Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The shutdown continues. My friends,
Speaker 1: it looks like neither side is going to blink. Federal
Speaker 1: workers miss a paycheck. We're hearing a lot of stories.
Speaker 1: But what that means for them? Plus Democrats and the
Speaker 1: Senate engaging in anti Catholic bigotry, perhaps as a prelude
Speaker 1: to the fight over a looming Supreme Court seat, we'll
Speaker 1: talk about any more coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, you're a great American. Again, The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. The build before us will certainly
Speaker 1: do some good. They will authorize some badly needed funding
Speaker 1: for better fences and better security along our borders. Look,
Speaker 1: I voted numerous times when I was a Senator to
Speaker 1: spend money to build a barrier six hundred thirty miles
Speaker 1: of board offense that create a significant barrier to illegal
Speaker 1: immigration offense will stop twenty keyloads of cocaine coming through
Speaker 1: that fence. I'm deeply opposed to illegal immigration, and I
Speaker 1: call on the federal government, the President, in the Immigration
Speaker 1: services to stop the inflood of illegal immigrants into this country.
Speaker 1: The Democrats, which I've been saying all along, they don't
Speaker 1: give a damn about grime. They don't care about grime.
Speaker 1: They don't care about gang members coming in and stabbing
Speaker 1: people and cutting people up. We're spending a fortune on
Speaker 1: trying to stop drugs and they pour in through the border.
Speaker 1: But I see it more now than ever before. Democrats
Speaker 1: don't care about the border and they don't care about prime.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. I know it's Friday,
Speaker 1: and we're I promise we're gonna have some fun later
Speaker 1: on in the show and we're gonna loosen things up
Speaker 1: a bit, but we had to start there with just
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats are just lying their faces off,
Speaker 1: they really are. You know, walls don't work. What you had,
Speaker 1: you had Schumer, Hillary Obama all talking about barriers and fences,
Speaker 1: and that's the whole that's what this whole discussions about.
Speaker 1: Now they're pretending like that that means it's nothing. And
Speaker 1: you know, there's one part of this that I haven't
Speaker 1: really drilled down into. As we're in the midst of
Speaker 1: this shutdown, and I know that federal employees are not
Speaker 1: going without a paycheck for the first time. The part
Speaker 1: of this is that it's not Yes, there's huge political
Speaker 1: implications of this for twenty twenty. Yes, it matters a
Speaker 1: lot that we tackle the crisis. It is a crisis
Speaker 1: at the border, that we deal with this. But then
Speaker 1: there's also how how can we have any faith in
Speaker 1: discussions about politics and policy in this country If as
Speaker 1: Americans we can't even trust the other side to agree
Speaker 1: that a wall works, what can we trust them with
Speaker 1: If there's going to be this fundamentally false premise that
Speaker 1: is relied upon by so many millions and millions of people,
Speaker 1: and the power apparatus and the meeting the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: that all of a sudden, offense is not really offense.
Speaker 1: You know, a chair is not really a chair. This
Speaker 1: is what our politics has devolved into. We were having
Speaker 1: these conversations full of sophistry and insanity, and it really
Speaker 1: just is because Democrats are driven by emotions and desire
Speaker 1: for power, and they don't care how foolish this whole
Speaker 1: thing sounds. I have people still that look at me
Speaker 1: and said, walls don't work. I look, this is such
Speaker 1: a dumb thing to say, and look at the way
Speaker 1: that the tone the conversation has transformed. If you had
Speaker 1: said a year ago even or maybe three two, three
Speaker 1: years ago before Trump came into office. But you know,
Speaker 1: during the Obama administration, if somebody had said build a wall,
Speaker 1: and when Trump was running for president, someone said, you know,
Speaker 1: build a wall, it was oh, that's so done, and
Speaker 1: everyone clap. You know, yeah, that's right. That's such a
Speaker 1: stupid thing to say. Now that we're thinking about it
Speaker 1: and spending time looking at the issue, talking to actual experts.
Speaker 1: By the way, I am going to the border next week.
Speaker 1: I will be at a wall next week. I will
Speaker 1: be at a border meeting with border patrol, going all
Speaker 1: over the place, doing a lot of on the ground reporting.
Speaker 1: So the show will continue, obviously, I'll be doing the
Speaker 1: show from the West coast next week, but we're starting Tuesday.
Speaker 1: But I'm really looking forward to getting ground truth because
Speaker 1: these people are just lying to me all the time
Speaker 1: in the media. I know they're lying, but I'm just
Speaker 1: amazed at how brazen they are, you know, brazen they
Speaker 1: are about it. They just don't care, just like Trump said,
Speaker 1: they don't care about crime that they have. They have
Speaker 1: no real concerns about any of the stuff that's going
Speaker 1: on in the border. It's fine for them, it's fine.
Speaker 1: They pretend to care, but we know that they don't.
Speaker 1: You just hear insanely stupid things on TV from people
Speaker 1: who whose job is to go on TV and sound
Speaker 1: smart insanely dumb things. Here's over at over at MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Here's I don't know who this is, Maria Hinojosah, don't
Speaker 1: know who this is, saying that nine to eleven told
Speaker 1: us something very important about walls. This might surprise you.
Speaker 1: Plick clip five. You sound like you don't think the
Speaker 1: Democratic response was as robust as it could have been,
Speaker 1: because the problem with the Democratic response is they are
Speaker 1: continuing to play into this terrative of oh my god,
Speaker 1: border security. Border security, guys, I've been talking about this
Speaker 1: story for thirty years. For thirty years, there's been the
Speaker 1: neurosis about border security. The greatest terrorist attack in our
Speaker 1: country did not happen because someone crossed that border. It
Speaker 1: happened in our city because they got off of planes.
Speaker 1: So there it begins to feel like the wheels are
Speaker 1: just spinning, spinning, spinning, talking about border security. That's just
Speaker 1: that's just a non sequitur. You know, this is this
Speaker 1: is bringing something in the conversation has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with anything. No one is saying that our son, our
Speaker 1: southern barriers would stop all terrorist attacks. Maybe it wouldn't
Speaker 1: even stop any terrorist attacks. It doesn't matter. But there
Speaker 1: there is as you see it now, there's this desperation
Speaker 1: because there is a focus on the issue now we
Speaker 1: are talking about it. Trump has taken the message to
Speaker 1: the American people that there's all these different all there's this,
Speaker 1: and there's that. There's all these reasons that they pretend
Speaker 1: to exist for why you shouldn't do this, and you
Speaker 1: knock them down one by one. We already have barriers
Speaker 1: and fences along hundreds of miles of our border. We
Speaker 1: already know that those barriers and fences have dramatically improved
Speaker 1: security at those parts of the border. We already know
Speaker 1: that there has been bipartisan legislation passed in the last
Speaker 1: decade or so to build an entire barrier system along
Speaker 1: our southern border. You know, we have border patrol agents
Speaker 1: at the very highest level, down to the rank and file,
Speaker 1: telling us this is what they want and it would
Speaker 1: be helpful other countries. Israel among them, have built incredibly
Speaker 1: effective barrier systems that have dramatically improved their security. Schumer
Speaker 1: voted for twenty five billion dollars a year ago for
Speaker 1: border security. Now they're saying five billion is too much.
Speaker 1: One billion they're saying is too much. A dollar is
Speaker 1: too much. Just you this out and what are we
Speaker 1: What are they even talking about? They might as well
Speaker 1: be pushing around a shopping cart with with gibberish written
Speaker 1: on cardboard. This is not even a real debate, that's
Speaker 1: not even a real argument. They just keep saying things.
Speaker 1: I'm hearing that baap, but no intellectual half, no seriousness
Speaker 1: behind it whatsoever. And I think that there's a desperation
Speaker 1: that is creeping up in their minds. Because even if
Speaker 1: they just hold the line on this and say sorry,
Speaker 1: not going to give you any money for it, I
Speaker 1: think that Trumps has changed minds. He's certainly changed the
Speaker 1: conversation on this one. And we've just seen that the
Speaker 1: Democrats are the party of lawlessness and a broken border. Fine,
Speaker 1: we can't say open border because they want to process
Speaker 1: the illegals that come in and make sure that they
Speaker 1: get state benefits on Obamacare, So it's not a totally
Speaker 1: open border. They're going to slow people down before they
Speaker 1: give them taxpayer funded goodies. But it's a broken border,
Speaker 1: and they like it that way. They prefer the broken system.
Speaker 1: They do not want a fixed system that keeps people out.
Speaker 1: Every country in the world enforces its borders, we somehow
Speaker 1: are not allowed to every other country says you come,
Speaker 1: you can't, you go, you stay. We're not allowed to
Speaker 1: do that. We're mean people. If we do that, we're
Speaker 1: bad people, all of us. Doesn't matter what's your skin color,
Speaker 1: what's your ethnicity, what's your religion, if you aren't in
Speaker 1: favor of perpetuating this broken system where we are being exploited.
Speaker 1: The American people are being exploited by one political faction
Speaker 1: that knows that we are a goodhearted people that bring
Speaker 1: in a million legal immigrants every year, and we're happy
Speaker 1: for the legal immigrants who are coming into this country.
Speaker 1: We welcome into our family. But they use that good
Speaker 1: natured approach that the American people overwhelmingly share to push
Speaker 1: this issue on us and say it has to be
Speaker 1: even more more people. Illegal people, people who come into
Speaker 1: the country, illegals who commit crimes, shouldn't even be deported
Speaker 1: deportation is breaking up families. I mean, it's just all
Speaker 1: this rhetoric and lies and smears and slime. Ough Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Schumer and the whole Democrat gang. They are gross.
Speaker 1: And I'm happy that if nothing else that has been
Speaker 1: exposed for anyone with their with their eyes open, we've
Speaker 1: seen what's really what's really happening here. And now that
Speaker 1: all said, the Trump Trump understands that this is rough
Speaker 1: on on some federal employees. And I know a lot
Speaker 1: of people live paycheck to paycheck. I I lived paycheck
Speaker 1: to paycheck. I know what that's like. Not fun. But
Speaker 1: this is Trump's message for those federal employees play twenty oh,
Speaker 1: we don't have it well, He says, many many federal
Speaker 1: employees agree with what we're doing. They don't want to
Speaker 1: see people killed because we can't do a simple border structure.
Speaker 1: Everyone will be paid, we have no choice. That's what
Speaker 1: the President said, and that's an important thing for him
Speaker 1: to say. I understand that people that work for the
Speaker 1: federal government have this idea that you know, they will
Speaker 1: be they have employment forever. I mean that was kind
Speaker 1: of the sense when I was there too, and that
Speaker 1: there'll always be that paycheck, and that's one of the
Speaker 1: advantages of working for the federal government. But Trump is saying, Look,
Speaker 1: even those people that are suffering hardship, and the hardship
Speaker 1: is real who work for the federal government, understand that
Speaker 1: this is a critical issue. We have to get control
Speaker 1: of this. There are literally lives hanging in the balance,
Speaker 1: and they are going to be paid. They will be
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone has any doubt there will be paid.
Speaker 1: So people keeps saying to be shown to show up
Speaker 1: for work and not be paid. I've had lots of
Speaker 1: times in my life where I wasn't, you know, paid
Speaker 1: on time, or I didn't get the check when I
Speaker 1: was told I was going to get the check. As
Speaker 1: long as you get it in a reasonable time frame,
Speaker 1: you kind of just move on with your life, right.
Speaker 1: I've had plenty of times where I've had to, you know,
Speaker 1: cha chase down one employer or another for money that
Speaker 1: I was out. I mean, this is not unheard of
Speaker 1: for any of us. They will be paid, So I
Speaker 1: think that's also an important part of this. That's something
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't allow to get way, you know, get
Speaker 1: all out of control with the media narrative about this,
Speaker 1: and ultimately I think that Trump is is doing pretty good,
Speaker 1: pretty a pretty good job of making this case. He's
Speaker 1: just Democratic representative from Minnesota discussing where his district is
Speaker 1: on the wall. This might surprise him, he played play
Speaker 1: clip nine. They are concerned about the trade situation, but
Speaker 1: from what I can tell, they're still hanging with the president. Today,
Speaker 1: we got sixty seven calls for building the wall and
Speaker 1: five agains. So challenge to me, like, he's still pretty popular.
Speaker 1: And yet I hear from lib journals all the time,
Speaker 1: America overwhelming we disagrees with the world doesn't want a wall.
Speaker 1: Based on what one thing that you see the left
Speaker 1: do a lot and the journalists of the left, which
Speaker 1: you know is one of the same. One thing that
Speaker 1: they they do with great frequency, is this appeal to
Speaker 1: imaginary experts. Right, Oh, I have some super secret geniuses
Speaker 1: or some incredible data that I'm just going to refer
Speaker 1: to and hope that you don't call me out on
Speaker 1: it because it doesn't really exist. You know, all the
Speaker 1: studies say, all the polls say, experts, I love this
Speaker 1: one in the border. Experts say walls don't work. That's
Speaker 1: not true. I hear it all the time. People say
Speaker 1: it on TV all the time. It's not true. There
Speaker 1: are I have yet to meet an actual expert on
Speaker 1: border security who says that a barrier does not work
Speaker 1: because they know that they would be clowned if they
Speaker 1: said it, because I would have then border patrol from
Speaker 1: San Diego sector, who I'm gonna go see you next week.
Speaker 1: They'd say, no. This has helped us tremendously. Here are
Speaker 1: the stats to prove it. It's no question. It's no
Speaker 1: question they're lying to you, and they're lying for a reason.
Speaker 1: So I just wanted to dig into some of this.
Speaker 1: And we'll have some of our friends joining us on
Speaker 1: the show today that you'll be familiar with them. Sure,
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly. Maybe Jesse Kelly. He's only seven foot three,
Speaker 1: so he's got that going for him, which is nice.
Speaker 1: And then we also have I think Benny Johnson from
Speaker 1: The Daily Caller might join us for some fun that
Speaker 1: we got an expert from the Center Frommigration Studies who's
Speaker 1: gonna be calling in. It's gonna be just a good
Speaker 1: solid Freedom Haught Friday extravaganzas. So strap in team, we'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Congress should do this if they can't
Speaker 1: do it. I will declare a national emergency. I have
Speaker 1: the absolute right to do it. It says as clear
Speaker 1: as you can now what will happen. I'll be sued,
Speaker 1: it will be brought to the Ninth Circuit, and maybe
Speaker 1: even though the wording is unambiguous, just like with the
Speaker 1: travel ban, it'll be appealed to the Ninth Circuit and
Speaker 1: we'll probably lose their two and then hopefully we'll win
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court. They'll always bring it to the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit, and then you never know what's going to
Speaker 1: come out of the Ninth Circuit, and you never know
Speaker 1: what's going to come out on appeal. But fortunately we
Speaker 1: have a Supreme Court that's treated us very fairly. We
Speaker 1: have a country that is under siege. You could actually,
Speaker 1: you know a lot of people don't like the word invasion.
Speaker 1: If we have a country that's being invaded by criminals
Speaker 1: and by drug and we're going to stop it. So
Speaker 1: I want the Democrats to come back to Washington and vote.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much. Strong messaging from the President. He's right,
Speaker 1: and he knows it, and he's also right about how
Speaker 1: this is going to go down. If he does declare
Speaker 1: a national emergency. They will excuse me, they will find
Speaker 1: some way to pretend that that's, you know, beyond his authority.
Speaker 1: You know, there's the truth is that the Democrat approached
Speaker 1: the law is to just question what every word in
Speaker 1: every statute means as a form of lawfare, right, so
Speaker 1: that they can read the statute the statue. You can
Speaker 1: say the president may, in his authority, declare a state
Speaker 1: of emergency, and they will say, well, what is a state?
Speaker 1: What is an emergency? What is a president? I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is nonsense, but unfortunately it works because
Speaker 1: they don't operate in good faith on these issues. It
Speaker 1: was very clear that the president had the right to
Speaker 1: institute what became known as the travel ban. It was
Speaker 1: very obvious that the president, under his executi authority could
Speaker 1: do this, but a lot of judges pretended that he
Speaker 1: couldn't just because they didn't like it. Don't like don't
Speaker 1: like not legal. That's the way they approach it. Do
Speaker 1: I have some concerns about a national emergency? What? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: I have concerns because Democrats are nuts. Democrats are wackos. Now,
Speaker 1: they don't operate in the same universe that many of
Speaker 1: the rest of us, Do they really, Yes, there will
Speaker 1: be a national emergency on climate change, a national emergency
Speaker 1: on you know, they're going to go from the war
Speaker 1: on all these things, you know, the war on poverty,
Speaker 1: the war on guns or gun violence, you know, to
Speaker 1: a national emergency for all these things. And that's going
Speaker 1: to be a future that well, you know the problemly see,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. I'm actually just catching myself and thinking
Speaker 1: about this. We're thinking to ourselves, oh, well, if Trump
Speaker 1: does it, then the president will be said me, want
Speaker 1: to look what Obama did. He shredded the constitution and
Speaker 1: overreaches an executive many times on massive policy issues, rewrote
Speaker 1: Obamacare in real time, and they did all kinds of stuff.
Speaker 1: So it's not like if Trump doesn't declare national emergency,
Speaker 1: they won't don't do it anyway. So I'm starting to think,
Speaker 1: you know what, declare that national emergency. Man, go for it.
Speaker 1: Let's do this. Let's win on this one. Let's get
Speaker 1: a win. How about that. I agree with the president.
Speaker 1: He's doing this thing. Right, we come back, I'll talk
Speaker 1: to you about my latest making fun of CNN moment
Speaker 1: that's coming up. And as a sign of the times,
Speaker 1: in this debate on the shutdown. CNN asked if Kusi
Speaker 1: would provide a reporter to offer our local view of
Speaker 1: the debate, especially to learn if the wall works in
Speaker 1: San Diego. Kusi offered our own damn plan, who's reported
Speaker 1: many times that the wall is not an issue here.
Speaker 1: In fact, most IS officials believe it is. Effective. Issue
Speaker 1: we face is the migrants and the debate over their treatments.
Speaker 1: Now knowing this, CNN declined to have us on their programs,
Speaker 1: which often present the wall as not required in other places,
Speaker 1: like the stretch of the Texas Sport of the president
Speaker 1: visit earlier today. They didn't like what they heard from us.
Speaker 1: It's just some background for you. Oh look at that, folks.
Speaker 1: You mean you mean to tell me hold on a second,
Speaker 1: you mean that. CNN reached out to a local news
Speaker 1: station that covers the San Diego border and border wall
Speaker 1: all the time, and when they found out that, you know,
Speaker 1: they wanted to have somebody to talk to me about this.
Speaker 1: And when they found out that this is a local
Speaker 1: news station, it's not some not a Fox affiliate or
Speaker 1: anything else. When they found out this local news station
Speaker 1: says things like the wall works, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: CNN's like, yeah, I don't want to be a part
Speaker 1: of this. They had no interest in them anymore, no
Speaker 1: interest at all. I know this is not any kind
Speaker 1: of surprise to you, right, we all know that CNN
Speaker 1: is perpetuating a giant and continuing journalistic fraud by pretending
Speaker 1: that they don't have any kind of opinions and they're
Speaker 1: not pushing an agenda. I mean, that's it's laughable, right,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's dumb. But I just like it when
Speaker 1: when we finally get to hear it from fellow from
Speaker 1: some fellow journalists who have nothing, no dog in this
Speaker 1: fight other than just hey, you know, kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: CNN disappeared on us after we agreed to help them
Speaker 1: and provide insight to them. But they don't they don't
Speaker 1: want to hear it, you know, they don't want to
Speaker 1: hear it. And uh, that's that's really where where the
Speaker 1: conversation has gone. Now. People are on the left retreating
Speaker 1: into these little intellectual bunkers where they can have the
Speaker 1: usual suspects, you know, making fun of conservatives, saying that
Speaker 1: the wall is unnecessary, just just feeding them the stuff
Speaker 1: that they want to hear. Not the stuff that's true.
Speaker 1: The stuff that's true doesn't really matter to them. The
Speaker 1: stuff that's true somehow gets you know, gets swept aside,
Speaker 1: and all of this. They just want to be told
Speaker 1: what they want to be told. And that's what you
Speaker 1: see with CNN. You see this happening in a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of places right now. Speaking of seeing, and also
Speaker 1: you know, they were trying to have a debate last
Speaker 1: night with Steve Cortez, who I've actually done some hits
Speaker 1: with it Fox. I've also worked with Anna Vara over there.
Speaker 1: I think she's the worst public policy analyst and talking
Speaker 1: head on television, and that's that's saying a lot, but
Speaker 1: I think she may actually be the single worst one,
Speaker 1: the least insightful, the least intellectual. She's nasty, she's snide,
Speaker 1: she's she's honestly a not a nice person from my
Speaker 1: interactions with her, and not good at her job. But
Speaker 1: CNN loves her because she plays this character on TV
Speaker 1: for them, and and they and their audience thinks that
Speaker 1: she's you know, feisty and brilliant or I don't know
Speaker 1: what they think because they're idiots. But she while Steve
Speaker 1: Cortez is trying to talk to her about the about
Speaker 1: angel families and about the losses that have happened because
Speaker 1: the government, our government has failed in its duty to
Speaker 1: secure the borders. It's meant that people have died because
Speaker 1: of illegal aliens that have you know, drunk driving, criminally
Speaker 1: negligent homicide, emist, their teen murders, all kinds of stuff
Speaker 1: that's going on here. And this is this is how
Speaker 1: this exchange went play six. Even if that's fake, it's fake,
Speaker 1: it's fake newss. Okay, say that it's equal to the
Speaker 1: real data. It's not bs. But even if I were
Speaker 1: to even if I were to grant you that, Okay,
Speaker 1: the point is, the illegal aliens crime rate should be zero.
Speaker 1: It should be you can do your nails. You know
Speaker 1: who can't do their nails are people who've been killed
Speaker 1: Anna by dangerous, known illegal aliens who've been allowed to
Speaker 1: stay in this country because of the leftist policies that
Speaker 1: people like you promote. Steve Cortez is pretty pretty competent pundit.
Speaker 1: I gotta say I think Steve does a good job.
Speaker 1: I don't. I got no beef with Steve at all.
Speaker 1: A nice guy does a good job. You know, he's
Speaker 1: he's a conservative, and he's over at CNN, so he's
Speaker 1: just taken all kinds of all kinds of nonsense all
Speaker 1: the time. I know what that's like. But Anna Navarro,
Speaker 1: you didn't even really hear her there. She kind of
Speaker 1: just sighed. She started fighting. He's talking about people dying
Speaker 1: from illegal immigrants. Anna Navar starts filing her nails on TV,
Speaker 1: which is I would note so disrespectful. If I did
Speaker 1: something like that to Na Navarro. Oh my gosh, they
Speaker 1: would say it's racist. They would say, you know, all
Speaker 1: these other things. But they make they make all these
Speaker 1: all these these special rules up for their preferred libs
Speaker 1: on TV. They can act like they can act in
Speaker 1: such a rude fashion and act in such a nasty
Speaker 1: way and never face the conquence because CNN's a joke.
Speaker 1: It's a joke. They should just be honest about what
Speaker 1: they are now. I mean, you know, they still are
Speaker 1: coasting on this this brand of the real place for
Speaker 1: TV journalism. But it's no it's no longer a truth.
Speaker 1: If it ever was a truth, which I would argue
Speaker 1: it was never true. It's just gotten a lot less
Speaker 1: true now. But they've been so harmful in this discussion
Speaker 1: about the border and what's really going on there and
Speaker 1: what the truth is of border security measures that Trump
Speaker 1: is trying is trying to push and and they're they're
Speaker 1: so nasty about it all too. That's why I like,
Speaker 1: when I don't know how many I know a lot
Speaker 1: of you aren't on Twitter, but there's this meme with
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta whatever, Jim Acosta starts making stories about himself,
Speaker 1: which is all that guy does. I mean, he's really
Speaker 1: a buffoon. He doesn't he doesn't seem very smart at all. Uh.
Speaker 1: Whenever he does, though, people will tweet dear diary at him,
Speaker 1: dear diary, and then then whatever Jim Acosta is thinking
Speaker 1: is the whole point is that it's another they'll respond
Speaker 1: to Jim Acosta, so it's like a dear it's like
Speaker 1: a diar re entry from him. President Trump did that
Speaker 1: to him on Twitter yesterday. I mean, it's amazing, it's amazing,
Speaker 1: and from what I understand Acosta today, I read Acost
Speaker 1: today said, you know, thank you, sarcastically to the President
Speaker 1: for doing that. But I'm glad we have a president
Speaker 1: who calls them out for this this stuff. I'm glad
Speaker 1: we were a president who doesn't just justesn't just sit
Speaker 1: back and let the media run around and act like
Speaker 1: a bunch of spoiled brats all the time, because that's
Speaker 1: what they are. And somebody should finally tell you, know,
Speaker 1: you notice for a while, we haven't heard. Oh, the
Speaker 1: Trump is beating up so much on the media and
Speaker 1: he's making it dangerous for us. It's not dangerous for
Speaker 1: the media. It's just stupid. That's always that's always been
Speaker 1: a cry baby point. Yeah, any job can be dangerous.
Speaker 1: Maniacts and come after you at any job, manis and
Speaker 1: come after you because they're just get obsessed with you
Speaker 1: when you walk out your front door. You know, you
Speaker 1: never know. But the media loves loves to run around
Speaker 1: and act like they're just so brave. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to you about how the Democrats are engaging in
Speaker 1: Democrats in the Senate, for example, engaging in anti Catholic
Speaker 1: bigotry that ties right into the looming battle of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. It's important story that's coming up. The Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has a problem with traditional believing Christians, There's no
Speaker 1: question about it, okay, And I know that a lot
Speaker 1: of people would say oh buck, But what about this,
Speaker 1: you know, social justice pastor here, or what about this.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that all of them do, but there's
Speaker 1: clearly an issue. If you are a rabid anti Christian atheist,
Speaker 1: chances are you're a Democrat, not always, but generally speaking.
Speaker 1: And if you're going to look for government policy that
Speaker 1: tramples on religious freedom, whether it's suing the Little Sisters
Speaker 1: of the poor, or forcing people to take down a
Speaker 1: cross that was put along the side of a highway
Speaker 1: to commemorate somebody getting killed there, or you know, any
Speaker 1: number of things, it comes from the left. The left
Speaker 1: is where hostility to Christian and traditional Jewish faith comes from.
Speaker 1: Not to know Islamic faith, no Islamic faith. They have
Speaker 1: no hostility at all, and they have no problem with it.
Speaker 1: Which is a whole other discussion that ties into intersectionality
Speaker 1: and identity politics and the way that the left views
Speaker 1: Islam is a non white religion and therefore it's inherently
Speaker 1: in a religion of the oppressed, even though it's the
Speaker 1: second largest religion in the world and it's the majority
Speaker 1: religion in Gosh, I don't even forty fifty countries. Something
Speaker 1: like that. Maybe sixty countries. So that's that's just a
Speaker 1: bit of a underlying premise that I wanted to put
Speaker 1: out there before I get into this story, because you know,
Speaker 1: things are going to get as soon as we find
Speaker 1: out that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and I really do believe
Speaker 1: it if she Heaven forbid, if something happens to her,
Speaker 1: but she is still you know, she could be incapacitated
Speaker 1: in some way, and the Libs will say that she's still,
Speaker 1: you know, sitting on the Supreme Court, and that's that.
Speaker 1: It does not matter. They are absolutely all in on
Speaker 1: Ruth Bader Ginsburg until there's a new president. They don't
Speaker 1: care what they don't care what they have to do,
Speaker 1: but they're also preparing for the fight that they might
Speaker 1: not be able to stop from happening, which would occur
Speaker 1: if there is a vacancy that opens up. But maybe
Speaker 1: it's not Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Maybe it's another vacancy, Maybe
Speaker 1: another Supreme Court justice gets gets tired, wants to go
Speaker 1: fly fish. Who knows, but Kamala Harris, who is now
Speaker 1: I think considered by a lot of insider types at
Speaker 1: least the front runner for the Democrat twenty twenty nomination.
Speaker 1: The front runner status is going to change hundreds of
Speaker 1: times between now and the actual primary, but she has
Speaker 1: shown us a side of her that is indicative of
Speaker 1: where the Democrats are many on many issues that deal
Speaker 1: with Catholics who believe in Catholic doctrine, and I will
Speaker 1: not get into a long, a long discussion right now
Speaker 1: about I don't know how Catholics vote for Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: I don't know how Catholics vote for Joe Biden. I
Speaker 1: don't understand if you really believe, you know, if you're
Speaker 1: somebody who believes, and if you're a Catholic and you
Speaker 1: believe in Church doctrine and you believe in the dogma,
Speaker 1: then you would have to be pro life. You would
Speaker 1: have to be for traditional marriages between a man and
Speaker 1: a woman. And so I don't know how people who
Speaker 1: think those things believe those things and think that they're
Speaker 1: moral issues of especially on the life issue. The marriage
Speaker 1: issue I think is as fuzzier for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: But on the issue of life, I don't know how
Speaker 1: that doesn't. I don't I really mean that, I don't
Speaker 1: know what these A lot of these Catholics that I
Speaker 1: know are thinking and you get these Catholics that are
Speaker 1: all about open borders and social justice, and I'm like, wait,
Speaker 1: what what's going on here? You're going to support the
Speaker 1: party that is for all kinds of just outright immorality. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris posed a series of questions recently to Brian Boucher,
Speaker 1: who is President Trump's nominee for the District Court in Nebraska.
Speaker 1: Here's her third question. Since nineteen ninety three, you have
Speaker 1: been a member of the Knights of Columbus, an all
Speaker 1: male society comprised primarily of Catholic men. In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: Carl Anderson, leader of the Knights of Columbus, described abortion
Speaker 1: as a legal regime that has resulted in more than
Speaker 1: forty million deaths. Mister Anderson went on to said abortion
Speaker 1: is the killing of the innocent on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed a
Speaker 1: woman's right to choose when you joined the organization? Harris
Speaker 1: wasn't finished there. She followed up with quote, were you
Speaker 1: aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when
Speaker 1: you joined the organization? And have you in any way
Speaker 1: ever assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women's reproductive rights.
Speaker 1: This is bigotry, by the way, This is anti Catholic
Speaker 1: bigotry that is on display. And Democrats do this all
Speaker 1: the time. They did this with what was her name,
Speaker 1: Feinstein saying the dogma lives strongly within you to to
Speaker 1: a nominee not that long ago, who was a Catholic.
Speaker 1: And what you see here is, first of all, I
Speaker 1: mean the hostility to the Knights of Columbus. The Knights
Speaker 1: of Columbus is a is the largest fraternal Catholic organization
Speaker 1: I think that there is. It's got two million members,
Speaker 1: was founded by a priest in Connecticut, I believe memory
Speaker 1: serves back in eighteen eighty one a parish meeting and
Speaker 1: that was an eighteen toy one announced an organization of
Speaker 1: two million people that believes in charity, patriotism and faith.
Speaker 1: And now your membership in the Knights of Columbus is
Speaker 1: a point of not just inquiry, but a point of
Speaker 1: attack for Democrats. And that Kamala Harris thinks that she
Speaker 1: can get away with this, and she can, by the way,
Speaker 1: because people will excuse it, and they they they have
Speaker 1: no problem creating a religious test for federal judges for
Speaker 1: Supreme Court nominees, because that's how devoted they are to
Speaker 1: continuing what she called to women's right to choose, which
Speaker 1: is the right to an abortion, which is to kill
Speaker 1: a baby. And that's I would note what you're going
Speaker 1: to see come up if there's if there's a seat
Speaker 1: that opens for Ruth Bader Ginsburg or any other liberal
Speaker 1: on the Court, the most likely candidate still is Amy
Speaker 1: Coney Barrett. That could change, but it'll be Amy Coney Barrett,
Speaker 1: who is a female Catholic and a devout Catholic with many,
Speaker 1: many children. And the ugliness that you're going to see
Speaker 1: is all about a woman's quote right to choose, essentially
Speaker 1: a legalized regime for abortion. That's what it is. We
Speaker 1: should call it what it is. And being a Catholic,
Speaker 1: Democrats will be willing to do this. Being a Catholic,
Speaker 1: they will say, who is a believing Catholic? Not a
Speaker 1: kind of Christmas in Easter or wishywashy Catholic. A believing
Speaker 1: Catholic will be a disqualifying a disqualifying condition for an
Speaker 1: open Supreme Court. Sea think about if they applied that
Speaker 1: logic too, and they already do this. They already gang
Speaker 1: up on Catholics who are going to be judges in general,
Speaker 1: But think about what they did that to any other religion.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine asking any questions of a Jewish or
Speaker 1: Muslim jurist based upon the tenets of the faith and
Speaker 1: essentially say you can't be trusted to be a real
Speaker 1: judge whose impartial applies the law because of your faith tradition.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine the backlash would be to that. How
Speaker 1: understandably upset people would be in response to that, But
Speaker 1: not with Catholics, not with Catholics, and no, I would
Speaker 1: not with any Christian denomination in this country. Oh, Catholics
Speaker 1: get it particularly believing Catholics get it particularly rough from
Speaker 1: the left. And I would just note that there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of irony here as well, because when Michael McGivney,
Speaker 1: who was the Catholic priest who founded what became the
Speaker 1: Knights of Columbus named for Christopher Columbus by the way
Speaker 1: back in Connecticut, it was because Catholic were being discriminated against.
Speaker 1: We don't often talk about this in this country anymore,
Speaker 1: but you know, the ku Klux Klan hated Catholics. That's
Speaker 1: what one of the K's supposed to stand for. They
Speaker 1: didn't like Catholics. The American society more generally was very
Speaker 1: discriminatory against Catholics, especially around the turn of the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: So you know, it was a big deal when JFK
Speaker 1: became the first Catholic president. This there's some stuff here,
Speaker 1: there's some stuff here, and there's a little bit of
Speaker 1: discrimination coming back into this in a way that I
Speaker 1: think it's going to get blown into the open. If
Speaker 1: you have that open Supreme Court seat, being a Catholic
Speaker 1: who is a believing Catholic will be used as a disqualifier,
Speaker 1: a litmus test for the Supreme Court. That's that's what
Speaker 1: the Libs, the left, we'll be willing to do. It's disgusting.
Speaker 1: But as we know from the Kavanaugh hearings, they have
Speaker 1: no principles, They have no honor or integrity to protect.
Speaker 1: They just want to protect power, and they think that
Speaker 1: that seat is owed to their ideology. One way or another.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be uh, it's gonna be tense. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network the only dual certified veteran known background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company out there in the whole country. Folks, They
Speaker 1: are the people you need to go to. If you're
Speaker 1: in an HR department, if you've got a small business
Speaker 1: or a huge business, have them do your background checks.
Speaker 1: Some of you probably already have a contract with somebody
Speaker 1: else to do this. Global Verification does it better, smarter,
Speaker 1: and more efficiently for you. And if you have a
Speaker 1: specific issue or problem, they tailor the program to your needs. Okay.
Speaker 1: They are independently certified by the National Veteran Business Development Council,
Speaker 1: and that's the only minority spend certification recognized by the
Speaker 1: Billion Dollar Roundtable. These guys are the ones you need
Speaker 1: to go to. They are risk mitigation experts that you
Speaker 1: can see for yourself. Go TOMGVN dot com again. The
Speaker 1: website is MYGVN dot com or call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine for Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Make sure you tell them Bucksex and sent you leave
Speaker 1: no stone unturned. We continue to see an influx of
Speaker 1: people who, as you describe these humanitarians got yesterday, we
Speaker 1: had four hundred and fifty AFPREHIDIS president yesterday alone. You
Speaker 1: have two hundred and four and fifty out of that
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty s three from countries other than
Speaker 1: the Central American countries. In Mexico, India, we apprehended some
Speaker 1: Pakis and agreed some folks from romanias on and on.
Speaker 1: How many pakistan Asias too? Yesterday, just yesterday down at
Speaker 1: the Rio Grand section of the border with President visiting
Speaker 1: the Collin Texas, you heard there from a border patrol
Speaker 1: agent that you had not just four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: apprehensions in that one sector that one day, some from India,
Speaker 1: Pakistan and Romania. What is going on the border and
Speaker 1: how big of a crisis is this really? We have
Speaker 1: Art Arthur joining us now. He is a resident fellow
Speaker 1: in law and Policy at the Center for Immigration Studies. Art,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Thank you for having me. Buck. All right, so,
Speaker 1: how how would you gauge the situation right now at
Speaker 1: the border? You know, what is the truth of how
Speaker 1: this is or is not a crisis? Oh, it's it's
Speaker 1: a huge crisis right now. About sixty one percent of
Speaker 1: all the migrants who are being apprehended along that border
Speaker 1: or family units who are unaccompanied alien children. This is
Speaker 1: an astounding number that keeps going up month by month,
Speaker 1: particularly compared to the early days of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: when I was a trial attorney with the ISS. When
Speaker 1: I started out as an immigration judge back in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, most of the aliens we saw crossing
Speaker 1: over that border were single adult males from Mexico. Now
Speaker 1: we're almost you know again, the majority of the people
Speaker 1: that we're seeing are families with children from Central America,
Speaker 1: particularly from three Central American countries, El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
Speaker 1: But as the clip indicated, we're also seeing people from
Speaker 1: other countries including Pakistan, Romania, all over the world that
Speaker 1: have taken advantage of our lacks border policies to come
Speaker 1: to the United States. So it's a crisis, and how
Speaker 1: do we how should we handle this crisis? I mean,
Speaker 1: if you were to give me, yes, the wall is
Speaker 1: the center of the policy fight right now. But if
Speaker 1: we really wanted what could be considered a secure border
Speaker 1: doesn't mean perfect, it doesn't mean that there can't be
Speaker 1: a cartel tunnel somewhere, and you know that that people
Speaker 1: aren't going to get through here and there. But if
Speaker 1: we wanted something that I think there could be agreement
Speaker 1: deserves to be called secure, what do we what do
Speaker 1: we have to do? Are how do we fix it.
Speaker 1: The most important thing that we can do is to
Speaker 1: close the loopholes that are being exploited by the smugglers
Speaker 1: and by those aliens who are coming to the border
Speaker 1: right now. In a twenty one year old settlement agreement
Speaker 1: that was reached by the Clinton administration, people are children
Speaker 1: are released after twenty days. This is the Flores Degree
Speaker 1: Right's Flores Right Flores settlement agreement. It doesn't matter whether
Speaker 1: they come with their parents or without their parents. And
Speaker 1: the fact is that the Trump administration as a policy
Speaker 1: of not separating families. So if the children get released,
Speaker 1: the adults get released. And that's why we're getting sixty
Speaker 1: one percent of the people showing up at the border
Speaker 1: being family units and kids because they know that they're
Speaker 1: going to get released. So the status right now, and
Speaker 1: I think that there's a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: people are reporting on what they want to report on
Speaker 1: here and not necessarily what's really going on. The status
Speaker 1: right now is if you show up from any foreign country,
Speaker 1: if you show up at a southern border with somebody
Speaker 1: who is a minor, what do you have to do
Speaker 1: to get into the country? And I mean, who's being
Speaker 1: turned away in that situation. Is anyone being turned away
Speaker 1: in that situation right away? Well, what's supposed to happen
Speaker 1: is that they're supposed to be processed for expedited removal.
Speaker 1: And as that sounds, they don't appear before an immigration
Speaker 1: judge and immigration officer makes the determination, we get them
Speaker 1: travel documents, and we send them back home. That's how
Speaker 1: it's supposed to work. But if you claim credible fear,
Speaker 1: then you get to have an interview with an asylum officer.
Speaker 1: And about eighty nine percent of all aliens who are
Speaker 1: interviewed by asylum officers are found to have a credible fear.
Speaker 1: It's very low standards, lower than the standard for asylum
Speaker 1: well founded fear of persecution. And so consequently eighty nine
Speaker 1: percent of all the people who claim credible fear are
Speaker 1: admitted to the United States, so that can apply for
Speaker 1: asylum before an immigration judge. But at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, nationals of those three countries El Salvador, Honduras,
Speaker 1: Guatemala last year in FY two and eighteen, nine percent
Speaker 1: of those asylum claims were actually granted. So eighty nine
Speaker 1: percent we're found to have credible fear, nine percent got asylum.
Speaker 1: That's a huge disconnect that is allowing these folks into
Speaker 1: the United States. And again, these tearings can take up
Speaker 1: to eight years to be done. We do we have
Speaker 1: good numbers are on what So what you just told
Speaker 1: me is that of the people who claim credible fear,
Speaker 1: only nine percent, so basically one in ten are actually
Speaker 1: given asylum in this country. But what about the ninety percent,
Speaker 1: I mean they're supposed to be removed. Do we know
Speaker 1: how many are actually being removed? Very few, exceptionally less
Speaker 1: than ten percent of being removed annually. And we have
Speaker 1: about we have more than nine hundred thousand alien absconders
Speaker 1: in the United States. And but those are people who
Speaker 1: have already had their due process, have had their day
Speaker 1: in court, have been given the opportunity to make an
Speaker 1: application before an immigration judge, have been ordered removed, but
Speaker 1: who remained in the United States. So that's about ten
Speaker 1: percent of the illegal alien population in this country. A
Speaker 1: little bit less, but still it's a huge number. What
Speaker 1: can you tell us about about research that you've done
Speaker 1: on barriers and what we should know about the sectors
Speaker 1: of our southern border that do in fact have fencing
Speaker 1: barriers walls, whatever, whatever the specifics may be. Well, again,
Speaker 1: I don't want to show my age, but a bit
Speaker 1: around immigration for a long time, and you know, I've
Speaker 1: seen the various operations that we've done. Operation Hold the
Speaker 1: Line in El Paso, they put up a wall. Uh,
Speaker 1: the number of illegal entrance, you know, dropped dramatically. Operation Gatekeeper,
Speaker 1: we put up a wall in San Diego and the
Speaker 1: numbers dropped dramatically. Yuma, Arizona, we put up a wall,
Speaker 1: the numbers dropped dramatically. These things work. The walls work
Speaker 1: where we have them, and what they do is they
Speaker 1: actually push attempted migrants, are attempted illegal migrants into more
Speaker 1: remote areas where it's more difficult to cross. The harder
Speaker 1: we make it for those folks across, the fewer people
Speaker 1: logically who would be attempting to cross. But you know,
Speaker 1: these these these laws, including Flores and the Credible Fear
Speaker 1: Standard Act, like the like the Witch's House and Handling Gretel.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're an attractive nuisance that draw people
Speaker 1: to those dangerous parts of the border. And unfortunately that's
Speaker 1: why we saw two children die last month because the
Speaker 1: parents are attempting to make entry through you know, desolate,
Speaker 1: remote areas, rather than simply going to the United Nations
Speaker 1: High Commissioner for Refugees in their own country and making
Speaker 1: their refugee claims there, which is what they should be doing,
Speaker 1: more alternatively, applying for asylum in Mexico. Mexico's an asylum
Speaker 1: granting country and actually has more lenient asylum laws than
Speaker 1: we do in the United States. The fact that these
Speaker 1: people are not doing that suggests that their economic migrants
Speaker 1: and not actually refugees fleeing persecution. There has been some
Speaker 1: reporting we're speaking of Art Arthur everybody. He's a resident
Speaker 1: fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies.
Speaker 1: It's been some reporting that another caravan convoy whatever we
Speaker 1: call it, is gathering in Honduras to make its way
Speaker 1: all the way up to the US Mexico border. And
Speaker 1: at least this time around, I think we won't be told, oh,
Speaker 1: it will never get there. They'll they'll it'll just dissipate
Speaker 1: because people have realized that there there are buses and
Speaker 1: trains and ways to move faster than just on foot.
Speaker 1: What what happens right now under US policy, if we
Speaker 1: get let's say, another thousand migrants from Honduras show up
Speaker 1: at our border, they just get to claim incredible fear
Speaker 1: and be led into the United States. Is that how
Speaker 1: it goes, That's correct. That's why the president's policy of
Speaker 1: you know, not allowing individuals who enter the United States
Speaker 1: illegally to claim asylum to get them to the ports
Speaker 1: of entry Mexico is indicated that they'll take care of
Speaker 1: them while they're in Mexico so that they can be
Speaker 1: processed in an orderly fashion at the ports of entry,
Speaker 1: rather than you know, attempting to enter through the bootheel
Speaker 1: of New Mexico, which is the most desolate place I've
Speaker 1: ever been to, and you know, run the risk of
Speaker 1: them or their children dying. It's also important to note
Speaker 1: the dangers that opposed by the smugglers about I think
Speaker 1: it's something like thirty one percent of all female migrants
Speaker 1: who make that journey or sexually assaulted. Two thirds of
Speaker 1: the migrants in total are assaulted in one way or
Speaker 1: the other subject to some sort of violence. So this
Speaker 1: is amazingly dangerous process by which these people enter the
Speaker 1: United States. And again, the humanitarian thing to do is
Speaker 1: to process them in the first country that they come
Speaker 1: to Mexico or alternatively, have them go to the un
Speaker 1: HCR in their own country to make their refugee claims
Speaker 1: and they can be processed through there. Or do you
Speaker 1: think that the president declaring an emergency is the right
Speaker 1: I mean, you're a fellow in law and policy. Do
Speaker 1: you think that this is the right move if, in fact,
Speaker 1: the Democrats don't give him a single dollar for additional
Speaker 1: barrier construction, which seems to be the direction this is heading. Well,
Speaker 1: Miss Pelosi said that she would give one dollar, so
Speaker 1: I mean, okay, a fair point. I don't think that's
Speaker 1: going to be enough to do a whole lot of good,
Speaker 1: But declaring a national emergency in response to a humanitarian
Speaker 1: crisis probably would be something that would be appropriate. It's
Speaker 1: something that the president has the authority to do, but
Speaker 1: I think that that's something that he's actually going to
Speaker 1: be rather reluctant to do. One of the reasons why,
Speaker 1: amongst the reasons why the Obama administration was criticized as
Speaker 1: because they did too much through administrative action. They granted
Speaker 1: amnesty temporary anest CE albeit to you know, six hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety thousand Dreamers, they continued temporary protected status for
Speaker 1: you know, dozens of years for you know, nationals of
Speaker 1: countries who had long since moved past the crises that
Speaker 1: prompted those declarations to begin with. So again, the president,
Speaker 1: you know, campaigned against things that President Obama did, which
Speaker 1: was seizing too much power. I think the President's going
Speaker 1: to be very reluctant to use that power himself, but
Speaker 1: he may have to yet, Art Arthur, everybody from the
Speaker 1: Center for Immigration Studies CIS dot org if you want
Speaker 1: to see their latest research and art. We always appreciate
Speaker 1: you making the time. Thank you, Buck, I greatly appreciate
Speaker 1: you having team. We'll be right back. You know what's
Speaker 1: smart kicking off twenty nineteen by planning out which roles
Speaker 1: your business needs to hire for. You know what else
Speaker 1: is smart? Using zip recruiter to start the new year
Speaker 1: off strong. That's right, zip recruiter dot com to hire
Speaker 1: the right people. Unlike other job sites, zip recruiter finds
Speaker 1: qualified candidates for you. It's powerful matching technologies against thousands
Speaker 1: of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education,
Speaker 1: and experience and actively invites them to apply to your job,
Speaker 1: so you get qualified candidates fast. That's why zip recruiter
Speaker 1: is rated number one by employers in the US, and
Speaker 1: this rating comes from trusted hiring sites like trust Pilot
Speaker 1: with over a thousand reviews. Right now, my listeners can
Speaker 1: try zip recruiter for free at its exclusive web address,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. If you love this show,
Speaker 1: show your support team. Go to zip recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's zip recruiter dot com slash buck for
Speaker 1: whatever your job is, wherever you are across the country.
Speaker 1: Because zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire, working
Speaker 1: people have done their share. For decades, working people have
Speaker 1: gotten more and more productive. At the same time, they've
Speaker 1: gotten a smaller and smaller share of the wealth they create.
Speaker 1: Here's the truth, brothers and sisters. There's plenty of money
Speaker 1: in the world. There's plenty of money in this city.
Speaker 1: It's just in the wrong hands. That is some pretty
Speaker 1: radical rhetoric coming from the mayor of the largest city
Speaker 1: in the United States. That's uh, de Blasio really starting
Speaker 1: to unleash that that that progressive, that really that Marxist,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean de Blasio. I think he was
Speaker 1: the one who went and hung out with the Sandinista's
Speaker 1: a Nicaragua of memory serves. I mean he really is,
Speaker 1: or he went down to Cuba to hang out with
Speaker 1: you know, he's one of these guys who like to
Speaker 1: do a little bit of commi tourism back in the day.
Speaker 1: You know. De Blasio is somebody who you know went
Speaker 1: to Ye. You know, he's he's checked all the boxes
Speaker 1: for the liberal elite and yet pretends to be at
Speaker 1: his core what it's actually a Marxist rabble rouser. But
Speaker 1: think about that. There's plenty of wealth in this city.
Speaker 1: It's just in the wrong hands, in the wrong hands.
Speaker 1: This is not oh, we need to have a more
Speaker 1: robust social safety net. This is not you know, our
Speaker 1: city is doing great, let's improve public services, you know,
Speaker 1: the usual rhetoric you hear from Democrats and Republicans. This
Speaker 1: is something else, and it's coming from a guy who
Speaker 1: we've started to see now getting more attentional the national
Speaker 1: stage for pushing policies that are are flatly socialists. I
Speaker 1: mean are just openly state confiscation of resources to give
Speaker 1: resources to other people on the basis of because we
Speaker 1: say so, and telling businesses that they have to transfer
Speaker 1: more of their resources more of their money to either
Speaker 1: employees or to unions or whatever it may be. But
Speaker 1: I think that you're going to hear more of this now.
Speaker 1: I think that the Progressives can't help themselves. I don't
Speaker 1: think that they are going to run Joe Biden for
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. I think that the anger that has festered
Speaker 1: within the Democratic Party in the Trump era, and a
Speaker 1: lot of the anger also at the Hillary establishment of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, because remember, Hillary was supposed to the
Speaker 1: biggest selling point for Hillary to the hard left, which
Speaker 1: didn't win over all the Bernie Sanders people, to be sure,
Speaker 1: but but the biggest selling point that they had was
Speaker 1: that Hillary was going to win. She was somebody you
Speaker 1: were supposed to vote for because she was going to win.
Speaker 1: But now what we see is something quite different on
Speaker 1: the left that they know that obviously Hillary didn't win,
Speaker 1: and for all the Russia collusion talking everything else, that's
Speaker 1: never it's never gonna change. Okay, there's no redo for
Speaker 1: the election, and you know, Hillary's out of the picture.
Speaker 1: I finally now believe that she's done. What what happened was,
Speaker 1: I mean, I've I've come to accept that for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: Hillary knows that it's all over um. That could change,
Speaker 1: but I think there's such a crowded field of of
Speaker 1: Democrats they're going to try to muscle in and be
Speaker 1: the standard bearer for the party. There's just no way.
Speaker 1: But you're gonna you know, the the the rhetoric and
Speaker 1: the attitudes of the progressive left that have been you know,
Speaker 1: shown to us in the Kavanaugh hearing, shown to us
Speaker 1: in you know, these by these Antifa groups and these
Speaker 1: uh harassment outfits that show up and yell at people
Speaker 1: at restaurants and and and are really aggressive and crazy.
Speaker 1: That that means that you're going to have increasingly radical
Speaker 1: rhetoric use for by national level Democrat politicians. I really
Speaker 1: think that's going to happen now, especially heading into the election,
Speaker 1: because these people, you know, the ones who are are
Speaker 1: from the Olynski Hite school of Democrat community organizing, agitation activism,
Speaker 1: which is most of the of the Democrats that you
Speaker 1: can think of it, or at least whether they've studied Olynsky,
Speaker 1: they at least they at least deploy a similar rhetoric
Speaker 1: and mirror many of the Olynsky tactics. They also realize
Speaker 1: that you know, much of your your success as a
Speaker 1: radical comes in understanding when the time is right, you
Speaker 1: have to you know, you have to strike when the
Speaker 1: iron is hot. You have to hit when you have
Speaker 1: your opening. And I believe that the progressives thing that
Speaker 1: they they have an opening right now when we've gotten
Speaker 1: a little bit as a country, a little fat and happy.
Speaker 1: You know, we've we've had this this big bullmarket for
Speaker 1: a long time. We've had a lot of prosperity. It's
Speaker 1: been you know, and it has not been equally shared.
Speaker 1: But overall, if you look at it, I mean, you'd
Speaker 1: the true thing is people want to hear this. You
Speaker 1: would be in terms of your day to day life.
Speaker 1: You'd rather be middle class today than you would in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty. No one who wants to hear that. But
Speaker 1: it's true on a material prosperity level. I'm not saying,
Speaker 1: you know, spiritual and social level, but in terms of
Speaker 1: what you've got access to now whereas what you would
Speaker 1: access to them. We are we are all personally wealthy
Speaker 1: or overwhelmingly in this country than we would have been
Speaker 1: sixty years ago. But Deblasio saying the money's in the
Speaker 1: wrong hands, you know, this is this is otherising those
Speaker 1: who are doing well in a way that that can
Speaker 1: lead to some very ugly policies, and those ugly policies
Speaker 1: can lead to some really difficult and dangerous times. So
Speaker 1: I'll just know what I mean. That really struck me.
Speaker 1: You know that the rich are exploiting you, that it's
Speaker 1: not really their money, it should be your money. This
Speaker 1: isn't what you would think that you'd hear from the
Speaker 1: mayor of the biggest city in the country. This is
Speaker 1: the stuff that you'd hear from some street corner rabble
Speaker 1: rouser activist type. But remember, we had a street activist
Speaker 1: in the Olenski I mold from Chicago who was president
Speaker 1: for eight years. I wanted to fundamentally transform the country.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have another one who thinks he's gonna complete
Speaker 1: Obama's work. Just wait and see. That's what they're going
Speaker 1: to put up for the twenty twenty election. AI will
Speaker 1: increasingly replace repetitive jobs, not just for blue color work,
Speaker 1: but a lot of the white color work. A lot
Speaker 1: of things will become automated, will have automated stores, automated restaurants,
Speaker 1: and all together in fifteen years fast going to displace
Speaker 1: about forty percent of jobs in the world. Forty percent
Speaker 1: of jobs in the world might might go away. Now
Speaker 1: this is I think the single most important social and
Speaker 1: economic issue that we're going to have to face of
Speaker 1: the next fifty years, honestly, and I'm the first to
Speaker 1: admit that no one can predict the future. So who knows.
Speaker 1: We could have some strain of flu that goes crazy
Speaker 1: and kill sixty million people, which is what happened. I
Speaker 1: think forty million were killed by Spanish influenza back in
Speaker 1: the early twentieth century flu season. I got told by
Speaker 1: a guy who's senior at CDC on Rising or was
Speaker 1: it CDC or is one of those places. He's like,
Speaker 1: get your flu shot buck. I said, all right, all right,
Speaker 1: I'll get it. But back the issue at a hand.
Speaker 1: Here this is a venture capitalist and artificial intelligence pioneer
Speaker 1: named Kai Fu Lee who is saying what many other
Speaker 1: top minds in technology and in venture capital, and essentially
Speaker 1: some of the highest performing entrepreneurs out there are saying
Speaker 1: about all this, and that is that they think that
Speaker 1: we are heading into a period where there's just going
Speaker 1: to be massive disruptions to labor. And you know, people
Speaker 1: in the past have said that this was going to
Speaker 1: be a problem and they were wrong, right that there's
Speaker 1: there's definitely a tradition of exaggeration around oh all these
Speaker 1: all the jobs are going to go away? What's going
Speaker 1: to happen this? This brings me to I think I've
Speaker 1: even at a previous time done a history on the
Speaker 1: show of the Luddite movement and it had to do
Speaker 1: with automated looms for weavers in the UK. And it
Speaker 1: was this apocryphal character known as ned Lud who is
Speaker 1: you know, Gonna, who was supposed to have been the
Speaker 1: the originator of this notion that we should they should
Speaker 1: destroy the looms. But you know, there is something very
Speaker 1: different now about the kind of technological leaps that we
Speaker 1: are talking about and what it's going to mean for
Speaker 1: people to do labor, meaning to do especially if you're
Speaker 1: doing a physical task, right, if you're doing a physical task,
Speaker 1: how is that going to continue on when machinery is
Speaker 1: going to do this? And this is what brings up
Speaker 1: this conversation about And there's so many facets to this,
Speaker 1: and it's one of it's going to be a continuing
Speaker 1: theme here on the show. We're going to talk about
Speaker 1: automation and not just job losses, but the way it's
Speaker 1: going to reconstruct many societies and the way it's going
Speaker 1: to change how we how we interact with each other,
Speaker 1: and what it means for wealth generation, the wealth gap
Speaker 1: that is a very real problem in many societies. I
Speaker 1: think it's going to become a bigger problem even in
Speaker 1: our society. It'll lead to social disruption and perhaps even
Speaker 1: revolutions in some places. I mean, this is really really
Speaker 1: serious stuff. But that's why I want to continue to
Speaker 1: look at this because it also goes to some of
Speaker 1: what Tucker Carlson's monologue that went viral and has gotten
Speaker 1: so much attention goes to, which is, you know, people
Speaker 1: start talking about a massive welfare state and universal basic
Speaker 1: income and these ideas where work will be if not devalued.
Speaker 1: But I think you could argue it will be devalued,
Speaker 1: but work also will become for more people consider to
Speaker 1: be extraneous, and that the state will just have an
Speaker 1: obligation to provide for people. And because we'll be living
Speaker 1: at a time of so much technology and abundance and
Speaker 1: and relative comfort, there will be this sense that maybe
Speaker 1: people don't have to work, and and you know this
Speaker 1: this then reminds me of a story that I was
Speaker 1: told back in when I was in the when I
Speaker 1: was at Saint David's, which was a Catholic school. I
Speaker 1: went to New York City. We had this one uh
Speaker 1: teacher who and I don't remember the para bowl or
Speaker 1: the details of it, but he told the story about
Speaker 1: how this guy was in what he thought was heaven
Speaker 1: and all and he could he any food he wanted
Speaker 1: would appear, any place he wanted to be, he could be.
Speaker 1: He knew he had died, but any you know, any
Speaker 1: woman whose company he wanted would appear, and it sounds
Speaker 1: like heaven. Sounds like heaven. And then he would ask
Speaker 1: the person who was granting all these wishes, you know,
Speaker 1: all I want is is work. I want I want
Speaker 1: to I want to build something, I want to do something,
Speaker 1: I want to challenge, I want to task. He said, oh, no,
Speaker 1: you can't have that. And he said, then the story
Speaker 1: wasn't like he was telling sort of little kids with
Speaker 1: The story was, no, you're actually in hell. You're in hell,
Speaker 1: and your hell is that you have to only have
Speaker 1: those things that you thought you wanted so badly in life,
Speaker 1: and those things that you were willing to sacrifice for
Speaker 1: and give up your dignity and your honor and be
Speaker 1: a moral trying to achieve. And now you have that
Speaker 1: for eternity. And what you can have is to build,
Speaker 1: to construct, to create, to be additive, right to challenge yourself.
Speaker 1: And now look it's it's a little bit of a
Speaker 1: simplistic story, but you get the idea Jordan Peterson does.
Speaker 1: He has a better You know, Jordan Peterson is now
Speaker 1: the intellectual dark dark Web guy used to come on
Speaker 1: this show way back that I had Jordan Peterson on
Speaker 1: this show in twenty seventeen when he was getting known
Speaker 1: as the Canadian professor who wouldn't use the wrong pronoun
Speaker 1: for people just base on what they wanted. And and
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, you know, we're kind of trend setters
Speaker 1: here in the freedom of those listen to the show. No,
Speaker 1: you know, we had Jordan Peterson on before anybody. I
Speaker 1: had Candice Owen on this show before anybody knew who
Speaker 1: she was. You know, I'm just saying people have said, oh,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have red Pill Black on that was what
Speaker 1: her site was, or her YouTube channel's called. So I'm
Speaker 1: I'm just saying we're trendsetters there. But Jordan Peterson tells this,
Speaker 1: or rather writes, oh no, I actually I can't remember
Speaker 1: if I read what he wrote or if I heard
Speaker 1: him in a speech, but he tells this story where
Speaker 1: you know, you think, when you're working and engaging your
Speaker 1: day to life, heaven is being on a beautiful beach,
Speaker 1: drinking margaritas without a care in the world. And he says,
Speaker 1: you know, really play that out, play that out in
Speaker 1: your mind. How does that go? Okay? If I could
Speaker 1: make that happen for you. Now, now you're on a beach,
Speaker 1: it's the most gorgeous beach in the world, and you
Speaker 1: don't even you don't have to worry about money. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna let you stay on that beach. You're staying
Speaker 1: in a beautiful hotel. They're bringing you margaritas every day.
Speaker 1: He's like, Okay, maybe for two weeks it's paradise. Maybe
Speaker 1: six weeks it's it's paradise, says But you get a
Speaker 1: couple of months into this, you realize you're not doing anything,
Speaker 1: you're not productive, you're probably getting fat from just drinking
Speaker 1: margaritas by other deligious but they're terrible for you. You're
Speaker 1: you're getting soft, and you're going to feel a lack
Speaker 1: of purpose at some point, and you're gonna want to
Speaker 1: do something with yourself. You have to get up and
Speaker 1: want to do something, whether it's taking care of your
Speaker 1: family or going to an office or a job or
Speaker 1: a work site or whatever it may be. People need
Speaker 1: a purpose, and you can get purpose in all kinds
Speaker 1: of things. You're you know, the way that you interact
Speaker 1: with your fellow human beings. Are you kind? Are you helpful?
Speaker 1: Are you? Are you decent to them? But for a
Speaker 1: lot of people, especially you asking us, especially for men
Speaker 1: in the male psyche, oh my gosh, microaggression. Purpose comes
Speaker 1: from work. As in the workplace, the work that's done
Speaker 1: in the home is every bit as important. And I
Speaker 1: think one of the rate social dysfunctions of the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: or really the late the second half of the twentieth century,
Speaker 1: is this idea of putting down women raising families as
Speaker 1: as important employment. It is the most important employment of
Speaker 1: society has. It is as important as any other job
Speaker 1: there is. It's not necessarily economically rewarded the way that
Speaker 1: doing jobs are, but it is as important for society
Speaker 1: and based on what I'm told by people who actually
Speaker 1: do it as rewarding as anything you can do in life.
Speaker 1: I just wish our society hadn't decided to listen to
Speaker 1: these radical feminists who are miserable. By the way. They're miserable.
Speaker 1: Every time I talk to some radical liberal feminists. Misery
Speaker 1: is what I get as what I get from them.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, you know, they're professor of such and such.
Speaker 1: They're in their fifties, they have a life partner, male
Speaker 1: or female, I don't care, it doesn't matter. But you know,
Speaker 1: they don't want to call it a marriage, and and
Speaker 1: you know they don't have kids, and they you know,
Speaker 1: they chase their career and now they're you know, they're boomers,
Speaker 1: maybe late boomers, and for what for what they just
Speaker 1: they but they put down all their friends who got
Speaker 1: married and raised families, you know, put them down for decades.
Speaker 1: That's it. It's a recipe for misery. I just see it.
Speaker 1: I see it in the in the the the generation
Speaker 1: above me and so. But you know, Jordan Peterson's point
Speaker 1: with it is the same point that I'm making, which
Speaker 1: is that you know, you need purpose, and once you
Speaker 1: start taking work away from men as as a purpose
Speaker 1: they have in their day to day life. And of course,
Speaker 1: remember part of the purposes you go to work not
Speaker 1: just to do that productive thing, but also to then
Speaker 1: enjoy the fruits of your labor and take care of
Speaker 1: your family, or take care of yourself if you don't
Speaker 1: have a family. But then this is, this is the
Speaker 1: central part of our social existence. And now that a
Speaker 1: lot of this is going to be on I made it.
Speaker 1: A lot of this is going to be coming from
Speaker 1: machinery and AI programs. This is this is gonna be
Speaker 1: very disruptive. Yeah, maybe there are other jobs we can't
Speaker 1: think of yet, the jobs of the future. People will say,
Speaker 1: maybe there are jobs we can't even imagine. You know,
Speaker 1: person that takes care of the you know, automated butler,
Speaker 1: let's bringing you everything right, the person that fixes it.
Speaker 1: There will be things, but that doesn't mean there won't
Speaker 1: be social disruptions and upheaval in the meantime. And look
Speaker 1: back throughout history. Yeah we push through things, but maybe
Speaker 1: we go through a fifty year period of regression. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe we go through fifty year period of upheaval and
Speaker 1: you know, societal strife. It's not all just gonna be peaches, roses, unicorns,
Speaker 1: and fairy tales. Peaches are delicious. So that's important to
Speaker 1: keep in mind as we look at immigration as well,
Speaker 1: because here is what the Democrats and the libertarian open
Speaker 1: borders types, Here's here's what they don't get into. Here's
Speaker 1: what they don't address. And I think it's really essential
Speaker 1: that we keep it in mind as we talk about
Speaker 1: all this. The immigrant population that is coming into the
Speaker 1: country illegally or that is scamming the system is overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: from you know, third world countries, developing countries now where
Speaker 1: they don't speak English, they don't have higher education, and
Speaker 1: they're coming into an economy where the stratification between those
Speaker 1: who can compete in a knowledge based economy and those
Speaker 1: who can't is getting wider and wider all the time.
Speaker 1: That is not a recipe for happiness and cohesion in
Speaker 1: this society, and it is only a recipe for a
Speaker 1: larger state, higher taxes, and heavier burdens upon the productive
Speaker 1: class in this country imposed by the state. So you
Speaker 1: know this, the massive waves over time of of unskilled
Speaker 1: labor that don't compete at the same in the same
Speaker 1: kinds of jobs as the increasingly separate elite, if you will,
Speaker 1: the knowledge workers in this country, that's going to get
Speaker 1: bigger and bigger, it's going to get worse. And there's
Speaker 1: also the people in this country that aren't able, haven't
Speaker 1: been given the opportunity to have, haven't been given the
Speaker 1: resources to compete at that level. You know, they feel
Speaker 1: like they're being displaced. And this is this is all
Speaker 1: a very complicated and if we don't deal with it
Speaker 1: as a country and as a society, I think a
Speaker 1: dangerous mix. So AI Jobs of the future fascinating, great stuff,
Speaker 1: but it's going to have real social implications that we
Speaker 1: need to understand. What the administration is clearly demonstrating here
Speaker 1: is that despite the decision to withdraw from Syria according
Speaker 1: to the conditions that presidents imposed, we are not withdrawing
Speaker 1: the Middle East. We have provided an indispensable leadership to
Speaker 1: stand up to confront the Iranians, who are clearly the
Speaker 1: strategic threats to the Middle East. What Secretary Pompeo is
Speaker 1: doing I solely applaud He's bringing countries from Asia, Europe, Africa,
Speaker 1: the Western Hemisphere and obviously the Middle East together to
Speaker 1: deal with this imposing threat to the region. Because they're
Speaker 1: not just a regional threat, they're a global threat in
Speaker 1: terms of sponsoring terrorism around the world. So today you
Speaker 1: just had the first reports about US true presence getting
Speaker 1: drawn down in Syria. It's going to be a while,
Speaker 1: it's going to take some time. But I have said,
Speaker 1: I think that as long as it is done in
Speaker 1: this way, in a deliberate fashion, that make sure that
Speaker 1: there are protections for the Koords against the Turks and
Speaker 1: the possibility of Turkish particularly Turkish air strikes, and as
Speaker 1: long as we maintain close ties the Turks. I mean,
Speaker 1: pardon me to the Kurds on the ground meeting that
Speaker 1: we're just next door, We're just over the hill, and
Speaker 1: you know we're there. If they really need this, we could,
Speaker 1: you know, spin up some apaches or some F sixteens,
Speaker 1: and you know that the cavalryes over that next ridge,
Speaker 1: us being the United States being the cavalry, that not
Speaker 1: extending our mission in our presence in Syria is the
Speaker 1: right thing. That we don't have a role to play
Speaker 1: in a continued military occupation of what has now liberated
Speaker 1: Syria from the Islamic state. We also need to prepare
Speaker 1: for a future in which the Iranians continue their presence
Speaker 1: in Syria regardless of what we do, regardless of our
Speaker 1: positions and our activities, and not to over extend ourselves,
Speaker 1: which is also why I would note that there's this
Speaker 1: summit to Pompeo gave this speech, very good speech, by
Speaker 1: the way, on this international summit on Iran. I mean
Speaker 1: Lee Zelbin talked a bit about this play clip fifteen.
Speaker 1: It's American leadership, this is American exceptionalism. You have an
Speaker 1: important initiative to bring dozens of countries together when you
Speaker 1: make a decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear Deal
Speaker 1: and sanctions are reimposed. There's a difference between just having
Speaker 1: US sanctions reimposed versus the international community reimposing sanctions as well.
Speaker 1: US sanctions alone very powerful. Having more countries on board
Speaker 1: is important. Additionally, you have other Middle Eastern countries that
Speaker 1: also view Iranni and aggression as a existential threat to
Speaker 1: their nation and also to their region. So beyond just
Speaker 1: bilateral diplomacy, multilateral diplomacy and ramping up economic pressure, is
Speaker 1: the need for coalitions and leadership on the parts of
Speaker 1: other nations and involvement. So look, it's it's going to
Speaker 1: be a multi pronged effort here. It's going to take
Speaker 1: a long time, and it's essentially just creating these allegiances
Speaker 1: and making sure that we're bad back and gallies to
Speaker 1: keep the Iranians in check. So, but the way to
Speaker 1: keep the Uranians in check is not to just keep
Speaker 1: putting a US military presence on the ground in country
Speaker 1: after country, which is what we were on schedule to do.
Speaker 1: Got the US military and Yemen US military and Syria
Speaker 1: US military to rock US military and you know, you
Speaker 1: go down, you know, boff Ray and we got the
Speaker 1: fifth fleetal that we have a base there. But ay mean,
Speaker 1: we just got we got we got guys everywhere in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, right now, enough is enough? Trump understands, Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's not the the down on the weeds guy with
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of you know, cultural knowledge about what's
Speaker 1: going on in Syria. Trump understands that we've got to
Speaker 1: turn the tide here and stop putting US boots on
Speaker 1: the ground to solve problems. We got to find other
Speaker 1: ways to solve those problems. Man, I had an early
Speaker 1: day to day and I had to talk to a
Speaker 1: bunch of libs on set. We had a bunch of
Speaker 1: lib guests, and some of them were being a little
Speaker 1: grumpy about Trump's wall. But you know what, I think
Speaker 1: all they need is a delicious cup of Black Rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: That's all I needed. Got my date going just great.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself. Black Rifle Coffee is roast
Speaker 1: to order. It guarantees you fresh, delicious coffee with every
Speaker 1: order because it comes right to your door. And Black Rifle,
Speaker 1: which is founded by veterans, gives a portion of their
Speaker 1: sales to veteran first responder causes. These are awesome guys,
Speaker 1: They are great patriots, and they make delicious coffee. All right.
Speaker 1: Nothing cures a bad attitude like starting your day off
Speaker 1: with the most American patriotic, freedom loving coffee ever, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. Everybody listening, go check it out yourself. Visit
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. It's a great deal. That's Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off again
Speaker 1: one more time. Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: President has said that if the Congress doesn't act and
Speaker 1: we're not then I will do this by myself using
Speaker 1: the powers I have. Now it's the time to exercise
Speaker 1: that option. If the endgame is emergency declaration by the President,
Speaker 1: do it, do it now. Lindsey Graham, who saying, throw down,
Speaker 1: President Trump, throw down. Lindsey Graham still still strutting his
Speaker 1: stuff after that U Bravo performance at the CAVANOL hearings
Speaker 1: this past summer. But is this the right move? How
Speaker 1: does this whole thing end? Well, we've got some some
Speaker 1: wisdom coming your way courtesy of Houston Texas. Right now,
Speaker 1: our friend Jesse Kelly, who want to come hang out
Speaker 1: as a Friday. Here's the host of the Jesse Kelly Show,
Speaker 1: which you can hear down on the iHeart affiliate in Houston,
Speaker 1: Texas on nine fifty k p RC Monday through Friday's
Speaker 1: mister Jesse Kelly, great to have you, sir, good to
Speaker 1: be here back. And this ends ugly, I think, one
Speaker 1: way or the other, because he can't if he declares
Speaker 1: the state of emergency, half the Republicans are going to
Speaker 1: be mad about it. Politically, he should if we're just
Speaker 1: talking about re election. Politically, he should because he has
Speaker 1: to have some kind of wall built for reelection. But man,
Speaker 1: is that a bad precedent for when the next scumbag
Speaker 1: gets elected? Off? It is? It is scary because you see,
Speaker 1: a normal person would look at this situation at the
Speaker 1: border and say, okay that it is a crisis. Okay,
Speaker 1: you got drugs flowing through, people are dying, You've got
Speaker 1: bad laws in plays. Congress is not acting. Congress is
Speaker 1: not changing this, and it's not really in Congress's purview
Speaker 1: to change some of it in terms of you know,
Speaker 1: greater border patrol activity and the law enforcement component of it.
Speaker 1: That's an executive branch function. So there's all these things.
Speaker 1: But you're right. See I've been thinking about the last
Speaker 1: few days and Libs are nuts, as you and I
Speaker 1: both know, and they will come in with a president
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, and I don't want to get you too excited,
Speaker 1: and they'll say that you know that that gun violence
Speaker 1: is an emergency, and so they're just gonna say that
Speaker 1: they're gonna they need to confience under national emergency power.
Speaker 1: They're gonna come to skate all uh, you know, assault
Speaker 1: weapons or whatever, which would be a terrible idea on
Speaker 1: so many levels. But you're right, it's what we always
Speaker 1: have to keep in mind. Now, we don't want nothing
Speaker 1: to get done, that's not the goal. But any powers
Speaker 1: we give them the next guy you're literated to give
Speaker 1: the person you hate the most those same kind of powers.
Speaker 1: That it's scary to think. I mean, think about climate change,
Speaker 1: but think about the national emergencies they could declare for
Speaker 1: the climate change far us and the things they could
Speaker 1: do with it. It's it's frightening. Yeah, absolutely. Climate change
Speaker 1: is also the one where I have conversations Jesse with
Speaker 1: people who are seemingly normal, you know, Otherwise they sound
Speaker 1: like folks that you could have a normal chat with
Speaker 1: about a whole range of issues, and then climate change
Speaker 1: comes up and they're crazy all of a sudden. I'm like,
Speaker 1: what are you thinking? You really believe that we have
Speaker 1: we have more forest fires going on in California because
Speaker 1: of global climate change? Or are you out of your mind?
Speaker 1: It's it's not a political stance. I tell people that
Speaker 1: it is a religion. Those those climate change people who
Speaker 1: really believe it, It is a religion to them. And
Speaker 1: what's funny is there's it's separated into two groups. Half
Speaker 1: of them are the wackos who believe it, and half
Speaker 1: of them are the politicians who don't believe it at
Speaker 1: all but pretend they do. Like Obama was this great
Speaker 1: climate change champion, but the guy flew whose personal pizza
Speaker 1: chef from Chicago to DC to make him a pizza. Right. See,
Speaker 1: if you really thought that co two emissions, that that
Speaker 1: carbon emissions in the air were going to destroy the
Speaker 1: planet for future generations, wouldn't you modify your behavior just
Speaker 1: just a little bit, Like I'll tell you here, here's
Speaker 1: an example. I find littering horrendous right now, Whether I
Speaker 1: drop a little bit of my you know, bubble I
Speaker 1: don't chew bubblegum, but this is you get the idea.
Speaker 1: If I dropped my bubble gum wrapper on the street,
Speaker 1: nobody's gonna die. Nothing's terrible. If the city is not
Speaker 1: going to be a trash eat. You know, it doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter except for the fact that I feel like
Speaker 1: my you know, my personal action should be reflective of
Speaker 1: how I feel, and I just think littering is a
Speaker 1: gross thing to do. So if I felt the way
Speaker 1: they do about climate change, I feel like I would
Speaker 1: modify my behavior. The fact that they don't modify their
Speaker 1: personal behavior makes me think that they're all full of
Speaker 1: it and crazy. Yeah, they are full of it. They
Speaker 1: are full of it. But you know, every religion, climate
Speaker 1: change is the religion, and every religion needs to God,
Speaker 1: and that's what they want to be. They want to
Speaker 1: be that leader. And they know if they just bake
Speaker 1: it enough. These wackos all bowed out to him. I
Speaker 1: mean it was a Hollywood guys, was it DiCaprio who
Speaker 1: was always talking about climate change? And then he just
Speaker 1: lives on a yacht for months at a time, yep,
Speaker 1: and flies everywhere and flies everywhere private of course, which
Speaker 1: I mean the thing about flying private, it's not just
Speaker 1: that that's they're obviously, you know, super limousine liberals or
Speaker 1: private jet progressives. But it's also that if you look
Speaker 1: at the carbon emissions from one private flight, what that
Speaker 1: burns up in terms of gas versus what a normal
Speaker 1: person would do over the course of a month, it's
Speaker 1: astronomically more rights, it's a whole lot more so. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I even I agree with you, it's it's nonsense. But
Speaker 1: that's why you put the emergence, you know, the emergency powers.
Speaker 1: The problem is that the government now is shared between
Speaker 1: one side of the country that's living in reality and
Speaker 1: the other side of the country that's just full of
Speaker 1: delusional snowflake cry babies. And that then brings me to
Speaker 1: this my friend, which was the bigger political self own,
Speaker 1: Beto O'Rourke doing a video of himself getting his teeth cleaned,
Speaker 1: as if that's something that anybody ever wants to Or
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren's DNA test. It's still Elizabeth Warren's DNA test.
Speaker 1: That's the most embarrassing thing I've ever seen in politics.
Speaker 1: It's probably my favorite story ever because she's an insane person.
Speaker 1: But for years, run a scam that you're an Indian,
Speaker 1: get ready to run for president. Let Donald Trump troll
Speaker 1: you into taking a DNA test that proves you weren't
Speaker 1: an Indian, and then release said tests publicly as if
Speaker 1: it proved that you were an Indian. Has to be
Speaker 1: the dumbest thing I've ever seen a politician do in
Speaker 1: my entire life. I have still stunned that she could
Speaker 1: be that's stupid. It's it's amazing to me because you know,
Speaker 1: this is what I have to I remind myself of
Speaker 1: this whenever I see, you know, the the just the
Speaker 1: outrage from the Washington Post, The New York Times, MSNBC, CNN,
Speaker 1: and the rest of the mainstream media crew over everything
Speaker 1: that Trump does, and then they'll say things like Trump
Speaker 1: should be removed with the twenty fifth Amendment, Trump is
Speaker 1: not fit to be president. And then they'll write glowing
Speaker 1: editorials about Elizabeth Warren. I'm like, Elizabeth Warren thinks of
Speaker 1: being one to one thousand and twenty fourth native American
Speaker 1: makes her a native American. Elizaeth Warren is a crazy person.
Speaker 1: I think the best part of that one. Somebody said it,
Speaker 1: and I don't remember the member. I'm off the time,
Speaker 1: off my head, but the average American is like one
Speaker 1: in seven hundreds, so actually she's like the whitest person
Speaker 1: in the United States. And to release that publicly, I
Speaker 1: just I'm I'm stunted. I can see taking the DNA test.
Speaker 1: Maybe you take it, cross your fingers, you know, hopefully
Speaker 1: you have a little then you can go out and
Speaker 1: prove it. But if it doesn't prove what you wanted
Speaker 1: it to prove, shut up about it, shred the results,
Speaker 1: then burn them, then launched them into outer space, and
Speaker 1: never speak about them again. I also think that the
Speaker 1: Beto thing, which which we've been We've we've been talking
Speaker 1: about all day here where this guy takes his videos,
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, I just want to have a continue
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not the only one who thinks
Speaker 1: he sounds like Napoleon Dynamite. I just want to have
Speaker 1: a continuing discussion about the border. Like I was just really,
Speaker 1: I just want to ride my skateboard and just be
Speaker 1: really cool. And he does this weird video and I
Speaker 1: look at this guy like I've been told the last
Speaker 1: six months by every by no and I know a
Speaker 1: lot of them that Beto is so Kennedy ask he's
Speaker 1: so cool, he's so handsome, and I just want to
Speaker 1: be like, are we are we talking about the same person?
Speaker 1: This guy's a Doric who married a billionaire. Why do
Speaker 1: I have to pretend he's anything other than that? Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming you've seen the show of Veep, the HBO
Speaker 1: political show of Veep the Car Yeah, yeah, yeah, if
Speaker 1: you haven't, the main character of the show, for anybody
Speaker 1: who hasn't seen the show, has this scene where she
Speaker 1: decides she wants to go get ice cream, or she
Speaker 1: wants ice cream, and obviously she wants someone to bring
Speaker 1: it to her, but her staff convinces her that they
Speaker 1: should go out in public so she can be seen
Speaker 1: getting ice cream. And they call it normalizing. And that's
Speaker 1: Betto's entire life is normalizing. That's why he rides a
Speaker 1: skateboard and water burger. That's why he takes an obviously
Speaker 1: can't obviously planned video of him playing air drums in
Speaker 1: his car. He's at the dentist. Look, I'm just like you.
Speaker 1: And it is so funny because he's the ultimate limousine liberal.
Speaker 1: I believe it's father's a billionaire and he is going
Speaker 1: to spend the next two years normalize it. That's what
Speaker 1: he's doing. Yes, and this is why the authenticity say.
Speaker 1: People can say a lot of things about Trump, and
Speaker 1: a lot of things they say about him are true.
Speaker 1: But Trump is like, yeah, I'm a billionaire. I fly
Speaker 1: around in jets, but I like construction workers. I care
Speaker 1: about people who work jobs that they work, and whether
Speaker 1: people like Trump or not, people that work a lot
Speaker 1: of those jobs think that Trump does care and is
Speaker 1: trying to help them out. And he's not run around
Speaker 1: acting like he's a normal dude. He's like, I am
Speaker 1: not normal. I'm a boss. I'm the Trump. So I
Speaker 1: just think that I think there's authenticity in owning it.
Speaker 1: There is, and he's getting his all goal department and
Speaker 1: he brags about it in his jet, his gigantic Trump's jet.
Speaker 1: But he does because of his upbringing. I guess his
Speaker 1: father used to make him work on construction crews. He
Speaker 1: does speak the language of the common man. And it's
Speaker 1: very fascinating that he is a New York billionaire, but
Speaker 1: the common man thinks he's one of him and he
Speaker 1: loves it. Yeah. And you know, look, oh in Obama
Speaker 1: lives in effectively a castle in Washington, d C. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, he lives in a mansion. There's so many
Speaker 1: of these people that are are held up on the
Speaker 1: media as having the common touch in some way or
Speaker 1: as just being like us. I'm like, this is not.
Speaker 1: No one gets. No normal person gets a fifty million
Speaker 1: dollars book advance, by the way, okay, and no one's
Speaker 1: ever gonna make money back on that. That's just buying
Speaker 1: off the Obama legacy via the liberal publishing houses. But
Speaker 1: I got very, very one more important question for you, Jesse,
Speaker 1: before we let you go. I mean, when push comes
Speaker 1: to shove, just as as a man, Jesse Kelly, are
Speaker 1: you more likely if you were forced to wear a
Speaker 1: Ocasio Cortez twenty I'd have to be like twenty twenty
Speaker 1: eight or something. She's too young. Let's just say she
Speaker 1: could run Ocazio Cortez twenty twenty or Kamela Harris twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Who gets who? Who is Jesse Kelly gonna wear a
Speaker 1: T shirt for? I've never been more insolid thought. I
Speaker 1: can't even believe that's a question. Of course, it's Harris,
Speaker 1: get out really really well? Come on, Harris is like
Speaker 1: fifty three and still a dime. Obviously takes care of
Speaker 1: herself off Harris all day long. Oh the Cortes is
Speaker 1: not even in that conversation. I might right now. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, look at that. Jesse Kelly thought us know
Speaker 1: if if he had to go liberal, he's lett us
Speaker 1: know who he would support. I sat at the table
Speaker 1: next to Lauretta Lynch at dinner last night here in DC.
Speaker 1: It was very swampy, but but I did not, of
Speaker 1: course disturb or even even a deal with her at all.
Speaker 1: So there's uh, just just throwing that in there, not
Speaker 1: for nothing, Jesse Kelly. Everybody nine to fifty k p
Speaker 1: RC down in Houston. Also follow him on Twitter look
Speaker 1: for the Jesse Kelly Show. It is excellent. He is excellent, Sir,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Have a fantastic weekend. This should
Speaker 1: be easy to get approved through Congress because the same
Speaker 1: people that are holding it up have approved it many
Speaker 1: times before. Ted and Johnamy, they these people approved it
Speaker 1: just a few years ago, and now all of a
Speaker 1: sudden there not that they came to me with a
Speaker 1: package beyond the barrier, and if it was something that
Speaker 1: we all agreed with, that the Senators agreed with, that
Speaker 1: everybody liked. It's common sense. Most of this is common sense.
Speaker 1: I'm all for it. I'm prepared for anything. I'm prepared
Speaker 1: for the lawyers tell me like one that doesn't stop
Speaker 1: people from suing. It doesn't stop people from suing. But
Speaker 1: Trump's right, there should not be that hard talking about
Speaker 1: the wall we got. We have an expert joining us
Speaker 1: now on Trump, on walls, on all all things DC,
Speaker 1: and and just wisdom in life in general. Bennie Johnson
Speaker 1: is with us. He is a daily caller guy Eat
Speaker 1: does all kinds of great viral videos and posts, and
Speaker 1: mister Bennie Johnson. Great to have you, sir buck. How
Speaker 1: are you doing, my bro I'm good man, I'm good.
Speaker 1: So you know, Trump is wall. I think that the
Speaker 1: wall is a great idea. You think the wall needs
Speaker 1: to happen. You've done some work on walls in the
Speaker 1: last week or so. What can you tell us about it? Oh?
Speaker 1: I mean walls are great, right, So think about it.
Speaker 1: If you live in a house or an apartment, or
Speaker 1: if you live in a dumpster, you still technically have
Speaker 1: a house made of walls. And so a lot of
Speaker 1: people have walls, like really big walls, really fun walls.
Speaker 1: But typically you're office building where you go to work,
Speaker 1: where you eat at night, those have walls too, And
Speaker 1: the world are like a really important part of American society.
Speaker 1: I've discovered in my research. Fuck, I believe that CNN
Speaker 1: and I'm not even kidding, has been doing some pieces
Speaker 1: now on are there places where walls do work? It's like, yes,
Speaker 1: in fact there are. So so here's a fun thing
Speaker 1: that we're doing at the Daily Caller. Now we're doing
Speaker 1: a series called Walls Across America. And what I am
Speaker 1: doing is as an intrepid on a less buck, I
Speaker 1: am traveling to wealthy or powerful politicians or influencers or
Speaker 1: techmoguls or celebrities homes and showing America the walls in
Speaker 1: which they live behind. The point being that most wealthy
Speaker 1: or powerful people have walls, big walls, not just the
Speaker 1: walls that bake your house, but big giant walls with
Speaker 1: security fences around their house, keeping people from even entering
Speaker 1: what they hold dear, the property they hold deal deer,
Speaker 1: and the people they hold dear. We've done one with Obama,
Speaker 1: and we're about to launch item number two, series numbers,
Speaker 1: the second in the series. This one's gonna be a doozy.
Speaker 1: This wall was amazing, amazing Buccas in Long Island and
Speaker 1: it's uh, you know. The point I guess is is
Speaker 1: ultimately not to direct people for wanting their houses and
Speaker 1: their loved ones and their treasure to be secure, but
Speaker 1: just to prove that walls do indeed work to protect
Speaker 1: those kind of things. Should America have one? But you know,
Speaker 1: I saw Jim Acosta down at the border, and Jim
Speaker 1: Acosta was standing at a wall and said, oh, here,
Speaker 1: I am at a wall, and I don't see a
Speaker 1: lot of violence. So maybe walls don't work. Explain that
Speaker 1: one to me. So this is one of the one
Speaker 1: of the more magnificent cell phones in the history of
Speaker 1: American journalism. I do wonder if Jim Acosta is a
Speaker 1: false flag operation, if he is just an actual major
Speaker 1: Trump supporter who was like created, you know, created in
Speaker 1: sometimes experimental laboratory to just make every conservatives point for them.
Speaker 1: What he did was he traveled to a part of
Speaker 1: Texas McCallan, Texas where there is a massive steel wall,
Speaker 1: a kind of wall that Trump wants to put in
Speaker 1: the border, and he posted the smugly talking about how
Speaker 1: safe he felt and how wonderful he felt, and how
Speaker 1: there was no crime and no violence around this wall. This,
Speaker 1: of course, is proving Trump's point exactly. Somehow, somehow Jimmacosta
Speaker 1: thought he was owning the cons by doing this. I
Speaker 1: don't really know what exactly what goes on in his head. He's, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, one of one of the more confusing reporters
Speaker 1: because he does quite regularly prove the opposite of the
Speaker 1: point he's trying to make. Indeed, he does well, Benny,
Speaker 1: please keep up your work on walls, please please, sir,
Speaker 1: keep on owning those libs and where should folks go
Speaker 1: to see your latest work, your series owned Walls and
Speaker 1: all other things. Benny Johnson series on Walls can be
Speaker 1: found at The Daily Caller on YouTube, on Facebook and
Speaker 1: on my private tube, Facebook, Instagram, Benny Johnson on Twitter,
Speaker 1: Benny Johnson on Facebook, Benny Johnson on Instagram, Daily Caller
Speaker 1: on all those platforms. We're gonna be We're gonna are
Speaker 1: you launching it this weekend our newest series on walls
Speaker 1: across America. Oh man, you're gonna love this new one.
Speaker 1: Fantastic stuff. My friend Benny Johnson. Everybody check out his stuff. Benny.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you soon. Thank you, buck Well team.
Speaker 1: You know you're hearing from Benny Johnson, you're hearing from
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly, a little bit of a scholarship from our
Speaker 1: friend Art Arthur over at the CISK. And we've covered
Speaker 1: a lot of territory. That's what we like to do Fridays,
Speaker 1: like to let it rip, like bringing all kinds of folks.
Speaker 1: So and I also want you'd always know if there's
Speaker 1: someone you want me to have on the show, I'm
Speaker 1: happy to reach out and try to get them on
Speaker 1: the show. To talk to them. So if you've got
Speaker 1: somebody out there you say, oh I saw that person
Speaker 1: on Fox. I think he or she would be really good.
Speaker 1: We'll reach out. We'll get them on. People like to
Speaker 1: hang out the Freedom Hud. It's a good place. We
Speaker 1: have roll calls coming up, in fact, a double roll
Speaker 1: call session for your delight. So stay with me, Team Buck.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. IM gonna do a double
Speaker 1: roll call because we're about to head off into the weekend.
Speaker 1: Everybody's working for the weekend. Yeah. I know it's not
Speaker 1: the best, it's not the best rendition of the song,
Speaker 1: but you're excited because it is in fact the weekend,
Speaker 1: and that's a good thing. Let's get to it. I
Speaker 1: found a cash of Team Buck emails that I wanted
Speaker 1: to share with you. They were coming via Bucksexen dot com,
Speaker 1: which we have had under maintenance. I think you could
Speaker 1: still go to it, but we've had it under maintenance
Speaker 1: a little while. We are slowly but surely planning a
Speaker 1: revamp of all things of all things Team Buck and
Speaker 1: bucksexen dot com related, so I wanted you to be
Speaker 1: aware of that, and with that, I will get to
Speaker 1: some of these emails that have been sent to me
Speaker 1: that I did not even know. We're there, all right?
Speaker 1: This was I don't even know when this was sent.
Speaker 1: I just got this catch of emails. This is from
Speaker 1: Brian who wrote to us at bucksx dot com. Buck,
Speaker 1: You've been hitting the subject of media dishonesty and loss
Speaker 1: of integrity for many weeks. Now, listen to you talk
Speaker 1: is like listening to me talk, only I have better hair.
Speaker 1: Whoa fake news? The funny thing is the media knew
Speaker 1: that they were going to lose their power, or at
Speaker 1: least they had the idea they were going to lose
Speaker 1: their power. Back in twenty twelve, WikiLeaks exposed emails between
Speaker 1: CNN and Clinton that bore out the idea that because
Speaker 1: of the Internet, the media would no longer be able
Speaker 1: to hold their spell over the American people. The Internet
Speaker 1: would allow people to look around and outside of the
Speaker 1: media narrative and find the actual truth. In modern times,
Speaker 1: we have recognized this and discovered that it is true.
Speaker 1: But back when the Clinton machine was trying to take over,
Speaker 1: they were already talking about it. Happily, they were unable
Speaker 1: to stop the momentum of that occurrence, and now people
Speaker 1: like you and me can see the media and the
Speaker 1: government media complex for what it is. Hopefully their time
Speaker 1: is over or drawing to a close, and then we
Speaker 1: can actually have an honest national discussion about what our
Speaker 1: country is and where does going shields Hie Brian, Yeah, Brian,
Speaker 1: I think that the sense we have of the media
Speaker 1: has dramatically changed, and I think that this is a
Speaker 1: good thing. And that's why the media in general is
Speaker 1: so both sanctimonious and defensive at the same time, because
Speaker 1: they're trying to hold on to what they have. They
Speaker 1: know that it's eventually losing battle, and they're very angry
Speaker 1: about it. In the meantime, they're very much trying to
Speaker 1: push back on all of this. So yes, absolutely, all
Speaker 1: all true, and I think your observations are astute. Matt right.
Speaker 1: Oh no, Andy, not Matt. Sorry, Andy writes, I love
Speaker 1: your two hours on Vlad the Impaler back in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: Love it so much that did even more research on
Speaker 1: that time period and just completed and a script for
Speaker 1: an hour long episode factional show about Vlad's father's rise
Speaker 1: and fall. Thanks again, well, Andy, that sounds really cool, man,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad you enjoyed the Lad. Vlad the Impale
Speaker 1: Little the episode of Dragola Purginal though, of my impression
Speaker 1: of Napoleon Dynamite in the office, and ivern't thought it
Speaker 1: was really good, which is funny because I've actually never
Speaker 1: seen Napoleon Dynamite. But but I'd like my Vlad the
Speaker 1: Impale little impression. That's fun. It's probably annoying to hear, though. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: that's an amazing story of that of Vlad and Vlad's dad,
Speaker 1: the Order of the Dragon, really interesting period in history.
Speaker 1: My dream is to one day do some of those
Speaker 1: battles as a scripted series for Netflix or something like that.
Speaker 1: That would really if I could kind of pick a
Speaker 1: job that I could just do, I think that would
Speaker 1: be it. I would do a probably a whole Battle
Speaker 1: of Lapan until miniseries. That would be boss. That'll be amazing, dude,
Speaker 1: that's a six episode I think six. You could do
Speaker 1: six hour long episodes for the Battleful Panto and it
Speaker 1: would because remember there were the battles before that led
Speaker 1: up to it. You could cover some of that and
Speaker 1: they I've already got it scripted out of my head.
Speaker 1: I've been watching Battlestar Galactica. So many of you have
Speaker 1: told me in the past that it's a great show.
Speaker 1: I'm not loving it. I'm not a huge fan. I'm trying, Guys,
Speaker 1: I want to like it, but I just have not
Speaker 1: found Battlestar Galactica to be my thing. John writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: I was just listening to the Friday program, and yesterday
Speaker 1: I spent some time looking for a source for ring
Speaker 1: tones on my iPhone. I'm looking for lock her up
Speaker 1: and CNN sucks. Can you help. I don't know if
Speaker 1: there's ring tones for those, but there should be, and
Speaker 1: I appreciate you writing in and raising the question. Let's
Speaker 1: see we have more emails come in here and this
Speaker 1: one says, oh, this is from Matthew. Oh, this one
Speaker 1: is long, Buck. I heard you asking about the official
Speaker 1: food of Chicago once. You were asking about deep dish
Speaker 1: pizza versus Polish sausage. It's a little more involved than that.
Speaker 1: First of all, the deep dish pizza is more of
Speaker 1: a tourist trap type food. There are some famous restaurants
Speaker 1: for deep dish, but I would say locals in the
Speaker 1: region do not go out of their way for deep dish.
Speaker 1: In fact, growing up, I never had a deep dish
Speaker 1: or so called Chicago style pizza until I moved away.
Speaker 1: These places selling deep dish in the area. You're usually
Speaker 1: forced to go when you have a family or friends
Speaker 1: visiting because that's what they want, or maybe a visiting
Speaker 1: coworker because they insist you're done after a piece and
Speaker 1: you always regret it. Yeah. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: deep dish pizza. I guess it's just really thick pizza.
Speaker 1: That sounds kind of I'll be honest, that sounds kind
Speaker 1: of gross. The more authentic Chicago pizza is what is
Speaker 1: referred to as tavern style. This is a thin crust
Speaker 1: pizza cut into squares, so not your traditional East Coast slice,
Speaker 1: but a square piece. The smaller square pieces a light it.
Speaker 1: Pace yourself and try different pizzas at a party, for instance.
Speaker 1: You're not stuck with a big piece blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: The official food of that region is Chicago Land. Of
Speaker 1: the region that is Chicago Land would be a five
Speaker 1: way tie. Italian beef sandwiches, Polish sausage, Chicago style hot dogs,
Speaker 1: no catchup allowed, thin or tavern style pizza, and pirogie. Wow.
Speaker 1: I've not had any of those things, I think ever.
Speaker 1: Then again, I've also never really spent much. I've been
Speaker 1: to Chicago, but I've never really done Chicago. Something I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to I'm gonna have to change. But I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna change it now because I hear it's rather
Speaker 1: cold this time of year. So that is a little
Speaker 1: bit a little bit different. This is Matt. Here we go. Whoops, No,
Speaker 1: I already had Matt before. You know what I'm gonna do. Team. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna switch back to Facebook. So I got that
Speaker 1: cash of emails. But now I'm gonna switch back to Facebook.
Speaker 1: So when I come back, we'll get into our role
Speaker 1: call on Facebook dot com. Slash Buck Sexton. Time to
Speaker 1: spread some freedom coast to coast. He's a lean, mean
Speaker 1: analysis machine. Team Buck, It's time for roll call. You know,
Speaker 1: I had my check up this past week and so far,
Speaker 1: so good, nothing to nothing to be concerned about. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean tiptop health. I wouldn't say tiptop shape right now.
Speaker 1: A little bit busy to get to the gym. Then
Speaker 1: how do you explain his freakish strength? He spied every
Speaker 1: day and That's what I'm gonna tell you. I had this,
Speaker 1: you know, the the physician's assistant who happened to be
Speaker 1: a pretty attractive young lady. M did the whole. I'm
Speaker 1: standing on the scale and she's, you know, pushing the
Speaker 1: top of the scale a little bit at a time.
Speaker 1: It's that old doctor scale. You only see them in
Speaker 1: doctor's offices. Everyone else has digital scales now. But pushing
Speaker 1: the pushing the little weighted part a little more, a
Speaker 1: little more. I felt, I felt judged, felt a little judged.
Speaker 1: I'm not. I'm thinking because lean mean analysis machine. Well
Speaker 1: maybe analysis machine, but I gotta get back to being
Speaker 1: lean and mean. So note to self this weekend, time
Speaker 1: to start start hitting the gym with a vengeance again.
Speaker 1: Dead lifts. I need to do the dad lifts and
Speaker 1: do the clean and jerk and the dead lift. Then
Speaker 1: everything will be fine. It's all I have to do.
Speaker 1: Squat rack. What you're doing this weekend, I'm doing the
Speaker 1: squat rock. That's all you have to do. Really, squat
Speaker 1: rack changes everything. That's the that's the game changer. Note
Speaker 1: to self, all right, your thoughts roll call enough self
Speaker 1: help motivation for me um and uh Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck sex and if you want to be in
Speaker 1: on this action, let us get right to it, shall we?
Speaker 1: Josh is first up in the mix here. Aerosmith isn't
Speaker 1: the best band in the last thirty years, I'd say
Speaker 1: Tool is. If you haven't ever heard the album Ladder Alice,
Speaker 1: you need it's a pure work of art. Second, have
Speaker 1: you seen there was another assault weapon band bill put
Speaker 1: forward this week? I'm all for what Trump's doing with
Speaker 1: the border and showing the government, but I'm not excusing
Speaker 1: the bumpstock band he allowed to happen. I hope people
Speaker 1: call him out on it on the campaign trail. Josh,
Speaker 1: I don't know anybody else who would put Tool in
Speaker 1: the best rock bands of all time category. That said,
Speaker 1: I can appreciate that you're a man who's willing to
Speaker 1: march to the beat of his own drum on that one.
Speaker 1: So yep, there we go, Tool. I don't even know John,
Speaker 1: do you know any Tool songs? I don't even know
Speaker 1: what Tool is. I've heard of it, but I can't
Speaker 1: even think of a song by Tool. TJ Rights whoop.
Speaker 1: That federal employee that you guys interviewed for Rising doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like she's doing everything she can to keep from
Speaker 1: having to sell her car. I'm sorry, but why would
Speaker 1: you be out protesting if you might have to sell
Speaker 1: your car tomorrow. You just said you have a temp job.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't you be working there? Also, if missing your paycheck
Speaker 1: today means missing a car payment, which means losing your car,
Speaker 1: then you're probably already way behind on payments. Seems like
Speaker 1: lots of these federal employees have been spoiled for far
Speaker 1: too long and quite apparently do not know how to
Speaker 1: save money. I'm sure there are people hurting out there,
Speaker 1: but they should try petitioning their church parish instead of
Speaker 1: protesting the government. You're gonna find a lot more empathy
Speaker 1: under God's roof than from the hand of the federal government.
Speaker 1: Rant over shields high TJ. TJ is bringing the bringing
Speaker 1: the salty stuff here, man, TJ. I would agree with you.
Speaker 1: People have been asking me, They're like, why would why
Speaker 1: would people be losing their house and going, you know,
Speaker 1: having all these terrible financial consequence is happening. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: saying that it's going to damage their credit all this
Speaker 1: stuff if you miss one paycheck, when I mean, I
Speaker 1: know for a fact with credit cards, you've got to
Speaker 1: be thirty days late for it to even possibly be
Speaker 1: reported to the credit agencies, and the damage of a
Speaker 1: thirty day late payment is pretty minimal. A ninety day
Speaker 1: late payment is a problem. So that you know, that's
Speaker 1: unless they've changed the way those algorithms and all that
Speaker 1: stuff work. So Harry, have it, James, right, hibuck. Regarding
Speaker 1: the possibility of the president declaring a crisis at the border,
Speaker 1: we can argue that if it was wrong for obamaous
Speaker 1: circumvent Congress to get what he wanted DACA, then it's
Speaker 1: also wrong to do the same for Trump. Though I
Speaker 1: agree in principle these two situations are not the same
Speaker 1: and both sides aren't playing by the same rules. Plus
Speaker 1: Trump may actually have the law on his side. I
Speaker 1: suppose you could consider the so called dreamers a crisis,
Speaker 1: but a crisis to who a legal aliens or US citizen? Also,
Speaker 1: are we to believe that there is some type of
Speaker 1: statute of limitations on a crisis? That is, you either
Speaker 1: don't recognize it or unable to deal with it at
Speaker 1: its inception, it cannot be called the crisis. I know
Speaker 1: it just crammed a lot in there, but I'm sure
Speaker 1: you can handle it. Sincerely, James, Well, James, thank you,
Speaker 1: and I think I probably hopefully can handle it. The
Speaker 1: issue of the president declaring a national emergency or a
Speaker 1: national crisis, whatever we're going to call it, is an
Speaker 1: important one to take very seriously. But there is a statute.
Speaker 1: Remember we had Andy McCarthy on to talk about this
Speaker 1: in detail and even to read the statute. There is
Speaker 1: a statute that Congress past that says the president can
Speaker 1: do this. And there's also in that statute a place
Speaker 1: where the Congress can stop the president from that action.
Speaker 1: So there is a check and a built in check
Speaker 1: on that power from the Congress. I think it's a
Speaker 1: two thirds majority, but you know what that means that
Speaker 1: the president can't just say, yeah, there's a crisis, so
Speaker 1: I'm going to go seize everybody's assault weapons. Well, one,
Speaker 1: that would be flatly unconstitutional, and two, the Congress could say, actually,
Speaker 1: you're not going to do that. But this is this
Speaker 1: is serious stuff. I mean, I'm not going to and
Speaker 1: I'm not going to downplay what it means for the
Speaker 1: President to say I'm taking this action because there is
Speaker 1: a terrible crisis at our southern border. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to pretend that that's not a combustible situation
Speaker 1: that also sets a precedent that future administrations may in
Speaker 1: fact abuse. Obama took flatly constitutional actions on a number
Speaker 1: of occasions and was stopped by the courts on a
Speaker 1: number of occasions. You know, Obama's administration thought they could
Speaker 1: tell the Senate when it was and was not in recess.
Speaker 1: You know that there were things that are and then
Speaker 1: there was obviously DACA, and the administration was trying to
Speaker 1: find ways to just use executive power, and we were saying, then, hey,
Speaker 1: this is not acceptable, this is not within the scope
Speaker 1: of presidential authority. But the Libs and the little cheerleaders
Speaker 1: in the media all went along with it. Well, now
Speaker 1: we're looking at Trump having the authority, but is it
Speaker 1: a good idea for him to use the authority. That's
Speaker 1: a different that's a different thing. But just because he
Speaker 1: has the authority, it does not mean necessarily he should
Speaker 1: use it. But in this case, I think he should
Speaker 1: because I believe that the border is a massive problem
Speaker 1: for the country going forward and has been a problem
Speaker 1: that we've been told to ignore for far too long.
Speaker 1: So I'm with the president on taking the most bold
Speaker 1: action he can on this. Karen Right's most hilarious German
Speaker 1: movie I have ever seen is Goodbye Lenin about how
Speaker 1: things change when the Berlin Wall came down and Germany reunited.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of that, nor have I seen it,
Speaker 1: but it sounds interesting, So Karen, thank you for bringing
Speaker 1: it to my attention. David writes, Buck shields High. You
Speaker 1: must have said something a little too accurate. I listened
Speaker 1: on podcasts and for some reason, your podcast on Google
Speaker 1: Play goes into perpetual loading. No other podcasts on their
Speaker 1: site is having this issue. FYI, Hey guys, is that happening.
Speaker 1: We gotta send Google a angry email. Stop stop trying
Speaker 1: to put Buck in a corner. Nobody puts Buck in
Speaker 1: a corner. Dan writes Buck, I'm sure you can find
Speaker 1: the video or sound by from twenty sixteen debates and
Speaker 1: rallies where Trump said one way to have Mexico pay
Speaker 1: for the wall was to levy a fee or attacks
Speaker 1: and all the money transfers in the US to Mexico.
Speaker 1: But you are correct. You never said they would write it,
Speaker 1: that he would write a check. Yeah, no, Dan, I know,
Speaker 1: and look at their campaign rhetoric. No matter what president
Speaker 1: we're talking about campaign rhetoric tends to be a little
Speaker 1: a little uh, you know, a little fast and loose.
Speaker 1: People will tend not to be held to every word
Speaker 1: they say in the campaign trail. Yeah, we got to
Speaker 1: hold people to the big promises, the important stuff. But
Speaker 1: you know, all of a sudden, we're we're going to
Speaker 1: assume that everything that a politician says when they're running
Speaker 1: for president, they will be held to every word of it.
Speaker 1: That's that's quite a standard, and I don't think it's
Speaker 1: a standard that you know, I don't think it's a
Speaker 1: standard that we have held other presidents to. Republican order.
Speaker 1: Democrat Tommy writes buck take San Diego, Cafe Sevilla, hash House,
Speaker 1: a Go Go great places, and pro gluten free. The
Speaker 1: glue of gluten free. Girl I took there, became my
Speaker 1: misses thank me later. Well, Tommy, I'm thanking you now.
Speaker 1: My man really appreciate that. I will definitely, I will
Speaker 1: definitely check that out. Those sound like really good recommendations. Team.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for today. Have a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: I'll be talking to you on Monday and then from
Speaker 1: the border every day after that. Shield tie. A lot
Speaker 1: of people have heard of the aa RP, but you
Speaker 1: or someone you know might be a member and not
Speaker 1: even know that the AARP is really left wing a
Speaker 1: lot of progressive causes that they advocate for, all about
Speaker 1: Obamacare and trying to help push higher taxes. You don't
Speaker 1: want that. How about I tell you where you can
Speaker 1: get all the benefits of AARP but actually support what
Speaker 1: you believe in. I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC? Well? AMAC
Speaker 1: has first of all, over one point five million Americans
Speaker 1: who have joined. That number is growing all the time.
Speaker 1: And AMAC is all about what you value. Okay. It
Speaker 1: gets you discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants, dental plans,
Speaker 1: even sell service options. Okay, lots of benefits, and it
Speaker 1: believes in conservative values. Check out AMACK. Join right now
Speaker 1: at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us,
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better
Speaker 1: for you, better for America.