Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The border crisis continues
Speaker 1: and Democrats are showing that they want to decriminalize, at
Speaker 1: least some of them want to decriminalize illegal entry into
Speaker 1: this country. This is a leap toward open borders. We've
Speaker 1: got a lot for you on that and also the
Speaker 1: latest in the scandals that the Democrats are covering up.
Speaker 1: That are more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission where
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, You're a great American. Again, the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now Mexico
Speaker 1: is now stopping people coming very easy for them to do,
Speaker 1: stopping people coming in through Mexico. Let's see if they
Speaker 1: keep it done. If they keep doing that now, if
Speaker 1: they don't, or if we don't make a deal with Congress,
Speaker 1: the border is going to be closed, or we're going
Speaker 1: to close large sections of the border, maybe not all
Speaker 1: of it, but it's the only way we're getting a response.
Speaker 1: And I'm totally ready to do it, and I will
Speaker 1: say this many people want me to do it. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sexton Show. President Trump still pushing the
Speaker 1: idea that he may shut down the border. I don't
Speaker 1: think that this is the way he's going to go,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it will solve or even necessarily
Speaker 1: help on the problem all that much. But the man's
Speaker 1: trying to do something. There are no good options available
Speaker 1: right now because of the laws that exist on the books,
Speaker 1: because of the situation on the ground at the border,
Speaker 1: and because one political party no longer believes that we
Speaker 1: should have immigration laws. One political party no longer believes
Speaker 1: that there's anything wrong with illegal immigration. Really, I mean,
Speaker 1: they won't say this out loud, but there's plenty of data.
Speaker 1: I can point you to, plenty of evidence that this
Speaker 1: is in fact how they feel. Let me bring you
Speaker 1: up to speed on what is going on with Joaquin Castro. Now, well,
Speaker 1: Keene Castro is someone who and this just came out today,
Speaker 1: he's running for president. He's not one of the top contenders,
Speaker 1: but he's a congressman from Texas I believe, who is
Speaker 1: running for president and has put out and is one
Speaker 1: of the first Democrats to put out what his plan
Speaker 1: is on immigration. And here's the very shortened version of
Speaker 1: what could be a longer conversation and will be. But
Speaker 1: he wants to decriminalize illegal entry into the United States,
Speaker 1: all right, Julian Castro wants to make sure that if
Speaker 1: somebody comes into America illegally, they are no longer to
Speaker 1: be arrested and treated as No, it's a misdemeanor, it's
Speaker 1: a federal misdemeanor to enter, but it is still a crime.
Speaker 1: This would now be the equivalent, legally speaking of a
Speaker 1: civil offense a parking ticket. At the moment when the
Speaker 1: country is in the grips of the biggest immigration, illegal
Speaker 1: immigration crisis, perhaps in its history, because remember, it's not
Speaker 1: just the people crossing now, it's they say, eleven more
Speaker 1: like twenty million illegals already in the country. And what
Speaker 1: that does to the political parties and to our our
Speaker 1: cultural and political and social fabric in this country and
Speaker 1: rule of law, and you know that's always looming in
Speaker 1: the background. You already have an enormous population of legal
Speaker 1: aliens living in the country, enormous and now you have
Speaker 1: a huge surge that'll be a million more for the
Speaker 1: year if it continues at the current rate. And what
Speaker 1: do what do the Democrats do? Oh, that's right, they
Speaker 1: start to talk about how we should make it even easier,
Speaker 1: we should make the penalties even less, and right now
Speaker 1: there's basically no penalty. It would be in the Dallas
Speaker 1: News was supporting on this today that that Castro's plan
Speaker 1: would be turning this into a civil, non criminal violation
Speaker 1: illegal entry. So it's like it'd be like a like
Speaker 1: a parking ticket situation. Now, and this is where I'm
Speaker 1: telling you I see it right now, this is where
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is going. They're they're going to do
Speaker 1: everything they can to further weaken immigration enforcement. They're going
Speaker 1: to try to eliminate any real hope of interior enforcement
Speaker 1: against illegal alien illegal aliens, and then illegal entry at
Speaker 1: the border will be deprioritized as any kind of law
Speaker 1: enforcement issue, and they're just going to say, let's just
Speaker 1: process people as fast as we can bring more of
Speaker 1: them into the country and completely leave law enforcement I
Speaker 1: mean in the lurch. I mean, if all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: a legal entry is not really a crime, you have
Speaker 1: to ask the question, why does border patrol even exist?
Speaker 1: Then border patrol shouldn't be out there. You know, does
Speaker 1: border patrol's mission matter? If they're not policing crimes? What
Speaker 1: are they doing down there. Oh, they're just there to
Speaker 1: prevent drugs from flowing into the country. There's more than that,
Speaker 1: isn't there. You know, we are being forced to address
Speaker 1: a fundamental question about the future of this country, which
Speaker 1: is should we have borders at all? The Democrats want
Speaker 1: to say no, but they're not ready to say no.
Speaker 1: They do not believe that we should be excluding people
Speaker 1: from the country. They do not think that there's anything
Speaker 1: wrong with illegal entry into the United States. And they
Speaker 1: have gone so far left and so out of the
Speaker 1: mainstream on this issue that I can't see how twenty
Speaker 1: twenty turns into on immigration anything more than a fight
Speaker 1: over It's just going to be a fight over amnesty.
Speaker 1: They're going to offer amnesty to everybody who's here. That's
Speaker 1: what they're gonna want to do. They're gonna call it
Speaker 1: a pathway to citizenship, but they know that they're a
Speaker 1: Lynsky I'd approach here of overwhelming The system is going
Speaker 1: to be true not just that our southern border, it's
Speaker 1: going to be true of the supposed pathway. The pathway
Speaker 1: is going to be a conveyor belt. All you have
Speaker 1: to do is be on it and you'll get to
Speaker 1: the end, which means citizenship here to tell me that
Speaker 1: people that are in the country that you don't have
Speaker 1: English proficiency, proven to the government, that don't pay back
Speaker 1: taxes when most of them would actually get money from
Speaker 1: the government because they'll make enough money to pay taxes,
Speaker 1: so they're not gonna pay into the system. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna pay any fine, They're not all this is all nonsense.
Speaker 1: We went through this before we Reagan signed an amnesty
Speaker 1: back in the eighties, and they were still here in
Speaker 1: cases twenty years later, or people who said that they
Speaker 1: were they should have been covered by the amnesty, or
Speaker 1: there was some aspect of it, and we were promised
Speaker 1: that it would be it would stop after that. You know,
Speaker 1: it was for a few million people the amnesty. I
Speaker 1: forgot three or four million. I think it would stop
Speaker 1: after that. Edn't think out words. It only got bigger.
Speaker 1: Democrats want to want the incentives to come into this country,
Speaker 1: even even stronger than they had been in the past,
Speaker 1: even stronger than they have been before this. So we
Speaker 1: do not have partners in addressing the crisis. We have
Speaker 1: actually one side that wants to figure this out, the Republicans,
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that they're particularly adept or skilled
Speaker 1: at it. But then on the other side, you've got
Speaker 1: people that just want to perpetuate exactly what's going on.
Speaker 1: And that's why you're going to just see the continuation
Speaker 1: of all this dysfunction. We're going to see a real
Speaker 1: lack I think of well, there'll be a lack of
Speaker 1: honesty and the way the Democrats talk about this, but
Speaker 1: this is we're focusing on the issue. And the last
Speaker 1: week I was saying, we need more focus, we need
Speaker 1: more focus. Now here we are and you know, Trump's
Speaker 1: last car to play seems to be shutting down the border.
Speaker 1: Here's Sarah Howkaby Sanders saying just that play fourteen. The
Speaker 1: President's not threatening. The President's taking his job as the
Speaker 1: commander in chief very seriously in terms of protecting the
Speaker 1: American people. Everyone wants to talk about the cost of
Speaker 1: doing that. That is certainly, again not something we want
Speaker 1: to happen. The President's the one that is responsible for
Speaker 1: the last two years of economic growth, economic boom, and
Speaker 1: the number of jobs that we have in this country.
Speaker 1: We don't want to see that hurt. But at the
Speaker 1: same time, the president's number one responsibility is to protect
Speaker 1: American life. Democrats may not care about that. They may
Speaker 1: be perfectly fine watching women and children exploited as they
Speaker 1: make the treacherous journey up from the up from the
Speaker 1: South across the southern border. They may be perfectly fine
Speaker 1: seeing babies frankly killed right up until the moment of birth.
Speaker 1: But this president isn't. He takes his job of protecting
Speaker 1: American life very seriously, and he's gonna do what it
Speaker 1: takes to make sure that happens right. Shutting down the
Speaker 1: border would at least be a demonstration of resolve from
Speaker 1: the president and focus on the issue. But I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: the pressure would be too great and he'd have to
Speaker 1: relent very quickly. It would not last long, and it
Speaker 1: wouldn't solve the problem. It just gets people to focus
Speaker 1: on the problem. This is the biggest challenge the country,
Speaker 1: imminent challenge the country faces right now what to do
Speaker 1: about the southern border. Who is showing leadership on this
Speaker 1: other than President Trump? I can think of very few people,
Speaker 1: and that is really unsettling. We have more on this
Speaker 1: border issue, and a whole lot more coming up in
Speaker 1: the show. Team stay with Me, give us any money
Speaker 1: to fix it. They won't change the law to fix it.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna do the best with what we have,
Speaker 1: and if that means pulling people off the ports of
Speaker 1: entry to put them out on the border where there's
Speaker 1: no wall, we will absolutely do that. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of good ways to help solve this problem. Congress could
Speaker 1: do it, but they're not going to. Mexico could help
Speaker 1: us do it. They need to do a little bit more.
Speaker 1: Honduras could do more, Nicaragua could do more. El Salvador
Speaker 1: could do more. And if we're going to give these
Speaker 1: countries hundreds of millions of dollars, we would like them
Speaker 1: to do more. They're not going to do more, though, folks,
Speaker 1: I wish we're not the case. I'd like to tell
Speaker 1: you that things are looking good and there's going to
Speaker 1: be some real change on the horizon. That the the
Speaker 1: other partners that we should have here in Mexico, Honduras,
Speaker 1: Nicaragua or Salvador, Guatemala, the Democrat Party in our own country,
Speaker 1: that they would seek to in some way, in some
Speaker 1: way that is meaningful, stem the flow of migrants. I
Speaker 1: mean this mass movement of people which is what we
Speaker 1: are in the mid stuff This is not a normal
Speaker 1: immigration issue. We are at the beginning of an immigration,
Speaker 1: an illegal alien tsunami in this country. That's what is happening.
Speaker 1: People have called it an invasion, that's all. It's not
Speaker 1: a military invasion. It's an illegal alien invasion. That is
Speaker 1: what's going on here. And if you don't think that,
Speaker 1: I'm giving it to you Stradium though I was down
Speaker 1: in our passa last week, is you know, reporting on
Speaker 1: this issue and talking to Border Patrol about this. Here's
Speaker 1: the Border Patrol Council VP telling us just how serious
Speaker 1: it is. Plate twelve. They're definitely at a crisis and
Speaker 1: it's an emergency. You know, we welcome more agents coming
Speaker 1: down here to the southern border and assisting. But in
Speaker 1: the end, you know, something needs to be done about
Speaker 1: the overflow of these individuals that are coming into the country.
Speaker 1: And if there's other countries that are facilitating this invasion,
Speaker 1: they obviously need to step up to the plate and
Speaker 1: start doing something about it. You notice what he says,
Speaker 1: an invasion facilitating an invasion. That is the Border Patrol
Speaker 1: Council Vice President who is just calling it like he
Speaker 1: sees it and not mincing words. Now you get into
Speaker 1: this back and forth, and I've mentioned Julian Castro before here,
Speaker 1: you know, you know he Castro is saying that everything
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is trying to do is a
Speaker 1: bad idea. I play thirteen. The idea that you would
Speaker 1: close the border or that you would cut off aid
Speaker 1: to these very countries where people are fleeing and coming
Speaker 1: to the United States is downright stupid. It's the wrong
Speaker 1: thing to do. If you close off the border, you're
Speaker 1: just going to hurt jobs in the United States. Okay,
Speaker 1: but what does mister what does Representative Castro think we
Speaker 1: should do? Oh, we know what he thinks we should do,
Speaker 1: which is just not enforced immigration law anymore, no longer illegal.
Speaker 1: Let people just come into the country. It's a it's
Speaker 1: a parking ticket. It's no big deal. This guy's running
Speaker 1: for president, folks. Okay, this is not I'm not picking
Speaker 1: some in a random Internet troll and saying, so this
Speaker 1: is what the left believes this guy is. If not
Speaker 1: a serious presidential contender, I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: of him as a very serious VP contender. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's young, and you know, the optics of Castro on
Speaker 1: the ticket to the Democrats look good. But while he's
Speaker 1: just trashing the Trump administration's desire to do something here,
Speaker 1: Border agent Raoul or Tez is just reminding everybody that
Speaker 1: this thing, this situation going on at the border is
Speaker 1: out of control. Play fifteen at double our capacity right now.
Speaker 1: I don't have to have enough medics. I don't know,
Speaker 1: have enough border troll agents to ensure that these folks
Speaker 1: are getting processed within the forty eight hours that we
Speaker 1: should be processing them. We're going to keep people in
Speaker 1: custody longer, our agents are getting assaulted. Potentially could be
Speaker 1: a liability where even one of the individuals that are
Speaker 1: in custody could be assaulted in detension facilities that are overcrowded.
Speaker 1: I don't know who else we have to hear it
Speaker 1: from that this is a crisis, that this is something
Speaker 1: that cannot be handled, that cannot be dealt with right
Speaker 1: now now. I just wonder who who it is that
Speaker 1: that the Democrats would believe, what authority could be point
Speaker 1: to here if that's not enough. J Johnson, Obama's DHS secretary,
Speaker 1: is like, oh no, no, this is definitely a crisis.
Speaker 1: Place sixteen. As Kevin McLean and the Commissioner of CVP
Speaker 1: pointed out on Tuesday, there were four thousand apprehensions one
Speaker 1: day alone, four thousand run pace this month for one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand apprehensions. The highest we saw on my watch
Speaker 1: was May twenty fourteen, sixty five thousand. So this is
Speaker 1: a crisis. It's very diff only a crisis, yep, it
Speaker 1: is very definitely a crisis. Now, you will remember the
Speaker 1: media lied about this for the two months or so
Speaker 1: leading up to our current discussion. It's not a crisis.
Speaker 1: It's not a crisis. Oh no, it is a crisis.
Speaker 1: The numbers don't lie, the people working the issue don't lie.
Speaker 1: And now that we're trying to trying to come up
Speaker 1: with some way of dealing with this, some way of
Speaker 1: stopping this invasion as it was called, this tsunami as
Speaker 1: I like to call him, in just this, this enormous
Speaker 1: tidal wave of illegal entry and illegal activity. What the
Speaker 1: Democrats do? They undermine and criticize Trumpet at every juncture.
Speaker 1: They have no constructive solutions whatsoever. In fact, they're solutions.
Speaker 1: The things that they want to do and propose would
Speaker 1: only make it worse because the Democrats have shifted so
Speaker 1: far left on him ration I mean they are now
Speaker 1: a party that is a day facto open borders party.
Speaker 1: You know, the law can be whatever it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can tell me as much as you want that
Speaker 1: the law right now says, if you're an illegal alien
Speaker 1: in the United States and you are to be deported,
Speaker 1: that is what the law states. Okay, but illegal aliens
Speaker 1: get invited to Democrats by Democrats for the State of
Speaker 1: the Union, address illegal aliens, march proudly in the streets
Speaker 1: and say, we demand rights, we demand this, we demand
Speaker 1: that they're not They're not being deported. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: So the law on that issue doesn't really matter. So
Speaker 1: while you could say, back, but look at all the
Speaker 1: infrastructure and all the stuff, when all the laws we
Speaker 1: have at the border right now, I say to you, yeah,
Speaker 1: but they're not it's not working. People are getting into
Speaker 1: the country who are not supposed to be in the country,
Speaker 1: who are abusing the system. They're doing it in huge numbers.
Speaker 1: They know they're doing it. It's not working. We have
Speaker 1: a near open border situation, and you know, Trump is
Speaker 1: trying some pretty radical stuff here, don't I don't think
Speaker 1: that shutting down the boarder will work because there will
Speaker 1: be tremendous economic pressure. If he does that, there will
Speaker 1: be people saying, my business is getting crushed. Now, dude,
Speaker 1: you can't do this, or mister President, not dude. But
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, Congress won't act. I'm sitting
Speaker 1: Are we going to just keep looking at this problem
Speaker 1: get worse and worse, the swell of the you know,
Speaker 1: the surge of people get larger and larger the southern border.
Speaker 1: I think the answer is probably yes. I think that
Speaker 1: what you end up having here is maybe some bipartisan
Speaker 1: bill come out of the Congress to just increase the resources.
Speaker 1: But if you increase the resources, all you're doing is
Speaker 1: making people more comfortable and adding to the speed with
Speaker 1: which they will be under the current asylum law introduced
Speaker 1: in the United States, never to be seen again by
Speaker 1: the authorities. So you know, I wish I could. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know what the answers are. I just also know
Speaker 1: that the people in charge aren't going to do anything
Speaker 1: for that. They're not going to do anything to solve
Speaker 1: the situation, which is very disheartening. Let's talk about red
Speaker 1: flag laws and Second Amendment sanctuaries. This has now come
Speaker 1: up because of what's happening in Colorado, but it does
Speaker 1: have ramifications for the Second Amendment and for folks across
Speaker 1: the country because of well the one. There's the gun
Speaker 1: rights aspect, but then there's just also what happens when
Speaker 1: nullification of law occurs in response to what is a
Speaker 1: perceived unconstitutional overreach. What happens when people no longer have
Speaker 1: respect that the other side is acting on or has
Speaker 1: the expectation the other side is acting on good faith
Speaker 1: when it comes to the way that they're right laws
Speaker 1: and then trying to enforce laws. So you got a
Speaker 1: sheriff in Colorado who has said that he would rather
Speaker 1: go to jail. It's got a lot of attention to
Speaker 1: rather go to jail than enforce a new gun controlled
Speaker 1: bill that has been passed by the legislature in the
Speaker 1: state of Colorado, which as we know, is a purple states.
Speaker 1: You get some very very democrats stuff gone to Denver,
Speaker 1: you know, very democrat, and yet there's also some red
Speaker 1: areas of Colorado too. And you have these red flag
Speaker 1: laws now a red flag law. I think they exist
Speaker 1: in fifteen different states right now. Guess what, mostly blue
Speaker 1: Democrats states from what I understand, But you have these
Speaker 1: red flag laws where a law enforcement officer or an
Speaker 1: individual I believe, I think you have to be a
Speaker 1: you might have to be a family member. But there's
Speaker 1: individuals can go forward and say to a judge that
Speaker 1: someone is a threat, that their firearms, firearms that they
Speaker 1: have in their possession, or a threat, and they can
Speaker 1: be taken away. Now, this is on many levels, both
Speaker 1: you know, reasonable and unreasonable, or reasonable and concerning. You know,
Speaker 1: it's reasonable because you'd say yourself, Hold on a second,
Speaker 1: I mean a temporary it's effectively a temporary restraining order,
Speaker 1: which I've talked about in the past, and I can
Speaker 1: see some wisdom to this as long as it's very
Speaker 1: clearly spelled out. But and and and is respectful of
Speaker 1: the rights of law biding gun owners. But it is either.
Speaker 1: Problem here is that what you really have is an
Speaker 1: open door for abuse. I mean, the problem that you
Speaker 1: run into is that one this is going to be
Speaker 1: almost an entirely ineffective I mean, you know, this is
Speaker 1: you're hoping that the one person that you're trying to
Speaker 1: stop from doing something bad with a gun, that they're
Speaker 1: going to go to the court in time to stop him.
Speaker 1: And you know, they'll tell you all of this might stopt.
Speaker 1: Shootings are listening, very very unlikely. So from an effectiveness standpoint,
Speaker 1: I think it's it's very it's dubious. But from a rights,
Speaker 1: from a Second Amendment standpoint, you are on just the
Speaker 1: order of a judge losing your Second Amendment rights without
Speaker 1: the ability to defend yourself. I don't mean defend yourself
Speaker 1: with the Second Amendment, I mean without the if they
Speaker 1: convince the judge in your absence that you are a danger,
Speaker 1: they can take Now, the laws are a little different
Speaker 1: state to state twos, and this Colorado one is what
Speaker 1: I'm focused on right now. But they can take your
Speaker 1: guns away or your gun away, and I think we
Speaker 1: all know that, whether we're talking about a contentious personal
Speaker 1: relationship or you know, there's just any number of ways
Speaker 1: that this could be abused. And so I understand, I
Speaker 1: fundamentally understand why you would have someone who's a sheriff,
Speaker 1: for example in Colorado, just says, look, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to do this. I'm not going to take I'm not
Speaker 1: going to go into someone's home who has not been
Speaker 1: accused of a crime. We gotta remember this is not
Speaker 1: about being a crime This is about somebody who's just
Speaker 1: a danger to themselves or others. This is an entirely
Speaker 1: mental health oriented diagnosis that people who don't have a
Speaker 1: background of that are going to be making decisions on.
Speaker 1: And it's essentially a PreCrime removal of or you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you call it pre crime, but
Speaker 1: you know it's a pre crime removal of a second
Speaker 1: Amendment right from somebody. Now it is temporary. You can
Speaker 1: challenge it. You know there's a fourth what does it now?
Speaker 1: The comtat of version quote would allow family members or others.
Speaker 1: See it is open to others to petition a judge
Speaker 1: to remove people's guns that they're deemed an extreme risk
Speaker 1: to themselves or others. If the judge agrees, each person
Speaker 1: would lose the right to purchase or possess firearms for
Speaker 1: three hundred and sixty four days. They would be able
Speaker 1: to file a protest for request to order to have
Speaker 1: the order reversed. You know, this is what I mean.
Speaker 1: You know, you're this is like what people say, Oh,
Speaker 1: if you're on the no fly list, you shouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to have a gun. Well, the no fly list
Speaker 1: is not an adjudicated list it's just a bureaucratic list.
Speaker 1: And this is a judge who would be able to say,
Speaker 1: you know what, you you are no longer able to
Speaker 1: own a gun because these people, and it's not clear
Speaker 1: necessarily who the people are in this instance, these people
Speaker 1: say you should not have one, that you are a
Speaker 1: danger to yourself or to others. So if somebody's just
Speaker 1: really sad and you know, maybe having a little too much,
Speaker 1: a little too much of Grandpa's old cough medicine, little
Speaker 1: too much scotch late at night, you know, and they
Speaker 1: own a firearm, is someone going to be able to say, well,
Speaker 1: they shouldn't own that firearm. They could do something bad
Speaker 1: with it. I think that this opens up problems, and
Speaker 1: I don't think it really solves many problems. I unlike
Speaker 1: a lot of other gun control measures, though, I at least,
Speaker 1: and this is kind of how I started off this discussion,
Speaker 1: I at least think that this one, by proponents of it,
Speaker 1: some proponents of it, at least is intended in good faith.
Speaker 1: This isn't a completely this isn't a worthless idea. This
Speaker 1: isn't in a band bump stocks which okay do nothing,
Speaker 1: but you know, bum stocks and I know some of
Speaker 1: you don't even like the band of the bump stocks,
Speaker 1: and you've written I've gotten I've read your emails. I
Speaker 1: am very aware that you think the bump stock band
Speaker 1: because it's really banning a style of firing a weapon.
Speaker 1: It's like banning eating with your left hand with a
Speaker 1: fork instead of your right. I mean, you can't, you know,
Speaker 1: a bump stock is not really something that changes the
Speaker 1: internal mechanism at all of the rifle, as you know anyway.
Speaker 1: But then you also that so that's at the at
Speaker 1: the gun control level of this, there's some some nuance
Speaker 1: and some different layers. Um. But then you get to, though,
Speaker 1: what happens when you start having sheriffs you say, I'm
Speaker 1: just not gonna I'm not going to comply with that.
Speaker 1: You get a sense of the gun the real gun
Speaker 1: grabbers in this country who want to just find a way.
Speaker 1: And we saw what happened from the anti gun left
Speaker 1: after the New Zealand massacre, the Mosque massacre that happened.
Speaker 1: The left is always looking for a way, always looking
Speaker 1: for an opening to try and eliminate, you know, guns
Speaker 1: from private hands in this country. I mean, and yet
Speaker 1: it's such a far fetched idea logistically, never mind constitutionally
Speaker 1: and legally that it's it's hard to take it seriously
Speaker 1: other than we know they have the desire. But you
Speaker 1: all know this, and a lot of you are from
Speaker 1: parts of the country where this is much more true
Speaker 1: than certainly where I live in DC, were very, very
Speaker 1: very few people owned guns. The federal government going door
Speaker 1: to door to take people's guns would be disastrous in
Speaker 1: a lot of ways, and in ways that I don't
Speaker 1: have to spell out to you, But in a local
Speaker 1: law enforcement sheriffs and local police departments deciding that they
Speaker 1: won't go along with this just goes to show you
Speaker 1: how meaning they won't go along in this case with
Speaker 1: this red flag law, that there's not a sense of
Speaker 1: good faith from the other side on this issue, and
Speaker 1: that there's now the debate over guns has become so
Speaker 1: toxic and so politicized, people just would prefer to non
Speaker 1: law enforcement, would prefer to non comply in some in
Speaker 1: some instances, you know, and this is why when I
Speaker 1: talk about the erosion of legal standards that are rooted
Speaker 1: in principle and rooting in playing understanding of the law,
Speaker 1: you know, there there are ramifications to this stuff, you know,
Speaker 1: the same way. And Democrats like to play this game
Speaker 1: a lot where they'll just, I mean, DACA is effectively
Speaker 1: executive branch nullification of immigration law. That's what it is.
Speaker 1: That's what President Obama did. And when you start to
Speaker 1: see one side do this just in order to keep
Speaker 1: pace with the overreach that you're seeing from your political opponents,
Speaker 1: it becomes then more likely that you, as a Republican,
Speaker 1: as a conservat you'll say, you know what, well, we're
Speaker 1: just not going to enforce this law. It's like when
Speaker 1: I say, okay, we're not going to enforce immigration law,
Speaker 1: maybe we should enforce the income tax either, and see
Speaker 1: how long that works for us. Oh buck, you can't
Speaker 1: do that. You know, well, the same the same thinking
Speaker 1: that tells people that you can have deferred action for
Speaker 1: childhood arrivals, because Obama says so that that same thinking
Speaker 1: could be, well, we just think that the irs should prioritize,
Speaker 1: you know, only people who have stolen more than ten
Speaker 1: million dollars from the government should be prosecuted. Everybody else
Speaker 1: you get a warning and a request for payment. Everybody else.
Speaker 1: That actually probably sounds like a pretty good system to me.
Speaker 1: You know the first time around, you okay, send us
Speaker 1: our money. Right. No one goes to prison the first
Speaker 1: time unless you've stolen, you know, more than a million
Speaker 1: or more than ten million from the government. And even
Speaker 1: then the prison sentence shouldn't be very long, because you
Speaker 1: can tell. Is where I start to turn it a
Speaker 1: little bit of a radical anarchist because I hate paying
Speaker 1: taxes and it's about to be tax season here. It
Speaker 1: is tax season, Oh gosh day when everyone Americans should
Speaker 1: be forced to send a check to the government. Just
Speaker 1: for your purpose. We'll be right back. Say we're at
Speaker 1: Florida International University talking to students about their opinions of
Speaker 1: socialism and if they support a socialist GPA policy, would
Speaker 1: they be willing to share their high GPA with people
Speaker 1: that have a low GPA? After all, it's all about equality.
Speaker 1: Which would you rather have in America? Socialism or capitalism?
Speaker 1: I would say socialism. How do you view the word
Speaker 1: socialism favorably or unfavorably? I guess I would go with favorably.
Speaker 1: I'd rather people have that. See opportunity. It's a lot
Speaker 1: of excess in America. The main idea of socialism being
Speaker 1: that people at the top are doing their fair share
Speaker 1: to help people at the bottom, trying to prevent disparity
Speaker 1: of income and trying to prevent excess as you called it,
Speaker 1: and so on campus, if there's a GPA disparity where
Speaker 1: there's people to bottom with the poor GPA, would you
Speaker 1: support a policy or people at the top spread the
Speaker 1: wealth and give that GPA to people to bottom, give like,
Speaker 1: help them get a better GPA. I'm all for helping.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't give like, oh, let me just give you
Speaker 1: so much point. But it's about being fair, right, we
Speaker 1: got to help people to bottom. I've fought a lot
Speaker 1: of sleep, so I don't know if I will be fair.
Speaker 1: It's hard. If I guess, it would be kind of
Speaker 1: like hypocritical for me to say no, yea that those
Speaker 1: are our friends from from campus Reform asking on a
Speaker 1: campus because it's campus reform. You know, do you do
Speaker 1: you support socialism? And a lot of kids say yes
Speaker 1: these days. I mean when I say kids, these are
Speaker 1: young adults. These are people who, generally speaking on a
Speaker 1: campus can vote. And I just saw some polling data.
Speaker 1: It was from an old poll, but you know, something
Speaker 1: like forty of the people in this poll who are millennials,
Speaker 1: if memory serves, think that socialism is a better Socialism
Speaker 1: is better than capitalism. This is a theory that is growing.
Speaker 1: I mean, it wasn't long ago that I think it
Speaker 1: would have been considered completely bizarre to hear anybody on
Speaker 1: a college campus walking around saying that socialism is better
Speaker 1: than capitalism for students, for professors a little different. There
Speaker 1: are these Marxist professors walking around. But you know, we've
Speaker 1: gotten a bit far from the fall of the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union and the lesson that the world and unfortunately many,
Speaker 1: many hundreds of millions of people had to learn the
Speaker 1: hard way, the lesson of what comes from from socialism.
Speaker 1: But I think it's interesting to watch how the Democrats
Speaker 1: have to grapple with whether they're just going to be
Speaker 1: honest about what they wanted for twenty twenty, whether where
Speaker 1: they're going to run as open democratic socialists because that's
Speaker 1: what the platform is. You know, Medicare for all and
Speaker 1: these other Green New Deal program and you know, you
Speaker 1: look at free college and this is this is all
Speaker 1: what you would expect in a European welfare state. I'll
Speaker 1: note that the president did and I you heard a
Speaker 1: bit of the skepticism in my voice about this for
Speaker 1: the last week or so, when all of a sudden
Speaker 1: healthcare has come up, presidents now said that a healthcare
Speaker 1: repeal and replace or reform or whatever it is they're
Speaker 1: gonna do it is not going to happen till after
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. It's probably the right move because
Speaker 1: they didn't seem like they were ready for this public debate. Again,
Speaker 1: they didn't seem like they're ready for this fight, and
Speaker 1: that's why they're backing off it, which which is smart.
Speaker 1: I think let's focus on the economy, focus on immigration,
Speaker 1: on problems where the Democrats don't really have a leg
Speaker 1: to stand on, so to speak. Trump, they got rid
Speaker 1: of the Congress, got rid of the individual mandate penalty.
Speaker 1: I mean, there have been some things done. They have
Speaker 1: worked to try and lower the price of prescription drugs,
Speaker 1: very very important problem to tackle, and yet they don't
Speaker 1: really seem to understand that if all people here about
Speaker 1: a healthcare reform is that you can stand your parents'
Speaker 1: insurance until you're twenty six, and that people with prexisting
Speaker 1: conditions will be covered. Oh and a lot of people
Speaker 1: that have insurance now would lose it under their plan,
Speaker 1: even though most of them would go back to having
Speaker 1: other plans, and you know, the ones that have any
Speaker 1: kind of a private plan and the ones that are
Speaker 1: on Medicaid expansion. I mean, Medicaid is a very ineffective
Speaker 1: healthcare program and a very expensive one in addition to that.
Speaker 1: So there should be better ways, and states experimenting to
Speaker 1: cover people who would need Medicaid would be a better move,
Speaker 1: giving states greater control. But this is they're not The
Speaker 1: Republicans were not ready for this one, and I could
Speaker 1: sense it, and I think that they're making the right
Speaker 1: move by at least for now, shelving this debate. Because
Speaker 1: if you're going to come out, don't let the Democrats replay,
Speaker 1: you know, twenty twelve. Don't let the Democrats come out
Speaker 1: with the same talking points and win on this one.
Speaker 1: And let's focus on socialism. I mean, let's really have
Speaker 1: that debate. Let's really have a discussion about whether this
Speaker 1: country should increasingly brace the idea that there is a
Speaker 1: basic need that the government has to fulfill to take
Speaker 1: from some to give to others because it's the right
Speaker 1: thing to do according to the people doing the taking,
Speaker 1: that the government should be and if we're going to
Speaker 1: have a more classical definition of socialism, the government is
Speaker 1: in control of the means of production. We're a ways
Speaker 1: away from that, but we're increasingly in a place where
Speaker 1: the government certainly is in control of the distribution of
Speaker 1: what is produced, or the government has greater control over
Speaker 1: that than it has in the past. And I do
Speaker 1: want twenty twenty to be something of a referendum on socialism.
Speaker 1: I want to be because then it's also referendum on
Speaker 1: statism and on big government and on unconstitutional overreach by
Speaker 1: federal authority. You know, that's that all gets tied into
Speaker 1: this debate over socialism. Let's make it, you know, a
Speaker 1: contest between MAGA and the Sanders AOC vision of the future.
Speaker 1: That's what I'm hoping happens. So we'll continue to focus
Speaker 1: on that big hour two coming up. My friend Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy from National Review is going to join us to
Speaker 1: tell us what happens now. Mullaprobe is over. But there's
Speaker 1: this fight over the full report. Oh, they have to
Speaker 1: see the full report. What will that mean? Will the
Speaker 1: grand jury information get released? Will there'll be fights over this?
Speaker 1: How does executive privilege way in on what information we
Speaker 1: can see, and that's you know, And also I just
Speaker 1: want to want to ask him about whether the president
Speaker 1: should really be concerned about any possible legal jeopardy going forward.
Speaker 1: I mean, is that something that we really also need
Speaker 1: to be aware of. You know, could could Trump find
Speaker 1: himself indicted by someone by some other federal authority or
Speaker 1: maybe some state authority. Even Andy, who was at the
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York for decades, can tell us
Speaker 1: all about that. And we have oh so much more
Speaker 1: to team coming your way, So we'll be back in
Speaker 1: just a moment. You know, when you put on a
Speaker 1: pair of jeans you haven't worn a long time, you
Speaker 1: find a twenty in the back pocket, you go, oh,
Speaker 1: it's my day. Well, think about the money that you
Speaker 1: currently have sitting around doing nothing in that four oh
Speaker 1: one K account from you know, the job before last
Speaker 1: one that you're not really paying attention to. That money
Speaker 1: is just sitting there gathering financial dust. It could be
Speaker 1: working a lot harder for you in a precious metals IRA.
Speaker 1: My friends at Noble Goold can see if you qualified,
Speaker 1: they'll do all the hard work for you on this,
Speaker 1: and this could make you a lot and cost you nothing.
Speaker 1: Give noble Goold to call at eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: four six five three four seven, or this is really easy,
Speaker 1: Just text my name buc K. That's text Buck to
Speaker 1: five eleven, five eleven and received their free investors Guide
Speaker 1: plus for all qualified iras about twenty thousand dollars. They'll
Speaker 1: include a complimentary rare graded Morgan silver dollar valued at
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars. Just go to Noblegold Investments
Speaker 1: dot com or text buck to five eleven five eleven.
Speaker 1: Individual results may vary invest wise, standard text rates may apply.
Speaker 1: There's no reason why the Attorney General can't seek permission
Speaker 1: to disclose all the grand jury material, which could be
Speaker 1: a sizable portion of that report that has been the
Speaker 1: president in Watergate. And at the end of the day, Abe,
Speaker 1: we're not going to allow this Attorney general him by
Speaker 1: the President, to oppose the obstruction case to bury Mueller's
Speaker 1: report and finding. So we're going to insist that it
Speaker 1: comes out there. You have Adam Schiff, who has learned
Speaker 1: nothing apparently the last two years, isn't isn't budging much
Speaker 1: at all from his collusion delusions. Well, now it's I
Speaker 1: guess the obstruction construction. But we got somebody who can
Speaker 1: tell us what's coming next in all this and what
Speaker 1: our expectations should be. And the fun part is he's
Speaker 1: been right all along, unlike Schiff, who's been wrong all along.
Speaker 1: We've got Andy McCartney with us now of National Review,
Speaker 1: also a Fox News contributor. Andy, great to have you back.
Speaker 1: What do you mean to be with you? Thanks so much? Man?
Speaker 1: What do you make of shift here? Trying to say that,
Speaker 1: you know, the first of all, the handpicked I mean
Speaker 1: the little kind of you know, the little kidney punches
Speaker 1: he's throwing. No one's looking at the handpicked ag Well,
Speaker 1: every president hand picks it. I mean, like, well, what
Speaker 1: does that even mean? But saying that that he's not
Speaker 1: going to him interfere in the obstruction case, is he
Speaker 1: really trying to say that they may try to bring
Speaker 1: a political obstruction case against the president or does he
Speaker 1: still think there's some prayer of a of a criminal proceeding. Well,
Speaker 1: I think they've always thought, Buck that they could bring
Speaker 1: political charges of some kind. After all, impeachment, which has
Speaker 1: hovered over this thing from the beginning. I think it's
Speaker 1: less likely now, although it's not off the table. It's
Speaker 1: less likely now that we know that Muller has not,
Speaker 1: you know, come out with any smoking gun, and it
Speaker 1: looks like most of his report exonerates the president, at
Speaker 1: least at least on legal issues. You know, political issues
Speaker 1: are a different story. But you know, Congress doesn't need
Speaker 1: a penal offense, you know, an actual felony like I
Speaker 1: used to prosecute in federal court in order to impeach
Speaker 1: a president back in I think it was nineteen seventy
Speaker 1: or seventy one. Ironically, Jerry Ford, who was then the
Speaker 1: minority leader in Congress, trying to impeach Justice William O. Douglas.
Speaker 1: I think at the time it's ironic because Ford ends
Speaker 1: up becoming president because of an impeachment effort against Nixon,
Speaker 1: who resigns rather than be impeached. But Ford, back in
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy or seventy one said that an impeachable offense
Speaker 1: is anything at the House of Representatives decides that it
Speaker 1: is at a certain point in history. So yes, they can,
Speaker 1: you know, they can do this politically. But as the
Speaker 1: I think the smarter Democrats have said, or at least
Speaker 1: you know, grudgingly conceded um. You know, unless you have
Speaker 1: a consensus. Unless you have such egregious misconduct that cuts
Speaker 1: across the you know, the the outrage over it cuts
Speaker 1: across partisan and ideological lines, You're not going to have
Speaker 1: an impeachable offense. So you might as well forget about.
Speaker 1: So where does this go though? In terms of the
Speaker 1: the you know, the grand jury information that may be
Speaker 1: contained in the Muller Report. I mean, you know there's
Speaker 1: now where are we in finding out? You know, what's
Speaker 1: in it? How much do we get to see? And
Speaker 1: what do you think the play is going to be
Speaker 1: for Democrats? I mean, I know they're going to find
Speaker 1: something in there to say, see, this proves something, But
Speaker 1: what do you see happening? Well, I think the grand
Speaker 1: jury issue is largely an empty bag that they're fighting over.
Speaker 1: Buck In this sense, you know, there's no doubt that
Speaker 1: Barr in his letter talks about the need to scrub
Speaker 1: grand jury information from the report because of legal requirements.
Speaker 1: There's there's a requirement by federal law of grand jury secrecy.
Speaker 1: Not to get too deep in the weeds on this.
Speaker 1: But when I was a prosecutor, especially where I practice,
Speaker 1: the law is different from from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But
Speaker 1: in the Second Circuit it was pretty common to if
Speaker 1: you needed to get a disclosure of grand jury information,
Speaker 1: you just go to a judge and get a disclosure order.
Speaker 1: But the interesting thing, if you read Rules sixty, which
Speaker 1: controls all this federal rules of criminal procedure, there's nothing
Speaker 1: in Rules sixty that expressly makes dissemination to Congress a
Speaker 1: rationale for for unsealing grand jury information. And the reason
Speaker 1: that matters is there's a big appellate case in the
Speaker 1: DC Circuit right now, which is where, of course, all
Speaker 1: this action is taking place in Washington right The case
Speaker 1: of the DC Circuit, which is called McKeever versus Sessions,
Speaker 1: concerns whether a judge has authority outside the strict provisions
Speaker 1: of Rule six C, just like a generalized authority to
Speaker 1: unseal grand jury minutes. And what the Justice Department has
Speaker 1: argued in that case is that the judge is stuck
Speaker 1: with the rationales that are laid out in Rule six C.
Speaker 1: You can't just like make up, you know, I think
Speaker 1: it would be fair to disseminate this to Congress, so
Speaker 1: therefore I can disseminate it to Congress. So that precise
Speaker 1: issue is in front of the court now, and the
Speaker 1: Justice Department has taken a position on it. So it
Speaker 1: would be impossible for Bar, with the Justice Department having
Speaker 1: argued in the DC Circuit that a judge doesn't have
Speaker 1: authority outside the rule, to suddenly say that a judge does.
Speaker 1: I think the reason I say all this may be
Speaker 1: an empty bag. But as I understand it, most of
Speaker 1: the important witnesses that the Democrats would care about cooperated
Speaker 1: with Muller's investigation without the need of going into the
Speaker 1: grand jury. He didn't need to subpoena them. They sat
Speaker 1: for interviews. Those interviews and whatever Muller made of them
Speaker 1: are not grand jury material. They're not covered by grand
Speaker 1: jury secrecy. So in the end, the grand jury, I think,
Speaker 1: may turn out to be less of an issue than
Speaker 1: executive privilege, which becomes an important issue because it's one
Speaker 1: thing for White House officials to speak to a federal prosecutor,
Speaker 1: which is what Bar, but which is what Muller was
Speaker 1: because that's within the executive brand and it doesn't wave privilege.
Speaker 1: It's quite another thing to disclose it to Congress in
Speaker 1: the public, which would require a waiver of privilege. So
Speaker 1: I think while we're having all this hullabaloo about the
Speaker 1: grand jury, now when against it gets down to brass
Speaker 1: tax executive privilege. Yeah, it's the executive privilege argument of it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that that makes that makes sense to me. Andy, Um
Speaker 1: you know, I also just wanted to get your senses
Speaker 1: to how how do you how do you assess now
Speaker 1: that it's it's done, Muller's actions here? You know, you
Speaker 1: know what what do you think was fair? What was unfair?
Speaker 1: You know, now that we can actually look back on
Speaker 1: a on a game that has been played and you
Speaker 1: know the whistle has been blown, what do you think
Speaker 1: about how the way Muller conducted this whole thing? Well,
Speaker 1: I mostly um am not very favorable toward it. I
Speaker 1: will say one thing. I think the silver lining of
Speaker 1: Muller's appointment is that it rested control of a counter
Speaker 1: intelligence investigation from the FBI two Muller and I think
Speaker 1: Buck that turns out to be very interesting. As we've
Speaker 1: talked about a number of times, counterintelligence investigations in the
Speaker 1: Justice Department don't get a prosecutor because it's not prosecutor work.
Speaker 1: You're not trying to build a criminal case. So it
Speaker 1: was unusual to take it away from the bureau which
Speaker 1: runs counter intelligence and give it to a federal prosecutor.
Speaker 1: And I think a lot of that was to allow
Speaker 1: him to conduct a criminal investigation under the guise of
Speaker 1: counter intelligence. But on the other hand, what I thought, Buck,
Speaker 1: is a very interesting fact that hasn't gotten a lot
Speaker 1: of attention is that the last carter page FISA warrant
Speaker 1: was issued in June round mid to late June of
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, probably a couple of weeks, maybe a month
Speaker 1: after Muller was appointed, while he was still kind of
Speaker 1: getting his bearings, and they did go back to court
Speaker 1: in June and get another one. The interesting thing, Buck,
Speaker 1: is that's a ninety day warrant, which means it would
Speaker 1: have been due to be reauthorized in September of twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: by which point Mueller would have been really up and running.
Speaker 1: He'd have been running the investigation for four months. He'd
Speaker 1: he'd have been on top of everything. In September, they
Speaker 1: don't go back to reauthorize the warrant, and by then
Speaker 1: everybody who's been involved in the warrant is gone. Comey
Speaker 1: has been removed, McCabe's been sidelined. Baker's gone, Strack and
Speaker 1: Page or gone. Everybody who was the the key group
Speaker 1: of agents and the key group of Justice Department officials
Speaker 1: who were behind using the card, using the Steel dossier
Speaker 1: to get surveyed allance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,
Speaker 1: they're all gone. And Muller, when it's his call to make,
Speaker 1: decides we're not going to do that. And I believe
Speaker 1: that that's why we can conclude that's a big reason
Speaker 1: why we conclude that there was probably by the end
Speaker 1: of twenty seventeen, probably by the by the mid autumn
Speaker 1: of twenty seventeen, I think they knew there was no
Speaker 1: collusion case. And do you think that is there any
Speaker 1: doubt in your mind that the dossier, based on what
Speaker 1: we've been told, on what's been out there so far,
Speaker 1: that the dossier was a substantial and the kind of
Speaker 1: the the sine qua non of getting the FISA applications
Speaker 1: or getting the FISA warrants buck without you and me
Speaker 1: having to speculate about this, because you know, we haven't
Speaker 1: seen the unredacted warrants. Senator Grant Grassley and Senator Graham,
Speaker 1: who have seen them, say that with out the dossier,
Speaker 1: there's no way they had enough to seek a warrant.
Speaker 1: And Andy McCabe and his testimony when he was deputy
Speaker 1: director of the FBI and his testimony in Congress has
Speaker 1: conceded as much. So I think we can safely say,
Speaker 1: especially now that Mueller's gotten to the end of the
Speaker 1: rainbow and told us emphatically that there was no criminal collusion,
Speaker 1: I think we can safely say that if they didn't
Speaker 1: have you know, if they had other information, we'd have
Speaker 1: heard about it. Is the president out of any realistic
Speaker 1: possibility of criminal jeopardy here any not just in them,
Speaker 1: I mean just in general. From Mueller's investigation. Yes, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't. The Southern District of New York investigation is continuing,
Speaker 1: so and that's on a different it's in a different
Speaker 1: place and on a different rhythm, being run by different
Speaker 1: people and looking at different stuff than Mueller looked at.
Speaker 1: But I think, you know, the major, the major alleged misconduct,
Speaker 1: even though it's hard for me to say allege because
Speaker 1: it it looks like it was on the basis of
Speaker 1: virtually nothing, but the major allegation of misconduct against Trump
Speaker 1: was an espionage conspiracy with Russia, and I think he's
Speaker 1: past that hurdle. And then, of course there was the obstruction,
Speaker 1: which I never thought was much of anything. But you know,
Speaker 1: I think you asked me before where I think of
Speaker 1: the way Muller handled this, I think it's really does
Speaker 1: not speak well of him that he abdicated on the
Speaker 1: one question that there really that he was arguably needed
Speaker 1: to answer. I mean, I think there was no collusion case,
Speaker 1: and he probably knew that very early on, and this
Speaker 1: basically came to him buck as a as an obstruction investigation.
Speaker 1: He was retained or he was appointed right on the
Speaker 1: heels of Komi's firing, and right after McCabe opened an
Speaker 1: obstruction case against the president at the FBI, and he
Speaker 1: spent twenty two months that as Muller did, looking at obstruction,
Speaker 1: and in the end he said, well, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I'll give you the facts on both sides of the question,
Speaker 1: and then, you know, do you agree with Professor Dershowitz
Speaker 1: and others who say that not only was that weird,
Speaker 1: but it's really unethical and unfair that the that Muller
Speaker 1: needed to make a call one or the other and
Speaker 1: not do this. Well, I could have, but I didn't. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know that I would say
Speaker 1: it was unethical, But I do think it does have
Speaker 1: ethical implications, and that is this book there. You're not
Speaker 1: supposed to have a special counsel unless there's two things.
Speaker 1: There's got to be concrete grounds for criminal investigation, which
Speaker 1: means a crime to investigate, and secondly, a conflict of
Speaker 1: interest that is so profound the Justice Department can't, within
Speaker 1: the ethical rules, run the case itself. So what do
Speaker 1: we see Mueller doing here? Muller comes because there's supposedly
Speaker 1: a conflict for justice, yet he recruits his staff from
Speaker 1: the upper rechelance of the supposedly conflicted Justice Department. When
Speaker 1: he returns indictments or files indictments, he transfers a boast
Speaker 1: of a bunch of them to the component parts of
Speaker 1: the supposedly conflicted Justice Department. And in the end, the
Speaker 1: only decision that he had to make, he basically delegated
Speaker 1: it to the Attorney General, who runs the supposedly conflicted
Speaker 1: Justice Department. So you have to ask, why did we
Speaker 1: need a special counsel If the Justice Department was capable
Speaker 1: of doing all this, what did we need a special
Speaker 1: counsel for very good question. Annie McCarthy. Everybody, you should
Speaker 1: follow his work on a National review. And and you've
Speaker 1: got a podcast over there, right I do. It's called
Speaker 1: the McCarthy Report, so it should be easy enough to remember,
Speaker 1: all right, McCarthy report. Remember me there we go and
Speaker 1: look for any on Fox News, everybody. Andy, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for your time, my friend. We'll talk to you soon. See,
Speaker 1: we'll be back in just a moment. Mac. In February,
Speaker 1: Leadership Institute field organizer Hayden Williams was peacefully helping conservative
Speaker 1: students recruit for their group at UC Berkeley when he
Speaker 1: was viciously attacked by a radical leftist thug. Since then,
Speaker 1: President Trump has taken action, signing an executive order to
Speaker 1: protect students free speech, including conservatives. My friends, but more
Speaker 1: action is needed. You can take that action now. Support
Speaker 1: the Leadership Institute and defend conservative students. Just go to
Speaker 1: take back the Campus dot org. The Leadership Institute is
Speaker 1: the premier organization for educating and training conservative college students.
Speaker 1: With your gift of as little as five dollars a month,
Speaker 1: you can help conservative college students stand up to the
Speaker 1: intimidation and physical attacks of radical leftist campus bullies. The
Speaker 1: left's effort to silence conservative voices on college campuses in
Speaker 1: America has been going on for too long, So please
Speaker 1: visit take back the Campus dot org to make your
Speaker 1: urgent gift to the leadership Institute today. That's take back
Speaker 1: the Campus or take back the campus dot org. Nothing
Speaker 1: you give them, whether a Shifty SHIFT or Jerry Nadler.
Speaker 1: It's a four hundred page report, right. We could give
Speaker 1: them eight hundred pages and it wouldn't be enough. They
Speaker 1: spent over thirty million dollars on an investigation. They found
Speaker 1: no collusion, which by the way, was the most ridiculous
Speaker 1: premise I've ever heard of anyway, and you understand exactly
Speaker 1: what I mean, no collusion. There was no collusion. There
Speaker 1: never was. After thirty million dollars, we're going to start
Speaker 1: this process again because Jerry Magner wants to start it,
Speaker 1: or because SHIFT wants to start it. I'll rely on
Speaker 1: the Attorney General to make decisions, but I will tell
Speaker 1: you anything that's given to them will never be good enough.
Speaker 1: So I think it's somewhat of a waste that time.
Speaker 1: This is just politics at a very low level and
Speaker 1: President's absolutely right, and we know he's right. Denial ain't
Speaker 1: just a river in Egypt, my friends. Democrats are pretending
Speaker 1: like they have not watched, at least many of them
Speaker 1: are pretending like they have not watched the complete deflation
Speaker 1: and eradication of their favorite conspiracy theory, the one that
Speaker 1: says that President Trump somehow, for some reason, and without
Speaker 1: it being you know, able to without being able to
Speaker 1: prove any evidence of, but he colluded with the Russians
Speaker 1: to cheat in the election. And this is why I
Speaker 1: don't know. We just talked to Andy about this, but
Speaker 1: you can already hear Democrats saying, oh, well, now now
Speaker 1: we're gonna try to get him on obstruction. What they
Speaker 1: what they really need to figure out? And I think
Speaker 1: that they haven't made up their minds on this because
Speaker 1: it's a purely political calculation. It's not based in law,
Speaker 1: it's not based in what's ethical or right. It's just
Speaker 1: what will help the Democrats take back power in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Are they going to impeach him? Can they find some justification?
Speaker 1: They know it's not going to be collusion, but now
Speaker 1: maybe there's some way that they can get him on
Speaker 1: obstruct I mean the fact that the Southern District of
Speaker 1: New York still has ongoing investigations and there's all these
Speaker 1: investigations of the president. Can you imagine if there were
Speaker 1: ongoing federal investigations of Obama that were just fishing expeditions,
Speaker 1: just just looking for something. You get a bunch of
Speaker 1: Ausa's assistant, US attorneys and FBI agents just going through
Speaker 1: all the you know, all of Obama's You need to
Speaker 1: go back to what was that that guy Tony Rezko
Speaker 1: and go back to domestic terrorists, Bill Ayres, and you know,
Speaker 1: you look, look at all these figures from Obama's past.
Speaker 1: Imagine the FBI just started investigating all that, you know,
Speaker 1: all these different people, at all the different connections. The
Speaker 1: media would have completely lost their minds. And at least
Speaker 1: some of that stuff sounds like it could have happened
Speaker 1: or did happen, Whether there was criminal activity or not,
Speaker 1: you'd have to figure it out. But what we have
Speaker 1: here is just the endless investigation of endless investigations. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're not going to stop there. They're never going to
Speaker 1: stop because they can not accept that they were wrong
Speaker 1: and they cannot accept that they lost He walked up
Speaker 1: to me and wrapped his hands around my face like
Speaker 1: that and pulled me in and started rubbing noses with me.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't, you know, like an eskimo kiss or
Speaker 1: and then stop. It was for like a good fifteen seconds,
Speaker 1: and I remember thinking, is he going to kiss me?
Speaker 1: It's not rape, but it doesn't need to be rape
Speaker 1: to not be right. That's Amy Lapos, second accuser of
Speaker 1: inappropriate conduct. Let's be very clear, not sexual assault or
Speaker 1: but inappropriate conduct. And as she said, it's not it's
Speaker 1: not rape, but that doesn't mean that it's okay. Even
Speaker 1: weirder the conduct in this instance, allegedly even weirder then
Speaker 1: what was initially said. It wasn't like a quick eskimo kiss.
Speaker 1: It kept going as apparently where he rubbed noses briefly,
Speaker 1: you know, he kept rubbing his nose against her nose.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. It's super weird, folks, I know you know that.
Speaker 1: But you know, they can try to contort reality as
Speaker 1: much as they want. They can do all this different stuff.
Speaker 1: They do everything in their power to make it seem
Speaker 1: like this isn't a super creepy weirdo thing to do.
Speaker 1: It is a super creepy, weirdo thing to do. I
Speaker 1: don't care how much they you know, they try to
Speaker 1: explain this away. There's something very very strange about Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's behavior. I mean, you've got Jillibrand and Pelosi Wang
Speaker 1: and now Pelosi said earlier today that it's not disqualifying.
Speaker 1: But Democrats, you see, they want to give Biden to pass.
Speaker 1: But they can't say that. So what they'll say is
Speaker 1: there shouldn't be consequences, but there should be a conversation.
Speaker 1: Republicans get consequences, Democrats get a conversation. Let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: Republicans should lose their jobs, never never be in public
Speaker 1: life again, be you know, right. And in some cases,
Speaker 1: as we know, like with Kavanaugh, based on lies, based
Speaker 1: on lies, Democrats based on truth. No, no, no consequences.
Speaker 1: Let's just have a conversation. Here's what Jillibrand and Pelosi
Speaker 1: said played nineteen. These women feel to means and that's
Speaker 1: not okay. So if Vice President Biden does choose to
Speaker 1: run for president of the United States, I imagine this
Speaker 1: is a conversation he will be having to have with
Speaker 1: the American people. I know, Jimli Biden a long time,
Speaker 1: My grandchildren loved Joe Biden. I mean, he's an affectionate
Speaker 1: person to children, to senior citizens, to everyone. That's just
Speaker 1: the way he is. He has to understand in the
Speaker 1: world that we're in now that people's face is important
Speaker 1: to them, and what's important is how they receive it,
Speaker 1: not necessarily how you've intended it. He's an affectionate person.
Speaker 1: Have you seen all the all the photos and all
Speaker 1: the video and everything that's out there of how Biden acts.
Speaker 1: Do you think that if Biden had an R next
Speaker 1: to his name, if he were a member of the
Speaker 1: g O P, would these women in the Democratic parties,
Speaker 1: prominent women Nancy Pelosi, third in line for the presidency,
Speaker 1: folks that'll help you sleep at night. These women coming
Speaker 1: out to defend Biden would not do it if this
Speaker 1: were a Republican So this is not about principle, This
Speaker 1: is about power. But Biden's stuff is really weird. I
Speaker 1: understand it's not a huge it's not a huge deal,
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to make it a huge deal.
Speaker 1: It's really more than anything else. Another instance where we
Speaker 1: see how dishonest the media is and how the double
Speaker 1: standards are absolutely everywhere. I think that Biden's gonna flame
Speaker 1: out very quickly once he gets in. There'll be this
Speaker 1: recognition that this guy that they're so desperate for a
Speaker 1: return to It seemed like the political inevitability of obama
Speaker 1: Ism to the left, and yes, Obama did win two
Speaker 1: elections and was in office for eight years, that they
Speaker 1: think that Biden can be a kind of restorative figure
Speaker 1: back to that glorious time for the Democrat Party. Although
Speaker 1: you know, when Obama was an Democrat party was decimated
Speaker 1: as a party. It lost a tremendous amount of seats
Speaker 1: and state legislatures, a lot of House and Senate seats, laws.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was a lot that did not go
Speaker 1: well if the Democrats. Well, Obama was an office. Obama
Speaker 1: was not somebody who's political popularity translated to other members
Speaker 1: of his party. That just didn't happen. In fact, I
Speaker 1: think that the party had to bear a lot of
Speaker 1: consequences because of who Obama, because of Obama's policies. But
Speaker 1: there is an obvious double standard here and we're going
Speaker 1: to see that continue with Biden. Some of the old
Speaker 1: statements that he made that people in the media I
Speaker 1: had to say we're funny or lighthearted when they when
Speaker 1: you see them again, now you'll say, hold on the
Speaker 1: same media that will dredge up audio tape if somebody
Speaker 1: from ten years ago or that will completely lose their
Speaker 1: minds over a photo or something that someone did thirty
Speaker 1: years ago. In terms of inappropriate I'm not talking about crimes,
Speaker 1: but you know, inappropriate conduct or insensitive conduct. They're gonna
Speaker 1: try to make it sound like, oh, uncle Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: he's not creepy, he's just oh he is, he's he's
Speaker 1: he's a creepster, saying that he's really affectionate. These women
Speaker 1: didn't think it was normal. These women didn't think that.
Speaker 1: You know, I can tell you this. I have never
Speaker 1: tried to eskimo kiss a fellow employee, male or female.
Speaker 1: Never gone for the eskimo kiss um, no matter what
Speaker 1: kind of mood I was in, no matter how it
Speaker 1: was feeling, never leading anything. We just just reb noses
Speaker 1: for seconds, a little nose reb Nope, that did not happen. Oh,
Speaker 1: but speaking of double standards, there's a second accuser against
Speaker 1: Justin Fairfax, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, And there was a
Speaker 1: story today in the New York Times. You can't make
Speaker 1: this up about how that just that that whole political
Speaker 1: scandal in Virginia, Well it just went, you know, poof,
Speaker 1: it just disappeared. Oh this is so surprising. Guys, How
Speaker 1: did these scandals in Virginia? You know, I love the media.
Speaker 1: I mean the media is like the guy who lights
Speaker 1: the house on fire and then whatever arrives goes. Isn't
Speaker 1: it the craziest thing? This house is on fire. I
Speaker 1: don't know how this happened. You know, they're like the
Speaker 1: arsonist and firefighter at the same time. Hey, hey, let's
Speaker 1: get some buckets of water to throw out to put
Speaker 1: out this fire. I just started. Yeah, the media covered
Speaker 1: up the whole Fairfax I should well. They covered it
Speaker 1: up initially by not reporting on it. Now they're letting
Speaker 1: it whither away and they're just gonna move on from it.
Speaker 1: But Meredith Watson, who's the second accuser for Fairfax, she's
Speaker 1: saying she wished she came out sooner. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is still a story play twenty. I feel guilty.
Speaker 1: Why do you feel guilty? It happened to her after
Speaker 1: it happened to me, and had I had the strength?
Speaker 1: Are the courage to say something in two thousand, maybe
Speaker 1: it never would have happened to her. It was a
Speaker 1: huge betrayal. He was my friend. I don't understand how
Speaker 1: need do that to somebody that you've been a friend too,
Speaker 1: and who's confided in you about things. I just don't
Speaker 1: understand how you need do that. Does anyone think that
Speaker 1: that doesn't sound like a credible retelling of events and
Speaker 1: that woman is sharing anything other than real pain and real,
Speaker 1: real angst resulting from an alt against her. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think a woman can sound I mean, compare
Speaker 1: that that story that she's telling, the way she's telling it,
Speaker 1: how she sounds she's telling it to say Julie Sweatnik,
Speaker 1: the third accuser of Kavanaugh, who Democrats were willing to
Speaker 1: initially believe, just because I find Meredith Watson entirely credible, unbelievable.
Speaker 1: There's nothing about her story that does not add up.
Speaker 1: Where are the me to mobs? Where where are the
Speaker 1: people that you know storm Capitol Hill that get all
Speaker 1: angry at Republicans that you know did everything to stop Kavanaugh?
Speaker 1: And I don't know, I don't I don't see them.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, there they've just disappeared. They're almost
Speaker 1: like the anti war left that just evaporated under the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. When Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan, who
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand? Where were all the Code Pink protesters? Then?
Speaker 1: Where were all the anti war leftists? Oh, it's just
Speaker 1: more important things, apparently than stopping the massive escalation of
Speaker 1: a war that, by the way, resulted in more US casualties.
Speaker 1: The Obama administration racked up more US casualties in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: than the eight years of Bush or so far the
Speaker 1: two years of Trump put together. So not a lot
Speaker 1: of interest there obviously from the left, and same thing here.
Speaker 1: It's just all all about the jockeying and jostling for
Speaker 1: power for the leftist that there's not they I have
Speaker 1: a hard time taking them seriously on these matters because
Speaker 1: they pretend to be advocates for a certain principle, but
Speaker 1: really they are just pushing to be in greater control
Speaker 1: and they want to just trash the other side. That's
Speaker 1: the primary motivation that they have for so much of this.
Speaker 1: Meredith Watson sounds like a woman in a lot of
Speaker 1: pain with a lot of who you know, who needs
Speaker 1: and deserves a lot of sympathy for what happened to her.
Speaker 1: And yes, you could say Buck, that was in an interview.
Speaker 1: The media's obviously talking to or okay, but it's how
Speaker 1: they talk to her, how often they talk to her.
Speaker 1: Is this a front page news story or is this
Speaker 1: on the back pages? Is this something to talk about
Speaker 1: once in a while, or is this something that they
Speaker 1: make a repeat story so that the heat gets turned
Speaker 1: up on Fairfax to resign. You know the answers to this.
Speaker 1: They don't want Fairfax to resign for the optics and
Speaker 1: for the fact that you'd have a major Democrat that
Speaker 1: would be going down in the state of Virginia, a
Speaker 1: very important state in the twenty twenty election. So that's
Speaker 1: what's happening here. The stories just went poof about Northam,
Speaker 1: about Fairfax, about herring oh on the media is like,
Speaker 1: how did that happen? We all know how it happened.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of things I know about Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I'm don him for a long time. He is extremely affectionate.
Speaker 1: He's very affectionate, I find oddly affectionate. He gives people
Speaker 1: on the mouth. I've seen him rub the shoulders of
Speaker 1: women and men. Joe Biden calls them expressions of affect
Speaker 1: Uncle Joe, as we affectionally call him, very very affectionate.
Speaker 1: He's touchy feely. He's been doing it his entire life
Speaker 1: in an affectionate way. He suffers from being overtly affectionate.
Speaker 1: To say that, you know, Biden should change the way
Speaker 1: he is, or that he needs to be less affectionate,
Speaker 1: I think is a problem. I think the next time
Speaker 1: I see Joe Biden, if he doesn't hug me and
Speaker 1: give me a kiss and hold my hand, that's not
Speaker 1: the Joe Biden. I knew he's a nice guy. He's
Speaker 1: not a predator. And this is ridiculous. Let me just
Speaker 1: say it. This is ridiculous. I just want to know
Speaker 1: what's ridiculous. I mean, you know, Mika there is in
Speaker 1: high dudgeon. It is ridiculous, sir, you know. I mean
Speaker 1: it's like she was at the spa and they didn't
Speaker 1: have the proper organic lemon peel slices to put in
Speaker 1: her deionized water. I mean, she's very upset, But I
Speaker 1: just want to know what's ridiculous is there's no let's
Speaker 1: be clear about this There's no allegation out there about
Speaker 1: Biden doing any of this stuff that anyone really disputes.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of how creepy and how big
Speaker 1: a deal it is. It's definitely creepy, So on the
Speaker 1: one to ten creepiness scale, you know, where does it
Speaker 1: fall and how much should people care about it? Those
Speaker 1: are all fine things, But to be so outraged about it,
Speaker 1: I mean, they accuse Republicans of stuff that didn't even happen,
Speaker 1: and we're supposed to take action against them, right, they
Speaker 1: accuse Republicans, they lie about Republicans like Havanaugh to take
Speaker 1: them down, and you know, they seem to think that
Speaker 1: we are just going to like let this go. That
Speaker 1: Biden is a weird he's a weirdo. Nuzzling somebody's nose,
Speaker 1: you don't know, in a professional environment or in a
Speaker 1: professional setting where you have power, where you are in control,
Speaker 1: is weird? Okay. No one's saying that Biden should go
Speaker 1: to prison or is a terrible person or anything that
Speaker 1: We're just saying that guy's a weirdo, all right, the
Speaker 1: same you know, does it matter that Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: not actually Cherokee and that she lied up being a
Speaker 1: Cherokee to advance herself professionally for many, many years. I mean,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things in life,
Speaker 1: but does it should it matter in terms of her
Speaker 1: judgment to the American people that she thought, Oh, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say I'm one, one thou and twenty fourth Cherokee,
Speaker 1: So that proves me right? Is that weird? Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: very weird. Okay, that's also very very weird. And you know,
Speaker 1: satire and mockery or things that these that these democrats,
Speaker 1: they can't handle it because the so much of the
Speaker 1: of the pitch for them is the construct around whatever
Speaker 1: the media is telling people. But if people are snickering
Speaker 1: behind your back because they know that you're actually kind
Speaker 1: of a strange a strange bird, you know, a strange
Speaker 1: duck is a strange duck stranger than a strange bird,
Speaker 1: I don't know, quack quack. That's very hard then to
Speaker 1: keep the mythology around people going. But speaking of being
Speaker 1: a bit strange, a little transition here into the latest
Speaker 1: from to O Rourke, who is really a combination of
Speaker 1: the guy from What's the What's the movie? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: it is really a combination of Napoleon Dynamite and Keanu
Speaker 1: Reeves the nineties. Yeah, like, I just totally I just
Speaker 1: want to run for president and have you put all
Speaker 1: of your hopes and dreams like in this basket that
Speaker 1: I'm going to carry around. Does anyone else care? Again,
Speaker 1: not a big deal, but a little weird that Beto
Speaker 1: only seems to wear a blue button down shirts. Is
Speaker 1: it the same shirt? Does he just have a closet
Speaker 1: full of you'll see this. I've never seen him not
Speaker 1: wearing a blue button down shirt with rolled up sleeves.
Speaker 1: Is this the Beto uniform? Um? Not a big deal.
Speaker 1: Not going to solve world piece, not gonna cure cancer,
Speaker 1: whether Beto changes a shirt or not. But it's a
Speaker 1: little weird. You know what. Else, it's weird that he
Speaker 1: thinks that, you know what, people really want more town
Speaker 1: halls with oh Man, with elected or with appointed officials,
Speaker 1: not even like the officials play clip nine. That's why
Speaker 1: as president, I'll sign an executive order on the first
Speaker 1: day in office requiring every single cabinet secretary to hold
Speaker 1: a town hall meeting like this every single month, to
Speaker 1: listen to you and to be accountable to you. So
Speaker 1: that we deliver for you. Democracy is what we need
Speaker 1: if this country is gonna make it. I mean that
Speaker 1: just sounds so horrible. Yeah, every month, every you're gonna
Speaker 1: have to like have the department like that. The Secretary
Speaker 1: of Health and Human Services is gonna have to sit
Speaker 1: on a bunch of like random people who don't know
Speaker 1: anything about the issue per se, are gonna ask questions,
Speaker 1: are gonna televise it. It's a great idea of betto Ah.
Speaker 1: You're an amazing You're an amazing fella, mister betto He
Speaker 1: also just says other things that are that are demonstrably
Speaker 1: bizarre and untrue. Play play eight D. These kinds of
Speaker 1: challenges in the lifetimes of anyone in this auditorium, regardless
Speaker 1: of how young or how old you are. This economy,
Speaker 1: this this unprecedented concentration of wealth and power and privilege
Speaker 1: we haven't seen since the last true progressive era, that
Speaker 1: center of clobature referred to that produced Teddy Roosevelt in
Speaker 1: some extraordinary progressive reforms healthcare system where people are dying
Speaker 1: of diabetes and the flu and curable cancers in the
Speaker 1: year two nineteen, in the wealthiest of the most powerful
Speaker 1: copy second, does Beto not realize that people die from
Speaker 1: the flu because they die from the flu because it's
Speaker 1: a virus that we have no cure for or vaccine
Speaker 1: that is proven effective against. To see, people still die
Speaker 1: from the flu. Yes, yes, many tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: people do because it's the flu. That's not you who
Speaker 1: needs facts. Betto has his blue shirt and he has
Speaker 1: a vision for America. Our three coming up. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network is the only dual certified and veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company. Now, background checks are critical for
Speaker 1: your business, and you may already have some company, some
Speaker 1: vendor that does them for you. I want you to
Speaker 1: give my friends at Global Verification Network a call. They
Speaker 1: not only are veteran owned and operated, so you can
Speaker 1: support veteran business by using them. They also don't outsource
Speaker 1: their data or any of the work. It's all done
Speaker 1: here in the States, so they are separating themselves from
Speaker 1: the competition, and they are the people that you should
Speaker 1: be calling to do your background checks. They're headquartered in Chicago,
Speaker 1: but they have offices throughout the nation and all employees
Speaker 1: are located here in the United States. So give them
Speaker 1: a call and tell them that you're part of team
Speaker 1: buck all right eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine. That's eight seven and seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. Or go to my GVN
Speaker 1: dot com Global Verification Network leave no stone unturned. That's
Speaker 1: what I hear these things. Let's make America great again.
Speaker 1: I think to myself, well, exactly when did you think
Speaker 1: America was great? It certainly wasn't when people were in
Speaker 1: slave It certainly wasn't when women didn't have the right
Speaker 1: to vote. It certainly wasn't when the LGBT community and
Speaker 1: was denied the rights to which it was in times.
Speaker 1: That phrase echo as discrimination in your ears. It takes
Speaker 1: us back to I think an American past and never
Speaker 1: in fact really existed in this notion of greatness. Let's
Speaker 1: unpack former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder there from him,
Speaker 1: and let's let's do this. Shall we unpack what he says?
Speaker 1: He rejects this notion of in America that was ever great.
Speaker 1: How else can you explain? He says, Well, we had
Speaker 1: slaves before me could vote. I mean that takes you
Speaker 1: all the way up into the into the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: The LGBT community didn't have rights, So that takes you
Speaker 1: up into the Obama administration. So if America wasn't great
Speaker 1: all the way up until the Obama administration, then America,
Speaker 1: according to Derek Holder, has never been great unless the
Speaker 1: only time it has been great is the Trump presidency,
Speaker 1: which you and I might think is kind of funny.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it was great before then too,
Speaker 1: but I'm sure Eric Holder does not take that position.
Speaker 1: But this for me is a reminder of a common place,
Speaker 1: a commonplace way that democrats think of this country. You know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people who take pride in
Speaker 1: being American, but leftists generally take pride in thinking they're
Speaker 1: better than America. That's where that's where they get a
Speaker 1: sense of self worth. You know. This is why you
Speaker 1: know Obama's message was very much a promise of a
Speaker 1: fundamental transformation, that he was a near Messianic figure who
Speaker 1: would wipe away this ms of the American past and
Speaker 1: bring us into some new promise language. As we know.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is all just this was all just crap,
Speaker 1: wasn't It wasn't true, It wasn't the case. But there
Speaker 1: there is a blame America first, and blame America as
Speaker 1: quickly as you can, attitude that is prevalent on the
Speaker 1: left and Eric Holder, whom I've heard people say, I
Speaker 1: don't know if this is to be taken seriously or not,
Speaker 1: but I've heard people say that Eric Holders considering running
Speaker 1: for president too, and the Democrats are soon going to
Speaker 1: get to the the you know, the the dance hall
Speaker 1: doesn't have room for any more people part of this equation.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I really don't think you can
Speaker 1: have a primary with thirty candidates in it, but this
Speaker 1: seems to be where we're heading. Holder, though, understood his
Speaker 1: role in the Obama administration, which was very much to
Speaker 1: protect President Obama and to protect the Democratic Party. I mean,
Speaker 1: he was a political infighter. You look at what Holder
Speaker 1: did in his approach to his job, not just fast
Speaker 1: and furious and some of the other debacles that now
Speaker 1: are all swept under the rug and people pretend like
Speaker 1: they never happened. But you look at what someone like
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions or even Attorney General Barr, how he is
Speaker 1: supposed to approach the role. He's expected to be not
Speaker 1: just neutral, but a kind of paragon of non partisan
Speaker 1: perfection in the role. Meanwhile, when Holder was in the job.
Speaker 1: They all knew that he was, as Holder said, Obama's wingman.
Speaker 1: That was the claim that he was Obama's right hand guy,
Speaker 1: and he was, I mean, to Holder's credit or infamy,
Speaker 1: depending on how you want to view it, he was
Speaker 1: in fact right hand man to President Obama all along.
Speaker 1: But Holder also holds views that are very commonplace among Democrats,
Speaker 1: and he's somebody who has said I believe it was
Speaker 1: it was Holder who said that America is a nation
Speaker 1: of cowards because we never talk about race. Reality is
Speaker 1: that we talk about race in this country all the time.
Speaker 1: The reality is that we talk about race and have
Speaker 1: to be very, very very cautious because there are only
Speaker 1: certain ways you are allowed to talk about race. You know,
Speaker 1: it is now expected that, at least among Democrats and
Speaker 1: the left and the media and the academy, that white privilege,
Speaker 1: which I think is one of these stupidest and most
Speaker 1: offensive phrases in common usage these days, that white privilege
Speaker 1: is just taken as a thing. You know, I'm still
Speaker 1: waiting for my white privilege check. I'm waiting for someone
Speaker 1: to say, oh, I'm going to hire you because you've
Speaker 1: your white privilege over the other fifty white guys who
Speaker 1: kind of look like you, kind of sound like you,
Speaker 1: and want the same job. Where's the white privilege? I
Speaker 1: just I need someone to explain to me how there's
Speaker 1: how this is even worthy of being set out loud,
Speaker 1: that people have something called white privilege. I deny that
Speaker 1: there is such a thing, and I would also deny
Speaker 1: that it is in any way a useful thing to
Speaker 1: talk about, not only because it does not exist. But
Speaker 1: even if you theoretically believe that there is such a
Speaker 1: thing as white white privilege, how do you quantify it,
Speaker 1: how do you offset it? What are you supposed to
Speaker 1: do about it as a white person? There are no
Speaker 1: answers here, But you know, holder knows that it's just
Speaker 1: it's among Democrats the cheapest and easiest applause line to
Speaker 1: speak of in these these sweeping terms about our racist
Speaker 1: past and how how bad we have been as a country.
Speaker 1: That's why I says, you know, America was really never great,
Speaker 1: which this is mainstream thinking among many Democrats, that America
Speaker 1: has sinned around the world and at home, and that
Speaker 1: Republicans are a bunch of jingoistic maniacs who just want
Speaker 1: to wave their American flags while they drink bud light
Speaker 1: and you know, go race their four by fours out
Speaker 1: in the yard, and you know all that, you know something,
Speaker 1: You're like, Buck, that sounds great, I know, but that's
Speaker 1: a caricature. We all recognize that as a caricature, but
Speaker 1: holder things that we are not aware enough of the
Speaker 1: racism of our past. I think that many Democrats agree
Speaker 1: with them play five that judges, like everybody, all other
Speaker 1: Americans carry with them implicit biases, and especially in the
Speaker 1: criminal justice spheres. How do you fix it? Well, you
Speaker 1: certainly have to have training. You have to make people
Speaker 1: aware of the fact that they do carry these biases
Speaker 1: and make them understand that. You know, if you see
Speaker 1: an African American defendant in front of you, that's going
Speaker 1: to probably trigger things in your mind unconsciously, subconsciously, and
Speaker 1: you're perhaps going to treat that person differently than somebody
Speaker 1: who shows up in a tie and has you know,
Speaker 1: a great lawyer that they have paid for. You're going
Speaker 1: to maybe cut that person a break that you wouldn't
Speaker 1: otherwise give to a Hispanic or African American defendant. People
Speaker 1: have to be just aware of that, and then that
Speaker 1: training has to continue So here's a fun fact. There's
Speaker 1: no evidence whatsoever that anyone can point to that implicit
Speaker 1: bias training has any impact on implicit bias. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a kind of social science voodoo that there
Speaker 1: is no they people talk about this, Oh we need
Speaker 1: implicit bias training if somebody has an implicit or subconscious bias,
Speaker 1: I assure you having an hour of classroom time telling
Speaker 1: you not to be subconsciously biased will do nothing. So
Speaker 1: start with that. I mean, this is just this is meaningless.
Speaker 1: This is meaningless pablum from holder on this issue. And
Speaker 1: remember this guy who's Attorney General, folks, the senior most
Speaker 1: law enforcement official in the United States government for years
Speaker 1: and is still a Democrat and very high, very high standing.
Speaker 1: But another question I have if we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about implicit bias and racist baggage and racism in this country.
Speaker 1: I just pose this as a question and won't follow
Speaker 1: up with an answer, but it would be it's interesting
Speaker 1: if you try to get the left to weigh in
Speaker 1: on is it possible to have implicit bias against white people?
Speaker 1: Think about that one a little more. Let that one
Speaker 1: just bounce around for a moment. Is it possible for
Speaker 1: people to have an implicit We're being told all the
Speaker 1: time that there's white privilege. So there are people who
Speaker 1: are white who are getting all kinds of benefits and
Speaker 1: advancing themselves because of their whiteness. Meanwhile, I don't think
Speaker 1: whiteness is in short supply. I don't know anybody who's
Speaker 1: benefiting professionally or otherwise merely from the fact of being white.
Speaker 1: But is it possible for them to be implicit bias
Speaker 1: from people of any non white background against white people.
Speaker 1: You will hear most people on the left say the
Speaker 1: answer is no, which is a fascinating discussion in and
Speaker 1: of itself. That essentially, anti white racism is not possible
Speaker 1: because they view race entirely as through the lens of
Speaker 1: being a social construct. So in a society like ours
Speaker 1: where the majority is white, although it's not going to
Speaker 1: be the case that much longer in this country based
Speaker 1: on the demographic trends, but insided like like ours, it's
Speaker 1: impossible for there to be anti white racism because racism
Speaker 1: requires power. That's what they say. They redefine what it
Speaker 1: is to be racist, They redefine the very concept of
Speaker 1: race is such that it's not about treating people thinking
Speaker 1: about people acting toward people differently because of their skin color,
Speaker 1: making moral and character and other assumptions about someone because
Speaker 1: of their pigmentation and some of their genetically dictated features.
Speaker 1: That's what I think of as racism. The left thinks
Speaker 1: of racism entirely through the lens of a power construct.
Speaker 1: And so this is how you get all this talk
Speaker 1: about white privilege and even now white supremacy, which you've
Speaker 1: noticed has been expanded well beyond what it had previously
Speaker 1: been thought of. Right, white supremacy used to be people
Speaker 1: that would march around with swastika's tattooed on their foreheads
Speaker 1: and you know, yelling about white power. And they've always
Speaker 1: been this noisy fringe of idiots and losers. But now
Speaker 1: white supremacy is things like, you know, the the feeling
Speaker 1: that people have based upon someone's dress code or someone's
Speaker 1: choice of what they wear when they walk into a courtroom. No,
Speaker 1: it's white supremacy to expect that somebody wear a jacket
Speaker 1: and tie. You know what you heard Joe Biden recently
Speaker 1: talk about how you know that this is a speaking
Speaker 1: about about the problem we have is white culture. I mean,
Speaker 1: first of all, Joe Biden to say that, I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy is not exactly got a lot of street cred.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else to say. I mean, Joe,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is not uptricularly is not a guy that
Speaker 1: you would think of as understanding anybody, at least inherently
Speaker 1: understanding anybody outside of his own immediate circles. But this
Speaker 1: is the way that you need that, this is the
Speaker 1: way that you're told to talk about these things from
Speaker 1: a level. So I just think it's interesting because you know,
Speaker 1: Holder wants to lecture us about racist baggage, but he
Speaker 1: doesn't have any solutions, and he doesn't even have answers
Speaker 1: to straightforward questions. And in fact, the left doesn't have
Speaker 1: answers to these questions. And when they do try to
Speaker 1: give answers, they're entirely unsatisfying because they're intellectually untenable. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're self contradictory. You can't adjust your definition of what
Speaker 1: racism is based upon the race of an individual, because
Speaker 1: then you're redefining what it is to be racist. But
Speaker 1: that is in fact what happens all the time among
Speaker 1: Democrats and the left. If we look for consistency, we're
Speaker 1: going to be looking for a very very long time,
Speaker 1: my friends, but that is where we are. I've got
Speaker 1: more coming up. Stay with me. Conservatives are under siege
Speaker 1: on campuses. You know this, my friends. And back in February,
Speaker 1: there was an incident that really showed us just how
Speaker 1: bad it's gotten. The Leadership Institute's field organizer, Hayden Williams,
Speaker 1: was peacefully helping conservative students recruit for their group when
Speaker 1: he was attacked by a vicious radical leftist thug. You now,
Speaker 1: President Trump has taken action. He signed an executive order
Speaker 1: to protect conservative students free speech, but more action is needed.
Speaker 1: You can help. Go to take back the Campus dot
Speaker 1: org to support the Leadership Institute and defend conservative students.
Speaker 1: The Leadership Institute is the premier organization for educating and
Speaker 1: training conservative college students now. The left effort to silence
Speaker 1: conservative voices on campuses has gone on for far too long.
Speaker 1: My friends, Hayden Williams took a punch for all of us.
Speaker 1: Now it's time to fight back and protect conservative students
Speaker 1: on campus everywhere. Visit take back the Campus dot org
Speaker 1: to make your urgent gift to the Leadership Institute today.
Speaker 1: That's take back the campus dot org. So I don't
Speaker 1: know if you saw my announcement speech, but I did
Speaker 1: it right outside of Trump International. Did you see it? Well?
Speaker 1: The reason why I took the fight to him is
Speaker 1: because President Trump is creating so much division and hate
Speaker 1: in this country. But he is very small. He is weak,
Speaker 1: He is a coward. He is a leader who actually
Speaker 1: punches down. He demonizes those who need our help, those
Speaker 1: who need our support. Jill Brand just like wants to
Speaker 1: y'all and it's equal pay day. I'm like, she wants
Speaker 1: equal pay for people because, oh my gosh, Democrats, can
Speaker 1: you do better than this police? I mean, at least
Speaker 1: give at least give us some candidates to talk about
Speaker 1: that are are interesting, you know, and not just worthy
Speaker 1: of mocker. I mean, Jilla Brand doesn't even she doesn't
Speaker 1: know what her ideas are. People just tell her what
Speaker 1: the idea should be, whatever she thinks will work at
Speaker 1: any given moment. But I thought that was a really
Speaker 1: a really funny little little moment there where she comes
Speaker 1: out and she's saying Trump is creating division and hate.
Speaker 1: He's terrible and I hate his stupid face, that he's
Speaker 1: so mean and awful. It's like I'm pretty sure, miss
Speaker 1: Jilla brand, that you are in fact creating division and hate.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm I'm gonna go out on a limb here
Speaker 1: and say that Kirsten Jill, Kristen or Kirstin I don't
Speaker 1: make I don't mix them up on purpose, I swear,
Speaker 1: but it's just impossible. I think it's Kirston Jilbren that
Speaker 1: she she thinks that the Democrats are are the are
Speaker 1: the great healers in this nation. I mean the same
Speaker 1: Democrats who for the last two years have been pretending
Speaker 1: that President Trump is a traitor, that the President of
Speaker 1: the United States is a sexual predator, um, a trader,
Speaker 1: um crazy as in mentally unfit to hold any office,
Speaker 1: probably a racist, a xenophobe, an anti Muslim bigot. I mean,
Speaker 1: you got on the line. All these things that they've
Speaker 1: said about the president that are are are deeply destructive
Speaker 1: and unfair and untrue. I do not believe any of
Speaker 1: those things are true about President Trump. They certainly the
Speaker 1: whole you know, grab the woman by the area line
Speaker 1: that everyone's very familiar from the Billy Bush tape. I
Speaker 1: don't know what it's going to take for the media
Speaker 1: to stop misconstruing what he said. I'm not saying it
Speaker 1: was okay, I mean it was. It was an ungentlemanly
Speaker 1: thing to say. But he wasn't bragging about assaulting women.
Speaker 1: He was bragging about his access to attractive women who
Speaker 1: let him. That was what he said, let him do
Speaker 1: things because he's a famous, powerful, important guy. But they
Speaker 1: always make it sound like he was claiming that he
Speaker 1: was drugging and then taking advantage of people or something.
Speaker 1: You know that he's almost a Cosby esque situations, not
Speaker 1: that at all. It's not. And they're not so stupid.
Speaker 1: The media is not so stupid that they don't understand that.
Speaker 1: But a major and you're going to see this now
Speaker 1: gearing up for the twenty twenty election, a major point
Speaker 1: of opposition against Trump that comes from the left has
Speaker 1: to do with making support of Trump socially unpalatable. You know,
Speaker 1: supporting Trump makes you somebody who's a bad person that
Speaker 1: people shouldn't be friends with. And you know, nobody should
Speaker 1: like let let their kids stay over at you know,
Speaker 1: your house to hang out with your kids because you're
Speaker 1: a Trump supporter and you're a bad person, right, That's
Speaker 1: that's part of the effort here. And and it was
Speaker 1: just yesterday that I said to you, it's not just
Speaker 1: about Trump. They really do feel this way about Trump
Speaker 1: supporters too. You know, the things they're saying about Trump,
Speaker 1: they feel about the people who voted for him. And
Speaker 1: if that sounds at all like it's a it's a leap. Well,
Speaker 1: here's the chairman of the DNC, Tom Perez, talking about
Speaker 1: people who support Trump, who support Mitch McConnell and Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan and all these different people, or rather who he
Speaker 1: named some of these people who have supported Trump. Here's
Speaker 1: what he thinks of those who support President Trump. Play three.
Speaker 1: But the thing is they they are cowardly. I mean,
Speaker 1: history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly, It will
Speaker 1: judge Mits McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other
Speaker 1: cowards who refuse to stand up to this president and
Speaker 1: allowed the Party of Lincoln to die. They will be
Speaker 1: judge harshly because whatever he says goes right. Cowards. He
Speaker 1: says cowards about Republicans who won't stand up. And I
Speaker 1: can assure you cowards and idiots and buffoons is how
Speaker 1: they would describe, at least privately, those who vote for Trump.
Speaker 1: It is not just about the president himself. It is
Speaker 1: about those who believe in what he is trying to accomplish.
Speaker 1: You see, for me, it's always been it's always been
Speaker 1: the agenda. It has not been the case that, you know,
Speaker 1: President Trump's individual character or you know, even individual accomplishments
Speaker 1: before becoming president, were the motivating factor in support. Although
Speaker 1: I do find most of his tweets and certainly his
Speaker 1: battles with the media to be very entertaining, amusing and
Speaker 1: worthwhile too. The media has changed. They don't realize it
Speaker 1: quite yet, but they have changed, and it will never
Speaker 1: be the same because of this president. And I think
Speaker 1: that's all to the good. I think it's something that
Speaker 1: we should all be very happy about. But they're gonna
Speaker 1: try this through the media, through through not just and
Speaker 1: I don't just mean the news media. They're going to
Speaker 1: try it through TV shows and through Hollywood, and they
Speaker 1: want to make it socially unacceptable to support Trump. And
Speaker 1: so even if you personally are going to vote for him,
Speaker 1: Jilla Brand and Tom Perez and all these others out
Speaker 1: there are going to make people feel a little sheepish
Speaker 1: about speaking openly going into this election about their support
Speaker 1: for Trump, They're gonna make people feel like, you know,
Speaker 1: I sit down in the boardroom at work, or I
Speaker 1: sit down and you know in the office environment, I
Speaker 1: better not be wearing my MAGA hat. I better keep
Speaker 1: this to myself. And that's an advantage for Democrats and
Speaker 1: they know it. You know, a chilling effect on your
Speaker 1: support of MAGA is what they're trying to achieve, and
Speaker 1: they have a lot of ways of trying to do it. Hi,
Speaker 1: I'm going to gap. Binary sex typically refers to your
Speaker 1: biological traits as your gonads, your genitalia, your internal sex characteristics,
Speaker 1: your hormone production, hormone response, and secondary sex characteristics. Gender
Speaker 1: is about your identity, your expression, and it's often based
Speaker 1: on ideas about sex. It's important that we really break
Speaker 1: down what are we talking about when we talk about
Speaker 1: sex and gender and is there something called biological sex
Speaker 1: and what does that mean. This idea that the body
Speaker 1: is either male or female is totally wrong and I
Speaker 1: am living proof of that. We know intersex people exist
Speaker 1: and break down this binary We all have characteristics that
Speaker 1: are typically male and typically female, and it is really
Speaker 1: about political choices, social factors, ideological choices that we assign
Speaker 1: meeting to different parts of our body. All of that
Speaker 1: is wrong. Everything that you just heard there is factually, scientifically,
Speaker 1: rationally incorrect. For those of you who are wondering what
Speaker 1: the heck was that nonsense, it was a video ad
Speaker 1: that is running in teen Vogue. Now hold on, before
Speaker 1: you say, puck, come on teen Vogue, Who cares? I
Speaker 1: guess I better cancel my subscription before we look at
Speaker 1: that part. Let's understand that, you know, teen Vogue is
Speaker 1: owned by one of these big media conglomerates, just like
Speaker 1: all these other magazines, and they're propagandizing to young people
Speaker 1: who don't have the knowledge and philosophical background necessarily to
Speaker 1: understand that what they're being told is complete garbage. There's
Speaker 1: no binary, coherent thing called biological sex. That is as
Speaker 1: false as any statement can be. There is abs resolutely
Speaker 1: a coherent thing. It's It's one of the clearest and
Speaker 1: most well understood things in existence is that there is
Speaker 1: a difference between xx chromosome and x y chromosome. Now,
Speaker 1: people who want to play the game, and sometimes I
Speaker 1: get emails from people that think they're very smart and say, well, buck,
Speaker 1: there can be chromosomal abnormalities, and they're you know, sometimes okay, well,
Speaker 1: is that then the standard for being intersex? See? See,
Speaker 1: they they want they want there to be a scientific
Speaker 1: explanation for what is a purely psychological phenomenon, and a
Speaker 1: phenomenon based entirely of emotion and will and choice, not
Speaker 1: of a physical manifestation or a physical reality. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is a kind of extension, this desire to First
Speaker 1: of all, there's a Marxist underpinning to all this, because
Speaker 1: destroying the family, destroying sex is necessary to destroy the family.
Speaker 1: Destroying family is a necessary component of replacing the family
Speaker 1: unit with the state. The state then becomes your family,
Speaker 1: the collectivist identity that we all are handed by. The
Speaker 1: state becomes the only identity that has meaning, because of
Speaker 1: course the state also wants to be in place of God.
Speaker 1: So get rid of the family, get rid of God,
Speaker 1: replace it with the state. This is some people will
Speaker 1: talk about cultural Marxism, but has long standing roots in
Speaker 1: secularist Marxist philosophy. So it's not out of nowhere that
Speaker 1: all of a sudden we're being told there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as biological sex. This is a very very fashionable,
Speaker 1: not just because it's in teen vogue, a very fashionable
Speaker 1: position on the left now. And people say this and
Speaker 1: think that they don't sound stupid when they sound very stupid,
Speaker 1: saying there is no scientific basis for these claims whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And in fact, every cell of your body is different,
Speaker 1: male or female, and you know this goes to the
Speaker 1: very earliest stages of development inside the womb and what occurs.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's also this desire to fight against
Speaker 1: nature and this presumption that leftist philosophy can somehow overcome
Speaker 1: reality just by wishing it to be. So, you know,
Speaker 1: it's it's almost like, uh, you know. Deconstructionism is a
Speaker 1: garbage philosophy of Derita from the nineteen sixties, and it's
Speaker 1: a theory about that that criticizes traditional assumptions about things
Speaker 1: like what is true and what is identity? Right, so
Speaker 1: you just pull apart everything nothing matters really anymore, nothing
Speaker 1: is true or real anymore. That's deconstructionism. And this is
Speaker 1: how you get you know, high school sophomores or particularly
Speaker 1: it happens in college. We're being told, well, let's you know,
Speaker 1: what's wrong with Hamlet? You know, what what do you think?
Speaker 1: Hamlet says, forget what Shakespeare meant. What do you think
Speaker 1: Shakespeare was saying here? Not what do you think he
Speaker 1: meant to say? But what should he be saying here?
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what deconstruction is. It just turns
Speaker 1: into a form of mental auto erotica. And that's a
Speaker 1: that's a fun word, by the way, That's what you
Speaker 1: see here. Though this is not rooted in truth, it's
Speaker 1: not rooted in science. But there is a very real
Speaker 1: movement to propagandize to your kids that there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as biological sex. Meanwhile, we're all supposed to sit
Speaker 1: around and be worried about the pay gap. The pay
Speaker 1: gap is a thing only if you don't understand how
Speaker 1: basic economics works, which the left also doesn't understand. I
Speaker 1: know that they have powerful emotions, and that people who
Speaker 1: are leftists, if they have these feelings that are very
Speaker 1: very strong, but they really need to bend to the
Speaker 1: reality around them and at least make coherent arguments. And
Speaker 1: saying there's no coherent thing called biological sex is one
Speaker 1: of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There absolutely is.
Speaker 1: We all know what it is, and just because they
Speaker 1: say so doesn't mean it is roll calls up next.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party, look 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. Indeed, it
Speaker 1: is from Savannah, Georgia. I'm gonna tell you guys something
Speaker 1: that's very exciting for me. And those of you who
Speaker 1: are from Georgia or Florida or some of the other
Speaker 1: states in the vicinity are going to think that I'm
Speaker 1: a big dork for saying this, but I was very
Speaker 1: excited today. I saw an alligator, which for somebody from DC,
Speaker 1: perhaps because I am a swamp creature, for me to
Speaker 1: see a real swamp creature was very exciting. But it
Speaker 1: was basking in the sun. Looked to be about a
Speaker 1: six foot or i'd say, just hanging out, just hanging out.
Speaker 1: It's exciting for me, you know. It's this is like
Speaker 1: when I've been in some parts of the world where
Speaker 1: where there are monkeys just running around, like monkeys are
Speaker 1: kind of like squirrels, and you know, you know, you're
Speaker 1: a tourist, You're like, look at the monkeys, and all
Speaker 1: the people that are actually from the country are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're annoying and loud and steal my and steal food
Speaker 1: from like the window sill. I'm sure people down here
Speaker 1: aren't as excited about gators as I am, but I
Speaker 1: was like, whoa the gator. Very touristy moment for me.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, Savannah, I have to tell you. I love
Speaker 1: your city and your food, and Georgia is a great state.
Speaker 1: But I could have used higher than like forty five
Speaker 1: degree weather while I was down here. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: I came all the way from New York, I mean
Speaker 1: from not New York, from DC, and it was a
Speaker 1: little b on the chili side. But no, Savannah is great.
Speaker 1: I mean the food here is amazing, which I will
Speaker 1: say is that pretty much sells me on a place.
Speaker 1: If I like the food, I can handle everything else.
Speaker 1: Oh and people down here actually have good politics, unlike NDC,
Speaker 1: so that's nice. Johann said, heard you were in Atlanta
Speaker 1: for a conference, and believe you said the name Stansbury.
Speaker 1: So the recently I saw a TV ad for a
Speaker 1: book titled The American Jubilee. An online search took me
Speaker 1: the website for the publishers also Stansbury scary stuff. Will
Speaker 1: you be sharing your views on it? Johann. Yeah, they've
Speaker 1: published Jubilee is essentially a book that dives into where
Speaker 1: the economy is going to crash out and how things
Speaker 1: are going to get really bad. And yes, that is
Speaker 1: Stansbury Research. I work with Stansbury Research. I know the
Speaker 1: folks who are running very well, and I'm down here
Speaker 1: for a Stansbury conference. But I am in Savannah, Georgia.
Speaker 1: I am not in Atlanta, Jesse. Right, if you were
Speaker 1: in Savannah, I hope you style by nine Line Apparel
Speaker 1: and Black Rifle Coffee Company, Jesse. I have had it's
Speaker 1: a fair point. I have reached out to my friend
Speaker 1: at nine Line Apparel, the CEO of there, Tyler Merritt.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately he has been out of town over the weekend
Speaker 1: and into the week so we've not been able to
Speaker 1: meet up yet. But otherwise I absolutely would have gone
Speaker 1: over there and if I just had a little bit
Speaker 1: more time. But it's it's a bit, it's a bit
Speaker 1: on the busy side. So I'm hoping that, you know,
Speaker 1: things will more or less come together on all that.
Speaker 1: What else do we have here? And I just started mumbling,
Speaker 1: there the end, they'll come together with the thing. Paul Rites, Hello, Buck,
Speaker 1: any chance your truffled egg recipe is available online, Paul,
Speaker 1: I didn't know that I had a truffled egg recipe.
Speaker 1: Are you referring to scrambled egg with truffle flavoring? Because
Speaker 1: that would just be scrambled eggs. You add some either
Speaker 1: truffle shavings if you want to be very bougie, will
Speaker 1: Hi electrafor shavings in my scrambled eggs? Yes, I do,
Speaker 1: and I wear a top hat and a monocle while
Speaker 1: I eat them and nothing else. That's one way to go.
Speaker 1: But the secret for me for scrambled eggs is and
Speaker 1: the game changer things that I learned from doing. And
Speaker 1: I'll just tell you I watch a lot of YouTube videos.
Speaker 1: I learned to cook by watching YouTube videos. But you
Speaker 1: have to watch multiple videos of making the same dish
Speaker 1: because everybody has different techniques and certain ones you will
Speaker 1: pick up yourself and you'll you'll like, and others you'll
Speaker 1: be like, I don't want to do it that way.
Speaker 1: So if you watch multiple videos, it's kind of like
Speaker 1: reading various news sources on the same topic. It's important
Speaker 1: to do that in my business because there are nuances
Speaker 1: and little details that are different from write up to
Speaker 1: write up. So to go deep on a story, you
Speaker 1: want to read more than one source on it. In fact,
Speaker 1: you want to read many sources on it most of
Speaker 1: the time. I feel the same way about being an
Speaker 1: autodidact chef. I don't know if that's a thing, but
Speaker 1: let's say that's a thing. Somebody who's self taught as
Speaker 1: a chef, which I am, and chef is way too
Speaker 1: grandiose a term for it. Somebody who can make some
Speaker 1: decent proteins and breakfast food and occasionally, no, that's really it. Actually,
Speaker 1: that's where I go. That's that's the full the full
Speaker 1: length of my culinary skills. But my scrambled eggs are amazing.
Speaker 1: I mean they're amazing. I cannot lie to you. Know.
Speaker 1: It's a very good thing to be able to make carroy.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, I was telling you. I see a Karen.
Speaker 1: I'll get to you in one second. I skip right
Speaker 1: over the secret for those you want to know, you're
Speaker 1: learning one thing today you can really use. Make sure
Speaker 1: that you know that you can take the eggs. And
Speaker 1: this seems so simple, but I never thought of it before.
Speaker 1: I always tried to adjust the heat. Eggs are so
Speaker 1: heat sensitive and cook so quickly that as you're going
Speaker 1: the moment you think that it's there, they're going too fast.
Speaker 1: Because overcooking eggs is what everybody does. This is why
Speaker 1: when you go to a diner and they say, hey,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make you an omelet, and the omelet comes
Speaker 1: out and has those sort of brown scorched marks on
Speaker 1: the outside. I mean, eggs should never have brown scorch
Speaker 1: marks on it. That's not a good sign. That means
Speaker 1: they cook the you know what out of it. Be
Speaker 1: comfortable taking your eggs off the burner entirely, So just
Speaker 1: move it off the burner, move it somewhere else on
Speaker 1: your stove, Move it somewhere where it's not overdirect heat,
Speaker 1: because there's still going to be heat in that pan,
Speaker 1: so it's gonna stay very warm, in fact, will continue
Speaker 1: to cook. But that's just a way more effective I
Speaker 1: find than you know, trying to get to like low
Speaker 1: medium or simmer or you know whatever. It's just just
Speaker 1: take it off that heat and then know that in
Speaker 1: the process is a necessary step. Karen, it's buck great
Speaker 1: that you talked about the starvation in China under Mao.
Speaker 1: Helen Raleigh, who grew up in China might be an
Speaker 1: interesting guest for your show. She is now a businesswoman
Speaker 1: who occasionally writes for The Federalist. I recently finished reading
Speaker 1: her book Can You Just Never Said, which is about
Speaker 1: the hardships her family endured under MAO and how difficult
Speaker 1: it was to get American citizenship. Look, China is a fascinating,
Speaker 1: fascinating everything country, economic competitor, national security challenge, and we
Speaker 1: are about to enter a new phase now. I mean
Speaker 1: the last almost twenty years, you would say at this point,
Speaker 1: we've had a twenty year cycle now of interventions abroad,
Speaker 1: predominantly but not entirely, but predominantly in the Muslim world,
Speaker 1: and they have been counterinsurgency operations for the most bar
Speaker 1: counter terrorism that turns into counterinsurgency, and that's just been
Speaker 1: our focus. Radical Islam has been the primary enemy of
Speaker 1: America and the West for the last twenty years. We
Speaker 1: are shifting out of that now, not that radical Islam
Speaker 1: isn't still are and it's going to go away, but
Speaker 1: they're not going to be a primary or the primary threat.
Speaker 1: It's going to first it'll feel like China, China and
Speaker 1: the US are butting heads more and more over economic matters,
Speaker 1: and then the national security challenges will become more apparent.
Speaker 1: So we are heading into that. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: we're going to be in a twenty year cycle and
Speaker 1: it's really starting now of US China struggle for dominance,
Speaker 1: and by the end of those twenty years, we're going
Speaker 1: to know who's the top dog. And that's what I
Speaker 1: see happening now. So I'm really trying to gear myself
Speaker 1: toward understanding that as much as possible. I'm going to
Speaker 1: China in May, at least that's the plan as of now,
Speaker 1: for all kinds of just basic ground truth tourism stuff
Speaker 1: and also some high level meetings with some business folks there.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to get some ground truth to be
Speaker 1: able to bring back to you here on the show.
Speaker 1: But is going to be at folks, I mean all
Speaker 1: it's amazing too. Notice how Russia, the Russia scaremongering since
Speaker 1: the Mulla report came out, has dropped off already so much.
Speaker 1: And Russia is not a realistic challenger to US. Yes,
Speaker 1: it has a very large nuclear arsenal, it's a very
Speaker 1: big country with a lot of natural resources, but it's
Speaker 1: it's little You know, it's a little weak sauce economy,
Speaker 1: just it's not a serious national security and economic competitor
Speaker 1: threat China is China is going to have a bigger
Speaker 1: economy than us and then a bigger military. Then well
Speaker 1: already has more manpower, but a more powerful military than
Speaker 1: ours under current with a current trajectory in a pretty
Speaker 1: short period of time. And we have no leadership really
Speaker 1: that thinks about this problem. I mean, the fact that
Speaker 1: matters that Trump is the first president in my lifetime
Speaker 1: who has at least been ringing the alarm bell about
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, China, we want with them on some things,
Speaker 1: but we want to try to be cooperative where we can.
Speaker 1: But China is a competitor. China is trying to become
Speaker 1: the global hegemon. It does not want to be in
Speaker 1: second place. Trump understands that, you know, his zero sum view,
Speaker 1: his hyper competitive view of all things interpersonal, inter business
Speaker 1: relationships has meant that Trump understands the threat that China
Speaker 1: poses to not just the US but the liberal Western
Speaker 1: world order over the long term. I mean, let me
Speaker 1: put it to you in these terms, the US China
Speaker 1: showdown that I think we're in the early stages of
Speaker 1: right now is going to be something akin to what
Speaker 1: you know ancient Greece and Persia were locked in. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is going to be the two great powers of
Speaker 1: the day, or people would say a new Cold War
Speaker 1: and that's you know, sure, that's that's another more recent
Speaker 1: version of it. But I like to get to the ancient,
Speaker 1: ancient Greek and ancient Roman stuff whenever I can. So
Speaker 1: that's what I see happening here. And so you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear more from me about China going forward. Tim, That's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for Live from Savannah today here in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt. I'll be back in the swamp in
Speaker 1: DC tomorrow. I'm not going to bring any alligators with me,
Speaker 1: but I will talk to you then. As always, shields high.
Speaker 1: We have a fantastic contingent of seniors who are patriots
Speaker 1: in love this country, who listen to this show and
Speaker 1: to all the seniors out there. You know, you may
Speaker 1: have heard of the AARP, but I want you to
Speaker 1: know AARP doesn't share your values. They're pretty left wing,
Speaker 1: fought for progressive causes, including Obamacare. That's why I want
Speaker 1: you to check out my friends at amak amac was
Speaker 1: founded by an air veteran, and they have working for
Speaker 1: over a decade to support conservative views and policy here
Speaker 1: in America. So AMAK agrees with you on what the
Speaker 1: future of this country should look like, but also gets
Speaker 1: you great value discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance,
Speaker 1: ental plans, even sell service options. So check out AMACS
Speaker 1: stand with them as they fight the good fight by
Speaker 1: becoming a member today. The benefits are great, but the
Speaker 1: cause is even greater. Join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC
Speaker 1: is better, better for you, Better for America.