Speaker 1: If you're gonna run a great business, you've got to
Speaker 1: have great people and finding them is a huge part
Speaker 1: of that puzzle. Zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire.
Speaker 1: Zipp recruiter dot com has a platform that finds the
Speaker 1: right job candidates for you. It identifies people with the
Speaker 1: right experience and invites them to apply to your job.
Speaker 1: Of employers who post a job on zipp recruiter get
Speaker 1: a quality candidate through the site in just one day.
Speaker 1: The right candidates are out there, you can find them.
Speaker 1: But zipp recruiter is how right. Now my listeners can
Speaker 1: try zip recruiter for free. That's right free. Just go
Speaker 1: to zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck. One more time, tryed for free.
Speaker 1: Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck, zip recruiter. It's the
Speaker 1: smartest way to hire. Once you check out their interface
Speaker 1: and you see those candidates come right into your inbox,
Speaker 1: you're gonna realize it's a great choice. Zipp recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. You are entering the freedom hunt. Huge victory
Speaker 1: for President Trump today at the Supreme Court. He has
Speaker 1: been vindicated and yes in fact, we saw that the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a hashtag resistance ridiculous nous.
Speaker 1: We will also get into all of the latest today
Speaker 1: on other Supreme Court decisions and the fight over civility
Speaker 1: and immigration at the border. That and more coming up
Speaker 1: on the Buck. This is the bus Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American great, You're a
Speaker 1: great American again The Buck Sexton Show. Beginst No, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the box, Sex and show everybody. I told you
Speaker 1: that Trump would be found to be right on the
Speaker 1: travel Band those who listen to show. Now, I've been
Speaker 1: saying all along. It's constitutional, it's plainly within his authority
Speaker 1: as the chief of the executive branch. And he is right.
Speaker 1: And it is a great victory. And in fact Trump
Speaker 1: said so himself. Play clip eleven. Please, you have probably
Speaker 1: all seen otherwise you wouldn't be at the top of
Speaker 1: your game. The fact that today's Supreme Court ruling just
Speaker 1: coming out a tremendous success, a tremendous victory for the
Speaker 1: American people and for our constitution. This is a great
Speaker 1: victory for our constitution. We have to be tough, and
Speaker 1: we have to be safe, and we have to be secure.
Speaker 1: At a minimum. We have to make sure that we
Speaker 1: met people coming into the country. We know who's coming in,
Speaker 1: we know where they come from. You just have to
Speaker 1: know who's coming here. We have to know who's coming here.
Speaker 1: The president, you will recall, got his first big dose
Speaker 1: of anti Trump venom from you know, as as the
Speaker 1: new president the United States, from the media on this
Speaker 1: one in a way that that gave us a taste
Speaker 1: of things to come. This showed us that the opposition
Speaker 1: to Trump was going to be unhinged. Uh, it was
Speaker 1: going to be unhinged, and we have seen it. That
Speaker 1: is in fact the case here that people opposed Trump
Speaker 1: in ways that go far beyond just not liking his policies.
Speaker 1: Just the notion that they called this a Muslim ban,
Speaker 1: when in fact a vast majority of Muslims and Muslim
Speaker 1: countries were not included on the band goes to show
Speaker 1: you there's dishonesty in their language. There is dishonesty in
Speaker 1: there intent. There's a quick overview here what happened today.
Speaker 1: See the Wall Street Journal that a divided Supreme Court
Speaker 1: upheld President Donald Trump's latest ban on travel to the
Speaker 1: US by people from several Muslim majority countries a sweeping
Speaker 1: reaffirmation of presidential authority and a victory for the White
Speaker 1: House on one of its most central and controversial initiatives.
Speaker 1: The Court, in a five four opinion by Chief Justice
Speaker 1: John Roberts, said Tuesday that Trump didn't violate federal immigration
Speaker 1: law or the Constitution last September when he put in
Speaker 1: place restrictions on US entry by people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria,
Speaker 1: and Yemen, a measure he said was necessary to protect
Speaker 1: national security because those countries don't provide sufficient information for
Speaker 1: US officials to assess whether their nationals are a threat. Look,
Speaker 1: I had to notice today people are like, oh, it's
Speaker 1: the third version. It's the third version. Yeah, well guess
Speaker 1: what the Ninth Circuits that the third version wasn't constitutional either,
Speaker 1: and clearly was. This is all about opposition to Trump,
Speaker 1: not about the Constitution. By the way, Mike, do we
Speaker 1: have a montage of the craziness that they were saying
Speaker 1: originally when this happen? Ben? Do we you know one
Speaker 1: thing I was hoping that we would get together today.
Speaker 1: It's just if we recall, uh, what we've got, which
Speaker 1: one is it? This is what they were saying about
Speaker 1: the travel band play nineteen. The message is simple. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is uh completely an American This is an unlawful order.
Speaker 1: What Trump is doing is harming our national security. It
Speaker 1: will incite attacks against us. It is not within the
Speaker 1: President's authority to discriminate on the basis of religion. It
Speaker 1: is simply isn't so. I hope President Trump will reconsider
Speaker 1: I think it's it's discriminatory, it's counterproductive. This ruling gives
Speaker 1: kind of a green light to the president to continue
Speaker 1: his discriminatory policies toward the Muslim community, of the Hispanic
Speaker 1: Latino community, and other people coming from countries that are
Speaker 1: not desirable in his eyes or in the eyes of
Speaker 1: his administration. Oh boy, A lot of people saying it's discriminatory,
Speaker 1: it's illegal, it's unconstitutional, it's un America, and all that stuff,
Speaker 1: and now we find out it's actually completely constitutional. The
Speaker 1: fact that it was five four though, is interesting, isn't it. Um.
Speaker 1: This goes to show you one of the central themes
Speaker 1: that many of us we're hitting on during the election itself,
Speaker 1: which is, if you if you had a Ginsburg clone.
Speaker 1: If you had somebody who was David Suitor Part two
Speaker 1: on that court now instead of Neil Gorcich, just look
Speaker 1: at what the courts would be doing. Look at how
Speaker 1: important that is. And this is also where we see
Speaker 1: that the facade of the Supreme Court as a political
Speaker 1: has been ripped away. This is an instance where a
Speaker 1: primary objection, a primary objection to President Trump here was
Speaker 1: that while the law itself may have been constitutional, there
Speaker 1: were people and I mean legal scholars so to speak,
Speaker 1: who were out there saying, oh, but because Trump is bigoted,
Speaker 1: the law is not okay for him. Because Trump is
Speaker 1: Trump essentially, uh, this is not a power that that
Speaker 1: he has. Well, what happened today was the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: by a five four decision, said that the law is
Speaker 1: the law. Um. So it's astoniestly you have. You had
Speaker 1: an exchange I saw today between some New York Times
Speaker 1: reporter who wrote, the Supreme Court seems to have ruled
Speaker 1: that what Trump says about his policies doesn't really matter
Speaker 1: as long as his lawyers can clean it up. And
Speaker 1: then a response to that that I saw here from
Speaker 1: Kyle Salmon is this is the opposite of what happened
Speaker 1: in Trumpy Hawaii. The court below would have invented a
Speaker 1: principle that the president's powers are reduced when he says
Speaker 1: nasty things. That idea is found nowhere in our constitution
Speaker 1: or case law. If the president has the power to
Speaker 1: do something under law, he has that power, whether he
Speaker 1: is a jerk or not, whether he acts for the
Speaker 1: right reasons or the wrong ones. Folks, liberals just don't
Speaker 1: respect the notion of law. They just don't respect that
Speaker 1: there is such a thing as the law, that it
Speaker 1: has meaning, and that it is not something that just
Speaker 1: changes based on whatever you wanted to say. If the
Speaker 1: court had ruled differently today, we would have had a
Speaker 1: circumstance whereby a precedent would be in place that some
Speaker 1: presidents would have I mean, this is this is the
Speaker 1: Obama delusion made real here, meaning that for Obama to
Speaker 1: have done this, liberals would have said, well, that's constitutional
Speaker 1: because Obama. But Trump can't do it because he said
Speaker 1: mean things about Muslims and immigrants when he was running
Speaker 1: for president. That's not how the law works, that's not
Speaker 1: how authority works. That's not that's not okay, But people
Speaker 1: think it's okay. Four Supreme Court justices came down on
Speaker 1: this and said, yeah, you know, we we we would
Speaker 1: have actually ruled against the president here. And this is
Speaker 1: I would note you're going to see more made of
Speaker 1: this because national security as something in the president's per
Speaker 1: view as it relates to the border specifically, very important
Speaker 1: right now, a very important discussion. So don't don't think
Speaker 1: that this is going away. This is going to be
Speaker 1: very very important marker. I think of other issues that
Speaker 1: are going to get tied to this in the future
Speaker 1: because the President may decide and I think this is
Speaker 1: going to happen, that the board is really a national
Speaker 1: security issue, and that the congressional legislative acts or lack
Speaker 1: of action to try and find a better way to
Speaker 1: deal with the surge of immigrants who are actually illegal
Speaker 1: aliens engaged in a conspiracy to violate US immigration law,
Speaker 1: that's what's happening. But that there there's a very good
Speaker 1: possibility that I think you'll see the president realized that
Speaker 1: he has the power and that they'll they'll they're already
Speaker 1: challenging we're talking about this, they're already suing the president
Speaker 1: over what's going on the border. But just back to
Speaker 1: this Muslim band for a second. You remember the hysteria.
Speaker 1: There were protests in the airport there. People said, all
Speaker 1: of them repeating what they had heard on MSNBC in
Speaker 1: other places. All this repetition of this is so unconstitutional,
Speaker 1: it's so evil. Trump's a monster, He's so bad. And
Speaker 1: then when real jurists look at this, not the Ninth Circus,
Speaker 1: which is a clown show, which is completely and utterly ridiculous,
Speaker 1: the things that that their decisions, and we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about another narrow decision today that is very troubling. That's
Speaker 1: gonna get way less pressed because it's not as it is,
Speaker 1: getting way less pressed because it's not as closely tied
Speaker 1: to Trump of this administration, but religious liberties hanging by
Speaker 1: a threat First Amendments hanging by a threat. In this country,
Speaker 1: freedom is under real assault from the left right now
Speaker 1: in ways that we have to discuss and have combat.
Speaker 1: We have to defend our basic liberties because there being
Speaker 1: taken away from us by a progressivism that is just
Speaker 1: drunk with power, its ability to publicly name and shame
Speaker 1: and destroy people and tear down people. And there is
Speaker 1: a lot, a lot to discuss here, a lot to
Speaker 1: work with so on the on the Muslim ban. Also,
Speaker 1: you know, all these different objections and it's worth seeing
Speaker 1: the well, I always say things like, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: if you get a chance for you know, it's it's
Speaker 1: about almost a hundred pages, so I don't know if
Speaker 1: you really want to take the time to read through
Speaker 1: the whole case. When I was reading through it today,
Speaker 1: though they deal with the different arguments against this, and
Speaker 1: and there there's all these people say, oh, well that
Speaker 1: it wasn't One of the objections was it wasn't effective,
Speaker 1: it wasn't smart. That's not anyone's called. When it's the
Speaker 1: president's decision, that's the president's decision. No one else gets
Speaker 1: to say you can't do that, Mr President, because I
Speaker 1: don't think that's a good idea. Another objection here that
Speaker 1: was raised legal object Now this is what they were
Speaker 1: thinking they were gonna do. Another objection was, well, Mr President,
Speaker 1: why don't you um, you know, well, you can't use
Speaker 1: this power because you're a racist, you're a bad guy,
Speaker 1: you're a bigot. Laws don't change because of who the
Speaker 1: individual is and whether you like them. Laws the law.
Speaker 1: Democrats have a really hard time with this on immigration,
Speaker 1: on the so called Muslim ban on a number of
Speaker 1: issues here um that certainly deserves our our attention and
Speaker 1: deserve a lot of our analysis today on the show,
Speaker 1: which we will certainly do eight four four five, eight
Speaker 1: four four nine, Buck, We have much much more to discuss.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the cases that came down
Speaker 1: that they're my friends? How does it feel to be
Speaker 1: vindicated on this side of things? How does it feel
Speaker 1: to be in a situation where everyone was saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Trump the Muslim man, it's so unconstitutional. Actually no, actually
Speaker 1: it is constitutional. So there's that. We'll also discuss the
Speaker 1: US in the border, by the way, I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not taking my eye off that one, and we've we've
Speaker 1: got a lot a lot of show coming your way, folks,
Speaker 1: will be right back. Well, first and foremost, I think
Speaker 1: this decision is a shot across the bow or lower court.
Speaker 1: What was unprecedented was the degree to which the courts,
Speaker 1: like the Ninth Circuit, relied upon the president's tweets and
Speaker 1: public campaign statements as the determinative factor in their decision.
Speaker 1: We've never seen that. You can't ignore that. We have
Speaker 1: historically given presidents sweeping deference as to who can enter
Speaker 1: the country. As I said, I don't support the policy,
Speaker 1: but I don't believe that it violates basic civil liberties
Speaker 1: or constitutional law or human rights. Again, there's a line
Speaker 1: between opposition and saying the kinds of things that some
Speaker 1: of the opponents have been saying. So I don't think
Speaker 1: I do agree with the extent to it's just a
Speaker 1: soda my ear condemned the policy of the administration. I
Speaker 1: think it's wrong, but but I don't think it's an
Speaker 1: anti Muslim band. I think that's a mistake. Soda my
Speaker 1: hors is wrong all the time. I don't. I'm deeply
Speaker 1: unimpressed by her her legal reasoning, writing everything under the
Speaker 1: soda mayor byeline, so to speak. She's not a journalist,
Speaker 1: but it's not good. I've never seen her on any
Speaker 1: issue before the Corps. I said, yeah, you know, she's
Speaker 1: making some good points here. I can see no very
Speaker 1: very weak in my opinion, or jurisprudence is lacking. But
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people out there who were
Speaker 1: really really upset about this whole situation. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of folks who decided that they we're gonna call
Speaker 1: this a terrible, terrible thing for American Remember we've had
Speaker 1: you know, we've been dealing with this now, the concept
Speaker 1: of this, for for quite a while. And you look
Speaker 1: at this band and you think to yourself, who's really
Speaker 1: affected by this? Exactly? Well, what's the big Why are
Speaker 1: so many liberals who live in l A. And New
Speaker 1: York and Washington, d C. In other places, why they
Speaker 1: also upset about this? Huh? I'd like to get upset
Speaker 1: about things. This is what at least one senator had
Speaker 1: to say about this play club nine. This is a
Speaker 1: dark day for anybody in our country who cares about
Speaker 1: checks and balances because what this five um just this
Speaker 1: decision was very close decision obviously says that the president
Speaker 1: can pretty much do whatever he wants to discriminate against
Speaker 1: groups of people. Uh, and say this is for national security.
Speaker 1: And the court ignored all of the comments that the
Speaker 1: president had made that he had every intention of banning
Speaker 1: Muslims from our country. You know, the comments are not
Speaker 1: relevant to the law, and the comments are not relevant
Speaker 1: to presidential power with regard to the exercise of the law.
Speaker 1: And that's also yet again another instance here where they
Speaker 1: keep moving around with the what is the objection is
Speaker 1: the objection that the president doesn't have the power to
Speaker 1: do this, or that this president doesn't have the power
Speaker 1: to do this. They it seems to be particularly clear.
Speaker 1: Also to say it's a Muslim ban is just on
Speaker 1: its face inaccurate. We know this, We know that the
Speaker 1: only bands a small percentage of Muslims from entering the country.
Speaker 1: But this gets into other issues too, about how the
Speaker 1: Democrat left seems to believe that everyone has rights in America,
Speaker 1: even people who aren't in America and aren't citizens. So
Speaker 1: foreigners have rights in America without even being here. Foreigners
Speaker 1: have a right to the judicial system. Foreigners have a
Speaker 1: right to you're finding out of the border. When they
Speaker 1: talk about do process, our our due process is going
Speaker 1: to is going to evaporate because we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: wait ten years for a basic civil court date, because
Speaker 1: we're gonna have so many different people over the world
Speaker 1: that can just sue in a U. S. Court that
Speaker 1: think they have standing to come to the country, to
Speaker 1: stay here, whatever it may be. It's just not the
Speaker 1: way it's gonna work. Folks can't be that way. And
Speaker 1: I think that we had a look at the narrow
Speaker 1: victory five four, no question about it, but at least
Speaker 1: it is a victory. Jason and Phoenix, Welcome to Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. But yeah, my question for you, and it
Speaker 1: seems like all the cases should be more like a
Speaker 1: five three ruling because Ruth Dada Ginsberg. Um, if I remember,
Speaker 1: she publicly, uh said a bunch of bad things about
Speaker 1: the president, so it seems like she should be retrievably
Speaker 1: accused from any case. Yeah, what she did was was
Speaker 1: it was pretty universally considered to be you know, out
Speaker 1: of bounds, an unethical. But she's all she's become kind
Speaker 1: of a folk hero on the left. Uh, they call
Speaker 1: her RBG. They've even tried to make it seem like
Speaker 1: she's cool that which, okay whatever. Um, she didn't recuse
Speaker 1: herself because for liberals, power as its own justification for
Speaker 1: the left, whatever works, whatever works, she's not gonna accuse herself.
Speaker 1: But uh, they're also much lower to accuse themselves on
Speaker 1: any number of issues. Right, So I think that's that's
Speaker 1: an important thing to keep in mind here. Thank you
Speaker 1: for calling in. Jason Tracy in Ohio. Tracy, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Box Section Show. Hi, Buck. Just a couple of comments, Um,
Speaker 1: one of them doesn't have enough to do what you're saying.
Speaker 1: But like during the election process, during during election, all
Speaker 1: these Hollywood actors that there said that if Trump got
Speaker 1: to be president, they was going to move to Canada.
Speaker 1: Are they in Canada? Are they still living in Hollywood
Speaker 1: and no making big money? And the other one is
Speaker 1: like he said a little bit ago about you know,
Speaker 1: these people from these other countries are well s don't
Speaker 1: apply to them. So they actually stepped foot in our country.
Speaker 1: So if I go to their country, I have to
Speaker 1: go buy their laws. So if they don't, you know,
Speaker 1: if they say I'm not allowed into their country as
Speaker 1: I'm American, I can't you know, get in there either
Speaker 1: and stuff. So yeah, well just the notion of do
Speaker 1: what you're gonna see is the expansion thanks for calling
Speaker 1: and Tracy, the expansion of due process. This is gonna
Speaker 1: come up with immigrants in particular. Notice, but the expansion
Speaker 1: due process to include a citizen's full access to the U. S.
Speaker 1: Court system and all US protections of law, even people
Speaker 1: who aren't even in the U. S. Or then they say, oh,
Speaker 1: buck wolf An immigrants here and they get killed. Isn't
Speaker 1: that we're not talking about that we're talking about the
Speaker 1: right to challenge. Yeah, of course that the law still
Speaker 1: applied lows blood. Everybody on US soils are people who
Speaker 1: need to remember. But that doesn't mean that you have
Speaker 1: access to the US court system and its entirety when
Speaker 1: you're not on US soil, when you're overseas, and when
Speaker 1: you want to come here. Um, but what you're going
Speaker 1: to see is the expansion of due process to include
Speaker 1: whatever left wants. Also, just another thought, look at how
Speaker 1: much time the Democrats spend advocating for non Americans. It's
Speaker 1: tough to get around that, isn't it. Whether it's a
Speaker 1: legal immigrants or people covered in the Muslim band who
Speaker 1: are non citizens, non US residents. A lot of Democrat
Speaker 1: time spent on not America issues. He's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck Sexton is back. No man, no man,
Speaker 1: no day, tell you about it. We're a president that
Speaker 1: wants to tear families apart. This is a moral moment
Speaker 1: in our country. But there's a pre court decided today
Speaker 1: is not just long, it is dangerous. It makes us
Speaker 1: less safe, and it undermines the values of our country.
Speaker 1: And we are not defined as a nation by what
Speaker 1: happens to us. We're not defined as a nation by
Speaker 1: hateful voices. Yeah, they're still protesting, they're angering And that
Speaker 1: was Senator Corey Booker. You know, people are all upset
Speaker 1: about this, saying it makes us less safe. I like
Speaker 1: to know how it makes us less safe. And it's
Speaker 1: one thing to tell me that the travel ban, or
Speaker 1: is I like to call it the temporary restriction on
Speaker 1: travel from certain countries by non American citizens were permanent residents.
Speaker 1: This had waivers on a case by case basis in place.
Speaker 1: This was a justice so it did not affect anybody
Speaker 1: who's a permanent legal resident of the United States, you know,
Speaker 1: So there were carve outs here. It affected states, not religions.
Speaker 1: And so many of the idiots I see in the
Speaker 1: mainstreaming are like, well, these are all there only Muslims
Speaker 1: in these countries. No, that is not true. Mostly Muslims
Speaker 1: in these countries. But North Korea also covered under this band.
Speaker 1: And guess what, not a lot of Muslims in North Korea.
Speaker 1: Not a lot. In fact, I don't know if you
Speaker 1: could get even into the three digit range, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but not not a lot of Muslims in North Korea
Speaker 1: that much is for sure. Venezuela also covered by this.
Speaker 1: There's some Muslims in Venezuela, but not a lot more
Speaker 1: than North Korea, I'm guessing, but not a lot. So
Speaker 1: they're just lying about this, right. It's so it's a
Speaker 1: lie to say that this is a Muslim ban. In fact,
Speaker 1: that very term is a lie. It's false. It is
Speaker 1: not a Muslim ban. It is a not You could
Speaker 1: say it is a limited nationality Bandit bands certain countries
Speaker 1: people from certain countries. Um. The presidents well within his
Speaker 1: rights to do this. By the way, there's there there's
Speaker 1: a law Immigration or Nationality Act of nineteen fifty two
Speaker 1: with the following. Whenever the President finds that the entry
Speaker 1: of any aliens or any class of aliens in the
Speaker 1: United States would be detrimental to the interests of the
Speaker 1: United States, he made by proclamation and for such period
Speaker 1: as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
Speaker 1: aliens or any class of aliens, as as immigrants or
Speaker 1: non immigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any
Speaker 1: restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Comes from a
Speaker 1: little place called the Congress. They passed that. That's pretty straightforward.
Speaker 1: Isn't it. President can say, sorry, national security, you're not
Speaker 1: allowed in. That's it. That's what that law says. But yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of legal animals, a lot of people out
Speaker 1: there saying, oh, well, the scrimination a sort of scriminator
Speaker 1: they think that I don't like is the same as
Speaker 1: it's unconstitutional. This is the big problem you have with
Speaker 1: the left. They think that that bothers me or I
Speaker 1: I prefer something else, is the same as that's you know,
Speaker 1: not the law, which is untrue. And they will find out,
Speaker 1: I think in due time that it is untrue. Um,
Speaker 1: they will find out that they cannot continue on this
Speaker 1: path where they just make the law up as they
Speaker 1: go along. I certainly hope they can't continue because it
Speaker 1: degrades the law overall. Every time they manage one of
Speaker 1: these victories where they rewrite the statutes. You know, like
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton wasn't reckless with the classified emails for example. Right, Well,
Speaker 1: you know we're gonna say she was incredibly careless or whatever.
Speaker 1: We'll come up with something else. But let's let's pretend
Speaker 1: like this law doesn't really mean anything. That's what they did.
Speaker 1: That is what they did. Um. So when you look
Speaker 1: at this there's that it was five fours is troubling
Speaker 1: on its on its own, that needs to be said.
Speaker 1: There is no real This is the four justices and
Speaker 1: with Soda Mayora the most notable one who went against
Speaker 1: Trump on this one, they were mostly just venting bile
Speaker 1: at Trump. That's what this is all about. That's how
Speaker 1: much they hate Trump. It's even poison the mind of
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices. They can't look at the law objectively.
Speaker 1: They have to look at Trump law, which means that
Speaker 1: something that is okay for one president is not okay
Speaker 1: for this president. That doesn't doesn't work, doesn't fly, not acceptable.
Speaker 1: Justice Roberts, by the way, went after this because you'll
Speaker 1: see a lot of this. There's notion that this is
Speaker 1: similar to the infamous Karamatsu decision. Karamatsu was the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court decision had to do with the interment of Japanese
Speaker 1: Americans during the Second World War, and Roberts. Justice Roberts,
Speaker 1: in the majority opinion here took this notion to the
Speaker 1: wood shed. Here's a quote from the decision. Finally, the
Speaker 1: Descent invokes Karamatsu v. United States. Whatever rhetorical advantage the
Speaker 1: Descent may see in doing so, Karamatsu has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with this case. The forcible relocation of US citizens
Speaker 1: to concentration camps solely and explicitly on the basis of
Speaker 1: race is objectively unlawful and outside the scope of presidential authority.
Speaker 1: But it is wholly an apt to liken that morally
Speaker 1: repugnant order to a facially neutral policy denying certain for
Speaker 1: nationals the privilege of admission. The entry suspension is an
Speaker 1: act that is well within executive authority and could have
Speaker 1: been taken by any other president. The only question is
Speaker 1: evaluating the actions of this particular president and promulgating an
Speaker 1: otherwise valid proclamation. Yep, this this should have been a
Speaker 1: nine oh decision, my friends, This should have been nine oh.
Speaker 1: Any realistic person who has any legal training or just
Speaker 1: can read and understand legal ease I would know that
Speaker 1: there's there's no there's no question that the Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: didn't the Ninth Circuit try to strike this down and
Speaker 1: try to, you know, put a stay on this and
Speaker 1: prevent it from being the law of the land. Just crazy.
Speaker 1: Where do they get these judges? Oh? Well, there are
Speaker 1: usually Obama pointees. Of course. In this case in Hawaii,
Speaker 1: I believe it was an Obama point. I think actually
Speaker 1: the judge in Hawaii, because this case was the United
Speaker 1: States of the Hawaii. I think the judge may have
Speaker 1: even been a friend of Obama's, but I could be
Speaker 1: wrong on that. Uh So they got it right, but
Speaker 1: just barely, and that is a warning for all of us.
Speaker 1: One more thing here, speaking of getting it right and
Speaker 1: just barely. There was another case came down today that
Speaker 1: dealt with free speech, the issue of free speech. I
Speaker 1: want to walk you through the issues there because this
Speaker 1: is really important and it shows that there's another area
Speaker 1: where the left is deluded. The left goes off the
Speaker 1: rails and along no longer matters, and all they want
Speaker 1: is just victory at all costs. Trump is one of them.
Speaker 1: But there's another area that's really as powerful when it
Speaker 1: comes to deranging the left and on issues of law
Speaker 1: and in general. The one thing that gets the progressives
Speaker 1: as fired up, as angry and as unreasonable as Trump
Speaker 1: is the issue of abortion. And that is at the
Speaker 1: heart of another Supreme Court decision that came down to
Speaker 1: they we'll talk about right after this break. The other
Speaker 1: major case that came down today was n I f L. A.
Speaker 1: The best, Sarah. And this is a case that was
Speaker 1: also five four. Don't forget friends Trump, whatever whatever conservatives
Speaker 1: may think of him. The what corsa line is they
Speaker 1: think that it's said with irony or or in mocking.
Speaker 1: It's true, Okay, Gorge is gonna be around a long
Speaker 1: time and it is gonna save liberty and freedom on
Speaker 1: numerous occasions as a result of it. So they can say,
Speaker 1: but gorstch all they want, Yeah, you're darn right, but corsage.
Speaker 1: But n I F l A v. Sarah. Here, here's
Speaker 1: what and here's what? What's that an issue here? California,
Speaker 1: which as we know, has just been becoming more and
Speaker 1: more looney left, not just Democrat looney left wing as
Speaker 1: a state and as state legislature and its policies, had
Speaker 1: something called the Reproductive Fact Act, which made it a
Speaker 1: law that licensed and unlicensed women's health clinics, which includes
Speaker 1: pregnancy resource centers or crisis pregnancy centers. I say, you'll
Speaker 1: see a lot of liberals, liberal publications. Here's a tell.
Speaker 1: And on abortion, by the way, they're very careful about
Speaker 1: language because the Democrat Party is an extremist party on abortion.
Speaker 1: Important that we all know that and then we're all
Speaker 1: clear about that overwhelming majority of the American people do
Speaker 1: not believe that there should be abortions beyond the first trimester.
Speaker 1: That it's a baby. Let's not even get into how
Speaker 1: in the first trimester it's a baby too. But beyond
Speaker 1: the first trimester, overwhelmingly Americans believe, by clear majorities in
Speaker 1: the sixty s range, it is uh not, it should
Speaker 1: not be permissible have an abortion. Democrat Party is abortion
Speaker 1: all nine months day before your due date? Abortion is fine,
Speaker 1: not just fine, should be celebrated as some act of
Speaker 1: female liberation. It is the most heinous thing about contemporary America,
Speaker 1: the most heinous, But here we are. It's a central,
Speaker 1: a central foundational part of the Democrat Party. Uh And
Speaker 1: it is a stain on our nation's moral character that
Speaker 1: I don't know if we'll ever be able to get
Speaker 1: rid of, but it is, it is there. Nonetheless, California
Speaker 1: passed this law that said that crisis pregnancy centers must
Speaker 1: inform women who come to them about abortion providers. Not
Speaker 1: only remember so they're not necessarily providing any they're not
Speaker 1: providing medical services. They're just there to like help people,
Speaker 1: you know, really like a counseling center. And some of
Speaker 1: them have Christian roots, some of them are Christian associated
Speaker 1: or affiliated, and the reason they exist is to help
Speaker 1: women not have abortions. I've actually been you know, I'll
Speaker 1: tell you that I've been to you a a very
Speaker 1: excellent uh charity events several times in New York City
Speaker 1: for a group called Avail. And this is what they do.
Speaker 1: They help women have babies. They don't they don't get
Speaker 1: very political. They're not looking to they're not condemning people
Speaker 1: or anything else. They're just come to us, will help you.
Speaker 1: You're pregnant, you need help, will help you, but we
Speaker 1: help you have a baby. You want to do other stuff,
Speaker 1: that's not what they do there, right, So I've been
Speaker 1: to their benefits, so I've given the money, and I've
Speaker 1: been involved and talk to their leadership before. UM so
Speaker 1: I understand how crisis pregnancy centers working. What the mission
Speaker 1: is right there there to help women have their have children,
Speaker 1: have babies. That is the mission. So you can imagine
Speaker 1: California passes a law that says, oh, hey, crisis pregnancy center,
Speaker 1: that the reason for your existence is to help women
Speaker 1: not feel so trapped or so scared or so socially
Speaker 1: pressured that they have an abortion. You have to sit
Speaker 1: there and as a matter of law, not just inform
Speaker 1: the women who come to you about abortion providers nearby,
Speaker 1: but you have a prewritten script that you must read
Speaker 1: that the state writes out for you. You know, it
Speaker 1: is our duty under feder You know, under California law
Speaker 1: blah blah that you also have the right to see
Speaker 1: the following abortion providers and blah. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: know what the specifics of the wording was, but think
Speaker 1: about this. I mean, this is like telling that. This
Speaker 1: is like telling a Catholic church. You know. You also
Speaker 1: have to have a script for whenever somebody comes in
Speaker 1: before Sunday Mass you can say, you know what, guys,
Speaker 1: I just want to be clear. This all is this
Speaker 1: all could be fake. There may not be a God.
Speaker 1: The Bible may just be one big hoax and a
Speaker 1: big joke and God is dead or God does not exist,
Speaker 1: and you're wasting your time here and this is all
Speaker 1: a scam. Just wanted to let you let you know
Speaker 1: that's possible. Now, let us pray right. Think about that.
Speaker 1: That's sort of like what's going on here California wanted
Speaker 1: crisis pregnancy centers to say, you know, you also should
Speaker 1: think about abortion, and the reason that they have these
Speaker 1: centers is to help women not do that. And I
Speaker 1: would just also note what's the real purpose here. Let's
Speaker 1: think about this for a moment. Is there any is
Speaker 1: there any any woman who's pregnant who is able to
Speaker 1: find her way to a crisis pregnancy center who doesn't
Speaker 1: know that there's such a thing as abortion and that
Speaker 1: their abortion clinics. I mean, do we really think that
Speaker 1: Planned Parent hasn't done a good enough job of advertising itself,
Speaker 1: doesn't have enough centers across the country, isn't getting enough
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of tax parent knowledge? Do we we
Speaker 1: think we really didn't? They really need help? No, this
Speaker 1: was an exercise enforcing those who are pro life to
Speaker 1: bend the knee to profane their own beliefs. And that
Speaker 1: this decision also came down five four should be a
Speaker 1: warning to all of us, my friends, the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is a party of abortion extremists. First Amendment, you you
Speaker 1: can have no, you have no constitutional protection from They're invented,
Speaker 1: completely preposterously, farcically conjured out of nothing. They're invented constitutional
Speaker 1: right to an abortion. You have no you will have
Speaker 1: no protection against them. If you try to stand in
Speaker 1: the way, they will find a way to make it
Speaker 1: illegal for you to protest against it, to speak out
Speaker 1: against it, to organize against it. They will they will
Speaker 1: do everything and anything they can to protect this. And
Speaker 1: you know, I they're there are a couple of directions like,
Speaker 1: oh this on the On the one hand, I think
Speaker 1: maybe and this is the part of me that feels
Speaker 1: well that I think is more hopeful in a way
Speaker 1: that the Democrat Party and the pro abortion left in
Speaker 1: America can't allow us to ever have a full accounting
Speaker 1: or a full understanding of what's going on in these
Speaker 1: planned parenthood centers across the country day in and day out,
Speaker 1: because it would they they couldn't really process it, if
Speaker 1: they really thought about it, if they had to live
Speaker 1: with the moral and spiritual consequences of their actions, it
Speaker 1: would just be overwhelming. So they create this alternate reality
Speaker 1: that living where it's all fine. I I think that
Speaker 1: that's one version of how they can go about this
Speaker 1: and how Supreme Court justices could take four of them
Speaker 1: could take a position that you're gonna make people who
Speaker 1: are devoting themselves to helping babies, helping you know, babies
Speaker 1: get born in a healthy and safe fashion, to you know,
Speaker 1: to mothers who can you know, I can say a
Speaker 1: lot of things. I have never in my life met
Speaker 1: a woman, and I'm old enough now that I know.
Speaker 1: I've known plenty of people, who have you gotten pregnant?
Speaker 1: Who are my peers? I have never met a woman
Speaker 1: who said I wish I hadn't had the kid, And
Speaker 1: I have met people who said I wish I hadn't
Speaker 1: had the abortion. And I don't know what to say
Speaker 1: really to the ladder other than you know, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I know what to say to the former because they've
Speaker 1: got kids and they're happy and they made the right choice.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to say to the ladder. I
Speaker 1: just I sometimes it have lost for words. I've been
Speaker 1: in a situation where people have brought you know, I've
Speaker 1: been told about this by people, and even surprisingly sometimes
Speaker 1: people I didn't even know all that well. Um, so
Speaker 1: this was it was a victory for freedom and for
Speaker 1: life today, but a narrow one under the circumstances this
Speaker 1: this should not have been a close call. That it
Speaker 1: was a close call. Five four decision on this California
Speaker 1: law goes to show you just how much the Democrats are.
Speaker 1: As I said, they are extremists on this issue, and
Speaker 1: they will trample your free speech rights, and they will
Speaker 1: trample the right of people to support life whenever, however,
Speaker 1: as often as they can. We're gonna talk immigration. Come
Speaker 1: on up here in the next hour and also some
Speaker 1: updates on the civility conversation. Stay with me. Nine Line
Speaker 1: Apparel is about much more than getting dressed every day.
Speaker 1: They're all about being proud of this country and they
Speaker 1: make sure that whatever you put on your back, whatever
Speaker 1: clothing that you've decided to wear with nine Line logos
Speaker 1: and designs, shows that you believe in being relentlessly patriotic,
Speaker 1: pulling no punches and refusing to apologize for your love
Speaker 1: of country. This is a brand for of and by patriots,
Speaker 1: my friends. They have veteran inspired, Second Amendment inspired and
Speaker 1: first responder supportive gear. They are all about this great country.
Speaker 1: You gotta go check it out for yourself and see
Speaker 1: visit nine line apparel dot com. Use the coupon code
Speaker 1: buck twenty to say off your next quarter. Nine Line
Speaker 1: apparel dot Com coupon code coupon code buck off. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you, the lined canvas jacket that I'm looking
Speaker 1: at right here on the website is awesome. It looks
Speaker 1: like the kind of stuff that I saw overseas worn
Speaker 1: by our guys. So check it out. Nine line Apparel
Speaker 1: dot Com. Buck Sexton permission to coding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information is actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes, American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again. This is the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Activity analysts, No, Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I got some breaking news for you actually, as we're
Speaker 1: here on the air. This courtesy of NBC. The Secret
Speaker 1: Service will begin provide security at the home of Press
Speaker 1: Secretary Sarah Sanders, according to a law enforcement official. Yep,
Speaker 1: that's right, folks. We now have to expand armed protection
Speaker 1: of people who work for this administration because the Left
Speaker 1: is a bunch of maniacal, dangerous, whiney cry babies. That's
Speaker 1: what this is. Now, now we can allow them to
Speaker 1: We can't allow people to just have their jobs, do
Speaker 1: their work, disagree with them politically and leave it at that. No. Now,
Speaker 1: now there's public shaming, shaming of conservative, shaming of Trump
Speaker 1: people has become fashionable, so fashionable, there are very real,
Speaker 1: incredible threats against members administration. Can you imagine for a moment,
Speaker 1: the way the media would be talking about this issue,
Speaker 1: the way not that they talk, Oh we talked about this,
Speaker 1: we talk No, No, it's not about it's not it's
Speaker 1: not non coverage that I objected with the media. It's
Speaker 1: the way they cover things. It's the context that they
Speaker 1: give it or don't. It's the words they use or don't,
Speaker 1: the narrative that they're trying to form the perception of
Speaker 1: the issue. They're trying to create in the mind of
Speaker 1: the reader or the listener or the viewer. You imagine
Speaker 1: if you now there had to be Secret Service stationed
Speaker 1: at yeah, Jake Jake Harney store, or if if you
Speaker 1: had secret service that had to follow out, or you know,
Speaker 1: an additional secret Service detail. I don't even know who
Speaker 1: gets Secret Services protectually, be honest with you, other than
Speaker 1: the President, his family and you know, the some other folks.
Speaker 1: So you don't even know if off my head, I
Speaker 1: gotta think about that, who actually qualifies for Secret Service protection?
Speaker 1: But I know it's expanding right now that much. Producer
Speaker 1: Mike do me a favor find the help me find
Speaker 1: who in who in the world of the White House
Speaker 1: actually gets Secret Service protection. I'm kind of curious about that.
Speaker 1: So anyway, Yeah, they're they're gonna stand it, Sara Hugby Sanders,
Speaker 1: You've got They went to Stephen Miller's house last yesterday,
Speaker 1: kind of tracking people down at home. It's getting worse
Speaker 1: and worse. But you know, we can count on the
Speaker 1: big voices in media to really set as straight here
Speaker 1: and tell us what's going on. We can count on
Speaker 1: the the gray haired shage wisdom of folks like our
Speaker 1: friend David Gergen a k A. Gurgling Gurgan, who I
Speaker 1: will tell you said something today that was so stupid
Speaker 1: on TV that I was embarrassed for him, because I'm
Speaker 1: actually I'm a nice person, probably too nice for this
Speaker 1: business sometimes, but I'm a nice person, that's the true thing.
Speaker 1: Not always. But I can be crowd, I can be graduate.
Speaker 1: I get angry for sure. If I don't get enough food.
Speaker 1: I need to sometimes just sneak a granola bars. Act
Speaker 1: is particular kind of bar these days. I'm really into.
Speaker 1: But I want them to sponsor the show, so I
Speaker 1: don't want to name them just yet. He might. I'm
Speaker 1: always thinking, commerce baby, it's right, gotta make a rain
Speaker 1: up in the freedom hunt. But but Gergen, who is
Speaker 1: the guy? And I remember occasionally having to sit on
Speaker 1: panels at CNA and they're like, all right, little child,
Speaker 1: you'd be quiet. We need to hear from Gurgen. Now
Speaker 1: he's got some gurgles for us. And this isn't I
Speaker 1: will say this before we get to because this is
Speaker 1: a good one. I mean, this is this goes in
Speaker 1: the gur the Gurgling Hall of Fame, Reagan for Obama Administration, reminition,
Speaker 1: Ford and Reagan nuction. This really goes in that special category. Uh,
Speaker 1: but it's not even the dumbest thing said on cable
Speaker 1: news in the last twenty four hours. We have a
Speaker 1: dumber thing. You have to stay with me the third hour,
Speaker 1: so dumb that it's worth listening to this whole show.
Speaker 1: Even if you're like, I'm not even loving today's show.
Speaker 1: You should stay until we get to that because it's
Speaker 1: it's the it's the stupidest thing that you'll hear if
Speaker 1: you didn't already hear it, which I doubt many of
Speaker 1: you did. This one didn't get much play today from
Speaker 1: another cable news analysts, they just say say the stupidest
Speaker 1: stuff on TV. It's amazing, isn't it. But Gergen, I
Speaker 1: want to just let it, let it play out. You
Speaker 1: can hear it from Nickers or civility issue was rigged. Uh.
Speaker 1: He goes into it here and listen to what he says,
Speaker 1: and then we're all gonna have a good laugh about
Speaker 1: it afterwards. Play the clip please. Uh. There are large
Speaker 1: number of people on both coasts who think Trump is
Speaker 1: totally Today we're adrift and the country is very very
Speaker 1: much on boil. I think the emotions are running very
Speaker 1: high on all sides. Uh. There are a large number
Speaker 1: of people on both coasts who think Trump is totally unethical,
Speaker 1: that he's a moron, all the other kind of epises
Speaker 1: that's one can think about. Uh. And there are people
Speaker 1: in his base who not only are strongly formed, but
Speaker 1: they're more strongly for him now. And they're fed up
Speaker 1: with what a press and the last they think has
Speaker 1: been Carping doesn't give him any credit. Uh. There's the economy. Uh.
Speaker 1: And gradually, I think I think both sides have now
Speaker 1: reached the point where they're so frustrated and so fed
Speaker 1: up and so impatient for change that this could lead
Speaker 1: on the today where it is extraordinarily that I said,
Speaker 1: I cannot remember at times the anti war movement and Vietnam,
Speaker 1: the Civil Wars movement, you know, in the sixties and
Speaker 1: early seventies, both of those were much more civil in tone.
Speaker 1: Even the anti war movement was more civil and Toumba
Speaker 1: certainly of the civil rights movement among the people who
Speaker 1: are protesting. The anti war movement was more civil in tone.
Speaker 1: This guy, he he appears on these shows to give
Speaker 1: you know, historical context and gravit toss and work for
Speaker 1: every person and every person ever are busually live. I've
Speaker 1: lived in the White House. There's a special room for
Speaker 1: me under the West wing where I just come out.
Speaker 1: You know, it's a little the anti war movement, there
Speaker 1: were domestic terrorists running around, people were playing things, bombs,
Speaker 1: people were killing people. They had to call in the
Speaker 1: National Guard. There there were people getting shot, people getting
Speaker 1: blown up, people getting stabbed over the Anti war movie.
Speaker 1: It was more civil. I mean, I just you know,
Speaker 1: it's sometimes it'd be like somebody said, yeah, you no
Speaker 1: World War two, a little bit of a little little
Speaker 1: fighting going on, not not really that big a thing.
Speaker 1: It's it's just a dumb thing to say. I don't
Speaker 1: even know where to go with that. Any war movement, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: not not accurate at all, not a true thing to say,
Speaker 1: not a fair thing to say. Uh, look I don't,
Speaker 1: I don't. I really just like to do Gurgan's voice
Speaker 1: and I'm not trying to be overly nasty. Minutes and
Speaker 1: we've all said, you know, I've said stuff on TV
Speaker 1: and I was like, ah, that probably wasn't really the
Speaker 1: best one ever. But yeah, the anti war movement set
Speaker 1: off bombs. The anti war people help the enemy. They
Speaker 1: engaged in armed robberies. There were there was terrorism, there
Speaker 1: were riots, there were people were being assassinated, and people
Speaker 1: were accusing each other of being pigs, commies and all
Speaker 1: the ugliest language, the nastiest stuff. And this was coming
Speaker 1: from the left, anti war left in this country, right.
Speaker 1: But that but that's more civilizing now, m hm. You
Speaker 1: know there's a part of me that worries that this
Speaker 1: kind of rewriting of history is uh. I mean, let's
Speaker 1: let's hope, you know what, let's hope it's accidental. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna give the ben I'm gonna hope for all of
Speaker 1: us that they really just they don't know. You know, Gurgan, Look,
Speaker 1: he's on TV a lot. CNN thinks that he's got
Speaker 1: a lot of great things to say. He was on
Speaker 1: with Poppy Harlow there by the way, who who I remember?
Speaker 1: I had a really fun exchange with the producer Mike
Speaker 1: wants over to CNN where they kept introducing whoever. It
Speaker 1: wasn't Van Jones, it was another but you know, somebody
Speaker 1: like a Van Jones, just a Democrat partisan on air.
Speaker 1: It's fine, right, I'm but they would always introduce me
Speaker 1: in this segment as conservative media, like a conservative political commentator,
Speaker 1: and the other person, the Democrat, was always political analyst,
Speaker 1: just political analysts. And that's really at the And I
Speaker 1: brought this up with it with Poppy with Harlow, and
Speaker 1: she just looked at me like huh, like like it
Speaker 1: wasn't you know? What do you mean? Like what does
Speaker 1: that matter? Why does that? I'm looking at him like
Speaker 1: because I'm a right wing not so this is the
Speaker 1: way CNN sets this up. We need to let our
Speaker 1: audience know that, yeah, and we need to let her
Speaker 1: audience know that this other person is just a political analyst,
Speaker 1: just the facts, you know, the other person's just the truth,
Speaker 1: just down the middle. You're crazy, and we want to
Speaker 1: make sure we established that beforehand. I mean, they never
Speaker 1: bring I've never once seen them. And all my time
Speaker 1: over there watching it or doing it at seeing and
Speaker 1: I've never seen them bring somebody on and say that
Speaker 1: this is a liberal political or even a progressive political analyst,
Speaker 1: but conservative political commentator all the time. What they're saying is, yeah,
Speaker 1: like look at this guy. He's got a side party,
Speaker 1: wears boat shoes, blah blah. You know, he looks like
Speaker 1: the bad guy from a movie where the fraternity of
Speaker 1: all the all the white dudes with side parted hair
Speaker 1: were blazers and talk about yachting and where where shoes
Speaker 1: with no socks. That's the that's the subliminal messaging here.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm the guy from PCU who's like, that's
Speaker 1: not my BMW. That is you know, like I'm that,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm David Spade and PCU that's what they're setting
Speaker 1: me up for on CNN. And you know, if that's
Speaker 1: the game, can we all just be honest about it?
Speaker 1: But I don't like, what do you mean I'm like,
Speaker 1: do you really not know? I don't know what's worse
Speaker 1: that you don't know or that, But this is the
Speaker 1: same thing. Go on the Twitter accounts of any number
Speaker 1: of CNN anchors and they'll say, oh, I'll just yeah,
Speaker 1: see what they retweet, see what they like. They're Democrats.
Speaker 1: It's very obvious they're pushing a Democrat narrative. But they're
Speaker 1: all over I'm non part I love these guys who
Speaker 1: also these these uh, these journalists who are I'm I'm
Speaker 1: a registered independent. Oh, you fooled me there. I can't
Speaker 1: figure that one out. You know, you guys are slick,
Speaker 1: you registered independence. There's one over at one of the networks,
Speaker 1: so I want I won't name on air, it's not
Speaker 1: worth it, but he's some kind of political energy. I'm
Speaker 1: a registered independent. Now like, yeah, you're also just an idiot.
Speaker 1: But hopefully I guess for you. Lucky for you, you're well,
Speaker 1: you're a well paid idiot. Um. There was also this
Speaker 1: is now, look, I'm being a little I know, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm having a little a little uh, a little fun
Speaker 1: with this one. But there was a a still shot
Speaker 1: from south the South Carolina Rally. We're gonna talk about
Speaker 1: the whole Acosta thing later on because it's great. It's
Speaker 1: great speaking of people. You know, when you go through
Speaker 1: their Twitter account, you know exactly what they stand on stuff.
Speaker 1: We'll go through later. But there's a still shot the
Speaker 1: Daily Caller put out and under the cod it's it's
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta and behind him somebody's someone's holding up a
Speaker 1: sign right in the shot CNN sucks. And I'm like,
Speaker 1: you know, I gotta go to one of these rallies.
Speaker 1: I gotta get a CNN Sucks T shirt and uh,
Speaker 1: I gotta just drink it all in because they're my
Speaker 1: kind of people. It's it's just speech. It's just speech.
Speaker 1: I know. Journalists think that there's like this long, dark
Speaker 1: knight of tyranny that descends on the country. You know,
Speaker 1: they can trash conservative journalists and conservative hosts and commentary
Speaker 1: folks and everything as much as what they want. You know,
Speaker 1: call us racist, we're dividing the country, we're scum, we're liars.
Speaker 1: You know, that's all fine. The moment that you know
Speaker 1: they're the ones that are in the hot seat on
Speaker 1: this stuff, it's, oh my gosh, what's gonna happen to
Speaker 1: democracy without the the gatekeepers at CNN and oh, oh gosh, terrible,
Speaker 1: it's really it's really appalling. Um, So there's that eight
Speaker 1: four or four nine eight to five eight four four
Speaker 1: not at the buck. I do want to talk to
Speaker 1: you bit more about immigration and where things stand with that.
Speaker 1: First of all, the Congress is gonna let us down.
Speaker 1: I've been telling this all along. You know I'm right
Speaker 1: on this one. I was also right on how this
Speaker 1: Supreme Court would have pulled this. I like to know
Speaker 1: when I'm right, Supreme Court would up hold the Trump
Speaker 1: travel band, and they did. But I also I've been
Speaker 1: telling you that Congress isn't gonna do anything on immigration,
Speaker 1: and there's just this this continue the status quo is
Speaker 1: a lot of talk and then dysfunction. A lot of
Speaker 1: talk and then gridlock. And and also a part of
Speaker 1: this is there's more legals coming to the country. The
Speaker 1: system is getting more broken. The political weight in favor
Speaker 1: of illegals because of the population change in this country
Speaker 1: is only becoming larger and more serious. So this is
Speaker 1: something we really need to keep an eye on. Um.
Speaker 1: And uh, we'll talk about what's going on with it
Speaker 1: in just a moment. Eight four eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four buck much more. Come and stay with me. I
Speaker 1: want to solve all of your coffee needs right now
Speaker 1: to buck. This is the easiest best way you can
Speaker 1: possibly go. Black Rifle Coffee. You know, Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: has a coffee club that make sure that you don't
Speaker 1: have to worry about lines anymore. You don't have to
Speaker 1: run out to the store. You can get great coffee
Speaker 1: ship to your front door every month. Plus, when you
Speaker 1: join Black Rifles Coffee Club, you'll receive discounts and offers
Speaker 1: not available to other customers. By choosing Black Rifle, you're
Speaker 1: supporting a company that gives back to veterans and first
Speaker 1: responders and serves coffee and culture to those who truly
Speaker 1: love America. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck,
Speaker 1: receive fifteen percent off your first order. That's Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com slash buck. Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck for fifteen percent off, and join the coffee
Speaker 1: club Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck. If you
Speaker 1: vote for Trump, then you the voter, You not Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: are standing at the border like Nazis. Are you suggesting
Speaker 1: that they're racist or there. Yes, admit the people who
Speaker 1: vote all the people who vote for Donald Trumper. Yes,
Speaker 1: if Republicans weren't so racist, they could encourage black people
Speaker 1: who are morally conservative to be on their side. These
Speaker 1: policies that this administration is putting forth are intentionally cruel.
Speaker 1: They are racist. Anybody who votes for and supports a
Speaker 1: racist is a racist. You are culpable white America. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: how do you? Is this the temptation to run up
Speaker 1: and bring her net in the country, whether it's are
Speaker 1: hardcore racist. They do not want to see brown people
Speaker 1: coming into America. Certain individuals and institutions. We will, as
Speaker 1: per Chief Jim Hopper, punch some people in the face
Speaker 1: when they sit to destroy im to and we will
Speaker 1: do it. All this so hard out there are still
Speaker 1: generations of people, older people who were born and bred
Speaker 1: and marinated in it, in that prejudice and racism, and
Speaker 1: they just have to die. Look at everybody here's makes money,
Speaker 1: works hard, pay taxes, does a great job. You're smarter,
Speaker 1: you're better, you're more loyal. We have the greatest face
Speaker 1: in the history of politics. There you have two competing
Speaker 1: visions of Trump supporters. One is just a collection of
Speaker 1: really nasty comments from media figures, Hollywood celebrities, and there
Speaker 1: you have Trump speaking to his people. I there's a
Speaker 1: part of me that almost doesn't want to speak about
Speaker 1: this too much and bee too loudly, because I don't
Speaker 1: want Democrats to catch on. I want them to keep
Speaker 1: thinking that the way that they win elections at a
Speaker 1: time when they are in the worst political position in
Speaker 1: terms of actually winning elections that they've been in decades,
Speaker 1: some would say, really in the Second World War period.
Speaker 1: You look at state houses and what's gone on there
Speaker 1: and governorships, but their their default is to call people
Speaker 1: racist and call them evil and bad. There's no good
Speaker 1: faith or goodwill, there's no decency extended from their side
Speaker 1: to ours, and they just keep doubling down on it
Speaker 1: more and more all the time. That the only reason
Speaker 1: Trump was able to win, or the only way Trump
Speaker 1: was able to win the last election, was because states
Speaker 1: and individual counties that went for Obama twice in many
Speaker 1: cases when for Trump this time around, doesn't factor into
Speaker 1: their analysis, right. You See, if if you live in
Speaker 1: Michigan or Pennsylvania or anywhere in the country for that matter,
Speaker 1: and you voted for Obama, and then you voted for
Speaker 1: Trump because you just figured that the Obama policies and
Speaker 1: the economy weren't very strong. You didn't want more of that,
Speaker 1: and you wanted somebody who was gonna fight for you
Speaker 1: and gonna do more for the American working class. You know, really,
Speaker 1: it's just because you're racist. That's what the Democrats want
Speaker 1: to tell you. It's not because you want to have
Speaker 1: an easier time putting food on the table, less regulation
Speaker 1: on your business, a greater chance at the life you want.
Speaker 1: That's that's not what it was. Just because you're racist,
Speaker 1: just what Democrats say. I have friends who are Democrats
Speaker 1: and they kind of agree with this, and look at them,
Speaker 1: I'm like, look, it's a good thing. We don't talk
Speaker 1: politics too much. We're hanging out because you're way off base.
Speaker 1: But as I've been saying, I I don't know if
Speaker 1: I really want to even make too much noise about this.
Speaker 1: I want them going. I want the Party of Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Truck Schumer going into the mid terms with
Speaker 1: their most compelling vote for me slogan being Republicans are racist,
Speaker 1: and I would like Hillary to put down the rose
Speaker 1: and the yoga just long enough to be like, I
Speaker 1: should be president and just show up. You know, we
Speaker 1: should just do an ad. I should just volunteer to
Speaker 1: do ads for Republicans across the country. Where I do
Speaker 1: we do like a pretend Hillary thing, you know, like
Speaker 1: I have like a Hillary puppet. What do you call what, Mike?
Speaker 1: What do you call the guys you know what I mean,
Speaker 1: the guys with the they talked through what do you
Speaker 1: talk through? The the little guy that sits on the leg?
Speaker 1: What do you call it? Fantriloquist? Thank you, sir, producer
Speaker 1: Mike on the on the ball today, do a ventriloquist
Speaker 1: thing with Hillary. They'd be amazing. I think I'm really
Speaker 1: getting myself into some trouble here. This could actually be
Speaker 1: a thing. Hi, I'm Hillary. I'm just sitting on bucks flap.
Speaker 1: Doesn't he have great hair? You know? We can do
Speaker 1: this whole thing and and just kind of go from there. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm getting ideas. Friends, Hey, if it'll save our republic?
Speaker 1: Who am I to stand in the way? Who am
Speaker 1: I to deny my my Hillary voice talents to the
Speaker 1: cause of freedom? Eight four four buck if you want
Speaker 1: to chat eight four four nine five. I said, we
Speaker 1: talked immigration, immigration policy, and what's going on in the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate that's coming up. He's back with
Speaker 1: you now because when it comes to the fight for truth,
Speaker 1: the fuck never stops. No man, no man, no dad.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you about it. I'm always glad when people
Speaker 1: are talking. But the President and the administration can solve
Speaker 1: this problem on their own. That's the quickest, best and
Speaker 1: easiest way to solve it. As I said, the President
Speaker 1: created this problem. The quickest way to fix it is administratively.
Speaker 1: The president can do that. He can do it quickly,
Speaker 1: he can do it efficaciously, and that's ought to be
Speaker 1: the first step here. People. I'm glad people are talking.
Speaker 1: They should continue to talk. But that's the way to
Speaker 1: solve it. That's what we need. Voter security, we gotta
Speaker 1: get going. A lot of bad things are happening, and
Speaker 1: I think we're doing it incredibly well. We have no tools,
Speaker 1: we're bad laws. We have the worst immigration laws in
Speaker 1: the history of the world. Okay, it's a joke. People
Speaker 1: who can't believe in other countries look at us and
Speaker 1: they say, how is that possible? You know, the laws
Speaker 1: on the books actually aren't aren't really that bad. It's
Speaker 1: that we won't enforce them. But the presidents write the
Speaker 1: laws are in some ways also at this point because
Speaker 1: of our inability, you know, we we have to now
Speaker 1: change the laws that we have because it's not just
Speaker 1: enough to enforce them, because things have gotten so bad
Speaker 1: that you need the loss. So you got you got
Speaker 1: a few problems. What I mean by this is at
Speaker 1: the border, we are overwhelmed, right, they they have overwhelmed
Speaker 1: the system. So even now if we try to enforce
Speaker 1: the laws at the border, there are challenges and there
Speaker 1: are problems. So then you have to deal with well,
Speaker 1: what about the you know, asylum seekers, how do we
Speaker 1: handle that? Asylum is supposed to be a one person
Speaker 1: shows up. Oh my gosh, if I go back to
Speaker 1: my country, they're going to torture and murder me. Please
Speaker 1: take me in, please please please, And we take people in.
Speaker 1: That's really what the that's the that's the idea, the
Speaker 1: idea behind asylum. It's not I don't like my country,
Speaker 1: it's poor, I want to be in America. It's better
Speaker 1: situation here. That's immigration, that's not asylum. So you know,
Speaker 1: we need and I know, like I mean, you can
Speaker 1: argue other ways where we could just be very rule
Speaker 1: of law focused and believe that law is the law,
Speaker 1: and that I would certainly help. But I also think
Speaker 1: that we need to change some of these loopholes because
Speaker 1: this is where the Democrats play the games. And this
Speaker 1: is also why you need a wall, because the wall.
Speaker 1: That's where we started with the people chanting outside of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, no band, no wall, because the wall
Speaker 1: is there, it is fixed, it is by definition immovable
Speaker 1: and real. And if it's no big deal, why do
Speaker 1: democrats hate the idea so much? Wall is very effective. Remember,
Speaker 1: a wall is not just about preventing people from getting
Speaker 1: over it. It It also creates a physical fortification for the
Speaker 1: enforcement of that boundary. So this is why you know,
Speaker 1: if you look a look at walls throughout history, it's
Speaker 1: they didn't just put a wall up there and then
Speaker 1: up you know, somebody can hop over it, or they
Speaker 1: can build a tower or something and get over it. No,
Speaker 1: it's because then you also have four deployed guard towers
Speaker 1: and sensors and other things that come along with the wall.
Speaker 1: It's all part of a package. You could dare dare
Speaker 1: I say it is comprehensive in nature. Democrats are fighting
Speaker 1: a tooth. And now though, because they they like this,
Speaker 1: they like to be able to pretend to want to
Speaker 1: order the immigration system when they actually leave it open
Speaker 1: for as much illegal immigration as possible. You know what
Speaker 1: gets lost in so much this discussion too, we take
Speaker 1: in between people that become US citizens and permanent green
Speaker 1: you know, permanent residence green card holders. We've taken a
Speaker 1: million people a year, a million every year in this country.
Speaker 1: It's like, you're now part of the American family. You're here,
Speaker 1: you're good, you stay. That's legal immigration every year. And
Speaker 1: because we want to cut down a little bit the
Speaker 1: illegal immigration that's coming into the country, we get told
Speaker 1: that we're racist, we're xenophobic. And you know, I look
Speaker 1: at this and I say, this is an upside down
Speaker 1: world we're living in. I mean, this is bizarre o land.
Speaker 1: There's no real connection to a reality, to normalcy. We
Speaker 1: are so open minded and with open arms towards immigrants.
Speaker 1: It's we should be giving ourselves pats on the back
Speaker 1: all the time as a country. But instead, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: we're we're not doing good enough job handling the asylum
Speaker 1: seekers who look at the same thing they do with
Speaker 1: dreamers and others and changing the language to undocumented. They're
Speaker 1: not asylum seekers. There are legal aliens that are lying
Speaker 1: to the government about why they are coming into the
Speaker 1: country or how they're coming into the country, in many
Speaker 1: cases so that they can stay. And I do feel
Speaker 1: badly for these people. Well when I hear things about how, oh,
Speaker 1: we're creating internment camps or whatever. No, well we actually
Speaker 1: have our effectively refugee camps, which lots of countries have,
Speaker 1: and those countries, by the way, we say, are you know,
Speaker 1: doing good work? Thank you? Like when I was in
Speaker 1: the Jordanian refugee camps, jordan refuge camp of Zotary, with
Speaker 1: a hundred thousand people living in tents in the middle
Speaker 1: of the desert, miles from the Syrian border, with the
Speaker 1: Syrian Civil war just raging on. Uh, nobody was saying,
Speaker 1: look at the Jordanians. They're so mean, they're so evil.
Speaker 1: These people in refugee camp. They're saying, no, these people
Speaker 1: are alive because the Jordanian government took them in to
Speaker 1: save them. So people are saying that they're so mean
Speaker 1: and terrible, right, that's that's not fair in this case.
Speaker 1: You'll notice, right, look at that comparison. In this case,
Speaker 1: people are saying, well, they're fleeing violence and desperate circumstances,
Speaker 1: and we're we're the bad guys here. Why why are
Speaker 1: we the bad guys? We're taking people in. Some of
Speaker 1: them stay, some of them don't. Most of them who
Speaker 1: have claimed asylum have gotten to stay, by the way
Speaker 1: in the past, or those who have been released into
Speaker 1: the interior of the United States, they've been allowed to stay.
Speaker 1: But you'll notice we we hold ourselves to the standard
Speaker 1: of we can't really enforce the law at all against
Speaker 1: any of these people. That's what the Democrats want, that's
Speaker 1: really what they believe. And I saw this of this
Speaker 1: video last night of from Rachel Maddow's show on MSNBC
Speaker 1: where they showed a an undercover video of these child
Speaker 1: detainment facilities. They're calling them right or whatever it is
Speaker 1: that the current term terminology that's being used. And I
Speaker 1: saw the video and okay, it looked like a video
Speaker 1: of any reasonable public school classroom anywhere in the country.
Speaker 1: There were books and maps and tables and chairs and
Speaker 1: food and teachers and you know, ah, to to call
Speaker 1: this concentration camps and Nazi like is so is so
Speaker 1: moronic and so beyond the pale, and so also by
Speaker 1: the ways, it's just so disrespectful to what actually happened
Speaker 1: in the Holocaust and what the Nazis did, I mean
Speaker 1: in disrespectful to the memory of those lost that it's
Speaker 1: it's hard to argue with these people because I'm like,
Speaker 1: are you are you actually a bunch of are you
Speaker 1: really just idiots? Are you just not smart enough to
Speaker 1: have this conversation in an adult way, or are you
Speaker 1: deeply dishonest and involved in the worst kinds of demagoguery.
Speaker 1: I think there's that old line, gosh, who was it?
Speaker 1: I forget it was. I'm just gonna steal it now.
Speaker 1: Somebody else said this that a demagogue is somebody who
Speaker 1: says things he knows to be untrue to a room
Speaker 1: that he knows to be full of idiots. Basically, you know,
Speaker 1: that's that's what the Democrats are are doing to their
Speaker 1: own constituency here, pretending that they're saving these children from Nazism.
Speaker 1: It's just outrageous. Okay, So now we get to the
Speaker 1: legislative fixed part of this, though, I just want to
Speaker 1: note I don't think anyone else has made that point refugee.
Speaker 1: Usually countries have taken refugees, there's a there's a a
Speaker 1: gratitude to the country and from the people that have
Speaker 1: been taken in. We are taking people in. And by
Speaker 1: the way, refugee status is not that doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: you're they're permanently living in that country. It just means
Speaker 1: they've been given safe harbor. We are giving all of
Speaker 1: these asylum seekers safe harbor. Some of them are being
Speaker 1: detained and process for, you know, misdemeanor illegal entry in
Speaker 1: the United States, but they're all safe, they're all clean,
Speaker 1: they're all fed, and we're the bad guys. So if
Speaker 1: there are asylum seekers, I just want to know why
Speaker 1: we're not being held the standard of other countries that
Speaker 1: taken refugees, and it's supposed to be thank you for
Speaker 1: taking us in, not oh gosh, you didn't do this
Speaker 1: fast enough, or you know. It's it's pretty remarkable when
Speaker 1: you start to see the way that we the way
Speaker 1: America is on this and and the standard that it's
Speaker 1: held to by the Democrat left versus the rest of
Speaker 1: the country. But all right, so now we get to
Speaker 1: the legislative fixed side of this and what could be
Speaker 1: done here and here's the the quick and dirty. Courtesy
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal, House Republican leaders work to build
Speaker 1: support among GOP lawmakers for a broad immigration bill tentatively
Speaker 1: set for a vote on Wednesday, aiming to minimize defections
Speaker 1: after President Donald Trump vacillated good word Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: on whether he backed the measure. After meeting behind closed
Speaker 1: doors with rank and file Republicans, GOP leaders planned to
Speaker 1: spend the day counting how many votes would be gained
Speaker 1: from proposed revisions that would make it harder to work
Speaker 1: in the US without legal documentation and to establish a
Speaker 1: new agricultural guest worker program. If the bill fails as expected,
Speaker 1: the House could move as early as Thursday to a
Speaker 1: targeted bill dealing with the uproar over a Trump administration
Speaker 1: policy that's led to the four separation of thousands of
Speaker 1: migrant children from their parents. End quote. Okay, bill is
Speaker 1: gonna fail, that's for sure, which then brings me to
Speaker 1: the maybe we really do need to think about changing
Speaker 1: the rules so that in the Senate you don't need
Speaker 1: sixty votes to get anything done anymore. And this is
Speaker 1: just it's just nonsense. This is not the way it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be. This is an artificial constraint the Senate
Speaker 1: puts upon itself so that it really just creates political
Speaker 1: cover for senators so they never have to take tough votes.
Speaker 1: You know, they don't want to be in a position
Speaker 1: where they're the fifty feet vote for something. Um. So
Speaker 1: that's that's a part of this discussion that I guess
Speaker 1: I'll put off for another time. But they're not gonna
Speaker 1: They're not gonna do anything big on immigration, especially right
Speaker 1: in advance of the the midterms. This is all for show.
Speaker 1: This is a show vote. And beyond that, I think
Speaker 1: that they will get through this way to you know,
Speaker 1: deal with the families, keep them together. Though We'll be
Speaker 1: interesting to see how Democrats try to demogogue that part
Speaker 1: of the issue as well. They're gonna they're gonna make
Speaker 1: sure they squeeze as much out of this in the
Speaker 1: new cycle as they can. You know, Trump is hitler,
Speaker 1: Trump is a bad guy, all that kind of stuff.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna do here. Um. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: our our immigration policy continues as an unsustainable and uh broken.
Speaker 1: So it is broken, but people have broken it. It's
Speaker 1: not because it's it's not that the system itself is
Speaker 1: inherently flawed, that it has been broken, and it's been
Speaker 1: broken by an unholy alliance between the Democrats and waves
Speaker 1: of illegal immigration. That's what's happened, and no one seems
Speaker 1: like they want to fix it. You know, eventually, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have You're gonna have real problems in this country
Speaker 1: when we realize that our debt when when we feel
Speaker 1: not just realize that our debtload is unsustained bowl and
Speaker 1: we turn around and we say, okay, So we've been
Speaker 1: subsidizing the poor from the rest of the world by
Speaker 1: bringing them into this country in an economy where they
Speaker 1: are unlikely to be able to be net contributors. And
Speaker 1: also that has changed the political culture. Mean Democrats are
Speaker 1: okay with changing the fundamental political culture of the United
Speaker 1: States through legal immigration. They're fine with it as long
Speaker 1: as they vote Democrat, as long as their status. People
Speaker 1: that want a big welfare state, a lot of government regulation, intrusion,
Speaker 1: a lot of what you see in most of the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. So I find this all quite troubling.
Speaker 1: Republicans are disappointing on this issue. I gotta build a wall, folks,
Speaker 1: we were promised the wall, I Trump said today. I
Speaker 1: know we we started it, not enough. We've taken one
Speaker 1: step on a thousand mile journey here. It's not enough. So,
Speaker 1: like I said, the vote is going to fail, and
Speaker 1: then they'll pass something that will be narrowly tailored to
Speaker 1: keeping families together in Democrats. Democrats will claim victory on it,
Speaker 1: and I hope that no one pays attention to the
Speaker 1: fact that they have lots of Democrats running around, Democrat
Speaker 1: activists at least, who won't be abolition of immigrations and
Speaker 1: customs enforcement entirely. They're trying to. They're trying to quiet
Speaker 1: them down now, down now, because they don't want the
Speaker 1: American people to figure that out. All right, eight four
Speaker 1: buck will take some calls when we come back. Stay
Speaker 1: with me, Welcome back team. We got calls on the well,
Speaker 1: calls on the line. That's not really a thing, I guess,
Speaker 1: but right, but we've got calls up. We are lit.
Speaker 1: The Freedom Hunt is ready for action. Don in Omahana Braska,
Speaker 1: What up? Don Wow? What a privilege to talk to you.
Speaker 1: Privilege to talk to you, sir. Yeah, thank God for Dorset. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh wow. Well, Actually, gonna be be honest with you done.
Speaker 1: I mean, yes, thank God, first and foremost, gotta thank
Speaker 1: Trump for Corset. Without Without Trump, without Trump, you'd have
Speaker 1: you'd have some smarmy leftist in judges robes on that
Speaker 1: court just dispensing with rule of law, with constitutional norms
Speaker 1: in favor of being hashtag resistance hero number one. That's
Speaker 1: what would be going on. Oh, absolutely no, you're You're
Speaker 1: absolutely right. But I just gotta say My comment to
Speaker 1: the screener was this, I had lost I gave up
Speaker 1: cable for the summer because I figured I was not
Speaker 1: gonna watch how much TV. So the only channel I
Speaker 1: can get now is CBS, and so I watched the
Speaker 1: morning news, and it's just interesting to watch the facial
Speaker 1: expression of the people as they content on the news stories,
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 1: I think her name is gay Old Keen Media, the
Speaker 1: black girl, and there's a white down here, and they
Speaker 1: just look when they report, they look at each other
Speaker 1: like this is this look of disdain, and she's always
Speaker 1: going to make a little snide coming on the end
Speaker 1: of every story that with with immigration and Trump, and
Speaker 1: it's just so obvious what their biases are. And it
Speaker 1: just shows me a total lack of objectivity when it
Speaker 1: comes to the media, and and it gets the point
Speaker 1: where it's so glaring that it just it's very off
Speaker 1: putting after a while. Yep, I I totally agree. I
Speaker 1: see it. To my friend, Uh, it's it's very clear
Speaker 1: to me who's a Democrat pretending to be an objective
Speaker 1: journalist in the media, and you know, and who's, uh, well,
Speaker 1: that's what they all do. So I guess it's very
Speaker 1: clear to me when they're doing it. Though, Earl in Shelby, Ohio, Hey, Earl,
Speaker 1: to talk to you in. I agree with the last guy.
Speaker 1: I The only thing is is I don't understand how
Speaker 1: the ones on the other side. I think that it's
Speaker 1: okay to write law anyway, because that's what they're supposed
Speaker 1: to do when they're Spring court judges. They're supposed to
Speaker 1: look at the law and take it as it is.
Speaker 1: And if they were against what Trump did and they
Speaker 1: were trying to write law. But what I really called
Speaker 1: about is I think Trump could take care of of
Speaker 1: our problem at the border tomorrow by closing the border
Speaker 1: and you have to apply to come in and we
Speaker 1: will look at you for ninety days. And I'm sure,
Speaker 1: there's a bunch of those people that we wouldn't have
Speaker 1: to look at very hard and they would never get
Speaker 1: to come into the come across the border. All right, earl,
Speaker 1: thank you for thank you for your thoughts on with
Speaker 1: my friend. We gotta run into a break and it's
Speaker 1: a second here, I a uh, I'm in the next hour.
Speaker 1: And the dumbest comment I've heard on cable losing the
Speaker 1: last twenty four hours, which give him what Gurgan said
Speaker 1: before is really quite a bar. But it's the single
Speaker 1: dumbest I think that I've heard, maybe the dumbest all month. Uh.
Speaker 1: And then also civility, civility discussion. Oh, isn't it so quaint?
Speaker 1: Isn't it so cute when democrats pretend to care. We'll
Speaker 1: get into that and know so much more. Don't forget tomorrow.
Speaker 1: The Freedom Up with Buck Sexton downloaded on iTunes. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be a fun show. It's gonna be a quick show.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be different from this show. So if you
Speaker 1: haven't already, please subscribe, check it out on iTunes and
Speaker 1: team back in just a few The FBI calls home
Speaker 1: title theft one of the fastest growing crimes out there.
Speaker 1: And if you've ever had your credit card stolen, as
Speaker 1: I have, it can be a really stressful and terrible experience.
Speaker 1: Having your homes title stolen is way worse, my friends.
Speaker 1: And it's so easy for the bad guys to do.
Speaker 1: Here's the scam. They just need internet access. They target
Speaker 1: American homeowners. They take your name, they replace it with alias,
Speaker 1: and then they start taking out loans against your home.
Speaker 1: You find out about it when the requests for payment
Speaker 1: from the bank or whomever they've borrowed money from start
Speaker 1: showing up at your front door. And guess what, if
Speaker 1: you've got insurance, if you've got identity theft protection, that
Speaker 1: doesn't stop this. You need home Title Lock for just
Speaker 1: pennies a day. Home Title Lock protects my most viable asset,
Speaker 1: my family home. Register now for free analysis and discovery.
Speaker 1: If your home's title has been compromised, that's a sixty
Speaker 1: dollar value free visit home title lock dot com. That's
Speaker 1: home title lock dot com. Welcome back to him. How
Speaker 1: with all the talk of civility out there, you know,
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of time before some folks in
Speaker 1: the in the media do the whole Oh no, it's
Speaker 1: so hard for us. Trump is so mean to us
Speaker 1: a Trump supporters or so, I mean, they're so on
Speaker 1: civil and you know, because the media these days it's
Speaker 1: all about pretending they're not making the story about them,
Speaker 1: but they are making this story about that, right, That's
Speaker 1: that's the game that they play, one of their favorite games, really,
Speaker 1: and there's nobody who does it more egregiously I think, then,
Speaker 1: uh than than Jim Acosta, who just him. And then
Speaker 1: there's a few of them, right Acosta, Tapper, Uh, Cooper,
Speaker 1: I don't really, I don't. I don't watch enough of
Speaker 1: his stuff to really know, quite honestly, these days what
Speaker 1: his you know, don Lemon, these people are there there
Speaker 1: there journalists who just happened to always shade their narrative
Speaker 1: towards the Democrats side of things. Their journalists who happened
Speaker 1: to be in good standing with Democrats all the time
Speaker 1: and never seem to really do anything too greatly upset
Speaker 1: them and at a costa though in particular, you know,
Speaker 1: he's tweeting out that president's a liar, the President's come
Speaker 1: and then he's like, why don't people treat me like
Speaker 1: I'm just a nonpartisan journalists Because we're all supposed to
Speaker 1: be a bunch of complete idiots. But sure enough, um,
Speaker 1: sure enough. We have Acosta at a rally where he
Speaker 1: came him into contact with some Trump supporters and things
Speaker 1: got things got interesting. Blake clip four. Please, we have
Speaker 1: about a couple of thousand people listening to him so far.
Speaker 1: They are letting the press corps here know exactly how
Speaker 1: they feel about what we're doing here. Wolf a thing
Speaker 1: it is, though secret. He is going to hammer the
Speaker 1: issue of immigration right up until the bid term elections come,
Speaker 1: and even with families being separated with their children at
Speaker 1: the Board of the President believes this issue is a
Speaker 1: winner for the Republican Party. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: got it all, but they were yelling go home, Jim,
Speaker 1: and fake news Jim. Oh, it's amazing. Oh, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: It's so great. It's the funniest thing I've seen in
Speaker 1: a long time. Also, I have seen some coverage some
Speaker 1: signs that people have Fox News real news, CNN fake news,
Speaker 1: MSNBC disgusting. We love Sarah. You see some of these
Speaker 1: signs up. But there was a woman who got right
Speaker 1: up in Acosta's face. She's just great. She's right up
Speaker 1: in Acosta's grill and uh and you know he's he's
Speaker 1: doing like it's fine. Nobody actually threatened anybody. They're allowed. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, why aren't they I don't understand. You know,
Speaker 1: the media is saying, oh, you know, protest is fine
Speaker 1: of this thing. They're just they're allowed to chant things.
Speaker 1: They're at a rally, folks, They're not a Jim Acosta's home.
Speaker 1: As I've said, I wouldn't be okay with that. Don't
Speaker 1: mess with Jim Acosta in front of his family. Don't
Speaker 1: mess with Jim Acosta when he's out having a meal.
Speaker 1: That's not cool. But you're at a political rally, people
Speaker 1: can chat things at you. Okay, that's just the that's
Speaker 1: just reality. Though this is a very but see, they
Speaker 1: pretend to blur these lines. The left. They act like
Speaker 1: they don't know the difference. They act like they have
Speaker 1: no ability to reason out. You know, what's what's a
Speaker 1: completely understandable expression of disagreement? Shall me shall we say
Speaker 1: with seeing adversities, what is you know, crossing the line
Speaker 1: going too far? But you know what costa he got
Speaker 1: a little he want to let everybody know he was upset.
Speaker 1: Later on, he talked about the civility point. Play that
Speaker 1: clip too. And with all of this talk of civility,
Speaker 1: well if I can tell you that not all of
Speaker 1: the people in this crowd here in West Columbia, South
Speaker 1: Carolina treated us with that level of civility that we
Speaker 1: all think that Americans should be entitled to across this country.
Speaker 1: While we have had some people come up to us
Speaker 1: and be very nice this evening, I did have uh,
Speaker 1: an elderly woman come up to me just a short
Speaker 1: while ago. We have some video we can show you
Speaker 1: where she came up to me and said that we
Speaker 1: a CNN should get the f out of this auditorium
Speaker 1: at this high school in West Colombia. She then turned
Speaker 1: to the crowd and whipped them up into a frenzy, uh,
Speaker 1: calling on us to leave this auditorium before President Trump arrives. Wolf.
Speaker 1: But of course, as you know, we are here to
Speaker 1: do our jobs and report the news and report on
Speaker 1: this rally. And so there's part of the the woman
Speaker 1: is it is an elderly woman, Okay, And look, I
Speaker 1: can't say that I I would shout profanity at reporters
Speaker 1: and you know that that's that's not a move I
Speaker 1: would make but she's allowed to not like these reporters.
Speaker 1: And I just think it's so interesting that you know
Speaker 1: that this is the place we are now, where at
Speaker 1: political rallies we're gonna talk about civility, but when people
Speaker 1: want to have dinner with their family in their off time,
Speaker 1: then it's more of a well, you know, your policy
Speaker 1: is really bad at the border. By the way, in
Speaker 1: the photo of the of the elderly woman I can
Speaker 1: see here on Fox news dot Com, there's there is
Speaker 1: a guy who is clearly he's his shield, his badge
Speaker 1: is showing on his belt right next to the so so,
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta is being heckled by an elderly woman who
Speaker 1: is standing behind a metal barrier with a police officer
Speaker 1: standing right there and watching, and he's concerned. It seems
Speaker 1: he's worried about what this elderly woman. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: she's going to I don't know, she's going to take
Speaker 1: a cane out and try to poke him with it
Speaker 1: or something. I don't know. I don't know what the
Speaker 1: big worry is here. Nothing bad is gonna happen, Jim.
Speaker 1: It's all gonna be fine. But you see what the
Speaker 1: what the media keeps doing is is trying to shift
Speaker 1: the goalposts here away from a discussion this week about
Speaker 1: just how disgraceful the conduct has been toward Trump people. Uh,
Speaker 1: and what one of the things I do now is
Speaker 1: they just say, well, because Trump is bad than anything
Speaker 1: that anyone else does is in response to Trump. See,
Speaker 1: they have this magic trick of making Trump responsible for
Speaker 1: all bad behavior, including bad behavior that they themselves do
Speaker 1: or that comes from their side. Play clip two. Should
Speaker 1: someone who lies constantly and enables the president's lies be
Speaker 1: openly welcomed in society wherever they please? I would say
Speaker 1: that the polite discourse is inappropriate when there are babies
Speaker 1: and cages. Now, does that mean that we're going to
Speaker 1: be violent? No? But does that mean that Sarah Sanders
Speaker 1: can have a nice, quiet dinner with her family when
Speaker 1: she's taking our tax dollars to implement this policy. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. It wasn't until we had three year
Speaker 1: olds in cages that these people couldn't go in the public.
Speaker 1: Too bad on that, But this fulgarity that exists represented
Speaker 1: primarily right now, pushed by the president, now coursed on
Speaker 1: either side of the aisle, has made it much worse
Speaker 1: and much harder to do anything in this country. Those
Speaker 1: comments were stated a significant backlash from members of both
Speaker 1: parties and from the President, who we should not lied
Speaker 1: about waters what waters it said, and appeared to then
Speaker 1: threaten her with violence. You know that they're doing everything
Speaker 1: they can here to make it how it's it's just
Speaker 1: Trump's fault. It somehow is always Trump's fault. And what
Speaker 1: what they don't understand this whole process is that if
Speaker 1: that's really their position, if that is really their belief,
Speaker 1: then I guess anything is justified. Right. Anyone can say
Speaker 1: anything to anyone at any time and say, but Trump
Speaker 1: is so bad, I hate Trump so much. Did you
Speaker 1: hear what Trump said to that guide or in the campaign?
Speaker 1: This is we talked about what about is them sometimes?
Speaker 1: Or two wrongs don't make it right. This is the
Speaker 1: most basic stuff that you could ever see, the most
Speaker 1: basic version of a non argument argument. Right. The the
Speaker 1: comments that Maxie Laughter has made, the comments that some
Speaker 1: of these other people have made the last week are
Speaker 1: are just disgraceful. It's just disgusting. And as I don't
Speaker 1: care what Trump says, Okay, Trump's not making these other
Speaker 1: people say anything. And you know when when when they
Speaker 1: tell us about how they want, they're so upset that
Speaker 1: Trump isn't civil enough, they turn around and then they
Speaker 1: act this way. We realized that, oh no, they're just
Speaker 1: upset as Trump fights back because you know what, they
Speaker 1: were on civil like this before Trump too, folks. I
Speaker 1: remember they were calling Trump a Nazi and Cheney's a Nazi.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Bush a Nazi and Cheney's a Nazi, and
Speaker 1: you know, war criminal Chinese a war criminal. You know
Speaker 1: this is this is not new. This is who they are.
Speaker 1: This is how they are. They are character assassins. They
Speaker 1: smear people, they destroy reputations. They they will not extend
Speaker 1: any good faith to the other side in these political arguments.
Speaker 1: They just won't. They won't, and they offer you a choice,
Speaker 1: you know, get co opted by us on the left.
Speaker 1: Come over to our side, be an anti an anti
Speaker 1: Trump conservative, which what does that even mean these days?
Speaker 1: You're going to oppose all the really good conservative stuff
Speaker 1: that Trump has been implementing as president because you don't
Speaker 1: like the guy. Were you gonna throw a little tantrum
Speaker 1: That strikes me as really unwise. But your options are
Speaker 1: either go over to the left and be useful to them,
Speaker 1: or they'll destroy you, or they'll ruin you. That's what
Speaker 1: that's what they proposed. Although you know they they were
Speaker 1: at Stephen Miller's house yesterday. Now they're actually tracking down
Speaker 1: senior advisors. You know, they're gonna try the cabinet officials.
Speaker 1: I don't even talk about how at the Red Hen
Speaker 1: I'm seeing reports from the Washington Examiner. You know, the
Speaker 1: Red Head is where Sara Huckaby Sanders was chased or
Speaker 1: I'm sorry it was was harassed. It turns out that
Speaker 1: she may have also been chased to another place, to
Speaker 1: a restaurant across the street. I needs someone to explain
Speaker 1: how that's okay. You know, originally it was, well, it's
Speaker 1: her place, you know, the owner's place, the owner's rules.
Speaker 1: It turns out that's not really how it happened. Kind
Speaker 1: of kind of turns out that we're in a situation
Speaker 1: where they were just that this owner was deranged and
Speaker 1: trying to make a big statement about how much she
Speaker 1: hates you know, Sarah be Staners. You know, it reminds
Speaker 1: me I remember a long time ago, early on the administration.
Speaker 1: You know, Ivanka took a like an exercise class somewhere
Speaker 1: in d C. And the exercise class owner was posting
Speaker 1: about how you know next time she's gonna pull Ivanka's
Speaker 1: side and have a conversation with Earth. I doesn't want
Speaker 1: to talk to you, doesn't have to talk to you.
Speaker 1: That's not that's not how this works. That's not how
Speaker 1: any of this works. But you know the Left that
Speaker 1: that you know there their biggest problem. I keep saying it,
Speaker 1: The biggest problem is that all the terrible calamities that
Speaker 1: they said would befall this country have not happened. The
Speaker 1: country is actually doing really well, and it's doing really
Speaker 1: well under someone that they said was evil and terrible
Speaker 1: and dumb. Well, who looks dumb? Now it's not us,
Speaker 1: it's not Trump. We'll be right back. Alarm companies get
Speaker 1: a lot of complaints from the Better Business Bureau of
Speaker 1: my friends, and that's because they're trying to always lock
Speaker 1: you into these long term contracts. I can help you
Speaker 1: fix all of your home security needs, simply safe home security.
Speaker 1: If you go and check this out, you'll see for yourself.
Speaker 1: I've got a simply safe system at home. It just
Speaker 1: runs off the WiFi. It couldn't be any easier, and honestly,
Speaker 1: It looks cool if you're somebody that likes Apple products,
Speaker 1: if you're somebody that cares about sleek design and a
Speaker 1: really easy to use interface and total accessibility remote accessibility.
Speaker 1: I should add you can use an app to do it.
Speaker 1: It's so straightforward and it protects every aspect of your home.
Speaker 1: It looks good in your home, It's easy to use,
Speaker 1: runs off the WiFi, no long term contracts, no alarm
Speaker 1: company style scams can be any easier. Simply safe dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. Check it out for yourself. Simple please
Speaker 1: safe dot com slash buck. Again, try the same system
Speaker 1: I have at home with simply safe dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: Huge high stakes gamble and it would take on the outsider.
Speaker 1: Somebody liked Donald Trump, and I say this to his credit,
Speaker 1: to try to shake up the system, particularly vis of
Speaker 1: each China, where we all know China has been picking
Speaker 1: our pocket and stealing from us, and we just acquiesced.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump comes along and says, I'll fight. I'll fight
Speaker 1: for America, I'll fight for American workers. I'll take on China.
Speaker 1: We don't know if he'll win the fight, though, And
Speaker 1: that's what Harley Davidson shows when the presidents slapped tariffs
Speaker 1: on Europe. Europe slapped tariffs back. The tariffs hit Harley.
Speaker 1: Harley moves to Europe so they won't be hit by
Speaker 1: European terrorists. That's how trade wars go. If Trump can
Speaker 1: pull this off and make the rest of the world
Speaker 1: lower their tariffs and get back to more free trade,
Speaker 1: boy will he be a successful president. We picked up
Speaker 1: about eight trillion dollars in value doing what we're doing.
Speaker 1: Now we've got a little bit of uncertainty because of trade.
Speaker 1: To me, there's no uncertainty, and other people that happened
Speaker 1: to be smart, there's no uncertainty. But we can't allow
Speaker 1: the European Union two take out a hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: one billion dollars out of the United States. We can't
Speaker 1: allow Mexico to have enough to deal that gives them
Speaker 1: over a hundred billion dollars. And I call it a profit.
Speaker 1: You know, you can divide that up anyway you want
Speaker 1: to do it. I call it a profit. So the
Speaker 1: trade issue is getting some attention again this week, and
Speaker 1: you know, I think that that Ari Fleisher's point there,
Speaker 1: and then of course we heard from the present right
Speaker 1: after him really relevant to this discussion. There is a
Speaker 1: risk here, you know. Trump says, look, there's uncertainty. I
Speaker 1: don't think there's uncertainty. But this is a This is
Speaker 1: a a negotiation, and one side can do better than
Speaker 1: the other side of negotiation. There's no guarantee that everyone
Speaker 1: comes out of negotiation feeling like it's great. That's not
Speaker 1: how this works. But one thing that is guaranteed is
Speaker 1: if only one side negotiates, or rather one side dictates
Speaker 1: the terms of an interaction, you're not getting a good deal.
Speaker 1: You have to use the possibility of either walking away
Speaker 1: from a deal or using your own leverage to bring
Speaker 1: the other side closer to your side. Right, so you say, okay,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm if they're gonna if they're gonna act
Speaker 1: this way. With regard to all, they're all kinds of
Speaker 1: tariff the EU has in place, which I think it's
Speaker 1: so funny, and they don't have their leadership class, they
Speaker 1: don't have the elites and the EU single may we
Speaker 1: be yeah, we must get the widos it tariffs. It's
Speaker 1: so tarriball they're not I'm apparently everyone in Europe is French,
Speaker 1: but they're not saying that. Although there are some vaguely
Speaker 1: euro accents that you're here. Sometimes you're like, are you
Speaker 1: just kind of from Spain, Switzerland, Germany, England, like kind
Speaker 1: of all over the place. You know you'll hear this.
Speaker 1: I can't really do it, but I know when I
Speaker 1: hear at the vague European accent. But there's gonna be
Speaker 1: some disruptions here. There's going to be a little bit
Speaker 1: of unease in this process. There would there would have
Speaker 1: to be. It wouldn't make any sense if there wasn't. Right,
Speaker 1: we know that there would have to be because you've
Speaker 1: got two sides that are in conflict over something. It's
Speaker 1: a trade conflict, but it's not. It's not something that
Speaker 1: can just be resolved by wishing it away. And the
Speaker 1: point about China that couldn't be any more obvious. We're
Speaker 1: being told all the time, the trade wars are so bad,
Speaker 1: the tariffs are so stupid, tariffs or attacks. Meanwhile, China has. China,
Speaker 1: with its massive systems of not just tariffs but intellectual
Speaker 1: property theft and cheating on trade in a whole variety
Speaker 1: of ways, has kinda gotten richer or poorer over the
Speaker 1: last thirty years doing what it's doing. It's gotten astronomically
Speaker 1: richer as a country. So what does that tell us? Clearly,
Speaker 1: you can still do very well even if you're putting
Speaker 1: tariffs in place. I don't think the tariffs just for
Speaker 1: their own sake or a good idea. I don't think
Speaker 1: they're a good idea for political constituencies, particular ones at home,
Speaker 1: which we already have tariffs. By the way, that you
Speaker 1: a sense of tariffs at place. I mean this. The
Speaker 1: more I've learned about this, and I'm telling you, I'm
Speaker 1: just like many of you. I've been diving in and
Speaker 1: reading about tariffs as we go along. And that's why
Speaker 1: I can tell you, you you know, I can start to
Speaker 1: get into how you know, some tariffs or quota based,
Speaker 1: some tariffs are percentage based. Some tariffs aren't really even
Speaker 1: about the money so much as they're about the process
Speaker 1: and the regulations you have to go through to bring
Speaker 1: something into a country. Right. There's there's all this. It's
Speaker 1: a it's a very intricate part of international uh commerce,
Speaker 1: but it's all and it's a very important one obviously too.
Speaker 1: But we're just beginning to have this discussion. People have
Speaker 1: been saying, oh no, we're just about I'm a free trader.
Speaker 1: I just want to be wealthy. I'm all about free trade. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, free trade for me. What does that mean?
Speaker 1: Are you a free trader if you have the EU
Speaker 1: putting tariffs on your products and you're just like, well,
Speaker 1: I don't want to upset them. So, you know, with
Speaker 1: China doing all the stuff that it does, are you
Speaker 1: free trade If you just say, yeah, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we don't want to mess with China on trade, it
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. You think this stuff through, and
Speaker 1: you see Trump's point of view on this is much
Speaker 1: more understandable. And is he right We'll see. We don't
Speaker 1: know yet, meaning meaning can he make this thing work?
Speaker 1: Can he actually get other countries to back off their tariffs.
Speaker 1: Maybe not, Maybe some of them find their domestic industries
Speaker 1: that they protect with their tariff systems to be too important.
Speaker 1: That's also possible. I'm not saying he's gonna win these negotiations.
Speaker 1: I was just saying least he's trying, and the economic
Speaker 1: dislocations and uncertainty that we're feeling in the meantime, of course,
Speaker 1: you're gonna get certain companies that are gonna hyperventil it
Speaker 1: over this of course you're gonna see uh, circumstances where
Speaker 1: people are acting like this is the end of the world,
Speaker 1: because it's all about the bottom line for them, right,
Speaker 1: It's all about you know, Harley Davidson's gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we were now gonna move, We're gonna off shore.
Speaker 1: But you know, Harley Davidson, there's already international corporation folks,
Speaker 1: they were They've got a facility in Thailand. This is
Speaker 1: what doesn't make it too the headlines. It's got a
Speaker 1: facility in Thailand to serve the Southeast Asian markets. So
Speaker 1: we think of these iconic and these great American brands
Speaker 1: and go, oh no, you know they're gonna because of
Speaker 1: Trump's tariffs, they're gonna off shore. They're already off shoring
Speaker 1: in many cases, they've already got international operations ongoing. So
Speaker 1: you know, if if they're going to react in that way,
Speaker 1: if they're gonna say, okay, well, that's their right. They're
Speaker 1: allowed to make decisions based on their own economy, should
Speaker 1: make the decisions based on their economic self interest, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that should dictate the rest of national policy.
Speaker 1: When it comes to trade. This you start to see
Speaker 1: it turns into a war of anecdotes. You know, who's
Speaker 1: gonna tell a story that seems more compelling on the
Speaker 1: nightly news, either the Trump administration or an individual company
Speaker 1: in any one of these areas. By the way, all
Speaker 1: this stuff you're seeing and this really bothers me. People say, oh, Trump,
Speaker 1: he's picking winners and losers, and he's calling out individual companies.
Speaker 1: Obama would would rate companies over the coal when they
Speaker 1: got in his way. You know, he would call them
Speaker 1: unpatriotic if they, you know, trying to avoid taxies. But
Speaker 1: you go back, you look at the obaministration record. He
Speaker 1: called out companies too. This is just nonsense that people say.
Speaker 1: But you know, there's a lot of a lot of hoopla,
Speaker 1: a lot of nonsense out there these days. I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about something coming up in them just
Speaker 1: a moment. The dumbest comment I've heard on cable news
Speaker 1: all month. And we're pretty deep into June here, so
Speaker 1: that's that's really saying something. But for a a political
Speaker 1: on air analysts, I think this was the single dumbest
Speaker 1: comment that I've heard all month. And you know, some
Speaker 1: people are just trying to one up each other with
Speaker 1: who can be the most hyperbolic about the situation at
Speaker 1: the border. We have a winner, folks, tell you who
Speaker 1: it is and you can hear the comment after the break.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of bad analysis on cable news that
Speaker 1: that's not new to you, Right, That's not something that
Speaker 1: we avoid talking about here in the Hut. There's there
Speaker 1: are people who get paid a lot of money to
Speaker 1: go on TV and say really, really dumb things. But
Speaker 1: this is almost in a class by itself, which, given
Speaker 1: what happening these days, is it's a surprising thing to
Speaker 1: be able to say that. Right, there's so much stupidity
Speaker 1: out there, but this is a special kind of stupid,
Speaker 1: aggressively stupid, you could say. And it happened on on
Speaker 1: Morning Joe, where they have this analyst Schmidt, who's also
Speaker 1: the guy who recently said he's no longer Republican. He's
Speaker 1: no longer Republican because of Trump. So now it used
Speaker 1: to be pro life. I guess now he's gonna help
Speaker 1: Democrats get pro abortion candidates elected. Right. Used to be
Speaker 1: in favor of the second a moment, Now he wants
Speaker 1: gun confiscation. Used to be uh in favor of commerce
Speaker 1: and capitalism, and now wants environmentalists to strangle private enterprise
Speaker 1: and have regulations piled on tap of, on top of
Speaker 1: small business owners so that they can't get anywhere. Okay,
Speaker 1: all because of Trump, right, that's but just put that
Speaker 1: aside for a moment, though it it is necessary context
Speaker 1: for we're about to go here. Just listen when it goes. First,
Speaker 1: you get you get Joe Scarborough, who I will say,
Speaker 1: decent hair. The law you can say about your Scarborough
Speaker 1: decent hair. I mean it's not handity hair, but it's decent,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. It's not like Hannity's, like
Speaker 1: top level. Joe's hair is okay, So I respect the
Speaker 1: hair a little bit. The commentary sometimes though not so
Speaker 1: much at all. It's very it's very high school gossip
Speaker 1: table at the morning Joe A lot of the time.
Speaker 1: That's the way it comes across to me. But just
Speaker 1: listen to this play the clip. I'm not a theology,
Speaker 1: I'm not a theologian. A chara to make me go
Speaker 1: to Baptist churches four times a week for about twenty
Speaker 1: one years. You're so folks, that didn't take. But I
Speaker 1: do remember a lot of Bible verses. It is one
Speaker 1: of the few times in the New Testament where Jesus
Speaker 1: hasn't say we are saved by faith and we are
Speaker 1: saved by grace, which we are. It's one of the
Speaker 1: few times, though Jesus says, this is what you have
Speaker 1: to do to get to heaven, and if you don't
Speaker 1: do it, you will not get to heaven. One of
Speaker 1: the few times he says, this is it, and it
Speaker 1: is giving a cup of water and the Master's name,
Speaker 1: feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting those in prison,
Speaker 1: and and again helping the least amongments. Extraordinary preach Joe,
Speaker 1: preach by the way, messenger, Okay, okay, okay, alright, so
Speaker 1: it's just positive for a second, all right, yeah, and
Speaker 1: then okay, thank you for the the Sunday school lesson
Speaker 1: from from Scarborough there. I wonder do you think in
Speaker 1: one of Joe's uh several mansions, is there room for
Speaker 1: some refugees to take off residents? I would assume the
Speaker 1: answer is yes. I'm sure the I'm sure the servants
Speaker 1: quarters at whatever massive properties he owns in New York, Nantucket, Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. I'm sure there's ample room for refugees. So
Speaker 1: you know, we can all play this game. Also have
Speaker 1: to love how you get these TV pundits. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna delve into people's personal lives and try to
Speaker 1: avoid that. I'm not perfect with it. But but but
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, they they find Jesus when it
Speaker 1: comes to virtue shaming the Republicans right then there, Oh,
Speaker 1: you know what about you know, if you can't passed
Speaker 1: through the eye of a needle or something like that
Speaker 1: with the camel and the you know, give to poor people.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden they've become oh so Christian And
Speaker 1: you say, well, what about a man and a woman?
Speaker 1: What about binary gender is? What about marriage as a
Speaker 1: sacred institution before God? But you a man of Omen,
Speaker 1: how dare you? You, Biggert, take your bigger Christian Bible
Speaker 1: out of my face. Right so they're all a joke.
Speaker 1: But listen to what Steve Schmidt. This is just he
Speaker 1: decided to remember this all that immigration, it's all about
Speaker 1: talking to Latin American people that immigration is what Steve
Speaker 1: Schmidt has to say flat Jesus talking extraordinary and astounding
Speaker 1: hypocrisy of it. To see the constancy of the assertion
Speaker 1: of Christian virtue by political leaders in this country who
Speaker 1: have established internment camps for babies and adler's. And by
Speaker 1: the way, and I never in a millionaires thought I
Speaker 1: would sit here or anywhere and say this. But the
Speaker 1: difference now between Venezuela in Cuba and the United States
Speaker 1: is this Venezuela and Cuba or the countries without internment
Speaker 1: camps for babies and toddlers still ahead on board. That
Speaker 1: is the dumbest thing I've heard on TV all month,
Speaker 1: the single dumbest thing. Congratulations, Steve Schmidt. Uh. To compare,
Speaker 1: Cuba has had political prisons for decades, were they torture
Speaker 1: and murder people who are political opponents of the regime.
Speaker 1: Cuba also has a horrific record not just on basic
Speaker 1: human rights and politic free association and political representation, but
Speaker 1: also of oppression, of gaze, of going after the LGBT
Speaker 1: community in ways that are are true oppression and true discrimination.
Speaker 1: And Venezuela is like the the eighth circle of Hell.
Speaker 1: These days, you have a government that can't do anything
Speaker 1: to turn around the fact that when you have social
Speaker 1: justice determining your economic policy, you run out of toilet
Speaker 1: paper you don't have. There's no milk on the no
Speaker 1: milk on the shelves, or no bread on the shelves
Speaker 1: in the store, no milk in the freezer, no freezers
Speaker 1: for the milk even or electricity for them. This is
Speaker 1: I don't know how much dumber it is going to
Speaker 1: get in that, I really don't. But this is the
Speaker 1: kind of stuff that you will hear from people, and
Speaker 1: some of them get paid a lot of money to
Speaker 1: do it. But he wins the prize. Steve Schmidt, dumbest
Speaker 1: thing I've heard on TV all month, obviously knows nothing
Speaker 1: about a true totalitarian country, hasn't spent much time or
Speaker 1: doesn't remember any time in a country where there's real tyranny,
Speaker 1: and uh, it was just preposterous. But we've got a
Speaker 1: roll call coming up, so stay with me. The show
Speaker 1: ain't over yet, folks, It's time for roll call. Matter how,
Speaker 1: cartoons back in the day used to have really great music.
Speaker 1: I remember watching all these bugs Bunny cartoons and other
Speaker 1: cartoons on whatever. I don't remember where the channels were
Speaker 1: now I've gotten sold, but they just had they had
Speaker 1: really good music, and there was this old time cartoon
Speaker 1: vibe that was a lot of fun. Anyway, that music
Speaker 1: kind of reminds me a little bit of some of
Speaker 1: that roll call. If you want to get in on
Speaker 1: the action, you know how to do it. You just
Speaker 1: go to uh Facebook dot com, slash bucks extent, send
Speaker 1: me your thoughts, send me your ideas, friends, Team Buck countrymen,
Speaker 1: lend me your ears or your Facebook messages, same idea.
Speaker 1: Alrighty with that, I think we're in a in a
Speaker 1: perfect place here to get into the roll call. Uh
Speaker 1: Nate Nathaniel also in his Nate, I'm guessing I don't
Speaker 1: know why I jumped out. I'd like to shorten your name.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you call any rights. I don't know how you
Speaker 1: do it, but you're doing great work. I see you've
Speaker 1: got more time for your thoughts on rising this morning.
Speaker 1: It's time for a North Korea date. I see some
Speaker 1: subterfuge from the leftist propaganda papers, but it looks like
Speaker 1: some real changes are happening in North Korea. Well, that's
Speaker 1: a very important thing for us to look at, and
Speaker 1: I will get after it. So thank you Nathaniel for that.
Speaker 1: Next up, we have a Milucci, cool name, great Facebook
Speaker 1: live broadcast. Buck One suggestion, though, have the printer flipped
Speaker 1: the image of your show logo horizontally printed on the
Speaker 1: back of that one, so you have a dual use sign.
Speaker 1: Shields high MILUCI. That is a very good idea, hopefully
Speaker 1: on you know, hopefully we've made the necessary changes here
Speaker 1: going forward to make the best Facebook Lives possible. One
Speaker 1: thing is I'm used to doing radio and not looking
Speaker 1: into a camera these days. I used to do at
Speaker 1: The Blaze. We did a simulcast for a while. It
Speaker 1: was a full TV show on cable of of the
Speaker 1: radio show that I was doing at the play. Um here,
Speaker 1: I guess I'll have to get used to looking at
Speaker 1: the camera while I'm doing the show. Maybe if we're
Speaker 1: going to continue with the Facebook Lives. Chadwick also cool name,
Speaker 1: Chadwick right saying, Hey, Buck Shields Hie. I've been listening
Speaker 1: to you since you had the two hour show on
Speaker 1: The Blaze, and I love all the content you put out.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Chadwick. You have fantastic taste and content. It
Speaker 1: seems to me, amidst all the haphazard Democrat allusions to
Speaker 1: Nazism on a daily basis, that the Left is projecting
Speaker 1: their affinity for absolutism and brown shirt tactics onto Trump supporters.
Speaker 1: Is there anything more Nazi like than dehumanizing your political
Speaker 1: opponents to a caricature in order to justify an abandonment
Speaker 1: of decency and an escalation of political violence. Seems like
Speaker 1: these radical leftists are not interested in sharing the country
Speaker 1: or seating power when they lose elections. Uh, they're desperate.
Speaker 1: Rhetoric is taking us to the brink of violence, and
Speaker 1: I don't know where these self styled resistance folks would
Speaker 1: go from here should Trump win real election in it's
Speaker 1: a scary time, Chadwick, It's a little scary, but this
Speaker 1: will pass. Their hysteria is exhausting, and eventually it will
Speaker 1: not because they've turned to sanity or reason. They'll just
Speaker 1: kind of cry themselves out, you know, when you know
Speaker 1: what a baby or or a little kid is crying
Speaker 1: and then eventually, like the crying just becomes too tiring.
Speaker 1: That's what the leftists, that's what's gonna happen. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying bad things can't happen in the meantime, but eventually
Speaker 1: they will run out of liberal tears. You know, Eventually
Speaker 1: they won't be able to keep keep the nonsense going.
Speaker 1: At least not continuously. Brian writes, Buck, You're doing great
Speaker 1: things with all your new avenues of media, and appreciate
Speaker 1: your approach on Rising, being respectful of Crystal's misaligned views
Speaker 1: while also finding common ground. Nice dedication on Charles Crottammer
Speaker 1: on radio the other day. I would be interested to
Speaker 1: hear who the other four writers whose columns you actively
Speaker 1: sought out in your youth were. Also to your points
Speaker 1: on talking to someone before they leave this world. You
Speaker 1: should try to do an interview on Rising with economist
Speaker 1: Thomas soul Or on your radio show. He is eighty
Speaker 1: seven years old now, and the younger generation needs to
Speaker 1: know more about his brave, intelligent at this brave intelligent
Speaker 1: and outspoken individual from Brian. Brian, thank you for the
Speaker 1: very kind and thoughtful message you asked what the columnists
Speaker 1: that I read stretching back to about let's say high
Speaker 1: school for me junior senior of high school, the columnists
Speaker 1: that I would seek out their columns was crod Hammer
Speaker 1: and Coulter, Christopher Hitchens, and then the fourth was kind
Speaker 1: of a wild card. Um, you know, basically whoever you
Speaker 1: know I would I would kind of peruse National Review.
Speaker 1: So those would be. But those are the ones that
Speaker 1: crod Hammer, Coulter, and Hitchens worth the three. You know,
Speaker 1: I think I said four, It really is more three.
Speaker 1: There were some others that would be in that same kind.
Speaker 1: I might be forgetting somebody right now actually in my
Speaker 1: list of four. Or maybe I'm just whimping out about
Speaker 1: the fact that I used to read a lot of
Speaker 1: George Will Maybe I'm whipping out on that one now
Speaker 1: and I just don't know it. That's that's possible to Oh,
Speaker 1: Pat Buchanan, Sorry, that was the one I was missing.
Speaker 1: Pat Buchanan, I just pulled the Rick Perry, you know,
Speaker 1: the get rid of the departments, the full department of
Speaker 1: three departments or whatever it was. Yeah. Pat Buchanan, uh
Speaker 1: and Coulter, Charles Crodhammer, and Christopher Hitchens were the four
Speaker 1: calumnists that I would seek out in my youth for
Speaker 1: their for their writing. Um. So there you have it.
Speaker 1: Those would be the big for me, the big four.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've always helped. Buchanon's columns are very very
Speaker 1: thought provoking, very very interesting, and and Coulter. When Coulter
Speaker 1: hits it, she you just want to like, you just
Speaker 1: want to high five somebody. I mean when Coulter's Inner
Speaker 1: Strike Zone, it's great. And Hitchens was just such a
Speaker 1: good writer and very provocative, and you know he's he
Speaker 1: was really bigoted against Christian entity, and you had to
Speaker 1: know that when you were reading his stuff. But was
Speaker 1: a really intelligent and interesting, uh author, storyteller, thinker. So
Speaker 1: I liked Hitchens a whole lot. I actually used to
Speaker 1: watch videos stretching back to my time in college and
Speaker 1: then afterwards in the early days of the year, I
Speaker 1: I just watched videos of Hitchens debating, debating different issues
Speaker 1: because you could find them all on YouTube. And I
Speaker 1: always thought he was really good, you know, And now
Speaker 1: I'm feeling bad Like Victor Davis Hansen. I've read a
Speaker 1: number of his books also, really really have always enjoyed
Speaker 1: his columns too. I mean he's right in that for me,
Speaker 1: that same that same tier of of greatness. So all right,
Speaker 1: but see, you got me all got me all excited
Speaker 1: with your with your roll call message here, Brian, so
Speaker 1: I jumped into it. Keith next up her book. I
Speaker 1: was finally able to sit down and watch Rising. I
Speaker 1: think you two have hit it out of the ballpark.
Speaker 1: We finally have a conservative and progressive and team who
Speaker 1: can sit side by side and have a meaningful dialogue
Speaker 1: and then professionally interview people without letting your own political
Speaker 1: ideologies get in the way. Shield high bro. One more thing, selfishly,
Speaker 1: I hope you can come to Austin, Texas. Uh again,
Speaker 1: I was not able to be there last time. PS.
Speaker 1: Being gluten free in Texas is not an easy thing,
Speaker 1: but I'm proud to say that I'm doing it well.
Speaker 1: First of all, congrats on being gluten free. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it's for health reasons or just dietary choice,
Speaker 1: but I'm buck is part of the War on gluten,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm I'm a colonel in the War on Gluten,
Speaker 1: a four deployed operator in the War on Gluten. I've
Speaker 1: never been to Austin still, and I talked about it.
Speaker 1: We've got a wonderful affiliate down there, a truly great
Speaker 1: radio station, k l b J, and all the folks
Speaker 1: listening on kl b JS want to say thank you.
Speaker 1: I know I'm I'm relatively new into your world, but
Speaker 1: we're getting great listenership in the Austin area and I
Speaker 1: really do want to That's my that's my pick. For
Speaker 1: where I want to go to do a team and
Speaker 1: bucket van as soon as I can. As you can
Speaker 1: all imagine right now, I am a stretched to the
Speaker 1: limit here with doing a one hour early morning show
Speaker 1: and then a three hour radio show in the evening,
Speaker 1: and then during the day reading, researching, writing, so a
Speaker 1: lot of things going on, a lot of things. But Keith,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your message, and I will
Speaker 1: make it to Austin for the first time in the
Speaker 1: next six to twelve months. I think that's fair to say. Ah.
Speaker 1: Hannah writes, Hey, man, I got a question. Might not
Speaker 1: be something you talk about on roll call. Oh okay, Hannah,
Speaker 1: Well then I won't, but thank you for setting to
Speaker 1: give the question. Um. And next we get Josh, Hey
Speaker 1: buck I listen to your podcast all the time and
Speaker 1: half for years now. I tried leaving a review for
Speaker 1: The Red Hen and Google was blocking it. Do you
Speaker 1: think Google is controlling too much of what facts are? Well, Josh,
Speaker 1: I just would say, I hope if you're leaving a
Speaker 1: review for The Red Head and you're leaving it for
Speaker 1: the right one. Uh. And because that's been happening people,
Speaker 1: it's it's one in Connecticut at those Massachusetts people have
Speaker 1: been confusing the red Head of Massachusetts with the red
Speaker 1: Head of Virginia. I guess the popular name for a restaurant.
Speaker 1: I think Google is too powerful. I think that these various, uh,
Speaker 1: these various Internet platforms are just in general, um, astonishingly
Speaker 1: powerful and and it's something that we need to we
Speaker 1: just need to consider what's really happening. I know it's
Speaker 1: they have so much control, folks. They are changing right
Speaker 1: now the content business in ways that content companies are
Speaker 1: having a a tough time with because of what they
Speaker 1: m because of what they are, you know, able to
Speaker 1: do with regard to advertising dollars and CPMs. Anyway, It's
Speaker 1: maybe a boring conversation, but Facebook and Google are going
Speaker 1: to control everything soon in terms of what you see.
Speaker 1: The only way around it is going to be direct subscription.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna tell you this now. My My dream is
Speaker 1: to just eight the freedom hunt as as really a
Speaker 1: in a sense, a content pirate ship where we be sure,
Speaker 1: uh sure we can, you know, we can do whatever
Speaker 1: we can and try to use different platforms, but I
Speaker 1: really want to be as independently in control of content
Speaker 1: as I possibly can going forward and work look, it's
Speaker 1: just a dream of mine. That's why I love the podcasting,
Speaker 1: the FaceTime, well Facebook actually live, which there you go.
Speaker 1: See it's really hard to get around these things. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna leave it there. In my conversation for where
Speaker 1: the future of media is, that's for another day. Please
Speaker 1: do subscribe to the Freedom Hunt podcast, folks, The Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt with Buck Sexton. It is on iTunes. We are
Speaker 1: hoping to get it on Stitcher this week. It'll be
Speaker 1: out tomorrow in the afternoon. Looking forward to that and
Speaker 1: much more until tomorrow, my friends, Shields High