Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Tensions heating up in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. Is Saudi Arabia going to go to
Speaker 1: war with Iran? Are we going to get involved and
Speaker 1: perhaps start a war with Iran? We're going to that.
Speaker 1: Plus the Libs are doubling down even further on the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh allegations that have already been proven to be baseless.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that. Plus, but some of the Democrat
Speaker 1: candidates are offering up in terms of socialism, expanding government.
Speaker 1: We got doctor Jalathan Schanzer joining the talk national security
Speaker 1: and the Israeli elections. Lots of stuff coming up. 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 analysts this attack on the ore refinery
Speaker 1: by any reasonable definition, as an act of war. It
Speaker 1: is attacking the world economy, sustability of the oil markets
Speaker 1: throughout the world. I am looking for a response that
Speaker 1: would be unequivocal. If they don't pay a price for
Speaker 1: bombing a neighbor's oil fields, then all hell is going
Speaker 1: to break out in the Mid East. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, thank you so much for joining.
Speaker 1: As you can hear there from Senator Lindsey Graham, there's
Speaker 1: definitely major concerns over what is going on in the
Speaker 1: Middle East right now. So here's here's what we know.
Speaker 1: Let's start with what we know. It was a devastating
Speaker 1: sneak attack on Saudi Arabia's most important asset on Saturday.
Speaker 1: There was this fuse, a lot of explosive drones and
Speaker 1: cruise missiles that slammed into the heart of Saudi oil production.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was a surgically precise military operation. You
Speaker 1: had nineteen projectiles launched, seventeen hits on critical oil infrastructure.
Speaker 1: In fact, the Saudi facility at a Keek is the
Speaker 1: single biggest crude oil stabilization plant in the world and
Speaker 1: Kuras oil field is the second biggest. So as a
Speaker 1: result of this one attack, Saudi production dropped about fifty percent.
Speaker 1: That's about five point seven million dollars million barrels of
Speaker 1: crude oil coming offline all at one time on one day.
Speaker 1: If you had this double digit jump in global oil
Speaker 1: prices as a result, which got everybody's attention. So who
Speaker 1: was responsible for this very clear act of war. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, there was an immediate claim of responsibility from
Speaker 1: the Hoothy Rebels, Hoothies, who have been fighting this vicious
Speaker 1: civil war right next door to Saudi Arabia in Yemen,
Speaker 1: and they've launched hundreds of these small scale drone attacks
Speaker 1: at Saudi Arabia, which has been in charge of this
Speaker 1: at the head of this coalition to defeat the Hoothy
Speaker 1: Rebels since twenty fifteen, and they have been pretty brutal
Speaker 1: in their efforts to suppress the Hoothies. But you see,
Speaker 1: none of the Hoothie strikes in the past on the
Speaker 1: Saladies were anywhere near this scale or sophistication. This was
Speaker 1: a tactical proficiency far beyond what had been seen previously
Speaker 1: from the Hoothy militia and Yemen. And you know, and
Speaker 1: here we are, we're a few days after sifting through
Speaker 1: missile and drone parts, and you've got all these different
Speaker 1: experts and intelligence agencies looking at the satellite imagery to
Speaker 1: make sure they're certain of the culprit. So this could
Speaker 1: lead to war, and right now it is believed. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Saudis have said that they are effectively without doubt
Speaker 1: that the Iranians were behind this, and then it's just
Speaker 1: a question of what the additional details are. The claim
Speaker 1: from the Hoothies the hoothis trying to take responsibility. That's
Speaker 1: really a fig leaf meant to create hesitation among the
Speaker 1: Saudis and among and for US striking back militarily against
Speaker 1: the Iranians. But look, this all makes some sense from
Speaker 1: the perspective of the Iranians are cornered after Trump pulled
Speaker 1: out of the Obama administrations a Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Speaker 1: Action that JCPOA right, the Iran nuclear deals, how we
Speaker 1: think of it, that hit The brakes on the Iranian
Speaker 1: economy are real fast. Yeah, sure, the European Union hasn't
Speaker 1: reimposed sanctions, but you know, oil exports are down tremendous,
Speaker 1: foreign investments down tremendously. Iranian GDP shrunk almost four percent
Speaker 1: last year and might and they think it will shrink
Speaker 1: about six percent next year if the current trends continue.
Speaker 1: So the Mullas are cornered. Iran's heading for a grueling recession.
Speaker 1: But they still haven't blinked, not on their nuclear program,
Speaker 1: not on negotiations. In fact, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kamene
Speaker 1: has said there will be no negotiation with the United
Speaker 1: States to change this. Instead, it looks like he's certain
Speaker 1: the Iranians are striking at the heart of Saudi oil
Speaker 1: production production. To go Trump, right, they're trying to send
Speaker 1: a signal to the rest of the world that when cornered,
Speaker 1: the Iranian viper still has fangs. So let's assume the
Speaker 1: Iranians were behind this. What is the United States? Dude,
Speaker 1: do we really want to get in the middle of this.
Speaker 1: Let's hope not. The backdrop for this Saudi strike, this
Speaker 1: sneak attack, which is clearly in that of war, is
Speaker 1: the regional Sunni Shia proxy war with the Iranians that
Speaker 1: has been escalating in recent years. Some would say it's
Speaker 1: been escalating for over a millennium, and it could easily
Speaker 1: set the entire Middle East of flame. All it takes
Speaker 1: is a miscalculation on one side or the other. I
Speaker 1: think President Trump. I hope President Trump recognizes these risks.
Speaker 1: His supporters were promised a non interventionist foreign policy the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election looms. Doing the Saudis fighting for them
Speaker 1: is not putting American interest first. It's not putting America first.
Speaker 1: Could the Saudis set off a regional war on their
Speaker 1: own by striking back an It's certainly possible. Could oil
Speaker 1: spike over one hundred dollars a barrel? Who knows? These
Speaker 1: are dangerous times, my friend. Thoughts and prayers for President Trump,
Speaker 1: for our armed forces. Let's hope we can navigate out
Speaker 1: of this without getting ourselves in even deeper. We've got
Speaker 1: more coming up, and you've introduced a build along with
Speaker 1: Senator Corey Booker, obviously who's running for the White House.
Speaker 1: You did this today. It would create a pilot program
Speaker 1: to guarantee jobs for anyone who wants one. That's ambitious.
Speaker 1: It would cost a lot of money. What is the
Speaker 1: number one thing you would do to pay for that? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is an idea that has a long legacy.
Speaker 1: It was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt. It was supported by
Speaker 1: Martha Luther Kim Junior. It's going to allow it's a
Speaker 1: pilot project. The pilot program that is going to allow
Speaker 1: fifteen communities within um this country to create this program.
Speaker 1: And I think ultimately, when these jobs are created and
Speaker 1: people are pleased in these jobs, it will pay for itself. Ah,
Speaker 1: there we go. This has become the new super big
Speaker 1: government Democrat go to talking point. It will pay for itself. Wow,
Speaker 1: that sounds good. How are you going to pay for
Speaker 1: a plan to guarantee everybody the governed, to guarantee everyone
Speaker 1: a job? Oh, don't worry about it, it'll pay for itself. Huh.
Speaker 1: How will you guarantee healthcare for everyone? Well, how are
Speaker 1: you guarantee medicare for all for everyone? Well, it'll pay
Speaker 1: for itself with the savings will get. I've heard people
Speaker 1: say this. Democrats have said this, dude, with the savings
Speaker 1: that you'll get on your healthcare and when you cut
Speaker 1: out the insurance companies, this will pay for itself. No
Speaker 1: serious person can believe that there is no way this
Speaker 1: will pay for itself. That's just fantasy land stuff. Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders today rolled out a two point five trillion dollar
Speaker 1: Housing for All plan. Sanders has said that the plan
Speaker 1: would guarantee every American quote, regardless of income, a fundamental
Speaker 1: right to a safe, decent, exces and affordable home, and
Speaker 1: would be paid for by a wealth tax on the
Speaker 1: top one tenth of one percent of income earners. He
Speaker 1: said there's virtually no place in America where a full
Speaker 1: time minimum wage worker can afford a decent two bedroom apartment.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm gonna stop there. I live in New
Speaker 1: York City. I've never been able to afford a decent
Speaker 1: two bedroom apartment here. Okay, I'm like, I feel like
Speaker 1: I'm big time because recently I I'm like pushing forty,
Speaker 1: and I moved into one bedroom territory. It used to
Speaker 1: all be in one room. Everything. Bathroom pretty much was
Speaker 1: the kitchen, kitchen was the bed. Bed was the bathroom.
Speaker 1: Welcome to New York to stake in the toilet. Hey,
Speaker 1: whatever you gotta do, you gotta get it done. It's
Speaker 1: New York, it's NYC. It's the big Apple, it's the
Speaker 1: big show. But minimum wage worker two bedroom apart Who
Speaker 1: said that one minimum wage worker should be able to
Speaker 1: afford a two bedroom apartment in a city? What's wrong
Speaker 1: with the studio? I lived in studios all through my twenties.
Speaker 1: Studio apartment four hundred square feet, usually a bed, a dresser,
Speaker 1: a place to shower, and maybe like a hot plate.
Speaker 1: So I just like Bernie starts from this place. What
Speaker 1: are you even talking about the average two bedroom apartment
Speaker 1: in New York City is probably about four four forty
Speaker 1: five hundred dollars a month, four grand. I'd say the
Speaker 1: average apartment in Manhattan is over three thousand dollars a month. Now,
Speaker 1: I know the other boroughs, it's different, it gets you
Speaker 1: can get better deals there. Manhattan's a big place. It's
Speaker 1: one of the five boroughs. Guarantee everybody at two bedroom
Speaker 1: apartment on a minimum wage job. Okay, well, not that many.
Speaker 1: The point of a minimum wage job is generally not
Speaker 1: to have a minimum wage job forever. Usually, if you
Speaker 1: do a good job at your minimum wage job, you
Speaker 1: can move up, you can get into a more senior role,
Speaker 1: you can get into management. And also a lot of
Speaker 1: people are in two income households. So now if you
Speaker 1: have two minimum wage jobs in the same household, people
Speaker 1: can do better, and they can start to save some money,
Speaker 1: and they can start to build their way into the
Speaker 1: middle class. But just think of the central planning on
Speaker 1: display here. Yeah, we're gonna mandate that, you know, everybody
Speaker 1: what should be able to afford a two bedroom apartment
Speaker 1: on a minimum wage salary. I mean, do you want
Speaker 1: to start paying forty dollars for cheeseburgers? At McDonald's, because
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe then it could happen the free market,
Speaker 1: or rather just the market sets prices. Bernie Sanders can
Speaker 1: tell you all day about how much the government should
Speaker 1: be setting prices, But the government cannot set prices. All
Speaker 1: it does is push capital into other areas through its
Speaker 1: intrusions and mandates in the marketplace. But it doesn't work
Speaker 1: the way they want it to work. And I can
Speaker 1: even talk to you about the minimum wage minimum wage.
Speaker 1: When they raise it, some people benefit from it, some
Speaker 1: people don't. And I'm talking about minimum wage earners, because
Speaker 1: there is an actual value to the labor provided by
Speaker 1: somebody who's earning minimum wage. And businesses have to balance
Speaker 1: the balance their costs and balance their their input their output.
Speaker 1: And so you can say, well, we're gonna pay everyone
Speaker 1: twenty dollars minimum wage. Now, what they just do is
Speaker 1: they cut back your hours or they cut back jobs.
Speaker 1: Some people might be able to stay around with that
Speaker 1: twenty dollars minimum wage increase, but other people are going
Speaker 1: to lose their jobs or they're gonna have their hours cut.
Speaker 1: There's a minimum wage increase doesn't benefit people the way
Speaker 1: we're always told it does, but it's an emotional issue.
Speaker 1: People feel like, you should you work, you show up,
Speaker 1: you work, you should get paid fairly. Meanwhile, I feel
Speaker 1: like I did free work for years as an intern
Speaker 1: at all these different places, building a resume which really
Speaker 1: is exploitative. I'm just gonna say it. But people say, well,
Speaker 1: do you want that stuff in your resume or not?
Speaker 1: I did all kinds of free work. I was running
Speaker 1: around making copies his book, making cupies. I did all
Speaker 1: kinds of stuff. One more thing before we're gonna get
Speaker 1: a little more into the latest with the Cavanall situation,
Speaker 1: which they haven't given up. Libs haven't given up. They've
Speaker 1: they've lost this battle, but they keep They're just hoping
Speaker 1: to wear us down. You know they're wrong. They don't
Speaker 1: really care. Saturday, I saw something today that Department of
Speaker 1: Justice might be circulating. I haven't seen this confirmed yet.
Speaker 1: It might have been confirmed since I read it. Department
Speaker 1: of Justice is circulating what it thinks might be a
Speaker 1: what an Attorney General Barr and others think might be
Speaker 1: a possible compromise on a gun control measure, after all
Speaker 1: the public outcry, after all these shootings, and President Trump
Speaker 1: is assuring us this is something we should not have
Speaker 1: to worry about and left wing Democrats want to confiscate
Speaker 1: your guns and eliminate your god given right to self defense.
Speaker 1: You know that as your president, I will never allow
Speaker 1: them to take away your liberty, your dignity, your social security,
Speaker 1: and I will never ever allow them to take away
Speaker 1: your sacred right to keep and bear arms. I don't
Speaker 1: know about that right now. There's really there's no political
Speaker 1: benefit for Trump in conceding anything on gun control to
Speaker 1: the other side. But I am hearing that the Trump
Speaker 1: White House and the Department of Justice are thinking about
Speaker 1: are thinking about sending something along. Yeah do you here
Speaker 1: you go? DJ sends gun legislation package to the White
Speaker 1: House as debate rages over mat Okay, yeah, no, this
Speaker 1: was the options. This was the options. But i've heard
Speaker 1: that it's gone beyond that. Now they're narrowing down because
Speaker 1: this was from about a week ago. They're narrowing down
Speaker 1: the options to oh, that's right, we should actually do
Speaker 1: this thing. I don't see what the benefit is. I
Speaker 1: don't see how this is going to result in anything
Speaker 1: other than a feeling of the left getting its way
Speaker 1: on guns, which is not good because you're just encouraging
Speaker 1: them to do more of this, and then you have,
Speaker 1: for example, the effort to demonize the NRA continues. The
Speaker 1: NRA has held our Congress hostage, doing everything possible to
Speaker 1: obscure the truth, trying to appeal to a small subset
Speaker 1: of extremists. They think they can say, jump and hey,
Speaker 1: appose this bill. Appose appill, don't get that done. Don't
Speaker 1: do that suggest you're either in favor of the Second
Speaker 1: Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away. It's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely ridiculous. And on issue after shoot, they
Speaker 1: are not only out of touch with where the American
Speaker 1: people are, they are way out of touch with where
Speaker 1: gun owners are. This is not something we just have
Speaker 1: to put up with. This is not some cosmic force
Speaker 1: that can't be stocked. In other words, when we listen
Speaker 1: to people instead of corporations or special interests, this is
Speaker 1: going to change. I promise you, this is going to change.
Speaker 1: We've got to fight the corruption and we've got to
Speaker 1: be willing to push back. This is something that the
Speaker 1: vast majority of Americans want, and we have got to
Speaker 1: have the courage to take them on. The NRA. We
Speaker 1: can be and it's time that we take action. Tell
Speaker 1: them to stop working for the gun industry and start
Speaker 1: working for the American family. President Trump, please tell them
Speaker 1: molan la bay and leave us all alone. Okay, don't
Speaker 1: do this, don't go forward with some just it's just
Speaker 1: a response to left wing pressure. They haven't won the argument.
Speaker 1: There's there's nothing that they can point to that would
Speaker 1: be helpful for saving lives from the perspective of doing
Speaker 1: some kind of gun control measure here, all that all
Speaker 1: that you know you're going to get is additional laws,
Speaker 1: additional harassment. I just look today at the what it
Speaker 1: takes to getting gone in New York City, because I
Speaker 1: would like to exercise my Second Amendment right here. It's
Speaker 1: it's gonna take me six months, six months. I was
Speaker 1: trained by the federal government with weapons and had a
Speaker 1: top secret clearance for years. It'll take me six months
Speaker 1: to get a gun. And that's assuming that I get
Speaker 1: through all this stuff, and then I'll figure out, Wow,
Speaker 1: this guy is really right wing. I don't know if
Speaker 1: we can give him a gun. Sounds scary. You're gonna
Speaker 1: you're gonna make concessions the other side on this, we
Speaker 1: have so many gun laws already in place, and it's
Speaker 1: just if you do the universal background check, you're setting
Speaker 1: up what will become a day facto registry. There's every
Speaker 1: every transaction will be will be logged and cataloged, and
Speaker 1: then I'll be able to very easily go through them all,
Speaker 1: maintain a database of all of it. And then you
Speaker 1: have a registry, and then the call becomes, all right,
Speaker 1: everybody who has this kind of gun, turn it in.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody who has that kind of gun, turn
Speaker 1: it in. All of a sudden, you know, you're left
Speaker 1: with double barrel shotguns only Elmer Fud style for legal
Speaker 1: for people that want to own firearms, and for all
Speaker 1: the criminals. Guess what they didn't turn in their stuff?
Speaker 1: Oh wow, what a shock. It's almost like how gun
Speaker 1: free zones don't stop mass murderers. I worry about Trump
Speaker 1: on this one. He says he's a gun guy, and
Speaker 1: you know, Trump is great in many ways, but yeah,
Speaker 1: he's really I don't know if he really is. He's
Speaker 1: not a Second Amendment guy. He listens too much to
Speaker 1: people who are giving him bad advice. On this one.
Speaker 1: I worry he's getting bad advice from people very close
Speaker 1: to him. In the White House. I think that's happening.
Speaker 1: Now we'll see. Hopefully I'm wrong on this one. Rarely am.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons why I ran for Congress is
Speaker 1: to fight for the healing and the justice of all
Speaker 1: survivors one in sixteen women. Of course, we know this
Speaker 1: is not a genderized crime, and sexual assault is a crime,
Speaker 1: but a crime disproportionally perpetuated on to women, and one
Speaker 1: in sixteen women their first sexual experience was rape. This
Speaker 1: is a public health crisis and epidemic. I see it
Speaker 1: also as a social justice issue, and it's deeply concerning
Speaker 1: that someone who starves on the highest court of the
Speaker 1: land could have this many allegation, allegations that are highly
Speaker 1: politically motivated and that keep on turning up false. There's
Speaker 1: a reason that we have the process we do. There's
Speaker 1: a reason that we have the system we do in place.
Speaker 1: It's actually to achieve justice, believes it's not just so
Speaker 1: that we can have a system. There are reasons why
Speaker 1: we have the presumption of innocence while we have the
Speaker 1: right to face accusers. These are all procedural, but yes,
Speaker 1: they're also intended to get us to a place of justice.
Speaker 1: And it is unjust for someone to suffer professional consequences,
Speaker 1: reputational consequences for an endless series of lies, innuendos, smears,
Speaker 1: falsehoods that we all understand why they're being made, where
Speaker 1: they're coming from. And the Democrats just they go with
Speaker 1: it anyway. They realize that if they start adjudicating whether
Speaker 1: something is a fair allegation against somebody like Kavanaugh, then
Speaker 1: they might have to do that again in the future.
Speaker 1: Better to just stick to the script, keep the party first,
Speaker 1: assault going right, attack Cavanaugh. That's all that really matters.
Speaker 1: The truth is irrelevant. Well, here's a little extra bit
Speaker 1: of truth that I thought you should all know. Another
Speaker 1: thing that just was coincidentally left off of the New
Speaker 1: York Times is Sunday Essay and hasn't been mentioned now
Speaker 1: until a few days into this fiasco. So you had
Speaker 1: Max Steyer, who I already played for you yesterday. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a guy, a guy who he's like a
Speaker 1: better government or a good government advocator, talks about collectivizing
Speaker 1: the power of government. This guy's a lib. He's a liberal.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's listening for two seconds. And you know
Speaker 1: he also represented Clinton in the nineties. I believe in
Speaker 1: the specifically in the Paula Jones issue, but tied into Whitewater,
Speaker 1: and I just want to say Watergate, that's a different one. Whitewater,
Speaker 1: Monica Lewinsky. It's tough to keep all the Clinton scandals
Speaker 1: straight just because it was the whole presidency was really
Speaker 1: one long scandal. But it turns out that Max Stier's wife,
Speaker 1: Florence you Pan, was nominated by Obama to be on
Speaker 1: the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Resident Obama wanted Florence
Speaker 1: you Pan to be on the DC Court of Appeals,
Speaker 1: which is known to everybody in legal circles as the
Speaker 1: pre eminent stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It's the
Speaker 1: anti chamber, it's it's the holding place right before you
Speaker 1: might get a Supreme Court slot if you are so
Speaker 1: called upon and chosen. But Florence Yupan did not get
Speaker 1: that DC Circuit Court spot because the Republican controlled Congress.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I'll Senate under Mitch McConnell just let her
Speaker 1: nomination lapse. They didn't. They didn't, you know, destroy your character.
Speaker 1: They didn't drum up fake allegations, call her a criminal
Speaker 1: based on nothing, and no, they didn't do any of that.
Speaker 1: They just decided that Republicans had a majority. The Senate.
Speaker 1: Senate rules allow them to decide whether or not they're
Speaker 1: going to have an up or down vote on this
Speaker 1: particular nominee for the DC Circuit, and they just didn't
Speaker 1: do it, just like it was the Merrick Garland situation,
Speaker 1: except Merrick Garland was up for a Supreme Court seat.
Speaker 1: This is for the DC Circuit. Now, someone please explain
Speaker 1: to me why it is that in none of the
Speaker 1: interviews that these New York Times authors of this Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: hit book, which is what it is. It's not going
Speaker 1: to be a hit, but it's a hit book. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's meant to go after Kavanaugh. Someone explained to
Speaker 1: me why they didn't think that was relevant information. The
Speaker 1: one witness they can cite that's new claiming an event
Speaker 1: that even the so called victim herself does not recall.
Speaker 1: Their one witness has a wife who was blocked by
Speaker 1: Republicans from more or less becoming Supreme Court Junior Justice
Speaker 1: Florence Upan right right before the Supreme Court. You don't
Speaker 1: think that maybe there's a little bit of bitterness there
Speaker 1: that doesn't go perhaps to motive with this guy. He
Speaker 1: sees an opportunity. Yeah, I was at Yale with Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: We got drunk a lot. Who's gonna know. See, one
Speaker 1: of the problems with these allegations against Kavanaugh is that
Speaker 1: not only can they not not only is it very
Speaker 1: hard to entirely disprove them because they're so old and
Speaker 1: so vague and so lacking in any real detail. No
Speaker 1: one's going to get in any trouble for making these
Speaker 1: kinds of allegations. All you have to be is a
Speaker 1: liberal Democrat who believes very strongly in Roe v. Wade,
Speaker 1: and he was very angry about the conservative tilt of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, and you know all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: And Trump, And you say, yeah, I think I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure Kavanaugh one night late drunk at a party. I mean,
Speaker 1: I could tell you this. I could get away with
Speaker 1: saying this about anybody that I went to college with.
Speaker 1: Who's a guy. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw him
Speaker 1: at a party one night and he got really drunk,
Speaker 1: and you know he might have I think he groped
Speaker 1: a girls, you know, behind and she was very upset.
Speaker 1: But no one really remembers because we're drunk How are
Speaker 1: you going to disprove that I could even swear that
Speaker 1: under oath, I could even bear false witness. That's right,
Speaker 1: there's a reason why that's a sin. I could bear
Speaker 1: false witness and swear with my right hand on a bible,
Speaker 1: and I'm never going to suffer any legal consequences because
Speaker 1: how could you How could you prove that I'm lying?
Speaker 1: You can never prove that I'm lying. But that's why
Speaker 1: things like the possible motivation to lie are so important.
Speaker 1: That's why the full context of who this Max Steyer
Speaker 1: guy is is something that clearly The New York Times
Speaker 1: and one gives. I mean, the New York Times has
Speaker 1: been humiliated this week. To anybody who is not completely
Speaker 1: delusional and brainwashed, they have been humiliated, and they should
Speaker 1: feel humiliated for what they have done, but they don't
Speaker 1: view it that way. They just doubled down. I mean,
Speaker 1: they did their best to attack Kavanaugh. They did their
Speaker 1: best to undermine him, to hurt his you know, to
Speaker 1: hurt him on the Supreme Court. And I really do
Speaker 1: believe this, And I give Eric Ericson credit for getting
Speaker 1: out ahead of this and making some noise about this point,
Speaker 1: because I think he's right that this is also a
Speaker 1: message to Supreme Court Justice Roberts that if you mess
Speaker 1: with us on the abortion thing, there's nothing the Left
Speaker 1: is unwilling to do, no place they won't go in
Speaker 1: order to exact revenge and to take consequences out against people.
Speaker 1: So yeah, that's right, Max sty Er, mister O, so honest.
Speaker 1: Max Styer turns out his wife feels like she was
Speaker 1: mistreated by the Republican, a Republican controlled Senate on the
Speaker 1: issue of getting confirmed as a judge. You don't think
Speaker 1: that maybe that factors into his thinking about his little
Speaker 1: story about Kavanaugh. Also, I just as an aside here,
Speaker 1: the story that Kavanaugh just got drunk and then went
Speaker 1: and put his member in a in a girl's hand.
Speaker 1: No way, no way, just doesn't it doesn't adn't. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. I'm gonna tell you guys something.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of drunk maniacs in college, a
Speaker 1: lot of guys that got way too way, way too
Speaker 1: black out drunk, and you know, some of them definitely
Speaker 1: were too gropy with women sometimes and you know there
Speaker 1: was there was stuff that happened that was not not acceptable.
Speaker 1: I never heard of this walk up to a girl
Speaker 1: at a party. I'm just gonna you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna put my put my stuff on. That's why when
Speaker 1: they said it in the talk of the campus and
Speaker 1: absolutely would have been the talk of that you can't
Speaker 1: do this. This isn't in the realm of oh yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, people do stuff, they get drunk. Please, this
Speaker 1: isn't Yale, this isn't an animal house. But this is
Speaker 1: the way it is. Now. As long as the lie
Speaker 1: has a life cycle useful enough to damage Kavanaugh, they'll
Speaker 1: tell it anyway. Stires lying folks. They can tell us
Speaker 1: about how honest he is. Oh, just like they can
Speaker 1: tell us about how honest Andy McCabe is. That's right,
Speaker 1: he's facing felony lying charges. Or how honest Comy was.
Speaker 1: That's right, he abandoned essential FBI regulations and abused his
Speaker 1: position for petty personal attacks, or how how Muller was
Speaker 1: America's greatest law enforcement officer. Muller needs a blanket and
Speaker 1: a sippy cup and some time to relax. But we
Speaker 1: had to figure that out. We had to figure that
Speaker 1: out for ourselves, didn't we We didn't want to tell
Speaker 1: us any of that. We'll be right back. Oh, I
Speaker 1: believe that that every member of this caucus them beyond
Speaker 1: because this is not a partisan issue. Again, this is
Speaker 1: an epidemic, and for far too long we have been
Speaker 1: a way too tolerant and complicit and perpetuating rape culture. Um.
Speaker 1: And so I think that everyone is committed in this
Speaker 1: Democratic Caucus to addressing that issue. But we have Diffressman.
Speaker 1: He says, get real, so that you say what I say,
Speaker 1: This is the reckoning and gone other days will be
Speaker 1: we will be complicit and lacks a daizel and the
Speaker 1: fact that this is an epidemic and survivors deserve healing,
Speaker 1: injustice and everyone deserves due process. Um. I've filed this
Speaker 1: resolution to initiate an impeachment inquiry um because we need
Speaker 1: to get to the truth. And I think the Congress can.
Speaker 1: We've proven that we can do the work of legislating,
Speaker 1: of oversight and initiating investigations. That's what's happening in judiciary
Speaker 1: right now. Nobody believes what Congresswoman Presley is saying here,
Speaker 1: not even Congresswoman Presley. I mean, no one thinks that
Speaker 1: this is really about the things that she's saying. It's
Speaker 1: about right, we're all in this, we're all we all
Speaker 1: get that, we're all in on this. I assume this
Speaker 1: is just a lot of a lot of blather, a
Speaker 1: lot of talking points about Congress's oversight role and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff. She throws in some phrases like rape culture.
Speaker 1: Rape culture is not a is not the thing that
Speaker 1: liberals pretend it is. I don't know. I don't know
Speaker 1: what rape culture is. I know they think it is.
Speaker 1: Where does this Where does this exist? Rape is a
Speaker 1: heinous crime. There's there's no place in America where anyone
Speaker 1: thinks that, you know, rape is not a big deal.
Speaker 1: Doesn't exist, doesn't exist on campuses, doesn't exist in companies.
Speaker 1: There are rapists, there are bad people. There's not some culture, though,
Speaker 1: where this is normalized and everyone just walks around saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, sometimes that happens. No, it's a felony. People
Speaker 1: go to prison for decades in some cases, and rightfully so.
Speaker 1: So this again no effort to deal with what really
Speaker 1: happened here, which is that Democrats in collusion. Yeah it's right,
Speaker 1: I like that word, in collusion with the New York
Speaker 1: Times thought that they had something that could really hurt Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: and this week was gonna be bash Cavanaugh week, you know,
Speaker 1: take it to him, show Cavanaugh that he hasn't just
Speaker 1: because he got confirmed he's on the Supreme Court doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that he's going to be able to have a
Speaker 1: day's piece. And the New York Times just belly flopped here.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was brutal, and thank Heavens that people
Speaker 1: were able to figure out what happened. And now they're
Speaker 1: acting like, yeah, I'm meant to dive in that way.
Speaker 1: That was fine, that was great. I don't think so,
Speaker 1: not at all, not at all. Impeaching Kavanaugh. They're going
Speaker 1: to impeach him now after the stories that were told
Speaker 1: about him a few days ago have already completely fallen apart.
Speaker 1: Debbie Ramirez has no idea what she's talking about. Hey,
Speaker 1: let me ask you this. Do you think that it
Speaker 1: is likely? Do you think it's possible that the best
Speaker 1: friend Leland Kaiser, the best friend of Christine blasi Ford, received,
Speaker 1: as we now know, a lot of pressure and even threats. Right,
Speaker 1: all things might come out about your life too. They
Speaker 1: were threatening her. She was basically being blackmailed to back
Speaker 1: up crazy Christine blasi Ford's story, and she wouldn't do it.
Speaker 1: Do you think that that same pressure wasn't used against
Speaker 1: Ramirez or anybody around her as well. Do you think
Speaker 1: that there was an unwillingness to tell Ramirez that, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't negative pressure. Maybe
Speaker 1: it was positive pressure. Maybe it was Hey, you can
Speaker 1: be a hero here. You can be a hero to
Speaker 1: women for all time going forward. All you have to
Speaker 1: do is say that this guy just you know, put
Speaker 1: his put his genitals in your vicinity at a party
Speaker 1: thirty years ago, and you can save women's rights, you
Speaker 1: can free women from oppression. You can be a hero
Speaker 1: if you believe all that crap. It's pretty it can
Speaker 1: be compelling, right if you're actually buying into all that.
Speaker 1: But does anyone think that that wasn't a part of this?
Speaker 1: You'll notice what I was thinking about this today as
Speaker 1: these New York Times reporters who are just going on.
Speaker 1: One of them retweeted a Vox piece today that was like, oh,
Speaker 1: conservatives are making this seem like a much bigger deal
Speaker 1: than it was. No, it's a really big deal. They
Speaker 1: can try to fight this one out, but they're gonna
Speaker 1: get crushed because it's a really big deal what happened.
Speaker 1: They left out a key detail, and they left it
Speaker 1: out recklessly. And I would argue, intentionally, I can pretend
Speaker 1: that it was something else now, but we don't have
Speaker 1: to buy their lies. And I would also just say that, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's amazing how it didn't matter that it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: to them that it's fake. It doesn't matter to them
Speaker 1: that this is, that this is not true, because it
Speaker 1: was all for a purpose, and the purpose was to
Speaker 1: destroy Kavanaugh. The New York Times, it has been amazing
Speaker 1: to see this whole thing play out, and with every
Speaker 1: additional detail. The great thing about defending Kavanaugh is that
Speaker 1: the facts have always been on your side, and additional
Speaker 1: facts are even more on your side. You know, The
Speaker 1: New York Times still doesn't even accept how big of
Speaker 1: an error it really committed here, or rather how big
Speaker 1: of a lie it told. And you know, for those
Speaker 1: who still cling to the fiction that a reason a
Speaker 1: person could think that Kavanaugh was credibly accused, Well, then
Speaker 1: why was pressure put on Leland Kaiser to say things
Speaker 1: she did not believe to help blasi Ford's baseless case
Speaker 1: in court? That would be called witness tampering. That's what
Speaker 1: you would call it. Why should we accept that in
Speaker 1: any way here, pretend like that's just the normal course
Speaker 1: of the way things are, the way things were. I've
Speaker 1: said it before. People that have been defending Kavanaugh have
Speaker 1: not had to retract, have not had to back down,
Speaker 1: have not had to change their story once. Not you,
Speaker 1: not me. No one who has believed in the innocence
Speaker 1: of this man from the beginning has had a single day,
Speaker 1: a single moment where it was, oh, wow, I guess
Speaker 1: maybe Kavanaugh did do it. It went from humh, let's
Speaker 1: hear about these allegations. That seems very unlikely too. As
Speaker 1: soon as we found the facts out about blasi Ford. Okay,
Speaker 1: so there are no facts. This is a hit. I
Speaker 1: was saying, you can go back and look at the
Speaker 1: shows we were. We were doing shows titled I think
Speaker 1: Christine blasi Ford is lying, like the first week of
Speaker 1: the allegations, and then it was Ramirez, and then it
Speaker 1: was sweat Nick, and then it was a woman that
Speaker 1: I don't even know one even names her, but claimed
Speaker 1: that she was raped in a boat in Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: Told the Senate this and nobody believed it. Not even
Speaker 1: Democrats could believe that because he had never even been
Speaker 1: in the States. Disgusting the Democrats that they're they're discussing,
Speaker 1: you know what you see though they never will debate
Speaker 1: this issue in public. They just hide. They just tell
Speaker 1: their little stories. They write this stuff for their own constituencies,
Speaker 1: for their own readership, and then they run away. None
Speaker 1: of them are man enough or woman enough to stand
Speaker 1: up and make this case against somebody who knows they're lying.
Speaker 1: On day one of my administration, I will use my
Speaker 1: executive authority to start closing the pay gap between women
Speaker 1: of color and everyone else, because it's about time we bo.
Speaker 1: We must recognize the systemic discrimination that infects our economy,
Speaker 1: and we must work actively and deliberately to root it
Speaker 1: out and set this country on a better path. Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren is a shameless demagogue. I do think she is
Speaker 1: smart enough and well read enough, although not nearly as
Speaker 1: well read as she presents herself, to know that the
Speaker 1: pay gap is a myth. There's no such thing. There
Speaker 1: is there is no pay gap as presented by Democrats.
Speaker 1: There's a different there's a differential in pay between men
Speaker 1: and women, but the moment that you account for things
Speaker 1: like chosen profession, hours worked overtime, just choices that one
Speaker 1: makes in the workplace. Yes, what pay gap disappears like
Speaker 1: so many other things. You know what I discuss climate
Speaker 1: change with you, I point out and I've seen now
Speaker 1: some more in depth analyzes about this. If what they
Speaker 1: say is true, that the world is going to be underwater,
Speaker 1: at least the whole sections of it. You know, the
Speaker 1: entire state of Florida coast to California thirty year mortgages
Speaker 1: right now, or you know when people bought take out
Speaker 1: a thirty year mortgage home prices would have to would
Speaker 1: have to take this in new account, and insurance would
Speaker 1: have to take this in new account. If they really
Speaker 1: believed in climate change, it would have an effect on
Speaker 1: beachfront property. Obama just bought a fifteen million dollar mansion
Speaker 1: of Martha's Vineyard on the beach on the water at
Speaker 1: sea level. Do you think he's worried about that? See
Speaker 1: how people act. Forget about what people say they want
Speaker 1: to do, See what they actually do. Elizabeth Warren here
Speaker 1: is talking about the pay gap. If the pay gap
Speaker 1: were real, than anybody who was a capitalist people do
Speaker 1: like money. Capitalist like money too. Anyone who was a
Speaker 1: real capitalist would say, I've got a great idea if
Speaker 1: I can get an almost thirty percent, let's say, a
Speaker 1: twenty five percent on average savings on every employee I
Speaker 1: hire by just hiring a woman to do the same
Speaker 1: job as a man, I would only hire women a
Speaker 1: twenty five percent advantage in the labor cost in your
Speaker 1: business over your competitors. You would crush everyone. Just hire women.
Speaker 1: Of course, it's because you know hiring women that that
Speaker 1: would never can be considered discriminated. You can hire only
Speaker 1: women and only minorities, and that would never be considered discrimination.
Speaker 1: If you brought a lawsuit saying hey, I'm a I'm
Speaker 1: a white male, like I didn't get hired. You know,
Speaker 1: it's very difficult that those lawsuits do exist, but it's
Speaker 1: very difficult to win those lawsuits. Why don't people only
Speaker 1: hire women because they try to hire the best employee
Speaker 1: they can, man or woman, and they try to hire
Speaker 1: people that are going to bring the most value to
Speaker 1: the business because it is in their interest to do so.
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren saying she's going to close the pay gap
Speaker 1: with an executive order, that should really put a jolt
Speaker 1: into people. What does that even mean? How would that work?
Speaker 1: How would she do that. I'm not even sure she knows,
Speaker 1: but it's a it's a good applause line. I suppose
Speaker 1: it's something that gets her supporters very, very fired up.
Speaker 1: You know, I just missed it? Was was it? Last night?
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren gave a speech here in Manhattan at Unions
Speaker 1: not Union Square Park, Washington Square Park, which is where
Speaker 1: Occupy Wall Street back in the day used to have
Speaker 1: a lot of its big meetings. I remember covering some
Speaker 1: of the big Occupied Wall Street gatherings, protest movements, whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it, down in Washington Square Park.
Speaker 1: I've also played speed chess there against many an individual
Speaker 1: and done better than they thought I would. I will
Speaker 1: have you know what, it's true, what you're a chess hustler.
Speaker 1: That's right. I got chess skills that shouldn't surprise anybody.
Speaker 1: I got all. I got all kinds of skills nobody
Speaker 1: knows about. They're like, they're always like, damn, you're good
Speaker 1: at chess. I'm like, that's right, I'm actually not that good.
Speaker 1: But I've I've learned enough from plank speed chess that
Speaker 1: you really just have to memorize some quick patterns because
Speaker 1: by making somebody else go very fast. If you know
Speaker 1: some movement patterns, you can usually win very But the
Speaker 1: whole point is you have to move really fast, right,
Speaker 1: That's the thing. If someone thinks about it, it it won't
Speaker 1: work anyway. So she was there giving a speech, and
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit sad that I missed it because
Speaker 1: I think it would have been really interesting to see
Speaker 1: what Elizabeth Warren supporters, you know, how they react or
Speaker 1: I think they said there were ten or fifteen thousand
Speaker 1: people there was their biggest and I just can't imagine
Speaker 1: all these people in New York City, what do they
Speaker 1: think Elizabeth Warren's really going to do for them? This
Speaker 1: city is wildly expensive. It's expensive in large part because
Speaker 1: of well obviously supplying to man, but also there's a
Speaker 1: lot of regulations around housing. The tax rate here is
Speaker 1: very high. There's all kinds of government decision making about Look,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of central planning in New York City.
Speaker 1: A lot of costs are much higher than they should be.
Speaker 1: So I would have been interested to go just to
Speaker 1: see what the New York City socialists would really like.
Speaker 1: But I didn't know about it, and so I missed it,
Speaker 1: and I only saw it as it was happening, and
Speaker 1: I was like, Ah, I don't know if I can
Speaker 1: go deal with the communes right now. I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: have a nice quiet night. So I decided to do something,
Speaker 1: just hang out solo, do my own thing, do some writing.
Speaker 1: But that then brings me to another former female presidential
Speaker 1: candidate out there on the stump. She's never gonna give
Speaker 1: it up, folks. She's never going to admit that she
Speaker 1: was wrong, that she wasn't a good candidate, that she
Speaker 1: wasn't going to win, and that no one cheated. She
Speaker 1: just wasn't good at this. She's back. So I've talked
Speaker 1: with many of the Democratic candidates for president, as you
Speaker 1: might guess, I've answered their questions about everything from digital
Speaker 1: outreach to investments in the early States, and I've ended
Speaker 1: every conversation by saying, to each one, let me tell
Speaker 1: you what I think the biggest obstacle might very well
Speaker 1: turn out to be, and that is this. You can
Speaker 1: run the best campaign, you can have the best plans,
Speaker 1: you can get the nomination, you can win the popular vote,
Speaker 1: and you can lose the electoral College and therefore the election.
Speaker 1: For these four reasons. Number one, voter suppression. Wait, what
Speaker 1: are the other way? Do we cut off the other reasons?
Speaker 1: All right, I guess we'll just have to. I want
Speaker 1: to number two. I don't like pat suits. I want
Speaker 1: to hear what the other reasons are? You know what
Speaker 1: this is? This is this serves a couple of purposes.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton's out there saying this stuff because one, she's
Speaker 1: an egomaniac and really thinks the presidency was her should
Speaker 1: be her. She still thinks to this day, I assure you,
Speaker 1: that she should be the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: and the fact that she's not is just a testament
Speaker 1: to how terrible Trump is, how unfair the world is,
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. But that's that's really,
Speaker 1: you know where that's really where it is, right. She
Speaker 1: thinks that it was hers and it was taken from her.
Speaker 1: She also, though, is playing into this victim mentality that
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrats have around how they they really
Speaker 1: think that even when they lose elections, they win. Has
Speaker 1: a very interesting comment yesterday on the show. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's not she's not all that pro Trump, but she's
Speaker 1: she's a she's sharp, and she does good work. Over
Speaker 1: at the Washing Examiner. When Tiana Lowe joined us, and
Speaker 1: she said that every Supreme Court justice except for Alito,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a conservative for the last whatever it
Speaker 1: is twenty years now. The left has some reason, some excuse, Oh,
Speaker 1: that doesn't count that person. There's an asterisk. That person's not,
Speaker 1: you know, not really shouldn't really be on the court.
Speaker 1: It's Merrick Garland seat. People say this. I've heard legal
Speaker 1: analysts say this like they're morons. It was never Merrick
Speaker 1: Garland seat. He doesn't own it. It wasn't given to him.
Speaker 1: There's a process, he didn't get through the process. That's
Speaker 1: you know, tough. Sorry, libs. Of course we know all
Speaker 1: about the Kavanaugh asterisk, which is just baseless, clearly politically
Speaker 1: motivated accusations with no evidence or corroboration. It's supposed to
Speaker 1: create an asterisk. Well that's yeah, that's not going to
Speaker 1: be weaponized and abused for the rest of our lives.
Speaker 1: You look at you look at the way that they said, oh, well,
Speaker 1: because you know, Bush stole the election. Oh there's another thing.
Speaker 1: We always when we win elections, there must be stolen
Speaker 1: Bush stole the election, and Bush with the whole Bush v.
Speaker 1: Gore Florida recount. Trump stole the election with, you know,
Speaker 1: because of Russia. I mean, this is these people are babies.
Speaker 1: They lost, and you see at the very top of
Speaker 1: their babies. Hillary is being child this year. She lost.
Speaker 1: She's not the president, She's never going to be the president.
Speaker 1: It's time to give it up. Time to stop the wives.
Speaker 1: Voter suppression. Democrats like to point to places where they've
Speaker 1: had record voter turnout and claim voter suppression. We ask
Speaker 1: cal and they say, oh, well, because voter because they
Speaker 1: ask for ID at the polling place. The Supreme Court
Speaker 1: has ruled on this already and they have said that
Speaker 1: voter ID is not voter suppression is not prohibited. Is
Speaker 1: not unfair. I don't know what's a suppression of rights.
Speaker 1: It's over three hundred dollars for me. I looked it
Speaker 1: up today because I'm getting ready to go through over
Speaker 1: three hundred dollars to get to apply for a New
Speaker 1: York City handgun permit. I think it's three twenty five.
Speaker 1: It's over three hundred bucks. Why don't we charge three
Speaker 1: hundred dollars for people to vote? I have to It
Speaker 1: cost me three hundred dollars in order to enjoy my
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights? Why is that? Okay? If you ask
Speaker 1: him some live that's because of finger pronting and background checks.
Speaker 1: That are okay. Well, I've got a constitutional right to
Speaker 1: a firearm, just like they've got a constitutional right to vote.
Speaker 1: I have to pay over three hundred all but you know,
Speaker 1: I digress. Actually not really, it's kind of related, isn't it. Well,
Speaker 1: this is a lie, just like Stacy Abrams running around
Speaker 1: saying that she would have won in Georgia. She would
Speaker 1: have won that gubernatorial race but for voter or suppression.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. It's just not true to the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Does the mainstream media ever call her out for that?
Speaker 1: Do they ever say, hold on a second, where's your
Speaker 1: evidence for that? In fact, all the if you look
Speaker 1: at the numbers, if you look at what happened, it's
Speaker 1: quite clear that that's not true. She lost. She lost
Speaker 1: an election. It happens to Democrats. When was the last
Speaker 1: time you could think of where conservatives were claiming mainstream
Speaker 1: conservatism was saying that Supreme Court justice is illegitimate or
Speaker 1: that election didn't really happen. Libs do it all the time.
Speaker 1: Hillary does it, doesn't care about it. Doesn't matter to
Speaker 1: her what it does to our faith in our institutions.
Speaker 1: But I mean, she's look, let's just say it, she's
Speaker 1: a deeply unethical and really damaged person. I've been saying
Speaker 1: she has a hole in her soul for a long time.
Speaker 1: The only thing that was going to fill it was
Speaker 1: the presidency. You know, now she's got to fill it
Speaker 1: with rose, yoga and long walks in Chappaqua. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's going to do it for her. Well,
Speaker 1: right back, we also saw what happened in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Experts estimate that anywhere from twenty seven thousand to two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand Wisconsin citizen voters, predominantly in Milwaukee, were turned
Speaker 1: away from the polls. That's a lot of potential voters.
Speaker 1: They showed up, but maybe they didn't have the correct
Speaker 1: form of identification. Maybe the name on their driver's license
Speaker 1: included a middle name or an initial that wasn't on
Speaker 1: their voter registration. But officials made every excuse in the
Speaker 1: book to prevent certain people from voting in that election.
Speaker 1: I mean, they didn't have the right identification. Ah. I
Speaker 1: thought we were done hearing from Hillary Clinton, but we're
Speaker 1: never really going to be done. She can't help herself.
Speaker 1: We have to hear her opinions all the time. We
Speaker 1: have to always be hearing from Hillary Clinton about all
Speaker 1: things involving the election that she still pretends she would
Speaker 1: have won. Notice the range there too. Experts estimate what
Speaker 1: was the twenty five thousand and two hundred fifty thousand
Speaker 1: or something like. That's a big range. That was true,
Speaker 1: that's a lot. That's a lot, almost like, it's such
Speaker 1: a big range that experts don't know what the heck
Speaker 1: they're talking about. They're just guessing. You know, I can
Speaker 1: guess too well. I estimate that on the day of
Speaker 1: the election, there were at least two or three million
Speaker 1: people who were hung over, and people who tend to
Speaker 1: go out and party are more likely to be conservative.
Speaker 1: If therefore, Trump really should have won the popular vote.
Speaker 1: Prove me wrong, me wrong. I knew John was going
Speaker 1: to hit that one. Yeah, that's true. Prove me wrong.
Speaker 1: Speaking of Hillary and never going away, Jimmy Carter is
Speaker 1: still making the rounds. But he's talking about something that
Speaker 1: I have to say, Heaven forbid, But here we are.
Speaker 1: I agree with former President Carter on something. Here's what
Speaker 1: he said I hope. You know, if I will just
Speaker 1: eighty years old, if I was fifty years younger, I
Speaker 1: don't believe I could undertake the duties that I experienced
Speaker 1: when I was president. But one thing, you had to
Speaker 1: be flexible with your mind. You had to be able
Speaker 1: to go from one subject to another and conservate on
Speaker 1: each one adequately and then them all together in a
Speaker 1: comprehensive way, like I did between begging instad with a
Speaker 1: piece agreement. You also have to be able to I
Speaker 1: got new ideas. He's saying that there should be an
Speaker 1: age limit for the presidency, and this is going to
Speaker 1: be a very real discussion. You know. Joe Biden, I
Speaker 1: still I still cling to my belief that he's not
Speaker 1: going to be their nominee. But all the major polls,
Speaker 1: all the real all the number crunchers are saying, sorry,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's gonna be the nominee. Joe Biden's gonna be
Speaker 1: the nominee. As if they're all there, they're across the
Speaker 1: board pretty much. That has been the trend. In fact,
Speaker 1: one amazing statistic that I saw yesterday was that in California,
Speaker 1: right now, among likely Democrat voters, Andrew Yang is beating
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, which was just amazing to me. Yang Gang
Speaker 1: is a phenomenon such that Camelot Mamala Harris, who for
Speaker 1: months we were all told, ooh, she's you know, she
Speaker 1: brings all these different elements together at a very appealing
Speaker 1: candidacy for Democrats and maybe she'll even went over some
Speaker 1: undecided We were told all that, Oh, she's the real deal,
Speaker 1: She's the real candidate. No breakthrough, nothing. Yang's ahead of
Speaker 1: her in her home state of California. So keep that
Speaker 1: in mind. But Biden, look, he seems too old for
Speaker 1: the job, and it does matter. And I do think
Speaker 1: the Democrats recognize the second that they try to pull
Speaker 1: the Oh that's not fair. You can't make an issue
Speaker 1: if you're being agist, you know agist like producer Mark. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, we know he's like, Yeah, what's it like
Speaker 1: being north of thirty old men? You know? My bones creak?
Speaker 1: How about that producer Mark? They creak? I got got
Speaker 1: like a like a creek like it makes, you know,
Speaker 1: clicking noises. You'll be there too. One day it was
Speaker 1: like being at the first ever Super Bowl. Wow one
Speaker 1: was that? No, it was like six seven. It was amazing.
Speaker 1: We don't even wear helmets back then. Even though what
Speaker 1: a television was when you were a kid, you don't
Speaker 1: even understand. Yeah, you television. If you had one TV
Speaker 1: in the whole neighborhood, it was amazing. Everybody watched one
Speaker 1: black and white box. The thing was like three by
Speaker 1: five inches of actual screen. The rest of it was
Speaker 1: just casing. Hold all that stuff together. It's like a
Speaker 1: giant sausage. All right, we'll be right back. There was
Speaker 1: a fair amount of theatrics being played out by both
Speaker 1: mister Collins and by mister Lewandowski. I think you have
Speaker 1: to look at mister Lewandowski as an adverse witness. He
Speaker 1: had no interest in complying with this actual subpoena outside
Speaker 1: of showing up. He intended to obstruct justice once again, frankly,
Speaker 1: by not being willing to give the answers to questions
Speaker 1: by the Democrats. I think if I were mister Nadler
Speaker 1: right now, I would be slapping mister Lewandowski with an
Speaker 1: inherent contempt order and calling him in front of the
Speaker 1: House of Representatives and finding him an inherent contempt order. Huh,
Speaker 1: bring it, Democrats, bring it. Let's let's see you do it,
Speaker 1: Let's see where that goes. To live in a country
Speaker 1: where you can decide that you don't like the way
Speaker 1: someone's answering your questions, you're going to start finding them.
Speaker 1: You know who is held in contempt of Congress, Attorney
Speaker 1: General Eric Holder. This is a tool that democrats. They're
Speaker 1: not going to do it. You know why, because even
Speaker 1: they realize where this leads. They put so much pressure
Speaker 1: on our institutions. They put so much downward pressure on
Speaker 1: some of the most important parts of our so called
Speaker 1: democrat they always loved her as a democracy. They push
Speaker 1: all the outer limits. They have no respect whatsoever for
Speaker 1: the actual functionings of these institutions, and the moment something
Speaker 1: happens that they don't like, they're willing to toss out
Speaker 1: the rule book and just decide, well, we're going to
Speaker 1: do it my way. Meanwhile, krey Lewandowski, he's not backing
Speaker 1: down at all. He's just saying that this is complete nonsense.
Speaker 1: I don't have any reason to be held in content,
Speaker 1: and I've told the members of Congress I'm happy to
Speaker 1: come back and answer more questions if they need me to.
Speaker 1: After the five or six hours tarade that I went
Speaker 1: through yesterday. Yeah, what are they going to hold him
Speaker 1: in contempt? For? The White Houses told them that under
Speaker 1: executive privilege, he should not answer any questions about his
Speaker 1: conversations with White House, with White House officials or with
Speaker 1: the President. Okay, well, if they've got a problem with that,
Speaker 1: figured out what the White House or if they really
Speaker 1: think that he's wrong, all right, fine, all them in contempt.
Speaker 1: See where that gets you. A lot of talk, a
Speaker 1: lot of talk from Democrats, and you know what I
Speaker 1: will say about the Trump administration really more than think
Speaker 1: else President Trump himself, they don't know how to deal
Speaker 1: with an opposition. They don't know how to deal with
Speaker 1: political targets who refuse to bend the knee. The Democrats
Speaker 1: still haven't figured this out yet. If you don't cave,
Speaker 1: if you don't give them what they want, if you
Speaker 1: don't just decide you're gonna pack up and leave, they
Speaker 1: get very flustered. They don't really understand what to do.
Speaker 1: And Corey Lewandowski yesterday was just turning the tables on
Speaker 1: them because it was clear they weren't trying. What are
Speaker 1: they trying to do? They want to ask him, They
Speaker 1: want to ask him to recite things that they are
Speaker 1: already in record from the Mulla report, as if as
Speaker 1: if he's just supposed to do whatever they say whenever
Speaker 1: they say it. They're looking for soundbites to use to
Speaker 1: put on MSNBC and CNN. I'm sorry, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: He obviously didn't think so either. I also received hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of emails, some days with as many as
Speaker 1: a thousand emails, and unlike Hillary Clinton, I don't think
Speaker 1: I ever to leave any of those. Many of them
Speaker 1: were responded to with either one word answers or voted
Speaker 1: to other staff. It's for additional follow up. But throughout
Speaker 1: it all, and to the best of my recollection, I
Speaker 1: don't ever recall having any conversations with foreign entities, let
Speaker 1: alone any who were offering to help him manipulate the
Speaker 1: outcome of an election. Responding to contempt with contempt is
Speaker 1: a pretty natural human emotion, and I do think that
Speaker 1: ultimately that is what kra Lewandowski was doing here. The
Speaker 1: Democrats are contemptuous of him. They're not there to respect
Speaker 1: him get answers from him. They are there to grandstand,
Speaker 1: to make him look like a fool, to hurt the
Speaker 1: people not to hurt him, and to hurt the people
Speaker 1: that he worked with, and four to hurt his chances
Speaker 1: to run for the Senate in New Hampshire. They're there
Speaker 1: on a seeking destroy mission. Why should Corey Lewandowski pretend otherwise.
Speaker 1: Why should he be the one who has to act
Speaker 1: like the rules only count for his side? This is
Speaker 1: this is again, this is wartime conservatism. Friends, You see
Speaker 1: what the other side does. Do you want to do
Speaker 1: you want to play by their rules keep losing? You
Speaker 1: want to play by their rules and get slapped around?
Speaker 1: Or do you want to say no, I've had enough. Thanks.
Speaker 1: I don't think I'll let Eric Swalwell and uh you
Speaker 1: know who are all the all the rest I can't
Speaker 1: remember now. Going after him, I said, what was Nadler?
Speaker 1: Of course, you know, Jerry Nadler saying his stuff, doing
Speaker 1: his usual nonsense. These people are clowns, clowns, and Lewandowski was,
Speaker 1: you know, telling them exactly what he should have in
Speaker 1: my opinion, which was just you know, you know where
Speaker 1: to you know where to suffit? Leave me alone and
Speaker 1: enough of this right now. If they want to, if
Speaker 1: they want to hold them in contempt, let's see, let's
Speaker 1: see how that goes. Let's see where that stops and starts.
Speaker 1: I think it was the right I think it was
Speaker 1: the right move. I do think this is problematic when
Speaker 1: you say I have no obligation to be candid, and
Speaker 1: when Corey Lewandowski said that, of course it was. It
Speaker 1: was like man dog bites man. We all are aware
Speaker 1: that the administration does not place a value on being
Speaker 1: truthful and honest, and so it was nice that he
Speaker 1: would come out and stated so bluntly. But it was
Speaker 1: no big surprise. I mean, can can Tim Kane just
Speaker 1: be honest about what was said? This is a classic
Speaker 1: Democrat moment. Here you have Tim Kane talking about the
Speaker 1: need for Corey Lewandowski to be honest, and he's being
Speaker 1: dishonest about what Korey Luandowski said. Corey Luandowski said that
Speaker 1: there was nothing, there was nothing that requires him to
Speaker 1: be truthful with the media. Guess what that's true. That
Speaker 1: is reality. And the media can act like public officials
Speaker 1: should be run out of town the moment that they
Speaker 1: say anything that is untruthful to the media. But this
Speaker 1: is as old as politics itself. You know. They can
Speaker 1: try to make it sound like this is some terrible
Speaker 1: crime against the Republic. But in reality, the media is
Speaker 1: oppositional to the president, and a lot of people recognize
Speaker 1: that this media, in particular, the mainstream media, is dishonest
Speaker 1: at its core about what its real mission is day
Speaker 1: to day. They don't seek to shed light on the
Speaker 1: truth in America. They seek to destroy Trump. Why should
Speaker 1: we have to sit around and pretend otherwise, and why
Speaker 1: should the White House? I mean, look, I think one
Speaker 1: of the greatest innovations of this White House is to
Speaker 1: recognize that ninety percent of the press corps is a
Speaker 1: bunch of Libs, a bunch of Democrats. And of that
Speaker 1: ninety percent, I'd say ninety percent of the ninety percent,
Speaker 1: our activists really make almost no effort whatsoever at being
Speaker 1: objective journalists. And so with that, speaking of contempt, with
Speaker 1: that degree of contempt directed at the White House, why
Speaker 1: not why not respond in kind? Okay, if you guys
Speaker 1: are going to try to misrepresent what we're doing, if
Speaker 1: you're going to spread lies about us all the time,
Speaker 1: we're gonna call you fake news or, as Trump has said,
Speaker 1: very fake news. If he wasn't speaking some degree of
Speaker 1: truth with that, and I think it's generally very truthful.
Speaker 1: But if there wasn't a lot of truth to it,
Speaker 1: then the media wouldn't be nearly as upset, would they.
Speaker 1: Why does it bother them so much when Trump says
Speaker 1: fake news? Why does it get them so riled up
Speaker 1: when he talks about how they keep presenting these stories
Speaker 1: and the stories are that are fake are generally always
Speaker 1: about Trump. They don't make these huge errors in the
Speaker 1: other I mean this. The New York Times has been
Speaker 1: making a mockery of itself the last couple of days
Speaker 1: with these these two reporters who just can't get out
Speaker 1: of their own way. And now they were complaining about others.
Speaker 1: They're complaining about how Fox News, Fox News is the problem. Oh,
Speaker 1: look at how Fox twisted things. You know, you had
Speaker 1: you had vox dot Com claiming that it was just
Speaker 1: an honest mistake that got removed in the editing process. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: if it was just an honest mistake that got removed
Speaker 1: in the editing process, the fact that the additional accuser
Speaker 1: has never on the record accused anyone of anything, and
Speaker 1: her friends claimed that Kavanaugh did nothing, why did the
Speaker 1: authors also leave that out of a long NPR interview
Speaker 1: just never comes up. Huh. Almost like they're trying to
Speaker 1: ram through a narrative to do damage and then they
Speaker 1: figure they'll clean it up afterwards. They hate being called
Speaker 1: fake news. I know that At CNN, for example, if
Speaker 1: you ever refer to them as fake news publicly and
Speaker 1: they know about it, even if you're just somebody who's
Speaker 1: not doesn't do that much media. If you refer to
Speaker 1: the fake news CNN, they unless you're administration official, they'll
Speaker 1: make exceptions for that, but they will not have you
Speaker 1: on air. They are very sensitive about it. They make
Speaker 1: all kinds of claims about how that's just that's unacceptable,
Speaker 1: that's too much, it's beyond the pale. I like what
Speaker 1: Lewandowski did because it reminds us that we don't have
Speaker 1: to just sit and take it that in the same
Speaker 1: week that they try to straight up smear operation on Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: There is another option. There's another alternative, and that alternative
Speaker 1: is fight back. We better do it this year, and
Speaker 1: the good news is Trump is definitely going to do it.
Speaker 1: But you better be prepared wherever you are across the
Speaker 1: country if you want to be involved in this reelection,
Speaker 1: and one way or another, if you want to share
Speaker 1: your thoughts and your values. You better be ready to fight,
Speaker 1: because the other side is coming after all of us
Speaker 1: on this stuff. My name is Griata Timbario. I have
Speaker 1: not come to offer any prepared remarks at this hearing.
Speaker 1: I'm instead attaching my testimony. It is the IPCC Special
Speaker 1: Report on Global Warming of one point five degrees celsius,
Speaker 1: the SR one point five, which was released on October eighth,
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen. I am submitting this report as my testimony
Speaker 1: because I don't want you to listen to me. I
Speaker 1: want you to listen to the scientists, and I want
Speaker 1: you to unite behind the science. And then I want
Speaker 1: you to take real action. Thank you. And then I
Speaker 1: want you to brush your teeth and go to bed early,
Speaker 1: because you're like thirteen years old and you need sleep,
Speaker 1: and you need life experience, and you need to read
Speaker 1: a lot of books, and you need to learn things,
Speaker 1: and you need to grow and you need to understand more.
Speaker 1: My friends, that young girl is testifying in front of
Speaker 1: Congress today congressional testimony from how producer Mark. You tell her?
Speaker 1: How old is she? I think she's thirteen or fourteen,
Speaker 1: but maybe she's a year to older than that sixteen Wow,
Speaker 1: she looks younger than that sixteen years old. Okay, even still,
Speaker 1: I don't care. I don't care what she has to
Speaker 1: say about climate change. I don't care what she has
Speaker 1: to say about much of anything other than what the
Speaker 1: cool sixteen year old kids are listening to these days,
Speaker 1: and maybe what the teenage fashion styles are or something.
Speaker 1: And it's not mean. It's not mean to say this.
Speaker 1: It's not I am not putting her down. If I
Speaker 1: were her and the whole media acting like everything I said,
Speaker 1: with some pronouncement from Einstein himself, I would say, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's kind of cool. I'll roll this. It's more fun
Speaker 1: than being in school. Why would Congress ever testify? What
Speaker 1: do we have to learn from me? She's a sixteen
Speaker 1: year old. She's not a scientist. Even if she was
Speaker 1: a would be scientist, she's sixteen years old. This is
Speaker 1: yet another data point. They talk about the data and
Speaker 1: the science. Here's a data point. A scientific movement that
Speaker 1: uses sixteen year olds as its spokespersons is not about science.
Speaker 1: It's really not that complicated. It's not that hard, is it.
Speaker 1: You can just think through this all just makes sense.
Speaker 1: Why not have an actual scientist testify if this was
Speaker 1: so compelling, why use a young girl? Oh? We know
Speaker 1: why because if you criticize her, and I believe she
Speaker 1: has Asperger syndrome as well. So if you criticize a
Speaker 1: girl who has a a what I don't even know
Speaker 1: about disability or whatever the preferred nomenclature is for Aspergers,
Speaker 1: you're a bad person and you're why you beat I've
Speaker 1: seen journalists, I've seen blue check Twitter and Facebook journalists
Speaker 1: do this or on Twitter and Facebook, where if you
Speaker 1: point out, like I do, this is absurd. You know,
Speaker 1: do I want to hear from a fourteen year old
Speaker 1: about whether the FED should lower rates? Come on, fourteen
Speaker 1: year old, finance genius, let's let's hear what you think
Speaker 1: about lowering rates, because you're just what gonna read the
Speaker 1: talking points that someone's handed to you. I just wish
Speaker 1: there was a greater degree of honesty here, honesty around
Speaker 1: how much this climate change movement is really an emotional
Speaker 1: and religious belief. As I keep saying, it as a
Speaker 1: religious belief for people who think they are too smart
Speaker 1: for a religion, for an actual religion, for an actual
Speaker 1: relationship and philosophy and connection to in spirituality, based in
Speaker 1: in God, or based in you know, whatever deity or
Speaker 1: series of deities on one things exists. No, Now, it's
Speaker 1: this is this is the existential crisis of our time.
Speaker 1: And they I would ask you, if a sixteen year
Speaker 1: old to testify in front of the Congress, why not
Speaker 1: have a toddler. Why not have a five year old
Speaker 1: just read off whatever is printed for him or her
Speaker 1: by the green the green energy lobby. It makes just
Speaker 1: as much sense. This is indefensible, and as an American
Speaker 1: I have to say it's it's embarrassing. Our Congress is
Speaker 1: increasingly a source of embarrassment. What happened with Korey Lewandowski
Speaker 1: yesterday where you had these these democrats all just lining
Speaker 1: up one afternother to try to get that that one
Speaker 1: viral moment, you know, try to get that one moment
Speaker 1: where they were going to at ablish that you know,
Speaker 1: they they were really the hashtag resistance fighter. They were
Speaker 1: the one that was trying to hold Trump accountable by
Speaker 1: ridiculing and humiliating his people. And yet what we saw
Speaker 1: was krey Lundowski saying, no, I don't think I don't
Speaker 1: think I'll let you arrest us today be hand, great line,
Speaker 1: really is. It's true though, That's what's going on. That's
Speaker 1: where we are now. I think this Congress is an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: The people that are constantly trying to come up with
Speaker 1: new ways to discuss how horrible Trump is and then
Speaker 1: and then turn around it and act like this is
Speaker 1: some assemblage, are that the Congress is some assemblage of
Speaker 1: great intellectuals. Because people are in the Congress, we should
Speaker 1: listen to them. I'm sorry, I just disagree. I do
Speaker 1: not find them nearly as impressive as they find themselves. Now,
Speaker 1: some of them are great, obviously, where it's a big body,
Speaker 1: you've got hundreds of members, hundreds of members in the House,
Speaker 1: one hundred members in the Senate, and eventually you reach
Speaker 1: a point where you understand that a lot of them
Speaker 1: are just unimpressive and you move on from there. But
Speaker 1: to have a sixteen year old girl testifying about a
Speaker 1: massively complicated scientific issue and telling us, really lecturing the
Speaker 1: American people through our own elected body, that urgent action
Speaker 1: must be taken, this is embarrassing. And anybody who's a
Speaker 1: climate change advocate, fanatic, whatever you want to call them,
Speaker 1: they should be embarrassed by this too, but they're not
Speaker 1: seem Some big events happening in the Middle East. Obviously,
Speaker 1: we have the standoff now between Saudi Arabia and Iran,
Speaker 1: and perhaps the United States as well, not just on
Speaker 1: the sidelines but right in the background, and also a
Speaker 1: major election shock in Israel. But first let's get to
Speaker 1: our friend, doctor Jonathan Schanzer, who's with us now. He
Speaker 1: is from the Foundation for Defensive Democracies and he's going
Speaker 1: to tell us what his thoughts are on all this,
Speaker 1: Doctor Schans are great to have you back, Thanks duck
Speaker 1: than you with you. So let's just start the the
Speaker 1: Iran Saudi situation. How big a deal is this as
Speaker 1: you see it? You know, how different is this from
Speaker 1: the provocations we've seen in the past, and what first?
Speaker 1: Let let's start with what should the Saudis do? Okay,
Speaker 1: so um, Look, first of all, let's just say that
Speaker 1: the attack that just took place was a hugely significant
Speaker 1: one in the sense of the Saudis. Of um. You know,
Speaker 1: they are one of the world's largest producers of oil
Speaker 1: sit atop a massive proven reserve, and they have this
Speaker 1: massive facility that is a core component of the global
Speaker 1: supply of oil the Iranians know this, and they have
Speaker 1: struck you at it. They've done so with precision, they've
Speaker 1: done so with significant weaponry. So this was not just
Speaker 1: simply an attack on Saudi Arabia. Some would claim this
Speaker 1: was an attack on the US LED system. It was
Speaker 1: certainly an attack on the global supply of oil. And
Speaker 1: I must also add that the reassurances that we've heard
Speaker 1: from the Saudis that this is all just going to
Speaker 1: be fixed very quickly, to me, does not strike me
Speaker 1: as true. I think they put a rosy spin on
Speaker 1: a lot of things. If you remember the killing of
Speaker 1: that journalist Jamalsa Shoji, you know they mean for weeks
Speaker 1: they were saying it didn't happen as wise, and of
Speaker 1: course we ultimately found out the very ugly truth. I
Speaker 1: think we're going to probably go through a similar exercise
Speaker 1: here with the Saudis. Now as to what the Saudis
Speaker 1: should do, I mean, certainly I'd like to see the
Speaker 1: Saudis be able to defend themselves, but we do have
Speaker 1: questions about their military capabilities. You know, they've been fighting
Speaker 1: a war and Yemen and not doing it very well.
Speaker 1: You know, instead of attacking Hoofy targets, they can out
Speaker 1: school buses full of children. Um, it's not gone well
Speaker 1: for them. Do you think that's I mean, doctor Jonathan,
Speaker 1: do you do you think that that's an accident? I mean,
Speaker 1: the Saudis are spending the third most on on munitions
Speaker 1: each year on defense of any country in the world.
Speaker 1: So why can't they be more efficient? Or are they
Speaker 1: haphazard on purpose? Well that's a good question. And you know,
Speaker 1: I mean I actually visited Saudi Arabia last year and
Speaker 1: you know, I was in one of these operation rooms
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, they really made it look well,
Speaker 1: it was a really professional operation. And yes, they're buying
Speaker 1: up American sophisticated weaponry hand over fifth. But you know,
Speaker 1: when you look at how they have prosecuted their own conflicts,
Speaker 1: it does not look good. And it does question about education,
Speaker 1: about training, about commitment, and uh, you know, I think
Speaker 1: the question is, you know, if the Saudis respond, you know,
Speaker 1: with US backing and the Saudis failed to deliver the
Speaker 1: message that we want them to deliver, what does that
Speaker 1: do to their deterrance, to our deterrance? Does it embolden Iran?
Speaker 1: Does it make things worse? Does it turn the tide
Speaker 1: of public opinion in the favor of the Iranians. These
Speaker 1: are things that I would not personally want to take
Speaker 1: a chance on. What do you think should happen? So
Speaker 1: the look, there are a lot of different ways to respond.
Speaker 1: We've seen from the Trump administration as they've already just
Speaker 1: announced new sanctions, and we expect those to be announced
Speaker 1: let's just say within the next couple of days or week.
Speaker 1: I have concerns about that response only because I think
Speaker 1: it's a perpetuation of the status quo. The Iranians decided
Speaker 1: to attack Saudi Arabia and this oil installation because they're
Speaker 1: under sanctions and they were trying to gain leverage over
Speaker 1: the United States, showing that they could hurt us at
Speaker 1: the pump and that we needed to come to the
Speaker 1: table and offer certain concessions. I think if we up
Speaker 1: the Anion sanctions, they likely up the Antion continued attack
Speaker 1: against US interests and against oil targets. So then the
Speaker 1: question is what do you do beyond that? I think
Speaker 1: there are two things. One is I think it's time
Speaker 1: to engage with our international partners again. There are all
Speaker 1: these countries that stopped working with us on Iran policy
Speaker 1: because we walked away from the Iran nuclear deals saying
Speaker 1: the Iranians, we're doing everything we wanted. Well, I think
Speaker 1: we can now dispense with that. We know now that
Speaker 1: they are aggressors and that they're not just targeting the
Speaker 1: US or Saudi Arabia, They're targeting global oil. One would
Speaker 1: hope that the French, or the Brits, or even the
Speaker 1: Russians or the Chinese would say, we don't want that,
Speaker 1: we don't want to spend more on oil. We need
Speaker 1: to get a randi heel, so let's all work together.
Speaker 1: Then there's the last part of this, which is a
Speaker 1: credible threat from the United States, not necessarily conflict, but
Speaker 1: certainly moving assets closer to Iran in the region, letting
Speaker 1: them know that there can be a real ramification if
Speaker 1: they continue to escalate. Right now, I am concerned that
Speaker 1: Iran does not fear us in the least. They look
Speaker 1: at us with this posture that we're getting ready to
Speaker 1: leave the region and that we only rely on sanctions,
Speaker 1: and that is not a good place to be in
Speaker 1: with a regime like Iran. What would a strike that
Speaker 1: is commensurate with the provocation here look like you could
Speaker 1: hit you know, UH, Iranian refining facilities. There's there one
Speaker 1: or two facilities that I think are probably already being
Speaker 1: looked at. UM. There's also carg Island, which is a
Speaker 1: major shipping point for Iranian petroleum products. You can imagine
Speaker 1: that a strike along those lines would be commensurate. Uh.
Speaker 1: There is the question though, I think a couple of things. One,
Speaker 1: the President does seem to be concerned about the price
Speaker 1: of oil and what a conflict might do in terms
Speaker 1: of just the health of the economy, and so one
Speaker 1: doesn't know what that would do globally. There's also the
Speaker 1: question of an Iranian response and whether they attack the
Speaker 1: US directly, and whether this draws US into another conflict,
Speaker 1: which of course the President is low to do. We
Speaker 1: may yet not really have many options left if the
Speaker 1: irunience continue to escalate, but I think it's important that
Speaker 1: we have those sorts of targets already in sight. I'm
Speaker 1: sure the Pentagon has already been thinking through these, but
Speaker 1: it's really interesting to note that there are voices from
Speaker 1: the Pentagon right now urging caution, and this is not
Speaker 1: exactly the traditional role of the Pentagon. Usually the Pentagon
Speaker 1: says we're here, We're at the ready. You let us
Speaker 1: know when you need us, and you know, we can
Speaker 1: do damage to the enemy. Right now, the Pentagon seems
Speaker 1: to be pumping the breaks and that is sort of
Speaker 1: a new thing for me to watch, and I don't
Speaker 1: really know what it means. How concerning should it be
Speaker 1: that it seems that nineteen projectiles, I mean, they're all
Speaker 1: missiles in a sense, but it was a combination of
Speaker 1: cruise missiles and drones that nineteen projectiles were fired, seventeen
Speaker 1: hit their targets. Based on the damage assessment I was
Speaker 1: reading this morning, and that neither the Saudi nor Iran,
Speaker 1: Saudi nor American radar capabilities pick this up. UH. It's
Speaker 1: it's deeply disconcerting. I read a report today suggesting that
Speaker 1: the Saudis were actually pointing their detection UH in the
Speaker 1: direction of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, all with this understanding that
Speaker 1: Iran would never attack them directly, and so that they
Speaker 1: don't have the means to intercept directly from UH. You know,
Speaker 1: if attacks are launched by Iran, and that is why
Speaker 1: we have this kind of blind spot. That is a
Speaker 1: heck of a blind spot to have when you're talking
Speaker 1: about an aggressive country like Iran, you know, a state
Speaker 1: sponsor of terrorism that has been mastering missile technology and
Speaker 1: precision guided munition, these PGM kits which they're sending all
Speaker 1: over the place, you know, to his Balah and Hamas
Speaker 1: and other proxies. You'd think that they'd be ready for
Speaker 1: all of it. One interesting thing to think about, of course,
Speaker 1: is not just that they'd be looking to buy additional
Speaker 1: weaponry from the United States, but also potentially to draw
Speaker 1: from the expertise of the Israelis. And there has been
Speaker 1: this really interesting kind of quiet diplomacy that's been taking
Speaker 1: place between the Saudis and the Israelis because of their
Speaker 1: mutual antipathy for Iran. Maybe this is a moment where
Speaker 1: they start to work together and the Middle East politics
Speaker 1: begin to change. This is potentially one positive spin, but
Speaker 1: really right now it's a lot of negatives. You're wondering
Speaker 1: how professional the Saudis are, whether they can handle this themselves,
Speaker 1: how the US needs to get involved, should it be involved,
Speaker 1: and whether this puts US from a precipice of another
Speaker 1: conflict that many Americans are very concerned about getting into.
Speaker 1: How rattled I mean, I know you have contacts all
Speaker 1: across the region. How rattled are the Saudis buy what happened? Well,
Speaker 1: this is the thing I mean right now, I think
Speaker 1: they're circling the wagon. You know. It's a lot of
Speaker 1: kind of personal outreach to you know, oil companies to
Speaker 1: try to figure out how to get things back online,
Speaker 1: a lot of reassurances publicly, press statements and things like that.
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, we're not We're probably not
Speaker 1: going to get an honest answer out of the Saudis
Speaker 1: for a little bit. It's going to be rosy for
Speaker 1: a while. They're going to put the positive spin on it.
Speaker 1: The thing that I'm concerned about is that our financial
Speaker 1: institutions are buying it, you know, talking to oil traders,
Speaker 1: folks are saying, well, look we've got lots of excess
Speaker 1: capacity right now and it's going to be fine. Well
Speaker 1: what if Iran keeps doing this? And I think Iran
Speaker 1: certainly has the capacity and the will to keep doing this,
Speaker 1: and if the Saudi facilities are not put back online
Speaker 1: quickly and others are taken offline, you have the potential
Speaker 1: for a real crisis. So that's the kind of thing
Speaker 1: that I'm watching right now, and I think that goes
Speaker 1: very under reported. What do you think the gloves come
Speaker 1: off option would be from the American and Saudi point
Speaker 1: of view, if we just decided we want the Iranians
Speaker 1: to know that never never again. Are they going to
Speaker 1: do something like this? Um? Well, like I said, I
Speaker 1: think there are some Iranian oil facilities. You start to
Speaker 1: take those off offline, and what you're doing is you're
Speaker 1: you're removing whatever. No, but I mean more along the
Speaker 1: lines of is do you think there's a shock and
Speaker 1: awe possibility here too? Or are they are they going
Speaker 1: to just stay away from that because the possibility of
Speaker 1: I mean that is an escalation, right then then we
Speaker 1: are at war. Yeah, that's true, although I think that Look,
Speaker 1: there are other things that the US has been thinking
Speaker 1: about taking out for quite some time, like Iranian nuclear facilities,
Speaker 1: and you know they've been loath to do it, but
Speaker 1: maybe this is the time now to say, Look, not
Speaker 1: only are we going to take out your ability to
Speaker 1: sell oil, but all these nuclear threats that you continue
Speaker 1: to to pose and to issue, well they're going to
Speaker 1: be taken off the table now too, because we've got
Speaker 1: these moabs and bunker busters that are going to get
Speaker 1: rid of those nuclear sites that you've got dug in
Speaker 1: in the side of a mountain. Um, so I can
Speaker 1: imagine doing that. And by the way, that's the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that the international community, even they're very fearful
Speaker 1: of a conflict, they're going to cheer because the Iranians,
Speaker 1: you know, have had everybody running scared for basically a
Speaker 1: decade now over that nuclear program. We're going to come
Speaker 1: back in just a moment with doctor Jonathan Schanzer from
Speaker 1: the Foundation for Defensive Democracies and talk about this Israeli election,
Speaker 1: which there are now results in on that in just
Speaker 1: a moment. All right, back on the Bucks Exton Show.
Speaker 1: Here we have doctor Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for
Speaker 1: Defensive Democracies. Jonathan, results came in, Bobe didn't win outright,
Speaker 1: that Yahoo is not in the clear. What happens now
Speaker 1: in Israel? Well, you know, I would say that right
Speaker 1: now Boebe looks a little hobbled. I think he had
Speaker 1: hoped that he would win out right the second time around.
Speaker 1: But you know, I am sort of joking today that
Speaker 1: election day in Israel should be renamed Groundhogs Day. The
Speaker 1: numbers are basically the same it was kind of a
Speaker 1: dead heat between Nasanyahos Lecout party and Benny Gantz's Blue
Speaker 1: and White Party, Against, of course, being the former chief
Speaker 1: of staff of the Israeli Army, who's pulled together kind
Speaker 1: of a centrist coalition to try to unseat Natagna, who
Speaker 1: is now the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history.
Speaker 1: I think you know, the things that we're watching right
Speaker 1: now is this desire on the part of some to
Speaker 1: form a unity government between these two parties, and I
Speaker 1: think it probably would be the best thing for political
Speaker 1: stability in the country. The problem is is that the
Speaker 1: Blue and White Party guys say that they refuse to
Speaker 1: serve with BB at BB is not likely interested in
Speaker 1: serving with them. So what we're watching for now is
Speaker 1: natagnal as a hearing with the Attorney General of Israel
Speaker 1: in about two weeks for a bunch of charges that
Speaker 1: are penning against him. If he is wounded by these,
Speaker 1: you might begin to see desfections from within Natagna, who's
Speaker 1: own party. There could be an attempt at a coup
Speaker 1: to unseat him, and for the rest of the members
Speaker 1: of Lee coud Uh to start working and reaching across
Speaker 1: the Aisle with blue and white, and you would ultimately
Speaker 1: see uh that that coalition government. I would say, we
Speaker 1: probably have about thirty days to let this thing play out,
Speaker 1: which is what the mandate is uh for coalition building
Speaker 1: Uh in Israel? Is there is there any real concern
Speaker 1: that the that because there's this shift now in Israeli politics,
Speaker 1: that there would be a follow on shift in the
Speaker 1: US as your relationship in any meaningful or important way?
Speaker 1: Or is the expectation here? This is it's interesting to us. Okay,
Speaker 1: Israel important, Middle East out lily and Middle East is
Speaker 1: obviously heating up right now. Ron Saudi things are going
Speaker 1: a little crazy. Uh, but things will likely be the
Speaker 1: same with Israel or what it really matter? Well, look,
Speaker 1: a couple of things to point out. First of all,
Speaker 1: the president himself said today that his relationship is with Israel,
Speaker 1: America's relationship with with his rail, not with one person.
Speaker 1: Um and uh, you know, the US will respect the
Speaker 1: outcome of these elections. The other thing to note here
Speaker 1: is that blue and white and we could have I mean,
Speaker 1: they're foreign policies are indistinguishable as far as I'm concerned
Speaker 1: from a security perspective. Maybe some domestic things at home,
Speaker 1: where where they might differ on the margins, but in
Speaker 1: terms of their views on Iran, his Balama, the US
Speaker 1: Israel relationship, all of these things, the mil to mil relationship,
Speaker 1: it's all basically the same. Um. These the guys that
Speaker 1: blue and white are are Hawks, but they are less
Speaker 1: inclined to work with Israel's religious right. Uh. And that
Speaker 1: is natanya Who's base that religious right. And that's really
Speaker 1: the big difference here. So I don't seem much changing,
Speaker 1: um as a result of a possible change in leadership.
Speaker 1: The only thing that's really different is of course that
Speaker 1: Natanyao and Trump have kind of a bromance going. I mean,
Speaker 1: these are two guys that know each other. Um, they've
Speaker 1: got a good relationship. Of course, Jared Kushner has known
Speaker 1: Natanyao for much of his life. So you have this
Speaker 1: sort of comfort level among senior administration officials with the
Speaker 1: current leadership in Israel. But new relationships can be built,
Speaker 1: especially between two allies when the alliance is based on
Speaker 1: common values, which this one I think really is. Before
Speaker 1: you let you get back to all things defensive democracy, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: I want to ask what do you think about these
Speaker 1: reports that Ambassador Bolton has some pretty harsh words about
Speaker 1: the presidence foreign policy behind closed door surprises you you
Speaker 1: think he's spot on? What do you make of it? Well,
Speaker 1: I'll say this about Bolton. Yeah, he's got a lot
Speaker 1: of harsh words for a lot of people. That's his style.
Speaker 1: And so you know the question is whether he's going
Speaker 1: to do what most people do in Washington, which has
Speaker 1: hold your tongue, thank the President for his time, or
Speaker 1: whether he's going to lash out. My sense is that,
Speaker 1: you know, if our foreign policy remains relatively constant, you know,
Speaker 1: Bolton really shouldn't do that. But if you know, if
Speaker 1: he if he sees that the President is really shifting
Speaker 1: wildly from perhaps whatever the course was that they had
Speaker 1: plotted out, I can imagine that he might see that
Speaker 1: as kind of the unraveling of the work that he
Speaker 1: did over these many months. And it's still not advisable
Speaker 1: in Washington. You've got to remember the thing is that,
Speaker 1: you know, long term relationships are important and reputations are important.
Speaker 1: But like I said, John Bolton has always had these
Speaker 1: sharp elbows, so wouldn't surprise me anything. Any thoughts on
Speaker 1: Robert C. O'Brien as the new Nation Security advisor. We
Speaker 1: got about a minute. Yeah. Look, a professional guy, a
Speaker 1: capable guy. You know. My question is, and I honestly
Speaker 1: don't know the answer to this, what is his relationship
Speaker 1: like with the President. I know they've had some victories
Speaker 1: in terms of reclaiming Americans held against their will. The
Speaker 1: question is, will he provide that unvarnished truth, those tough
Speaker 1: analyzes to the tough questions that the President may not
Speaker 1: want to here but probably should. That's what McMaster did,
Speaker 1: That's what Bolton did. I think that's what any good
Speaker 1: national security advisor will do. Jonathan shans Er, everybody, he
Speaker 1: is at the Foundation for Defensive Democracy. So what's the website, Jonathan,
Speaker 1: FDD dot org. FDD dot org. Everybody check it out
Speaker 1: your national security analysis. Doctor shans are always a pleasure, sir.
Speaker 1: Thank you for giving us your time today. True thing.
Speaker 1: Thanks by well. Team. We'll get into some light or
Speaker 1: fair here at the moment, we'll get into some roll call.
Speaker 1: I thought I thought we'd bring in doctor Shanser though
Speaker 1: he's he's one of the best in the game on
Speaker 1: this stuff, so I thought you'd want to hear from
Speaker 1: him as well as from me. Back in just a moment.
Speaker 1: The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. So what do we do yesterday?
Speaker 1: Do we do? Did we do uh Facebook? Or do
Speaker 1: we do emails? Yesterday? We got a book? We did
Speaker 1: face Okay, so now we got to get into our emails.
Speaker 1: Let's see what Let's see. We got an email world.
Speaker 1: That's always fun. Uh, Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 1: That is the email address. It is very exciting. We
Speaker 1: recommend that you you try it out. You'll love it.
Speaker 1: The emails come to us and uh and everyone is happy.
Speaker 1: So here we go. Valerie, I'm always I'm always worried
Speaker 1: that I'm gonna start reading off people's full names. So
Speaker 1: don't worry. I'll try very hard not to do that.
Speaker 1: Where did oh whoops? Where did Valerie just go? Okay,
Speaker 1: Valerie disappeared. We'll get back to that. It's oh no,
Speaker 1: here it is here. It is she right, Okay, it's
Speaker 1: your show. You can take calls if you want. But
Speaker 1: she wrote in the subject line callers really question Mark,
Speaker 1: I mean Valerim is telling you. Sometimes people they write
Speaker 1: to me, they go, why are you taking callers? Team
Speaker 1: Buck wants their voice to be heard as voice is
Speaker 1: not just as thoughts and emails and messages. And I said,
Speaker 1: all right, fine, but I can tell you that producer Mark,
Speaker 1: did it seem like folks were all excited about calls
Speaker 1: yesterday because I got some emails. You've got some emails.
Speaker 1: Didn't seem like there's a lot of love for the calls. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of anti call emails, a lot
Speaker 1: of anti call emails. And look, this is a this
Speaker 1: is not a this is not a buckocracy. This is
Speaker 1: more of a buck buck based constitutional republic. So you know,
Speaker 1: there are rules, and the rules are if the if
Speaker 1: the audience, if a preponderance of the audience would like
Speaker 1: it a certain way, we got to make them happy.
Speaker 1: All right, here we go, James, good name, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: get off my lawn. I'm sorry for nuking. You're taking
Speaker 1: calls live night. Oh I guess, James wrote in, all right,
Speaker 1: my next email will address the three points you talked about. Peace. James, James,
Speaker 1: it's all good, my man, it's all good. You know
Speaker 1: he called in. You had a little spice to the show.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. We always appreciate a little spice, although
Speaker 1: not too much because I'm producer. John has to take
Speaker 1: the tums. Actually, are you a spicy food guy? Yeah?
Speaker 1: You are. Hey, he's Italian. He's got a mama Mia
Speaker 1: with the pamadoro, with the What kind of spices do
Speaker 1: you use in Italy? I don't even know red peppers spicy.
Speaker 1: I don't think it. Italian food is that spicy either,
Speaker 1: But they can be like spice spicy. At abiata is arabiata?
Speaker 1: Is that what you call it? Right? What do you
Speaker 1: call it? Adabiata pasta right? The sauce. No, I don't
Speaker 1: know what you're saying. Ah, I'm sorry, John, I know
Speaker 1: it's like it's like the old country here all out
Speaker 1: a second arabiata. Yeah, atabiata soa. I'm not crazy. It's
Speaker 1: a thing, spicy auta biata us. It's a it's a sample,
Speaker 1: a recipem make here we go, let's see what it's
Speaker 1: got here. It has one a week. U oh now
Speaker 1: that yeah, Oh my gosh. I want to do a
Speaker 1: show called Cooking with Conservatives. I want to do that
Speaker 1: show would be amazing. But see, the thing is and
Speaker 1: have to be a very nonchalant, like I'm hanging out
Speaker 1: with a fellow conservative in a kitchen and we are
Speaker 1: each drinking our spirit of choice, you know, wine, beer,
Speaker 1: liquor whatever it may be. Hopefully, hopefully they'll they'll be
Speaker 1: like me, and they'll want to just drink something straight
Speaker 1: because it's good and they don't want to waste waste
Speaker 1: the flavor with mixers, you know, like a sorority girl.
Speaker 1: But uh, that's right, I said it. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think that we could do this conservative cooking with
Speaker 1: conservative I think it'd be a lot of fun. And
Speaker 1: I'm trying to see what's I'm trying to see what's
Speaker 1: in and out. I'll be out the sauce here that
Speaker 1: just keeps telling me about how delicious it is in
Speaker 1: this recipe, so I'll figure it out. Uh, you got
Speaker 1: butter olive oil, crushed red pepper flakes. That's the spikes
Speaker 1: I was looking for. That's what I was saying. You're right,
Speaker 1: you're right, all right, don't tell a mama producer a
Speaker 1: John to give me a beating over the head with
Speaker 1: the rolling a pin, you know, like the old school.
Speaker 1: Right now, the Italian audiences seotyping. I know I was
Speaker 1: gonna say it right now, the Italian the Italian American
Speaker 1: segment of the audience like buck thin nice, A little bit,
Speaker 1: a little bit, a little bit of the nice. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, here we go, Um where do we where?
Speaker 1: Where we I was doing I was doing roll call
Speaker 1: and then I got sidetracked talking about spicy sauces. All right,
Speaker 1: here we go more of this? Uh low right. I
Speaker 1: listen to your show because of your version of the
Speaker 1: day's events. I really like to structure a role call
Speaker 1: the interaction with your listeners opinions. That way. Taking call
Speaker 1: from people in the middle of the show is what
Speaker 1: everybody else does. It gets old. I really like everything
Speaker 1: you're doing to expand your media company. Kudos to producer Mark.
Speaker 1: Everyone just loves produce. You know, producer Mark comes on board,
Speaker 1: all this fun stuff happens. Sorry, we love you too.
Speaker 1: Du John, You've been there from the beginning. You're an
Speaker 1: early investor. Producer John is like a guy that bought
Speaker 1: Amazon stock when it was five dollars. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: a very stable genius, exactly exactly. You know. Producer Mark
Speaker 1: is like, ooh, he's like the Mark Zuckerberg of a situation.
Speaker 1: Like he's Oh, I'm i'm young, I'm hip, I'm running things.
Speaker 1: I'm helping you create a media empire. Correct. No, I
Speaker 1: know that's why we gotta keep you happy. So uh
Speaker 1: all right, well but yeah, Lowell, I think that the people,
Speaker 1: the people have been heard on this one. Here we go,
Speaker 1: we have Randolph Randolph Mortimer. I love that movie. If
Speaker 1: you haven't seen Trading Places, I do think you will
Speaker 1: enjoy it. I think it's worth at I think it
Speaker 1: holds up well. I believe it's Eddie Murphy's and people
Speaker 1: always say forty eight hours balderdash, malarkey. Eddie Murphy's second
Speaker 1: best movie, in my opinion, is Trading Places Coming to America.
Speaker 1: I put in the numbers. I don't. I just don't
Speaker 1: like forty eight hours that much. I don't know. It
Speaker 1: wasn't really my thing. Let's see here, Randolph rights. I
Speaker 1: recently watched an interview with Peter Hitchens in which he
Speaker 1: said that when he was a revolutionary socialist, they were
Speaker 1: very much in favor of large scale immigration, not because
Speaker 1: they particularly liked immigrants, but because they didn't like Britain.
Speaker 1: I thought that if they had large numbers of people
Speaker 1: in Britain from outside of it, it would make the
Speaker 1: task of changing Britain easier. Need it be said that
Speaker 1: the Marxists in our own country bear resemblance to their
Speaker 1: British comrades. Additionally, I've just begun reading The Gulag Archipelago,
Speaker 1: which should be a must read. I'm in my mid twenties,
Speaker 1: and not once in high school and nor in college,
Speaker 1: have I ever had or been encouraged to read the
Speaker 1: likes of Souls and Eatsenter, Dostoevsky or even or Well.
Speaker 1: I did, however, have time to read The Handmaid's Tale.
Speaker 1: Shield's High Randy from Georgia. Randy, first of all, I'm
Speaker 1: very pleased that you are hopefully you learned about the
Speaker 1: Archipelago from this show, because I've told people to read it.
Speaker 1: And also I'm a constant proponent of Orwell and Orwell's
Speaker 1: works on the show. I was never assigned it's still
Speaker 1: and I went to some I went to some schools
Speaker 1: that were not particularly progressive, at least for their time.
Speaker 1: For grammar school, for high school, college was Commyville, for sure,
Speaker 1: but college everywhere pretty much is Commyville, except for you
Speaker 1: know what. The exception is Hillsdale College. Hillsdale College actually
Speaker 1: teaches the American American Founding. It teaches from a perspective
Speaker 1: of Judeo Christian values, and the more people I meet
Speaker 1: from Hillsdale, the more impressed I tend to be with
Speaker 1: what that school is turning out, especially as compared to
Speaker 1: some of its well known Ivy League counterparts out there,
Speaker 1: which are just spitting out lots of leftists all the time.
Speaker 1: So where was I here? Oh? Yes, I was never
Speaker 1: assigned Orwell's nineteen eighty four. I was never assigned nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty four George Orwell in school, which is just astonishing.
Speaker 1: It's just crazy, given the things that I was. I
Speaker 1: read a lot of books about somebody living in a
Speaker 1: village and the elders wanted to maintain the old ways.
Speaker 1: But then you know, somebody came along with like a
Speaker 1: new tractor or some new technology, but the old ways
Speaker 1: and like the spirits. You know, there's some you know,
Speaker 1: traditional non Judeo Christian religious practices thrown in there. Blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. Yeah, a lot of that stuff, not a
Speaker 1: lot of the of the Orwell, which the only book
Speaker 1: I was. Actually, that's not even true. I read. I
Speaker 1: read Animal Farm on my own. I was never even
Speaker 1: assigned Animal Farm in school, which is really nuts. Never
Speaker 1: signed Animal Farm, never signed nineteen eighty four, never signed
Speaker 1: the geolog Archipelago, never assigned crime and Punishment. Never you know,
Speaker 1: these are all things that I had to read on
Speaker 1: my own. Actually might go back and read geolog Archipelago again.
Speaker 1: It's been a long time. Uh, let's see here. Dixie. Wow? Cool?
Speaker 1: Dixie wasn't It was the name of my Boston Terrier
Speaker 1: growing up. Hi Buck, Just wondering if you've seen heard
Speaker 1: the new ad campaign for the Hartford Insurance Company Always
Speaker 1: Think of You, and it gave me a smile. No, here,
Speaker 1: what does it say? So the buck starts here with
Speaker 1: new branding for the Hartford something or other. Oh that's cool.
Speaker 1: There's like a buck in there. Yeah, that's cute. I
Speaker 1: appreciate that. I used to have this T shirt that
Speaker 1: I think it was sold by Urban Outfitters or something,
Speaker 1: but it would said get buck wild and it had
Speaker 1: two deer but with human legs kind of so it
Speaker 1: was really a almost like a centaur, but deer top
Speaker 1: instead of horse bottom. I guess that that was more
Speaker 1: complicated explanation than it need to be. But anyway, and
Speaker 1: they were dancing, you know, like like getting all dancy
Speaker 1: dance going on. I don't know that T shirt fell
Speaker 1: I wear that T shirt so much it fell apart.
Speaker 1: But it was a conversation starter. Ladies were like, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, your name is Buck and your T shirts
Speaker 1: as do you want to get Buck wild? That is
Speaker 1: like so a darbs. And I was like, can I
Speaker 1: have your phone number? And they're like nah, sorry, it's like, ah,
Speaker 1: shot down, It's all right, Producer Mark, I say that
Speaker 1: it helped me grow character. Put some hair on your
Speaker 1: you nowhere head. There's so much hair, it's a haircut.
Speaker 1: That's also true. That's also true. Um, we haven't gotten
Speaker 1: to enough enough role call your hold on a second.
Speaker 1: When we you know what I'm gonna I'm gonna extend
Speaker 1: it through, so we'll get into more hole. We'll come
Speaker 1: right back. We're gonna do a double. We'll do it well,
Speaker 1: we'll do two, not not, I'll do one, I'll do two.
Speaker 1: We'll be it back all right, and we're continuing with
Speaker 1: a roll call. I decided to do a do a
Speaker 1: two for a two for today, and I also wanted
Speaker 1: to throw in the mix some of our Facebook messages.
Speaker 1: We got a lot of emails coming to a lot
Speaker 1: of Facebook messages, so I figured, why not, let's let's
Speaker 1: get that at Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. That's
Speaker 1: what I h That's how you send us a message.
Speaker 1: That is in fact, if you send a message there
Speaker 1: it we'll get to us, so you don't have to
Speaker 1: send the Is this the roll call? Yes? Yes, If
Speaker 1: you go to the url I gave you, I assure
Speaker 1: you it is. It is for roll call purposes. And
Speaker 1: if you don't want it read on air, just put
Speaker 1: not for roll call at the top, please. I feel
Speaker 1: I always I've had like heart attacks. I've seen it
Speaker 1: things a few times though, like this is super sense
Speaker 1: that I don't tell anybody, but they read it at
Speaker 1: the bottom and I'm like, no, don't do that. We've
Speaker 1: never gotten that on air, but it has been a
Speaker 1: thing that I've I've seen because I try to scan
Speaker 1: them before we get to them. Richard Buck. There was
Speaker 1: a survey of police officers published in twenty thirteen. It
Speaker 1: showed that they were overwhelming these skeptical of gun control measures.
Speaker 1: It makes sense they'd be skeptical because they see data
Speaker 1: impact of the laws. Here's a link to the article
Speaker 1: on police one, I don't know if anything newer exists. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Richard. That's very interesting. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I never said because I just said I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just was trying to tell you that I have
Speaker 1: met law enforcement officers who aren't particularly pro Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: but I've certainly met a ton of law law enforcement
Speaker 1: officers who are all about the Second Amendment. And I
Speaker 1: just never seen any data on this. And according to
Speaker 1: this police one dot com websites, and this is fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey.
Speaker 1: It said, quote, do you think a federal band law
Speaker 1: manufacturer and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than
Speaker 1: ten rounds would reduce violent crime? Ninety five point seven
Speaker 1: percent of law enforcement officers said no. Another question, what
Speaker 1: do you think a federal ban on the manufacturing sale
Speaker 1: on semi automatic firearms turned by some as assault weapons
Speaker 1: would due to reducing violent crime? Six percent said moderate,
Speaker 1: seventy one percent said none, twenty percent said a negative
Speaker 1: effect on reducing violent crime one percent of law enforcement officers.
Speaker 1: According to this police one dot com site which has
Speaker 1: this study, I've never heard of police one dot com.
Speaker 1: So this is something new for me. But this is
Speaker 1: what we got sent on real call. So there we have.
Speaker 1: It looks like overwhelmingly law enforcement according to this are
Speaker 1: pro Second Amendment, which makes sense to me. I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you, though, there are you know, CNN, We'll find
Speaker 1: all five cops that want to take all your guns
Speaker 1: away and put them on TV. I promise you, I
Speaker 1: promise you that, Colton Buck, the only excuse you need
Speaker 1: to come down to Texas is barbecue. Coulton, I agree, man,
Speaker 1: I love, I love. Actually I have not had good
Speaker 1: barbecue in a long time. I have not had good
Speaker 1: barbecue a long time. All right, Producer Producer John, what
Speaker 1: is the you can only have one thing at a
Speaker 1: great barbered at a great classic Southern barbecue joint? What
Speaker 1: is your meat of choice? Um? I acceptable answer. I
Speaker 1: put it in top three. Producer Mark, what do you
Speaker 1: you only get one meat choice? Not the five we
Speaker 1: usually get there because we go hard in the paint,
Speaker 1: of course. Yeah, what do you get? I guess I
Speaker 1: have to go with ribs? Also acceptable? Also acceptable? Okay,
Speaker 1: those are those are two of my top three for me.
Speaker 1: Number one is brisket. I just I'm a brisket fanatic.
Speaker 1: I think the brisket when it's done right, is the
Speaker 1: most delicious. Uh you know meat that there is, so
Speaker 1: number two, what's up? That's my number two? Oh you
Speaker 1: go number two? Yeah? Yeah. I just sometimes to talk
Speaker 1: to people and they're just like, I like the roast chicken.
Speaker 1: I'm like, you go to a barbecue places for the
Speaker 1: roast chicken. What are you some kind of a saying,
Speaker 1: some kind of a communist. It's just it's just ridiculous, Nathan. Right,
Speaker 1: it's about rifles of that distinction. You can call them
Speaker 1: tactical rifles, but given that they feel they fall under
Speaker 1: the ninety four assault weapon ban, they're rifles that are
Speaker 1: assault weapons. As dumb as it sounds, the precedence is set. Yeah, Nathan,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm saying. I mean, if you know, if
Speaker 1: somebody classifies all rifles with a detachable magazine, a four grip,
Speaker 1: and a rail system as an assault rifle in law,
Speaker 1: then when you refer to assault rifles, that's what you
Speaker 1: are referred to. So you know, we can I understand
Speaker 1: there's no firearms designation, but we're talking about law and
Speaker 1: legal policy, you know. Yeah, I mean, we can do
Speaker 1: shorthand stuff. Or we can rename things, like with the
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act, we can call it Obamacare. But technically,
Speaker 1: if I want to pull up the bill, I do
Speaker 1: I do a search for the Affordable Care Act. I
Speaker 1: don't do a search for Obamacare, right, because that's not
Speaker 1: what it's called technically. I know you're already like, boo
Speaker 1: boo Obamacare. D it's good times, Douglas. Oh wait before, sorry, Douglas.
Speaker 1: We'll get you tomorrow, guys, don't forget. Tomorrow, at seven
Speaker 1: o'clock at the Women's National republic Republican Club in Midtown, Manhattan,
Speaker 1: I will be giving a speech on wartime conservatism seven
Speaker 1: pm Eastern. Please please come check it out with a
Speaker 1: more team buck that shows up the marrier. I will
Speaker 1: stay after the speech. I will drink alcohol, I will
Speaker 1: tell stories. I will hang out. We will take selfies.
Speaker 1: I want selfies of you. It'll be amazing. Let's go
Speaker 1: for it. Show up tomorrow, Women's National Republican Club. I
Speaker 1: could even tell you the address if I had it
Speaker 1: pulled up right here, but it's like fifty fifty second
Speaker 1: Street or something and between fifth and sixth I think.
Speaker 1: But so it's right in Midtown Manhattan. If you're in
Speaker 1: New York City, Team Buck, come on out, come on out,
Speaker 1: check it out. Shield Hie