Elijah Cummings Vs. President Trump, Day 2

no mistake American, You're a great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the buck Sexton Show, everybody. We got a great extravaganza of politics, current events, philosophy, musings, all the stuff we usually do here in the Hunt. So thank you so much for joining. I've got a few a few more weeks a Swamp show, and then we're heading up to the Big Apple, NYC time. I'm

looking forward to it. You know, I'm just even if I end up in a seventh floor walk up in a studio so small that I can cook my meals while showering and sitting on my bed, which don't think that that doesn't exist in New York. I'm just a New York guy, So it'll be good to be back home. But I've got some swamp time left in me and a lot to do while i'm here. So let's get to it, shall we. The Democrat debate in Detroit, Night one,

it is, it is coming up. Of course, it's a two night extravaganza because there's a lot of Democrats were out there running, and I would just note that by going into this thing is as much and I have been. I know, I've been very effusive in my Biden criticism and my sense that there's just no chance in my mind that he is going to be the Democrats nominee.

But if if we're going to really look into the data, turns out that Biden has quite a solid, quite a solid lead going into his thirty three percent of likely Democratic voters. He's thirteen points ahead of Bernie Sanders, who's in second place with twenty percent. Warren is in third place at fourteen percent. And there, you know, that's then you got Harris and then Buddha Judge, and you know

then then it goes down. I'm pretty sure that Beto O'Rourke is going to pull a John cusack from say anything where he's just going to stand up on stage with Peter Gabriel in your eyes, playing on a boombox while wearing a trench coat, just looking at the Democrat primary voters of Americans say I'm here for you, and I just like, really think that if you gave Peto a shot, I could totally be the next president of the United States and unite all of our spirits in

a harmony that would be unbreakable. I could see Betto making a play for it. I really could. I think there is a chance, there is a possibility that he's I mean not that he's gonna win or anything. I mean he's gonna do something kind of crazy tonight. The expectation, and it's because I believe he has said it recently, is that he is that that Biden rather is going to be the big show tonight, and he's not going to be so nice this time. He's not gonna be

so nice. I'm gonna get it into an in depth conversation with you because I've done a lot of reading, some deep diving on busting. It's one of these policy that stretches back for a long time. There's a lot of sensitivities around it, a lot of what you know, telling people what they can and can't say about it.

I read into it, looked a look at the data, looked at the stories, looked at the reality, and that whole exchange between Biden and Kamala was very interesting because it was the emotionally woke side of the Democratic Party going after with Kamala Harris going after the more in touch with the political realities and the difficulties of policy with Joe Biden. That's just a consider that a little preview of where we're going to be going with this

in just a few minutes. Because I've really the bussing Here's what I can tell you for most of you. What what I'll be able to illuminate around the bussing issue. You probably haven't heard elsewhere you probably because people get very tense about discussing it, and oh no, bussing is great. You know, everything's great. It's like you know, affirmative action. Oh it's great. I don't want to criticize that. It's

all that's that has started to change recently. But the expectation is that there's going to be a very big Biden moment or that he's trying to get a big Biden moment, and here's where I think he'll fall flat. I really do. I do not believe that Joe Biden has it in him. There have been some big establishment media organizations that have already laid a bit of the groundwork for Biden's replacement of sorts to come forward the

leading person in this in this particular presidential contest. Trump disagrees with me on this, I will note, and I he has a inability an intuitive political sense. That is, it feels like it's you know, he's the X men and this is his superpower or something. I mean, he he says things to people say you can never say, and not only does he say it and get away with it, but then people started to realize, wow, maybe he was right. Maybe he's just speaking truth about something

that we're not allowed to talk about. And Trump believes that Biden is going to limp to the nomination. I think was the sleepy Joe will limp to the nomination. I think was the quote from earlier today. So I don't believe that's gonna happen. I just don't see it. I think it's gonna If you ask me to put money on who would be the Democrats nominee. Right now, I think it's Kamala Harris. Jeff Zucker probably thinks it's Kamala Harris over it at seeing. I love when they

show a Zucker photo. You'll see some of these where it looks like he's maybe gone three buttons down on the button down shirt. You know, he really likes to show off the the Zucker chest haired song. I don't know's I'm just telling you. Look at the photos. You'll see what I mean. It really likes to give us a lot of a lot of Zucker Man cleavage and a lot of the photos. But here, here, here's a story. This has been on the top of Drudge, the top

of Drudge for last twenty four hours. CNN's Jeff Zucker once feted Kamala Harris. Will that help or hurt? In twenty twenty so you know when he ran to become the first when I'm sorry, when she ran, When Kamala Harris ran to become the first woman of color recording mcmcclatchy here to be the California Attorney General a decade ago, Jeff Zucker told guests at a NBC Rockefeller Plaza office

gathering in August two thousand and nine. That quote Kamala is not just important for the city of San Francisco, the state of California, but the entire country. And he you know he so he was a huge backer of hers. Look, my friends, I like that people know more of this now. I like that this information comes to light. It makes it harder for us all to be told to choke down the lie that these news organizations aren't picking winners and losers in this process, or trying to pick winners

and losers. There are absolutely absolutely journalists who are doing what they can to shape the narrative so that their preferred candidate is going to come out on top of this whole thing. What do I think we'll be interesting to Here's the question that I would want asked. Of course it's CNNCED they want to ask this question, actually, Democrats, what do you love the most about this country? I think that would be really interesting. What is your favorite?

Not and that it has to be the thing you love the most about America, because that otherwise we'll turn into well, like you know, Beto would stand up. But what I love is thought like we're also full of love and like while we're imperfect, but we have this like amazing like ability to love each other, and yet we don't do it enough. And no, no, no no a thing. What what is it about this country that separates? Or rather make your different arreations of the question would work

for me. Ask all the Democrats on stage, why is America better than other countries? How about that? Why are we better than other countries? They would say home, but it depends on the country, and they're like, no, no no, no. If you're gonna run for president United States, you gotta think America's number one. So that means that you gotta think we're better than every other country, which I believe, you believe a lot of Democrats don't believe in folks.

This is why it would be such a great question, and it gives them so little room for you know, I mean, I would love it if they would answer it in a kind of Barack Obama. Remember this was a moment where Barack Obama was a little vulnerable. You know that he believes that the Americans believe in American exceptionalism the way that Greeks believe in Greek is exceptionalism, and blahbli blah, and all of a sudden, it's like, yeah, every country is basically just as great as another country.

Make me president of America, though, I mean that was the pitch. People are like, what those questions would be really fun? Instead, you're to get the you know, medicare for all? What would you do about the border? And Democrats are gonna just play to the left wing bass. They're just gonna play to the left wing bass. That's what this is, and hope that they can move back to the center later on, which this always occurs in every presidential cycle. But some of the positions they're taking

are just bonkers. I mean, healthcare for illegal aliens paid for by the taxpayer when you don't want to stop illegal aliens from flooding into the country is crazy. Vote normal voters saying people will not go for that, and they've all raised their hand at least in that second debate. I think it was in favor of that. So what will we learn tonight? I Mean, here here's a prediction that I'll only remind you of if I'm right. Tomorrow, Biden's gonna have a not strong, a strong but not

strong enough performance. That'll be the consensus betto will be done Kamala will rise and the real fight is going to be Warren versus Bernie. That's going to be the most interesting component of tonight's debate. We shall see it is commonly internet debate. I don't even know. I might have gotten that one wrong, but the other ones are all true. I think we'll be right back. One man stands ready to deliver change we desperately need. A man I'm proud to call my friend, a man who will

be the next president of United States, Barack America. Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice President United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. Look, John's last minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three letter word jobs, jobs, jobs.

If we do everything rains, we do it with absolute certainly, we stand up there and we make really tough decisions, there's still a thirty percent chance we're gonna get it wrong. It is MoMA lived in Long Island for ten years or so. God rest her soul and hum although she's wait, your mom's still your mom's still alive. Is your dad

past God bless her soul. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, Now is the time to heed the timeless advice from Teddy Roosevelt. Speaks softly and carry a big stick. I promise you. The president has a big stick. I promise you. My favorite is a three letter word, jobs, jobs, and he doesn't correct himself. Joe, Joe Biden man is so lucky that the media Libs have can did this whole narrative of how Joe Biden is just, you know, the the

cute grandpa that makes the funny jokes that everything. You know. Meanwhile, if Bush made any mistake when he was president, they just all called him a moron. Oh he's terrible, he's erber. You know. Biden can say the dumbest stuff you can imagine, and they go, oh, it's just Joe being Joe. Biden's never never struck me as all that bright. I think that Reagan's very short description of him from back in the eighties was very apt, which is that he is

a perfect demagogue. That's that's exactly what he what he is, and really a shameless demagogue. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he's a very mediocre guy who's gotten politically lucky a couple of times and is a classic politician, will say whatever he has to say whenever he has to say it. Who worries me more?

Are he the far left types? I mean the Sander Nistah folks out there, you know, the ones who are going to be fighting it out the clash of liberals as I saw today on the Drudge Report, Warren and Sanders here, because there can really only be one far left candidate that can get enough I think, I mean, who knows how this is all going to play out, but that can get enough of a of a left wing base behind him or her that they'll be in

this thing for a long time. It's just it's becomes a crowded lane, and eventually people are just gonna want the one person who's in the best position to win. They're gonna want the one person who seems like they can really get it done. And I don't know who it's gonna be, but I do think that Bernie's I think that there. I think it's gonna be Warren, folks,

I don't I don't see Birnie. You know, I'm I'm getting pretty pretty if on the Burns chances of being the crazy Kami who makes it all the way through the Democrat primary, that's for sure. And he says stuff that it's going to be very difficult for him to walk away from. Play clib six. You've been very critical of b being at Yahoo in the Israeli government. We spent a few billion dollars on aid to Israel. Would you ever consider using that aid as lever Israeli government

to act differently? Absolutely? Absolutely, yeah, I mean we are giving large sums of money. Look, let me back it up. I lived in Israel. Actually I worked in a kabutz for a number of months. I have family in Israel. I am Jewish. I am not anti Israel, Okay. I believe that the people of Israel have absolutely the right to live in peace, independence and security, end of discussion.

That is what I fervently believe. But I think what has happened is in recent years on the Nittanyahu you have an extreme right wing government with many racist tendencies, a right wing government with racist endencies, So he would consider cutting aid to Israel. Bernie Sanders folks man, this guy's you know, whether you agree with our financial support of Israel or not, you know, this is going to be something that the burden is going to have to answer for it down the line. Here. This is not

something that he can easily spin. So I don't see Bernie Sanders being able to take this thing all the way. But one thing I will say I do like is Democrats. The craziness of the Democratic Party is currently the biggest hurdle they have, and the platform is now far left. Whether all the candidates are far left, we'll have to see, but I think it's hard to argue that if they're all supporting a far left platform, they aren't themselves accurately

described as in some way far left. And that's why there's this new Trump campaign ad that came out that it hits pretty close to home plate twelve. Raise your hand if your government plan would provide coverage for undocumented immigrants. They're all the same. These Democrats support giving illegal immigrants free healthcare at our expense, spending taxpayer dollars covering illegal immigrants, calling for socialized medicine, destroying healthcare as we know it,

and putting illegal immigrants before hardworking Americans. The Democrats radical reckless socialist. They're all the same, radical reckless socialist. I like it. It's got kind of a ring to it, doesn't it. And I don't think it's really accurate to say they're all the same. But they all want well, maybe this is what they're going for. They all want the same things more or less. There are slight variations on a theme, but I don't think it's out of line to refer to them as socialists. I think that

they are increasingly very obviously socialists. They don't like the term because the term, for a lot of Americans comes with baggage, and there's a recognition that socialism is a failure. Historically, it always fails wherever it is tried. And yet Democrats are not trying to dust it off and say, oh no, we figured out how to do it the right way this time. I think that's very very unlikely my friends. In fact, I know it's not the case. But they're still trying to make a go of it somehow. So

we shall see. Tonight. I'll be live tweeting the debate, So if you aren't on Twitter, now's a great time to start. If you are, on Twitter. Please retweet my stuff because it'll trigger libs all over the place. And oh, by the way, I think I said this to you. But tomorrow I'm in Baltimore, and then Thursday I'm in Los Angeles, and then Friday, I'm doing the Bill Maher Show. So it's a busy week in the freedom. Hup, my friends.

You also worked with them to a post bussing. And you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bust to school every day. Little girl was me. I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is bussing ordered by the Department of Education.

That's what I opposed. That was the single most talked about and politically the most important exchange from the last Democratic presidential debate in Miami back on June twenty eighth of this summer, That whole exchange on that that was when it all of a sudden, one of the new guard of Democrat aspirants to the presidential nomination all of a sudden seemed like she could take Biden down a

peg or two. All of a sudden, he wasn't the unstoppable poll unstoppable political force that the polls showed him to be. Now, I wanted to weigh in on this issue at the time, but I first wanted to take the time to read quite a bit about bussing, which I've done, and a very quick review of a very complicated and decades long program is that after the passage of the Civil Rights Civil Rights Act the Voting Rights Act in the sixties, there was an effort to integrate

the schools. The federal government says, okay, well, now we're going to integrate schools and judges. Federal judges often mandated it in different parts of the country, and this was very contentious for a whole lot of reasons. The Democrat narrative of events here is that this was necessary, a

good idea, and that it worked well. The reality is that this was a flawed idea, poorly implemented that sometimes worked for some people, but a lot of the time it didn't work for people at all, for the children, for the students involved in this, and instead of addressing the problems or looking at the program for what it really was, what do you think the Democrats go to explanation of everything was if you opposed bussing, you're a racist.

Doesn't stand up to scrutiny at all, though, doesn't stand up for the facts. It was, I will tell you a low blow. It was a cheap shot that Kamala Harris through at Biden in that debate. Wasn't wasn't fair. It wasn't fair, and she must have known that because here's the truth about the bussing system in this country. A lot of a lot of what went wrong with it was entirely predictable because it was a failure of

central planning. This was a top down solution for a problem that did not take into account local realities, did not take into account localized improvisation, all of the predictable failures of central planning. We're evident in busing. It was a blunt instrument for what should have been a very precise and case by case approach for one thing people

should have been able to choose. See, the way that bussing worked was you would, if you were a student, your parents would be told, hey, you can't go to your local high school anymore. You're now going to get on a bus. That's why they called it bussing. For forty five minutes an hour, maybe an hour and a half each way to go to some other school because we say so, well, some of the students, and this

was all about racial integration right there. There were schools that were almost entirely white, or entirely white schools that

were almost entirely black. And so what the czars of the government and the Department of Education decided to do is, well, let's just tell people top down that okay, we're gonna just make a determination that you know, certain students are going to go to this school and other students are gonna go to that school, and one none of the students' opinions matter at all, None of the family's opinions matter at all. This is the way it's going to be. You say, why is that? Why is that necessary? Why

is that? And any criticism of this is shouted down as racism right away. Criticism of it is must be indicative of racism. And there were some areas of the country, notably in Boston and what I believe is considered Southey. In Boston, there were some ugly racial incidents when bussing was instituted where people didn't you know, they didn't want

and it seemed to be really racial animals. But you know what, in all the studies they've done, the number one reason people didn't like bussing was they didn't like getting on a bus for a long time to go to a school that was far away. What a shock. White students didn't like it in many, many, many cases. Black students didn't like it in many, many, many cases. The program was an abject failure. In many places. The

program had all kinds of unintended consequences. One of them was, Okay, so you're gonna take a predominantly white school district in let's say Detroit, and you're gonna say, guess what, now, we're gonna make it. You know, sixty forty white and African American. A lot of people in that neighborhood might say, you know what I am going to And this is what happened. They moved. They moved because they moved to

that neighborhood in the first place for the school. Now they can't go to that school, so guess what, they moved somewhere else and they go somewhere where they can live near the school. For a lot of students, I was reading all of these you know, individual mini memoirs and anecdotes from people, because this got a lot of attention in the last month, so there's plenty of stuff

to read all over the internet about it. And they were all saying that, you know that they picked their school based on where or rather they pick where they live based on what the school was. Then this it was a big draw for people. Oh, we're going to go to the school. And then you say, okay, buck, but why did they Why were they so worried that bussing would make the school worse? Okay, this isn't really

that hard, folks. If you take a school that is predominantly minority and has students that are performing several grades below their level their age level, and you put them in the same classroom with students who are performing at grade level, then you have a problem of instruction. What do you do? And this played out in many different schools and school districts across the country over many decades. What what do you do? And now you got to create separate classes and so okay, but now you're in

separate classes, but you're in the same building. There's no magic. This is one of the lies about the Department of education is you know, oh, if only we had a shiny or newer school, everybody would do their homework and everything would be great. This is not true. Schools are part of communities. Schools are places where people from an area come together in a worthwhile pursuit learning. But they're an integral part of the day to day lives of

countless communities across the across the country. Do you know when all of a sudden bussing stopped being something that you had to just bend the knee and say, this is a great idea. There's no problems with us at all. By the way, there are a lot of ways to integrate schools don't involve busing. They could have had incentive programs,

charter schools, vouchers. I'm not in any way saying that the goal of creating a classroom that is not an ethnic monoculture right where there's not just one group of any whether of any race, right, where there's different ethnicities represented different that's a good idea that makes sense. That's people should have exposure to any votes from different backgrounds. But it's the mechanism of how they tried to do this that was just inherently flawed telling a bunch of kids,

guess what, you're in the fifth grade. You love your local school. Now you got to go to the other side of town. It's a forty minute drive each way. Now you don't get to see any of your friends anymore. And oh, what a surprise. Do your parents come to the PTA meetings? Do they come to the basketball or baseball games? Not if it's forty minutes away. They've got jobs and lines right that it's not part of their

community anymore. They were just countless, countless problems with this program, but it didn't really start to become something that you could talk about, something that you could you could criticize, until they did studies work. Guess what, there were black students in many parts of the country. I mean, I know, we're gonna speak with this at a national level over many decades, so we've got to keep this discussions apparently

going to be somewhat broad. But there were black students in many parts of the country, different school districts who were told, well, you have to be bust to a wider school district or a wider school rather, and they were like, I don't, but what if I like my school? I don't want I don't want to do that. I like the school I'm going to now. I live in this neighborhood, I like this school. I want to be

around my friends. And you know, the the to the point about the failures of central planning, one of them is that individual choice doesn't matter. The decisions are being made for you. Bussing did this on a massive scale. You weren't asked if you wanted to go to the other school. You were told this is where this is. Now, you're assigned school. You weren't asked if you want to get white or black didn't matter. You weren't asked, you were told what if you don't want to do that?

And then then you get into all the different studies as well about who's to say that a school inherently Now there's the experience of having exposure people of different races in school, which again I think that that's that's

a that's a commendable goal. How do you get there? Okay, But then there's also does that does that necessarily if you approach that goal, even if you're very aggressive about it, and you do get the preferred representation levels, which I think if it's considered if it's less than twenty to forty percent minority, I think they consider it to be not a graded school. I forget what the Department of Education guidelines were. It probably is a formula that varies

from different parts of the country. But even if you get to that level doesn't mean it's a great school. Sometimes people, this is really, you know, this is really where you see how this stuff fails. Black students who were in a school that they liked, where they were doing well academically. It would be bus to a new school that they didn't like, and they stopped doing well academically, and you know, they were just casualties of the system.

Things were great, they were doing well. They were told, Nope, sorry, now you gotta hop in a bus, go forty five minutes other side of town or you know, nearest town, whatever it was. Their whole educational outlook changed. It was perhaps ruined. Now now you can read stories of people who, let's say that this changed their life and it made everything better. And I'm not saying that they shouldn't have I'm saying that that should have been a choice that

was open. They should have been able to have exactly the experience that they had, but it should have been a choice that they made with their families, right, It should be you know, you have the option to go to this school, do you want to go to this school? It should never have been And Biden, to his credit, was at least saying in this debate that he was never a proponent of forced bussing, that it should have been an option to people. So he's right, forced bussing

is not a good idea. Bussing by choice that can work, but it also doesn't deal with the failing schools. And you know, just bussing doesn't fix the problems of the schools, doesn't fix the problems of the society. I mean, it's a it's a very you know, blunt instrument for a very precise and precision needed problem. So that's the truth.

So I just think it's so interesting that everyone all Biden and she really, you know, she really showed him, and you go back and you learn about this, and you find out that bussing was not this curl, It was not this education integration panacea that many on the left pretend it is. And it's just so so typical that what they did in order to shut down criticism in order to tell people, oh, you can't they did what they're always Oh you're racist. If you have any

have you criticized bussing at all, it must be racist? Okay, what about criticizing bussing on behalf of the you know, young black students and black families who didn't want to be bussed anywhere and it didn't work out for them, And are we allowed to talk about their views on this or not. I was just shut it down because

it's you know, shut down the conversation because there's racist. Really, the amount of damage the Democrats and the left have done to discourse on important issues by just being a bunch of race baiting race hucksters is it's incalculable. You know. There was the story in the New York Times and welcome back to the Bucks Exton show. We're talking about bussing.

There was a story in the Times a couple of weeks ago about Louisville, Kentucky, talking about how, oh, it's such a big success story for integration of schools via bussing, and now you have some areas of the city that are predominantly African American where they want to be able to stay at schools closer to home. They want stay

at the neighborhood schools. They don't want to be bust And you have all these liberals, predominantly white liberals making these decisions, by the way, who are saying, oh, what do you mean you don't want to be bused to the school and the other side of the town that has a higher white white population. This is necessary for diversity and black students. And this is going on right now.

This conversation is happening in Louisville, Kentucky. Black students are like, look, not all of them, but some of them are saying, I like the school in my neighborhood. Can I please just go to school my neighborhood. That's this is my community, you know. But the liberals, top down, centralized planning, that's how they do things. Here's here's a few letters. By the way, I mentioned this to you that there's been all this stuff out there about bussing. I think there's

a fascinating subject. I hope we're going to move on to the fight over Baltimore and Analigah commings versus Trump and all that's coming up in just a minute. But I wanted to share with you. A couple of these. These were published in the New York Times. These were letter to the editor in the aftermath of that first Democratic debate about the whole bussing issue. And here's one from a guy named John in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Here's

what he wrote in nineteen seventy three. I was one of the white students who was bussed to one of the worst high schools in Prince George's County in Maryland? How would you have liked to have been forced to attend to high school known for violence, drug abuse and poor academics. White families in Prince George's County who had children forcibly bust to poorly performing, unsafe high schools, revolted on mass and moved out of the county. Force bussing

resulted in a domino effect. When these families moved home, values fell and businesses closed. Crime and drug abuse rose county wide. Bussing was stopped in Prince George's County some twenty five years later. Millions of dollars had been wasted and it had widespread detrimental effects. The elitist scholars will never admit that force bussing was a colossal fail, nor would they ever send their own children to an unsafe

inferior school. John Minehold, Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This published the New York Times. Folks, I'm just John this. Do you ever hear that about bussing? Oh? No, bussing is you know, libs totally rewrite the history of what was really going on. Kevin. One more here, regarding school integration by bussing, Nicole Hannah Jones states that white Americans veneration of neighborhood schools has never outweighed their desire to maintain racially homogeneous environments for

their children. This is not true and doesn't reflect how many people feel about having their children attend nearby schools. My children attend highly regarded neighborhood schools that my wife and I chose by selecting where we live. The schools are racially diverse, and our children are of mixed race. I don't care at all about the racial makeup of

the schools. I care about safety, academics, and time. Having my children attend schools several miles away would be a complete non start, and I would not consider living in an area where this is possible. Most of the country, no longer has an environment where all things are about black and white. It's a broad mix, and people are

more concerned with academic performance than skin color. What you claim may have been true fifty years ago in a binary racial environment, but it really has no bearing in most of America today. Kevin in Englewood, Colorado. People that have some thoughts on this, folks, some of them who dealt with this very personally. And we're gonna ask any any questions to Kamala about this stuff. No, she got her shot in on Biden and that's all that really mattered.

All the journals were a flutter. Let me tell you, you you know, I've thought about this. Maybe I'm wrong, Maybe Biden is going to be the nominee, even though that means Trump's gonna win for a long time. You've got a very iron hand on it. It's a corruption. Look at the fact the government that's tucked in over the billions and billions of dollars, it's been no avail who absolutely no avail. Baltimore is as an example of what

corrupt government leads to. Billions of dollars have been given and I feel so sorry for the people of Baltimore, as if they asked me, we will get involved, but we're already involved from the standpoint that over many years, billions and billions of dollars have been given to Baltimore. It's been misspent, it's been missing, it's been stolen with a lot of corrupt governments, and as you know, comings

it's been in charge. Now I will say this, I think that Representatives coming should take his oversight committee and start doing oversight on in Baltimore. He finds out some real things. President Trump doubling down on his view of Baltimore as a place in desperate need of better leadership, and his criticism of Elijah Commings, long time Democrat Memer Congress representing Baltimore. And this is this is one of Trump's superpowers. Folks. Oh, there's all this outrage. Oh how

could he He's not allowed to say that. Yeah, well he did, and now he's saying it again. And what he's saying about Baltimore is by and large true. They may not like exactly the words that he's using, but that he's saying things that need to be said and are true. That's more important to people, or at least to people that have an open mind and want to

know what's going on. You know, Baltimore has a homicide rate that's approaching some of the Central American countries that people are fleeing from, claiming that they are uninhabitable because of the violence they faced. There are parts of Baltimore that are right up there in terms of homicides per hundred thousand residents, right up there with Central American countries that are in desperate straits. So why should we obscure the truth about what's happening here? Why why shouldn't we

be able to have a conversation about this? And no one ever seems to have an answer. Oh, because Trump's racist, that's what they say. Because Trump is a bad man

who is racist. They know that this doesn't change any minds, right, They understand that this is just feeding feeding more propaganda to the left wing base that wants, that has an emotional need to hear that Donald Trump is a racist, because that then shuts down everything else, all of his success, all of Trump's ability up to this point to govern effectively, the economy, all these different things, None of that matters

because he's a racist. This is a lazy attack by the media, but it's a favorite attack by the media too. It is on so many Republican politicians, so many Republicans, And if Trump were nearly as racist as they say he is, why is it that I know so many Latino and African American conservatives who are staunch are staunch Trump defenders, and think that he's better on a lot of these issues than even some of his Republican predecessors were.

Why do I or Democrat predecessors in terms of the results, They just they just don't They just don't care that he's such a clear races This is this is what we get from the Democrats though. It's demogoguery. It's demogoguery,

and they're defending the indefensible. With the situation in Baltimore, That's why we played some of that audio for you yesterday with residents of Baltimore who are saying, luck this place is really, really, in fact a mess, and that Democrats would go to Sharpton still just shows you how delusional they really are about all of this. I mean that Democrats would go the Al Sharpton route here and try to use him as the voice of real authority

on racial issues. Wow, Now Trump's not having any of that, of course play clip four. I am the least racist person there is anywhere in the world. When cotton men who I told wrong, you know, I'm gonna call my business like because I had to deal with him unfortunately in New York, but I got along with the mouth Shopton. Now he's a racist. What I've done for African Americans in two and a half years, no president has been

able to do anything like it. Unemployment at the lowest level in the history of our country for African Americans. Nobody can beat that. You look at poverty levels, They're doing better than they've ever done before. So many things offered his opportunities, own criminal justice reform, President Obama couldn't get it done. Al Sharpton is someone who has incited anti Semitic bigotry in the past that led to fatality.

Al Sharpton is somebody who has said horrific things about Jewish Americans and has never reputed reputated any of that. And if that's not enough, Al Sharpton also used to talk about how much he hated cops and bruser Mike pulled this audio from nineteen ninety two where he's telling people to off pigs, which my street lingo is not that strong. But I believe offing pigs means killing police officers. Here's Al Sharpton in nineteen ninety two. You can hear

for yourself. Play one. I don't believe in marching. I believe in offering the pigs, he said at a rally in nineteen ninety two. I believe in killing cops. That's what that's what that means. They can try to Oh, no, he didn't mean he met something. He said it is

ever apologized for it. No, he's got Joe Scarborough running around like the just the absolute turncoat, ideological traitor that he is not a traitor to his country, trader to his party and saying that you know, Sharpton is a change man and he forgives him because of the Bible or something. I mean, just it's pathetic. I mean, Sharpton is a travesty of a human being and the fact that Democrats still go to him shows you a lot about who they are. Buck sex in here. So I

I met Representative Josh Holly from Missouri. And if you're from do you see Missouri or is it Missouri? I always got to get the state names because people say these things different ways. And never forget the Nevada Nevada controversy of twenty seventeen, when I had to learn finally that it's not, in fact Nevada. It is Nevada. But I think I can say Missouri and that's all right anyway. Josh Holly is a freshman member of Congress, and he's gotten a lot of attention for his stance on social

media and social media regulation. He's one of these people who says, one of these members of Congress who's saying, look, you know, you can't have it both ways. Facebook, Google and these other These are the most powerful media companies in the world now, I mean the other the legacy media is stuff places like CNN and ABC and all that.

They're they're on the way out, you know, they're they're just little subsidiaries now of the mega conglomerates, the technology and infrastructure providers, places like AT and T. I mean, that's where it's all heading. You're you're not gonna have

the same sway, you know. I mean you you've seen, for example, how much the movie production studios, I mean movie production studios back in the nineteen nineties were among the most powerful iconic cultural institutions in the whole country because American the American movie market is global, and if you could make a really big budget film and you could pack theaters across the country, I mean that that

was the power they had was tremendous. Now, I mean, people don't even need them, and lot of the studios even really exist. They're just trying to stay alive, trying to keep up with the netflix is and the Amazons of the world, who have these enormous budgets and can distribute their own content digitally. Right, So the most powerful media companies in the world, they're digital media companies. That's

already happened. That's there's no question. That's that's what's going on. Meanwhile, I mean, here I am speaking to you on radio, and there are all kinds of regulations about radio, you know, what I can say and where we can broadcast, and broadcasting licenses and FM and AM and all the stuff. There's all kinds of regulations on traditional cable TV. And yet the Internet giants, these megacorporations, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Twitter, they want to be completely left to their own devices.

Oh no, we'll self police, thank you very much. Well, we'll be in charge of our own situation. Oh Holly, and others have said no, sorry, not so fast. I do think that they are. I think the Googleism monopoly, for example, and that we should be aware of that. I think the Googleism monopoly. I think that these companies should be should be looked at, and if in fact it would be of benefit to not just the consumer's bottom line but also consumer freedom, then I think that

you should break them up. Probably. I know right now a bunch of libertarians they're slapping their foreheads. Oh buck, how could you? Oh I'm sorry. This reminds me a bit of the tariff debate. Oh, tariffs are terrible. We can't have tariffs, okay, but a lot of places have tariffs against us. So what do we do. Do we just sit around saying, well, it can't have tariffs they're terrible,

because they do. China does, the EU does, Canada? Does we just sit around and take it because tariffs are terrible? And then they never really had an answer for me on that one. The digital media is a province now of the left. I mean, they dominate in these digital media companies. Should we just say, oh, well, you know, there's a lot you know somehow, here, here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Somehow the FCC is able to block a merger between Tribune and Sinclair to

create another conservative major channel. But we can't have any regulations on Facebook or Twitter or anything else. We can't have any expectation of neutrality as a platform instead of as a publisher with them. Right, So someone explained that to me, Well, why is the FCC approving mergers of companies because oh, it'll give them too much reach and local markets and blah blah blah. That's exactly that's how

they shut it down. Too much reach and local markets, and the digital media reaches everywhere all the time, and it doesn't make any sense. So we live and this is part of a part of the problem is, you know, conservatives, and there's the our intelligencia tends to be very happy to just think that they're right and exist in this think tank culture where they just they spew this stuff.

And there's some more elite conservative opinion journals that then repeat this stuff, and you know, whatever somebody at at CATO or whatever, somebody at Heritage or wherever, you know, puts out as a research paper. That's that's treated by much of the conservative intelligencia as gospel. Meanwhile, you just look around and say, well, hold on a second. You know we're getting our teeth kicked in on this thing. Can we do something about that? Oh no, no, no,

Let the free market decide. I agree with you. Free market deciding would be great. The free market is not deciding right now. In all other aspects of communication and media. There's tons of regulation. All right, Well, let me get back to Josh Holly less till I get a little fired up about this one. So Josh Holly look very nice guy, by the way, He's got a big future

ahead of my I think in politics. He has introduced these Social Media Addiction Reduction Technology Act, and it would make it illegal for social media platforms to hook users by offering them more content they requested in order to

get them to continue on their respective platforms. Here, according to the Hell, it would also require the companies to build user friendly interfaces with features allowing users to limit the amount of time they spend the platform and offering reminders about how much time they've already spent perusing the site. Quote big tech has embraced a business model of addiction.

Holly set in a statement, too much of the innovation in this space is designed not to create better products, but to capture more attention by using psychological tricks that make it difficult to look away. Holly would empower the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys to take action against companies that do not remove addictive features. I think Holly's just look. I think that he's just doing this as

a kind of awareness raising. He is. No, he's not seriously thinking that this bill is going to come and do it. I mean, I could be wrong. I could be wrong, but I think he's just trying to make a point with this because this build is a bad idea. I'm gonna say this builds a bad idea. I mean, what constitutes being an addictive Some people watch TV eight

hours a day. Some people don't have a TV. You know, I'm actually going to tell you this right now because I'm probably gonna be doing a little virtue signaling here on the radio show once it happens. I don't think I'm gonna when I move in New York, I don't not think I'm gonna have cable. I'm gonna be digital only. Now is that really virtue signaling no. But you know, it makes people like to be like, oh, I don't even have cable. I used to not have those of

you who listen to the show in the early days. No, I didn't have a TV for ye years, and I read so many more books than I'm just gonna be honest, it was. You know, my book reading has probably been it probably dropped in a half because for me, it's so easy to justify, oh, I'm gonna watch I'm gonna watch TV because I have to for my job, right, I have cable news on. I've got to know what's going on. But you learned so much more from reading the news than you do from watching it. Don't let

anyone know I told you that. But one of the reasons why I love radio as a format us because I get to spend enough time with you where there's real substance to the conversation. It's not you know, a five minute radio show is worth nothing. A five minute you know TV segment is standard. So why do I think that this is a bad idea? Well, because how would you even enforce this and what is it? But

it does raise an interest. This is a more philosophical question that there's there's an experiment, there's a reality right now all around us. If human beings are a new kind of lab rat, and social media is that little pedal that we're pushing to get the pellet that we eat. You know, social media is more influencing our day to day perceptions and lives than anybody has ever lived within

the history of humanity. And I obviously right because the technology is new and now it's pervasive, it's everywhere, and I think about what this would what this means, you know, the the commoditization, for example, of of female attractiveness that

is going on here. I mean there are there are women who are on Instagram and all these different things they got millions of followers, are generating very large incomes from themselves, which is great for them, but you know, what is it What does it now mean into society where this is now essentially, being really, really attractive is a job in a way that you don't have to go to a modeling agency and all that. You just you just start taking photos of yourself all the time.

You know, we're running a new kind of vanity experiment here, We're running a new experiment. And how much we're supposed to be constantly engaging with each other, and you know, you end up engaging on social media with a lot of people that you really wouldn't want to talk to you in real life. You know, people tweet horrible things at me on a regular basis. I don't want to talk to those people. I want to talk to you.

I want to talk to people that are interesting and want to learn and have good intentions and become a difficult challenging questions with a good heart and a sound mind, not you know, just running around flailing and screaming, and you know, all the stuff that libs do these days. I don't want that. I don't really need to deal with those people. I'd rather not. I mean, a crushing libs can be kind of a fun pastime, but no one really knows where all the social media stuff is going, folks.

That's and it is addictive. It is addictive, and you know you need to force yourself. I will tell you just one little trick, one little thing to make sure that when you're not when you have time that is, you know, with the wife, the husband, the kids, and you don't want to engage in social media, put your phone out of your reach, not just off out of your reach, off your person. It makes a difference. I'm telling you you may even feel a little, a little

twinge of anxiety because I've felt this before. Oh what if? What if someone needs to reach me? If it's fine, the house is not on fire. If someone needs you, you'll get back to them. But keep your device out when it's downtime. Keep it out of your reach and at meals that unless it's like a working lunch or something, which is basically just being in the office but at a table instead, that that phone should never come out until the end. Till the end, until the check is paid,

the phone stays away. These are rules that I try to live by. I'm not perfect with them, but I really do, and I think it's better for everybody as well. Put the device out of your reach and away. There have been two big wins for the Trump administration on dealing with the crisis at our southern border, but probably haven't heard much about them. The media doesn't like to cover Trump wins. I don't like to cover scandal Trump tweets. Oh my gosh, did you see the thing that he tweeted?

It was terrifying. I don't know how I can sleep at night because of Trump's tweets. That's what they like to cover. They don't like to tell you what's really going on, especially in an issue as important as securing our southern border. So here or here two very important developments. One is the wall, the other is third Safe Country Agreement.

Let's start with the wall, shall we. The very short version of a very complicated long story is that the Trump administration signed an executive order to use funding that is counternarcotics funding in the Department of Defense budget to build a wall. This is a pretty straightforward idea. The wall is preventing a lot of or would prevent a lot of cross border illegal narcotics traffic. So spending money

for that purpose, well, that's counternarcotics money. Rights. Oh, it all makes sense some federal judge, because as we know, all it takes is one usually Obama appointee judge to

issue a nationwide injunction. So one federal judge anywhere in the country, there's hundreds of them, can just say yeah, sorry, President can't do that because I say so, And then it has to go all the way up through and the fact that these federal judges keep getting overturned and overturned and overturned doesn't matter because they're in areas of the country where they think that the politics are on their side. And these judges are activists. They're not applying

the law. How could someone sue the Trump administration to prevent the construction of a wall using funds in the Department of Fence that the executive branch has discretion over how to spend. Well in a five four decision, looks like a couple of billion dollars now are freed up to be used on the wall. And part of this, part of the reason for this is that those who are trying to stop the president have no standing. You know, you don't just get to say I don't like what

the president is doing, therefore he can't do it. There has to be a concrete harm and you have to have standing. There's no individual American who gets to be like, hey, you know what, I don't want a wall, so I'm gonna sue the president. Doesn't work that way. There's no standing here. And because there's no standing, there should have been there never should have been an injunction to stop this from happening. But of course there was, and this

is a big victory for Trump. He was right. Members said, oh, he can't do this, he can't use the money for this, or no, no, actually he can. Remember this is you know, a couple billion dollars. Libs are dead set again spending this money on a wall. We have a massive crisis at our southern border, drugs, human trafficking, illegal immigration, all this stuff coming together, and the one thing that Democrats are sure of is that they don't want money spent

that could stop those things from happening. Why because Democrats oppose enforcement of our immigration laws and sovereignty and security at our southern border all the time. Find an issue, they're on the open border side of it, Find an issue that touches on immigration. They're opposed to punishment, They're opposed to law and order every time without exception. And then that brings me to so so you have the one Trump victory as in funding for the wall, five

four Supreme Court decision. Now there's gonna be more. The Court's gonna look at it again because this just means that they have a stay on the injunction, which allows the administration to go forward and spend the money while the full merits of this are under consideration for an eventual decision. But at least he means that the wall can get going. Have you heard that? By the way, you people who are saying, oh, Trump hasn't built a wall, hasn't build the wall, Well, looks like a couple billion

dollars will get you a lot wall, folks. I've been to that wall. You know you don't need one hundred billion dollars for the wall you need you need, you know, in the billions to get you all though, and you only need a few hundred miles of real wall put in place, or fence. It's known to wall's a fence. It's what people say when they have nothing else to say. I want to sound like they have an argument to make.

The other part of this the other victory for the Trump administration, But the Democrats are trying to undo it again because they they are four open borders. They do not they do not want this situation to stop. They don't want this to get better. But the other place is the third Safe Country agreement that we now have

with Guatemala. This is a pretty straightforward one. Third safe country means that people need to once they get out of the country of origin in this case, usually Honduras or El Salvador, they have to they have to either wait or they have to apply for asylum, and that means that they're not in the United States waiting for the case to go through. So in this instance, and it varies a little bit from country to country, a third safe country with Mexico would mean that while you're

applying for solom you stay in Mexico. A third safe country with Guatemala means that if you don't actually stop in Guatemala and apply there and go all the way through Mexico although the United States, you are in violation of our asylum procedures. What this stops is effectively country shopping by economic migrants who are claiming asylum when what they really want is to do an end run on

the immigration system, which is what's really happening. So this this prevents that, it says, Okay, if you're in Al Salvador, you're in Honduras, and you're you need an asylum, real asylum, you gotta ask for it in Guatemala first. See if Guatemala will give it to you. Ah, let's see this. This then is a way to shut down the fraud because the fraud is at the These are people that are really seeking asylum, and what they are seeking is just to immigrate to America. That's all. This is under

the pretense of fleeing violence and everything else. So you know what ilhan Omara and others are spreading today, Guatemala is not a safe enough country. Okay. If Guatemala is not safe enough for people from El Salvador, Honduras to seek refuge in, then I guess we have to accept the whole country of Guatemala's refugees. And if Guatemala is not safe enough, why is Mexico safe enough? These are all countries with very high homicide rates. Do we have

to accept anyone from Mexico wants to? I mean, this is the dissolution of our system of immigration. Democrats know that, That's why they want it, so they oppose. They oppose the third Safe Country agreement with Guatemala on the grounds that Guatemala is not a safe enough country. Ah yeah, that's going to be news to the millions of people who live there, feed their families, go about their day

to day. I'm sorry, we cannot just take responsibility for all of the problems of the third world in Latin America. It's not going to work. Our country cannot sustain itself if that is going to be our posture going forward. But Democrats don't care if they want open borders. Mitch O'Connell, the hawkish foreign policy conservatives who spent decades pushing back on Russia every way I can think of, was to accuse of what amounts to treason multiple media outlets within

a couple of hours. These people have worn out the volume knobs so badly that they have nothing left but the most unhinged smears. Welcome to modern day McCarthyism. So just to give you a little backstory on why Mitch cocaine, Mitch is upset and he may, in fact, he may have to go to war and tell everyone to say hello to his little friend because he's very upset about

what's happening right now. And then what's happening is that you have a media offensive just out of basically nowhere, with multiple outlets all running with how Mitch McConnell is a Mitch McConnell folks is a Russian stooge. This reminds me of when you would hear stories back in the day about how about how the Attorney General Jeff Sessions may also This was a rumor you'd hear in DC. Maybe Jeff Sessions was compromised by the Russians. I mean,

could you imagine that meeting. Oh, yes, Jeff, we would like you to give us influencing the top of the Thromp administration. And yeah, I'm I'm not sure I'm on to do that, mister, mister Sergey Yablabadov. I don't I don't you know, I don't think anybody really believed that Jeff Sessions was a Russian asset. And yet that was something you would hear, and there were people there were journalists would say, oh, they must have something on Jeff Sessions.

What would they have ever had on Jeff Sessions? That he was he was late to church by five minutes once back in nineteen eighty seven. I mean, really, who thinks that there's compromat on Jeff Session. But this was a story you would hear. I'm pretty sure if you did a Google search on and some of it would pop up. But this was the rumor, and that was just an indicator of the Trump derangement syndrome that had gripped the Acela corridor, the journals in New York, in

DC and across the country. It was just a version of that, just another data point. And yet here we are again. They're still reeling from the loss of their favorite anti Trump toy, which is the Russia collusion narrative. That's been the number one that that's the one that they really believe. They know that there's no the Libs know there's no mechanism for removing a president for racism.

I mean, that's you're just they just do that to defame him, to make him unelectable again, to you know, to also just to vent their spleen their rage at the president. But they know that, you know, they're really not going to get the president or removed from office with accusations of races. I'm not just not going to fly.

They did think, I believe a lot of liberals believed that Muller was going to deliver them freedom from Trump, that Muller was going to end the Trump presidency, and that the Russia collusion conspiracy was going to bring the entire thing crashing down. And as we know, no, that's not the case. So they've gone on to something else. And and people who have made promises to their audience.

And I really mean this, you know, where, whether we're talking about Democrat politicians or prominent Democrat members of the media, they made promises to their audience that there would be a big Russia bombshell that would, you know, really strike a blow against the Trump administration, against Trump and his family. They can't now say, well, you know, Muller's had his shot and it turns out that he wasn't who we said he was and it was kind of all a lie,

and we're just gonna move on past this. No, so what do they do. You can't make this stuff up, folks. They've decided that Mitch McConnell is the new He's the new Russia collusion chess piece. He's the new mastermind, right, the guy that maybe they have some compromat on him. I'm not I'm not I'm not making this up. I'm not exaggerating. You had a piece in I want to

find it for you here. I'm pretty sure that it was Dana Millbank in the Washington Post wrote a piece with the headline I'm just trying to find the headlines. I don't get it wrong, but I thought. It's basically, Jeff, I'm sorry, Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset. That's what now the term asset. And Dana Millbank knows enough. He's one of these journals that kind of fakes fakes the you know, the insidery knowledge stuff to people. Oh, we must know a lot about how the dark side of

you know, the intelligence world works and all that. To call somebody an asset in that context, I'm sorry, Yeah, Mitch mcconell's a Russian asset. It was um, it was in the Washington Post. I'm right. Obviously, Buck's always right and just kidding him, very humble, but that's essentially at least alluding to Mitch McConnell as a as a as a spy, as a traitor, which is why Mitch McConnell so upset. This is a thing that only a moron could write or say. Dana Milbank isn't a moron. I

think he's just deeply cynical. It's a hired gun for the left. No ethics, no honor, common among Democrats, common among leftists these days, the most prominent ones. To call a fellow American a trader is something that should be reserved for only the most serious offenses with substantial evidence. I don't run around calling Democrats traders. I think that some of them, a lot of them are dumb. What they're doing is bad for the country. I think that

they're venal. I think they're not as smart as they think they are. I think that they're shallow at But I don't run around calling them a trader. That's a horrible allegation in politics. It's like the equivalent of calling someone a wife beater. You know, you say that to a civilian in day to day life, You've ruined that person's reputation. They're gonna call h Mitch McConnell a trader

and say that he's doing Russia's bidding. The idiots that have been saying Trump has been doing Russia's bidding all along, where is that? Where's that happening? I might add, they've had to move away from that because there's no basis in reality. He just likes to Trump likes to troll the press by not doing what they tell him. He has to do with his meetings with Putin by not dancing to the required tune of the Libs, and his skepticism of the senior ranks of the intelligence community in

this country are well founded. Well, we're supposed to trust that that Brennan and McConnell I mean, sorry, Brennan and Coomy and what Clapper that's the name I was trying to think of that those guys are just totally squirt away and on the up and up, totally honest, know what's going on? No Pole, of course not, it's idiocy. But Mitch McConnell is a Russian asset. Is a headline that was published in one of the biggest newspapers in

this country by a columnist who knows no shame. And it's all because Mitch McConnell doesn't want to support the latest frenzied effort to create a new Russia collusion headline, which is from you know Warner who. I used to think that Mark Warner. I guess the Libs got to him. I guess he's a he's a radical leftist asset now because I used to think that he was at least somebody you could reason with. I'm not saying that he

was reasonabull, but you could reason with him. You could hope that maybe you'd have a normal conversation with them, but he's become a he's a Russia collusion truther at this point, and he's pushing this federalized election security bill because of the threat of oh, Russian interference in the election once again. And Mitch mcconnaugh's like, no, this is

left to the states. States are securing their elections, and think about it, just logically, what puts at risk our federal election system more, our federal election more if the system is entirely centralized, or if the system is decentralized and individual states are left to protect the integrity of their systems. I think we all know the answer to that.

I mean, if you can just hack into one system, get into one one pipeline, and have access to everything, that would be very different than getting into one state, you know. I mean, if the Russians sneak into the ballot boxes in Rhode Islands somehow, that's a very different thing that they could sneak into all fifty states. But it's just it's unnecessary. They just want to pass this bill so that they can have more time to talk

about Russian interference in our election again. And by Russian interference, they just mean that someone somewhere posting memes about how, you know, Hillary needs to be locked up and Trump is awesome. This is really what we're supposed to be so terrified of lock her up memes. The left is terrified of pro Trump memes on Facebook and fake news stories that spread like wildfire, as if the propaganda of The New York Times the Washington Post isn't its own problem.

And they do that every day, and they've planned printed plenty of fake news. But they're smearing Mitch McConnell. It's a disgrace. I'm just glad Mitch's is sticking up for himself because cocaine. Mitch don't play very happy with the fact that Dan Coats. I like Dan. He's a friend of mine. I mean, I think he's a terrific person. I like him a lot. And there really wasn't conflict. I think it was confusion more than conflict. Dan made statements and they were a little confused, but that was

not conflict. Dan is a friend of mine, he's a he's a good man. But I think that John Ratcliffe is going to do an incredible job if he gets approved. He's got to get approved, but I think he'll do a great job. I hope he gets approved. I think we need somebody like that there. We need somebody strong that can really rain it in because, as I think you've all learned, the intelligence agencies have run them up.

They've run them up a lot of preparation for what's expected to be a somewhat nasty confirmation battle now over the Director of National Intelligence position that will now that the President has is trying to fill with Congressman Ratcliffe. Now Ratcliffe, I didn't really know much about the guy until the Muller hearings when he had one the better showings of anybody there. But you can just a few things that come to mind here. One is the DNI.

The Director of National Intelligence is a job that shouldn't really exist, doesn't need to exist. It didn't exist before nine to eleven. It hasn't done anything since nine eleven. It's a bureaucratic post. You got more than enough national security advisors and this and that and the other thing, coordinators and blahdih blah, they're running all I mean the government is. There's so there're more. There's like a hundred people working on terrorism for every terrorist around the world.

That much. I can tell you. And on the national security side that is magnified on every issue, right. I mean, you know you've got all these people working on this stuff. How many individuals can the president really listen to and believe and trust in on any national security matter? The numbers not that high, folks. We don't really need a Director of National Intelligence. But I'll put that aside for a second. The job is there. And as you know,

government never gets smaller. We never contract the federal government. I was riding an electric scooter, I know, I'm a nerd, passed the Department of Labor over the weekend. I just looked at him, just like, why does I'm sorry that Department of Labor Department of Education, although this could be true too for that, and I was like, why does this place even exist? It doesn't have to exist. There's

no reason for it, really, but it does. The Director of National Intelligence NCTC, the National Counterterrorism Center, that's another place doesn't need to exist. It's just a big, bloated, unnecessary agency that was created after nine to eleven. So there's plenty of that, all right, But now what's the real fight. Why is this going to get all political? Put aside? My woe is me. The bureaucracy's out of

control stuff, which is all true. Well, it's because now the media is upset at anyone being in a position of authority in the executive branch who is not of buy and for the bureaucracy, and preferably a clear lib that they're going to pretend is just an unbiased public servant, just an unbiased nerve. Yeah, right, you mean like Brennan and Clapper and Komi and McCabe, all these very unbiased Hayden, the CIA, unbiased public servants. No person can really believe this.

But the Democrats are upset about it. I mean, here's Chuck Schumer, for example. He's telling you that, you know, oh, this is something to be so worried about fifteen. He is so partisan and he has believed in so many conspiracy theories that he's exactly the wrong person to handle DNI. You need someone to speak truth to power, You need someone to tell the president if you do this, there's a danger of war or a danger of Americans being killed.

And Ratcliffe shown no inclination to speak truth to power. He's just gone along with all of Trump's ways. They don't want anybody who isn't ideologically opposed to the president in a position of authority and executive branch. And now they play the game. The New York Times, I believe it was today rent an editorial about how we need a nonpartisan Director of National Intelligence. I mean, this is a joke. Friends, John Brennan was a CIA director. John

Brennan was like Obama's best buddy. He was a true believer, a superlib and he was at the CIA and was very involved we don't know the full extent yet in the Russia collusion hoax creation. And I mean, now we're going to get lectured from the other side about how we need a nonpartisan person in this role. Yeah, like like who who would be would be acceptable to do? But this is the same game they play with judges, Like we're all a bunch of idiots, Like we can't

see what's really going on. We can't really have any understanding of how the other side is playing the game. You know, they say, oh, this judge is a right wing extremist. No, the judge is a kind you know. Whenever we have a Supreme Court battle. And I'm not even talking about the Kavanas stuff specifically, any Supreme Court seat that opens up, or any federal judge if they

think they can make an issue of it. Altho, now with the thank you Democrats with a nuclear option, and they can't do what they used to do, which was just obstruct, obstruct and prevent fantastic conservative judges, especially if it was a female or minority conservative judge, from from getting on the bench. But they would always act like our side has you know, conservatives have bias and have problems being fair minded. Their side is always oh, their

side is never an issue. Now they're they're just public servants, man, They're just there to do the job. Bull. Bull. But you're going to see a lot more of this. Ratcliffe scored some points against the Muller narrative in that congressional hearing, just doing his job as a congressman. But they haven't forgotten that one. I'm telling you, they're they're gonna make a lot of noise. They're gonna try to get him to pull his nomination. I wouldn't be surprised, just like

I mean, they did have that guy. He was in the Pentagon, he was going to be Secretary of Defense and he had some issue with it was a domestic issue. I forget what it was, but he withdrew from consideration. And I think that they believe, the Democrats believe that they can get Ratcliffe to withdraw. I mean, look, he's got The good news is he's got cocaine Mitch, who despite the Democrats saying all kinds of crazy and mean things about cocaine, Mitch, Mitch's got Ratcliff's back, which will

certainly be helpful in this process. Play sixteen. I haven't met him yet. I look forward to meeting with him. We'll go through the confirmation process, and generally speaking, I would laying toward presidence nomination and I'd rather not addressed out until I've actually had a chance to meet him and discuss in his background and qualification. Oh that's right.

They're also saying he's not qualified. Now, you know, somehow Leon Panetto was qualified to run Defense and the CIA, but this guy who's also a congressman, you know, he's not not qualified for the job. It's basically a bureaucratic post anyway. But this is what they'll say, and I would just want you will hold to remember that we have seen what happens. One of the biggest One of the biggest lessons that Trump should have taken from his first two years in office was you can't leave behind

the other guy's guy. You can't leave behind deep state entrenched Libs and establishment you know, establishment firsters, and then hope that you're going to get a fair shake if you're a president who's come in explicitly to shake things up and do things differently. I mean, Comy should have been gone right away, no hesitation. I know that all FBI directors, Yeah, we should. We should abandon that whole pretense.

Comy should have been gone right away. Sessions. As much as I like Jeff, and you know, I appreciate that he did my show numerous times, we had a great interview back in the day on the Hill, Jeff was not the right pick for attorney general he needed. Jeff was a peacetime consoliery and Donald Trump needed a wartime consoliary as his attorney general and Jeff just did which just wasn't that guy one of the biggest mistakes of Trump's presidency because that really led to that, you know,

the domino effect. Imagine if you would have had Bill Barr from the beginning in that attorney general rule. Do you think that any of this crap would have gone. He would have said, Okay, you guys would think we're going to start a special counsel here. Let's let's first figure out how this whole lie got started, and then

we'll begin the lie about Russia Trump collusion. Let's investigate the dossier, let's investigate all these You know, it would have been that first, and he just never would have allowed what was clearly a political hit. But hopefully the Trump administration's learned its lesson. I think Rackliffe will be a good I wonder how many in the major in the mainstream, the big media are going to care about the USA Soccer Federation's statement that it put out today.

I think the answer is very, very few. Just as we see so many times with the left, it's not about being correct, it's not about telling the truth. It's about spreading information that can be false, but it doesn't matter to a purpose, and as long as it was useful at that point in time for that purpose, the left and the mainstream media are fine with it. They see no need to go back and correct, They see

no need to apologize. Is to retract any of those things, well, just yesterday, the USA Soccer Federation Soccer Federation put out a statement, a fact sheet because they're sick of what the narrative has become, because the narrative is a lie. Here is what we are told that the women's national team for soccer, and a lot of you don't care about soccer, but put that aside for a second, because you know, we could be talking about shuffle board for

all I care. It's just the gender equality nonsense that we're getting into here, all right, So forget about I know, all your soccer jokes. It's a lot of you know, it's two hours of passing and no goals, and I know, I know, But this is about the stories that we were told. And at the World Women's World Cup going on,

there was a lot of coverage of this. Megan Rappino, who is laughing about her wokeness all the way to the bank, I mean, has now become a has become a household name by being strangely anti American and somewhat odious in her approach to the flag and to the national anthem. But she's now famous. I know who she is. You know probably who she is if you're listening to

the show you do. But it was all started or rather, the primary storyline we would always hear about the women's national soccer team is that they are underpaid compared to men. And there was always a pretty clear jab about the men's national team here because the women would point to how they were world champions, right, they were a top team. They beat poor Thailand like fourteen to nothing, which they should be embarrassed about. That not Thailand, the United States

women's team. There's no need to be to beat another team in international competition of the World Cup by you know, more than eight goals. Okay, that's enough. If you're really going to need the goal differential going down the line, then you weren't a good enough team and don't deserve to win the whole thing. I mean, if you're just going to run the score up against clearly a very crappy team. But oh then that was sexist to say that. It's not sexist, it's true now the women's the women's

team that we were told they're underpaid. USA Soccer has put out a statement today and here's what the on compensation. They say. Over the past decade, US Soccer has paid our women's national team more than our men's national team. From two thousand and ten through twenty eighteen, US Soccer paid our women thirty four point one million dollars in salaries and game bonuses, and we paid our men twenty

six million. Twenty six point four million, not counting the significant additional value of various benefits that our women's players received but which our men do not. And then they go in to the pay. These are the facts, folks, This is the real story. Think about all the time Rappino running around equal pay, equal pay and all these women, you know, girl Power and raw Ron. It was all crap. If anything, the women in the US national team are overpaid.

That's right, overpaid. You could say you don't care. But the media was telling this this. This was supposed to be raising awareness about gender disparity and how terrible it is, and oh it's so hard, and you know, women have to work twice as hard as a man to get thirty percent of the or you know, seventy two cents on the dollar. I don't even know the number because that numbers will lie too. This is just not true. People get connected, they get attached to these narratives, these storylines,

and then they don't care when it's not true. This is facts, folks, This is numbers. Numbers don't lie. The women have made more money. I've been paid more money by the Usaccer Federation than the men. The some very interesting additional information that comes out here. This is from the US Soccer Federation. This isn't like some you know, right wing blog somewhere. The women wanted a different pay structure. The women wanted guarantee and got because they have different

collective bargaining agreements. The female players have guaranteed salaries. The female players also want full dental and health and vision and lots more in benefits. The male players are more willing to have a backloaded structure where they get essentially higher pay for better performance. The women want guarantees. Now.

At the risk of being considered sexist, anybody who's ever worked in financial management will tell you that, generally speaking, not always, you know, you know, to the ladies out there running a hedge fund of their own or whatever, running a four to one hundred company, I'm not talking about you, But generally speaking, women are more fiscal, you could say, fiscally prudent, more risk averse than men are.

It's men who generally financially like to swing for the fences because men and women generally view money in different ways. For men, it is often a function of status, and for women it is often more a function of necessity. And essentially they want the money to pay the bills, to live nicely, and for everything to be okay and be stable. And men are more prone psychologically to say I want to bet the farm, I want to go

all in. Well, this collective bargaining structure reflects that general, that general breakdown, and it just goes on in greater detail than I need to tell you about right now. But the per game comparison they get into here, I mean, the women are paid more than the men. Think about that, The women are paid more by the way women sock are compared to men's soccer. At the at the FIFA level, men's soccer is generating billions and billions and billions of

dollars of revenue. Women's soccer then a FIFA is the International Soccer Federation, right, but women's soccer is in the you know, in like a hundred million. It's a tiny fraction, tiny fraction of what the men generate in advertising revenue and that's just a function of eyeballs on the games. Now, this is a total, a total refutation of the story that we were all told by the media. Did any of the media ever think to pull these numbers? You know,

all these journals. I live in a city full of people who are journalists, refer to themselves that way, take themselves very seriously, and never seem to actually want to do the work of journalists. They want to be advocates, they want to be partisans, but with the shield of journalism so you can't go after them for this, and so that their own their own side of the issue politically can say they're not partisans. They're just telling us

the facts. They're just giving us the truth, which is nonsense. And anybody who's sophisticated and they're reading and their understanding of the media already knows that women's soccer has also received substantially more investment in recent days. So I just think that this is something that we all need to be in recent years, rather we need to be aware of. I mean, this was a it was a lie, this whole thing about women aren't paid the same and this is not this is not true. This is a lie.

The numbers have come out. The numbers show it, and this is where we are. So I like to tell you the truth, folks. One of the reason why I want you to come here and listen to the Buck Sexton Show. And that's enough women soccer talk for one day, probably hopefully forever. We'll be right back. It's going to be quite a while before the left abandons its quest to pretend that there can be absolute an absolute equality, not under the law, but equality of genetics, of biology, sameness,

which is a different thing than equality for law. There can be a sameness of the genders, that there's no distinction between male and female. Libs have made this an article of faith. You cannot reason with them, you cannot change their minds. There's nothing that you can say when you point out, as as a parent, as many of my friends have done, that there their little boy, their little girl just acted differently and generally in line with

what boys and girls want to do. We're told that, oh, that's that's an environmental situation, even though all of the literature that looks at this, the scientific literature, will tell you that, no, there are differences in how they interact with authority, how they interact with each other, aggressiveness, behavioral tendencies between male and female. Of course there are we have different biochemistry. But the left has just decided that

no longer is the case. And that's why you have pieces like this in the Washington Post, which publishes a lot of insanity these days. Perspective, let's have a gender reveal party that reveals gender is a construct. I don't even want to read this article. I'm actually reacting to the headline because it does not matter what their argument is. I've read the argument many times in many different places. Gender is not a construct. Gender is rooted in science

and reality. And the moment that they start to play this game of well what about people who are intersects or have some other then you have to come back at them with But that's not what you're talking about. You're not discussing biological anomaly as what is the outlier here in gender situations. No, you're saying that when someone decides as a male that they are female, they are female, that there is no such thing as a as gender. It is purely a state of mind. It is a

psychological state. There's just simply no evidence for this this other than as a mental illness. There's no evidence for it. It does not exist. And you could say, well, we should let people be people and do what they want. I'm fine with people doing what they want as adults. I'm not fine with children being told that they're gonna give they're gonna have hormones before they've even hit puberty because they think that their their gender. They have a

gender dysphoria. I don't think that's okay. By the way, there's no such thing as a scientist who can tell you what the long term effects of that are because we don't know because it's now just beginning. Has never been done before. So and somebody say, oh, buck, I'm sure they'll point to some study where someone tried in the nineties. Yeah, but I mean there's no real scientific foundation, no no basis of research for these claims. It might have been done once or twice here or there, but

nobody really knows what the long term effects are. But they still they still stick to this, even in areas of professional sports competition. As we've been discussing, the left wants us to bend the knee on this issue because it is forcing you to accept untruth and that makes you question everything else about yourself, about your own judgment, about your autonomy, your intellectual freedom. When someone insists on you,

I remember, they want to force you. Now, they want to use law, They want to use the power of the state to compel you to say that an individual is a female when that individual's actually male. And overwhelmingly the most aggressive people about this, in terms of litigation and in the media, it's always the male to female transition.

I find where there's a real, a real self righteousness about the female to male transition seems to be much more The people advocating for that are much more muted in how they approach it, or at least more more subdued. But I don't know how much longer, folks, I can even tell you the truth about this before I'm going to get banned from Twitter. I'm going to get told that there's some corporate problem with me writing this, saying this, believing this, and that's that's a scary precedent to set.

When corporate America is going to force down our throats, or when our social media's ares are going to are going to tell us make us say things that are false, what else can they make us do? The show ain't over yet, folks, keep it up real it's time for Roll Call, Roll Call time. I guess the debate's going on right now, so hopefully you're listening to this while the debate is on mute. But nonetheless, at this point

you're probably seeing that Joe Biden's coming out swinging. That's right, blue collar Joe's rolling up the sleeves, gonna be a tough guy. I'm gonna challenge somebody to push up competition or some other nonsense. All right, let's get to your thoughts here. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton is how you can send us your thoughts for all things roll Call, and I always always appreciate when you do, so, thank you so much for that. And we read everything comes in. I get to as much of it on Arrow as

I can. All Right, Rob, Short and Sweet, Rob thick cut bacon is the best. Rob. That is absolutely correct. I did post a short video on the Gram today, which I think is what the cool kids call Instagram of some thick cut bacon in my pan getting cooked. And this is what I always tell people. Bacon should not be some tasteless grease strip that has some faint vague smell of bacon. Bacon should in fact taste like pork.

Bacon should be something that is a pork product when you're eating it, and the thick cut just maintains flavor better. And I always tell you if you go to a butcher and they have or you know, the butcher counter at your grocery store, and they have any ability to slice the bacon off for you in real time, that's, my friends, that's the way to do it. You want to slice that bacon off and eat that bacon, We'll

just eat the bacon in general. A friend of mine Today's SEMy a message saying, you mean your cancer sticks. And I'm like, look, if bacon gives me cancer, you know what, I'm going to enjoy life and go out happy. I don't know what to say. I'm not giving it up. Erica, right instead of the squad, can we call them the heathers. They're treating the Congress like it's a high school and

American citizens like we are all Martha dump truck. Erica, I think you're the second person who has made a reference to the Heathers, which I believe is if we're gonna be fair, a gen X or Gen y reference US millennials are unfamiliar with the Heathers, so don't I don't know what the heathers are this show. I don't know, but I appreciate it. Nonetheless, you're making a pop culture reference here. Let us see John right Shield's high Fantin's

the real news days. Gosh, guys, we're coming up on some of you have been with me now for almost ten years. It's not amazing. It's like we're all groans up together now. I do really appreciate it though. It's an honor that you've been willing to give me your time over all these years. I hope you've learned a lot and will continue to learn a lot and have a lot of fun while we do it. Disney World is for anyone who has the money to pay for it. John writes. One of the number one things to do

is taking your picture with the characters. Oh sorry, one of a number of things to do rather is to take your picture with the characters. It's a rare thing, and the more photos you get with more characters makes you better than your friends who didn't get any photos with Donald and Goofy, your Chip and Dale, John, thanks so much. People have strong views on Disney world Susie and Andy. As a German American, my German grandmother would never have taken us anywhere if we were not very

well behaved. Children. Undisciplined must be a newer problem. I keep coming across this, and I'll tell you when it's really the worst offenders are where. You know. It's whenever I hear somebody has a fancy European accent. You look, oh, is the children and they're going to make so much noise my children a fancy restaurant. They will spit on your head from behind. They will throw their little toy for the children in your in your VICI sUAS. You know,

they just don't care your Europeans. I don't know what's going on, but they think that children. They think that the rest of society finds their ill behave children either adorable or is too oblivious to care, which is probably more likely what the rest of society thinks of their ill behaved children. I do. I do think this is a cultural thing. It's it's just you know, I do not come across this the same way. Look, anyone from

anywhere can have badly behaved children. But I really believe that Western Europeans have convinced themselves that kids can just act up and that's just kids being kids. That's not true. My mom never would have allowed us to cause a scene in public, and we never would have done it. It just wouldn't have happened. Gabrielle rights. Oh, here we go. Hold on a second. The mental aspects you've been talking about the last few days are easily explained in neuro research.

It's because they've actually suffered brain damage. This is not a joke. This will explain the clinical data. In somewhat Layman's terms, the Left is creating massive fake stress by making their followers constantly think the world is ending. This forces people to feel a significant stress over time by constantly reinforcing the delusion. The stress then gets to be

internalized because there's no end to the perceived threat. Internalizing the emotions then causes the amygdala to go into high gear on a constant basis and shrinks the temporal lobe. The Left has basically perfected a way of creating a fake form of PTSD and mercilessly unleashed it on its own supporters. It's literally causing psychosis in the same way as someone being victimized by an abusive narcissist for long periods of time. It is the neuro equivalent of a

stress ulcer. This is exactly why the left Is followers live in such a mental bubble and are incapable of understanding basic truths. So in the end, the idea of Trump's arrangement syndrome is actually legit. Do a quick search on suppressed emotion and its effect on the brain, and it will all start to make sense. Gabriel, I don't know if any of what you've written here is is scientifically true or not, but it certainly was convincing or interesting.

Sounds it sounds plausible. One thing that I do know from the very very very soon perficial reading that I'm able to do sometimes on biochemistry and brain structure, I find these these are very interesting areas because we know so little about them. So you can approach these with a built in with a built in humility that all people should have, because even the world's greatest brain surgeon

doesn't really understand very much about the human brain. Folks understand some of the functioning and the tissue, but how does a get to b get to see not a whole lot there. We really don't understand the underlying functions. We don't understand the underlying functions, or rather, we can't replicate the underlying functions of a basic cell. So just keep in mind the miracle of life. There's not something we're able to replicate. As for the yeah, the PTSD

that it creates. I do believe that libs are in the midst of a mass psychosis, a mass delusion. And I don't say that to be funny or to be is to sound extreme. I really think that that is happening and that we should take into account. That is the reality that we now face. And it wouldn't be the first time. And there have been different periods in history. Go back and do some reading. You know, we always think of the Salem witch trial and the hysteria around it, right,

the Salem Salem with trials. That was just a little American version of it. There were witch trials throughout medieval Europe over the course of centuries that you know, would would ended up putting countless numbers of women to death, usually burning at the stake. All there are other ways too that they would execute women based on what was effectively a village, a spreading village, hysteria from one village

to another village to another. You know, they'd be completely terrified of witchcraft and of witches, and they'd put them to death. This was for centuries in Europe. This was a real thing. That's where the whole storyline of cats as the as the familiars, as the little assistance of witches goes back to medieval times. And it's also why cats have had a in European historical tradition. They've had a very different treatment than in more Eastern cultures. Discussion

for another time. See you learn all kinds of interesting things here on the Buck Sex and Show. I tell you, this is the greatest part of my job, other than getting to hang out with all of you, because the nicest, smartest, coolest, best people listen to this show, which is it's just it's nice that that's the reality, it's the truth. But

that's the number one greatest thing. The number two greatest thing is that everything that I learned that is interesting and worth knowing, I have an opportunity to share with a whole lot of people, and that just makes it that just makes my job every day much more fun. Less right, if you ever bake your bacon on a wire rack, you're never gonna fry it again, Mummy less, I don't know, man, my bacon's skills on the grills

are they're they're excellent. I cook really good bacon. The secret for me to cooking the perfect bacon, the cooking cooking the perfect eggs on both counts is a bit of patience with the heat. We tend to want to cook things far too quickly. We figure, oh, bacon, you just cook it through because you hit a very you hit a point where you have to remember the pan, even if you turn the heat off, will have a lot of residual heat in it and will continue to cook.

And even internally the meat itself will continue cooking when the outside has reached a certain temperature. So if you if your heat is way too high, and this is definitely true of eggs, eggs go from you know, looks like something that you blew out of your nose to a little rubbery, tasteless things they serve you in a lot of diners across the country in like thirty seconds.

If the heat's too high, I mean you can really you know, or rather, if you don't turn the heat down at a certain point within thirty seconds, you're gonna you're gonna overcook them. So I think you've got to go go slow. Low and slow is the secret to bacon and eggs cooking in my humble opinion. But I'm right, and I know what I'm talking about here, and I cook amazing bacon and eggs. Will, all right, Buck, Seapack registration is now open. Are you gonna be moderating a

few discussions? Like last time? I was one of your listeners who talked, you're right before the China security on cyber Gordon Chang was on that panel. Will. I haven't been asked yet to speak at Sea Pack, but the fine folks who run the American Concervative Union and put Seapack together, I'm hoping we'll reach out again, and I'd love to do Seapack again. It was a lot of fun. I really really enjoyed. It's a great event, and if I am in fact invited, I will certainly let you

all know. That's it for today's same talk to you tomorrow from Baltimore. No less shields up