Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Former FBI and doctor
Speaker 1: James Comy seems to have some very selective amnesia. And
Speaker 1: oh turns out he's a wildly anti Trump partisan. We
Speaker 1: knew that, but we got details. Plus can the government
Speaker 1: take your house if you underpay your taxes for eight dollars?
Speaker 1: Can answer to that and much more coming up on
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember,
Speaker 1: I hope Donald Trump is not removed from office by
Speaker 1: impeachment because it would let the country off the hook,
Speaker 1: and it would drive into the fabric of our nation
Speaker 1: a third of the people believing there was a coup.
Speaker 1: And we need a moment of inflection where we all
Speaker 1: get off the couch and say that is not who
Speaker 1: we are and in a landslide, rid ourselves of this
Speaker 1: attack on our values. And if we in a way
Speaker 1: short circuited that with an important legitimate process through the Constitution,
Speaker 1: I worry that we wouldn't we be letting ourselves off
Speaker 1: the hook In away, and we wouldn't have the moment
Speaker 1: of clarity that we need in this country. That said,
Speaker 1: if the facts are there and the legislative two houses
Speaker 1: of Congress think it's appropriate, that's fine. Someone please make
Speaker 1: the sank to Komi stop. I don't know how much
Speaker 1: more of that I could handle. Welcome to buck Sex
Speaker 1: and show great to be back, everybody. Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining me. I know I was, I was out.
Speaker 1: I felt very ill last week, but I am back
Speaker 1: in action, and man, I missed you guys. This is
Speaker 1: the most fun part, most worthwhile part of my day
Speaker 1: every day. And I would only take days off when
Speaker 1: I absolutely have to forrather need, you know, the needs
Speaker 1: of vacation or health. In this case, it was health.
Speaker 1: Let's get to Komy right away here. So I read
Speaker 1: the Komy transcript over the weekend, because that's the kind
Speaker 1: of fun party animal that I am. It's hanging out,
Speaker 1: rocking out, listening to some Kenny g reading some Komy transcripts,
Speaker 1: you know, as one does. And I'm reading the Komy
Speaker 1: stuff and then this speech or forum whatever it is.
Speaker 1: He sits down at the ninety second Street y in
Speaker 1: New York and has to sit down talk and you
Speaker 1: get these moments of pure, unadulterated komey Ism that we
Speaker 1: should all remember. And now that we see who this
Speaker 1: guy is, Now that we've an understanding of who this
Speaker 1: FBI director really was and the role that he played
Speaker 1: in the anti Trump cabal at the FBI, you got
Speaker 1: to reevaluate everything that we had heard from beforehand, everything
Speaker 1: we saw originally about Russia collusion and Comy's firing. This
Speaker 1: guy is a hack and a loon. Maybe he has
Speaker 1: been mentally and emotionally broken by Trump the way so
Speaker 1: many others who I had, even in some cases previously
Speaker 1: respected and thought were intelligent, but many of them have
Speaker 1: been broken by Trump and by Trump is m so
Speaker 1: that could be the case with him. Although I think
Speaker 1: that what we've seen is that Comy all along has
Speaker 1: been a Comyist first and foremost. He's been most concerned
Speaker 1: with himself and with the institutions, notably the FBI the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice that he ties himself to. But you
Speaker 1: got a really interesting view of how this man sees
Speaker 1: himself there and how he plays the game, because he's
Speaker 1: definitely somebody that is executing on a public relations strategy
Speaker 1: here you know this. He's the one who leaked information
Speaker 1: to somebody so that I could get into the New
Speaker 1: York Times to damage He takes all this very personally.
Speaker 1: Coomy is a very large ego, all six foot eleven
Speaker 1: of him, and he says in that one little sound
Speaker 1: bite we played for you that he's really hoping they
Speaker 1: don't impeach the president because we need to cut because
Speaker 1: people would think it's a coup. Yeah, maybe because it
Speaker 1: really is a soft coup in a sense. He's gaslighting
Speaker 1: the American people here by saying, well, if if they
Speaker 1: were to go forward with impeachment and then removal, which
Speaker 1: is not for that, it's never gonna happen. This sen
Speaker 1: it's never gonna move Trump and this is all that's
Speaker 1: all just happy horse, you know what. But even if
Speaker 1: it just goes through impeachment, he wants to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: they're gonna say it's because of a deep state. They're
Speaker 1: gonna say it's a soft coup, so that shouldn't happen. Well,
Speaker 1: the reason we're gonna say that's because it is. Because
Speaker 1: that's what we've seen. That's what the evidence shows that
Speaker 1: there has been a very obvious, now ongoing longstanding plot,
Speaker 1: a collusion, if you will, between the establishment elites, Democrat Party, DNC,
Speaker 1: Hillary senior officials, the DOJ, Sally Yates, Brannan, These these
Speaker 1: left wing partisans you know from the boomer generation, who
Speaker 1: have bought into all the progressive claptrap about how important
Speaker 1: they are and how how wonderful they are for the
Speaker 1: future of the country and everything else. We've seen what
Speaker 1: they've done. We don't have even a full accounting of
Speaker 1: it yet, but we know that they stacked the deck
Speaker 1: against Trump. We know that they tried to take him
Speaker 1: down from the inside. And now you get you get
Speaker 1: to have Comy out there lecturing us on how well
Speaker 1: we don't want we don't want the president to be
Speaker 1: impeached because then people might think, I don't know where
Speaker 1: they'd get this idea that there was almost some group
Speaker 1: of senior government officials working to protect Hillary and destroy Trump.
Speaker 1: Isn't that gaslighting? He is gaslighting you those who don't
Speaker 1: know what that is. It's be like if you know
Speaker 1: if I hit you and then and then five seconds later,
Speaker 1: I say I didn't hit you and you say, yeah,
Speaker 1: you did, that's gaslighting you. That's what Kobe's doing. But
Speaker 1: part of a deep state cabal. And now what do
Speaker 1: you mean. I mean we can't have them, We can't
Speaker 1: have removal from office because the people would think there's
Speaker 1: a deep state cabal. Oh, I wonder why they'd think that,
Speaker 1: and then play clip four. I can't see that what
Speaker 1: the end of the Mueller effort looks like. I don't
Speaker 1: know what form it will take. I don't know what
Speaker 1: they'll conclude, and so I can't say in that respect,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that all of us should use
Speaker 1: every breath. We have to make sure that the line
Speaker 1: stops on January twentieth, twenty one. I understand any of
Speaker 1: the Democrats have important debates have about who their candidates
Speaker 1: should be. They have to win. They have to win.
Speaker 1: Democrats have to win. Now the becomie's not a partisan,
Speaker 1: you see, That's what they'll tell you, Oh, a lifelong Republicans.
Speaker 1: Not even true. And by the way, there are Republicans
Speaker 1: that hate Trump more than anybody else. In fact, there
Speaker 1: are a lot of Republicans who know that if they
Speaker 1: switch parties officially, then they'll just be the opposition. So
Speaker 1: they'd rather keep that Republican they have the Jennifer Ruben
Speaker 1: maneuver over at the Washington Post. Keep calling yourself a Republican,
Speaker 1: so then you have more credibility when you bash Republicans
Speaker 1: all the time. So that's a stupid talking point that
Speaker 1: they use, but they use it because people buy you
Speaker 1: do because they got other things I got to think about. Fortunately,
Speaker 1: I just have this to think about all day. But
Speaker 1: Comey is a hyperpartisan, which then makes us naturally think,
Speaker 1: when did he become so anti Trump? When did he
Speaker 1: become this left wing pro elite and therefore pro Hillary
Speaker 1: actor on the stage here? And what about all the
Speaker 1: decisions ever made? What about the decision not to prosecute Hillary,
Speaker 1: which Comy violated department policy in doing that whole Prescot's conference.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's clearly stuff that he's done where Comy
Speaker 1: has aired. No matter who you are, you have to admitted.
Speaker 1: I mean, he got the guy was going rogue, but
Speaker 1: he went rogue for the right side. That's why they
Speaker 1: try to downplay it and say it's not really that
Speaker 1: big a deal. But it is a very big deal.
Speaker 1: And why is it that we are told, for an example,
Speaker 1: that Whittaker, who is the acting Attorney General, is someone
Speaker 1: who is cannot be trusted because of his pro Trump sympathies,
Speaker 1: but those same people, so he is not an ethical person,
Speaker 1: an ethical an ethical individual at the DOJ according to
Speaker 1: the left. I mean, I'm not saying I buy this,
Speaker 1: but this is what they'll tell you and the media,
Speaker 1: the left, the media. It's interchangeable. And then they will
Speaker 1: also say, well, the Department of Justice didn't file charges
Speaker 1: against Hillary Clinton, so you know, that's the end of that.
Speaker 1: No discussion to be had there. Department of Justice didn't
Speaker 1: want to pursue the Clinton Foundation, even though there are
Speaker 1: whistle blowers came out last week who had the evidence.
Speaker 1: They got the goods Clinton Foundation. A lot of corruption
Speaker 1: and self dealing and nonsense going on there at a charity. Yeah,
Speaker 1: at a charity, but involved the Clintons. What a surprise.
Speaker 1: But we're supposed to believe that Lauretta Lynch and Sally
Speaker 1: Yates and James Comey, the people who were making the
Speaker 1: key decisions about both the Hillary investigations that should have
Speaker 1: been ongoing, email Clinton Foundation in or just go through them.
Speaker 1: Uranium won all of that. The people that are making
Speaker 1: the decisions about that, and also behind the scenes pushing
Speaker 1: this whole Russia collusion fantasy. We're supposed to trust those
Speaker 1: people that they were making decisions in good faith. Then
Speaker 1: they've only become partisan now or now they've left government.
Speaker 1: We know what they are, but they weren't that. Then
Speaker 1: this defies logic. This is not credible, just as Coomy's
Speaker 1: I don't know, not sure, don't remember. Coomy was in
Speaker 1: fun of Congress last week. They released the full transcript
Speaker 1: of but I read through it, and you know what
Speaker 1: Comy does to avoid perjury charges. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: he's so smug and sanctimonious. I don't know how people
Speaker 1: ever worked for this guy and dealt with this guy.
Speaker 1: I really don't. I don't know, But every time he
Speaker 1: gets asked a question, it's well to the extent of
Speaker 1: my knowledge in the situation. I have no knowledge of
Speaker 1: that situation. So that he could avoid answering questions and
Speaker 1: avoid a real perjury trap by just always claiming that
Speaker 1: he doesn't remember you. And I would note that the DOJ.
Speaker 1: In fact, Coomy's close buddy Fitzgerald, went after Scooter Libby
Speaker 1: for not remembering something properly. They try to ruin his
Speaker 1: life over it. So you know who gets the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt who gets treated in faith by the
Speaker 1: Justice Department versus who gets crushed, you know, who gets
Speaker 1: the Muller treatment. Everybody that comes in his path just
Speaker 1: gets gets chewed up and spat out. This is where
Speaker 1: the justice system is failing. This is where the real
Speaker 1: undermining of institutions is occurring. And it's where the Democrats
Speaker 1: have been running wild and the anti Trump left has
Speaker 1: exposed themselves in the most egregious ways. And they want
Speaker 1: us to just forget about this. They want us to,
Speaker 1: you know, look at look to some other explanation of
Speaker 1: these events. And there I'm gonna talk about the campaign
Speaker 1: finance issue with with Cohen coming up here in just
Speaker 1: a little bit. That's their big thing. Now, that's the
Speaker 1: big reveal. Oh, we've we've got the president on conspiracy
Speaker 1: to commit a vague campaign finance violation that would probably
Speaker 1: be a civil penalty if it didn't avoid it didn't
Speaker 1: involve Trump, and it's not a big deal anyway, but
Speaker 1: let's try to end his presidency over These people are bonkers,
Speaker 1: looney tunes, insane, but unfortunately they have power and they're dedicated,
Speaker 1: and they think they're taken down this president. Well, They're
Speaker 1: not going to do it on our watch without a fight,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. Team. We've got a lot more show coming.
Speaker 1: Great to be back and reasonably healthy and able to
Speaker 1: be with you in the Freedom Huts. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned about your current email service, your privacy
Speaker 1: and protection than ipatriots dot us is for you. It's
Speaker 1: a new conservative alternative to liberal based email. Ipatriots dot
Speaker 1: us email is secure in private. It's more of what
Speaker 1: you want without all of the liberal nonsense ads and spam.
Speaker 1: Your email files are safe because of its premium anti virus,
Speaker 1: anti spam two hundred and fifty bit encryption. Ipatriots dot
Speaker 1: us won't sell your information or support left wing agenda
Speaker 1: items like most of those other email providers out there.
Speaker 1: With ipatriots, you get thirty gigs of cloud storage, larger
Speaker 1: attachment sizes than much more, works on any Windows or
Speaker 1: Mac computer, and it's compatible with most mobile devices. Go
Speaker 1: to ipatriots dot us now find the membership level that's
Speaker 1: right for you. At checkout and select your ipatriots email
Speaker 1: address and your promo code buck ten for ten percent
Speaker 1: savings during your first whole year of membership. Again, ipatriots
Speaker 1: dot US promo code buck ten for ten percent off.
Speaker 1: You know, the President has been very clear from when
Speaker 1: he ran for office said he wants to protect America's
Speaker 1: border and keep this country safe. And now more than ever,
Speaker 1: when you see the caravan, I know what Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: was talking about. You've got thousands of people literally saying
Speaker 1: we're just going to storm your border and come into
Speaker 1: the country. And oh, by the way, we have at
Speaker 1: least six hundred known convicted criminals as part of this caravan.
Speaker 1: These are people seeking asylum. By the way, Sandraw they
Speaker 1: were offered asylum and jobs in Mexico and turned it down.
Speaker 1: So let's not talk about asylum. It's whether or not
Speaker 1: we're going to have rule of law in the country.
Speaker 1: Democrats are perpetuating a scam and a lie against the
Speaker 1: American people here at the border, and I really hope
Speaker 1: the administration doesn't take its eye off the ball, so
Speaker 1: to speak, here. I really hope that they follow through
Speaker 1: on this. I think though, that the indications right now
Speaker 1: are bad. I think that it looks like we're going
Speaker 1: to see a continuing resolution or whatever the budgetary measure
Speaker 1: it doesn't even really mean, you know, they're going to
Speaker 1: kick the can down the road, however they whatever they
Speaker 1: call it, however they do it, They're going to fund
Speaker 1: the government. It's not going to be a shutdown. And
Speaker 1: it's because ultimately Democrats can't cave on this issue, because
Speaker 1: their worst fear is that they allow for the robust
Speaker 1: construction of the construction of a robust wall, and it
Speaker 1: works and we see a drop, and then not only
Speaker 1: will we realize that this is something we need to
Speaker 1: invest even more heavily in, we would see a change
Speaker 1: in the dynamic over the immigration discussion, overall, over the
Speaker 1: illegal immigration discussion, and we'd know the Democrats have been
Speaker 1: lying to us and just repeating a stupid talking point
Speaker 1: for not just weeks, for years. For years, they've been
Speaker 1: saying that a wall won't do anything. So they're desperate
Speaker 1: to prevent a wall from going up, because if we
Speaker 1: can then see that it does something, what do they
Speaker 1: say that. You know, this is just like Democrats were saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you know the caravans a thousand miles away. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: wasn't thousand miles away. Now it's at the border. Oh,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying, they have buses and trains and
Speaker 1: cars in Mexico. This should be a surprise to no one.
Speaker 1: But that's that was something that they were saying and
Speaker 1: thought they were clever for saying it at the time too.
Speaker 1: But the latest here, this is from earlier today, it's
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, is that is that Trump is going
Speaker 1: to get offered one point three billion dollars by Democratic
Speaker 1: leaders one point three billion dollars when they meet tuesday
Speaker 1: at the at the White House. I'm sorry, yeah, when
Speaker 1: they meet you to the White House. And that's because
Speaker 1: that's tomorrow, and that is short of the five billion
Speaker 1: dollars Trump says he needs for a border wall. Minority
Speaker 1: Leader Pelosi is saying that, if anything, that they could
Speaker 1: move further apart on this one. Here's what we're being told. Quote.
Speaker 1: Schumer had suggested Trump except one point six billion border funding,
Speaker 1: the funding level included in the Senate bill with bipartist support,
Speaker 1: but that one point six billion would struggle the past
Speaker 1: the House, where Democrats won't support it because they say
Speaker 1: it's too much, Republicans say it's not enough. It would
Speaker 1: extend current funding levels, and if no dealers reached by
Speaker 1: the end of next week, funding will run out for
Speaker 1: homeland security and other federal agencies. They're not going to
Speaker 1: run out of money. And five billion dollars for an
Speaker 1: issue that's important. I mean when I mean they're not
Speaker 1: gonna run of money, I mean they're gonna extend this.
Speaker 1: They're not going to shut down the government. We just
Speaker 1: don't have the I don't know, we don't have the
Speaker 1: courage of our convictions on the right for some reason
Speaker 1: on this issue. I think it's because a lot of
Speaker 1: Republicans are are really just big phonies on the issue.
Speaker 1: They're really just not honest with the with their voters
Speaker 1: and with the people that support them when election time
Speaker 1: comes about what they want to do with the border,
Speaker 1: because I mean, it's now or never for this thing. Man,
Speaker 1: it better happened now or else it's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: And five billion dollars for given what our government spends
Speaker 1: and what it spends money on every year, five billion
Speaker 1: dollars to protect our southern border is a drop in
Speaker 1: the bucket, man. This is this is not people who
Speaker 1: are pretending the expense is what's you know, So haven't
Speaker 1: we spend like forty or fifty million on the stupid
Speaker 1: Mueller probe? I know that's not five billion, but it's
Speaker 1: forty or fifty million. And think about the money that
Speaker 1: we spend on they we're spending things on this government.
Speaker 1: And this is a really important issue. This is about security,
Speaker 1: it's about sovereignty. And I just wish, wish that the
Speaker 1: Republicans would would would fight. Man. I mean, just get up,
Speaker 1: tell the American people why you're doing it. The media
Speaker 1: doesn't have the ability to just lie to us all
Speaker 1: like they used to anymore. Get up and fight on
Speaker 1: this issue and make your case. If you do that,
Speaker 1: I think that you'll see. You know, with the Schumer
Speaker 1: shut down, Trump was able for the first time to
Speaker 1: get to a place where it seemed like there wasn't
Speaker 1: this built in, baked in assumption. Then anytime there's a shutdown,
Speaker 1: the president or the Republican rather the Republican Party is
Speaker 1: to blame. I think they're gonna cave on this. And
Speaker 1: every time I've told you in the past they're gonna cave,
Speaker 1: I think I've been right. I just think they're gonna cave.
Speaker 1: And this means the border issue continues on and and
Speaker 1: you know, we're rolling the dice. If you get a
Speaker 1: large Democrat majority Congress with a Senate and president, you know,
Speaker 1: going to Democrats in twenty twenty, which is not far away.
Speaker 1: We're already already starting to see people talk about their
Speaker 1: twenty twenty runs. Corey Booker, Oh yeah, Oh I'm spartacuse
Speaker 1: Corey Booker was up in New Hampshire this past week.
Speaker 1: You're already seeing that cycle begin. If they get this
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, I'm telling you they're the first thing
Speaker 1: they're gonna go for is amnesty, and then and then
Speaker 1: it's all shoe. Then then the whole country has a
Speaker 1: changed demographic reality. That means the Democrats are a one
Speaker 1: party state. Effectively, Republicans will be in the minority, and
Speaker 1: Democrats will just write the laws they want to write,
Speaker 1: and they'll blame Republicans even though they don't have any power.
Speaker 1: And America is going to cease to be America. That's
Speaker 1: not a good thing. Let's go to this issue of impeachment.
Speaker 1: They are the kind of offenses that would call for impeachment,
Speaker 1: maybe grounds for impeachment, the prospect of impeachment, and this
Speaker 1: is in fact one of the reasons why you have
Speaker 1: the impeachment clause. Should the president be concerned about the
Speaker 1: talks of impeachment. If we're going to impeach Synald Trump,
Speaker 1: the drumbeats from Democrats for possible impeachment get louder. If
Speaker 1: House members find impeachable offenses. It is not just the
Speaker 1: right thing today is their duty. The House is going
Speaker 1: to have little choice than to start impeachment proceedings. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump will be must be impeached. Wait do they think
Speaker 1: that maybe Donald Trump should be impeached? I'm not sure.
Speaker 1: I don't what a bunch of clowns. Oh man, we've
Speaker 1: known this. I know there's there's nothing here that surprises here.
Speaker 1: There's nothing here that you know, we we we listened
Speaker 1: to we go. Oh wait a second, I thought I
Speaker 1: thought they were gonna wait for all the facts to
Speaker 1: come in. You know what's more likely that I've known
Speaker 1: all along, that you've known all along that they were
Speaker 1: gonna find a pretext to impeach this president, or they
Speaker 1: were just you know, sitting on the sidelines, just trying
Speaker 1: to play it straight. And turns out that against their
Speaker 1: better judgment. They really don't want to, they really wish
Speaker 1: they didn't have to, but they just have to impeach
Speaker 1: this president. They have no choice, but to defend our
Speaker 1: democracy by impeaching the president for something something or other.
Speaker 1: Russia finance, a porn stall are so. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just it changes every week. This is just a this
Speaker 1: is an extension of the insanity of the that the
Speaker 1: left has with how every week it's a different reason
Speaker 1: for why Trump can't be president. You know, it's the
Speaker 1: twenty fifth Amendment, it's it's the Emolument's clause. It's Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: it's the the sympathy for white nationalists. It's he's crazy.
Speaker 1: You know, he's too unhealthy, he eats too many cheeseburgers.
Speaker 1: You know, he's a he's a sexual abuser. I mean,
Speaker 1: they every week there's a new terrible crime that they just, oh,
Speaker 1: we got to talk about this terrible crime. Trump. You know,
Speaker 1: either they're crazy or Trump is the is the most dangerous,
Speaker 1: frightening human being to have ever walked the face of
Speaker 1: the earth. Um, it's store number one. They've they've lost
Speaker 1: it that they are playing into a mass delusion. And
Speaker 1: all you have to do is go back and and
Speaker 1: look at what they've been saying all along, all these
Speaker 1: different things. They keep making, these predict the predictions don't
Speaker 1: come true, that keep making claims, the claims are proven false.
Speaker 1: And and there's such an obvious mobilization here of leftist
Speaker 1: journals to create a perception of the American people that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump needs to go. You know, that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is is a threat to the republic. And then I
Speaker 1: just see it here and I say to myself, you know,
Speaker 1: at what point do I have to take a deep breath.
Speaker 1: I mean, at least Maxine Waters as as much of
Speaker 1: a loon as she is, at least she's like, yeah, impeachment.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's been saying impeachment along. Maxie Waters is
Speaker 1: more honest on this issue than the rest of the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're gonna impeach. People are saying, oh, Pelosi, so wily
Speaker 1: in cage. Now, you're not gonna be a lot whether
Speaker 1: all of a sudden the left is going to show
Speaker 1: emotional discipline. No way, no way. So hey, props for Waters.
Speaker 1: She's crazy, but at least she's honest crazy. Play seven.
Speaker 1: I do believe that the Congress of the United States
Speaker 1: of America have not assumed their responsibility that's given to
Speaker 1: us by the Constitution of the United States, by way
Speaker 1: of impeachment. This president in my estimation, has done everything
Speaker 1: possible to certainly be eligible for impeachment, and so I
Speaker 1: really do think that it should be started. The president
Speaker 1: is a criminal. The president worked with Cohen, instructed him
Speaker 1: to go and pay these women to be quiet, to
Speaker 1: shut them up. The president not with just simply complicit
Speaker 1: in all of this. He's the one who initiated this
Speaker 1: with his attorney. And so this criminal must be brought
Speaker 1: up by the Congress of the United States for impeachment.
Speaker 1: That's right. You have a sitting member of Congress just
Speaker 1: keeps referring to the Presidentited States as a criminal. He's
Speaker 1: a criminal, it's what she keeps saying. Hasn't even had
Speaker 1: a charge brought against him, but there is this insistence
Speaker 1: that he's a criminal because the Left really, really, really
Speaker 1: wants to believe that he is a criminal, and they
Speaker 1: are so invested in this that they're never it's not
Speaker 1: climate change, that it is impossible to change their mind
Speaker 1: on the issue, because it would mean changing their mind
Speaker 1: about how they feel about themselves, change their mind about
Speaker 1: how they feel about their own intelligence, their own ability
Speaker 1: to grasp facts and come to conclusions. It's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna happen. But let me tell you how
Speaker 1: I view this, because I'm hearing a lot of people
Speaker 1: and I think this is all kind of a head fake.
Speaker 1: I'm hearing people that, including some conservatives that I know
Speaker 1: in media and outside of media, are saying that Pelosi
Speaker 1: won't allow, She'll keep her members in line, she won't
Speaker 1: allow the Democrats to go forward with impeachment because all
Speaker 1: it'll do is push Trump supporters deeper into the bunker
Speaker 1: for him. And and that's true. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it will the same way that we add a little
Speaker 1: bit of a consolidation occur with cavanall that was including
Speaker 1: even never Trump conservatives. I mean, you know, Cavanaugh was
Speaker 1: a very binary issue. You know, you either believed in decency,
Speaker 1: the presumption of innocence, rule of law, and justice, or
Speaker 1: you didn't. And if you're a Democrat, you pretty much didn't.
Speaker 1: But you know, you see what's going to happen in
Speaker 1: this whole election process. I think it's pretty clear that
Speaker 1: Democrats want to run against an impeach president. They they
Speaker 1: know they've got the votes, they're gonna do it. They
Speaker 1: impeach him, and then whoever the Democrat standard bearer is
Speaker 1: gets to run against somebody. Remember, you know Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: wasn't running again as an impeach president, right, you know
Speaker 1: they're gonna they're gonna impeach this president and then use
Speaker 1: that as a primary talking point for why you know,
Speaker 1: he shouldn't he shouldn't win reelection. And then they're gonna
Speaker 1: try to even further use that designation. This is what
Speaker 1: liberals do. They name and shame, right. They they attach,
Speaker 1: They attach one word if they can to somebody, you know,
Speaker 1: they'll attach you know, racist, rapist, fraud, liar. I mean
Speaker 1: that they try to just bash people with a single
Speaker 1: word to define everything about them, many many, many cases
Speaker 1: completely unfairly right. You know Kavanaugh they were saying was
Speaker 1: a rapist. That's a lie. These people are liars. They're crazy.
Speaker 1: One of the most, I will tell you one of
Speaker 1: the most. There are a few things on the show
Speaker 1: I'm very proud of that we've done together. One of
Speaker 1: them is the constant Stand for life. And you know
Speaker 1: why I feel that way, because even if if we've
Speaker 1: saved one if one woman changed her mind because she
Speaker 1: listened to this show, it makes every single show I've
Speaker 1: ever done worthwhile. So there's that issue and then the
Speaker 1: other thing. I'm very proud that we we never wavered.
Speaker 1: And you know, producer Mike had my back on this one,
Speaker 1: and DJ John and the whole crew and all of you.
Speaker 1: We did not waver on Kavanaugh. And it got it
Speaker 1: got tough for a while there, meaning that the pressure
Speaker 1: was overwhelming and the Left was assuming that they were
Speaker 1: going to be able to just just shame and terrify
Speaker 1: people into agreeing with them on this whole thing. And
Speaker 1: we stood strong there. I'm very proud of that. But
Speaker 1: that's what impeachment becomes. And this is what makes me think,
Speaker 1: But impeachment becomes how could you, to anybody who's an independent,
Speaker 1: to anybody who was a swing voter, how could you
Speaker 1: vote for this? Impeach president? Oh he's a criminal, he's
Speaker 1: so dirty, he's such a bad man. It's such a
Speaker 1: bad guy. And they think that that will have that
Speaker 1: will have sufficient residence. You remember, the left is all
Speaker 1: about slogans and chance and the mobilization of emotions for
Speaker 1: political end. But Trump is better on the economy than Obama.
Speaker 1: Trump is better at foreign policy than Obama. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you look at you line these things up
Speaker 1: and you line up these administrations, you say to yourself, well,
Speaker 1: on the merits, yeah, is Trump a little as he
Speaker 1: disappointed me so far with some things. Yeah, yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a whole talk we're gonna have to have here on
Speaker 1: the show at some point. But overall, I mean compared
Speaker 1: to Obama, and when you add the judges into the
Speaker 1: mix and his picks on the Supreme Court, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just this is no comparison as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: So what are they gonna do for swing voters? Say?
Speaker 1: Forget about his record, forget about the economy. He was
Speaker 1: impeached because he's a criminal, and that then just becomes
Speaker 1: the whole twenty twenty campaign for whoever the Democrat nominee is.
Speaker 1: I do want a note to you, and I talk
Speaker 1: about business all the time as a major position, and
Speaker 1: the six people that they have put out that are
Speaker 1: shortlisted are all white guys. I cannot think of one
Speaker 1: single public company right now that if they had an
Speaker 1: open senior position like that or a board seat, you
Speaker 1: would never in twenty eighteen see that the shortlist is
Speaker 1: one or two, three, four, five, six white guys. Even
Speaker 1: if you're not going to pick somebody else usually put
Speaker 1: on the list, But that isn't Isn't that stunning that
Speaker 1: the White House has no problem? Yep, these are our six.
Speaker 1: If you saw a public company and put out that
Speaker 1: list right now, they would get collaborate. A lot of
Speaker 1: interesting stuff thrown in there. That was from MSNBC host
Speaker 1: Stephanie Ruler. She's talking about the White House Chief of
Speaker 1: Staff opening right now because, as you know, John Kelly,
Speaker 1: General Kelly is stepping down. I saw today they're offering
Speaker 1: him for a tell all memoir. Fifteen million dollars. That
Speaker 1: was in the delimail. I don't think he's gonna you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that's gonna happen. I mean that's I
Speaker 1: don't Kelly doesn't strike me as a tell all guy
Speaker 1: at all, so I doubt. But that's a lot of
Speaker 1: money for a book. Fifteen million dollars up front and
Speaker 1: advanced folks fifteen million. If he writes a tell all,
Speaker 1: he won't do it though he's the guy's got the
Speaker 1: guy's got too much honor. I think he's I think
Speaker 1: he's you know, ticked off at Trump. Don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any love lost between those two
Speaker 1: at this point. But he just has too much respect
Speaker 1: for the office, too much respect for the presidency to
Speaker 1: profit in that way in a way that would very
Speaker 1: obviously damage administration, make things more difficult, slow it down.
Speaker 1: But what was so interesting to me about that exchange
Speaker 1: on MSNBC is you have this you know, obviously very
Speaker 1: self righteous lib female host who is saying, you know,
Speaker 1: isn't it so terrible that they're considering six white guys
Speaker 1: for the chief of staff role, and the guests, I
Speaker 1: don't know, the guests is the guess is like, yeah,
Speaker 1: even if they're only going to pick a white guy,
Speaker 1: they should at least pretend like they won't. I'm like, oh, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that we're now at a place where we
Speaker 1: prefer you know, in this in this culture that is
Speaker 1: now obsessed with the appearance of diversity. I mean, not
Speaker 1: not true diversity of experience, of background, of class, you know, no, no,
Speaker 1: the the the appearance, the skin deep appearance of diversity
Speaker 1: in all senses. Um that we have a society where
Speaker 1: people would prefer that they go through the pretense of
Speaker 1: being open to other people, uh, you know, than than
Speaker 1: white males for the role that they even if they
Speaker 1: already know they're gonna hire, they gotta pretend like they're
Speaker 1: gonna hire somebody who's a minority or a female that
Speaker 1: that's preferable. I'm like, why is that? Why is that
Speaker 1: window dressing a preferable? But you know, it's just an
Speaker 1: it's just an interesting thing for me. I just I'm
Speaker 1: pointing that one out. But you know, the real problem here,
Speaker 1: and this is an issue, and this is something that
Speaker 1: the the Libs and the left have been very effective, um,
Speaker 1: you know, at doing. The real problem is that the
Speaker 1: U jobs in the White House, usually White House jobs
Speaker 1: are such fiercely contested positions. You know, you have this
Speaker 1: guy Nick Airs who was thought that he was going
Speaker 1: to be the next chief of Staff and he's not
Speaker 1: taking In fact, he's leaving the White House altogether. And
Speaker 1: people are burning out. And that's one part of it.
Speaker 1: And that's normal. There's high turnover. There's the pretty high
Speaker 1: turnover for chiefs of staff and the Obama administration and
Speaker 1: it's just the way it is. But you got to
Speaker 1: think about it this way. The value proposition now to
Speaker 1: join the Trump administration, it is real public service to
Speaker 1: do it. Now for anybody with a high profile and
Speaker 1: a successful life on the outside. Because one you're going
Speaker 1: to be entering a very media hostile or hostile rather
Speaker 1: a hostile, media encircled White House an administration. So you're
Speaker 1: gonna be under siege from day one from the media,
Speaker 1: and you risk reprisals against you. Never mind, you know,
Speaker 1: usually you come out of the White House, you're supposed
Speaker 1: to get all kinds of plumb job offers. You're supposed
Speaker 1: to get, Oh, you're gonna be on this board and
Speaker 1: that board, You're gonna be on this TV show as
Speaker 1: a contributor or, you know all these things, right, I
Speaker 1: mean you look at the Obama administration. I mean the
Speaker 1: jobs that people got from the Obama administration. Jake Carney's
Speaker 1: like running content at Amazon. You look at the obamaministration people.
Speaker 1: I mean they have just gotten incredible gigs. You know,
Speaker 1: HBO is like throwing money and access at the pods.
Speaker 1: Save the Pod, Save America kids. I mean, you know
Speaker 1: these people all, Oh, you're trying the Obama administration, what
Speaker 1: can we do to elevate you and pay you more money?
Speaker 1: And you know, even if you stink, by the way,
Speaker 1: even if you're not even good and with the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: what you have is the opposite effect, where if you
Speaker 1: go and you work for this administration, now you come
Speaker 1: out on the outside. Not only the jobs not there
Speaker 1: for you, there are people that might decide they don't
Speaker 1: want to do business with you anymore. And they might
Speaker 1: not even be never trumpers themselves or hashtag resistance themselves.
Speaker 1: They just don't want the heat. So and then it
Speaker 1: becomes this self reinforcing cycle, of a vicious cycle of
Speaker 1: because they can't get the kind of people as quickly
Speaker 1: as they want for some of these roles, then you know,
Speaker 1: the media tells this story of people don't want to
Speaker 1: work for a minute station, which then perpetuates a story
Speaker 1: of how they can't get the people they want. Right.
Speaker 1: I also, I'm just gonna say this right now. I
Speaker 1: find it I find it so obvious and so odious
Speaker 1: that journalists, you know, they always do this thing of
Speaker 1: people that are in the media that work for publican
Speaker 1: administrations are all unqualified. Meanwhile, you know, when Jake Carney
Speaker 1: was made Press secretary and now is running content, you know,
Speaker 1: we look at these different people that there were dozens
Speaker 1: of journalists that went in the Obama administration, all different levels.
Speaker 1: None of them we're talked about is unqualified. So journalists
Speaker 1: have no there's no respect that they confer to just
Speaker 1: their fellow journalists. It's their fellow lives, their fellow lives.
Speaker 1: Those are the ones that they're willing to go to
Speaker 1: bat for and protect and say, oh, this person so great,
Speaker 1: And I just I saw this with Heather Noward, who look,
Speaker 1: I think is great. I thought she was a star
Speaker 1: at Fox. She was always delightful to work with. She's
Speaker 1: very smart. She's done a very good job as Press
Speaker 1: secretary at the United Nations. And people are saying she's
Speaker 1: not qualified to be US ambassador the United Nations, And
Speaker 1: say why, but she can't. Have You think Samantha Power
Speaker 1: so qualified, some crazy kuk PhD wandering around talking about
Speaker 1: policy all the time that doesn't actually work. You think
Speaker 1: you think Samantha Power is is some you know, some
Speaker 1: great You think Susan Rice with some brilliant foreign policy
Speaker 1: might look at the job she had, but they trash
Speaker 1: and look they do it in part also because she
Speaker 1: fits this moment that the left hates that on the right,
Speaker 1: there are there are and I can't tell you why
Speaker 1: it is I don't know what the reason is. There
Speaker 1: are a number of very prominent, competent, very beautiful I
Speaker 1: don't know if we're not allowed to say that anymore.
Speaker 1: I get in trouble very beautiful women who go on
Speaker 1: to have gone on to other prominent roles of this administration,
Speaker 1: and just you know from at work in general, and
Speaker 1: the left has a particular disdain for the beautiful, conservative, successful,
Speaker 1: intelligent female in politics. They really don't like that. That
Speaker 1: just that stands all the wrong messages as far as
Speaker 1: the left is concerned. So they know they went after Heather.
Speaker 1: Now at a little bit. I'm sitting here, I'm like,
Speaker 1: it's a great pick, It's gonna do a great job.
Speaker 1: And it's just so typical that all these snide, smug
Speaker 1: little journos starts saying, oh, she's not well, like Max
Speaker 1: boot was one of them. Omaha Steaks is America's original
Speaker 1: butcher since nineteen seventeen. You can order with complete confidence
Speaker 1: right now. Omaha Steaks is giving an amazing limited time
Speaker 1: off to my listeners. When you get to Omaha steaks
Speaker 1: dot com and a promo code Buck in the search bar,
Speaker 1: you get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package,
Speaker 1: which is originally one hundred and ninety five bucks. Now
Speaker 1: it's only forty nine ninety nine. With that order, you'll
Speaker 1: get four top sirloin stakes, two premium porch chops. I
Speaker 1: have my porch chops right now, defusting. I'm gonna make
Speaker 1: an incredible maple garlic glaze for them, delicious. I've almost
Speaker 1: finished my family package, folks, and it's just me here.
Speaker 1: I love this food for Omaha Steaks Burgers, four snappy
Speaker 1: Combossa sausages, for perfectly brown potatoes. Oh grant tap. Plus
Speaker 1: you get four more burgers free. This is a limited
Speaker 1: time package for only forty nine ninety nine. When you
Speaker 1: go to Omaha Steaks dot com, type Buck in the
Speaker 1: search bar and add the Family Gift Package to your card.
Speaker 1: Don't wait, this offer end soon. Go to Omaha Steaks
Speaker 1: dot com type Buck in the search bar to send
Speaker 1: the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today. I think what's
Speaker 1: interesting about this is people forget history. The Federal Elections
Speaker 1: Commission actually ruled on this with John Edwards. They actually
Speaker 1: came up with a ruling and said that you know
Speaker 1: what the paying of his mistress was not a was
Speaker 1: not a campaign finance violation. We've overcriminalized campaign finance. I
Speaker 1: think we need to wait till we see the full picture. Now.
Speaker 1: The question that's presented just by Michael Cohen's plea and
Speaker 1: the just from filing is a crime directed and coordinated
Speaker 1: by the president, which helped him obtain office sufficient to
Speaker 1: warrant his removal from that office. That's a legitimate question
Speaker 1: to ask. So much lawyering going on here, so much
Speaker 1: contortion in the assessments of the law and in the
Speaker 1: way that people talk about these issues on the left,
Speaker 1: all in an effort to come up with a narrative
Speaker 1: to frame them in such a way that you can
Speaker 1: say things like crime and criminal and as though the
Speaker 1: people involved are bad people, as though there's something really
Speaker 1: substantial at stake here. This is the big lie that
Speaker 1: you get from Democrats when it comes to all things
Speaker 1: Trump and Muller Special Counsel related. They're trying so hard
Speaker 1: to convince people. They're trying so very hard to make
Speaker 1: them think that there's some really important principle at stake here,
Speaker 1: and what exactly is it when it comes to campaign finance. Well,
Speaker 1: what we're supposed to have public disclosure. I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure that I you know, here's the problem with a
Speaker 1: campaign finance angle, which is what they're going with here.
Speaker 1: They think they're gonna end this president one way or another.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're gonna get him to resign or they're
Speaker 1: gonna beat him in reelection based on it. They're defin
Speaker 1: gonna pach him, as we've been talking about. But they
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be on campaign finance. I just say,
Speaker 1: the campaign finance laws, the more the more you know them,
Speaker 1: the more you pay attention to them, they don't even
Speaker 1: make any sense. These are dumb laws. The way the
Speaker 1: notion that people should be treated as criminals for campaign
Speaker 1: finance issues you look at as you're like, for what,
Speaker 1: who is the victim here? Oh? Public transparency. Liberals get
Speaker 1: in such a little tizzy over this, and then when
Speaker 1: you try to push them on them, push them on
Speaker 1: these matters one, they almost all I have no you
Speaker 1: over the They're just repeating whatever Rachel Mattau or Hayes
Speaker 1: or Anderson Cooper or whoever said on TV last night.
Speaker 1: They're just they're just regurgitating the this is what smart
Speaker 1: people say talking point. That's it. They don't know anything
Speaker 1: about camp in finance. I mean, how many lives even
Speaker 1: know that. For example, packs can be set up for
Speaker 1: different candidates and the pack has no contribution limit whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And before you announce running for the presidency, the pack
Speaker 1: can pay for your travel, can pay for all kinds
Speaker 1: of things. There are so many ways. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is why McCain fine gold. Yeah, that's right. Another legacy
Speaker 1: of McCain that we don't talk about that much. That
Speaker 1: is not good. McCain find gold. All these things is
Speaker 1: a joke. I mean, all you can really credibly try
Speaker 1: to prevent is straight up corruption, pay for play, quid
Speaker 1: pro quo. You know, you can't say vote for this
Speaker 1: bill and I'll give you ten million dollars. But you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of way is to say do this
Speaker 1: thing for me and I'll do something else for you later.
Speaker 1: And it's not illegal, but it's pretty shady. It's very
Speaker 1: hard absent an ironclad quid pro quo situation. It's very
Speaker 1: hard to really never mind prosecute people just to even
Speaker 1: understand what the lines are. And this is what they
Speaker 1: think they're gonna get Trump on. This is how their
Speaker 1: grand investigation of all things Trump is supposed to end.
Speaker 1: It's pathetic. It's pathetic. You know, Peter King mentioned this.
Speaker 1: He got in this little bit play clip eleven Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff has been talking for two years about evidence of
Speaker 1: a collusion, and so far it has come up with nothing.
Speaker 1: If he's talking about the case in the Southern District
Speaker 1: against Michael Kohn, where they're talking about payoffs that were made, again,
Speaker 1: assuming that those facts that true, I don't think anyone
Speaker 1: I would consider that to be a campaign contribution. Is
Speaker 1: it even a campaign contribution? Forget about whether they can
Speaker 1: prove that this was on a Trump's direction. And Cohen
Speaker 1: has a huge incentive to lie and say it. Well,
Speaker 1: Cohen loses nothing by saying this was all a Trump's direction.
Speaker 1: I remember cohen employer, So he's supposed to be the
Speaker 1: one that understands the legal jeopardy. And this is the
Speaker 1: kind of issue where I mean, if some of you
Speaker 1: were running, would you necessarily have known that you know,
Speaker 1: you can't make the personal payoff. And there's a good
Speaker 1: faith argument that the personal payoff to Stephanie Clifford aka
Speaker 1: Stormy Daniels was not a campaign contribution. So if there's
Speaker 1: a good faith effort that it's not I mean a
Speaker 1: good faith argument, rather that it's not a campaign contribution,
Speaker 1: then you'd probably err on the side of well, I'm
Speaker 1: that's my interpretation of it. This is like taxis I mean,
Speaker 1: I had a we had a guest on today and
Speaker 1: this guy had been he was on rising I remember
Speaker 1: his name. He said he'd been a prosecutor for decades
Speaker 1: and worked in Alexandria for a while for the you know,
Speaker 1: he's an assistant US attorney there. This guy's prosecuted a
Speaker 1: lot of federal cases. And the stuff you're saying to
Speaker 1: me was just bonkers in fact, that we're saying that,
Speaker 1: you know that, yes, they finally got Trump. They've got
Speaker 1: him on they've got them on this on the payoff
Speaker 1: or they're gonna get them on taxes and the tax
Speaker 1: evasion component here And I'm just sitting here, I'm like,
Speaker 1: if they really think, if the DEM's the left really
Speaker 1: believe that campaign finance mickey mouse nonsense, and then turning
Speaker 1: Trump and the Trump organization upside down and ringing out
Speaker 1: their pockets, you know, like an IRS audit, which is
Speaker 1: effectively what Special Counsel Muller, you know, could be up
Speaker 1: to next I think, by the way, I don't think
Speaker 1: I don't think he'll draw a line on it. I
Speaker 1: don't think I'll do it. But if that all happens,
Speaker 1: they think the American people will accept that. I mean,
Speaker 1: Donald Rumsfeld used to write a letter to the IRS.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you know this, used to write
Speaker 1: a letter of the IRS every year, saying your tax code,
Speaker 1: even according to my tax experts, is unintelligible in some ways.
Speaker 1: And so I'm making a good faith effort to pay
Speaker 1: all the taxes owed. But I can't. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: signing my name to this, but I'm not able to
Speaker 1: tell you one hundred percent if I did. I want
Speaker 1: you to know that upfront. But that letter with it
Speaker 1: every year. This is Donald Rumps, the guy with Secretary Defense,
Speaker 1: White House chief of Staff, guy knows some things about
Speaker 1: some stuff. They think that the way to get Trump
Speaker 1: is to go is to find tax irregularities. The tax
Speaker 1: code seventy thousand pages. Any one of you listening right now,
Speaker 1: I promise you I could, at least if we had
Speaker 1: the IRS, go after you aggressively. You know, if we
Speaker 1: could find something that you've done that to tax irregularity,
Speaker 1: and then you get ano, oh is it criminal or
Speaker 1: is it civil? Well, as we see here, this is
Speaker 1: the game of Democrats love to play. The law is
Speaker 1: not really the law until they wanted to be the law.
Speaker 1: Then they're then they're a hardcore. Then then they want
Speaker 1: people to pay the you know, the harshest finds and
Speaker 1: the biggest punishments. And you know, then all of a
Speaker 1: sudden they become really tough when there's a Republican that's
Speaker 1: in the crosshairs, when there's a Democrat, what it's Hillary
Speaker 1: and her emails, Oh, you know what, there's no real
Speaker 1: she didn't mean to there's a you know, men's right.
Speaker 1: And what you find is that the law is really
Speaker 1: only as just as the people applying the law. Folks.
Speaker 1: That's the under And this is a for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, I guess, a revelation, but it's a really
Speaker 1: unsettling one because when you have the politicization of the
Speaker 1: judicial brands, when you have the politicization of prosecutors' offices,
Speaker 1: particularly in the major urban areas where you got a
Speaker 1: Democrats stronghold on politics, When you've got that going on,
Speaker 1: and then you have the recognition that there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as justice, that the people that are administering justice
Speaker 1: are partisans and are corrupt. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: undermining the system, that is dramatically undermining our system. And
Speaker 1: people should feel like they can't trust the system with
Speaker 1: things like that going on. Absolutely, absolutely should feel very
Speaker 1: strange about whether or not they can trust a system
Speaker 1: like this. And I don't take any pleasure in telling
Speaker 1: you that, because this takes us down a very dark
Speaker 1: path of the country. But campaign finance reform, or you'd
Speaker 1: rather campaign finance laws, That's what I mean. The Libs
Speaker 1: find of many as many ways as they possibly can
Speaker 1: to shovel as much money into politics as they can,
Speaker 1: and then they alter around like a bunch of sanctimonious
Speaker 1: hall monitors, like we want the dark money out of politics. No,
Speaker 1: you don't. Look you got Tom Sti or these other
Speaker 1: idiot billionaires running around throwing money into everything. You get Saurau,
Speaker 1: a spooky dude. You know all these guys. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about Styre later on the show. Campaign finance. That's how
Speaker 1: they think they end the Trump president of These people
Speaker 1: are nuts, but they'll stop at nothing, so they're actually dangerous.
Speaker 1: We have to deal with them. Ho ho, and Merry Christmas,
Speaker 1: my fellow Americans. Guess what. There's only one coffee this
Speaker 1: Christmas or any time a year that you should be
Speaker 1: drinking or giving us a gift to your loved ones,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. Are you a Patriot? Do you love
Speaker 1: this country? Do you love delicious coffee? Do you love
Speaker 1: our veterans? You answer yes to all this questions because
Speaker 1: you listen to this show. That also means you should
Speaker 1: answer yes to the following. Are you going to order
Speaker 1: some Black Rifle coffee for this holiday? I drink Black
Speaker 1: Rifle every morning. First thing that I'd ingest is Black
Speaker 1: Rifle coffee. You need to check it out. They have
Speaker 1: a coffee club that allows you to pick the blend
Speaker 1: you want and then Black Rifle will ship it right
Speaker 1: to your door every month, hassle free. This is the
Speaker 1: best tasting, most energizing, most veteran and first responder loving
Speaker 1: coffee you could ever have. Black Rifle coffee, the gift
Speaker 1: that keeps on giving. Go to Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off. Sign
Speaker 1: up for that coffee club. I'm a member. You should
Speaker 1: be a member. Give it as a gift to somebody.
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash Buck. Sports have become politicized.
Speaker 1: We know this. We've talked about this on the show.
Speaker 1: One of the few places that used to be a
Speaker 1: bipartisan dare I say safe space where all Americans could
Speaker 1: just find excitement and joy and inspiration and escape and relaxation,
Speaker 1: you know, being a sports fan. Not anymore. And we
Speaker 1: see this time and time again out Now, before we
Speaker 1: get into this, I will say there's a very nice
Speaker 1: story involving Lebron James where he said a ball girl.
Speaker 1: I read about this over the weekend. A ball girl
Speaker 1: had been wearing very unique Lebron James specific shoes time
Speaker 1: and time again, and one time at one of the games.
Speaker 1: She had been a ball girl at multiple games. He said, hey,
Speaker 1: I see you like my shoes and she said, yeah,
Speaker 1: I wear them all the time. You know, I've been
Speaker 1: a fan my whole life. And he gave her a
Speaker 1: pair of like, you know, super unique Lebron shoes as
Speaker 1: you can't get her and she cried and it was
Speaker 1: really nice and it was just a reminder of the
Speaker 1: power of people in sports or in any medium where
Speaker 1: somebody has a following, has an audience, has a voice
Speaker 1: to do something good for somebody. And really, I'm sure
Speaker 1: that guy made her day, probably made her month. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, if I was a big lebron fan, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the story I'd remember forever. So you know, that
Speaker 1: does still happened. There's still the and and good things happened.
Speaker 1: Like the Patriots, for example, you know, lose to the
Speaker 1: Miami Dolphins in the last five seconds of the game.
Speaker 1: You know, good things can still happen. That's I know.
Speaker 1: I've bought my peeps in Boston don't boove me. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: But there's this other thing that occurred over the weekend
Speaker 1: where a Heisman Trophy winner. You know what, producer Mike
Speaker 1: is way more up on football than I am. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, Mike, what happened here with with Kyler Murray. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so Kyler Murray won the Hisman Trophy and he beat
Speaker 1: out the University of Alabama quarterback to a Tagovailoa, which
Speaker 1: he played for Alabama all tie. So going into I
Speaker 1: think most people in college football believe that to it
Speaker 1: is the much better quarterback. Um, he's on a really
Speaker 1: good team. But uh, you know, Kyler Murray was given
Speaker 1: the Heisman Trophy. Some people say out of you know,
Speaker 1: bias against Bama because they're so good. Um, other people
Speaker 1: on the Oklahoma I'll say, listen, Uh, Oklahoma has a
Speaker 1: really bad defense and it's up to their quarterback to
Speaker 1: put up mad numbers every week, which he does. I
Speaker 1: love all the sports analysis, but you know that we're
Speaker 1: trying to get into the politics. What happened to him? Right? Sorry?
Speaker 1: I carried away? I love love for a second. So
Speaker 1: so this guy, this guy gets in trouble. He gets
Speaker 1: the Heisman trophies, first real national media attention, working his
Speaker 1: whole life to this moment, nicest moment probably he's certainly
Speaker 1: the most high profile moment of his life. And they
Speaker 1: find out that when he was fifteen, he tweeted something
Speaker 1: where he called one of his friends a a mean
Speaker 1: word for you know, a slur for gay people. Right,
Speaker 1: isn't that? Isn't that what happened here? Yeah? And multiple
Speaker 1: news outlets wrote stories on this. So I mean, how
Speaker 1: this guy, if he's getting the Heisman, he's got to
Speaker 1: be like what twenty twenty one. Yeah, he's uh, he's young.
Speaker 1: He's uh a senior. He's probably twenty two because he
Speaker 1: you know, he also got drafted by the Oakland A
Speaker 1: so he's also a baseball player. But he was fifteen
Speaker 1: years old. USA Today did a piece old homophobic tweets
Speaker 1: resurface after he wins Heisman Trophy and and they came
Speaker 1: after him, and he said that. Kyler Murray wrote, I
Speaker 1: apologized for the tweets that have come to light from
Speaker 1: when I was fourteen and fifteen. I used a poor
Speaker 1: choice of word that doesn't reflect who I am or
Speaker 1: what I believe. I did not intend to single out
Speaker 1: any individual or group. You know, I've said this before. Man,
Speaker 1: you know, not only I got two problems with this, Mike.
Speaker 1: Not only did they go I mean they're going after yeah,
Speaker 1: he's twenty one now. Not only they go after him
Speaker 1: for what he said when he was one kids fourteen.
Speaker 1: I mean, when you're a fourteen, you're you don't know anything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're a kid. You're a fourteen year old kid. They
Speaker 1: go everybody's fourteen. But then on top of that, I'd
Speaker 1: also say that, you know, you go back, what that
Speaker 1: would be seven years ago, and you know, language and
Speaker 1: people sense sativity has changed a lot, and you know
Speaker 1: what's considered. You know, I think about you know, people
Speaker 1: would would use the r et a r D word
Speaker 1: when I was growing up. They would use that as
Speaker 1: a synonym for for dumb all I mean And now
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who is particularly h you know, I
Speaker 1: think that language should be free and even and even
Speaker 1: salting sometimes. But when I that actually bothers me. Now,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm actually somebody who's like, you really can't
Speaker 1: you know, that's not okay. You know, I'm having spent
Speaker 1: time around people that have that have that issue, have downs.
Speaker 1: I really react very strongly to anybody thrown around that
Speaker 1: word like it's some way to make fun of people.
Speaker 1: But I didn't when I was a kid. People run
Speaker 1: around saying that all the time. And you know the
Speaker 1: word I'm thinking, he used a three letter word that
Speaker 1: begins with an F here, if memory serves, And while
Speaker 1: certainly the context of defaming somebody or or or assaulting
Speaker 1: somebody for their their sexual orientation is is heinous and wrong,
Speaker 1: a lot of kids said a lot of things that
Speaker 1: were stupid and didn't realize how stupid they were when
Speaker 1: they were kids. I guess I'm alone on this one.
Speaker 1: Where do you go, Mike? Now, I'm here, and I
Speaker 1: totally agree with you, man, I think it's out of control.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you think about how many of your
Speaker 1: I mean, if you really think about how many of
Speaker 1: your peers would run around saying certain things, and you know,
Speaker 1: calling each other certain things and not intending to attack
Speaker 1: any group per se, but just you know, using these
Speaker 1: words as pejoratives, like I mean, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, people use the word people use the word,
Speaker 1: let's say, retard in ways when I was growing up
Speaker 1: that you would never do it now. And they weren't
Speaker 1: saying it about people that actually have severe disabilities. They
Speaker 1: were just saying it through each other like they thought
Speaker 1: it was a funny to say. I'm not excusing behavior.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, we're kids. Kids are stupid, and they're
Speaker 1: using the language that's around them, and to go after
Speaker 1: this guy and this way. Now it just feels like nobody,
Speaker 1: like Mike, if they go after anybody. I mean, I
Speaker 1: wonder if you asked Barack Obama, like, did he ever
Speaker 1: say R E T A R D about somebody he
Speaker 1: probably did. Yeah, so does does he never get to
Speaker 1: talk in public again? I mean, just you know, where
Speaker 1: do we draw the line here? If you if you
Speaker 1: can get in trouble when you're fourteen, it just gets
Speaker 1: me fired up. You heard about the Kevin Hart thing too,
Speaker 1: right along the same lines. No, what was it? Oh no,
Speaker 1: that's why he can't host the Oscars? But what did
Speaker 1: he say? Again? The same thing past tweets like from
Speaker 1: years ago, um, sort of the same subject matter. M
Speaker 1: used some homophobic slurs many years ago and came out
Speaker 1: and he sort of didn't really apologize. He was like, listen,
Speaker 1: He's like, I'm sorry for it, but I'm an evolving person.
Speaker 1: I'm growing person. I'm not gonna like go back like
Speaker 1: years and years ago after everything I've done and apologize.
Speaker 1: So if you want me out of the Oscars, I'm
Speaker 1: out fine. And like, people got really bent out of
Speaker 1: his reaction to it and him stepping down. Now it's
Speaker 1: crazy because now nobody wants to host the Oscars. People
Speaker 1: are like, it's not you know, you know, I was
Speaker 1: reading articles today. People in Hollywood are like, you know,
Speaker 1: it's not worth it hosting the Oscars because if you're
Speaker 1: gonna get ripped over to Coles for everything you've ever done.
Speaker 1: Do you mean there's just so many of these humorless,
Speaker 1: stone face social justice tyrants running around that you know,
Speaker 1: they can't even keep up with their with their usage
Speaker 1: of language and what's accepted. And you know, and you
Speaker 1: think they'd get the things. You think they'd get tired
Speaker 1: of it after a while. But it doesn't seem like
Speaker 1: this gets better. Man, it just seems like keeps getting worse.
Speaker 1: It's it's usually wind it usually winds up resulting on
Speaker 1: liberal on nibble crime. They usually wind up eating their own.
Speaker 1: It was just hilarious. Oh, absolutely, you know, absolutely, And
Speaker 1: then they had this whole look it's you know, the
Speaker 1: one of the things with the with the Me Too movement,
Speaker 1: for example, is they didn't think they were gonna have
Speaker 1: to throw a US Senator Al Franken under the bus.
Speaker 1: But you know, they established the rules. Those are the rules.
Speaker 1: You know, they they this stuff boomerangs back on them sometimes,
Speaker 1: so you know, and now people are saying, maybe Franken
Speaker 1: shouldn't have even resigned. I mean, you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna get into that, but I'm just saying that, you know,
Speaker 1: they make these rules and then they're forced to your point,
Speaker 1: they're forced to live by them too. At least at
Speaker 1: some level, there's still double standards, but when there's an
Speaker 1: egregious violation of them. And look, I mean, Kevin Hart's
Speaker 1: a guy who you know, I think would usually be
Speaker 1: considering good standing in Hollywood and on the left and Democrats.
Speaker 1: He's very famous and wealthy African American entertainer. But you know,
Speaker 1: he there's certain certain red lines and he crossed one
Speaker 1: of them for them. So from Philadelphia, just throw that
Speaker 1: in there. He's from Philly. Really. Oh yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: we gotta do like a one year We'll have to
Speaker 1: do like a like a charity event. We'll auction off
Speaker 1: for Team Buck. You know, a producer Mike personal guided
Speaker 1: tour of Philly, like Producer Mike's version of Philly. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they'd be interesting. It starts the Rocky Statue
Speaker 1: and ends at a cheese stake place. There we go.
Speaker 1: That's what I like to hear. So this guy Kyler,
Speaker 1: I think he apologized, which I usually say, don't apologize.
Speaker 1: I think it's the right move. But you know, and
Speaker 1: if you guys have any actual football questions, go to
Speaker 1: producer Mike with those I'll be back in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Just let's get beyond the barriers talent, because they're going
Speaker 1: to hit US police throwing these tear gas kind of
Speaker 1: sis and bombs to scalp people. These nationwide protests continue
Speaker 1: to rock France. Things got rowdy over the weekend. You
Speaker 1: heard some of it there the Jul Jean. The Yellow
Speaker 1: Vests have already got some concessions from the government, but
Speaker 1: they're not stopping there. In fact, we have a new
Speaker 1: unofficial list of demands from the Yellow vests that includes
Speaker 1: a cut to taxes to twenty five percent of GDP,
Speaker 1: which is half of the current level, better public services,
Speaker 1: massive hiring of civil servants, leaving the EU and NATO,
Speaker 1: defaulting on public debt, a new constitution, less immigration, and
Speaker 1: scrapping the CFA Frank in West Africa. Huh. To make
Speaker 1: sense of all this, we have Sir Rob Amari with
Speaker 1: us now. He is an editor of Opinion Collins over
Speaker 1: at the New York Post. Sir Rob, great to have
Speaker 1: you on. Thanks for having me Buckah. So what do
Speaker 1: you what do you make of? First of all, what
Speaker 1: have they gotten so far in terms of concessions, and
Speaker 1: what do you think of some of the some of
Speaker 1: the demands they're thrown out there now. Well, on the
Speaker 1: immediate concessions, remember bucks to sing that set this sauce,
Speaker 1: was President Emmanuel McCrone foolish plan to hike up attacks
Speaker 1: on diesel and fuel, which obviously hits people who live
Speaker 1: in the rural areas and working class people who need
Speaker 1: to drive around the hardest um, and does not hit
Speaker 1: his own constituency of the sort of urban elite types
Speaker 1: who elected him. So that was the immediate I guess demand.
Speaker 1: But since then it's gotten a little bit uh far
Speaker 1: beyond that. We can talk about that. But Macron so
Speaker 1: far has said he's willing to suspend the tax for
Speaker 1: six months, and he's but he's been he's been decidedly
Speaker 1: sort of unwilling to address the protest directly because he
Speaker 1: has this sort of imperious style, you know, he styles
Speaker 1: himself a new de Gaul or even a new Napoleon,
Speaker 1: so he can't deign to talk to the people himself,
Speaker 1: and he's dispatched the Prime Minister to do the persuasion. Um.
Speaker 1: But that's the only immediate concession. Beyond that, there as
Speaker 1: you mentioned, they have a bunch of h demands that
Speaker 1: are this new mix of I would say, of what
Speaker 1: used to be called a far right and the far left.
Speaker 1: Limits on immigration, but also pulling out of native um uh,
Speaker 1: you know, he pull out of the EU, but also
Speaker 1: cut taxes but also increased spending. It's a it's a
Speaker 1: mish MANA I'll have to recognize is that the actual
Speaker 1: movement is this grassroots movement fueled by fueled by fuel issues,
Speaker 1: let's say, and then all sorts of other groups have
Speaker 1: attached themselves to it and each are pushing their an agenda.
Speaker 1: And it's not even clear what the documents that the
Speaker 1: movement puts out even reflects them that the actual people
Speaker 1: who are coming out, it's all very confused and very French.
Speaker 1: I found it. Yeah, I mean, look, but when the
Speaker 1: French protests they go big, we can say that at least, right,
Speaker 1: they don't. They don't when they decide that they're really
Speaker 1: going to make some noise in the streets, they're not
Speaker 1: messing around. And they have based on the polling I've
Speaker 1: seen eighty percent support which for a protest movement like this,
Speaker 1: for the for the general population to overwhelmingly back them up.
Speaker 1: Just goes to show that you know that the French
Speaker 1: government doesn't have that much of a choice at least
Speaker 1: backing off of, as you said, the tax on gasoline
Speaker 1: because of climate change. But I thought this was fascinating
Speaker 1: because it raised the issue of other taxes and and
Speaker 1: and the demand for less time is on working people
Speaker 1: in general. I mean, there are two things that this
Speaker 1: brings the mind for me, uh Sarab. One of them
Speaker 1: is that you saw this initial response from some people
Speaker 1: on the left that oh gosh, you know that they
Speaker 1: can't be for less taxation because that seems that seems
Speaker 1: like a conservative American talking point, like there's there's a
Speaker 1: there's a sense in the American left, in our own
Speaker 1: commentariat that any any demand for less taxation is inherently
Speaker 1: a conservative position, even in a place like France that
Speaker 1: has a percentage of GDP as a vast tax it
Speaker 1: really high levels of taxation. And then and then you know,
Speaker 1: the other part re thought is inustry is just that
Speaker 1: you see that the real money, you know, the French
Speaker 1: tried this millionaire's tax, and look the reason this interest Americans,
Speaker 1: I think other than just it's a pretty engaging story
Speaker 1: is that we see your parallels on our own situation,
Speaker 1: but the government is basically trying to get away with this. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll just have the rich pay taxes until it comes
Speaker 1: time to actually raise the reven and then you realize
Speaker 1: the rich don't have enough money to pay for all
Speaker 1: this stuff. The middle class has to a and they
Speaker 1: have to pay more than they want to. Yeah. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: France has had unemployment at about ten percent for as
Speaker 1: long as anyone can remember, maybe a generation. It has
Speaker 1: one in four young people are unemployed, which is a
Speaker 1: catastrophic number in the smartest French people. Often you'll find
Speaker 1: working in places like New York and San Francisco and London,
Speaker 1: and not in France. It has this vast state which
Speaker 1: takes up I mean, it's, as you mentioned, if the
Speaker 1: size of the state is and the public debt is
Speaker 1: larger than the than the DPU, and these are issues
Speaker 1: that Macron actually wants to fix. Any part of his
Speaker 1: program is to try to fix that. I think the
Speaker 1: mistake that he made was to tack on this sort
Speaker 1: of green nonsense, kind of alarmism to it with this
Speaker 1: fuel hike, which wasn't just the fuel hike. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you a couple of other things that they've reduced. They've
Speaker 1: reduced speed limit on many roads to like fifty miles
Speaker 1: an hour. And again for people who need to get
Speaker 1: places fast, it drives you insane. You can only drive
Speaker 1: fifty miles an hours. They've passed all these new regulations
Speaker 1: that make many of the older cars on the road
Speaker 1: illegal to drive. And people were hour raised and Macrone said,
Speaker 1: you know what, I'll give you forty five hundred towards
Speaker 1: the pert dollars toward the purchase of a Tesla orn
Speaker 1: electric car, which is the most kind of Mary Antoinette
Speaker 1: elitist kind of thing. Let them meet Teslas. So that
Speaker 1: that was I mean, his mistakes. I think if if
Speaker 1: he had just stuck to his economic performance, and I
Speaker 1: think the most of the country recognizes that its labor
Speaker 1: rules are too restrictive for employers and discourages hiring and
Speaker 1: firing taxes are too high on job creators. I think
Speaker 1: people got that public sector unions have too much power.
Speaker 1: People got that, but it all got muddled up with
Speaker 1: this stuff, plus a kind of a bunch of crazy
Speaker 1: immigration stuff that he's he's added on. He's signed up
Speaker 1: the country for this global immigration pack which is going
Speaker 1: to get signed with the United Nations this week in
Speaker 1: Marrakesh and Morocco, which again many French people find distasteful
Speaker 1: because they think that they've legitimate. I think I felt
Speaker 1: that that there's had there's been too much immigration, the
Speaker 1: ones we are already here unassimilating. So, you know, Macrone
Speaker 1: didn't do what he really needs to do is to
Speaker 1: focus on just fixing the economy by reducing the burden
Speaker 1: on taxpayers and workers and job creators. Instead, he muddled
Speaker 1: his message with all this sort of other kind of
Speaker 1: you know, utopian liberal agenda, and it all exploded. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's that is a very accurate description. It has definitely exploded.
Speaker 1: It has blown up in the French states face. By
Speaker 1: the way, I'm just assuming you know about Brexit, because
Speaker 1: you know about all these things. What do you think
Speaker 1: give give the folks stays some background on what Teresa
Speaker 1: May they delayed this Brexit vote, but I thought we
Speaker 1: already had a vote. That's what Brexit was. What's going
Speaker 1: on here? Okay, So in two thousand and six, seeing
Speaker 1: the British people voted to leave the European Union by
Speaker 1: both wide majority and some of the highest turnouts in
Speaker 1: British electoral history ever. Um then the question became, okay,
Speaker 1: how do you actually divorce Britain from the European Union?
Speaker 1: And what many Brexit supporters feel is that the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister May, in her negotiations with the Bliss Brussels, went
Speaker 1: soft and created this situation which they've gone up this
Speaker 1: agreement together where Britain would remain subject to many of
Speaker 1: the European Unions administrative rules and regulations in order to
Speaker 1: be able to trade with the EU. So, in other words,
Speaker 1: they're getting really none of the benefits of being a
Speaker 1: truly independent sovereign nation, which is what the heart of
Speaker 1: the demand was, but they're not. They're also not getting
Speaker 1: the kind regulatory freedom that they wanted. So it's just
Speaker 1: sort of been like what happens to Brexit And that's
Speaker 1: really what's happening right now is is to what extent
Speaker 1: can the people through Parliament get to an agreement that
Speaker 1: actually reflects a real Brexit and not a kind of
Speaker 1: soft situation in which they're they're not only getting the rules,
Speaker 1: but now they're not even at the table to help
Speaker 1: shape the rules at least Back in the day, they
Speaker 1: Britain was at the table at the European Union, so
Speaker 1: they could have a say on its bureaucratic overreach. Now
Speaker 1: they're out of it. They're still subject to rule and
Speaker 1: they don't have a say at the at the table
Speaker 1: the councils of Europe. So that's the real heart of
Speaker 1: the matter is can Prime Minister may kind of find
Speaker 1: her spine to negotiate a tougher deal with Brussels that
Speaker 1: really gives voice to the vote that was taken in
Speaker 1: two thousands weifteen. I had my doubts about various aspects
Speaker 1: of Brexit, but as a small d Democrat, the people
Speaker 1: deserve to get the thing that they voted for, which
Speaker 1: is a real Brexit. Yeah, I mean, it's it's pretty
Speaker 1: remarkable that they could have a plebiscite, right, that they
Speaker 1: could have the people decide, and then once the people
Speaker 1: have decided, now the establishment politicians are like, well, we're
Speaker 1: not sure they really get what they know, they don't
Speaker 1: get what they want. That's not how this goes, which
Speaker 1: is a pretty bad precedent. I mean, I've got to
Speaker 1: say I think that that's it ties into a lot
Speaker 1: of the general feelings right now about the elites and
Speaker 1: the establishment in the UK and in this country too.
Speaker 1: And just to that end, I mean the market this morning,
Speaker 1: I mean how this affects us. Do you think that
Speaker 1: this really uh, this this rattled things? I mean I
Speaker 1: know that it recovered, but people were telling me all
Speaker 1: the Brexit Brexit fears why the market had to dive
Speaker 1: this morning. Markets respond to a variety of things, and
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't just put it down to one, but
Speaker 1: it's certainly one of them. Is this sort of is
Speaker 1: lack of clarity is very makes everyone nervous, and that's
Speaker 1: one problem. And to your point about the way European
Speaker 1: elites work, it's exactly right, they sort of when they
Speaker 1: will say we will hold as many votes it takes
Speaker 1: to reach the right outcome by the right. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's populism without the populie. It's populism without actually letting people. Yeah, exactly,
Speaker 1: exactly all right, Well, Sarabamara. Everybody check out his work
Speaker 1: at The New York Post and I also follow him
Speaker 1: on Twitter. So Rob always appreciate you making the times.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Tabe. We'll be right back. So basically, when
Speaker 1: you think about how we're actually going to succeed and
Speaker 1: actually kick their ass. It's going to be based on justice,
Speaker 1: environmental justice, economic justice, and all right, that's right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: And so when we look about what's going to happen
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, we are going to have to crust
Speaker 1: these people. Honestly, I think the whole idea that they're
Speaker 1: going to compromise, they're going to come to their senses.
Speaker 1: They don't really understand what's gonna They absolutely understand what's
Speaker 1: going they're looking at their interest. They're not fooled. They're
Speaker 1: doing something that they believe is really good for them,
Speaker 1: and to hell with everybody else. We're in a situation
Speaker 1: that is dire and the ability to be polite to
Speaker 1: people who are going to put everyone in this room,
Speaker 1: and for the parents, every one of your kids at risk,
Speaker 1: and for the grandparents, every one of your grandchildren at
Speaker 1: dire risk, I think the time for politeness is over.
Speaker 1: So I've got good news and bad news for you folks.
Speaker 1: The good news is that, as you can tell they're
Speaker 1: from Tom sty or ranting about climate change, you can
Speaker 1: be a complete moron in this country and become a billionaire.
Speaker 1: So you know, that's we got that going for us,
Speaker 1: which is nice. Even somebody who is delusional can become
Speaker 1: a billionaire. The bad news is that Tom Steyer is
Speaker 1: a billionaire and he's nuts. And as you can tell
Speaker 1: from the way he's talking about the issue climate change.
Speaker 1: There they are really emboldened right now on the left
Speaker 1: because of this well one, I mean, they're they're tying
Speaker 1: to California wildfires as the California wildfires have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with climate change, okay, meaning that you know, this
Speaker 1: is like the butterfly flapping the wings in New York,
Speaker 1: get a storm in Shanghai. Theory of the climate. It's
Speaker 1: just these things are so far removed from each other.
Speaker 1: The notion that they'd be able to draw a causal
Speaker 1: link between CO two the atmosphere and one period of
Speaker 1: forest fires in one tiny part of the world, right
Speaker 1: we think of it, Oh my gosh, it was a
Speaker 1: terrible fire. I know, but we're talking about just one
Speaker 1: little area of California, which is one state in the US,
Speaker 1: which is one country. I mean, you start breaking this down,
Speaker 1: think of what a microcosm they are using to make
Speaker 1: judgments about the macro. And yet that's what he that's
Speaker 1: what they're doing. And this is now the beginning of
Speaker 1: what you're gonna hear a lot more of. And I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to break it down for you on this show,
Speaker 1: and I ain't gonna do it in detail today, But
Speaker 1: this is a thing now, this is the Democrat base.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure it's gonna be a big thing in
Speaker 1: the general because it's such a dumb idea, but in
Speaker 1: the primary for the Democrats, they're gonna be running on this,
Speaker 1: and you're gonna hear a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: malarkey from the Congress about it, and they're calling it
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal, and those you were saying, what
Speaker 1: the heck is that? That's a very valid question because
Speaker 1: I don't even think that people who are pushing for
Speaker 1: this know what this so called Green New Deal is
Speaker 1: supposed to be. I don't think they're really aware of
Speaker 1: what the Green New Deal would involve. It just sounds
Speaker 1: good as an aside. I know this is a little
Speaker 1: bit of a this is a little bit of a
Speaker 1: soliloquy within the broader monologue here, but notice how FDR
Speaker 1: who it's going to court pack who put Japanese Americans
Speaker 1: in internment camps. You know, FDR who has so much
Speaker 1: in his background in his history that you think, by
Speaker 1: our contemporary standards would be just just unpalatable the left,
Speaker 1: he escapes, He escapes the criticism of the social justice warriors,
Speaker 1: He escapes the kind of of you know, pillarying is
Speaker 1: that is that's a word that the left heaps on
Speaker 1: everybody else based on contemporary standards. Anyway, the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is supposed to be huge investment in jobs and
Speaker 1: you know, jobs and infrastructure for renewable, renewable energy, which
Speaker 1: just means taxpayers subsidizing wildly expensive and inefficient energy programs.
Speaker 1: What it really means is that it's like Cylindra on steroids.
Speaker 1: That's what the Green New Deal is going to be.
Speaker 1: If these technologies were efficient enough, if they were productive enough,
Speaker 1: guess what the private sector would be all about them.
Speaker 1: But you see this, the the green energy sector, it
Speaker 1: is growing. I'm not I'm not, you know, ignorant of this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: solar is getting more efficient, solar is getting to these
Speaker 1: things are but it's slow, it's happening, but it's happening slowly.
Speaker 1: They're arguing for a great leap forward, if you will,
Speaker 1: on green energy, And yes, I'm making the historical illusion.
Speaker 1: They're on purpose. They're arguing for a great leap forward
Speaker 1: without recognizing that these you know that these massive government
Speaker 1: programs and in catastrophe that when the government involved itself
Speaker 1: in the economy this way, and it's not done by
Speaker 1: stakeholders and innovators and entrepreneurs, but by government fiat. It's
Speaker 1: a disaster. And that's why I can tell you and
Speaker 1: we'll get more into this another time. The Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is a disaster, but Democrats are embracing it. Oh
Speaker 1: that's right. Twitter is now banning conspiracy online. Well, what's
Speaker 1: a conspiracy? You know what really goes on with conspira?
Speaker 1: Oh out, it's whatever the left says it is. Apparently,
Speaker 1: you know how the social media giants play the game.
Speaker 1: Don't let them silence you or determine what you can see,
Speaker 1: what you can read. Go to snippy dot com. Thousands
Speaker 1: of my listeners have joined snippy dot com. They're expressing
Speaker 1: their opinions and they're getting lively fired up conversation going.
Speaker 1: Snippy is an unbiased social media platform all about conversation
Speaker 1: and community. They not only encourage freedom of expression, but
Speaker 1: they guarantee users the ability to discuss topics without suppression
Speaker 1: from administrators. Everybody's free to share their thoughts on Snippy.
Speaker 1: You've got to check it out for yourself. I'm a member,
Speaker 1: I post I check in daily Now, no shadow banning,
Speaker 1: no suppression of conservative thought, with an updated user interface
Speaker 1: and exciting new features. Snippy dot com is also available
Speaker 1: in the Apple App Store and for Android. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com totally free, all free. Check it out yourself, Join
Speaker 1: your new alternative social media. Can the government take your
Speaker 1: home for unpaid taxes? Yeah, the government can. But can
Speaker 1: the government take your home for eight that's right, eight
Speaker 1: dollars in unpaid taxes? Well, if you live in certain states,
Speaker 1: the answer is yes. You really need to hear about
Speaker 1: this one story by Christina Martin the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: For eight dollars and forty one cents and unpaid taxes,
Speaker 1: the government took Uri Rafaeli's house. This was in Michigan,
Speaker 1: and anyone want to guess what tool of the prosecutors
Speaker 1: and tool of the state was used here to seize
Speaker 1: a home for eight dollars and unpaid taxes. That's right,
Speaker 1: civil asset forfeiture. Let me give you the details of
Speaker 1: this and then we can jump into more of what
Speaker 1: the heck is going on here. Uri Rafaeli is an
Speaker 1: eighty three year old engineer and great grandfather. He never
Speaker 1: expected the government treat him like a drug dealer or gangbanger,
Speaker 1: but last year, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that
Speaker 1: a county government could use civil asset forfeiture, the same
Speaker 1: legal process used by police to confiscate drug lord's mansions,
Speaker 1: to seize a modest rental property mister Rafaeli owned because
Speaker 1: he accidentally underpaid his property taxes by a whopping eight
Speaker 1: dollars and forty one cents. Mister Rafaeli bought the house
Speaker 1: through his business for sixty thousand dollars in twenty eleven.
Speaker 1: Later that year, he inadvertently underpaid his property taxes by
Speaker 1: four hundred and ninety six dollars. When he learned of
Speaker 1: his mistake, mister Raffaeli attempted to pay the debt in full,
Speaker 1: but failed to account for the interest that he had
Speaker 1: accumulated since he received the bill. He came up eight
Speaker 1: dollars and forty one cents or Unaware of his arab
Speaker 1: mister Raffaeli went on to pay his taxes in a
Speaker 1: timely manner in subsequent years, but Oakland County in twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen four closed on the property to collect the tiny debt,
Speaker 1: along with two hundred and seventy seven dollars and penalties, interests,
Speaker 1: and fees. Six months later, the county sold the property
Speaker 1: for twenty four thousand dollars five hundred auction and refused
Speaker 1: to refund mister Raffaeli any of the profits end quote.
Speaker 1: I mean this office Walsh journal piece. Folks, Let's just
Speaker 1: take a moment here, shall we. This is crazy. The
Speaker 1: state can seize your house for an eight dollar under payment.
Speaker 1: How about a phone call from one of the countless,
Speaker 1: very hard working I know, state bureaucrats saying, hey, can
Speaker 1: you send us a check for eight dollars? Even better,
Speaker 1: can you just sign on to this, you know, Michigan
Speaker 1: dot gov portal and you can just pay with a
Speaker 1: credit card. Here. Eight bucks. That's all they need. Eight bucks,
Speaker 1: thank you? How about that? No, instead, they use civil
Speaker 1: asset forfeiture to take his home, which is worth you know,
Speaker 1: let's call it sixty maybe a little more than sixty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, probably appreciated a little bit since he bought it,
Speaker 1: but sixty thousand dollars home and sell it for twenty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars. What is this? Who thinks this is okay?
Speaker 1: This is America, this is today, This is happening. I
Speaker 1: know we're all supposed to care so much about Trump's taxes,
Speaker 1: but why don't we care more about how the relationship
Speaker 1: between citizen and government is tilted so far in favor
Speaker 1: of the government on matters of taxation, matters of criminal justice.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is getting out of hand. Let me
Speaker 1: go back to Walter journal piece because the details are important.
Speaker 1: Quote cash strap. Local governments in Michigan rely on profits
Speaker 1: from the sale of tax foreclosed property. According to the
Speaker 1: Detroit News, Oakland County ranked in twenty two point five
Speaker 1: million dollars by auctioning and off tax foreclosures from twenty
Speaker 1: two thousand and six to twenty fifteen. County officials use
Speaker 1: these funds to pay for tax collection expenses and maintain
Speaker 1: properties worth less than their tax debts, but whatever is
Speaker 1: left over gets swept into the general fund. Besides the
Speaker 1: obvious injustice of such a naked governmental money grab, these
Speaker 1: types of civil asset forfeitures threatened Americans constituency protected rights
Speaker 1: end quote. I mean, this is this is so egregious
Speaker 1: that this could even happen. I mean, you have to
Speaker 1: read this kind of a piece to believe that this
Speaker 1: could happen. You have to read this to think that
Speaker 1: this could be going on in America. I mean, the
Speaker 1: Fifth Amendment says they cannot take private property without just compensation.
Speaker 1: This is not just compensation, and this is not due process.
Speaker 1: This is just up you owe us. We're just gonna
Speaker 1: take your stuff because we can because there's a legal
Speaker 1: loophole that lets us. And you might say, buckwell, why
Speaker 1: would they do this, Well, we know why they do
Speaker 1: this because the government, like Skynet from the Terminator movies,
Speaker 1: is self aware. The government, whether state or federal, is
Speaker 1: increasingly a self interested and self perpetuating organism. People who
Speaker 1: work for the government don't necessarily view it this way,
Speaker 1: but there is a hive mind effect. And I saw
Speaker 1: it when I was the CIA, where the institution, the agency,
Speaker 1: the bureau, the whatever it is, whatever government entity you
Speaker 1: work for, has to stay fully funded at all times,
Speaker 1: has to get staffed up. You know, even more every year,
Speaker 1: whatever the projections are going to hit, those projections no cutbacks,
Speaker 1: no pay decreases, pay increases, no changes in budget, only
Speaker 1: one direction up. And this is very common in a
Speaker 1: lot of these. And then there's really a feeling of
Speaker 1: self righteousness that takes hold of a lot of these
Speaker 1: government folks that you know, they're owed this by the
Speaker 1: tax better their their mission is so important, and I mean,
Speaker 1: I just don't know how anyone could sleep at night
Speaker 1: who is part of a government, government program that takes
Speaker 1: by the way, no one thinks that this individual, No
Speaker 1: one thinks that our Rafaelli in Michigan as a criminal
Speaker 1: or a bad guy he owes eight dollars. I mean,
Speaker 1: I probably still owe Blockbuster eight dollars from the nineties,
Speaker 1: probably still going to come after me at some point
Speaker 1: for it too. This is not the this is not
Speaker 1: the only case like this. There's a lot of civil
Speaker 1: asset forfeit your cases, and you know it's just out
Speaker 1: of control. I mean, you know, for example, here's another one.
Speaker 1: The elderly, sicker, economically distressed are most at risk of
Speaker 1: losing property over taxes. Henderson Hodgens lost his childhood at
Speaker 1: home and farm in town Ship, Michigan in twenty fourteen
Speaker 1: when hospitalization left him unexpectfully unable to pay his fifty
Speaker 1: nine hundred dollar debt. Another guy, Benjamin Coleman, who suffers
Speaker 1: from dementia, lost his Washington, DC home, but he forgot
Speaker 1: to pay a one hundred and thirty four dollars tax bill.
Speaker 1: Public outrage over his story prompted the District of Columbia
Speaker 1: to change a confiscatory law to protect property rights. I
Speaker 1: mean seizing property because somebody owes like fifty bucks, you
Speaker 1: gonna take their home because they owe five bucks? Is
Speaker 1: this is unjust? This is unfair, and that this can
Speaker 1: happen in many states, not just Michigan. It happened. It's
Speaker 1: it's true. It's true in Vermont, it's true, in New Hampshire.
Speaker 1: It's true in Michigan. It's true at a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of places, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oregon, Massachusetts, whole bunch of
Speaker 1: states have this. We gotta keep an eye on this.
Speaker 1: There's stories that matter, folks, outside of the constant battle
Speaker 1: over the trumpethon. There's other stuff here, and we'll continue
Speaker 1: and follow them here in the Freedom Hunt. Global Verification
Speaker 1: is the only dual certified veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. You're probably gonna be staffing up in the
Speaker 1: new year, right, if you got any hires, you're gonna
Speaker 1: be making. You need somebody that can just take all
Speaker 1: the headache out of the background check process. Make sure
Speaker 1: you get it done quickly, efficiently, and by people that
Speaker 1: you know, you can trust and you can get on
Speaker 1: the phone. They're not some huge corporation. I know Mark Buckman,
Speaker 1: the CEO, personally, he's a great guy. He's a veteran himself,
Speaker 1: and he really cares about the business that he's in.
Speaker 1: And call them and tell them at buck Sex and
Speaker 1: sent you. I'm telling you, they'll be so happy to
Speaker 1: hear from you, and they'll have a package that's right
Speaker 1: for you in your business for background checks and vetting.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: That's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: Or go to MYGVN dot com. You know, if you've
Speaker 1: got somebody else in your background checks, you might want
Speaker 1: to price it out and talk to what's going or
Speaker 1: talk the folks over at Global Verification Network. All right,
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com Again, that's my GVN dot com.
Speaker 1: So I just love this story. I think this is
Speaker 1: a fantastic story because it really is a little window
Speaker 1: into how things work in these big Democrat machines of
Speaker 1: politics that you see in places like Chicago and you know,
Speaker 1: major cities Baltimore, New York, Miami, Los Angeles. There's there's differences,
Speaker 1: but there's some baseline similarities at all these places, and
Speaker 1: that is that this idea that Democrats haven't run around
Speaker 1: with for a long time, that everyone just wants voter
Speaker 1: turnout man, and they just don't want voter suppression. And
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as voter fraud. No, there is
Speaker 1: voter fraud. There absolutely is voter fraud, and in fact,
Speaker 1: we are currently finding out we should know more later
Speaker 1: this week whether this election in North Carolina was marred
Speaker 1: by fraud. They might needed to they might not be
Speaker 1: able to seat the Republican who won, and they might
Speaker 1: have to have an entirely new primary and general election.
Speaker 1: That would be the process for that congressional seat in
Speaker 1: North Carolina. This is a straight up do over, and
Speaker 1: it's looking likely that that is the case. There's this
Speaker 1: guy who is a kind of political fixer in North Carolina,
Speaker 1: and he's at the heart of this idea or this
Speaker 1: allegation that people were picking up absentee ballots, which is illegal,
Speaker 1: accepted a very specifically defined circumstances. In North Carolina, they
Speaker 1: were essentially illegally harvesting ballots. It might have been more
Speaker 1: widespread than was even thought. So North Carolina may have
Speaker 1: to have a whole new election because of fraud for
Speaker 1: a congressional seat. Now this story in Chicago, this is
Speaker 1: not going to get nearly nearly as much attention because
Speaker 1: it really only plausibly involves malfeasance by Democrats. Right, the
Speaker 1: chicanery's on one side of things here, it's the Democrat side,
Speaker 1: and so it won't get nearly nearly the same degree
Speaker 1: of media interest that for example, North Carolina, where a
Speaker 1: Republican one has been getting. But this is about a
Speaker 1: college kid named David Kruppa who's nineteen years old, who
Speaker 1: decided to run for thirteenth Ward. Alderman. So the thirteenth Ward,
Speaker 1: I don't really know Chicago politics well, so part of me,
Speaker 1: some of you probably know it better than I. But
Speaker 1: the thirteenth Ward is, you know, in Chicago, and it's
Speaker 1: it's covered by the Chicago political machine. Some refer to
Speaker 1: it as the daily machine. And this is an example
Speaker 1: of a guy who, look, he's a young guy. I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna actually have him on Rising tomorrow as
Speaker 1: a guest. I think that's what we've got scheduled, so
Speaker 1: we'll be able to talk about it. But he's just
Speaker 1: a young man who wants to get A young man
Speaker 1: sounds like I'm some you know, some guy who's been
Speaker 1: around for a century. But he wanted to get involved
Speaker 1: in politics. So he figured out that all you need
Speaker 1: to do is get a certain number of signatures and
Speaker 1: you can get yourself on the ballot. But in the
Speaker 1: Chicago realm, that a In this case, a Republican named
Speaker 1: David Cruppo is a freshman at De Paul University. He
Speaker 1: drives a forklift part time, and he's a conservative guy
Speaker 1: who studies political science. He wanted to throw his hat
Speaker 1: in the ring and get involved in local politics, and
Speaker 1: so the thirteenth Ward, which is run by House Speaker
Speaker 1: Michael Madigan, who is apparently known as Boss Madigan in
Speaker 1: Chicago and is referred to in the Chicago Tribune as
Speaker 1: the most powerful politician in the state. So this guy
Speaker 1: didn't necessarily real but he decided to walk into El
Speaker 1: Padrone's backyard here. And the current alderman of the thirteenth
Speaker 1: Ward is this guy Marty Quinn. But you know, Marty
Speaker 1: Quinn is no one, no one that you've ever heard
Speaker 1: of unless you live in Chicago. But the daily machine
Speaker 1: in Chicago you certainly are familiar with. Remember it's what
Speaker 1: It's where Obama built his political career. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: there's very powerful Democrat roots here in Chicago, and it
Speaker 1: really runs the whole it really runs the whole state.
Speaker 1: You know. I was out in Springfield, Illinois recently, and
Speaker 1: they were telling me that the Democrats that are out
Speaker 1: in Chicago are the ones that really call the shots
Speaker 1: for everybody else. Even though technically the city government is
Speaker 1: in Springfield, it's the capitol, I'm sorry, the state government
Speaker 1: is in Springfield. So this guy Kruppa gets on the
Speaker 1: ballot and he gets four He needed four hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy three valid signatures of people who live in the
Speaker 1: thirteenth Ward to get on the ballot. With the Chicago
Speaker 1: Board of Elections. Kruppa, only nineteen years old, managed a
Speaker 1: robust seventeen hundred and three signatures. But this is where
Speaker 1: the story gets amazing. My friends, before he could even
Speaker 1: file his signatures with the Elections Board, a group of
Speaker 1: political workers, all right, a bunch of political activists at
Speaker 1: the behest of the Chicago Daily machine went door to
Speaker 1: door with official legal papers. And what did they do.
Speaker 1: They asked people to remove this young man by signing
Speaker 1: an affidavit of revocation of their signature. That's right. They
Speaker 1: moved so quickly to squash this guy that they that
Speaker 1: they managed to get all of his signatures revoked before
Speaker 1: he could even turn in the signatures that he had gathers.
Speaker 1: Think about that for a moment. I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: really thinks that he's a real challenge in the thirteenth War.
Speaker 1: But they don't even want to. You know, they don't know.
Speaker 1: They don't want to. They don't want to play any games.
Speaker 1: The thing about these revocations is that they are legally
Speaker 1: binding documents. They are notarized and signed, so that means
Speaker 1: that lying on these documents is in fact perjury. And
Speaker 1: you can even have felony charges for this. And if
Speaker 1: you have a felony charge, you can't work for the government.
Speaker 1: So these are people working on at behest of the
Speaker 1: government who may have you think colored a little bit
Speaker 1: outside the lines here? But then things get really interesting.
Speaker 1: Who wants to guess this young man wants to run
Speaker 1: in Chicago seventeen hundred and three signatures that he's turning in.
Speaker 1: But how many revocations of signatures meaning people who say
Speaker 1: I pull away the signature that I already signed. How
Speaker 1: many revocations did the Chicago machine, the Democrat machine churn
Speaker 1: out two thousand and seven hundred and ninety six. So
Speaker 1: someone's going to need to explain how it's possible that
Speaker 1: they found an extra thousand people who claim that their
Speaker 1: signatures had to be revoked when these political activists went
Speaker 1: door to door. How is that a mistake that anybody
Speaker 1: could reasonably make? And oh, when they did a document
Speaker 1: match of the seventeen hundred and three people who signed
Speaker 1: to get young mister Kruppa on the ballot, only one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty seven of them of the revocations rather
Speaker 1: matched the original petitions. So what do they do in
Speaker 1: Chicago to block this kid from getting on the ballot
Speaker 1: of a ward in the city of Chicago That this
Speaker 1: kid has no prayer of winning, I would assume, but
Speaker 1: who knows, But realistically no chance they got more and
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, almost almost double. I mean they
Speaker 1: overshot he only got seventeen hundred, and they overshot that
Speaker 1: by a thousand. So you know, it's like a sixty
Speaker 1: percent call it a sixty percent increase in revoked signatures,
Speaker 1: which means guess what, people lied? People broke the law.
Speaker 1: They're turning this over to Cook County States Attorney Kim Fox.
Speaker 1: But who wants to guess what political party Fox belongs to? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, she's a Democrat. Now you have signatures, these
Speaker 1: are tied to individuals, You have people handing in those signatures.
Speaker 1: You have a paper trail here, and you have a
Speaker 1: pretty much open and shut case of felony election fraud
Speaker 1: occurring in Chicago city limits for the thirteenth ward. Also,
Speaker 1: they could stop a young Conservative from even appearing on
Speaker 1: the ballot. Does anyone think they are going to be
Speaker 1: criminal charges from this? Does anybody think that the Chicago
Speaker 1: machine doesn't extend into the prosecutor's offices here? This is
Speaker 1: the thing about corruption. Once you really understand its nature,
Speaker 1: you understand its extent, you understand that there's no check
Speaker 1: on this. Really, there's no there's no good faith actors
Speaker 1: in place, who are going to take this on in Chicago.
Speaker 1: It's too entrenched. It's two Democrats, too left wing, too corrupt.
Speaker 1: What an incredible story. You get seventeen hundred people you
Speaker 1: think you're gonna start your political career by getting on
Speaker 1: the ballot, and they get twenty seven hundred to say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm pulling away my signature. And only one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty seven of the twenty seven hundred even gave their
Speaker 1: signature in the first place. A lot of fraud, folks.
Speaker 1: No one's going to go to prison because Democrats Stemming.
Speaker 1: It's six foot two and weighing it at two hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty pounds. Male to female transgender handballer Hannah Mounsie
Speaker 1: is dominating at the Women's Asian Championships in Japan. Before
Speaker 1: his transition in May twenty sixteen, Mousey played for the
Speaker 1: Australian men's handball team. This is from a daily wire.
Speaker 1: You know, if I had said five years ago, okay,
Speaker 1: that you would have a situation now where libs would
Speaker 1: be telling all the rest of us not only should
Speaker 1: males be able to play female sports, but they should
Speaker 1: be able to play against women. But we should pretend
Speaker 1: that they are women playing against women. They would have
Speaker 1: said that that was crazy, that that's fear mongering. And
Speaker 1: I mean five years ago when I started in media,
Speaker 1: I remember some of the examples when we would talk
Speaker 1: about transgenderism and what's going to happen here? We would say, well,
Speaker 1: what about men and women's prisons and those separations? What
Speaker 1: about men and women's sports? Essentially? What about those places,
Speaker 1: those areas of life where a biology is in fact
Speaker 1: the determining factor? Right, have said that so many times?
Speaker 1: How many of you who are men listening to this?
Speaker 1: No exactly what I'm talking about, all of you and
Speaker 1: the ladies know it too. If you were to pick
Speaker 1: your average two hundred pound, able bodied, twenty five year
Speaker 1: old male off the street and told him that in
Speaker 1: a contact sport he was going to play again women,
Speaker 1: he would be able to play at a very high level,
Speaker 1: assuming he was reasonably strong and athletic. Right, you got
Speaker 1: a two hundred pound, six foot tall guy who's twenty
Speaker 1: five years old, he's going to be an elite level
Speaker 1: athlete among females in contact sports, not in tennis or
Speaker 1: but in sports whereas pure physical strength and speed are
Speaker 1: really all that is needed, and we just we all
Speaker 1: know this, but we're being told to forget what is obvious.
Speaker 1: In fact, we're being told to embrace what is false.
Speaker 1: Here's the headline here was he played handball for Australia's
Speaker 1: men's team. Now transgender, he's dominating women's handball. And I
Speaker 1: see this now is even going beyond this strength issue
Speaker 1: to the attractiveness issue. You know, you have the Miss
Speaker 1: Universe competition, which you know, for pure research purposes. I
Speaker 1: have occasionally tuned in just to you know, I'm in
Speaker 1: media and I need to know what's going on, so
Speaker 1: occasionally I will have flipped on the Miss Universe competition.
Speaker 1: I changed the channel when the swimsuits come on. But
Speaker 1: you know, I have been known to see some of
Speaker 1: the pageants in the past, and they're all saying the
Speaker 1: odds on favorite this year to win the twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: Miss Universe pageant is Angela Ponce, who is male. This
Speaker 1: is I mean, this is a transgender individual, you know,
Speaker 1: and and I think it's it's it's remarkable that this
Speaker 1: has moved so quickly that now I guess you're you're
Speaker 1: bigoted if as a male who is attracted to females,
Speaker 1: which is a vast majority. Despite what you get from
Speaker 1: watching the media days, a vast majority of males are
Speaker 1: in fact attracted to females. And it is a deep
Speaker 1: biological predisposition, right, There's a whole propagation of the species
Speaker 1: thing that comes into play here. If you're a biological
Speaker 1: male who is only attracted to females, it is bigoted.
Speaker 1: If you really take the woke social justice warriors at
Speaker 1: their word, it's bigoted for you to not be attracted
Speaker 1: to a man who has put on all these ostensibly
Speaker 1: female characteristics on their you know, on their outer body.
Speaker 1: The problem is, folks, it's also you know, you can
Speaker 1: always really tell it never you know, I've never seen
Speaker 1: a transgendered individual who is not obviously male with female accoutrement.
Speaker 1: If you will, you can always tell. And you can't
Speaker 1: actually change your biology. So they can give you the
Speaker 1: pills and they can give you the surgeries and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, but ultimately it's just all feeding into a lie.
Speaker 1: But because of the radical equality that's at the heart
Speaker 1: of cultural marks and the left, because of the radical
Speaker 1: equality that is the basis for so much of their
Speaker 1: agitation and so much of their organizing and really the
Speaker 1: leveraging of envy as a means of mobilizing people. They
Speaker 1: like to pretend that there's no differences between the genders. Therefore,
Speaker 1: any differences between the genders that do exist in terms
Speaker 1: of pay or strength or anything else, those are social
Speaker 1: constructs that are the result of oppression. So I know,
Speaker 1: I just that's a much more complicated and maybe I'll
Speaker 1: get into that more than next time, because I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm just scratching the service with you on that
Speaker 1: one this time around. But it's an issue I'm always
Speaker 1: happy to talk about because I think it shows you
Speaker 1: how how dishonest and how crazy the left has become.
Speaker 1: We have our first role call in days coming up.
Speaker 1: I'm excited about it, So stay right there. The show
Speaker 1: ain't over yet, folks, it's time for roll call. Well, team,
Speaker 1: it is so good to be back here in the
Speaker 1: saddle in the Freedom Hut. Men. It was it was
Speaker 1: tough last week. I don't know if it was a
Speaker 1: light flu or a terrible cold, but it was one
Speaker 1: of the two. And I try not to whine about
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff on this show. I know everyone's
Speaker 1: got their own health challenges. Stop whining. I was in
Speaker 1: rough shape there that Wednesday show, the last show I
Speaker 1: did before I had to take a couple of days out.
Speaker 1: My voice box was basically failing in some of the breaks,
Speaker 1: and I was coughing up stuff that might as well
Speaker 1: have been Slimer from Ghostbusters, Like some of the stuff
Speaker 1: that I was coughing up could have gotten up and
Speaker 1: walked out of the room. Bike. I know, I know
Speaker 1: it's gross. I'm sorry, Producer Mike, I'm sorry, all right,
Speaker 1: that was gross, TMI. As the kids say, too much information,
Speaker 1: t AM. I not to be confused with Bay, which
Speaker 1: is another thing that the cool kids say. We have
Speaker 1: roll call to get to, so I will get right
Speaker 1: to it now. First up, by the way, whenever you
Speaker 1: hear me doing that when I start rambling and coherently
Speaker 1: for a second during Roan calls, usually because my computer
Speaker 1: is frozen up and it has unfrozen. Kyle writes Buck,
Speaker 1: I don't have cable TV. I listen to your podcast
Speaker 1: and Fox Business on my XM. But on the treadmill
Speaker 1: this morning I had a side by side view of
Speaker 1: Fox and CNN. Fox had at least a half a
Speaker 1: dozen segments, all different subjects, to include Russia without exaggeration.
Speaker 1: CNN had twenty five minutes of Russia indictment impeachment coverage
Speaker 1: and five minutes of Kashogi. To say Trump lives in
Speaker 1: their heads is an understatement, Well, Kyle, it's not all
Speaker 1: ideologically driven. I mean, I can tell you that stories
Speaker 1: that involve Trump, stories about Trump, get ratings, they get attention,
Speaker 1: and in a sense, you know people in this media business,
Speaker 1: you give the people what they want, or else your
Speaker 1: competition does. I mean that is a very real consideration.
Speaker 1: And even see Ann for example, overall its ratings are up,
Speaker 1: even though its prime time ratings are quite a bit down,
Speaker 1: and its ratings are up because of Trump. So while
Speaker 1: they complain about Trump, it's say he's a danger to
Speaker 1: the press, he's making the press richer, and he's not
Speaker 1: actually a danger to them. So it's really a win
Speaker 1: win for the whiny libs of the media. Patrick, Just
Speaker 1: for information's sake, to follow up on my ancestry, I'm
Speaker 1: two thirds Welsh, a third Irish, and one percent Congolees.
Speaker 1: That means I have more African in me than Warren
Speaker 1: has Native American. Well, Patrick, thank you for the random,
Speaker 1: fun personal facts that now the entire country knows about
Speaker 1: good to hear from you, Adam writes Buck, I'd love
Speaker 1: to get your opinion on universal basic income. I personally
Speaker 1: think if properly executed, we can drive a stake through
Speaker 1: the heart of federal bureaucracy and potentially the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: slash and burn nearly all benefits to pay for it. Well, Adam,
Speaker 1: here's the thing. Universal basic income sounds at first for
Speaker 1: a lot of folks like a pretty good idea. Right,
Speaker 1: you need a safety net. Very few people these days
Speaker 1: argue against any kind of safety net. So if you're
Speaker 1: going to have a safety net, the thinking goes, why
Speaker 1: not just give people money and then let them fend
Speaker 1: for themselves with that money. Well, what would happen is
Speaker 1: you'd have a similar dynamic to when people say let's
Speaker 1: get rid of income tax and replace it with a
Speaker 1: VAT tax, and they say, well, we'll only have a
Speaker 1: VAT tax, we won't have income tax. No, the way government,
Speaker 1: the way of bureaucracies work, you're gonna have both. So
Speaker 1: by creating universal basic income, what would happen is you
Speaker 1: would have an additional entitlement and then they would either
Speaker 1: want to bring back or keep or enlarge Supplemental Nutrition
Speaker 1: Assistance program food stamps. They'd want to enlarge Medicaid, you know,
Speaker 1: free healthcare. They'd want to enlarge all these different programs
Speaker 1: to the poor and give them a universal basic income.
Speaker 1: And that's not good. It also would create a perception
Speaker 1: that the state has an obligation to pay its people.
Speaker 1: And I think that just at a philosophical level, you know,
Speaker 1: it's one thing to give somebody. It's one thing to
Speaker 1: give somebody food or medical care, something to give somebody
Speaker 1: just money they can do absolutely anything with. I think
Speaker 1: the amount of fraud you'd seeds is very very high. Look,
Speaker 1: you've got eighty billion dollars a year, it's estimated in
Speaker 1: Medicare and Medicare fraud in America every year. Eighty billion
Speaker 1: with a bee. So that's that's my sense of that.
Speaker 1: I don't think we're going there anytime soon. And there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who would argue against it
Speaker 1: for the very reason that it would eliminate jobs. There
Speaker 1: are there are plenty of people that feel very strong
Speaker 1: that we should have a large, overpaid and lethargic bureaucratic
Speaker 1: class in this country working for the government, and that
Speaker 1: that's has a state balizing influence on society. This is
Speaker 1: a good thing and we should have these this bureaucratic establishment.
Speaker 1: People do believe that I'm not one of them, but
Speaker 1: there are people who think that way, and writes Jay,
Speaker 1: just Jay, and I don't know what the secret code is,
Speaker 1: but you have to write more to me and then
Speaker 1: I'll know what the secret code is. We can keep
Speaker 1: the party going. Irene writes, have you thought about joining CRTV?
Speaker 1: Blaze TV? You are loved well. I read, first of
Speaker 1: all very kind of you. Thank you for the encouragement
Speaker 1: As to joining The Blaze or CRTV right now, I'm
Speaker 1: in a contract with The Hill, so I couldn't do
Speaker 1: another TV show right now, and I'm going to be
Speaker 1: at the Hill for at least a few more months.
Speaker 1: So the answer your question is, I'm always open to
Speaker 1: working with good people in media, and especially good conservatives
Speaker 1: in media. And I have a lot of friends and
Speaker 1: a lot of people I really like and admire at
Speaker 1: The Blaze and at CRTV. So we'll see what the
Speaker 1: future holds. I really don't know. I'm I'm very focused
Speaker 1: right now, first and foremost on this radio show, but
Speaker 1: then also trying to expand out and do more well,
Speaker 1: really just get more viewership for the Hill TV project
Speaker 1: that we are working on, but ire and you're definitely
Speaker 1: thinking in the right general direction. Matthew. Hope you feel better, bro.
Speaker 1: You sounded god awful the other day. Well, Matthew, that
Speaker 1: would be because I felt god awful and was very,
Speaker 1: very sick. In fact, I kind of got sicker throughout
Speaker 1: the day. I don't know how many of you have
Speaker 1: had this where you know your cold is really bad
Speaker 1: in the morning, but then you kind of you drink
Speaker 1: your coffee, you know, you get some stuff moving, you
Speaker 1: get get things flowing, and it's not untill later on
Speaker 1: that day you realize, oh, I'm also exhausted, and my
Speaker 1: entire body and my throat and my head are aching.
Speaker 1: And that's where I was. It was. It was a
Speaker 1: challenge to get through this show last week, for that
Speaker 1: last day. I'm so glad though. I hope you all
Speaker 1: enjoyed having Lisa Booth in. You'd like to keep you
Speaker 1: all on your toes and get some new folks in
Speaker 1: at the Mica in the Freedom Hut. So I'm hearing
Speaker 1: good things about Lisa's film, which makes me very happy.
Speaker 1: She's a great gal, very talented. You see here on
Speaker 1: Fox News a lot, and I know the godfather, Michael
Speaker 1: Palca hooked it up on Friday, as he always does. So. Indeed,
Speaker 1: Ryan writes, Buck, I listen to your podcast almost every day.
Speaker 1: A lot of times I'm working in people's homes installing
Speaker 1: window coverings. It was absolutely hilarious to listen to Voice
Speaker 1: of Freedom while MSNBC was blaring in the background. MSNBC
Speaker 1: really is NonStop hatred of President Trump in the USA. Luckily,
Speaker 1: here in Idaho, most people are still saying, keep up
Speaker 1: the good work, drink or tea, Get well soon, Ryan, Well, Ryan,
Speaker 1: thank you, and you should all remember that that you
Speaker 1: can listen to and therefore carry with you the Freedom
Speaker 1: hut A show wherever you go, wherever you are, so
Speaker 1: you've always got a little bit of conservatism stored up
Speaker 1: and in your pocket whenever you need it. So if
Speaker 1: you happen to get stuck at a Marxist meditation festival
Speaker 1: in Silicon Valley, you could just pull out on your
Speaker 1: smartphone a little Buck Sexton show, and you know we're
Speaker 1: gonna bring it home. We're gonna bring it home. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be all good, Thomas writes, I do love your show.
Speaker 1: A note on Bush forty one. Given the glowing press
Speaker 1: he's been receiving after his death, it's easy to forget
Speaker 1: that President Bush forty one maintained a consistently better than
Speaker 1: fifty percent public approval rating until late in nineteen ninety one.
Speaker 1: In fact, in early nineteen ninety one, he got up
Speaker 1: to almost ninety percent. Is that right before the way
Speaker 1: that find that hard to believe, Thomas, But okay, then
Speaker 1: the press turned on him and destroyed him to get
Speaker 1: Clinton elected. In a year and a half, he went
Speaker 1: from eighty nine percent hide at below thirty percent. I
Speaker 1: don't know about eighty nine percent approve of my friend.
Speaker 1: I find that you have to show me some numbers
Speaker 1: on that. In the nineteen ninety two general election, many
Speaker 1: were saying anybody but Bush, and I believe that was
Speaker 1: really thanks to the press. Thanks for all you do,
Speaker 1: Thomas Oss. Thomas, thank you for writing in and belay
Speaker 1: you could be running all those poll numbers. I just
Speaker 1: that's just shockingly high approval. I can't imagine a president
Speaker 1: at any time having approval. But as to the media
Speaker 1: and their treatment a Bush, yeah, there was a lot.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of disingenuousness with people who were
Speaker 1: all of a sudden pretending that they thought Bush was
Speaker 1: so great, they were so supportive of his more refined
Speaker 1: and dignified Republicanism than what we have now. But that
Speaker 1: was mostly just to give them an opportunity, as we know,
Speaker 1: to bash Trump. That was really what was motivating a
Speaker 1: lot of the Oh Bush was so wonderful, And it
Speaker 1: was definitely the case at the McCain funeral. And look,
Speaker 1: I very much disagree with the decision that was made
Speaker 1: at the McCain funeral by some people to use it
Speaker 1: as a as a pulpit to attack President Trump. I
Speaker 1: don't think that when someone looks back on a life
Speaker 1: like John mccains, I don't think anybody should think that
Speaker 1: it has really that Donald Trump really matters in that hole.
Speaker 1: But they did decide that it mattered. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I thought that was strange and I would not have
Speaker 1: made that decision that I can say. Also, wasn't my
Speaker 1: decision to make. Caroline dear Buck, I'm just gonna come
Speaker 1: out and say it. I hate Santa. The elves work
Speaker 1: all year long producing all these toys, and Santa puts
Speaker 1: in one hour one rather twenty four hours shift the
Speaker 1: whole year, and takes all the credit. It's kind of
Speaker 1: like when the tax and spend democrats can graduate themselves
Speaker 1: on all the free government goodies while the taxpayer is
Speaker 1: the one who really produced the wealth. Anyway, Mary Christmas
Speaker 1: and Shields I Carolyn, well, thank you Marylyn, Marilyn, Carolyn
Speaker 1: else it was Maryland. I like your fun take on Santa,
Speaker 1: and that's there we go. I'll leave it there. I
Speaker 1: agree Santa. All of a sudden he shows up. Santa's
Speaker 1: like the guy who throws an extra five dollars on
Speaker 1: the table when somebody else pays like a for a
Speaker 1: two hundred dollar dinner. But you know Santa us to
Speaker 1: give a little more tips, so he throws in the five.
Speaker 1: Those you've seen in the show friends know exactly what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. That's gonna be in for the show today,
Speaker 1: my friends. Speaking of friends, be back with you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'm back in action this week. Don't worry. I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna get sick this week. The buckster is in the saddle.
Speaker 1: He also refuses to speak in third person after today,
Speaker 1: I promise, thanks so much for being back to your team.
Speaker 1: I'm very excited as always to talk to you, and
Speaker 1: we'll chat more tomorrow. Shields High, I want to introduce
Speaker 1: you to a new conservative alternative to all those lib
Speaker 1: email services out there. You know what those lib services do,
Speaker 1: by the way, They take your email, they scan it,
Speaker 1: they sell that information to third parties. They track you,
Speaker 1: they follow you, they know what you're doing online. They're
Speaker 1: trying to mark it to you. They're trying to determine
Speaker 1: what you see. You don't want any of that crap,
Speaker 1: all right. You want ipatriots dot us. It's a secure,
Speaker 1: private email system that includes more of what you want
Speaker 1: without all the ads, spam and liberal nonsense. You'll get
Speaker 1: thirty gigs a cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and much more.
Speaker 1: Your email and files are safe with ipatriots because they're
Speaker 1: anti virus, anti spam, and encryption. All right. They're not
Speaker 1: going to sell your information. They don't support liberal agenda nonsense.
Speaker 1: Ipatriots dot us is compatible with most mobile devices, so
Speaker 1: you're covered their iPhone, iPad, BlackBerry mobile, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: All right, Go check it out. Show your a patriot.
Speaker 1: Go to ipatriots dot us, choose your membership program. And
Speaker 1: input your desired ipatriots email address during checkout. Enter this
Speaker 1: is very important. Enter promo code buck and you'll get
Speaker 1: ten percent savings during your first full year of membership