Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied. Women is not. When President of the Unit
Speaker 1: States take it to a bank together, we will make
Speaker 1: America great again. You'll never sharender. It's what you've been
Speaker 1: waiting for all day. The Buck Sexton Show. Join the
Speaker 1: conversation called buck Toll free at eight four four nine
Speaker 1: hundred Buck. That's eight four four nine hundred to eight
Speaker 1: to five. The future of talk radio. Buck Sexton legislation
Speaker 1: is supported by you. As you go home, Remember doesn't
Speaker 1: stop here. Continue to keep the pressure on your elective
Speaker 1: Welcome to the bucks Sex and show everybody. That was
Speaker 1: some audio from the weekend that I took myself when
Speaker 1: I went for a little stroll. What for a little
Speaker 1: neighborhood stroll? Go check out what was going on with
Speaker 1: this march in New York City, March March for Our Lives.
Speaker 1: It was called because whenever you're mobilizing for mobilizing progressives,
Speaker 1: you want to make sure that it sounds good and
Speaker 1: feels good to say whatever it is you're doing. But
Speaker 1: you don't want anyone to really know what it's all about.
Speaker 1: So I I went there. I can tell you this
Speaker 1: is one of the biggest, I think second only to Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. One of the biggest of these coordinated marches
Speaker 1: across the country. And I just saw a lot of
Speaker 1: idiocy on display. I'll be honest with you, and I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be mean, but it was dumb. There
Speaker 1: was a lot of really dumb stuff. Yeah. That one
Speaker 1: woman that was I walk past her. She sat there
Speaker 1: her job as you just keep saying, you know, make
Speaker 1: sure that your voices are heard and that you vote,
Speaker 1: and and that you vote against people that are support
Speaker 1: of the Second Amendment. But I want to give you
Speaker 1: a little bit of context here for this march that happened,
Speaker 1: because it also is a window into what the progressive
Speaker 1: playbook is to try and take back the control of government.
Speaker 1: They feel like anything that they can do to stop
Speaker 1: Trump is is justified and well worth the effort. And
Speaker 1: so this is just the beginning of more. You're gonna
Speaker 1: see more of There's more marches, more activism on the streets,
Speaker 1: all of it. Um. Here's here's what I saw. And again,
Speaker 1: this is what I saw myself. I'm not even telling
Speaker 1: you I didn't read stuff. I walked around, you know,
Speaker 1: reading the papers about it. I walked around, took photos,
Speaker 1: and I saw a lot of people who were using
Speaker 1: children as literally as props, meaning people that were holding
Speaker 1: up small children. We its signs that said things, and
Speaker 1: this one I this is a quote. I saw it
Speaker 1: like Trump kills kids. That was one of the signs.
Speaker 1: I had a little kid, maybe couldn't have been older
Speaker 1: than six, seven, eight years old, walking around a little
Speaker 1: sign trump kills kids. Now, I know people say there
Speaker 1: are a lot of mean things. Oh, people said mean
Speaker 1: things about Barack Obama's birth certificate, or there are mean
Speaker 1: things I said about Barack Obama. I don't. I do
Speaker 1: not recall ever going to a rally or seeing a rally,
Speaker 1: or in any way being aware of thousands of people
Speaker 1: walking around with signs that were accusing the former president
Speaker 1: of literally being a murderer. I don't ever. I don't
Speaker 1: remember that. I'm pretty sure that didn't happen. And this
Speaker 1: is I have a flashbacks here to when during the
Speaker 1: Black Lives Matter movement, I saw signs about placards right
Speaker 1: posters being held up in public I saw them. I
Speaker 1: took photos of them. I talked to the people at
Speaker 1: the rallies. Uh about killer racist cops, racist murdering cops
Speaker 1: getting away with murder. This is what the signs were saying.
Speaker 1: And then I would go on TV and they'd have
Speaker 1: some some Democrat strategist or talking head bloviator whatever saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: that's not that's not it's it's about reforming police tactics. No,
Speaker 1: I saw the signs. Actually it was about calling cops
Speaker 1: racist murderers, and about about blaming the problems of minority
Speaker 1: communities with regard to police and policing squarely on the
Speaker 1: shoulders of police. Right, and with this march over the weekend,
Speaker 1: as I was there and saw it, this was about
Speaker 1: hating President Trump and banning guns. That's it. Anybody who
Speaker 1: says something else is just either lying or doesn't know
Speaker 1: any better. Wasn't there you know the signs that there
Speaker 1: were signs about how they were trying to combine a
Speaker 1: kind of women's march situation, you know, with the with
Speaker 1: the women's marching d C was what was going on
Speaker 1: to get women that had placards up like, um my,
Speaker 1: my ovaries are more regulated than firearms, which is a
Speaker 1: dumb thing. That's not true. I'm looking right now actually
Speaker 1: as I'm talking to you with the photos I took
Speaker 1: personally of some of these things, things like thoughts and
Speaker 1: prayers are not bulletproof. Why that isn't that a really
Speaker 1: dumb thing to walk around with as a sign. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: one thinks that thoughts and prayers are bulletproof. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of mockery of prayer. By the way, this is
Speaker 1: here in New York City, thousands and thousands of people
Speaker 1: walking around with these signs, a lot of mockery of
Speaker 1: of those who pray. And because they they have a
Speaker 1: disdain I mean, the Democrat part of the progressive wing
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party is is atheist. I know they'll challenge, Oh,
Speaker 1: they'll put on some Democrats I am so religious and
Speaker 1: everything else. No, not only are the atheists, but they're
Speaker 1: actually contemptuous of people who really believe in their faith,
Speaker 1: who really believe in God, who believe in the case
Speaker 1: of Christianity and in the Bible. And you know, they
Speaker 1: have a contempt for that. They won't win any elections
Speaker 1: because seventy percent plus of Americans are are Christians. They
Speaker 1: won't win any elections unless they play a game where
Speaker 1: they act like but the Party of Nancy Pelosi and
Speaker 1: the Party of the Democrat, you know, Bernie Sanders. Progressive
Speaker 1: left is disdainful of organized religion, except for Islam, which
Speaker 1: is a an oppressed religion. But other organized religion they
Speaker 1: are actually just standful of, you know, Judaism, Christianity. If
Speaker 1: you believe in it, and if you're serious about it,
Speaker 1: they think you're foolish. That's just the truth that Progressive Party.
Speaker 1: I know, people yell at me for that. I don't
Speaker 1: really care. It's just what it is, the way that
Speaker 1: it is. Another sign here, find a hobby that doesn't
Speaker 1: kill people. This is just dumb. The the hobby doesn't
Speaker 1: kill people. So I suppose this woman who is holding
Speaker 1: up this sign is trying to make a point about
Speaker 1: those who are lawful gun owners who go to gun rages,
Speaker 1: and that doesn't That doesn't kill people. So I mean
Speaker 1: it can kill people the same way they're taking a
Speaker 1: shower can kill you. I mean, there can be accidents,
Speaker 1: but I don't think anyone's trying to ban showers. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Maybe because it does use a lot
Speaker 1: of water and you know global warming man um thoughts
Speaker 1: and prayers xed out here, no policy change. I thought
Speaker 1: the GOLP was pro life. Another sign I see here
Speaker 1: now that's but they're really uh trying to say, is
Speaker 1: that the GOP is in favor of dead children. They
Speaker 1: had David hogg I played in pretty last weekend and
Speaker 1: he started off his speech with a smear about Marco
Speaker 1: Rubio and blood money. Just grotesque stuff. But you got
Speaker 1: a few things coming together here. One is that there
Speaker 1: is a culture of street activism among progressives. They like this,
Speaker 1: this is a this is a thing that they do.
Speaker 1: Because I've been dismanted. I've been to the not covering
Speaker 1: them as a journalist. I've been to the occupy uh
Speaker 1: Occupy Wall Street marches. I've been to uh Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter marches. I've seen this right, and it's you see
Speaker 1: a lot of same kinds of folks at them and
Speaker 1: the same tactics. And they do this whole you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna use each other as a megaphone on the streets.
Speaker 1: And they used to the tingly fingers. They use the
Speaker 1: fingers up in the air, you know, kind of making
Speaker 1: moving them back and forth. Instead of applause. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean that all this protest organizer boot camp one
Speaker 1: oh one stuff that they would do. But this is
Speaker 1: because progressivism and the Democrat Party, which is really now
Speaker 1: just the the party manifestation of the leftist status progressive ideology,
Speaker 1: because of the way that it has become an identity
Speaker 1: more than any even about ideas. People show up by
Speaker 1: these marches because it's a social event, and he had people,
Speaker 1: you know, they're you know, young families pushing the kids
Speaker 1: in the strollers too at this thing, and little kids
Speaker 1: holding upselves by. I think it's really I think it's
Speaker 1: really gross to hold up signs, uh, to have I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to have your children hold up signs that have
Speaker 1: slanderous or in this case, libelous stuff written about politicians
Speaker 1: and about the n r A. Oh, there's so much
Speaker 1: n r A hatred this too. I mean, the construct
Speaker 1: of the n r A as boogeyman. I there's all
Speaker 1: kinds of photos of that stuff too walking around. You know,
Speaker 1: the n r A doesn't care about kids, dead kids.
Speaker 1: The n r A is evil. It is just appalling,
Speaker 1: And these are seemingly otherwise normal, nice people walking these marches.
Speaker 1: But writing really horrible stuff. You know, they're not writing,
Speaker 1: they're not they're not walking around marching with signs about
Speaker 1: you know, hey, let's let's not spend ourselves into oblivion. Like, hey,
Speaker 1: these are not positive messages. There's a there's a tremendous
Speaker 1: negativity behind them. But it's a social event. Like I said,
Speaker 1: it's something to do on the weekends. Oh, let's go
Speaker 1: to a march, because that's what the cool people do.
Speaker 1: We go to marches where we march with these signs.
Speaker 1: And is it Occupy Wall Street? Is a Black Lives Matter?
Speaker 1: Is it the Women's March? Is it now? What? Whenever?
Speaker 1: They're calling this the never you know, never enough? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: enough is never again? And enough is enough. I'm looking
Speaker 1: at this, uh this other side. Enough is enough is
Speaker 1: one of the big signs I was out there. So
Speaker 1: I don't think it's ever an encouraging sign when you
Speaker 1: see uh, I don't think it's ever an encouraging sign
Speaker 1: when you see a movement like this that cannot, that
Speaker 1: fundamentally cannot be honest about what it wants and what
Speaker 1: it's trying to accomplish. This it's a very very sleazy
Speaker 1: game that has played here. But you know, the moment
Speaker 1: you get somebody who represents this movement, you start to
Speaker 1: push on them and said, hold on a second, do
Speaker 1: you want to ban guns? Oh no, we're not about
Speaker 1: banning guns. Meanwhile, I saw all kinds of signs about
Speaker 1: banning guns, and the movement is quite clearly about banning
Speaker 1: you know, high capacity magazines, banning are variant rifles, banning
Speaker 1: band band, band, band band. But when you say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, you guys are trying to ban
Speaker 1: different kinds of guns, and said, oh no, we're not.
Speaker 1: We're just about child We're just about safety for kids
Speaker 1: in schools. They're playing games with the language. If you
Speaker 1: can't be honest about what you want, maybe you should
Speaker 1: think twice about marching in the streets for it. Right,
Speaker 1: it's pretty fair, pretty good rule of thumb um. And uh,
Speaker 1: you had a whole other said, here are people that
Speaker 1: were just clearly wildly ignorant of everything. I mean, based
Speaker 1: on the signs that they were marching, with the slogans
Speaker 1: that they were they were shouting. They don't know anything
Speaker 1: about the subject matter, Which is interesting, isn't How can
Speaker 1: you be so ignorant of guns in the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: and violence in this country and the truth about it
Speaker 1: and care so much at the same time about taking
Speaker 1: one side of the argument. It's strange, isn't it. You Know,
Speaker 1: if you ask somebody who is who is deeply committed
Speaker 1: to a political issue, who's gonna get up and spend
Speaker 1: their time making signs and going on marches and walks,
Speaker 1: you asked them about the basics of their issue and
Speaker 1: they don't know anything, you tend to lose respect for
Speaker 1: their position. But on this, ignorance is a defense. Ignorance
Speaker 1: is its own defense. Hey whatever, guns, guns stink. I
Speaker 1: hate them and people who have them are mean. Do
Speaker 1: I know any about guns? No? No, I don't. In fact,
Speaker 1: Campus Reform asked some of the March for Alive protesters
Speaker 1: about assault weapons. Here's how that went for banning an
Speaker 1: assault weapons. Do you know what all weapon is? Yeah?
Speaker 1: It's um assault weapon. It's like, um, I kind of do,
Speaker 1: but kind of don't. Like, can any of you tell
Speaker 1: me what an assault weapon is? Um? Like I know,
Speaker 1: I guess, um, but assault weapons? Like does that sound
Speaker 1: safe to you? Do you guys know what an assault
Speaker 1: weapon is? Um? Yeah? Honestly, if you're asking me any
Speaker 1: gun that isn't a pistol. The same amount of people
Speaker 1: die by assault weapons as do car crashes, and they
Speaker 1: given your um as, what do car crashes? It's a
Speaker 1: similar number. Okay, it's it's not actually but or is
Speaker 1: it similar? No, it's not. So. Assault weapons count for
Speaker 1: about three of gun debts, but and car crashes are
Speaker 1: about the leading call. I thought that was, do you
Speaker 1: guys know what an assault weapon is? Though? I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm a phraser cans like military style weapon. An assault
Speaker 1: weapon is. Yeah, it's like it's an arm that like
Speaker 1: a gun for instance, that you can buy it a
Speaker 1: shop pretty easily. That is like, can can cause more
Speaker 1: despin like one. I guess you don't have to know anything, folks, right,
Speaker 1: just show up at the march. That's what the cool
Speaker 1: kids are doing. Show up at the march. What the
Speaker 1: parents are doing. Do you have to know anything? No?
Speaker 1: Can you be completeingnoramis on the subject? Sure? Why not?
Speaker 1: As long as you know that this is what the
Speaker 1: the culture tells you on the coasts and the cities,
Speaker 1: this is what this is what the culture tells you
Speaker 1: to do. Guns are bad, That's all. That's all These
Speaker 1: people know and they really care enough to show up
Speaker 1: these marchins that we got more on this also, by
Speaker 1: the way, we're gonna talk about they'll continued fallout from
Speaker 1: the Omnibus bill. I want to hear from more you
Speaker 1: folks on that. I'm I'm very disappointed. I think this
Speaker 1: is uh, this is a negative sign for the administration
Speaker 1: a lot of ways. I'm worried about it. I will
Speaker 1: talk a little bit about Stormy Daniels today. I haven't before,
Speaker 1: but I will. That'll be coming up and then and
Speaker 1: also the possibility of the nuclear option, which I think
Speaker 1: should be first all, we should probably stop calling the
Speaker 1: nuclear option. But also you can't allow this democraticbstruction anymore.
Speaker 1: It's it's game time, folks. We gotta get after it
Speaker 1: now and get some things done. Eight four four eight
Speaker 1: to five eight four buck, We've got much more. Will
Speaker 1: be right back. First off, I'm gonna start off by
Speaker 1: putting this price tag right here as a reminder for
Speaker 1: you guys to know how much Marco Rubio took for
Speaker 1: every student's life in Florida one in five cents. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't even know what this kid's trying
Speaker 1: to say. That was how David Hoggs started off his
Speaker 1: his big speech, and I would note that you know,
Speaker 1: they can't have it both ways. You can't have Oh,
Speaker 1: he's an adult and he suffered a trauma, and we
Speaker 1: should listen to him. He has a unique experience. He's
Speaker 1: an adult. And then when he says something dumb, and
Speaker 1: people like me pointed out, why are you being so mean?
Speaker 1: He's just a kid and he's been through so much. No, no, well,
Speaker 1: one or the other either. He is part of the
Speaker 1: national discussion on this and therefore what he says is
Speaker 1: fair game for debate and discussion or it's not. It's not. Um.
Speaker 1: You got Kyle Kashev who's out there, and he tweeted
Speaker 1: out that he'd like the debate hog and here's what
Speaker 1: he says about all this. I don't agree with the
Speaker 1: message that they're trying to spread, which is an anti
Speaker 1: gun and Benny salt russels, So simply because of that reason,
Speaker 1: I won't be marching. My message for um, David Doggan
Speaker 1: and these people is this, truely, look at all the
Speaker 1: facts and that in order to get a proper perception
Speaker 1: about this issue, and you know, all the facts on
Speaker 1: all the sides you know, it's not because of his
Speaker 1: age or anything else, or because he was at the
Speaker 1: Marjorie Stone and Douglass School. But I just agree with
Speaker 1: that as a as a general concept. If you're gonna
Speaker 1: push for something, you should know something about it. If
Speaker 1: you're gonna lecture the American Pee on a subject, you
Speaker 1: should have some understanding of what it is, some depth,
Speaker 1: some knowledge. Uh. I know, these days it feels like
Speaker 1: in the era of you know, Facebook, Live and Instagram
Speaker 1: and everything, a lot of people just it's it's a
Speaker 1: lot of sizzle and no substance out there and media land.
Speaker 1: Trust me, it's worse now than it's ever been before.
Speaker 1: You get a lot of people that have never read
Speaker 1: a freaking book who are all of a sudden experts
Speaker 1: on what we should all do on something without having
Speaker 1: expertise in anything. It's bad right now, and it's worse
Speaker 1: than it's ever been. And for a lot of for
Speaker 1: a lot of different media figures, it's just they look
Speaker 1: the part, they sound the part, you know, for the
Speaker 1: males that are like basically glorified catalog models, a lot
Speaker 1: of those on the TV these days, and you know,
Speaker 1: for the ladies, for some of them, it's like, well, there,
Speaker 1: you know, this person is very attractive, so we should
Speaker 1: listen what she has to say on whatever the issue is.
Speaker 1: It should be based on the substance, male, female, anyone else,
Speaker 1: based on the substance. And these kids that are pushing
Speaker 1: for gun control and using this movement a movement movement
Speaker 1: moment are lacking in it. And the way that the
Speaker 1: media has debased itself by elevating these kids as national
Speaker 1: icons of progressivism and activism and everything else is I
Speaker 1: would say it's an embarrassment, but they're not embarrassed at
Speaker 1: least by it. They actually think that this is a
Speaker 1: good thing. I think it's effective. I don't think it
Speaker 1: will be. People are saying, oh, look, Buck Remington just
Speaker 1: filed for chapter eleven Chapter eleven bankruptcy. Yeah. Well, they've
Speaker 1: been having trouble for a while, and a lot of
Speaker 1: this is driven by whether or not people think that
Speaker 1: a Democrat administration is coming in or not. Because Democrats,
Speaker 1: guess what, I want to band guns just like the
Speaker 1: March for Our Lives. He's holding the line for America,
Speaker 1: buck Sexton his back. I'm afraid that this could end
Speaker 1: up costing us the majority in which case, they must
Speaker 1: not be anybody in the room that wants a wall,
Speaker 1: that wants to crack down on illegal immigration, that wants
Speaker 1: to do the things that got the president elected, that
Speaker 1: kept our majorities for us. I mean, you've got to remember,
Speaker 1: even a month, within a month of the election in
Speaker 1: t sixteen, we were being urged by our leadership to
Speaker 1: run from Trump, and a bunch of us reared up
Speaker 1: and said, you better not run from him. This is
Speaker 1: your only chance. You better get behind him. We Democrats
Speaker 1: are really happy with what we were able to accomplish,
Speaker 1: were able to accomplish more in the minority than we
Speaker 1: were when we had the presidency or even were in
Speaker 1: the majority. I think one of the reasons they rushed
Speaker 1: it through they didn't want their voting colleagues to see
Speaker 1: just exactly what was in the bill. There. You have
Speaker 1: a few different versions of events from lie this week
Speaker 1: when they when the President signed this omnibus bill, which
Speaker 1: he said he would never do again, never signed a
Speaker 1: bill like this again. He says, you got the Gohmert version,
Speaker 1: which is this could cause us the majority of the Congress,
Speaker 1: and as we all know, if Republicans don't have control
Speaker 1: in the House, say goodbye to the rest of the
Speaker 1: Trump agenda until they until they gain it back. If
Speaker 1: they gain it back, um, that's it. Yes, they will
Speaker 1: also initiate impeachment proceedings against the president, no question in
Speaker 1: my mind that's gonna happen. I don't even think that's
Speaker 1: a never mind a controversial. I think that's a consensus
Speaker 1: opinion among most of my friends on the right these days.
Speaker 1: If the Democrats get the House, they're going to impeach.
Speaker 1: Well a lead anywhere. No, but that's not about that.
Speaker 1: It's it's the the political trench warfare of wearing down
Speaker 1: the administration, the legal attrition. We've already seen Mueller probe
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. And then you add
Speaker 1: into that impeachment proceedings in the House, and it just
Speaker 1: Trump will just be on defense the whole time for
Speaker 1: the rest of his presidency, and which the Democrats would
Speaker 1: love for. And that's clearly part of the plan. This
Speaker 1: is what they are trying to do, is what they're
Speaker 1: trying to get. So what can be done? What will
Speaker 1: we do about it? What con Trump you about it?
Speaker 1: I wish I had the answer. I'm hoping and I'll
Speaker 1: get into what my hope isn't just a moment. But
Speaker 1: but first off, the Democrats, what what Schumer says about
Speaker 1: how they've gotten more now they did it under Obama? Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is this is a budget that Obama would have liked.
Speaker 1: There's really not much of a refutation at that point.
Speaker 1: Obama would have liked this budget. Chuck Schumer likes it,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi likes it. Planned Parenthood gets full funding. There's
Speaker 1: nothing in this budget other than a lot of spending
Speaker 1: for a lot of things. Uh, that is remarkable. There's
Speaker 1: certainly not a place where a decision was made to
Speaker 1: stand and fight on an issue of real policy importance
Speaker 1: or on on a principle that really matters here. So
Speaker 1: I don't see how we can view this as anything
Speaker 1: other than problematic. I really don't now. I saw the
Speaker 1: president's tweet over the weekend because this is what he wrote.
Speaker 1: Because of the seven hundred and seven sixteen billion dollars
Speaker 1: gotten to rebuild our military, many jobs are created and
Speaker 1: our military is again rich. Building a great border wall
Speaker 1: with drugs, poison and enemy combatants battons pouring into our
Speaker 1: country is all about national defense. Build wall through m
Speaker 1: which is military here. So he's saying, just build the
Speaker 1: wall through the military. How the military do it? I
Speaker 1: guess the Army Corps engineers, and tell him just go
Speaker 1: do it on national defense purposes, and to do this
Speaker 1: under the president's role, on the auspices of he is
Speaker 1: the commander of chief and this is about national defense. Okay,
Speaker 1: But if I'd have to ask the question, if that
Speaker 1: is the plan here, what the heck are we waiting for, folks?
Speaker 1: If the wall could have just been ordered by the
Speaker 1: president at any point in time, what's with all the
Speaker 1: negotiations and all the discussions and so much talk about
Speaker 1: how Mexico will pay for it? All this, it feels
Speaker 1: like that was what exactly a tactic maybe, but not
Speaker 1: one that I can understand, at least not not off hand. So,
Speaker 1: if the president does plan to have a wall built,
Speaker 1: what are we waiting for? Why did we even have
Speaker 1: to talk about it with the Democrats? Maybe he wanted
Speaker 1: to see if they'd come along and go with it.
Speaker 1: All right, fine, I guess you can find a way
Speaker 1: to explain this. But to me, in the meantime, it
Speaker 1: seems very much like this is wishful thinking. Right now,
Speaker 1: the wall should be built. The President. Also, I think
Speaker 1: and the administration should be making a much bigger deal
Speaker 1: about what I've been talking about here, in which we
Speaker 1: got the Attorney General last week on the show to
Speaker 1: uh confirm, which is that you cannot talk about the
Speaker 1: opioid epidemic without talking about border security and illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: You cannot tackle the opioid epidemic without dealing with illegal
Speaker 1: immigration and border security. It's not possible. And that then
Speaker 1: changes this in the list of priorities I think for
Speaker 1: the country from something that is a long standing problem
Speaker 1: that needs to be addressed to an urgent national crisis.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope, um, I certainly hope that we will
Speaker 1: see the President finds some way to start getting the
Speaker 1: wall built in a meaningful way. A billion dollars as
Speaker 1: a joke. Billion dollars not enough, and we all know that,
Speaker 1: and I think in the omnibus bill it's actually explicitly
Speaker 1: laid out that he can't use a billion dollars for
Speaker 1: new wall construction, really just shoring up wall that's already there. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't need an additional ten feet on
Speaker 1: the couple of hundred miles of border that has fencing
Speaker 1: and barriers. We don't need a few added to the height.
Speaker 1: We need more new border friends. That is what we
Speaker 1: That's what we need. And I'm I'm wondering what the
Speaker 1: president's play is here. It's not gonna get easier. It's
Speaker 1: not going to get more straightforward as we get closer
Speaker 1: to the midterm elections to have the president try and
Speaker 1: negotiate this deal. There's just no way. There is no
Speaker 1: way that with the mid terms looming, we will be
Speaker 1: more likely to have a president who is able to
Speaker 1: get a deal done. All of a sudden, we're gonna
Speaker 1: develop political courage as a party in September before No,
Speaker 1: what's not gonna happen. I don't know the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is is. It's looking looking pretty shoddy right now. It's
Speaker 1: looking pretty shoddy. Maybe there's some surprise that I can't see.
Speaker 1: Maybe they've got something planned. I don't know. I doubt it,
Speaker 1: though I doubt it. Then you start to wonder, what
Speaker 1: are the options? What's the response? I wish I had
Speaker 1: an answer. You know, I can't build the wall. You
Speaker 1: can't build the wall. All you can do is elect
Speaker 1: a person and elect a platform that says that that
Speaker 1: will happen, that a southern border wall will be constructed.
Speaker 1: I promise, I guarantee that's what we were told. Does
Speaker 1: not look like that is happening. And I would want
Speaker 1: the most stalwart defenders of the administration to just go
Speaker 1: on the record now and let me know if we
Speaker 1: don't have a wall after four you or or the
Speaker 1: beginning of meaningful construction. You know, I'm not saying it
Speaker 1: has to be completed, but it has to be up
Speaker 1: and running and getting built. If we don't have that
Speaker 1: within four years, then can we say that we were betrayed,
Speaker 1: that that the promise was not kept. I would like
Speaker 1: to establish what the goalposts are now, because we know
Speaker 1: that people are going to try to move them a lot.
Speaker 1: We don't have a wall by do we get to
Speaker 1: does that affect our decision making in I'd like to
Speaker 1: I'd like to establish this now. I'd like to know. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, I'll the Stormy Daniels thing. I'll talk about
Speaker 1: a little bit in the next hour. I mean, CNN
Speaker 1: has turned into like the Stormy Daniels Network, and they're
Speaker 1: running with this story all day. It's just not that interesting.
Speaker 1: I think this is Look, it's uh, whether whether you
Speaker 1: think the allegations are all false or just exaggerated, or
Speaker 1: you think they're all true, all true. I think that
Speaker 1: this is a form of Trump terraine Bean syndrome. The
Speaker 1: whole Stormy Daniels, The way the media is covering it,
Speaker 1: it really is crazy. They've lost it. All right. We've
Speaker 1: got a bunch of calls coming in. I want to
Speaker 1: take them. People agree with me or don't agree with me.
Speaker 1: We'll see on the omnibus situation, the budget where all
Speaker 1: this is going. And like I said, Stormy Daniels coming up.
Speaker 1: I've got a theory on this that I think will
Speaker 1: explain a lot um and it will also explain the
Speaker 1: political ramifications of this. Stormy Daniels. I keep forgetting the
Speaker 1: other accusers or and it's not even really an accute,
Speaker 1: not saying anything wrong, just saying it's had an alleged affair.
Speaker 1: I can't remember her name. Um, the other one what
Speaker 1: was you know what I mean? The other the playmate
Speaker 1: what was the other playboy playmates name that apparently had
Speaker 1: the affair of them or whatever? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: can't keep it straight. But McDougall, right, mc McDougall or mccaren,
Speaker 1: I don't know anyway, we'll talk. Well, I'll figure out
Speaker 1: her name and we'll we'll talk about that too. In
Speaker 1: the next hour. I promised eight four or four nine
Speaker 1: eight to five, eight four or four nine hundred buck
Speaker 1: We've got a lot more. I'll be right back. All right, team,
Speaker 1: we got calls all over the place. Here, let's get
Speaker 1: into it. Tim in Ohio, you're on buck Listen. That
Speaker 1: was sick. That was heartbroke, man. I mean, I thought,
Speaker 1: I've been waiting for a patriot since eighty nine, that
Speaker 1: guy in his newer war sold down the river. I've
Speaker 1: been waiting and here it comes their man and he
Speaker 1: signed that bill. Number one with us was that wall,
Speaker 1: stop the drug, stop the welfare from the illegal, stop
Speaker 1: taking over our job. I was so heartbroken. But then
Speaker 1: today when I've seen that they put that extra money
Speaker 1: in there, and then Dems, we we thought he got snookeerd.
Speaker 1: I think on the other hand, he snickered them. He
Speaker 1: turned it around. I think he's going to use that
Speaker 1: military budget to say this is for national defense, and
Speaker 1: you know what he can do it because how many
Speaker 1: times justin we thought he was down and out right,
Speaker 1: and we thought, oh man, that they got you again,
Speaker 1: They got you again. It turns around him, he gets him.
Speaker 1: I think that's over that now. Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 1: Why are we giving money to plant parenthood, who's making money?
Speaker 1: Why give him plant money to you know, all the
Speaker 1: things we don't want. But I think in the end,
Speaker 1: he had to make a wedge. He pulled the wool down.
Speaker 1: They didn't know what was behind the curtain. And I
Speaker 1: think he's gonna start building that wall. We you you
Speaker 1: said one year, four years. We better see in six
Speaker 1: months that he says the wall construction is going to
Speaker 1: happen where I'm gonna be very disappointing. All right, Well, Tim,
Speaker 1: I hope, I hope you are correct, my friend, and
Speaker 1: I appreciate you joining and thank you very very much
Speaker 1: for that. Um. Maybe maybe does the president have a
Speaker 1: plan here that we'll get around the Congress. Possibly, I
Speaker 1: certainly hope so. Because that bill that was signed last week,
Speaker 1: that budget, that omnibus bill, it was crappy. It just
Speaker 1: was not not what you would expect from a not
Speaker 1: just a Republican president, but a different kind of Republican president,
Speaker 1: one who's entire mandate, who's manifesto, if you will, is
Speaker 1: to drain the swamp and to build the wall. John
Speaker 1: in California City, California, Hey, John, how are you? I'm
Speaker 1: all right, thanks for your call. Did when the Democrats
Speaker 1: were empowered, they past the Tipartistan build to build a
Speaker 1: double layer of fence along the border, and then they
Speaker 1: funded it, and the Democrats put in the funding bill
Speaker 1: that Homeland Security you can use the money however they
Speaker 1: see six. So all someths needs to do is just
Speaker 1: realocate Homeland Security money and bold with you're telling me
Speaker 1: the money is already there, So this fight over border
Speaker 1: wall funding for the ominous bill is irrelevant. Well, Homeland
Speaker 1: Security spent the money they bought X ray scanners for
Speaker 1: airports ticket instead of using it to build the double
Speaker 1: layer of fence that was mandated by Congress. So now
Speaker 1: you just take it out of the Homeland Security budget
Speaker 1: since Congress already said you can do what you want
Speaker 1: with onland security money. What you want. Hmm, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean back in two thousand six, President George W. Bush
Speaker 1: signed the Secure Fence Act. Remember that, Yes, That's what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Yeah, yeah, but that it didn't happen
Speaker 1: if you recall it. Somehow signed he signed a law
Speaker 1: that's ever, we're gonna build a fence. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and six, remember John McCain in a campaign re election
Speaker 1: at build the dang fence. Remember that no fence. Somehow,
Speaker 1: what happened was the Democrats put a writer on the
Speaker 1: funding that says that Homeland Security can use their money
Speaker 1: however they want. So what they did is they realcated
Speaker 1: those funds for actually scanners for airports. So now all
Speaker 1: you gotta do, since Congress already said on land security
Speaker 1: money is discustionary, just redirected and build the way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean initially Congress didn't get the full that they
Speaker 1: didn't appropriate the full funds for back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and six. By the way, Congress, according to the Inner
Speaker 1: thank you for calling in John. According to the interwebs here,
Speaker 1: Congress put aside, who wants to guess how much money
Speaker 1: one point four billion back in two thousand and six
Speaker 1: didn't get the job done, then do not think it
Speaker 1: is going to get the job done now. Um. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm hoping that the people that are saying this, you know,
Speaker 1: there's another way, like our last caller here, that this
Speaker 1: could just happen. I'm hoping they're right, I really am.
Speaker 1: But let's but if that's true, then like it should
Speaker 1: happen now, right, if that's true, should be right away.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be uh uh, Let's wait six months, see
Speaker 1: how the midterms go. The president should do it now
Speaker 1: and tell us how he's gonna do it and take
Speaker 1: that action. We'll see. Yeah, people forget this now about
Speaker 1: the Secure Fence Act of two thousand and six past
Speaker 1: two three to a hundred and thirty eight. Overwhelming support
Speaker 1: for the Secure Fence Act. It look border security used
Speaker 1: to be a bipartisan issue. It just has changed more
Speaker 1: recently into because Democrats are now a party of of
Speaker 1: of people get angry to open borders. Okay, fine, you
Speaker 1: don't completely open boards. They're they're they're the pro illegal
Speaker 1: immigration party. They are in favor of illegal immigration. They
Speaker 1: do not think it is a problem that needs to
Speaker 1: be addressed. They do not think it is a problem
Speaker 1: that needs to be managed. It is a phenomenon that
Speaker 1: needs to be encouraged. Democrats like it. It feeds their power.
Speaker 1: And what do Democrats care about, folks? What gets the
Speaker 1: Democrat party really excited? That's right. The power to control
Speaker 1: your life, that's it. That's it gets Chuck Schumer and
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders and all the rest that
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, that gets them out of bed in the morning,
Speaker 1: and I absolutely does. That's what they want, and that's
Speaker 1: what they think. They have a mandate from their constituents
Speaker 1: to do. Tell you how to live your life and
Speaker 1: tell you how things are gonna be. So this is
Speaker 1: this is what the fight is all about. This is
Speaker 1: what we've got ahead of us. Now. I gotta say that, Uh,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm willing to give a little bit of leeway
Speaker 1: here on this idea about the president building offense. But
Speaker 1: if this is true, we're going to know right away,
Speaker 1: all right. So let's all agree with that. This is
Speaker 1: not something that should be dragged out for a long time.
Speaker 1: If Trump is just gonna make the order, build the
Speaker 1: dang fence, if you will, it should happen. I gotta
Speaker 1: talk to you about the Stormy Daniels think coming up here.
Speaker 1: I've got a kind of unique analysis of this. I
Speaker 1: think I have a unique analysis is pretty much everything.
Speaker 1: But you want to hear my Stormy Daniel's thoughts. He's
Speaker 1: back with you now, because when it comes to the
Speaker 1: fight for truth. The buck never stops. If it was untruthful,
Speaker 1: why did you sign it? Because they made it sound
Speaker 1: like I had no choice. One was putting a gun
Speaker 1: to your head, not physical violence. Now you thought that
Speaker 1: there would be some sort of legal repercussion if you
Speaker 1: didn't sign it. As a matter of fact, the exact
Speaker 1: sentence use was they can make your life hell in
Speaker 1: many different ways. M Welcome our two of the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. That was from the very highly rated Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels interview yesterday with Anderson Cooper, who was just oh
Speaker 1: so serious of this whole interview with with Stormy Daniels.
Speaker 1: So now you have a she I believe she's a
Speaker 1: four former uh former porn star who's out there with
Speaker 1: these allegations against the president getting a lot of airtime.
Speaker 1: You also have a former playboy playmate with different allegations
Speaker 1: in some ways but similar in others. And media seems
Speaker 1: seems to be completely obsessed with this story. They are
Speaker 1: hooked on this, and they went into some considerable detail
Speaker 1: in this Anderson Cooper interview on sixty minutes last night.
Speaker 1: I think it was the the highest ratings that sixty
Speaker 1: minutes has had for any interview in a decade, so
Speaker 1: people were very curious I would know that I watched this.
Speaker 1: Actually I watched this last night with Miss Molly, and
Speaker 1: sure enough, there wasn't really a whole lot of new
Speaker 1: from what I had already read and seen out there.
Speaker 1: And I've tried to avoid spending too much of the
Speaker 1: time on this show covering the story because I I
Speaker 1: don't find it particularly interesting or or noteworthy one way
Speaker 1: or the other. I'm much more concerned with national policy
Speaker 1: and what's happening with the Trump agenda than I am
Speaker 1: about an alleged affair from what two thousands and I
Speaker 1: forget what the I forget what the eros now, but
Speaker 1: some some years back before Trump was even running for
Speaker 1: any of this, and the way you can see the
Speaker 1: fixation that particularly CNNA has with covering every detail and
Speaker 1: every little addition to the story reminds me of the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion thing, which is that ultimately it's really hyped
Speaker 1: up and it's who cares, But they want to keep
Speaker 1: going with it because they believe that this is damaging
Speaker 1: to the president. That's all this is about. It's about
Speaker 1: humiliating the president. It's damaging the president. It is and
Speaker 1: the stuff, and those of you that remember what it
Speaker 1: was like under the Clinton years, with the way the
Speaker 1: media would just bend over backwards to protect him. Oh,
Speaker 1: he'd lied. It was just about sex. It wasn't. It
Speaker 1: was actually about sexual harassment under the Clinton administration, which
Speaker 1: I thought that the liberal left cared about, but they don't.
Speaker 1: Um As we know, they prostrated themselves at the altar
Speaker 1: of Clintonian worship, and now here we are, we still
Speaker 1: remember what they did then and what they're saying now,
Speaker 1: all this moral preening and all that the tut tutting,
Speaker 1: the how dare you look at this? These are from
Speaker 1: the same people that are, for one, our supporters of
Speaker 1: planned paranoid So I don't really want to have any
Speaker 1: I don't need any moral anything from them. But also
Speaker 1: when it suits them, any sexual activity of a politician
Speaker 1: is is private conduct and who cares and it's not
Speaker 1: anyone's business. And when it doesn't, they don't just cover
Speaker 1: the story, they run with it endlessly. If the Democrats
Speaker 1: did not cover all issues related to Trump with a
Speaker 1: bizarre fixation with a form with a form of Trump's
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome, I think it actually would be more damaging
Speaker 1: to the president. But because it's always crying wolf, it's
Speaker 1: always the worst thing that's that's ever been done. It's
Speaker 1: always the president is beyond the pale, needs to be impeached,
Speaker 1: worst human being in the history of the planet, has
Speaker 1: broken more laws than anybody could have ever imagined. When
Speaker 1: they come out with new or more allegations, you just
Speaker 1: sort of say to yourself, well, what is it this time? Right?
Speaker 1: I have Trump outrage fatigue. I have for a long time.
Speaker 1: I'm sure many of you do as well. It's just
Speaker 1: this I ain't thing. Oh my gosh, look at Trump,
Speaker 1: Oh what's he done. If the media could just pretend
Speaker 1: to be a little normal and just be a little
Speaker 1: more like the actual journalists they espoused themselves to be,
Speaker 1: this would all matter more. The stories would stick, more,
Speaker 1: people would care more. But with this situation with Stormy
Speaker 1: Daniels and the the other John told me the name
Speaker 1: of the other McDougall, Karen McDougall. Right, yeah, um, there
Speaker 1: is a an obsession with it, and I just want
Speaker 1: to wonder. Okay, so when do they stop covering these stories?
Speaker 1: Trump says it didn't happen, or the White House is
Speaker 1: saying that that this is not true. At what point
Speaker 1: does this become a non story? The answer is that never.
Speaker 1: There's no there's no criminal conduct that has been alleged
Speaker 1: in either case of any kind. So this is actually
Speaker 1: purely personal behavior. And now they keeps saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we'll Cohen the lawyer have paid off for me. That
Speaker 1: came up last night with Anderson Cooper being I was
Speaker 1: oh so serious journalist men, the second coming of Morrow
Speaker 1: um or muro. Pardon me, uh, but they're the only
Speaker 1: illegal conduct would have been from Cohen the lawyer, who
Speaker 1: I'm sure it is going to argue that there's nothing
Speaker 1: legal what he did. But regardless, there's nothing to do
Speaker 1: with actually with Trump, and it would be sitting. It
Speaker 1: would be settled as a civil matter, no doubt, or
Speaker 1: settled with a fine. There's no one's going to prison
Speaker 1: over this. If you pay someone to have them quiet
Speaker 1: about something and sign an NDA, that's also called employment
Speaker 1: for a lot of people, right, meaning that that's what's
Speaker 1: done by a lot of places, a lot of media organizations.
Speaker 1: I would have you know, in fact, have their personnel.
Speaker 1: I knew this is true at MSNBC because I heard
Speaker 1: that Keith Olberman had designed one, and then there was
Speaker 1: a whole problem with was he agreeing to it or not.
Speaker 1: They have their outgoing personnel sign, you know, a non
Speaker 1: disparagement agreement. It's kind of like a nondisclosure agreement, same idea,
Speaker 1: and they pay the money to just kind of make them,
Speaker 1: you know, a little a little less angry about the
Speaker 1: situation or a little more feel a little better about
Speaker 1: the departure, so that there's no no hard feelings and
Speaker 1: no hard words exchanged, particularly in public. That's not all
Speaker 1: that strange. So there's no crime here. So why is
Speaker 1: it of such great fascination? And the truth is that
Speaker 1: if the media can find a way, and it's really
Speaker 1: i mean CNN has actually become it's become a as
Speaker 1: an organization, a feted place. I mean it is decrepit,
Speaker 1: it is broken down and nasty and gross um over Trump,
Speaker 1: I mean Trump, it's this. It's no longer a place
Speaker 1: that's like centered center left. It's now just we we
Speaker 1: hate the Trump administration and they have all their eggs
Speaker 1: and then we are bringing this administration down basket. There
Speaker 1: is no other there's no turnative, there's nothing else that
Speaker 1: they offer up every night. It's just continuing on with
Speaker 1: this on, with this narrative of how do we end
Speaker 1: this presidency, how do we humiliate the president? And when
Speaker 1: that's your approach to everything, it means that it's very
Speaker 1: difficult for those of us who even try to be
Speaker 1: honest and our assessment of things to say, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, is this really a big deal? Are
Speaker 1: we supposed to care about this? And so now they
Speaker 1: cover non criminal conduct by the president from many years
Speaker 1: ago as though it were the you know, the Japanese
Speaker 1: bombings of Pearl Harbor. I mean, it is NonStop, and
Speaker 1: they like to get into some of the lower details.
Speaker 1: And you know, that's keep in mind that President Clinton
Speaker 1: wasn't just accused of an affair, and people always think
Speaker 1: of Monica Lewinski. He led to the growth. He was
Speaker 1: also engaged in all kinds of intimidate you know, the
Speaker 1: White House was engaged intimidation witnesses. There was really just nasty,
Speaker 1: exactly what you'd expect, nasty, criminal behavior from the Clintons.
Speaker 1: But he was also credibly accused of sexual assault and
Speaker 1: the media wouldn't cover it at all, no interest in
Speaker 1: covering it. With Trump, he's not accused of sexually assaulting
Speaker 1: either of these two women. I know they'll bring up
Speaker 1: other other cases of sexual assault, but this is a
Speaker 1: story that they are insisting on making national business and
Speaker 1: making a big deal of, and I think it just
Speaker 1: goes to show that they can't even cover this in
Speaker 1: a normal way. Everything is magnified, everything is exaggerated. It's
Speaker 1: always Trump is the worst ever. Trump is terrible. Trump
Speaker 1: needs to go. Trump is a disgrace. Um. There's not
Speaker 1: any real good faith attempt to say, Okay, this is
Speaker 1: what's out there, let's move on to something else. Um.
Speaker 1: I understand there's a salacious aspect of this as well.
Speaker 1: You got a porn star, and news channels like to
Speaker 1: keep putting the photo was of the porn star on
Speaker 1: their channels, so people loo, there's the porn star that's
Speaker 1: accusing trouble with this. But I think that there's a
Speaker 1: a backlash to this as well. The people who support
Speaker 1: the president see this and they say that there's nothing
Speaker 1: that they won't do to bring this guy down. There
Speaker 1: is no level they will not stoop to, and everyone's
Speaker 1: just kind of sick, or at least people that are
Speaker 1: willing to be supportive or fair mind of the president
Speaker 1: are just sick of it at this point. Um, the
Speaker 1: notion that there was a threat against Stormy Daniels from somebody,
Speaker 1: I mean, for example, that's isn't running with that uh
Speaker 1: back in, which I think is also what all has happened.
Speaker 1: They have no idea who that was or what it
Speaker 1: was all about. That's being covered as a national news
Speaker 1: story that somebody said, you know, shut your mouth or else.
Speaker 1: Any of us who work in the media and have
Speaker 1: any sort of following or or platform have been threatened
Speaker 1: and had all kinds of terrible stuff said to us.
Speaker 1: I promise you the mean things people have said to
Speaker 1: me and my friends who work in this business of
Speaker 1: media not gonna be national news over at CNN in
Speaker 1: five years. No one cares. But they're making the alleged
Speaker 1: threats national news as well. What do they hope they'll
Speaker 1: get out of all this? You know, here's a kind
Speaker 1: of wonder. Um. They've exhausted their outrage faculties. There's not
Speaker 1: really much more for them to do, or many more
Speaker 1: places for them to go. We're already a point where
Speaker 1: they have reached maximum maximum disdained for this president, maximum
Speaker 1: hatred for him is nothing else. And when I saw
Speaker 1: the story with Stormy Daniels, I watched the intermacene, I
Speaker 1: thought or non CNN on sixty minutes with Anderson Cooper
Speaker 1: of CNN, this is just not a very interesting story. Look,
Speaker 1: if the president, if the president cheater on his wife,
Speaker 1: that's that's not a that's unethical, It's not a good
Speaker 1: thing to do. I would condemn it. But I would
Speaker 1: also note that a lot of presidents have had a
Speaker 1: lot of personal problems. I don't pretend that we live
Speaker 1: in a country where the personal failings of a president
Speaker 1: are going to determine whether or not they can be
Speaker 1: successful on a policy level. UM. I also think that
Speaker 1: the media is so dishonest and how they cover all
Speaker 1: this that it's very difficult for us to sift through
Speaker 1: what's real and what's not because you know, John Edwards,
Speaker 1: for example, was engaged in really disgusting personal conduct when
Speaker 1: he was trying to be president and trying to be
Speaker 1: vice president after that, and was running as somebody who
Speaker 1: was on the up and up, straight up guys, stood
Speaker 1: by his cancer stricken wife. You know, you you could
Speaker 1: trust John Edwards, and he was the slimiest sleaziest guy
Speaker 1: you could ever imagine, as we all found out because
Speaker 1: of the National Enquirer, by the way, not because any
Speaker 1: other news organization wanted to touch it at first. Um
Speaker 1: with Trump, Yeah, the guy has been married three times
Speaker 1: and he's he's had some bumps along the way, and
Speaker 1: clearly as a what's the word he likes He likes
Speaker 1: the company of beautiful women. That much we all know.
Speaker 1: And maybe it's a weakness of his I think you
Speaker 1: might be able to say that. But if he manages
Speaker 1: to deliver on the promises of the Trump campaign, how
Speaker 1: much am I really supposed to care about all that?
Speaker 1: You know that. This is the question that I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people play, is this is not gonna
Speaker 1: change Trump supporters. They're not gonna say, oh gosh, you
Speaker 1: mean you mean all of a sudden he he had
Speaker 1: a relationship with a porn star some years ago, And Nope.
Speaker 1: I don't think the supporters are gonna if he doesn't
Speaker 1: build the wall. I think people are gonna say, I've
Speaker 1: had enough. But the porn star thing, I don't know,
Speaker 1: ohoy do you? But I'm wondering how many of you
Speaker 1: believe it versus don't believe it um. That would be
Speaker 1: an interesting I wish I could do some kind of
Speaker 1: a non scientific poll on this one. Do you think
Speaker 1: that this woman she's lied before on the record, as
Speaker 1: we know, but now she's saying, well, I had to
Speaker 1: lie because but you know, do you believe her accounting
Speaker 1: of this? Do you believe McDougal's accounting of this? Then
Speaker 1: the even more important question is does anyone really care
Speaker 1: in a way that matters? The stories are out, They've
Speaker 1: been out for a long time. We are aware of it,
Speaker 1: we know about it. We'll see, we'll see. I wonder
Speaker 1: how this all shakes out. Eight four four to five,
Speaker 1: my friends, eight four four nine buck, We got a
Speaker 1: lot more. I'm going to talk about the sixty Russians
Speaker 1: expelled from the US, Russian diplomats, you know, quote unquote
Speaker 1: diplomats that were expelled from the US, and what that means.
Speaker 1: So that'll be probably coming up at the in the
Speaker 1: next hour. But we've got a lot more, yes our
Speaker 1: including the nuclear option. I think it's worth a discussion
Speaker 1: as well, why we should get to that. And and
Speaker 1: you were thoughts. Very much like to hear what you're
Speaker 1: thinking about all this, my friends, because these stories are
Speaker 1: not going away. I've I've avoided I've avoided the uh
Speaker 1: the storm if you will, has a terrible sort of
Speaker 1: a pond there, but avoided the storm about Stormy for
Speaker 1: as long as I can. But it's pretty much the
Speaker 1: biggest new story in the country right now, so I
Speaker 1: felt like we needed to weigh in on it somewhat
Speaker 1: and we'll see where it's all. But it is a
Speaker 1: just to for everybody out there. I have no doubt
Speaker 1: about it. They will impeach this president and they'll try
Speaker 1: to work this into it. In fact, we'll get into
Speaker 1: some of that analysis when we come back. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: I think his greatest vulnerability are these women, because he
Speaker 1: has denied that he has had any affair with any
Speaker 1: of these women. And if they get him under a
Speaker 1: position and he testifies that he's had no sexual relations
Speaker 1: with these women and they testify that he has, then
Speaker 1: he could be facing a perjury trap. And that's what
Speaker 1: got Bill Clinton. And what worried me is that among
Speaker 1: the list of lawyers that they say he sought to
Speaker 1: hire was a guy named Bob Bennett. Bob Bennett was
Speaker 1: Clinton's lawyer, the one who got him impeached. There you
Speaker 1: have Alan Dershowitz who's sounding the alarm on this stuff.
Speaker 1: Don't think it's lost on me, folks. I'm sure it's
Speaker 1: not lost on on you that you may have a
Speaker 1: situation here where Democrats actually try to set up the
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton treatment. Hey, that's Roddy was real rough. It
Speaker 1: was main they were so Maine to me, media bass
Speaker 1: right wing conspiracy. I mean, all the rest of the
Speaker 1: meeting was in my pocket, but some of the media
Speaker 1: was so Maine. Uh. They may try to set that
Speaker 1: up against Trump, that that might be part of the
Speaker 1: plan here. In fact, I think that may be h
Speaker 1: on the wish list, if you will, of what the
Speaker 1: Democrats are hoping to achieve with all of this. I
Speaker 1: think it's a stretch. As I said, that, you have
Speaker 1: Cohen paying some money hush money, and oh it's an
Speaker 1: in kind campaign contribution. All right, Well, unless Trump directed it,
Speaker 1: I don't see how that implicates trumpet. If someone does
Speaker 1: something on behalf of Trump without Trump saying to do it, uh,
Speaker 1: then I don't see how that could be a problem
Speaker 1: at all. No, No, again, maybe he did, I don't know.
Speaker 1: And if he reimbursed him, then as far as I
Speaker 1: understand it's like not really a problem at all, So
Speaker 1: we will see, although I believe Cohen has said that
Speaker 1: Trump did not reimburse him. John and Delaware, what do
Speaker 1: you think about all this messy buck? Yes, hello, hey
Speaker 1: buck Man, appreciate what you do. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: start off by saying that, thank you, sir. And I'm
Speaker 1: not going to talk much about the whole stormy Daniel
Speaker 1: is nonsense because I can really care less with President
Speaker 1: Trump did twelve years ago, and his sexual life is
Speaker 1: his own private, you know business, So I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: up on that. But as far as these these kids
Speaker 1: go in the marches and the demonstrations, I was tell
Speaker 1: them a dive and answers the phone. I don't think
Speaker 1: that the kids are just dumb per se or you know,
Speaker 1: they're out there are calls and rock kids for no
Speaker 1: specific reason. I think that they just don't know why
Speaker 1: we have a right to bear arms. They don't teach
Speaker 1: civics in high school no more. US history is taught
Speaker 1: halfway now all the way that he used to be,
Speaker 1: and I think that they're just under educated. The only
Speaker 1: thing that they do know as far as civics goes
Speaker 1: is that they have a right to assemble and that
Speaker 1: the press has its freedom. And as far as that's conferred,
Speaker 1: I think that they're you know, very under educated on
Speaker 1: the whole situation and the whole the whole deal man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that's true. But I would even add to it, John,
Speaker 1: that kids are actually taught just that guns are bad
Speaker 1: and that the correct position. Now, I mean public schools
Speaker 1: in particular, are teaching our children that the correct position is,
Speaker 1: in fact, that guns are bad and they should be banned,
Speaker 1: and that's the moral position. So forget about why are
Speaker 1: you gonna have a right to bear arms? They're just
Speaker 1: teaching them propaganda in the opposite direction. But thank you
Speaker 1: very much for your call, John, I appreciate it. Team
Speaker 1: will be right back. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck sext in his back. Got an interesting thing to
Speaker 1: add into the mix for the investigation of the Pulse
Speaker 1: nightclub shooters. Wife here you'll remember back in it was
Speaker 1: a June of twenty sixteen, the Pulse nightclub shooting in Orlando. Well,
Speaker 1: now we know that the the husband Omar Mateene, right,
Speaker 1: he was the one who targeted this, uh, this gay nightclub,
Speaker 1: called in and said at the time that he was
Speaker 1: uh doing this on behalf of the Islamic state, and
Speaker 1: he was a soldier of the Islamics there, and he
Speaker 1: called in and shared with them all the information about
Speaker 1: why he was doing it. And then the FBI chose
Speaker 1: to redact those transcripts. I pledge allegiance to redacted. I'm
Speaker 1: doing this in the name of redacted. Oh yeah, you
Speaker 1: can think maybe that came from the FBI, or maybe
Speaker 1: that was the Maybe that was the doing of Attorney
Speaker 1: General Luretta Lynch and those in the Obama administration who
Speaker 1: are trying to do everything they could want to protect
Speaker 1: us from the knowledge of gee hottest attacks on us soil. Right,
Speaker 1: better to just pretend they're not happening than to let
Speaker 1: us deal with the reality of them happening. And then
Speaker 1: also because of some misplaced attempt at political correctness. Remember,
Speaker 1: Obama was the president who said that the future does
Speaker 1: not belong to those who slander the profit of Islam.
Speaker 1: Very strange things that he said at the United Nations,
Speaker 1: but he said it nonetheless, Well, we know about we
Speaker 1: know about Omar Maatine, his wife, nor Salmon, who got
Speaker 1: attention immediately afterwards because it seemed like it was very
Speaker 1: unlikely that she had no idea really what was going
Speaker 1: on here. She is on trial facing life in prison
Speaker 1: for material support to a terrorist organization, in this case,
Speaker 1: the Islamic State, and also obstruction of justice. Um. This
Speaker 1: I suppose it would be material support to ISIS and
Speaker 1: included in the charging here would be that that you
Speaker 1: had forty Gosh, I care for forty. Somehow I forget
Speaker 1: what the full casualt account was. A lot of people
Speaker 1: were killed in the Pulse nightclub. But now we got
Speaker 1: a new thing to add into all this as well.
Speaker 1: Now I have something else to put in the mix here.
Speaker 1: Nor Salmon, the wife has through her attorney's motioned for
Speaker 1: a mistrial. So the wife of the Pulst nightclub shooter
Speaker 1: has motioned for a mistrial because thank you, Producer mighty
Speaker 1: were killed in the Pult nightclub. It's a lot of people, um,
Speaker 1: But she's trying to get a mistrial because the father
Speaker 1: Omar Mateen's father, if you remember, uh, It has come
Speaker 1: out in court according to the defense here that Sadiq Matin,
Speaker 1: the dad was an FBI informant three years for like
Speaker 1: five years or so, maybe longer. So my friends, Let's
Speaker 1: think about this for a moment. The FBI had an
Speaker 1: informant who was the father of the terrorists who would
Speaker 1: become the Pulst nightclub shooter. I understand that there's a
Speaker 1: couple of ways that I'm sure they would try to
Speaker 1: explained this publicly so that it wouldn't look quite so
Speaker 1: jaw dropping the bad. You would think that if you
Speaker 1: had a relationship with somebody as a confidential source and
Speaker 1: they had a terrorist in their family, you'd have some
Speaker 1: sense of what's going on here, and maybe you'd be
Speaker 1: able to do more. Um. But they weren't able to
Speaker 1: stop that one. They were not able to stop it,
Speaker 1: according to According to a new six Orlando here, Mateen's
Speaker 1: father played a significant role in the FBI's decision not
Speaker 1: to seek an indictment from the Justice Department for false
Speaker 1: statements to the FBI or for obstruction of justice against
Speaker 1: Omar Mateen during its investigation into his alleged threats. So
Speaker 1: the FBI's confidential informant convinced the f beIN not to
Speaker 1: go forward with charges against the Pulse nightclub shooter before
Speaker 1: obviously that terrorist incident. What does this say about the
Speaker 1: what does it say about the judgment of some of
Speaker 1: the folks in the FBI involved here by the Sadique
Speaker 1: Matina was also the guy who was at a rally
Speaker 1: for presidential Canada Hillary Clinton, and she was He was
Speaker 1: there less than two months after the Pulse nightclub attack,
Speaker 1: and he was directly behind Clinton during the speech. So
Speaker 1: this guy literally has been popping up in places everyones
Speaker 1: whoa and he's an FBI informant, and he stopped the
Speaker 1: FBI from going forward charges against his son, who became
Speaker 1: one of the worst terrorists on US soil in the
Speaker 1: last decade, one of the worst mass shootings in US history,
Speaker 1: one of the worst isis inspired attacks UH in this country.
Speaker 1: I think actually in terms of casualties for ices, I
Speaker 1: think that's the highest that's confirmed inspired by the Islamic
Speaker 1: State and UH. And in terms of the number of
Speaker 1: people killed. And so now we look at this as
Speaker 1: we said to ourselves, this has got There's gotta be
Speaker 1: something else that's gonna come out. Now, there's gotta be more.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's gonna lead to mistrial or not.
Speaker 1: I think it might, but miss trials are a thing
Speaker 1: that I don't have a much experience, as in any
Speaker 1: experience in I'm not familiar with how that process specifically works.
Speaker 1: It does seem to me to be a problem from
Speaker 1: the perspective of getting a fair trial if, in fact
Speaker 1: the FBI he was part of the prosecution here, had
Speaker 1: not turned over that information, which I'm assuming they did,
Speaker 1: and otherwise it wouldn't be able to file for a mistrial.
Speaker 1: Um not turned over the information in their disclosure process
Speaker 1: about the fact that this guy was an FBI. Format mean,
Speaker 1: you know, with some of these mass shootings, you really
Speaker 1: do get the sense. Well, I don't think it's just
Speaker 1: a sense. With some of these mass shootings, what you
Speaker 1: see is that the public is fed information away that's
Speaker 1: most advantageous to the government and the security apparatus that's
Speaker 1: supposed to protect us. Absolutely the case in a number
Speaker 1: of shootings that involved Geehattas on US soil. But it's
Speaker 1: the case here, I think as well, you know, we
Speaker 1: don't find out about it right away. They hold back
Speaker 1: some details, they hold back some information from us, and
Speaker 1: then we see, oh, it's because it looks bad from
Speaker 1: you know, the the shooting that happened in Parkland, right
Speaker 1: the school shooting. The more we know about that. The
Speaker 1: worst it looks from the perspective of the FBI, Police,
Speaker 1: school Board, Broward County Sheriff's office, all of it really
Speaker 1: about as bad as it could be. With Polst Nightclub
Speaker 1: also really bad, folks. Police response not good. They were
Speaker 1: there almost right away. There were people bleeding out inside
Speaker 1: and there were there was a tackle team on site.
Speaker 1: Did not go in. Not good. People can tell me,
Speaker 1: oh bo protocol. No, I don't care what any particular
Speaker 1: departments protocol is. Now, if you have an active shooter
Speaker 1: who's still shooting people, and you have people on scene
Speaker 1: with guns who are law enforcing, they have to go
Speaker 1: and usually they do, but sometimes they don't. Anyway, Uh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about Russia coming up here in just
Speaker 1: a few minutes, so stay with me for that and
Speaker 1: a whole lot more team, I'll be right back. China's
Speaker 1: a sovereign nation is has to make a choice about
Speaker 1: how it wants to proceed. Uh, in the global economy.
Speaker 1: I think it's important to recognize here that it's not
Speaker 1: just the United States who is tired of having China
Speaker 1: steal their stuff, fired of having their foreign corporations go
Speaker 1: into China, and they have forced technology transfer occur. President's
Speaker 1: vision here, it's it's it's stunning, lee brilliant, because what
Speaker 1: he's trying to bring about is a fundamental reordering of
Speaker 1: the global trading system in a way which focuses on
Speaker 1: free markets, fair trade, and reciprocal trade. And that's not
Speaker 1: what we have there. Everything the president does every morning
Speaker 1: that he goes to work is all centered around driving
Speaker 1: economic growth and creating jobs, not just here in America
Speaker 1: but around the world. There you had the President's advisor
Speaker 1: on on trade, Peter Navarro, who is making the case.
Speaker 1: You know, we were we were last week being told,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, the threat of trade a ward. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be it's so terrible. And look what's happening with
Speaker 1: the the stock market. Well, you know, now here we
Speaker 1: are a week later, and the Dow had the biggest
Speaker 1: one day game since two thousand and eight, the biggest
Speaker 1: one day gain in ten years, according to Fox Business. Here.
Speaker 1: So the threat of a trade war, as I have
Speaker 1: been saying, and more importantly, the impact of a trade war,
Speaker 1: has been greatly exaggerated in the media. You know, this
Speaker 1: reminds me of something I learned when I was in
Speaker 1: government people are, and they don't want to admit this
Speaker 1: to you. So I'm letting you. I'm letting you in
Speaker 1: on something that's maybe a little little counterintuitive. People are
Speaker 1: much more comfortable with the status quo than they say
Speaker 1: they are. And everyone talks about being a revolutionary, but
Speaker 1: then you when whatever it is in their field, you know,
Speaker 1: whether they're you know, selling paper or opening up a
Speaker 1: lemonade stand down the street, whatever it is, everyone's like,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm gonna change the game. I want to
Speaker 1: be disruptive. Disruptive because of the Silicon Valley. Uh, techno
Speaker 1: speak is something that people just say, now right, you're
Speaker 1: in a meeting, well, I want to disrupt the And
Speaker 1: Trump is a disruptive president, but he actually is. Um.
Speaker 1: But when I when I look at what policies Trump
Speaker 1: pushes out there, Trade is a great example of it
Speaker 1: where you start to see that people just have it
Speaker 1: an inherent resistance to actual change. Right. Everyone theoretically loves
Speaker 1: the idea of of changing things up, disrupting, thinking outside
Speaker 1: the box, all that, but we all, we all get
Speaker 1: comfortable with consensus. We take a false security in it.
Speaker 1: We We all like thinking that the path that we're
Speaker 1: going on is the one that's the smartest. And it's
Speaker 1: a lot easier to be on a certain path and
Speaker 1: feel that way than to just to jump into the unknown,
Speaker 1: right the devil, you know, you get all the all
Speaker 1: the old chestnuts, all the old wisdom comes into play here.
Speaker 1: But with trade, this is a great example of it.
Speaker 1: And I will give myself a little pat on the
Speaker 1: back here for not doing what so many of my
Speaker 1: fellow conservatives have done, which is is in Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it's like he doesn't understand, Milton Friedman. I get it.
Speaker 1: I understand if you're looking for just maximum efficiency of
Speaker 1: goods and services and products exchanged across international borders and
Speaker 1: money and yeah, just letting people get whatever they can
Speaker 1: get and do whatever they can do. He's going to
Speaker 1: be great for wealth generation. But there are other impacts
Speaker 1: of this, There are other aspects of that you have
Speaker 1: to take into account. And on trade, the consensus had been,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, this is so crazy what he's doing.
Speaker 1: How could he, you know, how could he be opposed
Speaker 1: to free trade. He's not opposed to free trade. He's
Speaker 1: just opposed to some countries doing whatever they want that
Speaker 1: they think benefits them. And us saying, well, at all,
Speaker 1: we're free traders. Think about it like, you're in a
Speaker 1: you know, you're in a race, okay, and you're you're
Speaker 1: in a marathon. Let's make it even a little more.
Speaker 1: And and you're you're running on the marathon, and there's
Speaker 1: some people who are in that marathon and they are
Speaker 1: hopping in taxi cabs and trying to get ahead of you,
Speaker 1: and then they get out and they get ahead of you.
Speaker 1: Even if you beat them at the end, you got
Speaker 1: a problem with them cheating, Even if you know you're
Speaker 1: gonna win the race, you want to call out what
Speaker 1: they're doing because guess what if the time comes when
Speaker 1: one of them actually does win the race, it's too
Speaker 1: late now they've won. So you know you you want
Speaker 1: to respond two actions that are breaking promises, outside the lines,
Speaker 1: breaking regulations, unfair. However it is, we are going to
Speaker 1: describe the specifics of what China is up to, and
Speaker 1: that's another very good point that he makes. We always
Speaker 1: think about this in the context of and this is
Speaker 1: back to Navarro, of how China is affecting us and
Speaker 1: what they're doing to us as a trading partner, but
Speaker 1: also what they're doing with regard to stealing intellectual property.
Speaker 1: And when I'm saying what he is pointing out and
Speaker 1: what I'm raising as well for you here is it's
Speaker 1: not just us the Chinese are stealing from. You know,
Speaker 1: we actually have a really sophisticated cyber infrastructure or we
Speaker 1: can depends on what we're talking about, but we do
Speaker 1: have a we have cyber command, and we have the
Speaker 1: most advanced technology companies in the world. And you know,
Speaker 1: imagine if you're in another country and you're trying to
Speaker 1: get an edge on China, you're competing against China, what
Speaker 1: that's like. You know, you think you're gonna have some
Speaker 1: proprietary advantage over over the Chinese if you're in there,
Speaker 1: if you're in their neck of the woods, I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I'm not gonna last very long. Think about
Speaker 1: how aggressive they are with us in terms of espionage
Speaker 1: and doing everything they can to get in illicit corporate advantage.
Speaker 1: And then imagine that you're not the United States, you know,
Speaker 1: imagine your Vietnam, or South Korea or India, all right,
Speaker 1: go down the line of all these different countries that
Speaker 1: have their own interests that the Chinese are pushing into
Speaker 1: these days, and see how if we don't set the
Speaker 1: tone and start to establish that the Chinese can't just
Speaker 1: do whatever they want and steal, it is stealing, keep
Speaker 1: knowing that, then it's just gonna have a cascading effect
Speaker 1: and and it's going to be a really negative one. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I just have been trying to be as
Speaker 1: multifaceted a thinker on this as I can, because I
Speaker 1: do understand the very basics of you know, what they're
Speaker 1: trying to you know what, what the mantra is. I
Speaker 1: understand what the mantra is on this, but there's a
Speaker 1: lot more to it. And I think the notion of
Speaker 1: a trade war is overblown, the notion that the Chinese
Speaker 1: are going to bring us to to our knees by
Speaker 1: retaliating against us. We're just telling them to be more
Speaker 1: fair in their interactions. And I'm gonna and fair. This
Speaker 1: is not fair in the Obama sense of the term,
Speaker 1: which is whatever I wanted to be at any point
Speaker 1: in time. You know, if they're going to charge tariffs
Speaker 1: on certain certain products, then we'll charge twenty tariffs for
Speaker 1: their products. Here. They can stop it, and we'll stop it,
Speaker 1: you know, And that it turns into me the best
Speaker 1: man or a woman win. I don't see this as
Speaker 1: such a such an astonishingly brazen shift, But just notice
Speaker 1: how people the the consensus opinion on this. Back to
Speaker 1: my initial premise here about how people like things the
Speaker 1: way they are. You know, rock the boat, Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: un rock the boat. The initial premise was, this is
Speaker 1: such a such such a terrible idea, and not only
Speaker 1: people are seeing the real results of it, and or
Speaker 1: at least they're getting a sense of what the results
Speaker 1: could be, they're not seeing the results quite yet, and
Speaker 1: they're realizing that what they've been told is not true,
Speaker 1: that the Chinese can't hurt us as badly as everyone
Speaker 1: has been saying, and that this isn't going to lead
Speaker 1: to calamity, and maybe Trump's actually onto something with this,
Speaker 1: and I certainly hope so, because we're gonna need a
Speaker 1: president with a with a roaring economy, who is making
Speaker 1: great deals for the economy, doing all kinds of good
Speaker 1: things on jobs and growth, than because we're gonna win
Speaker 1: the mid terms. Because I'm I'm not thinking that the
Speaker 1: wall is gonna happen, folks just putting it out there.
Speaker 1: I'm getting pretty i'mbarish on the wall, so we better
Speaker 1: be bullish on the economy, that much is for sure.
Speaker 1: We got our three coming up. We'll talked about those
Speaker 1: Russian diplomats got expelled. Russian diplomats expelled from Albania, Canada, Croatia,
Speaker 1: Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungry, Italy, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: It's a whole bunch over a dozen, including the U.
Speaker 1: S and Canada. It doesn't more than that. So we
Speaker 1: will talk about that coming up here in just a
Speaker 1: few minutes. And also the best defense for a French
Speaker 1: waiter being fired I've ever heard, what is it? Hope
Speaker 1: to stay with me? I'll let you know he's back
Speaker 1: with you now, because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the never stops. You are now entering the
Speaker 1: Freedom Technical Operations Center. All visitor programs must be kept strictly.
Speaker 1: Need to know Team Bucket is cleared and ready for
Speaker 1: the buck brief. Today President Trump announced the expulsion of
Speaker 1: dozens of Russian intelligence officers from the United States, along
Speaker 1: with the closure of its consulate in Seattle, Washington. This
Speaker 1: is the largest expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in the
Speaker 1: United States history. The United States takes this action in
Speaker 1: conjunction with our NATO allies and partners around the world,
Speaker 1: in response to a military grade chemical weapon attack on
Speaker 1: the soil of the United Kingdom by Russia. There you
Speaker 1: have a US Ambassador to Russia, John Huntsman, laying out
Speaker 1: the actions taken earlier today by the administration to show
Speaker 1: their displeasure with what happened in the UK. Were just
Speaker 1: believe that the Russians poisoned really what would have been
Speaker 1: a defector, That's what we would have called the Cold
Speaker 1: War terminology, a former Russian who had gone over to
Speaker 1: the U K's side, poison with with a nerve agent Novachuk,
Speaker 1: which is a signature Russian nerve agent. So unless they
Speaker 1: have some explanation for how something that only the Russians
Speaker 1: have and therefore could use got into the system of
Speaker 1: UH Screepall and his daughter, then we know it was
Speaker 1: the Russians, right realistically, So this is major diplomatic pushback
Speaker 1: from the United States, and it's from UH, not just
Speaker 1: the US, Canada and a dozen other countries. So this
Speaker 1: this is significant. I will say this is the first
Speaker 1: time that I have seen since Trump became president. Even
Speaker 1: some of his most stalwart detractors, I mean, even some
Speaker 1: of his most critical people on the national security side,
Speaker 1: they're saying, Wow, this, this is this is meaningful. This
Speaker 1: is in the world of diplomatic action and diplomatic response
Speaker 1: to events around the world. This is strong. This is
Speaker 1: not nothing. And I had to note that there's this
Speaker 1: huge narrative out there. We've been told for so long
Speaker 1: that Trump is the Kremlin's puppet, that Russia. Well, what
Speaker 1: you just had Brennan, the former CI director, and look,
Speaker 1: I I I took him to the wood shed on
Speaker 1: this one, as I should have, because what he said
Speaker 1: was really disgraceful, or what he suggested it's even worse.
Speaker 1: It's it's so oh leaguenness and slimy and unctious. But
Speaker 1: his suggestion that oh, you know, maybe the Russians have
Speaker 1: something on Trump is meant to feed into this narrative
Speaker 1: that you hear that the Russians own Trump, that the
Speaker 1: Russians are calling the shots in this White House because
Speaker 1: they've got something on them. And people that I know
Speaker 1: in the media believe this, they really do. It's astonishing,
Speaker 1: but they do believe it. And Now when you have
Speaker 1: reactions being taken by the administration, by the President United
Speaker 1: States that are going to annoy the Russians. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is US in a in a dozen
Speaker 1: countries and Canada that are all expelling Russian personnel. Uh
Speaker 1: And that comes at a time when we also have
Speaker 1: had the ratcheting up of more sanctions. We've had the
Speaker 1: Muller probe that indicted a bunch of Russians, including some
Speaker 1: very some with very close ties to Putin and the Kremlin.
Speaker 1: And we're we're going after their the Russian spying capability,
Speaker 1: and we're holding them accountable for their actions abroad. And
Speaker 1: this is this is exactly exactly what if you had
Speaker 1: a mainstream, main you know, down the middle, Republican or
Speaker 1: Democrat administration that was not Trump, the advisors would likely
Speaker 1: be requesting, pushing forward, demanding as their response to recent
Speaker 1: Russian actions. We've got Trump sending and start to look
Speaker 1: at the scoreboard, right, you got Trump sending sniper rifles
Speaker 1: and anti tank missiles Javelin anti tank missiles to the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian National Army to fight against Russian back separatist Obama
Speaker 1: wouldn't do that. That's too aggressive. You got Trump with
Speaker 1: more sanctions against more Russians than at any time during
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. You have now the expulsion of diplomats
Speaker 1: and really in this case, uh uh, the most since
Speaker 1: the Cold War. And this this is sending a This
Speaker 1: is sending a message and it's taking action. And here
Speaker 1: you have it. Um. You know, the UK alone expelled
Speaker 1: twenty three Russian diplomats after the screen Pall attack or
Speaker 1: screen Pall is the guy that got poisoned with a
Speaker 1: Nuva chuck. But now you've had a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: others that have also gotten in on this and trying
Speaker 1: to pressure Russia. Look, we do want to change in
Speaker 1: Russian activity. It would be nice if Russia would take
Speaker 1: a less aggressive and just generally less problematic posture towards
Speaker 1: us on a whole bunch of on a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of issues towards our and towards our interests. Really, you know,
Speaker 1: people have focused so much on the election interference because
Speaker 1: it suits their political narrative. The fact the matter is
Speaker 1: that what Russia has been doing, I mean, that's all
Speaker 1: just j V crap, that's nonsense. Well, Russia with the
Speaker 1: sock puppets in the Facebook, the algorithms and the stuff.
Speaker 1: The truth is that the Russians, with their actions in
Speaker 1: in Syria and Ukraine, and you know, they're doing things
Speaker 1: that are destabilizing in parts of the world where we
Speaker 1: have at least a national security interest um and perhaps
Speaker 1: even more than that. Syria, for example, we have US
Speaker 1: troops that are now in contact, including the lethal interaction
Speaker 1: from a few weeks ago where we bombed two bombed
Speaker 1: the Russian paramilitaries and kill a whole lot of them.
Speaker 1: So we're we're seeing an administration that's taking actions against
Speaker 1: Russia that are stronger than what was done in eight
Speaker 1: years of the abadministration. And one thing you'll see is
Speaker 1: that at some point that just becomes too much of
Speaker 1: a stretch to push this narrative about how Trump is
Speaker 1: Putin's puppet, and they're never gonna They're never gonna say
Speaker 1: we were wrong, we're you know, we we went too
Speaker 1: far with this, We're sorry. No. No. Being a mainstream
Speaker 1: medium means never having to say you're sorry. They'll just
Speaker 1: keep on riding this for as long as they can,
Speaker 1: and they'll keep pushing on this for as long as
Speaker 1: they can until it finally becomes an untenable position for them,
Speaker 1: and then they'll just switch to something else. And maybe
Speaker 1: at that point the story won't be nearly as much
Speaker 1: about Russia collusion, because Trump will be more effective at
Speaker 1: punching back at Russian Russian government policy than its predecessor
Speaker 1: Obama was. But it'll you'll see that the storyline will
Speaker 1: just become more and more about obstruction and about you know,
Speaker 1: payments that were made or something there. They'll have another
Speaker 1: way of you know, Trump is going down, he's an
Speaker 1: illegitimate president, he's a bad guy, all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: At no point, I think will you hear from any
Speaker 1: of these, any of these being journalist outfits that have
Speaker 1: been running with this Russia Russia story, and one of
Speaker 1: the big ways they push it is to say that
Speaker 1: Trump is so friendly to Russia, he never condemns Russia,
Speaker 1: so you know, in Russia's pocket and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: At no point do I think you'll see them admit
Speaker 1: that if it wasn't a hoax, it was pretty close.
Speaker 1: If it wasn't fake news, it was false news. There's
Speaker 1: a dishonesty at the root of what they've been pushing
Speaker 1: and what they've been saying, and that they will never
Speaker 1: confront it because it would mean looking at their own
Speaker 1: biases understanding, how is it that CNN, how is it
Speaker 1: that MSNBC can run story after story about how Trump
Speaker 1: will never confront Putin and he's just so warm and
Speaker 1: fuzzy and sweet towards Putin all the time except when
Speaker 1: it really matters, except when it actually comes to policy.
Speaker 1: And then all of a sudden, you have this recognition
Speaker 1: among a lot of people the media that Trump is
Speaker 1: willing to punch back against anybody. Well, what could the
Speaker 1: Russians really even have that would stop this president from
Speaker 1: doing what he wants and uh, pushing back at anybody
Speaker 1: who who challenges him on the world stage. The whole
Speaker 1: thing is just it's just bonkers. It's just not based
Speaker 1: and not based in their reality. So now there's the
Speaker 1: other part of this that I didn't really get into,
Speaker 1: and maybe it's something we'll address later on the week.
Speaker 1: And that's just what's the Russian response to this gonna be?
Speaker 1: You know, we keep coming at this from the Okay,
Speaker 1: you know, we're ratching up the pressure. Well that that
Speaker 1: is a two way street. The Russians have ways of
Speaker 1: making our lives more difficult. I'll note that the I think, uh,
Speaker 1: the I know was the former US commander in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: General Nicholson, had said that the Russians are just directly
Speaker 1: aiding the Russians are directly aiding the Taliban and Afghanistan. Uh,
Speaker 1: that would not surprise me in the least. I think he.
Speaker 1: I think he mentioned it again this week, But if
Speaker 1: he didn't, doesn't even really matter. I'm telling you that
Speaker 1: the Russians have ways of making our lives more difficult abroad,
Speaker 1: you know, and doing it in such a way that
Speaker 1: their fingerprints aren't clear enough on whatever they're doing that
Speaker 1: we can hit them back publicly. So don't think that
Speaker 1: this is just gonna be us taking swings, taking free
Speaker 1: shots at the Russians. The Russians are they're you know,
Speaker 1: Putin and his crew. They're a cag bunch. So well,
Speaker 1: the way we're gonna talk about Obama, he had a
Speaker 1: a comment about, well, you're gonna have to hear it.
Speaker 1: Actually it's a very Obama comment. You have to hear it.
Speaker 1: Stay with me after the break, we'll get right to it.
Speaker 1: After I left office, what I realized is that, uh,
Speaker 1: the Obama Foundation could potentially create a platform for young
Speaker 1: ut them coming leaders both in the United States but
Speaker 1: all around the world to come together and meet together,
Speaker 1: create a digital platform where they could exchange information on
Speaker 1: an ongoing basis about projects that were they were working on. Uh,
Speaker 1: and that if I could do that effectively, then you know,
Speaker 1: I would create a hundred or a thousand or a
Speaker 1: million young Barack Obamas. There. Obama still still out there,
Speaker 1: still a force, my friend. Do not think for a
Speaker 1: second that he is uh, he is not going to
Speaker 1: be a voice literally that you're gonna be hearing for
Speaker 1: the years to come. And I just had to note that.
Speaker 1: There you have it. You have Obama saying that you know,
Speaker 1: he's working on creating a million, a million young Barack Obamas.
Speaker 1: Because what could the world need more than a guy
Speaker 1: who wrote two autobiographies by the time he was is
Speaker 1: uh forty something, not one, but two autobiographies. I think
Speaker 1: that's I think that's quite telling. I really do. Didn't
Speaker 1: spend all that much time in the state Senate or
Speaker 1: the Senate Senate, the National Senate before making a presidential
Speaker 1: run and just happened to hit a lot of hit
Speaker 1: a lot of different area is the right time and
Speaker 1: became the president for eight years. But don't think that
Speaker 1: you're not going to be hearing from Obama for for
Speaker 1: the foreseeable. He's gonna round. But could you just imagine
Speaker 1: for a second, if I could, if you heard from
Speaker 1: Hillary and she's like, my project is to create a
Speaker 1: million little Hillary's. I think some of you might have
Speaker 1: some kind of shock induced seizure or something you might
Speaker 1: not be able to handle that you might have a
Speaker 1: real problem. Um, if you heard that Hillary was planning
Speaker 1: to create a million little hillary is out there. But
Speaker 1: don't don't forget, my friends, that Obama as we go
Speaker 1: closer to the midterms, is going to be a voice
Speaker 1: that is weighing in and will be treated with the
Speaker 1: utmost reverence by the media, and is going to be
Speaker 1: a factor in who people vote for and what they're well,
Speaker 1: at least amongst some Democrats in trying to get the
Speaker 1: enthusiasm going. It's pretty astonishing to me at this point
Speaker 1: that they're going to run a campaign or they're gonna
Speaker 1: run on an anti Trump celebrity meme campaign from the
Speaker 1: mid term mid terms. That's what it's gonna be. So
Speaker 1: it's just Trump is terrible Trump is basically Hitler. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, the Me Too movement and the Women's March
Speaker 1: and the gun marches and all this stuff. It's going
Speaker 1: to be activism. It's going to be a big effort
Speaker 1: among Hollywood and among media left types, and then, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, then we'll we'll see if it's if it's enough,
Speaker 1: and we'll see how that all shakes out. I'm I'm worried.
Speaker 1: I'm worried because you know, they're they're already seeing i think,
Speaker 1: fractures because of all the things I've been talking about,
Speaker 1: because the problems with the Omnibus bill and the lack
Speaker 1: of wall funding. Every they're they're seeing places to exploit
Speaker 1: the Republican Trump coalition and try to find those fissures
Speaker 1: and look at ways that capitalizing on the seams that
Speaker 1: have been created in this whole process. But I'm I'm
Speaker 1: I'm worried about it. I'm not gonna lie. I am
Speaker 1: a little bit concerned here about how this is all
Speaker 1: gonna go. But you're gonna hear from don't. I wish
Speaker 1: I could tell you it's all gonna be okay, folks.
Speaker 1: But we're gonna to see, Uh, this is right now
Speaker 1: a tough i'd say, a tough news cycle, a tough
Speaker 1: week or so for the administration when we have all
Speaker 1: the all the reason the world. You expect that Trump
Speaker 1: would have been willing to fight on that omnimous ability. Didn't.
Speaker 1: And you know, the left, if they can make it
Speaker 1: about Trump the person and not Trump the agenda, who
Speaker 1: knows how the midterms are going to go. If they
Speaker 1: can turn this into some kind of a food fight
Speaker 1: over gosh, Darry even say, the moral authority in American politics.
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats are so hypocritical that it's laughable
Speaker 1: that they would go at that. But that's possible. At
Speaker 1: least you may see them try to make this about
Speaker 1: just how terrible Trump is and we can't have this anymore.
Speaker 1: Return to civility. Oh you're you'll see all the all
Speaker 1: the most uh completely abused terms in our political lexicon
Speaker 1: will make a big comeback now because they think that
Speaker 1: will be useful in defeating Trump. So I will stay
Speaker 1: I'll stay focused on all these things. I just I
Speaker 1: really just want to play that audio creating a billion
Speaker 1: little Obamas. By the way, Obama would think that's great,
Speaker 1: you know, if he could clone himself a million times over.
Speaker 1: Remember he was also the guy who said that, you know,
Speaker 1: just give him the ball, and that he knows more
Speaker 1: than all of his policy advisors on every issue. And
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask at the time when the media
Speaker 1: was saying, oh, yeah, of course he does. Really, you
Speaker 1: know more about agricultural subsidies than the Department of Agriculture chief. Really,
Speaker 1: you know more about archaic trade agreements than the the
Speaker 1: head of the Department of Commerce and your administration. Really,
Speaker 1: you know more than all your advisors. That's doesn't speak
Speaker 1: well with your advisors, or more to the point, with Obama.
Speaker 1: Just goes to show that the uh, the narcissism, the
Speaker 1: self indulgence, and the sense of grandiosity that Obama had
Speaker 1: has set a standard that can never be uh can
Speaker 1: never be exceeded. I think I think Obama's self regard
Speaker 1: was as high as it is possib able for any
Speaker 1: human being to to have, including Trump. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Trump is a bigger fan of himself than Obama
Speaker 1: was of himself. And so that's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: that now we don't have a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of the Trump folks when they hear his uh, well,
Speaker 1: I mean his supporters, they hear a kind of a braggadocious, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, a salesman like approach, and we're all fine
Speaker 1: with it, because if we had to be told for
Speaker 1: eight years that Obama was the greatest genius who have
Speaker 1: ever worked in government anywhere in the history of the planet,
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm not gonna get too upset about Trump
Speaker 1: saying that his crowd sizes are really big and he's
Speaker 1: a great negotiator. I can handle that. I think that
Speaker 1: that's uh, that's fair to say. So we'll see. We'll
Speaker 1: see what roll Obama plays in this mid terms. As
Speaker 1: the outside voice of the previous administration and also a
Speaker 1: lot of senior Obama officials, former Obama officials, you can
Speaker 1: expect them to be making making their way onto see
Speaker 1: ann An, MSNBC and elsewhere, doing everything they can to
Speaker 1: try and push a certain p O V certain point
Speaker 1: of view there. All right, I'm gonna tell you about
Speaker 1: a French waiter who's got a fantastic defense for being fired,
Speaker 1: and and then some other stuff about my weekend that
Speaker 1: involved I got nothing to do with the French waiter,
Speaker 1: although I've been around a lot of snooty French waiters
Speaker 1: in my day. Um, I went to see some live comedy.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that and then roll call because I
Speaker 1: like roll call. I like getting into some of the
Speaker 1: roll call stuff. We want to hear from all of you.
Speaker 1: So that's what we got coming up. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back. Well,
Speaker 1: this may be the most French waiter thing to say
Speaker 1: of all time. My friends. Ah, yes, Munami bonjeur buck is,
Speaker 1: where's my music? I want some tunes? Oh yes, a
Speaker 1: fee and Wrench music. Carl the unit comes. Um, I
Speaker 1: just picture myself. We did got was in one side
Speaker 1: of the mouth and salty words for all of you
Speaker 1: and the other because French waiters, they approached the job
Speaker 1: with the as certain the degree of attitude. And so
Speaker 1: this French waiter, this is a report on the Yahoo news.
Speaker 1: The French waiter was fired for being aggressive, rude and
Speaker 1: a disrespectful. But he says he's not out of line,
Speaker 1: He's just being French. And you know what, if I
Speaker 1: was on that jury, I would not convict. The man's
Speaker 1: got a point. You hire a French waiter, you get
Speaker 1: a French waiter. You can't fire a French waiter for
Speaker 1: being rude and disrespectful. That's the whole point. If if
Speaker 1: if the waiter shows up and he's French and he's
Speaker 1: not like you have not read the man. You you
Speaker 1: don't even know that. Why list what? You don't waste
Speaker 1: my time and walks past you. You're not getting the
Speaker 1: full experience. I mean, have you been to Parry, my friends,
Speaker 1: That's the way it is over there. Would you like
Speaker 1: some ketchup for your French fries and everything else? Because
Speaker 1: you put ketchup on everything, you know. That's the way
Speaker 1: they That's the way they roll. They are trained. You
Speaker 1: know what I mean. This is you can't get mad
Speaker 1: at a thing for for being what it is. French
Speaker 1: waiters have a certain way about them. And this waiter
Speaker 1: up in Montreal or server should I know see French guys.
Speaker 1: They'd be like, I'm a waiter, don't give me the server.
Speaker 1: I'm a waiter. Um, they don't care. Yeah, this guy
Speaker 1: was he was actually at a what oh Garson? No, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you don't call him garson. Actually Garson means boy. They
Speaker 1: do not like being called garson. I'm just I I
Speaker 1: understand This is like what they teach people from French
Speaker 1: textbooks in the seventies. But I'm telling you do not
Speaker 1: ever want to give like the snap snap and Garson.
Speaker 1: That's very uh. That is a no note. Then they
Speaker 1: actually will spit in your vicious wase what do you
Speaker 1: call him? I saw him was speaking your vicious wise.
Speaker 1: I will take over your American play the food and
Speaker 1: to make it my own. So yeah, this is UH.
Speaker 1: This is what happened to this guy reminds me of
Speaker 1: the way of UH. And this is what I wanted
Speaker 1: to talk about in this among our closing segments here.
Speaker 1: I went to see a live comedy show over the
Speaker 1: weekend with my associate from Fox News as the mc slash.
Speaker 1: One of the acts Jimmy Faylor. I think somebody you've
Speaker 1: heard him. You're on the show before. He did some
Speaker 1: stand up and I went. I brought Miss Molly and
Speaker 1: my little brother, and he brought his significant other, his
Speaker 1: his girlfriend, and the four of us went. We saw
Speaker 1: Jimmy Phayla. He was very good. And this was at
Speaker 1: a comedy club here in New York. By the way,
Speaker 1: I thought it would be kind of I always think
Speaker 1: of comedy clubs like Seinfeld where there's like twenty people.
Speaker 1: A guy may be passed out in the corner and
Speaker 1: like nobody really almost like an open mic night. No,
Speaker 1: this was like two people in the room, maybe more
Speaker 1: sitting at tables reservations only like it was. It was
Speaker 1: a really it was. Yeah, there was a line of
Speaker 1: people to get in. It was a real thing. And
Speaker 1: they had some very they had some very good, very
Speaker 1: good acts. It was at Gotham on on twenty three
Speaker 1: year here in New York City. And I will say
Speaker 1: that live live comedy when you're there, I hadn't been
Speaker 1: in a long time. It is, Uh, it's pretty great.
Speaker 1: It gets you laughing really hard, it's really entertaining. It's
Speaker 1: really fun. And I we had a great time. Of
Speaker 1: the comedians that when other than Jimmy, who was great,
Speaker 1: but he was introducing everybody else, so he had kind
Speaker 1: of a different role. But you had two comedians. One
Speaker 1: was a woman African American female. I forget what her
Speaker 1: her last name was brown and I can't remember what
Speaker 1: her first name is now. And another guy who last
Speaker 1: name was tarraldo Um I remember it was like rhymes
Speaker 1: with Haraldo and uh. They were both excellent. They were
Speaker 1: like making laugh so hard that it kind of hurt
Speaker 1: a little bit, and then that makes you even laugh
Speaker 1: a little harder, because like this is so crazy. I'm
Speaker 1: laughing so hard my stomach hurts. But I gotta say
Speaker 1: I've I do TV and radio and different I do
Speaker 1: live speeches sometimes. Hey remember that for those of you
Speaker 1: who are booking your next event. Uh, but I could
Speaker 1: stand up comedy. I have a whole other level of
Speaker 1: respect for that for those guys, because I'll tell you
Speaker 1: something a little There was a little little guy. He
Speaker 1: was a little in the small side, which I'm just
Speaker 1: describing him. You know, it doesn't doesn't mean that this
Speaker 1: effect of this comedy one or the other. But he
Speaker 1: was a particularly a slight fellow. And he he he bombed.
Speaker 1: He bombed in the way that he got up there
Speaker 1: and he's like am I Am I done yet? And
Speaker 1: try to walk off the stage, and and then he
Speaker 1: wasn't done, And it was like like, once you've done that,
Speaker 1: it's like, oh, so you're yeah, you're the guy who's
Speaker 1: on the first date who's pretending his friend is calling him,
Speaker 1: and then we actually hear your mom's voice on the voicemail.
Speaker 1: Oh and yeah, that's not that's not good. So he
Speaker 1: I don't know, that's like a that's a nightmare. Man.
Speaker 1: I could not imagine being up there and just like, hey,
Speaker 1: I just flew in from Cleveland and boy or my
Speaker 1: arms tired, you know, uh yeah, and this the room,
Speaker 1: the crickets chirping. It was. That's a tough one. So
Speaker 1: we had some great We had a great time. It
Speaker 1: was a lot of fun. And live comedy is fantastic.
Speaker 1: But I don't know how people do it when they
Speaker 1: get up there and just just bomb. I don't know
Speaker 1: what else to say. I guess maybe it's it's character building.
Speaker 1: I would say that for the guy. I won't name
Speaker 1: him here because I don't want I don't want to
Speaker 1: name in shame the guy who bombed at the Gotham
Speaker 1: this past weekend. But Jimmy was great and the rest
Speaker 1: of the we're great. And that's my plug for going
Speaker 1: to see a live comedy show near you. Soon we
Speaker 1: got a roll call coming up, team, I'll be right back. Well,
Speaker 1: I missed you all over the course of the weekend
Speaker 1: because I did not get to do a radio show,
Speaker 1: and so that's why I'm very excited to hear from
Speaker 1: you and share your thoughts via some roll call. Team Buck,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. I feel like the classic
Speaker 1: rock is the most popular of the roll call variations
Speaker 1: we have. Some of you are very very partial to
Speaker 1: the dub step techno style roll call, but some of
Speaker 1: you absolutely hate it, which is pretty much the way
Speaker 1: people feel about dub steps. So I guess that makes sense, right.
Speaker 1: You're either like, oh, feel that funky base or you're like,
Speaker 1: what is this noise? Why are people pretending that a
Speaker 1: seventeen year old playing around on a laptop making weird
Speaker 1: electronic noises is somehow music? But I digress. All right,
Speaker 1: here we go, um, let's get in. Oh gosh, so
Speaker 1: many messages, so many. I appreciate all of them. We
Speaker 1: got Steve here, he writes. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: I remember Facebook dot com slash buck sex and if
Speaker 1: you want to send us your thoughts, we will read
Speaker 1: them on the show or official Team Buck at gmail
Speaker 1: dot com. Steve with our first entry here, shields Hie,
Speaker 1: would you please post the article referred to on plant
Speaker 1: parenthood and the ratio to other healthcare clinics. I keep
Speaker 1: searching for it, but cannot find it. On the show,
Speaker 1: it sounded like great objective factual information. Please share a
Speaker 1: link that was actually from a Twitter account that had
Speaker 1: been shared publicly. Steve not an article, and I cannot
Speaker 1: remember at the top of my head who did it.
Speaker 1: But if you go back and listen to Friday show.
Speaker 1: On the podcast, I mentioned who put out those tweets,
Speaker 1: and I I can't ear the top my head. I
Speaker 1: think it's someone either from the Daily Wire or the
Speaker 1: Federalist was the author, but I'd have to go back
Speaker 1: and check. So there you have it. Uh. Next up here, um,
Speaker 1: we have Steve, who writes Hey buck Son. Please check
Speaker 1: out Netflix Mind of a Chef series. It's a documentary
Speaker 1: of young famous chef's philosophies, creative processes, et cetera. You're
Speaker 1: a foodie, so I think you'll love this, you know, Steve,
Speaker 1: there was a I think Chef's Table was a series
Speaker 1: on Netflix that I watched a little bit of. I
Speaker 1: can only take so much of the cooking philosophy before
Speaker 1: I kind of turned into like, I want to eat
Speaker 1: the one. I want to actually eat this stuff and
Speaker 1: not just look at it and too you know, it
Speaker 1: is just food. So I don't like to get too
Speaker 1: far into it. It's it's artisans, it's craftsman. I get that,
Speaker 1: but it is also food. You know, we're not They're
Speaker 1: not caring cancer. But I will check it out just
Speaker 1: because of your recommendation, William writes, I watched He's not
Speaker 1: stuff here. He writes, I watched wind River because of
Speaker 1: your recommendation. Apparently Hell or High Water was written by
Speaker 1: the same guy. Both great movies, lots of character development
Speaker 1: followed by a sudden explosion of violence. Great new action
Speaker 1: flick dramas. Hell or High Water is full of great quotes. Oh,
Speaker 1: the same guy made Cicaria. Well, William, I'm glad you
Speaker 1: appreciated the recommendation. Wind River is very good, powerful, and
Speaker 1: can be a little depressing. But I think it's a
Speaker 1: very well made movie for what it is. And I
Speaker 1: have not seen Hell or High Water, but I have
Speaker 1: I will be honest, I have heard mixed things, William.
Speaker 1: I will add it to my list and I'll try
Speaker 1: to check it out. H James. Next up, he writes
Speaker 1: Buck listening to Friday Show and Roll Call regarding the
Speaker 1: gluten free Eucharist. My home parish brought it up after
Speaker 1: Mass if you have a gluten allergy, bring it to
Speaker 1: the attention of the priests before and they will have
Speaker 1: the gluten free Eucharist for you. Shields high and happy Easter.
Speaker 1: Thank you, James. I do know that as an option,
Speaker 1: and I also know that there's some pushback from people
Speaker 1: who say that it has to be you know, uh,
Speaker 1: that that there's some problem with trying to do with
Speaker 1: gluten for Eucharus. I'm just telling you. People have said
Speaker 1: that there's there's issues, but I will I will bring
Speaker 1: it to the attention of the priests. This Sunday is
Speaker 1: not a good time to do it because they're gonna
Speaker 1: be quite busy with Easter um, but at some point
Speaker 1: I will work on this and thank you for your thoughts.
Speaker 1: Daniel rites Hey Buck love the new intro song to
Speaker 1: roll Call See There We Go. I also very much
Speaker 1: agree with you about taxes being very difficult. I had
Speaker 1: to fill out my own for the first time, and
Speaker 1: it was a very long and confusing experience because we
Speaker 1: did not know which forms I had to fill up,
Speaker 1: but we eventually got through it. Well, Daniel, I'm glad
Speaker 1: you got through it. And yet they are they're annoying
Speaker 1: taxes are a pain in the butt and they shouldn't be,
Speaker 1: and it's really wrong that they are. The reason taxes
Speaker 1: are so difficult is one the government's involved, which makes
Speaker 1: everything more complicated. And two there's a lot of shenanigans
Speaker 1: in the tax code. They're meant to benefit certain people.
Speaker 1: So that's why I asked me so complicated. Otherwise we
Speaker 1: can have it be pretty straightforward, right, But people want
Speaker 1: their cutouts, their carve outs. Everybody wants their goodies, and
Speaker 1: everybody else wants to pretend that the other person's goodies
Speaker 1: are not so good. Um. Next up here we have Roger,
Speaker 1: who writes buck um and with David Hogg, I hate
Speaker 1: the way we infantilized teenagers in our culture. Whenever someone
Speaker 1: says he's only eighteen, reply with their eighteen year olds
Speaker 1: at Omaha Beach and Guadalcanal Shields High. Roger, I agree
Speaker 1: that the whole adult versus teenager thing we're talking about
Speaker 1: eighteen year olds is people play games with that terminology
Speaker 1: for their own purposes, and eighteen year old is an adult,
Speaker 1: and you know, an adults as an adult for all purposes.
Speaker 1: I think adults should be able to drink. I think
Speaker 1: the twenty one year old drinking age is complete nonsense.
Speaker 1: The people was talking about insurance for rental cars, Well,
Speaker 1: that's a private sector decision based upon risk factors that
Speaker 1: go into whether you're gonna rent a car to somebody
Speaker 1: or not. I would just note that theither that that's
Speaker 1: separate from the government mandating something as a federal law.
Speaker 1: And I think that when you're eighteen or eighteen, you're
Speaker 1: an adult for all intents and purposes, and so yes, um,
Speaker 1: but when people say he's only eighteen, they're just referring
Speaker 1: to a lack of life wisdom. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: David Hog or any of these others don't have a
Speaker 1: right to say what they're saying. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: at all. I've never said it, And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that they can't be taken seriously because of their age.
Speaker 1: I'm saying, based on what they say and the knowledge
Speaker 1: and experience they bring to bear, they should not be
Speaker 1: taken seriously, and and on that I am just correct,
Speaker 1: if I may say so. So next up we have
Speaker 1: Dwayne who writes following, devoted listener to your podcast, Buck,
Speaker 1: I appreciate the work you put in I'm writing in
Speaker 1: regards to Kyle kashev Uh. While I appreciate his views
Speaker 1: in the Second Amendment and the measured approach he takes
Speaker 1: in articulating those views, I can't help but find it's
Speaker 1: somewhat hypocritical of many pro Second Amendment people to push
Speaker 1: him out front so often. All I have heard since
Speaker 1: the anti Second Amendment students from the park Line shooting
Speaker 1: became such media darlings is that we shouldn't even be
Speaker 1: listening to those kids. They're too young and too emotionally
Speaker 1: affected to have legitimate, reasonable opinions on gun policy. But
Speaker 1: when Kyle as bows the views we like and agree with,
Speaker 1: he's pushed to the forefront and in front of the cameras.
Speaker 1: I don't think we can have it both ways. Either
Speaker 1: we have to admit that the pro and Antisecond Amendment
Speaker 1: students have legitimate views, even if we disagree with some,
Speaker 1: or we have to stop listening to all of them,
Speaker 1: including Kyle. The Second Amendment students are too young and
Speaker 1: inexperienced talk about gun policy, then so is Kyle. We
Speaker 1: need to choose a position with students. I agree, Dwayne.
Speaker 1: I would just say this, Uh that you're gonna have
Speaker 1: students as the most effective response to the students that
Speaker 1: are already getting a platform. So that's why people are
Speaker 1: putting them forward. It's it's kind of like the response
Speaker 1: to what's going on, more so than the organized effort
Speaker 1: on the right. Um. But it is true that you
Speaker 1: can't just discount somebody because of their age in one case,
Speaker 1: but then in another say, well I like what he
Speaker 1: or she is saying, so the age doesn't matter. UM.
Speaker 1: I think that the the kids who represent themselves as
Speaker 1: the Parkland you know, the Parkland student activists, UH, comport
Speaker 1: themselves very poorly. I think they say stupid things. I
Speaker 1: think they're disrespectful, and I think they're damaging to public discourse.
Speaker 1: And the media has been using them as tools for
Speaker 1: their own purposes. So that's that's what I'm saying. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they came out and they were brilliant and effective
Speaker 1: in bringing people together to talk about real solutions, I'd say, well,
Speaker 1: you know what, this is really positive. Um. But they
Speaker 1: don't know anything. And that's not surprising because they're eighteen.
Speaker 1: If they knew a lot, though, I wouldn't care that
Speaker 1: they were eighteen. But they don't know anything, So there
Speaker 1: is that. Let's see we have Michael who right Shield's
Speaker 1: eye brother, listening on w p T. I, Hey, what's
Speaker 1: up one of our affiliates getting a shout out here?
Speaker 1: You know the problem with David Hogg, or the problem
Speaker 1: he hasn't confronted yet an articulate second moment supporting combat
Speaker 1: veteran in a public debate. The media will never let
Speaker 1: that happen. Well, Michael, I agree, And speaking of Kyle Kashchev,
Speaker 1: he tweeted, and I actually retweeted it over the weekend
Speaker 1: that he'd like to have a televised debate with David Hogg.
Speaker 1: I think that's a great idea. I don't see how
Speaker 1: CNN and the rest of them can step away from
Speaker 1: that without looking a little bit like bark buck buck
Speaker 1: buck bark. Because they're giving the platforms these kids. They're
Speaker 1: saying we should listen to them. Why shouldn't they be
Speaker 1: subject to debate and discussion and some degree of public
Speaker 1: cross examination. I would be very interested to see what
Speaker 1: Kyle Kashchev and this Mr Hogg have to say to
Speaker 1: each other. And I think it's a it's a great
Speaker 1: I look, they're welcome to do it. On this show.
Speaker 1: I'll have them both on. We could have Kyle Kaschev
Speaker 1: and David Hogg debate here and I would just moderate
Speaker 1: the time because obviously otherwise I'm gonna be taking sides.
Speaker 1: Unlike CNN, I don't pretend that we're having a down
Speaker 1: the middle discussion. And then I just ambushed. I ambush
Speaker 1: the conservative all the time. That's their game. Um, this
Speaker 1: is a conservative show. That's how I do things. And
Speaker 1: there you have it. So, uh, that's my offer for
Speaker 1: the day. I'm I'm gonna have to close up the
Speaker 1: shop tonight, which makes me sad, but I think it
Speaker 1: makes me happy is That'll be back tomorrow. Every day
Speaker 1: after that, same time, same place. Please do download the podcast.
Speaker 1: Would love to have some more folks as subscribers on iTunes.
Speaker 1: Just the Buck Sexton Show pretty easy to remember. I
Speaker 1: have a feeling it's going to be a a particularly
Speaker 1: feisty and festive news cycle this week. So strap in,
Speaker 1: my friends until tomorrow. Oh shield, Hi,