You're listening to The Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hey, everybody, welcome to the Buck Saxton Show. We've got our friend Aaron McIntyre on this episode. He does a great podcast. He's at the Blaze. You should check out everything that he is up to over there. Mister Oran, appreciate you coming back absolutely, thanks for having me again. So recently, there's this big decision that comes down on affirmative action, and one of the most interesting things about it, I think is.
Something that you and I.
Have talked about off air, which is that the institutions that are affected by this are largely taking the attitude of, oh, it's unconstitutional, whatever, we'll still do it, We'll still find a way.
What's going on there? What does that tell us?
Yeah, you could see right away that Harvard immediately responded by just saying, oh, that's nice, we'll comply with this, and immediately pointed to it. It sees as a loophole and the ruling where yes, technically you can no longer evaluate students solely based on their race or give them
explicit additional points for that kind of admission. But you can think about that when they are justifying kind of the things they've overcome, and so there's still this loophole of okay, well, as long as they maybe put in an essay or they explained it as part of how they fought back against depression, that kind of thing, then you can consider it. You just can't put it directly into say what kind of sat or Act score is accepted.
I mean, I feel like the takeaway from all this is that the only way this really changes is that now there's at least a constitutional precedent handed down by the court here in terms of the interpretation of it that.
Will allow for more lawsuits.
You know, what you had at this point was the court seemed divided at the lower level, had to make its way all the way up. So I suppose now you just have to be able to get the data to see that the same discrimination, racial discrimination, that's what this is everybody, that's what the courts were doing, That same discrimination would continue on. And so I feel like there have to be many more lawsuits, Like basically this
is the start of stopping the affirmative action regime. It's not like this switches it all overnight.
Yeah, no, absolutely, this is the beginning of the war, and at the end of it, it simply allows it to take place. Like you said, a lot of these institutions are already changing. They already saw this coming. This ruling was predicted for a while, and so a lot of these institutions had already decided to move to more of an essay based admission as opposed to a test score admission. And that's because the data becomes much harder.
Then you can kind of fudge everything. You can still apply the same biases, but you can do so without it being easily numerically quantifiable. Of course, the ruling itself actually explicitly says they can't do that, like says, you can not resubstantiate this, you know, this regime kind of just under a different way, just just with essays or something instead of test scores. But it's very clear again from the messages that places like Harvard scent that they
intend to do so. And so the big question is going to be follow through. So often, especially on the right, we see, you know, the base sees an election or Supreme Court ruling or maybe a piece of legislation pass and say, oh great, the battle's one. I can go back to grilling, I can go back to raising my family and go back, you know, to just you know, being a normal citizen. But that's actually not what happens
immediately afterwards. That ruling does not enforce itself. And if you don't have the mechanisms, if you don't have the institutions that are going to go after these people, if you don't have lawsuits, if you don't have a DOJ, obviously our current do is not going to do that. But you know, if you don't have a Trump or Desanti's DOJ later on, that starts pushing this kind of stuff, AG's all that stuff. If they don't follow up, then
none of this actually happens. It's just a ruling that's dead in the water.
Also, is me that given the arguments that were made in that blockbuster decision six ' three striking down affirmative action is unconstitutional in college admissions, how is it that we can still have racial preferences in hiring and racial preferences in government contract government contracts being given out to people?
Do you know what I mean? It seems to me like this all the same arguments apply about all of this.
Yeah, that's why this was such a huge ruling. It's not just the college admissions, though obviously that is a huge one, because, for better or for worse, admission to college, especially the IVY League, is kind of the elite signaler in our society. Getting that credential. I mean, you may be learning nothing there, you might just be getting some kind of gender studies trash degree, but just by having that credential, suddenly you're part of the elite. You're part
of the ruling class. You've kind of got the golden ticket. And so the fact that that was racially biased, that that was particularly bent towards specific races, was a huge deal. But like you said, this affirmative action policy, you know, moves far beyond the academic sphere. It impacts everything in our society, especially when it comes to jobs and these kind of things. And so if this ruling applies there, then you would imagine the logic would travel to all
these other institutions. But again, that can't happen without lawsuits. That can't happen without follow through legal pressure. I mean, state legislatures need to start banning affirmative action, and governors need to be passing, you know, whatever they can to make it clear that this won't be allowed in their states. This this has to be a follow through on every level that enables these different operatives, these different lawyers, these
different attorneys general to kind of make this move. Hopefully once you get a Republican one in there, that will actually put the pressure not just on schools but on other institutions like corporations.
Did you find that the arguments that came across from the A couple of the liberal justices who you know dissented from this ruling. There are three of them, but you know, two in particular, were really.
Upset by this.
It was interesting to see they really couldn't hide the emotional impact that this has on them specifically. But also I would assume more broadly, for people that really support this regime, and that the argument really seems to just be some version of we really like this, and life is unfair, and it's unfair for minorities, but only some minorities, and so it should continue just because we like it.
I mean, I don't really understand. When I read through the dissense, it didn't really feel like there was an argument. It just felt like there's a lot of racism, and this helps with the racism because we say so yeah.
I mean, in some ways you almost kind of have to respect the honesty there. Finally, we're not hiding behind any kind of legal tricks here. It's just the fact that this works well for the Democratic coalition. This gives benny's to people that we like. These are the people who vote for us, or are the people we identify with, and this benefits them, and therefore it should stay in
place because we like it. And to be fair, this community has been told from time and memorium by the Democrats that this is the only system that holds them in place. This is the only way they could possibly get ahead or stay even even you know, at all, and so that if it ever was removed, then it's a catastrophe and all of a sudden, you know, these different minority communities will just kind of fall by the wayside.
I mean, the whole point of affirmative action, the way it was sold to people in theory was that it was a temporary fix to kind of address the fact that some people had not had a fair shake historically in the United States. But if that doesn't come with an expiration date. Then all you're doing is creating a new, different type of systemic racism. It's just now targeting people like whites and Asians as opposed to other minority groups. And you can't keep that in place forever. But these
people were told that, you know that is essential. You know that this is basically the only way that you can participate in society, which should be kind of insulting, but I guess for some you know that is something you've taken as gospel.
Did you see there was a there was a tweet that came out that went quite quite viral from a Democrat activist trying, I'm actually, I'm actually gonna pull this one up. Her name is Erica Marsh, Proud, Democrat, former field organizer for Biden. She her, of course, you know, because we have to know that one. But she had this tweet that that's gotten seen millions of times, and this was the day that the decision came out. Her tweet was, today's Supreme Court decision is a direct assault,
I'm sorry, a direct attack on black people. No black person will be able to succeed in a merit based system, which is exactly why affirmative action based programs were needed to decision. Is a travesty, like ten million views of this Basically, this has just gone completely virus a Democrat. Yeah, and I do think it raises some very uh, very uncomfortable questions about Democrats what they really think in the affirmative action regime. I mean, you kind of keep running
into this, Oh, it doesn't change the standards. But if you change the standards, then you won't have black and Hispanic students getting into these schools or you know what I'm saying, Like, if you don't have the standards changing, they won't get in. But it doesn't change the standards, and if you don't change the standards, they can't get in in the numbers. And I mean in her case she said that like none of them, which is insane. But there's a problem here, right, the argument has a problem.
Yeah, obviously it's it's a pretty awkward argument to make, if you know, if you're on that side. But at the same time, you have to remember the Democrats do get like ninety percent of the black vote on a regular basis, right, So for better or for worse, this is an argument that seems to be routinely winning people
over to that side. I don't know what that says about how people feel about their opportunity inside the United States, but it's obviously not a narrative that can survive if you're going to have a society with any form of
kind of racial harmony. You have a group that's being told all of the time that if there's not this artificial system elevating them, then they have no hope inside of meritocracy, and the group continually and regularly votes for the people who tell them that, which is a pretty terrible feedback loop.
I want to ask in a moment here or if we are in a place where increasingly conservatives point to the Constitution and the response, whether over or more subtle in the background from democrats in the left, is so what and how that is manifesting itself in our institutions and our lay to day life here.
So we'll get back to that in just a second.
But first off, everybody, there are a few sensations that are better than feeling like you have the energy to take on the world and win. That comes from having energy and feeling as strong as you do at nine pm as you do at nine am. And for guys, a big part of this is having the proper levels of testosterone. That doesn't come from just a cup of coffee or getting a three day weekend. In it comes from fueling your body with the right stuff. Chalk's Male
Vitality Stack has those ingredients. In fact, studies show the leading ingredient in Chalk's Male Vitality Stack can replenish twenty percent of your testosterone in just three months time. You'll feel the positive results long before the ninety day mark of this new day regime that includes Chalk's all natural ingredients. Chalks Daily supplements are lab tested twice for purity and potency. You'll find them online at Chalk dot com that's spelled
cchoq dot com. Save thirty five percent off the Chalk subscription you choose for life when you use my name buck in your purchase process that's Chalk choq dot com and then name Buck for thirty five percent off. So does it even really matter when we win these Supreme Court decisions? I mean, you look at D C. Heller
for example, dcv. Heller, and you look at this, and I think there are others that would come to mind right away where we say, okay, So this is the law, and then the left just figures out ways to say, well, what are you going to do about it?
How are you going to enforce it?
Yeah, I think that's an increasingly difficult problem for conservatives to address because again they do feel like, okay, well, we won the constitutional argument, we got the judges appointed, they ruled in our favor, we got the president elected, we got this piece of legislation passed, and obviously from here on out now that this is the law, the constitution says you have to follow it and will be fine.
But that's not what actually happens. Right over and over again, we see, you know, things like the executive branch just to ignore executive orders from Donald Trump right that they just don't care. Barack Obama says, hey, I'm going to have this, dear colleague letter. All of a sudden, everybody has let guys use the girl's bathroom, and it happens
overnight in a snap. Trump says, hey, you can't do affirmative you can't rather, you can't do a diversity, equity and inclusion training, and they get an executive ranch and members of the executive branch just say, so what I'm going to keep doing? It right, And the problem is that the Democrats, whether you like it or not, understand that at the end of the day, it's about political
will and not just laws on paper. Laws on paper might be good, but really they're only enforced if people who are in positions of power believe in them and
whether the people around them hold them to account. And so the Democrats have been playing this game for a long time with sanctuary cities and states and those kind of things that just completely ignore the dictates of the Constitution, laws, you know, Supreme Court rulings, those kind of things, and Republicans are going to have to learn this trick because we're already seeing, for instance, different courts that are trying to strike down these no grooming laws, these laws that
ban child mutilation inside states that we call a sexual transition gender transition, and states are trying to knock these down. At some point, Republican governors are just going to have to pull the same trick, call the bluff and say, okay, you have that ruling, now enforce it.
Yeah, it does seem like the left is much more comfortable with de facto nullification of Supreme Court decisions, that's for sure. They just decide, yeah, well, what are you really going to do about it? They certainly do this on Second Amendment issues where they blatantly violate the Constitution, and their attitude this is true in New York City,
for example, on handgun permitting. Their attitude is, yeah, we know what we're doing is a violation of your rights, but it's going to take you five maybe ten years to even get Supreme Court to look at this. So in the meantime, we get to just violate your rights get what we want as a policy matter. No one's going to stop us from it. In a blue state like New York and tough, you know that that really is the attitude they take. That's what they do.
Yeah, and unfortunately it's a winning strategy when you have a kind of moral visions that are so incredibly divergent. In the United States, it really is just the case that the people who again care more about winning, are just going to beat those who are playing by the rules,
playing by procedure. Now, that just means that Republicans have to understand that you're in the same position if your state legitimately passes a regulation that says, sorry, we don't mutilate children here then it doesn't really matter what a judge says. If they're lying about the Constitution, you just kind of have to be like, Okay, well, we're still not going to do that. And unless you know, no one's going to come and force us to mutilate these kids.
So we're just not going to allow that to happen under our watch. It's not the way that you want a republic to run. It's not how rule of law is supposed to work. But on one side has kind of broken this compact. You can't just sit around pointing and sputtering, right, that doesn't work. Oh, they're the real hypocrites, you know. No, that doesn't do anything. They keep winning, You keep staring and gawking, and it only moves leftward.
I want to ask you orin about you mentioned this, but the fight to protect children from the push of drag, Queen Story Hour for Kids, and also surgery for kids, transgender surgery, hormone blockers, all this stuff, trans ideology, and how this is going now to the state level. It may eventually make its way to the Supreme Court. We'll get to that in just a moment. You know, your computer can be your best tool or your worst nightmare depending on whether crashes or not. It's rare that it does.
But when your computer does get corrupted or just planes stop working, life can grind to a halt. For that reason alone, you have to back up all of the data on your computer. You can't leave that to chance. I Drive provides the easiest, most economical solution for this. Start backing up your computer data with them today. While you're thinking about this one. Iedrive dot com is where you start. You don't need any equipment, there's nothing to purchase.
In that way. I drive software starts backing up your data while you're online, working away at whatever keeps you busy in your computer. That's because i drive software works in the background. It's safe and secure. Their cloud based computers store your data with military grade encryption. No one except you is going to access it, and you can get it when you need it most anytime anywhere. I Drive is the easiest, most secure backup cloud solution. Plants
start at less than seven dollars a month. Use my name Buck as the promo code at checkout for ninety percent off that for the first year. That's iDrive dot Com. iDrive dot Com promo code Buck you'll get ninety percent off your first year. So we have a number of states or in that are passing laws that say that children should should not be subjected to hormone blockers or transgender surgery, which they're now calling gender affirmation surgery, which
is itself a propaganda term. I've already seen at least one is that one. Maybe there are more judges have said no, you can't do that, which I mean, this is how crazy things go. They start doing something that's never been done before. The state says, you know what, we're we're actually not going to allow that, And now you've got federal judges who were effectively saying no, there's a basic constitutional right for a twelve year old to
cut off as genitals. I mean, that's what these judges are doing.
Yeah.
Absolutely, these these judges know that they can't allow states to stand in the way of the civil rights revolution. They've decided that this is the new civil rights movement, this is the new frontier of the civil rights revolution, and they're going to be the guys who kind of push this through. Don't let those ugly, bigoted states stand in the way of you know, the mutilation of twelve
year olds, and it's just insane. We've seen this across the board, right we over the weekend we had footage coming from these Pride parades like that, I believe the one in Seattle where grown men are just completely exposing themselves, riding bicycles around as part of the parade, waiving their junk in front of crowds full of children. And last time I checked, that's illegal, right, like, like no one,
we didn't. We didn't get rid of you know, indecent exposure laws that's supposed to put you on some sex of sex offender registry list. And yet these people are doing it on a regular basis, with no fear from law enforcement, no expectation that they'll be arrested, no expectation that they'll be prosecuted. And this is a huge problem, Like this cannot be allowed in the United States. We cannot let some kind you know, dejure all this stuff is illegal. But to facto, this has all been legalized.
And the even the police officers know this because they would never interrupt what has basically become like a state sanctioned you know, religious ritual in which these guys expose themselves to children and you know.
I think depending on the jurisdiction we're talking about, and some of them, they might have even made nudity public nudity no longer illegal. I think that may be the chase in Seattle or San Francisco. So I approach it from the perspective of it's not even just a function of law, It's a function of what's what is decent? You know, what is uh something that should that should be exposed to kids and shouldn't. And I also just
I have to wonder, what does being naked like? What does what does waving your genitalia around as a man or as a woman in a parade have to do with basic human you know, human rights and dignity and pride and whatever like? What what is with and not just the newity. We can take a little bit on this. Why were there all these pride parades and this is every year? This is not I used to live right next to the Pride parade rout of New York City,
so I have seen this firsthand many many times. There's a lot of like sex toys and bondage gear and all this stuff. People, you know, this isn't common outside of the lgbtqu I a plus plus plus activist.
Community, Like, what is going on?
Yeah, that's kind of the amazing thing, right. Guys like George Decay jumped on Twitter after this footage went wide and said, oh, well, you know these people they were gonna yell about Pride anyway, they were going to try to ban Pride anyway, So there's no reason to self censor. And it's like, what part of this is about self expression? What part of this is censorship? You being asked to wear pants around children is somehow a repression of your
ability to express yourself? What about it is you know is so important to you that this happens? And I think the answer is these are sexual identities by their very nature, like that, that's what these identities mean. And so when people are saying, well, you know, displays of this stuff are essential and center to our identity, you might just need to listen to what they're saying and then realize that this no child should ever be around
this stuff. There were a few years ago the idea that a child would go to a Pride parade would have been insane. Everybody knew what these things were. They were no holds barred type of Mardi gras things. Now, a lot of us didn't like that, but at the very least you can make a case that at least it was adults only, and we understood that everyone there was kind of of a specific age and had made a decision that.
Kind of thing.
But that is obviously not the case now. But the fact that we have to have this argument, the fact that there's any debate around the issue that a child should be at an event that is explicitly explicitly sexual in nature and always has been, really shows you that kind of everything that was predicted by the resilionious right in like the nineteen eighties was pretty much entirely correct, and it's come to pass.
Yes, the slope is quite slippery.
Yeah, this is something that we're seeing and a lot of aspects in society speaking, which the feeling we have right now around bud Light and the awakened right when it comes to wokeness in corporate America, I want to ask you don't answer it yet or in.
Where you know this business.
We're calling this a tease, but I'm going to come back in a second here and I want you to tell me. Are we seeing something that we should celebrate in the sense that it's we're putting wins on the board or should should we be more depressed that it took bud Light putting a trans influencer out to effectively insult the entire bud Light audience with politicization that they didn't ask for. Is that just showing us that we're defending on our own five yard lines, so to speak?
Right?
Which one is it? I want you to answer that one for me in a second week come back. Famed economist and bestselling author Nomi Prins is out with a new warning. She says a small group of financial elites are plotting a drastic action unlike anything we've seen since nineteen seventy one. The White House, the World Economic Forum, even Bill Gates are all involved. According to her research, your ability to spend, borrow, save, and invest could soon
be restricted with the push of a button. Our financial system is about to be transformed in a way that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. And it all starts in July. Bank of America is calling it inevitable. You've got any money in a US bank account retirement plan, get all the facts at Disappearing dollar dot com. You may not like what doctor Prince has to say. But at the very least you'll be prepared
when events take a turn for the worst. Disappearing dollar dot com Again, that's disappearing dollar dot com go there now, paid for by rogue economics.
All right, Oran, are we making headway or are we making a goal line stand in the war on corporate wokeness?
I think this is definitely a goal line stand. Like you said, the fact that a product like bud Light that obviously has the audience that it does, the core audience that it has decided to go ahead and make this move, is a problem. Also, you have the fact, like, let's not forget where this whole bud light thing came from. Yes, we remember it now because they had Dylan Mulvani and
a can. But right before that, a trans shooter murdered six people, three of them children, at a Christian school, and another transshooter was stopped in Colorado Springs who was also planning to shoot up middle schools and churches. That's when this happened. This happened right after they right after this, while the President of the United States, instead of talking about Christians or the terrible thing that happened to the
school was praising the trans community. Madonna was talking about raising money not for the murdered family, you know, the family of the murdered children, or for the school that was impacted, but for the trans community. And at during all of this stuff, while the bodies were still being buried, Bud Lighty decided to slap Dulan mulvaney on a can because it was Pride month and or a Pride month was coming rather and it didn't matter, right, it didn't
matter when it actually happened in the world. We were going to celebrate Pride Month even if these children had just been murdered by a trans shooter. That's the beginning, that's the genesis of this. It's sad that this had to be worked out over a beer can, but at the very least it's a win. I think it is a win. I think people did wake up, and I
think it's because there was a cultural aspect to this. Right, look at your buddy across the bar and be like, really, man, Bud light you're that guy, And all of a sudden, that meme of oh, that's the trans beer was much more effective than any particular political argument. Memes are just way more powerful than logical arguments, and I think that's why this was such a big win. Now it's still at its beginning stages. You're still only seeing these people
lose some money. You're not making the big games. Big gains come with institutions change. So I think the big thing will be can that populist you know, meme energy be transferred over into long term institutional success. If the answer is yes, then I think this is a win.
As as you and I sit here speaking, the manifesto of the transhooter in Nashville is still something that has been kept from the public. There has been many months now. I've never seen this happen before, and I think that you speak aout instances. What are people supposed to think when something like this happens and the system decides that the motivation of a mass murderer, a murder of children should not be publicly known because it may very well be very politically damaging to the left.
Yeah, you remember, like right after this, all of a sudden, there were a bunch of brown white supremacists who showed up.
There's that guy who like drove towards the White House and he had a neatly folded kind of Nazi flag, even though he was like an Indian immigrant, and this kind of thing, amazingly like, all of their ideologies were immediately displayed, all of their motivations were immediately known and made public, and they were decried and you know, called the biggest problem in America by the President and everyone else. But this manifesto can't come out right, this motive can't
be known, and everyone knows why. Everybody understands the answer here, and if they're not going to say it out loud. One of these things is politically useful to the system,
to the regime, and one of them is not. Everyone knows what's in that manifesto, or at least to some degree, what's probably in that manifesto, and everyone knows why it can't get out, because if it got out while people were still angry, where people were still shocked and devastated, then they might have the political will to do something
about it. But if you wait long enough until nobody's really paying attention again, you know, the fervor has died down and nobody really remembers why you were, you know, a boycotting bud light in the first place. Well, then maybe you can start sneaking that stuff and it won't be such a big deal.
Or in where should people go to listen to your podcast read your work? What's the best place?
Sure?
Absolutely, I'm over on Blaze TV. Of course, you can read my columns at The Blaze and then you can subscribe to the podcast. I'm on YouTube, Rumble, Odyssey, all those sites. But you can also get to the podcast on your favorite podcast platform. It's the Oron McIntyre.
Show, Always illuminating. Thanks for making the time for us. Good to see you, Thanks for having me Man