Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. More details coming out
Speaker 1: about the horrific shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about what we know now and how the
Speaker 1: media is covering this. Also, the Democrat candidates continue their
Speaker 1: onslaught against Trump. We'll get into that and more coming
Speaker 1: up on The Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again. The Buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: What happened this weekend or acts of pure evil? And
Speaker 1: we press our deepest condolences to the families of those
Speaker 1: who lost their lives, and we join every American praying
Speaker 1: for the injured and their families in their hour of need.
Speaker 1: Hate has no place in America, and the sinister ideologies
Speaker 1: of racism, bigotry, and white supremacy must be defeated. Justice
Speaker 1: will be swift and certain. We're developing legislation to ensure
Speaker 1: that those who commit mass murders face the death penalty swiftly.
Speaker 1: The American people can be assured we will confront this
Speaker 1: evil in our time. We will work together to advance
Speaker 1: policies that make our families and our nations safer while
Speaker 1: protecting the constitutional rights of every American. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Bucks Accident Show. We will confront this evil. Vice President
Speaker 1: Penn says, for that is what we were up against.
Speaker 1: It is evil. That is the most clear, the most precise,
Speaker 1: the most straightforward description of this that anybody could ever
Speaker 1: come up with. The administration understands the pain, they understand
Speaker 1: the loss. They understand that people want action, and they're
Speaker 1: willing to consider whatever is sensible, whatever is prudent, in
Speaker 1: order to try and prevent the next tragedy. What do
Speaker 1: we see though, a coming together of Democrats and Republicans.
Speaker 1: Are elected leaders deciding to put aside their political differences,
Speaker 1: even for a few days, maybe a week, to allow
Speaker 1: for some unpoliticized grieving, perhaps a bit of unity among
Speaker 1: Americans who reach out from their hearts and yes offer
Speaker 1: their hearts and prayers, their thoughts and prayers to the
Speaker 1: people of El Paso and Date in Ohio. We come
Speaker 1: together in moments like this because we do care about
Speaker 1: each other, because we are good people, because the American
Speaker 1: people care about one another. And yet, what are we
Speaker 1: up against in the new cycle, the most horrific, insane,
Speaker 1: unfair things being said about the president day in and
Speaker 1: day out by people who not only should know better,
Speaker 1: I believe they know better. They're just trying to capitalize
Speaker 1: on this moment. They are playing to the rage of
Speaker 1: the mob against this president. And as they do so,
Speaker 1: they claim to be concerned about the way we talk
Speaker 1: to each other in discourse, about politics, about issues that
Speaker 1: have sensitivities, and it's just stunning. It's just wrong what
Speaker 1: they're doing. It's unfair. It's unfair to the rest of America.
Speaker 1: It's unfair to a country that should be allowed some
Speaker 1: space to process. Instead, what we have are just the
Speaker 1: worst venal demagogues imaginable, running around saying all kinds of
Speaker 1: crazy things about the president. If what they say about
Speaker 1: this president is true, what are people of good faith
Speaker 1: and goodwill supposed to do in this country? What could
Speaker 1: be more reckless than saying you believe the president is
Speaker 1: a white supremacist. This is now mainstream among Democrats, and
Speaker 1: in terms of the media, we've already seen with the
Speaker 1: New York Times changing its headline from a straightforward this
Speaker 1: is what Trump said in his speech to Well he
Speaker 1: said something, but he didn't condemn guns because the New
Speaker 1: York Times readership was complaining about it. Because liberals in
Speaker 1: this country have been feeding each other a steady diet
Speaker 1: of anti Trump hatred for years now, and they can't
Speaker 1: accept anything else. They don't know anything else. They become
Speaker 1: a hostile to the notion that Trump is not as
Speaker 1: evil as they have told each other and now they
Speaker 1: themselves usually believe. Then we also see a disparity emerging.
Speaker 1: A tremendous amount of focus on the El Paso shooter,
Speaker 1: on his manifesto, on the political motivations behind this, and
Speaker 1: so little attention seemingly paid to the horrific shooting in Dayton, Ohio.
Speaker 1: Never mind also the shootings that occurred in Chicago over
Speaker 1: the weekend, which killed I think six or seven wounded dozens.
Speaker 1: That's a far less political utility to Democrats, so we
Speaker 1: hear much less about it. And yet those people, those
Speaker 1: innocence gunned down every bit as dead as anybody in
Speaker 1: El Paso or Dayton, Lives taken away, families crushed. See,
Speaker 1: it's all about the narrative for the Democrats and their allies,
Speaker 1: the mainstream media, and that's why Dayton, Ohio seems of
Speaker 1: less interest to them. They don't want to talk about
Speaker 1: that one as much. They don't want to talk about
Speaker 1: that shooter as much, that's for sure. Why is that?
Speaker 1: You might wonder, well, because when you look at his
Speaker 1: social media presence, and we'll have more information about this
Speaker 1: in the days ahead, there's certainly plenty of preliminary reason
Speaker 1: to believe that he was a leftist. He was a
Speaker 1: Satanist who supported Elizabeth Warren, who supported Bernie Sanders, He
Speaker 1: was pro anti he hated police officers. Does that sound
Speaker 1: like someone that's responding to Trump's rhetoric to you. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's impossible. We don't yet entirely know what
Speaker 1: the situation is. But they were willing, the media was
Speaker 1: willing to draw very fast conclusions about everything in and
Speaker 1: I understand a manifesto does make it hard to miss
Speaker 1: what a person is trying to do, to miss their intent,
Speaker 1: although I do think that these manifestos are also being
Speaker 1: left behind as an ad on to make us tear
Speaker 1: each other apart. They leave this behind, it's like lighting
Speaker 1: a fire as they walk out the door, knowing that
Speaker 1: it will burn the house down long after they're gone
Speaker 1: because we point fingers at each other and say, see,
Speaker 1: it's your side. No, it's my side, No, it's your side.
Speaker 1: I'm old enough to remember when there were Democrats under
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, when we had a number of mass
Speaker 1: casualty shootings that tributable to ISIS inspired attackers, and you
Speaker 1: had the Pulse nightclub shooter saying that he's doing this
Speaker 1: for ISIS and he's doing this for Allah, and the
Speaker 1: FBI thought why not exercise that from the transcripts, and
Speaker 1: the media went along with this, like, Yeah, that seems normal,
Speaker 1: that seems like that makes sense. So I'd really rather
Speaker 1: not have to pretend that we don't know. There are
Speaker 1: political agendas at work here with the way the mainstream
Speaker 1: media reports on tragedies and the way that Democrats frame
Speaker 1: them politically. As an individual in Dayton, yes tremendous red flags.
Speaker 1: There's interviews being published with an ex girlfriend of his
Speaker 1: who said that he showed her video of the Pittsburgh
Speaker 1: shooting massacre and that he clearly had a fascination for this.
Speaker 1: He was obviously mentally ill, and no one stopped him.
Speaker 1: He had a kill list on a bus, no one
Speaker 1: stopped and that he was taken off by police, no
Speaker 1: one stopped him, makes you wonder what really has to
Speaker 1: happen for us to finally reach that point where someone
Speaker 1: will take action on this one. But the separation between
Speaker 1: these two shootings that as purely a result of politics,
Speaker 1: just goes to show us all that even in the
Speaker 1: most the most tragic and sad moments that this country faces,
Speaker 1: there are people who would rather stick their thumb in
Speaker 1: the eyes of an opponent who has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with this, in this case Donald Trump, then take the
Speaker 1: opportunity to try to make things better, to come up
Speaker 1: with real ideas or real solutions, and work as Americans
Speaker 1: to stop the next mass shooting. They just they don't
Speaker 1: have any interest in that. They want to They want
Speaker 1: to demonize people like former colleagues of mine who are
Speaker 1: advocates for the Second Amendment. They want to humiliate people
Speaker 1: who think that they should be allowed to enjoy Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights. It's about other rising people that believe the
Speaker 1: constitutional right to defend one's self and the check against
Speaker 1: tyranny the Second Amendment gives us all is some kind
Speaker 1: of anachronistic joke. They want to make fun of us.
Speaker 1: There's nothing funny about anything that's gone on this week.
Speaker 1: But Democrats seem to think that we're funny because we
Speaker 1: take the right to bear arms seriously, and they think
Speaker 1: we're evil. Of course, at the same time, I mean,
Speaker 1: they mock us, and then they think that we're bad people.
Speaker 1: This is what we were up against. Oh, and people
Speaker 1: like Corey Booker running around trying to sound tough, trying
Speaker 1: to just make some headway in a very crowded Democrat field.
Speaker 1: I mean, here's here's I Am Spartacus himself joking about
Speaker 1: what he wants to do to the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, Play nine angry, what's important? And so I've
Speaker 1: definitely if making jokes about, yeah, some guy wants to
Speaker 1: punch Donald Trump in the face. Yeah, this is what
Speaker 1: we This is the Democratic Party that pretends to be
Speaker 1: the serious part of the party that wants to end violence,
Speaker 1: it wants to make things better. I haven't heard us
Speaker 1: a a single takeaway from Democrats that would do anything.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's none of it is new. We've
Speaker 1: been through this all before and I have not heard
Speaker 1: one thing from them that I thought, Wow, that's that's
Speaker 1: a real effort to reach out across political boundaries, to
Speaker 1: reach across the no man's land that separates Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans these days on any major policy issue and say
Speaker 1: let's try this, let's work together on this. No, Instead,
Speaker 1: you have prominent, prominent on air talent at places like
Speaker 1: CNN and MSNBC saying that the president is a white nationalist,
Speaker 1: the white supremacist, that he has blood on his hands
Speaker 1: because of this. You have a guy who had his
Speaker 1: own show at SEEING I mean, CNN is a joke,
Speaker 1: it's a trash heap now should be ashamed of itself,
Speaker 1: but it's not. You had a guy at his own
Speaker 1: show at CNN until pretty recently and was held up there,
Speaker 1: Reza Oslad held up as some kind of international expert
Speaker 1: on terrorism and radicalization. The guys are the guys are
Speaker 1: awful person so start with that. And he's cursing at
Speaker 1: the President's daughter on Twitter, openly saying horrible things to
Speaker 1: her and her whole family and directed it at her
Speaker 1: whole family as well. I mean, the left is just
Speaker 1: full of these these lunatics, these maniacs who think that, oh,
Speaker 1: there's been a mass shooting, Now is my opportunity to
Speaker 1: unleash all the bile. I have stored up all the
Speaker 1: darkness in my soul. I'm just going to fling it
Speaker 1: at every prominent Republican that I disagree with about the
Speaker 1: tax rate and healthcare. They need to get a grip,
Speaker 1: they need to get a handle on things. Neil de
Speaker 1: grass Tyson put out a list in trying to calm
Speaker 1: people down, a list of how many people die in
Speaker 1: this country a day from different things, to show that,
Speaker 1: you know, really, in the grand scheme of things, gun
Speaker 1: violence is actually a very small slice of the mortality
Speaker 1: problem in this country. It's I mean, for example, medical
Speaker 1: errors is meant orders of magnitude larger daily medical errors. Obviously,
Speaker 1: cancer and heart disease accidents. Many more people die from
Speaker 1: accidents every day than die from gun violence. Now this
Speaker 1: is not to say that gun violence is not a problem.
Speaker 1: Clearly is. But he was trying to contextualize it, and
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, she's a liberal. Oh my gosh, they
Speaker 1: completely turned on him, freaked out. Can't have a conversation,
Speaker 1: can't be rational about this, just have to play into
Speaker 1: the moment of politicized anti Trump frenzy. It's appalling, But
Speaker 1: let's wade through some of this together, my friends, let's
Speaker 1: look at the latest data and information. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: whatever are being put forward as possible. I shouldn't even
Speaker 1: say solutions as approaches, as ways forward in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of a tragedy like this. Well discuss that together and
Speaker 1: much more coming up here on the buck Sex and Show.
Speaker 1: Stay with me if you wait. The president he talks
Speaker 1: if he were a principal in your high school, and
Speaker 1: they talk that way, they talk to have the people,
Speaker 1: the parents should be coming insane fire him. It's outrageous
Speaker 1: the way in which we characterizes people. It's the thing
Speaker 1: that brings all the hatred out in the open. They
Speaker 1: think it's legitimate now to come out and do the
Speaker 1: things they do and talk about. It's about white nationalism
Speaker 1: and white supremacy against minorities. There you have the top
Speaker 1: Democrat contender saying Trump is a white nationalists. I mean
Speaker 1: they the slander will not stop. They will not stop.
Speaker 1: But they want to make things better in this country.
Speaker 1: That's what Democrats want you to believe. They would like
Speaker 1: the temperature to come down. They just wish that Trump
Speaker 1: would be a little more civil and then and then
Speaker 1: perhaps they would beat him halfway at least that's the ruse,
Speaker 1: that's the Cohn. Joaquin Castro. You know he is right,
Speaker 1: he's running for president. He tweeted this out today, sad
Speaker 1: to see so many san Antonians as twenty nineteen maximum
Speaker 1: donors to Donald Trump. The owner of a he names
Speaker 1: the barbecue, the owner of he names a restaurant, He
Speaker 1: names a realtor by name, and then he writes their
Speaker 1: contributions are fueling a campaign of hate that labels Hispanic
Speaker 1: immigrants as invaders. And then there's a list of forty
Speaker 1: four San Antonio donors who contributed the most you can
Speaker 1: under federal law to Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Folks, this
Speaker 1: is essentially a target list for social shaming, if nothing else.
Speaker 1: This is why Democrats there's such snide little liars about this.
Speaker 1: We just want transparency, to get the money out of politics. No,
Speaker 1: because they're they're the little hysterical jerks that like to
Speaker 1: do these name and shame campaigns. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: want to present all the different donors for you name it,
Speaker 1: a conservative think tank, a Republican candidate, anything, and then
Speaker 1: they want to organize boycott's and harassment campaigns. They want
Speaker 1: to show ab outside your house like they do to
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, which we'll talk about later on today. What
Speaker 1: happens if somebody on this list gets attacked? What happens
Speaker 1: if somebody on this list has their home broken into,
Speaker 1: burned down, their business destroyed. Do you think that Joaquin
Speaker 1: Castro is gonna feel bad for saying that they're funding hate?
Speaker 1: Do you think walking Castro, who's an elected official, is
Speaker 1: going to have a moment's a moment's remorse for essentially
Speaker 1: doxing I mean, I know this is public information, but
Speaker 1: he's compiling it and he's contextualizing in a way that
Speaker 1: he's saying, Hey, these are the enemy, folks, These people
Speaker 1: are the enemy. Go get him. That's what this is.
Speaker 1: Trying to hurt their businesses, hurt their reputations. I keep
Speaker 1: saying it because you must remember this is who we
Speaker 1: are up against. I would never advocate for this, And
Speaker 1: notice of Republicans don't do this. This is on their side.
Speaker 1: They feel just fine ruining you, destroying your business, putting
Speaker 1: you in a dangerous position, so your family is threatened
Speaker 1: because of who you donate to or support politically. They
Speaker 1: feel completely justified because, after all, they say you're supporting
Speaker 1: a white supremacist, So why shouldn't they feel that way
Speaker 1: in their minds? You're getting you deserve, And they have
Speaker 1: the brazenness to tell us that they want to have
Speaker 1: more civil conversations. They are appalling the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: collectively abandoned honor and decency, and they want to lecture
Speaker 1: us on the same. I'm sorry, not today, not on
Speaker 1: my watch, and I'm damn sure it's not going to
Speaker 1: happen on my show. We've got more the presidents, the
Speaker 1: president of all the people, and what he wants to
Speaker 1: do is go to these communities and grieve with them,
Speaker 1: pray with them, offer condolences, and quite frankly, offer thank
Speaker 1: you an appreciation to those who are first responders and
Speaker 1: put their lives on the line, and we're able to
Speaker 1: take out this shooter so quickly, those American citizens who
Speaker 1: put their bodies in harm's way to protect their loved ones.
Speaker 1: And he also wants to talk about potential solutions and
Speaker 1: how we keep this from ever happening again. That all
Speaker 1: seems completely reasonable, doesn't it. That was the White House
Speaker 1: Deputy Press Secretary of Hogan Gidley saying, Look, the President
Speaker 1: wants to go and do the following things with his visits,
Speaker 1: his plan visits tomorrow to Ohio and Texas. He's going
Speaker 1: to Dayton and El Paso. And there are people out
Speaker 1: there who are saying that he is not welcome. Now,
Speaker 1: citizens have a right to say that whatever they want
Speaker 1: in terms of the president being welcome or not, that's fine.
Speaker 1: There are politicians, however, there are leaders who are saying, no,
Speaker 1: we don't want the president here. Sorry, that whole not
Speaker 1: my president thing doesn't fly. It's not true. He is
Speaker 1: for anyone living in America your president. You can pretend
Speaker 1: he's not, but that does not change the reality. And
Speaker 1: after a tragedy like or a double tragedy like what
Speaker 1: this country has just suffered, that any mayor or anybody
Speaker 1: at all in local government would say that the president
Speaker 1: of the United States is not welcome to come and
Speaker 1: do what he can to promote healing, to promote unity
Speaker 1: is just indicative of Trump's arrangement syndrome. That's what this is.
Speaker 1: Someone like Tim Ryan who does look like he's constantly
Speaker 1: in a state of surprise and and like like a
Speaker 1: he's got flop sweat going on. Oh gosh, what's going on?
Speaker 1: You know, Tim Ryan thinks that he's going to make
Speaker 1: his way up from zero point zero zero zero zero
Speaker 1: zero one percent of Democratic primary voters to maybe point
Speaker 1: zero zero zero zero two percent of them. You know,
Speaker 1: that's the Tim Ryan plan. He's just he's cursing on TV.
Speaker 1: This guy's a congressman from Ohio, and you know, saying
Speaker 1: all kinds of just nasty stuff. The President is willing
Speaker 1: to push forward initiatives that he thinks would be helpful
Speaker 1: in trying to prevent the next tragedy. And this is
Speaker 1: the kind of meet him halfway approach he gets from
Speaker 1: Tim Ryan. Play eighteen. It is so disingenuous for him
Speaker 1: to step up to that podium yesterday and talk about
Speaker 1: mental illness like he cares because he has a lawsuit
Speaker 1: and out the repeal coverage for twenty million people who
Speaker 1: need it. So don't give me this blogny that all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you're for mental health coverage and you're
Speaker 1: for treating mental health in the United States. I don't
Speaker 1: believe you, Donald Trump. I don't believe you Belogney. Huh.
Speaker 1: I mean, no one should really care what Tim Ryan thinks,
Speaker 1: except for the voters of Ohio. Who pulled the lever
Speaker 1: for this guy? What the heck are you folks doing.
Speaker 1: I don't care who the other candidate was, had to
Speaker 1: be better than Tim Ryan. But yeah, he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to He doesn't want to have a bipartisan conversation. These
Speaker 1: people aren't leaders. These people are hacks or demagogues, panderers.
Speaker 1: If we're going to speak about demagoguery and pandering, I
Speaker 1: think demagoguery is actually not a fair word for her.
Speaker 1: It's too big and fancy a word just be just
Speaker 1: being a total phony and a fraud and saying whatever
Speaker 1: she thinks she has to in the moment to get
Speaker 1: the most support from the immediate people around her. You
Speaker 1: gotta think of Kirsten Gillibrand when that stuff comes up.
Speaker 1: I mean, she she's really in a class by herself.
Speaker 1: She's she should be an embarrassment the Democratic Party. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's just nothing but stupid talking points from her all
Speaker 1: the time. It's it's like MSNBC built her in a
Speaker 1: lab somewhere and unleashed her on the public. Here's here's
Speaker 1: her take. Remember the president is going tomorrow to He's
Speaker 1: given speeches, he's talked about it. The evils of white nationalism.
Speaker 1: He outlined different approaches that he's willing to to look
Speaker 1: into in order to try and stop the next mass shooting.
Speaker 1: He's all these things exactly what the Democrats pretend they
Speaker 1: want him to do. And here's the response he gets
Speaker 1: from someone a Democratic presidential candidate, no less like Jillibrand
Speaker 1: played twenty and unfortunately, President Trump is unwilling to take
Speaker 1: responsibility for his own actions. He's unwilling to recognize that
Speaker 1: he's spent four years demonizing the most vulnerable, being racist
Speaker 1: in his rhetoric and his language, calling Mexicans rapists, talking
Speaker 1: about people at the border invading this country and infestations.
Speaker 1: What does he think is going to happen. He has
Speaker 1: emboldened white supremacists, he has emboldened white nationalists, and it
Speaker 1: has all now come home to roost. And so he
Speaker 1: needs to take responsibility. I mean, she had moron. Of course,
Speaker 1: he's not going to take responsibility because he's not responsible
Speaker 1: for any of this. He needs to take responsibility. Why
Speaker 1: do you know what. The most amazing thing about that
Speaker 1: utterly insipid nonsense from Jillibrand if the President did stand
Speaker 1: up and say, you know what I've been I am
Speaker 1: too harsh in my language. Sometimes I'm going to I'm
Speaker 1: going to try and be more cognizant of the sensitivities
Speaker 1: that are out there when it comes to issues that
Speaker 1: touch on race, and I'll be more precise. And i
Speaker 1: just want all all people in the American family, and
Speaker 1: everyone of all of all races and ethnicities and religions
Speaker 1: to know that I hold you in equal regard and
Speaker 1: I'm a president for all of you. You know, if
Speaker 1: he gave the Gettysburg address of you know, maya culpas,
Speaker 1: I don't think he should do. But I'm just saying
Speaker 1: if he did do that, you know what they would
Speaker 1: say to Moor. They wouldn't say that was a great speech.
Speaker 1: And I'm glad we finally got through to the president.
Speaker 1: I hope he can work with him going forward. They'd
Speaker 1: say he's still racist, he's still a terrible person, and
Speaker 1: you need to vote him out of office, and maybe
Speaker 1: we should impeach him, and maybe we should send him
Speaker 1: in his whole family to prison. These people are nuts.
Speaker 1: They have brainwashed themselves and each other on the left.
Speaker 1: They no longer have a rational area that you can
Speaker 1: engage in when it comes to Trump, they've completely and
Speaker 1: utterly lost it. And they're also a bunch of just
Speaker 1: total phonies on this. Though the whole first day's criticism
Speaker 1: was Trump isn't denouncing white nationalists, and now it's well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter because he's not taking responsibility for all
Speaker 1: the hate that he's created. Even though he's denouncing white nationalists.
Speaker 1: You know, tomorrow it'll it would be something else. None
Speaker 1: of this is helpful, by the way, Democrats have no
Speaker 1: plans that are going to help any of this. That's
Speaker 1: really what bothers me about this more than anything else,
Speaker 1: is that people lost family members, they lost loved ones.
Speaker 1: This is it is a terrible tragedy. It's evil, it's
Speaker 1: just wrong. They're suffering. Man, These communities have been ripped apart,
Speaker 1: and Democrats don't have the common human decency to just
Speaker 1: focus on that problem for a couple of days first
Speaker 1: before turning it into some political circus. They pretend to
Speaker 1: care so much about those who were killed in El
Speaker 1: Paso and dating, the Democrats go out of their way
Speaker 1: to make us all think that that is more important
Speaker 1: than right now than anything else except for fundraising off
Speaker 1: of it. I mean, that's really important for Democrats too,
Speaker 1: except for slandering the president of the United States. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's really important. Also, you know, just lying about
Speaker 1: the issues, lying about what they've said in the past,
Speaker 1: lying what the president said in the past, all for
Speaker 1: political advantage. That's maybe more important to the Democrats than
Speaker 1: solving the problem, than addressing the issue, or then even
Speaker 1: allowing people to heal and recover with the dignity of
Speaker 1: their elected leadership, giving them support instead of giving them
Speaker 1: a lecture all the time. Here's the thought. I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are people that lost loved ones who are Trump supporters.
Speaker 1: What does Jillibrand have to say to them. Two gun
Speaker 1: owners out there who say, well, a Biden administration means
Speaker 1: they're going to come from my guns, bingo, you're right.
Speaker 1: If you have an assault weapon, the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is they should be illegal, period. Look, the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment doesn't say you can't restrict the kinds of weapons
Speaker 1: people can own. You can't buy a bazuka, you can't
Speaker 1: have a flamethrower. The guys who make these arguments are
Speaker 1: the people who say the tree of liberty is water
Speaker 1: with the blood of patriots. We need the protection against
Speaker 1: the government. We need have fifteen for that. You need
Speaker 1: something well beyond whether or not you're going to have
Speaker 1: an assault weapon. So Biden is a moron. No, I
Speaker 1: really mean that. I mean he's not a smart person.
Speaker 1: I know he's been the vice president, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: they all secretly know that he's just not very bright.
Speaker 1: He does a good imitation of a smart person. It's
Speaker 1: like he's an actor who has studied politicians his whole life,
Speaker 1: and so he plays a great politician on TV. But
Speaker 1: the moment you dig down beneath the most superficial, grinning, smiling,
Speaker 1: backslapping talking points, prepared speech is nonsense. It's a guy
Speaker 1: who doesn't know you know what from you know what?
Speaker 1: I was gonna say something else, but I couldn't. It
Speaker 1: doesn't know something from Shinola? Producer, Mark, what is Shinola?
Speaker 1: By the way, is that really a thing? Never heard
Speaker 1: what the other thing is? You don't know blank from Shinola?
Speaker 1: You've never heard that before? I know blank from blank?
Speaker 1: Oh okay, well that probably is another way to do it,
Speaker 1: all right, So anyway, let's break this apart, shall we.
Speaker 1: Let's break apart this stupidity. Okay, let's do this. You
Speaker 1: have Biden saying that there should be an assault weapons ban.
Speaker 1: We've already been through this. We've all read had an
Speaker 1: assault weapons ban back in the nineties. No person who
Speaker 1: looks at the stats, looks at the numbers, comes away
Speaker 1: from that and says, you know what, this was a
Speaker 1: good idea. This really stopped a lot of violence. It's
Speaker 1: just not true. You have a couple of hundred people
Speaker 1: total in the country killed by rifles each year, A
Speaker 1: couple of hundred. It's a very, very small overall part
Speaker 1: of the gun violence in America. So let's start with that.
Speaker 1: Why do they want to ban assault rifles? Because it
Speaker 1: makes the people who don't like guns and don't like
Speaker 1: gun owners feel better, makes them feel happier about themselves.
Speaker 1: It makes them feel like, well, you know, there's something
Speaker 1: that we're getting out of this whole thing. Those silly
Speaker 1: gun owners can't keep their crazy weapons of war anymore.
Speaker 1: They mean, I suppose the millions of people who currently
Speaker 1: own completely lawfully with no threat to anyone else, the
Speaker 1: millions of my fellow Americans who own so called assault
Speaker 1: rifles or what would fall under the and you know,
Speaker 1: people don't need to be pedantic about this. Okay, I
Speaker 1: love it when I get other conservatives with Buck. There's
Speaker 1: no such things as an assault rifle. Yeah, guys, I know,
Speaker 1: but there is such a thing as an assault rifle
Speaker 1: if they write a law that says X, Y and
Speaker 1: Z equals assault rifle, and we're gonna take it from you.
Speaker 1: So you know, people can keep telling me there's no
Speaker 1: such things. I know, there's no such thing as an
Speaker 1: assault rifle, but they will designate rifles as assault rifles
Speaker 1: and then take them from you. And it is based
Speaker 1: primarily on cosmetic features, but so be it. As far
Speaker 1: as they're concerned, that's what they will do. So Biden's hold,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna take your assault rifle. This is because he's
Speaker 1: trying to just play to the left wing bass and
Speaker 1: he's not. He's not losing any votes because of that,
Speaker 1: and he knows it. So it doesn't do anything, though.
Speaker 1: I mean, anyone who says that an assault rifle van
Speaker 1: is going to stop mass shootings just doesn't know what
Speaker 1: the heck he or she, assuming those are that person's
Speaker 1: preferred pronouns, is talking about. I know, I can't assume
Speaker 1: the pronouns these days. Hi, my name is Bucks X
Speaker 1: and he him. I just want to start doing this
Speaker 1: all the time. Producer Mark, do you do you stay?
Speaker 1: Do you like to stay your preferred pronouns or do
Speaker 1: you like to leave us guessing? I like to make
Speaker 1: everyone guess right, because that way, if you're having a
Speaker 1: bad day, someone steps out of line, you're like, I
Speaker 1: prefer z XE. I do not like gendered designation to
Speaker 1: be guessed right. And then people will have to immediately
Speaker 1: grovel at your feet, producer Mark, and say we are
Speaker 1: so sorry, all hale, Producer Mark. I should do the
Speaker 1: same thing then, right, I could keep people off balance.
Speaker 1: I walk into a job interview like, hey, how you
Speaker 1: doing good to meet you? So excuse me, sir, No,
Speaker 1: no gendered language in this job interview, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I could probably scare them with a lawsuit. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. Somebody comes in says, hey, Buck did
Speaker 1: a great job. He's really doing well in this interview Europe. Next,
Speaker 1: excuse me, sir, All right, now back to back to this.
Speaker 1: Sault rifles. Sorry, I know gendered pronouns. I got a
Speaker 1: little digression going there, So assault rifles. Banding them doesn't
Speaker 1: do anything. We know this, But then you get to
Speaker 1: this other point. And I hear Libs say this all
Speaker 1: the time, and it says though they don't know anything
Speaker 1: about state control, about history, that they just don't know anything.
Speaker 1: They say, Oh, Piers Morgan, Who's I'm Piers Morgan. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have a show on politics in America because I
Speaker 1: can sound fancy to people who don't know any better.
Speaker 1: He said something like, you know they're gonna have five
Speaker 1: thousand nukes to fire at you, So what difference does
Speaker 1: that make you? Even an A or fifteen? Really, that's
Speaker 1: I guess that's why we so easily triumphed against the
Speaker 1: North Vietnamese, and why Afghanistan was so easily pacified. And
Speaker 1: I mean, name a country where there was a miss
Speaker 1: smatch between the insurgency and the government based only on
Speaker 1: large conventional weapons and nukes, and I'll tell you, And
Speaker 1: if the population was well armed, I'll tell you a
Speaker 1: country they had a really hard time suppressing an insurgency,
Speaker 1: or perhaps even weren't able to and lost. To control
Speaker 1: a population, you need more than nukes. You need a
Speaker 1: population that is incapable of defending itself door to door,
Speaker 1: house to house. All one needs is a passing familiarity
Speaker 1: with recent history to understand that this is really not
Speaker 1: that complicated, right, It should not be a surprise to
Speaker 1: Joe Biden that you don't need f sixteens to prevent
Speaker 1: government tyranny. If every government stooge, if there was a
Speaker 1: tyrannical takeover of the federal government in this country, if
Speaker 1: every government stooge who went house to house saying, you know,
Speaker 1: give me give me your you know, your firstborn child
Speaker 1: than all of your money, and that person might end
Speaker 1: up going to millions of You know that that government
Speaker 1: agent is going to millions of homes where there's a
Speaker 1: realistic chance that the inhabitant has some decent firepower, weapons
Speaker 1: and common usage. That changes the whole calculation. This goes
Speaker 1: back to I believe it was a Japanese admiral, although
Speaker 1: some people have told me this quote is apocryphal, but
Speaker 1: there's this quote about from a Japanese admiral in World
Speaker 1: War Two that they never could have invaded the US
Speaker 1: mainland because it would have been a rifle behind every
Speaker 1: blade of grass. True of the Japanese invading. It would
Speaker 1: have been true if the Japanese had invaded the US
Speaker 1: mainland and guess what it would be true if any
Speaker 1: government authority went tyrannical. So it is a check on tyranny.
Speaker 1: It's a lot easier to enforce tyranny if you can
Speaker 1: go a house to house and all the people can
Speaker 1: do is try to, you know, stab you with a
Speaker 1: knife or hit you with a rolling pin. You can
Speaker 1: clear out rooms, clear round houses pretty easily. When that's
Speaker 1: what you're up against. Somebody's got an aar and a
Speaker 1: couple of hundred rounds. Government's gonna have a much tougher
Speaker 1: time unless they're just gonna blow up the entire house.
Speaker 1: But remember they want to control the population. They don't
Speaker 1: want to just eradicate the entire population. Governments want to
Speaker 1: be in control of citizens. So anyway, it's just a
Speaker 1: it's a foolish argument. They make it all the time.
Speaker 1: We're not expecting to go nuke to nuke with a
Speaker 1: tyrannical government. We're expecting to be able to put up
Speaker 1: a fight, because that is all you need to be
Speaker 1: a check on tyranny. Maybe somebody should tell Biden that,
Speaker 1: but he won't care because he's just an imbecile. The
Speaker 1: shoot her in ol Passo posted a manifesto online consumed
Speaker 1: by racist hate in one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry,
Speaker 1: and white supremacy. These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate
Speaker 1: has no place in America. Now I've heard the critique. Oh,
Speaker 1: he didn't write that, he's fair enough, but he said
Speaker 1: the words, and he did say white supremacy is hate
Speaker 1: and should be treated as domestic terror. Important for you
Speaker 1: then to say that this is the same man who
Speaker 1: called white nationalists and klansmen and neo Nazis very fine
Speaker 1: people who ask for more immigrants who look like those
Speaker 1: in Sweden and Norway that the whitest places on the planet,
Speaker 1: while describing immigrants from Haiti as full of aids, describing
Speaker 1: the people of this community as rapists and criminals, talking
Speaker 1: about people as though they are animals or self human.
Speaker 1: This necessarily results. You saw that manifesto. The words that
Speaker 1: he was using were many of the same words that
Speaker 1: the president has been using. This necessarily results in what betto?
Speaker 1: What does it result in? Interesting? He trailed off there
Speaker 1: because you know, now we do have a shooter in
Speaker 1: Ohio that is left wing, and as a fan, I
Speaker 1: just I'm curious what Beto was going for there, he
Speaker 1: just changed in the middle. This necessarily results in in
Speaker 1: what people acting out or people calling out the president
Speaker 1: could be either it could be either. I just don't
Speaker 1: know how crazy Betto is willing to get because he
Speaker 1: already blames the president for something that no same president,
Speaker 1: I was, no same person rather could blame the president for.
Speaker 1: He's already put this on the lap of the commander
Speaker 1: in chief as though this is something that he bears
Speaker 1: responsibility for. And if you don't agree with that, you're
Speaker 1: clearly a bad person. And Betto is just full of
Speaker 1: lies here. Trump didn't say they're very fine, that that
Speaker 1: white nationalist and clansmen are very fine people. He said
Speaker 1: when it came to the dispute over monuments Confederate minumes
Speaker 1: and taking it down there, there are fine people on
Speaker 1: both sides of that issue, was what he meant to say.
Speaker 1: That's what he was trying to say. He had already
Speaker 1: condemned white nationalists. Trump doesn't like any of those tiki
Speaker 1: torched losers. Come on, man, everybody knows that. And then
Speaker 1: his whole thing about calling people of this community rapists
Speaker 1: and murderers. He's never called the people of El Paso
Speaker 1: rapists and murderers. Trump, in a sweeping statement, said that
Speaker 1: you know, Mexico is not sending us their best and
Speaker 1: some of the people they're sending, you know, he says
Speaker 1: they're sending us rapists and murders, and some of them
Speaker 1: are very fine people. What he's saying is that there
Speaker 1: are people to come across through illegal immigration that are criminals.
Speaker 1: This is a fact. Just go type in MS thirteen
Speaker 1: and illegal illegal alien and see all the news hits
Speaker 1: you get. There are rapists and murderers who come across
Speaker 1: the border illegally. And Trump was the first president to
Speaker 1: come along, or first Kennedy to come along and be
Speaker 1: willing to say that, which is a fact. Of course,
Speaker 1: he doesn't think that all of them. That's why he
Speaker 1: said there's some that are very find people. No one
Speaker 1: thinks that he really believes that all of the good
Speaker 1: would be more atic beyond belief. In fact, we know
Speaker 1: a very small percentage of the people that come across
Speaker 1: the border illegally are criminals of any kind. But if
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about the Valedictorians and say, oh,
Speaker 1: look at this, we should just you know, the more
Speaker 1: of the merrier, more illegal is better. We should also
Speaker 1: be able to say, well, there's also a downside to this.
Speaker 1: There are criminals who come across as part of this surge.
Speaker 1: There are law enforcement problems that in fact, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of them, but they still misrepresent what Trump says,
Speaker 1: if what Trump. If Trump is so terrible, if his
Speaker 1: beliefs are so awful, then why do they always have
Speaker 1: to lie about what it is that Trump stands for
Speaker 1: and what he says. I think we all know the
Speaker 1: answer to that. You know, he says all this, all
Speaker 1: this horrible stuff out the president the United States, far
Speaker 1: beyond anything that you heard Republicans saying when they were
Speaker 1: running against Barack Obama in twenty eleven. I mean, they
Speaker 1: ever spoke in such defamatory terms about Barack Obama. And
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, good heavens, if you said anything about
Speaker 1: Saint Obama, people just jumped all over you. But it's
Speaker 1: not just betcha, I look better as a desperate man's
Speaker 1: His candidacy is a joke. He probably should have dropped
Speaker 1: out yesterday. He's probably should be long gone as a
Speaker 1: presidential candidate. He can't get any any wind in his
Speaker 1: sails at all, Despite all this media love for him,
Speaker 1: and they treat they treat him like he's a serious person,
Speaker 1: a serious candidate, when he's neither. But you know, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is out there doing the same, Joe Biden's taking
Speaker 1: taking cheap shots at the president and his record on
Speaker 1: this one right now and play clip six. There's no
Speaker 1: question that his reddick has contributed to at a minimum,
Speaker 1: at a minimum of dumbing down the way in which
Speaker 1: we as a society talk about one another, the way
Speaker 1: we've always been looked. We've always brought the country together.
Speaker 1: We've never you know, we the people we hold these
Speaker 1: true self. He flies in the face of all the
Speaker 1: basic things that we've never really met the standard, we've
Speaker 1: never abandoned it before. He looks like he's just flat
Speaker 1: abandoned the theory that we are one people. Based on
Speaker 1: what I mean again, this is a really terrible thing
Speaker 1: to say about a president. He's abandoned the theory that
Speaker 1: we're all one people. No's he just believes in the
Speaker 1: theory that people who are in the country legally should
Speaker 1: be treated differently than people who are not in the
Speaker 1: country legally. That is a novel. That is a crazy statement.
Speaker 1: Now to the modern Democratic Party, that there's any difference,
Speaker 1: that there should be any differentiation between those from the
Speaker 1: country legally and those who are in the country in
Speaker 1: an illegal status. Those who are citizens or who are
Speaker 1: permanent residents, a part of the American family forever legally
Speaker 1: should be treated in any way differently from those who
Speaker 1: just show up and say, I want to be here now, sorry,
Speaker 1: broke your laws. Don't care. Give me welfare benefits, give
Speaker 1: me access to jobs, give me free school. You know,
Speaker 1: that's it's a it's an amazing thing to watch. It's
Speaker 1: a really disheartening thing to watch how the Democrats are
Speaker 1: all trying to outdo each other. It's a race to
Speaker 1: the bottom for who can say the nastiest things about
Speaker 1: the president. You know, you had Betcha responding there to
Speaker 1: the President calling out white nationalists and saying that they're
Speaker 1: that they're disgusting, that they're horrible, that you know that
Speaker 1: they have no place in America. That does that even
Speaker 1: factor in now, bet I was like, oh, no, he's
Speaker 1: still a terrible racist. He's still the worst. He's still awful.
Speaker 1: You know, Joe Biden's running around, uh saying that this
Speaker 1: is the first time that he's ever heard Trump condemned
Speaker 1: white supremacy. That's that's his take. I mean, look, Joe,
Speaker 1: Joe gets away with more than anything else just not
Speaker 1: being very bright, and the media constantly, constantly covers for
Speaker 1: him for just being an intense, an intense mediocrity because look,
Speaker 1: Biden is staking strong in the polls. I'm my my
Speaker 1: prediction of Biden may have been wrong. All we'll see.
Speaker 1: But here's what he says about Trump and condemning white nationalists.
Speaker 1: Play eight and for the first time today, the first
Speaker 1: time I've ever heard him say he condemns white, white supremacy,
Speaker 1: white terrorism. When prisms do I have to reject, I've
Speaker 1: reject David Duke, rejected David Duke. I've rejected the KKK,
Speaker 1: the lu klux Land from the time I'm five years old,
Speaker 1: I rejected them. I put it on Twitter last week
Speaker 1: how many times. You know what, It's an amazing got
Speaker 1: the neo Nazis and the white nationalists because they should
Speaker 1: be condemned totally. Racism is evil and those who cause
Speaker 1: violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK,
Speaker 1: Neo Nazis, white supremacies, and other hate groups that are
Speaker 1: repugnant to everything we hold dear as American. For the
Speaker 1: first time today, the first time I've ever heard him
Speaker 1: say he condemns white, white supremacy, white terrorists. Maybe Joe
Speaker 1: should just listen. Then, those are all different instances of
Speaker 1: the President publicly from his platform as the leader of
Speaker 1: the free world, just saying what we all know, which
Speaker 1: is that white supremacy and racism are terrible things. They
Speaker 1: are evils to be fought and to be destroyed, to
Speaker 1: be annihilated, to be pushed out of society at every turn,
Speaker 1: at every possibility. How many times does he have to
Speaker 1: say it before they'll at least stop saying that he
Speaker 1: won't say it? I mean, can they can they just
Speaker 1: give Can they just give him credit for that? Can
Speaker 1: they just stop pretending that he won't say Oh, he
Speaker 1: won't say it, He won't say it. Can they stop
Speaker 1: doing that? Please? That's just a lie. He says it
Speaker 1: many many times, and they must know. I don't know
Speaker 1: Joe Biden so out to lunch, who knows what he
Speaker 1: really thinks? And then you've got I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: it is so frusting. You got Corey Booker running around
Speaker 1: saying the crazy stuff that that he says. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have so many, all these candidates who just don't
Speaker 1: care about the damage they're doing to discourse in the
Speaker 1: country while complaining about how our discourse has coursened, about
Speaker 1: how we're not civil to each other, or when we're
Speaker 1: talking about politics and we're gonna talk about Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: and how they've got you know, they had protesters outside
Speaker 1: Mitch's house calling him myrtle, murder turtle and hashtag massacre
Speaker 1: Mitch putting that on placards. These people are acting like
Speaker 1: total lunatics. They're all Democrats, they're all left wing supporters. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about that in a moment. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Democrats love to talk about civility
Speaker 1: and politics, and yet we know they're deeply uncivil on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. We know that they say horrible things
Speaker 1: about our law enforcement community. We know they say terrible
Speaker 1: things about Republicans. They like to call the President of
Speaker 1: the United States a racist, a white nationalist, more or
Speaker 1: less a member of the k k K. And last
Speaker 1: night you had protesters that had gathered outside of Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell's house yelling death threats and hashtag massacre Mitch, which yes,
Speaker 1: I know can be construed as a double entendre. But
Speaker 1: massacre Mitch was what they were showing on social media
Speaker 1: and sharing on placards outside. I mean, they went to
Speaker 1: this guy's house in the middle night, folks, Who does that?
Speaker 1: What kind of lunatic thinks that showing up at a
Speaker 1: senior citizen who just broke his shoulder, by the way
Speaker 1: and is recovering at home, showing up at his house
Speaker 1: to chant about how he has quote murderle sorry, murder
Speaker 1: turtle and yelling things like out come out wherever you are.
Speaker 1: And then a woman was yelling I can't even read it.
Speaker 1: It was blank, don't give nobody a blank. Blank your
Speaker 1: thoughts in prayers, Mitch, blank, you blank, your wife blank,
Speaker 1: everything you stand for. This is all on video. I
Speaker 1: mean I heard the video last night. It's just it's
Speaker 1: just lunatic outside Mitch McConnell's house, screaming and threatening him
Speaker 1: in his family, and no surprise here. Do you think
Speaker 1: the Democrats say that they're going to back off now?
Speaker 1: And maybe they're Maybe their rhetoric can cause nasty things
Speaker 1: to happen too. Maybe it's not just a Republican problem,
Speaker 1: as they say, it is when someone can act act
Speaker 1: on their own to engage in violent behavior because of
Speaker 1: contentious politics. Mitch McConnell trying to sleep last night, I can't,
Speaker 1: trying to recover from a broken shoulder, which I'm sure
Speaker 1: it's very painful at his age, and I really mean that. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: AOC who has been calling out Mitch McConnell on Twitter
Speaker 1: for quite some time, she decided to make a huge
Speaker 1: deal of some guys at a I forget what this
Speaker 1: event is. It's in the it's in Kentucky, I forget
Speaker 1: what it's called. But it's some kind of a fair
Speaker 1: or something, and they they had a bunch of young
Speaker 1: people who are wearing you know, young men, white men,
Speaker 1: who are standing around a cutout of AOC and they
Speaker 1: all have Team Mitch t shirts on. Okay, and it's
Speaker 1: a cardboard cutout. Folks like, it's not a real person.
Speaker 1: It's a cardboard Cutout's very obvious. But some of these guys,
Speaker 1: and they look to be about high school age, they're
Speaker 1: they're doing thumbs down one I'm sorry. One of them
Speaker 1: has his hand kind of like he's grabbing her throat,
Speaker 1: and another is hugging and kissing her on the cheek.
Speaker 1: This is like the definition of you know, childish, dumb
Speaker 1: teenage boy stuff that you shouldn't do, but they did.
Speaker 1: And you know it's Look the guy that's doing the
Speaker 1: grab the throat thing, I mean, that's a but hugging
Speaker 1: a cardboard cutout and kissing it on the cheek. I
Speaker 1: don't even know if we're supposed what we're supposed to
Speaker 1: be upset about. That's not actually, you know, it's not
Speaker 1: actually assaulting any water, doing anything terrible. It's not violent.
Speaker 1: It's a hugging, a kiss on the cheek to a
Speaker 1: cardboard cutout. So oh, but do you think that Ocasio Cortez,
Speaker 1: who has millions and millions of followers in social media,
Speaker 1: do you think that she takes this in stride? No,
Speaker 1: she tweeted out, Hey, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, these
Speaker 1: young men look like they work for you. She tweeted again,
Speaker 1: just wanted to clarify, are you paying for young men
Speaker 1: to prac dis groping and choking members of Congress with
Speaker 1: your payroll? Or is this just the standard culture of
Speaker 1: Team Mitch? Okay, folks, these are high school students that
Speaker 1: just are wearing T shirts that say Team Mitch that
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with Mitch McConnell, with his office
Speaker 1: or anything else. And you know, this is just obviously good.
Speaker 1: Are these kids are? Their lives are probably never gonna
Speaker 1: be the same. I'm sure they're already getting all kinds
Speaker 1: of death threats and people are saying horrible things about them,
Speaker 1: and they may if they're applying to colleges, their colleges
Speaker 1: may pull their oh you know all this stuff right
Speaker 1: because essentially, you know, doxing all these kids or pushing
Speaker 1: them out into public view where AOC is trashing them
Speaker 1: and making a big deal of this. That seems to
Speaker 1: be an overreaction to me. That seems to be a
Speaker 1: bad thing for anybody in a really powerful position to
Speaker 1: be doing. Mitch McConnell said that these people have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with him, and you know this is not there.
Speaker 1: They don't work for him, they're not affiliated with him.
Speaker 1: And you know, but does AOC worry about you know
Speaker 1: what this might mean that these kids wearing Team Mitch
Speaker 1: t shirts in this viral photo. Now, look they did
Speaker 1: have in the caption I see here break me off?
Speaker 1: A piece of that. Look it's I'm I'm not saying
Speaker 1: what they did was was okay. I'm just saying, look,
Speaker 1: they're they're they're dumb kids. They look like they're about
Speaker 1: fifteen or sixteen years old. Quote, this is what the
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell spokesman said. These young men are not campaign staff,
Speaker 1: they're high schoolers, and it's incredible that the national media
Speaker 1: has sought to once again paint a large target on
Speaker 1: their backs rather than report real and significant news in
Speaker 1: our country. Yeah, why is this a news story? How
Speaker 1: is this a news story? Well, because AOC tweeted it
Speaker 1: out and may have ruined these kids lives because one
Speaker 1: of them hugged, hugged a cardboard cut out of her
Speaker 1: and kissed it on the cheek. I mean, they're not
Speaker 1: even they're not even doing anything pornographic or you know,
Speaker 1: this is not stuff that you know is way way.
Speaker 1: I mean, the guy with the throat choke thing is
Speaker 1: that's a stupid thing to do, and that's over the line.
Speaker 1: But the hug of the kiss on the cheek thing
Speaker 1: is you know, it's it's immature, stupid kids stuff. But
Speaker 1: now all these kids in the photo, even the ones
Speaker 1: that are just doing thumbs down. They didn't know. I'm
Speaker 1: sure they didn't know their buddies were gonna at the
Speaker 1: last second in this photograph, you know, grab and h
Speaker 1: But this is what happens. You know, AOC has way
Speaker 1: too much power and very very little wisdom. And does
Speaker 1: she get called out for her supporters going after Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell in the middle of the night, you know, for
Speaker 1: to do Democrats and their rhetorics saying that Mitch McConnell refuses.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is how this all start at AOC
Speaker 1: was saying, Mitch McConnell refused to take action on background checks.
Speaker 1: Now that's why people are dying. Does that ever get
Speaker 1: talked about? Is maybe a little too intense, a little
Speaker 1: bit unfair to the geriatric Republican House Majority leader? Nope,
Speaker 1: of course not. This is always a one way street, folks.
Speaker 1: Republican rhetoric can lead to bad things. Republicans are responsible
Speaker 1: for what anybody who's even vaguely associated with the right does.
Speaker 1: Democrats just have to get out of jail free card
Speaker 1: on this all the time. They get away with it
Speaker 1: all Scott free AOC and all the rest. They can
Speaker 1: say whatever, they will look at the horrible stuff they've
Speaker 1: been saying for days now. They have no shame whatsoever.
Speaker 1: Get pulled off the bus after school one day and
Speaker 1: apparently he had made a kill list, and I happened
Speaker 1: to be on it. I don't know why. I look
Speaker 1: up and there's two police officers standing on the bus
Speaker 1: asking him to get off the bus and go with them.
Speaker 1: David Partridge was an other former high school classmate of
Speaker 1: the government. He says when a friend told him about
Speaker 1: the kill list and disturbing text messages about hurting people,
Speaker 1: they both went to the police. This guy could go
Speaker 1: to the school, he could kill people, he could hurt
Speaker 1: my family, he could hurt you. So you were concerned
Speaker 1: he was a school shooter back then. Absolutely. She contacted
Speaker 1: the police along with her parents. I got off the
Speaker 1: phone with her. I contacted the police along with my father.
Speaker 1: There you have students who alerted police about the Dayton,
Speaker 1: Ohio mass shooter explaining what they're what they're very understandable
Speaker 1: concerns were and that they did take action, that the
Speaker 1: police were notified. Now we get into a difficult part
Speaker 1: of the conversation when we are trying to rely and
Speaker 1: when we were returning to police. At this stage, there
Speaker 1: was already been a societal failure. There's already been a
Speaker 1: failure of parenting, of community, of you name it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's if all of the above
Speaker 1: were just some of it. But once you have a
Speaker 1: person who is of high school age who is making
Speaker 1: lists of people he says he wants to kill, there's
Speaker 1: obviously already been a whole lot that has gone on
Speaker 1: that was very damaging and that has not sufficiently addressed
Speaker 1: this person of this person's problems, whether they are mental
Speaker 1: health related or you know whatever, you know, they're ideologically based,
Speaker 1: whatever it may be, because now you're going to have
Speaker 1: everyone say, well, what what can we do? What should
Speaker 1: police do? Next time around? This came up also, and
Speaker 1: with the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas shooter. This has come up
Speaker 1: with other shooters who weren't just putting red flags out there.
Speaker 1: There were more or less standing on top of a
Speaker 1: building waiving a red flag and yelling over a bullhorn,
Speaker 1: I'm a threat. But when you pass legislation that allows
Speaker 1: for what, the incarceration of somebody who has not yet
Speaker 1: done anything, they'd have to have the ability to prove
Speaker 1: the law enforcement would have to be able to say
Speaker 1: that this person was involved in a conspiracy, a conspiracy
Speaker 1: to involve, you know, to take life, a conspiracy to
Speaker 1: conduct a mass shooting. And you don't have to be
Speaker 1: a brilliant lawyer to think of the ways that you
Speaker 1: would defend against that, and you don't have to be
Speaker 1: a conspiracy theorist to think that that could very easily
Speaker 1: be abused. And this has become a way that people
Speaker 1: settle scores with each other. That it also will limit
Speaker 1: the willingness of any one individual to seek certain mental
Speaker 1: health treatment for fear of being handed over to the
Speaker 1: hand it over to the lease and treated like they
Speaker 1: are a threat when they should not be. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are all the very This is why the mental
Speaker 1: health component is very complicated. But even the policing part
Speaker 1: of this is very complicated. There's a study that's in
Speaker 1: the National Institute of Justice that you can you can
Speaker 1: pull up if you like, you can read where they
Speaker 1: looked at all of the different mass shooting cases stretching
Speaker 1: back I think for about ten years and more or
Speaker 1: less crunch the numbers on it, and they created a
Speaker 1: model of radicalization to terrorism among lone wolves. Here's what's
Speaker 1: on it. Personal and political grievances. Affinity with online sympathizers
Speaker 1: or extremist groups comes next. Then it is finding an enabler.
Speaker 1: Then it is broadcasting intent, followed by triggering event, and
Speaker 1: then terrorism. Those are present in a majority. In some cases,
Speaker 1: a vast majority of lone wolf radicalization case is irrespective
Speaker 1: of what the specific ideology maybe. But I look at
Speaker 1: this and it reminds me very much of the geehotization
Speaker 1: chart that we used to work from at the NYPD
Speaker 1: Intelligence Division that had self identification, pre radicalization, radicalization and
Speaker 1: in doctrin indoctrination and then geehotization, which is really just
Speaker 1: all a fancy way of saying someone is aggrieved. Someone
Speaker 1: finds people that make them feel like they're able to
Speaker 1: be powerful, and that tell them who the enemy is
Speaker 1: and that they want to take action. They learn more
Speaker 1: about it, they become ideologically brainwashed, and then they become
Speaker 1: violent based on the brainwashed ideology that they have inculcated
Speaker 1: in themselves. Now that's all well and good, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a framework for understanding these things. The problem
Speaker 1: is that it's very hard to tell when someone's going
Speaker 1: from one of these steps to the next, And what
Speaker 1: action can you really take even if you think it's
Speaker 1: going to happen. We do not yet have a pre
Speaker 1: crime unit in this country. We don't have the ability
Speaker 1: to lock somebody up for what we think they might do.
Speaker 1: And the moment you start involuntarily committing people, that sends
Speaker 1: a signal across the mental health community that you know,
Speaker 1: you better watch out how much you tell a psychologist
Speaker 1: or psychiatrist about the problems, even if you're constructively trying
Speaker 1: to deal with it and don't pose any imminent threat.
Speaker 1: Perhaps the state of you name it disagrees wants to
Speaker 1: take away your freedom for a while. And how do
Speaker 1: you prove that you're not crazy once the state has
Speaker 1: said that you are absent any wrong do or actual
Speaker 1: proven threat. This is why you have to be very
Speaker 1: there's a lot of nuance here. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: competing goods. This is not just oh, there are evil
Speaker 1: psychopaths running around, let's just lock them up. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: could all agree on that, But how do we determine
Speaker 1: who's an evil psychopath and who's somebody who's just crying
Speaker 1: out for help, somebody who just wants attention needs, mental
Speaker 1: health resources needs, time with a therapist, time on medication,
Speaker 1: whatever it may be. And this is also where people
Speaker 1: would point out that those who have some form of
Speaker 1: mental illness, the numbers would show you, and I'm making
Speaker 1: up the number here, but it's something like, you know,
Speaker 1: point zero zero one percent of them are a danger
Speaker 1: to the public because of their mental illness, or you know,
Speaker 1: it might it's probably even less of a percentage than that.
Speaker 1: It's a tiny, tiny fraction of people with mental illness
Speaker 1: are criminally insane as how you could describe them, or
Speaker 1: criminally mentally impaired. It's very very, very very small percentage.
Speaker 1: So you're going to pass laws now to try to
Speaker 1: get at that tiny percentage. There are risks here, folks.
Speaker 1: There are problems that come with this, and we ask
Speaker 1: a lot of law enforcement to be able to sort
Speaker 1: through this, especially at a time when I will point
Speaker 1: out law enforcement is not exactly being treated at all
Speaker 1: that well, especially by the Democrats unless you're an FBI
Speaker 1: or Intel person who was trying to trash Trump. Democrats
Speaker 1: don't like you if you're in law enforcement. They don't
Speaker 1: like local police, they don't like local sheriffs, They think
Speaker 1: they're all racist, they don't like border patrol, their Nazi
Speaker 1: prison guards, Democrats say crazy stuff, and yet you have
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo up in New York. You know, New York
Speaker 1: is one of the places where you've had these videos
Speaker 1: of young people throwing throwing water at police and then
Speaker 1: laughing about it and really just being disrespectful and creating
Speaker 1: a hostile environment for law enforcement on the streets. Here's
Speaker 1: what govern Governor Cuomo says about this about the waterdowsings
Speaker 1: play clip one. The police officers walked away and got
Speaker 1: back in the car. That is wholly unacceptable. I don't
Speaker 1: know how we're training police officers. How when you are
Speaker 1: basically assaulted, and that's an assault, you retreat, okay, Governor Cuomo. So, now,
Speaker 1: if somebody in the YPD tries to effect an arrest
Speaker 1: on a bunch of kids who are a bunch of teenagers, youths, whatever,
Speaker 1: who have thrown water at them, you're going to back
Speaker 1: them up when they have to wrestle one of them
Speaker 1: to the ground and maybe one of them gets a
Speaker 1: scrape on their forehead. You're going to back them up
Speaker 1: when maybe they have to pull out pepper spray because
Speaker 1: they're mobbed by other people that are yelling and taunting them,
Speaker 1: yelling at them and taunting them. If I were in
Speaker 1: the NYPDI, I wouldn't have faith in Governor Cuomo. Nobody
Speaker 1: needs to take water dowsings in the face without reacting.
Speaker 1: Governor Cuobo would like you to take action against the
Speaker 1: water dowsers. I don't know if that's really a word,
Speaker 1: but Fuomo thinks it's a word. Yeah, we ask a
Speaker 1: lot of law enforcement. We essentially asked them to protect
Speaker 1: us all the time, to take a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: criticism from the Democrats, and to sometimes be left high
Speaker 1: and dry if they make a mistake. Sometimes I think
Speaker 1: we ask a little too much of our law enforcement
Speaker 1: this country, or maybe we should just be Remember Jeter Struck,
Speaker 1: he was the kind that gave testimony on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Sounds kind of like this, and he sends that he
Speaker 1: did nothing wrong when he was in the f mey
Speaker 1: and he was trying to stop Trump from being president.
Speaker 1: But yeah, remember that guy with the he had the
Speaker 1: whole Lisa page as lover who was an FBI senior
Speaker 1: FBI lawyer, and he had those text messages about how
Speaker 1: Trump is disgusting and how he could smell the Trump
Speaker 1: supporters and he did all of that on official FBI devices. Wow,
Speaker 1: let me tell you that the folks that I used
Speaker 1: to work with in law enforcement always knew and it
Speaker 1: didn't really have to ever get talked about that. If
Speaker 1: you want to vent about the bosses, or if you
Speaker 1: want to vent about anything, you either do it on
Speaker 1: a private device. But even then, I wouldn't put it
Speaker 1: in writing. You call from a private phone and you
Speaker 1: speak in real time, you don't write it down. You
Speaker 1: certainly don't write it down on government property, which is
Speaker 1: what these two did. I mean, it was astonishingly bad opsec.
Speaker 1: I mean the operational security here. It was terrible. And
Speaker 1: this is an individual who, Peter Struck specifically, was involved
Speaker 1: in three of the most politically sensitive FBI involved incidents
Speaker 1: of the Trump era, really of my lifetime. Okay, Peter
Speaker 1: Struck was the guy who was involved in the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton email investigation, was involved in the what was one
Speaker 1: of the agents who sat down to speak to General
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn on assignment from Sally Yates in a in
Speaker 1: a left wing just a left wing partisan attack maneuver,
Speaker 1: which is what that was. Just find some way to
Speaker 1: mess up Trump's people. I mean, Sally Yates is the worst.
Speaker 1: I mean, these these people are the worst abusing their
Speaker 1: government power because they have Trump's arrangement syndrome. And you
Speaker 1: know you've got Yates, uh, you know, sending him to
Speaker 1: do the interview you with Michael Flynn, and then you
Speaker 1: have Struck also involved at the latter stage or at
Speaker 1: the at the stages of the investigation, the FBI investigation
Speaker 1: of Russia collusion. So this guy isn't just someone who
Speaker 1: happens to work at the FBI. He's someone who is,
Speaker 1: like Forrest Gump, involved in some of the most important
Speaker 1: events in events in the history of that organization. Just
Speaker 1: happens to be there, right, just happens to be involved
Speaker 1: in these different things, and we're told that it's not
Speaker 1: a big well. Rather, he's now filed suit claiming that
Speaker 1: he should be reinstated, that he should have back pay,
Speaker 1: and that the only reason he was fired was the
Speaker 1: political pressure brought by Trump and his allies against him.
Speaker 1: One he's at the FBI. I just have to say,
Speaker 1: you know, the FBI really needs a serious, serious house cleaning.
Speaker 1: And there are there were deep state folks at the top,
Speaker 1: Komy and Struck and Page and McCabe and you know
Speaker 1: who very obviously are are not chastened at all by
Speaker 1: what they did. That they do not feel any any
Speaker 1: remorse or regret for their hyper partisan abuse of power.
Speaker 1: In fact, they're self righteous about it. Look at Komy,
Speaker 1: they're sanctimonious about it. You know, they just decided, Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, the the ohso evil Attorney General Bill Barr decided,
Speaker 1: who I think is great and fantastic in the role,
Speaker 1: that they weren't going to bring charges against Komby for
Speaker 1: leaking that memo, giving him effectively the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 1: And then some remember, even the decision to charge would
Speaker 1: be smirched Komey's character, and and that would be a
Speaker 1: black mark on his reputation, even if he beat it
Speaker 1: in court. You know, the decision to charge is in
Speaker 1: and of itself damaging to somebody. So they're not charging him.
Speaker 1: They're letting comee me off. Oh, because I thought that
Speaker 1: Barr was so unfair and he would just do whatever
Speaker 1: Trump's bidding was, No, Barr looked at the law and
Speaker 1: he said, all right, on balance, we've got to give
Speaker 1: him the benefit of the doubt here with the leaks.
Speaker 1: Would I have done that, Probably not. But I think
Speaker 1: Barr understands the way the law applies, and I was
Speaker 1: trying to be honest about it. But now now you
Speaker 1: see that Struck wants to get back in action, and
Speaker 1: there's also he wants to go back to the FBI,
Speaker 1: wants reinstatement. And there's also the Judicial Watch report that
Speaker 1: came out of all of these leaks, lots and lots
Speaker 1: of leaks in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen and into
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, many many, many people people that were unidentified
Speaker 1: but were fired or were put on unpaidly for a time,
Speaker 1: or you know, getting serious slapdowns for leaking to the media.
Speaker 1: I have to say, I would wonder what those leaks
Speaker 1: were really about. Hmm. What was going on in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen and in twenty seventeen that would make somebody risk
Speaker 1: their career and possibly even their freedom just to tell
Speaker 1: the media something. What issue would be so high profile
Speaker 1: and so contentious. M I wonder if there's anything going
Speaker 1: on politically in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen. Ah, I
Speaker 1: think we all know what the answer is. This Inspector
Speaker 1: General report that's supposed to come out next month better
Speaker 1: be a just complete hot wash of all this nonsense
Speaker 1: that's been going on over at the FBI, because clearly
Speaker 1: what's happened so far, they don't accept that they're still
Speaker 1: fighting back. I mean, whatever accountability there has been, now,
Speaker 1: these whether it's McCabe or Struck or Comy, they all
Speaker 1: claim to be victims of Trump. They don't say, they
Speaker 1: don't say they failed, they don't say they apologize. Maybe
Speaker 1: they say they use some bad judgment and then victims
Speaker 1: of Trump. You know, I would just note that whether
Speaker 1: it's McCabe or Struck, they didn't want to give General
Speaker 1: Flynn the benefit of the doubt. You know, he gets ruined,
Speaker 1: he gets he faces criminal sanction, he faces the destruction
Speaker 1: of his reputation, loss of his job as National Security Advisor.
Speaker 1: I don't think these senior FBI officials should be getting
Speaker 1: the special treatment that they've been getting. Decades of Chinese misbehavior,
Speaker 1: decades of China not living up to its commitments, fundamentally
Speaker 1: stealing our intellectual property, engaging in forced technology transfers, discriminating
Speaker 1: against American and other foreign companies, and this behavior was
Speaker 1: accepted by the United States for far too long. We're
Speaker 1: planning for the Chinese to come here next month, and
Speaker 1: if there's a good deal or good progress, he may
Speaker 1: reconsider some things. But similarly, he has also said if
Speaker 1: there's no good deal in no progress, he may also
Speaker 1: reconsider some things. On the other side, the president would
Speaker 1: like a big win before the election. Doesn't have to
Speaker 1: worry right now, but the idea that it will be
Speaker 1: let's say anything more than one kind of win. I
Speaker 1: think it's going to go on until twenty twenty one,
Speaker 1: when I think that she's reign may be over. That's
Speaker 1: the hundredth year of the People's Republic of China, the
Speaker 1: Communist Party. And I think that this whole notion of
Speaker 1: invincibility was she is a little bit more made up
Speaker 1: by the Western president, and I think it's tiresome. I'm
Speaker 1: listening mister Wonderful, and I think mister Wonderful is dead
Speaker 1: right on everything because it's factual, it's empirical, and thank
Speaker 1: you for speaking the truth. I don't know how, why
Speaker 1: aren't you more fearful that the media will hate you?
Speaker 1: You know, Jim, I just have to fight it every
Speaker 1: day and I'm really tired of the last fifteen years.
Speaker 1: Finally an administration that's batting for the guy that puts
Speaker 1: his capital up there and gets screwed over over and
Speaker 1: over and over and over again. Enough already, let's fix it.
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree more. And that's exactly what's going on.
Speaker 1: Thank you for speaking the truth. It's really refreshing. A
Speaker 1: lot of different voices weighing in there on China. So
Speaker 1: you probably recognize Kramer from Mad Money, mister wonderful who am?
Speaker 1: I have an interview before, and I gotta say I
Speaker 1: found it to be a very very affable guy and
Speaker 1: smart than you had Bolton weighing in on this issue.
Speaker 1: You had Larry Kudlow, who's also very affable and smart guy.
Speaker 1: By the way, Bolton and affable, I don't know, I
Speaker 1: leave that to you. Does have a great mustache, however,
Speaker 1: I mean that is a that is a Walrus level ten.
Speaker 1: That's a serious mustache. But the Chinese are digging in
Speaker 1: for what looks to be a long term showdown over
Speaker 1: this whole trade war issue. And this means that if
Speaker 1: we have any real economic disruption in advance of the
Speaker 1: election of this could get this could get tough pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: Things could go south on us. We had one of
Speaker 1: the worst days in a long time the stock market
Speaker 1: earlier this week, and now there have been additional Essentially
Speaker 1: both sides have fired more shots across the other sides bows,
Speaker 1: so to speak. I think Kramer there said one hundredth
Speaker 1: anniversary or the People's Republic of China. That's actually the seventieth,
Speaker 1: So I think he just got a little it's all right,
Speaker 1: it's all right, Kramer. That's what Buck's here for to
Speaker 1: get the facts right. But he's referring to how Shijin
Speaker 1: paying the Chinese premier's planning a huge celebration for the
Speaker 1: seventieth anniversary of the People's Republic of China in October,
Speaker 1: and that means that he needs to show himself standing
Speaker 1: strong against any US or any Trump effort to try
Speaker 1: and bend him to America's will. So he's not going
Speaker 1: to want to budge on this. And as a result,
Speaker 1: you have some US measures going into place here, like
Speaker 1: the designation of China as a currency manipulator that just
Speaker 1: happened earlier this week. You also have the farm belt
Speaker 1: in America feeling the pain of China's tariffs on our
Speaker 1: farm products. You know, imports from China are getting hit
Speaker 1: with more punitive tariffs. I mean, you have a lot
Speaker 1: of back and forth here, but one thing that I
Speaker 1: have to say is and there are risks. There's no
Speaker 1: question there are risks here in folks. I mean this.
Speaker 1: I think this could be the issue that decides and
Speaker 1: I'm not sure in which direction, but that decides whether
Speaker 1: Trump gets four more years as president. I think this
Speaker 1: could be it. You may see a Chinese trade war
Speaker 1: be the determining factor because if things if we have
Speaker 1: a big essentially a recession, I mean a correction in
Speaker 1: the economy is a nice way of saying our recession.
Speaker 1: If we had into a recession here and the global
Speaker 1: economy starts contracting, then it's going to be much easier.
Speaker 1: Right now, all these all the Democrats have is Trump
Speaker 1: is a racist. Trump is mean, he's orange. You know,
Speaker 1: they don't like his hair. That's really what they resolve
Speaker 1: themselves too, because what are they going to say? All
Speaker 1: this prosperity and an economic dynamism is just is bad.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're going to root against the American economy
Speaker 1: because the American economy is doing very well. But if
Speaker 1: that were to change, then I think you're in a
Speaker 1: real position where you could see all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: this is the issue that over everything else. Because Trump
Speaker 1: also has pushed for this, this this isn't just a
Speaker 1: cyclical economic matter. Trump decided that he was going to
Speaker 1: hold the Chinese to account. Finally. Now I think that
Speaker 1: he's right, and he should get credit for being right
Speaker 1: on the merits the Chinese. And this is what mister
Speaker 1: Wonderful's talking about. The Chinese have been ripping off American
Speaker 1: companies and American investors as a result. Right, I mean
Speaker 1: the companies are funded by investors, So the Chinese have
Speaker 1: been ripping us off for a long time. There's really
Speaker 1: no question about that. The Chinese have been currency manipulators
Speaker 1: for a long time. The Chinese have been stealing intellectual property.
Speaker 1: They've been engaged in, you know, these forced transfers of
Speaker 1: intellectual property. That's when you partner up with them in
Speaker 1: China and to do for your business, to do work there,
Speaker 1: you have to give them your proprietary technology and access
Speaker 1: to it, and then they either just take it and
Speaker 1: use it or reverse engineered for their own purposes. All
Speaker 1: the cyber theft, the industrial and intellectual property espionage that
Speaker 1: has been going on for years, for decades now, without
Speaker 1: any serious pushback from the United States. This is now
Speaker 1: the first time where it seems that this is We're
Speaker 1: going to do something about this. But keep in mind
Speaker 1: some of the possible outcomes here you have the and
Speaker 1: this was discussed. I remember in the movie Not the
Speaker 1: Big Short, what's the other movie, Too Big to Fail?
Speaker 1: When we had the US economic near collapse in two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight, at least near collapse of the banking sector,
Speaker 1: the Chinese premiere there's this scene they play out where
Speaker 1: the Chinese premier says to Hank Paulson, who was the
Speaker 1: Treasury Secretary, that China and Russia were considering selling US
Speaker 1: treasuries at the same time on the market to essentially
Speaker 1: collapse the treasury market and send the US economy into
Speaker 1: into a spiral. Right, But that didn't happen. There are
Speaker 1: some who weren't wondering if the Chinese though, we'll do
Speaker 1: something akin to that going forward, even if it hurts them,
Speaker 1: They think it might hurt us more. You know, it
Speaker 1: would drive the yuan up. But that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: they wouldn't be willing to do that. So that's one
Speaker 1: extreme approach that could happen. And keep in mind, there
Speaker 1: are also other possibilities. There are other outcomes here that
Speaker 1: we can't necessarily foresee. You had in this Wall Street
Speaker 1: journal piece today, she Yin Hang, a professor of international
Speaker 1: relations at Beijing's Redman University, give them this quote, which
Speaker 1: seemed a little bit on ominous. China is not just
Speaker 1: preparing for a protracted trade war, he said, but also
Speaker 1: an escalating conflict. Trump's actions have seriously agitated the Chinese leadership,
Speaker 1: who now realize there's no chance of reaching a fair
Speaker 1: deal with the US. Well, of course that spin at
Speaker 1: the end, But what is an escalating conflict? What does
Speaker 1: that mean? Nobody really knows. But Trump has taken this
Speaker 1: issue on. This is I think in many ways, this
Speaker 1: is on foreign policy and certainly on trade. This is
Speaker 1: his signature issue. North Korea, the missiles, the short range missiles,
Speaker 1: that missiles that were fired off. Look, I don't think
Speaker 1: Trump's going to end up getting a nuclear deal with
Speaker 1: North Korea, but we've traded nothing in the process. With China.
Speaker 1: We're facing down the number two power economically and militarily
Speaker 1: in the world, and we are suffering as a result
Speaker 1: of facing them down. If Trump doesn't come out on
Speaker 1: top of this at the end, there may be a
Speaker 1: political price to pay. I think that much is clear. Team.
Speaker 1: We haven't had bucks books in a while here to
Speaker 1: talk about. Not books that I've written, although that's coming
Speaker 1: up too. I have a book on the Democrat project
Speaker 1: to drag us all into socialism. That's the book. So
Speaker 1: it is in the process of being written, not as
Speaker 1: in I'm going to start writing one day, I promise,
Speaker 1: as in I think I'm about forty pages into it
Speaker 1: right now, so it's moving. It's moving along. We're gonna
Speaker 1: get to two hundred that'll be the first draft, and
Speaker 1: then we'll see where we go from there. But I've
Speaker 1: got another book that I wanted to talk to you about,
Speaker 1: and I will say this is the fastest that I
Speaker 1: have read a non fiction book in a long time,
Speaker 1: although I think Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino's Justice on
Speaker 1: Trial book will be another one that I probably finish
Speaker 1: in two days. But this book is it's a little bit,
Speaker 1: a little bit older. It's been out for a couple
Speaker 1: of years now, and I knew a bit about the story,
Speaker 1: but I didn't know it in its entirety. The book
Speaker 1: is Bad Blood, not to be confused with the Netflix
Speaker 1: show Bad Blood, which is about the Risudo crime family
Speaker 1: Sicilian mafia crime family in Montreal, which is actually a
Speaker 1: pretty good show, as I've told you, pretty well done.
Speaker 1: The guy who plays the character who's really almost feels
Speaker 1: like a second coming of ray Leota from Goodfellas. He
Speaker 1: doesn't really excellent, He's got kind of an unusual name.
Speaker 1: He does a really excellent job. But Bad Blood the
Speaker 1: book is about Thronos. Now, this was very big in
Speaker 1: finance circles and in Silicon Valley startup circles when the
Speaker 1: story happened, and it spans about a decade or so,
Speaker 1: the whole tale. But I'm telling you it is remarkable.
Speaker 1: This woman, Elizabeth Holmes drops out of Stanford and says
Speaker 1: that she has this patent that she's writing and says
Speaker 1: that she has figured out a way to do blood
Speaker 1: testing on just a few drops of blood from your
Speaker 1: finger instead of a venous draw. You know the old
Speaker 1: what you think of the blood test? Right, you go
Speaker 1: in and someone sticks you in the arm with a needle.
Speaker 1: They draw blood out. Usually they draw a few tubes
Speaker 1: depending on the tests, and that's how we do it. Well.
Speaker 1: This would just be a little a little prick on
Speaker 1: the finger and then a home test that you could do.
Speaker 1: That was the initial theory. And what you read about
Speaker 1: in the book is that this woman then manages to
Speaker 1: essentially fake it until she thinks she's going to make
Speaker 1: it because the technology never existed, she never had it.
Speaker 1: And she brings on board these huge names, including George
Speaker 1: salt Schultz, the former Secretary of State. She brings on
Speaker 1: various Silicon Valley royalty, the best lawyers from Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: the best you know, the best venture capital people in
Speaker 1: Silicon v She brings in all these different individuals, nobody
Speaker 1: with any expertise in healthcare though to be on the
Speaker 1: board or be an overseer position. She sells all of
Speaker 1: them on her vision and how this is going to
Speaker 1: change healthcare. This will help people live longer. You won't
Speaker 1: have to say goodbye to loved ones so early in
Speaker 1: life because these drugs, these tests will allow the drugs
Speaker 1: to be administered early enough to save lives. Quite a pitch,
Speaker 1: and she is a sociopathic fraud and it is amazing
Speaker 1: the stuff that she does, Elizabeth Holmes in this book,
Speaker 1: and she's a couple of years younger than me, and
Speaker 1: she's essentially my contemporary are close to it, and maybe
Speaker 1: even quite a few years younger than me, But she decided, yeah,
Speaker 1: she would have been what I think she dropped out
Speaker 1: in oh six, so yeah, she's four or five years.
Speaker 1: I mean, she was at one point a self made billionaire,
Speaker 1: a self made billionaire worth between four and five billion
Speaker 1: dollars on paper, never had a working product, never even
Speaker 1: had a working prototype of a product, and raised eight
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars from investors eight hundred million, astonishing. How
Speaker 1: could she keep this secret? Well, she claimed that it
Speaker 1: was proprietary technology, and she hired very aggressive lawyers, including
Speaker 1: David Boys, who was on the board of her company
Speaker 1: and was brought in as the hatchetman, to threaten anybody
Speaker 1: who was going to tell the truth about this company.
Speaker 1: And you might say, well, Buck, what's the big deal?
Speaker 1: You know companies come and go, rise and fall. Well,
Speaker 1: this wasn't a software company where they could fix the glitch.
Speaker 1: They were faking blood testing technology and giving people false positives,
Speaker 1: false negatives, knowing that their results were entirely unreliable. They
Speaker 1: convinced Walgreens and Safe Way to put all kinds of
Speaker 1: money forward for these testing centers. And at one point,
Speaker 1: and this is the real I don't want to give
Speaker 1: away all the best parts of the book. And her boyfriend,
Speaker 1: who is also the number two in charge of the company,
Speaker 1: who comes across like a sadistic lunatic. You know, a
Speaker 1: guy who got essentially won the lottery in the dot
Speaker 1: com era by being a part of a startup that
Speaker 1: had all this money that completely collapsed after he left,
Speaker 1: because it was just it was a fake. It was
Speaker 1: an inflated fake company, really, But what they decided to
Speaker 1: do was at one point hide all the results, sue anybody,
Speaker 1: threaten anybody with bankruptcy who was willing to speak about
Speaker 1: what was really happening. And they were going to run
Speaker 1: HIV tests with a technology that flatly did not work.
Speaker 1: Think about that, you're going to give people a false
Speaker 1: positive on an HIV test and not feel and knowing
Speaker 1: that you may be doing that and not feel absolutely
Speaker 1: horrible about it. It's an amazing book. And the people
Speaker 1: that gave her money, Oh, she was close with the Clintons,
Speaker 1: of course, Oh, her and Chelsea Clinton buddies. I mean, oh,
Speaker 1: of course, she courted all of Silicon Valley and Democrat
Speaker 1: Party royalty. It's one of the reasons why I think
Speaker 1: the federal regulators were so slow to act against her company.
Speaker 1: There's so much it is. Look, it's written by this
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal reporter who's the guy who basically brought
Speaker 1: down the company by exposing it, This guy John Carrrew.
Speaker 1: It's the best book I have read in a long time,
Speaker 1: and so I would highly recommend it to you. But
Speaker 1: there's just so much in it. It's such a reminder
Speaker 1: of how people you know, you know everything you need
Speaker 1: to know about, accompanyed by how it treats, by how
Speaker 1: the boss's treat employees. You know that there are all
Speaker 1: these people that are held up as being so brilliant
Speaker 1: in society, and look, General Madis went to bat for
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Holmes. Saint Maddis of the Pentagon looks like a
Speaker 1: total clown in this book. I mean, Joe has no
Speaker 1: idea thinks that this woman is brilliant and awesome. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's another part of this that I just can't get past.
Speaker 1: She wears black turno X and black pants to mirror
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs, and she's effectively doing a copycat thing of
Speaker 1: Steve Jobs. She has this voice that people who worked
Speaker 1: with her claimed to know what's fake. Oh, I bought
Speaker 1: her as Elizabeth Holmes, and my voice's down here. So
Speaker 1: I mean she had this whole and people were transfixed
Speaker 1: by her and giving her millions and millions of dollars
Speaker 1: for a company that never had any peer reviewed data,
Speaker 1: a company that never had a product, that never had
Speaker 1: a patent. That this was a fraud. Now it's facing
Speaker 1: all kinds of it's facing a criminal fraud for criminal
Speaker 1: fraud charge, has already faced all kinds of sec sanction.
Speaker 1: But it's just an amazing book and that this could
Speaker 1: happen in this day and age. You have to really
Speaker 1: read it to believe it. And it's so thoroughly sourced
Speaker 1: and well done and well laid out for you. So
Speaker 1: Bad Blood by John carrierew It's been out for a
Speaker 1: couple of years, but I like to give you recommendations
Speaker 1: when they're really worthwhile. It's one of the best nonfiction
Speaker 1: books I've read in a long time. I've already recommended
Speaker 1: Justice on Trial for you with Carrie Savorino and Molly Hemingway.
Speaker 1: But Bad Blood is really excellent. I read it the
Speaker 1: flight out to la and the flight back. I finished
Speaker 1: the whole book. That's how much I liked it. So
Speaker 1: that's probably tells you something. I'll be right back. I
Speaker 1: wanted to do a quick update here on the Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein case, which has completely disappeared from the headlines for
Speaker 1: understandable reasons, but nonetheless, my concern all along has been
Speaker 1: that somehow there won't be a full accounting, there won't
Speaker 1: be any real justice for not just the young women
Speaker 1: who were abused here, it's also a question of the
Speaker 1: American people understanding how our justice process was also undermined
Speaker 1: by all of this. There was clearly bad stuff going
Speaker 1: on behind the scenes. There's no way that Jeffrey Epstein
Speaker 1: should have gotten the deal he did, and so that's
Speaker 1: why I found it interesting to see today that Florida
Speaker 1: Governor Ron de Santis has ordered a criminal probe a
Speaker 1: criminal probe into the Palm Beach sheriff and state attorney's
Speaker 1: handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case from two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: This is where you find the most inexplicable so far.
Speaker 1: Maybe we'll find out what really happened here, but inexplicable
Speaker 1: dealings by public officials, the Palm Beach County District Attorney,
Speaker 1: who was a Democrat. By the way, as much as
Speaker 1: we know that Acosta had to resign from his position
Speaker 1: as Secretary of Labor, there have been there's been far
Speaker 1: less attention on what should have been the slam dunk
Speaker 1: case of the Palm Beach County District attorney who decided
Speaker 1: not to push not to push charge. Look, I'll even
Speaker 1: say this right now. I'm actually and I could google
Speaker 1: it and look it up right away, but it's indicative
Speaker 1: of how much less coverage it gets that I don't
Speaker 1: have that district attorney's name in mind right now. I
Speaker 1: can't think of it off the top of my head
Speaker 1: because it's covered so much less. It's been such a
Speaker 1: smaller part of this, and he's the person who decided
Speaker 1: to do the that district attorney decided to do the
Speaker 1: work release to do the to not bring I mean
Speaker 1: the sheriff, the Palm Beach sheriff handed him what he
Speaker 1: thought was a slam dunk case of sex with miners
Speaker 1: child pornography, sex trafficking, all kinds of just horrible, heinous crimes.
Speaker 1: And for some reason, the Palm Beach County DA decided
Speaker 1: to or state's attorney whatever his designation is for Palm
Speaker 1: Beach County, but the prosecutor decided at the state level
Speaker 1: not to push charges. Why is that, folks? Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: Epstein's a big Democrat donor, but that's a lot to
Speaker 1: make go away. That's this is somebody who was willing
Speaker 1: to risk his career and certainly his good name and
Speaker 1: obviously at some level his integrity and maybe his soul
Speaker 1: in order to keep Jeffrey Epstein from facing real justice.
Speaker 1: There are reasons for that. Something happened. People brought influence
Speaker 1: to bear as is not conspiratorial, This is just obvious.
Speaker 1: I think someone brought against this Democrat prosecutor a lot
Speaker 1: of leverage, somebody who really had access and power and
Speaker 1: influence and was able to make this go away, such
Speaker 1: that if Epstein, you know, if you hadn't had a
Speaker 1: few things like the Miami or if you hadn't had
Speaker 1: the attorneys that unsealed some of this because the victims'
Speaker 1: rights law that was violated in this process, and then
Speaker 1: the Miami Herald investigation. Epstein would have gotten away with it, folks,
Speaker 1: he would have. He this guy almost got away with
Speaker 1: running an underage women human trafficking ring and pedophile ring.
Speaker 1: It's outrageous. So I hope Ronda Santists could get some
Speaker 1: answers here. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real,
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. All right, team, let's get
Speaker 1: let's get into it. Shelley Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: Let's jump into the latest roll call here, Hunter starts
Speaker 1: it off. Your segment on Fox News about guns and
Speaker 1: gun control was a refreshing take in today's climate. Thank you, sir,
Speaker 1: Thank you Hunter. Yeah, I was on Fox this morning
Speaker 1: and I did Tucker Show tonight at eight thirty. If
Speaker 1: you missed it, you can watch the replay at midnight
Speaker 1: Eastern time. So I'll be on at twelve thirty am
Speaker 1: Eastern time tonight if any of you happen to be
Speaker 1: up or if you want to set your DVR. But yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: Alicia Rights. Wow, first time I've ever been really disappointed
Speaker 1: in you. Oh do process and innocent until proven guilty
Speaker 1: are the basis of our country and our freedom. Red
Speaker 1: flag laws are the most egregious assault on the Constitution
Speaker 1: I have ever seen. It's seizing property from a law
Speaker 1: abiding citizen based on someone else's word without consequences for
Speaker 1: them for lying, and then the person has to prove
Speaker 1: that they weren't going to do something that they haven't done.
Speaker 1: Aren't you always going off? But how you can't prove
Speaker 1: a negative? So Buck, when was the last time you
Speaker 1: beat your wife? Question Mark? Isn't that always your example?
Speaker 1: Shame on you. My husband is a combat veteran with
Speaker 1: a diagnosis of PTSD after serving seven tours deployed with
Speaker 1: seal teams as an EOD tech. You know what terrifies
Speaker 1: him having his constitutional second member rights taken away because
Speaker 1: of his diagnosis a PTSD, which is exactly what people
Speaker 1: at these laws would do. I never thought i'd hear
Speaker 1: an anti constitutional position from you, all right, Alicia? First
Speaker 1: of all, see I do read. I think some of
Speaker 1: you think that I don't read the criticisms on this show,
Speaker 1: but I do as well. I read them on air
Speaker 1: as well as read them when they're sent in a
Speaker 1: few things, Alicia, First of all, I did say yesterday
Speaker 1: on the show that my concerns would be that somebody
Speaker 1: would have their Second Amendment rights truncated. And when I
Speaker 1: just say concern, it's a red line for me that anybody,
Speaker 1: for example, who had served in the military and had
Speaker 1: PTSD would have any rights a bridge you're taken from them.
Speaker 1: Just so you know, there are there are places already
Speaker 1: in federal law when you apply for a background check,
Speaker 1: for example, if you have you know they don't when
Speaker 1: they ask about mental health for background check stuff. My
Speaker 1: understanding is at least that you if you have a
Speaker 1: PTSD treatment, that's not something that is that is listed,
Speaker 1: or if it is listed, is not considered in adverse
Speaker 1: circumstances in any way, as it shouldn't be for somebody
Speaker 1: who's applying for your clearance has nothing to do with
Speaker 1: your trustworthiness or anything else. As for your concerns about
Speaker 1: red flag laws, look, red flag laws already exist in
Speaker 1: a number of states, and it's not due process free,
Speaker 1: or at least it shouldn't be due process free. You
Speaker 1: have to go before a judge, and the judge then
Speaker 1: does what's the equivalent of a preliminary injunction. Effectively, you
Speaker 1: would have to turn in your weapons. If a judge
Speaker 1: decided that you were a threat, and then you would
Speaker 1: have an option to try and get that overturned, or
Speaker 1: perhaps there would be a thirty or sixty day period
Speaker 1: where the order was an effect and then it would pass,
Speaker 1: and then that would have to be renewed. So there's
Speaker 1: a process involved here. Now I share your concern that
Speaker 1: this will be abused. And one of the problems that
Speaker 1: was raised yesterday, I believe by our friend Charles Cook,
Speaker 1: is that many of the states that have red flag
Speaker 1: laws are also very anti Second Amendment in general, and
Speaker 1: so they will use red flag they will abuse red
Speaker 1: flag laws. Keep in mind, though, Alicia, that there are
Speaker 1: already a lot of states that abuse restrictions on the
Speaker 1: Second Amendment in general. I mean New York, a state
Speaker 1: who's gun laws I know pretty well is one of them.
Speaker 1: I mean, in New York City, for example, you have
Speaker 1: to pay hundreds of dollars to get a premise permit
Speaker 1: for a handgun. It takes somewhere from three to six
Speaker 1: months to get it approved. You have to get fingerprinted
Speaker 1: at one police plaza, you have to go some other
Speaker 1: place to get the paperwork. They make it as difficult
Speaker 1: and annoying as possible just for a premise permit that's
Speaker 1: not for concealed carry. So there are abuses all over
Speaker 1: the place. Look, if you're asking me, what do I
Speaker 1: think really should be done in response, if I am
Speaker 1: in charge of everything, what do I think should be
Speaker 1: done in response to these two shootings? A thorough review
Speaker 1: of both cases, and then I'm open to hearing what
Speaker 1: could have been done to stop either one, and if
Speaker 1: there is an applicable law from that, that would be
Speaker 1: the law that I would want pass. But if there
Speaker 1: is no applicable statutory or law enforcement policy change, then
Speaker 1: I don't want anything to change, because we can't stop everything.
Speaker 1: And my position on this tends to be bad things happen,
Speaker 1: and there are evil people in the world. There's only
Speaker 1: so much we can do to make each other safe,
Speaker 1: and it is incoming upon us as individuals and as
Speaker 1: citizens to do what we can to keep ourselves safe.
Speaker 1: But the state is never going to grant you perfect security,
Speaker 1: and if you try for perfect security, you'll give up
Speaker 1: too much of the process. So I'm sorry that you
Speaker 1: were disappointed, Alicia, but I do think that you are
Speaker 1: oversimplifying or perhaps going much further with a position than
Speaker 1: I would. And keep in mind that President Trump himself
Speaker 1: has been supportive of at least considering red flag laws
Speaker 1: in different states, and the mental health component of this problem.
Speaker 1: So there's there's a tremendous pressure that we all are
Speaker 1: aware of to do something. But I do not agree
Speaker 1: that doing something for the sake of anything is a
Speaker 1: good idea. But see, Alicia, you can write in, you
Speaker 1: can light me up. You need to get hold me
Speaker 1: to account. That's fine. The buck is not perfect. I mean,
Speaker 1: for heaven's sakes, he speaks in the third person sometimes,
Speaker 1: what else do you have to know? Guy's got issues, Misty.
Speaker 1: President Trump will not be eligible for California's primary ballot
Speaker 1: unless he releases his tax returns under a new law
Speaker 1: signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday. Can he really
Speaker 1: do that? What recourse do Californians have, Misty? I don't
Speaker 1: have a legal answer for you on this. I would
Speaker 1: like to just say no, of course you can't do that,
Speaker 1: but I'm not sure that's true. And I never want
Speaker 1: to tell you something that's not accurate. I can tell
Speaker 1: you that Gavin Newsom, who is such a slippery, slimy operator,
Speaker 1: said on TV well, I saw the clip of him
Speaker 1: today at least saying his law is not about stopping
Speaker 1: any one individual. This is about transparency for candidates for
Speaker 1: the state of California. You know this whole Gavin Newsom thing,
Speaker 1: and that's just a laughable that's a laughable lie. Right.
Speaker 1: We all know why California is doing this. We all
Speaker 1: know that they all have an obsession with getting Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns. So yes, indeed, yes, indeed, let's see what
Speaker 1: we have here next. Greg writes Buck, I recently got
Speaker 1: married to a socialist whoa Greg. Best of luck to you,
Speaker 1: my friend. About a month into our relationship, we started
Speaker 1: talking politics and realized we were on totally different sides.
Speaker 1: Long story short. We have constantly hours long debates, but
Speaker 1: they always have been civil, and I promised we never
Speaker 1: get heated with each other. And with just basic facts
Speaker 1: and data, I have led her more to my side
Speaker 1: and have gotten her to denounce socialism and Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: Not all hope is lost Shields time, my friend. Well, Greg,
Speaker 1: first of all, I'm seeing a photo here of your
Speaker 1: new bride and a big pup, and both are absolutely
Speaker 1: lovely and adorable. So you've made great choices, my friend.
Speaker 1: And it's look, I have dated liberals. In fact, i'd
Speaker 1: say half of my girlfriends in life have been liberal,
Speaker 1: so I am no stranger to dealing with that. And
Speaker 1: I can tell you that as long as you're willing
Speaker 1: to have conversations with people rooted in respect and honesty,
Speaker 1: you can talk about anything, respect, honesty and the facts
Speaker 1: as much as you can. You can talk about anything,
Speaker 1: you just have to keep it in that place. And
Speaker 1: I think people can really grow together. And I will
Speaker 1: have you know that there are numerous people in my
Speaker 1: life who I haven't sought to convert them to conservatism.
Speaker 1: But I have some very close friends that, just over
Speaker 1: the course of knowing me and being around me, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if they would give me credit for this,
Speaker 1: but I will give myself credit for it, they have
Speaker 1: become much more conservative as a result. Some of them
Speaker 1: were liberals that are now that are now pretty center right,
Speaker 1: I think you could say, so I'm proud of that,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you. Scott writes in rather than
Speaker 1: wanting to know what kind of weapon these monsters are using,
Speaker 1: shouldn't we take a look at what kind of psych
Speaker 1: medications they're on? The CDC says the thirty eight percent
Speaker 1: of people in the US are taking some form of
Speaker 1: drug that can cause suicidal ideation, and young white boys
Speaker 1: are being prescribed rittlin, which is an amphetamine on a
Speaker 1: horrifyingly regular basis, which the CDC says will make them
Speaker 1: nine point six times more likely to have violent outbursts.
Speaker 1: While big pharma is a frequent target of Democrats, big
Speaker 1: education is literally given the power to demand young boys
Speaker 1: developing minds be author with rittlin simply because they don't
Speaker 1: behave and learn the way that teachers find easy. Love
Speaker 1: to know your thoughts on this, Buck Shields High Well, Scott,
Speaker 1: I'm not a psychopharmacology expert at all, so let's just
Speaker 1: start with that I know about these issues just from
Speaker 1: reading and from people in my life that I know
Speaker 1: that have had to deal with different mental health problems
Speaker 1: and issues that are on these drugs. I think that
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly these kinds of medications are They're really life saving
Speaker 1: for a lot of people. They give people their lives back,
Speaker 1: and I think we lose sight of that. For those
Speaker 1: who have extreme bipolarity, OCD, schizophrenia, many of these drugs
Speaker 1: let them be completely functional, normal and even happy fellow
Speaker 1: human beings, you know, in their day to day they're
Speaker 1: not stuck in misery. So that often gets lost in
Speaker 1: these conversations now when you're talking about putting people in
Speaker 1: the tens of millions, which is what we're talking about
Speaker 1: in this country on and of course there's a huge
Speaker 1: span too, right. I mean, some people have a little
Speaker 1: bit of anxiety and they take a little bit of
Speaker 1: something to help calm their anxiety, and it really has
Speaker 1: a pretty limited psychological effect beyond the neurological impulses of
Speaker 1: stress and suppressing that. But we are putting tens of
Speaker 1: millions of people on these mind altering drugs, you know,
Speaker 1: ssry s, NRIs and and those are just a couple
Speaker 1: of classes of them, and there's a whole bunch that
Speaker 1: I'm not even really familiar with. Are there going to
Speaker 1: be just like with any drug, with any pharmaceutical, are
Speaker 1: there going to be terrible side effects that affect some
Speaker 1: person or some people on the way, Yes, absolutely do.
Speaker 1: I think that on the whole these drugs are probably
Speaker 1: for ninety nine percent of the people who are taking
Speaker 1: them who need to be taking them. And I think
Speaker 1: maybe Scott that's where your particular concern is that we're
Speaker 1: over prescribing, right. I think that there. I think that
Speaker 1: that does psychoactive drugs, These these different medicines out there
Speaker 1: for antidepressants and things like that are our life saving
Speaker 1: for a lot of people. But do we are we
Speaker 1: over prescribing things like riddling? Possibly? It certainly seems reasonable
Speaker 1: to me. And remember there's really only a couple of
Speaker 1: generations to even study on this, so and there's more
Speaker 1: of these drugs in circulation being prescribed than ever before.
Speaker 1: So my answer, Scott is it's worth thinking about. And
Speaker 1: I don't have a clear, you know, irrefutable answer for
Speaker 1: you on this one. And unlike other people that do
Speaker 1: radio or podcasts, I don't pretend to know definitively everything.
Speaker 1: I always think that's so funny when I occasion I'll
Speaker 1: catch some other show where someone just like thinks they're
Speaker 1: a little a little answer machine for everything. Who really
Speaker 1: goes through life like that? I just think that's affront.
Speaker 1: I think there's a dishonesty to that, But it's okay
Speaker 1: to say you don't know. That's one thing I hope
Speaker 1: everyone learns from from this show, because something that I've
Speaker 1: learned sometimes the hard way. All right, team, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a great show tomorrow because we have a great
Speaker 1: show every day. Please tell somebody about this podcast, The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show on iTunes. Do me a favor. Talk
Speaker 1: to you tomorrow, shield Hie