Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Pelosi makes it clear
Speaker 1: Trump will be impeached, Milania crushes a left wing clown.
Speaker 1: Is Bernie Sanders a communist? And why are liberals getting
Speaker 1: upset at mayor Pete? We got that plus an anti
Speaker 1: robocall bill that I'll make Buck very happy if it
Speaker 1: passes coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American great, You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. The Buck Sexton Show begins Analyst sadly,
Speaker 1: but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders,
Speaker 1: and are heart full of love for America. Today, I
Speaker 1: am asking our chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: I commend our committee chairs and our members for their
Speaker 1: somber approach to actions which I wish the President had
Speaker 1: not made it necessary, and signing the Declaration of Independence,
Speaker 1: our founders invoked a firm reliance on divine providence. Democrats too,
Speaker 1: are prayerful, and we will proceed in a manner worthy
Speaker 1: of our oath of office to support and defend the
Speaker 1: Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic,
Speaker 1: So help us God. Welcome to the Box Section show.
Speaker 1: They're impeaching Trump, just like I said they would, just
Speaker 1: like I've been saying they would for over a year now.
Speaker 1: Really no surprise. The best part of this, though, this
Speaker 1: was Nancy Pelosi's announcement this morning. Was just the way
Speaker 1: that the Democrats try to set all this stuff up
Speaker 1: with a heart full of love for America, divine providence,
Speaker 1: a somber approach, prayerful about this terrible thing we have
Speaker 1: to do to President Trump that we just we really
Speaker 1: don't want to do. I mean, we've been talking about
Speaker 1: it since the day he won the election, but we
Speaker 1: we really don't want to do it. Oh no, what
Speaker 1: are we going to do? My friends? This is an
Speaker 1: important reminder. This is what we're up against. The Left
Speaker 1: pretends that they care about the process. They can, They
Speaker 1: pretend that they want to protect institutions, and they tear
Speaker 1: institutions down. They burn the village down in order to
Speaker 1: save it, so to speak. And this is a perfect
Speaker 1: example of it. I mean that hearing yesterday I went
Speaker 1: on for hours and hours and hours and hours. Some
Speaker 1: of it I was able to talk to you about
Speaker 1: on the show, but it was still going till almost
Speaker 1: six thirty Eastern. I think last night, I mean the hearing,
Speaker 1: and I will give credit to a fellow on Bret
Speaker 1: Bear's pennel last night who said what was obvious but
Speaker 1: needed to be said. The whole hearing meant nothing. It
Speaker 1: was an absurdity. There's a waste of everybody's time, except
Speaker 1: for perhaps the academics who used it as an opportunity
Speaker 1: to audition for MSNBC and CNN contributor jobs, and that
Speaker 1: I think they were successful in doing that. I think
Speaker 1: is quite is quite clear. Let's just get into a
Speaker 1: bit of it because there's obviously the political implications here.
Speaker 1: And by the way, we're not going to spend the
Speaker 1: entire show today talking about impeachment. I know there are
Speaker 1: other things. So for those of you who are already
Speaker 1: tired of it, and look, I get tired of it
Speaker 1: because it's so obvious what Nancy Pelosi and Schiff and
Speaker 1: the rest of the Democrats are up to here and Nadler,
Speaker 1: it's so clear the game that they're playing and the
Speaker 1: brazenness of the dishonesty from them. It's it's tough to
Speaker 1: take digging and down Nancy Pelosi. Oh, we're prayerful. We
Speaker 1: don't want to do the Come on, who is so
Speaker 1: stupid that they believe Nancy Pelosi when she says that?
Speaker 1: And so if no one believes her, why say it?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just all a show. I mean, these
Speaker 1: people really are crazy and they've turned into a pack
Speaker 1: of loons. You can't reason with them. It was a
Speaker 1: fantastic piece by my friend David Harsanyi, who is great
Speaker 1: when he calls it. He's fantastic writer, really good guy.
Speaker 1: He calls in. He was like, yeah, I don't know,
Speaker 1: politics is a crazy thing. He's got a little bit
Speaker 1: of a laid back almost. He's almost like the surfer
Speaker 1: dude of Denver, though now he lives in DC. He's
Speaker 1: very chill about these things he wrote. He just wrote
Speaker 1: a piece touching on what I was saying, yes or
Speaker 1: not what I said, but the same subject matter that
Speaker 1: these professors clowned themselves. I mean you had some of
Speaker 1: them saying things that are just outrageous. I mean they're
Speaker 1: just dumb. It's it's not something that you could hold
Speaker 1: as an opinion and be considered an intelligent person or
Speaker 1: an honest person anyway. I mean they were trying to
Speaker 1: say that this president thinks that he's a monarch. Even
Speaker 1: play yeah, this was Professor Gerhardt Play nine. What matters
Speaker 1: in determining whether particularly misconduct consutes a high crime and
Speaker 1: misdemeanor is ultimately the context and the gravity of the
Speaker 1: misconduct in question. After reviewing the evidence that's been made public,
Speaker 1: I cannot help but concluded that this president has attacked
Speaker 1: each of the Constitution's safeguards against establishing a monarchy in
Speaker 1: this country. Both the context and gravity of the president's
Speaker 1: mist conduct are clear a monarchy, he says. This president,
Speaker 1: at best is going to have four more years in office.
Speaker 1: This president has been willing to abide by universal injunction
Speaker 1: set by left wing activist judges on the federal bench
Speaker 1: who in bad faith shut down executive power well beyond
Speaker 1: what should be their purview and their reach, just because
Speaker 1: their hashtag resistance. This President's a monarch, please, Monarchs do
Speaker 1: whatever they want. This president has to deal with insane
Speaker 1: liberals who refuse to let him actually be president because
Speaker 1: they refuse to accept that he won the presidency. This
Speaker 1: is where all this comes from. That simple fact liberals
Speaker 1: are still in a state of denial, the left, the Dems,
Speaker 1: the socialists. Let's start using that word more, by the way,
Speaker 1: it should be used more in the context of talking
Speaker 1: about our political opponents. Or they are socialists, they are collectivists,
Speaker 1: they are statists, they are all of these things. They
Speaker 1: can call themselves Democrats as their official party name, but
Speaker 1: they're a socialist party, and why should we have to
Speaker 1: pretend that they're not. But they are socialists who believe
Speaker 1: in different layers and levels of capitalism within their economy,
Speaker 1: but they want overall control of it all, and they
Speaker 1: want to be able to redistribute wealth, and they want
Speaker 1: to use taxation not just for social engineering, but also
Speaker 1: for addressing the imbalances of a society making it more equitable,
Speaker 1: essentially appealing to envy, which, while bad for economies, is
Speaker 1: good politics. There are a lot of envious people. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: there's no shortage of those who are bitter that things
Speaker 1: have not worked out the way that they wanted them to.
Speaker 1: People can vote the intend to vote Democrat. So here
Speaker 1: we are now faced with the reality that we've all
Speaker 1: known was coming. Nancy Pelosi saying that they're going to
Speaker 1: put forward articles of impeachment. They're going to impeach his presidents.
Speaker 1: This is when I had even my friends were ahem
Speaker 1: and Sean Davis on earlier this week, I said, guys,
Speaker 1: I mean I'm still ninety five percent. I'm really one
Speaker 1: hundred percent certain. I mean you got to say you're
Speaker 1: maybe ninety nine percent certain because we could be invaded
Speaker 1: by space aliens tomorrow. You know, no one really knows
Speaker 1: the future. But this was effectively a certainty because if
Speaker 1: the Democrats had backed Office and pushed for a censure vote,
Speaker 1: that would have been an admission that they didn't have
Speaker 1: the goods. And if they didn't have the goods, why
Speaker 1: would they put us through this process? Why the rush?
Speaker 1: Why the disrespect of the Constitution while claiming to be
Speaker 1: upholding and defending the Constitution. We should all find this
Speaker 1: to be simply disgusting, but it is what we have
Speaker 1: to do with. Oh no offense. Eeldman, who looked like
Speaker 1: he was auditioning for the role of a professor from
Speaker 1: the Harry Potter movies. He was up there as well,
Speaker 1: talking about monarchy and dictatorship yesterday. These people are absurd,
Speaker 1: They're they're hysterics. Play thirteen. Please. The abuse of power
Speaker 1: occurs when the president uses his office for personal advantage
Speaker 1: or gain. That matters fundamentally to the American people, because
Speaker 1: if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office
Speaker 1: for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy.
Speaker 1: We live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship.
Speaker 1: That's why the Framers created the possibility of impeachment. Okay,
Speaker 1: so this person is a moron. He's a tenured professor
Speaker 1: of law at Harvard's all. He's a moron. I don't care.
Speaker 1: I don't care what he's done within this system and
Speaker 1: how he's tried to impress people within that system to
Speaker 1: get to this purchase. He does not have basic critical
Speaker 1: thinking ability that is necessary for good judgment in a
Speaker 1: realm as complicated as the law. He's really just a
Speaker 1: partisan who talks the talk and walks the walk, and
Speaker 1: so he's been able to accelerate himself saying, look at
Speaker 1: Lawrence Tribe, another professor, Lawrence Tribe is a lunatic. Look
Speaker 1: at his Twitter account. This guy's trying to teach future
Speaker 1: generations of lawyers. Law schools now are churning out little
Speaker 1: activist libs who don't really understand the foundational precepts of
Speaker 1: law in this country, or even law in general. Why
Speaker 1: does law exist? What is the law? They don't know Socrates,
Speaker 1: they know social justice Warrior. This is a big problem.
Speaker 1: He says that where if you can't impeach somebody to
Speaker 1: monarchy or a dictatorship. And then I also love how
Speaker 1: Schiff pointed out and by the way, no one is
Speaker 1: claiming that you cannot impeach Trump. No one says that
Speaker 1: you cannot do this. It's just ridiculous to do it.
Speaker 1: It's absurd, it's an abuse of power. And one of
Speaker 1: my favorite moments in the entire area yesterday was when
Speaker 1: Professor Jonathan Turley, who's the only one not a Trump voter,
Speaker 1: by the way, wanted to bring the Bush administration up
Speaker 1: on war crimes. I mean, he's a left of center guy,
Speaker 1: but he's not totally nuts. He's smart and not totally
Speaker 1: Trump deranged. He said, you're going to make You're going
Speaker 1: to make something. Now, this is the claim that Democrats
Speaker 1: have that because Trump, as the executive branch head, is saying,
Speaker 1: all right, you want to take my executive branch people,
Speaker 1: we're coequal branches of government. We'll see you in court.
Speaker 1: We'll see you in court now, which has been the
Speaker 1: standard until very recently that everybody accepted, is now itself
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. The attempt to push back against the
Speaker 1: left tyranny is used by the tyrants as evidence that
Speaker 1: their tyranny is justified. That is what we are up against.
Speaker 1: Professor Turley just said, you can't. You're abusing to Congress,
Speaker 1: you're abusing your power. Gets say it's he doesn't have
Speaker 1: recourse to the courts. Do what I say, or else
Speaker 1: the Congress says no, Then the courts adjudicate between two
Speaker 1: coequal branches of government. You know which way this will go.
Speaker 1: They accept this on all number on all kinds of
Speaker 1: other levels. You know, they didn't speak about tyranny. And
Speaker 1: this is the part that really just was goading me yesterday,
Speaker 1: because it isn't it isn't indefensibly, indefensibly stupid thing for
Speaker 1: someone to say that this president has has committed the
Speaker 1: worst crimes, the most impeachable conduct of any president ever,
Speaker 1: which is the claim that Schiff has made, which is
Speaker 1: what these professors yesterday, we're making a case for that
Speaker 1: this president is a threat to our democracy. Who else
Speaker 1: would they say that about. And this is where I
Speaker 1: go back to my friend David Harsani, who was writing
Speaker 1: about this in National Review. But you could just think,
Speaker 1: off the top of your head. Did they say that
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson was a threat to democracy when he was
Speaker 1: locking people up for opposing US intervention in the First
Speaker 1: World War? When FDR took Japanese Americans and locked them
Speaker 1: in internment camps, when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because he
Speaker 1: said so, Were any of these people a threat to
Speaker 1: democracy in their actions? Impeachable? Perhaps? Oh, of course not.
Speaker 1: I mean, Wilson was a racist in the way but
Speaker 1: he was a Democrat, of course. And they don't like
Speaker 1: to talk about this. Wilson was a racist in the
Speaker 1: way that liberals today loved to pretend most people on
Speaker 1: the right are meaning that Wilson was an actual racist.
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson, real deal racist, and yet the most impeachable
Speaker 1: conduct of all time, more so than even Nixon, of course,
Speaker 1: more so than presidents who the left, the socialist left
Speaker 1: in this country effectively accepted tyrannical, monarchical moves from them.
Speaker 1: F DR Woodrow Wilson. Go back in time, you will
Speaker 1: find plenty look John Adams. This is mentabeas corpus, John Adams.
Speaker 1: Go back to the Alien and Sedition Act. I believe
Speaker 1: it was of seventeen ninety eight. Lock people up for
Speaker 1: saying things that didn't like you. You don't think that's
Speaker 1: a bit of a breach of the First Amendment of
Speaker 1: the Constitution? Friends, there have been so much more egregious
Speaker 1: abuses of power, egregious abuses of authority. And here's the
Speaker 1: real problem. Trump didn't abuse his power. All the things
Speaker 1: they're saying are lies. It's not true. There's nothing wrong
Speaker 1: with what he did. He broke no law, he broke
Speaker 1: no statute, he broke no ethical boundary in Ukraine or Russia,
Speaker 1: conduct none. So this is how upside down they're thinking is.
Speaker 1: This is how absurd and derange the Left has become
Speaker 1: in the era of Trump. Because he has broken them.
Speaker 1: They now will make the claim that someone who has
Speaker 1: not done anything that is impeachable is the most impeachable
Speaker 1: president of all time. This is disconnect from reality. This
Speaker 1: is derangement. This is people seeing pink elephants flying in
Speaker 1: the sky and thinking that they are geniuses for calling
Speaker 1: it out. Both hilarious and scary. I have to tell you, well,
Speaker 1: I did. I saw it. It's a joke. Everybody is
Speaker 1: saying it. I will tell you it is a uniform sapent.
Speaker 1: I think pretty much, pretty much right down the road,
Speaker 1: that's what they're doing is a very bad thing for
Speaker 1: a country. It's of no merit. And the Republican Party
Speaker 1: has never been more unified ever, They've never been as
Speaker 1: unified as they are right now. I'm happy to say
Speaker 1: I think the President's analysis here is spot on across
Speaker 1: the board. Any fair minded person watching those things that
Speaker 1: it's preposterous. It's just ridiculous the whole thing. Democrats are
Speaker 1: just lying, lying and lying. There. They're gaming and scheming
Speaker 1: and then lying about it, and then lying about their
Speaker 1: intentions and lying about you know, the fact that they
Speaker 1: don't really want to be doing this and they haven't
Speaker 1: made up their minds yet. How is it that we
Speaker 1: all knew they were going to impeach to the president.
Speaker 1: We've known this for months, really known this for years.
Speaker 1: How could we know if it was evidentiary, if the
Speaker 1: final conclusion was going to be rooted in some understanding
Speaker 1: of what the actual information is that is presented. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. They didn't allow for the collection of facts
Speaker 1: through a special counsel. They didn't have a ken Star investigation.
Speaker 1: They didn't have anything leading up to the would be
Speaker 1: impeachment of Richard Nixon that involved independent investigators pulling together facts. No,
Speaker 1: they they're just running with whatever they can do. It's
Speaker 1: all a scam, a scheme, a hoax, a fraud. And
Speaker 1: these people that are perpetrating this against America are the
Speaker 1: ones who are always complaining about about Trump. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: has problems with the truth. Oh he's an exaggerator, he's
Speaker 1: a BS artist, you know, like Buck Sexton, my initials.
Speaker 1: You know, he's one of those. It turns out that
Speaker 1: they have quite a problem with the truth on areas
Speaker 1: that really matter. But I am happy to say that
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is now I think unified. This is
Speaker 1: turning into something of a Kavanaugh moment. We are seeing
Speaker 1: the other side acts with no good faith, no respect
Speaker 1: for any process or principle. More importantly, there's only one
Speaker 1: principle under which the Democrats are operating right now. Stop
Speaker 1: Trump at all costs. That constitution. The country be damned.
Speaker 1: Oh as if the leftist professors were not be clowning
Speaker 1: themselves enough. Yesterday during this marathon series of hearing, what
Speaker 1: was the hearing about, No fact witnesses, just people showing
Speaker 1: up who have already said things, very stupid things, by
Speaker 1: the way, incredibly dumb things like the president could be
Speaker 1: impeached for a tweet. One of these guys, the one
Speaker 1: to look like the Harry Potter, Professor Feldman, he actually
Speaker 1: had already written that, and the gout Gerhardt, professor from
Speaker 1: I think UNC. He's the one who says that the the
Speaker 1: president is going to be this is going to turn
Speaker 1: into a monarch. And these people say idiotic things at
Speaker 1: the time. But Professor Carlin, who's at Stanford Law School,
Speaker 1: had some very worthwhile moments. But this was the best
Speaker 1: because it really showed you. It showed you who she is.
Speaker 1: It showed you what the left is really like. I mean,
Speaker 1: this woman was just combative, grandstanding, just the most typical
Speaker 1: really left wing pseudo intellectual you could find anywhere. Not thoughtful,
Speaker 1: not nuance, not wise, not steeped in the knowledge of
Speaker 1: her supposed craft and expertise, a partisan, an activist, dressing
Speaker 1: it up with a few fancy words here and there.
Speaker 1: This is really actually typical for leftism these days. I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how many leftist intellectuals I meet or
Speaker 1: even discuss or debate with who just aren't impressive, who
Speaker 1: aren't smart. They have been trained in a very specific
Speaker 1: way to a specific ends within their fields, but they
Speaker 1: might as well be the people standing outside of an
Speaker 1: end culter speech with signs saying you know, white nationalists
Speaker 1: not allowed and screaming epithets and curses at her. Because
Speaker 1: they have the same mindset. This is why when I
Speaker 1: tell you that Harvard law professors now share the politics
Speaker 1: of assistant gender studies professors at Oberlin or Brown or
Speaker 1: Read College or one of these like left wing loon factories,
Speaker 1: it's true. They share all the same ideas. It has.
Speaker 1: The consolidation of thought in the universities is mind blowing.
Speaker 1: It was bad when I was there years ago. I
Speaker 1: had the only conservative tenured professor on my entire college
Speaker 1: campus as my advisor. There was only one. How is
Speaker 1: it possible? That's possible because the libs are totalitarians, and
Speaker 1: so they control access and they crush people that don't
Speaker 1: agree with them, and then they create a little monoculture
Speaker 1: that create the echo chamber of the faculty lounge and
Speaker 1: the faculty lounge creates an echo chamber of the greater campus,
Speaker 1: and the greater campus that includes the law school portion
Speaker 1: of the campus. And then that means that you have
Speaker 1: lawyers running around the country who think that the law
Speaker 1: is whatever they wanted to say, because whatever makes them
Speaker 1: feel good and gets a monologue of praise from Chris
Speaker 1: Haze or Rachel Maddow is what really matters. The Constitution
Speaker 1: be damned. Who cares? Oh, you think I'm you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating. I don't exaggerate. I speak the truth.
Speaker 1: That's why you listen to the show. That's why you
Speaker 1: watch this show. We have Professor Carlin of Stanford Law
Speaker 1: School showing us who she is and how she thinks
Speaker 1: about things. Please, Producer Brandon Clip five. Things could do
Speaker 1: no wrong because the king kings could do no wrong
Speaker 1: because the King's word was law. And contrary to what
Speaker 1: President Trump has said, Article two does not give him
Speaker 1: the power to do anything he wants. And I'll just
Speaker 1: give you one example that shows you the difference between
Speaker 1: him and a king, which is the Constitution says there
Speaker 1: can be no titles of nobility. So while the president
Speaker 1: can name his son, baron. He can't make him a baron.
Speaker 1: Oh Man sit burn Yo. Yeah, bring the president's ten
Speaker 1: year old son into this hyperpartisan testimony. Disgusting, disgusting, And
Speaker 1: by the way that was practiced, you could tell her
Speaker 1: by the way she delivered the line she had thought
Speaker 1: about that beforehand. She had been waiting to drop this one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the social justice words. I'm sure they love that over
Speaker 1: at the huff Post, and you know, the semi illiterates
Speaker 1: at the young Turks, you know, I'm sure they thought
Speaker 1: it was great. Milannia Trump, though, crushed the smug COMI
Speaker 1: with the following tweet quote, that's right, the first lady
Speaker 1: getting in on it. Because you mess with Mama Bear,
Speaker 1: you deal with the consequences. A minor child deserves privacy
Speaker 1: and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Carlin, you
Speaker 1: should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased
Speaker 1: public pandering and using a child to do it. End
Speaker 1: quote courtesy of Milania Boom. By the way, the most
Speaker 1: fashionable first lady of all time, and yet all the
Speaker 1: fashion magazines don't want to give They won't dress her,
Speaker 1: they won't put her on the magazines because they're appalling leftists.
Speaker 1: No surprise there, that's right. Professor at Stanford Law, a
Speaker 1: tenured professor, probably making three or four hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year to brainwash recent college grads into thinking that
Speaker 1: they really understand the law and that you know, things
Speaker 1: like yeah, Roe v. Wade, that's that's a good way
Speaker 1: to interpret the law. Look at that. That's a thumbs up.
Speaker 1: Yeah we'll invent something and this other thing, and you know,
Speaker 1: there we go. The law says whatever we want. It's
Speaker 1: a living constitution. You see that. The words are alive,
Speaker 1: and they can move around based on our orders, based
Speaker 1: on our whim Yet here we are Pamela Carlin lecturing
Speaker 1: the country, all these professors lecturing the country. What exactly
Speaker 1: do they know? What do they to the table? Nothing
Speaker 1: that was unexpected. She did kind of apologize, which I
Speaker 1: thought was also worth hearing. Play clip twelve. Then if
Speaker 1: I can just say one thing, I want to apologize
Speaker 1: for what I said earlier about the President's son. It
Speaker 1: was wrong of me to do that. I wish the
Speaker 1: president would apologize obviously for the things that he's done.
Speaker 1: That's wrong. But I do regret having said that. See,
Speaker 1: I regret her being dumb. I mean, the fact that
Speaker 1: she brought the president's very young son into this conversation
Speaker 1: is completely unacceptable. I mean, look, I'm not crying big
Speaker 1: tears about it. I mean, wait, I wasn't she brought
Speaker 1: him into it. It was a petty thing to do,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't you know, she didn't call him a
Speaker 1: little idiot. I mean, there have been leftists who have
Speaker 1: been in the press who have said horrific things about
Speaker 1: Baron Trump, I mean horrific things, and they have been
Speaker 1: allowed to. I mean, if you ever want to understand
Speaker 1: that the press really isn't that different now, We're just
Speaker 1: better at seeing who they are, go back and read
Speaker 1: some of the stories that the left wing rags would
Speaker 1: put out about Sarah Palin and her family and her
Speaker 1: child and who back in the two thousand and eight election,
Speaker 1: liberals are appalling, no honor, no dignity, new class. It's
Speaker 1: just it's become their culture. There are people within that
Speaker 1: culture who do have good qualities and do have those qualities,
Speaker 1: but the overwhelming culture of the left now is a
Speaker 1: totalitarian self righteousness. They know what's right about everything, they
Speaker 1: don't want to exchange it with any ideas with the
Speaker 1: other side. They want to force you to do things.
Speaker 1: They want you to repudiate all you believe in. They
Speaker 1: want you to bend the knee and then apologize that
Speaker 1: it took so long for you to do so, and
Speaker 1: then accept that they're probably going to have to destroy
Speaker 1: you anyway to encourage the others. There was oh, I said,
Speaker 1: why was I upset about, Professor Carlin? The stupidity of
Speaker 1: saying the president can't do whatever he wants? How could
Speaker 1: anyone pay attention to politics in this country for five
Speaker 1: minutes and think that the president is of the impression
Speaker 1: he can do whatever he wants. How many times has
Speaker 1: he been blocked by the courts? How many times has
Speaker 1: he gone to Congress? You know, was he able to
Speaker 1: get the healthcare plan that he wanted? No? Was he
Speaker 1: able to just do what he wanted on immigration? No?
Speaker 1: Time and again the courts, the courts, the courts challenging,
Speaker 1: and he's right, by the way, they're wrong, the people
Speaker 1: in the court system, or the members of Congress, or
Speaker 1: the states that are bringing these challenges, they're being shot down.
Speaker 1: They misinterpret the law. But how could he think he
Speaker 1: does whatever he wants? No? In fact, one of my
Speaker 1: complaints about Trump is that sometimes he doesn't do what
Speaker 1: he should do, what he does have the power to do,
Speaker 1: because I think he is too deferential to some aspects
Speaker 1: of the system that's in place. I think that he
Speaker 1: does get a little bit too swayed by some elements
Speaker 1: of the national security apparatus and the forever War lobby
Speaker 1: in DC and across the country. I think that on
Speaker 1: the issue of immigration and on the wall, there were
Speaker 1: ways for him to proceed without having to go through
Speaker 1: all this series of court challenges. But how could any
Speaker 1: would say that the president thinks that he can do anything.
Speaker 1: The reality here is at the president of the United States,
Speaker 1: according to Democrats, cannot be on a call with a
Speaker 1: counterpart head of state, engaging in foreign policy and make
Speaker 1: a passing reference to information about possible corruption in a
Speaker 1: country known for corruption. He can't even do that without
Speaker 1: them thinking that he should lose his job. And he
Speaker 1: thinks he can do anything. By the way, it never happened,
Speaker 1: nothing happened, There was no pressure, is all. This is
Speaker 1: all a conjured fantasy of the left, which is why
Speaker 1: it's not working. But they have to do this. They
Speaker 1: have to impeach him. They want to tar him with that.
Speaker 1: They want to have the asterisk next to him, just
Speaker 1: like they wanted to do with Kavanaugh. Asterisk. He doesn't
Speaker 1: really count. Any of the Supreme Court decision doesn't really count.
Speaker 1: This is a childishness that is the basis of a
Speaker 1: lot of liberal viciousness. They don't accept that they've lost
Speaker 1: when they've lost, and so going forward whenever there should
Speaker 1: be the next step, whenever people should look at the
Speaker 1: precedent and what do we do now, it's oh, no,
Speaker 1: we haven't moved to a further stage in the discussion.
Speaker 1: Whether it's about the Supreme Court, or about immigration, or
Speaker 1: about anything. The initial fight must be had again, because
Speaker 1: the initial victory, whether it's Trump's election or it's at
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, was illegitimate. Not just that I disagree
Speaker 1: with it, It was illegitimate. It is not binding on me.
Speaker 1: Liberals don't really understand, or perhaps they understand and don't care.
Speaker 1: Is that their mentality isn't It is accelerating in its extreme,
Speaker 1: it's extremism, and they will eventually bring us to the
Speaker 1: dissolution of the form of government that we've lived under
Speaker 1: now for a couple of hundred years. If they don't
Speaker 1: stop with this, they can't continue to destroy institutions, to
Speaker 1: undermine them while claiming to be the great protectors of them.
Speaker 1: They can't allow, for example, President Obama to do things
Speaker 1: as president that he himself had said he does not
Speaker 1: have the right to do as president, and then to
Speaker 1: have beyond that. The courts slap down the Obama administration
Speaker 1: numerous times Obama lost I think it was close to
Speaker 1: a dozen times on major issues his administration. The courts
Speaker 1: had to be like, you can't do that, can't do that,
Speaker 1: that's a power grab. Oh, but he was Obama. We
Speaker 1: couldn't criticize him, couldn't say anything mean about him. People
Speaker 1: who say, who attack this strong end that Trump can't
Speaker 1: do anything he wants to do. Nobody thinks that, and
Speaker 1: nobody would be okay with that. I wouldn't be okay
Speaker 1: with the president saying, yeah, Congress, we're going to just
Speaker 1: say you're not in session and I'm just gonna write laws.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be okay with that. I mean, I get
Speaker 1: to sit here and establish with you. I have read
Speaker 1: lines even for this president, and there are things you
Speaker 1: could not do. I'm upset that he's spending so much
Speaker 1: money twenty three trillion in debt, Folks, gonna be thirty
Speaker 1: trillion before you know it. You want to see what
Speaker 1: this is, what the impact of this is. Look at
Speaker 1: millennial wealth at this stage, and then look at boomer wealth.
Speaker 1: We have an intergenerational theft occurring in this country on
Speaker 1: a massive scale, and people don't want to think of
Speaker 1: it that way. That is what is happening, and it's
Speaker 1: because the single most important driver of the economy right
Speaker 1: now is federal government policy. In a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: You know, whether the market's going up or down, it's
Speaker 1: the Federate. It's the Federate. Do they raise interest rates?
Speaker 1: Hugely important to the trajectory of the economy. Look at
Speaker 1: all the ways that we have an over hyperregulated economy.
Speaker 1: I mean, I like to say that sometimes just because
Speaker 1: I'll go down the rabbit hole. But a conversation for
Speaker 1: another time. I've got problem. There are problems with this administration,
Speaker 1: no question about it, impeachable, absurd. The president deserves four
Speaker 1: more years. And here's what I will tell you, And
Speaker 1: I don't want to keep repeating this because I don't
Speaker 1: want us to get complacent at all. The good news
Speaker 1: is that the shrill liberal lunatics are losing and they
Speaker 1: know it. That's the good news in terms of Trump
Speaker 1: in the election, in terms of the culture and the
Speaker 1: trajectory of government and the growth of socialism, and we'll
Speaker 1: talk about whether Bernie Sanders is a commune in just
Speaker 1: a little bit. I'm more concerned about that this impeachment
Speaker 1: would rival that Johnson impeachment as the shortest in history,
Speaker 1: depending on how one counts the relevant days. Now, there
Speaker 1: are three distinctions when you look at these are the
Speaker 1: three commonalities. When you look at these past cases, all
Speaker 1: involved established crimes. This would be the first impeachment in
Speaker 1: history where there would be considerable debate and in my view,
Speaker 1: not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime. Second
Speaker 1: is the abbreviated period of this investigation, which is problematic
Speaker 1: and puzzling. This is a facially incomplete and inadequate record
Speaker 1: in order to impeach a president. They're abusing the process
Speaker 1: at every step. They're trying to shoehorn this into a
Speaker 1: completely politically determined timeline, and they're pretending all along that
Speaker 1: somehow this is about the constitution, the core values. What
Speaker 1: did an say heartful of love for America. Oh please,
Speaker 1: these people are destroying America. And I don't like to
Speaker 1: come on air and exaggerate about these things. I don't
Speaker 1: like to be the one that's, Oh, this guy is
Speaker 1: falling and we're all doomed. You know, there are other
Speaker 1: shows you can listen now. We're all gonna die tomorrow
Speaker 1: if you know, you don't buy whatever from my sponsor.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are other shows that do that. I
Speaker 1: don't do that. I'm trying. I love and respect this
Speaker 1: audience too much. I'm like Nancy Pelosi things. She loves
Speaker 1: the country. I actually love this audience. But they really
Speaker 1: are I've said it, They're kicking at the load bearing
Speaker 1: walls of America at this point. I mean, they're messing
Speaker 1: with very combustible stuff. They really think that trump Pism,
Speaker 1: the Trump movement would go away if they were successful
Speaker 1: in removing the president. Here. Here's I think the little reality.
Speaker 1: The DC insiders that are pushing this whole thing, the Pelosi's,
Speaker 1: the Shifts, the Naddlers, they want to impeach him because
Speaker 1: they hate him and their base demands it. There's a
Speaker 1: part of me that realizes that, or that believes I
Speaker 1: should say that they've felt like the Senate was a
Speaker 1: kind of firebreak all along. The Senate was a stop gap.
Speaker 1: They knew they wouldn't get removed from office. Because as
Speaker 1: much as the people I'm not talking about the left,
Speaker 1: the left would love Trump to get removed from office,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about the Pelosis and Natlers of ships, they
Speaker 1: would have to know that if somehow, by some ill
Speaker 1: fated turn, there are some Republicans who defected and you
Speaker 1: had a two thirds and you will remove this president
Speaker 1: from office, and the backlash in this country, the sense
Speaker 1: that the system is rigged and broken and that the
Speaker 1: totalitarian left will do anything and stop at nothing, the
Speaker 1: Trump movement would be growing tenfold in the years ahead.
Speaker 1: That's what I just think. It would be an unstoppable
Speaker 1: because at that point, even I would say no more
Speaker 1: not playing by their rules. Time to establish new rules,
Speaker 1: and they wouldn't like that. How much of this is
Speaker 1: really just driven by Democrats hating Trump. That's a part
Speaker 1: of this that I think we should evaluate a little bit.
Speaker 1: Their ideology is out of control. They're further left they've
Speaker 1: ever been before. But also there's something very specific about Trump,
Speaker 1: what he represents, who he is the way he is
Speaker 1: not deferential to the elites, the way he does not
Speaker 1: speak the way the elites demand we do to and
Speaker 1: about aggrieved minority groups. For example, he does not speak
Speaker 1: the way that we are all told you must speak
Speaker 1: to people about you in this way, about issues in
Speaker 1: this manner, use the following words. Trump is like, now,
Speaker 1: he's like, if I want to say that MS thirteen
Speaker 1: or animals, He's going to say that MS thirteen or
Speaker 1: animals because they're murders who kill people and they're really bad.
Speaker 1: You're like, I'm not going to be told all. I mean,
Speaker 1: I remember when that happened. You know, Nancy Pelosi is Oh,
Speaker 1: the spark of divinity lives within MS. Whenever Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: starts to hide behind her Catholicism, you should be really
Speaker 1: skeptical of whatever's going on. In fact, you just you
Speaker 1: know that she's kind of cornered and she's looking at
Speaker 1: Pelosi's a slippery, dishonest politician without peer. I mean, she
Speaker 1: whatever she has to do, whatever she has to say.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, how else could she be the top
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party. There's no scruples, no moral compass,
Speaker 1: doesn't stand for any stands for Pelosism. But when she goes, oh,
Speaker 1: she starts to try to think back to, you know,
Speaker 1: Sunday school and when she was taught about the divinity
Speaker 1: of Christ. And you know, she starts to when she
Speaker 1: goes Preacher Pelosi, Trust me, she's about to pull some nonsense.
Speaker 1: She's about to lie. She did about the MS thirteen
Speaker 1: thing when Trump said that they were animals, and this
Speaker 1: just came up. Now I didn't see it initially in
Speaker 1: her press conference this morning, but a reporter, I'm going
Speaker 1: to assume a conservative because liberals don't ask real questions
Speaker 1: of Democrats once every six months, maybe like Jake Tapper,
Speaker 1: Fake Tapper will ask a real question of a journalists
Speaker 1: where supposed to go, oh my gosh, she's so brave.
Speaker 1: The guy's a jerk in a buffoon. But Pelosi got
Speaker 1: asked a question that she didn't particularly like because it
Speaker 1: goes to an underlying truth. It's the one that I
Speaker 1: sure now with your here the first we have a
Speaker 1: representative Commons who was saying this. Let's just hear him
Speaker 1: set this up yesterday because they really do hate Trump.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget that play Collins, please Brandon. They're already
Speaker 1: drafting articles. Don't be even fooled. They're already getting ready
Speaker 1: for this. We've already went after this with the Ukraine
Speaker 1: after numerous failings of Muller Cohen, and almost the list
Speaker 1: goes amoluments, The list goes on. But the American people
Speaker 1: are fox they failing to see us legislat But if
Speaker 1: you want to know what's really driving this, there's two things.
Speaker 1: It's called the clock and the calendar. The clock and
Speaker 1: the calendar. What's interesting is that the Chairman talked a
Speaker 1: lot about the Founders from the quotes, and again this
Speaker 1: is why we have the hearing about the founders being
Speaker 1: concerned about foreign influence. But he also didn't quote was
Speaker 1: the founders being really really concerned about political impeachment because
Speaker 1: you just don't like the guy. You never liked him,
Speaker 1: says November of twenty sixteen. The chairman has talked about
Speaker 1: impeachment since last year when he was elected chairman two
Speaker 1: years ago November six seventeenth, before he's even sworn in
Speaker 1: his chairman. So don't tell me this is about new
Speaker 1: evidence and new things and new stuff. We may have
Speaker 1: a new hearing room, we may have new mics and
Speaker 1: we may have chairs that aren't comfortable, but this is
Speaker 1: nothing new, folks. This is sad spot on. He understands
Speaker 1: what this is really about. They just don't like him. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they want power and Libs the left, they have a
Speaker 1: lust for power, and they can't handle the thought of
Speaker 1: not being in a position to make you do whatever
Speaker 1: they want to make you do. They can't handle it,
Speaker 1: and they get a love freaked out about it. That's
Speaker 1: all true. But they just also feel like Trump's presence
Speaker 1: and the fact that Trump is president is an affront
Speaker 1: to their very being, to their dignity, to their sense
Speaker 1: of self, their sense of self worth. Trump bothers them
Speaker 1: in a way that goes beyond the usual political fights
Speaker 1: and disputes. You know, they didn't like George W. Bush.
Speaker 1: They mocked him, they ridiculed and they thought he was
Speaker 1: a bad person, a war criminal, a buffoon. But they
Speaker 1: didn't stay up late at night going into fits of
Speaker 1: rage over the fact that George W. Bush was president,
Speaker 1: not the same way they do with this guy. This
Speaker 1: is something that they just cannot handle. They cannot abide it,
Speaker 1: And so Collins is right. A lot of this is
Speaker 1: that Democrats are just giving in to that impulse to
Speaker 1: trash Trump because they hate Trump and they simply can't
Speaker 1: help themselves. So Nancy Pelosi back to when she was
Speaker 1: asked this question, and I wanted to get this in
Speaker 1: because I thought it was a very telling exchange. And
Speaker 1: just remember whenever Nancy starts going, excuse me, I'm very Catholic,
Speaker 1: and I really I believe in jeez, I mean this.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, who, let's understand something, is a huge proponent
Speaker 1: now not just of of gay marriage as a Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic and avowed Roman Catholic likes to bring it up.
Speaker 1: She's also a fan of lgbt Q rights and transgender
Speaker 1: children and transitioning pre pubescent children. And you know, she's
Speaker 1: in favor of pushing those policies because that's what they are,
Speaker 1: under the rubric of it being a human rights issue.
Speaker 1: But she's she's well out of stow. And the first
Speaker 1: thing that I want to bring up, of course, is
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi believes an abortion all nine months of her pregnancy,
Speaker 1: all nine months, month, eight month, nine doesn't matter. Babies
Speaker 1: do tomorrow, Nancy, Nancy. People who say that never happens, well,
Speaker 1: then explain to me why Nancy Pelosi if you asked her,
Speaker 1: if you said, you know, mother just decided she can't
Speaker 1: handle the emotional tumult of the of her unborn baby.
Speaker 1: Can she can she aboard and therefore have that baby
Speaker 1: term to kill the baby ninth month of a pregnancy.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi will not tell you. Under any circumstances will
Speaker 1: she ever say no, you can't do that. She won't
Speaker 1: do it. It's the easiest thing, most clear moral calculation
Speaker 1: one could possibly make. She will not do it. She
Speaker 1: claims to be a Roman Catholic. They'll claims to and
Speaker 1: devout by the way. You know, I need to be
Speaker 1: a better Roman Catholic. Nancy Pelosi likes to pretend that
Speaker 1: she's a good Roman Catholic. That's even worse. Here is
Speaker 1: what Here's how she handled the I think very valid question.
Speaker 1: Is this just really because you guys hate Trump? Is
Speaker 1: that why we're going through this entire charade? Play at
Speaker 1: Brandon hate the pie. You don't hate anybody, not anybody
Speaker 1: in the world. Don't don't. And yet May suggested that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are doing the simplicity if they don't want to, God,
Speaker 1: I have nothing to do it. Let me just say
Speaker 1: this I think the President is a coward when it
Speaker 1: comes to helping our kids who are afraid of gun violence.
Speaker 1: I think he is cool when he doesn't deal with
Speaker 1: helping our dreamers, of which we're very bad. I think
Speaker 1: he's in denial about the Constitute, about the climate crisis. However,
Speaker 1: that's about the election. This is about the elect take
Speaker 1: it up in the election. This is about the Constitution
Speaker 1: of the United States and the facts that leads to
Speaker 1: the president's violation of zoth of office. And as a Catholic,
Speaker 1: I resent you're using work hate in a sentence that
Speaker 1: addresses me. I don't hate anyone. I was raised in
Speaker 1: a way that is full heart, full of love, and
Speaker 1: always prayed for the president, and I still pray for
Speaker 1: the president. I pray for the president all the time.
Speaker 1: So don't mess with me when it comes to words
Speaker 1: like that. Nancy Pelosi's a liar. She doesn't pray for
Speaker 1: the president all the time. Sorry, don't buy it, don't
Speaker 1: believe it. Nancy Pelosi also isn't parapher for the unborn
Speaker 1: babies that are constantly being murdered and planned parenthod clinics
Speaker 1: across the country, which Nancy Pelosi will defend to her
Speaker 1: last breath. But she pulls out the Catholic card. There
Speaker 1: isn't that so interesting? She doesn't. Oh, here's another one.
Speaker 1: I think she does hate Trump. Actually, I think she
Speaker 1: really does. I think that the public figure of Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and the private person of Nancy Pelosi, it would
Speaker 1: be a shock for either of them not to be
Speaker 1: deeply full of rage and disdain for Donald Trump, given
Speaker 1: what she has devoted her life to. And then there's
Speaker 1: just one other thing I have. I can't help but
Speaker 1: throw this into the mix, this new reverence that liberals
Speaker 1: have for the Constitution and the founding fathers. I thought
Speaker 1: the Constitution was really old and outdated and founded to
Speaker 1: protect slavery. They say, this is what comes up now,
Speaker 1: and all these liberals, Oh, it's all about it was
Speaker 1: all about protect the institution of slavery. That's the most
Speaker 1: important thing. Just look at the New York Times sixteen
Speaker 1: nineteen products. The single most important thing in America was
Speaker 1: whether this is not true. Maybe I'll spend some time
Speaker 1: actually debunking this lie that the Left is now embracing
Speaker 1: and trying to teach school children across the country, as
Speaker 1: well as absurd progressives who don't know anything about actual history,
Speaker 1: but the most important thing in the country. They say, no,
Speaker 1: that's not that's just not true. Just like Trump isn't
Speaker 1: the worst president in history, even if you believe what
Speaker 1: he did is what they say it is, it's not
Speaker 1: even close. The worst thing of president's not in history.
Speaker 1: It's absurd. But I thought the Constitution was this really old,
Speaker 1: bad document that we wish we didn't have to get
Speaker 1: constrained by. I thought we should have just democked a
Speaker 1: direct democracy, mobocracy, oclocracy. I thought we should just have
Speaker 1: that instead. And I thought the Founding Fathers are a
Speaker 1: bunch of racist, slave holding white guys that nobody should
Speaker 1: listen to anymore. Oh but now now to cloak themselves
Speaker 1: in higher purpose, they invoke the Founders, they invoke the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And when that's not enough for this ongoing part is
Speaker 1: an ambush, then Nancy pulls out the big guns. I'm
Speaker 1: a Catholic, Sir, Nancy Pelosi, you should be denied communion
Speaker 1: by every Catholic priest in the country. But she's a Catholic, sir.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee is celebrating it's fifth year anniversary. So
Speaker 1: to celebrate they started Black Rifle Friday. Look, I know
Speaker 1: it sounds like a fictional holiday, you know, like Valentine's Day,
Speaker 1: which is just a cast grab. But you know you
Speaker 1: wouldn't be wrong. But since it's actually Black Rifles fifth
Speaker 1: year anniversary and the spirit of radical transparency, which is
Speaker 1: I think Black Rifles really into. Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: making an early play for your holiday spending with new products,
Speaker 1: special discounts, and extra perks for Coffee club members. Not
Speaker 1: a coffee club member, no problem, sign up and see
Speaker 1: all the great benefits you get when you belong to
Speaker 1: the most patriotic coffee club in the country. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you I start every day with a delicious cup
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle coffee. My favorite roast is silence or smooth,
Speaker 1: but I also like Freedom Blend or caffeinated as blank.
Speaker 1: Check them all out. They're delicious. Don't choose basic batch coffee.
Speaker 1: Go to America's coffee Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com slash buck to get twenty percent off
Speaker 1: your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck again,
Speaker 1: twenty percent off your first purchase Black Riflecoffee dot Com
Speaker 1: slash buck. Oh, the journos, they have so few principles left.
Speaker 1: You will recall that they had shift pull phone records,
Speaker 1: phone records that included a attorney for the president, included
Speaker 1: a member of Congress and also a journalist. And not
Speaker 1: only did they pull those records, which it seems legally
Speaker 1: they can do, but then they published them published those records. This,
Speaker 1: my friends, is unheard of. I saw Devin Nunis last
Speaker 1: night on Fox saying that he, at least in his time,
Speaker 1: he's never heard of this before, and it raises some
Speaker 1: very troubling questions. Please please, this is a congressman Nunist
Speaker 1: who's also on the Intelligence Committee of the House. This
Speaker 1: is what he had to say, Look for the new
Speaker 1: chairman of your committee has Intel committee somehow pulled the
Speaker 1: phone records of the president's lawyers. But my question too
Speaker 1: is how did he do that and on what pretexted
Speaker 1: how did this happen? So he has subpoena power, So
Speaker 1: when the Democrats gain control, they have subpoena power. We
Speaker 1: knew he had issued. He notified us that he had
Speaker 1: subpoenas some phone numbers. We didn't know who those numbers were,
Speaker 1: and of course, because it's in this if and it's classified,
Speaker 1: we can't talk about it. I'm trying to subpoena it
Speaker 1: from home. He subpoened from AT and T phone record.
Speaker 1: Why that's a good question. That is a very buzz off,
Speaker 1: you know, take it to court. AT and T should
Speaker 1: have at least went to court to try to see
Speaker 1: if what they were going to do was the right thing.
Speaker 1: Could they do that from my phone records or your
Speaker 1: phone records? I mean, it appears like they could. If
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff now wants to go out and subpoena, they've
Speaker 1: now set a precedent. Or Adam Schiff can go and
Speaker 1: get any phone number that he has sent it to
Speaker 1: AT and T, and AT and t's going to comply.
Speaker 1: The answer to Tucker's question, it's a very important question.
Speaker 1: The answer to Tucker's question is yes, they absolutely can
Speaker 1: get his phone records if they want. Now, AT and
Speaker 1: T could also go to court, and there could be
Speaker 1: more of a check in balance here from the private
Speaker 1: sector about just giving phone records to Congress. But my friends,
Speaker 1: this this is getting pretty close to the congressional equivalent
Speaker 1: of all our war. I mean, what else is there
Speaker 1: they're going to start pulling people's phone records and then
Speaker 1: just sharing them. Oh, how hard do you think it
Speaker 1: would be. I can sit here and come up with
Speaker 1: the pretext right now for whether or not we need
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson's records as Democrats who are running this impeachment scam. Oh,
Speaker 1: Tucker has clearly had Juliani and John Solomon and you
Speaker 1: know others on his show, or maybe it would be
Speaker 1: Hannity and not you know Tucker who had John Solomon on.
Speaker 1: But the point is you can come up with some
Speaker 1: pretexts and just grab his phone records. Yeah, I want
Speaker 1: his phone records. It's gonna pull him huh. Because usually
Speaker 1: that power and as I've said to you, I've I've
Speaker 1: requested phone records before in the course of a terrorism investigation.
Speaker 1: Usually that power is in the hands of non partisan
Speaker 1: law enforcement officials, and there are strict guidelines and rules
Speaker 1: in place, and there are courts also that oversee this.
Speaker 1: And by the way, that doesn't mean that it's perfect
Speaker 1: look at the whole fives A situation, but there's something there.
Speaker 1: What's the check on Adam Shift's subpoena power? M If
Speaker 1: private companies are just gonna say, yeah, sure, Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: wants your phone records, We're gonna give it to him.
Speaker 1: There is no check, my friends. I mean, yeah, somebody
Speaker 1: could challenge in a court. But Shift's already got your records,
Speaker 1: and the records are going. He's requesting them behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: goes to the company, company gives them the records. You
Speaker 1: there's no injunction you're gonna get. By the time you
Speaker 1: even know he's got your phone records, you might say, well, block,
Speaker 1: is he gonna do that to me? No, I don't
Speaker 1: think Adam Shift's gonna pull your phone records. It's you
Speaker 1: gonna pull other people's phone records. Though. This is the
Speaker 1: dirty game they're playing folks. Here is, for example, Jim Hines,
Speaker 1: another Democrat on the Intellience Committee, saying, you know, just
Speaker 1: imagine if we should do more of this. We should
Speaker 1: pull everybody's phone records. We should start giving giving them
Speaker 1: out like hotcakes, just phone records all over the place.
Speaker 1: Play wherever Himes is. The eight sub poenis for documents
Speaker 1: out of the State Department. That's another story that has
Speaker 1: yet to be fully told. Exactly who knew about the
Speaker 1: firing of Marie Ivanovich. We you know, just because Gordon
Speaker 1: Sondlin decided that he was going to show that he
Speaker 1: was not operating as a loan actor, we got a
Speaker 1: few emails that indicated at the Secretary of State knew
Speaker 1: what was going on. Imagine if we had a comprehensive
Speaker 1: set of emails, of documents, of phone records. You know.
Speaker 1: One of the things that was interesting about the open hearings, John,
Speaker 1: those open hearings, you know, oftentimes they don't produce a
Speaker 1: lot of new information. But it's hard for me to
Speaker 1: remember one hearing in which somebody didn't appear with new information,
Speaker 1: whether it was the tale of the phone call that
Speaker 1: was overheard in Ukraine between Sondlon and the President, the
Speaker 1: famous phone call, phone records, complete phone records. They want
Speaker 1: more phone records, not enough now now they don't have enough.
Speaker 1: They want to use this new power. John Solomon, who
Speaker 1: was my colleague as you know, at the Hill, and
Speaker 1: I've had I've actually had him on the show a
Speaker 1: number of times, and I know John Well, John Solomon's journalist.
Speaker 1: His phone records were published. Now liberals like to do
Speaker 1: this thing of well it's not illegal. Oh I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: Is that the new standard for everything, for the press
Speaker 1: to use their first roman right to share their thoughts.
Speaker 1: And if you know they want the president out of office,
Speaker 1: he's a tire in he's the worst. He's a monarch.
Speaker 1: All this stuff one of their own. John Solomon he
Speaker 1: had his phone records published by a congressman. What if
Speaker 1: what if that record had showed John speaking to a
Speaker 1: confidential source. That's out there now for everybody. There's no redactions,
Speaker 1: there's nothing. And where's the journal outrage? Where are the frauds,
Speaker 1: the outright frauds at CNN, by the way, owned by
Speaker 1: Time Warner, which is the company that gave the records
Speaker 1: over real quick? Where are they on This doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like it's a little bit of an abuse, Remember, Congress,
Speaker 1: you can start pulling phone records, by the way, phone records,
Speaker 1: that nothing, They proved nothing, there's nothing illegal, there's no problem.
Speaker 1: Just as soon as you're gonna start pulling people's phone records, yeah,
Speaker 1: I want to see it. You know. He start to wonder,
Speaker 1: how far how we know if he's got subpoena power
Speaker 1: on the phone records? How far is Adam shift from
Speaker 1: saying yeah, we're just gonna start tapping people's phones, he
Speaker 1: starts to eat better question. Put it aside the legality
Speaker 1: for a second. Do you think that if Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: had if he thought he had the capability to tap
Speaker 1: phones of people in the administration, if he thought he
Speaker 1: could do it, would he do it? Answers Yes, clearly,
Speaker 1: he would do it, and he'd feel justified because he's
Speaker 1: saving the word. If you're saving the republic, just like
Speaker 1: if you're saving the world from climate change, which again
Speaker 1: only derange brainwash people believe. But if you really believe
Speaker 1: that the justification is built in, you don't have to
Speaker 1: explain anything beyond that we all know. And that's where
Speaker 1: this is. Let's take a moment, take a breather here, friends,
Speaker 1: to talk about the Democrats in the presidential election right now,
Speaker 1: so be a recurring, a recurring theme, to be sure,
Speaker 1: something that we will be talking about quite a lot
Speaker 1: in the time ahead. Oh wait, before I do that,
Speaker 1: I just said, CNN frauds. CNN. Also a lot of
Speaker 1: people over there that we're supposed to think our journalists
Speaker 1: are bright. I think that they're bright. And Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: I believe, has said more than once at least on Twitter,
Speaker 1: that don Lemon is the dumbest person on television. I
Speaker 1: think that's what Donald Trump said, which is a big
Speaker 1: that's a because you know, there's Anna Navarro was on television,
Speaker 1: Matthew Dowd at ABC is on television. I mean, these
Speaker 1: are really stupid people. But President Trump said Donal Lemmon
Speaker 1: is a dombest man on TV. And I like to
Speaker 1: be mean, but there's there's some rich, smug, bad people
Speaker 1: that are hurting the country by what they're doing on
Speaker 1: TV and being dishonest about it all the time, and
Speaker 1: they should be called out for being dumb because they are. Um,
Speaker 1: I will let you come to your own conclusions about this,
Speaker 1: but this, uh, this happened last night on AT and
Speaker 1: T owned CNN. Please play clip two. Don't act like
Speaker 1: a child and expect to be treated like an adult.
Speaker 1: Don't act don't be disrespectful to people. Are not respectful?
Speaker 1: Disrespectful I think it is not actually a word, But
Speaker 1: don't not be respectful to people and then expect to
Speaker 1: be treated with respect. Disrespectful is not a word. Who
Speaker 1: doesn't who that's like very it's not even that's a
Speaker 1: very common word. Who doesn't know that that's not a word. Yeah, unrespectful.
Speaker 1: There you got the guys. I think he's making like
Speaker 1: three or four million dollars a year at CNN something
Speaker 1: like that. Yeah, Jeff Zucker knows how to get the
Speaker 1: best talent up there. All right, Um, I supposed to
Speaker 1: be the Democrat debates. This was this was this was
Speaker 1: kind of stunning. You have a few things going on here.
Speaker 1: One is the the Democrats are getting a little self
Speaker 1: conscious about something right now. And the self consciousness comes
Speaker 1: from the following. Um, they are supposed to be the
Speaker 1: party of diversity. There's supposed to be the party that
Speaker 1: is going to make right the wrongs of the past
Speaker 1: by advancing oppressed and aggrieved minority groups going forward, and
Speaker 1: not just ethnic minority groups, any kind of protected minority group,
Speaker 1: you know, sexual orientation and whatever whatever else. Illegal alien status,
Speaker 1: you know, people that are illegal immigrants, they're now are
Speaker 1: protected group. They break the law and now they're special.
Speaker 1: Now they should get extra attention and love from from Congress,
Speaker 1: even though they're not even supposed to be here. Uh.
Speaker 1: That's something that you see happening. You have the Democrats
Speaker 1: now unfortunately realizing that they have a lot of old
Speaker 1: white candidates and Corey Booker, who is still in the
Speaker 1: race technically, although I don't think a single person in
Speaker 1: the country, including Corey Booker, believes that he's going anywhere
Speaker 1: in this meaning he's going to go anywhere other than
Speaker 1: out of the race. Here's a Corey Booker. I had
Speaker 1: to say, please play clip six if you would, well,
Speaker 1: let me just say Kamala before she was a senator
Speaker 1: presidential candidate, she was my friend, who was my sister,
Speaker 1: And so today I'm a little angry. I have to
Speaker 1: say that we started with one of the most diverse
Speaker 1: fields in our history, giving people pride, and it's a
Speaker 1: damn shame now that the only African American woman in
Speaker 1: this race who has been speaking to issues that need
Speaker 1: to be brought up is now no longer in it,
Speaker 1: and we're spiraling towards a debate stage that potentially we're
Speaker 1: still fighting to get on it, but could have six
Speaker 1: people with no diversity whatsoever. The way this is shaping up,
Speaker 1: especially with the rules of the DNC, it is preferencing
Speaker 1: millionaires and billionaires and a lot of other things that
Speaker 1: don't ever translate into viability in Iowa. Now, is he
Speaker 1: right about the DNC rules. Maybe I don't really care
Speaker 1: as far as I'm concerned. DNC on DNC fighting is great,
Speaker 1: you know, go for it. But I think it's so
Speaker 1: interesting that the Democrats now have to face this reality
Speaker 1: that they have an increasingly very very white field of candidates,
Speaker 1: and this is inherently viewed by the left as a problem.
Speaker 1: This is a bad thing, and I would just want
Speaker 1: to know what is really the alternative. I mean, what
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. For example, Kamala Harris did not get a
Speaker 1: majority of black support in the primary. And I think
Speaker 1: understandably from the perspective of a lot of black Democrat
Speaker 1: voter of Joe Biden, if you believe in Democrat Party
Speaker 1: policy and you want somebody who is you think electable
Speaker 1: and will implement those policies, I understand why the Black
Speaker 1: community with that person. If that is the perception that
Speaker 1: is widespread, which I believe most of the pole show
Speaker 1: it is, I understanding a black community be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm like Joe Joe Biden. Also, of course, the association
Speaker 1: with Obama being Obama's vice president for eight years very positive,
Speaker 1: firm and than that community. But you know, the black
Speaker 1: community and the primary Democrat voters at least was not
Speaker 1: excited about Kamala Harris. So why, you know, whose fault
Speaker 1: is it that Kamala Harris's campaign didn't gain any traction?
Speaker 1: I think it's Kamala Harris's fault. Whose fault is it
Speaker 1: that you know? I am Spartacus Corey Booker was not
Speaker 1: able to get more traction and excite more voter. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think we all know the answer to that too.
Speaker 1: He hasn't dropped out yet, but he's he's gonna have
Speaker 1: to drop out. You already have and saying that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is a possible VP for him, and I could
Speaker 1: I could see that. Um, I think that. I think
Speaker 1: think it would make a lot of sense from Biden's perspective. Actually,
Speaker 1: but you know, who knows because vps does anyone even
Speaker 1: really care? Vps almost exist, and it's at least in
Speaker 1: the context of electoral politics, it just gives something for
Speaker 1: the pundits to talk about. I mean, no one really
Speaker 1: votes for the VP, no one really cares all that much.
Speaker 1: But then you also have, you know what, when when
Speaker 1: do democrats. It's it's fascinating to me to see the
Speaker 1: way they talk about any lack of diversity in certain situations.
Speaker 1: And then they mean they mean skin color diversity. They
Speaker 1: mean a different they mean different skin colors represented by
Speaker 1: individuals in any in any situation. They certainly don't mean
Speaker 1: ideological diversity, and not we're talking about a Democratic primary,
Speaker 1: but also not in general. Ideological diversity is not diversity
Speaker 1: to Democrats, they mean skin color diversity. Um. But they
Speaker 1: also reject that people. They reject the story or they
Speaker 1: reject the narrative that there are some people in some
Speaker 1: circumstances who are advanced explicitly because of non white skin color.
Speaker 1: That is, you cannot Democrats will not say that that
Speaker 1: is a thing that happens. They'll they get very uncomfortable vary.
Speaker 1: And yet they will also say that, hey, guys, there
Speaker 1: aren't enough non white Democrats in the presidential primary right now.
Speaker 1: They can't really these two things cannot be. This doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense, right, You can't advocate for someone on the
Speaker 1: basis or advocate four non non white candidates because they're
Speaker 1: non white. And then say, but but no one who's
Speaker 1: a non white candidate in the Democratic Party is really
Speaker 1: getting any support as a result of their skin color, right,
Speaker 1: I mean no one. No one's being advanced as a
Speaker 1: result of this. I mean, this was one of the
Speaker 1: fascinating One of the fascinating tensions you had with Democrats
Speaker 1: went back in the Obama era, was there were so
Speaker 1: many people who were expressing excitement to vote for the
Speaker 1: first African American president, which I understand and I know
Speaker 1: where that comes from, and I think that that sentiment
Speaker 1: is is perfectly fine. But then when you would say that,
Speaker 1: then they would also turn oun and say, but it
Speaker 1: was a he overcame that to become president. And I
Speaker 1: was sitting here saying, I'm confused. I mean, if if
Speaker 1: if the polls show that a vast majority people, especially
Speaker 1: everybody was voting for Obama, felt really good about voting
Speaker 1: for somebody because he was the first African American president.
Speaker 1: Why so we have to believe that he that this
Speaker 1: is something that everyone should be excited to do. And
Speaker 1: I think people were excited to do it, and I
Speaker 1: get that, But then we're also told that he had
Speaker 1: overcome this insurmountable barrier of being the first non white president.
Speaker 1: You sit there and say these things, This doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they can. But identity politics always
Speaker 1: devolves into confusion, into self contradiction. That's really the takeaway
Speaker 1: from this identity politics can't continue. It is a and
Speaker 1: not just imprecise, it's it's ultimately a problematic way of
Speaker 1: looking at any person. Right, we shouldn't look at any
Speaker 1: person based on skin color and make any distinction, designation,
Speaker 1: or judgment about them, period positive or negative. If this
Speaker 1: brings me to the now really timeless line from I
Speaker 1: think it was Justice. Was it Scalia or Aldo? I
Speaker 1: think I can't remember now. It might have been Aldo
Speaker 1: that the best way had to stop discriminating by races.
Speaker 1: To stop discriminating by race, that means positive and negative discrimination.
Speaker 1: We have to stop doing these things so that you
Speaker 1: have this You know, the Democrats, some of the Democrats
Speaker 1: now or are feeling this moment of almost shame that
Speaker 1: they have so many white candidates, almost entirely white candidates
Speaker 1: now in a very I've been a very large Democrat primer. Also,
Speaker 1: we talked yesterday with my friend Tiana Lowe about how
Speaker 1: somehow being Asian American doesn't really qualify as a minority
Speaker 1: on the left, even though they're an ethnic minority and
Speaker 1: have actually faced discrimination in this country. Discrimination as a
Speaker 1: matter of law too. That No, that's that's something the
Speaker 1: left never really grapples with, never really tries to make
Speaker 1: sense of. So I don't think that Corey Booker is
Speaker 1: going to all of a sudden become a top tier candidate,
Speaker 1: because there's going to be anything that he can say
Speaker 1: or do that'll change people's minds. But the fact that
Speaker 1: he's just it's just there's kind of a why question,
Speaker 1: Why Corey Booker? You know, there's that question that comes up,
Speaker 1: But there's the lack of diversity issue I think is
Speaker 1: only going to rise because Corey Booker is not going
Speaker 1: to last that long on this thing. And the left
Speaker 1: doesn't really think of and treat tells see Gabert and
Speaker 1: Andrew Yang as minorities. So we shall have to see
Speaker 1: where that goes. Let's continue our conversation, folks, about where
Speaker 1: the Democrats are and what's happening in that primary. It's
Speaker 1: interesting for us we get to watch all this back
Speaker 1: and forth with just eating popcorn and enjoy enjoying the
Speaker 1: fight as it plays out, but there's also lessons to
Speaker 1: be taken from it and indicators of policy fights ahead,
Speaker 1: and just also where the culture is going we have
Speaker 1: our friend Chadwick Moore who has joined us once again
Speaker 1: here on the show. He is a journalist. He's a
Speaker 1: columnist for Spectator USA. You often see him on Fox News. Chadwick,
Speaker 1: good to have you back, sir, hey Buck, great to
Speaker 1: be here. All right. So I thought this was really interesting.
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete as he has known now because his last
Speaker 1: name is so hard to say, Buddha judge, the mayor
Speaker 1: whate the third or fourth largest city in Indiana, I
Speaker 1: think the fourth largest. Actually, he is getting criticism now
Speaker 1: from LGBTQ advocates because there are does of him years
Speaker 1: ago helping with the Salvation Army. Now, Chadwick, you're a
Speaker 1: former Liberal and you're also um open member of the
Speaker 1: LGBTQ community. What the heck is this all about? Well,
Speaker 1: we're seeing exactly what the LGBTQ AI plus two as
Speaker 1: community is all about these days, which is, of course,
Speaker 1: really has nothing to do with the individuals that purports
Speaker 1: to represent or fight for. I mean, gay rights as
Speaker 1: a battle that's kind of over, and it's uh, it's
Speaker 1: more about just sort of well, instant instance, hating Christianity,
Speaker 1: trying to dismantle anything that's that's remotely Christian traditionalist. You know.
Speaker 1: They they are so up on these narratives. It's sort
Speaker 1: of like the Chick fil A thing. And Salvation Army
Speaker 1: is just another example that they think that these groups
Speaker 1: are some kind of hate mongering or organizations that have
Speaker 1: it out for them. Um, they don't don't discriminate against
Speaker 1: gay people just because they happen to maybe have uh
Speaker 1: different views on marriage or after we happen to be
Speaker 1: more traditionally Christian. Um. You know, even that is just
Speaker 1: something that that LGBTQ cannot tolerate. Uh. It's any anything
Speaker 1: remotely that goes against their their narrative and their prescription
Speaker 1: for society, which is really what we're heading towards with
Speaker 1: these groups. Um, is simply not acceptable. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: the the lgbt community really doesn't like mayor Pete and
Speaker 1: they haven't for a while. Uh why why is that?
Speaker 1: Did dig into that one a little bit for me? Well,
Speaker 1: he's um that you know, if you if you were
Speaker 1: called not too long ago, there was an article in
Speaker 1: the New Republic by a writer who's a sort of
Speaker 1: far left commy, openly openly communistic, and um, he really
Speaker 1: went in on mayor Pete. He basically stole all my
Speaker 1: talking points from a right wing publication and um, and
Speaker 1: then he got they took the article offline. He got
Speaker 1: limb basting for it. But it's very true that they
Speaker 1: don't like him. They don't see him as gay enough,
Speaker 1: they don't see him as radical enough. He's not he's
Speaker 1: not into the gender stuff. He identifies as Christian, but
Speaker 1: at the same time he tends to think that he's
Speaker 1: the best Christian in the world, and he'll attack Mike
Speaker 1: Pence and whatnot. Um, they don't like him because he's
Speaker 1: too vanilla. They don't like it. They especially don't like
Speaker 1: that he's white and a man. You know that. Uh,
Speaker 1: that's that kind of right. I know I carry that.
Speaker 1: I carry that burden around every day too. Yeah, I know, yes,
Speaker 1: um and uh and and one thing that I've sort
Speaker 1: of talked about before is that, you know, he's thirty seven.
Speaker 1: He came out of the closet in his in his thirties. Uh.
Speaker 1: And I think gay people were kind of on the
Speaker 1: in the most accepting time possible, and that where it's
Speaker 1: not an issue to be gay. And I think a
Speaker 1: lot of gay people look at him and think, you know,
Speaker 1: he's kind of uh, you know, he had so much
Speaker 1: shame for his ire adult life. He's maybe kind of
Speaker 1: a coward. He's not really you know, prancing around with
Speaker 1: the rainbow flag. Um, so they don't they don't like
Speaker 1: him for for mainly those reasons. He's maybe a little
Speaker 1: too normal for them. Andrew Sullivan, by the way, wrote
Speaker 1: on Twitter today, this is and Andrew Sullivan. Of course probably,
Speaker 1: I think you'd agree. Chadwick one of the best known
Speaker 1: openly gay writers on the scene, has been for a
Speaker 1: long time. He's just a very well known writer period.
Speaker 1: But he wrote that the gay left hates and wants
Speaker 1: to persecute Orthodox Christians, however much good they do, and
Speaker 1: they've taken over the movement. Is that true? That's exactly right.
Speaker 1: That's that's how I would certainly see it. You know.
Speaker 1: I was a good example of this is I was
Speaker 1: having dinner the other night with someone who was arrested
Speaker 1: at Stonewall in nineteen sixty nine. This was this is
Speaker 1: the the riot so called that sparked the modern gay
Speaker 1: rights movements. So why you have gay pride? And he's
Speaker 1: a Republican and he was telling me, you know, back
Speaker 1: in the Stonewall years, nobody asked if you're a Democrat
Speaker 1: a Republican. And because he's an open Republican and supports
Speaker 1: all of the sports Republican candidates and President Trump, he's
Speaker 1: been completely dragged in the gay media. They call him
Speaker 1: a liar, They say he wasn't at Stonewall, that he's
Speaker 1: stealing a legacy. So it's gone from the gay rights movement.
Speaker 1: It's kind of gone from something that was more libertarian
Speaker 1: minded socially speaking and more diverse ideologically to this just
Speaker 1: completely co opted by far left radicals, by feminists, and
Speaker 1: by the Democrat Party which thinks that it owns these people.
Speaker 1: And of course a part of that is hating Christianity
Speaker 1: and wanting and meanwhile, you know, completely silence about Islam,
Speaker 1: completely silence about the persecution of gays in the Middle
Speaker 1: East and in Muslim countries, which is even more telling.
Speaker 1: We're speaking to Chadwick Moore. He of course has also
Speaker 1: taken the Helm here as a guest host in the past.
Speaker 1: He is a columnist at Spectator USA. Actually, Chadwick, we
Speaker 1: want to keep you and talk a bit about the
Speaker 1: state of play and the rest of the of the
Speaker 1: Democrat field. So can you take a beat and we'll
Speaker 1: come right back. Sure of course, all right, everybody, hold
Speaker 1: on one sec. I understand it can be a little
Speaker 1: bit awkward when you have to think about life insurance.
Speaker 1: You don't want to have to consider what would be unthinkable,
Speaker 1: but you have to prepare for an uncertain future and
Speaker 1: make sure that your family is safe and secure. I've
Speaker 1: gone through this process myself. It's something you need to
Speaker 1: do and you should go to the place that makes
Speaker 1: it easy for you, no hassle. That's Ethos Life Insurance.
Speaker 1: Ethos is modern life insurance for people who just don't
Speaker 1: want to waste time with fine print, extra appointments or
Speaker 1: fees they really just can't afford. Ethos has a simple approach.
Speaker 1: They take industry expertise and they blend it with technology
Speaker 1: so that you can find the right policy to protect
Speaker 1: your loved ones in just a matter of about ten
Speaker 1: minutes and you can apply online. You should check it
Speaker 1: out for yourself. You'll be taking the first steps to
Speaker 1: ensure that your family has the financial security they need
Speaker 1: in case of the unexpected. This is the responsible thing
Speaker 1: to do. Get a fast, free and personalized quote right
Speaker 1: now at ethoslife dot com. That's ethoslife dot com. Life
Speaker 1: insurance that actually fits your life. All We're continuing our
Speaker 1: conversation here with always intriguing, brilliant and edgy Chadwick Moore.
Speaker 1: He is a columnist at Spectator USA. You often see
Speaker 1: him on Fox Names All Right, Chadwick, So Kamala dropped
Speaker 1: out Corey Booker's complaining that there's not enough diversity in
Speaker 1: the field. I want to ask Pete Buddha. Judge doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like he gets counted in the diversity pool, which
Speaker 1: is interesting, isn't it right? Yeah, you're you're, you're good
Speaker 1: to point that out. He really doesn't get counted in
Speaker 1: the diversity pool, which goes to show how far what's
Speaker 1: really happening. And they're they're ever shifting hierarchy of the
Speaker 1: victim classes. You know, who's on top now and who's
Speaker 1: on the bottom now? Um white and gay, white, white male.
Speaker 1: It definitely trumps the gay with him and in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the left. Now, can you explain something to me,
Speaker 1: you know, within within the gay community. I know you've
Speaker 1: got you know, you're here in New York City and
Speaker 1: I'm sure you got a lot of liberal friends or
Speaker 1: at least you know, know a lot of liberals. Um.
Speaker 1: But I know, I've always wanted to know, why is
Speaker 1: it that Trump gets really it seems to mean zero
Speaker 1: credit at all for being the first president ever too
Speaker 1: while he's running hold the gay pride flag, has never
Speaker 1: wanted to change or or you know, have anybody overturned
Speaker 1: Oh Burke Fell believes in you know, as a supporter
Speaker 1: of gay marriage, and like they, I see a lot
Speaker 1: of people from the gay community protesting in different places
Speaker 1: and acting like Trump is a is a horrible threat
Speaker 1: to the gay community in some ways, and I just
Speaker 1: don't understand how they can square that with reality. It
Speaker 1: just doesn't seem any So can you speak to that
Speaker 1: a little bit? Why why doesn't the gay community like Trump? More?
Speaker 1: Great question? And you know, and other things too. Just
Speaker 1: this week they launched the Administration Launcher Initiative to get
Speaker 1: pre Prep to two hundred thousand people who don't have insurance.
Speaker 1: That's a drug that prevents HIV infection. And they also
Speaker 1: have Ambassador Grinnell's decriminalization effort where they want working to
Speaker 1: decriminalize in what sexuality? Why? Um, but this gets no credit?
Speaker 1: And you know, it's it's almost like we've come to
Speaker 1: a place. And on top of all that, too, President
Speaker 1: Trump is hilarious. He is a campy figure. I mean,
Speaker 1: gay people love camp He's should naturally like him because
Speaker 1: he's sort of ridiculous and and and funny and trolley.
Speaker 1: He is theatrical, for sure, extremely theastrical. Yes, and uh
Speaker 1: so it's you know, it's it's a great question. It's
Speaker 1: just maybe we It's obviously not all gay people because
Speaker 1: what you see and here it's sort of the ten
Speaker 1: fifteen percent that is that are just hard line, insane activists.
Speaker 1: He's you know, who went who will come out of
Speaker 1: Marxist universities and whatever. They're the most vocal, they're the
Speaker 1: most unhands, they grab the microphone. They don't like politicians
Speaker 1: that don't treat them like special little people and and
Speaker 1: pander to them. And that drives him to saying that
Speaker 1: President Trump doesn't pander to the gay community. He simply
Speaker 1: treat everyone that, you know, the gay is just like
Speaker 1: anyone else. He's not gonna go out of his way
Speaker 1: to do to harm you. He's not going to go
Speaker 1: out his way to help you, uh and more any
Speaker 1: more than he would just any other person, which is
Speaker 1: what a lot of conservative gays really like about him.
Speaker 1: They see through the malarkey if you will of the
Speaker 1: Democrats and um kia. So I think that's it. If
Speaker 1: you talk to more, if you just start to gay
Speaker 1: people anywhere, you'll find that they're not that interested in politics.
Speaker 1: They vote Democrat, they don't really know what's going on.
Speaker 1: They're just you know, living their lives and uh and
Speaker 1: and more people than you realize, even here in New
Speaker 1: York City actually do like him, but but you don't
Speaker 1: hear from them because the people who have the mic
Speaker 1: are just be the crazy activists. So, now that Kamala
Speaker 1: is out of the race, it seems like we're starting
Speaker 1: to get the first round of consolidation among the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Where do you see all this going? I mean, do
Speaker 1: you do you have somebody that you really believe firmly
Speaker 1: is going to get into this thing. We had Bloomberg
Speaker 1: enter the fray um and and actually get some support
Speaker 1: off the bat. Where do you Where do you see
Speaker 1: this Democrat primary playing out for the next month. So
Speaker 1: it's really it's really up in the air right now.
Speaker 1: And you know, people still say that Hillary is going
Speaker 1: to jump back in the heads. I hope so. Um
Speaker 1: and uh, I still see people saying they think Michelle
Speaker 1: Obama is going to jump in. Michelle Obama could I
Speaker 1: don't think. I don't think she will at this point,
Speaker 1: but that's probably the only person that could maybe beat him. Um.
Speaker 1: At this point, the party seems it does seem to
Speaker 1: be the Warren or Biden split. Um and the party
Speaker 1: bosses that the chiefs really want Biden for some reason,
Speaker 1: but they I don't think they see what the rest
Speaker 1: of us are seeing, especially with all his strange comments
Speaker 1: and speeches. Um. I mean, isn't it isn't that thing
Speaker 1: that he said about the blonde hairs on his legs
Speaker 1: standing up and and and corn pop and everything. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the weirdest thing I've heard a major American politician say,
Speaker 1: perhaps in my lifetime. It was. I know, it was
Speaker 1: so bizarre and creepy. And who are his hand Is
Speaker 1: he mentally fit that that alone should ask? And who
Speaker 1: are his handlers? You know that that he already has
Speaker 1: this reputation for being kind of creepy and hair snippy
Speaker 1: and around children, and so he's doubling down on his
Speaker 1: creepiness with children saying that in that same speech thing
Speaker 1: you know he loves it when they sit on his lap.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, Joe Biden, maybe don't say that when
Speaker 1: you already have this reputation or suspected reputation. Do you
Speaker 1: think that the impeachment, by the way, is going to
Speaker 1: backfire on Democrats? I mean, you know today we had
Speaker 1: the big announcement about Pelosi's saying, well, we all it
Speaker 1: wasn't even really I mean, never knew what she was
Speaker 1: gonna say before she said it. I mean, the whole
Speaker 1: thing is a sham. We all know what this is about,
Speaker 1: we all know where this is going. But how do
Speaker 1: you think it plays out? I think it already backfired.
Speaker 1: You have you have something like sixty percent of independent
Speaker 1: voters who said they're not even watching it. They care
Speaker 1: so little they're not paying any attention to it. I
Speaker 1: kind of fall into that camp. I'm not doing. I
Speaker 1: don't want to give them the ratings or the eyeballs
Speaker 1: right now. I was going to ask you good to
Speaker 1: tell everybody, but you like refuse to watch this thing.
Speaker 1: So you're interesting because you're very involved in politics, but
Speaker 1: you're not like sitting through the hours and hours and
Speaker 1: hours of the hearings, So you're kind of representing like
Speaker 1: a normal American. I think, yeah, that's that's I think
Speaker 1: so too. I could I intentionally, I'm just I'm not
Speaker 1: even gonna you know, I spent all I could all
Speaker 1: I put it on Russia, and now I'm like, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to give them this time, I think, And
Speaker 1: I think that does represent the average American, especially the
Speaker 1: swing voter who you know, it's it's so abusive how
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party treats their base because they keep giving
Speaker 1: them all these false folks that they know isn't going
Speaker 1: to go anywhere, and uh, and the base still just
Speaker 1: hangs onto it and believes that you know, suddenly Chump's
Speaker 1: going to be removed from office or commuting some crime. Um.
Speaker 1: He's not. It's not going to happen. Um. But the party,
Speaker 1: the people who are who are not too hardcore or
Speaker 1: I believe, seeing this and just really throwing up their
Speaker 1: hands and asking what of the Democrats doing. They're wasting
Speaker 1: everyone's time and money. Uh, they are not proposing anything.
Speaker 1: They don't care about doing or fixing anything except going
Speaker 1: after the president. What are you writing about next Chadwick.
Speaker 1: Where should people look for your stuff? Spectator USA, uh,
Speaker 1: Spectator dot us and you can find next week I'll
Speaker 1: have a column, really interesting column about online dating as
Speaker 1: something's happening in the online dating world. Whoa hold on?
Speaker 1: I want I want to hear. I want to hear
Speaker 1: them about the tell me, tell me about the online
Speaker 1: dating world. What do I need to know? Well, I'll
Speaker 1: give you little teasers that they're feminists. I was on
Speaker 1: a news sturteer. There's some activists and feminists who wants
Speaker 1: um online dating apps require them to um uh do
Speaker 1: background checks on everyone on there. Well they say everyone
Speaker 1: that they mean men and then sort of alert some
Speaker 1: too if there's a a sexual predator. That sounds really
Speaker 1: nice in theory, but I've got a lot to say
Speaker 1: on it and why it's actually a terrible idea, and
Speaker 1: what women should be doing to protect themselves. So you
Speaker 1: should you can find that. They'll be up next week,
Speaker 1: early next week, all right, everybody, Chadwick more Spectator USA, Chadwick.
Speaker 1: Great to have you, sir, We'll talk soon. Great, Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Global Verification that work is the only
Speaker 1: dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. They
Speaker 1: are federally certified as a vetitown small business and headquartered
Speaker 1: in Chicago with offices throughout the nation. Their risk mitigation
Speaker 1: experts can work with startups all the way up to
Speaker 1: Fortune one hundred companies, and no data or client information
Speaker 1: is ever offshore. Unlike a lot of their competitors, Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network has all employees located throughout the United States
Speaker 1: and they do not outsource or offshore any of the
Speaker 1: work you give them. Give Global Verification Network a call
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. Again,
Speaker 1: that's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: You can also go to MYGBN dot com. Again, that's
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com Global Verification Network for all your background investigation,
Speaker 1: ending vetting needs. Leave no stone unturned. My belief is
Speaker 1: very strong belief. Is this nation, of the course of
Speaker 1: its incredible wealth, its technology, its natural resources, in fact
Speaker 1: has the capabilities of providing a decent standard of living
Speaker 1: for every man, woman and child, and not just not
Speaker 1: at this point a utopian vision. The distribution of wealth
Speaker 1: in this country, as you may or may not know,
Speaker 1: is one of the most unfair and distortment in the
Speaker 1: entire world. You know, no matter, how can you practically
Speaker 1: change that very an even distribution. Well, I think you
Speaker 1: can change it politically. I think you change it through
Speaker 1: tax laws. I think you change it through public ownership
Speaker 1: of significant parts of the economy. Public ownership of significant
Speaker 1: parts of the economy. That, my friends, is definitely socialism,
Speaker 1: and Bernie Sanders a socialist. But once you start talking
Speaker 1: about state control of the economy, of the means of production,
Speaker 1: and the ability to transfer wealth, in fact, the mandate
Speaker 1: to take from people to give to others, and to
Speaker 1: provide for everybody not just a not just provide for
Speaker 1: their most basic needs, but to provide them a good living,
Speaker 1: a good standard of housing, and healthcare and food and
Speaker 1: all these other you know, what does good mean? That's
Speaker 1: this is what the Soviets promised their people. I mean,
Speaker 1: this was the promise of the Soviet Union, which is,
Speaker 1: by the way, where Bernie Sanders went for his honeymoon.
Speaker 1: Now that's an old clip of Sanders from like the eighties,
Speaker 1: I think, I mean, it's tough to know because Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders producer Brandon hit it right on the head. Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders has looked seventy four years old, for like the
Speaker 1: last forty years, just to go back and look, always
Speaker 1: has the same sort of voice, same sort of socialism,
Speaker 1: save that same duck. Nothing really is changed with Bernie.
Speaker 1: I do give him credit for consistency. At least he's
Speaker 1: not one of these left wing politicians who changes what
Speaker 1: they believe every five minutes based upon whatever will be
Speaker 1: of the greatest short term benefit to them, which, by
Speaker 1: the way, right wing politicians, let's keep it real. Right
Speaker 1: wing politicians do that too, sometimes not as much as
Speaker 1: the left. There's not as much room for hypocrisy. There's
Speaker 1: not as much acceptance of hypocrisy on the left. But
Speaker 1: here you're feeling the burn. Here in the burn, say
Speaker 1: some stuff that's pretty radical, and you, I think are
Speaker 1: fully within your rights. I think you would be making
Speaker 1: perfect sense to ask the question, does Bernie still believe that?
Speaker 1: Does Bernie still want ownership of large sectors of the economy?
Speaker 1: This is where I start to get into why and
Speaker 1: how would that happen? How would we find ourselves in
Speaker 1: a situation, in a circumstance where all of a sudden
Speaker 1: you might be able to have a government takeover of
Speaker 1: large parts of the economy. Well, if I were going
Speaker 1: to war game this out, if I were going to
Speaker 1: create the scenario that would bring about a government takeover
Speaker 1: of much a member the control of the means of production,
Speaker 1: because if you control the means of production, then you're
Speaker 1: also inherently engaged in a central planning of the resources
Speaker 1: necessary for that production. And then you're also going to
Speaker 1: be engaging and under the wealth redistribution rubric, who gets
Speaker 1: what from that means of production? You are controlling society
Speaker 1: top down. You have public owners you have public ownership
Speaker 1: of what should be private property, but what they will
Speaker 1: say is public. The problem is that you switch from
Speaker 1: socialism to communism. The real switch just has to do
Speaker 1: with control in the hands of a revolutionary committee of sorts,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, the commun they call it the
Speaker 1: communist party, but it doesn't really matter. All you need
Speaker 1: is a small group of individuals, or doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be that small, but a group of individuals. Because who
Speaker 1: directs We don't. We don't have a government agency currently deciding,
Speaker 1: you know, how many pairs of shoes are made. We
Speaker 1: do have a government agencies, though we have a bunch
Speaker 1: of agencies. They'll say how much yet to pay people
Speaker 1: what working conditions are like. You know, there's a lot
Speaker 1: of regulation that is pushing on the door of socialism already,
Speaker 1: or that is a means of achieving socialist ends without
Speaker 1: socialist words or nomenclature. But if I were trying to
Speaker 1: bring about the opening for socialism to happen in this country,
Speaker 1: what would I want to do? Continuously expand government we're
Speaker 1: doing that. Government just gets bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 1: I mean, we should all recall that the sequestration. Remember
Speaker 1: the sequestration fight is kind of a political nert thing
Speaker 1: and some people remember some people don't who cares, really,
Speaker 1: But that was a big thing back under the Obama
Speaker 1: administration because Republicans said, fine, you could even cut defense spending.
Speaker 1: We're going to cut overall spending. There's big fights and
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, and you know, the Republicans are stealing
Speaker 1: mouth from mouth, from the food of food from the
Speaker 1: mouths of babies and all this stuff. That was s questration.
Speaker 1: That huge food fight on Capitol Hill was a decrease
Speaker 1: in the planned increase in government spending from already record
Speaker 1: level and unsustainable level debt. That's what the huge fight
Speaker 1: was about. It wasn't oh my gosh, these draconian cuts.
Speaker 1: It was, well, we're expecting to keep spending further and
Speaker 1: further into debt at this level, you're gonna tell me
Speaker 1: you can only spend a little less in it? No, no, no,
Speaker 1: pas acceptable, as Macron would say, or perhaps Trude thou,
Speaker 1: who do we think? Oh? Now we know Macrol is
Speaker 1: more French. Trudeau is more fun to make fun of.
Speaker 1: But Macrol is more French for sure. So if you
Speaker 1: wanted to create the opening in this country for a
Speaker 1: takeover of major industries, you know what you'd want to do.
Speaker 1: You'd want to create an unsustainable debtload that would eventually
Speaker 1: crash the economy, perhaps end the US as the global
Speaker 1: reserve currency forced people to make decisions under duress, political
Speaker 1: decisions about who they're going to put in power when
Speaker 1: the country is in a panic. And as I have said,
Speaker 1: as much as I would, I wish it would be
Speaker 1: the case that when this day comes, when the debt
Speaker 1: is finally too large, when the music stops, there aren't
Speaker 1: enough chairs, maybe there's no chairs. I wish it would
Speaker 1: be the case that people would say, ah, but this
Speaker 1: is what the you know, the acolytes of Milton Friedman
Speaker 1: have been saying what happened all long? I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what Of course, this debt eventually became unsustainable. Of
Speaker 1: course it caused massive dislocations in the economy. That's exactly
Speaker 1: what Friedrich Hyak would have said. Or von Meses, Yeah,
Speaker 1: von Meses from the Austrian school Gutsen talk, That's what
Speaker 1: they would have said. But that's not what happens. People say,
Speaker 1: I'm scared. I want to know that there's going to
Speaker 1: be healthcare for me, that I'm gonna have a place
Speaker 1: to live, there's going to be food on the table,
Speaker 1: that my family is going to have food. And instead
Speaker 1: of understanding that all of that is much more possible,
Speaker 1: much easier, and much better if you have you maximize
Speaker 1: the functions of the free market within a society as
Speaker 1: wealthy and prosperous and educated as we are. What happens
Speaker 1: people say, oh, the politician, the demagogue, the Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: the Bernie Sanders, that Joe Biden, any of them. But
Speaker 1: the person who comes forward and says, the rich push
Speaker 1: this economy off a cliff. They did not pay their
Speaker 1: fair share, and we need to make sure that there's
Speaker 1: a fairer future for everybody, and we're going to pay
Speaker 1: for all of your stuff, and we're going to soak
Speaker 1: the rich. Those people they get in charge when the
Speaker 1: crisis hits. So Bernie Sanders, I was going to say,
Speaker 1: is playing the long game. You know, he's obviously up
Speaker 1: there in age, and I hope that he's healthy and
Speaker 1: has a very nice long retirement. But the socialists in
Speaker 1: this country are certainly playing the long game. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know there are going there's a movement. Now you're
Speaker 1: seeing it more openly. I'm it's not new, but it's
Speaker 1: a movement of socialists that recognize the overall trajectory we
Speaker 1: are heading towards socialism as a country. People don't like
Speaker 1: to hear this is true. We're heading further and further
Speaker 1: in that direction. Trump maybe has slowed down some of us,
Speaker 1: although the Trump administration spending is far too high. But
Speaker 1: if this continues as is, we will, either step by
Speaker 1: step or in response to a crisis a catastrophe, we
Speaker 1: will be a country that is effectively a socialist country.
Speaker 1: I do believe we are heading there, and I think
Speaker 1: we're close. I think we are closer to it than
Speaker 1: anybody on the right wants to admit right now. I mean,
Speaker 1: I just saw that this pushback from price transparency in
Speaker 1: the healthcare market, all these doctors and all these different
Speaker 1: you know, facilities and insurance and they don't want price transparency. That,
Speaker 1: my friends, that we can have an argument over one
Speaker 1: sixth of the economy is not allowed to be directed
Speaker 1: by prices. This should be a much bigger and people
Speaker 1: fight against this. When finally the Trump administration says, hold on,
Speaker 1: you need to be able to know what something costs.
Speaker 1: They fight this. They don't want there to be transparency.
Speaker 1: They want it to be, as Bernie Sanders says, decided
Speaker 1: by politics. And it's decided by politics, not the market.
Speaker 1: You know who decides Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren Ocasio Cortez
Speaker 1: speaking of people who are socialists who are playing the
Speaker 1: long game. Here they get to decide, and my friends,
Speaker 1: you get to suffer the consequences. This is where the
Speaker 1: country is really This is beyond twenty twenty. This is
Speaker 1: where the country is really heading. I saw something yesterday
Speaker 1: Producer Brandon that really got me so excited, and I had,
Speaker 1: I had, I had to sort of tone it down
Speaker 1: a little bit. I had to sort of rein it
Speaker 1: in pull it back, and she lacks a little bit.
Speaker 1: You know what I saw? What's that Santa? Who? Santa Claus?
Speaker 1: I mean that would be amazing, Okay, I mean I
Speaker 1: probably could see Santa. It's probably a fake Santa though,
Speaker 1: who's got like half a ham sandwich still in his beard.
Speaker 1: It's drinking, you know, drinking some some bourbon um. So
Speaker 1: here here's what I found. There is currently a bill
Speaker 1: making its way through Congress. Useless Congress. Everybody doesn't do
Speaker 1: squat speaking squats, I gotta do some popa bucks getting weak,
Speaker 1: but doesn't do squat, and uh, they're looking at passing
Speaker 1: a pretty aggressive bill about robo calls. Robo calls are
Speaker 1: a scourge. They are they are the audio equivalent of
Speaker 1: the bubonic plague. Do you know they made there some
Speaker 1: Remember they've made billions of robocalls just in the last
Speaker 1: month in this country. So you think there's only three
Speaker 1: hundred million people, So there's you know, every person in
Speaker 1: the country is basically whoever is behind these things, whatever
Speaker 1: countries behind robocalls, should hand over these people to us.
Speaker 1: Who should be five who should be bankrupted? I would
Speaker 1: say it's a form of like harassment, mass harassment. Or look,
Speaker 1: if you can get people for wire fraud, for like
Speaker 1: minor white collar stuff, this should be this should be
Speaker 1: absolutely illegal. And I know politicians liked robot calls too,
Speaker 1: by the way, which that but at least that season
Speaker 1: only can only do it, you know, leading up to election,
Speaker 1: But even that should be gone. No more robocalls. And
Speaker 1: any country that harbors robocallers, you're either with us or
Speaker 1: you're with the robocallers. And if we have to bomb
Speaker 1: some people, I'm saying, I think we got to bomb
Speaker 1: some people because this is unacceptable. I sit here during
Speaker 1: the show and I can't tell you how many times
Speaker 1: people say, Buck, why are you looking your phone? So
Speaker 1: my phone's ringing? Everybody who knows me knows you don't
Speaker 1: call Buck during the show, right, What kind of disrespect
Speaker 1: is that? It's always Hi, You've won a cruise. I'm like,
Speaker 1: I will Mini Mouse stop calling me. I will crush you.
Speaker 1: Drives me insane. And we live in there the NSA.
Speaker 1: We got all this fancy stuff, all these crazy programs
Speaker 1: I used to know about the stuff. He's to work
Speaker 1: in the government of CIA, who we got all these
Speaker 1: why can't we get they canna tell me? They can't
Speaker 1: find who the robo callers are. I mean they're coming
Speaker 1: from somewhere. I don't believe that at all. My mom
Speaker 1: actually has been complaining about that a lot to me
Speaker 1: as well, Like who are these people? She thinks they're
Speaker 1: prying phone calls? But a lot of them, by the way,
Speaker 1: are committing fraud. I mean what they want is they
Speaker 1: want you to give them credit card information other things,
Speaker 1: and then they you know a lot of it is
Speaker 1: foreign based. But I mean we should you know, we
Speaker 1: should go. I mean if it should be the Great
Speaker 1: robocall War of twenty twenty, like if we I don't
Speaker 1: care what you know. If it's coming from Belarus, feller Us,
Speaker 1: you're on the hit list, I know, absolutely. And I
Speaker 1: hate when it's a local number, when you think that's
Speaker 1: what they spoofed, the local number. I think it's because
Speaker 1: you and me we book s, so we always kind
Speaker 1: of answered our phone. Yeah, and it ends up being
Speaker 1: you wait a second. And even if it's a block number,
Speaker 1: it's like what if it's President Trump waking up and
Speaker 1: finally realizing he should make me a White House Press secretary?
Speaker 1: You know, like you know what about that? You never
Speaker 1: know and then you get mad, you know, and then
Speaker 1: I missed that call and he'd be like, yeah buck buck,
Speaker 1: missus chance he just just called. I'm like, yo, I'm
Speaker 1: right here. Oh it's infuriating. It's absolutely infuriating. Yeah, have
Speaker 1: you gotten the texts as well? The robot test? But
Speaker 1: it's great with the text, oh yeah, which is basically
Speaker 1: the same thing, just in text for him. But they
Speaker 1: may be passing a law that would allegedly deal this.
Speaker 1: And here's why I can't get too excited. It's Congress.
Speaker 1: I feel like they're gonna mess it up. This is
Speaker 1: the easiest thing. Though, this is so bipartisan. I gotta say,
Speaker 1: I don't even know. I mean, if a Democrat managed
Speaker 1: to take care of this issue, would I vote Democrat?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, but I'd have to think about it.
Speaker 1: Dry be insane drives me insane. Almost isn't a robot
Speaker 1: calls need to go and then the backup noise on
Speaker 1: trucks needs to go to all vehicles. Yes, all this
Speaker 1: is like, this is my great campaign for all of
Speaker 1: Humanity's the dumbest idea in the universe. The things are
Speaker 1: way too loud. They developed this sound. Some Japanese guy,
Speaker 1: an engineer in the seventies, developed this sound. It actually
Speaker 1: is at a decibel level that's much higher than it
Speaker 1: needs to. It's the whole thing is trash. But OSHA
Speaker 1: won't change. I mean, you know, Buck wants to wage
Speaker 1: war on OSHA and the robotcallers. You got my boat,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. Twenty I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: there's the rent is too damn high, guy, there's the
Speaker 1: robot calls. They're too damn much guy. That's me. I
Speaker 1: just completely lose my mind on this. Can't the government
Speaker 1: do something worthwhile for once? You know, I can't say anyway,
Speaker 1: it's just serenity. Now, we'll see if this ends up
Speaker 1: actually actually happening. By the way, there was also a
Speaker 1: I keep telling you about these gun laws in New
Speaker 1: York City. This was great though they've essentially admitted also
Speaker 1: that the gun laws that they're trying to fight for
Speaker 1: does not make anybody safer, which is just amazing. So
Speaker 1: now we've gone to the point where they're not even
Speaker 1: doing make lived they're not even pretending that these gun
Speaker 1: laws are about safety in New York. The lawyers are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we just have them. This just goes to the point
Speaker 1: that I've often made in the past that I want
Speaker 1: you all to remember that much of gun legislation is
Speaker 1: really about not liking gun owners instead of making people safer.
Speaker 1: It's a way to stick your thumb in the eye
Speaker 1: of people that believe in the Second Amendment, who are
Speaker 1: now overwhelmingly conservative and on the right. So by passing
Speaker 1: laws to harass that constituency, you are doing something that
Speaker 1: just makes liberals feel good. They like it. They like
Speaker 1: to just stick it to the gun owner. They like
Speaker 1: to show gun owners that they're not good people and
Speaker 1: they support the wrong politicians. I mean, New York has
Speaker 1: admitted as much that the stupid rules that I've told
Speaker 1: you about, and I know what those rules are, the
Speaker 1: stupid rules about how you can own a firearm transport
Speaker 1: a firearm. They don't even know whether the rules will
Speaker 1: be enforced in certain ways. That is all because they
Speaker 1: don't like gun owners. That's it. Just like I've just
Speaker 1: like I've been saying for a long time. This is
Speaker 1: why when you point out after there's some terrible gun
Speaker 1: massacre or some crime happens, that's unspeakable involving firearms. They
Speaker 1: want to pass laws that wouldn't have stopped that crime,
Speaker 1: because it's not about stopping crime. It's about blaming gun
Speaker 1: owners for all of societies ills. That's what it really
Speaker 1: is all. I think they're sixty million gun owners in
Speaker 1: America something like that. It's a pretty big swath, a
Speaker 1: pretty big bunch, and of course over three hundred million
Speaker 1: estimated firearms in circulation. But we live in the People's
Speaker 1: Republic of New York, Man. It's not a good scene here. Sometimes,
Speaker 1: ain't no party like a Team buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for roll call. It's the
Speaker 1: role of the call. The roll call that really made sense.
Speaker 1: But it was close enough. I call us. The people
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about. Facebook dot com, slash buck
Speaker 1: sexon or Team Bucket. I heart media, which I do.
Speaker 1: I heart it. iHeartMedia dot com. Also, please continue to
Speaker 1: check us out on channel two forty eight on Pluto TV.
Speaker 1: Pluto TV is an app. Go on your smartphone. Just
Speaker 1: type in Pluto p l u t O TV, download it,
Speaker 1: go to channel two forty eight. Super easy, totally Free
Speaker 1: looks really slick. A lot of other channels you can
Speaker 1: see on it too. It's not just for the show,
Speaker 1: but the show is obviously awesome. Me Jesse Kelly the
Speaker 1: First on Pluto TV channel two forty eight. Do check
Speaker 1: it out. And you know whose birthday's coming up later
Speaker 1: this month, Brandon Buck. I don't know why I just
Speaker 1: regarded myself in the third person, but and so we
Speaker 1: have the birth of Jesus and the birth of Buck
Speaker 1: in the month of December. And what do I want
Speaker 1: for my birthday? I want everyone listening to this show
Speaker 1: to get one person who loves freedom in America to
Speaker 1: download to actually subscribe is even better. But download and
Speaker 1: subscribe to the Buck Sexton podcast on either iTunes or
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app or wherever they listen to podcasts. And
Speaker 1: if they've never listen to podcast be like, well, this
Speaker 1: is the one you should start with. So that's where
Speaker 1: it's at, all Right, let's get to it, Katrina, Right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: been watching you and Jesse on Pluto TV. Well, good job,
Speaker 1: good job, Katrina. That's the way to do it. Glad
Speaker 1: I have another conservative outlet out there. I hope the
Speaker 1: First continues to grow um, all right, she'll tie. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Katrina appreciate it. Let's get to Angela.
Speaker 1: Hey Buck love the show, Angela, the show loves you.
Speaker 1: The Irishman is definitely a must see. Peaky Blinder season
Speaker 1: five also a must Well. I gotta tell you, Angela,
Speaker 1: because you like Peaky Blinder season five, it makes me
Speaker 1: more inclined to think that I should listen to you
Speaker 1: about The Irishman the way I think we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: When producer Mark comes back brand do you like hockey?
Speaker 1: All right? And is there hockey in January and February?
Speaker 1: I think so I should know this. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it ends in April, and I'm wearing an Islanders had
Speaker 1: ye winter time and I feel like you guys are
Speaker 1: skating around on a big block of ice. The winner
Speaker 1: makes it. It's not like you should be playing hockey
Speaker 1: in July. Really, No, No, I think it ends in
Speaker 1: like March April. All right, So we're gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: try to sponsor a you know, pop a buck over here.
Speaker 1: It's gonna sponsor a freedom hut ice hockey because I
Speaker 1: want to keep an open mind. Okay, So I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get tickets for you me and Mark. Oh that's my plan. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Mark comes back, so would you come? Yeah? All right,
Speaker 1: and do we see that? Do we see the Rangers
Speaker 1: or the Islands. I mean, if it's possible to see
Speaker 1: an Islanders Rangers game, you might see Mark and I fight.
Speaker 1: But oh, you're on opposite sides of this. Yeah, oh,
Speaker 1: we gotta do that that. I mean, we're gonna be
Speaker 1: The seats are gonna be crappy, by the way, I mean,
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut is still growing. But like, we'll go, sure,
Speaker 1: we'll go, you know. And I'm just saying, this is
Speaker 1: a plan we have. So there, there, there you have it.
Speaker 1: Angela says she binged it on both last weekend. It
Speaker 1: was well worth it, Jack Ryan, this season can't get
Speaker 1: past episode. To Angela, I agree Jack Ryan's crap. It's
Speaker 1: not good. It's not good. They shouldn't They should have
Speaker 1: just paid, throwing a little little cash to the buster.
Speaker 1: I would have explained to them how to make some
Speaker 1: cool stuff happen, give them a little cia razzle dazzle,
Speaker 1: and the show would have been watchable. But now it's crap.
Speaker 1: It's a garbage show, and it's really bad. I'm very
Speaker 1: disappointed because I actually the first season was hyper unrealistic
Speaker 1: and there's some cheesy stuff, but like a move that
Speaker 1: was pretty good even though they like get the guy
Speaker 1: at the end of this. Anyway, this I should probably
Speaker 1: just do a new show where I just get to
Speaker 1: talk about whatever is in my mind, like pop culture stuff,
Speaker 1: and just let it rip and people can listen to
Speaker 1: that if they want, say, gets Some people like it.
Speaker 1: Other people are like, where are you on the political philosophy?
Speaker 1: Stick in your lane, sir? How dare you? Sir? But
Speaker 1: I love all you guys, and I just want to
Speaker 1: share with you some of my thoughts on the things.
Speaker 1: I just want to be friends. Team Buck Boots. Oh
Speaker 1: that's actually his name. That's awesome, Boots and Buck. That
Speaker 1: would be a great name for a bourbon Boots and
Speaker 1: Buck Solomon. Solomon was displaying a number of questionable donations
Speaker 1: funneled through a fake business. The top Dems reason for
Speaker 1: the rush so they can claim retribution. M Boots, I
Speaker 1: don't really know what you're asking me here. I think
Speaker 1: you're referring to John Solomon, but I'm not really clear
Speaker 1: on the question. So I'm gonna have to ask you
Speaker 1: to send in a clarifier on that one for me, Steve, right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: love a show and always find comfort in the freedom Hut.
Speaker 1: You mentioned with Sean Davis. You were surprised that piracy
Speaker 1: and counterfeiting weren't included in these so called crimes by
Speaker 1: Big bad Orange Man. How about Felonious Mopuri had tipped
Speaker 1: Dan Bongino. I mean, you must remember Orange Man bad
Speaker 1: heading down the escalator at Trump Tower way back, even
Speaker 1: before he won. You know, he had to be planning
Speaker 1: something nefarious anyway, this is what emanated from the district
Speaker 1: of Crazytown. Buck, My arms are getting weary, but still
Speaker 1: keep the shield held high. Well, my man, Steve, that's
Speaker 1: how you gotta keep it. It's no use if it's down,
Speaker 1: down by your down by your ankles. You gotta keep
Speaker 1: the shield up otherwise the phaeleanx begins to fail. That is,
Speaker 1: of course, where we get shields. Sigh. It's perhaps a
Speaker 1: little bit nerdy, sure, but we love history. We love
Speaker 1: ancient Greece fantastic, so that's why we are. Shield time
Speaker 1: comes from back in the day, holding your shield up
Speaker 1: in the field and the phaelenx shoulder to shoulder, shield
Speaker 1: to shield it's actually a form of warfare. The last
Speaker 1: of very long time leaving around the the Vikings Splurger
Speaker 1: my Viking sounds a beat like my German. It's sure
Speaker 1: to save exhipt a leader morching song. I didn't know
Speaker 1: the Swedish chef was a Viking. My name is Blurgen
Speaker 1: Klergan from the Flurgen Furred. They had something, I mean,
Speaker 1: for somebody who doesn't do a Swedish accental it's not terrible,
Speaker 1: but they had the shield wall, which if you've watched
Speaker 1: Vikings on the History Channel they show you that's great.
Speaker 1: And they also have it in the Last Kingdom, which
Speaker 1: is a I think the first season is a phenomenal show.
Speaker 1: I think it's a great show. Have you seen Last Kingdom?
Speaker 1: Do you like like, do you like dudes with beards
Speaker 1: and swords fighting? And you know, sure? Yeah, yeah you
Speaker 1: should check out Last It's on Netflix. That's great, really quality. Yeah,
Speaker 1: check that one. Watch a little bit and you come on,
Speaker 1: you tell me if my recommendations are good. All right,
Speaker 1: you got it. There we go, Ethan wrights Buck. I
Speaker 1: think your movie choice is usually pretty spot on. But
Speaker 1: oh but yesterday you said Timothy Dalton's Bond movies, we're weak.
Speaker 1: I recommend going back and checking them out again if
Speaker 1: you've never really watched them. T dalt uh t dalt.
Speaker 1: That's the first was actually a fantastic bond in the movies.
Speaker 1: They just didn't play well to an audience who had
Speaker 1: gotten more used to Roger Moore's silly, campy version of
Speaker 1: the role. I've only seen I think Dalton's License to Kill,
Speaker 1: and all I really remember is that he fed a
Speaker 1: guy to a great white shark in the beginning of it,
Speaker 1: I think, which is not a That would not be
Speaker 1: a good way to go. No, you know, if you
Speaker 1: gotta be eaaten by something, I mean I take I
Speaker 1: think I take bear over shark. You know this is
Speaker 1: people come to the show for the really high level
Speaker 1: analysis like this. You're gonna be eaten by something, You
Speaker 1: go bear, you go shark. Are those the only two options? Dude?
Speaker 1: You're getting eating one way or the other. Because I
Speaker 1: would want to be eaten like by a whale, just
Speaker 1: be one and done. Yeah, but no, dude, then you'd
Speaker 1: be in the Then you'd like slowly asphyxiating its giant gullet. Touche. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess I'm thinking a Pinocchio got out. So yeah, no,
Speaker 1: it's not there's not that much room in there. It'd
Speaker 1: be kind of gross, you know what I mean. I mean, Okay, here,
Speaker 1: let's play. Let's play the game for a second. Producer, Brandon,
Speaker 1: you have a choice. You've got to be eaten by
Speaker 1: a crocodile or asphyxiated by a boa constrictor. I gotta
Speaker 1: think crocodile, me too. Yeah, I feel like the massive
Speaker 1: blood loss means you'd at least pass out pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: Or is the boa constrictor You've got to be thinking?
Speaker 1: Come on, man, I'm going out constricted like this, and
Speaker 1: that's a more manly way to go being eaten. Maybe
Speaker 1: you're still punching the exactly you can fight? Oh why
Speaker 1: you sit there the bulk and striking stare at you
Speaker 1: while it slowly squeezes you. Yeah it's not good. Helpless, Yeah, helpless?
Speaker 1: All right, So we established that one. That's why all
Speaker 1: the important analysis is done here on the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: H Kyle Bucker, how are you talking about golden eye skills? Sorry,
Speaker 1: but a truly great player doesn't need to use odd
Speaker 1: job to win Our house rules We're no choosing odd
Speaker 1: Job because of the unfair advantage of his height. When
Speaker 1: you can be playing as Jaws instead, you have bragging rights. Damn, damn,
Speaker 1: my man, Kyle knows what's up. That's true, odd Job.
Speaker 1: That's why I like the odd Job. He's sneaky. You
Speaker 1: can sneak around. You couldn't couldn't shoot him as easy.
Speaker 1: You learned something. I see, Kyle, I see your game.
Speaker 1: I know I know what you're starting the dance floor.
Speaker 1: You move pretty good. All right, everybody, fantastic show are
Speaker 1: They're gonna be great tomorrow too. Please do spread the
Speaker 1: word about the show and we'll talk to you. Then
Speaker 1: she'll tie