Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with Trump is not when to be president
Speaker 1: of the United State. Take it to a bank. Together,
Speaker 1: we will make America great again. You'll never sharender. It's
Speaker 1: what you've been waiting for all day. The buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show joined the conversation called Buck Toll Free at eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred Buck that's eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred to eight to five The future of talk radio,
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. People who say they don't want to give
Speaker 1: up their guns, they don't want change. What do you
Speaker 1: say to them? I think, unless you can give me
Speaker 1: a real reason and why you need it, you don't.
Speaker 1: You don't need it, honestly asking for less prayers, fewer prayers,
Speaker 1: fewer words, and more action. But this is something that
Speaker 1: I'm going to carry with me forever, and I'm never
Speaker 1: going to stop. I don't think ever like I'm never
Speaker 1: gonna let this go. You are year old and right
Speaker 1: now I'm wearing a bullet group. Fast delmat are all
Speaker 1: the corporations that are still affiliated with the n r A.
Speaker 1: I just believe that everything should be more secure to curious, shot, untilled.
Speaker 1: We won't tolerate being scared to come into school. We
Speaker 1: won't tolerate having to stay out of school because we're scared.
Speaker 1: We can't be hunted. Welcome to Bucks Action Show everybody.
Speaker 1: Today was a national school walk out to protest gun violence.
Speaker 1: It is a month since the terrible shooting at the
Speaker 1: Marjorie Stone in Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, and
Speaker 1: today we had thousands and thousands of kids, young adults
Speaker 1: walking out of their schools across the country. I will
Speaker 1: say there are a few things that immediately jumped out
Speaker 1: of me. One is never before have I seen the
Speaker 1: media so willing to listen to the opinions of teenagers
Speaker 1: on national policy. I don't see it with really anything
Speaker 1: else that I can think of. You know, usually it's
Speaker 1: adults make and enforce the laws and teenagers obey them.
Speaker 1: An adults teach teenagers about the constitution and the law.
Speaker 1: But here we have a movement of children, young adults,
Speaker 1: adolescents who are being used for obvious political purposes by
Speaker 1: one side of the political aisle. As I have told you.
Speaker 1: From the beginning, it was clear that leftist activist groups
Speaker 1: were involved in this. It was clear that there was
Speaker 1: astro turfing going on, that this was not some grassroots
Speaker 1: movement without any involvement. You had organizers from the Women's
Speaker 1: March and other groups, and I can't even keep up
Speaker 1: with all of them who have reached out to these
Speaker 1: kids C and N. I don't know if they're going
Speaker 1: to be violating child labor laws, but they might as
Speaker 1: well give some of these kids a contributor contract. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they're even allowed to do that, but
Speaker 1: they probably should because they keep pointing, putting them on
Speaker 1: TV and treating them like they are experts. And this
Speaker 1: is where the breakdown happens. You see, they're really trying
Speaker 1: to silence you and intimidate you by putting forward victims
Speaker 1: and claiming that if you oppose what those victims are
Speaker 1: promoting as policy, now you're a bad person. If you
Speaker 1: don't give way to the arguments of kids in this case,
Speaker 1: then clearly you are unfeeling uncaring and to borrow from
Speaker 1: some of the most famed this of these child activists,
Speaker 1: you support the n r A, which is a terrorist
Speaker 1: organization they say, and terrorizes children. This is a national
Speaker 1: media embarrassment for sure. Look, do these kids no better?
Speaker 1: Do they think they're doing good? Thing? Tough to tell.
Speaker 1: You got to look at it on an individual case
Speaker 1: and depends on what they're saying and how they're saying.
Speaker 1: But saying that the First Amendment applies to kids and
Speaker 1: they have a voice in all this is just all
Speaker 1: a smoke screen. This is moral blackmail on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: You have school districts that are spending money to bust
Speaker 1: these kids to protests. This has now become like a
Speaker 1: school activity that just goes to show you, goes to
Speaker 1: show you the leftist bent of most of the teachers,
Speaker 1: unions and a lot of teachers in these school systems,
Speaker 1: in public school And this is not going to advance policy.
Speaker 1: It wanted ad It's the argument is it, can you
Speaker 1: make can you make claims about how this is good?
Speaker 1: There's activism? You know, it's we got an engaged citizenry. Sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just exercising the First mment. Yeah, but everything is
Speaker 1: exercising the First Amendment, right, I mean, come on, some
Speaker 1: crazy guy that on the corner was telling me the
Speaker 1: world is gonna end as he's standing on a bunch
Speaker 1: of cardboard boxes. Well, he's just exercising the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: Doesn't mean I have to think he's right or respect
Speaker 1: when he's sang. These are all canards, These are all
Speaker 1: red herrings. There smoke screens, as I said, And you'll
Speaker 1: notice that there aren't a lot of and there aren't
Speaker 1: a lot of kids appearing on TV who have a
Speaker 1: different take on this. They are handpicking which students get
Speaker 1: the national media platforms. They are deciding who will be
Speaker 1: the voice of this movement, and it is overwhelmingly along
Speaker 1: partisan lines. And the demonization of the n r A
Speaker 1: and the threats that I've even seen from people online
Speaker 1: about or directed towards people from the n r A
Speaker 1: are appalling. They are absolutely appalling. But you've got waves
Speaker 1: of these students walking out across the country. It allows
Speaker 1: the media to pat itself on the back. It allows
Speaker 1: them to act like they're giving a voice to the
Speaker 1: voiceless here whatever. All the cliches apply. But we're also
Speaker 1: quite aware of the fact that there are adults who
Speaker 1: see advantage in all this. There are adults who see
Speaker 1: that using children as pawns in a political battle is
Speaker 1: A is a an effective tactic, right, because if you're
Speaker 1: going to push back against the messaging, you're being mean
Speaker 1: if you point out that these kids don't know anything
Speaker 1: about firearms law or quite honestly law or the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Because I'm hearing what they're saying, and more to them
Speaker 1: don't and I wouldn't expect them to their kids. But
Speaker 1: there's something strange about putting forward young people who don't
Speaker 1: have the experience or knowledge to debate national issues with
Speaker 1: any real capability, and to put them in positions where
Speaker 1: not only are they to be listened to, they're not
Speaker 1: supposed to be criticized, which is part of this whole
Speaker 1: thing if you come out too strongly against US. I
Speaker 1: called it a puppet show in the week when they
Speaker 1: keep putting these kids on TV, and oh gosh, people
Speaker 1: got so mad at me. What do you think this is?
Speaker 1: Seeing an adults CNN producers see some kid who suffered
Speaker 1: a trauma? Was that one of these was it was
Speaker 1: at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas and they put them on TV
Speaker 1: and all of a sudden they're saying that you know
Speaker 1: this politicians owned by the n r A, and this
Speaker 1: person is a total hack who's got blood on his
Speaker 1: hands because he took n RA donations, and they're just
Speaker 1: being a little attack dogs. That's not okay, it's not acceptable.
Speaker 1: But anything goes, anything goes, So the conversation, I suppose
Speaker 1: will continue. I saw today on the cover of the
Speaker 1: the Huffington Post they were using the hashtag enough. I
Speaker 1: wonder if they've formally switched from hashtag never again, which
Speaker 1: is meant to evoke the the Holocaust, and maybe they've
Speaker 1: moved on to hashtag enough. I'm not sure. I don't know, um,
Speaker 1: but I do know that these kids don't understand gun policy,
Speaker 1: they don't understand criminology, they don't understand how violence in
Speaker 1: the statistics with violence in school, a vast majority of
Speaker 1: it occurs outside of school. By orders of magnitude, exponentially
Speaker 1: more violence occurs outside of school. That's where students are
Speaker 1: most likely to be harmed by each other and by
Speaker 1: non students. And most of the violence has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with a deranged school shooter. It's drug related, it's
Speaker 1: gang related, but that's not what we're talking about here. This,
Speaker 1: this is specifically meant to mobile This is meant to
Speaker 1: mobilize a group of students for the purpose of fundraising
Speaker 1: for the left, passing legislation against the Second Amendment, and
Speaker 1: creating some issue for the Democrats to push going into
Speaker 1: mid terms. Of course, the problem they're gonna run into
Speaker 1: is that gun control is not popular in places where
Speaker 1: they need to run towards the They need to run centrists,
Speaker 1: they need to run carbon copies if they can. Of
Speaker 1: what just happened in Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania's eighteenth district, which was
Speaker 1: won by the Democrats. I mean, he's has the other
Speaker 1: guy conceded yet by the way he conceded. No, he
Speaker 1: hasn't conceded, right, Okay, so it's in the six D
Speaker 1: vote range right now. Oh. Another thing. Anytime somebody ever
Speaker 1: tells you that voter fraud doesn't matter or they know,
Speaker 1: they usually start with voter fraud doesn't happen, and then
Speaker 1: you do a Google search and they say, well, someone
Speaker 1: just went to prison for it last week. And they say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: it's not that big a deal. Doesn't happen that much.
Speaker 1: When you have congressional elections that are coming down to
Speaker 1: literally hundreds of votes, it's pretty clear that it matters.
Speaker 1: It's pretty clear that even a very small fraction of
Speaker 1: votes cast being fraudulent or in any way hampered with
Speaker 1: could change the outcome. Um, well, that's that's another place
Speaker 1: we'll have to go and discuss. Oh I mentioned the adults.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about where the adults come down here
Speaker 1: on using this movement for their own purposes, on pushing
Speaker 1: narratives that they find politically convenient, and how ultimately they
Speaker 1: won't address the truth. And it's one that I tell
Speaker 1: you here on the show. School shootings are have been
Speaker 1: going down for decades. Children are incredibly safe in schools.
Speaker 1: We do not need to do all these things that
Speaker 1: people are saying we have to do. We need a
Speaker 1: baseline of competence from law enforcement, which we usually have,
Speaker 1: but in this case of the Stonean Douglas shooting, we
Speaker 1: did not baseline of competency, open communication and maybe some
Speaker 1: tightening of open communication between the schools and law enforcement,
Speaker 1: and then some tightening of the background check system. This
Speaker 1: is not a modern pandemic. This is not an urgent plague.
Speaker 1: This has now become from a policy perspective, overblown. For
Speaker 1: every student that walked out today because they wanted to
Speaker 1: honor the memories of you know, the fellow students that
Speaker 1: were lost at stoneA Douglas High School, or that they
Speaker 1: did this as a form of mourning and community gathering.
Speaker 1: Great God bless. But for those who are saying we
Speaker 1: need to change the Constitution of the United States because
Speaker 1: they say so because of what happened, I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: they don't have enough wisdom or experience on the subject
Speaker 1: matter to influence my opinion, and I know they're not
Speaker 1: influencing yours either, And this is not the way that
Speaker 1: we should be debating issues of national importance in this country.
Speaker 1: It's a sham what the Democrats are doing. All Right,
Speaker 1: We've got a pat show. I'm gonna talk to you
Speaker 1: about the passing of Stephen Hawking later on. We're also
Speaker 1: going to discuss that the UK has expelled twenty three
Speaker 1: diplomats from its shores and Russian diplomats in response to
Speaker 1: the Nova chalk poisoning. And what else have I got
Speaker 1: for you? A whole lot of stuff. We'll have Hillary
Speaker 1: making an appearance later. Oh, I have a follow up
Speaker 1: on the French bulldog that died in the overhead been
Speaker 1: because of a stupid airline employee. We will get that.
Speaker 1: Just I want I read it last night. I read
Speaker 1: the details. I saw the photo too, and it disturbed me.
Speaker 1: It really made me mad. And you and say, that's
Speaker 1: not rational, Buck. You're reading stories about terrible wars and
Speaker 1: things all the time, and I know that's true, but
Speaker 1: I don't know that the photo of that French you
Speaker 1: really really hit home. It made me, Uh made me sad.
Speaker 1: So we'll talk about that, because there's a bigger lesson
Speaker 1: about airlines that we should draw from what happened on
Speaker 1: that plane where somebody's pet was forced into an overhead
Speaker 1: beIN where it's slowly suffocated. We will we will talk
Speaker 1: more about that, and obviously your thoughts welcome as well.
Speaker 1: Eight to eight to five eight Buck. You can't call,
Speaker 1: but you want to tweet. I am at Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: on Twitter and I'm a lean, mean tweeting machine, including
Speaker 1: during the show and after and at two A and
Speaker 1: when I can't sleep. So get on the Twitter. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. What do we want gun control? When
Speaker 1: do we want it? Now? Governor Andrew Cromo was with
Speaker 1: them in that one, right, So the governor of New
Speaker 1: York State. They're demanding gun control, folks, there's already so
Speaker 1: much gun control. The way that this whole debate is
Speaker 1: framed is dishonest. They're claiming that they just want common
Speaker 1: sense gun control. We already have all kinds of gun control.
Speaker 1: And I don't mean like trigger finger discipline. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about all the laws that are which I know for
Speaker 1: a lot of your like that is gun control, Buck,
Speaker 1: But I'm talking about laws that are in place that
Speaker 1: govern the sale and transfer and storage and carriage and use.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's a whole cannon pardon the expression
Speaker 1: of law around guns. And in a place like New York,
Speaker 1: they do it in a way that it's supposed to
Speaker 1: make it complicated. It's supposed to make it difficult. And
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of ownerous restrictions in place on the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment already, restrictions that they would never dream of
Speaker 1: bringing about it a similar level for other constitutionally protected rights,
Speaker 1: because they just flatly don't view the Second Amendment as
Speaker 1: a constitution constitutionally protected right. They think it is a
Speaker 1: quaint anachronism and that it's evil and that it needs
Speaker 1: to go. They flatly do not believe that the right
Speaker 1: to bear arms is in the Constitution, and they are
Speaker 1: using children now to make that argument for them. It's
Speaker 1: not the first time, but this time around they have
Speaker 1: harness their powers of organizing for this purpose, and none
Speaker 1: other than Chuck Schumer, for example, joined it. I mean,
Speaker 1: the got these adults joining in the student chance, No surprise, Humer.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say. Now, everyone's I've been
Speaker 1: through these wars. I am the author of the Brady
Speaker 1: Law and the assault weapons ban, the n r A.
Speaker 1: The n r A has made me public Enemy no. One,
Speaker 1: and I'm proud of it. And together we're gonna win
Speaker 1: where gonna win. We're gonna win where gonna win? I mean,
Speaker 1: what kind of bull crap chant is that we're gonna win?
Speaker 1: What exactly We're gonna ben more guns in New York State.
Speaker 1: There's already all kinds of bands in place for New
Speaker 1: York State. We're gonna eliminate the right to bear arms nationwide.
Speaker 1: That's never gonna happen. That's well, I'm not gonna happen
Speaker 1: anytime soon, at least if they keep pushing. I'm sure
Speaker 1: they think that they can change perception enough that over
Speaker 1: time they might be able to get what they want
Speaker 1: with this. But it is uh it is distressing onetheless
Speaker 1: to see all this happening. It's very as I've been
Speaker 1: telling you, it's very Olynsky though. It's all about mobilization.
Speaker 1: Make activism a social activity, make activism seem fun and
Speaker 1: cool and hip, and then people become activists, and then
Speaker 1: they want to keep going. It's like a party where
Speaker 1: you get to feel good about yourself, like a fun party,
Speaker 1: not a political party, you know. And then they're hoping
Speaker 1: that they'll have these networks in place for the midterms,
Speaker 1: and that they'll have people that rise up to get
Speaker 1: others to vote and to believe that they're giving them
Speaker 1: a message that's important, that's powerful. That's what this whole
Speaker 1: game is. It's not going to change anything. I do
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about something else that has
Speaker 1: begun to make its way into the conversation, and I
Speaker 1: easy here with you, and I had to do with
Speaker 1: the Broward Sheriff's Department, Broward County Sheriff's Department policies when
Speaker 1: it came to arresting juveniles. It turns out that there
Speaker 1: was really something to it. I talked to you here
Speaker 1: on the show about it. But the Obama administration through
Speaker 1: the Department of Education decided that there needed to be
Speaker 1: some social justice adjustments to how schools discipline teenagers and
Speaker 1: how quickly they reported to law enforcement. And they claim,
Speaker 1: but there is racial disparity in the system and therefore
Speaker 1: they had to change the way the system was giving
Speaker 1: out discipline. Well, we will dive into that together after this,
Speaker 1: because I think it's gonna be eye opening. Investigation will
Speaker 1: continue unofficially despite the GOP shutting it down at the
Speaker 1: banner up on CNN as we were on the air.
Speaker 1: What a shock. That's it's classic. So they're gonna continue
Speaker 1: an investigation that's not really an investigation, but that way
Speaker 1: they can still pretend like it's an investigation. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: is what the Democrats do, all right, I promise you
Speaker 1: let to talk about this school discipline policies of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Now, remember, and this is something that's easy,
Speaker 1: easy to lose sight of it. I don't have children yet,
Speaker 1: so I don't deal with any school system. Really. I
Speaker 1: just read about them a lot, but I've been to school. Uh.
Speaker 1: But the Obama administration was willing to throw its political
Speaker 1: muscle around via the Department of Education on a pretty
Speaker 1: regular basis. The Obama team, if you remember, even threatened
Speaker 1: to cut off funding for I believe it was North
Speaker 1: but it might have been South Carolina schools if they
Speaker 1: did not acquiesce to the new Department of Education guidelines
Speaker 1: on trans gender students and bathroom usage they were going to.
Speaker 1: They threatened to cut funding, folks for public schools unless
Speaker 1: they allowed teenage boys to use the bathroom that they
Speaker 1: prefer of teenage girls, and vice versa. So that was
Speaker 1: one time when you saw the politics of the Obama
Speaker 1: administration played out through the prism of the public school system.
Speaker 1: And that's important to remember. But there was another part
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration that was prominent all things social justice.
Speaker 1: Obama was really a social justice warrior. President Obama was
Speaker 1: somebody who believed deeply in using the power of the
Speaker 1: government in a somewhat arbitrary fashion in order to benefit
Speaker 1: disadvantaged groups at the expense of so called advantage groups.
Speaker 1: In social justice parlance of today, we'd call this addressing
Speaker 1: white privilege, for example, But in this specific in the
Speaker 1: specific case of the school system, there was a theory
Speaker 1: that Obama and his Department of Education and others put
Speaker 1: into practice of what they called the school to prison pipeline,
Speaker 1: and that there was too much arresting of high school,
Speaker 1: particularly minority high school students, going on that that created
Speaker 1: an environment where there would be further arrests and they'd
Speaker 1: be pulled out of school, and the problem was the arrest,
Speaker 1: not the behavior. And then even before that, they would
Speaker 1: say that minority students were punished more severely for and
Speaker 1: this isn't important for the same infraction. That's always the claim,
Speaker 1: or the same infraction, they're punished much more severely than
Speaker 1: their non minority uh counterparts, particularly that black students are
Speaker 1: punished more harshly in school by teachers and administrators than
Speaker 1: white students are for the same offense. That's the plane.
Speaker 1: Now here's a discussion between the former head of VICE.
Speaker 1: I think he's just out as of recently. I've always
Speaker 1: thought Vice was just all smoke in mirrors. I've said
Speaker 1: this to you I think before on the show. Virus
Speaker 1: is like a bunch of hipster's telling you about the news,
Speaker 1: but pretending they don't really care much about the news.
Speaker 1: They've got a book of slam poetry that they're compiling
Speaker 1: that's much more meaningful to them, right, I mean it's
Speaker 1: so there's always this annoying insuction. Look at me um
Speaker 1: standing on the d m Z of North Korea, but like,
Speaker 1: I don't, I don't really care man doing Vice hard
Speaker 1: hitting journalism. But the the co founder and former head
Speaker 1: of Vice was sitting down with Obama to talk about this.
Speaker 1: This was a few years ago. But this is a
Speaker 1: good basic for a good basic definition of what this
Speaker 1: whole prison of pipeline thing is. Is the criminal justice
Speaker 1: system in America racist. The system restudy has shown is
Speaker 1: biased somewhere institutionally in such a way where an African
Speaker 1: American youth is more likely to be suspended from school
Speaker 1: than a white youth for engaging in the same disruptive behavior,
Speaker 1: more likely to be arrested, more likely to be charged,
Speaker 1: more likely to be prosecuted aggressively, more likely to get
Speaker 1: a stiffer sentence. The system tilts in a direction that
Speaker 1: is unjust. The statistics are so skewed you have to
Speaker 1: question whether we have become numb two the costs that
Speaker 1: it has on these communities. Whether you got the idea,
Speaker 1: but Noticety says, more likely to be suspended, more likely
Speaker 1: to be prosecuted for the same offense, and the New
Speaker 1: York Times wrote a piece about this recently, Trump finds
Speaker 1: unlikely culprit in school shootings m A discipline policies. UH.
Speaker 1: This article has the unintended effect of confirming everything that
Speaker 1: I had read before and come to conclusions about with
Speaker 1: regard to the Broward County Sheriff's Department and how it's
Speaker 1: interacting with high school students, and also just how the
Speaker 1: s j W attitude of the Obama administration had permeated
Speaker 1: throughout the school system in a way that was really
Speaker 1: destructive because when you look at this piece, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of I mean, first of all, they talk
Speaker 1: about the UH, the Rethink Discipline program um, which is
Speaker 1: the Trump Commission will examine, includes guidelines that the Obama
Speaker 1: aministration issued on the legal limitations on the use of
Speaker 1: restraints and seclusion, corporal punishment, and equity for special education students.
Speaker 1: So Rethink Discipline was they UH called this or the
Speaker 1: Abdoministration and Disciplined guidelines that were given out. So they
Speaker 1: actually had guidelines on this, and what they were claiming
Speaker 1: was some of what I had told you, which is
Speaker 1: that UH, students based on how they're writing this and
Speaker 1: compulic statistics. They say students of color are singled out
Speaker 1: and more harshly punished than their uh than their white counterparts.
Speaker 1: There's a few things that just automatically jump out to
Speaker 1: me about this claim. And I'm gonna translate all this
Speaker 1: in a moment into why we care in the context
Speaker 1: of the school shootings in general and the Marjorie Stone
Speaker 1: and Douglas shooting in particular in a second here, but
Speaker 1: the notion that being punished for the same infraction, there's
Speaker 1: no way to statistically account for this, But there's also
Speaker 1: no way to line up exactly is this a student
Speaker 1: that is, we're talking to things like disruptions and classrooms
Speaker 1: or maybe you know, cursing or okay, and teacher listening
Speaker 1: to this nose. And I was just I was a
Speaker 1: soccer coach, right, So I wasn't a teacher, but I
Speaker 1: worked in a school for a period of time and
Speaker 1: had to deal with kids. And I had overwhelmingly super diligent,
Speaker 1: well behaved, great kids. But even in that scale, there
Speaker 1: were the kids that I dealt with who had a
Speaker 1: you know, consistently a little bit of an attitude, a
Speaker 1: little bit of a discenary disciplinary problem and there were
Speaker 1: the kids who maybe once in a while would get
Speaker 1: a little out of sorts, but they generally weren't a problem.
Speaker 1: Now I knew that there was a line sometimes that
Speaker 1: if any of them cross I'd have to actually, you know,
Speaker 1: bench them for a game, or you know, I had
Speaker 1: to do that a couple of times, or if they
Speaker 1: were being you know, rowdy, or if they were getting
Speaker 1: into it, because these were high school aged kids, if
Speaker 1: they were you know, saying they're going to fight someone
Speaker 1: on the other team, things like that would happen. I'd
Speaker 1: have to step in and and cut that off right away,
Speaker 1: and they would have to be disciplined there. But you know,
Speaker 1: the kid that did it two or three times, or
Speaker 1: the kid that was close to doing it a few times,
Speaker 1: it was going to be more harshly punished by me
Speaker 1: then the kid who you know, just one time got
Speaker 1: a little heated during the game. And I'm trying to translate,
Speaker 1: trying to take that and put in the context of
Speaker 1: a classroom. I'm sure it's the same thing with teachers.
Speaker 1: You see, I don't believe that teachers in the public
Speaker 1: school system are inherently racially biased in the way that
Speaker 1: the new York Times, the Abadministration's Department of Education and
Speaker 1: others assume, I just don't believe it, and the statistics
Speaker 1: alone can't can't be used to say that, well, there's
Speaker 1: a there's a disparate impact on minority students in these
Speaker 1: schools because the reality of crime statistics in this country,
Speaker 1: or that there's a disparate impact among the African American
Speaker 1: community of of homicides. For example, right there are more
Speaker 1: African Americans per capita killed in homicides, and they're more
Speaker 1: African African Americans per capita that commit homicides. Now there's
Speaker 1: very complicated, uh socio economic reasons and you know, and
Speaker 1: and discussions to be had around that issue. But there's
Speaker 1: clearly a difference in the per capita incidents of violent
Speaker 1: crime in the African American community community than the rest
Speaker 1: of the country. That there is a difference in school
Speaker 1: discipline as well, is something that should be a conversation,
Speaker 1: not something that is day facto or or on its
Speaker 1: face treated as racism, which is what they're saying, which
Speaker 1: is what they're doing now. The way that so that's
Speaker 1: one level, is the way that the schools under the
Speaker 1: obomb aministration decided to deal with this was And now
Speaker 1: you're gonna start seeing the how Broward County factors into
Speaker 1: this was Well, you know, don't arrest kids, give them
Speaker 1: more written warnings, be be slower to turn them over
Speaker 1: to police, don't don't take school behavior that's criminal and
Speaker 1: necessarily assume you have to call law enforcement. See if
Speaker 1: you can handle it internally, See if the school's disciplinary
Speaker 1: policies will deal with it first. Now, I met a
Speaker 1: lot of teachers in my life. I've never met a
Speaker 1: teacher who would relish the idea who would look forward
Speaker 1: to calling police on one of his or her students ever. Ever,
Speaker 1: so the notion that the Department Education thinks that it
Speaker 1: should be telling teachers and administrators, you know, be slower
Speaker 1: to call the cops as a means of dealing with
Speaker 1: the problem is exactly the wrong way to deal with
Speaker 1: the problem. Letting kids get away with more behavior that
Speaker 1: is borderline up to and including criminal is not a
Speaker 1: way of increasing or improving discipline. It's just a way
Speaker 1: for administrators and in some cases law enforcement to change
Speaker 1: the numbers and look like they're being less discriminatory. In
Speaker 1: the case of the Parkland school shooting, what we know
Speaker 1: is that the Broward County Sheriff's office was giving a
Speaker 1: lot of citea a lot of written warnings and citations
Speaker 1: to kids for what would have gotten them previously arrested.
Speaker 1: And the theory here, it's not proven, but the theory
Speaker 1: is that with someone like Nicholas Cruz, you have a
Speaker 1: student who was in an ecosystem where behavior was much
Speaker 1: less likely to result in arrest and a visit from
Speaker 1: law enforcement and much more likely to be just bounced
Speaker 1: around the school system. And you know, he's eventually expelled.
Speaker 1: But there was a softer line taken by authority in
Speaker 1: Broward County which was responsible for safety of those students
Speaker 1: at Parkland. And there's a way to take that thread
Speaker 1: and have it all the way at the top from
Speaker 1: President Obama himself on down less discipline in schools, the
Speaker 1: prison the school the prison pipeline, which is just a
Speaker 1: bogus theory that they have created to explain away many
Speaker 1: difficult socio and economic issues that are happening in schools
Speaker 1: and pretending that there's no disparity issues in discipline, that
Speaker 1: it's all just institutional racism, that's what they're saying, and
Speaker 1: that may have had very, very tragic consequences when it
Speaker 1: filtered all the way down at the level of say
Speaker 1: Stoneman Douglas High School and how administrators, teachers, and others
Speaker 1: felt they should be dealing with problem students across the board,
Speaker 1: minority or otherwise. But this is something we will continue
Speaker 1: to revisit. It's but it just comes from the flawed
Speaker 1: theory of of the social justice warriors, which is if
Speaker 1: there is a remember if you remember, disparate impact as well.
Speaker 1: That's a theory that says that if it affects one
Speaker 1: group more than another, it must be wrong if that
Speaker 1: group is disadvantaged, even if it's based on action and
Speaker 1: sound law. As I've said to you, there's a disparate
Speaker 1: impact of violent crime too. What do we do about that?
Speaker 1: You know, not enforced the law? I don't think so,
Speaker 1: all right, eight four four to five eight four four buck,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Also have a concerned when we
Speaker 1: talk about this of the impact of of having armed
Speaker 1: teachers as it relates to African American Hispanic students. And
Speaker 1: here's why I say that there is an overwhelming body
Speaker 1: of evidence that shows that harsh disciplinary protocols disproportionately impact
Speaker 1: children of color. Do you have any concern about a
Speaker 1: policy that would result in arming teachers and the concern
Speaker 1: that we should make sure that if something like that
Speaker 1: were to occur, that there would be training around implicit bias.
Speaker 1: So that's Kamala Harris talking about this. So she's saying
Speaker 1: implicit bias. I mean, the teachers shoot more minority students
Speaker 1: if they're armed in schools. This, this theory continues, and
Speaker 1: it it permeates so much of the policy making around
Speaker 1: school safety, doesn't it. Herber New Jersey, What do you think,
Speaker 1: my friend? Uh? Well, first of all, let me say
Speaker 1: shields high buck, thank you. Like you, I'm calling bs
Speaker 1: on this entire narrative that tries to take the focus
Speaker 1: off of truth and reality when you're talking about keeping
Speaker 1: our kids safe while they're in school. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't care how many tools of violence you try
Speaker 1: to make illegal. Uh. People who are contemplating a crime
Speaker 1: are going to obtain whatever tool they find necessary by
Speaker 1: any means necessary. And And what you're really talking about here,
Speaker 1: if you're serious about wanting to keep our kids safe,
Speaker 1: is trying to keep a shield between them and the
Speaker 1: evil that promotes violence. Physical shield is the only thing
Speaker 1: that's going to protect our children because UM, well here's
Speaker 1: a perfect example. UM. There's a story going around uh
Speaker 1: the internet in the last twenty four hours about a
Speaker 1: situation that that that occurred in California where a student
Speaker 1: made some threats on social media. The police investigated, They
Speaker 1: found uh several weapons and ammunition in the possession of
Speaker 1: this child in their home. UM, they arrested them and
Speaker 1: um charged them with the unlawful possession UM and averted
Speaker 1: any potential violence in that child school because they put
Speaker 1: up a shield. They invested, the law enforcement did its
Speaker 1: job there, and law enforcement in Parkland clearly was unfortunately
Speaker 1: asleep at wheel Herb. Thank you for calling in from
Speaker 1: New Jersey. I want to get to Bill and West
Speaker 1: Virginia before we have to go to the next hour. Bill,
Speaker 1: good to have you all right. Thanks thanks for taking
Speaker 1: my time for your time there. Uh yeah, I wanted
Speaker 1: to talk about Chuck Schumer. He happens his big mouth
Speaker 1: and that and uh what's he got to say about
Speaker 1: the Obama Hary could fast and furious stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: the government broke the Lawler, we got gun laws, and
Speaker 1: they broke the gun laws in it. How many of
Speaker 1: these guns are available from Mexico coming back here to
Speaker 1: cause these problems? Yeah, I mean, Chuck Schumer's the worst.
Speaker 1: So there's that can't understand that, Why don't the people
Speaker 1: start shoving at the Republicans starts shoving it back in
Speaker 1: his face, and that you know, it just dumbfails me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hear you, Bill, thank you for calling him my
Speaker 1: friend Shields I um yeah, Schumer, Oh gosh. We'll talk
Speaker 1: a little bit about the Party of Pelosi and Schumer
Speaker 1: and how this wind that Lamb had in Pennsylvania's eighteenth
Speaker 1: district is not indicative of some big wave coming for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Unless all the Democrats can get away with
Speaker 1: pretending to basically not be Democrats in the midternal election,
Speaker 1: then they'll have something special. But to that, and then
Speaker 1: also some rumblings out of the FBI and some possible
Speaker 1: retribution against the deep state. What am I talking about?
Speaker 1: You gotta stay with me. I start every day the
Speaker 1: same way I get my Black Rifle coffee and I
Speaker 1: chug it. Black Rifle is absolutely delicious, and unlike other
Speaker 1: coffee companies. This isn't some faceless conglomerate of left wing
Speaker 1: activists that are trying to make you over pay for
Speaker 1: whatever beans they've thrown together. These are patriots, They're members
Speaker 1: of the US veteran community, and they really believe in
Speaker 1: liberty America and building a great business. Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: is delicious. They are premium, small batch and roast to order.
Speaker 1: You need to try it. They're gonna become your coffee company.
Speaker 1: Go to Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com. Slash Buck. Used the coupon
Speaker 1: code buck fifteen that's buck one five for fIF percent off.
Speaker 1: You can get a subscription service sent to you each month.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash Buck coupon code buck
Speaker 1: one five for percent off. He's back with you now
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. Welcome back to the Buck Saxon Show.
Speaker 1: Our two is here. It is here. It is exciting.
Speaker 1: It's good to be with you, my friends, fellow patriots,
Speaker 1: freedom hut dwellers. So we had a little bit of
Speaker 1: a loss, not a lot of big deal. But scone cicone.
Speaker 1: I like to say, I like the like the old
Speaker 1: country saccone, not the seccone americanized stuff. You know what
Speaker 1: do he was hen order spaghetti with red sauce. Next,
Speaker 1: next it's spaghetti manda nata. But nonetheless yet scone against Lamb.
Speaker 1: I have nothing fun and what bad? I got nothing
Speaker 1: to say about Lamb's You know, I can't think of
Speaker 1: anything clever about that one, but Lamb one, or as
Speaker 1: I'm seeing some of the various female pundits I know,
Speaker 1: say the cute one one, Oh well, isn't that nice?
Speaker 1: Or at least he's declared victory and he's six hundred
Speaker 1: votes or so ahead, and and we have some audio
Speaker 1: from the cute one. Lay it. Lamb is a political unicorn. Essentially,
Speaker 1: he's running prone pro fracking. We were over stops ups up.
Speaker 1: Let's let's play Mr Connor Lamb. What what he said?
Speaker 1: Not that Mark theeson is not great? But do we
Speaker 1: not have I thought we had some Lamb talking. Oh,
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan talking about Lamb. I miss read the cutsheet
Speaker 1: my friends live radio is a crazy thing. Let's hear
Speaker 1: from Paul Ryant. I think the candidate that's going to
Speaker 1: win this race is the candidate that ran is a
Speaker 1: pro life, pro gun, anti anti Nancy Pelosi conservative, that's
Speaker 1: the candidate's gonna win this race. So this is something
Speaker 1: that you're not going to see repeated. Because they didn't
Speaker 1: have a primary, they were able to pick a candidate
Speaker 1: who could run as a conservative, who ran against the
Speaker 1: minority leader who ran on a conservative agenda. Um, you
Speaker 1: will have primaries and all these other races, and the
Speaker 1: primaries bring bring them to the left. So I just
Speaker 1: don't think that this is something they're gonna be able
Speaker 1: to see a repeat of. I agree with Paul Ryan's
Speaker 1: analysis here. You can't you can't pull a limb in
Speaker 1: all these other districts because you're gonna be running people
Speaker 1: that are essentially saying me too, I'm just a Republican too,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm close to this other guy. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: be enough. There's just no way. And then you added
Speaker 1: the whole thing that people in the political chattering class
Speaker 1: like to talk about mid terms, the year of the
Speaker 1: mid term, like the whole year. But so much is
Speaker 1: going to change between now and then, things like how's
Speaker 1: the economy doing. People are saying, this is a referenum
Speaker 1: on Trumpell. What's Trump is? I'm looking like in five
Speaker 1: or six months, right, that'll be very very different. Or yeah,
Speaker 1: five or six months, so that will all change. So
Speaker 1: this is not a referendum on anything. It just shows that.
Speaker 1: Oh I would note yesterday I was a little confused.
Speaker 1: We're talking to Selena Zito, who is from the district
Speaker 1: and knows this district p A eighteen very very well.
Speaker 1: I was like, wait, why did I think that Lamb
Speaker 1: was a Lamb is one of these politicians who says
Speaker 1: he is personally pro life but will always vote pro choice.
Speaker 1: See that's how far he's willing to go. Uh, that's
Speaker 1: how far he's willing to go in order to appeal
Speaker 1: to Republican centrist voters. Right, that's what he's willing to do,
Speaker 1: or sorry, Democrat centrist voters is to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I'm with you. I mean, you know, I'm life is sacred,
Speaker 1: but I'm gonna vote for abortion. This is the head fake.
Speaker 1: This is exactly what Democrats do time and again. It's
Speaker 1: not new, it's not a surprise. And the fact that
Speaker 1: this guy was able to, you know, with a good
Speaker 1: resume and a square jaw and a good TV appearance
Speaker 1: and all that was able to defeat us a cone
Speaker 1: is not not a huge shock. Um, not a huge shock.
Speaker 1: Uh So that's I don't think there's any major national
Speaker 1: level anything to take out of this. So I just
Speaker 1: want to put that. I want to put that aside
Speaker 1: for a moment, or not put it aside for a moment.
Speaker 1: I want to put it aside. I think it's just
Speaker 1: the local. It's gonna be a different district in the fall.
Speaker 1: He's literally gonna be running in a different district. So
Speaker 1: how's it gonna look? Who knows? Who knows? The biggest
Speaker 1: thing I had from all this, or the biggest takeaway
Speaker 1: from me, is that hundreds of votes can change an election.
Speaker 1: It is not hard to think of a situation where
Speaker 1: there might be hundreds of either intentionally or unintentionally illegally
Speaker 1: cast votes. Not hard to think of that at all, right,
Speaker 1: not something. It doesn't require a huge elaborate fraud to
Speaker 1: have a few hundred votes go one way or the other.
Speaker 1: In fact, there have been elections where that was the
Speaker 1: margin of the margin of victory, and your reason to
Speaker 1: believe that there was there were shenanigans all right. Now,
Speaker 1: switching gears for a moment here, because this is gonna
Speaker 1: be It's gonna be something that really sets the media
Speaker 1: a light. They are going to freak out about this.
Speaker 1: NBC News reporting Sessions, the Attorney General, whom I will
Speaker 1: note we had calling into the show this week because he's, uh,
Speaker 1: he likes the freedom hunting. You know. The guy's very smart,
Speaker 1: individual's patriot, likes how we roll in the hut, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. I get so I give Sessions
Speaker 1: credit for that. On top of it, he may fire
Speaker 1: top FBI official Andrew McCabe before his pension eligibility. So
Speaker 1: people who think that McCay retiring early, oh, there's nothing
Speaker 1: they can do now, Nope, there's something they can do
Speaker 1: that would sting pretty bad, pretty badly. I know, advert
Speaker 1: people are gonna get mad at me. No improper grammar
Speaker 1: on AIRBUK. The FBI's Office of Profession and Responsibility has
Speaker 1: recommended the firing of former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, who
Speaker 1: remains on the payroll, a move that could put his
Speaker 1: pension at risk. According to officials familiar with the process,
Speaker 1: it is now up to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, our friend,
Speaker 1: whether to reverse that recommendation or to accept it. Why
Speaker 1: would McCabe get fired after a long and distinguished career
Speaker 1: at the d j OH for leaking information to reporters
Speaker 1: and for lying to investigators about doing so. Now, let's
Speaker 1: just take a moment, shall we. If you are a
Speaker 1: senior Department of Justice official, you know the law pretty well,
Speaker 1: I'd assume, at least with regard. I'm not saying you
Speaker 1: uphold it all the time, but you at least know
Speaker 1: what the law is. You should know what the law is,
Speaker 1: and you would also know what would put you in
Speaker 1: professional and ethical jeopardy. Why why, oh why would you
Speaker 1: If you are Andy McCabe, Acting Director of the Federal
Speaker 1: Bureau of Investigation, why would you take this risk and
Speaker 1: leak to reporters unless one of two things were true,
Speaker 1: both of which are very important for our discussions going
Speaker 1: forward of all the Russia collusion investigation stuff. One, you
Speaker 1: are sure that you will not get into trouble because
Speaker 1: the rest of the people around you will have your
Speaker 1: back because they're with you, they agree with you, they're
Speaker 1: anti Trumpers, and so they you're gonna be okay. And maybe,
Speaker 1: depending on what the timeline is here, maybe you figured
Speaker 1: Hillary was gonna win, and so that's why you we're
Speaker 1: willing to engage in all this because you knew of
Speaker 1: Hillary Wan and you were part of helping her win.
Speaker 1: Everything was gonna be cool, right. The other option is
Speaker 1: you are so ideologically rabid in your opposition to Trump
Speaker 1: that you would risk your career and your pension in
Speaker 1: order to try and take Trump down. When we're talking
Speaker 1: about the deep state, my friends, when we discussed former
Speaker 1: Obama administration officials or just senior government officials and their
Speaker 1: willingness to go above and beyond to stop Trump and
Speaker 1: help Hillary, this goes right in to that box. This
Speaker 1: is what we are just, this is what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: Someone who has spent decades working for the FBI putting
Speaker 1: bad guys away, knows the law backwards affords, and would
Speaker 1: get in trouble for a leaking to reporters at the very,
Speaker 1: very very end of his career. This gives you a
Speaker 1: sense of the severity of the problem of the deep
Speaker 1: state at d o J and FBI. It also proves
Speaker 1: that it was very, very real, and I have to
Speaker 1: wonder if he's in trouble for this, what would happen
Speaker 1: if there was an independent investigation looking at say Sally Yates,
Speaker 1: looking at Peter struck looking at Bruce or all these
Speaker 1: different figures that we've become familiar with in the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation. FBI side, d o J, lawyer side, someone
Speaker 1: leaked information to the newspapers to get General Flynn and
Speaker 1: committed a felony in doing so. I think we have
Speaker 1: a pretty small list of people that are likely suspects.
Speaker 1: And if you can see the acting FBI director putting
Speaker 1: so much on the line for the pro Hillary anti
Speaker 1: Trump cause, what can you not see some of his compatriots,
Speaker 1: some of his fellow travelers, and the f beyond the
Speaker 1: d o J doing for the same end. Remember this
Speaker 1: one and keep an eye on what happens with Sessions
Speaker 1: and this decision. We'll be back in a few The
Speaker 1: United Kingdom will now expel twenty three Russian diplomats who
Speaker 1: have been identified as undeclared intelligence officers. They have just
Speaker 1: one week to leave. This will be the single biggest
Speaker 1: expulsion for over thirty years. We're here today to discuss
Speaker 1: the use of a chemical weapon by one Council member
Speaker 1: in the territory of another Council member. Let me make
Speaker 1: one thing clear from the very beginning, the United States
Speaker 1: stands in absolute solidarity with Great Britain. The United States
Speaker 1: believes that Russia is responsible for the attack on two
Speaker 1: people in the United Kingdom using a military grade nerve agent.
Speaker 1: Dozens of civilians and first responders were also exposed. There
Speaker 1: you have US Ambassador United Nations Nicki Haley, and someone
Speaker 1: who are actually thought was a likely replacement at one
Speaker 1: point for Rex Tillerson, but maybe that'll wait till term two.
Speaker 1: But Nikki Haley calling Russia out for the poisoning of
Speaker 1: a former Russian intelligence officer who had defected. We don't
Speaker 1: really use that term anymore. I don't know why when
Speaker 1: you leave your country and take up residents in another,
Speaker 1: because you've you've been a turn coat, you've traded one
Speaker 1: country for the other. I feel like defection is the
Speaker 1: right term. But in this case, like he defected from
Speaker 1: the bad guys to the good guys, so we'll take
Speaker 1: it right. That's good, um. But the Russians tried to
Speaker 1: poison him with Novachuk, and they did this so that
Speaker 1: we would know Scree Paul is the name of the
Speaker 1: individual they tried to poison and his daughter, and it's
Speaker 1: now believed that the the chemical was wiped on the
Speaker 1: handle of his car door, and there are let me
Speaker 1: just say, there are much easier and more effective ways
Speaker 1: to eliminate someone if if that was in fact the goal.
Speaker 1: This reminds me of the poisoning of Litvinenko, who was
Speaker 1: given a UM radio active isotope years ago. If you
Speaker 1: remember UM, he was another person who was in a
Speaker 1: very similar fashion in two thousand and six was poisoned
Speaker 1: with polonium radiation syndrome or acute radiation polonium induced acute
Speaker 1: radiation syndrome. So the Russians do this, they'll go after people.
Speaker 1: We know this all over the world, and now it's
Speaker 1: a question of what will we do in response the UK.
Speaker 1: The UK has banished I believe it's twenty three was
Speaker 1: a number, that's right, twenty three Russian diplomats suspected of
Speaker 1: intelligence activities. There's a lot of like what countries know
Speaker 1: and what they pretend not to know, and what they'll
Speaker 1: turn a blind eye too. And this is all you know,
Speaker 1: diplomatic and spook and spy stuff that gets wrapped into
Speaker 1: these conversations. But we've expelled twenty three Russian diplomats, and
Speaker 1: there's some other things that are being done. You know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna seize any assets in the UK that they
Speaker 1: think maybe used for the purposes of UH elicit activities.
Speaker 1: There are things like that, but it's not really gonna
Speaker 1: strike fear into the hearts of Putin and his his
Speaker 1: top folks, right, we all know that, um. And it's
Speaker 1: because at a at some level, and I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it. I don't know if you've heard anyone else
Speaker 1: say it, but I'm just gonna come out and say it.
Speaker 1: At some level, it is the case that you can't
Speaker 1: touch one of ours, and you know, the UK you
Speaker 1: can't touch one of theirs. But we have a different
Speaker 1: set of rules for how we deal with the Russians
Speaker 1: when they deal with their former you know, their former folks.
Speaker 1: Which is weird when you think about it, right, because
Speaker 1: if you're in the UK and you have residency, you
Speaker 1: should be treated as a as a UK national for
Speaker 1: all intents and purposes. But here we we look at
Speaker 1: a little differently. I will say this, if, for example,
Speaker 1: the Russians had uh smeared this nova chuck on the
Speaker 1: door handle of a prominent American critic of Putin, we'd
Speaker 1: have we'd have a big problem right, we would have
Speaker 1: reprisals in mind that would go well beyond I think
Speaker 1: the expulsion of three diplomats, which is the most diplomats
Speaker 1: the uk IS has kicked out in in decades. But
Speaker 1: we think of these things a little bit differently. And
Speaker 1: I just want to know that there these are the
Speaker 1: kind of the unspoken rules in international diplomacy and international espionage,
Speaker 1: that they exist, and we kind of know they exist,
Speaker 1: but we don't talk about them all that much. I mean,
Speaker 1: Nicki Haley uh spoke more about this, and like I said,
Speaker 1: she's calling the Russians out for sure. The Russians complained
Speaker 1: recently that we criticize them too much. If the Russian
Speaker 1: government stopped using chemical weapons to assassinate its enemies, and
Speaker 1: if the Russian government stopped helping it's Syrian ally to
Speaker 1: use chemical weapons to kill Syrian children, and if Russia
Speaker 1: cooperated with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Speaker 1: by turning over all information related to this nerve agent,
Speaker 1: we would stop talking about them. We take no pleasure
Speaker 1: and having to constantly criticize Russia, but we need Russia
Speaker 1: to stop giving us so many reasons to do so.
Speaker 1: And here's a little more unconventional thinking these days, Maybe,
Speaker 1: just maybe we should consider reserving criticism for Russia for
Speaker 1: things like this and not running around having our media
Speaker 1: and one of our two political parties pretending that Russians
Speaker 1: through the last election and creating all this fearmongering and
Speaker 1: scare mongering and paranoia around Putin and his plans to
Speaker 1: intervene in our next election. I'm not saying it's not
Speaker 1: a problem, just saying it's not the big problem that
Speaker 1: people have been pretending it is, and they've been doing
Speaker 1: it for very obvious partisan reasons, But it doesn't start
Speaker 1: to sound a bit like noise coming from us. The
Speaker 1: Russians do have a point. We do complain about them
Speaker 1: a lot and a lot more than we should have
Speaker 1: over the last eighteen months or so because we're complaining about,
Speaker 1: or rather people in this country are complaining about how
Speaker 1: Hillary lost the election, and Russia has been pulled in
Speaker 1: as a scapegoat on that, and that's embarrassing. And if
Speaker 1: I were Russia, I'd be mocking us too for that.
Speaker 1: They have every right to be like, you know what,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is this slope, So in that sense,
Speaker 1: they are making some sense and we look at what's
Speaker 1: going on here, and we have to remember that, you know,
Speaker 1: there's only so many different diplomatic levels. There's only so
Speaker 1: many things, so many options you have at any point
Speaker 1: in time to hit back at a bully like Russia,
Speaker 1: and you do yourself no favors when you become the
Speaker 1: country that cried wolf. And when we're looking at what's
Speaker 1: going on with Russia and they're machinations in Ukraine and
Speaker 1: Crimea in Syria as well as there social media meddling
Speaker 1: and needling of us, I think that we need to
Speaker 1: pick our battles. I mean, the nova chuk thing is serious,
Speaker 1: all right, This is a big deal because, like I
Speaker 1: was saying, originally, you know, they could have just had
Speaker 1: somebody with a silence pistol or something. Not that that's
Speaker 1: morally really any different, although it wouldn't have put a
Speaker 1: lot of other people in jeopardy as this did. But
Speaker 1: they use nova chalk the same reason they use polonium.
Speaker 1: It's messy, it's it's making an example of someone. And
Speaker 1: if the Russians keep doing this kind of stuff, you know,
Speaker 1: we have to we might have to find a way
Speaker 1: to make an example, so to speak, of the Russians,
Speaker 1: and that could get very dangerous. I'll be back with
Speaker 1: much more. Stay with me Team I inherit nothing from
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. Some people stayed home and some people
Speaker 1: went third party. The tech revolution really weaponized. If you
Speaker 1: look at Facebook news, items posted were fake, the Russians,
Speaker 1: one thousand Russian agents, the bots, millions of bots, Citizens United.
Speaker 1: Then you've got Cambridge analytic of the Mercer's and Brexit,
Speaker 1: the bright Bart operation, Steve Bannon, Kelly Ann Conway, the
Speaker 1: John Podesta emails, Wiki leaks, in bed with Goosefer, in
Speaker 1: bed with DC leaks, vast right wing conspiracy. Now it's
Speaker 1: a vast Russian conspiracy and at some point it sort
Speaker 1: of bleeds over into misogyny. Oh man, I had to
Speaker 1: producer Mike for an amazing montage there. I love it, dude.
Speaker 1: It's just there are so many excuses that it's amazing
Speaker 1: she can rattle them all off over the course of
Speaker 1: one speech. But she's clearly done a lot of thinking
Speaker 1: about it. Because Hillary just like she's just wandering the
Speaker 1: woods of Chappaqua, just trying to find herself, just drinking
Speaker 1: glass after glass of rose. Because you know, Hillary is
Speaker 1: the kind of savage who drinks rose year round. You
Speaker 1: know that it's totally true. So Hillary is the gift
Speaker 1: that keeps on getting for the GOP. I really do
Speaker 1: hope that we are treated to all kinds of of
Speaker 1: Hillaryisms in the run up to the mid terms, because
Speaker 1: I think it's a great reminder for folks of what
Speaker 1: they avoided. It really is. She's just gonna be showing
Speaker 1: up and saying it could have had me, and everyone's
Speaker 1: gonna be like, oh my gosh. You know, I feel
Speaker 1: like sometimes when I do the Hillary now, it's almost
Speaker 1: like I'm an Aprica, you know it is. It is
Speaker 1: that time of year my friends St Patrick's Day. I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about how that was a movie that I found
Speaker 1: terrifying when I was a kid. By the way, I
Speaker 1: used to I'm gonna tell you the true story right now.
Speaker 1: I used to go into one of my favorite things
Speaker 1: when my parents were shopping, because before I knew how
Speaker 1: to cook or cared about food other than you know,
Speaker 1: I loved oreos and things like that. I would go
Speaker 1: into a video rental store next to the grocery store
Speaker 1: while my parents were in the group with my older
Speaker 1: brother and and my little brother. There's like the three
Speaker 1: section boys were going and we spent a lot of time,
Speaker 1: no surprise in the action movie section. And that's how
Speaker 1: you get into like the sea level Dolph Longren movies
Speaker 1: that I would watch, you know, show Down a Little
Speaker 1: Tokyo for example. Oh, I've seen it and it's bad.
Speaker 1: You know, you got dout of the whole list. There's
Speaker 1: another one where Dolph Longren stays behind with a bunch
Speaker 1: of mercenaries. Uh, and they like helped defend a village
Speaker 1: and they want mineral rights or something. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: really I don't even remember what it was, but I've
Speaker 1: seen it. If there's a c oh um, I come
Speaker 1: in peace and if you're familiar with that one, it's
Speaker 1: about an alien who shows up and uh yeah, it's
Speaker 1: also really really bad movie. I'm pretty sure Dolf Lungern's
Speaker 1: in that one. So anyway, occasionally, though, I would wander
Speaker 1: into the horror movie, which I was always very scared
Speaker 1: of horror movies growing up. I remember I saw Bram
Speaker 1: Stoker's Dracula and it was a little freaked out for
Speaker 1: a while. I was like tan Or Levin. That one
Speaker 1: freaked me out for a while. You know, the Wolfman
Speaker 1: that he turns into and stuff. I was a little scary.
Speaker 1: I think it's pretty good rendition. It's one of Keanu
Speaker 1: Reeves kind of it's lost in the Kianu repertoire, Oh
Speaker 1: no kung Fu. But it's actually a pretty decent movie
Speaker 1: for what it was, very uh true to the book,
Speaker 1: very true to Bram Stoker's novel, which is still I'm
Speaker 1: a big fan of, big proponent of uh. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I remember going in and the leprechn movies. I always
Speaker 1: wanted to rent one, but I never could bring myself
Speaker 1: to do it when I was a kid because I
Speaker 1: was just too freaked out. Because Warwick Davis who plays
Speaker 1: Willow in the movie Willow is the same guy who
Speaker 1: which is a movie we kind of a rip off
Speaker 1: The Lord of the Rings that Disney did in the
Speaker 1: nineties without paying Tolkien anything, I'm sure, and or maybe
Speaker 1: they did. And then he had Warwick Davis playing the
Speaker 1: Lepric and he's like, I'm the Leprica and he like
Speaker 1: shows up and he cuts people with his long nails.
Speaker 1: He's really scary looking, and it just freaked me out. Man.
Speaker 1: And then what I found out later on was that
Speaker 1: who I want you guys, by show of hands, how
Speaker 1: many Leprecn movies do you think Warwick Davis made taking
Speaker 1: guess that's right. Five they made five lepre Con movies.
Speaker 1: There's that's right. There is a lepre Con in the
Speaker 1: Hood movie. I have seen some of it. You literally
Speaker 1: have Warwick Davis dressed as a Leprecn, little green hat,
Speaker 1: little little buckle shoes on, looks like a pilgrim, and
Speaker 1: he's smoking a blunt in a bathroom of a hip
Speaker 1: hop club in New York City. Yeah, yes, that's a
Speaker 1: real thing. There's LEPrecon in space. Yeah, that's another one.
Speaker 1: So that's what I'm thinking about as we get closer
Speaker 1: to St. Patty's Day. How I never I've never seen
Speaker 1: one of the movies to this day. I don't think
Speaker 1: I can. I think it might, you know, it might
Speaker 1: still rattle me a little. It's like I can't watch
Speaker 1: the I've told you before, I can't watch all the
Speaker 1: way through the Exorcist. And then I lived right next
Speaker 1: to the Exorcist steps in d C, which whirled me out.
Speaker 1: This was supposed to be a segment where I was
Speaker 1: gonna just make fun of Hillary for the whole time. Instead,
Speaker 1: I started talking about wandering around the bootleg version of
Speaker 1: Blockbuster when I was a kid, And uh, at least
Speaker 1: you learned that there were five lepre Con movies. And
Speaker 1: fun fact, Jennifer Aniston was see. I spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time reading the jacket covers of these things, because
Speaker 1: that's I'd go in the video store and read the
Speaker 1: jacket covers. Jennifer Anniston was in the first leper Con movie,
Speaker 1: So it's got that going for it, which is nice.
Speaker 1: I'm a Jennifer Aniston. I'm a Jennifer Anston. And although
Speaker 1: Courtney Cox in the early in the early seasons of Friends,
Speaker 1: I was actually more Monica person than a Rachel person.
Speaker 1: But that's a conversation for another time. All Right, we're
Speaker 1: gonna hit a quick break here. We come back. Even
Speaker 1: Hawking passed away. I'll have some thoughts on that for
Speaker 1: you in just a few Stephen Hawking passed away today.
Speaker 1: You're all familiar with him. He is a world famous
Speaker 1: astrophysicist and somebody who is considered one of the great
Speaker 1: geniuses of our time. And I should tell you right
Speaker 1: at the start that I have tremendous respect for two things.
Speaker 1: One is that Stephen Hawking was able to overcome you know,
Speaker 1: he was seventy six years old when he when he
Speaker 1: passed away earlier today, he was able to overcome in
Speaker 1: unbelievable disability. I mean a tremendous burden where he essentially
Speaker 1: it's a rare disease. He essentially became almost entirely paralyzed.
Speaker 1: So looking at this now you have to first take
Speaker 1: into account that this this individual got over tremendous hurdles
Speaker 1: of his health, and then you add to that that
Speaker 1: he is able to do. Look, I'm a guy who's
Speaker 1: impressed by people who can do calculus. Pretty well, you're
Speaker 1: looking at somebody here who is in a whole other
Speaker 1: level of mathematical and uh as a physicist, a whole
Speaker 1: other level of ability and genius, complete respect for that.
Speaker 1: And I am not somebody who's a math guy. So
Speaker 1: for me, people who can do math, I feel like
Speaker 1: anybody can sit around and argue stuff matth you have
Speaker 1: to actually know some stuff math. You have to be
Speaker 1: able to do it, and there's a right and wrong answer,
Speaker 1: and so Hawking is very very impressive on those two levels.
Speaker 1: But now I'm gonna tell you what I really think
Speaker 1: about the whole Hawking phenomenon, and this came out. I
Speaker 1: saw the movie The Theory of Everything, UH with some
Speaker 1: some other folks years ago, and I remember thinking that,
Speaker 1: one of this movie is really boring, and two it
Speaker 1: it presents Stephen Hawking as somebody who is the great
Speaker 1: genius of our time and has done tremendous things for humanity,
Speaker 1: when if you look at the record, if you look
Speaker 1: at what really happened as a result of Hawkings research
Speaker 1: and theories, it's it's impressive without being all that important
Speaker 1: to humanity. Now, I know that's controversial. I know, but
Speaker 1: let's understand the company in which we are talking about
Speaker 1: Stephen Hawking. You know, people will will kind of go
Speaker 1: through this timeline and they'll say something like, you know,
Speaker 1: there's Isaac Newton, and then there's and I'm just skipping
Speaker 1: around here, you know, Isaac Newton and then Einstein and
Speaker 1: then Hawking. I mean, these are the great mathematical minds
Speaker 1: and the great theoretical minds of all time. Hawking never
Speaker 1: wanna Nobel Prize, Hawking never won a Fields Medal, and
Speaker 1: Hawkings theories we're about things that don't have any effect
Speaker 1: on your day to day life really, and in fact,
Speaker 1: Hawking was wrong on a number of his theories that
Speaker 1: had to revise them. Now, I understand even the most
Speaker 1: brilliant mind is going to get things wrong sometimes, but
Speaker 1: he's by no means infallible. And among astrophysicists this is
Speaker 1: one of the little secrets out there. He's not even
Speaker 1: considered best in class. Of the astrophysicists of the last
Speaker 1: fifty years or so. You won't study a lot of
Speaker 1: Hawking if you become a higher Now this is from
Speaker 1: the I do research, not I'm a mathematician, file right,
Speaker 1: I read about these things. I'm not saying that I
Speaker 1: understand the math at all. My brother is laughing right now.
Speaker 1: Who knows that he had to help me with my
Speaker 1: math over the years. So but I do do a
Speaker 1: lot of research, and I'm somebody who also isn't afraid
Speaker 1: of taking a contrarian view of things like this. Hawking
Speaker 1: became a celebrity scientist. That was the overwhelming perception of
Speaker 1: this guy. When you look at the body of work
Speaker 1: that he left behind, things like the Big Bang theory,
Speaker 1: for example, and all of the work on black holes.
Speaker 1: This may be really impressive when it's on a chalkboard,
Speaker 1: or it may be really amazing to mathematically be able
Speaker 1: to map this stuff out. And it is how much
Speaker 1: do black holes affect you? How much has that changed
Speaker 1: the world around you? The answer is it has not.
Speaker 1: Some scientists discover cures for diseases that save millions of lives,
Speaker 1: right I think you You could argue that the the
Speaker 1: polio vaccine, for example, or the initial Jonas Salk and
Speaker 1: the initial vaccination trials, different cures for disease that come
Speaker 1: from antibiotics, all those are much more important. You know,
Speaker 1: einstein theory of relativity, what that did for the world,
Speaker 1: for nuclear power, for nuclear weapons. You can look at
Speaker 1: these things understand the impact the Big Bang theory. It
Speaker 1: starts with a lot of assumptions and has a lot
Speaker 1: of questions that it can answer. It really crosses over
Speaker 1: from being science into being philosophy. And this is part
Speaker 1: of why Hawking was so popular around the world. He
Speaker 1: was supposed to be the genius who was able to
Speaker 1: explain the origins of life and the world and the
Speaker 1: universe without taking a deity into account. Hawking is so
Speaker 1: very popular around the world that has been so celebrated
Speaker 1: the media. As I said in part because of his
Speaker 1: tremendous ability and and his overcoming a physical infirmity, that
Speaker 1: that is inspiring, no question about it. But why was
Speaker 1: he so beloved? Why is he considered by most people?
Speaker 1: And I think that's a fair thing to say. If if
Speaker 1: if somebody had asked folks on the street who were
Speaker 1: reasonably well informed about the world, who's the smartest person
Speaker 1: on planet Earth, they would say, if they were Democrats,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama. But if you ask them for the next
Speaker 1: smartest person on planet Earth, they would probably say Stephen Hawking, right,
Speaker 1: the most brilliant man on the planet, the smartest scientists alive.
Speaker 1: Those are the ideas we have about Hawckey, and they
Speaker 1: really don't stand up when you look at the record.
Speaker 1: They really exaggerate the contributions of Hawkings research, and you
Speaker 1: know when he starts getting into artificial intelligence and climate
Speaker 1: change and colonizing other planets and all this stuff getting
Speaker 1: beyond his knowledge set. My friends, one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why he was so beloved was that he was also
Speaker 1: a reliable and this is in the media. I mean,
Speaker 1: he was a reliable leftist atheist voice backed up by oh,
Speaker 1: he's the smartest person on the planet. Now, we don't
Speaker 1: know who the smartest person the planet is. How would
Speaker 1: you even quantify or measure that? But I would just
Speaker 1: note that if going to start throwing that title around,
Speaker 1: I think it should probably go to someone who did
Speaker 1: things that changed the world that we live in. And
Speaker 1: there are people like that. There are people who changed
Speaker 1: our understanding of how we are interacting in our day
Speaker 1: to day lives, changed the world around us in ways
Speaker 1: that matter. I don't think Hawking talking about whether or
Speaker 1: not the singularity essentially that in a black hole everything
Speaker 1: could come down and be compressed into one tiny little
Speaker 1: center of everything. I no, we can't explain the vastness
Speaker 1: of the universe, and we can't. We can't really comprehend
Speaker 1: what a black hole is. We can, we think we can,
Speaker 1: but we can't. The whole notion of of of a
Speaker 1: universe that is infinite defies mathematical explanation, and the beginning
Speaker 1: of existence starting with just a whole bunch of things
Speaker 1: all compressed down and then going boom or just no
Speaker 1: reason doesn't make any sense. But this is why he
Speaker 1: is so beloved, the same reason that Darwin, for all
Speaker 1: of the flaws and all of the problems in Darwinian theory,
Speaker 1: which now he was like, oh, do you believe that
Speaker 1: the Earth is two thousand years old? And they know,
Speaker 1: But if you read Darwin, there's there's we've learned a
Speaker 1: lot since Darwin was, you know, hanging out in the Galapagos.
Speaker 1: It's a while ago, folks, we've learned a lot since then.
Speaker 1: People look at Darwin as though we had all the answers.
Speaker 1: Did Darwin know what DNA even was? Could Darwin map
Speaker 1: the human genome? No? No. In fact, the more we
Speaker 1: look at Darwin's theories, they're convenient for a lot of
Speaker 1: what the left believes. But we're talking nine century here,
Speaker 1: mid nineteenth century. Darwin's doing all this stuff. That was
Speaker 1: the guy was born over two hundred years ago, but
Speaker 1: he's very useful for certain narratives in present day. So
Speaker 1: I don't mean that I'm not speaking ill of the dead,
Speaker 1: by the way, And I started off by saying that
Speaker 1: Hawking is a genius of a level that I would
Speaker 1: never even aspire to. And in terms of his ability
Speaker 1: and his the most impressive thing about him, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: is that he overcame such a debilitating disease. But if
Speaker 1: you watch The Theory of Everything, it's kind of boring.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a boring movie. It's a movie about
Speaker 1: Stephen Hawking. And you know, why, what what pressing world
Speaker 1: problem does he solve? What change in the world around
Speaker 1: us did he bring about? Oh, we we think we
Speaker 1: know how the universe started because of Stephen Hawking. No,
Speaker 1: we just have a theory about how the universe started
Speaker 1: because of Stephen Hawking. And then once you get into
Speaker 1: all the stuff about black holes, sometimes he was right,
Speaker 1: sometimes he was wrong. Sometimes we don't even know. So
Speaker 1: I think that this is an or instance of the
Speaker 1: left having a tendency to elevate people of science when
Speaker 1: they are useful, as though they are they are the
Speaker 1: ultimate experts. They are unassailable with their opinions. And so
Speaker 1: that's why you get Stephen Hawking weighing in and all
Speaker 1: these things. It doesn't know anything more than the next guy.
Speaker 1: And you know, you have you have this with the
Speaker 1: Neil de grass Tyson as well. It's the same idea
Speaker 1: Neil de grass Tyson. Yeah, it knows knows a lot
Speaker 1: about astronomy. Yeah, Hayden Planetarium here in New York City
Speaker 1: don't knows. But I don't care what Neil de grass
Speaker 1: Tyson has to say about gun control knows less than
Speaker 1: I do. Why do I care what he has to
Speaker 1: say about it? So this is where I think Hawking
Speaker 1: also was elevated and was used for a political narrative. So,
Speaker 1: and like I said, just go back if it's a
Speaker 1: boring movie. In my opinion, the theory of everything, it's boring.
Speaker 1: It's kind of hard to watch. It's not fun. And
Speaker 1: you watch it, you're like, Okay, so this guy overcame
Speaker 1: some life obstacles. It's very interesting. But what's the great
Speaker 1: scientific discovery. What's the aha moment? The universe started because
Speaker 1: of nothing and we're all going back to nothing. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that's really a legacy that is helpful or
Speaker 1: one that I'd particularly want to celebrate, because I also
Speaker 1: don't think that it's true. I'm not a genius, but
Speaker 1: I think I'm right on this one. We'll be back
Speaker 1: in a few the buck is back for our three
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom Hud. I am ticked off, my friends.
Speaker 1: I just want to get that out there right away.
Speaker 1: I got more details on this story about a mother
Speaker 1: and her two children flying from Houston to LaGuardia here
Speaker 1: in New York City, and they were forced to put
Speaker 1: their French bulldog in the overhead been where it was
Speaker 1: whimpering and slowly suffocated to death. There aren't a lot
Speaker 1: of news stories that I read when I find myself
Speaker 1: wanting to punch something or just show my my displeasure
Speaker 1: by destroying property, but this one really sets me off.
Speaker 1: And it's because it's part of a larger mentality within
Speaker 1: the airline industry that I think we have to pay
Speaker 1: some attention to it. Now. First, on the specifics of
Speaker 1: this incident. If you didn't read about it, that the
Speaker 1: mother and her two children were carrying on in a
Speaker 1: dog carrier, as you're allowed to do, an adorable little
Speaker 1: French bulldog, and you can bring them with you on
Speaker 1: the plane. It's allowed as long as stay in the carrier,
Speaker 1: and usually they go in the seat in front of you.
Speaker 1: For some reason as yet not really clarified, the the
Speaker 1: French bulldog was sticking out the carrier was sticking out
Speaker 1: a little bit into the aisle, and the stewardess or
Speaker 1: uh an airline attendant, whatever the proper terminology is. Gosh buck,
Speaker 1: with all your microaggressions the stewart has said that the
Speaker 1: dog has to go in the overhead compartment. And I
Speaker 1: saw this, or read this story, and thought to myself,
Speaker 1: something's wrong here. And I don't just mean the insanely
Speaker 1: aggravating and gut punching feeling you get when you read
Speaker 1: the story of a French bulldog that was suffocated to
Speaker 1: death on a plane for no reason, which is horrible enough.
Speaker 1: I mean, well, look one thing about Americans that really
Speaker 1: separates us from a lot of other people in the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. We love our dogs. We're not like, oh,
Speaker 1: dogs are okay, and they have uses. We love our
Speaker 1: dogs full stop. My family here in New York City
Speaker 1: has My parents have a French bulldog, so this one
Speaker 1: really hits home. I mean, I I love French shees,
Speaker 1: all dogs I'm quite fond of, but any squashy faced
Speaker 1: dog is part particular. I'm particularly fond of them. But
Speaker 1: something was not conveyed properly about this story. Either the
Speaker 1: stewardess is lying or there was some miscommunication. Something had
Speaker 1: to happen here, because people around her say that it
Speaker 1: was made quite clear that there was a dog in
Speaker 1: this carrier. And I have a hard time believing that
Speaker 1: this stewardess would put a dog in a carrier in
Speaker 1: the overhead been It's so stupid and reckless and cruel
Speaker 1: that I have a hard time believing that she would
Speaker 1: knowingly do it. But then again, how could she not
Speaker 1: know there was a dog in this bag. I'm sure
Speaker 1: the woman who's the owner of the dog said there's
Speaker 1: a dog in the bag. There's just no way. And
Speaker 1: so what I think happened here and the reason why
Speaker 1: United is now just realizing what a p R nightmare
Speaker 1: they have on their hands. What I think they're realizing
Speaker 1: is that, or we're realizing, is that the mentality on
Speaker 1: airplanes and the mentality that the airlines have in general,
Speaker 1: is of brainless authoritarian monopolies. You know, we've gotten used
Speaker 1: to this, but we don't have to this notion that
Speaker 1: when you're up in the sky, or even on the tarmac,
Speaker 1: or even in the terminal waiting for your flight, any
Speaker 1: level of crappy treatment is somehow okay, it's acceptable. Airlines
Speaker 1: are the most grotesquely run American business that I can
Speaker 1: think of, and it's really a disgrace. You know, it
Speaker 1: used to be the cable companies were really terrible. The
Speaker 1: Netflix came along in Amazon, and now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: cable companies don't say, you know, we'll show up between
Speaker 1: the hours of between the hours of twelve pm and
Speaker 1: nine pm. At some point, we'll take a thirty minute
Speaker 1: lunch during the appointment. The appointment may not be on it,
Speaker 1: and we may not reschedule it on site for you.
Speaker 1: And you're like, I just want to get my cable
Speaker 1: fix that you're still charging me for even though it's out.
Speaker 1: That's gone away mostly and cable companies have had to
Speaker 1: shape up, and they generally have, but it's in response
Speaker 1: to their entire business model being threatened. Right with airlines,
Speaker 1: we need improved technology, we need disruptors in the space.
Speaker 1: We need this to get better because it's just outrageous.
Speaker 1: You really get a little taste of totalitarianism being on
Speaker 1: a plane. You know, you sit where they tell you
Speaker 1: to sit. It's uncomfortable, You have no choice. Your physical
Speaker 1: comfort is in fact, not a concern of theirs. The
Speaker 1: biggest concern, by far is their bottom line. They tell
Speaker 1: you where to sit, they tell you how to sit,
Speaker 1: they tell you when you can get up, they tell
Speaker 1: you when you can go to the bathroom. They tell
Speaker 1: you to look at me. They tell you stupid things
Speaker 1: you already know. They tell you things that are not true,
Speaker 1: like turn off the electronic device. It might be problems
Speaker 1: for us during takeoff. It's a lie. All this stuff,
Speaker 1: garbage upon garbage upon garbage, and even minor transgressions on
Speaker 1: airplanes are investigated by the FBI. Actually, you know, if
Speaker 1: you get into a fight on an airplane, and I
Speaker 1: know about this from talking to my friends on the
Speaker 1: prosecutorial side, guess what it is most likely going to
Speaker 1: be the FBI that's waiting for you at the airport.
Speaker 1: You know, if you do anything that's really bad on
Speaker 1: an airplane, the FBI is gonna be waiting for you.
Speaker 1: So I'm not suggesting that airplanes should be some wild
Speaker 1: West where everyone can just get up, smoke cigarettes, do
Speaker 1: whatever it is they want to do. But I am
Speaker 1: suggesting that there's a mentality on the air with the
Speaker 1: airlines across the board, from the from the way they
Speaker 1: priced tickets, the booking of tickets, the way they construct
Speaker 1: the seats and the planes and everything. It is just
Speaker 1: done with maximum exploitation of the customer and minimum redress
Speaker 1: for anything that they do to you. You know, they
Speaker 1: can lose your bags, you know, that's your problem. They
Speaker 1: can delay you six hours, it's your problem. They can
Speaker 1: hold you in the tarmac for hours at a time,
Speaker 1: it's your problem. It is a little taste of totalitarianism
Speaker 1: every time you get on a plane, and it just
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be that way. And it's only because
Speaker 1: of that culture, in my opinion, that you could have
Speaker 1: a a functioning adult take a dog and put it
Speaker 1: into a compartment where it is sure to suffocate slowly
Speaker 1: to death. It's only because the airlines have this idea
Speaker 1: of you know, you do what we say when we
Speaker 1: say it, or else. You know, no one's saying you
Speaker 1: can go in there and hang out with the pilots
Speaker 1: in the cockpit and steer the plane for a bit yourself.
Speaker 1: But some semblance of common sense and normalcy and reality
Speaker 1: would be nice. It doesn't have to be a flying
Speaker 1: penal colony up there all the time, where you're told
Speaker 1: exactly what you can do, what you can eat, where
Speaker 1: you can go. I mean, it's just it's crazy the
Speaker 1: regulations they have in place. And there was a time
Speaker 1: until recently my friends when they were saying that you
Speaker 1: couldn't have a kindle and read it because maybe the
Speaker 1: elector the electronic device would interfere with their communications. That's
Speaker 1: that's insane. By the way, it's not like they pat
Speaker 1: you down and check you for kindles when you go
Speaker 1: on the plane, So if you left it on or
Speaker 1: left it off, they have no idea. That's what I mean.
Speaker 1: The rules are dumb. The rules are dumb. Not all
Speaker 1: of them, but a lot of them are really really stupid.
Speaker 1: And the way that the airlines act is with a
Speaker 1: tremendous degree of arrogance because they're just unaccountable. They know
Speaker 1: that people go on you know, price Line or Expedi
Speaker 1: or one of these sites. They want the cheapest, easiest
Speaker 1: flight that they can get, and they'll try to cram
Speaker 1: themselves into these horrifically uncomfortable little seats. Think of another
Speaker 1: business that over the last thirty years has gotten worse
Speaker 1: in basically every regard. I don't think you can. Maybe
Speaker 1: you could already, well, no, because health care advances. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's gotten a lot more expensive, but I don't think
Speaker 1: you can find one where you are paying a lot.
Speaker 1: You know, airline tickets feel as expensive today as they
Speaker 1: felt when I was a kid. So you're paying a
Speaker 1: lot of money. The seats are crap and uncomfortable. Legram
Speaker 1: has This is actually a fact. Legram has actually gotten
Speaker 1: less on many of the major carriers than it was
Speaker 1: decades ago. So they are squeezing you in there like sardines.
Speaker 1: And the staff is trained to think that they're all
Speaker 1: a bunch of air marshals out there. You know, you
Speaker 1: cannot go to the bathroom. The pilots have the thing,
Speaker 1: you know. You know, I'll sign something if we do
Speaker 1: happen to hit some terrible pocket of turbulence and I
Speaker 1: hit my head on the ceiling. You know, I'll sign
Speaker 1: something that's on me. All right, I want to get
Speaker 1: up and go to the bathroom. When I want to
Speaker 1: get up and go to the bathroom, I just think
Speaker 1: we've all had it, you know, we've all had it
Speaker 1: with all the airline personnel or first and foremost concerned
Speaker 1: with their safety. There's just a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of disregarding of what it feels like to be strapped
Speaker 1: into one of these giant metal flying prisons that they
Speaker 1: put us in for a few hours at a time.
Speaker 1: And I'm sick of it, and I you know, United
Speaker 1: had the problem last year with dragging the guy off
Speaker 1: the plane. Remember he paid for his seat, but they said, no,
Speaker 1: we want to give it to one of our people.
Speaker 1: So you don't actually have any real rights. We're just
Speaker 1: gonna take that seat away. You know, maybe that guy
Speaker 1: was heading for a job interview. I mean he wasn't,
Speaker 1: but maybe he was on a really important trip for him.
Speaker 1: For whatever reason, United just saying sorry, we we have
Speaker 1: the right to just take you off the plane that
Speaker 1: you paid for because we want someone else to ride
Speaker 1: on your seat. I mean, that's United Airlines. And don't
Speaker 1: tell me this is what the market will allow with
Speaker 1: the market will say or the market speaks. Uh, these
Speaker 1: things operate with a tremendous amount of regulation in place.
Speaker 1: It's all f A A and all this other crap.
Speaker 1: I think it's time for a change. I think we
Speaker 1: should maybe consider putting aside petty partisan differences and threatening
Speaker 1: to boycott. It's always the left that does this, but
Speaker 1: the left threatening to boycott companies all the time. You know,
Speaker 1: we should both sides of the aisle say, you know what, Airlines,
Speaker 1: enough is enough. The next time you step out of line,
Speaker 1: we are going to boycott. This is gonna hurt your
Speaker 1: bottom line and you're gonna have to come up with
Speaker 1: more customer friendly policies and stop treating us like short
Speaker 1: term prisoners in the sky. Oh and one more thing.
Speaker 1: I know that people don't like it when we all
Speaker 1: look at an event and say, well, I would have
Speaker 1: been a hero or whatever. I would have run in
Speaker 1: there and you know, save the day. But if someone
Speaker 1: told me, I don't care who it is, take your dog,
Speaker 1: I'll for in this case is as one of my
Speaker 1: family dogs. Take take your take the family dog and
Speaker 1: put it in a place where it's going to suffocate.
Speaker 1: They could taser me, they could pepper spray me, they
Speaker 1: could night stick me. Unless somebody was actually going to
Speaker 1: take a firearm and threatened to shoot me with it,
Speaker 1: it's not happening, and I'd have to think about whether
Speaker 1: I would do it even with a firearm trained on me.
Speaker 1: That's how I feel about dogs. So that's why this
Speaker 1: whole story just doesn't add up to me. And it's
Speaker 1: also just horrific and tragic. All right, We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: One of the things I like to do on this
Speaker 1: show is talk to you about stories that are important
Speaker 1: and should be of high interest, but that you're unlikely
Speaker 1: to hear much of anything about elsewhere. I know that
Speaker 1: by the time I'm on air with you or you're
Speaker 1: listening to the podcast, you've had plenty of news programs
Speaker 1: blaring at you in the lunch room or maybe at
Speaker 1: home if you go and watch TV. So I like
Speaker 1: to talk to you about things that I think you
Speaker 1: haven't already been exposed to whenever possible, especially when they
Speaker 1: deal with US national security. In this case, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about Trump and national security as it
Speaker 1: if fects a chip maker. Here's what's going on. President
Speaker 1: Trump blocked a tech deal that a lot of people
Speaker 1: are saying is really unusual. This just happened yesterday, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: On Monday, Trump ordered the Singapore based company known as
Speaker 1: broad Calm to abandon it's a hundred and seventeen billion
Speaker 1: dollar bid for qual Calm. This would have been one
Speaker 1: of the biggest technology deals in history, and the President
Speaker 1: just queshed it. He's like, this is done zo. You
Speaker 1: think that this would get a bit more attention now.
Speaker 1: It's not being blocked on antitrust grounds. It's being blocked
Speaker 1: on quote credible evidence that the takeover threatens to impair
Speaker 1: the national security of the United States. Here's what's really
Speaker 1: going on, or at least what's being reported. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot that we don't know that's not yet
Speaker 1: out there in the public sphere that may well have
Speaker 1: affected this decision. But the administration put the kai bosh
Speaker 1: on this whole thing because the Committee on Foreign Investment
Speaker 1: in the United States uh CE fus ce f i
Speaker 1: u S, which is an inter agency panel that the
Speaker 1: Treasury Department leads, recommended or or had several more weeks
Speaker 1: to make its recommendation here. And that's why this is
Speaker 1: such a surprise for people. Trump just swooped in and
Speaker 1: said no. Now, the big issue is that the chips
Speaker 1: of the future are going to be an increasingly important
Speaker 1: part of our everyday life. And of course don't mean
Speaker 1: to Rito's or those kind of chips. I'm talking about
Speaker 1: the chips that are in your smartphone or in your
Speaker 1: smart devices at home, and they are looking to build
Speaker 1: a five G network for all those chips to run on.
Speaker 1: Five G would be a hundred times master than the
Speaker 1: high speed Internet that you're currently used to. It would
Speaker 1: mean that you could download a high definition movie in seconds.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of you right now. If you're
Speaker 1: like me, you maybe download on iTunes a movie and
Speaker 1: it can take especially if you're download if your upload
Speaker 1: speeds or no, your download speeds sorry is a little
Speaker 1: a little lagging, can take an hour, It can take
Speaker 1: a long time. But the problem is that qual Calm
Speaker 1: UM is essential in these processes, and as you can imagine,
Speaker 1: there will be a lot of national security just general
Speaker 1: security implications of this. Now, usually a Singapore based company
Speaker 1: in this case, broad Calm wouldn't raise such red flags. Um.
Speaker 1: But it may have been the determination of the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and President Trump himself that when it comes to
Speaker 1: chip making going forward, especially these kinds of of chips
Speaker 1: that will go into the electronic devices that are all
Speaker 1: around us, and also the race to be the pre
Speaker 1: eminent digital digital era innovation country, which is what America
Speaker 1: is now, but China is clearly trying to catch up
Speaker 1: to us. UM. That's where we had that, that's where
Speaker 1: there were clear concerns here. UM. If, for example, broad Calm,
Speaker 1: the Singapore based company, acquired qual Calm with this hundred
Speaker 1: and seventeen billion dollar bid, what if all of a
Speaker 1: sudden we didn't like the way that they were running
Speaker 1: the company. What if they were lagging behind and then
Speaker 1: major Chinese competitors like Huawei, Um, we're getting a leg
Speaker 1: up on us. If they became too dominant in that
Speaker 1: market place, all of a sudden, you would have Chinese
Speaker 1: enabled smart chips all over the world. Now you can
Speaker 1: start to piece together even without being somebody who goes
Speaker 1: too deep on the technology, and I put myself in
Speaker 1: that category. I'm not a technology guy, but you can
Speaker 1: figure out quite quickly why having Chinese high tech microchips
Speaker 1: all over the world, making them dominant in this space,
Speaker 1: and also all the applications that come with that, including
Speaker 1: military and security applications, would be a major concern for US.
Speaker 1: I have been saying this for a while, and I'm
Speaker 1: telling you I will be proven right, but it will
Speaker 1: just be in years before everyone realizes that what I
Speaker 1: was saying was right. The theft of intellectual property that
Speaker 1: China has engaged in against the United States over the
Speaker 1: last couple of decades will have a civilization changing effect.
Speaker 1: There will come a day when China thinks it is
Speaker 1: able to stare US down as a military and technology equal,
Speaker 1: and it will largely be because of all the gains
Speaker 1: they have made through theft and deception and hacking. By
Speaker 1: the time we all realize that's true, unfortunately, it's going
Speaker 1: to be too late, and we're gonna be staring down
Speaker 1: the dragon across the table, so to speak, will be
Speaker 1: right back. You know. I'm a big supporter of President Trump.
Speaker 1: One of the things I really liked about him as
Speaker 1: a candidate was his vocal opposition to the Iraq War,
Speaker 1: the idea that regime change in Iraq actually led to
Speaker 1: unintended consequences, it made a rand stronger and tip the
Speaker 1: balance of power in the Middle East. He's appointing people
Speaker 1: around him who actually still think the Iraq War was
Speaker 1: a good idea and actually think that we should have
Speaker 1: a new war with Iran. So I think he's actually
Speaker 1: appointing people who don't understand American first policy and who
Speaker 1: happened to be more from the neo conservative camp that
Speaker 1: all we other war or always think America should be
Speaker 1: involved in another war. Specifically, on the CIA director, I
Speaker 1: oppose her because she believes that water boarding should be
Speaker 1: something that we use, and I think America shouldn't be
Speaker 1: known for torture and I have members of my family
Speaker 1: in the military. I don't want, if they're ever captured,
Speaker 1: for foreign countries to think tortures. Okay. Senator Ram Paul
Speaker 1: really opposed to Trump's recent picks. We we've talked here
Speaker 1: about the ouster of Rex Tillerson. I'm gonna miss Rex
Speaker 1: a little bit. I was kind of pro Rex. First
Speaker 1: of all, the guy's name is Rex. Second of all,
Speaker 1: he looks tough as nails, so I kind of liked him. Plus,
Speaker 1: he was the CEO of XI Mobile. Guys super rich.
Speaker 1: He's doing it because he thinks he can help the country.
Speaker 1: He's not doing it because he's trying to sell books,
Speaker 1: which I think is always a good thing. But then
Speaker 1: you go to these other picks, the new CIA director
Speaker 1: and the new Secretary of State. I want to focus
Speaker 1: more on the Secretary of State first, and let me
Speaker 1: say that I have a piece which I hope you
Speaker 1: will all read up on the Hill. Uh. It's on
Speaker 1: the Hill dot com and it's Pompeo will clear the
Speaker 1: air in foggy Bottom, That's right. I like to think
Speaker 1: of myself as a word smith, so it's it's a
Speaker 1: piece that you should check out. I make the case
Speaker 1: about why I think Pompeo is a good choice. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's nothing that's going to blow your socks off, but
Speaker 1: it's a pretty well developed argument, I think from his
Speaker 1: background and resume to being in alignment with Trump on
Speaker 1: key policy issues. So my my biggest thing is that
Speaker 1: you've got a guy who needs to be alongside Trump
Speaker 1: for some very high stakes diplomacy, and you can have
Speaker 1: somebody you can't have a Secretary of State if you're
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, who's gonna be going, perhaps in the next
Speaker 1: few months, to sit down across from people out of
Speaker 1: the North Korean delegates, people who are representing iranny and
Speaker 1: interest you know, whatever the case may be. Whatever Secretary
Speaker 1: of State meetings, you know, out in the open or
Speaker 1: behind closed doors, he's gonna have. You need someone who
Speaker 1: believes in the mission. You need someone who is in
Speaker 1: fact on board for this view of America and its
Speaker 1: role in the world, and I think Pompeio is there. Plus,
Speaker 1: you got a guy who went to West Point Harvard
Speaker 1: Law School, ran a successful congressional campaign, was a well
Speaker 1: liked c I a director, was well regarded in the building,
Speaker 1: even by people who politically did not align with him.
Speaker 1: And is also able to roll up his sleeves and
Speaker 1: be a bit of a brawler when necessary. With all
Speaker 1: that DC and fightings, I think you've got a really
Speaker 1: good secretary of State here. I also think that the
Speaker 1: recent history of the Obama administration has shown us that
Speaker 1: there is not a whole lot to being a subpar
Speaker 1: secretary of State. John Kerry was one. Hillary Clinton was one.
Speaker 1: In fact, Hillary Clinton, I would argue, was even worse
Speaker 1: than subpart. She was terrible because she was no. Yes,
Speaker 1: now it sounds like I'm having some kind of an
Speaker 1: episode here on radio, but I like Hillary to have
Speaker 1: some representation. It's fair, you know. She likes to appear,
Speaker 1: and it's been great for the news cycle this week
Speaker 1: just to have a little bit of Hillary popping up here.
Speaker 1: And they're fun for me in the freedom hunt, but
Speaker 1: also just good for all my conservative brethren. It reminds
Speaker 1: us of what could have been and what would have
Speaker 1: been had Trump not arrived and chanted lock her up,
Speaker 1: Lock her up. Nonetheless, the Pompeio pointent I think is
Speaker 1: good on the CI director. You know, I want to
Speaker 1: look into this one a little bit more. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be straight up with you guys. I tend
Speaker 1: not to weigh in that much on some of the
Speaker 1: upper level politics in the Intel community, just because I
Speaker 1: don't want to have the eye of Soroon come my way. Uh.
Speaker 1: The moment that you start being in he was like, well,
Speaker 1: I hate the director is the moment that you're on
Speaker 1: their radar in a way that you just don't really
Speaker 1: want to be, you know. I mean there's people who
Speaker 1: say funny stuff to me, like well, they said, you know,
Speaker 1: you could told me what you'd hope to kill me,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, no, that's not a thing. Or they'll say,
Speaker 1: you know, well, once you're in, you're never really out right,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, don't be ridiculous, except you know, you
Speaker 1: sign papers and things that are binding for your whole life,
Speaker 1: and and there is actually something to that. You know,
Speaker 1: you really don't want to get a call if you're
Speaker 1: me from Langley and they're like, you know, we just
Speaker 1: want to we want to talk to you about some stuff,
Speaker 1: some of the things you've said recently. So I tend
Speaker 1: to stay out of that. I don't know anything about
Speaker 1: I've never met and don't know what I'm being honest
Speaker 1: with you don't know anything about the the new director
Speaker 1: of the CIA other than what I have read. Rand
Speaker 1: Paul is very opposed to her because of her alleged
Speaker 1: role in water boarding. It's tough for me to weigh
Speaker 1: in on that one way or the other because I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that it's being characterized accurately, and I get
Speaker 1: the sense that it's probably being very negatively and unfairly characterized.
Speaker 1: So that's why I would I'm witholding some judgment on that.
Speaker 1: I'm when it comes to some agency things, I can
Speaker 1: be a little whimpy. Well that's because I kind of
Speaker 1: have to be. So there's that. But I think Pompeia
Speaker 1: has a good choice. And I usually really like Rand
Speaker 1: Paul and and support a lot of what he says,
Speaker 1: and I think he's an important voice not just for
Speaker 1: the GOP but for the whole country. On this one,
Speaker 1: I think he's wrong on POMPEII. I think he's being
Speaker 1: a little harsh on the new CIA director. But one
Speaker 1: thing is for sure, my friends Democrats and Confirmation hearings
Speaker 1: are gonna have a field day with this. They're just
Speaker 1: gonna use it as a as a fundraising tool. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm willing to bet you'll actually see congressional emails going
Speaker 1: out the days of those hearings, specifically citing, you know,
Speaker 1: we need to stop this evil Trump is um because
Speaker 1: Trump is like Himmler, you know, something like that. That's
Speaker 1: what Hillary would say. All right, we'll be back in
Speaker 1: a few teams. Stay with me, you know, I'm getting
Speaker 1: my taxes ready. It is not the most exciting conversation,
Speaker 1: I know, but it's close to the show. I just
Speaker 1: want to share with you that my inner Patrick Henry
Speaker 1: really comes out when I have to just go through
Speaker 1: receipts and all this paperwork, and does this go in
Speaker 1: this column? Where does this go? Can I write this off?
Speaker 1: All this stuff? It is such crap. And I know
Speaker 1: that we've gotten this tax cut, and we're all supposed
Speaker 1: to be so incredibly happy and grateful even that our
Speaker 1: government is giving us back a little more of our stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who, because of the various gigs and side
Speaker 1: hustles that I've got going on, ends up sending the
Speaker 1: government check around tax time. And I think that's an
Speaker 1: experience that everybody should have, because when you send the
Speaker 1: government to check, it's a reminder that they are taking
Speaker 1: your money, And I think one of the biggest scams
Speaker 1: going is automatic withholding and the notion that someone like
Speaker 1: me I owe the government money before tax day. And
Speaker 1: I just also resent the notion that I am forced
Speaker 1: by law to engage with a system that is inherently
Speaker 1: unfair and flawed and subject to interpretation, and for which
Speaker 1: there are criminal sanctions. You know, if you, if you
Speaker 1: pay your taxes, which I do. You know, all of
Speaker 1: you listening to as well, you should never have to think,
Speaker 1: oh gosh, what am I gonna do if I get
Speaker 1: an audit. But anyone I know and everyone I know
Speaker 1: who's ever been through an audit is like it is
Speaker 1: a painful experience, and at the end of it, you
Speaker 1: don't get a high five and a gold star and
Speaker 1: a good job. It's just, well, I guess we're not
Speaker 1: going to take even more of your money or lock
Speaker 1: you up this time. I would like to be a
Speaker 1: tax radical, my friends. I want a flat tax, a
Speaker 1: fair tax, anything but the nonsense progressive taxation system we
Speaker 1: have right now, which as you know, is abused all
Speaker 1: the time. And the reason the tax code is over
Speaker 1: seventy thousand pages long is because of special interests and
Speaker 1: carve outs and political favors. And there's a word for
Speaker 1: that that we would use in foreign countries. Corruption. That's
Speaker 1: why the tax code is over seventy thousand pages. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep hammering this until we actually get to tax day.
Speaker 1: But basically, the I R S should be dissolved. I
Speaker 1: asked Ted Cruz once he said if he could, he
Speaker 1: would dissolve it. And the tax code should be one page.
Speaker 1: That's it. One maybe two rates, that's it. This is
Speaker 1: all just garbage. It's a social justice warrior, redistributive nonsense
Speaker 1: dressed up as something else. And with that, let's get
Speaker 1: into some roll call. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. You can't see me, but I'm dancing up
Speaker 1: a funking storm in here, all right. First up in
Speaker 1: roll call, and by the way, Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck sex and please follow the page and you can
Speaker 1: send me on the team here messages. Um. First up, Matthew,
Speaker 1: great show. You and your crew are putting out some
Speaker 1: amazing content. When are you going to be in Austin.
Speaker 1: I just moved out here from California last year. Love
Speaker 1: the area. If I can, would like to see meet
Speaker 1: you and your staff Shields High. Well, Matthew, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for the very kind note. I'd love to
Speaker 1: meet you and your crew as well. Austin trip is
Speaker 1: being planned, but I don't have a firm date yet,
Speaker 1: and I will be for those of you who are
Speaker 1: WHOA Whoa lend listeners out in Fort Wayne, Indiana in
Speaker 1: just a few short weeks March thirty one. Saturday, March
Speaker 1: thirty one, I will be at Talk Tank at WHOA
Speaker 1: WOA Radio in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Be there for the
Speaker 1: whole day. I'll be hanging out, chatting folks, maybe eating
Speaker 1: some barbecue, some kind of meat. I don't know what
Speaker 1: it will be, but I'll be there, so do turn out.
Speaker 1: I'd love to see as much of the team as
Speaker 1: I can. Newcomers especially welcome at the Talk Tank event
Speaker 1: in Fort Wayne, Indiana March thirty one. You can check
Speaker 1: it out online. All right, Next up, Uh, here we go,
Speaker 1: Daniel here right, Hey, Buck, I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you for a minute about the school walks today. At
Speaker 1: my school, they told us it was done in honor
Speaker 1: of the students who lost their lives. But just a
Speaker 1: few minutes ago I got a notification from my news
Speaker 1: app which unfortunately for unfortunately has all news companies. It
Speaker 1: was from CBS and it said hundreds of students in
Speaker 1: schools are supposed to walk today to protest gun violence.
Speaker 1: I'd love to walk for those students. But the second
Speaker 1: they made this political I was out. So either my
Speaker 1: school was doing it for a different reason or they
Speaker 1: were lying to us. I'm proud to say that most
Speaker 1: of the students in my current classroom didn't leave, but
Speaker 1: a few did. I personally think that the teachers should
Speaker 1: be allowed to have a concealed carry, but unknown to
Speaker 1: the students. If not guns, then certainly tasers. It's something
Speaker 1: that can quickly and effectively stop and out of control gunman.
Speaker 1: If you ever want insight from a fifteen year old perspective,
Speaker 1: you can just message me. Well, Daniel, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for your note and for giving us a perspective
Speaker 1: that we really need today, which is uh that we
Speaker 1: have to hear from folks who are seeing this with
Speaker 1: their own eyes. So thank you Daniel for sharing your perspective.
Speaker 1: Great to have a fifteen year old member of Team
Speaker 1: Buck in the house. Jason, next up here, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for talking about South Africa yesterday. My wife's
Speaker 1: uncle was brutally killed three months ago. It seems the
Speaker 1: world has been silent as we have watched it increase
Speaker 1: in violence and numbers on his neighbors, and now as
Speaker 1: his children, who are now orphaned, are looking at the
Speaker 1: government taking the only thing they have left because they
Speaker 1: are quote privileged, semperfy and shields high O s s
Speaker 1: forever from Jason, shout out to the rest of Oss Well, Jason,
Speaker 1: thank you and thank you for sharing that really tragic,
Speaker 1: uh and and difficult personal story. The media are absolutely
Speaker 1: not as interested as they should be in covering what
Speaker 1: is going on in South Africa, and we know it's
Speaker 1: because social justice warriors in this country take and transpose
Speaker 1: their own political beliefs onto social, political, and cultural situations
Speaker 1: around the rest of the world. Hence, in Iraq, for example,
Speaker 1: Iraqi Christians who are a minority that is being targeted
Speaker 1: for extermination are still Christian. Therefore they're not really targeted minorities.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make sense, but it's just the way that
Speaker 1: they have trained themselves as ideologues to view the rest
Speaker 1: of the world as well. We'll keep watching South Africa though,
Speaker 1: because it's a story that I think unfortunately, is only
Speaker 1: going to get worse. All right, now, we have a
Speaker 1: note from Angela and remember Facebook dot com slash Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton to send us your thoughts. Angela rights, Uh hi,
Speaker 1: last week you mentioned that you had a trapper keeper
Speaker 1: when in high school. Not trying to make you feel
Speaker 1: old or anything, but original trapper keepers are now collectibles,
Speaker 1: no kidding. They are considered vintage. Well, welcome to the AM.
Speaker 1: I really that old club, well, Angela, I'm a proud
Speaker 1: member of the AM. I really that old club and
Speaker 1: the Get Off my Lawn Society. But I can imagine
Speaker 1: the trapper keepers are collectibles. Now what people would do
Speaker 1: with them other than collect them, I have no idea,
Speaker 1: but I remember that was what you had to have
Speaker 1: because if you didn't have the hand out for your
Speaker 1: geography class and you had to go down and ask
Speaker 1: a teacher to give you a xerox, quite an ordeal.
Speaker 1: You don't want to lose those papers. That's where trapper
Speaker 1: keepers came in, all right, Next up here, uh bo,
Speaker 1: he writes. I'm with you, Buck. I hate the airlines.
Speaker 1: I flew frequently during the eighties and nineties with very
Speaker 1: few issues, but after nine eleven, I have only flown
Speaker 1: a handful of times completely miserable experiences every time. I
Speaker 1: only fly now if forced to do so. I drove
Speaker 1: all the way to California in four thousand and eight
Speaker 1: miles round trip just to see my son. Well worth
Speaker 1: the extra time spent, plus I was able to carry
Speaker 1: a weapon. Uh. Well, both, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: calling in, and I really appreciate hearing from you on
Speaker 1: this one. And I hate the airlines as well. Um,
Speaker 1: and I generally try not to pick on any one business,
Speaker 1: but I've just had too many days ruined, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's just not a culture of like, we're sorry, we're
Speaker 1: ruining your day. They're like that, you know, that's tough.
Speaker 1: Oh we didn't We didn't put enough fuel in the
Speaker 1: plane to get you to your destination. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: have to have an additional unplanned stop just because we
Speaker 1: were trying to, you know, scrape around the edges and
Speaker 1: make a little extra cash at your expense. Sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: that actually happened to me. These are the things that
Speaker 1: airlines do, and it's just a disgrace. It's because they
Speaker 1: don't feel the real impact from the market. For a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of reasons, and yes, airlines are the worst.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm gonna close it up there for today, Team,
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to joining you tomorrow Friday. I will
Speaker 1: be on the show out Number Bird at twelve Eastern
Speaker 1: twelve pm Eastern on Fox News. So a do tune
Speaker 1: in or set your DVR now for Friday Outnumbered on
Speaker 1: Fox News. That'll be a whole lot of fun and uh.
Speaker 1: Until then, my friends, you have your mission, you have
Speaker 1: your orders, no matter what comes your way. Shields high,