Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump says a
Speaker 1: government shutdown maybe a good idea because we got a
Speaker 1: wall that needs to be built and we shouldn't wait
Speaker 1: and see what happens in that mid term election. Do
Speaker 1: Republicans have the backbone to back him on this one? Plus,
Speaker 1: we've seen what the price tag would be for Medicare
Speaker 1: for all. The short version is, wow, that would be expensive.
Speaker 1: It would created the U s economy, and it would
Speaker 1: turn us into a shadow of our former selves economically.
Speaker 1: But it sounds cool when Bernie Sanders and others bring
Speaker 1: it up right. We'll get into that and so much
Speaker 1: more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Magnormous day, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: My administration is working hard to pass border security legislation,
Speaker 1: improve vetting, and establish a merit based immigration system, which
Speaker 1: the United States needs very very importantly, very badly as
Speaker 1: far as the border is concerned, and personally, if we
Speaker 1: don't get border security after many many years of talk
Speaker 1: within the United States, I would have no problem doing
Speaker 1: a shutdown. It's time we had proper border security with
Speaker 1: a laughing stock of the world. We have the worst
Speaker 1: immigration laws anywhere in the world. Welcome to the box
Speaker 1: Acts and show everybody here there the president there making
Speaker 1: clear what the fight is going to be going forward.
Speaker 1: He is saying that a shutdown is not something that
Speaker 1: Republicans should shy away from. That a shutdown so that
Speaker 1: we can finally get border funding and a change to
Speaker 1: border security and laws around immigration is necessary. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you. If not now, when we always hear, we
Speaker 1: always hear about the shutdown is gonna come the next time. No, oh,
Speaker 1: now is not the time. We got an election now,
Speaker 1: this is this is the McConnell, this is the establishment refrain.
Speaker 1: It just gets repeated over and over again. No, no no,
Speaker 1: let's not do the shutdown now. Republicans always get blamed
Speaker 1: for a shutdown. You know what I think that is,
Speaker 1: that's a story that we hear from the media that
Speaker 1: we should we should at least question, if not discard.
Speaker 1: I don't buy it. I don't buy it. I don't
Speaker 1: think that it is in act the case that Republicans
Speaker 1: would get blamed the media is gonna say we get
Speaker 1: blamed for shutdown. The media also said that Helsinki that
Speaker 1: Trump's meeting with Putin was such a disaster that his
Speaker 1: presidency would never recover. And you know, does don't even
Speaker 1: remember Helsinki, did any anyone even have you know, any
Speaker 1: any part of that that they look at now and
Speaker 1: they say, oh my gosh, how could Trump have been
Speaker 1: such a such a savage. I think it all went fine, actually,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't great. The optics of it weren't amazing,
Speaker 1: but nothing really happened, and we've all moved on from it,
Speaker 1: and maybe the policies he discussed with Putin were constructive
Speaker 1: and helpful in their own way. No, we we just
Speaker 1: we just don't really know yet. But they said that was,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, that was the worst thing that had
Speaker 1: ever that had ever happened. I mean, that was some
Speaker 1: that was some next level of of terrible. And looking
Speaker 1: now at what they're saying about a shutdown, I just
Speaker 1: have to I just want to put it out there, folks,
Speaker 1: are we're really gonna take advice from the other side.
Speaker 1: You know, what happens if the Democrats take the House
Speaker 1: starting in all we you know, we'll have all this
Speaker 1: stuff on impeachment and that'll suck up all the auction
Speaker 1: in the room. If you want very little to get
Speaker 1: accomplished between now and President Trump's reelection effort. At least
Speaker 1: from a congressional point of view, Trump can still do
Speaker 1: what he does. But from a congressional point of view,
Speaker 1: then yeah, let's wait till after the midterms. McConnell always
Speaker 1: wants to wait until after the mid terms. I don't
Speaker 1: I don't see how that's going to be a I
Speaker 1: don't think that's a good idea. In fact, our our
Speaker 1: our friend here, ms Ann Coulter, who you know, people
Speaker 1: don't give Ann of enough credit on this issue. Trump's
Speaker 1: whole argument on immigration, and there was a time when
Speaker 1: he would talk about this publicly. But Trump's argument on
Speaker 1: immigration was largely borrowed from an older's book, Audios America.
Speaker 1: This isn't just a theory. I mean, I know, this
Speaker 1: was what was going on at the time. Trump read
Speaker 1: that book and borrowed the arguments from it and defeated
Speaker 1: you know, sixteen other GOP candidates and is the one
Speaker 1: who went on the Bill Maher show when there were
Speaker 1: all seventeen golp opals and said, you know who's the
Speaker 1: most likely to win, Donald Trump, and was booed and
Speaker 1: heckled and a ha ha unlike that room for I
Speaker 1: mean the bill maher audience is the true hyena arena.
Speaker 1: I mean, they are as bad as it gets. But
Speaker 1: you know, I and went in there and she said that,
Speaker 1: and of course she was prophetic, not just correct, but prophetic.
Speaker 1: And here's what she says about this wall situation played
Speaker 1: for with these endless on flaws with oh, it was
Speaker 1: the unaccompanied children, and and and now with oh, they
Speaker 1: might they can't be separated from their parents, you know,
Speaker 1: the coyotes and drug dealers. Um. We can't keep fighting
Speaker 1: the entire msm um, the entire donor class, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the Republicans. That's why we wanted a wall. We need
Speaker 1: a rat. If he build the wall, the media will
Speaker 1: book go crazy, it will distract over everything, and his
Speaker 1: poll numbers will go through the roof. I think she's right.
Speaker 1: I think she's right. And I also think that uh,
Speaker 1: that n is somebody who doesn't get enough credit for
Speaker 1: seeing which seeing which way things gonna go with Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, I do not like this. I do not
Speaker 1: like this notion that Trump shouldn't fight here. And and
Speaker 1: the Republicans are already they're already brought in for the exits.
Speaker 1: That's not the way that it should be. New whatever
Speaker 1: that's worth, new degrees with me, Play five. He's gotta
Speaker 1: be firm if if, if this is the fight he wants,
Speaker 1: he's got to go to the country. He's got to
Speaker 1: explain it. He's got to tie it to illegal criminals
Speaker 1: and to people who we know for fast facts. I mean,
Speaker 1: you go around the country, you find these incidents, uh,
Speaker 1: people who have been killed, people who have been tortured,
Speaker 1: people who have been raped. Uh. And did you look
Speaker 1: at the total volume of fentanyl and of opioids that
Speaker 1: come in across the border. And I think the President
Speaker 1: can make a very strong case. We have over sixty
Speaker 1: thousand Americans a year dying of drug overdoses, a large
Speaker 1: percentage of that tied directly to illegal drugs crossing the border.
Speaker 1: And you're gonna tell me that there's not there's not
Speaker 1: a political will or or enough of a political movement
Speaker 1: to do something about it. I refuse to believe that.
Speaker 1: I I certainly hope that's not the case. I do
Speaker 1: not believe that is the case. But Trump has to
Speaker 1: fight Democrats are willing to. They're willing to, uh let
Speaker 1: America dissolve through open borders, through a dissolution of American culture,
Speaker 1: through a you know, one thing that I thought was
Speaker 1: really interesting. I'll I'll take a moment from this. This
Speaker 1: is not really a monologue mode here. I'm just this
Speaker 1: is just Buck talking to you. For a minute. I
Speaker 1: thought this was so interesting. I was speaking to a
Speaker 1: former US ambassa sor to Mexico. And this is a
Speaker 1: guy who's very favorably disposed, disposed towards the Mexican people,
Speaker 1: obviously a fluent, fluent Spanish speaker, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: is lived there for many, many, many years, and on
Speaker 1: top of being ambassador. And I just said, why do
Speaker 1: we have thirty thousand plus murders a year in Mexico?
Speaker 1: Another statistic you don't hear much about murder murder rate
Speaker 1: in Mexico higher than it's ever been. You look at
Speaker 1: the murder rate for uh, the worst murder rates in
Speaker 1: the world in terms of cities that are not in
Speaker 1: a state of war, right, just that are cities that
Speaker 1: have have criminal homicidnes a lot of them are in
Speaker 1: Latin America, and a lot of them are happening to
Speaker 1: be at the very top of the in Mexico specifically.
Speaker 1: But I asked, I said, so, why does Mexico with
Speaker 1: a neighbor to its north that's the wealthiest, most powerful
Speaker 1: country in the world, that is a benevolent neighbor. I
Speaker 1: know people, Oh no, yeah, we are benevolent neighbor. And
Speaker 1: you know, Mexico doesn't really have any real national security concerns.
Speaker 1: I don't have to worry about being invaded. It doesn't
Speaker 1: you know, why is it so the government so dysfunctional?
Speaker 1: And I just asked, I just want to know, because
Speaker 1: I'm not a lot in America. Guy, I don't speak Spanish.
Speaker 1: I'm not a lot of America specialists. I know more
Speaker 1: about the Middle East than I do about Mexico. And
Speaker 1: he said, well, you can start with the fact that
Speaker 1: a very small percentage of um Mexican murders are solved
Speaker 1: and prosecuted and then extrapolate that down. I think he
Speaker 1: said it was three percent, By the way, I mean,
Speaker 1: it was a shockingly known low number. It's so low
Speaker 1: that I feel like I must have misheard him and
Speaker 1: maybe I did, but I think he said three percent.
Speaker 1: Maybe it was thirty, but I think he said to repersent,
Speaker 1: which think about that murders a year in that country
Speaker 1: and three percent of them are solved prosecuted. Um. And
Speaker 1: then he said it's really a rule of law issue
Speaker 1: and that culturally the rule of law is viewed differently.
Speaker 1: And I said, well, what does that mean exactly? And
Speaker 1: then the microphones came out and it was time to
Speaker 1: sit into the interview, and we didn't really get to
Speaker 1: get into it, but I thought that was very insightful.
Speaker 1: The rule of law is viewed differently. Mm hmm. I
Speaker 1: think people that's want to have to chew on a
Speaker 1: bit more. But why is Mexico so dysfunctional? Because people
Speaker 1: have a belief that they don't have to obey the
Speaker 1: rules and they won't be punished if they don't, and
Speaker 1: that there's this is kind of the cultural sense of
Speaker 1: you know, do you do you stop at a stop
Speaker 1: sign just because there's a stop sign, or do you
Speaker 1: always check and see if they're ops are gonna catch you.
Speaker 1: If your first impulse is to always see if there
Speaker 1: are cops around to enforce it, that's that means something.
Speaker 1: But you know, we're we're fighting this that's just an
Speaker 1: a cyber we we're fighting this battle over over the
Speaker 1: wall and over dealing with immigration in our southern border,
Speaker 1: and we don't have time, we don't have the ability
Speaker 1: to delay this um that the Democrats are willing to
Speaker 1: not just amnesty the eleven million people that are in
Speaker 1: this country illegally, just wholesale amnesty them, but also to
Speaker 1: encourage more entrance all the time. I mean the stuff
Speaker 1: that when you when you think about how you have
Speaker 1: people that are putting their children and themselves in jeopardy
Speaker 1: and breaking the law to come to our southern border
Speaker 1: and use children as props to get into the country
Speaker 1: in some cases, right, they're willing to uh to use
Speaker 1: children as the wedge that will launch them into into America,
Speaker 1: into the in a ear. And you think of what
Speaker 1: the Democrats are thing to say about immigrations and customs
Speaker 1: enforcement agents and the Trump administration their Nazis, this is
Speaker 1: the Ghoulag, this is prison for babies. All this stuff
Speaker 1: not taking into account that a lot of immigration and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement are actually former military, so they're really just
Speaker 1: spitting on veterans who are working in immigrations and customs enforcement.
Speaker 1: Now they don't think twice about that at all. I
Speaker 1: think the Democrats are lost on this issue, meaning that
Speaker 1: I think that they think will never turn back and
Speaker 1: become a party of rule of law at the border.
Speaker 1: They have given up. They have decided that, or not
Speaker 1: given up. They've embraced. They've embraced this notion of importing
Speaker 1: new voters to replace the ones of this country that
Speaker 1: won't go along with them. And we all understand this,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats they won't like this, they won't want
Speaker 1: to hear about it. But uh, people that come to
Speaker 1: the country from the third World not speaking English are
Speaker 1: going to need And I really lose my patience with
Speaker 1: these people. Oh no, every they contribute ordered to g
Speaker 1: d P. Yeah, that's just like saying they do things.
Speaker 1: Everyone does something. Everyone has to be involved in some
Speaker 1: kind of activity. Yeah, they buy things, they eat things,
Speaker 1: they do things. Sure they can they contribute to GDP
Speaker 1: in some way. But if you're looking at in the aggregate,
Speaker 1: are we better off by bringing in people who won
Speaker 1: Their first act on us soil is to violate the
Speaker 1: rule of law that is there, that is buying definition,
Speaker 1: Their first act is to disregard our laws and then
Speaker 1: are told that they are owed something once they get
Speaker 1: to this country because we're not doing a good enough
Speaker 1: job giving them stuff as a country. Right, that's the
Speaker 1: Democrat line. Now, Oh, they're not you know, we need
Speaker 1: to give them Obamacare, and we need to give them
Speaker 1: free school, we need to give them free college. We
Speaker 1: need and we think that this is going to be
Speaker 1: better for a country that's already twenty trillion dollars in debt.
Speaker 1: How I returned to a central theme of the show
Speaker 1: these days, the Democrats are un serious but dangerous and
Speaker 1: and I think that the shutdown. I think the shutdown
Speaker 1: needs to happen before before the election. If we will
Speaker 1: not fight now, when will we fight. If we're not
Speaker 1: going to make a stand, I don't know if there's
Speaker 1: ever gonna be a chance after this, folks. I'm really
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sit here and do the whole Oh,
Speaker 1: it is the most important election of our lifetime. Everyone
Speaker 1: says about every election. It's the biggest cliche in politics.
Speaker 1: I get that on the issue of a wall, you
Speaker 1: either make a stand now or it's never going to happen.
Speaker 1: I can't guarantee you I'm right on this one, but man,
Speaker 1: I would put serious money down on it. What do
Speaker 1: you think the wall is gonna happen the Democrats take
Speaker 1: the House. Please if it doesn't happen now, it's never
Speaker 1: gonna happen. If it never happens, the country is sliding
Speaker 1: deeper and deeper into an open border status where it
Speaker 1: will cease to be America. That we know, just the
Speaker 1: just the reality, folks, eight four four n eight to five.
Speaker 1: You want to chat? Eight four? Fuck? Do you agree
Speaker 1: with me? Should Trump push for the shutdown? Or am
Speaker 1: I being too aggressive? Am I being a little too
Speaker 1: buck wild? Here? Let me know and we will be
Speaker 1: right back. But that's stuff that President Trump just came
Speaker 1: back to say we need to put this to rest.
Speaker 1: He's been saying this all the time. And if anybody
Speaker 1: who has any to do with President Trump is watching this,
Speaker 1: please send him this message. There's two point six percent
Speaker 1: economic growth. It is for one quarter. You can spike
Speaker 1: growth for a quarter all sorts of times. In fact,
Speaker 1: do you know how many times during President Obama's eight
Speaker 1: years growth was two point six percent or higher? Four quarters,
Speaker 1: four quarters, teen times during President Obama's administration, growth was
Speaker 1: two point six percent or higher. Eight times it was
Speaker 1: three percent or higher. So Donald Trump just has to
Speaker 1: get off of this GDP kick. It's just nonsensical and
Speaker 1: it's it's it's disingenuous. I don't know. He needs to
Speaker 1: get off of it to save himself, if he himself,
Speaker 1: if he puts himself in a situation, if we budget
Speaker 1: the US, if McK milvaney puts a budget in place,
Speaker 1: assuming that we're gonna face three percent GDP, We're not
Speaker 1: going to That is a goal, not a baseline. And
Speaker 1: if you want to disappoint the American people, tell them
Speaker 1: they're going to get that, because guess what, that's not real.
Speaker 1: Like I've been worried for some time, we may be
Speaker 1: seeing a kind of sugar high, and that sugar highs
Speaker 1: tend to be followed by much less happy periods. Certainly,
Speaker 1: if you use the standard of what the administration has
Speaker 1: held out, the hope for three to four percent growth,
Speaker 1: there is nothing in any data suggesting that we're moving
Speaker 1: towards that three to four percent growth standards. So they
Speaker 1: haven't folks. That's pretty much Carvers. Before you got MSNBC
Speaker 1: with a couple of like UH markets experts there, uh
Speaker 1: saying that, well, producer, Mike, when was that from? That
Speaker 1: was obviously early on this year, right back when the
Speaker 1: budgets were coming out. I can't hear you, buddy, but
Speaker 1: fair enough. Um, so yeah, that was that was a
Speaker 1: while back. And then so so originally it was we're
Speaker 1: never gonna get there, and now it's we're not gonna
Speaker 1: stay there. It's almost like Trump can't win right when
Speaker 1: it was when it was advantageous for the anti Trump
Speaker 1: media to say we're never gonna hit the projection of
Speaker 1: four percent that he said we're gonna hit months ago,
Speaker 1: that was the refrain. Now that we've hit four percent, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna stay with four percent. That's not gonna
Speaker 1: because here's the real problem. They can't beat Trump on
Speaker 1: the economy right now. They have no real argument to make.
Speaker 1: And we all still remember the hostility of the Obama
Speaker 1: era to private enterprise, private property, small business. There was
Speaker 1: a real hostility to those things, particularly in the form
Speaker 1: of government intervention via regulation. And so we see this
Speaker 1: now as people who have lived through what it means
Speaker 1: to have the government way to involve in in our business,
Speaker 1: like literally up in our biz. So just just note
Speaker 1: that all these people that are saying this stuff, they're
Speaker 1: telling you what they want to believe, not what is reality.
Speaker 1: But I'm here to give you reality. We've got some
Speaker 1: interesting numbers on what medicare for all would be, like
Speaker 1: we'll get their team stay with me. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America. Buck Sexton his back and he said
Speaker 1: not by cash interruption coin sais no, no, but and
Speaker 1: then Trump says check immediately it's cut off. Click. Next
Speaker 1: thing you hear is Don Jr. He must be talking
Speaker 1: to Don Jr. But that's erased also, so seeah, he
Speaker 1: raised him and the expert. The expert is going through
Speaker 1: and trying to figure out a few things that can
Speaker 1: be very hard to figure out, like it is just
Speaker 1: a recording of a recording. Did he cut it off
Speaker 1: at the time or did he go back into his
Speaker 1: little laboratory or whatever the hell he had and cut
Speaker 1: it off. It's wild and crazy and they're out of
Speaker 1: their minds. He did. He did not participate in any
Speaker 1: meeting about the Russians transaction. The other people at the
Speaker 1: meeting that he claims he had without the president about
Speaker 1: it say he was never there. Uh, and there are
Speaker 1: at least four separate witnesses who say that against a
Speaker 1: guy has been kind of proven to be one of
Speaker 1: the biggest layers in America. You tell me a lawyer
Speaker 1: is taping his client, the guy is unethical, He's a scumbag,
Speaker 1: He's a horrible person. I've never heard of a lawyer
Speaker 1: taping his client without the client's consent. I never heard
Speaker 1: of person like Cohen doing what he did to Chris Como,
Speaker 1: coming into his office in this building, taking out his phone,
Speaker 1: putting it away and saying I'm not recording it, and
Speaker 1: then recording it for two hours. Cohen is shady, folks,
Speaker 1: no question about it. Uh, going is shady there. You
Speaker 1: had Rudy Giuliani out there making the case about this,
Speaker 1: and uh, you know that there's there's such a media
Speaker 1: fascination with this one. I don't think it's really go
Speaker 1: anywhere because I don't believe that Cohen has anything on
Speaker 1: Trump to give, which means that at the end of
Speaker 1: all this, Cohen will have not just burn he will
Speaker 1: have have nuked Abridge, so to speak. He will have
Speaker 1: completely obliterated any relationship that he has with the most
Speaker 1: powerful man in the country right now, Uh, and we'll
Speaker 1: have put the country through a real barrage of just
Speaker 1: sordid the whole thing. I gotta agree with Giuliani. A
Speaker 1: lawyer who records his clients. That's terrifying. I mean this
Speaker 1: is up there with like a you know, a doctor
Speaker 1: who sets up a camera in the examination room for kicks.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is really bad. And you know, I
Speaker 1: I see this now as as a point of media
Speaker 1: fascination because they're saying and this was the big storyline
Speaker 1: that I don't think we actually even have this sound
Speaker 1: by But it doesn't matter. I'll tell you what it
Speaker 1: was that whenever Juliani says collusion is not a crime,
Speaker 1: they're pushing him on this and they're saying, well, uh,
Speaker 1: there's now that they're preparing to tell us that collusion happened.
Speaker 1: That's just not true. Um. And you have former Bush
Speaker 1: administration spokesperson Nicole Wallace. There's one of these people who
Speaker 1: has now found a home at MSNBC by being a
Speaker 1: complete and an absolute Trump basher, which I don't think
Speaker 1: is I don't think she would disagree with that as
Speaker 1: a description. I mean she she clearly bashes the president
Speaker 1: all the time, and she may say critiques or criticizes,
Speaker 1: but um, here you have this whole fight that's coming
Speaker 1: up over over over collusion, whether collusion happened, and they're
Speaker 1: already moving the goalposts on this one. I want you
Speaker 1: to be very clear on what's gonna happen here. They're
Speaker 1: gonna say that even if no crime was committed here,
Speaker 1: that there was, that it was unethical to take the meeting,
Speaker 1: and so that alone is going to turn into a
Speaker 1: call for impeachment if they take the house, by the way,
Speaker 1: forget about all that stuff. Remember Rod Roden seeing the
Speaker 1: d J a week ago. Oh my gosh, you didn't
Speaker 1: commit a crime. You can't sell him all. You can't.
Speaker 1: You can't take him out of office. No crime, no crime.
Speaker 1: Impeachment for Rosenstein because they like him, needs to be
Speaker 1: a criminal offense or else there's nothing there. Impeachment for
Speaker 1: Trump is going to be a political offense. And I
Speaker 1: actually think that impeachment power has always had a political
Speaker 1: component to it. Yeah, you know, if you are if
Speaker 1: you kill a bunch of people in a drunken rage,
Speaker 1: you should be able to be impeached and then prosecutor
Speaker 1: if your president. But also if you're just engaged in
Speaker 1: unseemly and corrupt behavior Senate, with the with the House,
Speaker 1: they mean they should be able to impeach and then
Speaker 1: remove you. That that is something that that is very real.
Speaker 1: And as I as I read to you people in
Speaker 1: the federal bench, federal government officials have been impeached in
Speaker 1: the past for non criminal behavior. So they are trying
Speaker 1: to make the case right now, they're trying to lay
Speaker 1: the groundwork for collusion, which isn't a crime, it is
Speaker 1: a concept. It's a narrative. They're going to make the
Speaker 1: case that the collusion narrative is enough on its own
Speaker 1: to warrant impeachment if Democrats take the majority in the House.
Speaker 1: That's where this is all heading um at. And they're
Speaker 1: also saying, remember we we've learned almost nothing new about
Speaker 1: this Trump Tower meeting. All we have that's new, that's
Speaker 1: gotten this injected into the new cycle is that is
Speaker 1: that Cohen says. And now a guy who's a proven liar,
Speaker 1: who has a lot of incentive, not just he's not
Speaker 1: just a liar, has a lot of incentive to lie
Speaker 1: right now, the dirsh Dursch waited on this one play three.
Speaker 1: Of course, he'd much prefer to remain loyal to President Trump,
Speaker 1: but prosecutors have him in a squeeze. Uh. They may
Speaker 1: have information about his taxi medallions, about other kinds of issues,
Speaker 1: and that's what they're doing with Manaford too. Manafort apparently
Speaker 1: made a lot of money doing this consulting stuff for Russia.
Speaker 1: I gotta say I didn't realize it was that it
Speaker 1: was that kind of lucrative. Um Bloomberg says. Manaford here
Speaker 1: made more than sixty million dollars as a political consultant
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. Producer Mike, we are in the wrong business,
Speaker 1: did you know this? We should apparently be in the
Speaker 1: shady political consultant business. We'd be great, dude, We'd be great.
Speaker 1: You know. You'd be the muscle. I'd be the I'd
Speaker 1: be the bagman. I'd be go collecting the contributions, and
Speaker 1: you'd come in with two guys named Uri and Oleg
Speaker 1: and they'll do anything. You say. Sixty million, dude, we
Speaker 1: could retire on that. Yeah, but we're too honest for that. Buck.
Speaker 1: I know we're good guys. We could never a you're
Speaker 1: kidding me, dude. He he'd he'd bring out, he'd bring
Speaker 1: out cash and and Cash would just start just start
Speaker 1: being all all cute and cuddly to the bad guys
Speaker 1: and it just wouldn't work. And stick my cockapool on you.
Speaker 1: Sick my cockapool on you. That's the first time I've
Speaker 1: ever heard that. Um yeah, I forgot you. I forgot
Speaker 1: you have a cockapoo. That is quite a dog name. So, oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, for this is a total aside, folks,
Speaker 1: if you have not seen this, and this is one
Speaker 1: of my frustrations on radio. This is why, by the way,
Speaker 1: we're gonna start streaming some of the show. That's another
Speaker 1: fun thing that's coming up soon. Um so that we're
Speaker 1: gonna have more video components to this radio show for
Speaker 1: those of you that are into that kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Um So, I can actually show you photos of the
Speaker 1: cockapoo for example. But there was a a video that
Speaker 1: went completely via over the weekend of a dog and
Speaker 1: I didn't get much details on it doesn't matter. A
Speaker 1: dog that's in someone's yard that took a go pro
Speaker 1: and is holding it in its mouth, so it has
Speaker 1: the GoPro camera and is running with it in its mouth.
Speaker 1: You can see the dog's face, its eyes and then
Speaker 1: see behind it, and you see the human beings that
Speaker 1: are trying to chase after it. It's just I can't
Speaker 1: do a justice except to say that you've got to
Speaker 1: watch it. It's like a minute of your life that
Speaker 1: is well spent. Watching this dog run around with a
Speaker 1: GoPro in its mouth is really funny. So see, there's
Speaker 1: there's happy things in life too, folks. That's why people
Speaker 1: come to this show. I give them the heavy, but
Speaker 1: I also give them the happy. You know, some shows
Speaker 1: it's always you know, the country is going to the crapper.
Speaker 1: It's terrible what's happening here? Oh my gosh, the Problicans
Speaker 1: have sold Some days I feel like that too, And
Speaker 1: some days that's even how I sound. But I don't
Speaker 1: know how people can sound like that all the time.
Speaker 1: Oh let's take Colors, the phone company selling us out.
Speaker 1: They're destroying us peace. It seems a little seems a
Speaker 1: little excessive to me. All back to Cohen and Manifort
Speaker 1: and oh my, so you know, Cohen's gonna say whatever
Speaker 1: he has to say right now because he's just trying
Speaker 1: to butter up the prosecutors because they've definitely got him
Speaker 1: on something. There's no question in my mind, because when
Speaker 1: you're a if you're a lawyer who is stooping to
Speaker 1: recording your own clients, they got you. They got you
Speaker 1: on something. I don't know what they've got you on,
Speaker 1: but they got you. Uh. And so that's why anything
Speaker 1: that he says can't really be taking all that seriously.
Speaker 1: He says Trump knew about the Trump tar meeting. I
Speaker 1: still I take the the same line that Andy McCarthy has.
Speaker 1: In fact, when Andy was first dealing with this issue,
Speaker 1: he was on this show. Um, he was on this show,
Speaker 1: and you know, I agree with him and that collusion
Speaker 1: is not a crime. And it may seem ikey to
Speaker 1: meet with a foreign government that's offering, but remember she
Speaker 1: wasn't really a She wasn't a member of the Russian government.
Speaker 1: This Natalia vezl Nitskaya was an intermediary the Russian person
Speaker 1: that hasn't for nation. And I just feel like if
Speaker 1: we took the Russian thing out of this, if if
Speaker 1: the Hillary Clinton campaign heard that a French national had
Speaker 1: information on Donald Trump's financial dealings in the court as
Speaker 1: is many feet was a crab and as a man,
Speaker 1: I need a vacation. But you know, if some French guy,
Speaker 1: call him Jean Philippe, because I want to get into
Speaker 1: character here. If Jean Philippe had information about Trump's financial
Speaker 1: dealings that could that could throw the election of Hillary,
Speaker 1: you're gonna tell me Hillary, Hello, she's not gonna actually
Speaker 1: try to get that information. That her campaign's gonna say, no, sorry,
Speaker 1: your foreigner. Come on. Not only do we know that's
Speaker 1: not true in the hypothetical, in reality, we know that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, I'm sorry that the Clinton campaign paid
Speaker 1: a foreigner to use foreign so horses to not just
Speaker 1: turn the press against Trump, but to weaponize the FBI
Speaker 1: against him via the dossier. So all this holier than
Speaker 1: Now collusion stuff is really hard for me to take.
Speaker 1: It's I just don't need to hear it. I think
Speaker 1: it's all a bunch of a bunch of claptrap, a
Speaker 1: bunch of malarkey. You find some other like Scottish Irish phrases?
Speaker 1: Is it is malarkey? Scottish or Irish? Producer Mike his
Speaker 1: last name, We call him Quinn too because of his
Speaker 1: last name. Hey, Quinn, Malarkey's Irish, right, It's not Scottish.
Speaker 1: What's the Scottish equivalent? Of malarkey. That's a good question.
Speaker 1: It probably has it probably has an F bomb in it.
Speaker 1: But like you know, we should find out what the
Speaker 1: Scottish version of malarkey is because it would be a
Speaker 1: fun thing to say on air. Um. Yeah, I feel
Speaker 1: like Clint Eastwood in in the Line of Fire when
Speaker 1: he just says I liked I like the term cacamamie.
Speaker 1: We should bring it back. It's kacammie. He just decides
Speaker 1: that that's something a word they should bring back. That's
Speaker 1: how I feel about malarkey. And I also I'm trying
Speaker 1: to spread an incompoopery, which is a great word too,
Speaker 1: which is fun to say. Um eight four four two five.
Speaker 1: I said, I would say we had a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of lines live if we still have some lines, because
Speaker 1: sometimes when I talk, people like, okay, buck, you're not
Speaker 1: gonna shut up, so I'm gonna drop. But if we
Speaker 1: can will take if people were patient, when they will
Speaker 1: take some calls after the break, and then I've got
Speaker 1: a lot more to talk to you about, folks, because
Speaker 1: we've got the uh, the cost of medicare for all,
Speaker 1: the cost of medicare for all, who wants to take
Speaker 1: a guess is it a lot? Is it too much
Speaker 1: to want? Too cold? Just right? We will we will
Speaker 1: handle that anymore, coming right up. We are doing a
Speaker 1: phenomenal job. We're setting records, but we have laws that
Speaker 1: don't work, so we're working around those laws. And it's unfortunate.
Speaker 1: I have to take my head off to the border
Speaker 1: patrols for the enforcement to Ice, which really has been
Speaker 1: maligned by the Democrats. The job they do. They go
Speaker 1: into these MS thirteen nests, the nests of bad, bad people,
Speaker 1: killers in many cases, and they go in there fearless
Speaker 1: and they do an incredible job and they get them out.
Speaker 1: They go to jail, or they get out of the country.
Speaker 1: So I want to just take my hat off to
Speaker 1: Ice and the brave people that have really been maligned
Speaker 1: by the Democrats. I don't even know. The President said
Speaker 1: that earlier today, and I totally agree with them. And
Speaker 1: I've been saying all along there are maligning immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs and forcing the Democrats. It's it's they are shameless
Speaker 1: and it is shameful what they are doing. We got
Speaker 1: double Wayne on the line right now. We've got a
Speaker 1: Wayne or Wayne. Let's start with the Wayne in Charleston.
Speaker 1: What's up, Wayne? Are you in Charleston, South Carolina? Yes,
Speaker 1: Sheields hither sields high. You're you're in Charleston, South Carolina.
Speaker 1: It's one of my favorite cities in the whole country. Man,
Speaker 1: it is mine too. I was first stationed down here
Speaker 1: in the eighties and and I just moved back about
Speaker 1: a year ago. It's lovely, great, great food, beautiful town,
Speaker 1: beautiful ladies. I'm a big Charleston fam what's on your mind? Wayne? Uh? Hey,
Speaker 1: I this one to agree with you on this. Man.
Speaker 1: We need to take a stand now on this shutdown.
Speaker 1: You know, every every season it comes up and it's
Speaker 1: crazy with the Of course we're gonna get blamed. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter who's the blame. We're gonna get blamed. Well,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna do in vindictive stuff like shutdown national
Speaker 1: parks and not let vets go into the World War
Speaker 1: two Memorial. Uh, it doesn't matter. Everyone is a government
Speaker 1: ploy gets their check eventually. Yeah, this is what I think.
Speaker 1: This is just a median erator that we need to
Speaker 1: break down the way Trump has broken down other ones
Speaker 1: that the government continues on. A shutdown is not some
Speaker 1: scary the government basically shuts down every week. It's called
Speaker 1: Saturday and Sunday. Like it's fine, right, you don't the
Speaker 1: Russians are not about to invade because the government has
Speaker 1: shut down on Saturday and Sunday. The military still gets paid,
Speaker 1: They're still in place. I mean this is when I
Speaker 1: was c I A. I mean, like, you know, we
Speaker 1: weren't about to be like, oh if there's a shutdown
Speaker 1: more c I A. Like that's not how it works. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: well they make they make a lot of the people
Speaker 1: think that, but in essence, no, nothing happens. Exactly. We
Speaker 1: need to make a stand now if there's no time,
Speaker 1: you know, and it's it's getting to the point of
Speaker 1: no return. Wayne, have you, by the way, did you
Speaker 1: listen to the Jesse did Jesse Kelly and Sean Parnell
Speaker 1: podcast last week? I feel like it would be up
Speaker 1: your alley. You should. You should check it out. And
Speaker 1: you know what, and sometimes I want to reiterate that
Speaker 1: it was either you said it or it was on
Speaker 1: your show. It was several weeks ago and I caught it.
Speaker 1: And it's like the thing that these people have against him,
Speaker 1: and that's the Republican uh, you know establishment and the
Speaker 1: Democrats is they're realizing a regular Joe can come and
Speaker 1: do this that you guys think, whoa, whoa, whoa, we
Speaker 1: gotta drop Hey, wait, I appreciate what we can't. You
Speaker 1: gotta John, you dropped that one. Wait, and I appreciate
Speaker 1: you going man. We can't. We gotta keep the language clean.
Speaker 1: Thank you for going in. Wow. Uh sorry about that, folks.
Speaker 1: I believe we dropped it. Whoa cars spicy today spicy?
Speaker 1: But he is correct and that a normal guy can
Speaker 1: come in and do the crap that the government we
Speaker 1: are alleged to believe only the experts can do. But Wayne,
Speaker 1: you know what, I still like Wayne, Wayne, thank you
Speaker 1: for calling in. Appreciate a brother Shields High Wayne in
Speaker 1: moss Point, Mississippi. Wayne, How you doing Buck? Hello? How
Speaker 1: are you? I'm good man? Thank you for you called.
Speaker 1: We got double Wayne tonight on the show. It's exciting.
Speaker 1: All right. Well, I want to tell you that I
Speaker 1: wish everybody could see the interview Donald Trump. They would
Speaker 1: Bara Walters and around the year two thousand when he
Speaker 1: was telling her what he thought about immigration, and he
Speaker 1: said the problem is that if a Mexican comes into
Speaker 1: the US and the bass of dirt and own it.
Speaker 1: The problem is if the green gold go south of
Speaker 1: the border, he can't buy property and own it. He
Speaker 1: can only lease it for a hundred years. But if
Speaker 1: the local mayor governor lakes that, they can take it
Speaker 1: from him. And so that kind of stops progress. And
Speaker 1: so he said he thinks the average Mexican is a
Speaker 1: wonderful person, hard worker, christian, loves their family and wants prosperity.
Speaker 1: But they're surrounded by a corrupt government in cartels and
Speaker 1: they're just in a world of hurt down there. He said,
Speaker 1: what I would do is that say in Mexico, congratulations
Speaker 1: here the citty first state. And if the you know
Speaker 1: right now, if they gave the Mexicans a chance to
Speaker 1: vote they want to be a city first state. I
Speaker 1: think they jumped on it. And if they did, what
Speaker 1: do you think Venezuela or Taiwan or Crimea would do
Speaker 1: if they had opportunity, It becomes you know, a U.
Speaker 1: S state. So Trump to go around the world and
Speaker 1: change stuff, and uh, that would put all these other
Speaker 1: countries on notice. I think it would be fantastic if
Speaker 1: people see what Trump said back then, all right, well Wayne,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you thinking outside the box, my friend. Thank
Speaker 1: you for calling in from Mississippi. Mac in Texas real quick.
Speaker 1: We only got about thirty seconds. Oh we don't time.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get Mac. Okay, fine, fine, fine, fine,
Speaker 1: I know on guy, We've got so many calls. I'd
Speaker 1: like to take our calls that weekend. Um, we gotta
Speaker 1: talk about Hey, guys, guess what free healthcare Isn't free
Speaker 1: at all. In fact, it's crazy expensive. Going into new
Speaker 1: analysis about what medicare for all would be, here's a
Speaker 1: short version. It would more or less bankrupt the country.
Speaker 1: That's coming up. I talked about simply Safe home security
Speaker 1: a lot on the show. It's an incredible security system,
Speaker 1: fantastic protection, very easy to use. Well, I've got exciting news.
Speaker 1: Simply Safe is now valued at one billion dollars. You know,
Speaker 1: I've known these guys a long time, stretching baptis, since
Speaker 1: they were just five guys working together. Okay, this is
Speaker 1: a company that was founded because one guy wanted to
Speaker 1: help his friends who were burglarized. Now as worth a
Speaker 1: billion dollars. Here's what makes simply safe so great. It
Speaker 1: is comprehensive protection for your home. Okay, it is round
Speaker 1: the clock monitoring and police dispatch, and you get protection
Speaker 1: against intruders, fires, leaks, and burst Height seven monitoring is
Speaker 1: only fourteen ninety nine a month. Or do your simply
Speaker 1: safe system now. My listeners get free shipping and free returns.
Speaker 1: Visit simply safe dot com slash buck that's simply safe
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck to protect your home and simply
Speaker 1: safe today again simply safe dot com slash Buck. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American. Let Frank, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts, No, we need
Speaker 1: to make public colleges and universities tuition free. We are
Speaker 1: the only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare
Speaker 1: to all of our people. While depending on your income,
Speaker 1: your taxes may go up to pay for this publicly
Speaker 1: funded program, that expense will be more than offset by
Speaker 1: the money you are saving by the elimination of private
Speaker 1: insurance costs. It's an enormous honor to stand with each
Speaker 1: of you to say never again in America does anyone
Speaker 1: go bankrupt just because they got sick free health care
Speaker 1: for everybody. Baby. That's the promise of the Democrats these days. Medicare,
Speaker 1: Medicare for all, as Bernie says, medicare for all. Well,
Speaker 1: problem with that, of course, as you know, it's not free.
Speaker 1: And this is something that that sounds good, and it
Speaker 1: is increasingly a rallying cry of the Bernie Warren Elkasio
Speaker 1: Cortes wing of the Democrat Party. But you know what's
Speaker 1: amazing about this, folks, none of them know what it
Speaker 1: would cost. In fact, Bernie Sanders, via spokesperson, has admitted,
Speaker 1: I don't know what it would cost. They don't know
Speaker 1: how much money it would really take to do medicare
Speaker 1: for all. M They just they do not know. Well,
Speaker 1: now we have some idea thanks to the Merctis Center,
Speaker 1: a libertarian think tank at George Mason University, which is
Speaker 1: I believe paid for by in part at least receives
Speaker 1: money from the Coke Foundation and the Coke and Coke
Speaker 1: also sponsors my show Rising, So full disclosure there. It's
Speaker 1: fun to do full disclosure stuff. Now It's like, I
Speaker 1: feel so corporate, you know. But they've done this cost
Speaker 1: analysis and here's what they find. Out for who wants
Speaker 1: to take a guess, what would it cost for medicare
Speaker 1: for all thirty two point six trillion dollars that's right,
Speaker 1: trillion with a T. That would be the cost of
Speaker 1: it to pay for this. Remember that then that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be the ten year costs from twenty two to
Speaker 1: twenty thirty one after an initial phase in, and the
Speaker 1: increases in federal spending over ten years range from twenty
Speaker 1: four point seven trillion to thirty four point seven trillion.
Speaker 1: So let's call it a roughly thirty trillion dollars is
Speaker 1: what it would cost to do that? What it would
Speaker 1: cost in an overall spending the economy. How would you
Speaker 1: do this given what our current budget is and given
Speaker 1: what the the the stresses already are of having such
Speaker 1: a large debt. We are over twenty twillion dollars in debt,
Speaker 1: and you'd basically be looking at a doubling of the
Speaker 1: income and corporate text that then that's just to try
Speaker 1: to make the numbers work, and you're looking at having
Speaker 1: Sweden level taxation, and as I've been saying, Sweden and
Speaker 1: Denmark and these countries at the Bernie centers of the
Speaker 1: world's point to as, oh, look at how well it
Speaker 1: works there. They're moving away from their model, which they
Speaker 1: have not had for very long by the way of
Speaker 1: these massive welfare states, because they view it as unsustainable.
Speaker 1: They recognize mathematically sensustainable. In the case of Norway, they
Speaker 1: have so much in a sovereign wealth fond that it
Speaker 1: offsets a lot of their welfare spending. But these aren't
Speaker 1: truly socialist countries. As I've noted. They're not socialists in
Speaker 1: the sense that the government is in control of the
Speaker 1: means of production. The government has nationalized industries. They are
Speaker 1: high tax social welfare states. High tax, though, is where
Speaker 1: they start to run into some real problems for folks.
Speaker 1: And this is where the Democrats, this is where all
Speaker 1: of a sudden they have to deal with the unpopular
Speaker 1: aspects of this, or at least they should have to
Speaker 1: deal with it, because it's not enough to tax the rich.
Speaker 1: You will not get thirty trillion dollars of additional revenue,
Speaker 1: which is a word I hate, because what they mean
Speaker 1: by that is money that we are taking from you
Speaker 1: under threat of force. That's what taxation is. You don't
Speaker 1: pay it, they're gonna come and take you and take
Speaker 1: away your freedom and take away your stuff. Uh. You're
Speaker 1: not gonna gett t dollars by raising the marginal tax
Speaker 1: rate on the one percent. No, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 1: Everybody listening to this. If you were going to have
Speaker 1: a Medicare for all system, everybody listening to this would
Speaker 1: be looking at an increase in their in their income
Speaker 1: tax increase probably in their state taxes as well. Just
Speaker 1: taxes across the board would would go up. Uh. And
Speaker 1: if you were making you know, to a hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars a year, you would have to pay
Speaker 1: substantially more in taxes. So that's gonna cover a lot
Speaker 1: of us. Right, We're all gonna sit there and think
Speaker 1: it's gonna hurt. Uh. And then you get into what
Speaker 1: would that also mean? What does that mean for the
Speaker 1: broader health care system? You know, one of the problems
Speaker 1: that I see with the way that the left approaches
Speaker 1: health care is is that one of the one of
Speaker 1: the central let me even step back further from that,
Speaker 1: a central false promise of the Democrat Party today, and
Speaker 1: it's really a fallacy of collectivism as embodied by the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, but a central fallacies that they can protect you,
Speaker 1: that it is their job to protect you from bad choices,
Speaker 1: that they can make bad choices something that will not
Speaker 1: really affect you, and that that is their role. Uh.
Speaker 1: And also they can protect you from the realities of
Speaker 1: other people's choices. And you see this with the way
Speaker 1: the health care market would work if everyone's bills, if
Speaker 1: your healthcare bills were being paid by somebody else wholes
Speaker 1: always in their entirety, you would have lower incentives. I
Speaker 1: would have lower incentives to try and stay healthy. I
Speaker 1: would have no financial incentive to make lifestyle choices that
Speaker 1: are more more conducive to good health. Uh. You know,
Speaker 1: and this is where you start to run a problem
Speaker 1: with people don't like the personal responsibility aspect of health
Speaker 1: care and healthcare spending. Look, I'm all in favor of
Speaker 1: health insurance, meaning that when somebody has a you know,
Speaker 1: we should basically all have insurance. We should we should
Speaker 1: all have a health care marketplace where you know you're
Speaker 1: you're you. Just like you do with a car, you
Speaker 1: pay a certain amount and above a certain threshold, you know,
Speaker 1: the insurance kicks in. But you know, our first cost
Speaker 1: after you know, housing probably or maybe it's our first
Speaker 1: cost even before housing, should be preparation for some level
Speaker 1: of you know, medical coverage for ourselves. You know, that
Speaker 1: should be baked into our expenses. I mean, there's notion
Speaker 1: of going and paying twenty dollars or fifteen dollars or
Speaker 1: whatever it is. You pay as a copay all the time,
Speaker 1: and that's your only that's the only dollars and cents
Speaker 1: that you feel exchanging hands over your health care. That's
Speaker 1: a bad the bad habit where all and look I'm
Speaker 1: in it too, that's a bad habit we're in. Though.
Speaker 1: The truth is that we are generally sheltered from the
Speaker 1: realities of our healthcare costs in ways that distort what's
Speaker 1: really going on. And that's not good. That's not good.
Speaker 1: We should all be covered above five thousand or ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars of legitimate healthcare expenditure, and below that we
Speaker 1: should all be paying for it. Like you would with
Speaker 1: a car. You don't. You don't send a note into
Speaker 1: your insure when you need new gas. You don't send
Speaker 1: a note into your insure. If you're you know you
Speaker 1: you need to replace your stereo system or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know that's on you. But if you if your
Speaker 1: car you know, hits a tree going forty miles an hour,
Speaker 1: Like yeah, then you said, you know, then you hit
Speaker 1: the insurance. We all need that coverage. And I agree
Speaker 1: with that. I mean, that's a smart thing to do,
Speaker 1: and that should be made. But it would be made
Speaker 1: more available and costs would go down if we allowed
Speaker 1: the free market to work for everything below that catastrophic threshold.
Speaker 1: But people have gotten used to this notion of somebody
Speaker 1: else is gonna pay for your healthcare. Somebody else is
Speaker 1: gonna pay for your health care. And I'm gonna make
Speaker 1: myself really unpopular right now. But Medicare is part of
Speaker 1: the problem. Yes, I'm gonna say it, and I get
Speaker 1: I get angry. People that know that I love them
Speaker 1: and they love me. Listen to show they get mad
Speaker 1: at me when I said this. But I'm telling you
Speaker 1: the truth. Medicare is part of the problem because the
Speaker 1: average Medicare recipient will take out twice in benefits what
Speaker 1: they paid in over their entire life cycle of Medicare taxes,
Speaker 1: So you're getting double average. Now that's not true for everybody,
Speaker 1: but that's the average Medicare recipient is taken out twice
Speaker 1: and a huge chunk of that is very very latent
Speaker 1: life end of life care, huge chunk of that piece.
Speaker 1: So somebody else is actually and that somebody else is us,
Speaker 1: meaning generations that will not us as some of you
Speaker 1: are getting Medicare right now and now, by the way,
Speaker 1: is the government's forced us all into this situation and
Speaker 1: this is this is government planning. So this isn't I
Speaker 1: feel like sometimes I talk about entitlements and Medicare and healthcare,
Speaker 1: people feel like I'm calling out into I'm calling an individual. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna want Medicare too, right, I'm paying my taxes now,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna want it. This is the promise they've made,
Speaker 1: you know, same thing with Social Security. I'm gonna want it.
Speaker 1: Probably won't be there by the time I retire, but
Speaker 1: I'm gonna want those things. I'm gonna feel I'm going
Speaker 1: to feel entitled to those things because the government's made
Speaker 1: me a promise and they have to keep up there
Speaker 1: under the bargain. And I know with a lot of
Speaker 1: you who are on or getting Medicare right now, you
Speaker 1: feel like government made me a promise, took money out
Speaker 1: of my paycheck for you know, forty years. Damn it.
Speaker 1: It's time. I get it. But I'm just saying from
Speaker 1: a long term sustainability aspect of it, Medicare relies on
Speaker 1: future generations picking up a big piece of that tab.
Speaker 1: That's just the truth. So everyone like somebody else to
Speaker 1: pay for their healthcare. Everyone wants, you know, and I look,
Speaker 1: I feel the same way, right I. I have had
Speaker 1: that experience of going into a doctor's office and pay
Speaker 1: in twenty bucks and getting really good care and being like, wow,
Speaker 1: I've got great. That's actually when I work for the
Speaker 1: federal government, my insurance was great. That's one of the
Speaker 1: things I miss about the federal government, actually insurance. It's
Speaker 1: just fantastic. Uh changes again the private sector. When I
Speaker 1: was at the NYPD, my insurance was like not insurance,
Speaker 1: it was. It was Obamacare before there was Obamacare. It's
Speaker 1: stunk anyway. So I've also had that experience of, yeah,
Speaker 1: this visit is not covered, even though obviously it's medically necessary.
Speaker 1: Can you give us eight hundred dollars thanks? I'm like,
Speaker 1: I guess I have a credit card I could put
Speaker 1: it on. I've had that experience too. But but the
Speaker 1: cost of this has to matter, because the cost always matters.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of who. Somebody always pays, just
Speaker 1: a question of who. And Bernie Sanders for all the
Speaker 1: promises about how it's just gonna be the rich, that
Speaker 1: is a lie. And think of all the waste and
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse right now. Medicare, because it's a government
Speaker 1: administered program, has roughly six to eighty billion dollars a
Speaker 1: year in fraud, including the close friend of New Jersey
Speaker 1: Senator Bob Menendez governor I mean Dr Meligan, who was
Speaker 1: an ophthalmologist in Florida who did an eighty million dollar
Speaker 1: scam on Medicare. But somehow they were just friends. Menendez
Speaker 1: had a hung Why do you pointed that action? By
Speaker 1: the way, I got that correction. I said he was acquitted.
Speaker 1: He was not acquitted. It was a hung It was
Speaker 1: a hung jury. So thank you for the correction. Uh,
Speaker 1: Menendez had a hung jury that chose not to retriumph um.
Speaker 1: But this program would have a tremendous amount of waste,
Speaker 1: fraud and abuse in it. I think healthcare standards would
Speaker 1: go down dramatically. And I just put it this way.
Speaker 1: You know right now, I mean, haven't forbid. You're sitting there,
Speaker 1: you know you find out that you have a life
Speaker 1: threatening illness. Would you rather be sitting wherever you are
Speaker 1: in the United States, You'd rather be sitting in the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom and hoping the National Health Service has got
Speaker 1: you covered. I think a lot of you know, I
Speaker 1: think I think the answer is pretty clear. And Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: they're offering a mirage, just like the mirage of land
Speaker 1: redistribution in a place like Venezuela, or it's happening so
Speaker 1: many countries right We're gonna give more of the land
Speaker 1: to the people, to the poor people. They'll farm it better,
Speaker 1: they'll do a better job with it. No, this leads
Speaker 1: to disaster. Um, we are still in the early stages
Speaker 1: some of these European social welfare state experiments that we've
Speaker 1: seen going on. We're we're in the early innings of
Speaker 1: how that's really going to turn out. I think that
Speaker 1: they're all that they have all been turning away from it.
Speaker 1: They have realized that they can't continue on with what
Speaker 1: they have. And then I would also point out, and
Speaker 1: maybe this feels a little secondary to all this, but
Speaker 1: Sweden coming up with a lot of great new, great
Speaker 1: new pharmaceuticals these days, Sweden doing a lot to cure cancer.
Speaker 1: You think that an HIV vaccine is going to come
Speaker 1: from Norway or the United States more likely? You think
Speaker 1: that incredible breakthroughs in medical technology that will give people
Speaker 1: back their lives, are they more likely to come from
Speaker 1: US or from some tiny socialist countries in Europe. See
Speaker 1: I just did it, democratic social socialist countries in Europe.
Speaker 1: I think we all know the answer to that too.
Speaker 1: But thirty trillion dollars everybody would have to pay. Everyone's
Speaker 1: paycheck would get just gobbled up by the government so
Speaker 1: that you would have access to healthcare. And by the way,
Speaker 1: by the time the generations who are young and who
Speaker 1: are and they're earning in their peak earning years. When
Speaker 1: I say young, I mean peak earning years, by the
Speaker 1: time they might be eligible for Sanders Medicare for all,
Speaker 1: we'd realized this is crazy, this is a catastrophe, and
Speaker 1: they'll have given away their their best earning years, they're
Speaker 1: their most productive years in their careers to the government.
Speaker 1: In large part, you want to work for Uncle Sam
Speaker 1: for six months of the year. That's what Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: is offering for You. Show up, do your job every day,
Speaker 1: work hard, deal with annoying bosses, deal with the possibility
Speaker 1: of being fired, and all the other things that we
Speaker 1: all know come from work. Do all that for six
Speaker 1: months of the year, and then on the first day
Speaker 1: after that six month period, the second then you get
Speaker 1: to actually start putting money in your bank account to
Speaker 1: feed your family, to pay your rent. Is that the
Speaker 1: country you want to live in? Do you think that
Speaker 1: will be a better or more prosperous country. That is
Speaker 1: the country that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and Okazy
Speaker 1: Cortez and all the rest of them are offering to you.
Speaker 1: Paying about half of your income in taxes no matter
Speaker 1: what you're earning, doesn't sound like fun to me. Doesn't
Speaker 1: sound free at all. It actually sounds like the antithesis
Speaker 1: of free or freedom. We'll be right back. The FBI
Speaker 1: calls home title theft one of the fastest growing crimes.
Speaker 1: Brace yourself, because having your credit card stolen is nothing
Speaker 1: compared to the hell that you are in for once
Speaker 1: an identity thief takes control of your home's title. Look, folks,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you I saw a demonstration of this process.
Speaker 1: Home title lock walked me through how easy it is
Speaker 1: for the bad guys. To just create a forgery online
Speaker 1: and then get that passed through even have it notarized
Speaker 1: the forge statement, and then have the ability to take
Speaker 1: out loans against your home. Okay, it's really easy for
Speaker 1: the bad guys to do. Home title Lock can stop
Speaker 1: them in their tracks. For just pennies a day. Home
Speaker 1: title Lock protects my most viable asset, my family's home.
Speaker 1: Register now for a free analysis and discover if your
Speaker 1: home's title has been compromised. That's a sixty dollar value.
Speaker 1: Free visit home title lock dot com. Again, that's home
Speaker 1: title lock dot com for a free sixty dollar analysis
Speaker 1: in value. You have a whole bunch of Democrats who
Speaker 1: are either college professors or lawyers who don't have a clue,
Speaker 1: who have never created a job, who have a theory
Speaker 1: that they call socialism, which is basically big government bureaucrats
Speaker 1: running your life. Uh. They openly despised business and attacked
Speaker 1: business all the time, and then they are surprised that
Speaker 1: that doesn't encourage people to create jobs. Then you get
Speaker 1: a brand new president who is a businessman himself, an entrepreneur,
Speaker 1: a job creator. He gets the process. He believes in
Speaker 1: you keeping the money you create, so you are actually
Speaker 1: have an interest in going out. Small businesses spring up
Speaker 1: all over the country. Uh. We're just started visiting my
Speaker 1: mother in law and Wisconsin. Every small town you go
Speaker 1: through has signs of help wanted. Uh. And I think
Speaker 1: that this is such a huge change from the Obama
Speaker 1: years where there was no economic growth. You know, the
Speaker 1: Obama team did great job if you love food stamps,
Speaker 1: and a terrible job if you love jobs. Uh. And
Speaker 1: the truth is the Trump team is the opposite. Look
Speaker 1: at new Land and ripped there. I let you I
Speaker 1: really gave new a lot of air thunders. I thought
Speaker 1: that was particularly of the nude rants. That was a
Speaker 1: particularly strong one. Mac. In Texas, you've been very patiently
Speaker 1: waiting for I meant to get you in before. What
Speaker 1: have you got for us? Mac, Well, I have been
Speaker 1: patiently waiting, Buck, And let me just say this. I
Speaker 1: think I feel as if we have a kinship you
Speaker 1: and I because we're both Irish, were both Catholic, and
Speaker 1: you're probably somebody I would like to go play darts
Speaker 1: with sometimes. But your bumper music has got to improve.
Speaker 1: The bumper music, Okay, we can we can improve. We're
Speaker 1: actually trying to do an overhaul the music, so I'll
Speaker 1: take I'll take that under advisement. I'll send you a link.
Speaker 1: But that's not why I called. I was on hold
Speaker 1: so long I just had to say that I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to let you know. Malarkey is actually
Speaker 1: an Irish surname. The clan still with the scene not
Speaker 1: a k in case the social justice warriors are listening.
Speaker 1: The clan is in southwestern uh Ireland and they are
Speaker 1: known as the Malarkey's and you can look up their
Speaker 1: coat of arms and everything. How it got to be
Speaker 1: a pejorative for the equivalent of vold dash or whatever.
Speaker 1: Uh not to use the words that Wayne used earlier. Uh.
Speaker 1: The the the reality is, I think that came from
Speaker 1: the Boston police at the same time they developed the
Speaker 1: term patty wagon, which is also pejorative term a police
Speaker 1: wagon full of of Irish people named Patty. There you
Speaker 1: go on a Saturday night, all right, I just thought
Speaker 1: i'd passed that along. No, it's I didn't know that.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that, so thank you very much for that.
Speaker 1: I'll stick it next to my Sholey. Thanks for calling
Speaker 1: in Mac. What what are we going to hit next? Mike?
Speaker 1: I had um, what's coming up here? Oh college admission stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna skewer Harvard. That's gonna be fun.
Speaker 1: And then the media has a martyrdom complex that's coming up. Recently,
Speaker 1: I've been receiving all of my style tips from the
Speaker 1: clothing experts at Peter Millar. If you're a golfer like me,
Speaker 1: you know the name. If you don't, you should, because
Speaker 1: Peter Millar is all about quality, value and style. It's
Speaker 1: the most comfortable clothing I've ever worn. Right now, I'm
Speaker 1: wearing their performance shorts. They are perfect for playing around
Speaker 1: a golf or just taking care of chores around the house,
Speaker 1: going out to dinner, going to get some drinks with friends,
Speaker 1: anything you'll be doing this weekend. If you want to
Speaker 1: stay comfortable, If you want wicking, breathable, and quick drawing
Speaker 1: shorts that look great, you want Peter Millar. The performing
Speaker 1: shorts I'm wearing are the most comfortable pair of shorts
Speaker 1: I've ever worn. And that's true about everything I've warned
Speaker 1: from Peter Millar. Right now, head over to Peter Millar
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck to check out some of my favorites.
Speaker 1: Be sure to use my link and you'll receive complimentary
Speaker 1: shipping and a free hat. That's Peter Millar m I
Speaker 1: l l a r dot com slash Buck. Peter Millar
Speaker 1: m I L l A r dot com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. So I
Speaker 1: wrote this piece in on the Hill. You can go
Speaker 1: read it on the Hill dot com. And it's in
Speaker 1: response to this meeting with Saulsburger, the publisher of The
Speaker 1: New York Times, that the title my pieces in the
Speaker 1: Age of Trump, the press just can't stop playing the victim.
Speaker 1: And it's true, folks, it really is the case that
Speaker 1: that the media loves too uh talker and people are
Speaker 1: about Europa. The media not really folks. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: I don't The White House Corresponds Association's not beaten down
Speaker 1: my door, and I will not go to their dinner.
Speaker 1: I would not participate in it, and I said that
Speaker 1: before The Hill. My organization I work for now has
Speaker 1: said publicly if they won't participate in it, I think
Speaker 1: it's I think it's uh, it's gross, it's unseemly, it's
Speaker 1: kind of pathetic. H So anyway. But I'm not a
Speaker 1: part of that media, and I'm also not a part
Speaker 1: of you or I'm just bringing you the facts, so
Speaker 1: I don't have any opinions or thoughts. I'm just the facts.
Speaker 1: You know, that's a legacy media trick. It's not true.
Speaker 1: It's a fraud. It's a fraud. I saw last week
Speaker 1: Mark Levin called out Jake Tapper on Twitter said he's
Speaker 1: a fraud. I five bark Levin. So here we go
Speaker 1: the the fake news and all the freak outs about this. First,
Speaker 1: it was the term fake news that the news media
Speaker 1: said what felt was a threat to our democracy. Now
Speaker 1: it's Trump's references to the enemy of the people that
Speaker 1: has of in the press corps into paroxysms of exaggerated fear.
Speaker 1: That's from the piece here. You know, they've got this
Speaker 1: guy Sulzberger meeting with Trump, and the whole purpose of
Speaker 1: the meeting, we're told, is to tell Trump that they
Speaker 1: need to tone things down a little bit because, uh,
Speaker 1: journalists are under threat. Essentially, journalists are are scared right now,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be violence. And I sit here, I think,
Speaker 1: hold on our journalists doing a dangerous job. You probably
Speaker 1: get the sense from the media, and well from them,
Speaker 1: of course, but also from depictions of them and movie
Speaker 1: and TV. You know, journalists such a dangerous job. Journalists
Speaker 1: have one of the least dangerous jobs I can think
Speaker 1: of in the country. Taxi drivers are under far greater
Speaker 1: threat in their professions than journalists are. There have been
Speaker 1: since eleven journalists killed in America who were doing their
Speaker 1: jobs or in some in some way targeted or or
Speaker 1: killed during their job. Eleven, folks. Since, as a journalist,
Speaker 1: you are more likely to be eaten by a shark
Speaker 1: than be attacked by a fellow American and killed by
Speaker 1: fellow American. Okay, it's just the numbers are staggeringly low,
Speaker 1: and you'll they go, oh my gosh. You have this
Speaker 1: guy from The Times, A G. Salzburger, who claimed that
Speaker 1: he told the President he was quote putting lives at risk,
Speaker 1: undermining the democratic ideals of our nation, and that it
Speaker 1: was eroding one of our country's greatest exports, a commitment
Speaker 1: to free speech. It was not just divisive, but increasingly dangerous.
Speaker 1: He says, Oh, wow, dangerous like putting people under threat?
Speaker 1: How is it dangerous? Is it dangerous to their relevancy?
Speaker 1: Is the dangerous to their careers or dangerous to their safeties. Either.
Speaker 1: They like to pretend that it's dangerous to their safety.
Speaker 1: And that's just a bunch of pearl clutching, pathetic nonsense,
Speaker 1: all right. D C journals and the political class, uh
Speaker 1: that they cover and well and that they consider themselves
Speaker 1: really a part of They can strut around ec or
Speaker 1: anywhere in the country with the same self satisfaction they've
Speaker 1: always had. All Right, just because of occasional Trump supporters
Speaker 1: calls them the fake news, doesn't mean that they're under threat.
Speaker 1: You know. For people who claim to care so much
Speaker 1: about the First Amendment, journalists in the era of Trump
Speaker 1: seem particularly shocked that their fellow Americans have First Amendment
Speaker 1: rights too. But you know, journalists like they like to
Speaker 1: have this martyrdom complex and and that's why they're they're
Speaker 1: taking all these positions now about oh, it's gonna lead
Speaker 1: to violence. You know. I just want to note that
Speaker 1: when I would say that Obama's rhetoric about and his
Speaker 1: administration's approach to police was going to lead to violence,
Speaker 1: and it did, they went from saying, oh, that will
Speaker 1: never happen to oh, we we we had no we
Speaker 1: in the media by propagating these themes of exact durrated
Speaker 1: racism and law enforcement. We had no role in and
Speaker 1: pushing these storylines that then turned into some members. There
Speaker 1: are people who said, yeah, because of Black Lives Matter,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go out and the assassinated police officers that happened.
Speaker 1: That's not just a theory or that's not just you know,
Speaker 1: maybe that one day that did happen. But in that case,
Speaker 1: the media says, oh, no, we had no part in
Speaker 1: creating that climate. Now with Trump, he just calls them
Speaker 1: fake news. He's criticizing their work. Folks, when he says
Speaker 1: he's the they're the enemy of the people. He's not
Speaker 1: saying they're the military enemy of the people. He's just
Speaker 1: saying that they're the enemy of truth, which is what well,
Speaker 1: at least that's what I call see an end these days.
Speaker 1: But no one really thinks this is going to lead
Speaker 1: to violence, and it hasn't led to violence. Meanwhile, Trump
Speaker 1: supporters are being attacked for wearing MAGA hats and they're
Speaker 1: being spit on, and you know, Trump administration officials are
Speaker 1: being harassed and kicked out of establishments. On all that
Speaker 1: is happening. But we're supposed to worry about the press.
Speaker 1: The press is a very for hunt bunch. And I
Speaker 1: consider myself in that capacity too, because all of you
Speaker 1: listen to me. I get to do a job I
Speaker 1: love every day, so thank you. I am very fortunate.
Speaker 1: I don't walk around though, like these other guys do.
Speaker 1: There's so much threat. Yeah, I get death threats and
Speaker 1: people say terrible things to me. Who cares? Part of
Speaker 1: the job. What do you deal with? People are savages?
Speaker 1: You deal with it right this journalist though, Really you
Speaker 1: gotta bust out the world's smallest violin for them. Give
Speaker 1: me a break. New York Times saying, oh, they're under threat.
Speaker 1: They're not. They're under threat of irrelevance. That's the only threat.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Some of you may think that
Speaker 1: the whole Affirmtive Action college kerfuffle right now isn't something
Speaker 1: that really concerns you, or it's not that VEGA deal,
Speaker 1: or who really cares? Well, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: this does really matter because these university have become bloated
Speaker 1: with power and influence and money, and also they are
Speaker 1: pushing a lot of national level policy. And if the
Speaker 1: left loses on this admissions affirmative action battle, it'll affect
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of other social policy that they've been
Speaker 1: pushing that is essentially bias that they like, bias that
Speaker 1: they think is a good thing. Let me give you
Speaker 1: the latest on this one. Harvard has had to share
Speaker 1: some insider details about its admissions process, and first of all,
Speaker 1: you learn some of the jargon out there, lopping tips
Speaker 1: and the Z list. For example, this was the New
Speaker 1: York Times bias lawsuit explores Harvard's admission secrets. And what
Speaker 1: you see from this whole process is that there's a
Speaker 1: lot of of horse trading and shenanigans going on behind
Speaker 1: closed doors because there are far more highly qualified applicants
Speaker 1: for all these slots then there are slots to give
Speaker 1: to people. Here just some statistics. Forty thousand students apply
Speaker 1: each year to Harvard University, right the most famous university
Speaker 1: in the world. Two thousand are admitted for six hundred
Speaker 1: seats in the freshman class. The chances of admission are
Speaker 1: under five thirty five hundred students had perfect sa T
Speaker 1: math scores, twenty undred had perfect SAT verbal scores, and
Speaker 1: more than eight thousand had straight a's. Well, that just
Speaker 1: goes to show you, by the way, the need for
Speaker 1: standardized testing, because you know, if everybody's getting straight a's,
Speaker 1: too many people are getting straight a's, if you know
Speaker 1: what I mean. But the reason this is such a
Speaker 1: big fight is because the social justice left. And this
Speaker 1: is true at the highest level of the most elite
Speaker 1: levels of government and act ademia and professional life too.
Speaker 1: You know, I remember here, here's here's a quick aside.
Speaker 1: I had a friend who told me that he at
Speaker 1: a major company. This was this was years and years ago.
Speaker 1: He um said at a at a diversity event. He
Speaker 1: said it a diversity event to a student or to
Speaker 1: a recent hire brought in through a Remember they called
Speaker 1: it a diversity hiring event, and he said, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm I'm so glad that we're really we're really
Speaker 1: upping the diversity here. And the person who had been
Speaker 1: hired through the diversity event, that's what it was called,
Speaker 1: filed a complaint. Felt that by somebody saying that somebody
Speaker 1: was hired at the diversity event and therefore they were
Speaker 1: increasing their diversity, felt that was a slight mm hmm.
Speaker 1: Now I know that sounds like maybe something of a
Speaker 1: of just a random aside, but that really goes to
Speaker 1: the heart of what's going on with this whole form
Speaker 1: of action policy. You have people who are being given
Speaker 1: an advantage or a disadvantage because of their skin color.
Speaker 1: And yet, if you were to ever say to somebody, hey,
Speaker 1: were you given an advantage because of your skin color?
Speaker 1: That's racist. Meanwhile, the policy that Harvard engages in is
Speaker 1: and increasingly we see explicitly, yes, sometimes your skin color
Speaker 1: is going to be used to give you an advantage
Speaker 1: over other people. And the correllarory to that is your
Speaker 1: skin color will be a disadvantage in some cases if
Speaker 1: you are white or if you are Asia, Harvard can
Speaker 1: play all the games that it wants. And you could
Speaker 1: see they're trying. So oh, they're saying, there's are trade secrets.
Speaker 1: That's right, folks, Harvard and Harvard's admissions process is now
Speaker 1: considered a trade secret. Why there shouldn't it be the
Speaker 1: easiest thing in the world. We take the most impressive,
Speaker 1: highest achievers we can. Shouldn't that be the all? But
Speaker 1: let's basically that's not the policy. Harvard is engaged in
Speaker 1: this massive social engineering effort because they have too many
Speaker 1: students with perfect grades. They have too many students with
Speaker 1: perfect board scores, s A T scores, applying, they do
Speaker 1: all this other stuff, and that's where you get into lopping,
Speaker 1: tips and the Z list, as this New York Times
Speaker 1: piece says it. And these are the insider terms. And
Speaker 1: they have this at other schools too. They have different
Speaker 1: depends on what the school is and how they do it.
Speaker 1: But you know, lopping is when you have people that
Speaker 1: are on the bubble and you chopped them down, meaning
Speaker 1: that they're close to getting in, and you'd say we've
Speaker 1: got to just whittle this list down even more, they
Speaker 1: get lopped. A tip is somebody who gets a little
Speaker 1: extra advantage because of something. And the Z list is
Speaker 1: the essentially the front, you know, the the the the
Speaker 1: money the money list, somebody who knows somebody in what
Speaker 1: they call the advancement office, you know, which is if
Speaker 1: you're come from a really rich family or a really
Speaker 1: rich family wan you in, you might you might get
Speaker 1: on the Z list. So look, it's not just race
Speaker 1: that and I get that right, They built athletes get
Speaker 1: a preference, but again athletics is at least based on merit, uh.
Speaker 1: But athletes get preferences of people that have particular skills. Um,
Speaker 1: you can argue, and I'm open to it, that it's
Speaker 1: not part of a meritocracy to take the children of
Speaker 1: alumni called legacy admissions, or to take people who are
Speaker 1: just really rich. But I would say, yeah, but they're
Speaker 1: also they're they're running in effect that they say it's
Speaker 1: a nonprofit, but it really is a business, and they
Speaker 1: want money. And these professors paid themselves. These professors get
Speaker 1: paid very nice salaries or places like Harvard with really
Speaker 1: cushy benefits, So you know that they want money. And
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's I'm not saying that's fair or right,
Speaker 1: but I do understand it. Um, then you have the
Speaker 1: whole racial angle and people up until now, and this
Speaker 1: is where this whole case really turns, because it's gonna
Speaker 1: go out the Supreme Court. Folks, this is a big deal.
Speaker 1: It's gonna affect national level policies effect if you have kids.
Speaker 1: The outcome of this challenge right now from students for
Speaker 1: admissions fairness, UH, could change the game of how these
Speaker 1: elite schools take people and and what their criteria are
Speaker 1: for admission. So as I continue to look at this
Speaker 1: I just want to note that, you know, Harvard says, well,
Speaker 1: we have this really complicated process with all this different
Speaker 1: stuff happening. Okay, that's all true, that's all fine, but uh,
Speaker 1: on the issue of race. They do pick some races
Speaker 1: as more appealing to their admissions process based on the
Speaker 1: numbers of you know, where they're applying for everything than others,
Speaker 1: and Asians get the the unfair deal as a result
Speaker 1: of this one. Asians in particularly and unfair and there's
Speaker 1: just no way around it. And when you look into
Speaker 1: some of the rhetoric that they use, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: this Asian seems and this was really. This is I
Speaker 1: think why this got so got so much attention today
Speaker 1: because it's it's in the personality metric that there that
Speaker 1: the admissions committed at Harvard is knocking Asians down, which
Speaker 1: starts to get into some stereotypes. Right. They'll talk about
Speaker 1: how an Asian was quote busy and bright but looks
Speaker 1: like many others, very busy but doesn't go the extra
Speaker 1: mile and looks like many others. These are all quotes
Speaker 1: from the admissions notes that have come out in this lawsuit.
Speaker 1: Now yet another was bright and busy, but it was
Speaker 1: a bit difficult to see what would hold him in
Speaker 1: during a lot, which means that when they do kind
Speaker 1: of a coloring of the admissions a lot, just a
Speaker 1: lot of trying to find reasons that are very flimsy
Speaker 1: to not take Asian kids with perfect grades and perfect
Speaker 1: SAT scores. A lot of twisting and knots. And then
Speaker 1: for other students of other ethnic backgrounds, you see, well,
Speaker 1: you know, the grades aren't great, but you know, the
Speaker 1: the children of immigrants, that's a big one. By the way,
Speaker 1: Oh that's right, the children of immigrants even better, children
Speaker 1: of illegal immigrants, that's right. That helps you get into Harvard. Now,
Speaker 1: so if your parents broke the law, you get a
Speaker 1: little extra. And remember I'm using Harvard as a standard.
Speaker 1: This is true of all these schools. Now, this is
Speaker 1: true across That was true it Yale, it's true at Stanford,
Speaker 1: it's true everywhere. This is what they're doing. This is
Speaker 1: now commonplace. Harvard is the industry leader. Trust me, this
Speaker 1: is happening elsewhere. But yeah, that's right. If your parents
Speaker 1: broke the law, you are more desirable then, you know,
Speaker 1: say somebody who comes from like a fourth generation family
Speaker 1: of military service in the Midwest. You know, you're not
Speaker 1: as desirable as somebody applying to Harvard as somebody who
Speaker 1: you know their parents broke the law and came here
Speaker 1: and are on public assistance. They're more desirable from Harvard's
Speaker 1: point of view. I think that's a tough thing for
Speaker 1: the American people to swallow. There's a reason Harvard has
Speaker 1: been fighting tooth and nail to avoid the disclosure of
Speaker 1: this information because they know it doesn't look it's not
Speaker 1: about trade secrets, it doesn't look good. And it's because
Speaker 1: you have these these defeat liberal snobs essentially of all
Speaker 1: backgrounds and races at these and these admissions committees that
Speaker 1: are instituting their own form of social engineering. And you know,
Speaker 1: some of you said, oh, bucket sounds. Why are you
Speaker 1: so hard on these schools. I've gotten some of these emails.
Speaker 1: For one, I mean, I went to Amhersts, so I
Speaker 1: know that I know the drill. I Amherst is just
Speaker 1: like all these other places. And too, I think that
Speaker 1: this is wrong, folks. This isn't a oh why didn't
Speaker 1: I uh, you know, I think there's often this effort
Speaker 1: to try and make it sound like this isn't a
Speaker 1: big deal. Somehow. This determines the course of a lot
Speaker 1: of people's lives. This determines in some part you're earning
Speaker 1: potential for the rest of your life. I mean, these
Speaker 1: schools are gatekeepers for the rest of society. Now, if
Speaker 1: you want a certain kind of job, a sort kind
Speaker 1: of plays, you need a fancy resident, You need a
Speaker 1: fancy degree at least to start out with on your
Speaker 1: on your CV. So they have tremendous power and authority
Speaker 1: in our society, and I think they're misusing, and I
Speaker 1: think they're acting in a way that is that is unethical.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget when the Supreme Court, when I was
Speaker 1: in college, looked at one of these decisions and just
Speaker 1: narrowly upheld race conscious admissions. The college president and emer said, well,
Speaker 1: even if this Supreme Court rules against us, we'll find
Speaker 1: a way around its breath. He said that in a
Speaker 1: whole big room full of people. I thought, Okay, so
Speaker 1: here we go. Liberals. When they win at the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: it's gospel. When they lose the Supreme Court, it doesn't count.
Speaker 1: You'll see that a lot more coming up in the
Speaker 1: future of my friends, and we've got much more. So
Speaker 1: stay with Buck Sexton mission, decoding the news and disseminating information.
Speaker 1: Who is actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. Analysts,
Speaker 1: remember the animal Sexton Sexton. Look at this, Look at
Speaker 1: they's a good girl. You're a good little girl like you, Sophie.
Speaker 1: Look what does this say? Sweet dreams? Sweet dreams? Sofie
Speaker 1: out now you may be thinking it sounds like a
Speaker 1: pretty normal session of of somebody who is, you know,
Speaker 1: introducing a young child on the BBC. That's what that
Speaker 1: audio is from on the BBC to two toys. You know, Sophie,
Speaker 1: do you want to play with a little offender? Do
Speaker 1: you want to play with the little the selfie? Is
Speaker 1: that what you want? Uh? She didn't really sound quite
Speaker 1: like that, but close enough. Here's what they're not telling you.
Speaker 1: But I can see because I'm looking at the video
Speaker 1: and all the subtext or all the actual text. So
Speaker 1: if he's a boy, Sophie as a boy. The BBC
Speaker 1: put out this video over the weekend with the headline,
Speaker 1: well here it is. Are you sure you don't gender
Speaker 1: stereo type your children? We did an experiment to see
Speaker 1: what people really think of little boys and girls hashtag
Speaker 1: no more boys and girls, folks, we're already at the
Speaker 1: point where the progressive left. It's true in the UK,
Speaker 1: it's true in this country as well. In some ways,
Speaker 1: I think we're even further along on the transgender on
Speaker 1: the transgender social justice spectrum than Brittans. But I've been
Speaker 1: saying for a while that really the the end goal
Speaker 1: of much of what we see here is the eradication
Speaker 1: of gender differences through policy, ignoring the realities of gender
Speaker 1: differences that exist as a function of biology. And this
Speaker 1: is a perfect example of the mean. Now, now you've
Speaker 1: got this experiment where they've got a a boy and
Speaker 1: a girl, and they dress them differently, and they call
Speaker 1: them different names, and they have them playing with girl
Speaker 1: toys or boy toys, you know, if they're they basically
Speaker 1: mix and match, right, So the girl is being told
Speaker 1: to play with all the boy toys and all the
Speaker 1: you know, the dragons and the cars, and they're saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this is And by the way, they're not gonna like
Speaker 1: where this if they really push this, the the leftists
Speaker 1: aren't gonna like where this all goes because they're saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: because of the toys that boys play with as babies
Speaker 1: that is responsible. Essentially, this is making a nature versus
Speaker 1: nurture argument, and they're saying that nurture here, which is
Speaker 1: based in gender stereotype being, is the reason for the
Speaker 1: differential between male and female achievement in math and science
Speaker 1: and other spatial you know, spatial stuff. And well why
Speaker 1: men are more likely to be race car drivers, for example,
Speaker 1: or more likely to not just drive faster, but also
Speaker 1: more aggressively. Oh and by the way, there's another as
Speaker 1: another point. I did get to about that in just
Speaker 1: a moment. Uh. Anyway, this is this is what's going
Speaker 1: on at the BBC now hashtag no more boys and Girls.
Speaker 1: One of the problems with this is that it's just
Speaker 1: not true. If they're gonna try to use science to
Speaker 1: make this case, if they're going to try to pretend
Speaker 1: that there really is no difference between uh, male and
Speaker 1: female that is biologically determined, they're going to find that
Speaker 1: they have to falsify the results. We see this all
Speaker 1: around that you already know this, right Some of you
Speaker 1: listening to this are scientists, most of you aren't. You
Speaker 1: already know this. You know that men and women are
Speaker 1: different You don't have to be told that men and
Speaker 1: women are are different. You're you're fully aware of that reality.
Speaker 1: And yet here we are where we are being told, oh,
Speaker 1: not only are men and men and women not not
Speaker 1: different biologically in any meaningful way, but if we just
Speaker 1: dress them differently and treat them as though they're the
Speaker 1: other gender, that's not going to result in any problems
Speaker 1: or that that's not a strange thing to do. This
Speaker 1: is now, you know, the the cutting edge of of
Speaker 1: social social theorizing right now is we just dress a
Speaker 1: little boys a little girl, call him a girl's name,
Speaker 1: make him play with my little pony, and you'll see
Speaker 1: that boys and girls are no different. And that's just
Speaker 1: that's again this is but when I say this is
Speaker 1: biologically determined, it is biochemically determined. Testosterone results in different
Speaker 1: thought processes. And then when I see testoster, I know
Speaker 1: men and women the taster and they have estrogen, but
Speaker 1: higher levels of testosterone result in attitudinal differences. We all
Speaker 1: know this. You already know this. Why are scientists and
Speaker 1: really sociologists and social scientists. Well, I've always said I
Speaker 1: don't like this notion of a social scientists, right, you're
Speaker 1: just a You're just somebody who reads stuff and thinks
Speaker 1: about things. There's not really a lot of science and
Speaker 1: social sciences for the most part. Why are they trying
Speaker 1: to forget what we already know and have known for
Speaker 1: a long time. If they were testing and retesting hypotheses,
Speaker 1: I'd be fine with it. But what you'll see with
Speaker 1: this is that they will ignore the data they don't like.
Speaker 1: They will try to either come up with conclusions that
Speaker 1: aren't there, or if the conclusions are unavoidable and they
Speaker 1: don't like them, they'll just pretend they never reached them.
Speaker 1: There is some mission in place. There's a and it
Speaker 1: comes from this mindset of radical equality. There's a mission
Speaker 1: in place to eradicate the differences between male and female
Speaker 1: as a means of making society equal. And this will
Speaker 1: lead only to misery and dysfunction because men and women
Speaker 1: are different. We are different. I this is something that
Speaker 1: you say out loud, as I just did, and it
Speaker 1: feels it feels almost stupid to say it, but it
Speaker 1: needs it bears repeating. These days, there's really clearly an
Speaker 1: effort out there to convince people that men women are
Speaker 1: not different. And I just sit here and say to myself.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is lunacy, This is doomed, doomed to failure.
Speaker 1: There is no way that this is going to result
Speaker 1: in happy outcomes. And you know this has also at
Speaker 1: some really crazy stuff. I mean, you know, the Swedes,
Speaker 1: for example, decided that they were going to here. Here
Speaker 1: here's from a piece A Galia, a new state sponsored
Speaker 1: preschool in Stockholm. This was from a piece by Christina
Speaker 1: hoff Summers in the Atlantic. A new state sponsored preschool
Speaker 1: in Stockholm is dedicated to the total obliteration of the
Speaker 1: male and female distinction. There are no boys and girls
Speaker 1: at a Galia, just friends and buddies. Classic fairy tales
Speaker 1: like Cinderella and snow White have been replaced by tales
Speaker 1: of two male giraffes who parent abandoned crocodile eggs. The
Speaker 1: Swedish Green Party would like a gallia to be the norm.
Speaker 1: It has suggested placing gender watchdogs in all the nations preschools.
Speaker 1: The gailia gives children quote a fantastic opportunity to be
Speaker 1: whoever they want to be, says one excited teacher. It
Speaker 1: is probably necessary to add this is not an Orwellian
Speaker 1: satire or right wing fantasy. This school actually exists. The
Speaker 1: problem with the gailly and gender neutral toy catalogs is
Speaker 1: that boys and girls on average do not have identical interest, propensities,
Speaker 1: or needs. And this is this is fantastic, by the way, folks,
Speaker 1: this is this is really this is from this piece
Speaker 1: in the Atlantic. Christ You know hops has does some
Speaker 1: really good stuff. Quote. Twenty years ago, has Bro, a
Speaker 1: major American toy manufacturing company, tested a playhouse it hoped
Speaker 1: to market to both boys and girls. It soon emerged
Speaker 1: that girls and boys did not interact with the structure
Speaker 1: in the same way. The girls dressed the dolls, kissed them,
Speaker 1: and played house. The boys catapulted the toy baby carriage
Speaker 1: from the roof. Hasbro manager came up with a novel explanation.
Speaker 1: Quote boys and girls are different. End quote yes we are.
Speaker 1: You all know that, especially those of you who have kids.
Speaker 1: When it comes to the way boys and girls interact
Speaker 1: with each other at a young age and the way
Speaker 1: they interact with the world around them, it is different.
Speaker 1: Biology is incredibly powerful, and these efforts to subdue biology
Speaker 1: in favor of this uh, this obsession with an absolute
Speaker 1: equality and one it will not work of long term
Speaker 1: it will to borrow from Ian Malcolm Life finds Away. No,
Speaker 1: but it really will not. It's not something they can do.
Speaker 1: I also find it fascinating you come up, you come
Speaker 1: up against this argument. The same people that are the
Speaker 1: little social engineers of these projects where they're treating boys
Speaker 1: like girls and girls like boys and just seeing what happens.
Speaker 1: They'll say, well, you know, a pacemaker isn't biology, and
Speaker 1: we don't resign to that. Well, yeah, so is is
Speaker 1: being a boy now a condition? Is it a disease? Oh?
Speaker 1: That's right. They have a phrase for this toxic masculinity.
Speaker 1: They really believe that we are all better off if
Speaker 1: we eradicate masculinity from society. You know, you gotta think
Speaker 1: that some other cultures around the world they're looking at
Speaker 1: us and thinking, these guys don't have These guys don't
Speaker 1: have long in the in the top seat. They really don't.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna last that they're they don't understand the
Speaker 1: very basic realities of what goes on in nature. For example,
Speaker 1: in a state of nature, there's always inequality even among
Speaker 1: a pack, even among the closest natural allies. Right, whether
Speaker 1: you're talking about a wolf pack, lions pride. There there's
Speaker 1: always an alpha, there's a primary female, there's you know,
Speaker 1: different relations between people don't have the same and I'm
Speaker 1: talking about in now a state of nature. Nature the
Speaker 1: same access to food, the same access to mating, the
Speaker 1: same you know, the same stature and standing. Competition is reality,
Speaker 1: and competition results in inequality. And male and female compete
Speaker 1: in different ways and compete with each other more than
Speaker 1: they compete against each other in many ways in a
Speaker 1: state of nature. This is stuff that has been known
Speaker 1: for a very long time. Why is it that you
Speaker 1: have people that are running these experiments and and clapping
Speaker 1: for themselves in the process, and and thinking that they're
Speaker 1: doing something that's really worthwhile, you know, to my point
Speaker 1: before about uh about the biochemistry. Here here, here's another
Speaker 1: piece from this is from the Christina Hoff Summers piece. Quote.
Speaker 1: David Geary, a developmental psychologist at the University of Missouri,
Speaker 1: told me in an email this week one of the
Speaker 1: largest and most persistent differences between the sexes are children's
Speaker 1: play preferences, the female preference for nurturing play and the
Speaker 1: male propensity for a rough and tumble hold. Cross culturally
Speaker 1: and even cross species among our close relatives, such as
Speaker 1: vervet and Reesis monkeys. Researchers have found that females play
Speaker 1: with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls
Speaker 1: and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were
Speaker 1: indoctrinated by stereo types in a top toy catalog. Something
Speaker 1: else is going on. Biology appears to play a role.
Speaker 1: Several animal studies have shown that hormonal manipulation can reverse
Speaker 1: sex type behavior. Folks end quote, it's biochemistry, it's nature,
Speaker 1: it's biology, that's what's happening here. And the regressive left
Speaker 1: thinks that it can, through social policy, re engineer all
Speaker 1: this stuff. They're wrong, and a better question to ask
Speaker 1: right now is why do they think this is even
Speaker 1: a worthwhile pursuit? And why don't they understand the cost
Speaker 1: associated with this? How can they not see that promoting
Speaker 1: transgenderism among very young children will result in all kinds
Speaker 1: of psychological difficulties and confusion later on life. It's also
Speaker 1: humiliation for the children, I think, and quite honestly a
Speaker 1: former child abuse. But this is what's this is the
Speaker 1: cutting edge of the progressive left these days. Folks treat
Speaker 1: you a little boy like a little girl, see what happens.
Speaker 1: Call your baby a baby's insanity. You know, the the
Speaker 1: job market is so crazy right now that there are
Speaker 1: folks who are saying, look, I don't even really care
Speaker 1: that much about your experience. I just want to bring
Speaker 1: in and higher. You will, guess what, no matter what
Speaker 1: someone's experiences, you need to know who you're bringing into
Speaker 1: your company, who you're bringing into your workplace, or who's
Speaker 1: gonna be renting your property from you. For all my
Speaker 1: business owners out there, for all the folks listening to
Speaker 1: own property they rent out to somebody, you want to
Speaker 1: make sure you have somebody checking up on that possible
Speaker 1: higher or tenant in a way that is quick, efficient
Speaker 1: and all about the details. Global Verification Network can do
Speaker 1: that for you. They're the only duel certified, veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. They're also federally certified as
Speaker 1: a veteran owned small business. Folks. They are headquartered here
Speaker 1: in Chicago. They never offshore your data. They do all
Speaker 1: of the work here in the States. I know the
Speaker 1: CEO personally. He's a great guy who's running a great company.
Speaker 1: You should really check the out. Go to my g
Speaker 1: VN dot com. That's my g VN dot com or
Speaker 1: called eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: So this uh story called my eye over the weekend,
Speaker 1: and I don't have much time to get into it today.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering how many of you have you even seen it?
Speaker 1: But a former Missoo basketball guard named Terence Phillips, and
Speaker 1: I don't pay attention to college basketball. Apparently he was, uh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, kind of a big deal in basketball world.
Speaker 1: I don't know, um, But he released on Twitter a
Speaker 1: long statement explaining that the Title nine investigation at the
Speaker 1: University of Missouri held on him about allegations of rape, stalking,
Speaker 1: and inappropriate sexual conduct was finished. Three of the four
Speaker 1: allegations were found to have insufficient evidence he I had.
Speaker 1: Here's what he said today, I can finally speak today
Speaker 1: the Time nine investigation I've been undergoing for the last
Speaker 1: six months is finally over. Today I can finally said
Speaker 1: I was found not responsible the allegations against me of
Speaker 1: sexual misconduct, rape exploitation, and stalking. I had four complaints
Speaker 1: filed and investigated, and one unanimously three of them, he said, So, uh,
Speaker 1: the investigation is over. And the investigation included a fifth complainant,
Speaker 1: who said that his behavior in class made her uncomfortable
Speaker 1: on the university said, well, that doesn't warrant an investigation.
Speaker 1: When you look into this, based on what I was
Speaker 1: able to find, I feel like there's a clear um. Well,
Speaker 1: this is another one of these instances where someone has
Speaker 1: no rights of no rights along the process. He lost
Speaker 1: his basketball scholarship. Okay, he lost the ability to play basketball.
Speaker 1: And he wasn't able to even have any due process rights.
Speaker 1: He wasn't able to have any any counsel to confront
Speaker 1: his accusers, none of that. And this was all done
Speaker 1: based upon I believe still well anonymous at least publicly
Speaker 1: complainant a and complainant be and all that allegations against him.
Speaker 1: He was found guilty of pushing his ex girlfriend some
Speaker 1: years ago by the panel, and and he said he
Speaker 1: admitted to pushing her and he was responci found responsible
Speaker 1: for intimate partner violence. But the same girl had said
Speaker 1: she made it her mission to ruin me because she
Speaker 1: feels as though I cheated on her during our relationship.
Speaker 1: And when when I read into this one, and this
Speaker 1: is another one of these cases where it seems like
Speaker 1: there are some women who really didn't like this guy,
Speaker 1: and you had some of this stuff where um, you
Speaker 1: know that there were there were clear signs of some
Speaker 1: vendetta against him from some of the women involved, not
Speaker 1: all of them, but some of them. And this guy
Speaker 1: loses his scholarship and has his life and his repute,
Speaker 1: his reputation ruined, his life, you know, altered, to be sure,
Speaker 1: and we're to think that this is justice somehow, we're
Speaker 1: told to believe that this is just the way that
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be. I keep wanting to, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: raise the fact that false accusations, when you have no
Speaker 1: right of confront of your accuser, when you have no
Speaker 1: right of really anything other than just to sit there
Speaker 1: and let the process play out of false accusations are
Speaker 1: deeply damaging, very very troubling. And I can't help but
Speaker 1: think that there's no consequences people that level false accusations
Speaker 1: in these cases. And this is something that happens. This
Speaker 1: is something that when when you look into what goes
Speaker 1: on here, Uh, there are these cases where women to
Speaker 1: get even with a guy or too uh in some
Speaker 1: way make a point, will level a false accusation, and
Speaker 1: it's just there's no consequences. I don't know. I thought
Speaker 1: that this case was particularly um, particularly horrifying. I mean
Speaker 1: this guy. You know, people are saying that one of
Speaker 1: the women just straight up uh, straight up light um,
Speaker 1: and here's what this guy said. For the first first
Speaker 1: few weeks of this investigation, I cried myself to sleep
Speaker 1: every night. I woke up every morning with emotions and
Speaker 1: frustrations that I've never felt before. Some of you have
Speaker 1: seen me doing photography and think I'm concerned with the situation,
Speaker 1: unconcerned with the situation, But you couldn't be more wrong.
Speaker 1: I've been doing it recently because I have all the
Speaker 1: free time in the world now and it's a way
Speaker 1: to keep my mind fresh and busy while I cooperated
Speaker 1: with the investigative process. To say I am hurt by
Speaker 1: what was said about me uh is an understatement. I've
Speaker 1: lost people who are once called friends I see now
Speaker 1: they never were. I've lost fans, and you know, it's
Speaker 1: bits just the whole case, just it's sad, and this
Speaker 1: guy's life is rumor and by a Title nine investigation
Speaker 1: with no due process, not a criminal complaint. Folks, University
Speaker 1: doing this not something they're equipped to do. The Obama
Speaker 1: administration pushed them to do this kind of stuff. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna follow up on this one later in the week.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. He's holding the line for America Buck
Speaker 1: sext in his back. Well, it was only a matter
Speaker 1: of time, folks, before we started looking at state and
Speaker 1: city names for getting a name change because of a
Speaker 1: history or or connections historically to slavery or two other
Speaker 1: politically well, either either morally reprehensible or politically incorrect, depending
Speaker 1: on the subject matter topics. But in the case of Austin, Texas,
Speaker 1: now the case of Austin, Texas, we do, in fact
Speaker 1: have a a case being made by some that the
Speaker 1: city of Austin is gonna have to change its name. Folksy,
Speaker 1: this is perfect because you know, I'm I'm gonna come
Speaker 1: down to Austin this year. I'm looking forward to what
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to seeing all the folks that kale
Speaker 1: k lb J Austin and and we're gonna pick a
Speaker 1: great barbecue joint role. It's gonna hang out, have a
Speaker 1: little have a little Team Buck party down in Austin,
Speaker 1: t X TJAS. But this is just too much. I mean,
Speaker 1: so here here's the thing. I'm not gonna site here
Speaker 1: and ever say that there's no case we made, because
Speaker 1: anytime somebody has any connection to slavery, you can say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, they that's a that's a true, truly reprehensible
Speaker 1: and moral failing. And even its historical context, people knew
Speaker 1: that it was There were people who knew that it
Speaker 1: was right. There people who knew that it was wrong.
Speaker 1: But Stephen F. Austin, who is considered the father of Texas,
Speaker 1: was opposed to banning slavery when Texas was a part
Speaker 1: of Mexico, which I'm sure the Texans listened to this,
Speaker 1: Remember a lot of other people don't. Texas a part
Speaker 1: of Mexico two hundred years ago. Mexican government needed money,
Speaker 1: so they let American settlers come into the Texas territory
Speaker 1: and then the Texans fought, the Mexicans won their independence,
Speaker 1: were the Republic of Texas for a while, and then
Speaker 1: they're like, yeah, let's join this whole union thing that
Speaker 1: got going on in America that became part of America.
Speaker 1: Uh So this is now something that may, in fact,
Speaker 1: ah may in fact get a bit more attraction. We'll
Speaker 1: see if they changed the name of Austin, Texas. But
Speaker 1: I just want to point out which I oh, it's
Speaker 1: like the liberal enclave of Texas now too. But I
Speaker 1: want to point out that if you change Austin, Texas,
Speaker 1: what do you do about Washington, d C. Where I
Speaker 1: am right now, George Washington own slaves. If if slavery
Speaker 1: is going to be a historical disqualifier, or rather a
Speaker 1: disqualifier in the present because of its historical wrong, why well,
Speaker 1: what are the outer limits of that? And I really
Speaker 1: asked that question in all seriousness. We're gonna change Washington,
Speaker 1: what then becomes our shared heritage is the only heritage
Speaker 1: that we can celebrate in this country. Uh you know,
Speaker 1: in terms of the founding fathers, who who do we
Speaker 1: get to say? Is okay? Still? I guess John Adams,
Speaker 1: Now there'll be a few, isn't interesting? Adams is just
Speaker 1: way less a part of our consciousness when it comes
Speaker 1: to the American founding than say, Jefferson is you know,
Speaker 1: people think of Adams. Look, Washington is numerous, you know,
Speaker 1: but then it's really Washington then Jefferson. You know, Adams
Speaker 1: is even though that he was the second president, is
Speaker 1: not thought of as quite as Uh well, I guess
Speaker 1: we could debate that another topic quite as important to
Speaker 1: figure as some of these others. I even think people
Speaker 1: put Ben Franklin ahead of Adams was I really do um.
Speaker 1: But Austin is thinking about changing its name. I don't
Speaker 1: think that that's going to happen, but it's definitely gonna
Speaker 1: be a topic of discussion. As I've said to the
Speaker 1: Boston has to change its name. You've got Washington, DC
Speaker 1: would have to change its name. Think of all the
Speaker 1: Jefferson County and Jefferson Parish and Jefferson all the things
Speaker 1: named Jefferson across the country that I'm assuming or tied
Speaker 1: to or named for Thomas Jefferson. Uh and and once
Speaker 1: you start expanding this out, think of all the cost
Speaker 1: and the difficulty here associated with this. That the the
Speaker 1: name change is not just gonna be something that people
Speaker 1: are able to do with, you know, this would be
Speaker 1: a thing you don't have to change all the signs
Speaker 1: you have to you know, And and at some point
Speaker 1: we have to say, okay, well when is when is
Speaker 1: the the actual cost too much of this, you know,
Speaker 1: monument changing, slash, city name changing, slash, you know, college
Speaker 1: name changing. I'm still waiting for you. I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: Yale is never gonna change its name because people go
Speaker 1: to Yale because it's called Yale, and Yale University, as
Speaker 1: liberal and elite as it is, doesn't care that Allie
Speaker 1: who Yale was a slave trader. They're gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: hold onto that name and come hell or high water,
Speaker 1: they're not gonna change the thing. So we'll see if
Speaker 1: if the uh, well, the Austin City Council is already
Speaker 1: renamed streets that were named after Roberty Lee and Jefferson Davis.
Speaker 1: So the Confederacy you got, you know, people that are
Speaker 1: tied to the Confederacy. Austin has already gotten rid of them.
Speaker 1: They're already raising them from public landmarks and other places.
Speaker 1: But are they gonna change the name of the city.
Speaker 1: We'll see, folks, my Austin peeps, you can weigh in
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash buck sexton. But by the way,
Speaker 1: way before we go, actually, I've got here that the
Speaker 1: the Cities of Austin, their equity office, is involved in this,
Speaker 1: and they're saying, to be fair, they're saying that the
Speaker 1: city's name requires more analysis. They have two lists. One
Speaker 1: that's like, you gotta change this right away, immediate action
Speaker 1: like Dixie Drive, Confederate Avenue and Plantation Road. Dixie Drive
Speaker 1: our Dixie Cups now unacceptable. I just I want to
Speaker 1: know where the rules are here that does Dixie Cup
Speaker 1: have to change its name? Is? Is Dixie now the
Speaker 1: name Dixie racist? I'm I actually don't know. Confederate Avenue,
Speaker 1: Plantation Road, those all have to go. But Austin, according
Speaker 1: to the Equity Office, which was created in to evaluate
Speaker 1: issues of racial equity, says that the name of the
Speaker 1: entire city itself that needs more study. Okay, so so
Speaker 1: there's some additional detail. We'll be right back with the
Speaker 1: roll call. Team Buck, it's time for roll call. Well,
Speaker 1: it's a rainy day down here in d C. This
Speaker 1: swamp is swampy and wet and muggy and uh, lots
Speaker 1: of humidity in the air. But I am inspired once
Speaker 1: again because a roll call, because of all of you,
Speaker 1: gives me a little boost energy. At the end of
Speaker 1: the show, if you want your roll call to make
Speaker 1: make it, uh, go to Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: And also, if you want this show to continue to
Speaker 1: be a success, I need you to tell your friends
Speaker 1: and family about the Bucks Exton show, show them how
Speaker 1: to download it, send them a link, tell them about
Speaker 1: the Freedom of podcast last week we did with a
Speaker 1: Jesse and Sean and we're working on the audio quality.
Speaker 1: I know, guys, I know is a first time out
Speaker 1: with that stuff. We have a lot of fun with that.
Speaker 1: I can tell you that my gear is now in
Speaker 1: New York and and darning. I'm committing. I'm committing to it.
Speaker 1: In the month of August, there will be the next
Speaker 1: episode of shield Hie. Uh. We don't do enough of
Speaker 1: them for us to you know, make any money on
Speaker 1: them or anything yet, so I just do it because
Speaker 1: I love it. But darn it, Shields High in August,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have some weeks where there's not a ton
Speaker 1: of news anyway, so I feel like, let's get into it.
Speaker 1: That's I'm committing right now to doing a Shields tie
Speaker 1: in August and we'll put it out and there you
Speaker 1: have it. But please do check out the Freedom Hut
Speaker 1: podcast from last week. And uh, I'm I'm actually taking
Speaker 1: I'm taking suggestions for who you think would be a
Speaker 1: fun guest for this week. Now, with all that, let's
Speaker 1: get into it. Uh, no, uh, this is again in
Speaker 1: roll call Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. Noah Rights, Hey, Facebook,
Speaker 1: Uh might not be the best way to contact you
Speaker 1: about this, but I couldn't seem to find it better way.
Speaker 1: On one of your shows you mentioned would be funny
Speaker 1: to get some interns for the Buck Sexton Show. I
Speaker 1: just want to throw my hat in the ring early
Speaker 1: and express my interest. If an internship opportunity ever does
Speaker 1: come to Fruition, I would love to know where I
Speaker 1: can find out more information about that. Thank you, Shields High. Well, no,
Speaker 1: you're very kind, my man, and I can't tell you
Speaker 1: right now you are top of the intern list, but
Speaker 1: we don't take interns yet because I don't even know
Speaker 1: how he would do that. I don't know if they
Speaker 1: have to come to the swamp here in d C.
Speaker 1: Or if they have to go to New York. But Noah,
Speaker 1: we will file this away. And I really appreciate your
Speaker 1: interest and support what we're doing here. And just make
Speaker 1: sure if you're gonna be an intern somewhere, they actually
Speaker 1: give you real stuff to do. I did some internships
Speaker 1: that were worthwhile and some that were complete, complete crap
Speaker 1: lousy fests. I mean it was not not worth anyone's time,
Speaker 1: including the people around me who were supposed to be
Speaker 1: making it worth my time. Wasted everybody's time. But I
Speaker 1: wouldn't have that. I would have interns doing cool stuff
Speaker 1: for me. Next up here is Charles. Uh. Seriously, if
Speaker 1: this was Omama doing just half stuff, Uh, you would
Speaker 1: be screaming for his head. I know you are a
Speaker 1: partisan liar if you don't admit it which you want.
Speaker 1: I'm actually reading this as he wrote it. Guys, I
Speaker 1: know you are you too spelled t o or a
Speaker 1: partisan liar if you don't admit it which you want?
Speaker 1: Conservative ha ha ha where not in fiscal responsibility period,
Speaker 1: not in truth or justice period? Give me a break period.
Speaker 1: Um oh yeah, I'm one of those independents you don't
Speaker 1: care about that will never vote for the GOP. From
Speaker 1: Charles Charles, um m m, fair enough. I thought we
Speaker 1: just go with that, all right, Charles had to say
Speaker 1: on the show. There you go, buddy, It's actually not true.
Speaker 1: I don't care of independence, and I really get excited
Speaker 1: when I hear from liberals who listened to the show,
Speaker 1: and um, I'm and look, I present it all as
Speaker 1: I see it and I'm honest about what I think
Speaker 1: and how I view things, and I tell you when
Speaker 1: I'm not sure. I'll tell you when I think I
Speaker 1: might be wrong about something. And I hope that independence
Speaker 1: recognized that, unlike a lot of the TV news anchors
Speaker 1: that they get information from, I actually know stuff and
Speaker 1: learn stuff and have things to say. Uh So, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was just kind of a swipe at CNN in
Speaker 1: case you didn't know. But yeah, well, Charles, thanks for
Speaker 1: reaching out, buddy. And I do get I do give
Speaker 1: a crap, Charles, I do so on that. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you you're wrong, all right. Uh here we get
Speaker 1: back into some some nice team buck Aaron Rights. Love
Speaker 1: your show. I especially enjoyed your Freedom Hunt episode last week.
Speaker 1: It was hilarious. I didn't realize that Sean Parnell lives
Speaker 1: in western Pennsylvania. I live about ten miles south of him.
Speaker 1: Be honored to take him out for a beer too.
Speaker 1: Please pass along. Also, I believe you're still trying to
Speaker 1: figure out the buck gear that you sell on your site.
Speaker 1: Can I ask you to consider partnering with the Operation
Speaker 1: Hat Trick program twelve of every brand that item that
Speaker 1: you buy to sell on your side goes to wounded veterans.
Speaker 1: Our company helps start this program. Procis me six years ago.
Speaker 1: We've raised a million dollars. Doesn't cost you any participate
Speaker 1: you just you just buy a product from specific companies.
Speaker 1: The company wouldn't even make any money off this. Thank
Speaker 1: you for all you do, Aaron. That sounds like a
Speaker 1: great idea. So please uh in the Facebook here is
Speaker 1: give me an email where I can best contact you.
Speaker 1: I'm actually writing right now just in shorthand. Please give
Speaker 1: me an email to contact um. See this is this
Speaker 1: is in real time, folks. So I got a type
Speaker 1: it on on a nationally snick a radio show because
Speaker 1: that sounds really interesting. Actually, Sandy right, someone I don't
Speaker 1: know responded to my post was interested in Muslim history.
Speaker 1: I shared some along with linked to Shields High and
Speaker 1: your show also shared in public. I love it and
Speaker 1: you from Sandy Well, Sandy, you are very very kind.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Aaron writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: the top headline today is for Bernie Sanders Medicare for
Speaker 1: All Bill. I'm in the military and I have tri
Speaker 1: care which covers almost everything at no cost to me.
Speaker 1: Can you explain why the entire us couldn't have something
Speaker 1: similar to tri care, which sounds similar to what they
Speaker 1: are proposing. What would have cost every person in tax
Speaker 1: increases to make something like that work? Could a flat
Speaker 1: tox not cover everyone? Thanks Man Shields high Lar, thank
Speaker 1: you for your service, and and there your question about
Speaker 1: tri care is the short version, and the short answer
Speaker 1: is it would be too expensive that you couldn't cover
Speaker 1: everybody because it would be too expensive um meaning that
Speaker 1: you or I should say that you would have to
Speaker 1: have such massive tax increases that it would be somewhat
Speaker 1: catastrophic to the greater economy and to the private sector
Speaker 1: and private industry in order to pay for it. Try
Speaker 1: care is pricey. I don't know how price you got
Speaker 1: the top of my head, but I do know also
Speaker 1: that there there's the problem of incentives, which I've been
Speaker 1: discussing with you here about health care. If you don't
Speaker 1: pay for it, you will overuse it. Not you, but
Speaker 1: one will overuse it. Also take less personal care of
Speaker 1: one's health. A vast majority of health spending right now
Speaker 1: goes to elderly care, which covered my Medicare, but then
Speaker 1: also diseases that are lifestyle related, and people generally do
Speaker 1: not like to hear about this, but there are diseases
Speaker 1: that are affected by choices that we are all making,
Speaker 1: notably heart disease, diabetes ease are not always, but at
Speaker 1: least in part, reflections of what we are doing to ourselves,
Speaker 1: the choices we are making about activity level, what we're eating,
Speaker 1: just general health and lifestyle choices. And if you are
Speaker 1: not incentivized for medical reasons, for reasons of cost, to
Speaker 1: change some of those behaviors, that in the aggregate across
Speaker 1: the American economy is gonna have a problem. Gonna be
Speaker 1: a problem because you're gonna be paying for other people's
Speaker 1: stuff and they're gonna paying for your stuff, and that's
Speaker 1: not the way it's is to be. Um. But Aaron,
Speaker 1: I don't know enough about try cure to get the
Speaker 1: specifics of it. But I just I know that if
Speaker 1: if the government's going to cover all of your health
Speaker 1: care bills, you are going to go, uh, the country
Speaker 1: is gonna have to have taxes at least double So
Speaker 1: whatever you're paying now in taxes, imagine twice that much.
Speaker 1: And even then I'm not sure it would be enough.
Speaker 1: Michael writes the definition of a cluster the Buxter Parnell
Speaker 1: and Jesse Kelly trying to do a podcast over Skype.
Speaker 1: You know, Michael, we're just you know, Michael always is.
Speaker 1: He's always there to make sure I don't get too
Speaker 1: big for my bridges and then to make fun of
Speaker 1: me for being in Manhattan. I who says things like bridges.
Speaker 1: But you know where we're We're trying to experiment a
Speaker 1: little bit here. The Freedom Hunt is my my area
Speaker 1: to That's where a little baby buck gets to sore,
Speaker 1: gets to just jump out of the nest and just
Speaker 1: spread his wings and sore. I don't know why I
Speaker 1: got all theatrical there, but that's what ends up happening. Uh,
Speaker 1: Seth road in, Hey Buck, It's all in the reflexes.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Seth, very kind of you, much much appreciated.
Speaker 1: Um william writes, hold on a second. One of these days,
Speaker 1: I'll change your mind about tae kwondo. We have show kicks,
Speaker 1: then we have counter aggression skills. Never do a spin jump,
Speaker 1: high kick in a street fight, knees, elbows wrestling and
Speaker 1: punches in a real fight. Fancy show kicks are only
Speaker 1: for tournaments, but in UFC, I've seen plenty of folks
Speaker 1: knocked out by a high kick, a rear naked choke. WHOA,
Speaker 1: what's that? I never heard a rear naked choke before,
Speaker 1: and several hundred left jabs. Taekwondo is just another tool
Speaker 1: in the toolbox, now, William. I look, I know that's true.
Speaker 1: And remember most of my not my knowledge of martial
Speaker 1: arts comes primarily from watching martial arts movies as a kid.
Speaker 1: So I am not a practitioner. I'm not. I've had
Speaker 1: dilettent level exposure to a number of different martial arts,
Speaker 1: but nothing, nothing sobstantial. But I read a lot about
Speaker 1: things and analyze them, and I also just like to
Speaker 1: talk about martial arts movies. So that's that's how we
Speaker 1: got to this point in things. Uh So, Yeah, like
Speaker 1: I said, if you have any thoughts for what we
Speaker 1: should do for the Freedom Hut podcast, let's uh let
Speaker 1: buck know. I don't know why I just went third
Speaker 1: person there. It's being a little weird today. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: lie it being a little weird. But also please do
Speaker 1: check out our sponsors folks. Where we be heading into
Speaker 1: the the end of the end of the year. Here
Speaker 1: we want to finish out. I guess it's a little
Speaker 1: early to say that, but it's almost August. We want
Speaker 1: to finish out real strong, So please do checkout sponsors
Speaker 1: you've heard about throughout the show. Spread the podcast to
Speaker 1: a friend of your is a very very helpful thing
Speaker 1: for you to do. And uh yeah, let us know
Speaker 1: your thoughts. Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton. The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton dot com website relaunch is imminent, not quite not
Speaker 1: quite there yet, but soon we'll be very soon. So
Speaker 1: that's exciting stuff. Until tomorrow. From the DC Swamp Shields High,
Speaker 1: it's been quite a day. I got Black Rifle coffee
Speaker 1: in my hand right now because it's gonna help me
Speaker 1: push through the rest of the day. It's gonna keep
Speaker 1: me fired up and on task and in the fight.
Speaker 1: And if you've ever found yourself wincing at the weak
Speaker 1: taste of coffee from one of those comic corporations out there,
Speaker 1: you probably thought, I wish they spent less time on
Speaker 1: meaningful bias training, bathroom policy, your form, and other things
Speaker 1: that defied common sense, and more time on their coffee.
Speaker 1: That's why you need black Rifle. That's why I have
Speaker 1: black Rifle as I speak to you in my hand.
Speaker 1: Right now. In fact, I almost want to just slurk
Speaker 1: a little uh delicious, absolutely delicious. Visit Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off, Folks. I hope all of you will make
Speaker 1: Black Rifle your coffee of choice. I'm actually bringing it
Speaker 1: into the office these days. I'm converting all of the
Speaker 1: Hill to Black Rifle coffee. Join the coffee or Die
Speaker 1: revolution at Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash buck for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off