Crazy Bernie Defends Socialism

This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins, He's a great guy. No. Is it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union, I don't never

happen I opposed it. I think it's also fair to point out that when we were in Moscow, for example, I think most of the people here also were extremely impressed by their public transportation system. The stations themselves were absolutely beautiful. Also, I was impressed by the youth programs that they have and cultural programs which go far beyond what we knew in this country. Is it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed

in the Soviet Union, I don't, and never happen. I opposed it. I'm Jane Sanders. The city was beautiful, We were standard with the openness, the optimism, the enthusiasm. I think the things that struck me the most were the way that they dealt with children and with the cultural life of their community. They put the money into public facilities and we have they have palaces culture which are

paid for strictly by trade union dues. Why is there a policy in this country which is producing more and more nuclear weapons which is increasingly antagonistic to well to the Soviet Union. Is it your assumption that I supported or believe in authoritarian communism that existed in the Soviet Union. I don't, never happened. I opposed it. Welcome to the buck, sex and share everybody. We thought we'd give you a little taste of Bernie Sanders then and now. I don't

support Soviet communism. But he kind of honeymooned in the Soviet Union with his wife and used to say really nice things about the Soviet Union late in the game too. This isn't like the early stage leftists in this country back in the fifties and the sixties, who were very favorable toward the totalitarianism of the Kremlin and the enslavement of hundreds of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain.

They were very favorable to it back then. This we're talking about the eighties now, where Bernie, if not a commy himself, Bernie was sort of a quasi commy. He certainly had nice things to say about commies. And I would want someone to ask him today in some detail, is your problem with the Soviet Union burn that it's a bad idea that goes contra human nature, natural law and individual rights? Or is it just that it doesn't work? It didn't work, you know, That's what someone has to

explain to me. Is it just that communism wasn't tried the right way that time? Or does Bernie oppose communism always and at all times. I think this is fair I think this is fair game. And we should wonder what his answer would be. You know, there was this town hall. Now you got all these democrats. It's going to be fantastic to watch them just just stumble over each other, desperate to prove who's the most left wing.

You know, who's the real deal, who's the one that really represents left wing Democratic Party values to the rabid anti Trump, anti capitalist base that is now Progressive America. You know who is going to say the wildest stuff, the most outrageous, indefensible stuff. Well that's a very open question,

isn't it. Bernie Sanders on the issue of letting people remember not form, I'm open to the argument about former felons voting, and I think that there's a there's a case to be made there, depending on the specifics of it that you know, you serve your time, you served your debt to society. I think that you should have the restitution of rights, including if you're a non violent criminal, I think you should have restitution of your Second Amendment rights.

By the way, I don't think that writing, you know, forging a check means that you should never be able to defend yourself and your family again with a firearm. I'm sorry. But then the burn takes it a bit further as and wherever Burne goes, now the Democrats that are running against him have to kind of follow because he is where the id the instinct of the Democratic Party is currently found. Bernie thinks that maybe it's okay. I'm not making this up. We got the audio. You're

gonna hear it. Bernie thinks, maybe it's okay for the Boston Marathon bomber to vote from prison. That's right, people, including heinous murderers, terrorists, traders, should be able to vote for, say, the next president United States. According to Bernie Sanders play clip seven. But our constitution says is that everybody can vote. That is true, So people in jail can vote. Now Here is my view. If somebody commits a serious crime,

sexual assault, myrtle, they're gonna be punished. They may be in jail for ten years, twenty years, fifty years, the whole lives. That's what happens when you commit a serious crime. But I think the right to vote is inherent to our democracy. Yes, even for terrible people. You think the Boston Marathon bomber should vote, not after he pays his debts to society, but while he's in jail. Are you sure about that? But I do believe. Look, you know this is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy?

Do you believe that every single American eighteen years of age or older, was an American citizen has the right to vote. No, Bernie, you don't just get to keep all your rights all the time, absolutely, no matter what, under all circumstances. You don't get to keep your freedom if the state decides that you have violated its laws. I don't think you necessarily get to keep the right to vote. Man. That was touchdown Bernie Sanders there in the in the crazy super Bowl. Bernie just caught a

forty yard bomb in the end zone there. That was wow. Even bro Cuomo, who's like Bernie, do you even lift bro Even bro Cuomo was taken aback by it for a second there. Now you might say, Bucks, that's the burn. That's not indicative of where the rest of the Democratic Party is. You're maybe that could be true, although you know that's not true. They're all crazy, right, or at least they're all pretending to be crazy because they're base the far left that they need to win over. Right now,

they are nuts. But Kamala Harris very establishment figure among the Democrats, very you know, very much the kind of resume and persona and tone that the Democrats are looking for this election. They love Kamala Harris. What does she say about the Boston Marathon bomber being allowed to vote

from prison. Lay eight. I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formerly incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote. And these are policies that go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement, policies that continue until today. And we need to take

it seriously. But people who are convicted in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote. I think we should have that conversation. I think we should have that conversation. Is Democrat politicians speak for. I mean, I'm gonna leave it open to your interpretation so the

base doesn't turn to me right now. But once it becomes clear that I've got to actually win over like normal Americans who aren't lunatics, I'm gonna pretend like I never said I like the idea. I just wanted to have a conversation. Oh man, Oh you gotta love Democrats. It must be fun to run around and just say whatever you want to say, whatever you want to say at no principles, the stakes or whatever you say. They already given time. Oh my, we have a jam pact show, folks,

a lot to get too. Promises to destroy individual rights like the Second Amendment from Democrat candidates. I mean, the looney left is going to be the main theme of today's show. So we are going to have some fun with that one. I can assure you stay with me if I'm after next year. None of those times are

going to pass they want you to take. So I think as a gram reaper that doesn't the President Cocaine Mitch aka Mitch McConnell saying that he's the grim reaper of socialism when it comes to the legislative body of the United States government. And I like it, you know, Mitch is I get you know, I get that there's a lot of there's a lot of criticism about Mitch being an establishment guy, establishment Republican and all that. You know, folks, we all always have to be objective about giving credit

where it's due on our side, on any side. And you know, Mitch held the line on Merrick Garland, and now we have a pretty solid conservative instead of having you know, wishywashy liberal Merrick Garland on the court. And Mitch has been excellent on getting conservative justice is appointed to the federal bench for a long time now, so you know, and that's gonna be Mitch's legacy. And look,

the guy's not on board with socialism. So let's let's make sure that we remember that we have allies in this process who well they may be imperfect, they should they should get praise, were deserved, and we should welcome them. And you know, Mitch McConnell is a very he's a kg catman. I mean, he knows parliamentary procedure, he knows all the tricks, and you know, he has been very effective on a number of issues. Now, he's not good on immigration, he's not. There's some places where you know,

Mitch and I have strong, strenuous disagreements. But he's been pretty good on some of this stuff. He really has. He's actually been willing to take a lot of heat from the press too. That brings me to this Deblasio's skyscraper situation in New York City, Kaiseville Haam Deblasio Yeah, So he's saying that they're gonna have city legislation in New York that's gonna make glass and steel skyscrapers essentially cost prohibitive, and you could have a million dollars five

in all all this crazy stuff. This is what Deblasi has been saying about that play clip nine. We are going to introduce legislation to ban the glass and steel skyscrapers that have contributed so much to global warming. They have no place in our city or in our earth anymore.

If a company wants to build a big skyscraper, they can use a lot of glass, if they do all the other things needed to reduce to SEE emissions, But putting up monuments to themselves that harmed our earth and threatened our future, that will no longer be allowed in New York City. I just want to know what this idiot is going to replace those or what he thinks is going to replace that standard of glass and steel skyscraper.

What does he think is going to happen? Are all buildings gonna be You're you're gonna have a hundred story brick buildings now, or you know, sixty story brick buildings. Do that? Is that what he thinks is that's better for the environment. That's a better idea. I mean, he's de Blasio is so spectacularly stupid that I don't know, I don't even know what he thinks he's trying to do.

This then reminded me of how yesterday I did not I did not spend ample time or any time for that matter, on the fact that it was Earth Day. Yay Earth Day? Whose Earth? Our Earth? Occupy Earth Day? Yeah? Remember climate climate change, alarmism, worship of environmentalism. This is religious belief for people who think they're too smart for religious belief. But AEI, which I'm sure the climate change you know maniacs would just yell, is basically a subsidiary

of you know, x on or something. But who cares a guys got smart people. AID pulled together in this article as Aliday, this is this is an honor of Earth Day, which is I'm celebrating with you Nowaday, I'm not really celebrating it. We're kind of ridiculing it, which is what we should do. But an honor of Earth Day.

AI pulled together this article of eighteen examples of quote spectacularly wrong predictions made in nineteen seventy when the Green Holy Day, which we now call Earth Day began, So when Earth Day started back in nineteen seventy or right around nineteen seventy. This is what the intelligencia, the earth climate science, global warming intelligentsia. We're not just saying offense, we're publishing. I mean this is what they were putting

forward as their predictions. And I want you to keep in mind that some of these scientists to this day are their research is still relied on there. Some of them are still called upon as experts of the now. They're getting pretty old. So but this tells you about how wrong they've actually have been and can be. Here you go, this is this is from AEI, and I think the author of the piece is Mark Perry. You got number one Harvard biologists. Remember in honor Earthday, folks,

we're gonna make fun of it. Harvard biologist George Walt estimated that civilization would end within fifteen or thirty years unless immediate action was taken against problems facing mankind. Quote, we are in an environmental crisis threatens the survival of this nation and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation, wrote Washington. University biologist very Commoner in

the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, quote, man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence, but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction. Number four on this list, population will inevitable, inevitably, and completely outstrip

whatever small increases in food supplies we make. This is Paul Rlick confidently declaring in the April nineteen seventy issue of Mademoiselle magazine, the death rate will increase until at least one hundred to two hundred million people a year will be starving to death during the next ten years. That was in nineteen seventy. Anyone want to take a little guess as to how wrong he was. It's easy.

Totally wrong. It is already too late to avoid mass starvation, declared Dennis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the spring nineteen seventy issue of The Living Wilderness. Oh it goes on number eleven. I'm not gonna read all of them, because come on, but number eleven on this list, very Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America's rivers, causing freshwater fish

to suffocate. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, by the year two thousand, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say fill her up, buddy, and he'll say, I'm very sorry,

there isn't. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Science Is, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the human that humanity would run out of copper after the year two thousand, Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver we would run out of before nineteen ninety. It just goes on and on and on. That's right, folks.

Scientists in the nineteen seventies, the same people that were being published in pure view journals and the leading lights of the Earth Day movement, they thought we were going to run out of fuel, oil, run out of food. There'd be mass starvation, there'd be catastrophic global warming. The seas would rise and swamp entire countries and there'd be you know, massive species die off and that the human race faced extinction. These are supposedly serious scientists who are

part of the green earth clergy. Why do we still have to take any of these people seriously? I'm just wondering, why is it okay that they're so spectacularly wrong and not about particularly complicated issues. Why do the catastrophists get away with this again and again and again because it's a religious belief for people who think they're too smart for religion. That's pretty much why Happy Earth Day, everybody.

We'll be right back. We need reasonable gun safety laws in this country, starting with universal background checks and a renewal of the assault weapon ban, but they have failed to have the courage to act. So, Ben, here is my response to you. Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress one hundred days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws, and if they fail to do it, then

I will take executive action. And specifically, what I will do is put in place a requirement that for anyone who sells more than five guns a year, they are required to do background checks when they sell those guns. I will require that for any gun dealer that breaks the law, the ATF take their license. Tyranny, Kamala Harris

promises you, folks, tyranny that's right. An executive branch of government that will in response to Congress not passing certain laws, laws that go right to the heart of a constitutionally protected right. Kamala Harris is telling you that she will just go around. She's got a pen on a phone, you could say, just like Obama used to, and she will go around the Congress if she's elected president, and she will take executive action to take guns from people.

She will decide that you're lawfully owned a R fifteen should be taken from you, because she says so. Not a single person I've ever heard has made a worthwhile argument about why millions and millions of rifles legally owned and in circulation right now and protected under the second a member of the Constitution, should be taken away from you. I have never, I have never in my life heard

somebody make a compelling case about this. The data does not back up that lawfully owned R fifteen or any semi automatic rifle that they consider an assault rifle are a real threat to public health. And safety. The data doesn't back it up. The Second Amendment doesn't have and oh that's scary looking and I don't like it. Exception,

that's not a thing that exists in the law. But I would also note that we've gone through a period here where the President of the United States, President Trump, has tried to go through Congress and then has tried to take actions within his purview as the commander in chief.

Because when it comes to entry into the country of foreign of foreign aliens, when it comes to security at the border, these are executive branch functions, functions and places where the president does have a lot of discretion and authority. And we have had wailing from Democrats on this. I mean just gnashing of teeth and rending of garments and

you know, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. They are completely freaked out because they say that what Trump is doing is tyrannical, because what Trump is doing is sure to you know, lead to people getting sented to detainee facilities all across the country, and you know, Trump is hitler and all this crazy stuff. You know, the immigration and customs enforcement must be disbanded, and I mean the things that Democrats say about this administration are just unhinged,

completely unhinged. And yet here's Kamala Harris promising when Congress doesn't do what she wants to, just say, Yeah, the Second Amendment doesn't really count anymore. I'm gonna I'm gonna ban assault rifles with executive action. Gonna so you're gonna turn people. You're gonna turn legal gun owners into felons. That's what they did in the state of Connecticut. By the way, you didn't hand over your your semi automatic rifle, you are technically in violation of Connecticut law. You can

go to prison for that. Kamala is promising what she views as a kind of benevolent tyranny, and the media doesn't say a peep, no problem with it, because she's on their team. You see, the media is on her team and she's on theirs. So all that talk you've heard in recent months about how President Trump is exceeding constitutional authority of the president, all that stuff, that's all it's all bull it's all lies, all right, It's just it's just flatly not true. And does the media holder

to account for it. No, No, that not. We have a lot more coming up to talk about on college college loans, the jubilee that really the Democrats are kind of proposing here. I'll explain that in a few moments, but I just I like to keep us all up to speed on the Jesse smolette as somebody who knew Jesse was lying all along and was vocal about it.

I like to do those Jesse Smolette updates. Turns out the Osendro brothers, who are the two Nigerian brothers who he hired to attack him, and we all know this. They and it's funny. I don't think that they broke any law because they were essentially paid actors. They didn't unless they gave false statements to the Thord and they didn't do anything wrong. They just showed up and like, we're part of this bizarre scheme to you know. I don't know, maybe you get them on conspiracy. I don't

know what the charge would be against them. I think that they just they were hired to do this weird thing. I don't know what they really did. But the Osendiro brothers are suing Jesse, so we may in civil court finally get some justice. Play fifteen. We have watched lie after lie being fabricated about us in the media only so one big lie he would continue to have life. These lies are destroying our character and our reputation in

our personal and professional life. So the attorney there is reading the statement saying that they're gonna they're gonna sue for I think a defamation of character. Forget what the specifics are, but just any judicial process that would force discovery will force some reckoning for Jesse Smolette with all the lies. You know. I look, I would let this. I would. I would not be as I wouldn't let it go, but I wouldn't be as energized about this case.

Still if he hadn't gotten a total pass because he's he's a protected individual, because he gets a special kind of justice, I would have except he had to walk out afterwards say I never lied. I would never lie. It's just too much, too much. The stomach just just can't do it, can't do it. So I decided that we would do it live team. We're gonna come back and talk about the plan by Elizabeth Warren to make all the college debts get white to it. What have

you already paid off your loans? Though? Oh too bad for you. I guess that's coming up. I am someone that runs in a purple state. It is a state that when I first started running for office, the other senator was Republican, the governor was Republican, and three of our four constitutional officers were Republican. And then I started running, and every single time I have run, I have won every single congressional district in my state, including Michelle Bachmann's. Okay,

it's when you guys are supposed to cheer. Okay, all right, so ash when you guys are shappost cheer. Amy klobisher a telling you that she would jevery erace and she's very charming. And she also eats salad with an old comb. Oh that's so gross. Remember the story about eating the salad with the comb and making one of her staffers clean clean the salad off the comb. I don't know what it is, but just you know, honestly, eating mac

and cheese with a comb. It's a little rough around the edges, but I could see it, you know, But eating a salad like you get the dressing and the comb and maybe some hair and the salad, and it's so gross, so gross. Amy klobaschar yet and throwing things at her staff, and everyone talks about how horrible she is to them, but she's still running because she won every district in that you know whatever that was. This is where you're supposed to clap. Not quite as lame

as Jeb Bush. Please clap job oh man, please ye there you go. Thank you. Jeb's purpose in the last election was just for those of us who pay attention to finally shut down this talking point that, oh, that's right, if you if you spend enough money, you'll win an election. I think Jeb spent almost one hundred million dollars and got like two delegates or something. I mean, it was just an astonishing fail, massive fail from Jeb Bush. But

oh yeah, something we'll revisit another time. I had more thoughts, speaking of revisiting, more thoughts on this free tuition situation that's really gotten a lot of attention from Elizabeth Warren, because Elizabeth Warren is now the Democrat who has to

go kind of bullworth. I don't know how many of you remember that movie with Warren Beatty and halle Berry where it's about a politician who decides he's just gonna start speaking the truth because he kind of has a breakdown or I forget, I can't remember if he has cancer, if he has a breakdown or whatever, but he doesn't care anymore. It's a cool concept. It was not executed well. It is not a good movie in large part because I think they weren't even willing to write things to

have this guy say that would have been interesting. I mean, they try to make a movie about a guy being politically incorrect who they wouldn't really allow to be politically incorrect. But Warren is now the Democrat who is willing to throw ideas out there because she's desperate to get some kind of relevance. She's desperate to come up with a way to get back at the top of the pack here, and for me at least, I mean, I think it's interesting to see a Democrat finally say what. A lot

of them maybe think she's pushing, obviously for impeachment. We'll talk more about that. She's big on impeaching the president. She's now said, oh, we must impeach. You know, I go back and forth. It's just a question whether they think it'll be good politics for them. It has nothing to do with the evidence, It has nothing to do with obviously with principles or being faithful to their offices

as elected members of the United States House of Representatives. Now, there's nothing to do with that, right, I know, Warren's obviously a senator, but it has nothing to do with being in Congress. It's just whatever or respecting congressional oversight in the role they play in our democracy, and blah blah blah. It's just will this help Democrats beat Trump? If the answers yes, they'll do it. If they think

the answers no, they won't. Everything else's noise, But free tuition is an interesting concept that's definitely getting more and more attention from folks. Play This is what Warren lays out for her there, or this is free college tuition for people who currently have student loan debt. So it's really actually just debt forgiveness. It's a kind of small scale.

Some of you may be familiar with the biblical concept of a jubilee where all debts are wiped away, maybe something we should talk about in some detail on the show another time, but this has been around for a long time, the resetting of an economic cycle and the jubilee on the freedom from debt that a society will impose upon itself with real consequences, but a way of kind of cleansing the economic system. This is a kind of campus jubilee, or at least a student loan jubilee

that she's talking about here play Cliptu. We are going to roll back student loan debt for about ninety five percent of students who have debt. That's part one. And part two is to make sure that we never get in this mess again on student loan debt, and that is to make college universally available with free tuition and fees, and to put more money into pell grants so that students of color, so that our poorest students have real access to college, and that we put some real money

into our historically black colleges and universities. This is about opportunity for every month. This is about the money ferry that's going to magically appear and pay for all of This is what it's really about, because the moment you start to look at this plan in any detail, you realize this is a disaster. So it's rolling back debt and then making all college free. College is far too expensive.

Why is college far too expensive? Well, in part because the lender for college is now the American taxpayer, and colleges can keep jacking up their rates and building these huge endowments and overpaying all these administrators and building multimillion dollars dormitories for students, and you know, tens of millions of dollars more than that probably on athletic facilities and

all this stuff. It's a total just wild spending orgy with a lot of these colleges and universities, and war In here sees us as a function first and foremost of fairness. Let me say that the wealth tax that she proposes is unworkable. So what she'll do is sell us all on a wealth tax. Only will people over fifty million? And yeah, can they afford two percent three

percent of You're sure they can. How are you going to extract that two or three percent from people who, year in and year out are gonna probably have assets that are locked up. Are you're gonna make them sell stock, You're gonna make them sell shares in their company, You're gonna make them sell Some of them might not have three percent of their of their net worth readily available. I mean, there are some people that are very, very wealthy on paper that. I just want to know how

this is really going to work. You know, if you're a major, if you're if you have a you know, a billion dollar real estate portfolio, and you need to liquidate three percent of your net worth to pay for this special tax every by the way, it's every year. How are you so that three percent and then another three percent and then another three percent and then that's actually gonna eat in your net worth pretty quickly? That adds up. I mean this, this whole thing is is

a farce. It's a fantasy. There's no way it's going to happen. But it's interesting to just talk about because put aside the mechanics of paying for this free college for in the future and eliminating debts in the past, let's talk about fair. That the f word, as the

Democrats use it, fair right, pay You're fair? Sure. Obama used to always say, what happens to the people that have been struggling for the last twenty years to pay off their student loans, that have managed to do so, or let's say halfway through or at any stage of the game, did they get know that they don't get their money back? So the one the people that borrowed responsibly and did what they're supposed to do. They suffered and didn't They didn't, you know, put that down payment

on a house. They did. Look, I mean, I'm somebody who didn't go to grad school because I don't want to take out the loans full stop. That's it. I mean, I also wanted to do media, and thankfully it's worked out. I'm kind of good at this, but I decided that, you know, I just didn't want to take out a what would have been, by the time I paid it off, a couple hundred thousand dollars to go to a business

school for two years. Didn't want to do it. But if I had been told, oh, we'll do it and then it'll be free, you know, in ten years, we'll just wipe the whole thing away, I'd say, oh, maybe I will do this now. It completely changes the incentive structure.

And what about the people? So they're the people who didn't go because they didn't want to take out the debt that people who have serviced those debts, and people that chose to go to a two year college, or chose to go to a trade school, or chose to do an apprenticeship or instead of taking out a four year degree so that they could put a down payment on a house. Whatever. Do they get left out of

this whole thing too? Individual choices about one's personal finances are not the government's job to remedy, and it is wrong. That's right. It is wrong for the federal government to step in and say, well, you know, we're going to just make this better for you because you're a big block of voters. I mean, this is like in Ghostbusters when Bill Murray, playing doctor Pete Bankman, says to the mayor,

you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters. Well, in this case, it's saving the bank accounts of registered voters. But this is buying them off with taxpair of dollars. It's not right. It's not right to do am I open to college is too expensive. Yes. Do I think that student loan debt should be non dischargeable? No? Do I think the federal government should be making these loans backing them the first place? No? Do I think that

people should be responsible for their personal choices. Yes, there's a sophisticated discussion to be had here, but free stuff for everybody, free stuff all over, just rich people are gonna pay. That is selling snake oil. Friends, That is a lie, and that is what Elizabeth Warren is presenting you. Hiring is really tough, but there's one place you can go. We're hiring for whatever job you need to post is simple, fast and smart. It's a place where growing businesses can

connect to the most qualified candidates quickly, efficiently, easily. That place is zip recruiter dot com slash buck. You see, zip recruiter sends your job to over a hundred of the web's leading job boards. They don't stop there, though. They've got a powerful matching technology that allows zip recruiter to scan thousands of resumes and find the right people with the right experience and invites them to apply to

your job. So what industry you're in across the country, if you need to hire for any job, please try zip recruiter dot com slash buck right now. My listeners can try it totally free at this exclusive web address zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Again, that's zip recruiter dot com slash buck. I use zip recruiter with fantastic results for hiring at the hill. You should try it too. Zip recruiter dot com slash buck zip recruiter is the

smartest way to hire. We've been waiting for Muller to you know, make us comfortable with the fact that he is deplorable and he's not deserving of the presidency, and to find all of the evidence. Then we thought, bar despite his background and what we know about him, what's going to step up to the plate. And now we're waiting on the public to make us do it. The Congress, the Congress really does have to really does have to

step up to the plate. The fact of the matter is, I think that when you look at this report, you can see that there's enough information there not only on obstruction of justice, but also on collusion or conspiracy, whatever you want to call it, to move forward with impeachment on this president because if anything, even if he's not impeachable at the time, if he doesn't, if we're not successful in impeaching him, at least we're investigating it, doing

our dual diligence to hold him accountable. Look at the mall report and look at some of the actions over a thousand contacts between the Trump organization and the Trump administration. Since he's a in an office that alone gets you into criminal, corrupt activities. How come he can get away with that? How come you guys are not looking into this deeper? You know, put character flaws aside, and this president has a lot of character flaws. Put it aside.

Look at specifically the actions he's done. Because a lot of the things we're fighting for access to healthcare, from holding you know, for corporations accountable, to pushing back again the high rates of insulin, all of those things. Trump's arrangement syndrome is real, my friends. You're hearing it. You're

hearing it all over the place right now. Yeah, just Trump is just like the terrible bad man who does like so many of the awful things, who's so just like everything, and like I just hate his stupid face and hair, and you know, it's just small man bad and hate him. They can't even get the words out. They can't even figure out why they hate them. They just know they hate him so much. And now we're

being told that Congress. They just want to stick to the facts, you know, just just want to see what we can really do here, what we can really accomplish, and you know, look into ways that we can hold the Trump administration accountable for this or that I'm sitting here. I'm like, you guys are kidding me, right, We're an election cycle. They want to have this, these these hearings about about impeachment. They want to keep talking about criminal

charges when there were no criminal charges. Well, if there were no criminal charges, then what are we even talking about? They sound like, I mean, this is really getting hard to analyze these Democrats, to analyze people like Rashida Tali. But you just heard from and Maxine Waters. Because if you're not crazy, and if you listen to the show, you're not because you have excellent taste in radio shows.

If you're not crazy, it's really hard to understand the mentality of somebody who all these issues clearly is crazy. You know, it's hard to put yourself in the mindset in the shoes of someone who is so completely separated from reality here and who has been overcome by this disdain for the president that really is a disease of the mind. Now there's no there's zero chill, there is zero calm, there's no zen when it comes to Democrats and the way that they discuss approach deal with this president.

And you know, they really could just take some solace, you'd think, in the fact that there's going to be an election soon. The president will be on the ballot, at the top of the ballot. There'll be a referendum on him. There's plenty of opportunity for them to make the case about why he's not a good president. It doesn't always have to be that he's literally hitler, which

is where we keep falling back into the Democrats. They can't seem to just have a big boy, adult discussion about why they don't like the President of United States on policy or whatever. It always comes back to Ikey orange man, bad, hate him, hate everything about him, everyone around him. They're embarrassing themselves. They don't think that the way though, because one they're not self aware enough to understand how foolish they sound the thing about you know,

and look what he's done on insulin prices. What is Trump? The Trump Administration's actually working very hard and this is an area where people who are honest give them some credit, working very hard to bring down prescription drug prices. And yeah, insulin is a particular area of medicine where because of some of the regulations and the way that our current patent laws were insulin's way more expensive than it should be. But it's not It's not Trump's fault. It's trying to

actually bring down these prices. But this is like today, I was on a panel on rising and so and said, oh, well, you know, unlike the Democrats, you know, Trump doesn't care about people in prison. This had to do with the prison voting and said, really, the Trump administration one of their main efforts over the last six months has been this one, this first Step program, trying to help people who were coming out of prison. And now we're just

gonna pretend like that didn't happen. Well, this is true. They did the same thing with Bush. Bush was an evil warmonger, criminal, hated everybody but George W. Bush, for whatever flaws, he had probably saved more lives in Africa alone than any president could directly take any kind of credit for, you know, in in the modern era, I mean post World War two. I know, I don't even know how you'd measured live saved it by other presidents.

But I mean Trump with the efforts. I mean it's not Trump, but Bush with the efforts he'd made in Africa to just bring down HIV rates and bring down age deaths millions of people. That was a huge Bush initiative. By the way, the Trump administration is trying to push

even further with criminal justice reform. And what I just think so interesting is that Democrats are going to have to be in a position where Kamala Harris, who was very lock them up when she was the district attorney in San Francisco, she's actually pretty harsh or criminal, was thinking about sending parents to prison for the truancy of

their kids. That's intense. They're going to have to be supporting her the Democrat establishment while essentially trashing Trump for trying to help people re reintegrate themselves into into society after they've served a prison sentence, which as we know, disproportionately African Americans are incarcerated in this kind tree and the Trump administration is trying to help all prisoners, but that's going to have a disproportionate impact helping African American prisoners.

Democrats give them no credit for that, none. You know, they're gonna just turn around and act like none of that ever happened because they're dishonest, because that's what Democrats do. I suppose we've got more though, on the dossier that I want to talk to you about, because this is where the fight, the central fight I think over Russia collusion is about to go over the dossier and how it's a big fat lie. Background checks are a critical

part of any business these days. There's a lot of ways that people try to come in under the radar, try to make sure that you don't really know who they are and what they're all about. That's why you need Global Verification Network. They're the only dual certified veteran

owned background investigation and venting companies. So if you want to help veteran owned and operated small business, you want to be working with people that you trust on your background checks, and you want someone that does this better than anybody else in the business. Please call my friends at Global Verification Network. Whatever size your business, small all the way up to huge companies, they can handle your portfolio of background checks. In fact, they will come up

with a custom tailored plan for you. Just call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. That's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine, or just go to MYGVN dot com. That's MYGVN dot com. All Americans had their civil liberties compromised when you have a dossier presented to the fives accord and presented as the whole truth, when the Justice Department withheld relevant material. If they can do it to the president of the United States, they can do it to any of us,

any citizens. The entire et action of justice discussion is a c legal discussion. The Mueller Report got the law completely wrong. They came to the conclusion that you could actually indict a president for exercising his constitutional authority. That just is not the law. It has never been the law, and it never should be the law, and every civil libertarian should be upset about that. The dirsh has been great on the Russia spygate issue. He's been great on it.

Let's let's just say what it is. He's not a friend or Republicans in terms of his ideology, but he is somebody who does believe in the law and civil liberties, and it's it should be astonishing as we all look at what's happened with the Democratic Party this country, just how much they've been willing to abandon those things entirely. I mean, they used to at least pay lip service to them. Now I mean it's it's laughable. You know,

he mentioned the Steel dossier there. When we'll talk more about obstruction and Muller and all that a little later on the show. But I want to I want to hone in on the Steel dossier component of this. If what happened to the Trump campaign and really what happened to Carter Page and George Popadopolis, if that is allowed to stand, then it is entirely possible, entirely acceptable for

the following scenario. Anyone who I don't like in politics, I could pay a third party to write up some report on them with anonymous sourcing, and then take that report and then hand it to people in the FBI that also don't like that person, and then they can open up a full field investigation as they did on Popodopolis. They could open up fise A surveillance as they did on Carter Page. And the basis for all of this is my pay somebody to write up a bunch of rumors, fabricating.

That's a fabrication. Intelligence work without sourcing is rumor mongering. I used to do this. I work for the CIA. I know of what I speak here. If I try to, you know, task a satellite or run a human surveillance operation on somebody based on a piece of paper that someone slid under the door at the you know, at an embassy somewhere. Guess what I'd look like, a moron? That is basically what happened here with the dossier. And I'd say I'd get fired. But you really don't get fired.

You don't get fired for incompetence in government. You get fired for either breaking the regulations that they have or speaking out publicly against the institution. Those are things I'll get you fired. But that's another conversation. The dossier was a smear document paid for by the Clinton campaign, run through a law firm, relying on foreign intelligence operatives and sources.

But because it was paid for, it's okay. If we apply the democrats logic on the dossier to say the Trump campaign and the meeting in Trump Tower, it would have been okay. Again, this is Democrat logic. If Valerie Vezelitskaya, instead of saying, hey, I've got some information, do you guys want to take this? If a Trump campaid said no, no, no, no no, no, we can't do that. We're gonna pay some British guy to sit in a meeting with you.

You give him the information and then we'll use it and run it to the FBI and do whatever we want with it. That's better. That is exactly what the dossier was. It was a British intelligence officer cut out accepting money to make information from Russians for political purposes. Somebody try to tell me I'm wrong, I beg them. Somebody try to challenge me on this issue. They will

get crushed. Democrats have no answers. In fact, there was a rather spirited exchange I had with the former senior Obama Dojay guy on Rising earlier in the week, and I kept saying, how is what I'm saying not true? But he just kept dodging, kept dodging, kept dodging. They tried to the Muller people, the anti Trump Democrat left tried to tried to say that the acceptance of information from a foreign source is an illegal campaign contribution. These

people are nuts information. So does that mean if I read the Guardian, that's a foreign source of British newspaper. If I if I see a video on Russia today that does some Hillary appo am, I is that a foreign Oh well that's media? Well, what are the distinctions are really making here is this is crazy. This is absolutely crazy to see. They they have no real rules, no real standards. It's just whatever hurts Trump is good,

whatever helps Trump is bad. The dossier is going to be a huge problem for the Democrats and once Trump. I just wish he would do it. And you know, I try to. I know that the president has more forces arrayed against him than any human being could ever imagine. And I understand the pressures that he's under and the fact that the Left is They're not just trying to defeat him politically. They want to ruin him. They want to ruin his brand, they want to ruin his family,

they want to imprison his family members. Because the Left is a bunch of crazy savages, all right, The Left just they're barbarians. They have they play by no rules anymore when it comes to Trump. Whatever they can do destroy him. I get all that, but I do get frustrated sometimes I think the President should just release the unred just just release the fis of stuff. I know people can say, Buck, you can't be Oh no, I'm serious. He should just order it. I want to see the

full fives applications. I don't I don't even care what. I don't care. No one's gonna no one's gonna be harm from this. What someone spoke to somebody about George Popadopolis or somebody spoke to somebody about Carter Page. No, no, no one's gonna end up, you know, on the floor of some sell and some hell hole because of this. I'm sorry, it's just not that's just not going to happen. We're not talking about some deep intel penetration of a

hostile country. We're talking about a couple of clowns running around in America that have people that are desperately trying to take them down, using the federal government to do it. I think we should unleash all this stuff by I don't mean to be mean about George and Carter. I just meant, you know, they're like kind of goofy guys. I actually actually like both of them, and you know, what's been done to them is terrible. I mean, I totally stand with them on this. I mean they were

essentially both smired as traitors. Mueller from when I was reading the Muller Report, was trying to get him on being an unregistered agent of Israel. What they're gonna apply a fairer violation at Israel, and Israels are close US ally. Now we're gonna do that because all along it has been oh well Russia, you know, you can't do bad things with Russia. But I think Trump should release the full files that because you're going to see that the

dossier was essentially everything. The dossier was the one source in the bibliography that appears in the text, you know, one hundred times, and everything else that you know, I'm using an academic analogy here, but everything else is just like, you know, patting the bibliography just to make it seem like there were more sources, but they really weren't. In fact, if you even go back and listen to Bob Woodward, this is from I think eighteen months ago, maybe I

mean it's at least over a year ago. Bob Woodward, who was a revered journalist on the left. He was saying, look, guys, this dossier thing, we gotta we gotta look into this a little bit more. Play thirteen. Early in building the Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian interference, in an early draft, they actually put the dossier on page two in kind of a breakout box. I think it was the CIA

pushing this. Real intelligence experts looked at this and said, no, this is not intelligence, this is garbage, and they took it out. But in this process, the idea that they would include something like that in one of the great stellar intelligence assessments, as Muller also found out, is highly questionable needs to be investigated. Garbage, Woodward says, And that is what the dossier was. It was garbage. There's ridiculous stuff.

It just just patently ridiculous stuff in there, unsourced Russian sources. In fact, now the New York Times, I don't know how many of you caught this, I meant to mention on the show wrote a piece over the weekend about how the dossier. Get ready for this, folks, hold onto

your butts here it comes. The dossier's self may have been a Russian disinformation operation that Steele, Christopher Steele, fell for and then laundered through the media and ran up the flagpole at the FBI in what would be one of the most successful disinformation campaigns any country has run against another in history. That's right, the dossier as a disinformation campaign. They didn't think about this before. This didn't occur to them until the Mulla probe ended. Oh oh, well,

now it's safe to be somewhat honest about this. Right now, it's safe to ask some of the most important and basic questions. The media and all this is such such a disgrace. We must drill down to the dossier. I'm going to keep saying it because it's important. They are lying to you about how this whole Russia collusion thing

got started. They are lying to you because when you find out, when we find out, it will be clear that this was a conspiracy theory, that this was vindictive anti Trump partisans dishonestly concocting a Kakamamee story to destroy the would be a now current president of the United States. And this was just OPO research treated as intelligence, the kind of thing that you would see in some RinkyDink third world country. It happened here in America. Intel services,

major media outlets brought in on the scheme. Appalling and something that we need accountability for. Don't put impeachment on the table as the only item on the table and say you're going to get there no matter what which is it's what happened in ninety nine. Instead, you say we are going to proceed with the seriousness that this demands, not to prejudge the outcome, but to examine the evidence

as objectively as possible, and then to draw conclusions. And if at that point they believe that high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed, then I think it is the obligation of the Congress to put forward articles of impeachment. I mean, she's kidding, right, that's ridiculous. Oh, that's right. It's an objective process that the Democrats are going to embark on about whether or not they're going to impeach

Donald Trump entirely objective. You see these elected Democrat officials that are going to put the country now through month after month of we need to hold hearings. We must in defense of art democracy. And Hillary's gonna show up once while I need to like, Wow, what you should rarely do is vote for Hillary twenty twenty. That's right. It might happen, folks, might happen. You laugh right now, evil Hillary laugh. That's right, you laugh right now. But

it could happen. There's no party leader, there's a there's a lot of division among the various Democrats that are running in terms of their their their base and everything else. So I'm just saying, but Hillary coming out, she's the voice of reason among Democrats. Now, isn't that stunning? Isn't that quite a reminder of what's really going on in the world around you right now? Hillary Clinton is more sane than the rest of the Democrat Party, and so she she gets to show up and be kind of

the the wise grandma of the Democrat Party. It's it's stunning,

It really is. Jared Kushner, by the way, switching gears here for a second, It's going to be presenting a Middle East peace plan in the I think after after Ramadan is what I read today, which I don't know what will be in the plan, but I do know that the smartest person that I've known in my life on the Middle East peace process with or with Israel and the Palestinians, we used to say that every administration will try, every administration will fail, the Palestinians will make

it worse, the settlers will build. That was his roadmap for all things peace process. And I know it's a very cynical approach to all of that, but he's not wrong. We could say say what you will about it. The guy's not wrong. He hasn't been wrong so far. But Kushner was speaking. He doesn't speak publicly all that often.

And although people often tell me in the White House, the folks that I talked to that Kushner may in fact be the single most powerful advisor in the United States government right now, the number one advisor to the President of the United States. He's about, I think a year or two old than me. Yep. I actually met Jared a very long time ago to brunch. I don't know if I sat in a meeting with Jared for an hour when he owned The Observer and I was sent over as a representative of the Blaze talk to

him about possible collaboration. So I've spoken to Jared a few times. But anyway, Jared brought up a very good point about this whole collusion Russia interference nonsense, which is like, guys, can ever just get a grip on this thing? Can we balance out what really happened versus what we've been through for two years place sixteen. You look at you know what Russia, did you know, buying some Facebook ads to try to sew dissent and do it And it's

a terrible thing. But I think the investigations and all of the speculation that's happened for the last two years has had a much harsher impact on our democracy than a couple of Facebook ads. And I spent about I think they said they spent about one hundred and sixty thousand. I spent one hundred and sixty thousand dollars on Facebook

every three hours during the campaign. So if you look at the magnitude of what they did on what they accomplished, I think the ensuing investigations have been way more hard. That is a really important point he makes. Okay, that's what I keep telling you about how you could give a dollar to a billionaire handed to him and say I made that guy richer. And it's technically true. Russia could run a few Facebook ads here and there and

say they interfered in our election. Technically true. But it is an eyedropper's worth of Facebook ads in an ocean of presidential election politics online. This is why Obama did nothing about it, folks, nothing until Hillary lost. This is why the Democrats have been dishonest about this all along. It's all been one big con. It's all been one big lie. And Jared is spot on here with let's

keep this all in perspective. If any other human being in this country had done what's documented in the Muller report, they would be arrested and put in jail. Obstruction of justice is a serious crime in this country. But Muller believed, because of the direction from Donald Trump's Justice Department, that he could not bring a criminal indictment against a sitting president. So I think he's wrong on that, but that's what he believed. So he serves the whole thing up to

the United States Congress. Elizabeth Warren is a liar. She's a liar because of what we know about her gaming of the system folka hauntis style in order to advance herself and just to give herself a more compelling narrative day to day. I spoke not long ago to somebody who studied with Elizabeth Warren at Harvard, was one of her students at Harvard Law School, and he told me that she would regularly refer to being a Cherokee from you know, the Midwest, and that that was part of

her identity. And this is how Elizabeth Warren tried to make herself relatable and cool and hip to the intersectional identity obsess left. So she's a fraud, she's a liar, somebody who doesn't and she maybe believes the lies she tells, but she's somebody who we cannot let get away with this stuff because the media is certainly gonna let her

get away. They're just like they have forgotten about the fact that she thought that being one one and twenty fourth Native American based on a DNA test qualified her as Native American, and that she was doing a victory dance. She was doing a victory dance at the time, well not to be confused with the rain dance, and she

looked ridiculous. But the media still holds her up because of her that's right, Harvard credentials, and they're all obsessed with the notion that she's the more progressive Hillary and all this other stuff. What she said there about the Mueller report is just all is all crap, all crap. Let me just deal with this one right now. This and what what Mueller did is a disgrace because Muller doesn't like Trump, his people don't like Trump, and so what they did was they just lit a match and walk.

They didn't have the courage of their convictions to say we're gonna torch this house. We're gonna torch you know, this this house of the Trump administration, so to speak. So what they did was they said, well, we're just gonna leave a couple of lit cigarettes by the upholstery and see what happens. But you know, we're not saying that we should. We were not willing to openly light it on fire. We're just gonna leave some lit cigarettes and see if some other people maybe decide to let

this thing burn. That's exactly what Muller and his team did. And let me say this, this this storyline the Democrats are clinging to that oh they never would have brought charges against Trump? Really, was that what they were saying before we were promised and the media was telling us night after night that Trump was going to be found, you know, the Trump is going to be criminally prosecuted or people around him. Remember they always leave that out, folks.

This is really really important. Russia Trump campaign collusion was not just about the president, right, Who were they surveilling Carter Page George Papadopoulos low level campaign figures? If they and you know this as well as I do, if they had anything then amounted to coordination with the Russians, even if it wasn't illegal, any coordination of any kind with Roger Stone, with manaphor with any of these figures,

they would have claimed complete vindication. They would have said Trump as an illegitimate president, and if they could, they would have pressed for criminal charges against any of those people based upon possible conspiracy statue or an application of the conspiracy statute. So it's not just Trump that was not charged. It's Donald Trump junior who was not charge who they said would be. It's Trump's senior advisors who

were not charged on coordinating with the Russians. Yeah, some were charged with either lying or with tax fraud or by or fraud with tax fraud. That had nothing to do. It didn't even happen while he's working for Trump, and not that it would matter if it did have him and he's working for Trump. But notice that this just becomes a narrator. This is a lie. It's not just Trump that was not charged, it's the campaign. Nobody on Trump's campaign was charged with coordinating with the Russians because

they had nothing. They had nothing. It was all a lie. This was a conspiracy theory. That was fed to the rabid left wing base of lunatics, and you know it and I know it. But then so that's one part of this ole. Oh, they couldn't have charged Trump, but they should have. I mean, she's saying here that anybody other than Trump would have been arrested and put in jail.

That's a lie. The finest legal minds in the country, who were not partisan hacks, look at this and say, at best, at best, it would be a stretch to use the evidence they have because there was no obstruction and there was no underlying crime. So now you're going to charge somebody with conspiracy to obstruct? Is that what you're going to say? Because that's not how the obstruction statue works. It's not I mused out loud about maybe obstructing something. It's either you did or you didn't. You

do or you don't. So that's also just that this is just all lies, Melissas warren't lies on top of other lies. But this story that they're telling everybody that Muller was never going to bring charges against Trump or couldn't couldn't this way, they say Muller's hands were tied Saint Mueller, who was going to save the Republic. His

hands were tied. We all know based on the way he wrote that report, he could have said very easily, there is nothing, literally nothing stopping him from having himself or Weissman or whoever is. You know, Genie read his whole team he has of Democrats who hate Trump, that we're working and had unlimited reach and resources to go after Trump and all those around him very well. Could have written in the Mulla Report, we would we would

recommend a criminal charge against the president United States. But because of the guidance of the Department of Justice, we will know we know that that is not going to result in an actual charge from the Department of Justice against the president. They could have said that, they didn't say that. They didn't say that because they didn't have the evidence for it. They didn't have the case. It wasn't there. But now you're told, oh, well, they never

could have brought charges. That's why they didn't. That's just not true. Let's stick to what was said. Can neither exonerate nor bring a charge against the president. They could have said, we would bring a charge, but we know that the president cannot legally be charged. Therefore, we passed this the Department of Justice and hope that Congress will take action. That's not what they said. So Elizabeth Warren is just is just mining and trying to get her

left wing base all riled up here. But that's should be that should be unsurprising to everybody about the way that she conducts herself. Well, she's a desperate woman. She has something like one hundred and fifty staffers already staffs way too big, raised all this money. I mean, she's a Democrat establishment figure who is trying to run as some kind of you know, new style of politician who's going to be so progressive, and it's it's just all, it's just all crap. Both she is a massive, a

massive phony. Nothing about her strikes me as as impressive. And the fact that she's a Harvard law or was a Harvard law professor, I don't know if she's still in the faculty there technically in some way or not. And can't even do basic legal analysis of what was in the Mulla report without just showing that this is all for her. A part is in a political exercise tells you a lot about about how who she is

and how she conducts herself. It also was interesting. We're gonna talk more about impeachment and the Special Counsel and how these things tie together with my friend Charles Cook later on in the show. Charles from National Review, I'm sure many of he has the best British accent of anyone you'll ever hear on the radio. Oh, actually no, my friend Rahem Cassam might have an issue with that.

I don't know who has a better British accent, guys, Charles Cook from National Review or Raheem Cassam from Human Events. You can pose that one to Raheim because he's going to be a guest hosting the show soon. I don't know Charles versus Raheim Brandon, do you want to weigh in on that one? Do you have a vote best British accent on the Freedom Hunt? I'm intimidated by both. You're intim That's fair enough. Those British accents do sound

do sound a bit intimidating. But Elizabeth Warren has talked about impeaching Trump and has set a marker on what the rationality for all this. And here's what I just want to point out to you that. Well, let me first, here's what Warren says now about impeaching this president. Play for the tool that we are given for that accountability is the impeachment process. This is not about politics. This is about principle. This is about what kind of a

democracy we have in a dictatorship. Everything in government revolves around protecting the one person at the center, but not in our democracy and not under our constitution. We have checks and balances, and we have to proceed here in a way understanding our place in history that not only protects democracy now, but protects democracy when the next president comes in, and the next president and the president after that. That's our responsibility. Oh but I'm just drowning in the sanctimony.

There isn't it fun to be Elizaeth Warren's. Oh, it's just all about protecting our democracy. Okay. If that's true, then I want us all to I want us all to pay attention here, because then whether this hurts the Democrats prospects the next election or not is meaningless. If this is about principle, as she says, they should march right to impeachment, because the only Democrat voices you hear against impeachment say that they don't think that it would

be smart for their Party. But I thought this was about the defense of the Republic. I thought this is about gaseous speeches from people like Elizabeth Warren about how there's a responsibility to history to impeach Trump. Well, responsibility to history has nothing to do with whether or not it's going to help the Democrats in the next election cycle. That's not responsibility to history. That's responsibility to meet myself

an eye for the Democrats. That doesn't work. Ah, But we returned to a recurring theme here on the Buck Sexton Show. When we're talking about Democrats, we are talking about a political ideology that has as it's loadstar as it's guiding The only guiding principle that the Democratic Party has is that there are no principles that can interfere with the relentless pursuit of power. All other principles are subject to that maxim which means there are no other principles.

There's only one. We must be in charge. Everything else pushed aside. Remember this as they continue this dance about whether they're going to impeach or not. This is about power. It is not about what is right for the country. For all of your biggest achievements in life, who's the one person that's always been there unconditionally supporting you every step of the way. I know what the answer is

for me, it's Mom. You're forever biggest fan. This Mother's Day, show her just how much you appreciate the love with one eight hundred flowers dot com right now, when you get ahead of the Mother's Day rush, one eight hundred flowers dot com will give you an exclusive thirty six for thirty six offer. That's thirty six Srebey roses for just thirty six dollars, only one dollar per rose. With an impressive mix of pastel shades and pink, orange and lavender,

these roses are guaranteed to make her smile. It's the perfect way to surprise all the moms in your life or just celebrate any spring occasion. So please check it out, but you have to hurry because it expires Friday. This incredible offer or right just go to one eight hundred flowers dot com, clip the radio icon and entercode buck. That's one eight hundred flowers dot com clip the radio icon,

enter promo code buck. It's not as if the Muller Report was a dut This is something that has a lot in it that implicates the president in actual crimes. I still hope that in this day and age, Republicans will see the facts and we'll be as appalled as the Democrats are. This report was completely exposing of unfit impeachable behavior. Man does not screech and complain. Some might ask, why haven't you start, why haven't you opened an impeachment inquiry?

Or in fairness, is that what you're doing right now? And matter and to go with the impeachment gets politicized hands, oh, impeachment, political processes. I thought the Special Counsel was supposed to be about finding crimes. It was certainly using the investigative tactics that one associates with criminal investigation, and not necessarily political process. But this stuff all gets very murky, doesn't it. I've got our friend Charles Cook back in action here.

Charles you will know from National Review Online, where he is the editor. The man himself, mister Charles Cook. Always good of you to make some time for us from a sunny Florida. Thank you for having me at Charles. It seems like impeachment, or I think it's beyond it seems we know impeachment has been the hope for Democrats

as the end state of the Muller probe. All all along, before we get into your idea, the idea you propose a national review, which is that we just stop the pretense of this of the Special Council as somehow a good idea. How well, what do you think about about Democrats making all this noise? Because to me, you know, if it's about ethics and being unfit for the presidency, then it shouldn't matter if it blows back on Democrats. Right.

If this is if they have a duty to the republic to impeach the president for what he's done, then I don't want to hear tomorrow Democrats say, well, but the voters may punish us for this one. Right, they're not going to impeach him. Of course this is all fluff, but let's pretend for a moment that those who are rattling their savors are serious. It's a difficult one to analyze at one level because the congressional power to impeach

is absolute in the Constitution. The criteria for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors, but Congress gets to decide what that means, and it's not Justice Table, which is to say, the Supreme Court can't step in and decide whether or not the president has committed a crime or define what high crimes and misdemeanors means. So if the Democrats in the House wants to impeach President Trump, they can do so. The problem they have is that this ultimately is a

political question for them as well. And the case that they have built over the last two years was not that Trump is generally unfit, which is ultimately a political question, but that he was a criminal, that he had colluded with Russia, that he had committed treason, that he was a traitor. Some had even suggested he was and had been for some time a Russian asset. Now that allegation has been nuked by the Muller Afford, whatever else it

implies about Trump's character. So to turn around now and say, well, of course, we didn't really base our proposals on that eventuality, this has always been about whether Trump is fit in general is not true. But it's also politically suicidal, especially given that the question of Trump's fitness or office will be litigated in a year and a half at the

next election. Yes, I think that's that's a big problem for Democrats the timeline here of how even if let's say they were going to go forward, and I agree with you, it seems unlikely right now. Although the Democrats are crazy. I mean, they're talking about given the Boston Marathon bomber the right to vote from prison, so you know,

who knows how wacko they're willing to be. But if they're going to make the case that it's a political question about the fitness for offer that the president may or may not have, what better way to adjudicate that than the national election that's going to happen, right, I mean, it just seems like such sore loserism from the left

all along. But I did want to ask you about your feelings on and this is what you wrote about today a National Review on this Special Council, that it basically walk us through your argument the Special Council this is an exercise in some ways in futility, and it's kind of a ridiculous setup. It's not just an exercise in futility, and it's not just a ridiculous setup, although it is both. As the saying, it's also counterproductive semi facetiously.

Start the piece by saying that given the record of the last forty fifty years, the next impeachment an investigation drive will come in about twenty years. And when it does, I think Americans should demand an entirely different approach than the one we've seen with Trump and the one we saw with President Clinton. The system under which Robert Maller and Donald Trump were asked to operate was a farcical one. The executive branch is the branch tasked with investigations and prosecutions.

Donald Trump is the head of the executive branch, which means that Donald Trump was constitutionally being asked to investigate himself, and had there been a recommendation of an indictment, he would have been asked to indict himself, although the prevailing law here suggests that that is impossible, and impossible for

a good reason. You cannot be your own prosecutor. So what we've seen here is two years of freakouts over whether Trump is going to comply with the behavior of a set of employees that he is ultimately responsible for

and over whom he has power and control. And this has led to a really wooly situation which it is fairly difficult to establish what Trump was doing as a matter of routine, in other words, what he was doing as the head of the executive branch, and what he was potentially doing because he's corrupt and wanted to impede the investigation. Donald Trump never had a chance here. Unless a prosecutor as a mind reader, there's simply no way

to determine whether he dealt with this properly. Likewise, I don't think it any flight on Robert Maller or his team to point out that they were operating under extremely difficult circumstances. I mean, in no other circumstance would an investigator be able to be fired by the person he's investigating. In no other circumstance would he know that, even if he found evidence of wrongdoing, he most likely could not

recommend an indictment. It's silly, and it's silly because the American system is not set up to work like this. If the president is accused of malpersons, Congress is the ultimate arbiter, and Congress should be the one to investigate. If Congress investigates the executive branch, there's nothing the executive branch can do about it. The executive branch can't fire Congress.

It can't interfere with Congress, it can't resources around, and it can't even be accused of trying to do that, which is one of the things I think that was so unfair to the president in this circumstance. Now, it is probably true that we dealt with this accusation better than with the accusation against Bill Clinton. Back in nineteen ninety eight, a statute was still on the books that enabled the appointment of the Independent Council. Justice Scleer suggested

this was entirely unconstitutional. He was in the minority, who was in a minority of one in the Supreme Court case that followed. But Scleer points out, look, we shouldn't be ever taking away prostitutorial power from the president giving it to someone the president can't fire. But it wasn't too much better this time around, because what we essentially did was to take away prosecutorial power from the president and give it to someone that he could fire, which

created a mess. My proposal is, next time this happened, and I'm sure it will next time there's an investigation into the president, Congress should take it upon itself to be in charge of it. Congress has the power to tax and spend. It has the power to hire anyone it likes. It has the power to subpoena find a Robert Muller in the future, put him under congression or control, put him on a send it's judiciary committee extension or what you will, and look into the president and deal

with the political fallout. It would then be obvious who is operating from what premise, with what agenda. It would be obvious whether the president was complying or not. It would be obvious where the politics were. It would be obvious what was being alleged and what was not, and we wouldn't be focused constantly on crimes, which I think

would have done two things in this case that are important. One, it would have stopped a lot of the goal post shifting, and two, it would have prevented an investigation that was supposed to be into Russian meddling in the election from becoming an investigation into whether the president was or was not a traitor. I think next time around, Americans shifted on better. Charles Cook, everybody, Charles, I really think it's

a fascinating piece, and it's an excellent idea. Your treatment of it is really worth everyone checking out National Review dot com. Everyone. Charles Cook, editor of National Review Online. Charles always good to talk to you, my friend, Thank you, Thank you to too soon. Well. Team. We have more coming up, including some updates from the campus speech wars. You're not gonna want to miss it. Stay with me.

After twenty eight hundred subpoenas, five hundred search warrants, nineteen lawyers attempting to time to Russian interference, President Trump has beat the deep state, the left, and the media again. Folks join in the celebration. Here a bit okay, you can get an incredible coin from Noble Gold. That's right, Noble Golds twenty twenty President Trump Freedom Coin. One side magnificently depicts an image of Donald J. Trump, the other

lists him with his major achievements. This commemorative one ounce coin is the only presidential Trump coin made of ninety nine point nine percent silver, not silver plating, and his IRA approved. As the price of silver rises, so does the value of the coins. You'll want to hold on to this collector's item for generations. Go to Trump Coin twenty twenty dot com and use code buck It's very important. Trump Coin twenty twenty dot com use code buck and

I'll save you five dollars off each coin. Okay again. You can text buck to five eleven five eleven for more, or go to trump Coin twenty twenty dot com use code buck to say five dollars per coin. Standard text rates may apply. Got an update for you all from the campus free speech wars, where there are good guys and bad guys. The conservatives are the good guys. The left wing maniacs that try to shut down speech they

don't like, those are the bad guys. And we have a very interesting, very interesting case study here of just what goes on at Middlebury College these days up in Vermont. I think Middlebury's in Vermont, I forget where. Yeah, it's in Vermont. It's a small liberal arts college. It's very similar to where I went to school, Amherst College. Amherst is obviously better. But yeah, that's right, Middlebury alumni take it.

But here's what happened. Back in twenty seventeen. There was a speech by Charles Murray, who is very anti Trump and is somebody who is a real academic with street cred for a whole bunch of different public to a whole bunch of different books he's published, but he is the author of The Bell Curve, which drove liberals completely insane because it walks you through the data on IQ and there is one chapter, because I've actually read the book,

there's one chapter that deals with the distribution in the aggregate of IQ across different races. And that forever has made Charles Murray someone that the left loves to hate, even though he's a very I've had him on this show before. He's a very reasonable and intelligent fellow and is not in any way racist. I believe he's actually married to an Asian woman. He's not racist, and that's all just a smear. But he went to speak at Middlebury back in twenty seventeen. We talked about this a

fair amount here in the Freedom Hunt. And not only did they try to shut down the left try to shut down his speech with you know, the zoo noises and the horns and all the usual tactics of the Heckler's veto, but they even injured a female professor named Alison Stanger. I mean they actually hurt her as she was trying to escort him out of the building. I mean, this was like a mob, and there was there was violence, They assaulted people, They assaulted an invited guest at Middlebury,

and nobody was expelled. I if I were in charge in that school, I would want to list of names of every person that made physical contact or threatened physical contact with an invited speaker, and I would say, pack your crap, you are gone. This is a private universe, private college. You have no right to be here. You're out. But they don't do that anymore. They don't enforce consequences against leftist insanity on these campuses because they invite leftist insanity.

In many ways, they teach leftist insanity. Well, there's another Middlebury speech case came up here, and this involves Rizard Legutco, who is a Polish member of the European Parliament. It's quite a Rizard. That's a cool name. So this guy's a member of the European Parliament. You think that he should be an individual that people on a college campus up in Vermont would want to hear from. Oh, but what's the problem. He is critical of multiculturalism and gay marriage.

Oh no, that's not You're not allowed to think that anymore, the left says. I remember, it's not even clear if you opposes these things. He just has criticisms of them. And the students signed a petition that claimed that he built his career off of homophobic, xenophobic, racist, and misogynistic discourse. And they called for the political science department at Middlebury College to get rid of his sponsored speech. And they said, they're going to demonstrate, of course, you know whose streets

are streets beata mails, unite against speech. And in this case though, there was a kind of underground free speech movement that popped up on campus. So Risguard from Poland was told that he should show up, and there were there was one professor, And this is after they sent out the usual because of security and safety risks, we're going to cancel the event. So they're just caving to

the mob, caving to the Heckler's veto. I mean, Middlebury should be ashamed of itself, ashamed of itself for this. But nonetheless they like a lot of these schools. And I think, you know, I used to get invited to go speak at my alma mater when I worked with the CIA, and I could say very little. Now I have a ton to say and a lot to share with those kids. They have no they have never invited me back, no interest in having me back to campus whatsoever.

It's my own school school that you know, cost my family a fortune to send me to. Won't even invite me back to speak, no interest. They are a bunch of punks. But this professor, Matthew Dickinson, credit to him for believing in free speech and free discourse. He said that he would bring mister Legutko, this Polish member of the European Parliament, on campus and allow him to give his lecture in the professor's political science class as long

as they all voted yes in a secret ballot. Well to the credit of the students, the nine students in this class. This is with a big selling point for liberal arts colleges, as the classes they are very small. All nine of these students voted yes. Okay, So then other students kind of heard about this were a mouth and a full forty five students asked to be able to come and in this political science class here from

this professor. So he I'm sorry, here from this member of the European Parliament because this professor invited him, and Professor Dickinson had the failing to say, I've never been more proud in my thirty years of teaching than to watch these students engage with the speaker, push back on him, engage with him. It was a marvelous example of how free speech facilitates learning. Professor Dickinson went on, during the days of communist totalitarianism, scholars from the West traveled to

Eastern Bloc nations to give underground lectures and seminars. On Wednesday, mister Lagutko returned the favor. Isn't that fascinating that now we've reached a point after the fall of the Iron Curtain, the destruction of the Berlin Wall, now we are in a circumstance where it is, in fact, former Soviets or former Soviet states that are sending people to speak in underground lectures on our own campuses and our own universities, because that's how hostile the campus has become. That's how

hostile colleges have become too. Free speech. So this was a victory in a sense for free speech at Middlebury, although a small one, and it certainly is an example of exactly what I talked to you about on the show, which is that these students they're being robbed of the education they're paying so much for it is they are stealing it from themselves, and the administrators that are allowing it are aiding and abetting that theft college is supposed

to be about learning. Learning is the exchange of ideas, including idea is you may not necessarily agree with or like. Anyone who disagrees with that is an opponent of free thought, free expression, and education itself. College campuses have become an embarrassment in this regard. But perhaps these underground conservative movements, some of them are above ground two will gather more steam and we will see an end to the just

psychotic censorship of the left on campuses and universities. Indefensible, indefensible in the way that they try to shut down ideas that they do not like. These people are petty totalitarians. They would be at home in the former Soviet bloc. And it's amazing that this is happening here today in America in twenty nineteen. All right, team, just remember what old Jack Burton does when the earthquakes and the poisoned

arrows fall from the sky and the pillars of heaven shake. Yeah, Jack Burton just looks that big old storm right square in the eye, and he says, give me your best shot, Pal, I can take it all right. Team facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton that is where you go for all of the wonderful team Buck action that happens at least on the Facebook. And Yeah, we got a big boy email that we're working on. It's only been a few years in the making to get an email address set up.

I know, I know, my tech skills need some work. Peter is the first up in this piece. Hey Buck, I was a Cruise and McMuffin voter in twenty sixteen and podcast listener since the Blaze. Can I get a do over on the latter vote? I could tell you. Peter McMuffin aka Evan McMullen is someone who really reminds me a bit of James Komy, where Koby is so sanctimonious you think that he must be kidding, but then you find out, oh no, wait, he's not kidding. He

is actually that lame. That strikes me as a pretty good explanation of both McMuffin and Comy. You assume you want to give them a benefit of the doubt, that they can't really be such such huge tools, But but then you find out. Oh no, no, they are in fact tools to that degree, and it is both surprising and a little off putting. So there you have that. Now let's see we get here. Next up we have my man Harry. Oh by the way, yes you do get a do over, Peter. I'll give you a du over, Harry,

writes Buck concerning reparations. In addition to all the reasons you have already brilliantly argued, there's one more to consider. The US Constitution, Article three, Section three, paragraph two, concerning trees in states the Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except during the life

of the person attainted. Corruption of blood, et cetera means descendants of a trader shall not be held responsible or punished for the trader's deeds. While specific only to the crime of trees in the implication is that no guilt of crime shall be visited upon the heirs of an offender. One reason we do not imprison children of murders and rapists for crimes of their parents. Slavery reparation certainly feels

like punishment through taxation for past sins. So reparation of any kind other than the immediate victim by the immediate perpetrator, neither of which exists today in this case, is thoroughly unconstitutional. Also, the definition of reparation includes making amends to someone who has been wronged. No one alive has been wronged directly

by slavery. I'm thinking it may be appropriate to send most of Congress, especially the Democrat members, to a reading comprehension remedial class before having them read the US Constitution, probably for the first time in many cases. Shields High Harry, who let me just tell you all can't see this, but Harry has a world class beard. I've got a little NATO baby beard, Afghanic baby beard. Harry's got a big beard raw. Harry's beard's legit. And Harry's analysis here

is astute. He gets down into the immoral foundations of a reparations movement, essentially holding people culpable and taking of their property, which is really another way of suggesting that you are taking of their time. And there's this is why people don't like when the state just takes their stuff, because usually you've had to do things to get that stuff. And if the state and a lot of times things

you didn't want to do. So, if the state is able to just seize your stuff, I believe in the Declaration of Independence, it's referred or is it in gosh? Is it common sense or is it the declaration? I think it's the declaration Eat out our substance. That's always one that sticks out in my mind. So with that, I will move on to the next one here. But no, Harry,

you're right. You cannot hold people responsible for actions that they had no ability to effect one way or the other, and to do so is to eliminate the foundation of moral judgment altogether. Cindy rights a. According to Ben Shapiro, Elizabeth Warren's planned to forgive nearly all college debt is actually a violation of the Constitution. Is a violation of the takings clause because the government cannot declare all private debt to be null and void. That would be taking

something of value from you without just compensation. Just think you should know this free stuff. And I love the new Facebook pick, Cindy. Well, thank you Cindy for liking the new Facebook pick. I think that Ben is likely correct here on the legality of it, But I don't think he would disagree with this. That would not prevent the Democrats from doing it anyway. The Constitution is increasingly flimsy defense of our rights and an insufficient bulwark against

government overreach. So even and that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to make the argument, I'm just saying they would claim that they would find some justification under you know, they'd say, well, if we can have welfare, which is just money taken from some people through taxation or redistributed to others, that they would find a mechanism, Cindy to

make this legal one way or another. If people are on board, If Democrats and then Left get their way with this debt forgiveness, they would make it some kind of you know, they could make it a program where if you submit that you have a certain debt and the federal government gives you, you know, ten thousand dollars a year until it's paid off, or actually the federal government has something like that for federal government employees already, where they pay off some portion of your loans. But

that's in response to work that you do. And that is an incentive and an explicit incentive for federal government workers. Michael Rights saw that clip where Joe Disjanova took your co anchor to the woodshed. Well, Michael, you saw it, and a lot of other people saw it. That clip went viral, and I think a lot of you heard

it on the show last week. Some of you have some have asked me what I think about this and what my thoughts were in the situation, and I just say that Crystal is my co host and I have nothing but respect and fondness for her, and beyond that, I plead the fifth on the exchange. So I was not a part of the exchange. I watched the exchange. You can all see the exchange, and there you have it. But thanks Michael for writing in good to hear from you.

I haven't gotten any snarky criticism from Michael in a while, which must be in the show is basically going okay, which is good to know. Eric. Right, So I listened to your show on the buck Sex in twenty four seventh stream on the iHeart app. Yeah yeah, all right, Eric, awesome. Oh now there's some bad stuff though I know I Heeart controls this, but the news stories that played during

the radio stop sets really stink. Last night, the person reading the news for USA Radio called Anka, Siri, Lanka, No, come on. Also, the NBC news entertainment segments probably do not appeal to most of the people listen to conservative radio. I know it's out of your control, just thought you should know. Thanks and shields high. Eric. I appreciate the heads up. It is out of my control, so all I can say is just please focus on the parts where I'm doing my show and let's not worry about

the the rest of it. Jeff Right, Hey, Buck Funny. You had on The Primal Rage Guy yesterday. You had mentioned the movie a couple of times, so being a Bigfoot fan, I had to watch this. Bigfoot was a combination of Skinwalker, Predator, Evil Ninja, Predator Too, and Deliverance. Not quite as good as The Notebook A Notebook, but worth watching on a rainy weekend, you know, Jeff, I agree. It's a like it's just you know what you're getting

with it. It's like going in and getting yourself. You know, some General So's chicken, you know General So's chicken, all pretty much taste the same. It is terrible for you, but it gets the job done, and it's delicious. And for those of you who are already asking, yes, they do make gluten free General Show's chicken, It's actually not that hard to make. That's what I would say about

that movie. That was a fascinating story though, that Marshall told about his fellow actor in that movie that you know, lost his leg and then came back and finished the movie with a prosthetic leg. That was amazing. And I did not and as somebody who watched the movie and paid attention, I did not notice that or notice any difference. And that guy was very a very physical role in that movie too. He was running around trying to escape

the Bigfoot. The Bigfoot is a very mean bigfoot. You know what I will say, though, because I watched Big Trouble in Little China recently, which is why some of you have picked up on the Jack Burton quotes. In fact, I think all of you have. Maybe some of you are ignoring them because I like that movie too much for what it was. But the monster that kidnaps the woman who plays Kim Cattrall, who plays the I don't

know how to describe it. She's in Sex in the City as the one of the main characters Kim Cattrall is in big trouble Little China. She is at one point kidnap thrown over the shoulder of a very unsightly monster. And that unsightly monster looks a bit like the big Foot in the Primal Rage movie. So I think I've driven up some Primal Rage viewership. And I told them that that Marshall, and I'm sure hopefully he's listening to

He's team Buck. I already set him a message saying that they should do a follow up, but they should do the Abominable Snowman or the Yetti. You know something in Russia that could go really well. And I see, here's my little screenplay idea. You take the legend of the Abominable Snowman and maybe you tie it in and people say it's been around a long time. Yeah know, I know that, But maybe you tie it into some

kind of Soviet nuclear reactor meltdown. So then it's like the Hills have Eyes in Siberia with a big foot stalking a bunch of guys who are like, just won't douluting vodka, and all the monster is eating my face. You know that. I think you got a winner. I think you got a winner, because that bleak Russian landscape would also lend itself very well to horror movies like The Thing with also Kurt Russell, which takes place in Antarctica and is a very watchable movie. For what it is.

It's bleak, it's scary, and I think I think that The Thing is a good movie. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. My Man, Richard one of my favorite hoosiers in the whole wide world. I totally agree with your views on architecture today. As an artist, I'm always attracted to the stained glass and old churches with the big, beautiful organs. I don't understand when the modern church isn't building one hundred and fifty story stained

glass cathedrals. The religious buildings used to be the tallest in a city. I don't see why that can't happen again. Imagine the Bible being told and staying glass on every story all the way up to the sky cathedral, maybe with a giant open air column the middle with some stone gargoyle thrown in for good measure. In Raleigh, they recently built a new Catholic cathedral and I was excited then when it was shaping up. It was the same standard building, only it's made of stone. No gargoyles, no

stone carvings. It's just lame. It's drywalled. How is that going to age? Richard? You ask a good question. I think the problem is the architecture software that is used today is not artist friendly. Interesting, that's why everything is a box and boring. Used to be, you were drawing on paper and you wanted to throw in a decorative element, no problem. That's why the Budweiser warehouses have cool decorative elements. Or look at old schools or other old warehouses you'll

see the same thing. Heck, most mundane things like bridges had a bit of art thrown in. Now it takes hours to add an artist element in auto autocat or revet. People are not going to pay for that if it takes so long. If you want a nice rendering, you have to export it to unreal engine or Maya or Max. Wow, Richard really is an architect. Notre Dame and Saint Peter's were built by artists. Modern day software is being is built by engineers that look down on artists with disdain.

Sure I can tell you how many nails and bricks you need, but one needs more than this to nurture the soul. I'm just glad the guys who built Notre Dame's ribs vault over so that sorry that built Notre Dame rib vaults over built them, so not all was lost. There. We go keep up the awesome brother Shields high Richard. Look at you with all the knowledge on the architectural stuff. Very very cool team. We'll come back to a quick role call to finish out the show and stay with me.

Welcome back Tom. In the break there, I was just talking to DJ Brandon about I said, Brandon, do horror movies get more messed up than the Hills have Eyes? Because for me, that's like the that is the citizen Kane of incredibly violent and disturbing horror movies. He ran me through some of the horror movie cannon that he has seen, and wow, I'm JV level for horror movies for sure. I might even be freshman team, you know when they have to break it out into three teams, Varsity, JV,

and then freshman. So I'm just gonna keep it. I'm just gonna keep it there. I'm still I still lose sleep because of the Witch I thought that movie was scared the scared the bejez out of me. Yeah, dude, it's scary movie. It's scary. It's kind of Exorcist like, and that stuff really as a Catholic man, that stuff gets in your head all right. On the happier things.

Stephen rights buck on the subject of beautiful churches. A beautiful church is great, but what's more important is that the Word of God has taught in its entire truth and purity. By the way, I'm a conservative confessional Lutheran, Stephen. I do not in any way disagree with you. I

just like beautiful churches. So there you go. I think that a beautiful church does serve a purpose that is aspirational and and you know, there's a reason for beauty in the Catholic Church, for the music, for the the structures. But obviously in the earliest days of the church they were having, you know, meetings underground in ancient Rome and

all that stuff van right buckets. Okay, if you don't like the fashion, archetec etc. Of the seventies, I didn't either, But don't you dare equate all the music from that era to the abomination known as disco disco was but a short lived boil on the butt of an otherwise stellar decade of musical exploration and composition. There is reason for the still popular phrase disco sucks. Don't get me wrong, You're still the man when it comes to serving up

the truth and fighting the good fight for conservatives. I just had to have my music, will say shields High. Yeah, Van, I think that's fair. I think that's fair. I know that if we look back in the seventies, right, that would be Zeppelin is seventies? Is Hendrix is more sixties? Right? Or is it more seventies? See I the sixties, seventies, sixties? Right? Yeah? So I mean when we think what are the great bands of the seventies, are the Rolling Stones? Sure? And

Zeppelin and Zeppelin? Right? Yeah. Look, I'm just gonna say it, and I'm gonna get a lot of boomer hate for this. And that's okay Boomers, because I love you all. My parents are boomers, most wonderful people on the planet. But just kind of say, man, you guys, you guys have a little too much nostalgia for your boomer for your boomer music. I know it's it's people in the office today we're talking about how great what's that song Benny and the Jets? Who does that thing? Whatever? Elton johnes

that song is a headache. I'm sorry, takes forever. It's just not that I know some of you are actual. I'm glad at the end of the show because some of you are unfortunately switching me off. Now. As long as you come back tomorrow, then it's okay. We're all still friends, all right, see. And that's gonna be it today. Ending on a high note, Buck, That's gonna be it today. Speaking of friends, please do tell your friends about the show. Anyone who wants to can always listen on the iHeart app.

There's a Buck Sexton channel there. You can also listen to the podcast of the show on iTunes, a great way to listen on to men whenever you like, however you like, So please do spread the word about that. I'm here every day this week right now. I think next week on Monday, I'm gonna have to be out doing a little travel, and I believe we're gonna get my main men, Rahim Kassam at the Helm. He's gonna

have some very interesting stuff to tell you. Rahim always does a great job, a great job hosting the show. I mean, we do have a fantastic guest host lineup here, so there is that. But so that's coming up for Monday. Have a great rest of your Tuesday. Everybody talk to you tomorrow. She'll tie even on the show. This week, we've had to talk about more conservatives on campus getting attacked,

harassed band. It's crazy out there, folks, and the campus wars for free speech today turn into the politics of tomorrow. We have to fight back. The Leadership Institute is the place that can help you take the fight to the other side. The Leadership instit shoot is the premier organization for educating and training conservative college students. Do you want an organization that can stand up to all the Soros

funded left wing radicals on campus? Do you want an organization that's not going to bow down to the dictates of the radical progressives. That's the Leadership Institute, my friends, visit take back the Campus dot org to make your urgent gift to the Leadership Institute today again take back the campus dot org for a gift that as little as five dollars a month, you can help in the fight for conservative ideas and conservative students on campus. Again,

take back the campus dot org. Please donate today