Speaker 1: M you are entering the freedom hunt. Part of the
Speaker 1: caravan reaches the US Mexico border. Looks like they were
Speaker 1: able to hop on buses. After all, there are many
Speaker 1: more that are following in behind them. We are facing
Speaker 1: a continued showdown of the border, plus the crisis of
Speaker 1: those already crossing it. We'll get into that and all
Speaker 1: the latest in Florida and much more coming up on
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Mag No mistake, American Rank, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sex and Show. Remember when we
Speaker 1: were talking a lot about about the caravan. Remember we
Speaker 1: were hearing about this one um constantly, right day in
Speaker 1: and day out. There was talking about this caravan. Well,
Speaker 1: the media was saying there was this refrain. You kept
Speaker 1: hearing there are thousand miles away, they're nine miles away
Speaker 1: like that. That means that they're never gonna get here.
Speaker 1: There's not a problem. Well, well there is a problem,
Speaker 1: of course. The problem is that when you actually drill
Speaker 1: into this a little bit, you find out that, oh,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, um, they can take buses. They
Speaker 1: can actually get here. But but here's what the media
Speaker 1: was saying with this playli migrants still have a very,
Speaker 1: very long way to go, more than a thousand miles.
Speaker 1: That's roughly equivalent to the distance from Miami all the
Speaker 1: way up here to Washington, d C. To give its
Speaker 1: perspective on how far we are and how long it
Speaker 1: will take them. When they hit Mexico City, many will
Speaker 1: try to catch train. And while Brownsville is the closest
Speaker 1: entry point, which is, you know, a thousand miles from here,
Speaker 1: the safest they tell us is to jump a train
Speaker 1: and go over to Tijuana on the Pacific side as well,
Speaker 1: even though it's twice as long. Caravan of Central Americans
Speaker 1: traveling through Mexico have briefly halted their journey. They are
Speaker 1: about a thousand miles from the U. S. Border. Remember
Speaker 1: that song I wouldn't walk five thousand or five hundred miles, sorry,
Speaker 1: not not five thousand. It was one of the most
Speaker 1: annoying songs in the nineties. And then it turns out
Speaker 1: they're not gonna walk five hundred or thousand miles to
Speaker 1: get across Mexico. That they're walking to a train or
Speaker 1: a bus, and that is why we can report the
Speaker 1: filing from San Diego. Quote. People on the Mexican side
Speaker 1: of the border could be seen climbing the fence near
Speaker 1: border Field State Park Tuesday afternoon, after part of the
Speaker 1: Central American migrant caravan arrived in Tijuana. Several people scaled
Speaker 1: the fence and sat on top of it. A few
Speaker 1: jumped or crawled to openings in the fence onto US soil,
Speaker 1: but quickly ran back as Border Patrol agents approached. Several
Speaker 1: border agents were seen patrolling the area in trucks, helicopters,
Speaker 1: and on horses. US Border Patrol sent a news release
Speaker 1: stating it believes some of the people at the fence
Speaker 1: are from the caravan that has been traveling through Mexico
Speaker 1: from hon Duras. Oh you mean they're not gonna walk
Speaker 1: at thousand miles? Oh wow? You mean that? Yeah? What
Speaker 1: a shock. They're able to get to transportation and now
Speaker 1: they're already at the border. Who has been telling you
Speaker 1: this all along? I know, I'm just saying I've I've
Speaker 1: been telling you that this is what was going to happen,
Speaker 1: And sure enough, here we are and this is what's happening.
Speaker 1: They have already arrived, at least part of them have
Speaker 1: arrived at the border. But we've been told all kinds
Speaker 1: of lies by the US about all this, Like, for example,
Speaker 1: there's just no evidence of criminality at the border. Remember
Speaker 1: Chuck Todd saying this play thirteen. Well, there's a lot
Speaker 1: to unpack in that. Keep in mind there is no
Speaker 1: evidence of any criminals in the Central American caravan. Criminals
Speaker 1: is everywhere? Okay, uh is criminals here? I mean it is.
Speaker 1: I mean clearly that guy must be some kind of
Speaker 1: right wing operative with his Criminals are everywhere. Clearly that
Speaker 1: guy is uh. You know, he's telling people what what
Speaker 1: he thinks they what he thinks the right wants to hear.
Speaker 1: And I don't I don't think so. I think he
Speaker 1: knows the criminals because he's in he's in the caravan
Speaker 1: and he sees the guys with MS thirteen face tattoos.
Speaker 1: That tends to be a tip off. You tend to
Speaker 1: get a sense when you see some MS thirteen face
Speaker 1: tattoos that maybe the person maybe it's a style statement,
Speaker 1: I get it, but maybe they're actually an MS there team.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's what's really going on this caravan, which has
Speaker 1: led to so much clothing On the left, they're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it was a big it was a big mistake for
Speaker 1: Trump to talk about this, a big mistake for him
Speaker 1: to make an issue of this. I disagree with that.
Speaker 1: I think it would have been an even tougher night
Speaker 1: for Republicans if there had not been this juxtaposition on
Speaker 1: what the left stands for here and what the right
Speaker 1: stands for. What? What do conservatives believe when it comes
Speaker 1: to our border? What do conservatives believe when it comes
Speaker 1: to our national sovereignty? You know, I mean the President
Speaker 1: speaks about this in no uncertain terms play clip twelve.
Speaker 1: But certainly have people coming up through the southern border
Speaker 1: from the Middle East and other places that are not
Speaker 1: appropriate for our country, and I'm not letting them in.
Speaker 1: They're not coming in a right, they're not coming in.
Speaker 1: We're gonna do whatever we have to, they're not coming in. Now,
Speaker 1: this is where the fight really intensifies, because what the
Speaker 1: left says is, oh, they're all just trying to claim
Speaker 1: a sound. They know they're scamming, they know they're frauds.
Speaker 1: This is fraudulent. This notion that all these people call
Speaker 1: qualify for a slum. Do all six million Hondurans qualified
Speaker 1: for asylum or maybe it's eight million, I forget the number.
Speaker 1: But to the many millions of Hondurans qualified for a
Speaker 1: sound the answer is, Well, if you're on the left,
Speaker 1: if you're a Democrat, and you realize that there's a
Speaker 1: likelihood of them voting for you, then I guess the
Speaker 1: answer is yes. Then I suppose the answer is yeah,
Speaker 1: sure they qualify. Uh, you know, the more the merrier.
Speaker 1: But for the rest of us who have real concerns
Speaker 1: about this country and who believe that our sovereignty and
Speaker 1: our security is something that the government is tasked with,
Speaker 1: and then it matters. This isn't some secondary concern, This
Speaker 1: is real. This is a giant loophole, and it is
Speaker 1: slap in the face to American sovereignty. The whole thing
Speaker 1: is a a giant game that the left and these activists.
Speaker 1: And we're gonna talk, by the way, that somebody, a
Speaker 1: friend of mine, has been down embedded with the caravan
Speaker 1: recently about what he saw. Here's a short version. A
Speaker 1: lot of activists, a lot of international money coming in.
Speaker 1: What a surprise that is to none of you, right,
Speaker 1: we knew that was coming. But this is going to
Speaker 1: turn into a nasty political fight. Make make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it. Um. Here, here's what happens. That they will
Speaker 1: show up at the border, they will claim asylum. They'll
Speaker 1: all be saying exactly what they think, what they've been
Speaker 1: coached to say at the border, so they have the
Speaker 1: greatest likelihood of being able to stay in the United States.
Speaker 1: And from there they will go into the interior of
Speaker 1: the United States and they'll have a court date. Even
Speaker 1: if they show up for the court date and they
Speaker 1: failed to get asylum granted to them, they will not
Speaker 1: suffer interior enforcement. That's not gonna happen. So yeah, there
Speaker 1: you have it. That means, in short, they get to stay.
Speaker 1: Here's a former Acting Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Director Tom Holman,
Speaker 1: for example, talking about this play three game on. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that the administration is ready. Uh CBP has
Speaker 1: of course got a lot more resources down there, you know,
Speaker 1: with the military building the infrastructure and in the fencing.
Speaker 1: You've got a lot more inspectors and a sideum officers
Speaker 1: down there from cis ready to start these interviews. If
Speaker 1: they come to a port of entry if they decide
Speaker 1: to enter this country legally. Of course, the president's proclamation
Speaker 1: not gonna be a lot of claim asylum if these
Speaker 1: people do come in the United States and and they'll
Speaker 1: be detained until they see a judge. Because back in
Speaker 1: when this first started, when they were detained long enough
Speaker 1: to see a judge, more than lost your cases. They
Speaker 1: got put on planes and sent home, would sent a
Speaker 1: strong signal Central America in the crossings depleted it way law.
Speaker 1: So hopefully we can send another message they'll get to
Speaker 1: do process. But if in order judge organism removed, they
Speaker 1: gotta go. That is the key. That's where the Democrats
Speaker 1: get all slippery. You can't let him evade the center
Speaker 1: of this argument. The problem is not that there's an
Speaker 1: asylum system. The problem is the abuse of the asylum system.
Speaker 1: Assylum system and the lack of a willingness to send
Speaker 1: people back home who fail to qualify for asylum once
Speaker 1: they go through the process. If there is no enforcement mechanism,
Speaker 1: then guess what, They're not going to stop coming across
Speaker 1: the border. And this then becomes a way to leap
Speaker 1: frog the entire legal immigration system in a way that
Speaker 1: incentivizes people to engage in really bad behavior, to lie,
Speaker 1: I mean, to commit fraud. You know, it's on the books.
Speaker 1: For example, in this country, folks, if you have a
Speaker 1: fraudulent marriage to get a green card, you know what
Speaker 1: the penalty is for that, up to five years in
Speaker 1: federal prison. And once in a while they'll actually enforce
Speaker 1: that against somebody. Once in a while, they'll they'll press
Speaker 1: criminal charges against somebody for a fraudulent marriage. At least
Speaker 1: somebody's got to go through the whole process of getting
Speaker 1: married for that right. You know, that comes with its
Speaker 1: own headaches, so I'm told, so, I'm told a lot
Speaker 1: of your like buck watch yourself. But you know that
Speaker 1: that's that's where all this starts to fall apart. On
Speaker 1: the enforcement side, you either enforce these laws or the
Speaker 1: laws cannot be considered to be serious. You know, you
Speaker 1: either have interior enforcement of whoever comes in as part
Speaker 1: of this caravan, or just understand that what you're doing
Speaker 1: here is allowing whoever can get to the border to
Speaker 1: stay in the United States and to get around the
Speaker 1: rest of our legal immigration system. And this just cannot
Speaker 1: be allowed to stand. This is completely unacceptable. It is
Speaker 1: an end run on our system. It means that we
Speaker 1: do not have effective control over who comes here, and
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are so complicit in this whole thing
Speaker 1: they're encouraging. It just tells you everything you need to know.
Speaker 1: I mean, they are not about the rule of law.
Speaker 1: They are not concerned with what the long term implications
Speaker 1: of this will be for the country. In fact, they
Speaker 1: welcome it. I want to know why, you know, I
Speaker 1: want to force Democrats to start having to defend certain propositions,
Speaker 1: like why is illegal immigration even bad? Democrats can't really
Speaker 1: answer that question for you because they don't think illegal
Speaker 1: immigration is bad. You know. They may say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we have laws and say, okay, but you won't enforce
Speaker 1: those laws. So and whenever we try to enforce those laws,
Speaker 1: you act like we're a bunch of big, mean meanings.
Speaker 1: So why is illegal immigration bad? Democrats? Let's ask Nancy Pelosti,
Speaker 1: Let's ask Chuck Schumer and all the rest of them,
Speaker 1: what is it about illegal immigration that you disapprove of?
Speaker 1: I don't know that they could tell you. I don't
Speaker 1: know that they would have an answer for you. I
Speaker 1: think that it would just be a bunch of well,
Speaker 1: I don't know we're gonna have again, I said. My
Speaker 1: friend Army Horrowitz will be joining us here. He was
Speaker 1: down with the caravan. He's got some very interesting stuff
Speaker 1: and firsthand that he picked up. We'll get to him
Speaker 1: this hour for sure, and Armies, you know, entertaining guy,
Speaker 1: really smart guy, and and he'll tell us what's going
Speaker 1: on with this caravan. And it's a lot of the
Speaker 1: stuff that you and I have known. But the media tells, us, Oh, no,
Speaker 1: we're we're crazy for thinking this stuff, right, We're we're
Speaker 1: bad people for believing these things. And uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it's on us for being such a bunch of you know,
Speaker 1: evil right wing Republicans who who don't just want to
Speaker 1: take in the tired, the poor, the weak, and the
Speaker 1: hungry of the whole world that our southern border. Maybe
Speaker 1: it didn't prevent some or rather maybe didn't prevent the
Speaker 1: loss of the House in the midterms. I think it prevented.
Speaker 1: I think it had a big factor in the whole
Speaker 1: Blue Way not being a real wave. I mean it
Speaker 1: was something, but it wasn't a blue wave. But we've
Speaker 1: got more on this coming up this so our team
Speaker 1: stay with me. You know, it's funny to me, I
Speaker 1: keep having to remind myself that, yeah, of course the
Speaker 1: media is lied about the caravan. Media is completely in
Speaker 1: meltdown mode. They think the president is a level of
Speaker 1: evil that is unprecedented in this country, and they are
Speaker 1: they really believe that, And I guess they also believe
Speaker 1: that the the president specifically doesn't want thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: of people to abuse our asylum system, which I would
Speaker 1: not it. Also, if you really want to look at it,
Speaker 1: those numbers. The more assilis we take in through the
Speaker 1: southern border that are doing this whole Oh, I'm from Honduras.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be there anymore. That also affects
Speaker 1: our perception of how many people are getting asylum every year,
Speaker 1: and that includes from countries that really are in the
Speaker 1: midst of a terrible war, that really are in the
Speaker 1: middle of a situation where if they do not get out,
Speaker 1: they are going to be uh, they're going to be murdered,
Speaker 1: which is really not the case. And I know people,
Speaker 1: oh how it's really not the case with most of
Speaker 1: these Nicaraguan's They're just saying what they think they have
Speaker 1: to say in order to, you know, be be led
Speaker 1: into the country. In order to be in America. They
Speaker 1: are claiming to be fleeing. But but here's just a
Speaker 1: sometimes like your mind, you all. And by the way,
Speaker 1: we've got Ammi Horrow. It's I know, I want to
Speaker 1: bring him in right away. We're gonna get to him
Speaker 1: in just a minute. Here. He's been down there with
Speaker 1: the caravan. He's got incredible stuff to tell us. You're
Speaker 1: really gonna want to hear about this. But just here's
Speaker 1: the way. When you think about how the media covers
Speaker 1: the caravan, just remember how they cover the administration. To
Speaker 1: play play eight, is this president trying to impersonate Hugo
Speaker 1: Chabez rescept tie up earliwan Vladimir Putin. What a great
Speaker 1: case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle
Speaker 1: an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president.
Speaker 1: When do we see almost a shadow government come out
Speaker 1: and say we cannot side with the government. Why is
Speaker 1: President Trump showing sympathy for white nationalists and other hate groups.
Speaker 1: We can surely say his words have absolutely emboldened white supremacists.
Speaker 1: He has given oxygen to racists. He is clearly trying
Speaker 1: to ignite a civil war in this country. There's a
Speaker 1: sign out there that's been on and the white houseler
Speaker 1: outside the White House say, if you're not white, you're
Speaker 1: not especially welcome. The president gets two scoops, you know,
Speaker 1: everyone or else around the table gets one. Uh no
Speaker 1: word if there were sprinkles. Sixteen tweets today to start
Speaker 1: the new year, some of them deeply disturbed. But these
Speaker 1: are the messages from a person who is not well,
Speaker 1: from a leader who is not fit for office. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he gets more scoops of ice cream than other people.
Speaker 1: What else do you have to know that? It's really,
Speaker 1: it's really all there is to say. He gets he
Speaker 1: gets too many ice cream scoops. He's a he's a terrible,
Speaker 1: terrible man because of that, with his ice cream scoops
Speaker 1: and his meanness and all. I mean that they're just
Speaker 1: there's nothing about the way the media talks about this
Speaker 1: president when it comes to this presidency, that is is fair,
Speaker 1: that is objective. I mean, they are just constantly trashing him,
Speaker 1: and I and I wish, I wish we could just
Speaker 1: force them to realize that if they want to regain
Speaker 1: some of the credibility that they've lost, they could start
Speaker 1: by Oh, I don't know, reporting on the administration like
Speaker 1: they would any other administration, and that includes the way
Speaker 1: they've talked about the caravan. They keep saying that Trump
Speaker 1: fearmongers around the caravan, when the truth is that they've
Speaker 1: spent so much time convincing us that Trump, out of
Speaker 1: just sheer racism, opposes this caravan. It's just madness. He's
Speaker 1: trying to re establish sovereignty at our southern border. We
Speaker 1: have a huge problem. I was telling you about this yesterday.
Speaker 1: Two thousand people a day on some days caught aren't
Speaker 1: across in the United States. That's a lot of people
Speaker 1: and those are just the ones who are caught. You know,
Speaker 1: no other country would allow this, No other country accepts this.
Speaker 1: But we're supposed to accept this. And I was gonna
Speaker 1: ask the question why, based on what you know, under
Speaker 1: what rules, what rubric are we supposed to sit around
Speaker 1: and say to ourselves, you know what, we don't We
Speaker 1: don't get to have a border anymore, we don't get
Speaker 1: to have a country anymore. So these leftist radicals can
Speaker 1: just do whatever they want to the country, and and
Speaker 1: in every way that they can try and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: undermine the principles of conservatism that so many of us
Speaker 1: believe in. I mean, that's it's just amazing. Um It's
Speaker 1: it's a really frustrating situation. It really bothers me. But
Speaker 1: we got Amy, Um Amy calling in just a moment here,
Speaker 1: he's gonna be joining us. He's actually at the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt at n y C. I'm down here in d C.
Speaker 1: We're else gonna talk about Florida. What's the latest there?
Speaker 1: The election showdown? And some do process stuff on college
Speaker 1: campuses for sexual assault tribunals that are more common up
Speaker 1: Team Ever. Present among the thousands of Migraines are workers
Speaker 1: of Pueblo sin Fronterras, clad in black T shirts and
Speaker 1: colored vests. Pueblo sin Fronterras means people without Borders. They're
Speaker 1: the ones that seemed to be most involved in organizing
Speaker 1: and mobilizing this caravan. The organization, as the name implies,
Speaker 1: is looking to create a world without borders, which seems
Speaker 1: to be one of the reasons why they organized this
Speaker 1: caravan the first place to flout American sovereign. Team Ammy
Speaker 1: Horowitz is a documentary filmmaker that was from his latest
Speaker 1: in which he goes down and gets us some some
Speaker 1: ground truth on the caravan. I'm a great to have
Speaker 1: you back, sir. How you doing. It's always a pleasure.
Speaker 1: It's great, too great to be here. He's going great,
Speaker 1: thanks man. So what did you tell me about this
Speaker 1: Pueblo sin front terrast not speaking in Spanish? That was good,
Speaker 1: was very good. So they are technically a Honduran based group. Uh,
Speaker 1: And they're really the ones who are this this whole notion.
Speaker 1: This thing is an organic event that kind of you know,
Speaker 1: spur out of the ground. Is such a load of bs.
Speaker 1: This was a highly is a highly organized event that
Speaker 1: was spearheaded by this group Fronterras Fronteris. And what that means,
Speaker 1: first of all, is people without borders. And I think
Speaker 1: it's an important thing to note because what if that
Speaker 1: it says it all in the name. They are looking
Speaker 1: for a world without borders. They find the idea of
Speaker 1: sovereignty and nationality to be some kind of weird sin
Speaker 1: Now they have a number of front groups actually based
Speaker 1: in the United States, and those front groups are where
Speaker 1: we think the money is coming from. But it's difficult
Speaker 1: to know exactly where the cash is coming from. I'll hey,
Speaker 1: where it's not coming from it's not coming from Honduras, right. Uh,
Speaker 1: this this, this operation is a multimillion dollar operation, between
Speaker 1: the water, the the mobile hospitals, the chartering of buses. Uh,
Speaker 1: this thing, this thing, I estimated around ten million dollars
Speaker 1: to to to ferry these people from Honduras to the
Speaker 1: US border. So I can guarantee you one thing. This
Speaker 1: is not coming from Honduras. So there's definitely outside money
Speaker 1: at work here. We don't know where the money is
Speaker 1: coming from just yet. And you're saying really serious levels
Speaker 1: of cash here, I mean ten ten million dollars. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of money no matter where you are. But
Speaker 1: I know you have that layer around Buck, but not me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I wish I had that in the couch cushions. But
Speaker 1: today I'm seeing reporting that some of the carrols got
Speaker 1: into the border, and there's some reporting that a lot
Speaker 1: more caravans could be on the way, a bigger one
Speaker 1: in the future. What you what can you tell us
Speaker 1: about all that? Well, the caravan they reached their earlier
Speaker 1: is kind of almost from what I understand, is almost
Speaker 1: like a an intelligence operation. They're going there to kind
Speaker 1: of probe and see what the reaction is going to
Speaker 1: be before the larger group gets there. And and yeah, listen,
Speaker 1: there as many as much my assumption, as much money
Speaker 1: as they can they can round up is as many
Speaker 1: they're going to send over to the US. Uh. This
Speaker 1: is not this is the beginning. This is not about let'
Speaker 1: let's be honest. This is not about this one group
Speaker 1: reaching the border. It's not about that. This is about
Speaker 1: the idea of undermining our ability to police our own border.
Speaker 1: This is why Brexit occurred, right. Brexit occurred because England said, hey,
Speaker 1: we want control of our own borders and we don't
Speaker 1: have it because we are beholden to the European Union.
Speaker 1: This is no different. Uh. They are looking to disrupt
Speaker 1: our borders, disrupt our sovereignty, disrupt our nationality, and they're
Speaker 1: going to do that as often as they can with
Speaker 1: as many peoples they can because they want to upend
Speaker 1: this idea of nationality of sovereignty. So it really is
Speaker 1: that an an internationalist, one world government kind of project.
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering when you when you so, where were
Speaker 1: you with the caravan and you know what, can you
Speaker 1: just tell us about the day to day that you saw?
Speaker 1: So we were in a southern Oahaka and that's um,
Speaker 1: the central southern part really more of the southern part
Speaker 1: of Mexico. Uh, it's it's very very isolated. It's it's
Speaker 1: actually an area that's riddled with with narco crime, very
Speaker 1: very poor area. We also, which brings another on another
Speaker 1: one lies is that again all of the stuff that
Speaker 1: they have is kind of like mona from heaven. They're like,
Speaker 1: oh my god, you know, all this water, all this food,
Speaker 1: these palettes of gatorade, it comes from the Mexicans living
Speaker 1: in the area. There's literally nothing there. There's nothing there
Speaker 1: but poverty. So it's it's it's out of hand, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's a ludicrous notion. And they listen. Also want
Speaker 1: to make clear one thing, the people who are going
Speaker 1: to the US, I I hold nothing against these people.
Speaker 1: If I were in their shoes, Frankly, I do the
Speaker 1: same thing if I had the extreme poverty and the
Speaker 1: and the hard life that I that they haven't Honduras,
Speaker 1: I want to get the hell out of there also,
Speaker 1: So I don't I hold them no, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't begrudge them for what they're trying to do. Um. Now,
Speaker 1: there is there are elements in this group who are violent,
Speaker 1: there's no question about that. People. There are people we
Speaker 1: interviewed who are victims of violence. There's a transgroup of
Speaker 1: people who were beat up repeatedly during the course of
Speaker 1: their travels. But um, it's a it's an extraordinarily large group.
Speaker 1: And kind of the way they travel is, uh, they rent,
Speaker 1: they charter these I don't call the luxury busses, but
Speaker 1: there's those big tour buses that you rent. They chartered
Speaker 1: dozens of them, and they kind of ferry them. They
Speaker 1: go back and forth, faring them from the first one
Speaker 1: location the next location, usually roughly between sixty and seventy
Speaker 1: five to maybe a hundred miles in between each of
Speaker 1: the locations. When you get their final resting spot at night,
Speaker 1: like they have like a campground, if you will, and
Speaker 1: they have these massive, massive, sort of like circus tents
Speaker 1: you'd call them, two or three of those where thousands
Speaker 1: of people can sleep under. There's probably thirty forty fifty
Speaker 1: little individual tents that families or individuals can can sleep
Speaker 1: in as well. One thing I'll got again there there's
Speaker 1: a lot of layers this onion. The most significant layer
Speaker 1: of this onion I think is the essentially the partnership
Speaker 1: that these groups have with the media. The media has
Speaker 1: essentially created one large lie after another when it comes
Speaker 1: to this caravan. The largest lie, if not one of
Speaker 1: the largest lines of my my views, is the demographic
Speaker 1: makeup of who is in this caravan. So if you see,
Speaker 1: you know, any image on CNN or on BBC or MSNBC,
Speaker 1: A New York Times, the Washman Post, what do you see?
Speaker 1: You see families. Just every single shot you see his family.
Speaker 1: If you ask anybody what percent of this group caravan
Speaker 1: is made up of families, most people tell you, oh, six,
Speaker 1: because of what they see on mainstream media. It is
Speaker 1: the it's not even the polar opposite. It's way more
Speaker 1: than the polar opposite because it mail mail between I
Speaker 1: would say, seventeen and forty, okay, And so it's it's
Speaker 1: a bunch of men who are sitting around a lot
Speaker 1: of guys playing soccer, and they're eating They're very well fed,
Speaker 1: three meals a day. There's always they're always hydrated, literally
Speaker 1: with palettes of these electrolytes, these you know, kind of
Speaker 1: uh bargain basement gatorade water. Um, it's it is a
Speaker 1: it's akin to moving an army, moving a division of
Speaker 1: an army. That's kind of what it feels like when
Speaker 1: you're there. Is there any do you get any sense
Speaker 1: that there are people that are kind of in charge
Speaker 1: of message discipline here? I mean, you know, are there
Speaker 1: organizers who are talking to the press. How how are
Speaker 1: they presenting themselves to folks like you who are obviously uh,
Speaker 1: you know, there to figure out what's going on. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: this is again it's a highly organized affair, and pueblos
Speaker 1: in Fronterras, there's there. There are maybe fifty to a hundred.
Speaker 1: I think of these people who are on the ground
Speaker 1: with them, they are absolutely keeping message discipline. First of all,
Speaker 1: whenever they see you speaking to a migrant, they will
Speaker 1: hover around you to see exactly what you're asking, what
Speaker 1: they're answering. They will try to interject and speak for them.
Speaker 1: And they also are spending time training the migrants on
Speaker 1: what to answer. They said, if you if you want
Speaker 1: the video on camera. These guys are admitting to me that, yes,
Speaker 1: we are training them to speak to the press. There's
Speaker 1: no question about it. Because one of the things they
Speaker 1: want to do is they want to make sure these
Speaker 1: guys are they're trying to gain the system essentially right.
Speaker 1: So the way for them to enter the US is
Speaker 1: a very simple path. It's asking for asylum. Now whether
Speaker 1: or not they get it isn't even the point, because
Speaker 1: once you have said I want asylum, we have to
Speaker 1: take you into the u S. We let you go
Speaker 1: into your court date comes up. But they're also training
Speaker 1: them in Mexico City. They've had these massive like you know,
Speaker 1: you know, migrant ted talks where they have these huge
Speaker 1: UM screens with presentations and in these presentations, and by
Speaker 1: the way, these presentations are run not only by POPUS
Speaker 1: in front Terras, the u N is also very very
Speaker 1: involved in the ground with with helping organize and moving
Speaker 1: these guys from Location eight Location B. It's important to note,
Speaker 1: I think, but yeah, they're trained on exactly what to say,
Speaker 1: not only they the press, but what to say when
Speaker 1: they get to the US to make the sure they
Speaker 1: get the best case possible to qualify for silence status.
Speaker 1: Here it starts to sound a little bit like some
Speaker 1: of the things that I saw with the big Occupy,
Speaker 1: all street rallies where it was all grassroots, except there
Speaker 1: were a lot of organizers and a lot of people
Speaker 1: showing up with all kinds of food and and you know,
Speaker 1: an organized media effort, and you know it wasn't just
Speaker 1: people hanging out in the park somewhere. No, No, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's similar. Very they want to they always want
Speaker 1: to make it seem like a grassroot with that term AstroTurf.
Speaker 1: That's that's sense, you what it is, But in a
Speaker 1: much much larger scale than we saw at at Occupy
Speaker 1: Wall Street. This is this actually seems very very similar
Speaker 1: to what we saw with the migrants from Syria, and
Speaker 1: actually they were in the camps in in in um
Speaker 1: in uh Syria and Turkey and sorry in Jordan's, but
Speaker 1: very similar to to that. The way the media is
Speaker 1: collaborating with these organizations is striking le similar. I think
Speaker 1: it's also important to note that um one of the
Speaker 1: one of the again, one of the main themes that
Speaker 1: the mainstream media is trying to get across is that
Speaker 1: why are they leaving Honduras. They're leaving Honduras because there's
Speaker 1: just it's it's everywhere you go is a is a
Speaker 1: day you could die. It's violence is everywhere. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that Honduras is a safe place, it's clearly not
Speaker 1: But south Side Chicago is not safe either, But nobody
Speaker 1: there is looking for saw in Canada. But the notion
Speaker 1: that they're leaving because of everyday violence is again one
Speaker 1: of the big lies they're trying to perpetrate the American people.
Speaker 1: Couldn't be I wouldn't say further couldn't be further from
Speaker 1: the truth, but it's not true. In the video when
Speaker 1: I when I ask these people a simple question, why
Speaker 1: are you looking to leave Honduras? So why are you
Speaker 1: looking to come to America? All their answers followed the
Speaker 1: same exact theme, job, opportunity, education, that are life from
Speaker 1: my family. That's it, okay, that's what they told me.
Speaker 1: They would only mention violence after a peblist in frontis
Speaker 1: person will come up with in the whisper in their
Speaker 1: ear and they say, oh, yeah, by the way, I'm
Speaker 1: also suffering a lot of violence. We saw a lot
Speaker 1: of that. By the way, if it was it was
Speaker 1: so dangerous and so violent there, why are they not
Speaker 1: saying their their children and their wives first. Why the
Speaker 1: men going first and leaving their children and their wives
Speaker 1: back in Honduras to face death. If that was the case,
Speaker 1: it's not. These people are not psychopaths. These people don't
Speaker 1: have they have they have empathy for their family, They
Speaker 1: love their family. They're looking for this is nothing more
Speaker 1: than they want an opportunity for a better life. Again,
Speaker 1: don't get me wrong, I I don't hold I don't
Speaker 1: begrudge that for them. But the thing is, do we
Speaker 1: have responsibility taking every person on planet Earth who's looking
Speaker 1: for a better life? I mean, is to be the
Speaker 1: end of the US if we did, they're billions of
Speaker 1: more before and tell everybody else about this, this documentary
Speaker 1: you've put together. Um, are you hearing there's gonna be
Speaker 1: another bigger caravan? Did that come up? Uh? It didn't
Speaker 1: come up, except that the organization made clear that there's
Speaker 1: going to be as many caravans as they could afford
Speaker 1: to to push across. So I would not be surprised
Speaker 1: if if that was the case, not at all. The
Speaker 1: first of many Where can people go to watch your documentary? Amy?
Speaker 1: They can go to my Facebook page, Amy Horowitz. They
Speaker 1: go to Ammy Hordes on YouTube or on Twitter and
Speaker 1: you can find it all there. Ammy Horror. It's great.
Speaker 1: Talk to the the army. Thanks for coming by the hut
Speaker 1: and we'll talk to you soon a pleasure. Remember Betsy Devas,
Speaker 1: she's the Education Secretary's a billionaire philanthropist, seems like a
Speaker 1: nice lady. Of course, she's for charter school. So that
Speaker 1: means the left hates her with the burning passion of
Speaker 1: a or fiery whatever of a thousand sons. Uh. They
Speaker 1: hate her for that reason. I'm sure a bunch of
Speaker 1: others that I can't even think of. But she's done
Speaker 1: something else that's going to get the left all upset.
Speaker 1: You see, because of much of the mythology, many of
Speaker 1: the lies that I've been told on the left for
Speaker 1: years about what is considered or called campus rape culture,
Speaker 1: which I would note is not a thing, does not exist.
Speaker 1: There is no such thing as campus rape culture. It
Speaker 1: is a construct of the left. Nowhere are their college
Speaker 1: students gathered together in large numbers who go, yeah, let's
Speaker 1: go commit a felony sex crime and you know, and
Speaker 1: come monsters who also will lose their freedoms and destroy
Speaker 1: their lives in the process. That that's not a thing.
Speaker 1: It does not exist, even though the left will pretend,
Speaker 1: and I think I think CNN a while ago did
Speaker 1: a documentary series called The hunting ground about college campuses. Wow,
Speaker 1: so you have that, and then you've also had some
Speaker 1: prominent leftists in recent years say things like, well, you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's gonna be some innocent people who get caught
Speaker 1: up in this whole thing, and you know, that's kind
Speaker 1: of a shame for them. But you know, ultimately, the
Speaker 1: most important thing is that white males are scared, scared
Speaker 1: that they could get caught on the wrong side of this.
Speaker 1: And if if that's the case, well then innocent people
Speaker 1: getting in trouble is a is a small price to pay.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's really the way they feel that. That
Speaker 1: is the left perspective on a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 1: So you've got the the Washington Post reporting on the
Speaker 1: following and this is gonna get the left really upset.
Speaker 1: Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is going to release a sweeping
Speaker 1: overhaul all of how colleges and universities must handle allegations
Speaker 1: of sexual assault and harassment, giving new rights to the accused,
Speaker 1: including the ability to cross examine their accusers. The proposal
Speaker 1: is set for at least before Thanksgiving, possibly this week,
Speaker 1: and replaces less formal guidance issued by the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: The new rules would reduce liabilities for universities, tighten the
Speaker 1: definition of sexual harassment, and allows schools to use a
Speaker 1: higher standard in evaluating claims of sexual harassment and assault. Wow,
Speaker 1: look at this. You mean that we're gonna turn this
Speaker 1: back from where? What? Where? What was made into during
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, which was really just an effort to
Speaker 1: get the left wing base excited, to get the feminist
Speaker 1: left in a frothy rage about rape culture on campus,
Speaker 1: and then to say, oh no, don't worry, Obama is
Speaker 1: dealing with it. Obama's handling this by essentially making it
Speaker 1: impossible to prove your innocence, including some of these cases.
Speaker 1: I mean, you had Kirsten Gillibrand, for example, invite Mattress Girl,
Speaker 1: I forget her name, m A something or other Mattress
Speaker 1: Girl to a State of the Union address. Mattress Girl
Speaker 1: was a Columbia University student who carried her mattress around
Speaker 1: with her all over campus as a form of protest
Speaker 1: over what she says was a sexual assault, a sexual
Speaker 1: assault that when the NYPD investigated, including looking at text
Speaker 1: messages between her and her supposed assailant, who, by the way,
Speaker 1: she had had many consensual sexual encounters with but just
Speaker 1: so happened that then there were something that she did
Speaker 1: that she didn't say, we're consensual. Uh. The NYPD is like,
Speaker 1: we can't we can't prosecute, we can't even arrest there.
Speaker 1: There's no proof here, there's nothing. Uh. And and yet
Speaker 1: she became something of a of a folk hero on
Speaker 1: the left because even if you're lying, if it's about
Speaker 1: sexual assault and the target is a white male, the
Speaker 1: left things that you're doing a service, even if you're
Speaker 1: fabricating evidence or even if you're changing your story, it
Speaker 1: raises awareness of the broader problem you see of sexual assault.
Speaker 1: And so in that in that sense that they're they're
Speaker 1: fine with it. They don't see a problem with all
Speaker 1: of this. So uh And I think Betsy Devas is
Speaker 1: going to get a whole lot of pushback, obviously from
Speaker 1: from the left. They're they're going to freak out about this.
Speaker 1: But in the post Kavanaugh era, I'm glad that there
Speaker 1: is finally some sanity that is being restored here. I'm
Speaker 1: glad that we are just beginning to see that people
Speaker 1: have had enough of the nonsense. All right, we don't
Speaker 1: want to be told anymore. That the accused have no
Speaker 1: rights and that these kangaroo courts that operate in colleges
Speaker 1: when it comes to sexual assault, they're going to continue.
Speaker 1: So high five for the Department Education. Good work, Betsy
Speaker 1: div Us. Online security is essential. You're doing so much
Speaker 1: important stuff on your computer on your smartphone all the time,
Speaker 1: and if you're out there using public WiFi, you don't
Speaker 1: know who's looking at your stuff right there, hackers and
Speaker 1: bad folks out there that want to access your information. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, some of those social media platforms and
Speaker 1: internet browsers used, they're also basically spying on you and
Speaker 1: sharing your information. Express VPN locks all that down, my friends,
Speaker 1: and keeps you secure online cost less than seven bucks
Speaker 1: a month. Express VPN is so easy to use and
Speaker 1: it is the number one virtual private network service by
Speaker 1: tech Radar. Okay, so you've got to check them out
Speaker 1: for yourself. Express VPN is the answer. Protect your online
Speaker 1: activity today and find out how you can get three
Speaker 1: months at Express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express
Speaker 1: vpn dot com slash buck for three months free with
Speaker 1: a one year package. Again, visit express vpn dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck to learn more. But I believe the law
Speaker 1: hasn't been followed from the beginning. You know, those early votes,
Speaker 1: the last time they were cast was the Sunday before
Speaker 1: the election. By law, those are supposed to be downloaded
Speaker 1: and sent to the state at by seven thirty pm
Speaker 1: on the night of the election. It's a regularity after
Speaker 1: a regularity. And as far as stealing is concerned, let
Speaker 1: me just make this one point on that that's what
Speaker 1: election lawyers. The election lawyers are not coming to Florida
Speaker 1: to make sure every vote is counted. The reason why
Speaker 1: election lawyers get involved is to make sure as many
Speaker 1: votes as possible for their client is counted and as
Speaker 1: many votes as possible for their opponent is disqualified. And
Speaker 1: when you have an office, this in an office, an
Speaker 1: election office, this incompetent and this law breaking, it creates
Speaker 1: enormous opportunity for those sorts of arguments to be made
Speaker 1: and suddenly the elections decided by a judge or by lawyers,
Speaker 1: not by voters the way they're supposed to be. Margot
Speaker 1: Ruby o' nails it here on Florida. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: completely correct, and yet there's there's there was a effort
Speaker 1: to discredit him from the very beginning, like, oh, how
Speaker 1: could Marco Rubio say such a thing? What do you
Speaker 1: mean this Broward County office, in particular lieutenant the election
Speaker 1: with Brenda Snipes the top. Well, by the way I
Speaker 1: think I started earlier today, is not willing to rule
Speaker 1: out a possible political career beyond this. So to me,
Speaker 1: that says that she knows the Democrats are pretty happy
Speaker 1: with this whole situation. At a minimum, these irregularities leave
Speaker 1: open the possibility of a Senate seat going for the
Speaker 1: Democrats that would not have otherwise, and a governorship, So
Speaker 1: you know, they're perfectly happy with her. They're extending this
Speaker 1: thing out there, adding she's she's adding time to the
Speaker 1: clock and that maybe all that's necessary, or that may
Speaker 1: be all they need to do. But back to back
Speaker 1: to Rubio's point, you know, there are all these irregularities,
Speaker 1: and they're the very irregularities that you would need if
Speaker 1: you were trying to engage in fraud, if you were
Speaker 1: trying to sheet and do shady things here. So why
Speaker 1: is it at all strange for us to sit here
Speaker 1: and say, well, we'll hold on a second. And I
Speaker 1: can't be the way that this goes. This this is unacceptable.
Speaker 1: This isn't a situation where we can all sit around
Speaker 1: and say to ourselves, yeah, you know so, there's a
Speaker 1: little problem here, a little problem there, No nobody, they'll
Speaker 1: excuse me. They have yet to come up with any
Speaker 1: justification as to why they have not been able or
Speaker 1: we're not able to finish this process in a timely fashion.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, when you look at these
Speaker 1: areas of discretion that are gonna be open about overcounts
Speaker 1: and undercounts, or over votes and under votes rather, uh,
Speaker 1: that just means that you're gonna have people, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna be partisan lawyers who are showing up in this
Speaker 1: whole process and saying, well, I'm going to argue that
Speaker 1: that's for my side, and I'm gonna argue that that's
Speaker 1: not for the other side, which changes this whole process.
Speaker 1: This is supposed to be a neutral process. This is
Speaker 1: not supposed to be. Oh, I'm gonna try to advocate
Speaker 1: for my side through the process. The votes are cast,
Speaker 1: there are guidelines for how they are cast, the votes
Speaker 1: are counted. But what the Democrats are doing is trying
Speaker 1: to confuse things by making it sound like Republicans say
Speaker 1: don't count the books. No Republican has on on record
Speaker 1: in public that I am aware of anywhere in the
Speaker 1: country said, don't cast legally, don't count rather legally cast ballance.
Speaker 1: I don't know if a single person who has done that,
Speaker 1: I don't know of one, not one. But they talk
Speaker 1: about it like that's going on all the time. Um
Speaker 1: and and they also talk about any election integrity measures,
Speaker 1: any rules and regulations that are in place as somehow
Speaker 1: uh racist or an effort at voter suppression, and all that,
Speaker 1: all that kind of stuff. I mean, here's the Florida
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Pam Bondi, on what the law actually is
Speaker 1: in Florida. For example, some interesting details here play for
Speaker 1: Florida law expressly and unambiguously states that you must have
Speaker 1: signature verification. They want to change the law after the
Speaker 1: ballots have all been cast and go back retroactively and
Speaker 1: and change our law, which is it's it's ridiculous. And
Speaker 1: Bill Nelson just needs to take a deep breath and concede. Yes,
Speaker 1: Bill Nelson does need to take a deep breath and concede.
Speaker 1: But you know what he's not. He's not going to
Speaker 1: I can assure you he is absolutely not looking to
Speaker 1: help the process come to a conclusion that would allow
Speaker 1: the American people to feel confident that the results are
Speaker 1: the real results. Um. By the way, the media coverage
Speaker 1: of this all has been fascinating. They focused so little
Speaker 1: on the irregularities and so much more on just this
Speaker 1: count every vote, count every vote, as we played, Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, they're they're part of the chorus here. They
Speaker 1: are adopting and have adopted the talking points of the
Speaker 1: left on this election because they understand that there's there's
Speaker 1: at least a chance here anything other than what they
Speaker 1: had the first night, which is their candidates losing they
Speaker 1: think is a better thing. And that's where you get, um,
Speaker 1: that's where you get into all of this partisanship dressed
Speaker 1: up as journalism. By the way, speaking of that, we'll
Speaker 1: talk more later on the show about this lawsuit from
Speaker 1: from CNN saying that you know, you can't pull Acosta's
Speaker 1: hard pass. You're you're not allowed to do that, which
Speaker 1: I gotta say is you know, pretty pretty remarkable. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe I'm I've heard from some people that
Speaker 1: I actually respect that this lawsuit may go against the
Speaker 1: White House, which just shocks me. I That to me
Speaker 1: is just crazy. There's just no way. But it's really
Speaker 1: going to turn on whether or not this is arbitrary
Speaker 1: because they have to be able to pull the hard
Speaker 1: pass of somebody who's a correspondent White House for unruly,
Speaker 1: for out of line behavior. But otherwise the whole thing
Speaker 1: turns into a free for all. Right, so that has
Speaker 1: to happen, and then it's all gonna be about, well,
Speaker 1: is there is there an objective standard you can apply
Speaker 1: here for basically, is a Costa a jackass and is
Speaker 1: his jackassory? And the answer is yes, But is his
Speaker 1: jackassery so egregious that you could say it is not
Speaker 1: arbitrary to say, all right, jackass, no more of this
Speaker 1: for you. That's what this will really all turn on.
Speaker 1: Um play kIPS. We we wanted to give you a sense,
Speaker 1: is to if we're going to look at this through
Speaker 1: the lens of whether or not it is an arbor
Speaker 1: trade decision for the White House to pull Acosta's credentials
Speaker 1: years what what he sounds like when he's using those credentials.
Speaker 1: Play seven. I'm not sure this press conference was ever
Speaker 1: on the rails, as you heard numerous times during this
Speaker 1: news conference, the President was just not in touch with reality.
Speaker 1: All could be different than the border security, Sir. Border
Speaker 1: security can mean agents that could be more fencing. It
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily mean a physical and that's part of the
Speaker 1: negotiation that we expect Congress to have. Jim. I'm not
Speaker 1: negotiating with you. I'm gonna let Congress take care of that.
Speaker 1: But we're witnessing right now is just this erosion of
Speaker 1: our freedoms in terms of covering the president United States.
Speaker 1: Last three news conferences, Wolf, all of the questions to
Speaker 1: the American news media have have been handled by conservative press,
Speaker 1: and I think will if there's no other way to
Speaker 1: describe it. But the fixes in it was that your liberty.
Speaker 1: But let me ask you a question home to the
Speaker 1: world for people to session. Do you believe to this country?
Speaker 1: And they're not always going to be highly skilled Jim, Jim, Jim,
Speaker 1: I appreciate your speech. I think we saw the president's
Speaker 1: true colors today, and I'm not sure they were red,
Speaker 1: white and blue. Yeah, there you go, there's your objective.
Speaker 1: White House corresponded for c ITN mouthing off all the
Speaker 1: time and and getting aggressive with various members of the
Speaker 1: White House staff. I just gotta say I'm fine with
Speaker 1: the questions being I want to say fine. I don't
Speaker 1: think you can pull his credits for annoying questions, obviously, right,
Speaker 1: But when you are refusing to respect basic decorum, when
Speaker 1: the president says next question and you keep yelling and
Speaker 1: you won't give up your microphone, that's really almost like
Speaker 1: a civil disobedience act. You know that that's a Lynskyite
Speaker 1: in its approach to getting your name and your face
Speaker 1: and your point of view out there, which is to
Speaker 1: just gum up the works. Reminds me of the old
Speaker 1: O Lynskey idea that if you really want to mess
Speaker 1: up a a facility, a government facility or something, just
Speaker 1: have people sit in all the bathroom stalls all day
Speaker 1: and then see what happens. What are you gonna do
Speaker 1: tell people they can't take all day in the bathroom.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know that this is the kind of
Speaker 1: stuff that the activist left will pull and they'll say,
Speaker 1: we're not doing anything. You know, it's really it's really
Speaker 1: concerted passive aggressive ism, and with a costa you have
Speaker 1: passive aggressive garbage going on all the time. Anyway, this
Speaker 1: guy part of me really doesn't want to discuss the
Speaker 1: situation because it's just he's just now way more famous.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy is this guy could be doing
Speaker 1: local news in you know, Tuscaloosa or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy is not somebody who has any no offense
Speaker 1: to Tuscaloosa. It's great stuff going on there. Uh, this
Speaker 1: guy is just some rando. And yet now because of
Speaker 1: his hashtag resistance theater, he's he's a millionaire and he's famous.
Speaker 1: So I don't know, maybe he know of something the
Speaker 1: rest of us don't, but at least the rest of
Speaker 1: us aren't a bunch of ass clowns. That's important. Team.
Speaker 1: By now, you've probably heard me talk about snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: a new social media site. If you looked at snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and left, look again. Thousands of my listeners
Speaker 1: have joined snippy dot com, expressing their opinions and stirring
Speaker 1: up lively conversations. Snippy is an unbiased social media platform.
Speaker 1: It's all about conversation and community. Snaby not only encourages
Speaker 1: freedom of expression, but guarantees its users the ability to
Speaker 1: discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators. Look. I just
Speaker 1: boasted on Snippy earlier this week. And let me tell you,
Speaker 1: it's fun to see how much interaction I'm getting there,
Speaker 1: at how much people are really appreciating that there's no
Speaker 1: nonsense from administrators. Snippy is a place where everyone is
Speaker 1: free to express their thoughts and share their opinions. It's
Speaker 1: totally free to join, open to everyone to join us
Speaker 1: at snippy dot com and let your opinion matter. No
Speaker 1: shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. Now
Speaker 1: with an updated user interface and exciting new teachers. Also
Speaker 1: available in the Apple App Store and available for Android,
Speaker 1: Snippy your new alternative social media. Hey, this is Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton coming to you on a very important day. Last Tuesday,
Speaker 1: on election Day, you voted, you got your sticker, you
Speaker 1: posted it on Instagram, and you felt great about doing
Speaker 1: your civic duty. But today is a national Run for
Speaker 1: Office Day, and I'm here to ask you to think
Speaker 1: about running for office. There is no better way to
Speaker 1: make an impact. Be the voice for your neighbors, your family,
Speaker 1: your kids, even your dog or your cat. And take
Speaker 1: it from me, it's not always easy, but it's always
Speaker 1: worth it. What the heck does that mean, Producer Mike,
Speaker 1: Did she just say be the voice for your dogs?
Speaker 1: And your cats? She sure did. How does one be
Speaker 1: the voice? I mean, I love dogs, cats are okay?
Speaker 1: How is one the voice for one's dogs or cats?
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering, what what do you think? Hillary? Hello?
Speaker 1: What was she going for there? I don't know. They're
Speaker 1: trying to get you know, illegals and felons the vote.
Speaker 1: Maybe she's angling to get animals the vote. Now, be
Speaker 1: a voice for your dogs? And I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: is that I want to start a conspiracy theory that
Speaker 1: with Hillary? You know, she says the dogs and cats
Speaker 1: like that's a sign to her little bot believers that
Speaker 1: you know, the eagle has landed. What what you know?
Speaker 1: It's I guess that's more like a parrot than an eagle,
Speaker 1: But it's Hillary. Nonetheless, she's still There's only the only
Speaker 1: reason she's still out there is because she's running everybody. Okay,
Speaker 1: can we just can we just stop the nonsense? Can
Speaker 1: we stop pretending that that is not what is going
Speaker 1: to happen here? It's very clearly what's gonna happen. And
Speaker 1: just for a little a little trip down memory lane,
Speaker 1: because you know, there's a Monica Lewinsky documentary coming out
Speaker 1: on a and e. So if we're talking about the Clinton's,
Speaker 1: we can talk about what it was like back in
Speaker 1: the day. Ah. Yes, those those glorious time times when
Speaker 1: the Oval Office had an occupant who you could trust
Speaker 1: and you knew was ethical and decent and and fit
Speaker 1: for the role of commander in chief. Uh, ladies, and
Speaker 1: I lock to grab ladies. That guy. Monica Lewinsky spoke
Speaker 1: about this for the Any documentary and you know it's
Speaker 1: it's a it's an important reminder that I mean, this
Speaker 1: guy really took advantage of this young girl. I mean
Speaker 1: this was I know she was of age, she was
Speaker 1: in her early twenties. But he's the president of the
Speaker 1: United States. He's a leader of the free world. Never
Speaker 1: mind the fact he's also married and has a kid,
Speaker 1: and he uses that power dynamic in order to prey
Speaker 1: upon somebody who is an employee. By the way, I
Speaker 1: mean it is a white house intern. I mean a
Speaker 1: white house intern, folks. Woof and no wonder, no one
Speaker 1: takes the Left seriously on their moral scolding playclip nine.
Speaker 1: I just I felt terrible. I was scared, and I
Speaker 1: just I was mortified and afraid of what this was
Speaker 1: gonna do to my family, and you know, I still
Speaker 1: was in love with Bill at the time. Um so
Speaker 1: I just I felt really responsible. He destroyed this woman's
Speaker 1: life that often gets left out of here. I mean
Speaker 1: the late night comics made it all. Uh ha ha
Speaker 1: oh Bill Clinton, Oh just Bill being Bill. He destroyed
Speaker 1: her life and Hillary was the henchman helping in all this.
Speaker 1: You know, they always cover up that part. Hillary was
Speaker 1: a tremendous enabler of all the worst stuff that Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton was doing, all the worst stuff that he was
Speaker 1: up to when he was in the White House. And
Speaker 1: before then, you know, she was out there trashing women
Speaker 1: that were coming full word with allegations that we're true.
Speaker 1: We're not talking about like Havanaugh thirty six years ago
Speaker 1: bs allegations with no proof. We're talking about this happened
Speaker 1: last week and here's the dress check the d n A. Sorry,
Speaker 1: but that's what happened. And you know, Lewinsky is finally now.
Speaker 1: I think because the Left is trying to come to
Speaker 1: terms with this, they're willing to accept her, and they're
Speaker 1: not coming to terms with it because of the moral implications.
Speaker 1: They just know that they have to kind of purge
Speaker 1: this from the system because otherwise, especially if they think
Speaker 1: that there's gonna be a Clinton dynasty. Maybe it's Chelsea.
Speaker 1: But they have to deal with this so that it
Speaker 1: can't be used again to offset the Clintons, you know,
Speaker 1: to offset the Clinton approach to politics. Um, but there
Speaker 1: there was real there was a real human toll here
Speaker 1: in all this. There was real damage done. And that's
Speaker 1: why finally, it's interesting to see that the left has
Speaker 1: to come to grips with it at some level. Though,
Speaker 1: as I said, I think this is really in their interest.
Speaker 1: I think this is a function of they. Um, they
Speaker 1: really know that this is a liability. It's a political liability.
Speaker 1: So now Monica can be portrayed as a sympathetic figure,
Speaker 1: whereas before, you know, they would make jokes about her,
Speaker 1: and I mean it was just all haha, Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: Oh it's just his sex life. Oh, back off the
Speaker 1: whole thing. This is while he's president. By the way,
Speaker 1: people compare some of the Trump stuff to the Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton stuff, and I would say, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: Phil Clinton was doing this stuff while he was president
Speaker 1: in the oval office. That is different from anything that
Speaker 1: that Trump is even alleged to have done. And there's
Speaker 1: you know, there's nobody who's They would say, oh, Trump's
Speaker 1: sexual assault. They they use sexual assault in the broadest
Speaker 1: sense to mean, oh, he tried to kiss a woman,
Speaker 1: or oh he tried to grab it a woman, which
Speaker 1: you know, if she doesn't want you to, it's not okay.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton is accused of holding somebody down and and
Speaker 1: and and raping her. Bill Clinton is accused credibly on
Speaker 1: the record by a woman by named woman of raping her,
Speaker 1: and journalists who have interviewed her have finally come out
Speaker 1: and said, yeah, she's she's credible, and that Now this
Speaker 1: is when we finally get the the Oh, let's let's
Speaker 1: take a look at what really happened here, and let's see. Please,
Speaker 1: this is this is the the whole thing. But the Left
Speaker 1: is a moral abomination. That's that's really the truth. In general.
Speaker 1: They pretend and the sick thing is they pretend to
Speaker 1: be the ones who care so much about the poor,
Speaker 1: to care so much about minorities, and to care so
Speaker 1: much about the downtrodden, and reality, the left is amoral
Speaker 1: at best an immoral on many issues. It's just about
Speaker 1: the pursuit of power for what is a a worldview
Speaker 1: dominated by a collectivist ethic, a collectivist mindset. Oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, if we're gonna talk about coming to turn
Speaker 1: arms with this and finally getting past what happened there
Speaker 1: by going through having some form of psychological reconciliation for
Speaker 1: the for the Democrat Party. Here is Bill Clinton during
Speaker 1: an interview in June on this whole Lewinsky situation. Played ten.
Speaker 1: But you didn't apologize to her, at least according to
Speaker 1: to folks that we've talked to, there was never an apology.
Speaker 1: I have not talked to her. Do you feel I thought,
Speaker 1: doesn't or an apology. It's a scummy guy still celebrated
Speaker 1: by Democrats. They'll still talk about him like he's some
Speaker 1: great political map. By the way, you want to talk
Speaker 1: about votes and sketchy things happening. I didn't get fifty
Speaker 1: of the vote the first time around, and making president,
Speaker 1: I couldn't even get half the country to vote for him.
Speaker 1: But oh yes, he's such a great, a great and
Speaker 1: a brilliant mind, brilliant mind. How why I mean, quite honestly,
Speaker 1: the guy just is a talented on tour and b
Speaker 1: S artist, brilliant mind. And it's amazing with people, you know,
Speaker 1: when they're forced fettered enough, they'll believe. We also will
Speaker 1: never give in a senator card and said we'll never
Speaker 1: given on voting rights. We have seen what if Stacy
Speaker 1: Abrams doesn't win in Georgia, they stole it. It's clear.
Speaker 1: It's clear, and I would say I say that publicly.
Speaker 1: It's clear. There you have Shared Brown speaking in Georgia
Speaker 1: and doing something that I thought was undermining democracy. I
Speaker 1: thought you weren't allowed to do this. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to hurt the integrity of elections by
Speaker 1: making accusations. By the way, he's not even just making
Speaker 1: general accusations. He is straight up saying if Stacy Abrams
Speaker 1: doesn't win the Georgia gubernatorial race, there had the Republicans cheated.
Speaker 1: This is straight up sore loserism. You know, this is
Speaker 1: straight up somebody who doesn't care, um, doesn't care what
Speaker 1: the heck is really going on on the ground. He's
Speaker 1: just you know, Shared Brown from Ohio here is being
Speaker 1: a demagogue and saying stuff that's a disgrace. But his whole,
Speaker 1: his whole speech that he gave here, this is just
Speaker 1: earlier today where he's talking about what's going on in Georgia,
Speaker 1: and and essentially what his version of the Republicans stealing
Speaker 1: an election is like, you got to hear the rest
Speaker 1: of this. What they're trying to do in Florida, to
Speaker 1: the gubernatorial Canada, and to the Senate candidate running for reelection,
Speaker 1: what they tried to do in Ohio with some success
Speaker 1: by voter perging, what they did in Georgia when they
Speaker 1: shut down rural precincts that were predominantly African Americans, where
Speaker 1: many people simply don't have transportation to get to the polls.
Speaker 1: That's what they do. They can't win elections because there's
Speaker 1: way more of us than there are them. So many
Speaker 1: falsehouits from Sharad Brown here, so many lies, mistruths, half truths.
Speaker 1: This whole notion of a stolen election because you don't
Speaker 1: like the laws that are in place is doing violence
Speaker 1: to the notion of a stolen election. If the laws
Speaker 1: are obeyed, the election is not stolen. If you don't
Speaker 1: think that access for minority and rural communities is perfect,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that Republicans stole the election. This notion
Speaker 1: also that they are automatically more of them than us.
Speaker 1: Democrats love this. They always think there's more of them
Speaker 1: than us. Whenever they lose the election, it's never because
Speaker 1: they just don't have good ideas. The American people just
Speaker 1: don't want them to be in charge. There's always some
Speaker 1: procedural problem, there's always cheating from the other side. These
Speaker 1: people are babies. The Left is a bunch of babies.
Speaker 1: When it comes to elections, they just are wow wow.
Speaker 1: He goes on. They can't win elections fairly. They win
Speaker 1: elections by redistricting and reapportionment, in voter suppression, in all
Speaker 1: the ways they try to scare people, particularly people of color.
Speaker 1: How they make it hard for people in college camps is,
Speaker 1: especially community college, where they were more low income people
Speaker 1: and more people of color. We know those despicable laws
Speaker 1: are often aimed that way, and we must make sure
Speaker 1: obviously that every votes counted in Georgia and Florida. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, back to the back to the talking points
Speaker 1: here about oh, we just want all the votes to
Speaker 1: be counted, and then back to the the favorite argument
Speaker 1: ender that Democrats are ever able to offer up, which
Speaker 1: is that they they really do believe that they are
Speaker 1: the ones who are not racist, and that Republicans are racist.
Speaker 1: That's what That's what it all comes down to. All
Speaker 1: these arguments over Florida and over voting and voting rights
Speaker 1: and all this. They just think on the one side
Speaker 1: you got the good guys, and on the other side
Speaker 1: you got the bad guys. And the bad guys are
Speaker 1: the Republicans who are just oh so racist, always so racist.
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering when they take note of the fact
Speaker 1: that the Republicans in Florida gott of the Hispanic vote.
Speaker 1: But but I guess it's just all racism. It's all
Speaker 1: racism Republican side. When are we allowed to talk about
Speaker 1: what is very clear in the Democrat Party, by the way,
Speaker 1: which is an open animosity toward white males as a group.
Speaker 1: There is this thing. Anytime you want to say something
Speaker 1: and get applause from a bunch of left wing morons,
Speaker 1: all you have to do is look at that room
Speaker 1: full of white males. Is that okay? There happened to
Speaker 1: be white people and there's a room of them. Why
Speaker 1: is that bad? You can make any disparaging remark you want,
Speaker 1: if you're a lefty about white males. You you can
Speaker 1: make any jokes you want about white males. And not
Speaker 1: only do people let it slide that they think it's great,
Speaker 1: they think you're clever, they think you've really added something
Speaker 1: interesting to the debate or to discourse, or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: They love to just pound white males whenever they get
Speaker 1: a chance. And this is really political analysis for idiots,
Speaker 1: which is what you see more and more on the left.
Speaker 1: And they wonder why there are some people who say,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, maybe the really, maybe the really
Speaker 1: destructive thing in our politics right now is not Trump.
Speaker 1: What if I know, stay with me here for a second.
Speaker 1: What if the reason why people in this country over politics,
Speaker 1: more than in any time in recent memory, perhaps in
Speaker 1: fifty years, are at each other's throats. What if the
Speaker 1: reason is the very identity politics and left wing intersectionality
Speaker 1: that progressives push at every opportunity, celebrate at every turn.
Speaker 1: What if that's what's really exacerbating the divides in this country.
Speaker 1: Is it just possible that that if we're going to
Speaker 1: have this conversation about irresponsible rhetoric, which they always want
Speaker 1: to put on the president, right, Oh it's the president,
Speaker 1: maybe it's irresponsible for the left. And I know the
Speaker 1: left is run by predominantly white male Still, although you
Speaker 1: of Nancy Pelosi and about to speak of the House.
Speaker 1: But a lot of very prominent white males on the
Speaker 1: left too, But they're just espousing the ideology. Doesn't matter
Speaker 1: they're white males. There is an anti white male bias
Speaker 1: and anti white male animosity that is one of the
Speaker 1: defining characteristics of the American left. Now, you know, this
Speaker 1: is why when they talk about the patriarch, or they're
Speaker 1: not talking about men of color, they're talking about white males.
Speaker 1: When they're talking about white privilege, they're obviously talking about
Speaker 1: white males. All these things. I mean, they throw around
Speaker 1: the term white supremacy now for any government policy that
Speaker 1: they think has a disproportionate impact on minorities that is negative,
Speaker 1: or even when people try to push back against the
Speaker 1: racial entitlement state that has been created by the left,
Speaker 1: where you get racial benefits like affirmative action and special
Speaker 1: hir rank, etcetera, etcetera. Even that now that effort to
Speaker 1: have the law be race neutral or color blind, that
Speaker 1: is considered white supremacy by the left. Now, it is
Speaker 1: hard to keep up with these people and the changing
Speaker 1: terminology that they utilize. But Sharad Brown there gave you
Speaker 1: a real sense of what the whole line is, which
Speaker 1: is that elections that the Left loses are inherently illegitimate,
Speaker 1: that even when the laws are adhered to, the laws
Speaker 1: themselves are illegitimate. And this is when they'll say an
Speaker 1: election is stolen because of voter suppression, even if the
Speaker 1: quote voters suppression resulted from entirely legal means, even if
Speaker 1: the voters suppression was lawful in the sense that it
Speaker 1: was just things like voter I D or we're not
Speaker 1: going to operate a polling place in that place, you
Speaker 1: got to go to this other place. But Democrats rely
Speaker 1: on the mob, as you know, they rely on rabble
Speaker 1: rousing as a central theme. This is what they call
Speaker 1: it community organizing, and I'd call it rabble rousing. Uh.
Speaker 1: And the Democrat belief is that whomever they can get
Speaker 1: to cast a vote for their cause is somebody that
Speaker 1: should be brought into the faults, should be should be voting.
Speaker 1: They don't make any distinctions here. They don't make any
Speaker 1: distinctions about whether or not somebody is a citizen. That
Speaker 1: don't care about that. If they had their way, they
Speaker 1: would change the law such that you would have non
Speaker 1: citizens voting. I'm sure of that, And I really wish
Speaker 1: that question would get asked if some prominent Democrats, because
Speaker 1: they wouldn't I can tell you this, they wouldn't even
Speaker 1: want to be on the record opposing non citizens voting,
Speaker 1: so they would give you some kind of mealy mouth
Speaker 1: well on the one hand, on the other they wouldn't
Speaker 1: want to answer that question, I assure you. So maybe
Speaker 1: that's something that I'll try to get and and push
Speaker 1: to some Democrats that I know. Maybe that would be
Speaker 1: That would be a very interesting thing, I think, to
Speaker 1: be able to um get them on the record. Only
Speaker 1: the American people could really know the extent to which
Speaker 1: Democrats don't care about the laws, not just when it
Speaker 1: comes to immigration, but I think also when it comes
Speaker 1: to laws that govern elections. It really just does not
Speaker 1: matter to them. They do not have much of an
Speaker 1: interest at all in adhering to election laws because they
Speaker 1: view their cause progressive is in the transformation of America
Speaker 1: as so righteous and the rules that are in place
Speaker 1: as just being put it put there by the white
Speaker 1: male patriarchy, that there's no need to adhere to any
Speaker 1: of that. That they would be they'd be suckers to
Speaker 1: adhere to that. That's how they really feel. Just wish
Speaker 1: the American people would know that, and then we could
Speaker 1: try to tune out all this. Oh, just count the votes.
Speaker 1: That's not what they want to do. Our focus has
Speaker 1: put a knife through the heart of that argument. You
Speaker 1: won't see the Republicans doing that very much anymore. What
Speaker 1: it did do. What they did do is explode the deficit.
Speaker 1: As a result, people saw it as selfish, narrowly focused, dangerous,
Speaker 1: and irresponsible. And so with the Senate map wildly tilted
Speaker 1: in republicans favor, we're at worst only one seat worse
Speaker 1: off than we were when we stood here two years ago.
Speaker 1: And if Bill Nelson wins, which I believe he has
Speaker 1: a very good chance of doing, will be even Ah.
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer, my gosh, I can't believe we got to
Speaker 1: just keep hearing from this guy forever. He's gross so
Speaker 1: do puplicit is so full of crap. A few things here.
Speaker 1: First of all, whatever Democrats complain about Republicans and the depths,
Speaker 1: to just remember the Barack Obama of our twenty two
Speaker 1: trillion dollars in debt. Barack Obama is responsible for about
Speaker 1: ten trillion of that. And remember the debt is something
Speaker 1: that's been accumulating over many, many, many decades. Barack Obama
Speaker 1: is responsible for almost half, almost half of our massive
Speaker 1: national debt. So Democrats lecturing anybody on this is is
Speaker 1: just laughable. It's just completely and utterly ridiculous. It is
Speaker 1: in fact preposterous, and we should all be clear on that. Now.
Speaker 1: As to his point about the Senate, this is concerning
Speaker 1: election night. It seemed like it was better for Republicans
Speaker 1: on the night. Then it turned out to be the
Speaker 1: fact that Cinema, who is a pretty bizarro candidate in
Speaker 1: many ways, someone who has said incredibly stupid things publicly
Speaker 1: in the past, including about how an American going to
Speaker 1: join the Taliban is no big deal, and lots of
Speaker 1: stuff like that. But Cinema is now the Senator from Arizona.
Speaker 1: Although I heard today I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: gonna happen, if it has happened when I go to air,
Speaker 1: that they're going to replace the um McCain's seat, that
Speaker 1: they're going to put mc sally in that seat until
Speaker 1: there until there's actually a special election, so mc sally
Speaker 1: may actually be the Senator from Arizona. That's what I
Speaker 1: heard today from some sources. I'm not sure if it's
Speaker 1: broken yet as a story, but I was hearing that
Speaker 1: in the newsroom, so mc sally maybe the centator from Arizona. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that all said, Democrats managed to hold on pretty well
Speaker 1: in the Senate, despite the fact that, as Chuck Schumer says,
Speaker 1: I love this a map tilted towards Republicans. The states
Speaker 1: are what the states are. Every state has two senators.
Speaker 1: He just means that this time around, it was it
Speaker 1: just happened to be pretty favorable in terms of the
Speaker 1: states that Republicans were able to try to win. But
Speaker 1: there was no you know, chickannery here, there's no mouthfeasans. Well,
Speaker 1: what he's doing there is he's playing in. Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: is trying to play into that suggestion of, oh, there's jerrymandering,
Speaker 1: because I love it when liberal journals all of a
Speaker 1: sudden they're jerrymandering the states. You know with the senator
Speaker 1: the Senate elections where jerrymandered. No, I'm pretty sure there's
Speaker 1: only two senators per states, so there's no jerrymandering. It's
Speaker 1: just who lives in that state. But who cares about
Speaker 1: the facts when there's a narrative to run around where
Speaker 1: it cares about any of that. But this is just
Speaker 1: another another moment where we gotta take a step back
Speaker 1: and realize that, um, we are If there's a Supreme
Speaker 1: Court vacancy over well, who knows who it will be,
Speaker 1: But if there is a Supreme Court vacancy, it opens
Speaker 1: up the next two years, which is possible. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's a certainty by any stretch, but it's definitely possible.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have a fight over Amy Coney Barrett that
Speaker 1: is similar in ferocity to what you saw for Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: because they're gonna be a few. They're gonna be a few,
Speaker 1: um female Republican senators you know Collins comes to mind,
Speaker 1: who might not be willing to vote for Amy Coney Barrett.
Speaker 1: This is just gonna turn into a pure debate over abortion.
Speaker 1: It's it's gonna be ugly, it's gonna be nasty. People
Speaker 1: don't want to be told that they've been advocates for
Speaker 1: murder for going on now what forty some years. That
Speaker 1: they don't want to be told that, even if that's
Speaker 1: what they've been, They do not want to be told
Speaker 1: that they have been advocating for the genocide of the unborn,
Speaker 1: that they've been using taxpayer dollars to do it, and
Speaker 1: that the left wing Democrat Party of America is defined
Speaker 1: now more by its solidarity over abortion than any other issue,
Speaker 1: and therefore the very foundation of the Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: immoral and evil. They don't want a court to reinforce
Speaker 1: that notion. They don't want a court to come along
Speaker 1: and say, you know what, that's actually true. You guys
Speaker 1: have been advocating for something that is horrific, that is immoral,
Speaker 1: that is that is disgraceful. So you can imagine how
Speaker 1: ugly things are going to get when there is that
Speaker 1: assuming there is before the election another Supreme Court seat
Speaker 1: that opens up, and that the left is gonna they're
Speaker 1: gonna pull out all the stops and do everything that
Speaker 1: they possibly can on that, but also is going to
Speaker 1: be viewed as a chance by the left to not
Speaker 1: just win the presidency, but to flip the Senate as well,
Speaker 1: And that means that we need to be prepared for
Speaker 1: a possibility of assuming that they're able to defeat Trump,
Speaker 1: which I don't think they can. But Democrats aren't just
Speaker 1: looking to get Trump out there, looking to have unified
Speaker 1: Democrat controlled government once again like they did for the
Speaker 1: first two years of Obama. What they see at the
Speaker 1: end of this this political war, this political trench warfare
Speaker 1: that's just beginning to just beginning to show it's it's
Speaker 1: earliest state is right now. But what they see down
Speaker 1: the line, I think is unified Democrat control of the House,
Speaker 1: the Senate, and the White House. And if they get it,
Speaker 1: my friends, they will pass amnesty, they will pass single
Speaker 1: payer or something closer to it. Maybe they won't get
Speaker 1: all the way, but they'll move is closer a single payer.
Speaker 1: So after all this to get to this point with
Speaker 1: Trump and the Trump movement, we face political calamity in already,
Speaker 1: make no mistake about it. Be aware of it, and
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer knows it. You know what's not smart posting
Speaker 1: randomly on the Internet and hoping when you've got a
Speaker 1: job opening that you're gonna get the best applicants. But
Speaker 1: you know what is smart going to zip recruiter, dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to hire the right person. Zip recruiter
Speaker 1: doesn't depend on candidates finding you, It finds them for you.
Speaker 1: It's powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes and identifies
Speaker 1: people with the right skills, education, and experience for your job,
Speaker 1: and it actively invites them to apply so you get
Speaker 1: qualified candidates fast. That's why zip recruiter is rated number
Speaker 1: one by employers in the US. This rating comes from
Speaker 1: hiring sites on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews.
Speaker 1: Right now, my listeners can try zip recruiter for free
Speaker 1: at this exclusive web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's zip recruiter dot com slash buck. I have used
Speaker 1: zip recruiter. I've used my own account there to hire
Speaker 1: great people for the hill where I work, where I've
Speaker 1: got my TV show. Try it for yourself. You'll see
Speaker 1: some of my favorite people came to us via zip recruiter.
Speaker 1: Go to zip recruiter dot com slash buck because it's
Speaker 1: the smartest way to hire. Let me walk you through
Speaker 1: the timeline. So today we're we're in the filing going
Speaker 1: through the paperwork that the case will get assigned to
Speaker 1: a judge. We've asked for an immediate hearing, either today
Speaker 1: if we can do it. We gave the White House
Speaker 1: notice this morning um or as soon as possible tomorrow
Speaker 1: to get a temporary or that would would immediately restore
Speaker 1: Mr our costs credentials. Then the way the process works,
Speaker 1: there's a it has to be within twenty five days
Speaker 1: of hearing on what's called a preliminary junction, which is
Speaker 1: another temporary but longer order. And if at that point,
Speaker 1: if if we prevail on the White House is still
Speaker 1: fighting it, then you go on to a trial on
Speaker 1: the merits and hearing on the merits. So that can
Speaker 1: unfold over a period of months um or or even longer.
Speaker 1: But that's why we need immediate relief because, as you know,
Speaker 1: every news is happening every second, every minute in a
Speaker 1: White House, you never know what's going to happen. And
Speaker 1: every day that a reporter can't be they're covering the news,
Speaker 1: they're injured in the public's deprived of important information. The
Speaker 1: public isn't deprived of anything other than a bunch of
Speaker 1: jackassary because Jim Acosta does not have the privilege, and
Speaker 1: it is a privilege of a hard pass to the
Speaker 1: White House, meaning that he can get into the White
Speaker 1: House any day he wants, with the rest of the
Speaker 1: press pool come and go as he pleases. So that
Speaker 1: was CNN's lawyer here CNN has filed the lawsuit as
Speaker 1: I met you yesterday, where they are claiming that there
Speaker 1: is you know, harm done to the First Amendment, did
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta's career and all the rest of it because
Speaker 1: he does not have on a temporary basis, at least
Speaker 1: now it's been temporarily taken from him. He does not
Speaker 1: have a so called hard pass anymore for the White House. Now,
Speaker 1: what what I would note about all of this is,
Speaker 1: first of all, they are pretending that this is something
Speaker 1: that you just get to have as a journalist, and
Speaker 1: that if you don't have this, you're replutely harmed. I
Speaker 1: don't get a hard pass. I'd love a hard pass.
Speaker 1: I go to the White House every day if I could,
Speaker 1: but I don't have the connections. For whatever reason, I
Speaker 1: do not manage to qualify via my job at the Hill.
Speaker 1: I don't think it would work on radio. But at
Speaker 1: the Hill we do reporting and have reporters out on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill and covering all things going on in the
Speaker 1: world of politics. And I don't get a hard pass.
Speaker 1: So is my First Amendment infringed? Folks? And if not,
Speaker 1: everybody gets one. And there are a lot of news
Speaker 1: organizations who don't are all of their First Amendment rights
Speaker 1: infringed by the government. You know, there is some degree
Speaker 1: of discretion here. You do not have a right to
Speaker 1: be given access to the White House pressipool. In fact,
Speaker 1: the President does not have any constitutional or legal duty
Speaker 1: to give press conferences at all. Period. This is where
Speaker 1: the left starts to do their whole Oh, it's about
Speaker 1: a substantive right, which is a fancy way usually of
Speaker 1: saying the right gives me things that I want that
Speaker 1: I can pretend full under the right. You have a
Speaker 1: substantive right because of you know, the right to uh,
Speaker 1: the pursuit of happiness or whatever. You've got a substantive
Speaker 1: right to free housing. You've got a substantive right apparently
Speaker 1: to have the White House invite you, Wayne, if you're
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta. This whole thing is ridiculous. But you know,
Speaker 1: I gotta say I'm surprised at some level to see
Speaker 1: that Fox News has joined along with many other news organizations.
Speaker 1: That does not surprise me. But but Fox News is
Speaker 1: officially joined and amicus brief here and they're standing in
Speaker 1: solidarity with Jim Acosta and CNN on this one, at
Speaker 1: least in out of corporate level. I'm surprised by that.
Speaker 1: Maybe there's something here that I am missing, Maybe maybe
Speaker 1: there's some aspect of this that I'm not aware of.
Speaker 1: But from a pure First Amendment jurisprudence perspective, I don't
Speaker 1: understand that this is even a thing. I don't understand
Speaker 1: that this is even a case. There are I think
Speaker 1: fifty other CNN journalists and reporters who do have a
Speaker 1: hard pass in the White House, and there are dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens of other news organizations that are there that
Speaker 1: have free and unfederal access. This is about punishing one
Speaker 1: individual for unruly behavior and for hijacking essentially some of
Speaker 1: these some of these press events and trying to get
Speaker 1: them to stop. And they think that there's a First
Speaker 1: Amendment issue here. I mean, I gotta say, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a really good piece uh in in the Federalist
Speaker 1: Today that you know, and and it's it's sarcasm, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is just making a case
Speaker 1: by going in the opposite direction. Here's here's a here's
Speaker 1: an example of it. Um. This is by Neil Pollock.
Speaker 1: The Pieces Act now to save the free press before
Speaker 1: it's really truly desperately too late. Uh. Whether you cover
Speaker 1: the white House, big farmer, or the local water board,
Speaker 1: it's time to hide your belongings and kiss your children,
Speaker 1: for the Gulag surely awaits unless we act now. This
Speaker 1: is Neil Neil Pollock here he writes quote. It's long
Speaker 1: been said, especially by me, that I'm the leading advocate
Speaker 1: and protector of the freedom of the press in this country.
Speaker 1: I've covered every president since William Howard Taft, though admittedly
Speaker 1: I haven't left my house on Mount Winchester since two
Speaker 1: thousand and three because that's where they deliver the plasma.
Speaker 1: And I can say with a certainty that the fourth
Speaker 1: the state is under assault in America like it's never
Speaker 1: been before. Whether you cover the white House, big farmer,
Speaker 1: or the local water board, it's time to hide your
Speaker 1: belongings and kiss your children, for the Gulag surely awaits
Speaker 1: unless we act now. Um, he's just making fun of
Speaker 1: this whole thing. Uh, you know, he says, look around you.
Speaker 1: We live in a society where citizens, whether employed by
Speaker 1: press outlets or not, don't have a right to speak
Speaker 1: their mind at all times on multiple platforms to as
Speaker 1: large an audience they could possibly muster are every utterance
Speaker 1: is being monitored. People disappear constantly because they have the
Speaker 1: courage to criticize the government. Soon, nothing will remain but
Speaker 1: coal working yes men in maga hats, while the rest
Speaker 1: of us try to work up a sweat in the
Speaker 1: re education camps. Journalists and journalists dis is. Fellow loins
Speaker 1: of the press rally around my game. But we cannot
Speaker 1: let Trump waited the sort of hercules over our heads.
Speaker 1: It's time to raise up and take a and take
Speaker 1: a stand. Uh, what are he's saying? Here's what a joke?
Speaker 1: What a joke? These press First Amendment martyrs really are? Okay,
Speaker 1: the entirety of the press corps hates Donald Trump, with
Speaker 1: the exception of about fifteen or of it. In total,
Speaker 1: I mean, the press is completely arrayed against this guy.
Speaker 1: They pretty much openly despise him. They can't think of
Speaker 1: enough ways to say that they hate him. Not a
Speaker 1: single journalist, unlike in the Obama years, has been prosecuted
Speaker 1: for doing his job in this country or had any
Speaker 1: adverse government reaction taken against him in the course of
Speaker 1: his normal First amun protected duties. A lot of work,
Speaker 1: but we're supposed to believe that Trump is such a
Speaker 1: threat to the press. Criticizing the press is not the
Speaker 1: same as being a First Amendment threat to the press.
Speaker 1: And this is where you see the journals are really
Speaker 1: a very thin skinned, whiney bunch of cry babies, and
Speaker 1: especially the TV journals are really overpaid and incredibly self indulgent.
Speaker 1: They believe this crap that they're the guardians of the
Speaker 1: Republican without them, what without them, we wouldn't be able
Speaker 1: to instantaneously share information and gather news in the hundreds
Speaker 1: the thousands of different local news bureaus across the country.
Speaker 1: We really need the left wing cable news networks to
Speaker 1: be weighing in or else we'll all just be lost.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, what will we do. The patriarchy, Oh,
Speaker 1: the humanity, it's terrible. I just think it's a cust thing.
Speaker 1: It's so old. And look, he's he's like the trumpy
Speaker 1: bear of journalists in that it's all marketing, baby, it's
Speaker 1: all promotion. And he knows that he knows that what
Speaker 1: he's doing here is establishing himself forever as a hero
Speaker 1: to the hashtag resistance, that he's making a mockery of
Speaker 1: journalism in general, and more specifically of CNN's claims to
Speaker 1: being an objective source of news that he doesn't care
Speaker 1: about any of that. All that matters to him is
Speaker 1: this gives him an opportunity to build his brand, and
Speaker 1: that CNNs filed this lawsuit. Look, maybe I mean they've
Speaker 1: got Ted Olsen, who is a Supreme Court solicitor. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's a guy who's dealt with very big cases before
Speaker 1: he signed off for this. Maybe they're gonna make some
Speaker 1: big First Amendment issue of this. But all I can
Speaker 1: tell you is that if if it's a First Amendment
Speaker 1: issue for a constant to have his press pass taken away,
Speaker 1: then I better file a lawsuit because I've never been
Speaker 1: given a White House hard pass, and lots and lots
Speaker 1: of my colleagues who are much smarter, much more diligent,
Speaker 1: and much more objective in their reportage than Jim Acosta
Speaker 1: have never been given a hard pass. So I think
Speaker 1: this is something that we we really need to keep
Speaker 1: an eye on, because if this is just yet again
Speaker 1: the hashtag judiciary getting back at Trump, that does violence
Speaker 1: the first ambent, because then the first aments just starts
Speaker 1: to mean whatever the anti Trump folks say it means,
Speaker 1: and that in and of itself, I think is really problematic.
Speaker 1: I think that leads us down a very dangerous path
Speaker 1: because you know the same thing will not be extended
Speaker 1: to a Democrat president. Just look at Obama, the stuff
Speaker 1: that he got away with, the worst president when it
Speaker 1: comes to press freedom in a hundred years, and the
Speaker 1: press was just constantly giving him a BackRub on national
Speaker 1: TV every day starts the same way. Team for the
Speaker 1: Buckman Black Rifle Coffee. I drink just black. I think
Speaker 1: it's delicious, and I drink it black. I don't need
Speaker 1: any coffee. I certainly don't need any coffee that has
Speaker 1: lots of creamer in it. Right, I want black rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: I want the best coffee you can get anywhere, and
Speaker 1: I'm not putting soy milk in it. I'm drinking it
Speaker 1: as it is as nature intended. Drink coffee from a
Speaker 1: company that is all about freedom and America. Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee is roach to order, guaranteeing you fresh, delicious coffee
Speaker 1: with every order. They send it right to you. And
Speaker 1: by the way, they give a portion of their sales
Speaker 1: to veteran and first sponder causes nothing cures a bad attitude,
Speaker 1: quite like starting your day with the most American coffee ever,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee? Is it Black Rifle Coffee dot com?
Speaker 1: Slash Buck and receive fifer cent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot Com, slash Buck for fent off
Speaker 1: again Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash Buck. What do
Speaker 1: I mean when I say that the left is crazy?
Speaker 1: Am I just exaggerating for effect? Am I just frustrated
Speaker 1: with their policies? You'll hear me say this, sometimes the
Speaker 1: left is crazy. Some of you may take from that
Speaker 1: that I'm just finding a term of disparagement for bad
Speaker 1: ideas that they have, or that I just disagree so
Speaker 1: so strenuously from their position on something, that I'm just
Speaker 1: calling them crazy because how can they Only a crazy
Speaker 1: person could not see it my way. No, in fact,
Speaker 1: I actually mean they're They're wacko. There's something wrong with them.
Speaker 1: They they have a problem that the left wing ideology
Speaker 1: that is ascendant in this country among Democrats it has
Speaker 1: been for a long time, has brought people to abandon
Speaker 1: common sense, to become little automatons that spew talking points
Speaker 1: and support ideas that no normal rational reasonable person ever
Speaker 1: could Let me give you some examples of this. This
Speaker 1: from the Federalists piece by Joy Pullman. We're a school
Speaker 1: in Florida. We're talking with Florida a lot these days,
Speaker 1: but this is a very different kind of story. The
Speaker 1: school in Florida has punished a teacher because of a
Speaker 1: transgender student policy that went into effect that no parents
Speaker 1: were told about, that not even the students were told about.
Speaker 1: Let me give you some of the details here. A
Speaker 1: transgender female at a Florida school district, the Pasco County
Speaker 1: School District, had declared herself to be a transgender and
Speaker 1: the school district gave her unrestricted access to the boys
Speaker 1: locker room. I guess we're supposed to call her a him,
Speaker 1: although I challenge the activists on this one. How do
Speaker 1: we know a her that is transitioning doesn't want one
Speaker 1: of the other terms that the left sometimes uses. I
Speaker 1: I don't want to be gender normative in my in
Speaker 1: my description. If that's what's not called for here? Is
Speaker 1: it a Z? Does she prefer them a plural pronoun
Speaker 1: even though it's a single individual. What level of insanity
Speaker 1: do I have to comport with here in order to
Speaker 1: avoid getting offense. I'm just wondering, you know, I'm just
Speaker 1: asking questions. So this young woman was led into the
Speaker 1: boys locker room. The boys figured this out when somebody
Speaker 1: who was obviously physically female was changing next to them,
Speaker 1: and they were changing as well. Okay, so that's a thing,
Speaker 1: that's that's happening here. And there was a gag order
Speaker 1: put in place by school administrators that forbade teachers from
Speaker 1: even talking about this. So no one's allowed in this
Speaker 1: school under pain of suspension or termination. I'm sure no
Speaker 1: one's allowed to say, hey, there's a girl in the
Speaker 1: boys locker room. Now. The reason for this is that
Speaker 1: they don't think that it's really a girl in the
Speaker 1: boys locker room. I guess it's just another boy in
Speaker 1: the boy's room. But she's got female genitalia, is biologically female,
Speaker 1: she's a young and she's a young girl. They don't
Speaker 1: give the ages here exactly, but I think we're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, probably either early in high school or maybe
Speaker 1: even junior high based on the way they write this piece.
Speaker 1: But then that's not that's not enough. So you've got
Speaker 1: these boys who now are changing with a girl, which
Speaker 1: I could by the way, that, you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of people are going through a lot of changes,
Speaker 1: especially early on in high school. There could be some
Speaker 1: embarrassment about things with the body and everything else. You know.
Speaker 1: I guess the left now embraces this idea that boys
Speaker 1: and girls should just have the same locker room. Why not?
Speaker 1: I want to know why they think that shouldn't be
Speaker 1: the case, because they certainly think it's the case here.
Speaker 1: But that's not even enough, that's not even something that
Speaker 1: we need to you know, we we can say that
Speaker 1: this is all we're focusing on here, because there's also
Speaker 1: a male pe teacher, male physical education teacher, who refused
Speaker 1: to observe this very young right, this this would be
Speaker 1: somebody who is uh, you know, clearly below eighteen, this
Speaker 1: is a minor, would not observe this naked female minor
Speaker 1: as part of his duties. And he's a bad guy
Speaker 1: according to the school. For this, he was removed from
Speaker 1: his job and transferred for another to another school as
Speaker 1: disciplined for quote, not doing his job in the locker room.
Speaker 1: This is the kind of stuff I mean when I
Speaker 1: say that the left has lost its mind. This is
Speaker 1: the kind of policy decision that I'm sorry, They're just
Speaker 1: wrong and this is not okay. It's embarrassing to those
Speaker 1: young boys who are here getting completely undressed in front
Speaker 1: of a biological female, a female, and if they aboloshed
Speaker 1: a female to young girl, and even worse, they expect
Speaker 1: a male adult to be comfortable observing and underage female
Speaker 1: in the locker room just because she happens to believe
Speaker 1: that she is in fact male. I'm sorry, but you know,
Speaker 1: if I were this p teacher, I coached high school soccer,
Speaker 1: all right, I just take this from the eye perspective
Speaker 1: if my high school and Heaven for big because I
Speaker 1: don't think they've gone this far left Jesuit's running, although
Speaker 1: you never know what the Jesuits if. If when I
Speaker 1: was coaching high school soccer, I was told that that
Speaker 1: I had to be in the locker room while there
Speaker 1: were you know, while my team was changed, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, obviously we would change the locker room. That's fine.
Speaker 1: If I was told that I had to be observing
Speaker 1: as part of my job in the locker room, and
Speaker 1: there was a fifteen or sixteen year old or fourteen
Speaker 1: or thirty year old girl who was also changing in there,
Speaker 1: that would make me very I mean I would refuse
Speaker 1: to observe. That would make me very uncomfortable. I don't
Speaker 1: want somebody know what happened. The school changes the policy,
Speaker 1: and now you're the guy who's been observing the girl
Speaker 1: who is a young teenager undressing in a locker room.
Speaker 1: Now I understand that you're not there. Obviously, the pe
Speaker 1: teacher is not supposed to be gawking at anybody has
Speaker 1: their dress. But you know you're seeing. You're in the
Speaker 1: locker room, You're seeing stuff. That's why we sex aggregate
Speaker 1: the locker rooms. But this is a perfect example of
Speaker 1: the left has gone insane. The left no longer adheres
Speaker 1: to any norms of rational discourse on issues like gender
Speaker 1: gender identity. You know, this all came about with the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Up until the Obama administration, the left had
Speaker 1: never really been able to get its way on this
Speaker 1: radical gender identity stuff. You know, Obama was a far leftist.
Speaker 1: You know, you just had the degrees and the the
Speaker 1: general approach of a of an elitist politician. But he
Speaker 1: was a far left guy. I mean ideologically, he was
Speaker 1: the most left wing senator in the Senate. When he
Speaker 1: ran for the presidency, and he pushed very hard on
Speaker 1: this issue. I will never forget when I believe it
Speaker 1: was South Carolina was told by the White House, by
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, you either implement our our preferred transgender
Speaker 1: rights policies in your school, or we are going to
Speaker 1: cut off federal funds for your school. And that they were.
Speaker 1: They were pulling out all the stops to make sure
Speaker 1: that girls could use boys bathrooms and lockers and vice versa.
Speaker 1: This is something the left is really focused on. By
Speaker 1: the day. I think it's really important. I think they're
Speaker 1: really crazy. If you're a patchy and impatient, you may
Speaker 1: be suffering from acute scruffatosis, also known as baby beard.
Speaker 1: Every year, millions of men suffer through the slow growing,
Speaker 1: patchy facial hair known as scruffatosis. But you don't have
Speaker 1: to Hi, I'm Chris here at the Beard Club Institute.
Speaker 1: We are dedicated to curing baby beard. That's why we've
Speaker 1: developed these growth oils and supplements. They're carefully designed to
Speaker 1: help men like you achieve the full luscious beard of
Speaker 1: your dreams. Should I grow a beard? A lot of
Speaker 1: you are like, should we care? The answers probably no,
Speaker 1: But I was thinking about it today. I was thinking
Speaker 1: about it today because of this A a study that
Speaker 1: fox eight Cleveland sited here way better than fox eight Columbus. Uh.
Speaker 1: Here's what they say here. In the Journal of Evolutionary Biology,
Speaker 1: researchers asked more than eight women to rate men based
Speaker 1: on their attractiveness as a long term romantic partner. Here's
Speaker 1: how the facial hair rated number one heavy stubble ten days,
Speaker 1: two full beards, three light stubble, four clean shaven. Quote.
Speaker 1: Beards maybe more attractive women when considering the long term
Speaker 1: than short term relationships, as they indicate a male's ability
Speaker 1: to compete success successfully with other males for resources, according
Speaker 1: to the study, Beards, the researchers researchers said are associated
Speaker 1: with a man's age and masculine social dominance. A lot
Speaker 1: of you, for a lot of you fellas out there
Speaker 1: with your very manly beards right now, I know what's
Speaker 1: going on. You're shaking your head saying yes, indeed, buck.
Speaker 1: We have long known about the awesomeness of a beard,
Speaker 1: and there's clearly a pro beard movement growing in this
Speaker 1: country among the ladies out there. Now, do I have
Speaker 1: to ask Ms Molly if she would like a beard
Speaker 1: on me. I think the answer is most definitely yes.
Speaker 1: I don't think I can just go all wild and
Speaker 1: wooly on the face and assume that that's a good
Speaker 1: move for me, that everything's gonna be okay. I think
Speaker 1: that I've got to think this one through a little bit.
Speaker 1: The other alternative, however, to going with a beard, would
Speaker 1: be to go with a Magnum p I style mustache.
Speaker 1: Now can I practically grow either of these things? Is
Speaker 1: it really even possible for me? I have almost votes
Speaker 1: as I go on air right now with a Twitter
Speaker 1: with a Twitter poll here, and thirty nine of those
Speaker 1: polled when I asked the question, should Buck grow a beard?
Speaker 1: Said yes? Man up said no, You're not hip enough
Speaker 1: and would like me to try the Magnum p I mustache. Now,
Speaker 1: can I pull off the Magnum p I mustache? I
Speaker 1: don't know. That's a That's a tough one. That's a
Speaker 1: tough one for me to tell you right off the bat.
Speaker 1: And is anyone ever really able to pull off the
Speaker 1: greatness of Tom Selleck's mustache from the eighties, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It was a magnificent thing in its day, but a
Speaker 1: beard would be fun. I'm gonna be honestly. The problem
Speaker 1: I have with grow to beard is I get into
Speaker 1: the itchy phase. I don't know, I guess itchy face,
Speaker 1: itchy face phase. How do I get around that? Because
Speaker 1: that stinks? And then the worst part is if you
Speaker 1: get the itchy face phase and then you shave, then
Speaker 1: you look like your face is just it's not good.
Speaker 1: A lot of a lot of bumps and redness and
Speaker 1: bad things going on there. So I guess I'm I'm
Speaker 1: asking because we're going in a roll clothe here in
Speaker 1: a second. I know there's a lot of fantastic beards
Speaker 1: out there in Team Buckland. I know a lot of
Speaker 1: you listening to this show have great manly beards. I'm
Speaker 1: wondering if you have some advice, but one how to
Speaker 1: grow the most fantastic beard possible. And two, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna grow that fantastic beard, what in fact do you
Speaker 1: need to do so that it comes in without undo hardship? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, so that you don't have to go through
Speaker 1: the period of, oh my gosh, my face hitches so much,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna scratch my own face off. And then I
Speaker 1: gotta get into do I have to some of you.
Speaker 1: Years ago, they took some photo promo photos of me
Speaker 1: and I had unshaven photos and I didn't shave my neck,
Speaker 1: and a lot of you went all crazy about neck beard,
Speaker 1: which I don't even know it was a thing. And
Speaker 1: now I'm told that, actually, if you're a Brooklyn hipster,
Speaker 1: neck beard is fine. So which is it? Do you
Speaker 1: have to shave your neck even if you're growing out
Speaker 1: the beard or his neck beard the oh natural way
Speaker 1: and therefore that is superior. I'm gonna have to do
Speaker 1: some beard research. I don't think I'm going with the
Speaker 1: zz top folks. I don't think I'm gonna be able
Speaker 1: to go to that extent, So don't don't get too
Speaker 1: crazy here. Probably gonna end up looking like an eighteen
Speaker 1: year old kid he's trying to buy some perhaps blue
Speaker 1: ribbon from the local seven eleven. I think that's most
Speaker 1: likely what's gonna happen. But nonetheless I'm giving it some
Speaker 1: real thought. Should the buck Beard death himself, it is
Speaker 1: a question for the ages. I'm hoping to have an
Speaker 1: answer for you by this Friday, so you can weigh
Speaker 1: in at facebook dot com slash buck Sexton and up
Speaker 1: next roll call Team, Buck, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be your last roll call for a full
Speaker 1: day team because I gotta be out in Illinois, out
Speaker 1: in Central Illinois for a little speech tomorrow. I we'll
Speaker 1: miss you all very much, but you will be in
Speaker 1: excellent hands with the one and only Rahim Kassam filling
Speaker 1: in for me. I'm sure you're all looking forward to
Speaker 1: hearing from Raheem again. He does have a cool accent
Speaker 1: and also has a lot of incipful things to say
Speaker 1: with it. Um So, and I'll be back Friday, not
Speaker 1: to worry, so we'll have a freestyle Friday to other
Speaker 1: Andy rights. Hey, Buck Shields High, still catching up on
Speaker 1: your I Heart Radio podcast. I know you're a fan
Speaker 1: of medieval type war movies. I just saw the movie
Speaker 1: Outlaw King on Netflix. It was fantastic and based on
Speaker 1: the Scottish King Robert the Bruce. Great acting and the
Speaker 1: final battles on the most tense i've seen a long time.
Speaker 1: Keep it up, Andy, Andy, thank you so much. It's
Speaker 1: funny you bring it up because that is my next
Speaker 1: film that I plan to watch when I'm really kicking
Speaker 1: back and have the time to enjoy and watch something
Speaker 1: I'm gonna watch Outlaw King, So I'll have to give
Speaker 1: you my recommendate or my review, rather not recommendation. You've
Speaker 1: recommended it once I've had a chance to check it out,
Speaker 1: but I'm definitely looking forward to it, really want to
Speaker 1: see it. And Chris Pine I haven't particularly liked in
Speaker 1: anything in the past, but I'm open to a breakthrough
Speaker 1: performance from him with this one, so I will certainly
Speaker 1: be watching it. Paul writes, Hey, Buck, how about a
Speaker 1: comedy segment like Rush does with a song or SNL
Speaker 1: knockoff impersonation? Uh, Paul, I really liked that idea. The
Speaker 1: only thing is everything I do on this show, I
Speaker 1: do so when I write comedy segments, if I do
Speaker 1: something like Commy Bear, any of that kind of stuff,
Speaker 1: it's me and it's tough to keep up with all
Speaker 1: the news to all the analysis and right in some
Speaker 1: of that those comedy segments that all said, I am
Speaker 1: certainly going to try to get more of that worked
Speaker 1: into the show and maybe do some more fun impersonations
Speaker 1: here and there. You know we haven't done you know,
Speaker 1: David Gergen Shoe and Are Nixon, Rigor Fox News White
Speaker 1: House strategy schessions. And those of you who don't who
Speaker 1: David Gergan is, you have to just go and watch
Speaker 1: so you can hear how accurate my impression really is.
Speaker 1: It's it's quite good. Uh. But yes, I would like
Speaker 1: to do more comedy like bits on the show, so
Speaker 1: thank you. Worthy reminder, g I writes, since every vote counts,
Speaker 1: can we start making ballots now for Trump? Well, g I,
Speaker 1: you raise an important point here, which is every every
Speaker 1: vote is not supposed to count. That's not how elections work.
Speaker 1: Every legal and in the time frame vote cast counts.
Speaker 1: So I just wish that the Libs would get the
Speaker 1: talking points a little more in order here. It's not
Speaker 1: as simple as just every vote counts, justin right. Movie correction,
Speaker 1: While die Hard is an amazing movie, I believe you
Speaker 1: misspoke today Leo gets was a character from Lethal Weapon. Yes,
Speaker 1: you are correct, Dustin, I misspoke. I obviously meant Lethal Weapon.
Speaker 1: And yes, I don't even know what to say. I
Speaker 1: feel like I might be demoted from a black belt
Speaker 1: in action movies to a red belt. Right. The red
Speaker 1: belt was the one before the black belt, at least
Speaker 1: in the eighties. That was what I thought even though
Speaker 1: I always thought the red belt looked cooler. You know
Speaker 1: the red belt is scarier than a black belt. Uh, Tyler, Right,
Speaker 1: Joe Pesci, Leo gets It's equals lethal weapon, not die Hard.
Speaker 1: Don't worry, I won't tell any when you messed up shields,
Speaker 1: Hi Tyler. I know you guys, all of you got me.
Speaker 1: I mean, I make a movie mistake, and I get
Speaker 1: pillaried Ford as I deserve to lethal weapon while a
Speaker 1: great action movie is not one of and I believe
Speaker 1: it's lethal weapon to where we have where we have
Speaker 1: Leo gets making an appearance, but lethal weapon is not
Speaker 1: in the same category of action movie greatness. The same
Speaker 1: degree of action movie greatness is die Hard. Um. I
Speaker 1: know some of you're gonna disagree with me on that,
Speaker 1: but I still have my action movie red belt. So hoya, Timothy,
Speaker 1: same thing, Joe Pesci was lethal weapon. I know, I know,
Speaker 1: I get Gosh, man, you guys light me up on
Speaker 1: this one. I know you're correct. You're correct. Chad Rights,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, would you please stop labeling neo Nazis as
Speaker 1: far right wing? They have nothing to do with conservative
Speaker 1: or libertarian principles. Heard you describe them that way in
Speaker 1: a recent podcast chat, It's It's complicated. Obviously, the Nazis
Speaker 1: were national socialists, and they were ideologically of the left,
Speaker 1: but the racial component of national socialism, the racist component
Speaker 1: of national socialism, has been associated with the right in uh,
Speaker 1: in common discourse for a long time now, and neo
Speaker 1: Nazis in the context of this country tend to be
Speaker 1: about racial purity much more than they are about social
Speaker 1: welfare programs or collectivism or other things we think about
Speaker 1: is on the left. But I'm actually planning to do
Speaker 1: some research on neo Nazi ideology and uh, well, I've
Speaker 1: got some plans for a bigger project on radical ideology
Speaker 1: in this country, but I'll have to save that for
Speaker 1: another time. Josh writes, buck Brenda Snipes is where she
Speaker 1: is because of a rhino named Jeb Bush. Yes, she
Speaker 1: was elected after and since, but this is a story
Speaker 1: about a man named Jeb exclamation point. Josh also writes,
Speaker 1: can't the President and the current Congress passed an amendment
Speaker 1: to the fiscal year twenty nineteen budget to cut the
Speaker 1: houses budgets so they couldn't conduct endless investigations. Uh, I
Speaker 1: don't think so, but I'd have to check I mean
Speaker 1: budgetary matters in parliamentary procedure around them is a pretty
Speaker 1: specific and somewhat arcane area of congressional stuff. Congressional stuff,
Speaker 1: so I can't answer that question definitively, but I don't
Speaker 1: think that that would work. Kevin my man, Kevin, absolutely
Speaker 1: love listening to you on both Rising and your nightly
Speaker 1: radio show. I was browsing my eighties playlist and couldn't
Speaker 1: help a laugh because I think you may have been
Speaker 1: the guitar for Breathe. That head of hair shields high. Kevin, Well,
Speaker 1: you know that guy in the eighties did have a
Speaker 1: great head of hair. Eighties hair was a real celebration
Speaker 1: of hair, my friends. You know. It was thick, it
Speaker 1: was luxurious, it it was all about the actual hair,
Speaker 1: you know. It's not about having a very specific kind
Speaker 1: of faded in bladed cut here and there and short
Speaker 1: on the sides and long on the top. And although
Speaker 1: there were mohawks in the eighties, which when you think
Speaker 1: back to it, some of those eighties punk rocker mohawks
Speaker 1: were pretty much the wildest looking hair I think you
Speaker 1: could ever find anywhere. But indeed, um Laurel right, dear Buck,
Speaker 1: nothing screams beta male louder than no Trumpers in someone
Speaker 1: stating profile. It's not just a problem for men, even
Speaker 1: women have to deal with those in tolerant thinking for oneself. Ironically,
Speaker 1: the same profiles usually proclaim how menis the suitor is
Speaker 1: us swamped? While I really need to think about our
Speaker 1: dating network, Laurel. Yeah, Laurel, you know it's it's not
Speaker 1: not a good scene, not a good scene out there
Speaker 1: for conservatives on the dating scene. I got a bunch
Speaker 1: of single friends right now who are guys, and finding
Speaker 1: attractive conservative ladies in Washington, d C. In particular is very,
Speaker 1: very difficult. And you get a lot of reasonably superficially
Speaker 1: at least attractive women who are just hashtag resistance maniacs,
Speaker 1: love watching Rachel Mattow and tuning into young Turks on YouTube,
Speaker 1: and they're not gonna like dudes, well, at least like
Speaker 1: my friends, the kind of guys that I hang out
Speaker 1: with here who are awesome patriots um and uh and
Speaker 1: love their country and love freedom in America. It's hard
Speaker 1: of the man. A lot of a lot of women
Speaker 1: have no Trump supporter dating rules now, which is it's
Speaker 1: really just so the whole thing's just so close mind,
Speaker 1: and it's kind of pathetic. But that's that's what's going on,
Speaker 1: that's what's fashionable on the left. Stephen writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: listening to the comments about election results, one thing comes
Speaker 1: to mind. If not for the electoral influence of Madison
Speaker 1: and Milwaukee, Wisconsin would be a red state. We have
Speaker 1: a saying that Madison is five square miles surrounded by
Speaker 1: reality for a reason, shields high Steve from Wisconsin. Yeah, Steve,
Speaker 1: I'm sure that's true. We used to say that about
Speaker 1: Amherst too, that Amher's College was or Amer's town was
Speaker 1: four square miles surrounded by reality. Emer's town once had
Speaker 1: an ordinance banning the usage of nuclear weapons within town limits.
Speaker 1: And I'm pretty sure I'm careing of the town council
Speaker 1: reached out to the Iranian government and Akhmadena Jod, or
Speaker 1: if Akhmadena Jod reached out to the town council, I
Speaker 1: forget what the specifics were, but the town council of
Speaker 1: Amer's College did have some kind of Iranian connection. Should
Speaker 1: at one point, if I from memory serves, unless I'm
Speaker 1: starting to get old, forget things, uh Alan writes buck Bell, Canyon,
Speaker 1: the neighborhood when you were you were in when visiting.
Speaker 1: Elissa Milano has been hit by brush fire and several homes.
Speaker 1: Bert not sure about her house. Fires out here are
Speaker 1: really bad. Yeah, Alan, I think that Elissa Milano's area
Speaker 1: has been hit really badly. And I was pleased to
Speaker 1: see the actor James Woods trying to rally his social
Speaker 1: media following in order to save some of Lissa Milano's animals.
Speaker 1: She has horses on on her farm, So you know,
Speaker 1: I think that that's that's obviously the approach that everybody
Speaker 1: should take. Anybody who needs helping to fire, whoever they are,
Speaker 1: we should all give them that help a S A P.
Speaker 1: No questions asked, obviously, and it's good to see that
Speaker 1: at least we can all agree that fires are bad
Speaker 1: and we need to help our fellow human beings and
Speaker 1: and animals whenever we can get away from fire. Brian
Speaker 1: right Shields high Buck. You know what these recounts and
Speaker 1: lawsuits going on, Democrats should consider pushing for voter I
Speaker 1: D laws. Well, I can just tell you, Brian, they
Speaker 1: don't like they don't like voter ID laws because they
Speaker 1: don't like anything that makes it harder for there to
Speaker 1: be shenanigans when it comes to voting. UM team, that's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for today in the hut. I'm traveling tomorrow,
Speaker 1: so my buddy Rock, he's gonna take the hell. I'll
Speaker 1: be back Friday though, So until then, shields high. Who
Speaker 1: you hire is essential. But how do you know you're
Speaker 1: hiring somebody who is the way that they've presented themselves? Right?
Speaker 1: How do you know if their background is what they've
Speaker 1: said it is in resumes and interviews over the phone.
Speaker 1: You don't want to have a problem on your hands.
Speaker 1: You don't want somebody you can't trust. You sure, they
Speaker 1: don't want somebody who's a liability. Oh. Also, by the way,
Speaker 1: if you're renting out your property to a prospective tenant,
Speaker 1: this also all applies. You need Global Verification Network. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company. Okay, they're federally certified as a
Speaker 1: don't own small business and they're headquartered here in Chicago.
Speaker 1: All work done in the US of A. None of it,
Speaker 1: like a lot of the big background check places sent
Speaker 1: overseas or outsourced. You don't want some call center handling
Speaker 1: the sensitive stuff in the background investigation you have to
Speaker 1: have done. You want global verification, call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six seven nine, or go to my GVN dot com
Speaker 1: again my GVN dot com