This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. No, hey, everybody, welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Coming to you from Washington, d C.
Got a busy show today, folks. The Hunt for a non September, which is what I'm calling that editorial writer, the anonymous editorial writer in the White House, the deep State Manifesto, another thing that I've come up with for it. Trump is expected to declassify some reporting on that, declassifying the FISA memo that was used, well, the FISA memos in general that we're used for surveillance of Carter Page. Also, Joseph miff sued the professor that Papadompolis interactively. He may
be dead. Obama is back. Jim Carrey says, we have to say yes to socialism, and Serena Williams freaks out, and then the social justice left comes to her aid, let's get right to it with the the latest on the the Hunt for Anonymous September, the Hunt for a non September. I have to say I was originally of the mindset that they would find out who this was it was. It was originally in my thought process I figured that this was a situation where they would definitely
out the person and just a question of when. Now I'm thinking, actually, maybe not, because the power of this editorialist comes from the anonymity in a sense, right, the media likes this because it creates this gray area, this gray space for all of the anti Trumper's out there to come up with a different reason for Hey, you know what, maybe this is John Kelly. Hey, maybe it's
some other really important person in the White House. If we were to find out that this wasn't a particularly important person, then we would all be in a position where we've got to take a long, hard look at the editorial guidelines of the New York Times, which is
just a resistance rag. I mean, I don't think we really have to be all that cautious about saying that right in the New York Times is very honestly place that is opposed to the President of the United States, um And then honestly, from my perspective, right, they're not
honest about it. That's the problem. On the problem is they still lie, but you know, you had over the weekend Kelly and Conway and others going on the Sunday shows, and they were taking the perspective on this, you know, the various administration surrogates taking the perspective, well, of course the person is cowardly and that this is so terrible and the media shouldn't be focused on this at all. What I would add to all of this is that
it doesn't It doesn't change anything. The only thing you have here is somebody running around the White House who has delusions of grandeur. It doesn't change the perceptions from the Trump side or the anti Trump side of what's really going on in the White House. Doesn't tell us
anything particularly new. What it does do is open up endless rounds of speculation from the media about just exactly what has happened here, and uh, you know, how powerful this person, maybe how close his or her relationship with Trump? Maybe so. I but I think that the media doesn't really want to find out. And that's the big shift in my thinking on this. That's why I'm saying it's the hunt for a non September I don't think that they really are going to it's gonna scratch it this
at all. I think they're just gonna let it be. We know that the New York Times obviously knows a number of people there no now they would say they would protect this person interestingly enough as a source, I guess, but they're not really. It's not really a source. It's an editorial writer. It's a little different. It feels a little different at least. And remember, all of these rules, folks, are guidelines. They are not hard and fast truths. So
you have you have that happening right now. I don't think that they're going to find the person, and I think the media is complicit and continuing to to hide the football on that one. And then you have another series of stories that all tying together all around the Russia collusion fantasy you have. For one, Trump is expected soon, according to Axios here and other places, Trump may declassify. Trump may decide to declassify the entirety of the Russia
probe FISA documents. Now, we've seen some of the FISA documents with extensive redactions. What we've seen so far proves that, yes, the dossier was, in fact a very important part of all this, and that the members of the Congress and the media who were claiming that the dossier was essentially just thrown in there. I was like, you know, why not that they're lying that that was not true? Now
they're only saving groce. Up to this point. The only thing that prevents it from being completely irrefutable that the document was a opposition hit piece essentially being passed around the FBI is that they must have additional sourcing, real good, deep level sourcing on this one. And I just don't see that being possible, or I shouldn't say possible, and I see that being very unlikely. I don't think that's
going to be the case at all. And they are gonna try and do everything in their power to hide this under national under the guise of national security, They're gonna say, well, we can't for national security reasons, we cannot allow this information to get out there. Meanwhile, what about the balancing of the presidency with the national security
concerns here? What about the fact that in this instance, you're talking about a FISER request that has been used as the basis for an investigation essentially, or FISER not just requests, but fights a program finds a surveillance jim box in a presidential administration really to try and continue a silent coup, which is what I think we should all recognize. This whole ridiculous collusion investigation is turned into
an effort at a silent coup. That that's what they see is that's why the people who have been pushing it all along. You'll notice that they get frustrated that it's not more successful, but they're not worried even if they find out at the end of the day, at the end of the investigation, that everything they've been saying is wrong. It served much of the original purpose would was to hurt Trump. That's why they were doing this, That's why they pushed so hard for it in the
early days. If you really look at the whole Russia collusion investigation, you see that it was completely unnecessary. Based on d J guidelines, the Department of Justice could have done all the Russia interference aspects of the investigation. The only way you had a conflict of interest that necessitated some kind of special counsel. Uh situation comes specifically from the notion that the Trump administration was a part of the problem, or that the Trump campaign was a part
of the problem. That's the only reason you have a special counsel. And then when you add into it the uh, the Komby firing, which she realize is that this has just been all a manufactured narrative from the left from the very beginning. That's what's that's what's been going on here, and and that's in the at the end of the day,
that's what we're gonna see happened. That's why I agree with many other voices out there right now who are saying, you got to release all the information, just declassify it. Enough is enough, and that way we can finally make then we can finally come to the conclusions about what
really happened here. I would just note that one of the problems that you're gonna come up with is that even if as crazy as this sounds, even if they declassify more of this and you're able to see it, even if Trump releases those fines the docs, they're gonna say, oh, well, okay, the dossier might maybe was a bigger part of this process than we initially thought. But the dossier I still
could be true. We're all we're gonna be swept up in a could be, would be, could be true situation very quickly we're gonna move away from the realm of facts and logic and reason and into the depths of
Trump's arrangement syndrome. That's what's going to happen here. Uh, speaking of Trump's arrangement syndrome, you know, you think that in an era when what they call uh slut shaming, for example, which is a term used by feminists on the left to talk about any time a woman is being demeaned for being too overt in her sexuality or for her sex life, you think that federal prosecutors would be a little bit more circumspect about such things, right,
given the possible public outcry. But Maria Boutina, who is being held without bail, I would like to know. So she's being held as though she were a Yes, I know it's because she's a flight risk, but they're they're holding or because they say that you know, she could leave the country. Meanwhile, usually when you can't have bailiffs because you either violated the terms of your bail or your a risk to the public or a really serious flight risk for a really serious crime. In this case,
her crimes are not registering as a foreign agent. Not particularly serious stuff. Folks, generally you pay a fine for that one. It's already been handed off. So it's not the Mueller probe that's handling Maria Boutina. But prosecutors, you may recall, put out the story. They put out the story that Russian national Maria Boutina was exchanging sex, or at least offered to exchange sex for access as part of her political machinations. Right as part of her Russian
agent operations. She was a honeypot. Essentially, she she was offering up sex to people who she thought could get her access to important Republican American decision makers. And you'd think that they would only go out with that kind of character destroying information if it really really true. Turns out, the prosecutors, now, folks, I'm not making this up. Terms of the prosecutors have said, whoop see, looks like we
were wrong about that one. We misinterpreted a text message chain and she really wasn't offering up sex to anybody. She she really wasn't doing that. Oh okay, well, I'm i gotta say so, so we've established that. Now, Uh, that's not a little whoopsie. You'd think that this is something prosecutors will be a little little slower in the Russia judgment about at least to publicize it. It's one thing to have it and hold it and release it
during trial. They made that part of the storyline when she got arrested, and I think it's really interesting that there's no outcry from the left about this at all, that attacking this woman. Look, it's one thing to say that she was doing Russian agent of influence operations in the US. That's bad and we don't want that, although how bad really depends on what she was doing. But
it's an entirely another thing. It's a very different kind of crime to say that she was sleeping with people as part of that process, and at prosecutors essentially slandered her in this way and have admitted it. Just goes to show you that there are no rules, folks, And this is important for you to recognize. There are no rules when it comes to dealing with anybody associated with
Trump or Russia collusion with Trump. As long as you are hitting them and hitting them hard, as long as you're hurting them with whatever you do, then it's all fine. There will be no apology, I think, and the media will not focus on this they will not turn Maria Boutin into some kind of heroine. Um, but we should at least take a moment to see the prosecutors are over zealous and they are unfair when it comes to prosecuting people around Trump that have anything to do with Russia.
Joseph Myth Sued, the professor who is tied to George Papadopoulos is feared dead. Uh, this is this is bizarre, folks. I mean this comes out here, this is from Fox News. Joseph Mifsued, the mysterious Maltese professor believed to have played a key role in igniting the Russia probe, vanished from public eye after his name began surfacing in news stories. Now, lawyers the Democratic National Committee say it is possible mif
Sued is dead. In filing the Southern District of New York, the d n C said mith Sued is missing and maybe deceased. The lawyers said that they will monitor new sources for any indications of mess suits whereabouts and will attempt service on myth suit if and when he has found alive. Filing came as the DNC is suing Myth Sued and others as part of its lawsuit accusing Trump of conspiring with Russia in the election. I mean, what you want to talk about a frivolous lawsuit? This is
this lawsuit is garbage, absolute garbage. Um. But now as we as we look at this and try to get a sense of what exactly the law, what exactly comes into play here other than the fact of the d n C is being litigious. You know, I am, I am. I supposed to think that it's totally normal that this guy who is at the very center of all this. Remember if suit is the one who talked to Papadopolis in London. He's the one who, uh it is believed was perhaps run by a US either law enforcement or
intelligence service to get information from Papadopoulos. If he just turns up randomly dead or rather in this case, just disappears, are we supposed to think that that's entirely coincidence. We're supposed to believe that this is just a thing that happened, and that there's nothing that we need to see, there's nothing that we should be concerned about. You know, it's a coincidence. It's one giant, incredible coincidence. I have to say,
I find that very hard to believe. I find it very hard to believe that this just happened, and there's and and there's there's no reason to think of anything else, just like I found it difficult to believe that the op ed that came out, the anonymous op ed and it's timing with the Bob Woodword book, was not the result of what's obviously media collusion, and the media is colluding together against Trump. I don't think there's really any serious debate about that. I think that that's been on
display for a long time. But but the timing of these things happens, and we're supposed to believe, Yeah, you know, it's it's not a big deal. You know, this this stuff just sort of happens. We need to just deal with the reality of unforeseen events that that that occur at these incredibly inopportune times for Trump. But if you if you despise Trump, all of a sudden, the timing is amazing and you seem quite it seems quite lucky. You know, Woodword is out there saying that people better
wake up to what's going on. I've got to say, I I don't know what Woodward thinks is really all that different in his book. We we've read so much of this already. We we've heard this, we've seen this, we are very much aware. Uh. And yet Woodward is holding himself up yet again as the hero in this narrative and literally his narrative of course, right or by constructing this narrative of telling us that Trump is incredibly
um incompetent. And you know, we we've heard all this before though there's nothing really all that new in this information. I asked Alma Rosa last week. She said Trump is crazy. I said, tell me, how, tell me why? She Well, I can't give you any specifics on anything. I can't actually bring you up to speed on why Trump is crazy other than to make the allegation the accusation. I'm starting to feel like, folks, if a crazy president can
be this successful, maybe we need a crazy president. You know, maybe we're in a different kind of world than we think we were, where not everyone has to pretend to be a character in the West Wing with pithy comebacks and always talking about you know, freedom and democracy and and and America and values and all that stuff. I mean, you want somebody who believes in that, but you want them to protect those things to propagate those things. You don't want them to just sit around and make a
show of it. That's why I just don't think the Woodword Book has the punch that he obviously wants it to. When you look at it more closely, it's now keep in mind, I've only seen excerpts of it. I know he like, what do even when you look at it, I have not. I have not been damed. So important and uh and so fantastic has to be given a copy of the Woodward Book up front. But I have to say, when you look at this thing, you find
that or the whole narrative around it too. It's clear to me that this is just a repetition of what's already been out there, consolidated under one by line Woodward and right after the hunt for a non September had to start. These things all coincide, folks, They all come together. And when you add into that miff suit is now dropping off the radar, perhaps forever. Right when this probe should end, I've got questions, big ones. Let's turn to
the world of sports for a minute. Chilley, social justice once again the order of the day. Apparently we'll get into that. Here's how it all started. This is Serena Williams right after losing in the US Open Women's tennis final. We can never really go back to Serena, but if you could change one complin about what occurred, what would that be? Um, I don't know. I don't You definitely can't go back in time. But I can't sit here and say I wouldn't say he's a thief because he
I thought he took a game from me. But I've seen other men call other umpires several things. And I'm here fighting for women's rights and for women's equality and for all kinds of stuff. And for me to say thief and for him to take a game, it made me feel like it was a sexist remark. I mean, like how he's never took a game from a man because they said fief. For me, it blows my mind.
But I'm going to continue to to fight for women and to fight for us to have equal like coordination, should be able to take our shirt off without getting a fine Like this is outrageous, you know, And I just feel like the fact that I have to go through this is just an example for the next person that has emotions and that want to express themselves and they want to be a strong woman, and they're gonna be allowed to do that because of today. Maybe it didn't work out for me, but it's gonna work out
for the next person. Everyone. Wow, Serena Williams, women's rights hero. Apparently, let me just take a step back for a woman, folks, and we can describe exactly what happened here, and then you can come to your own conclusions about whether or not you think this was, as advertised, a case of standing up for women's rights and and paving the pathway for the next young woman who comes along so that
she doesn't have to deal with this degree of of sexism. Uh. Serena Wims in the US Open final against a woman by the last name of Osaka. I'm actually blanking temporarily on her first name. I'm looking it up right this second. Pardon me, that happened sometimes when you're on air, Um, Naiomi, I was gonna say, Natalie Naomi Osaka. So look, I like tennis a lot. For those of you who don't know that, I'm some some lot of a tennis fan. Um, but I don't like that all sports now have been
polluted by social justice. It's not just the NFL, and I would note by the way that this past weekend with the NFL kneeling that occurred, it's essentially no longer a problem, folks. I think you had two out of almost a thousand players take a knee of to Miami Dolphins players, So this is now irrelevant. This is not a big problem in the NFL. People are not doing it, and I don't even think the President should focus on it anymore because he's giving too much attention to one
or two guys. Nobody really cares about what they're doing. But social justice ideology has penetrated far beyond any one particular sport, and in this case in tennis, you have Serena Williams, who is obviously African American female, who is in terms of wins and just in terms of raw ability, the greatest female tennis player of all time. Some people would put one or two other names in there. She's certainly in the top three of all time, if not number one, far and away. So she's had a tremendous
amount of success. She's worth probably well north of a hundred million dollars. I don't know what her net worth Is, but she's she's fabulously wealthy, she has a clothing line, she's an international superstar. But she also has had a few instances in the past where she has lost her cool. She's lost her temper very obviously and markedly in the past. And this instance here, this time, we're talking about the Over the weekend the u S Open, she decided that well,
she was getting coached, which is a violation. Her coach gave some hand signals, and I would note that while Serena said, oh I wasn't getting coached, it doesn't matter whether she saw him or not. The coach was trying to give her coaching signals with his hands. Whether you should be allowed to do that or not is another discussion, but you're not allowed to do it. In tennis, she got a warning for that. She then after losing a point, and she was already losing to Naomi Osaka pretty badly.
And it's not reported enough that Osaka already beat her earlier this year. So it's not like Osaka can't go pound for pound, you know, stroke for stroke against william She she has and she has won in the past, but Williams just took her racket and annihilated it. I mean just shattered it on on the court, which people will say, one, it is poor sportsmanship, but also that little plastic can fly up and and actually, you know,
strike somebody in the front row. I mean, you really don't want to set a precedent where you can just start breaking things on the court. So she got a point penalty, but Serena didn't stop there. Then she decided that she was going to make this an issue of of her honor, and she started arguing vociferously with the chair umpire of this match. Understand why you may have thought out that was coaching, and I'm telling you it's not.
I don't cheat to win a brother, Lucas. I'm just letting you know he's a coaching violation, and I guess he's a thumbs up in Serena setting you straight that that is not coaching. I don't cheat, Salna. I'd rather lose, she says. Now, I think it's funny that that announcer says sets sets the umpire straight. She was wrong. The coach later admitted that he was coaching, which is again not a huge deal. It happens coaches get a little animated there in the stands, and they really want their
player to win. But she was wrong. He was trying to coach her and she acted like he wasn't and that she didn't or maybe was only slightly able to see what he was doing, does not change the violation. This is straightforward stuff, folks. She broke the rules. She broke the rules, and then she couldn't accept that she broke the rules, and then she got really nasty with the umpire. Yeah, that's the morning. I didn't get coaching.
I didn't get coaching. I didn't get coaching. You need to take you need to make an announcement that I didn't get coaching. I don't cheat, I didn't get coaching. I didn't say that. No need you need. You don't get a policy. You owe me a politic. I haven't averaging it in my life. I have a daughter, and I stand. Was my hard i've ever seen. He was up. Yeah,
Serena was watching her coach give her handsome. I don't know if you caught that part at the very end, but she called the umpire a thief, which, as you can imagine, the umpire did not particularly like. That annoyed the umpire and so the umpire because it's a third and there was sort of a back and forth. You can't really hear the umpire uh speaking there, but she wouldn't stop, and she's really being belligerent with the chair umpire not allowed to do this. Tennis, like golf, is
a game that still takes its decorum pretty seriously. So she got a game penalty and then later she lost, and the whole thing is just so. And by the way, folks, I know, if you don't care about tennis, this isn't about tennis, okay, it's about the narrative around it, which I'm gonna get to in just a second, but you need to know the full facts. Then Osaka goes up on stage and she just should be the greatest moment
of her career. She's one of her three million dollars. Okay, so look, it is a good day no matter what. But she one of her three million dollars. She beat her idol, Serena Williams. She even said that on the number one stage really for at least American players in the world. For a lot of people say it's number one of the Wimbledon's up there too, And it was
a disgusting scene. A lot of people were booing. Now I know they're booing the U. S t A. Or they're booing the officials, really, but to Osaka, she's up there and she's hearing booing from the crowd. It was just horrible. But what was amazing, folks, was how quickly all of these different sports announcers and the United States Tennis Association rallied around Serena all of a sudden, Serena is a women's rights hero. How is she women's rights hero?
I'm seeing people sharing stuff from thirty years ago, John McEnroe acting like an idiot, which he used to do, and he used to get penalized too for that. By the way, perhaps not enough. You should have been ejected from games. But she broke the rules, and yet here we are watching as she breaks the rules and then is applauded for being some kind of hero for women's rights and equality. I mean the stuff that she was saying in there, that it was a sexist remark, she
called the umpire a thief. She's being disrespectful. You're not allowed to do that. Now, why do you have otherwise savvy's sports watchers and announcers and commentators at least savvy about their sport. Why do they all rush to Serena side? Well, folks, for a long time, there has been this narrative that because Serena is black, there are double standards that are applied to her, as well as the fact that she
is a female, which is the case here. For a long time, though, there have been people that talked about racism and the inherent racism of either a you know, a bad refing situation, or just how tennis was an elitist sport, although you know, tennis now is a truly global sport. But you can just see that all these people see Serena Williams and they see her situation, they think to themselves, female black sports icon, not what really
happened here? And what's the circumstance, because there's not There's not two ways about this. But to announcers, they want to be politically correct, they want to be on the right side of this, and the social justice left they see this as an opportunity, as a as a kind of Kaepernick like moment, a rallying cry for women's equality. I I don't know, it's such a stretch, it's really laughable. Her thing about women are a woman who took off her shirt. By the way, yes, there's a different set
of rules for women than men. Women also have boobs and men don't. And I know that we're supposed to move past gender roles entirely in society, but we still think of boobs as things that and maybe we shouldn't, folks, maybe we should get past it. You know, I'm fine with boobs, but we think of them as something that you shouldn't see in the open. Although New York you can actually walk around topless. It's the law. You can walk around ooplace in downtown Manhattan. You won't get arrested,
but it is the rule. And it's because you think of men and women differently because they are different. So a woman taking off her shirt, if she has a sports brawl underneath, I'm fine with it. But the rules aren't there to penalize women Unkindly. It's just because women have you know, what are considered sex organs up top
and men don't. Uh, And maybe maybe society is wrong with that, but it's not like Tennis is some terrible anti women, misogynist organization that's trying to penalize ladies for for having boobs um and then just her whole thing about how she would you know, it's about her daughter and she would never cheat. Let me tell you some about Serena Williams in two thousand and nine against another player called Kim Clyst named Clim Cloisters. I believe Belgian um she or was it Kim Cloisters, Yes, it was
it was Kim Clysters. Uh. She didn't like a foot fall call that she got, and she walked over and this was on camera and everybody heard and saw this, and she threatened a small, uh female Asian American line judge. She said she would take an effing ball and slam it down her effing throat. And now this is the the most iconic female tennis player in the world threatening
a line judge because she didn't like a call. All right, I can't tell you any other prominent female tennis player, or honestly, any other prominent prominent female athlete who has done something quite as aggressive and egregious as that. But Serena has a victim complex, folks. She thinks of herself even though she's a just like Kaepernick, even though she's a globally recognizable brand, and even though she's worth millions, she's a lot more famous, a lot more successful as
an athlete than Kaepernick ever was. But she's worth millions and millions of dollars. She thinks that she's treated unfairly and that her race and her gender hold her back, and therefore justifies, you know, she says there's a different standard, and therefore wants there to be a different standard under which we would judge her in actions and situations like this.
That's what you see really happening, and and the political correctness around it all is why you had all these announcers acting like idiots and coming to the defense of an athlete who's who is a bully. Sometimes she's a bully. That's what happens. And she ruined Naomi Osaka's big moment because she's not a big enough person to see pass that. She was already getting her butt kicked in the game by the way she was. She was losing the match, no question about it. But now she wanted an asterisk
next to it. She wanted there to be uh, you know, well, maybe I didn't really lose and show she threw a tantrum, and that's what it was. A tantrum. I don't care what gender you are. I don't care what color you are. When you throw a tantrum in a situation like that and you break the rules, you should be held accountable because you see, I respect men and women equally, and I respect all races equally. So therefore I apply the same logic and standards and code of conduct to every buddy.
I don't change it based upon the allegations that in other situations it has been changed against that person. That's I'm not gonna try to rebalance the past based upon somebody's claims. So anyway, that's what I just social justice now affects everything, and it affects even the way we talk about a tennis incident like this. Speaking of social justice, Jim Carrey is out there talking about how he wants socialism, but not when it comes to his money. I'm sure
when it comes to yours, we'll get there. Stay with me, boys, I've always said that the United States has been a quasi socialist government for a hundred years. For crying out loud, it's not. I'm plenty of subsidies for oil company, also medicare and socialticularity, and yes, of course, there's nothing more socialistic than some of the Pentagon programs that are just jobs programs. The Pentagon says we don't want these tanks, and they've build them. Anyway. If that's not socialism, I
don't know what it is. But but that word, the Democrats seem to get a plan to fight this, this slander of socialism. You're gonna be living in Venezuela. I don't we have to say socialism to the word and everything. We have to stop a pot I am, that's right. We have to say yes to socialism. Say if the hundred million dollar man, Jim Carey, we have to say yes to the massive redistribution of wealth. But I don't know if that means that Jim Carey has to give
up his Malibu mansion. You know, you have to wonder, folks. They're now saying this is the bill Marline. Oh well, we're basically already a socialist country. Okay, Well, in that case, what are these major changes that they say need to happen under this banner of socialism that's being trotted out by prominent Democrats on a regular basis. When they say, oh, well, we don't we're not gonna end up like Venezuela, or
it's not fair to say we'll end up like Venezuela. Okay, Well, for us to end up like Sweden, which is the other thing that they talk about, we are going to have to have tax rates in the area of say fifty for the middle class, for you, for me, for people listening to this right now, you're gonna be given fifty percent of your income to the federal government. That
that sounds like a lot to me. That sounds like more than the Democrats would be able to convince folks if they had to tell them what the numbers actually were. But I think we're all just getting sick of being lectured by incredibly wealthy people about how we all need to give more of our money away. You know, if Jim Carey wants to give me a check for ten million dollars, then maybe I'll want to hear more about
socialism from him. You know, if I get to sit in a position where I am economically immune from the bad decision making of those who are pushing socialism, if I get to make that decision, that's that's you know, it's fine as long as I could live in my Malibu mansion. But I don't have a Malibum mansion. I gotta live in the real world. And Jim Carey and Bill More and the rest of them, they should have
to live in the real world too. And that means if you want to say yes to socialism, it means saying yes to massively higher taxes and horrifically slow, if not negative, economic growth and all kinds of bad stuff. So you know, you should at least be honest about what you want. Folks. If they want socialism, well then they should get it long and hard. That's my that's my opinion on the matter. At least when you're here, how great the economy is doing right now. Let's just
remember when this recovery started. Suddenly Republicans are saying it's America. I had to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in two thousand in two thousand six, and anyway, this is the best they can manage, folks. Democrats Obama coming out there and saying, oh, well, the economy is great right now, but it's because of Obama. This is tough to take seriously. I don't take it seriously, especially because just do this thought experiment. Imagine for a
moment that unemployment was six seven eight percent. Imagine for a moment that the stock market had tanked over the last at some point of the last year, Imagine that hiring had slowed dramatically. Would anybody say that Obama's massive sea of q E and quantitative easing and and the stimulus boone doggle and all the other stuff that was done was responsible. No, of course not. They would all say that Trump is a buffoon, He's an imbecile, and
that's why the economy is bad. So by that standard that we all know is there, the economy is incredible. The economy is doing so very well, and not just on a general basis, but as compared to what we were told would happen if in fact Trump were president. Right, it's good no matter who you are, But compared to the catastrophe they said would happened. Uh, it's it's amazing. I mean, the economy is it's almost hard to believe
how good it is. And I just noticed that this is where that this is where the media unfortunately still gets to play such a prominent role. How many stories are there on how powerful Uh, the tax cuts have been for the economy. How many stories are there on even honestly, in the short term more impactful, which is a word I know people don't like when you use that way, but I use it that way sometimes because everybody does. How much more profoundly important the anti regulatory moves,
the cutbacks and regulations have been for businesses in this country. Um, you won't hear those stories because the media doesn't want to tell you those stories. And as I've been saying, what we don't have nearly enough of a folk this on healthcare or focus on what the Democrats really want what it comes to immigration. We're letting the Democrats control far too much of this narrative going into the midterms.
That needs to stop. And that's why they've They've brought Obama out because they think that he's the most powerful messenger that they have. Now. I would love it if President Trump would continue what he's doing, which is call out Obama. I mean, his line about Obama putting him to sleep with the speech is one of the best political lines I've heard in a long time because it's
so true, because it's the reality of Obama speeches. We're all told they were so great, and nobody was allowed to criticize, nobody was allowed to say anything about him because that would have been mean, you would have even been racist. Whatever. But Obama gives really boring speeches. In fact, I mean the first two minutes because he's look, the guy sounds good, he's you know, uh got a got
a certain charisma, and I get all that. But his speeches go on and on and and his his baseline for talking to the American people is really pretty close to a kind of condescension. It's always, you know, I'm I'm amazing, let me solve all your problems. And and the amount of uh straw man burning he does on the other side is is pretty astonishing, right, It's always the other side doesn't want babies to have food and old people to have healthcare. The other side, that's not
that's not what the other side wants. Who who told you that, Obama? Whereas what the other side they don't believe in food, they don't believe in medicine, they don't believe in shelter. I'm here to tell you, if you do what I want, you're gonna have all those things and more. It's gonna be great. You know, I don't think that Obama was as especially when you get him off the cuff, when you get him off of a script.
It was never that impressive. And I think that I think that Trump could be his kryptonite the way that he was Hilary's as well. I think that Trump maybe able to destroy the aura of invincibility political invincibility around around Barack Obama. But but on the economy, folks, the fact that they're trying to say that it's the Obama economy just goes to show you they have no answers. They have nothing that they can say that makes it
the economy not good. Uh. So that's why we we might be able to defy recent political history here going into the interms. I'm concerned about it. I think you should be concerned about it too. But it is certainly possible. It is certainly possible for that for the first time in a long time, you will see in the first two years after a new president a well, not a massive wave. I think that's certainly true. Um, economic confidence is really high, by the way, that's the uh, that's
the headline on the Wall Street Journal today. Economic economic confidence is really really high. Well, it's there, there's there's truth to that of friends. Uh, it is, and there's a lot of hiring, and there's and and now you're actually given this place of is it possible that this will keep going? Is it possible this will continue? There's almost a sense of foreboding. I think that Trump's economic
success thus far it's impossible for it to continue. That there will be a natural corrective, and that corrective will open up the doorway for the Democrats to come rushing in and say, ce Ce, we told you, we told you, even though that wouldn't if it were a short term thing, if it were just as I said, a correction and not a crash or or a depression, that would I'm prove that what Trump had done was not as beneficial as what we've been saying all along. But remember Democrats
have capitalized there. The biggest moments in Democrat political history in the twenty century and the twenty one century UH, several of them have revolved around an economic cry cyst that Democrats leverage to push status and UH and socialist policies to enlarge, to dramatically enlarge the government at the expense of individual rights and private property and the free market, and they've done it because when people are scared, they want someone to help them. They want someone to tell
them it's all gonna be okay. When you're retirement savings or your pension looks like it's going up and smoke and you might lose your house. Anyone who says we're gonna make it all okay, you'll listen to truth. There's the Democrats don't make it all okay. They just spend a lot more of your money, kick the can down
the road, make it a problem for future generations. And oh, by the way, they do all these other bad things to keep you in the meantime feeling like things are improving when a reality, they're just writing checks that right, and checks their bodies can't cash. I guess that kind of makes sense. I'm not even gonna say that was a movie quote because you already know that. Please also welcome up to the stage the students from Parkland High School. David Hogg. I have a question for you, guys, who's
ready to save America? So here we got David Hogg and Michael Moore too, favorite pundits of the the far left, the progressive left in this country. Uh notice, You know, Hogg now has become a at least an MSNBC circles a household name, and and he just the grandiose rhetoric flows from this kid, who's ready to save America. But but he goes on, who's ready to make America the country that we say is on paper and make it the actual country that it wants to be. You know this,
this goes over really well with the progressive left. You know that that that America needs to be ate a lot better, that it's not the place that we say it is, that there's a there's a fraudulence at the heart of this thing we call America. Meanwhile, by any objective measure, any normal person would say, wow, America. Heck yeah, this place is amazing, and it is amazing and in fact a lot of ways right now, folks, it's better than it's ever been. It's certainly wealthier than it's ever been,
it's safer than it's ever been. I know it's hard to believe, but it's true. It's true. People say, oh, book, what about back in the good old days of You tell me when the good old days were, folks, And I'll say, you mean when there were like Nazi submarines off the coast of Long Island, or when the Japanese were bombing Pearl Harbor, or you know what, when when we were concerned about foreign countries invading us and they could actually beat us. What what were the good old
days when things were so much better here? I would just wonder when that was. I know that it's usually not a crowd pleaser to say things are awesome. People generally want to hear about catastrophe. But America is pretty awesome unless you're on the progressive left. But how and Michael Moore continue, I think it's the most important thing
to realize. However, it's the problems that we face as a country, whether it be water in Flint, Michigan, or the amount of mass incarceration of people in color of color that can't vote in Florida. The amount of eligible African Americans that would otherwise be eligible to vote that can't because of a previous conviction is in Kentucky, it's
in Mississippi and Alabama it's fifteen to six. These are people of color that have been historically discriminated against and still are to this day, and how their voting rights taken away it's exactly turn that shame into your vote if you're not Canadian. I can't help but notice that Mr Hogg, who is taking a year off before college to become an advocate for left wing causes. So now he's officially appundit, folks. He's no longer a high school
student that we can discussed or debate. He's a public person. He's inserted himself into the public debate over policy. We are allowed to say that he is often ignorant of the subject matter he discusses, and quite honestly doesn't have a particularly sophisticated view of a lot of things. And I'm being pretty kind. I know some of my conservative brethren and uh sisters, what's the female of Brethren cestran, I don't know. I gotta think about what that is.
But they're much harder on him than that I have been, although I'm sure that will change over time. Because I've a feeling Hog who used to be used as a weapon to try to get people deep platformed and fired, I have a feeling that he will in fact be somebody who is a weapon for the left. You know, I had just a brief aside here I had on my show gosh. Today on Rising we had the Media
Matters Chairman David Brock. I just have a really tough time with these people who and but you might want to watch the interview because I think I pretty in in completely um respectful as to impolite a fashion, because I'm not respectful toward him. I don't respect what he does, but I'm polite because I'm in a place of business and I'm doing my job. But in polite fashion, I think I dismantled his foolish argument about Kavanaugh. I don't
like these people to try to get people fired. I don't like this new trend among the uh the the left wing to do everything in their power to try and get people to be, you know, kicked off of whatever their platform is, to make sure that they can't make a living, which which I think is really what it's all about for them. I think Hog fits into that category. I think he's one of these people that is also trying to find ways to eliminate people from
the conversation, from the public conversation. But a We'll have more time for Hog later. Notice, how tho his focus of why America is not as great as it should be, or is not what it purports to be. He doesn't mention at all, for example, opioids, and I just find this really nowhere. He goes right to mass incarceration. And and I'm not saying that there there isn't some over criminalization, but over criminalization in the criminal justice system and mass
incarceration are not the same thing. Mass incarceration just means we have a lot of people in prison. Well, what I want to know is did they do bad things? And are they serving a sentence commensurate with the gravity of their crime. If the answer to those two things are both yes, I don't have a problem with it. What conservatives don't like is over criminalization. It's, oh, well, you destroyed documents in a civil uh and a civil probe for you know, business that has a civil liability.
But now you're gonna fall under a DoD Frank guideline. You could face up to twenty years in federal prison. I mean, you know, I don't like when you wrap lobster that you catch off the coast of Honduras in plastic instead of paper, and therefore you face a year in federal prison. When we criminalize things that should not be criminal, that's a big problem for me. And when we send people to prison for far too long, that's a problem for me. And I think some of that
happens with drugs. But over criminalization is just something that the left talks about as a means of pandering to this social justice left that believes that the reason people are in prison is generally racism and structural racism. Well, I just want to know if somebody committed a crime, then they should be in prison. So we're talking about all these people being innocent or what does over rather, what does mass incarceration really means? We know what over
criminalization means. But he skips right over opioids. If you're gonna have a rally and talk about the most urgent problem facing this country, and you don't jump to the fact that seventy thousand people a year and this is bipartisan problems, seventy thousand people last year, I think with seventy three thousand total might might have been upper down. A thousand died of drug overdoses from opioids. If you are not going to focus on that right away, I
want to know why. I want to know why. Voting rights. Oh, that's right, because the midterms coming up. Why are voting rights for felons a more important issue? If you're gonna try to do great things and and make America this awesome place that you say it's not already, why aren't you going to deal with the fact that seventy thousand plus people died of opioid overdoses last year? Where does that factor into all of this? And and of course
with hog you have gun control as a constant. And I had to deal with a Lissa Maltto recently say to me that it's as easy to get a cappuccino as it is to get an a R fifteen, which which is just wrong. But she said it, and I was taken aback because it seems like such a foolish, such a stupid thing to say. But now, I don't know if you've seen this, folks, that the new initiative out there to try and find a way to uh cut down on gun violence is California is thinking about
putting a huge price on bullets. That's right. They want to make bullets more expensive. They think that that's gonna be a a an effective uh you know, an effective way and oh, by the way, and limit ammunition. So they're gonna make it harder because you know, if you can only get a hundred rounds of ammunition, uh, then you're not going to be able to kill what ten people? I mean, how many mass shootings do they really think
are going to be stopped because of this? And given how much ammunition is already in circulation, how much stockpiling of it has already occurred, this is an idiotic idea. I would note that the the only time that they say this is useful is that in some states ammunition purchases are not regulated as tightly as firearms purchases, and so prohibited possessors are able to get ammunition. Then they
go over the list they end up arresting them. But what I note is that, well, the only reason that they're able to make those arrests is that they're effectively doing a sting operation. And it would be like if they were selling guns to people and and seeing who buys one, and it's selling guns to people without doing any background check, and then see who buys a gun without a background check that shouldn't have one. Well, in that process, you're also putting a lot of guns out
on the streets. So it's it seems somewhat counterintuitive to you as well. We're gonna sell ammunition to everybody, but then if a prohibited possessor comes up on our list, uh, we're able to arrest them. So maybe this is a good law enforcement tactic or a good gun control tactic. To that, I say, you know how easy it is for somebody to transfer their ammunition to somebody else. I mean, no, nobody,
nobody's gonna know the difference with that. So anybody who understands what the rules are, we'll just get around them by making sure somebody who's not a prohibited possessor, meaning a felon or somebody somebody who's been convicted of domestic
violence gets their hands on this stuff. So I just think the notion that you're gonna limit bullets or make them really really expensive, I think actually Patrick moynihan, Senator from uh New Jersey, a long time ago, wanted to wanted to make a hollow point ten dollars or something something. Really moynihan had some things he was smart on this, this was not one of them. But I would note that with guns in general, you have a lot of people that say very very stupid things. People that are
otherwise quite intelligent. Are are really buffoonish on the issue of gun control, and it's because for them, it's as I've told you, it's a cultural signifier. It's much more about that than it is about actually preventing violence or stopping violence from occurring using firearms. Alright, team, I hope you enjoyed the new format of the podcast out early.
Please do subscribe on iTunes, share it around and let me know what you think of the new format on Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton remember shields High