Speaker 1: You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Team. Welcome to the Freedom
Speaker 1: on Thursday, May twelfth edition of the program. I'm heading
Speaker 1: to Chicago, so I'll be out tomorrow and it'll be
Speaker 1: the first time I've ever been in Chicago, so I'm
Speaker 1: kind of excited and looking forward to a weekend there.
Speaker 1: But we'll talk about the situation of crime and Black
Speaker 1: Lives Matter and why this is on my mind right now,
Speaker 1: the Black Lives Matter movement, the aftermath of it, and
Speaker 1: the data, the statistics about crime in Chicago, how all
Speaker 1: of this is related. And there's actually a fascinating sub
Speaker 1: stack from Barry Weiss where a guest writer deals with
Speaker 1: this exact issue of why we're in the crime situation
Speaker 1: room right now, and I will address that with you
Speaker 1: here in just a moment. But I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: if you've ever considered becoming a real estate investor, go
Speaker 1: check out my friends that done for your real estate.
Speaker 1: They take you through every step of the process from
Speaker 1: beginning to end, from figuring out what city you want
Speaker 1: to invest in, what property, getting a loan, getting a
Speaker 1: management company, tenant in place, and then free cash will
Speaker 1: come to you every month as you build up equity
Speaker 1: in that house over time, and if you pick the
Speaker 1: right market the right house, you could see you dramatic
Speaker 1: gains over a period of time. This is slow and steady.
Speaker 1: This is not fast, fly by night stuff. This is
Speaker 1: preparing for the long term making smart real estate decisions.
Speaker 1: That's what Done for Your Real Estate teaches you to do.
Speaker 1: Go to Done for You Buck dot com to see
Speaker 1: how this works. That's done for You Buck dot com.
Speaker 1: I have bought multiple properties with them personally, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to be buying more properties with the advice of
Speaker 1: Done for Your real Estate could have Done for you
Speaker 1: Buck dot com. So I'm heading a chego and people
Speaker 1: are asking me why. I say, well, it's because I
Speaker 1: have never been and I'm forty years old and I've
Speaker 1: been to Baghdad and Cobble and all over Europe and
Speaker 1: into South and Central America and over to Southeast Asia,
Speaker 1: and I've never been to Chicago. So I just kind
Speaker 1: of felt like, you know what, I want to go
Speaker 1: check this place out. I want to have my first
Speaker 1: experience there. And one of the fun things about being
Speaker 1: able to reach so many folks on social media is
Speaker 1: that when you have a new experience you're going to
Speaker 1: have in a city, in a place, you say, hey,
Speaker 1: tell me about tell me about what I should do
Speaker 1: when I'm there. You know, what do you recommend? What
Speaker 1: do you think is a good first weekend in Chicago?
Speaker 1: I tinderate people are talking about going to the river
Speaker 1: and being on one of those boats. A lot of
Speaker 1: pizza suggestions. I mean, I have Celiac disease, so that's
Speaker 1: not really gonna help me very much, but it's a
Speaker 1: nice idea. I appreciate it. And some steakhouses that's definitely
Speaker 1: my jams. Stuff like that, right. I can't tell you, though,
Speaker 1: how many people would I ask for advice on what
Speaker 1: to do in Chicago? Make some comment, have some comment
Speaker 1: about how keep your head down, were a bulletproof vest,
Speaker 1: you better be armed. You know. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: that going on, and I gotta tell you it's sad
Speaker 1: when you think about it. I mean, as just as
Speaker 1: an American, I've never even been there, but the fact
Speaker 1: that this is what and a lot of them are
Speaker 1: Chicago residents, and this is the third largest city in America.
Speaker 1: What is it about two and a half million people,
Speaker 1: and the commentary about the city isn't Oh, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you ask a Frenchman, particularly a Parisian,
Speaker 1: about Paris, they're going to tell you that it's the
Speaker 1: greatest city in the world. You ask a Londoner about London,
Speaker 1: they're gonna tell you that it's the greatest city in
Speaker 1: the world. I've asked some Chicago in now. Granted a
Speaker 1: lot of them are not from Chicago. The people are
Speaker 1: all across the US, but a lot of them are
Speaker 1: Chicago natives. I've asked them and they're making they're making
Speaker 1: comments about the shootings and about the violence that's going
Speaker 1: on in that city, and you say, well, that's not
Speaker 1: the way it's supposed to be nine one hundred and
Speaker 1: one people through the eighth of May, so it's over
Speaker 1: over nine hundred and one people right now have been shot,
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy three of them fatally. So we're
Speaker 1: not even halfway through the year and there have been
Speaker 1: nine hundred people shot in the city of Chicago. That's appalling.
Speaker 1: How do we get to this place? Why are there
Speaker 1: so many shootings in the city of Chicago, you can see,
Speaker 1: I mean how many you know, by the way, this
Speaker 1: is true all across the country. It's not just a
Speaker 1: Chicago thing. As we know, there's crime rising, particularly violent
Speaker 1: crime and shootings has been rising in major US cities.
Speaker 1: Why is this going on? What is the circumstance, what's
Speaker 1: the situation that brings me to the Black Lives Matter movement?
Speaker 1: And what happened in twenty twenty. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: this story through the prism of a fellow named Zach Kriegman,
Speaker 1: who I'd never heard of before. And Barry Weiss on
Speaker 1: her substack has a piece buy Zach Kriegman. She allows
Speaker 1: people she remember she was the New York Times editorial
Speaker 1: page person who was supposed to bring in alternate voices
Speaker 1: from the lib orthodoxy, and she was harassed so much
Speaker 1: by her colleagues that she resigned. Because it's such a
Speaker 1: it's an atrocious joke. I mean, it's an intellectually fetid,
Speaker 1: rotten place at the New York Times now, because you
Speaker 1: either believe these left wing orthodoxes or they harass you,
Speaker 1: they try to destroy you, they want to ruin you.
Speaker 1: All that stuff. Well, you know that's true at the
Speaker 1: New York Times. It's also true at Thompson Reuters. Right,
Speaker 1: it's also true at Reuters. And you say to yourself, well,
Speaker 1: this is this is supposed to be one of the
Speaker 1: more a mainstream isn't the word that I should use here?
Speaker 1: But less political I mean Reuters associated press. That's supposed
Speaker 1: to be the most straight down the middle journalism you
Speaker 1: can get. Right, that's at least what the brand is
Speaker 1: supposed to be. That's not true at all. We're about
Speaker 1: to discuss how not true that is. There's certainly something
Speaker 1: something about these media entities that represents themselves as oh,
Speaker 1: we're just doing the reporting. We're just the reporters doing
Speaker 1: the reporting. Well, this individual who worked at Thompson Reuters,
Speaker 1: he was their chief data scientist. He was fed to
Speaker 1: the diversity and inclusion machinery. Right, they lowered him in
Speaker 1: feet first into the grinding gears of the diversity and
Speaker 1: inclusion and human resources office. Which I'm going to tell
Speaker 1: you this in these companies is they're very similar to
Speaker 1: the Soviet political commissars who were deployed in factories and
Speaker 1: businesses stayed owned, but businesses all over the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: there were people who were assigned by the state to
Speaker 1: monitor the people that were doing labor in the state
Speaker 1: owned enterprises, to make sure they never criticized anything, to
Speaker 1: make sure that they praised the plan, they praised the
Speaker 1: Communist Party and the revolution. How different is that really
Speaker 1: from what you have going on with all of these
Speaker 1: diversity and inclusion offices that just traffic in this identity politics,
Speaker 1: race obsession, CRT narrative which has been become a dominant ideology,
Speaker 1: the dominant ideology of the left and the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: And all they do is police people for thought crimes.
Speaker 1: That is their existence, that is what goes on. So
Speaker 1: here you have this data scientist writing for the very
Speaker 1: white substag and he just looked at the numbers. And
Speaker 1: this is very interesting for a conservative like me, because
Speaker 1: this is a guy's clearly not a conservative, He's probably
Speaker 1: a Democrat voting lib. But he understands numbers and this
Speaker 1: whole story that the BLM movement is built on, that
Speaker 1: unarmed black men are constantly being shot. It's a national
Speaker 1: crisis by police by police. There is a national crisis
Speaker 1: of black men being shot. It is not by police,
Speaker 1: though it is overwhelmingly by other young black men. That's
Speaker 1: actually what the data shows. That is what is statistically
Speaker 1: obvious and clear. That is a national crisis. That is
Speaker 1: a national emergency. But police shooting on armed black men
Speaker 1: is not a national crisis. It is not something that
Speaker 1: happens frequently at all. And he knows this because he
Speaker 1: looked at all the numbers and he became kind of
Speaker 1: obsessed when he was at router with looking at the numbers.
Speaker 1: This is from the piece quote. Statistics from the most
Speaker 1: complete database indicate that over the last five years, police
Speaker 1: have fatally shot thirty nine percent more unarmed whites than blacks.
Speaker 1: Because there are roughly six times as many white Americans
Speaker 1: as Black Americans, that figure should be closer to six
Speaker 1: hundred percent. BLM activists insist the fact that it's not
Speaker 1: that there's a gap, is, they say, evidence of the
Speaker 1: bias of police departments when you actually look further the data. Though,
Speaker 1: according to calculations which is published by the Deputy District
Speaker 1: Attorney for Los Angeles based on FBI data, black Americans
Speaker 1: account for thirty seven percent of those who murder police
Speaker 1: officers and thirty four percent of the unarmed suspects killed
Speaker 1: by police. Whites make up forty two percent of cop
Speaker 1: killers and forty two percent of the unarmed suspects shot
Speaker 1: by police, meaning whites are killed by police at a
Speaker 1: seven percent higher rate than blacks. Because what he's doing
Speaker 1: is trying to buy the numbers control for use of
Speaker 1: force situations. That's what really matters. If you're looking at
Speaker 1: our police disproportionately using lethal force, you have to look
Speaker 1: at lethal force situations, not just the general population. Because
Speaker 1: what this gets to is that Black Americans are disproportionately
Speaker 1: involved in use of four situations against police that result
Speaker 1: in use of force by police. And so this guy
Speaker 1: points this out, this is just all by the numbers,
Speaker 1: and he says, quote, if you broaden the analysis to
Speaker 1: include armed suspects, whites are shot at a seventy percent
Speaker 1: higher rate than blacks. Other experts in the field concur
Speaker 1: that in relation to the number of police officers murdered,
Speaker 1: whites are shot disproportionately. So what this is saying is
Speaker 1: in a dangerous use of force situation where police officer's
Speaker 1: life is in jeopardy, which is when you can use
Speaker 1: lethal force, cops are more likely to use lethal force
Speaker 1: against a white assailant than a black assailant. This is
Speaker 1: by the numbers comepied by the FBI, the Washington Post
Speaker 1: and others. This is what the actual data says. This
Speaker 1: is the chief data scientist at Reuter's telling you this.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, not allowed to talk about this, No sir,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, not allowed to say it. Not allowed
Speaker 1: to say it. And here we are. Now we see
Speaker 1: what happens. He gets fed into the diversity and inclusion
Speaker 1: machinery right all of a sudden, the HR and Diversity
Speaker 1: office wants to talk to him. And it's because Oh also,
Speaker 1: before I get to that, he says that there are
Speaker 1: just countless stories at Reuter's where they were just lying.
Speaker 1: I mean, they were just leaving out critical data. They
Speaker 1: were just misleading the public, he writes. In one story,
Speaker 1: Reuters reported on police and Kenosha shooting a black man,
Speaker 1: Jacob Blake, in the back, but failed to mention that
Speaker 1: they did so only after he grabbed a knife and
Speaker 1: looked likely to lunge at them on video. In another story,
Speaker 1: Reuters referred to a wave of killings of African Americans
Speaker 1: by police using unjustified lethal force, despite a lack of
Speaker 1: statistical evidence that such a wave of police killings had
Speaker 1: taken place in twenty twenty eighteen. We are a country
Speaker 1: of three hundred and thirty million people. Eighteen unarmed black
Speaker 1: Americans were killed by police. According to the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: one hundred and seven thousand people died of drug overdoses
Speaker 1: last year. Just to put the numbers into context, how
Speaker 1: much time does the Democrat corporate media spend on that
Speaker 1: versus eighteen unarmed black men killed by police? By the way,
Speaker 1: unarmed does not mean not a threat, does not mean
Speaker 1: that they were not. That does not mean in and
Speaker 1: of itself that those shooting incidents were not justified legally
Speaker 1: and morally justified. I'm sure if you look at them,
Speaker 1: a lot of them, maybe a majority of them were
Speaker 1: legally and more justify, and maybe there were a couple
Speaker 1: that weren't, and those officers should be prosecuted to the
Speaker 1: fullest extent of the law. That's it. We have the system,
Speaker 1: we have it in place, and it actually works pretty
Speaker 1: darn well. But the only the only really serious story
Speaker 1: to look a serious study to look at police shootings
Speaker 1: on black versus white suspects was done by a professor
Speaker 1: at Harvard a named Professor Friar and his study found
Speaker 1: you wait for it, cops are more likely under similar
Speaker 1: circumstances to shoot a white suspect than a black suspect.
Speaker 1: We all know why this is. It's not it's not
Speaker 1: hard to understand. If you shoot a white guy, the
Speaker 1: media is not going to say, oh my gosh, it's racist.
Speaker 1: But if there are questionable in any in any capacity,
Speaker 1: if there's any sort of a judgment call situation with
Speaker 1: a police officer, particularly a white police officer, shooting a
Speaker 1: black suspect, the rush to its racist. The cops are murderer,
Speaker 1: the protest, the answer, prosecution happens right away, and the
Speaker 1: cops life is ruined. We all know this, okay, it's
Speaker 1: reflected in the data, in the numbers. Libs just don't
Speaker 1: want to hear it. And that then brings me into
Speaker 1: what happened with this individual, This individual Kriegman who got
Speaker 1: fired fired from Reuter's. You know that's coming because he
Speaker 1: posted on the internal chat board for Reuters, meant for
Speaker 1: discussion of controversial issues. He posted the data and his
Speaker 1: findings to essentially say, hey, guys, this Reuter's narrative that
Speaker 1: we're going for here, that unarmed black men are being
Speaker 1: murdered by racist police as a continuous problem, as a
Speaker 1: systematic problem, is a lie, and it results in the
Speaker 1: Ferguson effect, which is cops undermined, defunded, less able to
Speaker 1: do their jobs. And that then was alts and more
Speaker 1: unarmed black men being killed predominantly disproportionately by other black
Speaker 1: men in America. That is what actually happens. This is
Speaker 1: what he said on the internal chat. What do you
Speaker 1: think happened? Then they took it down right away, took
Speaker 1: it down. Not allowed to say that, why it's data.
Speaker 1: Not allowed to say the data. It's provocative and harmful,
Speaker 1: they said. And then it got worse. Of course, he writes,
Speaker 1: over the next two weeks, I kept checking back to
Speaker 1: see whether they would reinstate it. After a good bit
Speaker 1: of waiting and wondering, I was told by HR a
Speaker 1: team of human resources and communications professionals was reviewing it.
Speaker 1: I asked if I'd be allowed to discuss the moderator's concerns.
Speaker 1: I was told no. Finally, they told me the post
Speaker 1: would not be reinstated because it was antagonistic and provocative.
Speaker 1: When I asked what exactly was provocative or antagonistic? She
Speaker 1: suggests that I speak with the head of Diversity and inclusion, Oh,
Speaker 1: Chief Commissar. So I scheduled the meeting and I was
Speaker 1: told that I had what I had, it could hurt
Speaker 1: me at the company. It could put the kaibosh on
Speaker 1: any future promotions. Then the comments started rolling in from colleagues.
Speaker 1: They called my review of the academic literature white splaining,
Speaker 1: failing to note that many of the academics I cited
Speaker 1: were black, That it was laughable what I wrote, not
Speaker 1: worth engaging in. One even said, my unwillingness to engage
Speaker 1: doesn't signal the strength of your argument. If someone says
Speaker 1: that KKK did lots of good things for the community,
Speaker 1: prove me wrong. I'm not obligated to do so. I
Speaker 1: mean the person who wrote that as a moron and
Speaker 1: a psychopath. I don't know who it is with in Reuters,
Speaker 1: but that person is a complete, blanking idiot, total moron
Speaker 1: paid by Reuters though. But you see, this is what happens.
Speaker 1: People create these comfortable little narratives from themselves were they
Speaker 1: don't have to engage or debate. And then Kriegman sent
Speaker 1: a letter to company leadership saying, hey, what's going on here?
Speaker 1: You know they did. After that, I brought him into
Speaker 1: an office HR they fired him, terminated him after six years.
Speaker 1: Chief data scientist Reuters, one of the biggest news gathering
Speaker 1: organizations in the world, fired its chief data scientist for
Speaker 1: sharing data that showed that the BLM narrative is bullcrap
Speaker 1: and they didn't want to hear it, so they fired him.
Speaker 1: This is at Reuters. This is also, though in essence,
Speaker 1: at The New York Times, at the Washington Post, at
Speaker 1: name a major corporation these days, at Uber, at Apple,
Speaker 1: at all these places, you can't share this, and now
Speaker 1: this is about news and news gathering, so he should
Speaker 1: have even more right. I mean, you can make the argument, well,
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be arguing we shouldn't be talking to this
Speaker 1: at all of those companies. Okay, well, of course they do.
Speaker 1: They indoctrinate with the BLM rhetoric at these places. But
Speaker 1: at a news organization, you can't share data that contradicts
Speaker 1: the newsroom narrative, clearly contradicts it. No, you cannot, Now
Speaker 1: you cannot. It's a good time to tell you about
Speaker 1: the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, which is defending many
Speaker 1: officers who have been wrongfully accused charged or fired just
Speaker 1: for doing their jobs. These officers and their families are
Speaker 1: counting on you to support them in their time of need.
Speaker 1: Your donation will help them stay out of prison and
Speaker 1: avoid being financially bankrupted by bogus accusations and pressure from
Speaker 1: the far left to charge the police for just doing
Speaker 1: their job of protecting all of us. Take a moment now,
Speaker 1: don't just let this be something we talk about. Take action.
Speaker 1: Go to police defense dot org. Not only are they
Speaker 1: raising funds necessary to get officers charged the best legal
Speaker 1: defense possible, they're helping those officers and their families keep
Speaker 1: the lights on, keep food on the table, keep a
Speaker 1: roof over their heads. Fundraising is crucial for officers wrongfully
Speaker 1: accused in these woke times. Please go to police defense
Speaker 1: dot org. Consider contributing just fifteen dollars or more to
Speaker 1: the Police Defense Fund to help these officers in their
Speaker 1: time of need. That's police Defense dot org. Police Defense
Speaker 1: dot org. I will let you all know how my
Speaker 1: first trip to Chicago. I think it'll be a lot
Speaker 1: of fun and I don't anticipate that there will be
Speaker 1: any issues. Even though everyone saying there will be issues,
Speaker 1: I don't think there will be I think I'll have
Speaker 1: a lovely time. I'll give you my full report on
Speaker 1: all this when I see you on Monday. Talk to
Speaker 1: him Monday rather shields high