Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The great Green Leap
Speaker 1: Forward continues. The COMMI vibe from the Democrats is getting
Speaker 1: stronger with each passing day. AOC and company talking about
Speaker 1: how we should get rid of the cows because of
Speaker 1: their farts, and we're going to run off of wind
Speaker 1: turbines and all the rest of this nonsense. How do
Speaker 1: we fight back against these socialist impulses and how do
Speaker 1: we get Democrats to stop using twelve year olds for politics?
Speaker 1: That in more coming up on the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Buck SEXTONSI decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake, American analytic, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the Bucks Sexton Show, Tuma CIA Analysts. I
Speaker 1: can speak three hours without a phone call. Try doing
Speaker 1: that sometime. No, welcome to the Bucks X and show everybody.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining. Hope you had a
Speaker 1: great weekend. I was out on Sunday doing quite a
Speaker 1: bit of sporting clay shooting, did some busted out the
Speaker 1: twelve gage for a bit, had some fun with that.
Speaker 1: It's good. It's one of these things that's a perishable skill. Man.
Speaker 1: I don't get enough time out there otherwise you started
Speaker 1: to get a little rusty, start to miss, then you
Speaker 1: start to miss too much, you start to swear, and
Speaker 1: then it's all of a sudden, you get the sadness.
Speaker 1: But no, I had a lot of fun. It was
Speaker 1: good times. Well, let's get right into it. I've got
Speaker 1: this amazing clip to share with you. We got to
Speaker 1: talk about Okaza Cortez on the show, The Green New Deal.
Speaker 1: Libs are doubling down on this. They're completely insane. Kim
Speaker 1: John Un and Trump meeting in Vietnam this week. Also,
Speaker 1: big trade deal with China could be on the horizon.
Speaker 1: They're pushing back the deadline from March first, hitting the
Speaker 1: twenty two trillion dollars debt ceiling coming up in a
Speaker 1: few days. And we got a lot to talk about Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Are we gonna help out this punk Maduro or should
Speaker 1: we stay out of it? What's going on in Syria? Man?
Speaker 1: I got I have so much show in my head
Speaker 1: right now and even know what to do. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can't even contain all the show that's in my head.
Speaker 1: But I gotta start with this because this was amazing.
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein, sir woman who has been in the game
Speaker 1: for quite a long time. She is a she is
Speaker 1: a wily political survivor, to be sure. And she had
Speaker 1: this group come visit her. I forget what they're called.
Speaker 1: There's some name for them now, these groups, these like
Speaker 1: environmentalist agitator kids basically that show up. But they showed
Speaker 1: up to Congress, and I want to play. I can't
Speaker 1: play the full fifteen minutes, obviously because it's a radio show,
Speaker 1: but we picked the best moment of this. Imagine you're
Speaker 1: a sitting US center. You've been doing this for us,
Speaker 1: She points out decades and a group of kids, and
Speaker 1: I don't mean kids, like, oh, those kids, and they're
Speaker 1: twenty five, because you know twenty five year olds as
Speaker 1: somebody who was twenty five pretty recently, they've got a
Speaker 1: lot to learn. The Sunshine movement. It's called thank you, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: the Sunshine Movement. They show up though, to a US
Speaker 1: Senator's office and they're not there. You know, you know,
Speaker 1: I remember what it was like to be ten, eleven, twelve,
Speaker 1: maybe thirteen years old going to Congress. You would think, ooh,
Speaker 1: like this is where the government stuff happens, and there's
Speaker 1: some sense of awe and majesty when you're a kid,
Speaker 1: I think of being in our nation's capital. I actually
Speaker 1: never did a class trip to DC, so I'm just assuming.
Speaker 1: And we did a class trip to Mystic Seaport, you
Speaker 1: know when I was that age, and we were like,
Speaker 1: ooh ah, look at the old ship and all the
Speaker 1: barnacles on the underside of it. And there was some
Speaker 1: dude who was dressed as a pirate who was like,
Speaker 1: what what do we do with the captain's daughter? What
Speaker 1: will we do? Early? You know, they're doing the whole
Speaker 1: pirate songs and stuff. I don't know, you have no
Speaker 1: idea what the heck I'm talking about. Don't worry about it.
Speaker 1: Don't worry about it. The guy was sealing this, not
Speaker 1: sealing singing pirate songs for us. Anyway. You would think
Speaker 1: they'd be awe and majesty from kids that show, But no,
Speaker 1: there were demands. There were straight up demands made of
Speaker 1: a sitting US senator by these kids who were twelve
Speaker 1: years old. Thirteen years old, you have we're gonna talk more.
Speaker 1: We're gonna break this from down in a second here,
Speaker 1: because I mean, this is the Libs love to do this.
Speaker 1: They never learned their lesson. Nobody should give a blankety
Speaker 1: blanking blank blank about what kids think about politics and policy.
Speaker 1: I'm sure many of you listening to this have won.
Speaker 1: I was just over the weekend at a house where
Speaker 1: there were all there were kids aged two to twelve, actually,
Speaker 1: I think running around like six or seven of them.
Speaker 1: Wonderful kids, great families, everything else. I do not care
Speaker 1: what they think of the top Marshall tax. Right though,
Speaker 1: I do not care what a twelve year old thinks
Speaker 1: about the board. It's not that I don't care, like
Speaker 1: I disagree with them. I don't care, as in it
Speaker 1: does not register for me as an opinion that I
Speaker 1: should or need to listen to. If they have questions,
Speaker 1: I will answer them if they if they want to learn,
Speaker 1: I will explain. But their opinion to me does not matter,
Speaker 1: as in, it should not be taken into account for
Speaker 1: the purposes of legislating. Right. They could have opinions to
Speaker 1: their parents, and that's great. They got opinions to their friends,
Speaker 1: but their opinion to a US senator should Whether it's
Speaker 1: gun control or climate change or any of these issues,
Speaker 1: kids don't count when it comes to policy decision making. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's right. They don't. They don't get to have a
Speaker 1: say in this one. This is why we actually have
Speaker 1: age limits about things like voting. Diane Feinstein caught the
Speaker 1: brunts of brainwashed kids deployed by liberals for the purposes
Speaker 1: of shaming her into some kind of action, and Finestein
Speaker 1: wasn't having it. Sit back and enjoy this one, folks.
Speaker 1: Play clip one. We are trying to ask you to
Speaker 1: vote yes on the Green New Deals. Okay, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what. We have our own Green New deal. Some
Speaker 1: scientists have said that we have twelve years to turn
Speaker 1: this around. Living well, it's not going to get turned
Speaker 1: around in ten years. Is the government. You're supposed to
Speaker 1: be flint the people and by the people. And you'll
Speaker 1: know what's interesting about this group. I've been doing this
Speaker 1: for thirty years. I know what I'm doing. You come
Speaker 1: in here and you say it has to be my
Speaker 1: way or the highway. I don't respond to that. I
Speaker 1: know what I'm doing. So you know, maybe people should
Speaker 1: listen a little bit. I hear what you're saying, but
Speaker 1: where are the people who voted you. You're supposed to
Speaker 1: listen to us. That's here I'm sixteen, I can did
Speaker 1: any plan that doesn't take full transformative action is not
Speaker 1: going to be what we need. Well, you know better
Speaker 1: than I do. I think one day you should run
Speaker 1: for the Senate. Oh Mike, wasn't that amazing? Man? That
Speaker 1: was beautiful. I also loved it, like we voted for you.
Speaker 1: She's like, actually, kids, you're not old of the vote.
Speaker 1: That's amazing. But you know why somebody who sixteen would
Speaker 1: say we voted for you, because they're all just parroting
Speaker 1: what their parents and teachers have told them. Those kids
Speaker 1: were all saying talking points. You know, we need your leadership.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, you. I also the one kid it was,
Speaker 1: I mean, the kid was Look, some of the kids
Speaker 1: were really cute, and they don't know any better. I'm
Speaker 1: not here. I have no criticism of the kids. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe they could be a little more respectful of their elders,
Speaker 1: But I'm not here to criticize the kids. It's the
Speaker 1: parents and the adults and the teachers that are with them, though,
Speaker 1: who deploy these kids like some kind of trump card
Speaker 1: on how to get Diane Feinstein to vote a certain
Speaker 1: way on the or to push for certain aspects of
Speaker 1: the Green New deal. This is this is crazy. But
Speaker 1: they did this with the Parkland kids too. You know,
Speaker 1: they were teenagers. Some of them were close to or
Speaker 1: write at about eighteen, but they were they were teenagers.
Speaker 1: And because they were students at that high school, we
Speaker 1: were supposed to listen to them without criticism, listen to
Speaker 1: them without comment. They were supposed to be in a
Speaker 1: role where they could say whatever they wanted to, call
Speaker 1: the NRA a blood soaked terrorist organization, say the NRA
Speaker 1: has has the blood of children on itsives. They could
Speaker 1: say whatever they wanted. And if you criticize them, how
Speaker 1: dare you? These these are kids who are victims. How
Speaker 1: dare you? They were deploying young victims to make political
Speaker 1: points for the move on dot org and you know
Speaker 1: far left Democrat base really just unseemly unethical and and
Speaker 1: I think really disgraceful conduct for the adults who do
Speaker 1: this and for the young adults that engage in this
Speaker 1: behavior too. Um. But you know that, Notice how they're
Speaker 1: they're telling her this one kid is, you know, but
Speaker 1: we need you, we need your leadership, you know, the
Speaker 1: whole thing. And and it's just where do they get
Speaker 1: these ideas that that we only have twelve years to
Speaker 1: save the planet. Do you know when we only had
Speaker 1: ten years to save the planet thirteen years ago when
Speaker 1: al gores we only have ten years to save the planet.
Speaker 1: Well that was thirteen years ago, and we seem just fine.
Speaker 1: These people are part of a delusion. This is a
Speaker 1: this is a massive story, this climate change stuff. You
Speaker 1: libs have become detached from reality. The world has existed
Speaker 1: for billions of years, has been through countless true natural
Speaker 1: disasters and calamities, and yet here we are and it's
Speaker 1: all going to be okay. I want a world that
Speaker 1: exists that can sustain life for many millennia to come.
Speaker 1: I have no concerns. I'm not a little bit concerned
Speaker 1: about climate change. I am zero percent concerned about climate change.
Speaker 1: I think hurricanes are real. I think natural disasters will happen.
Speaker 1: I think pollution is real. But that's not what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here. We're talking about c O two emissions
Speaker 1: into the atmosphere. CO two, which is a naturally a
Speaker 1: naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere. It is what plants
Speaker 1: need to survive and for photosynthesis. And yet here we
Speaker 1: are being told that the world is going to end.
Speaker 1: I tell you now, it is a form of child abuse.
Speaker 1: It is psycho logical abuse of children to tell eight, nine,
Speaker 1: ten eleven year olds that the world is going to
Speaker 1: end unless they go and mob an adult in power
Speaker 1: and cry and beg for the policies of an imbecile
Speaker 1: Ocazio Cortez to be implemented at the national level. It
Speaker 1: is child abuse to tell kids the world is going
Speaker 1: to end in ten years, which is what now is.
Speaker 1: And I am shocked at some of the people who
Speaker 1: are jumping on this bandwagon because it is politically fashionable
Speaker 1: for the left right now. It is particularly fashionable because
Speaker 1: Ocasio Cortes, who they really just like because of all
Speaker 1: the all the superficial aspect. They like the way she looks,
Speaker 1: they like the way she sounds, They're like her background,
Speaker 1: they're like her youth. The obsession with Ocasio Cortez is
Speaker 1: the liberal obsession with optics. There's no substance to what
Speaker 1: she is saying. She doesn't know what the heck she's
Speaker 1: talking about, but they've become just engrossed in this perception,
Speaker 1: in this in this character that is Ocazio Cortez, and
Speaker 1: she's out there, she's out there telling people all the
Speaker 1: usual scaremongering stuff, and she had a moment that was
Speaker 1: just jaw dropping. She's doing these live streams, which you know,
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands, probably millions of people will watch, where
Speaker 1: she sits there in her kitchen, and you know, she
Speaker 1: is better at this than Elizabeth Warren. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: me a beer, you know, hello, fellow young people. I'm
Speaker 1: going to drink a beer like a cool person. Now.
Speaker 1: Ocazio Cortez is young and seems normal and cool to
Speaker 1: young people. And she sits there and she does these
Speaker 1: kind of policy gives these policy declarations while she's you know,
Speaker 1: chopping up an onion or whatever, and she says things like, well,
Speaker 1: I'll get into the craziest one a moment, but first,
Speaker 1: you know, don't have She's telling people that there's a
Speaker 1: that they're not having kids because a climate change play
Speaker 1: twenty three. Our planet is going to fit disaster if
Speaker 1: we don't turn the ship around. And so it's basically
Speaker 1: like there's scientific consensus that the lives of children are
Speaker 1: going to be very difficult. And it does lead I
Speaker 1: think young people to have a legitimate question, you know,
Speaker 1: should is it okay? To still have children. They always
Speaker 1: go back to these Malthusian fallacies. Remember John Thomas Malthus
Speaker 1: from back in the day, We're going to run out
Speaker 1: of food. Population keeps growing and our ability to make
Speaker 1: food is going to peak, and then we're going to
Speaker 1: run out of food and you're gonna have die off
Speaker 1: from starvation around the world. Yeah, he was considered a brilliant,
Speaker 1: brilliant mind in his day. He was really wrong, wasn't he.
Speaker 1: But there there is a desire on the hard part
Speaker 1: of the hardcore left. There's a negation of humanity that's
Speaker 1: at the core of a lot of their beliefs. There's
Speaker 1: a nihilism, you know. Yes, the Green New Deal is
Speaker 1: about the implementation of a communist feeling within the left,
Speaker 1: of a kind of traditional socialist but socialist in the
Speaker 1: original Marxist intent feeling on the left. But then there's
Speaker 1: also just this desire to view human beings to borrow
Speaker 1: from the matrix and agent Smith, we're like the virus
Speaker 1: on this planet. You know, we take, we despoil, we exploit.
Speaker 1: Human beings are a virus. Agent Smith said. We all
Speaker 1: you do is replicate and take and destroy. That is
Speaker 1: also a philosophy that is represented in the minds of
Speaker 1: many people on the left who embrace this Green New Deal. Nonsense.
Speaker 1: There are too many people. We're too destructive, We're not
Speaker 1: at harmony with nature. Nature is actually destructive. Nature involves
Speaker 1: a tremendous this amount of predation and death and loss
Speaker 1: and catastrophe. It is in our conquering of nature that
Speaker 1: we can achieve peace and prosperity and beauty and the arts.
Speaker 1: This is what the Libs don't understand. You know, they
Speaker 1: should just go try to walk around in you know,
Speaker 1: the rainforest naked for a few days to see how
Speaker 1: that goes for them before they start saying, oh, let's
Speaker 1: get rid of all the light bulbs. I've got more
Speaker 1: to stay with me. Morning coffee is an American institution.
Speaker 1: I drink it every day, and that's why when it
Speaker 1: comes to starting my day right full of freedom, promise
Speaker 1: and patriotism, I reach for the most delicious, most American
Speaker 1: coffee on the market, Black Rifle coffee. This is how
Speaker 1: I get my day started. I tell you, it's delicious coffee,
Speaker 1: and I'm somebody that really cares what is coffee tastes like. Also,
Speaker 1: it's got quite a punch to it. But if you
Speaker 1: want decaf, you can get decaf. Two try Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: This will become your coffee of choice, just like it
Speaker 1: is for me. I get it delivered every month. It's
Speaker 1: roast to order, guaranteed fresh delivered to your door. And
Speaker 1: while liberals threatened to further tax your hard earned money
Speaker 1: with their socialist agenda, Black Rifle Coffee is fueling the
Speaker 1: fight for freedom by upping their offer to twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: It's a great deal. Take advantage by visiting Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and receive twenty percent off your
Speaker 1: entire order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck for
Speaker 1: twenty percent off Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck. And
Speaker 1: I read it and I was like, you know what,
Speaker 1: I don't care anymore. I don't care anymore because again,
Speaker 1: I'm at least trying and they're not. So the power
Speaker 1: isn't the person who's trying, regardless of the success. If
Speaker 1: you're trying, you've got all the power. You're driving the agenda,
Speaker 1: you're doing all this stuff. Like I just introduced Green
Speaker 1: New Deal two weeks ago, and it's creating all of
Speaker 1: this conversation. Why because no one else has even tried.
Speaker 1: Because no one else has even tried. So people are like, oh,
Speaker 1: it's unrealistic, Oh it's vague. Oh it doesn't address this
Speaker 1: little minute thing. And I'm like, you try you do
Speaker 1: it right, because you're not, because you're not. So until
Speaker 1: you do it, I'm the boss. How by you heard
Speaker 1: it here? Yeah, no, you're not the boss though, AOC.
Speaker 1: I hate to break it to you. You're a freshman
Speaker 1: member of Congress. There are four hundred and thirty five
Speaker 1: of you, and so far it's not not exactly impressing
Speaker 1: anybody who's paying attention to the content of what you say.
Speaker 1: Your social media game is strong, but your policy game
Speaker 1: is ignorance. Ignorance is bliss. So I just like this,
Speaker 1: though you know, I'm the boss. This is like what
Speaker 1: a I imagine because many of you have children and
Speaker 1: I don't, but I know enough to about kids to
Speaker 1: know that sometimes walk around and say I'm the boss.
Speaker 1: You know. It's a fun thing for a kid to say,
Speaker 1: and you're like, no, no, little Timothy, like you're not. Yes,
Speaker 1: I've got boss, you know, And they get to walk
Speaker 1: around and say this I'll tell you a funny story
Speaker 1: actually real quickly. Um, I a friend, I know what
Speaker 1: I'm even. It was. It was it was Pete hegseth
Speaker 1: over at Fox. When we used to work together at
Speaker 1: Real News. He had these adorable kids, I mean, really
Speaker 1: really cute kids. He brought one of them to the
Speaker 1: office one day and to the studio, i should say,
Speaker 1: and he said to me, we're waiting outside to go
Speaker 1: up in the elevator after the show, and Peach with
Speaker 1: his kid and you know, happy dad and the whole thing.
Speaker 1: And he says, hey, Buck, make sure that you let it.
Speaker 1: May make sure that you let him press the button
Speaker 1: for the elevator. And I'm like, oh sure. So he
Speaker 1: presses that, you know, the the up button, and the
Speaker 1: elevators reaction in the basement, and he presses the button
Speaker 1: and then I step in and without thinking, without thinking,
Speaker 1: I just got in the elevator. I thought, okay, well
Speaker 1: he pressed the button to get up, and so now
Speaker 1: we're good, right, So I pressed lobby the elevator, and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, I hear this yelling, you press
Speaker 1: the button I was supposed to press the butt he
Speaker 1: starts yelling at me and screaming and causes a scene,
Speaker 1: and there are other people waiting for the elevator and
Speaker 1: Petze look at me like, oh, I'm so sorry. Man,
Speaker 1: he has to press all the buttons and oh, man,
Speaker 1: So it's kind of like AOC. I'm the boss. I
Speaker 1: pressed the button. I pressed the button. Don't let her
Speaker 1: press the button. Guys, If it's the Green New Deal,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be really, really bad. It's gonna work out
Speaker 1: very badly for all of us. Got more on this,
Speaker 1: Kamela Harris Klobischer eating salad with a dirty comb. That's
Speaker 1: coming up. There's no question we have to be practical.
Speaker 1: But being practical also recognizes that climate change is an
Speaker 1: existential threat to us as human beings. Being practical recognizes
Speaker 1: that greenhouse gas emissions are threatening our air and its
Speaker 1: threatening the planet, and that it is well within our
Speaker 1: capacity as human beings to change our behaviors in a
Speaker 1: way that we can reduce its effects. That's practical. Can
Speaker 1: we afford it? Of course we can afford it. Two
Speaker 1: and a half three trillion dollars a year from Medicare
Speaker 1: for all By some studies, I don't. Depending on which
Speaker 1: portions of the Green New Deal you pick to do first,
Speaker 1: that's money that you know what the Republicans are going
Speaker 1: to say, tax and spend liberals by in the sky.
Speaker 1: One of the things that I admire and respect is
Speaker 1: the measurement that is captured in three letters, ROI, what's
Speaker 1: the return on the investment? People are in the private
Speaker 1: sector understand this really well, it's not about a cost.
Speaker 1: It's about an investment. Oh okay, it's not about a cost,
Speaker 1: you see, it's about it's about an investment. What this
Speaker 1: is nonsense? Right? I mean Kamala Harris here first of
Speaker 1: all that she look, she understands that the left wing
Speaker 1: environmentalist base it's a cult. It is. These people are nuts,
Speaker 1: but they have a lot of money, and they have
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of sway in media and
Speaker 1: online in social media, and so you have to you
Speaker 1: have to play this game now of climate change is
Speaker 1: an existential threat. If you want to get through the
Speaker 1: left wing lunatic primary, you have to play this game.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that you have to from the perspective
Speaker 1: of being a saying an honorable person, but I mean,
Speaker 1: if you want to win the Democrat primary, you've got
Speaker 1: to be a climate change alarmist. So I understand that
Speaker 1: the cynical reasons for her taking this position, I get
Speaker 1: that right, I'm up on that. But even the rest
Speaker 1: of the stuff that she says, here the costs, what
Speaker 1: are the costs? Oh, she doesn't want to focus on
Speaker 1: the costs. Why is that? Why doesn't she want to
Speaker 1: focus on the costs? Well, because there's a report out today,
Speaker 1: I think it says I read it or but I
Speaker 1: think it said that there is the expectation is that
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal, if implemented throughout. So if you
Speaker 1: went all in on the Green New Deal, if you
Speaker 1: really did the Green New Deal the way you say
Speaker 1: you're the Libs say they want to, the cost overall
Speaker 1: would be ninety trillion dollars over the course of the
Speaker 1: implementation of it, which obviously would be a number of years.
Speaker 1: But the bottom line is that it would be a
Speaker 1: vast drain on the economy. So how do they get
Speaker 1: around that? How do they get around the fact that
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal is going to mean that you're
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, ninety three trillion dollars according to the American
Speaker 1: Action Forum, and it could cost every American household sixty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars a year. Do you think that the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal is worth sixty five Would you want
Speaker 1: to write a check every year for sixty five thousand
Speaker 1: dollars to fight CO two in the atmosphere? CO two
Speaker 1: which is point zero two I think, or point zero
Speaker 1: five percent of the atmosphere. Okay, it's not even one
Speaker 1: percent of the atmosphere. We're talking about a small percentage
Speaker 1: change in less than one percent of the overall atmosphere.
Speaker 1: And people like Kamala Harris are coming out to say
Speaker 1: that this is an existential threat to US ninety three
Speaker 1: trillion dollars over a decade. That's what the estimate is.
Speaker 1: Do you want to pay three four ten times as
Speaker 1: much for electricity you will under a Green New Deal?
Speaker 1: Do you want to pay a lot more for all
Speaker 1: the consumer products in your life because they have to
Speaker 1: be transported to you that requires energy. They have to
Speaker 1: be manufactured that requires energy. They have to the facilities
Speaker 1: that they're made and have to be built, that requires energy.
Speaker 1: Where's it all going to come from? Solar wind? This
Speaker 1: is idiocy. I keep wanting to say that it's unserious intellectually,
Speaker 1: but it's deadly serious from a policy perspective, because this
Speaker 1: stuff is going to mean that a lot of us
Speaker 1: suffer more, are poorer, and there's less progress throughout the economy.
Speaker 1: I mean, this really is a massive drag on overall productivity.
Speaker 1: And so how do they try to reframe it? What
Speaker 1: do they try to try to say about this so
Speaker 1: that it does not seem as horrifically stupid and also costly? Right,
Speaker 1: what is this going to cost? CNN's as in Kampbell Harris,
Speaker 1: and she just just skips right past that and says, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's about return on investment. Investment. You see, who thinks
Speaker 1: that the government is going to be a good investor,
Speaker 1: a good fiduciary if you will, of your money? That
Speaker 1: the government should be in the business of financial speculation
Speaker 1: on your behalf, because that's what they're telling you. Oh,
Speaker 1: give us money, so that meet meeting the government, and
Speaker 1: not just give us. We're going to take it by force,
Speaker 1: because that's what taxation is. It is seizing your money
Speaker 1: under the threat of force. That is taxation. Do not
Speaker 1: forget it. The government is saying we're going to take
Speaker 1: your money, but we're going to do such great stuff
Speaker 1: with it that even though the technologies don't exist right now.
Speaker 1: To make this feasible, We're going to make it work
Speaker 1: that even though right now this would be immensely wasteful,
Speaker 1: immensely destructive to economic productivity, just give us the money,
Speaker 1: will invest it for you. You'll get more back. Just
Speaker 1: wait and see, my friends, we're going to hit the
Speaker 1: debt ceiling. I think this weekend twenty two trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: we're going to officially be at twenty two trillion dollars
Speaker 1: in debt. You think that this government's going to manage
Speaker 1: this Green New Deal effectively going to spend your dollars? Well,
Speaker 1: does anyone really believe that? I would like to talk
Speaker 1: to that person and try to walk them through the
Speaker 1: facts of life quite a bit, you know, the reality
Speaker 1: of the world around us. California was expecting to spend. Now,
Speaker 1: the projections were for seventy seven billion on one train
Speaker 1: line from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Seventy seven billion
Speaker 1: dollars they barely got. They didn't even get to first base,
Speaker 1: they barely even got up to bat. And now they
Speaker 1: want to keep three billion dollars. They can build a
Speaker 1: leg of this thing from Baker's Field to Sacramento or something,
Speaker 1: or Baker's Field to somewhere I don't even know, somewhere
Speaker 1: else in California. You think, you think that the federal
Speaker 1: government is going to be a lean, mean, analytic machine
Speaker 1: when it comes to how to spend money for a
Speaker 1: green new deal. This is insane. Look, it's the Great
Speaker 1: Green Leap Forward. It really is the Great Green Leap Forward.
Speaker 1: Mile's Great leap Forward resulted in the starvation of sixty
Speaker 1: million people. Now, because we're already a very wealthy country,
Speaker 1: we're not going to starve because of this, but this
Speaker 1: will set our economy back decades if they manage to
Speaker 1: do this. That's what's at stake here. This will mean that,
Speaker 1: you know, the wealth that we all enjoy as Americans,
Speaker 1: We have been getting wealthier as a society, although that
Speaker 1: wealth is not evenly distributed in the last twenty years
Speaker 1: in terms of the increase in that wealth, we are
Speaker 1: getting wealthier as a country all the time, and they
Speaker 1: will put a halt to that. They will set us
Speaker 1: back decades. By the way, Also speaking of Kamala Harris here,
Speaker 1: she made it very clear that her plan is to
Speaker 1: go a to go after Trump, and that's what that's
Speaker 1: what she's planning to do when she runs against him.
Speaker 1: And I think that you're going to see Democrats who
Speaker 1: are willing to say that if they be Trump, unlike
Speaker 1: the Republicans that could have gone like Trump, that could
Speaker 1: have gone after Hillary and charged her and brought real
Speaker 1: criminal charges against her that are not fabricated or not
Speaker 1: trumped up. I think they're gonna they're gonna make the
Speaker 1: case to the left wing base. They're gonna go after
Speaker 1: Trump play twenty six. I guess the last piece is this,
Speaker 1: we're gonna need somebody who knows how to prosecute the
Speaker 1: case against this president. Now, that may be a rhetorical
Speaker 1: flourish because she was a prosecutor one it was very
Speaker 1: fond of putting people in prison for nonviolent offenses, by
Speaker 1: the way, prosecutor who really liked to flex her muscles
Speaker 1: and hurt people that weren't bad people. But I think
Speaker 1: she's also engaging in a little bit of a dog
Speaker 1: whistle situation here about prosecuting Trump and those around him.
Speaker 1: And this is going to slowly enter the discussion of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, and it will eventually become normalized in that
Speaker 1: discussion where it's not just we're going to do feat
Speaker 1: Trump because the Democrats should be in power, but we
Speaker 1: wanted defeat Trump. The Democrats wanted defeat Trump so that
Speaker 1: they can bring criminal charges against him and his family
Speaker 1: when Trump is out of office and no longer has
Speaker 1: their protections of office and the power of pardon. I
Speaker 1: think you'll see that openly talked about by Democrats going forward,
Speaker 1: which is the sort of thing that you expect in
Speaker 1: a third world hellhole. Democrats are going to say that
Speaker 1: about this president and people who say, oh what about
Speaker 1: Hillary Buck Hillary flagrantly and openly violated the law to
Speaker 1: engage in a corrupt scheme. They're going after Trump just
Speaker 1: to go after Trump. We got more coming up. We
Speaker 1: have one of the most generous policies and I wish
Speaker 1: every employer had this. We have twelve weeks of paid
Speaker 1: family leave, and there was something that was in there
Speaker 1: from the past that we changed and we never actually
Speaker 1: enforced it about how you had to work after you
Speaker 1: came back for a certain period of time. We'd never enforced.
Speaker 1: It's been changed, and I think the overriding story here
Speaker 1: is we have twelve weeks paid family leave, and I
Speaker 1: think every employer should have that every employer on twelve
Speaker 1: weeks paid family leave. That's that's Amy klobaschar or snow woman,
Speaker 1: as Trump calls her now because of her initial leap
Speaker 1: into the presidential field, where she was as a snowy
Speaker 1: minnesote a day. Twelve weeks paid family leave. Well, what
Speaker 1: happens if you were at a small business that has
Speaker 1: let's say, has four or five employees, can you afford
Speaker 1: to give one of them twelve weeks of paid leaf? No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. There's a lot of stuff that,
Speaker 1: by the way, the notion that I would For example,
Speaker 1: I mean here, I am sitting here. I've never had
Speaker 1: twelve weeks off for anything. I've never expect to get
Speaker 1: twelve weeks off for anything. I take a week off
Speaker 1: from work, and it's and it's like a shock to
Speaker 1: everybody around me. I mean, the notion that you would have.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've had a full week without working
Speaker 1: in I don't know how many years now, at least
Speaker 1: two or three a full week without filling in for
Speaker 1: rush Lomball, without without doing any work at all. It
Speaker 1: might even be like five or six years. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's been a long time. A long, long time, twelve
Speaker 1: weeks off and what are we like kids in this
Speaker 1: is summer break. I'm sorry, this is this is fantasy
Speaker 1: land stuff, but I really just wanted to so the
Speaker 1: paid family leave thing end up. Look the administrations pushing this,
Speaker 1: you know, we're we're starting to get we're getting so
Speaker 1: close to a European style welfare state. Some might argue,
Speaker 1: we're really We're really already there in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: We've just got a few more things that the Libs
Speaker 1: can can change and all of a sudden will effectively
Speaker 1: be a European welfare state. But this is my favorite
Speaker 1: of the stories from over the weekend about any presidential candidate. Klobashar, who,
Speaker 1: as you know, has been out there with There are
Speaker 1: these reports that she's an incredibly mean person, that she
Speaker 1: prevents this is from her former staffers, and that she
Speaker 1: prevents people from even being able to get other jobs
Speaker 1: when they want to leave, and you know, all that, right,
Speaker 1: all that stuff, and I believe it all, and I've
Speaker 1: heard from people that know that she's terrible. I'm also
Speaker 1: from people to know that that Kristin Jilibrand is terrible.
Speaker 1: For those of you that care about that too, not
Speaker 1: a nice person. Huge huge phony, huge phony, which is
Speaker 1: I'm sure not not a big shock to any of you.
Speaker 1: But Cloba shar now is. She's trying to push back
Speaker 1: on this. And look, Cloba Schar her name might as
Speaker 1: well be I'm not going to be president, because we
Speaker 1: all know she's not gonna be president. So this is
Speaker 1: just a razor national profile and in a sense, people
Speaker 1: like me even talking about it is kind of giving
Speaker 1: her what she wants there. But man, there was a
Speaker 1: story over the weekend that I just, I just you
Speaker 1: had to love this. So she told staffers this is
Speaker 1: in the klobaschar abusing staff category. She told staffers to
Speaker 1: get her a salad, and she got a salad, and
Speaker 1: the staffer this was when she was traveling for some
Speaker 1: kind of I don't know, I don't campaign stop or
Speaker 1: whatever it was, but I think it was probably on
Speaker 1: the campaign. Get her a salad. They bring her a salad,
Speaker 1: They didn't bring her a plastic knife and fork. So
Speaker 1: she decided, I'm not making this up, all right, don't
Speaker 1: think that this is me just trying to be funny.
Speaker 1: She decided to start eating her salad with a comb,
Speaker 1: a used comb that she had on her and then
Speaker 1: oh no, it gets better, It gets better. Then she
Speaker 1: decided to tell her staffer that got her the salad
Speaker 1: without the fork, that it was up to that staffer
Speaker 1: that's that's paid as part of her senate staff to
Speaker 1: go wash out the comb that she had eaten the
Speaker 1: salad with. Oh, the whole thing is so gross. I mean,
Speaker 1: what's next? Is she gonna ask somebody when she has
Speaker 1: a little ice cream cup but no spoon for a
Speaker 1: used Q tip. Oh, I know it's gross. I know
Speaker 1: it's gross. I'm grossing you out right now, deal with it,
Speaker 1: Deal with it. Take the pain. Uh you know it's yea,
Speaker 1: who's gonna catch that movie reference? That's a that's a
Speaker 1: sly one. Um. But you know this, this just tells
Speaker 1: you everything you need to know about this woman that
Speaker 1: sho would I mean the fact that you would even
Speaker 1: eat I mean, what kind of savage eats a salad
Speaker 1: with a comb? Why not just eat it with your
Speaker 1: hand at that point, right, why not just eat it
Speaker 1: with your fingers then wash your fingers. I mean I'd
Speaker 1: rather go I'd rather go that way, you know, eat
Speaker 1: it like you're at Ethiopian style restaurant. You have the injudra,
Speaker 1: the bread, and you you soak up all the stuff
Speaker 1: with the injurra and you eat it. And the opening
Speaker 1: food it's good. Eat the opening Food's good, little little
Speaker 1: funky sometimes, but it's good. Uh. You know, the same
Speaker 1: people that would use a comb to eat a salad
Speaker 1: would probably ask for a paper straw, because we all
Speaker 1: know paper straws. Come on, folks, we are not savages.
Speaker 1: We don't eat paper straws. We want plastic straws. Plastic
Speaker 1: is a great invention. I want a plastic straw. Do
Speaker 1: not want a paper straw. This is ridiculous. But Klobaschar
Speaker 1: is gonna have a tough time living this stuff down.
Speaker 1: And if SNL were really a comedy sketch show and
Speaker 1: not the the you know, video propaganda arm of the DNC,
Speaker 1: which is really what it is and not a very
Speaker 1: effective one either, they would they would have had a
Speaker 1: sketch this weekend of just Amy Klobaschar just shoveling salad
Speaker 1: in your chunky blue cheese dressing and you know, bits
Speaker 1: of breaded chicken and just just just bb chewing with
Speaker 1: her mouth open with a big comb and then flicking
Speaker 1: that comme at or Stafford. It's like, wast this man
Speaker 1: sl If they could, if they should just bring me
Speaker 1: on and let me do one or two conservative sketches
Speaker 1: a week, man, we would turn that whole franchise around,
Speaker 1: because it'll be But I wouldn't just be conservative. I
Speaker 1: would just be making fun of what people should make
Speaker 1: fun of. What is actually funny. That's out there. A
Speaker 1: senator who wants me president, who eats her salad with
Speaker 1: the comb. This is funny. It kind of reminds me
Speaker 1: of Uh. I think it was Trump who said, I
Speaker 1: always laughing about this because it's so silly. But it's
Speaker 1: so true that that John Kasik, who is one of
Speaker 1: the most unlikable and surly politicians, you will you will
Speaker 1: come across that John Kasik eight eight pizza like an
Speaker 1: animal or something like that. I always thought that was
Speaker 1: so funny that he did something really not that you know,
Speaker 1: he doesn't need it. Some people knife and fork their pizza.
Speaker 1: I'm okay with that. I actually I got no beef
Speaker 1: with that. But that Kasik was a somehow eight pizza
Speaker 1: like an animal. I don't remember how he described it,
Speaker 1: but it was just, oh that it was funny, But yeah,
Speaker 1: klomaschar the next president eats her salad with it with
Speaker 1: a comb that has been used. Gross. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Background checks are a necessary part of running your business
Speaker 1: safely and effectively. You need Global Verification Network to do them.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of you might already have people
Speaker 1: for your HR department that you work through the do
Speaker 1: background checks. Call Global Verification, tell them about your needs,
Speaker 1: the size of your company, that business you're in, and
Speaker 1: hear them out about the kind of program that they
Speaker 1: could tailor to your needs. Because Global Verification Network is
Speaker 1: the only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation and vetting
Speaker 1: company out there, and they differentiate themselves from their competitors
Speaker 1: by doing all of their work here. A lot of
Speaker 1: those big background check organizations they send this stuff to
Speaker 1: be done overseas. They just run some database checks. They
Speaker 1: don't even control where their servers are for this stuff.
Speaker 1: They don't have control of the data, they don't have
Speaker 1: control of where the work is done. Global Verification does
Speaker 1: it all here in the US of A. By friends.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: That's eight seven seven six nine five eleven seventy nine
Speaker 1: or go to MYGVN dot com. The hard left is
Speaker 1: perfectly willing to demand the presumption of innocence, as they
Speaker 1: should for Smolek, but they weren't prepared to give a
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence of the non existent Maga hat wearing assailants.
Speaker 1: They immediately assumed the story was true, immediately convicted these
Speaker 1: people in the court of public opinion. And so what
Speaker 1: we see is the presumption of innocence, like so many
Speaker 1: other aspects of our life, is selectively employed by the
Speaker 1: left against the right, sometimes by the right against the left.
Speaker 1: We have to have a presumption of innocence on both sides.
Speaker 1: When somebody deliberately frames somebody and deliberately makes up a
Speaker 1: false report of anything, that person must go to jail.
Speaker 1: Couldn't agree more of the Dirsh on that one. And
Speaker 1: you know, the Dirsh has been himself subject to public
Speaker 1: allegations that he went he went thermonuclear in his opposition
Speaker 1: to I mean, he has he wanted to take legal action.
Speaker 1: I mean, he got very very angry about that. And
Speaker 1: I will tell you there are a few things that
Speaker 1: will make there are a few things that will make
Speaker 1: an innocent man more angry than someone trying to take
Speaker 1: away that man's reputation, dignity, honor with a false allegation.
Speaker 1: Which is why, for example, Bill Clinton's unwillingness to publicly
Speaker 1: state his innocence about Jennifer Flowers and other cases not
Speaker 1: of sexual harassment of sexual assault always stuck out to
Speaker 1: me as this guy is, this guy is scump because
Speaker 1: any man that I know of any honored integrity, who
Speaker 1: was accused of of a sexual assault or any kind
Speaker 1: of egregious sexual misconduct like that that he did not commit,
Speaker 1: would I don't care what the pr agents that everybody
Speaker 1: else tells you, You're going to come out against that
Speaker 1: with everything you've got because it goes to your very
Speaker 1: core of who you are as a man and who
Speaker 1: you are as a person, and you cannot let that
Speaker 1: kind of allegation sit out there. But the point about
Speaker 1: selective presumption of innocence, this is this is something that
Speaker 1: we have to really fight against. We saw this with
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh hearings. Now we've seen with the Covington kids
Speaker 1: and Smolette. You know, when do they say I'll wait
Speaker 1: for evidence and when do they go all in on
Speaker 1: the narrative? And this is where bias really shows itself.
Speaker 1: This is when you see how the left plays dirty
Speaker 1: and why it is that we have to always be
Speaker 1: willing to fight back against these falsehoods, because if we
Speaker 1: just allow them to continue with what they do without
Speaker 1: any pushback, they'll convince enough people that certain individuals should
Speaker 1: be destroyed, that certain ideology should be anathema, and over
Speaker 1: the long haul, they'll manage to achieve greater power and
Speaker 1: they will be rewarded for these practices. That's what all
Speaker 1: this is about at the end of the day. It
Speaker 1: is about the Left trying to achieve power. That's why
Speaker 1: the double standard exists. If they were really concerned first
Speaker 1: and foremost with the mistreatment of women, with the with
Speaker 1: hate crimes, with these different areas we've seen this this
Speaker 1: conversation come up, there wouldn't be a double standard. There
Speaker 1: would just be a standard. But if the left wanted
Speaker 1: to eliminate racism and hold a very high standard of
Speaker 1: even previous conduct, that you could then be held accountable
Speaker 1: for decades later. They would have had a couple of
Speaker 1: resignations in Virginia, wouldn't they. They would have had the
Speaker 1: governor and the state attorney general for Virginia, Mark Harring,
Speaker 1: and it's the attorney general, and then Ralph Northam as
Speaker 1: the governor resigned. They would have had them resign, but
Speaker 1: they're not. Neither one of them is going to resign.
Speaker 1: Even though they've admitted to black face, they lied about
Speaker 1: black face, they've sort of come clean about it, but
Speaker 1: haven't really come clean about their pasts with this. That's
Speaker 1: because they, like the left, likes to set these standards
Speaker 1: as trapped for conservatives said, these very very very high
Speaker 1: standards that the moment a conservative even just gets close to,
Speaker 1: they want to just tear them down and destroy them.
Speaker 1: But they want to keep the option open for really
Speaker 1: important leftists, we'll get a pass like Bill Clinton. Talk
Speaker 1: about a leftist who got a pass on sexual assault.
Speaker 1: For a very long time. You know, it was only
Speaker 1: after Hillary lost, after his wife lost the presidential election
Speaker 1: for the second time, that liberals were willing to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe we don't have to sit around or just
Speaker 1: make excuses for Bill just chasing skirt and grabbing ladies
Speaker 1: and be a disgusting pig. You know, maybe then they
Speaker 1: were okay, they decided that it was time for them to,
Speaker 1: you know, let Bill go off and ride off into
Speaker 1: the sunset as the sketchy, shady individual that he is.
Speaker 1: But before them, they're willing to back him up at
Speaker 1: at at every juncture, and with Smallette, we see them
Speaker 1: trying to do everything that they can now to slow walk.
Speaker 1: They know that that Smallets, they know that he's a liar.
Speaker 1: They know that he falsified this, but false reports. A
Speaker 1: lot of false reports in the past have gone unpunished
Speaker 1: to police. I bring up to you that the liar
Speaker 1: at the heart of the Duke lacrosse fiasco, which is
Speaker 1: another of the worst racial hoaxes ever perpetrated in this country,
Speaker 1: because because right at the heart of that whole issue
Speaker 1: was that privileged white lacrosse players raped a black woman,
Speaker 1: gang raped a black woman. That was the narrative, and
Speaker 1: it was going to ruin all of their lives. The coach,
Speaker 1: for heaven's sake, who wasn't even there, it had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with this, was fired. And there's a very
Speaker 1: inspiring story about how that coach from the Duke Lacrosse
Speaker 1: case ended up going to I believe it was Bryant
Speaker 1: University in Rhode Island and turned their Division two team
Speaker 1: into a national lacrosse powerhouse and refuses to leave that
Speaker 1: school because they gave him safe harbor when he needed
Speaker 1: it and deserved it, and nobody else would. Guy did nothing.
Speaker 1: The guy was punished for an event he had no
Speaker 1: control over that did not happen. Yeah, Duke University another place,
Speaker 1: Just all these universities sham run by shameful cowards, shameful
Speaker 1: cowards of these elite schools all over the place. But
Speaker 1: the accuser in that case, and I'm sure that sure
Speaker 1: the dursh would feel the same way about this. Crystal
Speaker 1: Mangum was her name. She filed false reports against all
Speaker 1: these boys, totally lied about it. They knew she lied
Speaker 1: about it. They never charged her. And you know, later on,
Speaker 1: you know what happened. She committed manslaughter. She murdered somebody,
Speaker 1: and then they finally sent it a prison. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe somebody would be alive today and maybe Crystal
Speaker 1: Gale Magnet wouldn't be spending the next decade or so
Speaker 1: in prison or I don't even know how long she
Speaker 1: got for it. If had applied the law as it is,
Speaker 1: you know, this is there's not just a double standard
Speaker 1: in the presumption of innocence. We are seeing a massive
Speaker 1: double standard in the application of the law to the
Speaker 1: left and the right in all aspects of law when
Speaker 1: it comes to whether or not you're held responsible for
Speaker 1: lying under oath, as we see from various people caught
Speaker 1: up in the Muller pro versus people a dj FBI
Speaker 1: who were lying Hillary her top aid, so oh, no,
Speaker 1: no effort to get them to lie under oath. These
Speaker 1: double standards are toxic to the public's ability to believe
Speaker 1: that there is a real justice that we are trying
Speaker 1: to achieve here. So they can try to make all
Speaker 1: these excuses for a small at he should absolutely face
Speaker 1: charges for a false report, and if he takes this
Speaker 1: thing to court, they should punish him to the maximum
Speaker 1: of the statute, because this is as bad of a
Speaker 1: false report I think, because you're gonna find anywhere. This
Speaker 1: is a fall support that had real ramifications, that took
Speaker 1: up real police resources. And I'm sick of the liberal
Speaker 1: media creating these perceptions, these public narratives that, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Jose Smallety is a drug problem always. You know, they
Speaker 1: don't do this for conservatives. No mercy for the right,
Speaker 1: nothing but mercy for the left. This has to stop.
Speaker 1: Everyone has to live under the same law in this country.
Speaker 1: Oh that includes a legal immigrants by the way, everybody
Speaker 1: has to start living under the same law. No more
Speaker 1: separation for people based upon their political affiliation. And I
Speaker 1: think the dursh recognizes this has to stop and it's
Speaker 1: a real threat. And there are many others as well
Speaker 1: who agree with me here that the biggest threat to
Speaker 1: our legal cohesion in this country is the politicization of
Speaker 1: prosecutors and judges. The left owns far too many of them.
Speaker 1: It needs to stop. Yes, the most well known organization
Speaker 1: for is the AARP. And I'm sure you probably know
Speaker 1: somebody who's a member of it, right, But I'm here
Speaker 1: to tell you AARPS actually left wing organization. Okay, AARPS
Speaker 1: all about Obamacare. They're not into securing the border, They're
Speaker 1: into higher taxes in the middle class. So why not
Speaker 1: get all the benefits of a seniors organization while also
Speaker 1: supporting what you believe in and the policies that you
Speaker 1: think matter for this country. That's why I recommend AMAC.
Speaker 1: AMAC has over one point five million members, and that
Speaker 1: number is growing all the time. AMAC offers the same
Speaker 1: kind of money saving benefits at AARP offers but without
Speaker 1: the liberal agenda items. So this is the conservative alternative
Speaker 1: to AARP. Join AMAC, stand with them as they fight
Speaker 1: the good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are great, but the cause is even greater. Join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck because AMAC is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: better for America. So why would we be surprised that
Speaker 1: a self proclaimed nationalist would not speak out against a
Speaker 1: self proclaimed white nationalists. Why why are we acting like
Speaker 1: this is a space that Donald Trump is going to
Speaker 1: go in on behalf of the American ideal. No, he's not.
Speaker 1: And these are his people, all right. And he's not
Speaker 1: going to thank law enforcement because he's probably not happy
Speaker 1: about what law enforcement did. Where we are. That's where
Speaker 1: we are. I mean, I call the space where we
Speaker 1: are where we are. I mean, I'm just not going
Speaker 1: to try to dress it up and be all, you know,
Speaker 1: pie in the sky and hopeful that already in the
Speaker 1: next incident, Donald Trump will actually get it right, that
Speaker 1: he will have matured in his presidency enough to act
Speaker 1: act like a president. That's a brave thing to say.
Speaker 1: Former Republican Nicole Wallace now MSNBC shill for whatever the
Speaker 1: powers that be over there wanted to say, and the
Speaker 1: fact that this woman was associated with the Bush administration.
Speaker 1: Now she goes on TV and call what Michael Steele,
Speaker 1: their former RNC chair, says brave. I mean, Steel should
Speaker 1: be ashamed of himself. That is the most insidious, disgusting, unfair,
Speaker 1: and monumentally stupid thing that I have heard a pundit
Speaker 1: go on TV to say since at least the last
Speaker 1: time that Steve Schmidt was on MSNBC. And it is
Speaker 1: a really dumb thing to say that the President United
Speaker 1: States is unhappy. This is what he said there, folks,
Speaker 1: and on a panelful of people who were like, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that sounds right. The former RNC chair, Michael Steele, who's
Speaker 1: got a he's got a show on serious you know,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I mean, I have no interest
Speaker 1: in ever, you know, being on his show. But if
Speaker 1: we ever had a conversation, this little moment here would
Speaker 1: have to come up. I'd have to clear up right
Speaker 1: away whether he really believes that President Trump supports a
Speaker 1: white nationalist who was planning to kill large numbers of
Speaker 1: people and bring about a race war, because any person
Speaker 1: who believes that is a moron that I will not
Speaker 1: have a conversation with about politics or about this president
Speaker 1: because they don't deserve that respect. So if Michael Steele
Speaker 1: wants and maybe he's already apologized, I don't know, though
Speaker 1: I haven't seen that anywhere, if he would want to
Speaker 1: repudiate that, then then then we could have a conversation.
Speaker 1: Sometimes people get heated. Sometimes people are you know, not
Speaker 1: moving as fast in their careers or aren't as as
Speaker 1: powerful as they'd like to be, and so they just
Speaker 1: try something like this get attention to to placate they're
Speaker 1: the people that are paying them over at their channel
Speaker 1: or whatever, you know, whatever they've got to do. They're
Speaker 1: willing to abandon their own principles and their own conscience
Speaker 1: to try to get ahead. If that's the case, I mean,
Speaker 1: at least I know where he's coming from. If if
Speaker 1: if the former chair of the RNC though really believes
Speaker 1: the President United States that his people includes this guy
Speaker 1: who is just arrested in Maryland, the Coastguard guy who
Speaker 1: was planning to bring about a race war with a
Speaker 1: mass assassination list and with stockpiling weapons. Then Michael Steele
Speaker 1: is is really stupid, for one, and also is somebody
Speaker 1: that I don't I don't think should should be engaged
Speaker 1: in political conversation by anybody of good faith in the
Speaker 1: right period. You know, I'm not saying that, you know,
Speaker 1: he should be anathema from society. Every mean, he's a
Speaker 1: human being too. He might even be a really nice guy.
Speaker 1: I don't know him, but I won't talk to somebody
Speaker 1: about politics. Who's going to say that about the President
Speaker 1: United States without evidence, as the left likes to say,
Speaker 1: and for Nicole wall say, that's a brave thing to say,
Speaker 1: it's it's the dumbest thing that I have heard on
Speaker 1: It honestly is probably the dumbest thing I've heard on
Speaker 1: MSNBC in about a year. And MSNBC is full of
Speaker 1: people who say very very stupid things on a very
Speaker 1: regular basis. So that's that's a pretty a pretty high
Speaker 1: bar that they have to get over to be the
Speaker 1: single stupidest thing you've heard on unearlier in a long time.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is also where you see you
Speaker 1: see a couple of things come out. One is the
Speaker 1: dishonesty of many folks in the media who you know,
Speaker 1: they put at MSNBC the fact that they find these
Speaker 1: former Republicans or these kind of establishment Republican types. It's
Speaker 1: one thing to disagree with Trump on SA Look, I
Speaker 1: disagree with Trump on some things. I think Trump has
Speaker 1: failed to get it down on the wall, and I'm
Speaker 1: very unhappy about where he is in the wall. I
Speaker 1: think that Trump has lacked focus on some issues. I
Speaker 1: think that Trump has been distracted by the power of
Speaker 1: his tweets sometimes from actually getting results based on the
Speaker 1: promises he made. Now he's still got a lot of time,
Speaker 1: and I'm still supporting him every step of the way
Speaker 1: in the agenda. But I have criticisms of Trump. It
Speaker 1: would be bizarre if I didn't have criticisms of Trump.
Speaker 1: I have criticism of every politician, of every person who's
Speaker 1: in power in this country, and that's the way that
Speaker 1: it should be. But what you have here are these
Speaker 1: Republicans or in some cases former Republicans in Max Boo,
Speaker 1: Michael Steele, that that guy Doubt at ABC, who's another
Speaker 1: one of the dumbest people on television. He's the chief
Speaker 1: political analyst at ABC. He's an independent now after running
Speaker 1: you know, Republican campaigns for governor and elsewhere. Now he's
Speaker 1: an independent, so he can, you know, be invited to
Speaker 1: the the proverbial lib Upper West Side cocktail parties now
Speaker 1: in New York and says the dumbest stuff and is
Speaker 1: as one of the worst, one of the worst minds
Speaker 1: in terms of lack of knowledge, but really grandiose sense
Speaker 1: of self that you'll come across on Twitter as well.
Speaker 1: You know, these are the people that get these perches
Speaker 1: because it's they're they're considered to have some kind of
Speaker 1: voice from the center or or from the right, when
Speaker 1: they're just doing the bidding of leftists. They are doing
Speaker 1: the bidding of leftists. You know, Nicole Wallace is up
Speaker 1: there like a dancing bear, doing what democrats want her
Speaker 1: to do, and it's just pathetic and shameful. I know
Speaker 1: what this is. Like I was at CNN and they
Speaker 1: wanted me to dance a certain way and I wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it, and I left, and thank god I was willing.
Speaker 1: By the way, I didn't have I had no money
Speaker 1: in the bank at the time I had. I didn't
Speaker 1: have any TV prospects right away to go to. You know,
Speaker 1: I was still at the Blaze, but you know, I
Speaker 1: left CNN because it was a dumpster fire. I said, no,
Speaker 1: thank you, I don't want your money. I don't want
Speaker 1: to be on your air anymore. That's the truth. They
Speaker 1: didn't cut me, I cut them. So I know what
Speaker 1: it's like to be in this position. And you know,
Speaker 1: Nicole Wallace, I guess that paycheck is just too sweet.
Speaker 1: So she'll abandon everything that she supposedly used to stand
Speaker 1: for as an adult in public life. Michael Steel same thing,
Speaker 1: everything that he used to stand for in public life.
Speaker 1: He will work for the other team now. And this
Speaker 1: is what really gets to the core of that. And
Speaker 1: this is these these idiots at the bullwork too, you know,
Speaker 1: these slimeballs, Charlie Sykes and all the rest of them
Speaker 1: over there. You know, they've they've now said openly their
Speaker 1: mission is to try to trash the the pro Trump
Speaker 1: conservatives that they think need to be brought down a
Speaker 1: few levels. They think that that's their mission that's really
Speaker 1: going to serve their purposes. You know, we are seeing
Speaker 1: a fight now between capitalism and socialism, between the constitution
Speaker 1: and stadism, between life and infanticide. I mean, these are
Speaker 1: these are the breakdowns on political issues happening day in
Speaker 1: and day out in this country. They're going to culminate
Speaker 1: in a huge election in twenty twenty, and you have
Speaker 1: so called Republicans who they think that their role is
Speaker 1: to fight for the other side. Now I'm supposed to
Speaker 1: take those people seriously, or believe in their good faith,
Speaker 1: think that they are wise, think that they have something
Speaker 1: to add to this conversation. I'm sorry. It is just unacceptable.
Speaker 1: What Michael Steele said was grotesque and he should be ashamed.
Speaker 1: And what you see is the egos of many of
Speaker 1: these never Trump people. They thought that they were going
Speaker 1: to make some huge bet on Trump flaming out and
Speaker 1: that they would keep their privileged positions within the GOP
Speaker 1: hierarchy on TV, at conferences, at think tanks, you know,
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. And they went all in
Speaker 1: against Trump and since then it has just been about
Speaker 1: their own personal vendetta against the Trump movement because they're bitter.
Speaker 1: This never Trump movement has turned bitter because they're not relevant,
Speaker 1: because they aren't powerful anymore, because they aren't as rich
Speaker 1: as they used to be and or as well off,
Speaker 1: you know, depending on who we're talking about. And most
Speaker 1: of all, they've been willing now to become traitors to
Speaker 1: what they claimed they stood for for in some cases decades,
Speaker 1: all out of spite against Trump. These people are shamed
Speaker 1: full and I'm here to call them out. But we
Speaker 1: haven't seen the actual connection. We haven't seen an actual
Speaker 1: proof of cooperation and collusion. So what am I missing here?
Speaker 1: The Russians offered help, the campaign accepted help, The Russians
Speaker 1: gave help, and the President made full use of that help.
Speaker 1: And that is pretty damning, whether it is proof beyond
Speaker 1: a reasonable doubt of conspiracy or not. Can you agree
Speaker 1: that there has been no evidence of collusion, coordination, or
Speaker 1: conspiracy that has been presented thus far between the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign and Russia. No, I don't agree with that at all.
Speaker 1: I think there's plenty of evidence of collusion or conspiracy
Speaker 1: in plain sight. Last March, you said you had more
Speaker 1: than circumstantial evidence of treasonous collusion with Russia. What specifically
Speaker 1: were you referring to, And please be specific, because if
Speaker 1: it's true, I do believe Americans have the right to
Speaker 1: know a year later what that is. If you look
Speaker 1: at the facts that are already in the public domain,
Speaker 1: they're pretty damning. Starting with what we know about George Papadoppol.
Speaker 1: All you have right now is a circumstantial case. Actually, no, Chuck,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that the case is more than that.
Speaker 1: And I can't go into the particulars, but there is
Speaker 1: more than circumstantial evidence. Now, so again, I think you
Speaker 1: have seen direct evidence of collusion. I don't want to
Speaker 1: go into specifics, but I will say that there is
Speaker 1: evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy
Speaker 1: of investigations. Adam Ship is a slimeball. If you didn't
Speaker 1: already know that, that montage we just played for you,
Speaker 1: I think makes quite clear what his game is. He's
Speaker 1: the Democrat who's made a name for among others, made
Speaker 1: a name for himself by trying to invert reality on
Speaker 1: its head. What does he do? He goes around saying
Speaker 1: that there is collusion. It has there. There's proof of collusion.
Speaker 1: I just can't tell you what it is. Well, now
Speaker 1: we're ending, so we hope the Muller probe. We are
Speaker 1: seeing the end of the Muller probe, and people are
Speaker 1: asking some questions like, hold on a second shift. You're
Speaker 1: a member of Congress, you're on the Intelligence Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: you've been saying that there's all this, all this evidence
Speaker 1: of collusion that's out there, it's already been, you know,
Speaker 1: or rather it's it is something that people are going
Speaker 1: to find more about. Where is it? What is it? What?
Speaker 1: What can you tell us? What's there? And then shift
Speaker 1: just runs into the same dishonest, you know, talking points
Speaker 1: that are meant to evade the core point, which is
Speaker 1: that there is no collusion. It did not exist, it
Speaker 1: did not happen. They cannot prove it. So now now
Speaker 1: that he can't get away with the old game, which is, oh,
Speaker 1: can't tell you about that. You know, you're you're not.
Speaker 1: The public can't know about the collusion that I know
Speaker 1: about because I am a member of Congress and I
Speaker 1: have so much information. Now that that's he's running out
Speaker 1: of room on that one. He is saying, oh, we
Speaker 1: already proved collusion. We already proved it. It's our out
Speaker 1: there in the public. And you, I'm sure, because this
Speaker 1: audience is brilliant, insightful, honest and kind, you are sitting
Speaker 1: there probably at home thinking what is that moron? Thinking
Speaker 1: what is he talking about? Of course, when when you know,
Speaker 1: when Adam Schiff says there's collusion and it's already out
Speaker 1: there and proven, So why do we need them Mueller probe. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's not proven. There's just evidence of it. There's lots
Speaker 1: of evidence of it, that's what he says. But because
Speaker 1: we can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. And notice
Speaker 1: how he keeps moving the goalposts. No, no, no, there
Speaker 1: is actually not the reasonable doubtstandard would be in a prosecution.
Speaker 1: Could it be proven beyond a reasonable doubt? That's a
Speaker 1: question for a jury. When the prosecutor is making a
Speaker 1: decision to press charges or not, you know, that's up
Speaker 1: to their discretion. You can, can any aspect of this
Speaker 1: be proven beyond a reasonable out the product the prosecutor
Speaker 1: gets to make that callum, and the prosecutor can provide
Speaker 1: evidence beforehand to try and pressure the person into taking
Speaker 1: a deal even if they think they think that they
Speaker 1: can't prove it. But what is the evidence, what is
Speaker 1: the evidence? Where is it? What is it? They keep saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's so much in Russia and Russian help, and they're
Speaker 1: just they are like that guy from a beautiful mind
Speaker 1: writing in in gibberish on the walls of his of
Speaker 1: his garage or whatever, I mean, they're just it's just nonsense. Now.
Speaker 1: But what they're gonna do, as I have been telling you,
Speaker 1: is they're going to create this smoke screen of incoherence,
Speaker 1: and then they're gonna sort of know, whip it all
Speaker 1: up and change it around. And look at this. Now
Speaker 1: we're looking at the Southern District of New York. All
Speaker 1: of a sudden, we're gonna move right past the two
Speaker 1: years of Oh, there's gonna be Russian collusion. Oh, we're
Speaker 1: gonna figure all this stuff out. Just wait, we're gonna
Speaker 1: have it for you. We're gonna blow right past that
Speaker 1: and get into Oh, okay, the Southern District of New
Speaker 1: York is going to investigate Trump's finances. Now, that's right,
Speaker 1: that's the plan. They're going to investigate Trump's finances. They're
Speaker 1: going to look for some deal and they'll be leagues
Speaker 1: to different newspapers about how he you know, this vendor
Speaker 1: says that he got ripped off from a Trump deal
Speaker 1: from nineteen eighty seven. And there's gonna be all this stuff.
Speaker 1: This is because they can't actually win a public policy
Speaker 1: debate against this president. They're worried their candidates are jokers.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats that they're putting forward. These aren't
Speaker 1: serious people. They're a serious threat to the country because
Speaker 1: of their stupidity, but they're not They're not people that
Speaker 1: are well versed in the in the issues and also
Speaker 1: have good, good ideas and good judgment. You know. They
Speaker 1: some of them present well and some of them seem
Speaker 1: earnest in their advocacy for socialism, but they're not seriously
Speaker 1: going to be able to beat this president as is.
Speaker 1: That's why they need this other component. They need to
Speaker 1: bring charges of some kind against the president, or at
Speaker 1: least the appearance of willingness to bring charges via all
Speaker 1: these investigations that they're going to continue going with. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: on the other side of the coin, I want accountability
Speaker 1: for the deep state rats nest at, DJ and FBI
Speaker 1: that has been unearthed here that we have seen stretching
Speaker 1: back for many months, and that the more we learn about,
Speaker 1: the more obvious it is that they exceeded their they
Speaker 1: exceeded their authority, they abused their power. They were partisan actors.
Speaker 1: They were on a mission to get Trump at all costs.
Speaker 1: You know. I want to know when we get to
Speaker 1: find out about whether they're held accountable and you know
Speaker 1: Trey Gaudy, who's out there now, mister speaker, he's on
Speaker 1: Fox News now. Trade Gaudy's out there. He's talking about
Speaker 1: things here and there. I think my trade people don't.
Speaker 1: Let I think my Trey Gaudy sounds like Trey Gaudy,
Speaker 1: and people just don't, you know, they don't. I don't know,
Speaker 1: you guys, let me know. I mean, the Beato is
Speaker 1: obviously great, and the Birdie is great. I think my
Speaker 1: Trade Gaudy doesn't get enough love. You know. Granny McCabe
Speaker 1: during this and during thathing, he's here and there and everywhere.
Speaker 1: And here's what he said about the investigations place sixteen.
Speaker 1: And the reason I say three investigations. You had the
Speaker 1: July twenties sixteen investigation that was initiated and signed off
Speaker 1: on by Peter Struck, that was into the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: and then when Comy is fired, Andy McCabe proudly told
Speaker 1: CBS that he launched his own counterintelligence investigation into whether
Speaker 1: or not Donald Trump was an agent of Russia. And
Speaker 1: then for good measure, he launched a criminal investigation into
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice. So I'm not great with math, but
Speaker 1: that's three separate investigations into a duly elected president, near
Speaker 1: as I can tell, simply because he fired Jim Comey
Speaker 1: does seem like a lot of legal jeopardy with the
Speaker 1: firing of Jim Comey at the center of it, right,
Speaker 1: that does seem to me to be perhaps a bit
Speaker 1: a bit excessive, especially given that you are dealing with
Speaker 1: a president of the United States. You know, the bar
Speaker 1: for investigating the president. For the FBI and the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, who are inferior employees of the president, they
Speaker 1: work for the president, for the executive branch, you would
Speaker 1: like to think that that bar is pretty high. What
Speaker 1: we saw, though, is if you were a Hillary partisan,
Speaker 1: if you are a status working in the upper reaches
Speaker 1: of the federal bureaucracy, then you were willing to bend
Speaker 1: the rules to go after Trump. However you could then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the barriers to investigation came down
Speaker 1: and it was justify this however you can wherever you can.
Speaker 1: And I really do think that there needs to be
Speaker 1: a much more serious accounting for what happened FBI DJ
Speaker 1: than what we've seen. I mean, I think we should
Speaker 1: have I think we should appoint a special counsel to
Speaker 1: look into the special counsel. How about that one? How
Speaker 1: about them apples. This is in America where hate groups,
Speaker 1: hate crimes are on the rise. The reality is there
Speaker 1: has been a rise in hate crimes. There has been
Speaker 1: a rise in intolerance. We know that hate crimes are
Speaker 1: on the rise. A lot of people don't want to
Speaker 1: accept that. They want this to be trumped up. They
Speaker 1: keep saying this, They keep saying this, but it's not true.
Speaker 1: They keep telling us that hate crimes are on the
Speaker 1: rise and that if we don't do something drastic, we're
Speaker 1: going to be overcome by hate crimes. It's it's one
Speaker 1: of the most repeated lies you'll hear in the media now,
Speaker 1: especially now that the Just Smollett situation has just completely imploded, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, that guy's facing charges and everything else. Here's
Speaker 1: a piece from Elizabeth Nolan Brown that on reason, you
Speaker 1: know reason they're they're libertarians. Libertarians are smart. Sometimes they
Speaker 1: can be a little annoying with their whole like, you know,
Speaker 1: legalize marijuana and who's going to pay for the roads
Speaker 1: and all that stuff, But you know, I like libertarians
Speaker 1: in general, and they're libertarians a reason to a good job.
Speaker 1: They're smart, folks, and Elizabeth Nolan Brown writes, the following
Speaker 1: presidential candidates, TeV Punnets and others keep trying to contextualize
Speaker 1: actor Jesse Smallt's false report by saying that even if
Speaker 1: this one wasn't true, hate crimes are on the rise
Speaker 1: in America. Just look at the most recent FBI statistics.
Speaker 1: They say. Similarly, human trafficking tall tales like this week's
Speaker 1: uber sex trafficker that wasn't Tendrabol comments about how this case,
Speaker 1: even if it wasn't true, in particular, such crimes are
Speaker 1: growing problem. Why just look at the data? The problem,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth writes, with both of these claims is sim our
Speaker 1: data sets keep expanding. We have higher numbers of incidents,
Speaker 1: but we also have more and more police agencies participating
Speaker 1: in the voluntary reporting system. In twenty seventeen, there were
Speaker 1: about one thousand and fifty more bias based incident reports
Speaker 1: than the previous year seventeen percent rise. There were also
Speaker 1: around seven or sorry, around one thousand additional agencies reporting.
Speaker 1: This means it's not obviously the case that hate crimes
Speaker 1: are more prevalent in twenty seventeen. The government just probably
Speaker 1: did a better job of counting them. In twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: there were two hundred and seventy one more incidents team
Speaker 1: hate crimes than in twenty fifteen, with two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty seven more law enforcement agencies reporting. As pointed out
Speaker 1: when the data came out, the number of hate crime
Speaker 1: classifications was higher in twenty sixteen than any of the
Speaker 1: four preceding years, but lower than in twenty eleven and
Speaker 1: down significantly from two thousand and sixty two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: There were also a fewer victims in twenty sixteen, seven
Speaker 1: six hundred and fifteen down nine thousand, six hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty two. We saw no significant rise in hate crimes
Speaker 1: from twenty two thousand and four and twenty fifteen either.
Speaker 1: A Bureau of Justice statistics study found that the rate
Speaker 1: of violent hate crimes in twenty fifteen was not significantly
Speaker 1: different from the rate in twenty two thousand and four,
Speaker 1: and this held true for violent hate crimes both reported
Speaker 1: and unreported to police. So look, it's it's just not
Speaker 1: the case that there's some huge spike in hate crimes.
Speaker 1: It's just not that the numbers don't support it. I mean,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about a seventeen percent rise in overall
Speaker 1: incidents in one year, but a thousand additional agencies reporting
Speaker 1: on them. The likelihood is that you're just getting higher
Speaker 1: incidences of reporting, and you're also expanding the categories of
Speaker 1: what is considered a hate crime. As I told you,
Speaker 1: based on the FBI statistics, a lot of what are
Speaker 1: so called hate crimes are just comments. Someone reports that
Speaker 1: someone said something race or anti Muslim or whatever. I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure that you can really call out a crime, folks.
Speaker 1: I hate to be the one to break it to
Speaker 1: all the libs out there. Mean disgraceful, Yes, hate crime,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure it's a crime. First Amendment allows you
Speaker 1: to be a racist jerk, unfortunately, but it does well.
Speaker 1: It's actually the reason that the First Amendment does that
Speaker 1: is very important to our society, even though people that
Speaker 1: choose to use the First Amendment that way or gross,
Speaker 1: but it does. The First Amendment protects people from saying
Speaker 1: things that are hurtful and racist. This is the way
Speaker 1: the First Amendment is set up. Libs kind of play
Speaker 1: games with us though, and say, well, no, it's a
Speaker 1: hate crime. Is tantamount to violence when speech is used
Speaker 1: to dehumanize them when they have all this rhetoric that
Speaker 1: they use that's essentially just a way of trying to
Speaker 1: say that they can criminalize speech that they don't like.
Speaker 1: But it's just not the case that hate crimes are
Speaker 1: out of control and all this stuff. Let's get to
Speaker 1: the next next one here, which is when they're talking
Speaker 1: about the real problem is the Chicago Police depart This
Speaker 1: is this stuff is a disgrace from the media trying
Speaker 1: to run cover for Smalletts. Here's what they'll do play
Speaker 1: club five. I think we need to see some of
Speaker 1: the evidence. I think it's very concerning that all of
Speaker 1: these leaks came from the Chicago Police Department. So frankly,
Speaker 1: all we have as leaks from the Chicago Police Department.
Speaker 1: Now what they said in this press conference and what
Speaker 1: Jesse small Letting his team have said. This police department
Speaker 1: did in twenty sixteen openly, through their union, support Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: So to have a police department that hasn't been as
Speaker 1: cooperative as they have been this round, do not openly
Speaker 1: give information, do openly lie and mishold information in cases,
Speaker 1: and then to know that they are open have openly
Speaker 1: supported Donald Trump in the twenty sixteen election. A lot
Speaker 1: of activists on the ground are saying, wait, what's going
Speaker 1: on here? Who do we believe out of these two
Speaker 1: suspect people. Can I just just just to clarify here, everybody,
Speaker 1: you have pundits going on TV now after these smallet
Speaker 1: ridiculos listeners. I mean, the guy is a joker, a total,
Speaker 1: a total dufus, a liar, did something really disgraceful, really
Speaker 1: dishonorable that actually really affected police resources and defamed a
Speaker 1: whole group of voters in this country that's half the
Speaker 1: country basically, And MSNBC and CNN are putting people on
Speaker 1: TV to say, well, the Chicago Police Department, maybe the
Speaker 1: Chicago Police Department's lying. I wonder if these same idiots
Speaker 1: would say that about the arrest of R. Kelly, who
Speaker 1: was once again facing charges for underage sexual activity. I've
Speaker 1: read that there's a there's even a video that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be presented it as part of the charges, showing
Speaker 1: him having sex with an underaged girl. I mean, R
Speaker 1: Kelly is a true predator. And I'm guessing that they
Speaker 1: don't think the Chicago PD is I'm hoping they don't
Speaker 1: think Chicago PD's lying about that, but they'll insinuate the
Speaker 1: Chicago Police Department's lying about smalltt any anything to try
Speaker 1: to protect a little stupid Jussie who was, by the way,
Speaker 1: obviously very dumb. But then they also take one more
Speaker 1: shot here because yeah, maybe this wasn't true that Trump
Speaker 1: supporters attacked Jessie small Att, but it's still true in principle.
Speaker 1: It's just not true in the facts. Trump supporters are
Speaker 1: still awful. The left says play six. If it is true,
Speaker 1: didn't he in fact attempt to paint the MAGA supporters
Speaker 1: as these racist and homophobic people. I think I have
Speaker 1: to is true that we but Michelle I have to
Speaker 1: respectfully disagree. I think MAGA supporters have painted themselves as that.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you look at footage, when you hear
Speaker 1: things they say, these are this is the honestly goodness truth,
Speaker 1: and we have to be bold enough to call it.
Speaker 1: Wi Ah, Yes, that very very dumb person I don't
Speaker 1: even know who it is, but that dumb person on
Speaker 1: CNN wants you to know that what we really should
Speaker 1: take from the small At hoax is that even though
Speaker 1: it's a hoax, it's true in principle, because yes, they
Speaker 1: have to fabricate MAGA supporters acting this way, but that's
Speaker 1: because the left believes that's who MAGA supporters really are.
Speaker 1: That's what Republicans and conservatives really are. The left things.
Speaker 1: This is not a fringe belief on the left, by
Speaker 1: the way, they really think this about you and me.
Speaker 1: Be sure to remember that going forward, you are now
Speaker 1: entering the Freedom Hontagital Operation Center. All sensitive programs MUSTY
Speaker 1: can't strictly need to know. Team Buck is cleared and
Speaker 1: ready for the Buck Brief. I don't believe we're going
Speaker 1: to get what we've wanted from the first summit on
Speaker 1: which is a inventory of their weapons, a timetable to
Speaker 1: support the nuclearization, and a commitment for independent observers. I
Speaker 1: believe the administration has pulled back from that. I suspect
Speaker 1: what we may get is a commitment to end the war,
Speaker 1: the armistice, etc. All the countries become signatories to that,
Speaker 1: and that would be progress going forward. What KIMS alone
Speaker 1: is seeking two things, economic prosperity and security, and what
Speaker 1: we'resaken one thing, disarmed nuclear weapons, disarmed ballistic missiles, test
Speaker 1: prey and cour has been upended by President Trump. We've
Speaker 1: put real economic pressure on the North Koreans. We've built
Speaker 1: out a global coalition. One of the critiques is that
Speaker 1: we go it alone. We've built out the world's coalition
Speaker 1: to communicate the chairman Kim that that was the time.
Speaker 1: Now is the moment, and I hope will make real
Speaker 1: progress on that this week. Quite a summit this week
Speaker 1: expected in Vietnam between President Trump and North Korean leader
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un. Kim is taking in armored train, maybe
Speaker 1: barring from the California Bullet Train funds. Who knows the
Speaker 1: bullet train that will never be, but they want to
Speaker 1: keep their three billion dollars in California anyway. Kim is
Speaker 1: on his way to Vietnam via train from North Korea,
Speaker 1: two thousand, two thousand mile journey. I'm sure that there's
Speaker 1: lots of lovely scenery along the way. But he's going
Speaker 1: to arrive there and they're going to try and hash
Speaker 1: out the next steps for a nuclear agreement. I will
Speaker 1: tell you that I think that Trump is right, but
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to I don't think he's
Speaker 1: going to get what he wants. Let me explain a
Speaker 1: little bit. I think that President Trump knows that the
Speaker 1: alternative to some kind of diplomatic effort is eventually going
Speaker 1: to be military strikes against North Korea. I just think
Speaker 1: that that's that's where we're heading, and that's something that
Speaker 1: we want to avoid. That's something that would be catastrophic
Speaker 1: for the North Korean state for sure, and for South Korea.
Speaker 1: I think it could be very, very damaging and deadly
Speaker 1: as well. And so Trump is doing what he can.
Speaker 1: He's essentially adhering to the principle that war should be
Speaker 1: an absolute last resort. That is always the right thing
Speaker 1: in my mind. I mean when that doesn't mean it's
Speaker 1: not a resort, it just means it's the last resort.
Speaker 1: So he's going through all the motions here and doing
Speaker 1: everything that he can. And I think that he believes
Speaker 1: because he is well, because he's Donald Trump, but he
Speaker 1: certainly does not lack for confidence that he'll be able
Speaker 1: to get some kind of a deal here. I think
Speaker 1: the fact is that there is not going to be
Speaker 1: a deal with North Korea that truly denuclearizes the peninsula.
Speaker 1: Now I hope I am wrong, and I could very
Speaker 1: well be wrong, but that would be This is a
Speaker 1: Hail Mary Pass. We should understand it as such. There's nothing.
Speaker 1: The downsides of this have been greatly exaggerated by Trump critics.
Speaker 1: So those who say that Trump has caved dictators or
Speaker 1: he's coddlage dictators, they don't know what the heck they're
Speaker 1: talking about. The sanctions against North Korea are as strong
Speaker 1: as they have ever been. In fact, you could argue
Speaker 1: they are more targeted, and therefore they are even stronger
Speaker 1: than what they have been in the past. But he's
Speaker 1: trying here. He's trying to give North Korea an opening,
Speaker 1: and you can tell he also is trying to sell
Speaker 1: the North Korean leadership on the benefits of some kind
Speaker 1: of a softening. I mean, you see the economic miracle
Speaker 1: that South Korea has been, and what is possible for
Speaker 1: North Korea even if it adopted let's be honest, it's
Speaker 1: not going to go with a South Korea like model.
Speaker 1: If it adopted something that's closer what China has, an
Speaker 1: authoritarian capitalist economy, or or removed in that direction, it
Speaker 1: would be so much more prosperous. It would be so
Speaker 1: on such a stronger footing, and if it was able
Speaker 1: to open its markets for raw materials the rest of
Speaker 1: the world and get raw materials. I mean, the economic
Speaker 1: openings for North Korea if it just stopped being this
Speaker 1: this nuclear blight on the international community and this this
Speaker 1: threat to its neighbors, particularly to South Korea and to Japan.
Speaker 1: The economic Trump's right, I mean, they could be a miracle.
Speaker 1: And that's why I think Trump's sense that he needs
Speaker 1: to focus on something of the positive here, I understand
Speaker 1: where he's coming from. Playlip twenty nine. We talk about
Speaker 1: something that frankly he never to scope to anybody about,
Speaker 1: but we're speaking. It was speaking aloud, and I think
Speaker 1: we can have a very good, a very good submit.
Speaker 1: I think we'll have a very tremendous submit. We want
Speaker 1: the nuclearization, and I think they'll have a country that
Speaker 1: will set a lot of records for speed in terms
Speaker 1: of an economy. If if he got to nuclearization, North
Speaker 1: Korea would would turn into I think assuming that they then, look,
Speaker 1: they're not going to turn into a Jeffersonian democracy or anything.
Speaker 1: We all know that, right, But even if they if
Speaker 1: they just moved toward a Chinese model with an authoritarian regime,
Speaker 1: you know, with with with a strong man at the top,
Speaker 1: but was not engaged in all this. We're gonna kill
Speaker 1: all of our enemies in a fier receipt of nuclear
Speaker 1: waste and all this. You know, if they just did that,
Speaker 1: it would be an incredible, an incredible success story economically,
Speaker 1: I think in a short a very short period of time,
Speaker 1: you know, five or ten years, But I don't know
Speaker 1: if we'll get there. I would not it. Also in
Speaker 1: Iraq in terms of the I know I'm jumping around here,
Speaker 1: but Iraq's GDP now compared to what it was. I mean,
Speaker 1: Iraq is still a security problem and it's now in
Speaker 1: a largely an Iranian client state, but the Iraqi GDP
Speaker 1: is up tremendously. It's up a thousand percent since before
Speaker 1: the invasion. So the economic output of the iraqis is
Speaker 1: way better than now than it was before. So just
Speaker 1: to give you and that was after fighting a major war.
Speaker 1: So you can imagine if we can avoid the war
Speaker 1: with North Korea and just think of all the all
Speaker 1: of the improvements in day to day life, it would
Speaker 1: not be true freedom. It would not be a regime
Speaker 1: that fully respects human rights. But you know, we got
Speaker 1: to work with we got to work with the reality
Speaker 1: we're in down. I think Trump's trying to do that
Speaker 1: and just stop being this psychotic hermit kingdom of the
Speaker 1: most bellicos warlike rhetoric and posture all the time. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's gonna work, though I wish I could
Speaker 1: tell you otherwise. I think the North Koreans are just
Speaker 1: going to cling to their nukes and try to ride
Speaker 1: this whole thing out. And they're going to hope that
Speaker 1: they get a Sanders administration or a Warrant administration, or
Speaker 1: some left wing loon who's running things who is going
Speaker 1: to be completely able to be hoodwinked by whatever they've
Speaker 1: got planned. You know, whatever the North Kreenis is gonna do.
Speaker 1: And the North Koreans have certainly lied to us plenty
Speaker 1: of times in the past. In fact, that's one of
Speaker 1: the big problems we have going forward with them. Or
Speaker 1: Ari Fleischer, who I've got to say he's become a
Speaker 1: commentator lately that I appreciate his insights. I think he
Speaker 1: does it. I think he does a good job on
Speaker 1: a lot of subjects. But Ari Fleischer spoke about this
Speaker 1: because he had some experience with seeing an administration getting bamboozled.
Speaker 1: Here's what he said nineteen and the North Koreans lie.
Speaker 1: They've lied to three administrations in a row. The question
Speaker 1: is will they make of four? So I praise President Trump.
Speaker 1: I think the President is pushing and getting them actually
Speaker 1: to move in a good direction. The lack of tests,
Speaker 1: the President points out, is a productive development around the world.
Speaker 1: But will they denuclearise or will they lie? North Korea
Speaker 1: does have nuclear bombs, but they can't deliver them. That's
Speaker 1: the issue. They can't deliver them far. They can't deliver
Speaker 1: them to the United States on intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yet
Speaker 1: they don't have the technology, they don't have the abilities,
Speaker 1: and if they don't test, they'll never get it. Will
Speaker 1: they go beyond that and denuclearise, get rid of all
Speaker 1: their nukes? You know, that's a goal that we've always
Speaker 1: talked about. I just don't believe it will ever happen.
Speaker 1: I think North Korea will always hold on to them.
Speaker 1: You know, I hadn't actually heard the end of that
Speaker 1: clip from Fleischer until we just played it on air. Now,
Speaker 1: obviously I agree with him, I just don't think the
Speaker 1: North Koreans are going to do it. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: Trump shouldn't try that's just that's just my opinion, and
Speaker 1: that's just sorry. Fleischer's opinion doesn't mean Trump shouldn't try there.
Speaker 1: There's always that, there's always that chance for something of
Speaker 1: a diplomatic miracle. Understand this. If Trump achieves true denuclearization
Speaker 1: of North Korea, not at this summit, but if it
Speaker 1: starts at the summit and then going forward, if he
Speaker 1: does that within the next six years, that's right, baby
Speaker 1: six of his presidency, it will be the most incredible
Speaker 1: diplomatic achievement I think since the Well, it'll be the
Speaker 1: most incredible geopolitical moments since the fall of the Berlin Wall,
Speaker 1: and it will be the biggest achievement I think in
Speaker 1: many ways since the World War Two, since the World
Speaker 1: War two era, post World War Two era. Rather, so,
Speaker 1: we'll see. As to China, by the way, I'm hoping
Speaker 1: here's a little previous things to come. I'm hoping to
Speaker 1: get to China myself in Buck goes to China, like
Speaker 1: Nixon goes to China in May. So we'll see if
Speaker 1: that happens. I don't know how I'll be able to
Speaker 1: do the show from over there. There's a part of
Speaker 1: me that would worry that if I tried to do
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and Show from China, I would end
Speaker 1: up in like a cell somewhere, So I might have
Speaker 1: to take a couple of days off, guys. But it's
Speaker 1: not for a few months. But I'm hoping to get
Speaker 1: to China myself and to meet with business and policy
Speaker 1: leaders there and hear about what's really going on, because
Speaker 1: Trump is engaged in the pivot to Asia that the
Speaker 1: Obama administration and that the left for eight years under
Speaker 1: Obama was always talking about but never really did. They
Speaker 1: didn't do anything visavi Asia, they didn't accomplish anything. They
Speaker 1: had such a focus on appeasing Iran that they never
Speaker 1: really made headway on Asia. And I think that they
Speaker 1: just were talking about Asia because they knew that that's
Speaker 1: where a lot of the geopolitical challenges of the future lie.
Speaker 1: But they didn't have any expectation that they'd be able
Speaker 1: to do anything, Which brings me to just real quick
Speaker 1: here Trump is extending the extending the trade deal negotiations
Speaker 1: with China. President Shijin Ping and Trump are going to
Speaker 1: be talking about this in a Maral lago. I think
Speaker 1: coming up there were supposed to be a ninety day
Speaker 1: deadline of March first, and on that deadline there were
Speaker 1: going to be new tariffs ranging on two hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars of Chinese goods from ten percent to twenty five percent.
Speaker 1: But they're not going to do the new round of tariffs.
Speaker 1: They're gonna wait because Trump thinks they're making some progress.
Speaker 1: I am, you know, whereas I am not particually hopeful
Speaker 1: for full denuclearisation with North Korea, although there might be
Speaker 1: a ratcheting down if there already has been a ratcheting
Speaker 1: down of tensions because the lack of missile tests, I'm
Speaker 1: really holding out hope for Trump on China. In fact,
Speaker 1: I'll just tell you this. I'm somebody who owns some
Speaker 1: Chinese stocks that have just gotten crushed, and I do not,
Speaker 1: I cannot, nor would I ever give anybody stock advice
Speaker 1: here on the show. I'm just saying, though, I'm somebody
Speaker 1: that's a believer in Trump's ability to get an agreement
Speaker 1: with China that, if it is instituted, will actually be
Speaker 1: good for the Chinese and American economy. So I mean,
Speaker 1: I put my money where my mouth is on this.
Speaker 1: I'm an investor in Trump's ability to get China to
Speaker 1: the deal table and to get something done. So I'm
Speaker 1: holding out hope. Would I tell you to put your money, No,
Speaker 1: I would not. The odds are probably against this, really
Speaker 1: if you're looking at it, and I think that there's
Speaker 1: a very good chance that it'll just turn into more delay,
Speaker 1: especially going into Trump's reelection. You remember, everything that he's
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish right now also has to go through
Speaker 1: the lens of how does this affect twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: what will that mean? And you know all of that,
Speaker 1: right so, and foreign governments know this too. They know
Speaker 1: that if they can stall until twenty twenty, then it
Speaker 1: gets completely lost in the reelection mess. And you know
Speaker 1: that the president would love to get a deal done then,
Speaker 1: but he's going to be very distracted by other things, understandably,
Speaker 1: so so I just I would remember that as we
Speaker 1: go forward here. So big summit in Vietnam this week
Speaker 1: will have obviously analysis for you from that as it
Speaker 1: happens the next few days. And also this China deadline
Speaker 1: has been put off. I am I am hopeful, but
Speaker 1: not expecting a lot out of the North Korea talks.
Speaker 1: I am cautiously optimistic about real progress on the China talks.
Speaker 1: But this is Trump's pivot to Asia, and it is bold.
Speaker 1: You can say that much about it. Let's see what
Speaker 1: kind of dealmaker he really is. Morning Coffee is an institution.
Speaker 1: That's where when it comes to starting mind day, I
Speaker 1: reach for the most American coffee on the market, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. It is my coffee every single morning, gets
Speaker 1: my day kicking, gets it going the right way. One.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely delicious, Okay, so that's super important with your coffee. Also,
Speaker 1: if you're like me and you're like a bit of
Speaker 1: a kick from that caffeine, Black Rifle gets it going
Speaker 1: for you. And also it's a company that is owned
Speaker 1: and operated by veterans that does a lot of give
Speaker 1: back to the veteran commedy and first responders. These are
Speaker 1: great eyes, their former spec Ops vets that started this thing.
Speaker 1: I subscribe to Black Rifle Coffee and I get coffee
Speaker 1: from them every month, sent to my door. And while
Speaker 1: a liberal threaten a further tax your hard earned money
Speaker 1: with their socialist agenda, Black Rifle Coffee is fueling the
Speaker 1: fight for freedom by upping their offer to twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: Take advantage right now, go to Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck you'll get twenty percent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: So we've been trying to say from the time you're born,
Speaker 1: you know, you're wrapped in a pink blanket or you're
Speaker 1: wrapped in a blue blanket, and from there a whole
Speaker 1: set of expectations and esthetics and opportunities are put on you,
Speaker 1: and that can be really limiting. It doesn't let individuals
Speaker 1: sort of be whoever they actually are. It puts us
Speaker 1: in these very distinct, very arbitrary categories, and the gender
Speaker 1: Reveal Party moves that even more forward. So you don't
Speaker 1: even have to be born to be wrapped in the
Speaker 1: binker the blue blanket. You're still of fetus and your
Speaker 1: parents are announcing to the world. You know that you're
Speaker 1: going to be either guns or glitter. You're going to
Speaker 1: be yeah, tractors or trs. That's one of these feminists
Speaker 1: who's actually a pretty well known leftist feminist railing against
Speaker 1: gender reveal parties, not because they are lame, which some
Speaker 1: of you could make that argument. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: make that argument right now because I've never had a baby.
Speaker 1: Some of you who have had babies, you get to
Speaker 1: weigh in on this. You have an experiential component to
Speaker 1: this that I do not. Our gender reveal parties kind
Speaker 1: of lame, don't. It's a new thing that I hadn't
Speaker 1: even heard of until six months ago or so. But
Speaker 1: she doesn't have a problem with it because it's just
Speaker 1: we now have all these excuses for adults to have
Speaker 1: parties at all these different phases in their life for
Speaker 1: no apparent reason. I mean, I went to a baby
Speaker 1: shower with Miss Molly that were the docks in tried
Speaker 1: to rip my face off the carpet shark remember that story.
Speaker 1: That baby shower lasted like five hours. It was the
Speaker 1: longest party. And it's watching an adult open presence for babies. No, no,
Speaker 1: this is not something you should make your adult human
Speaker 1: friends do. This is not normal. This is not cool,
Speaker 1: and nor should you allow your face to get ripped
Speaker 1: off by a carpet shark. But the problem that this
Speaker 1: feminist has with it because feminist, as we know have
Speaker 1: they have no sense of humor. Um, you know what's
Speaker 1: what's the joke about the feminist who walks into a
Speaker 1: bar why are you so sexist? You know, it's like, oh, whoa,
Speaker 1: I guess it's not a joke. I guess there is
Speaker 1: no joke. So you know, feminists are are not are
Speaker 1: not an amusing bunch at all. They find no humor
Speaker 1: in anything, and they're they're fighting against not just millennia,
Speaker 1: but really the the dawn of humans as a species
Speaker 1: up until now, where there is a difference in the
Speaker 1: way that people approach and think and deal with life
Speaker 1: based on their biology and their gender. And they can
Speaker 1: keep pretending that this is not the case. But you know,
Speaker 1: boys and girls, when left to their own devices, boys
Speaker 1: do play with certain things. Girls do play with certain
Speaker 1: with other things. Right, Boys do tend toward certain uh,
Speaker 1: you know, physical and spatial activities. Girls are into more
Speaker 1: visual and creative. And you know this is this is
Speaker 1: the science supports this. It could not be any more clear.
Speaker 1: And you know, men and women are very different, you know,
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. You know, I mean, all
Speaker 1: you have to do is spend some time around some
Speaker 1: you know, some teenage boys or some and some teenage girls.
Speaker 1: I spent the weekend at a house where there were
Speaker 1: I think six or seven young kids running around, and
Speaker 1: the boys and the girls are all very different. And
Speaker 1: they're not different because of just societal norms or whatever.
Speaker 1: They're different because they're different. I wish the Libs would
Speaker 1: would stop with this nonsense, but they really do view
Speaker 1: gender as yet another thing to destroy in their Marxist
Speaker 1: quest to in their in their cultural Marxist quest to
Speaker 1: create this radical equality of all peoples, that we are
Speaker 1: all these cogs and this bigger machine that they are building.
Speaker 1: And remember the ultimate really the the the foundational relationships
Speaker 1: in society are among parents and children and among spouses,
Speaker 1: and you know, the the male female dynamic in particular
Speaker 1: is one that the left really seeks to not just
Speaker 1: to downplay, but increasingly, I think, to subvert and to
Speaker 1: destroy and act like there is no there is nothing
Speaker 1: about gender that is meaningful, and that's just crazy. The
Speaker 1: science does not support it, society history, this is a
Speaker 1: bizarre concept they've latched onto. But it's the same reason why.
Speaker 1: Now you know, women will openly feminists I should say
Speaker 1: not women. Feminists will not that feminists aren't women, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? The subset of women known as
Speaker 1: feminists will openly advocate for transgender women to be able
Speaker 1: to fight in MMA tournaments. Well, this is just crazy.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a man fighting a woman. I mean,
Speaker 1: the physical differences between men and women are very, very real,
Speaker 1: and the amount of test, the doscar and your body
Speaker 1: can change. But still the physical structure of people that
Speaker 1: are XX versus XY, the bone density, the bone structure
Speaker 1: is different, and you know, taking some pills doesn't change that.
Speaker 1: So liberals on this are not just nasty and undermining,
Speaker 1: but when it comes to the eradication of gender, they're
Speaker 1: rapidly anti science. I did not watch a single minute
Speaker 1: of the Oscars on Sunday night, and not a minute.
Speaker 1: I didn't feel the need to tune in just to
Speaker 1: sort of take a peek and like, oh, what are
Speaker 1: you wearing, Like let's talk about the red carpet. I
Speaker 1: didn't feel the need to do it at all. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you are like, yeah, buck Well,
Speaker 1: welcome to the party, pal, But there was just no
Speaker 1: There was even no curiosity. Right, I'm not even somebody
Speaker 1: who would have said I would watch the Oscars in
Speaker 1: previous years, but now I'm I tune in for a
Speaker 1: second and see of some celebutante was going to make
Speaker 1: a fool of himself for herself, and it just was
Speaker 1: so clear to me that, based on the movies, there
Speaker 1: was no need for me to watch any of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, Bohemian Rhapsody got four awards, right, I heard
Speaker 1: Bohemian Rhapsody is actually a fun movie and it's a
Speaker 1: good watch, so I might watch that at home at
Speaker 1: some point. But Roma, Black Panther, and Green Book won
Speaker 1: three Oscars each, and I sit here and I don't
Speaker 1: care about who wins this as in, oh, like, I'm
Speaker 1: so disappointed because, as I've told you before, the Shape
Speaker 1: of Water one a year ago for Best Picture, and
Speaker 1: it's a movie about a woman who has sex with
Speaker 1: an aquarium pet that can't speak or communicate with human beings.
Speaker 1: That's really, really weird. You can call me old fashioned,
Speaker 1: but I think the human beings should only have sexual
Speaker 1: relationships with human beings, and I don't think that movies
Speaker 1: should celebrate sex with non human beings. So there's that.
Speaker 1: But I look at this more as just the cultural
Speaker 1: indications of it, all right, I mean the fact first all,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Black Panthers not a good movie. It's not
Speaker 1: a good movie. People. I know we're supposed to say
Speaker 1: it's a good movie. I know that there's a lot
Speaker 1: of cultural pressure to say Black Panther's a good movie.
Speaker 1: It's not. It has crappy screenplay, crappy dialogue, bad storyline,
Speaker 1: cheesy looking action sequences. Not all of them, but a
Speaker 1: lot of them. It's just not a very good movie.
Speaker 1: And I wish we didn't have to pretend. But I
Speaker 1: didn't see Green Book. People told me it was okay.
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody saw Roma, but that apparently did well.
Speaker 1: Here's why I'm bringing this up. Hollywood really is losing
Speaker 1: its power, and that's not something that we as conservatives
Speaker 1: should celebrate because the power is just going elsewhere, and
Speaker 1: it is not going into a more bipartisan ecosystem. It's
Speaker 1: actually shifting to Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, YouTube owned by Google.
Speaker 1: You know, you look at all of this, and you
Speaker 1: look at the trends of trajectory here, and the digital superpower,
Speaker 1: so to speak, are now in place of what the
Speaker 1: old Hollywood studios were. It used to be that the
Speaker 1: Hollywood studios would buy up cable channels and buy up
Speaker 1: these other content distribution mechanisms because they were so big,
Speaker 1: because they had these movies that had you know, one
Speaker 1: hundred million dollar budget and make a billion dollars, and
Speaker 1: movie studios are losing their grip and they're also losing
Speaker 1: their cultural influence, but that influence is being replaced by Netflix,
Speaker 1: by Hulu. I just got a buddy of mine to
Speaker 1: watch The Last Kingdom over the weekend, him Outred, son
Speaker 1: of Outred, and now he's hooked. He's like, my wife
Speaker 1: hasn't seen me in days. All they do is watched
Speaker 1: The Last Kingdom. Like I told you, dude, I told
Speaker 1: you it's a great show. And that's a show that
Speaker 1: I learned about from a member of the team. I
Speaker 1: would know, one of you told me about The Last
Speaker 1: Kingdom via Facebook and I went and I've watched now
Speaker 1: three seasons of it. But that's where the culture is going.
Speaker 1: I mean the stories. You have to remember that, the
Speaker 1: stuff that we see on TV and movies and just
Speaker 1: just video content in general, those are the stories that
Speaker 1: we are seeing and that are points of commonality between
Speaker 1: all of us, right, I mean, I can sit down
Speaker 1: and talk to any any By the way, I actually
Speaker 1: have gray in my beard now, so I truly am
Speaker 1: at Graybeard millennial. But I can talk to any of
Speaker 1: my fellow graybeards and discuss movies from the late nineties
Speaker 1: early two thousands, and we all had kind of profound
Speaker 1: memories of where we saw them. And you know, every
Speaker 1: guy know who saw Braveheart in the theater remembers thinking
Speaker 1: that it was an incredible movie, for example. But these
Speaker 1: are commonalities that have a real influence on our thinking
Speaker 1: and on and yes, on our politics. Breitbart very very
Speaker 1: correctly said that politics is downstream from culture. So Netflix, Hulu, Amazon,
Speaker 1: why do I care about this? These are all liberal enclay,
Speaker 1: So pay attention to this. The OSCARS shows us. The
Speaker 1: OSCARS is dying. Hollywood studios are dying, or they're at
Speaker 1: least going to be a shadow of what they once were.
Speaker 1: They're all going to get bought up by Netflix, Amazon, Hulu,
Speaker 1: Google that's or Hulu's i know, owned by another one.
Speaker 1: But they're gonna get bought up by the digital supercompanies.
Speaker 1: And those super companies are lib institutions. We need to
Speaker 1: do something about that. Hey, team Buck, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. Just a little plug here. I will be
Speaker 1: having a conversation with Mark Teason of the Washington Post,
Speaker 1: a debate. Actually, if we're gonna be We're gonna be
Speaker 1: frank about it. We're going to have a little debate
Speaker 1: on the situation in Syria and US troops whether they
Speaker 1: should be pulled out of Syria. So that is that
Speaker 1: is this Friday at sea Pack, which is at the
Speaker 1: Gaylord International Convention Center, I think it's called. So if
Speaker 1: you feel up to it, if you want to come
Speaker 1: by Seapack this Friday, if you're going to be at
Speaker 1: Seapack this Friday, at about eight thirty am, I'll be
Speaker 1: up on the main stage having a debate about Syria.
Speaker 1: Good times for sure, and let's get to the so
Speaker 1: please do show up team if you happen to be
Speaker 1: their team. Buck campus represent In previous years, I've had
Speaker 1: colleagues in the media who told me that that people
Speaker 1: went up to them and said, well, in one case
Speaker 1: are you Buck Sexton, which was the guy I don't
Speaker 1: think looked very much like me, but nonetheless it was
Speaker 1: nice that somebody was thinking of me. And then in
Speaker 1: other years people have said, well where is Buck. This
Speaker 1: is my first time at Seapack, actually my first year
Speaker 1: going to be at Seapack. So if you get a
Speaker 1: chance to do do come by and say him well,
Speaker 1: you know, chat about Syria or whatever else you got
Speaker 1: in mind. All right, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: if you want to get in on some of the
Speaker 1: roll call action. Alice first up, Hey Buck funny story.
Speaker 1: My husband Dan just a little Washingtonday for a meeting,
Speaker 1: and on the plane or our entire Vermont Congressional delegation,
Speaker 1: Pat Lahey, who was charming fellow passengers, Peter Welch, who
Speaker 1: was working their room, and old Bernie Bernie Sanders, who
Speaker 1: stuck his nose in his iPad and barreled into Dan
Speaker 1: in the restroom without an apology. But here's the good part.
Speaker 1: Lahe and Welch flew coach Bernie the stinky socialist flew
Speaker 1: first class. But you don't. The seat. They've got to
Speaker 1: be bigger because his brain is bigger, his mind and
Speaker 1: heart are bigger. Fum making this socialism work. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna get free stuck to everybody, you've got
Speaker 1: to give a little more free stuff to yourself. First class,
Speaker 1: three houses. You'll understand. That doesn't surprise me. I think
Speaker 1: it's so interesting that there are people who were part
Speaker 1: of the Hillary Clinton campaign who have leaked information about
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders private jet travel to the press just out
Speaker 1: of spite, just to kind of mess up the Burns
Speaker 1: day a little bit. They have leaked this information about
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders traveling on private jets, and yes, it is,
Speaker 1: in fact, it is in fact the case that the
Speaker 1: burn does like his private jet travel. But it was
Speaker 1: for Hillary Clinton that he was doing that. He was
Speaker 1: traveling around trying to help her out, which was obviously
Speaker 1: a thankless job. Matthew Ryan's buck. I can't wait to
Speaker 1: listen to your show every day. You are the new
Speaker 1: Rush hand down, the best commentator on the radio today.
Speaker 1: I mean that well, Matthew, you are very kind. I
Speaker 1: appreciate that. May I give you an action movie quote? Yes,
Speaker 1: you may, Matthew's Let's do it now. You know what
Speaker 1: I do for a living. I'm not perfect, but you
Speaker 1: should have waited for me. I was worth it, man, Matthew,
Speaker 1: I got no idea. My action movie skills have probably
Speaker 1: faded because we haven't done it on the show in
Speaker 1: a while. I bet there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: that listen to the show now who don't even know
Speaker 1: about action movie quote Friday. Should we bring it back?
Speaker 1: Let me know if you think we should bring it
Speaker 1: back in Facebook. In the Facebook comments, Andrei's rights whoa
Speaker 1: howdy bucking team? After my workout this morning, I thought
Speaker 1: to check the news on my local AM conservative radio channel. Oddly,
Speaker 1: there was chatter about Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper. What
Speaker 1: the h E? Double hockey sticks? Why am I telling
Speaker 1: you this? Buck? Well, Buck, you and your team put
Speaker 1: together a thoughtful mix of news analysis, or rather put
Speaker 1: together a thoughtful mix of news analysis that matters to us.
Speaker 1: It is because of this assembly of town and information
Speaker 1: that we all tuned in to support you in the
Speaker 1: associated sponsors. You and your team definitely set the high
Speaker 1: bar higher than most. So when I hear chatter about
Speaker 1: the latest entertainment romance, I'm a conservative AM channel. I
Speaker 1: long for the cerebral pleasures of the freedom Hut your humor, insight,
Speaker 1: impressions and analogies. Dear listener from the other day, keep
Speaker 1: and grow your audience, stay the course andres well andres Man,
Speaker 1: you're very nice. I'm getting some really really kind stuff
Speaker 1: from the team today and I and I do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Um it means a lot, so especially as uh, let's
Speaker 1: just say, I have not radio related, but there's some
Speaker 1: other professional not personal. Don't start, don't start making guesses
Speaker 1: about any kind of personal life changes. Not yet, not yet.
Speaker 1: But I have some consence coming up about some professional
Speaker 1: projects and things. So your support is always team helped
Speaker 1: push through the transitions and changes. Radio is of course
Speaker 1: just great and growing. It's not radio related, but there's
Speaker 1: some other things. There might be some shifting going on
Speaker 1: in the in the Bucks day to day schedule. I know, person,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I should code red myself. Kristen not to
Speaker 1: be confused with Kirsten. Can we just guys, can we
Speaker 1: just all agree with the name is Kristen? Can we
Speaker 1: stop with this Kirsten? Kirsten liked the Beto impression, y'all?
Speaker 1: Can we just, like, please like, can we just have
Speaker 1: a big Kurston and not Kirsten. I I just don't
Speaker 1: believe in Walt, and I don't believe in Kirsten. It
Speaker 1: should be k Kristen. I can't even say them right
Speaker 1: back and forth. Beto can't say them right either, but
Speaker 1: Kristen right. Hey, Buck, I've been listening to your podcast
Speaker 1: for about three years, and you're the only postion I
Speaker 1: have to hear when you post. I skip the other podcast,
Speaker 1: but yours is a must listen. My birthday is today,
Speaker 1: that would be February twenty fifth, and I hope you
Speaker 1: give me a shout out. Thanks bunches. Keep up the
Speaker 1: great work well, Kristen. Happy birthday to you, and thank
Speaker 1: you so much for listening to the show and being
Speaker 1: such a part of what we do here. Thank you,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you. Happy birthday. I hope it was
Speaker 1: a wonderful one, and please please keep listening. James, we
Speaker 1: share first names. Buck. I've been trying to buy a
Speaker 1: Shields High T shirt from your website for many months,
Speaker 1: but every time I checked, there's only small medium in XXL.
Speaker 1: I need a plain old large. Will they ever be available?
Speaker 1: Love the show, James, James, Uh, I gotta check website
Speaker 1: has been We've been revamping, redoing. I gotta get some
Speaker 1: stuff going for the website. Um, you know, let me
Speaker 1: see if, let me see if I can make that happen. Uh. Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going on with the T shirts.
Speaker 1: I can't even ask your producer. Mike's not a charge
Speaker 1: of it, so I don't even know. Let me look
Speaker 1: into that, man, We gotta we gotta up our up
Speaker 1: our digital store game quite a bit going forward. That
Speaker 1: would be really really helpful. Uh, Michael writes, Buck, did
Speaker 1: you hear what Bill Maher said? The right wants to
Speaker 1: be the left? Wow? Talk about a high perched bubble.
Speaker 1: You say it all the time. The left does not
Speaker 1: understand the right. You're correct as usual, Bok, the left
Speaker 1: is out of touch. Shield hie, my friend. Indeed, Michael's
Speaker 1: referring to Bill Maher saying that liberal states have Chef
Speaker 1: Wolfgang Puck. Red states have Chef Boyard. Interestingly enough, Chef
Speaker 1: boyar D was actually an entrepreneur who became a multi
Speaker 1: multi millionaire and came to America with nothing. He's an immigrant,
Speaker 1: so you think that maybe they'd be a little more
Speaker 1: excited about his story. But also, if we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about cuisine and food and Red states versus Blue states,
Speaker 1: I think Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, the Carolina's you know, I
Speaker 1: think there are some places that are gonna want a word.
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to leave you out. Indiana. I
Speaker 1: have been to some fantastic steakhouses in the wonderful state
Speaker 1: of Indiana. But if you're looking for, even what would
Speaker 1: be considered innovative cuisine, there are some Red States that
Speaker 1: are at the very top of the list. And don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on barbecue, because I know that
Speaker 1: there is not enough homage that I can pay to
Speaker 1: Southern and Texan barbecue and the New York equivalent of
Speaker 1: it just it just doesn't doesn't get it done. It
Speaker 1: doesn't cut the mustard, as we would say in NYC. Seth, Right, Hey,
Speaker 1: I heard your response to my message on the podcast.
Speaker 1: I thought she was a show sponsor only because I
Speaker 1: listened on podcasts, so normally I only hear what you
Speaker 1: guys put up and not a radio ads. Perhaps it's
Speaker 1: an ad in sort of buy a podcast app. Sorry, yeah, Seth.
Speaker 1: If we have apps running on the on the podcast,
Speaker 1: you know that's something that I would I would know
Speaker 1: what the or rather ads running on the podcast. I
Speaker 1: don't know what those ads are. I mean, some of
Speaker 1: that has done via our ad sales, and that's kind
Speaker 1: of out of my hands. But obviously the sponsors of
Speaker 1: the show that I do live reads for, I know
Speaker 1: those products very well. I use those products, and I'm
Speaker 1: very familiar with what they're up to. So there is
Speaker 1: some difference and how the selling works. And this is
Speaker 1: where I always tell you all you want to ask
Speaker 1: you to check out Black Rifle or AMAC or any
Speaker 1: of our wonderful sponsors. That is a way for you
Speaker 1: to get a great product and also to support this show.
Speaker 1: It really matters. Every single purchase that you make using
Speaker 1: the URLs that I say on this show every day
Speaker 1: is a vote to keep this show on air and
Speaker 1: to keep it growing, which we have been doing without fail. Now,
Speaker 1: for the gosh, this is the third this is the
Speaker 1: third year we've been on air in this time slot.
Speaker 1: So every time you get a chance to check out
Speaker 1: one of those products, I really really do appreciate it,
Speaker 1: and so do the entrepreneurs and the business owners that
Speaker 1: we work with, and remember their people who are willing
Speaker 1: to a lot of companies get all, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: want to go near your conservative talk. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't believe in traditional America and being pro life and
Speaker 1: either good on this whole list, and those companies don't
Speaker 1: want to advertise on conservative anything, conservative radio, conservative TV.
Speaker 1: So it's it's in your hands. It's in your hands
Speaker 1: whether our side of things, whether half the country gets
Speaker 1: a voice in media or not, I really mean that,
Speaker 1: Aaron rites Buck, thanks for the segment on finding meaningful work.
Speaker 1: The disconnect between compensation and meaning really resonated with me,
Speaker 1: and it was inspiring to hear you talk about finding
Speaker 1: meaning in your career. On an unrelated note, I love
Speaker 1: your impressions and would love to hear a segment with you.
Speaker 1: Ben Shapiro and Stephen Crowd are doing dueling Impressions of
Speaker 1: the Democrats twenty twenty clown Car of Lunacy shields high Aaron, Well, Aaron,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for the kind note and the
Speaker 1: and the support for the show. And yeah, I got
Speaker 1: a lot of feedback. I didn't really read much of
Speaker 1: it here on the show but today, but a lot
Speaker 1: of feedback about meaningful work. And I think in particular
Speaker 1: being a janitor that helps heal people's brains, that's that
Speaker 1: really struck a chord with people, because well, we all
Speaker 1: have that ability, we all have that that chance to
Speaker 1: make someone else's life every day a little bit better,
Speaker 1: a little bit easier, a little bit more fulfilling, maybe
Speaker 1: a little bit less lonely, a little bit less dark.
Speaker 1: So that really struck a corporate folks and I appreciate
Speaker 1: Aaron that it did with you as well as for
Speaker 1: our Crowder and Bend. I mean, those guys are great,
Speaker 1: and that's a that's a fantastic idea. I'd be happy
Speaker 1: to join them anytime to talk about whenever they want
Speaker 1: to talk about. So let's see if they'll do it,
Speaker 1: you know, reach out to them. I'll fly hey, I'll
Speaker 1: take a trip out to LA on my own dime
Speaker 1: just to hang out on the Daily wire set and
Speaker 1: talk to those guys. But whatever they want, that'll be
Speaker 1: it for today. Team, I'll talk to you tomorrow. She'll
Speaker 1: tie