Speaker 1: Mr Garbutschof teared down this wall. Either you're with us
Speaker 1: or you were with the terrorists. If you've got healthcare already,
Speaker 1: then you can keep your plan. If you are satisfied
Speaker 1: with Trump is not, President said, take it to a
Speaker 1: bank together. We will make America great again. We'll never
Speaker 1: sharend It's what you've been waiting for all day. The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck Toll free
Speaker 1: at eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred to eight to five the future of
Speaker 1: talk radio, Buck Sexton. Russia has made the decision to
Speaker 1: expel sixty of our staff from that country and also
Speaker 1: closed down our consulate in St. Petersburg. A short while ago,
Speaker 1: I spoke with our US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman,
Speaker 1: who is serving over there. We spoke by phone and
Speaker 1: he shared with me a statement which I'd like to
Speaker 1: read with you this evening. Ambassador John Huntsman was convoked
Speaker 1: to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.
Speaker 1: The Russian Federation dubbed sixty of our staff persona non
Speaker 1: grata and they now must depart within seven days. They
Speaker 1: also ordered the closure of our Consulate in St. Petersburg
Speaker 1: within forty eight hours. It's clear from the list provided
Speaker 1: to us that the Russian Federation is not interested in
Speaker 1: a dialogue on issues that matter to our two countries.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck, Sex and show everybody you heard
Speaker 1: the announcement there from the State Department. Russia retaliates against
Speaker 1: us after we retaliated against Russia for some of their
Speaker 1: poor behavior, for some of the government's actions around the world,
Speaker 1: most notably in recent weeks, the poisoning of a Russian
Speaker 1: dissident former Well, the guy was formally rushing himself with
Speaker 1: anov chuck, so they left chemical weapons fingerprints on that
Speaker 1: assassination attempt, and now we are pushing back on them.
Speaker 1: I don't want to spend too much time on Russia.
Speaker 1: I just want to leave with though, because I would
Speaker 1: like us to be a little cautious as a people
Speaker 1: about how much we cheer on all this brinksmanship stuff
Speaker 1: with Russia, or this this notion of a tit for tat,
Speaker 1: I for an eye. I'm not saying we do nothing,
Speaker 1: but this administration, the Trump administration, is now much more
Speaker 1: aggressive in its responses to Russian You can say Russian
Speaker 1: aggression around the world, and the Obama administration was at
Speaker 1: any point in its eight years, And I worry that
Speaker 1: a lot of this has been uh pushed forward because
Speaker 1: of the hysteria around the election meddling stuff. So, you know, Democrats,
Speaker 1: who usually would be the one saying whoa, whoa, we
Speaker 1: don't we don't want to, we don't want to be
Speaker 1: the ones that are, you know, messing around with this
Speaker 1: nuclear power. Let's all. Ever, everybody calm down, a little bit,
Speaker 1: calm down. Instead they're like, yeah, get him. You know.
Speaker 1: The Democrats usually wants telling us to back off, cave
Speaker 1: to the dictator, don't worry about the strong man, the
Speaker 1: U n will handle it. But because they think that
Speaker 1: Russia stole the election from Hillary, they're all, you know, yeah, like,
Speaker 1: why doesn't Trump take a tougher line on Russia, a
Speaker 1: tougher line on Russia. The Russian economy is not formidable
Speaker 1: as compared to OURUS at all, but Russia's ability to
Speaker 1: cause problems for US in other ways, not directly militarily,
Speaker 1: but through third parties, through proxies, Russia's Arsenal, which has
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff. Ever, I mean, how many of
Speaker 1: us let's be honest, even knew what nov Chuck was
Speaker 1: before it appeared in the newspapers as a chemical weapon
Speaker 1: that was proprietary ry to the Russians that they used
Speaker 1: in an assassination attempt. They got all kinds of nasty stuff.
Speaker 1: But now we seem to have a situation where the
Speaker 1: media and the establishment has gone from saying Trump is
Speaker 1: so weak on Russia to oh wow, Okay, Trump is
Speaker 1: doing a lot. That's a good thing. And I worry
Speaker 1: that now you've got everybody, it's like everyone's rowing in
Speaker 1: the same direction on this one. And maybe just we
Speaker 1: need to keep an eye on how much we want
Speaker 1: to antagonize Russia for any number of these issues that
Speaker 1: the administration has tackled in the last twelve months or so,
Speaker 1: and even before that, remember there were the obamaministration put
Speaker 1: sanctions on where Obama was a lame duck president. That's
Speaker 1: an easy thing to do, but we we should not,
Speaker 1: we should not be to cavalier about poking at this
Speaker 1: country time and time again in the ways that we are.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of ways they can make things
Speaker 1: difficult for us, and it would be better, It would
Speaker 1: be much better if, in fact, we were in a
Speaker 1: place where we could find common ground with Russia, and
Speaker 1: and the environment has become such that you even say
Speaker 1: that almost sounds now like you're some kind of a
Speaker 1: turn coat, right, you know, we should find common ground
Speaker 1: with Russia. Oh does potent have video of you with
Speaker 1: the hookers or something? I mean, it's always, that's always
Speaker 1: the response. Now in one way or another, you're insufficiently
Speaker 1: pro American or you're insufficiently loyal to America. Now, and
Speaker 1: this is kinda and it's not bipartisan, but you've seen
Speaker 1: this in both parties. If you even raise the idea
Speaker 1: of let's have a more constructive relationship with Russia, that's
Speaker 1: not just premised on you know, you do this, and
Speaker 1: we do that in response, and it's heading in a
Speaker 1: very negative direction. I would also know that Russia is
Speaker 1: a whole lot less important to the United it States
Speaker 1: in every sense then China. And yet you have all
Speaker 1: this piling on oh trum putting the dictator and all
Speaker 1: this bad stuff, and so much less of the media's
Speaker 1: attention spent on China and the the economic and military
Speaker 1: challenge that it poses for us. You know, Cyberg gets
Speaker 1: a little more tension Now this is just a reflection
Speaker 1: of the Trump's arrangement syndrome that's been pushing the media
Speaker 1: now for gosh, I don't even know how many, you know,
Speaker 1: eighteen months, pushing the media to run with this Russia
Speaker 1: story as though it's such a big deal. So everything
Speaker 1: with Russia is magnified, is what I'm saying. And the
Speaker 1: environment now is a little bit of a frenzy. There's
Speaker 1: a little bit of a hysteria and yeah, yeah, get Russia. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's let's just pump the brakes a little bit on this, right.
Speaker 1: Russia is really not a country that affects your day
Speaker 1: to day very much, doesn't affect my day to day
Speaker 1: very much, and yet it's a ordered on the media
Speaker 1: all the time. This obsession with Putin and we all
Speaker 1: know why hasn't changed really at all as a country
Speaker 1: since Obama was in office. But now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: it's and I think, and this is I guess my
Speaker 1: cautionary note here. I feel like it's some level the
Speaker 1: democrat and media is like the guy who's you know,
Speaker 1: at the other end of the bar, who's saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: get him, just to see if you can get yourself
Speaker 1: into some trouble, you know, egging you on, egging us,
Speaker 1: meaning America on to go after Russia, wondering if maybe
Speaker 1: we'll make a blunder along the way. We've got big
Speaker 1: We've got big financial issues that are heading for this country. Uh.
Speaker 1: The more I dig into it, the more time I
Speaker 1: spent thinking about it. It's coming, folks, And it's a
Speaker 1: function of math. I'm not pretending that I've got some
Speaker 1: crystal ball here, and I can tell you when it
Speaker 1: is a function of math. We are twenty one trillion
Speaker 1: in debt. We don't even talk about dealing with our
Speaker 1: debts anymore. We passed them on the future generations. It
Speaker 1: is entered generational theft. It is happening on a multi
Speaker 1: trillion dollar, multi decade basis, and it is unsustainable even
Speaker 1: for us. Our country is in a little bit of
Speaker 1: of a of a hubris about how much debt we
Speaker 1: can how much we can play games with credit, how
Speaker 1: much debt we can carry, and this is an issue
Speaker 1: that we have to deal with sooner than later. But
Speaker 1: there's nothing on this. Instead, it's all, yeah, we expelled
Speaker 1: some Russian diplomats, they expelled our diplomats. Okay, Fine, It's
Speaker 1: a news story that's much more instant the media than
Speaker 1: it is to you and me. And that's because, ultimately,
Speaker 1: do you think anyone will care or even remember in
Speaker 1: six months. The only thing that I think that that
Speaker 1: could make it important is it is now creating something
Speaker 1: of a momentum in the short term where there could
Speaker 1: be a miscalculation, there could be an over and over
Speaker 1: reaction Russia could decide make things very nasty for US.
Speaker 1: I've always been concerned about Russian support to the Taliban,
Speaker 1: which US four star Jen Rolls have been saying. You know,
Speaker 1: at least one general in particularly been saying, I think
Speaker 1: there's a problem we got here. Guys, think about what
Speaker 1: happens if they decided to turn up that uh turn
Speaker 1: up that heat. I could get very ugly, very quickly.
Speaker 1: So I have my concerns here. I know it's being
Speaker 1: celebrated as a victory, and you know it's harder for
Speaker 1: them to rome with the Trump is a Russian puppet
Speaker 1: narrative when Trump is going after Russia more than than
Speaker 1: any of his recent predecessors have. But that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that we should get too enthusiastic about it either. I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about the the decision not
Speaker 1: to create a second special counsel. I think it's the
Speaker 1: right one. I'll get into why that is, um and
Speaker 1: we will also talk about Oh, I've got more on
Speaker 1: Roseanne for you. I watched the show two episodes in fact,
Speaker 1: and I did not well, let's let's just leave that
Speaker 1: out there. But if a cliffhanger for you, I don't
Speaker 1: want to tell you who gets the rose I gotta
Speaker 1: wait till after the commercial. I don't know how many
Speaker 1: of you watch The Bachelor. Ms. Molly has made me
Speaker 1: watch it like a few times. Calm back, calm down, nonsense.
Speaker 1: Uh so, yeah, she twisted my arm. That's right. And
Speaker 1: we've got we've got a whole bunch of things we've
Speaker 1: gotta hit on. So we have a pack show, as
Speaker 1: we always do. If you want to add your voice
Speaker 1: into the mix here eight four four to five eight fuck,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. But certainly, drugs are flowing across borders.
Speaker 1: We need walls. We started building our wall. I'm so
Speaker 1: proud of it. We started, We started. We have one
Speaker 1: point six billions and we've already started. You saw the
Speaker 1: pictures yesterday. I said, what a thing of beauty and
Speaker 1: we're getting that sucker built. And you think that's easy.
Speaker 1: People said, oh, has he given up on the one nine?
Speaker 1: Never give up. I never. We have one point six
Speaker 1: billion towards the wall. That's what I do is I build.
Speaker 1: I was always very good at building. It was always
Speaker 1: my best thing. I think better than being president. I
Speaker 1: was maybe good at building. So Trump saying we're getting
Speaker 1: the wall right here, we are, Omnibus passed, and he's
Speaker 1: saying there's gonna be a walt No one thinks one
Speaker 1: point six billion is gonna be enough. So what's the
Speaker 1: next step. I know there are these theories out there,
Speaker 1: and they've been floated by Trump himself that he's gonna
Speaker 1: use military spending. I think that could lead to an
Speaker 1: immediate challenge in federal court, which would delay anything. But
Speaker 1: I m hm. And Trump is saying it's one point
Speaker 1: six billion and that that's gonna be a good start.
Speaker 1: Gets a little frustrating sometimes. And we're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: other things to do on the show. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you more about the deep state, taking the
Speaker 1: deep state on. We'll get into that in a few minutes.
Speaker 1: But I've I've seen some of the commentary from some
Speaker 1: very ardent Trump supporters. You know, I think it's hard
Speaker 1: to find somebody who was earlier on in her support
Speaker 1: for a Trump presidency than than Ann Coulter. And we've
Speaker 1: had I've had on I don't know how many times
Speaker 1: I've had her on radio shows in the past a bunch,
Speaker 1: and she is really going after Trump on this and now,
Speaker 1: I like, I think she's just offering up this criticism
Speaker 1: of Trump as a as a corrective in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of that whole omnibus bill situation. I think so. But
Speaker 1: be prepared for some some harsh, some harsh stuff from
Speaker 1: from his culture regarding Trump, who She wrote a book,
Speaker 1: you remember before the presidency, like Trump is the most
Speaker 1: awesome thing ever or something. It was something it was
Speaker 1: like that, that was that was the book. I mean,
Speaker 1: I forget what the exact title was, but it was
Speaker 1: like Trump is the most amazing thing ever. She refers
Speaker 1: to him sometimes as the Emperor God Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: like ants. It's very very witty, very funny. But she
Speaker 1: is not taking this wall omnibus bill situation lightly at all.
Speaker 1: It was precisely that he was so course that allowed
Speaker 1: him to make these say these incredibly courageous things. He
Speaker 1: didn't care what Manhattan eleas thought of it against to
Speaker 1: the White House. Suddenly all he wants is the approval
Speaker 1: of the Manhattan fancy people. He sure didn't care for
Speaker 1: the eighteen months he was running so the shallow course
Speaker 1: ignoram us. Yes, it was a selling point because he
Speaker 1: didn't care what people thought of him. Now all he
Speaker 1: wants is for Goldman Sachs to like him. I don't
Speaker 1: know what happened, but that's a different president. I haven't changed.
Speaker 1: She's upset about what's going on here about the wall,
Speaker 1: as you can see, and I will know that in
Speaker 1: her I think she said this week or in a
Speaker 1: column this week, she says, if Trump builds the wall,
Speaker 1: I'll retract everything mean I've ever said. And he's totally right,
Speaker 1: and he's the most amazing president ever. Again, but I
Speaker 1: gotta say, folks, I just wanna establish now that we
Speaker 1: this is not one that we can explain away if
Speaker 1: it doesn't happen. If it doesn't happen, the president didn't
Speaker 1: make it happen. And this was a promise that it
Speaker 1: was what separated him from Rubio and the others. This
Speaker 1: is what was different. He's willingness to even talk about this.
Speaker 1: It's one of the only reasons we can even discuss
Speaker 1: immigration now in the context of how it's not always
Speaker 1: how a legal immigration, for example, is not just one
Speaker 1: big pile of awesome for US. UM. But he's he's
Speaker 1: saying it's gonna get built. I'm I'm withhold. I'm not
Speaker 1: withholding judgment entirely, but I can't give a final judgment
Speaker 1: on this until we know whether or not it actually happens. UM.
Speaker 1: We also have California today, very very noteworthy backing off
Speaker 1: a little bit of the UH sanctuary city mandates that
Speaker 1: they've put in place. California has laws that are completely
Speaker 1: completely out of control when it comes to immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement. And now we're gonna have to see if,
Speaker 1: in fact they're gonna ease off a little bit at
Speaker 1: the state level because Orange cown he has said that
Speaker 1: they they want to oppose the sanctuary laws that are
Speaker 1: in place here. And you get into this this fight
Speaker 1: at will the state pushed back on this. Will the state,
Speaker 1: when I mean I don't mean the big es state,
Speaker 1: I mean the state of California say no, you have
Speaker 1: to do this you have to this way, we say, um,
Speaker 1: but you know, these are only debates and discussions that
Speaker 1: are happening because of Trump's standard immigration. And I would
Speaker 1: note I mentioned and before people sometimes forget this. Trump
Speaker 1: read or at least took the argument from Audios America
Speaker 1: and ran with that in the beginning. And that's how
Speaker 1: you remember the comment that all of a sudden, people like, whoa,
Speaker 1: he's way ahead and the polls was about Mexico not
Speaker 1: sending us their best. That was such a a bolt
Speaker 1: of lightning in terms of what the political consensus allowed
Speaker 1: at that point in time, meaning that it was just
Speaker 1: like what did he say? Right? It was it was
Speaker 1: a shock to the system. And then the promises about
Speaker 1: the wall came up, and now here we are and
Speaker 1: he's saying he's gonna get it built. He saying it's
Speaker 1: gonna get done. We have to hold him to account
Speaker 1: on this, and we absolutely have to. Um. He's also
Speaker 1: saying by that he's going to protect the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: I have no no concerns about that, and respected in
Speaker 1: some circles Democrat said we want to get rid, we
Speaker 1: should get rid of our Second Amendment. In other words,
Speaker 1: get rid of it. That's really Chris could be right
Speaker 1: about that. Your Second Amendment will always be your second Amendment.
Speaker 1: We're not doing anything to that, and yet there's such
Speaker 1: a dishonesty out there. I think gas lighting is a
Speaker 1: is a term that I'm familiar with from the left
Speaker 1: where and I believe it's taken initially from abusive situations
Speaker 1: where somebody says, somebody will hit somebody. This is like
Speaker 1: domestic relationship situation, will hit somebody and then you know,
Speaker 1: an hour later we're like, I didn't hit you, and
Speaker 1: it's a form of psychological abuse. Uh. There's some kind
Speaker 1: of gas lighting that goes on with the media and
Speaker 1: the repeal of the Second Amendment, where they'll have big
Speaker 1: outlets run with the story and then they'll and they'll
Speaker 1: put the opinion out there if yeah, yeah, we should
Speaker 1: repeal the Second Amendment, And then when people go, whoa
Speaker 1: hold on a second? You want to be the second
Speaker 1: and they go, oh, no, no one said, no one
Speaker 1: sang that, No one sang it. Well, well, which is it?
Speaker 1: Can we get some Can we get some clarity on
Speaker 1: that one? That would be I think particularly word while
Speaker 1: and then one more thing, I mean Trump spoke earlier today.
Speaker 1: So this is just another one one that comes to
Speaker 1: mind here. On taxes. They all want to be back
Speaker 1: in the USA, A lot of them left. They're coming back.
Speaker 1: We've eliminated a record number of job killing regulations. That's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons they're coming back. We killed the
Speaker 1: regulation and it's a thing of beauty. So I think
Speaker 1: that's been a big, big success and a re and
Speaker 1: for our success, and we've made history by massively reducing
Speaker 1: job killing taxes. I'm all for it, but let's be clear,
Speaker 1: reducing taxes is about as mainstream a GOP position as
Speaker 1: you're ever gonna find. That's not revolutionary at all. I'm
Speaker 1: happy for it. I'm not discounting it. Baba Bucka definitely
Speaker 1: Papa Buck needs a new pair of shoes. Literally, my
Speaker 1: sneakers that I try to work out in once a
Speaker 1: month are wearing out on me entirely. So I'm all
Speaker 1: for the tax thing. But when I talked about the
Speaker 1: Trump Agenda, I'm particularly enthusiastic about the aspects of it
Speaker 1: that are different than the GOP, different than the swamp,
Speaker 1: different than what has been business as usual. We gotta
Speaker 1: hold them to that, folks. We're gonna stay on it.
Speaker 1: We'll go back. He's back with you now, because when
Speaker 1: it comes to the fight for truth, the funk never stops.
Speaker 1: The Democrats appear like they weaponize to some degree the
Speaker 1: intelligence services by using the foreign intelligence surveillance apparatus in
Speaker 1: this country to go and target the opposition campaign is
Speaker 1: totally unacceptable, and that's what happened here. I am happy
Speaker 1: that Bob good Laugh subpoened these one point two million documents,
Speaker 1: but I said this earlier in the week. We need
Speaker 1: those documents. Like yesterday, I think we're going to get
Speaker 1: all the documents, and if we don't, then we should
Speaker 1: move quickly to contempt, and then we should move to impeachment.
Speaker 1: One of the mistakes we made is we never impeached
Speaker 1: Lois Lerner and we never impeached Costagan. Had we gotten
Speaker 1: later with it, we wouldn't be here today. They got
Speaker 1: away with faith. Devin Noon is laying down some heat
Speaker 1: as he should. Look. The reality I think here has
Speaker 1: been clear for a while, and that is is people
Speaker 1: in very senior positions in the government under the Obama
Speaker 1: administration who figured that Hillary was definitely gonna win, but
Speaker 1: they wanted to make sure that she won they wanted
Speaker 1: to help um, and they also were terrified of the
Speaker 1: notion of a Trump residency. Abused their discretion and their
Speaker 1: authority and did what they could to try to dig
Speaker 1: up dirt on Trump or just create this whole narrative.
Speaker 1: You know all that, right. I mean, we've even add
Speaker 1: nauseum on this story because the media keeps coming. Although
Speaker 1: right now, I'll tell you they're much more interested in
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels there's the main story and CNN right now
Speaker 1: than they aren't anything having to with Russia, including the
Speaker 1: expulsion of sixty of our diplomats by the Russians. That's
Speaker 1: that's uh second to your stuff, the the minutia that
Speaker 1: gets attention from the left. When it comes to Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels stuff, it's like a Stormy Daniels lawyer had a bacon,
Speaker 1: egg and cheese McMuffin this morning. I mean, the stuff
Speaker 1: they're running with OVERTENA it's like not not even news,
Speaker 1: it's just just they want to they want to flash
Speaker 1: photos on the screen of the porn star that alleged
Speaker 1: the affair. And I guess their audience. I guess people
Speaker 1: that hate Trump likes seeing this over and over again.
Speaker 1: It affects them not one bit, and it's really not interesting.
Speaker 1: But here we are. It's the main story. And I
Speaker 1: do believe by the way they're they're laying off the
Speaker 1: Russia stuff right now because they want this whole policy
Speaker 1: response from Trump to pass and then they can start
Speaker 1: pounding the Trump is in Russia's pocket. Druma again, But
Speaker 1: right now it's a little too much dissonance, even for
Speaker 1: CNN if such a thing as possible and apples or banana, bananas,
Speaker 1: an apple, it's all the same thing. But on the
Speaker 1: weaponization of the intelligence community, specifically d o J and FBI,
Speaker 1: which is I like to note the scariest part of
Speaker 1: the government. Like I said before, prosecutors are very frighting,
Speaker 1: but also the DJ in general. You do not ever
Speaker 1: want to be sitting across the table from a U
Speaker 1: S attorney or an assistant U S attorney discussing your
Speaker 1: options for a plea. You know, there's no parole in
Speaker 1: the federal government system, so you serve the whole sentence,
Speaker 1: and the mandatory minimums are rough. So at the federal government,
Speaker 1: including for crimes, you're like, wait, what we're not talking
Speaker 1: about for acts murderers, here folks were talking about for
Speaker 1: male fraud. We're talking about for for other things. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure a woman actually just got Speaking of how
Speaker 1: our justice system, I think honestly that the way that
Speaker 1: punishment has told out our justice system in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways doesn't make very much sense. Um. I think
Speaker 1: a woman just got five years for voting illegally in Texas.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure I saw that today. Five years in prison,
Speaker 1: forecasting and illegal one illegal vote. She was a felon
Speaker 1: and did not know and said she did not know
Speaker 1: that she was not allowed to vote after the completion
Speaker 1: of her sentence. But you'd be surprised which you get
Speaker 1: sent away for and how long you know you commit it.
Speaker 1: You commit fraud, you you could be facing a long
Speaker 1: stretch in the pen if you're somebody who you know,
Speaker 1: do something really terrible and violent. Depending on whether you
Speaker 1: go to state core, if it's not federal state, you
Speaker 1: know you might have a better shot. You know, you
Speaker 1: just don't know. There are definitely people that serve more
Speaker 1: time for white collar crimes in many instances than for uh,
Speaker 1: manslaughter for example, if you take a please anyway, So
Speaker 1: the the Attorney General, my buddy Jeff As you know,
Speaker 1: he has said that the special prosecutor is not going
Speaker 1: to be the option the d o J goes with
Speaker 1: right now to look into all this stuff. Special prosecutor
Speaker 1: is not the way, not the way to go. They're
Speaker 1: gonna have the Inspector General. Look, I think this is
Speaker 1: the right move, and I think it's the right move
Speaker 1: for a number of reasons. For one, if it comes
Speaker 1: from inside the Department of Justice itself, I think now
Speaker 1: you can argue this one. But I think that it
Speaker 1: seems a little more like, well, it's just the normal process,
Speaker 1: and if you set up a separate special council, it
Speaker 1: looks like you're just trying to you know, you're trying
Speaker 1: to do a Yeah, I'm doing this as well. You know,
Speaker 1: it's fighting fire with fire, but so political, because the
Speaker 1: current special council, the Mueller probe is so obviously a
Speaker 1: witch hunt against Trump, to set up another special council
Speaker 1: may look like you're just trying to dirty up the
Speaker 1: other side, whereas you could just use the Inspector General
Speaker 1: and the internal processes of the Department of Justice to
Speaker 1: get this information. Well, we've seen this week is not
Speaker 1: only that decision coming out from Jeff Sessions, but also
Speaker 1: the FBI now has agreed two and this is under
Speaker 1: FBI Director Ray to move more quickly on things, because
Speaker 1: my friends, FBI is playing games here, no question about it.
Speaker 1: I don't mean the whole FBI. I'm not saying like
Speaker 1: every field agent in you know, Topeka is messing around
Speaker 1: with the books or something. I mean, at the top
Speaker 1: level in d C, at at FBI, h Q, there
Speaker 1: are decisions that are being made that are at a
Speaker 1: minimum skewed towards defending the bureau's reputation at a minimum,
Speaker 1: and that's not the way that's supposed to be. We
Speaker 1: should have a full accounting of the facts, or we
Speaker 1: should know exactly what happened. You know, You're starting to
Speaker 1: see a problem here, the disparities and the hypocrisy, right,
Speaker 1: the disparity between the Hillary Clinton email investigation. How are
Speaker 1: witnesses treated, How is Hillary treated? How was the law read?
Speaker 1: And then how the special counsel has been going with Trump? Right,
Speaker 1: how are those witnesses treated? Is anything overlooked? Is any
Speaker 1: has anyone given the benefit of the doubt? You know,
Speaker 1: does the tie go to the runner with Hillary? You know,
Speaker 1: and even have to run to the base and they
Speaker 1: were calling you safe with Trump. You're getting tagged after
Speaker 1: you've dusted yourself off already hit the base and they're
Speaker 1: calling you out right. It's it's a very disparate treatment.
Speaker 1: But within the d o J itself, what you see
Speaker 1: is if if you lie to d o J, are
Speaker 1: you engage in any kind of hiding or impropriety, you
Speaker 1: as a private citizen, particularly if you're tied to Trump,
Speaker 1: you're you're dunzo. I mean, you are gonna get crushed.
Speaker 1: But if you happen to work for the d o J,
Speaker 1: you know there's gonna be a lot of efforts to
Speaker 1: try to keep stuff secret, and you know that they're
Speaker 1: going to cover for you. The fact that the text
Speaker 1: messages between Struck, the FBI agent and his UH mistress
Speaker 1: Page talked about this judge and how they wanted to
Speaker 1: make sure that they could meet with the judge and
Speaker 1: not recuse themself. That judge was overseeing the Flinm case
Speaker 1: at the time. That's a big deal. Why would the FBI,
Speaker 1: on on what legitimate grounds would they hold that back
Speaker 1: from us? The answer is none. The answer is that
Speaker 1: they're protecting the reputation of the Bureau and they think
Speaker 1: they have a very wide mandate to do that. And
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you that that is troubling. We
Speaker 1: see time and again political abuses in agencies that have
Speaker 1: a whole lot of power FBI i r S with
Speaker 1: Lois Learner, as was mentioned, and there's no accountability. There
Speaker 1: is no accountability, and the government seems to think that
Speaker 1: they can rely on secretcy. Remember there was a lot
Speaker 1: of secrecy in the i R S too. Can't release
Speaker 1: tax and tax information, can't release this, can't release that,
Speaker 1: you know, criminal liability. I think even for people to
Speaker 1: release private tax information, uh, that's you know, that they've
Speaker 1: gotten from a third party. So they are all kinds
Speaker 1: of problems, all kinds of issues with how the government
Speaker 1: tries to keep information back from us, and we just
Speaker 1: have to demand to see it. We have to say,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is enough of the games. You know,
Speaker 1: this FISA abuse situation. This should be a four alarm fire.
Speaker 1: To my my friends out there who are fireman, I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's the what's the most for a fire?
Speaker 1: Is it four alarms or five alarms? I mean, if
Speaker 1: if stuff gets like really wild, if it's like a raging,
Speaker 1: fiery tornado inferno? Is that like a six alarm fire?
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know fireman stuff. I just
Speaker 1: remember all the funny jokes that the m YPD you
Speaker 1: used to make about the f d n Y and
Speaker 1: I can't repeat them on air because I don't want
Speaker 1: to get in the middle of that. But I think
Speaker 1: fore alarm fires the most anyway, it should be a
Speaker 1: forelarm fire using despying apparatus of the United States government.
Speaker 1: I also know this is another thing? Is am I right?
Speaker 1: Forelarm fire or five? Come on, John? What do you
Speaker 1: got for me? Ten alarm fire? Whoa not? Six? Seven? Um?
Speaker 1: All right, well, apparently there's ten alarm fires which I
Speaker 1: didn't know about. That must be crazy. I must be
Speaker 1: like staring into the mouth of the volcano. Right, that's
Speaker 1: that's a ten alarm fire. But the the spying apparacity
Speaker 1: the United States government another note here, we had this
Speaker 1: thing now if not ever referring to spying. You know
Speaker 1: it's interesting, isn't it. I mean you had h I
Speaker 1: think the former CI director say that the agency for example,
Speaker 1: like doesn't doesn't really doesn't spy here, it's just intelligence no,
Speaker 1: there's spying, right, there's spying going on. And when people
Speaker 1: are intercepting your communications, that's you can call it surveillance,
Speaker 1: which is a sort of a fancy French word for spying,
Speaker 1: because that's what it is, the surveyance. Say it like
Speaker 1: that and all of a sudden sounds a little cooler
Speaker 1: or not. But the spying apparatus of the United States
Speaker 1: government was used for political purposes. And as I've said
Speaker 1: to you, all they had to get was one really
Speaker 1: juicy nugget, you know, all they had to get was
Speaker 1: one bit of information that was either it didn't even
Speaker 1: have to be criminal, it just had to be so
Speaker 1: of politically damaging that it could be leaked the Washington
Speaker 1: Then would all be over right? I mean, just imagine
Speaker 1: for one second that you know, somebody that they had
Speaker 1: under surveillance, where they they when they gathered these communications
Speaker 1: from Carter Page or somebody else, there was something off
Speaker 1: hand said that was really and you you don't need
Speaker 1: me to to paint a picture here, you can think
Speaker 1: of it yourself. Right, this is a hypothetical, but really, uh,
Speaker 1: not something you'd want publicized that got out there from
Speaker 1: any member of the campaign or or even from somebody
Speaker 1: you know, Trump or somebody right around him at the
Speaker 1: top level, could have been the end, right, just one email,
Speaker 1: one text message and if you have the legal discretion
Speaker 1: to look for that information based on Carter Page is
Speaker 1: running some international conspiracy and Carter Page is a clown.
Speaker 1: He may be a reasonably nice guy, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but he's a clown. He's not doing any conspiracy. He's
Speaker 1: the center of this whole thing. He's the centerpiece of
Speaker 1: all of this. You know, Ever since I interviewed Julian Assans,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna lie, I've been a little worried about
Speaker 1: my own communications. That was like a year ago. I'm like,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, they I shouldn't. Maybe I shouldn't do this
Speaker 1: from you know, an I P address that's actually tied
Speaker 1: to me. But anyway, just talk to the guy. But
Speaker 1: we don't want our government spying on us. This should
Speaker 1: be a really big deal, a really big story. Notice
Speaker 1: how the same people who are up in arms about
Speaker 1: whether Facebook shared information that Facebook already has with a
Speaker 1: third party for the purposes of marketing, when they're doing
Speaker 1: that all the time anyway, those people are so freaked
Speaker 1: out about information they are freely giving to the government.
Speaker 1: Are somehow on the other side of this, people who
Speaker 1: are telling you that miking up Carter Page is entire
Speaker 1: life basically based on this preposterous idea that he's a
Speaker 1: Russian agent. Is okay, this is the single most important
Speaker 1: thing the Department of Justice can do right now, get
Speaker 1: us answers and the truth on this. I think the
Speaker 1: Inspector General is equipped for it. I think a special
Speaker 1: counsel is probably not needed as long as the i G.
Speaker 1: Is pushing hard and Jeff Sessions is going to push it.
Speaker 1: And I think that's, uh, that's where we are on this,
Speaker 1: so we'll see. Um. But you know there are these
Speaker 1: text messages about different figures involved in this by possible coordination.
Speaker 1: We we need this stuff to be out there. I
Speaker 1: want the facts, all right, all right, I know I've
Speaker 1: run longer. I'm gonna run to a break. Uh. Let's
Speaker 1: just do that and I'll come right back. I got
Speaker 1: a lot more, well, John, just so you know you
Speaker 1: did not overstate it. My friend, uh, Mike, send this
Speaker 1: to me. A sixteen alarm fire, which is this is
Speaker 1: the the the fiery Sharknado of fires. I mean, I
Speaker 1: didn't even know that was a thing sixteen alarm fire
Speaker 1: in Brooklyn back in Um, I don't. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't think they could. That's not really a fire. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know. I I just learned. I've
Speaker 1: heard about like a fore alarm fire before. I just
Speaker 1: realized I don't know any of my firefighting. All I
Speaker 1: know I learned from backdraft, and I'm assuming that's not
Speaker 1: very much. So, if any, we actually have a lot
Speaker 1: of listeners who were firefighters, so you know, send me
Speaker 1: some resources so I can actually learn how this goes.
Speaker 1: I know that, you know, they build the trucks, they
Speaker 1: make a lot of noise, they bring water, they wear suits.
Speaker 1: You know. I don't know. I don't know much about
Speaker 1: it at all. And then I always was. I was
Speaker 1: just always a musing I was never given the other
Speaker 1: side of it, which is the fire department guys making
Speaker 1: fun of the NYPD guys, and I never got that
Speaker 1: part of it, which I'm sure there's also a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of humor that goes back and forth.
Speaker 1: But yeah, apparently sixty sixteen alarm fire. So it's it's
Speaker 1: whatever the producer Mike is has got my back here.
Speaker 1: He says, the number of alarms generally indicates how many
Speaker 1: firefighters and vehicles are dispatched, So it's whatever the fire,
Speaker 1: and now it all makes sense, alright. He thanks, thanks Mike.
Speaker 1: I had a feeling of something like that, by the way,
Speaker 1: if it had to be so. I hear this stuff sometimes.
Speaker 1: I had a high school classmate, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: even remember if he ended up doing it, but I
Speaker 1: thought the guy had his stuff together because we were
Speaker 1: all sitting around talking about how we were gonna try
Speaker 1: to go to like grad school or something and become lawyers.
Speaker 1: My high school is a lawyer factory man. Everyone ended
Speaker 1: up being a lawyer. And and he's like nice, like
Speaker 1: I want to be a fireman, and we're all like
Speaker 1: we kind of looked at him, and you know, I mean, look,
Speaker 1: that's that's cool. I mean it's you know, I worked
Speaker 1: for the police department for a while. But I just
Speaker 1: it was funny because he wasn't like, I want to
Speaker 1: be a fireman, and he hadn't thought about it. He's like,
Speaker 1: the pension system is amazing. I get to work out
Speaker 1: all day. You get to like have this amazing schedule.
Speaker 1: You can you can retire, at least in New York.
Speaker 1: I think you retire the twenty years no matter how
Speaker 1: old you are when you join, you get all kinds
Speaker 1: of good O. T He had like we're we were
Speaker 1: like sixteen. He had worked this out to the tape.
Speaker 1: Actually spoke to another friend of mine racially about how
Speaker 1: he was on a trip in I think it was
Speaker 1: in Germany and he was at some like Bavarian beer
Speaker 1: hall there and they're all these guys there and they're
Speaker 1: all from the same fire department. He's like, he's like wow.
Speaker 1: He's like, you guys are all here. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we've got like you know, comp time or something. And therefore,
Speaker 1: I think the fire department and outside just around San
Speaker 1: Francisco great gig for them. Apparently I've gone way off
Speaker 1: the rails here. I am gonna come back and talk
Speaker 1: to you about how the dominant, the leftist domination of
Speaker 1: media is going to come back and come back fiercer
Speaker 1: than ever before unless we do something about it. You
Speaker 1: have the Obama dynasty that I mentioned before is going
Speaker 1: to be built differently than they were building, the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton one or the Clinton one, I should say, Uh,
Speaker 1: the Obama dynast is going to be digital, and it's
Speaker 1: gonna be not through a pseudo charity, but through media,
Speaker 1: through entertainment. I mentioned yesterday that pundits run the country,
Speaker 1: and it is true. Obama knows that, and all of
Speaker 1: his backers, all of his people know that Obama is
Speaker 1: actually going to be the main force going forward. I
Speaker 1: think in the Democrat Party you're going to see that
Speaker 1: happening more in the next year. But some of his
Speaker 1: top people are also getting involved in this. I'll explain
Speaker 1: what I mean and where this is all going, but
Speaker 1: you have to stay with me through the break because
Speaker 1: I can't share it all right now, I got so
Speaker 1: much more to say. Our two coming up. He's holding
Speaker 1: the line for America. Buck sex in his back. How
Speaker 1: is the Left trying to control of the conversation, control
Speaker 1: the platforms, the outlets. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody.
Speaker 1: I like Netflix a lot, not as much of a
Speaker 1: Hulu guy. I like Netflix. MS Molly likes Hulu. You know,
Speaker 1: to each his own. I've seen a lot of very
Speaker 1: good shows on Netflix. I do think House of Cards
Speaker 1: is wildly overrated. And oh, by the way, we will
Speaker 1: get into Roseanne which I watched in the third hour
Speaker 1: to the show. I've got some additional thoughts on it.
Speaker 1: I think a little bit. I know, Trump called Roseanne
Speaker 1: to congratulate her on the huge ratings of the show.
Speaker 1: I am. I have a bit of a contrarian view
Speaker 1: of all of this, my friends, which I will share
Speaker 1: with you in the third hour. I gotta I gotta
Speaker 1: keep you, I gotta keep it spicy, you know. But
Speaker 1: it wasn't an Emerald Bam with the spice, right, that
Speaker 1: was the And now there's also a spice meme guy
Speaker 1: who does the thing with his hand and the right
Speaker 1: the throws the salt salt meat, Salt Salt Bay, Thank you,
Speaker 1: Salt Bay. Salt Bay is kind of the new uh,
Speaker 1: kind of the new Emerald Bam, right, I mean it's
Speaker 1: sort of maybe anyway. Whatever. So Netflix, though, is great,
Speaker 1: but guess what, It's run by a bunch of liberals.
Speaker 1: Guess what else? Facebook run by a bunch of liberals.
Speaker 1: Google run by a bunch of liberals, and I mean
Speaker 1: run run and owned by I should say Amazon, and
Speaker 1: The Washington Post run by a bunch of liberals. Trump
Speaker 1: called out Amazon earlier today and actually caused the stock
Speaker 1: to get a little bit of a little bit of
Speaker 1: a hit. So there's that. But you'll notice when I'm
Speaker 1: talking to you about digital media platforms, which are not
Speaker 1: just changing our day to day to lives, but really
Speaker 1: the engines of the engines of the economy right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's there's a huge amount of growth that
Speaker 1: just comes from the stocks that are in these areas. Um,
Speaker 1: it's all liberals that own them and run them and
Speaker 1: operate them. This is significant, my friends. Right people say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: we'ren media. We've got Fox News now on the internet,
Speaker 1: and yeah, but cable is changing and everything is going
Speaker 1: to go digital and outlot card at some point in
Speaker 1: the future. I don't know when. Everyone people have been
Speaker 1: saying this for years. Content will still be important and
Speaker 1: monetizeable and valuable, right the actual shows that go on TV.
Speaker 1: But that's changing. How we get the content is changing,
Speaker 1: and everything is gonna be integrated, as we know, in
Speaker 1: your computer and your TV and all this all gonna
Speaker 1: be treated pretty much the same way. Who controls the
Speaker 1: access points Liberals, leftists, progressives. They control Netflix, Hulu, Comcast, Google, YouTube, Facebook,
Speaker 1: go down the list, Instagram. I know some of these
Speaker 1: own other ones, but what do we have on our side?
Speaker 1: And I would be okay even with with a truly
Speaker 1: neutral social media BMF. I'd be okay with a truly
Speaker 1: neutral digital media. But it doesn't exist, and somehow they've
Speaker 1: all skewed left again. This We've been kind of asleep
Speaker 1: at the wheel on this one. I'm just gonna be
Speaker 1: honest with you, folks. I've been telling you for a while,
Speaker 1: this is happening. There's no way that you have Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg in some ways the most powerful CEO on the planet,
Speaker 1: who is clearly a man of the left, and that
Speaker 1: doesn't affect what goes on at Facebook. It's just not
Speaker 1: just not reality. Now you're starting to see what the
Speaker 1: next what the next version? The two point? Oh sorry,
Speaker 1: all this is going to be. Obama is getting shows
Speaker 1: via Netflix. They're not sure if he's going to be
Speaker 1: on one, maybe you know, do sort of a political
Speaker 1: talk show. Obama then becomes somebody who's in a position
Speaker 1: to direct the national conversation in a similar way to
Speaker 1: Ellen and Oprah and Seacrest. I mean, these people who
Speaker 1: have enormous followings on TV. But Obama was a politician,
Speaker 1: right and now he might might have that role. He
Speaker 1: also will be beyond this scenes producer on these things,
Speaker 1: executive producer role and credit or maybe just credit. Who
Speaker 1: knows Susan Rice one of his top advisors. You remember
Speaker 1: Susan Rice, right, I mean, she does have some experience
Speaker 1: in the in the video space. Based on the best
Speaker 1: information we have to date, what our assessment is as
Speaker 1: of the present is, in fact, what it began spontaneously
Speaker 1: in Benghazi as a reaction to what it transpired some
Speaker 1: hours earlier in Cairo, where, of course, as you know, uh,
Speaker 1: there was a violent protest outside of our embassy sparked
Speaker 1: by this hateful video. So she's got some video experience
Speaker 1: talking about the video that did not in fact cause
Speaker 1: Benghazi and that was a terrorist attack. But so there's that.
Speaker 1: But she's gonna be on the board at Netflix. Give
Speaker 1: me on the board voting on strategic decisions that affect
Speaker 1: Netflix's future. I can assure you there are other top
Speaker 1: Obama people that are already on boards that you're not
Speaker 1: even thinking of right now, that are determining policy at
Speaker 1: places like Facebook, Netflix and others, determining what gets made.
Speaker 1: You know, there's another thing out there that no one
Speaker 1: really spends much time and attention, and I've talked to
Speaker 1: some I actually talked to a tech blogger about it
Speaker 1: on her podcast maybe six months ago. People think that
Speaker 1: social media is like this even playing field. You know, however,
Speaker 1: many followers you have on Facebook or Twitter or whatever,
Speaker 1: it's just based on whatever people buy them. That's something
Speaker 1: that never really gets talked to you. You can buy followers,
Speaker 1: real and fake. And Facebook has been encouraging the buying
Speaker 1: of followers in a sense by demanding that more and
Speaker 1: more people pay for h their posts to be seen
Speaker 1: by people, because really what you want is people to
Speaker 1: see your stuff and then follow you. But also, we
Speaker 1: don't know what's going to these algorithms. It's not even
Speaker 1: just it's it's iTunes as well, it's Apple. Do we
Speaker 1: do we know how they're how do they pick the
Speaker 1: top podcast to show you to see who else gets
Speaker 1: who else is going to get following followers on a podcast.
Speaker 1: It's an algorithm. It's not just based on sheer download numbers.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can tell you this show, which is
Speaker 1: a radio show but we also have a podcast of it,
Speaker 1: does orders of magnitude more downloads a month than some
Speaker 1: of the shows that will appear on the top one
Speaker 1: of iTunes. But they say, well, but it's real, it's
Speaker 1: it's a rebroadcast. It's different, and you know it's it's
Speaker 1: about the downloads versus the number of shows, and they've
Speaker 1: got some. It's not just like the most wins. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't even see this with the you know, the
Speaker 1: New York Times and playing this game with their best
Speaker 1: seller list of books for a long time. They got
Speaker 1: a formula. It's not just who sells the most books.
Speaker 1: There's a formula. There's an algorithm. That's just a fancy
Speaker 1: way of saying that there are ways to cheat and
Speaker 1: to steer the conversation, and there are ways for the
Speaker 1: left to win. This is the most important we we
Speaker 1: know we kind of won the battle against the old
Speaker 1: media bias establishment and that at least now it's you know,
Speaker 1: any one from CNN, for example, who's like our journalists
Speaker 1: down the middle. I mean, it's laughable, right, it's preposterous,
Speaker 1: it's silly, it's foolish. But we're gonna have to fight
Speaker 1: that battle again now with Facebook and Twitter and all
Speaker 1: these other entities, because I am telling you they are
Speaker 1: even more left skewing than we can realize right now.
Speaker 1: A lot of it is happening on the back end.
Speaker 1: We don't have the data. The people that make the
Speaker 1: decisions are leftists. They are leftists and they are evangelists
Speaker 1: as well. Silicon Valley is hyper progressive, not a little
Speaker 1: bit progressive, hyper progressive. You know, who do you think
Speaker 1: is calling the shots at the at the state level
Speaker 1: in California for some of these crazy policies. Who puts
Speaker 1: it in the ear of some of these politicians to
Speaker 1: do these They have these ruinous, ruinous regulations for the
Speaker 1: environment for whatever Silicon Valley. So keep an eye on this.
Speaker 1: Obamas who's in rise, There'll be others as well. Oh,
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton in. They gotta they gotta let the Clinton
Speaker 1: stench kind of waffed away a little bit after the loss.
Speaker 1: But Chelsea Clinton is gonna be put on the boards
Speaker 1: and some of these major things, so they're gonna build
Speaker 1: her back up to This is the next big fight
Speaker 1: for US Conservatives. Sponsor this half hour is ZIP recruiter. Uh.
Speaker 1: The people that are working for you, the people in
Speaker 1: your business are your business, and you need to make
Speaker 1: sure you get the best ones you possibly can I've
Speaker 1: done a lot of hiring in my day, public sector,
Speaker 1: private sector, been involved and looking at resumes in the
Speaker 1: entire process, and I can tell you that it can
Speaker 1: be a pain. And those of you that are either
Speaker 1: hiring for business that you work for or that you run,
Speaker 1: no that it can get to be a real annoyance.
Speaker 1: That's where zip recruiter comes in. Zip recruiter has smart
Speaker 1: matching technology that will bring the best possible candidates right
Speaker 1: into your inbox. They make this process so very simple
Speaker 1: you can't argue at the facts. Eighty percent of employers
Speaker 1: who post a job on zip recruiter get a quality
Speaker 1: candidate through the site in just one day. Try it
Speaker 1: out for yourself. Go to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's zip recruiter dot com, slash buck one more time.
Speaker 1: You try it totally free. You're going to love it.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck to get the best
Speaker 1: employees possible for those job openates. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: In the last few months, Uh, it really has changed,
Speaker 1: not from Congress, but from these internal political appointees that
Speaker 1: we're trying to politicize VA and trying to make sure
Speaker 1: that our progress stopped, and it's been a very difficult environment.
Speaker 1: It's been um one where we've been distracted from our mission.
Speaker 1: I was not against reformed pensation, and I think that
Speaker 1: it was really the political pointees that we're trying to
Speaker 1: undermine our efforts at v A. There you have the
Speaker 1: recently ousted as in yesterday, we got to announce it
Speaker 1: on air. That's one of our specialties here. We get
Speaker 1: to tell you first about the folks who have been
Speaker 1: booted from the administration, because they usually do it late
Speaker 1: in the day, right, you don't get fired at nine am.
Speaker 1: You get fired, you know, five pm. And then we
Speaker 1: come all right afterwards to be like, hey, guess who
Speaker 1: got fired today? Sholkin? That's who? Or that was yesterday.
Speaker 1: So he's out. But people are starting to ask questions
Speaker 1: about why and what and who and how and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. A few things here. First of all, I
Speaker 1: believe unless I'm mistaken, and we know usually when I
Speaker 1: say that, I am not um but I believe Sholkin
Speaker 1: at one point was at a pointee of the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong, but I think that that's the case. Well,
Speaker 1: this does raise, though, uh is that it seems to Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: the only holdover from the That's what I thought, the
Speaker 1: only holdover from the Obama administration. See, what you're seeing
Speaker 1: is that the deep state is a real thing, and
Speaker 1: the deep state is not just about the FBI, the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy for reasons that I can explain to you because
Speaker 1: I was there. Unlike a lot of the other folks
Speaker 1: you'll listen to on radio or even see on TV,
Speaker 1: I was not at the appointee level. It wasn't all fancy.
Speaker 1: I didn't have a private car driving me around with
Speaker 1: a bunch of staff and everything else. That sounds nice,
Speaker 1: But if you're just gonna be one of those little
Speaker 1: cubical farmers like I was, you get a sense of
Speaker 1: what the politics of the rank and file and the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy is. And then when you see at the
Speaker 1: top people that have been bureaucrats for a long period
Speaker 1: of time, you are not surprised in the least that
Speaker 1: they are leftists. They are statists. They believe very much
Speaker 1: in the government. People asking Buck, why did you leave
Speaker 1: the CIA. I think CIA has a great mission. I
Speaker 1: think there are some incredible people who work there, But honestly,
Speaker 1: it's a large federal bureaucracy, and that's just not my jam.
Speaker 1: That's just not what I want to be doing with
Speaker 1: all my time. I did it for a while, I served,
Speaker 1: I got out. You know, is it? Some people love
Speaker 1: the structure, others hate the bureaucracy, meaning all the extraneous, foolish,
Speaker 1: silly stuff you deal with. But when you look at
Speaker 1: who is more likely to think that that kind of
Speaker 1: bureaucracy is a good thing or that that they'll take
Speaker 1: to it, of course it's democrats. The people who think
Speaker 1: the government should fix all problems are going to often
Speaker 1: be the people who really really want to spend their
Speaker 1: whole lives working in the government. Becauesn't you know? It
Speaker 1: makes perfect sense. But at the very senior level as well.
Speaker 1: You see this with some of the Obama holdovers, right,
Speaker 1: You see this with people who were appointed. Comey was
Speaker 1: an Obama holdover, Shulkin was an Obama holdover. And the
Speaker 1: moment that they're out of office, the mask drops and
Speaker 1: we see that they are, in fact, uh left of center.
Speaker 1: They're gonna talk smack about the current president, about the
Speaker 1: current administration ation, and it's just it's not it's not
Speaker 1: a surprise to me at all. We see this time again.
Speaker 1: By the way, Comey who as you know, I've really
Speaker 1: I've got to be in my bonnet about Comey because
Speaker 1: I hate power mad prosecutors. I mean, there's nothing worse
Speaker 1: in the government than a prosecutor who is unethical. It's
Speaker 1: the single most uh frightening thing for your everyday citizen
Speaker 1: in terms of dealing with your government. Quite honestly, as
Speaker 1: a power mad prosecutor. Nobody else can ruin your life
Speaker 1: as fast as a prosecutor who decides that it's in
Speaker 1: his interest to do so. And Comey is such an opportunist.
Speaker 1: I mean, now he's out on this book tour. You know,
Speaker 1: remember when he was the guy that was that was
Speaker 1: the reason that Hillary lost. Oh that's right. Now he's
Speaker 1: the guy who's on a book tour and getting all
Speaker 1: this love, including a huge advance from the left because
Speaker 1: he's gonna be the one who they think is part
Speaker 1: of bringing Trump down. So you have a guy who
Speaker 1: was blamed for Hillary's loss at one point now selling
Speaker 1: books and going on a book tour where he's going
Speaker 1: to be beloved and feted by that's fetted in the
Speaker 1: French way, not f E T I D from a
Speaker 1: wordsmith's out there word play. But he's going to be
Speaker 1: celebrated by Democrats because they think that he still has
Speaker 1: a shot to bring down the Trump administration. It's kind
Speaker 1: of crazy when you think about it, but that's comy.
Speaker 1: Back to Schulkin, he's saying that there were Oh and
Speaker 1: he's a hero temporarily. Oh what a surprise political here
Speaker 1: writing no longer muzzled, Schulkin takes on Trump's White House.
Speaker 1: The fired Veterans Affairs secretary claims he was politically knifed.
Speaker 1: It should not be this hard to serve your country. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know the notion that the v A, that that
Speaker 1: privatizing parts of the v A is somehow going to
Speaker 1: ruin it. You look at all the other places where
Speaker 1: you have privatization, and you have greater efficient see, better services,
Speaker 1: better technology just because of the way that systems and
Speaker 1: and the way that life works. But there's a big
Speaker 1: political backdrop to all the stuff with the VA, and
Speaker 1: that is if the v A got privatized, something that's
Speaker 1: very important to Wallace, how are our veterans being taken
Speaker 1: care of? Is the sacred obligation we have to our
Speaker 1: veterans by the citizenry being met. If in fact, we
Speaker 1: saw that privatization made it more, made that promise, uh fulfilled.
Speaker 1: Think about what that would mean for the general healthcare debate.
Speaker 1: Think about the talking point. And I don't mean that
Speaker 1: in a in a bad way, but the data point
Speaker 1: there you go. It's all about the words. The data point.
Speaker 1: It would give two Republicans and conservatives for why don't
Speaker 1: we do more of this privatization stuff? How is privatization
Speaker 1: a dirty word? Show me the country that over privatized
Speaker 1: itself and has gone down the tubes. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not familiar with I know a lot of places that
Speaker 1: let the government run things, and it is you know
Speaker 1: Dante's eighth Circle of Hell, Venezuela for example, Zimbabwe. I mean,
Speaker 1: we can go down the list of countries that are
Speaker 1: barely even countries anymore after the mismanagement that has occurred that,
Speaker 1: by the way, countries that should not be poor. Right,
Speaker 1: It's one thing to say Yemen is really poor and
Speaker 1: as in as a country that's in crappy shape. Is
Speaker 1: it's running out of water in the middle of the
Speaker 1: civil war and it's a desperate situation. Uh. But you know,
Speaker 1: Yemen doesn't have a whole lot in the way of
Speaker 1: natural resources at all. Venezuela Zimbabwe actually do have a
Speaker 1: lot of natural resources, but they're very, very poorly run.
Speaker 1: But privatization doesn't ruin countries. Government can ruin countries, and
Speaker 1: the v A becomes this political football because oh, if
Speaker 1: we privatized it and at worked even a little bit,
Speaker 1: I mean, we privatize it in state ages and phases,
Speaker 1: which is the only way you be able to do it,
Speaker 1: then it would have implications for all the rest of
Speaker 1: the discussions. And this is how everything is political because
Speaker 1: once you start to look at things as a left
Speaker 1: versus right paradigm all the time, it's scary because you
Speaker 1: realize the left can justify anything under the auspices of, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want to give the other side a win.
Speaker 1: And that's how you get the Nancy Pelosi syndrome of like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, do we really even think that we should
Speaker 1: like the tax cut? It's just crumbs. She just want
Speaker 1: to give the other side of win. By the way,
Speaker 1: real quick, this was on out Numbered, one of my
Speaker 1: favorite shows. As you know, look, I mean the question
Speaker 1: is if I praised the way that Donald Trump looks
Speaker 1: in the way is healthy? Do I get to run
Speaker 1: a massive department? I mean we're talking about well, that's well,
Speaker 1: that's very true. Thank goodness, Thank goodness. I think that
Speaker 1: was Kennedy and Harris there doctors Zach pet Cannis being like, yeah, man,
Speaker 1: you are neither a rear admiral nor nor a physician,
Speaker 1: so it would be particularly weird if they made you
Speaker 1: the v A secretary. I thought, that's kind of a
Speaker 1: funny moment from earlier today. We got him, Um, that
Speaker 1: guy seems to be a pretty good sport actually about
Speaker 1: going going into a territory that's not always friendly to
Speaker 1: his political beliefs. So we're gonna talk to you in
Speaker 1: just a couple of minutes here about the left boycotting
Speaker 1: and its seeming to work. And uh, I got a
Speaker 1: whole lot more. Oh and Hillary speeches. Where are those fees?
Speaker 1: Who wants to take a guess our Hillary speech fees
Speaker 1: going up? We're going down? Are they going down a
Speaker 1: little bit or are they going down a lot? We
Speaker 1: will discuss all of that a much more eight four
Speaker 1: to five eight four four buck if you would like
Speaker 1: to chat about any of this and more and also,
Speaker 1: don't forget download the podcast The Buck Sexton Show on iTunes.
Speaker 1: Please subscribe as well, and we'll be right back. Sometimes
Speaker 1: you may stop and think to your off, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, is the media really as biased as
Speaker 1: we as we think they are, as as we talk
Speaker 1: about in the Freedom ond? Is it really that bad
Speaker 1: some of your laughing, you're like buckets worse, which may
Speaker 1: in fact be true. But if you're looking for a
Speaker 1: great anecdote, you know, a a story that will tell
Speaker 1: the tale, which I guess is another way of saying
Speaker 1: a story that will tell the story. Come on, Buck, vocab,
Speaker 1: I got I gotta get back to basics here. One
Speaker 1: of you pointed out and thank you for it that
Speaker 1: I said o leaguanist on the air, because I read
Speaker 1: much more than I hear many of these words. So
Speaker 1: I'm I'm actually a bit of an autodidact. I'm not
Speaker 1: even sure I'm pronouncing that one correctly, but I read
Speaker 1: that one somewhere too. A lot of what I talked
Speaker 1: about on the air is self taught, but it is
Speaker 1: holy aginous for those who are wondering a great word.
Speaker 1: By the way, it means kind of you know, Oily
Speaker 1: using similar ish to uh, which is not a word,
Speaker 1: to unctious, which is another great word. You know, the
Speaker 1: guy who shows up at your at your family dinner
Speaker 1: that's not really relative, and all of a sudden he's like,
Speaker 1: I got a great investment for you. You You know, he's like, hey,
Speaker 1: why don't you give me some of your cash? And
Speaker 1: you can say that guy's unctious. You know you're your
Speaker 1: uncle Bob who wants to get you into that used car. Hey,
Speaker 1: I you know this one, This one speaks to you.
Speaker 1: The vet gets it done. You guys are remember true lives.
Speaker 1: That guy's that guy is anxious. May he rest in peace.
Speaker 1: I just realized Bill Packiston passed away. He was young too.
Speaker 1: He was a great actor. I love Bill Paxson's work.
Speaker 1: I do, I'm not kidding, celebrate his whole catalog. But
Speaker 1: away from words for a second here, So we have
Speaker 1: only agenius anxious, what are something the other? But I've
Speaker 1: said maelstrom a few times in the show recently, which
Speaker 1: you all have pointed out. We gotta do a favorite
Speaker 1: buck words. Um. I tried to. You know, I try
Speaker 1: to stay away from profound as well, because if what
Speaker 1: you say is profound, you shouldn't have to say it.
Speaker 1: You know. It's like real gangsters don't talk much because
Speaker 1: they don't have to. It's like, if you're what you're
Speaker 1: saying is profound, then you're good to go. And you know, anyway, Hillary,
Speaker 1: let's talk about Hillary and how this and how the
Speaker 1: media ties into all this. So I was over. It
Speaker 1: was great for background to be at CNN in the
Speaker 1: year of an election, especially an election where so many
Speaker 1: people there meeting the different journalists and producers were reminiscing
Speaker 1: fondly about the Clinton years and the Clinton white House
Speaker 1: and they had great access and they loved it, and
Speaker 1: and they were tied and tight with the Obama white
Speaker 1: House as well, and they were so happy about the
Speaker 1: prospect of eight years of Hillary. It was it was
Speaker 1: a near you for Elphoria. That's how Hillary says it.
Speaker 1: It was going to be a kind of nirvana for them.
Speaker 1: And so there were no there was no compunction whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They had no problem doing whatever they had to do
Speaker 1: to tell the stories the way that they would benefit Hillary. Right,
Speaker 1: whatever would benefit Hillary, that was what they were going
Speaker 1: to try to do. And one of the things that
Speaker 1: I kept bringing up, especially and I would bring up
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, I'd be like, I mean, Bernie's the real deal.
Speaker 1: Bernie's the the legit, the legit character. You know, he's
Speaker 1: the one who wants to actually just just socialize it, baby,
Speaker 1: socialize it. And I would say, you know, Hillary and
Speaker 1: Bill are worth over a hundred million dollars. They have
Speaker 1: created no product and do not run a four A
Speaker 1: for profit company. They run a charity and they give
Speaker 1: speeches on the side. But they also are political figures,
Speaker 1: as we know, the greatest political dynasty in the country
Speaker 1: until her last loss. I think you'd have to say,
Speaker 1: certainly ahead of the Kennedy's in the Democrat line of
Speaker 1: succession and Obama, well, the Obamas will see they may
Speaker 1: they may become the great political dynasty of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party of the next you know, twenty years. But in
Speaker 1: the meantime it was all about the Clintons. And yet
Speaker 1: the Clintons made all this money. And I would have
Speaker 1: journalists that would seem like smart people look at me
Speaker 1: like that's that's not strange. I'd say, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm familiar with the speaking circuit, and I know what
Speaker 1: famous people get paid to speak. You know, for me,
Speaker 1: you know if you if you said, if you invite
Speaker 1: me to a nice enough place and you seem like
Speaker 1: nice people, and you'll make me a plate of homemade, warm,
Speaker 1: gluten free chocolate chip cookies, there's like a decent shot
Speaker 1: that I will show up, you know. But some of
Speaker 1: my more famous friends, you know, they'll show up. They'll
Speaker 1: give a speech for thirty fifty maybe a hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars if you're really if you're really pretty famous. Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton was getting speeches for six seven, eight hundred grand.
Speaker 1: That just doesn't happen, Just doesn't happen. Hillary Clinton, Hello,
Speaker 1: she was getting speech fees of two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: three hundred thousand dollars. Just doesn't really doesn't really happen
Speaker 1: unless you're not paying for the speech, you are buying influence.
Speaker 1: And this I was Those of you who are OSS
Speaker 1: have been with me for a few years now. Now
Speaker 1: I've been hitting this one hard because this was a
Speaker 1: real litmus test, and given the current meeting, I I mean,
Speaker 1: we're all the oh, all of you Christians are explaining
Speaker 1: away all of Trump's behavior. You know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of media looking down their nose at the rest of us.
Speaker 1: You know from the from the heights of Mount Olympus,
Speaker 1: staring down at US mortals and acting like they they
Speaker 1: have some right to dare I say, right to judge?
Speaker 1: And when you look at what they did for what
Speaker 1: they did on this specific issue of Hillary's wealth creation,
Speaker 1: and how obvious it was that this was a scheme
Speaker 1: for peddling influence, how obvious the speech fees were. Well,
Speaker 1: this is gonna tie into a current of current news.
Speaker 1: Don't worry. I'm not just Hillary bashing for the fun
Speaker 1: of it, although that's fun too, um and and I
Speaker 1: would say to them, you really believe, and they well,
Speaker 1: that's what the market will bear. And I think I
Speaker 1: might have even said on air at scene end to someone,
Speaker 1: I definitely said it all fair. I probably should have
Speaker 1: said it on air. Well, if you know, I'm a
Speaker 1: politician and someone wants to give me a paper bag
Speaker 1: for with a million dollars in it, that's what the
Speaker 1: market will bear if I'm gonna pass favorable legislation for
Speaker 1: their business. But it's also called bribery and you go
Speaker 1: to prison for a long time for it. But for Hillary,
Speaker 1: oh no, I'm just giving her a lot of money
Speaker 1: because I need to hear her speak so badly. It's
Speaker 1: a busy Actually just almost passed out doing Hillary there. Ah,
Speaker 1: it's a man, gosh, a kid. I would have ruin
Speaker 1: my voice. I have to go to I have to
Speaker 1: go to Indiana this weekend to find people of Indiana
Speaker 1: deserve my voice as is. I'm not going to destroy
Speaker 1: it right now anyway. So Hillary gave these speeches, and
Speaker 1: I would always say to them, you know, guys, can
Speaker 1: can we come back here? And they didn't like my
Speaker 1: thing about the brown paper bag of money under the desk,
Speaker 1: but we all know that that's the same idea. I'd say,
Speaker 1: can we come back and and revisit this issue. This
Speaker 1: is when I was thinking I might still hang out
Speaker 1: at the n some more, but I got sick of
Speaker 1: the whole situation over there. If we come back and
Speaker 1: look at what her speaking fees are once she's no
Speaker 1: longer going to be president. Who wants to guess what
Speaker 1: Hillary is getting paid for at Rutger's where she's giving
Speaker 1: a speech? Uh today today she just gave a speech today,
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand dollars. Does twenty five thousand dollars sound
Speaker 1: like two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to you, does
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand dollars sound like eight hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: because those are the kind of speaking fees that Hillary
Speaker 1: and Billy used to get in the past. I mean,
Speaker 1: eight hundred thousand dollars you can get like a nice
Speaker 1: sweet and a whole bunch of ladies in Vegas. You know,
Speaker 1: I mean just voters, registered voters. What do you think
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Don't be shady. Uh. That was what
Speaker 1: they used to get Clinton Foundation donations falling off a
Speaker 1: cliff and I would I said this during the election.
Speaker 1: I said, you know, if she loses, and they were
Speaker 1: also smugs, she's never gonna lose. Buck You're such You're
Speaker 1: so ridiculous, you and your trumpster fire. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: I said, well, well, let's just assume if she loses.
Speaker 1: We're gonna see if I'm right and you're wrong. And
Speaker 1: if you go back and listen to shows that I
Speaker 1: was doing during the campaign, it said, trust me, as
Speaker 1: soon as the as soon as the gravy train of
Speaker 1: government largesse stops, Hillary's fair market value as a speaker
Speaker 1: is going to be a whole lot less, a whole
Speaker 1: lot less than it was beforehand, And doesn't that tell
Speaker 1: us something about what was really going on? Doesn't tell
Speaker 1: us something that the Clinton Foundation is getting a whole
Speaker 1: lot less foreign money all of a sudden. What they
Speaker 1: don't care about empowering women and and teaching school children
Speaker 1: and you know, stopping malaria or whatever stuff. Actually Clinton
Speaker 1: Foundation was really about women's empowerment stuff. Um, I'm trying
Speaker 1: to climate change of course, and there was one other
Speaker 1: thing that comes, you know, something with school something with women,
Speaker 1: and something with climate change, very amorphous things that you
Speaker 1: really can't measure, you know. And the Clinton Foundation was
Speaker 1: largely at pass through for other charitable foundations, So the
Speaker 1: Clintons were effectively acting as middlemen taking their cut of
Speaker 1: money that was supposed to be going two you know,
Speaker 1: underprivileged children in Africa, in Bangladesh and wherever. Right, That's
Speaker 1: that was the real role of the Clinton Foundation. But
Speaker 1: I just want to know back to my initial premise here,
Speaker 1: now that we can see that Hillary is worth a
Speaker 1: whole lot less on the speaking circuit, is it because
Speaker 1: she's not Did she get bad at speaking all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, or were people paying her a lot of
Speaker 1: money to buy her favor? Maybe have future influence in
Speaker 1: her administration. Does any serious person really want to take
Speaker 1: the other side of this argument? You know, I know
Speaker 1: that say, oh, Park, you know she's not the president. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but now we have now the evidence is in. You know,
Speaker 1: now we actually have the numbers. Clinton Foundation money dropped
Speaker 1: off a cliff. Hillary speaking fees dropped off a cliff.
Speaker 1: Why oh, that's right, Because it wasn't what the market
Speaker 1: would bear. It was corruption. It was buying politicians in
Speaker 1: the open, to the tune of over a hundred million dollars.
Speaker 1: That's what was going on. And our so called journalist
Speaker 1: class are our our media of top watchdogs of power.
Speaker 1: Not only it's not even that they didn't cover it
Speaker 1: enough or whatever they excused it. They came up with
Speaker 1: ways of saying, you know, this is just not not
Speaker 1: that big a deal. It's nothing, It's fine. Everybody does it.
Speaker 1: Hillary is amazing, She's gonna break the glass ceiling, all
Speaker 1: of that. Well, I like to just take a little
Speaker 1: visit into truth land, go into reality town, have a
Speaker 1: look around and talk to some of the folks. And
Speaker 1: that's what we're doing right now. The numbers don't lie. Hillary,
Speaker 1: she was doing speeches at universities. I think it was
Speaker 1: like U N l V or something in the last year,
Speaker 1: two of two grand not just taking even though she's rich.
Speaker 1: You know, she can't turn off. She is a grasping
Speaker 1: and deeply greedy human being, and they wanted to make
Speaker 1: her president because she would have been so much better.
Speaker 1: They say, yeah, right, all right, I'll be back with
Speaker 1: more in including why the left does what they do
Speaker 1: when it comes to overreacting to statements and trying to
Speaker 1: get boycott's going. I'm gonna leave that a little bit.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave that out there for right now. So
Speaker 1: you're like, Buck, what's going on? What If you want
Speaker 1: to know what's going on, you have to listen through
Speaker 1: the break and then I will tell you. But trying
Speaker 1: to threatening boycotts, why do they do it? How do
Speaker 1: they do it? And what does it mean for all
Speaker 1: of us? I'll get into that a much more coming
Speaker 1: up here in just a few The threat of boycotts
Speaker 1: and an apology from a conservative commentator. It's a script
Speaker 1: that plays out time and again, and we just saw
Speaker 1: it happen now with Laura Ingram. I think Ingraham, actually
Speaker 1: I need to make sure I say the name properly
Speaker 1: over at Fox News and David Hagg who I would
Speaker 1: note is running around saying all kinds of really outrageous
Speaker 1: and unfair things, and he is in fact smearing people
Speaker 1: on a regular basis, like Mark A. Rubio and my
Speaker 1: friend Dana Lash. But he is he has a an invincibility.
Speaker 1: You know, he's like Frodo with the special armor that
Speaker 1: can't be pierced from the elves. You know what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about it right, myth Thrill. I think it's called
Speaker 1: I Love the Lord of the Rings? Am I right
Speaker 1: with that? Am I off on that? You guys are
Speaker 1: really both giving me the no, you don't know anyway,
Speaker 1: So Frodo, you know, he gets stabbed by the big olger,
Speaker 1: He's got the magic thing on his chest. He doesn't die.
Speaker 1: It's good stuff for Frodo. Point here is that it
Speaker 1: makes him invincible to an extent. And Hog because he
Speaker 1: suffered a a trauma. Um is also what's it called
Speaker 1: John myth thrill shirt? Yeah, that's what I said. Looks amazing.
Speaker 1: So anyway, he he was giving an interview. I'll just
Speaker 1: go over this pretty quickly. It's not really that important
Speaker 1: giving an interview and he said, you know that he
Speaker 1: he didn't get into some of the schools he applied to. Now, which,
Speaker 1: trust me, my friend, we can all sympathize the way
Speaker 1: that he said. It's somewhat interpreted as he wasn't getting
Speaker 1: in because of his activism maybe, And I think that
Speaker 1: struck some people as a a very strange way to
Speaker 1: take it. What overwhelmingly, I mean, ask any admissions director
Speaker 1: in any top school in the country, left wing political
Speaker 1: activism is like, there's it's the Holy grill. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's probably the best thing you could possibly do. So
Speaker 1: it seems strange that he might have been complaining about it.
Speaker 1: And then uh, Laura Laura Ingraham tweeted out the following David. Now,
Speaker 1: she wasn't the first to write this either. It was
Speaker 1: posted I think on TMZ and she wrote, David Hogg
Speaker 1: rejected by four colleges to which he applied and wines
Speaker 1: about it. Now, you know what, I go there, No,
Speaker 1: because I think that Hogg can say I'll say that
Speaker 1: he's saying dumb things, that he's being immature because he's
Speaker 1: a kid, so it's not surprising he's being irresponsible. Uh,
Speaker 1: he doesn't strike me as knowledgeable at all in these issues.
Speaker 1: I actually he is quite ignorant, but he's made himself
Speaker 1: a part of a national public conversation. But know I
Speaker 1: don't make fun of his appearance. I don't, And if
Speaker 1: I ever do, I you know I would apologize for
Speaker 1: it afterwards. If I ever got heated and said something
Speaker 1: that you know I had crossed the line, I haven't.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, uh, but I operate within a certain coat.
Speaker 1: Is making a kind of a little bit of a
Speaker 1: snippy comment about him whining such a big deal. No,
Speaker 1: it doesn't strike me such a big deal. I wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it. But then again, if people ask me, well,
Speaker 1: what do you think about what Trump said here? A
Speaker 1: lot of the time, I'm like, I mean, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's terrible, but it's not all. I would roll
Speaker 1: a little lower ingram. I have a really tough top
Speaker 1: time or last time, And I always want to tell
Speaker 1: the story about the U. S. S Ingram, one of
Speaker 1: the great stories told by Ronald Reagan a long time
Speaker 1: ago in a speech. Well, I'll have to save that
Speaker 1: one for another time. Cliffhanger for everybody, I'll save that
Speaker 1: for another time. I've told it before on the show.
Speaker 1: If some of you write me and said we want
Speaker 1: to know about the U S. S Ingram and the Mediterranean,
Speaker 1: I will tell you this story, but you have to
Speaker 1: write me on Facebook and request it. It would be
Speaker 1: like a request of the DJ. That means, I guess
Speaker 1: I'm the DJ. So Laura wrote Winds that that David
Speaker 1: Hogg was whining about it, and the response to this,
Speaker 1: this is from CNBC. Advertisers including trip Advisor, Nestley and
Speaker 1: Wayfair are dumping Laura Ingraham after she slammed Parkland survivor.
Speaker 1: I mean, you had big advertisers that were jumping ship
Speaker 1: based on that. And this is why the left is
Speaker 1: so fond of using victims to advance political arguments, because
Speaker 1: the moment somebody doesn't even necessarily go over the line
Speaker 1: and responding them just just gets close enough for the line,
Speaker 1: they go into boycott mode. And that was exactly what
Speaker 1: hog did. By the way, he specifically uh tweeted out,
Speaker 1: you know, if you pick a number one to twelve,
Speaker 1: contact the company next to that number, And they were
Speaker 1: all of Laura Ingraham's top advertigers. By the way, do
Speaker 1: you think somebody helped helped him find those I'm guessing
Speaker 1: he had a little help and when after all of
Speaker 1: her top advertisers because she said that he was whining
Speaker 1: about college h college rejections. So I guess what we
Speaker 1: take from this is that David Hogg, now if you
Speaker 1: if you criticize him in a way that's not purely political,
Speaker 1: you can have your livelihood attacked and tarnished. Now, to
Speaker 1: Laura's credit, she she did apologize, and I think she
Speaker 1: wrote out the following, any students should be proud of
Speaker 1: a four point to g p A, including David Hogg
Speaker 1: on reflection in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize
Speaker 1: for an upset or hurt my tweet cause him or
Speaker 1: any of the brave victims of Parkland. And you know,
Speaker 1: there you have it. So she apologized. But this is,
Speaker 1: by the way, this is the response when she didn't
Speaker 1: even say anything bad. Can you imagine the first person
Speaker 1: who really steps out of line, they're gonna go after
Speaker 1: him with everything that they've got. And that's why they
Speaker 1: like to use victims. It's a form of seeding the
Speaker 1: debate with with land mines for conservatives, and that's what
Speaker 1: ends up happening. So the left loves to boycott don't
Speaker 1: ever forget it. That's why your supportive sponsors on this
Speaker 1: show and others. Uh so absolutely essential. We're gonna roll
Speaker 1: to a break, we come back. Oh, I've got more
Speaker 1: on Roseanne. I watched it, folks, I watched it. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about it. We'll strap in and prepare for some
Speaker 1: grumpy pop culture analysis from yours. Truly. Occasionally, in this job,
Speaker 1: it's part of my job to watch what the folks
Speaker 1: are watching in the world of pop culture, not news.
Speaker 1: I watched news all the time. Occasionally, though, I have
Speaker 1: a real excuse to flip on one of the network channels,
Speaker 1: and the reboot of Roseanne, which I mentioned to you yesterday,
Speaker 1: is one of those opportunities. So I watched the first
Speaker 1: two episodes of this reboot, and I have to tell
Speaker 1: you there's a lot more going on then you'd gather
Speaker 1: just from the press releases. I have to tell you
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was very funny, but that doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: We can agree or disagree on that. That's completely a
Speaker 1: function of taste. And I would also stand behind everything
Speaker 1: I said yesterday about how if it were really the
Speaker 1: profit motive that was driving much of the decision making
Speaker 1: about scripted TV shows what Hollywood and the entertainment industry
Speaker 1: chooses to make. There's this enormous market called half of
Speaker 1: America that is underserved in terms of content, and sure enough,
Speaker 1: Roseanne comes out. It depicts a working class family and
Speaker 1: there's a Trump supporter at the center of it, all
Speaker 1: Roseanne herself, and we are to believe, Oh wow, they
Speaker 1: have broken with their usual tendency here and we got
Speaker 1: a show where there's a Trump person at the center
Speaker 1: of it, and there's gonna be attention now paid to
Speaker 1: that part of rough a half the country. I watched
Speaker 1: the episodes though, and I gotta tell you it's basically
Speaker 1: liberals creating a narrative where Rosanne, you know, the the
Speaker 1: red State family, or whatever you want to call it,
Speaker 1: the working class white family. There you go, that's a
Speaker 1: better way to say it. The white working class family
Speaker 1: is constantly, uh, having to challenge and change its assumptions
Speaker 1: about day to day life because of, oh, you guessed it,
Speaker 1: the various progressive social issues that are at the center
Speaker 1: of the show. Yeah, there's some arguing back and forth
Speaker 1: between an ardent Hillary supporter wearing the Nasty Woman T
Speaker 1: shirt and hat that begins with a p I I
Speaker 1: saw all that, But the central theme of the first
Speaker 1: two episodes, or the central challenge, is how the how
Speaker 1: Roseanne's household is going to deal with the fact that
Speaker 1: they've got a nine year old who's a boy who's
Speaker 1: dressing like a girl, and that's how And it's all
Speaker 1: built around that. And there's some other progressive things thrown
Speaker 1: in there too. You've got a woman who's in her
Speaker 1: forties who's going to be a surrogate, and you know,
Speaker 1: the the old character played by John Goodman, you know,
Speaker 1: the patriarch of the family. He's all opposed to it.
Speaker 1: But I just look at all this and think to myself,
Speaker 1: are we really supposed to believe that this is this
Speaker 1: is the day to day of working class white family
Speaker 1: in Ohio, and this is the day to day of
Speaker 1: a working class white family in Wisconsin. No, of course not.
Speaker 1: It's it seems quite strange to me to build one
Speaker 1: of the central challenges of this family, at least in
Speaker 1: the first I know, it's only the first couple of episodes.
Speaker 1: I get that, but to launch right out of the
Speaker 1: gate with, well, what do we do about our cross
Speaker 1: dressing nine year old and wouldn't it be nice if
Speaker 1: there could be a family that had let's just say,
Speaker 1: one Republican parent in it, and the representation of them
Speaker 1: was quite a bit different from this. I know people
Speaker 1: are nostalgic for Roseanne and the show and how it
Speaker 1: dealt with American society in a kind of unvarnished way
Speaker 1: at the time. I'll also say that this show looks anachronistic.
Speaker 1: The home that they're in. That's not what working class
Speaker 1: homes really look like today. It's what they look like
Speaker 1: twenty years ago. So I think that's a bit strange.
Speaker 1: I mean, in terms of the interior and everything. It
Speaker 1: looks like they just literally turned on a show that
Speaker 1: they had had a set from twenty years ago and
Speaker 1: it didn't change anything, which is strange to me. Now,
Speaker 1: all they're doing, from what I can see, is adding
Speaker 1: into it these of challenges. But is this really what
Speaker 1: what concerns Middle America? To bring back a term you
Speaker 1: don't hear very much anymore. What do I do if
Speaker 1: my nine year old son starts dressing like a girl
Speaker 1: because he wants to be fashionable in school. I'm not
Speaker 1: a parent yet, but I would tell my nine year
Speaker 1: old son that that was not what he was going
Speaker 1: to do. That I'm a parent and that I know best,
Speaker 1: and this is not going to be some childhood assault
Speaker 1: on the patriarchy. Even more than that, though, I would
Speaker 1: just like to see a depiction of someone who's clearly
Speaker 1: conservative on TV and not have it centered around how
Speaker 1: they become more accepting of progressive social issues, of social
Speaker 1: justice issues, and that's the character's growth I can already
Speaker 1: see on this show. One of the ways this is
Speaker 1: all going to be structured is well, you know Roseanne,
Speaker 1: you know, she's she's come over to the side of
Speaker 1: of greater tolerance. You know the dad, he's he's going
Speaker 1: to embrace diversity more and all this. I just sit
Speaker 1: there watching this and thinking to myself, where's the show
Speaker 1: on TV where a conservative family is elevated. Where's the
Speaker 1: show on TV where you see a white working class
Speaker 1: family that goes to church and people. Yeah, they can
Speaker 1: still be funny, it could be a comedy. But they're
Speaker 1: attractive as people. I don't mean just physically, but they're
Speaker 1: attractive people. You know, they've got their lives together. We
Speaker 1: all have our challenges, and there's plenty of humor and
Speaker 1: day to day life. But I can't think of that show.
Speaker 1: The only thing that comes close would be Friday Night
Speaker 1: Lights for me, which is a show that I really loved.
Speaker 1: But Friday Night Lights is really a show about two
Speaker 1: East Coast liberals living in West Texas, too incredibly appealing
Speaker 1: good looking parents who really were pulled out of like Darien,
Speaker 1: Connecticut and plopped in West Texas and have a little
Speaker 1: bit of a Southern accent so they can fit in more.
Speaker 1: And that's the way that that show is constructed. Everyone
Speaker 1: around them seems much more authentic than the parents, who
Speaker 1: are the centerpiece of the whole show up here. But
Speaker 1: in Roseanne, I think that we are being look I
Speaker 1: I don't mean to over politicize this, but it's clearly
Speaker 1: a show that's gotten a lot of attention, eighteen million viewers,
Speaker 1: it's already a topic of major political discussion. I think
Speaker 1: we're being propagandized to just in a slick way, and
Speaker 1: it's to show the aging conservative boomer generation in particular.
Speaker 1: You know, you'll understand more about this transgender stuff in time.
Speaker 1: Just just accept it. Remember, acceptance comes first, well, rather first,
Speaker 1: it's tolerance than acceptance, then celebration and then totalitarianism. So
Speaker 1: sometimes that last step takes a while, but I am
Speaker 1: a little distressed. This is the This is the best
Speaker 1: we can do for a show about a family that
Speaker 1: has Trump supporting parents. I believe the dad voted for Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm surmising that, but clearly Roseanne explicitly says she did.
Speaker 1: This is the best we can do the family. I
Speaker 1: know the family is supposed to be dysfunctional, it's supposed
Speaker 1: to have the problems of day to day life. Fine,
Speaker 1: but why isn't the focus on that instead of right
Speaker 1: off the bat Automatically the challenge is plucked from the
Speaker 1: top of the list of progressive social agenda items, which
Speaker 1: is transgender kids. We've got a show now on TV
Speaker 1: with eighteen million people watching it that's supposed to represent
Speaker 1: just normal Middle America in some way, and they're dealing
Speaker 1: with a transgender nine year old or across a kid who's,
Speaker 1: you know, changing his clothes to look like a woman,
Speaker 1: and though he says he knows he's a boy. Whatever.
Speaker 1: The point is gender identity issues as a nine year old,
Speaker 1: which is, let's understand, actually quite rare, and the way
Speaker 1: that it is constructed in the show, they're not going
Speaker 1: to make this kid start dressing the way that he
Speaker 1: should for his gender. The parents are gonna have to
Speaker 1: become more tolerant of it. So what you're gonna see
Speaker 1: is the right in this context loses right, the the Trump,
Speaker 1: the grumpy Trump conservative who sure, we'll have some funny
Speaker 1: one liners here and there and occasionally will speak in
Speaker 1: a salty salty tones about day to day life and
Speaker 1: shed some some truth on a situation. But it is
Speaker 1: going to become more accepting and more progressive over the
Speaker 1: course of the show. I can just tell, why does
Speaker 1: it always have to be this way, folks? Why why
Speaker 1: do we I think at this point we just are
Speaker 1: numbed how much propaganda that there really is in this.
Speaker 1: Don't think for a second it's not political. Control of
Speaker 1: the culture is the most important thing that any political
Speaker 1: group could ever achieve, because if you can convince people
Speaker 1: about what is reality in their day to day lives,
Speaker 1: getting the devote for your candidate, that's easy. So I'm
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan of the Rosanne reboot. I think
Speaker 1: you've gotten that from I talk so far. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't like it. I you know, when I think
Speaker 1: of a Trump supporting family. You can make a show about,
Speaker 1: you know, how about a show about a really you
Speaker 1: know all American dad who loves to barbecue and likes
Speaker 1: to you know, work on his car and a mom
Speaker 1: who's like a great mom and stay at home mom.
Speaker 1: Used to have a career maybe but decided, you know what,
Speaker 1: third wave feminism doesn't have to determine my life. And
Speaker 1: have kids that you know, like sports and football and
Speaker 1: like to go out and you know, maybe do some shooting,
Speaker 1: go do some hunting on the weekends. And you know,
Speaker 1: they go to church and they're funny and they make
Speaker 1: jokes and they have the problems that we all have
Speaker 1: in life. But they're not you see. My My big
Speaker 1: problem with Roseanne is I feel like there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of laughing at this family instead of laughing with
Speaker 1: this family. Sometimes it's subtle. I'm not saying it's that's
Speaker 1: the case in every joke all the time, but that
Speaker 1: you have this character who now and I did not
Speaker 1: watch the long run the show in the past, I'm
Speaker 1: coming into this now just on the reboot side, but
Speaker 1: to have this character who clearly is going to be
Speaker 1: transforming over the course of the show into someone more palatable,
Speaker 1: more acceptable to liberals. Is just another form of getting
Speaker 1: people to agree, agree with the left. And I always
Speaker 1: tell people, if you want to, if you want to
Speaker 1: look at the most effective the most effective campaign for UH,
Speaker 1: for same sex marriage that I've ever seen is the
Speaker 1: couple that is in Modern Family, one of the most
Speaker 1: beloved and well watched shows on television. UH. The same
Speaker 1: sex couple, the gay couple that's married and adopts a
Speaker 1: little girl on the show. That's the most effective messaging
Speaker 1: for same sex marriage I've ever seen. And it's on
Speaker 1: a It's on a sitcom. Don't underestimate the power of
Speaker 1: these things. Don't underestimate the fact that the people that
Speaker 1: are making these choices know that the choices will have
Speaker 1: impact down the line. This isn't just about entertainment. There's more,
Speaker 1: there's more at stake, and there's more intended. All right,
Speaker 1: I'll have more on this as we go. I'll be
Speaker 1: right back. I hope every Democrat will be asked, is
Speaker 1: it a good idea to repeal the Second Amendment? Because
Speaker 1: I want every Democrat to answer that question. This is
Speaker 1: a very bad idea. I'm glad he's retired his right
Speaker 1: to his opinion like every other American. But I'm up
Speaker 1: here to take the Second Amendment, not repeal it. And
Speaker 1: I can't wait to hear what Nancy Pelosi says and
Speaker 1: every other liberal Democrats see if they will stand with
Speaker 1: Justice Stevens or they'll stand with the Constitution. I'm dying
Speaker 1: to know. So I'm in a generous mood today, I
Speaker 1: guess because I'm here to tell you that I think
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham is spot on. You know, they want it,
Speaker 1: then they should get it. They want to talk about
Speaker 1: repealing the Second Amendment, Let's talk about a gun band.
Speaker 1: You know, this is one of the things that Democrats
Speaker 1: do so much better than Republicans, including in the media.
Speaker 1: They have a lot more megaphones, a lot more platforms
Speaker 1: to do it. So maybe that's what it's all about.
Speaker 1: But just just keep on hammering home very blunenforced trauma
Speaker 1: kind of questions. You know, do you want to ban guns?
Speaker 1: Do you want to ban assault rifles? Do you want
Speaker 1: to repeal the Second Amendment? Forget about and don't allow
Speaker 1: them to go Well, you know, maybe if we could
Speaker 1: think about take a vote, you know, no, do you
Speaker 1: want that or not? Get them on the record. They
Speaker 1: don't want to be on the record for the most part,
Speaker 1: because they want to have it both ways. They want
Speaker 1: to praise the Parkland kids that are out there stumping
Speaker 1: for the Democrat Party and and just on the absolute
Speaker 1: attack against all kinds of Republicans, but they don't want
Speaker 1: to be necessarily necessarily affiliated with a specific position. They
Speaker 1: should all be asked, do you want to ban guns?
Speaker 1: If if you want to end gun violence. We want
Speaker 1: to talk about how great the Parkland organization of these
Speaker 1: kids has been so far. You know, and I say
Speaker 1: these kids, and I'm talking about all the kids, just
Speaker 1: the few that are now celebrities. They've become celebrities. They
Speaker 1: don't know very much. They say really inflammatory and stupid things,
Speaker 1: but particularly the hog kid. But why not just ask
Speaker 1: every Democrat? I mean, I do want to hear what
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi's answered the question is, and you know what
Speaker 1: they'll try to do. Some of them will go, you
Speaker 1: know Pelosi is responsive would be something like man had
Speaker 1: thing and and sportsmen and no. But let them say that,
Speaker 1: let them make fools of themselves on this. I've been
Speaker 1: saying all along, and I love it when people get
Speaker 1: really angry at me when Democrats get into this. But
Speaker 1: the truth is that it's really about not liking gun
Speaker 1: owners and all that they stand for. That's what all
Speaker 1: this animus is about. How is Trump so tied in
Speaker 1: with guns? Think about that for just a part of
Speaker 1: just a part of this little discussion we're having here.
Speaker 1: Why is why is opposition to Trump at these marches
Speaker 1: so on display. We've had guns in private hands well
Speaker 1: for the entirety of this country's history. But Trump hasn't
Speaker 1: loosened any gun restrictions. Trump hasn't done anything to expand
Speaker 1: access to firearms. No. Actually, on the contrary, there may
Speaker 1: be more legislation at least at the state level that
Speaker 1: gets by under the Trump administration then there was under
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. So what is what the hatred of
Speaker 1: Trump as a where tied into all the stuff about
Speaker 1: gun control? And it's just because, as I've said, antipathy
Speaker 1: toward gun violence is really just a cover for antipathy
Speaker 1: or disdain or hatred not liking people who own guns.
Speaker 1: It's it's the other Guns are another rising force now
Speaker 1: in American society. And you can tell you know this
Speaker 1: from your own life. Ask somebody that you know, if
Speaker 1: they're a gun owner, and never mind just their answer,
Speaker 1: their response to it will tell you overwhelmingly who they
Speaker 1: voted for. Are they pro life or pro choice? Are
Speaker 1: they Christians who go to church on Sunday? You know,
Speaker 1: you start to break down the numbers on this, and
Speaker 1: you'll see there is obviously obviously a a close correlation
Speaker 1: between conservatism in the Second Amendment. And so that's what
Speaker 1: really motivates much of this. It's taking the moral high ground,
Speaker 1: supposedly taking the moral high ground and being able to
Speaker 1: call the n r A and anybody who supports them.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, n r A donations the
Speaker 1: month this just came out today, I think the month
Speaker 1: after Parkland, RA donations were up three. I think it
Speaker 1: was so clearly this is not going to have the
Speaker 1: effect that many on the left think that it will.
Speaker 1: You know, n r A donations went up dramatically. Oh,
Speaker 1: and the Second Amendment is not going away anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But I Lizzy Graham's right. I've started here on the
Speaker 1: show to make him answer the question, make them answer
Speaker 1: the question, and then ask them if they like Roseanne
Speaker 1: and what they think about that, because you can make
Speaker 1: all kinds of make all kinds of conclusions from that right,
Speaker 1: come to conclusions based on whether one supports Roseanne or
Speaker 1: not as a reboot. And then if you really want
Speaker 1: to know something, ask them if they think J. J.
Speaker 1: Abrams is over rated, because the only proper answer that
Speaker 1: question is yes. Anything other than that, Yeah, you can
Speaker 1: give me the evil eye in the other room, that's fine.
Speaker 1: Anything other than that unacceptable. J. J Abrams is them.
Speaker 1: So J. J Abrams is the Bruce Springsteen of scripted television. Bam,
Speaker 1: take that one to the bank. Quick break here, I'll
Speaker 1: be back with more. Stay with me. So this is
Speaker 1: a follow up to a story yesterday I was not
Speaker 1: expecting to do, but I have to. I suppose remember
Speaker 1: when I told you about that Planned parenthood that tweeted
Speaker 1: out that we need a Disney princess who has, among
Speaker 1: other things, had an abortion. And I thought, while there's
Speaker 1: really nothing that the left is unwilling to politicize, pollute,
Speaker 1: and destroy, we can't even all just be okay with
Speaker 1: Disneys Disney princesses anymore. Oh, we have to make that
Speaker 1: an issue. And I know there's already political correctness concerns
Speaker 1: around them, but you have planned parenthood from an official account,
Speaker 1: which it deleted, but saying we need a Disney princesses
Speaker 1: had an abortion, as though that's a positive message for
Speaker 1: young girls and for all people. Quite honestly, I've seen
Speaker 1: lots of Disney movies. I think Disney movies are generally
Speaker 1: pretty great. I thought that was the end of the story.
Speaker 1: I got a little more context for it, though, and
Speaker 1: that is that there are memes going around that we
Speaker 1: need a Disney princess that and people fill in all
Speaker 1: the different blanks. We need a Disney princess that you know,
Speaker 1: destroys the patriarchy or whatever, and planned parent who had
Speaker 1: said we need one that's had an abortion. I didn't
Speaker 1: think there'd be much more to talk about here, but
Speaker 1: sure enough. Jezebel, which is a I believe a radical
Speaker 1: feminist publication, but it used to be owned by or
Speaker 1: maybe still is owned by and and is affiliated with
Speaker 1: the same group as Gawker. Gawker dot com, which was
Speaker 1: a disgusting cesspool of a website that operated for years
Speaker 1: and was just profiting off of human misery and character assassination.
Speaker 1: And Gawker was one of the one of the worst
Speaker 1: things on the web. But Jezebel, I think is from
Speaker 1: the same group that owned Gawker. Anyway, Jezebel wrote this piece.
Speaker 1: This was just this just went up yesterday. I can't
Speaker 1: even parody how crazy the left really is because they
Speaker 1: always outdo whatever I think the outer limits of their
Speaker 1: insanity might be. And on Jezebel they had the following
Speaker 1: piece on their website. Statistically, at least two Disney princesses
Speaker 1: have had abortions, and then this author proceeds to go
Speaker 1: into an analysis of how Disney princesses, which include Bell Rapunzel, Aerial,
Speaker 1: Tiana snow White, Darella, Aurora, Marita, Pocahonas, Jasmine, and Milan,
Speaker 1: more than two of them, at least two of them,
Speaker 1: according to this analysis, have had an abortion, to which
Speaker 1: I just immediately have to say, how stupid can a
Speaker 1: person be who is paid to write about things if
Speaker 1: we're really going to talk about this for a moment.
Speaker 1: First of all, statistics don't work that way, right. It
Speaker 1: would be like saying, well, you know, everyone has one
Speaker 1: point seven children in this country, so that's that's one.
Speaker 1: And also, statistically, all of the Disney princesses that I
Speaker 1: mentioned there, if we're going to, uh, if we're going
Speaker 1: to really look at this for a moment, are from
Speaker 1: periods that were before the era of the modern abortion movement,
Speaker 1: so they most certainly, I can guarantee you that none
Speaker 1: of the Disney princess is have had an abortion. Um. Also,
Speaker 1: I believe some of them are mere teenagers based on
Speaker 1: the storylines. So why am I following up in this.
Speaker 1: I thought that yesterday it would be settled that Planned Parenthood,
Speaker 1: which is a grotesque organization, deleted the tweet. They realized
Speaker 1: that a Disney princess had had an abortion, they would
Speaker 1: leave it there, but the left wanted to double down
Speaker 1: on it. And so that's how we have a piece
Speaker 1: about how statistically at least two Disney princess as they say,
Speaker 1: have had abortions. The effort to glorify abortion as something
Speaker 1: to be proud of is one of the most odious.
Speaker 1: In fact, I you could put it up there in
Speaker 1: the same category of odiousness as anything else in modern politics.
Speaker 1: It's as as wrong and gross and evil as any
Speaker 1: other mainstream political conversation that is happening right um. And
Speaker 1: I do believe that one day we will look back
Speaker 1: on this period in our history, in this country of
Speaker 1: the planned parenthood, pro choice, pro abortion era, and be
Speaker 1: completely and utterly horrified. But to forestall that day, the
Speaker 1: left is even willing to make peace, make make up
Speaker 1: things like this. Disney princesses. Oh yeah, they've already had abortions. No, no,
Speaker 1: they didn't. Used to. All these medieval and pre modern
Speaker 1: societies where the Disney Princesses lived, they were lucky in
Speaker 1: a sense because there was no procedure known as abortion,
Speaker 1: so it did not happen. I just had to follow
Speaker 1: off with it. All right, We're gonna turn into a
Speaker 1: roll call segment here in a second. We'll spruce up
Speaker 1: the hut a little bit. Right now, it's a little
Speaker 1: dour with our topics, but we'll be right back to it.
Speaker 1: So stay with me. It's one of these gray days
Speaker 1: in New York City where I just feel like, can
Speaker 1: it be a beautiful spring day? Already? It's been so old,
Speaker 1: it's been snowy. I've had enough. I want some good weather.
Speaker 1: I want to rock a T shirt. I want to
Speaker 1: drink a margarita in a sidewalk cafe on the street.
Speaker 1: One of those days, Team, you know, I don't know
Speaker 1: I'm excited to go out to Indiana tomorrow. They're gonna
Speaker 1: get to hang out with all the folks out there
Speaker 1: at Whoa Whoa. If you are in the Fort Wayne
Speaker 1: area Talk Tank, just google Fort Wayne Talk Tank and
Speaker 1: you'll see. I'm gonna be hanging out all Saturday with
Speaker 1: the folks in Fort Wayne and our wonderful affiliate Whoa
Speaker 1: wo out there, and please do come and join, Please
Speaker 1: do come and hang out that we'll put a big
Speaker 1: smile on my face. Make me very happy for the weekend.
Speaker 1: So I hope there are a lot of members of
Speaker 1: the team that can come hang out. I'll just be
Speaker 1: there all day, so we'll talk about whatever you want.
Speaker 1: I'll probably even do Commy bear on command, which is
Speaker 1: very rare for me, but I like to be a
Speaker 1: crowd pleaser. So with that, you know what comes next. Hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, time for roll call. Al Right, first stuff,
Speaker 1: I hope you like that. Oh yeah, get those dance
Speaker 1: moves going bump bump, bump, bump, bump bump. You just
Speaker 1: feel like you're gonna be dancing alongside me and our
Speaker 1: aerobics class, don't you. That's how it's how we do it. Uh.
Speaker 1: First up, in roll Call, we got Michael who has
Speaker 1: sent a photo of his beautiful yellow lab and she's beautiful,
Speaker 1: so thank you for the photo. Steve is next up, Hey,
Speaker 1: buck Love your show had one of my employees tell
Speaker 1: me about your show, and I've been listening ever since.
Speaker 1: I was wondering about all of these Netflix documentaries about
Speaker 1: good food and such. I think it would be a
Speaker 1: fantastic idea to have a documentary about all the corruption
Speaker 1: with the Democrat Party about President Trump and documenting all
Speaker 1: the allegations, but most of willing the truth instead of
Speaker 1: the fake news that we are hearing every day. Getting
Speaker 1: interviews with both right and left parties about the situation.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure you're gonna get people on the left
Speaker 1: that will not do an interview. I know it would
Speaker 1: be a lot of work, but maybe you could find
Speaker 1: somebody that could take this project and make it come
Speaker 1: to life. It could potentially go viral and educate people
Speaker 1: on what is truly happening in our country. Steve, it's
Speaker 1: a great idea, and you know what I would. I
Speaker 1: would lead it if somebody could just help me get
Speaker 1: the funding. You know, this is the Truth Team, So
Speaker 1: much of what is possible on the creative side, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: and even in the creative commentary space, right, it's just
Speaker 1: a function of money. You know. This is why I
Speaker 1: say to you, and I'm very honest about it. Every
Speaker 1: time I do a read on this show, or you
Speaker 1: hear a commercial and they have the call out codes
Speaker 1: for for buck you know, buck fifteen or whatever it is,
Speaker 1: depending on on the sponsor, that's just a way of
Speaker 1: showing the sponsor that the folks listening are willing to
Speaker 1: give a shot to the product and also support what
Speaker 1: we're doing here. And the more, you know, the more
Speaker 1: success with that we have, the more I can do
Speaker 1: live stream video from the Freedom Hut, the more success
Speaker 1: I have with uh the history podcasts once we figure
Speaker 1: out how we're gonna present them, Uh, Then the more
Speaker 1: research and time and I could actually get a staff.
Speaker 1: You know. That's capitalism is wonderful, but it also means
Speaker 1: that we gotta do we gotta be working within the
Speaker 1: reality of the finances here. So if somebody listening to
Speaker 1: this wants to get together with me and some other
Speaker 1: folks and come up with a way to do a
Speaker 1: really kick butt documentary on all the anti Trump corruption
Speaker 1: going on, you know, great, let's talk. As long as
Speaker 1: someone can write a check for to do that kind
Speaker 1: of documentary, I think we could do it for three
Speaker 1: or four million. That would be my guess. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: know right, it's expensive. That's why it's hard to do
Speaker 1: these things alright. Next up here, we have a Mickey
Speaker 1: who writes, I love how you call your girl friend
Speaker 1: miss Molly. I have a granddaughter named Molly, and we
Speaker 1: call her miss Molly, even though she is a little kid. Still,
Speaker 1: she even has some teachers at school that have always
Speaker 1: called her miss Molly. Well, thank you very much, Mickey. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Molly is great, and she is a very interesting background.
Speaker 1: She is on one side Latina and on the other
Speaker 1: side Jewish, so her name is is a mixture of
Speaker 1: different cultures as well. Uh. They call her Molly just
Speaker 1: because they like it. It's actually there's no Irish in
Speaker 1: her background whatsoever. But thank you for the shout out, Mickey.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it, Um Sheldon. Next up here, Hey, Buck, just
Speaker 1: heard you talking about Cardi B like you've never heard
Speaker 1: of her until a few weeks ago, saying that you
Speaker 1: need to check out her rent on taxes since she
Speaker 1: is making money. Now, I think she realizes how much
Speaker 1: money she is losing. It's funny and enlightening. Shields high Sheldon,
Speaker 1: um buck. I think those people devices. I've not had
Speaker 1: an issue here any podcast. He's also saying the podcast
Speaker 1: is fine, so you can hear it. Thank you, Sheldon. Yeah.
Speaker 1: People people feel differently about taxes once they start paying
Speaker 1: really serious taxes. And right now I am particularly orderary
Speaker 1: about the federal government because I'm one of those folks
Speaker 1: who has to send in estimated taxes. It's not even
Speaker 1: just that I have money taken out of my paycheck
Speaker 1: every two weeks, which I do, but any side projects
Speaker 1: that I have, some of the other things I'm involved with,
Speaker 1: I'm paid as a contractor, and for those gigs I
Speaker 1: have to send the federal government at check in advance
Speaker 1: of tax day just because they want their money right away.
Speaker 1: All Right, we got Dale who's written out some bullet
Speaker 1: points here. Okay, Dale, let's get into it. Shields. I
Speaker 1: love your radio show and the Shieldside podcast about the
Speaker 1: outrageous Omnibus bill that the Dems and Rhinos pulled out
Speaker 1: of their collective took uses. I was very disappointed with
Speaker 1: President Trump for not videoing it, but I came across
Speaker 1: a post comment that explains about ace up his sleeve
Speaker 1: and why the omnibus is not such a bad thing.
Speaker 1: I do not know the validity of this. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure if you've read this yet, but I would love
Speaker 1: to know your thoughts and opinions. Have much respect for you.
Speaker 1: You are the next rush Please read on. Well, since
Speaker 1: you called me the next Rushdale, there's no higher complement,
Speaker 1: of course that I could be paid. Uh. I will
Speaker 1: read on you right, and this is you're taking this
Speaker 1: from John Salisbury. President Trump outsmarts congress best explanation i've seen.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about what the President canon can't do for
Speaker 1: this omnibus bill. There's a lot of discussion both ways.
Speaker 1: So let's examine how money gets allocated and spent in
Speaker 1: the US government. One Congress allocates money to be spent.
Speaker 1: The President spends the allocated money too. Once Congress allocates money,
Speaker 1: their job is oversight of the money being spent. They
Speaker 1: don't spend the money and have no say how it
Speaker 1: gets spent as long as it's being spent legally. That's
Speaker 1: their job to monitor with oversight. Three. Once the president
Speaker 1: has given the money with the instructions to spend it.
Speaker 1: He has a number of choices to make and spend
Speaker 1: naked uh blah blah blah. This opens up new options.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna skip ahead of here is going a little long. Um.
Speaker 1: Despite their language and the omnibus bill about the border wall,
Speaker 1: it is Trump by the state of emergency that Trump declared. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's what this is about the state of emergency and
Speaker 1: national security side. Look, I think that there's probably a
Speaker 1: way that Trump could do that. Just understand that it
Speaker 1: would immediately be challenged in federal court. And I think
Speaker 1: that a federal court, because of the politics involved, would
Speaker 1: immediately put a stay on any Trump effort to use
Speaker 1: military funds and declare an emergency to do that. So
Speaker 1: that's what I think about that. Um. Next up we
Speaker 1: have Mike, who writes, oh hey, Buck, good morning from Iowa.
Speaker 1: I see your a state guy. You have to try
Speaker 1: this style of reverse seer to take your state game
Speaker 1: to the next level. Well, Mike, UM, I am not
Speaker 1: familiar with the reverse seers, so I will read your
Speaker 1: your note here and it will give it a shot. Katie.
Speaker 1: Next up here, Buck, I was so excited to hear
Speaker 1: a shout out to miss my favorite game. Ever, you
Speaker 1: should hold up and binge on the whole series over
Speaker 1: a long weekend now that you're older and wiser. Truth
Speaker 1: be told, I still haven't played Revelation because I don't
Speaker 1: want it to end. I love your show, especially hearing
Speaker 1: references to pop culture and bumper music from someone around
Speaker 1: my age. I'm a rush baby, and I'm thankful that
Speaker 1: you represent a younger generation with as much accuracy and
Speaker 1: wisdom as Limball. Keep up the good work, Katie. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Katie, very very kind of you,
Speaker 1: and I'm certainly doing what I can here. Next up
Speaker 1: we have Tim who writes at the top okay for
Speaker 1: roll Call. Well, thank you Tim for the permission. Another
Speaker 1: awesome show. Bro. Personally, I'm just short of Oss. I
Speaker 1: began following you in the Blaze days. Well that was
Speaker 1: when I was Oss. Tim. I think you're on board.
Speaker 1: I have a challenge for Hollywood. Here goes. Create a
Speaker 1: new TV series similar to The West Wing, where there
Speaker 1: the le can have their Madam President, where they act
Speaker 1: out alternate and creative ways of dealing with current events.
Speaker 1: Have them make the case why America would want a
Speaker 1: Democrat in the office. But if the right plays it smart,
Speaker 1: they could create a conservative version of the West Wing
Speaker 1: with a president pushing family values, Christian fundamentals, uh morals, values,
Speaker 1: and a true constitutional republic and where the good guys
Speaker 1: Americans always win. What do you think that? Tim? Sounds great?
Speaker 1: But Hollywood's gonna block it because they're a bunch of libs.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave it there for today. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being here with me. Tomorrow I'll be broadcasting
Speaker 1: from four Wayne from the studios of Whoa Whoa in
Speaker 1: four Wayne, Indiana. Looking forward to hanging out with the
Speaker 1: folks there on Saturday. Talk Tank is the event? It
Speaker 1: is in four Wayne. I believe it's at the convention
Speaker 1: Center there. Uh, come out, hang out, We'll take photos, chat,
Speaker 1: will tell jokes. Who knows commy bear my making appearance
Speaker 1: is gonna be great. So if you're in the Fort
Speaker 1: Wayne area, and if you're listening this on who Who
Speaker 1: in particular, because that's very likely, Uh, please do come
Speaker 1: out and until tomorrow, my friends, Shields High