Daily Review with Clay and Buck - Dec 8 2025

A New Era of News

A major revelation from The New York Times confirming widespread corruption in Ukraine. Clay and Buck analyze how billions in U.S. aid have been misused, validating long-standing concerns and raising questions about accountability and foreign policy under the Trump administration. This segment underscores the geopolitical stakes as peace negotiations continue and corruption scandals dominate headlines. The discussion then shifts to one of the most consequential media stories of the year: Netflix’s bid to acquire Warner Brothers versus Paramount’s competing offer. Clay argues that this battle will shape the future of news and entertainment, particularly CNN’s editorial direction. He makes the case that Paramount ownership could restore balance to CNN, while Buck explains why the network’s old model is unsalvageable in today’s opinion-driven media era. Together, they explore how media consolidation, antitrust law, and cultural influence will impact American discourse for years to come.

Biden's Border Bomb

A deep dive into one of the most explosive political stories of the week: the New York Times admission that the Biden administration catastrophically mishandled immigration policy. Clay and Buck break down how Democrats ignored repeated warnings about the border crisis, prioritizing other issues like COVID and the economy, and how this failure has fueled record illegal crossings. The hosts argue that this was not incompetence but an intentional strategy to reshape congressional apportionment and future elections by allowing millions of illegal immigrants into the country. They also highlight how Democrats are now scrambling to rebrand themselves as pro-border security ahead of the 2026 midterms, a move Clay and Buck call disingenuous given the administration’s open-border agenda.

The conversation expands into the root causes of mass migration, with Clay explaining why America’s unmatched economic opportunity acts as a magnet for illegal immigration. He also zeroes in on birthright citizenship as a major policy flaw, tracing its historical origins and calling for the Supreme Court to eliminate this incentive going forward. Buck underscores how birth tourism and chain migration have turned U.S. immigration into a system that rewards lawbreaking while sidelining merit-based entry. Both hosts argue for a complete overhaul of immigration policy—legal and illegal—to restore assimilation and protect American sovereignty.

The N Word

Analysis of a headline-grabbing Supreme Court case that could redefine presidential authority for generations. Clay and Buck clarify that this ruling isn’t about giving Trump more power alone—it’s about restoring executive control for all future presidents, from Obama to Trump to whoever comes next. They stress the seismic implications for the separation of powers and the ability of presidents to manage entrenched bureaucracies.  The conversation then pivots to a controversial jury verdict in Portland, where a homeless man was acquitted of stabbing another after claiming self-defense because a racial slur was used. Clay and Buck dissect the case, arguing that this decision sets a dangerous precedent by equating words with violence. They warn that normalizing the idea that offensive speech justifies physical harm undermines the First Amendment and erodes legal principles. The hosts connect this mindset to broader cultural trends, including left-wing arguments that speech can be violence—a concept they say fuels political extremism and even assassination attempts against figures like Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk.

Words as Violence

A passionate commentary on censorship and the absurdity of banning certain words in all contexts, even in literature or historical quotes. Clay shares a personal anecdote about a publisher refusing to print Muhammad Ali’s famous quote in his book, illustrating how far word policing has gone. Buck adds that this double standard—where some can use inflammatory language freely while others face ruin—reflects a broken cultural norm. Both hosts emphasize that context matters and violence should never be an acceptable response to speech, no matter how offensive.  The audience weighs in on free speech, jury decisions, and the erosion of common-sense principles like “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” The discussion touches on historical legal doctrines such as the “fighting words” standard and why it fails in a modern society that values free expression. Clay and Buck argue for treating adults like adults and resisting the trend toward censorship and hypersensitivity.

Make sure you never miss a second of the show by subscribing to the Clay Travis & Buck S

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in Monday edition Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show. I
don't know if Buck is even aware, but Chaos in
the College Football playoff rankings was my weekend festivities Buck.
I was in Indianapolis, got to meet a bunch of
our listeners at the Big Ten Title game. Had an

(00:21):
awesome time up there. India is a great just a
great city to walk around downtown. They've done a fantastic
job of making that just a very accessible spot. They
had a ton of different events going on. I don't
think I'm putting them on blast too much, but one
of the officials, as I was walking around the field

(00:42):
for the Big Ten Title game, walked over and sought
me out just to say that he loves the radio
show and he listens every day. So he's in his
full officiating gear getting ready for the Big Ten Big
Ten Championship game. You never know who is a Clay
and Buck listener out there, and we had a nice chat,

(01:02):
so I appreciate him coming over and talking.

Speaker 2 (01:06):
I was all over the place. I was in d C.

Speaker 1 (01:07):
I met a bunch of our people for the FIFA draw,
called in for that and then Indy and now I'm
back home and excited to be with all of you.
So there's a bunch of stuff out there, Buck, As
we come up on Christmas and as things typically start
to slow down a bit, there's actually some big stories
out there that I thought we could could have some

(01:28):
fun with all of you.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
With front page story Today's New York Times, Ukraine huge grift.

Speaker 1 (01:35):
There is billions and billions, probably frankly hundreds of billions
of dollars that suddenly on the front page of the
New York Times they acknowledge has been intentionally set up
to allow theft.

Speaker 2 (01:52):
I think that when.

Speaker 1 (01:53):
We look at Ukraine and Russia and the peace plan
that is moving through there, Buck, I think one of
the challenges is Ukrainians are increasingly becoming aware that there
is a great deal of corruption surrounding everything having to
do with the Zolenski. How much he's personally involved and
and or benefiting remains.

Speaker 2 (02:14):
To be seen.

Speaker 1 (02:15):
But it is the case that yet another conspiracy has
been proven to be true that people who are have
been arguing, Hey, a ton of our money that we've
been sending there is not being spent on defending Ukraine
or fighting Russia. It's actually lining the pockets of elite
people in power in Ukraine. That has one hundred percent

(02:37):
been proven to the extent that now even the New
York Times is willing to put it on the front
page of the newspaper, so we can get into that
sixty minutes interviews Marjorie Taylor Green. As soon as you
decide that you want to rip Trump, suddenly you are
worthy of a sixty minutes profile. But I actually think
this story is more signific again than maybe many would realize,

(03:02):
and it's going to play out over the next year,
and it's going to be a big decision for the
Trump administration, DOJ and for the Antitrust to analyze. And
that is that Netflix is trying to buy Warner Brothers,
the HBO essential portion of Warner Brothers, the Harry Potter

(03:23):
film franchise, the Game of Thrones, anything that you've watched
on HBO. Netflix is trying to buy Paramount, which has
been acquired by the Ellison family. Paramount has put in
a larger bid to buy the entirety of Warner Brothers,

(03:44):
which would include CNN. So if you are out there
right now and you're listening to me, I and Buck,
and you're saying, Okay, you know, maybe you subscribe to Netflix,
maybe you'll watch HBO occasionally. But you're saying, Clay, why
should I care who owns this company? I think it's
actually super important and if you are of the opinion

(04:06):
that there should be a middle of the road rational
media out there. Notwithstanding the criticism I just levied against
sixty minutes, I think if Netflix buys HBO, that it
is a mostly left wing organization. Netflix is. I think
that CNN will be left to continue to be a

(04:26):
left wing organization. I personally, Buck like the idea of
Paramount acquiring the entirety of Warner Brothers, including CNN, and
trying to run CNN as what it used to be.

Speaker 3 (04:41):
You know, you worked at CNN back in the day
before they went full crazy, Buck.

Speaker 2 (04:47):
But I witnessed the transition to full crazy.

Speaker 3 (04:51):
Just I was there when you know, in f any
of you Star Wars Nerds, when the Emperor all of
a sudden, like his face changes and he gets all scared.

Speaker 2 (05:00):
I witnessed that at CNN.

Speaker 1 (05:02):
So for those of us who are old enough to
remember it, and I imagine that's a lot of the
people out there listening, it was not that long ago
in the grand scheme.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
Of things, when during the Gulf War, for instance, CNN
made a name for itself and everybody trusted CNN to
be on the ground and really legitimately report the news
that was going on. Heck, even whenever you thought of
Larry King back in the day, Larry King wasn't some
I mean, got married nine or ten times, whatever the
heck it was, so personally he had some issues, but

(05:34):
in terms of his show on a nightly basis, you
may feel differently, Buck, that was very middle of the road, right,
He got good guests, they had conversations. CNN lost its way,
and I do think that if CNN ends up staying
super left wing, that is not a good thing for
the country. And so that's why I think this is significant.

(05:55):
There are some broader trends as well, though, that CNN
got caught up in. For example, when you mentioned the
Gulf War and CNN's absolute heyday, which I would say
is the nineties era CNN Clay, that was really pre
or early stage Internet. People can get information from anywhere now, right,

(06:16):
this is right? What do we do here that they
don't do in the ap headlines? We entertain we engage,
we bring a point of view, we bring life stories,
we bring you a conversation. Right, we're with our friends
talking about these things. We're not breaking news on the
latest ceasefire between Thailand and Cambodia because by the time

(06:38):
somebody does that, it's on the global Internet and everybody's done, right,
doesn't Really that's a thing that I think is ongoing.
By the way, there's fighting between the two countries, in
case you didn't know, So that's something that's going on.
We are in an era now, Clay where storytelling, connection
to audience, analysis, and trustworthiness of the person, not of
the entity, but of the people or person speaking to

(07:01):
you is the currency of the news media. And so
how to see ann operate in an era where that's
the case. If they did straight news, they wouldn't really
have an audience. I think this is the challenge that
they run into because just news without opinion isn't going
to engage either side, and they don't have an information

(07:22):
advantage anymore. Everyone is putting the news up instantaneously. So
we've entered a new era of news and information online.
And there's some great parts about that. There are some
not great parts about that, but CNN, I think, and
that model is going to get largely I don't think
it can ever come back. As my position on this,

(07:43):
I don't actually think CNN is salvageable as what it
was in the nineties because the world has changed. Part
of why they went so insane is because, well it
was mostly because Jeff Zucker hated Trump and it was personal.
But beyond that, you know, they brought in that other
guy who got fired for doing the Vanity Fair piece.
Basic was a Vanity Fair I think or the Atlantic,
I can't remember. He was trying to make it not insane.

(08:07):
There's not really an audience for a CNN that's not
full of lunatics. Here's my concern as we look at
at the at the landscape of media, the people who
are in positions of power are going to be more
powerful maybe than we have seen in a very very
long time, in terms of the dollars that they have.

(08:28):
And I'm very thankful that Elon Musk has had a
commitment to free speech and that he decided to buy
Twitter renamed it X, but he could have just as
easily decided that he was a super left winger, and
at that point in time, we are in significant difficulty.
And so I think right now the framework for how

(08:51):
these media companies are going to be owned, distributed, everything
associated with it. If you're not paying attention to what
happens to Warner Brothers, I think you're missing potentially an
incredibly important media story that is going to play out
over the next year. And I think if you voted
for Trump, it is in much better your interest for

(09:16):
Paramount to end up buying Warner Brothers than for Netflix
to buy Warner Brothers. I really think that's true. And
so this is a big story. This is an important one.

Speaker 1 (09:29):
I understand it's a little bit in the weeds because
then it's going to involve antitrust law and it's going
to get very complicated, and it's going to take place
over the next eighteen months. But I just wanted to
put that on the horizon for everybody out there. There's
also right now buck a huge presidential power case which
could implicate many of these things over the next three
years of Trump, but certainly for the next several generations

(09:52):
of presidents. And it has to do with where exactly
does the president's power extend and how is it controlled?

Speaker 2 (09:59):
God going forward? So we're coming up on the end
of the year.

Speaker 1 (10:03):
But there are a lot of things that I think
are massively consequential that are all coming together right now
that may slide under the radar because everybody's got Christmas parties.
You've got a Christmas party on Thursday that I'm gonna
be at. I'm excited to get down to Miami and
being warned, you know when we're.

Speaker 3 (10:18):
Stocking up on Buddy Rose. Clay's coming into town, so
we gotta make sure plenty of rose to go around.
Some people are saying a big Rose drinker, Kaylee mcanenny
calling him out in absentia.

Speaker 2 (10:33):
I might add that is absentia devastating.

Speaker 1 (10:36):
This reminds me of when Riley Gaines brought a two
by four to me on Sean Hannity's show. I am
flying to Indianapolis for the Big Ten title game. So
I was in the air, unable to do Kaylee's show,
and then I look down at my phone and recognize
that I have suddenly been savagely attacked on Fox News
for my alcohol drinking habits.

Speaker 3 (10:55):
Can you guys pull that Pull that one up, because
we got We'll play it in the next segment.

Speaker 2 (10:59):
I just want to to be clear.

Speaker 3 (11:00):
I have my man Clay's back, or I said, I
think he's doing sports stuff somewhere, which is, by the way,
it's a weekend, wasbably the probably the right answer, and
Caylee was like, I don't know. I hear wine tasting,
maybe maybe sniffing for the aromas of the rose before
he swills it around and talks about the notes of
black currant and vanilla that he's that he's picking up.

Speaker 2 (11:21):
I don't know.

Speaker 1 (11:22):
This is just I was out Friday night with our
friend Alexi Lawless because they had the FIFA and Andrew Giuliani,
who was who's basically in charge of Buddy the FIFA event. Yeah,
it was a fun group, but uh but Alexi uh
was was questioning my alcohol choices, and uh, thankfully someone
with us, another man ordered an espresso martini, which was

(11:44):
more attackable worthy, so I was able to shift.

Speaker 2 (11:47):
Sometimes you don't have to be right. Somebody else just
had to screw up worse.

Speaker 1 (11:50):
Uh, Ben who was with us, ordered an espresso martini
and you duck out of the line of fire there.
But my rose consumption has u has now led to
multiple daily attacks. We're gonna have to get Kaylee back
on to talk about that. And I understand if you're
out there and you say I can't trust anything you're
saying now, Clay, because you voluntarily consumed rose.

Speaker 3 (12:08):
So so there's that as well. By the way, we
just bring you the news. We bring you the news here.
I think I sent in a talkback. But we did
get a great draw for the World Cup. If you
want positive news, theoretically even the US men's soccer team
can't screw up the draw that we got on Friday.

(12:28):
We should be in the knockout stages. That should be uh,
that should be fantastic going forward. So some good news
out there. But I do I do think again, it's
easy to get kind of your Your eyes will roll
back into your head sometimes if you're not a nerd
like I am, when it comes to media and big
media mergers and what the impact could be for how
we discuss issues in this country. I think if you're

(12:50):
a Trump voter, you you want paaramount to buy Warner Brothers.
If you are a left winger, I think that you
want the opposite toapon. All right, we'll take calls, we'll
get in all this. We'll let's talk about the small
American fraud. We'll discuss Obamacare premiums going up. We'll talk
about the New York Times writing that Biden screwed up

(13:11):
immigration big time, bigly, bigly. We will get to all
of that here, my friends coming up in just a bit.
AI can make almost anything look real these days, and
cyber thieves, unfortunately, are taking full advantage. Whether it's a
bogus website and ad that lures you to make an
online purchase, or emails with special offers.

Speaker 2 (13:28):
You got to be extra careful.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
One way to do that is getting LifeLock. LifeLock monitors
hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats
to your online identity. That's way more than you or
anyone can do on their own, and LifeLock alerts you
right away if anything pops up. And if you do
become a victim of identity theft, you get your own
restoration specialists at LifeLock who will fix identity theft guaranteed
or your money back. Having LifeLock saves you countless hours,

(13:52):
not to mention your mental sanity. I've been relying on
LifeLock for a decade now to protect my online identity
join now say forty percent off your first with promo
code Buck. Call one eight hundred LifeLock or go on
go online to LifeLock dot com. Use promo code buck
for forty percent off. Terms apply.

Speaker 2 (14:09):
You ain't imagining it. The world has gone insane.

Speaker 4 (14:13):
We claim your sanity with Clay and Fun. Find them
on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcast.

Speaker 3 (14:22):
Whether you're lighting a candle on the Manua or placing
Baby Jesus in the Nativity, we hope your holiday is
full of grace, wonder and.

Speaker 1 (14:28):
Love and maybe even a little snow. Merry Christmas and
happy Honika from all of us at the Clay and
Buck Show.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
Second hour of Clay and Buck kicks off. Now this
fantastic program that you're listening to. Some even say fabulous.
Some people are saying thank you for being here with me.
We have this story in the New York Times, which
means that there's something going on here. Why now, Why
is it that all of a sudden you have the

(15:00):
New York Times writing that, you know, they really messed
up on that immigration thing under Biden's administration. They they
really And the explanation is essentially that it was a
mistake right. The explanation is that Biden's immigration policy fell

(15:25):
victim to other priorities.

Speaker 2 (15:28):
Like COVID and the economy.

Speaker 3 (15:31):
Here is this story how Biden ignored warnings and lost
American's faith in immigration. The Democratic president and his top
advisors rejected recommendations that could have eased the border crisis
and help return Donald Trump to the White House. There's
a lot going on in this piece, and there's a
real I want to also get into not only how

(15:53):
they're trying to message this thing, but Clay also how
it is or what it is that they're trying to
accomplish with this, because they're already thinking forward to twenty
twenty six, the midterms, and remember, in their minds, if
they can just get the House, it effectively pumps the

(16:13):
brakes on the Trump agenda, and then we just get
into a presidential election cycle and everything, you know, everything
changes at some level in their minds politically if they
can just pull that off.

Speaker 2 (16:24):
So they view the stakes as very high.

Speaker 3 (16:27):
The stakes are very high, and they're willing to do
absolutely anything to try to get Democrats back in control,
and even if that means throwing some Democrats under the
bus Clay, you go through this. Part of this is
I just want us to take a victory lot. We've
always saw immigration, border crime, immigration border crime. We've been
talking about this for the whole time we've been doing
the show, and specifically on immigration, we told you it

(16:49):
was going to be a huge issue in this last election,
which it was. I remember that was one of the
lead things Clay. I was talking on the Bill Maher
show right before the election, and even Bill Maher looked
at me and he's like, they completely screwed up the
immigration thing.

Speaker 2 (17:03):
He didn't use that word. He's a different word.

Speaker 3 (17:04):
He said, they completely mess that up as badly as
it could be messed up. But what you have to
remember here, and they go through all of this, they
talk about how oh they were distracted, and no this
was known the whole time. They decided to continue to
let this happen. People who understood the system. Clay told Biden, Hey,

(17:30):
this is gonna get really bad and really out of control,
just so you know, I mean, they say chaos, then
paralysis year one, that's what they talk about. And the
Biden response was to put Kamala Harris in.

Speaker 2 (17:45):
Charge as the borders are.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
Which if you wanted something to be completely ineffective, putting
Kamala in charge probably a good idea.

Speaker 2 (17:52):
So you know, in that sense, it worked exactly as intended.

Speaker 3 (17:56):
They talked about changing the root cause is people even
forget this. They go through this in the article that
Kamala was supposed to address the root causes of migration
in Central America.

Speaker 2 (18:07):
Oh, I don't know.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
Central American countries are poor, dysfunctional, and corrupt and not
very nice places to live, with some exceptions, and America
is the greatest country in the history of the world.
So how exactly are you going to convince people that
if they can come here, they'd rather stay in Honduras.

Speaker 2 (18:24):
That was idiotic, and I think.

Speaker 3 (18:26):
Clay really what this comes down to is that they
want to change the narrative. It's so bad for them
on a legal immigration that Democrats in twenty twenty six
want to go back to we believe in a secure
border too. Biden made mistakes. They don't want people to realize. No,
that's exactly. They wanted ten million plus I legals to
flood the country because now they're going to be part

(18:47):
of the congressional apportionment.

Speaker 2 (18:49):
Part of the they're.

Speaker 3 (18:50):
Going to have kids here, They're going to raise their
kids to hopefully vote Democrat, et cetera, et cetera, and
of course not nationalize, naturalize, and amnesty everybody over time.

Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, and this is why the Supreme Court decision on
birthright citizenship is so important. I always go to what
causes this to occur? And the answer is two things
there if you want to know, Kamala Harris. The root cause, yes,
our country is way better than the other country. That's
the root cause. But the root cause of why it's

(19:22):
better is one the jobs pay better. You can make
way more money if you come to the United States
than you can in almost any other country in the world.
And I always like this analogy because I think it
brings it home. If the United States was a crappy
country and if you could make ten x your money
in Canada, tons of Americans would be trying to cross

(19:45):
into Canada to get jobs there. So one is we
have built the best economy that's ever existed in the
history of the world, that is the United States has
and it acts as a magnet to draw people all
over the world, which is why you actually need to
restrict the number of people that who are able to
come into the country. Right, that's one two. In addition

(20:07):
to creating the best economy in the history of the world,
we have also I think wedded it with a disastrous
policy decision, which is birthright by soil citizenship. So if
you come to the United States, even if you come
here illegally, and you have a child in the United States,
that child becomes a citizen. That should not exist and

(20:28):
we should do away with it. And people out there
really don't dive into the root cause of why that occurred.
It was because of the colonization and because in the
olden days, if you were in Great Britain and you
were trying to convince someone, hey, go to these thirteen
American colonies, move your family there. You had to let

(20:49):
people know, but your kids can always come back to England.
The same thing happened all over the New World because
people were concerned that you couldn't go back to Spain,
or you couldn't go back to England, or you couldn't
go back to Portugal or whatever country out there was
driving the exploration of the New World. And so that's

(21:13):
the reason this exists. But and so this is I
think of all of the decisions that the Supreme Court
is going to issue, the one that I think could
have the most long lasting and transformative impact would be
if they did say, you know what, there is no
constitutional right to birthright citizenship.

Speaker 2 (21:31):
Now.

Speaker 1 (21:31):
They would have to make it going forward because I
think the challenges of making it run reactive. Yeah, I mean,
you got it, but going forward, you would at least
eliminate the idea that Chinese people are going to hop
on a plane when they're eight months pregnant, come to
the United States, have a baby, and that baby has
dual Chinese and American citizenship. They're gaming the system in

(21:53):
a way that historically you couldn't. Nobody could time a
pregnancy and come to the United States to have birthright
by soil citizenship as the result.

Speaker 3 (22:03):
Well, also it's illegal to do that. So the hotels,
the birth tourism hotels, for example in California, where this
is common with Asian visitors, Yep, they get in trouble,
they get prosecuted for this, and yet usually you can't
profit from crime. But clearly the offspring of the people
who are doing this are very and therefore in the

(22:24):
family too. They are very much profiting from it. Remember,
having the anchor here then means that you can sponsor
what they call family reunification. Most of our immigration system,
you're being lied to about all of us all the time.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
Okay, you have to remember this. You're being lied to.

Speaker 3 (22:41):
We are not taking the best in the brightest, We
are not taking people based on skills. It is a
giant scam and essentially one huge welfare operation for the
Third World. So as long as you are from a poor,
predominantly non white country somewhere else in the world, you've
got a good shot at coming into America. If you

(23:04):
know how the game is played. You know, if you're
a you know, a neurosurgeon from Sweden, we don't need you,
you know, like the no interest. But if you're coming
here from one of the poorest countries, war torn country.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
Whatever, or even just a place that's totally.

Speaker 3 (23:18):
Dysfunctional, we want you. That sounds great. That's the way
the system has been running.

Speaker 2 (23:23):
Mostly.

Speaker 3 (23:23):
It's it's people who are getting through the lottery system.
Think about that, what do we have a lottery? Well, yes, well,
why are we giving away American americanness, Like like we
you know, give away a pot roast whose idea was this,
we have a lottery system, and then we also have reunification.
Oh so if you get here through any of these mechanisms,

(23:44):
then you have chain migration, and you can sponsor other
people in your family to come here.

Speaker 2 (23:48):
And so on and so forth.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
The whole system has gotten turned upside down to the
last well since nineteen sixty five, the Immigration and Naturalization Act.
So what's going on? I can't do the math. You know,
sixty years and no it is sixty years, that's right.
So Clay, it's time that we have a total top
down look not only at a legal immigration, but at
legal immigration in this country and start to do what

(24:10):
we've been told is being done but has been a
lie all along, which is actually have this be for
immigration first of all, a lot less. We need some
assimilation in this country. We need some America time for
all of us. Everybody's here as American. We get to
spend a little more time together, figure out some things.
What you see in the Somali community, which we'll talk

(24:31):
about more, with the Somali American community being part of
this huge fraud ongoing, many people, lots of folks involved there.
This is not a well assimilated community. Yet, Okay, we
need some time to assimilate the people who are already here,
and Americanness needs to be something that we all agree
on and is spreading more.

Speaker 2 (24:50):
Freely, shall we say? So?

Speaker 3 (24:53):
This is where the whole Biden thing, though, it's just
so galling. Everything that we said all along was true. Yes,
everything that we we said on the show about immigration
for years and people, it's terrible.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
And the porter's not open. The porter was absolutely open.

Speaker 1 (25:06):
It was wide open. It was wide open. It was intentional.
And here is the diabolical aspect of all of this.
They knew that they were making a generational decision. I
don't know that Joe Biden really understood it, because I
think Biden was so out to lunch he didn't understand
anything that was going on. But the Biden puppeteers recognized

(25:29):
that they were bringing it in twenty million right now,
twenty million illegals who they are gambling will at some
point become citizens and end up benefiting them.

Speaker 2 (25:43):
Now.

Speaker 1 (25:44):
I think one of the parts of this political calculus
that nobody really dove into buck was Trump won Hispanic
men and he narrowly lost Hispanic women in the twenty
twenty four election. These are legal Hispanic voters, and obviously
the Hispanic vote is you know, living in Miami. There's
a big difference between somebody who's from Venezuela and Honduras

(26:06):
or you know, like you.

Speaker 3 (26:08):
Don't want to get that one wrong. Let me tell you.
They do not. They do not like when people assume
that Hispanics are like this monolith that everyone's the same. No, no, no, no,
no play beyond that. I just you reminded me of something.
The piece is really important. The Democrats, and they're always
trying to massage this like, oh no, it was a mistake.
They weren't focused on it. But also they admit they

(26:29):
say they totally the Democrat and I mean the very
top like the Biden White House, the claims and the
other people that, you know, they're thrown under the bus now.
They all thought that Hispanics would be with them on this. Yes,
what they didn't realize is that US citizens of Hispanic
origin or ancestry were like, what are you doing giving

(26:51):
this away to everybody who arrived five minutes ago who
speaks no English. They didn't understand the dynamic. They didn't
understand that Cuban Americans who were like, you know, I'm
second third generation, we fled Castro, we came here legally,
and you're gonna treat someone who shows up from you know,
Mayan mar or a Burma or whatever, you know, are

(27:12):
as American as apple pie, even if they just ran
across the border illegally. Hispanic community did not actually go
for that.

Speaker 1 (27:18):
Yeah, and again, I think one of the biggest challenges
we have here is the lack of you could talk
about the you should if you're moving to America. Number
one rule should be you believe America is the greatest
country in the history of the world, and you want
to ensure that we preserve what made America the greatest
country in the history of the world. And a knowledge

(27:40):
of Western civilization is integral there, and an embrace of
basic values of Western civilization that doesn't exist. That doesn't
exist with many of these new immigrants, Which for people
out there who say, well, what about when people were
coming from Italy or flooding the country from Ireland or

(28:00):
all over Europe back in the day, those people overwhelmingly
were raised in a Western civilizational background that acknowledges basic
human rights, among other things, and the immense benefits to
society of the concepts of Western civilization.

Speaker 3 (28:19):
I remember I went, I went a long time ago
to the Tenement Museum in New York City. I mean
over over a decade ago. But it's a very uh
it's a kind of harrowing experience in some ways because
you're in all these small rooms in these buildings. It's
the same building that these immigrants would have come to.
And this is clay in the era of Ellis Island
and everything else, you would have a family of eight

(28:39):
living in what is essentially one room. You had no
welfare services, no check, no free rent, no free food, nothing.
There would be outbreaks of typhus and they would have
they would just be stacking dead bodies out on the
street with no one even coming to claim them in
a timely fashion.

Speaker 2 (29:00):
Because these immigrants had no money, they had nothing.

Speaker 3 (29:03):
This is true of the Irish, the Chinese, you know
that were showing up in the the Italians, the Jewish
who were showing up in New York City. And people
want to compare that to like now you get you know,
free plane tickets or wherever you show up there's immigrant services.
You're getting an EBT card. Basically you're getting a prepaid
cash card. You go into any emergency room, you get

(29:25):
absolutely world class medical care. You're not going to pay
a dollar. I mean you could on the list. We're
the world's welfare state. We can't do this everybody. We
can't afford it.

Speaker 1 (29:34):
And all you have to do is sit back rationally
and say, yeah, that makes total sense. I understand why
everybody tried to do it, but we have to limit
the incentives to get people to do it because they're
taking advantage of us. We can't continue it forever. Cold
comes quickly to Ukraine this time of year, temperatures in
many of the towns and cities, much like Chicago Green
Bay for instance, For elderly residents like Olga, it can

(29:54):
be deadly. Olga seventy nine years old. She lives in
a small village, no reliable heating, indoor plumbing. She's just
one of the many elderly Jewish Ukrainians. Our sponsor, the
International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, is looking after this winter.
Her meager pension not enough to cover food, medicine and heat.
But thanks to the ifcj Olga receives a box with

(30:16):
food emergency lighting and a warm blanket. This aid is
a life saving gift for someone like Olga, and the
visit from Fellowship staff reminds her she's not forgotten. Now,
as another brutal winner begins, thousands of elderly Jews like
Olga are praying for a miracle. You can be that
miracle through a special matching grant. Your gift today to

(30:39):
the IFCJ has twice the impact up to the first
fifty thousand dollars. Don't delay to send your gift. Call
eight eight eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight
eight four eight eight four three two five. You can
also give online at Fellowshipgift dot org. That's Fellowship Gift or.

Speaker 4 (31:01):
Stories of Freedom, Stories of America, inspirational stories that you unite.

Speaker 2 (31:07):
Us all each day. Spend time with Clay and find
them on.

Speaker 4 (31:11):
The free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (31:15):
Welcome in our number three Clay Travis buck Sexton show.

Speaker 2 (31:20):
As I look up.

Speaker 1 (31:21):
On my quad box screen here headline at CNN Supreme
Court says it will give Trump more control of government.
Signals it will give Trump more control of government. Supreme
Court poised to expand Trump's power is the kron on
Fox News on MSNBC Congress split over deadly boat strikes.

(31:45):
So I guess it's ms NOW now ms now, MSNBC
crazy people still trying to go after Pete hegset. The
other two are actually more interesting, but the contextualization of
it from both CNN and Fox News I would actually
take issue with only in the context of it's not

(32:05):
really Trump getting more power from the Supreme Court. It's
the president and every president from here on out, which
is why the president should matter. If you want Obama
to have more power, if you want Trump to have
more power, if you want presidents that we don't know,
President Kevin Newsom, President Kamala Harris, god forbid, maybe jd Vance,

(32:26):
maybe Marco Rubio, whoever the president's will be for the
rest of our lives, they will all have the same
power here as Trump and I do think as we
were finishing off the last hour, this is a seismically
substantial story as it pertains to how all of this
will play out. But a couple of stories that are

(32:47):
out there that I saw you tweet about this Buck
and it seems not necessarily like a huge story, but
I actually want to have a discussion because I bet
you feel the same way as me. Think it actually
goes to the essence of what is and what is
not acceptable to say in America and what justification that

(33:10):
then befalls you can be utilized when it comes to
what you have said when it comes to violence. And
I see this story as directly connecting to Charlie Kirk.
I think it directly connects to the Trump assassination attempts
because at root, and I'm curious if you would sign
on for this, I think you probably would. The reason

(33:32):
why Charlie Kirk was assassinated and the reason why they
tried to kill Trump was because of what they say.
There was, in the case of both assassins, a belief
that the opinions of Trump the opinions of Charlie Kirk
were unacceptable and henceforth violence could be justified as a
result of what they said. This is now becoming orthodox

(33:58):
belief in many parts of America. And I thought this
case that you shared that I was reading about over
the weekend crystallized it. And you may have more specifics,
but here's my generalized case criminally of what happened. I
believe this was two homeless people in Portland. In the
Portland area got into a dispute. One guy happens to

(34:24):
be black stabbed another guy happens to be white and
the black guy's defense. Again, these are both homeless individuals,
to my best understanding both. It appears drug unhoused is
now the preferred nomenclature unhoused. I'm gonna stick with homeless.
I think it's easier to say, but yes, this would
be unhoused.

Speaker 3 (34:45):
We call them bums. Everyone would just say, is a
bummer a vagrant? And now it's different.

Speaker 2 (34:50):
Homeless I think is actually kind of kind and accurate.
And uh so these two.

Speaker 1 (34:56):
Homeless guys who would appears are as has often been
the case of late and Portland addicted to drugs, and
they've made use of drugs far easier in Portland, which
almost everyone criminal drugs, almost everyone has acknowledged, has made
things worse, less safe, more decay, more decrepitude.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
All of it is bad. And even in Portland now they're.

Speaker 1 (35:18):
Saying, hey, maybe we shouldn't be making it easier to
shoot up with illegal drugs, and maybe criminalizing drug possession
and drug use was actually a good idea. All of
this discussion ongoing. Okay, buck, So two homeless drug addicts
are in a fight. One homeless drug addict stabs the

(35:38):
other one and there is a dispute. There's an acknowledgment.
It's on video and there's audio, and you can hear
at least post stabbing one homeless guy, the white guy
using the in word. Then you have a defense that
was offered of the homeless black guy that because of

(36:00):
the N words use, that in some way his violence,
the stabbing was justified. Jury found him not guilty. So
this is again some of you may not have seen
this story, you might not have been exposed to it,
but I do think this is a real litmus test case.
And you shared a tweet which I agree with, but
I think your overall take is well.

Speaker 3 (36:23):
I completely disagree with the really zealously enforced standard that
there is only one word in the English language that
if you are white, or I guess if anyone who
is not black, there's only one word that you are
not allowed to say in any context whatsoever, to include

(36:47):
if you are a court stenographer reading back what someone
else has.

Speaker 5 (36:52):
Said, or if you are reading a transcript of what
someone else has said, or if you are reading from
a novel and the words of the author include, you
are not allowed to say it.

Speaker 2 (37:07):
That is absurd. That is wrong, and that should change.

Speaker 3 (37:11):
Now this is not to say that you should use
that or any slur to refer to any person. The
usage of a word is different than you can never
even say a word. If you say a word, you're
a bad person. That is bending the knee to something
that we should That is bending the need to a
form of censorship. And by the way, a form of

(37:33):
cenrist that based upon skin color. Yes, which is it's wrong.
And now I people can try to argue. Anyone who
tries to argue this, they end up losing. They're wrong
because it's absurd, the whole thing. It's an absurd. This
is like the people who are arguing putting your mask
on for walking to the table during COVID somehow kept
people safe when you then sat there for two hours. No,

(37:54):
you're just wrong. This thing of you can't say a
word ever is so I just want to get that
out there.

Speaker 2 (37:58):
It's wrong.

Speaker 3 (37:59):
That doesn't that you should call anyone any nasty word,
but particularly any racially inflammatory word. No, that's a wrong
thing to do. But I'm talking about you just can't
say it.

Speaker 2 (38:09):
You can't.

Speaker 3 (38:10):
In fact, it's so powerful if you were found to
have said it in any context. You know, fifteen years
people get mad at Quentin Tarantino. Now do you know this, Clay, Oh, yeah,
because the characters in his movies use the word too often.
That's what this has come to. Everyone needs to grow up.
There are words that you shouldn't use to talk about people,
but there are context in which you need to be

(38:32):
able to say any word in the English language. The
use of a word is inherently not a bad thing,
no matter what. Sorry, that's just not that's not reality.
So people need to grow up on this a little bit. Okay,
beyond that, this is also really the only word that
I am familiar with where people will argue that violence
against you if you use the word is somehow justified.

(38:55):
That is also wrong. We live in a First Amendment societ.
We live in a country where people are allowed to
say words, including mean and naughty words, and there is
no exception in the law for you said hate speech.

Speaker 2 (39:09):
You should get stabbed. You said the naughty word, so
you should get stabbed.

Speaker 3 (39:13):
And people need that this needs to stop and we
need to stop dancing around this thing where we don't
make the argument based on print.

Speaker 2 (39:21):
This is clearly a principled argument.

Speaker 3 (39:22):
So about these two people and one of the guys
had like a horrible if the guy who got stabbed
in and got a horrible conviction on his record for
uh yes, like representatives of American life. Yeah, this is
this is not about picking a side in this. Okay,
these are two bums who got into a fight. But
the notion that a jury would excuse the stabbing of

(39:43):
somebody because he said a naughty word is wrong. That
is crazy. It is wrong, it is immoral, and it
is against our legal system. And again it was the
jury in Portland refused to convict a guy for stabb
being another person because basically, the argument is, when you

(40:05):
get insulted in that way, you can't control yourself to
the extent that theoretically you could get away with murder.
And look, there are lots of words we can't say
on this radio program because we're governed by the FCC. No,
you could have an argument about whether in this day
and age, FCC restrictions on what you and I can
say and can't say should still exist. If we utter

(40:25):
curse words, there could be fines. I disagree, by the way.
I disagree with that too. I do too, I completely.
But we we serve you who listen, and we wouldn't
use those words because some of you are with your kids.
Some of you just prefer that people not use words
like that, so we would. I wouldn't use them anyway, Clay.
But I disagree that a federal government agency should be

(40:47):
picking which words canon cannot be said over the airwaves.
I disagree with that. So I have the same but
I'm still bound by it.

Speaker 2 (40:54):
Right.

Speaker 3 (40:54):
So this is the like the other rule we're talking,
I'm still bound by that social rule that everyone else
is bound by.

Speaker 2 (41:00):
I disagree with it.

Speaker 1 (41:02):
Two books ago, I wrote a book called Republicans by
Sneakers Too. I quoted Muhammad Ali and he said, ain't
and this is the ballpark.

Speaker 2 (41:12):
You know.

Speaker 1 (41:13):
No one's ever called me a racial slur in Vietcong.
No Viet Cong's ever called me a racial slur. And
I quoted that in the book. The publisher called me
and said, you can't use that word in your book
because you're a white guy.

Speaker 3 (41:28):
Yeah, this is what I mean. That's the absurdity. I
don't even I forgot you told me about this. Yeah,
that is the absurdity of this. There's only one word
where this is the case. People need to grow up, okay,
and I so up. Words exist, People say words in
certain content. You're held responsible for the context of the
words you use, not just a word that's crazy.

Speaker 1 (41:48):
Using the actual quote is a significant part of understanding
the quote and being able to analyze the perspective. Because
I was writing about the nineteen sixty civil rights era
in sports and how it is impacted the modern era,
I said, no, I'm not going to do that, and
we got into a huge dispute, went all the way
up to multiple levels of the publishing house over whether

(42:11):
Muhammad Ali could be quoted accurately in my book without dashes.
Because my argument was, wait a minute, the F word
is a quote, like, we're not dashing it out.

Speaker 2 (42:20):
You know there are other curse words.

Speaker 1 (42:22):
Adults can read a book, and I think the use
of the actual quote is important here, and so this
is the step beyond word policing.

Speaker 2 (42:32):
This is using words.

Speaker 1 (42:35):
A jury in Portland said, hey, this word was used,
and therefore violence was justified. This to me is exactly
the left wing argument for Charlie Kirk or President Trump.

Speaker 3 (42:48):
I don't see I like and so far as those are,
Charlie Kirk and Trump are political, I mean they represent
a political movement. Naughty word, But if you're willing to
kill someone for what they say, then you are presuming
that words are violence, and therefore violence can be responsive

(43:09):
to it. This jury logically heard a bad word was used,
and violence was justified in response to it. There are
many people on the left who heard the arguments that
Trump and Charlie made and they justified violence. Again, but
the president also signs executive orders that actually use state power.
I mean that there's a whole lot more than just

(43:30):
the words that Trump uses.

Speaker 1 (43:31):
Totally, but you don't think that the motivation to kill
the president and try to kill him was based on
his arguments and the justification for why that was Okay,
same thing for Brett Kavanaugh is but I'm saying there's
an action component to Trump that I think we also mean,
there's massive actions to being president.

Speaker 2 (43:49):
It's not just words right now, it's a little.

Speaker 1 (43:51):
Bit, truly, but the justification to kill is if you
are willing to buy into the idea that a word
can keep somebody out of prison and even justify the attack.
Then you're willing to say words are violence, which I
think is a strong premise of the left in this
country right now. I think we have to push back
against it. I think there's a closer analogous case right now.

(44:15):
Isn't there a woman who is being prosecuted for disorderly
she's like a playground mom, like a mom on the playground,
and she called the kid.

Speaker 2 (44:23):
Yes, I thought she said the word you can't say. Y.

Speaker 3 (44:26):
Right, she said the word you can't say, And now
they're prosecuting her for disorderly conduct. But they're really just
prosecuting her for saying the words you can't say, right. Yeah,
this is what's actually so. I disagree with this. I
disagree with this just across the board.

Speaker 1 (44:40):
And by the way, if you happen to be a
Trump supporter and somebody says something naughty to you, you
don't get the right to stab them. You don't get
the right to shoot them. Words are not violence. And
we have allowed a world to exist where now a
jury is actually willing to vote non guilty not guilty
entirely based on this was self defense because of word choices.

(45:02):
And we're not even sure the guy said it beforehand.
They only have him on video saying it afterwards. So
he got stabbed and then he insulted the guy.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
There are a lot of examples you could point to
where people especially if they get into a fight and
things escalate, it gets really violent, and if it involve
somebody who is black, there will be a claim of oh,
well he said a racial slur, because yeah, that if
you said he called me a you know, a stupid
you know, a stupid head, or even you know, a
bleeping bleep or whatever, that won't. But if you use

(45:32):
the naughty word and you got stabbed or shot, well
that then dead you were asking for it. No, that's wrong.
So you and I see this totally the same way.
On that I I don't, and I don't know why.
I think this is one of these last areas where
there's still people are there's still like a little cringing
around it, like oh but but no, but that word.
No again, if you call someone that word, you're a

(45:53):
jerk and you're you're doing something that is unethical and wrong.
But we shouldn't have a situation where you have to
have it removed from your book. We're quoting somebody else
that that's crazy, This makes no sense. This is just
this is some kind of bending the nee to like
a left wing power structure in this country, and we
shouldn't do that.

Speaker 2 (46:14):
Agreed, one hundred percent. You know you could do.

Speaker 1 (46:17):
You play along sports with us at price picks, pricepicks
dot com code Clay. You get fifty dollars when you
play five dollars. I'm going to give you a pick
on Thursday. If you like the NFL, if you like
college football, if you like college basketball, NBA golf, whatever
your sport is, whatever your jam is, prizepicks dot com
code clay, that is prizepicks dot com code clay. You

(46:40):
can get hooked up with fifty dollars when you play
five dollars. You can play in California and play in Texas.
You can play in Florida, forty plus states, thirteen million
people playing.

Speaker 2 (46:49):
You'll love it.

Speaker 1 (46:50):
You'll have some fun, a little bit more fun even
than you already did. At pricepicks dot com code clay,
fifty dollars when you play five dollars. Sign up today
and get fifty dollars deposited into your account at pricepicks
dot com.

Speaker 2 (47:03):
Code Clay News you can count on and some laughs too.

Speaker 4 (47:09):
Clay Travis at buck Sexton Find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
Welcome back in Clay Travis buck Sexton Show. We were
just talking about the jury verdict in Portland and it's important.
In the Hey, two homeless guys get into a fight,
the black homeless guy stabs the white homeless guy. Black
homeless guy is charged with a crime. Probably I haven't
seen a breakdown of the jury, but based on the

(47:37):
population in Portland, almost certainly a substantially majority white jury says, hey,
you know what, that's justified because they bought the argument
that the white homeless person had called the black guy
a the nword. Now, we had a caller Gene, who

(47:58):
was like, hey, could the judge The answer is no.
Almost never can a judge toss a not guilty verdict,
And there are only very limited exceptions. For instance, if
a defendant bought off a juror and we became aware,
then the case would not get the not guilty verdict
would just lead to a new trial. You wouldn't be

(48:20):
able to say, actually, this guy's guilty. Now again, this
gets into the weeds. There are cases where judges can
you'll have an emotion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict,
where the judge can look at it and say, the
evidence does not support a conviction, but it can only
be beneficial to the defendant, not something where the judge

(48:41):
suddenly waives his magic wand and says, I'm deeming you
guilty because you have right to a jury trial. Now,
I asked buck off Air, I was reading about this recently.
Why do we have twelve jurors? I don't know how
many of you have ever sought set around in thought,
why is a jury stand, especially in criminal cases, twelve jurors.

(49:03):
The derivation legally appears to go all the way back
to a British king in the eighth century who said, hey,
because of the twelve Apostles, twelve is the right number,
so we are going to have twelve because it used
to be and this was really kind of a tough time.

(49:25):
They would just let the trial be, Hey, we're gonna
throw you in the you know, we're gonna throw you
in the water, and if you don't sink, then God
is saying you're innocent. If you sink, then God is
saying that you're guilty. Instead of a jury of your peers,
they would have so called trial by Sometimes you had
to carry around a you know, like a hot, scalding

(49:49):
iron in your hand. And if you I mean this
crazy stuff that used to go on. But around the
eighth century a king in England, and then this was
codified into the colonies in through common law, which, for
those of you out there who don't know, most of
American common law is rooted in British jurisprudence and has
grown into its own.

Speaker 2 (50:11):
Legacy of the law here in America.

Speaker 1 (50:13):
A bunch of people with comments out there, Ryan in Columbus,
Ohio is asking what is a logical response to the
precedent said in this case, Ryan.

Speaker 6 (50:25):
Fire Away, Hey, I'm just curious, So where do we
draw the line and who draws the line on speech
that qualifies as violence? You know, am I just fied
in violence if someone calls me a racist or a
Nazi up until and including killing someone.

Speaker 1 (50:46):
Yeah, this is the question, right, And this is why
both Buck and I find it so important to distinguish
between words and violence. And remember here this is significant.
It's the jury that bought the argument.

Speaker 3 (50:59):
So you can say, hey, it's not surprising at all
given a Portland jury. I mean this is they believe.
This is a left wing belief. You have to believe
this like this.

Speaker 1 (51:07):
This is why the defense attorney went with this version
of his defense for his client, because he believed that
this jury would be susceptible. So you can be upset
at the result. I think it's a ridiculous result, but
understand that twelve jurors in Portland found this to be compelling,
which is why, honestly this ties in with my argument

(51:31):
buck about why we have such kangaroo court systems in Washington, DC.
You have the same kind of super left wing jurors
in Washington, d C. Which Democrats have used to rig
the political process by using all of their prosecution in
federal courts. In Washington, d C. You do not get
a jury of your peers. This is not a normal

(51:53):
group of people. This is far left wing eddiologs who
will throw you in prison. We just saw it with
all the jan six cases. I think there was what
was it called Japlinski v. New Hampshire, which was the.

Speaker 3 (52:06):
Fighting words Supreme court fighting words doctrine where there are
words that can immediately provoke violence. This ended up being
not overturned specifically, but jurisprudence changed after this. When this
is one of the earlier nineteen forty two case unprotected speech,
I disagree. I disagree with that. I think people can

(52:28):
say the meanest words they want to say, you're not
allowed to knock their teeth out in response.

Speaker 2 (52:32):
Sorry.

Speaker 1 (52:34):
And most of us were raised in the I don't
know I have used it with my kids. I don't
know how many kids they use it with today. But
I bet Buck, you were raised with sticks and stones
may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
I mean, every kid, at some point in time comes
to mom or dad somebody has said something super mean,
super unkind. The reality is words can hurt, words can harm.

(52:58):
But this is I think the essence of one of
the issues that we're getting wrong with the whole concept
of coddling the American mind is the idea that if
someone says something that you find to be hurtful, that
the way to handle that is by shutting down their
right to speech. And Bryan and Columbus is asking that question,
which I think is a good one, which is, how

(53:19):
do you draw that line? Ultimately, the jury said, basically,
it's a get out of jail free card. If a
racial slur is used, no black man can restrain himself.
It's actually insulting, I think, to black men, because it
presumes that they don't have the willpower to deal with
people saying mean things to them and must act irrationally
and violently as a result. That's the entire premise of

(53:42):
the defense.

Speaker 3 (53:43):
Here Bill in New Jersey gg A wor listener play it.

Speaker 7 (53:51):
I don't know what it was like when you guys
were going up, and you're quite a bit younger than
I am, But when I was a kid, the line
was stick and stones may break my bones, but words
will never hurt me. We need a little more of
that around the world these days.

Speaker 1 (54:11):
I didn't even see that talk back. He's preaching to
the choir. That's exactly what I just said.

Speaker 3 (54:15):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
Trucker Mike in Arizona, we love when our truckers reach out, says,
and he has a premise that is not dissimilar to
the caller.

Speaker 2 (54:22):
We just had f f Let me get this straight.

Speaker 8 (54:25):
So someone calls me, I'm a white man, I don't
care what color I.

Speaker 6 (54:29):
Am, but just let you know I'm a white man.

Speaker 8 (54:31):
So someone call me white trash cracker, amt me trailer
trash tweaker?

Speaker 6 (54:37):
Whatever?

Speaker 8 (54:37):
Does that give me justification to stab them and injure
them as the same damn thing. It's just pass the night.

Speaker 6 (54:43):
It's stupid.

Speaker 1 (54:45):
I agree, if you have one percent, yeah, totally look
pretty good, pretty good h logic A lot of times, Buck,
pretty good common sense.

Speaker 3 (54:53):
Sometimes people say mean things to truckers in traffic. It
happens so and they realize that they just have to
keep on trucking. They can't stop and beat them to
death because they don't like the thing that the guy
said to them from the windshield of his Hyundai or whatever.

Speaker 1 (55:08):
And sometimes truckers get behind Buck Sexton driving twenty four
miles an hour in a forty five, and they may
even say mean things to Buck. But that doesn't mean
as they sit there having to constantly hit their brake
because Miss Daisy is driving in front of them, I don't.

Speaker 3 (55:22):
I mean, I'm glad that some of us care about
safety on these roads. You know, not all heroes wear capes.
Some of us are a little heavy on the break.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Uh Brandon in Milwaukee. HH. What you got?

Speaker 9 (55:36):
As far as that word goes, I remember back in
high school having to read Huck Finn and even when
that word came on the paper, you felt uncomfortable sat
in it. And it should be uncomfortable because it's a
terrible word. But completely getting rid of its existence, I
think it's kind of dangerous because then it doesn't highlight
how terrible the times were when that word was popular,

(55:57):
so got to be terrible.

Speaker 1 (55:59):
I think that's a good look. I would just go
back in time. George Carlin is dead now. I think
George Carlin, legendary comedian, would have been fairly classified some
of you can correct me if I'm wrong, as a
left leaning comic right. In other words, I think his
politics would have tended to lean left. Maybe I'm wrong,
but he did his entire was it seven words you

(56:21):
can't say basically on television, which by the way, we
still can't say on the FCC. And it became very,
very popular in the parlance, I believe, in the nineteen
seventies because it illustrated the absurdity of trying to define
words in how they're used. Context matters, you know, words
are used. I mean, some of the most popular rap

(56:42):
songs in America use the N word twenty times in
a you know, a two minute clip. And nowadays, college kids,
you see this happen all the time. Some college kid
is on video doing karaoke, wrapping along to a popular song.
It's not intended to be a racial slur. And then

(57:02):
the next thing you know, people are trying to cancel them,
or they go on social media and they post the
lyrics to a popular rap song, and the next thing,
you know, ten years later, somebody's like, oh my god,
can you believe what this person posted when they were fourteen?
Defining word use without analyzing context, I mean, think about this, Buck,

(57:23):
There's a huge difference between the way we use the
F word. It could be a compliment that was, you know,
as an adjective, you know, effing unbelievable as a positive.
It can also mean an insult. Right, we use context
to analyze, but whatever words you use, this should be
something that all adults should be behind. Violence should not

(57:45):
be the response. Now if someone says their exceptions to
this is the angry words thing.

Speaker 2 (57:50):
Buck.

Speaker 1 (57:50):
If somebody says I'm going to kill you and they
start to reach into their waistband and you think to yourself, oh,
my goodness, they may have a gun. Eight words that
are accompanied by action that would suggest violence might be
coming can be a legitimate self defense mechanism. But that's
not words standing alone. It's words in the context of

(58:13):
the possibility of a threat of physical violence.

Speaker 2 (58:15):
And I would just.

Speaker 3 (58:16):
Say, all of this goes to, are we going to
treat adults like adults or are we going to run
shrieking in the opposite direction when words that appear in
our delicate ears are considered to be unacceptable. But this
is all just you know that there is no real
ethical standard being applied here because the word is so terrible.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
But some people can use it, but.

Speaker 1 (58:40):
In super popular songs that make them tens of millions
of dollars.

Speaker 3 (58:44):
Right, Yeah, I mean a lot of comedians for the
last three two or three decades that that's like the
favorite word that they use when they're on stage all
the time. But so they can do it all the time,
but you do it, your life should be ruined. No,
I'm sorry, disagree, disagree just flatly. They think that that
is a that is a social really a socially enforced

(59:07):
law of sorts.

Speaker 2 (59:08):
That is wrong. It's just wrong.

Speaker 3 (59:11):
So and I the only way that it's gonna get
broken unfortunately, and this is going to really is that
people are going to start to be more liberal with it,
with the use of that word. And some people who
are liberal with it, by the way, are not going
to be good people who are doing it in a
well intentioned way, but they're gonna hide me. They're gonna say, see,
double standards, I'm breaking the double standard by you. You know,

(59:31):
this is how these things go. Well, you know, the
censorship and these things that it does not end. It
does not end the way that the people in charge
of the censorship usually wanted to. All right, look, if
you believe in the life of a child, an on
Boord child, then you share my anguish thinking about what's
happening to children's lives lost to abortion day in and

(59:51):
day out. Nearly one in four pregnancies ends this way.
But there's a nonprofit on the front line saving as
many lives as possible preborn. Their network clinics have saved
three hundred and fifty thousand babies a year to date.
The preborn clinics across the country provide unconditional support and
love for pregnant moms who are making that difficult decision.
But they start them off with care, love, support, and

(01:00:14):
a free ultrasound because once mom meets her tiny baby
in the womb through that ultrasound, the game is changed
and life becomes so much more likely. And they have
numbers to back this up. This is how they're saving
so many lives. Twenty eight dollars is the cost of
an ultrasound. Your tax deductible donation can be the difference
between life and death for a tiny baby. Have you

(01:00:36):
donated to preborn? I have, and I know my donation
is being used to save lives. Your gift of twenty
eight dollars a month, or if you have the means,
there's somebody out there who could do a leadership gift
this holiday season. Remember this is tax deductible. Preborn is
an A plus rated charity and you could donate an
entire ultrasound machine to a preborn clinic with fifteen thousand dollars.

(01:01:00):
I know that's a lot of money and times a tough,
right I'm not talking to all of you. I'm not
talking to one or two people in this audience right now,
who could donate a full ultrasound machine to a preborn clinic.
Think of how many thousands of babies that would contribute
to saving over the life cycle of that machine. To donate,
dial pound two five zero and say the keyword baby

(01:01:22):
pound two five zero, say baby, or donate securely at
preborn dot com, slash buck, preborn dot com, slash bucek
sponsored by Preborn.

Speaker 4 (01:01:32):
Making America great Again isn't just one man, It's many.
The Team forty seven podcast Sunday's at noon Eastern in
the Clay and Buck podcast feed. Find it on the
iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts.