Speaker 1: Sorry to spoil the surprise, but if you're getting gift
Speaker 1: from me this Christmas, you're getting coffee from my favorite
Speaker 1: coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee. Every morning when I go
Speaker 1: into the hill, I have a steamy, hot, delicious cup
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle, just black. And that's also how I
Speaker 1: drink it. And the name of the coffee. By the way,
Speaker 1: it is delicious. Okay. The aromas, the different taste profiles
Speaker 1: that come through are incredible. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: this is a company run by and four veterans, including
Speaker 1: veterans of the United States Special Forces. These guys are amazing.
Speaker 1: Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things so easy. Just pick
Speaker 1: your blend amount you want and they'll ship the coffee
Speaker 1: right to your door. Check this out for yourself. They
Speaker 1: offer three, six and twelve month prepaid and pays you
Speaker 1: go subscriptions. The best tasting, most energizing coffee imaginable, and
Speaker 1: they help veteran first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: the gift that keeps on giving. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck for fifteen percent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off.
Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. The country laid to
Speaker 1: rest a great man today, a former president, a warrior,
Speaker 1: a family man. We will talk about what was said
Speaker 1: in the funeral of George HW. Bush, and also updates
Speaker 1: on the Muller probe, the sentencing of General Flynn. You
Speaker 1: know more about that and much more coming up on
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember to email.
Speaker 1: He had a circle of friends with whom he shared
Speaker 1: or received the latest jokes. His grading system for the
Speaker 1: quality of the joke was classic George Bush. The rare
Speaker 1: sevens and eighth were considered huge winners, most of them
Speaker 1: off color. George Bush knew how to be a true
Speaker 1: and loyal friend. He nurtured and honored many his many
Speaker 1: friendships with a generous and giving soul. There exists thousands
Speaker 1: of handwritten notes encouraging or sympathizing or thanking his friends
Speaker 1: and acquaintances. He had an enormous capacity to give of himself.
Speaker 1: Many a person would tell you that Dad became a
Speaker 1: mentor and a father figure in their life. He listened
Speaker 1: and he consoled. He was their friend. That was Bush
Speaker 1: forty three, George W. Speaking about his father who, as
Speaker 1: he passed away just a few days ago to day
Speaker 1: of morning today in the country officially laid the president
Speaker 1: to arrest the National Cathedral at a ceremony where former
Speaker 1: former and current presidents, where current president were in attendance.
Speaker 1: And there's a moment of reflection. I think about the
Speaker 1: the end of an eraor not just of George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush as a man and as somebody who was so
Speaker 1: involved in the history of this country in many ways,
Speaker 1: but also for a certain style and type of leadership.
Speaker 1: The veterans of the Second World War, for example, when
Speaker 1: you think of men like Bob Dole and George H. W. Bush,
Speaker 1: you know, men who served and were part of what
Speaker 1: we consider the Greatest Generation, would still called the greatest generation.
Speaker 1: There is a national reverence for that. That is one
Speaker 1: of the few things these days that feels like it
Speaker 1: somewhat transcends partisan lines, not always, not entirely. And we'll
Speaker 1: talk a bit about some of the unfortunate part is
Speaker 1: in sniping that has occurred as this ceremony was under
Speaker 1: way and in the days leading up to it. But
Speaker 1: it was also one of those moments when you could
Speaker 1: see people who we're all we know best from the
Speaker 1: public stage as politicians, as as leaders, as people of
Speaker 1: service to the nation, but also of power and influence.
Speaker 1: And you know, you saw George Bush today as as
Speaker 1: just a guy who lost his dad, And that was
Speaker 1: first and foremost. What was was coming across during much
Speaker 1: of the eulogy is something that we can all sympathize with.
Speaker 1: Whenever you see somebody who's lost to family member. It's
Speaker 1: at that most basic human level of the emotion that
Speaker 1: you know you would feel or have felt from losing
Speaker 1: a family member in your own life. It's something that
Speaker 1: happens to all of us. It's part of human condition.
Speaker 1: But that inherent suffering that comes with the loss of
Speaker 1: family members is also one of those areas of life
Speaker 1: that in a strange way, it brings us all together.
Speaker 1: It's it's pain that we can all understand and all
Speaker 1: all respect that what that means and what one is
Speaker 1: going through. And along with the celebration, and there were
Speaker 1: celebratory aspects of the eulogy today as well. I mean
Speaker 1: I've I remember I've been to a I went to
Speaker 1: a couple of funerals growing up for peers, friends of
Speaker 1: mine too, in particular that come to mind. That was
Speaker 1: very different in the sense that those funerals, those were
Speaker 1: people who were one was in high school, one was
Speaker 1: in college, and it was a remembrance, and there was
Speaker 1: a celebration aspect of those lives and how they touched
Speaker 1: their family members and their friends. But obviously lives cut
Speaker 1: way too short with George H. W. Bush and doesn't
Speaker 1: get any I mean, a life doesn't get any fuller, richer,
Speaker 1: more impactful than this in many ways. I mean, okay,
Speaker 1: some of you would say, Buck, come on, you know Jesus.
Speaker 1: I mean there are people that yeah, but you know,
Speaker 1: you know, the man just passed away. This is when
Speaker 1: you're eulogizing somebody, you'll say things like it doesn't get
Speaker 1: any life does not get any richer than this, and
Speaker 1: we don't have to actually measure out what lives may
Speaker 1: have been more impactful. Bush forty three also had some
Speaker 1: some more you know, just a regular guy touches that
Speaker 1: he added into things today. Plick clip one at age ninety,
Speaker 1: George H. W. Bush parachuted out of an aircraft and
Speaker 1: landed on the grounds of Saint Anne's by the Sea
Speaker 1: and Kenny Budport, Maine, the church where his mom was
Speaker 1: married and where he worshiped often. I would like to
Speaker 1: say he chose a location just in case the shooting. No.
Speaker 1: In his nineties, he took great delight when his closest pal,
Speaker 1: James A. Baker, smuggled a bottle of Gray Goose vodka
Speaker 1: into his hospital room. Apparently it paired well with the
Speaker 1: state Baker had delivered from Morton's to his very last
Speaker 1: Day's Dad's life was instructive, so laughter coming together of
Speaker 1: the people there, and that that part of it was
Speaker 1: all the man. The man got the celebration of his
Speaker 1: life that he deserved today, and I think it was
Speaker 1: it was nice for the country. I had friends who
Speaker 1: went to pay their respects here in DC and we're
Speaker 1: talking about and showing photos and videos of the lines,
Speaker 1: lines stretching so very long. You know, yesterday I spoke
Speaker 1: about how I don't ever like the notion of forced
Speaker 1: reverence for political figures, and I do have concerns about
Speaker 1: the elevation of our political class into something that becomes
Speaker 1: uncomfortably close to a nobility. But that's a broader discussion.
Speaker 1: It's not just brought on by what's happened here with
Speaker 1: George H. W. Bush and the way that people are
Speaker 1: talking about him. And there are ways that that people
Speaker 1: are affected by individuals that they didn't know and never met. That.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can completely respect. There have been, you know,
Speaker 1: one or two authors that passed away who for me
Speaker 1: I remember a sense of of loss, not deeply personal loss,
Speaker 1: but you know, their work had had enough of a
Speaker 1: of an influence on my life that the recognition that
Speaker 1: they would be no more and there would be no
Speaker 1: more of their words to read. You know that that
Speaker 1: took a moment. You know, some of them gave me
Speaker 1: a you know, Christopher Hitchens was one. I know he's
Speaker 1: rapidly anti religion, but on some issues he was brilliant.
Speaker 1: Michael Crichton, who I've mentioned you before, for pure entertainment purposes,
Speaker 1: I just loved his books, so I can understand that.
Speaker 1: And really also, in a way that might be surprising
Speaker 1: to some of you to hear Anthony Bourdain when he
Speaker 1: took his own life. I read Kitchen Confidential and just
Speaker 1: loved it as a book. And I had all these dreams,
Speaker 1: and maybe that's why these days I want to have
Speaker 1: a little time in my hands. I try. I try
Speaker 1: to do a little more, a little more cooking, you know.
Speaker 1: I like to actually try to see if I can
Speaker 1: make some of these things that I've always wanted to
Speaker 1: learn how to make. But Bourdaine, to me, was was
Speaker 1: an example of someone who you assumed that he had
Speaker 1: it figured out. You know, you assume that if you
Speaker 1: wanted to leave your you know, your job that you
Speaker 1: weren't crazy about, if you want to get out of
Speaker 1: the cubicle or just get a you know what, what,
Speaker 1: what better escape could you even imagine than being the
Speaker 1: guy who just goes all of the world, that cooks
Speaker 1: food and eats the food of different cultures and hangs
Speaker 1: out with people in travels. It just seemed like everything
Speaker 1: was And then he took his own life, obviously because
Speaker 1: of tremendous pain that he was feeling that people weren't
Speaker 1: aware of. And I never met the guy, didn't know
Speaker 1: the guy, but that, you know, I know that it
Speaker 1: can send a jolt through you. Just the stories of
Speaker 1: other individuals and the way that they affect us even
Speaker 1: when we don't know them. And for those who knew
Speaker 1: hw Bush, I know this is particularly solemon. For his family, obviously,
Speaker 1: it's a very, very sad. As much as he lived
Speaker 1: a great life, you know, it's sad people lost their dad,
Speaker 1: lost their granddad. I was not able to get to
Speaker 1: the funeral, was not the funeral today or the viewing
Speaker 1: that happened last night in the Capitol Hill, but it
Speaker 1: was certainly able to see a lot of the footage
Speaker 1: and speak to friends of mine who made it there,
Speaker 1: and it was incredible how many people came from all
Speaker 1: over the country just to pay their respects. It's a testament,
Speaker 1: I think, to how much the American people still really
Speaker 1: do feel a kinship and connection to their leaders. And
Speaker 1: it's one that I hope we can continue into the future,
Speaker 1: even in this era of feelingly seemingly constant. Feelingly is
Speaker 1: one of those things that maybe that could be a word,
Speaker 1: feelingly seemingly constant contact with everybody in political life and
Speaker 1: now with Twitter and Facebook and all these other aspects
Speaker 1: of it. So with that, I wanted to take a
Speaker 1: moment here to say, Okay, so that's on the plus
Speaker 1: side of US, and then now we have the media
Speaker 1: and the usage of this moment in time, the usage
Speaker 1: of this period in the country's history to score political points,
Speaker 1: to bash Trump, to take this and for the most
Speaker 1: narrow self interested purposes, use it as a use the
Speaker 1: passing of hw Bush as a platform for the advancement
Speaker 1: of rapidly anti Trump political views. It is not surprising,
Speaker 1: but that does mean does not mean it is not troubling.
Speaker 1: We will get into that and also apologies an advanced team.
Speaker 1: I love doing this show so much and talking to
Speaker 1: you so much that I have to be dragged from
Speaker 1: the microphone no matter how ill I am. But today
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna be pretty much at the at the
Speaker 1: outer limits of what my voice can handle. I've gotten
Speaker 1: really sick. I knew it was, it was going to
Speaker 1: come on pretty badly, but today it's going to be
Speaker 1: a rough one. So apologies in advance for that. You know,
Speaker 1: give me a day or two. My voice will hopefully
Speaker 1: be back to normal. But if you hear some it's
Speaker 1: going to be in a lower octave or two. You're
Speaker 1: gonna hear some break, some cracks in the voice. I'll
Speaker 1: try not to cough into the Mic, I'm in bad.
Speaker 1: I actually got worse today. Otherwise, if I had in
Speaker 1: this bad last night, I would have probably had Raheim
Speaker 1: or Harlan or one of our friends fill in. But
Speaker 1: I will push through. We will have a fantastic show.
Speaker 1: We hold our shields high. Even if we sneeze on
Speaker 1: that shield a little bit and sniffle on it, we
Speaker 1: will hold it high. So we will come back with
Speaker 1: Morris they would be. But what becomes undeniably obvious with
Speaker 1: every bio run about Bush forty one is that stark
Speaker 1: contrast between these two many over the last two years,
Speaker 1: deviancy has continued being defined down by this current president,
Speaker 1: his cronies, his supporters. Oh, Donald Trump is one eighty
Speaker 1: from who George H. W. Bush is. The world looked
Speaker 1: to George Bush because he was a leader, respected, he
Speaker 1: had proved himself. This president has you have to do that.
Speaker 1: This president that we have now is trying to unravel
Speaker 1: everything that he did and Obama Jack. I think he's
Speaker 1: doing this because he feels he has to do it.
Speaker 1: I can't help but wonder if there was a thought
Speaker 1: bubble over Donald Trump's head just now what he was thinking.
Speaker 1: I have to imagine who was thinking how much the
Speaker 1: big character of the man and contrast with the small
Speaker 1: character we see we see today. George Bush believed in
Speaker 1: the institutions of government, which I think too is another
Speaker 1: reason why this moment to remember and to compare and
Speaker 1: contrast is so important, because our institutions are so under
Speaker 1: siege right now by the government itself. And that is
Speaker 1: why we celebrate George H. W. Bush's legacy and fear
Speaker 1: the next two years of mister Trump's wild White House. Right,
Speaker 1: it's all all an opportunity to bads Trump. The funeral,
Speaker 1: the discussion about the life of George H. W. Bush.
Speaker 1: You know, just take it and pivot and bass Trump.
Speaker 1: You know you got bad weather. Blame Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: no matter what it is, is just blame Trump. That
Speaker 1: that's the that's the secret sauce that the left decides
Speaker 1: to go with here all the time. It's pretty pathetic,
Speaker 1: but I guess they really can't can't help themselves. Um,
Speaker 1: they really do think that this president that they say
Speaker 1: things like destroying all these normsum destroying all these norms.
Speaker 1: And then I was wondering, like how by by using
Speaker 1: Twitter or mean, what what what norms is? What is
Speaker 1: Trump doing that. There wasn't a norm established of sexual
Speaker 1: propriety in the White House that Trump destroyed. Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: destroyed any notion of sexual propriety in the White House
Speaker 1: or you know, proper sexual behavior. So that's not a thing.
Speaker 1: So I don't really want to hear from libs about that.
Speaker 1: And by the way, Trump hasn't done anything bad when
Speaker 1: it comes to that while he's in office. They're just
Speaker 1: you know, there's some allegations of infidelity from his pre
Speaker 1: presidential era, which I would also note, you know, Kennedy
Speaker 1: was a was a complete you know, lady Chase and
Speaker 1: maniac JFK and Teddy too, I mean, all these guys,
Speaker 1: so that that's not really when they're talking about a
Speaker 1: presidency and norm busting and what exactly do they mean.
Speaker 1: I find that a really interesting exercise when you ask
Speaker 1: angry liberals about this, because they never get into specifics.
Speaker 1: You're never told what the thing is that they say, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: he's he says things about a ongoing criminal investigation, and
Speaker 1: then I'll say to them, I had this experience with
Speaker 1: David Frum, who thinks himself as a very erudite and
Speaker 1: thoughtful fellow. He said it's you know, it's it's just
Speaker 1: he's used the word unprecedented, so I do pardon me.
Speaker 1: I took the bait. He said to me, it's unprecedented
Speaker 1: what Trump is doing here speaking about an ongoing investigation.
Speaker 1: I said unprecedented, as in Barack Obama saying there's nothing
Speaker 1: to Hilary's email investigation while she's running for the presidency.
Speaker 1: Rock Omama said that there's nothing to it. So it's
Speaker 1: not unprecedented, and it's not a standard that Trump is destroyed.
Speaker 1: So what are the standards that Trump is destroyed by
Speaker 1: fighting back against the media. I played the clip for you.
Speaker 1: George H. W. Bush told Dan rather than rightfully so,
Speaker 1: that he had nothing to be proud of that night,
Speaker 1: that he was trying to go after him on TV.
Speaker 1: So you know what is is this is just an
Speaker 1: echo chamber. It's an echo chamber of people in the
Speaker 1: establishment media who view Trump as a threat to them,
Speaker 1: and they preferred the era of hw Bush because he
Speaker 1: adhered to these rules that allow the media to get
Speaker 1: away with all kinds of things. Here's another person over
Speaker 1: at CNN and play fifteen. While President Trump's name was
Speaker 1: never said in any of the speeches, the tributes to
Speaker 1: former President Bush. Every word, every adjective, every anecdote stood
Speaker 1: in stark contrast to this presidency. And I think we're
Speaker 1: going to be talking a lot about that. And and
Speaker 1: I genuinely don't think it was intentional at this general.
Speaker 1: I think it was just describing the late president for
Speaker 1: forty first president, and it is it is what it
Speaker 1: is correct when it in making the tribute, it was
Speaker 1: another time, another person, and it couldn't have been more stark. Well,
Speaker 1: they're the ones making this comparison, but you know, every
Speaker 1: word is in contrast to Trump, and I don't think
Speaker 1: that that's I don't think that's true. And I also
Speaker 1: don't think that everything has to be about Trump all
Speaker 1: the time. I mean, maybe that's just me. Maybe I'm
Speaker 1: naive and thinking that we can have a conversation about
Speaker 1: something that is not Trump related with the media at
Speaker 1: some point in time. But also they were you know
Speaker 1: that you can't leave this out. They trash Push forty
Speaker 1: one trashed and when he was president, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: they constantly he was you know, he was uh, he
Speaker 1: was a plutocrat, and he was a warmonger. You know,
Speaker 1: he was stiff, He was boring, he was this, he
Speaker 1: was that. You know, they weren't, they weren't favorable. This
Speaker 1: this after the fact nostalgia for Republicans, whether it's McCain
Speaker 1: or Bush forty one, this is just opportunism from the
Speaker 1: establishment media, just using these as baseball bats to go
Speaker 1: after the Trump administration. And you know, I wish these
Speaker 1: people had some honor, some dignity, some integrity so they
Speaker 1: wouldn't feel the need to do this all the time.
Speaker 1: But we know that they do. We know that they do.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about Flynn and Muller and the probe coming
Speaker 1: up here in a moment. That and more. Team. If
Speaker 1: you're right back, he's holding the line for America, buck
Speaker 1: sext in his back. Unlike any other club that's nearly
Speaker 1: as exclusive as this one, they don't get to pick
Speaker 1: their members. We do. This is a very very different
Speaker 1: group of people, and yet we have decided to bring
Speaker 1: them together in this fraternity and it, you know, something
Speaker 1: changes about how they relate to each other. And you
Speaker 1: sort of saw that, you know, what did you make
Speaker 1: of the dynamic once you saw it? Well, one thing
Speaker 1: that was tricky, I think is that if there's a
Speaker 1: mission of that group. It is to protect the institution
Speaker 1: of the presidency. When you have a new number of
Speaker 1: this club who has taken a blowtorch to the institution,
Speaker 1: and not by accident, quite intentionally. It's the promise he
Speaker 1: made when he ran. So this is someone on MSNBC
Speaker 1: who's the former editor or editor of Time magazine in
Speaker 1: case you didn't know how liberal Time magazine was, and
Speaker 1: Je Prouser mic grab this one for me in the
Speaker 1: break is a perfect sample of it. Taking a blowtwards
Speaker 1: to the institution, the presidency. This is something that that
Speaker 1: stupid people in the media say to sound smart. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? How taking a blow towards how you know?
Speaker 1: The criticisms that I had of the Obama administration of
Speaker 1: Obama himself were criticisms of generally things he did or
Speaker 1: policies he was pushing for. It wasn't I just don't
Speaker 1: like the way Obama is in general acting about you know,
Speaker 1: his day to day blow towards to the institution the presidency.
Speaker 1: That's quite a charge to make, isn't it. I would
Speaker 1: like some specifics. And what I always notice is when
Speaker 1: I've asked liberals and this, I get the chance to
Speaker 1: do this on The Hill Show. Sometimes, can you just
Speaker 1: give me some specifics of what backs up this assessment
Speaker 1: that you have. They tend to be indignant, They tend
Speaker 1: to be outraged, very very upset about just what exactly
Speaker 1: I'm what am I getting at? You know, I said, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're gonna say that the president is
Speaker 1: destroying the presidency, I just I just wish you could
Speaker 1: give me some examples of how he's doing that that
Speaker 1: don't involve conspiracy theories and fantasies about Russia collusion or
Speaker 1: other things that normal sane people don't put any stock in.
Speaker 1: And that then makes me think about Russia collusion. Here
Speaker 1: here you go. There, there's there's different views of this
Speaker 1: out there, you know what I want to Even you
Speaker 1: had tube In over at CNN and Flynn over not
Speaker 1: Flynn mud over at CNN. They're all saying, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: the other shoe is gonna drop. You know the other
Speaker 1: shoe is not gonna drop. But speaking of dropping things,
Speaker 1: they won't drop this this hoax. They won't let it go.
Speaker 1: We got Greg Jared joining later on to talk about
Speaker 1: the specifics of the Muller probe from this week, including
Speaker 1: the Flynn, no jail time recommendation and all that, And
Speaker 1: I'll get into some of that just a moment here.
Speaker 1: And I'm also gonna in this break drink copious amounts
Speaker 1: of t I'll be right back. Remember James Comey, Director
Speaker 1: of the FBI, fire, Deputy Director McCabe lied three times
Speaker 1: under oath, fired, Chief Council to the FBI Jim Baker demoted,
Speaker 1: then left. FBI Council Lisa Page demoted then left, and
Speaker 1: Deputy Head of Counterintelligence Peter Struck demoted then fired. But
Speaker 1: even those five people thought Mike Flynn didn't lie when
Speaker 1: he was interviewed by the FBI. Only Bob Muller did.
Speaker 1: And now this is what happened. So we got to
Speaker 1: keep this in context. The top people to the FBI
Speaker 1: all demoted, left or fired, who launched and ran the
Speaker 1: Clinton investigation, launched and ran the Russian investigation, put the
Speaker 1: fake dossier in front of the fire suc court to
Speaker 1: get a warrant to spound the Trump campaign. Even they
Speaker 1: didn't think Mike Flynn lied when he was being interviewed
Speaker 1: by the FBI. And now Bob Mueller is saying he
Speaker 1: should get the most lenient sentence possible, but they still
Speaker 1: have the information he gave him. We'll find out what
Speaker 1: that is when we get the unredacted version. I agree
Speaker 1: wholeheartedly here with everything him Jordan's saying. General Flynn should
Speaker 1: be fully pardoned. No question about that. Flynn should be pardoned.
Speaker 1: And I have no inside track on this, but I
Speaker 1: thoroughly believe that Flynn will be pardon I believe President
Speaker 1: Trump will will clear him legally of any lasting now.
Speaker 1: He still has been essentially bankrupted, his reputation has been
Speaker 1: greatly damaged. But at least he will not have to
Speaker 1: live his life as a felon. He will not have
Speaker 1: to live his life with that March after thirty years
Speaker 1: of serving his country. A non an unimportant and minor lie,
Speaker 1: if a lie at all, told the people that under
Speaker 1: the circumstances. I don't even think Flynn really knew. We're
Speaker 1: trying to ask him questions that could later, you know
Speaker 1: that he could turn around and be prosecuted for I
Speaker 1: thought he's just speaking to f behind guys. You know,
Speaker 1: he works to them all the time. You know, I
Speaker 1: do wonder about this. When I was in the CIA,
Speaker 1: I mean you know I was, I was a federal
Speaker 1: an officer of the federal government in some way. So
Speaker 1: if somebody the CIA lied to me, could I you know, well,
Speaker 1: I guess I'm not a part of a criminal proceeding,
Speaker 1: and I don't know. I just wonder where the where
Speaker 1: the boundaries are here. I mean, so if you're in
Speaker 1: law enforcement, if you're in federal law enforcement, even lies
Speaker 1: to you, you you can prosecute them, even if it's
Speaker 1: for something that's really really unimportant, which is what happened here.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't even think Flynn lied. I think
Speaker 1: that they just jammed him up. And the fact that
Speaker 1: they're giving him no jail time, I believe that it's
Speaker 1: not because of his cooperation. I think it's because Mueller
Speaker 1: essentially turned Flint upside down, wrung out his pockets, you know,
Speaker 1: really really did everything he could and didn't get anything
Speaker 1: and doesn't want to add to the sense of outrage
Speaker 1: that those of us who have any sense of justice
Speaker 1: or decency feel at what was done to General Flynn.
Speaker 1: That's where I think this really this is a that's
Speaker 1: where I think this all comes together. That's what is
Speaker 1: pushing some of this. But you know, we also and
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan spoke about this, and I think it's important
Speaker 1: for us all to remember there is this sense that
Speaker 1: there's a two tier justice system, that Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: are not treated the same way and should not expect, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: because of the history, to be treated the same way
Speaker 1: when they are highly politicized investigations. And that's also you
Speaker 1: know what the whole Hillary fiasco shows us. There's no
Speaker 1: serious person who could say that Hillary Clinton did not
Speaker 1: receive orders of magnitude better treatment, more favorable treatment from
Speaker 1: the federal government investigating her very real violation of the
Speaker 1: US Federal Statute, which she did. So, not only was
Speaker 1: she treated much more gently in the investigative process, she
Speaker 1: got away with committing crimes. And on the other side,
Speaker 1: you have somebody like General Flynn who was treated as
Speaker 1: harshly as possible in terms of at least bringing charges
Speaker 1: and putting him through all of this and didn't even
Speaker 1: commit a crime. Jim Jordan understands this. Plack Cliff nine,
Speaker 1: James Comey was saying he didn't want to come testify
Speaker 1: him in a closed door session with Congress because it leaks.
Speaker 1: This is the guy who leaked the information to the
Speaker 1: New York Times to create the momentum for the special counsel.
Speaker 1: So come on, there's two standards, one for us regular folk,
Speaker 1: a different set if you're part of the political establishment.
Speaker 1: That's what drives Americans crazy. It's true, It's true. You know,
Speaker 1: James come who still thinks of himself as the most
Speaker 1: honest man in the country. Mean, he's really delusional. He's
Speaker 1: a pretty scary guy. He's not going to face any
Speaker 1: consequences for this. I don't think McCabe is going to
Speaker 1: face any consequences for his lies under oath. And you know,
Speaker 1: if there is, if there is a deep state, I'm
Speaker 1: sorting to think more forget about these people that are
Speaker 1: in this anti Trump cabal that we're trying to take
Speaker 1: him down, although that's certainly is arguably a deep state
Speaker 1: on its own. The deep state is at the federal
Speaker 1: government has been infiltrated with a mentality that Democrats should
Speaker 1: be treated you know, the federal bureaucracy, I mean, has
Speaker 1: now been overwhelm with people who believe that Democrats should
Speaker 1: be treated better and differently when it comes to matters
Speaker 1: of the justice system than Republicans. That's a very dangerous
Speaker 1: thing for the future of this country. That's something that's
Speaker 1: not going to be easy for anyone to shake off.
Speaker 1: And it's just it's been such a disgrace as this
Speaker 1: has played out. Do you have not had you know,
Speaker 1: how is this possible? You have not had a single,
Speaker 1: a single Democrat get caught up in any of this,
Speaker 1: you know, not a single you know, to be a
Speaker 1: Democrat who faces, you know, in the Muller probe. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no Democrats that Mueller's gone after. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: Alexvander's one, and he's not a US citizen though, but
Speaker 1: not everybody else. It's been Republicans that he's he's been
Speaker 1: tagging left and right that he's been getting And you
Speaker 1: can't ignore that when you look back at what went
Speaker 1: on with Hillary Clinton and the aids around her, and
Speaker 1: the way that they were always just given all these
Speaker 1: opportunities to just speak with lawyers president and I know,
Speaker 1: not really have anyone interrogate them. And they wrote it
Speaker 1: was with The fix was in. It was in from
Speaker 1: the very beginning. As you know, Matt Gates, who's a
Speaker 1: member of Congress, he sees this for what it is
Speaker 1: play clip eleven. We would not even be talking about
Speaker 1: Michael Flynn right now, if it were not for the
Speaker 1: initial interviews he did with wait for it, Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: the very same Peter Struck who had the insurance policy
Speaker 1: against the Trump presidency, the same Peter Struck who said
Speaker 1: no will stop him, and most importantly, the same Peter
Speaker 1: Struck who, when talking to his girlfriend ten months into
Speaker 1: this investigation, after Michael Flynn's story had already been told,
Speaker 1: was saying, there's no they're there. There's no evidence of
Speaker 1: collusion with Michael Flynn or President Trump or anyone else.
Speaker 1: This whole thing is a joke. Michael Flynn won't be
Speaker 1: facing any prison time, but he would have faced no
Speaker 1: legal jeopardy at all if he just wouldn't have pled guilty,
Speaker 1: because they would have never gotten a conviction with Peter
Speaker 1: Struck as their star witness. He raised a very good point.
Speaker 1: Peter Struck was the one. I mean, you know the
Speaker 1: FBI just remember this is a huge place. Okay, They've
Speaker 1: got tens of thousands of agents and personnel. Notice how
Speaker 1: at every key node in the Russia collusion and Hillary
Speaker 1: email fiasco, the same names pop up. Struck Page, McCabe, Coomy,
Speaker 1: Struck Page, McCabe, Kobe. These people are the ones you know,
Speaker 1: Bruce or Sally Yates. They are involved in all these
Speaker 1: different touch points. They're the ones that are in the
Speaker 1: excuse me, they're the ones that somehow are in the
Speaker 1: most important point of access and have the most leverage
Speaker 1: on these issues. That's not an accident. It's not an accident.
Speaker 1: And that's Struck one thing that I would like to
Speaker 1: know and I need to look into this. Did struct
Speaker 1: just take notes because a lot of times FBI A
Speaker 1: didn't do that. They take notes of the conversation, they
Speaker 1: don't record the conversation. If that's the case, then we
Speaker 1: have somebody who is a admitted clear anti Trump, hyperpartisan
Speaker 1: with Peter Struck, who was sitting down with the National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor to be for the Trump administration, and based
Speaker 1: on his note taking, which is really just his good word,
Speaker 1: whatever he decided to write down, you had the felony
Speaker 1: indictment of a three star general, Lieutenant General Flynn. Our
Speaker 1: two star general was the three star two star Pardon me,
Speaker 1: I might have gotten that one wrong, but you know
Speaker 1: he's lieutenant general. So that's I think very important for
Speaker 1: everybody to recognize as well that there's been the same
Speaker 1: characters involved at different points in this whole process, these
Speaker 1: same characters who are obviously anti Trump, and we're supposed
Speaker 1: to ignore this somehow, We're supposed to pretend that this
Speaker 1: hasn't all been fixed in a way that's meant to
Speaker 1: harm the Trump administration, to harm his people. Here's what
Speaker 1: Mark Penn says about the Flinn situation play ten. The
Speaker 1: Independent Council's Office, instead of getting people to sing, is
Speaker 1: getting people to plead guilty to things so that they
Speaker 1: can build a circumstantial case against the president in a report,
Speaker 1: completely misusing the judicial process. Now, look, nineteen interviews. Would
Speaker 1: someone suggests that maybe you didn't like what he had
Speaker 1: to say in the first ten is that is an
Speaker 1: incredible number of interviews. So he got somebody wind up
Speaker 1: and let's all relax here. If in fact General Flynn
Speaker 1: was colluding with the Russians, he wouldn't be getting no
Speaker 1: prison time. That that means, on its face, he was
Speaker 1: not colliding with the Russians. He's absolutely right, Flynn obviously
Speaker 1: wasn't including with Russians, because there's no way he would
Speaker 1: skate with no prison time, even on the false statements. Charger.
Speaker 1: That was okay. So, so Flynn didn't do anything wrong
Speaker 1: with regard to Russia collusion. That that's clear. You know,
Speaker 1: there's really no sound counter argument to that. But you know,
Speaker 1: who definitely did something wrong, you know, who definitely violated
Speaker 1: the law in an egregious and clear fashion. Whoever leaked
Speaker 1: the contents of that Flynn conversation. That person, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: whoever leaked the contents the conversation with Ambassador kissel Yak
Speaker 1: the Russian Ambassia. That person, by the way, had a
Speaker 1: knowledge of the law. That person was obviously deeply anti
Speaker 1: Trump and had high level access, high level classified access.
Speaker 1: There are not that many people who fit into those categories.
Speaker 1: There are not that many people that they would have
Speaker 1: to look at in order to track down who was
Speaker 1: guilty of that violation of their oath to the country
Speaker 1: to protect classified and violation of criminal law, which is
Speaker 1: no question. That's I mean, if you're going to leak
Speaker 1: signals intelligence to a news reporter to settle political scores,
Speaker 1: you know, you'll you'll do anything. I mean, it's such
Speaker 1: a betrayal. Where's that person? You know, do we think
Speaker 1: that Muller has spent any time looking into that made
Speaker 1: any criminal referrals he and about that now, of course
Speaker 1: not this is a Democrat, obviously, it's probably somebody senior
Speaker 1: at the DOJ. I could throw out a few guesses,
Speaker 1: and I won't go too far. There a few names
Speaker 1: that come to mind, though, people that are anti Trump zealots,
Speaker 1: some who maybe even took anti Trump stand at one
Speaker 1: time or another very publicly at duj FBI. But they
Speaker 1: have no interest in that. They have no interest in
Speaker 1: protecting classified projecting sources and methods. This is all a
Speaker 1: get Trump operation. And the fact that they haven't tracked
Speaker 1: out any of the criminal leagues about Rusia collusion except
Speaker 1: for one involving a guy with a staffer on the Hill,
Speaker 1: and I think a New York Times reporter that he
Speaker 1: was having an affair with. By the way, then there's
Speaker 1: that there's not much interest at all, is there in
Speaker 1: getting to the bottom of this. This is a dark
Speaker 1: time for our country. I mean, when the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice can be weaponized in this way, when people can
Speaker 1: look at their fellow Americans, whether it's on TV or
Speaker 1: members of Congress and act like this investigation it is
Speaker 1: not just the rage of the scorned pro Hillary Left.
Speaker 1: We're no longer living in a place, We're no longer
Speaker 1: in a time when we can find common ground, at
Speaker 1: least on this issue, probably on a whole lot of
Speaker 1: other issues too. We are facing into the abyss of
Speaker 1: a legal system that has been weaponized against one side,
Speaker 1: and that weaponization process they hope will reach its completion
Speaker 1: in the destruction of the Trump presidency, if not through
Speaker 1: criminal indictments, that at least through a report from Mueller
Speaker 1: that will serve as the basis for impeachment. Impeachment that
Speaker 1: I think we all know Democrats are pretending right now
Speaker 1: is not inevitable, but it would be almost as big
Speaker 1: a shock as the twenty sixteen election to me if
Speaker 1: they didn't impeach Trump the end of the year, Which
Speaker 1: means that I know you're thinking about holidays, Christmas gifts
Speaker 1: and all that, but if you're a business owner or
Speaker 1: you work in the HR department, guess what you've also
Speaker 1: got to think about new employees. Right, You're gonna be
Speaker 1: doing a fair amount of hiring and filling and staffing
Speaker 1: and all that stuff coming into the new year. You
Speaker 1: want global verification network to be there for you to
Speaker 1: run all those background checks. You got to have background
Speaker 1: checks done for any employee you're bringing in, no matter
Speaker 1: how large or small your company, and no matter what
Speaker 1: the size of the contract for that vetting. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network has got you covered. They are the boutique, veteran
Speaker 1: owned and operated background investigation company out there. You need
Speaker 1: to check them out. They have risk mitigation experts headquartered
Speaker 1: in Chicago, but with offices throughout the country. I know
Speaker 1: the CEO, Mark Backman, personally, and I can vouch for him.
Speaker 1: This is the guy you want helping you out on
Speaker 1: background checks. Call eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: seven nine again that's eight seven seven in six nine
Speaker 1: five seven nine, or go to MYGVN dot com. It's
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com. I've looked at this report and yes,
Speaker 1: everybody's going to focus on what has been redacted, but
Speaker 1: let's look at what's not in there. There is no
Speaker 1: suggestion that Michael Flynn had anything to do with collusion.
Speaker 1: He was with the transition team, he was part of
Speaker 1: the campaign, and yet there's no mention of collusion. I
Speaker 1: think it's good news for President Trump tonight that this
Speaker 1: is what has come down to. Even though they said
Speaker 1: he substantially cooperated. I think he's substantially cooperated to say
Speaker 1: that there was no collusion, and we can look at
Speaker 1: it with that in mind. Interesting theory. There no jail
Speaker 1: time recommended for Flynn. But where are we in this
Speaker 1: whole Russia collusion situation. We've got somebody that can really
Speaker 1: break it all down for us. We have with us,
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett. He is a Fox News legal analyst and
Speaker 1: author of the book which you should all check out,
Speaker 1: The Russia Hoax, The Elicits Schemes to clear Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: and frame Donald Trump. Greg jares with us now. Greg,
Speaker 1: Thank you, hey Buck, Great to be with you all right, man?
Speaker 1: What do you what do you make an apologies for
Speaker 1: my raspy voice here. What do you make of this
Speaker 1: latest series of events this week? Is it let's starve
Speaker 1: at the Flynn no jail time but substantial cooperation? What
Speaker 1: do you see in those documents? What's it all telling you? Well?
Speaker 1: The word cooperation is one of those wonderfully fungible terms.
Speaker 1: Cooperation can simply mean he agreed to talk to us
Speaker 1: immediately and try to be as forthcoming as he possibly could.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean that he actually was able to provide
Speaker 1: anything that is incriminating whatsoever towards Donald Trump in this
Speaker 1: so called collusion investigation. Collusions also, you know this amorphous
Speaker 1: crime that doesn't really exist in the criminal codes. Is
Speaker 1: it some sort of conspira recy coordination with Russians. Well,
Speaker 1: this memo reveals none of that, and in fact just
Speaker 1: the opposite. The memo itself makes no mention of collusion.
Speaker 1: The addendum, which is roughly five pages long, is heavily redacted,
Speaker 1: but you can tell from how it's laid out and
Speaker 1: set up two things that Flynn offered assistance on two subjects. First,
Speaker 1: he contributed something that's unidentified in a criminal case not
Speaker 1: handled by the Special Council, So that tells us it's
Speaker 1: not directly collusion related because it's handled not by Muller. Second,
Speaker 1: Flynn seems to have answered questions about the Trump transition
Speaker 1: teams conversations with foreign governments, including Russia. But that can't
Speaker 1: be collusion either to win the election, because the election
Speaker 1: was already over. So it's a bit of a mystery
Speaker 1: as to what is contained in the redactions. But I
Speaker 1: think it's evident to me and others that there's not
Speaker 1: much evidence of collusion being provided by Flynn, and what
Speaker 1: do you take from the lack of any I mean,
Speaker 1: we've had a few people already go down for the
Speaker 1: process crimes of lying over during the course of an
Speaker 1: investigation about no actual criminal conduct, right, Papadopoulos, Alexander Zuan.
Speaker 1: There's been a few of them. Papadopolis got two weeks.
Speaker 1: Flynn looks like it's gonna get nothing. Do you do
Speaker 1: you gauge that more as a function of Mueller thinking
Speaker 1: that the cooperation was just so exceptional or is that
Speaker 1: also Mueller maybe not wanting to kick the hornet's nest
Speaker 1: even more? Because I think people realize that the FBI
Speaker 1: did Flynn dirty on this one. I mean this was
Speaker 1: a setup. I mean there was a classified week and
Speaker 1: then the claim of the Logan Act to get this
Speaker 1: whole thing going. I mean, this is as as much
Speaker 1: a coordinated political hit is anything I can think of.
Speaker 1: Flynn should never have been prosecuted by Robert Muller and
Speaker 1: his assembled team of partisans. Why Because the FBI agents
Speaker 1: who interviewed Flynn concluded that he was telling the truth.
Speaker 1: That was confirmed by both James Comey and his debuty
Speaker 1: Andrew McCabe when they were interviewed by congressional investigators. The
Speaker 1: truth is, had Robert Muller been forced to prove his
Speaker 1: case against Flynn and Cord, he would have lost. He
Speaker 1: probably would have lost the case against Papadopolis as well.
Speaker 1: Why because the law requires that a false statement be
Speaker 1: made willfully and knowingly. That's a very difficult thing to prove.
Speaker 1: If somebody's recollection of a conversation happens to be different
Speaker 1: than a transcript of the conversation, or different than how
Speaker 1: the fb I or Muller interprets it, that's not a crime.
Speaker 1: But you know, Muller applied enormous pressure on Flynn to
Speaker 1: admit to lying, when in fact Flynn never lied, and
Speaker 1: in fact Flynn became broke trying to pay his legal fees.
Speaker 1: And what was really unconscionable is that Mueller threatened to prosecute,
Speaker 1: based on no evidence, Flynn's own son. So Flynn finally
Speaker 1: surrendered under the intense emotional strain in monetary pressures, which
Speaker 1: is really a shame. It's wrong, it's unconscionable for Muller
Speaker 1: to behave that way. Now, the Cohen Plea also got
Speaker 1: some attention this week. What what what can you tell
Speaker 1: us about how you how you read that and what
Speaker 1: comes next? Well, Michael Cohen is a prodigious liar in
Speaker 1: a tax cheat and he played guilty because he wants
Speaker 1: leniency in his sentencing treatment. You know, this is the
Speaker 1: trouble when the government, Robert Mueller in this case, decides
Speaker 1: to get in bed with a known liar and criminal.
Speaker 1: For all we know, Michael Cohen is lying about his lies.
Speaker 1: So we I mean he is not a credible witness.
Speaker 1: And in fact, because Mueller is going ahead with sentencing,
Speaker 1: it means he will never call Cohen as a witness
Speaker 1: in anything. So you know, Cohen, in my judgment, is
Speaker 1: also a total zero when it comes to collusion. You know,
Speaker 1: he can talk about payments which are perfectly legal under
Speaker 1: the Federal Campaign Election Act, to women who said they
Speaker 1: had affairs with Donald Trump, not a crime. What do
Speaker 1: you think about By the way, everyone, we're speaking to
Speaker 1: Greg Jarrett, author of the Russia hoax, the illicit schemes
Speaker 1: to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. Judge Napolitano,
Speaker 1: your colleague, Overt Fox said earlier today, quote, I expect
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior to be indicted. Do you agree with
Speaker 1: that assessment? Disagree? Well, given Muller's behavior of criminalizing conduct
Speaker 1: that is not remotely criminal, that's altogether a possibility. You know, again,
Speaker 1: Flenn's a perfect example. He didn't lie, he didn't commit
Speaker 1: a crime, but Mueller prosecuted him. Neverthe last So as
Speaker 1: I you know, I spent an entire chapter in my
Speaker 1: book The Russia Hoax explaining how the Trump Tower meeting
Speaker 1: violates no law. You know, it's not a crime to
Speaker 1: talk to a Russian lawyer or any Russian for that matter.
Speaker 1: Take a look at the Federal Election Commission website. Foreign
Speaker 1: nationals may participate in American campaigns as long as they
Speaker 1: don't receive money or donate money. So to have a
Speaker 1: conversation with a Russian lawyer who purportedly is going to
Speaker 1: give you information about Hillary Clinton, you know, that's just
Speaker 1: not a crime. So we'll wait and see what Mueller does.
Speaker 1: But you know, he is the kind of unprincipled, unscrupulous character,
Speaker 1: Mueller who would try to weaponize and criminalize that which
Speaker 1: is not truly under the law of crime. Do you
Speaker 1: think that this is winding down? And if so, could
Speaker 1: you tell us why? Because I've been hearing that for
Speaker 1: quite a while, and obviously it has not been true
Speaker 1: for quite a while, because this thing still drags on.
Speaker 1: Are we going to be in you know, springtime, still
Speaker 1: talking about whether Mueller's got the goods? It's altogether possible. Sure,
Speaker 1: These independent councils and special council investigations tend to drag
Speaker 1: on well beyond their merits. We certainly saw that in Whitewater,
Speaker 1: which went on to the better part of four years
Speaker 1: and then ended up accusing the President Bill Clinton then
Speaker 1: of something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the
Speaker 1: original mandate. So there's no telling when Muller and his
Speaker 1: team of partisans will end this thing. They should have
Speaker 1: ended it long ago. There's not a whiff of evidence
Speaker 1: that Trump ever had some conspiracy or coordination or collusion
Speaker 1: with Russia to win the election. None zero, And it
Speaker 1: should have ended there. And in point of fact, Muller
Speaker 1: should never have been appointed because under the federal regulation,
Speaker 1: you can only point of special counsel if there's some
Speaker 1: evidence of a crime first. And Lisa Page, who was
Speaker 1: the top FBI lawyer on the Russia investigation, testified two
Speaker 1: months ago that during entire time the FBI had the case,
Speaker 1: they never found any evidence of collusion. So this has
Speaker 1: been with Robert Muller, an investigation in search of a crime,
Speaker 1: which were versus a bastardizes the legal process and turns
Speaker 1: the federal regulations on their head. And as for the
Speaker 1: Hillary component of all this, in your book, the scheme
Speaker 1: to clear Hillary Clinton is she cleared in the sense
Speaker 1: that this is never going to really be thoroughly investigated.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think a lot of people wonder when
Speaker 1: you have the President saying, for example, that he may
Speaker 1: drop information about the origins of the Russia investigation in
Speaker 1: order to fight back against the Muller squad of partisans.
Speaker 1: You know that the president obviously is a guy who's
Speaker 1: willing to roll up the sleeves and get a little
Speaker 1: bare knuckle when he has to. Why not look into
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation? Why not? Do? I've heard a little
Speaker 1: bit of that coming back. But do you think that
Speaker 1: will actually be a factor. It will only be a
Speaker 1: factor when the Senate confirms a new attorney general who
Speaker 1: will present the evidence of Hillary Clinton's alleged crimes to
Speaker 1: a grand jury. And there is a mountain of evidence
Speaker 1: that she violated one hundred and ten times the Espionage Act.
Speaker 1: She did it through willful and knowing and intent. She
Speaker 1: did it through gross negligence. She could be prosecutored under
Speaker 1: two provisions of that Act. She also destroyed records that
Speaker 1: were under subpoena, you know that, substruction of justice, and
Speaker 1: several other crimes. Her foundation plenty of evidence to present
Speaker 1: to a grand jury that she engaged in hey to play.
Speaker 1: That's corrupt. It's a violation of six federal felony statutes.
Speaker 1: If there is sufficient evidence, that should be presented to
Speaker 1: a grand jury. So we'll wait and see who the
Speaker 1: new Attorney general is. It's really quite tragic that Jeff Sessions,
Speaker 1: who was incompetent and feckless, never reopened the case. He
Speaker 1: should have. The Russia Hoax, The illicit schemes to clear
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump, is the book. Greg
Speaker 1: Jared is the author also Fox News League Glance. Greg.
Speaker 1: Always great to have you come by. Thanks for sharing
Speaker 1: your research and expertise on this. Buck my pleasure. Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me all right, see, we've got a lot
Speaker 1: more coming up. Stay with me. It's funny. I had
Speaker 1: a friend asked me recently, Buck, what what do you
Speaker 1: do if you get hacked. Then I said, well, step
Speaker 1: one is don't get hacked, don't expose your stuff. Don't
Speaker 1: allow your information online to get pillaged by people that
Speaker 1: are going to exploit it, or sell it or do
Speaker 1: anything bad with it. Okay, that's why you need Express VPN.
Speaker 1: ExpressVPN is easy to use apps that work in the
Speaker 1: background of whatever electronic device I'm using. Okay, you need
Speaker 1: to check this out for yourself. ExpressVPN anonymizes your Internet browsing.
Speaker 1: It encrypts your data and hides your public IP address. So,
Speaker 1: especially if you're ever using public Wi Fi, you don't
Speaker 1: want somebody to be able to get into all your stuff,
Speaker 1: and you don't want third party companies accessing all of
Speaker 1: your private information online. Protect your online activity today and
Speaker 1: find out how you can get three months free at
Speaker 1: Express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck for three months free with a one
Speaker 1: year package. Visit Express vpn dot com slash buck to
Speaker 1: learn more. Man, I'm trying to hide you in these
Speaker 1: breaks so I can get my get my voice back
Speaker 1: and have to finish out the show. I know I
Speaker 1: was asking you all for phil Hin host. I was
Speaker 1: thinking for the Christmas holiday, but I might I might
Speaker 1: need one a little bit before that. I might not.
Speaker 1: I might not make it through it in tomorrow. I
Speaker 1: think tomorrow might be the day that my voice is
Speaker 1: totally shot. If I know. The progression of this kind
Speaker 1: of a cold that I've had in the past also
Speaker 1: makes me think I should probably get the flu vaccine.
Speaker 1: What do you think, Brandon? Are you a flu vaccine guy?
Speaker 1: Do you get it? I rarely get sick, so no,
Speaker 1: look at you. What's your secret not to rub it in?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It's okay rub it touch everything in
Speaker 1: New York City, so I'm immune. Oh so you think
Speaker 1: you take the perspective of because you're exposed to stuff
Speaker 1: all the time, you have a very hearty immune system.
Speaker 1: That's what I think it is. If I get sick,
Speaker 1: it's just for a day and maybe have a lingering cough.
Speaker 1: But you're for me. My Achilles heal is. If I
Speaker 1: don't I don't get enough sleep, I get sick. So
Speaker 1: you know that's if if I go a night with sleep,
Speaker 1: I end up for whatever reason. I'm just I'm like
Speaker 1: a no go oh man, you know it's early too
Speaker 1: usually I'm making into January before I get sick, but
Speaker 1: now it's December. Every year, this this summow, this summow
Speaker 1: happens to me. And I was thinking, you know, if
Speaker 1: I had more energy and more of a voice, maybe
Speaker 1: I'd start a conversation about vaccines in general. But I'm
Speaker 1: just kidding. I know, I know, I don't want to.
Speaker 1: Don't don't change the dial. I'm not going to talk
Speaker 1: about vaccines. I promise we're gonna have a speaking of
Speaker 1: guest house. We're gonna have Raheim joining us here in
Speaker 1: just a few minutes, So Raheem is going to drop
Speaker 1: all kinds of knowledge about all things, all things related
Speaker 1: to the U. N migrants packed. You know, the United
Speaker 1: Nations is now trying to weigh in on how countries
Speaker 1: should treat their migrants. And you know what the what
Speaker 1: the basic standards are supposed to be for you know,
Speaker 1: multicultural education for your own population. So when you bring
Speaker 1: in migrants, you know this is if you look back
Speaker 1: in history population flows. Yes, there's been a lot of
Speaker 1: the history of humanity has been a history of migrations,
Speaker 1: that's true, but it hasn't been a smooth or easy process.
Speaker 1: It often has coincided with war, with famine, with you know,
Speaker 1: people tend to move in large numbers for reasons of desperation,
Speaker 1: and those who have to embrace newcomers in large numbers
Speaker 1: all at once tend to have friction with them. And
Speaker 1: if you go back to the various periods in US
Speaker 1: history where there were big inflows of migrants, because contrary
Speaker 1: to what you're told by that mainstream media all the time,
Speaker 1: we've the history of immigration to America has been and
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about settlers and in the colonial period.
Speaker 1: I mean, we know, once we actually had immigration policy
Speaker 1: has been you know, the faws, it gets turned on,
Speaker 1: the faws, it gets turned off. You know, we taken
Speaker 1: a lot of immigrants, then we up, then we've taken
Speaker 1: a lot of immigrants, and then we stop. And that's
Speaker 1: allowed for assimilation. But in those periods, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: the Italians, the Irish, Jewish immigrants, Polish immigrants, there's been
Speaker 1: there's been some bumps along the way, let's just put
Speaker 1: it that way. I think back to what a hotbed
Speaker 1: of Marxist and anarchist ideology Chicago was in the eighteen eighties.
Speaker 1: It was all function of all the immigrants coming in
Speaker 1: from Europe, and the labor issues between owners and between
Speaker 1: management and laborer igo in Chicago factories that you know,
Speaker 1: that led to you know, all kinds of social upheaval
Speaker 1: and even some some outbreaks of violence here and there.
Speaker 1: You know. So this process it's not going to be
Speaker 1: easy no matter what. And I think it's it's time
Speaker 1: for us to at least have a more more honest
Speaker 1: conversation about this. I mean, that's the thing the multiculturalists
Speaker 1: just don't understand. They think that if only the host
Speaker 1: nation is more accepting, then everything gets a lot better
Speaker 1: and a lot easier. But it's it's not that simple.
Speaker 1: You know. One thing I thought about today is I
Speaker 1: went into my office and I'm one of these people
Speaker 1: who I'm always stuck between. You know, Brandon, where do
Speaker 1: you come down on this? We gotta right hem In
Speaker 1: a mill moment, he's gonna drop a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: knowledge and analysis. But should you when you're not feeling well?
Speaker 1: Are you a tough guy for doing your job and
Speaker 1: not letting your team down by showing up to do
Speaker 1: your work? Or are you typhoid mary infecting everybody? Get
Speaker 1: the heck out of the office. Which one is it.
Speaker 1: I usually side with tough guy. But if you're, you know,
Speaker 1: leaking mucus and vomiting, I think you should stay home.
Speaker 1: You're not really doing anybody is, So it depends on
Speaker 1: the sickness. I'm glad you're in DC. Put it that way,
Speaker 1: and I mean, yes, exactly right. I'm far away from you.
Speaker 1: So you don't think I could cough. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: it's not gonna hit you. That would be quite That
Speaker 1: would be quite a cough. There is much wisdom from
Speaker 1: DJ Brandon on this issue. Speaking of wisdom, Rahim Kassam
Speaker 1: up next to drop some should this caravan had been
Speaker 1: stopped at the Guatemala border. Of course I agree with
Speaker 1: that one hundred percent. I should have the country habit
Speaker 1: to beb with of these people because they have people,
Speaker 1: they have bad people, because they don't belong here. They're
Speaker 1: just migrants. But it's like the same in the same case,
Speaker 1: it's like when Mexican migrants going to the US, they're undocumented.
Speaker 1: You know of incidences here in Tijuana and in other
Speaker 1: cities that some of these people that are coming into
Speaker 1: these with these caravans are committing crimes. This is not
Speaker 1: about racism. We don't dislike a certain group of people
Speaker 1: because they're from a country, one country or another. We
Speaker 1: are here because our government has not taken control of
Speaker 1: these what we call invasion. We got a bunch of
Speaker 1: Mexicans there talking about a bunch of Central Americans who
Speaker 1: are part of this caravan, and Simon a lot like
Speaker 1: Republicans or even Trump himself. Pretty amazing, isn't it. What
Speaker 1: is the truth of immigration right now and sovereignty international borders,
Speaker 1: or what's the conversation we should be having about it.
Speaker 1: Our friend Rahim Kassam is with us now. He's, of
Speaker 1: course a guest host on this program. He's also a
Speaker 1: Claremont fellow and author, a political strategist. Mister Rahem, good
Speaker 1: to have you back, sir, Well, thanks for having me. Bud. So,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you about this, this piece you
Speaker 1: wrote in the Daily Caller about the UN combat. You said,
Speaker 1: major countries don't want to part of this UN compact
Speaker 1: on migration. I mean, we're dealing with their own migration
Speaker 1: crisis right now at the border with the caravan, and
Speaker 1: there's more caravans to come. Let's talk about this un
Speaker 1: compact first, on migration. What what is this and what
Speaker 1: do we need to know? Well, that's the point. You know,
Speaker 1: you're dealing with your own migration issues. You already have
Speaker 1: a you know, supposedly a sovereign government constituted of different entities,
Speaker 1: you know, different different chambers h in most Western democracies.
Speaker 1: But the United Nations wants to add further complication to
Speaker 1: that has published as of this summer what it calls
Speaker 1: the Compact on Migration. That's the that's the short title.
Speaker 1: The long title is about fifty fifty words long, as
Speaker 1: as with any of these supernational entities, and and you know,
Speaker 1: the whole thing is effectively just jargon. Uh it's it's
Speaker 1: It says in thirty eight pages plus what could be
Speaker 1: said in one page, what probably could be said in
Speaker 1: one sentence, and that is that the United Nations feels
Speaker 1: like it should assume immigration policy for almost every single
Speaker 1: nation around the world. It gets to set the expectations
Speaker 1: of national government. It also gets to set the regulations
Speaker 1: on both public and private sector entities as goes immigration.
Speaker 1: So just a few things that I picked up, I mean,
Speaker 1: my daily quarter pieces only about eight hundred words long.
Speaker 1: I could have gone for about five or six thousand,
Speaker 1: sort of picking into the detail of this of this report.
Speaker 1: But some of the things they mentioned are things like
Speaker 1: speeding up the visa processes for migrants, developing regular migratory
Speaker 1: flows into Western nations. And who has to pick up
Speaker 1: the tab for all of these things. It's the Western taxpayers.
Speaker 1: It's people like you and I and people out there
Speaker 1: in the country who have to pay more into their
Speaker 1: national governments and more into their immigration departments all over
Speaker 1: the world so that migratory flows can be sped up,
Speaker 1: because that, according to the United Nations, it would be
Speaker 1: against the human rights of migrants if they're either held
Speaker 1: at a detention center or they don't get immediate access
Speaker 1: to finance and welfare and education. So this compact has
Speaker 1: been put together over the last couple of years, really
Speaker 1: precipitated by the European migrant crisis. And you know what
Speaker 1: they're doing now is trying to rush this through at
Speaker 1: a December eleventh and twelfth meeting in Marrakesh. Luckily, President
Speaker 1: Trump and they Ambassador Nicky Haley to the United Nations
Speaker 1: said last year that the United States wouldn't be a
Speaker 1: part of it. And now you've got other major countries
Speaker 1: dropping out. Poland is dropping out, Austria is dropping out,
Speaker 1: Hungary is dropping out, Italy is dropping out. And just
Speaker 1: today a petition to the British Parliament reached one hundred
Speaker 1: thousand signatures in the United Kingdom, which immediately triggers a
Speaker 1: parliamentary debate. The petition was against the UK signing the compact.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of pressure from uh, you know,
Speaker 1: the populist countries and nationalist countries all around the world
Speaker 1: and their populations to not sign this, this this Migrant Compact. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it seems like if you're going to if you're going
Speaker 1: to decide you're outsourcing key components of immigration policy to
Speaker 1: the supernational body that is the United Nations, it feels
Speaker 1: like claims of national sovereignty start to ring a little
Speaker 1: bit hollow. I mean, if you if you can't determine
Speaker 1: who and how under what circumstances people come into your country,
Speaker 1: if you're going to let that be chosen by committee
Speaker 1: by all the other countries involved in this compact, clearly
Speaker 1: there's a there's a loss of sovereignty that results from that.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know so so, but there's pushback in
Speaker 1: the UK against this as well, right, even even in
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom, absolutely, where we have become so very
Speaker 1: um very less say fair about our politics, given what's
Speaker 1: happened with Breaksit over the last couple of years. But yeah,
Speaker 1: there is there is bag It's it's it's really interesting
Speaker 1: to me because the document itself mentioned several times over
Speaker 1: you know, this isn't supposed to impose upon nation states sovereignties,
Speaker 1: and then it sort of ends those lines with as
Speaker 1: long as they adhere to the Migrant Compact and within
Speaker 1: the realms of international law. Not once does it ever
Speaker 1: give any deference to say, the Constitution of the United States,
Speaker 1: or the Constitution of Italy or the constitution of the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom. It just says, within the realms of international law. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, you and I both know there's really no
Speaker 1: such thing as international law. International law is a very
Speaker 1: sort of liquid concept. It changes all of the time,
Speaker 1: depending on you know, who the bureaucrats and who the
Speaker 1: paper bushes are in the supernational entities, who we should
Speaker 1: change them. And you know, I looked at this in depth.
Speaker 1: I realize a lot of people won't have looked and
Speaker 1: looked at this in depth. But there's a very serious
Speaker 1: conversation to be had about the United Nations and its
Speaker 1: policies towards a migration because at the moment they're spending
Speaker 1: about six billion dollars a year on purely on migration
Speaker 1: and refugee issues. And when you consider that the United States,
Speaker 1: the US taxpayer picks up about twenty two percent of
Speaker 1: the annual United Nations budget. Well, it's one thing that
Speaker 1: President Trump opted out of this migrant Compact last year,
Speaker 1: but it's a whole another thing that US taxpayers are
Speaker 1: basically paying for assaults on sovereign nation states all around
Speaker 1: the world with this. So I think the State Department
Speaker 1: and the Trump administration needs to go back to the
Speaker 1: United Nations and say, look, as long as you keep
Speaker 1: doing this stuff, we're going to start whittling down our
Speaker 1: UN contributions over and over again. Yeah, it is kind
Speaker 1: of amazing that you have so much of the UN's
Speaker 1: bills paid for by America, therefore by the taxpayer. And
Speaker 1: yet there's always this sense within the UN. And I
Speaker 1: was actually friends years ago with a UN corresponding who
Speaker 1: was just east out of the UN. There's always a
Speaker 1: sense within the UN that, you know, America is like
Speaker 1: the rogue step child, the rogue step child that like
Speaker 1: pays for everything, but but is not really treated with,
Speaker 1: you know, quite the same degree of love and respect
Speaker 1: that we should to put it mildly. And then also
Speaker 1: just an issue of immigration in general. You know, we're
Speaker 1: we're always being forced to focus on, for example, a refugee,
Speaker 1: how many refugees we take in? Is it fifty thousand?
Speaker 1: Is a thirty thousand? And you know Trump with extreme
Speaker 1: vetting that became a big political issue for a while.
Speaker 1: Now with the caravans of the border, we take in
Speaker 1: a million people a year and make them either citizens
Speaker 1: or permanent residents of America who had not been previously.
Speaker 1: Million a year year after years. No other country in
Speaker 1: the world does this, and it's like no good deed
Speaker 1: goes unpunished. M Well, I was just say, buck, it's
Speaker 1: really is worth reminding ourselves that when when Americans are
Speaker 1: consistently called ungenerous or Trump is called, you know, xenophobic
Speaker 1: or whatever, the United States still takes in more refugees,
Speaker 1: more migrants of that persuasion than any other Western country
Speaker 1: in the world. And it's worth remembering that when you
Speaker 1: see all of these lectures from Emmanuel Macron or the
Speaker 1: European Commission that America must play its part, and so
Speaker 1: on and so forth, and you have just In Trudeau
Speaker 1: just north of the border, you know, grandstanding virtue signaling
Speaker 1: on his own. The United States is still the number
Speaker 1: one destination and still takes in the most number of
Speaker 1: people of any major Western economy. And and you know,
Speaker 1: for the United Nations to come out and do this now,
Speaker 1: I think is incredibly poorly timed. When you have strong governments,
Speaker 1: strong nationalistic governments in Europe, in Italy and Hungary and Poland,
Speaker 1: and you have Trump in the White House. You know,
Speaker 1: my hope is that on December the eleventh and twelve,
Speaker 1: the things that gets laughed out of the shop. But
Speaker 1: they've been working on this for some time and it
Speaker 1: won't be the last fear of it. Rahm. What's your
Speaker 1: take on how Trump is doing these days? Well, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the unvarnished truth is that he can't really do that
Speaker 1: well nowadays. He's not in a position to do that
Speaker 1: well at the moment. I mean, the next two years,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got him having to just have constant
Speaker 1: fires overboorder hall funding. Effectively, that's that's what the next
Speaker 1: two years are going to be, you know, characterized by
Speaker 1: the administration itself. You know, I cannot understand for the
Speaker 1: life of me how Mike Pompeio, Secretary of State, can
Speaker 1: go to Russells and declare that Trump is building a
Speaker 1: new liberal world order. That was precisely what the elector
Speaker 1: in the United States voted against. They wanted that sort
Speaker 1: of liberal order assailed and taken down a peg or
Speaker 1: two because it did lead to things like the European
Speaker 1: Commission and the European Union and the United Nations effectively
Speaker 1: dictating policy. Don't forget it nearly led to you guys
Speaker 1: joining the Transpacific Partnership. And you know, when you look
Speaker 1: at who the appointees are at the moment in places
Speaker 1: like the State Department. Mary Kissel, a recent one, for example,
Speaker 1: who came from the Wall Street Journal board, is an
Speaker 1: avowed neo conservative, is an avowed fan of the liberal order,
Speaker 1: spent most of her time during the twenty fifteen and
Speaker 1: sixteen election cycle insulting candidate Trump at the time, and
Speaker 1: she is now Mike Pompey of senior adviser and writes
Speaker 1: his speeches and writes policy. So it's it's it's a
Speaker 1: disturbing time for truemaga folks of which I count myself,
Speaker 1: and I don't I don't necessarily see it getting better.
Speaker 1: It's it's just going to be a long drawn out
Speaker 1: two years. Now. Do you think Trump can win if
Speaker 1: there's doesn't build the wall? Well, you know, it's one
Speaker 1: fact that he really has to hope that the economy
Speaker 1: is in good shape in two years time. You know,
Speaker 1: a lot of the financial people that I talk to,
Speaker 1: not the sort of renowned experts like the Krugman's and
Speaker 1: all these guys who get things wrong all the time,
Speaker 1: but the people who do get things right and don't
Speaker 1: get Trumpets blown about them, they are worried that this
Speaker 1: is going to turn into a global economic crisis in
Speaker 1: the next couple of years. It maybe in two years,
Speaker 1: it maybe in five years. Nobody can quite figure out
Speaker 1: when that when that bubble is going to burst. And
Speaker 1: if if he goes into the twenty twenty election cycle,
Speaker 1: even if the wall is partly built, or you know,
Speaker 1: the funding is secured, or even if it's holy built,
Speaker 1: people are going to look to the economy to make
Speaker 1: up their minds over over whether this President's been a
Speaker 1: success and and you know it's fifty fifty at the moment,
Speaker 1: it's it's really up in the air. Rahim Kasam, everybody,
Speaker 1: if you have not checked out his book, No Go Zones,
Speaker 1: highly recommend it to you. And you'll hear Rahim on
Speaker 1: this show again soon. Fill it are hem. Great to
Speaker 1: have you back. Thanks Bud. All right, team, we get
Speaker 1: a lot more show coming your way. I always good
Speaker 1: to hear from Rahim. Such a such an advantage to
Speaker 1: out the cool act accent. I gotta say, maybe I
Speaker 1: should just come up with an accent of my own
Speaker 1: to do on the show, you know, just show up
Speaker 1: and I was like, hello, my name's Buck. I've got
Speaker 1: a funny accent. Now that's not a cool assigning accent though,
Speaker 1: right like Raheem's accent adds gravitas and people want to
Speaker 1: listen to them. I'd have to come up with one
Speaker 1: of those. Or I could just go with the fact
Speaker 1: that right now my voice is too registers lower than
Speaker 1: it usually is. Maybe maybe that adds some degree of gravity.
Speaker 1: Task but this is you what the border is not
Speaker 1: getting any better. This is not going away anytime soon.
Speaker 1: In fact, as I've been telling you, I've been hearing
Speaker 1: that there may be an effort for a coordinated overrunning
Speaker 1: of the border. I'll talk to you more about that,
Speaker 1: and just a moment, stay with me. Just people came
Speaker 1: are coming violently, unrespectfully, not as a good law abiding citizen,
Speaker 1: and that's what's hurt us. It's not all of them,
Speaker 1: but yes, a lot of them are not really nice
Speaker 1: people who want to work, who want to integrate to
Speaker 1: our economy. They're just troublemakers. We had to bring him
Speaker 1: over here because the neighbors from from that from that
Speaker 1: part of town, if it's called Tikuana, it's like Tiquana
Speaker 1: by the sea. They were getting mad and they they
Speaker 1: even started throwing stones out at each other. So we
Speaker 1: catamore here like twe hundred and sixty teams got out
Speaker 1: of hand because it kept growing and growing. That's from
Speaker 1: people who are actually spending time near the caravan. That
Speaker 1: was a Tijuana Tijuana Mayor Juan Manuel and Tijuana City
Speaker 1: Councilman Gennaro Lopez talking about what it's done to their
Speaker 1: city to have these six thousand people who are living
Speaker 1: in right now and unsafe, unsanitary conditions because they're waiting
Speaker 1: for their moment to get across the border. And I
Speaker 1: want to just give you a little bit of this
Speaker 1: New York Times piece on this, because I'll take a
Speaker 1: different approach to it than, of course the Times does.
Speaker 1: But the title is with us Soil achingly close decision
Speaker 1: time for caravan migrants, And they say the thirty migrants
Speaker 1: were huddled under a tree on a cold night as
Speaker 1: an American government helicopter hovered overhead, its searchlights sweeping the
Speaker 1: tree boughs and the hard earth around it. From where
Speaker 1: they crouched, the man, women and children could see American
Speaker 1: soil on the yards away on the other side of
Speaker 1: the tall border fence separating Mexico from the United States.
Speaker 1: They had come to jump the fence, but so many
Speaker 1: things perplexed them. What if they got caught? If they did,
Speaker 1: could they apply for asylum? Would children be separated from
Speaker 1: their parents? Was it possible to run to San Diego?
Speaker 1: And then they spoke at one individual, Mister Garcia nodded
Speaker 1: toward the border fortifications of a nation whose present did
Speaker 1: not want him to enter. Quote, there's got to be
Speaker 1: a weak spot. Notice what you're being told here in
Speaker 1: this piece. Now, now they're writing this, of course as
Speaker 1: a very sympathetic portrait of people just seeking a better life,
Speaker 1: and that's true of many people in the caravan, But
Speaker 1: it's not just the US president doesn't want them, and
Speaker 1: it's actually US law that does not want people to
Speaker 1: come into the country illegally. And for those who keep
Speaker 1: saying they're claiming asylum, they're scamming the asylum process. They
Speaker 1: are committing fraud, and then the fraud is not enforced.
Speaker 1: That's what's really happening, because when their asylum claim does
Speaker 1: not go through, then they are in the country illegally,
Speaker 1: So that's the scam. But they're stuck at this border.
Speaker 1: They're stuck at the fence. Why, oh, that's right, because
Speaker 1: there is a barrier. There are all these photos of
Speaker 1: people at this border fence and they cannot get to
Speaker 1: the other side of it. Wait, but I thought we
Speaker 1: were told that walls don't work. I thought that people
Speaker 1: who believe in walls are so dumb and that that's
Speaker 1: just foolish. That's silly to think that a wall will
Speaker 1: do anything. Well, if that's the case, then I need
Speaker 1: somebody to explain to me. Why is it that you
Speaker 1: have all of these different migrants gathered together at the
Speaker 1: wall and not able to get across. The New York
Speaker 1: Times piece here is really an advertisement for build an
Speaker 1: even bigger wall that covers the whole border. If you
Speaker 1: want to get into the Christmas spirit and drink some
Speaker 1: delicious coffee while you're doing it, I've got an idea.
Speaker 1: Get yourself some Black Rifle coffee and hook somebody else
Speaker 1: up in your life with a Black Rifle Coffee subscription.
Speaker 1: I'm a subscriber. I get my coffee delivered every month,
Speaker 1: and that is what I drink. First thing I do
Speaker 1: when I go into the hill every day. People know,
Speaker 1: they make fun of me. This is my routine. I
Speaker 1: go straight back to my office, I grab my Black Rifle,
Speaker 1: take that K cup, throw it in the machine, and
Speaker 1: I'm drinking one hundred percent pure delicious freedom courtesy of
Speaker 1: my friends at Black Rifle Coffee. All Right. It is
Speaker 1: the best tasting, most energizing, veteran, helping first responder assisting
Speaker 1: coffee you can get. Black Rifle Coffee is the gift
Speaker 1: that keeps on giving. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck and receive fifteen sent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck for fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: again one more time. Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: You are now entering the Freedom Hottachnical Operations Center. All
Speaker 1: SENSI programs must be kept strictly. Need to know Team
Speaker 1: Buck is cleared, ready for the Buck brief. You've got
Speaker 1: a couple of things going on here in terms of
Speaker 1: US response to Russia first year courtesy of Fox News.
Speaker 1: The US Navy warship sailed in waters claimed by Russia
Speaker 1: in the Sea of Japan earlier today, as tensions increase
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from a decades
Speaker 1: old Arms Control treaty. Spokesperson for the Pacific US Pacific
Speaker 1: Fleet says, the guided missile destroyer USS mccampbell sailed in
Speaker 1: the vicenter of Peter the Great Bay, which is the
Speaker 1: body of water off the Russian ports city of Vladivostok,
Speaker 1: to challenge Russia's excessive maritime claims and uphold the rights, freedoms,
Speaker 1: and lawful uses of the sea enjoyed by the United
Speaker 1: States and other nations. So you know, this is a
Speaker 1: this is a show in the flag thing, right, This
Speaker 1: is intended to send a message. This is intended to
Speaker 1: make sure that the Russians know that we expect, we
Speaker 1: expect there to be no Russian interference with freedom of
Speaker 1: navigation these waters. And you know that, I also think
Speaker 1: I saw earther day there's we might be sending a cruiser.
Speaker 1: We're doing something right now with regard to showing Russia
Speaker 1: are just pleasure over the Ukraine situation. So with all
Speaker 1: these things going on, with all these different shows of strength,
Speaker 1: saber raveling, whatever you want to call and I'd just
Speaker 1: like to take a moment to think about, how, you know,
Speaker 1: I remember in the early days of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: and in the campaign phase as well, one of the
Speaker 1: things that was perplexing to some and especially for some Republicans,
Speaker 1: some conservatives, was maybe a bit of a surprise, a
Speaker 1: break with the past. Was that Trump was saying that
Speaker 1: we weren't going to get entangled in other people's stuff,
Speaker 1: that we weren't going to be in the position that
Speaker 1: or add to our woes in places like Afghanistan and
Speaker 1: other places there where we've become way too involved in
Speaker 1: either propping up another country, rebuilding its infrastructure, essentially creating
Speaker 1: a new country. You know, we've come to this decision now.
Speaker 1: I think, after a couple of decades or close to
Speaker 1: a couple of decades of we're in Afghanistan, US military
Speaker 1: operations in the Middle East, that we can't make everything
Speaker 1: our problem, and that this is this is a very
Speaker 1: important principle that I think conservatives increasingly embrace, because this
Speaker 1: world that we were led to believe could be shaped
Speaker 1: more in our image by US military force, it just doesn't.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work that way. It doesn't end up being
Speaker 1: the case. It's not possible to take some of these
Speaker 1: countries and to make them the representative democracies that we
Speaker 1: would like to see. It's not possible to make them
Speaker 1: build civil societies and have decent rule of law and
Speaker 1: human rights, and perhaps a lot more. To the point,
Speaker 1: it's certainly not the obligation shouldn't be the obligation of
Speaker 1: the United States military and the American people to send
Speaker 1: our young men and women in uniform all over the
Speaker 1: world to fix the problems of other countries. And this
Speaker 1: is why I get so frustrated with the Kashogi situation.
Speaker 1: You know, because you have both Russia and Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: now have become very prominent in the talking points of
Speaker 1: a lot of anti trumpers. The idea of being a
Speaker 1: Trump is so favorable to He's so favorable to those
Speaker 1: who are despots who rule with an iron fist, and
Speaker 1: the Trump likes those kinds of people. You know, they're
Speaker 1: saying now with Mohammed bin Salmon, that we should probably
Speaker 1: take action against him personally, take specific action against the
Speaker 1: Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. And to that, I just say,
Speaker 1: if we're going to do that, what do we do
Speaker 1: about the leader of Russia? And really, if we're going
Speaker 1: to hold the leader of a country responsible for terrible
Speaker 1: human rights violations, execution of dissidents. I mean, since we're
Speaker 1: having this conversation, what about Schijianping, what about China? You
Speaker 1: have one a million wagers that are estimated to be
Speaker 1: in these Chinese re education camps. You have people routinely imprisoned,
Speaker 1: torture disappeared who are critics of the regime in China.
Speaker 1: It's not reported on very much here, in part because
Speaker 1: we don't have a lot of access to the information,
Speaker 1: but I would rather us all have Again, apologies for
Speaker 1: my voice, guys, it's really I've been trying to try
Speaker 1: to push through. But as you can tell, it's it's
Speaker 1: it's in rough shape. It's it's really not possible to
Speaker 1: establish a principle that we're not going to deal with
Speaker 1: bad foreign leaders because of one act or many acts
Speaker 1: and uphold that standard without dramatically upending US foreign policy
Speaker 1: in our relationships with other countries. And so what I've
Speaker 1: been thinking lately is that we should extend this idea.
Speaker 1: We can't militarily fix all these other countries too. We
Speaker 1: also can't put it on our shoulders to be the
Speaker 1: moral arbiter of how all these other states act and
Speaker 1: are dealing with their own citizens all the time. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can sure, strong rhetoric is nice, but the most
Speaker 1: important way that America leads is by example and by
Speaker 1: the prosperity that we don't just enjoy at home, but
Speaker 1: that we spread all over the world with our technology,
Speaker 1: with our free markets, with our rule of law. You know,
Speaker 1: we are an example and also a security blanket for
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. But that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: we're supposed to run around and be responsible for every
Speaker 1: for writing or avenging every atrocity that is committed. And
Speaker 1: I would just like to see in my adult life,
Speaker 1: because I was thinking about this today, I have it's
Speaker 1: never been the case. I would like to have a
Speaker 1: period where America is not at war at all. We
Speaker 1: are still in Afghanistan, we still take losses there, we
Speaker 1: are still militarily involved in Rock. I've never lived in
Speaker 1: I've never lived in America as an adult because nine
Speaker 1: eleven happened when I was in college. I've never been
Speaker 1: a full functioning adult out in the real world in
Speaker 1: America that was not deployed in foreign theaters with ongoing
Speaker 1: military operations. And I think that that's that's that's troubling.
Speaker 1: I think that we should increasingly accept that the world
Speaker 1: is a nasty and dangerous place, and unless US interests
Speaker 1: are under threat, unless the US is in some way threatened,
Speaker 1: we should not feel this obligation to always be trying
Speaker 1: to uphold these standards that that really also come and go.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at how friendly Obama was toward,
Speaker 1: for example, the regime in Cuba, an absolute thugocracy, an
Speaker 1: island prison that for decades has been a thorn in
Speaker 1: the side of all US policy in the Caribbean and
Speaker 1: really around the world. In many ways, I mean, the
Speaker 1: Cubans were effectively operating as a ford operating base for
Speaker 1: the KGB for as long as the Soviet Union was around.
Speaker 1: And obviously the Cuban Revolution was won by Castro and
Speaker 1: the Obama administration and the Democrat the Democrats before before Trump,
Speaker 1: they took a very favorable view of what was going on.
Speaker 1: They took a view that we should stretch out our
Speaker 1: hand and we should make ourselves as much as we can,
Speaker 1: not allied with, but on a pathway to better relations
Speaker 1: with the Cuban regime without any change. And there's human
Speaker 1: rights positure or that any change in the number of
Speaker 1: people who had been tortured and killed. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of brutal murders that go on in Cuba the order
Speaker 1: of order of the Castle regime, right, So you know,
Speaker 1: this is why I mean, the complexities of foreign policy
Speaker 1: allow all the pundits and people that are involved in
Speaker 1: the stuff to talk about it all the time. And
Speaker 1: as I said, they'd like to talk about it because
Speaker 1: they think it makes them sounds smart, you know, And
Speaker 1: this is this is why a lot of people that
Speaker 1: you know go on to you. They I always feel
Speaker 1: like they're showing off the last thing they just look
Speaker 1: up on Wikipedia about you know this or that treaty
Speaker 1: or tribe or whatever it may be. I just wanted
Speaker 1: America that doesn't get pulled into more of this and
Speaker 1: that the Kashogi stuff I'm hearing from Lindsay Graham about
Speaker 1: how we really were effectively going to pick a fight
Speaker 1: with Saudi Arabia over this, or that we're going to
Speaker 1: do more than just assist Ukraine with support, but we're
Speaker 1: going to back them up militarily if Russia we're to
Speaker 1: get aggressive. I mean, you know the answer if someone's
Speaker 1: going to pose this to me, you know, if Russia
Speaker 1: invades Ukraine, do we go to war with Russia? For me,
Speaker 1: the answer is no. We should all be very clear
Speaker 1: about that. Is the Koshogie murder enough that we should
Speaker 1: abandon our relationship with Saudi Arabia and therefore allow Iran
Speaker 1: to push its advantage across the Middle Least I say
Speaker 1: to that also, the answer should be no, because we
Speaker 1: have to live in the real world. I got a
Speaker 1: lot of people that are telling me, Buck, I'm tired
Speaker 1: of all the bias I see from the left on
Speaker 1: social media. We know, Facebook and Twitter and these other
Speaker 1: companies are playing games that I say, well, I got
Speaker 1: an idea. Be part of the unbiased social media revolution
Speaker 1: at snippy dot com. Thousands of my listeners have joint
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com and they're now getting all kinds of
Speaker 1: conversations going. You need to check it out. Snippy is
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and
Speaker 1: building community. They're not just about freedom of expression. They
Speaker 1: guarantee that you can discuss topics freely and you will
Speaker 1: not get shadow band You will not have people deciding
Speaker 1: that because you support the Second Amendment or because you
Speaker 1: support this country over other countries hashtag vaga, hashtag America first,
Speaker 1: that you're going to somehow evaporate from the Internet. It's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. No shadow banting, no suppression of
Speaker 1: conservative thought. Snippy dot com now with an updated user
Speaker 1: interface and exciting new features. Also available on the Apple
Speaker 1: App Store and now available for Android. Snippy is your
Speaker 1: new alternative social media. Denial is threatening our planet, destroying
Speaker 1: our politics, and driving us crazy. Make people hear you
Speaker 1: on climate change and start to do something about it,
Speaker 1: and governments to start to do something about it. How
Speaker 1: pointless is my life and how pointless are the decisions
Speaker 1: that I'm making on a day to day basis when
Speaker 1: we are not focused on climate change every day, when
Speaker 1: it's not leaving every one of our newscasts. That's right,
Speaker 1: that's an MSNBC anchor telling you that, you know, life
Speaker 1: is pretty much pointless if we're not all fighting climate change.
Speaker 1: This is why that climate change is where people who
Speaker 1: generally shun religious belief turn for a feeling of purpose,
Speaker 1: and that's why they're willing to believe anything about it,
Speaker 1: because they take it on faith. But unlike a relationship
Speaker 1: with God, which has to be based in faith, science
Speaker 1: is not supposed to be based in just well, I
Speaker 1: want it to be true. I think it is true.
Speaker 1: I know it to be true. Therefore it is true.
Speaker 1: They're supposed to be real time, touchable, tangible evidence, and
Speaker 1: that relies on the scientific method. But here you have
Speaker 1: somebody who's really telling you the way though that the
Speaker 1: Libs feel about climate chadors that it's a it's an
Speaker 1: existential issue for them. The French, of course, have shown
Speaker 1: us what happens when people like Katie turn get their
Speaker 1: way and normal people have to deal with that. A
Speaker 1: carbon tax is a thing that the left has been
Speaker 1: pushing in this country for a very long time. The
Speaker 1: idea of a carbon tax is something that really tends
Speaker 1: to get liberals very, very energized. They like the notion
Speaker 1: of a carbon tax. They support the idea of it
Speaker 1: because it also falls into their idea of climate change
Speaker 1: not just as a problem to be solved, but a
Speaker 1: sin to be purged. You should be paying more, you
Speaker 1: should be punished for adding to climate change. It's not
Speaker 1: just about dealing with the scientific problem. It's that there's
Speaker 1: really now a whole part of the liberal mind that's
Speaker 1: engaged in what you'd have to call climate justice, which
Speaker 1: is its own subdiscipline of social justice. And social justice
Speaker 1: is cultural Marxism with a better name. But climate justice
Speaker 1: means that the third world has to get money from
Speaker 1: the first world. That people who are trying to go
Speaker 1: about their day to day lives and want to embrace
Speaker 1: the benefits of and the technologies afforded them by modernity,
Speaker 1: and in said that, you know what happens. They turn
Speaker 1: around and they're told, oh, no, you're not supposed to
Speaker 1: you're not supposed to use those things, or if you do,
Speaker 1: you're going to be punished. For those things. The very
Speaker 1: important people, the elites in this country, they are allowed
Speaker 1: to do whatever they want. This is how this is
Speaker 1: why they don't think it's hypocritical for al Gore to
Speaker 1: have a house in Tennessee that I think uses twenty
Speaker 1: times the normal amount of energy. Right, they don't think
Speaker 1: it's hypocritical for Leonardo Dicapria to actually fly to climate
Speaker 1: change meetings in a private jet, which means that his carbon,
Speaker 1: his CO two footprint is going to be more than
Speaker 1: the cotwo footprint of ninety nine percent of the people
Speaker 1: that he's out there lecturing about climate change. But you know,
Speaker 1: when you have somebody saying things like how pointless is
Speaker 1: my life if I'm not doing more about climate change?
Speaker 1: This is an existential issue for them, which is why
Speaker 1: they're so vicious about it too. I'll never forget that,
Speaker 1: you know. I talked about Michael Crichton from time to
Speaker 1: time on the show, mostly because Crichton was the author
Speaker 1: that I most I mean, the first, not the first
Speaker 1: book that I ever read on my own that I
Speaker 1: loved would have been in the third grade, and it
Speaker 1: was Letoiscut The Three Musketeers by Alexander dumah. But that
Speaker 1: was the first book that I read outside of school
Speaker 1: that I was like, this book is awesome. But the
Speaker 1: first person whoever made me think, wow, reading is something
Speaker 1: that I want to do for fun and it's going
Speaker 1: to be a big part of my life was Michael Crichton.
Speaker 1: Starting around fourth fifth grade was when I started reading
Speaker 1: Michael Michael Crichton books. And he wrote this book. And
Speaker 1: I got it wrong the last time, so I apologize.
Speaker 1: I got the title wrong, and I'm pretty sure it
Speaker 1: was State of Fear was the I just want to
Speaker 1: make sure I'm not telling you the wrong book. Yes,
Speaker 1: global warming about eco terists global warming. I think I
Speaker 1: had said something else the last time. But I read
Speaker 1: State of Fear. It's a pretty good read. It's not
Speaker 1: one of Crichton's better books, but I mean it's a
Speaker 1: pretty it's a pretty interesting read. But he gave this.
Speaker 1: He gave interviews afterwards where he said that he's written
Speaker 1: on the most controversial topics. Imagine what he's written on
Speaker 1: cloning and whether a human DNA can be patented, and
Speaker 1: he's written on a boor shit and when life start.
Speaker 1: He's tackled stuff that's really contentious. And he says that
Speaker 1: he was warned away from writing on climate change back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and four. He was warned by his
Speaker 1: own you know, his own side. I mean people probably
Speaker 1: see people he knows in the publishing industry and social friends,
Speaker 1: because they said that it's just not worth it. You're
Speaker 1: going to get so much. And he said that he
Speaker 1: almost backed away from it, but then he realized that
Speaker 1: he didn't want to be a coward, and he's very
Speaker 1: successful author, and why can't he write on whatever he
Speaker 1: wants to write on? And then he published the book,
Speaker 1: and he said that he got more hatred and even
Speaker 1: death threats from people because he wrote a novel that
Speaker 1: dealt with the issue of climate change than anything else
Speaker 1: in his entire career. Now that's bizarre, right, that doesn't
Speaker 1: make any sense because climate change in a day to
Speaker 1: day sense doesn't, you know, really shouldn't really be something
Speaker 1: that's on the forefront of anyone's minds. It really doesn't
Speaker 1: affect people quite the same way a lot of those
Speaker 1: other issues do. But when you understand the climate change
Speaker 1: is a religious belief for people who think they're too
Speaker 1: smart for religion, then you see how this would be
Speaker 1: like telling somebody you know who is a Muslim that
Speaker 1: you know there was never a Muhammed and this was
Speaker 1: all fake, or you know they're telling, you know, telling
Speaker 1: somebody who's a Christian there you know there is no
Speaker 1: Jesus and there was there is no God. Now, different
Speaker 1: religions and different people of religious faith react differently to
Speaker 1: these kinds of claims, but it's upsetting to people. A
Speaker 1: scientific debate shouldn't be upsetting to people who should be
Speaker 1: rooted in the facts. And if one thing is true
Speaker 1: and another thing is not, that's all that should matter.
Speaker 1: So in a sense, I actually like what Katie Turr
Speaker 1: said here because she's putting it in the in the
Speaker 1: context in which liberals really think about this issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's she's the one who's telling you how this really goes,
Speaker 1: which is that they think that this is about our
Speaker 1: ability to have meaning in life. And if you're part
Speaker 1: of this, this set, this climate change vanguard, you are
Speaker 1: you are trying to save the planet and you see
Speaker 1: you have a vision of the future that nobody else
Speaker 1: really has, or you know that other people aren't embracing.
Speaker 1: That makes you a better person than them, right, That
Speaker 1: makes you a better person than them. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that Katie jurors, you know, I don't know
Speaker 1: where that she came kind of out of nowhere all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, she's got to show at MSNBC. But
Speaker 1: she is at least telling you what the Libs really
Speaker 1: think about climate change, which usually they hide behind, Oh
Speaker 1: there's a scientific consensus, but there's not a scientific consensus,
Speaker 1: so they're just lying. But they don't mind lying because
Speaker 1: I think that this is about saving the earth in
Speaker 1: about it. What is the thing Democrats need to say
Speaker 1: to help voters bump this from issue number fourteen up
Speaker 1: to issue number one. I wish I had an answer
Speaker 1: to that, because one of the things that we Democrats
Speaker 1: have a really hard time is connecting to people's hearts
Speaker 1: instead of here. And we're really good at shoving out
Speaker 1: all the information that touch people here but not here.
Speaker 1: And I have been saying it all of our Senate
Speaker 1: Democratic retreats, that we need to speak to the heart,
Speaker 1: not in a manipulative way, not in a way that
Speaker 1: brings forth everybody's fears and resentments, but truly to speak
Speaker 1: to the heart so that people know that we're actually
Speaker 1: on their side. We have a really hard time doing that.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons that it was sold to
Speaker 1: me at one of our retreats was that we Democrats
Speaker 1: know so much that is true, and we have to
Speaker 1: kind of tell everybody how smart we are, and so
Speaker 1: we have a tendency to be very left brain and
Speaker 1: we think this, really that hasn't that is not how
Speaker 1: people make decisions. So there you have Maizie Harono, the
Speaker 1: dumbest person in the Senate, who is claiming in an
Speaker 1: interview that the problem that Democrats have is that they're
Speaker 1: too smart when they're talking to the American people. It's
Speaker 1: just perfect, isn't it. As she really is the dumbest.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that if you were to say,
Speaker 1: who can we pick who has the least knowledge and
Speaker 1: the least intellectual facility in the United States Senate, I
Speaker 1: think Mazie heronos number one. And the fact the matter
Speaker 1: is that what she's saying is not only ridiculous on
Speaker 1: its face, it's also the complete opposite of what reality is.
Speaker 1: Democrats don't worry about the real world consequences of their policies.
Speaker 1: Democrats are not the ones that make arguments based on
Speaker 1: reason and logic. They make arguments based on emotion all
Speaker 1: the time. I mean a perfect example is the border.
Speaker 1: What do we do about the border? Why are you
Speaker 1: such a racist who hates children and desperate women fleeing violence? No, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what I asked. I just asked, what do
Speaker 1: we do about the border? What would you like us
Speaker 1: to do? Does everyone get to come in? Give me answers?
Speaker 1: I would like answers. What is your preferred situation? What's
Speaker 1: your Oh? I see, it's just to do a lot
Speaker 1: of virtue signaling, to talk as much as possible about
Speaker 1: how kind hearted you are and how much you want
Speaker 1: to be the ones who are bringing in the meek,
Speaker 1: the poor, the hungry and downtrodden of the world. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: when we try to ask for all who's going to
Speaker 1: pay for all this? And how is this all supposed
Speaker 1: to work? We're told that we're the mean ones. No,
Speaker 1: Democrats rely overwhelmingly on emotional arguments. This is why when
Speaker 1: they make it an appeal to the public, the appeal
Speaker 1: is in terms of, you know, either fear or self righteousness.
Speaker 1: Why do we have to take action on climate change? Well,
Speaker 1: because we have to save the planet or else we're
Speaker 1: all going to die. I mean the world will die,
Speaker 1: I mean the planet will die. This is crazy. This
Speaker 1: is not something that normal people should think. But there
Speaker 1: are people nonetheless who think it, and they are Democrats.
Speaker 1: There's a whole bunch of areas where, you know, when
Speaker 1: you ask about serious scientific issues, you know, here's a
Speaker 1: perfect example. Are men and women biologically different and distinct
Speaker 1: and verifiable in those distinctions? Democrats these days, the left,
Speaker 1: they'll say, no, no, you can't make those distinctions because
Speaker 1: it's a spectrum, it's a scale. And when we say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, prove to me that it's a spectrum.
Speaker 1: Proved to me that this scale exists, they'll just say,
Speaker 1: why are you so mean? Why won't you let her
Speaker 1: him it? They z zem live the truth that that
Speaker 1: person has picked for himself, herself or anything other pronouns
Speaker 1: they use why are you so mean? So their arguments
Speaker 1: are overwhelmingly faced in emotion. You know, healthcare for all
Speaker 1: is going to be Medicare for all. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: too expensive. Why do you want poor people to die
Speaker 1: without healthcare? That's what they come back to you with.
Speaker 1: It is too expensive, and no serious person thinks otherwise.
Speaker 1: But Their argument is you're mean and we care and
Speaker 1: you don't, so it's funny. I mean, yes, Mazie Herono,
Speaker 1: as I said, the dumbest woman the Senate thinks that
Speaker 1: Democrats are too smart. That there's a lot of irony
Speaker 1: in that. But even beyond that, Democrats are masters of
Speaker 1: the emotional manipulation of politics. They're not so good at
Speaker 1: the make an argument that makes sense. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks, It's time for roll call. Well. I
Speaker 1: made it through the show despite the fact that little raspy,
Speaker 1: although I'm sure it depends. Sometimes the voice with the
Speaker 1: cold probably a little better. Sometimes it gets really funky.
Speaker 1: Let's get to your thoughts here Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: Bucks Sexton if you want to be in on this action.
Speaker 1: Chuck rhymes with Buck because he's a friend of Bucks.
Speaker 1: Chuck writes constructive criticism. Buck, please have your sound guy
Speaker 1: and normalize your voice levels with those of your producer
Speaker 1: and soundclips. Your voice volume is very low compared to
Speaker 1: their content on your show. It makes it hard to
Speaker 1: hear without constant volume adjustments. PS feel better, brother, Chuck.
Speaker 1: I I'll ask the guys to look into that. I
Speaker 1: cannot say because I don't listen to the show while
Speaker 1: I'm doing the show. In terms of the broadcast of it,
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't notice any difference. But if you
Speaker 1: say there's a difference, we'll have our guys look into it.
Speaker 1: On the engineering side, Apollo Apollinaire Umkundigner writes, Hello, well Apollinaire,
Speaker 1: whom I think I'm pretty sure is a bat or
Speaker 1: a computer program. Hello to you, and and no, I
Speaker 1: will not give you all my computer passwords, Mitchell, right buck.
Speaker 1: A good recommendation for a female guest host should be
Speaker 1: Katie Pavlich. Also, just a regular guest could be Jess
Speaker 1: Guitar lov She's on the other side, but makes good
Speaker 1: arguments and not just hyperventilating. Thanks Mitchell, Mitchell. Katie Pollich
Speaker 1: is great. I've known I've known Katie for years. She's
Speaker 1: a she's a force in the business and us. You know,
Speaker 1: is a very talented lady. I'd love to have her
Speaker 1: on I actually will. I'll put that one on the
Speaker 1: list of people will reach out to and see if
Speaker 1: she has any interest. She's very busy with TV, so
Speaker 1: I don't know if radio is something she can make
Speaker 1: time for or you know this radio, but I'll definitely
Speaker 1: ask her. I'd be very happy to have Katie on.
Speaker 1: And I know Jessica Tarlov a bit. She like me,
Speaker 1: grew up in New York City. She has the politics
Speaker 1: that most people in New York are expected to have,
Speaker 1: being a she's a a a pretty civil democrat. But
Speaker 1: I like Jessica. She's also very very nice lady, very
Speaker 1: polite and smart. Um. So, as for a guest, I
Speaker 1: don't know how much radio debate really, I'll put it
Speaker 1: this way. Very few shows have radio debates. And I
Speaker 1: think it's because it's difficult when you have two people
Speaker 1: speaking over each other. Then you're in a situation where
Speaker 1: you know you can't hear anything, and it's it's just
Speaker 1: not usually. It doesn't usually work out the way that
Speaker 1: we all want it to. Oh sorry, I'm amazing. My
Speaker 1: voice is barely make it through the show to day.
Speaker 1: Hopefully about tomorrow will be in pretty good shape again.
Speaker 1: John writes, listening to your show tonight, you mentioned the
Speaker 1: movie Titanic. I still haven't seen it. Just a couple
Speaker 1: of bits, John. I'm not saying you're a liar, okay,
Speaker 1: but I am going to say, come on, man, you've
Speaker 1: really never seen Titanic near far wherever there. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, man, you've seen Titanic. Everybody's seen Titanic. It
Speaker 1: was at one point, true fact, I think it was
Speaker 1: at one point the highest grossing movie of all time,
Speaker 1: which I think I think says a lot about movie watching.
Speaker 1: I don't know what it says, but it was the
Speaker 1: highest grossing film of all time for a while. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Robert writes Buck, I can't believe I'm going to ask
Speaker 1: you about Obama's birth certificate. Gosh, Robert, I can't either.
Speaker 1: I heard you mentioned on the show tonight. I never
Speaker 1: understood the issue. It's my understanding. You don't have to
Speaker 1: have been born in the United States to be president,
Speaker 1: as long as one or more of your parents are
Speaker 1: naturalized American citizens, meaning one of them was born in
Speaker 1: the US. McCain and Ted Cruz are both born outside
Speaker 1: of the United States. Was the issue that the religion
Speaker 1: might be stated as Muslim? Even if it was, that
Speaker 1: would have been up to his parents and doesn't mean
Speaker 1: it's his religion as an adult. Just curious if I'm
Speaker 1: missing something. Well, though, the issue is, and Robert, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be honest with you, I would want to read
Speaker 1: up on this a little bit, because I will tell
Speaker 1: you I have not thought about the birth controversy in
Speaker 1: quite some time. But the issue is whether one is
Speaker 1: a natural born citizen as understood by the Framers and
Speaker 1: in the Constitution. And I just going off of memory,
Speaker 1: can tell you that I think there's a pretty serious
Speaker 1: argument that not only if Obama was not born in Hawaii.
Speaker 1: I do believe he was born in Hawaii, and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that, but if Obama had not been
Speaker 1: born in Hawaii, he would not have been a natural
Speaker 1: born citizen. And Ted Cruz, I think, is also somebody
Speaker 1: who it's an open question whether if he could even
Speaker 1: get the Republican primary, he would constitutionally qualify to be
Speaker 1: president until the United States. And I know people don't
Speaker 1: want to hear. Look, I supported Ted in the primary.
Speaker 1: I think that his political skills, his political knowledge, and
Speaker 1: his understanding of political philosophy is first rate. His political
Speaker 1: skills are not ready for the presidential level. I think
Speaker 1: that's my honest assessment, and I don't know if they
Speaker 1: ever will be. You know, there is a whole component
Speaker 1: of whether somebody is likable and I know for this audience,
Speaker 1: a lot of you are just concerned with policy and
Speaker 1: your diehard constitutionalist you know, Ted Cruises, and I was
Speaker 1: right there with you. That's why I was supporting Cruise.
Speaker 1: But in the current environment we're in, you know, there's
Speaker 1: a reason why you're hearing a lot of Beato talk
Speaker 1: even though he lost to Ted Cruise in Texas. There's
Speaker 1: just a feeling, whether it's sure or not, who knows
Speaker 1: that you need to have a certain national level media
Speaker 1: savvy and charisma in order to compete. So there you
Speaker 1: have it. And as to yeah, so natural born citizen,
Speaker 1: there's still some debate over what really does qualify one
Speaker 1: as a natural born citizen. So I would just leave
Speaker 1: that to other folks who are deeper in the weeds
Speaker 1: on that than I am. Right now, Karen, Right, Oh,
Speaker 1: the elegancy of the Barack Obama presidency, Yeah right, the
Speaker 1: big bo I guess we're making a joke there about
Speaker 1: body odor. I think, okay, Valerie, right, Sorry, I just
Speaker 1: my quips don't come as ask when I'm trying not
Speaker 1: to cough. I know I'm really milking it, right, I
Speaker 1: was pretty good during the show. Guys, give me some credit.
Speaker 1: I did not come on team. I was not whining
Speaker 1: too much about the fact that I mean, I feel
Speaker 1: like I got hit by a bus. I don't know
Speaker 1: what it is with me. Whenever I get sick, it's
Speaker 1: a cold. I mean, it's just a cold virus. But
Speaker 1: whenever I get sick day one, I'm like, oh, I'm sick,
Speaker 1: but it's not that bad. And then day two it's, oh, wow,
Speaker 1: this is not gonna be fun. And it's actually day
Speaker 1: three for me, that's just the misery day. So I'm
Speaker 1: in day three, Laurie, right, hold on a second book.
Speaker 1: A suggestion I love regarding the Christmas Santa story for
Speaker 1: telling kids is to explain it as Santa is real.
Speaker 1: It's not just a big guy in a red suit.
Speaker 1: Santa is all of your family and friends and loved
Speaker 1: ones that gather, give gifts and make the holiday special.
Speaker 1: Just a thought that I thought was worth sharing. Well, Laurie,
Speaker 1: I like that. I like that approach. You also could
Speaker 1: talk about the and now it's some of you who
Speaker 1: are um you know, the original Blaze Squad would be like, well,
Speaker 1: what about the original Saint Nicolas of Mira from the
Speaker 1: fourth late third early fourth century Nikolas of Body, who's
Speaker 1: a Christian bishop. My friends in what used to be
Speaker 1: known as Asia Minor are currently known as Turkey. Saint
Speaker 1: Nick comes to us via syinter Claus or Santa Claus,
Speaker 1: and that's that's this guy Nicolas of Body, who was
Speaker 1: a bishop, who's a real dude. So you could tell
Speaker 1: them about the the kind of metaphorical Santa of today,
Speaker 1: and you could kick at old school history style and
Speaker 1: tell them about Saint Nick from way back when the
Speaker 1: real scene, kind of like how I've done the real
Speaker 1: Dracula on this show before, although some of you said,
Speaker 1: all right, we've had enough real Dracula. That'll be for
Speaker 1: the gosh the voice broke, that'll be for the history podcast,
Speaker 1: which is gonna happen when I have just less obligations,
Speaker 1: which is probably gonna be soon. Not Nori, you know,
Speaker 1: everything is gonna be fine. I'm just gonna find a
Speaker 1: way to make more time in the day. Alex writes
Speaker 1: Titanic at four major flaws. The first, the forward funnel
Speaker 1: did not have smoke, only steam from the laundry. The second,
Speaker 1: the nineteen eleven style forty five that was used in
Speaker 1: the film wasn't introduced until nineteen fourteen. You can tell
Speaker 1: from the tang I don't know anything about that. The third,
Speaker 1: the dime that she paid for the picture with was
Speaker 1: a Roosevelt dime, not a Mercury dime. And the fourth,
Speaker 1: the radio room did not send out a CQD. It
Speaker 1: sent out an SOS as per international standard. January first,
Speaker 1: nineteen twelve, Alex, I gotta take your word on all that.
Speaker 1: I have no idea if any of that's true. But
Speaker 1: you seem to be deep, deep, like like at the
Speaker 1: bottom of the free Using ocean after hitting the iceberg.
Speaker 1: Deep on your Titanic knowledge. Adam's hey Buck looking for
Speaker 1: Christmas gifts on nine line. I was wondering if you
Speaker 1: could still have a discount code I could use to
Speaker 1: show my support but love the show. Thanks for being
Speaker 1: an inspiration, Adam. Actually, I don't have a discount code
Speaker 1: with nine line right now, so if that changes for
Speaker 1: the holiday, I would let you know. But definitely get
Speaker 1: some Black Rifle Coffee. Got a Black Ravel Coffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck fifteen percent off coffee is a great gift.
Speaker 1: By the way, Black Rifle Coffee has fantastic gear, two
Speaker 1: T shirts, sweatshirts, I have a bunch of Black Rifles
Speaker 1: T shirts that I wear all the time. So get
Speaker 1: some T shirts from Black Rifle, Black Ravel, Coffee dot Com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck. There you go, Here we go, Johan rights Buck.
Speaker 1: I agree with you on the way the Bush passing
Speaker 1: is being handled. I share with you my feeling as
Speaker 1: my wife is getting tired of my rants. The stuff
Speaker 1: they're doing should only be done for a sitting president.
Speaker 1: The Bush family should have kept it all in Texas.
Speaker 1: I too fear the idolatry that has going on. Do
Speaker 1: you realize that another carrier has been named after JFK.
Speaker 1: My father's nineteen forty Blue Jacket manual said carriers renamed
Speaker 1: after famous ships or military battles that change with the
Speaker 1: FDR and forrest still but his way out of control.
Speaker 1: Now these ships are paid for by taxpayers and should
Speaker 1: be named for more than a single person. Pretty soon
Speaker 1: we'll see the large pictures all out North Koreans and
Speaker 1: the PRC. Yeah, I think that we take the political
Speaker 1: hero worship a little foreigners country. I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 1: With the founders, it's a little different because that's part
Speaker 1: of our well, our founding and our shared political culture.
Speaker 1: But I do think that that we're getting closer and
Speaker 1: closer to treating our famous political names like nobility. And
Speaker 1: let's all be honest, there really are kind of like
Speaker 1: titles of nobility. You know, if you're a Bush, you
Speaker 1: don't have to be the best then anything you get
Speaker 1: to run for office now it seems for you know,
Speaker 1: for the foreseeable future, for generations, you know, oh a Bush.
Speaker 1: If you're saying, well, obviously, Kennedy, it's true. Just wait
Speaker 1: till Chelsea Clinton runs, that's gonna happen. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: they're not technically titles of nobility, but they function kind
Speaker 1: of the same way. I just I do not like
Speaker 1: that tendency in our politics. Everybody who serves, every in
Speaker 1: office is a citizen as a fellow citizen, and that's it,
Speaker 1: and we're all citizens. Team. I'm going to go drink
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of tea. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: keeping me company here as I'm on the mend. Hope
Speaker 1: you enjoyed the show. I will be talking to you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Of course, Shields High A lot of these progressive mega
Speaker 1: companies are run by lefties who don't share your values,
Speaker 1: don't share anything with you really and oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: they also like to share your information with third parties.
Speaker 1: They make money off of this. I've got an idea.
Speaker 1: Try an email service that fits with your ideals and
Speaker 1: your worldview. I patriots dot Us. I patriots dot us
Speaker 1: is a new conservative alternative to liberal based email services.
Speaker 1: I patriots dot us is secure, private, and includes more
Speaker 1: of what you want without all the ads and spam.
Speaker 1: Thirty gigs at cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and your
Speaker 1: files are safe with ipatriots anti virus encryption. Ipatriots dot
Speaker 1: Us won't sell your information or support liberal agenda items
Speaker 1: like most free email providers. Show your a patriot. Go
Speaker 1: to ipatriots dot us now. It's compatible with almost all
Speaker 1: mobile devices. Choose your membership program, input your desired ipatriots
Speaker 1: email address during checkout, and enter promo code buck that's
Speaker 1: buck for a ten percent savings during your first year
Speaker 1: of membership.