Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The shutdown has ended.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has agreed to fund the government for at
Speaker 1: least a few weeks. Where does this leave the debate
Speaker 1: over a barrier at our southern border? And also Roger
Speaker 1: Stone arrested in a pre dawn raid. The dapper former
Speaker 1: Trump confidant is somebody that's going to be getting a
Speaker 1: lot of attention for possible ties to Wiki leaks and
Speaker 1: disclosures and the Muller probe and owe so much more.
Speaker 1: That's all coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American Again, The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins former CIA analysts. In a short while,
Speaker 1: I will sign a bill to open our government for
Speaker 1: three weeks until February fifteenth. I will make sure that
Speaker 1: all employees receive their back pay very quickly, or as
Speaker 1: soon as possible. It'll happen fast. I am asking Senate
Speaker 1: Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to put this proposal on the
Speaker 1: floor immediately. After thirty six days of spirited debate and dialogue.
Speaker 1: I have seen and heard from enough Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: that they are willing to put partisanship aside. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show on this somewhat lovely Friday. There
Speaker 1: you heard it. The government is getting real opened. President
Speaker 1: has agreed to a deal that reopens the government. They're
Speaker 1: going to try to get back pay and future pay
Speaker 1: to federal government employees. And no wall funds. No wall funds. Now.
Speaker 1: I understand that there are some there are some folks
Speaker 1: that are are really upset about this, and they may
Speaker 1: they may be right. I don't do the I know
Speaker 1: everything on radio routine. There are some people that pretend
Speaker 1: to be almost omniscient and all knowing that's their stick.
Speaker 1: You could say, I know a fair amount of stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't have the answers to everything, and I certainly
Speaker 1: would never pretend to have the answers to everything. Is
Speaker 1: Is this the right move for Trump? Here? Maybe? And
Speaker 1: let me explain why am I concerned that? Sure enough,
Speaker 1: when it comes to political will, when it comes to
Speaker 1: having the ability to stick together so that your side wins,
Speaker 1: Democrats beat Republicublicans just like I always think they're going to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, of course that surprises me. Of course, I've
Speaker 1: got a problem with that. Um or rather doesn't surprise me,
Speaker 1: and I, uh pardon me, and I am bothered by it.
Speaker 1: But here's how this might be. Okay, here's how I
Speaker 1: see this as perhaps not the surrender that's um I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people are already h ankle. Let
Speaker 1: me let me say, what does Ann Colder sett on
Speaker 1: this when she says that this is basically the whimpiest
Speaker 1: thing Republican has done since George H. W. Bush or
Speaker 1: something like that. Uh so, the biggest whimper. Okay, here's
Speaker 1: what ends. Oh my gosh, here's what Ann says. Good
Speaker 1: news for George Herbert Walker Bush as up today he's
Speaker 1: no longer the biggest whimp ever to serve as president
Speaker 1: of the United States. Man, Ann is not messed around
Speaker 1: on this wall thing. Here's the way this works out.
Speaker 1: And I don't know if it will. I don't know
Speaker 1: if it will. But the president now, the president now
Speaker 1: can say, okay, look, we open the government. So now
Speaker 1: people are getting their pay again. And you know, not
Speaker 1: all the federal govern employees are going to be starving
Speaker 1: who are affected by the shutdown on all this, because
Speaker 1: that's what we're being told, Oh, it's it's all falling apart.
Speaker 1: There's gonna be a few weeks here where the president
Speaker 1: can make the case again there won't be a shutdown
Speaker 1: under way, and without people being able to point to
Speaker 1: the downside of the shutdown, right, people not getting their
Speaker 1: pay and the air traffic controllers and the TSA agents
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. Without that, it will
Speaker 1: become increasingly clear, I think, and especially when Trump does
Speaker 1: a State of the Union address, which I think now
Speaker 1: is likely to be back on. Assuming that this deal
Speaker 1: all goes through and everything happens as planned, it is
Speaker 1: likely the case that I think the American people realize
Speaker 1: that Democrats just don't want Trump to have a barrier,
Speaker 1: not because they think it won't work or it's too expensive,
Speaker 1: they just don't want to. They don't want a cave
Speaker 1: to Trump on anything period. This is about pure power politics,
Speaker 1: nothing to do with principles, nothing to do with Democrats
Speaker 1: thinking that a barrier of fense isn't really necessary or
Speaker 1: helpful or any of the rest of it. So let's
Speaker 1: all just understand that this was a test of wills,
Speaker 1: and right now there is reason to question whether Trump
Speaker 1: is going to come out on top of this, and
Speaker 1: I've got to be honest with you about that. You
Speaker 1: know Trump originally and I haven't forgotten. Look, I got
Speaker 1: a lot of criticism for Republicans too, and we do
Speaker 1: need to keep all this in mind. Republicans, I think,
Speaker 1: could have gone with a nuclear option and just this,
Speaker 1: this whole sixty vote thing, this is garbage. Okay, we've
Speaker 1: got a majority in the Senate. They should have used
Speaker 1: the majority in the Senate and said enough of the
Speaker 1: sixty vote filibuster crap, let's just do it. That's one
Speaker 1: because the Democrats the next time they have the House
Speaker 1: and the Senate, they're gonna they're gonna do it. I
Speaker 1: guarantee they're gonna do it. The lack of action from
Speaker 1: the Republicans in the House in the center of the
Speaker 1: course they're on this issue, the lack of a willingness
Speaker 1: to fight on this earlier on in a way that
Speaker 1: has the kind of conviction that makes people think that
Speaker 1: maybe it will really happen. That I find very I
Speaker 1: find very disconcerting. And that Trump, and you know, right
Speaker 1: before the Christmas break, was basically saying, yeah, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: sign this and whatever. No big deal. These are all
Speaker 1: big problems. Republicans have not covered themselves in glory on this,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to pretend that they are. Now
Speaker 1: that all that all said, all right, Trump now is
Speaker 1: able to make the case without the backdrop of a
Speaker 1: shutdown with people, Oh all the complaints about people, the
Speaker 1: missing more payments and missing And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: wasn't happening. I'm just saying that it turned into who
Speaker 1: could make the most noise about how much pain there
Speaker 1: was for these federal govern employees. And why is it
Speaker 1: the Democrats always win the shutdown debate? You know, why
Speaker 1: is it that Republicans managed to get out maneuvered by
Speaker 1: the Democrats on this? Find it very frustrating. Now, what
Speaker 1: does Trump plan to do now that we've got a
Speaker 1: few weeks here before there's gonna be another shutdown fighting,
Speaker 1: By the way, I think Trump will probably be willing
Speaker 1: to shut it down once more. Well, Trump told us
Speaker 1: what he plans to do play thirteen. So let me
Speaker 1: be very clear, we really have no choice but to
Speaker 1: build a powerful wall or steel barrier. If we don't
Speaker 1: get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either
Speaker 1: shut down on February fifteenth. Again, I will use the
Speaker 1: powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution
Speaker 1: of the United States to address this emergency. We will
Speaker 1: have great security. And I want to thank you all
Speaker 1: very much, Thank you very much. All Right, he's saying,
Speaker 1: he's saying he's going to declare his data of emergency.
Speaker 1: I'd also note that there is I think it was
Speaker 1: the non partisan Congressional Research Service that came out recently
Speaker 1: and said that Trump does in fact have options to
Speaker 1: build a wall in his authority. That will you know
Speaker 1: that that he can do, he can he can essentially
Speaker 1: go for it. We know that a court, no matter
Speaker 1: what his authority actually says, a court's going to stop him.
Speaker 1: Though I mean, I can't, I can't imagine a future
Speaker 1: in which that does not happen. But at least, at
Speaker 1: least there are options here. At least there is the
Speaker 1: possibility of the president managing to get some wall construction
Speaker 1: going and continuing on in this fight, even though clearly
Speaker 1: he has caved right now. But it's a reminder that
Speaker 1: the will to withstand is very important in the political
Speaker 1: climate one right now, I mean, the ability to endure
Speaker 1: and to resist the resistance is something that if Republicans
Speaker 1: don't have it, they're never gonna They're never gonna get
Speaker 1: anywhere of this stuff. They're never going to be able
Speaker 1: to overcome the intransigence of Democrats and deliver on key promises,
Speaker 1: and securing the border certainly one of them. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, just remember even if we even if we
Speaker 1: got the perfect fence tomorrow, we got the border fence
Speaker 1: ever or we need it. It's double layer. It's it's uh,
Speaker 1: you know, steel slats, and it has the the jump
Speaker 1: plates at the top so that people are the climb
Speaker 1: plates rather at the top so people can't climb on
Speaker 1: the Maybe we had all that and it gets built,
Speaker 1: and it gets built right Awa really fast. We still
Speaker 1: have a massive immigration, illegal immigration problem. We have to
Speaker 1: hand it. We've got all the illegals inside the country.
Speaker 1: We've got these overstays, we've got birth tours, and we
Speaker 1: got all this stuff happening. We've got so many things
Speaker 1: to add into the mix here. This is word just
Speaker 1: fighting over step one. The fact that Democrats won't him
Speaker 1: to go there tells you all all you need to know.
Speaker 1: And Democrats are abably taking a victory lap here I
Speaker 1: really hope that Trump remembers this because right now it
Speaker 1: looks like Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer one today. That's
Speaker 1: what it looks like. We gotta say what it is
Speaker 1: now that that doesn't mean that they're going to win
Speaker 1: in the end, and they've won the battle, Will they
Speaker 1: win the war over the wall? Not quite clear to
Speaker 1: me yet. We'll see. We also got to talk about
Speaker 1: Roger Stone and the fact that he's arrested and now
Speaker 1: indicted on I think seven federal counts and all lives
Speaker 1: were throwing a huge party today. They're also excited about
Speaker 1: it doesn't really mean anything, doesn't really mean anything. I
Speaker 1: think it's, you know, gonna end up being a whole
Speaker 1: whole bunch of nothing. But they are very very excited
Speaker 1: about the prospect of getting Stone. So we'll see what.
Speaker 1: We'll see what end up happening. Eighty eight nine hundred
Speaker 1: two eight to five lines Team, they're open for this hour.
Speaker 1: Eighty eight nine two two five eighty eight nine hundred buck,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. In short, we do not have
Speaker 1: control over who is entering our country, where they come from,
Speaker 1: who they are, why they are coming. The painful reality
Speaker 1: is that the tremendous economic and financial burdens of illegal
Speaker 1: immigration fall on the shoulders of low income Americans, including
Speaker 1: millions of wonderful, patriotic, law abiding immigrants who enrich our nation.
Speaker 1: As commander in chief, my highest priority is the defense
Speaker 1: of our great country. We cannot surrender operational control over
Speaker 1: the nation's borders to foreign cartels, traffickers, and smugglers. President's right,
Speaker 1: so start with that. We cannot do that. We cannot
Speaker 1: allow the status quote to continue at the border. When
Speaker 1: I have concerns that Democrats somehow get their way when
Speaker 1: we win elections. They get their way when they win elections.
Speaker 1: You know, what does it take? You gotta have sixty senators?
Speaker 1: Well not really, they could have gone they could have
Speaker 1: just gone nuclear. It said, no more of the sixty senators. Crap,
Speaker 1: how about that idea? But I oppose this in general.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've already got all these checks and balances.
Speaker 1: You're gonna put additional checks on the checks and balances? Why? Why?
Speaker 1: I mean, the filibuster is a tradition, like like you know,
Speaker 1: the Senate taking naptime or having juicing cookies or something.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Senate is not bound by this. Do
Speaker 1: you guys have juicing cookies in school? Mike John you know?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, man remember that? Yeah, man, I used to.
Speaker 1: This is iced to fake Newton's. I'm pretzels and French fries,
Speaker 1: and you know something wasn't good for it. Eigntons were
Speaker 1: the bomb Charlie in Ocean City, Maryland. What's up, Charlie?
Speaker 1: Thanks for taking McCall buck. Yeah, thank you. I know.
Speaker 1: I know the president wants to do the security okay,
Speaker 1: and he's going to present that to the people because
Speaker 1: the Democrats are not going to give him any money
Speaker 1: for that wall, so they're going to get a judge,
Speaker 1: and your judge you're gonna say, well, I you know,
Speaker 1: stay at order. If I wish President Trump, I would
Speaker 1: come back and say, judge, you don't have the authority
Speaker 1: I do. I'm the president. I protect this country period.
Speaker 1: Do you think think that the president should say I'm
Speaker 1: going forward, and when a judge steps in and says no,
Speaker 1: you can't, the presidents like, actually, son, I'm the commander
Speaker 1: in chief exactly. That's yeah, yeah, I mean I wonder
Speaker 1: how that this is one of these things where you know,
Speaker 1: I've asked people before what happens if what happens if
Speaker 1: the president just says no, actually, that's not how I mean.
Speaker 1: I guess you could say, maybe the if the military
Speaker 1: refused the order, but it's not an unlawful order. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, building offense is not you know, this isn't
Speaker 1: a you know, some kind of a war crime, and
Speaker 1: they're building offense. The military is gonna say no, we're
Speaker 1: not gonna build defense. I don't I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's gonna happen in the American people. That's
Speaker 1: his job, not a chief, and it is it is
Speaker 1: a worthwhile security measure too. We've been lied to, Charlie
Speaker 1: so much and for so long about this isn't an
Speaker 1: amazing all these people that say their job is to
Speaker 1: inform us so we can be you know, we can
Speaker 1: be citizens who know what's going on and better engage
Speaker 1: in our in our democracy. They say that, of course
Speaker 1: it's a republic, but we all get that. Then they
Speaker 1: turn around and say things like walls don't work and
Speaker 1: it's just a lie, and they're just lying their faces off.
Speaker 1: But they don't care, Charlie, because they're dishonest people. I
Speaker 1: hope you're right, man. I hope the President decides you
Speaker 1: just step it up and go for it here, so
Speaker 1: we'll have to see. But thank you for calling in.
Speaker 1: She'll tige eighty eight nine two eight two five lines open.
Speaker 1: It's Friday, it's freestyle kind of you can call in.
Speaker 1: We're live, my friends. Give us a ring. John in Atlanta, Georgia.
Speaker 1: You were on the Buck Section Show. Hey, podcast Dominions,
Speaker 1: so I'm always a day behind. Okay, cool, thanks for listening.
Speaker 1: So anyway, actually I got two things I wanted to
Speaker 1: ask you about. But first one is I'd like to
Speaker 1: doubtail dub tail. Yeah, up the last caller. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that the trail of tears is a good thing,
Speaker 1: but I kind of like Andrew Jackson said when the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court said he couldn't do it, he said something
Speaker 1: to the effect of, like, well, if the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: wants to send their army to stop mine, they're welcome to,
Speaker 1: you know, And if Trump wants to go, you know,
Speaker 1: we're going to just build the wall. And if these
Speaker 1: judges want to get an army together to stop our
Speaker 1: as well, you know, they're welcome to do that if
Speaker 1: they like. But in the meantime, we're going to build
Speaker 1: the wall, and it's eight tenths of one percent of
Speaker 1: the military budget. So you say, the generals and the
Speaker 1: Joint Chief, Hey, can you guys get by on ninety
Speaker 1: nine point two percent of your budget? Yeah? I mean
Speaker 1: this is why the idea that they can't afford or
Speaker 1: they shouldn't spend this money is bizarre, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: no person could take this seriously. Obama did his stibulus,
Speaker 1: and you know, he said shovel ready jobs, and at
Speaker 1: the end of it, there were no shovel ready jobs.
Speaker 1: That was eight hundred billions, so you basically could have
Speaker 1: built I think, what is it, one hundred and sixty
Speaker 1: walls for what Obama's stimulus that did nothing but enriched
Speaker 1: Democrat donor machines around the country. You know, one thing
Speaker 1: that the Democrats don't understand this process is that without
Speaker 1: a border fence, the rest of the immigration picture can
Speaker 1: never be dealt with, because it just means wave after
Speaker 1: wave of demands for amnesty because you're gonna keep having
Speaker 1: there's a caravan at ten thousand right now on their
Speaker 1: way to the southern border. We're gonna keep having this problem.
Speaker 1: Think about this book. If the Democrats figure out a
Speaker 1: way to get rid of the electoral college, and California,
Speaker 1: just just California says, you know what, We're gonna let
Speaker 1: a legals vote, then that that's it for the Republicans
Speaker 1: forever four yeah, or together and there are I'm amazed
Speaker 1: at how much Democrats embrace the no no electric college.
Speaker 1: But we only got about a minute. But that you
Speaker 1: have one other point you wanted to make. I wanted
Speaker 1: to ask you about the abortion thing, right, and I
Speaker 1: I like your opinion on things, and I want to
Speaker 1: kind of just play Devil's advocate, you know. So they
Speaker 1: make abortion legal until the ninth month, and that's horrific
Speaker 1: and I'm against that, even though you know, I'm basically
Speaker 1: pro choice, but our women. Do you really believe women
Speaker 1: are out there waiting until you know, the beginning of
Speaker 1: a ninth, ninth month and then going, you know what,
Speaker 1: just not in the mood. I think anything that happens
Speaker 1: that far along is because something horrifically bad has happened. Medically, well,
Speaker 1: there's but as I said, there's no medical situation where
Speaker 1: you have to abort a baby in the third trimester.
Speaker 1: There's only induced labor, which is not an abortion. So
Speaker 1: we gotta leave it there because we've got a break here.
Speaker 1: But I'll be back now. Once the President signs the
Speaker 1: continuing resolution, we in Congress will roll up our sleeves
Speaker 1: and try to find some agreement on boorder security. We
Speaker 1: don't agree on some of the specifics aborder security. Democrats
Speaker 1: are firmly against the wall, but we agree on many things,
Speaker 1: such as the need for drug inspection technology, humanitarian aid,
Speaker 1: strength in security at our ports of entry, and that
Speaker 1: bodes well for finding an eventual agreement. The fact that
Speaker 1: we have so many areas where we can agree. But
Speaker 1: today the President will sign the bill to reopen the
Speaker 1: government along the outlines of what we have proposed. You
Speaker 1: know what they really oppose, stopping illegals from crossing the
Speaker 1: southern border. You notice they'll talk about security at our
Speaker 1: ports of entry, okay, but there are places where the
Speaker 1: separation between Mexico and the US is just other a
Speaker 1: small fence or no fence, and people cross there all
Speaker 1: the time. People cross in the hundreds, depending on the incident.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of thousands of them are crossing a year, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats just don't want to stop that. So when
Speaker 1: they say border security, how is it secure, they fundamentally
Speaker 1: do not apt that there is an obligation of law
Speaker 1: enforcement to stop people from entering the United States because
Speaker 1: we do not want them to come into the country illegally.
Speaker 1: They just don't. They don't believe in that. And those
Speaker 1: of you who haven't seen it, you can see. I
Speaker 1: had to debate Charlie Sykes on this a couple of
Speaker 1: days or what was it yesterday, and he started getting
Speaker 1: very huffy, which he should probably slow his role a
Speaker 1: little bit on that one, and I started to just say,
Speaker 1: went into the superior knowledge of the border, which is
Speaker 1: a good thing to have. This state of California takes
Speaker 1: active steps to make it impossible for the border patrol
Speaker 1: and for immigration and Customs enforcement to do their job.
Speaker 1: They make it as hard as possible. When you're doing
Speaker 1: something to make something as hard as possible, you are
Speaker 1: telling people something about how you feel about that thing.
Speaker 1: And when you make it as difficult as possible for
Speaker 1: law enforcement to both prevent illegal entry and police illegal
Speaker 1: entry in the interior by legal aliens, if somebody told
Speaker 1: me they they're calling them legal aliens is racist, and
Speaker 1: I just I have to laugh at this. That's what
Speaker 1: the federal law says. If Congress wants to change it,
Speaker 1: so they're called, you know, individuals without explicit permission of
Speaker 1: the federal government to be on US soil. Will come
Speaker 1: up with an acronym and I'll say that, but the
Speaker 1: Federal code says a legal alien. So I prefer to
Speaker 1: be correct. And people come in they say undocumented, Like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, this is your politicized nonsense term, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll sit down and I'll have a conversation
Speaker 1: to the other side about whether they're they're I'll refer
Speaker 1: to though their movement as pro choice. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: pro abortion, but I mean they're going to call themselves
Speaker 1: pro choice. Fine, you know, I don't sit there and
Speaker 1: say so, you're you're a part of the baby killer movement,
Speaker 1: although that would be accurate, you know, I you know,
Speaker 1: you don't get it as change the language because you
Speaker 1: feel like it, make up the words because that's what
Speaker 1: you feel like doing. That's that's not an acceptable way
Speaker 1: to engage in political debate and discord. But you know,
Speaker 1: Schumer says, they're opposed to they're opposed to the wall,
Speaker 1: and I guarantee you. If he got pinned down by
Speaker 1: somebody on why are you posting the wall, he would say, well,
Speaker 1: because the four thousand concrete. We're past the four or sorry,
Speaker 1: two thousand, four thousand. We're gonna have a wall to China.
Speaker 1: We're past the two thousand mile solid brick wall idea
Speaker 1: or concrete wall, We're past that. That's not the effective
Speaker 1: barrier method. What you really want is steel slat fencing. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's the most effective border patrol has it. They've been
Speaker 1: building more of it. That's the most effective one, and
Speaker 1: it works. I've seen it work. But you see, they
Speaker 1: returned to the talking points. They returned to the safe
Speaker 1: harbor of propaganda as a means of trying to avoid
Speaker 1: having to deal with the substance of the issue. They
Speaker 1: don't want to deal with the substance. All right, lines lit,
Speaker 1: I know, I would say, take Holson's Friday bill in
Speaker 1: West Virginia, What is up, my friend? Thanks for taking
Speaker 1: my call. Hey, yeah, the federal employee union members, they
Speaker 1: must be whims in it. You know, the federal unions
Speaker 1: most probably donated funds, which is union member dues to
Speaker 1: elect the House Democrats. The union leaders and House Democrats.
Speaker 1: They've been using the members as pawns in it. The
Speaker 1: members on to beyond their their union leaders in it
Speaker 1: to get the House Demps to settle and get them paid.
Speaker 1: The member of convers aren't losing any money. Wait, so
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to explain this one of me again.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I caught a last unit. Who are you're
Speaker 1: upset at the at the who and the why? Well, okay,
Speaker 1: the the federal union, Uh, the federal employees unions right
Speaker 1: their their their leadership probably donated money to the Democrats
Speaker 1: for their election. Yeah, federal employees are effectively a subsidiary
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party. Now, I mean overwhelmingly civilian federal
Speaker 1: employees or Democrats. I mean you look at the giving
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton and it was like over ninety percent
Speaker 1: of federal employees that gave gave it Hillary clin in
Speaker 1: the last election. To go ahead. But that's the only
Speaker 1: thought about their their members, the union leaders and the
Speaker 1: Democrats and converts to use them as pawned and hold
Speaker 1: them up on their pay. These these what thirty six
Speaker 1: days or whatever instead of pay and m they the
Speaker 1: members should have got on their union leaders to go
Speaker 1: after conversence and say you get this thing, settle. If
Speaker 1: you want to get Trump, you get him some other way.
Speaker 1: But we want to be paid. I'm paying dues, and
Speaker 1: that you're given our dues to campaigns for the Democrats
Speaker 1: and that they owe us. Bill, I cannot match your
Speaker 1: passion on this issue. So I'll just I just you
Speaker 1: had your say and I appreciate it, Sir Shield. Sorry,
Speaker 1: thank you for calling in. We got another West a
Speaker 1: lot of West Virginia love today on the show. Vicky
Speaker 1: in West Virginia. Hey, Vicky, Hi Buck. Oh yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: miss getting to talk to you. I'm glad you're in Washington.
Speaker 1: But it's it's hard for us. We have something to say.
Speaker 1: I have a good reason why people would get wait
Speaker 1: till the ninth month for an abortion if they were
Speaker 1: being paid. And I've read several different places and I
Speaker 1: think that that the boys. It's the videos of the
Speaker 1: baby parts. Yeah, the Center for Medical Progress with David Dulayden,
Speaker 1: who did the undercover work of finding out the planned
Speaker 1: parent who was selling baby parts and that it was
Speaker 1: for profit. Yeah, one of those. In one of those
Speaker 1: recorded interviews, you can hear it. The drug companies and
Speaker 1: the science companies that develop supplements to sell to vitelmin companies.
Speaker 1: They wanted more mature baby parts to do testing on.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's such a horrific thing that it's hard
Speaker 1: for you even think about it. But I haven't heard
Speaker 1: that before. But given what we saw in those Center
Speaker 1: for Medical Progress videos, which a court just said last
Speaker 1: week were not edited to be dishonest or disingenuous in anyway.
Speaker 1: The videos were real. I saw them. I'm haunted by
Speaker 1: them to the states. Still the most horrific thing I
Speaker 1: think I've ever seen on a video. It's it's awful
Speaker 1: to think about. But they'll pay women to do that,
Speaker 1: and then they'll get those babies right when they're maybe
Speaker 1: not even dead. I don't know. I hope that's not true.
Speaker 1: And I don't mean to to disengage on this at all.
Speaker 1: I just I can't even I can't even imagine. I
Speaker 1: can't fathom. But I mean, I would say that, and
Speaker 1: thank you for calling in from West Virginia, Vicky, I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. I would say that the the argument I'm
Speaker 1: hearing from some leftists about this new law in New
Speaker 1: York is well, a very very small percentage of abortions
Speaker 1: happened to the third trimester anyway. And to that, I say, Okay,
Speaker 1: if that's the argument, why make it legal explicitly legal?
Speaker 1: It already was legal if that if the life of
Speaker 1: the mother was in jeopardy in New York, So this
Speaker 1: expanded beyond that, if it never really happens, which is
Speaker 1: really what the suggestion is, why why make it legal?
Speaker 1: What's the what's the point of doing that? And and
Speaker 1: I think they'll also and I've been speaking to some
Speaker 1: other people I'm very close to about this this week.
Speaker 1: We're well past the the the good faith part of
Speaker 1: the debate over over you know, where where life begins,
Speaker 1: and you know, where is the science? What does the
Speaker 1: science really tell us on an abortion? I mean, the
Speaker 1: science tells us that a baby that's I know you're
Speaker 1: gonna say, Buck, that's six months old, that's that's a
Speaker 1: month old, that's a deal. But a baby in the
Speaker 1: third trimester is a baby. There's there's no there's nothing
Speaker 1: about that baby that is not a baby in the
Speaker 1: third month. I mean the third trimester, everything is formed,
Speaker 1: it is there, is ready to go, and it could
Speaker 1: live on its own outside the world. It is a baby.
Speaker 1: There's really no debate to be had over this. But
Speaker 1: this is this is the this is the dark and unfortunately, uh,
Speaker 1: this is the the evil rot that has spread within
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party very very far. And you know, they
Speaker 1: can hate me and think I'm a weirdo as much
Speaker 1: as they want for this one, but they're just wrong
Speaker 1: on it. And I do know that they're Democrats to
Speaker 1: listen to this show, and I'm sure that there are
Speaker 1: there are a lot of a lot of women who
Speaker 1: listen to the show. And if just one of them
Speaker 1: listen to the show, but it believes what I'm saying
Speaker 1: or agrees with me all the time we've been talking about,
Speaker 1: this was worth it, and I'm hoping that there's more
Speaker 1: than just one who believes what I'm saying. All right,
Speaker 1: But back to the union thing, if I can, for
Speaker 1: a moment or that other caller was talking about the
Speaker 1: federal unions and the shutdown and the politics of all
Speaker 1: that this was a weird you know, producer Mike pull
Speaker 1: this one for me and he was like, I said, really, Mike,
Speaker 1: this is what's happening here. So the FBI director Christopher Ray,
Speaker 1: who does strike me as something of a institutional institutionalist
Speaker 1: first instead of an America first. Guy. He said this
Speaker 1: about the shutdown play eleven. I know tons of you
Speaker 1: are feeling the anxiety and the emotional strain of this shutdown,
Speaker 1: and one hundred percent of you are feeling the financial strain.
Speaker 1: Making some people stay home when they don't want to
Speaker 1: and making other show up without pay. It's mind boggling,
Speaker 1: it's shortsighted, and it's unfair. It takes a lot to
Speaker 1: get me angry, but I'm about as angry as I've
Speaker 1: been in a long long time, angry as he's been
Speaker 1: in a long long time over this. Huh, Mike. I
Speaker 1: mean I feel like if I were the FBI director,
Speaker 1: given what's happened at the FBI in the last couple
Speaker 1: of years, there'd be some other things that would make
Speaker 1: me a lot angrier. Yeah, this sort of blew me away.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was done on the FBI website today
Speaker 1: and I'm sitting there listening to it, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: all right, this morning, you have Rogerstone being, you know,
Speaker 1: arrested for a process crime. You have his predecessors at
Speaker 1: the FBI. What they've done to our system at justice
Speaker 1: is mind boggling. That's what's mind boggling to me. And
Speaker 1: he's out there talking about the shutdown. I was like,
Speaker 1: I can't wait to tell this the buck. And you know,
Speaker 1: soon as he told I was like, oh gosh, here
Speaker 1: we go. Yeah, man, this is you think there'd be
Speaker 1: bigger There'd be bigger things than his radar. Nobody thought
Speaker 1: that the FBI agents were going to get paid, no,
Speaker 1: but he thought the shutdown was going to go on forever.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was really just to make the point
Speaker 1: and to see but unfortunately, I think, you know, the
Speaker 1: polling here was all pretty consistent in that people blame
Speaker 1: the Republicans, and I do think that it was a
Speaker 1: tactical error for Trump to say, you know, I'll take
Speaker 1: the blame for the shutdown, because then what happens when
Speaker 1: you're saying, well, who's there's a difference between who's blamed
Speaker 1: for something and who really bears responsibility for the situation.
Speaker 1: As I've been saying, Republicans shouldn't have taken the position
Speaker 1: of no, it's the Democrats fault that weren't have shutdown.
Speaker 1: They should have been saying the Democrats are wrong on
Speaker 1: the border. We have an obligation. We have an obligation
Speaker 1: to protect this country and to protect its sovereignty. Democrats
Speaker 1: are trying to stop us from fulfilling that obligation. Enough
Speaker 1: is enough. This is on them. Doesn't matter what the
Speaker 1: processes of the shutdown and who started at first, and
Speaker 1: you know, all that stuff, This is on them. And
Speaker 1: I think that it was a miss to allow it
Speaker 1: allow it to be what it was here. I think
Speaker 1: I think it was a missed opportunity to focus on
Speaker 1: trying to create a you know, you're responsible, No, you're responsible. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: the most important thing here was are we going to
Speaker 1: get a change at our southern borders so that we
Speaker 1: can actually deal with the immigration. You cannot deal with
Speaker 1: the immigration issue if you have the continued inflow of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in the United States by the hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands a year, And as long as we don't have
Speaker 1: a barrier there and we don't have a border patrol
Speaker 1: that's three times the size it is right now, this
Speaker 1: is going to continue to happen as long as we
Speaker 1: have a Congress that won't fix the asylum process. We're
Speaker 1: not even talking about interior enforcement here, which is a
Speaker 1: huge problem. You know, there really the world the Democrats
Speaker 1: have set up is it's not that hard to get
Speaker 1: into the country and if you get here, you're safe.
Speaker 1: That's what they want. That is what all of their
Speaker 1: policies are geared toward. And that's a problem. We should
Speaker 1: see that and understand that as a problem. They're dishonest
Speaker 1: on this issue. We will get into the Roger Stone
Speaker 1: stuff in the second hour day. I just I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this before we get there, though.
Speaker 1: I just suffer from a little bit of Muller probe
Speaker 1: fatigue at this point, and I'll talk to you more
Speaker 1: about that. But I don't know how these people in
Speaker 1: media gets you know how many times, Oh, this is it,
Speaker 1: Trump's finished, This is it, Trump's finished. No, he's not finished.
Speaker 1: He's not finished. We can keep getting all freaked out
Speaker 1: about it, but it's it's does it does not change
Speaker 1: the reality of what's really going on here eight at
Speaker 1: eight nine hundred buck. If you want to get in
Speaker 1: another call or two before we get to the break,
Speaker 1: we'll try to do so. We got more here on
Speaker 1: Oh is the state of the Union actually gonna happen
Speaker 1: or not? I thought this would mean it probably will,
Speaker 1: But now I'm here, maybe not. Let's have to say,
Speaker 1: we'll figure it out. We'll be right back. The say
Speaker 1: of union is not planned. Now I get that. What
Speaker 1: I'd said to the President is when the government is open,
Speaker 1: we will discuss a mutually agreeable date, and I'll look
Speaker 1: for it to doing that and welcoming the President to
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives for the state of the Union
Speaker 1: when we agree on that mutual Okay, so it sounds
Speaker 1: the state union will happen, as she says, now it
Speaker 1: a mutually agreeable date. Pelosi is so imperious. I don't
Speaker 1: know how it is the Democrats get away with her
Speaker 1: being effectively their standard bearer. Now she is really there
Speaker 1: is nothing to be excited or or particularly enthusiastic about
Speaker 1: what it comes to Nancy Pelosi. But somehow she's the
Speaker 1: most powerful Democrat in the country. Still, it's it's kind
Speaker 1: of a remarkable thing. But speaking of power, she does
Speaker 1: understand that Play eighteen and our caucus. The beauty of
Speaker 1: it is the mix. And I always say when people
Speaker 1: say to me, oh, you're so food at organizing a caucus. No,
Speaker 1: I don't unify our cause, our values unify us. I'm sure,
Speaker 1: it's the same in the Senate. And the fact is
Speaker 1: is that our diversity is our strength. The differences of
Speaker 1: in so many different ways, including differences of opinion, that's
Speaker 1: our strength. But our unity is our power. And that
Speaker 1: is what maybe the President underestimated Democrats. How many times
Speaker 1: have I said it? They stick together. They know how
Speaker 1: to get it done when power is on the line.
Speaker 1: You know, Yes, their ideology is often contradictory and hypocritical
Speaker 1: and all, you know, with all the stuff we talked
Speaker 1: on the show, But when there's a tug of war,
Speaker 1: the Democrats all pull in the same direction. For their side.
Speaker 1: It's Republicans that have the Romneys and the you know,
Speaker 1: the the Jeff Flakes and the McCain types and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. Right, they're the ones that have
Speaker 1: to deal with that. Democrats don't. For whatever reason. They
Speaker 1: all stick together. All right, Things are gonna get nuts
Speaker 1: here in a second, we're gonna talk about the Roger
Speaker 1: Stone thing. If we're going to talk about nuts, let's
Speaker 1: talk about John bred in play nineteen. What's the story
Speaker 1: as you see it that Muller has begun to tell
Speaker 1: with the public information that we have that there was
Speaker 1: an extensive effort to try to influence the outcome of
Speaker 1: the election, that involved the Russians, that involved US persons,
Speaker 1: and that may have gone to the very top of
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. And still no evidence is the former
Speaker 1: CIA director, there's still no evidence for any of the
Speaker 1: things he's talking about, folks. So we're waiting for the evidence.
Speaker 1: The theory is still out there. But yes, they rested
Speaker 1: stone that's coming up. There are some businesses that you
Speaker 1: need to know that you can trust the people you're
Speaker 1: working with because it is all about trust. And that's
Speaker 1: certainly the case with background investigations because not only do
Speaker 1: you have to trust the people you're working with, but
Speaker 1: you have to trust the people that you're hiring and
Speaker 1: that's where the background check comes in. So you want
Speaker 1: to go with Global Verification Network. Okay. Global Verification is
Speaker 1: the only dual certified and veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. They are risk mitigation experts with offices throughout
Speaker 1: the nation, but their headquarters are here in Chicago. When
Speaker 1: you call them, you're going to get somebody on the
Speaker 1: line who can address your question, your issue right away.
Speaker 1: Their customer service is the best in the industry. And
Speaker 1: they make sure that they tailor the background checks they're
Speaker 1: doing to whatever your needs are. Big company, small company,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Go with Global Verification Network. Call eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine. That's eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine, or
Speaker 1: go to MYGVN dot com. Good Morning America, Breaking news
Speaker 1: as we come on the air. President Trump's longtime advisor
Speaker 1: Roger Stone charge in the Rush investigation. Welcome to CBS
Speaker 1: this morning Breaking news. The FBI arrest former Trump campaign
Speaker 1: advisor Roger Stone at the break of dawn. Good morning,
Speaker 1: breaking news. President Trump's former advisor Roger Stone arrested in Florida,
Speaker 1: indicted by Special counsel Robert Mueller, accused of witness tampering,
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, and making false statements. So what does
Speaker 1: it mean for the investigation and the president? They got him? Oh, man,
Speaker 1: what a huge deal that they have another series of
Speaker 1: process crimes that they can they can put on the
Speaker 1: Muller mantle. How exciting. Oh my media's so pumped about
Speaker 1: this one today. A few things. First of all, Roger
Speaker 1: Stone told me more than once last summer that he's like,
Speaker 1: I'm probably gonna get indicted. So this is this is
Speaker 1: a surprise to no one. This guy's been indicted, and
Speaker 1: you know, you look at what is in this indictment,
Speaker 1: and there's there's still will know they're there for the
Speaker 1: overall in there, the overall story of Russia collusion, but
Speaker 1: the media wants to pretend like there is. They want
Speaker 1: they want to be right so desperately because I mean,
Speaker 1: just look at the week that they've had, starting with
Speaker 1: the BuzzFeed literally the last seven days with the BuzzFeed debacle.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the presidents are born perjury. It's all over
Speaker 1: for the president. He's gonna have to step down, he's
Speaker 1: gonna get impeached and removed. Oh it turns out the
Speaker 1: Special Council says that story's fake. And then you had
Speaker 1: the Covington debacle where they're saying all these terrible things
Speaker 1: about these Catholic school students who have received I would
Speaker 1: I would also add hundreds hundreds of death threats. What
Speaker 1: is wrong with people? Why are they such maniacs? But yes,
Speaker 1: now they can add to the list of those grave
Speaker 1: threats to national security. Paul Maniford and Gates and Alex
Speaker 1: Vanderswan and you know who am I leaving out who
Speaker 1: else is in this crew. That's you know, just just
Speaker 1: all these different names you put in the makes you
Speaker 1: say to yourself, Okay, when does this actually amount to
Speaker 1: something other than people who are being turned in sign
Speaker 1: out by the government, with all their taxes, all their
Speaker 1: business dealings being looked at and interrogated for long periods
Speaker 1: of time. And people who tend to have a problem
Speaker 1: with truth anyway, which certainly Roger Stone does. They can
Speaker 1: get prosecuted by aggressive federal government attorneys. Right, what do
Speaker 1: we ever get beyond that? Do we ever get to
Speaker 1: a crime? We go? Oh, oh, that's right. Russians who
Speaker 1: are never going to set foot in a US courtroom,
Speaker 1: who are engage or were engaged in using Facebook to
Speaker 1: try and influence people in advance of the twenty sixteen elections.
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, come on, folks, it's nonsense. I mean, here,
Speaker 1: here's on the New York Time describe this today. So yeah,
Speaker 1: The Special Counsel Robert Muller revealed on Friday the most
Speaker 1: direct link yet between Trump campaigns and Wiki League's parallel
Speaker 1: efforts to use Democratic Party materials stolen by Russians to
Speaker 1: damage the election campaign of Hillary Clinton. In an indictment
Speaker 1: unsealed Friday, the Special Council disclosed evidence that a top
Speaker 1: campaign official in twenty sixteen dispatched Roger J. Stone, a
Speaker 1: long time advisor to President Trump, to get information from
Speaker 1: wikileagues about the thousands of hack democratic emails. The effort
Speaker 1: began well after it was widely reported that Russian intelligence
Speaker 1: operators were behind the theft, which was part of Moscow's
Speaker 1: broad campaign to sabotage the twenty sixteen presidential election. And
Speaker 1: there's so much loaded stuff. And first of all, Moscow's
Speaker 1: campaign is sabotaged the election. That makes it sound like
Speaker 1: they were engaged in hacking, you know, voter talies where
Speaker 1: they were they're messing with voter machine voting machines. They
Speaker 1: put up some like you know, pro maga stuff on Facebook,
Speaker 1: and this is baway. They dramatically overstate how much of
Speaker 1: an impact Facebook really has now. And also I think
Speaker 1: of all the media organizations I know of that can't
Speaker 1: even can't get any traction using Facebook anymore because Facebook
Speaker 1: just wants you to pay for everything all the time,
Speaker 1: and you got to pay a lot for it to
Speaker 1: really matter. And the Russians were really doing them, and
Speaker 1: they were just really messing around online to see what
Speaker 1: would stick, see what would work. But we're always told, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, the Russians, there must be some kind of
Speaker 1: propaganda geniuses because they managed to get some people to
Speaker 1: you know, look at what Trump Trump twenty sixteen maga material.
Speaker 1: It's just this is all so overplayed and delusional. I
Speaker 1: wonder when people will get tired of But I realize
Speaker 1: that I already know that there's not going to be
Speaker 1: any there there at the end. So I just I
Speaker 1: have to fight a degree of boredom with this. Now,
Speaker 1: for the left, it never is boring because the more
Speaker 1: they talk about it, the more they think that that
Speaker 1: validates their obsession with it in the first place. So
Speaker 1: they have a vested interest in just bring up all
Speaker 1: things Russia collusion related all the time. But I see
Speaker 1: it here and just say, can this please end from
Speaker 1: not just from the perspective of as a radio host
Speaker 1: and a TV host and a writer and all that
Speaker 1: other stuff that I sometimes do, but just as an
Speaker 1: American man. We got more important stuff to talk about
Speaker 1: than this. This fundamentally does not matter the way that
Speaker 1: the Left is trying to make it matter, and Also,
Speaker 1: you know, if foreign influence or foreign interference is as
Speaker 1: much of a problem as they all say it is,
Speaker 1: do we ever get an explanation for why it's okay
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton used to law for Hillary Clinton's campaign,
Speaker 1: used a law firm to hire a foreigner, Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: to use Russian sources to try to not just use
Speaker 1: the media to destroy Trump, but to use the media
Speaker 1: using those Russian sources who gave disinformation to him, but
Speaker 1: also used our own intelligence community and FBI to try
Speaker 1: to monitor Trump to take him down. I mean, they
Speaker 1: leveraged foreign sources and foreign interference way more effectively than
Speaker 1: Trump did. The Hillary collusion is in is orders of
Speaker 1: magnitude more powerful than what we saw with the Russian
Speaker 1: Facebook campaign and all the rest of it. And I've
Speaker 1: said this before, I do think it's it's just worth
Speaker 1: a quick repetition here, And that's if the Russian goal
Speaker 1: was really just so discord and to cause political problems,
Speaker 1: it has succeeded well beyond what, well beyond Russia's wildest dreams,
Speaker 1: because the Democrats have taken this thing and they've made
Speaker 1: a mountain out of a mole hill. I mean, they've
Speaker 1: just made this into a much much bigger issue than
Speaker 1: ever whatever should have been could have or should have been.
Speaker 1: And that's because they just have this disbelief still the
Speaker 1: Trump is a president now. I mean occasionally I wake
Speaker 1: up in the morning and I feel like, Wow, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is the president. This is a this is a
Speaker 1: wild world that we live in. But I don't actually
Speaker 1: not believe he's the president. I just have to remind
Speaker 1: myself sometimes like, oh, it's really that's really a thing
Speaker 1: that happened. He is, in fact the president of the
Speaker 1: United States. It is something of a shock. The first
Speaker 1: time I ever learned about Roger Stone was actually in
Speaker 1: a documentary a long time ago about Elliot Spitzer. That
Speaker 1: was when I learned who this guy was. But you know,
Speaker 1: Stone's been around the game for a very very long time,
Speaker 1: and there were some interesting lines in the indictment that
Speaker 1: everyone's focusing it on. But you know, if they had
Speaker 1: the goods, if they had the goods on Stone already
Speaker 1: that they knew the Trump would have was gonna get nailed,
Speaker 1: they would lay it out in this indictment. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that that's the part of this that they're
Speaker 1: just they just skip over because it's convenient for them
Speaker 1: to skip over it. Right. Here's number one. Stone was
Speaker 1: an official on the US presidential campaign of Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump until around August twenty fifteen, and maintained regular contact
Speaker 1: with and publicly supported the Trump campaign throughout the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. So he wasn't actually working for the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign during the twenty sixteen election. I think that's that
Speaker 1: somehow gets like lost in the sauce here. He actually
Speaker 1: wasn't working for the campaign. Number two, this is all
Speaker 1: with CNN's picking out here. Stone was contacted by senior
Speaker 1: Trump campaign officials to inquire about future releases from Wiki Leagues.
Speaker 1: Everybody was talking about the Wiki Leagues releases at the time,
Speaker 1: and there are so many ways that I want to
Speaker 1: attack this, you know, there's a fatigue that sets in
Speaker 1: with the way that they set all this stuff up.
Speaker 1: But for one, after all those Wiki leaks releases, everyone
Speaker 1: was still certain Hillary was going to win the election.
Speaker 1: All these media libs that act like, oh gosh, the
Speaker 1: WikiLeaks releases and d they get all spun up on this,
Speaker 1: but going into election, they were ninety seven percent sure
Speaker 1: Hillary was gonna win, So they knew it wasn't a
Speaker 1: big deal. They knew it didn't really matter, but now
Speaker 1: in retrospect, looking to justify why Hillary lost and why
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, in their minds, is not really the president,
Speaker 1: this will have to work. I can't even think of
Speaker 1: a way. I mean, I look through all these lines
Speaker 1: at CNN's pulling here for oh what matters so much?
Speaker 1: I can't even think of a way that this ties
Speaker 1: to the president in a criminal fashion or in a
Speaker 1: strong enough fashion that it will affect him and his
Speaker 1: twenty twenty prospects. It's not even really realistic for that
Speaker 1: to be the case, but the left pretends like it is.
Speaker 1: You're probably familiar with the AARP, right very well known organization,
Speaker 1: but what's not as well known is that the AAARP
Speaker 1: is into left wing politics. They fought really hard to
Speaker 1: make sure Obamacare got through, and they fight to keep
Speaker 1: Obamacare and plays. That's not a good idea. So how
Speaker 1: about I tell you about an organization for people that
Speaker 1: gives them all of the benefits of that other one,
Speaker 1: but is much better. I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC will
Speaker 1: AMAC advocates for seniors and wants to fix social security,
Speaker 1: protect our borders, and protect this country. So it's the
Speaker 1: conservative alternative to AARP. So stand with AMAC as they
Speaker 1: fight the good fight. Become a member today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are incredible and the cause is even more amazing. Tell
Speaker 1: your family, tell your friends, join right now at AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: AMAC is better, better for you, Better for America. The
Speaker 1: important thing about this indictment is, as you read it,
Speaker 1: and if you consider it in conjunction with the two
Speaker 1: indictments that Mollor filed against Russian entities, they have to
Speaker 1: have known for over a year, easily over a year
Speaker 1: that there was no conspiracy between the Trump campaign and
Speaker 1: the Kremlin, which was the reason that this whole investigation
Speaker 1: gets started in the first place. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: read this indictment, this is a bunch of bozos who
Speaker 1: don't even know what Wiki Leagues has much less, are
Speaker 1: in cahoots with the Kremlin, which is the reason that
Speaker 1: this investigation got launched in the first place. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot here that has still been unanswered
Speaker 1: for as in why do we why do we never
Speaker 1: get any explanation of the people that were pushing this
Speaker 1: investigation along, right, The people that are still saying, look,
Speaker 1: I talked to a bunch of lives about this today.
Speaker 1: They're all, oh, my gosh, the collusion in Russia, and
Speaker 1: they really think that this is happening. And I sit
Speaker 1: here and I say, guys, you gotta give it up, okay,
Speaker 1: that it never made sense. There's nothing about this that
Speaker 1: makes any sense when you think about it as a
Speaker 1: rational person who doesn't just absolutely hate Trump. Collusion is
Speaker 1: a bad plan. Why would anyone collude with Russia? It
Speaker 1: doesn't make It doesn't make any sense. And instead we're
Speaker 1: just supposed to believe that these people who work for
Speaker 1: institutions like the dj and the FBI are in fact
Speaker 1: above reproach. And one of the interesting things is, so
Speaker 1: there are a couple of things today about about the Stone,
Speaker 1: about the Stone arrest, that Kyle tension. One of them
Speaker 1: is that initially, and look, it was my reaction too,
Speaker 1: And if I'm wrong on this one, mayacaulp I thought,
Speaker 1: all right, they must have tipped off, because only CNN
Speaker 1: was there with a camera crew at five am when
Speaker 1: Stone got arrested by all these people. I mean, you
Speaker 1: watch the video. They got guys with long guns and
Speaker 1: tack vested everything and I think it's fascinating people go
Speaker 1: in there and they say, oh, well, you know, that's
Speaker 1: just procedure. Man, that's just well, well it shouldn't be procedure.
Speaker 1: The guys a like a retiree who's just hanging out
Speaker 1: down in Florida, not bothering anybody really anymore. I mean,
Speaker 1: he barely leaves his house. He's not a flight risk,
Speaker 1: he's not a problem, and they have to send in
Speaker 1: a swat team at five am to get him. Why
Speaker 1: don't they just send a detective and say, come with me, sir,
Speaker 1: Is there anything that that Roger Stone was really gonna
Speaker 1: make a run for it? But the liberals all of
Speaker 1: a sudden forget about these basic rights that they proclaim
Speaker 1: to care so much about, especially when it comes to
Speaker 1: the cops. The only time that you'll hear libs defend
Speaker 1: everything the cops do is whatever they do that is
Speaker 1: bad for people tied to Trump. You know, they could
Speaker 1: if we had video of Muther's team giving electrode shocks
Speaker 1: to Roger Stone while he's you know, tied up to
Speaker 1: a pull somewhere and getting confess confess, they'd say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's totally right. Look, the FBI's great. Why do you
Speaker 1: hte the FBI so much? They're important, They keep this
Speaker 1: country safe, you know, so only when there's some way
Speaker 1: to tie it into Trump and his people and it
Speaker 1: makes them look bad or it is part of the
Speaker 1: FBI and the DOJ's ongoing anti Trump jihad. Then the
Speaker 1: police tactics are all fine, but it's a bad look.
Speaker 1: I don't care what anybody says. It's a bad look
Speaker 1: for people to think this way, that it's okay for
Speaker 1: the cops to show up and do this. And I'm
Speaker 1: never okay with this stuff. I mean, I hated when
Speaker 1: pre Berarra used to hold press conferences just to tell
Speaker 1: everybody about the dangerous white collar insider traders that he
Speaker 1: would lock up. You know, I had dinner with next
Speaker 1: to a guy, not just me and him, but next
Speaker 1: to a guy who Preparara sent away for insider trading
Speaker 1: on a really flimsy charge, like I spent a couple
Speaker 1: of years in federal prison. And you know, you asked
Speaker 1: this guy like for what, but pre a press conference
Speaker 1: and sat across them. These guys, these guys are scummy, scummy.
Speaker 1: A lot of prosecutors are bad news. I don't know
Speaker 1: what it's going to take for who to realize this.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean all of them. I've got a couple
Speaker 1: of very good friends who are prosecutors too, and they're
Speaker 1: very ethical, and they're good people, and they're also conservatives.
Speaker 1: But you know, they're I know, they're people that on
Speaker 1: both sides of the aisles who serve in that prosecutor
Speaker 1: prosecutorial role honorably. But we should be allowed to question
Speaker 1: these things, not people thinking that there's some inherent unjust,
Speaker 1: unjust aspect to questioning those who are supposed to be
Speaker 1: administering justice. By the way, you know a little more
Speaker 1: from Andy here on the day of the Stone arrest.
Speaker 1: Here's him talking about the violation of the protocols that
Speaker 1: have gone on in the Mueller probe along the way,
Speaker 1: plicklip ten, given that they they violated, the FBI and
Speaker 1: the Justice Department violated all of their internal protocols in
Speaker 1: February of twenty seventeen by going public announcing the existence
Speaker 1: of the investigation and unbelievably saying that the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: was a subject of the investigation on suspicion of being
Speaker 1: in coordination with the Kremlin. They had an obligation at
Speaker 1: some point in time to issue an interim finding that said,
Speaker 1: you know, look, we're looking at a lot of stuff here.
Speaker 1: We're looking at obstruction, we're looking at false statements. Who
Speaker 1: investigators looking at all these things, but there doesn't appear
Speaker 1: to be any evidence of conspiracy between Why would they
Speaker 1: do that, though, because they created the misimpression that there was.
Speaker 1: They created that misimpression so that they could continue doing
Speaker 1: what they were doing. And I've always thought all along
Speaker 1: that the DOJ people involved in this, the FBI people
Speaker 1: involved in this, had to keep this thing going or
Speaker 1: else they would have had to answer for what they
Speaker 1: did in the early stages, bailing out Hill or and
Speaker 1: trying to find a way to take out Trump before
Speaker 1: he could be the president. You know, if you keep
Speaker 1: the investigation going, then you're in a position to keep
Speaker 1: manufacturing the narrative and giving stuff to the media, and
Speaker 1: you know, you're in charge of how it all looks.
Speaker 1: Once you stop the investigation or admit there's nothing to
Speaker 1: the investigation, then there's the possibility that you're going to
Speaker 1: have to answer for what you did in the early stages.
Speaker 1: I remember DOJ was supposed to be able to wash
Speaker 1: its own laundry. But they had that a review of
Speaker 1: various actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation Department of
Speaker 1: Justice in advance of the twenty sixteen election. Who that
Speaker 1: was a sexy read, Remember that one man, that executive
Speaker 1: summary that got me all hot and bothered, that DJ report.
Speaker 1: But it was, it came out. It was a June
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, and you know the summary of the report
Speaker 1: and the conclusion of the reporter that there was no bias.
Speaker 1: And the whole thing is bias. It just bias, bias, bias,
Speaker 1: bias all over the place. So we absolutely cannot trust
Speaker 1: these people to be fair minded about what their own
Speaker 1: misdeeds were. And I think that that's really important. I
Speaker 1: think there's really an understanding that, you know, we should
Speaker 1: not we should not just accept that they somehow know
Speaker 1: more than we do about what's right and what's not
Speaker 1: when it comes to the most politicized kind of case possible.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's what we're dealing with, dealing with
Speaker 1: incredibly political material, with the Hillary investigation, with the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion nonsense, all of it. There are some things that
Speaker 1: I can just say to myself, all right, look if libs.
Speaker 1: If libs want to, you know, act in a certain
Speaker 1: way themselves, they're adults. If they want to be foolish,
Speaker 1: they're allowed to be foolish. If they want to believe
Speaker 1: the sky is falling, they can leave the sky is falling.
Speaker 1: If they want to get told that they're actually a
Speaker 1: great American, like al Gore just told Max's Boatum. That's right,
Speaker 1: Max Boot getting praised from I gotta work on my
Speaker 1: al Gore, I know, but I'm sort of close, a
Speaker 1: sort of luck. He talks like here like this, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's a little is that's getting close.
Speaker 1: All right, I'll work on it. But Max Boot getting
Speaker 1: love from al Gore is just the most classic thing ever.
Speaker 1: This is a guy he used to be the hardcore
Speaker 1: right wing neo conservative in in you know, most rooms
Speaker 1: where he would be found, and yet here we are,
Speaker 1: sure enough getting love from al Gore on climate change.
Speaker 1: Because if you want the left to accept you, yeah,
Speaker 1: it really have to be in for climate change and
Speaker 1: obviously have to be pro choice, and you also have
Speaker 1: to be in for this whole transgender situation. And I
Speaker 1: was told recently that by a friend who's a conservative,
Speaker 1: who's in the to the business side of conservative media,
Speaker 1: and he said that, you know, they really have a
Speaker 1: problem here where companies, even if they know that the
Speaker 1: transgender stuff is, you know, it doesn't really make sense.
Speaker 1: The rules change all the time. Who really knows what's what.
Speaker 1: Even with all of that in place, there's always this
Speaker 1: fear of boycotts or just getting into some kind of trouble.
Speaker 1: So a lot of publications and a lot of people
Speaker 1: in the news business end up just staying away from
Speaker 1: the transgender issue because they don't want problems. And look,
Speaker 1: I understand that, right, nobody really wants to deal with sponsors,
Speaker 1: jumping ship or any of the stuff that ends up happening.
Speaker 1: That said, this one is one where I just also,
Speaker 1: I can't help myself. Kate Hudson. You probably know the
Speaker 1: actress Kate Hudson. You might think to yourself, why is
Speaker 1: this person an actress? I'm now, I'm not. I know,
Speaker 1: whenever I say this, I probably end up being mean.
Speaker 1: It's like when someone says with all due respect and
Speaker 1: then they usually say something disrespectful, right, That's what usually happens.
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be mean, but to me, Kate
Speaker 1: Hudson has always kind of looked like a turtle, and
Speaker 1: you know, just one of those things some people remind
Speaker 1: you of a certain creature. Kate Hudson kind of reminds
Speaker 1: me of a turtle. Doesn't do it for me. I've
Speaker 1: never understood why she's in all these movies and people.
Speaker 1: It's producer Mike around. I need I'm gonna need a
Speaker 1: ruling from producer Micha on this one. Oh yeah, man, dude,
Speaker 1: Kate Hudson, I think it's weak sauce. Yeah, she's Goldie
Speaker 1: Haunt and Kurt Russell's daughter, so she's born into the
Speaker 1: industry and so you know, but it's always kind of like,
Speaker 1: why is she the leading lady? She's just not that appealing.
Speaker 1: I agree. I think there's a point in time back
Speaker 1: in the day where I looked at her I thought
Speaker 1: she was semi pretty, but that's she's gotten older. Um,
Speaker 1: And it's almost one of those things ever look at
Speaker 1: a person and but you'd sort of judged by the
Speaker 1: people they date, like I've always seen her and it
Speaker 1: was just maybe I've always seen her with guys who
Speaker 1: I'm like, really, it's just surprising and I just sort
Speaker 1: of made me think of her, it's not as hot.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I've just I've just never I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't like. And also I think that movie Almost Famous,
Speaker 1: which it was liked so amazing. I'm like, it's like
Speaker 1: a boomer amusement park ride. Okay, it's just let's all
Speaker 1: the boomers listen to their favorite music from their youth.
Speaker 1: And you know that that's the whole That movie sucks.
Speaker 1: I don't care anybody says that movie. That movie blows.
Speaker 1: Oh it's no good Man? Where was I? Um blows chunks.
Speaker 1: So Kate Hudson Um says that she is raising her
Speaker 1: daughter and that, by the way, my whole thing about
Speaker 1: just not liking her as an actress, you know that
Speaker 1: you can take that all leave it. So maybe you're
Speaker 1: gonna light me up in the comments for that. That's okay, Um.
Speaker 1: But she says that she's raising her daughter genderless. First
Speaker 1: of all, I guess she should probably say she's raising
Speaker 1: her you know, gender neutral child genderless, But I digress.
Speaker 1: She's raising her child genderless because she's unsure what gender
Speaker 1: she'll identify as in the future. How is this not
Speaker 1: child abuse? You know? This to me goes so far
Speaker 1: in the realm of just put setting your child up
Speaker 1: for failure and sending your child up for all kinds
Speaker 1: of therapy and issues and just lots of self worth
Speaker 1: and self doubt and all these things. You know, when
Speaker 1: did anybody ever come up with the idea that a
Speaker 1: genderless approach was going to be a good thing in
Speaker 1: case she doesn't identify with her gender in the future.
Speaker 1: And just maybe if gender identity is this thing that
Speaker 1: needs to be embraced as a spectrum and not a
Speaker 1: binary reality, maybe then it's clear that this is really
Speaker 1: socially imposed, meaning that the way that somebody is going
Speaker 1: to be reared has an effect on their sense of
Speaker 1: their gender identity. Well, if that's the case, then we
Speaker 1: just need to work more on how we're raising and
Speaker 1: rearing people so that they're clear about their gender. It's
Speaker 1: so strange here, we still don't know she says what
Speaker 1: she's going to identify as. I will say that right now,
Speaker 1: she's incredibly feminine in her energy, her sounds, and her way.
Speaker 1: It's very different from the boys. And it's really fun
Speaker 1: actually to watch the kids buy clothes with the boys.
Speaker 1: It was just like onesies. Actually, I did pretty good
Speaker 1: with the boys. But with her, it's a whole other
Speaker 1: ball game. There's some stuff that I like, I can't
Speaker 1: do that to her because it's so over the top.
Speaker 1: I don't even know. I don't even know what she's
Speaker 1: talking about her. Look, a lot of you have kids.
Speaker 1: I don't have kids, so you're all going to be
Speaker 1: much better experts on how to how to raise a
Speaker 1: kid in ten years. But you know, that was kind
Speaker 1: of a plan on how to lose a date in
Speaker 1: ten days or whatever. It's God's how to lose a
Speaker 1: guy in ten days? Was a date lose a guy.
Speaker 1: But this celebrity fashion right now, of gender identity and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, it's going to have real consequences. And unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the people that are going to suffer those consequences in
Speaker 1: some cases like this one, have no say in the matter.
Speaker 1: And I just feel like it is child abuse. Do
Speaker 1: you think that Lannie Davis has a legitimate cause of
Speaker 1: fear of what might happen to himself in prison or
Speaker 1: his family, his father in law, others related to him. Yes,
Speaker 1: and this is a fear Andrew I've worked with for
Speaker 1: years as a prosecutor, So the subjects may be different.
Speaker 1: We may be talking about the president of the United States.
Speaker 1: But this is how gangs conduct themselves. This is how
Speaker 1: MS thirteen, the President's adversary, conducts themselves. And what they
Speaker 1: do is they try and intimidate people who have left
Speaker 1: the gang by threatening their family, by telling them if
Speaker 1: they cooperate, harm will come to them. There we have
Speaker 1: Democrat Eric Swalwell. It was a smarmy fellow, perhaps the
Speaker 1: reincarnation of Smarmy Smurf. Some of you remember that Smimie's.
Speaker 1: You have Eric Swowell who is saying, referring to MS thirteen,
Speaker 1: that is a gang rooted in violence, rape and satanism.
Speaker 1: I think we did our whole right, didn't I didn't
Speaker 1: I go into a whole long discourse once about the
Speaker 1: roots of MS thirteen. I always found it fascinating. The
Speaker 1: more you looked into MS thirteen, the more you find
Speaker 1: out that there there are a group that does in
Speaker 1: fact have real origins that are based in essentially devil worship.
Speaker 1: But anyway, but he refers to MS thirteen, this horrible
Speaker 1: gang that engages in terrible violence across the country, especially
Speaker 1: a horrific violence, a sexual violence against women, as the
Speaker 1: President's adversary, and I would like see, I'm a good guy.
Speaker 1: I'm a fair minded individual, and so I would like
Speaker 1: to give Swalwell the benefit of the doubt here and
Speaker 1: assume that he too believes he too is of the
Speaker 1: mind that MS thirteen is his adversary. But increasingly I
Speaker 1: find the hardest question and it came up again today
Speaker 1: on the Rising Panel on Hill TV. The hardest question
Speaker 1: I posed to Democrats is why, and even some Republicans
Speaker 1: why is illegal immigration bad? Ask a Democrat that, ask
Speaker 1: a Democrat why they because they'll say yes, But then
Speaker 1: when you try to push them, we'll give me, give
Speaker 1: me your explanations as to what the reasons are. Right,
Speaker 1: because let's just add it all up. Illegal immigrants do
Speaker 1: the jobs Americans won't do. They say that all the time,
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants are less likely to commit crimes in America,
Speaker 1: although I don't believe that. I think that's a lie,
Speaker 1: and I think that they always conflate the numbers to
Speaker 1: make it more confusing. But they say that, so illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants do the jobs we won't do, are less likely
Speaker 1: to commit crime. And you know, we're a nation of immigrants,
Speaker 1: so they should really be treated with a special deference
Speaker 1: in our society. I'm talking about illegal immigrants now, So
Speaker 1: where's the downside? You know, where's the downside? If you
Speaker 1: are here because your parents brought you, hear your covernor daca,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to stay. If you're here because you are
Speaker 1: the parents of somebody who snuck a kid into the country,
Speaker 1: that's dappa Democrats want you to stay. If you've been
Speaker 1: in the country for a few years, tamocrats will say
Speaker 1: that you are a part of those communities, and the
Speaker 1: sanctuary cities that are harboring you from immigrations and customs
Speaker 1: enforcement are clearly set up to make sure that you
Speaker 1: can stay. So who's not supposed to stay? You know
Speaker 1: that we're gonna send send the you know whoever, the
Speaker 1: gang bangers and you know, some rapists and murderers that
Speaker 1: come across our radar who are illegal aliens, they don't
Speaker 1: get to stay. Okay, But that's a pretty small subset,
Speaker 1: isn't it. By the liberals own estimation of how many
Speaker 1: people are committing crimes for are legal immigrants in the country.
Speaker 1: I don't think that you can get liberals this, you know,
Speaker 1: in this day and age, to really explain why illegal
Speaker 1: immigration is bad. They keep saying we need to make
Speaker 1: a system that works. You know, it's all these platitudes. Well,
Speaker 1: there's a system that works, entail a system that means
Speaker 1: anyone can come and stay, a system that means anybody
Speaker 1: is in a position where they're allowed to just pick
Speaker 1: when they can come, when they're going to be in
Speaker 1: the United States, when they're not. I don't know, because
Speaker 1: we never really get to that part of the discussion.
Speaker 1: It's just a lot of talk about amnesty and then
Speaker 1: people doing a lot of virtue signaling around it. But
Speaker 1: you know, I've got another thing that this is I
Speaker 1: got a bone to pick here, and it ties into
Speaker 1: the wall. But also some other stuff. CNN I'm sure
Speaker 1: gleefully reporting on this one, and an apparent shot at Trump.
Speaker 1: Pope says, builders of walls, so fear and divide. Just
Speaker 1: from Pope Francis, who is not doing a lot of
Speaker 1: good for Catholics who really believe in the doctrine. I
Speaker 1: can tell you that right now, Pope Francis is really
Speaker 1: into taking a lot of cues from the socialist hard left,
Speaker 1: which I would note that the socialist left is in
Speaker 1: so many points in history a real enemy of the
Speaker 1: Catholic Church. I think it's interesting that the church now
Speaker 1: has made common cause with the socialists left more and
Speaker 1: more in this country. It depends on which country we're
Speaker 1: talking about. Pope Francis told thousands of Catholics and Panama
Speaker 1: gathered for World Youth Day that quote, we know that
Speaker 1: the father of lies, the devil, prefers a community divided
Speaker 1: and bickering. This is the criteria to divide people. The
Speaker 1: builders of bridges and the builders of walls. Those builders
Speaker 1: of walls so fear and look to divide people. What
Speaker 1: do you want to be? The crowd replied builders of bridges,
Speaker 1: and Francis replied, you learned that, well, so I would be.
Speaker 1: I would be more okay with that of Francis, because
Speaker 1: then explain to me how how do we deal with
Speaker 1: people that then come to this country and have an
Speaker 1: expectation that the taxpayer is supposed to support them? Isn't
Speaker 1: isn't that theft? And we have laws right render under Caesar?
Speaker 1: What happened to all that? But you know, you can
Speaker 1: even put push that aside for a moment. I mean
Speaker 1: the church, the church having a view on immigration. It
Speaker 1: is kind of like asking the church how big should
Speaker 1: my military be. I'm not sure that there never mind
Speaker 1: an authority on it. I'm not sure that their opinion
Speaker 1: really should matter all that much. But there is an
Speaker 1: area where their opinion should very much matter, and that
Speaker 1: is on the the atrocity that occurred earlier this week,
Speaker 1: the legislative atrocity that will lead to real life atrocities,
Speaker 1: where you have the New York State Assembly cheering because
Speaker 1: now you can have an abortion in New York State
Speaker 1: anytime for any reason, although it's nine months of pregnity.
Speaker 1: By the way, that one of the lies, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of lies run abortion. One of them that I've
Speaker 1: seen banded around is that that there needed to be
Speaker 1: this this abortion to save the life of a mother
Speaker 1: as a medical procedure. That's actually never that's never the case.
Speaker 1: There is no such There is no such medical condition
Speaker 1: where an abortion is necessary to save the life of
Speaker 1: the mother. There is induced labor in the third trimester
Speaker 1: where abortion, I'm sorry, where induced labor can be necessary.
Speaker 1: But abortion is not in fact a necessary procedure in
Speaker 1: the third trimester ever, meaning that there's no you don't
Speaker 1: have to end the life of the baby, even though
Speaker 1: people want to pretend like you do. You could actually
Speaker 1: have the baby then and hopefully it's able to be
Speaker 1: kept alive if it's too premature, and then perhaps if
Speaker 1: the mother wants to give it up for adoption, which
Speaker 1: I think is always an honorable choice, she can do so.
Speaker 1: But the Pope doesn't seem to have much to say
Speaker 1: about that. I gotta tell you, the Pope is not
Speaker 1: exactly inspiring confidence in those of us who think that
Speaker 1: the church is supposed to have guidance to offer its
Speaker 1: flock on these issues, and not much better. In New York,
Speaker 1: the Archbishop, the Cardinal of New York, Timothy Doland put
Speaker 1: out of statement here, I will not discuss any individual.
Speaker 1: Anything that follows as a statement of some general principles
Speaker 1: and should not be considered a statement on any specific person.
Speaker 1: This is in regards to excommunication of officials supporting that
Speaker 1: abortion bill, Timothy Dolans wrote, First, excommunication should not be
Speaker 1: used as a weapon too often. I fear those who
Speaker 1: call for someone's excommunication do out of anger or frustration. Second,
Speaker 1: notable canon lawyers have said, under canon law, excommunication is
Speaker 1: not an appropriate response to a politician who supports for
Speaker 1: or votes for legislation advancing abortion. Well, let me just
Speaker 1: say that if that is the case, then canon lawyers
Speaker 1: don't really have much of a role in the world today.
Speaker 1: And that is a pretty pretty big disappointment. But that's
Speaker 1: the truth. If you should not be excommunicated for being
Speaker 1: Andrew Cuomo who stands up and cheers for passing a
Speaker 1: bill that just lead it is legalizing murder, that is
Speaker 1: what it is doing. What are you gonna excommunicate? Excommunicate
Speaker 1: somebody for you can only if you're a mass murderer yourself.
Speaker 1: It's crazy. But the Pope, you know, we'll weigh in.
Speaker 1: The Pope will will do a little virtue signaling, and
Speaker 1: it's papal virtue signaling over walls and fences and borders.
Speaker 1: Not a lot of words from the Pope about the
Speaker 1: fact that New York State now basically says kill a
Speaker 1: baby anytime you want, for any reason you want. I
Speaker 1: think that I think the church should focus a little
Speaker 1: more on some of what matters, all right, I get
Speaker 1: frustrated on this one hour three is coming up. I've
Speaker 1: been watching our opponents, our future opponents, talking about seventy
Speaker 1: percent number one, they can't do it for seventy percent,
Speaker 1: it's got to be probably twice that number. But maybe
Speaker 1: more importantly what happens is you really have to study
Speaker 1: and take a look at what's happened to Venezuela. It
Speaker 1: is a very, very sad situation. That's a big, beautiful
Speaker 1: area and by far the richest, and now it's one
Speaker 1: of the poorest places in the world. That's what socialism
Speaker 1: gets you when they want to raise your taxes to
Speaker 1: seventy He makes a fair point here, friends, about what
Speaker 1: socialism can get you, as we see in Venezuela. Now
Speaker 1: I want to prepare you because if you're going to
Speaker 1: argue the point about high taxes and socialism to your
Speaker 1: lib colleagues or friends, they are no doubt going to
Speaker 1: toss back at you, Oh really, we're you know, what
Speaker 1: about what about Denmark? What about Norway? And if you
Speaker 1: do what I do, would you say, well, it's not
Speaker 1: they're not really socialist states. Those aren't really socialist states.
Speaker 1: That's that's an important place you can take the arguments
Speaker 1: a little more nuanced. But Denmark, in particular, Sweden, Norway
Speaker 1: they have in many ways more business friendly regulations than
Speaker 1: we do. Believe it or not, as as crazy. And
Speaker 1: I know that sounds crazy, but as crazy as it
Speaker 1: may sound, it's it's true. They just have very high
Speaker 1: taxes across the board for everyone and relatively efficient provision
Speaker 1: of government services. And they also have healthier people. You know,
Speaker 1: And whenever I know Americans, we like our cheeseburger in
Speaker 1: our big four by four, you know, with a maga
Speaker 1: hat on and doing our thing because we love Americans.
Speaker 1: We're Americans. But remember the cheeseburger bun might have to
Speaker 1: be gluten free. But I'm there with you and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. The truth is that Europeans are,
Speaker 1: by and large, see what I did there, healthier than
Speaker 1: we are. And that's just a function of I think,
Speaker 1: diet and lifestyle. So that affects the healthcare outcomes because
Speaker 1: people always say, oh, well, look at how good the
Speaker 1: health outcomes in Sweden are, and I say, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: but you know they're they tend to be have a
Speaker 1: much lower incidence of obesity and type two diabetes and
Speaker 1: some of the other major continuing health challenges that suck
Speaker 1: up a lot of the budget. But anyway, you know,
Speaker 1: you need to point out whatever people bring up, Oh
Speaker 1: what about those European states. Another critical component of or
Speaker 1: necessary component of a country being truly socialist, is that
Speaker 1: the country has to be the government has to be
Speaker 1: able to control the means of production. Right, I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're look up, you know, the classical definition of
Speaker 1: socialism is not just a country with a big welfare state,
Speaker 1: because you know, we have a very large we have
Speaker 1: about a trillion dollar welfare state here you go. Socialism
Speaker 1: is a political and economic theory. This is just off
Speaker 1: a dictionary dot com which advocates that the means of production, distribution,
Speaker 1: and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community
Speaker 1: as a whole. So every aspect of the economic system
Speaker 1: is essentially held in a common trust by the people,
Speaker 1: whatever that means, and can be therefore dictated or regulated
Speaker 1: by the regime in charge of implementing this socialist vision. Now,
Speaker 1: this is just contrary to basic human nature. Right. People
Speaker 1: work harder when they benefit from that work. People take
Speaker 1: risks when they will benefit if those risks pay off.
Speaker 1: We do not. We are not day in and day out,
Speaker 1: biologically and neurologically geared toward going all out for the community.
Speaker 1: You know. There are some exceptions to this, obviously, military
Speaker 1: service to your country. And you know, there are places
Speaker 1: where people go above and beyond, but for the most part,
Speaker 1: we all kind of just focus on our own stuff
Speaker 1: and want to take care of ourselves. And that's a
Speaker 1: good thing, because the more we want to take care
Speaker 1: of ourselves, the less we expect the state to take
Speaker 1: care of us. Because the only way the state can
Speaker 1: take care of some of us is by forcing the
Speaker 1: rest of us to give more than we want to,
Speaker 1: to be more more involved in state enterprises than we
Speaker 1: would like to be, for example. And I just bring
Speaker 1: this up because of all the You've got a couple
Speaker 1: of threads this week about socialism. And for one, Democrats
Speaker 1: now by a really large margin are favorable towards socialism,
Speaker 1: or rather a very large margin of democrat or a
Speaker 1: large contingent, I should say, if Democrats are very favorable
Speaker 1: towards socialism, this is a this is a big change.
Speaker 1: You know, in the early stage of Obama's presidency, if
Speaker 1: you ever said that Obama had some socialist had some
Speaker 1: socialist tendencies, if you said that you know, Obama had
Speaker 1: socialist tendencies, you you were accused of racism actually, or
Speaker 1: you were accused of at least slandering the great saintly
Speaker 1: genius Barack Obama. Now, Democrats are pretty open about it,
Speaker 1: and when you're talking about a seventy percent tax rate
Speaker 1: in any context, I think people are going to start
Speaker 1: to say, well, that feels pretty close to what we
Speaker 1: would expect if we were living in a large welfare
Speaker 1: European style welfare state. So that's a conversation that's going
Speaker 1: to get louder and louder I think going forward. Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren has talked about her wealth tax propos a little
Speaker 1: bit more since we brought it up yesterday. Here's what
Speaker 1: she says, Play six. The way that this has written
Speaker 1: is to say, first of all, going to tax all
Speaker 1: your assets wherever located around the globe. So if you
Speaker 1: were planning to move them to Switzerland or some island,
Speaker 1: doesn't make any difference. They are all going to be taxed.
Speaker 1: And the second part of it is we're going to
Speaker 1: build right into the administration of this tax that it
Speaker 1: has a very high rate of monitoring of auditing, so
Speaker 1: rich people on the ultra millionaire tax, this one isn't
Speaker 1: going to have a bunch of exceptions. This one says
Speaker 1: all your assets were ever located, and we're going to
Speaker 1: keep counting and you're going to have to pay. I
Speaker 1: want to underline this part. It's to use that money
Speaker 1: to build opportunity for the rest of America. What the
Speaker 1: heck does that mean? To use the money that they
Speaker 1: are seizing under threat of force, And never forget that
Speaker 1: that's what taxation is. Taxation is give me your money
Speaker 1: or I will take your freedom away and put you
Speaker 1: in prison. But she's saying that she wants to use
Speaker 1: that money to build opportunity for other people. That's such
Speaker 1: a such a wide open Oh it means whatever I say.
Speaker 1: It means thing, isn't it. You know? Oh? Yes, it
Speaker 1: means that, you know, we're going to spend this money
Speaker 1: on schools, or we're going to spend this money on healthcare,
Speaker 1: or you know, maybe we're just gonna spend this money
Speaker 1: on green energy projects. Right. I mean, they'll come up
Speaker 1: with whatever rationale they want, whenever they want for the
Speaker 1: money that they take from you and that they spend.
Speaker 1: But I gotta tell you that Elizabeth Warren version of
Speaker 1: what we're talking about that starts to sound pretty scary.
Speaker 1: You know, you know, wherever your money is around the world.
Speaker 1: We will just tax it and tax it, and it's
Speaker 1: like whoa, You're gonna come after people all over the place. Right,
Speaker 1: First of all, you have to under law. Right now,
Speaker 1: you have to note if you have overseas accounts. What
Speaker 1: was she saying is well, you can't even just you
Speaker 1: can't even just have an overseas bank account because your
Speaker 1: bank account's gonna get taken into assessments when we tax you.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind the US is one of very few
Speaker 1: countries already that has extra territorial taxation, which a fancy
Speaker 1: way of saying, Uncle Sam will grab you wherever you
Speaker 1: are around the world. Flip you upside down, turn your
Speaker 1: pockets out and say gimme, gimme, gimme. Uncle Sam just
Speaker 1: sticks his dirty little pause right in there and takes
Speaker 1: your money. Doesn't matter where you are. There's some exceptions,
Speaker 1: your military deployed military personnel, who are a lot of
Speaker 1: you listening to better than me. I forget what it
Speaker 1: is now, but there's I think you have a there's
Speaker 1: a tax breaks. They're a tax break there. But Ward
Speaker 1: is talking about a full own financial proctology exam here.
Speaker 1: I mean it's gonna be every year you gotta oh,
Speaker 1: I know, it's Friday. Every year. You're gonna have to
Speaker 1: have the government know everything you got and they're just
Speaker 1: gonna take it from you. They're gonna take it from you.
Speaker 1: And this will be at some of you, I know
Speaker 1: have been writing me emails and things pointing this out. Look,
Speaker 1: I know that this is going to be abused. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind that the I understand how the liberal
Speaker 1: mind works. They start by saying, oh, we're just gonna
Speaker 1: have this tax for people that have more than ten
Speaker 1: million dollars in assets. Well, when they realize that that's
Speaker 1: not enough money for the things that they say they
Speaker 1: want to do, they've already established though the regulatory infrastructure
Speaker 1: and established a kind of precedent. Or then just say oh,
Speaker 1: you know, it's over a million dollars in assets, and
Speaker 1: you say, well, hold on a second. If you if
Speaker 1: it's over a million dollars in assets, now you get
Speaker 1: a lot of people who've got a you know, a
Speaker 1: half million dollar home maybe or something close to that.
Speaker 1: And then they add on top of it, you know,
Speaker 1: you're four oh one k and you know it's all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you know, getting to a million dollars
Speaker 1: in total assets. You're not rich and I'm not saying
Speaker 1: you're not well off, but you're not a rich person,
Speaker 1: you know. So this is also why people always worry
Speaker 1: about switching to a value added tax, right, a VAT
Speaker 1: tax in this country, because they say, oh, it'll just
Speaker 1: be you know, ten percent or something on certain goods. Well,
Speaker 1: then it will be twenty percent on a lot of goods. Right.
Speaker 1: There's always you don't want to give the government easier
Speaker 1: access to mechanisms to take our money, but Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: clearly does. But it all comes down to envying class warfare, which,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying to you, are very very popular
Speaker 1: things on the left. These are very popular concepts. People
Speaker 1: like to soak the rhetoric. They like the Occupy Wall
Speaker 1: Street mentality of you know, the one percent is the
Speaker 1: reason that we have so many of these problems. And
Speaker 1: you know, I always said life isn't fair. I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at some of the people that run this country,
Speaker 1: and I don't I don't just mean the government. A
Speaker 1: lot of people that run everything. They run name a
Speaker 1: profession and they're at the top of it. A lot
Speaker 1: of them are people that inherited money. Not all of them,
Speaker 1: not a majority of them, but there's a lot of that.
Speaker 1: Is that fair? Well no, I mean it's not that
Speaker 1: the cream always rises. Some people start off with a
Speaker 1: big bucket of cream. But it's also the reality that
Speaker 1: we live with because life isn't fair, and it doesn't
Speaker 1: really better any of our lives to look around and say, well,
Speaker 1: some people have had it really easy, because you know,
Speaker 1: you'd ever know. One day they just show up at
Speaker 1: your door when you're in your silk pajamas and your
Speaker 1: smoking jacket and your loafers, and they say, mister Stone,
Speaker 1: you're coming with us. And they say it with a
Speaker 1: dozen guys who have you know, submachine guns on them.
Speaker 1: So you know, there's do you never know what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in this crazy world we live in. But
Speaker 1: the wealth taxes, I think increasingly something that you're gonna hear,
Speaker 1: You're gonna hear about it. People are gonna say, huh,
Speaker 1: this is unworkable. But the left as a means of
Speaker 1: differentiating oneself in this crazy left wing Democratic party right now,
Speaker 1: I think it's going to resonate. Do you ever think Look,
Speaker 1: the realistic endgame is that Republicans get two thirds of
Speaker 1: what they want and Democrats have to settle for the
Speaker 1: shorter straw. Is that isn't that? I mean, how the
Speaker 1: balance of power works. Well, let's talk about the balance
Speaker 1: of power. There are two coequal branches of government, the
Speaker 1: President of the United States and the Congress. And I'm
Speaker 1: sorry that is the wrong answer on this edition of
Speaker 1: do you know anything about the government? And apparently the
Speaker 1: answer sitting Senator Elizabeth Warren is no, no, you do not.
Speaker 1: You do not the answer because there are three it
Speaker 1: turns out coequal branches of government, right, the judiciary, the legislature,
Speaker 1: and the executive So isn't that cute? In't that special?
Speaker 1: That she she actually kind of reminds me of Danny
Speaker 1: Carvey as the Church Late a little bit. Some of
Speaker 1: you see it. You're you're you're shaking your head a
Speaker 1: little no, but a little yes. You are saying no
Speaker 1: but yes at the same time you gotta shy but
Speaker 1: we la it's peppy leapew calm down, or saying, oh no,
Speaker 1: what do you say? She doesn't apparently know what the
Speaker 1: branches of government are, which is just a fun thing.
Speaker 1: I know she probably misspoke or whatever, but come on,
Speaker 1: it's Eliza's Warren, I gotta give her a hard time sometimes.
Speaker 1: You also saw the while there's this talk of socialism
Speaker 1: is going on, and I guess this is to be
Speaker 1: expected at some level, right, there is to be some
Speaker 1: expectation that this would happen. But you got libs jumping
Speaker 1: into the fray to defend socialism despite what's going on
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. And more than that, because Venezuela is a
Speaker 1: social justice really that's it's more that it's a social
Speaker 1: justice socialist state than anything else. Right, It's not just
Speaker 1: about an economic system in Venezuela. There's also a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, anti American, anti imperialism, anti oppression rhetoric,
Speaker 1: rhetoric about racism, and then you know northe Americanos and
Speaker 1: all the stuff that we've done, and you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of of that that also undergirds what we've
Speaker 1: seen in Venezuela. And I think i've I've discussed on
Speaker 1: the show in the past that price controls are one
Speaker 1: of the most pernicious policies they put in place in
Speaker 1: Venezuela in terms of the economic crisis, because they would
Speaker 1: just say, well, you know, the greedy, the greedy product.
Speaker 1: You know, the greedy producers of different products in Venezuela
Speaker 1: need to charge less. Well, guess what happens when you
Speaker 1: do that? They can't make money. So then then what
Speaker 1: they do. They stop making the product because they don't
Speaker 1: want to lose money. And then what happens. People don't
Speaker 1: have product, right, No, no bread on the shelves. That
Speaker 1: is what happened in Venezuela. It's not hard to foresee.
Speaker 1: But when you're running around saying that everybody who's producing
Speaker 1: stuff is greedy and that's why things are expensive, you
Speaker 1: get people all whipped up and they think that. But
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar, who is a favorite congresswoman of the left,
Speaker 1: she is a African American Muslim female, so there's a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of intersectional points being added to
Speaker 1: her to her score sheet. She tweeted out that a
Speaker 1: US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to
Speaker 1: the dire issues they face. Trump's efforts to install a
Speaker 1: far right opposition will only inside violence and further destabilize
Speaker 1: the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay and the Vatican
Speaker 1: efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue. UM First of all,
Speaker 1: Guido is uh or Guido is not I always that's
Speaker 1: a name that I've I said it wrong a couple
Speaker 1: of times to start in. Now, yeah, I think it's Guido,
Speaker 1: so I think I'm right on that, But he's not
Speaker 1: far right. And for her to say that just is
Speaker 1: there's just an ignorance that's at the center of him.
Speaker 1: This is the guy who's the speaker of the house
Speaker 1: essentially the equivalent of it, the speaker of the legislature
Speaker 1: there and you know the fact that lives in their
Speaker 1: frenzy to defend socialism and in their efforts to pretend
Speaker 1: that somehow there's no that that there's this isn't a
Speaker 1: case study in socialisms failures, of course, it's a case
Speaker 1: study of in socialisms failures. This place has a giant
Speaker 1: ATM machine underground with its oil money, and they still
Speaker 1: can't pay their bills. Right, So we understand that this
Speaker 1: is a little bit of a sensitive topic at a
Speaker 1: time when there's a rise in socialism in America, you
Speaker 1: have that collapse in our own hemisphere of what was
Speaker 1: considered a model socialist and social justice based state. But
Speaker 1: for anyone to make excuses for or I know What
Speaker 1: they would say here is oh, they're not make excuses. Buck.
Speaker 1: They're saying, just just leave it, leave it to the Venezuelans.
Speaker 1: We're not We're allowed to recognize whoever we want. Our
Speaker 1: government can say we recognize this as the legitimate government.
Speaker 1: And people said, oh, we shouldn't do that either. A relation.
Speaker 1: Should we have legitimized the Taliban and the nineties by
Speaker 1: saying they were the legitimate government Afghanistan they were running
Speaker 1: the place? Where should we have had relations with the
Speaker 1: Taliban all throughout the nineties. I mean, I'm sure some
Speaker 1: lives would say yes. But this just shows you that
Speaker 1: owning Drumf and the Maga hat wearers is more important
Speaker 1: to the left, the increasingly radical left in this country
Speaker 1: than even standing in solidarity rhetorically and diplomatically. No one's
Speaker 1: talking about military any thing, just standing in solidarity with
Speaker 1: the oppressed and despoiled people of Venezuela who are turning
Speaker 1: out in the hundreds of thousands in the streets to
Speaker 1: get rid of this Maduro thug, imbecile. But ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: the United States Congress new congresswoman, you know, she says
Speaker 1: we're backing a coup it's a US back coup because
Speaker 1: she's not very knowledgeable about anything. The show ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: keeping it real. It's time for roll call sends this Friday.
Speaker 1: I figure we do a little double roll call, why
Speaker 1: not before we kick off the weekend. I get to
Speaker 1: sort of lean in and read off all the good stuff. Oh,
Speaker 1: I forgot to host a photo of adorable to lu
Speaker 1: To Lula wearing I can't. I can't even describe how
Speaker 1: cute the up it is. My mom posted this one
Speaker 1: up in New York. I'll have to share, because when
Speaker 1: it's cold in NYC, you gotta dress your friendshee up
Speaker 1: like a little a little pup fashion model. You know
Speaker 1: you gotta get them all sorts of geared up with
Speaker 1: the fanciest threads. All right, Chris writes Buck, great show
Speaker 1: as usual, Chris, great assessment of radio as usual. I
Speaker 1: just have one gripe. Your audio clips are getting too long.
Speaker 1: Oh no, if I wanted to hear those nuts, I'd
Speaker 1: watch some of the news. I have to fight to
Speaker 1: not turn the radio off when they drone on and on.
Speaker 1: I tune in for the dulcet tones of Buck, not
Speaker 1: the whack jobs. Chris duly noted, your critique offered in
Speaker 1: good faith, will be factored into our editorial line here
Speaker 1: going forward on the show. And occasionally what ends up
Speaker 1: happening is I throw a clip in in a break
Speaker 1: just so you understand. If you want a little behind
Speaker 1: the scenes here, producer and DJ John or DJ Brandon,
Speaker 1: I'll throw something to them and we have very quick
Speaker 1: turnaround on it, and so I'll say, oh, man, I
Speaker 1: really want to get just a part of this clip,
Speaker 1: but I don't have time to cut it because I'll
Speaker 1: give it to them right beforehand, So that sometimes factors.
Speaker 1: In other times, I just like to hear how wacky
Speaker 1: the other side is before I dole out the buck slaps.
Speaker 1: But I agree. I usually try to keep it at
Speaker 1: least to under a minute, so you know you're not
Speaker 1: gonna have to sit there and hear too much nonsense.
Speaker 1: Unless it's a back and forth debate clip that I'm
Speaker 1: playing you, then I feel like you need to hear
Speaker 1: the full context on both sides. But Chris, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, man, I appreciate it, and duly noted. Rachel writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: this government shutdown is a great thing. I understand the
Speaker 1: trials and tripulations of being without a paycheck. But that
Speaker 1: was the drive to go find something else. These government
Speaker 1: workers take a government job knowing the risks of a furlough.
Speaker 1: Maybe the shutdown will encourage these people to move to
Speaker 1: the private sector, a great way to decrease government's size permanently.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you something, Rachel. When I was down
Speaker 1: to the border in San Diego, Tijuana last week, where's
Speaker 1: the week before? Now I can't keep track. There's a
Speaker 1: border crossing that's private privately route in private sector. It's
Speaker 1: a foot crossing to the main land crossing of or
Speaker 1: near rather the main port of entry. That's that's right
Speaker 1: there on the Tijuana San Diego border. So there's also
Speaker 1: a foot crossing where you can go and you just
Speaker 1: show your stuff and you walk back and forth. So, um,
Speaker 1: you know, private sector can do things that the government
Speaker 1: does right now, that is that is for sure. I
Speaker 1: know people think, oh, no, what will we do without
Speaker 1: the government doing these things for us? We would we
Speaker 1: would find a way. It would in fact be okay.
Speaker 1: It's not something that we have to really lose too
Speaker 1: much sleepover. In my hum opinion, which whenever whatever someone
Speaker 1: says that. By the way, isn't it funny how their
Speaker 1: opinion is never humble? Oh? Man, I was trying to
Speaker 1: remember what the because somebody got me on the sollop
Speaker 1: sism mistake. But I had another thing that I wanted
Speaker 1: to mention that I have been saying the wrong thing
Speaker 1: for so long, and then I found out recently that
Speaker 1: it was that I was saying at the wrong Oh.
Speaker 1: I had one of those you know, one of those
Speaker 1: ones that you've been saying a phrase all this time
Speaker 1: and you think you know what it is, and then
Speaker 1: you realize, wait, that's not what it is, or maybe
Speaker 1: it was a song lyric that happened I think too recently.
Speaker 1: All right, Paul Buck, I can't believe you haven't mentioned
Speaker 1: doctor Gorka calling Jim Acosta a blank head in the
Speaker 1: White House briefing room. Did I just miss it? We
Speaker 1: should all take a cue from the doctor and start
Speaker 1: calling him Abelio. I bet he'd hate that shields high.
Speaker 1: I didn't know that doctor g did that. Doctor g
Speaker 1: really did he do that? I was unaware that he did,
Speaker 1: so I will have to look that one up. I
Speaker 1: didn't even know that was a thing that happened. Doctor
Speaker 1: g I will tell you, other than having the most
Speaker 1: fantastic accents, it's perfect full radio. You know. Other than that,
Speaker 1: he's also a surprisingly large man and has and has
Speaker 1: giant hands. So it's funny because you know, he sometimes
Speaker 1: he has to argue with these little kind of nerdy
Speaker 1: media matters types. And I'm like you, you don't make
Speaker 1: Doctor G angry. You wouldn't like Doctor G when he's angry.
Speaker 1: He's a big dude. Surprised he doesn't look that big
Speaker 1: on TV. I'm telling you in person, he's not like
Speaker 1: O'Riley tall. I mean O'Riley was like six foot ten
Speaker 1: or something. Riley was huge, But he's definitely a large,
Speaker 1: larger fellow. Um. You know, we have like a hulk
Speaker 1: versus the thing wrestling match Doctor G and Dan Bongino
Speaker 1: that I'm just you know, I'm telling you it would
Speaker 1: be a scrap. It would be a scrap for the ages.
Speaker 1: Tom writes, Hey buck love the show. A quick question
Speaker 1: regarding the Cummington High School debacle and the threats of
Speaker 1: violence against these boys and their families. Doesn't the responsibility
Speaker 1: for these threats fall at least as much on the
Speaker 1: popular media as on Nathan Phillips. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for what you do, Thomas Original Saturday Squad o s S.
Speaker 1: Which means, Thomas, you have been hanging out with me
Speaker 1: now for I think it'll be I need Stoats or
Speaker 1: one of the one of the og oss to tell
Speaker 1: me what the when the show actually started, because they
Speaker 1: always remember this stuff better. They remember the team buck
Speaker 1: anniversaries better than I do. I think March or February
Speaker 1: of twenty twelve or thirteen, maybe maybe thirteen. So we've
Speaker 1: been now going on six years on the air I
Speaker 1: think on radio. That sounds right. I think it's been
Speaker 1: six years on air during the week, not because the
Speaker 1: Saturday show I think started in twenty twelve. Anyway, you've
Speaker 1: been with me for a while, Thomas, So thank you
Speaker 1: very much for that. Oh sorry, let me answer your question,
Speaker 1: buck stop all of your sollipsism. A quick question regarding
Speaker 1: coming to high school. Yeah, of course, the media bears
Speaker 1: a lot of the responsibility for just just fanning the
Speaker 1: flames of the entire debacle. So you know, I think
Speaker 1: that's self evident. They fell down on this one pretty badly.
Speaker 1: A lot of people are doing a little victory dance
Speaker 1: today because it looks like maybe CNN didn't get tipped
Speaker 1: off about the FBI. Rate on. I keep going to
Speaker 1: say metaphor it pardon me, it's I got I got
Speaker 1: Friday brain going on there for a second. The other guy,
Speaker 1: Roger Stone, who once told me as an aside that
Speaker 1: you should always wear a belt with a suit, no
Speaker 1: matter what the suit is or how well tailored it is.
Speaker 1: And I'm just telling you that I've heard variations on this.
Speaker 1: I've heard different opinions on it. Some people say, if
Speaker 1: the suit is properly tailored, you don't need to wear
Speaker 1: a belt, with others say, of course you have to
Speaker 1: wear a belt. You're not a savage. He's in the
Speaker 1: latter category. Although I don't think he's going to be
Speaker 1: wearing as many suits. Well, no, he's released in his
Speaker 1: own recognizance. He's gonna be wearing a suit at court
Speaker 1: every day, and he probably wears a suit all the time. So, yes,
Speaker 1: the media is bad. Media is Oh. But but people
Speaker 1: that thought that the FBI got tipped off, maybe CNN
Speaker 1: gets lucky and did this. You know, a broken clock
Speaker 1: can be right twice a day, or is right twice
Speaker 1: a day, so it is possible. I have to admit
Speaker 1: it's possible. See An got lucky on this one. They
Speaker 1: maybe didn't get tipped off, although I initially thought it
Speaker 1: had to be a tip off. But now the main
Speaker 1: thing that makes me think that because they had a
Speaker 1: guy go on TV Thursday night saying, oh, there's some
Speaker 1: weird stuff going on. We think something's happening tomorrow. But
Speaker 1: was that a cover? I'm not trying to be conspiratorial,
Speaker 1: but was that a cover? Did they already know that
Speaker 1: something was going down and therefore a guy wanted to
Speaker 1: go on air and sound like they're just putting the
Speaker 1: pieces together when they actually did just get a leak?
Speaker 1: You know, you can't. I can't know because I don't
Speaker 1: trust CNN. But just because I don't trust CNN doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that it's impossible that maybe they got this one
Speaker 1: right from a journalistic perspective, although who really cares. Also,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's like this huge scoop. It was a
Speaker 1: huge scoop for an hour or two because it showed
Speaker 1: us how appallingly overarmed and over prepared law enforcement was
Speaker 1: to go in after a guy that they shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been concerned about at all. They could have had one
Speaker 1: detective walk up and say, excuse me, mister Stone, can
Speaker 1: you please grab your nears, smoking jacket and pipe come
Speaker 1: with us. We'd like to process you for an arrest.
Speaker 1: And he would have gone along with them. It would
Speaker 1: have been a problem. Robert hey Buck. If Trump declares
Speaker 1: an emergency to build a wall, we know will be
Speaker 1: challenged in court. What if a pro Trump group challenge
Speaker 1: the emergency, but they bring it in a conservative and
Speaker 1: not the Ninth Circuit. This would be a preemptive challenge
Speaker 1: in a Trump friendly court. Would this keep the left
Speaker 1: from getting a stay? I don't think that would work
Speaker 1: because if so, you means essentially the opposite of jurisdiction shopping, right,
Speaker 1: or that that's what you're looking or rather to use
Speaker 1: jurisdiction shopping to the benefit of our side. So you say,
Speaker 1: instead of letting it just get get grabbed by the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit, maybe you take it to the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty conservative one, and you let it
Speaker 1: get ruled on there. But you would need I think
Speaker 1: the problem is you can't have a judge say what
Speaker 1: the government's doing is right and put a stay on
Speaker 1: other people's possible stays the judge can only rule on
Speaker 1: the government is doing something wrong and I'm going to
Speaker 1: stop them. And I don't think that a judge can
Speaker 1: preemptively stop another judge from saying it's wrong, although I
Speaker 1: don't know i'd have to. This is where me pretending
Speaker 1: to be a lawyer on radio catches the gets the better.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's an interesting thought. I don't think it
Speaker 1: would work, though, Robert, that I can say, but the
Speaker 1: specifics of how it would go through the process, we
Speaker 1: need to get Annie mccartheo and he'll explain all the things.
Speaker 1: Quick quick pause here, team we come back. There's gonna
Speaker 1: be the most amazing role call session because we know
Speaker 1: that that means that once you're done listening to this
Speaker 1: role call roll Call number two, the weekend is here.
Speaker 1: And once the weekend is here, then we know where
Speaker 1: the party at, and you know where the party at.
Speaker 1: Watch Fire Festival on Hulu and Netflix, both of them.
Speaker 1: Send me your thoughts, your messages on that it's going
Speaker 1: to be amazing. You will really enjoy it. And also,
Speaker 1: if you're a millennial or younger, you should watch you
Speaker 1: But if you're not a millennial younger, I don't think
Speaker 1: you're really gonna like it that much? Okay, stay with me. Hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, It's time for roll call Team. I'm so
Speaker 1: excited that Friday's here. Man, I'm planning. I'm gonna plan
Speaker 1: like a twelve hours sleep a thon. That's my exciting Next.
Speaker 1: Ms Molly comes back this weekend, and next weekend I
Speaker 1: think I'll be up in New York. So this weekend
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be laying low and slow. That's that's how
Speaker 1: we like to do it. Just just chill ax. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna bust out. I've been a little good too. I
Speaker 1: got a chocolate stash, but I've been keeping I've stayed
Speaker 1: out of the chocolate stash all week but now on
Speaker 1: weekends I get I get to dip into it a
Speaker 1: little bit. I get to drink my whole milk and
Speaker 1: eat my chocolate. This is my weakness, you know. And
Speaker 1: I gotten a little bit of a habit of like
Speaker 1: a little bit of that every night. And then you
Speaker 1: start to walk around and you you're like, am I waddling?
Speaker 1: Or am I just getting old? Or what's going on?
Speaker 1: But he's going home to his mom. Yeah, say a
Speaker 1: lot of mummy. Yep, fair, fair, point, and I'm hoping that,
Speaker 1: you know, I will actually get to the gym at
Speaker 1: least twice, maybe even three times this weekend, raw like
Speaker 1: a beast. And I haven't shaved the beard off yet.
Speaker 1: I know you guys can't see me. Eventually, we'll start
Speaker 1: live streaming the radio show. It's just I haven't been
Speaker 1: able to set that up because I had to move
Speaker 1: to DC and start a new digital network for the
Speaker 1: Hill and all, you know, YadA YadA, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: But I still do you like the beard? John? All right?
Speaker 1: Yeah I do. I saw you on Tucker the other
Speaker 1: day and I thought it'll look good. Thank you, John,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Yeah, I'm gonna be on Howie Kurts
Speaker 1: his show on this Sunday, by the way, talking about
Speaker 1: Covington kids and probably some other media stuff. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll get to talk to talk to Howie. He's great.
Speaker 1: By the way. It's a really really good show. I
Speaker 1: think that's on at either eleven or noon on Sunday.
Speaker 1: I forget, I have to check again, but check out
Speaker 1: Media Buzz with Howie Kurts this Sunday. Set your DVR team.
Speaker 1: I need you to watch and support your main man.
Speaker 1: Buck is gonna be waking up, drinking coffee and working
Speaker 1: on a Sunday. Everybody's working for the Sunday. Yeah you
Speaker 1: can tell I really, I really want the weekend to start.
Speaker 1: Let's see Tia, right Buck great show is always a
Speaker 1: few comments. Number one Raheim, I know Rahim is. Rahim
Speaker 1: is a special character. He's good. Number two could low.
Speaker 1: I've missed hearing Larry weekly radio shows since he went
Speaker 1: to the White House, which have been a consolation when
Speaker 1: his prior TV show ended. He's so smart and so kind,
Speaker 1: reminds me of you. Thank you, Tia. I really like
Speaker 1: Larry too, so that's that's that's all. I praise toy poodles.
Speaker 1: I inherited one, my first dog under seventy five pounds,
Speaker 1: and mine is not frou through. You can give them
Speaker 1: a plain cut. Mine is happy being a couch potato
Speaker 1: and lapdog. Unlike the scary docs in Yeah, carpet Sharks,
Speaker 1: you know, be careful, they just they'll get you. Or
Speaker 1: chasing after rabbits in the garden. She can go from
Speaker 1: zero to sixty in one second. She'll be turning twelve
Speaker 1: is February, and she's always ready to take on the
Speaker 1: big dogs if she has to, but she rather make
Speaker 1: friends something to Considah shields high. I look, I have
Speaker 1: not been I love all dogs. Let me just let
Speaker 1: you know. You know you can. I don't care how
Speaker 1: controversial it is for me to say it. You know,
Speaker 1: this is like people like I'm sorry, I just take
Speaker 1: on too much responsibility at work. Just call me a workhorse,
Speaker 1: but I don't. I don't care who hears it. I
Speaker 1: love all bugs, but I do have favorites within the
Speaker 1: within the kine canine realm. And I'm not I've never
Speaker 1: really been a poodle person. I know they're supposed to
Speaker 1: be really smart, and they're a kind of hypoallergenic. All
Speaker 1: thats uff. I'm not really a poodle. But it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean I don't like poodles. I mean, if you offered
Speaker 1: me a poodle or the world's cute at cat, I'm
Speaker 1: taking the poodle. Now. He just offended the cat all
Speaker 1: the cat owners in the audience. Sorry about that. I
Speaker 1: like cats too. Cats are better than lizards. If you
Speaker 1: have a pet tarantula. I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: a show for you. All Right, I should just I
Speaker 1: should just stop. I should stop thinking. Yohan right, Buck.
Speaker 1: I was active duty from seventy four to seventy nine.
Speaker 1: Took Civil service exams in the seventies and was told
Speaker 1: that I only got minimal points because when I was
Speaker 1: in nothing was going on. They said the Vietnam cut
Speaker 1: off was ten seventy three. That was later changed when
Speaker 1: the South felt the five seventy five. Now I was
Speaker 1: a Vietnam era VET. Never heard anyone call themselves a
Speaker 1: Vietnam Times VET. That is obviously an attempt to confuse Johann,
Speaker 1: You are a VET from that era, and that's what
Speaker 1: I wanted to hear from some of you who have
Speaker 1: actually worn the uniform and done it. What you think
Speaker 1: about it. So we'll take it. There we go. Glenn writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: So yesterday someone asked HI about a Muslim conquest book.
Speaker 1: I've got a great one that I want to pick up,
Speaker 1: Sword and Scimitar by Raymond Ibrahim. I like Raymond stuff.
Speaker 1: I've read. I've read his articles. I haven't read a
Speaker 1: name his books, but that sounds like a pretty good
Speaker 1: I can't say I've read it, but that sounds like
Speaker 1: a pretty good option. So we'll check it out. Alex
Speaker 1: writes Buck, I love the show. As to Warren's wealth plan,
Speaker 1: it's a tax plan. It's certainly fraught with problems, and
Speaker 1: of course it's not an American kind of concept, and
Speaker 1: that rhetoric will play to a point. It's the creep
Speaker 1: that the electorate must be alerted to. The inevitable creep
Speaker 1: will eventually get everyone. Plus, a new tax is a
Speaker 1: new concept to be flitted. Like Ram Emmanuel exploits a crisis.
Speaker 1: They'll find a way to whittle down businesses, family, farms,
Speaker 1: and even individuals in some proportion. It's a new tax.
Speaker 1: Thanks for your excellence, show, Alex and Mississippi, Well, thank you, Alex.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I don't like the wealth tax. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying I think it will become a powerful talking point
Speaker 1: for Democrats. But even more powerful is that you have
Speaker 1: the weekend now to enjoy. My friends, go off, go forth, celebrate,
Speaker 1: have a wonderful time. Talk to you Monday, Shields High.
Speaker 1: You know what's smart kicking off twenty nineteen by planning
Speaker 1: out which rolls your business really needs to get to
Speaker 1: the next level. By making a great hire. You know
Speaker 1: what else is smart? Making sure you can do that
Speaker 1: because you start the new year off strong by going
Speaker 1: to zip recruiter dot com slash bucks so you can
Speaker 1: hire the right people. Unlike other job sites, zip recruiter
Speaker 1: finds qualified candidates for you. It's powerful matching technology scans
Speaker 1: thousands of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education,
Speaker 1: and experience and actively invites them to apply to your
Speaker 1: job so you get qualified candidates fast. That's why zip
Speaker 1: recruiter is rated number one by employers in the US
Speaker 1: and this rating comes from hiring sites on trust Pilot
Speaker 1: with over a thousand reviews. And right now, my listeners
Speaker 1: can try zip recruiter for free at this exclusive web
Speaker 1: address zip recruiter dot com slash buck. If you love
Speaker 1: this show, show you support team, go to zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Again, that's zip recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. Zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire