Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hudge. President Trump makes the
Speaker 1: right move and walks away from Kim Jong UN's non
Speaker 1: offer offer in Hanoi. We'll talk about where this leaves
Speaker 1: nuclear diplomacy going forward, the aftermath of Cohen's smear session
Speaker 1: up on Capitol Hill that's coming up. And also the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal supposed to create millions of jobs. They say,
Speaker 1: but that's not true. We'll talk about why in just
Speaker 1: a moment. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American Ready, you're a great
Speaker 1: American Again, The Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy.
Speaker 1: No well has risen up. The other side will say,
Speaker 1: it's about a job loser. It isn't. It's about jobs, jobs, jobs,
Speaker 1: It's a health issue, clean air, clean water, it is
Speaker 1: a defense issue. All Great American programs, everything from the
Speaker 1: Great Society to the New Deal, started with a vision
Speaker 1: for our future. Progressive taxation, an ultra millionaires tax. We
Speaker 1: can make a big down payment on a Green New Deal.
Speaker 1: Absolutely the minimum that we need to do in order
Speaker 1: to stave off planetary disaster. The idea of farting cows.
Speaker 1: The methane released from cows comes more from belching than
Speaker 1: it does farting. This is so incredible. This is such
Speaker 1: a major watershed moment, and I am so incredibly excited
Speaker 1: that we are going to transition this country into the
Speaker 1: future and we are not going to be dragged behind
Speaker 1: by our past. No. I think it is a green dream.
Speaker 1: It is, it is. The green dream is a nightmare.
Speaker 1: My friends. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. So big
Speaker 1: news of the day, of course, is there's no deal
Speaker 1: out of no deal with the North Koreans out of Vietnam.
Speaker 1: You had the testimony behind closed doors to Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: We're going to cover a lot of ground today. GDP
Speaker 1: numbers came in. They're good, not amazing, but good. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about why. My friend Matty Duppler, who's an expert
Speaker 1: on these things. She's a number super nerd, and I
Speaker 1: say that in the best possible way. She'll be joining
Speaker 1: us later on the show to talk about what this
Speaker 1: means for the economy. How's the economy looking going into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. My contention is that if the economy is strong,
Speaker 1: Trump is unbeatable going into twenty twenty. But we are
Speaker 1: due for a recession, folks, So that's not that's not
Speaker 1: going to be a done deal. And Trump is going
Speaker 1: to have to do a lot to make sure that
Speaker 1: we don't hit some kind of a cyclical bump right
Speaker 1: in time for some socialist wave to sweep. It doesn't
Speaker 1: have to sweep all of America, just has to flip
Speaker 1: a few hundred thousand votes come twenty twenty, and all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you have a President Warren or President
Speaker 1: Sanders or you know, you name it, and they're all
Speaker 1: they're all signing onto this They're all signing onto this
Speaker 1: Green New Deal nonsense. All these presidential contenders so far,
Speaker 1: the major ones, have said this is what they want
Speaker 1: to do. So what I did today, and we'll get
Speaker 1: into the nuclear diplomacy and what I see from what
Speaker 1: happened in North Korea that'll come up maybe a little
Speaker 1: bit later this hour. And I wanted to take a
Speaker 1: slightly different approach today and not allow what happened yesterday
Speaker 1: to continue to go on, which is where the left
Speaker 1: determines what the narrative is. Right. The left determines that
Speaker 1: we're all because at a certain level, if there's enough
Speaker 1: saturation coverage of something, even though how much do you
Speaker 1: really even care about what Cohen said yesterday? It was
Speaker 1: really a waste of everybody's time, not really anything new,
Speaker 1: certainly nothing of any substance or importance, and just Cohen
Speaker 1: acting like the sly, dishonest disgrace that he is. But
Speaker 1: that was such a focus that there were a lot
Speaker 1: of other things that got pushed aside, like, for example,
Speaker 1: the nuclear diplomacy in Hanoi, And so I want us
Speaker 1: focus more on that today, very little on Cohen, but
Speaker 1: also on some of the deep dive that I did
Speaker 1: on my own. Well I do all of this on
Speaker 1: my own, of course, but some of the deep dive
Speaker 1: into the Green New Deal, and specifically this idea that
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal is going to be an economic
Speaker 1: boost and will create millions of new, high paying jobs
Speaker 1: for the twenty first century economy. This is not new,
Speaker 1: by the way, this idea, this talking point, which is
Speaker 1: really that the center of the Democrat Party's platform right
Speaker 1: now is socialized medicine. They're going to call it Medicare
Speaker 1: for all, but what they want is socialized medicine. Medicare
Speaker 1: for all is just like Obamacare was a way to
Speaker 1: get there. They want socialized medicine and they want a
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. Now you might think, really, why such
Speaker 1: a focus on this, and amnesty too, but they're not
Speaker 1: talking about amnesty yet. That's also coming. This was the
Speaker 1: triad of terribles from the Obama administration. First thing Obama
Speaker 1: did Obamacare, right, that was the very first thing he did.
Speaker 1: Second thing he tried to do is get through amnesty
Speaker 1: with that. Remember that Gang of Eight bill, and oh
Speaker 1: we need to do and the Dreamers and DACA. The
Speaker 1: third thing was in climate change, and he wasn't able
Speaker 1: to get that. But those were the Those are the
Speaker 1: three dreams of the status left, because if you get
Speaker 1: those things, it's all over for limited government, conservatism, free
Speaker 1: market capitalism, all that stuff. Just it doesn't evaporate overnight,
Speaker 1: but it is in permanent recession, perhaps never to come back.
Speaker 1: They know this, and that's why they focus so much
Speaker 1: on those areas. But the Green New Deal is front
Speaker 1: and center right now. Mitch McConnell in a he's a
Speaker 1: KG character, Mitch. He knows what's up. He wants to
Speaker 1: try to force them to vote. He's not making a
Speaker 1: vote on it yet. It may not vote on it
Speaker 1: till before the August recess, So he wants them to
Speaker 1: have to take positions now and then we'll see where
Speaker 1: they are on the vote later. Merchant's a smart guy.
Speaker 1: You gotta give Mitch some credit. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: look into some of the the things that are said
Speaker 1: about the Green New Deal that just strike me as
Speaker 1: either implausible or flatly untrue. And the biggest one is
Speaker 1: that it's going to create all of these jobs, that
Speaker 1: there's going to be this explosion of great millions. They say,
Speaker 1: millions and millions of jobs. Well, when you look into
Speaker 1: what the real plans are of organizations that promote this
Speaker 1: Green New Deal, when you look into what they're trying
Speaker 1: to do, you see that there's a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: room for waste, fraud, nonsense, terrible, terrible planning. And that's
Speaker 1: what this is all about. Central planning. The Green New
Speaker 1: Deal allows central planning to become our way of life.
Speaker 1: Everything will be centrally planned because the environment and environmentalism
Speaker 1: affects everything that you do, the products you use, the
Speaker 1: house you live in, the way you heat your home,
Speaker 1: the way you cool your home, the way you get
Speaker 1: to work, the way you sit at work, the way
Speaker 1: everything you do is affected by this Green New Deal ideology.
Speaker 1: But when you start to break it into its component parts,
Speaker 1: and I read today, and I gotta tell you, there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of great research you'll find on the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal one, because it's a that they've made
Speaker 1: the concept relatively new. Although we have Obama right to
Speaker 1: play that. This is Obama from when he was president
Speaker 1: and talking about this play it. We will increase oil
Speaker 1: production here in the United States. Yes, we can drill more,
Speaker 1: but drilling is not a long term solution to our problem,
Speaker 1: not even close. And that's why I will invest one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty billion dollars over the next decade, working
Speaker 1: in partnership with states and local governments and the private sector.
Speaker 1: We are going to invest in affordable renewable sources of energy,
Speaker 1: wind power, on solar power, and the next generation of biofuels.
Speaker 1: An investment that will lead to new industries and five
Speaker 1: million new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced.
Speaker 1: Five million jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced. Well,
Speaker 1: let me tell you something about Obama that you may
Speaker 1: not know. The Obama stimulus package included billion of dollars
Speaker 1: set aside for what we would call Green New Deal
Speaker 1: style programs. And you know what really happened. Some of
Speaker 1: these companies that are getting massive government subsidies used money
Speaker 1: to buy windmills or solar farms, wind turbines, or solar
Speaker 1: farms or rather solar panels overseas and then use them
Speaker 1: for their own purposes. They weren't creating jobs. Here. We
Speaker 1: know from Cylindra that the economic model, remember that Cylinder,
Speaker 1: the Obama administration boondoggle, hundreds of millions of dollars of
Speaker 1: loan guarantees for Cylindra. So that just means that they
Speaker 1: can lose money. And when they lose too much money,
Speaker 1: the taxpayer fills in the gap. And that was a
Speaker 1: Department of Energy program. By the way, they couldn't make
Speaker 1: it work. They were losing money on all the energy
Speaker 1: they were creating. Now fast forward to today. So Obama
Speaker 1: had this plan too. Obama love this idea, and it
Speaker 1: didn't work. Now we've also seen what's happened in Europe
Speaker 1: where they've been pursuing some of what they their own
Speaker 1: versions of the Green New Deal. And guess what, despite
Speaker 1: enormous investments and I hate that word investment, because you
Speaker 1: know what investment is. They're taking your money, They are
Speaker 1: taking your taxes. And when you're getting ready like me
Speaker 1: to write out a check in the next few weeks
Speaker 1: to the government to pay your taxes so that you
Speaker 1: can continue to be a freeman who doesn't go to prison.
Speaker 1: Remember that they want to take that and say it's
Speaker 1: an investment and give it to somebody who says they're
Speaker 1: doing the work of saving the planet by creating green energy.
Speaker 1: Germany has had flat carbon emissions despite five hundred and
Speaker 1: billion dollars of investment that they've set aside by twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five in a renewable heavy electrical grid, and they've
Speaker 1: had a fifty percent rise in electricity costs. France has
Speaker 1: a tenth to carbon emissions. This was done a piece
Speaker 1: today I saw on Quilette. It was amazing. A tenth
Speaker 1: of the carbon emissions per unit of electricity is Germany
Speaker 1: and pays a little more than half for its electricity.
Speaker 1: How through nuclear power. Nuclear power, if they're serious about
Speaker 1: clean energy and having affordable electricity, is what we should
Speaker 1: be doing. And yet the left hates nuclear power. Why
Speaker 1: because of the propaganda against it, Because it's not part
Speaker 1: of their belief system, because the Green New Deal is
Speaker 1: based on a religious belief system. Nuclear doesn't that's not clean,
Speaker 1: that's not even though it actually is. There's waste from it,
Speaker 1: but the waste is very minimal and small, and the
Speaker 1: risk of nuclear some kind of a nuclear meltdown situations,
Speaker 1: very very very small nuclear power. If we were just
Speaker 1: being serious about our future when it comes to energy
Speaker 1: creation would be way more effective. But people are obsessed
Speaker 1: with solar and wind. That's what they really want. Well,
Speaker 1: there are cost of solar and wind. You can figure
Speaker 1: out what they are just by thinking through it. They
Speaker 1: estimate that wind power which and this would all This
Speaker 1: is what the Green New Deal would be. The Green
Speaker 1: New Deal would be enormous amounts of taxpayer dollars flooding
Speaker 1: into buying land and clearing it for solar farms, because
Speaker 1: that's really what you need. You need a lot of
Speaker 1: solar panels to generate enough electricity to power you know,
Speaker 1: a major town or city. They're not attractive to look at,
Speaker 1: by the way, it's not nice in the landscape. You
Speaker 1: know a lot of solar panels. Those solar panels, I
Speaker 1: would know, don't last forever last about twenty years. We
Speaker 1: don't really know how to dispose of them. What becomes
Speaker 1: of solar panels when they're no longer really useful. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of energy expended in making them, you know that.
Speaker 1: I talk about wind turbines as queens and arts for
Speaker 1: migratory foul, but particularly for endangered species of birds, for
Speaker 1: bald eagles, for you know, for all kinds of hawks
Speaker 1: and raptors that are on the protected species list. They
Speaker 1: get chopped up by by wind turbines all the time.
Speaker 1: They estimate a million birds a year, including large you know,
Speaker 1: large birds that are protected. But you know, the environmentalists
Speaker 1: just turn a blind eye of that million birds of year, folks.
Speaker 1: So there is that. And then on this issue of
Speaker 1: the jobs, there's a fallacy and this is true of
Speaker 1: Democrats on a whole bunch of a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: aspects of job creation. But here's the basics of the
Speaker 1: of the Green New Deal fallacy about job creation. They
Speaker 1: seem to think that you take money, you put it
Speaker 1: into you put it into building a solar farm, and
Speaker 1: that's a great thing. You're going to create a job. Well,
Speaker 1: how long does that job last? The statistics show doesn't
Speaker 1: last very long at all. What is a green job?
Speaker 1: They don't even define this. You know why because a
Speaker 1: huge portion of the so called jobs that are going
Speaker 1: to be created by a green deal are going to
Speaker 1: be bureaucratic jobs. That's right, The administrators of our new
Speaker 1: green energy future, a lot of federal jobs, stating local jobs.
Speaker 1: People that are just pushing paper around about how wonderful
Speaker 1: our green new deal future is going to be. There
Speaker 1: not going to be that. We don't need human beings
Speaker 1: standing around holding up solar panels. The infrastructure to transfer
Speaker 1: this electricity from these different renewable sources is incredibly expensive.
Speaker 1: We have to put all that in the battery revolution
Speaker 1: that we've been promised. You know, look at how Elon
Speaker 1: Musk's company is doing, folks. He's supposed to be mister
Speaker 1: battery man. The battery revolution is not here yet. It's
Speaker 1: not as simple as just you're going to charge it
Speaker 1: up and then when it's nighttime, those solar panels are
Speaker 1: going to be just fine because they've already charged up.
Speaker 1: A No, that's not how it works. The technology is
Speaker 1: not there yet. And in terms of the job creation fallacy,
Speaker 1: the way that liberals approached the Green New Deal would
Speaker 1: be like saying, well, when somebody walks past a car
Speaker 1: and smashes the windshield, that's not a bad thing because
Speaker 1: then the person that sells windshields has to you know,
Speaker 1: they have to go and sell the windshield to the
Speaker 1: person that needs a new one. And there are people
Speaker 1: that construct the windshield, and the insurance company is going
Speaker 1: to make a payout. But the insurance company gets paid
Speaker 1: along the way, and there's all this productivity around the
Speaker 1: smashing of the windshield. Well, what the green energy people
Speaker 1: don't understand is that the money that is going into
Speaker 1: that is less productive than the money that you could
Speaker 1: or rather than the ways you could have used that
Speaker 1: money if you didn't have a smashed windshield. This analogy
Speaker 1: that would be fossil fuels the windshield. If that's making sense.
Speaker 1: This whole thing is a disaster. It does not work.
Speaker 1: The science is not there. It does not create the
Speaker 1: jobs they say it will. Each job that is created
Speaker 1: is incredibly expensive. It just moves jobs out of much
Speaker 1: more efficient fossil fuel energy production rules. It's going to
Speaker 1: create an enormous bureaucracy. It's going to allow the government
Speaker 1: to have its tentacles in every aspect of your life.
Speaker 1: The Green New Deal is a Green New nightmare. I
Speaker 1: am telling you, the more you dig into it, it
Speaker 1: is awful. And every Democrat for president that has a
Speaker 1: serious shot right now are all officially signed onto this.
Speaker 1: We need more research on this, We mean, we need
Speaker 1: more people looking into this and pulling it apart and
Speaker 1: not just yes, the cow fart jokes are fine. I
Speaker 1: make them too, but we need to look at how
Speaker 1: wrong they are and why they're wrong, because people are
Speaker 1: going to believe this. I'm telling you They're going to
Speaker 1: believe these lunatics. I'll be right back. So we do
Speaker 1: have the aftermath of what was not a not yet
Speaker 1: a successful deal in Hannoy or not a successful deal
Speaker 1: in trying to get North Korea off of its nuclear footing.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that in just a moment. I'll spend
Speaker 1: some time with you to talk through because you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear a lot of noise the media about how it's
Speaker 1: big failure for Trump. But I just I think that
Speaker 1: this Green New Deal thing, I'm seeing a lack of
Speaker 1: intellectual seriousness and pulling apart it is worthy of being mocked.
Speaker 1: Make the mistake about it. I mean, I think we
Speaker 1: should just do whole segments where a kaiser Karts has
Speaker 1: its talking about like how we should stop eating meat
Speaker 1: because we're gonna say the planet Like, I get it right,
Speaker 1: I mean I do that too fine. But when I'm
Speaker 1: looking around for who's really tackling this issue of Green
Speaker 1: New Deal jobs millions of jobs, they say this, what
Speaker 1: evidence do they have for this? Why don't we make
Speaker 1: them provide evidence? How will there be jobs? Will these
Speaker 1: just be jobs that are switched over from the currently
Speaker 1: productive energy economy? And what about people that are just
Speaker 1: involved in the bureaucracy that this is going to create,
Speaker 1: you know, the people that are going to measure how
Speaker 1: green the Green New Deal is. And then also there's
Speaker 1: a selective technological optimism at work here where they just
Speaker 1: suggest that Green New Deal technology, you know, wind and
Speaker 1: solar and all this stuff is going to get better
Speaker 1: and better and better. What we've actually seen of a
Speaker 1: last particularly fifteen to twenty years, is that fossil fuel
Speaker 1: technology has become way more efficient. Fracking has brought about
Speaker 1: in an oil revolution in this country. We are a
Speaker 1: global fossil fuel superpower, and right at that moment. What
Speaker 1: the left wants us to do is abandon that and
Speaker 1: embrace a massive bureaucracy that's really just a trojan horse
Speaker 1: for socialism. And they're going to call it the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal. I'm sorry, it's the Green New Nightmare. I'm
Speaker 1: not down with it, and we're going to keep fighting it.
Speaker 1: But we'll talk about Trump and Kim coming up. I
Speaker 1: wanted to denuke certain areas and I wanted everything, and
Speaker 1: the sanctions are there, and I didn't want to give
Speaker 1: up the sanctions unless we had a real program, and
Speaker 1: they're not ready for that. Night understand that, fully, I
Speaker 1: really do. I mean, they spent a lot of time
Speaker 1: building it, and that doesn't mean the world has to
Speaker 1: be happy. But I wanted them to d nuke, d nuke,
Speaker 1: the President says, didn't want to give up sanctions. This
Speaker 1: is why there is no deal now. The President was
Speaker 1: very clear that this should not be seen as an
Speaker 1: end to the process. Right. The President was saying today
Speaker 1: that after he left Hanoi, it's not like there's not
Speaker 1: going to be more follow on conversations here and more
Speaker 1: to discuss, but the relationship will continue on and will
Speaker 1: continue with the current status quo, which is that there
Speaker 1: won't be missile testing, there won't be advanced nuclear stuff
Speaker 1: going on, or ways to try to advance the nuclear
Speaker 1: program that they have him. Mostly it's the missile testing,
Speaker 1: but there's other stuff that they could do too. Here's
Speaker 1: what the President said about this place sixteen. We will
Speaker 1: keep the relationship. We'll see what happens over the next
Speaker 1: period of time. But as you know, we've got our
Speaker 1: hostages back. There's no more testing. And one of the
Speaker 1: things importantly that Chairman Kim promised me last night is regardless,
Speaker 1: he's not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear
Speaker 1: not going to do testing. So you know, I trust
Speaker 1: him and I take him at his word. I hope
Speaker 1: that's true. I think it was very good, very friendly.
Speaker 1: This wasn't a walk away, like you get up and
Speaker 1: walk out now. This was very friendly. We shook hands
Speaker 1: saying they're not there yet. Right, He's saying that we
Speaker 1: weren't able to get it done this time, but this
Speaker 1: channel is open now and we'll see. You know, part
Speaker 1: of this process, and I think this is hard for
Speaker 1: us as Americans to consider, is the preparation back home
Speaker 1: in North Korea. I know it's not a democracy, it's
Speaker 1: a despotism. But to prepare the people around Kim, his
Speaker 1: senior advisors, military generals, the apparatus that Kim. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what despot you're talking about, there's always people that
Speaker 1: you have to have that implement your will. Right So,
Speaker 1: you know, even if you're Prince Jeoffrey and Game of
Speaker 1: Thrones or King Joffrey and Game of Thrones, you know
Speaker 1: you need the hand, and you know you need the
Speaker 1: queen regent, and you need people around you. I know,
Speaker 1: I'm excited Game of Thrones is coming back in a
Speaker 1: few weeks. You need people around you to implement your will.
Speaker 1: You know, no matter how authoritarian any individual may be,
Speaker 1: there has to be an apparatus around them to enact
Speaker 1: their will. So Kim, even if he wanted to take
Speaker 1: steps in this direction, and I don't know if he
Speaker 1: does or not, I haven't had a chance to talk
Speaker 1: to him. I'm that would be kind of funny, wouldn't it. Man?
Speaker 1: If I could, that would be quite an inner view.
Speaker 1: You know, he did take a question from a report.
Speaker 1: This was pretty remarkable, and you know, this is not
Speaker 1: something that it's certainly not something you see every day.
Speaker 1: He did take a question do we do we have that?
Speaker 1: He were saying, Oh, yeah, here we go play thirteen.
Speaker 1: This is before the meeting. Well, it's still really to tell.
Speaker 1: But I wouldn't say that I'm testing from what I
Speaker 1: feel right now. I do have a bling bad good
Speaker 1: results would come out. I mean, you got to hear
Speaker 1: I've I've never heard the guy speak before. I'll be
Speaker 1: honest with you. I mean, I've read transcripts and obviously
Speaker 1: it's not speaking in English speaking Korean, but uh, I've
Speaker 1: never even heard his voice. It's always dubbed over. But
Speaker 1: you know, the the back home processes that he's going
Speaker 1: to have to if he Look, maybe this is all
Speaker 1: Maybe this is all for not I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: rule that out. You know, this is the worst regime,
Speaker 1: the worst government on the planet, the one that I
Speaker 1: think is the most likely to provoke a war that
Speaker 1: could go nuclear. And the deprivation, the viciousness, the sadism,
Speaker 1: the slavery, the torture that the North Korean State engages
Speaker 1: in really exceeds anything anywhere else on planet Earth right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, they are number one, and you're dealing then
Speaker 1: with somebody who sits atop this this mountain of misery
Speaker 1: and enslavement and despair. And you know, he didn't create
Speaker 1: this system, but he's at the top of this system.
Speaker 1: You have to remember, I'm not even sure it's clear
Speaker 1: that Kim could just flip some switch and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden everything starts to feel a lot more normal. There.
Speaker 1: The people have been propagandized too. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of people who live in such terror of the regime.
Speaker 1: They believe the regime. This is where I always telling you,
Speaker 1: you know, read Escape from Camp fourteen, read Aquariums of
Speaker 1: pyeong Yang, and they will haunt you. I mean, those
Speaker 1: books will they will stay with you. You know. Escape
Speaker 1: from Camp fourteen is like a Korean version of the
Speaker 1: Gulag Archipelago. I mean, it's the kind of literature that
Speaker 1: affects the way that you see not just that country,
Speaker 1: but the way that you see life and the world
Speaker 1: around you. And it takes you into the real depths
Speaker 1: of human despair and misery and violence and hatred. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, make no mistake about it. North Korea is
Speaker 1: the most evil country in the world right now. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Iran is an evil regime, but you know,
Speaker 1: the Iranian people learned way better shape than which you're
Speaker 1: what's going on in North Korea. A lot of Iranians
Speaker 1: driving around in BMW's and you know, having par It's
Speaker 1: a very very different scene, right, That's not the scene
Speaker 1: you have in North Korea. And part of this whole
Speaker 1: process and the reason that it's going to be phased
Speaker 1: if it works, which it may not, because maybe he
Speaker 1: is you know, he could just be an evil soob
Speaker 1: and that's it. But at least now we're finding out
Speaker 1: at least now Trump is trying and when you and
Speaker 1: this is another part of this that I don't think
Speaker 1: it's nearly enough analytic play. You know, you look at
Speaker 1: who the North Korean dictators have liked in the past.
Speaker 1: They like larger than life figures, you know, they like
Speaker 1: Dennis Rodman, you know, Kim Jong n Kim Jong Ill
Speaker 1: like Dennis Rodman, They love Michael Jordan, they like you know,
Speaker 1: huge American celebrities. I forget, there's some other celebrities. I
Speaker 1: remember reading about this that the Kim dynasty really warmed
Speaker 1: to and I can't now And the problem with with
Speaker 1: some of the North koreanalysis you do is the North
Speaker 1: Korea jokes and memes that people may get met, you know,
Speaker 1: to get mixed in your head with because some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that is true sounds like it can't be true,
Speaker 1: you know, like Kim Jong gun got eighteen holes in
Speaker 1: one in golf in the same day, and things like,
Speaker 1: you know, the North Korean news agency propaganda. It sounds
Speaker 1: so preposterous that it's like something from the Onion. But
Speaker 1: it isn't from the Onion. But Kim is going to
Speaker 1: have to go through a whole process here. It's not
Speaker 1: as straightforward as just Okay, I want our country to
Speaker 1: be a normal country. I mean I think that there's
Speaker 1: a real risk that he could be you know, they
Speaker 1: could take him under house arrest, and there would be
Speaker 1: somebody that you know, you could have some kind of
Speaker 1: a palace coup, and there's other members of the family,
Speaker 1: you know, who knows. Our visibility into the real power
Speaker 1: structure in North Korea and the decision making process is,
Speaker 1: I can guarantee you very very minimal. It's very hard
Speaker 1: to look into a place as closed off in the
Speaker 1: world as North Korea and really know who's making I mean,
Speaker 1: our visibility into the you know, the decision making in
Speaker 1: France into our own government is limited. You can imagine
Speaker 1: what we really know about North Korea. But the reason
Speaker 1: this fell apart with sanctions, This is very important Play fifteen.
Speaker 1: They wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety and we
Speaker 1: couldn't do that. They were willing to denuke a large
Speaker 1: portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn't
Speaker 1: give up all of the sanctions for that. So we
Speaker 1: continue to work and we'll see, but we had to
Speaker 1: walk away from that. I think we'll end up being
Speaker 1: very good friends with Chairman Kim and with North Korea.
Speaker 1: And I think they have tremendous potential. I've been telling
Speaker 1: everybody they have tremendous potential, unbelievable potential. But we're going
Speaker 1: to see. But it was about sanctions. I mean, they
Speaker 1: wanted sanctions lifted, but they weren't willing to do an
Speaker 1: area that we wanted. I want to lift sanctions, but
Speaker 1: you know that wasn't going to happen if Trump had
Speaker 1: come back. I assure you, if Ump had come back
Speaker 1: from Hanoi, which is so much more important, and I
Speaker 1: know I've been saying to you, so much more important
Speaker 1: than this nonsense with Cohen on Capitol Hia. So it
Speaker 1: just goes to show you Democrats are unserious people. A
Speaker 1: serious threat to the country, but unserious people. All the
Speaker 1: saturation coverage of Cohen, all that's all the news wires.
Speaker 1: Everyone's talking about me, while the president's trying to solve
Speaker 1: a war that's never even formally been ended and going
Speaker 1: on since nineteen fifty one, and deal with the greatest
Speaker 1: national security threat really in terms of positive, in terms
Speaker 1: of loss of life, potential, realistic national security threat that
Speaker 1: exists in the world today. He's trying to tackle that,
Speaker 1: and you know, they just want to make jokes and
Speaker 1: make fun of him. But if he had come back
Speaker 1: from this and he had agreed to sanctions relief without
Speaker 1: a full accounting of the North Korean nuclear program and
Speaker 1: without an agreement on steps for denuclearization with verification procedures
Speaker 1: in play, I would have said Trump, Trump's getting played.
Speaker 1: I've told you, I'm disappointed on where the wall is
Speaker 1: right now. The wall is not where we were led
Speaker 1: to believe it would be at this point. That doesn't
Speaker 1: mean but see there's a difference between it's not what
Speaker 1: I want, it's not perfect yet and someone has failed,
Speaker 1: someone has sold us out, someone was lying. Those are
Speaker 1: not the same thing, all right. The wall isn't where
Speaker 1: it should be now. And Trump hasn't gotten as far
Speaker 1: at this point in his presidency as he should have
Speaker 1: based on the importance of the wall in his campaign
Speaker 1: rhetoric and the size of the immigration crisis, which is
Speaker 1: only going to get worse. We'll be talking more about that,
Speaker 1: I'm sure in the weeks ahead, but on this issue,
Speaker 1: the fact that he did not remove sanctions is absolutely essential.
Speaker 1: And this is where this is where the Obama administration
Speaker 1: fell into a trap because they were desperate and Obama
Speaker 1: couldn't you know, Obama's team couldn't negotiate their way out
Speaker 1: of a paper bag. I mean, they had no idea
Speaker 1: what they were really doing because they didn't really understand
Speaker 1: the opposition. They didn't really understand who the Iranians are
Speaker 1: and what the Iranian regime is trying to do willing
Speaker 1: to do. And there was a tremendous amount of hubrists
Speaker 1: and an arrogance that was just dripping from the you know,
Speaker 1: Ben Rhodes and the other chief foreign policy propagandists of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, and they didn't want to listen to
Speaker 1: anybody else. They thought that they knew better, they were smarter,
Speaker 1: and they got They got just swindled, absolutely swindled. Because
Speaker 1: now the Iranian state's getting you know, well, Trump has
Speaker 1: rolled this back, but the Iranian state was on a
Speaker 1: roadway to getting richer and having a more robust nuclear
Speaker 1: program down the line that would be turn key, ready
Speaker 1: to go. It gets all this relief from sanctions. We
Speaker 1: gave it, palettes of cash, gave it all this money.
Speaker 1: Iranian regime hasn't changed one bit towards us. Every every
Speaker 1: bit is as bellicose and as dangerous and as much
Speaker 1: of a threat to our interest in the Middle East
Speaker 1: and around the world as its always been. North Korea,
Speaker 1: we sat down or Trump's show, we didn't do it. Hey,
Speaker 1: here we are Team Buck has a ride for negotiations
Speaker 1: with Kim Jong hun. Now, but the President United States
Speaker 1: sat down with North Korea with Kim Jong hun and said, look,
Speaker 1: let's do this. He's right to focus on what how
Speaker 1: much potential the country has. I would know he's right
Speaker 1: to spend time extolling the possibilities for wealth and for prosperity,
Speaker 1: because you know, the people at the top of Remember,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying North Korea is never going to be Switzerland,
Speaker 1: certainly not in our lifetime and probably not for you know, ever,
Speaker 1: maybe a few centuries. You know, North Korea is not
Speaker 1: even going to be Japan or South Korea anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But North Korea could be you know, like China circa
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty in terms of the way it approaches things
Speaker 1: and the you know, the economy, or maybe China circa
Speaker 1: nineteens nineteen fifty probably wouldn't be that much better than
Speaker 1: but you know, it could be China thirty or forty
Speaker 1: years ago. Command economy, labor force. Yeah, rough conditions, bad stuff, corruption.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not like this is some place that
Speaker 1: everyone else wants to emulate. But you know, you've got
Speaker 1: to get the power structure to go along. It's not
Speaker 1: just Kim. Even in a dictatorship, it's not just the dictator.
Speaker 1: And the reason I know about this is because I
Speaker 1: actually have a bunch of academic literature here on my
Speaker 1: bookshelf at home that I've read through about authoritarianism and dictatorship.
Speaker 1: You know what, the number one threat to dictators for
Speaker 1: the last five hundred years has been it's it's not
Speaker 1: external invasion, it's not financial collapse. It is a coup
Speaker 1: from somebody powerful in their inner circle. Number one threat
Speaker 1: for dictators, or at least for the last I think
Speaker 1: hundred fifty years. I said five hundred, last hundred fifty years,
Speaker 1: that's the number one threat. So Kim Jong un goes
Speaker 1: back there and he doesn't have buy in from his
Speaker 1: general roles. All of a sudden, you know, some second
Speaker 1: cousin of Kims who's the you know, in command of
Speaker 1: the military says, you know, Kim's not feeling well. You're
Speaker 1: not going to see him for a while. We're running
Speaker 1: the show. Now, who's gonna say, Who's gonna say anything
Speaker 1: about that? So it's a process. It's delicate, incredibly complicated.
Speaker 1: More on this week come back. Why these talks have
Speaker 1: failed under Bush and Clinton and Obama were we didn't
Speaker 1: think there was an existential threat. Yet now we know
Speaker 1: there is with the ability to hit a western city.
Speaker 1: So Trump is much more urgent and serious. And second,
Speaker 1: we had this crazy appeasing idea of China that they
Speaker 1: were on the trajectory to the Family of Nations, and
Speaker 1: the more we appease them, the more the rich they got,
Speaker 1: the more reasonable they are. Trump doesn't buy into that.
Speaker 1: We always gave up on sanctions. We said, why, I'm god,
Speaker 1: they're eating grass, or we have to be careful about
Speaker 1: the innocent North Korean people, But they don't rate when
Speaker 1: you're considering losing Seattle or Portland's So I think Trump
Speaker 1: brilliantly put it in Vietnam, and he's basically saying, without backdrop,
Speaker 1: this was an arch enemy of the United States. It's
Speaker 1: communist and it's doing much better than you are. That's
Speaker 1: the inducement, and that's Mickey Davis Hansen. He understands this.
Speaker 1: But why should North Korea? Why should the North Korean
Speaker 1: power brokers, the decision makers, why why should they do this?
Speaker 1: What do they get out of it? Because I remember,
Speaker 1: there's going to be there's gonna be the possibility of
Speaker 1: external influence and they could lose their grip on power.
Speaker 1: Why well, you know, you can look from some other
Speaker 1: countries in the region that you still have authoritarian rule,
Speaker 1: military rule, communist party rule. But people are rich, people
Speaker 1: are rich, and even some of the North Korean elite,
Speaker 1: I'm sure would like to get a little richer. And
Speaker 1: that's it's going to be incremental progress. Is I think
Speaker 1: what people have lost sight if here it has to
Speaker 1: be incremental progress, there is no there is no speedy
Speaker 1: version of getting North Korea from being the hermit Kingdom
Speaker 1: to reunifying with South Korea and everything being fine, and
Speaker 1: that's never going to happen. Via Davids. Hanson also just
Speaker 1: spoke more broadly to Trump's record. I want to I mean,
Speaker 1: I VDH is one of my favorites these days. He
Speaker 1: really he really gets at play seven. I think people
Speaker 1: admired him from getting out of the Paris Climate Accord
Speaker 1: when you look back at it, moving the embassy to Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: defeating ISIS and almost annihilating isis the irandal. I think
Speaker 1: even at sponsors realized was flawed. I think even people
Speaker 1: realize now that NATO needed to pay more and their
Speaker 1: pledged one hundred million dollars. So I think cumulative people
Speaker 1: are saying, you know what, if you look at the
Speaker 1: entire Trump record, especially under Secretary of State pump Pao,
Speaker 1: it's getting better, and it's already good. It is, it's
Speaker 1: getting better. We gotta hit a second hour here, team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Every day I start the same way.
Speaker 1: I need a delicious cup of coffee, but I don't
Speaker 1: want to support a bunch of commie nonsense, So I
Speaker 1: drink Black Rifle coffee because Black Rifle is an all
Speaker 1: American company, and it's founded by veterans, and it makes
Speaker 1: incredible coffee. So this checks off all the boxes. My friends,
Speaker 1: I drink my Black Rifle every morning. I have my
Speaker 1: whole camera crew at the hill drinking Black Rifle. I
Speaker 1: got producers, I've even got some libs drinking Black Rifle
Speaker 1: because it's so delicious and everybody supports and loves veterans,
Speaker 1: and that's what Black Rifle is run by. This is
Speaker 1: roast to order, guaranteed fresh coffee delivered right to your door.
Speaker 1: Everybody listening to this needs to go to this address
Speaker 1: black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck, and you'll get twenty
Speaker 1: percent off whatever coffee you're drinking. Forget about that coffee.
Speaker 1: This will get delivered to you monthly. Join the coffee club.
Speaker 1: Just go now and sign up Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck for twenty percent off again, fuel the fight
Speaker 1: for freedom at Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck. So
Speaker 1: it's strike one in Singapore. He didn't get a deal
Speaker 1: with Kim Jong un. Now it's strike two, Hannoy once again,
Speaker 1: no deal to denuclearize North Korea, something that he's staked
Speaker 1: a lot of his legacy, a lot of his presidency
Speaker 1: on a very rough and rocky twenty four hours of
Speaker 1: the President humbled back in Washington, humbled here in Hanoi,
Speaker 1: heading back to Washington empty handed. And so I think
Speaker 1: when we assess all of this in the hours and
Speaker 1: days and weeks ahead, I think what's going to become
Speaker 1: clear Christiana and Jim is that the President staked a
Speaker 1: lot of his presidency on something that is just much
Speaker 1: more difficult than reality TV. This is not something that
Speaker 1: can be wrapped up in a season of The Apprentice.
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta is an idiot, and CNN should be ashamed
Speaker 1: to put him out there as their chief White House correspondent.
Speaker 1: I think he's just not very smart. He's just one
Speaker 1: of these classic TV zombie types who's much more worried
Speaker 1: about what kind of hair hold and spray he's using,
Speaker 1: and how the camera angle looks on his jawline and
Speaker 1: anything else. And it's just an ignoramus, isn't isn't smart,
Speaker 1: doesn't bring much to this, and here he is taking
Speaker 1: taking cheap shots at the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: who is legitimately trying to avert a future a future
Speaker 1: nuclear crisis. You know, I mean, I could say one
Speaker 1: thing when when Obama took out Bin Laden by giving
Speaker 1: the order that he had sat on for a long
Speaker 1: time to join Special Operations Command and Enable Seal Team
Speaker 1: went in and actually did the mission. But anyway, people say,
Speaker 1: oh Obama got Bin Laden. No, our seals got Bin Laden,
Speaker 1: thank you. But Obama as Commander chief, did give the order.
Speaker 1: I didn't do a whole oh you know, but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't really It's it's not good that, you know,
Speaker 1: we got justice for nine to eleven because Obama gave it. No,
Speaker 1: it was the right move. He got credit for it there,
Speaker 1: he had it right. I mean, there are some places
Speaker 1: where partisanship really just has no place, and on North
Speaker 1: Korea nuclear diplomacy, that's where we should be. And you
Speaker 1: can just see these smug, gloating idiots in the mainstream
Speaker 1: media are are happy that Trump didn't get a deal,
Speaker 1: happy that Trump didn't get a deal that would have
Speaker 1: not only removed the the threat of a possible major
Speaker 1: nuclear military confrontation when remember, no great has a million
Speaker 1: million plus man standing army, has a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: artillery and and you know, mechanized infantry, and I mean
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of Soviet era and then upgraded military
Speaker 1: hardware they could bring to bear, which doesn't really affect
Speaker 1: us that much. I'm not saying they're gonna roll self
Speaker 1: propelled artillery into Omaha anytime soon, but it does affect
Speaker 1: South Korea. And we have thirty thousand or so troops
Speaker 1: who are in South Korea, so that they're there are
Speaker 1: conventional military concerns that we have to take very seriously.
Speaker 1: But you know that that could have been at least
Speaker 1: we could have gotten to the start of the removal
Speaker 1: of any threat of that in the future. By the way,
Speaker 1: who's just say that North Korea doesn't just go totally
Speaker 1: wacko and invade South Korea again. You know, we take
Speaker 1: this position of, well, they would never do that. Well,
Speaker 1: the more you learn about North Korea, the crazier you
Speaker 1: realize it is, and the decision making apparatus there is
Speaker 1: not something that we can effectively anticipate. And if they
Speaker 1: thought that they could take enough of South Korea quickly
Speaker 1: enough that we wouldn't want to retaliate. And you know
Speaker 1: that there's a lot of reason to believe that. Ideologically,
Speaker 1: at least, the North Korean leadership is a ligne with
Speaker 1: that anyway. I mean, it's just it's a huge problem
Speaker 1: set North Korea is a concentration camp above ground, a
Speaker 1: mass grave below it, and the president is making a
Speaker 1: good faith effort. He really does want Yeah, he wants
Speaker 1: this for all presidents. I want there to be a
Speaker 1: degree of of you know, individual glory seeking in a
Speaker 1: president when it comes to things like this, because that's
Speaker 1: what keeps you in the fight, that's what keeps you
Speaker 1: willing to take these risks sometimes that you know there's
Speaker 1: going to be an everlasting legacy of achieving something that
Speaker 1: is truly great. You know, I want people to be
Speaker 1: motivated for themselves as well as for the greater good.
Speaker 1: I want everybody rowing in the same direction. So I
Speaker 1: think that Trump trying to achieve this is something that
Speaker 1: everybody should be willing to say they want. And yet
Speaker 1: you have smug Acosta saying it's much more difficult than
Speaker 1: reality TV. You know what is not that difficult preening
Speaker 1: in front of a camera about how much you hate
Speaker 1: Trump on CNN like an idiot, like an absolute idiot.
Speaker 1: Speaking of idiots, Bob Menendez another a senator. Who wasn't
Speaker 1: he the guy that was flying down to the Dominican
Speaker 1: Republic And there was all kinds of interesting hubbub around
Speaker 1: that Senor Menendez. Oh, he is the guy who his
Speaker 1: best friend Meligan, was paying for his very high end lifestyle.
Speaker 1: Even Meligan just ripped off Medicare. And I think a
Speaker 1: sixty million dollar fraud, sixty million, might even an eighty million,
Speaker 1: but just just ripping off attacks bearer tens of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars. That was Bob Menendez's best buddy. The only
Speaker 1: reason he didn't go to prison. Menendez didn't go to
Speaker 1: prisons because a jury was like, well, maybe they were
Speaker 1: just friends that he wasn't actually a quid pro quo
Speaker 1: corruption situation. Well yeah, but Menendez did lobby for some
Speaker 1: of Meligan's international babe patrol to get on the private
Speaker 1: jet and come to America and get them visas or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, Menendez should have gone to jail, all right,
Speaker 1: Menendez should have gone to jail. Didn't go to jail.
Speaker 1: But on the summit, here's what he had to say.
Speaker 1: Remember this guy sits on the Senate Formulations Committee, Play
Speaker 1: a teen. What we saw in Hanoi was amateur hour
Speaker 1: with nuclear weapons at stake and the limits of reality
Speaker 1: TV diplomacy. What I worry about is that the president,
Speaker 1: by giving Kim John Noon the international not only recognition
Speaker 1: but almost acceptance, from going from pariah to an accepted
Speaker 1: international leader, has squandered the leverage that we have. This
Speaker 1: is just classic, and I'm glad we played this audio
Speaker 1: for you. This is classic echo chamber ossified foreign policy
Speaker 1: elitism thinking. Here's the reality of what has happened with
Speaker 1: the North Korea. In North Korea gets more advanced missile programs,
Speaker 1: more advanced in its nuclear programs, and is no closer
Speaker 1: to liberalizing or becoming a less Bellico state now than
Speaker 1: it has been in thirty years. It has been progressing
Speaker 1: administration after administration toward deliverable nuclear weapons atop an ICBM
Speaker 1: and all the so called smarts that up to this
Speaker 1: point hasn't been able to do. Squat and saying these
Speaker 1: things like squandering our leverage and elevating his profile and
Speaker 1: the he is the leader of North Korea. He's got
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. You know, the people that take this position
Speaker 1: if we never should have talked to Kim Jong un.
Speaker 1: To that, I say, well, we are talking to the Taliban,
Speaker 1: and we're about to effectively hand Afghanistan over to the
Speaker 1: Taliban if current trends continue. So what are we supposed
Speaker 1: to do? We don't talk to the enemy. I mean,
Speaker 1: North Korea is an enemy state, but we're not going
Speaker 1: to talk to them. What has that gotten us? It's
Speaker 1: gotten us a lot of missile firings. Hasn't helped the
Speaker 1: North Korean people. All that I'm not saying. See, this
Speaker 1: is the key talk, but don't concede. Obama was what
Speaker 1: can I how can I make a deal? What can
Speaker 1: I do? What do I need to give you Iran
Speaker 1: to get a deal so that I have a foreign
Speaker 1: policy legacy? That was the Obama administration and all the
Speaker 1: so called smart set there. Trump is saying, all right,
Speaker 1: let's discuss. Here are my terms. You won't take my terms.
Speaker 1: I'm out. I'm out. That's the way it should be.
Speaker 1: What was really the other The other way was back
Speaker 1: channeling with some diplomats and to get something going. You know, whatever,
Speaker 1: Please you think that the bureaucrats at the State Department
Speaker 1: are going to solve this problem. Find me a problem
Speaker 1: anywhere near as high stakes and challenging as this that
Speaker 1: low level State Department bureaucrats have been able to figure out. Please,
Speaker 1: I would really like to hear that story like this
Speaker 1: is this is an outcome that's it's disappointing, but it's
Speaker 1: not a disaster. And when you understand the dynamics at
Speaker 1: play here, it's going to take time. The more that
Speaker 1: Trump and Kim Jong un, you could make this argument,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a fair one to make, the
Speaker 1: more that Kim Jong Uman Trump talk and have some
Speaker 1: kind of personal relationship, the easier it would be for
Speaker 1: the North Korean propaganda apparatus, which is what we're working
Speaker 1: on here, folks, to make it seem like, well, maybe
Speaker 1: America doesn't want to, you know, eat all of our
Speaker 1: children down to the bone and annihilate our entire country,
Speaker 1: you know. And they're not going to be fair minded
Speaker 1: about it. Is. They still are going to say where
Speaker 1: monsters were barbarians? But you know, it can ratchet down
Speaker 1: tensions a little bit. It can't be any worse. I mean,
Speaker 1: the relationship between North Korean and the rest of the
Speaker 1: world can't get worse short of an all out invasion.
Speaker 1: But why haven't we done an all out invasion North Korea?
Speaker 1: Why is North Korea the country that even back to
Speaker 1: the earliest days of the acts of evil, there's been
Speaker 1: no serious effort to topple, to invade, to do any
Speaker 1: of those things. Oh, that's right, because they have nukes
Speaker 1: and Soul is right next door, and they could destroy
Speaker 1: South Korea in a day, or you know, do tremendous
Speaker 1: damage to South Korea in a day, So we don't
Speaker 1: have that option. All right, we don't have that option.
Speaker 1: A lot of stupid stuff coming out of the pundits.
Speaker 1: Oh Trump piece, he's so horrible. And look, I can
Speaker 1: handle some degree of criticism around whether or not it's
Speaker 1: okay to have Trump warm up to Kim Jong un.
Speaker 1: He you know, when he says we fell in love,
Speaker 1: and you know, Trump says some weird things. Yeah, of course,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not here to blow smoke Trump. Some
Speaker 1: of the stuff Trump says, I'm like, did you really
Speaker 1: have to say that? Come on, man, you know, But
Speaker 1: then again, I didn't beat the Democrat left wing Hillary
Speaker 1: machine and become president the United States when everybody said
Speaker 1: it was impossible. So I give the guy some leeway
Speaker 1: to do things the way he does them. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that I always agree, though, doesn't mean that I say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's a great idea. Do I like the comment he
Speaker 1: made about how he takes Kim Jong un at his
Speaker 1: word about Otto Warrember? No, I don't. I don't. I
Speaker 1: you know, I just think that Otto was one of
Speaker 1: ours and the North Koreans acted like savages when it
Speaker 1: came to Otto, and that's not something that we should
Speaker 1: just let pass. Do. I think that Trump maybe was
Speaker 1: just trying to say, you know, it's not clear to
Speaker 1: him that the decision making about Otto was in Kim
Speaker 1: Jong UN's hands, and he doesn't want to throw away
Speaker 1: the relationship he has with Kim Jong unnecessarily. Maybe. But
Speaker 1: I didn't. I didn't like it. I didn't like it.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a problem. And I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that what Trump has done here is perfect, but he's
Speaker 1: trying and we should all this is the key point
Speaker 1: in all this. We should all be rooting for him
Speaker 1: because this is about more than party affiliation and partisan nonsense.
Speaker 1: This is about true national and global security, and I
Speaker 1: still have hope that it's going to get it done.
Speaker 1: For all of you business owners and people that rent
Speaker 1: out properties out there, you know, background checks are really important.
Speaker 1: Any vetting, any due diligence that you can do, it
Speaker 1: lowers the risk for your business. And these days, running
Speaker 1: a business effectively is all about mitigating your risk. So
Speaker 1: work with the people who are the best at this
Speaker 1: in the business. Global Verification Network. Global Verification Network is
Speaker 1: certified as a veteran owned small business, but they can
Speaker 1: handle background checks for your company in any field, any
Speaker 1: size company, and they do fantastic due diligence work for
Speaker 1: you as well for any business transactions. These are my
Speaker 1: go to I have used them. I know the CEO,
Speaker 1: he's a friend. I'm telling you these are people you
Speaker 1: can go to and trust. Call eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine. That's eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine, or go to
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com. That's my GVN dot com. Big news
Speaker 1: out of Israel today looks like a prime minister. Net
Speaker 1: and Yahoo a strong ally of the US on all matters,
Speaker 1: really on national security matters, on counterterrorism on Middle East
Speaker 1: Security Net and Yahoo could be in some hot water.
Speaker 1: This is an area where I feel like we need
Speaker 1: to bring in one of our friends who's a true
Speaker 1: expert on what's happening in Israel. We have my friend
Speaker 1: David if Fun with us now. He is the editor
Speaker 1: in chief of the Alga Miner. David, great to have
Speaker 1: you back. Always a pleasure book. So what's happening with Beebee? Well,
Speaker 1: the truth is, it certainly looks like he's in the
Speaker 1: probably the second toughest spot he's ever been in politically
Speaker 1: throughout the course of his extensive and illustrious career. The
Speaker 1: first was back in ninety seven after the Hebron Accords,
Speaker 1: where he was ultimately booted from office for the first time.
Speaker 1: The second round, he's held on the leadership position from
Speaker 1: much much longer. The truth is, though he was in
Speaker 1: trouble before the indictments or the intention to indict was
Speaker 1: announced by Israel's Attorney channel today, where a new party,
Speaker 1: which is formed of a collaboration of three different former
Speaker 1: chiefs of staff of the Israeli military, was polling six
Speaker 1: or seven points ahead of his Likud party, and certainly
Speaker 1: this announcement today is only going to add to his troubles.
Speaker 1: Having said that, Yahoo is a brilliant and masterful politician,
Speaker 1: and over the course of his career always seems to
Speaker 1: find a way out of the trickiest spots. So I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be too quick to write him off. But he's
Speaker 1: certainly in a pickle right now. Well, we'll tell us
Speaker 1: about this. What does he is he in trouble? I mean,
Speaker 1: what is he's what happened here? What do he do? Well, look,
Speaker 1: the question of you know what the end of the
Speaker 1: legal process is going to bring for him, We're not
Speaker 1: going to know that until it all plays out. You know,
Speaker 1: there has to be there has to be an indictment,
Speaker 1: and there has to be you know, the whole the
Speaker 1: full extent of the legal process. What he's being accused
Speaker 1: of are bribery and breach of trust specifically. You know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of details, and there are a
Speaker 1: bunch of different cases. There are three different cases that
Speaker 1: he's being charged in Case one thousand, Case two thousand,
Speaker 1: Case four thousands, as they're known, but effectively in exchange
Speaker 1: for better coverage from media outlets, and also in exchange
Speaker 1: for some various favors jewelry, cigars, champagne. He's accused of
Speaker 1: doing political favors for certain leading business people and business
Speaker 1: oligarchs in Israel and one actually that's in the United States.
Speaker 1: Two of those who he's accused of helping run two
Speaker 1: of Israel's biggest media outlets. So he's accused of seeking
Speaker 1: favorable coverage in exchange for various business favors. So what
Speaker 1: do you think, I mean, how does he get out
Speaker 1: of this? And by the way, how much do you
Speaker 1: assess politics? Internal politics in Israel are kind of, if
Speaker 1: not entirely behind these charges, pushing them on a little bit. Well,
Speaker 1: the truth is there's always an element of that, and
Speaker 1: you know we see that in this country as well.
Speaker 1: That certainly his political opponents are much more of gung
Speaker 1: ho about things. But the attorney general who's bought these
Speaker 1: charges is seen, as you know, mostly for the most part,
Speaker 1: of level headed guy who actually works for Yah who
Speaker 1: in the past as the cabinet secretary, that was his
Speaker 1: immediate prior job. The question, really, though, is going to be,
Speaker 1: because the legal process hasn't played out, it's going to
Speaker 1: be you know what all the other members of his coalition,
Speaker 1: how they're going to react to this and potential partners
Speaker 1: in a future coalition. So basically all of the right
Speaker 1: wing parties, including those that are further to the right
Speaker 1: of Knitt and the Irish Party, and also the ultra
Speaker 1: orthodox parties which make up the coalition as it stands today,
Speaker 1: have all said, you know, we're going to stand by
Speaker 1: net Yahoo. We'd be happy, we're happy to stay in
Speaker 1: his government now, and we're going we'd be happy to
Speaker 1: stay in his government or be a part of the
Speaker 1: future government that he would form should he win the election. So,
Speaker 1: you know, it Israel, it's not just about the party
Speaker 1: that gets the most seats. It's also about the party
Speaker 1: that has the ability to build a majority block, because
Speaker 1: nobody gets the majority of the Kineta's seats. You know,
Speaker 1: the highest polling party now is a major competitor, is
Speaker 1: polling at thirty five or thirty six seats. That's called
Speaker 1: the Blue and White Party, named after the Israeli flag,
Speaker 1: and his Liqud party is polling between twenty nine and
Speaker 1: thirty one thirty two, so he's falling a little bit behind.
Speaker 1: But what's important is not just how many seats you get,
Speaker 1: it's whether you're actually able to form a coalition, and
Speaker 1: the left wing block doesn't look like it's it's passing
Speaker 1: the sixty one seat threshold, and they might have trouble
Speaker 1: actually forming the coalition. So it's happened in the past
Speaker 1: US that the party that won the most seats actually
Speaker 1: didn't end up in government because they couldn't form the
Speaker 1: coalition that was necessary. So that's one way that Niah,
Speaker 1: who might emerge intact, I would say, after this, this
Speaker 1: whole process is over all right, Well, David, you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to come back and tell us when all said
Speaker 1: and done, if BB manages to maneuver out of this
Speaker 1: one again. Obviously he's close at the President Tromp. He's
Speaker 1: considered a staunch ally of the US in the region
Speaker 1: and obviously around the world. So always good to talk
Speaker 1: to my friend, editor in chief of the Alga Minor.
Speaker 1: If you want to know what's going on, you need
Speaker 1: to check out the Alga Minor. And David, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us, my friend David. If fun,
Speaker 1: everybody holy is a pleasure team. We are going to
Speaker 1: roll into a quick break. We've got much more show
Speaker 1: coming up, so stay with me. A lot of people
Speaker 1: tonight are humming ding dong. The witch is dead because
Speaker 1: the witch hunt, the Russia collusion narrative, it was thrown
Speaker 1: out there over and over and over again. And what
Speaker 1: happened was there was nothing there. And so for this
Speaker 1: unbelievable hearing today, you know, there were a lot of
Speaker 1: opportunities afforded this particular witness that shouldn't have happened. He
Speaker 1: had a thirty minute opening. I don't remember any witness
Speaker 1: ever having a thirty minute opening. It was all trying
Speaker 1: to spin a narrative to start the impeachment process. His
Speaker 1: testimony was highly incriminating, explosive, a bombshell in the leads
Speaker 1: it should provide if corroborated by other witnesses and documents. Plainly,
Speaker 1: he laid out a roadmap of criminality committed by the
Speaker 1: president that needs to be followed not only by the
Speaker 1: Special Council, but by other prosecuting offices. Right now, no
Speaker 1: aspect of Trump world is not under investigation a Bloomenthal
Speaker 1: de nang dick. There, no aspect of Trump world is
Speaker 1: not under investigation. He really gives away the game, doesn't
Speaker 1: He lets you know what this is all about. This
Speaker 1: is about weaponizing the law. That's what this is about.
Speaker 1: That is the primary motivation here for all of this
Speaker 1: stuff that we're seeing, Russia collusion, Southern districts of New
Speaker 1: York looking at the hush payments, trying to get Trump
Speaker 1: Trump's tax returns, all of it. But isn't it funny
Speaker 1: of Mark Meadows and Dick Bluementhal. They're both there at
Speaker 1: this hearing, both, you know, watching the same events unfold,
Speaker 1: and they come away with completely different interpretations of it.
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows comes away with the one that I obviously
Speaker 1: share because it is based in reality and logic, But
Speaker 1: Dick Bluementhal comes away with, See, everything is evidence. Everything
Speaker 1: is evidence of Trump criminality. It's kind of like the
Speaker 1: left and climate change. Everything is evidence of climate change.
Speaker 1: If it gets colder, it's because of climate change. If
Speaker 1: it gets warmer, it's because of climate change. If it
Speaker 1: stays the same, well that's really scary because the climate
Speaker 1: should be changing, So it's evidence of climate change. Everything
Speaker 1: proves their thesis. Nothing can disprove their thesis. This is
Speaker 1: one of the most important tools for debating with liberals
Speaker 1: that I've talked to you about in the past, and
Speaker 1: that is ask them what data you could give them
Speaker 1: or what you know, what information you could provide them
Speaker 1: that would even if just theoretically disprove their thesis. For example,
Speaker 1: on climate change, it's not possible to disprove their thesis.
Speaker 1: If the temperature stayed exactly where it is, would that
Speaker 1: disprove it? If it goes up, would that? You know,
Speaker 1: they can't. There's no information that you could ask them
Speaker 1: for ahead of time that would show. And by the way,
Speaker 1: even if you did, they would just then change the
Speaker 1: numbers and change the data sets so that all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, oh yeah, no, that's right, nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: That would be their approach. All right, you cannot falsified.
Speaker 1: It is unfalsifiable. The same thing is true with the
Speaker 1: left and all this Russia collusion stuff and just the
Speaker 1: idea of President Trump's criminality. And they had the personal
Speaker 1: lawyer of the President of the United States for the
Speaker 1: last decade. I mean, they've got him over a barrel.
Speaker 1: I mean, he will tell them anything he can that's
Speaker 1: damaging to Trump. He'll do everything in his power in
Speaker 1: order to get a lesser sentence or just to be
Speaker 1: in the good graces of the Democrat left establishment. Now
Speaker 1: that he's going to prison, and he's going to be
Speaker 1: looking for jobs when he comes out. If you can't
Speaker 1: get a criminal case based off of having the lawyer
Speaker 1: of the president when he was in his personal capacity,
Speaker 1: flip on him, wave all attorney client privilege, and just
Speaker 1: go on a mission of destruction against the president, any
Speaker 1: reasonable person would say there's nothing here. I mean this
Speaker 1: fiction that they cling to, that the payments to Stephanie
Speaker 1: Clifford and Stormy Daniels, that those are criminal activity. First
Speaker 1: of all, we're talking about campaign finance stuff, all right,
Speaker 1: We're talking about campaign finance. We're not talking about a
Speaker 1: crime crime. We're talking about what is known as mallem prohibitum,
Speaker 1: not malamin say, Malamin say is something that is bad, right,
Speaker 1: cannibalism bad doesn't matter if the government says it's okay.
Speaker 1: We'll talk more about that later. Mallem prohibitum as the
Speaker 1: government says you can't do this because we say so,
Speaker 1: we have a reason for it. But it's not something
Speaker 1: that is inherently rooted in some moral truth, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could argue, even I would argue that taxes are
Speaker 1: a mallem prohibitum violation. I mean, are you a bad
Speaker 1: person if you don't pay your taxes. No, if they
Speaker 1: wanted one hundred percent of your income as taxation, should
Speaker 1: you have to pay that? Is that a moral obligation
Speaker 1: on you? I mean, that's prohibitum, right, So when you're
Speaker 1: discussing campaign finance violations, that's obviously malam prohibitum, which just
Speaker 1: means it's wrong because the state says it's wrong. Campaign
Speaker 1: finance laws change all the time. They are murky, they're opaque,
Speaker 1: and there are lots of ways you can get on
Speaker 1: the wrong side of them, all right. So with that
Speaker 1: in mind, the idea that this is the most important
Speaker 1: thing they could get on Trump, that this is how
Speaker 1: they're really going to nail the president of the United
Speaker 1: States by making the case that a payoff to people
Speaker 1: claiming affairs with you is only a campaign expense and
Speaker 1: not a personal expense. Because if it is also a
Speaker 1: personal expense, guess what doesn't count. Did they have no case?
Speaker 1: If they had a case, they'd bring the charges. They
Speaker 1: have no case. It's not in egal act. And I
Speaker 1: think even more importantly, it's not a disqualifying an immoral act.
Speaker 1: Oh he didn't, he didn't claim these as a campaign expenditure. Well,
Speaker 1: he didn't have to, so why should he. But that's
Speaker 1: the biggest thing, and they've gone after him with everything,
Speaker 1: with everything that they've got. And this is where we
Speaker 1: are so far. The collusion narrative, I would note, got
Speaker 1: crushed yesterday for anybody who was paying attention. The dossier
Speaker 1: that said that Michael Cohen was in Prague false. The
Speaker 1: Russia cumpromats, compromising information, Russia compromat tapes of Trump, and
Speaker 1: the Golden Showers and the beds in Moscow doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: According to Cohen, the phone call that supposedly went from
Speaker 1: went from Roger Stone to Julian Assange never happened. Does
Speaker 1: anyone really believe that that would not be something the
Speaker 1: Muller team would already know about. They've pulled all their
Speaker 1: phone records and all the emails, they know about everything,
Speaker 1: all communications they already have. Trust me, there's no way
Speaker 1: that there was some phone call to Assange they don't
Speaker 1: know about. But look at how stupid and how easily
Speaker 1: fooled the press is. You know that the press was
Speaker 1: willing to say early on here that they thought or
Speaker 1: when it was it was a couple of months ago
Speaker 1: earlier on that there was a meeting between Julian Osange
Speaker 1: and Manifort at the embassy, the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Speaker 1: Who could believe that Julian Assange is among the most
Speaker 1: watched and surveiled people on planet Earth. Okay, every major
Speaker 1: Western government that there is is keeping tabs on Julian
Speaker 1: Assange in one way or another. You think that Manafort,
Speaker 1: when he's working for the campaign, just had like a
Speaker 1: super secret meeting in an embassy, which by definition is
Speaker 1: going to have security, personnel, cameras, all kinds of things
Speaker 1: in place by definition. But The Guardian reported that the
Speaker 1: press is nuts on this one and what they really
Speaker 1: can't do because for a lot of them, this is,
Speaker 1: you know, their life's work isn't so much bringing the
Speaker 1: public the truth, but it's creating. For a lot of
Speaker 1: journos journalists, their life's work is creating the perception of
Speaker 1: themselves as important, important purveyors of truth and the constructing
Speaker 1: a narrative that is what's best for the country and
Speaker 1: really best for the world. They care more about the
Speaker 1: world than about America, and they can't handle the recognition
Speaker 1: that would come along with the collapse of the Russian narrative,
Speaker 1: that they aren't the journalists aren't the people they think
Speaker 1: they are, that they're actually just partisan clowns, that they're
Speaker 1: activists with website or you know, TV show access. That's it.
Speaker 1: There's no particular skill set they bring to bear. There's
Speaker 1: no no great wisdom or expertise. They're just the little
Speaker 1: little peddlers of stories that favor the left, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and they've just they've done everything in their power to
Speaker 1: destroy a presidency in order to you know, prop this
Speaker 1: prop this whole left wing edifice up. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that what happened yesterday overall was a waste
Speaker 1: of time, but it was able to show us a
Speaker 1: few important things about the collusion narrative, namely that anybody
Speaker 1: who still thinks that there was collusion is just you
Speaker 1: will never be able to convince them. Otherwise, you will
Speaker 1: never be able to convince someone that collusion did not
Speaker 1: happen if they still believe that it happened, because it's
Speaker 1: it's like climate change. It's now collusion has become really
Speaker 1: its own religious belief. Collusion has turned into a rallying
Speaker 1: cry for the left that they will never give up
Speaker 1: on so you know, I find it troubling but unfortunately unsurprising.
Speaker 1: We have one through ten for the people. That one
Speaker 1: is the clean Up Government, two was the Infrastructure Bill.
Speaker 1: There is a prescription product, the Lower the Cost of Particution,
Speaker 1: Four is the Voting Rights Act, Five is the Equality Act,
Speaker 1: Six is the Dream Act for seven is Paycheck theres
Speaker 1: eight is today HR eight, nine will be a climate bill.
Speaker 1: And then we have ten reserved for something special that
Speaker 1: sounds super ominous coming from Nancy Pelosi. I can't say
Speaker 1: I know what that is, but that was the Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House giving you their legislative priorities. And I
Speaker 1: would just note that, you know I heard that list
Speaker 1: and a lot of those things. I first of all,
Speaker 1: you think, what does that even mean? And the Paycheck
Speaker 1: Fairness Act, how is that going to be? How is
Speaker 1: that going to be implemented? But beyond that, how much
Speaker 1: of that do I even think is a good idea
Speaker 1: under any circumstances. I think the answer is very very
Speaker 1: little of it. Obviously, there's climate change there, prescription drug coverage.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's one place where the left and the
Speaker 1: right can come together on something like a bipartisan basis.
Speaker 1: But you know prescription drug coverage, that that is a
Speaker 1: problem of really regulation and chrony capitalism, all right, that
Speaker 1: is what's going on. So you have the prescription drug
Speaker 1: companies that use the government in order to create barriers
Speaker 1: to entry and competition, and that's just wrong. It is
Speaker 1: just wrong. And you know that's why I think that
Speaker 1: when we talk about how to make these things better,
Speaker 1: people say the free market has failed. Look at prescription drugs.
Speaker 1: I always say, well, but there is no free market,
Speaker 1: and prescription drugs, even the basic protections you would expect
Speaker 1: for intellectual property, they always extended and they're all kinds
Speaker 1: of games. And our prescription drug costs are too high
Speaker 1: in this country. They just are. And it's because the
Speaker 1: drug companies are greedy. And if you look at the
Speaker 1: stats on how much the prices have gone up and
Speaker 1: what they're doing with this stuff. Remember, intellectual property protection
Speaker 1: is part of it is not the fundamental basis for
Speaker 1: our society. Right. We do this to incentivize people, but
Speaker 1: there's do not have a fundamental right, for example, to
Speaker 1: in perpetuity be the only person who can create a
Speaker 1: life saving drug. You have a period of time where
Speaker 1: you get to create that but you know, society does
Speaker 1: get to weigh in here at at some level too,
Speaker 1: especially when you think of all the regulations that are
Speaker 1: in place that prevent competing drugs and the money involved
Speaker 1: in all this stuff. It's not as simple as just
Speaker 1: whatever I want is what I'm going to do. But
Speaker 1: Pelosi's whole agenda there, and that should really rally you
Speaker 1: in favor of, you know, making sure that we don't
Speaker 1: allow these people to be in power, because I promise
Speaker 1: you it's just going to get worse and worse. One
Speaker 1: thing that I wanted to bring up today and I
Speaker 1: wasn't sure how much you'd care, but Justin Trudeau, I'll
Speaker 1: talk to you about it a little bit. Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: is someone that you no doubt know about because he
Speaker 1: is the Prime Minister of Canada or Canada and our
Speaker 1: friend up in Canada, ezra Levant, who I've done his
Speaker 1: shows with back in the day and when they used
Speaker 1: to have the Sun News network. I really like that network.
Speaker 1: He laid out how in this country we have a
Speaker 1: fake corruption scandal going on with how Trump is so
Speaker 1: bad he's gonna go prison. It looks like Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: is probably all donezo. Maybe he can fake falling downstairs
Speaker 1: again to make all the ladies swoon. Hey, Justin Trudeau,
Speaker 1: he's very he's a very sexy man. Here's what Ezra
Speaker 1: says about what's going on with the Canadian PM. It
Speaker 1: looks like he's in big, big trouble. Quote from my
Speaker 1: American and British friends. Canada's Justin Trudeau is done. He
Speaker 1: might try to fight on. I personally think he's too damaged.
Speaker 1: He's irreparably damaged. Here's what's happened in a few short tweets.
Speaker 1: Trudeau was detonated by his former attorney general, Jody Wilson
Speaker 1: or Rainbold, Canada's first Aboriginal attorney general. She just testified
Speaker 1: in Parliament in meticulous detail how Trudeau and his staff
Speaker 1: tried to get her to drop criminal charges against a
Speaker 1: corrupt company that he liked. She refused to bend the
Speaker 1: law for Trudeau's cronies, but they didn't stop Trudeau, his
Speaker 1: chief of staff, his principal secretary, or even the finance minister.
Speaker 1: They met her ten times, phoned her ten more, trying
Speaker 1: to get the charges drop. She wouldn't, so Trudeau fired
Speaker 1: her as attorney general. The story leaked out earlier this month,
Speaker 1: but it was all anonymous sources. The former Attorney general
Speaker 1: herself didn't say a word, saying she was bound by
Speaker 1: attorney client privilege and cabinet confidences. She was effectively gagged.
Speaker 1: Trudeau was the only one talking. Trudeau took advantage of
Speaker 1: her and forced silence to claim she supported him and
Speaker 1: everything was fine after all. When she fired her a
Speaker 1: g he appointed her to the minor post of Veterans minister.
Speaker 1: When she heard him make that boat, she quit as
Speaker 1: veterans minister. He was shocked. Then suddenly Gerald Butts, Trudeau's
Speaker 1: right hand man, his best friend since college, resigned, claiming
Speaker 1: he had done nothing wrong, which is odd. It looked
Speaker 1: like a compromise. Butts left, so Wilson rabeled, met with
Speaker 1: a cabin in the again, and then finally, today, she
Speaker 1: testified in great detail exactly who pressured her, exactly when
Speaker 1: she named names, including the Prime Minister herself. Yep, that
Speaker 1: end quote there, folks. That is what obstruction looks like, folks.
Speaker 1: Calls and calls and calls, pressure and more pressure, and
Speaker 1: more pressure dropped the criminal charges. That's what obstruction looks like.
Speaker 1: Not well, I hope you can look your way to
Speaker 1: you know, letting, you know, letting things go with this
Speaker 1: guy that service country for thirty years. But you know
Speaker 1: your call. That's not obstruction, all right. So you know
Speaker 1: here we have a textbook case in Canada of obstructing
Speaker 1: the judicial process by the Prime minister. By the way,
Speaker 1: it's a ten year possible prison sentence in Canada. I
Speaker 1: didn't realize Canada, man, you guys don't mess around with
Speaker 1: your criminal code. I was thought. I was thought prison
Speaker 1: in Canada was like a let's maple syrup and let's
Speaker 1: free weed for you a But no, apparently in Canada
Speaker 1: they send you to prison. Prison. But yeah, Trudeau looking
Speaker 1: like he's out snippy dot com. So much nonsense from
Speaker 1: the other social media platforms out there. You already know.
Speaker 1: They're banning conservatives, they're shadow banning, they're putting suspensions out
Speaker 1: there for oh, I don't know, talking about how liberals
Speaker 1: should learn to code. It's crazy what's happening. That's why
Speaker 1: you need a place where you know there will be
Speaker 1: no nonsense and you could share your thoughts and opinions.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com. If you look at snippy dot com
Speaker 1: before and left, you need to look again. Thousands of
Speaker 1: my listeners have already joined snippy dot com and right
Speaker 1: now they're expressing their opinions and getting all kinds of
Speaker 1: fiery conversations. Going Snippy is an entirely unbiased social media platform.
Speaker 1: It's all about conversation and community, no suppression from left
Speaker 1: wing administrators. Joined the conservative alternative on social media all right,
Speaker 1: updated user interface and exciting new features. Snippy dot com Again,
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com, it is your new alternative social media.
Speaker 1: Check Snippy out today. The economy is something that folks
Speaker 1: care about. We all know that, right The economy gets
Speaker 1: people to pay attention, usually when the numbers come out
Speaker 1: at least somewhat well. We had some numbers today about
Speaker 1: GDP growth last year, and some people are saying that
Speaker 1: it's not a good story for the president. US economy
Speaker 1: grew at two point nine percent in twenty eighteen. What
Speaker 1: does that mean? What can we say about this visa
Speaker 1: the other presidents? We got the lady herself to join
Speaker 1: us now, Miss Mattie Duppler, Senior Fellow at NPU, President
Speaker 1: of Forward Strategies, known to some of her favorite people
Speaker 1: as Duples. Mattie, great to have you on to you
Speaker 1: as duples. You're the only person who called me that
Speaker 1: back again. Well, well now now it's just you, me
Speaker 1: and a few hundred thousand people across America. So good times,
Speaker 1: good time. So now friends exactly, just friends. So tell me, Maddie,
Speaker 1: what what are we what should we make of these numbers?
Speaker 1: Because I have a feeling that's some of my lib
Speaker 1: friends tomorrow are going to be giving me a hard
Speaker 1: time saying, blah blah, Trump's not the builder he said
Speaker 1: he was. What do you say? Exactly right? Okay, So
Speaker 1: this morning, what we got was the data on GDP
Speaker 1: growth for the fourth quarter. This was delayed because of
Speaker 1: the government shutdown. Normally we see this data in January.
Speaker 1: It was delayed until now, so we'll see her as
Speaker 1: on these actually next month as well. But what we
Speaker 1: saw was a two point six percent GDP growth for
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter. I'm gonna walk through a couple of
Speaker 1: different numbers because it's important that people understand what the
Speaker 1: full picture is of the data. We thought today two
Speaker 1: point six percent for the fourth quarter. That was us
Speaker 1: from two point two percent that economists thought we would
Speaker 1: see for fourth quarter growth. You remember, the fourth quarter
Speaker 1: was a little volatile, has some craziness going on in
Speaker 1: the stock market. Of course, trade tensions with China persists,
Speaker 1: and housing has been down for most of the year.
Speaker 1: So the economists, we're expecting that we thought we would
Speaker 1: see a bigger dip in two four than ultimately we did.
Speaker 1: But what that means for the entire year, since that's
Speaker 1: the last quarterly data we're getting for twenty eighteen, is
Speaker 1: that the overall annual average growth for twenty eighteen was
Speaker 1: two point nine percent. Pretty darn good. That is a
Speaker 1: good pace for the economy to be homing along. Now. Detractors,
Speaker 1: of course, will say, hey, President Trump said we'd be
Speaker 1: at three percent growth, where's that growth? You're one tenth
Speaker 1: of a percentage avoid off if you're looking at the
Speaker 1: average rate. But if you also look at fourth quarter
Speaker 1: growth growth measured from the fourth quarter of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: then it's three point one percent is what we're looking
Speaker 1: at for the growth for that time period. And economists
Speaker 1: do both these things. They look at the average annual
Speaker 1: growth and they look at quarter to quarter growth to
Speaker 1: assess the health of the economy. So it's both true
Speaker 1: that Trump has got three percent growth for twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: and both not true that it has that he was
Speaker 1: able to merit out three percent growth for twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: But even in that context, two point nine percent or
Speaker 1: three point one percent, that's a pretty strong number for
Speaker 1: the US economy, particularly when we're looking at a global
Speaker 1: slow down and growth with some of our closest alleys allies,
Speaker 1: and of course with some of the biggest economies in
Speaker 1: the world, China being number one. Now, how does this
Speaker 1: of course I care most about America and have you
Speaker 1: he's doing for America. But if we're going to line
Speaker 1: up how Trump is doing so far in terms of
Speaker 1: GDP growth with Obama and all the socialists around him,
Speaker 1: how does this actually how does this actually go? Tell
Speaker 1: me about the number? But the average rate of growth.
Speaker 1: So that's that average number each year during the recovery,
Speaker 1: so during the President Obama's rank. I shouldn't say rain,
Speaker 1: but you know that's how we treat our presidents. Down
Speaker 1: during President Obama when he was in office, that was
Speaker 1: two point two percent. And if you recall when President
Speaker 1: Trump released his first budget, he was saying that he
Speaker 1: would get to three percent growth for these last couple
Speaker 1: of years, and all of the luminaries on the left
Speaker 1: came out to say that's impossible, there's no way we'll
Speaker 1: see three percent growth. That's a fantasy, that's crazy. Three
Speaker 1: percent is outrageous because they, of course, we're so used
Speaker 1: to this new normal of one point seven percent two
Speaker 1: percent growth every quarter. So and I would put in
Speaker 1: a side there that President Obama's budget called for four
Speaker 1: percent growth even though we were in the middle of
Speaker 1: a contraption. He said that that was possible. And apparently
Speaker 1: these guys weren't skeptical then, but three percent grows during
Speaker 1: expansion to them was Jeff Lunacy. So that's for a
Speaker 1: little bit too. Today where we now see that we're
Speaker 1: at or above three percent for the year, it's a
Speaker 1: pretty darn good number. It reflects strength in the economy
Speaker 1: that we certainly haven't seen throughout the rest of this recovery.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's a lot of debate about who
Speaker 1: gets the credit for that. I think it's less important
Speaker 1: to talk about who gets the credit for that and
Speaker 1: talk a little bit a little bit more about what
Speaker 1: lessons can be learned from this. There's been a lot
Speaker 1: of discussions on Twitter today with people thinking they're dunking
Speaker 1: on the president by arguing, well, Obama had a fourth
Speaker 1: quarter growth number that was better than this one. He
Speaker 1: had a three point i think eight percent growth number
Speaker 1: in the fourth quarter twenty fifteen, which is true. He
Speaker 1: had a great growth number into Quinn in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: the fourth quarter, But it needs to also be stated
Speaker 1: that Obama in twenty thirteen kind of massive tax cut
Speaker 1: into law, mainly the extension of the Bush tax cuts.
Speaker 1: A majority of those were made permanent by Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans in Congress, and then President Obama finding that Intalan
Speaker 1: later that year, in twenty fifteen, he helps to signed
Speaker 1: a Path Act which with a number of tax extenders
Speaker 1: which were awth to a tax cut. So for people
Speaker 1: to say that these numbers somehow reflect some kind of
Speaker 1: latency or deficiency in the in the pages that haven't
Speaker 1: made the taxon under Trump, and then toincite twenty fifteen
Speaker 1: as an understanding of that is to not understand your
Speaker 1: history of what's been happening in Washington over the past
Speaker 1: several years, which is that we've had a low creep
Speaker 1: towards better tax policy, one that was expedited immensally, but
Speaker 1: it passes the passage of the tax cut and jobst
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen. One thing I've known for a while
Speaker 1: from both academic time as well as being in the media, Mattie,
Speaker 1: is that economists can't predict squat. But I am seeing
Speaker 1: today people saying that, well, this is as good as
Speaker 1: it's going to be. Right. That's another way of taking
Speaker 1: a swipe at Trump here. What do you I don't
Speaker 1: listen to economists, but I listen to Mattie. What do
Speaker 1: you think about what we should expect for twenty nineteen
Speaker 1: and going into the election, and have we felt the
Speaker 1: full lift from the tax cuts? You know, are there
Speaker 1: any other reasons to think that things could get better
Speaker 1: or are you expecting kind of status quo? What do
Speaker 1: you think? Well, what we have seen both in today's
Speaker 1: data dumps, but the data that we've seen over the
Speaker 1: last several months and certainly for the remainder of twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: is that a lot of important metrics that proponents of
Speaker 1: tax reform has said would be affected by tax reform
Speaker 1: are showing up. And what I mean by that is
Speaker 1: business investment, capital expenditures, the kind of spending you want
Speaker 1: to see in an economy that will benefit not just
Speaker 1: businesses but people up and now the income ladder that's happening.
Speaker 1: We thought that today was this investment continuing to rise
Speaker 1: in the data that we thought this morning, But over
Speaker 1: the course of last year, you saw the S and
Speaker 1: P that accompanies the S ANDP had their fourth highest
Speaker 1: i think caps year since we've been tracking that kind
Speaker 1: of data. What we're seeing is businesses responding to a
Speaker 1: competitive environment that they hadn't expected that they would have
Speaker 1: and that they hadn't experienced in the recent past. So
Speaker 1: as long as the competitive nature of the US economy
Speaker 1: and that both tax US and D regulation continues, that
Speaker 1: kind of activity will certainly continue. There are a number
Speaker 1: of factors that kind of hang out there in the
Speaker 1: balance as economic question marks. The trade discussion between the
Speaker 1: China and the United States is certainly one of them.
Speaker 1: I'm becoming increasingly worried that the President, not seeing enough
Speaker 1: movement on the conversation with China, will move instead to
Speaker 1: implement new tariffs, potentially targeted this time at the EU.
Speaker 1: Tariffs are taxes, and they are paid by Americans on
Speaker 1: consumer products, and that has an effect on our economy
Speaker 1: because we are a consumer drive an economy, seventy percent
Speaker 1: of our GDP comes from consumer spending. So if the
Speaker 1: health of the consumer starts to be threatened, that's when
Speaker 1: I start to worry overall. But I'm going to turn
Speaker 1: an optimist. But I really think that it's important that
Speaker 1: we protect the American consumer in a way that allows
Speaker 1: them to benefit from the competitive nature, main competitive environment
Speaker 1: that has been fostered for businesses here in the United States,
Speaker 1: and in a way that they can do that with longevity,
Speaker 1: without concerns that it will be short lived. And I
Speaker 1: will also say that when it comes to tax but
Speaker 1: you know what, the changes that remain in the code
Speaker 1: in twenty seventeen are not permanent. They will start to
Speaker 1: start to change in twenty twenty two, and the individual
Speaker 1: tax side of the code will change significantly in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five. Now, that of course the long runway to
Speaker 1: get something done. But if we don't have a conversation
Speaker 1: in Congress for how to do that, that certainly can
Speaker 1: start increasing anxiety. I will have downward pressure on the
Speaker 1: economy for sure. Well, you know, Maddie, I feel a
Speaker 1: little better now, So thank you for all that. You know,
Speaker 1: come on here for a buck you know, I feel
Speaker 1: like we're all gonna be okay because Maddie says it's
Speaker 1: all gonna be all right. Maddie Duppler, everybody, Maddie, aren't
Speaker 1: you in on Rising tomorrow? I sure am. I'm stubbing
Speaker 1: for the one and only Buck Sexton. I will be
Speaker 1: on a bit Hill TV hosting Rising with Crystal Ball.
Speaker 1: There you go, late, it's ladies, well not ladies knife,
Speaker 1: but ladies Morning on Rise dying, which is even better,
Speaker 1: so more more caffeinated, We're even more danger. There you go,
Speaker 1: Maddie Dupplers here tomorrow, Hill dot TV Slash Rising Senior Fellow,
Speaker 1: NPU President Forward Strategies, Ms Dupple's worth. Great to have
Speaker 1: you on. Thank you so much, Thanks back, Good to
Speaker 1: see you today. We'll be right back. Amac dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. Just remember that for a himn Amac dot
Speaker 1: us slash Buck. Because you've probably heard of the AAARP.
Speaker 1: It's an organization for seniors. But don't join the AARP.
Speaker 1: Join an organization where your values are reflected in what
Speaker 1: they're trying to accomplish, where they support what you support.
Speaker 1: That's AMAC all right. AMAC is the place for you.
Speaker 1: It was founded by an Air Force veteran. And it's
Speaker 1: an organization for seniors that advocates for border protection, fixing
Speaker 1: social security. And it's got over one point five million members.
Speaker 1: So if you're a senior, one of your family members
Speaker 1: or friends this senior and they think like you do,
Speaker 1: you should get them to join AMAC. Stand with AMAC
Speaker 1: as they fight the good fight. Become a member today.
Speaker 1: The benefits are great, the cause is even greater. Joined
Speaker 1: right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. AMACK is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: Better for America. There's a pickup from yesterday from the
Speaker 1: Cohen Hearing. You know, today's Cohen Hearing was behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: and you know yesterday was it wasn't really that important.
Speaker 1: I mean, the media was so fixated on it that
Speaker 1: I tried to pull out the worthwhile moments, but by
Speaker 1: and large it was I think waste of almost everybody
Speaker 1: involves time, except for Democrats who are delusional about collusion
Speaker 1: and about how Trump's going to prison and they're going
Speaker 1: to own Orange Man Trump and drump is bad and
Speaker 1: all the lunacy from the left about all things Trump.
Speaker 1: But there was an exchange that I didn't get to
Speaker 1: you yesterday that I felt we should at least spend
Speaker 1: a moment on today with this new congresswoman Rashida to Leib.
Speaker 1: And here's the basic backstory is that Mark Cummings brought
Speaker 1: in Lynn Patton to speak on behalf of Trump because
Speaker 1: people were well, obviously the Democrats were trying to run
Speaker 1: with the narrative and use Cohen as a means of
Speaker 1: bringing it home that Trump is such a racist. Well,
Speaker 1: this thing's got kind of testy yesterday and I didn't
Speaker 1: get to this that I just wanted to take a
Speaker 1: moment to bring it to your attention. This is this
Speaker 1: Talib who, by the ways, said all kinds of anti
Speaker 1: Semitic stuff. And she's one of these new radical lefty
Speaker 1: congresswomen that the progressives are all about. But you know,
Speaker 1: she's not impressive and doesn't seem very nice and this
Speaker 1: was way out of line. Play clip one. Just to
Speaker 1: make a note, mister Chairman, just because someone has a
Speaker 1: person of color, a black person working for them, does
Speaker 1: not mean they aren't racist. And it is insensitive that
Speaker 1: some would even say. It's the fact that someone would
Speaker 1: actually use a prop a black woman in this chamber,
Speaker 1: in this committee is alone racist in itself. Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is setting its chairman. I asked President, I reclaim my time.
Speaker 1: I asked that her words, when she's referring to an
Speaker 1: individual member of this body, be taken down and stricken
Speaker 1: from the record. I'm sure she didn't intend to do this,
Speaker 1: but if anyone knows my record as it relates, it
Speaker 1: should be you, mister chairman. Chairman, I would like to
Speaker 1: I want the words right now. I'm just saying that's
Speaker 1: what I believe to have happened. And if as a
Speaker 1: person of color in this committee, that's how I felt
Speaker 1: at that moment, and I wanted to express that. But
Speaker 1: I am not calling the gentleman, mister Metals a racist
Speaker 1: for doing so. I'm saying that in itself it is
Speaker 1: a racist act. Oh, I'm not calling him a racist.
Speaker 1: He's just he just did a racist thing. This is
Speaker 1: this new left wing loon Rashida to leave in Congress. Also,
Speaker 1: sure firs yourself as a person of color, you know,
Speaker 1: I think that people get a play start playing a
Speaker 1: little fast and loose here with you know, African Americans
Speaker 1: history of legalized discrimination against them and Jim Crow and slavery,
Speaker 1: that very real and very painful history. But that doesn't
Speaker 1: translate into oh, well, you know, I'm from Lebanon, so
Speaker 1: i'm a person of color too, or I'm from Jordan,
Speaker 1: or I'm from you know. I mean, I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: think that people are a little too quick to play
Speaker 1: that car. It's like no, no, no no, no, no, you know,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're from Turkey, I don't want to
Speaker 1: hear about how oppressed you are, all right, I think
Speaker 1: that we need to start drawing some lines on this stuff.
Speaker 1: But even more importantly, that she would refer to a
Speaker 1: black woman who is in Congress, to who showed up
Speaker 1: to Congress to speak on behalf of the president referred
Speaker 1: to as a prop and say that her very presence
Speaker 1: is racist. But this is really the It's such a
Speaker 1: stupid thing to say and a horrible thing to say,
Speaker 1: but this is the left wing mentality, which is that
Speaker 1: even you know, if you don't have a person of
Speaker 1: color speak on your behalf, well then you're racist. If
Speaker 1: you have a person of color who does speak on
Speaker 1: your behalf, then you're racist because you're using a person
Speaker 1: of color to speak for you. Use stupid racist, right,
Speaker 1: That's what they do. This is why when people criticize
Speaker 1: the Trump White House for not having more people of color.
Speaker 1: I always say, well, remember when Condoleeza Rice was the
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor for the Bush administration and then Secretary
Speaker 1: of State. Did anybody ever give the administration credit for that?
Speaker 1: And Colin Powell was national Secretary of State, did anyone
Speaker 1: ever get credit for that? No, of course not. Conservators
Speaker 1: don't get credit for it. Then they're just Then we
Speaker 1: just get bashed for using quote a token, right, That's
Speaker 1: what they will say. Mark Meadows, by the way, he
Speaker 1: was firy by this. He responded to it, playcliff two.
Speaker 1: Mister chairman, There's nothing more personal to me than my relationship.
Speaker 1: My nieces and nephews are people of color. Not many
Speaker 1: people know that. You know that, mister chairman. And to
Speaker 1: indicate that I asked someone who is a personal friend
Speaker 1: of the Trump family, who has worked for him, who
Speaker 1: knows this particular individual that she's coming in to be
Speaker 1: a prop it's racist to suggest that I asked her
Speaker 1: to come in here for that reason, you know, And
Speaker 1: of all the people on this committee, I've said it
Speaker 1: and got in trouble for it. Then you're one of
Speaker 1: my best friends that shocks a lot of people. And likewise,
Speaker 1: miss Chairman, but you are and I would do and
Speaker 1: I could see and feel your pain, Chairman. And to
Speaker 1: my colleague, mister Meadows, that was not my intention. And
Speaker 1: I do apologize if that's what it sounded like. But
Speaker 1: I said someone in general, uh, nice, try on the
Speaker 1: walk back there. Look, give we are conservatives, we are principled.
Speaker 1: Give credit where it is due. Elijah Cummings stepped up
Speaker 1: and did the right thing there. Mark Meadows is his friend.
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows is being called a racist by a Democrat
Speaker 1: for no good reason whatsoever. And Cummings was like, no,
Speaker 1: Mark is my Mark is my friend, He's my buddy.
Speaker 1: It was the most it was, honestly the most impressive
Speaker 1: thing I've ever seen a logic Cummings do. Because he
Speaker 1: is going to get a lot of heat from that,
Speaker 1: but but good for him for doing the right thing.
Speaker 1: Whenever we see people, and it's important, especially in this
Speaker 1: era of zero some politics, whenever we see someone who
Speaker 1: who does the right thing and you really know it's
Speaker 1: the right thing, regardless of party affiliation, you've got to
Speaker 1: say that that thing they did, I'm not saying you
Speaker 1: have to agree with that person or join them and
Speaker 1: or you know whatever. But that thing that they did,
Speaker 1: you've got to say it's the right thing, and you've
Speaker 1: got to give credit where it's due to people who
Speaker 1: do it. So Eligic Cummings stepped up. And then Lynn Patton,
Speaker 1: who was the person at issue here, the person of
Speaker 1: color who was there to speak on behalf of the president.
Speaker 1: She spoke play three. Why does she take the word
Speaker 1: of a self confessed perjurer and criminally convicted white man
Speaker 1: over a black female who's highly educated. That's more racist
Speaker 1: than being put up there as a quote unquote prop yep. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Don Lemon tried to justify to lead play clip four.
Speaker 1: There's nothing more personal to me than my relationship. My
Speaker 1: nieces and nephews are people of color. So look, the
Speaker 1: congressman obviously loves his family. He saw how emotional he
Speaker 1: was there. But honestly, that is just not the point.
Speaker 1: Is you had loved ones who are people of color.
Speaker 1: It's not the point that you you've hired a person
Speaker 1: of color. It's not the point that some of your
Speaker 1: best friends or people of color. This is what especially
Speaker 1: people of color try to get people to understand. All
Speaker 1: the no, no, okay, I mean we're done with Don
Speaker 1: Lemon anywhere here. No. No, how you treat people is
Speaker 1: what matters, not what party, what political affiliation you have.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean you are or are not racist. How
Speaker 1: do you treat people? Don Mark Meadows obviously take it,
Speaker 1: takes it very personally because he treats people of color
Speaker 1: as people. We'll be right back. I keep coming up
Speaker 1: with extreme scenarios where I show you where the left
Speaker 1: is going, or I show you what the logical ends
Speaker 1: of a position that the progressives take is going to be,
Speaker 1: and I do it to illustrate a point, but then
Speaker 1: it's only a matter of time before that is the reality,
Speaker 1: as in, I say, this is so this left wing
Speaker 1: idea is so crazy that next thing, you know, they're
Speaker 1: gonna be saying X, and then give it about a
Speaker 1: six month lag time, and that's actually what they're saying,
Speaker 1: you know. So I'm having a hard time, you know,
Speaker 1: keeping up with how crazy the left is because my
Speaker 1: examples of how much crazier they're going to be keep
Speaker 1: coming true. So the extremes are no longer used to
Speaker 1: prove a point about the flaws in their logic. The
Speaker 1: extremes that I'm identifying are just way points on their
Speaker 1: progress into the depths of insane town. And here is
Speaker 1: a perfect example of that, an article in Academia Edu,
Speaker 1: which is a clearinghouse for academic papers from Yuna. That's
Speaker 1: the closest I can get to Norwegian University of Oslo,
Speaker 1: and it is a moral case for legal age change.
Speaker 1: And let me just this is a This is a
Speaker 1: peer reviewed and published academic article at the University of Oslo,
Speaker 1: which I hear is lovely this time of year if
Speaker 1: you like skiing to class. University of Oslo is you know.
Speaker 1: Oh also the also Alto University in Finland, which I
Speaker 1: hear they have a great program in snowcone making. But
Speaker 1: here's the piece, a moral case for legal age change.
Speaker 1: Should a person who feels his legal age does not
Speaker 1: correspond with his experienced age be allowed to change his
Speaker 1: legal age? In this paper I argue that in some
Speaker 1: cases people should be allowed to change their legal age.
Speaker 1: Such cases would be when one the person genuinely feels
Speaker 1: his age differs significantly from his chronological age, and two
Speaker 1: the person's biological age is recognized to be significantly different
Speaker 1: than his chronological age. And three, age change would likely prevent,
Speaker 1: stop or reduce ageism or discrimination he would otherwise face.
Speaker 1: I mean, does it get does it get much much
Speaker 1: nuttier than this? There's a guy who is suing. I
Speaker 1: forget where, but you know, look what happens in Europe.
Speaker 1: It's always just they're further down the socialism and progressivism
Speaker 1: insanity pathway than we are. But it is just a
Speaker 1: matter of time before we find ourselves face with the
Speaker 1: same problems that they have had or that they are having.
Speaker 1: And I know that there's a guy who's suing right
Speaker 1: now in Europe, in Europe because he says that he
Speaker 1: should be a lot of change his age, and they
Speaker 1: won't let him. But just think about this, you know,
Speaker 1: think about the ways this could be abused. And you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You don't have to get very creative
Speaker 1: before you realize there's problems here. But the notion that
Speaker 1: legal age is a cause for discrimination, and that also
Speaker 1: somebody's psychology can overcome how society treats the physical reality
Speaker 1: of who they are. This just goes to show you
Speaker 1: that transgenderism, which is now not just embrace but it
Speaker 1: is dogmatically worshiped on the left transgenderism has now opened
Speaker 1: the door very wide to transracialism. I don't think I mean,
Speaker 1: look at Elizabeth Warren, right, but I know I don't
Speaker 1: think I'm white. I think I'm actually from Papua New
Speaker 1: Guinea and should be treated as a Pacific islander. And
Speaker 1: now trans ageism. You're you're going to see more of
Speaker 1: this because liberal intellectual types are not necessarily real intellectuals.
Speaker 1: But you know, mozers in the universities are going to
Speaker 1: see this as a new frontier to make the argument
Speaker 1: against rationality, because ultimately, what the left likes to do
Speaker 1: as part of its relativistic approach to all things is
Speaker 1: to find a way to undermine facts and logic in
Speaker 1: their pursuit of power. Team Bucket, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Role Call tom everybody, remember that tomorrow I will be
Speaker 1: That's Friday. I'll be at Seapack at the Gay Lord
Speaker 1: International Convention Center in Maryland. Yes that is the name
Speaker 1: of the place, and I'll be giving a speech at
Speaker 1: eight forty five I should say a debate, not a speech.
Speaker 1: Having a debate at eight forty five am on Syria.
Speaker 1: And then I'm moderating a panel tomorrow evening at Sea
Speaker 1: Pack I think around six six thirty on cyber warfare
Speaker 1: and election integrity. It's gonna be wonky but should be
Speaker 1: very interesting. So if you are in the DC, Maryland,
Speaker 1: Virginia area, please please come by Sea Pack. You'll be
Speaker 1: able to find me. I'll be the guy wandering around
Speaker 1: in boat shoes with the side swoop that you have
Speaker 1: all come to know and hopefully at least are amused by.
Speaker 1: So yes, please do come by and say what's up.
Speaker 1: And Ben Winegarten is going to be in for me
Speaker 1: tomorrow on radio because I can't get to see Pack
Speaker 1: do all the Seapack stuff, moderate the panel, and do
Speaker 1: the show. So I'm basically at Sea Pack tomorrow for
Speaker 1: the day. But Ben does a great job here on
Speaker 1: the show. He's already lining up guests and it's going
Speaker 1: to be a really, really solid outing for mister Weingarten
Speaker 1: as always, and he gets psyched. I mean, he loves
Speaker 1: he loves Team Buck and he is always really enthusiastic
Speaker 1: about being a part of what we do here in
Speaker 1: the Hut. So make sure you tune into Ben. He's
Speaker 1: gonna lay it down Facebook dot com a slash a
Speaker 1: Buck sex and if you want in on this role.
Speaker 1: Call action action. It's fun to say. Robin rights follow
Speaker 1: up on family leave. One hundred percent agree it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be regulated by the government. I am a self employed
Speaker 1: mother of five. Wow, Robin, I took eight weeks off
Speaker 1: with zero income and four more with part time. It
Speaker 1: required planning, sacrifice, and a good support network. It was
Speaker 1: so very well worth it. I will say that when
Speaker 1: I went through my miscarriage, I was given three days
Speaker 1: off from my employer at the time. That was generous
Speaker 1: by industry standards, but not nearly enough. Time off without
Speaker 1: pay was not permitted. Again, shouldn't be government dated, but
Speaker 1: it should be a conversation our society is exploring together. Look, Robin,
Speaker 1: I totally agree. I think that family leave should be
Speaker 1: something that is discussed as a employee benefit right up front,
Speaker 1: the same way that you would discuss what your healthcare
Speaker 1: plan is, what your four oh one K is. But
Speaker 1: it has to be thought of as a benefit because
Speaker 1: if it's a government mandate, is very likely that it
Speaker 1: will put undue strain on a lot of businesses, and
Speaker 1: there will, just as in our discussion of green energy,
Speaker 1: there are unforeseen and even sometimes unforeseeable consequences of government
Speaker 1: intrusion into market activity. Caroline, Sweet Caroline, bom bomp bap. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Everybody knows that. That's the song that they put on
Speaker 1: at every bar in America at about two o'clock in
Speaker 1: the morning. It's not the last song, but it's the
Speaker 1: song they put on after bon Jovi Living on a Prayer,
Speaker 1: which comes on around one thirty whatever. It's like, na
Speaker 1: halfway there. Ever ever likes to just just scream Living
Speaker 1: on a Prayer at you know, twelve thirty, you know,
Speaker 1: at night around there, when they're really good and lit,
Speaker 1: that's when they get the bon job. But Sweet Caroline
Speaker 1: comes on later on. Sweet Caroline is kind of when
Speaker 1: you got to make the all right, how am I
Speaker 1: going to get home safely? Do we need to call
Speaker 1: a cab? You know? Those are the those are the
Speaker 1: thoughts that come after Sweet Caroline. It's it's pretty much
Speaker 1: when the lights come on, you look around, you're like,
Speaker 1: what have I done with my night? Oh? Sorry, Caroline
Speaker 1: actually wanted to say some things. Um, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: I share outrage with people. Hold on, Carolin, let me
Speaker 1: come back to this one. Tj Sorry Caroline, I lost
Speaker 1: your I lost my Wait, why is it? The computer
Speaker 1: is not cooperating here, guys, I'm sorry. Sometimes it freezes
Speaker 1: up on me. I sound like one of these old people.
Speaker 1: It's like the VCR won't work. Somebody make my VCR work.
Speaker 1: Kimberly writes, I agree with everyone else. Your Trey Gouty
Speaker 1: is not very good. You're not very good at doing
Speaker 1: a Southern drawl. Keep practicing, ouch pre Climberly word if
Speaker 1: I'm talking about luck. Just all right? I know you
Speaker 1: hate it, you hate it. I don't want to all right,
Speaker 1: I give, I give. My Trey Gaudy has been voted off.
Speaker 1: The Island Trade does not have the speaking torch on
Speaker 1: the show. Will I will back off of the Trey
Speaker 1: Gaudy impersonations? Mark? Are you sure? But maybe I can
Speaker 1: get a bet? No? No, Trey, No, the people have spoken.
Speaker 1: Brian Rights buck Wow, watched your and Crystal's interview with
Speaker 1: the Sunrise co founder. You didn't let her off with
Speaker 1: a free pass, and it's a testament to your TV show.
Speaker 1: Very entertaining and would love to know the post show
Speaker 1: commentary say I have a bachelor or science or electronic engineering.
Speaker 1: Does that make me an expert to indoctrinate my kids,
Speaker 1: niece's nephews, and other family members with Marxist political narratives,
Speaker 1: you know, because science. Yeah, Brian, I am rarely surprised
Speaker 1: by the extra dreamism of the left. But for somebody
Speaker 1: who is an adult roughly around my age, maybe a
Speaker 1: little younger, probably about you know, thirty, I would say,
Speaker 1: who would look me in the eye and not have
Speaker 1: an immediate answer to should ten year olds be able
Speaker 1: to vote? This would be like me asking somebody, do
Speaker 1: you think that it's a good thing that cannibalism is outlawed?
Speaker 1: You shouldn't have to think about that one, right, It's
Speaker 1: it's good that we are not okay with cannibalism and
Speaker 1: it is against the law. Cannibalism should be outlawed. That
Speaker 1: shouldn't be. That shouldn't be a stumper, you know, one
Speaker 1: that gets you stumped. And it's the same thing with
Speaker 1: should a ten year old be able to vote? You know,
Speaker 1: those of you who are Ghostbusters fan know, when someone
Speaker 1: asks you if you're a god, you say yes. When
Speaker 1: someone asks you if ten year olds can vote, you
Speaker 1: say no. You don't say I need to think on
Speaker 1: that one a little bit I don't have the answer,
Speaker 1: and that was where the extremism really came out. You know,
Speaker 1: I try on Rising, I have to practice because I don't.
Speaker 1: It's not a platform like some of the conservative cable
Speaker 1: news shows where I can really just hammer at somebody
Speaker 1: if I want to. I have to share the stage
Speaker 1: and share the airtime with my liberal co host, So
Speaker 1: I have to just get in with pointed questions. I
Speaker 1: can't dominate and hound and do some of the things.
Speaker 1: You know I can't. O'Reilly anybody on Rising? Those you
Speaker 1: used to watch O Riley, you know what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: We'll do it live. Hey Bill was in his day.
Speaker 1: Bill was great at TV, no question about it. I
Speaker 1: got respect for the guy's TV skills. Harry rights, hey Buck.
Speaker 1: It occurs to me, what's the number of Maizie Harronos
Speaker 1: Senate Bill ordering a fleet of clipper ships and their
Speaker 1: sailors that will be needed to supply everything to Hawaii,
Speaker 1: including tourists, shields high Harry, Harry, I have no idea
Speaker 1: what you're talking about, my man, So you know, you
Speaker 1: know stuff that I don't know. I got nothing for
Speaker 1: you on the main Herono, Bill Kristen not to be
Speaker 1: confused with Kursten. There are a couple of Keto ice
Speaker 1: creams that might be good to support your show. I'm
Speaker 1: glad to support your show. Wink and Rebel are the names.
Speaker 1: Wink is also vegan for those who care, you know what,
Speaker 1: I will check those out, Kristen, I'd love to rep
Speaker 1: some Keto ice cream here in the show. And that
Speaker 1: reminds me. If you are a business owner, if you
Speaker 1: have a product, if you want to be a part
Speaker 1: of our sponsorships here on the show, you can reach
Speaker 1: out to me via Facebook. We've actually had some sponsors,
Speaker 1: some ad campaigns that come in that way where once
Speaker 1: we do a little due diligence on you, get to
Speaker 1: know you a little bit, get to know your product.
Speaker 1: We're happy to partner up with folks. So I know
Speaker 1: there's a lot of business owners that listen to this
Speaker 1: show across the country, and if you're looking for a
Speaker 1: national level spot, you know, just reach out. We'll get
Speaker 1: it going and get get krak Alakin. We sell very
Speaker 1: very well on this show in terms of the products
Speaker 1: we represent, because we represent really great products. And those
Speaker 1: of you who have ever had a concern or a
Speaker 1: question about a sponsor from the past, know that I
Speaker 1: respond very quickly, and I've taken concerns all the way
Speaker 1: up to the very top of the food chain. I've
Speaker 1: I've forwarded emails to me or Facebook messages to me
Speaker 1: about a product directly to the CEO of a company
Speaker 1: if I think it's merited. So that's that we have
Speaker 1: real partnerships here. These are not companies that I don't
Speaker 1: know who they are or what they do, who runs it,
Speaker 1: none of that stuff. David Right's, hey, Buck, why don't
Speaker 1: we ever hear about how Chavez still billions of dollars
Speaker 1: and how his daughter transferred all that money out of
Speaker 1: the country and then and then she left the country
Speaker 1: as a billionaire. I'm sure the Venezuelans could use that money.
Speaker 1: I guess Bernie thinks it's okay, all right, later, Doc, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're absolutely right. This is what always happens in these
Speaker 1: so called socialist paradises. The people in charge just loot
Speaker 1: the country, just steal, steal and steal some more. And
Speaker 1: when you point that out, you're told that you're being
Speaker 1: a Yankee imperialist, or that you're being unfair to the
Speaker 1: socialist revolutionary credentials, or whatever. But yes, it is true
Speaker 1: that the Chavez family are billionaires. And you would be
Speaker 1: hard pressed to show me a country where you have
Speaker 1: a socialist and a strong man and where you don't
Speaker 1: have a situation that the looting has occurred. It always
Speaker 1: socialism and strong man goes together like looting in and
Speaker 1: carrots or something, you know whatever. You know what I was,
Speaker 1: You know what I was going for, Rob Right, But
Speaker 1: great show, truly love it, Rob Show loves you. I
Speaker 1: think the Democratic Party is at war on two fronts,
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal far left crazies and the conservatives
Speaker 1: who want truth in life. Where does that leave them?
Speaker 1: They are neither communist nor conservative. How do we get
Speaker 1: to this point where communism is at our door? God
Speaker 1: save America. Pray for our president, whom I trust, shields
Speaker 1: high for a president he is anointed. Uh, Well, you
Speaker 1: know you're right about the Green New Deal, and I did.
Speaker 1: I think you're right also about the fundamental schism in
Speaker 1: this country. So we need to fight, and I think
Speaker 1: that we are in for a very very important and
Speaker 1: it's going to be quite a contest going into twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Bill writes, Your trade gaudy does sound like Bill Cosby,
Speaker 1: what tree guardiles general putting pops. Maybe maybe I should
Speaker 1: just transfer over my trade gouty to being a Bill Cosby,
Speaker 1: and then you guys will like you genero putting and
Speaker 1: wearing your big sweaters. Then rights buck, Since you like pistachio,
Speaker 1: I thought I was going to ask you what you
Speaker 1: thought of spamoni ice cream. However, since you've never even
Speaker 1: heard of neopolitan, I suppose it's a mood point. It's
Speaker 1: like I don't even know you anymore. Whoa whoa van, buddy? Okay,
Speaker 1: it is true. I don't know what spamoni is, and
Speaker 1: you know what, right here on air I'm finding out
Speaker 1: right now. It is a molded gelato with different colors
Speaker 1: and flavors, usually containing candied fruits and nuts. Whoa vn.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something, buddy. You keep your candied
Speaker 1: fruit and nut ice cream to yourself, all right, None
Speaker 1: of that I do. I don't like nuts in my
Speaker 1: ice cream. I don't like nuts in my brownies. Keep
Speaker 1: them out of air, all right? That's just and fruit?
Speaker 1: What are you putting? Putting raisins? Raisins and ice cream?
Speaker 1: Get out of here with that nonsense. But then you
Speaker 1: like pistachio, so we can still be friends. Today, we're
Speaker 1: gonna shut down the show for today, but it'll be
Speaker 1: back in action tomorrow. I will be talking to you
Speaker 1: on Monday, Shields High. Hiring used to be hard, all
Speaker 1: kinds of job sites, stacks of resumes, confusing review process.
Speaker 1: But today hiring can be easy and you only have
Speaker 1: to go to one place to get it done. Zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com, slash buck. Zip recruiter sends your job
Speaker 1: to over one hundred of the web's leading job boards.
Speaker 1: But they don't stop there. With their powerful matching technology,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter scans thousands of resumes to find people with
Speaker 1: the right experience and invites them to apply to your job.
Speaker 1: I have used zipp recruiter in hiring colleagues of mine
Speaker 1: now at the Hill, and we've gotten fantastic people, and
Speaker 1: we caught them in the first week we use zip recruiter.
Speaker 1: That's how easy it was. Try it for yourself right now,
Speaker 1: my listeners can try zip recruiter for free. That's exclusive
Speaker 1: web address zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck. One more time, zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Eighty percent of employers who posted
Speaker 1: a zippercruiter get a qualified candidate in the first day
Speaker 1: because zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire