we have this Max Sire allegation. As you know, Max
Speaker 1: Styre is a Clinton attorney who defended a President Clinton
Speaker 1: during the Monica Lewinsky Andandel He went to the FBI,
Speaker 1: but not Chairman Chuck Grassley of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Speaker 1: like three days before the Kavanaugh confirmation, not even the hearing,
Speaker 1: claiming that he had seen Kavanaugh exposed himself to a
Speaker 1: female student while he was at Yale. The kicker is
Speaker 1: that the woman at the center of this story, reportedly
Speaker 1: denied that this ever happened, so she refused to speak
Speaker 1: about this to the book, but she had multiple friends
Speaker 1: who said that she had always denied the story of
Speaker 1: her happening. And then that brings us to the third story,
Speaker 1: and that's about Christine blaisie Ford. As always, that was
Speaker 1: the most troubling allegation from the get go, just both
Speaker 1: on the severity of the context and also that Christine
Speaker 1: blasie Ford seemed fairly sympathetic last year. But this book
Speaker 1: kind of has a story falling apart. So it always
Speaker 1: made sense that the other boys at the party who
Speaker 1: were going to be witnesses would deny the story if
Speaker 1: they were all friends of Kavanaugh. But her friend Leland
Speaker 1: kind Or was there, and as you may were call
Speaker 1: lost year, she just said, I don't remember this party
Speaker 1: were happening. But now she's doubled down on it and said,
Speaker 1: not only do I not remember this party happening, but
Speaker 1: if she's saying that I'm the one who drove her
Speaker 1: there and back, it sounds she had no confidence in
Speaker 1: the story. So basically, all three of these allegations have
Speaker 1: kind of fallen apart, And that doesn't mean that I'm
Speaker 1: not accusing any of these three women of lying, but
Speaker 1: the evidence is non existent and in some cases exculpatory.
Speaker 1: What do you think these New York Times writers ten
Speaker 1: were what do they think they're adding to our knowledge
Speaker 1: of this case which was already very very publicly and
Speaker 1: thoroughly adjudicated with the Senate hearings and people the entire
Speaker 1: country was fixated on this for weeks. As somebody who's
Speaker 1: read through the whole thing, what do they think they're
Speaker 1: adding to this discussion with this new book? So for
Speaker 1: them personally, I'm not going to try and impugne their
Speaker 1: motives because they do make notes that an aw in
Speaker 1: his professional career has had unimpeachable character. They go to
Speaker 1: great lean I think in their minds, to be fair,
Speaker 1: I think they thought that they could contextualize the story,
Speaker 1: which is only strange because that's what we wound up
Speaker 1: with that really weird New York Times piece wherever was
Speaker 1: about how Debbie Ramirez was so underprivileged because all she
Speaker 1: had was an above ground swimming pool in southern Connecticut.
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure in the New York Times writers,
Speaker 1: I've ever actually met an underprivileged persman but they usually
Speaker 1: don't have access to above ground swimming pools only but
Speaker 1: on a medicine. I think the people who have clung
Speaker 1: to this story, I mean, think about it. Since Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: I don't think that the left recognizes a single Republican
Speaker 1: appointed did the Supreme Court as legitimate except for Justice Alito.
Speaker 1: Think about it, Clarence Thomas, abuser, John Roberts appointed by
Speaker 1: a president who stole his election with Bush v. Gore,
Speaker 1: Neil Gorfik, Stolemerick Garlands seat, and now Brett Cavanaugh obviously
Speaker 1: serial sexual assulter. Right, which is which is more likely
Speaker 1: with Okham's Razer that every single Republican Supreme Court of pointe,
Speaker 1: as you said, but one is illegitimate or the Democrats
Speaker 1: are crazy. I mean, you don't have to answer that,
Speaker 1: but I'm asking the question exactly. Well, yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's the thing. I think that And again I'm
Speaker 1: not the funny thing about the cabin aster in particular.
Speaker 1: You know a buck, I am from LA. Most of
Speaker 1: my friends West Hillary voters and I have very civil
Speaker 1: discussions and then they're perfectly fine for the most part
Speaker 1: with our political differences. This was the first issue where
Speaker 1: I heard from friends who had never talked to you
Speaker 1: about politics, where they said, is this the new normal?
Speaker 1: Will my brother get accused twenty years down the line
Speaker 1: of some chick that you know he raped her because
Speaker 1: he makes it into the public eye somehow. And again,
Speaker 1: if you look at the statistics, only two to ten
Speaker 1: percent of all rape allegations are false, So this is
Speaker 1: not a widespread problem. On average, well, ten percent, for example,
Speaker 1: would be higher than any other felony crime. So yeah,
Speaker 1: but the left is making it a problem. The Left
Speaker 1: is making it a problem by trying to publicly ruin
Speaker 1: and destroy a man with zero evidence. And what do
Speaker 1: you think about the credibly accuse mean? This is something
Speaker 1: that we talked a bit about yesterday on the show,
Speaker 1: but this phrase has seeped into the conversation. Credibly accused,
Speaker 1: if credibly accused, merely means that a woman sounds believable
Speaker 1: in her tone and demeanor when making an allegation, which
Speaker 1: I suppose is the case with Blasi Ford. I can't
Speaker 1: even say it's the case with the other two because
Speaker 1: we didn't see their testimony. That seems to completely upend
Speaker 1: evidentiary standards and corroboration for every other allegation of criminal
Speaker 1: or even just illicit conduct. For I think that's exactly true.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that it's fair to say her
Speaker 1: allegation was compelling, but it's not credible. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that most p bowl, most people, when the politics
Speaker 1: are pushed aside, can kind of agree that for someone
Speaker 1: like a Harvey Weinstein, where it is more likely than
Speaker 1: he was more likely than not guilty of what he's
Speaker 1: accused of, she deserves to suffer social and professional consequences.
Speaker 1: I think we saw this since al Franken. I think
Speaker 1: we saw this with Ray more with Kavanaugh. The thing is,
Speaker 1: the evidence didn't even come close to reaching that preponderance standard.
Speaker 1: And I think that if he were completely a political figure,
Speaker 1: everyone would understand that the West was not based on
Speaker 1: the principle of believe all women. It was based on
Speaker 1: the principle of you have the right to voice your accusation,
Speaker 1: and we will evaluate it based on the evidence that
Speaker 1: we can find. And again, this does not mean that
Speaker 1: Christine Blizzyford deserves to be harassed because death threats. She
Speaker 1: deserves to be able to go back to her old life.
Speaker 1: She voiced her peace it wasn't proven. Let's move on.
Speaker 1: But it's the less that wants to relitigate this, and
Speaker 1: that's why we're back in this circus. Diana Low she
Speaker 1: read the book, so you don't have to, folks. But
Speaker 1: he's at the Washington Examiner. She's a commentary writer there.
Speaker 1: Follow her on Twitter at Tiana Lo Tiana great stuff.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us, Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: I say, all right, team, we'll be right back. Team.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about a back and forth
Speaker 1: that I have with the with the city government here
Speaker 1: in New York. And this is a tale of bureaucracy,
Speaker 1: of sloth, of ridiculousness. This is for me now turning
Speaker 1: into an education and of itself. I thought maybe I
Speaker 1: would be having this kind of conversation with you about
Speaker 1: me getting my me getting a handgun permit of New
Speaker 1: York City, which I have not yet started that process,
Speaker 1: but I am. I am very much planning on starting
Speaker 1: that process. So I haven't yet gotten any word about that,
Speaker 1: um well, because I haven't started. But I thought that
Speaker 1: we would be talking about, oh my gosh, they make
Speaker 1: me jump through all these hoops. They hate the second
Speaker 1: of them in here, and that's gonna happen. So well,
Speaker 1: I'll give you all those trials and tribulations and you
Speaker 1: can you can just laugh at how ridiculous it is
Speaker 1: in New York City for all that. But I mentioned
Speaker 1: before that I've had a little bit of noise issue
Speaker 1: in my new home. I live in what is now
Speaker 1: it's it looks like something out of Tokyo. It's a
Speaker 1: very new building or something out of Hong Kong. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just brand new. It's very tall, zero
Speaker 1: character or anything like that. And I used to be
Speaker 1: somebody who was like, oh wow, I like a building.
Speaker 1: I like to live in buildings down in the village
Speaker 1: where there are red bricks that have just enough space
Speaker 1: in them for various you know, furry small creatures and
Speaker 1: things to get in and out of the apartment. You know.
Speaker 1: That was my That was my old standard of I'm
Speaker 1: a I'm a city dog. This is just what I
Speaker 1: deal with. But now there's time around. I'm living in
Speaker 1: this brand new building and and it's it's not I
Speaker 1: will say, it's not an issue with the building yet. Um,
Speaker 1: it's an issue with the buildings around it, some of
Speaker 1: which are very old and I'm kind of high up.
Speaker 1: And so there are these these various HVAC systems. They
Speaker 1: look like, you know, the giant fans essentially fans that
Speaker 1: are you know, look like they're like eight or ten
Speaker 1: feet across, that are on the tops of these city buildings.
Speaker 1: And some of these buildings are twenty or thirty stories tall,
Speaker 1: and they have these h vacs and it just, you know,
Speaker 1: makes all this noise. Okay, So I figured I figured
Speaker 1: out one of them had a broken belt, and I
Speaker 1: got I helped them. I'm a good neighbor. I helped
Speaker 1: them figure out that it was a broken belt and
Speaker 1: we got that fixed. It is making a very loud,
Speaker 1: screech noise. But then there's another one. There's another one
Speaker 1: that just happens to be just big and loud. And
Speaker 1: there are in fact, and I know I'm a little
Speaker 1: bit of a persnickety neighbor, but there are noise ordinances
Speaker 1: and and I was curious, so I called the department.
Speaker 1: I know, this is crazy. I call the Department of
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection in New York City, John, believe it or not,
Speaker 1: to come and take a noise violation reading. They have
Speaker 1: these these uh noisometers. I don't know what they really called.
Speaker 1: They read the or they they measure the decibels. I
Speaker 1: like noisometer, but it's it's it's there's some other name
Speaker 1: for it. And they show up with a little noisometer
Speaker 1: and it's a little bit like you know Egon from Ghostbusters,
Speaker 1: like he kind of waves this thing around and you know,
Speaker 1: Egon your mucus, you know what I mean that that's
Speaker 1: that's the vibe you get. The guy shows up, very
Speaker 1: nice fellow, and they take the reading the apartment, and
Speaker 1: sure enough, I'm not crazy, which is always good to know.
Speaker 1: The ambient noise created by this fan system is so
Speaker 1: loud that inside my apartment currently is it is a
Speaker 1: noise violation under city code. So I think of myself, Okay, well, one,
Speaker 1: I'm not crazy, that's nice. And then two, I gotta
Speaker 1: figure out a way to deal with this now because
Speaker 1: I don't want to walk around all the day. You know, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make some eggs or I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: try to like write my book or something out here.
Speaker 1: I mean around the hole. That's what it sounds like,
Speaker 1: the whole you know, all day, twenty four hours a day,
Speaker 1: and you could say, Buck, how could you not know?
Speaker 1: Sometimes the fan goes off, go off for twenty thirty
Speaker 1: forty minutes at a time, and it always comes back on. Obviously,
Speaker 1: I saw this apartment when the fan wasn't on right,
Speaker 1: So I walked in. I'm like, oh, it's it's so quiet.
Speaker 1: I'll love it. I got a little bit of a view.
Speaker 1: It's nice. Now I go in there, I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm back in my apartment. You know, that's the noise, okay,
Speaker 1: And so it's I'm trying to make it not like
Speaker 1: the Telltale hard here, where the noise drives me completely insane,
Speaker 1: and you know that's a that's a whole other thing.
Speaker 1: Is that with you know, gently tapping tapping at my
Speaker 1: chamber door or whatever? Is that the Telltale hard or
Speaker 1: that mixed both that girl and Poe? Right? Oh? That
Speaker 1: was the was that the oh was I getting? Or
Speaker 1: the rave? The raven? The crow? Oh my gosh, Buck,
Speaker 1: go back and read your literature. So I was close though,
Speaker 1: Um yeah, so uh the cask of a Montiando. I
Speaker 1: remember this stuff. This stuff was great. Well, I was
Speaker 1: back in like junior high so anyway, so I'm trying
Speaker 1: to figure out what do I do here. I've got
Speaker 1: this city, I got the city inspector, I got Egon.
Speaker 1: We'll call him Egon because he's got the noisometer, which
Speaker 1: you know, it looks kind of like a Ghostbuster thing,
Speaker 1: although not quite as cool. And he takes the reading.
Speaker 1: He's like, yeah, man, this is a this is a violation.
Speaker 1: This is a and it's it's about it's twenty percent
Speaker 1: higher than it's supposed to be. That that that's and
Speaker 1: that's the legal limit for the noise. You can imagine
Speaker 1: how loud it is. So I'm not and I'm not
Speaker 1: being a big baby about this. It's really annoying. So
Speaker 1: so I I go to my my building and I say, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, can I just move to the other side
Speaker 1: of the building? You know, can I can I move
Speaker 1: the other side of the building. And you've got empty apartments?
Speaker 1: Let me take one of those. And they say, look
Speaker 1: so far, and we may have to have a whole
Speaker 1: conversation about the building up here if they're reasonable or not.
Speaker 1: So far, it seems like they may be reasonable. They
Speaker 1: may let me move to the other side of the building,
Speaker 1: and they may we'll see, because there's no reason they shouldn't.
Speaker 1: I'm moving the exact same cost or you know, within
Speaker 1: twenty dollars or something, the same cost, department, the whole thing.
Speaker 1: But they said, can we have a copy, you know,
Speaker 1: can you give us a copy of the report? And
Speaker 1: I said, oh, well, how how hard can that be?
Speaker 1: This guy was just in my apartment. He works for
Speaker 1: the city. The report's probably about you know, eight lines long.
Speaker 1: Sure you know what I foun out today, John about
Speaker 1: the report. I need to file a FOIA request, a
Speaker 1: Freedom of Information Act request to get this thing. I'm
Speaker 1: talking to the city government of the phone. I was like,
Speaker 1: you guys are kidding, right, Like that's a joke. You're
Speaker 1: you're you're sitting in front of a computer that has
Speaker 1: information on it that is public information. But that is
Speaker 1: information about my home that I need, but you will
Speaker 1: not give it to me absent a FOYER request. What
Speaker 1: sense does that? It's it is absolutely public, but or
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's essentially I think they call it,
Speaker 1: there's some term for it, but it's it's a it's
Speaker 1: a city FOIA request, it's an official records request. And
Speaker 1: you might say, well, buck, okay, maybe it's not that bad. No, No,
Speaker 1: it is that bad. It takes fourteen days for them
Speaker 1: to even respond whether or not I can get the records,
Speaker 1: and then there's a review period. I'm gonna get this
Speaker 1: stupid record in like three to six months. And I'm
Speaker 1: asking them like, how is this possible? How does anyone
Speaker 1: How does anyone who has ever written you know, city
Speaker 1: statutes or or the the you know, the laws and
Speaker 1: by buy laws and all that stuff for the city
Speaker 1: in New York? How can anyone think this is a
Speaker 1: good idea? But then I realized, Oh, I know what
Speaker 1: this is. The They just make it as difficult as
Speaker 1: possible so that people go away. They just make it
Speaker 1: as hard. Oh, and then there's another little wrinkle here.
Speaker 1: They're not even sure what will be contained in the
Speaker 1: report because we could not tell necessarily what the source
Speaker 1: of the noise was on the first visit by Egon.
Speaker 1: So I'm I'm supposed to have Egon or someone who
Speaker 1: is like Egon come back for a second visit to
Speaker 1: ensure that we know where the noise is coming from,
Speaker 1: which might mean that then there has to be a
Speaker 1: second Foyer request, which might take another two weeks of
Speaker 1: review and then three months of processing I'm losing my
Speaker 1: mind over here. How is this possible? What's the point
Speaker 1: of having a noise ordinance when when you you know
Speaker 1: they're in violation, there's a problem. And I my recourse
Speaker 1: is to sit around and wait for lazy city employees
Speaker 1: to click on a few things and send me. It's
Speaker 1: gonna take months. I know city employees. They are overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: a very very I worked for the city. They're a
Speaker 1: lazy bunch. Not all of them, but most of them.
Speaker 1: And here we go, this is this is where we
Speaker 1: we have all these people their jobs. They're the Department
Speaker 1: Environmental Protection as a whole unit. Just just to this
Speaker 1: because people completely you know, they have to vacate their
Speaker 1: homes because noise in the cities use a constant problem,
Speaker 1: which is the cost of living here in the noise
Speaker 1: are the two things that I wish I could change.
Speaker 1: Other than that, I actually kind of like it here
Speaker 1: with the cost of livings out of control and the
Speaker 1: noise is out of control. But you know what this was,
Speaker 1: and I'm sharing this with you, one just so you
Speaker 1: can laugh at me, because this is what you get
Speaker 1: for living in New York City. But two, it's also
Speaker 1: just a reminder of like this. This is why you
Speaker 1: don't want the government in charge of things. Every person
Speaker 1: I spoke to today who worked for the City of
Speaker 1: New York was like, yeah, I agree. This is stupid.
Speaker 1: This is a dumb system. I should be able to
Speaker 1: just print this off and send it to you, or
Speaker 1: I should be able to just email this to you.
Speaker 1: Why not, You're definitely entitled to it. Oh no, but
Speaker 1: let's let's delay it by weeks maybe months, and see,
Speaker 1: you know, and see then you know how we feel
Speaker 1: about this. It's just madness. It's just madness. But this
Speaker 1: is why you don't want the government in charge your life.
Speaker 1: This is why a government of enumerated powers, a government
Speaker 1: that has to respect certain basic rights and and is
Speaker 1: not able to infringe on them. And there's a there's
Speaker 1: a reason why we have the system we do. It's
Speaker 1: because government is sloth and inefficiency and stupidity, and nobody cares.
Speaker 1: Nobody cares. The Papa Buck can't get any sleep, Nobody cares.
Speaker 1: This saga will continue, my friends. So there is a
Speaker 1: squeaker of an election right now. It's going on in Israel.
Speaker 1: It is for the big job is Benjamin and Yaho
Speaker 1: Bibi going to come out the victor or what are
Speaker 1: the possibilities here? What could happen? Come may Man dovid
Speaker 1: Affoon on the line now. He is the editor in
Speaker 1: chief of the Alga Miner and he's gonna tell us
Speaker 1: what's happening, David. Great to have you back, all right, man,
Speaker 1: to just just bring us up to speed. What is
Speaker 1: going on here? Well, look, the only thing we have
Speaker 1: right now, okay, so we don't have a final result
Speaker 1: or late at night would probably be you know, when
Speaker 1: everyone wakes up here in America tomorrow morning, we'll see
Speaker 1: what the final results are. The exit polls, you know,
Speaker 1: give us some idea, but notoriety, and in the past
Speaker 1: they have not been precise. They usually take a couple
Speaker 1: of seats off of Prime Minister in Naho the Could Party,
Speaker 1: largely because there are absentee balants included from balancing soldiers
Speaker 1: and others that are not necessarily taken into account with
Speaker 1: the exit polls, and they usually vote more for the
Speaker 1: right wing. In the meantime, you've got these exit polls
Speaker 1: to show a dead heat, almost a dead heat, and
Speaker 1: they don't show Naho with his decisive and natural coalition,
Speaker 1: which he'd be able to form now. It doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that he's lost a lot of support from last time,
Speaker 1: because when the calculations were made last time, there was
Speaker 1: they included the party of a big deleeverman who's traditionally
Speaker 1: seen as part of the right wing block, because that's
Speaker 1: she's shroud the attained. But now he's still to position
Speaker 1: himself as a kingmaker and he's actually come out ahead,
Speaker 1: moving from five seats to eight seats. As a result
Speaker 1: of this election, he's basically driven the whole country through
Speaker 1: the system again for some gains, for some games, for
Speaker 1: his own coffee, and the gambit seems to have played off,
Speaker 1: to be honest. So what do you expect would happen
Speaker 1: if bb and we've just gotten used to I mean,
Speaker 1: how many how many years now has net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: been been running the show? Uh, It's it's been quite
Speaker 1: a while. So I think Americans, Yeah, longest prime minister, Yeah,
Speaker 1: longest serving prime minister. So I think Americans like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, bb BBB understands who the bad guys are
Speaker 1: in the Middle East. He's an alive United States and
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're gotten comfortable with him in that
Speaker 1: spot because he's been in it for a long time
Speaker 1: and things have been relatively quiet and Israel certain of
Speaker 1: what was certainly compared to what was going on in
Speaker 1: the two thousands. If BB were to I I know,
Speaker 1: we don't know yet, and you know it's very very tight.
Speaker 1: If BB were to lose, what would change in Israel
Speaker 1: and what might change in the US relationship with Israel
Speaker 1: or the folks here across the country? You know, how
Speaker 1: could this affect things that we care about here? But
Speaker 1: first start with on the Israeli side, what might be different? Well, look,
Speaker 1: there's no question that you know, who is an incredibly
Speaker 1: competent leader on a whole host of levels. And you know,
Speaker 1: his leadership has really brought Israel to the international stage
Speaker 1: as as a paw player, as a very significant power
Speaker 1: plan both economically and politically and militarily, and you know
Speaker 1: that's something that whatever happens, he's going to be remembered
Speaker 1: for by the Israel And it's why, you know, despite
Speaker 1: all the shenanigans and the critique in the corruption investigations
Speaker 1: and everything else that's going on there, the israelis still
Speaker 1: like him because he's good a job. He's really, really,
Speaker 1: really good at the job. Now, his main competitors are
Speaker 1: the Blue and White Party, you know, even though even
Speaker 1: if they are neck and neck, they have an even
Speaker 1: more unlikely pasthway to forming a coalition. Even though it's
Speaker 1: not clear what the others pathway will be, their pathway
Speaker 1: will be even harder. So it's you know, even if
Speaker 1: it's a tie, it doesn't necessarily mean that the DV
Speaker 1: is out by any means. But in terms of the substance,
Speaker 1: there isn't actually a great deal that divides them. It
Speaker 1: probably has a lot more to do with style. Certainly,
Speaker 1: one thing is for sure. The left in the United States,
Speaker 1: for example, the Democratic Party or even the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: their views on the conflict in the Middle East are
Speaker 1: not shared at all by very many Israelis, I mean
Speaker 1: their constituency. That sort of perspective and worldview is held
Speaker 1: by you know, maybe you know, five seats or five
Speaker 1: percent of the electric maybe even left. The Blue and
Speaker 1: White Party, which is Naho's major competitor, holds similar views
Speaker 1: on negotiations with the Palestinians, on Iranian expansionism, on you know,
Speaker 1: Israel's right to districts of territories in a lot of cases,
Speaker 1: you know, so certainly around the settlement block, so you know,
Speaker 1: substantially there isn't a great deal between them, the big differences.
Speaker 1: You know that we're talking about a political novice, right
Speaker 1: Benny Gantz is a capable leader who led at the
Speaker 1: Israeli military, but he's new to the world stage. You know,
Speaker 1: he has not negotiated with Vladimir Putin before, and he
Speaker 1: doesn't have a long standing relationship with Trump or Bosonaro
Speaker 1: in Brazil or Modi in the countries that Israel's building
Speaker 1: ties with the survive and to floreish and to grow.
Speaker 1: So that's been the center point of Naho's campaign. He
Speaker 1: knows that that's his strength over his rival. And you know,
Speaker 1: it remains to be seen and how the newcomers are
Speaker 1: going to affair in that regard. How do you think
Speaker 1: the Israelis right now are seeing the situation with Iran
Speaker 1: and Saudi Arabia. Are the Israelis behind the scenes very
Speaker 1: supportive of Saudi or are they? What do you think
Speaker 1: they're then? And now? Who obviously who knows how long
Speaker 1: and how government's going to be what it is right now,
Speaker 1: But let's assume it continues as is what is the
Speaker 1: position of these really government in the in response to
Speaker 1: something like this, I mean, who, who would they what
Speaker 1: would they like to see done? Look, there's no question
Speaker 1: now that you know really historically, you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: historical in terms of how it's unfolded that these rendings
Speaker 1: in the Saudis and lots of the Saudis, but the
Speaker 1: sort of more moderate sunny Access have been creeping closer
Speaker 1: and closer together over the last number of years, and
Speaker 1: that's sort of being precipitated by the threat from Iran,
Speaker 1: which is a shared threat now the Asrailis runs and
Speaker 1: no illusions, they recognize that they and Alliance of Convenience
Speaker 1: and there's certainly skeptical about the long term prospects. Having
Speaker 1: said that, they do view it as an opportunity, an
Speaker 1: opportunity to open up dialogue, to work together and to
Speaker 1: to you know, suffer the harsh nature of those historical
Speaker 1: harsh nature of that relationship. So you know, I think, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll they'll be working together in terms of
Speaker 1: you know, behind the scenes, whatever we're seeing on, you know,
Speaker 1: in front of the of the scenes, there's a lot
Speaker 1: more going on behind the team. And these ratings will
Speaker 1: be you know, working with intelligence in the Sounding community
Speaker 1: and across them the least the mutual and share the
Speaker 1: enemy that looms larger over the entire regions around and
Speaker 1: whatever they can do together to stem that toright, They're
Speaker 1: going to be doing both covert and and overt and uh,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll be looking for opportunities to push you
Speaker 1: in its fact wherever they can. The Alga Minor Folks,
Speaker 1: the fastest growing Jewish newspaper in America. Go to Algaminer
Speaker 1: dot com for all things going on in in the
Speaker 1: realm of Israel and all things related to the Jewish
Speaker 1: people and our friend David Iffoon's the editor in chief. David,
Speaker 1: always appreciate your expertise, my friend. Great to talk to you.
Speaker 1: I was a pleasure. Buck team will be right back,
Speaker 1: you know. I found out today actually I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: to go to Nashville for the first time, get a
Speaker 1: little Nashville time in for the Buster. I don't wanted
Speaker 1: to go for a long time. I feel like maybe
Speaker 1: I have a burgeoning country music career. I just don't
Speaker 1: know it yet. I have to learn to sing and
Speaker 1: play the guitar, or maybe I would learn. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say steel drum, that's Caribbean. What's the what's the
Speaker 1: steel guitar? Not steel drum, that's a different that's a
Speaker 1: different music genre. Buck. Maybe I need to spend more
Speaker 1: time in Nashville so I know these things. But yes,
Speaker 1: INDI I will be in at Politic Con in Nashville,
Speaker 1: the twenty five twenty over the twenty sixth and twenty
Speaker 1: seventh in Nashville, Tennessee in October. So I found that
Speaker 1: out today, So that's exciting. So Nashville's getting crossed off
Speaker 1: the list, which is great. Austin is next. I really
Speaker 1: just need some some excuse. So somebody at KLBJ Austin
Speaker 1: needs to you know, in the audience down there. He's
Speaker 1: to help me think of an excuse to get the
Speaker 1: powers that be to send me down to Austin. Nashville
Speaker 1: made it happen, Fort Wayne, Indiana has made it happen.
Speaker 1: Los Angeles and Orange County and you know they've made
Speaker 1: it happen. Team Buck, Los Angeles, Team Buck, Orange County,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, Springfield, Illinois has made it happen. So I
Speaker 1: need an excuse to go down to Austin. That's what
Speaker 1: I've decided I gotta figure out what it is. We
Speaker 1: got roll call in a moment, like soft butter on
Speaker 1: warm toast, Time to spread some freedom coast to coast.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. What is soft butter and
Speaker 1: warm toast have to do with free? This? I didn't
Speaker 1: come up with it. What is this? This doesn't even
Speaker 1: make any sense. I just realized this as we're airing
Speaker 1: this across the nation. I guess freedom is easy, like
Speaker 1: spreading soft butter on warm toast. Like soft butter on warm,
Speaker 1: so it's easy to spread freedom. I think it's difficult
Speaker 1: to spread freedom. I think we put a lot of
Speaker 1: work into this. That liner was before me. He's getting
Speaker 1: he's getting a Christmas present this year. I'm sorry that
Speaker 1: didn't go on here. I said, you make it look easy.
Speaker 1: That's Harry White spreading like I get a HONEK gift. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, thank you. Don't you get multiple honek gifts?
Speaker 1: Is that's how it works? Wow? I think I gotta
Speaker 1: get on. I haven't got an eight gifts since I
Speaker 1: gotta get on like the Amazon you know special deal
Speaker 1: section eight gifts gifts. Freedom, It's not that big man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we'll figure it out, so we'll get you a honk
Speaker 1: a gift. So now that we have that team buck
Speaker 1: at iHeartRadio dot com, that is the email address for
Speaker 1: us if you want to send us. But I also
Speaker 1: don't want people to stop using Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. So to that end, we're gonna mix and match,
Speaker 1: and today we'll get into a little bit more of
Speaker 1: the Facebook messages because some of you really like that,
Speaker 1: some of you don't. Here we go, Johan, last night
Speaker 1: you brought up at some cops to be very happy
Speaker 1: to be the only ones allowed to carry. This is
Speaker 1: something I've been saying for a long time. I'm retired
Speaker 1: military and law enforcement, and I can say without a
Speaker 1: doubt that most in both organizations feel separate from a
Speaker 1: general population. And we'll do what they're told to do,
Speaker 1: including forceable confiscation. Every dictator that has ever ruled and
Speaker 1: oppressed does only with the support of the police. With
Speaker 1: police being armed, like the military, people's right to bear
Speaker 1: arms in jeopardy, only bad things can happen. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're taking it further than I was. But you're saying
Speaker 1: your law enforce and military, yourself or former law enforcement
Speaker 1: or military. So that's certainly adds some weight to your
Speaker 1: note here, but I can tell you that there are
Speaker 1: I have spoken to cops who just say, yeah, people
Speaker 1: want to have shotguns for home defense and for going
Speaker 1: sporting clay shooting. That's fine. But I've spoken to cops
Speaker 1: who are like, I don't want people having handguns and
Speaker 1: I don't want people having semi automatic rifles. I've talked
Speaker 1: to them. I'm not making this up. They're out there,
Speaker 1: so you know. I've also spoken to other cops who
Speaker 1: volunteer their own time trying to train conceal you know,
Speaker 1: trying to do conceal carry class for people because they
Speaker 1: want more. They think that the more people who appreciate
Speaker 1: and utilize their Second Amendment rights, the better. So there's clearly,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a I'm just saying that there exists
Speaker 1: within law enforcement mentality. I have no way of gauging
Speaker 1: which is the which would be even the majority. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I would think that law enforcement now nationally
Speaker 1: would be more in favor of the of an armed citizenry.
Speaker 1: But you know, you look at LAPD, NYPD, there are
Speaker 1: some major urban I mean, the NYPD has about fifty
Speaker 1: thousand employees over thirty thousand armed and sworn law enforcement,
Speaker 1: So you know that that's a lot. So for those
Speaker 1: of you who are like well Buck, you know out
Speaker 1: here and out here in Indiana, you know, law enforcement
Speaker 1: is far more favorable to the Second Amendment, that's probably true,
Speaker 1: But you also have far fewer cops. So you know,
Speaker 1: I just I don't know. I think it would be
Speaker 1: interesting if we could get some data on this one. Andrea, Right,
Speaker 1: so there's a traditional Mongolian horn made of human thigh bone. Okay, guys,
Speaker 1: my trumpet broke. Who's willing to help a fella out? Andrea?
Speaker 1: Or is it Andrea? Where do we go with? What's
Speaker 1: the go to? I was talking to your friend reason.
Speaker 1: I said Tara, and she said, no, it's Tara, And
Speaker 1: I'm like, do we really do? Really? Correct Tara and Tara?
Speaker 1: I mean, isn't that with that name? It's ridiculous, right,
Speaker 1: isn't that Tomato? Tomato? I mean really, Andrea or Andrea
Speaker 1: or Andrea could be a man or a woman. Really,
Speaker 1: you know, you've never had heard of a male Andrea
Speaker 1: or Andrea. No, I feel like Andrea is the way
Speaker 1: a man? Andrea? Yes, like Andrea no, really, I feel
Speaker 1: like I've heard a man be that have that name before. Well,
Speaker 1: I've I met a man I've met I've obviously there
Speaker 1: are men named Leslie, there are men named Ashley Andre
Speaker 1: uh bam hmm. Okay, that's producer John. Maybe you're all
Speaker 1: maybe you're gonna get all eight Hanaka presents this year?
Speaker 1: Maybe yes, you know, with with that kind of skill,
Speaker 1: we'll see all right back into into the mix here, Richard,
Speaker 1: uh right, the Democrats started the last well Civil War
Speaker 1: in your opinion, how long will it take this time? Well, Richard,
Speaker 1: I I don't you know. Look, I certainly I can't
Speaker 1: predict I always tell you I can't predict the future.
Speaker 1: No one can predict the future. But I don't think
Speaker 1: we're heading heading for that. I certainly would never I
Speaker 1: would hope that we would never head for that. Again,
Speaker 1: it's it's almost difficult to read a history of the
Speaker 1: Civil War for me sometimes or to go back and
Speaker 1: dive into just because the human carnage and just knowing
Speaker 1: these are all Americans and we're just oh it was,
Speaker 1: it's just horrifying. But then again, you read the history
Speaker 1: of the First World War, the Second you know, war,
Speaker 1: is horrifying, So maybe that's true across the board. James rights,
Speaker 1: Hey Bok, listen to Friday's show. I'm surprised by the
Speaker 1: fact that no one has pointed out Beta O'Rourke Beta
Speaker 1: O'Rourke rather saying an AR fifteen shot X people and
Speaker 1: AR fifteen shot. No one Ah, yes, pointing out that
Speaker 1: this is a tool. Be safe, brother, come on home
Speaker 1: with your shielder on it. Beta is a shield tosser,
Speaker 1: if there ever was one. Yes, For those who have
Speaker 1: not been around the show long enough, we sometimes refer
Speaker 1: to people as a shield tosser. This was a horrible insult.
Speaker 1: You know, this was like, you know, this was the
Speaker 1: equivalent of a yo mama joke. Back in the day
Speaker 1: where the ancient Spartans, the Athenians, if somebody, if somebody
Speaker 1: was being a coward, you called them a shield tosser.
Speaker 1: Because the armor that in Phalanx warfare, the armor that
Speaker 1: hop lights the heavily, the heavily bronze clad foot soldiers
Speaker 1: of ancient Grease, ancient Macedonia. If you were going to
Speaker 1: run away, guess what you had to toss. You had
Speaker 1: this big, heavy shield, so you'd throw your shield in
Speaker 1: the ground and then you actually had a chance of
Speaker 1: maybe getting away. If you try to run with your shield,
Speaker 1: you weren't going to get very far very fast. So
Speaker 1: that's why a shield tosser is a term for coward
Speaker 1: from ancient Greece, and we use it here sometimes on
Speaker 1: the show. Is Beta a shield tosser? I wouldn't want
Speaker 1: him next to me and the Phalanx, I can tell
Speaker 1: you that much. Yeah, it's just like I understand why
Speaker 1: people are stopping me and like stopping you right now,
Speaker 1: because like if I just took out my guitar, maybe
Speaker 1: I could convince the spartans like not to try to
Speaker 1: like take all of our stuff and enslave our women
Speaker 1: and children. Like I could just like talk to them
Speaker 1: and they would understand we could come together and unify. David, Right,
Speaker 1: it's gonna take in nineteen forties American military mentality to
Speaker 1: defeat a country like Iran that is culturally behind the
Speaker 1: rest of the modernized world. We all know today's political
Speaker 1: climate that is improbable. Look at the idiots that have
Speaker 1: been elected in this country. People actually vote for them.
Speaker 1: It's crazy to take care of buck Well. David, thank
Speaker 1: you and for writing in and yeah, I don't want
Speaker 1: to war. They're on. I don't want to war they're on.
Speaker 1: I don't want us trying to clean up Iron's mess.
Speaker 1: I don't want us in church. I do not want
Speaker 1: young men from you know, Texas and New York and
Speaker 1: Florida and Iowa and Nebraska and California and you and
Speaker 1: I don't want them walking around with you know, armor
Speaker 1: plating on and carrying m fors and trying to make
Speaker 1: sure that a bunch of Iranian insurgents don't kill women
Speaker 1: and children and say, oh, look at the occupation here.
Speaker 1: I mean, just please, we've done it no more. You know,
Speaker 1: there was zero gratitude from the Middle East really and
Speaker 1: very little, if any gratitude from the rest of the
Speaker 1: world for us trying to make a rock a better place.
Speaker 1: So just start with that. Afghanistan. Yeah, there's some Afghans
Speaker 1: that appreciate us, but you know, not that much, not enough,
Speaker 1: not enough that it's worth doing this thing again, that's
Speaker 1: for sure, kel Van, right, Buck, I'll try to keep
Speaker 1: it short, but expanding on the possibility of red flag
Speaker 1: laws overreaching and manifest overreaching and manifesting in various forms.
Speaker 1: My friend who was a very generic name, had her
Speaker 1: house loan delayed enough it might jeopardize her purchase because
Speaker 1: her name was the same as somebody on the no
Speaker 1: fly list. Government overreach is like a van and just
Speaker 1: grows until it takes over the whole house. Shields High
Speaker 1: from Anchorage. Nice up up in Anchorage, man, good to
Speaker 1: talk to Team Buck Alaska. Haven't heard from me a
Speaker 1: little while. As to your your point about government messing up, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there there are no there's nothing about government messing up
Speaker 1: that surprises me. You can expect there's there's no level
Speaker 1: of incompetence where you'd say, wha, A government couldn't do that.
Speaker 1: I mean, the government is capable of any level of
Speaker 1: stupidity really because no one cares and there's really very
Speaker 1: little accountability. It's kind of a recurring fem here on
Speaker 1: the show. So yes, could I could I believe that
Speaker 1: somebody was caught off in a red flag law just
Speaker 1: because their name was similar, they had a similar, similarly
Speaker 1: spelled name to somebody else. I absolutely can believe that.
Speaker 1: It's not surprising to me in the least. Let's see
Speaker 1: what we have here, Tracy, Hey Buck, I love your show. Tracy,
Speaker 1: I love your love of the show. Judge Kavanaugh was
Speaker 1: appointed to represent our laws and constitution. He should make
Speaker 1: it work for him now and sue the pants off
Speaker 1: The New York Times Shields a Tracy in Mobile, Alabama,
Speaker 1: not to be said mobile like a mobile station. No,
Speaker 1: that's not right. Just in case, producer, Producer John, if
Speaker 1: you ever get stuck down there and you happen to
Speaker 1: be the first car to arrive after a lethal robbery
Speaker 1: in which somebody is shot, and then you're picked up
Speaker 1: by the local sheriff and you only have one phone
Speaker 1: call and it is to your cousin Vinnie. I just
Speaker 1: want you to know how to produce, how to pronounce
Speaker 1: rather the name of the town you're in, because that'll
Speaker 1: help you when the judge is lack what is a ute?
Speaker 1: You know? Then you're gonna yeah, Producer, you know exactly
Speaker 1: at least at least now, see producer Mark, he's a
Speaker 1: young un so he doesn't know this movie. But thankfully
Speaker 1: you're here this week help it out. And so I
Speaker 1: could make references to movies from the early nineties where
Speaker 1: Producer Mark was probably neck deep in Power Rangers. Maybe
Speaker 1: early nineties I was neck deep in some baby food
Speaker 1: oh man, wow, he just aged us again. All right,
Speaker 1: fair enough, Terrence Buck, great show has always but I've
Speaker 1: got to call you out on a point from today's show.
Speaker 1: During your bro Cuomo segment, you said people do hum
Speaker 1: with the sault rifles, just as you avoid undocumented and
Speaker 1: adhered to illegal because the language does matter. Please keep
Speaker 1: a left in check and shoot down the fictitious term
Speaker 1: assault rifle. There's no such thing. Enough of the negativity.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work, shields high. Look, Terrence, I
Speaker 1: love it, you love the show, and thank you for
Speaker 1: your good faith message here. But I gotta tell you, man,
Speaker 1: I keep going through. What am I gonna say? There's
Speaker 1: a certain class of semi automatic rifles that liberals will
Speaker 1: codify into law and say we're banning them. And it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not all semi automatic rifles because they are a
Speaker 1: cosmetic feed. And you could say, but book, that's so stupid,
Speaker 1: and I say, yes, I know, that's so stupid, but
Speaker 1: it's what happens. So how do I refer to this
Speaker 1: thing that they have created. You know, undocumented is a
Speaker 1: is a nonsense, political, made up political term. It's not
Speaker 1: in any way a legal term. If they pass a
Speaker 1: law that says assault rifles are now banned, and here's
Speaker 1: a list of ten assault rifles. Those things are then
Speaker 1: legally classified as assault rifles at least in that state,
Speaker 1: or if it's federal, then at the federal level that
Speaker 1: that is the term, right. You know, we could say, oh,
Speaker 1: but they're actually they're actually you know, freedom pop pop toys,
Speaker 1: but which actually sounds kind of fun pop pop, freedom
Speaker 1: pop pop. You know, they may they make a boom noise,
Speaker 1: that is true. The one thing about shooting that I
Speaker 1: that I never really I just I don't like super
Speaker 1: I'm just an a grouchy old man. Producer John. We'll
Speaker 1: leave producer Mark out of this because he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. I'm a old man and I don't like
Speaker 1: super loud noises. You know, this is the thing. I
Speaker 1: had somebody sitting next to me recently at a restaurant
Speaker 1: who thought that it was okay. And these were adults,
Speaker 1: These are not little kids, people in their in their
Speaker 1: forties and fifties. There's like six of them, and they
Speaker 1: kept showing each other like ha ha, look at this
Speaker 1: YouTube video that I'm gonna blast on my phone, and
Speaker 1: showed other people at a restaurant and I sit here,
Speaker 1: I'm like, okay, I mean I can play this game too.
Speaker 1: What if I showed up at a restaurant I said,
Speaker 1: I like to put a boombox on the table and
Speaker 1: just blast my favorite, my favorite music from the nineties.
Speaker 1: You know, I could sit here and I would just
Speaker 1: be playing the Cardigans and the Cranberries as loud as Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, zombie, thombie. I wonder how many people. I
Speaker 1: don't think that many people the audience are catching that one. Unlikely,
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit. They were actually pretty decent, all right, Gina,
Speaker 1: She's not Mina, She's Gina. Hi again. Bucks and discussing
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders and the fact that he doesn't get it,
Speaker 1: I disagree. I fully believe he gets it and is
Speaker 1: fully aware of all that will happen with complete government
Speaker 1: control of our lives. The housing thing. He knows that
Speaker 1: it will result in Ukraine housing Circa nineteen seventy four
Speaker 1: projects everywhere where there's only misery and government control. As
Speaker 1: with healthcare, education, business, diet, drugs, Bernie wants to saul
Speaker 1: O Lynsky model. He has spent years studying it. It
Speaker 1: is the endgame. While it may seem ignorant. He may
Speaker 1: seem ignorant to the costs and stupid. He is not.
Speaker 1: He just hopes we are shields hid Gina, you could
Speaker 1: be right. It's very hard to know with libs whether
Speaker 1: they just don't know or they don't care about what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with the policies that they want and
Speaker 1: the realities of the things they advocate for. Make sure
Speaker 1: team you subscribe now to The Buck Sexton Show starting Monday.
Speaker 1: Unless we have some technical difficulties, it might be the
Speaker 1: late a couple of days, but starting Monday we should
Speaker 1: have the show up every day at three eastern. You
Speaker 1: can listen as a podcast as much as you want
Speaker 1: whenever you want three eastern Monday through Friday. Download the
Speaker 1: show iTunes, the iHeartRadio app, and if you like listening
Speaker 1: on of course, on your local station. We'll still be
Speaker 1: on your local station. Nothing changes there at all. But
Speaker 1: if you like to get an early listen in, or
Speaker 1: if you want to be able to listen on demand,
Speaker 1: then you can do it via podcast. So subscribe on
Speaker 1: iTunes the Buck Sexton Show, or on Spotify or on
Speaker 1: the iHeart app, or however you listen until tomorrow shield's
Speaker 1: high