Washington's Delusional Ruling Class

buck Sexton, No, mister President. As we look to the future, I'm confident that our common values and shared interests will continue to unitus. Tonight we celebrate an alliance that has helped to ensure the safety and prosperity of both our people's for decades, and which I believe will endure for many years to come. While the world has changed, we are forever mindful of the original purpose of these structures, nations working together to safeguard a hard one piece. Welcome

to the buck sections Share everybody. Oh hello, Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Indeed you have Queens Queen of England telling everybody about the very important relationship between England Great Britain and the United States. Yeah, it's interesting. Our producer Mike told me some some facts about this before we came out earlier. Mike, how many, how many people? How many presents have been invited to this special banquet with the Queen. Trump's the third. Yeah, it seems to be.

It's a rare honor for a US president. I'm pushing Obama have been the only two others, and I think they only hold two banquets a year, So I bet they serve tea and crumpets. Yeah, I hope they do, not to be concerned with not to be rather confused with tea and strumpets, which is a whole other things. So yes, indeed we have, Yes, indeed, everyone we have

Trump over in the UK. We'll talk later on about some of the some of the fallout from this with the media baiting Trump into and it's so easy and of course he's gonna do it, getting into it with Sadiq Khan and getting into it with not really getting into with Megan Markle. They're being being fake fake news. They're being fake news on that one. Don't trust them, You can't trust them, a bunch of sketchy libs. You

haven't never know what they're up to. Ah, let's now get into though, the latest in the saga of spying and Trump campaign undermining, the abuse of authority, and all the other terrible things that happened as a result of the Russia collusion to illusion. We have a little a little bit of movement on this because the preparations are underway for the left to try and convince the American people that there was really nothing, nothing to see here, no big issue other than how how Barr is a

terrible person. Of course he's a terrible person, and that's because he has said some things that are that really hit home. I mean I discussed with you a little bit last week that that interview where Bar he was dropping bombs. I mean, you go back, it's worth watching the whole thing. It was on CBS. And he's not over excited about anything. He's not. He's not stretching the truth, he's not grandstanding. He's just saying, look, this is this

is the deal. You know, everybody dies. That's his line. But that was awesome. That was awesome. I think that this is the guy we need in this role. But here are just just a few of as we get into the effort to counter message it over the weekend, which a lot of Democrats will get Mark Warner and others running around trying to make this guy seem like he's, Oh, he's a toady for the president and he's a bad guy.

He's doing all these things he shouldn't be doing. They never tell us what he's doing that's bad, just that he's the president's man, and yeah, stuff like that. But here's what Bill Barr had to say about the ruling class here in DC played twelve. You don't think that they permitted treason. That is a legal matter, right, But you have concerns about how they conducted the investigation. Yes, but you know, when you're dealing with official government contact

and intent is frequently a murky issue. I'm not suggesting people did what they did necessarily because of conscious nefarious motives. Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they're doing is in the higher interests, the better good. They don't realize that what they're doing is really anathetical to the democratic system we have. They start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people that are more informed and sensitive than

everybody else. The guardians of the people that are more informed and sensitive than everybody else. Who does that sound like a perfect description of from this whole saga of the last two years. Doesn't that sound quite a bit like James Comey, doesn't sound quite a bit like Bob Muller, Brennan at the CIA, Clapper at the DNI, Yates at the DOJ. Doesn't that describe their mentality? Haven't we seen

this on full display? They just thought they knew better and that justified whatever it is that they did then, and they think it still justifies what they have done even looking back at it now. Barr understands this. The current Attorney General knows who we're dealing with when you talk about the establishment Arrians. He knows this mentality that, in his sense, in order to save our democracy, they had to undermine it. That's what they were willing to do.

That was the gamble that they took. That was the position that they put themselves in. And Barr recognizes this as a very real threat, as a very serious problem, one that we have to get to the bottom of. The same people who were screaming for two years about how we must know the full extent of Russian interference in the election shouldn't we know the full extent of the federal bureaucracies interference in our own election. Shouldn't we know if law enforcement powers were abused to try to

turn a presidential election. Shouldn't we get to the bottom of it, at least even for those people who don't believe that that happened, shouldn't they want that to be verified? Why the change all of a sudden, Why the move away from transparency and accountability to something else, to a position of indifference to abuse? That seems all but certain

to have occurred. I mean, I am certain it occurred. Well, once we start to have a discussion at the national level about the motives that were involved here, once you have people of Barr's stature who will make the case that, you know, it's not that they thought that they were

being little Hillary stooges in this process. They really believed they had convinced themselves they being the deep state operatives here, the Komis and the mccabees and the Yates and the Brennans, and they really thought that what they were doing was the stuff of great patriots who would be forever remembered fondly by their countrymen. I mean, I think that they had convinced themselves of it. They were wrong, They're delusional,

But did they believe it? Do you think do you think Komy thinks for one second that anything that he has done is really questionable and maybe makes him even a bad guy? Of course not Coomy looks down on all of us literally and figuratively because he is like seven foot four, But he does look down on the rest of the people while thinking simultaneously that he defends the rest of the people with his actions, the abuses that he and others engaged in, and we know there

were abuses. Releasing memos from your time as FBI director to the New York Times, that's an abuse, all right, there's no way around it. McCay lying three times the Inspector General about contacts with the media, that's an abuse. There's no way around this. We will find out the full extent of it, I hope from this Inspector General report we will find out if there was a praetorianism

on display here or a praetorian effect. Praetorianism is a pretty specific thing, but a praetorian effect where well here here, here's how the attorney general, I think rather astutely and elegantly put it himself Play thirteen. When we talk about foreign interference versus say, a government abuse of power, and yes, wishes more troubling, Well, they're both. They're both troubling equally

in my mind, they are sure. I mean, republics have fallen because of praetorian guard mentality, where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences, and they feel that anyone who you know has a different opinion, you know, somehow an enemy of the state, and and you know there is that tendency that they know better, and you know that they're there to protect as guardians of the people, that can easily

translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official. Does anyone at this point really even dispute that there were senior government officials under the Obama administration who believed that Trump was a clear and present danger to the United States.

Isn't it quite obvious? I mean, some of them have come out and said as much since then, but I think it's obvious from the actions they took at the time, and you might say, well, Buck, how could they view it as such, Well, he's a threat to the very established structures and power dynamics that many of those individuals have relied upon and called upon and supported and defended their entire lives, certainly their whole careers. They don't want

to see that dash. They don't want it to be the case that you don't need to have ever held elected office to be the president. You know, some of these things we take for granted now, But at the time it was unthinkable to not just Libs, but a lot of center right Republican types, you know, GOP establishmentarians.

It was the case with a lot of them that they thought that Trump would just be pulling down the very fabric of American society by being president, that he would that he would tear us apart, that there'd be that the stock markets would crash, and there'd be race riots in the streets, and there'll be you know, a war with well, not Russia, because of course we're Russia's puppet, right, but a war with North Korea, and a trade war with China and all there'd be all these things that

would happen that would result in the most the most catastrophic consequences. None of that has happened. That country's doing really well, which is the single biggest slap in the face that these deep staters could ever have. So that's why they turned to the ad hominum. That's why. Then it's all, well, if we can't win just by trashing Trump, maybe we trash Bar and the American people won't believe

what he has to say. Play fourteen, our bipartisan committee, the last bipartisan effort on the Hill looking at this issue,

reaffirmed unanimously that the Russians massively intervened. If we had not acted, if our intelligence community and law enforcement had not acted, they would have been irresponsible and candidly, mister Barr has very little credibility with me, and I think the vast majority of candidly, not just Democrats, but many Americans, because he, timing again, is not acting as our attorney general but as a personal advocate for Donald Trump. The smear, it's a lie. It's a stupid one from Mark Warner,

but I guess he has nowhere else to run with it. Yeah, he has no credibility. Mark Warner says, here's somebody who seems to think Bill Barr has credibility to play fifteen. I like and respect Bill Barr. I know he's an institutionalist who cares deeply about the integrity of the Justice Department. So I'm sure he'll use the standard career resources. He has to judge what he should be involved in, what

he shouldn't be involved in. But Bill Barr is a talented person who was a good attorney general the first time. I liked him very much. Then I think he'll serve the Justice Department. Weather Wait, I thought Bill Barr had no credibility. There's James Comey talking about how talented and good and respectable and everything else he is. Oh, but because he didn't deliver Trump's impeachment on a silver platter to the Democrats like Muller did, he's a bad guy.

Now could this be any more obvious? I mean, I do hope that you take a great degree you listening to this across the country. I hope you take great pride and solace and knowing that at least you're right and you're not one of the people that's been fooled. You have him in Hoodwinn, you have him been deluded in this whole process. I think for so many liberals out there, they can't admit to themselves what has really happened.

They can't accept that in this whole process they've been swindled intellectually, they've been made to look like fools, they've been turned into hysterics. So they'd much rather cling to the possibility that somehow, even with all the facts as they're out now, even seeing the actions of Muller and knowing the truth of Komi and others, we're supposed to think that this was all fine, this was all on the up and up. I'm sorry, that's just not going

to cut it, not going to work. I get more on this, and then also the possible breakup of Facebook. The FTC took a step in at least investigating Facebook for a possible trade violation. Very interesting stuff there. And we will get into the latest on Democrats freaking out over gun control. Yes, they do, in fact want to take your guns. That's not just a thing that we tell each other. And if I have time, maybe even get into some of the latest on China tariffs and Mexico.

Mexico tariffs too. A lot of tariffs flying around. We have a busy, busy show my friends much to discuss, and is racism against anyone possible or is racism only possible against certain groups, certain individuals. That's all coming up. If you want to be dogs and big progressive goals,

socialism is not the accident. I was reelected. I was reelected in a purple stay in two thousand and fourteen, one of the worst years for Democrats, and a quarter sent I was we should thrive with a universal coverage by removing private insurance from over one hundred and fifty million of error. We should not try to time uplimate change by guarantee. Hold on, hold on, I love it. Oh that's hick and Looper running for Democrat president and he's speaking in San Francisco and he said socialism is

not the answer. And they go boom boom all over the place. Oh, because they think socialism is the answer. Boom boom with your socialism, with your antisocialism. Oh man, I really do think that Donald Trump could just run that. I mean that that should be rnc ads going forward. This this is what happens when when a center left Democrat, as he said, hick and Looper is from a purple state. I mean, he's look, he's a Democrat, but he's just

not among the far left, fringiest of Democrats. He says socialism is not the answer, and they just terrupt into boop boop. Now what are we to make of this? When I talk about how socialism is on the rise in this country? A lot of my Democrat friends and colleagues will, of whom it feels there are fewer and fewer these days, will say to me, but that's not true.

And I would point out, well, you have Bernie Sanders running as a Democratic socialist and he's number two out of twenty three candidates the Democratic Party right now, and you also have incidents like this. You know that we can't entirely ignore. You've an entire auditorium full of people in San Francisco, in a liberal stronghold, and socialism comes up, and they're clearly very favorle to it. Never mind Great

New Deal and single payer. There is a far not just a far left fringe, there is a far left control center of the Democratic Party. Now. The far left is calling the shots for them. And whether the rest of the Democratic Party goes along with all of it as a function of doctor and doesn't really matter because this is what the Democratic Party stands for now. This is that the party principles are increasingly socialist, increasingly far left.

I mean, the Green New Deal is socialism. It's just they don't call it that, but it is a socialist program. And the stuff they're talking about coming. You could look at the Soviet Constitution. Some of it looks like it's borrowed liberally from that. So there you high it all right, team, I've got a little more, a little more on the bar Muller throwdown stuff. And then we got to talk the NRA, guns Democrats, Oh my, so much more. Stay

with me. I got questions for him. When did you know there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia. We knew when we deposed Jim Comey. When we deposed Jim Comey, he said, all the way up until the day he was fired May nine, twenty seventeen, he told us they had no evidence of any type of conspiracy, clusion or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia. And that was after ten months of the FBI investigating him. That that was, that was after putting out returned next

to George Papadopplas. That was after using the dossier to spy on the Trump campaign via Carter Page. So after ten months, if they couldn't establish collusion, how long did it take Bob Muller? And if you learned this early on, why did you wait almost two years before you told the country that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the election? After all, that was your central focus, your central task of this entire

special Counsel investigation. So that's a question I think the whole country has for Bob Muller. He didn't. I got a lot of questions for Bob Muller. I would like to see them answered under oath in a public setting on Capitol Hill. Why should Muller get away without his time in the hot seat? This is ridiculous. This is ridiculous.

But it shows us that all along the claims of letting the process play out in transparency, and you know, this is how democrats are are really Like if I don't know how many of you ever been to in some countries, there'll be a tennis match and you're not supposed to make noise during a tennis match. You know when the point is being played. But some places they'll

make a lot of noise. And imagine, you know, one side, every time the player they don't like is about to hit the ball, they all yell, oh, they make a lot of noise. But then when the player they do like is about to hit the ball that they're totally silent. And then when the other side that's rooting for the guy that's had the noise says, well, we're gonna make noise, do this, and now, how dare you show respect? Be respectful?

They only want respect when it goes their way. They only want the process to play out when it hurts Trump. The moment that it doesn't hurt Trump or whatever, then then the processes is irrelevant to them, or the moment the process will help Trump. They want to disregard it

right away. What they know in the meantime is that they thoroughly, thoroughly do not want to get answers from Bob Muller in front of the American public because it's pretty there's some questions that that would immediately come up. Immediately come up, and what could the answers possibly be. Why is it, Mueller that you held that very weird press conference was completely unnecessary unless you were trying to just give a shove to the Democrats in Congress to

impeach the president. I no fair minded, serious person can look at what Bob Muller has done and come away from it thinking, oh, yeah, this guy didn't have an AXA grind against the president. He's fine. No, there's no problem here. Of course, he did a two year long investigation for laying out, essentially laying out obstruction the whole Russia interference thing that could have been done on the DJ. There was no need for a special counsel on that.

The only reason and remember they all you don't remember, they hope that no one pays attention. The only reason for a special counsel was the inability of the DOJ working for President Trump to be trusted, according to some people in the J who are Obama pointees, because of the possibility of Russia and the President working together. If it were just Russian interference the election, you could have

had a DJ investigation of that, no problem. Still brought the same charges that Mueller brought against those Russian troll farms that are just really just showboating, don't don't do anything, have no real effective force. But no, they spent all this time putting together eleven cases of possible obstruction that when you read them, you see there there's only one where you could even make a vague and tortured and stretched case of even really never mind obstruction, even impropriety.

The other ones are ridiculous, ridiculous, and yet Mueller put them in there. But they're gonna be running over time, my friends, to try to prevent this from getting out. It's where you're here. We are in June, and you've got some people that are very concerned about just what is going to be found out in this whole process. Here's former Attorney General Michael Mukazee on exactly what is at work here when it comes to the anti bar

anti Bill Barr narrative out there played twenty one. There are a lot of nervous people in Washington when he decided that he was going to investigate how this ule got started. I think a lot of people got very nervous. I'll tell you that the Mulla report, the first line says that they opened the file in twenty sixteen after Papadopolis had this conversation in the bar. That's not what started the investigation. He's saying. The first line of the

Mulla report is a lie. It's a former attorney general, it's a very smart guy. It is a lie, of course it is. Think about what the claim is here that you have so called legal experts and former senior Obama administration officials who go on TV and pair at

this stuff. Papadopoulos allegedly and disputedly claims that he heard something from some guy who allegedly and disputedly said something about, you know, Russia getting emails from Hillary or whatever, and they opened up a full FBI field investigation based on that.

I mean to think that that's reasonable and rational, you'd have to say, Buck, did you every time you got a an anonymous tip when you're at the NYPD about how bin Laden was hiding under was hiding under someone's bed, you know in Queens, why didn't you investigate that right away? Why didn't you put all your best guys on it? Well, because you'd think there's some degree of verification and some professionalism in the approach of people that have these kinds

of powers. But if you thought that about the FBI under the Obama administration with the Trump campaign in full swing, you'd be wrong. This is what we are told this is what happens. This is the reality that we were all facing. We have uh to talk about how Dems hate the NRA, how Libs hate gun owners. That's coming up. If I can't get, I'm the only candidate calling for a band and buy back on every single assault weapon. But I also believe that's invested in jobs and education,

block by block. If I can't get, because of course you mentioned, you mentioned your plan for a mandatory buyback of assault weapons, weapons of war as you call them. You told my colleague Jake Tapper that you'd be willing to support criminal prosecution of people who don't follow if that that requirement, if it were to become law. So under a president Swalwell, you are saying that some Americans would indeed have to give up their guns. Yeah, and

I'm proposing something that Australia. Did you know in the nineties, Eric Swalwell, he's a zero percenter, meaning he's not yet at one percent support. I believe he's in the zero percentile. Eric Swalwell, there is letting it be known that he does he wants to take your guns. Let's let's not let's not get this confused. Let's not get this to us. He wants to take your guns. He believes the guns should be taken from your home. It talks about Australia's

mandatory buyback program. Okay, how many times do you have

to go over this? Australia's buyback program involved the grand total of a few million firearms and a much smaller country, and in fact there was less There are more firearms in private hands today than at the height of the buyback or the moment right after the buyback program essentially wound out, although it kind of went on for many years because the buyback program didn't do anything because criminals don't care about the buyback program and it's not a

successful way of not an effective way of trying to reduce gun crime. But if we were really serious about about reducing gun crime, wouldn't we Instead of Eric Swalwell talking to us about how semi automatic rifles which is what he's discussing and calls them weapons of war, which you know, a bolt action those of you who actually have some familiarity with firearms, which I know is a large law percentage of this audience, you know a bolt

action rifle can be a weapon of war. There are there are marine snipers that still use a bolt action rifle. Weapons of war is a nonsense term. What does it even mean? Is a side arm? Is a nine millimeter or a forty five caliber hand got a weapon of war? Of course? It is. How many people you know in war zones? I've carry a side arm in a war zone. I'm pretty darned sure it's a weapon of war if I needed to, and what have shot somebody with it

in a war zone? It's a weapon of war. So why do they use that term, Well, because they're trying to stigmatize Second Amendment supporters and Second Amendment or gun owners across the board. And that's really what this is about. And I want to you know, while there's a part of it wants to talk about the specifics of this band or that band and how it doesn't really doesn't really matter. They they do this, meaning Democrats, they push this stuff. They stigmatize gun owners because they want to

show their base that they don't like those people. If it were about dealing with gun violence, don't you think you'd hear from these democrats a lot more people like Swallow and Jilabrand about how fifty people were shot in Chicago over the weekend. Fifty people in just a couple of parts of Chicago. Five zero that's a lot of ten of them were killed. Fifty shot at and Chicago is one of the most restrictive jurisdictions in the country for guns. And then they say, oh, but fuck, that's

because of neighboring jurisdictions. All right, Well, neighboring jurisdictions don't have a oh you can bring your gun into Chicago loophole. It's still illegal to have your gun in Chicago. So why we'll passing more gun laws do anything about the neighboring jurisdiction problem. No, what it means is that you'll have someone who's allegal concealed carry permit holder who drives into the wrong I'm sorry, producer might tells me it's actually fifty two were shot in Chicago for the weekend. Mike,

Oh my gosh, fifty two one city. Why can't they more effectively deal with that violence? That is another question that I never never get a worthwhile answer to. I ask people about gun violence in Chicago, and I've had this conversation with Democrats and the immediately turn to police violence. No, no no, no, no, it's not the police that shot fifty two people. That's not it's not a police violence problem.

I'm sorry you don't get to. But they don't want to talk about what's causing violence in Chicago because that's not a fun talking point for Democrats. They want their base, they want the left to know that they don't like gun owners, that gun owners are bad people, they're mean people. They are you know, foolish, simple minded, xenophobic, racist a lot and live in the Bible Belt and in the South where that's what they think of gun owners, or they live in you know, Texas, places like that that's

what they think of gun owners. And this is why you have someone like Kurston Jilla Brand, who is really that she's trying to be the Pandora in chief. I mean, she'll say anything. I mean, I wish I could sit in on the Gila Brand consultant meetings that happened, I'm sure every day, or they say, you know, here's your messaging for today, and she just goes okay. I will say that it's like they're programming some kind of a

brainless Democrat robot. Whatever it needs to be said, I will say, doesn't matter what I used to say here, she is really trying to outdo the competition, the crazy left wing competition on guns. And you can hear for yourself play nine. And I think the most outrageous thing that's happened to our democracy is how much fear and division and hate has been spread. I think the NRA is the worst organization in this country for doing exactly that.

They care more about their profits than the American people. They care more about selling guns to someone on the terror watch list, or someone with grave mental illness, or someone who has a violent criminal background, all lies. I mean, I don't know. I don't know if she's so stupid that she does not realize that these are lies, or if she's so reckless she just does not care. It is a tough call. It is not something that I

could easily tell you one way or the other. I mean, there's a case you made that maybe she is such an airhead that she doesn't know what she's saying. Isn't true that that the NRA absolutely does not does not advocate for selling weapons to people that are gravely mentally ill. It is already illegal to sell a fire and the NRA does not try to change any laws where a violent criminal could or where bands a violent criminal from

buying a firearm. But the facts are not something that Kristin Kirstin and see Kristin Kirsten Kirsten Gillibrand troubles herself much with it. Remember, this is the woman, folks, who one of the women, I should say, who wants to be the next president of the United States. That's right, We're supposed to feel like we'll sleep better at night if we replaced Trump with her? Why exactly? She's what

do you get? What's the improvement with Jelo? If you just want classic left wing non thinking, brainless talking points, but you want the progressive policy apparatus behind it, then I guess, yeah, Jila Brand's fine. He just check the identity politics box by being a woman. That's all they really care about right now. I guess finding somebody they can shoehorn into the White House who gives them some claim to democrats, some claim to diversity. At least that's

what the left wants. You know, they're still clinging to Bernie and and Biden at the top of the at the top of the polls right now. So who knows. But here's what Jilla Brand said about the bum stock band play ten. Is there anything you could have done that would have stopped this terrible incident? Yeah, stopping beholden to the NRA, like President Trump is. He does President Trump's bidding. Remember after the shooting in Las Vegas, he said, yeah, yeah,

we're gonna ban the bum stocks. Did he ban the bum stocks? No? Because the NRA came crashing down. She's wrong. They did band bump stocks. They are now illegal to own, by or sell. President Trump took that action and issued the band gave them ninety days to turn them in or bump stocks, as some of you know, it's really just a thing that allows you to engage in a type of a method of firing a weapon. But does do you think that the fact checkers the Washington Post

are running around with their hair on fire. I mean maybe they put it on some back page somewhere, But oh my gosh, Juliah Brand lied about Trump and bumping now, of course not because it's when Julah Brand lies, you see, it's a good lie. This is the way the media breaks this stuff down. This is how the Democrats view it. They are good lies and bad lies. When Trump lies bad and it's not even necessarily a lie. When Trump says that he's the handsomest they call him a liar.

I don't know if you think Trump is the handsomest man in the world or not. But the President is allowed to think that and say that without everyone jumping down is you know, jumping on his chest yelling about how he's a liar. He's not a liar. He may be may have a little bit of a high self regard, perhaps a little narcissistic, but it's not a liar. Jilla Brand is a liar saying things about the NRA that aren't true. The worst organization in America, though, isn't that remarkable?

You know, I'm somebody who's paid NRA dues. Really, I'm I'm the worst. I'm I'm supporting the worst organization of America in might dollars. It's it's a remarkable thing for them to say. But this is this is Democrats, all the stuff about guns, and this is why I'm so I just have no patience for these stupid Democrats on this issue. It's really not about gun violence. That's not the that they say. That is their concern. That is

not true. It is not about gun violence. The real concern, the primary concern, is showing the left and the base of the left that they dislike gun owners. It is tipathy for you who listen to this show who own firearms. They want all their little voters in the most blue cities in the country to know gun owners are bad

people and we don't like them. The NRA is the worst organization in the country because that gets donations going, It gets media coverage from foolish libs who work for all these different news organizations who don't know anything about firearms, who don't know anything about guns. They just know guns bad and gun owner's bad too. Remember that. Don't let them try to create this artificial separation, because as far as they're concerned, there is no separation guns and gun owners.

Leftists hate them both, my friends, unfortunately, but that's the reality. Let's kick this one off with a Trump tweet, shall we. I believe that if people stop using or subscribing to A T and T, they'd be forced to make big changes at CNN, which is dying in the ratings anyway.

It is so unfair, such bad fake news. Why wouldn't they act when the world watches CNN, it gets a false picture of the USA said, he is absolutely right about CNN, and I like that he goes after them here and just says what needs to be said CNN is is American anti American propaganda, and it's time that finally we are open to the discussion about what that what that should mean for them going forward. I mean, you know, I like the Trump let's let's it rip

on this stuff. And I just I'll note that after my time in China, where I was seeing so much of the anti American nous on CNN International, Trump pushing back on this and saying that people should put pressure in at and T. You know, this is where you have the conservatives who jump out and say, oh no, no, no, we don't do that, we don't do that. Not to that, I say, well, what do we do? Suffer in silence?

Why is it that corporate culture has been in my in my adult lifetime, effectively taken over by the left. Why does Disney feel so fine with saying that George They're going to punish the entire state of Georgia for a completely legitimate legislative act of the Georgia State Assembly. Why do they think that that's okay, meaning that they

won't even have any pushback, meaningful pushback from it. Why why do we know that cities or different localities discriminating against Chick fil A because it is a company that tries to promote Christian values. Why do we know that that they feel very safe, they feel very safe doing these things, that they can hound people out of their jobs, they can get them fired, they can ruin them because they don't support leftist orthodoxy or because they run a

foul of in some way leftist orthodoxy. Do we just allow this to continue? You know? This brings me into something of the discussion over wartime versus peacetime conservatism that has broken out recently. I don't know how much of how many of you have been. This is kind of deep in the weeds, blue check journo stuff. But apparently the peacetime conservatives are coming from me. Hear the sirens

in the background. But no, this is this is something that has blown out in the open the last week or so as a function of the debate between David French, somebody who you know well who listened to the show from when he used to appear pretty regularly. He is a senior writer at National Review, and Sir Rob Amari, who you also know. I mean, these are two guys

I've had on the show a lot. Sir Rob is a writer at Commentary and recently put a book out, And I cannot do justice to both of their individual conservative political philosophies. And I have invited Sir Rob, and I'm going to invite David on and I want them to speak for themselves. But the issue boils down at some level too. You know, do you sometimes have to

just roll up the sleeves and win? You know, do you have to be willing to use the state to achieve conservative ends instead of just the taking this hands off attitude of well, if we create an even playing field, then conservative ideas will win out on the other side keeps winning victories using the mechanisms of the state, And not only do they win, but then they run around and bayonet the survivors. I mean that then they run

around and really ram it into our faces. You know, Oh, not only do we need laws that say that, you know, a man can compete in women's athletics, but if you have a problem with that, you're violating that individual civil rights. And you know, you should be prosecuted. And it's not enough to get their way. They want to get their way and crush those who dissent. What's the best way

to deal with it? The frenchie in way, although I know I'm sure David would would quibble with this, disagree with this, is to use the processes that are in place. Take it to court, you know, fight it out and try to make the case, try to persuade the other side. Try to use the more Sarabamari way is how do we smash the argument of the other side. Take power, take the power of the state into our own hands for limited purposes, and achieve conservative ends, to achieve conservative

policy solutions. You know, it's it's really the more the more Trumpian approach. And I think it's it's a fascining debate. I think there's very interesting dynamics on both sides, and I do believe it also revisits that schism that we all saw from when during that and look, I was you know this who listened to the show. I was initially a Ted Cruise supporter, and I was skeptical of Trump. I was never anti Trump, but I was skeptical in the early days and then I realized over time, oh wait,

this is something, This is different. This is a movement, and this is a sea change. This is a separation from the politics of the past. This needs to be taken very, very seriously. Not every word that Trump breathes need to be taken seriously, right we learn this, don't

take Trump literally, but take him seriously. But that that debate within conservatism and the kind of Romney asque losing like a gentleman, that is something that is going to peat itself now, I think heading into the general election, and we see it with things like how to respond to the very aggressive comments of Disney, one of the most powerful and iconic American companies in the world, clearly saying that you know, if you're pro life, we don't

like you. That's what Disney. You know, this is up there with Coca Cola. I mean, this is up there with the most iconic American brands. You know, this be like Ralph Lauren saying, and I don't even want to know Ralph Lauren thinks on a corporate level, but Ralph Lauren saying, you know, if you're pro life, you're not welcome in our stores. You're not welcome to shop with

us if you're pro life. I'm sure that there are plenty of people at the very top of corporate America who feel that way about about those who are pro life. And you'll note that the the converse there is the obverse to converse. The contrary position is almost never articulated. I mean, I can't think of one off the top of my head where a major corporate official in America says that if you are a conservative, you are not welcome. You are not you know, part of our family. Sorry,

if you are a liberal, pardon me. If you're a liberal, you are not welcome. You're not part of our family. You're not somebody that can be involved in what we're doing. I can't think of that being the case. So how do we respond to that? I mean, Trump's saying that AT and T should be pressured because of CNN. How badly for cn AM I supposed to feel When I know that CNN anchors will individually reach out and use the power of their organization behind the scenes to try

to crush conservative voices. I know about this personally. CNN on a corporate level will exert its influence and its power to try and crush, not just any competitors that it can, but obviously to stifle and ostracized conservative voices. You know, it's a lib propaganda outlet, that's what it is. So shouldn't we be willing to take our dollars elsewhere and show you know, this is really a conversation about should conservatives start to boycott two folks? Do we need

to fight fire with fire. I've been around for a long time now in this game, We're not that long compared to others, but I've been around for a while and us making the Burkean HIJACKI in, let's just level the market and let's just let things play out while we make our good arguments. You know, we're making that argument sometimes while they're stomping our face into the curve. I'm not sure that this really has the intended effect.

And I do think that that is the recognition of the Trump era that we've been getting crushed on the government by the government when it comes to social issues for a long time. You know, we have now on the fight over gender and gender binarity. I don't know if that's a word, but the gender binary construct male female.

You know, they're not just making a social argument there, leveraging the power of the state so that your kids now are going to be learning, you know, in the fifth grade in California that if if they're at if they feel like a woman, one day they're actually a woman. And this is gonna be this stuff is gonna get mandated, This stuff is gonna be jammed down your throats. Is the response to that to ask them to get a subscription to you know, the Weekly Standard R I p uh.

You know what are you supposed to do? Are we? Are we to take action in response to the aggression of the left or not? And I mean action on a corporate level, financial action. Look, there's there's a degree of this. The conservative versus liberal corporate sphere right now reminds me a little bit of the way that the US and China trade has gone. You know, on US China trade, we're told we want to be free traders.

Free trade creates well, free trade creates, free trade creates prosperity, and you know, we need to really focus in on this stuff. And to that, I say, okay, but China is not a free trade country with US. China has all kinds of tariffs and there are other ways too, that they they stack the deck in favor of their state owned or state supported enterprises, and they are getting a free ride on our products through intellectual property theft.

And you know, there's all kinds of bats. So we can sit here and just stamp our feet and say no, no no, no, we're not going to do anything in response because we're free traders. There's a little bit of that with corporate America and the liberal dominance, the dominance of liberal narratives in the in the C suite across the country. We don't we don't want to be punitive and nasty to people because they're liberals. But can we at least penalize corporations that are going to take these

this kind of a line. Are we going to push back or just keep getting slapped around? I mean there is a there's a little bit of a of a conservative uh you know, overtolerance of well, if we just you know, if we just engage in you know, peaceful resistance, if we go the Gandhi the Gandhi routine, you know, eventually the other side will see the light if we

do peaceful resistance and make our case. And to that, I say, well, you know, not if you're dealing I was gonna go with this, but you know, not if you're dealing with the Nazis is not going to make the case for you. You know, we got to remind ourselves a little bit of Bonhofer here. You know, there comes a time when and I know we're going to

the Nazi path. I'm not saying they're dealing with Nazis, but just there are there are times when you realize that you got to change up your tactics because the other side is just gonna cheat and they're just gonna keep winning. They're just gonna keep winning. So Trump's tweet here, I don't got a lot of attention about stopping subscription to AT and T in order to bring bring about change at CNN. I mean, you know, Jeff, Jeff Zucker at CNN should go. CNN has become, to anyone paying attention,

who's honest, a laughing stock. It's not a news organization anymore. It is a It is a straight up propaganda channel. They say all kinds of terrible things about Fox News on their air, and yet they get all all huffy when you know, in response, the President says, well, look at you guys, you're you're the opposite of State TV. You're you're something else. You're anti State TV, You're anti

Trump TV. I do want us to fight back. I do think it's not enough to sit around and hope that the market will the market as it stands now, right, not a free market that is fair and open the marketers that stands now, which has all kinds of inefficiencies and bureaucracies and biases built into it. I do think that's a problem, speaking of how we fight back and

the not fair free market of ideas social media. I got some thoughts on this one that a lot of a lot of attention being paid to the fact that you have the FTC, Federal Trade Commission going to be looking at Facebook. Everybody. This could be a big thing, a big deal, big situation. I have important thoughts on this. And also we'll be joined by my friend Will Chamber from Human Events to discuss more coming up. The Federal Trade Commission, which would be leading any anti trust action

into Facebook. They now have they now have gotten this thing started, folks. They're going to lead any anti trust investigation to Facebook. This is the early stage of what could be the breakup of the social media giant. Now will it be broken up? Who knows. We have to see how this shakes out. I'm sure Facebook will fight

very hard to prevent that. But this is an issue that everyone has to If you care about politics in America, if you care about culture and an American society in the future of this country, you are forced to care at some level about these social media giants. Even if you don't. And I know some of you who listen don't have a Facebook account, have a Twitter account, have an Instagram account. This stuff affects all that's going on

around you. It affects the affects elections, it affects our discourse, how we discuss issues, what we learn, what we know, how we communicate, and the amount of power that has concentrated in the hands of just Facebook is pretty staggering. There's nothing in the in the history of humanity that can really rival Facebook's ability to censor, magnify, disrupt, deflect, conversation, information flow. It is incredible, incredible in the sense that

it's hard to believe it's not incredible. Is an awesome So what Facebook has offered so far as well, We're gonna We're gonna come up with some kind of internal rules and commissions, we won't rules the road because they've been playing this game where they're platform and publisher. So they don't want to be held responsible for what is on their platform because it's obviously content generated by users and you don't know what crazy people and all kinds

of people are going to put on there. But they so they don't want to be responsible for that. But they also want the ability to censor what some people do and establish these terms of service. So they to me, it seemed like they really want to have it both ways. And yet this is a company that is worth over five hundred billion dollars and by some estimates has about three quarters of all social networking revenue. And it is

a true giant. And you know we're talking about Trump before and how he wants pressure on AT and T. Well, the Justice Department precedent that most people will point to for a breakup a possible breakup of Facebook is that of AT and T back in the nineteen fifties. Right, AT and T many of us now think of as a self own cell phone company provider. Right they give your cell service or your phone service. But they used to be old landline phones, as you know, and they

provided all kinds of telecommunications equipment. The government sued AT and T under antitrust and then there was all there was a whole you know, there's a consent aim out of it, and AT and T had to put out its its patents and also wasn't allowed to just jump into and try to control the computer industry you look at So that was then, and now you know, AT and T is still around today, still a very large company, and I believe the stock did well after the initial break.

But if there is any case to be made ever that somebody is too powerful, a guy like Mark Zuckerberg who has sixty percent of the voting shares of Facebook, and Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp billion of users and can determine, you know, what the algorithms do, what news people see, what the privacy settings are. You know, what is protected speech is what is beyond the protection First Amendment protection, or rather Facebook's First Amendment protection. Who knows

what that even is. There's some really problematic stuff going on here, and we can hope that somebody else is going to come along with another platform and we'll be able to compete with Facebook as it stands now. But Facebook acquires at their platforms, copies aspects of their tech, and then just runs them out of business. So what does it mean in the meantime? You know, what is it to Caines who said in a long run, we're

ald dead. Yeah, maybe they'll be a Facebook competitor in fifty years, but Facebook right now could pretty much if it wanted to turn the next election. Do you want one company to have that kind of power, especially as Silicon Valley left wing company. They're regulating all of our companies. There's all kinds of regulation in place that we deal with our company, or not even our companies, just American companies deal with day in and day out. Should Facebook

be immune from all that? For some reason? Why we've got my friend Will Chamberlin joining us to talk more stay with me. So is there a conservative case for breaking up some of these mega social media corporations out there? Facebook top of the list, but Google also right there too. Some people are pointing at Amazon. Let's talk to our friend Will Chamberlain about this. He's the publisher of Human Events, which has been revived and is making all kinds of

waves on the interwebs. Telling people good things about conservatism. Mister will, great to have you back, good to be with you, Buck as always. All right, man, So what's the what's the move that should be made here about Facebook? What is the conservative case? Because you know, usually, as you know, you'll hear from most mainstream, mainline conservatives makes

it sound like they'll wear monocles and ascots. But you know what I mean, you'll hear from the conservative establishment that there's no such thing as a monopoly, a monopo. These only possible if the government allows it to be, or rather enforces a monopoly, and so social media cannot be a monopoly. You say, what, sir, I mean, let's deal of that first. As a matter of economics, I

think these companies are very clearly monopoly. You know, Facebook as a market cap of something like five hundred billion dollars, Google closer to a trillion. Those are the market caps that are not a product of people who think that these companies are in a competitive market and are facing serious competition that will reduce their profits. These are You get a market cap like that because you've got a

monopoly and can essentially control pricing. And that's why not only do you have these massive market caps, but nobody in the right mind thinks about competing with Google or Facebook. Like if you try to go to a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, even somebody who subscribes to the idea that competition here was the way to go. And you said, I'm going to compete with Google. This is I'm going to set up a new company. We're going to beat them in search stayed laugh you out of the room.

Same thing with book. Yeah, and there's a lot of ways they go about this, right, They buy, they buy people out, they crush people, they copy people. I mean, they the idea that anyone could could compete with them does seem to be but you know, but they would point well, and by the way, I mean, I I've already made my case, you're in the show. I do think that there should be regulation of this, or rather there should be a breakup of this for a whole

bunch of different reasons. But the other side would say, well, what about you know, friends stir and what about what's what's the other one called MySpace? And you know they could make a comeback, right, I mean, the problem is there are network effects here, Like you know, MySpace never had a dominant monopoly in the way Facebook does now. And once you have a network like this where everyone

is there's no reason for people to leave. And moreover, the advantages you get in terms of the data collection you have and the information you have on your users, they just create this massive competitive mode that's almost impossible to surmount. And I think the unique dynamic of the unique winner take all dynamics is really prevalent in tech makes it so that these anti monopoly arguments just aren't

very good. So why should conservatives care about this? Well, because it's not that these companies are using monopoly power to price gouge so much that's the normal lefty case about regulating monopolies. This is a new problem. Instead of price gouging, these companies are using their massive power to sway politics. And because they're not in a competitive environment, you can't just set up a competitor to outcompete them when they're doing things that hurt their bottom line for

political ends. So the ability of a company like Facebook to tweak its algorithm to disabor conservative candidates, or a Google to demonetize conservative YouTube creators so that conservative commentators are discouraged for making videos you know, all these things add up to essentially changing the landscape, the battlefield where

where politics is, where politics is resolved. And unless Conservators are willing to use government power to remedy that, to impose punishments on these companies when they decide the sense of conservatives, then we're going to be a structural disadvantage in elections. And I don't see a reason why the

conservative movement should tolerate that. I also always wonder how the because you know, we get on our side, there are a lot of Conservatives who oppose this, and this reminds me a bit of the debate over tariffs, where they'll just say, you know, free trade and tariffs or taxes. And the response to that now has become we'll hold on a second, free trade sounds great, we don't. We don't have free trade. That's that's not the status quo.

So to start from this position of well, just our answer to everything is free trade is to ignore the reality of what is happening. This is specifically with China, but actually with the EU, with Canada, with a lot of places. And I think there's a similar dynamic at work with the Facebook monopoly break up question because they don't seem to understand that Facebook operates as both as a publisher and as a platform, right, So sometimes wants

publish or protection, sometimes it wants platform protection. And I mean, I'm sitting here talking to you on terrestrial radio. There are all kinds of regulations on what I can say. There are all kinds of limitations and issues and FCC and this and that and the other thing. So why should Facebook be exempt and write its own rules? Right? I mean, usually this argument about not using the government, people say it's a principle, but really it's just as your ristic It's like, as a rule of fun, we

shouldn't use government to regulate things. But these people aren't objecting to things like civil rights laws that say, to you know, hotel owners and restaurant owners, you can't just turn away black people. Like I don't think most of the people who talk about the virtues of the free market are going around thinking like, wow, we really need to get rid of these civil rights laws that are

impinging on freedom of association. So for the same token in twenty nineteen, to have meaningful free speech, you need to have Facebook and Twitter. You do if you don't have those things it's just very difficult your downstream of communication, it's very difficult to have any sort of impact. And so to protect the constitutional right under the First Amendent of free speech, to make that meaningful, we need to

think about platform access as a civil right. Now, why can't we see a breakthrough of some of the more specialized platforms. Yeah, people have been saying this for well, why why doesn't conservative Facebook work? I mean, conservative Facebook is just why would you move on to a different another platform when the point of Facebook is really friends and family communication. You know, that's where everybody already is.

So it's just a it's a hasshole to have one more app that isn't nearly as functional that doesn't provide the same benefit that Facebook does because you can't easily reach out the people you want to reach. So that's Facebook. Conservative Twitter has problems because the entire journalistic you know, industry is on Twitter, along with almost every politician and most major public figures. So meaning most serious public square

debate happens on Twitter. If you go on your own little conservative Twitter website, like you create consort of alternative then all you end up with is talking with a few people who've moved over there when the important I guess, the important or the really contested public discussion is happening on the platform you left. So it just it doesn't really get anywhere that That's what I mean by network effect.

There's a winner take all dynamic, and Facebook and Twitter have kind of won already, and what's your prescription for what should happen now? Right? So, I think that it's a very good start to see that President Trump is starting these anti trust investigations. I think that you know, from his perspective, he should be looking at Facebook and Twitter as adversarial institutions and essentially using levers of power against them until they decide to start playing fair and

not censoring conservatives. In terms of the ideal goal, the kind of law that I want to see in place, I want it to be the case that if you are wrongfully banned from social media, I mean your banned for something that wasn't unlawful, then you should be able to walk into court and get your account back the very next day and actually instantiate the idea that platform access as a civil right, and if a company takes that away from you without a really really good reason,

then the laws should step in and force them to give you your account back. Sounds good to me, all right, everybody, will Chamberlain over at human Events go to human events dot com to see what they are up to over there. The site has been doing great work. And will we appreciate your time, sir, Thank you so much. Buck, All right, team, we'll be right back and nasty start to President Trump's

trip to England. He called Megan Marcole nasty and then denied it, even though there is actually sound of him saying it. Nasty is a word Trump has used before to dismiss Hillary Clinton present term called the American Princess nasty Megan Marcle, referring to her as nasty nasty. Trump denied that on Twitter, but roll the tape falling a woman nasty is not news now, especially when it comes to women of color. What did Trump do? Oh? Good, heavens? Oh? Did he did he step out of line with the

with the royal family? Did he say something that was untoward about miss Megan Markle? Oh? No, he called her nasty, That's what they're saying. Media was so upset Megan Markle. How could he? How could he? Sir? Have you no decency, sir, Well, does the media have any accuracy? Let's put aside the

decency question for a moment. Does that Does the media care if they're if they're in fact representing a story accurately, because you know, will notice that, you know the line you take away and I saw fake Jake Tapper over at CNN spreading this over the weekend, among others, the line you'll take away from missus, Well, he just called her nasty. And oh because she's they say, a woman of color, because she is half I believe half African American.

That makes this sin even worse. Meanwhile, Trump calls everybody names. Trump calls you know, white, black, Asian Latino. Trump will swat at you on Twitter or with a sound bite, no matter what, even if he used to be your friend. Sometimes, you know what I mean, You know, you messed with Trump at your peril. Trump is an equal opportunity Twitter stomper. All right, let's let's just skip past the nonsense. It's very obvious, right, Trump is equal opportunity about that stuff.

We know this, all right, So what did Trump really say? Though? You know, this is really a case study of sorts in fake news. What did Trump say play clip six. Megan, who's now the Duchess of Sussex. RIGHTO, we've done a different name. She can't make it because she's got maternity leave. Are you sorry to see her because she wasn't so nice about you during the campaign. I don't know if you saw that. I don't. I didn't know that. No, yeah, I didn't know. No. I hope she's okay. I did

not know that. She said she moved to Canada if you got elected. Turned out she moved to Britain. Think there's a lot of people moving here, So can I say no, I didn't know that she was nasty an American princess. I think it's nice. I think it's nice, and I'm sure she'll do excellently. She'll be she'll be very good, should be very good. I hope she does. It is a misrepresentation of the context and of the spirit of what that exchange was. Just to just pull

out that he called her nasty. He was responding. I mean he was pushed into this. They're saying this woman said something bad about you, and his response was to say, in full well, I didn't realize she said that not nice thing about me. But I think she'll be great in this role here in Britain. That's what he really said. Now, is it as as a function of pure um, you know, a pure one word quotation. Is it true to say

that he referred to Megan markle In with the word nasty. Well, you know, even that's a little bit of stretch, because he really was referring to what she had said as nasty if you listen in context, which this matters, right, this is the I'm sure some of you, with your husbands and wives, significant others, you know, there's a difference

between you were being a jerk and you are a jerk. Right, this is and this is a right, producer Mike, This is an important distinction, absolutely, man, Yeah, right, Like you know, I will freely admit that, like sometimes I act like a jerk, I will also tell people that I am not a jerk though, right, I mean, you know these are different things, yeah, different contexts. This is where you're

supposed to say, yeah, Buck, you're not a jerk. Thanks, that's that's a given, you know, that's right, And we love you, producer Mike, thank you all right. Fishing for compliments here on the Buck Sexton Show, But no really like there's a difference in context, there's a difference in how it was portrayed, but they don't care. They just want to go with the with the fake news. They just want to continue to right. I mean, Mike, I mean when you saw this, they were running with this

all weekend. It was insane. It was insane. Actually when you when you called me there, I was actually looking for There are several articles and several times previous to this where Markle has slammed the president and she has gone out of our way. This is, I think, to me, is another example of Trump counterpunching. She has blasted him in the past, much as other people in the UK have, and this is this Trump turning around saying, you know what,

I don't know. She was nasty whatever it was telling mischaracterized, but she has taken the first punch at him, and nobody's talking about that. Yeah. And it's also just such a stupid, spoiled brat thing to say if somebody becomes president, really you're gonna bail on your country that quickly someone comes president, you don't like he's probably only gonna last. I mean, according to libs four years in the role, Right, you can't handle. For you, there's such this thing. Libs

are such emotional babies. You see it over and over again. Such a bunch of babies. I had to sit here for eight years of Obama. Oh oh, he's brilliant, he's a juniors, he's amazing, he's perfect, he's like a god. No, that guy's actually full of himself, pretty boring, doesn't have any good ideas, and you know, managed to play the system really well to get where he was. But I wasn't like, I'm gonna leave America. You know, I think you conservatives don't threatened to leave America every time. I

wasn't even gonna leave America. Have Hello, Hillary became president and that shows dedication. That's how much I love this place. So I just telling people, man, you know, they gotta lives, need to take a chill pill. You know, plenty of them take all kinds of pills. They should take a chill pill. That would be a better way for them

to handle the stuff going forward. Did we also the president of Mike talking about just how things are gonna go with Well, here here's Nigel Farage in saying that the people in the UK are like in the trump'ster playing nineteen. I mean, look three years ago I was almost the only person in Britain starting up fighting with Donald Trump and saying he was the right person. It was a very lovely place. What people have seen in this country are governments that get elected on promises and

then break them. And in America you've got a president who was what he said he was elected to do. The label on the tin is right and he is earning credibility. His approval rating in Britton is now a third, but it was way less than that three years ago, so people are beginning to understand that he is the right guy. People are starting to get at the UK. According to Nigel Farage, to the polls back that up. You know, I don't really know, but at least Nigel's

out there making the case for Trump. And Nigel's got that he's got that great British accent. But it's very like inspiring, like oh like, let's go take that let's go take that hill, good sir. You know, he's very h he's got the kind of upbeat Britta thing going on. Well hello, then he got Sudi Khan, who no surprise, is crashing the president United State. This is the mayor of London. How many of you even really care as

the mayor of London. There's a reason I'm bringing this up that we'll have some problem in the play eighteen.

Some of the things that Trump is owner than lost two three years London is find upon and offensive, rolling back the reproductive rights of women, separating children from their parents on the Mexican border, introducing a band on Muslim majority countries, standing up and defending white supremacists, Neo Nazis and artic mights in Charlesville, amplifying messages from racists in this country, walking away from the Paris climate a court and I could go on, and by frustration with our

Prime Minister is she's I wouldn't say boo to a goose. That's so he's just trashing the president and then the media trying to get all upset. When Trump responded, let me just give you Trump's response to the Mayor of London, Connor reminds me very much of our very dumb and incompetent mayor of New York City, build A. Blasio, who has also done a terrible job. Only Zadig's half his height. In any event, I look forward to being a great friend of the United Kingdom, and I'm very much looking

forward to my visit Landing now. You know, I look stand where the presidents supposed to just take it from the mayor of London. I don't think so. I think Trump is right swat back at this guy, you know, Sadik Khan, if you want to, you know, if you're gonna come at the Trump, you better be ready for the CounterPunch, my friend, and Trump Trump throws them with

the best of them. It is just a disgrace what happens onto people based on their sexual orientation, particularly around the globe, including countries where, by the way, a lot of media companies film their movies. So those who are talking about pulling other georgiinality happen to film their movies and places that aren't particularly very kind to people of

different orientations. But that aside, the President just tweeted out and said a couple of tweets about Pride Month and about and specifically trying to call try trying to bring other countries along with what we are doing in the United States from America and decriminalizing homosexuality. Notice how there's no credit that you see in immediate least given to the administration for efforts to promote the decriminalization of homosexuality

around the world. Also note how Kelly and Conway there without getting too deep into the into the details, just pointed out how for so many Democrats and leftists who are willing to hurt economically, hurt cost jobs in the state of Georgia because the state legislature there did what it should be able to do, which is write laws

about abortion. So interesting, isn't it that there are so many Democrat females in particular in Hollywood that you'll see who say, oh, you know, women of women of Georgia, we are standing with you. Majority of women in Georgia agree with the bill. So what does that mean women of Georgia were standing with you. Well, I think if you ask most of the Hollywood and media libs who are disdainful toward Georgia because of this bill, and he said, what do you think the percentages of support from women

in Georgia for this bill? They have absolutely no idea and they wouldn't even care if they found out the number was a clear majority. They think that this is this is the fundamental woman's rights issue and This is then also echoed by Kamala Harris, who is at a planned Parenthood event in San Francisco, San Francisco, where they boo you for saying you don't think socialism is the

answer to this country's problems. Here's what Kamala Harris has to say about planned parent or at a planned parenthood event, which remember, you cannot be a democrat of any power or a good standing unless you are absolutely supportive of planned parenthood. Play too. This is a party about our conviction, our conviction to make sure that every woman has the right to do whatever she chooses to do with her

life and her body. Every woman has the right to do whatever she chooses to do with her life and her body. That's interesting because there are a lot of things that the state says that a woman cannot choose to do with her life and her body. All right, we know this. It is in fact, and it should be. It is in fact illegal to try to take your own life. For example, you know, if someone standing on a bridge and the police arrive, you don't get to say, oh, well,

I'm making this decision. It's okay, you guys can go home. No, they're going to try to stop you from taking your own life. You know you could not. You could not say as a you know, as a thirteen year old, well, it's you know, my body, my choice. I want to get married to an eighty year old man. You know that that would not the state will not allow you to do that. That would be illegal. There there are plenty of things that already or not. So this is

this is this reductionist strong man. You know, it's it's always when you talk about the the pro life versus versus pro abortion issue, it's never straightforward. There's never a willingness to engage on the actual Is this a baby? Is this a human being? If it's a human being doesn't have rights, that that's the whole discussion. Everything else

is is some secondary propagandistic nonsense. It does not really mean any It has no meaning except for the fact that it is drummed into people's heads as being what is so very very important, particularly for women and those of you who have heard me talking to the National Organization for Women president and ask her some very straightforward questions about why do men get to have opinions on

some things and not on others. According to her, she was flustered because she's just not used to answering a real question for a person who's thought about the issue. But Kamala Harris is not going to come up with anything worthwhile interesting to say on this, on this because she has to be doing exactly what Planned Parenthood wants her to do, just the way it's going to be.

And Kelly and Conway pointing out that Democrats have far less of an issue with the practices of foreign countries, I mean foreign governments, especially, let's be honest, Islamic countries get a pass from the left on how they deal

with homosexuality. In particular, Islamic countries are just not because they're they're non white, non Christian majority countries, although there are both white people and Christians in many Muslim countries, but as they are majority and they're considered non white, non Christian, non Western leftists don't want to have too much nasty stuff to say about what they do, the terrible things that they will do to same sex couples,

to same sex individuals, same sex attracted individuals. So there's just a huge double standard because the so called liberalism of the left in this country is full of contradictions the moment we take it outside US borders, all of a sudden they fall into this anti colonial and anti Western dialectic. I mean, they turn into this, well, you know, we don't want to be pushy about what we think. They'll push be pushy about everything here in America, fundamental rights,

they'll call them. But then abroad when it comes to homosexuality and the decriminalization of it, they get very all of a sudden, they get very confused, very quiet. They don't have much to say about it at all. By the way, I mean, this is all really just unfortunately a function of how crazy the left has become in the era of Trump. Because of Trump's arrangement syndrome, you can't expect to have a civil conversation with people anymore. It's one of the reasons why I'm I'm just I can't.

I can't just sit around playing footsie with leftists. I mean, I'm a wartime conservative. Now. Ideologically speaking, here's what lunatic leftists do in places like DC. This happened in DC because the guy I was wearing a Maga hat play clip four. That creates cruelty. So let me tell you a little mister, white male primis mother. When was America great for you? You? Huh? When was America great for you? When they stuck a little in all of the sick

people who wearing in the slave ships? When was America great for you? That's the price you pay for wearing a you know, getting yelled at like that. That is the price you pay for wearing a make America Great Again hat in DC. That's the price, That's what That's what you subject yourself to. People have asked me, would I be willing to walk around DC? Someone actually just said it to me over the weekend. Would I walk

around here? I am in what is now the town that I call home, although New York is still really my home. Would I feel comfortable with the answers? No? I mean I wouldn't feel comfortable because somebody would say something and I would say something back, and we would have an incident, and you never know, I know a lot of people would say, oh fuck, you know, you gotta just you know, tell those libs and you know

if they lay a hand on you. And yeah, those of you who have been in scraps and issues in the street, you know, you know, you just want to avoid that stuff. You don't know what's gonna happen. Who's gonna pull what, who's gonna say you said what or did what? Or you know? But you can't even wear a hat that the President United States wears in Washington, DC and feel safe. That's the America we live in now. We have a problem with racism in America today. If

this country wasn't racist, Stacey Abrams would be governor. Ah go to the racism well when in doubt, Candidate Seth Molton would be Democrat nominee for the presidency. He knows that that the move the maneuver. If you want to get everyone clapping for you, just talk about how racist America is racist compared to what I would always want

to know. Find me a country that has our level of ethnic and ideological and nationality based diversity, and tell me and show me that they get along better, are more decent to each other than we are in this country. It does not exist. This is the This is the little secret that leftist never talk about here, but we are actually an incredibly agreeable with each other nation state, especially given the degree of diversity and everything else that

we have. You know, yeah, there's not a lot of day to day struggles with racism in Japan because it's basically all Japanese people. It's a little different, you know, they don't they don't have different races that have the possibility of day to day racism. But if you ask a lot of people in some of these countries or have spent time in these countries, well, what are the attitudes of the people like they are truly xenophobic in

those other countries? They do not like outsiders, they do not want outsiders, They do not have immigration, they do not allow immigration. So I just think just start from this premise that we're always being told how racioust America is. I mean, this is the the talking point for liberals when they have either nothing to say or you know, just want to make sure that they get a cheap round of applause. It is the ultimate cheap applause line

that America is a racist country. And Seth Molton is a guy who look, I mean, he's running for president for his own reasons. I couldn't begin to understand what they are because he's not gonna win. He's not even gonna get above one percent. So why but I suppose here I am talking about him on national video. So maybe there's that, But he says that the country wasn't racist, Stacy Abrams would be governor. There was record turnout for the governor's race in Georgia. Why is racism? And the

reasons Stacy Abrams didn't win? What great background of achievement in politics or in leadership? It's Stacy Abrams? Hap, No, no no one even really seems to ever start there. Why would Stacy Abrams be governor if the country wasn't racist. It's the country's fault that she didn't win the governorship. And this is a stupid statement. I mean, this is a dumb thing to say. But Malton, I'm sure as a bright guy, I mean, I'm you know, I think

he has fancy schools and everything. But as you know, I always tell you the fancy schools and it doesn't mean what it used to. That's all changed a lot. But it also brings me to ask the question, you know, is it is it even possible in the mind of a leftist in America today to be racist a white people? Is is that possible? I wonder? I asked the question just because over the weekend there was a tweet from a verified account named Sarah raw So she's a blue check.

She's one of the journalism Cadre online, and she shared this tweet, this gem of analysis. White people have done everything to make my life miserable, Yet I'm supposed to not hate white people. She's a writer and columnist for Brown Girl magazine and she's verified. Is that okay to say? You know, when I say, is that okay? I'm not I'm not calling for censorship of it. I'm not saying

that it's hate speech. But isn't that racist? Isn't it for somebody who's saying that white people make her make her life miserable, and why shouldn't she hate white people? That's kind of racist, right? I don't know. If you talk to leftists, they'll tell you that it's not possible because of the power dynamics at work in intersectionality. It is, in fact, not possible for a non white person to

be racist in America against white people. Maybe it's possible in some other country, although I think that's probably doubtful. Democrats would find that doubtful too. But if you want to test out the theory, here's an example. I mean, this is the question, is it possible in this country to be racist against white people, and that's can you be hateful toward white people in a way that would be described as racism? I obviously think the answer is yes.

I think this is one of those topics of discussion that we're it's so radioactive. You know, you're not allowed to you're not allowed to go there and not allowed to have this. Why why can't we talk about this? Why? Why isn't it worth our time to delve into whether or not America is a country where it is possible to be racist against and then if it's possible, is there as arising tide of racism against white people from some non white individuals in America? Is that a conversation

that's even possible to you have? You might say, oh no, Buck, we can't have a conversation. Okay, fine, Well I would want to know that how do we deal with this? There was a concert up in Nova Scotia, and this is from the Daily Wire. Ledo Pimienta, a Colombian Canadian singer, asked audience members of color, Now this is in Canada, so don't people you don't have the yellow me o everybody? I mean Canada, America were pretty much the same deal, asked audience members of color to move to the front

and white members to move to the back. Unlike other times she made that request, some white members of the audience refused to act in accordance with her command, including a white female volunteer who was reportedly there to photograph the show. Now, this is really interesting, According to the National Post, ali Omanic quay, I don't know how to say that. Who shares management with Pimienta said, a female photographer would not budge from her position near the stage,

prompting anger from some crowd members. Omenk Kay, whose version of events was confirmed by festival spokesperson Trevor Murphy, said that Pimienta, the performer here, just kept saying, moved to the back. Finally, after saying it about ten times, white people moved to the back and the woman refused to move, Pimienta said, you're cutting into my set time and you're disrespecting these women, and I don't have time for this.

So you now can be at a concert in Canada, but this could apply to America too, and the person who is there to entertain you could say, white people, you have to go and have let's be honest, back of the concert, you're gonna have a worse view. So give up your place, moved to the back of the venue and let people of color take your place in the front. And if you, as a paying customer at the concert, have an issue with that, you're the problem. This is the and you're supposed to take away from this.

You are the problem. White people go to the back. I'm white. I don't think that I should be judged by my skin color. I'm here, I got here early. I I like my position in the crowd. No, no, you have to give up your position in the credit if you give it up to a person of color. If you don't, you're racist and you're part of the problem. That seems quite extreme, doesn't it. I wonder what the the concert organizers thought of this. Oh, we know what

they think of this. Again, thanks to some very good work from the Daily Wire quote the board of directors for Halifax Pop Explosion that sounds like quite a party, issued this statement, we will not accept this behavior, and neither should you be responsible for your friends. Talk to that. Wait, hold on, you might be thinking, buck. They said they will not accept this behavior. Whose behavior do you think

they have a problem with the music. Act. That's telling people, if you're white, go to the back of the room where you can't see. Oh no, that's not the person who had a problem with quote. Be responsible for your friends, talk to them and support them as they move toward unpacking their racism. People of color deserve safe spaces, and it is your responsibility to help. It is also ours

to the performer. Leto Pimienta, we are sorry that one of our volunteers interrupted your art, your show, and your audience by being aggressive and racist. We have so much respect for the art and music you create and the space you make for women, people of color, transgender and non binary people. The way you interact with the world provide such a thoughtful example. You're a role model to us. We see it, we feel it. We hope you work

with us again. That's right, folks, the woman who says white people go to the back of the venue so other people can see better because white people are racist than a problem, this is what they want. They want to work with her again in the future. She's a model for a role model for others. Now, did one of the white people who in the crowd say something really nasty. There's some report that someone said something that

was bad or a gross or racist. I don't know that's not I have not seen the specifics on it. I have not seen a quote about it. And it's tough to tell. I mean, is it nasty and racist for a white person to say I pay the same ticket price as everybody else? This is a standing show, and I'm standing where I'm standing, and I'm not going to just go to the back because I'm told to go to the back back of the room at the concert. It's what you're told now if you're white, and if

you don't do it, you're a problem. I think you might recognize this mentality is not limited just to this one concert. Confront your privilege. You're told now, confront your privilege, which means, oftentimes be lectured by very stupid people on the left about how you need to do what they say, you need to agree with different social policies, different political positions, or else you're a racist. This is a position of

white and non white leftists. And if you fight back against this or you reject this, you are automatically a problem. This is the country that we are living in now, Folks, This is what we are dealing with. And that's why someone like Seth Moulton can get up and just say America is a racist country. Because of the country wasn't racist, Stacey Abrams would be governor, and there's wild cheering for him saying something that is just baseless and stupid and

pandering Americans working into their seventies. This is becoming really common. I was just talking to somebody about this over the weekend, and now I see there's some new data in a news story. Here. Let me just give you some of the facts and figures about this that we can talk about how this is. My expectation is this is going to become the norm, and that retirement is going to be something that people will think of in some ways the way we now think about like working a seven

day workweek or so. It's just not gonna not going to be the norm. But here's this piece on courts. Catherine Abraham, and economic professor at the University of Maryland with was chatting with her hairdresser one night about her retirement plans. The economists said she plans to continue working because she wants to and has no plans for retiring. The hairdresser agreed, but for different reasons she needs the money. Both scenarios are contributing to a big increase of the

number of people in US working into their seventies. Over the past twenty years, the share of Americans working in their seventies has risen from less than ten percent to nearly fifteen percent, according to Census data. Now, this is there are some good reasons for this, or at least some reasons that are are only really positive as people

are living longer and healthier lives. So folks who are in their seventies now are very sharp mind, feeling healthy and fit, and plenty of energy, and they got all they got a lot of stuff to do, whereas even thirty forty years ago, people in their seventies tended to just have more wear and tear on their bodies, not quite the same energy level. You know, the met has improved, not as much as I would like it to have

improved in that period, but medicine has improved somewhat. And now looking at the way forward, I mean, there's obviously also a major economic incentive for people to work even later. But I mean my expectation is that unless you're in a unless you're in a job that has a defined benefit plan and you know you hit You're certain. This is true for a lot of public sector workers, although I think fewer now than it used to be the case. You know, you hit your end date and you're done.

You know, you hit that golden retirement day, and it's all over for you in terms of having to show up to an office. A lot of people are going to work in their seventies. I don't know how much that's a bad thing. I think people who choose to work in their seventies it's probably a great thing. You stay active, you stay But by the way, I believe

how old is Warren Buffett? For example? Now he's super rich, I know, but he's just an example of somebody who really likes what he's doing, and what would he do if he wasn't doing it? Eighty eight, folks, Warren Buffett is eighty eight years old, and he's worth tens of billions of dollars, still drives an old car. You know,

I think he likes living this persona. I don't think it's he's not oblivious to the fact that everyone thinks of him like America's super rich grandfather but he's a guy who likes what he's doing it and this retirement for some people if you've been working in an a manual labor job or yeah, I get it. You know you need to rest your body and you want to go and play bocci ball and tennis and all this stuff.

If you're somebody who shows up to an air conditioned office and you're looking at a screen and you like what you do, you like your colleagues, and you're making good money. And I think a lot of people you know that that number is fifteen percent of Americans working into their seventies. I think you're gonna see you go

to twenty and then twenty five. I really do. I think you're gonna have almost My guests would be the next ten years, you're gonna have a quarter of people working into their seventies, and that will get closer to being you know, and I think from there it probably just keeps going up too. People are living longer and just changing. Just in an interesting little side note that came up in a conversation with a friend this week, and he was like, hey, man, like, you know, when

when would you want to retire? I was like, I don't know. Do I get to keep doing radio. If I get to keep doing radio, I don't think I retire at all, retire when I don't have a voice, which hopefully that's not going to happen. Speaking of voices, I will use mine to tell you about Roll Call coming up here in just a moment. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real, It's time for roll call, man. It really does feel like summer finally. Isn't that nice?

Isn't that a good thing? It's about time. Let's see here we have Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton. If people want to get in on the roll call party, Matt you up first here, Hey Bucky. If you need an idea for a good show, check out the expanse on Amazon Prime. They've got three seasons and the fourth one is on the way. If you're looking for something like Game of Thrones only hard sci fi, this is the show for you. It's not like Star Trek where they

have gravity panels and force fields and photon torpedos. It's way more grounded in a way that we might actually achieve someday. You check it out. I can't recommend it strongly enough. PS If you're not hooked by the second episode, the show is not for you. Well, I appreciate the very thorough and helpful endorsement, my friend. Thank you so much for writing in with it and good to chat with you about it. Thank you so much. I will

check out the expense. I like I like escapist fair on the various channels that I watched now and I am increasingly now a digital on demand person. With my viewing, I'm i'm I'm, I think I'm gonna. I think I'm gonna. Well, the only reason I don't is the news. But there must be ways that I can watch news without being a cable subscriber. I think I'm gonna bail on cable. If I could just get the major news channels Fox for information, CNN for comedy, I would be a cord

cutter because I don't watch the other cable channels. I watched digital shows a la carte, So I'm one of these great Beard millennial types. Clay right, hey, Buck, great show. One night. Not too long ago, you mentioned something about Drudge Report smartphone app not working. Well, there's an alternative called The Report. It has Drudge and other conservative newspeeds. Thanks and shields high. Well, Clay, I was unaware of that,

so I will check it out. Apparently there weren't that many of us who were really interested in the Drudge app, or at least I guess it wasn't popular enough that they would keep it. I love the Drudge app. I used it on my phone all the time. I don't know why it had to go away. Now they want people to go to the site site and not use the app. Well, it is what it is, Bob, Buck. I've tried to call you via iHeart. I'm trying to call you about a new technology we're developing, et cetera,

et cetera. Personal information, Personal information. All right, Bob, let me let me take a look and don't check it out, Jean, right, howdy Buck. I rather the President made a comment on suppressors that was not positive. He said I don't like them when asked about the reason shooting. One of the reasons I voted for him in twenty sixteen was to

protect and expand the Second Amendment. I understand expansion is hard because of Congress, but if he were to banned suppressors, which are highly regular through the NFA, I will not vote for him. In twenty twenty, was wondering what your thoughts are, well, John, as somebody who has both fired a lot of suppressed weapons and has even advertised for suppressors in the past in my radio on my radio program,

I'm obviously I'm obviously in favor of suppressors. I think the hearing damage from shooting, and this would make me sound maybe a little whimpy, but I'm somebody who wants to hear as well as I can see as well as I can have my teeth for his long as I can. And the hearing damage from from firing guns is very real unless you have good ear pro which I know of those of you who are shooting, I'm sure you use that, but it would be nice to

even dampen it down more. And anybody who's ever fired a rifle with a suppressor on it knows that this is not it's not p pup, not at all. And even a twenty two calibers with a silencer on it, that can sound pretty pretty darn quiet. But anything above that caliber you're gonna hear it, and they're already heavily regulated. So look, I just think the president doesn't really know

anything about I'm just gonna say it. I just don't think he knows anything about suppressors and probably has a action movie view of them, as you can run around with a silencer on an MP five, for example, and it just goes pupe pup. It does not go pupu. So as you can tell it like making that noise, it's much louder than that. Josh, Right, how about love the show. I've been listening since the early Blazed days. On Friday, you hinted at a founding father that family

lore says you're related to. You said the forgotten Founder. So my guess is John Jay. He was a huge contributor to early America. You never hear his name. Am I close? Shields high? Josh, Josh, it's a good guess, but I can't say it's close, because that's not, in fact the one that I am, according to family were related to. According to family lare I am related to George Mason pretty directly. I mean the family tree is

like a well it's not a telephone pole. That would be weird, but it's a pretty straight line according to again, according to family law, I don't know. I don't I don't spend as much time on these things, as some other folks do. But that is at least a story that we tell people drinking mint julips the cocktail parties in the South out on a lawn, because that's how

we do. John right shields high Fan since the real news days, Man, so many of you the listen have been with me for many, many years now, and that is a huge testament, and I really really do appreciate it. I heard that the sharn Noble guy, a Russian, said something about gun deaths in America. I find this amazing that someone from mother Russia, where a gun was made that has killed countless numbers of people, tries to make

America and American guns the problem. I think a lot of times folks like this just like to throw this stuff out so they get invited to the elite parties where they serve bacon rap shrimp. Combie Bear leaves John. First of all, bacon rap shrimp are incredible, So we start with that fundamental truth. I cannot just let that go without noting. Now the real question, though, is if you could only have one, do you go bacon rap shrimp or scalop rap shrimp or I'm sorry, wait, bacon

rap scalops, scalop rap shrimp. WHOA, that was weird. I don't know about that. That's the different dish. No bacon rap scallop or bacon rap shrimp. I probably go the scalop. I'll be honest with you. It's a little bougie of me. As to your point about Russia, I don't know who this Russian is that had this about the guns. But a lot of people all over the world try to dump on America because they make it makes them They think it makes them sound more sophisticated, more in touch

with you know, blah blah whatever. So that's not unusual, but we tend to ignore them. Ben writes, your Bill Barr impression is on point. Great work. Did I do a Bill Barr impression? I don't remember if I did, and it was on point. That's great, But I feel like I don't remember doing that, but I might have

done it. I don't remember a lot of things that I say on this show, which is always sometimes the better things I say just come out of my mouth because that stream of consciousness, and somebody will point out to me that thing you said last week about the thing, and I'll say Yeah, that was amazing. Did I really say that? Did that really come out of my mouth? But that does tend to happen. Here we go, Sean says, I think it's rather appropriate and hilarious that your Joy

beharror impression sounds like Harvey Fierstein. Well, look, it's Joy bay Aha on the View. You know here. She is just getting paid millions to talk like this to everyone you know here, I am. It's got to go a little higher, you know. Yeah, why is Trump so terrible? Why is Trump awful? I don't read anything, I don't know anything, but I'm on the View, and people listen to me because I wear glasses like a person who knows things. That's pretty much Joy Behar. I think you've

got joy right there. I think I managed to nail it. Roger Rites, watch the Americans. It's a great show, Roger. That is my plan. It is top of my queue as soon as I finished Billions. The Americans as of now will be next. Mike Rites, Hey back, I turned my wife Peggy onto your show. She's a fan. Well, Mike, good job marrying a woman who has good taste in radio shows. One of our many activities together now includes

you full disclosure. She saw you for the first time on Fox the other night and said, oh boy, he needs to do something with that hair and lose the beard. Personally, I don't care what you look like. Just keep doing a great job. Shields shields high and Mike, you know, man, it's I'm just I do need to get a haircut. I will, I will. She's right about that. The hair is out of control right now. I mean it is,

the poof is, the swoop is major. And as to the beard, you know, it's getting hot, so the beard may go. The beard may go. I've kept it for a while. I don't know. And some of my Original Saturday Squad is like, stop talking about your stupid beard and tell us things that are worth hearing. All right, all right, your voices have been heard. Original team Buck gets very salty with me sometimes, but then I know that it's I know that it's all love, so I'm

okay with it. But you know, they'll say, like, you look like you put on a few pounds time to get a hair cut. That last segment was boring. But I know that they're the ones who love me, so it's you or that they are some of those who love me, so I'm okay. But they're not the only ones, hopefully. Sometimes their love is tough, it's little. It's a little bit of salty love. Sandra Rights enjoyed the shout out workouts.

By the way, the only guy who makes sense to me and thousand of others is the natural bodybuilder and coach Tom Venuto. And he's got a bunch of books. He's excellent. He's won eight top competitions for natural bodybuilders. Yeah, I mean, Sandra, I'm somebody who has never had any interest in taking these uh, I mean quite obviously, I've never done it, so I don't have an interest in taking this stuff that makes you get like really big.

But I'm I'm trying to see there. Everything's funny when the other conversation about well, I don't want to get too big with muscle. No, no, the problem is I don't want to get too big with chubb So I'm just trying to put on some muscle to avoid getting the big with the chubbiness. It's a different problem of bigness. But you know, it's all about health. It's all about feeling good about yourself, feeling good in your skin, looking good in your clothes. You know, everyone to each his own.

You know, some people look better with a little a little extra going on, or you know, they got their own thing going on. And we live in this man society is more superficial than ever be for it is absolutely true. And physical beauty is more highly prized and monetizeable than ever before too. So you know, there's all this pressure on all of us all the time. Maybe it's just like we need to all just start wearing sweats,

just start hanging out. I'll worry about it. I'm not sure that's the idea, but it might be an idea. Let's see here, Corey, Sir Buckman, I feel I've held my thoughts back long enough on the Uber issue. Though I find myself more in the middle of the road, leaning toward your viewpoint. I also could see where it could have the potential to encourage discrimination. The phrase try hailing an myc taxi at two Amasa black Man comes to mind. So long as Uber employees honest brokers, it

shouldn't be an issue. Shields a shields high onwards and upwards. Tally ho, Well, Corey, the whole getting a cab at two am thing. I've actually done some research on this and talked about on the past. It's not true the way people think it's true, meaning that it's not a discrimination against against African American passengers by white drivers. It's actually almost entirely South Asian drivers in the city of New York, and the discrimination issue is not nearly as

clear cut as people are led to believe. A lot of times they just don't want to go far out of Manhattan, where they have generally the fastest and the quickest trips, because they don't want to get stuck in traffic, or they're signing off at the end of their shift. So I just I have a lot of thoughts in the NYC taxi issue. And as for uber No, I still think that it's better. It's better for people to

have accountability in their business transactions. You know, if you're if you're really if you're somebody who's a really bad tipper. I don't think that there's a problem with people knowing that you're a bad tipper. I don't know. I think that that's fair if we're allowed to if we are allowed to assess the other side, if I'm allowed to say, and I have that this doctor was terrible, was a

jerk and didn't know anything. For example, like yet the doctor'd be like, this patient always shows up late, isn't you know, doesn't want to play ball, and isn't going to listen to me? I don't I know. I look, you got a lot of you disagree with me on this, and I like that. I like it when we keep things spicy in the family. But I am not backing down on this position yet. I have not yet had

the compelling moment of Oooh, I guess. I guess they were right and I was wrong because I'm a radio hosts willing to say that, unlike many of them who always talk about how fantastic and perfect they are. That's gonna be it for the Show Today team. You're all fantastic, wonderful and perfect. That I do know for sure. I'm excited to talk to you all, same time, same place. Shield's high