Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The crisis at the
Speaker 1: border is real and is in fact overwhelming our authorities
Speaker 1: who are trying to process new migrants down there. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about what's really going on, and also the FEC
Speaker 1: complaint against Alexandria Ocazio Cortez that has some asking questions
Speaker 1: about how authentic she really is. And then a scientist
Speaker 1: who likes CO two and says the climate alarmists are
Speaker 1: basically nuts. We've got that. I'm more coming up on
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: where the mission where mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts remember
Speaker 1: the d he's a great guy. Now. I will vote
Speaker 1: for the motion to disapprove of this, and I will
Speaker 1: continue to speak out. I do believe that there is
Speaker 1: at least ten Republican no votes. We'll see possibly more.
Speaker 1: My reason for speaking out now is that I think
Speaker 1: we all need to think this through before we get
Speaker 1: too far down the road. I support his plan, I
Speaker 1: want to be sure that we have the funding for it.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, the way the President has chosen
Speaker 1: to fund part of it through a national emergency. I
Speaker 1: think it's the wrong way to go one. I think
Speaker 1: it's going to set a bad precedent. In other words,
Speaker 1: future presidents would be able to use a national emergency
Speaker 1: going against the will of Congress for other issues, say
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal. And second, you know it's going
Speaker 1: to get tied up in the courts, which I think
Speaker 1: everybody acknowledges. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. I don't
Speaker 1: know why it is that only Republicans have to deal
Speaker 1: with this, but we do defections from our own When
Speaker 1: the going gets tough politically, Republicans get running for cover.
Speaker 1: It's not the way it's supposed to be, but that's
Speaker 1: what we see happening here. Let me deal with this
Speaker 1: on a few levels. First of all, it's fine, and
Speaker 1: you know, we had Senator around Paul there and he's saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't like the national emergency declaration part of this.
Speaker 1: You know, you can say that you disagree with it.
Speaker 1: But Congress explicitly gave the president this ability. It has
Speaker 1: been used dozens and dozens of times over the course
Speaker 1: of forty years, and no one has ever challenged it.
Speaker 1: It has involved the government taking action, the expenditure of
Speaker 1: government resources, and no one has ever challenged it, no
Speaker 1: one in the Congress, at least. Now. This is the
Speaker 1: first time that we're going to see in the forty
Speaker 1: some odd years of this bill, the Emergency Powers Act
Speaker 1: being around that you're going to have a real effort
Speaker 1: to say, oh, no, you shouldn't do this, you can't
Speaker 1: do this, and Trump may end up having to veto it.
Speaker 1: Now on the mechanics of this, I just would say
Speaker 1: Congress gave Trump the authority. He absolutely has the right
Speaker 1: to say it's a national emergency because guests who determines
Speaker 1: that the president, He is, as you could borrow from Bush,
Speaker 1: the decider. It is his right to decide this issue.
Speaker 1: This concern about Democrat blowback, we're not. We're worried about
Speaker 1: the Democrats using a national emergency when in reality they
Speaker 1: didn't even go through that process. So Obama could declare DACA,
Speaker 1: which was just making up the laws he went along.
Speaker 1: This law doesn't count anymore. The law that Congress passed
Speaker 1: isn't the law. I'm declaring what the law is. You
Speaker 1: can't be deported if you are somebody who claims to
Speaker 1: have been brought here as a child. That's now the law,
Speaker 1: says Obama. And not only is that the laws as
Speaker 1: Obama now we have federal courts full of activists, left
Speaker 1: wing judges that Obama appointed that say, oh, you can't
Speaker 1: undo that even when you're the president because of procedural
Speaker 1: or something or other. I mean, they're they're just making
Speaker 1: it up as they go along. So this idea that
Speaker 1: we should be so concerned, we should be so concerned
Speaker 1: about what the Democrats will do with this newfound power
Speaker 1: of the Democrats do whatever they can they think they
Speaker 1: can get away with doing with the power they have,
Speaker 1: then they don't need any excuse. So that's a non
Speaker 1: starter of an argument for me. And you know that
Speaker 1: because I've been saying it on the show for weeks.
Speaker 1: But on the national emergency component of this, you know,
Speaker 1: we have now been saddled with another media propaganda lie
Speaker 1: that because it is repeated so often, it's difficult, it's
Speaker 1: difficult to push back against it. You're just overwhelmed with it.
Speaker 1: The damn breaks all around you, doesn't matter how strong
Speaker 1: you are, the dam is breaking. Just the lies flood
Speaker 1: out around you. The border right now is a crisis.
Speaker 1: It is more of a crisis than any of the
Speaker 1: national the national emergencies that I have seen, at least
Speaker 1: that have been declared in the past. This is a
Speaker 1: situation that is getting worse every month. And the reporting
Speaker 1: backs me up on this. The amount of human trafficking,
Speaker 1: sexual assault that occurs as a result of and as
Speaker 1: a part of this human trafficking, the drugs falling into
Speaker 1: the country. They're killing tens of thousands of our fellow Americans.
Speaker 1: The cartels are richer than they've ever been, more powerful
Speaker 1: than they've ever been, more violent than they've ever been.
Speaker 1: And our cities are feeling the effect of this through
Speaker 1: the dead bodies piling up in morgues from overdoses, and
Speaker 1: they're saying that this is this isn't an emergency. Our
Speaker 1: border patrol and immigrations and Customs enforcement are overwhelmed on
Speaker 1: a daily basis now. They don't even know what they
Speaker 1: can do other than just try to keep processing people
Speaker 1: as they come in. It is a de facto open
Speaker 1: border situation. All you have to do. And I've talked
Speaker 1: to Customs and Border patrol about immigration and customs enforcement
Speaker 1: on border patrol about this. I've talked to them about it.
Speaker 1: They say I'm right because they're seeing it every day.
Speaker 1: You show up with a kid, you claim credible fear.
Speaker 1: You don't even really have to do that, but it
Speaker 1: just makes it even easier. Show up with a kid,
Speaker 1: claim credible fear. You get released in the interior of
Speaker 1: the United States, and then you never show up for
Speaker 1: your hearing. You're here, Scott, You're here, free and clear.
Speaker 1: They're you know, they're never gonna chase you down and
Speaker 1: deport you. All. Yeah, And the best thing you could
Speaker 1: do once you've done that whole process is marry a
Speaker 1: US citizen or have a kid on US soil. That's
Speaker 1: fast as possible, because then there's a zero percent chance,
Speaker 1: absent you're committing a heinous felony, that you're going to
Speaker 1: be deported. This is a border that is at best
Speaker 1: slowing people down from coming into the country illegal. And
Speaker 1: for those who say they're not illegal, their asylum seekers,
Speaker 1: that's bull. The moment they don't show up at their hearings,
Speaker 1: or the moment they are not deported after they're denied
Speaker 1: at their immigration hearing, they are illegals. So they're all
Speaker 1: illegals in waiting because saying that you don't want to
Speaker 1: live in Honduras anymore, or you don't want to live
Speaker 1: in El Salvador anymore because it's a poor country with
Speaker 1: lots of crime, is not actually an asylum issue. It's
Speaker 1: in I want to immigrate to America issue, and they're
Speaker 1: skipping the line that has millions of people already in it.
Speaker 1: You don't have to take my word for it. All
Speaker 1: of the reporting on this right now, and I wish
Speaker 1: there would be a little bit more focus on this
Speaker 1: from the Republicans, because they're right on this one, but
Speaker 1: the reporting backs up what I'm saying. Here's a national
Speaker 1: security reporter for the Washington Post share this yesterday quote
Speaker 1: a father from Honduras who sat next to him. He
Speaker 1: said he and his fourteen year old son were on
Speaker 1: their way to Harrisonburg, Virginia. They had crossed into El
Speaker 1: Paso and were released and on a plane less than
Speaker 1: forty eight hours later. CBP Customs and Border Patrol is
Speaker 1: moving people through as fast as possible. There's no room
Speaker 1: to hold them. This is this is an open border, folks.
Speaker 1: You just have to know what to do. You just
Speaker 1: have to not show up and either have a criminal
Speaker 1: prior criminal conviction, or show up laden with drugs or
Speaker 1: a contraband of some kind, and you can come into
Speaker 1: the country and have a kid with you if you
Speaker 1: need to borrow someone else's kid, as they've been doing
Speaker 1: at the border, rent a child that has been happening
Speaker 1: at our southern border. They don't have the rooms, they
Speaker 1: don't have the beds to take these people in. So
Speaker 1: what do they do that process them their release and
Speaker 1: process them release? And this is catching release on steroids.
Speaker 1: Here's this national security reporter for the Washington Post saying
Speaker 1: that within forty eight hours of coming to the border,
Speaker 1: a guy from Honduras is fourteen year old center in
Speaker 1: Virginia within forty eight hours. That just means that they're
Speaker 1: here for good folks. There's what you think that you
Speaker 1: think that the Democrats, you think that the left is
Speaker 1: ever going to say, you know, well, we're going to
Speaker 1: the people that came here that scammed our system, that
Speaker 1: said they wanted asylum because of credible fear at the border,
Speaker 1: or showed up with a child and said that they
Speaker 1: were fleeing persecution or whatever, that were then released in
Speaker 1: the American interior with the agreement that they would show
Speaker 1: up at a an immigration hearing to test their claim
Speaker 1: they're going to be deported. Now I don't think so.
Speaker 1: We all know that's not going to happen. I also
Speaker 1: want to see at the end of this year, what
Speaker 1: the the gallop pole or what however they do this
Speaker 1: pole or they say are you illegal? Oh, And that's
Speaker 1: how they get the twelve million, which is basically what
Speaker 1: the number has been for the last fifteen years. Twelve
Speaker 1: million illegals, twelve million illegals, half a million visa overstays
Speaker 1: every year, hundreds of thousands crossing over the border illegally,
Speaker 1: and it's still twelve million illegals because so many of
Speaker 1: them are so many illegals are going back to Mexico
Speaker 1: and Hunduras and Al Salvador and China and Bangladesh and
Speaker 1: you know, you name it. They're they're going back home. Really,
Speaker 1: after all that, nobody believes that how bad is the problem?
Speaker 1: You may be asking, you know that this national emergency,
Speaker 1: the national emergency that a lot of Republicans they here say, well,
Speaker 1: it's not really an emergency. And I don't agree with
Speaker 1: the president doing this. I mean, you know, if it
Speaker 1: were let's build a base in Syria so we can
Speaker 1: put a bunch more US troops there to try to
Speaker 1: build somebody else's country in society for them, which are
Speaker 1: people our men and women in uniform should not have
Speaker 1: to do, should not be told to do anymore. That's
Speaker 1: not their job. That's not their role. They're supposed to
Speaker 1: protect us here in our country and our interests around
Speaker 1: the world. They're not supposed to be building other people's
Speaker 1: societies for them. I mean, our military is amazing, so
Speaker 1: we can do it, but it's not their job. But
Speaker 1: if that was how Trump used the national emergency, you
Speaker 1: could tell the political establishment would be fine with it.
Speaker 1: But because it's securing the border, which is completely out
Speaker 1: of control right now, you don't believe me. Seventy thousand
Speaker 1: people showed up at the border last month alone, either
Speaker 1: were ineligible for legal admission right away claimed asylum. Seventy
Speaker 1: thousand was the number. That is astonishing. By the way,
Speaker 1: they think that number of seventy thousand is going to
Speaker 1: go up next month, could get a hundred thousand. So
Speaker 1: here we are in the year twenty nineteen with Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: who were told as show's unophobic and says horrible things
Speaker 1: up Mexico and all this stuff, and we are getting
Speaker 1: on a runway here, a pathway to having the same
Speaker 1: kind of illegal entry year that we've had in the
Speaker 1: biggest years in our in our history. We are on
Speaker 1: a pathway right now to having upwards of a million
Speaker 1: illegals entering the United States this year. Now, I know
Speaker 1: we're only a couple of months into the year, but
Speaker 1: it's seventy thousand a month, and it's wintertime and people
Speaker 1: and I had some libs say to me, oh, winner,
Speaker 1: in Texas, it's fine. It actually gets down into the
Speaker 1: thirties and the desert idiots. So this isn't when people
Speaker 1: particularly like to cross. It's better in some of the
Speaker 1: months that are ahead. So that's why the expectation is
Speaker 1: that there's going to be even more crossing. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, this is systematic, meaning the word is out.
Speaker 1: The smugglers know it. How the smugglers, the coyotes who
Speaker 1: work for the cartels that are making hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: now some would say billions for the drug cartels. Smuggles
Speaker 1: know all they have to do is get the family
Speaker 1: to the border and tell them what to say and
Speaker 1: make sure they have a kid with them, you know,
Speaker 1: create the perception of a family if they're not already
Speaker 1: a family. It's all they have to do. It's easy
Speaker 1: for them now because our system is now truly broken.
Speaker 1: People have been saying our immigration system is broken for
Speaker 1: years and what they meant was, oh, we need amnesty.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you it's broken because asylum is de facto
Speaker 1: open borders. That's what our law says. Right now, people say,
Speaker 1: oh no, but well they don't know what they're talking
Speaker 1: about because there'll be no interior enforcement. None of these
Speaker 1: people are going to be deported. It's just a question
Speaker 1: of how many people want to come and how many
Speaker 1: of them figure out the magic words to say at
Speaker 1: the border to come into the country or at least
Speaker 1: in forty eight hours on a flight to Virginia. You
Speaker 1: think they're ever going to show for their immigration hearing
Speaker 1: police People will say that they will, but we now
Speaker 1: have As the data comes in, the numbers are smaller
Speaker 1: and smaller. The numbers are going down, but seventy thousand
Speaker 1: last month alone. There's also the issues of the medical
Speaker 1: cases they're seeing now at the border. I mean it's
Speaker 1: we do not have a border patrol that is set
Speaker 1: up for this, the fact that the media jumps all
Speaker 1: over them because someone will die in their custody because
Speaker 1: they're sick and they don't even know about it. They're
Speaker 1: not the Peace Corps, they're not the Red Cross. They're
Speaker 1: supposed to prevent illegal entry into the country, but now
Speaker 1: they're being told, you're essentially a frontline triage and food
Speaker 1: service unit for all the illegals who want to come
Speaker 1: in and claim asylum. Wow, that's where we are as
Speaker 1: a country right now. And that's what you have Republicans saying,
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is a national emergency or not.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should declare this as a national emergency.
Speaker 1: Only only the GOP refuses to win, refuses to get
Speaker 1: it done and get its way. They'd like to tell
Speaker 1: us they will, but then they just fall down on
Speaker 1: the job time and again, say which will about the
Speaker 1: Democrats their status. They're authoritarians, but at least they're serious
Speaker 1: about implementing their iron fisted will on us. The Republicans
Speaker 1: just always collapse into this. Oh, I'm the most pure,
Speaker 1: I love the Constitution more than you do, and you
Speaker 1: know nothing actually happens. I'm sorry, it's true. It's frustrating.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Is there a crisis at the border? Well,
Speaker 1: you tell me. Let me. Let me give you a
Speaker 1: little little vignette here from Washington Post reporting on this issue.
Speaker 1: I mean, the information's out there, it's just the way
Speaker 1: that it's packaged, the way that people are told to
Speaker 1: consume it and analyze it and think about it. That's
Speaker 1: where I think the breakdown is the informations there folks
Speaker 1: about what's really happening at the border. Let me quote
Speaker 1: this to you. Across rural Guatemala, word has spread that
Speaker 1: those who travel with a child can be expected to
Speaker 1: be released from US custody. Smugglers were offering two for
Speaker 1: one pricing, knowing they just needed to deliver clients to
Speaker 1: the border, not across it, for an easy surrender to
Speaker 1: US agents. If this continues, I don't think there'll be
Speaker 1: anyone left in Guatemala. A man named Martinez joked the
Speaker 1: men from his village near the town of Chikamula. We're
Speaker 1: all leaving, he said, bringing a child with them. Martinez
Speaker 1: said he used the family home as collateral. He had
Speaker 1: four months to pay off the twenty five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1: I need a way to feed my family, and this
Speaker 1: is it, he said. Okay, folks, I mean, I know
Speaker 1: that the guy was kidding, but here's somebody saying I
Speaker 1: don't think there's gonna be anybody left in Guatemala. I
Speaker 1: was on Tucker Carlson Show when I pointed out, and
Speaker 1: then Tucker used this argument to great effect with his
Speaker 1: next guest, who is, of course an open borders advocate
Speaker 1: of some kind or another. If the people showing up
Speaker 1: right now from Honduras and El Salvador, if they can
Speaker 1: rightly be qualified as asylum seekers, guess what all of
Speaker 1: the people in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Venezuela, why not Mexico,
Speaker 1: all of them can seek asylum here. And when the
Speaker 1: word gets out even more, and it's already getting out,
Speaker 1: and that's coming from the mouths of migrants themselves, what
Speaker 1: do you think is next? Do you think that Congress
Speaker 1: is going to grow a spine and change the law
Speaker 1: so that there is no longer this loophole for surrenders
Speaker 1: at our border? Of course not. This problem is going
Speaker 1: to get worse. We are going to see at least
Speaker 1: a half a million mark my words, at least a
Speaker 1: half a million surrenders and illegal entries this year in
Speaker 1: the country, as many as a million. It's going to
Speaker 1: be a huge issue in the twenty twenty election. But
Speaker 1: here's the problem. A wall won't stop this. I've seen them.
Speaker 1: I've been at the wall while they surrendered. The wall
Speaker 1: is almost a beacon to these migrants. Now, yes, there's
Speaker 1: the wall where I have to show up and wait
Speaker 1: for the nice men to come pick me up, give
Speaker 1: me a warm blanket, and give me food, and send
Speaker 1: me on my way into the American interior. That is
Speaker 1: our border. It's not the secure border we were promised,
Speaker 1: is it, folks. He's holding the line for an Erica.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton is back well. I think there's direct evidence
Speaker 1: in the emails from the Russians through their intermediary, offering
Speaker 1: dirt on Hillary Clinton as part of what is described
Speaker 1: in writing as the Russian government effort to help elect
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. They offer that dirt, there is an acceptance
Speaker 1: of that offer in writing from the President's son, Don Junior,
Speaker 1: and there's overt accent furtherance of that is the meeting
Speaker 1: at Trump Tower and all the lies to cover up
Speaker 1: that meeting. At the Trump Tower and apparently lies that
Speaker 1: the president participated in. That to me is direct evidence.
Speaker 1: But there's also abundant circumstantial evidence. Abundant circumstantial evidence, he says.
Speaker 1: Abundant circumstantial evidence, he says, isn't that a fascinating way
Speaker 1: of putting it? Here? And direct evidence? We are told, wait,
Speaker 1: I need to understand this. What is it that he
Speaker 1: has been able to find? What is it that Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff has been able to dredge up here that the
Speaker 1: Muller probe has not been able to find. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that's a really good question, because we have
Speaker 1: not seen any of this evidence of direct collusion. We
Speaker 1: have not seen any of the things that he talks about.
Speaker 1: This is like watching a crazy person explain how they're
Speaker 1: actually you know, the King of Siam or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just outside the boundaries of normal political debate
Speaker 1: and discussion and discourse. What we see here is that
Speaker 1: they're just going to say whatever they think their base
Speaker 1: and the left and the ferociously anti trummedia wants to hear. Oh,
Speaker 1: collusion has already been proven, you see, Collusion is already
Speaker 1: a thing that we should be aware of because it's
Speaker 1: already there what and they're going to move on from it.
Speaker 1: Though when you ask them show me that, show me
Speaker 1: this collusion of which you speak, they'll either mutter incoherently
Speaker 1: or move on to the next con the next series
Speaker 1: of narratives and nonsense that they'll be putting forward. So
Speaker 1: John Cornyn, by the way, spoke to this play clip seven.
Speaker 1: I think what the Democrats are worried about now, is it,
Speaker 1: after all of the hysteria over the alleged collusion, that
Speaker 1: they're worried that more of report will come up with
Speaker 1: basically nothing against the president as regards collusion. So that's
Speaker 1: why I think they're launching this full frontal assault, which,
Speaker 1: as I say it as a prelude to impeachment and
Speaker 1: will make sure that we can't get anything else done.
Speaker 1: They're trying to come up with something anything. They're going
Speaker 1: to rely on, from what I understand, a law from
Speaker 1: ninth teen twenty four to try and pry open Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns now to unseal what is supposed to be
Speaker 1: as a private citizen certainly sealable. They're gonna find some way.
Speaker 1: They'll take it all the way up to the Supreme court.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're gonna fight and fight and fight because
Speaker 1: they want Trump's tax returns. You might say, well, Buck,
Speaker 1: why is it such a problem for them to have
Speaker 1: Trump's tax returns. Let's understand this. The IRS already has them.
Speaker 1: The federal government already has these returns. They should be
Speaker 1: like Congress, you know, deciding that they're the ones who
Speaker 1: are going to understand, you know, tax law better than
Speaker 1: the irs. So they have to see this because because
Speaker 1: they'll be able to read between the lines, whereas the
Speaker 1: irs couldn't. Can you imagine if you're Donald Trump, you know,
Speaker 1: the the army of tax attorneys and lawyers and these
Speaker 1: other people that I'm sure you have working on these things,
Speaker 1: and what you're going to have Democrat members of Congress
Speaker 1: that find this is where they're going to find that
Speaker 1: smoking gun that we've all been worried about. I already
Speaker 1: talked to you yesterday about obstruction. People have completely lost
Speaker 1: their minds on that as well. The President says that
Speaker 1: it's a witch hunt. Well that's probably because it is
Speaker 1: a witch hunt. But even beyond that this line, you
Speaker 1: hear from the Democrats that the President can't say that
Speaker 1: he thinks that something is bad for some reason. Yeah.
Speaker 1: And by the way, producer Mike makes a great point
Speaker 1: here with all the people in the IRS. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're going to talk to me about an organization
Speaker 1: that probably has more than its fair share of status
Speaker 1: to anti trumpers, probably pretty high at the IRS. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure it's as bad as the State Department, which
Speaker 1: is full commie, but it's probably pretty close. If there
Speaker 1: was something that would that would nail Trump, that would
Speaker 1: just finally get even his most ardent defenders to turn
Speaker 1: on him, don't you think that somebody in the IRS
Speaker 1: would have already leaked it. He'd be a national hero,
Speaker 1: be a superstar, gotta be a millionaire, get a book deal,
Speaker 1: he'd be on Oprah, he'd be on I was gonna
Speaker 1: say Larry King, but that, Oh no, he still has
Speaker 1: a show, doesn't he. Hey, it's Larry King, the only
Speaker 1: guy who could do the interviews. I know people still
Speaker 1: have his fondness for Larry King. What a strange, strange
Speaker 1: fellow in so many ways. I think he was married
Speaker 1: seven times, which you gotta give the guy, you know,
Speaker 1: that's I don't know if it's endurance or if it's
Speaker 1: incredible vitality for a guy in his age. But anyway,
Speaker 1: seven times, But I digress. You know, they're going to
Speaker 1: find out whatever that they you know, they're going to
Speaker 1: find ways to pry open some of these closed circuits.
Speaker 1: They're going to find a way to get access to
Speaker 1: information that they're not supposed to be able to see,
Speaker 1: and then they're going to make a big deal out
Speaker 1: of it. No matter what's there, doesn't matter what's there,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what Trump's tax returns. They they'll find something
Speaker 1: some you know, all look at him with his his
Speaker 1: charitable donations, and yes, like do I think it's a little,
Speaker 1: you know, a little not great that Trump had a
Speaker 1: charity by a painting of him that he put up
Speaker 1: in a golf club. I mean yeah, but you know
Speaker 1: this is who this is who people sign on for.
Speaker 1: This is the Trump that we knew. So that's not
Speaker 1: going to change. We signed on for an agenda and
Speaker 1: for a fighter against the left. That's it. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone's looking to Trump to be a
Speaker 1: model of perfection. Brobabaly, No one's perfect. Don't even get
Speaker 1: me started. We were always led to be Oh Bush,
Speaker 1: you know, Bush was some guy who then nothing in
Speaker 1: his past. I mean, look at what Romney has done
Speaker 1: now that the fighting is really tough when the GOP
Speaker 1: anyway a lot that I would want to point you
Speaker 1: here to say that there's uh, you know, reasons to
Speaker 1: reasons to be concerned about the direction of these investigations,
Speaker 1: just because we are dealing with Democrats who have no honor,
Speaker 1: who have no integrity, and will do anything they can,
Speaker 1: whatever they can to destroy this president. They will find
Speaker 1: a way if it's open to them to what. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if it requires leaking information, doesn't matter, right,
Speaker 1: they will because for months it has been clear that
Speaker 1: neither Muller nor the anti Trump mainstream was going to
Speaker 1: find this collusion right, so they've been preparing this ground
Speaker 1: for a while. Democrats don't seem that upset about the
Speaker 1: fact that the Muller probe is ending, though, because they've
Speaker 1: known that there was no collusion. Really they've known that
Speaker 1: that's where this was all heading. So now they're just
Speaker 1: going to move on to Plan B, which is going
Speaker 1: to be turn Trump upside down, shake out his pockets,
Speaker 1: see what falls out, and everyone around him, by the way,
Speaker 1: make sure that they're able to indulge this anti Trump
Speaker 1: vendetta by going after his family members, by going after
Speaker 1: all kinds of people who are just in Trump's orbit,
Speaker 1: make them pay all crazy legal fees, try to sully
Speaker 1: their reputations. They are trying to isolate this president. That
Speaker 1: is something that they are in the process of continuously
Speaker 1: in the process of doing. So. This is going to
Speaker 1: be an onslaught. It's going to be an onslaught mostly
Speaker 1: of bluster. There will be a lot of preening monologues
Speaker 1: on the House floor. They'll be breathless overwrought denunciations of
Speaker 1: Trump in private and personal life. Okay, this is what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. They're going to say that he's a
Speaker 1: threat to democracy. And I do think that they're going
Speaker 1: to because they can't help themselves. They're going to have
Speaker 1: a vote on impeachment. They're gonna because they want to
Speaker 1: run against an impeach president. But in the meantime, I
Speaker 1: was telling you earlier this hour at a real crisis,
Speaker 1: something that's actually happening in this country that matters, and
Speaker 1: that the government should fix it is the government's prerogative.
Speaker 1: Only government can fix the border. You can't do it.
Speaker 1: I can't do it. We have no authority, we have
Speaker 1: no means. In fact, I'm sure the government would stop
Speaker 1: us from trying to help with the border right now,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to do that, and they don't
Speaker 1: want to focus on that. They they have other concerns
Speaker 1: that take up more of their time and energy. They
Speaker 1: want to make this about how the president is just
Speaker 1: the bad Orange man, bad, bad, bad everyone needs to
Speaker 1: hate him. And I think that it's so destructive and
Speaker 1: we're not even going to be able to understand for
Speaker 1: years to come. Really, what this has done to our
Speaker 1: sense of any fair play and government, any good faith
Speaker 1: between the political parties. And if if that wasn't bad enough,
Speaker 1: I mean, do we have didn't Hillary say that there
Speaker 1: were oh yeah, oh yeah hollow play Clip two. There
Speaker 1: is enough grounds in what has already been made public
Speaker 1: for the government, for Congress in particular, to be doing
Speaker 1: more with it. And I'm pleased that under Speaker Pelosi,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are beginning to hold hearings and try to
Speaker 1: connect some of these dots. Yeah, that's what this is about,
Speaker 1: connecting dots. You know, this is all about the Hillary
Speaker 1: revenge machinery. That's what this special Council has been That's
Speaker 1: what all these establishment elite types here in DC have
Speaker 1: been pushing for. Hillary was the candidate of the permanent
Speaker 1: ruling class, and the permanent ruling class feels a little
Speaker 1: a little bit unsettled because while there is the hyper
Speaker 1: elite in terms of wealth, the stratification, there is greater
Speaker 1: than ever the cult of expertise. The people that are
Speaker 1: supposed to be running our lives day to day, those
Speaker 1: in the upper reaches of government and journalism and the
Speaker 1: culture and the media, they're not looking so hot these days.
Speaker 1: People are asking questions. We have the ability now to
Speaker 1: not just find out more about these people because of
Speaker 1: the Internet, but also to share that information more freely,
Speaker 1: and we are not impressed. And there has been a recognition,
Speaker 1: and part of what Trump's presidency has brought about is
Speaker 1: that recognition that these people that think that they are
Speaker 1: so much smarter than the rest of us and should
Speaker 1: be determining how you live your life, they're not really
Speaker 1: that smart. They don't they don't have some great trove
Speaker 1: of wisdom that they draw upon that makes them very uncomfort,
Speaker 1: makes them very insecure. Humility is not something that the
Speaker 1: elites embrace. For obvious reasons, and Hillary was a last gasp,
Speaker 1: a last gasp. I think for many of the elite
Speaker 1: boomer generation that the so called smart set that went
Speaker 1: to the right schools and held the right opinions and
Speaker 1: never really did anything but just kind of bounced around it.
Speaker 1: Look at these people, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: although he didn't really go to the fancy schools, but
Speaker 1: they've all just been pushed along without ever really accomplishing anything.
Speaker 1: They've just found a way to work the system, and
Speaker 1: then they expect to sit atop the system and tell
Speaker 1: the rest of us what to do. And that mentality
Speaker 1: spread all the way into the upper reaches of the
Speaker 1: FBI with people like Sanctacomi and McCabe and Struck. They
Speaker 1: were the praetorians defending the republic from this rapacious, brash
Speaker 1: billionaire Donald Trump. They thought they were doing us a
Speaker 1: favor by thwarting the will of the American people. Don't
Speaker 1: you see that? Aren't you all smart enough to see that?
Speaker 1: They would say, can't you tell don't you understand? They're people, persons,
Speaker 1: they're good with people. What the heck is wrong with you?
Speaker 1: That's what they would say, we'll be right back. Well,
Speaker 1: here's a preview of where all this stuff is going
Speaker 1: to be going pretty soon. It's in the New Yorker,
Speaker 1: which has completely just self immolated in its anti Trump hatred.
Speaker 1: As well, it used to at least have some good writing.
Speaker 1: Now it's just another anti Trump rag. New Yorker, though,
Speaker 1: has this representative Schiff Shifty Schiff, the chairman of the
Speaker 1: House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, has hired a veteran
Speaker 1: prosecutor with experience fighting Russian organized crime to lead his
Speaker 1: investigation of the Trump administration. Last month, According to a
Speaker 1: committee source, Daniel Goldman, who served as an assistant United
Speaker 1: States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from
Speaker 1: twenty two thousand and seven to twenty seventeen, joined the
Speaker 1: committee's staff as a senior advisor and director of Investigations. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, I believe before that he had been
Speaker 1: an ms or rather in the last year, so he's
Speaker 1: been an MSNBC contributor. So now you get somebody from
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York, which, as we know,
Speaker 1: is very devoted to this idea of taking down Trump.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that prosecuted Cohen. They're the ones who
Speaker 1: were involved in that, and they're the great hope of
Speaker 1: many Libs who, even when the Muller probe is over
Speaker 1: going to say, ah see, but the southern district of
Speaker 1: New York can get him. This is how lives approach,
Speaker 1: all of this, get him. How can we get Trump?
Speaker 1: Not how can we make a better argument, How can
Speaker 1: we create some public support for our ideas? No, no, no,
Speaker 1: let's just destroy Trump because their ideas are crazy. In fact,
Speaker 1: we've reached a point now where Democrats find it abusive
Speaker 1: when you share their word for word ideas for governance,
Speaker 1: and you quote them and you tell people about what
Speaker 1: the Democrats want. That's mean because when people find out
Speaker 1: what the Democrats want, things like the Green New Deal,
Speaker 1: no more cow farts, no more air travel, people say
Speaker 1: that sounds kind of crazy. I mean, cows, they shouldn't
Speaker 1: fault so much, but they're delicious. You eat them. You
Speaker 1: don't smell the smelly faults when you're eating them. So
Speaker 1: what difference does it make? But climate change? You know,
Speaker 1: Bernie's conflicted. He likes a good cheeseburger. Who doesn't like it? Oh, well,
Speaker 1: there's some people out there. Oh, Kazi Accord. I'm starting
Speaker 1: to see this spill over now. The anti meat crusade
Speaker 1: is gaining some steam. I think they lose a lot
Speaker 1: of votes, that they really go down that one too far.
Speaker 1: By the way, we're gonna have someone joining us later
Speaker 1: on in the show to give you a sense where
Speaker 1: this is going out, where this is going my friend
Speaker 1: Ariel Davidson from the Federalist We'll be talking to us
Speaker 1: in the next hour about ilhan Omar. And then the
Speaker 1: third hour we have somebody who is from a the
Speaker 1: c O two coalition. He's gonna come talk to us
Speaker 1: about how he's crunched all the numbers. He's a PhD
Speaker 1: statistician on climate change and he says that the fearmongering
Speaker 1: is just is just out of this world. It's completely
Speaker 1: unsupported by the facts. I think you'll really really want
Speaker 1: to hear what he has to say. So we have
Speaker 1: a jam packed and stacked for you, and in the
Speaker 1: next hour I've got some other I've always got some
Speaker 1: tricks up my sleeve. I hope you enjoyed the conversation
Speaker 1: yesterday about rent control. Go back if you didn't get
Speaker 1: a chance. I think that's a really important second for
Speaker 1: people to hear, because if it shows you how liberals
Speaker 1: do economics, which is badly, there are a few things
Speaker 1: that feel better than that found money. Right, you get
Speaker 1: a twenty dollar bill that you find the back pocket
Speaker 1: of your pants, or all of a sudden you realize,
Speaker 1: wait a second, I've actually got some money from a
Speaker 1: four oh one k that I had in a job
Speaker 1: a few years ago. Have really done anything with it, right,
Speaker 1: and it's just sitting there. Well, guess what that money
Speaker 1: is gathering financial dust, But it doesn't have to. It
Speaker 1: could be working much harder for you. In a precious
Speaker 1: metals IRA. My friends at Noble Goold can see if
Speaker 1: you qualify, and they'll do all the heavy lifting for you,
Speaker 1: making you thousands, and it could cost you nothing. Give
Speaker 1: Noble Goold to call at eight seven seven six four
Speaker 1: six five three four seven, or text my name that's
Speaker 1: Buck to five eleven five eleven. That's right. Just text
Speaker 1: buc K to five eleven, five eleven and you'll receive
Speaker 1: their free Investors Guide plus for all qualified iras about
Speaker 1: twenty thousand dollars. They'll include a rare complimentary Morgan silver
Speaker 1: dollar valued at one hundred and fifty dollars. Again, you
Speaker 1: can go to noblegold Investments dot com or buck text
Speaker 1: it to five eleven five eleven. Individual results may vary
Speaker 1: invest wisely. Standard text rates and involves. Do you have
Speaker 1: any comment on the FEC violation filed against you? Or
Speaker 1: there is no violation, so there's no violation. Do you
Speaker 1: think that's the sign of you taking a dark money? Oh? No? Oh?
Speaker 1: What's going on here with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who I
Speaker 1: feel like increasingly is the Joffrey from Game of Thrones
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party in that she's young, she's ignorant,
Speaker 1: but she has way too much influence and really doesn't
Speaker 1: know how dumb she is, which is a scary combination
Speaker 1: when you add all that together. But Ocasio Cortes is
Speaker 1: at least for now getting a little bit of negative
Speaker 1: attention because some interesting facts have come out about how
Speaker 1: she rose into this role, who backed her, and what
Speaker 1: was done in that whole process. Let me break this
Speaker 1: down for you. She has a gentleman named Siah kat
Speaker 1: Chuck Robarti, who is a wealthy tech entrepreneur and is
Speaker 1: chief of staff to Okazio Cortes. There's a new FEC
Speaker 1: a Federal Election Commission complaint. Now, before you dismissed this,
Speaker 1: remember the Libs want to get rid of Trump from
Speaker 1: being president because of a minor FEC violation about you know,
Speaker 1: whether he disclosed the payment that should have been disclosed
Speaker 1: to Stormy Daniels or was it a private payment that
Speaker 1: doesn't have to be disclosed. So, you know, Libs use
Speaker 1: the FEC as aggressively as they can with it's in
Speaker 1: their favor. But here I'm sure that they will say
Speaker 1: that this conservative watchdog group's FEC complaint that remember this
Speaker 1: is this is coming from a conservative group. Let's let's
Speaker 1: be honest about what's happening here. But they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: who cares, it's nothing, It's a nothing burger, And I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you it is. It is very interesting just
Speaker 1: to find out some of these facts. First of all,
Speaker 1: the chief of staff to o'cazio Cortez is a young
Speaker 1: guy who made millions in Silicon Valley. Oh wait, you
Speaker 1: mean that this guy who is now at the you know,
Speaker 1: the the forefront in many ways of left wing politics
Speaker 1: in America as the chief of staff and close aid
Speaker 1: to o'cazio Cortes you tell me this guy is such
Speaker 1: a socialist that before he could try to impose socialism
Speaker 1: and all the rest of us, he was a quote
Speaker 1: founding engineer at a company that does payment processing at
Speaker 1: a Silicon Valley called Stripe. And he also had a
Speaker 1: brief stint according to Politico on Wall Street. So a
Speaker 1: Wall Street, Silicon Valley millionaire makes his money and then
Speaker 1: decides that he wants to get involved in Politz. So
Speaker 1: he makes his millions by thirty three, and now he
Speaker 1: wants to tell you about what you should pay in taxes,
Speaker 1: and what the government should be able to tell you
Speaker 1: you can and can't do, and all this stuff, right,
Speaker 1: I find this troubling. I find it, of course hypocritical,
Speaker 1: because this is what the Democrats always do. You know,
Speaker 1: our millionaires, conservative millionaire's bad, liberal millionaire's good. And behind
Speaker 1: so many of these left wing causes and activist groups
Speaker 1: and progressive community organizers, you have people that made a
Speaker 1: whole lot of money in the system that they now
Speaker 1: try to fundamentally transform and are very critical of. You know,
Speaker 1: I got to tell you I would be a lot
Speaker 1: more inclined on a personal level to be okay with
Speaker 1: taxes going up. If I had already made my fifty
Speaker 1: million or my ten million, i'd say, hey, you know,
Speaker 1: it probably doesn't matter as much to me. I've got assets,
Speaker 1: I've got income that I don't have to work for.
Speaker 1: But as that is not the case. And so I am,
Speaker 1: like most of you who are listening to this show,
Speaker 1: I think it's really unfair that the government takes as
Speaker 1: much from me as I'm sure you do as well
Speaker 1: as it does. But this is classic, right, this is
Speaker 1: the let them eat cake phenomenon among some of the
Speaker 1: most left wing socialist commie Democrats out there. But let
Speaker 1: me give you the the additional And so that's just
Speaker 1: just start of the fact that our chief of staff
Speaker 1: is a Silicon val millionaire, and that some of the
Speaker 1: most progressive grassroots activists out there are getting checks from
Speaker 1: millionaires and even billionaire millionaires and billionaires, as Bernie would say,
Speaker 1: even billionaires. This guy Pierre Omidyar, he's funding all kinds
Speaker 1: of left wing stuff. I mean, the Washington Post is
Speaker 1: owned by Jeff Bezos, so it is essentially an unregistered
Speaker 1: political action committee for anything Amazon or Jeff Bezos related. Right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is you know, people, you need to
Speaker 1: understand that the media is now a tool that is
Speaker 1: used by a lot of different people for very specific purposes,
Speaker 1: and just being in the media is in no way
Speaker 1: some sort of guarantee of ethics, authenticity, independence. In fact,
Speaker 1: some of the worst never trumpers get their money from
Speaker 1: this Omidyar fellow who founded eBay. So he is a
Speaker 1: super wealthy guy. They get their money from him, and
Speaker 1: so he writes them checks to be essentially a trojan
Speaker 1: horse within the Republican Party, within conservative media at least.
Speaker 1: And some of the most detestable never Trumpers they get
Speaker 1: their money from Omidyar Sykes, Crystal. This is who's funding them,
Speaker 1: A left wing billionaire, folks. I think that's significant. So
Speaker 1: remember that as you hear from the never trumpers, we're
Speaker 1: all about principal, We're all about, you know, doing what's right.
Speaker 1: We don't like Trump because he's mean and he had
Speaker 1: three wives. Well there's more at stake than Trump's marital
Speaker 1: history in this country. I hate to break it to
Speaker 1: the never trumpers. Back to this piece though, and it's
Speaker 1: a bombshell. Fox News all over at Washington, Examine, all
Speaker 1: over at New York, posts all over it. This is
Speaker 1: what Fox wrote about this. The latest Federal Election Commission
Speaker 1: complaint accuses Occasio Cortez and chok Rabarti, her chief of staff,
Speaker 1: a violating campaign finance law by funneling nearly one million
Speaker 1: dollars in contributions from political action committees that Chakrabarti established
Speaker 1: to private companies he also controlled. Although large financial transfers
Speaker 1: to packs from limited liability corporations are not necessarily improper,
Speaker 1: the complaint argues that the goal of the extensive scheme
Speaker 1: was seemingly to illegally dodged detailed legal reporting requirements of
Speaker 1: the Federal Election Campaign Act of nineteen seventy one, which
Speaker 1: are designed to track campaign expenditures. Ocasio Cortez, of course,
Speaker 1: says there is no campaign finance by violation. Well, we
Speaker 1: will see. We will see. Even if there's no violation
Speaker 1: of the law per se, this starts to look a
Speaker 1: lot like Okazio Cortez was trying to do the equivalent
Speaker 1: in politics of stashing your cash in an offshore account.
Speaker 1: Now that can be legal if you declare it right,
Speaker 1: but usually people do this to avoid scrutiny. And I
Speaker 1: have to say, I think it's it's particularly interesting that
Speaker 1: the progressive vanguard led by Ocasio Quartz now has to
Speaker 1: deal with, at least momentarily the reality that a Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley millionaires at the heart of this, and that a
Speaker 1: very at best opaque and intentionally opaque system of hiding
Speaker 1: where funds are going was set up here. You know,
Speaker 1: this is the woman who's supposed to be all about,
Speaker 1: you know, taking on the elites and the the Wall
Speaker 1: Street class. And you know, Democrats are so so bizarre
Speaker 1: in this because they take money from Wall Street. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton got all the Wall Street money in the last election,
Speaker 1: all of it Billy there. You know, think of a
Speaker 1: billionaire and the chances are the billionaire is a liberal.
Speaker 1: I mean, at least most of the ones you know,
Speaker 1: of their liberals. There are some conservatives. There's the Koch brothers.
Speaker 1: They're libertarians. They're not really liberals or conservatives rather, but
Speaker 1: you know, you want to talk about liberal billionaires are
Speaker 1: all over the place. Gates is a lib, Bloomberg is
Speaker 1: a lib, Oprah's a lib. You know, just go down
Speaker 1: the list. Every billionaire you can think of, three out
Speaker 1: of four, maybe even nine out of ten are liberals.
Speaker 1: But but money in politics is this mantra that the
Speaker 1: Democrats chant as though it's only on our side, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: we want to get the money out of politics. Seems
Speaker 1: to me to be very very convenient for them. They
Speaker 1: say this, and then we find out that they have
Speaker 1: plenty of money in politics for them, and that, I
Speaker 1: think is an obvious place where you see this liberal
Speaker 1: hypocrisy coming to the service. By the way, since we're
Speaker 1: talking about AOC and communism and socialism, which are much
Speaker 1: closer than the left wants to believe. In fact, the
Speaker 1: early Communists referred to themselves because I actually read the
Speaker 1: stuff I have actually read Marx. I bet you AOC
Speaker 1: has never actually read an entire if you asked her
Speaker 1: to go through the works of Marx and Engles, it
Speaker 1: would be laughable. How little she knows. She just knows
Speaker 1: the very surface layer of it. I wonder if she
Speaker 1: even knows who angles is. And I mean that, but
Speaker 1: the very surface layer of socialism is an ideology and
Speaker 1: where it comes from. She just knows the MSNBC watered
Speaker 1: down version of It's just like free stuff for people,
Speaker 1: and it's great. She has a clear preference for not
Speaker 1: just the far left in this country, which she is
Speaker 1: now the leader of the de facto leader of the
Speaker 1: far left, but she does not want to denounce her
Speaker 1: fellow travelers, her quasi commies, like Venezuela's Maduro. Play fifteen,
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts on the Venezuelan crisis? Maybe would
Speaker 1: announce the mad Yeah, so I think that that this
Speaker 1: is absolutely a complex issue. I think it's important that
Speaker 1: we approach this very carefully. One I am. I'm myself
Speaker 1: just like anyone else who is absolutely concerned with the
Speaker 1: humanitarian crisis that's happening. And I think it's important that
Speaker 1: any solution that we have centers the Venezuelan people and
Speaker 1: centers the democracy of Venezuelan people. First. I am very
Speaker 1: concerned about US interventionism in Venezuela and I oppose it,
Speaker 1: especially when we talk about a figure like US Special
Speaker 1: Envoy Elliot Abrams here. I think it's he's pled guilty
Speaker 1: to several crimes related to Iran contra, particularly under this
Speaker 1: administration and under his leadership. I think it's a profound mistake.
Speaker 1: Wow asked about Maduro and what does she do denounce
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's envoy to deal with the Venezuela crisis.
Speaker 1: You see in aoc land. Maduro isn't the bad guy.
Speaker 1: Elliot Abrams is the bad guy. Huh. I wonder what
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar would have to say about Elliot Elliot Abrams,
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm sure she's already waited, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure we could probably find that. But that tells you
Speaker 1: a lot about the left. The problem is not Nicholas
Speaker 1: Maduro and the destruction of Venezuela at his hands. It's
Speaker 1: Elliot Abrams trying to feed people. So I know we
Speaker 1: have a lot of patriotic seniors who listen to this show,
Speaker 1: and some of them have probably heard of the AARP,
Speaker 1: maybe some of them are already members. But let me
Speaker 1: tell you, AARP is much more left wing than you've
Speaker 1: been led to believe. And that's why they fought tooth
Speaker 1: and nail for government run healthcare, and they actually scripted
Speaker 1: portions of White House speeches under the Obama administration to
Speaker 1: get Obamacare passed. You don't want that. What you want
Speaker 1: is AMAC. Why AMAC? Well, it was founded by an
Speaker 1: Air Force veteran, and you get all the benefits of
Speaker 1: AARP with AMAC, but you also get an organization that
Speaker 1: shares your beliefs and pushes for policies that are going
Speaker 1: to help support the America you believe in. So yeah,
Speaker 1: you get discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance, but
Speaker 1: also you get an organization that wants a secure border,
Speaker 1: fiscal sanity, strong defense. Check out AMAC. Join AMAC right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us, slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. Contry for allegiance foreign country allegiance to
Speaker 1: a foreign country. Representative Ilhan Omar says M talking about
Speaker 1: Israel there. This is not something that usually people bring
Speaker 1: up because it has the ring of anti Semitism to it,
Speaker 1: and a lot lot of people, including Democrats, are pretty
Speaker 1: upset about this. But I've got somebody who has been
Speaker 1: following this controversy closely. She's been a vocal about it
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and she joins us now. Ariel Davidson is
Speaker 1: a senior writer for the Federalists. You can read her
Speaker 1: latest at the Federalist dot com. You can follow her
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Ariel Davidson. Ariel, good of you to
Speaker 1: join us. Thanks for having me Buck. All right, so
Speaker 1: what's going on here? Why is why is a Representative
Speaker 1: Omar on the hot seat once again? Well, she's on
Speaker 1: the hot seat. Once again, you hit the nail on
Speaker 1: the head. She's basically calling upon issues with the fact
Speaker 1: that for some reason, the allegiance with Israel that the
Speaker 1: United States has is a question of patriotism for those
Speaker 1: who actually support Israel. And we don't talk about any
Speaker 1: other alliance that we have with any other nation in
Speaker 1: this regard. And so I think, first and foremost, when
Speaker 1: we talk about anti Semitic tropes, the dual loyalty one
Speaker 1: is probably the most one of the most common ones
Speaker 1: that's existed for hundreds of years. It's this idea that
Speaker 1: you have to question agree with Jewish members of Congress,
Speaker 1: that you have to question whether they have loyalty to
Speaker 1: United States or whether they have loyalty to Israel. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's hugely problematic. And again, think about
Speaker 1: the way she talks about our alliances with other nations.
Speaker 1: Do we question when people, you know, sign some sort
Speaker 1: of when we have some sort of treaty with the
Speaker 1: UK or with France, Do we ever mention this idea
Speaker 1: of dual loyalty. We never would. It's outrageous. So the
Speaker 1: House Democrats, this was the story from today and yesterday
Speaker 1: that the House Democrats are taking floor action in order
Speaker 1: to condemn the comments of illan Omar. Obviously, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: guess you agree with this, Ariel, But but is it enough.
Speaker 1: Some have said that she should lose committee assignments, that
Speaker 1: there should be something beyond just what we've seen, especially
Speaker 1: given that comments made by a Republican. I'm actually blanking
Speaker 1: on the guy's name right now in real time. But
Speaker 1: comments made by a Republican not long ago got him
Speaker 1: kicked off of his committee. Steve King, there we go,
Speaker 1: got him kicked off his committee assignments. Yeah, no, I
Speaker 1: actually I disagree with the resolution because I think it's
Speaker 1: just empty virtue signaling. I think that Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: bringing this resolution to the floor because she's concerned and
Speaker 1: worried about the image of her party, but she's not
Speaker 1: actually taking any real concrete action to eliminate anti Semitism
Speaker 1: from our party. You know, a good friend of mine
Speaker 1: at Josh Hammer wrote an article at The Daily Wire
Speaker 1: that discussed or the corpinization of the Democratic Party, and
Speaker 1: I myself have wrote about this as well. This idea
Speaker 1: that you're not actually condemning anti semitism if you're not
Speaker 1: taking concrete action against those who perpetuate it within your party.
Speaker 1: So if Nancy Pelosi were really serious about addressing the
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, she would be removing elan Omar from the
Speaker 1: House Foreign Affairs Committee, and we don't see that happening.
Speaker 1: You would strip her from her leadership position, and so
Speaker 1: far I haven't seen any indication that that's going to
Speaker 1: happen where speaking to Ariel Davidson of The Federalist, you
Speaker 1: can also follow her on Twitter, Ariel, do you think
Speaker 1: that there's a double stand not just because iah Omar
Speaker 1: is a Democrat, but because she is a female, and
Speaker 1: she is a Muslim, and she is an ethnic minority
Speaker 1: in this country as well. I definitely think there's a
Speaker 1: double standard, but I'm not sure where quite where it's
Speaker 1: stemming from. What's been most concerning to me is that
Speaker 1: she's been treated sort of like a child. This woman
Speaker 1: is thirty seven years old. She is an adult. When
Speaker 1: she makes inappropriate anti Semitic comments, she should be treated
Speaker 1: as such. I think there's this weird, uh sort of attitude,
Speaker 1: especially within the media, to coddle her and to really
Speaker 1: have this sort of permissive, apologetic attitude, and I think
Speaker 1: it's completely inappropriate. And I think it's really for shame
Speaker 1: in terms of how the Democrats have responded to it.
Speaker 1: I think Nancy Pelosi has said that she's when you
Speaker 1: know she's going to have conversations with elhant Omar, which
Speaker 1: she has done. But it's sort of the way you
Speaker 1: would talk about discussing a child when they misbehave right,
Speaker 1: you're not. It seems like the way she's been treated
Speaker 1: as if she's a child. Does anti Semitism have a
Speaker 1: particular perch within the left these days? That is that
Speaker 1: is new and that is worsening in your view? Or
Speaker 1: are we just discovering you know, people think about the
Speaker 1: connections between say Lewis Farakon and prominent members of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Are we just more aware of this now
Speaker 1: or is it getting worse? I think that is being
Speaker 1: brought to light a lot more. This has been something
Speaker 1: that's played the Democratic Party back to the sixties. It's
Speaker 1: just being brought into light much more now, especially with
Speaker 1: the Women's March. I think that really opens things up.
Speaker 1: If you're a call back the two I think two
Speaker 1: leaders of the Women's March tide tie to Lewis Farrakon,
Speaker 1: one of them calling her him her in mentor you'll
Speaker 1: also see that they actually pushed out they wanted a
Speaker 1: Jewish flag removed from one of the marches events. So
Speaker 1: I do think that there's a sense in which anti
Speaker 1: Semitism is creeping to the forefront of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: But now with people like Ellen oh Mat being institutionalized, right,
Speaker 1: it's not just far less progressive groups that have anti
Speaker 1: Semites within them. We're actually seeing real anti Semites being
Speaker 1: promoted to positions of power within Congress, and that to
Speaker 1: me is what's probably more disturbing, because I'm less worried
Speaker 1: about these fringe groups. You know, I do think they're
Speaker 1: a problem, but it's they're less of a problem than
Speaker 1: the institutional anti semitism that were Riel Davidson Davidson of
Speaker 1: The Federalist everybody check out our work at the Federalist
Speaker 1: dot com. Riel, thanks so much, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: How many of you feel that the time is right
Speaker 1: for a progressive and that's what would win Carol. We're
Speaker 1: ready for progressive candidates. They've won all over the country,
Speaker 1: and I think we need bold, strong leadership, and you'll
Speaker 1: find that in the progressives. I think that we had
Speaker 1: the standard bearer for the the kind of pragmatic centrist
Speaker 1: candidate in Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, and Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is now at the president. How many of you would
Speaker 1: like to see Joe Biden get in, show up hands?
Speaker 1: What's happening right? This time is done? I'll be honest,
Speaker 1: Senator Biden really comes from kind of the good old
Speaker 1: boy politics of the past. I don't think Joe Biden
Speaker 1: represents that new thing that we need. We just we
Speaker 1: need a new economy, we need a new politics and meanings,
Speaker 1: someone different. I'm telling you, the Democrats have created a
Speaker 1: progressive monster and they're just figuring this out now. They
Speaker 1: they have fed the most radical elements of their party
Speaker 1: two years of all this crazy propaganda in an effort
Speaker 1: to just just stoke the bases fury against Trump. They
Speaker 1: have propped up these ideas because they really don't have
Speaker 1: a Hillary Clinton esque platform to run against Trump, right
Speaker 1: they What are they going to say? What has Trump
Speaker 1: done that is so terrible? What? What are they? Here's
Speaker 1: what you really have to look at. What are the
Speaker 1: Democrats better ideas? If they're just going to tinker with
Speaker 1: what Republicans already doing. I think a lot of people
Speaker 1: would rather have a businessman Trump than have some career
Speaker 1: politician who just wants maybe slightly higher taxes than a
Speaker 1: little bit more of the same. So the Democrats have
Speaker 1: gone far left as a means of trying to build
Speaker 1: up this opposition to Trump and to give themselves something
Speaker 1: to rally around other than the Muller pro which, as
Speaker 1: we know, is probably going to end here in a
Speaker 1: few weeks. Thinking about all of this, and what I
Speaker 1: see happening is that on the left now or with
Speaker 1: the Democrats, they realize that from their left, the leader
Speaker 1: of the party isn't really Nancy Pelosi, it's Alexandriocazio Cortess.
Speaker 1: That's where people should be looking for where this is
Speaker 1: all heading. And that's why. Look, this is a little
Speaker 1: focus group we just played you from CNN where they say,
Speaker 1: you know, Biden's time has passed. But I don't think
Speaker 1: that that little focused group is wrong. I don't think
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are going to put forward Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: First of all, Joe Biden, as I've been saying, is
Speaker 1: a mediocrity who has been riding on the Obama coattails
Speaker 1: ever since Obama left office and wrote on them for
Speaker 1: eight years while Obama was in office and was never
Speaker 1: able to get more than I think one percent of
Speaker 1: the vote when he was running for president before. And
Speaker 1: there's nothing inspiring about him or particularly interesting about him.
Speaker 1: In fact, what's most interesting about Joe Biden is that
Speaker 1: if you look back at many of his quips to
Speaker 1: the media, the social justice woke left is not going
Speaker 1: to be in any mood whatsoever to try to run
Speaker 1: interference for this guy. The way they used to write
Speaker 1: it used to be, okay, well, he's going to be
Speaker 1: the elder statesman that's kind of there for window dressing
Speaker 1: in the background while Obama's doing his progressive, radical socialist
Speaker 1: thing here as much as he can. And so they
Speaker 1: were willing to say, oh, when Biden makes what they
Speaker 1: would call a racist comment, oh that's just Joe being Joe.
Speaker 1: You know, you know what I'm talking about. Media would
Speaker 1: do this all the time, Oh, crazy uncle Joe. The
Speaker 1: Republicans said the same thing and be oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: he must resign, he should be fired, tard and feathered.
Speaker 1: But when a Democrat does it, it's you know, well,
Speaker 1: when when Joe Biden does it, at least they're willing
Speaker 1: to try and prop him up. But the Democrats they
Speaker 1: have not yet. I think the Democrat establishment hasn't figured
Speaker 1: out that the usual Okay, you play to your bass,
Speaker 1: but then you head to the center. I don't think
Speaker 1: there's gonna be any heading to the center with whoever
Speaker 1: comes out of this pack of Democrats, because to win
Speaker 1: enough of the basse that you beat the rest of
Speaker 1: this mountain of really B and C team candidates, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have to really stick out of the way to
Speaker 1: stick out is to be a hardcore on these left
Speaker 1: wing progressive policies. And I just don't think that that's
Speaker 1: going to leave room for anybody who's going to be
Speaker 1: a kind of Clinton esque pseudo centrist. I mean, the
Speaker 1: Clintons aren't really centrist. I mean Hillary Clinton used to
Speaker 1: describe herself the nineties as a progressive believe it or not,
Speaker 1: or than maybe around two thousand, that's what she would
Speaker 1: have said. But she's not progressive compared to what you're
Speaker 1: talking about today. I mean, you know, the Democrats circa
Speaker 1: two thousand were a party of yes, you know, enlarging
Speaker 1: the welfare state and you know, not enforcing immigration laws
Speaker 1: against illegals. And there's I mean now the Democrats are
Speaker 1: full on socialism, open borders, you know, Green New Deal, insanity,
Speaker 1: infanticide through law, I mean, willingness to have people aboard
Speaker 1: babies outside the womb, which is another way of saying
Speaker 1: kill them, murder them. I mean, this is what the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has become. You know, thirty seven genders, whatever
Speaker 1: you say you are, you know, plural prone if you
Speaker 1: want to plural pronoun transgender kids. This is something that
Speaker 1: should be encouraged and celebrated. I mean, the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: has really lost its mind, and the same way that
Speaker 1: they've lost their mind on issues of climate change, which
Speaker 1: we're going to get into in some depth in the
Speaker 1: next hour. I think you're really going to appreciate the
Speaker 1: guests that I'm going to bring on because he has
Speaker 1: a real background of this stuff and a very worthwhile
Speaker 1: point of view on what's going on with with climate
Speaker 1: and climate change and the hysteria around it. But the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is not the party of Joe Biden anymore.
Speaker 1: That's what I think is. You know, really, in my view,
Speaker 1: the recognition that they kind of refuse to have you know, yes,
Speaker 1: they're gonna try Kamala Harris and they're gonna try Corey
Speaker 1: Booker and a few other you know Democrats that are
Speaker 1: going to talk a big progressive game. But I don't
Speaker 1: think that that's going to work this time around. I mean,
Speaker 1: I do think you're looking at it. I think you're
Speaker 1: looking at a Bernie Sanders esque Kennedy who wins us.
Speaker 1: And maybe it's betto that's right. I just like I
Speaker 1: just want to get rid of all of the fossil fuels.
Speaker 1: It's not for my wife's private jet, because like that's
Speaker 1: really important, because I just don't really know what to
Speaker 1: do without it. You know, they're gonna have somebody who's
Speaker 1: far left. So, you know, Elizabeth Warren, for example, even
Speaker 1: though I think she's self humiliated herself beyond beyond the
Speaker 1: point of political redemption, I do believe that although she
Speaker 1: she was you know, she's still hanging in there. She
Speaker 1: had she talked to David Axel rod on on I
Speaker 1: guess his podcast or his show or whatever he's got,
Speaker 1: and she was asked about her her ancestry. And here's
Speaker 1: what she said. Play clip one. The question that I've
Speaker 1: never understood is why did you check those boxes? Because
Speaker 1: obviously that's a very small part of you of your lineage,
Speaker 1: you know, one thirty second or something. So why why
Speaker 1: did you do it? Decades ago? I sometimes identified as
Speaker 1: Native American. It's it's there. It never had anything to
Speaker 1: do with any job that I ever got that's been
Speaker 1: fully documented. I gotta tell you I spoke to a
Speaker 1: private citizen recently, so cannot you know, I cannot say
Speaker 1: more than that, But I spoke to a private citizen
Speaker 1: who studied at Harvard Law School and had Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: as a professor. And he told me straight up that
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren in class would refer to herself as a
Speaker 1: Native American bankruptcy expert from Oklahoma. So this idea that
Speaker 1: it was like a little a little, a little nothing burger. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: this was a part of her whole mystique. This is
Speaker 1: how she was creating this persona of somebody who Harvard
Speaker 1: should be putting forward and should get these very difficult
Speaker 1: to come by and very prestigious, and I would add
Speaker 1: well paid positions. I mean at Harvard Law professors I
Speaker 1: think start off at a quarter of a million dollars
Speaker 1: a year, two hundred fifty grand. Let's start out at that,
Speaker 1: so they make a lot of money. Folks, So it
Speaker 1: wasn't a secret. She used it to advance herself, and
Speaker 1: all this effort to try to cover that up. It's
Speaker 1: just pathetic from the media. My favorite was the Boston
Speaker 1: Globes super thorough investigation on this, where they asked the
Speaker 1: hiring committee at Harvard did it come up that she
Speaker 1: was Native American? And everybody said no, except for one
Speaker 1: guy who said, oh, yeah, that came up. And then
Speaker 1: they went back to him and asked him again, and
Speaker 1: sure enough he said, oh, I must have been mistaken
Speaker 1: because he didn't, you know, he didn't want the Boston
Speaker 1: Globe to boil his rabbit, so to speak. You know,
Speaker 1: he didn't want the people to come after him make
Speaker 1: an example of him for his wrong think on Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren's past. But this is what the Democrats offer up,
Speaker 1: and these are the candidates they offer up, and then
Speaker 1: we're supposed to think that this is going to be
Speaker 1: better than Trump. Why would any of these people be
Speaker 1: better than Trump in what way? You know? Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: who's a millionaire who talks endlessly about soaking the rich.
Speaker 1: She's a millionaire who also is a bankruptcy expert that
Speaker 1: as I understand, it from again people that studied with
Speaker 1: her as a you know, when she was doing bankruptcy law,
Speaker 1: as teaching that her whole thing of bankruptcy is that
Speaker 1: it should really just be a socialized cost, meaning that
Speaker 1: the costs are passed on the society. People shouldn't have
Speaker 1: to suffer for the decisions that they make that lead
Speaker 1: to bankruptcy. Huh. That's going to be an interesting perspective
Speaker 1: that's going to really help the lending industry, isn't it. Anyway.
Speaker 1: There's there's a lot more I could go on this one,
Speaker 1: but you get the basics here. The Democrats are the
Speaker 1: party of wackos now, and I think even some of
Speaker 1: them are just fine figuring that out. That old Trump
Speaker 1: wants to divide us up based on the color of
Speaker 1: our skin. This is a time, my friends, when fundamental rights,
Speaker 1: civic virtue, freedom of the press, the rule of law, truth,
Speaker 1: facts and reason are under assault. And make no mistake,
Speaker 1: we are living through a full fledged crisis in our democracy.
Speaker 1: I realize that what's happening in this country is devastating.
Speaker 1: I mean President Trump has created such divisions, such darkness,
Speaker 1: such hate. It's so terrible. Oh my gosh, what are
Speaker 1: we gonna do. It's like dogs and cats living together,
Speaker 1: mats hysteria. Bernie is so upset. Trump creates darkness division. Hey,
Speaker 1: he doesn't replace the ice cubes in the ice cube train.
Speaker 1: He sometimes we'll drink all the milk, but put the
Speaker 1: cotton back in the fridge. Who does that? What kind
Speaker 1: of savage puts the milk cotton empty back in the fridge.
Speaker 1: Sometimes he even watches an iPad on the Acela without headphones.
Speaker 1: I kid you not. I cannot make the sum. They
Speaker 1: really really hate Donald Trump. I mean they think that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is like the anti Christ. Although a lot
Speaker 1: of these Democrats obviously don't believe in Christ, but that's
Speaker 1: a conversation for another time. They really do believe that
Speaker 1: he is some kind of lord of darkness. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's possible for them to be such good actors.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying all of them. Some of them are actors,
Speaker 1: but some of them are faking it. That's why when
Speaker 1: they ask these questions about whether or not they're going
Speaker 1: to impeach Donald Trump, I just think this is funny,
Speaker 1: because of course they want to impeach Donald Trump, and
Speaker 1: it has nothing to do with what they find them
Speaker 1: all their prober and these other investigations. They just want
Speaker 1: to impeach him, to impeach him, And the only thing
Speaker 1: that holds them back now is the pure political calculation
Speaker 1: over whether or not it would help them in terms
Speaker 1: of power, help them be in control the Democrats. There's
Speaker 1: no principle at stake here for them, There's nothing beyond
Speaker 1: just do the Democrats think that impeachment will help them
Speaker 1: win in twenty twenty. That's it. That's why I have
Speaker 1: to laugh when Katie terre Over at MSNBC is asking
Speaker 1: Sheila Jackson Lee about this play Clift four. This probe
Speaker 1: is looking into obstruction of justice, public corruption, and abuse
Speaker 1: of power? Is this an impeachment hearing? In everything but
Speaker 1: name so? When Chairman Nadler said he is building a
Speaker 1: public record, you're basically saying that you're building a public
Speaker 1: record that could lead you to full on impeachment hearings.
Speaker 1: You say, some obstruction, if there is evidence of a
Speaker 1: crime that's been committed, do you think that that should
Speaker 1: lead to a impeachment? Just want to delve in a
Speaker 1: little deeper and see where the line is when it
Speaker 1: comes to impeachment and whether it's only a political process.
Speaker 1: If he's found to be guilty of violating the Constitution,
Speaker 1: is it Congress's duty to impeach him or to try
Speaker 1: to impeach him? Just wondering if a lot of talk
Speaker 1: about impeachment there, keep keeps asking about impeachment, you know,
Speaker 1: it's just who it gets, gets the audience all excited.
Speaker 1: Will they impeach him? Please? Please? Oh please? That would
Speaker 1: be so fantastic if they impeach him. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think it's clearly a bad a bad idea for them.
Speaker 1: I don't even mean it's a bad idea because it's
Speaker 1: unfair and it's wrong, which I obviously agree. I think
Speaker 1: it's a bad idea for them. But they have such
Speaker 1: a different view of what has happened in the the last
Speaker 1: two years than the non insane Democrat Party, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: or then people that are outside of the insane Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: Sounds like the insane clown posse when I say it
Speaker 1: like that, the insane Democrat Party. But just here Trump,
Speaker 1: for example, give his view of what really has been
Speaker 1: going on in amer You know, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: you hear about how he's dividing hate, darkness, evil, all
Speaker 1: this really and based on what what do they point
Speaker 1: to a couple of a couple of tweets where he
Speaker 1: made fun of Jim Acosta where he called Richard Blumenthal
Speaker 1: denang dick. I mean, what is so terrible that Trump
Speaker 1: has done as president that? You know? Where's the war
Speaker 1: that he started that he shouldn't have. Where is the
Speaker 1: gut wrenching policy decision that has had ramifications that will
Speaker 1: last for generations. Other presidents have done that and have
Speaker 1: messed up big time? What is it with Trump that
Speaker 1: hasn't happened. Economy's really strong. We're at in a period
Speaker 1: of relative piece. I'd like us to be at absolutely,
Speaker 1: you know, at no more combat operations overseas. But we're
Speaker 1: a period of relative peace, no major combat operations going
Speaker 1: on right now overseas, and as I said, that should
Speaker 1: be even stronger than it is. But here's Trump's view,
Speaker 1: and I think it's important to hear it because you
Speaker 1: don't get it from the media. Play. Nine more people
Speaker 1: are working today in the United States than ever before
Speaker 1: in the history of We've slashed thirty thousand pages of
Speaker 1: job killing regulations from the Federal Register. That's an all
Speaker 1: time record of the history of the United States. We
Speaker 1: passed the largest package of tax cuts and reforms in
Speaker 1: American history. We're renegotiating right now horrible trade deals that
Speaker 1: we're cracking down, and we are really doing the number,
Speaker 1: cracking down on countries that cheat, and standing up for
Speaker 1: the American worker for the first time in many, many decades.
Speaker 1: That doesn't sound like destroying the country and being evil
Speaker 1: and all these other things that Democrats say that all
Speaker 1: sounds pretty good, and those are just he's reciting fact.
Speaker 1: He did slash regulations, he did pass a tax cut,
Speaker 1: jobs have been growing, He is renegotiating old and outdated
Speaker 1: trade deals. He is trying to help the American worker.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are all things that he's actively doing,
Speaker 1: or things that are just a matter of fact. But
Speaker 1: yet the Democrats try to tell everybody that the country
Speaker 1: it's so terrible, it's so horrible, and all these It
Speaker 1: is like they're living in an alternative reality. And it's
Speaker 1: a little scary because when we talk about the climate
Speaker 1: change stuff coming up, you realize they are living in
Speaker 1: an alternative reality. They've created it for themselves. If you're
Speaker 1: hiring or if you have a property that you need
Speaker 1: to lease out, if you're going to engage in a
Speaker 1: business transaction with another party, you need to make sure
Speaker 1: that you know who you're dealing with. That's where background
Speaker 1: investigations and vetting comes into play. And the best people
Speaker 1: in that field are my friends at Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: They are the only dual certified and veteran owned company
Speaker 1: in this space. So when you need background checks to
Speaker 1: be done efficiently, quickly, well and discreetly, call a Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. They don't offshore their stuff. A lot of
Speaker 1: other companies out there will. They don't send stuff overseas
Speaker 1: for other people to do and then pretend that they've
Speaker 1: been doing the work in house. Their risk mitigation experts
Speaker 1: across the country will handle your case work themselves. Give
Speaker 1: them a call eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine again eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine, or go to my GVN dot
Speaker 1: com Again, that's my GVN dot com. General Scaparatti and
Speaker 1: General Alliance. Do you agree with the Intelligence communities assessment
Speaker 1: of the climate change threat? I do, and I believe that,
Speaker 1: as you noted, much of this will be drivers for
Speaker 1: potential conflict or at least very difficult situations that the
Speaker 1: nations have to deal with. A second, I would point
Speaker 1: you to the High North, and that's the increasing open
Speaker 1: opening of the Northern Sea Route and the challenges that
Speaker 1: presents from a security perspective. Yes, thank you, Thank you,
Speaker 1: General Lyons. Do you also agree? Yeah, I agree. These
Speaker 1: are sources of conflict and we certainly have to be
Speaker 1: prepared to respond to them. Good Elizabeth Warren there asking
Speaker 1: a couple of generals if they agree about the threat
Speaker 1: of climate change to national security sounds kind of crazy
Speaker 1: to me. But I want to bring on a different
Speaker 1: voice here, one that can speak to this from a
Speaker 1: number of perspectives that I think you don't usually hear.
Speaker 1: Doctor Caleb Rossiter is with us now. He is from
Speaker 1: the COO TO coalition and he's going to talk to
Speaker 1: us about what he thinks is really going on with
Speaker 1: all this climate change alarmism. Doctor Roster, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: buckets a treat to be with you today. Thank you
Speaker 1: for the opportunity to talk a little about climate science,
Speaker 1: which most people run shrieking from the second they hear
Speaker 1: the words. So right now, obviously with a Green New Deal,
Speaker 1: a lot of people are paying attention to this But
Speaker 1: before we get into what your position on this is,
Speaker 1: what is your background on the issue of climate change?
Speaker 1: And who are the individuals you work with? You know,
Speaker 1: give us kind of a quick overview at the CO
Speaker 1: two coalition, which is obviously people are going to say
Speaker 1: a CO two coalition. I thought CO two was the enemy,
Speaker 1: But go ahead. The founder of this coalition you'll hear
Speaker 1: about in the news right now, Professor Will Happer, a
Speaker 1: physics professor at Princeton, has left us because he's become
Speaker 1: President Trump's new National Security Advisor for Emerging Technologies. Will
Speaker 1: will Happer is the one who's trying to promote a
Speaker 1: looking a re look by the White House panel of
Speaker 1: scientists at these claims that carbon dioxide has created a
Speaker 1: national security climate catastrophe. So you can see where our
Speaker 1: group is coming from. We're composed. Is he a scientist?
Speaker 1: I mean people are going to ask, you know how
Speaker 1: this always goes well? Does he have a science background?
Speaker 1: Are you kidding? Will Happer is one of America's most
Speaker 1: distinguished physicists. He ran the Science Office under President Bush
Speaker 1: of the first President Bush and the White House our
Speaker 1: President of currently replacing him. A. Richard Linson is an
Speaker 1: atmospheric physicist at MIT has won all the awards for
Speaker 1: his work on atmospheric dynamics. These people are with us
Speaker 1: because they used to be with the un body that
Speaker 1: makes these wild claims. As AOC said that we're all
Speaker 1: going to be dead in twelve years. They left that
Speaker 1: body in disgust, in horror at the politicization of science.
Speaker 1: That's really why they're with us. They want to talk
Speaker 1: about the science, but the science has been badly, badly perverted.
Speaker 1: So tell me then about And I'm glad see this
Speaker 1: is this is necessarily because as you know, you hear
Speaker 1: these things like no scientists. People will say, who are
Speaker 1: in the alarmist camp here or the catastrophist camp as
Speaker 1: I call it? No scientist claims that this isn't really
Speaker 1: a threat, no real And then I'll actually name Richard Lindson,
Speaker 1: a name that I know from his previous published work
Speaker 1: on this issue. And they say, well that doesn't count.
Speaker 1: It said on Mt climate cologence. That doesn't count. Okay,
Speaker 1: well you know, now we're really getting somewhere. But now
Speaker 1: that we've established that the group that you were with
Speaker 1: has people with exactly the kind of scientific credentials that
Speaker 1: should be and must be taken seriously on this issue
Speaker 1: by the rest of the science and policy community. Tell
Speaker 1: me what the CO two coalition is all about. These
Speaker 1: are scientists, satisticians like myself, agronomists, physicists, energy economists who
Speaker 1: want to have a rational public debate about the impact
Speaker 1: of industrial carbon dioxide the last one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: years on the planet. And debate and switch is what
Speaker 1: I think is confusing your your listeners in general, all
Speaker 1: people in America in general buck because there is a
Speaker 1: scientific consensus that carbon dioxide is a warming gas. There
Speaker 1: are physical reasons why it vibrates at the same speed
Speaker 1: as you know, heat leading the Earth. But that's it.
Speaker 1: That's the end of the consensus. How much the warming
Speaker 1: comes from carbon dioxide being increased by a third over
Speaker 1: the last one hundred and fifty years is impossible to assess.
Speaker 1: We have tried, and let's get to the real topic.
Speaker 1: What effect does that have on catastrophic variables like floods
Speaker 1: and droughts and sea level and all that there's no
Speaker 1: consensus on that. This is the bait and switch. When
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren is talking to the intelligence community in the
Speaker 1: military about climate change. You notice they never said the
Speaker 1: words fossil fuels, CO two or industrial emissions. Climate changes
Speaker 1: all the time, and it certainly can be a threat
Speaker 1: if there's a drought or a lot of storms, But
Speaker 1: there's no data to indicate that there's been an increase
Speaker 1: in those climate catastrophe variables what we call bad weather
Speaker 1: since nineteen hundred. Now, is there also an argument to
Speaker 1: be made that increased CO two has some good buy products,
Speaker 1: some good side effects. I've heard this before, but I
Speaker 1: don't know if that's the case that you make. Uh huh.
Speaker 1: I'm holding in my hand a brand new white paper
Speaker 1: that probably America's fine as an atmospheric agronomus named Craig
Speaker 1: Idzo just put out for us. You know, it wasn't
Speaker 1: to get plant productivity. It wasn't to get fertilization of
Speaker 1: crops by industrial carb docs said that we entered the
Speaker 1: fossil fuel era. Obviously we did it to get cheap,
Speaker 1: reliable power to power our health and wealth. But just
Speaker 1: as people pump CO two into greenhouses to make their
Speaker 1: plants grow there, it turns out this review of all
Speaker 1: the most relevant new field research that the thirty three
Speaker 1: percent increase in CO two since about nineteen hundred has
Speaker 1: boosted the productivity of the world's crops by between fifteen
Speaker 1: and thirty percent. So that has huge implications for places
Speaker 1: where there's difficulty having their populations get fed. It's like
Speaker 1: an added bonus we get from the economic growth of
Speaker 1: fossil fuels. Is it's plant food. It's been good and
Speaker 1: it's going to stay good, and it's going to get
Speaker 1: better as CO two levels go up. So for the
Speaker 1: non science folks in the audience here, including myself. So
Speaker 1: there's more CO two in the air, which plants need,
Speaker 1: and plants then expel what oxygen through photosynthesis, right, and
Speaker 1: so essentially this is a good thing for plant life.
Speaker 1: It's a fantastic thing for plant life for three quick reasons.
Speaker 1: I won't bore you with it. But not only do
Speaker 1: you get fifteen to thirty percent more plant growth so
Speaker 1: far and more to come, you need less water because
Speaker 1: when the plants have higher CO two levels, they don't perspire,
Speaker 1: shall we say so much? And you need less fertilizer. Again,
Speaker 1: this is why people use greenhouses and pay for carbon
Speaker 1: oxide to be put in their greenhouses. We essentially have
Speaker 1: created that effect. So it's a nice little bonus, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that the crucial issue still doesn't remain.
Speaker 1: If we're going to be using fossil fuels, do they
Speaker 1: create a climate catastrophe and the data say so are
Speaker 1: and I'm open to the data, I'm a climate statistician,
Speaker 1: they haven't. And the reports that Miss Warren would be
Speaker 1: citing if you actually read the studies, which is what
Speaker 1: we do, that the exaggerations come out of show that
Speaker 1: there is no statistically significant increase in storm's rate of
Speaker 1: sea level rise droughts since nineteen hundred. And you know,
Speaker 1: it stands to reason the temperature has only gone up
Speaker 1: one degree worldwide on average since nineteen hundred. Maybe half
Speaker 1: of that has been based on carbon dioxide. The other half,
Speaker 1: the scientific consensus degrees was natural because it happened before
Speaker 1: nineteen forty five when there wasn't much CO two being pumped.
Speaker 1: Even not necessarily, would you get a huge climate result
Speaker 1: from raising the temperature one degree. That's like moving maybe
Speaker 1: from DC down to Lynchburg. You know, yeah, Wellee, we're
Speaker 1: talking to doctor Caleb Ross or everybody, and doctor Rosa.
Speaker 1: I find this really interesting and all this makes perfect
Speaker 1: sense to me. In fact, this is this is what
Speaker 1: I've been thinking all along, not as a statistician, just
Speaker 1: as somebody who pays attention and tries to read a lot.
Speaker 1: But what I want to know is where is the
Speaker 1: disconnect then, Because as you no doubt come across this
Speaker 1: on a regular basis, if you tell people, you know,
Speaker 1: if you tell a lot of folks, I know there's
Speaker 1: a political divide here, But if you tell it, and
Speaker 1: for example, any of my media colleagues who aren't on
Speaker 1: the right, if you say that CO two emissions are
Speaker 1: not causing catastrophic warming, they launch into just this broadside
Speaker 1: about all scientists agree and nine scientists and the consensus
Speaker 1: and the consensus and all this stuff. What do you
Speaker 1: say to all that the same thing I've been saying
Speaker 1: since I discovered this as a professor of climate statistics
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and four, buck with my students
Speaker 1: because I had to grade their papers graduate students and statistics.
Speaker 1: I've read probably every single study of the effects of
Speaker 1: carbon doc side on these climate variables to see whether
Speaker 1: the extreme weather and damaging events droughts, etc. Have increased,
Speaker 1: and they have not. So what you're actually seeing is
Speaker 1: a consensusive scientists. The CO two is a warming gas
Speaker 1: exaggeration by politicians who say it could cause horrible things
Speaker 1: in the future, and you know what it could. We
Speaker 1: have to wait and see. But so far they've had
Speaker 1: thirty years of predictions of disaster in twelve years and
Speaker 1: it never happens. I am a Democrat, I will say it.
Speaker 1: It troubles me that my party has fallen into this
Speaker 1: camp of saying the science says, when that just that
Speaker 1: just isn't true. Now the latest one is you notice
Speaker 1: is and this is good for your background, The intelligence
Speaker 1: community says, right, who wouldn't believe that intelligence community? Well,
Speaker 1: you know, as a Democrat, I can tell you I
Speaker 1: would just say weapons of mass destruction and Iraq. We
Speaker 1: know they can get it wrong sometimes, even though they're
Speaker 1: trying hard. Why the left just tries to throw out
Speaker 1: this expertise and say, all the scientists, all the intelligence
Speaker 1: community agrees. No, no, no, they don't. Those clips you
Speaker 1: played at the top of the hour were not about
Speaker 1: fossil fueled climate change because we don't know how much
Speaker 1: there has been. They were about climate change in extreme weather.
Speaker 1: That one of the good things about CO two if
Speaker 1: it's providing more greening in the parts of Africa that
Speaker 1: do need more food. Perhaps that will help national security.
Speaker 1: Is there anyone out there who will you know, who
Speaker 1: will debate, debate you or your group in public on this,
Speaker 1: because I just think it's so interesting and for the
Speaker 1: people listening it is such a breath of fresh air
Speaker 1: just to hear someone who who's talking with us and say, look,
Speaker 1: the data doesn't support it. But we're always being bombarded
Speaker 1: with this message that if we don't you know, if
Speaker 1: we don't accept we're being told, which is that I
Speaker 1: played clips yesterday doc of people that we were saying
Speaker 1: they don't want to have kids because climate change is
Speaker 1: so catastrophic. I mean, this has really turned into a
Speaker 1: mass hysteria topic. You've got people, whether it was population
Speaker 1: growth or carbon dioxide, You've got people who are always
Speaker 1: worried about the future. I can't help them when we're
Speaker 1: living at the highest life expectancy ever in humanity, the
Speaker 1: best health, the best education, people's lives are the best
Speaker 1: and large part because of the miracle of fossil fueled
Speaker 1: power that we got in the twentieth century. So if
Speaker 1: they're not having kids now, they certainly should never have
Speaker 1: had them before. Look, I've been dealing this for fifteen years,
Speaker 1: and I don't know quite where it came from. This
Speaker 1: is the one topic that the left refuses to debate.
Speaker 1: If I show up somewhere, Miss Ocasio Cortez sends a
Speaker 1: letter to the sponsors saying, this climate denier should not
Speaker 1: be allowed to appear, and you should cut off funding
Speaker 1: for this for this conference. And so whenever I speak now,
Speaker 1: I invite her. I sent her office a standing invitation,
Speaker 1: and I sent a standing invitation to the Union of
Speaker 1: Concerned Scientists and the Green Peace and the Environmental Defense Fund.
Speaker 1: If you're so sure of your case, come and debate
Speaker 1: it with me. So when I spoke last week at
Speaker 1: the SEATPAC conference, I told the story of how when
Speaker 1: I was an anti ar activist back in the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: we would always put a sign out on the seat
Speaker 1: an empty seat on the stage saying reserve for the
Speaker 1: State Department. So if they wanted to come and argue
Speaker 1: us at the Vietnam teaching, we wanted to have the
Speaker 1: debate because we thought we would win the debate. So
Speaker 1: mine now says I put it on the seat every
Speaker 1: time I speak is reserved for Rep. Occasio Cortez, Green Peace,
Speaker 1: and any alarmist in the building. Well, Doc, I hope
Speaker 1: that I hope that someone takes you up on it,
Speaker 1: because people need to hear the truth. Because what's being
Speaker 1: said right now by the entirety of the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: the liberal media, intelligent, even some quarters of the top
Speaker 1: military brass. Now it's just crazy, man, It's just nuts,
Speaker 1: and people need to get a grip. But that's not
Speaker 1: my scientific analysis. That's just the way I see things.
Speaker 1: And we got to doctor Caleb Ross. Come. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna no, I know they're gonna hide because they're gonna
Speaker 1: get crushed on the facts, doctor Caleb Rosit or everybody
Speaker 1: the C two Coalition, Where can people go to read
Speaker 1: your research, see more what you're up to. We have
Speaker 1: a website C two Coalition, clips of media appearances like
Speaker 1: this one here. We try to put everything up. But
Speaker 1: we have forty five members who are far better scientists
Speaker 1: on this than I am. I'm the climate statistician. We've
Speaker 1: got people like doctor Lindzen and doctor Hids who like
Speaker 1: to go out and speak and talk about this. They're
Speaker 1: glad to debate. But since we rarely get to debate.
Speaker 1: They love to come and speak with people about it.
Speaker 1: So please check us out and invite us to come
Speaker 1: talk to someone in your community. All right, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Doc. We appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: All right, team, we'll be right back, my friends. I
Speaker 1: am somebody who believes in precious metals as part of
Speaker 1: a well to versified portfolio. So if you're somebody that,
Speaker 1: like I do, sees the systemic risk in our financial system,
Speaker 1: you know, I know Trump's done a great job at
Speaker 1: the economy. We got twenty two trillion dollars in debt.
Speaker 1: These bills are going to come do at some point,
Speaker 1: so it's important that you have a hedge against risk.
Speaker 1: And that's what precious metals can do for you. And
Speaker 1: it's a great thing to have, specifically in a precious
Speaker 1: metals IRA. My friends at Noble Goold can see if
Speaker 1: you qualify and they will do all the heavy lifting
Speaker 1: for you. Could make you thousands, could cost you enucting.
Speaker 1: Give Noble Goold a call at eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: four six five three four seven, or text my name
Speaker 1: Buck to five eleven five eleven and receive their free
Speaker 1: Investors Guide plus for all qualified iras about twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: They'll include a complimentary rare graded Morgan silver dollar value
Speaker 1: at one hundred and fifty dollars. Again buck to five
Speaker 1: eleven five eleven, or go to noblegold Investments dot com.
Speaker 1: Individual results may vary invest wisely. Standard text rates may apply.
Speaker 1: About climate change, of course, and saying that we have
Speaker 1: to eliminate fossil fuels, all fossil fuels, coal, oil, and
Speaker 1: natural gas in ten years. This would be basically a
Speaker 1: suicide pact. Over eighty percent of the US and the
Speaker 1: world's energy comes from fossil fuels, and the only reason
Speaker 1: for banning them is the so called climate apocalypse or
Speaker 1: climate catastrophe. I see AOC recruiting young teachers and whole
Speaker 1: classes of young children against the apocalypse. They're saying, they're
Speaker 1: telling these children that there's going to be an apocalypse
Speaker 1: in ten years if they don't save the climate. I
Speaker 1: think this is child abuse myself. The whole climate change
Speaker 1: movement has now reverted to using kids as a front
Speaker 1: for not only climate change and ending the use of
Speaker 1: fossil fuels, but the whole bolowax about socialism. I think
Speaker 1: that's really what they're trying to sell. So that was
Speaker 1: Patrick Moore, who was formerly the president of green Peace Canada,
Speaker 1: talking about o'cazio Quartez and climate change. I agree with
Speaker 1: everything that guy just said. I just saw this saw
Speaker 1: this clip today. Everything he says there, that they're mobilizing kids,
Speaker 1: that it's child abuse, that this whole apocalyptic nonsense is
Speaker 1: just insane. That AOC has no idea. You know how
Speaker 1: completely bizarrely off she is with all this stuff because
Speaker 1: she doesn't understand it. She just knows it's trying to
Speaker 1: sell socialism. What was I telling your elder in the week,
Speaker 1: This guy, Patrick Moore gets it. The Green New Deal
Speaker 1: is really just the Red New America. They're just trying
Speaker 1: to get you to a socialist level of control and
Speaker 1: a socialist economy because the government will have the means
Speaker 1: of the say so over everything, over all decisions. Because
Speaker 1: of how it affects the climate. Activity, human activity affects
Speaker 1: the climate. So if you need to monitor and manage
Speaker 1: human activity so that it does not have a deleterious
Speaker 1: effect on the climate, what can you not decide You're
Speaker 1: going to shut down you know what is too much?
Speaker 1: And the answer is they don't have an answer. But
Speaker 1: I thought that guy was this guy from Canada. Man,
Speaker 1: he was spot on and I really enjoyed doctor doctor
Speaker 1: Roster there and that was really interesting too. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, this is folks. Consensus is not science. Science
Speaker 1: is science. Proving and reproving, testing and re testing, thesis,
Speaker 1: the scientific method, all of it. Right, They're supposed to
Speaker 1: be a process here, share the results, share the data.
Speaker 1: Can other people independently recreate the same experiment and get
Speaker 1: the same data? Do the models actually work? Are people
Speaker 1: checking to see if these climate models have been correct well,
Speaker 1: as we know they do, and they find out that
Speaker 1: they're wrong, and then they just say, well, we have
Speaker 1: a new model, now this one will work. This is
Speaker 1: a delusion for people who are commies and aren't willing
Speaker 1: to say it. And it's also for people that are
Speaker 1: looking for meeting in their lives. And I think this
Speaker 1: is very sad. But this idea that you are personally
Speaker 1: in the process of saving the planet if you sign
Speaker 1: on for this. This is where the religious component of
Speaker 1: it comes from, and this is why it is treated
Speaker 1: on the left as a religious belief. And it's impervious.
Speaker 1: Two facts they say there are no scientists, and then
Speaker 1: I provide them with scientists who disagree, and then they
Speaker 1: shout them down and won't talk to them, won't debate them.
Speaker 1: Because here's the thing. The climate alarmists are wrong, and
Speaker 1: you and I know they're wrong. We are expanding to
Speaker 1: make films that better reflect the people that buy movie tickets,
Speaker 1: but they are not allowed enough chances to read public
Speaker 1: discourse on these films by the people that these films
Speaker 1: were made for. I do not need a forty year
Speaker 1: old by Due to tell me what didn't work for
Speaker 1: him about a wrinkle in time. It wasn't made for him.
Speaker 1: I want to know what that film meant to women
Speaker 1: of color, to by racial women, to teen women of color,
Speaker 1: two teens that are by racial. Bree Larson, star of
Speaker 1: the Captain Marvel movie, doesn't want to hear from white
Speaker 1: dudes about why her movie didn't work. You know, this
Speaker 1: is this is something that has been coming for a while,
Speaker 1: and I guess it's really not in any way surprising then,
Speaker 1: But now now we have seen social justice the social
Speaker 1: justice left becomes so entrenched in Hollywood that now they'll
Speaker 1: actually make bad movies with bad left wing themes and
Speaker 1: then try to blame people for it. Right. It used
Speaker 1: to be that they would make entertaining films, but they
Speaker 1: would always skew a little bit left right. The old
Speaker 1: Hollywood model was, you know, we're going to make a movie,
Speaker 1: but the theme is going to be left wing, or
Speaker 1: there's going to be some left wing propaganda, you know,
Speaker 1: put into it. But at least it's going to be entertaining,
Speaker 1: so if you'll sit through it, you'll have an enjoyable experience,
Speaker 1: even if you don't like the politics. Now they're just
Speaker 1: willing to make crappy movies that, of course are all
Speaker 1: about social justice and even the casting of it and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. And if we don't like them,
Speaker 1: if the marketplace speaks and says boo, then we're the problem. Brandon,
Speaker 1: do you know, isn't Captain Marvel, first of all, supposed
Speaker 1: to be a dude? Or am I missing something? I
Speaker 1: think it is a female character. I know comics, but
Speaker 1: I just never got into Captain Marville. I guess is
Speaker 1: that different than Captain America? Then I don't even guess
Speaker 1: two different? Right? No? I mean I guess, but it
Speaker 1: so it's Captain Marvel, the female Captain America. Is that
Speaker 1: what's supposed to happen? Because I thought that was wonder Woman.
Speaker 1: But you know, I don't know what I'm talking about. Yes,
Speaker 1: he's definitely a female. I know that I was definitely
Speaker 1: a female. All right, it's they who By the way,
Speaker 1: who is Breed Larson? And when did she become famous?
Speaker 1: This is the first I've ever seen this person's name. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: your guess is as good as mine. Everyone's like Bree
Speaker 1: Larson had this to say, like, so fuck, we're too
Speaker 1: white too. It's we're in the second thing. I know.
Speaker 1: But see, Mike, I fell right into the trap. I'm
Speaker 1: a white dude. I'm not allowed to have an opinion
Speaker 1: on this movie. Even superhero movies now have to be woke.
Speaker 1: This is why we're told that, you know, the Ghostbusters
Speaker 1: All female remake wasn't one of the worst movies ever made.
Speaker 1: It's just because the patriarchy man or something like that.
Speaker 1: It's never that the left is infusing its politics into
Speaker 1: these projects in such a way that normal people just
Speaker 1: don't want to see them, and that they're not producing
Speaker 1: a good product because they're focused on the wrong thing.
Speaker 1: Hollywood should be entertaining us that is goal number one.
Speaker 1: You do not sit down to watch a Hollywood superhero
Speaker 1: movie to learn for sure. Maybe for some people they
Speaker 1: find it inspirational, though you know, I don't know how
Speaker 1: inspired most of us generally get from seeing someone who's
Speaker 1: you know, bitten by a radioactive spider and get superpowers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'd be inspired if I had superpowers too. But you
Speaker 1: just can't get away from this stuff though. There's no
Speaker 1: escape now. And this is why they're increasingly telling us
Speaker 1: that we have to like movies that stink. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, now that there is a large or
Speaker 1: a broad consensus that some of these movies that have
Speaker 1: these left wing themes, you know, if a female is
Speaker 1: in the lead of a movie these days, we all
Speaker 1: have to pretend like it's a good movie. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is why, look, wonder Woman, it's just okay. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's pretty decent. It's not a bad movie, but it's
Speaker 1: not an amazing movie. It's not something that you're going
Speaker 1: to remember or that's time listening. It's okay, superhero movie.
Speaker 1: Don't even get me started on Black Panther. It's just
Speaker 1: not a good movie. In fact, in some parts the
Speaker 1: movie is just stupid. It's not a good movie, but
Speaker 1: we have to like it because African American or I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: pardon me, African superhero in the lead. So there is
Speaker 1: a social justice tie into, you know, the non white
Speaker 1: pay triarchy being more represented in cinema. And to this,
Speaker 1: I always want to say, you know, American audiences have
Speaker 1: been cheering for African American leads in in top movies
Speaker 1: for you know, for decades and decades, Right, Will Smith,
Speaker 1: Denzel Washington. These are some of the biggest superheroes. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: big biggest actors. Superheroes are something in the world. So
Speaker 1: why then do we have to, Oh, you have to
Speaker 1: like Black Panther because it's a movie with an African
Speaker 1: superhero the lead. No, I don't have to like the movie.
Speaker 1: I don't understand this, this kind of social blackmail that
Speaker 1: occurs here where if you don't like Captain Marvel, you
Speaker 1: don't like the Ghostbusters movies, you're the problem. Oh, but
Speaker 1: it's Mike pointed out to me, that's what Bree Larson
Speaker 1: here is saying. You're a white male, so no one
Speaker 1: cares what you think. I think we get a vote
Speaker 1: on culture. I think we get a vote on mass media.
Speaker 1: I think we're allowed to at least express our opinions
Speaker 1: because you know, the First Amendment and stuff. Ain't no
Speaker 1: party like a Team Buck party because Team Buck party
Speaker 1: don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. If you want to see
Speaker 1: the CEPAC debate that I had on Syria with a
Speaker 1: very strongly pro intervention fellow from the American Enterprise Institute.
Speaker 1: It is now posted on Facebook. I think it's pretty
Speaker 1: quick too. It's about seventeen minutes I think of actual debate.
Speaker 1: So I'm not asking you to take up your whole
Speaker 1: afternoon with it, but I think you will enjoy it.
Speaker 1: I think you'll find it worth your time, to be sure.
Speaker 1: So it is up and you can check it out.
Speaker 1: The link is on Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: Now we can get to your thoughts, your words, enough
Speaker 1: of mine, Joe, Oh, of course, Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton's where you want to go for all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Joe writes, I have to echo your sentiments on Nirvana
Speaker 1: not a bad band and Dave Grohl for the win,
Speaker 1: but highly overrated. But what I do know is I
Speaker 1: thought it was Hey, Wayne, two Shields high Oss Joe.
Speaker 1: Is it not? Hey? Wayne? Now we have somebody who's
Speaker 1: gonna be able to answer this. Brandon. Excuse me, Brandon,
Speaker 1: Hello Brendan DJ Brandon, Hey Wayne, I'm an you know
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about? It? Are you saying? Hey Wayne?
Speaker 1: Isn't that? What? What is he saying in the lyrics
Speaker 1: the Lvana saw It's not Wayne. It's not an o
Speaker 1: to uh mister Newton or anything like that. What's he saying?
Speaker 1: What is that? That's uh, that's Nirvana? But no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of the name of the song
Speaker 1: a hart J Box that song. Maybe. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it's way. It's just way hey, Way, Really, I'll get
Speaker 1: up right now. Yeah, thank you. You're rock EJ. I
Speaker 1: expect you to have this stuff. And the good news
Speaker 1: is it's Rose. If it were Guns and Roses lyric
Speaker 1: brand and you would have to give yourself a code red.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else it's tall be in trouble, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: but it's it's Nirvana, and we all know Nirvana. I
Speaker 1: see here's here's a perfect example. Guns and Roses better
Speaker 1: band than Nirvana, better band than Nirvana. It's wait by
Speaker 1: the way it's hey wait Ah, I got a new
Speaker 1: complaint because that rhymes ah wait, I got it. It
Speaker 1: wasn't Wayne, Okay, I thought it was. I got Wayne
Speaker 1: wait mixed up. But that's not as bad as all right,
Speaker 1: So I made a fool of myself on Natural Radio
Speaker 1: n NBD. No big deal, Hey Wayne, I like the
Speaker 1: way I say it anyway, all right, So I don't
Speaker 1: by the way, Dave Grol, Yeah, I really do, like,
Speaker 1: I really do like food fighters, And I always remember
Speaker 1: that there was a I saw this clip a long
Speaker 1: time ago. I don't know Brandon, you saw this too,
Speaker 1: But Dave girl was doing a show I forget where
Speaker 1: it was, and people decided to go from like jumping
Speaker 1: around in a mosh pit to one guy started or
Speaker 1: just started just punching people in the face, like he
Speaker 1: just lost it in the mosh pit. And he stopped
Speaker 1: the show and called security and was like, people who
Speaker 1: here at a party and have fun, nothing happens until
Speaker 1: you get the hell out of here. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I thought that was pretty I thought that was pretty cool.
Speaker 1: Back in the day, something like that happened. Instead, Axel
Speaker 1: Rose dove into the crowd and punched the guy, so
Speaker 1: whoa a couple of approaches to it. Axel Rose superhero
Speaker 1: who knew I did not know that. Also, I think
Speaker 1: the Stained lead lead singer. I could be wrong, but
Speaker 1: he saw some guys who were getting gropy with like
Speaker 1: a very young girl, and he laid into them and
Speaker 1: called security. And if I think it was the Stained
Speaker 1: lead singer. But I always like it when you know people, Oh,
Speaker 1: you got to regulate your own party. You know, you
Speaker 1: should get him, you should get him on the show. Though.
Speaker 1: Aaron lewis very pro America and yeah, no, I like
Speaker 1: his music. Yeah, I like his music, all right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: and he likes America, so we like him here. All right,
Speaker 1: let's get let's get back into roll Call. Sorry, a
Speaker 1: little bit of a digression there, Jeff Rights, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: do you think this whole birth strike thing is actually
Speaker 1: healthy for our population? Darwinism can help weed out the
Speaker 1: wacky lefties? Un, Jeff, I mean, I see where your
Speaker 1: head's app But I wish people weren't so unbelievably terrified
Speaker 1: about all this stuff. I mean, it's just bad. It's
Speaker 1: obviously not just some political fad. There are people who
Speaker 1: really believe this stuff now, And I find that very disconcerting,
Speaker 1: and I think that anybody should find it very disconcerting
Speaker 1: that there are people that think that this is, you know,
Speaker 1: a good idea to not have children going forward. Strikes
Speaker 1: me as as truly wacko. Next up here, Randy writes,
Speaker 1: I had to beat them to death with their own
Speaker 1: shoes Rhodi from Wayne's World. Correct, Randy, it was the
Speaker 1: Rhodie from Wayne's World two who was the only good
Speaker 1: thing in Waynes World two. The rest of Waynes World too,
Speaker 1: is pretty terrible, but the English roadie guy is memorable
Speaker 1: and does a good job. Melissa, right, you were so
Speaker 1: on point with Jesse Smollett's story. Would you speak about
Speaker 1: the documentary that came out about MJ. I'm wondering about
Speaker 1: your take on it. Well, Melissa, thank you, and I
Speaker 1: appreciate that people listen to this show. No that I
Speaker 1: was doing the Jesse Smollett is a liar update way
Speaker 1: in advance of most of the rest of the media,
Speaker 1: almost all of the media, really, because I don't care
Speaker 1: about the social justice rhetoric of the left and the
Speaker 1: way that they try to make victims of people who
Speaker 1: aren't even victims. I like the truth so that was
Speaker 1: how I was able to see through that one. As
Speaker 1: for the Michael Jackson documentary that just aired on HBO,
Speaker 1: I was only able to watch because I had to
Speaker 1: write a piece Sunday night for The Hill, which you
Speaker 1: should all check out, which is the Democrats have switched
Speaker 1: from collision to obstruction on the Hill dot Com. But
Speaker 1: I was able to watch about fifteen or twenty minutes
Speaker 1: of it. I mean, I get the basics of it.
Speaker 1: I've been told by trusted sources that I should watch
Speaker 1: the whole thing, but I think, yeah, I think Michael
Speaker 1: Jackson's a predator or was. I mean, I don't understand
Speaker 1: why people are so resistant to the mountain of facts
Speaker 1: in this case. And even if you want to say
Speaker 1: that he did not, you know, if people want to
Speaker 1: take this, he didn't engage in criminal conduct. What he
Speaker 1: did was bizarre and completely unacceptable that everyone knows he did.
Speaker 1: An adult male should never be sleeping in a bed
Speaker 1: with a seven or eight year old boy. That's not
Speaker 1: you know, just just period, just period, that's not normal.
Speaker 1: So yeah, anyway, it strikes me as very as very strange,
Speaker 1: but you know, it is what it is. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm you know. It's one of these things too, where
Speaker 1: people get strangely defensive about it, and I don't you know. Look,
Speaker 1: I understand people love Michael Jackson's music, and he was.
Speaker 1: He was incredibly talented, There's no question about that. But
Speaker 1: we can't defy reality because we like somebody's music. Sean Wright,
Speaker 1: hey Buck, referring to your role call for March fourth,
Speaker 1: I agree that Nirvana was overrated. As I reflect upon
Speaker 1: my experience with nineties music, I'm very grateful that classic
Speaker 1: rock gained much popularity with the advent of all encompassing
Speaker 1: rock radio stations. If not for the Eagles and similar bands,
Speaker 1: I likely would have found music to be entirely worthless.
Speaker 1: I still to this day, but for the classic rock
Speaker 1: genre over any other, and doubt it will ever be
Speaker 1: eclipsed in my lifetime. Shield Tie Sean oss Well, Sean,
Speaker 1: very eloquent in your discussion of music Taster. I appreciate
Speaker 1: it and thank you for writing in. Oh on the
Speaker 1: MJ documentary, I need to finish it. I have not
Speaker 1: finished it, and I will finish it, and when I do,
Speaker 1: I will have more for you on that. All right, WHOA,
Speaker 1: we got a long one here, Oh, I gotta skip
Speaker 1: it because it's too long. Keith writes, what movie make
Speaker 1: America grid? Again, possibly predating Maga. Keith, I've no idea
Speaker 1: what you're talking about, I'm sorry to say, Brendan, Are
Speaker 1: you available to chat? Do you think the president messed
Speaker 1: up by not building the border wall? Would AOC not
Speaker 1: vote for green tech wall? Well, Brendon, I'm available to
Speaker 1: read your message on a couple of or you on
Speaker 1: one hundred and thirty or so radio stations. But so
Speaker 1: that's kind of like chatting. And do I think AOC
Speaker 1: would not vote for green tech wall? I don't really
Speaker 1: know what you're asking me. Would she vote for solar
Speaker 1: panels on a wall? Maybe, but she wouldn't vote for
Speaker 1: the wall? Van? Right? Sorry? Do you not suppose that
Speaker 1: pistachio ice cream contains nuts? Seeing that a pistachio is
Speaker 1: a nut sounds like a double standard to me. Not
Speaker 1: not wink wink. However, I'm right there with you on
Speaker 1: Brownie's Sons nuts, brother, Van, pistachio is a nut. You
Speaker 1: are correct. However, in my experience, pistachio flavored ice cream
Speaker 1: is just that it is flavored with the nut flavor.
Speaker 1: It is not really the nuts that are giving it. Well,
Speaker 1: it is not whole nuts that are giving it flavor.
Speaker 1: I sound nuts right now. This isn't even making any sense.
Speaker 1: But I still think pistachio is the king of all
Speaker 1: ice cream flavors. So there, how about them pistachios? John?
Speaker 1: Another ice cream? The best ice cream flavor is Talenti's
Speaker 1: Old World Eggnog mind blowing shield sigh, John, John. I
Speaker 1: will tell you that I am a major Talenti ice
Speaker 1: cream fan. In fact, I have to kind of keep
Speaker 1: tabs on whether I'm keeping into the house or not
Speaker 1: because I will rip through that stuff. And men, that
Speaker 1: is a sugar bomb and a half. But it is
Speaker 1: so good. The salted caramel ice cream flavor that has
Speaker 1: the chunks of a salted caramel is incredible, one of
Speaker 1: my one of my favorite favorite things. Also, the pistachio
Speaker 1: is very very good. We should get I wish I
Speaker 1: could get Talentia as a sponsor, but you know, probably
Speaker 1: it's owned by a big corporation who knows Russell rights Buck.
Speaker 1: I'm a fairly new listener to your show. I take
Speaker 1: a lot of stock in what you say about but
Speaker 1: I'm not very smart about a lot of political issues.
Speaker 1: One thing that resonates in the back of my mind
Speaker 1: is when you talk about the left trying to take
Speaker 1: over the presidency or throw Trump out without justification. Can
Speaker 1: that not be considered treason? My shields are high now,
Speaker 1: thank you for your insights well Russell, I'm glad your
Speaker 1: shields are high, and welcome to the team. Great to
Speaker 1: have you as part of our daily gathering of patriots
Speaker 1: from across the nation and around the world. As for treason,
Speaker 1: treason is a specific thing. Treason is one of only
Speaker 1: three crimes outlined in the Constitution, treason, piracy and counterfeiting,
Speaker 1: and treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy
Speaker 1: in a time of war. Really, just generically betraying your
Speaker 1: country would not be treason, And I think we'd want
Speaker 1: to be very careful with how we applied the label
Speaker 1: treason in terms of our political disputes. But in an
Speaker 1: interesting question, And thank you so much for writing in
Speaker 1: and good to have you here in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: That's going to be the show for today, my friends.
Speaker 1: I already saw the trailer for Game of Thrones last season.
Speaker 1: I'm excited about that. We'll talk about that probably on Friday.
Speaker 1: In the meantime team. No matter what comes your way,
Speaker 1: you know what your orders are, SHIELDSAYE. So I remember
Speaker 1: when I came down to DC and we had to
Speaker 1: staff up so quickly for a Hill TV, and we
Speaker 1: were trying to find the best people as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: And you know, we could have just overworked our HR
Speaker 1: department and hope that we just got in some kind
Speaker 1: of a you know, lucky streak, or we could do
Speaker 1: what we did, which was go to zip recruiter dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. That's right. I used my zip recruiter
Speaker 1: account to hire a number of my colleagues, and I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how quickly the process went and how
Speaker 1: successful it was because zipp recruiter sends your job to
Speaker 1: over one hundred of the web's leading job boards, and
Speaker 1: they don't stop there because they have a powerful matching
Speaker 1: technology that means that zip recruiter scans thousands of resumes
Speaker 1: to find the right people with the right experience and
Speaker 1: invites them to apply. Right now, my listeners can try
Speaker 1: zipp Recruiter like I did for free at this exclusive
Speaker 1: web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck. That's zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com. Slash Buck again. ZIP recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck