Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Show podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. The left is still in
Speaker 1: shock today after the leak of a Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: that would overturn the landmark abortion case. Wrote The Weight,
Speaker 1: We'll take a look at the left insane reaction to
Speaker 1: Justice Alida's opinion in tonight's hold al welcome hold on
Speaker 1: on buck Sexton. The meltdown is happening all over the
Speaker 1: place from these libs the mere prospect of the end
Speaker 1: of their make believe constitutional right to abortion, because even
Speaker 1: honest leftists and liberals Democrats know that the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: decision in nineteen seventy three Roe v. Wade was just
Speaker 1: legal fantasy fiction. It was absolutely cobbled together using verbal
Speaker 1: smoke screens and nonsense. So that may go away, which
Speaker 1: means that they would have to actually explain to the
Speaker 1: American people. They should explain to the American people what
Speaker 1: it is they actually believe. And just to give you
Speaker 1: a sense of it, it's gone quite a long distance
Speaker 1: here because the Democrat Party until about the last fifteen
Speaker 1: years or so, had been holding to this notion. They
Speaker 1: agree that abortion is not something that is a good thing.
Speaker 1: It's a sad thing, a life maybe even as lost
Speaker 1: that they would say, but it was necessary for women
Speaker 1: to be able to make this choice. Essentially, again, a
Speaker 1: lot of euphemisms and speaking around the issue. And if
Speaker 1: you're wondering who took those kinds of positions, I mean,
Speaker 1: here was Joe Biden back in two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: little over fifteen years ago saying, well, watch, I do
Speaker 1: not view abortion as a as a choice and a right.
Speaker 1: I think it's always a tragedy, and I think that
Speaker 1: it should be rare and safe, and I think we
Speaker 1: should be focusing on how to limit the number of abortions,
Speaker 1: and there ought to be able to have a common
Speaker 1: ground and consensus as to do that. Oh, it's always
Speaker 1: a tragedy. Remember that was Joe Biden not too long ago.
Speaker 1: He's currently the president who acts like the possible overturning
Speaker 1: of Rov Wade and it has not happened yet, folks.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot of pressure. We gotta remember, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of pressure that the left is bringing to
Speaker 1: bear right now. The whole purpose of the leak was
Speaker 1: to try to get a change in the decision before
Speaker 1: the decision is official, So that has to be in
Speaker 1: the background of this entire conversation. But Biden then was
Speaker 1: saying it was a tragedy. Now Biden is part of
Speaker 1: the chorus of hysteria saying that, oh my gosh, if
Speaker 1: they overturned Row, you know, they might even ban lgbt
Speaker 1: children from being in the same classroom as other children.
Speaker 1: Watch this what happens if you have st chase the
Speaker 1: law saying that that children who are LGBTQ camp being
Speaker 1: classrooms with other children? Is that legit under the way
Speaker 1: that the decisions written. What are the next things that
Speaker 1: are going to be attacked? Because this MAGA crowd is
Speaker 1: really the most extreme political organization that's existed in American history.
Speaker 1: There's so much just intellectual dumpster fire going on in
Speaker 1: that one clip that we played you from the current
Speaker 1: president United States. First of all, it's not MAGA extreme
Speaker 1: to be opposed to Row the Wade, the pro life movement, Republicans,
Speaker 1: conservatives have been opposed to Row v. Wade for fifty years.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely nothing in fact, one of the core one
Speaker 1: of the core tenants, one of the primary goals of
Speaker 1: the conservative legal movement has been to finally give an
Speaker 1: honest assessment of the constitutionality of the right to abortion
Speaker 1: established in Row the Wade, because it's so obviously non
Speaker 1: exist There is no right to abortion in the Constitution
Speaker 1: which anybody can see, and there was certainly no implied
Speaker 1: right to abortion either. And when you ask people about
Speaker 1: this to try to even explain why they're so adamant
Speaker 1: that this exists, you hear all these different explanations because
Speaker 1: they don't even know. They're just making it up as
Speaker 1: they go along. But you know the problem with listening
Speaker 1: to Joe Biden for it. Remember he is technically a
Speaker 1: lawyer and has been a member of the United States
Speaker 1: Senate for decades, then was Vice president, now as president.
Speaker 1: Has just been just pushed ahead by a Democrat party
Speaker 1: that loves an empty suit with a big grin, which
Speaker 1: is what Joe Biden is, and now one in cognitive decline.
Speaker 1: But to be fair, not only is Joe Biden in
Speaker 1: a state of cognitive decline. Even in his moments where
Speaker 1: he seems pretty clear, you are reminded that his legal
Speaker 1: analysis is what you would expect from somebody who has
Speaker 1: an IQ that is at about room temperature. Listened to
Speaker 1: his explanation here of well, the current constitution debate over abortion.
Speaker 1: Watch As I said, when I when this his, I
Speaker 1: was getting on the plane to go down to Alabama.
Speaker 1: This is about a lot more than abortion. I hadn't
Speaker 1: read the whole opinion at that time, but this reminds
Speaker 1: me of the debate with Robert Borke. Borke believed the
Speaker 1: only reason you had any inherent rights is because the
Speaker 1: government gave him to you. If you go back and
Speaker 1: look at the opening comments. But Biden, when I was
Speaker 1: questioned him as chairman, I said, I believe I have
Speaker 1: the rights that I have, not because the government gave
Speaker 1: him to me, which you believe, but because I'm just
Speaker 1: a child of God. I exist. So there's a natural
Speaker 1: law right to abortion? Is Joe Biden make what is
Speaker 1: he even? What does Joe Biden think he is arguing here?
Speaker 1: Forget about what he's actually saying. What in that mind
Speaker 1: as well as it continues to function with all the
Speaker 1: cobwebs and the screeching of the mechanism as it just
Speaker 1: grows more rust over time, what does he think he's saying?
Speaker 1: Not even clear? It doesn't even matter it's just blather
Speaker 1: to go on the blather heap of Well, the left
Speaker 1: wants that the Democrats want this, so they should have it.
Speaker 1: This is legally speaking, an indefensible position they've managed to
Speaker 1: maintain for over fifty years because they say, shut up,
Speaker 1: we're in charge. We've got what we wanted. Now it
Speaker 1: can never change. Well, that's actually not how the system works.
Speaker 1: But as I said, that's what they're planning right now,
Speaker 1: just to shout down everybody and to even pressure a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice into changing his or her opinion on
Speaker 1: this one. That's the whole purpose of the leak of
Speaker 1: the draft opinion. We all see it. And then there
Speaker 1: are true morons out there. A Congressman Swallow Welton, among
Speaker 1: the dumbest members of Congress, which is saying a lot
Speaker 1: because there are a lot of dumbasses in the Congress.
Speaker 1: Here he is saying that Republicans won't stop with banning abortion.
Speaker 1: They want to ban interracial marriage. Do you want to
Speaker 1: save that, well, then you should probably vote. What is
Speaker 1: this idiot talking about. No one wants to ban interracial
Speaker 1: marriage in the Republican party. This is just distraction, smear
Speaker 1: tactics and lunacy, lunacy, But what else they gonna do
Speaker 1: argue the indefensible proposition that abortion was implied in the Constitution.
Speaker 1: Why Well, because reasons Jamie Raskin, another member of Congress,
Speaker 1: If Alida's majority destroys the right to privacy, states could
Speaker 1: jail women and doctors for abortion and contraception offenses. They
Speaker 1: could also compel women to be sterilized for unfitness to reproduce,
Speaker 1: as Virginia sterilized thousands in last century. So their argument
Speaker 1: now seems to be I hate this Supreme Court decision.
Speaker 1: Therefore I'm just going to make up that they're going
Speaker 1: to do crazy things in the Supreme Court that no
Speaker 1: one's arguing for because it will scare people. That seems
Speaker 1: to be. Yes, there have been poor Supreme Court decisions
Speaker 1: in the past, and then they were overturned. And what
Speaker 1: they can't seem to figure out is that plan is
Speaker 1: that planned parenthood be Casey and Roe v. Wade is
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of the Constitution. It has now
Speaker 1: been righted. So they don't seem to get it right.
Speaker 1: They keep saying, oh my gosh, we could just do
Speaker 1: the same thing. Them say, so, wait, are they are
Speaker 1: they plus a versus Ferguson advocate separate versus equal, or
Speaker 1: are they Brown v. Board of Education, Equal and due
Speaker 1: process for all, Equal rights for all. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: is that where do they come down on this issue? Oh,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter, it's just scare tactic and planned parenthood
Speaker 1: of course, which has been running abattoirs for infants for
Speaker 1: decades now. It's disgusting. Here they are with the CEO saying,
Speaker 1: don't worry, We're going to get all the rage out
Speaker 1: there from particularly from women who go home to sad
Speaker 1: houses that they're alone in with cat watch that when
Speaker 1: they found out what was happening in Texas, they started
Speaker 1: filling state houses in Florida, they started filling state houses
Speaker 1: in other places because they know that the fight right
Speaker 1: now is on the ground and in these states. And
Speaker 1: so we're going to continue to capture that rage, and
Speaker 1: we're going to continue to make sure that they understand
Speaker 1: who is accountable right now. The last administrative at last
Speaker 1: administration appointed three justices who are will be responsible for
Speaker 1: us losing a constitutional right that we have held for
Speaker 1: forty nine years because it was a lie. That right
Speaker 1: was a lie all along well, I'm more on the
Speaker 1: fallout from the league decision, with author and columnist David
Speaker 1: Marcus coming up here in a moment, let's talk about
Speaker 1: protecting your home. I'm not somebody who gets all freaked
Speaker 1: out about things I don't have to, but when I
Speaker 1: heard about home title this is really worried because it's
Speaker 1: so easy for the bad guys to do this. Some
Speaker 1: cyber thief forges your name off the title of your
Speaker 1: home because your home title exists online. Then they take
Speaker 1: out loans against your home and guess what, you don't
Speaker 1: find out until the payment demands arrive or perhaps even
Speaker 1: the viction notice. Well, can you need to protect yourself
Speaker 1: normal identity? That programs don't work. You need home title lock.
Speaker 1: All you have to do right now is go to
Speaker 1: hometitlelock dot com and you can check and see if
Speaker 1: you're a victim of this crime and don't even know it.
Speaker 1: Go to home titlelock dot com again. That's home title
Speaker 1: loock dot com. Protect your home today. Protect your title
Speaker 1: with hometitle lock dot com. David Marcus up next, those
Speaker 1: Republican leaders who are trying to weaponize the use of
Speaker 1: the law against women. What we say, how dare they?
Speaker 1: How dare they tell a woman what she can do
Speaker 1: and cannot do with her own body? How dare they?
Speaker 1: How dare they try to stop her from determining her
Speaker 1: own future? How dare they try to deny women they
Speaker 1: are rights and their freedoms. Vice President Kamala Harris expressing
Speaker 1: outrage at the prospect of Americans losing the right to
Speaker 1: kill the unborn or as Democrats called menstruating persons rights.
Speaker 1: Of course, Supreme Court has seemingly prepared to correctly decide
Speaker 1: that this was never a constitutional right in the first place.
Speaker 1: We know the left is claiming the recently leaked Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision or would be decision is just the latest
Speaker 1: evidence of extremism within the Republican Party, even though Conservatives
Speaker 1: have been openly campaigning to overturn row for over fifty years.
Speaker 1: Email Democratic lawmakers promising to introduce legislation to codify the
Speaker 1: right to an abortion without limitation to federal law, positions
Speaker 1: so extreme that it's been rejected by nearly every single
Speaker 1: Western nation on the planet. Who are really the radicals here?
Speaker 1: What I mean now is author and columist David Marcus.
Speaker 1: David good to have you thanks, Bud. I have to
Speaker 1: say one of the challenges here in this now, this
Speaker 1: this sort of frenzy, in this moment of hysteria, is
Speaker 1: that the people that claim that they're so certain that
Speaker 1: they have the answers here on the left about why
Speaker 1: abortion is so important and there are even say sacred
Speaker 1: to them, have a whole variety of different arguments that
Speaker 1: are offered up, that are offering even in contradiction to
Speaker 1: the other arguments from their own side, like oh, no,
Speaker 1: one's actually saying that a third trimester abortion would be okay,
Speaker 1: what in fact that is what a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: an activists say. Oh yeah, I mean there are there
Speaker 1: are activists who think that killing a baby after they've
Speaker 1: already been born is something that ought to be on
Speaker 1: the table. You know, Look, there's a huge shift in
Speaker 1: the language of the Democratic Party over the last twenty
Speaker 1: five years in regard to abortion. We don't hear safe
Speaker 1: legal and rare anymore right that that was the go
Speaker 1: to and safe legal and rare acknowledged that there was
Speaker 1: a tragic loss of a human life when an abortion
Speaker 1: took place, but it said, look, this is a nuanced situation. Today.
Speaker 1: We're in the age of celebrate your abortion, you know,
Speaker 1: go to brunch with your friends, get a cake. You know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's sad and disturbing, but it's it's not new buck,
Speaker 1: I mean, we've been I think kat Apollock wrote the
Speaker 1: book pro in twenty fourteen. I might be off on
Speaker 1: that it's something like that, but that really announced this
Speaker 1: of like, this is not something that we apologize for anymore.
Speaker 1: This is something that we think is an unreconstructed good.
Speaker 1: Kirsten Powers, who I believe is a Yeah, she's a
Speaker 1: Democrat strategist whatever that means at CNN. Yes, same idea
Speaker 1: I said. If you think abortion is wrong, don't get
Speaker 1: an abortion. It's not okay to impose is your religious
Speaker 1: views on others. Why should a Jew, a Muslim, etc.
Speaker 1: Have to live according to your interpretation of the Bible.
Speaker 1: If you don't get this, please don't ever use the
Speaker 1: phrase religious freedom again. And it's amazing how many people
Speaker 1: in public life that are supposed to understand politics and
Speaker 1: at some level constitutional law, even if they're not actually lawyers,
Speaker 1: just don't know what the hell they're talking about. I mean,
Speaker 1: just just blather on. They clearly never read the draft
Speaker 1: decision that you know, Alito was writing for the five
Speaker 1: justices who we believe are going to be voting to
Speaker 1: over term. This hasn't happened yet. There's so much ignorance
Speaker 1: from people that are supposed to know, and I find
Speaker 1: that troubling too, David. Yeah, I mean, murders illegal, you know,
Speaker 1: and in the Ten Commandments that says thou shalt not kill.
Speaker 1: That's not some conflict of church and state. It's absurd.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, yes, there are religious reasons why people
Speaker 1: oppose abortion. There are also very strong scientific reasons, you know,
Speaker 1: including the fact that these babies can feel pain is
Speaker 1: they're being ripped apart. So yeah, it's it's I think
Speaker 1: the response is troubling, and I think that we've reached
Speaker 1: a point where, you know, I wrote an article two
Speaker 1: years ago for The Federalist and I said, this is
Speaker 1: war now. And I do think it's war. I think
Speaker 1: either you believe that killing babies is bad or you
Speaker 1: don't believe the killing babies is bad. I think all
Speaker 1: the nuance has been lost out of this conversation. And
Speaker 1: then of course you hear some of the some of
Speaker 1: the I guess constitutional or legal analysis that's out there.
Speaker 1: I get here. Here's an example. MSNBC's Ellie Misstall on
Speaker 1: how the reason the Founding Fathers I don't know if
Speaker 1: you know this, David. The reason the Founding Fathers didn't
Speaker 1: write in an abortion constitutional rights which clearly does not exist,
Speaker 1: but they pretended it did. But anyway, the reason they
Speaker 1: didn't do it is because they're they're bad people. Watch
Speaker 1: Alito's fundament. It's a legal reasoning is that abortion is
Speaker 1: not a fundamental right because it doesn't go back to
Speaker 1: the Founding because the Founding Fathers didn't recognize abortion as
Speaker 1: a fundamental right. And he's right about that. The Founding
Speaker 1: Fathers didn't recognize abortion as a fundamental right because the
Speaker 1: Founding Fathers were racist, misogynist jerk faces who didn't believe
Speaker 1: that women had any rights at all. I mean, there
Speaker 1: there you go. Wait, knew, I mean, I I what
Speaker 1: do you mean? I knew that the Founding Fathers are racist,
Speaker 1: misogynist jerk faces. You didn't know that. We all know
Speaker 1: that at this point, right, I mean, that's the that's
Speaker 1: but but but that really but that speaks to the point, right, So, uh,
Speaker 1: the Founders were racist, misogynist jerk faces. I'm sure I'm
Speaker 1: that as well. Um, and so now we have to
Speaker 1: abandon everything that they did. Uh, you know, David, somehow
Speaker 1: there was the rowe created the belief that the Founding
Speaker 1: Fathers actually did create somehow a constitutional right. It was
Speaker 1: a constitutional right. They didn't argue it was a natural
Speaker 1: law right. It was a constitutional right to abortion. So
Speaker 1: it used to be the Founding Fathers were geniuses beyond
Speaker 1: the likes of which we could have never They essentially
Speaker 1: had a time machine. They could go in the future
Speaker 1: and see that this procedure would happen, and they wrote
Speaker 1: it into the Constitution. Now that they lose it though
Speaker 1: their their jerk faces, that's what I mean. Look, look, look, look,
Speaker 1: I don't know have you ever seen a picture of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court that decided row. Yeah, because it's not
Speaker 1: a Banatton had my friend, you know, it's seven seven
Speaker 1: white guys were allowed to come up with the abortion
Speaker 1: law initially, right, that's how. Yeah, that was fine. That
Speaker 1: was totally okay for those seven white guys to express
Speaker 1: their opinion on rob wage. Do you think it's fair
Speaker 1: to say now because I put this out there and
Speaker 1: I know this really annoys people on the left. But
Speaker 1: I think it's actually true. I think that the left
Speaker 1: is a political ideology is just turned into a lot
Speaker 1: of verbal smoke screens and winding around. I want what
Speaker 1: I want, and the system, politics, the law, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: has to give me what I want or else throw
Speaker 1: the whole system over. No, it's exactly right. You know,
Speaker 1: I have a piece up at Fox at Fox News today,
Speaker 1: you know where I talk about all these baseless accusations
Speaker 1: of racism, right, Elon Musk's a racist and Tucker Carlson's
Speaker 1: a racist. And what's most insidious about this it is
Speaker 1: not the fact that these are baseless, ridiculous claims, even
Speaker 1: though they are. What's most insidious is that the message
Speaker 1: the left sends is not only does their racism allow
Speaker 1: you to not engage with their ideas, it compels you
Speaker 1: to do so. To engage with the ideas of you
Speaker 1: or me or Tucker or Elon are these people, is
Speaker 1: to legitimize systemic racism. And so you just can't do it.
Speaker 1: It's the death of discord and it's the death of democracy.
Speaker 1: And I mean that's what we're seeing. Eli Mistell isn't
Speaker 1: making serious arguments. We know he's not. What I don't
Speaker 1: know is whether this is a cynical political tactic or
Speaker 1: whether this is something these people actually believe. But either way,
Speaker 1: the result is the same, and it's really bad. I
Speaker 1: always going to see you, David. Appreciate the perspective. Thanks Buck.
Speaker 1: Conservative author jd. Vance defeated establishment candidate Josh Mandel and
Speaker 1: yesterday's GOP Senate primary race in Ohio. The last night's
Speaker 1: biggest winner former President Donald Trump. We'll have more on
Speaker 1: that with the CEO of American Majority, Ned Ryan. We
Speaker 1: come back first. I want to talk to you about
Speaker 1: protecting your online data. A lot of companies promise your
Speaker 1: privacy is guaranteed. We know that's not true. That's why
Speaker 1: you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool called
Speaker 1: Secure spelled SEK. You are securities using proprietary encryption and
Speaker 1: offering secure instant messaging and email. Let's secure all of
Speaker 1: your communications based on servers and data centers hosted Switzerland
Speaker 1: without using any of the big tech platforms. Privacy is
Speaker 1: a big issue now. Without real security, people can read
Speaker 1: your emails, messages, even your bank information. Secure will never
Speaker 1: mind your data and never ask for your phone number.
Speaker 1: You can send emails to your doctor, banker, lawyer, or
Speaker 1: anyone with total confidence you're not being spied on by
Speaker 1: your internet provider or big tech. Secure is your solution
Speaker 1: to stop the constant theft of your digital identity. It
Speaker 1: costs only five dollars for the messenger only ten dollars
Speaker 1: for the messenger and email combination package. Go to secure
Speaker 1: dot com and take back your privacy today. That's sekure
Speaker 1: dot com and use promo code buck for twenty five
Speaker 1: percent off. Ned Ryan stops by in a moment, Big
Speaker 1: Night and Ohio as GOP senate candidate JD. Vance won
Speaker 1: convincingly in the state primary against the strongest opponent, Josh Mandel.
Speaker 1: Vance vaulted to the lead in this primary after winning
Speaker 1: former President Donald Trump's endorsement last month, which came as
Speaker 1: a surprise to many since Vans not too long ago
Speaker 1: was an outspoken critic of both Trump and the Trump agenda,
Speaker 1: but last night he had nothing but praise for Trump
Speaker 1: during his victories. Phy, I have absolutely got to think
Speaker 1: the forty five the President of the United States, Donald J. Trump,
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen. A lot of the fake news media
Speaker 1: out there, and there are some good ones in the back.
Speaker 1: There there's some bad ones too, Let's be honest. But
Speaker 1: they wanted to write a story that this campaign would
Speaker 1: be the death of Donald Trump's America First Agenda, Ladies
Speaker 1: and gentlemen, it ain't the death of the America First Agenda.
Speaker 1: Is one of the first big primary races in the books.
Speaker 1: Here is this giving us a hint of what is
Speaker 1: going to unfold in the months ahead and leading into
Speaker 1: these midterms. Let's talk to the man who's got answers
Speaker 1: on this and a lot of things. CEO of American
Speaker 1: Majority Ned Ryan Ned. Good to see you, buddy, a book.
Speaker 1: So big win for Jady Vans, but big win in
Speaker 1: a sense for Donald Trump too. Tell us about it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: last night was incredible for Trump. He went twenty two
Speaker 1: and oh in the Indiana and Ohio primaries. Of course,
Speaker 1: the one that was getting all the attention on the
Speaker 1: national front was the Ohio Republican Ohio Senate primary, in
Speaker 1: which it was JD. Vance and Josh Mandel and five
Speaker 1: or six other candidates. Pretty interesting to see the dynamics
Speaker 1: playout book over the last two and a half weeks
Speaker 1: called eighteen Days, in which you know, JD got the
Speaker 1: endorsement on April fifteenth. My only quibble was that that
Speaker 1: I wish it had happened about thirty days earlier. JD
Speaker 1: gets the endorsement Club for Growth doubles down on their
Speaker 1: backing of Josh Mandel. But a lot of people don't
Speaker 1: know is that over the last twelve days or so,
Speaker 1: Club for Growth spent three to four million on television
Speaker 1: ads in defiance of Trump endorsement. Trump also doubled down. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior doubled down, was in Ohio working very
Speaker 1: hard on behalf of JD vance. I mean this shows
Speaker 1: that Trump is still the kingmaker in Republican primaries, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that Club for Growth spent all that money
Speaker 1: against JD in the last call it two weeks, But
Speaker 1: it was about thirty million that was spent on behalf
Speaker 1: of Josh Mandel or by Josh to actually try and
Speaker 1: win this nomination, outspending JD by best I can dell
Speaker 1: by about a two to one margin. So pretty incredible
Speaker 1: when you realize there was fourteen points made up over
Speaker 1: the last eighteen days by JD from the endorsement until
Speaker 1: his victory last night, he was down six points. Got
Speaker 1: the endorsement wins by just over eight last night, and
Speaker 1: it's pretty impressive what Trump is able to do in
Speaker 1: these Republican primaries. Here is the percentage breakdown you just
Speaker 1: kind of alluded to it there. Ned jd Vance got
Speaker 1: thirty two percent of the Ohio Senate primary vote and
Speaker 1: Josh Mendel twenty three percent, So not only a win,
Speaker 1: but a pretty considerable margin. Here it is, you said,
Speaker 1: a flip of what had seemed to be the case
Speaker 1: not long ago based on the polling. With that in mind,
Speaker 1: I mean, now the most important thing is obviously with
Speaker 1: a very I mean, I think it's gonna be. And
Speaker 1: I'm actually curious what your predictions are for how we're
Speaker 1: looking in general for GOP control of the Senate. But
Speaker 1: Tim Ryan on the Democrat side, he's gonna be. He
Speaker 1: is their nominee, and he took a little shot Advance
Speaker 1: last night. Watch this. The work is just beginning, The
Speaker 1: fight is just beginning. We're gonna heal the country, heel
Speaker 1: Ohio and in turn, heal the United States of America.
Speaker 1: I will promise you victory. Let's go, let's make this happen.
Speaker 1: Let's get this seed now. Obviously you and I are Republicans,
Speaker 1: were conservatives, so we're rooting for Vance here. But how
Speaker 1: do you think, I mean, if you're just giving me
Speaker 1: the you know, the pre the pre fight highlights here
Speaker 1: or rather prefight analysis, pardon me, not highlights, tell me
Speaker 1: how you think he stacks up against Vance. He's gonna
Speaker 1: get crushed. I mean, this is a state that Trump
Speaker 1: won by eight points both times in twenty sixteen and
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, and tack onto it a year like twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two in which you have a deeply unpopular Democratic
Speaker 1: president in the White House, in which in platitions out
Speaker 1: of control, and you're telling me that you think Tim
Speaker 1: Ryan's going to be competitive in a state like Ohio, Buck,
Speaker 1: I would think is probably going to be seven eight point.
Speaker 1: When for JD, I said publicly in an op ed
Speaker 1: not too long ago, and which I said, first of all,
Speaker 1: is a great endorsement by Trump or j D. Because
Speaker 1: I believe in Road to Damascus a fifth piece, did
Speaker 1: j D sayson some ridiculous stuff six years ago? Yeah,
Speaker 1: and we go through it actually multiple times, and which
Speaker 1: I said, you better double down on the America first
Speaker 1: and go for it. That all to say in this
Speaker 1: ot ed I said, if whoever wins the primary, Republican
Speaker 1: primarily is on the path to almost assuredly winning the
Speaker 1: general election because of the dynamics of Ohio, because of
Speaker 1: the dynamics of twenty twenty two, and further that point, Buck,
Speaker 1: I think we've got an excellent shot in picking up
Speaker 1: seats in Arizona. In Georgia, there's breaking news that the
Speaker 1: Nevada and Nevada the Police Order of Police have switched
Speaker 1: their endorsement of now endorse a Republican candidate Adam Laxalt's
Speaker 1: look at New Hampshire as well. I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: hold with Ron Johnson in Wisconsin. So I wouldn't be
Speaker 1: surprised if we have a called breta four seat pickup
Speaker 1: at a minimum in the US Senate this fall. Now
Speaker 1: we've got the PA Pennsylvania Senate primary coming up here shortly.
Speaker 1: Doctor Oz is running. Who is the Trump endorsed candidate there,
Speaker 1: I mean doctor Oz, people right who doctor Ozzes? And
Speaker 1: he's running against McCormick, who was married to Dina Powell
Speaker 1: worked in the Trump White House. He's married to Dina Powell.
Speaker 1: He's a billionaire hedge fund guy. First of all, how
Speaker 1: do you think this shakes out? And why did Oz
Speaker 1: get the endorsement over McCormick in your mind from Trump? Well,
Speaker 1: I was actually talking with Trump about a month ago
Speaker 1: through all the Center raised endorsements, and he asked me
Speaker 1: about Pennsylvania, and I said, very bluntly, I hate him all.
Speaker 1: And the next week, you know, he endorses Oz and
Speaker 1: I completely understood why he endorsed Oz over McCormick. First
Speaker 1: of all, we actually we put a posit on Ned
Speaker 1: for once, just because we actually have that endorsement. Want
Speaker 1: to have you react to it for one sec. Here, play, guys,
Speaker 1: I endorsed another person today, doctor Oz in PENNSYLVANIAA doctor Oz,
Speaker 1: great guy, a good man's good men Harvid educated, tremendous,
Speaker 1: tremendous career, and they liked him for a long time.
Speaker 1: That's like a pole, you know, when you're in television
Speaker 1: for eighteen years, that's like a pole that means people
Speaker 1: like you. But he's a he's a great guy. Sorry, Ned,
Speaker 1: as you were saying, we want to let everyone see
Speaker 1: the endorsement. There, you get no just talking with Trump
Speaker 1: about McCormick versus Os. First of all, you have political cloud.
Speaker 1: If you're Trump, you want to use it. There's only
Speaker 1: two legitimate candidates in that primary. It's Oza McCormick. McCormick
Speaker 1: is in, you know, literally in bed with the Chinese
Speaker 1: communists in a very direct way over the last thirteen
Speaker 1: years with alls investments through his OZ has actually been
Speaker 1: extremely helpful to Trump. Trump is very loyal to OZ
Speaker 1: because of especially in twenty sixteen when people were questioning
Speaker 1: Trump's health, Oz adam on his TV show and said,
Speaker 1: You're a healthy as anybody and should absolutely run for president.
Speaker 1: So there's been a relationship in which OZ has been helpful.
Speaker 1: Trump has been loyal, OZ has been loyal. McCormick is
Speaker 1: quite frankly, very bad on one of the most important
Speaker 1: issues for Trump. And tack on top of that the
Speaker 1: person that you just mentioned, Buck Dena Powell. I told people,
Speaker 1: if nothing else, the fact that Dave McCormick is married
Speaker 1: to Dena Powell, that alone is disqualifying for any endorsement
Speaker 1: from Donald Trump. Wow. Wow, why ned? I gotta why explain?
Speaker 1: I mean, I you know more about this than I do.
Speaker 1: When you want to talk about a globalist with really
Speaker 1: truly antagonistic towards an America First agenda. You know, the
Speaker 1: crap cake that is Dave McCormick. The icing on top
Speaker 1: of that is Dena Powell. And I told Trump, I said,
Speaker 1: you know, sir, I have to tell you is one
Speaker 1: of the biggest question marks in my mind. How she
Speaker 1: ever made it into your White House, because I will
Speaker 1: leaves she's deeply antagonistic towards an America First agenda. Not
Speaker 1: a good person married to Dave McCormick. And that alone,
Speaker 1: to me, if you talk to a lot of the
Speaker 1: America First types who are aware of this, Dina Pal's
Speaker 1: relationship is disqualifying. So all of these things add up,
Speaker 1: and the Trump endorsement to me makes sense. Again, Howard repeats,
Speaker 1: I don't like anybody in the Pennsylvania sent it, but
Speaker 1: I hope for Trump's sake, and I think it was.
Speaker 1: It was a hard endorsement, but he did it, and
Speaker 1: I hope that it success. Yeah. And Hattt by the way,
Speaker 1: as well, to a Trump backed candidate and friend of
Speaker 1: the show, Madison Jasiato Gilbert, who you and I both know.
Speaker 1: She won her Parties primary in Ohio's thirteenth congressional district.
Speaker 1: So we'll have to have Madison on ned. Always appreciate
Speaker 1: you coming down and tell us what's what man, You
Speaker 1: come back soon. Okay, sounds good, Thanks Bucking. A frustrated
Speaker 1: Russian military continues to face strong resistance from the Armed
Speaker 1: forces of Ukraine, but Western officials are warning that President
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin might be planning an official declaration of war
Speaker 1: in the coming days. We'll have more on what that
Speaker 1: could mean for the conflict. From the Foundation of Defensive
Speaker 1: Democracy is Bill Rogeo. Right now, I want to tell
Speaker 1: you about the newest sponsor to hold the line, this
Speaker 1: Silencer Shop. I'm a big supporter of the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: For many gun owners, using a suppressor is so important.
Speaker 1: They protect your hearing, they improve your accuracy by minimizing recoil.
Speaker 1: Suppressors are one hundred percent legal and forty three states,
Speaker 1: So if you want to practice safe, accurate shooting, the
Speaker 1: best way to get your suppressor is through the Silencer Shop.
Speaker 1: They have variety of suppressors starting just three hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty five dollars. My friends at Silencershop are the industry
Speaker 1: leaders in suppressors. They're a Texas based company that excel
Speaker 1: at customer service. Each phone call, email, direct message, or
Speaker 1: comment is answered promptly and they treat you like family.
Speaker 1: Customer service reviews are awesome. Go check them out on
Speaker 1: trust Pilot. Silencershop has an average or four point nine
Speaker 1: out of five stars on over twenty five thousand reviews.
Speaker 1: Go right now see for yourself silencershop dot com. Again.
Speaker 1: That's silencershop dot com. We'll be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold the line. Victory Day is one of the most
Speaker 1: important national holidays in Russia. Every May nine, the Russian
Speaker 1: people celebrate the anniversary of the Soviet Union's defeat of
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany in nineteen forty five with a military parade
Speaker 1: right in Moscow. But this year and the day may
Speaker 1: take on new significance. Western officials are now speculating that
Speaker 1: Russian President Vladimir Putin may use the annual celebration to
Speaker 1: officially declare war on the nation of Ukraine. The Department
Speaker 1: spokesman Ned Price gave his thoughts on the reports earlier
Speaker 1: this week. Watch I've seen the speculation that Russia may
Speaker 1: formally declare war. I suppose I would add that would
Speaker 1: be a great irony if Moscow used the occasion of
Speaker 1: Victory Day to declare war, which in itself would allow
Speaker 1: them to surge conscripts in a way they're not able
Speaker 1: to do now, in a way that would be tantamount
Speaker 1: to revealing to the world that their war effort is failing,
Speaker 1: that they are floundering in their military campaign and military objectives.
Speaker 1: So will Putin used his famous holiday to publicly declare
Speaker 1: a war on Ukraine? Do me now to add some
Speaker 1: more insight into it? As senior fellow at the Foundation
Speaker 1: for Defensive Democracies, Bill Rogier, Bill, good to see again,
Speaker 1: Thanks again, Bud always, so just walk us through this
Speaker 1: because I think that people see this this in the
Speaker 1: news story and the initial thought is, Okay, isn't Russia
Speaker 1: already at war in Ukraine? So what would an official
Speaker 1: declaration of war do? Differently, Yeah, Russia hasn't officially declared war.
Speaker 1: It says it's a it's a military action, a special
Speaker 1: military operation is what it's called. It. Declaring war would
Speaker 1: allow it to mobilize the conscripts. But that's just about it.
Speaker 1: And look, Russia is a state where if Putin decides
Speaker 1: to mobilize the conscripts without declaring war, he's going to
Speaker 1: do it. He doesn't need to declare war in order
Speaker 1: to do this. I do think the speculation about May ninth.
Speaker 1: I've been hearing about May Night for the last month,
Speaker 1: that the Russians are going to declare victory. Now that
Speaker 1: we're hearing they're going to declare war, there two very
Speaker 1: contradictory things. By the way, you had a Russian spokesman
Speaker 1: come out today and say this is absolutely untrue. We're
Speaker 1: not going to be declaring war on May Night. And no,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean he's not lying. But you know, there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of information out there that has been
Speaker 1: quite speculative about this war from the very beginning, things
Speaker 1: like the ghost to Kiev and the incident on Snake Island.
Speaker 1: The question really, you know, we'll find out on May ninth,
Speaker 1: but if we're going to find out whether this is
Speaker 1: actually one of those speculative items that didn't pan out,
Speaker 1: or whether it was actually true. You know, Forbes is
Speaker 1: reporting that quote Russia has scaled down there May ninth
Speaker 1: Victory Day parade by almost thirty five percent. The cuts
Speaker 1: are so dramatic and the plan rate so humiliating that
Speaker 1: Russia's President Vladimir Putin will let me do almost anything
Speaker 1: to keep the world from focusing overly much upon Russia's
Speaker 1: dwindling military prospect What do you make of that? I mean,
Speaker 1: I see, here's here's my concern, Bill, because at various
Speaker 1: phases here it feels like we've been through numerous news
Speaker 1: cycles of Russia is just about to go, you know,
Speaker 1: put in terms of their military ability in Ukraine, and
Speaker 1: then sure enough, there's still a lot of fighting, they're
Speaker 1: still shelling, They're still in Ukraine. So what do you
Speaker 1: make of this analysis of the Victory Day parade and
Speaker 1: Russia's dwindling prospects? Yeah, it makes sense to me that
Speaker 1: the Victory A grade is going to be smaller than
Speaker 1: it normally would. It has a significant amount of its
Speaker 1: combat horses engaged in Ukraine right now, So Russia doesn't
Speaker 1: have the capacity right now to hold a massive grade,
Speaker 1: and nor should it. I mean, the focus it's military
Speaker 1: should be fighting and winning in Ukraine and not putting
Speaker 1: together a massive the biggest Victory Day Day parades on
Speaker 1: May Night that it's ever had. So you know, again,
Speaker 1: you know, you hit a key point there, Buck, We've
Speaker 1: heard a lot of contradictory information. This is what's made
Speaker 1: following this war so difficult. We've heard the Russian morales love,
Speaker 1: they're running out of gas, They're you know, all of
Speaker 1: these things, and they've run out of gas so many
Speaker 1: times that they remain entrenched in eastern and southern Ukraine.
Speaker 1: They're they're making small incremental gains in these areas. Um.
Speaker 1: We don't know whether that's going to lead to victory
Speaker 1: of defeat for the Russians. But what I don't see
Speaker 1: is imminent collapse like we we've continually heard for the
Speaker 1: past almost two months now. I mean, here's a map
Speaker 1: of territories taken over by Russia in Ukraine and in
Speaker 1: and around that the daun Boss region here, um, so
Speaker 1: that that's currently area that is effectively under Russian control. Right,
Speaker 1: So is there you know what I would want to
Speaker 1: know at this point, because it seems like we can't
Speaker 1: get a clear answer as to what Russia would find
Speaker 1: acceptable to end the conflict. I would want to know,
Speaker 1: given that we just had a variety of members of
Speaker 1: Congress and Anti Pelosi was just over there and others
Speaker 1: meeting with Zelenski, what's an acceptable end state for the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian government right now? Considering the loss of territory that's
Speaker 1: already occurred. That's the key question that to me, it
Speaker 1: isn't what the Russians want to end this war. The
Speaker 1: Russians want to take significant areas of the south and
Speaker 1: in the east. Without a doubt, I believe the Russians
Speaker 1: would like to take over the entirety of the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: territory on the Black Sea. That would require them to
Speaker 1: go to a desa. But really, what would the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: settle for? Would they Are they going to settle for
Speaker 1: Russia conquering territory and administering Ukrainian territory probably somewhere ever
Speaker 1: ten to fifty percent of its territory. If that happens,
Speaker 1: you know where does this end? My concern here is, look,
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians. I think it's a small chance that the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians can drive the Russians out completely, but that seems
Speaker 1: to be what everyone's pushing for. There's a chance that
Speaker 1: the small chance that the Russians going to have full
Speaker 1: military victory again, I don't think that's possible, or there's
Speaker 1: a good chance that the fighting continues as it is
Speaker 1: now and that is destroying the Ukrainian society. It's not
Speaker 1: just weakening the Russians, it's destroying Ukrainian society and it
Speaker 1: could potentially lead to the collapse of the Ukrainian state.
Speaker 1: There needs to be some type of solution. As dis
Speaker 1: caseful it is to everyone, there needs to be some
Speaker 1: type of solution. And also we do risk coming up
Speaker 1: to the precipice of a nuclear conflict as well, so
Speaker 1: we have to be very careful about how we're acting.
Speaker 1: I don't see this type of thought being put in
Speaker 1: about what our next moves. Should we be talking to
Speaker 1: the Russians. Is there a way to get the Russians
Speaker 1: to draw back to the pre war lines. I'm not
Speaker 1: hearing anything like that. I'm hearing on the Ukrainian side,
Speaker 1: Ukraine victory on the Russian side, Russian annexation of significant
Speaker 1: territory in the Southones and what about the you know,
Speaker 1: going back now, because we're months into this conflict, right,
Speaker 1: and Bill, we've been having you on to talk about
Speaker 1: this and update this from the very beginning. So in
Speaker 1: the early days, you remember all of the news coverage
Speaker 1: of the Biden administration financial and economic moves against Russia,
Speaker 1: and we were told in no on certain terms that
Speaker 1: this was going to be a crushing blow to Russia's economy,
Speaker 1: and that if we just got the we put the
Speaker 1: swift sanctions in place, we do all these things, Russia's
Speaker 1: you know, almost like the Russian war machine is going
Speaker 1: to run out of gas and bullets and so they
Speaker 1: won't have a choice. Or maybe they'll run out of
Speaker 1: bread and milk on the shelves and the stores in Moscow,
Speaker 1: you know, same idea. What's the reality of the economic
Speaker 1: I don't know if we want to call it warfare,
Speaker 1: but the economic actions that were taken by you know,
Speaker 1: the West America against Russia up to this point, they
Speaker 1: were well over hype that was highly skeptical of them
Speaker 1: at the beginning. There's a very interesting map that exists
Speaker 1: out there, and it shows the countries that oppose right
Speaker 1: that are on board with sanctioning Russia, and it really
Speaker 1: just winds up being Europe, Japan, and the United States
Speaker 1: and Canada. It's there's a Russia has a lot of
Speaker 1: ability to hit other markets without a doubt. The Russians
Speaker 1: are feeling it, you know, they've lost money. But we
Speaker 1: should have learned with sanctions against Iraq, sanctions against Iran
Speaker 1: and other countries that these types of things take years,
Speaker 1: if not decades, to really have a meaningful effect, particularly
Speaker 1: when the country being sanctioned is committed and Russia can
Speaker 1: do things like build its own weapons, manufactured its own ammunition,
Speaker 1: It grows its own food, it produces its own energy.
Speaker 1: Maybe the IT companies sanctions make those things difficult and
Speaker 1: more passely. But if the Putin and Russia's determined to
Speaker 1: continue this war, the sanctions will happen to only have
Speaker 1: a marginal effect. It's a lesson. We keep learning about
Speaker 1: foreign policy over and over again. It team is kind
Speaker 1: of like the UN Security Council, not exactly good at
Speaker 1: providing security. Thanks so much to thank you. Keep learning
Speaker 1: that one. Too good to see you. The head of
Speaker 1: the American Federation of Teachers, Randy Weingarten, is speaking out
Speaker 1: about a growing mental health crisis among America's students. How
Speaker 1: that happened? The whole crisis? Oh that's right, Randy Weinarten
Speaker 1: made sure the schools shut down because she's the commissar
Speaker 1: for the teachers unions and the Democratic Party. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about this and quick hits stay with us. The head
Speaker 1: of the American Federation of teachers takes gas lighting to
Speaker 1: a new level, and doctor Deborah Burkes has spreading misinformation
Speaker 1: of her own out there or disinformation smething got stories
Speaker 1: on quick Hits. Let's get into it. As you know,
Speaker 1: I call her the Education Commissar because she is a
Speaker 1: Marxist community organizer radical, pretending to be concerned with the
Speaker 1: interests of children, when really all she's concerned with are
Speaker 1: the interests of the socialist Democrats who she represents, and
Speaker 1: that she wields power in the name of for the
Speaker 1: teachers unions. That's what this all is. Teachers unions are
Speaker 1: a huge source of funding for the Democrat Party, and
Speaker 1: the teachers unions, as you know, are also always always
Speaker 1: supportive of Democrats in a just a monolithic fashion. So
Speaker 1: it's particularly rich when you have Randy Weingarten, who is
Speaker 1: responsible for so much of the misery our children have
Speaker 1: gone through, telling everybody that our kids are in crisis
Speaker 1: because of the shutdown for schooling or two years of schooling,
Speaker 1: that she demanded on behalf of the teachers unions and
Speaker 1: work with the White House to get watch. Our kids
Speaker 1: are in crisis, and we had a mental health crisis
Speaker 1: before COVID but with and doctor Ang, we'll talk about
Speaker 1: this far better than I do. But within but for
Speaker 1: two years of disruption, two years of looking at the screens,
Speaker 1: two years of not having a normal kind of routine
Speaker 1: and rhythm recovery is really tough. Yeah, she doesn't care.
Speaker 1: He just doesn't care, not really, because she would have
Speaker 1: cared when schools were shut down and people like me
Speaker 1: were saying why they shut down? Kids aren't at risk.
Speaker 1: Doctor Burke's another person who got it very very wrong
Speaker 1: on COVID. Seems to think that the elderly are susceptible
Speaker 1: to COVID. Yeah, that's true, as children are susceptible to COVID.
Speaker 1: No wrong? Has she been asleep for like the last
Speaker 1: two years? Watch? How do you judge risk? I have
Speaker 1: to judge it every day because, like you, I have
Speaker 1: children under five, unvaccinated grandchildren, and I have a ninety
Speaker 1: three year old that lives is in our house. So
Speaker 1: I have to constantly be aware of my risk. Yet
Speaker 1: I have to work, and I think that's just what
Speaker 1: we need to do. If you have vulnerable people in
Speaker 1: your household, whether it's children or elderly, you have to
Speaker 1: continually access your risk. Children are not at risk from COVID?
Speaker 1: What is wrong? The reason there's not a vaccine for
Speaker 1: children under five is because in the clinical trials they
Speaker 1: couldn't actually show any material benefit worth making kids get
Speaker 1: the shot in the first place in that age group.
Speaker 1: And then of course there's Bill Gates jugment him yesterday,
Speaker 1: the walking pregnant man emoji. According to Elon Musk, Bill
Speaker 1: Gates assures us that Trevor assures us that COVID nineteen
Speaker 1: came from bats. Watch how do we prevent something where
Speaker 1: we don't even understand how it came to be, Like,
Speaker 1: you know, all the labs where they need to do
Speaker 1: better at at you know, in closing the work that
Speaker 1: they're doing. I understand that they have to do the work.
Speaker 1: But how do we figure that out and how do
Speaker 1: we move forward in that realm where we should we
Speaker 1: be careful about lab safety. It's quite clear in this
Speaker 1: case that it came across through animals, and almost all
Speaker 1: our diseases like hid crossed over from chimpanzees in Africa
Speaker 1: quite some time ago, a bullet came from bats. This also,
Speaker 1: with one step in between, came from bats. It's actually
Speaker 1: not clear that that's the case but who cares Bill
Speaker 1: Bill Gates is full of a lot of you know what?
Speaker 1: All right, everybody that's efferent that I to hold the line.
Speaker 1: The No Spin News with Bill o'relly is next Shills High.
Speaker 1: Each morning, the President of the United States receives a
Speaker 1: highly classified briefing on the most important issues facing the country.
Speaker 1: It's called the President's Daily Brief, or PDB. It's delivered
Speaker 1: by America's spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear
Speaker 1: your very own PDB in the form of a podcast
Speaker 1: hosted by me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer.
Speaker 1: Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country,
Speaker 1: giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to
Speaker 1: start your morning.