Pochahontas Gets Trumped

Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again, The buck Sexton Show begins to cover Polka. Who was think of it? Think of it? She of the great tribal heritage. What tribe is it? Let me think about that one. Meantime, she's based her life on being a minority. Polka hates. They always want me to apologize for saying it,

and I hereby, Oh no, I want to apologize. I'll use tonight polka hotes. I apologize to you. I apologize to you, I apologize to the to the fake polka hates I wanted about. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show everybody. Great to have you here with me in their freedom hunt. What a day, I thought, no question, we would spend our time here talking a bit about, oh, the economy, healthcare.

You know, there's actually some very important fights happening right now in the run up to the mid terms, over pre existing conditions and over you know, who has a better health care plan for the future. The kinds of normal political discussions that one would expect in a healthy republic of responsible citizens. But no, instead, we had quite a surprise today. Uh, quite a curry. I guess we

would have to call this Elizabeth Warren's October surprise. The problem is it's kind of a an own goal, or it's really a surprise to her how it all shook out. She has, as you know, for a long time claim this is the senator from Massachusetts, thought of as one of the most likely contenders for the presidency from the

Democrats side. She has been for a long time claiming or she was for a long time claiming Native American ancestry, and President Trump had pointed as as many others had as well pointed to since said, well that doesn't really seem to be accurate. That seems that there might be some problems here with the notion of Elizabeth Warren as Native American, because no tribe affiliation is known for her. And that is a thing, right, Native American tribes have

tribal affiliations. It's taken quite seriously. And there are, yes, that's right, federal government benefits that go to people of Native American and real Native American ancestry. But more to the point, in the academy colleges and universities, if your Native American people are like, oh, yeah, that's right, that we we really need you for our diversity purposes, and they're not that many Native Americans, and so it's a big leg up in both the admissions and hiring process

at universities. Right you all, you all know this. They're all on the same board of the same page. We're all on board on the same page about that. So Trump had been saying for a while that if she was in fact going to continue to claim this, he would give her and this has been misreported and so many different sources misreported the media. He would give her a million dollars to a charity of her choice if she was able to show during the presidential debates, if

she were the Democrat candidate. All this is being left out, by the way, by the media that's for feverishly and fervently trying to cover for Elizabeth Warren. Some reason. Today, words are coming up. It could be one word or the other. I'm not sure which I'm gonna go with.

That keeps happening me today. But she released the information from her her test today, right, she has decided to let the world know that her long scrutinized and many would say debunked Native American heritage is now back in the headlines because the analysis reported on by the ball Stone Globe, where the quote vast majority of Warren's family tree as European. It says that she has a Native American ancestry quote in the range of six to ten generation,

six to ten generations ago. So this is a really a non scientific background and heritage analysis of Elizabeth Warren. But six to ten generations ago, that would mean she is, get ready for it, between one sixty four and one one thousand and twenty four Native American, and the Boston Globe initially did the math wrong on that one. So I'm I'm here to to to fact check the Boston globes math, among among many other things we have to

look at here. And this was this was a truly jaw dropping moment today, This this whole phenomenon, because this was not some analysis that was released against Elizabeth Warren's will. This wasn't some surprised that a a competing campaign or somebody else, uh, decided to drop and make it difficult for her to get elected. To the contrary, Elizabeth Warren

took the position that this would bolster her claim. I don't know which is worse here, uh, that Elizabeth Warren is so delusional she thinks that this proves her case, or so tone deaf as as to think that this will stop continued mockery of her for racial fraud. I mean the hill where I work in response to this, wrote that Elizabeth Warren DNA tests shows quote strong evidence

of Native American ancestor. But the real headline here, if I may, if I maybe so well, is that there is strong evidence that she may have had a Native American ancestor a couple of hundred years ago, and since then it has been one long, on on uninterrupted line of white people. In fact, if you look at the percentage that Elizabeth Warren is likely Native American. Compared to the general white American population, she is less than average

in her connection to the Native American population. Meaning you and me listening to this, if you happen to be white and an American and a lotty you or not. But if you haven't white an American, it is likely you are more Native American than Elizabeth Warren. And yet here we are, here we are She she must have thought that this was going to give her some degree of credibility. I don't know what she's thinking. I mean,

ten generations ago. There's no realistically, there's no way to know if even the ten generations ago, if this is accurate. And then when you when you look at the Boston Globe analysis and you start to read some of this, you realize that this is all it's all kind of hazy and nonsense. Anyway. Quote this is from the Boston Globe piece. The analysis of Warren's DNA done by Carlos Boustamante, who is a professor at Stanford UH really heat tracks

DNA analysis via population migration. He quote concluded that the vast majority of Warren's ancestry is European, but the results strongest support the existence of an unadmixed Native American ancestor uh six to ten generations ago. Uh this, folks, if

Elizabeth Warren. What this tells any normal rational person is that if Elizabeth Warren is in fact able to call herself Native American, literally, any white person it in the country could credibly claim to be Native American for professional purposes, for the purposes of advancing oneself. And therefore it would no longer even matter if you called yourself Native American.

It would no longer make any difference if you considered yourself to be Native, because everybody's everybody, We're all Native American by this standard. This is completely nuts. This is completely nuts. And the fact that Trump was able to get so in her head by calling her Pocahontas, as we know he does time and time again, the fact that Trump has managed to force this incredible unforced error on on her part is just astonishing. It really is.

This is somebody that is getting in the top four or five of early support from the Democrats for running for president, and most of the pole is that I've seen, In fact, it's big CNN pull out where I think she came in fourth, third or fourth place. Um, and when you look at this analysis, when you look at what's going on here, uh eight ease. Amazing to me that that anybody could read this. And this is what's so crazy, folks. People in the media took this as

evidence that she was right. I mean, she's she's like one one thousand Native American maybe, and it's not even really Native American. It's based on population migration from south of the border into the United States. So she doesn't even it's not even clear that that this one or one sixty four or whatever it is is truly from a Native American tribe. And yet people in the media were saying, so she proved it. Trump is wrong. Trump needs to pay up. Now what what are they desperate?

I think there's a little panic right now on the left because they realize, oh my gosh, Elizabeth Warren has completely clowned herself here, I mean, just made a complete mess of things. And so there the media has to go even further and they have to somehow pretend like, yeah, that's right, she proved things. That's crazy. She didn't prove anything, and everyone knows it. But well, what else are they gonna do? I mean, this is Uh, this is telling us that that that pigs are flying, folks. I mean,

this is complete detachment from reality by the libs. It is bonkers. And on this notion even that that she has any Native American ancestry. Let me just give you this is from this post. Uh. This this analysis in the Boston Globe quote. Detecting DNA for Native Americans is particularly tricky because there is an absence of Native American

DNA available for comparison. This is in part because Native American leaders have asked tribal members not to participate in genetic databases to make up for the dearth of Native American DNA. Boost demonte the guy doing this analysis use samples from Mexico, Peru, and Colombia to stand in for

Native American. That's because scientists believe that the group's Americans are fred to as Native Americans came to this land via the Bearing Straight about twelve thousand years ago and settled them what's now America, but also margareted further south. His report explained the use of reference populations genetic material has been sequenced for was designed for maximal accuracy. Uh So, folks, he's using South American DNA on this theory that, oh, well,

because they all crossed the bearing straight. I mean, this is crazy, this is crazy. He's not even using Native American DNA to look for DNA that crosses over with with Elizabeth Warren's background. Now I know there there's more here, there's more here that there's more in the in the wy it it matters. And you're hearing all these pathetic justifications about Elizabeth Warren's backer. I'm like, oh, well, you know she didn't use this to advance herself. Bull honey,

Come on, that's sitting bull. That's what you could call that. That's bull blank. When she proclaims that she's of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheek boats, that's her only evidence that her mother said she had high cheek book. We will take that little kid and say, but we have to do it gently because when the

meat too, generations have to be very gentle. Big thing that you're gonna keep hearing about this Elizabeth Warren debacle, and so I just want to I want to disabuse any lives of thinking that they can continue to get away with this using this as as a means of trying to you know, excuse this whole situation. Now there's there there are two lines on this. One was, oh, she proved him wrong, which is insane, Right, she proved Trump wrong. No, no serious, thoughtful person can hold that

position that that's just not that's just not reality. And anybody who's saying otherwise is fooling is absolutely fooling themselves and and and intentionally. So I wouldn't note, um so that that that's part one. But now they've moved to, oh, well, she'd never this wasn't a big deal. She didn't really use this in her career. Oh, I'm sorry, Hold on a second. This is courtesy of my friend Benny Johnson, who did a great rundown here. Benny Johnson over at

uh the Daily Caller. He has quote every time this is on his Twitter account, every time Elizabeth Warren has lied about our Native American heritage. One Elizabeth Warren self identified as a Native American in the Association of American Law Schools Directory of Law Professors in every edition printed between two After becoming a professor at the University of Pennsylvan Warren demanded the university changed her faculty listed ethnicity

from white to Native American. Three. Warren was identified by Harvard Law as a quote woman of color. Harvard promoted Warren's higher as expanding their campus diversity by hiring a woman with quote minority background onto their faculty. Four. Warren claimed that her mother and father had to Elope due to her mom's obvious Indian heritage and the white bigotry of her father's family. Five. Warren submitted multiple recipes It's amazing multiple recipes for the Indian cookbook Pow Wow Chow,

and signed her name Elizabeth Warren. Cherokee. That's right, folks, The next would be president of the United States of Democrats submitted recipes to Pow Wow Chow and claimed to be a Cherokee. Oh my gosh. Six. Warren used offensive, rachially charged language to defend her claims of Native American heritage, declaring that her family had quote high cheekbones like quote all the Indians do. Seven. Warren has now claimed that she may have one on one thousand and twenty four

Indian DNA. This is equally problematic since DNA science proves the average white American has point one point point one eight percent Indian DNA, far more than Warren's Oh my gosh, and then I'll skip one here, We're gonna nine warrant DNA did not report, did not measure actual Native American DNA, and ten. It is very difficult to argue that Warran did not commit racial fraud. That is, that was all courtesy of Bennie Johnson. But my favorite is the powowch

power out chow oh man. And I see from my friend David French over National Review that she, from what we apparently from from what I see here from David, she plagiarized that recipe from a French chef. So that's right, folks, white as white can be. Elizabeth Warren pretended to be Native American to submit a recipe to a Native American cookbook as a Cherokee, and she stole that recipe from a French chef. Oh my gosh. You can't make this

stuff up, You really can't. It's just it's hard to hard to come up with a way that this whole story can get crazier, it really is. It's hard to come up with a way that this could be even even more absurd and more bizarre. But sure enough, the libs, if they can find a way, they will if there's anything that they can point to here that will distract or you know, she says six to ten generations ago, she has a Native American ancestor. She doubled down on this.

I mean she thinks this is vindication. I know you can say, Buck, how does this how does this really matter? Well, one keep in mind that this week there is a very serious UH lawsuit that's not not even lost to try, I should say, that's underway where Harvard University has to defend itself against claims of racial bias against Asian Americans.

And if there's any justice, Harvard will lose. So the the racial entitlement state is very real, and the Left is supportive of it, and they have created this system that is going to always fall into self contradiction. It just doesn't really make sense. You know what, what does it require? How do you get to claim a a a status that a firm of action will help for college applications? What has to be in your background? We'll get into more of this team. Stay with me. Father

was born in eastern Oklahoma. It had been Indian territory until just a few years earlier, when it had become a state. My daddy always said he fell head over heels in love with my mother the first time he saw her. But my daddy's parents, the Herrings, were bitterly opposed to their marrying because my mother's family the Reads Park, Native America. This sort of discrimination was common at the time, So when my mama was nineteen and my daddy was twenty,

they eloped. So sure enough, Warren put out a video today about all this stuff. Elizabeth Warren decided that the best thing for her to do would be to actually create some kind of a a little propaganda film for herself where she would have different members of her family and different different people all involved in this. And I feel I feel like there should be some degree of of embarrassment here. There should be some oh my gosh,

what am I doing? But then again, when you when you look at what's really happening on across the board right now, with with the media and with the efforts to take down Trump, anything is acceptable as long as it is for the cause. I mean, anything is going to be considered okay here as long as it is

uh evidence or useful in the anti Trump cause. I just I've reached a kind of a new a new level here, in a new degree of understanding of just where the media is taking all this stuff and what they're willing to do and what they're willing to put the American people through in terms of propaganda and the lies. And there's no way that a normal person could have read that Boston Globe report today and come away from it with anything other than wow. That is a massive

mistake that Warren has made here. And she's clearly not Native American. She never should have claimed to be Native American. There's nothing about her that justifies this notion of being Native American. And yet you know all I see right now on the on the front page of CNN. Here's a perfect example. I see nothing in their main headlines. It's all about the Saudi guy got, which we'll talk more about Jamaica show you later, but nothing about that.

You go down one to three, four, five, six, seven, eight, eight stories down the CNN front page right now, and you get quote, Warren's DNA never mattered to Trump? How How is this Trump's fault? In what world? Is the is the takeaway here that Trump isn't, uh, you know, accepting her DNA results or something? These people are insane, they really are or there, it's just impossible for them to be uh embarrassed. Here's another here's another version. Huffington

Post Trump denies. This is their top story about this. Trump denies making charity pledge tied to Elizabeth Warren DNA test Trump said and was it was very specific. Trump said that if she makes it through the primaries and is the Democrat nominee, and then and then and she proves that she has Native American heritage, in that case, he'll give a million dollars to your favorite charity. So that's what he said. Okay, he denies what they're saying he said, which is he would just give her a

million dollars if she proves she's Native American. And that even is not the point, because if she's Native American, everybody's Native American, and anyone who's trying to be honest, anybody who's looking at this from the perspective of I would like to really present the facts and and get to the truth here, would automatically understand this. I mean, this is just pathetic. It is absolute nonsense that I'm seeing here from all these different all these different sources,

the way that they're covering this. I mean they're they're trying so hard to actually cover is the right word, because they're really covering for Warren and this because what they think happened today is, uh, what they think happened today is that she's no longer are really going to be a serious contender for this is laughable. She's a clown, She's a joke. She's a joke. She should be at least here's ABC News, which is supposed to be unbiased.

Elizabeth Warren releases DNA results on Native American ancestry. Trump says, quote, who cares? That's their headline, That's the headline that see. This is a perfect case of media bias at work. They think that they're progressive. Great hope for is in jeopardy right now because of her own just bone headed stupidity. I mean, this is just unthinkably dumb, unthinkably dumb. And they're gonna do whatever they can to try and lessen the damage to her. That they're gonna try to keep

her brand, keep her hopes for going. And that means this, That means all these different headlines where they're focused in on either Trump's response out of context or just that she released her DNA results. This is a this is an embarrassment. She's one one thousand Native American. Maybe they think that proved that she's Native American. And and now you take it to what are we really going to do? What are really the results going to be here of

this in the long term? And I would say this if someone if I, for example, I believe and this is based on family members of mine who have gone through this process, I don't know, but I believe that I probably would have something around the around the lines of a one percent African DNA. And now you might say a buck I think everybody, Yeah, maybe every but I'm just talking about me. I'm speaking from the eye perspective. Okay, I think I've got about one percent African DNA if

I applied to college. Remember that's not a that's not a federal criminal law issue or anything, right. I mean, people say, oh, but you know she she didn't get any bet of a No. She was hired through a firm of action. That's why she did this because it was a huge career boost all through her career. And it's a way of getting through the admissions process or

getting through the hiring process. Much more easily if I applied to Harvard where she was a law professor, which is an embarrassment to Harvard, by the way, Harvard should be embarrassed, and I said that I was African American, people would rightly, I think that that was disgusting and I would be roundly criticized for that. And I think that that's that's fair, that's true, that's accurate. I'm not

African American, and and it's a dishonest thing. And it would be a dishonest thing for me to claim that I was African American. Okay, But why is that a terrible thing deserving of opprobrium? Why is that something that we can all agree the media would get so upset about and Elizabeth Warren doing the exact same thing with the Native American ancestry because I could claim one percent African and I'm American, so aren't I African American? Elizabeth

warren't do the exact same thing. They're willing to try to excuse. They're trying to find some way to tell us all that it's not really that it either didn't matter or it's not true, or she is Native. The craziest is she is native American. I mean, no, no serious person takes that should take that perspective. But lots of media outlets are I mean, I mean the biggest ones, folks, I mean the biggest ones, the same ones that that

treated the Kavanaugh allegations as fact without any evidence. Those same media outlets, now, oh, surprise, surprise, are acting like, yeah, she's she's proven her case here, she's clearly she's clearly Native American. Not nothing to nothing to point out beyond that the media should be oh so deeply embarrassed all this, But as we know, they're not. They are running interference. They are activists. They have chosen a side here and right now they're gal Is in some trouble. So what

are they doing? Are they being fact finders? Are they speaking truth to power? Are they doing the best analysis and reporting they can? No, of course not. They're throwing up smoke screens, even if they're flimsy, even if they know that they won't withstand scrutiny. They're doing everything that they can to give her either a little bit of wiggle room to get out of this jam she's put herself in, or just to delay the full force and fury of the news cycle against her and hope that

something else comes up tomorrow. That's what they're trying to do here. That's what the that's what the real plan is. So I would just note that whenever Trump calls them fake news and they get so upset, maybe they should just stop being fake news and then he won't call them that anymore. And then you also have just Trump's instinctual political brilliance here by calling Elizabeth Warren out and not being afraid to use the word pocahunt is or the name pocahunt is, not being afraid to go where

people say, oh, you can't do that. He has exposed her for a pathetic phony and a fraud, an absolute fraud about two minutes. That's what's what's gonna be here. Antifa. You guys remember antifa, right, That used to be a big thing. They used to get a lot of media attention. At least conservative media would sometimes talk about them. The left doesn't seem to want to talk about them. That was some audio that we played for you of the latest Antifa incident out on the I don't do it

as well as Trump. Trump's Antifa is better than my antifa, but I don't do it as well as he does out on the West coast in a Portland, which strikes me as a strange place for it to be quite so much political extremism. But but that's I suppose it is what it is, right that is going on there. But you've got these people with with this Antifa group that we're squaring off against some I think it's called a group for Patriots and Prayer or something. I forget

exactly even what the what the group was called. Um, let me do a quick refresher on that one. But you know, sure enough, you had you had this, uh, this violent incident where you have protesters and counter protesters here we go bear spray and bloody brawls at patriot Yeah, patriot prayer, law and order march in Portland. You have to be very careful, my friends, when you see the way that these kinds of stories are covered. You have to pay really really close attention because there's a lot

of political hedging that goes on. There's a lot of usage, a kind of weasel words, and what they leave in what they take out of these options. For example, just because the a c l U and by the way, I know nothing about this Patriot Prayer group. I can't keep up with all the Although a group that's called Patriot Prayer and has a lot of American flags sounds cool to me, but I don't know. They could be wackos.

I have no idea. There are too many of these little, you know, local political groups for me to know every single one of them. But I just would I would caution you all that the a c l U is not a reliable source at all. I'm sorry, a c l U. Southern Poverty Well that the true about the a c l U as well, so yes, you can keep that, keep that in. The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source when it comes to deciding who is a a political extremist or a right wing extremist,

a white nationalist, any any of those things. You cannot trust the Southern Populty Law Center. It has become a massive fundraising organization and a left wing really a left

wing hit group in a lot of cases. I mean, any group that has to pay a multimillion dollar settlement to Magi NOAs for being an anti Muslim extremist when he's a Muslim, is a group that you probably want to take with a grained salt whenever it comes to these, uh, these different demonstrations and how they're reporting on who's there and what's going on. So that's that's one part of it.

But then there's the other, which is just this idea that it is a normal thing to want to show up and do these counter protests, and they call them counter protests. But when people show up to a demonstration, right, and they're all wearing black, and they have gas masks and shields and and and homemade weapons, they're not showing up because they want to engage in a battle of ideas. They want to engage in a battle. They want to

fight people. And the fact that they showed up with bear spray and these other things tells you all that you need to know. But I just think it's so interesting which media outlets will and will not cover this. This makes for really compelling footage. This is a story that you think they'd want to tell. You have almost entirely white by the way, Antifa radicals who are attacking this, this patriot prayer group, by the way, that they're called a law and order group, or rather they wanted to

march for law and order. I've gotta. I've got to wonder is that just a is that a euphemism? Are they actually white nationals? I mean, I have no idea, and I know that I can't trust um. I can't trust the mediator to produce honest assessments of this and tell us what really happened. For example, just that they accept that there are counter protesters and that you know, the kind of protests just like showed up and like they didn't want any problems, man, but you know there

were problems. Well maybe it's because they showed up in the whole purpose of their presence was to ignite some kind of a confrontation. Right, these guys are they gave man, they gave Jason back because they just gonna be fansy want to hang out, you know, to pality aches. And no, they're showing up. They're screaming about fascism and trumping a

Nazi and they want it. They want to hit people and they want to attack people, and they want to do these little home videos of this because these are radical,

their political radicals. And you know, you could argue that the only thing that really separates them from a domestic terrorist organization is that to date, Antifa has put a limit on the degree of their violence, right, they have not engaged, into my knowledge, I might be forgetting something lethal action against them yet, but they have engaged in

violent action. And keep in mind that that violent action if you have a very different, very different political circumstances, that could escalate, It could escalate rather rapidly and all of a sudden, A group that has eschewed lethality in the past when it comes to with violence, maybe in a position where they feel like that is open to them, and in fact that's the pathway that they take. So I would just note that that's something that that I

want everyone to be aware of. It that just because Antifa has not been to this point a group that is engaged in straight up terrorism. It used to be that the anarchists, who remind me a lot of Antifa, the anarchists in this country were the real terrorists. I mean the sort of when I mean real terrorists, I mean they were the primary terror threat. They were the ones who were assassinating presidents, trying to blow up the stock exchange. That's right. It was anarchists, not Islamic radicals.

There was another incident, by the way, I know I would get hit if I didn't bring this one up. There's another incident on Friday in New York City, actually right in the neighborhood I think where I grew up. In fact, when I looked at the videos, I could tell even the videos didn't show you much what street I think they were on when they had this fight. Uh, there was this this group that the Proud Boys, and I've never really understood who they are or what what

they are. I've heard that they have they have some I should actually probably just call Gavin McInnis and ask him. And the Metropolitan Republican Club invited the Proud Boys, which is called a quote right wing fraternal organization in this in this one piece I'm reading, and there were two or three counter protesters that were beat up. Now I don't know, I wasn't there, and I haven't seen much.

I've only seen a little bit of footage. But were these counter protesters who were just there to have a discussion? I think if you show up when if you think that these are right wing radicals, which obviously the counter protesters do, and you show up at one of their events, are you planning to antagonize them? And try to incite a confrontation, or you really just want to share your thoughts. Do they think that they're going to scare the proud boys? I mean, this is this is where you have. That's

the question. What are they really doing there? With all the recent news about online security breaches, it's hard not to worry about where my data goes. Making an online purchase or simply accessing your email could put your private information at risk. You're being tracked online by social media sites, marketing companies, and your mobile internet provider. Not only can they record your browsing history, but they often sell it to other corporations who want to profit from your information.

That's why I decided to take my privacy back by using Express vpn. Express vpn has easy to use apps that run seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone, and tablet, and turning on Express VPN protection only takes one click. Protect yourself with Express vpn for less than seven dollars a month and protect your online activity today and find out how you can get three months free

at Express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express vpn dot com slash buck for three months free with a one year package again visit Express VPN dot com slash buck to learn more. The other thing I've really learned is I never knew how dishonest the media was. I really mean it. I'm not saying that as a sound bite. I never knew how to change the subject. Again. No, but even the way you asked me a question like

about separation, When I say, Obama, I did it. You don't want to talk about your answer, but you did it four times. I'm just telling you that you treated me much differently on the subject. I disagree, but I don't want to have that fight with you. In the meantime, I'm president and you're not sure. The first lady, yes, Milanna. She said that there are still people in the White House that she doesn't trust and that you shouldn't trust. I feel the same way. I don't trust everybody in

the White House. I'll be honest with you. What about General Maddis is he going to leave? Well, I don't know. He hasn't told me that to relationship with him, it could be that he is. I think he's sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth. But General Matters is a good guy. We get along very well. He may leave. I mean, at some point everybody leaves. Everybody people leave. That's Washington. Quite an interview over the weekend on A sixty. It's Trump just laying it down.

I love it. I love it when Trump goes into lines down with some of these libs and they think they're gonna trip him up, and they think they're gonna get him, and and they think, oh, yeah, that's right, I'll find some way to make him look ridiculous and I'll get this big moment out of it. And He's like, look, what are you doing here? Why are you showing up and coming in with such a clear agenda. We know what all the questions are gonna be before, and we

know what positions they're gonna take on this stuff. So and we find ourselves watching this and and just waiting for the moment when Trump decides, you know what, I'm just gonna say it like it is. And it's amazing. It's an amazing thing. I really do enjoy it every time. Every time Trump just lets it ripping and trumpifies the whole thing. And this, this interview with sixteen minutes of the weekend was was quite an example that where he says, you know, on the president and you're not to her.

That's a great that's a great moment because he's just saying, look, you know, back off me. She got on him on the whole Kim Jong Un thing. Oh He's saying, look, I was, I was really just sort of speaking. I was kind of kidding about it. And they they pretend not to understand what Trump is trying to say when he says things. They're actually not that the media is

not as dumb. I mean, they're not as smart as I think they are, but they're also not as dumb as they want us to believe they are on these things. There's there's just no no way around it. They would rather just do the whole pearl clutching. Oh my gosh, did you hear the latest thing that Trump said. It's so horrifying, instead of addressing what's really going on and what the real backstory is to whatever comment he's making

or whatever policy he's discussing. Um. The only real surprise I had was that comment he made about whether Maddis General Maddis is is sort of a Democrat and said that that he may leave. I have to wonder what that's all about. I wonder what's really being said there. And this is where I could get myself into a little bit of trouble. Will some of you on this one, But I have always had a new look. Mattis has an impeccable reputation. I've started a million times. He's a

general's general. All that still is true. And maybe maybe Trump was just speaking off hand. Maybe he was just kind of messing around. I have no idea. I have no idea, but I will say this in my experience, and I mean some of my personal experience, the generals who are well or really well thought of by the media tend to be people who want cultivate a certain

persona with the media. And two also are a little more, shall we say, willing to take a a point of view that would be well received by academia and the media on a whole. A bunch of things, you know. And I've noticed this before. Generals start to get very political and generals like to be loved. Is this true of madness? I have no idea. I am just saying

that I'm aware of this as a phenomenon. Uh that for example, a lot of the stuff that came out about General Petreus, I was not surprised by at all, because I had known for a long time that he was a a guy who was seeking out the media and very much trying for his own purposes to create this narrative of Petrayus as the greatest military mind of

his generation. I would I would just point out that before even being brought low by the extra meerial affair and the woman and the classified information that he didn't take, you know, all the stuff that you already know about, and he had to plead guilty and pleaded guilty. Uh, you know, he he was credited with fixing Irock, which Y has the surge work, but it was really are hundred and fifty thousand troops and people that were on

the front lines that fixed a rock. But his strategy was successful there, but there were some very important ingredients that were in place for that strategy to work. I would note that the strategy that he tried in Afghanistan did not work, was not working and was never going to work, and he was not really willing to hear

about how that was the case. So while I think, on the one hand, you know, he gets all this credit for a Rock, Well, if he gets all this credit for Rock we also have to look and see the situation Afghanistan. Understand that he's not that portrayus was not this uh Men beyond reproach when it came to his strength, well certainly not beyond approach period, but also when it came to a strategy. So that's that's my saying,

I need to do a little more. I need you a little more analysis of what's going on here with with that Maddis comment that that called me off guard because I've heard so much positive stuff about Mattis for so long, and maybe he just rubbed the president the wrong way recently and he just wanted to call him the Democrat. I also think it's kind of funny that the president uses calling somebody an Mamocrat has kind of a little sly, you know, a little bit of SmackDown.

You know. He's like, hey, guys, kind of a democrat. You know. It's like when I say in my in my media life, I'm like, that guy's okay, he's kind of a communist. So Trump says he he's kind of a democrat. He also said, as you know that Trump said that he does not trust everybody in the White House, and this is this falls into that that category of

oh my gosh, the palace intrigue here. You know, we we we need to we need to make sure that we run all these stories about how Trump can't trust the people around him, and there's all this stuff about how Trump is, you know, unable to manage, and he's bringing in all these people that don't have the right requirements and backgrounds and skills and everything else. They love these White House dysfunction stories and anything that plays into that we tend to hear a lot about. Right, So

then I take a step back. Then I say, hold on a minute. Given what we know about all the different leaks and all the people that are in the White House, including Republicans who are holdovers from the Bush I shouldn't say from the Bush administration, but from the Bush era of the Republican Party, people that are not

on board with Trump at all. We know that there's somebody right now who wrote, if you if you believe the New York Times, and I don't take that for granted, but if you believe the New York Times, there is a senior White House administration official right now who wrote an op ed effectively saying that we are working against the commander in chief behind the scenes, to thwart his decision making, to act like he's not really the president, and to go to these you can go to these

extreme lengths because we know what's best for the country. We will undermine the express will of the American people through their elections because we know better. And that's really the position. That's really what there, that's really what they're they're saying about this. And this guy wrote this editorial. We never found by the way, the a non editorial list, we never found out who this guy was, the anonymous editorial writer. But then of course Trump. Of course Trump

shouldn't trust everybody in his White House. Of course he'd be silly to do that. And that's also why I give him more leeway than I would in other circumstances. And maybe you can say that's a little bit of you know, self justifying here, or that's convenient not self justifying. Uh, But I understand why he wants to have family members around because he feels like at least he can trust them.

And if you're Trump, and you've seen what's gone on with a lot of not just the opposition, but the people that are ostensibly supposed to be on your side of the fence, people who are supposed to be Republicans helping you out, you know, your your battle buddy, so to speak. And how many of them have become turn coats on him? How many Republicans have we seen, including

people with some pretty decent recognition within party circles. I mean, you can talk about like Bill Crystal, the Weekly A, Conservatives, right wingers, whatever you want to call them that I've openly said, yeah, I'm actually just not even opposing Trump anymore. I'm a Democrat. In that kind of an environment, which is the environment President Trump is in. I think it would be insane for the President say yeah, I trust everybody in the White House. Of course, he doesn't trust

everyone in the White House. This reminds me of some of the politicians that I've I've been able to interview in the last few months, and I love when they do the you know, okay off the record, and I'm like, you're not telling me anything that's really some of them, you know, they're not telling you anything that's really off

the record. What they're doing is saying off the record to create the facade of you know, I'm really giving you some access and insight here and I'm trying to build this rapport, and then they say things that if I were to violate off the record, which I never would, but if I were to violate off the record, it would make them look even better. You know. They're like, off the record, volunteered at a soup kitchen last weekend and save some puppies from a burning building. Is that really?

Did that? Did that really have to be off the record? Senator so? And so? I guess so? Uh? And then you know, the the one, the really contentious exchange, the really contentious exchange that Trump had here with Leslie Stall in this interview had to do with immigration, because I think that is the one area where the left and the media allies that they have have felt like they've been in the strongest position since the summer to just

just pound Trump on this. And what I think is so so fascinating here is that you know, Stalled did this anything They always do, Well, it's your policy. It's your policy to separate parents from children at the border. You did it. It's on you. It's your fault. And

Trump says, well, no, it's the law. And I don't think that they even I don't think his media critics even really understand that to say that it's the law is to say that it's actually the Congress that does bear some of, if not the lion's share, of the responsibility for this whole situation, That that that the Congress is either inept or cowardly, or for whatever reason, just unwilling to do what they're supposed to do in these circumstances, which is to find a way to adjust a law

that it's a bad law, or to repeal it entirely. Is it really the president's role? I mean, this is how much damage I think Obama did to the rule of laws of concept. It became normal during the Obama administration for him when he felt frustrated with Congress, I'm gonna go rock Congress. Congress, I don't like what they do.

Look what that sorry, He would go around them and do this whole executive order routine, which was an abuse of executive orders because what he was just doing was usurping the legislative branches authority and pretending the laws were what he wanted them to be and saying, well, it's just about enforcement. It's not just about enforcement. When you don't or something at all. It's not just about enforcement when you exempt an entire class of people that are

explicitly not exempted by Congress. And I think that's part of this that just immediately the press puts aside, pushes aside, and they really assumed, I mean, they really thought that they would uh, they would be in a place where Trump and the Republicans would just get hammered on immigration. They would be they would be just crushed because of what had been going out of the border. And I think that they miscalculated that for a lot of Americans,

enough is enough. They don't really want to keep being told that, you know, immigrants do jobs, and which I mean illegals now, folks, not immigrants. Illegal immigrants do the jobs. Americans won't do that illegal immigrants are nothing but a net positive for the economy, and they would like to have some re establishment of the rule of law. It

comes to the border. And I know that Trump hasn't built a wall yet, and there's a lot of stuff that remains remains to be done, and I have a lot of concerns whether it will even happen, especially if the Democrats take the House. But on this, on this issue of the border. You can tell Leslie still, Oh, she just wants to Oh. The parents being separated from their children, it happened under Obama. It's a law that's stole in the books. It was the law when Obama

was in office. And oh, by the way, the people that were getting separated from their children at the border were overwhelmingly explicitly trying to break US law. They were being picked up after crossing illegally then claiming asylum. And this is after they had essentially ignored the laws of this country because they think that, you know, they don't have to pay any attention to it. You know, if there's not going to be any consequences, is off at all of that? We should ask the question why I

think that's fair. There's something really terrible and discus thing about that if that were the case. So we're gonna have to see. We're going to get to the bottom of it, and there will be severe punishment. What happened to journalist Jamal Kashogi, The entire world seems absolutely said on trying to get an answer to that question, what

what what happened to this man? How? How was it that he was able to disappear from the Turkish consulate in Istanbul were rather from a consulate, the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. And now we have this very real, looming international relations crisis on our hands. How did we how did we get to this point? How do we find ourselves in this situation where we have to now deal with this? You know, the President has raised this possibility of rogue killers because the President, I'm sure he said

that he spoke to King Solomon behind the scenes. Keep in mind, the king in Saudi Arabia is a pretty uh what's the word infirm old man. At this point, it's really uh mbs Mohammed been Salmon, who is the thirty three year old crown Prince. He's the guy who runs stuff, and he's the one who has done this whole charm offensive in this country. And big business and big media and big government all being buddy buddy with m b s. So that's why this has sent such

a shock wave through the elite communities. The the Davos set is a little oh my gosh, what will we do now? We can't we can't have the Saudies funding trips for us anymore. Uh. And and there's there's the reality of what this tells us of Saudi Arabia, which is interesting and I'll get to that, um. And there's also the pending probably will be the case at some point when you watch this show, when you listen, not watch, when you listen to this show, I will have confirmation

of it. But as of right now, it sounds like they are planning to say that this was a rogue element within the Saudi government. That's the latest reporting here, and the plan is for the Saudi government to throw some intelligence official under the bus. I've also seen early reports that it maybe maybe the Saudi government's position that an intelligence official decided to interrogate and it went over the line. Um. But the Saudiast can't hide anymore that

this guy was killed, was killed in there custody. They're calling, quote, an interrogation that went wrong. That's that's the latest on this. So it doesn't really seem like, uh, there's any room for the Saudi East to keep dissembling on this, that they're they're caught the Saudia's ear in a jam here um, as they should be. The Saudi regime is a terrible and uh and disgusting government. But we're not really often told that because they have a tremendous amount of sway

even in our own media. They own a lot of shares and a lot of very important media companies. But here's what you see the pivot that the pivot that's going to happen, It's already started to happen. As you have this issue of a repressive, totalitarian Muslim. How often do you hear about that a Muslim majority nation, not just a Muslim majority nation, an entirely Muslim nation, the most Muslim country by percentage, I believe in the world. I mean maybe Somalia, and there are a couple other

countries that are right up there. But the Saudis do not allow non Muslims to be, you know, citizens of the peninsulum, and the Saudis are do They do not allow Christian worship or ceremonies or houses of worship to be to even be built on on Saudi lands. So this is a hyper Islamist government, which you don't ever

hear a hyper Islamist regime. Um And I talked to you a little bit about that holy but unholy alliance between the Wahabis Uh, the sala Fist fundamentalist Islam and this Bedouin tribe, the House of Sad that is the Saudi regime, Saudi royal family. So you know, there's all this complexity on the issue. But but here's what what's happening right now. This is going to quickly become a crisis that that is much more about what Trump does for our media than what it really means. I'm already hearing,

you know, because Trump cozies up with dictators. That's why this happens. This is the line. You hear this all the time. Trump is so it's coddle's dictators. Here. Here's what I want to say to anybody in response to that, because you'll hear this all over the place the media the next few days. I don't think it's possible to caddle dictators more than Obama did. I think it would be very hard. You have to work really hard to

do so. Because Obama made some very clear errors in dealing with authoritarians and strongmand for one is, his word didn't mean anything when it came to consequences. The erasing of the Red Line in Syria led to a free for all by the Assad regime but also by the Russians. That we're backing up assad regime by the Iranians who sent in troops into Syria. Obama's unwillingness to enforce a

red line in Syria had tremendous consequences. Now you can say that he wasn't really coddling that dictator, but he certainly made it a lot easier for him. Obama and the left along with him do coddle all Marxist revolutionary style dictators in the Western hemisphere. They did coddle Fidel Castro's Cuba. The communist Cuba was receiving all kinds of favorable treatment under the abministration and and no punishments really doled out, no carrot and stick, just carrots when the

Obama administration was dealing with them. And the same thing could be said of Venezuela, where yes, Obama was not increasingly over time was less favorable towards the regime of first Chavez and then Maduro. But you know Obama had a soft spot for these Marxist revolutionary types, no question, no question. And then of course the Mullahs in Tehran.

You know, you want to talk about a soft spot, how about giving them a deal that effectively prevents any Israeli or other allied military action against the Iranic nuclear program and lets them get wealthy, and lets them keep their nuclear program until they decide that they want to have a breakout, and at that point it's too late and they'd have too much money and we're not gonna

be able to stop them. You know, you look at all these things, you look at all of these issues, and you think to yourself, hold on a second, what how do I even hear this line? What is this line about how Trump is coddling dictators, he's too favorable toward dictators, when when the reality as we see it is, oh, you mean, nothing Trump does will ever quiet these critics. Nothing Trump could ever say will ever get them to stop claiming that he is in the pocket of of

of either Putin or Kim Jong on. I mean he said it in the interview over the weekend with Leslie Stall and she goes, well, you said your you said you're in love with Kim Jong lady. Because look, I mean, I'm just I'm talking here, you know, I'm trying to I'm saying we've got a good rapport. You know, what do you want me to say? You're not gonna get anywhere. He was saying, he's a a filthy, evil, murdering, you know, piece of human garbage. I mean, you can't say that

about Kim Jong un. I mean that's I can say it. You can say it. But if you're gonna then sit down with the guy and try to get a major diplomatic breakthrough, I think you're probably going about it the wrong way, right. I think that's probably not a smart decision to make. But they try to go Trump into this, they try to use it. It's just all partisan, it's just all Oh, Trump is bad on this issue once again.

Somehow the Saudias, who have been a repressive, intolerant regime for as long as they've existed, Somehow the Saudi's killing a dissident in in in the consulate in Istanbul is Trump's fault. It's always Trump's. Everything comes back to Trump for these people. You know. Oh, it's because of the tone set by the Trump administration. No, maybe it's just because the Saudias are repressive and the regime things that can get away with anything, because it has gotten away

with pretty much anything for a very long time. Maybe they think that we need them too much as a counterbalance to iron for us to do anything real to stop them. Now, these are all these are all very real things to keep in mind here. And you know, Trump, I just I just gotta say, it's it's all about how he's not doing enough, how Trump's a bad guy, boo who Trump is too too friendly with dictators and

all this, and it's just nonsense, it's just nonsense. What should he do in response, here's I'll tell you shouldn't do. He shouldn't do anything that puts a single US troop and harm's way over this, and I mean even up to and including the fact that the Saudiast can you know, open up the spigots for funding too Sunni extremist groups throughout the Middle East and around the world. You know, we don't want to make such a big deal out of this that all of a sudden our people start

to suffer consequences abroad. It's just not worth it to the American people. I know. We're not allowed to say this now because journalism are all, Oh a journalist, something terrible happening to journalists. It's really bad. I agree wholeheartedly on that. Immoral, it's wrong. But I don't think that the entirety of US foreign policy visa vis Saudio, Saudi Arabia, and therefore the broader Middle East along with it, should turn entirely on what happened with this guy, not an

American citizen, not on our soil. They're trying to make it a much bigger problem, make it seem like a much bigger problem for US than it is. You know, it's more of a general moral problem, right, But it's not America's problem. But they want to make it seem like it's America's problem because in doing so, then they'll be in a position to say Trump hasn't done enough here, Trump hasn't taken enough action. Trump is a problem when

it comes to this. Uh So, once again it all comes back to bashing Trump because Shogi is killed in a consulate in Istanbul and our media wants to say that Trump is the problem. We'll be right back. What role, if any, did you play in criticizing the character of the women who have accused Bill of sexual misconduct? None? In retrospect, do you think Bill should have resigned in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scamp. Absolutely not. It

wasn't an abusive power. There are people who look at the incidents of the nineties and they say a president of the United States cannot have a consensual relationship with an intern. The power imbalance is to wasn't adult. But let me ask you this, where's the investigation of the current incumbent, against whom numerous allegations have been made and which he dismisses, denies, and ridicules. That's right, she had

nothing to do with anything. You see. It was only her husband who was a serial abuser of women, who was credibly accused of sexual assault by women on the record, with full facts and stories ready to go. Media didn't want to cover that. You see, this is where I I just I take a moment because I want to step back and make sure we all are on the

same page when it comes to the narrative of the moment. Here, see, the narrative of the moment from the left is that, oh, what Bill Clinton did then, he would never be able to do now. You see, it's different because of this me too movement. It's different now Bill Clinton's what will we call them? What is the left like to call them? His his personal failings? Very calm way of saying Bill Clinton being a predator. That's right, I was a predator. I was just you know, I just couldn't help myself.

And I'll just you know, I'm in an okny. I said a curse word in the Oval office, but I did much much worse stuff in the Oval office. You know, Bill Clinton's disgrace is something that the left was not just. They didn't just turn a blind eye to it. They aggress of lee aggressively and with all they could muster them, with all the help they could get in the media.

And you know, people like Stephanopolis. I mean Stephanopolis was part of the Clinton machinery, for example, and he is treated with defferent He's a hundred million dollar man now at ABC, a news anchor. That has to I mean, who decides to pay him that much money. It's it's it's an astonishing thing, it really is. Oh without Stephanopolis, who would watch these shows? Everybody would watch these shows. These are platforms. Whoever they put in these roles is

going to get a certain amount of viewership. But he seems to get excused from being a part of the Clinton machinery. And Hillary, who just had her clearance taken away, I want it back. I mean, Hillary just was finally told you don't get to have a security clearance anymore for serial and flagrant violations of national security protocol for anybody who has a clearance. She was just told that.

Now she still hasn't, still hasn't achieved even a modicum of honesty, you could say to bar from Obama, not a smudge, not a smudge of honesty. She doesn't have a smission of honesty. She's such a liar and she knows that she well, she still thinks that she has a political future, and it would be a problem for her. The left has gone so all in on this whole Me Too movement. They've made this such a prominent part of what what the left stands for now. It's the

movement of the moment. Right, we've had Black Lives Matter, we've had Occupied Wall Street, We've had these different political sort of quasi revolutionary leftist movements in this country, and right now it's the May Too movement. It will change, They will move to some other intellectual fat or fashion

in sometime. Just just wait for it. But in the meantime they have to make sure that they don't have the weaponization of some of these things occurring back on them like they don't want to score any own goals here with the Me too movement, and that the enablers. And I've always felt that the enablers in this whole process,

we're getting off far too easy. You know, the people men and women around someone like Harvey Weinstein, the people men and women around someone like Les Moonvess, you know, those who were necessary in this whole process of predation that they don't get in trouble, they don't really get

called out. And Hillary was the ultimate in that. Not only did she stand by her man, of course, as we know, for the most obvious and self interested political reasons imaginable, but she went on the attack against these women. And whenever I hear people say things like don't they have a right to be believed? I always want to respond, well, did the women that Hillary demeaned? I mean, didd the women that were completely attacked verbally in the media down

to their very character? They were all considered to be fighters for the cause at the time, And there has been no accountability for that whatsoever. And there's no accountability to the stay for Hillary. When was she held accountable for the fact that she was essential in her husband's not just denials, but continued flagrant violations of the public

trust and of the law. I mean, Bill Clinton was accused of rape, folks, rape, not just you, And I really don't like and this happens, you know that this usage of the term sexual assault and sexual harassment being conflated with sexual assault, and all of a sudden, people are like, well, you know, both sides have their problems. You've got Clarence Thomas on one side, Bill Clinton on

the other. No, Clarence Thomas was accused, and I don't think particularly credibly accused of saying some inappropriate stuff in the office. In a worst case basis, Clarence Thomas should have been pulled aside by HR and told hey, you know, knocked that off for those going to be professional consequences. That's if he did it. I even think he did it. Bill Clinton could have spent decades in prison for what he did. The allegations against Bill Clinton were of of

rape by force. I mean, that's that's going to send you to prison for a very long time. I mean, your your life is essentially over. And he went on to be the president United States for eight years. So yes, I mean Hillary coming out now and saying that she wasn't a part of any of this. She lies now with such fluidity and so shamelessly. I would tell you all, if you if you want to have a quick and fun read, go back and read Christopher Hitchens No One

Left to Lie To. Hitchens was one of these. He was a leftist in the nineties and was still really a socialist, kind of a reformed socialist all the way to the very end, and clearly an atheist. But he was somebody who just couldn't stomach the lies of the Clintons and the big lies, I mean the very obvious, uh in your face, self interested lying of the Clintons. And he wrote a book called No One Left to Lie To and he just goes through how the glints

which just lie about stuff. Snippy dot com friends, remember that name. This is a new social media site where you can post, you can write, you can follow me, you can follow each other, exchange information, do whatever you can do on your run of the mill social media site. Except at snippy dot Com does not have any of the left wing conversational health nonsense going on. Okay, there's no bias, there's no effort to try and steer the

conversation one direction. If you are sick of shadow banning, if you're sick of things not popping up in your feed on Facebook or wherever you want, to try snippy dot com. It's also placed by the way where conservatives can have a real voice and grow their movement and not have to worry about getting trash by the left wing administrators. Snippy dot com. That's s n i p p y dot com, totally free to join, free to post, just sign up to give it a shot. Team s

n I p p y dot com. This is the most transparent, accountable president perhaps we've ever seen, definitely in modern times. He doesn't fear the media. He uses the media as a platform, one of many platforms I wished to communicate his message. He also has said that he thought after he got elected, the press would become more fair, would sort of dial it back a little bit and try to at least cover the policies, cover the great

success in progress. So this president and his administration has had to work a little bit harder, a little bit smarter, if you will, to make sure that Americans know exactly what is happening, even if they don't hear enough of it. I mean, can we just cut all the nonsense here. I appreciate that Kelly and Conway has to she has to deal with this press all the time, right, so she has to speak to them with a certain a

certain degree of decorum, and she does that. You know, Stelter there was the President of the States is something to the press, and then it does to the press. He's putting those digit a measure in the air. The fact that Brian Selter has a show at CNN is all all you have to know about CNN. That's all you have to know about that place. Well, who who sees Brian Salter and goes, yeah, give that guy a cable news show. Excuse me that sapt had new Balance

Snickers with my ill fitting suit. And then I'd like to call out whether is they're really a bias in the media. I don't know it still try to figure it out. Who thought that that was a good idea? I don't know. Maybe Zucker. Apparently very powerful people at CNN were of the impression that this was a guy who really needed to show America. America needs to hear from Stelter. Um. Of course I find that to be shockingly a shockingly ill advised decision. But that's that's me.

What can I say. But you'll notice the the the continued theme here is that whatever Trump does, they are opposed to it. They say that Trump wasn't accessible enough to the press, and they complained about it. In fact, it was probably a threat to democracy. They were so concerned about it. And then when you have Trump being more accessible and you have more uh action, more activity involving Trump and the press, the response becomes, well, he's not he's not uh you know, he's not telling the

information that we want him to. He's not sharing the information that we would if we got to tell the president what to say. So that's right, no matter what he does, no matter what he does, they find this whole situation with the president to be unacceptable. They really do. Um And and that's that brings me to what what happened with NBC over the weekend. I mean, this was truly astonishing stuff. What happened with NBC. I mean this

was really next level, you know. They there was this speech that Trump gave and he said something about he said he's trying to compare General Grant and General Lee and the true is that he was obviously trying to make this comparison between Grant and Lee. But the way NBC News reported an initially they said Roberty Lee was

a great general, calling the Confederate leader incredible. I mean, they just went with the usual Trump likes the Confederacy, Trump is an evil racist, Trump is this really bad guy because they figure too well. I think there's two parts of this. One is that they understand that their audience wants to hear that, and so they're giving their audience what they want, which is that's maybe the biggest part of it, though it's tough, you could argue this

either way. And the other is that they really believe that this president is so racist and is such a bad guy, is so disreputable and so disgraceful, that they find it completely within the realm of of not just possibility, but they find it likely that the President United States would just go off and start praising a Confederately as he as they're saying he did in this Ohio rally over the weekend. Uh. And then it took them two days. I mean, this was a stunt. It took them two days.

October twelve, the correction post that in October. Here's the NBC News correction and earlier tweet misidentified the general President Trump described as incredible at a rally in Ohio. It was General Ulysses Grant, not Robert E. Lee. An attached video clip lacked the full context for Trump's remark. Here's the full clip. Now, this is where you have to start playing the game of probability. Is it likely that all of these major media corrections could be due to

good faith error in covering the president? Or is it more likely that what we see happening here is a Trump arrangement syndrome as it plays out in the media in front of all of us all the time. Which of those things is the more likely scenari mean, I think you really do have to ask the question, and the answer is obvious. The press is dare I say,

on a jihad against the President United States. They will take any opportunity to try to tear him down and try to add one more data point into the narrative that he is a racist, that he's evil, that he's a bad guy. And this is also compounded by the incentive structure that we have in the media in general.

Right now, where the initial lie gets twenty tho retweets or you know, a hundred thousand retweets, and then the correction gets two and so you get the benefit of all that traffic, of all that attention, because now in the digital era of media, you really are measuring it down very precisely. You know how many people read this, how many people are going to your site, how many people saw this. You get all the upside and your

audience gets what they want. And then if you have to correct it, okay, well it turns out, you know that was a misfire, But your audience has never mad at you for bashing Trump with a correction. I mean, this audience would be But if you're NBC, if you're MSNBC, if your CNN, if you're any of those networks, audience doesn't turn on you for that. They understand what you're trying to do. They know that you have bigger things in mind. They know that you have, you know, other

things that you're trying to do. Trying to take down the president United States, that's gonna be a difficult thing, difficult thing to do, and you're gonna you're gonna have some missus if you're doing that right, so that's that's just it's just in more of the medium malpractice that we keep seeing. And that's why when the President calls them fake news, when he says things like, you know, they are fake news, and they get so upset. If they want him to stop calling them fake news, maybe

they should stop being fake news. You know, if they would like the President United States to no longer uh push back on them for their obvious partisan smears and their partisan campaigns, well, then my recommendation to them would be that, you know, he shouldn't. They shouldn't act in this way. You know, do you think anyone will will apologize when Beto O'Rourke loses by ten or eleven points,

which he's going to. Do you think any of the pollsters and any of the media people that a month ago was saying it's gonna be a really close race with Beto and Ted Cruz, they're gonna come out and say maya culpa. I don't think so, because they're they're activists. Once you understand that they're activists, then you realize that there's none of this is even a little bit surprising anymore. None of this is is a shock, and and then you know then you can at least anticipate their next moe.

Probably the I mean, the Leslie Stall interview was was great because, first of all, I find her whole, her whole demeanor. She's just so serious and so much gravitas. Mr President, I'm doing this very professional interview, right, I mean, you know a certain point, you think to yourself, Okay, I just asked a question like a normal person. Do you have to do this very affected sixty minutes. I'm so in depth here. Oh, I'm just going so in depth on the issue. I mean, I loved it when

he said, Leslie, it's okay. In the meantime, I'm the president and you're not. They're not used to this. Most presidents are, certainly all Republican presidents stretching back for my whole lifetime, were in a position where they felt they had to suck up the media. Maybe the only exception was Reagan, but the rest of them felt like they had to suck up to the media or else their presidency would really suffer because the media had so much

power and so much ability to sway public opinion. Instead, Trump is like, you know what, you think you're gonna push me around I'm just gonna push back, and he did. He did a fantastic job in that Leslie Stall interview. But they still can't lay a glove on him. And this media is coming at him with everything they've got. They lie about him, they do publish fake news, they say fake news, they do all kinds of things. At the end of the day, the president's just got it's

got too many skills. They can't handle it. If you've ever found yourself wincing at that weak taste of coffee from one of those comi corporate brands, you probably thought, I wish they spent less time on meetingless bias training, bathroom policy reform, and things that to find common sense, add more time on their coffee. That's why you need

to start every day with Black Rifle coffee. I find Black Rifle absolutely delicious, and not only is it fantastic coffee, I like that I'm supporting a company founded by veterans, the Special Operations community, guys who love his country, love what they do for their fellow veterans, and are all about delicious, small batch roacht to order coffee. Everybody listening to this should make Black Rifle Coffee their coffee brand,

no reason not to. Folks got a Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck received fifteen percent off your order Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash Buck. Be sure you use that code Black Rifle Coffee dot Calm slash book. There were so much talker, There is so much talk about the blue wave. When we all went through the Kavanaugh experience in the last few weeks, many people said this is going to drive more Democrats to go out and vote. But if you actually look at the polls,

they've tightened. They've tightened. This Kavanaugh situation has hurt Democrats in the way that they handled it. We knew that Democrats were excited to vote before we know through the Kavanaugh confirmation. Now a lot more Republicans are excited to vote.

One of the things Democrats have been pushing, uh is they're sort of the moral leaders, and they have been pointing the finger at Republicans and something sort of got muzzled in the last few weeks that when you sit down with with even a centrist and you talk about the Kavanaugh confirmation, whether it's my feelings or not, they're quickly saying it's not just dirty politics. On one side and Merrick Garland on one side. The way Mitch McConnell

handled it. More and more people are saying they don't like the way Democrats handled it. The Senate Democrats were incredibly ineffective in the Kavanaugh hearings. Ineffective. Huh, that's the story that we're gonna get told now that that it's because they were ineffective. No, it's because what they did was disgusting. It's because it was obvious. It's because they think that they can still get away with things now that they could get away with twenty years ago, maybe

even ten or fifteen years ago more easily. They can't get away with it anymore. And yet they cling to this notion that they can completely and utterly rewrite the rules as they go along. This is the most interesting aftermath assessments you can possibly, uh imagine with the Kavanaugh hearing now in the rear view mirror. Although the Kavanaugh issue is certainly not going away anytime soon, they are

just beginning. The Democrats are just really beginning to realize, oh my gosh, not only did we overplay our hand, not only did we miscalculate how this whole process would go, oh, but we didn't understand what the public reaction to it would be. It turns out there are a lot of Americans who did not enjoy the televised ritual humiliation and

denigration of a devoted dad, husband, son. It turns out there are a lot of folks who didn't think that the elimination of any due process, the elimination of any presumption of his innocence as a principle, was something that, you know, something that people would have a problem with. Oh, no,

they do have a problem with it. You know, the Democrats and the media are effectively Democrat activists, So they think like activists do, and they travel in circles surrounded by other people with this echo chamber effect, and that's why they can get completely caught unaware of something like this. The Kavanaugh situation is not only now, of course, a conservative on the Supreme Court. It's not just that that has come from all of this. There is and they

don't want to talk about it. You know, they don't know what to do because they don't want to mention this. But they also can entirely ignore it. And it is that the possibility of the Republican Party keeping a majority in the House of Representatives is very real. They are within striking distance, and it will be largely because I think of what we witnessed in the whole Cabinaugh hearing.

So not only will they have lost the battle to stop a highly qualified conservative constitutionalists from being on the Supreme Court, they lost that battle. They may have also lost we'll see. I'm not saying it's happened yet, but they may have also lost a House majority because of their hardball tactics, because of the way that they have

approached this entire situation. That's stunning, and it just goes to show you that while the other side is bereft of print simple, while the Democrats will do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it. It's not like there's some genius hive brand that's running this whole thing. They did everything that they could that they thought would work. They held it to the very last minute. They had the media completely in their pocket. They came

very close to derailing the Cabinal nomination. They did so in a sense, you have to give these these devious evildoers credit on the left for almost accomplishing their goal. But they never thought what happens if we fail. They must have assumed that. I think it is the case that they assumed all along. Well, if somehow this does not work out, we will be a lauded as heroes on the left. We will be considered we the Senate Democrats, you know, I'm Spartacus, Corey Booker and feine Stein and

the rest of the swamp dwelling swamp creatures. They would all be viewed as going to the mat for a righteous cause. They would all be viewed as having done the right thing, even if they hadn't come out vicorious in the end. And now what we see is, well, yeah, sure the left is excited about this, but the left wing base already hated capital they already hated Trump. They already were gonna do anything that they could to vote

for Democrats. What they didn't anticipate was that normal Americans, yes, dare I say, even some undecided and independence, saw the way the Democrats were acting in that whole process, and they came away from it thinking, I don't think we should hand over power to crazy. I don't think we should hand over power to crazy. I don't think that makes sense. It's a bad idea. If you're not going to hand over power to crazy. That means you gotta

keep the Republicans in charge. That means that all of the media's efforts to create this Russia collusion narrative and all these other stories about Trump and the Amendment and

all of that will have been for naught. It will have been for naught because instead of just understanding that it was a do or die political issue for the republic Republicans to not cave when it came to Kavanaugh, they thought if they were willing to take the gloves off and take the gloves off and do anything, they would of course come out the victors in the end. That was the that was the assumption that they were making, and it was a very bad assumption as we see now.

But I just think it's interesting there you had an MSNBC host thinks, you know, wow, it's like you mean, like they're people are like upset about the Kavanaugh thing, and like think the Democrats. But of course what they want to say is Democrats weren't effective, which is really almost a version of well, you know, communism is just

not implemented well enough. Right, It's not that what the Democrats did with Kavanaugh was, on its face, in its essence, at its foundation, a complete in a completely immoral disgrace. It was. But that's not what they're taking away from this. What they're taking away is, oh, I guess Democrats didn't play there and play their hand enough. I guess maybe they didn't, you know, strategize this thoroughly enough for strategicy. As Bush would have said, strategy and decider are great

words that that Bush gave us. So I would note that this is this is a very real sentiment, folks. The houses in play. Senate is gonna be Republican. We're good to go. We're you and I are gonna be high fiving all November six when the Senate results come in, the Senate's good to go. So we're clear that, which also means that the president is in no danger whatsoever of being removed. I mean, not that he really was anyway, But you know, you have a Republican majority, never mind

getting to two thirds. You want to get fifty one to get the president out. But on the House side of things, we have been led to believe all along that there was almost no chance the Republicans would keep the House. Now we see hold on a second, not only is the overstating their case thing true when it comes to Beato the Irishman pretending to be his Bannack guy, they may have overstated their advantage and their case when it comes to a whole lot of other stuff, like

the entire house or representatives. Maybe I'm particularly attuned to this right now because of the madness that we have seen just just today with regard to this Elizabeth Warren d n a fiasco, this this self inflicted wound that that Elizabeth Warren now has, and and it reminds me though that that the left really is increasingly, uh, just just losing its mind. I mean, there's nothing that you can really say anymore that is an extension of their

previous beliefs. There's there's nothing that you can really say and think, well, there's no way they'd ever make that. You know, if I'm trying to make a point about the extremes of what they believe and what they think, they wouldn't go that far. Well, it turns out that we're running out of areas where that is still true.

It turns out that there are very few things that we can point to and say, oh, they would never they would never allow that thing to happen anymore, because those examples that we used to use are increasingly now the reality on the left. Alright, So this is the this is the perfect example. You have the Daily COLLII over the piece that a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman one a woman's World championship cycling event

on Sunday. You know, Rachel McKinnon, a professor at the College of Charleston, won the women's sprint thirty five to thirty nine age bracket at the u see I Masters Track Cycling World Championship in Los Angeles. So we have somebody who's the first transgender woman world champion ever, and we're supposed to celebrate this. Do they really expect us

to celebrate this? This is supposed to be treated like it is in some way a victory, a victory for whom, a victory for transgender rights, certainly not a victory for women. The reason that we have sex segregated sports is not because of sexism. And maybe this is where progressives just can't follow the logic train here, and maybe they just

are unable to understand this. But the reason we have sex segregated sports is because men are overwhelmingly and invariably biologically larger, heavier, stronger, and faster than women as a

function of hormones and genetics. That's just that's the truth, right, I mean I I used to occasionally with some friends of mine, uh scrimmage with some of the women's varsity teams when I was in college, and then I could tell you that a reasonably athletic college male would probably be a three sports superstar for most female programs if he had had some of the of the same skills by playing, let's say, on a high school team. I mean that that's just the truth. But that's why we

have sex segregated sports. But the left is so devoted to this idea of transgender rights and transgenderism as something that must be celebrated. Remember I've told you the way that the progressives approach these issues is it starts with just just tolerant, be tolerant, and then it's you know, be inclusive, and then it's celebrate it, and then it's you know, except except this or else, which is basically

a version of celebrated. But they they always have this sliding scale and it will start us with oh, just tolerated. That's the first thing. And and then you have to you know, later you'll affirm it, and then you'll be told to celebrate it. That's I skipped affirmed to celebrate there before. But here we have it. I mean, if I had told you five years ago that we would see pieces about how men could compete in female sporting of ends because they say they're transgender, and that would

be considered fair somehow. On the left, you'd say, buck, that's just crazy, and I would say, well, yes, it's crazy, but now it's true. Now it's happening. Uh, this is that's right. Here you have this is the yep, this is the Women's World Championships, Women's World Championships, and uh, you have you have men competing in these events. Now, then the whole notion that we have to say biological male, I would note, is a misnomer because male is a

function of biology, as is female. We can pretend that these things are separate, we can pretend that they are distinct,

but we are just only fooling ourselves. And and it can't be a shock to anybody that on on a day, or it shouldn't come as a shock that on the same day when we're told that somebody can claim to be Native American because they are point point you know, point zero zero zero zero zero one seven whatever, Native American, and not even really Native American, but actually from Hispanic or Latino, uh, you know background. I mean, it's not

even clear that it's actually the Native American. That same day, when science no longer matters, is a day when we're told that we have to celebrate this, this madness of transgenderism as somehow the best thing possible for the future of the civil rights movement in this country. I mean, this is the new civil rights movement. That's why the left is so devoted to it. It's the new civil

rights movement. But also there's a an underlying antipathy, there's an underlying disdain that the progressive left has for the distinctions between sexes, for male female gender roles, or even male female gender stereotypes. They hate all of it. They think they can eradicate it. And this is where people would say it's really a form of a kind of

radical cultural Marxism. But they just believe in this abs a lute equality such that now we can have people who have x Y chromosome they are males, and they are competing against females in major sporting events. Liberty, truth and great hair. Feel those funky beats. It's time for roll call. Alright, roll call. It is time to get into it. Everyone. Thank you so much for being here, Thank you for sending all of your thoughts into the show.

Facebook dot com slash Buck section. It has been pointed out by some of you, some of my trusted friends and fellow patriots, that I should probably do some roll call via Snippy because I have a Snippy account, and I'm getting all of you to you Snippy, and they're a wonderful sponsor the show. So we're gonna start doing some of that and as we can get folks to

write in there. So start your snippy dot com account and you can send me messages via Snippy and I will add that into Facebook and there you go, and then we'll hopefully transition away and start using more and more Snippy over time. That's the plan, alright, Candice writes Buck, I agree with you on almost everything except meat and music. Twenty seven years meatless. As for music, has your brother ever heard Muffin Man by Frank Zappa? He might appreciate it.

Keep up the good work, Brother Shields High, Candice Oss Well, Candice Shields, how to you. I don't know why you're asking about my brother and muffin Man, but perhaps there's something I need to learn, something I need to know that I don't already, and I'm always down to to learn more new and interesting and exciting things. So I will check out this, Mr Frank Zappa and his muffin Man. Trevor rights yesterday's episode maybe think of this show from

days gone by? And he sent me something with celebrity celebrity deathmatch? Is that what this is called? Mr t Fighting Marilyn Manson? You are very creative, Trevor, thank you for sending this through. Let's see what we have here. Chad right Buck love your show. Heard your conversation on kitchen knives and keeping them smart smart sharp not smart work sharp knife and tool sharpener is a game changer. Oss Shields High Well, Chad, thank you for writing in

with this, and I will look into this sharpener. Paul Hey Buck, Now that Red Eye has gone to the big broadcast booth in the sky, can you tell me why Andy didn't get that job? Tom was very funny, but just too darn nice. Red Eye was pissing vinegar and he turned it into a white wine spritzer. Keep up the good work, Shields high. Uh. You know, Paul, I don't know why Andy Levy uh did not become the host of Red Eye, So I really would just be speculating if I said anything here. I've always really

enjoyed working with Andy. I think he's a good dude, and I'm sure he would done a good job. But there's a lot that goes into that decision making, including sometimes the people that are up for the for one job or another, it turns out they don't even really necessarily want that job. They want a different job. You just don't know, uh with unless you know, and I don't. So there you have it. Chris buck love the show. It's my sanity. Whooby, I don't know what a woody is,

but sounds nice. I would have gone ape crap from the start. Just in case you are totally unaware, I have noticed you went from very constrained to very noticeably vocal anti left commentator. I totally agree with you and would have been banned from the airwaves in week one. Just want you to be aware of the shift and audience perception. I'm not knocking you at all, but a new listener would could be jarred by the change in

your tone. I love it, Chris, you know, Chris, I just I think that there's a there's an adaptation going on in my thinking. And it's maybe something I've been a little slower than some of my uh other colleagues on the right to adopt in some ways because I come from this perspective of well, this will sound self aggrandizing, but knowledge, having a background in in the actual work that I do, especially in the national security side, Knowledge and facts and wisdom. That's how I try to approach

what I do. And and so I always want to think that I could have liberals listen to this show, and I certainly hope to all the liberals who are listening that they still feel this way, but I want them to know that I I want to bring them over to my side. Uh And I don't want to be too strident. That has always been my approach, but recently the left has gone insane, and so I am separating out in my mind. I want to say insane,

I mean more insane than usual. I separated in my mind how I speak to Democrats really in general, from how I'm now speaking to the hardcore left, because I am at ideological war with the hardcore left centrist Democrats. I want to come over to my side, not necessarily even on everything, but on whatever they're willing to. But the hardcore left just must be ideologically smashed and destroyed.

It must be defeated. You know, the anti fuzz, the uh, the people that are running around with the pink hats on and that are saying due process doesn't count anymore. And they are the ones who are doing deep platforming and want people to be boycotted and to be fired from their jobs for you know, expressing conservative opinions. We have to fight that ideology, not not meet it in a gentlemanly contest, but we actually have to throw some elbows.

And that that maybe has been a a learning process for me in this era of Trump, because I've seen more and more of what the left, not just what the left is, but how much of the Democrat Party and how much of the ideological uh center to left they control. And the hard left, I mean, the progressive vanguard is way too prominent, way too powerful, and and

cannot be just wished away anymore. So if I sounded all like I'm a little more strident or a little more fired up about things in the last few months, it's really because I've seen what this battle we're entering into is all about. And this is political total war. This is not uh, you know, may the best man win. This is one man will win, and one man will not leave the octagon, so to speak. And in that kind of political environment, you you have to be ready

to go bare knuckle. And in a sense, that's really what I've learned from Trump. You know, there there have been some things that Trump has done and Trump has said, and I've thought, oh my gosh, that's such a mistake. Oh my gosh, how could Trump if have gone with that? That's so that's so foolish of him, that's so silly. And then within a few and this happens less and less now because I realize who we're dealing with with Trump, uh. And then time passes and I realized, wait a second,

he was right not to apologize for that. They would have just mauled him like a like a I was gonna say, a flock of piranhas. But now I'm mixing things up like a school of angry raging piranhas uh that they would have torn him apart if he had agreed to what they said he should agreed to about one statement he made or another. Better to stand and fight and constantly push back on these issues. These are things that I'm learning from. Trump is just like all of you. I have to adapt my approach and my

thinking for the current moment. I have to actually think about what's working, what's not working, and I I reevaluate. I'll say one of the most important lessons I've seen, one of the biggest differentiators when it comes to whether someone is successful or not is do they have the

capacity for self correction? Do they have the ability to look at whatever they're doing in life, how they are treating themselves, how they're treating other people, how they are doing their work or whatever, how how they're taking care of their health, and and objectively assess what is going right, what is not, what is going wrong or not going well,

and make changes. And I'm constantly making changes. I mean, I have core principles and a and an approach and an ethos, but I'm constantly making changes to what I think is going to to work best in this this ideological fight. I mean, that's really what I do here every day. Yes, I like to present information, And there's an aspect of this that's really just about dare I say to bar from the left community? Right? We are

all a community here on the show. Um, But there's also how can I equip those who listen to this show with the best arguments possible and equip them also with the knowledge that they are in act correct in their beliefs? Right, explain not just what we should all think about different issues, but why we should think that way. So I think that's all very very important. Um and uh and yeah. I am also in a process of

of learning all the time. I don't want to ever make it seem like I'm just the one guy who thinks that he's doing it the right way and and it is never adjusting. I'm adjusting all the time, Brad. Right, dear Buck, I just read that Hillary clinton security clearance was revoked at her request. I was wondering what your thoughts on this are and why in the world would she make such a request, especially if she's planning on

running again. In I'm a Loyal Podcast, listener and wanted to thank you for releasing your podcast earlier so us folks up here in Alaska can listen to it on the way home. Shield Ziant thanks for keeping us in the know, Brad Well, Brad, first of all, I'm so glad you liked the podcast is out sooner, and I'm hoping that everybody in the West Coast knows that we're pretty much now our podcast is going up for this show, for the Buck Sexton Show in drive time on the

West Coast. So you know, there's no problem with you deciding that you're gonna just get a little bit ahead of the game and and listen to it little early. You don't have you don't have to wait. You don't have to wait for it to be rebroadcast or to be broadcast on whatever stations near you. You can listen to it on the on the podcast however you consume podcasts, uh. And so that's great news that you're listening up in Alaska that way. And as for keeping everybody in the know,

I certainly try. Hillary and her security clearance. Look, let's just let's just call it what it is. Hillary should never have been able to keep a security clearance after the debacle that occurred with her private email server, private email acount all that stuff. I mean, that was just completely It should have been horrifically embarrassing for anybody not just associated with Hillary Clinton, but who was willing to

defend that nonsense. That she held a new clearance until this point just goes to show you how broken the system is. I want to remind you all that this Friday I will be doing an event with my friends at Stansbury Research. It will be about what's coming next in the markets and big, big things to tell you about. I'll be joining them for a full live event this Friday. Just go to buck event dot com free to register folks,

totally free. You can watch the whole thing. Register forward free all free, buck event dot com again b U c K E V e n T dot com. That's gonna be it for today's addition in the freedom my friends, I will see you tomorrow. Shields high background checks can

be a sensitive business. You want to make sure you get the right information, you get it in a timely fashion and as you can trust the people who are doing them, because when you're hiring or you're looking for someone, that's gonna be a tenant for a property you're renting out. You need somebody that you can trust and who gets the job done. That's Global Verification Network. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and

vetting company. They have headquarters in Chicago, offices throughout the country, and they work with startups all the way up to fortune ones. Unlike a lot of their competitors in the background investigation space, no data or client information is ever off short. These guys should be your vetting company of choice. They are absolutely the best when it comes to making sure your data is secure and that whenever you have a question you get an answer on the phone. Go

to my g VN dot com. Again, that's my g VN dot com or call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine