The War of Testosterone

great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now, welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody. Wonderful Friday here in NYC, mid late October really probably my favorite time of year in this town. The weather's great, good things happening here. So very much pleased that you can be joining us. For people like me who don't like the super hot weather, this is better. You know,

I get too sweaty, you know what I mean? Producer Brandon, producer branded in the house today for producer Mark who what is he in like Tahiti or something? Pre is he on pre honeymoon scouting? Is that or Tahiti? Pittsburgh it's all. It's all the same. It's all the same, all right. So we've got some important stuff to get to today. Oh, a little bit of testimony that comes out that a State Department official told Congress that he thought that hunter Biden's Ukraine dealings. This is back in

twenty fifteen. We're a little shady, maybe, but they were ignored. Of course they were shady. We'll get it. We'll get into that for sure. Also, we have a ceasefire between Turkey and the Syrian Kurds. We've got General Maddis out there mocking Trump, which look, Trump mocks Maddis. Maddis can mock Trump. We're all I expect everyone to be big boys in this world, and that's just the way it is.

We'll talk perhaps about that. We'll have our friend Andy McCarthy joining us later on to talk about impeachment stuff, and my man Yone Grillo from down in Mexico where he's been one of the best international journalists covering the cartels, he'll tell us about I mean, there's video out there that's just it's jaw dropping of cartel members with fifty caliber rifles getting into gun battles with Mexican police and federalis and it's all about the arrest of a major

cartel member anyway. So there's twelve police officers have been ambushed and the last and murdered in the last forty eight hours alone in one incident in Mexico. So some stuff happening there. So you've got a Friday. We're going to cover a lot of ground. But I wanted to start with something that is a little bit of a departure from what is at the top of the news

cycle right now, because we'll get into that. Sure, you listen to the show, so you know that I will cover the most important news stories of the day every day. But I wanted to switch the switch to the script also because yesterday I had said to you that I was going to cover this topic, and then I did not cover this topic. So here's I just forgot. Because we're in the midst of rocking and rolling with the show. It just seemed to me like I had so many other things that I had to get to. The war

on testosterone. I think yesterday I referred to it as whether testosterone has an effect on or has any connection to masculinity. Harvard University Press put out a tweet I think since deleted that raised the question does testosterone have a connection to masculinity in any way, shape or form. A lot of people looked at this and thought, yes, it does. And it's in reference though to a book, but a book that's part of a much larger effort.

The book is written by a woman from I think Brooklyn College, Katrina car Kazis, and she has written a book that is about testosterone, the Myths of Testosterone, and she was interviewed in GQ magazine. Remember the basic myth and we'll go through some of the details here, is that testosterone has anything to do with masculinity. That's really

the myth that they're trying to tackle. And this is how the interview in GQ magazine published this week went, how do you think the idea that masculinity is rooted in biology impacts the ways that our society view gender? And the author writes, as me too was heating up. There was a conversation between writers Roth Dolfin and Rebecca Treyster. She asked him what's the root of this and he

said testosterone. I think he was joking, but people believe that and if we accept that gender hierarchies are tied to evolution in biology, then it seems impos able to change. So let's just understand. This is establishing right away what the purpose of this book is that gender characteristics are not only not only are they not deeply rooted in us at the cellular level, that there's really no biological

basis for gender differences sex differences. They will say, of course, there is a physical difference between a male and a female body, but gender difference is intrinsic to the body, and therefore, in our psychology that is to be rejected. And now this is the recurring effort. It's not the first time this has happened. And I'll get into that, to pretend that science backs up this idea that there is no such thing as a genetic gender difference. Okay,

and she continues on to this. Remember this isn't GQ magazine. There's trying to put this out there for people in the pop culture world who don't know very much, not even about science. Very few of us, let's let's be honest, very few of us have a science background very much about including really this author. By the way of the book, I'll deal with that This is another moment that when you look at the bio the background of someone who's being held up as a visionary in the field, like

Bill Nye, the science guy. Hey, Bill Nye, the science guy, better deal with climate change. I'm a scientist. Man. Turns out Bill now the science guy. You know what, he has an undergraduate degree, Producer Brandon, in mechanical engineering. But that means he's a climate expert. Undergrad degree, not even a master's mechanical engineering. So you got that going for you, Bill Nye the science Guy. This author Katrina carkazis who who has written a book here on whether testosterone has

any effect on gender. She is a cultural anthropologist. And I will admit to you now it probably shouldn't admit this on this show. I once took a class and called a cultural anthropology in college, and it was the ultimate what we called class like joke class. It was a class that you took if you knew you were going to be hungover on Friday's. This was the class that you took because what are you really? What are we re learning in cultural anthropology? It's really sociology as

applied to history. So it's just a big it's just all a big left wing scan. Really. I'm sure there's some relevance, just like there's some stuff in sociology that's interesting or relevant, but it has become a discipline that is dominated by the left. Cultural anthropology is entirely dominated by the left. So she has a PhD in that no medical science background, a social science background that's made to sound a little bit like it's more sciency, and

then we go on here. In this interview in GQ magazine, author has asked again about the testoster industry. She writes that testosterone often gives men a pass for their negative behavior and a pass for their success. With Titans of Wall Street, for example, testosterone didn't have anything to do with those men reaching the highest level in their field. There are other structures that elevated men and suppressed women.

If biology and testosterone aren't the explanation, then we have much harder work to do of addressing the social causes. This is very straightforward, folks. The scientific community, which unfortunately now is riddled with activists all over the place, and particularly the social sciences, soft science is posing as real science. That's even worse, they are trying to undo what we

already know about biology and science and gender. Then is asked, so, if we move away from the idea that biology explains the behavior we associate with gender, how could we open the definition of masculinity a little wider in our culture? I hope that she responds that we can stop attaching so many behaviors to masculinity as though they're exclusively the province of men, because they often happen to be things

that are valued, like risk taking or athleticism. Conversely, I think we're reaching a point where we can shove more under the umbrella of masculinity, men staying home and parenting their children, or addressing their feelings in public in ways that are currently understood as non masculine. There are many

things that are shared human behavior, et cetera. Folks, This is all about writing a book, which is part of a broader movement, by the way, as you know, the movement right now, the obsession of the progressive left is to undo what we already know about gender and gender roles and to say that it's a spectrum and it's fluid. In fact, I would argue this woman probably has a PhD in gender fluidity, which is really what this is the active is cause there are men and women are

not distinct in any meaningful way. It's always a social construct. Well, if it's a social construct, that means that we can reconstruct that part of our society and nothing will stop that. Boys aren't a little bit more rambunctious and aggressive in the sandbox and don't want to play with dinosaurs and dump trucks because they're boys, it's because we make them.

And girls don't like dresses and don't like things that are a little bit more associated with the feminine and don't want to know, bake cupcakes or whatever in the easy bake of it. They don't do that because the women's because we make them do it. Unfortunately, thousands of years of human history and who knows how long we could go back in our evolutionary history, prove that to

be untrue. And science, which has xx and x y chromosome in every single cell of the human body differentiating between male and female, also proves that to be untrue. And this is not the first time this movement of erasing genders has been trying to appropriate science for what is clearly a social cause. By the way the erasing of gender does a lot of things. It's it's part

of radical equality. It often translates this was the Soviet Union is very interested in in erasing traditional gender roles. Gotta have women, Gotta have women in the factories too. The state will take care of your babies. This state will take who does that sound like? By the way, wow, have you universal child care for everybody? And only the rich people will pay for it? The senator from Massachusetts. So, gender roles are under attacked by the left for very power,

very important, very powerful reasons. This is not just an intellectual exercise and that which starts in the academy and starts with somewhat fringe books or publications like this. Although GQ is certainly relatively mainstream, it's very left wing. By the way. I've picked it up occasional in the airport, I was like, oh, it should be g Kami boom. But the good news is that there are actual, real

scientists out there, like Heather Heying. I will address her criticisms of this book, of this denial of biological reality that is at the heart of so much progressive gender neutrality stuff. I'll base it off of some of her work.

All right, So we're talking about testosterone. An unauthorized biography a new book that's out there right now which sounds like it could be a book with schwartzon egg on the cova and he's he's doing the flexing and he's like, hey, I don't want to Why are you looking at me like I'm crazy? I'm saying it could You don't know what the book's about until you write you must be using all the testosterone for the muscle growth. But it turns out that's not what the books about it all.

The book is written by a left wing PhD academic who's trying to tell you that there's no link between testosterone and what we think of as male behavior or male male tendencies. And the basic argument that is leveled for this is that because women have testosterone as well, it can't be that testosterone causes these things because women have it too. Well, that's a stupid argument because men

also have estrogen as well as testosterone. So it's about the biochemical balance in one system and cellular structure and things that, quite honesty, science is really just beginning to fully understand or research in any capacity. But it's much easier to just say, well, testosterone has nothing to do with gender roles, has nothing to do with As I said, what why are are men more aggressive than women in general? I mean, look at look at statistics about assaults over

ninety percent. I think it's over ninety five percent. Might didn't be over ninety nine percent, but it's definitely over ninety percent of violent assaults in this country are committed by men. All right, So I guess I'm I'm gender bashing my own gender right now. We are We are more violent than the ladies out there than than females. Is that social construct or? Is that just because men are different than women? It's a very interesting, very interesting question,

isn't it? Also? Why are men generally larger, heavier, physically stronger these sorts than women? Is that a social constructors? Because men and women? Now you might say, buck, this is such a this is ridiculous. We all know these things. Ah, yes, But the true radical progressives subverts that which you know to be true and forces you to bend the knee.

It doesn't matter how obvious the truth is. In fact, it is an exercise of their power to make you abandoned things that could not be more intuitive, more obvious, more based, in reason and rationality. If they can make you say men and women are the same, they can make you say anything. Ah. Now it all starts to make sense as a means of remaking society, doesn't it. I mentioned to you that there fortunately is still some

sanity out there in the science world. And this from an actual biologist named Heather Heying, who has come under a lot of attack from the left for a bunch of reasons, probably because she still bases things in biology and science. So she wrote today in a thread, I haven't read the book in question, Testosterone and Unauthorized Biography, but it claims to debunk the idea that testosterone and

masculinity are connected. It is full of confirmation bias. If this is true, it has zero evidence of evolutionary or statistical thinking. Then she goes on into some further detail here. Luckily, in a biology department in the mid nineties, declaring that females and males behave differently and are assumed to have asymmetrical interest was not yet a cancellable offense. See, this is all part of cancel culture too. Cancel culture extends to science. Say something people don't like, and you have

to get fired. You can't be a scientist anymore, even if it's rooted in scientific fact. The truth can be too dangerous to society. In fact, scientific truth can be too dangerous to society the left believe. Heather goes on, here we are in twenty nineteen with an esteemed university press, Harvard publishing garbage pseudo research, and glossy magazines jumping on the let's hate on all that men are and might

be bandwagon. If this subset of women really thinks that female dominated leadership and ways of being are the right move into the future, how about they model awesomeness in that realm. Instead, what we get from these radical left feminists is a mix of hateful, uninvestigative, juvenile, snarky pap.

She says that she looked into this question in the nineteen nineties specifically, and guess what testosterone is very much responsible for, not just physical changes right deeper voice, beard, Hey beard, there we go, producer Brandon, or your beard is way more masculine than mine, body hair, all these things. You see this as a teenager. We know these things from just living that testosterone is real and changes things, but that also has a change in behavior. They researched this.

Back in the nineteen nineties, there was this movement to say, oh, testosterona and shirt. Here we are again being told that this is not there's no connection at all, and it's a denial of reality. And that's what so much of left wing based science turns into very quickly, whether it's climate change or this or people that there's you know when you talk about when life begins. There's all these different areas where the science is rejected by the left,

but on gender specifically, they are aggressive about it. The left is aggressive about to nine gender, as I told you, because if you can eradicate gender roles, you can completely remake society in a pure Marxist authoritarian mold. That's really I know it sounds crazy, but it's the eradication of the family because family roles entirely change the state raises children. That is the goal here, and they're trying to leverage pseudoscience to do it. Oh, so what do we have

coming up? I'm glad we talked about the war on testosterone, which some people might just say the war on testosterone is vox dot com, but you know, there's there's a war on testosterone that's going on out there in the

scientific community. I want to talk to you about the ceasefire in Turkey, will hop though into the latest impeachment RUCKUS as well, and this situation in Mexico is just a reminder that we have a deeply corrupt, unstable, violent neighbor to our south in Mexico, and there's not a whole lot of media coverage of it. And I'd like to address why that is. He's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the

fuck never stops. We started to negotiate, and I think that obviously the sanctions and tarifts who are going to be very biting. I'm glad we don't have to do it. We'll be taking them off very quickly as soon as this is finalized. But this is an incredible outcome. This outcome is something they've been trying to get for ten years, everybody, and they couldn't get it other administrations, and they never would have been able to get it unless you went

somewhat unconventional. I guess I'm an unconventional person. So there's a ceasefire that the President his team, really it was Pence and Pompeo negotiated for Turkey and the Kurds and the President. They're touting it as a huge, a huge victory. Unfortunately, shelling is reportedly already underway once again, so there's still

some fighting between Turkish and Syrian forces. The President says, though this is a I'm sorry Turkish and Kurdish forces, Kurdish Syrian forces, and President says that this is a good thing. And to that I would just I would say that the amount of outrage that I've seen generated on the left and the right over what would really

be a couple of days of fighting. Now, granted it is between a NATO ally and an ally of ours on the ground, the Kurdish YPG militia, the Syrian Defense Forces, but the amount of outrage and the effort to try to make it seem that President Trump is responsible for all of what's gone on in Syria, that this civil war that's killed the half a million people, stretching back to twenty eleven, twenty twelve, that Trump, who's been in office only for a few years, and during that time

the violence has been considerably less in the Syrian Civil War than it was in the latter part of the Obama administration or even in the really the second Obama terms when most of the heavy fighting was going on there, and everything is Trump's fault somehow. The situation of Syria, which has been unstable. I mean, go back and look, you'll see that the French were bombing Syria at one point. The amount of fighting that I mean I'm talking about back now, and the I think was the nineteen it

was after the First World War in nineteen twenties. Maybe. I mean, there's been fighting going on in this part of the world for a very long time. These factions on the ground are going after each other and have been for as long as they've been around. It is just a place where you're going to see continued instability

and violence. There's just no way around that. We promised the Kurds their own state, or I mean the international community I should say, promised the Kurds their own state back in the day, in the time of Woodrow Wilson. Never actually happened. The Kurds or the largest stateless people

in the world. So there are anywhere from twenty to forty million people of Kurdish ethnicity and depending on which number you take, but they're still the largest non stated or non state minority in the world, and they are spread out really along Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. That's where the Kurdish population is mostly found. And we wanted to give them a state, but we don't have a state for them, and it's not going to happen anytime soon.

And so the situation now is we've told the Turks back off, and there might still be some shelling and some fighting here and there, but it sounds like or at least there's the possibility that they may really indeed back off, and the Kurds are building some kind of alliance with the Assad regime in Syria, which would be helpful not just for pushing back on Turkish incursions into Syria in territory, by the way, but also against the Islamic state. What is a better circumstance that we have.

And by the way, it was fifty soldiers we're talking about moving. People really have been reporting on this like like it was Pearl Harbor or nine to eleven, it was some catastrophic event that would change an era. It was some fighting in a place where there's been basically endless fighting stretching back now seven or eight years with hundreds of thousands of people killed. So why the focus on this as such a horrific event. And I might look, all all war is bad, every casualty is a tragedy.

This is it's a nasty situation of there's no question about it. And for the US Special Forces soldiers who were embedded with these Kurds to have to leave them in this way unexpectedly, I can understand why they feel very upset about that. But the commander in chief, the President United States, is trying to make a decision that will get us out of a mission creep situation in Syria. And I mean, I remember when it was considered wise to avoid any US boots on the ground in Syria.

I remember when that was the conventional wisdom. And now we have boots in the ground in Syria and we're being told, well, they won't stay there that long and and there won't be much of an escalation. Really do you trust that? Should any of us trust that? I think we all know the answer. You know, Rand Paul is saying we should get out of there. Trump is saying we should get out of there. The Democrats would

be saying we should get out of there. Except it's more important to them to have a few news cycles where they can bash Trump than to make a decision for national security that could and very likely would save a lot of US lines down the line. It's just more it's that's the truth. That's more important to them to bash Trump than to do what is and what they believed until Trump was president was in the interest

of US national security. And then they're also just lying about things and saying things that are really stupid in this process. Here's Nancy Pelosi play clip twice to the subject of conversation. Yet, as you know, that was the subject of conversation yesterday at the White House. I also pointed out to the President I had concerns that then

l roads seemed to lead to putin. The Russians had been trying to get a foothold in the Middle East for a very long time, unsuccessfully, and now the President has given them opportunity. That is blather. That is a completely nonsense, garbage, factually untrue statement that Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, most powerful democrat in the country, just said on national TV in front of everybody. Because it was useful to the goal of bashing the president of

the United States. The Russians have been trying to get a foothold unsuccessfully until Trump. I don't know if Nancy is a moron, or if she's just never looked at a map or doesn't know any history, or all of the above. The Russians have had a ba in Tartus on the Mediterranean for well since nineteen seventy one, over forty years Russians have had a base there, So I'm pretty sure a military base that can accept all Russian nuclear sobs and Russian battleships and whatever else they've got.

Pretty sure that's a foothold when you have a base on the Mediterranean that you've had for over forty years. But then add to that the notion that unsuccessfully the Russians all roads lead to Putin. This is part of the Putin's puppet narrative, the Nancy plosa. This is why you can't trust these people. And they talk about national

security because it's all about political advantage for them. They have no real interest in doing what is best for the country, and their criticism is rooted in hatred of Trump more than it is hatred of the enemy. This is just the truth. The Russians, the Iranians. They flooded in in spet SNAs Russian Special Forces, Iranian IRGC Revolutionary Guard Corps. They showed Hezbulla fighters backed by the Iranians

flooding in from Lebanon. I was in the Syrian refugee camps and talking to you and representatives there right after Hezbulla fighters from Lebanon had just gone in and essentially just eradicated a whole town on behalf of the regime.

And we're now being told by Nancy Pelosi that until Trump came along, the Russians didn't have a foothold there is That is idiocy, that's an It's an indefensible statement, not only because of the base, but because the Russians went into Syria and turned the tide of that war for the Assad regime. While Obama was like, let's not get too involved, let's not do anything here. Don't want to be Bush. Can't be Bush. That was the sum total of the thinking of the foreign piles. It was

really two things. Actually, can't be Bush and the Obama administration wanted to make sure that whatever they were doing, whatever we try to do in Syria, wouldn't upset the Iranians too much. Remember, the Iranians back the Assad regime. The Russians are tied to the Iranians. The Russians back the Assad regime, and the Iranians back Lebanese Hezbollah next door to Syria that also backs the Assad regime. And really Lebanon's a client state of Syria. But that's a

whole other discussion. But with all of that, the storyline here is that Trump gave the opening. It wasn't the Russian bombing of Aleppo, for example, which was indiscriminate and vicious on behalf of the regime. It wasn't. That wasn't a foothold or Russian paramilitaries and intelligence officers on the ground. We blew up the Trump administration. President Trump as Commander Chief blew up two hundred Russian paramilitaries in the desert in eastern Syria who are on their way to attack

our Kurdish allies. That's a pretty heavy day of losses, isn't it. Oh and those are Russians. They were not officially Russian military, but they're Russian paramilitary. And now, as I'm talking about this, not only Nancy Pelosi lying about it, but who really thinks that we're going to be able to figure this mess out better than Iraq, better than Afghanistan. What evidence is there that the political settlement that people talk about now as though that's just going to happen.

It's kind of like a people talk about a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. I'm sitting here waving my hand saying, hey, guys, I would look, I spent a lot of time in Afghanistan about ten years ago. We're here in the same thing then that we're here, and now the security situation was just as bad, really actually worse now than it was then. It's the same story all over you. Oh, we can't leave until we have a negotiated seliment with the talent. We're not going to negotiate it seling with

the Taliban. I mean, nothing that's worth the paper that it's printed on. So do we want to do? We want to live in reality before we're talking about people using pseudoscience to justify the eradication of gender roles, and it's just a denial of reality. Are we going to deny reality in the Middle East too? I'm hearing all these voices of people who sound like, oh, we could we could never have been okay, when could we? At what point would it be safe to quote abandon the courage?

Remember we still have a thousand troops there and we're going around leveling sanctions against a NATO ally to get them to stop attacking the Kurds. A that's a pretty big deal. When would it be safe for us to leave when Syria's stable? When Syria's stable, but not because the Assad regime has taken over these areas. This is absurd. Who's the government of Syria? We don't want to say it. And there was a whole regime change mantra under the

Obama administration. Who's the government of Syria? Here's the answer? The Assad regime. Doesn't feel good to say it. It's not right. Shouldn't be the case, guys, A butcher. What's the alternative? Who what's the other answer? When you look at this, when you put the chess pieces on the board and look at things as they are and not as we either wish them to be or and don't get alinded by all this anti Trump criticism or this Trump is the worst person ever, worst commander in chief ever,

not fit for the office. Look at what's really going on what were you supposed to do, Get a negotiated settlement with what? In what? That's better than we have right now in what way? Now there's this buffer zone that Turkey's talking about thirty kilometers along the Turkish Syrian border. But the Assad regime working with the Kurds and having an alliance with the Kurds that will be useful for

suppressing the Islamic State. I'm not saying Asad wouldn't be willing to use the radicals for his own purpose at some point in the future, But you know, alliance has changed the middle of least all the time up to this point, the Jihadis of the Islamic State have wanted to kill Assad and his whole family and everybody who works for him and take over. So Assad and the Kurds can box in Isis and keep it from being resurgent.

That's much better than what we've been dealing with. We help the Kurds in their own territory, by the way, defend themselves and then go and eradicate the Islamic States. So they've gotten a big benefit out of this too. They lived there, We didn't air drop them in from nowhere. We're like, hey, can you go do this fighting first in a country you've never been to. We were helping the courage protect their villages, their towns, their lives. But all of a sudden, this is a simple issue. Trump

is evil. Trump is basically worse than Hitler, and everything he does is terrible. That's the subtexts of a lot of the foreign policy criticism that I'm seeing. And you can say, how could we abandon the Kurds? I keep pointing out, what were we supposed to do? Yeah? Should we have given them more warning? Absolutely? Should the President have gone about this as quickly as he did and

what seemed like a somewhat haphazard fashion. Probably not. But is he right on these strategic importance of not allowing us to get drawn deeper into this conflict. Let the Russians and the Turks and the Kurds and the Syrians and the Iranians, let them figure this out. It's really

not our problem. And people don't seem to want to hear that for some reason, as they so they want as though they want another generation of Americans from you know, everywhere, from from coast to coast, showing up and fighting over there for people who in many cases don't want us there, aren't grateful we're there, are attacking us, and even if we do stabilize our country for them, they'll say, you know, thanks and kick us in the butts on the way out.

Get out. No done, Let other people do this. Would I go fight? I'll ask you what I go? Or how about this? Because I never saw the military serve in the CIA. Would I joined up in the agency and and go deploy and go try to help out things?

Right now? To patrol the streets of Rocca. I would want to do that, Not that I'd be patrolling the streets, but you know, I wouldn't want to have that be something yeah, counterterrorism, things like that, But we don't need to have a major military presence in Syria to do that, and we shouldn't. Yeah, but this is where we are, folks. It's all it's really just all about attacking Trump. That's what this is all about. I do stand before you,

as was noted here, really having a chief greatness. I mean, I'm not just an overrated general. I am the greatest, the world's most overrated. And this is no small part. I would tell you I owe New York, I owe New York for this because Senator Schumer have I thank you for bringing my name up in a rather contentious meeting in Washington where this grew out of. So I would just tell you too that I'm honored to be considered that by by Donald Trump. Because he also called

Meryl Streep an overrated actress. So I guess I'm the Meryl Streep of generals, and frank you, that sounds pretty good to me. Look, General Maddis, I've heard from some of you who served under him and know him. You guys say that he's great. I don't know him, and you know the guy. You can't question the depth and duration of what he did for his country. So and he's allowed. He's allowed to Trump is going to poke at him, He's allowed to poke back, no question about it.

I think Meryl Streep is kind of overrated. I was gonna say, why is you the best actress of all time? Who says so? I don't know. So maybe maybe I'm in the minority here, but I just think that calling him the Meryl Streep of actress of generals rather, I do think she's overrated. So there's that. I mean, not as overrated as Bruce Springsteen, for example, as a musician, where are you on Bruce Springsteen? Brandon? A little overrated? He's all right, but I'm not over rated. Let's just

be honest about it. But a little over it. I'll take that one from me. At least you're not a Bruce Springsteen super fan. Not a super fan. Plus I don't hate them, but yeah, you know whatever. Global Verification Network the only duals certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago, but they can handle your background checks anywhere across the country.

And as you know, background checks are absolutely essential to your hiring process and to the health and future of your business. So you need people that you can trust, who don't outsource the work, who don't subcontract it out to foreign entities, and also maintain control of the servers and all data that you give them at all times. Global Verification Network works with startups all the way up to Fortune one hundred companies, and all their employees are

located here in the United States. A veteran owned, all American background check company. Global Verification Network for all your background check needs, any size company, any industry, anywhere in the country call eight seven seven six nine, five one one seven nine. Again that's Global Verification Network at eight

seven seven six nine five eleven seventy nine. Buck Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence Magno mistake, American bring You're a great American Again, this is the buck Sexton Show activated former CIA analysts remember at buck Sexton. No that he also mentioned to me in the past the corruption related to the d NC server. Absolutely, no question about Dan. But that's it, and that's why we

held up the money. Now there was a report demand for an investigation to the Democrats was part of the reason that he it was on the to withhold funding to the look back to what happened in twenty sixteen certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely in the funding. Yeah, to be clear, you just described as a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into the into the Democratic server,

Uh happened as well? We do. We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for what was it the Northern Triagal countries. We're holding up eight at the Northern triagal And countries so that they so that they would change their policies on immigration. And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. I'm talking to mister Carl. That is going

to happen. Elections have consequences, and foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration. The quid pro quo. Oh my gosh, they've got him now. They finally managed to get the why House cheapest to have Mulvaney to say this stuff. My friends. There was a flurry on media yesterday. Oh, people were all just

so up in arms about the whole thing. There was a flurry of folks out there who were all saying that, ah see, Adam Schiff, it's been made so much worse. Now they've admitted it. They've admitted it. Okay, let's look at what he actually said. Mick mulvaney is telling this press conference of rapidly anti Trump reporters, almost all of them, that yes, there was a consideration of continuing military aid

to Ukraine. There was a consideration about whether that would happen based on, in part, whether they would tell us what happened with the DNC server in twenty sixteen CrowdStrike. CrowdStrike was funded by Ukrainians. There's this strange twenty sixteen election Ukrainian connection, and there's also concerns about corruption and

they wanted that to be looked at. That is not the same thing as telling the Ukrainians, hey, you have to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, or else we are going to withhold military funds from your country. That is not the same they're gonna say it is. It's not the same thing. And then Mulvani's talking about how there are quid pro quos and foreign policy all the time. Of course there are, of course there are.

Whether he mentioned the Northern Triangle countries Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala being told, look, you guys got to help us more on some of these immigration issues, and we're gonna stop sending you checks courtesy of the American taxpayer. In fact, think about it this way, it would be absurd. You could very clearly argue it would be somewhat insane for there not to be a quid pro quo in aspects of foreign policy. The question is just is there

a legitimate reason for the quid on our side? Is there some basis for it, whether it's help and foreign policy. So now we have to get do is it a legitimate line of inquiry for the President of the United States to push the Ukrainians or for his foreign policy and to push the Ukrainians to look at possible hacking involving the DNC servers and Ukrainian CrowdStrike and who looked at what and what they found out and Russia collusion origins stretching by the twenty sixteen, which the dj is

actively investigating now. In fact, Durham Up in Connecticut, the US Attorney is looking at exactly that issue. And there's some interesting meeting in Italy and looks like we might be finding out some more about mister mif Sued pretty soon here. Remember mif Sued was part of the getting Papadopolis to tell Downer, the Australian diplomat, that he had heard something about Hillary's emails in the hands of the Russians. Remember that guy miff Sued. Who is he? Why do

we know so little about him? And we know more the journals do more to find out about somebody who posts an anti CNN video meme online than they do about mith Sued who may be the point man for an entrapment scheme to begin the entire Russia collusion farce against President Trump. But is it illegitimate to look into corruption Ukraine? Is it illegitimate to try to find answers to these questions? Of course not so if there's a legitimate purpose that it would also be bad for Democrats

and benefit Trump. Does not make it illegal for sure, and doesn't make it unethical, makes it too bad for the Democrats. And that's really what mulvanny was saying there, which is, you know, first of all, quid pro quos. Foreign policy is largely based on that you do this for me, I'll do this for you. You pay us this money, we'll give you this trade deal. You know, you help us on this foreign nation stabilization mission, and we'll give you this check for aid, you know, whatever

it may be. It happens all the time. People are using this term quid pro quo like like it's some sort of in itself a smoking gun. Oh you did something for someone and they did something for you. And foreign policy that must be bad. But this is what happened, the Trump's arrangement syndrome. It fries the synapses of people's brains. They can't really, they can't really function anymore in the normal plane of human reason and understanding the quid pro quo. Oh,

we found the quid pro quo. Move then he's like, yeah, we found the quid pro quo. But now he's everyone's trying to say, oh, and he's got to walk it back because it's unclear, and he made this situation worse. Well, it's because they've created this frenzy around that term, so that when he says, yeah, there is a quid pro quo, let's they see he's admitted, but he's not admitting to what they're saying. He's admitting to the Ukrainians did can't

even know that the aid was under review. How can you have something that's it quit pro quo when you don't even know what is being offered and what the exchange is The answers you can't. But there's still Look, they think the future of the country is at stake here, and if you have to lie, if you have to go along with a flimsy story. But you think that the future of the country is really at risk. Is that the right thing to do? I think the Democrats

certainly believe that it is. I think that they think whatever they have to do at this point in order to go after Trump is just fine. By the way, the reality here is that impeachment is an anti democratic process. Impeachment is elected officials deciding for political reasons to get rid of a or start the process of removing a

president from power and from office. That we are even considering this in the year twenty nineteen going into the twenty twenty election, or rather that the Democrats are offering this up as a necessary corrective, just goes to show you how corrupted their mentality has become with regard to democracy, our system of government, our sacred institutions. I don't care about any of it. This is just a pure power play. It is malice wrapped in revenge, or perhaps revenge wrapped

in malice. That's what this is. A Nancy Pelosi more or less admitted as much that this is not about really what the voters want, although I'm seeing these polls that say fifty two percent fifty two percent of American people want Trump want the impeachment inquiry to continue. Well, first of all, that's because the way they've set it up, this is what's all propaganda, folks, it's all it's all

a game. It's all wrong. And if I were analyzing this, if we're back in the CI and analyzing this as though I was looking in a foreign country, I'd say, oh, this is quite clear. What they're doing is calling it an impeachment inquiry and just the very term. And the Democrats can set their own rules here what is the process, and they're supposed to respect the processes of the past and impeachment. They're not doing that, of course, but by calling it an inquiry, it make it sound like it's

an investigation. Of course, you want the answers in an investigation, just like the Muller probe. Right, how could you not want the Muller probe to be completed? Don't we want answers? How could you want the impeachment inquiry to not be completed? Don't you want answers? Oh? I guess yeah, I want to answer sure. Ah. So, therefore, the public supports the impeachment inquiry, and very very soon that will morph into well, the public must support impeachment then, because why else would

you have an impeachment inquiry is it's all dishonesty. It's all just meant to mislead people, to mobilize the anti Trump left and to give the Democrats a political weapon against him. Oh but here's what Pelosi play clip six.

Please keep saying that people, impeachment is about the truth and the constitution of the United States, any other issues that you have, disapproving of the way the president has dealt with Syria, whatever this subject is, reluctance, cowardice to do something about gun violence, the cruelty of not wanting to help our dreamers and transgender people, the denial about a climate crisis that we face. The list goes on.

That's about the election. That has nothing to do with what is happening in terms of our oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution and the facts that might support And we don't know where this path will take us, but could take us down a further path. But these two are completely separate. But if we say, let's let the voters decide, who said that, I'm saying, at what point might you say, let's just no, no, we the voters are not going to decide whether we

honor our oath of office. They already decided that in the last Voters aren't going to decide this. Pelosi's coming out and saying that, of course, and we know that that's true. But I would also note that that list that she rattled off about cowardice to do something on gun violence, cruelty to trans people, climate change crisis, all these things, that is actually what is pushing the impeachment,

all this stuff about process. They hate him because of the policies, and they hate him because of who he is. And then they've tried desperately to find some failure within his conduct of the presidency to create the pretext or remove him. But they hate him for all these other reasons. They would find something in the process, but it's the substance of Trump that they object to so much. It's the substance of this president that they cannot abide by,

that they cannot accept. That's, my friends, that's what's really happening, which is why Nancy Pelosi feels the need to tell us, Oh, it's not about policy, that's for voters. This is about something more than that. Oh yeah, like what violating his oath of office to uphold and defend the constitution. How has he done that? Exactly? Where's the constitutional violation? Where's the oath of office violation? Conducting foreign policy? What? What is the what's the problem here? But they just say

these things and people believe it all. I guess you must have violated his oath of office. That's really that sounds really serious. Can have this guy around anymore? It's absurd. But the Democrats are really an increasingly absurd bunch. I

wish we could go back to the mean. I wish we could go back to some sense of Democrat political normalcy for what I used to think of as a Democratic party in the past, which was one that you knew that these impulses were all under the surface for totalitarian cancel culture and open borders and modern monetary theories. Spend all the money you want, does matter. The rich will pay for it. Even if they can't. We'll figure

it out. I all these you knew that it was there, but they used to go through the motions of trying to convince us that wasn't really what they're all about. The Democratic Party today, it doesn't even try to hide the crazy. The crazies dancing around the streets yelling we're going strinkang. And with that, it's time we jump into our segment, the Black Rifle Coffee Wake Up Call. Oh how do you wake up every day? I gotta tell you I do it with a cup of Black Rifle Coffee.

They have incredible varieties, different blends, delicious coffee, roast to order, small back. So if you're somebody that's really into your coffee like I am, I drinking a few times every day, and you also want to support a great veteran owned and operated company, please give my friends at Black Rifle Coffee your coffee business. It's the best way you can

possibly go. They'll deliver it to your door every month if you joined the coffee club, or you can just buy one off to try it, but I think go Coffee club right away. Black Rifle Coffee supports veterans and first responders. Give them a ring. You'll see yourself. Get your wake up call with Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck and get twenty percent

off your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for twenty percent off your first purchase Black Riflecoffee, dot Com, slash buck. To date, every single witness, every single fact has not supported any aid, uh pause or or hold up in foreign aid being attached to any conditions. And that's been consistent with every witness that we've heard from so far. Mark Meadows telling us, Look, the quid pro quo has not been established behind closed doors either.

The fact that Democrats are even having these hearing behind closed doors just tells you all you need to know about whether this is really an issue of transparency and accountability for government or if it's just dirty politics, which of the Democrats are excelling at and have for a long time, dirty politics. Look, the president's out there saying straight up they're going to look into what happened in

the twenty sixteen election. Why is it the Democrats got to run the Special Council, got to do all these things, all these leftists, all these trumpeters, they got to have their version of twenty sixteen, used the government to do it, media beating the drums all along. This is what needs to happen. Why can't there be an investigation of the twenty sixteen election and the presentation of facts from it. Based on the people who are duly constituted in office

right now with those powers. Here is our president talking about this. Our country is looking into the corruption of the twenty sixteen election. It was a corrupt election. Whether it's Coomy or McCabe or Struck or his lover Lisa Page and two great lovers, there was a lot of corruption. Maybe it goes right up to President Obama. I happen to think it does. What if that's true, By the way, I think it does too. I don't know. I always tell you what I know and don't know, but be

prepared for this possibility. We've been all along because of what has been put out there, and obviously this is always you're always swimming upstream trying to get answers about the absurd theory that was used to destroy careers and lives. And it's really just a rejection of the twenty sixteen election results by crazy Democrats. But the theory that the president worked with the Russians left no trail, worked with

the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen. I mean, that's the basis of all this, the Russia collusion conspiracy stuff. You look at all this and we know that Struck and Page and McCabe, these very powerful figures within the government hated Trump and abuse their powers against And that's now,

that's a matter of record, a matter of fact. What we don't know and it will be very hard to find out, and they will start to claim executive privilege, and who knows how much other records already been destroyed. We don't know is when did Obama know that there was an investigation of the Trump campaign? Who briefed President Obama on the efforts, let's say, to entrap Papadopolis or

to have Fiza on Carter page? Is it credible? Let's just start with things that whether it's credible or not credible. Is it believable that James Come at the FBI would not have briefed Obama on an ongoing surveillance of not one but two Trump campaign associates while there were also concerns about Russian interference in the twenty upcoming twenty sixteen election.

Is that plausa? And what if it then becomes clear that Obama knew that this was going on, At what point do we take the next step of was he encouraging it? Did you think that this is something that should have gotten even further resources and attention. And what would the media that now pretends to care so much about truth transparency in the American way, how will they react if, in fact, we ever get to the point that it's clear President Obama himself knew. I mean, remember

all the unmasking requests. We've talked about the US persons getting unmasked by very senior Obama administration officials. There was all this stuff. We've never gotten answers about why were they doing that? And you look back at the denials. Then we didn't know quite as much about Brennan and Komi and Clapper. I mean, these guys are loons, self obsessed loons who hate Trump, and we're willing to do

very shady, abusive, unethical things. Wow, director of the CIA, while the director of the FBI, I mean, really scary stuff. He's holding the line for America buck sex in his back.

So I do think it is helpful to Democrats, in terms of their electoral prospects, to as much as possible focus on slogans about Trump being a traitor and being crazy and on all these things, and avoid, for avoid discussion of their actual policy choices, because not only are their policy choices bad, they can't even really explain them. They cannot answer very important, straightforward questions on the point

about how crazy though they think Trump is. I mean, this is just a great example of anonymous source out there telling us, oh, my gosh, Trump is a madman. We can't handle him. What are we gonna do? What are we gonna do? Play clip twenty three. My good man, We've spoken to a Republican source who is in the room, and I'm told that they were alarmed at his demeanor. Quote everyone left completely shaken, shell shocked. He is not in control of himself. It is all yelling and screaming.

And I asked the source, you know who's been in many meetings with them, has it changed? Is it worse? Because every week we talk about is it getting worse? And the source said percent. I asked, are you worried about his stability? And the source said yes. And the source went on to talk to other senior Republicans who were in the meeting. They were also shaken up. One

used the word sickened. And also they got a sense of the Pentagon the generals who were there, and they were very upset and the same thing that this, this goes beyond, this is just enough enough enough, all right? This is how many times do we go through this cycle? This is its own new cycle. Trump is crazy. I think we didn't move on to the twenty fourth Amendment because he's crazy. They did this before, the year ago,

year before that. To this CNN reporter talking about her source, if I were in the room with the President of the United States, and I truly believed, beyond any reasonable doubt that the president was having the equivalent of a mental breakdown, the president had lost his mind and was a danger. The things that they say are danger to

the republic. If you believe that and you do not have the courage and the basic patriotism to step forward, I don't care what your job is, I don't care what your role is in this White House or what elected official or whatever, and speak about that the American people, you're a coward. Wait, people who are putting on the uniform overseas getting shot at. We got people that have lost limbs fighting for this country. People have died for

this country, stretching back for our entire history. You're in a position of authority, in power, you're going to tell this reporter, Oh, I'm scared of the President's crazy. But you won't come forward and say why an anonymous source here, Oh, because it'd be so terrible for this person to speak that. Are you kidding me? They get a book, They get a book deal and an MSNBC contributorship in like five minutes. Oh, it's so scary to stand up in Trump. No, it's not.

In fact, the money, the fame, the people thinking you're amazing, that's all on the anti Trump side. You want to be you want to be somebody that's that's marked. Try to be a Trump supporter in public. Try to be in public life and say that I think that President Trump is great. You know, there are a few places, there are a few places in American society where you can do it. You can do it, you know, as a you can do it at Fox News, you can

do it on talk radio. A few places where it's a safe space to say that you like President Trump. But in the broader American society, culture, academia, entertainment media. Go to any major city, walk around with a Maga hat on and see how much fun that is. Any major city of the United States yeah, some people will be fine with it, but some people won't, and they'll

let you know. But why can't this person, why can't the expect expectation be that if there's really such a need that the president of United States that is so scary and crazy that this person wouldn't come for and say something. No, another anonymous report about how the president's crazy. If you think the president's crazy, you don't tell a CNN propagandist to go and tell the American people that the president's crazy. You stand forward, you say it yourself,

and if you don't, you're a coward. That's it. And you do it while you're there, by the way, while you're in office. You don't do it a year later when you're trying to You don't pull the mooch where the mooch was. Anything Trump did was amazing until all of a sudden he's not in Trump's good graces, and now you know everything Trumps does is terrible and he's crazy and he's gross. No, no credibility whatsoever. You can't do that. It's not allowed to anybody who's going to

be reasonable and rational. But so they want to talk about how Trump is crazy. But then there's some other problems that they have because occasionally even left wing Democrats want to have some idea among different Democrat choices of what they're signing on for. Right, and this Medicare for all plan, which has been rightly pointed out by somebody on Team Buck yesterday who wrote in that it's not really Medicare for all. That's not the true description of

the program. It's single payer. Is really a much more accurate description of what the Democrats want. The government pays for all your healthcare. Problem with that is, as we've been discussing, single payer is really expensive. Here is a fantastic montage Elizabeth Warren, who I think is now the standard bearer for single payer healthcare because look, Bernie's too old and it's not going to happen for him this cycle. I just don't. I don't think it's going to happen.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe he'll win, who knows, But how often am I really wrong? Elizabeth Warren is now picking up steam as the as the progressive favorite. She's the more adept spokesperson for Medicare for all. Here is what happens when you ask her Will this is very straightforward. Will taxes go up on the middle class in America if Medicare for All happens. Please play clip twenty two. Will you raise taxes on the middle class for paper

to pay for it? Yes or noes? Costs will go up for the wealthy and for big corporations, and for hard working middle class families, costs will go down. Hardworking middle class families are going to see their costs go down and bold their taxes go up. Well, but here's the thing. But here's the thing. I've listened to these answers a few times before. Will middle class taxes go up? Will private insurance be eliminated? Look, what families have to deal with is cost, total cost. That's what they have

to deal with it. How much are your costs going to go? Different questions? How much will your tax it's how much are your costs different? How much? It's how much families end up an argument, but will you pay more in taxes? But why don't you want to answer that question? Because because it's a republican it's not a republican talk because different question. It's a question about where people are going to come out economically. Looks question cross

will go down on the middle class, No low down. Hm. Notice how she's talking about costs. Interesting that she wants to go there because she won't tell you what's true, which is that to even begin to pay for this, which the what the Urban Institute says will cost and which is left wing, cost about thirty four trillion dollars in the next ten years. So you could spend almost every tax dollar currently taken by the federal government. We are pretty heavily taxed, Take every dollar, and you would

basically spend it all on this program. Okay, so then let's look at her. Her dodge here of the question, but she dodged over and over and over again. We will taxes go up? Yes, or answer me that. You can tell us how it's going to be wonderful and you know, candy canes and unicorns and chocolate syrup rivers and whatever else you want to tell us. You can do that, but first you have to tell us that the taxes are gonna go up in the middle class.

We can make an informed decision. Oh you know who didn't let us make an informed decision about the last healthcare overhaul, Barack Obama when he lied to the American people by saying if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it. Millions of people were knocked off their plans. Most of them were then transferred onto Obamacare plans that were far inferior to what they were getting before. Then some people got on Obamacare plans that were subsidized, and

they're a little bit better off. But a lot of people lost their plan, lost their doctor. And as I find more and more as I get old, of the practitioner matters. Just getting to od doctor is not good enough unless you just have a ear infection or something. I mean, if you have any kind of problem that requires real ongoing care, a difficult diagnosis, and any number of issues that we all deal with in the healthcare system. The doctor matters. You know, they like this one size

fits all. Oh, but you know it's gonna be Medicare for all, but it's gonna be government paying for it. The governments can tell you who you can see and what they're allowed to charge. And central planning. This is all central planning. It always fails. It does not work. It doesn't work the way they say, well, yeah, sure,

they'll be uulously some doctors. And you look at foreign countries that have a single payer system, there's some healthcare there, But go speak to British people about how much how many wealthy Brits for heart surgery go to Thailand. Now, medical tourism from these European states that have free healthcare, Why is medical tourism such a big thing booming industry in India and Thailand? Seems kind of strange, doesn't it?

Because those countries have these burgeoning medical systems where people pay cash and people pay for the services, knowing that it's very expensive here in America to have any of those procedures done because of the system we have in the way that health insurance companies allocate capital. But back to the issue of costs. Costs is also a very broad term for her to tell you what you're caught, what a cost would be for middle class family, she would have to know what your expenses would be, what

your healthcare expenses would be. And the end she has no idea, she has no idea what the expenses will be from this press, absolutely know whatsoever. But the promise is that, well, you spend this amount on healthcare right now, you're going to spend less because we're going to siphon money from the wealthy and from corporations into your healthcare plan.

We're going to do it so efficiently. We're going to allocate this capital so intelligently that you know you're going to have more money in your bank account at the end of the year as a middle class family under an Elizabeth Warren plan, that's just not going to happen, folks, just not going to happen. You're going to have to have taxes raised. And even with taxes raised, you're going to have tremendous structural, deep structural inefficiencies in the system,

rationing long wait times. This is your healthcare future if Elizabeth Warren gets her way. We need to understand that. We need to be clear about that. She's not even clear about it, though, because she can't answer the basic question of how are you how are you going to pay for this? Wow tax it's costs to go down. For the middle class, they'll go down. But for the wealthy and for corporations, No, it's not just gonna be the It's never just the wealthy. There's not enough money.

There's not enough money from the wealthy and the corporations to pay for this. They couldn't do it. And then think about what that would also do to the broader economy. Who invests, who starts new companies, who creates jobs for other people, People with capital concentrations of it, and they are more efficient with it in the government will ever be We already know this, But this is the dream. This has been the dream of progressives and socialists, that's right,

socialists in America for over one hundred years. That's how close we should probably remind ourselves of this. That's how close they are at this point when they say, oh, it's not socialism, Well, this is what the socialists have wanted since the beginning of the twentieth century in America. This is what the socialists have wanted since the progressives of whist Nson. We're first trying to take ideas from the European continent and apply them here status authoritarian ideas

at that of redistribution, of class warfare, of Marxism. But we're just I hope we don't have to learn the hard way, because Democrats will want us to learn the hard way, and they still they won't even learn the lesson when it is hard. Every single Democrat candidate for president raise their hand in favor of giving free healthcare to all illegal aliots. They want to give more to illegal aliens than they give to American citizens. You see that.

As president, I will never allow the Democrats to take away your healthcare dollars and give them to people that are in our country illegally. I think that that's going to come back to haunt the Democrats. I thought it along. I said it on the Bill Marshaw back in August,

that every Democrat. It was a two night debate, so technically there were some Democrats who weren't on the stage, who were still in the race, but one night, every Democrat at the debate said they all raised their hands, they all made it clear that they wanted to give healthcare to illegal aliens. I just want to think about this for beyond the fact that that's absurd, it's insane, and that any Democrat would ever think that that was feasible,

it's just because how would you implement this. Does that mean that if somebody shows up in this country, someone crosses the border and says, hey, I need open heart surgery. I know I just ran across the border, but I need open heart surgery. We just say, okay, we're going to keep you in the country. We're not. We can't kick you out, because, of course, illegal aliens are the they are the foundation upon which this country is built,

the Democrats believe. So you get to stay, and then you're going to have a procedure that will cost taxpayers about a million dollars. Why would anybody in the third world, why would anybody in developing countries not just come to America and demand world class medical treatment. It's worth it, I mean, it might be something that changes or saves

your life. Right, So where do you do? You have to be an illegal that's here for a certain amount of time for this to to qualify for this, you have to be an a legal alien who falls into a specific category of certain nations for you to get these healthcare benefits that they've promised you. I have to say, it is just it is remarkable to me how extreme and unworkable many of these Democrat ideas and proposals are.

And that may be why may Or Pete for example, recognizes that as much as all these polls and all these people in the media are telling you that anybody can beat Trump, and Trump's a paper tiger and Trump King and all this stuff, he was a little more Circumspect when he was asked about whether every single Democrat in the field right now would be able to beat for President Trump. Do you really believe that everybody on

that stage can beat President Trump. I'm not so sure, and I think that in order to win, and in order to deserve to win, we've got to answer the fundamental problems that Donald Trump took advantage of to take over the Republican Party and get elected. And we got to find a way to do it that people can

see where they fit and that unites the country. Look, we're never going to win everybody over, but I think it means a lot that with incredibly progressive proposals, I'm also getting Republicans saying that they would support me because they're so disgusted with what's happening in the Trump Way. I don't need a Republican I know a lot of Republicans. I don't know any Republicans who are jumping on the Mayor Pete vandwagon. I don't know any of I don't

know any of those. I do know some that like Tulsey, not the only one. I'm just putting that out there, but he understands Mayor Pete understands that some of these are a disaster for the Termocratic party, and really the disastrous one the most disasters would be Bernie Sanders because the stuff that he would want to do, it's never going to happen. It can't get done. He can't defend that. It doesn't make sense. But it sounds good to people

who will believe in fairy tales. What Bernie tells them sounds good that they believe in the magic of the federal government that can provide better healthcare, more healthcare, more cheaply to people, as if the government is in the in the business of business and is a creative force and not generally a restrictive and destructive force. This is where you have the baseline philosophical differences between or a

right and left. Showing them seats Bernie Sanders, though, just highlights it in a way that even Democrats, I think are starting to figure out. Oh that guy's crazy. Buck Sexton remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence, Make no mistake, you're a great American again. This is the buck st didn't show formless CIA analysts remember at the ANIMI v. D. Bock Sexton it didn't, Buck Sexton. No, Paul Ryan would never issue a subpoena. I don't say

right or wrong. He wouldn't do it. He had too much respect for our country. Nancy Pelosi hands him out like cookies. Everybody. I don't even know these people for the most part, people like that at destim I don't even know who they are. I've never even heard of some of them, most of them weaponizing the process against President Trump, against this White House? Is that really what Nancy Pelosi is doing? And what can Trump you to fight back? Our friend Annie McCartney is back in the house.

He is Fox Is contributor, author, also senior editor National Review. Any great to have you back, sir, fuck always great? All right, So, so how is this impeachment inquiry proceeding thus far? I mean, from the procedurals standpoint, what is kind of okay? What's dirty? And what are the Democrats really doing? Well? The Democrats from the beginning, Buck, have

decided that the president's not fit for office. So they've already kind of made their decision, and they've been looking for a hook that they could hang it on in the way of impeachable offenses. But you know, the Muller investigation came up dry. So now they're onto the Ukraine thing.

And you know, this is unusual and irregular in the sense that what generally happens, not that we have that much experience with impeachment, is that the president commits misconduct and we deduce from the misconduct whether it's so serious that impeachment is warranted. Here, instead, we have a situation where the Democrats decided ahead of time, before he ever stepped into the oval office, that Trump was unfit and they've been looking for something to sort of hang that

conclusion on from the beginning. So this is what we like. What we now have is the Ukrainian episode in this effort. Now, Andy, what about the claims that the White House is making that they're not going to comply. How does that duel between the executive branch and the Democrat controlled House pushing forward on this impeachment inquiry? You know, where does that go? And what's the White House arguing about who does or

doesn't have to testify? And what is the Democrat House majority going to say or Democrat led by Nancy Pelosi going to say? Yeah? But the important thing to remember what these kind of contests between the executive and the legislative branches is that they are political in nature. Impeachment is political in nature. It's not a legal process for assessing guilt. It's a political process for stripping political authority.

So what the President is trying to do is demonstrate that the or demonstrate to the public, which is the court that matters here, that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate because the House the Constitution commits the authority to impeach the whole of it to the House of Representatives, not to the Speaker, and not to a cabal of partisan committee chairman. And because the House acts as an institution only when it votes, and the House has never voted

to have an impeachment inquiry. The President is arguing that the impeachment inquiry is illegitimate and he doesn't need to cooperate with it. Plus, he has a lot of privileges against cooperation, like executive privilege, most prominently, which is only going to be pierced by something that's in the nature of serious misconduct, and which he shouldn't be asked to give up unless the House, as an institution, votes to

have an impeachment inquiry. So that's their position. The Houses position is that there's nothing in the Constitution that requires it to have a vote in order to inquire, that it has the standing committees that have authority, so they can conduct an impeachment inquiry through the offices of those committees without having to have a vote, and that their subpoenas are perfectly legitimate and the administration should honor them

because Congress has oversight power whether it's conducting an impeachment inquiry or not. And the political hammer that they hold in the equation is that if the president doesn't cooperate, they can always add an article of impeachment about failing to cooperate with legitimate demands for information by Congress. So this is the political battle that takes place, and it really depends on what the public thinks of all this. My own view of it, for what it's worth, is

that the underlying conduct here related to Ukraine. I think there's a lot of things to criticize the president about in it, but I don't think any of it rises to the level of impeachable offenses. Do you well, I mean, would you describe it as as ugly politics by the president? I mean, how do you how do you gauge, how do you assess the whole Ukraine situation? Where where is the president vulnerable? And what's a fair way of framing it.

I think it's it's unsavory conduct in the sense that the Congress voted for aid for Ukraine, the President signed off on the legislation. He should have just given the aid to Ukraine. There's nothing wrong in principle with a president asking a foreign government for help in an American Justice Department investigation. But the Justice Department didn't ask the

President to lean on Ukraine for help. So the fact that he did it without you know, usually when these things happened buck in the Justice Department, it's because the Justice Department is doing an investigation, it realizes it needs assistant from assistance from a foreign government, and if the foreign government doesn't cooperate, like for example, the Saudis didn't cooperate with us in connection with the Kobar Towers bombing in the mid nineties, you asked the president to lean

on the other government to help you here. There was no discussion apparently between Attorney General Barr and the president, and the president kind of unsolicited not only asked his Ukrainian counterpart to help Bar. He simultaneously asked him to help Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, who was the President's private lawyer and is conducting research in Ukraine that might be helpful to Trump's twenty twenty campaign to the extent it's damaging

to Biden. So what what Trump risked doing is exactly what Justice Department doesn't want done, which is the sense that it's investigation of the twenty sixteen, you know, the abuses of power in connection with twenty sixteen, that that is political, rather than what the Attorney General has stressed up until now, which is that it's the Justice Department's obligation to look back at this kind of misbehavior and see if any crimes were committed and if any procedures

have to be changed. So I think, you know, the way the President handled this, he potentially brings discredit and delegitimizes the Justice Department's investigation and bounds it up with his own twenty twenty reelection effort, which is exactly the way the Democrats have tried to portray the bar investigation from the beginning. So I think those things are all ways that I think you can legitimately say the President did not This was not perfect as the President as

likes to say. On the other hand, buck, we have to like take a step back and realized Ukraine did get the aid, it never really did get hold held up in any way that was meaningful or harmful, And the Justice Department was never in communication with the White House or with the Ukrainian authority, so it didn't really affect the Justice Department's investigation. So the atmospherics are bad.

But when you look at this and say, well, what harm actually happened doesn't appear to be any So to talk about it in the sense of an impeachable offense, which is supposed to be reserved for really egregious misconduct that does real harm, is really I think overwrought. What is the argument that you know, I keep hearing from Pelosi and others he violated his oath of office to

the Constitution. Do they just is that just a general thing to say or is there some specific way they try to tie they said, I keep wondering what is the what is the alleged if not even crime, the alleged political crime that they think comes up in Ukraine, Because I mean when you're pointing out, Yeah, there's some procedural uh, you know, some procedural missteps. It looks it

looks a little sloppy the way the president did it. Sure, but what is the real I mean, because initially Andy, they were saying there's a possible campaign finance criminal violation, and that just that just faded away because that was too absurd to even hang their hats on. So what is it now? Yeah, So I think there's two things, buck,

and both of them are pretty weak. One is that the president is supposed to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and the Congress voted aid for Ukraine, which the President slow walk rather than delivering it to Ukraine on schedule. So that's outside the statute as the Congress enacted it and that the President signed off on.

But on the other hand, the president has almost cleanary authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign relations, and while he shouldn't delay aid for any but very good reasons, he's got the authority to do that. So I think it's a pretty weak argument. The other one that's even weaker, I think, is this new thing they're floating, which is about extortion and the idea that the president pressured the Ukrainians in order to get accommodations from them, including some

that might have helped him politically. The problem with that book is that extortion is a domestic crime. It is not applicable to foreign relations, where we actually want the president to be able to squeeze foreign governments and put a lot of pressure on them in the service. This is what mulvanny was basically trying to say, perhaps in ourfully, He's like, we do quid pro quos the foreign governments

all the time. That's very true, exactly right. So you know, what you're doing is apples, or what they're doing is apples and oranges. You know, Yes, there are situations where when somebody pressures another person, you know, threatening them with economic harm or other kinds of harm in order to get them to do something, that's extortion. And then so it's a federal crime, and it's a crime in most states.

In foreign relations where we're not under the rule of law and we're not all dealing, you know, we're not all just like citizens under the same sovereign countries pressure or other countries in order to get them to do things. And sometimes that pressure gets to the point of war,

so you know, it's it's not domestic law enforcement. And again, can you imagine what would be the point of having a president of the United States if the president could not use whatever was available to him to pressure governments, which are often rogue governments that are anti American, to do things that we want them to do in the

interest of American security and global stability. Yeah. I'm pretty sure that George W. Bush said, you know, handover bin lad in Taliban or else, We're coming for you with everything we got. So and they were technically the government to Aphanison at the time, folks, So there was that. Yeah. And I don't think the Justice Department investigated Bush for extortion. Yeah, I would certainly hope not any McCarthy everybody the one and only. Check out his latest on nash review dot com.

Also great editorialist week in The New York Post on impeachment. Annie, thank you for joining us or we'll talk to you soon. Thanks, but welcome back team. A massive gun battle in Kulia Khan, northwest of Mexico City, down in Mexico, involving one of the well the son of the most notorious cartel leader perhaps of all time, maybe only second to Pablo Escobar El Chapooman. His son was captured in Kuliya Khan. His

son's name is Video Guzman Lopez. So he's a son of Joaquin Guzman Loeiro, who is known as El Chapo, the Sinaloa cartel leaders currently serving a life sentence plus thirty years. The Mexican police managed to find this son of El Chappo, and you would think that this would be a cause for celebration, but then the entire city erupted, erupted in chaos, gun battles. There were cartel sicarios, their assassins deployed in the streets with fifty caliber rifles. There

were cartel members who had mounted machine guns. There's video all over the internet now social media of just gun battles raging. It sounds like Fulujah circa two thousand and five, just machine gun fire all over the place, smoke billowing into the air. And what was truly stunning is the Mexican authorities released, oh, Video Guzman Lopez released El Chapo's

son because they were afraid of further bloodshed. That's right, my friends, a notorious cartel boss is captured and then released because the cartels can put so much firepower on the streets they can effectively take an entire city in Mexico hostage. They outgunned Mexican police and federal police units outgunned them. They were calling in for reinforcements, and the cartel, the cartel hitmen were able to just bring too much

fire under their locations. They had to withdraw, stunning. We were gonna have my friend yone Grillo join us, Deady from Mexico City, but actually having trouble getting thrown the phone lines there. Will have to have you own back next week to tell us what's going on. So sorry about the the guest lineup changeup, but we'll have you own joining us when we can. And I just would note that Mexico had last year one I can't remember

if twenty seventeen or twenty eighteen. It was one of those years, the worst year in the history of that country for murders. We have an opioid epidemic. Yes, I know, there's billions and billions of dollars that are going to be paid out now by drug companies that did have a very egregious hand in the opioid epidemic. But you know, what else has a big has a big part of

the opiated epidemic. The car tells that are flooding this country with it, and the Mexican government while we think of it as somewhat in control of the situation, or I should say, we don't hear much about it, so people assume it can't be that bad. It's really bad.

I mean, what does it mean. Imagine for a moment that there was a gang member in the United States who was seized in let's say Boston, you know, a good sized American city, and that gang member was able to put out the call that all of his hitmen needed to start attacking police units all across the city. And then the authorities in Boston were like, well, we can't handle all this heat, so we're just gonna let this guy go. What a sad day for the country

of Mexico. That's the that's the response. You allow a cartel member to take a city hostage, you release him. What message does that send going forward? Anytime any member of the cartel who's senior enough gets picked up by Mexican marines and the federales or whomever, they're just gonna say, Okay, well now we're gonna we're gonna wire up a school with C four unless you let me free. You know, this is negotiating with terrorists in the worst possible way,

with Narco terrorists. And it's just a big indicator of how deeply not just corrupt, but really unstable Mexico is. It's stable in so far as the cartels are able to keep poisoning American cities and killing tens of thousands of our American of our fellow Americans, making billions and billions of dollars in the process, also making hundreds of millions off of human smuggling at our southern border. You know, kids in cages, they yelled, Yeah, but the cartels are

making a lot of money in that whole process. By the way, he's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Now, team, I promise we're not going to do a daily Tulsie Gabbert defense here. Okay, We're not going to just have bucks it here every day and say that Tulsie. And when you wrote in that Tulsie's married, I know she's married. Okay,

I'm not this show. This show is not some audio bouquet of flowers sent to Tulsie Gabbert on a regular basis in the hopes that she'll notice and perhaps come in for a lengthy interview that would clearly go viral and be fantastic. But I'm just I try to find the good in the Democrats that I can where I can, and that's why I also like to point out the really really bad Democrats, which reminds me of Hillary Clinton. Hello, what happened? She's back? Never going away. She will haunt

your dreams. She's never going away, folks, she will always be around. She said something today in an interview, or maybe it was yesterday. Who cares, but she said the following about Tulsie Gabbert quote. They're also going to do third party again. I'm not making any predictions. That's means she is, but I think they've got their eye on someone who's currently in the Democratic primary and are grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite

of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far, And that's assuming Jill Stein will give it up, which she might not because she's also a Russian asset. Yeah, she's a Russian asset. I mean totally. They know they can't win without a third party candidate. So I don't know who it's going to be, but I will guarantee you they will have a third, vigorous third party challenge in

the key states that they most needed. Okay, first of all, it's in an amazing that Hillary Clinton says that she's not going to make a prediction, and then she goes on to make a prediction that she about the election, where she says, I guarantee you. So it's not even like a little bit of a prediction. This is a

very very intense prediction from Hillary Clinton. But beyond that, more importantly, they hate Tulsea Gabbert because she is in some ways too nice to the opposition for their taste, and she hates Trump and she trashes Trump all the time. But she does not approach Republicans as though they are some evil, diseased, an unworthy group of people. She doesn't take the approach that they're just automatically to be dismissed.

And what you find is that the Democratic Party today, the Democratic Party today rejects that they want a total war scenario of politics where you either take the approach that Republicans are horrible people, that they're discussing, they're disgraceful and you shouldn't and anyone, I mean, I had a friend told me recently that you know that he was told by in a group chat of people for a business issue that anyone who voted for Trump is racist.

And people challenge this guy on this and said, come on that. Can you know that's first of all, there are a lot of black and Hispanic voters who voted for Trump. I mean not as a percentage of the population, but there are still a lot of them across the country. To say anyone who voted for Trump is racist is such a and this guy doubled. Oh, note, it's true,

anyone who voted for Trump is racist. And we've had different points in the process here where Democrats their official line from their biggest spokespersons has been you are complicit in Trump's racism, in his treason and his all these

things if you vote for him. Trying so hard to really just force us to force people listening to believe that it's not even a choice anymore to vote for Trump, because if you do, you're a bad person, So you must then support his opponents, you must support the other side. Tulsie Gabber doesn't do that, at least not that I've heard. But to call her a Russian asset, I just wonder does anyone the Democratic Party have any scruples anymore? And they're not going to say Telsea Gabert is a veteran,

she is a member of Congress. What basis is there that she's a This is even worse than the assad apologist stuff that used to say about her. Now they're saying that she's a she's a traitor, she's a tool of the Russian government, something they say about Trump too. Isn't that interesting? Isn't it also fascinating to watch people make allegations like this that are so flimsy and so

without any any evidence whatsoever. But this becomes a tool because once you create the perception that there are Russian assets floating around who are doing whatever is opposed to the Democratic Party at any point in time, then that becomes a weaponient of itself. It just becomes a smear to be deployed at the whim of Democrats, including against a fellow Democrat in this case Telsey, Like soft butter on warm toast. Time to spread some freedom coast to coast.

It's time for roll call. Roll call time, everybody, you know what time it is? Time for the roll call. Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton. If you want to do it that way, you can also kick it a little old school. Send us an email, team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. That's right, producer Brennan, we have an email.

Now we're fancy up in the freedom hunt. You know. Congratulations. Yeah, we should start like smoking pipes and wearing ascots and talking about talking about THEATA, not theater, THEATA with a monocle of how else would one watch theater with a top hat? Maybe two? That's how I roll. Although you need a giant top hat from my head, I don't know, like slash ooh, yeah, there you go. He's he's like, he's probably the most famous top hat wearer of the

last several generations other than mister Peanut. I guess, yeah, it's probably true, mister peanut. All right, here we go, Mitch, right, oh, here we go, Hey, Buck. I love your show. I drive over the road for a big company. I work nights. I listen every night. Thank you so much, Mitch. Also, why haven't the climate freaks mentioned the fact that carbonated beverages are carbonated with CO two? Are they willing to force soft drink makers, beer brewers, and champagne makers out

of business? I'm guessing that we be many many billions of dollars removed from the economy and many tens of thousands of jobs lost. Surely, soft drinks, et cetera contribute way more CO two to the atmosphere than cows. Well, Mitch, my man, it's methane from the cows that's the problem. It's not the CO two that gets them so upset. Anyway, love your show, brother, Shield's High. Thank you appreciated, my man.

I'm glad to keep you safe and warm on the road when you're driving around the country engaged in commerce and capitalism for America. How in this week's Democrat debate, how many candidates and how many times did they say that I am too ignorant to know how to spend my own money? And who and how many times a day did they say they knew how to spend my money better than me. Instead of adding to my government expense, They're free to raise charity money for any cause they

are passionate about. They are all very good at raising money for a cause. Why not apply that skill to fund charity from those that agree with them and allow me to decide how to spend my money. Donald Trump may not be the most diplomatic person, but he understands this simple concept built on freedom. Yeah. Man, they want to take your money. They think that they can spend it better than you. They're more qualified to make those

determinations about capital allocation fancy way to say spending. So yeah, you're you're picking up You're picking up what they're putting down. How and they want to pick up a lot more of your money too, which is not good. Kristen Rights trained to busan is amazing. You have to see it. Well, let's produce your branded pick over here. So what are we thinking? It's great. I've just seen so many zombie movies over the last you know, my lifetime whatever, but

this one was very creative. It just was was special. You think the whole genre was used up, but they they found a new way to do it. So I think I'm gonna see the Joker movie today. By the way, Oh, I'm probably get to see that tomorrow. Yeah, I'm I'm, I'm so, I'd just like to go check it out. I gotta know what's going on with the joker. And then we got TJ. See a joker. But I am not a Midnight Tooker. Steve Miller, Right, yes, yeah, I play my music in the sun. Though. Are we gonna

keep doing this? No, I'm gonna stop, all right, t J. Buck If impeachment goes through, how much obligation do senators have to be in DC for the entirety of the hearings in the Senate? And how long do you think McConnell could drag it out? I only ask because this could be a major thorn in the side for several Democrat presidential campaigns, Warren Sanders, Klobuchar, Harris Booker. They're going to punish us with process. Should we not be obligated

to return the favor? TJ? TJ. The problem with trying to punish Democrats with the processes, it's like throwing mudded pigs. They love the process, they love wallowing in the bureaucracy. So I just don't think that that's going to work out. I wish that we had the same mentality of abusing the various processes out there, but we just don't. Actually, I don't wish we had that mentality. I just it would be nice if we could fight fire with fire a little bit better. But that's kind of where we are,

and I honestly don't I mean impeachment. The thing is, no one really knows how this will play out as a process because the Democrats are making it up as they go along. So unless you can get in the mind of Nancy Pelosi and know what her next move is, gonna be tough to know what's going on. Jonathan Buck, I think your best impression is your Pelosi. It always makes me laugh. I've been falling through with Pelosi for

a while anyway, Thank you, Jonathan. I appreciate that. He also writes, I'm looking at the withdrawal from Syria and think it should be noted the Syrian Kurds, YPG and Iranian Kurds are not all the same. Tobarrow a Lord of the Rings analogy. It's like comparing the Woodland elves to the river Dale ones. Riverdale ones, isn't it? No? Is ver is the Riverdale Elves? No, that's Riverdale's a place in New York is in Riverdale like from Dawson's Creek or something isn't like River End or River River

Run or something like that. I've actually never seen. Riverdale is also a show, That's what I'm thinking of. Yeah, it's a show. It's a it's a kind of a teen drama e show, right, but it's also a wealthy enclave leave a wealthy encliff technically of the Bronx. Yes, a bit of geography on the show today for the Buck section show. Um, but yeah, I don't know enough about the comparison you're making your job with him. But thank you so much, my friend for listening to show.

I'm glad, Oh gay you like Pa Polsi. Pelosi's gonna send you a big hug over the weekend. Okay, President Trump is a total lunatic, uh Greg, Greg rats, Hey Buck, longtime listener here. You've long been at the top of my list for clear, concise and comprehensive analysis without wasting time repeating the same points or puffing yourself up in the process. Thank you Greg for noticing that I do. I do note that there's some some hosts out there.

There's only one who I think has earned the right to always talk about how awesome he is, and we all know who that is, and that's because he is the man. But there are some other hosts out there, who are you. I'm the best, I'm amazing, I'm the smartest. I I leave that to the people listening to determine how good or not good this show is. You know, I don't need to tell everybody how good the show is, because anybody who's smarter listens to the show knows it's

really good. So here we go. Greg writes, in regard to assault rifles, my preferred term is modern sporting rifle. This term has been used widely among the Second Amendment community, and a couple years ago the Washington Examine or had an op ed and why this is the term that our side should adopt. I've included a link. Keep up the good work, best wishes, shields high Greg. Greg, thank you. I mean, I can see what you're saying, and I appreciate the desire to use the term modern sporting rifle.

I just I don't think that the other side will play along or that one so we could just use different terms for the same thing. And m I don't really know where that ends up. Where that goes Sean. The Joker is not a superhero or super villain movie. It's dry for a drama and weak as a horror film. If you watch it expecting anything like a superhero movie, you will be severely disappointed. It is literally a boring backstory movie. The only thing making it worthwhile is when

he is when he takes Robert de Niro out. Have you heard this that it's boring from anybody? This is the first someone doesn't like the Joker movie. That might be the first, I think. I think that's somebody from people just don't like certain things. Why so serious? Heath Ledger's Joker was really scary and really good at the same time. I still like Jack Nicholson's what It's just I don't know. He was special. That's the one I grew up on, so I always have a place in

my heart. You just don't like it at all or just not above Heath Ledger. I mean he did a pretty good job, I guess for what it was. I mean that original Tim Burton Batman was pretty cool at the time. It holds up reasonably well. Some of the action sequences are really pretty lame, but it holds up reasonably. Well, i'd say, um, yeah, I don't know. Yeah, that's maybe. I wish I can remember the actor's name from the

Adam West. Remember I think he's holding Kim basic or at one point and he's like, if anybody else calls you beast, I'll rip their lungs out. Remember remember that line? Classic. So someone just said that I spoiled Well, I just spoiled Jo. How could I spoil Joker and spoiled Joker? It's one of our other producers is writing inybody telling me this is nonsense. That's nonsense. I don't even know the end. How could I spoil it under the ending?

Good point? So anyway, it is what it is? All right? Um, I'll Ali rights or is it Ali Ali? Ali? Could be other? Your last thought is right? The Democrats using the Middle East to line their pockets is that they cause global chaos. There was gun running, all right? Cool, appreciate that, Sammy Number one. I love your show. I listened to you on the iHeartRadio app. And the news breaks comes through the NBC fakes news though. I hope there's something you can do about that. No, Unfortunately I

don't news breaks. I don't get to control number two. I heard this morning there are seven million unfulfilled jobs or unfilled jobs in the US. Trump should give the worthless govern employees a pink slip, tell them their jobs waiting for them in the private sector. Sammy, it'd be nice if we could do that, but it's not going to happen because people tend to think that any shrinking of government jobs is a terrible thing and really really bad.

And that's just sort of where it is. So I wish it were true, and there you have it, or I wish that were feasible. I should say, and there you have it. Ah, here you go. Jeremy, your joker sounds a lot like you're Elizabeth Warren. I guess they're similar in personality shields high. I don't know. I don't know about that. I don't know. I'm gonna I'm not gonna say I'm gonna sign off for that one, meaning

that my impersonations is the same. You can say whatever you want on Elizabeth Warren's personality where J's really gonna just restore all the greatness of America's middle class by just taxingly, you know what, out of the rich people. Oh gosh, my daddy, My daddy always told me that if you take two flying pigs and you throw them through the back door of an oldsmobile, you're just gonna have a pig sandwich. Makes no sense, but who cares, because you know, Elizabeth Warren just makes stuff up as

she goes along. Yeah, there we have. It just doesn't sound like Heath Ledger the joker. Everyone's a critic only person. That's all right. So we gotta close up to Freedom

Hut this episode. This time, you have a couple of days here over the weekend, not just to listen to the show and catch up on old shows, but also be like, Hey, if you're at a dinner party and the conversation's lagging, if you're hanging out with a friend and you've got nothing to say, if you're on a date and the lady or the guy is just not interesting enough for you, just be like, So, there's this

thing called The Buck Sexton Show. It's on iTunes or the iHeart app or anywhere you listen to podcasts, download and listen to it. That would be an early Christ's present and Birthday present for me. So please check that out and we will talk to you all on Monday. She'll tie