Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Well, it's finally happened.
Speaker 1: The Democrat majority has taken the House. They are now
Speaker 1: in charge and things are gonna get rough. But the
Speaker 1: good news is President Trump so far is sticking to
Speaker 1: his guns when it comes to the border wall, and
Speaker 1: it looks like the shutdown is going to continue for
Speaker 1: quite a while. Does he have the backbone? Just see
Speaker 1: it through that and more coming up on the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again.
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins. Remember no Power. Our mandate
Speaker 1: for the people to lower healthcare costs and for scripting
Speaker 1: drug prices and protect people with pre existing medical conditions.
Speaker 1: To increase paychecks by rebuilding America with green and modern
Speaker 1: infrastructure from C to shining C. To pass HR one,
Speaker 1: to restore integrity to government so that people can have
Speaker 1: confidence that government in a government that works for the people,
Speaker 1: not the special interest. We will make America fairer by
Speaker 1: passing the Equality Act to end discrimination against the LGBTQ community,
Speaker 1: and we will make America more American by passing by
Speaker 1: protecting our patriotic, courageous dreamers. None of that's actually going
Speaker 1: to happen. But that was Nancy Pelosi's opening Today she
Speaker 1: is now a Speaker of the House. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Come on in the water's warm. We
Speaker 1: are now living in a different political environment. The Democrats
Speaker 1: finally have control of well one one part of Congress,
Speaker 1: and that means that things are going to get Things
Speaker 1: are gonna get messy, messy Pelosi and her priorities, Oh my,
Speaker 1: the last one I thought, and that laundry list was
Speaker 1: the most interesting. We're going to make America more American
Speaker 1: by making non Americans in the country illegally Americans. The
Speaker 1: dreamer's issue is one that the Democrats talk so much about,
Speaker 1: and yet the more you dig into it, the more
Speaker 1: you see that it's just the beginning of what is
Speaker 1: mass amnesty. It's mass I'm telling you it will be
Speaker 1: mass amnesty, meaning everybody more or less unless you are
Speaker 1: a hardened criminal. And even then, you know the ACLU
Speaker 1: and LaRaza and whatever whatever groups out there that ken
Speaker 1: will intervene to try to prevent there from being any
Speaker 1: more deportations. If they get. If they get Dreamers, it's
Speaker 1: all over. In fact, it's it's just the reason they're
Speaker 1: so set on it, as they know that with that
Speaker 1: domino falling, all the rest of them toward amnesty will
Speaker 1: will follow. But Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Again,
Speaker 1: it's I'm trying to get used to it. You know.
Speaker 1: I remember what it was like back in the day.
Speaker 1: I remember not too long ago, what it was, what
Speaker 1: it meant for this government to have Nancy Pelosi in
Speaker 1: that position. Donald Trump will not be president of the
Speaker 1: United States. Take it to the bank. Remember that. Yep,
Speaker 1: turns out Nancy was wrong on that one. So that's
Speaker 1: good news. But you have this this new Congress that
Speaker 1: I don't know how much people really care about it
Speaker 1: outside the Beltway. There's a lot of pomp and circumstance today.
Speaker 1: Who the new Congress. We had all these speeches, you know, yeah, whatever,
Speaker 1: How does it matter to you? Well, it matters because,
Speaker 1: for one, we're now in a divided government scenario and
Speaker 1: that means gridlock. And I will just say that may
Speaker 1: be a good thing, you know, at least when a
Speaker 1: government is divided in this way. And keep in mind
Speaker 1: the way that they've set it up. The government's divided
Speaker 1: even when it's not. You know, unless you have sixty
Speaker 1: votes in the Senate, you can't really get all that
Speaker 1: much done, as we've seen, unless you have the sixty votes.
Speaker 1: And this is a restraint that's put on members of Congress.
Speaker 1: Buy members of Congress, you know, I mean Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: on the and the Senate Republicans were essentially the guys
Speaker 1: yelling hold me back in a bar fight. When there's
Speaker 1: no one holding the back. They're holding themselves back. They
Speaker 1: could have gone, you know, they could have changed the
Speaker 1: Senate rules. They could do that. They could make it
Speaker 1: a simple majority vote. There's nothing constitutional about the sixty
Speaker 1: vote threshold for getting bills passed. That's just they've just
Speaker 1: made that up. They've just decided that this is how
Speaker 1: they want to do it. But now we are going
Speaker 1: to see what it's like when the Democrats can set
Speaker 1: the agenda in the House, can use House resources and
Speaker 1: really the bully pulpit of the floor of the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives to just be another voice of opposition against
Speaker 1: the administration. You know, when you count them up, there's
Speaker 1: plenty of bastions of hashtag resistance. There's a lot of them,
Speaker 1: the judiciary. All you need, I mean, this is a
Speaker 1: legal strategy, folks, that's been deployed against even It's a
Speaker 1: form of lawfare against the Trump administration. You have Flora,
Speaker 1: you know for forum shopping, plural Flora right forum shopping.
Speaker 1: You just all you need to do is bring a
Speaker 1: case against the federal government in California, New York, Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: Some federal judge will put a nationwide injunction in place
Speaker 1: and essentially overrule the executive branch and the Trump administration
Speaker 1: on a matter of policy until they can get the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court to weigh in. This is not hard, there's
Speaker 1: stein being them. Then you add into the media opposite
Speaker 1: the media opposition to Trump, which is just at levels
Speaker 1: that are insane. I mean they are in a frothy
Speaker 1: mouthed anti Trump rage all the time. And now you've
Speaker 1: got the House of Representatives also added into it, where
Speaker 1: you got a majority that Nancy Pelosi's gonna lead and
Speaker 1: they're gonna do the look they've I think there was
Speaker 1: already someone today who introduced articles of impeachment. They're going
Speaker 1: to impeach. Just all talk to the contrary is they're
Speaker 1: just trying to make it. You know, they don't want
Speaker 1: to give away the ending of the movie, even though
Speaker 1: we all know how this movie is gonna end. All
Speaker 1: you have to do is listen to them, hear them
Speaker 1: talk about this. Nancy Pelosi today was and we'll play
Speaker 1: the audio later. She's saying, maybe even the president can
Speaker 1: be criminally indicted. Wait what I thought. I thought that
Speaker 1: wasn't supposed to happen. This was actually yesterday, Representative Hank
Speaker 1: This is the mentality of these Democrats. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: prepare you and me at the same time, or prepare
Speaker 1: us psychologically for the onslaught that's coming of smears, lies,
Speaker 1: lawfair investiga, investigations. Just meant his harassment and presidential harassment
Speaker 1: is going to be what our House of Representatives is
Speaker 1: doing more than anything else for the next eighteen months.
Speaker 1: That's what's going to be happening. Just listen. Here, here's
Speaker 1: Congressman Johnson, Democrat from Georgia, yesterday speaking about the president
Speaker 1: the United States place. Seventeen Americans elected an authoritarian, anti immigrant,
Speaker 1: racist strong man to the nation's highest office, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: and his make America Great Again followers who want to
Speaker 1: return America back to a time when white men and
Speaker 1: white privilege were unchallenged and where minorities and women were
Speaker 1: in their place. Much like Hitler took over the Nazi Party,
Speaker 1: Trump has taken over the Republican Party. Oh yeah, there
Speaker 1: we go. A Hitler reference. You knew it was common, folks,
Speaker 1: you knew it was coming. A Hitler reference to the
Speaker 1: President of the United States. Guys, we're really we're really
Speaker 1: going to get down to brass taxire for a moment.
Speaker 1: Trump is governing largely as a you know, accept on
Speaker 1: the issue of immigration, the wall to be fair, which
Speaker 1: is a signature issue. But he's been been pretty centrist
Speaker 1: on all these pretty centrist on foreign policy, on taxes,
Speaker 1: on they didn't repeal Obamacare, they truncated it a bit,
Speaker 1: they cut it down. But you know, he's been and
Speaker 1: a lot of ways on policy actually a pretty moderate
Speaker 1: GOP or conservative force. You know, he has not been
Speaker 1: some hard I mean, and then Hitler stuff is this
Speaker 1: is just things. This is something that people who aren't
Speaker 1: very smart say he's like Hitler, or let's compare him
Speaker 1: to Hitler. That's this is really an intelligence test, and
Speaker 1: it's one that much of the main stream media has
Speaker 1: has failed. Um, but it's one of the thing that
Speaker 1: we need to keep in mind going forward because they've
Speaker 1: they've been saying that this president is a racist, is
Speaker 1: a traitor, is Hitler. Total side note. Today, I had
Speaker 1: a I had a uber driver named Stalin, which I
Speaker 1: thought was pretty amazing. I've never that was his name.
Speaker 1: It popped up, I said, it's really your name is
Speaker 1: your first name is Stalin? Well, you know, maybe he's
Speaker 1: trying to, you know, take that name and do a little, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, change it up a little bit. It means
Speaker 1: man of Steel, wasn't actually, you know, Stalin's Stalin's name
Speaker 1: is not really his name. It's kind of like che
Speaker 1: Guvara is not Chay is not really his name anyway. Um,
Speaker 1: but yeah, they called Trump Hitler, so of course they're
Speaker 1: gonna have to. You're gonna you're gonna not impeach Hitler?
Speaker 1: What kind of what kind of president does that set? Right?
Speaker 1: I mean, they're gonna say this stupid stuff, They're gonna
Speaker 1: act on this stupid stuff, and they're gonna say moronic things.
Speaker 1: They're gonna act like morons. That's where the Democrats are
Speaker 1: gonna do. This is where it's heading. So we should
Speaker 1: just be prepared for that. We should also be prepared
Speaker 1: for a fair amount of rewriting history, which we know
Speaker 1: is always a thing that Democrats are engaged. And here's
Speaker 1: Representative Hakim Jeffries talking about the Pelosi nomination process today.
Speaker 1: Just given all this praise to Nancy play sixteen, Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: captain the ship that defeated the effort to privatize Social Security,
Speaker 1: rescued our economy in the midst of the Great Recession,
Speaker 1: save the American automobile industry, provided affordable healthcare, so more
Speaker 1: than twenty million Americans. Nancy Pelosi will fight to lower
Speaker 1: healthcare costs, strengthen the Affordable Care Act, protect people with
Speaker 1: pre existing conditions, increase pay for everyday Americans, and act
Speaker 1: the Real Infrastructure Plan, clean up corruption, defend the Dreamers,
Speaker 1: fix the Voting Rights Act, and in the era of
Speaker 1: voter suppression, once and for all. It's it's it's like
Speaker 1: a Maelstrom. It's a it's a tornado of wrong platitude,
Speaker 1: and what the heck were just subjected to their Uh
Speaker 1: you know, look, I know that politics in general, people
Speaker 1: boil things down to very basic phrases, and they want
Speaker 1: to they want to simplify things and all that. But
Speaker 1: you know, the idea that Nancy Pelosi is going to
Speaker 1: do all those things, or even wants to do all
Speaker 1: those things, just it's just nuts. The notion that Pelosi
Speaker 1: saved the economy. How how I mean they're talking about
Speaker 1: rewriting history. Democrats have gotten such a pass. And I look,
Speaker 1: I blame not just the news media, but pop culture too.
Speaker 1: You go back and look at the movie The Big Short.
Speaker 1: Not a mention of Fannie may or Freddie Mack in
Speaker 1: the movie The Big Short, not a mention of the
Speaker 1: Community Reinvestment Act and the Clinton administration policy of suing
Speaker 1: banks financially destroying people who wouldn't make loans to essentially
Speaker 1: based on FICO scores underqualified applicants, a lot of whom
Speaker 1: are minorities. So you know, the whole fin the whole
Speaker 1: Great Recession that we had to deal with, and the
Speaker 1: housing crisis. Yes, Wall Street played a role in. Wall
Speaker 1: Street is full of people who are rapaciously greedy, not
Speaker 1: all of them, but a lot of them. Is a
Speaker 1: lot of greed on Wall Street, no question. But there
Speaker 1: was also a tremendous amount of government policy policy that
Speaker 1: people like Pelosi. In fact, Pelosi was at the forefront
Speaker 1: of pushing for this stuff. But now we're going to
Speaker 1: say that she saved the account of anyway. You know,
Speaker 1: Pelosi is a classic classic limousine liberal. Claims to be
Speaker 1: a Catholic, but wants abortion all nine months of a
Speaker 1: pregnancy for any reason, every reason, and wants you to
Speaker 1: pay for it, by the way, but still goes and
Speaker 1: takes communion, you know, still thinks of herself as a
Speaker 1: good Catholic. How I don't know. I guess, you know,
Speaker 1: nothing really matters anymore. Nothing is what it is, all
Speaker 1: just subject to a whims and interpretation. But my friends,
Speaker 1: batten down the hatches because this is going to be
Speaker 1: a rough ride for the Trump administration starting today. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that they're gonna win. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: we're gonna lose. I'm just this is what there is
Speaker 1: so much insane rage. I mean, they really, you know,
Speaker 1: the elites, the the left wing power structure in this country,
Speaker 1: they hate Trump, but they also really hate Trump voters
Speaker 1: don't forget that. They also really despond for supporting this
Speaker 1: president up to this point. And they want payback. That's
Speaker 1: going to motivate a lot of what they do. That's
Speaker 1: going to be a factor here behind the scenes. I
Speaker 1: want to get into this shutdown where it stands. Obviously
Speaker 1: we're still going to shutdown, but you know the wall.
Speaker 1: I spoke to a senior Border patrol officer today. I'm
Speaker 1: hoping to get down to the border in the next
Speaker 1: couple of weeks, but I want to really dive into
Speaker 1: this issue of immigration because this is in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways make or break for the drump presidency. Can
Speaker 1: he can he get this wall? Can he fix this problem?
Speaker 1: That's the snakes are enormous right now. We'll come back
Speaker 1: to that because the President gave a press conference today
Speaker 1: kind of surprise people, so we'll talk about that a bit.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. I just appreciate them being here. I said,
Speaker 1: let's go out and see the press. You can tell
Speaker 1: them about the importance of the wall. They basically said,
Speaker 1: and I think I can take the word basically out.
Speaker 1: Without a wall, you cannot have border security without a
Speaker 1: very strong form of barrier. Call it what you will,
Speaker 1: but without a wall, you cannot have border security. It
Speaker 1: won't work. You see what's just been put out on
Speaker 1: social media where thousands of people are rushing the border
Speaker 1: having a drone fly overhead, and I think nobody knows
Speaker 1: much or about technology, this type of technology, certainly than
Speaker 1: I do. Having drones and various other form of censors.
Speaker 1: They're all fine, but they're not going to stop the
Speaker 1: problems that this country has. We've never had more people
Speaker 1: wanting to come to the United States, and that has
Speaker 1: to do with the economy and has to do with
Speaker 1: a lot of other things. We're doing great as a country,
Speaker 1: but the better we do, the more people want to
Speaker 1: come in. You can go out a barrier, you can
Speaker 1: go out whatever you want, but essentially we need protection
Speaker 1: in our country. We're going to make it good. The
Speaker 1: people of our country want it. I have never had
Speaker 1: so much support as I have in the last week
Speaker 1: over my stands for border security, for border control, and
Speaker 1: for frankly the wall or the barrier. I have never
Speaker 1: had anything like it in terms of calls coming in,
Speaker 1: in terms of people writing in and tweet and doing
Speaker 1: whatever they have to do. I've never had this much support,
Speaker 1: and we've done some things that, as you know, have
Speaker 1: been very popular. I hope the Trump sticks with it.
Speaker 1: Sounds like you will. This is a pivotal moment. This
Speaker 1: is a tipping point for the country. This is forcing
Speaker 1: the Democrats hand, This is forcing everyone to face the
Speaker 1: reality of what's happening at our southern border, which is
Speaker 1: that we do not have control of it. We have
Speaker 1: an ongoing illegal alien infiltration of the country that's been
Speaker 1: happening for decades. The tune of they say twelve million,
Speaker 1: now I think it's twenty to thirty. It's at least
Speaker 1: twenty and people want it to stop. They wanted to
Speaker 1: stop and a wall. This idea that a wall won't
Speaker 1: work of it. I had Border Patrol Chief Operations tell
Speaker 1: me today, of course the wall works. We very in
Speaker 1: favor of the wall. Border Agent Brandon Judd spoke at
Speaker 1: that press conference where we just played you some some
Speaker 1: of the audio of President Trump. This is what he
Speaker 1: said about it, play twenty three. I've been a Borba
Speaker 1: troll agent for twenty one years. I can personally tell
Speaker 1: you from the work that I have done on the
Speaker 1: Southwest border that physical barriers, that walls actually work. You
Speaker 1: hear a lot of talk from the expert that you
Speaker 1: hear a lot of talk that there are experts that
Speaker 1: say that walls don't work. I promise you that if
Speaker 1: you interview border patrol agents, they will tell you that
Speaker 1: walls work. I worked in Naco, Arizona for ten years.
Speaker 1: We didn't have physical barriers in Naco, and illegal immigration
Speaker 1: and drug smuggling was absolutely out of control. We built
Speaker 1: those walls, those physical barriers, and illegal immigration dropped exponentially.
Speaker 1: Anywhere that you look where we have built walls, they
Speaker 1: have worked. They have been an absolute necessity for border
Speaker 1: patrol agents in securing the border. We need those physical barriers,
Speaker 1: and we appreciate President Trump and all of his efforts
Speaker 1: in getting us those physical barriers. So this career border
Speaker 1: patrol agent Judd there, does he not know something that
Speaker 1: Nancy and Chuck know? Cold Can we get Nancy and
Speaker 1: Chuck to show up at that press conference and explain
Speaker 1: how walls don't work? I'd really like to. I'd like
Speaker 1: to know, you know, what is their argument to this.
Speaker 1: Are all the border patrol agents senior, all the way
Speaker 1: down to the rank and file, are they just that
Speaker 1: what they've all been bought off with maga hats? I mean,
Speaker 1: somebody needs to explain to me what the answer is
Speaker 1: from the Democrats, because everybody who knows a darned thing
Speaker 1: about the border says the same thing when it comes
Speaker 1: to the wall, and that is the wall would work,
Speaker 1: Walls do work, and we need a wall. The Democrats
Speaker 1: didn't know, didn't believe, and didn't care about anything Secretary
Speaker 1: Nilsen had to say. Had they listened, had they been
Speaker 1: able to understand, had they believe the information, they would
Speaker 1: now know that CBP has arrested seventeen thousand convicted criminals
Speaker 1: in one year coming into this country. Ice has detained
Speaker 1: almost four thousand known or suspected terrorists. Thousands of gang
Speaker 1: members have been arrested at our border as well. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi refused to listen to those numbers, and when they
Speaker 1: were actually said and spread around the room, she refused
Speaker 1: to believe them as well. I've never seen a thing
Speaker 1: like it in my life. Democrats are denialists when it
Speaker 1: comes to the border, denialists when it comes to the
Speaker 1: crime that surges into this country, the deaths, the misery,
Speaker 1: the despair that results from the lawlessness not just that
Speaker 1: our border, but also of our immigration policies and the
Speaker 1: lack of enforcement in the interior of this country, sanctuary
Speaker 1: city policies, unwillingness to work with federal law enforcement to
Speaker 1: get gang members who are in sanctuary jurisdictions not just
Speaker 1: arrested it out of the country out If they are illegals,
Speaker 1: they should not be here period. The numbers are staggering.
Speaker 1: You know. I had the Chief of Operations for Border
Speaker 1: Patrol on today. I talked to him for quite a
Speaker 1: bit offset on set, you know, on air and Chief Hastings,
Speaker 1: and we had a really interesting discussion about first of all,
Speaker 1: that the wall in Sandy and the barrier wall. You know,
Speaker 1: I hate the semantics. The barrier in place in the
Speaker 1: Sandy sied Row border sector at San Diego Central would
Speaker 1: separates San Diego from Tijuana. And now it's now that
Speaker 1: I know how to say it, it's kind of fun
Speaker 1: to say, and I'll kind of want struck my stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, Tijuana, Hello, Como Sta Tijuana. But that barrier
Speaker 1: is effective, and it's so effective in fact, that you
Speaker 1: have people from the caravan trying to destroy it so
Speaker 1: that they can get through. If it was just as
Speaker 1: easy as walk down the road a little bit and
Speaker 1: you'll get into the US where there's no barrier, guess what,
Speaker 1: they'd probably do that, right, They're trying to go through
Speaker 1: the barrier, trying to overrun. That's why you had that
Speaker 1: incident with one hundred and fifty migrants who are trying
Speaker 1: to overrun a one sector of the well, one part
Speaker 1: of the fence and then through rocks and had f
Speaker 1: tear gas deployed. But one part of this that I
Speaker 1: don't think that that doesn't get talked bet enough. The
Speaker 1: Border patrol chief that keeps saying chief, the chief operations.
Speaker 1: He told me that they're looking into this and they
Speaker 1: they have early indications that there are English payers on
Speaker 1: the other side of the board. I remember, this is
Speaker 1: a career law enforcement guy, all right. He's not he's
Speaker 1: not trying to win some political office. He's just telling
Speaker 1: me what he knows. He says, there are are reports.
Speaker 1: Now this is intel. This is not you know, this
Speaker 1: is not you know, a court record or matter public record.
Speaker 1: Yet there's intel. There are English speakers, you know, native
Speaker 1: English speakers on the other side of the border who
Speaker 1: are encouraging and helping to coordinate incidents like the one
Speaker 1: we saw on New Year's where you had an effort
Speaker 1: to mass in one place and overrun border patrol and
Speaker 1: to use specific tactics like putting women and children so
Speaker 1: that they throw rocks at border patrol, and then when
Speaker 1: the tear gas is deployed, they move women and children
Speaker 1: forward so that, yes, you can get these photos because
Speaker 1: obviously got journos down there, you get these photos of
Speaker 1: the women and children getting tear gas and all the
Speaker 1: stuff happening. But there's also the possibility, you know that
Speaker 1: depending on how they're deploying that tier gas, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe somebody gets hit by a tear gas projectile. Maybe
Speaker 1: you get a you know, a ten year old kid,
Speaker 1: and you know, I know there are different ways they
Speaker 1: can do this. You know, they can fire it out
Speaker 1: of a canister, and there's there's a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe they're just throwing the smoke bombs, but
Speaker 1: that you know, if you get somebody that's injured in
Speaker 1: that exchange, especially if you women or a child, that's
Speaker 1: all you're gonna hear about. That's all you're gonna hear about. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the stuff that I'm telling you about, like there are
Speaker 1: from senior level of Border Patrol. They're saying there are
Speaker 1: people that are coordinating us on the other side, causing
Speaker 1: a causing the optics that will then be used as
Speaker 1: open borders propaganda. Look at how evil we are, look
Speaker 1: at how bad our border patrol is being naughty, naughty,
Speaker 1: bad border patrol. They're trying to create those incidents, and
Speaker 1: then it's gonna be projected not just all around our media,
Speaker 1: but all around the world. So there is a hidden
Speaker 1: hand behind some of this. And I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: just guessing or making it up. I'm being told this
Speaker 1: by people who are down there on the front lines
Speaker 1: and who know. So that's one part. Of the other
Speaker 1: part is when you look at the storylines about how
Speaker 1: we've had two children have died, like any kid, any
Speaker 1: small child, then anyone who loses their life to an
Speaker 1: illness is a sad, sad story, regardless of you know
Speaker 1: what country they're from or the circussor you know it's
Speaker 1: it's a sad thing. So we start from that problem,
Speaker 1: and we're good people, so we automatically have an emotional
Speaker 1: response to a child who's who's brought to the border,
Speaker 1: who dies from from a disease of any kind, right,
Speaker 1: and we do want to help anybody who shows up
Speaker 1: at our border who's showing signs of an acute illness
Speaker 1: should be treated. That's who we are, That's that's the
Speaker 1: kind of people we are in America. But you know,
Speaker 1: there's another side to this story, and that is the
Speaker 1: as the chief told me today, over four thousand life
Speaker 1: saving measures taken by border patrol over the last year,
Speaker 1: four thousand incidents of border patrol saving people who were drowning,
Speaker 1: saving people who were dying from thirst, you know, or
Speaker 1: or or from hypothermia being you know, the grabbed out
Speaker 1: in the desert. People forget the desert in the wintertime
Speaker 1: or even just at night gets really cold, right, intervening
Speaker 1: in life saving fashion and in some cases with real
Speaker 1: risk to themselves. You know, border patrol guys got to
Speaker 1: go out and jump out in the river and try
Speaker 1: to save somebody who's drowning. Anybody who's ever tried to
Speaker 1: save somebody from drowning will tell you it's it's danger
Speaker 1: for number of reasons. One is the person you're trying
Speaker 1: to save might pull you under because they're panicking, and
Speaker 1: you know that's just the response that they're going to happen.
Speaker 1: So you know, you're not here about the four thousand
Speaker 1: lives that Border Patrol has saved or a life saving
Speaker 1: incidents involved with them. You do hear so much more
Speaker 1: about these two children. Now we've got a policy where
Speaker 1: everyone's going to be checked when they come to the border.
Speaker 1: Guess what's going to happen. Guess what's gonna happen. Now,
Speaker 1: this is going to be abused. Now we're going to
Speaker 1: see people that are showing up of the border with
Speaker 1: chronic health conditions and they're going Now that that's you know,
Speaker 1: that's a different thing than you show up and say, okay,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're a kid and you're running a
Speaker 1: one hundred and three fever and we're worried about you,
Speaker 1: you know, we take care of children. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're you know, these are you know, the men and
Speaker 1: women of Border Patrol, their moms, their dads, their brothers
Speaker 1: and sisters, they got kids of their own. They're not
Speaker 1: you know, they're not heartless people. In fact, quite the
Speaker 1: country their law enforcement doing a really important job, and
Speaker 1: they get a lot of grief from the media, not
Speaker 1: a not a lot of praise. You think of how
Speaker 1: much how in love with the like senior reaches of
Speaker 1: the FBI the media is because of Muller and you know,
Speaker 1: destroying Trump versus the way they treat border patrol, and
Speaker 1: you just see that it's it's all. It's opportunistic from them.
Speaker 1: It's opportunistic. I got more. I mean, as the border
Speaker 1: is an issue is you know, I'm very very fired
Speaker 1: up on this. So We're going to talk more about
Speaker 1: this in a moment. Stay with me. Democrats refuse to
Speaker 1: acknowledge the facts. What the President did today was monumental.
Speaker 1: He brought them to the White House, to the Situation
Speaker 1: Room to have a conversation with Secretary Nielsen so she
Speaker 1: could brief them on all the crisis that's going on
Speaker 1: in the border. These numbers are devastating, they are sad,
Speaker 1: they are needless, and they are senseless, and Democrats wanted
Speaker 1: nothing to do with it. In fact, the President opened
Speaker 1: the meeting, he then turned to Secretary Nielsen, introduced her,
Speaker 1: and said, now she's going to begin her briefing. Within
Speaker 1: five seconds, Chuck Schumer prompted Nancy Pelosi to cut Secretary
Speaker 1: Nielsen off, which she dutifully did within seconds, and then
Speaker 1: the entire presentation was basically over. I bet that the
Speaker 1: Secretary probably said fifty words in the entire presentation. I
Speaker 1: think that's really emblematic here of where the Democrats are
Speaker 1: on the boarder and on immigration in general. They just
Speaker 1: don't want to hear it. They just want to tell
Speaker 1: stories about about illegal alien valedictorians, and they want to
Speaker 1: tell stories about family separation, and that's it. That there's
Speaker 1: nothing else. They don't want to talk about. What it
Speaker 1: does to depress wages to have so many illegals dump
Speaker 1: to the country, what it's doing in communities across the country,
Speaker 1: to have so many legals in the schools and the
Speaker 1: English as a second language. None of that, they don't
Speaker 1: want to hear any of that. They don't want to
Speaker 1: hear about the opioid crisis and how the cartels are
Speaker 1: playing such a huge, huge role in this. And I'm
Speaker 1: gonna chase this story down. I mean, I'm gonna start
Speaker 1: writing more on this and trying to I'm glad I
Speaker 1: get to talk to all you, all of you about it,
Speaker 1: and thank you for listening on these issues because it's
Speaker 1: so important. There is a media bias toward talking about
Speaker 1: the opioid epidemic as though it is primarily a function
Speaker 1: of over prescription by doctors, and again I have sources
Speaker 1: here and I've spoken to people in the DJ about
Speaker 1: this issue specifically, and the truth is that the stats
Speaker 1: that show over seventy thousand people dying from phansnopias are
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly point toward illegal, illegal drugs that are being sold
Speaker 1: by the cartels or by subsidiaries that the cartels in
Speaker 1: this country on the streets. That's what's driving the opioid epidemic. Now,
Speaker 1: doctors aren't idiots. They know that they've got to watch
Speaker 1: who they're prescribing and what they're prescribing now, and they
Speaker 1: know that da has caused a thirty percent drop in
Speaker 1: overall opioid prescriptions in this country, and I think the
Speaker 1: last two years. I have to check for the spam,
Speaker 1: but it's it's down thirty percent from its height. So
Speaker 1: d EA is they're going after doctors, and obviously that's
Speaker 1: how to real effect. But what the cartels are doing
Speaker 1: is filling in now. They know there's this huge market
Speaker 1: for opioids, so they're making them in Mexico, they are
Speaker 1: making counterfeit fentanyl and in fact, they've had cases in
Speaker 1: certain states. It's it's certainly happening in Cali Fornia, where
Speaker 1: they will make fentanyl. The cartels will illegally make fentanyl
Speaker 1: and make it look like oxycontent, so people think they're
Speaker 1: taking black market oxy, but it's actually fentanyl. Fentanyl is
Speaker 1: easier to make, it's only like a four step process,
Speaker 1: and fentanyl is much more potent than OxyContin is. So
Speaker 1: that just and so they're trying to fill in where
Speaker 1: where there's now this this market for elicit drugs, they're
Speaker 1: trying to fill in by making it look like it's
Speaker 1: big pharma drugs. But really this is the cartels posing
Speaker 1: as big pharma to make make profits those and so
Speaker 1: you know that's now you gotta understand that people are
Speaker 1: being found, they're finding oxycontent pills on them and at
Speaker 1: overdose sites. One it's not really oxy. So this doesn't
Speaker 1: come from any of the big pharma companies. Now, this
Speaker 1: isn't Fiser, This isn't you know, any of the big
Speaker 1: drug makers out there necessarily. I mean that there's some
Speaker 1: of that too, obviously there's black market sales or prescription drugs.
Speaker 1: But just to show you where this is trending. Now
Speaker 1: you have the cartels pretending that they're big pharma pills
Speaker 1: and making them appear to be you know, using the molds,
Speaker 1: the same molds so that they can sell this to
Speaker 1: people illegally. So you know, that's you know, that's I
Speaker 1: think a really important story for people to know because
Speaker 1: border security isn't just national security, because it's of possible
Speaker 1: terrorists infiltrations and all that people tend to a lot
Speaker 1: of people will just tune that out. It is an
Speaker 1: issue of life and death because of the drug trade
Speaker 1: in this country and what it is doing in this country,
Speaker 1: and most of that stuff is coming across the border.
Speaker 1: Most overdosees are from illegally obtained drugs, which can include
Speaker 1: prescription drugs, but it's illegally obtained drugs. And the Democrats
Speaker 1: don't even they don't really want to talk about then
Speaker 1: they got nothing on this. They no willingness to hear
Speaker 1: out what's really going on. And that also brings me
Speaker 1: to speaking of California in the cartels, you know, sanctuary laws.
Speaker 1: My friend Lawrence Jones has been doing some men on
Speaker 1: the streets. The Lawrence Jones used working at the Blaze.
Speaker 1: Now he's a Fox, a Fox contributor. Lawrence a great guy,
Speaker 1: and he's been asking residence California what they think of
Speaker 1: the state sanctuary laws. This was interesting play clip for
Speaker 1: a lot of people are blaming the California sanctuary state policy.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with that? I think it's the worst
Speaker 1: thing California has done. A little gun. I'm not the
Speaker 1: big wall person, but I think a sanctuary state is crazy.
Speaker 1: Sanctuary city policy, it's the stupidest thing that Democrats could
Speaker 1: have ever done in this country. Well, it's stupid from
Speaker 1: the perspective. I agree with that last fellow on the
Speaker 1: street there. It's it's stupid from the perspective of law
Speaker 1: and order and public safety and rule of law. But
Speaker 1: if all you're really trying to do is ensure a
Speaker 1: Democrats supermajority to actually kind of evil, brilliant if you
Speaker 1: want to want another truth, it makes a lot of
Speaker 1: They get to pose as the humanitarians, the nice people,
Speaker 1: the saviors, the democrat the left, all these progressive open
Speaker 1: borders activists. They get to be the ones too, you know,
Speaker 1: who care, who are kind, who who want to help people.
Speaker 1: And the media is completely complicit in this. Media doesn't
Speaker 1: want to doesn't want anyone to hear the stories about,
Speaker 1: you know, the deaths that result from an unwillingness to
Speaker 1: work with federal law enforcement at the local level and
Speaker 1: to deport people who are dangerous. They don't want to
Speaker 1: talk about Kate Steinley. They don't want to talk about
Speaker 1: Officers sing and California's Sheriff Adam Christensen, he wants to
Speaker 1: talk about it because he's still obviously furious about what
Speaker 1: happened to Officer Ronald Singh, and we talked about him
Speaker 1: on the show yesterday. This officer was killed in line
Speaker 1: of duty in a traffic stop. Here's what this California
Speaker 1: your Sheriff says about sanctuary city policies. Play three. I
Speaker 1: simply want to focus on the fact that this is
Speaker 1: a criminal, illegal alien with prior criminal activity that should
Speaker 1: have been reported to ice. We were prohibited. Law enforcement
Speaker 1: was prohibited because of sanctuary laws, and that led to
Speaker 1: the encounter with officers Singh. I'm suggesting that the outcome
Speaker 1: could have been different if law enforcement wasn't restricted, prohibited,
Speaker 1: or had their hands tied because of political interference. That's right.
Speaker 1: Officers Sings left behind a wife and a five year
Speaker 1: old son. A five year old son doesn't have a
Speaker 1: dad anymore. Officers sing was the model of what we
Speaker 1: want immigrants to be in this country, come in legally,
Speaker 1: you know, be a stable family, member of a family,
Speaker 1: productive citizen, Serve your country, serve your community. We want
Speaker 1: Officer Sings, We don't want Gustavo Perez's the illegal alien,
Speaker 1: long criminal record. But they didn't want to turn them
Speaker 1: over to ICE. It's committing crimes. Didn't want to turn
Speaker 1: them over to the ICE. That's mean. Well, you know
Speaker 1: what I think is really mean when people who are
Speaker 1: charged with public safety, when elected officials, act in a
Speaker 1: lawless fashion that results in the death of a public servant,
Speaker 1: the ruination of a good American family, and undermining the
Speaker 1: rule of law in the process, all because they want
Speaker 1: to seem like they're so compassionate. You know, it's not compassionate.
Speaker 1: Leaving behind Officer Singh's wife and five year old child.
Speaker 1: That's not compassionate. It's a new year and you're probably
Speaker 1: thinking about some new hires you've got to make, or
Speaker 1: if you're a property owner, maybe you're going to be
Speaker 1: leasing it out soon. Right, you need background checks done.
Speaker 1: That's just a part of the process. Go with the
Speaker 1: only dual certified, veteran owned background investigation company out there,
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network, Global Verification Network is certified as a
Speaker 1: veteran owned business and they are all about customer service
Speaker 1: and getting things done. You just call them at eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. Whatever
Speaker 1: vetting you need done, whatever background checks you need for
Speaker 1: a huge company, small company, even if you're individual proprietor
Speaker 1: if you're gonna be leasing out your property, this is
Speaker 1: who you want to go with. I can vouch for them.
Speaker 1: I know the CEO, and I've gone to them before
Speaker 1: for help in the vetting process. So you need to
Speaker 1: check them out for yourself. Go to my GVN dot
Speaker 1: com for more information again, Global Verification Network businesses of
Speaker 1: any size, and if you already got somebody doing your
Speaker 1: background checks called Global Verification, see what they've got for you.
Speaker 1: Eight seven seven six nine five eleven seventy nine. If
Speaker 1: he gives in now, that's the end of twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: In terms of him being an effective president, that's probably
Speaker 1: the end of his presidency. Trump has made a promise
Speaker 1: to the American people He's going to secure our border.
Speaker 1: Every Democrat in the past I agree with the border funding,
Speaker 1: keep changing their mind, and Lindsey Graham when he's right,
Speaker 1: he's right. You know, and the man is in the zone.
Speaker 1: He's pretty good, and I think he's correct here in
Speaker 1: terms of Trump, Trump can't cave. We might be in
Speaker 1: a shutdown for a very long time. Trump cannot cave,
Speaker 1: and that means that this is just going to continue
Speaker 1: on ultimately because Democrats don't want a secure border, and
Speaker 1: we should have to make them really live with that reality.
Speaker 1: We can allow them to get away with the platitudes,
Speaker 1: you know, oh yeah, we want more border security. You know.
Speaker 1: I I get so frustrated out of here from from
Speaker 1: I had a new member of Congress on today. He's
Speaker 1: from Nevada. I can't remember the guy's name. I interview
Speaker 1: a lot of congressmen these days, and that's a lot
Speaker 1: of it blurs together, and you know, but he's saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: he's a Democrat obviously, because you know, Crystals Crystal brought
Speaker 1: him on because we get to pick different I pick
Speaker 1: people that I want to speak to. She picks people
Speaker 1: that she will So today I got to speak to
Speaker 1: the head of Border oh sorry, the chief of Operations
Speaker 1: of Board of Patrol, which is very interesting. Um and
Speaker 1: Crystal brought in this guy who was a who's a
Speaker 1: new congressman. But he's saying, you know, democrats are four,
Speaker 1: um are four border security? And how he's gonna say how?
Speaker 1: And they say they're for a border security, but we
Speaker 1: should also ask why they claim to be for border
Speaker 1: security when they don't really seem to think that there's
Speaker 1: a problem with people being in the country illegally, right,
Speaker 1: they say, uh, you know, here, here's here's a perfect
Speaker 1: example of a Democrat on MSNBC. I don't even know
Speaker 1: who is Maria Hino Joseph. I don't know, is this
Speaker 1: some kind of policy analyst person or something, but she's
Speaker 1: giving voice to this on MSNBC's air play clip five.
Speaker 1: First of all, he calls them illegal immigrants. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing. And as an illegal immigrant, sir, no illegal
Speaker 1: human being in the planet. With Kelly, there is no
Speaker 1: such thing as an illegal human being? How many times
Speaker 1: we have to say this? Get your grammar correct? Okay, okay, um,
Speaker 1: She's not she's not a well informed person. She's a journalist.
Speaker 1: That's so. I mean, it's not surprised, you know, lots
Speaker 1: of journalists are not well informed in this issue. But
Speaker 1: she's wrong because federal law states that there is, in
Speaker 1: fact something called an illegal alien, and that is what
Speaker 1: people who are in the country illegally are to be called.
Speaker 1: They're not undocumented. You can try to play all these
Speaker 1: word games as much as you want, but you're wrong.
Speaker 1: This is this is a right and wrong issue. This
Speaker 1: is the you remember at CNN at Apple and Banana,
Speaker 1: which is hilaris because CNN is, you know, full of
Speaker 1: garbage and lies all the time. Uh, but this is
Speaker 1: where they you know, you have to make a stand.
Speaker 1: You're against this. You can't let them get away with this.
Speaker 1: And the fact that she's on MSNBC saying this crap.
Speaker 1: There's no such thing as an I legal immigrant. That's
Speaker 1: a lie. That's just not true. You know, this is
Speaker 1: like saying there's no such thing as a murderer. No,
Speaker 1: there are, there are murderers. There's no such thing as homicide.
Speaker 1: No homicide exists. You can say you you don't want
Speaker 1: it to exist, but that's not This is not up
Speaker 1: for debater discussion. As a quick aside here, I saw
Speaker 1: Chelsea Manning tweeted out this is now something you'll see
Speaker 1: among among left wing activists. They'll just write the same
Speaker 1: thing out like ten times on Twitter and Chelsea Manning,
Speaker 1: who you know, sold out his country and you know
Speaker 1: for what and now is lionizing. You read these you
Speaker 1: read these, uh you know, editorials about how Chelsea Manning
Speaker 1: not only will they talk about how you know he's
Speaker 1: some kind of hero now, but also that you know,
Speaker 1: he's like really attractive in this as a transgender female. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's that's coming. By the way, you're bigoted. If as
Speaker 1: a as a heterosexual male you do not find transgender females,
Speaker 1: which are also known as males, attractive, you're bigoted. That's
Speaker 1: you've already seen it happening. Some people have written it,
Speaker 1: some people, you know. But the Miss Universe contest, you know,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to I can't even watch this show, The
Speaker 1: Marvelous Miss Mazal, which is supposed to take place in
Speaker 1: the fifties, but you know it's Amazon. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: so progressive, so much lib nonsense going on. It's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why I like shows at least that
Speaker 1: are from like the you know, then supposed to take
Speaker 1: place in ancient Rome or something, because at least then
Speaker 1: we don't have them all just giving long speeches on diversity.
Speaker 1: You know, we don't have Cicero standing up like, yes,
Speaker 1: what then what the Roman consuls need is more diversity,
Speaker 1: you know, at least if it's if it's a historical
Speaker 1: period piece or period show. You don't get you know,
Speaker 1: you don't have quite as many lectures about transgenderism. But
Speaker 1: sure enough, I'm watching the marvelous Miss Mazel with Miss
Speaker 1: with Miss Molly, and they there's this. They go into
Speaker 1: this drag show in Paris, and the main characters starts
Speaker 1: talking about how beautiful all these men dressed as women are. False.
Speaker 1: You know, if we're now beauty is sure, it's subjective,
Speaker 1: it's an aesthetic thing. But you know, I do not
Speaker 1: find men who dress as women beautiful, and I don't
Speaker 1: need people to go through this pretense of all acting
Speaker 1: like there that that's a beautiful thing. You know. That's
Speaker 1: the Today's I know you got me on transgender. I
Speaker 1: was talking immigration. Now I'm on transgender. That Today's show
Speaker 1: just had on this this transgender child or I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, not transgender child. Pardon me scratched that from her,
Speaker 1: This drag show child, this little boy who's dressed as
Speaker 1: a as a female in gyrating on stageless Leff and
Speaker 1: This is just sick. This is bizarre. But Chelsea man,
Speaker 1: and going back to the how I got on all
Speaker 1: this is saying that they and them is a singular
Speaker 1: pronoun and and he wrote that out. You know ten
Speaker 1: times that's just not true. And two plus two does
Speaker 1: not equal five. One plus one does not equal three.
Speaker 1: They can say it, they can say it, they can
Speaker 1: say it. It does not make it so. And this
Speaker 1: is true on immigration as well. Illegal aliens are a
Speaker 1: thing in law, in statute, in reality. You can go on,
Speaker 1: you can try to make me say undocumented. You will
Speaker 1: fail because you're wrong. This is a right and wrong issue. See,
Speaker 1: this is why they can't. I mean, can you imagine
Speaker 1: they have me on MSNBC or CNN. I'll just buck
Speaker 1: slap everybody. Then they won't even know what I won't
Speaker 1: even know what hit him. It's not even gonna happen.
Speaker 1: So and for those of you are saying, oh Buck,
Speaker 1: why aren't you more tenacious and slapping people around on Rising?
Speaker 1: I my co host. That's a special. That's a special relationship,
Speaker 1: co host relationship or special. It's like an on air marriage.
Speaker 1: You know, this is your this is the person that
Speaker 1: you are. You are doing a show with you were
Speaker 1: putting out a product. So Crystal's a wonderful person, and
Speaker 1: we share our points of view without attacking each other.
Speaker 1: Everybody else who comes though, it's fair game. But you know,
Speaker 1: I've got a deal with the fact that you can't
Speaker 1: get a lot of libs to come on and debate
Speaker 1: on these issues. You can't get a lot of libs
Speaker 1: that want to talk about this with people like me
Speaker 1: because they know they're gonna be in a lot of
Speaker 1: they're gonna be in a tough spot. They'd rather just
Speaker 1: preach to the choir on on how there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as an a legal person. There's no such thing
Speaker 1: as an a legal person. It's a lie. But anyway,
Speaker 1: back to the wall, I know I'm covering a lot
Speaker 1: in this segment. I've gotten a little fired up and
Speaker 1: I'm flying all over the place. So I'm sorry about
Speaker 1: the lack of I liked other radio hosts. You know,
Speaker 1: Oh this happened, and that happened. Let's worry about this
Speaker 1: other story. I mean, I sometimes we'll hear, you know,
Speaker 1: in a car with a radio on, I'll hear, you know,
Speaker 1: how other hosts do this. And I'm always amazed that
Speaker 1: they'll just, oh, let's come from this topic to that topic.
Speaker 1: You know. Oh, you know Bill over there at the
Speaker 1: County Farm. He's got this guy whoa. I thought we're
Speaker 1: talking about tacks reform. You know what happened. People jump
Speaker 1: all over the place. But I try to stay more
Speaker 1: on topic. When I can, Lindsey Graham back, We'll bring
Speaker 1: it all back to Lindsey Graham. He says that Trump
Speaker 1: is not going to sign a bill that doesn't have
Speaker 1: money for the wall. I hope he's right. Flay clip too.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you how our government works. Any bill
Speaker 1: passed from the House has to come to the Senate,
Speaker 1: task gets sixty votes, and for it to be signed
Speaker 1: in the law, the president has to sign it. He's
Speaker 1: not going to sign a bill that doesn't have money
Speaker 1: for the wall. I tell you exactly how this is
Speaker 1: going to end. The President is going to challenge the
Speaker 1: Democrats to compromise, and if they continue to say no,
Speaker 1: they're going to pay a price. With American people. Most
Speaker 1: Americans want to do two things. They want to secure
Speaker 1: our border and they want to be reasonable to people
Speaker 1: like the DOCA population. DOCCA Lindsey Graham, Docca is a
Speaker 1: lot more complicated and from a rule of law position,
Speaker 1: a lot more precarious than most mainstream goop folks willing admit,
Speaker 1: including I think Lindsey Graham. DOCCA is not some simple
Speaker 1: thing that we're just gonna give people status and it's
Speaker 1: all gonna be great, that you're gonna it's gonna be
Speaker 1: the number they tell you is gonna be a fraction
Speaker 1: of the end number. And there's gonna be lawsuits from
Speaker 1: here to Kingdom. Come on, people saying that they should
Speaker 1: get DOCCA, who didn't get DOCCA, And oh, I'm a
Speaker 1: DOCCA person too, and oh, you can't prove I'm not
Speaker 1: that all said, I think if Trump really holds the
Speaker 1: line on this, I think Lindsey Graham is right that
Speaker 1: he needs to hold a line on this, we'll see
Speaker 1: where the American people really stand. But this is a
Speaker 1: pure political fight. This is all about public perception and
Speaker 1: the pressure that that can be brought to bear on
Speaker 1: elected representatives. That's what's gonna determine whether this show, how
Speaker 1: this shutdown ends one way or the other. So that's
Speaker 1: why we need to keep the pressure on team. That's
Speaker 1: what we're doing. I want to introduce you to a
Speaker 1: new conservative alternative to all those superlib email services out there,
Speaker 1: ipatriots dot Us. You see, ipatriots dot us is a
Speaker 1: conservative alternative that does not share your information with all
Speaker 1: these third parties, doesn't support a bunch of progressive left
Speaker 1: wing agenda items. It's a secure, private email server that
Speaker 1: gives you more of what you want with none of
Speaker 1: the nonsense. With ipatriots dot us. You get thirty gigs
Speaker 1: of cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and much more. And
Speaker 1: you know your email files are safe because of their
Speaker 1: premium encryption. All right, ipatriots dot us doesn't sell your
Speaker 1: info and it doesn't support all that nonsense from Silicon Valley.
Speaker 1: It's a emails or email service that's compatible with most
Speaker 1: mobile devices, iPhone, iPad, Android, you name it. It works
Speaker 1: on any Windows or Mac computer. So show your a patriot.
Speaker 1: Go to ipatriots dot us now, choose your membership program again.
Speaker 1: Enter promo code buck for ten percent savings during your
Speaker 1: first year of membership Again, ipatriots dot us now promo
Speaker 1: code buc K for ten percent savings. Moller only heard
Speaker 1: evidence from people who were trying to find evidence of
Speaker 1: crimes and sins against President Trump, he didn't listen to
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence. He didn't allow anybody to cross examine these witnesses.
Speaker 1: What if, for example, he's relying on Cohen, or he's
Speaker 1: relying on Manaphor, and they haven't been cross examined. These
Speaker 1: are people who were admitted liars, and so it seems
Speaker 1: to me the Trump team has to have an opportunity
Speaker 1: to present their case and then Congress and the public
Speaker 1: can look at them both together. So team, as you know,
Speaker 1: I'm here in the swamp, and that has some the
Speaker 1: drawback is that it's the swamp and I'm surrounded by
Speaker 1: a lot of people are like, oh, I look for
Speaker 1: Congress Monzelazell I really important. No, really, not that important,
Speaker 1: slower role. They're nerdy hill staffer. I do not care.
Speaker 1: But there are some There are some benefits, and one
Speaker 1: of them is that I get the chance sometimes to
Speaker 1: sit down with you know, and I'm now I got
Speaker 1: to do more of the journalist things. So I sit
Speaker 1: down with them, and I can't get into specifics of
Speaker 1: whom or or I can't attribute to them, but I
Speaker 1: certainly can tell you when I get really worthwhile and
Speaker 1: interesting information from them. Just what the information is and
Speaker 1: I've been talking to some some high level sources the
Speaker 1: DOJ in the last last week or so since people
Speaker 1: have come back, although a lot of DJ is furloughed
Speaker 1: right now because the government's shut down, and you know,
Speaker 1: the Mueller probe is, well, this is this is not
Speaker 1: this is not particularly breaking heres. The Muller probe is
Speaker 1: in its latter phase, um, but it's also going to
Speaker 1: be allowed to continue as it sees fit, which means
Speaker 1: that you know, you could they could get some new
Speaker 1: avenue of inquiry and all of a sudden it gets extended.
Speaker 1: And that's why even if it's in the last quarter,
Speaker 1: it's not quarter based, meaning it's not there's no at
Speaker 1: timetable here. So even if they think it's about to
Speaker 1: when I say about you, you know in the next
Speaker 1: few months, that what we're talking about here, it's gonna end. Um.
Speaker 1: But what what the Mother Probe is really turned into,
Speaker 1: and there there are concerns about this from people at
Speaker 1: DJ that they can't necessarily vocalize, But the Mother Probe
Speaker 1: is turned into is an opportunity for essentially taxpayer funded
Speaker 1: oppo research against the president United States. And that's what
Speaker 1: this is going to be there's not going to be
Speaker 1: any criminal charge against Donald Trump. That's that's not going
Speaker 1: to happen, although I would know that Nancy Pelosi today
Speaker 1: did say, oh, you know, it's not clear if if
Speaker 1: you can, if you can charge the president or not
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, we're here and that right they
Speaker 1: want to. That's just trying to feed red meat to
Speaker 1: the left wing loon base. You know, they're they're coming
Speaker 1: up with different ways of of making sure that you know,
Speaker 1: you can try to convince their side that they're they're
Speaker 1: going to end the Trump presidency not at the ballot box,
Speaker 1: but but via the law. And I would just note
Speaker 1: and this this times in or discussion about impeachment and
Speaker 1: what the current Democrat majority House representative is going to
Speaker 1: do and if they think that the country is going
Speaker 1: to be in a better place if they're able, oh
Speaker 1: we do it, Yeah, we have Pelosi playclip six. We
Speaker 1: have to wait and see what happens with the Muller report.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be impeaching for a political reason, and we
Speaker 1: shouldn't avoid impeachment for a political reason because, as you
Speaker 1: well know, there is longstanding Department of Justice guidance that
Speaker 1: states a sitting president should not be indicted. I thought,
Speaker 1: it is not the law, and it is not the law.
Speaker 1: Everything indicate that a president can be indicted a president
Speaker 1: who is in office. Could Robert Muller come back and say,
Speaker 1: I am seeking And I think that that is an
Speaker 1: open discussion. I think that is an open discussion in
Speaker 1: terms of the law. Notice how everything she shares, I mean,
Speaker 1: Nancy Peloski does you know intellection? Yeah, she has some
Speaker 1: good political survival instincts and all that stuff, and she,
Speaker 1: you know, is an insider and the you know, the
Speaker 1: ultimate Democrat political insider these days. But honestly, she says
Speaker 1: everything points to but it's an open discussion. Well, well,
Speaker 1: which is it, Nancy? Can you or can you not
Speaker 1: indict a sitting president? And it is clear she has
Speaker 1: clearly she's not clear on what the answer to that is.
Speaker 1: But the Muller report may or may not be made
Speaker 1: public in the end. I think there's going to be
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of pressure to make it public. And
Speaker 1: one thing that you'll notice, and this is what Dershowitz
Speaker 1: was saying, that's why we came in with it, is
Speaker 1: that it's going to be a hatchet job of the
Speaker 1: administ no matter what. It's just going to be a
Speaker 1: compilation of all of the different exercises that Muller and
Speaker 1: his people have been through that are all intended toward
Speaker 1: one goal. And the goal is to get a prosecution.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is what they're That's what they're going for,
Speaker 1: to get prosecutions. They're not there to adjudicate whether or
Speaker 1: not they should be looking at people. They're trying to
Speaker 1: rack and stack scalps. That's what special counsels do. That's
Speaker 1: what of Hillary voters, you know Weissman and uh you
Speaker 1: know Genie Ree and all the rest of them, that
Speaker 1: that's what they're trying to do. They're trying to take
Speaker 1: down people around Trump. And so there's going to be
Speaker 1: a really I think a really clear need for the
Speaker 1: administration to have a strong pushback strategy even one of
Speaker 1: that stuff comes out. But also I think you maybe
Speaker 1: seeing the media. I I really can't get into specifics,
Speaker 1: you're gonna see a media freak out about DOJ policy
Speaker 1: in the in the coming weeks, I think, and when
Speaker 1: I when I'm able to tell you more about it,
Speaker 1: I will, um. But let's just say that the journos,
Speaker 1: some of them may be in for kind of a
Speaker 1: an interesting route a wicketing. Ah can't I know, I know,
Speaker 1: I shouldn't do. I can't get in more detail than that,
Speaker 1: but I've got it on good, good authority that journalists
Speaker 1: are gonna going to be in a more interesting position
Speaker 1: in terms of how they're, how they think they're, how
Speaker 1: protected they think they really are, especially when you get
Speaker 1: into some of the uh, the efforts underway to find out,
Speaker 1: you know, how do they get this information that they're
Speaker 1: then using to bash the administration. But I digress. I'll
Speaker 1: have more for you on that as I can consider
Speaker 1: that one kind of a teaser for now team. But
Speaker 1: you know, the Muller probe is still looms in the background.
Speaker 1: It ties into the way the Congress is going to
Speaker 1: be acting because you would think that the Special Counsel
Speaker 1: wraps up, there will be there would be no need
Speaker 1: for all these just assorted investigations that are But that's
Speaker 1: not going to be the approach that the that the
Speaker 1: Libs that Pelosi and company take. They're gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: pick up where Mueller leaves off, and they're gonna use
Speaker 1: whatever's in the Mullar Report as essentially the roadmap for
Speaker 1: what investigations they need to do for a full public
Speaker 1: accounting of this. That's unfortunately where all this is heading.
Speaker 1: But the good news is at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they're not going to be able to remove Trump from office,
Speaker 1: and this is going to turn into this is all
Speaker 1: going to just point to twenty twenty in the election.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Syria coming up here. I was on
Speaker 1: Kennedy Show on Fox Business last night discussing this issue.
Speaker 1: I realized I didn't get into it right away, and
Speaker 1: I wanted to because we have some updates really on
Speaker 1: where Trump stands on the Syria question to pull out
Speaker 1: and what's going to happen there. And here's something that
Speaker 1: will shock none of you Trump. Trump did not blow
Speaker 1: up the world with his decision. In fact, it's probably
Speaker 1: going to be a good decision that's coming up. You
Speaker 1: are now entering the Freedom Hontacle Operation Center. All S
Speaker 1: programs musty caps strictly need to know Team Buck is
Speaker 1: cleared and ready for a Buck brief. Well, there's so
Speaker 1: many foolish things this man has done, but this, Frank's
Speaker 1: pretty high a decision that is dangerous and a decision
Speaker 1: that is a Christmas present to Vladimir Putin, giving a
Speaker 1: huge Christmas present to Putin and to Iran. I couldn't
Speaker 1: disagree more with this decision. It's a terrible decision. I
Speaker 1: think this will be considered one of the worst foreign
Speaker 1: policy blunders of this century. So that was the left
Speaker 1: right before the Christmas on Trump's announcement that we're gonna
Speaker 1: We're gonna draw it down in Syria. Worst foreign policy
Speaker 1: decision ever, worst thing ever. Now that that's very that's
Speaker 1: very powerful stuff to say when you've had a foreign
Speaker 1: policy establishment that has been supporting endless war in Afghanistan
Speaker 1: and continued US military occupation or military presence, I should say,
Speaker 1: in Iraq and now the expansion of that to include area.
Speaker 1: I reject these notions that and I want to get
Speaker 1: into Syria in some detail with you in a moment here,
Speaker 1: but I reject this idea that I'm seeing bandied about
Speaker 1: that we can turn Iraq and Afghanistan into more or
Speaker 1: less what we have with South Korea, with Okinawa in Japan,
Speaker 1: and with Germany. You know, you point to these places
Speaker 1: where in the aftermath of a war, we set up
Speaker 1: a major US military base. Here's here's the problem for
Speaker 1: that analogy. We're not in the aftermath of wars. We're
Speaker 1: in ongoing conflict zones. And to have a military base
Speaker 1: in an ongoing conflict zone is a very different thing.
Speaker 1: Even if we are temporarily the guests of the host country,
Speaker 1: we may not be welcome in the host country over
Speaker 1: the long term and in the short term. There are
Speaker 1: real risks. If you go back and read about Reagan's
Speaker 1: military intervention was part of a multinational Elian you know,
Speaker 1: you have a lot of kind of eerie deja vu
Speaker 1: about US military interventions in the Middle East. And as
Speaker 1: I've told you men, how many people will discuss this
Speaker 1: on their radio shows. Very few. But the French were
Speaker 1: bombing Damascus back in the nineteen twenties, back in the
Speaker 1: in the early days of airplanes, where you know, what's
Speaker 1: one of the first things the French air forces doing.
Speaker 1: They're bombing Damascus, trying to put down a revolt there.
Speaker 1: Back in in British and French, you know, British and
Speaker 1: French control of the region, you know, going back to
Speaker 1: Psykes Pico, the Sykes Pico Agreement after World War One,
Speaker 1: so and by the way Jihattest in their propaganda will
Speaker 1: still they'll talk about the Balfour Declaration in Sykes Pico.
Speaker 1: You know, this all looms very large and that part
Speaker 1: of the world. You know here, I think people generally
Speaker 1: drop this stuff off the radar pretty quickly. But there's
Speaker 1: just no apt comparison between what's going on with our
Speaker 1: military presence in the Middle East and what happened after
Speaker 1: the Korean War the Second World War. And I think
Speaker 1: that we lull ourselves into a false sense of security
Speaker 1: um by not really assessing the dangers that we face properly.
Speaker 1: You know, we thought we were able to be a
Speaker 1: stabilizing presence in Lebanon until Hesbella had had a suicide
Speaker 1: bomber drive a truck full of explosives into a US
Speaker 1: Marine barracks and kill over two hundred of our of
Speaker 1: our of our marines, a number of a number of
Speaker 1: Navy casualties beyond beyond the Marines as well. You know,
Speaker 1: that's that can happen in a day. That's not going
Speaker 1: to happen in South Korea. It's not going to happen
Speaker 1: in Germany. It could happen in Afghanistan, and it definitely
Speaker 1: could happen in in Syria. So that's I think, you know,
Speaker 1: which obviously right next door to Lebanon. So that's one
Speaker 1: consideration that just we need to establish that right away.
Speaker 1: But also the hysteria around Trump's decision here and the
Speaker 1: unwillingness to deal with the realities of what the so
Speaker 1: called smart set consensus or the you know, the foreign
Speaker 1: policy establishment, however you want to direct it, and the
Speaker 1: people that think they know a lot about foreign policy,
Speaker 1: many of them were in favor and bybly, you know,
Speaker 1: Brett McGurk, he's I know, people I don't know him,
Speaker 1: but I some of the people that I trust the
Speaker 1: most that still are on the national security side, they
Speaker 1: say the guy's a kind of a grand standard. And
Speaker 1: it's really all about the you know, the way the
Speaker 1: media refers to Bret McGurk. I mean, you know, he's
Speaker 1: gonna get he's gonna be on the fifty thousand, one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand, probably fifty thousand dollars elected circuit lecture circuit
Speaker 1: here for a while, and he's gonna be an anti
Speaker 1: Trumper who resigned, and it's a good it's a good
Speaker 1: brand move for him to leave at this point. Now,
Speaker 1: are there real concerns over the Koords and over what's
Speaker 1: of course, but guess what Trump is now taking those
Speaker 1: concerns into account when he announced this, I was saying
Speaker 1: to you on this show. I wrote it on Twitter
Speaker 1: as well. I think he's right in the grants game
Speaker 1: of things, Trump's decision not to create this permanent US
Speaker 1: military presence in Syria or se whatever that you know,
Speaker 1: nothing's ever permanent, right, so we can quibble, we can
Speaker 1: get into the semantics here. Oh, it's just you know,
Speaker 1: we're staying for a while. Okay, Well, if you're gonna
Speaker 1: stay for ten years, it feels pretty permanent to be.
Speaker 1: And when was the last time we just said, hey,
Speaker 1: we're gonna take a military base and you know, well,
Speaker 1: yeah we did it. You know we we we changed
Speaker 1: our presence in Saudi Arabia because of the pressure we
Speaker 1: were under, you know, to stay in Saudi Arabia and
Speaker 1: security concerns and and the fact that the Middle East.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look at Ben Laden in the
Speaker 1: Earth in the early days of Ben Laden's manifestos. People
Speaker 1: forget about this now, but it was US military presence
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia that was getting this guy so hot
Speaker 1: and bothered. Um, so you know, you look at this
Speaker 1: decision that that Trump made and all ever was just
Speaker 1: always the worst decision ever. He's getting guarantees of security
Speaker 1: for the Kords. He's slowing it down. So now it's
Speaker 1: going to take about one hundred and twenty days. And
Speaker 1: that is important on its own because it tells you
Speaker 1: how in trench we really are. You know, this isn't
Speaker 1: like all right, everybody like, you know, pack up the trucks,
Speaker 1: you know, hop on a few hop on a few
Speaker 1: Blackhawks and get out of dodge. No, this is we
Speaker 1: got a real infrastructure in place in Syria now. And
Speaker 1: you know I've opposed this, stretching back to I think
Speaker 1: I wrote a National Review a piece titled Assad an
Speaker 1: Arab Problem in twenty twelve where I was like, look,
Speaker 1: we should not have you, we should not have boots
Speaker 1: on the ground in Syria. It's a bad idea for X,
Speaker 1: Y and Z reasons. And I think that so that
Speaker 1: was where I thought, almost now gone on seven years ago.
Speaker 1: So I'm not new to this. Let's not make Syria
Speaker 1: another another Iraq like situation. I've tried to be at
Speaker 1: least to be principal on foreign policy is well, to
Speaker 1: be consistent on foreign policy means that you're not taking
Speaker 1: new information account right, You're going to be changing with
Speaker 1: the realities in the ground as much as you can.
Speaker 1: But to me, principal is I think important because ultimately
Speaker 1: this is about US security and about making sure that
Speaker 1: we don't have troop commitments that we should not have,
Speaker 1: that we don't have people that are put our people
Speaker 1: put in harm's way for a fight that's not their fight,
Speaker 1: which is now that the Islamic State has been effectively suppressed,
Speaker 1: I won't say defeated or eradicated, suppressed. We can have
Speaker 1: that discussion about what comes next and who should be
Speaker 1: doing that fighting, and I think it's an important one
Speaker 1: for us all to focus on. But think about what
Speaker 1: the alternative was here. Think about the alternative, and that is,
Speaker 1: if the foreign policy elites get what they want on Syria,
Speaker 1: it would mean that we stay and now we're committed
Speaker 1: to trying to get a political settlement. What the what
Speaker 1: does that political settlement look look like? You have ASSAD
Speaker 1: with Russian and Iranian backing, in control of a vast
Speaker 1: majority of the Syrian population, it can be a little
Speaker 1: uh disorienting when you look at a map of Syria
Speaker 1: and you see the areas that the Kurds control. Most
Speaker 1: of what they control is desert with some roads connecting
Speaker 1: some villages. There's not a lot of major population. The
Speaker 1: population centers Damascus, Aleppo, Hama, homes, you know, all these
Speaker 1: different la Latakia. I mean, these are places that the regime,
Speaker 1: the Assad regime controls, and that's where people live. So
Speaker 1: the population is already overwhelmingly under under the control of
Speaker 1: the Assad regime, and that's not going to change. There
Speaker 1: is no world, there's no future in which we are
Speaker 1: going to get Assad to step down. We're going to
Speaker 1: get a you know, elections to be held or Assad one.
Speaker 1: Assad had managed to outlast and therefore defeat the anti
Speaker 1: Assad resistance in Syria. That is reality, and that the
Speaker 1: Russians and the Iranians run stin pardon the wordplay, and
Speaker 1: backed him at a critical moment to prevent them from
Speaker 1: overrunning him. That's now just history. That happened, that was
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration's watch. We can't change that to
Speaker 1: think that now this laid in the game, we are
Speaker 1: going to have some kind of leverage visa VI. The
Speaker 1: Asad regime to push for a political set of settlement
Speaker 1: that says, what, a full Kurdish autonomy in these areas
Speaker 1: is not acceptable to Turks, and the Turks will completely
Speaker 1: freak out about that. So what do we really think
Speaker 1: this political you know, with with the Free Syrian Army
Speaker 1: or you know, whatever the acronym that they're using for
Speaker 1: it is now, but the resistance essentially is it's mostly
Speaker 1: Kurdish fighters still. So there's not a sufficient Sunni Arab
Speaker 1: force to take on the Assad regime in any meaningful way,
Speaker 1: and we don't want them to, you know, we're not
Speaker 1: looking for it because that just perpetuates the of a war.
Speaker 1: So this is what nobody wants to say. Assad one.
Speaker 1: The Iranians are there to stay, the Russians are there
Speaker 1: to stay. The Russians had a base, a naval base
Speaker 1: at Tartus long before we were even getting involved, or
Speaker 1: long before there was a Syrian civil war. That none
Speaker 1: of that's going to change. So what do we really
Speaker 1: think are no end in sight presence gives us in
Speaker 1: Syria helped suppresses the Islamic state. Well, we're hoping the
Speaker 1: Kurdish fighters will suppress the Islamic State. We can still
Speaker 1: give them air cover. In fact, we've had a number
Speaker 1: of air strikes since Trump made the announcement. They've accelerated
Speaker 1: air strikes as part of the planned US withdrawal of troops.
Speaker 1: So if we get guarantees of safety for the Kurds,
Speaker 1: the Kurds have already said that they're reaching out. I
Speaker 1: know we're getting deep in the weeds here, but some
Speaker 1: of you, you know, look, this is important issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: to really know it, you have to really dig into it.
Speaker 1: Otherwise it's just plat. Otherwise it's the idiocy of Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: They get put into Christmas present, isn't you know? As
Speaker 1: I know the first thing about any of this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it was Pelosi who said, not
Speaker 1: too long ago, the road the peace runs through Damascus,
Speaker 1: right before the Syrians civil war killed a half a
Speaker 1: million people. So you know, she doesn't know, she doesn't know.
Speaker 1: Squat not a deep thinker on these issues at all.
Speaker 1: But as you could hear from that sound bite, we
Speaker 1: came in with, oh yeah, that's right, you know, the
Speaker 1: Syrians or the you know, Christmas present for Prutin was
Speaker 1: the line that Democrats were all going with. You know,
Speaker 1: it's important to think critically about these issues. They matter.
Speaker 1: We have Americans who are in harm's way and we
Speaker 1: don't you know, we don't want to allow this area
Speaker 1: to become a launch pad for Jihatas to try to
Speaker 1: attack us and blow us up all over the world again.
Speaker 1: But we also can't build everyone else's society for them.
Speaker 1: They won't let us do it. Although I'm concerned no
Speaker 1: one's thinking about this right now, I don't think the
Speaker 1: Iraqis are going to let us stay that long. How
Speaker 1: Everyone just kind of assumes that our presence in Iraq
Speaker 1: is oh so welcome. Mmmm. That's uh, that's status a
Speaker 1: force agreement or that you know that okay that we
Speaker 1: have with them to be in country, And now that
Speaker 1: could go anytime. We don't know. Rocky politics are less
Speaker 1: stable than we think, and they're certain they're less pro
Speaker 1: American than we'd like to think too. By the way,
Speaker 1: Doug McGregor's a retired Army colonel. I've been seeing him
Speaker 1: in the green room over at Fox. We've been talking.
Speaker 1: We've been chewing this issue over a lot lately. We
Speaker 1: have a lot of fun chatting about these different foreign
Speaker 1: policy challenges. You know, here's what he said about Syria.
Speaker 1: Play fourteen. You've got to remember that most of your
Speaker 1: senior officers or products of the Clinton, Bush Obama era,
Speaker 1: so they have a lot invested in this. And remember
Speaker 1: that the people who live in the seven zip codes
Speaker 1: in and around Washington, DC have all become millionaires as
Speaker 1: a result of their investment in these failed operation and
Speaker 1: you have a lot of resistance to ending something that's
Speaker 1: been profitable for them. It hasn't been profitable for the
Speaker 1: American people. It's been a disaster, trillions dollars in debt
Speaker 1: over the last seventeen years, thousands of people killed and wounded,
Speaker 1: and for what. The answer is not much. Not a
Speaker 1: lot of folks want to say it. I think I
Speaker 1: think Colonel McGregor is at least above the target, if
Speaker 1: not right on target. I mean he's close. He is
Speaker 1: a He very much thinks that there's a financial incentive
Speaker 1: for the elites that never gets brought into these discussions.
Speaker 1: But you know, that's a thread that I'll have to
Speaker 1: pull out and look at a little bit more. But
Speaker 1: he really goes after that Play fifteen. People know, once
Speaker 1: we leave Syria, once we get completely out of Iraq.
Speaker 1: Once we get completely out of Afghanistan, it's over. And
Speaker 1: President Trump is going to do that. That's very clear.
Speaker 1: We got the Syrian government to go in there, we
Speaker 1: got out. Now we have created an enormous problem for
Speaker 1: mister Putin because mister Putin has cultivated the Turks, Mister
Speaker 1: Putin has also cultivated his Iranian and Syrian allies. He's
Speaker 1: got to make a choice. Does he allow the Turks
Speaker 1: into Syria, then he loses his position with the Syrians
Speaker 1: and the Iranians. So the notion that mister Putin has
Speaker 1: somehow another one something is absurd. This has been a
Speaker 1: a clever move on the part of the President, essentially
Speaker 1: saying it's the opposite of a Christmas present for prudent.
Speaker 1: Whether Prutin realized it or not. So interesting, interesting, kind
Speaker 1: of kind of contrarit analysis from Colonel McGregor. There. We'll
Speaker 1: have him on the show soon. I saw Doug just
Speaker 1: last night over Fox. We'll have him on. You know,
Speaker 1: he's a he's a smart guy and he calls it
Speaker 1: like he sees it. All right, quick break team, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Hold on a second. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: me a beer. Hey, my husband Bruce is now do
Speaker 1: you want to pass on beer for now? I pass? Oh? Yeah,
Speaker 1: So this is my speedy flow. Oh it's my sweet
Speaker 1: thank you for being here. Hello. That was Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: being so likable. I'm gonna get me a beer, she
Speaker 1: says as she's making a video in an effort to
Speaker 1: deal with the unlikability factor. Some of the dumbest political
Speaker 1: ANALYSI I've heard in a long time, which is saying
Speaker 1: a lot revolves around this idea that unlikable is somehow
Speaker 1: a word, a word that is a sexist word. And
Speaker 1: I sit here, I'm like, all I heard about Ted
Speaker 1: Cruise from the Trump supporters in the primary, it was
Speaker 1: how unlikable Ted Cruise was. So, you know, lots of
Speaker 1: people are on John Kasik is unlikable. It's nothing to
Speaker 1: do with sexism. So I guess I'm not going to
Speaker 1: get a kas exclusive interview anytime soon. But nonetheless, I
Speaker 1: don't care. But Warren is trying so hard. Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: and now she's also trying to deal with the massive Yeah,
Speaker 1: that was a video that she released. Oh I'm just
Speaker 1: getting me a beer. Oh yeah, I'm gonna sound folksy
Speaker 1: so people like me. She also had to deal with
Speaker 1: the whole Native American heritage situation that well, it doesn't
Speaker 1: exist right her heritage play clip twelfth. Now the president
Speaker 1: likes to call my mom a liar. What do the
Speaker 1: facts say? You absolutely have a Native American ancestor in
Speaker 1: your pedigree. I'm not enrolled to tribe and only tribe
Speaker 1: to determine tribal citizenship. I understand and respect that distinction.
Speaker 1: But my family history is my family history. Her truth
Speaker 1: is her truth, you see, and her truth is a lie.
Speaker 1: This is this is really stretching the limits of sanity
Speaker 1: here with Elizabeth Warren. You know what was that she
Speaker 1: released the DNA test and she's one one thousand and
Speaker 1: twenty four that that doesn't count. I love today Trump.
Speaker 1: Trump tweeted out, you know a a meme that was
Speaker 1: Warren Warren one one thousand and twenty twentieth, which was
Speaker 1: just great. She's she's done, You're here, she's done. Democrats
Speaker 1: to be better running freshman Congresswoman Occasio Quartez. I really
Speaker 1: mean that they'd be better running her, No question for president.
Speaker 1: No Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren's career in terms of the
Speaker 1: presidencies toast well, you know, after he was elected president,
Speaker 1: it was very much my hope that he would rise
Speaker 1: to the occasion, rise to the mantle of the office.
Speaker 1: After all, becoming president of the United States is quite
Speaker 1: an elevation for anybody. And he has said during the
Speaker 1: campaign that he could be extraordinary presidential. When I hear that,
Speaker 1: I think of Washington and Lincoln and Jefferson and Roosevelt
Speaker 1: and Kennedy and Eisenhower, and I think of those qualities.
Speaker 1: And I think that while he spoke of that, and
Speaker 1: while that was my hope, I don't think he's followed
Speaker 1: through on that front the way he's followed through on
Speaker 1: some of his other promises. I would like to just
Speaker 1: take issue again with the whole Mitt Romney assault on
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency that was set off the first remember
Speaker 1: first day back in the new year. Everyone's getting back
Speaker 1: into their business, and Mitt Romney decides that he's going
Speaker 1: to not take a shot across the babbot, really a
Speaker 1: shot into the bow of the administration, and he's really
Speaker 1: going to go after Trump in his public publicly a
Speaker 1: waist as he can, and you know, just going on
Speaker 1: seeing in all these other places to just trash trash
Speaker 1: the president's character. I just think it'sentionally that that he
Speaker 1: says presidential and he names all these people, and it's
Speaker 1: as though he's not nearly as sophisticated a thinker as
Speaker 1: he would like to believe he is. Because this notion
Speaker 1: that that that presidents in the past were so presidential
Speaker 1: doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I mean, when you say
Speaker 1: presidential in the in the sense of people of tremendous
Speaker 1: honor and personal integrity and dignating all this, Yeah, there
Speaker 1: have been some. There have also been scoundrels who were
Speaker 1: the president. I mean there have been people who are president.
Speaker 1: And now this is not to say, oh that we
Speaker 1: know we can't criticize presidents for bad behavior, and no,
Speaker 1: it's not that at all. This isn't a what about
Speaker 1: ism or moral relativism or anything. I'm just saying I
Speaker 1: wish Mitt had thought this through a little bit more.
Speaker 1: You're gonna talk about being presidential and you're gonna name JFK, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, talking about nepotism, appointed his
Speaker 1: brother to be attorney general, so that that seems pretty
Speaker 1: nepotistic to me. And if you're going to discuss personal conduct.
Speaker 1: You know this, just go and you can read in
Speaker 1: the memoir of some young woman I think she was
Speaker 1: nineteen the White House at the time. I won't get
Speaker 1: into the details, but let's just say that there was
Speaker 1: a lot of lascivious and decidedly unpresidential behavior going on
Speaker 1: in the Kennedy White House, and we just know not
Speaker 1: even the half of it. You go back and you
Speaker 1: look at president's past. It's just I'm not even going
Speaker 1: with the whole Bill Clinton thing, which don't even get
Speaker 1: me started. Right, We've we've already had this national conversation
Speaker 1: about presidential conduct and actions. And you know what the
Speaker 1: Democrats decided in the nineties with the media as much
Speaker 1: of it's a saturation presence in our lives as it is,
Speaker 1: is as long as the person's given us what we want,
Speaker 1: we're going to support them and we don't really care.
Speaker 1: And even up to and including clear violations of law,
Speaker 1: which were the case with you know, Bill Clinton and
Speaker 1: some of the other Hillary Clinton later on, but even
Speaker 1: the case of clear violations of law. So we've already
Speaker 1: had this conversation. I just I think it's interesting that
Speaker 1: the standard that Mitt Romney's sites isn't even really the
Speaker 1: standard sounding presidential What does that mean? Mit Romney's editorial
Speaker 1: that he wrote in the Washington Post did not give
Speaker 1: me a single takeaway for what a person should do
Speaker 1: in a tough policy decision or on a tough policy issue.
Speaker 1: There was nothing other than just you know, view of
Speaker 1: our allies. And you know that I know that it
Speaker 1: was the most boiler plate. I felt like I was
Speaker 1: reading a high school valedictorian speech where at the end
Speaker 1: he's gonna say, so, we need to seize the future. Thanks, Mitt,
Speaker 1: will be sure that we focus on seizing the future.
Speaker 1: You know, Carpay, DM will seize the day. Whatever. I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's nonsense. And this idea that
Speaker 1: Trump hasn't risen the occasion, I sit here. I sit
Speaker 1: here as somebody who was a Trump voter but definitely
Speaker 1: little skeptical of how this would go. And if nothing else,
Speaker 1: you've got to give this guy credit for withstanding the
Speaker 1: withering assault on him from the media. I mean, the
Speaker 1: media is psychotically anti Trump. They embarrassed themselves with their
Speaker 1: anti trumpism, and we just assumed that, oh, well, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump could handle it because anybody would handle. That's not
Speaker 1: true if you put a standard issue GOP establishment guy
Speaker 1: in the Oval office, who was the one who stopped Hillary,
Speaker 1: who stopped the Great Glass ceiling from being shattered and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and was subject to the kind of
Speaker 1: just lunacy. You know, he's a conspiracy with Russia. He's
Speaker 1: a racist, he's a criminal, he's a trader, he's you know,
Speaker 1: you've got former heads of intel agencies calling this sitting
Speaker 1: president United States somebody who's committed treason. You know, if
Speaker 1: we're really going to keep score and look at what
Speaker 1: has done with it's risen the occasion. This guy's tenacity. Mean,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's ability to take the heat is phenomenal. I
Speaker 1: mean it's in the sense of it's a real he's
Speaker 1: a phenom. It is not normal. This would break other people.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know it. Bush by the end of
Speaker 1: his presidency, just from all the media criticism and the
Speaker 1: rock War stuff. I mean, he was he was operating
Speaker 1: on fumes. And I don't mean the last six months,
Speaker 1: I mean the last four years and not have a
Speaker 1: lot left in the tank. And he wasn't subjected to
Speaker 1: quite the same it was. It was bad, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think we easily forget about how much we heard
Speaker 1: that Republicans were Nazis even in the Bush era, and
Speaker 1: that you know, Republicans were you know, war criminals in
Speaker 1: the Bush era. You know, now it's just nothing new.
Speaker 1: Every every Republican president is going to be accused by
Speaker 1: the media of having cheated in the election. Somehow every
Speaker 1: Republican president's a legitimate I mean, this is nothing new.
Speaker 1: This is the new standard that the left wing loons
Speaker 1: are are asserting, or at least we can see in
Speaker 1: them asserting it. Anyway, back to Actor Romney here for
Speaker 1: a second, then, I feel like he he seems to
Speaker 1: think that what he did had to be done, that
Speaker 1: Romney had to write this op ed and had to
Speaker 1: trash the president after, as I mentioned yesterday, seeking his
Speaker 1: endorsement asking him to be Secretary of State. You know
Speaker 1: it when it benefits Romney. He's all about Trump. So
Speaker 1: I think that makes it really hard to take this
Speaker 1: guy seriously when he wants to be the one speaking
Speaker 1: truth to power about Trump and now he says, well,
Speaker 1: you know, we're going to have a good relationship. Play eight.
Speaker 1: I continued to point out places where we're different and
Speaker 1: That's the great nature of this representative democracy, which is
Speaker 1: where we agree, we come together. Where there are disagreements,
Speaker 1: we express those openly and honestly. That allows people to
Speaker 1: have trust in one another. And I look forward to
Speaker 1: being able to have a trusting relationship with the president
Speaker 1: and with others, despite differences from time to time. You know,
Speaker 1: I think it's hard to have a trusting relationship where somebody,
Speaker 1: in a really unprovoked an unproductive fashion, goes after your
Speaker 1: character so publicly. And I don't think that we needed
Speaker 1: a lecture on presidential decorum from failed candidate Mitt Romney.
Speaker 1: I really don't, and I can't help but notice that,
Speaker 1: you know, you look back at the pre Trump GOP
Speaker 1: offerings for the presidency, and you've got You've got Romney,
Speaker 1: and before that, you've got McCain, two people who perhaps
Speaker 1: in fashion only rivaled by like John Kasik and maybe
Speaker 1: Jeff Flake, or two people who are really fair weather Republicans,
Speaker 1: not Republicans when it counts at all, not conservatives not
Speaker 1: supporting GOP in order to get things done, but are
Speaker 1: much more concerned with their own quests for personal political glory.
Speaker 1: It says a lot think about that before Trump. We
Speaker 1: had Romney and McCain, and these are those are both people.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously McCain's passed away, but these are both
Speaker 1: people who went after went after Trump with everything they have,
Speaker 1: and I just would i'd feel a little bit more
Speaker 1: comfortable with their criticisms, although I will disagree with them regardless,
Speaker 1: but I feel a little uncomfortable. I felt like there
Speaker 1: was just some introspection, some willingness to just dive into
Speaker 1: why is it that that Trump was it? Why did
Speaker 1: Trump win? It's not because of Russia. Only idiots think that, Okay,
Speaker 1: it's not because of Russia. Why did Trump win? What
Speaker 1: did he tap into? It's not xenophobia or racism either.
Speaker 1: You get a lot of previous Obama voters who voted
Speaker 1: for Trump. What is it? Well, there's something at the
Speaker 1: core of American cultural and political life right now that
Speaker 1: feels rotten, and if nothing else, Trump is willing to
Speaker 1: speak about that and willing to call out the system
Speaker 1: and it's inequities, the unfairness that exists within our system,
Speaker 1: and a lot of the GOP elite, a lot of
Speaker 1: the GOP establishment, you know, wants to just tell us all,
Speaker 1: you know, just look at Milton Friedman. You know, open markets,
Speaker 1: free trade, everything's great. You know, no, everything is not great.
Speaker 1: Everything is not fair. The market is not just speaking
Speaker 1: all the time. In fact, there's a lot of self
Speaker 1: dealing and self interest that's driving these decisions by government.
Speaker 1: So at least Trump says it's a swamp and it's gross.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's a start. Romney and McCain's even to
Speaker 1: think it's all about great public service, and we know
Speaker 1: it's not. I have the single most important New Year's
Speaker 1: resolution that I know you can all follow through on.
Speaker 1: Become a Black Rifle Coffee subscriber. I'm sure most of you,
Speaker 1: maybe all of you drink a little coffee. I certainly
Speaker 1: need in my coffee, and I drink Black Rifle every day.
Speaker 1: In fact, they drink it a few times a day.
Speaker 1: You can make your whole life easy when it comes
Speaker 1: to getting your coffee by joining Black Rifles Coffee Club.
Speaker 1: They can send it to you in three, six or
Speaker 1: nine month packages. You just sign up for it and
Speaker 1: it shows up at your dorm. By the way, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle gives a portion of all sales to veteran and
Speaker 1: first responder causes, so you can drink delicious coffee, make
Speaker 1: it really convenient for you, and be supporting a fantastic
Speaker 1: all American veteran owned and operated company that gives back
Speaker 1: to veteran causes. This is win win all around. Nothing
Speaker 1: carries your bad attitude like starting your day with the
Speaker 1: most American freedom loving coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck
Speaker 1: for fifteen percent off again, Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: Stocks getting hammered today, folks. I tell you it's I
Speaker 1: have a kind of a baby portfolio that I manage
Speaker 1: of my own, um and it's it's feel little rough
Speaker 1: right now. I go to producer Mike. He is my
Speaker 1: sage when it comes to all all investing, because he's
Speaker 1: got you know, he's he's got some some stones. Man,
Speaker 1: he'll he'll stay in these markets. Mike, How rattled are
Speaker 1: you buy this stuff? Right down? Stocks down ten percent?
Speaker 1: Dal's getting hammered six hundred and sixty points? What what
Speaker 1: the heck? Yeah, not at all, not worried a little bit.
Speaker 1: Look at you, man, Cool it's a cucumber. You have
Speaker 1: to like Warren Buffett, except not eighty and a closet liberal. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Oracle of New York has a nice ring to it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, people are saying, oh, I would
Speaker 1: have set out on my Apple. I'm gonna sell out
Speaker 1: of Amazon. I'm like, these are the most valuable companies
Speaker 1: that have ever been created in the history of the world.
Speaker 1: I think I think they're gonna be okay, Yeah, I agree. Man.
Speaker 1: It's uh, it's easy to get rattled, you know when
Speaker 1: you see the And one thing I had noticed was
Speaker 1: just funny when you're watching the news all day like
Speaker 1: I do, is when the stock market's plummeting, you know,
Speaker 1: the stations go hey wire and you have to dial
Speaker 1: up there. And then at the end of the day
Speaker 1: when it turns around, like the other day we had
Speaker 1: with that the biggest turnaround in stock market history when
Speaker 1: it was getting it down. That was down six hundred
Speaker 1: and yeah, one up a thousand. Well yeah that was
Speaker 1: like one day. Yeah, one day went up on a thousand,
Speaker 1: but then the next day it went down I think
Speaker 1: six hundred and finished plus two hundred's eight hundred points
Speaker 1: swing it was the biggest swing in the history of
Speaker 1: the stock market. And why the style When the market
Speaker 1: was getting hammered, they're all over like, oh, it's six
Speaker 1: down six hundred phen it's down six hundred points, But
Speaker 1: when it fished up two hundred points, they didn't really
Speaker 1: talk about it. I thought that was interesting, you know.
Speaker 1: I've i guess, like in a classic you know, like
Speaker 1: a classic almost forty conservative. I've really taken an interest
Speaker 1: in investing in more four oh one K in the
Speaker 1: last couple of years and people listen to the show now.
Speaker 1: I've actually even done some work with a with a
Speaker 1: financial research group called Stansbury. Just great guys that do
Speaker 1: do fantastic work. Um. And but you know, I'm a novice, right,
Speaker 1: I'm a novice investment. This one thing that I do
Speaker 1: know is nobody can time the market. And the way
Speaker 1: you really hurt yourself is by trying to time the
Speaker 1: market and selling when basically things get scary. You sell
Speaker 1: because not only you losing, you know, you're basically selling
Speaker 1: what it's low and buying what it's high, which is
Speaker 1: not what you want to do. You're also paying fees,
Speaker 1: even if they're not very big fees. And all those transactions,
Speaker 1: so I can give that little bit of I've picked
Speaker 1: up that bit of advice. Right. Yeah, there was a
Speaker 1: book when I was an amateur investor. I still am
Speaker 1: very amateur, but one of the books I read back
Speaker 1: in the day was a book by a guy named
Speaker 1: doctor Jeremy Siegel who taught to the University of Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: called Stocks for the Long Run. And it was just
Speaker 1: like that title always just stuck out to me, because
Speaker 1: you get in, you just got to stay in. I mean,
Speaker 1: go with like what you like and invest in the
Speaker 1: companies want to invest in, but don't do it for
Speaker 1: a short term. And that's basically you know, there's a couple. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is what I was telling everybody that you know,
Speaker 1: Producer Minke and I talk about out. We talked about
Speaker 1: our portfolio sometimes in the breaks between. And for those
Speaker 1: of you are like, oh, buck, I don't care about
Speaker 1: stock investing, well, you know, the stock market is first
Speaker 1: of all, it's necessary to keep all of our pension
Speaker 1: plans going. And you know, the stock market is not
Speaker 1: just for people that that are trying to you know,
Speaker 1: grow grow their own personal wealth over time. There are
Speaker 1: real important tie ins to to the economy and ways
Speaker 1: that affect pretty much everybody. You're four one k obviously,
Speaker 1: but even if you have a pension plan, the stock
Speaker 1: market plays a big role in it because those pension
Speaker 1: plans at the state level, a lot of them rely
Speaker 1: on five six percent annualized growth, which a lot you know,
Speaker 1: you look at a year like last year, they didn't
Speaker 1: hit their five percent growth marks, I'm sure on a
Speaker 1: lot of major funds. So you know, I think it's
Speaker 1: important for people to pay some attention to it. But
Speaker 1: I'm I'm just you know, trying to trying to learn
Speaker 1: as I go here, and I just feel like a
Speaker 1: couple a couple of things that I tell myself to
Speaker 1: make myself feel a little better. One is, if you
Speaker 1: look at the Dow Jones going all the way back
Speaker 1: to nineteen seventy eight, I think, which is when it
Speaker 1: they started tracking it, um, there is a very clear trend,
Speaker 1: and that is that over time, it goes up. Over time,
Speaker 1: the US stock market is getting wealthier and wealthier. And
Speaker 1: you know, so if you to your point, Mike, if
Speaker 1: you take that long term view, uh, you're gonna be
Speaker 1: in better shape than if you're trying to essentially day trade,
Speaker 1: which is not a good idea. I do not recommend
Speaker 1: that for folks, right, yeah, And I think you know,
Speaker 1: we've had these interest rate hikes also, which are you
Speaker 1: know that didn't happen during the Bomb administration. There was
Speaker 1: no interest rate hikes. And we've had a few, which
Speaker 1: is fine, which is good. And I think once we
Speaker 1: were you know, once the market adjust to the hikes,
Speaker 1: I think and by end of the first quarter twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: we're gonna forget all about this because it's going to
Speaker 1: be back to running wild again. Yeah. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: I think there's a good things are gonna pick up,
Speaker 1: you know, I think things are gonna get better. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I did. When When was the first I'm trying to see,
Speaker 1: when was the first Dow Jones reading? Oh no, they
Speaker 1: have here Dow Jones and average goes all the way
Speaker 1: back to eighteen ninety six. What I thought they didn't
Speaker 1: start reading this? Uh oh maybe anyway, I think they've
Speaker 1: changed the indicase do the folks. This is where I'm
Speaker 1: getting beyond my you know, this is where I say
Speaker 1: I'm a novice. I'm a novice. Don't some of the
Speaker 1: basics I'm telling you are true, but don't don't take
Speaker 1: anything I say to the bank man, I'm trying to
Speaker 1: learn this stuff as I go. But it's fun. I
Speaker 1: gotta say, well, it's it's fun to be an adult
Speaker 1: who spend a lot of time developing expertise in some
Speaker 1: areas and show up. It's almost like I'm taking piano
Speaker 1: lessons for the first time. I'm like, huh, like someone
Speaker 1: explained to me ebitda. You know, it's a different a
Speaker 1: different approach. Another thing though, just for since since we're
Speaker 1: doing like bucks not so great financial or I should say,
Speaker 1: not so expert, the advice overall is pretty good. You know.
Speaker 1: A friend of mine told me recently. He's like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know you gotta you know you mentioned interest rates monkey,
Speaker 1: He's like, you got a savings account and said yeah.
Speaker 1: He said, well what are you getting on that savings account?
Speaker 1: I was like, uh, point zero six percent or something,
Speaker 1: and you know, there's there are places you can go
Speaker 1: you can get over a two percent return, which doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like a big deal, but it's actually nice. It
Speaker 1: actually makes a difference. Yeah, well, I'll book a financial
Speaker 1: expert and we could tell him, you know, our thoughts
Speaker 1: on what the market is, and he'd be like, all right,
Speaker 1: you guys aren't funny. He get a laugh at it.
Speaker 1: Don't listen to Buck. Yeah, I should stick to politics
Speaker 1: in natural security. That's really that's really the the end
Speaker 1: state of this conversation. But anyway, I just brought Mike
Speaker 1: on everybody because I want him to make me feel
Speaker 1: better about the Amazon and Facebook stock I own, because wow,
Speaker 1: they have been getting don't look, this is gonna be
Speaker 1: on I will yet, don't sweat it. You know what
Speaker 1: I actually say on a political side on Amy, you
Speaker 1: just mentioned Amazon. It's funny. I just read an article.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a few people I forget to where
Speaker 1: the guy's from might have been Barrens. He predicted Amazon
Speaker 1: Amazon sitting around fifteen hundred dollars a share right now.
Speaker 1: It was it's high in twenty eighteen, was a little
Speaker 1: over two thousand dollars a share. He was predicting four
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a share by ends of twenty nineteen. So wow, yeah, wow,
Speaker 1: he was a little bit off bullish. No end of
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, he's by end of twenty nineteen. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: so he's got we got time, We got time by
Speaker 1: end of next year. He thinks it's kind of double
Speaker 1: you know what this, but you know what the other
Speaker 1: there was more bad news today, Mike, and this is
Speaker 1: gonna be near and dear to your heart. You probably
Speaker 1: haven't even seen this yet, so I'm sorry to be
Speaker 1: the one to break this to you. But according to
Speaker 1: according Drudge Report, here Israeli model bar Raffaelli is facing
Speaker 1: criminal charges for tax evasion and perjury. You know, free,
Speaker 1: free bar Raffaelli is all I can say. So that's
Speaker 1: why she hasn't called me back exactly. I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I'm a fan and I'm glad she got rid of
Speaker 1: that bumm DiCaprio. Yeah, he's a tool, so there you go. Yeah,
Speaker 1: unfortunately a very rich one. But yes, remember anyway, bucking
Speaker 1: bucking producer Mike's financial corner. Everybody, do not make any
Speaker 1: decisions based on anything leaves. I just wanted to want
Speaker 1: to vent a little bit on this one. I am
Speaker 1: going to come back and get into some try to
Speaker 1: do some role call here and that's going to be
Speaker 1: fun because it's always fun. So stick around for that
Speaker 1: and Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton if you want
Speaker 1: to send thoughts coming up, team, It's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: another day in the life of mister buck Sexton here
Speaker 1: in DC. Thank you so much all for hanging out.
Speaker 1: I hope you're hope you're as happy to be back
Speaker 1: in the Hut as I am. I missed it. This
Speaker 1: is the problem I have with vacations is that vacation
Speaker 1: is really not something that I can fully enjoy. Knowing
Speaker 1: that every day that I'm out three days I can
Speaker 1: handle pretty well. I can be out for three days,
Speaker 1: maybe four. Once I get beyond that, I start to say,
Speaker 1: how I wonder, I wonder how the team's doing, you know,
Speaker 1: I wonder if if everybody's okay, you know, across the country,
Speaker 1: if everyone's you know, just making sure they're eating all
Speaker 1: their veggies and you know, spreading freedom, And I start
Speaker 1: to want My mind wanders back to that. So I
Speaker 1: can't really enjoy my mescal on the rocks and my
Speaker 1: beach time, which, by the way, I'm in desperate need
Speaker 1: of those two things, because I have not done that
Speaker 1: in quite a while. This year, I just stayed in
Speaker 1: the DC area. I really just was in on sleep patrol,
Speaker 1: which I know that's that's a boring story for me
Speaker 1: to tell you. So I'm not going to do that.
Speaker 1: Let's get right to it. Let's get to it here. Oh,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. Here we got a message from Wow,
Speaker 1: this is interesting interesting. This is from Fox News, and
Speaker 1: this is from I'm sorry, this is from Michael Rather,
Speaker 1: but he's sending me a Fox News. I'm just seeing
Speaker 1: this now. Apparently I made it onto their website, he says,
Speaker 1: bub you're really chopping in tall cotton. Now Fox News
Speaker 1: just assumes people know who you are. And there's Sexton,
Speaker 1: no Trump arrangement syndrome limits. There we go. I made
Speaker 1: it onto the front of the Fox News website for
Speaker 1: I suppose that was for out Was that for outnumbered?
Speaker 1: Or when when did I say that? Well, anyway, Michael,
Speaker 1: thank you for bringing in my attention. I don't even
Speaker 1: know I made it on the foxnews dot com website,
Speaker 1: but there you go. That's kind of fun. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: one of the That's one of those things that always
Speaker 1: annoys me is depending on the outlet that writes about you. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Foxes that's that's my Even though I'm technically not a
Speaker 1: member of the family, I consider Fox my family. Have
Speaker 1: tons of friends over there. I do obviously a lot
Speaker 1: of shows and just very fond of the people who
Speaker 1: work at the network and obviously agree with what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do every day. But other places, you know, Mediaite,
Speaker 1: which is a kind of trade publication online for people
Speaker 1: that work in the media. You know, whether they call
Speaker 1: you conservative analyst or by your name is depends on
Speaker 1: who the writer is there. And it's always a little
Speaker 1: it's a little slight. You get very used to slights
Speaker 1: in this business. You know, people kind of people spitting
Speaker 1: in your petunias, if you know what I mean. Actually,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what I mean. I don't even
Speaker 1: know if that made sense. James, same first name that
Speaker 1: I have rights buck you sound you used a sound
Speaker 1: by at the start of yesterday's podcast about how the
Speaker 1: cost of the wall would be offset by savings in
Speaker 1: detention and processing. Can you point to the source someone
Speaker 1: is challenging me where I heard it? Thanks? That was
Speaker 1: that was Tom Hohman, who was the former former acting
Speaker 1: Director of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. I think he was
Speaker 1: saying that on Fox News, but that was Tom Hohman.
Speaker 1: I you know, so if you look up Tom Holman
Speaker 1: and that sound by or that quote, you should be
Speaker 1: able to pull it out pretty easily. Amy, rights, Oh buck,
Speaker 1: I am so angry about Mitt Romney. He swept into
Speaker 1: Utah with his billions and the establishments millions and edged
Speaker 1: out any conservative that might stand a chance. For the
Speaker 1: first time ever, in twenty sixteen, I voted straight Republican ticket,
Speaker 1: knowing that Mitt was my only option. I figured it
Speaker 1: was better to get him than hand the Senate to
Speaker 1: the Democrats. I will say, however, in Utah's favor, that
Speaker 1: the state punishes our rhinos. I helped me a love
Speaker 1: get elected to my district, and I joined my district
Speaker 1: in speaking out against her when she voted with Bayner
Speaker 1: instead of the district. Please notice that she lost in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. People were and are still mad at her
Speaker 1: for doing a belly flop into the swamp waters of DC.
Speaker 1: You know, I love my belly flop analogies. I expect
Speaker 1: Mitt will not only will not serve another term as
Speaker 1: our senator. Heck, maybe we can even recall him. Amy.
Speaker 1: You know, Mit, for me was It's not just that
Speaker 1: I disagree with a lot of what he says in
Speaker 1: that editorial or particularly on the foreign policy side. I
Speaker 1: mean to act like the establishment is how the answers
Speaker 1: on foreign policy in recent years is to really allow
Speaker 1: yourself into a delusion. The establishment has made horrible errors
Speaker 1: strategic and I don't mean errors that nobody could have
Speaker 1: seen him coming. I mean errors that history tells us.
Speaker 1: You know, you can go back this guy, Mike Schoyer,
Speaker 1: who's kind of fallen off the fallen off the radar.
Speaker 1: I don't know what really happened to him, but you know,
Speaker 1: he was a very outside the box thinker and was
Speaker 1: formerly a CIA analyst who was running what became essentially
Speaker 1: the bin Laden Unit at the at the agency. And
Speaker 1: he wrote this book. He wrote this book that went
Speaker 1: into how you know, we should know everything we need
Speaker 1: to know about The book is called Imperial Hubris, Why
Speaker 1: the West is Losing the War on Terror. And yeah,
Speaker 1: Michael Schuyer, I mean I read that book before I
Speaker 1: was told to read that book before I went into
Speaker 1: the CIA by people in the CIA who are like,
Speaker 1: you need to read this book. And and Mike was right,
Speaker 1: He's like, we're gonna go in there, we're gonna think
Speaker 1: it's gonna be different, and it's not going to be different.
Speaker 1: So don't let the don't let the foreign policy elites,
Speaker 1: such as they are. And look when I say that,
Speaker 1: there's no easy way to have these conversations. You know,
Speaker 1: do I think you know, is somebody like my friend
Speaker 1: Jim Carafano over at the Heritage Foundation. Is he in
Speaker 1: an elite in a sense because he's got an not
Speaker 1: only military service, but decades of expertise in foreign policy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But so you know, just because you're in the foreign
Speaker 1: policy establishment doesn't mean that you're not somebody who I
Speaker 1: think is really worthwhile and has a lot of good
Speaker 1: things to say on these issues. But in general, the
Speaker 1: foreign policy establishment I think has been very, very wrong.
Speaker 1: And Imperial Huberts is a good book. I mean, Shower
Speaker 1: he burned some butts at over at Langley with this one.
Speaker 1: They did not, And it wasn't just Langley, I mean
Speaker 1: it was really the the overall the administration and everybody
Speaker 1: who was working on Afghan policy was really ticked off
Speaker 1: about this. So but back to Romney. Sorry, that got
Speaker 1: me on a little bit of of a rant there.
Speaker 1: Back to Romney for a second. You know, he's allowing
Speaker 1: himself to be used by the other side. He's allowing
Speaker 1: what he says to be a weapon against whether he's
Speaker 1: willing to accept this or not, the very policies and
Speaker 1: ideas that he claims that he's all for. So what
Speaker 1: I mean by this is, you know, he went on
Speaker 1: you know, Jake Tapper's show, and those who listen to
Speaker 1: the show know that I'm not a fan of Tapper's
Speaker 1: work or Tapper, but you know, he went on Tapper's show,
Speaker 1: and they're just giving him this platform, putting him on
Speaker 1: these Sunday shows and elevating him in this moment to
Speaker 1: trash Trump and the right with him, because remember Trump
Speaker 1: is the de facto leader of the Republican Party right now.
Speaker 1: And so if you're somebody who really cares about just
Speaker 1: go down the list, secure boarders, rule of law, supporting life,
Speaker 1: you know, being being pro life support, and just go
Speaker 1: down to all the you know, limited government, although we
Speaker 1: didn't really talk about that anymore. You know, that'sn't even
Speaker 1: a it's a fair question what do conservatives even stand
Speaker 1: for right now that we can all agree on. I
Speaker 1: know what you would say, what I would say about conservatism,
Speaker 1: but at the national level, it feels a little bit
Speaker 1: like we're we're not concerned with the debt. We're not
Speaker 1: concerned with the deficit. We're not you know, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that we have. We haven't reformed entitlements,
Speaker 1: we haven't gotten rid of Obamacare. You know, we got
Speaker 1: a lot of work to do. Sorry, I'm kind of
Speaker 1: ending the going toward the end of the show here
Speaker 1: on a bummer note. But Romney supposedly cares about all
Speaker 1: those things, and he allows by going on Tapper's show
Speaker 1: and allowing himself to be manipulated in this way. Whether
Speaker 1: he knows it and doesn't care or just isn't savvy
Speaker 1: enough to know it, I can't tell you how can
Speaker 1: you claim to care about these things? You know? You
Speaker 1: do you want conservative justices on the Supreme Court or not?
Speaker 1: Do you want a deregulation going on at the federal
Speaker 1: agency level or not? You know, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: things that by taking Trump down, you're taking all that
Speaker 1: down too. This is very you know, and I want
Speaker 1: to be very clear because I'm hoping that all of
Speaker 1: you're listening to this show are going to be joining
Speaker 1: the millions of other people down the line who will
Speaker 1: be listening to this show. And I'm going to have
Speaker 1: to own some things later on that that I'm telling
Speaker 1: you now, And one of them is it's going to
Speaker 1: be very hard to attack a future Democrat administration or
Speaker 1: Republican administration. But to attack a future administration on you know,
Speaker 1: on issues of character, on issues of truthfulness, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're gonna that's gonna be tough. You know, we've accepted
Speaker 1: a lot of us have I think many of you
Speaker 1: listening a more transactional relationship with politics now than we
Speaker 1: previously had as conservatives, meaning that Trump gets stuff for
Speaker 1: us or is trying to get things done in a
Speaker 1: policy level, and that's what we care about first and foremost.
Speaker 1: Everything else is very secondary. There's there's merit to that argument,
Speaker 1: and that's a serious argument. And I think that Romney
Speaker 1: comes along with all this character stuff and talking about
Speaker 1: how Trump is a bad man essentially, and you have
Speaker 1: to look at Romney and say, are you really willing
Speaker 1: to just give up on all the rest of the
Speaker 1: things that you know, people like me support Trump to
Speaker 1: try and get Do you care about borders, you care
Speaker 1: about life? Do you care about rule of law? Do
Speaker 1: you care about capitalism? Do you know you look at
Speaker 1: a Democrat left is going to get scarier and scarier
Speaker 1: over the next two years. Trust me. You know, if
Speaker 1: you care about all those things and you're trashing Trump,
Speaker 1: you got to ask to what end? And I think
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney didn't ask that question nearly nearly enough. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I went on a bit of a bit of a
Speaker 1: tear there. You know what, let me I have an
Speaker 1: undouble role call in a while. So that's actually fine.
Speaker 1: Let me, I'm gonna hit a quick break, we'll come back.
Speaker 1: We'll do a little more role call because I can,
Speaker 1: because why not? And stay with me, all right? I
Speaker 1: said I was gonna do more role call because you know,
Speaker 1: I missed hearing from all of you. I'm also hoping
Speaker 1: to maybe you know, I get into these these uh
Speaker 1: cycles of thought. And that wasn't particularly artfully worded, but
Speaker 1: I get in the zone. And you know, we don't
Speaker 1: take as many phone calls as we used to, and
Speaker 1: that's been pointed out by some of the year like, look, Buck,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't want calls all the time. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's generally the mark of a of somewhat lackadaisical
Speaker 1: radio host. You just be like, all right, let's just
Speaker 1: every day, open the lines and let like everybody else
Speaker 1: talk for an hour, because you know, there's only so
Speaker 1: much quality control you can do about the topics that way.
Speaker 1: That said, I want to do more calls, So I'm
Speaker 1: thinking about doing one night a week, and you can
Speaker 1: let me know on Facebook if you like this idea
Speaker 1: where I you know, the the second hour of the show,
Speaker 1: we're just gonna we're gonna rack in stack calls. I mean,
Speaker 1: I want, you know, I want to take a lot
Speaker 1: of calls from Malodi. So at least that way people
Speaker 1: always know, Hey, if there's something on Monday that I
Speaker 1: really want to talk to, not just Buck, but everybody
Speaker 1: about is listening across the country, I can call in
Speaker 1: and know that, you know, if I'm willing to be
Speaker 1: a little patient, because usually we open the lines up
Speaker 1: that you know, it's like a Christmas tree all the
Speaker 1: lights go off. But if you can be a little
Speaker 1: bit patient, we'll make sure we will get you on air.
Speaker 1: I will want to do that. I mean. Facebook has
Speaker 1: been working great for us on this so far because
Speaker 1: it allows people to sew easily and in their own time.
Speaker 1: It also brings our podcast audience into the discussion in
Speaker 1: a way that you know is nice because we have
Speaker 1: a very shall we say, a very robust nation YU
Speaker 1: download podcast audience, so the right in the digital and
Speaker 1: I know I've been saying I'm gonna get an email
Speaker 1: address set up forever, and I just you know, we
Speaker 1: gotta do that. Producer Mike DJ John, can we make
Speaker 1: a note. We gotta do that. We gotta get it.
Speaker 1: We gotta get a real not like a official Team
Speaker 1: Buck Gmail address, which just sounds like I'm trying to
Speaker 1: get people to give you their bank information because a
Speaker 1: Nigerian prince or something. That's not good. All right, roll call,
Speaker 1: roll calls. Fuck Sallen tassee, I missed you guys, So
Speaker 1: I get all I get all flustered. Rachel, let's go,
Speaker 1: She writes, Hey, Buck, I have two thoughts for you.
Speaker 1: Number one in regards to the rule in radio where
Speaker 1: you have someone fill in for you so that your
Speaker 1: audience misses you. I think that your excellent subs just
Speaker 1: make us appreciate you even more because you care so
Speaker 1: much about your audience to leave us in good hands. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Rachel. I really appreciate that. And that's honestly
Speaker 1: my goal, and that's what I'm trying to do that.
Speaker 1: That's my approach to my fillins. I want you, those
Speaker 1: of you who are used to listening to this show
Speaker 1: Monday through Friday, or if you listen to the podcast
Speaker 1: over the weekend, I want you to always feel like
Speaker 1: when you're giving me your time, it's worthwhile. So I'm
Speaker 1: I'm getting the best villains I possibly can every time.
Speaker 1: And your feedback on fillins especially really matters, because you know,
Speaker 1: I'm these are everybody who fills it on this show.
Speaker 1: I know and you know I I'm friends with them
Speaker 1: or I professionally at least have spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time with them, So it's something to consider. You know,
Speaker 1: one person that I'm thinking we should bring in to
Speaker 1: a fill in would be a Sager and Jetty from
Speaker 1: The Daily Caller. I just think he's such a good
Speaker 1: guy and really sharp reporter. I think he's actually got
Speaker 1: radio chops. So I'm hoping to do what I've done
Speaker 1: for some people over at Fox News, which is start
Speaker 1: them off in a direction their career that they hadn't
Speaker 1: even considered before. There are a number of people who
Speaker 1: are now Fox News correspondence and anchors who I will
Speaker 1: have you know and the original Saturday squad. You guys
Speaker 1: all know this, But there are people who they got
Speaker 1: started in this business because I called them or I
Speaker 1: emailed them and said, hey, some of you were probably familiar.
Speaker 1: Maybe you know. I was a big and early proponent
Speaker 1: of Ellison Barber when she was at the Washington Free Beacon.
Speaker 1: Now she's a rising star over at Fox News. I
Speaker 1: didn't find her, but I was somebody who was very
Speaker 1: much in favor of of putting her on TV at
Speaker 1: the Blaze. I did find Jillian Turner, who's just she's
Speaker 1: hosting shows over at Fox now. She's doing a great
Speaker 1: job of that. And you know, uh, there there are
Speaker 1: There are a few others that I don't want to
Speaker 1: go into too much. I don't want to take too
Speaker 1: much of a bow here, but there are a few
Speaker 1: others that I've helped get going on all this. In fact,
Speaker 1: we have I'm hoping we'll get Joe Simonson back on
Speaker 1: radio sometime as a guest. He is a daily caller reporter,
Speaker 1: does some Fox News too. He was an intern for
Speaker 1: me at at the Blaze in the original Saturday version
Speaker 1: of this show. At the Blaze, he was he was
Speaker 1: my intern and we both wore boat shoes, and I
Speaker 1: saw it he came in. I mean, talk about a
Speaker 1: way to impress the boss. You know, he came in
Speaker 1: wearing not just boat shoes, but Sperry Gold Cup. John.
Speaker 1: It's like he was my It's like he was my
Speaker 1: brother from another mother. I mean, you know, we're wearing
Speaker 1: the same shoes down to the and that's a very
Speaker 1: sp those of you who know the Sperry Gold Cup,
Speaker 1: it's worth the extra sixty bucks to get it, to
Speaker 1: get it right. William, By the way, that's mine. If
Speaker 1: I could have a dream sponsor, I think the dream
Speaker 1: sponsor would be Sperry would be high on the list.
Speaker 1: And I have. I've had more pairs of Sperry shoes
Speaker 1: in my life than any other brand of anything. William Rights,
Speaker 1: I'm listening to last night. Bucks says the EIB doesn't
Speaker 1: use guys within active show as guest host lo and
Speaker 1: Behold at noon, Todd Herman comes on as guest host.
Speaker 1: Not only does Todd have an active show, he's in
Speaker 1: the three three to six pm Pacific time slot. For
Speaker 1: those of you time zone challenge. That's the same slot
Speaker 1: Bucks in. That's all I'm gonna say about that. Wow,
Speaker 1: you know I might have to I might have to
Speaker 1: make a phone call. I didn't know that. I guess
Speaker 1: then they will. Maybe the policy has changed, but I
Speaker 1: have to call. I have to call El Rushbow's team
Speaker 1: say hey, guys, I'm still I'm very I'll do six
Speaker 1: hours of radio. You just tell me when. I think
Speaker 1: it's because we're on the same network and it's the
Speaker 1: same syndicator. I think that's the rule. I think maybe
Speaker 1: if you're outside, unless he's an iHeart host as well.
Speaker 1: But I'll look into that. Thanks for the heads up, William. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta. I'm gona to give myself a code red team.
Speaker 1: It's been real. I'll see you tomorrow. Shield Tie