The War of Testosterone

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
You are entering the freedom hunt. Welvandi gives a press
conference and people start battling it out over whether he
did say quid pro quos happened in Ukraine. Also Maddis
mox Trump, a major shootout with Mexican drug cartels, and
the war on testosterone ATAM more coming up on The

(00:31):
buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American. Ready, you're a
great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a
great guy. Now, welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody.

(00:57):
Wonderful Friday here in NYC, mid late October really probably
my favorite time of year in this town. The weather's great,
good things happening here. So very much pleased that you
can be joining us. For people like me who don't
like the super hot weather, this is better. You know,
I get too sweaty, you know what I mean? Producer Brandon,
producer branded in the house today for producer Mark who

(01:19):
what is he in like Tahiti or something? Pre is
he on pre honeymoon scouting? Is that or Tahiti? Pittsburgh
it's all. It's all the same. It's all the same,
all right. So we've got some important stuff to get
to today. Oh, a little bit of testimony that comes
out that a State Department official told Congress that he
thought that hunter Biden's Ukraine dealings. This is back in

(01:42):
twenty fifteen. We're a little shady, maybe, but they were ignored.
Of course they were shady. We'll get it. We'll get
into that for sure. Also, we have a ceasefire between
Turkey and the Syrian Kurds. We've got General Maddis out
there mocking Trump, which look, Trump mocks Maddis. Maddis can
mock Trump. We're all I expect everyone to be big
boys in this world, and that's just the way it is.

(02:04):
We'll talk perhaps about that. We'll have our friend Andy
McCarthy joining us later on to talk about impeachment stuff,
and my man Yone Grillo from down in Mexico where
he's been one of the best international journalists covering the cartels,
he'll tell us about I mean, there's video out there
that's just it's jaw dropping of cartel members with fifty

(02:27):
caliber rifles getting into gun battles with Mexican police and
federalis and it's all about the arrest of a major
cartel member anyway. So there's twelve police officers have been
ambushed and the last and murdered in the last forty
eight hours alone in one incident in Mexico. So some
stuff happening there. So you've got a Friday. We're going

(02:47):
to cover a lot of ground. But I wanted to
start with something that is a little bit of a
departure from what is at the top of the news
cycle right now, because we'll get into that. Sure, you
listen to the show, so you know that I will
cover the most important news stories of the day every day.
But I wanted to switch the switch to the script
also because yesterday I had said to you that I

(03:11):
was going to cover this topic, and then I did
not cover this topic. So here's I just forgot. Because
we're in the midst of rocking and rolling with the show.
It just seemed to me like I had so many
other things that I had to get to. The war
on testosterone. I think yesterday I referred to it as
whether testosterone has an effect on or has any connection

(03:32):
to masculinity. Harvard University Press put out a tweet I
think since deleted that raised the question does testosterone have
a connection to masculinity in any way, shape or form.
A lot of people looked at this and thought, yes,

(03:54):
it does. And it's in reference though to a book,
but a book that's part of a much larger effort.
The book is written by a woman from I think
Brooklyn College, Katrina car Kazis, and she has written a
book that is about testosterone, the Myths of Testosterone, and

(04:16):
she was interviewed in GQ magazine. Remember the basic myth
and we'll go through some of the details here, is
that testosterone has anything to do with masculinity. That's really
the myth that they're trying to tackle. And this is
how the interview in GQ magazine published this week went,
how do you think the idea that masculinity is rooted
in biology impacts the ways that our society view gender?

(04:39):
And the author writes, as me too was heating up.
There was a conversation between writers Roth Dolfin and Rebecca Treyster.
She asked him what's the root of this and he
said testosterone. I think he was joking, but people believe
that and if we accept that gender hierarchies are tied
to evolution in biology, then it seems impos able to change.

(05:01):
So let's just understand. This is establishing right away what
the purpose of this book is that gender characteristics are
not only not only are they not deeply rooted in
us at the cellular level, that there's really no biological
basis for gender differences sex differences. They will say, of course,
there is a physical difference between a male and a

(05:22):
female body, but gender difference is intrinsic to the body,
and therefore, in our psychology that is to be rejected.
And now this is the recurring effort. It's not the
first time this has happened. And I'll get into that,
to pretend that science backs up this idea that there
is no such thing as a genetic gender difference. Okay,

(05:46):
and she continues on to this. Remember this isn't GQ magazine.
There's trying to put this out there for people in
the pop culture world who don't know very much, not
even about science. Very few of us, let's let's be honest,
very few of us have a science background very much
about including really this author. By the way of the book,
I'll deal with that This is another moment that when

(06:07):
you look at the bio the background of someone who's
being held up as a visionary in the field, like
Bill Nye, the science guy. Hey, Bill Nye, the science guy,
better deal with climate change. I'm a scientist. Man. Turns
out Bill now the science guy. You know what, he
has an undergraduate degree, Producer Brandon, in mechanical engineering. But
that means he's a climate expert. Undergrad degree, not even

(06:29):
a master's mechanical engineering. So you got that going for you,
Bill Nye the science Guy. This author Katrina carkazis who
who has written a book here on whether testosterone has
any effect on gender. She is a cultural anthropologist. And

(06:49):
I will admit to you now it probably shouldn't admit
this on this show. I once took a class and
called a cultural anthropology in college, and it was the
ultimate what we called class like joke class. It was
a class that you took if you knew you were
going to be hungover on Friday's. This was the class
that you took because what are you really? What are

(07:11):
we re learning in cultural anthropology? It's really sociology as
applied to history. So it's just a big it's just
all a big left wing scan. Really. I'm sure there's
some relevance, just like there's some stuff in sociology that's
interesting or relevant, but it has become a discipline that
is dominated by the left. Cultural anthropology is entirely dominated
by the left. So she has a PhD in that

(07:33):
no medical science background, a social science background that's made
to sound a little bit like it's more sciency, and
then we go on here. In this interview in GQ magazine,
author has asked again about the testoster industry. She writes
that testosterone often gives men a pass for their negative
behavior and a pass for their success. With Titans of

(07:58):
Wall Street, for example, testosterone didn't have anything to do
with those men reaching the highest level in their field.
There are other structures that elevated men and suppressed women.
If biology and testosterone aren't the explanation, then we have
much harder work to do of addressing the social causes.
This is very straightforward, folks. The scientific community, which unfortunately

(08:19):
now is riddled with activists all over the place, and
particularly the social sciences, soft science is posing as real science.
That's even worse, they are trying to undo what we
already know about biology and science and gender. Then is asked, so,
if we move away from the idea that biology explains
the behavior we associate with gender, how could we open

(08:41):
the definition of masculinity a little wider in our culture?
I hope that she responds that we can stop attaching
so many behaviors to masculinity as though they're exclusively the
province of men, because they often happen to be things
that are valued, like risk taking or athleticism. Conversely, I
think we're reaching a point where we can shove more
under the umbrella of masculinity, men staying home and parenting

(09:03):
their children, or addressing their feelings in public in ways
that are currently understood as non masculine. There are many
things that are shared human behavior, et cetera. Folks, This
is all about writing a book, which is part of
a broader movement, by the way, as you know, the
movement right now, the obsession of the progressive left is
to undo what we already know about gender and gender

(09:27):
roles and to say that it's a spectrum and it's fluid.
In fact, I would argue this woman probably has a
PhD in gender fluidity, which is really what this is
the active is cause there are men and women are
not distinct in any meaningful way. It's always a social construct. Well,
if it's a social construct, that means that we can
reconstruct that part of our society and nothing will stop that.

(09:50):
Boys aren't a little bit more rambunctious and aggressive in
the sandbox and don't want to play with dinosaurs and
dump trucks because they're boys, it's because we make them.
And girls don't like dresses and don't like things that
are a little bit more associated with the feminine and
don't want to know, bake cupcakes or whatever in the
easy bake of it. They don't do that because the
women's because we make them do it. Unfortunately, thousands of

(10:13):
years of human history and who knows how long we
could go back in our evolutionary history, prove that to
be untrue. And science, which has xx and x y
chromosome in every single cell of the human body differentiating
between male and female, also proves that to be untrue.
And this is not the first time this movement of
erasing genders has been trying to appropriate science for what

(10:39):
is clearly a social cause. By the way the erasing
of gender does a lot of things. It's it's part
of radical equality. It often translates this was the Soviet
Union is very interested in in erasing traditional gender roles.
Gotta have women, Gotta have women in the factories too.
The state will take care of your babies. This state
will take who does that sound like? By the way, wow,

(11:00):
have you universal child care for everybody? And only the
rich people will pay for it? The senator from Massachusetts. So,
gender roles are under attacked by the left for very power,
very important, very powerful reasons. This is not just an

(11:20):
intellectual exercise and that which starts in the academy and
starts with somewhat fringe books or publications like this. Although
GQ is certainly relatively mainstream, it's very left wing. By
the way. I've picked it up occasional in the airport,
I was like, oh, it should be g Kami boom.
But the good news is that there are actual, real

(11:41):
scientists out there, like Heather Heying. I will address her
criticisms of this book, of this denial of biological reality
that is at the heart of so much progressive gender
neutrality stuff. I'll base it off of some of her work.

(12:19):
All right, So we're talking about testosterone. An unauthorized biography
a new book that's out there right now which sounds
like it could be a book with schwartzon egg on
the cova and he's he's doing the flexing and he's like, hey,
I don't want to Why are you looking at me
like I'm crazy? I'm saying it could You don't know
what the book's about until you write you must be

(12:40):
using all the testosterone for the muscle growth. But it
turns out that's not what the books about it all.
The book is written by a left wing PhD academic
who's trying to tell you that there's no link between
testosterone and what we think of as male behavior or
male male tendencies. And the basic argument that is leveled

(13:00):
for this is that because women have testosterone as well,
it can't be that testosterone causes these things because women
have it too. Well, that's a stupid argument because men
also have estrogen as well as testosterone. So it's about
the biochemical balance in one system and cellular structure and
things that, quite honesty, science is really just beginning to

(13:23):
fully understand or research in any capacity. But it's much
easier to just say, well, testosterone has nothing to do
with gender roles, has nothing to do with As I said,
what why are are men more aggressive than women in general?
I mean, look at look at statistics about assaults over
ninety percent. I think it's over ninety five percent. Might

(13:43):
didn't be over ninety nine percent, but it's definitely over
ninety percent of violent assaults in this country are committed
by men. All right, So I guess I'm I'm gender
bashing my own gender right now. We are We are
more violent than the ladies out there than than females.
Is that social construct or? Is that just because men
are different than women? It's a very interesting, very interesting question,

(14:06):
isn't it? Also? Why are men generally larger, heavier, physically
stronger these sorts than women? Is that a social constructors?
Because men and women? Now you might say, buck, this
is such a this is ridiculous. We all know these things. Ah, yes,
But the true radical progressives subverts that which you know
to be true and forces you to bend the knee.

(14:28):
It doesn't matter how obvious the truth is. In fact,
it is an exercise of their power to make you
abandoned things that could not be more intuitive, more obvious,
more based, in reason and rationality. If they can make
you say men and women are the same, they can
make you say anything. Ah. Now it all starts to
make sense as a means of remaking society, doesn't it.

(14:50):
I mentioned to you that there fortunately is still some
sanity out there in the science world. And this from
an actual biologist named Heather Heying, who has come under
a lot of attack from the left for a bunch
of reasons, probably because she still bases things in biology
and science. So she wrote today in a thread, I

(15:13):
haven't read the book in question, Testosterone and Unauthorized Biography,
but it claims to debunk the idea that testosterone and
masculinity are connected. It is full of confirmation bias. If
this is true, it has zero evidence of evolutionary or
statistical thinking. Then she goes on into some further detail here. Luckily,

(15:34):
in a biology department in the mid nineties, declaring that
females and males behave differently and are assumed to have
asymmetrical interest was not yet a cancellable offense. See, this
is all part of cancel culture too. Cancel culture extends
to science. Say something people don't like, and you have
to get fired. You can't be a scientist anymore, even
if it's rooted in scientific fact. The truth can be

(15:54):
too dangerous to society. In fact, scientific truth can be
too dangerous to society the left believe. Heather goes on,
here we are in twenty nineteen with an esteemed university press,
Harvard publishing garbage pseudo research, and glossy magazines jumping on
the let's hate on all that men are and might
be bandwagon. If this subset of women really thinks that

(16:17):
female dominated leadership and ways of being are the right
move into the future, how about they model awesomeness in
that realm. Instead, what we get from these radical left
feminists is a mix of hateful, uninvestigative, juvenile, snarky pap.
She says that she looked into this question in the
nineteen nineties specifically, and guess what testosterone is very much

(16:42):
responsible for, not just physical changes right deeper voice, beard,
Hey beard, there we go, producer Brandon, or your beard
is way more masculine than mine, body hair, all these things.
You see this as a teenager. We know these things
from just living that testosterone is real and changes things,
but that also has a change in behavior. They researched this.

(17:03):
Back in the nineteen nineties, there was this movement to say, oh,
testosterona and shirt. Here we are again being told that
this is not there's no connection at all, and it's
a denial of reality. And that's what so much of
left wing based science turns into very quickly, whether it's
climate change or this or people that there's you know

(17:28):
when you talk about when life begins. There's all these
different areas where the science is rejected by the left,
but on gender specifically, they are aggressive about it. The
left is aggressive about to nine gender, as I told you,
because if you can eradicate gender roles, you can completely
remake society in a pure Marxist authoritarian mold. That's really

(17:49):
I know it sounds crazy, but it's the eradication of
the family because family roles entirely change the state raises children.
That is the goal here, and they're trying to leverage
pseudoscience to do it. Oh, so what do we have
coming up? I'm glad we talked about the war on testosterone,
which some people might just say the war on testosterone
is vox dot com, but you know, there's there's a

(18:11):
war on testosterone that's going on out there in the
scientific community. I want to talk to you about the
ceasefire in Turkey, will hop though into the latest impeachment
RUCKUS as well, and this situation in Mexico is just
a reminder that we have a deeply corrupt, unstable, violent
neighbor to our south in Mexico, and there's not a

(18:34):
whole lot of media coverage of it. And I'd like
to address why that is. He's back with you now,
because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
fuck never stops. We started to negotiate, and I think

(19:14):
that obviously the sanctions and tarifts who are going to
be very biting. I'm glad we don't have to do it.
We'll be taking them off very quickly as soon as
this is finalized. But this is an incredible outcome. This
outcome is something they've been trying to get for ten years, everybody,
and they couldn't get it other administrations, and they never

(19:35):
would have been able to get it unless you went
somewhat unconventional. I guess I'm an unconventional person. So there's
a ceasefire that the President his team, really it was
Pence and Pompeo negotiated for Turkey and the Kurds and
the President. They're touting it as a huge, a huge victory. Unfortunately,

(19:57):
shelling is reportedly already underway once again, so there's still
some fighting between Turkish and Syrian forces. The President says,
though this is a I'm sorry Turkish and Kurdish forces,
Kurdish Syrian forces, and President says that this is a
good thing. And to that I would just I would
say that the amount of outrage that I've seen generated

(20:20):
on the left and the right over what would really
be a couple of days of fighting. Now, granted it
is between a NATO ally and an ally of ours
on the ground, the Kurdish YPG militia, the Syrian Defense Forces,
but the amount of outrage and the effort to try
to make it seem that President Trump is responsible for

(20:42):
all of what's gone on in Syria, that this civil
war that's killed the half a million people, stretching back
to twenty eleven, twenty twelve, that Trump, who's been in
office only for a few years, and during that time
the violence has been considerably less in the Syrian Civil

(21:03):
War than it was in the latter part of the
Obama administration or even in the really the second Obama
terms when most of the heavy fighting was going on there,
and everything is Trump's fault somehow. The situation of Syria,
which has been unstable. I mean, go back and look,
you'll see that the French were bombing Syria at one point.

(21:24):
The amount of fighting that I mean I'm talking about
back now, and the I think was the nineteen it
was after the First World War in nineteen twenties. Maybe.
I mean, there's been fighting going on in this part
of the world for a very long time. These factions
on the ground are going after each other and have
been for as long as they've been around. It is
just a place where you're going to see continued instability

(21:48):
and violence. There's just no way around that. We promised
the Kurds their own state, or I mean the international
community I should say, promised the Kurds their own state
back in the day, in the time of Woodrow Wilson.
Never actually happened. The Kurds or the largest stateless people
in the world. So there are anywhere from twenty to
forty million people of Kurdish ethnicity and depending on which

(22:11):
number you take, but they're still the largest non stated
or non state minority in the world, and they are
spread out really along Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. That's
where the Kurdish population is mostly found. And we wanted
to give them a state, but we don't have a

(22:31):
state for them, and it's not going to happen anytime soon.
And so the situation now is we've told the Turks
back off, and there might still be some shelling and
some fighting here and there, but it sounds like or
at least there's the possibility that they may really indeed
back off, and the Kurds are building some kind of

(22:51):
alliance with the Assad regime in Syria, which would be
helpful not just for pushing back on Turkish incursions into
Syria in territory, by the way, but also against the
Islamic state. What is a better circumstance that we have.
And by the way, it was fifty soldiers we're talking
about moving. People really have been reporting on this like

(23:11):
like it was Pearl Harbor or nine to eleven, it
was some catastrophic event that would change an era. It
was some fighting in a place where there's been basically
endless fighting stretching back now seven or eight years with
hundreds of thousands of people killed. So why the focus
on this as such a horrific event. And I might look,

(23:32):
all all war is bad, every casualty is a tragedy.
This is it's a nasty situation of there's no question
about it. And for the US Special Forces soldiers who
were embedded with these Kurds to have to leave them
in this way unexpectedly, I can understand why they feel
very upset about that. But the commander in chief, the
President United States, is trying to make a decision that

(23:53):
will get us out of a mission creep situation in Syria.
And I mean, I remember when it was considered wise
to avoid any US boots on the ground in Syria.
I remember when that was the conventional wisdom. And now
we have boots in the ground in Syria and we're
being told, well, they won't stay there that long and
and there won't be much of an escalation. Really do

(24:15):
you trust that? Should any of us trust that? I
think we all know the answer. You know, Rand Paul
is saying we should get out of there. Trump is
saying we should get out of there. The Democrats would
be saying we should get out of there. Except it's
more important to them to have a few news cycles
where they can bash Trump than to make a decision

(24:37):
for national security that could and very likely would save
a lot of US lines down the line. It's just
more it's that's the truth. That's more important to them
to bash Trump than to do what is and what
they believed until Trump was president was in the interest
of US national security. And then they're also just lying
about things and saying things that are really stupid in
this process. Here's Nancy Pelosi play clip twice to the

(25:00):
subject of conversation. Yet, as you know, that was the
subject of conversation yesterday at the White House. I also
pointed out to the President I had concerns that then
l roads seemed to lead to putin. The Russians had
been trying to get a foothold in the Middle East
for a very long time, unsuccessfully, and now the President

(25:22):
has given them opportunity. That is blather. That is a
completely nonsense, garbage, factually untrue statement that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker
of the House, most powerful democrat in the country, just
said on national TV in front of everybody. Because it
was useful to the goal of bashing the president of

(25:44):
the United States. The Russians have been trying to get
a foothold unsuccessfully until Trump. I don't know if Nancy
is a moron, or if she's just never looked at
a map or doesn't know any history, or all of
the above. The Russians have had a ba in Tartus
on the Mediterranean for well since nineteen seventy one, over

(26:08):
forty years Russians have had a base there, So I'm
pretty sure a military base that can accept all Russian
nuclear sobs and Russian battleships and whatever else they've got.
Pretty sure that's a foothold when you have a base
on the Mediterranean that you've had for over forty years.

(26:29):
But then add to that the notion that unsuccessfully the
Russians all roads lead to Putin. This is part of
the Putin's puppet narrative, the Nancy plosa. This is why
you can't trust these people. And they talk about national
security because it's all about political advantage for them. They
have no real interest in doing what is best for
the country, and their criticism is rooted in hatred of

(26:51):
Trump more than it is hatred of the enemy. This
is just the truth. The Russians, the Iranians. They flooded
in in spet SNAs Russian Special Forces, Iranian IRGC Revolutionary
Guard Corps. They showed Hezbulla fighters backed by the Iranians
flooding in from Lebanon. I was in the Syrian refugee

(27:16):
camps and talking to you and representatives there right after
Hezbulla fighters from Lebanon had just gone in and essentially
just eradicated a whole town on behalf of the regime.
And we're now being told by Nancy Pelosi that until
Trump came along, the Russians didn't have a foothold there
is That is idiocy, that's an It's an indefensible statement,

(27:39):
not only because of the base, but because the Russians
went into Syria and turned the tide of that war
for the Assad regime. While Obama was like, let's not
get too involved, let's not do anything here. Don't want
to be Bush. Can't be Bush. That was the sum
total of the thinking of the foreign piles. It was
really two things. Actually, can't be Bush and the Obama
administration wanted to make sure that whatever they were doing,

(28:03):
whatever we try to do in Syria, wouldn't upset the
Iranians too much. Remember, the Iranians back the Assad regime.
The Russians are tied to the Iranians. The Russians back
the Assad regime, and the Iranians back Lebanese Hezbollah next
door to Syria that also backs the Assad regime. And
really Lebanon's a client state of Syria. But that's a

(28:25):
whole other discussion. But with all of that, the storyline
here is that Trump gave the opening. It wasn't the
Russian bombing of Aleppo, for example, which was indiscriminate and
vicious on behalf of the regime. It wasn't. That wasn't
a foothold or Russian paramilitaries and intelligence officers on the ground.

(28:46):
We blew up the Trump administration. President Trump as Commander
Chief blew up two hundred Russian paramilitaries in the desert
in eastern Syria who are on their way to attack
our Kurdish allies. That's a pretty heavy day of losses,
isn't it. Oh and those are Russians. They were not
officially Russian military, but they're Russian paramilitary. And now, as

(29:07):
I'm talking about this, not only Nancy Pelosi lying about it,
but who really thinks that we're going to be able
to figure this mess out better than Iraq, better than Afghanistan.
What evidence is there that the political settlement that people
talk about now as though that's just going to happen.
It's kind of like a people talk about a negotiated
settlement with the Taliban. I'm sitting here waving my hand saying, hey, guys,
I would look, I spent a lot of time in

(29:28):
Afghanistan about ten years ago. We're here in the same
thing then that we're here, and now the security situation
was just as bad, really actually worse now than it
was then. It's the same story all over you. Oh,
we can't leave until we have a negotiated seliment with
the talent. We're not going to negotiate it seling with
the Taliban. I mean, nothing that's worth the paper that
it's printed on. So do we want to do? We

(29:50):
want to live in reality before we're talking about people
using pseudoscience to justify the eradication of gender roles, and
it's just a denial of reality. Are we going to
deny reality in the Middle East too? I'm hearing all
these voices of people who sound like, oh, we could
we could never have been okay, when could we? At
what point would it be safe to quote abandon the courage?
Remember we still have a thousand troops there and we're

(30:10):
going around leveling sanctions against a NATO ally to get
them to stop attacking the Kurds. A that's a pretty
big deal. When would it be safe for us to
leave when Syria's stable? When Syria's stable, but not because
the Assad regime has taken over these areas. This is absurd.

(30:32):
Who's the government of Syria? We don't want to say it.
And there was a whole regime change mantra under the
Obama administration. Who's the government of Syria? Here's the answer?
The Assad regime. Doesn't feel good to say it. It's
not right. Shouldn't be the case, guys, A butcher. What's
the alternative? Who what's the other answer? When you look

(30:52):
at this, when you put the chess pieces on the
board and look at things as they are and not
as we either wish them to be or and don't
get alinded by all this anti Trump criticism or this
Trump is the worst person ever, worst commander in chief ever,
not fit for the office. Look at what's really going
on what were you supposed to do, Get a negotiated

(31:14):
settlement with what? In what? That's better than we have
right now in what way? Now there's this buffer zone
that Turkey's talking about thirty kilometers along the Turkish Syrian border.
But the Assad regime working with the Kurds and having
an alliance with the Kurds that will be useful for
suppressing the Islamic State. I'm not saying Asad wouldn't be

(31:34):
willing to use the radicals for his own purpose at
some point in the future, But you know, alliance has
changed the middle of least all the time up to
this point, the Jihadis of the Islamic State have wanted
to kill Assad and his whole family and everybody who
works for him and take over. So Assad and the
Kurds can box in Isis and keep it from being resurgent.
That's much better than what we've been dealing with. We

(31:56):
help the Kurds in their own territory, by the way,
defend themselves and then go and eradicate the Islamic States.
So they've gotten a big benefit out of this too.
They lived there, We didn't air drop them in from nowhere.
We're like, hey, can you go do this fighting first
in a country you've never been to. We were helping
the courage protect their villages, their towns, their lives. But

(32:17):
all of a sudden, this is a simple issue. Trump
is evil. Trump is basically worse than Hitler, and everything
he does is terrible. That's the subtexts of a lot
of the foreign policy criticism that I'm seeing. And you
can say, how could we abandon the Kurds? I keep
pointing out, what were we supposed to do? Yeah? Should
we have given them more warning? Absolutely? Should the President
have gone about this as quickly as he did and

(32:39):
what seemed like a somewhat haphazard fashion. Probably not. But
is he right on these strategic importance of not allowing
us to get drawn deeper into this conflict. Let the
Russians and the Turks and the Kurds and the Syrians
and the Iranians, let them figure this out. It's really
not our problem. And people don't seem to want to
hear that for some reason, as they so they want

(33:02):
as though they want another generation of Americans from you know, everywhere,
from from coast to coast, showing up and fighting over
there for people who in many cases don't want us there,
aren't grateful we're there, are attacking us, and even if
we do stabilize our country for them, they'll say, you know,
thanks and kick us in the butts on the way out.

(33:23):
Get out. No done, Let other people do this. Would
I go fight? I'll ask you what I go? Or
how about this? Because I never saw the military serve
in the CIA. Would I joined up in the agency
and and go deploy and go try to help out things?
Right now? To patrol the streets of Rocca. I would
want to do that, Not that I'd be patrolling the streets,

(33:45):
but you know, I wouldn't want to have that be
something yeah, counterterrorism, things like that, But we don't need
to have a major military presence in Syria to do that,
and we shouldn't. Yeah, but this is where we are, folks.
It's all it's really just all about attacking Trump. That's
what this is all about. I do stand before you,

(34:23):
as was noted here, really having a chief greatness. I mean,
I'm not just an overrated general. I am the greatest,
the world's most overrated. And this is no small part.
I would tell you I owe New York, I owe

(34:45):
New York for this because Senator Schumer have I thank
you for bringing my name up in a rather contentious
meeting in Washington where this grew out of. So I
would just tell you too that I'm honored to be
considered that by by Donald Trump. Because he also called
Meryl Streep an overrated actress. So I guess I'm the

(35:07):
Meryl Streep of generals, and frank you, that sounds pretty
good to me. Look, General Maddis, I've heard from some
of you who served under him and know him. You
guys say that he's great. I don't know him, and
you know the guy. You can't question the depth and
duration of what he did for his country. So and

(35:29):
he's allowed. He's allowed to Trump is going to poke
at him, He's allowed to poke back, no question about it.
I think Meryl Streep is kind of overrated. I was
gonna say, why is you the best actress of all time?
Who says so? I don't know. So maybe maybe I'm
in the minority here, but I just think that calling
him the Meryl Streep of actress of generals rather, I

(35:52):
do think she's overrated. So there's that. I mean, not
as overrated as Bruce Springsteen, for example, as a musician,
where are you on Bruce Springsteen? Brandon? A little overrated?
He's all right, but I'm not over rated. Let's just
be honest about it. But a little over it. I'll
take that one from me. At least you're not a
Bruce Springsteen super fan. Not a super fan. Plus I

(36:13):
don't hate them, but yeah, you know whatever. Global Verification
Network the only duals certified, veteran owned background investigation and
vetting company. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago, but
they can handle your background checks anywhere across the country.
And as you know, background checks are absolutely essential to

(36:34):
your hiring process and to the health and future of
your business. So you need people that you can trust,
who don't outsource the work, who don't subcontract it out
to foreign entities, and also maintain control of the servers
and all data that you give them at all times.
Global Verification Network works with startups all the way up
to Fortune one hundred companies, and all their employees are

(36:56):
located here in the United States. A veteran owned, all
American background check company. Global Verification Network for all your
background check needs, any size company, any industry, anywhere in
the country call eight seven seven six nine, five one
one seven nine. Again that's Global Verification Network at eight
seven seven six nine five eleven seventy nine. Buck Sexton remission,

(37:20):
decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence Magno mistake,
American bring You're a great American Again, this is the
buck Sexton Show activated former CIA analysts remember at buck Sexton.
No that he also mentioned to me in the past

(38:50):
the corruption related to the d NC server. Absolutely, no
question about Dan. But that's it, and that's why we
held up the money. Now there was a report demand
for an investigation to the Democrats was part of the
reason that he it was on the to withhold funding
to the look back to what happened in twenty sixteen
certainly was part of the thing that he was worried

(39:10):
about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely
in the funding. Yeah, to be clear, you just described
as a quid pro quo. It is funding will not
flow unless the investigation into the into the Democratic server,
Uh happened as well? We do. We do that all
the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money
at the same time for what was it the Northern

(39:32):
Triagal countries. We're holding up eight at the Northern triagal
And countries so that they so that they would change
their policies on immigration. And I have news for everybody.
Get over it. There's going to be political influence in
foreign policy. I'm talking to mister Carl. That is going
to happen. Elections have consequences, and foreign policy is going
to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration.

(39:54):
The quid pro quo. Oh my gosh, they've got him now.
They finally managed to get the why House cheapest to
have Mulvaney to say this stuff. My friends. There was
a flurry on media yesterday. Oh, people were all just
so up in arms about the whole thing. There was

(40:17):
a flurry of folks out there who were all saying that,
ah see, Adam Schiff, it's been made so much worse.
Now they've admitted it. They've admitted it. Okay, let's look
at what he actually said. Mick mulvaney is telling this
press conference of rapidly anti Trump reporters, almost all of them,

(40:38):
that yes, there was a consideration of continuing military aid
to Ukraine. There was a consideration about whether that would
happen based on, in part, whether they would tell us
what happened with the DNC server in twenty sixteen CrowdStrike.
CrowdStrike was funded by Ukrainians. There's this strange twenty sixteen

(41:02):
election Ukrainian connection, and there's also concerns about corruption and
they wanted that to be looked at. That is not
the same thing as telling the Ukrainians, hey, you have
to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, or
else we are going to withhold military funds from your country.

(41:25):
That is not the same they're gonna say it is.
It's not the same thing. And then Mulvani's talking about
how there are quid pro quos and foreign policy all
the time. Of course there are, of course there are.
Whether he mentioned the Northern Triangle countries Honduras, El Salvador
and Guatemala being told, look, you guys got to help

(41:47):
us more on some of these immigration issues, and we're
gonna stop sending you checks courtesy of the American taxpayer.
In fact, think about it this way, it would be absurd.
You could very clearly argue it would be somewhat insane
for there not to be a quid pro quo in
aspects of foreign policy. The question is just is there

(42:09):
a legitimate reason for the quid on our side? Is
there some basis for it, whether it's help and foreign policy.
So now we have to get do is it a
legitimate line of inquiry for the President of the United
States to push the Ukrainians or for his foreign policy
and to push the Ukrainians to look at possible hacking

(42:32):
involving the DNC servers and Ukrainian CrowdStrike and who looked
at what and what they found out and Russia collusion
origins stretching by the twenty sixteen, which the dj is
actively investigating now. In fact, Durham Up in Connecticut, the
US Attorney is looking at exactly that issue. And there's
some interesting meeting in Italy and looks like we might

(42:55):
be finding out some more about mister mif Sued pretty
soon here. Remember mif Sued was part of the getting
Papadopolis to tell Downer, the Australian diplomat, that he had
heard something about Hillary's emails in the hands of the Russians.
Remember that guy miff Sued. Who is he? Why do
we know so little about him? And we know more

(43:16):
the journals do more to find out about somebody who
posts an anti CNN video meme online than they do
about mith Sued who may be the point man for
an entrapment scheme to begin the entire Russia collusion farce
against President Trump. But is it illegitimate to look into
corruption Ukraine? Is it illegitimate to try to find answers

(43:38):
to these questions? Of course not so if there's a
legitimate purpose that it would also be bad for Democrats
and benefit Trump. Does not make it illegal for sure,
and doesn't make it unethical, makes it too bad for
the Democrats. And that's really what mulvanny was saying there,
which is, you know, first of all, quid pro quos.
Foreign policy is largely based on that you do this

(44:01):
for me, I'll do this for you. You pay us
this money, we'll give you this trade deal. You know,
you help us on this foreign nation stabilization mission, and
we'll give you this check for aid, you know, whatever
it may be. It happens all the time. People are
using this term quid pro quo like like it's some
sort of in itself a smoking gun. Oh you did

(44:22):
something for someone and they did something for you. And
foreign policy that must be bad. But this is what happened,
the Trump's arrangement syndrome. It fries the synapses of people's brains.
They can't really, they can't really function anymore in the
normal plane of human reason and understanding the quid pro quo. Oh,
we found the quid pro quo. Move then he's like, yeah,
we found the quid pro quo. But now he's everyone's

(44:43):
trying to say, oh, and he's got to walk it
back because it's unclear, and he made this situation worse. Well,
it's because they've created this frenzy around that term, so
that when he says, yeah, there is a quid pro quo,
let's they see he's admitted, but he's not admitting to
what they're saying. He's admitting to the Ukrainians did can't
even know that the aid was under review. How can

(45:04):
you have something that's it quit pro quo when you
don't even know what is being offered and what the
exchange is The answers you can't. But there's still Look,
they think the future of the country is at stake here,
and if you have to lie, if you have to
go along with a flimsy story. But you think that
the future of the country is really at risk. Is

(45:26):
that the right thing to do? I think the Democrats
certainly believe that it is. I think that they think
whatever they have to do at this point in order
to go after Trump is just fine. By the way,
the reality here is that impeachment is an anti democratic process.

(45:48):
Impeachment is elected officials deciding for political reasons to get
rid of a or start the process of removing a
president from power and from office. That we are even
considering this in the year twenty nineteen going into the
twenty twenty election, or rather that the Democrats are offering
this up as a necessary corrective, just goes to show

(46:11):
you how corrupted their mentality has become with regard to democracy,
our system of government, our sacred institutions. I don't care
about any of it. This is just a pure power play.
It is malice wrapped in revenge, or perhaps revenge wrapped
in malice. That's what this is. A Nancy Pelosi more

(46:35):
or less admitted as much that this is not about
really what the voters want, although I'm seeing these polls
that say fifty two percent fifty two percent of American
people want Trump want the impeachment inquiry to continue. Well,
first of all, that's because the way they've set it up,
this is what's all propaganda, folks, it's all it's all
a game. It's all wrong. And if I were analyzing this,

(46:56):
if we're back in the CI and analyzing this as
though I was looking in a foreign country, I'd say, oh,
this is quite clear. What they're doing is calling it
an impeachment inquiry and just the very term. And the
Democrats can set their own rules here what is the process,
and they're supposed to respect the processes of the past
and impeachment. They're not doing that, of course, but by
calling it an inquiry, it make it sound like it's

(47:17):
an investigation. Of course, you want the answers in an investigation,
just like the Muller probe. Right, how could you not
want the Muller probe to be completed? Don't we want answers?
How could you want the impeachment inquiry to not be completed?
Don't you want answers? Oh? I guess yeah, I want
to answer sure. Ah. So, therefore, the public supports the
impeachment inquiry, and very very soon that will morph into well,

(47:39):
the public must support impeachment then, because why else would
you have an impeachment inquiry is it's all dishonesty. It's
all just meant to mislead people, to mobilize the anti
Trump left and to give the Democrats a political weapon
against him. Oh but here's what Pelosi play clip six.
Please keep saying that people, impeachment is about the truth

(48:03):
and the constitution of the United States, any other issues
that you have, disapproving of the way the president has
dealt with Syria, whatever this subject is, reluctance, cowardice to
do something about gun violence, the cruelty of not wanting
to help our dreamers and transgender people, the denial about

(48:24):
a climate crisis that we face. The list goes on.
That's about the election. That has nothing to do with
what is happening in terms of our oath of office
to protect and defend the Constitution and the facts that
might support And we don't know where this path will
take us, but could take us down a further path.

(48:44):
But these two are completely separate. But if we say,
let's let the voters decide, who said that, I'm saying,
at what point might you say, let's just no, no,
we the voters are not going to decide whether we
honor our oath of office. They already decided that in
the last Voters aren't going to decide this. Pelosi's coming
out and saying that, of course, and we know that

(49:05):
that's true. But I would also note that that list
that she rattled off about cowardice to do something on
gun violence, cruelty to trans people, climate change crisis, all
these things, that is actually what is pushing the impeachment,
all this stuff about process. They hate him because of
the policies, and they hate him because of who he is.

(49:25):
And then they've tried desperately to find some failure within
his conduct of the presidency to create the pretext or
remove him. But they hate him for all these other reasons.
They would find something in the process, but it's the
substance of Trump that they object to so much. It's

(49:46):
the substance of this president that they cannot abide by,
that they cannot accept. That's, my friends, that's what's really happening,
which is why Nancy Pelosi feels the need to tell us, Oh,
it's not about policy, that's for voters. This is about
something more than that. Oh yeah, like what violating his

(50:07):
oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. How
has he done that? Exactly? Where's the constitutional violation? Where's
the oath of office violation? Conducting foreign policy? What? What
is the what's the problem here? But they just say
these things and people believe it all. I guess you
must have violated his oath of office. That's really that
sounds really serious. Can have this guy around anymore? It's absurd.

(50:32):
But the Democrats are really an increasingly absurd bunch. I
wish we could go back to the mean. I wish
we could go back to some sense of Democrat political
normalcy for what I used to think of as a
Democratic party in the past, which was one that you
knew that these impulses were all under the surface for
totalitarian cancel culture and open borders and modern monetary theories.

(50:58):
Spend all the money you want, does matter. The rich
will pay for it. Even if they can't. We'll figure
it out. I all these you knew that it was there,
but they used to go through the motions of trying
to convince us that wasn't really what they're all about.
The Democratic Party today, it doesn't even try to hide
the crazy. The crazies dancing around the streets yelling we're
going strinkang. And with that, it's time we jump into

(51:18):
our segment, the Black Rifle Coffee Wake Up Call. Oh
how do you wake up every day? I gotta tell
you I do it with a cup of Black Rifle Coffee.
They have incredible varieties, different blends, delicious coffee, roast to order,
small back. So if you're somebody that's really into your
coffee like I am, I drinking a few times every day,
and you also want to support a great veteran owned

(51:39):
and operated company, please give my friends at Black Rifle
Coffee your coffee business. It's the best way you can
possibly go. They'll deliver it to your door every month
if you joined the coffee club, or you can just
buy one off to try it, but I think go
Coffee club right away. Black Rifle Coffee supports veterans and
first responders. Give them a ring. You'll see yourself. Get

(52:00):
your wake up call with Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black
Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck and get twenty percent
off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash
buck for twenty percent off your first purchase Black Riflecoffee,
dot Com, slash buck. To date, every single witness, every

(52:38):
single fact has not supported any aid, uh pause or
or hold up in foreign aid being attached to any conditions.
And that's been consistent with every witness that we've heard
from so far. Mark Meadows telling us, Look, the quid

(53:00):
pro quo has not been established behind closed doors either.
The fact that Democrats are even having these hearing behind
closed doors just tells you all you need to know
about whether this is really an issue of transparency and
accountability for government or if it's just dirty politics, which
of the Democrats are excelling at and have for a
long time, dirty politics. Look, the president's out there saying

(53:22):
straight up they're going to look into what happened in
the twenty sixteen election. Why is it the Democrats got
to run the Special Council, got to do all these things,
all these leftists, all these trumpeters, they got to have
their version of twenty sixteen, used the government to do it,
media beating the drums all along. This is what needs
to happen. Why can't there be an investigation of the
twenty sixteen election and the presentation of facts from it.

(53:46):
Based on the people who are duly constituted in office
right now with those powers. Here is our president talking
about this. Our country is looking into the corruption of
the twenty sixteen election. It was a corrupt election. Whether
it's Coomy or McCabe or Struck or his lover Lisa
Page and two great lovers, there was a lot of corruption.
Maybe it goes right up to President Obama. I happen

(54:09):
to think it does. What if that's true, By the way,
I think it does too. I don't know. I always
tell you what I know and don't know, but be
prepared for this possibility. We've been all along because of
what has been put out there, and obviously this is

(54:29):
always you're always swimming upstream trying to get answers about
the absurd theory that was used to destroy careers and lives.
And it's really just a rejection of the twenty sixteen
election results by crazy Democrats. But the theory that the
president worked with the Russians left no trail, worked with
the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen. I mean,

(54:50):
that's the basis of all this, the Russia collusion conspiracy stuff.
You look at all this and we know that Struck
and Page and McCabe, these very powerful figures within the
government hated Trump and abuse their powers against And that's now,
that's a matter of record, a matter of fact. What

(55:10):
we don't know and it will be very hard to
find out, and they will start to claim executive privilege,
and who knows how much other records already been destroyed.
We don't know is when did Obama know that there
was an investigation of the Trump campaign? Who briefed President
Obama on the efforts, let's say, to entrap Papadopolis or

(55:32):
to have Fiza on Carter page? Is it credible? Let's
just start with things that whether it's credible or not credible.
Is it believable that James Come at the FBI would
not have briefed Obama on an ongoing surveillance of not
one but two Trump campaign associates while there were also

(55:55):
concerns about Russian interference in the twenty upcoming twenty sixteen election.
Is that plausa? And what if it then becomes clear
that Obama knew that this was going on, At what
point do we take the next step of was he
encouraging it? Did you think that this is something that
should have gotten even further resources and attention. And what

(56:19):
would the media that now pretends to care so much
about truth transparency in the American way, how will they
react if, in fact, we ever get to the point
that it's clear President Obama himself knew. I mean, remember
all the unmasking requests. We've talked about the US persons
getting unmasked by very senior Obama administration officials. There was
all this stuff. We've never gotten answers about why were

(56:40):
they doing that? And you look back at the denials.
Then we didn't know quite as much about Brennan and
Komi and Clapper. I mean, these guys are loons, self
obsessed loons who hate Trump, and we're willing to do
very shady, abusive, unethical things. Wow, director of the CIA,

(57:02):
while the director of the FBI, I mean, really scary stuff.
He's holding the line for America buck sex in his back.

(57:44):
So I do think it is helpful to Democrats, in
terms of their electoral prospects, to as much as possible
focus on slogans about Trump being a traitor and being
crazy and on all these things, and avoid, for avoid
discussion of their actual policy choices, because not only are
their policy choices bad, they can't even really explain them.

(58:07):
They cannot answer very important, straightforward questions on the point
about how crazy though they think Trump is. I mean,
this is just a great example of anonymous source out
there telling us, oh, my gosh, Trump is a madman.
We can't handle him. What are we gonna do? What
are we gonna do? Play clip twenty three. My good man,

(58:28):
We've spoken to a Republican source who is in the room,
and I'm told that they were alarmed at his demeanor.
Quote everyone left completely shaken, shell shocked. He is not
in control of himself. It is all yelling and screaming.

(58:48):
And I asked the source, you know who's been in
many meetings with them, has it changed? Is it worse?
Because every week we talk about is it getting worse?
And the source said percent. I asked, are you worried
about his stability? And the source said yes. And the
source went on to talk to other senior Republicans who

(59:11):
were in the meeting. They were also shaken up. One
used the word sickened. And also they got a sense
of the Pentagon the generals who were there, and they
were very upset and the same thing that this, this
goes beyond, this is just enough enough enough, all right?

(59:33):
This is how many times do we go through this cycle?
This is its own new cycle. Trump is crazy. I
think we didn't move on to the twenty fourth Amendment
because he's crazy. They did this before, the year ago,
year before that. To this CNN reporter talking about her source,
if I were in the room with the President of

(59:54):
the United States, and I truly believed, beyond any reasonable
doubt that the president was having the equivalent of a
mental breakdown, the president had lost his mind and was
a danger. The things that they say are danger to
the republic. If you believe that and you do not
have the courage and the basic patriotism to step forward,

(01:00:16):
I don't care what your job is, I don't care
what your role is in this White House or what
elected official or whatever, and speak about that the American people,
you're a coward. Wait, people who are putting on the
uniform overseas getting shot at. We got people that have
lost limbs fighting for this country. People have died for
this country, stretching back for our entire history. You're in

(01:00:39):
a position of authority, in power, you're going to tell
this reporter, Oh, I'm scared of the President's crazy. But
you won't come forward and say why an anonymous source here, Oh,
because it'd be so terrible for this person to speak that.
Are you kidding me? They get a book, They get
a book deal and an MSNBC contributorship in like five minutes. Oh,
it's so scary to stand up in Trump. No, it's not.

(01:01:02):
In fact, the money, the fame, the people thinking you're amazing,
that's all on the anti Trump side. You want to
be you want to be somebody that's that's marked. Try
to be a Trump supporter in public. Try to be
in public life and say that I think that President
Trump is great. You know, there are a few places,
there are a few places in American society where you

(01:01:22):
can do it. You can do it, you know, as
a you can do it at Fox News, you can
do it on talk radio. A few places where it's
a safe space to say that you like President Trump.
But in the broader American society, culture, academia, entertainment media.
Go to any major city, walk around with a Maga
hat on and see how much fun that is. Any
major city of the United States yeah, some people will

(01:01:44):
be fine with it, but some people won't, and they'll
let you know. But why can't this person, why can't
the expect expectation be that if there's really such a
need that the president of United States that is so
scary and crazy that this person wouldn't come for and
say something. No, another anonymous report about how the president's crazy.

(01:02:05):
If you think the president's crazy, you don't tell a
CNN propagandist to go and tell the American people that
the president's crazy. You stand forward, you say it yourself,
and if you don't, you're a coward. That's it. And
you do it while you're there, by the way, while
you're in office. You don't do it a year later
when you're trying to You don't pull the mooch where
the mooch was. Anything Trump did was amazing until all

(01:02:25):
of a sudden he's not in Trump's good graces, and
now you know everything Trumps does is terrible and he's
crazy and he's gross. No, no credibility whatsoever. You can't
do that. It's not allowed to anybody who's going to
be reasonable and rational. But so they want to talk
about how Trump is crazy. But then there's some other
problems that they have because occasionally even left wing Democrats

(01:02:48):
want to have some idea among different Democrat choices of
what they're signing on for. Right, and this Medicare for
all plan, which has been rightly pointed out by somebody
on Team Buck yesterday who wrote in that it's not
really Medicare for all. That's not the true description of
the program. It's single payer. Is really a much more
accurate description of what the Democrats want. The government pays
for all your healthcare. Problem with that is, as we've

(01:03:10):
been discussing, single payer is really expensive. Here is a
fantastic montage Elizabeth Warren, who I think is now the
standard bearer for single payer healthcare because look, Bernie's too
old and it's not going to happen for him this cycle.
I just don't. I don't think it's going to happen.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he'll win, who knows, But how

(01:03:32):
often am I really wrong? Elizabeth Warren is now picking
up steam as the as the progressive favorite. She's the
more adept spokesperson for Medicare for all. Here is what
happens when you ask her Will this is very straightforward.
Will taxes go up on the middle class in America

(01:03:53):
if Medicare for All happens. Please play clip twenty two.
Will you raise taxes on the middle class for paper
to pay for it? Yes or noes? Costs will go
up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for
hard working middle class families, costs will go down. Hardworking

(01:04:14):
middle class families are going to see their costs go
down and bold their taxes go up. Well, but here's
the thing. But here's the thing. I've listened to these
answers a few times before. Will middle class taxes go up?
Will private insurance be eliminated? Look, what families have to
deal with is cost, total cost. That's what they have
to deal with it. How much are your costs going

(01:04:36):
to go? Different questions? How much will your tax it's
how much are your costs different? How much? It's how
much families end up an argument, but will you pay
more in taxes? But why don't you want to answer
that question? Because because it's a republican it's not a
republican talk because different question. It's a question about where

(01:04:56):
people are going to come out economically. Looks question cross
will go down on the middle class, No low down. Hm.
Notice how she's talking about costs. Interesting that she wants
to go there because she won't tell you what's true,
which is that to even begin to pay for this,
which the what the Urban Institute says will cost and

(01:05:18):
which is left wing, cost about thirty four trillion dollars
in the next ten years. So you could spend almost
every tax dollar currently taken by the federal government. We
are pretty heavily taxed, Take every dollar, and you would
basically spend it all on this program. Okay, so then
let's look at her. Her dodge here of the question,

(01:05:41):
but she dodged over and over and over again. We
will taxes go up? Yes, or answer me that. You
can tell us how it's going to be wonderful and
you know, candy canes and unicorns and chocolate syrup rivers
and whatever else you want to tell us. You can
do that, but first you have to tell us that
the taxes are gonna go up in the middle class.
We can make an informed decision. Oh you know who
didn't let us make an informed decision about the last
healthcare overhaul, Barack Obama when he lied to the American

(01:06:06):
people by saying if you like your healthcare plan, you
can keep it. Millions of people were knocked off their plans.
Most of them were then transferred onto Obamacare plans that
were far inferior to what they were getting before. Then
some people got on Obamacare plans that were subsidized, and
they're a little bit better off. But a lot of
people lost their plan, lost their doctor. And as I

(01:06:27):
find more and more as I get old, of the
practitioner matters. Just getting to od doctor is not good
enough unless you just have a ear infection or something.
I mean, if you have any kind of problem that
requires real ongoing care, a difficult diagnosis, and any number
of issues that we all deal with in the healthcare system.

(01:06:48):
The doctor matters. You know, they like this one size
fits all. Oh, but you know it's gonna be Medicare
for all, but it's gonna be government paying for it.
The governments can tell you who you can see and
what they're allowed to charge. And central planning. This is
all central planning. It always fails. It does not work.

(01:07:08):
It doesn't work the way they say, well, yeah, sure,
they'll be uulously some doctors. And you look at foreign
countries that have a single payer system, there's some healthcare there,
But go speak to British people about how much how
many wealthy Brits for heart surgery go to Thailand. Now,
medical tourism from these European states that have free healthcare,
Why is medical tourism such a big thing booming industry

(01:07:29):
in India and Thailand? Seems kind of strange, doesn't it?
Because those countries have these burgeoning medical systems where people
pay cash and people pay for the services, knowing that
it's very expensive here in America to have any of
those procedures done because of the system we have in
the way that health insurance companies allocate capital. But back

(01:07:51):
to the issue of costs. Costs is also a very
broad term for her to tell you what you're caught,
what a cost would be for middle class family, she
would have to know what your expenses would be, what
your healthcare expenses would be. And the end she has
no idea, she has no idea what the expenses will
be from this press, absolutely know whatsoever. But the promise
is that, well, you spend this amount on healthcare right now,

(01:08:14):
you're going to spend less because we're going to siphon
money from the wealthy and from corporations into your healthcare plan.
We're going to do it so efficiently. We're going to
allocate this capital so intelligently that you know you're going
to have more money in your bank account at the
end of the year as a middle class family under
an Elizabeth Warren plan, that's just not going to happen, folks,

(01:08:35):
just not going to happen. You're going to have to
have taxes raised. And even with taxes raised, you're going
to have tremendous structural, deep structural inefficiencies in the system,
rationing long wait times. This is your healthcare future if
Elizabeth Warren gets her way. We need to understand that.
We need to be clear about that. She's not even

(01:08:56):
clear about it, though, because she can't answer the basic
question of how are you how are you going to
pay for this? Wow tax it's costs to go down.
For the middle class, they'll go down. But for the
wealthy and for corporations, No, it's not just gonna be
the It's never just the wealthy. There's not enough money.

(01:09:19):
There's not enough money from the wealthy and the corporations
to pay for this. They couldn't do it. And then
think about what that would also do to the broader economy.
Who invests, who starts new companies, who creates jobs for
other people, People with capital concentrations of it, and they
are more efficient with it in the government will ever
be We already know this, But this is the dream.

(01:09:39):
This has been the dream of progressives and socialists, that's right,
socialists in America for over one hundred years. That's how
close we should probably remind ourselves of this. That's how
close they are at this point when they say, oh,
it's not socialism, Well, this is what the socialists have
wanted since the beginning of the twentieth century in America.
This is what the socialists have wanted since the progressives
of whist Nson. We're first trying to take ideas from

(01:10:02):
the European continent and apply them here status authoritarian ideas
at that of redistribution, of class warfare, of Marxism. But
we're just I hope we don't have to learn the
hard way, because Democrats will want us to learn the
hard way, and they still they won't even learn the
lesson when it is hard. Every single Democrat candidate for

(01:10:41):
president raise their hand in favor of giving free healthcare
to all illegal aliots. They want to give more to
illegal aliens than they give to American citizens. You see that.
As president, I will never allow the Democrats to take
away your healthcare dollars and give them to people that

(01:11:01):
are in our country illegally. I think that that's going
to come back to haunt the Democrats. I thought it along.
I said it on the Bill Marshaw back in August,
that every Democrat. It was a two night debate, so
technically there were some Democrats who weren't on the stage,
who were still in the race, but one night, every
Democrat at the debate said they all raised their hands,

(01:11:24):
they all made it clear that they wanted to give
healthcare to illegal aliens. I just want to think about
this for beyond the fact that that's absurd, it's insane,
and that any Democrat would ever think that that was feasible,
it's just because how would you implement this. Does that
mean that if somebody shows up in this country, someone

(01:11:46):
crosses the border and says, hey, I need open heart surgery.
I know I just ran across the border, but I
need open heart surgery. We just say, okay, we're going
to keep you in the country. We're not. We can't
kick you out, because, of course, illegal aliens are the
they are the foundation upon which this country is built,
the Democrats believe. So you get to stay, and then
you're going to have a procedure that will cost taxpayers

(01:12:07):
about a million dollars. Why would anybody in the third world,
why would anybody in developing countries not just come to
America and demand world class medical treatment. It's worth it,
I mean, it might be something that changes or saves
your life. Right, So where do you do? You have
to be an illegal that's here for a certain amount

(01:12:28):
of time for this to to qualify for this, you
have to be an a legal alien who falls into
a specific category of certain nations for you to get
these healthcare benefits that they've promised you. I have to say,
it is just it is remarkable to me how extreme
and unworkable many of these Democrat ideas and proposals are.

(01:12:49):
And that may be why may Or Pete for example,
recognizes that as much as all these polls and all
these people in the media are telling you that anybody
can beat Trump, and Trump's a paper tiger and Trump
King and all this stuff, he was a little more
Circumspect when he was asked about whether every single Democrat
in the field right now would be able to beat

(01:13:11):
for President Trump. Do you really believe that everybody on
that stage can beat President Trump. I'm not so sure,
and I think that in order to win, and in
order to deserve to win, we've got to answer the
fundamental problems that Donald Trump took advantage of to take
over the Republican Party and get elected. And we got
to find a way to do it that people can
see where they fit and that unites the country. Look,

(01:13:32):
we're never going to win everybody over, but I think
it means a lot that with incredibly progressive proposals, I'm
also getting Republicans saying that they would support me because
they're so disgusted with what's happening in the Trump Way.
I don't need a Republican I know a lot of Republicans.
I don't know any Republicans who are jumping on the
Mayor Pete vandwagon. I don't know any of I don't
know any of those. I do know some that like Tulsey,

(01:13:53):
not the only one. I'm just putting that out there,
but he understands Mayor Pete understands that some of these
are a disaster for the Termocratic party, and really the
disastrous one the most disasters would be Bernie Sanders because
the stuff that he would want to do, it's never
going to happen. It can't get done. He can't defend that.
It doesn't make sense. But it sounds good to people
who will believe in fairy tales. What Bernie tells them

(01:14:16):
sounds good that they believe in the magic of the
federal government that can provide better healthcare, more healthcare, more
cheaply to people, as if the government is in the
in the business of business and is a creative force
and not generally a restrictive and destructive force. This is
where you have the baseline philosophical differences between or a
right and left. Showing them seats Bernie Sanders, though, just

(01:14:40):
highlights it in a way that even Democrats, I think
are starting to figure out. Oh that guy's crazy. Buck
Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence,
Make no mistake, you're a great American again. This is
the buck st didn't show formless CIA analysts remember at

(01:15:03):
the ANIMI v. D. Bock Sexton it didn't, Buck Sexton. No,

(01:16:15):
Paul Ryan would never issue a subpoena. I don't say
right or wrong. He wouldn't do it. He had too
much respect for our country. Nancy Pelosi hands him out
like cookies. Everybody. I don't even know these people for
the most part, people like that at destim I don't
even know who they are. I've never even heard of
some of them, most of them weaponizing the process against

(01:16:35):
President Trump, against this White House? Is that really what
Nancy Pelosi is doing? And what can Trump you to
fight back? Our friend Annie McCartney is back in the house.
He is Fox Is contributor, author, also senior editor National Review.
Any great to have you back, sir, fuck always great?
All right, So, so how is this impeachment inquiry proceeding

(01:16:57):
thus far? I mean, from the procedurals standpoint, what is
kind of okay? What's dirty? And what are the Democrats
really doing? Well? The Democrats from the beginning, Buck, have
decided that the president's not fit for office. So they've
already kind of made their decision, and they've been looking

(01:17:17):
for a hook that they could hang it on in
the way of impeachable offenses. But you know, the Muller
investigation came up dry. So now they're onto the Ukraine thing.
And you know, this is unusual and irregular in the
sense that what generally happens, not that we have that
much experience with impeachment, is that the president commits misconduct

(01:17:42):
and we deduce from the misconduct whether it's so serious
that impeachment is warranted. Here, instead, we have a situation
where the Democrats decided ahead of time, before he ever
stepped into the oval office, that Trump was unfit and
they've been looking for something to sort of hang that
conclusion on from the beginning. So this is what we like.

(01:18:04):
What we now have is the Ukrainian episode in this effort. Now, Andy,
what about the claims that the White House is making
that they're not going to comply. How does that duel
between the executive branch and the Democrat controlled House pushing
forward on this impeachment inquiry? You know, where does that go?

(01:18:27):
And what's the White House arguing about who does or
doesn't have to testify? And what is the Democrat House
majority going to say or Democrat led by Nancy Pelosi
going to say? Yeah? But the important thing to remember
what these kind of contests between the executive and the
legislative branches is that they are political in nature. Impeachment
is political in nature. It's not a legal process for

(01:18:50):
assessing guilt. It's a political process for stripping political authority.
So what the President is trying to do is demonstrate
that the or demonstrate to the public, which is the
court that matters here, that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate
because the House the Constitution commits the authority to impeach

(01:19:14):
the whole of it to the House of Representatives, not
to the Speaker, and not to a cabal of partisan
committee chairman. And because the House acts as an institution
only when it votes, and the House has never voted
to have an impeachment inquiry. The President is arguing that
the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and he doesn't need to

(01:19:37):
cooperate with it. Plus, he has a lot of privileges
against cooperation, like executive privilege, most prominently, which is only
going to be pierced by something that's in the nature
of serious misconduct, and which he shouldn't be asked to
give up unless the House, as an institution, votes to

(01:20:00):
have an impeachment inquiry. So that's their position. The Houses
position is that there's nothing in the Constitution that requires
it to have a vote in order to inquire, that
it has the standing committees that have authority, so they
can conduct an impeachment inquiry through the offices of those
committees without having to have a vote, and that their

(01:20:21):
subpoenas are perfectly legitimate and the administration should honor them
because Congress has oversight power whether it's conducting an impeachment
inquiry or not. And the political hammer that they hold
in the equation is that if the president doesn't cooperate,
they can always add an article of impeachment about failing

(01:20:45):
to cooperate with legitimate demands for information by Congress. So
this is the political battle that takes place, and it
really depends on what the public thinks of all this.
My own view of it, for what it's worth, is
that the underlying conduct here related to Ukraine. I think

(01:21:05):
there's a lot of things to criticize the president about
in it, but I don't think any of it rises
to the level of impeachable offenses. Do you well, I mean,
would you describe it as as ugly politics by the president?
I mean, how do you how do you gauge, how
do you assess the whole Ukraine situation? Where where is
the president vulnerable? And what's a fair way of framing it.

(01:21:27):
I think it's it's unsavory conduct in the sense that
the Congress voted for aid for Ukraine, the President signed
off on the legislation. He should have just given the
aid to Ukraine. There's nothing wrong in principle with a

(01:21:49):
president asking a foreign government for help in an American
Justice Department investigation. But the Justice Department didn't ask the
President to lean on Ukraine for help. So the fact
that he did it without you know, usually when these
things happened buck in the Justice Department, it's because the
Justice Department is doing an investigation, it realizes it needs

(01:22:10):
assistant from assistance from a foreign government, and if the
foreign government doesn't cooperate, like for example, the Saudis didn't
cooperate with us in connection with the Kobar Towers bombing
in the mid nineties, you asked the president to lean
on the other government to help you here. There was
no discussion apparently between Attorney General Barr and the president,

(01:22:32):
and the president kind of unsolicited not only asked his
Ukrainian counterpart to help Bar. He simultaneously asked him to
help Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, who was the President's private lawyer
and is conducting research in Ukraine that might be helpful
to Trump's twenty twenty campaign to the extent it's damaging

(01:22:54):
to Biden. So what what Trump risked doing is exactly
what Justice Department doesn't want done, which is the sense
that it's investigation of the twenty sixteen, you know, the
abuses of power in connection with twenty sixteen, that that
is political, rather than what the Attorney General has stressed

(01:23:14):
up until now, which is that it's the Justice Department's
obligation to look back at this kind of misbehavior and
see if any crimes were committed and if any procedures
have to be changed. So I think, you know, the
way the President handled this, he potentially brings discredit and
delegitimizes the Justice Department's investigation and bounds it up with

(01:23:36):
his own twenty twenty reelection effort, which is exactly the
way the Democrats have tried to portray the bar investigation
from the beginning. So I think those things are all
ways that I think you can legitimately say the President
did not This was not perfect as the President as
likes to say. On the other hand, buck, we have

(01:23:57):
to like take a step back and realized Ukraine did
get the aid, it never really did get hold held
up in any way that was meaningful or harmful, And
the Justice Department was never in communication with the White
House or with the Ukrainian authority, so it didn't really
affect the Justice Department's investigation. So the atmospherics are bad.

(01:24:20):
But when you look at this and say, well, what
harm actually happened doesn't appear to be any So to
talk about it in the sense of an impeachable offense,
which is supposed to be reserved for really egregious misconduct
that does real harm, is really I think overwrought. What
is the argument that you know, I keep hearing from

(01:24:41):
Pelosi and others he violated his oath of office to
the Constitution. Do they just is that just a general
thing to say or is there some specific way they
try to tie they said, I keep wondering what is
the what is the alleged if not even crime, the
alleged political crime that they think comes up in Ukraine,
Because I mean when you're pointing out, Yeah, there's some
procedural uh, you know, some procedural missteps. It looks it

(01:25:04):
looks a little sloppy the way the president did it. Sure,
but what is the real I mean, because initially Andy,
they were saying there's a possible campaign finance criminal violation,
and that just that just faded away because that was
too absurd to even hang their hats on. So what
is it now? Yeah, So I think there's two things, buck,
and both of them are pretty weak. One is that

(01:25:25):
the president is supposed to take care that the laws
be faithfully executed, and the Congress voted aid for Ukraine,
which the President slow walk rather than delivering it to
Ukraine on schedule. So that's outside the statute as the
Congress enacted it and that the President signed off on.

(01:25:47):
But on the other hand, the president has almost cleanary
authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, and while
he shouldn't delay aid for any but very good reasons,
he's got the authority to do that. So I think
it's a pretty weak argument. The other one that's even weaker,
I think, is this new thing they're floating, which is

(01:26:09):
about extortion and the idea that the president pressured the
Ukrainians in order to get accommodations from them, including some
that might have helped him politically. The problem with that
book is that extortion is a domestic crime. It is
not applicable to foreign relations, where we actually want the

(01:26:32):
president to be able to squeeze foreign governments and put
a lot of pressure on them in the service. This
is what mulvanny was basically trying to say, perhaps in ourfully,
He's like, we do quid pro quos the foreign governments
all the time. That's very true, exactly right. So you know,
what you're doing is apples, or what they're doing is
apples and oranges. You know, Yes, there are situations where

(01:26:57):
when somebody pressures another person, you know, threatening them with
economic harm or other kinds of harm in order to
get them to do something, that's extortion. And then so
it's a federal crime, and it's a crime in most states.
In foreign relations where we're not under the rule of
law and we're not all dealing, you know, we're not
all just like citizens under the same sovereign countries pressure

(01:27:21):
or other countries in order to get them to do things.
And sometimes that pressure gets to the point of war,
so you know, it's it's not domestic law enforcement. And again,
can you imagine what would be the point of having
a president of the United States if the president could
not use whatever was available to him to pressure governments,

(01:27:44):
which are often rogue governments that are anti American, to
do things that we want them to do in the
interest of American security and global stability. Yeah. I'm pretty
sure that George W. Bush said, you know, handover bin
lad in Taliban or else, We're coming for you with
everything we got. So and they were technically the government
to Aphanison at the time, folks, So there was that. Yeah.

(01:28:06):
And I don't think the Justice Department investigated Bush for extortion. Yeah,
I would certainly hope not any McCarthy everybody the one
and only. Check out his latest on nash review dot com.
Also great editorialist week in The New York Post on impeachment. Annie,
thank you for joining us or we'll talk to you soon. Thanks,
but welcome back team. A massive gun battle in Kulia Khan,

(01:28:47):
northwest of Mexico City, down in Mexico, involving one of
the well the son of the most notorious cartel leader
perhaps of all time, maybe only second to Pablo Escobar
El Chapooman. His son was captured in Kuliya Khan. His
son's name is Video Guzman Lopez. So he's a son

(01:29:09):
of Joaquin Guzman Loeiro, who is known as El Chapo,
the Sinaloa cartel leaders currently serving a life sentence plus
thirty years. The Mexican police managed to find this son
of El Chappo, and you would think that this would

(01:29:30):
be a cause for celebration, but then the entire city erupted,
erupted in chaos, gun battles. There were cartel sicarios, their
assassins deployed in the streets with fifty caliber rifles. There
were cartel members who had mounted machine guns. There's video

(01:29:51):
all over the internet now social media of just gun
battles raging. It sounds like Fulujah circa two thousand and five,
just machine gun fire all over the place, smoke billowing
into the air. And what was truly stunning is the
Mexican authorities released, oh, Video Guzman Lopez released El Chapo's

(01:30:16):
son because they were afraid of further bloodshed. That's right,
my friends, a notorious cartel boss is captured and then
released because the cartels can put so much firepower on
the streets they can effectively take an entire city in
Mexico hostage. They outgunned Mexican police and federal police units

(01:30:42):
outgunned them. They were calling in for reinforcements, and the cartel,
the cartel hitmen were able to just bring too much
fire under their locations. They had to withdraw, stunning. We
were gonna have my friend yone Grillo join us, Deady
from Mexico City, but actually having trouble getting thrown the
phone lines there. Will have to have you own back

(01:31:02):
next week to tell us what's going on. So sorry
about the the guest lineup changeup, but we'll have you
own joining us when we can. And I just would
note that Mexico had last year one I can't remember
if twenty seventeen or twenty eighteen. It was one of
those years, the worst year in the history of that
country for murders. We have an opioid epidemic. Yes, I know,

(01:31:27):
there's billions and billions of dollars that are going to
be paid out now by drug companies that did have
a very egregious hand in the opioid epidemic. But you know,
what else has a big has a big part of
the opiated epidemic. The car tells that are flooding this
country with it, and the Mexican government while we think
of it as somewhat in control of the situation, or

(01:31:49):
I should say, we don't hear much about it, so
people assume it can't be that bad. It's really bad.
I mean, what does it mean. Imagine for a moment
that there was a gang member in the United States
who was seized in let's say Boston, you know, a
good sized American city, and that gang member was able
to put out the call that all of his hitmen

(01:32:12):
needed to start attacking police units all across the city.
And then the authorities in Boston were like, well, we
can't handle all this heat, so we're just gonna let
this guy go. What a sad day for the country
of Mexico. That's the that's the response. You allow a
cartel member to take a city hostage, you release him.

(01:32:35):
What message does that send going forward? Anytime any member
of the cartel who's senior enough gets picked up by
Mexican marines and the federales or whomever, they're just gonna say, Okay,
well now we're gonna we're gonna wire up a school
with C four unless you let me free. You know,
this is negotiating with terrorists in the worst possible way,

(01:32:57):
with Narco terrorists. And it's just a big indicator of
how deeply not just corrupt, but really unstable Mexico is.
It's stable in so far as the cartels are able
to keep poisoning American cities and killing tens of thousands
of our American of our fellow Americans, making billions and
billions of dollars in the process, also making hundreds of

(01:33:18):
millions off of human smuggling at our southern border. You know,
kids in cages, they yelled, Yeah, but the cartels are
making a lot of money in that whole process. By
the way, he's back with you now, because when it

(01:33:40):
comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Now, team,

(01:34:00):
I promise we're not going to do a daily Tulsie
Gabbert defense here. Okay, We're not going to just have
bucks it here every day and say that Tulsie. And
when you wrote in that Tulsie's married, I know she's married. Okay,
I'm not this show. This show is not some audio
bouquet of flowers sent to Tulsie Gabbert on a regular
basis in the hopes that she'll notice and perhaps come

(01:34:20):
in for a lengthy interview that would clearly go viral
and be fantastic. But I'm just I try to find
the good in the Democrats that I can where I can,
and that's why I also like to point out the
really really bad Democrats, which reminds me of Hillary Clinton. Hello,
what happened? She's back? Never going away. She will haunt

(01:34:43):
your dreams. She's never going away, folks, she will always
be around. She said something today in an interview, or
maybe it was yesterday. Who cares, but she said the
following about Tulsie Gabbert quote. They're also going to do
third party again. I'm not making any predictions. That's means
she is, but I think they've got their eye on

(01:35:04):
someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming
her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite
of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and
bots and other ways of supporting her so far, And
that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she
might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's

(01:35:26):
a Russian asset. I mean totally. They know they can't
win without a third party candidate. So I don't know
who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you
they will have a third, vigorous third party challenge in
the key states that they most needed. Okay, first of all,
it's in an amazing that Hillary Clinton says that she's
not going to make a prediction, and then she goes

(01:35:47):
on to make a prediction that she about the election,
where she says, I guarantee you. So it's not even
like a little bit of a prediction. This is a
very very intense prediction from Hillary Clinton. But beyond that,
more importantly, they hate Tulsea Gabbert because she is in

(01:36:10):
some ways too nice to the opposition for their taste,
and she hates Trump and she trashes Trump all the time.
But she does not approach Republicans as though they are
some evil, diseased, an unworthy group of people. She doesn't
take the approach that they're just automatically to be dismissed.

(01:36:32):
And what you find is that the Democratic Party today,
the Democratic Party today rejects that they want a total
war scenario of politics where you either take the approach
that Republicans are horrible people, that they're discussing, they're disgraceful
and you shouldn't and anyone, I mean, I had a

(01:36:53):
friend told me recently that you know that he was
told by in a group chat of people for a
business issue that anyone who voted for Trump is racist.
And people challenge this guy on this and said, come
on that. Can you know that's first of all, there
are a lot of black and Hispanic voters who voted
for Trump. I mean not as a percentage of the population,
but there are still a lot of them across the country.

(01:37:16):
To say anyone who voted for Trump is racist is
such a and this guy doubled. Oh, note, it's true,
anyone who voted for Trump is racist. And we've had
different points in the process here where Democrats their official
line from their biggest spokespersons has been you are complicit
in Trump's racism, in his treason and his all these
things if you vote for him. Trying so hard to

(01:37:37):
really just force us to force people listening to believe
that it's not even a choice anymore to vote for Trump,
because if you do, you're a bad person, So you
must then support his opponents, you must support the other side.
Tulsie Gabber doesn't do that, at least not that I've heard.
But to call her a Russian asset, I just wonder

(01:37:58):
does anyone the Democratic Party have any scruples anymore? And
they're not going to say Telsea Gabert is a veteran,
she is a member of Congress. What basis is there
that she's a This is even worse than the assad
apologist stuff that used to say about her. Now they're
saying that she's a she's a traitor, she's a tool

(01:38:19):
of the Russian government, something they say about Trump too.
Isn't that interesting? Isn't it also fascinating to watch people
make allegations like this that are so flimsy and so
without any any evidence whatsoever. But this becomes a tool
because once you create the perception that there are Russian
assets floating around who are doing whatever is opposed to

(01:38:40):
the Democratic Party at any point in time, then that
becomes a weaponient of itself. It just becomes a smear
to be deployed at the whim of Democrats, including against
a fellow Democrat in this case Telsey, Like soft butter

(01:39:02):
on warm toast. Time to spread some freedom coast to coast.
It's time for roll call. Roll call time, everybody, you
know what time it is? Time for the roll call.

(01:39:24):
Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton. If you want to
do it that way, you can also kick it a
little old school. Send us an email, team Buck at
iHeartMedia dot com. That's right, producer Brennan, we have an email.
Now we're fancy up in the freedom hunt. You know. Congratulations. Yeah,
we should start like smoking pipes and wearing ascots and

(01:39:45):
talking about talking about THEATA, not theater, THEATA with a
monocle of how else would one watch theater with a
top hat? Maybe two? That's how I roll. Although you
need a giant top hat from my head, I don't know,
like slash ooh, yeah, there you go. He's he's like,
he's probably the most famous top hat wearer of the

(01:40:07):
last several generations other than mister Peanut. I guess, yeah,
it's probably true, mister peanut. All right, here we go, Mitch, right, oh,
here we go, Hey, Buck. I love your show. I
drive over the road for a big company. I work nights.
I listen every night. Thank you so much, Mitch. Also,

(01:40:28):
why haven't the climate freaks mentioned the fact that carbonated
beverages are carbonated with CO two? Are they willing to
force soft drink makers, beer brewers, and champagne makers out
of business? I'm guessing that we be many many billions
of dollars removed from the economy and many tens of
thousands of jobs lost. Surely, soft drinks, et cetera contribute
way more CO two to the atmosphere than cows. Well, Mitch,

(01:40:51):
my man, it's methane from the cows that's the problem.
It's not the CO two that gets them so upset. Anyway,
love your show, brother, Shield's High. Thank you appreciated, my man.
I'm glad to keep you safe and warm on the
road when you're driving around the country engaged in commerce
and capitalism for America. How in this week's Democrat debate,

(01:41:13):
how many candidates and how many times did they say
that I am too ignorant to know how to spend
my own money? And who and how many times a
day did they say they knew how to spend my
money better than me. Instead of adding to my government expense,
They're free to raise charity money for any cause they
are passionate about. They are all very good at raising
money for a cause. Why not apply that skill to

(01:41:34):
fund charity from those that agree with them and allow
me to decide how to spend my money. Donald Trump
may not be the most diplomatic person, but he understands
this simple concept built on freedom. Yeah. Man, they want
to take your money. They think that they can spend
it better than you. They're more qualified to make those

(01:41:56):
determinations about capital allocation fancy way to say spending. So yeah,
you're you're picking up You're picking up what they're putting down.
How and they want to pick up a lot more
of your money too, which is not good. Kristen Rights
trained to busan is amazing. You have to see it. Well,
let's produce your branded pick over here. So what are

(01:42:16):
we thinking? It's great. I've just seen so many zombie
movies over the last you know, my lifetime whatever, but
this one was very creative. It just was was special.
You think the whole genre was used up, but they
they found a new way to do it. So I
think I'm gonna see the Joker movie today. By the way, Oh,
I'm probably get to see that tomorrow. Yeah, I'm I'm,

(01:42:38):
I'm so, I'd just like to go check it out.
I gotta know what's going on with the joker. And
then we got TJ. See a joker. But I am
not a Midnight Tooker. Steve Miller, Right, yes, yeah, I
play my music in the sun. Though. Are we gonna
keep doing this? No, I'm gonna stop, all right, t J.

(01:42:59):
Buck If impeachment goes through, how much obligation do senators
have to be in DC for the entirety of the
hearings in the Senate? And how long do you think
McConnell could drag it out? I only ask because this
could be a major thorn in the side for several
Democrat presidential campaigns, Warren Sanders, Klobuchar, Harris Booker. They're going
to punish us with process. Should we not be obligated
to return the favor? TJ? TJ. The problem with trying

(01:43:23):
to punish Democrats with the processes, it's like throwing mudded pigs.
They love the process, they love wallowing in the bureaucracy.
So I just don't think that that's going to work out.
I wish that we had the same mentality of abusing
the various processes out there, but we just don't. Actually,

(01:43:45):
I don't wish we had that mentality. I just it
would be nice if we could fight fire with fire
a little bit better. But that's kind of where we are,
and I honestly don't I mean impeachment. The thing is,
no one really knows how this will play out as
a process because the Democrats are making it up as
they go along. So unless you can get in the
mind of Nancy Pelosi and know what her next move is,
gonna be tough to know what's going on. Jonathan Buck,

(01:44:09):
I think your best impression is your Pelosi. It always
makes me laugh. I've been falling through with Pelosi for
a while anyway, Thank you, Jonathan. I appreciate that. He
also writes, I'm looking at the withdrawal from Syria and
think it should be noted the Syrian Kurds, YPG and
Iranian Kurds are not all the same. Tobarrow a Lord

(01:44:29):
of the Rings analogy. It's like comparing the Woodland elves
to the river Dale ones. Riverdale ones, isn't it? No?
Is ver is the Riverdale Elves? No, that's Riverdale's a
place in New York is in Riverdale like from Dawson's
Creek or something isn't like River End or River River
Run or something like that. I've actually never seen. Riverdale

(01:44:50):
is also a show, That's what I'm thinking of. Yeah,
it's a show. It's a it's a kind of a
teen drama e show, right, but it's also a wealthy
enclave leave a wealthy encliff technically of the Bronx. Yes,
a bit of geography on the show today for the
Buck section show. Um, but yeah, I don't know enough
about the comparison you're making your job with him. But

(01:45:13):
thank you so much, my friend for listening to show.
I'm glad, Oh gay you like Pa Polsi. Pelosi's gonna
send you a big hug over the weekend. Okay, President
Trump is a total lunatic, uh Greg, Greg rats, Hey Buck,
longtime listener here. You've long been at the top of
my list for clear, concise and comprehensive analysis without wasting

(01:45:37):
time repeating the same points or puffing yourself up in
the process. Thank you Greg for noticing that I do.
I do note that there's some some hosts out there.
There's only one who I think has earned the right
to always talk about how awesome he is, and we
all know who that is, and that's because he is
the man. But there are some other hosts out there,
who are you. I'm the best, I'm amazing, I'm the smartest.

(01:45:57):
I I leave that to the people listening to determine
how good or not good this show is. You know,
I don't need to tell everybody how good the show is,
because anybody who's smarter listens to the show knows it's
really good. So here we go. Greg writes, in regard
to assault rifles, my preferred term is modern sporting rifle.
This term has been used widely among the Second Amendment community,

(01:46:21):
and a couple years ago the Washington Examine or had
an op ed and why this is the term that
our side should adopt. I've included a link. Keep up
the good work, best wishes, shields high Greg. Greg, thank you.
I mean, I can see what you're saying, and I
appreciate the desire to use the term modern sporting rifle.
I just I don't think that the other side will

(01:46:41):
play along or that one so we could just use
different terms for the same thing. And m I don't
really know where that ends up. Where that goes Sean.
The Joker is not a superhero or super villain movie.
It's dry for a drama and weak as a horror film.
If you watch it expecting anything like a superhero movie,

(01:47:03):
you will be severely disappointed. It is literally a boring
backstory movie. The only thing making it worthwhile is when
he is when he takes Robert de Niro out. Have
you heard this that it's boring from anybody? This is
the first someone doesn't like the Joker movie. That might
be the first, I think. I think that's somebody from

(01:47:24):
people just don't like certain things. Why so serious? Heath
Ledger's Joker was really scary and really good at the
same time. I still like Jack Nicholson's what It's just
I don't know. He was special. That's the one I
grew up on, so I always have a place in
my heart. You just don't like it at all or
just not above Heath Ledger. I mean he did a

(01:47:46):
pretty good job, I guess for what it was. I
mean that original Tim Burton Batman was pretty cool at
the time. It holds up reasonably well. Some of the
action sequences are really pretty lame, but it holds up reasonably. Well,
i'd say, um, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, that's maybe.
I wish I can remember the actor's name from the

(01:48:07):
Adam West. Remember I think he's holding Kim basic or
at one point and he's like, if anybody else calls
you beast, I'll rip their lungs out. Remember remember that line? Classic.
So someone just said that I spoiled Well, I just
spoiled Jo. How could I spoil Joker and spoiled Joker?
It's one of our other producers is writing inybody telling
me this is nonsense. That's nonsense. I don't even know

(01:48:29):
the end. How could I spoil it under the ending?
Good point? So anyway, it is what it is? All right? Um,
I'll Ali rights or is it Ali Ali? Ali? Could
be other? Your last thought is right? The Democrats using
the Middle East to line their pockets is that they

(01:48:50):
cause global chaos. There was gun running, all right? Cool,
appreciate that, Sammy Number one. I love your show. I
listened to you on the iHeartRadio app. And the news
breaks comes through the NBC fakes news though. I hope
there's something you can do about that. No, Unfortunately I
don't news breaks. I don't get to control number two.
I heard this morning there are seven million unfulfilled jobs

(01:49:10):
or unfilled jobs in the US. Trump should give the
worthless govern employees a pink slip, tell them their jobs
waiting for them in the private sector. Sammy, it'd be
nice if we could do that, but it's not going
to happen because people tend to think that any shrinking
of government jobs is a terrible thing and really really bad.
And that's just sort of where it is. So I
wish it were true, and there you have it, or

(01:49:34):
I wish that were feasible. I should say, and there
you have it. Ah, here you go. Jeremy, your joker
sounds a lot like you're Elizabeth Warren. I guess they're
similar in personality shields high. I don't know. I don't
know about that. I don't know. I'm gonna I'm not
gonna say I'm gonna sign off for that one, meaning
that my impersonations is the same. You can say whatever

(01:49:54):
you want on Elizabeth Warren's personality where J's really gonna
just restore all the greatness of America's middle class by
just taxingly, you know what, out of the rich people.
Oh gosh, my daddy, My daddy always told me that
if you take two flying pigs and you throw them
through the back door of an oldsmobile, you're just gonna

(01:50:17):
have a pig sandwich. Makes no sense, but who cares,
because you know, Elizabeth Warren just makes stuff up as
she goes along. Yeah, there we have. It just doesn't
sound like Heath Ledger the joker. Everyone's a critic only person.
That's all right. So we gotta close up to Freedom
Hut this episode. This time, you have a couple of
days here over the weekend, not just to listen to

(01:50:39):
the show and catch up on old shows, but also
be like, Hey, if you're at a dinner party and
the conversation's lagging, if you're hanging out with a friend
and you've got nothing to say, if you're on a
date and the lady or the guy is just not
interesting enough for you, just be like, So, there's this
thing called The Buck Sexton Show. It's on iTunes or
the iHeart app or anywhere you listen to podcasts, download
and listen to it. That would be an early Christ's

(01:51:00):
present and Birthday present for me. So please check that
out and we will talk to you all on Monday.
She'll tie

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Dateline NBC

Death, Sex & Money

Stuff You Should Know

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The War of Testosterone

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Dateline NBC

Death, Sex & Money

Stuff You Should Know

All Episodes

The War of Testosterone

Dateline NBC