Speaker 1: Mr Garbutschof teared down this wall. Either you're with us
Speaker 1: or you were with the terrorists. If you've got healthcare already,
Speaker 1: then you can keep your plan. If you're satisfied with
Speaker 1: Trump is not president of the United States, take it
Speaker 1: to a bank. Together, we will make America great again.
Speaker 1: It's what you've been waiting for all day. The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck Toll Free at
Speaker 1: eight four four nine hundred Buck that's eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred two eight to five the future of talk radio,
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. You'll fire, you fired, your fire. You're fired,
Speaker 1: you fired, You're fired. You'll fired, ye fire, and now
Speaker 1: you can say you're fired fired. I was wondering what
Speaker 1: you would say to President Obama, you're fired. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and show everybody Trump dropping some pink
Speaker 1: slips today or at least, well at least a couple
Speaker 1: of them. You're fired. Uh Rex Tillerson. That's how that
Speaker 1: went down. Not surprising to me at all, although I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not in the anti Tillerson camp. I thought
Speaker 1: that he was a pretty He seemed pretty confident to me,
Speaker 1: and he certainly would be sitting seating at the seat
Speaker 1: at the adults table within the administration. He's got a
Speaker 1: guy with considerable experience, but he's out. As you know,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've heard some folks talking about today. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll dig into that a bit. You have the the
Speaker 1: of Gina Haspell nominated as the CIA's first female director.
Speaker 1: You're got the first female director of the CIA, assuming
Speaker 1: that all goes through, and Pompeio, Mike Pompeo, the CIA Director,
Speaker 1: is going to head over to the State Department to
Speaker 1: run things at Foggy Bottom. If they thought that things
Speaker 1: were a little rocky with Rex in charge, who, as
Speaker 1: I have said, does remind me of the old weather
Speaker 1: tough Texan sheriff and pretty much every Western I've ever seen. Uh,
Speaker 1: if they thought that Rex was rough, just wait till
Speaker 1: they get a load of Pompeo. And then there's some
Speaker 1: other guy who was uh oh, John McEntee, the former
Speaker 1: White House assistant. He was somebody was with Trump a lot.
Speaker 1: He's one of these guys who, if you're not covering
Speaker 1: the White House, I feel like it doesn't really get
Speaker 1: all that much, all that much attention, or he doesn't
Speaker 1: get all that much attention. But he's out for security
Speaker 1: clearance reasons, but he's getting a lot of attention. Now.
Speaker 1: I will say this, I think that John Kelly, the
Speaker 1: White House Chief of Staff, finally decided that, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, how we deal with all the all the
Speaker 1: riff raff in the White House and get everyone fall online.
Speaker 1: No more passes on security clearance stuff because there's no
Speaker 1: oh but I know so and so and I'm friends
Speaker 1: with so and so way around that stuff. Really unless
Speaker 1: you are the president, unless you're you are the elected official,
Speaker 1: because then the premise becomes the people have given you
Speaker 1: their trust and you get access to classified there's no
Speaker 1: there's no end runs or shortcuts on those investigations for
Speaker 1: administration officials. And I think that Kelly did the right
Speaker 1: thing by saying are enough is enough? And if you
Speaker 1: if you can't get clearance, you shouldn't be around classified
Speaker 1: material and you shouldn't be in positions of such trust.
Speaker 1: And so you just cleaned it out a bit. Look,
Speaker 1: I think I'm getting a little ahead of myself here
Speaker 1: with uh where I wanted to go, because I was
Speaker 1: hoping to switch into the talk at the Wall, which
Speaker 1: we're gonna do in a second. But I think this
Speaker 1: is actually an upgrade for the administration, at least on
Speaker 1: the secretary of State side. You need someone align with you,
Speaker 1: and Peo is a ligne with Trump. You need someone
Speaker 1: who's gonna fight for you and fight for your agenda.
Speaker 1: That's Pompeo, you know, Rex, good guys, smart guy, not
Speaker 1: on board for some important stuff, not on board for Iran,
Speaker 1: different on Paris climate accord, and doesn't look like he
Speaker 1: was on board North Korea or tariffs either. So how
Speaker 1: are you going to be the president secretary of state
Speaker 1: if you're not really if you're not really going to
Speaker 1: be the person that believes in these policies, believes in
Speaker 1: what the president trying to accomplished. But I want to
Speaker 1: take a step back from that for a second. Everyone
Speaker 1: gets all excited about talking about personnel. We've got some
Speaker 1: other news to hit on, including the Pennsylvania congressional race
Speaker 1: between Lamb and Saccone. Why is it shouldn't it be
Speaker 1: You're you're basically a Philly guy Scone, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: why do they that's the Italian should be Saccone, but
Speaker 1: they call it Secone. I never know, you know, man,
Speaker 1: it's uh, You've gotta I feel like I say Italian
Speaker 1: names wrong these days because did you americanize? Did you
Speaker 1: keep it? It's like a lot of US Irish folks.
Speaker 1: By the way, you'll notice i'mhearing green today. You're on
Speaker 1: radio at home, folks, so you don't know this, but
Speaker 1: I'm wearing a green. It's right luck of the Irish,
Speaker 1: and we we got rid of the o's in front
Speaker 1: of most of our names. None on everybody like O'Reilly factor.
Speaker 1: But I'm pretty sure at one point I was I
Speaker 1: come from oh Hikey's. I'm pretty sure. Uh, I should
Speaker 1: check on that one before I say that would allow,
Speaker 1: but I think so. Nonetheless, Sacconi versus Lamb, I just
Speaker 1: did it, Saccone versus Lamb. That's gonna be a race
Speaker 1: where tonight it will be decided as we are, or
Speaker 1: the early results will coming as we're on air. I
Speaker 1: don't think. I don't think we're gonna be able to
Speaker 1: tell you who wins tonight, although we'll see if for
Speaker 1: some reason it was a landslide one or the other,
Speaker 1: which would be completely contra the polling that we've seen,
Speaker 1: we'll let you know. So oh. Biden traveled to Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: to support Connor Lamb Democrats are really they're trying to
Speaker 1: make a thing of this one. It's all for the narrative, folks.
Speaker 1: You gotta remember it's one congressional seat and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of members of Congress running around, which is important
Speaker 1: for you to remember because you can feel a little
Speaker 1: less terrified for our future when you hear what some
Speaker 1: of those bozos and Congress had to say. You're like, well,
Speaker 1: at least there's a lot of them. No one member
Speaker 1: of Congress really has that much power been speak of
Speaker 1: the House. There's some roles that have a little bit
Speaker 1: of an elevated profile. But anyway, we got that pennsylvani
Speaker 1: your race, and we will we'll see what we can
Speaker 1: tell you about that. Solena Zito will be joining later
Speaker 1: to discuss She is uh former columns for the Pittsburgh Tribune.
Speaker 1: I mean she knows this area backwards and forward, so
Speaker 1: she'll be really insightful on it. And we also have
Speaker 1: Fred Flights joining, like me, a former CIA analysts, my
Speaker 1: my brother from Langley, Fred Flights will be joining talk
Speaker 1: about North Korea and his sense of that. Not much
Speaker 1: new news on North creator Day, so or we're gonna
Speaker 1: get into the analysis of it with Fred later on,
Speaker 1: but I don't have anything breaking on it. So with
Speaker 1: all that, I'm gonna return to the issue of the
Speaker 1: personnel changes, probably later on the hour because I wanted
Speaker 1: to move, although I had to start with it so
Speaker 1: we could play that you're fired clips. And it is
Speaker 1: funny now to me at least, that every time that
Speaker 1: you have one of these departures that is forced, the
Speaker 1: president is in a position where we can all remember
Speaker 1: that he was, in fact the guy most famous for
Speaker 1: saying you fired. I know people say you're fired, but
Speaker 1: I like saying it that way, the little Queen's rashness,
Speaker 1: little little New York style. You fired. That's how we
Speaker 1: do it here. So with all that, we can get
Speaker 1: into the wall. You want to talk policy, you want
Speaker 1: to talk what's going to change the game and change
Speaker 1: the discussion. Trump was out in California today. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure there was like a two person fundraiser too, you know,
Speaker 1: as one does. But he was checking out the wall
Speaker 1: literally pieces of what would be the future wall. And
Speaker 1: he's also taking on the sanctuary city policies of California,
Speaker 1: specifically Californias become the front line of the fight against
Speaker 1: illegal immigration because California does. This is what's fundamental to
Speaker 1: this discussion. The state of California does not see illegal
Speaker 1: immigration it's a problem. It sees it as a reality
Speaker 1: to be managed and to even be exploited as necessary
Speaker 1: and as is helpful to democrats and status. But they
Speaker 1: don't see it as a problem that needs to stop.
Speaker 1: They are encouraging it. We don't have in California, and
Speaker 1: this is true in some other states too, but it's
Speaker 1: most true in California. We don't have a situation where
Speaker 1: the federal government and the state government differ on how
Speaker 1: best to achieve the same ends, which in this case
Speaker 1: would be stopping illegal immigration and enforcing immigration laws when
Speaker 1: it comes to illegals. No, the state government of California
Speaker 1: and the federal government is at a an impasse. They
Speaker 1: want fundamentally different things. They are working at cross purposes.
Speaker 1: They are against each other on this, and that's why
Speaker 1: this is so politically combustible. It's not like they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: we want this and you want this, but we're trying
Speaker 1: to do it in different ways. We want to slow down,
Speaker 1: stop and prohibit illegal immigration, and they want to continue it.
Speaker 1: And just manage it. They see it as something to
Speaker 1: be managed. I'm not even sure you could say it's
Speaker 1: a problem to be managed. They they encourage. They think
Speaker 1: the legals are necessary for the economy, necessary for the votes,
Speaker 1: necessary for the future of the state of California. At
Speaker 1: least that's what the elected I know a lot of
Speaker 1: you in California, like Buck, that's not what I think.
Speaker 1: But that is what the Democrat Party and the left
Speaker 1: in California have signed on for. And that's why Trump
Speaker 1: out at the wall today was so important. Like for example,
Speaker 1: when he's and this, you don't have a wall system,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna have We're not gonna have a country.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of problems in Mexico. They have a
Speaker 1: lot of problems over there, and they have the cartels
Speaker 1: and the cartels. We're fighting the cartels. So we're fighting
Speaker 1: them hard. Nobody ever fought him like we fought him.
Speaker 1: I mean, we fight them hard. But the fact is,
Speaker 1: if you don't have a wall system, it would be
Speaker 1: bedlum I imagine it's very hard to control a just
Speaker 1: personnel there. It's a combination of all. So we'll look
Speaker 1: at it. The walls where you have some three really
Speaker 1: some sea through capability. If you don't have some sea
Speaker 1: through it's a problem. So we'll take a look up here,
Speaker 1: President saying you need a wall. Isn't it noteworthy that
Speaker 1: as he's out in California and San Diego, he is
Speaker 1: in fact in a place that has a wall, and
Speaker 1: that has dramatically improved the ability of border patrol to
Speaker 1: do their jobs. It has made it easier re border
Speaker 1: patrol to secure the San Diego sector of the world.
Speaker 1: No one saying it's perfect, but no security measure is perfect.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing. People will say, oh, well
Speaker 1: they'll get a they'll get a ladder, or they'll dig
Speaker 1: a tunnel. Well yeah, but that doesn't stop anyone else
Speaker 1: from building walls for any number of reasons. It's not
Speaker 1: supposed to be a cure all. It is supposed to
Speaker 1: be an impediment. And that is obviously what a wall
Speaker 1: is all about. You know, it doesn't even get much
Speaker 1: attention right now, but the most by a recent statistical analysis.
Speaker 1: I forget who did it, so I don't want to
Speaker 1: throw that out on the air, but we'll figure it out.
Speaker 1: The most dangerous city in the world per capita, right
Speaker 1: now for murders is it was Warez for a little while,
Speaker 1: and I think then it moved down into Central America
Speaker 1: and now you know, Caracas and Venezuela is definitely trying
Speaker 1: to get to the top spot. But the most dangested
Speaker 1: in the world as of last month per capita was Cabo.
Speaker 1: Those of you who are familiar with the geography know
Speaker 1: that Bo is on the tip of the Baja Peninsula
Speaker 1: and they're Los Cabos. The cities that are there used
Speaker 1: to be and still are actually, I think a pretty
Speaker 1: popular tourist destination, which is amazing. I checked it out.
Speaker 1: I was just curious, what's it like you try to
Speaker 1: go to Los Cabos now are there? Yeah, they're still
Speaker 1: eight night hotel rooms there and people are still going,
Speaker 1: I suppose. But they have the highest murder ra per
Speaker 1: capita of any city in the world. Why is that,
Speaker 1: you say, Well, because of the cartels, Because the Sinaloa
Speaker 1: Cartel and some of these other cartels, the Nuevo Generation Cartel,
Speaker 1: um Nuevo Jalisco Generation Cartel and some of these others
Speaker 1: are all fighting it out for supremacy. But the worst
Speaker 1: part of the border right now for crossings is not
Speaker 1: the San Diego secret, despite the fact that Baja the peninsula,
Speaker 1: which I know is very long, but is home to
Speaker 1: some really nasty cartel violence. No, no, it's it's in
Speaker 1: other places along the border. You know, they've even this
Speaker 1: is people don't see nearly enough of of this reporting. Acapulco,
Speaker 1: which is a internationally known beach resort I believe, has
Speaker 1: had to deploy the military in Mexico to its beaches,
Speaker 1: not even to protect tourists, just to protect locals who
Speaker 1: want to go to the beach. They have marines, Mexican
Speaker 1: marines who have to go to the beach that people
Speaker 1: are able to go without fear of being shot or kidnapped.
Speaker 1: That is right across our border, folks, that kind of violence.
Speaker 1: And you know, when you start to look at what
Speaker 1: we could do to make things easier for us and
Speaker 1: easier for our Mexican counterparts, you know that's a part
Speaker 1: of this too. I actually want a prosperous Mexico. I
Speaker 1: want the cartels to be up against it. I wanted
Speaker 1: to be much less appealing for people to break our
Speaker 1: laws because it is much more appealing for Mexicans and
Speaker 1: Central Americans to stay and build prosperity in their own countries, right.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's what I think we could all
Speaker 1: say we would like that. And making it a more
Speaker 1: secure border, building this border wall, helping our border patrol
Speaker 1: on our Mexican counterparts is all a part of that.
Speaker 1: As long as you have cartels that have bank rolls
Speaker 1: that will will make corruption widespread with the Mexican government
Speaker 1: of Mexican security forces, and as long as the cartels
Speaker 1: are able to fight over billions of dollars, you're not
Speaker 1: going to have a secure stable Mexico and you're gonna
Speaker 1: have problems that spill over into our own country, which
Speaker 1: Trump is also taking note of. And I mentioned to
Speaker 1: you yesterday with MS their team we got more on
Speaker 1: the boarder we gotta talk about here. As you can tell,
Speaker 1: I find this to be an incredibly important issue. I
Speaker 1: think it's important for the future of this country. And
Speaker 1: I think that Trump drew a line in the san today.
Speaker 1: You could say he put the first brick up in
Speaker 1: the wall by making it quite clear he's not backing
Speaker 1: off this one. A lot of the haters, the underminers, uh,
Speaker 1: the detractors from Trump have been and you're not going
Speaker 1: to get this wall. It's a lie. He's clowning you.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there's no way he can walk back from it. Now.
Speaker 1: He's got to do everything he can to get that wall.
Speaker 1: And I think he's going to This is the guy
Speaker 1: who agreed to meet with Kim John Un despite all
Speaker 1: the conventional wisdom against it. Right. I think you're also
Speaker 1: seeing the president today who's going to be the one
Speaker 1: who starts getting that wall built. And that will be
Speaker 1: It will be a game changer. It was a game
Speaker 1: changer for Israel, and oh guess what, it's been a
Speaker 1: game changer at the San Diego sector of the US
Speaker 1: Mexico border. So we have proof already. If it wasn't
Speaker 1: gonna work, the left wouldn't hate it so much. Alright, alright,
Speaker 1: I'm fired up. I know we will be back with
Speaker 1: much more on this. Stay with me. Both countries recognized
Speaker 1: the need to stem the cross border flow of illegal weapons, drugs, people,
Speaker 1: and cash. I have a great relationship at the President
Speaker 1: of Mexico, wonderful guy Enrique, terrific guy. We're working, we're
Speaker 1: trying to work things out. We'll see whether or not
Speaker 1: it happens. I don't know that it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: He's a very good negotiator, he loves the people of Mexico,
Speaker 1: and he's working very hard. We'll see what happens. I
Speaker 1: like how even Trump, with all of his optimism and salesmanship,
Speaker 1: is like, I mean, it might happen, Like maybe it
Speaker 1: won't happen. But usually he's like, Oh, we're gonna get
Speaker 1: it done. It's gonna be amazing, it's gonna be great,
Speaker 1: you know, And that's part of his his charm and
Speaker 1: his power, quite honestly. But on this one, he's like,
Speaker 1: I don't know if Mexico is gonna be like all
Speaker 1: on board for this. I'm not sure. I could not sure.
Speaker 1: I could promise that, but I can't promise the wall,
Speaker 1: and he certainly is promising. By the way, Producer producer
Speaker 1: Mike actually has some some numbers for me. So well,
Speaker 1: So what I said about the cities what was true here?
Speaker 1: Lobos was one, Caracas is two, and Acapulco comes in third. Damn,
Speaker 1: look at I did not even know that, and those
Speaker 1: three cities came up in my discussion because that is
Speaker 1: how I roll. So there you go. Yeah, the violence
Speaker 1: in Venezuela's pretty self explanatory if you know what's going
Speaker 1: on with the government. But Acapulco, I think it's mostly
Speaker 1: because the I believe the Sinaloa cartel, which is really
Speaker 1: the oldest, is fighting a turf battle with the Nuevo
Speaker 1: Helisco or Helisco Nuevo Generation cartel, and which is ultra there.
Speaker 1: I mean they're both ultra violent, but they're they're finding
Speaker 1: out in Acapulco. And and then yeah, Los Cabos, but
Speaker 1: people still go there because I still if you go on,
Speaker 1: if you go on like hotels dot Com right now
Speaker 1: and you look up places in Cabo, they're like all
Speaker 1: in cloth with twelve to night for mom cation. Ya
Speaker 1: mom cation Cabo. No, moms do not mom cation Cabo. No. No,
Speaker 1: many petties on the beach in Cabo stay there? Yeah
Speaker 1: what what? What's a murder? Yeah? Bad things going on there,
Speaker 1: bad things going on there. You did not want to
Speaker 1: be anywhere near that. So, nonetheless, we we got to
Speaker 1: talk more about Trump in this policy of fighting. So
Speaker 1: we know the wall is important. He promised the wall,
Speaker 1: and also the other side was saying you'll never get it.
Speaker 1: He is threatening to veto the next funding bill if
Speaker 1: there's not funding for a wall. This is you know,
Speaker 1: with Congress funding for a wall next budget bill. And
Speaker 1: also sanctuary cities get defunded unless they stop their anti
Speaker 1: rule of law shenanigans. Nless they stop their lawlessness. What's
Speaker 1: that gonna look like? What's that gonna mean? You can
Speaker 1: see we're heavy on immigration this hour. We'll talk more
Speaker 1: about White House personnel and some other stuff. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. California sanctuary
Speaker 1: policies put the entire nation at risk. They're the best
Speaker 1: friend of the criminal. These smugglers, the traffickers, the gang members,
Speaker 1: they're all taking refuge. These policies released dangerous criminal offenders
Speaker 1: to prey on innocent people and nullify the federal law.
Speaker 1: They're threatening the security and the safety of the people
Speaker 1: of our country. The presidents going after sanctuary cities too.
Speaker 1: The promise here is that if they don't fall in
Speaker 1: line and start supporting federal law and stop supporting lawlessness,
Speaker 1: they're gonna stop getting some federal grant money. That's going
Speaker 1: to really sting some of these locales. What's the point
Speaker 1: of the federal government having grant money to give or
Speaker 1: not give. If states and cities get it without compliance
Speaker 1: to what the federal government is requesting, right, then then
Speaker 1: it's not a grant. Then it's just a demand. Then
Speaker 1: it's a an expectation. And what was it? He talked
Speaker 1: about it later today as well. You know, Trump spoke
Speaker 1: to a group of Marines and mentioned sanctuary cities to
Speaker 1: them too. My administration is confronting sanctuary city policies that
Speaker 1: nullify federal law, violate our constitution, and threatened the safety
Speaker 1: and security of our nation. They shield criminals. We can't
Speaker 1: do that, and that is why we are asking Congress
Speaker 1: to ensure that no federal funds subsidized this dangerous and
Speaker 1: unlawful behavior. We want to protect you, and we want
Speaker 1: to protect all of our families. We want to protect
Speaker 1: our nation. There is no other area of criminal law
Speaker 1: of which I am where at least that has cities,
Speaker 1: elected officials, even law enforcement, law enforcement officials too, who
Speaker 1: actively subvert criminal law. There's there's no other area that
Speaker 1: I'm that I'm aware of, um where this, where this
Speaker 1: happens in this way. Keep in mind that as much
Speaker 1: as I disapprove of the message, that's sent about federalism
Speaker 1: and about the role of the federal government. The states
Speaker 1: with the California legalization, uh de facto legalization in gosh
Speaker 1: if it's Colorado and Washington. But there are some other
Speaker 1: places have followed suit, right, or they've at least decriminalized it.
Speaker 1: There are a few places now, but a couple of
Speaker 1: states stretching back for a few years, have effectively decriminalized marijuana.
Speaker 1: But that's different because the federal government has said, all right,
Speaker 1: we're cool at that for now. Do I think that
Speaker 1: that's a good way for the country, But no, I
Speaker 1: think that Congress should you know, either, they should pass
Speaker 1: laws that prohibit substances at the federal level using the
Speaker 1: interstate commerce clause. By the way, which is distressing. The
Speaker 1: interstate commerce clauses abused by status. It is the many
Speaker 1: headed hydra from which so many of our authoritarian ills
Speaker 1: stem in this country. So much of what the federal
Speaker 1: government does that it shouldn't is because of Wickered v.
Speaker 1: Philburn and the interstate commerce clause. Quick version of it
Speaker 1: is the guys selling wheat, but he's like, I'm not
Speaker 1: selling across state lines, so they say, well, selling it
Speaker 1: within state lines. Affects the price across state lines. Therefore,
Speaker 1: will regulate it as though you're selling it across state lines.
Speaker 1: Once you apply that logic to things, there's really no
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as a state anymore, which is
Speaker 1: how you had in the nineties. Even the Violence Against
Speaker 1: Women Act pass at a federal level, even though all
Speaker 1: fifty states had statutes criminalizing, as they should domestic violence.
Speaker 1: But it's not a federal government issue. It's a state
Speaker 1: and local issue. But they said, well, it affects commerce.
Speaker 1: They've done this with any number of things. But if
Speaker 1: marijuana is not going to be illegal, the federal government
Speaker 1: should back off and not have it be illegal. Nonetheless,
Speaker 1: the point I'm making is about the state versus the
Speaker 1: federal and on drugs, at least the federal government says, okay,
Speaker 1: states will allow it. With immigration and sanctuary cities, the
Speaker 1: federal government's like, no, no, no, we gotta this is
Speaker 1: an urgent problem. We've got to handle this. We've got
Speaker 1: way too much illegal immigration happening in this country, way
Speaker 1: too many legal aliens running around. Many of them are dangerous,
Speaker 1: They're committing a lot of crimes, and this is a
Speaker 1: problem we have to address. And state and local governments
Speaker 1: are saying, sorry, I don't want to know no part
Speaker 1: of They don't want to help you on that one. Listen,
Speaker 1: I mean, nowhere else do you have this. Nowhere else
Speaker 1: do you have government authorities who are supposed to be
Speaker 1: about the rule of law, who are actively working to
Speaker 1: undermine the rule of law. And Trump has had enough
Speaker 1: of it and s indeed California is ground zero for
Speaker 1: this fight. And Trump singled out Governor Jerry Brown for
Speaker 1: being among the worst of the worst offenders of the
Speaker 1: sanctuary city policy type. Thank you having a Brown has
Speaker 1: done a very poor job running California. They have the
Speaker 1: highest taxes in the United States. The place is totally
Speaker 1: out of control. You have sanctuary cities where you have
Speaker 1: criminals living in the sanctuary cities, and then the mayor
Speaker 1: of Oakland goes out and notifies when Ice is going
Speaker 1: in to pick them up. And many of them were
Speaker 1: criminals with criminal records and very dangerous people. You would say,
Speaker 1: dangerous people. And uh No, I think the governor is
Speaker 1: doing a terrible job running the state of California. I
Speaker 1: think that's fair to say. I've got so many friends
Speaker 1: who live in California, who are like, yeah, it's beautiful here,
Speaker 1: it's great, but the taxes and government services and infrastructure,
Speaker 1: you know, not unless you are really rich and you
Speaker 1: know already got a maid in shade, you do not
Speaker 1: want to try to make it happen out in California.
Speaker 1: They say, it's just it's just too hard. Um, it's
Speaker 1: just there are too many regulations and too many hurdles
Speaker 1: putting the way of success, and successes increasingly penalized there.
Speaker 1: So look, I this is where you got to see
Speaker 1: if Trump is Trump is really going to get it done.
Speaker 1: There's no way for him to back off. There's no
Speaker 1: way for him to back off the wall without letting
Speaker 1: his base down there. It's it's just not possible. And
Speaker 1: I think this is one issue. You know that the
Speaker 1: Trump supporters, the real die hard Trump supporters, believe that
Speaker 1: they can give some leeway to Trump to get certain
Speaker 1: things done. They're not, oh, well, he's gonna get it
Speaker 1: all right away. But the day that Trump says, sorry,
Speaker 1: we can't make the wall happen and it's not and
Speaker 1: it's something that I could do something about, is the
Speaker 1: day that his base starts to crumble. If he and
Speaker 1: if he livers on the wall. The the opposite effect
Speaker 1: will happen, which is his base will stay with him
Speaker 1: through They'll give him so much, but let'll stay with
Speaker 1: him through anything, because I'll know. That was the single
Speaker 1: biggest promise of his entire campaign. That was also the
Speaker 1: promise that was most ridiculed by the left, and that
Speaker 1: got the Democrats the most upset. So the wall is
Speaker 1: a big deal. Um it is. It is a big deal,
Speaker 1: and it's not gonna get built all at once, and
Speaker 1: I know there's gonna be problems and everything else, but
Speaker 1: getting it going sends huge signals. And that's why Trump
Speaker 1: is out there today talking about how important it is
Speaker 1: to put up this wall and what it will mean
Speaker 1: for us going forward. You know, just just imagine if
Speaker 1: our southern border was like our northern border in terms
Speaker 1: of not having to worry as much about legal aliens,
Speaker 1: about criminal infiltration, even possible terrorist infiltration. We could live
Speaker 1: in that world. Our northern border doesn't keep us up
Speaker 1: at night with worry. Our southern border shouldn't, and it
Speaker 1: should be addressed. And this is an old school solution
Speaker 1: for a current day problem. Create an obstacle that gives
Speaker 1: you better ability to police and and gives you that additional,
Speaker 1: really real force multiplier effect of having yes, border patrol
Speaker 1: that can react quickly, have drones in the air, have
Speaker 1: all the different sensors and electronic assistance that they can
Speaker 1: bring to bear. But also you know, not just play, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, hide and seek and run around in the
Speaker 1: desert and trying to find people when all they could
Speaker 1: do is just keep walking. That's going to be a
Speaker 1: game changer, I think eight four four d to eight
Speaker 1: to five. If you want to chat about this or
Speaker 1: anything else, eight four four nin buck, You've got a
Speaker 1: lot more, including what's going on with the whole Tillerson
Speaker 1: Pompeo shake up. I'll give you more thoughts on that,
Speaker 1: So stay with me. You honor your duty to your country.
Speaker 1: Now we must honor our duty to you. For too long,
Speaker 1: the men and women of the United States Armed Forces
Speaker 1: have been asked to do more with less. You've borne
Speaker 1: the costs of under investment and deferred modernization and also
Speaker 1: deferred maintenance. You've endured longer and more frequent deployments. You've
Speaker 1: spent countless hours fixing and maintaining old equipment. President Trump,
Speaker 1: speaking earlier today at the Marine Corps air Station Miramar
Speaker 1: in San Diego. And it's always, I think some notable
Speaker 1: that when Trump speaks to the troops, he speaks with
Speaker 1: a a an affection and a reverence and our respect
Speaker 1: that is very apparent, despite the fact that the media
Speaker 1: has been trying for a long time to suggest that
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't respect the military, doesn't respect military service because
Speaker 1: of things he said to political opponents, UM and and
Speaker 1: every person and I know people on all sides of
Speaker 1: the aisle and all kinds of stuff, including military and
Speaker 1: intelligence work, but all the military folks I talked to
Speaker 1: her like, yeah, Trump is. Trump is very well liked
Speaker 1: as commander in chief, overwhelmingly well liked as commander in chief,
Speaker 1: and I don't think there's nearly enough attention given by
Speaker 1: the various media outlets to that fact. And his focusing
Speaker 1: on rebuilding parts of military that have not received adequate funding,
Speaker 1: and his efforts to improve different parts of that authorization
Speaker 1: and financial authorization process, I think is getting a lot
Speaker 1: of people over onto his side, for um uh, from
Speaker 1: those who are military and also from the veteran community
Speaker 1: to um. But he also mentioned nuclear force specifically, we're
Speaker 1: also modernizing our nuclear capabilities and rebuilding our nuclear infrastructure.
Speaker 1: We're investing more money than we have ever done before
Speaker 1: because we have to be so far ahead of any
Speaker 1: other country. It's a capability we never even want to
Speaker 1: think about using, but we have to be prepared, and
Speaker 1: in a nuclear front, we are so far and will
Speaker 1: be so far ahead of any other country. You know,
Speaker 1: I think it's notable that with the recent bluster from
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin on the nuclear weapons that he has in
Speaker 1: his arsenal, it's not some people said he doesn't have
Speaker 1: that capability and this stuff he's talking about with the
Speaker 1: you know what, hypersonic glide vehicles and things like that. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's not that it would be impossible to do. Just
Speaker 1: many of the analysts I saw said they're not they
Speaker 1: don't believe, or they're not sure that Putin has already
Speaker 1: gotten there. But these are things that will most likely
Speaker 1: be a reality very soon if they're not already, and
Speaker 1: that will change the way that we have to think
Speaker 1: about missile defense and intercontinental ballistic missiles. And once you
Speaker 1: start adding advanced technologies into it, you know, you no
Speaker 1: longer have mutually assured destruction if one side can reasonably
Speaker 1: be expected to shoot down whatever missiles may come its way,
Speaker 1: if they're old school missiles or or on the other
Speaker 1: side of it, if one side of the equation, say
Speaker 1: the Russians or somebody else, has missiles that can reliably
Speaker 1: get around any defense that we have, you know that
Speaker 1: that changes the strategic calculation. And I think Trump is
Speaker 1: aware of this, and it's very just like with Reagan.
Speaker 1: You remember, these are very expensive issues and you have
Speaker 1: to take a long term view. But if we want
Speaker 1: to maintain all our military pre eminence and can maintain
Speaker 1: our role as the world superpower, we can't allow ourselves
Speaker 1: to fall behind on this and think in terms that
Speaker 1: are outdated about all of it. So oh, but there's
Speaker 1: one other part is that it was like a hey
Speaker 1: moment today, I'm like, WHOA hold on a second, it's
Speaker 1: Trump really gonna yeah, he's going there. He's talking about
Speaker 1: talking about space and the space race in terms of
Speaker 1: national security. So think of that spaceforce because we're spending
Speaker 1: a lot and we have a lot of private money
Speaker 1: coming in tremendous you saw what happened the other day,
Speaker 1: and tremendous success. From the very beginning, many of our
Speaker 1: astronauts have been soldiers and sailors, airmen, coast guardsmen and marines,
Speaker 1: and our service members will be vital to ensuring America
Speaker 1: continues to lead the way into the stars. We're gonna
Speaker 1: lead the way in space. We're way way behind and
Speaker 1: we're catching up fast. Space Force. I like it. I
Speaker 1: want to be a part of Space Force sounds awesome.
Speaker 1: I'd want some kind of laser gun that goes pu P,
Speaker 1: you know, Space Force. Think you'd be a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: I would enjoy it. But it is getting more and
Speaker 1: more a reality. You mentioned the private sector money that's
Speaker 1: coming into it. Look at what Elon Musk just said,
Speaker 1: I think yesterday about Mars. Get yourself to Mars. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's a reference to total Recall Schwarzenegger, who will be
Speaker 1: making an appearance later on in the show as well.
Speaker 1: But yes, Elon Musk play it. We're building the first ship,
Speaker 1: the first Mars m interplanetary ship UM right now, and
Speaker 1: I think we'll prob fail to do short flights, short
Speaker 1: sort of up and down flights UM. Only sometime in
Speaker 1: the first half of next year. I'm gonna have ships
Speaker 1: visiting Mars. Folks. You know, this is one thing that
Speaker 1: the climate change alarmists and the radical environmentalists left and
Speaker 1: the redistributionists who just think that we have a It's
Speaker 1: all about what we do with the pie we have now,
Speaker 1: not what the the economic pie looks like tomorrow. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know what the government can do with it meeting
Speaker 1: who they give it to, is that this is all
Speaker 1: gonna be changing so rapidly. You know. One thing I
Speaker 1: will say is I kind of hate airlines. And I
Speaker 1: know it's easy to hate on airlines, but I really
Speaker 1: have a tough time not hating on them these days. Uh,
Speaker 1: every time I fly, there's a problem, and it's it's
Speaker 1: as reliable as clockwork. Every time I fly there is
Speaker 1: a problem. And I saw that terrible story about a
Speaker 1: woman who had to put her was forced to put
Speaker 1: her dog in the overhead compartment and the dog died.
Speaker 1: I would lose my mind. I hope she sues that
Speaker 1: airline out of you know, sues it's pants off, so
Speaker 1: to speak. And I just would like to see technology
Speaker 1: advanced to a point where we can get airlines that
Speaker 1: are not punishing us so that they can make more money,
Speaker 1: because that's what they really do. It's it's put you
Speaker 1: in the most uncomfortable seats in the most uncomfortable places,
Speaker 1: and you know, and and have you at their mercy
Speaker 1: and everything else, and it's all for their bottom line.
Speaker 1: And I would just love to see disruption in that industry.
Speaker 1: And I'm hoping that air and space travel will advance
Speaker 1: to a point where we can finally say sayonara to
Speaker 1: the old version of the airlines we've seen for decades now,
Speaker 1: where it's just it's it's their world and you're living
Speaker 1: in it for the few hours or whatever it is
Speaker 1: that you're trying to get to wherever it is you're going.
Speaker 1: It's uh, you know, space flight. I know it's not
Speaker 1: directly tied in this, but I'm thinking about flying cars too.
Speaker 1: And all this technological progress is going to change a
Speaker 1: lot when it comes to policies, and so you want
Speaker 1: to you want to keep that in mind. Maybe another
Speaker 1: day I'll give you a speech on how we're decarbonizing
Speaker 1: as a society already. And that's why the climate change
Speaker 1: alarm is just have no idea what they're talking about.
Speaker 1: We are naturally decarbonizing using less carbon intensive fuels all
Speaker 1: the time. It's happening as a result of technology. Um,
Speaker 1: but there I go on all that stuff. We're gonna
Speaker 1: get into the taylorson Pompeo shift, and maybe also that
Speaker 1: poisoning in Russia, and we'll talk about that and more
Speaker 1: coming up here. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: Sex in his back. Welcome to our two of the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. I thank you very much for being here.
Speaker 1: We have the firing of Tillerson as Secretary of State
Speaker 1: to get into for a few moments here, as well
Speaker 1: as the elevation of see I Director Pompeo to the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State role, and the also the promotion of
Speaker 1: a woman to head the c I A. And then
Speaker 1: you have a Trump aid who has gone for security
Speaker 1: clearance reasons. I don't find that last part of it
Speaker 1: all that interesting or noteworthy. Money if people leave administrations
Speaker 1: for reasons like this all the time, So I'll leave
Speaker 1: that one off our docket for now. But Tillerson, uh, well,
Speaker 1: he said this about the end of his tenure as
Speaker 1: what we used to refer to as Sex State. Here's
Speaker 1: what he said. I received a call today from the
Speaker 1: President United States at a little afternoon time from Air
Speaker 1: Force one, and I've also spoken to White House Chief
Speaker 1: of Staff Kelly, to ensure we have clarity as to
Speaker 1: the days ahead. What is most important is to ensure
Speaker 1: an orderly of smooth transition during the time that the
Speaker 1: country continues to face significant policy and national security challenges.
Speaker 1: Has such effective At the end of the day, I'm
Speaker 1: delegating all responsibilities of the office of the Secretary the
Speaker 1: Deputy Secretary of State Sullivan. My commission is Secretary of
Speaker 1: State will terminate at midnight mart one, so he's out.
Speaker 1: I didn't have a whole lot to say about the
Speaker 1: President on this one. Did mention what's sort of left
Speaker 1: to deal with in terms of the portfolio the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State, notably China and Russia. Much work remains to
Speaker 1: establish a clear view of the nature of our future
Speaker 1: relationship with China. How shall we deal with one another
Speaker 1: over the next fifty years and insure a period of
Speaker 1: prosperity for all of our people's free of conflict between
Speaker 1: two very powerful nations. And much work remains to respond
Speaker 1: to the troubling behavior and actions on the part of
Speaker 1: the Russian government. Russia must assessed carefully as to how
Speaker 1: its actions are in the best interests of the Russian
Speaker 1: people and of the world. More broadly, continuing on their
Speaker 1: current trajectory is likely to lead to greater obscolation on
Speaker 1: their part, the situation, which is not in anyone's interesting.
Speaker 1: So Tillerson is done, and now we have to look
Speaker 1: at what that means going forward. Now, now I mentioned
Speaker 1: the last hour, I think that Pompeo makes more sense
Speaker 1: as the person to be in this role. I think
Speaker 1: that Pompeo is aligned with Trump on policy. I think
Speaker 1: that Pompeo is a a guy who understands the political
Speaker 1: fight that the administration is currently in. And I believe
Speaker 1: that Pompeo will be more effective then Tillerson was on
Speaker 1: issues like Iran and their recertification or the lack of certification,
Speaker 1: whatever ends up happening, on the Iran nuclear deal, on
Speaker 1: dealing with these upcoming North Korea talks, and then also
Speaker 1: everything else that comes long being Secretary of State. I
Speaker 1: just think that Pompeo and Trump, well, Trump says this,
Speaker 1: and it's not just my my opinion, man, it's also
Speaker 1: but the President himself has made quite clear um that
Speaker 1: he really gets along with Pompeo. I've worked with Mike
Speaker 1: Pompeo now for quite some time, tremendous energy, tremendous intellect.
Speaker 1: We're always on the same wavelength. The relationship has been
Speaker 1: very good, and that's what I need at a secretary
Speaker 1: of State. I wish wreck Pillerson well. Gina, by the way,
Speaker 1: who I know very well, who I've worked very closely,
Speaker 1: will be the first woman director of the c I A.
Speaker 1: He's an outstanding persisdon who also I have gotten it
Speaker 1: over very well. But I don't have any opinion for
Speaker 1: you really on the the new the new director. Um,
Speaker 1: I've been out long enough and away from it long
Speaker 1: then off at any of the kind of you know,
Speaker 1: I don't. I mean, I don't. I don't know her,
Speaker 1: So I don't know anything about this. Got nothing for
Speaker 1: you on it. That's what I'm trying to say. So
Speaker 1: if Trump says she's good, I mean, all I know
Speaker 1: is what I'm reading about in the newspapers, just like you.
Speaker 1: And we'll have to see first female though, to head
Speaker 1: the agencies. So that's that's gonna be an interesting talking
Speaker 1: point that will get lost very quickly because the media
Speaker 1: that the media doesn't consider women who are Republicans, or
Speaker 1: even women in a Republican administration to be breaking any
Speaker 1: glass ceilings that that can't really happen. But Pompeo over
Speaker 1: chillers didn't what to see. I mean, Trump said that
Speaker 1: look that that Rex and he that they were just
Speaker 1: having some some issues between the two of them, that's
Speaker 1: one way to put it. I really didn't discuss it
Speaker 1: very much with them, honestly, Uh. I made that decision
Speaker 1: by myself. Rex wasn't you know, in our in this country.
Speaker 1: I made see North Korean decision with consultation from many people.
Speaker 1: But I made that decision by myself. I actually got
Speaker 1: along well with Rex, but really it was a different mindset.
Speaker 1: It was a different thinking. I've gotten the long well
Speaker 1: with Mike Bumbao, and frankly, I get along well with
Speaker 1: Rex su And you know, I wish Rex a lot
Speaker 1: of good things. I think Rex will be much happier now.
Speaker 1: I think so too. So I don't really want to
Speaker 1: get to now. Tillerson gets to go back to being
Speaker 1: the former CEO of Exxon Mobile, the until recently it's
Speaker 1: the biggest company in the world, and he's gonna be
Speaker 1: someone who you know, he has a lot of he
Speaker 1: can spend a lot of money, He's got a lot
Speaker 1: of money, he can hang out and do whatever he wants,
Speaker 1: and he was just too much of an alpha dog
Speaker 1: to play the role that he needed to in this administration.
Speaker 1: We all know in Trump world there can only be
Speaker 1: one alpha dog. And you know, Rex Tillerson, I think,
Speaker 1: was always kind of like, I don't need this job.
Speaker 1: I'll do it to serve my country. But if you
Speaker 1: take that position and you don't see eye to eye
Speaker 1: with Trump on where things need to go, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be tough. It's gonna be tough. You get you get
Speaker 1: to to alpha's in the room. You know, two can enter,
Speaker 1: only one, only one will leave, right I mean to
Speaker 1: or like Highlander, there can be only one. It was
Speaker 1: like that in this administration. That's my analysis is the
Speaker 1: Highlander theory of Trump's cabinet picks. There can be only one.
Speaker 1: So there you have it much for you on that
Speaker 1: before Other than that, you know, I think I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I want to mix it up here. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about something that I'd be willing to
Speaker 1: bet you haven't heard much coverage of anywhere else, if
Speaker 1: any and the media is trying very hard not to
Speaker 1: cover it. And I've got just enough for just enough
Speaker 1: vetting an analysis of it to share the tonight. Did
Speaker 1: you know that South African South African government may go
Speaker 1: forward with and appropriation which is just a fans we
Speaker 1: have saying season land, season land from farmers. Why are
Speaker 1: they season this land from the farmers because the farmers
Speaker 1: are white. This is a whole campaign that is being ignored,
Speaker 1: swept aside, kept out of the public's eye, and we
Speaker 1: have to start asking why why is that the case?
Speaker 1: Why are am I sitting here? And I'm willing to
Speaker 1: bet that very few of you have heard, um maybe
Speaker 1: some of you have seen something on social media about it,
Speaker 1: but it is it is very much going on that
Speaker 1: there is a campaign now to dispossess people in South Africa,
Speaker 1: which is the wealthiest country in Sub Saharan Africa. Do
Speaker 1: you dispossess people based on their skin color? Because the
Speaker 1: government now is saying, particularly the more radical Marxist elements
Speaker 1: of the South African government are saying that the land
Speaker 1: was never there is to begin with. And some very
Speaker 1: very disturbing stuff is coming out about all this, and
Speaker 1: it's gonna be tough for the media to keep hiding
Speaker 1: what's going on here. You have campaigns, uh systemic campaigns
Speaker 1: of intimidation, violence, and rape against the white farmers that
Speaker 1: have been well documented now and the government is not
Speaker 1: only unwilling to help, but there was one case that
Speaker 1: I read about where a woman was trying to defend herself,
Speaker 1: I believe, with a firearm and she ended up being arrested.
Speaker 1: So you've got very very dangerous things going on right
Speaker 1: now in South Africa, and I just want to talk
Speaker 1: to you about what's happening there because how is this
Speaker 1: not a bigger news story? And also, at what point
Speaker 1: do we get to say that the Trump administration should
Speaker 1: consider taking in these farmers as refugees. They're English speaking
Speaker 1: there from a a an Anglo Anglo tradition of of
Speaker 1: culture and rule of law. How how about we open
Speaker 1: our doors to the the farmers in South Africa who
Speaker 1: are being threatened with murder and dispossession of their land. Now,
Speaker 1: this is a question that I'm just wondering why no
Speaker 1: one's really asking it, but you see this happening time
Speaker 1: and again. It's kind of like the Christians in Iraq.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're facing extinction and they're being openly targeted.
Speaker 1: But you know, we we can't really help them here
Speaker 1: because because what their minority there, they're under threat. Well yeah,
Speaker 1: but we don't want to seem like we're playing favorites.
Speaker 1: We play favorites with refugee populations all the time, but
Speaker 1: when we look outside our own borders, we have this
Speaker 1: sense of well, whoever is a minority or a a
Speaker 1: you know, somebody who's either suffers from oppression or enjoys
Speaker 1: privilege here, they must have the same thing and the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. That's not how the world works.
Speaker 1: I just think you'll find this to be a fascinating
Speaker 1: story and and frightening. And when you look at the
Speaker 1: precursor situation or the most similar situation with Zimbabwe next
Speaker 1: door are h then you see what the future could
Speaker 1: look like unless this gets stopped in the international community
Speaker 1: should have a role to play here. The US government
Speaker 1: should speak up. I'll give you some of the details
Speaker 1: on this week. Come back. I think you'll be fascinated
Speaker 1: by this. Stay with me. So, what is going on
Speaker 1: in South Africa right now? It's been some reporting on
Speaker 1: it here and there, but there seems to be an
Speaker 1: unwillingness or a desire in the media to not pay
Speaker 1: any attention to this, even though some of those who
Speaker 1: are in positions of authority and power saying some pretty
Speaker 1: terrible things in South Africa's parliament just past emotion in
Speaker 1: the last few weeks that would that could lead to
Speaker 1: the seizure of land from white farmers, and that can
Speaker 1: get very violent and very scary as well. And on
Speaker 1: top of that it's deeply immoral and wrong. But you have,
Speaker 1: for example, Julius Malema, who is a far left Marxist
Speaker 1: radical but elected member of parliament in South Africa, who
Speaker 1: at a at a rally earlier this year said this
Speaker 1: about the white farmers that's been living peacefully, that had
Speaker 1: been swimming in a pile, be going themselves because they're
Speaker 1: always the high school older. Our peace was this time
Speaker 1: by white men's arbal. They call me black gino sign.
Speaker 1: They killed our people. King pay whats gotten to step
Speaker 1: them keeping when they found the place put up against here,
Speaker 1: they killed them. There's them like we are not calling
Speaker 1: for the lot of white people, at least for them.
Speaker 1: I know it was tough with the audience here, he
Speaker 1: said at the end. This is the leader of the
Speaker 1: Economic Freedom Fighters Party in South Africa. He's a political
Speaker 1: leader there. He says they're not calling for the slaughter
Speaker 1: of white people yet. Is that a public rally, folks,
Speaker 1: That that's the kind of thing that you know in
Speaker 1: most countries, most societies would raise a lot of eyebrows,
Speaker 1: get a lot of attention. This was earlier this year
Speaker 1: and there is some reporting on this, but not nearly enough.
Speaker 1: Here is part of a report from sky News, the
Speaker 1: UK owned international news channel, and here's what they rep
Speaker 1: order had to say about the violence against white farmers
Speaker 1: in South Africa. What we've saying over there is is
Speaker 1: placed to respond. They will turn up, but it seems
Speaker 1: hardly anyone has ever arrested. I think another problem with
Speaker 1: South Africa has been this mandate to him employ the
Speaker 1: cycle previously disadvantaged at any cost, and that's including in
Speaker 1: the place force. So we have very lovely skilled place
Speaker 1: who don't seem to have the capacity to investigate these
Speaker 1: crimes properly. What's refferm to you with employing the previously
Speaker 1: disadvantaged is effectively a form of affirmative action. So you're
Speaker 1: saying you've got police that have no skills, have no
Speaker 1: idea what they're doing, but they're being employed for largely
Speaker 1: political reasons. Who are showing up and being told, hey,
Speaker 1: this white farmer has been attacked in what is a
Speaker 1: a racial and racist attack right there, attacking people because
Speaker 1: they're white, and they feel that they have a green
Speaker 1: light from the government which just voted the parliament just
Speaker 1: voted overwhelmingly to seize the property of white farmers. Of
Speaker 1: farmland in South Africa is in the hands of white farmers,
Speaker 1: and they show please show up, and you know they
Speaker 1: don't want to. They they don't want to or unwilling
Speaker 1: to do anything about it, or unable to do anything
Speaker 1: about it because of their lack of training. So this
Speaker 1: is really disturbing stuff. And and people are saying, well,
Speaker 1: why don't the farmers leave. We'll think about this. Who
Speaker 1: are they going to sell their land to? And their farmers,
Speaker 1: their their livelihood, everything is tied up in their land.
Speaker 1: If they leave, what do they have. Who will even
Speaker 1: buy the farm from them? The answer is nobody, because
Speaker 1: right now the government's talking about literally seizing it, nationalizing
Speaker 1: for the purposes of social justice or in this case,
Speaker 1: racial justice, nationalizing farms to redistribute to the people. By
Speaker 1: the way, this is very similar to the social justice
Speaker 1: rhetoric you've heard in Venezuela until recently as well. Oh,
Speaker 1: we have to give more to the people, land to
Speaker 1: the people, redistribution reforms. This stuff always ends in disaster.
Speaker 1: It is ended an absolute disaster next door in Zimbabwe,
Speaker 1: which had the same program going on basically now it's
Speaker 1: not it's has to still pass that has to be
Speaker 1: signed off on, but the legislative branch of the South
Speaker 1: African government, the parliament, has passed it overwhelmingly. In Zimbabwe,
Speaker 1: the seizure of land from white farmers, which was done
Speaker 1: with with the absolute you know, complicity and on the
Speaker 1: orders really of the government, has turned Zimbabwe from a
Speaker 1: country that was Southern Africa's bread basket into a country
Speaker 1: that can't feed itself, that has to import food, that
Speaker 1: has food shortages regularly um and has hyper inflation of
Speaker 1: a level of the currency has actually turned into nothing.
Speaker 1: Their their currency has really no value. They've abandoned it.
Speaker 1: They literally inflated the currency into into zero. Uh. But
Speaker 1: things did not get better when they did their land
Speaker 1: appropriations there. And if you want to see what that
Speaker 1: was like, because it was happening relatively recently, a documentary,
Speaker 1: I would recommend to you is Mugabe and the White
Speaker 1: I believe it's Mugabe and the White African um which
Speaker 1: I saw years ago and it's specifically about is that
Speaker 1: mcgabi in the white Farmer? I can't remember. Um, I'll producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: let me know which one. It is a documentary. It's
Speaker 1: very good. I saw maybe ten years ago. And it
Speaker 1: shows you you've got a documentary is living on a
Speaker 1: on a white farm? This is in Zimbabwe now next
Speaker 1: door formerly Rhodesia and Zimbabwe after independence. Uh, and they've
Speaker 1: got these what is it, the white African? Yeah, Zimbabwe
Speaker 1: and the white Mugabe rather and the white African. Mugabe
Speaker 1: is the dictator of or was until recently the dictator
Speaker 1: of of Zimbabwe. Very bad guy, by the way, very
Speaker 1: bad guy. Um. But in that you see these government
Speaker 1: officials who show up and are just like, you know,
Speaker 1: you white people are scum, your thieves. This is not
Speaker 1: your land. It's our land now it belongs to the people.
Speaker 1: Which by the people they just mean government cronies and
Speaker 1: the power structure. But they're just gonna take it. And
Speaker 1: what happened is they stripped the farms down to nothing.
Speaker 1: Nobody was able to or cared to be able to
Speaker 1: plant any crops. They just this is you know, they
Speaker 1: took all the I mean the copper wiring out of
Speaker 1: the buildings, They took the farm equipment, they sold it off.
Speaker 1: Everything was sold and destroyed and nothing left. What do
Speaker 1: people that think is gonna happen if they seize the
Speaker 1: farmers from the farmers in South Africa? What messages that
Speaker 1: send of the world. By the way, Yeah, this is
Speaker 1: distressing and I just would want to note, given to
Speaker 1: how much we talked about refugees, we take refugees from
Speaker 1: Central America because Central America is violent, not because Central
Speaker 1: Americans are being targeted for being Central Americans. We're talking
Speaker 1: about racial targeting by the government in South Africa, a
Speaker 1: relatively advanced economy and country. Why haven't you heard about
Speaker 1: this until now? He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton is back. It is now clear that Mr. Scrippan
Speaker 1: and his daughter were poisoned with a military grade nerve
Speaker 1: agent of a type developed by Russia. This is part
Speaker 1: of a group of nerve agents known as Novi chok.
Speaker 1: Based on the positive identification of this chemical agent by
Speaker 1: world leading experts at the Defense Science and Technology Laboratory
Speaker 1: at Porton down our knowledge that Russia has previously produced
Speaker 1: this agent and would still be capable of doing so,
Speaker 1: Russia's record of conducting state sponsored assassinations, and our assessment
Speaker 1: that Russia views some defectors as legitimate targets for assassinations.
Speaker 1: The government has concluded that it is highly likely that
Speaker 1: Russia was responsible for the act against Serge and to
Speaker 1: the Theresa May, British Prime Minister laying down the law
Speaker 1: there on Moscow and this is this is brazen stuff,
Speaker 1: but it's not new for Russia really. I mean this
Speaker 1: using this substance um, which is a nerve agent that
Speaker 1: as I did some researchs today was coming across that
Speaker 1: it's more potent than VX gas, which sounds like very
Speaker 1: very very nasty stuff indeed. But to assassinate somebody with
Speaker 1: a nerve agent on a street in the UK or
Speaker 1: on a park bench I think it's where he was
Speaker 1: found with his daughter, or to try to I know
Speaker 1: they're in there. I believe they're both in hospital and
Speaker 1: who knows what the long term damages. But this, this
Speaker 1: is how the Russians do things. They enforce loyalty. I
Speaker 1: mean Russia is really a run as a mafia state,
Speaker 1: and there's the what's the omerta, the code of silence, right,
Speaker 1: they kind of enforced that extra territorially around the world.
Speaker 1: If you defect or that's the old, the old Soviet terminology.
Speaker 1: But if you become an informant for a foreign government
Speaker 1: of foreign intelligence service, or if the Russians believe you
Speaker 1: two have become one, they will get rid of you
Speaker 1: in a way that's meant to show that they. Yeah,
Speaker 1: their fingerprints are all over this. It shows that the
Speaker 1: Russians were behind it. It sends the message very clearly,
Speaker 1: and that's just the way they do things. And you
Speaker 1: start to wonder, well, what are we what are we expecting?
Speaker 1: What are we expecting the response to be? You know,
Speaker 1: this March fourth nerve agent attack on serage screen Paul
Speaker 1: and his daughter Julia also put bystanders at risk and
Speaker 1: bystander who were exposed to this poison. The poison has
Speaker 1: actually left traces at a pub and a pizza parlor
Speaker 1: that they visited, So we're not entirely clear are they've
Speaker 1: gone where they're just making sure I'm not missing this
Speaker 1: on where they were put in contact with this military
Speaker 1: grade nerve agent. But we do know that the Russians
Speaker 1: did this understanding that we were likely to find out
Speaker 1: that it was the Russians, or not that we would
Speaker 1: find out that it was the Russians once we uh,
Speaker 1: we're looking at this, and I know people are already
Speaker 1: bringing up the previous poisons they've done. I mean there
Speaker 1: was one way back when that I think was traced
Speaker 1: to the UH. This was on a on a bridge
Speaker 1: and I think it was traced to the Bulgarian a
Speaker 1: secret police trained by the Soviets, but I could be
Speaker 1: wrong about that. Where they used a rice and tipped
Speaker 1: pellet in an umbrella on on what was a successful assassination.
Speaker 1: This is what they do, and that was for being
Speaker 1: a dissident. I mean there was a time when the
Speaker 1: Soviets would kill you just for being a former for
Speaker 1: being a former Soviet who was telling the world the
Speaker 1: truth about what was going on behind the Iron Curtain.
Speaker 1: But now if you are a turncoat on the Kremlin
Speaker 1: anywhere in the world, they'll come after you. Now what
Speaker 1: should people have asked me this? You know, what should
Speaker 1: we do about? Oh, by the way, Trump is is uh,
Speaker 1: it's talked about this one earlier today too. As soon
Speaker 1: as we get the fact straight, and we're gonna be
Speaker 1: speaking with the British today. We're speaking with Theresa mate today.
Speaker 1: As as soon as we get the fact straight. If
Speaker 1: we agree with them, we will condemn my show, whoever
Speaker 1: it may be. He says, we'll condemn them for a
Speaker 1: lot of people. That's not sufficient in this case. But
Speaker 1: then I started to push and say, well, what would
Speaker 1: you like him to do? You know, it was a
Speaker 1: Russian missile with Russian back separatists that shot a plane
Speaker 1: full of AIDS researchers out of the sky and kill
Speaker 1: over a hundred people. I forget what the full number was.
Speaker 1: Remember that back a few years ago under the Obama
Speaker 1: administration and a Russian missile shot a civilian jet liner
Speaker 1: out of the sky. You know what, what was the
Speaker 1: big retaliation we did there? Now they'll say it was
Speaker 1: an accident, but the point is the Russians were responsible
Speaker 1: for that. Um it was Russian aggression in Ukraine that
Speaker 1: even made that a problem in the first place. What
Speaker 1: would folks really like us do. Maybe they'll expel diplomats
Speaker 1: in the UK, you know, maybe they will get rid
Speaker 1: of some people that they believe are stooping around doing
Speaker 1: shady stuff for the Russians in the UK. All right,
Speaker 1: But the truth is, you know, we've got to find
Speaker 1: more creative ways to slap back at Putin. I mean,
Speaker 1: the media is gonna complain about how, oh it's it's
Speaker 1: not strong enough and the language isn't isn't clear enough.
Speaker 1: What's that? You think Putin gives a crap what anybody
Speaker 1: in the country says about what Russia did. No, right,
Speaker 1: that's just foolishness, that's just utter nonsense. So then you
Speaker 1: have to look too, Okay, what are really the feasible responses?
Speaker 1: And the answer is I haven't seen one yet. I
Speaker 1: don't know what we're gonna do about this. You know,
Speaker 1: the Russians played dirty and they played by a different code,
Speaker 1: and we've already got sanctions against them. So we'll keep
Speaker 1: an eye on this. I'm gonna try to think of
Speaker 1: what a what a good retaliatory response would be. And
Speaker 1: we've got our friend, uh Fred Flights join us here
Speaker 1: talking about North Korea in a minute, so stay with me.
Speaker 1: So North Korea big in the headlines in the last
Speaker 1: few days because of the upcoming Trump Kim Jong un summit.
Speaker 1: Some people are saying this is going to be the
Speaker 1: beginning of a of a new era in US North
Speaker 1: Korean relations. Others are saying it's a trap, it's a
Speaker 1: terrible idea, it's gonna be a diplomatic ambush of sorts. Well,
Speaker 1: what's true and what's not. We've got Fred Flights with
Speaker 1: us now on the line. He is, like me, a
Speaker 1: former CIA analyst uh pred is also the off of
Speaker 1: the upcoming UH The Coming North Korean Nuclear Nightmare, which
Speaker 1: is a book you should all check out. It's available
Speaker 1: on Amazon, and he's a senior vice president for policy
Speaker 1: and Programs at the Center for Security Policy. Fred, Great
Speaker 1: to have you back, man, Thanks for making the time.
Speaker 1: Hey Bacco to be here. All right, let's let's start
Speaker 1: before we get into the specifics of your book, although
Speaker 1: it's obviously going to tie into our conversation. What do
Speaker 1: you what do you make of the Trump offer? Just
Speaker 1: take us to the thirty thousand foot view here. Well,
Speaker 1: I think we have to consider that President Trump has
Speaker 1: changed in the game concerning North Korea's unorthodox diplomacy, which
Speaker 1: everyone was criticizing a few years ago as trying to
Speaker 1: get US into a war. Those same people who had
Speaker 1: nothing bad to say about Obama's abysmal policies, the latter
Speaker 1: runs North Korea's nuclear missile programs to surge. Now they're
Speaker 1: condemning the President for giving away too much. So I
Speaker 1: think the President has put the fear of God in
Speaker 1: the in the in the North Koreans and forced them
Speaker 1: to change tactics. Um, I don't think there's sincere. Frankly,
Speaker 1: I think that this is probably a ploy to divide
Speaker 1: US some other countries, to get concessions and to weaken
Speaker 1: sanctions and to buy time to continue developing its nuclear
Speaker 1: missile programs. But at a minimum, we have a change
Speaker 1: in tactics, and the next task is to get the
Speaker 1: North Koreans to prove their sincerity and wanting to do
Speaker 1: nuclear eyes. Now, the pressure is going to continue. Do
Speaker 1: you think that it would be wise for the administration
Speaker 1: to continue to reach out to China and others say
Speaker 1: you've got to keep this going? Or could that sour
Speaker 1: the talks before they even happen. Now we have to
Speaker 1: keep the pressure on. We're going to do that. The
Speaker 1: South Koreans has said that they're going to do that.
Speaker 1: We can't do what we've done in the past, basically
Speaker 1: let our guard down, which is what the North Koreans
Speaker 1: are after weakening sanctions. And you know, when we start
Speaker 1: pressing them for things like inspections, they've got to be
Speaker 1: robust inspections. We can't do what the Iranians and the
Speaker 1: North Koreans have done in similar circumstances, putting a lot
Speaker 1: of the sensitive sites off limits, so the world can't
Speaker 1: determine what types of illegal nuclear activities they were engaged in.
Speaker 1: Speaking of Fred Flights, he's a formacy I analysts and
Speaker 1: author of The Coming North Korean Nuclear Nightmare. Fred, take
Speaker 1: me into the book, which is obviously very topical because
Speaker 1: we're now faced with a the most important negotiation. I
Speaker 1: think it's fair to say of Trump's life most likely
Speaker 1: thus far, it's certainly got to make it in the
Speaker 1: top three or four. Um. But tell me about the
Speaker 1: North Korean Nuclear Nightmare as you see it. Well, The
Speaker 1: Coming North kore Nuclear Nightmare has a subtitle what Trump
Speaker 1: must do to reverse Obama Strategic Patients. You know, I
Speaker 1: talked about how numerous presidents have mishandled North Korea and
Speaker 1: have been taken advantage of certainly Clinton was George W.
Speaker 1: Bush was taken advantage up by the North queens very badly.
Speaker 1: But nothing compares to the incredibly incompetence date eg Patient's
Speaker 1: policy of the Abom administration, which basically was a policy
Speaker 1: to kick the North Korean situation down the road. Well,
Speaker 1: It's nuclear missile programs were growing and growing and growing
Speaker 1: under Kim Jong Owen, and that left what President Trump
Speaker 1: has often described as a mess when he came into office.
Speaker 1: We know Susan Rice said earlier in the Trump administration
Speaker 1: that we just have to accept North Korea as a
Speaker 1: nuclear power. That sort of sums up the Abom administration's
Speaker 1: approach to ran into Korea. Let's just live with it.
Speaker 1: That's unacceptable. That's what the president said. And I think
Speaker 1: by actually putting the use of force on the table
Speaker 1: and an unorthodox farm policy really has ratchet up sanctions
Speaker 1: and sanctions compliance. As I said earlier, he has changed
Speaker 1: the game towards North Korea, and I discussed that in
Speaker 1: the book. Now, fred I as I see it, um
Speaker 1: and there might be a third option I'm not bringing
Speaker 1: up here, so feel free to toss that in the
Speaker 1: next two But assuming the Trump talks fail, which I
Speaker 1: think and this is not a declaration from my part
Speaker 1: about whether I think it's a good idea or not.
Speaker 1: I'm actually I think that that Trump your point, shaking
Speaker 1: up the game. He's got to do something right. I mean,
Speaker 1: the pathway we're on is not sustainable. But let's say
Speaker 1: that it doesn't happen. Let's say it is. What I
Speaker 1: believe you agree is the most likely scenario. That this
Speaker 1: is either Kim Jong installing for time, trying to take
Speaker 1: some concessions out of our hands, all the things that
Speaker 1: one would expect here from this regime based on previous behavior.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that we have two paths which
Speaker 1: after that, which would be on the one hand, learned
Speaker 1: to try and live with a fully nuclear capable North
Speaker 1: Korea that has I C b M s that can
Speaker 1: hit anywhere in the world, or some kind of a
Speaker 1: military strike. Is there a third option? And what do
Speaker 1: you think we do about those options as I put
Speaker 1: them out there, Well, we first have to talk about
Speaker 1: what is the purpose of North Korea's nuclear and nuclear
Speaker 1: weapons and missiles. And I think with sixty nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: according to the intelligence community and I C b ms,
Speaker 1: we can't consider this a determ aren't anymore. This is
Speaker 1: an offensive force that the North plans to use eventually
Speaker 1: to force the unification of the creates on its terms
Speaker 1: and to drive US from the region. So there is
Speaker 1: going to be a military conflict eventually. That's why if
Speaker 1: these talks don't go well, and if if if another
Speaker 1: round of sanctions and an additional diplomatic pressure fails, I
Speaker 1: argue in the book that we have to start considering
Speaker 1: the limited use of military force against North Korea, perhaps
Speaker 1: with a naval blockade and shooting down missiles, to further
Speaker 1: ratchet up the pressure, and the economic pressure should be
Speaker 1: ratched up significantly. This is already causing pain to North
Speaker 1: create North Crean economy. I think they respect strength, and
Speaker 1: I think the use of force like that will be
Speaker 1: another step towards convincing them to negotiating good faith to
Speaker 1: give up the nuclear weapons. What would limited use of
Speaker 1: force against North Korea conceivably look like. Well, I'm thinking
Speaker 1: of a naval blockade and shooting down missiles, basically saying
Speaker 1: to to North Korea that We're not going to tolerate
Speaker 1: UH any more missile tests, and we we may expand
Speaker 1: that to taking out missiles on the ground. The North
Speaker 1: is already afraid We're going to do that, which is
Speaker 1: why it has been launching missiles from UH near Pyongyang,
Speaker 1: near populated areas, because it fears the US might start
Speaker 1: doing this. UM. It is intolerable that the North is
Speaker 1: beginning to develop I C. D ms and may already
Speaker 1: have them that they could use to transport nuclear weapons
Speaker 1: against the United States. And I think time is running
Speaker 1: out fred for folks at home, how should they think
Speaker 1: of the willingness of the North Korean regime to do
Speaker 1: something that we would see very unwise, but that they
Speaker 1: may feel cornered to do and UH kill a whole
Speaker 1: lot of people in the process. Well, I mean some
Speaker 1: people have wondered whether Kim Jong un is interested in
Speaker 1: firing missiles at Guam or at the United States, may
Speaker 1: be unprovoked. I don't think that the North Korean regime
Speaker 1: has a wish UH. And I think that if there
Speaker 1: was a limited use of military force, such a shooting
Speaker 1: down missiles, the North is not going to attacks out
Speaker 1: Korea or the United States because we would flatten the
Speaker 1: country UH. And I think eventually, if these talks fail,
Speaker 1: we may have to make it clear to them, we're
Speaker 1: simply not going to tower anymore. I CBM tests, and
Speaker 1: you know if you're going to test this on that
Speaker 1: we're going to start shooting them down. Is there a
Speaker 1: universe of really, let me looking put it this way,
Speaker 1: let me rephrase this. Is there a realistic proposition in
Speaker 1: your mind that after this Trump summit? Now I'm not
Speaker 1: saying likely, but is it even realistic to think that
Speaker 1: there's a world in which North Korea moves towards actual
Speaker 1: de nuclearization. It's hard to imagine that that's going to happen,
Speaker 1: especially after one meeting. All we can say is that
Speaker 1: the President has forced the North Koreans to change tactics.
Speaker 1: We haven't gotten a response whether they're actually going to
Speaker 1: attend the summit. I think they were surprise. There was
Speaker 1: a surprise as everyone else when President Trump immediately accepted
Speaker 1: this offer, And right now I think they're trying to
Speaker 1: formulate their response, and I expect they're going to have
Speaker 1: some unacceptable conditions, such as we'll get rid of our
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons if all US forces are pulled out of
Speaker 1: South Korea, which is not going to happen. Um we
Speaker 1: we we know we will see. I'd like to see
Speaker 1: the summer take place in Seoul to expose Kim Jong
Speaker 1: lun to South Korean society and its prosperity. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's going to change his mind, but I'd
Speaker 1: like to get him out of North Korea and maybe
Speaker 1: weaken the relationship he has with I think a number
Speaker 1: of very malign advisors. One last one for you, Fred,
Speaker 1: Just so we can set expectations, and we know the
Speaker 1: media is going to move the media overall, we'll move
Speaker 1: goalposts on this. You know, a few months ago it
Speaker 1: was Trump is taking us into nuclear war with his tweets.
Speaker 1: Now it's Trump is rushing into diplomacy. You know, it's
Speaker 1: it's always one or the other. But so we can
Speaker 1: understand what expectations should be. What would um, let's say,
Speaker 1: a low probability but high impact diplomatic victory from the
Speaker 1: Trump side look like after this summer. What's the best
Speaker 1: that we could reasonably hope for if Trump and again,
Speaker 1: as you said, maybe it doesn't even happen, if Trump
Speaker 1: and Kim Jong n sit down, what does winning look like?
Speaker 1: I think an outline for denuclearizing and for lower intentions
Speaker 1: is the best we could hope for I don't think
Speaker 1: it will be in agreement. And there are ways to
Speaker 1: lower tensions in North Koreans MNA theygree to, like possibly
Speaker 1: sending Chinese or Russian peacekeepers into North Korea to guarantee them.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's no chance of the US attack
Speaker 1: as it would be an attack on Russia or China.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so creative ways that could be pursued
Speaker 1: to try to address their interests in d nuclearization if
Speaker 1: they're sincere, but so far we don't know that. All right,
Speaker 1: Fred flights everybody, former cy I analysts book coming out,
Speaker 1: The Coming North Korean Nuclear Nightmare, available now on Amazon. Fred,
Speaker 1: it's a bailable on Amazon, and we're doing a Facebook
Speaker 1: live press conference two pm on UH Wednesday. All Right, fantastic, everybody,
Speaker 1: be sure to check it out tomorrow the Facebook live
Speaker 1: for the book. Fred, thank you so much for your time,
Speaker 1: my friend. I appreciate it. Good to be here. We're
Speaker 1: gona roll into a quick break. We've got our three
Speaker 1: coming up, and I'm going to be talking about politics
Speaker 1: with our friend Selena Zito. This race that's just about
Speaker 1: just about over in terms of the voting or at
Speaker 1: least we're at the deadline. Um, we'll tell you what's
Speaker 1: going on, so stay with us. So there's a big election,
Speaker 1: as you may have heard, going on as we are
Speaker 1: on air. In fact, polls have just closed, I believe
Speaker 1: as we go on air here at around eight Eastern
Speaker 1: Standard time. Selena Zito is with us now to discuss this,
Speaker 1: and she's gonna tell us what she thinks is going
Speaker 1: on here. She is a CNN contributor, a New York
Speaker 1: Post columnists, and author of the upcoming book The Great
Speaker 1: The Great Revolt, which we're hoping we'll have a great
Speaker 1: result because you're all going to buy it out in May. Selena,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for having me. So we got eighteen congressional district
Speaker 1: in play here. We've talked to you. I believe about
Speaker 1: this one specifically before Connor Lamb versus Rick Sconi. Lamb
Speaker 1: is a Democrat, Scone is the Republican. There's also a
Speaker 1: Libertarian named Drew Miller, which is so cute. I just
Speaker 1: like how the Libertarians are just they're just in there,
Speaker 1: you know, it's adorable. Anyway, what do you think is
Speaker 1: gonna happen with Lamb and CICONI here. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: Lamb has had the edge in the past two weeks.
Speaker 1: He has the most excitement generated around his candidacy. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, for a number of unique reasons. He's not
Speaker 1: used the word Democrat in any on any of this
Speaker 1: campaign signs. Um. He I haven't noticed it on his website.
Speaker 1: Now there might it might be on there somewhere, Um,
Speaker 1: but it's not in his ads. He's essentially run independent
Speaker 1: of his party. He put the gauntlet down early with
Speaker 1: a very effective ad saying running against Nancy Pelos name,
Speaker 1: he's pro gun, he's for the president's tariff and um
Speaker 1: in In many ways, this election is like a Republican
Speaker 1: primary with a more conservative Republican running against a more
Speaker 1: moderate Republican Connor Lean amazults are very young, he's very charming.
Speaker 1: He has a great background military form and a former
Speaker 1: federal prosecutor. Yeah, so he has what I mean, he's
Speaker 1: the perfect Democrat. But there's a couple of things we
Speaker 1: need to think about here. But is he really a Democrat? Selena,
Speaker 1: That's what I mean. He's pro life and pro gun,
Speaker 1: which feels like, how does he sit on the same
Speaker 1: side of the I'm sorry. Yeah, when it gets to Washington,
Speaker 1: he has to be a Democrat. No, I know, but
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, how does he sit next to
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi with a straight face as somebody who's pro
Speaker 1: gun and pro pro life not life, Oh, I thought you.
Speaker 1: Oh oh no, No. In fact, he's not even for
Speaker 1: the twenty week van important distinction, so he's not very important. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's very important distinctions. I thought he was really running
Speaker 1: as essentially a stealth Republican, like the old schoolmember the
Speaker 1: gun total Democrats of your who were all about guns
Speaker 1: and grew up one of those Democrats. That's that, you know,
Speaker 1: you're born Catholic and a Democrat in Western Pennsis. So
Speaker 1: that's that's an important distinguishing characteristic. And so yeah, because
Speaker 1: you you can't be in good stead with the modern
Speaker 1: Democrat party. I don't care what the situation is if
Speaker 1: you're you know, he was going to have to flip
Speaker 1: that position if he didn't have it already. But you're
Speaker 1: telling me he has pro choice, So there we go. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So there's a couple of unique things about this race.
Speaker 1: First of all, this this seat no longer or exists
Speaker 1: thanks to the state Supreme Court, which throughout the old
Speaker 1: congressional districts eighteen of them, calling them unconstitutional, and which
Speaker 1: is interesting because they did that seven years after they
Speaker 1: were drawn. So I don't know how they all of
Speaker 1: a sudden became unconstitutional. Await, there was an election and
Speaker 1: Democrats won the majority in the state Supreme Court. Maybe
Speaker 1: that has something to do with it. Anyways, Um, so
Speaker 1: this district no longer exists. Um. Second of all, he
Speaker 1: is garnering support from unions who robustly supported Trump in
Speaker 1: this district in two thousand and sixteen. But because the
Speaker 1: CONE is a pro is a right to work guy,
Speaker 1: they do not He does not UM gather their support.
Speaker 1: So I think the deciding vote here is going to
Speaker 1: be on the union vote, the union family household votes,
Speaker 1: and that's the boat that could um triggered this in
Speaker 1: in Lamb's direction, there are thousand more registered Democrats in
Speaker 1: this UH in this district despite Trump winning it by
Speaker 1: twenty percentage points. So this would be because because at
Speaker 1: the national level, obviously this is gonna there's there's limited
Speaker 1: data you could draw from this for how the Democrats
Speaker 1: wereun in the mid terms, and this is where all
Speaker 1: the old cliches about all congressional races are actually local
Speaker 1: and all that stuff applies. But here's Selena. You would
Speaker 1: have someone who is running essentially as a prototype of
Speaker 1: what the Democrats could do in other places to try
Speaker 1: to win back the voters that Trump got to beat
Speaker 1: Hillary in those key states like Pennsylvania, right exactly, And
Speaker 1: and and um, Lamb faces his own challenges if he
Speaker 1: wins this evening. He is now thrust into a different
Speaker 1: congressional district where he will face aggressive primary challengers. He
Speaker 1: has not faced the primary before, and as we all understand,
Speaker 1: including progressives, that is where the energy is. So you
Speaker 1: have to wonder are they willing to go with the
Speaker 1: guy that's a proven winner or do they want to
Speaker 1: go in with more with their passions UM on the resistance. Um.
Speaker 1: He also has never sorted. He has never once criticized
Speaker 1: President Trump during this entire election, So what will happen
Speaker 1: to him in a primary? So those are those are
Speaker 1: the things going forward. But I think the lesson if
Speaker 1: if Lamb wins, I think the lesson is that Republicans
Speaker 1: need a better message outside of Nancy Pelosi is bad
Speaker 1: because they need to talk about their accomplishments and not
Speaker 1: be so afraid of talking about Trump's accublishments. The Republican
Speaker 1: Party has changed. It's more populist in nature, and they
Speaker 1: need to to feed the beast in populism, and populism
Speaker 1: isn't just about anger, It's also about aspiration. Now. I
Speaker 1: talk a lot about that in my book The Great Revolt,
Speaker 1: about understanding who these new coalitions are. We're speaking to
Speaker 1: Selena Zito. She has seen, a contributor to New York
Speaker 1: Post Commist, author of the upcoming opus The Great Revolt,
Speaker 1: which she just mentioned. Selena, what are some of the
Speaker 1: lessons and takeaways from your book that are applicable to
Speaker 1: this race right now in Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania is obviously
Speaker 1: one of those key states that everyone was like, whoa
Speaker 1: hold on a second Trump can and yes, in fact
Speaker 1: he did win that state. Yeah. I mean, elections are
Speaker 1: about you know, gas pedal, brake pedal, right, and typically
Speaker 1: in midterms, voters want to put the brake pedal on
Speaker 1: the current party in power. So what they need to
Speaker 1: do is understand that they need to run again, as
Speaker 1: I just said, on a more populist, more aspirational um
Speaker 1: campaign and less about the negatives on Nancy Pelosi. Talk
Speaker 1: about what you've accomplished, talk about what you want to accomplish,
Speaker 1: sort of like the way that Ronald Reagan and and Trump,
Speaker 1: even though people don't always get that, how he made
Speaker 1: people want to be part of something bigger than themselves.
Speaker 1: And I think that's the key. I don't think people
Speaker 1: are hungry for a negative. I mean they should be
Speaker 1: reminded that if they if if the Republicans lose, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi will be the House Speaker by all intents and purposes.
Speaker 1: But they also need to be reminded that they have
Speaker 1: to continue to go forward and here are the reasons.
Speaker 1: And that message was very missing in this special election.
Speaker 1: Let's assume for a second that these results Selena, which
Speaker 1: are going to be coming in the earliest results should
Speaker 1: be coming in shortly here, and we'll be looking at
Speaker 1: them when we're all on air. But let's assume for
Speaker 1: the purpose of our conversation that Connor Lamb does in
Speaker 1: fact win this thing. What is the democra What does
Speaker 1: that do for the Democrat message going into the midterms.
Speaker 1: Do you think it affects it at a national level?
Speaker 1: You think they'll take this as a lesson learned or
Speaker 1: is it just going to be a wait and see
Speaker 1: until we get much closer. I mean, if there's a
Speaker 1: such a one Democratic strategist for my story this evening,
Speaker 1: and you know, I said, you know, what, what do
Speaker 1: you think? And he said, well, if we're starts, we're smart. Uh.
Speaker 1: Connor Lambs will win in primaries. But we don't control primaries.
Speaker 1: The people do. And it has been proven that the
Speaker 1: more active, the more engage, the more excited Democrats are
Speaker 1: are the ones that are more progressive. We don't know
Speaker 1: yet if they'll be willing to compromise some of their um,
Speaker 1: their their agenda to win. I mean, Ron Emmanuel was
Speaker 1: incredibly good and make sure that happened in two thousand
Speaker 1: and six. And you've got moderate Democrats elected in primaries
Speaker 1: in in swing states like western Pennsylvania and Michigan and
Speaker 1: Ohio and Wisconsin and Iowa. Uh, they've got to go
Speaker 1: through that process and they have to convince their voters
Speaker 1: in those kinds of districts that you want a Conner Lamb.
Speaker 1: It is I'm unsure if if the most um, the
Speaker 1: hard left progressive types are not going to be excited
Speaker 1: about the national level DNC efforts to get out the
Speaker 1: vote that include, yeah, we like guys who are kind
Speaker 1: of pro n r A. In some places, you might
Speaker 1: have some progressive activists that even you know, kick up
Speaker 1: some dust about this one. You get the Bernie Brows
Speaker 1: and sisters may not like that too much going into
Speaker 1: the mid terms. And and the intellectual liberals too, you know,
Speaker 1: they're also you know, incredibly um swept up in this
Speaker 1: resistance UH movement, and resistance is not aspirational. Both parties
Speaker 1: need to understand. To morder to capture the imagination of
Speaker 1: their voters, it has to include this sweeping motion that
Speaker 1: you are going to be part of something bigger than yourself,
Speaker 1: and you are going to be part of something with
Speaker 1: other people that's in our d n A. UM Trump
Speaker 1: was very good at that. We'll see if they they're
Speaker 1: able to do that in the mid terms. Selena Zero everybody,
Speaker 1: author of the upcoming The Great Revolt. You can pre
Speaker 1: order now on Amazon and I recommend you all do.
Speaker 1: I'll be reading it. I hope you do as well. Selena,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining Always appreciate when you
Speaker 1: make the time. Thank you so much for having me
Speaker 1: team we're going to roll into a break. We'll have
Speaker 1: any updates for you on the Pennsylvania Pennsylvania election as
Speaker 1: we can, and we'll be right back. The Governator Schwarzenegger,
Speaker 1: who I have so much fondness for because of his
Speaker 1: contributions to the pantheon of action movie greatness and his
Speaker 1: lines like I'll be back get through the chopp all
Speaker 1: of it amazing, really a major part of my childhood,
Speaker 1: which perhaps explains a lot of how I view the world.
Speaker 1: Considering that a guy who was benching over four hundred
Speaker 1: pounds was clearly taking performance in dancing drugs and played
Speaker 1: Conan the barbarian all too well was like my hero
Speaker 1: growing up. But anyway, I give Schwarzenegger a a wide berth.
Speaker 1: You know, that guy's obviously made some mistakes. You know,
Speaker 1: he's done some things that were not good, both as
Speaker 1: a politician and as a as a private person. No
Speaker 1: need for me to get into that, but you know,
Speaker 1: really really arnold some of the stuff that we found
Speaker 1: out in recent years was was a little tough. I'm glad,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm glad I'm an older man that I can
Speaker 1: see that we all make mistakes, and maybe I shouldn't
Speaker 1: judge too much, although I guess I'm on a radio
Speaker 1: show and I have to judge that. All said Arnold
Speaker 1: Schwarzenegger is still waxing philosophical on policy and this is
Speaker 1: just going too far. He was at south By Southwest,
Speaker 1: which has become this major media music thing in Austin.
Speaker 1: I've I've never been, but I'd like to go at
Speaker 1: some point. I know it's going on Austin right now.
Speaker 1: Next year, maybe I'll use it as another excuse to
Speaker 1: go visit Austin. But he's down there and he says,
Speaker 1: and he said this on Politico's Off Message podcast, which
Speaker 1: I had never even heard of before. And yeah, there's
Speaker 1: that that quote. Uh. He wants to take on oil
Speaker 1: companies for quote knowingly killing people all over the world.
Speaker 1: He right, He said that this is no different from
Speaker 1: the smoking issue that tobacco industry new for years and
Speaker 1: years and decades that smoking would kill people, would harm people,
Speaker 1: and create cancer, and we're hiding that fact the from
Speaker 1: people and denied it. Then eventually they were taking a
Speaker 1: court and had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: because of that. The oil companies knew from nine on
Speaker 1: they did their own study that there would be global
Speaker 1: warming happening because of fossil fuels, and on top of
Speaker 1: that it would be risky for people's lives. He says
Speaker 1: that this is like climate change man, this is you know,
Speaker 1: he's hosting a major environmental conference in May and Vienna.
Speaker 1: This is just all crap. This is what people do
Speaker 1: now when they want to burnish their brands because climate
Speaker 1: change gets you. So it gets you a very loyal,
Speaker 1: very globalist, internationalist audience that it gets big donor supporters
Speaker 1: to your side, and the people who don't believe in
Speaker 1: this ignore it like a religion that they don't really
Speaker 1: care about for the most part until they make us
Speaker 1: deal with it. So that's why I just see this
Speaker 1: as this is pandering. I mean, Schwartzenegger doesn't need to
Speaker 1: do this um by the way he says, quote, we're
Speaker 1: going to go after them and we're going to be
Speaker 1: in there like an Alabama tick. Because to me, it's
Speaker 1: absolutely irresponsible to know that your product is killing people
Speaker 1: and not have a warning label on it, like tobacco.
Speaker 1: Every gas station on it, every car should have a
Speaker 1: warning label on it. Every product that has fossil fuel
Speaker 1: should have a warning label on it. This is the
Speaker 1: dumbest thing that the governator has said in a long time.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe ever as a total aside here,
Speaker 1: but one that I could not help but point out.
Speaker 1: His phrase here, we're going to be in there like
Speaker 1: an Alabama tic is all too close to what Jesse
Speaker 1: the Body Ventura says in the movie Predator when referring
Speaker 1: to a pill box of enemy he shoulds they're dugging
Speaker 1: there like an Alabama tic. I don't think that's an accident, friends,
Speaker 1: I think Schwarzenegger now in his political podcast, is dropping
Speaker 1: some not so well known action movie lines because that's
Speaker 1: just how he rolls. That's kind of a strange phrase
Speaker 1: for a guy from Austria, from the Austrian Alps to use.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm saying. It's not like he just
Speaker 1: threw in a yodel here. He's saying Alabama tick, not
Speaker 1: from Alabamare to the California. What is this guy? I'm
Speaker 1: telling if you go back, we could even find it.
Speaker 1: Maybe for tomorrow. There's a Jesse the Body venture a
Speaker 1: line where he says that in in Predators, in like
Speaker 1: an Alabama chick. You go um anyway, This is craziness.
Speaker 1: This is, though, a an issue that we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to deal with because people think that there's real money
Speaker 1: involved as well as real power. And if it is
Speaker 1: their belief that they will be able to sue for
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions, maybe billions of dollars, they view that
Speaker 1: as progress for social justice, even if it doesn't slow
Speaker 1: down the global warming stuff. Right, So you gotta remember
Speaker 1: that even if they're wrong on the science, they think
Speaker 1: they're right in principle. Even if the global warming alarmists
Speaker 1: believe that they're not going to be able to prove
Speaker 1: the things that they say. If it isn't true, but
Speaker 1: it rings true to borrow from that recent Trump biography,
Speaker 1: guy Uh, then they feel like it's good enough because
Speaker 1: they're gonna use this money for development the third world.
Speaker 1: This becomes a massive wealth transfer scheme from you and
Speaker 1: me to other parts of the world. And it's also
Speaker 1: a form of paying for indulgences. Back in the old
Speaker 1: Catholic Church in the medieval period, you know, you could
Speaker 1: pay for your sins. This is that on a global scale.
Speaker 1: This is paying money as an apology for how wealthy
Speaker 1: and prosperous America has become and trying to prop up
Speaker 1: the rest of the world with it, but it's ultimately
Speaker 1: doomed by think too to failure. Attorneys general from various states,
Speaker 1: you know, Schneiderman and others. Schneiderman's here in New York.
Speaker 1: They thought about doing this. This is a movement that's
Speaker 1: going to continue on it. It's gonna be like reparations movement,
Speaker 1: the reparations movement in this country. He's also been talked
Speaker 1: about for decades. And it'll get enough steam that you
Speaker 1: actually have to pay attention to it because it will
Speaker 1: become a legal issue, and then it'll get pushed back
Speaker 1: and then we'll get steam. But the governorator is really
Speaker 1: upsetting me here. Why don't you want to global it's
Speaker 1: climate chance? Like it's really hard, you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: much better if you have like the Conan O'Brien show
Speaker 1: the face and you do the mouth, because really that
Speaker 1: doesn't sound it's a comment, you know, you know, it
Speaker 1: doesn't really sound like Schwarzeneger at all, but because you
Speaker 1: can see his face, it sounds a little like it.
Speaker 1: I gotta work on with Schwarzenegger because he's not really
Speaker 1: German in the and it's not like yeah, coutin talk.
Speaker 1: He's not in that realm at all. He's got it.
Speaker 1: He's really got his own accent. He's really uh almost
Speaker 1: like speaking his own his own version of English in
Speaker 1: a way that Schwarzenegger style. It's disappointing though, to see
Speaker 1: this with the governor. Anyway, we're gonna get into some
Speaker 1: roll call coming up here in in just a few
Speaker 1: minutes if you want to call in eight four or
Speaker 1: four nine to eight five eight Buck. Also, you can
Speaker 1: follow me on Twitter at buck Sexton. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back.
Speaker 1: But Lettons are a virus in the Democratic Party. You
Speaker 1: have to move on if this is our messaging. Thought
Speaker 1: that I thought that it was time for them to
Speaker 1: back off right now. Right now. I don't think they're
Speaker 1: helping the party right message. There's one things are getting
Speaker 1: testy on the view over this one. You know, the
Speaker 1: old pro Hillary guard. They don't want to let it go.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just gonna say it. It's like boomers
Speaker 1: with the rolling Stones. It's just getting weird now. They're
Speaker 1: they're they're they're no longer like rock stars that should
Speaker 1: be marrying twenty two year olds and doing all the
Speaker 1: stuff they're doing. I'm just saying it's getting weird now.
Speaker 1: You know. People are like, oh, the Stones and they're
Speaker 1: still going strong, and like, there's only so far nostalgic
Speaker 1: can really get you, folks, all right, And the same
Speaker 1: thing true with the Clintons. There's a whole media group
Speaker 1: of boomers out there in particular, who just the Clintons.
Speaker 1: They associate the Clintons with the America that they know,
Speaker 1: and and Hillary and Bill were gonna make it all
Speaker 1: better and the big mean Republicans and Kent Star came
Speaker 1: out for them, and they just can't let it go.
Speaker 1: That's why Hillary can wander around just being terrible and
Speaker 1: saying all kinds of really unhelpful things, and I mean
Speaker 1: unhelpful from the perspective of being a Democrat, right, I
Speaker 1: mean unhelpful for everyone. Republicans don't want to hear it,
Speaker 1: and Democrats don't need to hear it, because all it
Speaker 1: is is her whining about what happened. Here's what she's
Speaker 1: been saying. His whole campaign make America Rate Again was
Speaker 1: looking backwards. You know, you didn't like black people getting
Speaker 1: right you don't like women, you know, getting jobs, you
Speaker 1: don't want it. And you know see that Indian Americans
Speaker 1: succeeding more than you are. Whatever your problem is, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna solve that. So it was a symptom, but it
Speaker 1: was also a cause. I mean, Hillary is amazing, you know,
Speaker 1: she she can't even she she can't help herself. But
Speaker 1: say that the reason that she couldn't win over the
Speaker 1: sixty three million people who voted against her in the
Speaker 1: last election was because they're a bunch of racist, redneck hillbilly's.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much. It doesn't really take much on our
Speaker 1: own plate by way of responsibility for any of this
Speaker 1: doesn't really have anything to to add into the national
Speaker 1: conversation other than just to say that, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is a racist. But I'm actually hopeful, and I will
Speaker 1: say this, I am hopeful that Hillary is not going
Speaker 1: to go anywhere for quite a while. I would like
Speaker 1: her to be running around and used as a surrogate
Speaker 1: for the Democrat Party as much as much as is
Speaker 1: possible and as much as is feasible. I would like
Speaker 1: to see Hillary Clinton running around and saying, you know, wow,
Speaker 1: Trump is race instant, just saying all kinds of very
Speaker 1: derogatory and disrespectful things about the electorate. Remember we were
Speaker 1: just talking before to Selina Zeno about this Democrats play
Speaker 1: in some of these states is going to have to
Speaker 1: be going more moderate Democrats are gonna have to run
Speaker 1: Lamb like for Connor Lamb, not like mad Lamb like
Speaker 1: candidates in some of these other congressional races. And that's
Speaker 1: gonna mean that they need to clear the slate as
Speaker 1: much as possible of just the the detroitus of political
Speaker 1: careers passed, you know, the the leftovers of the Clintons.
Speaker 1: But it's just funny to see it because it's like
Speaker 1: the media doesn't get the message. You know, they still
Speaker 1: want to have Clinton access, and they still want to
Speaker 1: have the favors of being in tight with the Clintons
Speaker 1: and the fact that that's no longer something that's good
Speaker 1: for the left of the Democrat Party. The message is
Speaker 1: getting them pretty slowly. They haven't yet totally given up
Speaker 1: on it. What's gonna end up happening though, and this
Speaker 1: this takes me to the discussion we had last week
Speaker 1: about Netflix. What's going to happen is that when they
Speaker 1: start rolling out Obama as overall Democrat, you know, stand
Speaker 1: in and Hillary as everything can say are we just
Speaker 1: need we need more Obama and less Hillary. And I
Speaker 1: think that that's going to be the way that this
Speaker 1: all plays out. It will only be when the Democrats
Speaker 1: have to stare down a mid term victory for Trump
Speaker 1: that they finally show a real willingness us to back
Speaker 1: off of the Hillary express. I don't think there are
Speaker 1: some members of the media, and I mean big ones,
Speaker 1: I mean big names, who think Hillary would be a
Speaker 1: good idea. They think that's the only way to set
Speaker 1: this right. I mean they are Their insanity over how
Speaker 1: much they hate Trump is only matched by the delusion
Speaker 1: of how much they love Hillary and how viable they
Speaker 1: think she is politically. All Right, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: throw that in there for a second. We're gonna get
Speaker 1: into some roll call here, so stay with me. Well,
Speaker 1: it's been quite a day here in the Freedom hond
Speaker 1: I hope you've enjoyed what we've dived into together. I
Speaker 1: always said doved into, but I think that's wrong. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be dived And since I'm a have diven have
Speaker 1: been dived to know something like that. Dove, Yeah, we
Speaker 1: dove into together. I know, I'm just it's late in
Speaker 1: the show, John, I'm tired. Uh. But speaking of which,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding. Thank you for the assistant. Speaking of which,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. Hit it, Team Buck. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. I like women the base drops.
Speaker 1: That's of all you home. We're supposed to be like
Speaker 1: oh C. J. Buck in the Hound. Alright, better stop
Speaker 1: right now before you all turn this off. Okay, if
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of roll call, you
Speaker 1: can send an email to official Team Buck at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com or Facebook dot com slash buck sexon. So
Speaker 1: with that's my friends. Here we have Chuck, who is
Speaker 1: writing to Buck. He says the following, I heard your
Speaker 1: thoughts on Obama as Netflix show, very concise but really
Speaker 1: no surprise. How is that any different than his presidency? Well, Chuck, oh,
Speaker 1: he's not president anymore. But you're right. He is definitely,
Speaker 1: or was and still is a media darling. And you
Speaker 1: make a fair point, sir, So thank you very much
Speaker 1: for that. James. Next up in our roll call mailbox,
Speaker 1: he writes, Hi, Buck love the piece on the tariff,
Speaker 1: But why hasn't anyone mentioned that having a tariff in
Speaker 1: place might make companies wanting to buy, sell, and trade
Speaker 1: with the USA come to the USA and set up
Speaker 1: shop here and provide jobs and participate in our economy. James,
Speaker 1: very interesting point, right, If there is an advantage to
Speaker 1: producing equipment, material, whatever may be here in the US
Speaker 1: of A, then couldn't we have reverse the reverse of offshoring.
Speaker 1: Couldn't we have the reverse of sending our jobs overseas
Speaker 1: overseas sends their jobs here. At some level, it's at
Speaker 1: least feasible, It's possible. One of the big problems in
Speaker 1: all this is the wage scale and wage expectations in
Speaker 1: this country versus some of the other places where a
Speaker 1: lot of production happens. I know I know a bit
Speaker 1: about this because Ms Molly works for a very large retailer,
Speaker 1: and a lot of the places where different clothing brands
Speaker 1: get their stuff made are all of the world in
Speaker 1: places where the labor is a lot cheaper. So that's
Speaker 1: something else, and we're never going to be able to
Speaker 1: match that list unskilled labor. When you look at the
Speaker 1: different wage rates in countries based on unskilled labor, you know,
Speaker 1: that's when I think you get into a problem with
Speaker 1: expecting we're gonna move a lot of the jobs here
Speaker 1: because people expect and need to be paid. We're here. Um, okay,
Speaker 1: next up we have, Jim. I was listening to your
Speaker 1: podcast about name changes and you mentioned Obama's name change.
Speaker 1: I worked for a missionary outfit and talked to a
Speaker 1: man who brought two Muslims to faith in christ. He
Speaker 1: said he gave them, as they requested, new Christian names
Speaker 1: and changed them before they were baptized into the faith.
Speaker 1: I understand this is common among Muslims who convert. Uh
Speaker 1: didn't you say Obama changed his name from a Christian
Speaker 1: name to a Muslim one. Ps. My wife and I
Speaker 1: retired and listen to you often now as I brought
Speaker 1: her to the team, But instead of the usual saying
Speaker 1: good night, I'll see in the morning after all call,
Speaker 1: she has started saying good night. Shields High. You're pretty
Speaker 1: good with your words. So is there some way you
Speaker 1: could sort of uninstall what you've done? If not, don't
Speaker 1: sweat it, Shields High, Jim, thank you for the kind
Speaker 1: note as to Obama. He know he was born. Uh,
Speaker 1: he was in fact born based on all the record
Speaker 1: everything else we've seen Barack Obama, but he was went
Speaker 1: by Barry, so he went by that as his preferred
Speaker 1: name for a long time, and during the period when
Speaker 1: he was living in Indonesia he went by the surname
Speaker 1: of I believe the man that his why that his
Speaker 1: mom was dating at the time, Satoro or living with
Speaker 1: the time, whatever the case may be. So Obama's biography
Speaker 1: is not top of mind these days. So there you
Speaker 1: have it. Next up here, where did it go? Oh? Yes,
Speaker 1: this is from Tricia, She writes. I so do appreciate
Speaker 1: your calm discussions. Interesting you should mention, but at the
Speaker 1: time of Trump's button comment, there was an uprising by
Speaker 1: hungry and thirsty people. M hmm what he said some people.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure where we're going here. Liberals need a
Speaker 1: dose of self control. Gun control gives us dead children,
Speaker 1: and birth control gives us Okay, what guess the tragedy
Speaker 1: and murder depends which side of the womb you're on, Tricia.
Speaker 1: Tricia carried a lot of territory in this email, so
Speaker 1: I kind of gave you the abbreviated version. Thank you, Tricia.
Speaker 1: Maybe I should start reading these before I go on there.
Speaker 1: Although I kind of like the off the cuff nature
Speaker 1: of of having to address them as we go. Occasionally
Speaker 1: I have to bleep out some words in my mind,
Speaker 1: and I've gotten good enough that I feel like very
Speaker 1: few people could tell that that's what I'm doing. This
Speaker 1: is from Mary, he writes. I'm a podcast listener. I
Speaker 1: have been listening since mid seen, having seen you on Fox,
Speaker 1: read you on Twitter, and heard you fill in Once
Speaker 1: upon a Time for Rush Limbaugh. Your programs are excellent.
Speaker 1: The history podcasts are outstanding. Both are most informative and enlightening. Yes,
Speaker 1: I would even pay to get the Shields High podcasts.
Speaker 1: One thought about Kim Jong uns interest in meeting President Trump.
Speaker 1: I think Kim's buying time and creating a distraction while
Speaker 1: they continue to supply Syria. Your mentioned of Massa's recent
Speaker 1: chemical attack on the Damascus Damascus suburbs helps me come
Speaker 1: to that conclusion. Your thoughts. Have a wonderful weekend and
Speaker 1: a blessed week Mary. Well, Mary, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: very kind of you. I do think that Kim is
Speaker 1: most likely trying to buy time, but I'm not sure
Speaker 1: he will be able to buy time in the way
Speaker 1: that he is hoping because of the strength of the
Speaker 1: sanctions that President Trump has put forth on North Korea.
Speaker 1: They are in a tougher spot than they have ever
Speaker 1: been in before economically, or at least since the famine
Speaker 1: in the nineties. And I think that this this could
Speaker 1: be a different outcome. I am hopeful that it could
Speaker 1: be a different outcome. Um next up here? Uh, John,
Speaker 1: you're right, Hey Buck. I've been listening to your show
Speaker 1: for about a year. Oh sorry, this is from the
Speaker 1: Facebook inbox and if you want to write to us
Speaker 1: there Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton Jonens Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I've been listening to your show for about a year.
Speaker 1: You do a great job. But I had a thought
Speaker 1: that no one is seeming to consider. What if the
Speaker 1: meeting with Kim Jong own is just a trap, an
Speaker 1: assassination attempt Like the guy in Star Wars. It's a trap.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm talking about, what he's going on,
Speaker 1: It's a trap. What if the meeting with Kim Jong
Speaker 1: un is a trap? An assassination attempts set up by
Speaker 1: the North Korean leader and maybe Democrats. Clinton accolytes to me,
Speaker 1: it doesn't seem far fetch when it's a guy who
Speaker 1: assassinates his own family and people who are willing to
Speaker 1: make deals with enemy's just a thought. Great show shields high, John.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't worry about our our president in this situation
Speaker 1: and this uh uh possible or likely planned meeting with
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un. It'll be in a mutually agreed upon place,
Speaker 1: and the consequences for North Korea of any such effort
Speaker 1: like you are describing here would be severe, to say
Speaker 1: the least, and it would not get the anywhere except
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of an American broadside, and perhaps
Speaker 1: a whole lot more than that. So I don't I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's a concern. You need to have
Speaker 1: secret services, got it uh squared away, and and I
Speaker 1: know some secret service folks, and they're very very good
Speaker 1: at what they do. And I don't worry about the
Speaker 1: president sitting down with another head of state. Uh. Here
Speaker 1: we go, Karen, rites congratulations on scoring Jeff Sessions. Your
Speaker 1: hard work is paying off well. Thank you, Karen, and
Speaker 1: I the folks Nana d o J actually really thought
Speaker 1: it was a good interview with Mr Sessions. That's always nice.
Speaker 1: You know, the people that work for the boss reach
Speaker 1: out to me. They're like, hey, I thought that went
Speaker 1: really well. That, you know, the session's interview, so I'm
Speaker 1: glad we'll have him back at some point. You know,
Speaker 1: I can make some room for the Attorney general here
Speaker 1: on my radio show, you know, time to time, I
Speaker 1: feel like he's got some important stuff to say. He
Speaker 1: is the most uh important law enforcement official in the country.
Speaker 1: You're the highest law enforcement official in the country. So
Speaker 1: you know, I make room for for excellent guests as
Speaker 1: well as guests are at the cabinet level and above,
Speaker 1: you know, cabinet level and above, we can fit you
Speaker 1: in here. On the Buck Sexton Show, we try to
Speaker 1: avoid deputy under assistant secretary for who gives a crap,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. So that's that's an unwritten
Speaker 1: policy here on the show. Don next up here, he writes,
Speaker 1: Buck love your show. I usually agree with most of
Speaker 1: your points, but comparing Netflix's Ozark to Breaking Bad is
Speaker 1: like calling both Bill ny and Carl Sagan scientists. They
Speaker 1: were both engaging, but one was incredibly written and believably realistic,
Speaker 1: while the other, though sinfully entertaining, was rather poorly written
Speaker 1: and it was also ridiculously impossible. I'm sure you can
Speaker 1: tell which I preferred. As always, I loved hearing your take,
Speaker 1: but you were out to lunch on this one and
Speaker 1: I had to call you and call you out on it.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work. You're still the best, Don
Speaker 1: Don I'm not really going to defend myself on this
Speaker 1: one too much because I think or I was trying
Speaker 1: to say, at least that the genre is similar, so
Speaker 1: if you liked one, you'll like the other. I wasn't
Speaker 1: trying to say that they are almost equivalent in terms
Speaker 1: of greatness, right. It's sort of like if I were
Speaker 1: talking to you and I said, hey, I think you
Speaker 1: will like uh, porter House if you've never had meat before,
Speaker 1: and I'm like, I think you would like a Porterhouse steak,
Speaker 1: and oh, by the way, if you like by the
Speaker 1: let's let's take this back for a second, Ribby, which
Speaker 1: is better than Porterhouse. We take this back for a second.
Speaker 1: And then before that, I said, you hold on, wait,
Speaker 1: if you like Ribby, you'll also probably like flank steak.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they're the same. I'm just saying in
Speaker 1: my own way, as being the human Pandora that I am,
Speaker 1: where I try to say, if you like this, you
Speaker 1: like this, I think they're similar enough that all said,
Speaker 1: I think your analysis is correct. Ozark is uh not
Speaker 1: nearly as plausible, not nearly as well written, not as
Speaker 1: good a show. But you are comparing a Netflix show
Speaker 1: that's gotten very little pressed to what is arguably one
Speaker 1: of the greatest, if not the greatest, scripted television dramas
Speaker 1: of all time. So you know we've gotta keep it,
Speaker 1: keep it here. But a fair a fair point made
Speaker 1: from Don. I've got a lot of other movie recommendations
Speaker 1: in the inbox, but I will have to wait and
Speaker 1: hold those for next time because I am running out
Speaker 1: of time here. Please do if you're listening to this show, uh,
Speaker 1: spread the podcast around. We love seeing the podcast numbers grow.
Speaker 1: And also do indeed of check out Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash box sex and follow me there and we'll be
Speaker 1: sharing more information there. So that's going to close out
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt for today. We will have much more
Speaker 1: for you tomorrow every day this week, as we always do.
Speaker 1: Until then, my friends, no matter what mayhem may find you,
Speaker 1: shields high,