Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt more good economic news,
Speaker 1: which of course upsets Democrats. They are rooting for a recession.
Speaker 1: They're looking for a narrative to use against Trump coming
Speaker 1: up in the election. We'll get into that, and also
Speaker 1: how upset the left has become. That looks like Trump
Speaker 1: is going to be building that wall after all. We've
Speaker 1: got that a more coming up Freestyle Friday in a moment.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American? Ready, great, You're a great American?
Speaker 1: Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, he's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: I think I'm the hood. These job numbers were very powerful,
Speaker 1: consumer confidence, absolute blowout. We've seen a little softness in production,
Speaker 1: variable goods and cap spending. That happens along a cycle.
Speaker 1: You know, you go up and down. As a rule
Speaker 1: of thumb, back of the envelope. Real GDP equals productivity
Speaker 1: plus employment growth. That gets you to over three percent
Speaker 1: right now. So if we remove some of the monetary
Speaker 1: obstacles and we continue our incentives with low tax rates
Speaker 1: and rollback of regulations and cheap and planetful energy. I'm
Speaker 1: going to play this on the bullish side. We're not
Speaker 1: forecasting or expecting a recession. Incoming data for the United
Speaker 1: States suggest that the most likely outcome outlook for the
Speaker 1: United States economy is still moderate growth, a strong labor market,
Speaker 1: and inflation continuing to move back up. The labor market
Speaker 1: continues to strengthen, so the consumers in good shape. And
Speaker 1: really there's our main expectation is not at all that
Speaker 1: there'll be a recession. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Everybody there. You have an overview what's going on the economy,
Speaker 1: which is to most people, when they talk about politics,
Speaker 1: they really care about how politics are affecting their pocketbooks,
Speaker 1: their ability to pay their bills, the sense they have
Speaker 1: of optimism for the future based on sending kids to
Speaker 1: school and paying the mortgage, buying food, car payments. All
Speaker 1: that's going really well. As Trump put it just a
Speaker 1: few hours ago in a tweet, the economy is great.
Speaker 1: The only thing adding to uncertainty is the fake news.
Speaker 1: I love it when he calls them the fake news
Speaker 1: because they deserve it, and the President won't back down
Speaker 1: from it despite how enraged it makes them and the
Speaker 1: President is right, in my opinion, to continue to hold
Speaker 1: their feet to the fire and call it like he
Speaker 1: sees it. But now let's just dig in for a moment.
Speaker 1: I have a concern. This is really just me sharing
Speaker 1: with all of you my worries for twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: for the way that this is all going to shake out.
Speaker 1: I know it's very early in the game. It's not
Speaker 1: even not even twelve months. It's now thirteen months out,
Speaker 1: or in a part of me, fourteen months out. But
Speaker 1: we are already seeing the formation of core narratives. And
Speaker 1: one thing that I can't get rid of is, at
Speaker 1: least in my mind right now, maybe the American people
Speaker 1: have forgotten what it's like when you have an administration
Speaker 1: and a presidency that doesn't know what it's doing with
Speaker 1: the economy, that is trying to convince you that things
Speaker 1: aren't going to get much better in the future, and
Speaker 1: deal with it. Sorry, forget about all your hopes and
Speaker 1: dreams for a more prosperous future for your children and
Speaker 1: for yourself. As you move on in years, you're just
Speaker 1: going to have to accept that America is going to
Speaker 1: get less wealthy. Things aren't going to be as good
Speaker 1: and that's just the way it is. Because I remember
Speaker 1: that during the Obama years. I remember people feeling like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, is this really the way it's going
Speaker 1: to be Economically, we're supposed to just accept being told,
Speaker 1: being really scolded about how Yeah, you know, America's polluted
Speaker 1: so much, we put all this CEO two in the air,
Speaker 1: and we've exploited other countries and done all these bad things.
Speaker 1: So if we need a little bit of tough medicine
Speaker 1: right now, that's on us. That was a sense. It
Speaker 1: was widespread, I remember, especially in the first four years
Speaker 1: of Obama's presidency. And now there's a part of me
Speaker 1: that is worried that things are too good and there'll
Speaker 1: be a negative effect of that. That because unemployments three
Speaker 1: point seven percent, because the job market, the playing field
Speaker 1: for entrepreneurs, all the just manufacturing, I mean, all these
Speaker 1: different areas. The only one that folks will point to
Speaker 1: and say, oh, well, that's bad it's trade with China.
Speaker 1: Because things are so good. I think that we forgot.
Speaker 1: I think that too many Americans have forgotten what it's
Speaker 1: like when they're bad. And so Trump's success becomes in
Speaker 1: a way a liability because yeah, I guess this is
Speaker 1: just supposed to be the way it is all the time. Right,
Speaker 1: We're always going to be at sub for unemployment. We're
Speaker 1: always going to have a stock market that keeps defying
Speaker 1: the expectations of a crash, that keeps defying the Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: the recessions coming talk a recession that's going to be
Speaker 1: a lot of pain for a lot of millions of Americans.
Speaker 1: People lose their homes, as their jobs, as their savings.
Speaker 1: It hasn't happened yet, and maybe it's not going to
Speaker 1: happen for quite some time. Maybe when it does happen,
Speaker 1: it won't be that bad. But there are good ways
Speaker 1: to run an economy. There are bad ways to run
Speaker 1: an economy. There are good ways to do things, and
Speaker 1: then there are ways that are going to make you
Speaker 1: poor or more frustrated, have less freedom, promote less growth.
Speaker 1: But to really understand that, maybe we maybe we've lost
Speaker 1: sight of what it's like when things are going badly.
Speaker 1: And I know that. See it's it's a paradoxical concern,
Speaker 1: but I feel it these days. Here's another version of it.
Speaker 1: Why do so many young people, young people, I mean,
Speaker 1: I kind of still qualify great beard millennial that I am.
Speaker 1: Why do so many young people have a growing affection
Speaker 1: for socialism and with it, for for central planning, for
Speaker 1: interference in markets, and why is there this cultural It's
Speaker 1: it's really a fad now, it's it's considered cool, it's
Speaker 1: hip to reject capitalism among millennials. You know that the
Speaker 1: polls are all saying that, you know, they're sixty percent
Speaker 1: in favor of socialism over capitalism, and you know, fifty
Speaker 1: five percent in favor of it. It's there's a clear
Speaker 1: trajectory here. Why is that the case? Well, because I
Speaker 1: think that they don't know, they have not seen, they
Speaker 1: have not connected themselves to the history of what it
Speaker 1: meant for places like the Soviet Union, what it is
Speaker 1: meant for. They just dismiss Venezuela. They dismissed these other
Speaker 1: countries where the economy has just been going down the
Speaker 1: tubes for a long time. And they also have lived
Speaker 1: in what is a generally very prosperous America. There was
Speaker 1: there was the two thousand and eight procession, but especially
Speaker 1: for people who are young, I guess gen z is
Speaker 1: what I think they call it now. They weren't looking
Speaker 1: for jobs then they have gotten out and things have
Speaker 1: been on a pretty solid trajectory for for a while.
Speaker 1: And you might say, oh, Buck, you mean like with Obama, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: things were okay after a couple of years of the
Speaker 1: Obama A ministration. Didn't seem like it was gonna be great,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't Socialist in Venezuela bad. Some of the
Speaker 1: same ideas were proliferating under the Obama administration, but it wasn't.
Speaker 1: You know, it'll and this I'll return this later with
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk about what Deblasio is doing here in
Speaker 1: New York City, a place I know very well. If
Speaker 1: I had as much familiarity with Los Angeles or San Francisco,
Speaker 1: those are places that are point that where we point
Speaker 1: to show that these are they're bad ideas. And I
Speaker 1: think they've gotten a little bit too, you know, soft
Speaker 1: and happy in those places. A lot of wealth, a
Speaker 1: lot of accumulation of wealth. Over time, overall national crime drop,
Speaker 1: and so they started to embrace increasingly radical left policies.
Speaker 1: And now you've got you know, the poop and the
Speaker 1: dirty needles all over the streets in San Francisco and
Speaker 1: in LA and you're seeing more of that stuff happen
Speaker 1: in New York, and maybe it's because the people in
Speaker 1: these cities have lost a connection to what it means
Speaker 1: when things go badly. I worry, worry that there aren't
Speaker 1: enough people right now who understand how quickly what we
Speaker 1: are experiencing right now with a government that is absolutely imperfect,
Speaker 1: no question about it. I mean, this is a White
Speaker 1: House that still needs to deliver on a lot of things,
Speaker 1: but on the foundational capitalism is good level, they get it,
Speaker 1: they understand, and they're trying to work within that framework
Speaker 1: of Capitalism is good has lifted more people out of
Speaker 1: poverty in the laste hundred years than had been lifted
Speaker 1: out of poverty and all of human history beforehand. We
Speaker 1: should celebrate what capitalism has been able to do for
Speaker 1: this country, and we should try to promote what works
Speaker 1: so we get used to what we see now and all, Okay,
Speaker 1: Well things are good, and I guess it'll always be good. No.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you get a President Sanders, for example,
Speaker 1: things are going to turn very quickly. If you get
Speaker 1: a President Biden, it won't be good, but I don't
Speaker 1: think it'll be quite as much of an immediate a
Speaker 1: catastrophe as a as a president Sanders would be. But
Speaker 1: when people forget what the bad times are like, sometimes
Speaker 1: they the only way is as a big dose a
Speaker 1: reality for to bring them back in line. And so
Speaker 1: in that sense, the Trump administration's numbers the you know,
Speaker 1: if you had told me that this is where Trump
Speaker 1: would be going into the third year of his presidency,
Speaker 1: are now going into the soon be going into the
Speaker 1: fourth year. But in the third year of his presidency,
Speaker 1: I would tell you, well, wow, there must be If
Speaker 1: you'd said this in twenty sixteen, I say, there must
Speaker 1: be some converts to Trumps. Them must be people that no.
Speaker 1: Now it's just the new normal, and they focus on
Speaker 1: all these externalities. Oh what did Trump lie about? That
Speaker 1: doesn't matter to anyone. We'll talk about one of those
Speaker 1: examples later. You know, what is the latest thing that
Speaker 1: they can drill down on, get very deep in the
Speaker 1: weeds on, and pretend is a much bigger issue than
Speaker 1: it is. Oh did the president pull a White House
Speaker 1: reporters press in a hard pass and makes that person
Speaker 1: show their ID and get a pass like everybody else
Speaker 1: who goes to the White House, Like when I went
Speaker 1: to the White House. That's what we had to do. Huh?
Speaker 1: Is that what happens sometimes? My friends? You just get
Speaker 1: a little too used to things being good. And I
Speaker 1: do think that the country is going through something like
Speaker 1: that right now, because when I see polls that have
Speaker 1: Joe Biden and other Democrats ahead of Donald Trump, I
Speaker 1: just look. I just look at the sky and think,
Speaker 1: how could people be so foolish? Do they forget what
Speaker 1: it was like to have a left wing administration that
Speaker 1: was as hostile as it could get away with being.
Speaker 1: That's not the same thing as saying that they're straight
Speaker 1: up commies, but that was hostile to private enterprise, to commercial,
Speaker 1: economic and really individual freedom in so many ways. And
Speaker 1: it's the only way that we can understand what that
Speaker 1: would really mean. To go through it again, I hope not,
Speaker 1: But those who don't know their history, or don't remember history,
Speaker 1: whatever the specifics of the phrase, are doomed to repeat it.
Speaker 1: I hope we don't have to repeat a far left
Speaker 1: administration for eight years. But given what I'm seeing, and
Speaker 1: you have this disconnect of very strong numbers, the country
Speaker 1: doing well. We're not in the midst of some huge war.
Speaker 1: I was just telling some friends today over lunch when
Speaker 1: was the last time we had a mass casualty. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Heaven forbid, but the mass casualty gee hottest
Speaker 1: attack in America or in Europe for example. You can't
Speaker 1: think of it off the top of your head. It's
Speaker 1: been a long time. That used to be a monthly occurrence.
Speaker 1: We are not in the midst of I understand there's
Speaker 1: there's the mass shooting problem, but we're not in the
Speaker 1: midst of a global terrorist operation directed against us as
Speaker 1: we were for many years. We aren't. We aren't seeing
Speaker 1: a recession, we aren't seeing people lose their jobs. There's
Speaker 1: so much to be thankful for, and I think that, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: there is a creeping in gratitude in we you see
Speaker 1: with with many Americans. I don't think with people listen
Speaker 1: to this show. I don't think of people that are
Speaker 1: supporters of the president by and large, But a lot
Speaker 1: of folks are just like, yeah, well, I guess things
Speaker 1: are good, but you know, maybe we should just vote
Speaker 1: for somebody who doesn't do the tweets. No, I think
Speaker 1: maybe vote for somebody who does the tweets and like
Speaker 1: them or don't like them. That's fine, but make sure
Speaker 1: that the person who's in charge, who has the most
Speaker 1: power of any individual in the United States government continues
Speaker 1: to do the things that are benefiting tens of millions
Speaker 1: of Americans every day, hundreds of millions of Americans, whether
Speaker 1: whether they like it or not. Prosperity is not forever,
Speaker 1: it's not endless, and it can it can evaporate very quickly.
Speaker 1: And the fact that the polls don't show this president
Speaker 1: well over fifty percent in support, I just find troubling.
Speaker 1: I blame the people that are being polled. I don't
Speaker 1: I can't really blame the administration. What else is he
Speaker 1: supposed to do? What would be or we're gonna have
Speaker 1: GDP growth, you know, eight twelve percent or twelve percent,
Speaker 1: We're going to do what China does and lie about it,
Speaker 1: lie about at our own people to justify the regime
Speaker 1: that's in place. I don't think so. This is also
Speaker 1: why we need to prepare ourselves for not really a
Speaker 1: discussion of the economic merits of why there should be
Speaker 1: a change in leadership in this country, but it's going
Speaker 1: to be personality and culture based. Trump is such a
Speaker 1: bad guy. He's so terrible, he's such a racist. The
Speaker 1: country is better than this, you'll hear all of this
Speaker 1: stuff when I don't need people telling me the country
Speaker 1: is better than this. I just want the country to
Speaker 1: continue to do well. That's my focus. That's what I
Speaker 1: would like to see. And I don't know if what
Speaker 1: it's going to take for some of those independent and
Speaker 1: winnable voters to understand that after that climate change debacle
Speaker 1: from yesterday, how could you think that putting a Democrat
Speaker 1: in charge of more of the economy is a good
Speaker 1: idea or anything in the economy, but but even more
Speaker 1: than what you have right now with the Republican because
Speaker 1: they would want to seize control via this Green New Deal. Nonsense.
Speaker 1: How could anyone think that's a good idea? And yet
Speaker 1: there are so many of them. It's troubling. You know,
Speaker 1: we live in we live in overall very happy times
Speaker 1: in this country right now, and I start to feel
Speaker 1: this this ominous sense that the only it's either going
Speaker 1: to be shattered in one fell swoop or we're just
Speaker 1: going to hand it away because not enough people understand
Speaker 1: that this is precious and it's fragile and it needs
Speaker 1: to be defended. That's that's what I know. It's not
Speaker 1: exactly cheery Friday talk. But I worry about this man.
Speaker 1: I think that we've just become We've become a little
Speaker 1: spoiled in the last three years to have a government
Speaker 1: that is trying not to even out the playing field
Speaker 1: all the time and play the social justice game and
Speaker 1: all this other stuff and redistribute the wealth and sees
Speaker 1: more control. Government that, while imperfect, is trying to say, look,
Speaker 1: let the American people, let the business of the American
Speaker 1: people be business. Let them do what they need to do,
Speaker 1: stand out of the way as much as possible, fight
Speaker 1: where is necessary. You know. The trade deal, I think
Speaker 1: is an important area for us to understand there's a
Speaker 1: trade off being made there because the Chinese have been
Speaker 1: ripping us off and doing bad stuff for a long time.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the alternative is what Joe Biden may your pete.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, Kirsten Jilli Brambon, too bad, she's gone,
Speaker 1: she's out. We'll be right back. It's a solid number.
Speaker 1: It's not a spectacular number, by the way. Seasonally, the
Speaker 1: August print usually comes in low and then is revised higher.
Speaker 1: But here is the story. Five hundred and ninety thousand
Speaker 1: new jobs and the household survey that is virtually unprecedented.
Speaker 1: Average geral earnings twelve month changes three point two percent,
Speaker 1: and an explosion in new labor for its entrance. The
Speaker 1: wage rate for the last three months at an annual
Speaker 1: rate is four point two percent. So I'm just going
Speaker 1: to say this, America is working, America is getting paid well,
Speaker 1: America is spending and saving and producing. So I think
Speaker 1: this is a dynamite report. But God, look under the hood,
Speaker 1: any analysts don't. That's when I'm talking about folks. Larry
Speaker 1: Cudlow saying it. Things are really good, and people aren't
Speaker 1: even paying attention. Instead, we have a media focus on
Speaker 1: sharpie gates where you had the president using a sharpie
Speaker 1: marker to try and show that the path of the
Speaker 1: hurricane might have included Alabama in it. That we're still
Speaker 1: even talking about this seems to me to just be ridiculous.
Speaker 1: The President doesn't admit mistakes. We know that. He says
Speaker 1: he didn't make a mistake. They say he did. Okay,
Speaker 1: it wasn't malicious. So and it's weather. It's uncertain who
Speaker 1: really know, But they just they're digging in on this
Speaker 1: because every day that there or every hour that is
Speaker 1: spent covering this nonsense. Is an hour that people aren't
Speaker 1: turning on the TV, flipping open their computer or looking
Speaker 1: at their phone and finding out that, oh, you mean
Speaker 1: that Trump was a far better steward of the economy
Speaker 1: than they said he would be, and that things are
Speaker 1: actually going quite well and people have more money in
Speaker 1: their paycheck, more money in the bank. Oh yeah, all
Speaker 1: those things that really matter. We'll talk about more that
Speaker 1: matters what we do every day here on the show,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna get into that in the moment. Stay
Speaker 1: We are going to take the storm out in the
Speaker 1: open Atlantic, and eventually it will head towards Nova Scotia,
Speaker 1: likely as a Category one hurricane, and just enough of
Speaker 1: this storm is going to clip southern portions of New England.
Speaker 1: Cape cod is under a tropical storm warning. You will
Speaker 1: get some rain and gusty wins, but I don't exact.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna have a lot of damage from that Nika.
Speaker 1: It would just be kind of a minor inconvenience. So
Speaker 1: the storm for the US Dorian has been what we'd say,
Speaker 1: probably underachieving, and now we can try to focus all
Speaker 1: our attentions on the recovery efforts down there in the Bahamas.
Speaker 1: Very saddening to see what's happened in the Bahamas Um.
Speaker 1: There's some really gut wrenching video footage and photos you
Speaker 1: can see on all the major on all the major
Speaker 1: news sites, you have bodies of human beings that are
Speaker 1: still on the streets. They're expecting that the the death
Speaker 1: toll will be staggeringly high. At what that exactly roughly
Speaker 1: mean or what that roughly means who I can't tell you,
Speaker 1: But there's there's definitely a sense that there's a lot
Speaker 1: of there was a lot of death on the island
Speaker 1: as a result of this storm, and here we are
Speaker 1: now in the aftermath of another a natural disaster. And
Speaker 1: you would think that in a healthy there's always going
Speaker 1: to be disagreement, right, There's always going to be descent,
Speaker 1: and that's people would point out that's healthy. We need
Speaker 1: the exchange of ideas, but in a healthier political climate,
Speaker 1: this situation in the Bahamas and also different parts of
Speaker 1: the US that have been hit hard, although we haven't
Speaker 1: seen anything along the lines of the devastation we've seen
Speaker 1: in the Bahamas, there would be a sense that we
Speaker 1: need to come together and tackle this together, that we
Speaker 1: should work with each other to handle this problem instead
Speaker 1: of trying to point fingers at each other and decide
Speaker 1: that this is the result of well, there's a few
Speaker 1: ways that fingers will be pointed at. First, no matter
Speaker 1: what President Trump does, no matter what he does, I
Speaker 1: can guarantee you the Democrat narrative here is going to
Speaker 1: be that Trump didn't do enough because he doesn't care
Speaker 1: about the Bahamas, because he doesn't care about a place
Speaker 1: that is majority non white. That's going to be the narrative, guaranteed.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna say. There's a lot of Americans Bahamas,
Speaker 1: a lot of people the Mohammas. I mean, it's unfair
Speaker 1: to Trump, it's unfair to our political discourse to put
Speaker 1: a smear like that out there. But that's what we're
Speaker 1: gonna be told. That's going to be the real story
Speaker 1: from the left. And it doesn't matter what he does.
Speaker 1: I mean, the President can say where to give the
Speaker 1: Bahamas one hundred billion dollars and they would say, well,
Speaker 1: now he's just trying to cover up how racist he is.
Speaker 1: Now he's just trying to throw us off the trail
Speaker 1: of his white nationalism or something. He can't win. He
Speaker 1: can't win. We know this. So that's the one level
Speaker 1: will be the the hurricane relief efforts. Just give it time.
Speaker 1: Liberals are going to be saying it's insufficient, he's not
Speaker 1: doing enough. All that, okay, And then you have the
Speaker 1: other part of this duo, which is what got us
Speaker 1: to this point in the last last forty eight hours,
Speaker 1: and I was doing the seven seven hour climate change thing. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: you have to keep in mind the liberals who believe
Speaker 1: in the climate change catastrophe myth see this devastation, and
Speaker 1: all it does is harden their resolve that we must
Speaker 1: take these dramatic steps, We must do these things in
Speaker 1: order to save the planet, and anyone who doesn't go
Speaker 1: along with them is a bad person who does not
Speaker 1: want to prevent the next major storm like this from happening.
Speaker 1: And you can see, can't you see this connection with Oh,
Speaker 1: this is what libs do after a natural disaster like this.
Speaker 1: They find a way to use it as a political
Speaker 1: mobilization technique. Can they argue around around it in that way?
Speaker 1: That's one thing that they do. They also do this
Speaker 1: after a mass shooting. They'll say, oh, well, you either
Speaker 1: do the things that we tell you have to be
Speaker 1: done now after this tragedy, or you don't care about
Speaker 1: the tragedy and therefore you're a bad person. This is
Speaker 1: a common tactic and it is it's corrosive that the
Speaker 1: left embraces this so openly, so repeatedly. It is corrosive
Speaker 1: for all political discussions because one they get locked into
Speaker 1: this lazy mentality on the left of oh, we're just
Speaker 1: the good people, they're the bad people. There's really nothing
Speaker 1: here to discuss. It shuts down on our side because
Speaker 1: we realize, why engage when you're just gonna be told
Speaker 1: you don't care about the devastation, you don't care about
Speaker 1: the dead children after a mass shooting, which is just
Speaker 1: not true. It's just a smear, and it's a stupid
Speaker 1: one at that. But the exploitation of the grief that
Speaker 1: we are seeing, the loss that we're seeing down the
Speaker 1: Bahamas with this week of CNN and other places, but
Speaker 1: CNN led the group here with their seven hour down hall.
Speaker 1: It's just stunning. It's stunning how willing they are, how
Speaker 1: willing the Democrats are to use this to leverage this
Speaker 1: loss and this pain for a political narrative that as
Speaker 1: I keep pointing out to you, doesn't even have an upside.
Speaker 1: There's some areas where the left can be wrong and
Speaker 1: we say, okay, that's a bad idea, but at least
Speaker 1: there's some good that will come of it. Nothing good
Speaker 1: comes from the Green New Deal, nothing, nothing good comes
Speaker 1: from tackling the problem of climate change is not an upside.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could try to tell me that moving
Speaker 1: around money to green energy deals or jobs or something is,
Speaker 1: But that's just the government appropriating private property and giving
Speaker 1: it to favored constituents. Man, I don't think that's a
Speaker 1: good thing. That's not really productive. That's the government inflicting
Speaker 1: itself on us, and I think harming productivity and harming
Speaker 1: our wealth. But you know, the exploitation of tragedy is
Speaker 1: a just like identity politics are a Democrat pastime and dominant.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that we don't have some versions of
Speaker 1: identity politics and political tribalism on the right. We don't
Speaker 1: really do the we don't do racial identity politics. But
Speaker 1: there's I'm sure people can make arguments that we think
Speaker 1: very much in terms of just our team versus any
Speaker 1: other team, right, the right versus versus the left, and
Speaker 1: that's all that matters. But the willingness to exploit tragedy
Speaker 1: on the left is particularly troubling, and it is a distinction.
Speaker 1: It's a way that they separate themselves from us. We
Speaker 1: just don't do this. We don't see something bad happened
Speaker 1: somewhere and say, ah, what is my favorite political cause
Speaker 1: to tie this to? You know, we say, when something
Speaker 1: that happens that's really terrible, is there anything we can
Speaker 1: do to help? And wow, we feel badly, thoughts and prayers.
Speaker 1: That's a normal reaction to this is who you'd be
Speaker 1: apologizing to. Someone who violated FBI in DJ policy, violated
Speaker 1: the terms of his employment agreement, div always the existence
Speaker 1: of an investigation, which is a big no no, transmitted
Speaker 1: classified information, and then when the FBI came to his
Speaker 1: house after he was fired, had amnesia. That's the person.
Speaker 1: Oh no, by the way, this is not the first
Speaker 1: time Jim Komey was dinged by the Inspector General. Remember
Speaker 1: he was dinged in the Clinton investigation. Because Komy plays
Speaker 1: by his own subtle rules, so he's zero for two,
Speaker 1: and the two major investigations he had in twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: violated almost everything you can think of accept a criminal statute,
Speaker 1: and that's the guy that wants you to apologize to him.
Speaker 1: Kobe is amazing in that sense that he still believes
Speaker 1: that he is just fantastic. He still believes he's the
Speaker 1: most incredible guy, and he did everything the way that
Speaker 1: somebody in his position should have done it. He's he
Speaker 1: has apologized for absolutely nothing. And I will just say
Speaker 1: that I've been telling you all along, guys, even when
Speaker 1: the information comes out, even when we have the inspector
Speaker 1: General report, don't expect, don't expect anybody who was anti
Speaker 1: Trump to be putting cuffs. It's just not going to happen.
Speaker 1: Just like you know, there's there's always this institutional bias
Speaker 1: toward the institutionalists, the people that first and foremost put
Speaker 1: the the agency or the bureau of the bureaucracy ahead
Speaker 1: of any other considerations. And Comy is certainly one of them.
Speaker 1: Although I think that Comy puts himself before everything. But
Speaker 1: he's now he's gonna be a wealthy guy. He's already wealthy,
Speaker 1: but he's gonna keep making a lot of money. The
Speaker 1: Resistance will treat him very well because what we found out,
Speaker 1: and it's pretty astonishing that this is where we've come
Speaker 1: to as a country. What we have found out is
Speaker 1: that James Comey I think because there were two possibilities.
Speaker 1: One of the possibilities was that he really believed that
Speaker 1: Trump was a Russian asset and that he was doing
Speaker 1: the country a necessary service, a necessary favor by trying
Speaker 1: to save us from a Trump presidency, because there was
Speaker 1: real evidence that the Russians had had turned him and
Speaker 1: he was working the Russians. Or there's just a possibility
Speaker 1: that he thought that Comy thought he'd be a hero
Speaker 1: because the establishment hates Trump so much and so they
Speaker 1: were just going to remove him from office by a
Speaker 1: bureaucratic coup. I think it's the latter. I really don't
Speaker 1: think that Comy, but I don't think it's possible for
Speaker 1: Comy to have believed this stuff. I think Brennan maybe
Speaker 1: was a believer. I think Brennan might have been somebody
Speaker 1: who convinced himself that Donald Trump was a Russian asset
Speaker 1: and that all this was real and that the fears
Speaker 1: here were well founded. I mean, I think that that's
Speaker 1: very possible because Brennan's just a whacko. But I think
Speaker 1: Comy more likely was somebody who came along and said,
Speaker 1: you know what, Brennan has already started this narrative, this
Speaker 1: theory over its CIA, so why don't we just run
Speaker 1: with this. This gives me a perfect opportunity to at
Speaker 1: a minimum, create leverage against the President the United States,
Speaker 1: and more to the point of going beyond that, to
Speaker 1: put him in a position where he was able to
Speaker 1: perhaps remove him from office. So this was going after
Speaker 1: the president, I think, even in I think going after
Speaker 1: him in bad faith, not just going after him in error,
Speaker 1: which would have been a more charitable reading of what
Speaker 1: Coomi did here. And yet I'm here to tell you
Speaker 1: I don't I don't think that McCabe is going to
Speaker 1: get prosecuted, which is just uh, that's as clear a
Speaker 1: case as you can find of senior FBI guys. They
Speaker 1: don't have to live by the same law as they
Speaker 1: want the rest of us to live. But senior FBI
Speaker 1: guys don't have to suffer the consequence as the way
Speaker 1: a normal everyday American would. And that's just where it is.
Speaker 1: That's what I think is really I think it's really
Speaker 1: going on here. We're going to continue to see this
Speaker 1: play out we'll get more information. I think about the
Speaker 1: from the Inspector General is also the DOJ investigation that
Speaker 1: Barr has appointed someone I think, you look, Barr is
Speaker 1: fantastic in the role. But Barr didn't recommend charges against
Speaker 1: Comy and he's not going to recommend charges against any
Speaker 1: of these government officials because I think that there's still
Speaker 1: a considerable there's still a belief inside these very powerful
Speaker 1: government agencies that they need to not allow the political
Speaker 1: targeting of the previous administration or its people or supporters
Speaker 1: to be a thing. And I'd be all for that,
Speaker 1: except that's exactly what we have with the Russia collusion nonsense.
Speaker 1: We had, we had Obama administration people, and this, this
Speaker 1: is this keeps happening where our side, the conservatives, the right,
Speaker 1: say well, we can't go down that road because that
Speaker 1: would make things, you know, more difficult, that will make
Speaker 1: things more challenging. You know. The other side does these things,
Speaker 1: and then we say, oh, wait, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: even though they've done it, we don't want to create this,
Speaker 1: you know, this Pandora's box effect. We don't want to
Speaker 1: you know, well, the box has already been opened. They
Speaker 1: already weaponized the federal apparatus, the federal bureaucracy for political
Speaker 1: purposes against an administration. But now we go and we
Speaker 1: say to ourselves, oh, well, we don't want this to
Speaker 1: get worse, so we're gonna let bygones be bygones. Here.
Speaker 1: We're gonna pretend that it never really happened the way
Speaker 1: that you know, we've been told, or the way that
Speaker 1: we figured out that it happened. I mean, that's really
Speaker 1: what's going on here. That's really the way that they're
Speaker 1: they're pushing this, and it's just it's very frustrating because
Speaker 1: we're not going to get justice. We're not going to
Speaker 1: be told the truth about what's well, we're gonna told
Speaker 1: the truth, but we're not going to ever see anybody
Speaker 1: really punish for it, which is deeply frustrating. By the way,
Speaker 1: one other area where we're not going to get justice
Speaker 1: is I really would like us to stop hearing this lie.
Speaker 1: It's a lie that never seems to go away. But
Speaker 1: it's that and liberals say this all that I hear
Speaker 1: liberals continuously saying this. They keep saying that Stacey Abrams
Speaker 1: really won the Georgia governatorial race. She did not win.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence that she won, but Beto keeps perpetuating
Speaker 1: this among many others running around saying that she won
Speaker 1: the Georgia gubernatorial race. Here is Beto O'Rourke. We have
Speaker 1: functionally disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans. But
Speaker 1: for what you've just described, Stacey Abrams would be the
Speaker 1: governor of the state of Georgia right now. Based on
Speaker 1: your race and your ethnicity African American, Mexican American, to
Speaker 1: be specific. You were drawn out of a congressional district
Speaker 1: to diminish the power of your vote or the likelihood
Speaker 1: that your voice would ever be heard. So the answer
Speaker 1: to this has to be a new voting rights Act
Speaker 1: that takes away every single barrier that no longer allows
Speaker 1: us to jerrymander based on race or ethnicity, or party
Speaker 1: persuasion or anything. Well, how do you get rid of jerrymandering,
Speaker 1: betto When congressional districts are randomly drawn in the first place,
Speaker 1: who's gonna who's gonna determine what's jerry mander and what's not.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court just looked at this, they said, sorry,
Speaker 1: this is the way it goes. States get to determine
Speaker 1: what their congressional districts are. We leave it to the states.
Speaker 1: That's the way this is gonna go. Letna be some
Speaker 1: special commission. Oh, you mean like central planning. A bunch
Speaker 1: of people that are making decisions that they're far away
Speaker 1: from they don't really understand. But their word is law.
Speaker 1: That's a bad idea. That's a bad idea. The new
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act that Betto says he wants. He doesn't
Speaker 1: even know what would be in it. But more to
Speaker 1: the point, here's another case where they aren't lying. They
Speaker 1: are lying about something. The media is not challenging Betto
Speaker 1: for saying this, and this is under my This is
Speaker 1: doing exactly what they accuse us of doing. We've never
Speaker 1: we don't do it. They do it. They say, we don't.
Speaker 1: We're not going to believe the results of an election.
Speaker 1: They said, oh, Trump's not going to accept the results
Speaker 1: of an election. Well, Hillary didn't accept the results of
Speaker 1: the election. Libs have never accepted the results of that
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election. And on top of that, here you
Speaker 1: have another lie about another important election that got national
Speaker 1: level attention, and they just don't stop lying about it.
Speaker 1: That the reasons Daisy Aram's loss is because of racism
Speaker 1: and disenfranchises. It's just not true. Have you seen a
Speaker 1: single Lib journalist push any of the Democratic candidates who
Speaker 1: say this, which many, if not all of them do
Speaker 1: for facts, No, of course not. They just always they're propagandists, folks.
Speaker 1: The overseas projects he's trying to defund have some pretty
Speaker 1: serious foreign policy consequences. Exactly is it a done deal
Speaker 1: or do you think this is something that still might
Speaker 1: be blocked. We have to stop it. There's absolutely no
Speaker 1: choice about having to fight back on this, and this
Speaker 1: is going to be one big, big battle, not only
Speaker 1: because of the effect as you so correctly pointed out
Speaker 1: on our relationships, trying to push back on Putin making
Speaker 1: sure that he doesn't have the opportunity to overrun Estonia, Lafia,
Speaker 1: and Lithuania, which you could do in three short days
Speaker 1: if we were not there, if those countries were not
Speaker 1: part of NATO. Beyond that, this is a fundamental issue
Speaker 1: of the constitution. The very democracy of America is at
Speaker 1: stake here. No amount of overstatement is too much for
Speaker 1: the Libs. When it comes to President Trump. We know
Speaker 1: that we just you know, he's he's Hitler. He's the
Speaker 1: worst president ever. He's crazy, he's you know, he's a racist,
Speaker 1: he's a rapist, all these things. We know. There's nothing
Speaker 1: that they will he's a traitor. Of course, there's nothing
Speaker 1: that they won't say. They won't say about this president.
Speaker 1: We've been shown that many times over. But now they're
Speaker 1: saying that the border wall building is a constitute, is
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis. Okay, well, let's look a little bit
Speaker 1: at what they're what they're so objecting to. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've already had the debate over border wall, and the
Speaker 1: Libs were wrong about this. A border wall would be
Speaker 1: helpful at reducing illegal crossings, which, by the way, it
Speaker 1: would also be helpful at allowing border patrol to do
Speaker 1: one of their primary jobs, which is drug and narcotics interdiction,
Speaker 1: which would stem the flow of illegal opioids into this country,
Speaker 1: including heroin and which which are killing tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of Americans, which any normal person should be much more
Speaker 1: concerned about than they're concerned about climate change. But Libs
Speaker 1: aren't normal. They've lost it. So now they're trying to
Speaker 1: find a process argument against the President of the United
Speaker 1: States building the wall with d D funds, and i'll
Speaker 1: this is from the Wall Street Uh no, sorry, this
Speaker 1: from the New York Times of Corse. I was like
Speaker 1: Wall Street drill, no, no, no, no new school at
Speaker 1: Fort Campbell. The money went to Trump's border wall. Here's
Speaker 1: what they're telling you. For almost two decades, families at
Speaker 1: Fort Campbell, the sprawling army base along the Kentucky Tennessee border,
Speaker 1: I've borne the brunt of the country's war efforts as
Speaker 1: a steady clip of troops with one hundred first Airborne
Speaker 1: Division and from special operations units deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Speaker 1: This week, the families discovered that they would not get
Speaker 1: the new middle school they were expecting so that President
Speaker 1: Trump could build his border wall. The school is on
Speaker 1: the list of one hundred and twenty seven projects nearly
Speaker 1: every facet of American military life that will be shifted
Speaker 1: to or suspended to shift three point six billion dollars
Speaker 1: to the wall. Here's the Let me look at this
Speaker 1: list of projects for your for a second. All right,
Speaker 1: So there are things on here that a no doubt
Speaker 1: would be would be good to do. But you see,
Speaker 1: we don't have endless funds. We don't have endless resources.
Speaker 1: This could have been done very easily if Democrats weren't
Speaker 1: just for political reasons, completely intransigent, and not just intransigent,
Speaker 1: but actually actively opposed to border security. I mean they are.
Speaker 1: They are against border security, and that's why they won't
Speaker 1: allow any funny for that. I mean, three billion dollars
Speaker 1: in terms of our federal federal budget for a worthwhile
Speaker 1: project is nothing the drop in the bucket. They're so
Speaker 1: worried about three billion dollars. I mean I mentioned Cylindrity yesterday,
Speaker 1: which had hundreds of millions of dollars, and that was
Speaker 1: just one private solar boondoggle, hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: of taxpayer guarantee for the Cylinder project, you know, And
Speaker 1: that's just one random project that was a company that
Speaker 1: never that was politically connected and never should have gotten
Speaker 1: the money that. But anyway, three billion dollars for a
Speaker 1: wall a wall is really important. So while the New
Speaker 1: York Times and others are looking at this and saying,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, you know, there's a military basis not
Speaker 1: going to get the new middle school that it was
Speaker 1: waiting for. I mean, look, I'm not trying to say
Speaker 1: that it wouldn't be nicer than I have a middle school.
Speaker 1: Middle school, they should. But if it's between Fort Campbell
Speaker 1: getting a new middle school and preventing a few tons
Speaker 1: of opioids from getting into the country because one sector
Speaker 1: of the border is finally able to be secured because
Speaker 1: of the wall, well, these are the decisions that we
Speaker 1: make in government all the time, and these are decisions
Speaker 1: that are being made in the executive branch. And I
Speaker 1: think the presidents well in his rights to do it.
Speaker 1: I think that these process objections to how this is
Speaker 1: such a and there are even some conservatives who make this, oh,
Speaker 1: he can't do this, he can't declare a state of
Speaker 1: emergency over this. Well, if he can, and he is.
Speaker 1: So the objection to it on process grounds, I think
Speaker 1: is large just about whining, because to object to it
Speaker 1: on substantive grounds is to say that one just doesn't
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, one just does not
Speaker 1: want and does not believe in having a wall on
Speaker 1: the border because it would help secure the border, and
Speaker 1: they don't want that to happen. They prefer the status quo,
Speaker 1: which is the continuation of infiltration into this country of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens. That's what's really happening here. And you know,
Speaker 1: Mark Morgan of Immigration and Custom Enforcement, he said that
Speaker 1: there's there's a reason to do this and that he
Speaker 1: supports the president. One of the things they need to
Speaker 1: effectively do their job is more wall, and the President
Speaker 1: is delivering. I have full confidence and the Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense that he is not going to take money that's
Speaker 1: going to impact his ability to safeguard the Nazi security
Speaker 1: this country. This wall is part of a Nasi security
Speaker 1: crisis we have right now Neil on this southwest border.
Speaker 1: So Mark Morgan here is essentially saying the President's right
Speaker 1: on the substance. But more than that, imagine if the
Speaker 1: Democrats were opposed to a lawfully declared war, and their
Speaker 1: their version of how they were going to oppose it
Speaker 1: was would be to say, Okay, well, we can't stop
Speaker 1: this war because there's a there's a resolution for it,
Speaker 1: and it's a lawful war, but we're just going to
Speaker 1: tell the troops that they can't have you know, the
Speaker 1: we're gonna cut their ammunition in half. Would the President
Speaker 1: of the United States in that circumstance be justified and
Speaker 1: saying actually, we're going to take d D funds and
Speaker 1: make sure that our troops have plenty of ammunition for
Speaker 1: the war. Well, now take that to border patrol. Border
Speaker 1: patrol is a legitimate and lawful mission. They need barriers
Speaker 1: to help them carry out that mission. That Democrats disapprove
Speaker 1: of that legitimate and lawful mission does not mean that
Speaker 1: they get to just play spoiler on it and prevent
Speaker 1: an important federal agency from doing a job that it
Speaker 1: is absolutely supposed to do, is valid for it to do.
Speaker 1: And as I've been telling you, there's a few different
Speaker 1: layers that go into this opposition. One is that they
Speaker 1: know that Trump following through on this promise is a
Speaker 1: huge problem for the Democrats in twenty twenty because we
Speaker 1: can play back. It's not just Trump saying build the wall,
Speaker 1: and there will be new wall that's built, and then
Speaker 1: he'll be able to say we are building the wall,
Speaker 1: and no one could fact check him and say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we're not, and all this other stuff. But also think
Speaker 1: about all the people who were absolutely certain, and there
Speaker 1: are a lot of them Democrats and some so called conservatives.
Speaker 1: I don't know how conservative they were. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're a conservative and you're voting for Democrats in the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty election. You're not a conservative, you're a fake,
Speaker 1: you're a phony. I mean, we can just we should
Speaker 1: just say that, there's no reason to hold back on that.
Speaker 1: But the people that were saying there would never be
Speaker 1: there would just never be a wall, how are they
Speaker 1: going to look when Trump gets this done? How was
Speaker 1: they gonna look for them when all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, it turns out there is a wall. The
Speaker 1: wall is getting built. The political residence that this is
Speaker 1: going to have in twenty twenty is going to be
Speaker 1: very meaningful. And so Democrats will stop at nothing here,
Speaker 1: and I do either you're going to have legal challenges.
Speaker 1: They may go they may go to the mat on
Speaker 1: this in ways that I can't even really foresee it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't even know what that would be.
Speaker 1: But they've got to prevent in their mind, they've got
Speaker 1: to prevent Trump from from building that wall, because if
Speaker 1: he builds it, it's a campaign promise to fill. They'll
Speaker 1: look foolish. And I think Trump will be unstoppable going
Speaker 1: in the twenty twenty election. With three point seven percent
Speaker 1: unemployment today, mean things are good, things are good, and
Speaker 1: the wall is going to help. But the borders already
Speaker 1: getting to be more secure. It's still in bad shape,
Speaker 1: but it's getting better under Trump's watch. So he's trying
Speaker 1: to deliver folks. Let it continue to play out. You're
Speaker 1: out of the administration, now, are you still taking heat
Speaker 1: when you go out to eat? Uh? Sometimes? You know,
Speaker 1: it usually depends on where I am in the country.
Speaker 1: Um at home back home in Arkansas. Things have so
Speaker 1: far been pretty easy and very welcoming about here in
Speaker 1: New York City. It's it's hit or miss. What I
Speaker 1: always find interesting is ninety nine percent of the people
Speaker 1: that come over to say something negative and to attack
Speaker 1: you or women. And I find that very startling from
Speaker 1: a you know, group of people that claim to be
Speaker 1: the champions of women empowerment. I'm only the third woman
Speaker 1: and the first mom to ever be the White House
Speaker 1: Press Secretary, and yet women attack me relentlessly instead of
Speaker 1: you know, being proud that we have more women doing
Speaker 1: uh those time you ever say that. A few things
Speaker 1: that work here, as Sarah Huckaby Sanders is talking about
Speaker 1: the way that she has treated now that she is
Speaker 1: out of the administration, of a few things that are
Speaker 1: going on. One is that unfortunately the Libs, and this
Speaker 1: is the shorter conversation, I think. But the Libs once
Speaker 1: again manage to even though they've lost, and that Trump
Speaker 1: is president, and Sarah Sanders has become a household name
Speaker 1: and did a very respectable job in that role of
Speaker 1: White House Press secretary. There's a message that has been
Speaker 1: sent here, and the message is, if you work for
Speaker 1: a Republican administration, if you work for specifically the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: you're a fair game. People are going to come after you.
Speaker 1: They're going to be mean to you, they're going to
Speaker 1: try and hurt your career. They're going to go they're
Speaker 1: going to try to make an effort to make your
Speaker 1: life more difficult. That's that's what they planted. That's what
Speaker 1: they're going to do. And that has an effect. It
Speaker 1: has an effect on who's willing to go work for
Speaker 1: an administration, has an effect on what kind of people
Speaker 1: are willing to put themselves in that reputation with that
Speaker 1: reputational risk in play. And so that's that's already something
Speaker 1: you have to keep in mind is that this this
Speaker 1: doesn't happen. This didn't happen to any Obama administration officials.
Speaker 1: It just didn't. They weren't worried about going to restaurants
Speaker 1: in any city, but the more interested. But you are,
Speaker 1: you already know that, right, But this is what they do.
Speaker 1: I mean libs, they can't help themselves. They've become they've
Speaker 1: really become radicalized leftist. It's to be a radicalized leftist
Speaker 1: now is a much more. It's just very it's mainstream.
Speaker 1: It's really not radical. I mean, it's radical from our perspective,
Speaker 1: but it's not rare. Usually you think of radicals as outliers,
Speaker 1: but that's not always the case. Sometimes the radicals are
Speaker 1: in charge, and right now with the left the way
Speaker 1: that it is the Democrat Party, this country is run
Speaker 1: by the more radical elements of it. But then there's
Speaker 1: the component of this discussion that Sarah Hugaby Sanders brings
Speaker 1: up where she's talking about women and how it's women
Speaker 1: who go up tour, which I have to say is
Speaker 1: not is not surprising to me. And this is a
Speaker 1: reminder of a very common difference I see between the
Speaker 1: way that liberal women often Right, we're speaking in generalities here,
Speaker 1: so this is never going to be perfect, but how
Speaker 1: liberal women often act and the way more conservative women
Speaker 1: act in public and what I mean here is that
Speaker 1: the liberal women have been told that their perspective as
Speaker 1: leftists is the only acceptable perspective for a woman to have.
Speaker 1: This is this is an extension of the identity politics
Speaker 1: that so dominates the left. Liberal women have been told
Speaker 1: that their version of being a their version of the
Speaker 1: world as women, is the only one that is acceptable
Speaker 1: for a woman to have. And so when they come
Speaker 1: across a woman who does not hold there but it
Speaker 1: does not share their beliefs, is not involved in their
Speaker 1: their worldview, they feel entirely justified in being very nasty
Speaker 1: that person because she's betraying her gender. That's where this really,
Speaker 1: that's where this really comes to ahead they're betraying they
Speaker 1: viewed Sarah Huckebee Sanders as a gender the liberal women
Speaker 1: as a gender betrayer. I just don't come across conservative
Speaker 1: women who feel the same need. I mean, I could
Speaker 1: say this, I do not know anybody personally who would
Speaker 1: I would expect to go up to a female member
Speaker 1: of the Obama administrator, the former Obama administration and say
Speaker 1: anything nasty to them. And I would be very embarrassed
Speaker 1: if anyone that I considered a friend or an associate
Speaker 1: did that, I'd be embarrassed by it. Even if I
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with it would still be an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: Liberals they don't mind this stuff. They don't mind getting
Speaker 1: shrill and nasty and attacking. And this is why someone
Speaker 1: like Sarah Huckabee Sanders now has to always be paying
Speaker 1: attention to this. I mean, think about what that would
Speaker 1: be like for the rest of your life. You're in
Speaker 1: a restaurant, at least for the next few years. You're
Speaker 1: in a restaurant and someone could come up to You're
Speaker 1: just trying to have a nice time, enjoy a meal
Speaker 1: with your your husband or your wife and your kids,
Speaker 1: and someone's maybe going to come along and say something
Speaker 1: really nasty to you. And I just want to ask them,
Speaker 1: what exactly is Sarah Huckabe's crime? A you worked for
Speaker 1: President Trump. A lot of people work for President Trump
Speaker 1: and President Trump up to this point in time. If
Speaker 1: you look at what had gone on, what had happened
Speaker 1: in the first three years of the Obama administration versus
Speaker 1: what's happened in the first three years of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Trump is just objectively doing a better job as president.
Speaker 1: I think he's just better at this job. He doesn't
Speaker 1: do it in a way that liberals and the elites
Speaker 1: think he should. His tone is wrong for them, his
Speaker 1: approach is wrong for them. That's all. Yeah, I get that,
Speaker 1: you know, that's all going on. But the fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that by all the metrics that where
Speaker 1: you can gauge this, Trump is actually doing quite well.
Speaker 1: And that doesn't matter to the liberals the leftists who
Speaker 1: want to go and attack Sarah Huckabee Sanders and try
Speaker 1: to ridicule her in public and make her feel small,
Speaker 1: as though she's a bad person. This should be repudiated
Speaker 1: that the left does not share this broadly speaking. And
Speaker 1: I'll tell you I've spoken to even people in the
Speaker 1: media who are Democrats, and they'll say, you know, sorry,
Speaker 1: if you work for Trump, you know you get you
Speaker 1: get what you deserve. Sorry, you know, I don't really
Speaker 1: want to hear it. You know, if you work for Trump,
Speaker 1: this is kind of the this is kind of the
Speaker 1: way it's gonna be. They don't they're not appalled by this.
Speaker 1: They weren't appalled by it when we went through that phase.
Speaker 1: What was it about a year ago where you had
Speaker 1: people being chased out of restaurants who were conservative. You know,
Speaker 1: hat Sara Hugaby Sanders, you had Kristen Nielsen. Obviously they
Speaker 1: showed up at Tucker Crowston's house. He doesn't work for
Speaker 1: the administration, but he's considered pro Trump, and that can
Speaker 1: be enough. And I'll just say to you right now,
Speaker 1: I am in the town that I was born and
Speaker 1: raised in where I know, I know this place very
Speaker 1: very well. And I also know that if I walked
Speaker 1: around any neighborhood in Manhattan with a Maga hat on,
Speaker 1: there is a very high likelihood that somebody would that
Speaker 1: people would sneer at me, curse at me. Somebody might
Speaker 1: even stop and try to tell me off, you know,
Speaker 1: try to have some words with me for wearing a
Speaker 1: hat that has the slogan associated with the president, the
Speaker 1: sitting president the United States, that tells you something, this
Speaker 1: is this is different. You wouldn't you haven't had this
Speaker 1: in the past. You you would have been able, I think,
Speaker 1: to walk around with a Bush a Bush Cheney t
Speaker 1: shirt on in the early two thousands and people wouldn't
Speaker 1: have liked it. I'm not saying that they wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been on your team with it, but they probably wouldn't
Speaker 1: have thrown rotten tomatoes at you. Now you better get
Speaker 1: ready to duck, because they're going to come after you,
Speaker 1: because nastiness has been mainstreamed on the left. As Sarah
Speaker 1: Huckabee Sanders has found out many times yourself, I don't
Speaker 1: love what he's doing for this city, and it worries me. Listen,
Speaker 1: I'm a Christian. I love everyone, and I love him,
Speaker 1: but I don't love what he's doing for this city,
Speaker 1: and it worries me. When I moved here, everyone said
Speaker 1: you cleaned up Times Square. I don't want it to
Speaker 1: go back to that. How do you feel about Mayor
Speaker 1: de Blasio in the direction of this great city breaks
Speaker 1: my heart, and I worked tirelessly to do that. There
Speaker 1: were times I didn't think I couldn't do it. A
Speaker 1: lot of my friends told me I couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: A lot of my friends told me I was crazy
Speaker 1: to run from Mayor. I should run from Governor. Bill
Speaker 1: de Blasio is the mayor of New York City. He
Speaker 1: log I think it was single digits for total time
Speaker 1: working at city Hall for the month of August. The
Speaker 1: guy is considered incredibly lazy and just something of a
Speaker 1: political waste roll. I mean, the guy just doesn't doesn't
Speaker 1: really do anything other than run for president incredibly unsuccessfully
Speaker 1: and also do a little bit of social justice bowing
Speaker 1: here and there, trying to get people different constituencies to
Speaker 1: think that he's on their side, you know. But de Blasio,
Speaker 1: he's as a complete buffoon. As I've said, only mayor
Speaker 1: of New York City, the biggest city in the United States,
Speaker 1: Only the mayor of the city where I'm doing the
Speaker 1: show right now. Really because Anthony Weiner couldn't bring himself
Speaker 1: to stop sending Wiener photos to people, including to a
Speaker 1: girl who was who was under age, and you know,
Speaker 1: now he got obviously, he got sent to prison for that.
Speaker 1: So there were some very particular and peculiar, peculiar circumstances
Speaker 1: that led to this. And the truth is Deblasio never
Speaker 1: should have been the mayor of anything. I mean, Deblasio
Speaker 1: shouldn't be the mayor of a city with eight thousand people,
Speaker 1: never mind eight million people. But it's also a reminder
Speaker 1: about how, you know, leftists, they never learn their lessons
Speaker 1: about cities. You show me a city that is run
Speaker 1: by far left liberals, and I'll show you a city
Speaker 1: that is in decline now. In the case of New York,
Speaker 1: it got so safe, it was so cleaned up, and
Speaker 1: there was such a concentration of wealth here. New York
Speaker 1: City became a real estate haven where people from all
Speaker 1: over the world would basically dump their money into very
Speaker 1: high end real estate here where it would be safe
Speaker 1: and also would appreciate. It was a great investment if
Speaker 1: you could afford to spend ten million dollars on an
Speaker 1: apartment in New York City, Believe it or not, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of those. You know, there's some states where
Speaker 1: the most expensive house in the whole state, I think
Speaker 1: is like three four million bucks. In New York City
Speaker 1: there are ten million. There are buildings full of nothing
Speaker 1: but ten million dollars apartments pretty much. There's some apartments
Speaker 1: here that go upwards of one hundred million dollars. So
Speaker 1: there's a tremendous amount of wealth concentration here. And because
Speaker 1: of that, and because of the turnaround in crime from
Speaker 1: the Giuliani era, you have accumulated a lot of And look,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg did a pretty good job running the city too.
Speaker 1: I think that people need to give credit where it's
Speaker 1: due on that. Bloomberg is terrible on guns. He's a
Speaker 1: big nanny state guy. He's like, now more using straws,
Speaker 1: no more big sodas you know Bloomberg is that's a
Speaker 1: little bit of an exaggerated Bloomberg accent, but you get
Speaker 1: the idea. Kind of sounds like that. You know, Daniel
Speaker 1: Bloomberg obla Espanol. I'll never forget what he would he
Speaker 1: would kick into his version of Spanish sometimes during the
Speaker 1: you know, hobless p piquito Espanol, Bloomberg, bloombergo. But he
Speaker 1: did a good job. The problem you run into with
Speaker 1: liberals is that they ruin things in stages, and because
Speaker 1: it can take time for a place to be ruined,
Speaker 1: no lib is ever really held responsible, and in fact,
Speaker 1: they will always claim that they're ideologically motivated decisions had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with it. You see this in San Francisco,
Speaker 1: you see this in Los Angeles. You're seeing this now
Speaker 1: in New York City. It's never that changing, the dynamic
Speaker 1: between city hall and the police force, deciding that cops
Speaker 1: are are going to be political pawns who sometimes get
Speaker 1: fed the lions. Thinking that that living, being able to
Speaker 1: live on the streets is a is some basic human
Speaker 1: right that you can be a vagrant, that you can
Speaker 1: live on the sidewalks, pitch a tent, you know, relieve
Speaker 1: yourself in public, do do whatever you gotta do. Liberals
Speaker 1: are supportive of this. It is it is surprising at
Speaker 1: some level, you would think that they would much rather
Speaker 1: create larger shelter and and and even mental health support
Speaker 1: systems for people that are that are homeless. But liberals
Speaker 1: have taken this position of it's a it's a right.
Speaker 1: You have a fundamental right to live as a homeless
Speaker 1: person on the streets of whatever major American city you want,
Speaker 1: including all of the issues that come up as a
Speaker 1: result of that with crime and sanitation, and just also
Speaker 1: bring it. Look, let's be honest, bring down property values.
Speaker 1: I mean, who wants to live across the street from
Speaker 1: a tent city? Who wants to live across the street
Speaker 1: from people who are living on the street. This is
Speaker 1: a problem in New York. I can tell you that
Speaker 1: I was in Times Square ever early in the morning
Speaker 1: on my way to a Fox hit last weekend, and
Speaker 1: had a very It was early, so we're in the
Speaker 1: morning that I don't even remember it all that well,
Speaker 1: but I was approached and accosted. And I'm from here.
Speaker 1: I mean I grew up here, and I'm I know
Speaker 1: some of you would be surprised, but I'm not a
Speaker 1: small not a small dude. I'm six feet tall and
Speaker 1: two hundred pounds. And a guy came over and was
Speaker 1: very aggressive, demanding money, not asking politely excuse me, Sarah,
Speaker 1: could I you know, he was very aggressive. He was
Speaker 1: demanding that I gave him money, and I, believe it
Speaker 1: or not, kind of kind of barked at him, like,
Speaker 1: not actually bark but kind of, you know, said bleep off, buddy,
Speaker 1: And uh but I hadn't seen. You know, there's there's
Speaker 1: an aggression on the streets now. There's a sense of lawlessness.
Speaker 1: And I know it because I lived it before in
Speaker 1: the nineties when I was growing up here, and it's
Speaker 1: coming back. And the problem is that, you know, de
Speaker 1: Blasio is going to point to, oh, the crime rate
Speaker 1: is still super low. It's still at least a homicide
Speaker 1: rate is very low. I do not believe that the
Speaker 1: overall crime rate, if you include nuisance crimes and quality
Speaker 1: of life crimes, I do not believe it that continues
Speaker 1: to go down. I think that that is almost certainly,
Speaker 1: but that's very hard to gauge. A lot of that
Speaker 1: is anecdotal. That's why someone like the Blasio will have
Speaker 1: his number crunchers play games with that to make it
Speaker 1: seem like it's not that bad. But this is one
Speaker 1: of the issues we have is that we can tell
Speaker 1: that we can tell someone what they're doing is wrong.
Speaker 1: You can tell a Democrat, you can tell a lib
Speaker 1: you know, you're ruining the school system, you're ruining the city,
Speaker 1: you're ruining the economy, whatever it may be, and they will,
Speaker 1: over the course of the stages of that ruination find scapegoats,
Speaker 1: find some way to blame somebody else and avoid accountability
Speaker 1: for it. I mean, I can tell you that it
Speaker 1: will take a while, but New York does feel like
Speaker 1: it is It is very much on a downward slope
Speaker 1: in terms of quality of life, cleanliness, crime, and de Blasio.
Speaker 1: By the time we figure out that there has been
Speaker 1: this shift and crime in a major city is also
Speaker 1: is a very complicated sociological phenomenon. It's there's a lot
Speaker 1: that goes into it. By the time we figure out
Speaker 1: that New York has started to really have in the
Speaker 1: wrong direction, to Blasio will pretty much be gone, and
Speaker 1: he'll be saying that, oh, look at how good, look
Speaker 1: at how good it was when I was in office.
Speaker 1: This next person ruined it. And that's that's how you
Speaker 1: never managed to get anyone to admit that they were wrong.
Speaker 1: There's always a way to blame somebody else, you know.
Speaker 1: Libs can and it takes time to ruin something. Libs
Speaker 1: have a long fuse sometimes on destroying a city, destroying
Speaker 1: a neighborhood, whatever it may be. And you know Deblasio
Speaker 1: is doing it here to my hometown. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: I can see it. The President actually sent out a
Speaker 1: tweet he made fun of me for talking about climate
Speaker 1: change in the middle of a blizzard, and he called
Speaker 1: me snow woman. So I wrote back, Hey, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: the science is on my side and I'd like to
Speaker 1: see how your hair would fare in a blizzard. So
Speaker 1: I wrote back, Donald Trump, the science is on my side,
Speaker 1: and I'd like to see how your hair would fare
Speaker 1: in a blizzard. Sometimes, if you haven't noticed, you use
Speaker 1: a little humor, like when he called me snow woman
Speaker 1: at my announcement in the middle of that thing, I
Speaker 1: wrote back on Twitter, I'd like to see how your
Speaker 1: hair would fare in a blizzard. So I wrote back, Hey,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. So I wrote back, Hey Donald Trump. So
Speaker 1: I wrote back, I wrote back, I tweeted back. So
Speaker 1: I've got a joke for you. It's Amy Klobaschar here.
Speaker 1: So I wrote to Donald Trump, I'd like to see
Speaker 1: how your hair would fare in a oh Man Amy klobshard,
Speaker 1: Democrat candidate. She has a joke. She's got one joke apparently,
Speaker 1: and she likes to tell that joke a lot. Now,
Speaker 1: there's a a bigger message that I have for you
Speaker 1: than just making fun of Amy Klobaschar who does manage
Speaker 1: to make Lary Clinton see more personally appealing by comparison?
Speaker 1: You know, Amy Klobisher is right in that same that
Speaker 1: same level of wow. I can't believe people vote for
Speaker 1: this person and want to spend time around her as
Speaker 1: a politician, or believe that she understands their needs and
Speaker 1: connects with them on a personal level. I don't know,
Speaker 1: just connect with anybody in a personal level. But this
Speaker 1: is a and it's it's a continuing theme here on
Speaker 1: the show that our sense of the elites is eroding,
Speaker 1: not because of an undo cynicism and not because we
Speaker 1: are failing to cherish our most important institutions, and all
Speaker 1: this other other stuff you hear from the elites and
Speaker 1: their lackeys nombre. There are a lot of people that
Speaker 1: want to do the bidding of the elites in our society.
Speaker 1: Never want to speak the truth to you because they
Speaker 1: want to feed from the trough too. They want to
Speaker 1: get in on the action. But the familiarity that we have,
Speaker 1: people say that familiarity breeds contempt of the familiarity we
Speaker 1: have with our political ruling class, because of social media,
Speaker 1: because of the twenty four hour news cycle we have,
Speaker 1: and just the general connectedness that we all have. You know,
Speaker 1: I can do a search on Amy Klobischer and see
Speaker 1: a lot of things that she said, and read a
Speaker 1: lot of things that either she's written or things that
Speaker 1: have been said about her. I can do that very
Speaker 1: easily and then find myself drawing a conclusion about her competence,
Speaker 1: her ability. This is a new thing in human history.
Speaker 1: You've got to remember maybe back in the day when
Speaker 1: somebody was running for running for president. Let's just even
Speaker 1: say in this country, I mean, if you're running for
Speaker 1: president in this country in the eighteen twenties, no one
Speaker 1: really is going to see you who's casting votes. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe they'll see you at one speech. They don't know
Speaker 1: what you're like in person. They don't know what you
Speaker 1: really think. And they can't pull up immediately at the
Speaker 1: touch of a button every bill you've ever supported as
Speaker 1: a let's say, a state centator. They can't bring up
Speaker 1: every gaff you've ever made. What we're dealing with as
Speaker 1: a society is far more information, far more information about candidates,
Speaker 1: about the people that are in charge, and as we
Speaker 1: learn more about them, we're less likely to defer to them.
Speaker 1: In essence, someone like Amy Klobashar, Why the heck am
Speaker 1: I going to listen to her about anything? What does
Speaker 1: Amy Klobashar no that I don't know? You know, what
Speaker 1: is she really able to to bring to this? I
Speaker 1: don't know. I think that's a very fair question. And
Speaker 1: it's also true about Joe Biden, whom I've got to
Speaker 1: tell you, and I've been speaking to some sources about
Speaker 1: this recently who have been in the political game a
Speaker 1: very long time and don't like to get down into
Speaker 1: the into the mud. But what everyone keeps saying the
Speaker 1: same thing about Biden, who knows him who's been around
Speaker 1: him that he doesn't have it in him. He's really
Speaker 1: he's really pretty worn out. And then he's dumb. This
Speaker 1: is the thing you hear from people, and I know
Speaker 1: that the left, but the left says it's about every Republican.
Speaker 1: They say Bush is dumb, Trump is dumb, Romney's dumb.
Speaker 1: You know, everybody who's a probably Goann is dumb. So
Speaker 1: they're they over ease it, just like they say everybody's
Speaker 1: a racist on the right, we're all racists, and everybody
Speaker 1: who's on the right is dumb. This is this is
Speaker 1: the left wing, the laziness of left wing attacks against conservatives.
Speaker 1: But when you hear it about Biden, people seem to
Speaker 1: really believe it. They really just think that he's kind
Speaker 1: of he's kind of a dumbass. This is what you'll hear.
Speaker 1: People will say that very and very confidently, like they
Speaker 1: don't they're not making a difficult decision. They're not making
Speaker 1: a difficult choice with all of this. So Amy Klobasher,
Speaker 1: obviously he does not have a future as a stand
Speaker 1: up comedian. And I really leave that Joe Biden doesn't
Speaker 1: have a future as president United States because I think
Speaker 1: that he's not going to win the primary. If he
Speaker 1: does win the primary, I think he has almost no
Speaker 1: chance of winning the general election. Even the polls tell
Speaker 1: me I'm wrong. I'm aware of that. I'm aware that
Speaker 1: on a polling level, it should be it shouldn't be
Speaker 1: a it shouldn't even be close. Right now, they're saying
Speaker 1: that Biden's way ahead of him. Oh, Doctor Mark Siegel
Speaker 1: over at the at Fox talked about some of the
Speaker 1: medical and look, I was telling you this the way
Speaker 1: that they've gone after Trump, with the with the removal
Speaker 1: from office under the twenty fifth Amendment. You know that
Speaker 1: they've made medical and age discussions completely fair game, which
Speaker 1: I think is now going to come back to bite
Speaker 1: them at some level because Biden is clearly worse for wear,
Speaker 1: and Biden is not doing well. And there was that
Speaker 1: moment where I filled with blood during the climate change,
Speaker 1: and you know, because we're also get human beings, like
Speaker 1: I want Biden to be in good health as a
Speaker 1: human being, I want him to be, Okay, I don't
Speaker 1: like seeing it an elderly gentleman, how as eye filled
Speaker 1: with blood, especially in a very crowded place where Everen's
Speaker 1: looking at him, it's it's unsettling. It's unsettling. But here's
Speaker 1: what doctor Mark Siegel over Fox has about Biden's overall health, which,
Speaker 1: as we know, is fair game to disgust. Biden did
Speaker 1: it blood in his eye? What might that have been?
Speaker 1: Now that's the more dramatic, and by the way, of
Speaker 1: course I haven't examined them. I'm not a physician, but
Speaker 1: that appears to me it would be something called a
Speaker 1: subcontract timbal hemorrhage, which sounds worse than it is. It's
Speaker 1: a blood vessel leaking, but just below the eye, and
Speaker 1: usually it's benign. It goes away on its own and
Speaker 1: it's nothing to worry about. He appeared confused. That's been
Speaker 1: happening with increasing amount where he forgot, seems to forget
Speaker 1: what state he's in, or the timeline of the park
Speaker 1: the Parkland School shooting. Things like that are really concerning
Speaker 1: to me. And again I don't know the answer to
Speaker 1: why that's happening, but I want to point something out.
Speaker 1: He had those aneurysms clipped surgically back in nineteen eighty eight.
Speaker 1: You know what happened In nineteen ninety we developed a
Speaker 1: new technique to do that where we went in through
Speaker 1: the artery itself, which was a miracle a change. So
Speaker 1: Biden's health is going to be a big discussion that
Speaker 1: they tried to hide the fact that Hillary, obviously it
Speaker 1: was a little shakier on the health front, and they
Speaker 1: wanted anyone to believe. But we don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about Hillary these days. She doesn't look like she's going
Speaker 1: to get in, at least not from what I can
Speaker 1: tell at this point. But Biden's health, Biden's age, You're
Speaker 1: going to hear a lot more discussion about this. I'm
Speaker 1: still still sticking to it with my claim that Biden's
Speaker 1: not going to be the nominee. I don't know. I've
Speaker 1: doubled down on it so much. I can't back off
Speaker 1: of it now. I just think it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: The bigger picture problem here is this is about an
Speaker 1: actual emergence situation. Most of the president slides are not
Speaker 1: about actual emergencies. This one is different. It's about a hurricane.
Speaker 1: He's been lying to the country about the hurricane with
Speaker 1: regards to Alabama ever since Sunday. Now he's watching TV coverage,
Speaker 1: he's getting mad at our fact checks, and he's lashing
Speaker 1: out again and again and again. It's a real sign
Speaker 1: of weakness, not strength. When he doubles down, it's a
Speaker 1: sign of weakness. And I think if we were to
Speaker 1: take him at his word for a moment, which is
Speaker 1: dangerous because he usually not telling the truth, If we
Speaker 1: were to take him at his word, if he actually
Speaker 1: believed Alabama was in danger, that shows a shocking lack
Speaker 1: of knowledge about geography, science and storms. Anybody who's watching
Speaker 1: cable news for a few minutes knows how hurricanes work.
Speaker 1: Y'all would know just by looking at a map that
Speaker 1: on Sunday morning, Alabama was going to be spared. This
Speaker 1: is gonna be a Florida in the Caroline storm. Everybody
Speaker 1: watching television knew that. See here's an example of where
Speaker 1: the media thinks that they are being the guardians of
Speaker 1: our republic and they're really just being an annoying hall monitor.
Speaker 1: There's this fixation on whether or not Trump said that
Speaker 1: Hurricane Dorian was going to be a threat to or
Speaker 1: rather when Trump said it would be a threat to Alabama.
Speaker 1: They keep going back and forth on this one, and
Speaker 1: it's a reminder that, you know, look, Trump can be
Speaker 1: a little bit a little bit thin skinned or or
Speaker 1: decides that he's going to fight. He fights on things
Speaker 1: where he doesn't have to do sometimes, and maybe it's
Speaker 1: just because he's always in fight mode with the media.
Speaker 1: I can understand that, but they love to get into this,
Speaker 1: and I would note that turns out there are there's
Speaker 1: some reporting from CNA itself that mentioned we was played
Speaker 1: for you then mentioned the state of Alabama. But there
Speaker 1: are many states that are under threat right now Derry
Speaker 1: at least six from the Carolina's right through Georgia coastline
Speaker 1: into Florida certainly, and then also even into the Gulf
Speaker 1: of Mexico, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi. You need to be on
Speaker 1: the lookout. Now, that's alb You know he mentioned Alabama.
Speaker 1: You know the President said that he thought Alabama wasn't
Speaker 1: a threat. They're saying that it never was. The President's lying.
Speaker 1: I don't really other than just to stick a thumb
Speaker 1: in the President's eye, and he won't let them do that,
Speaker 1: so he'll keep fighting and doubling down. This is where
Speaker 1: the media just lacks judgment, lacks context. This is not
Speaker 1: an important issue whether the president said that he thought
Speaker 1: a storm is threatening Alabama or not isn't an important issue,
Speaker 1: but they make it a much more important issue. They
Speaker 1: try to make it a much more important issue, and
Speaker 1: they say, oh, well, the president's lying again. I ask
Speaker 1: what's more important, what's more important for the public to understand,
Speaker 1: to debate, to discuss that the president may have said
Speaker 1: that Alabama was under some kind of threat, or that
Speaker 1: say mayor Pete Buddha Judge is running around telling people
Speaker 1: as a presidential antidate, telling people that climate change threatens
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of lives. Okay, so the climate crisis
Speaker 1: is that the very first thing if you were elected
Speaker 1: president that you would tackle or are there other things
Speaker 1: on day one that you would do first? It needs
Speaker 1: immediate attention on day one because this is a threat
Speaker 1: to our entire way of life. Hundreds of millions of
Speaker 1: lives are on the line. I know, usually the way
Speaker 1: we talk about it is save the planet. I'm interested
Speaker 1: in saving lives, and there are lives in danger. Every
Speaker 1: time we see more frequent and more severe storms, when
Speaker 1: we're looking at droughts, what's going to happen to food supply?
Speaker 1: And this is upon us. This is no longer some
Speaker 1: distant theoretical thing. This is no longer just happening on
Speaker 1: the North or South Pole. This is happening to our
Speaker 1: country right now. It's getting worse, and we've got to
Speaker 1: act completely irrational. It's completely irrational. You want to talk
Speaker 1: about lives. I mean, this is just all this is
Speaker 1: all a lie, the whole climate change Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: hundreds of mill millions of lives on the line. It's
Speaker 1: it's an enormous lie, and a very damaging one. Is
Speaker 1: that trying to discuss with you. Yesterday people like Bertie
Speaker 1: Sanders running around saying that they think abortion in the
Speaker 1: developing world is something that we should be promoting because
Speaker 1: we need to control global population. We absolutely do not
Speaker 1: need to control global population through abortion. I mean, it's immoral,
Speaker 1: but even beyond the immorality of it, there's just no
Speaker 1: reason to do it. It doesn't make any sense. It's
Speaker 1: a fake problem. The problem of global global overpopulation isn't
Speaker 1: a problem in the first place. The problem of climate
Speaker 1: change catastrophe isn't a problem in the first place. But
Speaker 1: they'll let mayor Pete say that without challenging him. I
Speaker 1: suppose because every journalist believes this too. Journalists believe whatever
Speaker 1: they think will make them sound smart. They're generally journalists
Speaker 1: are generally lacking in principle and are much more concerned
Speaker 1: with perception. Perception is what drives most of the media coveragency.
Speaker 1: Most journalists are obsessed with how they will be viewed
Speaker 1: for an idea, how they'll be viewed on a certain issue.
Speaker 1: That's the reality of it, and that's what you see
Speaker 1: going on on all these networks and all these major places.
Speaker 1: But to drill down into Trump on Alabama, to me
Speaker 1: just seems like another instance of they would rather talk
Speaker 1: about whether Trump told the fib or was wrong on
Speaker 1: something that is entirely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things,
Speaker 1: then focus on the enormously consequential and unfortunately very damaging
Speaker 1: lies about things like climate change. I've never been able
Speaker 1: to do a show like the one we did yesterday
Speaker 1: where we were running out of time to go through
Speaker 1: all of it, because of course they did this seven
Speaker 1: hour long which that's crazy that they really think we
Speaker 1: need to hear from all these different democrats. They all
Speaker 1: believe the same thing. They they're all reading from the
Speaker 1: same sheet of music. They're all a bunch of wackos,
Speaker 1: and they this is just where they are on this.
Speaker 1: They're all gonna, in one way or another, support a
Speaker 1: government takeover of the economy under the rubric of Green
Speaker 1: New Deal energy, you know, green energy, renewables, climate change,
Speaker 1: all the same thing. It's it's not like one of
Speaker 1: them has a really novel idea for her to deal
Speaker 1: with this. I mean, Andrew Yang, I'm sure has some
Speaker 1: weird ideas for it. But you know, Yang Yang's worn
Speaker 1: pretty thin on me. I'll be honest with you, I'm
Speaker 1: not really not really feeling like I need to hear
Speaker 1: much more from Andrew Yang than anything. He does have ideas,
Speaker 1: they're just not very good ideas. There was no pushback
Speaker 1: at all from anyone in the media about this climate
Speaker 1: change nonsense. I should say, no one at CNN certainly. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe that shouldn't be surprising by the way. I think
Speaker 1: I've told some of you this before, I believe, well,
Speaker 1: I guess I've told all of you if I said
Speaker 1: it on air. But I walked away from CNN in
Speaker 1: at the end of twenty sixteen. They requested that I stay,
Speaker 1: and I said I'm going, which for somebody who at
Speaker 1: the time really didn't even have. It was before I
Speaker 1: was hired here to do syndicated radio. I didn't really
Speaker 1: have a job. I just didn't want to be working
Speaker 1: at CNN in its era of Trump hatred because I
Speaker 1: was very aware that there was a it's a personal vendetta.
Speaker 1: What you see is a news network has been commandeered
Speaker 1: by Jeff Zucker in the service of a personal grudge.
Speaker 1: He has just decided that that CNN is going to
Speaker 1: be a weapon of propaganda against Donald Trump. That's what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. That's his decision, that's his choice, and
Speaker 1: I didn't want to be around that. Knew what that
Speaker 1: would mean for me as a as a CNN contributor
Speaker 1: at the time, and that's why I'm not at all
Speaker 1: surprised to see what has just happened here to someone
Speaker 1: that I've I've done some work with in the past,
Speaker 1: which is a young woman named Eliana Johnson. She is
Speaker 1: going to be the editor in chief of the Washington
Speaker 1: Free Beacon and has come out and just said, look,
Speaker 1: they didn't renew her. They didn't renew her at CNN
Speaker 1: to be a contributor. And it's very clear to anybody
Speaker 1: being attention to why that is because she's going to
Speaker 1: work for the Free Beacon, which is considered a conservative publication.
Speaker 1: She had been a white house correspondent at Politico. This
Speaker 1: is a perfect example of the way the media landscape
Speaker 1: works right now. You can work at a liberal organization
Speaker 1: as long as you suppress your conservatism and nobody really knows.
Speaker 1: But the moment that it's clear you're going to be
Speaker 1: a concern pervative, you get put into a different pile.
Speaker 1: You get treated very differently. I mean I was treated
Speaker 1: very differently once I started openly supporting Trump on air.
Speaker 1: I wasn't just the guy who knew a bunch about
Speaker 1: terrorism and could do that analysis. I was part of
Speaker 1: the problem. So Zucker's war against all things Trump had
Speaker 1: had many, many casualties in a sense. And I'm just
Speaker 1: sorry to see Ellianna Johnson, I think feels pretty snubbed
Speaker 1: by CNN not renewing her after letting her when she
Speaker 1: was a white House correspondent for Politico. But this is
Speaker 1: the way it is. This is the way it is
Speaker 1: if you're if you come out as a conservative, if
Speaker 1: you come out as a conservative in this environment, you
Speaker 1: have real career risk. There are people who will not
Speaker 1: hire you. There are people who do not want to
Speaker 1: be associated with your career, and unfortunately are people in
Speaker 1: positions of power, and they're the kind of people that
Speaker 1: hire the Brian Stelters of the world to talk nonsense
Speaker 1: about what Trump said about Alabama. I always thought that
Speaker 1: vaping was the much safer alternative to cigarettes. And I'm
Speaker 1: not somebody who's ever smoke. In fact, I can tell
Speaker 1: you I have never smoked a cigarette. I've never smoked one.
Speaker 1: I just didn't wasn't my thing, didn't appealed to me.
Speaker 1: I tried a cigar once or twice, and I've kind
Speaker 1: of say cigars, I don't know, I don't, I don't know.
Speaker 1: It's not my thing. It's not really my thing. I
Speaker 1: like some delicious booze and wine, but cigar I haven't.
Speaker 1: I never developed a taste for you, cigar smoker, Mark, No,
Speaker 1: I didn't think so. So the only thing I've smoked
Speaker 1: I shouldn't say on the radio. Well, I gave it
Speaker 1: up after nine to eleven. But that makes two of us.
Speaker 1: So I want to go into the CIA. So I said,
Speaker 1: no more of that, no more of that. You know,
Speaker 1: what is it? Uh? Whaco tobacco, right, what are they
Speaker 1: Mary Jane, the thank you? I'm trying to think of
Speaker 1: the cool what are the cool kids call it? I
Speaker 1: gotta remember these things. I can't always though, I'm not
Speaker 1: always certain of what the cool kids say. But vaping
Speaker 1: seemed like this really good alternative, right. Vaping seemed like
Speaker 1: something that you'd be able to replace smoking with. And
Speaker 1: it's water vapor, so it's far less harmful, it's far
Speaker 1: easier on the lungs. And it turns out there's still
Speaker 1: some problems with vaping other than the addiction of nicotine. Now,
Speaker 1: nicotine is the drug as we all know that's in cigarettes.
Speaker 1: It makes them so very very addictive. But all that
Speaker 1: other stuff, the tar and the different carcynogens in the
Speaker 1: tobacco smoke, that's what's really bad for you. That's the
Speaker 1: stuff that is such a clear link to on cancer,
Speaker 1: emphysym all the things that we've known for quite some time. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm seeing all these stories about of vaping is killing people.
Speaker 1: You saw this, This was the Daily Mail today. It's
Speaker 1: some other places too, that vaping has killed a third
Speaker 1: person and has left four hundred and fifty people sick.
Speaker 1: CDC Health officials warn the habit is behind a deadly
Speaker 1: new lung disease that has spread to thirty three states
Speaker 1: across the country. I just don't understand what is going
Speaker 1: on here. I don't understand what the situation is. Two
Speaker 1: hundred fifteen cases confirmed. FDA has warned that cannabis vaping
Speaker 1: related deaths may be caused by a vitamin E derived oil.
Speaker 1: It's unclear what's going on with any of this. He
Speaker 1: got vaping related lung illness now killed four people. They're
Speaker 1: saying many, but not all, the severe lung illnesses have
Speaker 1: involved THHC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, as well as nicotine,
Speaker 1: and yeah, yeah, we got you gotta figure this out.
Speaker 1: I don't know what. I don't know what's going on here.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised. I remember there was a there was a
Speaker 1: brief period when people used to think that you could
Speaker 1: do that. They call it shisha in most places, smoking
Speaker 1: shisha or narghila. It's a Middle Eastern water pipe. And
Speaker 1: you know these places have you have you ever done
Speaker 1: this before where you go in and you hka lounge,
Speaker 1: who exactly? Hookah? That's yeah, that's what Okay, Well, people
Speaker 1: say smoking shisha or narghila I think is what they
Speaker 1: call it in either Lebanon or Egypt. But yeah, hohokah lounge,
Speaker 1: that's exactly right. Whok is the name of of the pipe,
Speaker 1: I think. And you know you see people doing this anything,
Speaker 1: you always know because you go past it and it's like, oh,
Speaker 1: it smells like pomegranted and like, oh it's you know,
Speaker 1: you have all these different flavors. It turns out that's
Speaker 1: really bad for you. That is not just because it
Speaker 1: smells fruity fresh doesn't mean that you don't have any
Speaker 1: any issues there. Um. But this is a this is
Speaker 1: a real surprise you have now people thinking that vaping
Speaker 1: is so much safer, no no problem at all, and
Speaker 1: it turns out that's not the case. U after doing
Speaker 1: a full X ray of his lungs this is talking about.
Speaker 1: This is from the Chicago Tribune. An eighteen year old
Speaker 1: in Illinois was hospitalized after developing what seemed like a
Speaker 1: flu and then nausea and vomiting, and then a scan
Speaker 1: of his stomach reveal just the very bottom of his lungs.
Speaker 1: Even from that small fraction of an image, doctors could
Speaker 1: tell something was off. This is all, according to The
Speaker 1: Daily Mail reporting on the Chicago Tribune. After doing a
Speaker 1: full X ray of his lungs, doctors told Adam his
Speaker 1: chest looked like that of a man in his seventies.
Speaker 1: He'd been vaping for about two years, starting with mint
Speaker 1: and mango nicotine e liquids, but eventually graduating the THHC
Speaker 1: dab sticks he bought off the street. Last week, the
Speaker 1: CDC warned Americans against these very bootlegged products. By the
Speaker 1: time of his lung X ray, Adam's lung function was
Speaker 1: so poor by then he had to be placed on oxygen.
Speaker 1: Doctor started him on a course of antibiotics and steroids.
Speaker 1: Is improving, but his lungs may not recover for weeks
Speaker 1: or even months. According to doctors. Newly dubbed a disease,
Speaker 1: these lung illnesses are too recent for anyone in the
Speaker 1: long term effects. What is this? I don't even know.
Speaker 1: I guess no one really knows what's going on. But
Speaker 1: it just goes to show you people think of lungs.
Speaker 1: I guess as because we've been smoking for such a
Speaker 1: long time. You know, your lung is very, very soft
Speaker 1: and important tissue, and to put stuff in there that
Speaker 1: shouldn't be in there. I think is just generally a
Speaker 1: very bad idea. I don't even want to think about
Speaker 1: how bad it is to be in some of these
Speaker 1: major cities that we're in. I'm sure it's terrible. I
Speaker 1: mean him here in New York City. It's not as
Speaker 1: bad as Beijing and Shanghai, it's some of these other places,
Speaker 1: but it's not good. It's not good for your lungs. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I thought that I thought that vaping might be the
Speaker 1: cure for cigarettes, And it looks like now vaping has
Speaker 1: its own, its own way. So you know, you just
Speaker 1: never know. Folks, science comes along. They like to pretend
Speaker 1: like science is always settled. But then I always I
Speaker 1: always tell people, you know, is butter good for you?
Speaker 1: So you drink whole milk or skim milk? Is meat
Speaker 1: good for you? Oh? Turns out I've got something for
Speaker 1: you on that. That's right. I'm not I'm not just
Speaker 1: throwing it out there that we could discuss whether or
Speaker 1: not meat is good for you. It turns out that
Speaker 1: there is a new study came from CNN. Research is
Speaker 1: found that vegetarians and vegans had a twenty percent higher
Speaker 1: risk of stroke than meat eaters, particularly hammorrhagic stroke. This
Speaker 1: translates to three more cases of stroke per thousand people
Speaker 1: over ten years. Now, that doesn't seem all that statistically
Speaker 1: significant really in the grand scheme of things, But I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna take that to be do you want to
Speaker 1: die from a brain hemorrhage or not. If the answer
Speaker 1: is no, eat red meat, there you go healthier for
Speaker 1: you than being a vegan. I'm sorry. Yeah, vegetarians and vegans.
Speaker 1: I don't know how vegans do it. That just strikes
Speaker 1: me as no matter what the health benefits are, it's
Speaker 1: just too it's just too austere, too difficult, too complicated.
Speaker 1: I couldn't imagine somebody saying, oh, I'm just gonna all
Speaker 1: of a sudden give up all dairy, all meat, all fish, everything,
Speaker 1: just living on plants basically plants and nuts and what else?
Speaker 1: What else? Did vegans eat soy stuff the beyond Burger? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I had it. It's okay, But people keep telling me
Speaker 1: that it's so healthy, and then I look at the
Speaker 1: ingredients and the ingredients it's like you're reading the back
Speaker 1: of a shampoo bottle with all the different chemicals and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of stuff and beyond meat burgers. You
Speaker 1: know it's in the burger that I had for lunch today,
Speaker 1: meat dead cow. That's how I like it, Team Buck,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. Is a rainy mess here
Speaker 1: in New York City. Fortunately I leave a pair of old,
Speaker 1: very comfy sweats here in the Freedom Hunt because I
Speaker 1: walked in sopping wet. No fun at all. I was
Speaker 1: wearing my duck boots though. It's never never a bad
Speaker 1: idea to throw those throw those bad boys on your
Speaker 1: feet when you're out there in the wetness. All right,
Speaker 1: Facebook dot Com, slash Bucks, Sexton. That's the way it's
Speaker 1: gonna go. That's the way it's gonna be. Let's see
Speaker 1: what we got here in the latest on our Facebook.
Speaker 1: And by the way, producer Mark, do we do we
Speaker 1: have an email address yet? Do we know? Still being
Speaker 1: worked on? It's a Friday? Come on, It was so hard.
Speaker 1: I try so hard to get this done. I really
Speaker 1: do you think work gets done around here on Fridays? Oh? Man?
Speaker 1: It's like, how hard can this be? But it'll I
Speaker 1: guess it'll all It'll all be okay, buster ohen It's
Speaker 1: perfect steak recipe. This works best with fle Mignon and
Speaker 1: it's a long steak recipe. Enjoy. Okay, thank you, Owen.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Also writes Buck, I totally agree Master
Speaker 1: and Commander is a terrific movie and would recommend Hacksaw
Speaker 1: Ridge if you haven't seen it. Well, I would have
Speaker 1: to agree with you on Master and Commander because I
Speaker 1: obviously said I think that it's fantastic and it's a
Speaker 1: Hacksall Ridge I thought was a very good movie. I
Speaker 1: was a little bit skeptical at first as Hacksall Ridge
Speaker 1: was was getting going. I didn't think it was necessarily
Speaker 1: gonna really deliver. But it's an amazing movie. And then
Speaker 1: when you read the the real Medal of Honor citation
Speaker 1: that that guy got, it's just an incredible story. Producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: you seen hacks All Ridge, I have not add that
Speaker 1: to your list. Man, Well, that's a very you know,
Speaker 1: next time you're like what movie should I watch? I
Speaker 1: download on Amazon Prime or whatever or whatever the Amazon
Speaker 1: platforms you should download. Hacks all is very very good movie. Um,
Speaker 1: And obviously I like Master and Commander a lot too.
Speaker 1: I can't remember the last really good war epic that
Speaker 1: was made. I think it's been a long time, was
Speaker 1: it Dunkirk? I thought dun Kirk was boring? Really thought
Speaker 1: I thought it was boring. I'm thinking of I thought,
Speaker 1: what's going on? What all you know? Where are the ships?
Speaker 1: They're like, all right, I get it, like they're waiting
Speaker 1: for the ships to arrive. But there's a lot of
Speaker 1: just guys on a beach and then a lot of
Speaker 1: dudes on the boats. Maybe I'm thinking of the one
Speaker 1: with the medic who helped everyone without a gun. That's
Speaker 1: hacks all Ridge. Oh then I did see. Actually I'm
Speaker 1: the worst. Yeah, of course I'm the worst. With the
Speaker 1: name of the movie. I can tell you the plot,
Speaker 1: but I don't know the name. It's a fantastically You're right,
Speaker 1: it was great. I don't need I'll take it right
Speaker 1: off my list. Yeah, all right, um. Eric Buck speaking
Speaker 1: on a conservative book about climate change and fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: I studied environmental geology with an emphasis on environmental conservation
Speaker 1: and restoration. My senior thesis was on sustainable farming practices.
Speaker 1: I wholeheartedly viewed oil companies as of the devil. Still
Speaker 1: hold that the earth as a whole is valuable in
Speaker 1: it is our responsibility to protect it. That being said,
Speaker 1: the book that took me off the ledge of left
Speaker 1: wing crazy was A Moral Case for Fossil Fuels by
Speaker 1: Alex Epstein. It's a well written book and makes great points.
Speaker 1: Highly recommend any of these to you and your listeners.
Speaker 1: Shields High. Well, thank you, Eric, I will I will
Speaker 1: check that out. I still think that there's a big
Speaker 1: opening for somebody to write the definitive refutation of climate
Speaker 1: change catastrophe nonsense. I still think that that's there's an
Speaker 1: opening for that. I really do. Let's see what we
Speaker 1: have here. Harry rights, Hey buck, I assume whoops, I
Speaker 1: don't know why that they're going to the wrong part
Speaker 1: of my feet all of a sudden. Harry writes, the
Speaker 1: mainstream media is looking for any bad news they can
Speaker 1: to blame on Trump. The latest job numbers are a
Speaker 1: case in point. Only one hundred and thirty thousand new
Speaker 1: jobs were added last month, supposedly less than expected. But
Speaker 1: if thirty million people need a job and five hundred
Speaker 1: thousand jobs are added, that is not as good news
Speaker 1: as one million people needing jobs and one hundred thousand
Speaker 1: finding one. Apparently the MSM didn't go the same high school.
Speaker 1: You or I attended Shields High. Okay, thanks, Harry, appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Running in man, Sheldon sheld T Buck love your show.
Speaker 1: You keep me safe and warm all day and all night.
Speaker 1: Whoa Sheldon, Hey, buddy, Glad I can help. Glad I
Speaker 1: can be of service. Keep hearing about banning plastic straws
Speaker 1: and only using the paper ones. I live in Texas,
Speaker 1: so it's not a big problem here yet. But I've
Speaker 1: thought of a way to fight back when I end
Speaker 1: up in a place that only has paper straws. When
Speaker 1: I see it, I immediately ask for twenty straws, then
Speaker 1: replace the straw with a new one each time to
Speaker 1: take a drink, so it's a good firm straw. Maybe
Speaker 1: if everyone would do this, they will learn that it's
Speaker 1: not just that it's just not cost effective. Let's fight back,
Speaker 1: Sheldon from Texas. Oh, it's one way to go. Making
Speaker 1: straws a pretty big part of your routine here, Sheldon.
Speaker 1: But I hear you, I hear you. The paper straws
Speaker 1: are ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous. Look, plastic is an amazing material.
Speaker 1: Plastic is great. I know that right now people like
Speaker 1: to demonize plastic, But plastic is fantastic. Oh, that rhyme
Speaker 1: plastic is fantastic. That should be I should be on
Speaker 1: one of those national ad campaigns where they come up
Speaker 1: with the annoying catchy slogan. Yep, totally, Adam Buck, are
Speaker 1: you going to talk about te Swift being dethroned by
Speaker 1: an unknown band? Shields High? I don't know what we're well,
Speaker 1: what's what he mentions? Tool? Here? How is t Swift
Speaker 1: dethroned by Tool? I don't know who Tool is? Tools
Speaker 1: a band? Never heard of them. I don't think she's
Speaker 1: number one in the top fifty right now. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: what he's talking about. I have no idea what he's
Speaker 1: talking about. Adam, you're gonna to explain this one, dude,
Speaker 1: You're you're confusing the whole team right now. No one
Speaker 1: really knows what's going on here. Al call me all right.
Speaker 1: It's great segment with Sean Parnell. I don't think he
Speaker 1: ever said what his favorite war movie is. Ironically, I
Speaker 1: just ordered Outlaw Platoon today, Shields High, Well, I think
Speaker 1: you really enjoy Outlaw Platoon. It's an excellent book. I
Speaker 1: don't just say that because Sean is my friend. I
Speaker 1: think you'll all really enjoy it. It's it's very written
Speaker 1: from the perspective of a lot of humility, but also
Speaker 1: somebody who saw some really intense action. I saw some
Speaker 1: really up close and personal combat. William, Dave Chappelle was awesome.
Speaker 1: I understand how you think some of his jokes fell flat,
Speaker 1: but if you grew up in the South, everything was
Speaker 1: spot on. Thanks for the recommendation, now, William, I'm so
Speaker 1: glad you enjoyed him. I thought Dave Chappelle was I
Speaker 1: thought he did a fantastic job. I really appreciated a
Speaker 1: comedian who's willing to make jokes that he knows will
Speaker 1: upset the social justice squad. That's something that's very rare
Speaker 1: these days. Very few comedians are willing to do that.
Speaker 1: They're very few comedians out there who will do something
Speaker 1: that could get them in any trouble at all. So
Speaker 1: what they do is they just all parrot each other
Speaker 1: the same kinds of jokes, making fun of the same
Speaker 1: kinds of people. It's just boring. It's just boring. Simply,
Speaker 1: it's let's see here, casey, all right, hey buck. In
Speaker 1: comment to Tuesday show on Mad Dog, maddis Oh here
Speaker 1: we go. I served under him as my commandant in
Speaker 1: the Marines. I have much respect for the man, and
Speaker 1: in many ways he is somewhat of a knife hand
Speaker 1: ninja to us. However, I can explain these seven thousand
Speaker 1: books theory. You see, we Marines love our crowns. I
Speaker 1: prefer the flavored ones, but as it would go, we'd
Speaker 1: like to color with them as well. Some coloring books
Speaker 1: even have short stories. So when you consider how many
Speaker 1: different coloring books there are, it's not that hard to
Speaker 1: understand how one who has been a cran master for
Speaker 1: nearly forty years to get through seventeen thousand of them.
Speaker 1: But with all due respect, we love Maddis as well
Speaker 1: as our president. Shield Side and separate five casey O, casey.
Speaker 1: I'm glad to hear that Maddis was a great guy.
Speaker 1: But there you go. Like I said, I don't know him,
Speaker 1: so I have no firsthand experience of him at all,
Speaker 1: and that's that's where I have to leave it. I
Speaker 1: just know what I read in the papers, Kevin buck Shieldside.
Speaker 1: With regard to the climate change pushback on the left,
Speaker 1: take a look at Joe Bastardi's book The Climate Chronicles
Speaker 1: inconvenient revelations you won't hear from Al Gore and others.
Speaker 1: I know Joe Best started. We've had him on the
Speaker 1: show several times, so I think that would certainly be fun.
Speaker 1: I've got to say I haven't really completely recovered yet
Speaker 1: on how insane that Democrat town Hall was. I mean,
Speaker 1: that Democrat town Hall was just looney tunes, lunatic fille.
Speaker 1: It's crazy, and I don't know how anybody who thinks
Speaker 1: that they're a serious person could take that seriously, could
Speaker 1: think that this was a good idea, worthwhile and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it, and it's just madness. Terry Right's hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm just listening to your show from last night. You
Speaker 1: brought up a video that is the counter to Al
Speaker 1: Gore's an Inconvenient Truth. I taught ap environmental science for years,
Speaker 1: and I show Gore's movie, then immediately show not Evil,
Speaker 1: just wrong to balance the viewpoints. Check out the video clip.
Speaker 1: The movie did not get a lot of attention, strange,
Speaker 1: I know, but great points were made. She'll tie from
Speaker 1: New England. Terry. Well, thank you, Terry. I've never seen
Speaker 1: not Evil, just wrong, and I've never vaguely think I've
Speaker 1: heard of it, But I might just be saying that
Speaker 1: pretty sure that I don't know anything about it, So
Speaker 1: that doesn't speak well to how much attention and press
Speaker 1: it got. Dan Hey Buck, great show, great hair, back
Speaker 1: in a great city. Hold, Don, you're a great American.
Speaker 1: I know you hate numbers, but the CO two controversy
Speaker 1: won't go away. So an easy way to think of
Speaker 1: the atmosphere is if each molecule in the atmosphere were
Speaker 1: a seat in a one hundred thousand seats stadium, then
Speaker 1: CO two would represent forty to forty one seats, or
Speaker 1: about four hundred parts per million. All right, very very interesting,
Speaker 1: very cool. I did not know that. I was unaware
Speaker 1: of that, Producer, Mark, were you aware of that? I
Speaker 1: was not. I was unaware of it. Jeff, Actually, well,
Speaker 1: we've got to take a quick moment here, a little breather.
Speaker 1: Let you gather yourself, maybe dry off a bit. If
Speaker 1: you're like me and you're in the northeast and you've
Speaker 1: gotten covered with a rain while listening to this, hopefully
Speaker 1: not could have happened, though I don't know why I
Speaker 1: thought about that, probably because my head still wet. All right,
Speaker 1: we'll be back in the second with more roll call. Alrighty,
Speaker 1: we're doing the roll call, and here we go, Jeff
Speaker 1: hey Buckets tracker Jeff from California a day behind because
Speaker 1: I listen to your podcast overnight. There's whether but there
Speaker 1: is a whether our climate change book out there called
Speaker 1: Inconvenient Facts. I can't remember the author's name, but I've
Speaker 1: heard it on the radio several times and it sounds
Speaker 1: really good. Okay again, folks, I'm not I'm sure there
Speaker 1: are some well written books that deal with climate change
Speaker 1: and try to make the argument that this is really
Speaker 1: the best one that I could think of is State
Speaker 1: of Fear, which is a Michael Crichton book, and you
Speaker 1: all know how much I love Michael Crichton. But State
Speaker 1: of Fear is about it's really about eco terrorists. And
Speaker 1: Crichton thought that what they did in what they've done
Speaker 1: rather in climatology is to I was gonna say, deplorable,
Speaker 1: that word has forever changed, is disgraceful. They've made it
Speaker 1: a religious belief. You cannot you're not allowed to veer
Speaker 1: from it. So that's an issue, Nathan, right. Uh. Inconvenient
Speaker 1: Facts the science that Al Gore doesn't want you to
Speaker 1: know Glenn Back had this author on the Blaze. All Right, guys,
Speaker 1: I get it. I know there are but this is not.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's great, I'll take a look at it. But
Speaker 1: I'm talking about a book that is the seminal work,
Speaker 1: the the paramount example, the premier. Yeah, you get what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, the magnum opus, the Pslas stalls. Right, that's
Speaker 1: how we do it. I'm in kind of a mood.
Speaker 1: I'm ready for the weekend. Man, I'm on a Netflix
Speaker 1: and sleep this weekend. That's what I'm gonna do. David, Right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: my wife's nephew. Post this today. It makes sense. Take
Speaker 1: take care, Dave. Well, I can't really tell anybody. It's
Speaker 1: a photo of Di's Walmart and Google. I don't really
Speaker 1: get what's going on here, but thank you for sending in.
Speaker 1: Sending it in, Karen, A great book refuting Michael Mann's
Speaker 1: catastrophic global warming prediction. Is Mark Stein's a disgrace to
Speaker 1: the profession. At the moment, it has four hundred ninety
Speaker 1: nine Amazon reviews. Thanks. I checked that out mark Stein.
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed his one of his earlier books. I
Speaker 1: think it's America alone, and I would just say that.
Speaker 1: I think that this is the book that Stein got
Speaker 1: into legal some legal issue with where where Man sued
Speaker 1: because he said that it was defamation. I think that
Speaker 1: that is what happened. So yeah, let's see here, Randy, right,
Speaker 1: can I learn more about your background? Yeah? Sure, Man,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, disregard that question. Okay, Randy, whatever you want,
Speaker 1: my friend. But I would listening to your show here
Speaker 1: an Albert Kirky, New Mexico, the show with the dude
Speaker 1: who has a chainsaw a hand? Is Ash versus Evil Dead? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we got to that. Thank you for that. Is it
Speaker 1: worth seeing? I don't know. Is it worth checking out?
Speaker 1: What gets producer Mark fired up? By the way, because
Speaker 1: you're not the horror movie producer that was obviously Brandon.
Speaker 1: And you're not the smoking cigarettes out back with the
Speaker 1: ladies because you're engaged, and that would have been producer Mike.
Speaker 1: What is producer? What is producer Mark's things? Sports? What? Sports?
Speaker 1: I mean, Hockey's my favorite football opening this weekend. I
Speaker 1: can't believe you said you were going to Netflix and sleep. Oh,
Speaker 1: I mean hopefully the cable will be fixed. Verizon has
Speaker 1: been to my home three. I'm a little worn out
Speaker 1: from my apartment issues. You know, the new place. Verizon's
Speaker 1: been in my place three times. I mean you're in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: You probably have to walk a block to get somewhere
Speaker 1: to watch a game. That's a fair point. Yeah, But
Speaker 1: I'm just saying Verizon is like a little trip to
Speaker 1: this Verizon files is like a trip to the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: It's like it's like I get to hop in a
Speaker 1: time machine. Well, I don't boto cable. I just have
Speaker 1: Wi Fi. Really, how do you watch sports if you
Speaker 1: only have Wi Fi? I have my ways? Okay, my
Speaker 1: parents still have cable. Ah See, I gotta I gotta
Speaker 1: get on that trade because all I really want to
Speaker 1: be able to do is watch I need to have
Speaker 1: news on sometimes. I guess for you that makes sense.
Speaker 1: I don't watch news questions, but I just need to
Speaker 1: have the news on sometimes. And I probably should start
Speaker 1: just going more digital. But there's not a good daily
Speaker 1: digital stream that doesn't require a cable, a cable feed.
Speaker 1: There's no twenty four hour digital cable network out there
Speaker 1: that's that's good, that doesn't require a path a cable.
Speaker 1: There are good options for like streaming television where you
Speaker 1: can get like fifty channels. Yeah, yeah, like I forgot.
Speaker 1: Maybe Sling TV is one of them. Yeah, I gotta,
Speaker 1: I gotta cut the chord. Verizons, Verizon Files is ripping
Speaker 1: me off, so I'm I'm not having it. All right, everybody,
Speaker 1: you got your orders, have a fantastic weekend. I'll see
Speaker 1: you Monday. Shields High