Shameless Media

eight to five The future of talk radio. Buck Sexton, My friends and I stared down the barrel of an Air fifteen the way you have not. We have seen this weapon of war mow down people we know and love the way you have not. How dare you tell us we don't know what we're talking about. Never again should a student be silent, fight unshot. Never again should anyone fear going to school. The time for change wasn't now. The time for change was years ago. Are you for

taking steps to save us? Or are you for taking n r A blood money? We are not letting the United States be run by that terrorist organization. Welcome to Buck Sex and Show. Everybody you just heard of. There a number of students getting together, Uh, students, teachers, coaches, counselors getting together at schools across the country from what I understand, but particularly those who were involved directly in Florida speaking out there. There's now a broader movement to

involve other schools. There's talk about a a walkout, UM that may maybe occurring. This is from this is expected to be occurring perhaps later on. UM. You have students that are gathering together saying that it's time to change our gun laws. Will you address this a bit yesterday? And there's something going on here, It's not normal to expect that there would be so much vitriol. Let's understand this.

I get it. You have students that are traumatized. Specifically, we're talking now about those who are actually at the high school in Parkland when this mash shooting happen. And I understand that there's psychological trauma to be dealt with, that the community needs to come together, that these students deserve our support. I think I hear that there's also similar efforts to get students activated in their political activism

across the country. It makes me think, Okay, so this is now turning into a movement, or they're trying to turn it into a movement. M hmm. What is so different about this time and this incident from others? I'm asking the questions I don't necessarily have the answers. What is it about this incident specifically that makes the students that are speaking up and and being given considerable air

time by the national news media. What is it that makes them so angry, specifically towards the n r A. The n r A is the focus of so much of the anger here, the National Rifle Association. I remember being a high school student and I would not have pretended to know much at all about the n r A or what it does. Um. We're also seeing a very clear effort in the media to create an in vulnerability for the speech of students that were either at

that school or just now. Any student who comes forward and wants to speak on behalf of those students, he's also going to be given this the same invulnerability for their comments and statements. It doesn't have to be accurate, doesn't have to be true, doesn't have to make sense because it comes from a place of victimhood, because they've been victimized because a group of students were murdered in

cold blood by a psychopath. And I haven't really heard enough of that word used, and I think I'd like to return later in the show into why I use it and what some of the real implications are for our understanding of this mass slaughter. When we use terms like psychopaths, we should also use terms like evil and understand how it applies in this case. I don't mean

in a general sense. I mean in as scientific a way as possible, evil as a term used by the those who spend their lives trying to understand the psychological processes of the brain, can't come up with a coherent or rational explanation for why an individual acts the way he or she does, and is left with nothing more

on a clinical level. Then the diagnosis a diagnosis of evil that I think is far and away the most accurate description of Nicholas Cruz and what occurred on that day, And I can return to more specificity on that in a moment. But the the I or the fury of these students is directed towards the National Rifle Association as the bad guy here. The National Rifle Association that the students are young, that they can't vote, that they don't

have a background, or even a baseline. For get about a background, No one to expect you have to have a PhD and gun studies to have an opinion here. But it is usually a necessity and a national level policy discussion to have a baseline of knowledge about the issue. Right if I were running around and I were sixteen years old, and I said that I wanted us to have a much lower tax rate, and somebody asked me, well, do you know what the top tax rate is right now?

And I said, I have no idea. People would be less likely to take my policy proposal seriously in this instant instance, though, because they have suffered a tragedy, or because a community a school has suffered a tragedy, we are to listen without responding. And that's actually not how policy discussion works. It's not how the First Amendment worked, It's not how we could arrive at any constructive solutions

to this problem. Nobody really wants to be lectured by a group of kids that seem very angry at an organization that has nothing to do with what just happened. It is not the fault of the n r A. I would note that if you're going to blame the n r A, you might as well blame the manufacture of the rifle and claim that they are the ones responsible for this. The seller of the gun, even though he did it completely legally, he must be responsible for this.

The person that manufactured the rounds, use the actual ammunition, they're they're responsible for this. No, no no, no, no. You cannot erode moral culpability here in the name of some political agenda. The only person responsible for the heinous acts in Florida last week is Nicholas Cruz. There are people who could have done more to stop it. There is certainly a discussion that we are having now about what

should have been done to stop it. But I'm not seeing a lot of reasonable, good faith discussion in the national media about what should result from this in terms of law changes to law. Now, what I'm seeing is the vilification of an organization that just represents law abiding gun owners, of whom there are, as you know, tens of millions, let's say, roughly sixty million in the country.

It's a pretty fair estament. Over three d million firearms in private hands in the United States is also the estimate, you got sixty million people, You've got a handful of terrible school shootings. It seems to me like we're now supposed to just sit back and allow the left because

we know that there is a hand behind this. We know that the media is part of this construct and part of this narrative that asked dispersions to cast blamee on sixty million long binding gun owners here and much of the intelligentsias such as it is, and the left is coming out with the same stuff they've said in

the past. It was wrong then, it's wrong now. But they think that by emotionalizing the moment, by making this a time of emotional blackmail, listen to the sobbing children on this policy issue, or else you're a bad person, then the ideas and arguments that have failed in the past will get through because we'll all be scared because we don't want to be bad people, because we are caring, because we are considerate, because we do want our kids to be safe. We want all kids to be safe.

Notice how the issue somehow becomes a separation between those who want to stop child uh stop the shootings in school, school shootings and those who don't There's no such thing as a constituency that doesn't want to stop school shootings. So why is that the tone that this takes almost automatically after one of these events. After one of these instances, we're hearing that students are planning more protests and walkouts

from class. Well, I'd like to know what the specific demands are here, But I would also note that this is not how policy is made. Yeah, that they are allowed to raise whatever objections they want, right, they have first moment rights to we we know this, But what the media is doing is very underhanded and what many of the supporters of the narrative that's being presented, which is that the n r A is the problem here.

Forget about dealing with mental health, forget about background, forget about all that the n r A is the problem. They want to they want to take down and take a part of the National Rifle Association. And there's just no way that there aren't elements of the left, adults with money and funding and connections who are tied into this. I just don't see how it. At a minimum, you've got the major broadcast networks other than Fox that are just running with this as though they are a political

action committee, CNN, MSNBC another. So right then and there, I can tell you that they're giving a lot more airtime to young people on this issue than they would young people on other issues. As I said, you do not tend to hear a lot of interviews of the families of those killed by illegal aliens in this country on CNN. CNN anchors do not ask the children of those killed by illegal aliens on TV as they are crying, what do you think about illegally? Should we have fewer

illegal aliens in the country? Crying child who lost his dad to a drunk driver, a legal alien who has been deported you know, fifteen times or whatever the number is. No, they don't do that because they're forming narratives, and they don't like that one, this one. They like the notion that the n RA is behind a mass slaughter of children at a school of school shooting. It is deceptive,

it's disgusting, it's unfair, and yet that's the plan. They figure that if they are able to create an environment of fear, then the arguments don't really matter anymore. This is where the Left actually excels at promoting a a an approach to an issue, a feeling, a sensibility around it, where it's not about the specific issues or the arguments, it's just about, Oh, I don't want to be I don't want to be on the wrong side of that. To bar from Obama, you don't want to be on

the wrong side of history, as he used to constantly say. So, now all of a sudden, we're seeing the first breaches in the wall. We're seeing the breaks in the day. You're seeing people that are saying, hold on, maybe you know, okay, fine, this time we will do something. The administration sounds like they're they're going to do something. Is it because we have come up with new ideas? Maybe there are some that I haven't really heard much of before, and we'll

talk about them. But is it really just another instance of the left creating an environment of moral blackmail. You better be with us on this, you better do what we say on this issue, or you're a bad person, or you don't care about children getting shot. That is the underlying message of the left right now. And whether you know or not that their policy are that the an assault rifle band or background check expanse or any of this is useless. Is irrelevant because you don't want

to be a bad person. You don't want to be on the wrong side of history. This is what they're trying to do right now. They've tried it in the past. It has failed, will it fail this time on the issue of guns. It's worked on other things. You look at the context for discussion of any number of issues. I mean, you look at what the left did by weaponizing discussions of race and racism for political per is

over the course of decades, very effective for them. It finally started to they finally kind of overplayed their hand in the last you could argue ten or fifteen years maybe where it didn't have the same accusations of racism, didn't have the same punch as they used to. Now there are other things that are career enders for people that are just weaponized politics, right, accusations in place of argument.

They're trying to do that on guns right now. It's not about having a an exchange of ideas about a second amendment about the right to bear arms. No, it's are you a good person or do you want do you want children to not be shot in school? Yes or no? If the answer is yes, you don't want the new shot in school. Then you have to do. Then you have to give the left it's gun control agenda. You have to cave. You have to give in no questions asked, Well, I'm not I'm not playing that game.

I'm not going along with that. I want policy that's based on reason and argument and sound logic. And no, I'm not going to be cowed into silence because people have suffered a personal tragedy or we're near a tragedy in the case of many of these students, that that gives you sympathy. It does not give you a greater understanding and wisdom about national level policy than other people. It just doesn't. And I think the media is shameless

exploitation of tragedy involving miners, tragedy involving children. Here is just yet another reason why we should we should always maintain a healthy disrespect and disdain for the mainstream media. I'll be uh, I want to know what you think about all this. We're gonna get into the specifics that are out there. Eight four four eight to five eight four four buck bump stock band, what do you think a R fifteen band? If you're under third, what do

you think improving background checks, whatever that means. You know, we can go down this whole list. We'll talk about some of them. I want to know what you think as well, so light up the lines will be right back. I was talking about how we should have not ostracized him. You didn't know this case, Okay, we did. We know that they're baby, that they are mental health issues. And I am not a psychologist, but we need to pay attention to the fact that this isn't just a mental

health issue. About we stopped blaming the victims for something that was the shooter's fault. I don't think anyone's blaming the victims. I don't really know what that young woman who's been given a national media platform is referring to. But you'll notice from the tone of some of the students that they are angry and they are expressing. Some of them the ones that I'm seeing that are getting airtime. I remember. This reminds me of after nine eleven. A

lot of people that we're affected by nine eleven. I remember being at school finding out whether I was in college, finding out whether or not my uncle made it out of one of the towers. I didn't know for the first few hours a friend of mine, a young woman I had known since I was in the fourth grade, found out that day that her sister died. And I was there at the school, you know, when when the

news came down. Um, But I also remember that there were people who decided that it was time to start cutting campaign commercials for the Democrat Party and for John Kerry and saying, you know, see, it was Bush's fault. And then when you'd say, well hold on a second, well hold on whoa, It's like, oh, how dare you? You know, they remember that the whole And I'll due credit to Ann Coulter for being the one who's willing to say hold on, these these aren't v nine eleven widows.

These are four widows of nine eleven. There's a lot of other a lot of other widows and widowers and you know, children lost their parents. It's you know, we're not hearing from them, We're just hearing from the four and the representative of the whole group. Always be careful about this. You know, media is very slippery on this issue when it comes to exploiting tragedy for political ends. There are the producers and the bookers on these shows

at CNN MSNBC. They are making decisions based upon who's going to give them the most anti Trump, anti n R A shout fast, so then they're sanctimonious, ignorant anchors can go, oh will you don't feel like the children's tragedy deserves to be heard? And the whole thing, we know how the game is played, we know how they're doing this, and this is what they're up to. By the way, I mentioned before they I stumbled for a second because I want to make sure I had the

right date. And seeing there's a plan, there are plans going forward for a major march akin to in terms of size, the Women's March. It will be an anti uh anti gun march. I don't know what if they have an official name yet, a gun control legislation March or you know whatever they're gonna call it for march, a march on March. And there are others as well, And they've got tens of thousand people signing petitions and this is now becoming a point of political mobilization and

action for the Democrat left. You're also seeing stuff like a billboard in Louisville, Kentucky that somebody vandalized with huge writing it says kill the n r A. So there's something wrong here, my friends. We are going to dig into it together and we'll talk more about what's happening. Right after this break. He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton is back, and I think that it's really important that we come together now since adults are not doing it for us. I remember the first time I

heard about Sandy Hook. I remember talking about Virginia attacks. That will be different because the people who are deeply affected by the shooting, the people who saw it, are the people speaking out. Because we keep telling them that if they accept this blood money there against the children, they say, that's topper. Gun laws do not decrease gun violence.

We call we could just play all day news clips of teenagers, kids who are telling us what gun control policy should be, saying things about gun laws that are not true. I couldn't believe yes or seeing at CBS left up the tweet about how it's easier to get an a R fifteen than to buy cold medicine. That's

not just fake news, it's malicious news. They're really trying to turn up the heat on this problem, turn up the heat on the debate make this nasty, Make it not a problem that we have to solve as a country, as a as a nation. Make it a US versus them. You heard it, and that young woman she said, you know, it's either you're with the children or you're against them. With them or against them. This is a this is

a repeat. You'll hear more and more of that. You either want to stop child murder in school or you don't, That's what they'll say. But there's no one who wants kids to get shot in school, no one. So what are they talking about? Why do they have to be so inflammatory? Here's something to keep in mind, my friends,

as we go forward and continue to cover this. How is it that the passions on this issue are even more elevated right now with greater distance from the actual event than they were in the first forty eight hours. Why are the kids that are speaking about this becoming more aggressive? Why are we seeing signs kill the n r A in Louisville Now? Why are we hearing these refrains like you're with the children or you're against them. You either want to stop child murder in school or

you don't. Now days after the event, I just think it stands to reason that if this were based on the emotions of the moment, you would hear the most over the top inflammatory rhetoric and these accusations at the n r A. You'd hear it more in the beginning, and then it would turn into a policy debate. But no, actually you're hearing this stuff now. It's getting worse. The anger, the rage from one side of the political spectrum to the other over guns is escalating as we have distance

from the event. That doesn't make sense, doesn't make sense unless unless there is a guiding hand behind this, unless there's more going on here than just spontaneous student protests over gun control and gun violence. I'm not saying that these kids don't believe it. I'm sure they do. But then again, there's a reason why we don't let sixteen year olds vote on national policy issues. There's a reason why they don't get to pick our representatives, and there

there's a basis for all of that. You know, the voting. It should be sixteen, maybe it should be twelve. Do we have five year old voting? We have journalists who seemed to think that it was respectable and responsible to use their children as props as anti Trump attacked vessels. You know, my daughter came up to me and said, why does Donald Trump hate women? Mommy? And she's only three. I don't think that your daughter said that at three,

but a lot of journalists were doing that. Those of you who are paying close attention to the the commentary at during the election, we'll remember that was a trend for a while. There's a trend going on here, but it seems that it's getting angrier as we get further from the event. And I don't believe it's because of inaction. In fact, I think that the Trump administration has shown I know they have shown quite a willingness to discuss these issues and look at them. Here's the President himself.

Safety is a top priority for my administration. That is why when governors from across the nation visit the White House next week, we will be discussing at great length what the federal and state governments can do to keep our students safe. This includes implementing common sense security measures and addressing mental health issues, including better coordination between federal and state law enforcement to take swift action and when

there are warning signs. President is taking this issue very seriously. He's listening to what's being said. He's going over the proposals that are out there now. He says, state and federal and local, we're working on it. We are. He's not saying there's nothing. I'm not going to hear it. Everything is fine. And yet you turn on the news and you'll hear students who are being elevated into the national discussion, who are saying stuff like to the president.

And I think that it's really important that we come to the president. The ball is in your cordinal. You are either with us or you are against us. If you are against us, then that means you are signing our death certificates. You are letting more children die every day. There is no middle ground here. You are either with us and helping children survive, helping children feel safe to go to school, or you are against us. We are very confident because unlike every other you get the idea

that was a seventeen year old. Mr. President. You're with us, you're against you, you're signing children's debt certificates. If you don't ban a R fifteen, that's really that's what we're supposed to take away from this. That's quite a lot of culpability, A lot of blame that's put on the president for something that he has nothing to do with. Keep in mind that Congress would have to pass the legislation first, and yet it's all put at the feet

of Trump. You see, this is what's really happening here. Everyone. Do we think that there would be quite the same tone, quite the same approach if you had a Democrat president? Now, of course not. This issue of guns is now being

tied into the issue of hashtag resistance. Gun control is now being hijacked by the left, by the institutional left, the money, the movers and shakers, the sauros Is, the MSNBC's, the CNNs, and the rest of them, in order to mobilize progressive elements of our society against the Trump administration. In yet another way, it's yet another front of the never Trump, anti Trump war. It immediately becomes about the president. And that's why there's so much fury behind this movement

and this effort right now. That's what's different from the school shooting versus other school shootings. And and you have a president who's willing to say, we should actually address this in whatever way we can, let's talk about it, and they're saying Oh no, you're the blood is on the president's hands. There's a particular anger right now. There's a particular rage about gun control because Donald Trump is president.

That's what's going on here in the background. I'm not saying that that's what's got all these students fired up. Some of them or I'm sure being told things by adults. Others are being are being encouraged to whatever their initial impulse is about this, and a lot of them are I'm sure the ones from the school. Keep in mind, I'm talking about in general, because this is now a movement. This is beyond the school. So now we've gotta listen to kids that are marching that didn't even go to

the school. Now, all kids have a special say in this, as long as they're pro gun control. They're not just mobilizing for the school, They're mobilizing for all schools. This is now going to turn into a student movement of sorts. Ah. Now it all starts to fit together, doesn't it. It's about a whole lot more than one school shooting and

the government's response to it. You are seeing the apparatus of the left in action and mobilizing through the exploitation of a terrible event in which seventeen young people were murdered in school by a classmate who was a psychopath, who was evil. And yet I'm hearing so much about how the n r A is murder. The n r A is guilty of murder. Trump is going to have blood in his hands if he doesn't do what the kids are demanding. This is not how sound policy has

made and this is not how adults have discussions. It's how the left wants the discussion to go though, and we will see more and more of their fingerprints all over this. Keep in mind as we go along here, as we expose what's really happening, they will say the nastiest things. They'll say that you are either with the children or against them. You either want to stop child murder or you don't care. You're complicit in child murder if you don't do what they say. I mean, this

is ideological hostage taking. It's a disgrace, and it's really what's going on. All right, I want to hear from you eight four four, eight to five. We will take some calls right after this break. All right, every single line is lit here in the Freedom Hut. So let's rack and stack and take some calls. But first I just wanted to note that I got a piece of

information from one of our own here in the hut. Brandon, who's running the board today, told me something, just to give you a sense of how far and wide the tentacles of a tragedy like this go, Brandon, tell him, tell them what you told me. I unfortunately know one of the teachers that was killed in the in the shooting. When the name started to come out, Um, I hadn't spoken to Scott Beagle since high school. Went to high school with him, Long Island, dix Hills High School, Half

holl Hills High School, East Long Name. Uh, so he was your classmate. He was my classmate plenty classes. I hadn't spoken to him since, so, I mean, it's an acquaintment. He was your high school class man and he but I remember him being such a sweet and nice kid. So I remember as soon as I saw his face and name, I know that I know. And he was one of the He was one of the heroes of the incident, right. He was one of the ones who ran to open the door to to save some kids.

He was the geology teacher who opened his unlocked door to let more students in, and before he can relock it, that's when he got shot. And they're saying that his body blocked the door from more casualties. So he's a hero, and uh, I don't know if you want me to say. His wife apparently gave a little brief statement because Scott jokingly, I guess, said something that if he was ever killed in any of these situations, so by the quote, you'll

he never believed that would have happened. Promise me, if this ever happens to me, you will tell them the truth, tell them what a jerk I am, and don't talk about the hero stuff. So of course his wife, he was saying that as a joke to his wife, thinking that this would never happen to him. So when his wife spoke, she still read that she did. Yes, yes, all right, Brandon, thank you for sharing that that you know that personal connection with all this. All right, let's

get into your call, folks. We've got every line lit, like I said, so we got a lot to go to here. Vincent in Greensboro, North Carolina, Hey, Vincent, Hi, Bud, I'm sorry to hear, but loss of his friend there, that's Uh, horrible to hear. Um. I just couldn't help. But I've been listening to this topic now for days on just about every radio show there is, and I don't remember any time where somebody screamed and yelled for what they wanted when they were a kid, and they

just got what they wanted because they demanded it. Um. But I feel like this's just a program because these protesters, like a lot of the protesters we've seen in the last couple of years, to me, just looked like bankrolled protesters that really are uh dupes. Uh, they're pretty much A lot of them will say whatever they're told, maybe some of them believe it. Do you think some of this anti gun stuff, whether a current or what we're

going to see, is AstroTurf. It's not. This is not the grassroots exactly, because I don't I don't remember meeting too many people who agree with that. Somebody you say, oh, well, yeah, there's guns are dangerous, blah blah blah, but a lot of people will never flat out say there they want to give up their their firearms. It is a god given right to hone one uh not just because it's

written down in the Constitution. Of the Bill of Rights, and uh, uh, well, Vincent, I appreciate you sharing thoughts and thank you for calling in, Sir, Shields High. Let's take Uh, we've got a lot of calls coming from North Carolina. We got a whole bunch of North Carolina calls here. Well, it's all right, we'll take one more and then we'll take it up and I'll take it up to Boston. We gotta get lots of different geographical regions in North Carolina is very very heavy on the

lines right now. Um, we love you North Carolina. Mike in North Carolina, Hey, buddy, Hey Buck, I totally agree with everything Vincent said on the ellin of rules. Um, so let me get took it. Um. She said that people wouldn't be killed with a knife. Me and Lissashi killed. Well, he defeated thirty men by so um taking the swords away from Japan. Uh. During the that time, spawn ningas

and so the assassination was ran rapid. And to get to the last bit about Japan, Tojo said, Uh, the reason we have our Second Amendment rfle a rifle behind every blade of grass, right, thank you, yes, sir, that's why they couldn't invade America. Yeah, yeah, Mike, thanks for calling it from North Carolina, Man Shields. Hi John, and also Greensboro, North Carolina. Hey John, how are you doing, Buck,

I'm good. Thank you for a call that was calling about the gun control also, yeah, of course, man, that's the that's the issue. Do your issue of the hour, go for it. We all need to hear the word control, because that's what it's all about. We never hear all of this left is crying when any other person, child, adult is killed any other way. We just had a child killed by a drunk illegal alien last week, and we're to sail in North Carolina. I'm still waiting for

a politician to cry over that child. John. I'm just I'm gonna guess you haven't seen anyone, anyone in the family of that child killed interviewed on CNN and a national news broadcast on the issue of legal aliens. Yeah, no alcohol band, no eagle alien band, no, no, no kind of band, and no tears. Yeah. I mean the politicization of this, of this by the left, I mean, to use child victims in a sense as as issues or as as politicized policy weapons. It's just so tasteless.

But that's what they're doing exactly. And then the other thing is, let's talk about making the school safety. I have to barcode with my fingerprints in and out of work every time I go into parking lot. If I go into where our truck drivers come like to use the restroom, I got a barcode to get back in the building. It works fine. Oh, we got about six hundred people working here Tilton the times a day. It works,

in and out, in and out, in and out. And then we could have some the concealed carry holders taking additional course and carry the faculty carry on campus. And I would also add, you know, if you get to concealed carry older's you also got have people, you know, it could be kind of a package training we do individuals that also understand more about de escalating physical confrontations. In general, you get more teachers that are also trained

as first responders. I mean, I I think I think there's a whole lot of ways that we could consider trying to make school look. Schools among the softest of soft targets, right, They're they're wide open generally speaking to the to the public. Uh, you've got you know, kids that can't defend themselves. Especially you're talking about an armed to sound active shooter situation. So yeah, I think it makes a lot of sense to talk about, especially in

areas where you think that. I mean, look, this isn't just this isn't a school with with thirty students. There is a school with almost three thousand, right, I mean this is a really big institution and one armed guard on the premises one for three thousand. My college had sixteen hundred students, had its own police department, if we want to go, had its own on campus, and they were all armed officers and they were all deputized under

Massachusetts state law. Uh, they were armed. And I think we had for a campus of sixteen hundred six officers on any given time, you know. So they just by way of comparison, they got three thousand kids and they only had one one officer. And John, thank you for calling in from Greensborough. H one more Kenny and Boston Kenny. We got about a minute, but I want to get you in before we get going with some other stuff.

You're go ahead, right, how you doing? Um? I'm seeing a parallel being revealed between this Sparkland gun control movement and the Me Too movement in the sense that they both have a they want to call this non political and then engage in politics, and then they want to forbid any questioning or uh, going after the victims at all in any you know anything. You have to just listen to them and were they wanted as as a with a me too movement, and accusation becomes tantamount to

a conviction. And all of that shows me that I think that's all that's the Me too movement is largely being orchestrated by the left. Yeah, I see the parallel to Kenny. It's in a student observation. Thank you very much for calling him my friend. We gotta roll into a break coming up here. I know today was Tuesday, but I kind of had a case of the Mondays. I didn't really sleep that well last night. It just felt like how many get my day started at? So much work to do? Oh that's right, I got a

whole cupboard full of Black Rifle coffee. Black Rifle is the world's premium, small batch groas to order Conservative coffee company, and the stuff is delicious and it is the way to kick start your day. I have coffee first thing in the morning. And then usually in the early afternoon.

So I'm hitting Black Rifle twice. You could say I'm doing a Black Rifle Coffee double tap, and it is absolutely what I'd recommend for all of you to go check them out, vote with your dollar, fuel the revolution, and visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com, slash Buck, Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck. When you go to the website, make sure you use the coupon code Buck one five that's Buck fifteen, and I get you fifteen percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck coupon

code Buck fifteen. Support veterans, support the Freedom Hut, and support a fantastic coffee company. Black Rifle. He's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. After the deadly shooting in Las Vegas, I directed Attorney General to clarify wha there's certain bub stock devices like the one used in Las Vegas are

illegal undercurrent law. That process began in December, and just a few moments ago I signed a memorandum directing the Attorney General to propose regulations to ban all devices that turn legal weapons into machine guns. Welcome back to the buck Sex and show everybody. In the last hour, we talked about the student protests and the growing movement to call for gun control in the aftermath of the park Land,

Florida school shooting. And now we just had President Trump talking today about what he's willing to do in response, or what he's willing to consider. At least we are looking at, or I should say, the federal government is now looking at the issue of an a R fifteen ban, which I don't think we'll ever go through. UM. Today, in fact, the Florida state legislature voted out a proposal to ban a OUR fifteens, and sure enough the media was there and taking photos of children from the Parkland

High School that were in attendance. Douglas, I forget the school where the shooting occurred. Marjorie Stoneman. Douglas and the kids were very upset about the bill not going through. But this is the process now we have. This is the way laws are actually made. It is not based upon whoever has the most passion in the moment. It is based upon a yeah, democratic legislator, democratically elected legislature taking action or not. So they did not pass an

air fifteen band in Florida. They're now turning to state and they say local bands if they can't get a federal band. This is also what brings me to the There are very well connected and financed adults who are pushing this agenda and using children as props to get what they want. That has happening right now. There is no way that all of a sudden, here we are,

days after the event. You have these policies that are just agreed upon at the grassroots student level, that are all of a sudden now mobilized and getting a lot of national level press. Do we really think a lot of high school kids generally know the difference between state and local firearms laws and where the federal ban would end and the local band would begin, etcetera, etcetera. I

don't think so. This is being fed to some students, or rather the agenda is being promoted through students as vessels for the message, because the students are not to be contradicted publicly because they are victims. That's the game that the Democrats play. It's disgraceful they are using traumatized children as props in a political fight. But here we are.

That is what they are doing. You're also noticing that many of the journalists out there that are pushing the different politicians, Democrats, etcetera, that are pushing for action just expose that they do not particularly view the Second Amendment is really a part of the constitution. They just don't think that that it counts the same way as other stuff.

And that's how you get people like uh Well as a finance reporter, usually at CNBC, but he he has an idea for how we could handle the gun problem. The scariest part of these conversations with so many of them said, you know what, I like the idea. There's part of us that actually would like to do something

like this, but we are scared about two things. Part of it is we're scared about the the economic potential boycott that could happen, both from the n r A and gun owners who say, you know what, if JP Morgan does this, we're we're not going to use their cards. The other thing that's even more nerve racking, though, is a lot of them said, you know what, I don't want to put my employees in harm's way. I actually think that there could be an incident if we were

to do this. I don't want to bring attention out to ourselves. And that's a very very scary thing, you know. Now he was talking about banks not working with or refusing to work with companies who sell guns, and as if that's not enough, Keep in mind now that would be imagine if if you had this with any other constitutionally protected right, you know, using that you had that kind of discrimination going on by major institutions that are

tremendously fed federally regulated. And don't even get me started on it. Uh you know, where to banks and in the and the federal government begin as a whole other question.

But also notice how it's not enough merely to just say that he thinks that there would be issues with a effectively a financial system boycott of firearms manufacturers and gun sellers, cutting them off um the financial markets because of their constitution constitutionally protected right to bear because people want to bear arms, and because they to do so, they need to be able to sell them. Look at this, they want to regulate out of existence the Second Amendment.

We see them say this, we see this get support, and then they turn and say, oh no, no no, we just want common sense. Remember that was the Obama line, common sense gun reform. Then you say, well, it's not common sense because it won't work. So that's nonsensical. What you're talking about doesn't make sense. Oh well, in that case, you just want dead children. You're a bad person. Do what I say, or else I'll tell everybody you just

don't care about dead children. That's that's the way the Democrats are advancing the advancing the ball on this one of my friends, that's what they are doing. And it is very troubling, very troubling. Indeed, it's not going away because this is now a movement. This is instead of the Women's March, You're going to have the gun control March.

This will be the manifestation of the resistance hashtag resist since anti Trump left, using children as the vanguard, so that anyone who contradicts them on a policy level, who makes the counter argument, I'm not saying to do it in a mean way. I'm not saying call the kids. You know you're I'm not gonna call. Remember, we're going way beyond just the kids who are at the Marjorie Douglas School. Now, now we're talking about just kids in

general at schools. They're gonna be organized for this purpose. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of students across the country doing walkouts and marches and rallies, but they're all going to be put under this rubric of well, well, they're the next victims unless we take action. Don't you want to prevent them from being victims? Aren't you anti gun violence in schools? Oh? I guess I am, Well, then you

better do what we say. Ban the a R fifteen nationally banned the air fifteen at the state level, which I would know other states have done. I live in New York State. In fact, here, the way that it's ended up being implemented they've created because they haven't been semi on the rifles because they can't get that through.

So now you just have New York State compliant a R variants, which if you've seen, are not particularly pleasing to the eye, but function the same way in air fifteen does just no collapsing stock, uh, no carrying handle. I think maybe they mandated some changes to the real system. I don't know, but there's there's some a R compliant New York State a R compliant guns that are being sold, that have been sold, and in Connecticut they banned, They banned air fifteen, said you have to turn them in.

They just went with confiscation, and it's estimated that there are over a hundred thousand I think now technically illegal a rs in the state of Connecticut, just because because there's you know, the sheriffs aren't gonna go and kicking indoors I guess and taking firearms from people that they legally purchased and they're legally allowed to have a gun. But in Connecticut they said, well, we're gonna you have to turn it in now, and a lot of people

didn't turn the men. So there's that. Ah, this is where this whole discussion is going. Just understand the politics beyond it now. I know we've got a lot We took some calls in the last hour on guns and gun control and this issue. Um, we're going to continue talking to this yere on the show. I don't want to spend too much of our time tonight on this because we're gonna be back on it tomorrow and this

is now front and center. It has replaced immigration. I thought at this point in February, team we'll be talking immigration immigration. Nope, we have moved to gun control now. And so this will be a continuing theme here on the show. So if you don't get a chance to talk to us about it today, if you're calling in or you've been waiting on hold, I know a lot

of you have. I promise there'll be lots of opportunities going forward because this is now a focus of the left and we have to engage on this to make sure that bad policy does not result. Um. But coming up in this hour, I just want to give you a sense where we're going a little more on the the Russian troll factory and what's real and it's not with all that, and what's serious analysis and what's hysterical hyperbole. Then we will talk about the latest casualty of the

Mueller investigation. A lawyer who had nothing to do with anything but said the wrong thing to Mueller. Whoops. Now he's facing federal felony. He's a citizen of the Netherlands. By the way, I think this is interesting in the US. US extends federal law to pretty much everybody it can

all over the world. It's it's an interesting thing. Um. You know, this is where you start to see other countries come on, right, But Us' is like Oh no, we're gonna this is when you start to make laws about meddling and meddling elections and just wait till that blows back on us. Trust me. But this lawyer who is now stand is taking a plea deal and also one of Manaforts associates. So we've got some upbates in

mull investigation. But I think in some way his most interesting coming up this hour and it will be later on. We have a guest joining as a lawyer to talk about uh. And I see now some of the networks I had planned this interview all day. I see some of the networks have actually run interviews on this in the last hour or so. What if the fix was

in against General Flynn. What if they actually knew that he wasn't intentionally lying or doing anything that was a crime, but they decided that it was essential to get Flynn in order to create the appearance of legitimacy for the rest of the Muller probe of Trump's people and all the rest of it. Right, what if they stacked the deck to go after General Flynn. What if they were going for his scalp and they cheated to do it.

I mean the prosecutors can't prove that yet, but there is an argument that we may in fact find out whether or not that happened, and there's some reason to believe that it did. There's some reason to believe that it did. We are going to look at that later on in this hour because Flynn maybe withdrawing there's there's some word out that Flynn maybe withdrawing his guilty plea.

Why would he do that? Well, there's a judge that's involved, the very important judge, a judge who was one of the few who has held the status and yes, even the deep staters to account in the past, Judge Emmitt Sullivan. He is saying that the FBI has to produce information here about the Flynn guilty plea, all of the information. Perhaps that will be very interesting because I have a feeling and we will talk about why that this may uncover that Flynn got the flip side of Hillary Clinton justice.

You see, with Hillary and her top aids, it was how do we bend the law, how do we bend over backwards to do everything we can to make sure that there's zero legal jeopardy here. We have seen not just the converse of that process, the the flip side of that goin but with the same actors involved, Peter Struck, James Comey, Deputy Director McKay, but the same people involved. We see how they do the one trial or the one case. We see how they do the other case.

You know which of these things is not like the other? Oh? Well, one involves a Republican president. One involves the hope, the singular hope of the Democrat Party, Hillary Clinton. Hmm. Looks like they were treated quite differently. We will get into that later on this hour. You will definitely want to hear that, and then we'll talk also about the some of the specific gun policies. I haven't gone to yet.

I wanted to hold off because we've got Sean Davis from the Federalist joining us in the third hour, and then we'll just kind of freestyle it and talk about whatever comes to mind. So a lot more coming with all of that. First, let me tell you, my friends, I take information security very seriously, and I also think it's critical to have the best information you can at all times. That's why I'm all about Global Verification Network.

They are a dual certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company, in fact, the only company of its kind that qualifies in that way. They're veteran owned and operated. Go to my g VN dot com to check out what these guys do. They are headquartered in Chicago and they are risk mitigation experts. If you are going to hire someone, if you're going to rent somebody a property that you own, or just engage with a major client, any business transaction, you want to know who's on the

other side of that transaction. You want to know is that someone you can trust? Is this somebody that you can exchange financial and commercial interests with? Global Verification Network can be the difference between between big success and failure on this one, my friends, check them out my g VN dot com, my g VN dot com or call eight seven seven six nine five seven nine eight seven

seven six nine five one one seven nine. You can imagine my surprise when you have so many in the media and in the Democrat Party and even some Republicans, a lot of Republicans actually, who are treating the indictment of thirteen Russians tied to social media campaign a tiny one in terms of the budget, an inconsequential one in terms of what it did, and you can imagine my surprise. However, when over at MSNBC I hear some analysis that is

actually quite sound, is actually right on the mark. Here's what Adrian Chen, a journalist, had to say about what went on with the whole Russia interference situation. Essentially, it's so fial media marketing campaign with ninety people, a couple of million dollars a few million dollars behind it, um, run by people who have, you know, a bare grasp of the English language and not a full understanding of

who they're targeting, what they're targeting. Um. I think if you think about that in terms of just a normal marketing campaign, that's not going to be a very good bang for your book. There's not a lot of people saying, well, let's let's hold back. You know, maybe it's not all of that big of a deal. Maybe it's not all

that big of a deal. You know. He makes some really really worthwhile points in there too, about how it is the case that people were able to tell generally who these troll accounts were and what was going on because in a lot of them the grasp of English wasn't even very good. Well, voll Trump, he is best though, love hug and kisses Kremlin. I mean, come on, it's just wasn't going to be that effective no matter what.

It was minuscule when compared to the massive media echo chambers on both sides when it comes to the election, it's just complete nonsense. But here we we got a guy who's want to say, look at maybe people shouldn't shouldn't just totally freak out about this, And yeah, that's all I'm trying to say about this too. We shouldn't freak out about It's not that big a deal. People want to make it a big deal because Hillary lost.

But you see, this is what it brings us back to the point about how they were willing to overlook it when they thought Hillary was gonna win, because that was their their actual judgment at the time. Not that big a deal, don't rock the boat. Hillary is gonna win. We'll forget all about this. That was their real feeling about it. If you don't believe me, just remember this.

There's President Obama said, there is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig America's elections, in part because they're so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved. There's no evidence that has happened in the past or that there are

instances in which that will happen this time. And so, uh, I'd invite Mr Trump to stop lining and go try to make his case to get votes, and if he got the most votes, then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him to make sure the American people benefit from an effective government. What Obama said there is all true. Actually, hey, look, I give credit. I give credit where it's due. Some people are just you know,

raw raw whatever they think. You know, the conservative populace movement wants to hear. Right now, I just tell you what I think in any given moment, and what Obama said there is true. It being very very hard for any one person reging election, be very hard to reg an election period. It would be I mean, if you, for example, we're to make sure that there was no voter I D in place in a whole lot of states, and you know, I mean that that would at least

make it easier. I'm not saying you could, but it make it easier. But nonetheless, it would be very hard to do alright, realistically, and they knew this, and they knew it before and they know it now. But they're just so self indulgent when it comes to their anti Trump rage that they'll justify anything with it. And that's why this whole troll factory. So, I mean, it's funny, you know. I was just explaining to a Miss Molly a little bit about this, and she's one of the

great things about our relationship. But she's not somebody who's political. You know, she's she's up on what goes on in the world, but she's not. It's just she's got other things in her mind. It's great and I don't go home and have to you know, oh, did you read the latest piece in the Weekly Standard. I'm like, no, no, it's not it's not how it goes. I was explaining this to her and she's kind of like, wait, what, how many people? How much money? What? And I was like, yeah, exactly.

It's a it's a kind of what situation like this is not what they're trying to make it into. And that's what is so so exasperating. That's a good word for EXASPERA gosh, it's so tired of it. But we gotta keep fighting Fox, gotta get the shield high because they're they're gonna push on this. This is all about remember, all about impeachment and long term all about it. That's why they are clinging to the narrative because if they are able to they don't. They're not going to get

removal unless they win the Senate and the House. But even if all they can manage is to, let's say, take the House, which I think is unlikely, but that's what they're hoping, they'll they'll impeach to the president on this issue even without a Muller. A Muller never mind a smoking gun with anything. I mean, I didn't even mention it yet I gotta talk about it. Right after this, this latest guy that Muller got, everyone just like, what

is what is this? Why are we even so he he was I have to look, I have to give you the details. It's so insignifican again and so nonsensical in the broader scope of what Mueller is supposed to be looking for here with Russia collusion, that you're forced to sit around you say to yourself, what are we even spending our tax dollars on here? With he's some Dutch lawyer who said something that no one cares about.

The FBI is now facing prison time. Is crazy. He's back with you now because when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. When you return an indictment that no one is ever going to be tried on, um, you do it because you're trying to

craft a narrative or make a statement. And I think what happened with Mueller's case is the original collusion angle that they were proceeding on, which is that the Russians hacked the election and that Trump may have been or Trump people may have been complicit in the hacking, is something that a they don't have evidence of and be even if they hadn't, they couldn't prove in court. That's

a big hole in a collusion case. What Mueller probably wanted to do was put to rest any claim that Russia hadn't actually uh interfered with our election, and I think this indictment is an attempt to do that, But it's far afield from what the original collusion allegation was. As our friend Annie McCarthy, who was just laying out some of his thoughts on Fox News about the Muller

and Diamond from last week. Very important that we all understand they're creating a narrative with all this that Mueller is actually bringing a federal case against thirteen Russians, really as part of the news cycle. That's what this is about. This is it's a news story. It's not actually a federal prosecution is not going to go anywhere. The mean anything,

never going to get these guys. And as I've said to you also, I think there's a whole bunch of other problems with information warfare as a charge that a federal prosecutor, effectively federal prosecutor is is levying against another country and what that means for our country. And do we ever meddle? I don't know. I think maybe sometimes it might have happened somewhere just saying the meddling. But

you have the Mueller probe continuing on. As we discussed last week, there was there were the indictments, and then today you have two more bits of information add into all this. One you have a colleague of Paul Manaforts Gates who has been flipped, we are told who has been flipped and is going to testify against Maniport and they're gonna be They're gonna try to nail them on some fraud stuff and some wire fraud, bank stuff, you know,

just things that have nothing to do with Russia collusion. Nothing. But I've I've said this along you those of you who have been listening to the show for a while and now over a year on air here in National syndication, those have been listening to me for a while now. I have been very consistent on this point. This is going to grind along, and it's gonna chop up the lives of a whole bunch of folks that have nothing to do with conspiring with the Kremlin to mess with

a U. S election. But the left just wants they just want to feed bodies into the system that they just want scalps. They want people to be punished so that there is some sense of wrongdoing from the Trump camp, right just because if if anyone goes to pre it doesn't matter. What for if it's tax evasion, which may very well be involved in the Menaphort charge, well then they're bad people that around Trump. Keep Menaphort got canned during the campaign. It's not Trump's fault. If Manaford was

doing shady stuff in Ukraine beforehand and whatever. And as we all know, the Trump campaign was a little bit of an improvisation. I could say that an improvisation. And some of the people that were affiliated with an associate with the Trump campaign. And this also goes to a lot of the never Trump sentiment. You know, all the in the political world, the so called best and brightest and most connected, we're not going to work for Trump. At the beginning. I know because I know a lot

of those folks. They were running over to the Rubio and Cruise campaigns and Jeb Bush, although Jeb Jeb exclamation point fizzled out pretty quickly. But it was Rubio and Cruz that were attracting the political high rollers so to speak, in the in the early days, not Trump. And that's why Trump put such a premium on loyalty, because he he was really able to see, you know, who's who's with me? You know, it wasn't just who's with me because you think I'm gonna win, Who's with me because

they believe? But that meant that there were other people who were just opportunists, and Manafort was one of them, right manaforts Like yeah, sure, Donald, like I'll come and ride this way for a while with you. Why not, you know? And if I'll do it for some shady Ukrainians, I'll do it for you, right who cares well? Now? Manaforts in a in some trouble. Innocent until proven guilty,

but it looks like he's in a rough spot. Then you get this other guy today, and I have to read this to you, so I get to make sure I get all the specifics clear. The son in law, according the Washington Post, here son in law of Russian Uh well, here's what the opening paragraph is. The Dutch son in law of one of Russia's wealthiest men pleaded guilty Tuesday and Federal court in Washington to making false statements in Special Counsel Mueller's probe of Russian interference in

the US presidential election. Alex van der Zwan was charged with line to the FBI about his contacts with Rick Gates. Who's that who served as a top official on President Trump's campaign and a longtime business partner of former campaign chairman Paul Manafort. Based in London, Venders Juan worked for the law firms Scatting Arts, very famous, very high end uh law firm well known here in New York City.

A lot of my law school buddies wanted to go work there, which worked with Maniford and Gates when they served as political consultants in Ukraine. Uh So, this guy is thirty three years old and he's pleaded guilty to a felony. We don't know what his punishment's going to be. He could serve up to six months in prison. But now he's a convicted film which I would know what means that at least under US law. I mean he's a Dutch citizen. Under US law, he could uh not

practice law anymore as it convicted flans. I don't know how that affects him in Europe, but who knows. But here's the thing he talked about when he last spoke to Gates, and he was off by like a month. And they're saying that, you know, that's a big deal. It's an ice facing a federal criminal charge. What does this vendor's wound guy have to do with anything? Who knows? But Mueller's just he's just out taking people down. You

you know, say what you will about this. You can't look at this and not think, how does the Mueller? How do Mueller's tactics compared to the FBI's tactics with Hillary's emails. Just always keep that in the back of your mind and I think you'll understand what's really work here. Speaking of which Flynn, was Flynn ambushed? Did they stack the deck? Did they cheat to get Flynn's scalp. We'll

talk about that in just a few minutes. So there's been a lot of reporting on Russia collusion last few days. There's this whole indictment of the thirteen guys tied to the troll factories and the sock puppet maneuvers, all the stuff you've seen on Facebook, what we've been talking about

here on the show. But there's something else that's happening in the legal world right now that touches on these investigations over Russian interference and theoretical collusion and all this other stuff that has to do with the status of General Michael Flynn's plea plea do you? So, let's bring on somebody who has particular inside in this. We have

Margot Cleveland with us. She is a senior contribute to the Federalist and a lawyer who served nearly twenty five years as a career law clerk for federal Apple appellate judge and and AGC professor in the College of Business

at University of Notre Dame. And you are involved in this case, Margot, Well, I'm involved in the sense that I've been researching it after I started seeing the media just ignore all of these problems that have been coming out, and when I dug into it more, I realized that there is a huge issue of whether or not in the plea agreement there was information with help from Flynn. Hold On, let me just tell everybody what the title of Margot's pieces here, It's how a plea re per

soul from Michael Flynn could uncover more federal corruption. Margot, I read your whole piece. It's really interesting, I think very important. I'm somebody who it's very agitated about the possibility of federal overreach and prosecutorial misconduct, and this seems like it's at least possible right now and trending towards likely that there's something going on here with this. Can you walk us through what's what what may in fact be the case with this Flynn plea deal, and why

you're seeing it that way? Okay, sure, So after he put guilty. Within a week, the judge who accepted his guilty plea was taken off the case and a new judge was given the case, which by itself, that was pretty mysterious. Usually if there's a procusal, it would happen before they accept a plea deal. So that was the

first thing that kind of came out as weird. And then, um, it was last week there was a ending order that was entered in the case and it was the first time I took a look at it, and it required the government to turn over any exculpatory evidence to Flynn. And at that point it was actually a revised standing order. The judge had done it back in December, I think

it was. And when I looked at a little bit more, I thought, you know what, if there is this evidence that's not out there, this judge has given the green light that this is the basis to withhold the guilty play, I'm sorry to withdraw a guilty plate. Now whether or not the government withheld evidence, I don't know. We'd have to wait to see what comes out. But you've got to keep in mind who the players are in the

Flynn case. So we had that FBI duel the ones who were texting back and forth, and one of those was the individual who had actually interviewed Flynn, which is what he was charged with line to the FBI on So you look at that, and he originally, the FBI agent had originally said he didn't think Flynn was lying. Mure set he didn't think Flynn was lying. But then Flynn gets indicted on this. So can you how could

that be possible? Margot? I mean, you've got how could some FBI d o J officials think that someone did not lie and then that person is charged with lying for the circumstances under review. That just seems you know, how much faith can we put in the process when one FBI guy goes, no, there's no lie and another says, yeah, I think there's a lie, right, And and that's the part that's really concerning, that you have those statements and

then he gets charged. Now it could be that they had more evidence that contradicted something he said in the interview that came out later, or that showed that he really didn't forget the scenario that was that was some of the testimony, that he didn't recall something, or the inconsistent, see would be something that maybe he forgot, so who knows,

maybe they discovered something else. But when you look at all the players that were involved in this, they've got all of this stuff coming out that is throwing questions about their credibility. And if this comes forward, now the government has to turn over the savidence. And it sounds like that Flynn took the plea deal before he was given some of this exculpatory evidence. So again we don't know yet what this evidence is. But the judge who said,

on this case, excuse me, who is currently honest? Judge Sullivan? Right, Judge Sullivan. Yeah, he's He's a very interesting guy with some of his previous decisions too. He is not friendly to the government playing games with this exactly. He is the judge who when he discovered the withholding of evidence in Steven's in the in the Senator to Steven's case in Alaska, right, exactly exactly, he was irate. He ordered an investigation. He did not tolerate it. So if there

is nothing, I will absolutely trust Sullivan. So if Sullivan comes out and it clears it, I have no concerns about the flint component of it is it is it a settled matter? And we're speaking to Margot Cleveland. Everyone senior contribute to the federalist and she's a lawyer, Margot, is it a federal is a federalist? Sorry? Is it settled law that you if you take a plea deal exculpatory evidence that it's found later does not matter? How

does that work? So essentially forever listening, if they the Feds come to me and say you're looking at five years, or you plead guilty today and you'll get a six month suspended sentence, and if it came out you know two weeks after that that the Feds actually knew I was innocent all along. Does that matter? It depends on where you are. This is an issue that is not resolved in the court yet. And that was one of the things that I found interesting about Judge Fullisan standing order.

But the lower courts are actually is split on this. The Supreme Court has never said whether or not withholding exculpatory evidence in a plea case will result in the plea being thrown out. If it's withheld and you go to trial, you get a new trial. But in a plea case, the courts have different views but this is where it's key Judge Sullivan. Sullivan's view is that you must turn this evidence over, and if you don't, that

is a basis for a plea to be withdrawn. He is a district court judge in d C. And there are at least two, if not three, district court cases in d C that have held that. And again that's one of the key points that I was trying to make in this in this article, trying to take the kind of mushy legal stuff and make it pretty clear that in his court, if they withheld material exculpatory evidence, it would be a basis to withdraw a plea. So if it does get with drawn, we're going to know

there's some problems there. But if it does get withdrawn, I mean, Margot, I know you're you're you're a lawyer's you're keeping it right on the straight and error here, But I'm gonna come out and say, if they withdraw the plea, it's because Flynn was getting hosed and this was a setup. That's what that means to me. You don't have to agree with that, but that's how I see, right,

and I don't think that's necessarily the case. Flynn might have planned for valid reasons, maybe he knew he did something wrong, or he might have planed for invalid reasons that he was concerned about what it would do to his family and the long process, So it could have gone one way or the other from a personal standpoint. And then how how often does it defend in the federal case change a guilty plea unless there's new information that would change the status of their I mean, just

how I've never heard of that happening. Well, it actually happens where they try to do it a lot, and and usually it's not these high profile cases. But from my perspective, the bigger issue if he would draw us the plea is that the evidence was withheld. So you can kind of look at it two ways. There's the Flynn matter of him personally, and then there's a matter of what does this say about the prosecutors involved in the case. And I think the second issue is the

one that has broader ramifications. Obviously to Flynn it matters, but the broader ramifications if he is able to withdraw the plea is that this process was corrupted. That's what That's what I mean. It would seem to me pretty clear that we're dealing with a bunch of prosecutorial headhunters here, which is not a good thing when you're talking about

an open ended, massive special counsel investigation. Oh. Absolutely, And and just to clarify, what I mean is Flynn could have done something wrong, whether or not the prosecutors were good or bad. But the problem of the plea going through in this context is it is showing that there

would be broader corruption if this providence was withheld. And I do want to make one more point here that this is really tying into the whole Phis A Court process, which really triggered my interest in this when I read the House memo that came out and then the Grassly Grand memo. The process of the five A Court was completely abused from what they said in those memos, and I wrote a couple of articles on that that you

can take a look at it the federalists. But this all is going to a broader problem with how the Department of Justice is handling things, or I should say, select individuals. And to me that shocking because I've known some U S. Attorney's assistants, attorneys who have the most integrity, and to me, this is what is the most disturbing about it. But when we saw from the Ted Stevens thing, for example, Senators Ted Stevens, if that doesn't happen, by

the way, we probably don't have Obamacare. For everybody listening, a bunch of federal prosecutors knew that he had expeltatory evidence and they hit it. It was terrible exactly. They literally were like, oh, we know this guy is innocent, let's nail him anyway because he's got in our next to his name and he's a senator from Alaska. That's what happened there. Margot Cleveland, everybody check out her piece how a plea reversal from Michael Flynn could uncover more

federal corruption. It is really compelling reading. It's up on the Federalist dot com. Margot, please stay with it and if you have updates, we would love to have you back to explain what's going on here. Okay, great, sounds wonderful, Thanks so much, Thanks so much, Margot. Alright, team, we're

gonna roll into a break. We come back. We are going to talk with our friend Sean Davis about what's going on with the various fixes that are or whether the fixes or not, the various actions that people are talking about on guns in the as a result of the tragedy and Florida. We'll get into that more. Stay with me, Welcome back everyone. So we have been talking a lot about guns here in the Freedom Hunt because of what happened in Florida. This is the center of

the national policy discussion right now. It's not immigration, it's not even Russia right now. It is in fact, guns, the Second Amendment, gun control, what to do about school shootings. So there are proposals now on the table. Unlike in some previous shootings, there are at least real ideas that are being forward and not by everyone, but by some, and therefore we should spend some time looking at them and judging them on their merits. And to help us do that now we have Sean Davis. He is co

founder of The Federalist. The Federalist dot com is one of my favorite commentary sites. You guys should all be quite familiar with it. Shawn's the co founder and he joins us now. Sean, thank you so much, Thank you for having me. Can you just let's let's work through what are some of the the biggest takeaways in terms

of policy from the horrible tragedy in Florida. I mean, I can throw some of your way Sean also, if there's any I'm leaving out, but I just wanted to start with, what do you think about age restrictions for buying an A R. I'm seeing that get a lot of play. I think they're utterly silly, devoid of information on who's responsible for the bulk of mass shootings, and just you know, fundamentally at odds with what we know about how criminals work and about how human nature works.

For example, rost out that at the New York Times said, you know what, because all these shooters are young men, we shouldn't let anyone under thirty by an a R fifteen, which number one. It's just it's so silly. There's so many other guns out there that are are more powerful, have a bigger range, better terminal ballistics, and yet d a R has captured UH gun controllers imagination for some reason.

And then the other issues, looking at the actual data of who commits mass shootings in the US, you would think, looking at news coverage that it's always alienated young men, teenagers, early twenties, and that's just not the case. In fact, the majority fifty five percent of mass students in this country are committed by middle aged men. Men between the ages of thirty and fifty is the majority of mass

shootings in the US. So these age based restrictions, they are their wild attempts to try to come up with some way, somehow to ban this gun or that gun, but they're just not rooted in the reality of what's happening.

I think that's the You've made a number of points and everybody should keep in mind, but the the the one that sticks out the most for me is that this would not go to the heart of the problem because you're not even necessarily going to legally never mind their illegal possession of weapons, which we know is always also an issue that comes in here, but too legally possessed weapons. People in the age range of mass shooters, there will be plenty of them that will be able

to get them. As you said, so people over thirty are engaged in plenty of mass shootings too, So that wouldn't stop the problem. Okay, So that one doesn't seem like it that that falls in that category for me, Shaun. If people say, well, how big a deal is it?

I would also point out that there's no way it would stop at just the a R fifteen because the you ban or you you have an age based restriction for the a R. People would rightfully say, well, it's not really that different from a lot of other rifles, and then bam, you'd have a list of like fifty

to rifles minimum right there. There's no saving a gun controller um, because you know, once you get grant the principle that it's okay to band this gun or that gun or this calibra, that caliber, there's no limiting principle on it. Um. And I guess we've talked about this before. My big complaint with this debate is it's not actually about guns. It's not about gun control. What we are having is a debate with guns is proxies about human nature.

In the nature of man. There are people on one side of the debate who thinks that if you congest regulate these tools have the right mix of laws, you can regulate out of the heart of man an inclination or ability to do evil. And then on the other side you have people who say, you know what, people have been murdering each other for the entirety of human history. Uh, you know, going back to the very beginning, and the most wicked, devastating tool of death that has ever been

devised is the wicked human heart. And rather than pretending like we can just put these things under lock and key and then bad people won't want to do bad things, maybe we should give good people the ability to defend themselves against the bad people. The whole debate, I would I would agree with with everything that you just deserted.

I would also add to it that I think that guns becomes also an ideological proxy battleground for the cultural left and the right that it's just a way of showing, you know, the people and Blue strongholds coastal areas and Democrats strongholds of the country, they don't like people who

own guns. They actually they think that people who own guns are roobs and hillbillies and their gross and so this is one of the reasons why it becomes such an emotional issue for them, because it's a way of throwing, you know, throwing some stuff at the other guys. No,

I think that's exactly right. It's it's a cultural chivalist um and in fact, in a lot of quarters, especially in media, you know, we mock people on the left for not knowing the slightest thing about guns and just messing up in embarrassingly bad ways, basic stuff like at one point USA Today said a hot new accessory creation the chains I knew you're gonna go with the chainsaw on the rail system. That's my favorite too. How can

I not go after the chainsaw? Theyonet so, but they that ignorance is almost a badge of a badge of courage. It signifies that they are not going to solely themselves, um, but by getting into the mud with these icky, knuckle dragging buck tooth hillbilly gun clingers, and you know they're they are so much more high minded they don't even need to learn about I've said this and I'm so

happy that someone someone agrees with me. Sean, I've been saying that it is viewed as an issue where it's the only issue I know of in journalism where to be wrong is actually to score points among your own

because it shows your disdain for the issue. It's like it's the equivalent of if a of the announcer ever brings somebody on TV and doesn't have their name right, that's like the most one oh one thing ever, and you can assume that a lot of times they would only do it because I don't even care to know this person's name with the gun with the anti gun crowd in journalism, they didn't even care to know the difference between automatic and a semi automatic because it doesn't

matter because they're all bad. That's actually the mentality they have. It is, it is, and they'll get mad at you if you nitpick them on stuff like that, like, oh, because I didn't know this was a Ruger versus a Rimington's, and I can't regulate guns that when it's actually no. The last time you tried this, you regulated guns by feature and you put stupid features on there that had absolutely nothing to do with anything, and then patted yourselves on the back for having done a real good job.

And in fact, one of the people who backed that fault weapons ban, Carolyne McCarthy New York, was asked on National TV about one of those cosmetics features that was listed and banned in the law, and it was with Tucker Carlson. He said, okay, you you banned a barrel for out what's the barrel shroud? And she himmed in hod it was appeared she had no idea what it was. And finally she said, oh, it's the shoulder thing that

goes up. Like, you can't have people with that level of knowledge writing into law specific definitions that banned this thing or that thing. You actually have to know what you're doing, just as you wouldn't want a mechanic who didn't know the difference between a ranch and a screwdriver taking apart your engine. It's just dumb. And also let me that these bands they put in place, people can get arrested for this stuff. I think that's often lost here.

It's not like we're no longer offering this product at your local CDs or something. If they put a magazine ban in place in a certain state, they will arrest people for that there. And in looking back again at the nineties four law, they had things on there like, you know, if it has a bayonet lug, not even

a beyonet, a bayonet lug, it's ban. Or if it has a muzzle break or a collapsible stock, well, you know what people did to get around it is they would pen and weld the stock, and then they would pen and weld level device under the barrel cut off suddenly it's compliance. The gun functionally was no difference than it was before. I want to ask you. We're speaking to Sean Davis of The Federalist, Everybody's co founder of the Federalist. You can check out his latest on the website.

UM one that that is getting a lot of attention. And then I think is a is a good faith effort and at least worthy of discussion. Well, I guess they're all worthy discussion, but worthy of perhaps further investigation. Is David French in National Review. Although he said it's not his idea, he's forwarding the proposal for a temporary restraining order for the purchase of firearms. What say you, Sean Davis, and correct me if I'm wrong. He was

talking about related to mental health. Correct, yes, sorry, So I should have explained it. So it's a it's a it's a temporary straining order based on a mental health adjudication to prevent somebody for a period of time for forgetting a gun. They'd have to go in front of a cord. There obviously be some So this was essentially a version of a much because it's very hard to get somebody adjudicated mentally incompetent, which is a good thing because we actually don't want people to be able to

be locked away unless there's very good reason. But this would be to say, hey, look, the same way that you can't have a gun because of a domestic violence conviction in the past, or if you've ever been the order, have you ever been under a protective order? I believe there's also some restrictions in some states. UH in this case, if the people around you think you're nuts, you can go before a judge that they can say, all right, you for this period of time, no gun for you.

You know, I like David French a lot. I know where he's coming from. UM. In principle, I don't have a problem with his idea. I think that's fine. In practice, I have lots of concerns because it's there's just so many things that go into the details of that. You know, what's going to re required, what's the evidentiary standard, what's your ability UM to go and argue your own case

in court. If it turns out a bunch of co workers or neighbors who are mad at you, UM have decided, you know, they don't like these gun humps, so they're gonna get this guy's guns taken away, but assuming it could all be done in a good faith way where you can mitigate or eliminate the the chances of chicanery or revenge based targeting of gun owners. I don't have

a problem with it. I think that I think it's totally fair what I wish we would do, however, rather than everyone trying to come up with clever new laws to put on the books, I really do wish we would enforce the laws that we have now, because what we had in Florida was a kid who told me envisited thirty nine times he had put on YouTube that he wanted to shoot up at school. All his classmates knew it, the FBI knew it, and they did nothing.

So what on earth is a new law going to do when you have a regime which we saw in Florida where all of the warning signs were there, everyone knew this guy was a ticking time bomb and nobody didn't think about it. Jean, is there anything that you think that really was there anything that's at the top of your list before we let you go, that you

think should be done here in response to the shooting? Yeah? Absolutely, I think, um, knowing what we do about each cowards to love targeting defense with people who can't shoot back, um, knowing what we do about that. Maybe we should stop making our schools completely defenseless and soft targets. Maybe we should give teachers and employees and administrators who are already licensed by the state to carry a concealed weapon. Maybe

they've gone through extra training. You're already trusting these people with your children all day long. It's about time we give people who are already trained and licensed to do this stuff the right to protect the children under their

charge while they're at school. Let's stop broadcasting to these evil cowards so they can go into these gun free zones and turn them into free fire zones and start sending the message that if you set foot on this campus with a gun intent on doing harm, we're going to put you down. Sean Davis, co founder of the Federalists. Check out the Federalist dot com for more of their writing. Sean, always appreciate you make the time. My friend talks soon.

It's a pleasure, sir. Thank you say we're gonnaroll into a quick break. Will be right back. So I see that Jay Law was initially reported, and for those who are not into this kind of stuff, I'm assuming that a very small percentage of this audience subs ribs to People magazine or reads US weekly. My only connection to pop culture is Miss Molly. She keeps me informed, so I don't say things like, you know, who are who

are the Kardashians again or whatever. She makes sure that I know what's going on in the world other than politics and national security and political philosophy and whatnot. But it turns out that Jay law Jennifer Lawrence, actress of many films, is not taking a break from acting for the I initially thought she was, and I came on, I was gonna say, oh no, because you know, truth be told him kind of a jailaw fan. You know, I appreciate, I celebrate her whole catalog. I think it's

it's got a nice, nice body of work. Um. And yet here we are being told in advance that we can expect there to be some politics coming out of Miss ms Lawrence the next year because activism to celebrities, they never do activism. That's not at least I never hear about. Maybe that's a better way to put it. I never hear about activism that isn't in the realm of progressive virtue signaling. Why can't we have more celebrities whose activism is I want to, you know, raise lots

of money for charter schools in the inner city. I want to raise lots of money for uh A specific cancer research program or whatever it is, all these good things. I mean, you know, I'd like to see more really big name celebrities out there that are are raising money for you know, St. Jude's. Why is it that we always have these celebrities that are global warming I got to go to international summits and talk about global warming, or you know, it's it's always a transgender rights global warming,

just something that's in the progressive vanguard. I would have so much more respect for what they're doing if they leverage their celebrity for something that was just clearly of public benefit and not some form of brand enhancement for themselves. Because when you do things like you know, Leonardo DiCaprio with this whole climate change thing. The guy's literally flying around the world on his private jet to go to

climate change meetings. You know, talk about this and they're not to be mean, but I mean, I don't even think the guy. I think it's unlikely the guy has like a tenth grade reading level, and yet he's gonna lecture the whole world on the most among the most complicated scientific issues facing the international community today. Although I don't think it's really I don't think the answer is that complative. The answer is we don't really have to do anything, and it's gonna be fine. But I know

people yell at me for that. Don't use the paper bags, buck, don't use them. Why what's gonna happen? The earth will mouth? Uh? Anyway, So Jay Law is gonna be doing activism next year. I saw that today. She's good. I mean, I like Jay Law. Not not quite as good as Jessica Biel, but she's close. You know, they're they're in a similar similar category. Um, And I'm gonna switch out to George Clooney before I get myself into trouble. And George Clooney

is also talking about doing more politics. Now they're saying maybe even Clooney twenty. Now here's the thing about that, And just this is not a knock on the Trump presidency. It's just a statement of reality. Until now, when a well known celebrity said he or she was thinking about running for the presidency. It was an understandable reaction for a lot of us to just say, oh, that's a version of brand enhancement, right, this is a lot of free press, and you know, they'll get their name out there.

But remember, if we're gonna be honest about it. When Donald Trump was first running in this twenty six cycle, a lot of people said that about Trump. A lot of people. I remember that White House corp White House or was it the White House cor Respondence dinner where Obama made a Trump joke or was it the other Yeah, I think like the Smith dinner. I forget what it's called. Anyway, they made a joke about Trump, you know what I'm talking about. Yeah, they made he made some joke about Trump.

Obama did, and Trump was just like, oh really, it was the correspondence dinner. Yeah, that's right. And and Trump was just like, oh really, oh really. And then later when he started to run, people were like, this is all a publicity stunt. Well, clearly it wasn't. Because he's now the president of the United States. That just means that when you've got a celebrity, now whether it's Clooney

or Oprah or any of them. You are in a position where you gotta at least look at it on the merits and say, okay, maybe maybe what would George Clooney be a formidable political candidate? I'm not sure, but I can't say definitely not because the guy looks like a political candidate, which unfortunately means a lot these days because of our mass media environment. It's all chain so much,

hasn't it. You know, did anybody in like eighteen eighty know what the president even looked like or sounded like. I mean a few people did, but for the most part, you voted for a platform. You have some rough idea of what you know this guy or that guy stood for. Maybe you heard him at a speech, you know. I mean back in the day, the presidents were like doing their own dry cleaning, and it was a very different,

very different environment. Now it's all about mass media. Now it's all about the propaganda involved here, and uh, well, it's propagand if you think it's a bad thing, it's just public relations. If you think it's a good thing, but you have celebrities that are gonna increasingly get an apolot there's no question about it. They're gonna get into politics.

That's gonna be a result of Trump's success, just a side effect, you could say, of a reality TV star what she was, who is now the commander in chief and the leader of the free world. I don't think that j Law is gonna go quite in that direction, but I'd be I'd be torn, you know, there's a part of me that would be like, come on, Jay Law, we can make you a conservative. Yet, although I'm sure, I'm sure her politics are very progressive and annoying, and

I'm okay with some level of that. I'm all right with people that have their own beliefs and thoughts but aren't too aggressive about mixing the platform they have for one thing, in this case, acting with their political political prescriptions for the rest of us. But we know that's not how it goes That's not how it goes down. They always they always try to, oh I'm at the oscars, let me make my political speech now, right, It's not

like they're generally separating these things out. So we'll see Jane Law, Clooney, probably some others out there are going to get into the game too. We'll see where all this ghost team. Um, we're gonna talk to you about stress in a moment. Got some thoughts on it. Stay with me. I like to share a little bit of wisdom that I've acquired in my thirty six years on this earth. A lot of you were like, yeah, whipper snapper, double that number and then listen to your wisdom. But nonetheless,

I think that I have picked up some things. Maybe I'm sharing it for my my younger millennials, my not yet gray bearded millennial listeners, and some others. But one of the things that I've I've come to understand as I get older, is that it is on you as an individual to figure out what works for you in terms of managing stress. I don't think there's nearly enough that is talked about. There's nearly enough talk in our

society about this specific issue. And when you look at any number of ailments out there, you see that stress is a direct contributor and in some cases, I would I would argue the root cause of some of the problems that you see out there. I mean, stress obviously goes.

Cardiac events are related to stress, and heart heart disease and UH and cancer are still you know, the two big lethal diseases that we have to worry about in this country, but stresses in everyday life, and it's really important to get a sense of how you can manage

it yourself. I just I'm thinking about it because the average American, according to this study that was linked up on the Drudge Report today, the average American has sixty bad days a year according to the survey, which means you spend two months a year thinking that you're having a bad day. So it's it's more than just having a case of the mondays, because that would be fifty two, right, So it's so you get you're averaging over we the American people are averaging over one bad day each week.

And eighty percent of those twenty four hour periods that are ranked in this survey as stressful are from work related stress, which I would have assumed. There's other stuff too that are that are cited in the study illness,

financial worries, feeling unclean or disheveled. Now, I've had some days where I felt unclean or disheveled in the office that ruined my day in my previous career before media, but I have to tell you that those were self induced um, I had no one to blame but myself for wearing the same clothing to the office the next day. The headache that I may or may not have been nursing was the result of active decision making on my part.

And while I may have been in throbbing and lingering pain for the day at the office, in my earlier days, sometimes it was worth it. I'm just saying there were times when it was. It was an even trade off, right. It's like misery at work, keeping the waste paper basket close and still worth it, still worth it. Not anymore now I'm like, oh my gosh, somebody, somebody tries to get me to drink more than two glasses of anything. I'm like, oh god, come on, what's going on here.

I know I'm a I'm a lightweight, but it is what it is. You got you gotta understand who you are. You know, know thyself to thine own self be true, said the buffoon halona Us in Hamlet. People always think Hamlets said it. No, you know who you know who corrected us as a country on that one share from Clueless. That's why we all know that line now, see very

important movie. So anyway, so you get sixty seven per cent of an individual's uh se percent rather of an intervitor's dissatisfaction or any given day was related to sleep. You gotta get enough sleep. This is you know. My parents told me this growing up all the time, and they were totally right. And I would stay up super late and then I have to get up. And I remember going and going into my high school and just feeling day after day like I was in some zombie

state of about to fall over any minute. Its because I didn't getenough of sleep. I go to bed, like to two o'clock in the morning. Mom's listening, She's like, really, you're up that late. Yeah. Sometimes I would just stay up. Parents are go to bed, like watch TV, watch HBO at two am. There was some interesting stuff on HBO a two am. So anyway, I would stay up super late. It's really really bad for you. We all have this us.

We all have our our achilles heel, whether it's financial, whether it's just dealing with workplace situations, or any number of things. How you manage it is one of the most important things in life. It really is, I mean not important on an existential being, a virtuous, worthwhile person level. But important on a how you're taking care of yourself, and I finally taken care of yourself. It is so

very very important. I used to think certain things were maybe a little frivolous or oh no, no, no, You've got to find what whether if you gotta get some outdoors time to paint, if you gotta watch birds, if you The main thing they talk about in here is actually getting to the gym, which I know all of us are like, uh gosh, I mean I have the same thing. I'm like, I gotta go to the gym.

I feel like a hamster on a wheel, a hamster that you know shouldn't have eaten so many bacon cheeseburgers this week that all said, I've never left the him, and I always trying to remind myself of this. It's like one of the struggles that I have day day to day. I've never gone to the gym and left the gym, been like I wish I hadn't done that, And yet and yet every day I'm like, I'm kind of tired. I got a lot of I got a radio show to get ready for. I don't think I

really want to do this. Probably the most important single stress relief you can do and and in fact, ah, sleeping is is critical, right, Sleeping is really really really essential. And that means also if you have to take catchup naps the next day, twenty minute naps. They've done a lot of study on it, really really important. You don't

have to call it a CS tho. We don't have to make this some big cultural event, you know, it doesn't necessarily have to involve uz uzo and like lying out in the sun by the beach, although that sounds really nice actually now, but like it doesn't have to be. I'm thinking of Greek he has to the only place I've ever really spent much time where they had that.

But um, the other thing that you should keep in mind is that for people actually who are older now, they are finding more and more that weight bearing exercise is critical, really good for your for your sense of well being, really good for your physical and for your mental health. I think that we haven't yet made this switch as a culture because people think of weight training generally as some guy who like has no knack who's in the gym and is trying to lift some giant thing.

But it doesn't have to be heavyweights. But it's just resistance training for older people. And so anybody fifty five and above, resistance training means you're gonna be you know, limber and spry and energetic and on it longer. And the research on all this is very compelling. So and it also is really helpful for dealing with stress people. And this survey also said they have a drink when

they're really stressed. You know, sometimes sometimes you've got to sit back and have a a glass of whatever your favorite is. You know, it's all about it's all about moderation. I believe the ancient Greeks referred to it as metron, a state of perfect balance. They tried to achieve this in all things physically, philosophically. Oh yes, sometimes you just bring ancient Greece into a conversation because and I think I just did that. But it is important to achieve balance.

So I'm just saying, we're all stressed folks. We've all got our stuff, family, stress, work, stress, everything else. If you've got less than sixty rough days a year, you're doing well. According to this study, most folks have about sixty bad days a year, and regardless of whether it's a hundred bad days, or ten bad days. How you deal with them is just critical because I'm telling you know, because constructive ways of relieving stress means you'll have fewer

bad days. I don't care what the sign says in that, I just know that that's true. So some some free Graybeard millennial life wisdom on the show today. We are going to run into a quick break and we'll be right back. Well. I tend not to talk about the weather here on the show because you've got a lot of other radio stations that do that. But I'm just gonna gloat for us second that it is uh so gorgeous right now in New York City. I think it's in the high sixties right now. I mean it is.

It is crazy warm in this town, which for this time of year feels is very very very unexpected. I'm hoping that wherever you're listening across the country, you also maybe took the chance to go outside and see if you could enjoy a little white zin. You know, yeah, at sixties six degrees here in New York, so you know, across the country, I'm assuming it's got to be pretty warming. Some places, I think, oh yeah, we're getting crushed with like a winter storm in a couple of days. That

sounds about right. Yeah, that's what I thought. I was all happy for a moment here. I was gonna maybe go up to the roof of my building tonight. And it also makes me want to make snarky remarks about global warming. One of the problems that I've always had, Never mind the inaccuracies around the previous predictions and all the hysteria of people who are just so deeply, deeply

concerned earned with global warming, I'm still flabbergasted. Fun word that we should throw around more that when you ask somebody of the stature of say Melinda Gates of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the richest people in the world or in the top two or three. I think sometimes depending on how what kind of day Bezos is having, he may be number one, but among the very richest

people in the world. And you ask Bill and the Lindia Gates with their biggest concern is and they're trying to deal with h diseases like malaria and others, and sure enough you'll find out that it is it is climate change that is their number one concern. Speaking to a friend of mine about this, earlier today. I just couldn't believe it, he said there, and I'm like, wow, people at that level, with that access to expertise and knowledge and information, and sure enough, but it would be nice.

Or the reason I bring this up is that much of the country would be in great shape if it got an average of two or three degrees a year warmer. And people say all the seas would rise. We got a lot of land will be all right. Land has been shifting continuously, as we know, over time, and there is no such thing as a perfect temperature. There's no such thing as global homeostasis. To bring back a word from anatomy class, which is your body trying to maintain

an equilibrium homeostasis. It's fun to throw it out there sometimes, like, hey, how are you feeling? I hit my homeostasis today. Oh really, as a matter of fact, I did. Anyway, it's warm here. It's not global warming, but it will be fine with me if it were. Uh. So there you have it, all right, Let's get to some Let's get some roll call. Please, Team Buck, it's time for roll call. I love our voiceover guy. His voice is awesome roll call. So let's

get it going here. Uh, Daniel writes in with the following, Hey, Buck, are there going to be more episodes of Shields High? The fourth step fourth episode was the last one I listened to back in January. I've been itching to hear more, Daniel. The answer is yes. The problem is there's just not enough Buck to go around these days. I'm I'm running ragged, as they say, trying to keep up with all my various responsibilities and obligations. And Shields High as a labor

of love. I just put it out there because I like it and and you have asked for it, and that's why we It's a it's an additional product that we've done here in the Freedom Hunt, and it's just out there for people to listen to and folks to

enjoy and who believe in the brand. I'm actually gonna be speaking to a friend this week, someone I work with, about whether we might be able to find an even better home for it on buck Sexton dot com, and the idea being that then I could also add links and reading material and make it a really more fully interactive experienced photos and or really paintings, not photos of paintings. Right, there's no photo graphs that I know of in the

fifteenth century at least. Uh no photographs back then, and uh yeah, So thank you for your your question about it, and I know I'm I really enjoy doing it too. But as you can imagine, it takes up quite a bit of time. And the more you guys spread it around we look at the numbers, the more folks listen to it and and share it and interest there is the easier days for me to ask the bosses here to let me devote time and resources to it. Glenn, Glenn is the next up at bad Here Netflix, Amazon

suggestion Longmire is great, but have you tried Justified? Timothy Oliphant is the star, although the co star, Walton Googin's his character Boyd, is great. I think it is on Amazon Prime. Yes, I can tell you, Glenn, I have tried Justified. I got a few episodes in and did not finish it for reasons that I cannot think of right now. I probably just got distracted with something else. Um, but I've heard very good things and what I saw was very good, so I'll probably go back and check

it out again. It had a great pilot, which is so essential both in getting a show made from a production standpoint, and then in drawing people in to listen to it. Uh. Next we get Michael here with oh, but thank you, I would not for the for the suggestion. Miss Molly and I are are going back and forth now between the marvelous Mrs Mazel, which I highly recommend, Brandon, uh and Mike. But Mike's not here right now in the room. Have you seen it? No, I'm telling you

that you have Netflix right yeah. Oh no, it's on Amazon Prime. Do you have Amazon Prime? No? See, that's the thing I would recommend the marvelous Mrs Mazel to any of you are listening. It's Uh, it's fun for me, especially because a lot of it is filmed in and around places I know in New York City. Ah. Then there's also Ozark, which I'm liking more than I thought I would. If you liked Breaking Bad, as I said, you have to check out Ozark. I really should get

like Netflix to sponsor the show. I'm like a Netflix fiend, old books, Netflix and take out food. That's pretty much the center of my fun wheelhouse. That's that's what gets me going. Oh and coffee, of course, black rifle coffee. I feel like garths sometimes in Wayne's World, when he's got the spot, he's got all the sponsor gear on. Yeah, that's right. We were in bed. You need copeat sponsors. He's covered in reebok And that's one of the great Waynes World is a great movie too. Um, but I

do drink black rifle. I love it, and I love coffee. Next up here is James. Um. I've been solving New York Times styled cross words for about four decades. One of the most frequently used abbreviations uh in the grades is n r A. Clueing comes off as Second Amendment defenders, Warren Lapierre's organization, peace loving Group, etcetera. I've practically written in n r A over three to five written in pardon me, over three to five thousand times in the grids.

That's that seems like a lot. So my question to you is can I expect to see n r A reclude or use less often in the puzzles? Why can't the New York Times be more likely more like the daily twenty square inches of decency of plumb, thought, provoking, ingenuity, etcetera. Uh, great job on your show, Buck and shields high, James, I have a confession to make. I have never done a crossword puzzle in a newspaper I think. Ever, it's

actually just not something I've ever done. So I have no knowledge, background, or insight to offer on this whatsoever. I'm just not a crossword puzzle guy. I did play some chess growing up, so I enjoyed chess, and I'm better at chess than I let on. I always downplay, like I can barely play because I like to hustle people. You could call me a chess shark. That means that you know I wear like a shiny leather, shiny leather vest and a pocket protector at the same time. Yeah,

what's up, chess shark? Uh? But anyway, I was I was thinking of one of those those jackets that people used to wear and like the seventies that are I don't know, I is it vinyl. I don't know if it's whatever it is. I was trying to, like, like with the wide collar and the big chain and everything with leisures. Yeah, like a leaser, So I got a leaser shoe. Well, lease your suit while I'm playing chess. So therefore I also wear my pocket protector because I

don't want to get ink stains in my shirt pocket. Yeah. Next up we have uh Jen who is Oh? Jen is asking me if I can do an interview for her international TV news outlet. Well, um, I don't know, Jen. I just saw this now, so let me get back to you in a few minutes. I don't even know what this is, what this is talking about. I'll have to check this. Sometimes this happens, folks. Producers reach out to you on Facebook and they're like, hey, you want

to come to The BBC tends to do that. So whenever I see the BBC writing me on Facebook, it's like, hey, they missed Sexton. Just wondering perhaps you could give us five minutes of your time to come on the radio show later. We're hoping you can give this a former Central Intelligence age see Perspective on the following I'm all BBC emails are read in my head in that voice. That's how I just assume that's how they go. So, oh, here we go. Paul Paul's writing into chied me a

little bit. That's okay, Paul, remember the team you can. I want friendly and constructive criticism to just not all caps profane criticism. But Paul writes in in very very friendly manner. Change the narrative, Buck, quit talking about the Russian collusion, and start talking about the Trump economic success. Paul. I certainly try to do that, and I will keep trying to do that. So let's just say that I appreciate the helpful reminder. Without my friends, Freedom Hunt is

closing up for the day. Thank you, as always for being here until next time, which is tomorrow. Shields High