Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump says something
Speaker 1: kind of mean about Joe Biden and the media freaks out.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about what that means, and also the latest
Speaker 1: on North Korea and Iran policy, some big Supreme Court decisions,
Speaker 1: what that means about the legal future for this country,
Speaker 1: and Chernobyl is the best thing on television right now.
Speaker 1: I'll explain why. Coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence magnor mistake American, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now,
Speaker 1: Ken Jean the statement that Joe Biden was a low
Speaker 1: IQ individual who probably is based on his record. I
Speaker 1: think I agree with him on that Joe Biden was
Speaker 1: a disaster. His administration with President Obama, they were basically
Speaker 1: a disaster when it came to so many things. Whether
Speaker 1: it was economy, whether it was military defense, no matter
Speaker 1: what it was, they had a lot of problems. So
Speaker 1: I'm not a fan. Welcome to the bucksac and Show.
Speaker 1: Everybody tell President President Trump there were some harsh words
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden, although are they untrue words? Or they
Speaker 1: just harsh words. Media went into full on freak out mode,
Speaker 1: which I suppose it's not even the least bit surprising.
Speaker 1: They freak about everything, but saying that Biden is low
Speaker 1: IQ seems to be too much for our intrepid press
Speaker 1: cord to handle. I just I don't know. They never
Speaker 1: grow tired of the freak out. They never grow tired
Speaker 1: of suggesting a president Trump is basically the worst person
Speaker 1: in the history of the universe, and they think that
Speaker 1: if they keep telling us this, they will prevent him
Speaker 1: from getting reelected. But I gotta tell you, I still
Speaker 1: believe that Trump's in very in a very good position
Speaker 1: if in fact, the economy stays where it is, and
Speaker 1: if we continue to see the prosperity and just the
Speaker 1: common sense approach to governance. They can complain about his
Speaker 1: tweets all day. They can complain about his side comments.
Speaker 1: Oh he's he's siding with dictators over his own countryman,
Speaker 1: this is what they say. They forget that we remember
Speaker 1: what was like during the Obama years. We remember what
Speaker 1: it was like to hear that Republicans were a bunch
Speaker 1: of warmongers and in fact war criminals. This was commonly
Speaker 1: said about Bush and Cheney, especially toward the latter part
Speaker 1: of the Bush administration, there were some who thought that
Speaker 1: there should be charges brought against the commander into the
Speaker 1: Commander Chief when it was Bush, for just the decisions
Speaker 1: he made that they did not like. But now they're
Speaker 1: worried about saying that someone is low IQ. I don't
Speaker 1: think Biden's very smart. Does that make me a bad person?
Speaker 1: That mean that I'm someone that isn't allowed to have
Speaker 1: an opinion anymore. I think there's a lot of ways
Speaker 1: that you can go back and look at what he's
Speaker 1: said over time, and he's a pure It's just what
Speaker 1: Reagan said, He's a pure demagogue. If you're somebody who's
Speaker 1: not particularly sophisticated in your political thinking, and by that
Speaker 1: I don't mean I don't mean fancy in your thinking.
Speaker 1: I don't mean an establishment figure. I mean you're not
Speaker 1: sophisticated and you don't understand that most of these guys,
Speaker 1: most of these politicians, including Biden, are full of crap.
Speaker 1: Most of them lie. They try to stand for one
Speaker 1: thing when it comes to getting attention and donations, and
Speaker 1: then when they're in the swamp, when they're in DC,
Speaker 1: they go in a different direction. They hope nobody pays attention.
Speaker 1: You know, they sign they sign off on things and
Speaker 1: hope that they don't get held accountable for it. And
Speaker 1: you know, there's all these different ways that they try
Speaker 1: to evade accountability while at the same time promoting their
Speaker 1: own individual brands and pretending like they're doing public service.
Speaker 1: I think Biden is, in that way the quintessential American
Speaker 1: politician with all the bad baggage that that brings with it.
Speaker 1: And given what they say about Trump on a regular basis,
Speaker 1: are we really to believe that Biden is low IQ?
Speaker 1: Even if he said that, Kim jongun smiled at him
Speaker 1: a little bit because he said this, and maybe Kim
Speaker 1: jongan agrees that Biden's low AQU. Kim probably just smiled
Speaker 1: because it's kind of a funny thing for a president
Speaker 1: to say about an opponent, you know, when you know,
Speaker 1: here's a perfect example. Just to step back for a moment,
Speaker 1: they act like this is such a low blow low
Speaker 1: IQ Biden. Can I also say that they were telling
Speaker 1: us not long ago that to call I think it
Speaker 1: was Maxine Waters low IQ, Brucer, Mike wasn't it Wasn't
Speaker 1: it Maxine Waters that he says it's low iq he
Speaker 1: used to right, Oh okay, yeah, I'm pretty sure it's
Speaker 1: low iq that he used to. We were told that
Speaker 1: was racist. Well now he calls Joe Biden low iq.
Speaker 1: So do we get to revisit the whole It wasn't
Speaker 1: racist to call Maxine Waters low iq? No, of course not.
Speaker 1: They've skipped past that. They the destruction hath been wrought
Speaker 1: by the media, and therefore there's no reason for them
Speaker 1: to look at it again and have any kind of
Speaker 1: a conversation about maybe maybe they were wrong. But I
Speaker 1: remember in the show The West Wing, which was set
Speaker 1: up really to be an alternative presidency for Libs during
Speaker 1: the Bush administration, and that was that was what its
Speaker 1: selling point was. You know that that there was going
Speaker 1: to be a a place where Libs could tune in
Speaker 1: and see what a good Democrat president that would really be.
Speaker 1: Like what was his name? His name was like jebedia
Speaker 1: or something or other, Right, the guy who was Bartlett,
Speaker 1: President Bartlett, That's what they used to call him. And
Speaker 1: you know he at one point had this supposed open mic.
Speaker 1: People always say hot mic, but that's not the correct terminology.
Speaker 1: President Bartlett in the West Wing had this open mic moment.
Speaker 1: I didn't see that much of the show, but I
Speaker 1: remember this one where he referred to a guy as
Speaker 1: like a twenty two caliber mine in a three fifty
Speaker 1: seven caliber world. And at the end of the episode,
Speaker 1: the really and that was created all this controversy that
Speaker 1: he'd called the political opponents, essentially called a political opponent stupid,
Speaker 1: and this got called on a mic, and at the
Speaker 1: end of the episode it comes out that sure enough,
Speaker 1: the president knew the mic was open, and this was
Speaker 1: a very clever employ to take a swipe at his Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, Republican opponent. Now you could say, to
Speaker 1: mean Buck, that's scripted and who cares, And it's Aaron
Speaker 1: Sorkin doing his usual liberal fast talking, too clever by
Speaker 1: half nonsense. And yes, that's all true. But if it
Speaker 1: were a Democrat in real life or in fiction calling
Speaker 1: a Republican stupid, nobody would bat an eyelash. Because they
Speaker 1: call Republican stupid all the time. They called Bush stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean they that's one of their favorite knocks on
Speaker 1: prominent Republicans, that they're all just so so dumb. This
Speaker 1: is what they say. But you can't call Biden low.
Speaker 1: I You're You're not allowed to say that. You're not
Speaker 1: allowed to point to the fact that this guy is
Speaker 1: somebody who never was able to get a substantial percentage
Speaker 1: of the national voting population, even the Democrat side, to
Speaker 1: vote for him. He's really just been an along for
Speaker 1: the ride. You know. He is the quintessential I said before,
Speaker 1: a politician, but also really the epitome of the establishment man.
Speaker 1: And he's a He's in the state of Delaware and
Speaker 1: just wants to make sure it keeps getting reelected in Delaware.
Speaker 1: I'm sure he brings home all kinds of goodies and
Speaker 1: and pork whatever he can for Delaware. And that's it.
Speaker 1: What has his record been in the past, A lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of embarrassment, a lot of nonsense, a
Speaker 1: lot of missteps. But this is what we're offered instead
Speaker 1: of Trump. This is what we're told we're supposed to
Speaker 1: get excited about it. I just I really, I really
Speaker 1: can't do it, folks. I can't bring myself to accept
Speaker 1: this nonsensical position that Joe Biden is the is the
Speaker 1: answer to what ails us. I mean, in this period
Speaker 1: of tremendous Trump to arrangement syndrome. You'd think they could
Speaker 1: at least put forward to candidate that normal people could
Speaker 1: say is a return to normalcy. But the normalcy that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden represents is exactly is what Trump is in
Speaker 1: office to get rid of. We don't want these careers,
Speaker 1: we don't want these lifetime politicians to be in charge
Speaker 1: of us. Oh, and then you add things like how
Speaker 1: is doing as president? And this is what we're always told.
Speaker 1: You know, you've got to ignore this, this doesn't really matter,
Speaker 1: and who cares? And it matters a lot. Libs going
Speaker 1: into the Obama reelection were constantly having to explain how
Speaker 1: America's best days economically, we're behind it. There really wasn't
Speaker 1: the kind of growth that in the future, that wouldn't
Speaker 1: be the kind of growth that we'd seen in the past.
Speaker 1: It was a lot of excuse making for the Obama
Speaker 1: administration having a very slow recovery. And really it was
Speaker 1: about a kind of hostility to capitalism. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: that's what was a defining characteristic of you know, of
Speaker 1: what Obama was pushing. You know, he was always very
Speaker 1: concerned with, you know, redistribution of wealth and with leveling
Speaker 1: the playing field based not on the removal of regulations
Speaker 1: or anything like that, but by picking picking winners and losers,
Speaker 1: having the government pick winners and losers instead of the market,
Speaker 1: and that had negative consequence. But you have the numbers
Speaker 1: that are out there right now for President Trump are
Speaker 1: very strong. I mean, here's Prime Minister Abbe. You know Trump,
Speaker 1: Trump was over there playing golf. I wish I could
Speaker 1: get excited about golf, and so many great people I
Speaker 1: know love golf. I don't. I've tried a few times.
Speaker 1: I'm very bad, and I do not understand the appeal.
Speaker 1: And I kind of don't want to understand the appeal
Speaker 1: because I feel like I'll be giving away thousands of
Speaker 1: hours of my life to something that maybe is not
Speaker 1: the best usage of my time. But anyway, here's what
Speaker 1: Prime Minister Abbe of Japan has said about how things
Speaker 1: are going with President Trump in office. You just remember,
Speaker 1: just a reminder, this is what's really happening versus what
Speaker 1: the Libs are telling this are happening. And that's their
Speaker 1: big pitch for for Biden is trying to convince us
Speaker 1: that things are terrible. Here's reality play for Japanese company
Speaker 1: investment to the tune of twenty four billion dollars to
Speaker 1: the United States, thereby creating forty five thousand new jobs.
Speaker 1: Tax reformed that President conducted thanks to that automotive and
Speaker 1: image related to Japanese companies are making investment in my Pennsylvania, Michigan, Alabama,
Speaker 1: and Kentucky and others. They are mad. They have decided
Speaker 1: to make new investments in a short style. Aren'ty here there?
Speaker 1: Through the through the interpreter and the you know, the
Speaker 1: audio is not great, but you're getting the idea. A
Speaker 1: lot of new investment, a lot of new jobs, billions
Speaker 1: and billions of dollars. It's not strange for me or
Speaker 1: for you to care more about that than is Trump
Speaker 1: being mean to Joe Biden? Is he making fun of
Speaker 1: Joe Biden in a way that is unpresidential? Unpresidential for
Speaker 1: him to say that. We've had plenty of Republicans who
Speaker 1: were very presidential, who didn't get very much done, who
Speaker 1: weren't able to achieve very much well, weren't able to win,
Speaker 1: first of all, but even if they did win, weren't
Speaker 1: able to enact the kind of policies that they promised
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail. And while it's all well and good,
Speaker 1: and I'm look, I'm a very Some of you who
Speaker 1: have met me know this. I'm very polite by nature.
Speaker 1: I'm a very polite individual. I try to be respectful
Speaker 1: and friendly to everyone. I think that everyone should act
Speaker 1: that way. But I also know that there are more
Speaker 1: important things than the presidential decorum that some expect when
Speaker 1: it comes to how the commander in chief and the
Speaker 1: top of the executive branch conducts himself or perhaps herself
Speaker 1: in the future. There are more important things, and Trump
Speaker 1: is executing on those more important things. Brings me to
Speaker 1: the questions over his foreign policy. Got to dive into
Speaker 1: some of that. I know North Korea is doing a
Speaker 1: little bit of some saber rattling, some missiles fired off.
Speaker 1: That's that's a bit problem matic. Look at kind of
Speaker 1: a grab bag that I focus. I mean, I sort
Speaker 1: of wish that there was a major, you know, deep
Speaker 1: state story, or we have something in the declassification had occurred.
Speaker 1: We're going to get into that in June in a
Speaker 1: big way. I know that for sure when they released
Speaker 1: the Inspector General report. You know, today's one of these
Speaker 1: days where we just have a lot of stories to cover.
Speaker 1: Our different stories. So we're going to move through a
Speaker 1: bunch of topics and cover some real ground. And the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case es today some very interesting decisions there
Speaker 1: that I'll want to spend some time on with all
Speaker 1: of you. So sit back, relax, and let the freedom
Speaker 1: hunt roll. We'll be right back. I think Biden's busy
Speaker 1: focusing on his campaign messages and doesn't need to respond
Speaker 1: to President Trump. But how many desboits are on the
Speaker 1: Trump twenty twenty real elect campaign at this point? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, you have Kim Jong un criticizing President Trump's
Speaker 1: political rivals, you have Vladimir Putin criticizing Democrats. Let's just
Speaker 1: wait for him to say something about Joe Biden. And
Speaker 1: it's all pretty clear why they're doing it. These desbots
Speaker 1: are trying to manipulate President Trump by criticizing his rivals
Speaker 1: because they want him in the Oval office from twenty
Speaker 1: twenty onward. He's been pretty good for them. Russia is
Speaker 1: misbehaving globally, Kim Jong UN's making more weapons, making more friends.
Speaker 1: I think that Kim Jong un wants to ride the
Speaker 1: Trump train all the way through twenty twenty because it
Speaker 1: is so good for Kim jong Un to have Trump
Speaker 1: in the oval office. That is the dumbest national security
Speaker 1: analysis I've heard in a long time. It's a CNN analysis,
Speaker 1: not surprising. Everything she said there is false and just stupid.
Speaker 1: They keep putting her on air. The why because she
Speaker 1: feeds into the Trump derangement syndrome that the audience of
Speaker 1: CNN wants to hear. That's that's all it is. You know,
Speaker 1: the CNN audience like a bunch of hamsters. They want
Speaker 1: to push a pedal and get anti trumpism, push a
Speaker 1: pedal and get anti anti trumpism. That's why some of
Speaker 1: you may have seen in that interview I gave which
Speaker 1: got a bit of play, where I explained why CNN
Speaker 1: has lost its mind and how Trump has broken CNN
Speaker 1: and how there's no shortage of wackiness now at CNN
Speaker 1: as a result of Trump's presidency. I mean, they really
Speaker 1: just can't handle him. They don't know what to do,
Speaker 1: and their audience has been so thoroughly propagandized against President
Speaker 1: Trump that there's no realistic expectation, no one can have
Speaker 1: any realistic expectation that the audience could be brought back
Speaker 1: to reality. You know, they would rather hear stuff like this.
Speaker 1: I mean, she said, you know, Trump has been good
Speaker 1: for Kim Jong and Kim Jong un? How is that possible?
Speaker 1: CNN national security aliments too. I'd never heard her before
Speaker 1: she's on CNN. How would that be possible? There are
Speaker 1: more sanctions that are more crippling and damaging to North
Speaker 1: Korea's economy and specifically targeted at North Korea's nuclear and
Speaker 1: missile programs than at any time in history, right now,
Speaker 1: more than ever before. So how is that good for
Speaker 1: North Korea? The Trump had beenstration is pushing for the
Speaker 1: removal by democratic means, but the removal of Maduro by
Speaker 1: the GUIDEAU opposition in Venezuela and after Cuba, Russia is
Speaker 1: probably the single closest ally that Venezuela has in Russia's
Speaker 1: probably in the number two spot. Is that? Is that
Speaker 1: doing Putin's bidding? I mean, I just would like to
Speaker 1: see some of these so called experts explain themselves. You know,
Speaker 1: I wish they were on a network, or the anchors
Speaker 1: weren't a bunch of total buffoons, I mean, anti intellectual, incurious,
Speaker 1: preening buffoons, because that's what you have at CNN all
Speaker 1: across the board. I wish that they would ask a
Speaker 1: question like the ones that I'm asking. Do you think
Speaker 1: that she would have an answer to twenty of this?
Speaker 1: You know a lot, there'd be a lot of stumbling,
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of dodging, and you know, Trump, Charlottesville,
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment, Russia collusion. You know, it just would
Speaker 1: all all this. It's like argument by automotopia, you know,
Speaker 1: just making noises. It's a fun word to say, isn't automotopia?
Speaker 1: But that's what they do. They can engage in the
Speaker 1: substance because they don't have sufficient substance to make the case.
Speaker 1: They can't explain their positions. They just want to get
Speaker 1: out the talking points that appeal to the pre existing
Speaker 1: political prejudices of the left wing audience that watches them.
Speaker 1: I'm still in a bit of a rage at watching
Speaker 1: CNN International in my hotel room in Beijing and just
Speaker 1: seeing how it was. It's anti I'm telling you the truth.
Speaker 1: It's anti American propaganda. That's what the that's what CNN
Speaker 1: was pushing out. We're gonna go to war with Iran,
Speaker 1: We're gonna go to war with North Korea. The president
Speaker 1: has broken the law he's lawless, he hates immigrants, all
Speaker 1: these things. This is what they're telling the world. It's
Speaker 1: an embarrassment. CNN's an embarrassment on the world stage. It's
Speaker 1: being of embarrassment. Liberal geostrategist In Bremer of a Eurasia Group,
Speaker 1: who I will say is more knowledgeable than a lot
Speaker 1: of other libs I've I'm familiar with Ian I've a
Speaker 1: long time ago actually met Bremer and talked to him
Speaker 1: for a while about some geopolitical issues. He is, he's
Speaker 1: a smart little dude. He's little, but he's not a
Speaker 1: He's not an individual of good judgment and does not
Speaker 1: understand the big picture. And that I think is a
Speaker 1: pretty good way to set up what happened next. He
Speaker 1: got into a whole bunch of hot water. If you
Speaker 1: don't know this guy, Ian Bremer, he's the president of
Speaker 1: the Eurasia Group, and he tweeted out a quote on
Speaker 1: Sunday to President Trump. And this is this is just
Speaker 1: a case study in how trumped derangement syndrome both can
Speaker 1: instantaneously infect Twitter. And then also you see the media
Speaker 1: will self justify what is fake news, or that there
Speaker 1: will be people who will claim, oh, well, even if
Speaker 1: it's not true, it rings true to borrow from that
Speaker 1: guy who's the Michael Wolf, the author of Fire and Fury,
Speaker 1: isn't no, that's the Fire and Fury is the Fire
Speaker 1: and Fury. I think. So he has a new a
Speaker 1: new book out, Siege about Trump. We'll get we'll get
Speaker 1: to that a bit a bit later on. But back
Speaker 1: to Ian Bremer here. He tweeted this out and represented
Speaker 1: it as a quote from President Trump, and the quote was, well,
Speaker 1: what he wrote was President Trump in Tokyo quote Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un is smarter and would make a better president
Speaker 1: than sleepy Joe Biden. Now this was then shared, and
Speaker 1: it wasn't shared by just a bunch of people that
Speaker 1: you've never heard of. It was shared by Congressman Ted
Speaker 1: Lew of California, noted Trump deranged far left loon. C
Speaker 1: Ann contributor Anna Navarro car Danias, who I would note
Speaker 1: is among the dumbest people on television. That's you know,
Speaker 1: if it were an IQ contest between her and Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: it's it's going to be close. It's gonna be close.
Speaker 1: She's among the dumbest analysts on television, and not a
Speaker 1: nice person either for those of you who are curious,
Speaker 1: I've worked with her, much to my regret, in the past,
Speaker 1: and you know, she shared it and then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden it comes out, Oh wait a second, that's fake.
Speaker 1: You could even say, you know, say it was fake news.
Speaker 1: And then Bremer, who's a lib, pretends not to be.
Speaker 1: He pretends to just be a geopolitical strategist and expert.
Speaker 1: This is just like journalists. There's always this facade that
Speaker 1: they want to put up of the you know that
Speaker 1: that objectivity gives them greater narrative power, meaning they can
Speaker 1: create a more potent anti Trump narrative. If they have
Speaker 1: this this retense of being objective, they're not partisans. They're
Speaker 1: just telling the truth. You know. This is like CNN
Speaker 1: with the apples and bananas. You know, we're not an
Speaker 1: anti Trump get Trump network. We're just calling We're just
Speaker 1: calling balls and stripes, man, We're just doing the truth. No,
Speaker 1: they're not. They're absolutely not. It's obviously ridiculous for them
Speaker 1: to claim otherwise. But Bremer defended the tweet at first
Speaker 1: and said it was obviously ludicrous and yet kind of plausible,
Speaker 1: and he wrote, especially on Twitter, where people automatically support
Speaker 1: whatever political position they have. That's the point. He eventually
Speaker 1: had to apologize. He said, my tweet yesterday about Trump
Speaker 1: preferring Kim Jong unto Biden as president was meant in jest.
Speaker 1: I should have been clearer my apologies. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know why he would you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know why he would think that that that's a funny.
Speaker 1: That's a particularly funny joke. You know, I could write
Speaker 1: a really stupid thing and pretend that it was Okazu
Speaker 1: Cortez and it could be really, really dumb, unless it
Speaker 1: was so blatant that even Okazu Quartez would understand that
Speaker 1: it's a joke. You know, you're running the risk of misrepresenting,
Speaker 1: misrepresenting something. And I think that that that is what happened.
Speaker 1: But you know, in a Trump deranged world, particularly among
Speaker 1: the elites, people like Bremer who think very We're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about somebody who's an establishment guy who thinks very
Speaker 1: highly of himself. Trust me, Ian Bremer's in that category,
Speaker 1: but in that in that milieu, in that strata. And
Speaker 1: I sound like a guy who walks around wearing an
Speaker 1: ascot when I use these words, But those are the
Speaker 1: kind of people that will believe the stuff because they
Speaker 1: really think that Trump is capable of essentially saying anything
Speaker 1: and anything that will support that belief, anything that will
Speaker 1: go to you know, oh yeah, Trump is in fact
Speaker 1: the worst person ever. They will they will sign on
Speaker 1: for that essentially right away. They don't think through it
Speaker 1: beyond that. Now onto the foreign policy challenges right now,
Speaker 1: because they're really going after Trump on this and I
Speaker 1: think it's because of what happened recently in a rom
Speaker 1: but there's also what look, let's let's be let's be
Speaker 1: honest about the whole in the news cycle right now,
Speaker 1: the media has gotten used to having a major story,
Speaker 1: even if they have to concoct it, even if they
Speaker 1: have to re essentially do a retread and go back
Speaker 1: onto what they've already done the past. They're used to
Speaker 1: having some kind of Muller quote unquote bombshell to either
Speaker 1: prereport on, report on, or post report on, meaning we
Speaker 1: think this is coming, this has happened. Oh let's talk
Speaker 1: about this thing that happened. That has been the cycle
Speaker 1: of the news meeting, that's really been the beating heart
Speaker 1: of most of the mainstream news outlet. It's for over
Speaker 1: two years now. But in the in a post Muller
Speaker 1: Report world and pre Inspector General Report, there aren't enough
Speaker 1: leaks to sustain them. There aren't enough ways for them
Speaker 1: to write the same story over and over because they
Speaker 1: need some little kernel of news. They need something to
Speaker 1: justify telling us the same thing they've already told us
Speaker 1: a million different times. And that's why I think there's
Speaker 1: this focus right now on foreign policy, because one in
Speaker 1: doubt the establishment will go to one of their favorite
Speaker 1: areas of criticism. They can't criticize Trump on the economy.
Speaker 1: They just sound stupid. I mean, they try, sometimes it
Speaker 1: doesn't particularly work. But on North Korea and Iran, you're
Speaker 1: seeing a lot of Oh, Trump is over his head,
Speaker 1: he's over his skis, He's doing all this bad stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, for one reason or another, they're they're upset
Speaker 1: at Trump and upset at how he's handling all this
Speaker 1: foreign policy. And let's start with North Korea. Here's what
Speaker 1: the President has said about what's going on there. Because
Speaker 1: they're already you know, the Libs, even in a case
Speaker 1: of national security that you would think everybody could put
Speaker 1: aside their own feelings of partisanship, you know, it would
Speaker 1: be such a win for the world. And I really
Speaker 1: mean that if Trump's North Korea gambit were to come through.
Speaker 1: But you know Pelosi's rooting against him. You know that
Speaker 1: while Trump's angling for a deal, there are Democrats who
Speaker 1: know their fingers crossed that it won't happen, because it
Speaker 1: would not only be politically problematic for them, it would
Speaker 1: also mean that their claims that Trump is terrible and
Speaker 1: the worst and can't understand foreign policy would look particularly hollow. Right,
Speaker 1: So there there's a lot writing on this for Democrats
Speaker 1: for all the wrong reasons. But here's what Trump says
Speaker 1: about the current status of what's going on with his
Speaker 1: North Korea negotiation play. We continue to hope the Chairman
Speaker 1: Kim seizes the opportunity to transform his country through d nuclearization.
Speaker 1: It is a country with tremendous economic and other potential.
Speaker 1: The United States also remains committed to the issue of abductions,
Speaker 1: which I know is a top priority for Prime Minister Abbey.
Speaker 1: So what happened is the North Koreans fired off some
Speaker 1: on May nine, They fired off some short range ballistic missiles.
Speaker 1: And this is a violation of you and resolutions and
Speaker 1: it's clearly a provacation. I'm not here to tell you
Speaker 1: that things that are are not. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say that this is good, this is progress, this is
Speaker 1: to be expected. I'm here to say, Okay, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe this Trump negotiation isn't going to work. We
Speaker 1: don't know yet. It's too early to know. But there's
Speaker 1: no loss here. The president has not gone on an
Speaker 1: apology tour around the world world. He did not go
Speaker 1: before Kim Jong un and bow and be submissive. He
Speaker 1: did say he loved him, which is weird. Again, it's weird.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say when things are what they are,
Speaker 1: it's a weird thing to say. I don't know why
Speaker 1: Trump went that direction, and I give him a lot
Speaker 1: of latitude because one, he's the president despite all the
Speaker 1: forces against him, and I'm not. And two I think
Speaker 1: that to be an unconventional and mold breaking president, you're
Speaker 1: going to have to do things that make people think,
Speaker 1: WHOA is that really the way that this should be done.
Speaker 1: With all all that said, though, you know, North Korea
Speaker 1: may not turn out the way that it's supposed to.
Speaker 1: North Korea may not be some big win for the administration,
Speaker 1: but unlike what we saw with Obama's foreign policy. It's
Speaker 1: not going to be a catastrophic loss either. He's taking
Speaker 1: his shot and trying to do something good. I wish
Speaker 1: he would focus more on or at least have more success.
Speaker 1: I think there is some administration focus on the border.
Speaker 1: The Republicans would get their act together. You know, it's
Speaker 1: going to be the big Achilles heel for the Republican
Speaker 1: Party going into the going into the elections. It's going
Speaker 1: to be healthcare. Again, here's a really simple question, folks,
Speaker 1: as we sit here and you know, it's a pretty look.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a newsday where there's no giant news
Speaker 1: stories out there. It's a lot of sort of second
Speaker 1: tier level stories. There's nothing that's really moving the needle
Speaker 1: in a big way in the news cycle. This would
Speaker 1: be a perfect opportunity if Republicans actually had their stuff
Speaker 1: together to come up with, you know, some healthcare approach
Speaker 1: that would allow for people to know what the Republican
Speaker 1: Party stands for. What does the Republican Party stand for? Healthcare?
Speaker 1: Free markets? Okay, great, how this is gonna be a problem.
Speaker 1: It was a problem FIRS in the mid Tim's gonna
Speaker 1: be a problem. Now. I don't know what the Trump
Speaker 1: with the Trump camp is suggesting for healthcare. I do
Speaker 1: know that, you know, every every time now I get
Speaker 1: a bill from a doctor's office, I just win. It
Speaker 1: just feels like it's more expensive and gets worse all
Speaker 1: the time. They're less effective. I spend less time with
Speaker 1: the doctor, and my bill is just bigger and bigger
Speaker 1: now every every year, somehow I'm in a worse position
Speaker 1: visa via the medical community. And you know, thankfully I
Speaker 1: don't have a I don't have a wife, I don't
Speaker 1: have kids. I don't have a family that I have.
Speaker 1: For so many of you who have to deal with
Speaker 1: all that, I don't know. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: do it, so expensive, so time consuming, so much paperwork
Speaker 1: and nonsense. There are opportunities here for Trump and the
Speaker 1: Republicans to at least present something really worthwhile and sell it.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump is a salesman. He's a gifted salesman.
Speaker 1: That's one area where I think that his skill set,
Speaker 1: if anything, is undervalued or is underappreciated. You know, he's
Speaker 1: much better at conveying to the public why something is
Speaker 1: good or why something is bad. You know, he's very
Speaker 1: good at at just that at persuasion, and healthcare is
Speaker 1: such a big area for more Republican attention. Right now,
Speaker 1: we're just letting, we're letting the media dominate the narrative
Speaker 1: with all this stuff about foreign policy and Trump and
Speaker 1: Iran and North Korea. And here's here's one part of
Speaker 1: this that I just won't lose. I refuse to lose
Speaker 1: sight of for anyone who supported the Obama administration and
Speaker 1: then supported Hillary for president to think that they're in
Speaker 1: a position to lecture the rest of us about, you know,
Speaker 1: about what is going on with the Trump administration's foreign policy.
Speaker 1: This is just crazy. Every major foreign policy challenged, every
Speaker 1: area of foreign policy, kind of foreign policy hotspot under
Speaker 1: Obama got worse. And everything that Hillary touched turned to
Speaker 1: lead except for things that enrich Hillary and her husband
Speaker 1: that always totally turned to gold. But every foreign policy
Speaker 1: issue was a loss, if not a disaster. Those same
Speaker 1: people I want to tell us how Trump should be
Speaker 1: doing it now, it's it's really just not it's just crazy.
Speaker 1: How do you pay for them? Well, what we have
Speaker 1: chosen not to do because with just ingender enormous toby
Speaker 1: is to tell you how I'm gonna raise every nickel
Speaker 1: in a three hundred three point five trillion dollars, but
Speaker 1: that's something that it's going to have to be discussed.
Speaker 1: So I wanted to lay out the program as to
Speaker 1: what it would mean and to tell you that it
Speaker 1: will cost you and ordinary Americans a lot less than
Speaker 1: you are currently spending on average. Okay, what will probably
Speaker 1: end up looking like is a payroll tax on employers
Speaker 1: and increase in income tax in a progressive way for
Speaker 1: ordinary people with a significant deductible for low income people
Speaker 1: who will pay nothing for it. Upber income people will
Speaker 1: pay more. Party said, it's gonna health get planned. You're
Speaker 1: gonna have the very rich pay and it's it's gonna
Speaker 1: be better, it's gonna be cheaper for the average American.
Speaker 1: It's not true, folks, It is not true. And as
Speaker 1: I was speaking for about where the Republicans on healthcare,
Speaker 1: where's the messaging? You got holes? Right now in the
Speaker 1: news cycle, people like they like news? Why people listen
Speaker 1: to this show. I listen to all the different shows
Speaker 1: and watch TV and reduce papers in the Internet or whatever.
Speaker 1: People like the news, and right now there's an opportunity
Speaker 1: to really get out there and establish what it is
Speaker 1: that Republicans are trying to sell in healthcare. Instead, you
Speaker 1: got Bernie Sanders running around like the tooth fairy, just
Speaker 1: promising to leave twenty dollar bills under everybody's pillow. All
Speaker 1: you lose to live at tooth and then I'll take
Speaker 1: that tooth because I want them, and then I'll replace
Speaker 1: it with the night's Chris twenty dollar bill. That's what
Speaker 1: he's saying. And what do we have, Oh, it's just
Speaker 1: going to be a payroll tax. It's just going to
Speaker 1: be an increase in a very progressive way on the
Speaker 1: wealth East Americans. That's gonna pay for all this. That's
Speaker 1: not gonna raise trillions of dollars. If you want a
Speaker 1: Swedish system of healthcare, you have to pay Swedish tax rates.
Speaker 1: That's just the way it will be. And the Swedish
Speaker 1: government is far more lean and efficient than ours. You
Speaker 1: know that the Swedes are in a much better position
Speaker 1: to implement the kind of progressive tax rate that we've seen,
Speaker 1: and the Swedes are in a much better position to
Speaker 1: have their government provide these kinds of services. Right, But anyway,
Speaker 1: not not to get too deep into into Sweden, but
Speaker 1: you know, here we are, it's healthcare, and Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: is out there and he's he's giving the message out
Speaker 1: to people. You know, I don't want us to get
Speaker 1: asleep at the wheel. I don't want Republicans to think
Speaker 1: that they can play a very safe game here, that
Speaker 1: that Trump can play it safe. He look, he's not
Speaker 1: going to. But it's really the rest of the party,
Speaker 1: and it's where the Democrats staminast. We know nothing is
Speaker 1: really going to a kind of get done. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump even said this play Club seven. This is on
Speaker 1: the US Mexico Canada trade deal. Here's what Trump said,
Speaker 1: play seven. I think that we will work with them.
Speaker 1: We have a USMCA. I would imagine that Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: will approve that. I would it would be very hard
Speaker 1: not to. But we'll see. But certainly, as things get approved,
Speaker 1: I would love to sign them. It's only good for
Speaker 1: our country. Trump says he'd like to sign some deals,
Speaker 1: want to do some work with the other side. But
Speaker 1: here's what you and I both know, and we don't
Speaker 1: have to be told this. We know that there's no
Speaker 1: chance the Democrats are going to work in them on anything.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's really hard for the president to extend
Speaker 1: his hand in professional never mind a friendly way to
Speaker 1: the other side when they're still stuck on you know,
Speaker 1: he's a criminal, he should be impeached. He got this
Speaker 1: book out now with Wolfe, Michael Wolfe saying that Muller
Speaker 1: wrote a draft that initially was going to say the
Speaker 1: president should be indicted for obstruction, but then he he
Speaker 1: backed off of that. How this guy wolf would get that,
Speaker 1: which should be the juiciest detail in a very long time,
Speaker 1: probably the juicy detail of the entire Special Counsel investigation
Speaker 1: that defies that defies explanation. I think it defies belief
Speaker 1: to we have more on the status of the post
Speaker 1: Muller probe and all that coming up. It's about time
Speaker 1: for her to just cut off the nonsense. If she doesn't,
Speaker 1: of course, and they actually go and proceed to be interesting,
Speaker 1: see if those thirty or forty Democrats modern Democrats actually
Speaker 1: go along with it. If they do and they actually
Speaker 1: get an impeachment done, of course it has to come
Speaker 1: over to the Senate, as everybody knows where it will
Speaker 1: just simply be dropped. This is not about the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty elections, about doing what's right now for our country.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a president that we set
Speaker 1: when we don't hold this president accountable to the rule
Speaker 1: of law until the United States Constitution. Why do you
Speaker 1: think you can't convince a majority of House Democrats that
Speaker 1: it's time to impeach them. No, I think it is
Speaker 1: moving towards that it's going to demand it. It already is.
Speaker 1: Some of them are saying it. I've felt this way
Speaker 1: all along impeachment. They think it's gonna happen, They think
Speaker 1: it needs to happen. They are are not willing to
Speaker 1: let this go and keep running out to you it
Speaker 1: should be entirely a function of whether the president deserves
Speaker 1: to be impeached or not, instead of oh, how will
Speaker 1: this look for us? What will this mean for us
Speaker 1: going forward? If in fact the president is impeached, does
Speaker 1: that make it harder for us to you know, win
Speaker 1: seats in the House and the Senate and defeat the
Speaker 1: president because no one thinks, no one seriously believes he's
Speaker 1: going to be removed by two thirds vote of the Senate.
Speaker 1: No one really thinks that that's going to happen. So,
Speaker 1: you know, and just as it a side I watched
Speaker 1: speaking of politics and all this, I was just last
Speaker 1: night trying to I had a hard time falling asleep,
Speaker 1: and I was looking for someone to watch, and I
Speaker 1: threw on Designated Survivor, and man, it is so for
Speaker 1: some reason, those ABC, NBC, CBS, those shows on those networks,
Speaker 1: I just find her. The writing is always so trite,
Speaker 1: and it's all so predictable and key for Sutherland the
Speaker 1: whole thing. Man, I don't know, we need some. There's some.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of great shows out there, don't I'm
Speaker 1: not even I'm not even gonna get into a Game
Speaker 1: of Thrones. I called it. I've been saying all along.
Speaker 1: The show really lost its way in the last This
Speaker 1: last season was pretty much just garbage top to bottom,
Speaker 1: and the season before that was very shaky in some parts,
Speaker 1: and without the great source material of the books, the
Speaker 1: writers were just not in a position to execute at
Speaker 1: the same level. But anyway, I know you don't want
Speaker 1: you don't you don't come here from my Game of
Speaker 1: Thrones hot takes. But I finally caught up post China
Speaker 1: and post Los Angeles trips. I was able to watch it.
Speaker 1: I didn't think it was I think I thought it
Speaker 1: was all very predictable and not very good. But back
Speaker 1: to speaking of predictable, back to impeachment and whether impeachment
Speaker 1: it's going to happen or not. I just think that
Speaker 1: they tell you everything that you need to know. With
Speaker 1: the fact that even the Democrats in the House, as
Speaker 1: rapidly anti Trump as they are and as dedicated as
Speaker 1: they are to the you know, removal of Trump from office,
Speaker 1: at least in theory or the destruction of Trump's presidency,
Speaker 1: they can't bring themselves to actually do this. They can't
Speaker 1: bring themselves just commit to it. What else we already
Speaker 1: have the mull Report. What else do we have to know?
Speaker 1: What else has to be said for them to come around?
Speaker 1: And there's just this back and forth. They're really just
Speaker 1: putting their fingers in fingers in the air to see
Speaker 1: which way the wind is blowing, and that's how they're
Speaker 1: going to determine whether or not the president is worthy
Speaker 1: of impeachment. But that tells you everything, because then it's
Speaker 1: it's it's just a political calculation has been along. This
Speaker 1: is just a fight for power. There's nothing about principle here.
Speaker 1: They're not, you know, standing up for the little guy.
Speaker 1: They don't care about the Constitution. You know, depending on
Speaker 1: the day, a lot of libs in government and outside
Speaker 1: of government will tell you the Constitution is really old
Speaker 1: and we shouldn't pay attention to it and it doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter at her. And you know, why don't people
Speaker 1: just realize that, you know, there's other stuff that we
Speaker 1: should we should really care about. You know, there's other
Speaker 1: stuff that should be determining the future of this country.
Speaker 1: But then when the constitution suits them, Ah, that's when
Speaker 1: you'll start to hear all of a sudden, how how important,
Speaker 1: how profound it is. You know, Newt was out on
Speaker 1: this question of impeachment. I think he's Look, he's a
Speaker 1: guy who he knows the impeachment game. He knows how
Speaker 1: that whole thing goes real well. And and there's something
Speaker 1: that gets skipped over a lot of the time in
Speaker 1: the discussions over this that I think is really really valid,
Speaker 1: really important, and I'll I'll let the Newtster take the
Speaker 1: helm From minute plate fifteen. Ken Star issues a report
Speaker 1: which has eleven counts, and when she says he is guilty, okay,
Speaker 1: five of them are obstruction discount guilty, discount guilty. If
Speaker 1: more an issue report that said Donald Trump is guilty
Speaker 1: on eleven counts, there would be an impeachment effort. In
Speaker 1: Clinton's case, they're felonies. I mean, it always takes me
Speaker 1: the feminist who worry about this. You know, Clinton was
Speaker 1: convinting a felony of perjury in a sexual harassment lossuit.
Speaker 1: In Trump's case, Mueller comes back and says, there's nothing
Speaker 1: there that you could take him to court on. There's
Speaker 1: a pretty big gap here. Does anyone really believe that
Speaker 1: if they had more evidence? You see this, this was
Speaker 1: the I didn't What Mueller did was the equivalent of
Speaker 1: the I didn't really try defense when you know you
Speaker 1: lose the race. You know, when if you're going to
Speaker 1: raise somebody and then you don't, you can't beat them.
Speaker 1: You stop like fifty fifty feet from the finish line
Speaker 1: before they can finish and say, well, I didn't really try.
Speaker 1: That's what Mueller did with the report by saying that
Speaker 1: we couldn't really bring charges anyway. That was the fallback position,
Speaker 1: because I assure you, I assure you, if they really
Speaker 1: had the president nailed on something, if it was clear
Speaker 1: that he broke the law, and they could make that
Speaker 1: case beyond a reasonable doubt. Then what would have been
Speaker 1: in the report is the president broke the law, we
Speaker 1: should bring charges, or we would bring charges, but we can.
Speaker 1: The fallback position was merely because well, what's the you know,
Speaker 1: what's the case going to be? What was the charge
Speaker 1: going to be? They brought up ten different ones. Okay,
Speaker 1: which one? Which one is the clear case of obstruction?
Speaker 1: Of the ten little vignettes, little stories that Muller tells
Speaker 1: in his diary entries posing as the Mueller report, which
Speaker 1: is the one that really, you know, no matter how
Speaker 1: much you like this president or how much you want
Speaker 1: to defend him, you can't get pasted. I can't think
Speaker 1: of it. Can you think of it? I got nothing.
Speaker 1: I don't see it. I don't think that it's there.
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's anything that Mueller has that
Speaker 1: was was a slam dunk or even close to it.
Speaker 1: And if he had it, he to use it. But
Speaker 1: keep in mind, Clinton, it was a slam dunk. The
Speaker 1: guy lied, the guy lied, the guy obstructed, the guy
Speaker 1: did all kinds of things that were bright red line crossing,
Speaker 1: and Democrats still completely circled the wagons around him. Democrats
Speaker 1: still you know, refuse to accept that what Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: did was completely beyond the pale, was totally unacceptable. So
Speaker 1: what we have is just the Democrats now pretending like
Speaker 1: we have no ability to recall that history. We have
Speaker 1: Democrats who act in dishonorable fashion around this question of impeachment.
Speaker 1: And that's why when you hear from those like Rashida
Speaker 1: to Leb and Kevin Kramer and you know, and others
Speaker 1: on this issue. Kevin Kramer, I know he's a Republican,
Speaker 1: so forget him. But when you hear Rashida to Leed
Speaker 1: talking about that he just came in the top of
Speaker 1: the segment, you recognize that they're just lying. They're lying
Speaker 1: to the public all the time. But the public, a
Speaker 1: lot of the public likes to be lied to about Trump,
Speaker 1: and this is why their complaints about Trump and his
Speaker 1: exaggerations and his stretching of the truth and all the
Speaker 1: things that he does. This is why it never really resonates,
Speaker 1: because we turn around and say, you know, you guys
Speaker 1: are engaged in constant, constant lying about this president. You
Speaker 1: guys can't help yourselves but come up with stories, creating
Speaker 1: fake quotes and tweeting them out and saying, oh, sorry,
Speaker 1: my bad. Didn't think people would take that seriously. No, no,
Speaker 1: we are going to take it seriously, just like we
Speaker 1: took it seriously when for two years they were suggesting
Speaker 1: or outright accusing the president of committing treason. And now
Speaker 1: when the President says, oh, some of those deep state clowns,
Speaker 1: they may have betrayed their country, even if it didn't
Speaker 1: arise to the constitutional and legal definition of treason, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: how could he use that word? How could he use
Speaker 1: that word? It was what they were how they were
Speaker 1: describing him for the last how many years. They still
Speaker 1: believe it. Some of them still believe it. I'm always
Speaker 1: amazed there are all these Russia collusion truthers out there
Speaker 1: now who block me on Twitter, and I don't even
Speaker 1: know who they are, but I suppose I've created something
Speaker 1: of a of a stir online by just going after them,
Speaker 1: and they particularly dislike that. I'm from the CIA and
Speaker 1: am willing to call out the top echelon of bureaucrats
Speaker 1: at both CIA and FBI for what really was a
Speaker 1: soft coup attempt. And there's a tremendous nervousness that we're
Speaker 1: going to find out exactly what happened, and that there
Speaker 1: are not just going to be consequences for those involved
Speaker 1: directly it did, but also consequences for those who look
Speaker 1: like morons utter morons, and that includes a lot of
Speaker 1: the press for perpetuating this story. And I think what'll
Speaker 1: end up happening is they're gonna they're gonna go here's
Speaker 1: here's my prediction. They're gonna wait to go full throw
Speaker 1: on impeachment till after the Inspector General report comes out.
Speaker 1: The idea of being go on offense, go on offense
Speaker 1: against Trump. That's what the Democrats are gonna do. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter how shameless and how brazen it is. They're
Speaker 1: gonna go on offense. They're gonna say, see, we have
Speaker 1: to remove him. And we're gonna say, well, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, there was a deep state could remove him.
Speaker 1: Now you're gonna try to remove him or try to
Speaker 1: impeach him through the processes of the Congress. And they say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, Now is the time to do it. They
Speaker 1: have no honor, they have no integrity. And if you're
Speaker 1: somebody who has no honor integrity, what do you do
Speaker 1: when you're caught blame the other side. That's how I
Speaker 1: see this playing out. Why should another white guy be president? Well,
Speaker 1: white guy who doesn't see other identities or understand other
Speaker 1: experiences should not be president. I do, and you know
Speaker 1: where there would be gaps, and my knowledge or my
Speaker 1: experience will pass the mic to people you know who
Speaker 1: do have that experience. I've also pledged that I would
Speaker 1: ask a woman to serve as vice Swallowell, there who
Speaker 1: believe it or not? Congress and Swallowell, he of Russia collusion, fraud,
Speaker 1: fame is one of I can't keep track. I do
Speaker 1: this for a living, and I can't even tell you
Speaker 1: how many Democrats are actually running for office right now.
Speaker 1: I just I know it's a lot. I know there
Speaker 1: are a lot of them running for office, but I
Speaker 1: couldn't tell you what the I think it's twenty one,
Speaker 1: it might be twenty two. You know at some point
Speaker 1: who even you know, it doesn't even really matter. Most
Speaker 1: of them are. This is just ridiculousness. Swallowell, I think
Speaker 1: is in that category. But you know this is a
Speaker 1: This is more than just Eric Swalwell that has to
Speaker 1: do this. The ben venye oh, I need to debase
Speaker 1: my knowledge and my opinions on things because I need
Speaker 1: to confront my whiteness. I confront my whiteness all the time.
Speaker 1: These are things that don't even make sense. You say
Speaker 1: them out loud, you think, what do what do they think?
Speaker 1: What do democrats the left think they mean when they
Speaker 1: do this? What is really the purpose of it? You know,
Speaker 1: Swawell here, this is just the it's kind of a
Speaker 1: pathetic bend the knee experience. He says, I know where
Speaker 1: there are gaps in my knowledge or experience, and I
Speaker 1: know when to pass the mic. You know what the
Speaker 1: answer should be to why should another white guy be president?
Speaker 1: Which was the question that he was asked. The answer
Speaker 1: to that should be because I'm the best person for
Speaker 1: the job. If that's not the answer, then you darn
Speaker 1: sure shouldn't be president, which we all know Eric Swalwell
Speaker 1: should not be a president. But you know, even for
Speaker 1: a Democrat, this is a stretch. Even for a Democrat,
Speaker 1: this is a bad idea. I mean, I would heaven
Speaker 1: forbid if I had to pick a Democrat, would be
Speaker 1: pretty low down on the list. But he knows that
Speaker 1: this is the the intersectional left is the center. Now
Speaker 1: is the kind of hard and soul of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: and the activist class and the media and Hollywood elites
Speaker 1: have embraced all this. You know they are true believers
Speaker 1: if you will in the notion that you are somehow
Speaker 1: a problem. You've done something wrong by being a white guy, right,
Speaker 1: you have to apologize, you have to confront your privilege.
Speaker 1: This is just what they say. It's a kind of
Speaker 1: original sin now to be a white male in American politics,
Speaker 1: according to leftist Democrats, because you've enjoyed white privilege your
Speaker 1: whole life. You so you inherently have had this this
Speaker 1: special advantage that you can't quantify and that you had
Speaker 1: no control over. But you're supposed to make some kind
Speaker 1: of amends for it. How could you ever make amends
Speaker 1: for being who you are? Isn't this contrary to what
Speaker 1: is really at the center of so much of democratic
Speaker 1: identity politics, which is that you need to be you
Speaker 1: know you do you? You need to be you, You
Speaker 1: need to live your truth. So why can't I just say,
Speaker 1: or why can't Eric Squalle just say I'm living my
Speaker 1: truth as a white male, as a white male, cisgender heterosexual.
Speaker 1: Why why can't that just be my truth that I
Speaker 1: live without being beat up on and told that that
Speaker 1: somehow is problematic. Well, because this is all as we
Speaker 1: know about power. This is about the transference of power
Speaker 1: from one group to another group via a narrative. The
Speaker 1: narrative here is intersectionality or identity politics. These are different
Speaker 1: variations on a theme. They are different ways of saying
Speaker 1: essentially the same thing. But isn't it so interesting that
Speaker 1: a democratic party that is a sessed with identity politics
Speaker 1: finds itself having to apologize once again for having straight
Speaker 1: white males. Well, Buddha Jig is a Buddha judge, is
Speaker 1: um he's high, you know, high enough that you could
Speaker 1: put him in the top three, I guess, but straight
Speaker 1: white males effectively or number one and two right now, Bernie,
Speaker 1: and I was gonna say Betto Bettos like really sorry.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this, but he apologized
Speaker 1: for being a bad word after he lost his election,
Speaker 1: and he just like wants everyone to be his friend again.
Speaker 1: And I don't think that's gonna happen, Betto. I think
Speaker 1: I think Betto's toast. Se used to say back in
Speaker 1: the nineties, I smell burnt toast. In this case, it's
Speaker 1: Betto's toast. I think he's done so. But there's another
Speaker 1: reason why you have straight white male or in this case,
Speaker 1: two white males. I mentioned Buddha Judge is number three.
Speaker 1: I think I keep saying his name differently. I know,
Speaker 1: I can't. You know, it's a it's a hard one,
Speaker 1: and that is that some of the females in the
Speaker 1: Democrat primary right now are just I think it's fair
Speaker 1: to say they're underperforming from where even Democrats thought they
Speaker 1: would be. You know, Elizabeth Warren had the most spectacular
Speaker 1: unforced error in politics that I can I've seen maybe
Speaker 1: ever with that whole one one and twenty fourth Cherokee thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was so bizarre. And I was calling
Speaker 1: CNN out the day that happened because they reported initially
Speaker 1: as like Elizabeth Warren proving her heritage. It's like, are
Speaker 1: you guys morons? She's proving that she's not even vaguely
Speaker 1: Native American. And someone from CNN Corporate Communications actually came
Speaker 1: after me publicly. That was fun. He learned the buck
Speaker 1: slap stings. It's like, do you really want to you
Speaker 1: really want to play this game and pretend that CNN
Speaker 1: is an objective news source. You want to do this publicly,
Speaker 1: you want to have this out. There's a reason why
Speaker 1: none of your anchors publicly will try to challenge me
Speaker 1: on this because they will get intellectually smoked. And they
Speaker 1: know it. That's why they don't exactly buck slap. They
Speaker 1: know it's way to the I like that one too.
Speaker 1: But Amy klobishchar she's another one who you know, they
Speaker 1: want it to happen. They want Amy Klobisher to be
Speaker 1: a thing, you know, to be a political phenomenon. They
Speaker 1: want Kamala Harris. I mean, they're they're they're just there
Speaker 1: and they don't have it. They don't have it. You
Speaker 1: think that a political ideology that has such dominance in
Speaker 1: the in college campuses, in news media, in entertainment media
Speaker 1: in a way that's you know, Netflix is now saying
Speaker 1: they're gonna pull back their investment in Georgia because of
Speaker 1: the Heartbeat Bill. You never see this in the other direction.
Speaker 1: You never have a major media company say, you know
Speaker 1: that that state that wants to allow biological males to
Speaker 1: compete in athletics against biological females, We're just going to
Speaker 1: pull all of our business from that state. We don't
Speaker 1: do that. There is this emotional impulse that left us
Speaker 1: have it. They will indulge that brings them to it's
Speaker 1: not enough to disagree. They want to They want punishment.
Speaker 1: They want people to feel pain who don't agree with them.
Speaker 1: But well, we'll get back into why is Amy Klobaschar
Speaker 1: not happening? He's back with you now, because when it
Speaker 1: comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: Number of important Supreme Court decisions came down today. I
Speaker 1: want to spend us a little time with you going
Speaker 1: through what matters, why you care what happened here, without
Speaker 1: getting into all that much deeds Hill, But here's the
Speaker 1: quick thirty thousand foot view of what we saw in
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court decisions that just came down. Liberals are
Speaker 1: very ideologically rigid, especially when it comes to the operate.
Speaker 1: When they have an opportunity on the court to get
Speaker 1: what they want, they make sure they go for it right.
Speaker 1: Conservatives still, just as a function of their approach to
Speaker 1: the law, try to leave things intact. They believe in
Speaker 1: starry decisives, they believe in precedent. They're not looking for
Speaker 1: every opportunity to just break down what was there before
Speaker 1: and replace it with something else entirely right there. They
Speaker 1: don't do the Roe v. Wade approach. They don't make
Speaker 1: things up whole cloth because that's the way they want
Speaker 1: it to be. And so that means that the other side,
Speaker 1: the liberal justices, the activist justices on the court, they
Speaker 1: tend to get big winds thrown their way, whereas what
Speaker 1: we have is just a kind of judicial minimalism, right,
Speaker 1: the respect of the law as it is. And even
Speaker 1: if Justice Scalia was perhaps the great example of this,
Speaker 1: even when he didn't like something and thought it might
Speaker 1: be wrong, he believed that if it was legal and constitutional,
Speaker 1: it was not his place to decide that it was wrong.
Speaker 1: It was to the people, and that Supreme Court justices
Speaker 1: are not there to decide what's best for the country.
Speaker 1: They're there to call balls and strikes with regard to
Speaker 1: the constitution. That's really it, and that was his approach.
Speaker 1: You don't have that with liberal justices. They see the
Speaker 1: opportunity to hit a home run for their side and
Speaker 1: legislate from the bench, they go for it. So you
Speaker 1: had you had an abortion case. And abortion has become
Speaker 1: a big topic in recent recent months because of the
Speaker 1: renewed extremism, or perhaps just the more apparent extremism of
Speaker 1: the left on this issue up to and including the
Speaker 1: support of as we heard from Governor Ralph Northam. Oh,
Speaker 1: what happened to Ralph Northam? Remember that guy at the
Speaker 1: photos and the black face who lied about it and
Speaker 1: said he wasn't sure it was him. It was him.
Speaker 1: The libs oh lips just swept that whole thing under
Speaker 1: the rug. That's right. You had the top three officials
Speaker 1: for the state government of Virginia, Northam, Harring and forgetting
Speaker 1: the guy's name see Fairfax, thank you all. I remembered,
Speaker 1: I remember, But this is how well they pushed uff
Speaker 1: down the memory hole. You just forget it. It's not
Speaker 1: there anymore. Did any of them step down? No? Did
Speaker 1: any of them face any consequences? No? Why because if
Speaker 1: one went, there was the fear that all would go,
Speaker 1: and if all went, you'd have a Republican at the
Speaker 1: top of the government of the governor's ticket in Virginia
Speaker 1: based on the rules of succession. That succession not succession,
Speaker 1: just to be clear. So yeah, they just made that
Speaker 1: whole They made that whole thing going. But you remember
Speaker 1: Northam was the one who talked about making an infant
Speaker 1: comfortable before it was aboarded outside the womb, and having
Speaker 1: a conversation with the mother about what to do with
Speaker 1: an outside there's a there's a better name for a
Speaker 1: fetus outside the womb. It's the more accurate, more precise,
Speaker 1: It's called a baby. What do you do with a baby?
Speaker 1: And the answer is, according to Democrats, whatever the mother
Speaker 1: and the doctor decide, the baby does not have independent rights.
Speaker 1: It does not have legal protection of any kind. This
Speaker 1: is a rather horrifying thing for any human being to believe.
Speaker 1: But this is the this is the dogma of the
Speaker 1: left now, I mean, this is considered a kind of
Speaker 1: anti gospel among progressives. There is no there is no
Speaker 1: life there to protect. It does not matter my body,
Speaker 1: my choice. It's just slogans and anger and rage. You know.
Speaker 1: I had actually a woman who figured out There was
Speaker 1: one woman who figured out who I was, so to speak,
Speaker 1: in California, among my travels among the far left libs
Speaker 1: there I was kind of undercover among the Libs in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, and one of them figured out and the
Speaker 1: first thing she wanted up talking about is abortion. And
Speaker 1: she said, why do you want to control my body,
Speaker 1: into which I looked at her and I thought, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of ways I could go with this,
Speaker 1: but because that was certainly I have no interest in
Speaker 1: controlling this, particularly that this person or any person's body.
Speaker 1: But I try to say to her, look, this is
Speaker 1: if you can understand that this is a discussion, or
Speaker 1: this is a debate over the second life, is that
Speaker 1: that has involved here, that there's a separate life, then
Speaker 1: we actually don't have much to talk about. If you
Speaker 1: don't think that a baby is a baby, I can't
Speaker 1: convince you that a baby is a baby. If you
Speaker 1: don't think that a human being with a brain, a heart, lungs, hands, fingers,
Speaker 1: fingernails is a human being, I don't know what to
Speaker 1: say other than you're wrong. Right, So there's not a
Speaker 1: whole lot of a whole lot of room on this
Speaker 1: and I managed to kind of just get past it
Speaker 1: and get around the issue. But the left are are
Speaker 1: abortion extremists, and that's why today's decision was in a
Speaker 1: variety of ways, not just interesting for what it does
Speaker 1: right now, but also I think what it points to
Speaker 1: down the line. You have this this case that involved
Speaker 1: a law passed in Indiana and signed by then Governor
Speaker 1: Pence now Vice President Mike Pence, and it required the
Speaker 1: fetal remains from a abortion to be disposed of separately,
Speaker 1: separately from the rest of what would be considered medical refuse,
Speaker 1: and to be either cremated or buried. Essentially, this law
Speaker 1: said that the fetal remains after an abortion are to
Speaker 1: be treated like the parts of a human being, which
Speaker 1: you know, if if when a person dies, they don't
Speaker 1: throw the dead body on a trash heap. That is
Speaker 1: what they were doing with the And I know this
Speaker 1: is grizzly stuff, folks, but this is this is reality,
Speaker 1: and we deal in reality on this show. They do
Speaker 1: take the remains of an abortion, they throw it on
Speaker 1: to They put it in with medical refuse, with you know,
Speaker 1: use syringes and with you know, bloody cloths and just
Speaker 1: things that come from a doctor's They just throw it
Speaker 1: all in there, throw it all in together, thrown in
Speaker 1: the trash, put it on a trash down. This law
Speaker 1: just said we're going to treat fetal remains as what
Speaker 1: they clearly are, which are the remains. It is the
Speaker 1: remains of a human being. I mean, if people want
Speaker 1: to argue that we won't extend legal personhood to that
Speaker 1: human being. I mean, it's a flawed argument, but at
Speaker 1: least it's an argument. But it's clearly this is a
Speaker 1: tiny These are tiny legs and arms and heads we're
Speaker 1: talking about. That's what's going on. And I mean I
Speaker 1: have not forgotten. Still the most stomach churning and difficult
Speaker 1: news story I have had to cover was what we
Speaker 1: saw from the videotapes of the Center for Medical Progress
Speaker 1: and the sale of body parts for profit, that Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood is engaged in the sale of fetal body parts
Speaker 1: for profit. That is what was happening. That was never that.
Speaker 1: They can call it heavily edited. They can lie and
Speaker 1: they can do the devil's work for him as much
Speaker 1: as they want. That is what was happening there. We
Speaker 1: all know this. We saw the videos. It was not debunked.
Speaker 1: And man, did the forces of the organized left go
Speaker 1: after those individuals. David de Layden and the people that
Speaker 1: were working with him did everything in their power to
Speaker 1: ruin them, criminally prosecute them for the crime of journalism.
Speaker 1: They were willing to make undercover journalism a crime. All
Speaker 1: of us sudden use wire tapping laws. I mean the
Speaker 1: left on this issue if you probe deeply, deeply enough,
Speaker 1: because it's it's again a threat to their power structure.
Speaker 1: It's a threat to the Democratic Party, to the left's
Speaker 1: grip on power in this country. But it's also a
Speaker 1: threat to their sense of moral superiority. One of the
Speaker 1: great and bizarre and obduse realities of our current time
Speaker 1: is that it is the leftists who think that they
Speaker 1: are decent and moral and kind, when in so many ways,
Speaker 1: in so many places, they are anything. But their ideology
Speaker 1: is one of death and often misery and hypocrisy and
Speaker 1: despair and trying to do things in a way that
Speaker 1: reject both human nature and human history and try to
Speaker 1: replace it with empty promises. So there were two components
Speaker 1: of this Supreme Court ruling on the one had to
Speaker 1: do with the disposal of babies after an abortion and
Speaker 1: how they're to be supposed. And it isn't interesting that
Speaker 1: the plan parent, who would even fight that plan parent,
Speaker 1: has a very when they were fighting. If they have
Speaker 1: they have a very clear interest in the dean the
Speaker 1: complete dehumanization of the fetus. Now, how do they square
Speaker 1: that with when a woman is pregnant and is murdered,
Speaker 1: for example, there'll be a double homicide charge. What's Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood's legal position on that one, I would like to know.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure they've thought that far and figured it out.
Speaker 1: They're just trying to do everything they can to protect
Speaker 1: this regime of infanticide and to continue running these abattoirs
Speaker 1: for infants known as plan Parenthood clinics across the country.
Speaker 1: Then you also have the prohibition in this law in
Speaker 1: Indiana on an abortion based upon sex, race, or possible
Speaker 1: disability of a fetus. Now, the Planned Parenthood defense against
Speaker 1: this is why would somebody Why would you only why
Speaker 1: why would you only force somebody to have a baby
Speaker 1: if it, for example, had if they thought it was
Speaker 1: going to have Down syndrome. But somebody with a healthy
Speaker 1: baby could could do it anytime they want, and that
Speaker 1: that is an interesting line of logic, But I would
Speaker 1: or that is an intersting point for them to hold.
Speaker 1: But it also note that what this really does, what
Speaker 1: this law shows is that abortion, in the way that
Speaker 1: the left defends it and calls it a right, it
Speaker 1: is a right. It's really a form of it. It's
Speaker 1: an open invitation to eugenics. This is a pure This
Speaker 1: is a purely eugenicist proposition, that getting rid of a
Speaker 1: baby because it's male or female instead of mail, or
Speaker 1: because it's the wrong race, or because it may have
Speaker 1: some disability. Uh, that is a that is a eugenicist proposition,
Speaker 1: plain and simple. I mean, you can't really get around
Speaker 1: I mean this is and then you start to go
Speaker 1: And it's a reminder to the public of the eugenics
Speaker 1: roots of the abortion movement in this country, the abortion
Speaker 1: lobby and Planned Parenthood and Margaret Sanger, and that there
Speaker 1: has always been from the left, this promise that the
Speaker 1: unwanted and this is from the left. This is the
Speaker 1: left disposition that the unwanted in society will be they'll
Speaker 1: be less of them because more will be aborted, and
Speaker 1: so it's a good thing for the rest of society.
Speaker 1: That is pure eugenics. That is that is and this
Speaker 1: is not an exaggeration. That is the position that the
Speaker 1: Nazis held. This was taken up by the Third Reich.
Speaker 1: You know that we want They wanted to get rid
Speaker 1: of um disabilities in the general population by insisting on
Speaker 1: either sterilization or abortion for people that might have had
Speaker 1: a child with some congenital defect or the Nazis explicitly
Speaker 1: embraced this, and now you have planned parents saying no,
Speaker 1: if you if you really want a blue eyed baby,
Speaker 1: and you know this baby's gonna have brown eyes, and
Speaker 1: that's just you know, that's your decision, your body, your choice.
Speaker 1: Could it get more immoral than this, my friends? I mean,
Speaker 1: could it be more clearly demonic than this? You know,
Speaker 1: I flew back from Los Angeles just a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago, and I you know, I do not I'm
Speaker 1: not yet married. I know you'd have my own kids.
Speaker 1: I sat beyond there was a really cute little baby
Speaker 1: in front of me, and the baby wasn't crying a lot,
Speaker 1: which is very nice. It is very and it was
Speaker 1: just smiling and like to sort of do the whole
Speaker 1: peekaboo thing in between the seats, and the mom was
Speaker 1: really friendly. And I don't know what could be a
Speaker 1: greater gift in any in anyone's life, and any mother's life,
Speaker 1: in any father's life than having an adorable little baby.
Speaker 1: And I have never met somebody to this day, I've
Speaker 1: never met somebody who said, wow, I really wish I
Speaker 1: really wish I'd aborted my son or daughter. I have
Speaker 1: tragically met some people who have the opposite feeling of
Speaker 1: I really shouldn't have made the choice that I made
Speaker 1: to terminate the pregnancy. So these Supreme Court decisions that
Speaker 1: came down today, while they weren't big wins for the
Speaker 1: pro life movement, they are illustrating the realities of what's
Speaker 1: going on. And I can just say this to you
Speaker 1: if you want to take I know this is a
Speaker 1: difficult conversation, but if you want to take something from
Speaker 1: this that is at least hope, this regime of abortion
Speaker 1: and all nine months of a pregnancy funded by your
Speaker 1: tax dollars. By the way, it is funded by your
Speaker 1: tax dollars, It's going to end. I can't tell you when,
Speaker 1: and I can't tell you how, but it will end.
Speaker 1: And just as we look back on some other periods
Speaker 1: in our history as how could that much and it
Speaker 1: wasn't everyone involved in it, it wasn't everywhere, But how
Speaker 1: could so much evil an im around have flourished in
Speaker 1: an otherwise great and just and decent country. We will
Speaker 1: look back at this, this period of the last fifty
Speaker 1: years or so, assuming it ends within fifty year. Who knows,
Speaker 1: I'd say, how could this have been the case? How
Speaker 1: could a moral and otherwise moral country have allowed this
Speaker 1: to go on? We'll have more on this, friends, and
Speaker 1: I do want to talk to you about this show
Speaker 1: scher Noble that I because they are important lessons. I'm
Speaker 1: not just going to sit here and play TV critic,
Speaker 1: although sometimes I like to do that. That's kind of fun,
Speaker 1: but I'm not really going to do that. There's some
Speaker 1: important takeaways from watching that miniseries, and HBO will get
Speaker 1: to that and more. Stay with it. What is wrong
Speaker 1: with Justin Amash? What is this guy's problem? Why is
Speaker 1: he doing a CNN town hall where was just earlier today?
Speaker 1: I think? Am I am? I right on this one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: just this just happened when we're on air to the
Speaker 1: CNN town hall where he's trashing Trump, calling for impeachment
Speaker 1: of the president, saying the Attorney General deliberately misrepresented the
Speaker 1: Mule report. I mean with with Republican friends like Amash Amash, Am,
Speaker 1: I think it's Amash, you know, who needs crazy left
Speaker 1: wing enemies? You know, really, I think it's for an
Speaker 1: ask what is this guy's problem? Can Democrats never have this?
Speaker 1: Democrats never have defections fromin their own res you know why,
Speaker 1: because this suits. The enticements, the goodies that the left
Speaker 1: can offer people are just it's they just induced the sellouts,
Speaker 1: they really do. You know. It's the uh, it's the
Speaker 1: Jeff Flake maneuver. Oh you know, I don't want the left,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna be the rogue Republican that occasionally has
Speaker 1: nice words said about him by the left. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go rogue on my own side so that no stop
Speaker 1: selling out I mean for him to say. And I
Speaker 1: just thoroughly disagree with Amasher on the merits. The attorney
Speaker 1: General didn't misrepresent anything, all right. If he misrepresented it,
Speaker 1: then tell me what he misrepresented and bring charges against
Speaker 1: the president, you punk, But you won't, none of them will. Man.
Speaker 1: You know, It's really what it is is Trump just
Speaker 1: drives these people nuts. There are just certain people who
Speaker 1: can't handle that this guy that they believe so firmly
Speaker 1: is terrible in the job and should never have the job.
Speaker 1: It's actually doing a pretty good job. They just they
Speaker 1: can't deal. They can't deal anyway, cher Noble. It's an
Speaker 1: incredible show, but there are lessons about government and bureaucracy
Speaker 1: that I take from it that I want to share
Speaker 1: with you that'll be coming up in the top of
Speaker 1: the hour. I mean, it's an incredible mini series and
Speaker 1: it's haunting and terrifying, and it's true. It makes it
Speaker 1: much more powerful. We'll get to that well of the
Speaker 1: good we did, it doesn't matter. What doesn't matter is
Speaker 1: that to them justice was done. See a just world.
Speaker 1: There's a sane world. There was nothing sane about Chernobyl.
Speaker 1: I'm pleased to report that situation in Chernobyl estate. In
Speaker 1: terms of radiation, I'm told it's the equivalent of a
Speaker 1: chest X ray. No. Chernobyl is on fire and every
Speaker 1: atom of uranium is like a bullet, penetrating everything in
Speaker 1: its path, metal, concrete, flash not Chernobyl holds over three
Speaker 1: trillions of these bullets. So this is this is the
Speaker 1: betrailer for HBO's Sure Noble mini series, which I have
Speaker 1: to tell you all is I think the best thing
Speaker 1: on television scripted show on television right now. It's it's
Speaker 1: absolutely worth watching if you even have to go on
Speaker 1: your TV and pay to just download it and watch
Speaker 1: it on demand. In some I think there are ways
Speaker 1: you can do that now even with HBO shows, you
Speaker 1: can buy it. If you don't have HBO, it's worth it.
Speaker 1: I think it's five or six episodes. I have not
Speaker 1: seen it all the way through. I've seen the first
Speaker 1: three episodes of it, and it's it's excellent. And it's
Speaker 1: excellent for a number of reasons. One it's just the writing,
Speaker 1: the production value from what I understand, the accuracy of
Speaker 1: the costuming and the the shots, the way they set
Speaker 1: up this cinematography so you see you know the different
Speaker 1: components of the burning reactor, and it's all just very,
Speaker 1: very true to life that they really recreated this in
Speaker 1: a way that it's like a fast paid scripted documentary almost.
Speaker 1: There's nothing kind of silly or out of place about it.
Speaker 1: But even more importantly, it is not as a reminder
Speaker 1: of a pretty shocking historical incident that I think has
Speaker 1: really gotten lost. And I'll tell you this truthfully, I'm
Speaker 1: not someone who knew much. I knew that Chernobyl there
Speaker 1: was a there was a meltdown, although from watching the
Speaker 1: mini series, which you see, is that it's more than
Speaker 1: a meltdown. The reactor exploded. It was a situation that
Speaker 1: if they did not get an under control. They were
Speaker 1: going to be irradiating the continent of Europe and who
Speaker 1: knows what else. But the real reason why it's so
Speaker 1: worthwhile for you to watch is that I put Chernobyl
Speaker 1: in a kind of similar category to say, the lives
Speaker 1: of others, the German movie about the East German The Sorry,
Speaker 1: the German language movie about the East East Berlin Stazi,
Speaker 1: the Secret Police, and you watch the lives of others
Speaker 1: and you understand what a real modern day tyranny is like. Well,
Speaker 1: what is tyranny in an advanced Western European country, What
Speaker 1: would tyranny look like in you know, the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: What would tyranny have felt like for everyday people? And
Speaker 1: this is why some of the most powerful anti Soviet
Speaker 1: writing that was ever done. And obviously East Germany was
Speaker 1: part of the behind the Iron Curtain, part of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union, and you had the Berlin Wall because of
Speaker 1: the separation of the West and the Soviet Soviet power.
Speaker 1: But it gives you some of the most powerful stuff
Speaker 1: is the description that you can get from people of
Speaker 1: the day to day what does it really like to
Speaker 1: live under a totalitarian gime? What is it like when
Speaker 1: you cannot question authority when government officials make all of
Speaker 1: the important decisions for you in your life, whether you
Speaker 1: realize it or not. And how soul crushing that is,
Speaker 1: how dysfunctional it is. It's a reminder of what makes
Speaker 1: freedom precious to all of us. But what is so
Speaker 1: I think has such a great impact so profound about
Speaker 1: watching Chernobyl other than it's just a very good viewing experience.
Speaker 1: I mean, it will suck you in and it's something
Speaker 1: that I think we'll stay with you for quite some time.
Speaker 1: Is the way that it shows you bureaucracy, I mean true, sclerotic,
Speaker 1: completely immovable bureaucracy and action. And what do incompetent government
Speaker 1: officials who are not in any way accountable to the people,
Speaker 1: what do they do? What is their first impulse, even
Speaker 1: in the face of an unbelievable risk and a tremendous tragedy,
Speaker 1: even when you would think that your basic humanity If
Speaker 1: you were one of these government bureaucrats, and they take
Speaker 1: you through the various meetings of the you know, the
Speaker 1: local Communist party officials, the higher up sort of regional
Speaker 1: Communist Party officials, all the way up to the equivalent
Speaker 1: of the true energiesar, you know, not like the csars
Speaker 1: we have here. But well, I guess it's not really
Speaker 1: a ZAR there either. They got rid of the ZAR.
Speaker 1: But they walk you through these different these different meetings,
Speaker 1: these discussions, and I'm sure that they're recreating the dialogue
Speaker 1: and all that, but it does show you that the
Speaker 1: number one goal of the bureaucracy, and this is something
Speaker 1: I say to you. And look some of the conversations
Speaker 1: that they have about this nuclear explosion and the reactor.
Speaker 1: You know, it kind of reminds me of the approach
Speaker 1: I used to see from some people in the CIA
Speaker 1: and in the government just in general. Whenever something goes bad,
Speaker 1: the first reaction of the government bureaucrat is not, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, what does this mean for the people they're
Speaker 1: supposed to be public servants. The first reaction is are
Speaker 1: we going to get in trouble? Is one of us
Speaker 1: going to get fired? Is the institution that we work
Speaker 1: for are going to come into public disrepute? Will there
Speaker 1: possibly be a cutting of the budget, Will there be hearings?
Speaker 1: Because they don't have a product, so they're not really process,
Speaker 1: as I always say, is the product of bureaucracies. Bureaucracies
Speaker 1: often exist to exist much of the workforce in any
Speaker 1: especially a government bureaucracy is just there because there have
Speaker 1: to be people there. They don't particularly do anything, they
Speaker 1: don't do very much, and that you see in real time.
Speaker 1: But then when you get into okay, you're faced with
Speaker 1: with true catastrophe. And you you heard some of there
Speaker 1: in that introduction your face. With the possibility of mass
Speaker 1: mass cancer cases and people dying and rady dying from
Speaker 1: radiation poisoning is from what I understand, one of the
Speaker 1: most painful and horrific ways you can go. It's like
Speaker 1: being burned from the inside out. And you know, and
Speaker 1: this is what the and these bureaucrats all they want
Speaker 1: to make sure is that they're not in trouble and
Speaker 1: that the Communist Party looks good and that the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union looks good. And it was all about CYA cover
Speaker 1: or I guess maybe CYB cover your butt. That's rule
Speaker 1: number one in every bureaurous. Well, now, rule number one
Speaker 1: is process is the product, and rule number two is
Speaker 1: cover your butt. And this is in a way a
Speaker 1: reminder of how you know, government is not your friend.
Speaker 1: Government is not there to keep you safe and warm.
Speaker 1: Government is not about making you feel better about yourself
Speaker 1: at night. Government should have very limited processes that it
Speaker 1: engages in, very limited missions, very limited scope. That it
Speaker 1: also has to have accountability to the people. And when
Speaker 1: you have an unaccountable bureaucracy, which we have in this
Speaker 1: country too. This is not just in this over Union.
Speaker 1: We have unaccountable federal bureaucracies, hello deep State trying to
Speaker 1: get rid of Trump. Things can get out of control
Speaker 1: very quickly. And that's why when I look at this
Speaker 1: I watched this Chernobyl miniseries. The mentality of these these communists,
Speaker 1: I mean true commies, right, not commedies in the way
Speaker 1: that I like to throw the term around. Is just
Speaker 1: a general disparagement for psycholibs, although it works for them too.
Speaker 1: But these real ideologically driven communist party officials who when
Speaker 1: faced with a reality that is that is not favorable
Speaker 1: to the interests of their party and of the bureaucratic
Speaker 1: mechanisms that it represents and overseas, they just insist on
Speaker 1: inverting reality. They insist that the truth is not true.
Speaker 1: That's what's false is correct. That's the response you get
Speaker 1: and from all the you know, the God that failed.
Speaker 1: I've mentioned that to you before, the writings of former
Speaker 1: communists who turned on communism, including Richard right here in
Speaker 1: the United States and many others. It's I think almost
Speaker 1: You can download it online for free, I believe, but
Speaker 1: I'm not sure it's even really in print anymore. You
Speaker 1: can get it in some places, probably get on an
Speaker 1: Amazon for twenty bucks or something. It is well worth
Speaker 1: the read. It's excellent, and it just part of the
Speaker 1: process of understanding the failures of a communist system, of
Speaker 1: any truly authoritarian system. Part of the ability to understand
Speaker 1: it has to be premised always in they don't care
Speaker 1: what happens to people. It's never about the people. That's
Speaker 1: why they're always naming everything the people's army, the people's palace,
Speaker 1: the people's this, the people's that they protest too much
Speaker 1: about the people, because it's never about the people. It's
Speaker 1: about them and their power and protecting that power and
Speaker 1: those privileges. And that's what Your Noble, this mini series
Speaker 1: shows you in a way that will it will stay
Speaker 1: with you, it will haunt you. So I highly highly
Speaker 1: recommend you watch Your Noble. I do think it is
Speaker 1: the best thing on TV right now, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to finish the last episode tonight. So as far as
Speaker 1: China is concerned they were gonna make a deal, I
Speaker 1: think they probably wish they made the deal that they
Speaker 1: had on the table before they tried to renegotiate it.
Speaker 1: They would like to make a deal. We're not ready
Speaker 1: to make a deal, and we're taking in tens of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars of tariffs, and that number could go
Speaker 1: up very, very substantially, very easily. But I think sometime
Speaker 1: in the future China and the United States will absolutely
Speaker 1: have a great trade deal, a great trade deal. The
Speaker 1: President says, well, we've got billions and billions of dollars
Speaker 1: at stake. The market seem to be a little spooked
Speaker 1: lately about what the future is here, what should we expect,
Speaker 1: and is the President still on the right track when
Speaker 1: it comes to China. Some are saying this could be
Speaker 1: one of the biggest determining factors in how our economy
Speaker 1: does in what's going to be a very contentious election cycle.
Speaker 1: We've got our friend Gordon Chang joining us now as
Speaker 1: the author of the Coming Collapse of China. Gordon, great
Speaker 1: to have you back. So much buck. How is Trump
Speaker 1: doing with all of this and does the current situation
Speaker 1: visa be China surprise you? Yeah, I think Trump's doing
Speaker 1: actually very well on trade, and the reason is that
Speaker 1: she's taken of mark departure from his predecessors. But it
Speaker 1: was something that absolutely needed to happen. You know, as
Speaker 1: for whether I'm surprised or not, we have always thought
Speaker 1: that there were impediments on the Chinese side to a
Speaker 1: trade deal. Treasury Secretary Stephen Manuchen I think ignored them,
Speaker 1: but it was clear that there were problems inside the
Speaker 1: political system there, and now it's evidence that there are
Speaker 1: because China's we're talking about a people's war against the
Speaker 1: United States. In other words, we're the enemy of China
Speaker 1: and the Chinese people. Also, they talk about the economic
Speaker 1: system be a core interest quote unquote, and in Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party lingo, that is something that they can go
Speaker 1: to war over. So clearly, right now we're not in
Speaker 1: a point where there can be an agreement between the
Speaker 1: two sides. Do you think that there's a component of
Speaker 1: this where they're trying to wait out and see what
Speaker 1: happens in the election and the hopes that if there
Speaker 1: were to be a Democrat, any Democrat who defeated Trump,
Speaker 1: there would be an expectation that they'd be in a
Speaker 1: better position and maybe could just make this whole, this
Speaker 1: whole trade dispute in a sense, or least America's willingness
Speaker 1: to stand up to China when it comes to trade
Speaker 1: go away. I think that there maybe some elements in
Speaker 1: the Chinese political system that think that way. You know,
Speaker 1: we saw, for instance, when the Molar report was released,
Speaker 1: China became much more interested in talking to President Trump,
Speaker 1: and I think that they probably were waiting for the
Speaker 1: release of that long anticipated document, you know, when it
Speaker 1: comes to the election. I'm not so sure, because that's
Speaker 1: more than a year away, and I'm not so sure
Speaker 1: that Chinese officials think that they can actually wait that
Speaker 1: period of time, because if there were no deal until
Speaker 1: after the November twenty elections, a lot of companies would
Speaker 1: have in the interim made the decision to leave China,
Speaker 1: and I don't think the Chinese believed that that's a
Speaker 1: good thing for them and that they could withstand a
Speaker 1: substantial reduction in their manufacturing sector. So Gordon, what should
Speaker 1: the Trump administration do? Stick to stick to its guns
Speaker 1: on this one. Should they hold fast? What is this
Speaker 1: the correct approach? Because right now, I think there a
Speaker 1: lot of people who view this. I mean I hear
Speaker 1: them on a regular basis, talking on TV, writing articles saying,
Speaker 1: just imagine how economy would be doing if Trump hadn't
Speaker 1: engaged in this back and forth with China. What do
Speaker 1: you say to that, Yes, long term, we have to
Speaker 1: do this. You know, China is stealing somewhere between one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty and six hundred billion dollars worth of
Speaker 1: US intellectual property each year. That's a grievous wound to
Speaker 1: the US and we've got to stop it. Now. People
Speaker 1: may say tariffs are not the way to do it,
Speaker 1: but if you take that position, then you're probably arguing
Speaker 1: for even more coercive measures. So tariffs are sort of
Speaker 1: an inferim way. I think the President is going to
Speaker 1: find that He's probably going to go to even more
Speaker 1: drastic measures eventually, because the Chinese are going to force
Speaker 1: him to do that. And unfortunately, this is a fight
Speaker 1: that we have to have. But fortunately this is a
Speaker 1: perfect time for us to do so, because our economy
Speaker 1: is robust and the Chinese economy is increasingly fragile. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's going on with the Chinese economy right now? I
Speaker 1: mean how much of a how much pain are they
Speaker 1: feeling as a result of their intransigence on these trade
Speaker 1: issues the Trump administration is pushing back on. Yeah, the
Speaker 1: Chinese economy is not growing at the six point four
Speaker 1: percent pace that they claim for the first quarter of
Speaker 1: this year. It's probably in the onesies, maybe even in
Speaker 1: the twosies that we're seeing, for instance, important indicators pointing
Speaker 1: negative at the end of last year. In December, an
Speaker 1: important Chinese professor in Beijing said, look, the Chinese economy
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen is going to grow no more than
Speaker 1: one point six to seven percent, maybe even contract And
Speaker 1: there has really been no substantial improvement since then. A
Speaker 1: matter of fact, there's been some more negative factors that
Speaker 1: have occurred since December. So China right now is in trouble,
Speaker 1: especially because it's accumulating get sustainable pace, and I think
Speaker 1: the Chinese are getting nervous. We're seeing this because people
Speaker 1: are starting to put money in gold and in hard currencies,
Speaker 1: and that's not a good sign for China. You know,
Speaker 1: Gordon I was just over there, and I know I
Speaker 1: spoke to you before I went over to China. I
Speaker 1: was in Beijing and Shanghai, as the audience knows, and
Speaker 1: there were a lot of different China experts that had
Speaker 1: been studying the issue for decades that I had access
Speaker 1: to it. I was able to spend a lot of
Speaker 1: time with over there, and one thing that that seemed
Speaker 1: to come up in a bunch of different contexts was
Speaker 1: just the that the deterioration in US China relations has
Speaker 1: gone beyond just a trade dispute into feelings of negativity
Speaker 1: toward America and perhaps even toward Americans among at least
Speaker 1: some segments of the Chinese population. What's your take on that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think that there probably has been some it's probably widespread.
Speaker 1: But also widespread is a real concern that China be
Speaker 1: able to make it through this, largely because they are
Speaker 1: dependent on the US economy and US producers and consumers.
Speaker 1: So at some point, you know, I think that we're
Speaker 1: going to see a divorce between the United States and China,
Speaker 1: largely because Cgping has dug in his heels and he
Speaker 1: has actually started to talk in terms that make it
Speaker 1: very difficult to have it that trade deal. When you say,
Speaker 1: people's war. You bran the United States an enemy that's
Speaker 1: going to have consequences, and so yes, Chinese people may
Speaker 1: like us a lot less, but unfortunately this is something
Speaker 1: that we have to go through. And the Trump administration
Speaker 1: manages to get the Chinese to finally sign a deal
Speaker 1: that you would say, that's the deal we want to sign.
Speaker 1: How just by staying where staying with the positions they
Speaker 1: have right now the only way to get their buck
Speaker 1: because right now the Chinese are nowhere close to that.
Speaker 1: The only way to get there is to have the
Speaker 1: Chinese feel that they're on the point of extinction and
Speaker 1: if they have choice. Wow, all right, Gordon shaying everybody
Speaker 1: authored the Coming Collapse of China. Gordon, nooys, appreciate you
Speaker 1: making the time for us. We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Fuck all right, Jame, we got
Speaker 1: more coming up. Stay with us. Country is stronger, safer,
Speaker 1: and with more jobs because our president has made his
Speaker 1: every move correct. Don't be fooled by the political left,
Speaker 1: because we are the people of this nation that is
Speaker 1: witnessing triumph. So let us stand with our president. Let
Speaker 1: us stand up for this truth that President Trump is
Speaker 1: the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. God bless America and
Speaker 1: may God continue to guide this nation. John Void man
Speaker 1: look at him, let it, letting it go there, given
Speaker 1: and given us some of the good stuff, saying that
Speaker 1: President Trump is the greatest president since Abraham Lincoln. That's
Speaker 1: got a lot of attention of the weekend. John Void
Speaker 1: who is a very good actor. I mean I've seen
Speaker 1: him in a lot of a lot of stuff, most
Speaker 1: recently in the show not Michael Clayton, what's it called, Mark?
Speaker 1: What's the show about? The guy who's the fixer in
Speaker 1: uh in Hollywood? He kind of is like, you know,
Speaker 1: the black bag guy who takes care of problems for people.
Speaker 1: He's got an Irish name. He's from Boston. I can't remember.
Speaker 1: Don't even have a clue what you're talking. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's Leev Schreiber. Everyone's yelling right now at the radio.
Speaker 1: They know they know what I'm talking about. But it's
Speaker 1: it's some show where he anyway, John voids in that
Speaker 1: he plays. He's does a good job as the kind
Speaker 1: of ne'er do well father figure that comes in to
Speaker 1: just just mess everything up for everyone. But here at
Speaker 1: hold On, I have to I can't. I can't do
Speaker 1: this thing where I don't know the name of the
Speaker 1: show that I'm talking about, So Leef Schreiber Showtime, what's
Speaker 1: it called? Ray Donovan? Thank you Ray Donovan. Sorry, guys,
Speaker 1: I know that drives me crazy, right, and I can't
Speaker 1: bring things up and not know when I'm bringing up
Speaker 1: here on the show. But John Voyd does a very
Speaker 1: good job on that. It's it's funny to me because
Speaker 1: I was just out in, just out in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: and I did have the experience of kind of infiltrating
Speaker 1: a few a few precincts. I mean, I spent most
Speaker 1: of my time in LA and some of you my
Speaker 1: laugh in Venice Beach, which is far left, Santa Monica,
Speaker 1: which is also far left, but like a little richer
Speaker 1: far left, I think is what you'd say, a little
Speaker 1: more elitist far left. And then West Hollywood, which is
Speaker 1: known as being a very prominent gay area of Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: but also does you know, there's a lot of just
Speaker 1: restaurants and other things there that are fun to go
Speaker 1: to and check out at night. So it's a very
Speaker 1: vibrant neighborhood with a lot of stuff going on. That's
Speaker 1: where I spent but it's very liberal. All these are
Speaker 1: very liberal areas, even for Los Angeles. I did make
Speaker 1: it into Beverly Hills for a little while. Well hello,
Speaker 1: Beverly Hills, you're looking you're looking, well, you're The recent
Speaker 1: work you've had done on those kles has been fantastic.
Speaker 1: So I spent some time around there and I talk
Speaker 1: to people, and it is fun because I usually I
Speaker 1: don't launch into hey, I'm a I'm a conservative radio host,
Speaker 1: because then they would start melting in front of me,
Speaker 1: and it's it's like I would be walking human kryptonite.
Speaker 1: But I am in a position to say, well, I
Speaker 1: work for the Hill and maybe I'll let them think
Speaker 1: that I'm a journalist and I have a scruffy beard,
Speaker 1: and they kind of figure that i'm And man, did
Speaker 1: I get just in different places of the week that
Speaker 1: I was there, out at restaurants and bars. I have
Speaker 1: a lot of friends in Los Angeles. Did I get
Speaker 1: a double dose of left wing stupidity? I mean, I
Speaker 1: just got so much. There's such an an incredible amount
Speaker 1: of ignorance, but also a kind of fervent ignorance that
Speaker 1: you get among the entertainment industry lives there are particularly
Speaker 1: they're they're militantly they're militantly stupid. They believe very very
Speaker 1: strongly in what they believe and though almost nothing about it.
Speaker 1: And that's also where I think a deep insecurity comes in.
Speaker 1: Whenever you try to engage them in a conversation, they
Speaker 1: become emotional because it's really not about the issue. They
Speaker 1: get angry. You just drive a lot of libs, but
Speaker 1: with Hollywood libs man even more so. They get angry
Speaker 1: because the moment they're challenged, then there's this recognition that
Speaker 1: they might have to explain why it is they think
Speaker 1: what they think, and they're exposed. They feel like a
Speaker 1: whold On a second, if I actually have to explain
Speaker 1: to somebody why I believe these things, why I think
Speaker 1: these things, then perhaps they'll figure out that I don't
Speaker 1: really know, that it's really a fashion, that there's a
Speaker 1: virtue signal like I saw I think it was a
Speaker 1: a quote by Oh Gosh, I can't remember now, but
Speaker 1: I saw a quote recently about how I think it
Speaker 1: was Russell Kirk that liberally is m appeals the most
Speaker 1: to people's vanity, and that's why it's so such a
Speaker 1: powerful force. It appeals to human vanity, whereas conservatism is
Speaker 1: rooted in human reality, which is more difficult to understand
Speaker 1: and deal with. It's so true, man, That's that's the
Speaker 1: politics of Hollywood. Whatever appeals to an individual's vanity, that's
Speaker 1: what they believe. Rock and roll, fellow patriots, we made
Speaker 1: ours go up to eleven. It's time for roll call,
Speaker 1: Roll call time, everybody, Facebook dot com s last Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: I am here in the swamp. I don't know why
Speaker 1: I'm being all sing songy about it, but yeah, yeah
Speaker 1: here we are much to discuss, much to talk of out,
Speaker 1: so let's get right to it. Uh. Erond writes no
Speaker 1: podcast since the last Thursday on Stitcher. iHeart I'm in
Speaker 1: Las Vegas, Nevada. Aaron, I hope that's not true. That's
Speaker 1: certainly not supposed to be true. So I don't know
Speaker 1: what to say about that. Is that is that right? Producer? Mark?
Speaker 1: Are we is there? Nothing? It's there? It's there, I
Speaker 1: promise all right. Mark says it's there, and I argue
Speaker 1: with Mark at my peril. So guys, you know, please
Speaker 1: check again and see it always. I think some of
Speaker 1: you now just like to toy with my emotions and
Speaker 1: tell me that there's no podcast when there is a podcast,
Speaker 1: aren't it there is a podcast? Please tell me there's
Speaker 1: a podcast up. So yeah, good times, ah, Eric writes Buck,
Speaker 1: welcome back from China. What are the fewest steps that
Speaker 1: would mostly fix the border problem and pause asylum or
Speaker 1: dictate that a solemic quests he made outside the country
Speaker 1: build the wall. The wall is useless if they can
Speaker 1: walk up with a key phrase like I fear persecution
Speaker 1: and be allowed into the country. Can't President Trump, whom
Speaker 1: I love and thank God for, do an executive action?
Speaker 1: Wouldn't something like that blow up in our face with
Speaker 1: so called like so called family separation did? Also, you're
Speaker 1: so spot on about Aquaman, so much money and effort
Speaker 1: to end up with a hot mess. It is a mockery.
Speaker 1: Shields high, thank you, Eric, It is a look. I'm
Speaker 1: sticking to my guns on this one. It is a mockery.
Speaker 1: I think Aquaman was terrible. If you enjoyed it, folks,
Speaker 1: if you thought that it was a good movie, sorry,
Speaker 1: I just knocked over like half of the freedom Hut gosh, darnett,
Speaker 1: get your stuff, get your stuff together. If you enjoyed it.
Speaker 1: Good for you, man. I mean, you know, there are
Speaker 1: lots of the movies that I like. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: music that I listened to that I don't want to
Speaker 1: tell you all about, you know, I don't want to
Speaker 1: make you all think like, oh my gosh, Buck listens
Speaker 1: to that. And it's not just t Swift that I'm
Speaker 1: embarrassed about. There's other stuff too. There is some other stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, if the right Natalie and Brulia song comes on,
Speaker 1: do I kind of groove out to those tunes? How
Speaker 1: many of you even know who Nalian Brually is? You
Speaker 1: know what's funny, There are a bunch of people listening
Speaker 1: to this right now who know exactly who I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, and then they're in their head they're
Speaker 1: humming the tune. I'm already tone all right, Sorry about that,
Speaker 1: I know, I apologize. What else did Eric? Oh? Eric? Sorry?
Speaker 1: Eric asked me real questions about real things. So let
Speaker 1: me give that the attention and deference that it deserves.
Speaker 1: In terms of fixing the border problem, yes, you're correct.
Speaker 1: A wall's not going to fix the asylum request issue.
Speaker 1: They can just walk up to a wall and find
Speaker 1: the entry way, because all the walls do have places
Speaker 1: of entry or ways that you can get around it
Speaker 1: or even through it or over it. And then when
Speaker 1: they're caught, because remember, part of what the wall does
Speaker 1: is just down a legal entry so that it's easier
Speaker 1: to get caught. But if they get caught, they say,
Speaker 1: I have a credible fear. If they don't get caught,
Speaker 1: but then they're in the country pretty easy, right, and
Speaker 1: the president's executive orders. The problem there what slows them
Speaker 1: down on all that is the judges who come out
Speaker 1: and say, sorry, you're not allowed to You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to do that thing, these universal injunctions that come down.
Speaker 1: All it takes is one federal judge to decide that
Speaker 1: it's not allowed anymore. And that's kind of the end
Speaker 1: of it. Tim writes for Roll Call with lots of
Speaker 1: exclamation points. I did appreciate the Casablanca reference last week.
Speaker 1: Solid Beto impression. I'd pay good money, so you do
Speaker 1: Beto with Ben Shapiro doing Chris Matthews and Crowder doing
Speaker 1: his Bernie keep up the good work. I really do
Speaker 1: hope your message about the borders getting through to the
Speaker 1: White House, well, thank you, Tim, and that would be fun.
Speaker 1: Shapiro doing Shapiro doing Chris Matthews, Crowder doing Bernie Buck
Speaker 1: doing betto You know, maybe many should put that out
Speaker 1: there in the ether. That would be a fun little
Speaker 1: segment we could all do together, and I think it
Speaker 1: would work. It would work very well. Julie, Right, hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: great show on Friday. I'm glad you're back from China. Well, Julie,
Speaker 1: that makes two of us a little too much. A
Speaker 1: little too much brown sauce, which is just a fancy
Speaker 1: way of saying soy sauce. Which is a fancier way
Speaker 1: of saying gluten sauce. That's right, soy sauce number two ingredient.
Speaker 1: Check it out yourself. Wheat, very little soy in soy sauce.
Speaker 1: It should be called wheat sauce, which is essentially a
Speaker 1: form of poisoning Buck. So we don't like that. Oh
Speaker 1: and by the way, Julie says, all the guest hosts
Speaker 1: were good or enjoyable. I'm wondering if it's ever been
Speaker 1: explained why Christopher Steel was desperate to stop Trump. I
Speaker 1: may have missed that in a disaster of the last
Speaker 1: two years. Maybe because he was desperate for a paycheck.
Speaker 1: If you ever go back the Freedom Up podcast, maybe
Speaker 1: you can do a listening contest for the next guest.
Speaker 1: Not everyone has an interesting life, but I bet some
Speaker 1: of your or a listener contest, but I bet some
Speaker 1: of your listeners do. Thanks, Julie, Julie. Christopher Steele, I'm
Speaker 1: sure is just like so many others. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what I would guess. I don't know this, so
Speaker 1: I just this is my surmising or my analyzing of
Speaker 1: the circumstances. But Christopher Steele is someone who is very
Speaker 1: much I'm sure of the internationalist establishment mindset, and that
Speaker 1: means that he've used Trump as a tremendous threat to
Speaker 1: the establishment. That Trump is somebody who up ends not
Speaker 1: just the systems that the establishment relies on, but also
Speaker 1: the sense of importance and control and sense of self
Speaker 1: that so many people who rely on various institutions, you know,
Speaker 1: they feel like, well, what is it all about? If
Speaker 1: someone like Trump can come along and do a better
Speaker 1: job and maybe even disrespect or disregard some of these
Speaker 1: nose worms and some of these established ways of doing business.
Speaker 1: So there was a very widespread revulsion among the elites
Speaker 1: against Trump. Of course, the great irony in there is
Speaker 1: that Trump is himself at least a billionaire of some level.
Speaker 1: We don't know exactly how much, but a billionaire, and
Speaker 1: so is financially speaking, in the true elite. But they
Speaker 1: view him as a traitor to his class. Now let's
Speaker 1: see here, Richard writes, buck happy hellos from the Hoosier
Speaker 1: about the app adversity score. Nonsense. A third of someone's
Speaker 1: score is based on where you live. Let's say I'm
Speaker 1: well off and live in the suburbs of Chicago and Indiana.
Speaker 1: What's to stop me from buying a rundown house in Gary, Indiana,
Speaker 1: claim that as my primary residence and boosting my kids
Speaker 1: score so he gets into college, never really moving, and
Speaker 1: then selling it after This whole thing is stupid. I
Speaker 1: agree on Aquaman too. If the people of Atlanta's have
Speaker 1: the power to do all this amazing stuff, unlimited power,
Speaker 1: and get all sea left to do as they please,
Speaker 1: they could pick up the trash on the ocean floor
Speaker 1: and not could have war with humanity. Bad premise but
Speaker 1: fun special effects shield hide. Yeah, Richard, not a look.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to beat up on the pro Aquaman side,
Speaker 1: although is that what I'm doing right now? Am I
Speaker 1: squishing you pro aquaman people? Like a bunch of tender
Speaker 1: calamari in my hand? That was my squishy noise. I
Speaker 1: don't know if that really even worked, just kind of
Speaker 1: sounded like, I well, anyway, it was a squishy noise
Speaker 1: of calamari in my hand. But let's move on back.
Speaker 1: Let's just go to the next one. Oh but no,
Speaker 1: your point about changing your residence as a means of
Speaker 1: finding a way around or scheming gaming the system on
Speaker 1: the adversity score for application processes, I don't know if
Speaker 1: that would work, but I'm sure they're going to be
Speaker 1: all kinds of ways that people try to scheme it.
Speaker 1: You know, the rules we keep trying to move around.
Speaker 1: It's hard enough to determine what is a fair minded
Speaker 1: you know, it's hard enough to determine what is a
Speaker 1: a an honest approach to weighing, engaging merit and skill
Speaker 1: and expertise. When you start adding all these other externalities
Speaker 1: into it, it it just becomes a mess. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that there will be ways that people can
Speaker 1: gain the system, and they will gain the system. I
Speaker 1: would also say this, you know, as a random aside,
Speaker 1: I don't want me think of this. I saw a
Speaker 1: young woman. When I say a young woman, probably thirty.
Speaker 1: I saw a young woman who was also in her
Speaker 1: thirties like me, at a at a bar when I
Speaker 1: was in a Hollywood and I looked at her for a
Speaker 1: a second and I thought, where have I seen this
Speaker 1: person before? Because she looked very, very familiar, and and
Speaker 1: we kind of stared at each other for a second,
Speaker 1: and it turned out that she was I felt I
Speaker 1: knew her as maybe she was a friend, but I
Speaker 1: am in Los Angeles. I should have known better. She
Speaker 1: was one of the actresses from the show Friday Night Lights,
Speaker 1: which I liked very much as a TV show, even
Speaker 1: though in a lot of ways it's ridiculous and the
Speaker 1: second season goes completely off the rails and there's a
Speaker 1: lot of there's a lot of stuff that was problematic
Speaker 1: about the show, but overall I felt that it kind
Speaker 1: of carried its weight and did a pretty good job.
Speaker 1: But she was one of the characters introduced in the
Speaker 1: last I guess two seasons of the show and I said, oh,
Speaker 1: Friday Night Lights, you're in Friday Lights and she kind
Speaker 1: of said, you know, yeah, And I talked to her
Speaker 1: for a minute. I tell you, not very friendly, so
Speaker 1: kind of kind of disappointing, because here I have somebody
Speaker 1: who really liked the show, and you know, you just
Speaker 1: you don't want to meet You don't want to meet
Speaker 1: the actors a lot of times from the shows that
Speaker 1: you like that much. I will tell you she was
Speaker 1: a little she was a little prickly, I'd say. And
Speaker 1: I wasn't. I swear I wasn't even. I was just
Speaker 1: being being a nice, normal dude sitting there. Wasn't trying
Speaker 1: to get a phone number or anything like that. All right, Gina,
Speaker 1: Oh okay, here we go, She says, she can't get
Speaker 1: on the iHeart. You know, guys, I don't know. I
Speaker 1: think that we're up on iHeart. It should it should work. Here,
Speaker 1: Here we go. Lynn rights, hey Bock. I wondering if
Speaker 1: you're in Iraq in two thousand and nine. Wondered if
Speaker 1: that's you, Lynn. I was not there in oh nine.
Speaker 1: But thank you so much for writing in. Thank you
Speaker 1: for your service, Frank. I just finished reading Conquistador on
Speaker 1: your recommendation. Wow, was it good part of history. I
Speaker 1: had no clue about BLUs. I had this thought that
Speaker 1: Cortez easily defeated the Aztecs. Boy was I wrong. Well, Frank,
Speaker 1: I'm really glad you enjoyed it, man. I thought it
Speaker 1: was a was a great a great book, a great read.
Speaker 1: You know. I'm almost done with Dune, the Frank Herbert
Speaker 1: sci fi novel, which you know, I've really never read
Speaker 1: much in the way of sci fi before, And I've
Speaker 1: got to say, I mean, he's an incredible storyteller and
Speaker 1: the intricate see of his descriptions and the story that
Speaker 1: he weaves. And I think this book was published in
Speaker 1: the sixties. It holds up very very well. Almost done
Speaker 1: with it, in all eight hundred pages. I started reading
Speaker 1: it when I was in China, and I got a
Speaker 1: little distracted in Los Angeles, but I'm coming back to
Speaker 1: it now. I think it was I think it was
Speaker 1: pretty good. All right, team, Uh, that's gonna be it
Speaker 1: for today in the Freedom Hunt. Thank you as always
Speaker 1: for being here. I appreciate it. Please do if you
Speaker 1: have not already subscribed to the podcast, and I will
Speaker 1: talk to you tomorrow same time and place shields Hi