Speaker 1: Why pay your hard earned money to join an organization
Speaker 1: that fought tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system.
Speaker 1: Well in that scripted portions of White House speeches behind
Speaker 1: closed doors to ensure the passage of the Affordable Care Act,
Speaker 1: the organization that stood against tax cuts for middle class
Speaker 1: Americans and small business owners. You know that's AARP. Join
Speaker 1: AMAC instead. The conservative alternative AMAC offers the same kinds
Speaker 1: of money saving benefits of AARP without the liberal agenda.
Speaker 1: Become an AMAC member right now at AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMAC fights for your values, protecting our borders
Speaker 1: by enforcing common sense immigration laws, supporting small business, and
Speaker 1: standing up for your individual God given freedoms. AMAC is
Speaker 1: the way to go. Stand with AMAC as they fight
Speaker 1: the good fight. By becoming a member today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are great, but the cause is even greater. Join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's am AC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you,
Speaker 1: better for America. You are entering the freedom hunt. Pelosi
Speaker 1: gets grounded. Apparently she's on Trump's personal no fly list.
Speaker 1: What does this mean about how this shutdown is going
Speaker 1: to end? If it's going to end anytime soon, and
Speaker 1: who's going to come out the winner. Plus a supposed
Speaker 1: bombshell in BuzzFeed that's going to take down this presidency.
Speaker 1: Should we be concerned? Is any of it true? Here's
Speaker 1: a hint. Probably not, but that is more coming up
Speaker 1: on the buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show where the mission or mission is to decode what
Speaker 1: really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember
Speaker 1: the animal. While many Democrats in the House and Senate
Speaker 1: would like to make a deal, Speaker Pelosi will not
Speaker 1: let them negotiate. The party has been hijacked by the
Speaker 1: open borders fringe within the party, the radical left becoming
Speaker 1: the radical Democrats. Hopefully Democrat lawmakers will step forward to
Speaker 1: do what is right for our country, and what's right
Speaker 1: for our country is border security. Welcome through the buck
Speaker 1: sex and Show everybody. We are still in the midst
Speaker 1: of the shut down, and Trump is absolutely spot on here.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the open borders
Speaker 1: fringe within it. This is the case, and we are
Speaker 1: seeing this now more than ever before, or because the
Speaker 1: Democrats only argument they can really offer up here is
Speaker 1: look at how painful the shutdown House. Look at look
Speaker 1: at how painful the shutdowns become. It's so terrible, it's
Speaker 1: so mean. Look what Trump is doing, He's so mean.
Speaker 1: Well why is he doing it? Who wants money to
Speaker 1: build barriers an additional border security? Why is that so
Speaker 1: hard Democrats? It's not a lot of money. It's point
Speaker 1: zero one percent of the budget. What's really the problem here?
Speaker 1: What's really the issue? And it is that the Democrats
Speaker 1: first and foremost refuse to give President Trump the political
Speaker 1: victory of following through on the central promise of his
Speaker 1: presidential campaign, because they know that that'll make him nearly
Speaker 1: unstoppable in the twenty twenty election. Though I know they
Speaker 1: think they're going to stop him through non electoral means.
Speaker 1: They're going to try to impeach him and remove him
Speaker 1: and prosecute him and all these other things. And we
Speaker 1: will get to that during the show today. But this
Speaker 1: is really simple. The other part of this is that
Speaker 1: Democrats also just are a far left party now on
Speaker 1: immigration and on the border. I never hear Democrats explain
Speaker 1: why is it that we should have border security? What's
Speaker 1: really the problem you know, they say that the ports
Speaker 1: of entry are the only places drugs come in. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I think today I just saw a friend at the
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner share that he was doing essentially what I
Speaker 1: did in San Diego. He was doing in Texas. And
Speaker 1: they see seven hundred pounds of cocaine today and one
Speaker 1: seizure at the border and not at a port of
Speaker 1: entry out in an open field, somebody coming in on
Speaker 1: a pickup truck. So start with that. But why do
Speaker 1: Democrats say that they they want border security when there's
Speaker 1: nobody who's coming into the country that they're willing to
Speaker 1: say once they're here they should not be allowed to
Speaker 1: se day. I mean, how close to being an open
Speaker 1: borders party can they be before we call them that,
Speaker 1: or before we at least say before at least willing
Speaker 1: to say that they have turned into a party that
Speaker 1: does not believe in border security. They want to be
Speaker 1: essentially a turn style for whoever wants to show up. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to stop, get in line, and then you
Speaker 1: come through. But it's really just for reasons of government management, taxation,
Speaker 1: and more to the point, with legal aliens lining up
Speaker 1: people who are going to need public benefits and therefore,
Speaker 1: who are going to be likely to vote for the
Speaker 1: party of the welfare state, which is the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: That's what all this comes down to. But you know,
Speaker 1: Pelosi claims that there is a negotiation going on here.
Speaker 1: Pelosi claims that they're willing to have a real discussion.
Speaker 1: But that's well, we can all judge that for ourselves.
Speaker 1: Can we play too, don't you a Speaker of the House,
Speaker 1: have an obligation to be at the negotiating table. We
Speaker 1: had to negotiating table were night At the last one
Speaker 1: we went to what I think was a set up
Speaker 1: with the president pounded as he gave himself leverage to
Speaker 1: leave the room. But now we're at the negotiating table.
Speaker 1: I think she men gave himself leave to leave the
Speaker 1: room at didn't want to say that, no, they're not
Speaker 1: the negotiating table, because you know, they wanted to go.
Speaker 1: Pelosi wanted to go in one of these Codel's congressional
Speaker 1: delegation trip. It's gonna go to Brussels and then Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: And this got canceled in one of the greatest acts
Speaker 1: of presidential trolling. And I am all I'm all for it.
Speaker 1: I really am one of the greatest acts of presidential trolling.
Speaker 1: You could imagine the Pelosi crew and a bunch of
Speaker 1: other members of Congress were in the bus on the
Speaker 1: way to Andrew's Air Force Base to be taken all
Speaker 1: paid for by the tax by the taxpayer. You know, really,
Speaker 1: just using the Department of Defense is their personal private
Speaker 1: jet service, taking them for you know, a trip to
Speaker 1: Brussels and then Afghanistan. And I think they were also
Speaker 1: stopping maybe in Egypt along the way too, But you know,
Speaker 1: essentially it's going on a trip. He's gonna gonna be
Speaker 1: on a trip, and they get a big per diem
Speaker 1: when they're over there, a lot of government benefits that
Speaker 1: come with this whole thing. They don't pay. They don't
Speaker 1: pay for the travel obviously, they don't pay for their
Speaker 1: food and lodging. That's all you and me pen for that.
Speaker 1: And Trump released a letter and he said, look, sorry,
Speaker 1: right now, given the shutdown, I'm going to cancel the
Speaker 1: usage of a Department of Defense planes to get you there,
Speaker 1: because guess what, Trump's the commander in chief. He has
Speaker 1: the right to do this. He did it. I love it.
Speaker 1: I think it's great. I think these congressional delegations are.
Speaker 1: I know, they're usually boondogglas I used to brief members
Speaker 1: of Congress on these delegations sometimes, and man, it was
Speaker 1: a waste. Most of the time. They just wanted to
Speaker 1: know where they could get the coolest knives in the
Speaker 1: bizarre and where they can get the best rugs. I'm
Speaker 1: being serious, that's the kind of stuff that the congressional
Speaker 1: delegations were often interested in. I mean, most of these
Speaker 1: are absolute boondoggles, but the media is horrified, horrified at
Speaker 1: the politics involved here Play four. The President has responded
Speaker 1: in sort of a childish way, is the only way
Speaker 1: to describe it. To the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, this
Speaker 1: is a sort of a classic example of Trump kind
Speaker 1: of overreacting. What is Trump has done today? Tactically inept, strategically, knitwitted.
Speaker 1: The only phrase that comes to mind is nanny nanny boobo.
Speaker 1: Nobody who's ever traveled with a congressional delegation would think
Speaker 1: that this is funding or appropriate or cool. Nobody who's
Speaker 1: ever to travel with the congretul delegation. Nobody Jake Chapper
Speaker 1: being all jig Chapperlake actually no, dude. Lots of people.
Speaker 1: I'm one of them who had who actually had to
Speaker 1: sit there and briefly Congression delegation and be like, so
Speaker 1: you guys don't care, huh, you're you're visiting the What
Speaker 1: they'll often do because I know, because I worked on
Speaker 1: this stuff, and I'm not just taking dictation from you know,
Speaker 1: Democrats and Capitol Hill. Uh. The way it works is
Speaker 1: that they'll add on a day somewhere that matters on
Speaker 1: the way. They'll stop in London and Paris and Brussels
Speaker 1: and Prague and you know, all that gets thrown in there.
Speaker 1: But you know, then they'll spend a day in the
Speaker 1: Green Zone and Baghdad. People go, oh, it's so dangerous
Speaker 1: their flights coming in a back people live there. I mean,
Speaker 1: these these these aren't war zones in the sense that
Speaker 1: people aren't going about their day to day lives in
Speaker 1: these countries. They're they're not planes being shot out of
Speaker 1: the sky, God forbid. But you know that's not happening.
Speaker 1: So so they fly in for a day and get
Speaker 1: some briefings and leave. This is not some active heroism
Speaker 1: or bravery in the part of the Congressional delegation, but
Speaker 1: just all of the oh it's so terrible and you know,
Speaker 1: nobody would ever think, nobody ever think this is, you know, funny,
Speaker 1: you're cute. I actually wrong. I do think it's both
Speaker 1: funny and cute because I think that Pelosi's I think
Speaker 1: Pelosi's a clown, a very powerful one, unfortunately, but not
Speaker 1: somebody of any intellectual or ethical seriousness. And I have
Speaker 1: to take this moment, after we've established that there are
Speaker 1: lots of people to meet, very upset. How how could
Speaker 1: you do this? You know, Trump trolling Pelosi on this
Speaker 1: issue is you know, just just fine or terrible, but
Speaker 1: you know it's just fine and dandy for them. Pelosi
Speaker 1: the day before canceling the President's State of the Union address.
Speaker 1: Play three, Speaker Pelosi playing hardball. She's playing hardball. Speaker
Speaker 1: Pelosi flexing her constitutional muscle. Nancy Pelosi flexing her muscles today,
Speaker 1: This bold power play by Speaker Pelosi. She's got a
Speaker 1: PhD and needling President Trump. This is a move of
Speaker 1: exceptional cleverness and sadism in a way. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is political genius. She was showing that she's in charge.
Speaker 1: What a badass political genius, they say, a badass. What
Speaker 1: do we think is, let's take a step back. What's
Speaker 1: really more important? A speech from the President of the
Speaker 1: United States to the American people that lays out the
Speaker 1: state of the Union but also the direction of policy
Speaker 1: and what he's going to try to do, and it's
Speaker 1: going to be watched by I don't know, fifteen or
Speaker 1: twenty million people or whatever it is. Or a few
Speaker 1: members of Congress getting to fly to Europe and then
Speaker 1: a quick stopover in Cobble where they're going to be,
Speaker 1: you know, rug shopping and get some very you know,
Speaker 1: thirty thousand foot at best, briefings on what's going on
Speaker 1: in the country before they leave. What do we think
Speaker 1: is more important? I mean, I'll argue that neither of
Speaker 1: them are really that important. I mean, the State of
Speaker 1: the Union should just be I think it should just
Speaker 1: be a policy paper or you know, it should be
Speaker 1: released as a written statement. That's it. I don't think
Speaker 1: we have to do more pageantry. I think we get
Speaker 1: enough visualization of the president. I think we see enough
Speaker 1: and hear enough from the president. Um, but you know,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi canceling the State of the Union is brilliant,
Speaker 1: it's genius. She's amazing, she's a badass. And then Trump's like,
Speaker 1: all right, well, guess what your little trip, your little
Speaker 1: taxpayer funded safari to uh, you know, Brussels. Guess what
Speaker 1: we're gonna We're gonna put a little little pass on that,
Speaker 1: because aren't you also then going to ensure that federal
Speaker 1: workers miss another paid. I mean, I thought we were
Speaker 1: so concerned with getting federal workers paid. Again, Pelosi's gonna leave,
Speaker 1: the Speaker of the House is gonna leave the country
Speaker 1: for a completely unnecessary trip. And don't even get me
Speaker 1: started on what it means. And many of you are listening,
Speaker 1: who who were in the military, or if some of
Speaker 1: you were in the intelligence community like me, you know
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. When they show up, when a
Speaker 1: codel shows up in a rock Afghanistan, Oh there's all this,
Speaker 1: you know, they gotta give them a tour, and everything's
Speaker 1: gonna look nice and gotta sound right, and there's just
Speaker 1: a lot of pomp and circumstance rounds unnecessary, it's unnecessary.
Speaker 1: And now Pelosi is saying that, oh he's and now
Speaker 1: we can't fly commercial because Trump said we may fly commercial.
Speaker 1: So now we're in this big let me tell you
Speaker 1: something right now, all right, Nancy Pelosi was not flying
Speaker 1: on a normal commercial flight to Afghanistan. No way she
Speaker 1: was going to do that. So this pretense that oh,
Speaker 1: Trump blew Trump blew our cover with this trip. Now
Speaker 1: and now we can't even fly private even if we
Speaker 1: wanted to. These people are so full of it all liberals,
Speaker 1: so hypocritical, so sanctimonious. They really just need to get
Speaker 1: a grip. But I don't think they're going to anytime soon.
Speaker 1: I don't think our expectations should be that all of
Speaker 1: a sudden liberals are gonna start acting like adults. I
Speaker 1: think we're just going to see more and more and
Speaker 1: more of this from them in the era of Trump.
Speaker 1: Trump has Trump has broken them, and they have not
Speaker 1: yet figured out a way to deal with it. But
Speaker 1: this State of the Union situation, I don't think we
Speaker 1: need to have the state of the Union address. It's
Speaker 1: just if the politics of canceling the State of the
Speaker 1: Union are great, and you're a quote journalist, you better
Speaker 1: not be run around making some case that the politics
Speaker 1: of canceling a completely unnecessary congressional boondoggle is some kind
Speaker 1: of grave national security threat or in justice. This is
Speaker 1: just it's pathetic. It is pathetic. Why can't people just
Speaker 1: tell us what side you're on. Media, just stop lying,
Speaker 1: tell us the truth about who you're rooting for, and
Speaker 1: then you can say whatever you want and we'll judge
Speaker 1: it for ourselves. Stop pretending to be objective, you are liars. Yes,
Speaker 1: if we have to, I think we absolutely should. I
Speaker 1: think in no way should we say that the State
Speaker 1: of the Unions now a partisan event and the Democrats
Speaker 1: can just cancel it because they don't like republic But
Speaker 1: I think it actually could happen. It's not very big,
Speaker 1: you know, we only have one hundred seats, but we
Speaker 1: have a huge gallery and there could be some standing room.
Speaker 1: It's not ideal. I mean, it's supposed to be in
Speaker 1: the House, and it traditionally has we never tried to
Speaker 1: bar when the Republicans in charge, we never tried to
Speaker 1: bar President Obama from doing it. No, whatever we can
Speaker 1: consider something like that, I think as a Democrats to
Speaker 1: it will be seen as really petty and really petty partisanship.
Speaker 1: Rampaul's idea here that they would do the State of
Speaker 1: the Union on the floor of the Senate is it's
Speaker 1: certainly interesting, but his thing that that's gonna be petty
Speaker 1: and parties that, yeah, of course, that's what Democrats are,
Speaker 1: you know, and I don't know I that. Look, Republicans
Speaker 1: can be parties in two Trump is obviously partisans, and
Speaker 1: Trump fights back. That's why they hate him so much.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party of ten years ago would have said, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, they want to cancel the State of the Union.
Speaker 1: We must have made them mad. It's our fault. The
Speaker 1: Republican Party of today, with Trump at the head, is like, okay,
Speaker 1: all right, you're gonna cancel my State of the Union.
Speaker 1: I'm going to cancel your BS flight that we all
Speaker 1: know is a boondog. And I I like that Republican
Speaker 1: Party better. I think that you do need to have
Speaker 1: a check on the manipulations and deceptions of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: and there need to be consequences for their lives, because remember,
Speaker 1: you're dealing with people like Congressman Shift, who are just
Speaker 1: slimy and unethical and gross play five too often in
Speaker 1: the last two years, the president has acted like he's
Speaker 1: in the fifth grader, and to have someone who has
Speaker 1: that kind of the character running the country is an
Speaker 1: enormous problem at every level. And you see it now,
Speaker 1: We've seen it over the last two years, and my
Speaker 1: guess is we're going to see it in the future. Well,
Speaker 1: our nation's capital has officially become a playground brook. The
Speaker 1: President has responded in sort of a childish way, is
Speaker 1: the only way to describe it, to the House Speaker
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi to her letter, essentially saying that do you
Speaker 1: say the union will be postponed? There you had a
Speaker 1: cost to get into the mix as well, just calling
Speaker 1: the President childish. I mean, they're going to say all
Speaker 1: this stuff. You know what I say, All right, let's
Speaker 1: let's fight a little fire with fire here, you know,
Speaker 1: Let's let's actually show them the way that they like
Speaker 1: to win these arguments. We're gonna do that. We're gonna
Speaker 1: do that back. I would know to hear that the
Speaker 1: White House. I just saw this. Now, this just went
Speaker 1: up right before we went on air, but that or
Speaker 1: a couple hours before runner. But I'm just seeing now
Speaker 1: that the White House has basically said that this Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi thing where she's saying that she was gonna fly
Speaker 1: commercial and that this was leaked is quote a flat
Speaker 1: out lie, and another White House official called it asinine. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, this is this is so pathetic. It's such
Speaker 1: a reach. The White House is going to leak that
Speaker 1: members of Congress are flying private so that meaning that
Speaker 1: they're flying on commercial, not private planes, but on commercial
Speaker 1: you know, airlines to Afghanistan. They're gonna leak that to
Speaker 1: the press. First of all, how do they know it
Speaker 1: came from the White House? Start with that. You're gonna
Speaker 1: tell me that congressional staffs wouldn't know about this, I mean,
Speaker 1: the idea that they can pin it on the White
Speaker 1: House right away, It just goes to show you that
Speaker 1: this is highly political and that they're trying to make
Speaker 1: a lot out of this. But even beyond that, Yeah, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, she's really gonna she's really gonna cram into
Speaker 1: seat twenty seven g on you know, air Afghanistan. I
Speaker 1: don't think so, Okay, I don't think Nancy Pelosi was
Speaker 1: about to get on a commercial flight bound for Cobble.
Speaker 1: I think Queen Nancy really makes make sure that she
Speaker 1: has a seat that reclines all the way and has
Speaker 1: ample champagne wherever she flies. Let's get real, people, all right,
Speaker 1: let's get real. It is It is a flat outlie.
Speaker 1: It is assinine and it's just funny to see. You know,
Speaker 1: this is you know, Democrats, they're they're they're being really
Speaker 1: childish about this because they're being exposed because Trump's winning
Speaker 1: the argument over the wall. Now we're gonna they want
Speaker 1: to focus on everything on the wall. I was at
Speaker 1: the border this week, and as I told you at
Speaker 1: length on Wednesday, the wall works, fencing works, Barriers are necessary.
Speaker 1: Barriers are incredibly helpful the border patrol. There's no question.
Speaker 1: The numbers speak to it. I saw it with my
Speaker 1: own eyes. I'm telling you it works. And the biggest
Speaker 1: talking point you'd half the Democrats up to this point
Speaker 1: was that they don't work. Well, that's just a lie.
Speaker 1: So now it's oh, they're being so mean to the
Speaker 1: federal workers, and Trump is leaking to the press that
Speaker 1: we were going to fly to a complete It's just nonsense.
Speaker 1: But you know, I got the March for Life and
Speaker 1: the Women's March. March for Life was today, Women's marches tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I want to talk to you about those two very
Speaker 1: different organizations and causes in some detail. Coming up. You tweeted,
Speaker 1: we're gonna put this up on the screen regarding Republican
Speaker 1: Congressman Senator Lindsey Graham. I believe we have this tweet
Speaker 1: saying they got him, he has compromised, and there it is.
Speaker 1: I wonder if you'd explain what you were talking about
Speaker 1: there that this has sparked a fair amount of criticism,
Speaker 1: not just from republic the kids. Can you explain that comment?
Speaker 1: So over the last three years, we have seen many
Speaker 1: times where Senator Lindsey Graham has told us how dangerous
Speaker 1: this president could be if he was given the opportunity
Speaker 1: to be in the White House. And all of the sudden,
Speaker 1: he's made not only one hundred and eighty turn around,
Speaker 1: but a three sixty turn around. And so I am
Speaker 1: pretty sure that there is something happening with him. But
Speaker 1: that's quite a charge to make. You say you're pretty
Speaker 1: sure based on based on what evidence, what facts that
Speaker 1: that's a remarkable comment to make about a sitting US senator.
Speaker 1: The the the evidence really is um present to us.
Speaker 1: It's being presented to us in the way that he's behaving.
Speaker 1: But that's not evidence that that's your opinion. But now,
Speaker 1: as a sitting member of Congress, you would have tweeted
Speaker 1: they got him on this again, just based on what evidence,
Speaker 1: on My tweet was just an opinion based on what
Speaker 1: I believe to be visible to me, and I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure there are lots of Americans who agree on this.
Speaker 1: A remarkable exchange there on CNN earlier this week that
Speaker 1: I've been meaning to get to with you, but I
Speaker 1: was out yesterday when it happened. That was two CNA anchors,
Speaker 1: actually two sing An anchors that I know pretty well,
Speaker 1: Poppy Harlowe and Jim Shudo and Ilhan Omar, who is
Speaker 1: the newest Muslim American. I think she might actually be
Speaker 1: the first Muslim American congresswoman. She was just sworn in
Speaker 1: and she canaba. I think she's I think she's from
Speaker 1: I'm not sure which state actually, on top of my head,
Speaker 1: Minnesota doesn't matter. Minnesota, thank you. She's from Minnesota, and
Speaker 1: she is there getting pushed gently. I would know on
Speaker 1: what do you mean? Lindsey Graham is compromised. What what
Speaker 1: do you? What do you say? And that's not of
Speaker 1: course the WHOA, Where's your evidence? Are being very gentle
Speaker 1: with her. Let's just cut the cut the bull from
Speaker 1: in here, shall we? The left? Chelsea Handler, other people
Speaker 1: who are very outspoken, you know, left wing loons. But
Speaker 1: people with platforms have been putting rumors out there for
Speaker 1: a long time that Lindsey Graham is a closet at homosexual. Okay,
Speaker 1: that that is what they say. And you know, because
Speaker 1: of this culture, I would argue, because of this culture
Speaker 1: of hysteria surrounding all things Russia, because you have all
Speaker 1: these people who are being told ooh, the p tape
Speaker 1: is real, with the dossier, and and you know they've
Speaker 1: got something on Trump. I think that there's more of
Speaker 1: a space in people's minds to believe this crazy nonsense
Speaker 1: than before. But it's crazy nonsense. And on top of that,
Speaker 1: on top of the lack of veracity, that the left
Speaker 1: would use rumor mongering about somebody as allegedly gay as
Speaker 1: a way to undermine them is grotesque. Just think for
Speaker 1: a second if it had been a white male member
Speaker 1: of the Republican Party saying that a Democrat who, let's say,
Speaker 1: was going along with the Obama gender or a Hillary agenda,
Speaker 1: or whoever whoever the Democrat president was, that a white
Speaker 1: male Republican was going on TV or tweeting out they've
Speaker 1: got him, He's compromised about a Democrat of any of
Speaker 1: any race right doesn't matter. But just a Democrat saying
Speaker 1: that at the left would lose their minds. And by
Speaker 1: the way, I mean, I think it's fair to get
Speaker 1: angry about that. I think somebody should. I think that
Speaker 1: calling somebody a closet a closet at homosexual and using
Speaker 1: that to undermine them and to debase their politics is disgusting.
Speaker 1: But but just notice how, oh, and I got into
Speaker 1: some little little Twitter spat with some blue check journalists
Speaker 1: about Oh, she didn't she didn't say it, she didn't
Speaker 1: say it. Oh, now we're going to play the dumb
Speaker 1: dumb game. We're all we're all a bunch of dumb dumbs.
Speaker 1: You know what, what other politician in public life right
Speaker 1: now who is going along with Trump is being referred
Speaker 1: to as compromised by by supporting his agenda. And they've
Speaker 1: got him. They've got him implies blackmail. Compromised implies blackmail
Speaker 1: of a personal nature, and talking about a blackmail of
Speaker 1: a personal nature with regard to Lindsey Graham is obviously
Speaker 1: meant as an insinuation that Trump and the GOP with
Speaker 1: him are holding it over Lindsay Graham that he's gay,
Speaker 1: when there is no evidence of this, and even if
Speaker 1: there were evidence of this, or at least I should say,
Speaker 1: even if this were true, that the Left would use
Speaker 1: this as some kind of a weapon in politics, you
Speaker 1: would think would be beneath them. But no, of course not.
Speaker 1: And then you have on top of this ilan Omar
Speaker 1: that they want to celebrate. They want to celebrate this woman.
Speaker 1: They're they're such big fans. She's a Muslim American who's
Speaker 1: in Congress, and she's a woman, and they there's so
Speaker 1: much about this, you know, diversity and breaking glass ceilings
Speaker 1: and all that stuff that the left really likes. But
Speaker 1: you can tell that they're already you know, that's kind
Speaker 1: of a different a different set of rules here, and
Speaker 1: now they're there's applying a different standard to and I think,
Speaker 1: by the way, it has much more to do with
Speaker 1: the fact that she's a Muslim than anything else. I mean,
Speaker 1: I do believe that the media is always willing to
Speaker 1: tolerate what would be considered intolerate bowl from any other
Speaker 1: religious group in this country, but from Muslims, because Muslims
Speaker 1: are viewed by the left as a non white minority religion,
Speaker 1: a religion that is oppressed in the West is oppressed
Speaker 1: in Europe and America. They give Islam a pass. This
Speaker 1: is why you don't see Muslim bakers being arrested because
Speaker 1: they won't make cakes with you know, sex toys on
Speaker 1: them or all the stuff that they've done to this
Speaker 1: this guy out in Colorado, just harassing this baker out
Speaker 1: in Colorado. But you know they won't do that to Muslims.
Speaker 1: They don't do that to Muslims. And there's also because
Speaker 1: they view Islam as having suffered under the colonial yoke
Speaker 1: of the West. I mean, there's all this and a
Speaker 1: lot of it comes from the Academy, and then the
Speaker 1: media picks it up. This theorizing about why Islam should
Speaker 1: be treated differently when it comes to anti homosexual bigotry
Speaker 1: and anti female oppression. I mean, you go down the
Speaker 1: line and Islam is given a much greater leeway in
Speaker 1: terms of media criticism than obviously Christianity or Judaism are.
Speaker 1: Oh and since we're bringing up Judaism, missus Ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: Congressman Omar also had some words to share on Israel
Speaker 1: that I think raise some eyebrows, to say the least.
Speaker 1: Plate twenty two. I do want to ask you also
Speaker 1: about your comments on Israel to remind people what you
Speaker 1: tweeted about Israel in twenty twelve, during the offensive in Gaza.
Speaker 1: You wrote, Israel has hypnotized the world. May all awaken
Speaker 1: the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.
Speaker 1: You've commented a lot since then trying to explain what
Speaker 1: you meant by that, and I wonder just what your
Speaker 1: message is this morning, as the first on our Game
Speaker 1: Changers series to Jewish Americans who find that deeply offensive. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's really a regrettable way of expressing that. I don't
Speaker 1: know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans.
Speaker 1: My comments precisely are addressing what was happening doing the
Speaker 1: Gaza war UM, and I am clearly speaking about the
Speaker 1: way that the Israelili regime UM was conducting itself in
Speaker 1: in that war. Hm hm, Israel is hypnotized the world
Speaker 1: people will awake via Allah to the evil that Israel
Speaker 1: is doing. I I'm sorry, I'm not buying me. This
Speaker 1: is just a criticism of the Gaza offensive routine that
Speaker 1: she's putting up here. But again, just somebody is criticis
Speaker 1: is highly critical of the state of Israel, and you
Speaker 1: might see itself. Okay, well, Israel's a contentious policy choice.
Speaker 1: But you know, here you have someone who really seems
Speaker 1: to have a problem with just the state of Israel.
Speaker 1: And this is becoming increasingly a problem for the left
Speaker 1: right now because they've elevated some pretty radical left types
Speaker 1: into Congress and just elevated them the discourse. And there
Speaker 1: is a hatred of Israel that exists on the left
Speaker 1: that is very clear. It's very prominent, and especially hatred
Speaker 1: of Israel from non white and religious minorities in this
Speaker 1: country is treated differently. This is how you have Lewis
Speaker 1: Farakon everybody, Okay, it's just treated differently by the media. Farakon,
Speaker 1: who remember Obama hugged him when he was running for president,
Speaker 1: but the press hid that or whatever shook his hand,
Speaker 1: warmly hid that photo from us intentionally. They told us
Speaker 1: the photographer later on that he had to hide the photo.
Speaker 1: Obama had to kiss Farrakon's ring, But the American people
Speaker 1: overall weren't supposed to see that. Huh. I don't think
Speaker 1: that you would find any any Republican of any color
Speaker 1: or creed who would get away and shouldn't get away
Speaker 1: with saying the things that Lewis Farrakon has said, referring
Speaker 1: to being not an anti termite, anti Semite, but anti termite.
Speaker 1: You know that Ferrikon is just dripping with anti Semitism,
Speaker 1: and yet the media gives him a pass. Just in general.
Speaker 1: Lately they turn up the heat a little bit because
Speaker 1: people have been pointing this out. But you see this.
Speaker 1: You see this with the way that they treat the
Speaker 1: far left on this issue as well. So if you
Speaker 1: are a far left Democrat who is a Muslim female minority,
Speaker 1: you are going to get a whole lot more leeway
Speaker 1: to be anti to say anti gay things, to say
Speaker 1: anti Semitic things, just go down the line. This is
Speaker 1: why people don't trust the media, because we know that
Speaker 1: this is happening. They can deny this as much as
Speaker 1: they want. It's as if I had gone on air,
Speaker 1: or any Republican that you know had gone on air
Speaker 1: and said anything like, you know, this democrat is only
Speaker 1: doing this policy that he's doing because he's actually secretly gay,
Speaker 1: or said anything even close to that. I know she
Speaker 1: didn't say the words to insinuate that in any way.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I'd probably never I'll never be allowed
Speaker 1: to be seen in public again. Notice with those CNN
Speaker 1: angers though, well, you know you don't have any evidence
Speaker 1: for this. Who That's a pretty gentle way of saying,
Speaker 1: so are you actually a huge biggot? Because you sound
Speaker 1: like you're being pretty bigoted right now against gay people.
Speaker 1: That that's kind of what it sounds like. And I
Speaker 1: you know Dave Ruben over at the Reuben Report, I
Speaker 1: saw him to He certainly thought this was very anti
Speaker 1: gay and bizarre. You know, you go down to I'm
Speaker 1: not the only one, se Cup. My old friend over
Speaker 1: at CNN, she thought it was anti gay and bizarre,
Speaker 1: and I'm not alone here. But different rules, different rules
Speaker 1: on the left and for preferred, preferred protected categories within
Speaker 1: the left. But intersectionality always devolves into you know, self
Speaker 1: consumption of one kind or another. You know that these
Speaker 1: these different groups that are these identity groups, they're in
Speaker 1: this unstable hierarchy, and the left is always trying to balance,
Speaker 1: you know, who do we have to support and who
Speaker 1: are you willing to sacrifice at any given time. That's
Speaker 1: will be interesting to see how it plays out. But
Speaker 1: there's more of this that comes into play with the
Speaker 1: Women's March, which is planned tomorrow, not today. I will
Speaker 1: tell you what I mean in just a moment. Do
Speaker 1: you feel that the Jewish people are native as well?
Speaker 1: I mean, I know, I understand the history that you
Speaker 1: know that there are people who have a number of
Speaker 1: sort of ideologies around why the Jewish people feel this
Speaker 1: should be their land. I'm not Jewish, so for me
Speaker 1: to speak to that is not fair. If you're willing
Speaker 1: to say that the Palestinians are native, but not the
Speaker 1: Jews are native, I mean you're not in Palestinian either,
Speaker 1: because I'm speaking of the people who we know are
Speaker 1: being boudole oppressed in this moment. That's just the reality.
Speaker 1: Is it your view that Israel has a right to
Speaker 1: exist as a nation? I have said many times that
Speaker 1: I feel everyone has a right to exist. In your
Speaker 1: view does not include israelis in Israel. I believe that
Speaker 1: all people have the rights to exist, and that Palestinians
Speaker 1: are also suffering with a great crisis, and that there
Speaker 1: are all the Jewish scholars who will sit here and
Speaker 1: say the same. I'm done talking about this. I just
Speaker 1: don't think it requires scholarly knowledge to be able to
Speaker 1: say that Israel has a right to exist. Good for
Speaker 1: Margaret Hoover over at firing line over on BBS, for
Speaker 1: pushing I know, Margaret, it's a nice lady pushing. That
Speaker 1: was Women's March leader Tamika Mallory, who very clearly will
Speaker 1: not say that Israel has a right to exist, very
Speaker 1: clear we'll not do it. Won't do it. First of all,
Speaker 1: never mind the fact that she should say it. How
Speaker 1: hard ward it be to just say, you know, how
Speaker 1: she knows she's she's getting in this in this moment,
Speaker 1: she's getting heat, she's being you know, being pushed into
Speaker 1: a corner here, as she should be because of the
Speaker 1: anti semitism of Linda Sarsore, who's a Women's March founder.
Speaker 1: You know, Timika Mallory, and Jimika Mallory is somebody who
Speaker 1: also won't denounce Lewis Farrakon. You know, she will say
Speaker 1: she won't use his words, or she doesn't use his
Speaker 1: he speaks for himself. Well, yeah, that that we all
Speaker 1: know that. But do you think what he says is okay?
Speaker 1: You are a leader of a political movement, It is relevant,
Speaker 1: it is allowable, it is in fact desirable and necessary
Speaker 1: to ask these questions. And Jamika Mallory sure enough, would
Speaker 1: not say that Israel has a right to exist. And
Speaker 1: and this is what I mean about there is this
Speaker 1: room for anti Semitis them on the left, which is
Speaker 1: so it's troubling, but it's we also have to really
Speaker 1: dig into, you know, why is this the case? And
Speaker 1: a lot of it is driven by the narrative that
Speaker 1: Israel is the last colonial outpost of the West in
Speaker 1: the East. Uh. And and that's how they view the
Speaker 1: Israeli Palestinian issue. It's taught this way on college campuses.
Speaker 1: I know all about this. I took classes with anti
Speaker 1: Israel in many cases anti Israel Jewish professors who actually
Speaker 1: view the Israeli state as colonial, colonial oppression and even
Speaker 1: akin to a a state of apartheid. I mean, I
Speaker 1: actually study with the professor who would say that it
Speaker 1: was like apartheid. Um. And and you know, so there's
Speaker 1: there's these complexities with how why would an American Jew
Speaker 1: think that and and promulgate that as as a frameworker
Speaker 1: thinking about Israel. But it's it's on the left, there's
Speaker 1: this this uh willingness to both be incredibly critical and
Speaker 1: destructive in a way one speaks about Israel. And also
Speaker 1: there's this double standard that comes up for you know,
Speaker 1: when do you you know, do you have to do?
Speaker 1: You have to denounce if you're a Republican and you're
Speaker 1: run for president, you got to denounce David Duke, even
Speaker 1: though no one cares who this guy is, and you know,
Speaker 1: no one's heard of him except every Democrat. Member of
Speaker 1: the media brings it up every every presidential news cycle. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: with Farakhn, Obama paid homage to Farakhn when he ran,
Speaker 1: and Farrakhan is a huge anti Semite. So you know,
Speaker 1: why is this treated like it's okay at the Women's March. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm trying to answer that question here. We've got more
Speaker 1: coming up, introducing a new conservative alternative to liberal based
Speaker 1: email services I patriots dot Us. I patriots dot us
Speaker 1: is in fact the email service that all of you
Speaker 1: should be using if you value your privacy, your protection,
Speaker 1: and also you don't want to support a bunch of
Speaker 1: liberal agenda items. Ipatriots dot us is secure in private
Speaker 1: and includes more of what you want without all the
Speaker 1: ads and spam. With ipatriots, you get thirty gigs of
Speaker 1: cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and a whole lot more,
Speaker 1: and you know that your email and files are safe
Speaker 1: with ipatriots Premium anti virus, anti spam two hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty six bit encryption. Ipatriots dot us is compatible with
Speaker 1: most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile. So show
Speaker 1: your patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us. Now choose your
Speaker 1: membership program. Input your desired ipatriots email address. During checkout,
Speaker 1: enter promo code buck. That's Buck for ten percent savings
Speaker 1: during your first year of membership. Forty six years ago
Speaker 1: this month, the majority on the Supreme Court turned its
Speaker 1: back on that right. But in that moment a movement
Speaker 1: was born, a movement defined by compassion and love, a
Speaker 1: movement animated by faith and truth, and a movement that's
Speaker 1: been winning hearts and minds every day since. Because of
Speaker 1: all of you gathered here, all those you represent, and
Speaker 1: all those who have gone before, we know in our
Speaker 1: heart of hearts that life is winning in America once again.
Speaker 1: Vice President Pennce addressing the March for Life, which was
Speaker 1: today in Washington, DC, hundreds of thousands of people, mostly women,
Speaker 1: coming together to march in favor of the lives of
Speaker 1: unborn children. And I will say that my former colleague
Speaker 1: Matt Walsh pointed out that this march is different from
Speaker 1: other marches in that this is a march where by definition,
Speaker 1: everyone who is marching is doing it on behalf of
Speaker 1: someone who cannot march for themselves. And I think that's
Speaker 1: that's powerful here. You know, this is a movement, and
Speaker 1: this is an effort that is about saving lives and
Speaker 1: is also about the remembrance of all those whose lives
Speaker 1: have been taken from them because of what is a
Speaker 1: a monstrous and deeply wrong policy. You know, I had
Speaker 1: to sit in rising pretty recently. Some of you might
Speaker 1: have even seen it on The Hill Show and interview
Speaker 1: the president of Planned Parenthood, and there were concerns from
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood beforehand because I was identified by their PR
Speaker 1: people as an enemy of choice, which I think is
Speaker 1: such an interesting phrase, isn't it. Yes, that's right. I
Speaker 1: want to force people to only have vanilla ice cream,
Speaker 1: not pistachio ice cream. I mean an enemy of choice.
Speaker 1: I mean, obviously that's a ridiculous phrase. Enemy of tru
Speaker 1: what is that he even mean? Right? Or an opponent
Speaker 1: of choice? What does that mean? No, I'm an opponent
Speaker 1: of the industrial slaughter of unborn children through abortion. And
Speaker 1: it's it's hard because on the one hand, I like
Speaker 1: to engage the other side on this one, but more
Speaker 1: than that, I just want to engage as many people
Speaker 1: as possible and just as many everyday men and women,
Speaker 1: and trying to get the message out there that you know,
Speaker 1: I can tell you I've met people that have had
Speaker 1: abortions and they have regretted it. I have yet to
Speaker 1: meet and in some cases, terribly many cases, I have
Speaker 1: never met somebody who said, oh, I had that child,
Speaker 1: or even I had that child and gave him or
Speaker 1: her up for adoption and it was the biggest mistake
Speaker 1: of my life. I've just never heard that from any mother.
Speaker 1: And I've spoken to countless women about this in political
Speaker 1: life and even in my private life over many, many,
Speaker 1: many years. So you know, this is one where this
Speaker 1: can really this can really count, can really matter, even
Speaker 1: even the activism of today's March for Life, the activism
Speaker 1: of all of you who are listening in your lives
Speaker 1: to convince those around you if somebody's in crisis and
Speaker 1: they really feel like there and I understand it's scary,
Speaker 1: and it's there's a lot that goes with the possibility
Speaker 1: of a well with an unplanned pregnancy or a child
Speaker 1: that somebody is not they think they're not prepared for.
Speaker 1: But choosing life is always the right choice. And I
Speaker 1: would also like to deal with some of the legal
Speaker 1: implications ramifications of this, but I wanted to just play
Speaker 1: for you for a moment here at the March for
Speaker 1: Life the words of Abby Johnson, who was a former
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood clinic director, and here is what she said,
Speaker 1: Play thirteen. I worked for Planned Parenthood for eight years.
Speaker 1: I was told that my job was to double the
Speaker 1: amounts of abortion, so double our aurtion quota that we
Speaker 1: had in our clinic, which was troubling to me because
Speaker 1: I have been told now for all of these years
Speaker 1: that our goal was to reduce the number of abortions.
Speaker 1: That here I am being told to double our quota. Then,
Speaker 1: about a month later, I was asked to help participate
Speaker 1: in an ultrasound guided abortion procedure, and I watched as
Speaker 1: a thirteen week old fetus fought and struggled for his
Speaker 1: life against the abortion instrument. And I knew then that
Speaker 1: there was humanity in the womb, and that abortion was
Speaker 1: taking the life of this innocent human being. And I
Speaker 1: decided to leave Planned Parenthood. You never hear the other
Speaker 1: side of this debate, the other side of this of
Speaker 1: this profoundly important moral argument. You never hear them grapple
Speaker 1: with the words of someone like an Abby Johnson who
Speaker 1: has seen it, who knows exactly what she's talking about.
Speaker 1: It's always dressed up in this very sterilized language of
Speaker 1: choice and reproductive rights and women's rights, and it's all
Speaker 1: about rights and this is what I have a right
Speaker 1: to do, and what are they really doing? And if
Speaker 1: it is a medical procedure, I mean, I can tell
Speaker 1: you this. And this is one of the conversations that
Speaker 1: I had with the when I was interviewing the Planned
Speaker 1: parent Whood director. I said, is an abortion really healthcare?
Speaker 1: And she said yes, because I know that's and I
Speaker 1: just wanted to get her on the record, and I
Speaker 1: tried to press a little more to get but they're
Speaker 1: never gonna bear. It's that's the president of Planned Parenthood,
Speaker 1: and it's the it's the heart of darkness. I mean,
Speaker 1: I she's actually a very pleasant person, unlike her predecessor,
Speaker 1: who came across as very I don't know, out of
Speaker 1: I think central casting for what you would think somebody
Speaker 1: in that role would be a bit a bit cold
Speaker 1: and kind of aloof and machiavellianum. And this woman was
Speaker 1: a was also an MD of the president of the
Speaker 1: new President of Planned Parenthood, And I just wanted to
Speaker 1: if I had had the time, and I remember, I
Speaker 1: have to share my time there with a liberal and
Speaker 1: there's a whole balancing act I have to do. If
Speaker 1: I had the time, that I would have asked as well,
Speaker 1: why is it? And I'll pose this to you just
Speaker 1: to air this out. Why is it that if I
Speaker 1: want to look up pretty much any medical procedure out
Speaker 1: there online, I can find on YouTube a video of
Speaker 1: doctors saying I'm doctor so and so, and here's how
Speaker 1: I do you know, Here's me doing a hip replacement,
Speaker 1: Here's me removing a tumor, here's me you know, all
Speaker 1: these different aspects of healthcare. You can watch in detail
Speaker 1: on the doctors are I mean, not only are there
Speaker 1: I fine with showing you in the phase. I think
Speaker 1: they're they're proud of the important service. You know, I
Speaker 1: want I want doct who are going to be operating
Speaker 1: on me one day, Who are the best there is?
Speaker 1: And are you know, realize how thankful I am that
Speaker 1: we have the kind of medical services we do. Why
Speaker 1: is that not the case with Plan parent. Why doesn't
Speaker 1: Plant parent had have videos just showing the whole procedures
Speaker 1: so everybody can really know what's going on, because it's
Speaker 1: a medical procedure. If it's not scary and it's not
Speaker 1: bad and it's not immoral, why don't you go to
Speaker 1: the Plan parented website and say, you know, click here
Speaker 1: to see you to see what your abortion procedure will
Speaker 1: look like. Why do they oppose ultrasound in the womb
Speaker 1: to show people what the fetus in the womb looks like?
Speaker 1: You know, where are those where are those pieces of
Speaker 1: information that if this were really healthcare, I think it's
Speaker 1: quite clear we would all very much be able to
Speaker 1: see and to learn more about. But it's not. And
Speaker 1: you always know, there's a problem when people choose to
Speaker 1: lie to you, and that's what you have a lot
Speaker 1: of that going on in this discussion now, which stretches
Speaker 1: back for decades, I know, but the pro choice side
Speaker 1: is lying. And you know, this is also one of
Speaker 1: those issues where I don't care how popular unpopular people
Speaker 1: will talk about the polling, and that's only a worthwhile
Speaker 1: discussion in so far as it shows that more people,
Speaker 1: the more people realize what these procedures are and how
Speaker 1: they how they are conducted, I think, the more likely
Speaker 1: they are to have problems with them and oppose them.
Speaker 1: So with knowledge of abortion abortion procedures comes rejection of
Speaker 1: it as some kind of almost a central right to womanhood,
Speaker 1: which is really what the left. And you know, the
Speaker 1: Women's March is going to be happening this week, and
Speaker 1: I might, I might just to so I can see
Speaker 1: what's going on. I might venture out there and try
Speaker 1: to just talk to some of them. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: decide if I'm going to or not. But for the
Speaker 1: Women's aren't you you're you're somehow suspect, or rather for yeah,
Speaker 1: for the Women's March, you are suspect. If you were
Speaker 1: part of the Right to Life or March for Life,
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with you. And that tells you a
Speaker 1: lot about just how central this is. Also, the abortion
Speaker 1: is only a tiny part of what planned parent who
Speaker 1: does For example, they say that that's not that's not true.
Speaker 1: I mean we all know, because then when you say, well,
Speaker 1: why don't you do everything else? You know, no, No
Speaker 1: one opposes really no, there's no serious opposition to any
Speaker 1: other aspect of women's healthcare. You know, certainly people want
Speaker 1: women to get mammograms and you know, STD screening and
Speaker 1: whatever other services planned parenthood may or may not provide
Speaker 1: for them. But you know, those are all things that
Speaker 1: you could do without doing abortions. But they always pretend
Speaker 1: that it's not it's not a you know, that this
Speaker 1: is not an important part of what they do, and
Speaker 1: yet it's the most important part of what they do.
Speaker 1: And if they were giving out nobody who is fixing
Speaker 1: cleft pallets says that they're doing something else. They say, no,
Speaker 1: we're fixing cleft pallets, and everybody says, well, that's great,
Speaker 1: you're giving people their lives back. You know, it's an
Speaker 1: amazing surgery. What they can do. What are American and
Speaker 1: Western and first world plastic surgeons can do for kids
Speaker 1: or adults who have cleft pallets, right, it's amazing. They
Speaker 1: don't have to pretend it's something else. So this is
Speaker 1: the only area of healthcare where they say it's central.
Speaker 1: They say it's important, but we're not allowed to know
Speaker 1: about it. We're not allowed to talk about it. We
Speaker 1: can't see it. They don't want there to be real transparency,
Speaker 1: and they're really vindictive, and we'll talk about this in
Speaker 1: a moment. They're really vindictive about anybody trying to show
Speaker 1: the public what's really going on. They become vengeful the
Speaker 1: planned parenthood supporters and you know, and look, some of
Speaker 1: the biggest I'm just gonna say, I'm some of the
Speaker 1: biggest news anchors out there have family members who are
Speaker 1: very prominent in the Planned parenthood movement and orders of it.
Speaker 1: And you know it's the tentacles stretch very far on this,
Speaker 1: So we'll come back with more on Lets stay with me.
Speaker 1: The left never has a shortage of things to whine about.
Speaker 1: A bunch of snowflakes always being triggered by one thing
Speaker 1: or another. You know what might just cure that bad
Speaker 1: attitude A delicious cup of black Rifle coffee. I know
Speaker 1: that every morning when I have to get up, I'm like,
Speaker 1: oh man, it's a rough day. But you know what,
Speaker 1: I get to drink some black Rifle and then I
Speaker 1: know that I'm good to go. Black Rifle coffee is
Speaker 1: roast to order, guarantees you fresh delicious coffee with every order,
Speaker 1: and it gets delivered right to your door. Plus, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle gives a portion of their sales to veteran and
Speaker 1: first responder causes. They got a coffee club. I'm a member.
Speaker 1: You should join two makes things easy. Just pick your
Speaker 1: blend and the amount you want and they'll ship it
Speaker 1: right to your door every month, hassle free. Nothing cures
Speaker 1: that bad attitude like starting your day with the most
Speaker 1: American patriotic coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot com slash I can receive fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck. Planned
Speaker 1: paranoid officials are blasting the decision, saying, as they have
Speaker 1: all along, that the videos are heavily edited, and they
Speaker 1: say misleading, deceptive editing that has opened the door to controversy.
Speaker 1: The deceptively edited Planned Parenthood video has already been debunked
Speaker 1: multiple times by a number of different outlets, but that
Speaker 1: is not going to stop Republicans in the Senate and
Speaker 1: in the House. A deceptive video from a conservative group
Speaker 1: purports to show a Planned Parenthood official discussing prices for
Speaker 1: the legal sale of fetal tissue from abortions. How these
Speaker 1: videos were edited, Planned Parenthood says that is leading Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood and its supporters to discredit the entire production. That
Speaker 1: was a big, fat, disgusting, evil lie, one that we
Speaker 1: dealt with when it was first being leveled when these
Speaker 1: videos came out, showing these undercover videos showing what was
Speaker 1: going on with the with the sale of fetal tissue,
Speaker 1: still the hardest thing that I've ever had to cover
Speaker 1: and work on as a media analyst. That was the
Speaker 1: most disturbing thing I've ever seen. That was as as
Speaker 1: ugly and horrific as anything I've ever had to cover.
Speaker 1: And it was all because the Center for Medical I
Speaker 1: below was the Center for Medical Ethics is what the
Speaker 1: group was called, went undercover and found what was going
Speaker 1: on in these Planned Parenthood clinics. Well, now a Fifth
Speaker 1: Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling, and this
Speaker 1: has to do with whether Texas can stript Planned Parenthood
Speaker 1: of its Medicaid funding. But the but the ruling makes
Speaker 1: it very clear that quote Planned Parenthood Associates did indeed
Speaker 1: circument legal and ethical guidelines in pursuit of harvesting human organs.
Speaker 1: All of this in direct contradiction of what the so
Speaker 1: called Women's Health Organization and it's eager defenders and the
Speaker 1: press claimed after the tapes were released in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 1: End quote that's from the Washington Examiner. This was the
Speaker 1: big line that they were all running around saying. They're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's it's heavily edited, the heavily edited videos. Oh it's
Speaker 1: also heavily edited. What does that I mean? First of all,
Speaker 1: any video clip is by definition edited. But what they
Speaker 1: were doing was creating a pretext for people to dismiss
Speaker 1: the footage that they were seeing, as though it somehow
Speaker 1: was the same. That edited became almost synonymous in the
Speaker 1: minds of people with doctored. You know, they couldn't say
Speaker 1: doctored because they would they had no proof of that
Speaker 1: there was you know that you'd have to actually build
Speaker 1: the point and say, well, this was. But you know, whenever,
Speaker 1: if somebody says that video's doctored in part, you can
Speaker 1: dismiss the whole thing. But they're saying is oh, these
Speaker 1: videos were edited. All videos are edited that you see
Speaker 1: on team maybe all journalism requires edited. So what how
Speaker 1: is that even a criticism, but it just became the
Speaker 1: escape hatch in the conversation for people, and it was
Speaker 1: just relentlessly pushed in the media. And you know, if
Speaker 1: you look around, you'll see that some of the biggest
Speaker 1: and I got to this before, right before the break,
Speaker 1: when some of the biggest names in liberal media, and
Speaker 1: by that I just mean the mainstream media are Planned
Speaker 1: parenthood donors have family members or spouses on the board
Speaker 1: or formerly on the board of Planned Paradoid in a
Speaker 1: very very much planned parenthood advocates open advocates for Planned Paradoise,
Speaker 1: I mean really really believe in and they're not open
Speaker 1: advocates for like the local women's health center that doesn't
Speaker 1: do abortions. Okay, so it's not about women's health. They
Speaker 1: need to stop lying. But it was interesting that the
Speaker 1: same week that you have the same with the same
Speaker 1: twenty four hour period that you have the March for
Speaker 1: Life happening here in DC, you this Fifth Circuit Court
Speaker 1: ruling that came down that said these these videos were
Speaker 1: not not edited in any way. That was that was
Speaker 1: showing them to be illegitimate. Um and it was in
Speaker 1: fact the Fusion GPS firm that's right. The same firm
Speaker 1: that put together the dossier was the one that came
Speaker 1: up for the h came up with the unfairly edited
Speaker 1: line to defend Planned Parenthood. Select I'm sorry, selectively edited.
Speaker 1: That was always the term, which which is which is
Speaker 1: a nonsense. It doesn't mean anything. Of course, everything that
Speaker 1: you see in the news is selectively edited. It's called editing.
Speaker 1: You know they're not going to show you the camera, guys,
Speaker 1: roll before the congressman shows up to the podium. Is
Speaker 1: that selectively edited? This is this was a complete propaganda trick.
Speaker 1: It was. It was absolutely this was disinformation lies. Where
Speaker 1: or are we just hey to mantras all these different networks,
Speaker 1: where are they now that a court has looked at
Speaker 1: all the evidence and a US Federal Court of Appeals
Speaker 1: as said, there was nothing selectively edited about these videos
Speaker 1: that anyone would think or could argue discounts the underlying
Speaker 1: material and the underlying truth to what was going on,
Speaker 1: which is that tiny babies, tiny babies body parts were
Speaker 1: being harvested for sale. That's what Planned Parenthood was doing.
Speaker 1: Tiny baby body parts harvested to make a profit. That
Speaker 1: is reality. That is what was going on, and the
Speaker 1: media tried to cover it up. They tried to cover
Speaker 1: it up. So you know, we have to remember that
Speaker 1: there isn't just a There isn't just on the one hand,
Speaker 1: you know, people of good faith and the other people
Speaker 1: of that need more understanding on the issue of why
Speaker 1: they should support life. There is also an apparatus of
Speaker 1: evil that is willing to do very terrible things to
Speaker 1: support this evil practice, and they should be held to
Speaker 1: account too, in this life or the next. Regardless of
Speaker 1: whether you think prohibiting abortion is good or whether you
Speaker 1: think prohibiting abortion is bad. Regardless of how you come
Speaker 1: out on that, my only point is the Constitution does
Speaker 1: not say anything about it. It leaves it up to
Speaker 1: democratic choice, that is the voice of justice. Antonin Scalia
Speaker 1: Rest in peace, who had a very clear argument on
Speaker 1: this point, and it's one that I've even heard liberal
Speaker 1: jurists and professors agree with, although I'll generally do it
Speaker 1: somewhat quietly, which is that this notion there's a constitutional
Speaker 1: right to abortion is just delusional. There's no such thing.
Speaker 1: It's bad law. Row is bad law. But nonetheless, you
Speaker 1: got the media very much invested in the narrative of
Speaker 1: what they call. Are you productive rights particularly? We're willing
Speaker 1: in term. But what's going on now with the March
Speaker 1: for Life? And how is this being covered? Is it
Speaker 1: being given the attention that it deserves. We're joined by
Speaker 1: Amber Ephy. She is a Daily Caller White House reporter
Speaker 1: and you can check out ourself a daily caller dot com. Am.
Speaker 1: We're great to have you back. Thanks for having me, Buck,
Speaker 1: So what can you tell me? What was the turnout
Speaker 1: like today and what's what's going on? Were you able
Speaker 1: to go by the way you give me some sense
Speaker 1: of how the march come off today. Sure, I wasn't
Speaker 1: able to attend myself, but I did watch some of
Speaker 1: it on c SPAN. It looks like it was really
Speaker 1: well attended. This march regularly attracts hundreds of thousands of people.
Speaker 1: I think last year it was something like three to
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand, So it's a really huge event. It's
Speaker 1: every single year. People are really excited about it, and
Speaker 1: the thing that I always noticed about the March for
Speaker 1: Life is that it's overwhelmingly really positive. The people that
Speaker 1: go are really excited to be there, they're really happy.
Speaker 1: They're trying to spread of us as a positivity but
Speaker 1: you wouldn't know that if you were watching the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: if you watched CNN at SNBC, they hardly covered it
Speaker 1: all to begin with, and if they do mention it,
Speaker 1: it's always painted as these anti abortions, zealous, these you know,
Speaker 1: bigoted people who want to take away women's reproductive rights.
Speaker 1: And the Washington Post ran this headline today, it was
Speaker 1: their top story about the March for Life on their website,
Speaker 1: and they insisted that that pro lifers are claim that
Speaker 1: the science is on their side, but that doctors say
Speaker 1: that they disagree. But then when you read the piece,
Speaker 1: you find out, well, actually, it's not that doctors disagree
Speaker 1: with the notion that life begins at conception or that
Speaker 1: life begins in the womb. It's just that a lot
Speaker 1: of doctors happen to be pro choice because they think
Speaker 1: women should be able to abort their children. Anyway, So
Speaker 1: the whole piece was totally bunk. And the coverage of
Speaker 1: this has always been really skewed, and that's if they
Speaker 1: cover it at all. I always thought it was interesting
Speaker 1: that even the late great Christopher Hitchens, who was a
Speaker 1: rabid atheist, had said, you know, toward the latter years
Speaker 1: in his life. I remember hearing him talk about how
Speaker 1: with additional advances in science, the pro life cause always
Speaker 1: gets stronger that there has there has never been some
Speaker 1: new ability that is scientifically based where you say, well,
Speaker 1: it seems like it's really not a person. Yeah, he's
Speaker 1: exactly right, because pro lifers have been pointed this out
Speaker 1: for years that a lot of people in the pro
Speaker 1: choice movement say that, you know, life begins when a
Speaker 1: baby is viable outside of the womb, for example. But
Speaker 1: if science has progressed, they've been able to keep babies
Speaker 1: alive outside of the womb at much earlier and earlier
Speaker 1: stages of the pregnancy, which proves that that's not an
Speaker 1: objective point of where life begins. That speaks more to
Speaker 1: scientific ability. Now, I also wanted to ask you about
Speaker 1: out there witching gears. Here for a second, we're talking
Speaker 1: to an Amber eighty of the Daily Caller. Amber, what
Speaker 1: is this story about Google and family? And they don't
Speaker 1: like the word family. I mean, today's the March for life.
Speaker 1: People who tend to be pro life or very pro
Speaker 1: family as well, those tend to go together. But what
Speaker 1: is going on at Google when it comes to families?
Speaker 1: It's really crazy. My friend and colleague Peter Hassen broke
Speaker 1: the story. Google was planning some kind of event for
Speaker 1: its employees and they send an email out telling them
Speaker 1: that it was going to be family friendly, which of
Speaker 1: course has the implication that yes, you can bring your
Speaker 1: kids to the event, your whole family. It's good for everyone.
Speaker 1: But apparently some Google employees, and by some I mean
Speaker 1: close to a hundred who apparently agreed with this sentiment
Speaker 1: that the worst family is now offensive because it supposedly
Speaker 1: discriminates against non traditional families, meaning the same sex couples,
Speaker 1: people who don't have children, or even people who who
Speaker 1: are unmarried. Single people were offended by this because they
Speaker 1: didn't think that they were included in this definition of family.
Speaker 1: It's really amazing what people choose to be outraged and
Speaker 1: offended by these days. But I guess I am not
Speaker 1: surprised that the left wing workers at a big tech
Speaker 1: firm are the type of perpetually aggrieved people that we
Speaker 1: would see on a college campus, for example. I find
Speaker 1: it fascinating that the notion of inclusiveness, right just to
Speaker 1: be inclusive is elevated on the left as as really
Speaker 1: a sacro sanked principle. I mean, just inclusiveness is something
Speaker 1: you'll hear as a justification for a lot of otherwise
Speaker 1: seemingly very very strange policies, and we need to be inclusive. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: they don't want to be inclusive of people who are
Speaker 1: pro life, people who are traditional Christians like Mike Pence's wife.
Speaker 1: You're good on this list, And inclusiveness is a very
Speaker 1: amorphous and I think very self righteous term for them
Speaker 1: to use. Yeah, they're inclusive for everything that they happen
Speaker 1: to agree with, but they're not inclusive across the board.
Speaker 1: And this goes right back to the Women's March, which
Speaker 1: when it first got started, removed pro life groups as
Speaker 1: sponsors of the event because they said that pro life
Speaker 1: women can't be feminists, which a lot of pro life
Speaker 1: women I know personally do identify as feminists. They actually
Speaker 1: think abortion is really harmful for women, and that's why
Speaker 1: they identify that way. But that's not apparently one of
Speaker 1: those things that the left wants to be inclusive about.
Speaker 1: And you see this time and time again, the word
Speaker 1: inclusive is something they used for their own political ends.
Speaker 1: It doesn't actually mean what it is supposed to mean.
Speaker 1: To those people, Amber Aithy, everybody, Daily Caller check out
Speaker 1: her stuff there Daily Caller dot com. Amber, have a
Speaker 1: great weekend. Thank you for joining us. Thanks do have
Speaker 1: a good weekend. Supposedly a bombshell story in BuzzFeed saying
Speaker 1: that President Trump may have directed his former attorney Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen to lie to Congress that, among other allegations, Moscow
Speaker 1: Tower stuff, a whole bunch of things. I want to
Speaker 1: get to that, and then also the latest on Bruce
Speaker 1: Or and what we have found out about the dossier
Speaker 1: and what was known and when it was known about
Speaker 1: the dossier. The best person for us, as we know
Speaker 1: is miss Kim Strassell. She is the Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: editorial board member who comes on here in a fair
Speaker 1: amount of time. And also the intimidation game is her book, Kim,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining. Hi Buck, So this
Speaker 1: BuzzFeed story, do you give it credence? Are you concerned?
Speaker 1: What do you think? Well, first of all, let's talk
Speaker 1: about why it supposedly matters so much. And here's why
Speaker 1: Democrats in particular are excited about it is because a
Speaker 1: the authors of the piece, the journalists, claim that this
Speaker 1: accusation is based off texts and emails, so they're no
Speaker 1: longer in theory going off just the words of Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: who is an unreliable guy, but that there's supposedly some
Speaker 1: evidence here, and secondly, having not got anywhere with their
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice theories visa mister Trump and his firing
Speaker 1: of Jim Comey, this would be their best hook of
Speaker 1: making an actual charge, an obstruction of justice charge. I
Speaker 1: think the problem, of course, is that it comes from
Speaker 1: BuzzFeed um, and even the writer, one of the writers
Speaker 1: of the piece acknowledge that he hasn't actually seen any
Speaker 1: of these texts or emails that he cites. He instead
Speaker 1: quotes some officials. If the crux of this piece is accurate,
Speaker 1: is this a new level of trouble and and heat
Speaker 1: for the presidents in your mind? Well, it's already a
Speaker 1: new level of trouble and heat, only in that Democrats
Speaker 1: have seized on it, and members of the House have
Speaker 1: already said that they're going to investigate it, and you
Speaker 1: can expect that the White House is going to be
Speaker 1: getting subpoenas related to this and be demanded to answer questions.
Speaker 1: And of course the Michael Cohen testimony has now become
Speaker 1: when it happens next month in the house hasn't become
Speaker 1: even more it's going to be even more of a circus.
Speaker 1: So that's already trouble. I mean, I think the bigger
Speaker 1: question is one problem with this buga is let's even
Speaker 1: say there are texts and emails, and I'm not saying
Speaker 1: there are right, A lot of stories have been very
Speaker 1: wrong on this, but let's just say the word we
Speaker 1: don't even know what they say. Do they really direct
Speaker 1: them to Is that an expansive reading of it? You know,
Speaker 1: did the Trumps they do what you need to do
Speaker 1: to make something happen here or here? And did they
Speaker 1: take that to mean in order? I mean, we just
Speaker 1: don't know what we're talking about. And one can assume though,
Speaker 1: that because they're saying that there is documentary evidence to
Speaker 1: be presented here and that Muller must have it, that
Speaker 1: at some point we will get some verification of this.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's fair to say, I mean, Kim,
Speaker 1: you work at the Wall Street Journal. If if BuzzFeed
Speaker 1: turns out to have been ahead of its skis on
Speaker 1: this one, have they burned whatever credibility The Internet's favorite
Speaker 1: cat video site has got Well, yeah, they've already got problems,
Speaker 1: I think with that credibility issue anyway. But I think, look,
Speaker 1: but I think at the end of this, when we
Speaker 1: finally do get a Muller report, and assuming it actually
Speaker 1: provides some answers, this is going to have to be
Speaker 1: a lot of journalists and answer for a lot of
Speaker 1: things that have been written, and politicians too. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, don't forget two years ago we had Adam
Speaker 1: Shipps saying that his committee had proved that Trump had
Speaker 1: engaged in collusion. We've never seen that, and there we
Speaker 1: have certainly don't have any evidence of it. So I
Speaker 1: think one thing that I think would be very healthy
Speaker 1: for democracy is when this is done, that people go
Speaker 1: back and re examine some of these claims that remain
Speaker 1: and media organizations be held to account. Now, let's talk
Speaker 1: about Bruce Or and the latest. I know you wrote
Speaker 1: about this in the Wall Street journal I think this
Speaker 1: past week, what have we found out about Bruce Or
Speaker 1: and how does it factor into all the nonsense around
Speaker 1: the origins of the Russia collusion investigation. Right, So, this
Speaker 1: is exactly what it deals with. It deals with the
Speaker 1: infamous dossier and the FBI's origin story, because remember, the
Speaker 1: FBI has tried very very hard to leave the impression
Speaker 1: that this counterintelligence investigation that it began in July of
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen was based on Papadopolis conversations in London, had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with this dossier because they always understood
Speaker 1: that dossier was a liability and they let everyone think
Speaker 1: and spread it out to their media palsies. They didn't
Speaker 1: even have that dossia and his September and so therefore
Speaker 1: it couldn't have played a role. What Bruce Orr told
Speaker 1: Congress last August is in fact, he had a meeting
Speaker 1: with the dossier author, Christopher's Deal on July thirtieth of
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, and immediately went and told the Deputy FBI
Speaker 1: Director Andrew McCabe Lisa Paige, and in the month of
Speaker 1: August also breaved to FBI team and members of the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice. So they knew about it at a
Speaker 1: route in the time that they were setting up their
Speaker 1: counterintelligence investigation. So, you know, when do we actually get
Speaker 1: somebody to come out and admit that this is you know,
Speaker 1: what's it going to take? You think, Kim before they'll
Speaker 1: say that the usage of opposition research at the top
Speaker 1: of the FBI for the purposes of getting a FIZER
Speaker 1: warrant on a US citizen who, by the way, as
Speaker 1: you know Kim still has not ever even been charged
Speaker 1: with a crime in the case of Carter Page, and
Speaker 1: who has spoken liberally and at length to the Special
Speaker 1: Council without lawyers, which I just find stunning. When do
Speaker 1: people care? When do journalists start to care about that?
Speaker 1: I thought they were supposed to be all about civil
Speaker 1: liberties and the rights that we have to not be
Speaker 1: spied on by the state. Oh do you remember, not
Speaker 1: so very long ago, Buck, Certainly in the time you
Speaker 1: and I have been in this business, democrats being so
Speaker 1: concerned with abuse and the government spying on American citizens.
Speaker 1: If they said we needed an ombudsman to handle all
Speaker 1: of those FISA requests, you know, I think I'm maybe
Speaker 1: joining them in that view. It's too bad they don't
Speaker 1: hold it anymore, or no one in the media. And
Speaker 1: you know, look, we can never expect the people within
Speaker 1: the FBI and the DOJ who were part of this
Speaker 1: whole plan to ever admit their own wrongdoing. Okay, there's
Speaker 1: too much of an institutional pride of bias to acknowledge that.
Speaker 1: But then the only way you ever get to the
Speaker 1: bottom of this is to have an adversarial press that
Speaker 1: actually challenges. Instead, most of the press is just serving
Speaker 1: as a scribe to whatever preferred narrative behind DJ spoon
Speaker 1: feed them. And it's it's mesmerizing to me as a
Speaker 1: journalist to watch it happens. It's extraordinary. I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything quite like it. I just remember how much how
Speaker 1: much difficulty there was even at the Intelligence Division of
Speaker 1: the NYPD when I was working there. We were trying
Speaker 1: to do surveillance that was all documented and legal and
Speaker 1: based on a criminal predicate or based on reasonable suspicion
Speaker 1: of people that were trying to blow up subway cars,
Speaker 1: and there was outrage about the civil liberties implications and
Speaker 1: how could it Meanwhile, you know, if you're running around
Speaker 1: with with anyone from the Trunk campaign, apparently we can
Speaker 1: just have the federal government pull all of your emails
Speaker 1: and phone calls and you know, no big deal, no,
Speaker 1: And that is generally their attitude. And you know, I
Speaker 1: always like to, and I'm sure you do this mental
Speaker 1: exercise sometimes too, is project back and imagine what this
Speaker 1: would all be like if, for in this have been
Speaker 1: a Bush administration pulling this kind of stunt on an
Speaker 1: incoming Obama administration. Um, you know we'd still be hearing
Speaker 1: about it today ten years later, but they don't. Look.
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of it. The FBI needs
Speaker 1: to be held to account, the DOJ needs to be
Speaker 1: held to account. I'm I'm also appalled that you don't
Speaker 1: see anyone in the press community asking defies the court
Speaker 1: for any answers, asking why the fis the court hasn't
Speaker 1: called the DOJ back in to account for its actions,
Speaker 1: explain exactly why they weren't provided all of the information,
Speaker 1: because you know, courts traditionally do not like to be duped.
Speaker 1: This is an Article three court, like any over any other.
Speaker 1: It has the power to demand the prosecutors who come
Speaker 1: in front of it explain themselves. And as so far
Speaker 1: as we know now, maybe we wouldn't because it's quite
Speaker 1: a secret of court. They haven't demand they haven't demanded
Speaker 1: any answers. I'm just wondering when we when we will
Speaker 1: get some answers here? And do you have it? Just
Speaker 1: before we let you go, Kim, do you have a theorist?
Speaker 1: Why Trump hasn't declassified some of the information about the FISA,
Speaker 1: or about the FISA specifically and just Russia investigation origin
Speaker 1: stuff more generally. Because I'm befouled, I asked the President.
Speaker 1: He said he was going to do it, and then
Speaker 1: he didn't do it. Yeah, well he went down that road,
Speaker 1: and then he got obviously mau maued by a lot
Speaker 1: of people, including his own Intelligence Committee intelligence officials, which
Speaker 1: I think is really unfortunate, saying well, you know, he
Speaker 1: can't do this, and you got to let the Inspector
Speaker 1: General take a look at it. And I worry that
Speaker 1: that process is going to result in a lot of
Speaker 1: redactions that are still going to deny us information we need.
Speaker 1: But I think that unfortunately, the President is being advised
Speaker 1: by people that it would be best to wait and
Speaker 1: tell Special Counsel Bob Muller completes his investigation so that
Speaker 1: he cannot in any way be accused of having engaged
Speaker 1: in further obstruction of that probe. I find that a
Speaker 1: very bogus argument, because this is transparent. Yeah, transparency is
Speaker 1: is not meddling, night Right. Putting more information out is
Speaker 1: not obstruction. It's one of the duties of government officials,
Speaker 1: especially because this is all going to come out to politics.
Speaker 1: Everybody follow Kim Strassel on Twitter if you're not already.
Speaker 1: Also look for her pieces on the Wall Street Journal.
Speaker 1: The one and only Kim Strassell. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Thanks back. When do you want to spot that burglar
Speaker 1: when he's casing your home or after he's in? Well,
Speaker 1: ask John who's Blink camera alerted him to burglars trying
Speaker 1: to break in while he and his family were home,
Speaker 1: or Shannon, who's Blink camera caught a thief stealing packages.
Speaker 1: Both times, Blink video clips were sent to police to
Speaker 1: help convict the crooks. Blink motion activated indoor and outdoor
Speaker 1: cameras are wire free, They can set up in minutes
Speaker 1: and run on two double A batteries that last up
Speaker 1: to two years. And if you're traveling, Blink's live feed
Speaker 1: option lets you monitor your home and check it on
Speaker 1: pets from anywhere using the Blink smartphone app. No contracts,
Speaker 1: no subscribe options, totally affordable, and Blink works with Alexa.
Speaker 1: Blink camera systems make great gifts, and they're a brilliant
Speaker 1: way to monitor your package delivery, So don't let those
Speaker 1: package thieves get you. Okay, they steal it right off
Speaker 1: your porch. You don't want that? VI is it blink
Speaker 1: protect dot com slash Buck. That's blink protect dot Com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Again, that's blink Protect dot Com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: Blink is an Amazon company. Right now, there's a question
Speaker 1: then a sizeable chunk of America whether Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: is working on behalf of Russia. Whose side is a
Speaker 1: president on a Russia's side on our or our side?
Speaker 1: Basically Putin's lines, he wants to give Russia every item
Speaker 1: on its most fantastical international wish list. Putin now has
Speaker 1: a president of the United States who performs backflips on command.
Speaker 1: He has some special relationship with them and has not
Speaker 1: made public, and I think he's fearful that President Putin
Speaker 1: probably has information I'm now. Look, I know from our
Speaker 1: trips to Russia, everything you do and say is being
Speaker 1: listened to and is being followed. But I do know
Speaker 1: from intelligence community personnel that I've talked to that there
Speaker 1: is huge credibility within the Intel community to the so
Speaker 1: called Steele Dosier and to many of that. There's just
Speaker 1: so much bs that you have to deal with the
Speaker 1: moment you start talking about Russia collusion and what's going
Speaker 1: on with it and all this stuff. I love how
Speaker 1: you had Scarborough, who remember, and don't forget this, Scarborough
Speaker 1: was chummy to the max with Trump when he thought
Speaker 1: that it was good access for him as a TV
Speaker 1: personality to do so right, he was buddy buddy with
Speaker 1: Trump until all of a sudden Trump didn't like him anymore,
Speaker 1: and then he became mister never Trumper extraordinaire. That's that's
Speaker 1: just petty. I mean, that's just personal vendetta stuff. It
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with what's good for the country.
Speaker 1: But Scarborough says, there, oh, you know, I really think
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of people with questions. They
Speaker 1: have these questions because the media keeps asking the questions. Right.
Speaker 1: If you hear all the time, well, as so and
Speaker 1: so beating his wife, you would think if enough people
Speaker 1: in the media say well so and so might be
Speaker 1: beating his wife, you might think, hey, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: so that's what's going on here, And yet they they
Speaker 1: use right there, this is like stocking the pond and
Speaker 1: then fishing from the pond and being like, I didn't
Speaker 1: know they were a fish here. It's like no, of
Speaker 1: course there are. You're putting the fish there, You're putting
Speaker 1: the questions out there, which reminds me I haven't been
Speaker 1: fishing in a while. It sounds like fun. But this
Speaker 1: this whole thing with John Kerrett and these other people
Speaker 1: where they get into how Trump may be compromised, right,
Speaker 1: And this is where you get all these people who
Speaker 1: also all of a sudden are using words like compromat
Speaker 1: and disinformatzia and all this stuff. You know, they've learned
Speaker 1: a few of these Russian intel buzzwords. They use them
Speaker 1: all the time without understanding think about what they're really
Speaker 1: suggesting that Trump and you at Rachel matt All, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the These are the biggest, some of them
Speaker 1: names on the left. These are huge platforms where people
Speaker 1: are just spreading lies and nonsense and gossip as though
Speaker 1: it's fact, and never going back to fact check the
Speaker 1: nonsense gossip when it's proven that it wasn't true. How
Speaker 1: many retractions have you seen from The Guardian, for example,
Speaker 1: on their story that Manafort met with Julian Assange and
Speaker 1: the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Guess what, That's not possible,
Speaker 1: meaning that it's not possible that Manafort did that, and
Speaker 1: there's not a clear record of it, and people wouldn't know.
Speaker 1: Nobody would get in or out of that embassy, the
Speaker 1: embassy where currently Julian Assange is evading justice. Nobody would
Speaker 1: get or evading the authorities. Whether you believe Osange is
Speaker 1: a good guy or not, or he's a journalist or not.
Speaker 1: Lead that conversation to another time, but without a clear
Speaker 1: record of it that would be verifiable one way or
Speaker 1: the other. This now is just something that people say.
Speaker 1: It's become a fashion. It's become almost a social convention.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Trump Russia, you know he's doing Russia's bidding.
Speaker 1: How is he doing Russia's bidding? Well, well, first let's
Speaker 1: get to how they think that Russia would even make
Speaker 1: him do that by what exactly, By the promise of
Speaker 1: Trump Tower Moscow. Trump's already really rich. I would note
Speaker 1: that even if this BuzzFeed story is true, there is
Speaker 1: nothing in it that we can point to in terms
Speaker 1: of the possible Trump Tower Russia or Trump Moscow building
Speaker 1: that's illegal. There's nothing about the business approach that is illegal.
Speaker 1: You might say it's unseemingly, but I'm not going to
Speaker 1: take lectures about unseemly presidential candidates, an unseeingly president from
Speaker 1: the people who thought that Hillary Clinton and her husband
Speaker 1: are worth one hundred million dollars off of speeches. Folks, speeches,
Speaker 1: think about that, no one's speeches. I'm in this business.
Speaker 1: I know what people get paid for speeches. By the way,
Speaker 1: if you want to hire Bucks Exon for a speech sometime,
Speaker 1: just reach out to me on Facebook. But no one
Speaker 1: is worth eight hundred thousand dollars for speech. And I
Speaker 1: mean that, no one you pay eight hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for a speech, which is what Clinton got from a
Speaker 1: Russian government linked bank because they were trying to buy
Speaker 1: influence and access that Clintons were for sale, both of them.
Speaker 1: We know this. So you know, while while I'm not
Speaker 1: going to stand here and tell you that I think
Speaker 1: that every time that Donald Trump is engaged in a
Speaker 1: business transaction, he's just being as as pure as the
Speaker 1: driven snow here, but I also think that what's the standard.
Speaker 1: And you have this insane looney left that is trying
Speaker 1: to say that they have info on Trump, Well, what
Speaker 1: could that info even be? They've tried this whole porn
Speaker 1: star blackmail thing. I mean, how do you This is
Speaker 1: the real question. I mean, this is one I'm trying
Speaker 1: to get you. How do you blackmail Donald Trump? Really
Speaker 1: think about that one for a moment. What would you
Speaker 1: have to have on Trump? I mean, you would have
Speaker 1: to have not a little bit of what hard, hard
Speaker 1: knuckle real estate tactics come on a little bit of
Speaker 1: coloring outside the lines on getting permission to build something somewhere.
Speaker 1: You think you think you're gonna blackmail Donald Trump over that.
Speaker 1: This is a guy who had a lawyer's making payouts
Speaker 1: to porn stars. Whether you think he had the affair
Speaker 1: or not, he had got a blackmail him over this
Speaker 1: and just the whole bizarre you know, Golden Shower, Dossie,
Speaker 1: I think, but all of it, it's just these people
Speaker 1: have lost their minds, and then they take it the
Speaker 1: step even further where it's all about NATO. Look, this
Speaker 1: is the kind of stuff Trump says about NATO playclip nine.
Speaker 1: We cannot be the fools for others. We're going to
Speaker 1: be with NATO one. But as I told the countries,
Speaker 1: you have to step up. You have to pay minimum numbers.
Speaker 1: Actually that they set a two percent goal. Very few
Speaker 1: pay that that they should be much higher than that.
Speaker 1: Look at what we pay, it's massively higher than that.
Speaker 1: Countries are now stepping up and they can well afford to.
Speaker 1: Trump is advocating for NATO countries to spend more money
Speaker 1: on their defense, which, at least in theory under the NATO,
Speaker 1: under NATO's found in charter, it's supposed to be about
Speaker 1: dealing with then Soviet Now I guess Russian aggression. So
Speaker 1: Trump says, I want our European partners paying more, which
Speaker 1: means a bigger millie. He wants them to have bigger militaries,
Speaker 1: and that's doing Putin's bidding. We have to hear from
Speaker 1: idiots like this guy, Congressman Meeks about play clip ten.
Speaker 1: He is a guy that I would believe that if
Speaker 1: you talk to him three or four years before running
Speaker 1: for president, he probably didn't even know what NATO is.
Speaker 1: But but now you know, he has devalued NATO and
Speaker 1: the EU to such a degree that it is plausible
Speaker 1: to me that he would have had this back to
Speaker 1: a conversation with batter Putin about to withdraw from NATO more.
Speaker 1: But this is from a congressman more Putin theorized based
Speaker 1: on what nothing think enough, he's saying space, he wants
Speaker 1: our NATO Allens has spend more money on their defense,
Speaker 1: which is a which is hugely problematic if you're putin
Speaker 1: and you're thinking about aggression in the near future. But
Speaker 1: now they're going to say that. You know, these are
Speaker 1: just conspiracies, folks. Is all Russia conspiracies stuff, It really is.
Speaker 1: But they're not going to stop, so we have to
Speaker 1: keep fighting back. We have no choice. I'd rather focus
Speaker 1: on ways to make the country stronger and better, but
Speaker 1: they want to just get into this Russia lunacy. Look,
Speaker 1: the AARP is pretty well known, and you or somebody
Speaker 1: you know might already be a member of it. But
Speaker 1: did you already know that the AARP is a pretty
Speaker 1: left wing organization, all about government control of healthcare and
Speaker 1: higher taxes for the middle class and just bigger government
Speaker 1: in general. Well that's why I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC. Well,
Speaker 1: you see, AMAC is all about getting you all the
Speaker 1: value from AARP, So it gets you all the stuff
Speaker 1: like car insurance, hotel roadside assistance, dental plan, even cell
Speaker 1: phone service discounts and options, lots of benefits for you.
Speaker 1: But AMAC is actually about conservatism and patriotism. Okay, join
Speaker 1: the AMAC Conservative Alternative, stand with them in this fight.
Speaker 1: Become a member today. The benefits are great. That causes
Speaker 1: even greater. Tell your family, tell your friends, join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, better
Speaker 1: for America. I generally it don't find there to be
Speaker 1: a lot of life wisdom for any of us from
Speaker 1: entertainment celebrities, although I will say that of the people
Speaker 1: in the entertainment world that are at least worth listening
Speaker 1: to in terms of the bumps and bruises they've gotten
Speaker 1: along the way, comedians comedians certainly have it rough. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a tough thing to try and be a
Speaker 1: working comedian. It is a very difficult progression to get
Speaker 1: to a place where you're actually even making a living,
Speaker 1: never mind being somebody who is as famous as Conan O'Brien.
Speaker 1: But I saw this interview in the New York Times
Speaker 1: about how Conan O'Brien is, and this will make sense
Speaker 1: in a second. Why I'm telling you this, Conor O'Brien
Speaker 1: is scaling back his show from an hour to thirty
Speaker 1: minutes he's doing a podcast, He's trying all these different mediums.
Speaker 1: He's switching things around, and I like this because I'm
Speaker 1: somebody who also is trying different things, done a little
Speaker 1: bit of podcast here and there. Obviously, this show is
Speaker 1: also able to be listened as a podcast, but it's
Speaker 1: really a traditional radio show. But I done some other
Speaker 1: podcasts and done some other work on digital TV and
Speaker 1: all these different things. And you know, a part of
Speaker 1: it is that you have to do what is true
Speaker 1: for you. You know what your day to day is
Speaker 1: going to be, what you want your life to be like,
Speaker 1: and no one's going to do that for you. And
Speaker 1: I think Colon O'Brien's kind of recognize that and for
Speaker 1: all of us, whether you're in entertainment or I'm sure
Speaker 1: the vast majority have real jobs and are not an entertainment.
Speaker 1: I think there's some pretty interesting advice that he not
Speaker 1: even advice, just some some insight in this interview that
Speaker 1: he has. So this is a New York Times interview
Speaker 1: with Conan O'Brien about all the changes and how his
Speaker 1: show is getting shorter, and how he's doing all these
Speaker 1: different digital plays and digital opportunities. Here's what he said,
Speaker 1: is this how you want to go out with a
Speaker 1: show that gets smaller and smaller until it's gone. Colin responds,
Speaker 1: maybe that's okay. I think you have more of a
Speaker 1: problem with it than I do. At this point in
Speaker 1: my career, I could go out with a grand twenty
Speaker 1: one gun salute and climb into a rocket and the
Speaker 1: entire Supreme Court walks out and they jointly press a button.
Speaker 1: I'm shot up into the air and there's an explosion,
Speaker 1: and it's orange and it spells goodnight and God love.
Speaker 1: In this culture, two years later, it's going to be
Speaker 1: who's coning. This is going to sound grim, but eventually
Speaker 1: all our graves go unattended. That is pretty grim for
Speaker 1: a comedian, I have to say. But I can appreciate
Speaker 1: something of the sentiment here, which is that entertainment is
Speaker 1: just that, and people also, I think, make a much
Speaker 1: bigger deal out of all of us have much too
Speaker 1: much of our own value is tied in with our career,
Speaker 1: whatever that may be, And particularly for people who were
Speaker 1: in the public eye, there's a sense that if you
Speaker 1: weren't still doing this job, you would cease to exist.
Speaker 1: I see this all the time in the media business,
Speaker 1: in the news business, where there are people who clearly
Speaker 1: would be better off tending more to their family and
Speaker 1: just getting emotionally and spiritually healthy. You know, they've been
Speaker 1: doing this for twenty or thirty years, but they really
Speaker 1: think that all the clocks will stop if they step
Speaker 1: away from it. You know, all of life as we
Speaker 1: know it will come to a halt if they're not
Speaker 1: the one presenting the news at seven o'clock every night.
Speaker 1: It's not true. It's the same thing with entertainers. There
Speaker 1: are plenty of other people who can do it. I
Speaker 1: know that most entertainers would say they do it because
Speaker 1: they love it. Look, I love this job, but there's
Speaker 1: always something more important than your job. It's what I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get at it. I think there's a necessary perspective,
Speaker 1: and especially in our current culture where everyone's engaging I
Speaker 1: mean self promotion. Now it doesn't matter if you're selling
Speaker 1: t Cozy's online or if you're trying to be a
Speaker 1: TV host, self promotion photos, all this stuff. We're just
Speaker 1: surrounded with it all the time, and it does I
Speaker 1: think for some existential questions where we say to ourselves,
Speaker 1: you know, what is this really even all about. Sure,
Speaker 1: I'm all for capitalism and having a growing business, and
Speaker 1: you've got to be involved in a business and not
Speaker 1: a hobby when you're talking about your professional stuff. I
Speaker 1: get that, but there's also a context for it, there's
Speaker 1: a necessary perspective. Conan goes onto this interview and by
Speaker 1: the way, the interviewer said the same thing that I
Speaker 1: or had to say, I'm feeling, and I did, which
Speaker 1: is your right? That does sound grim. Then Conan said
Speaker 1: this quote, Well, sorry, but Calvin Coolidge was a pretty
Speaker 1: popular president. I've been to his grave in Vermont. It
Speaker 1: has the presidential seal on it. Nobody was there. And
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm the only late night host that
Speaker 1: has been to Calvin Coolidge's grave. I think that's what
Speaker 1: separates me from the other hosts. I had a great
Speaker 1: conversation with Albert Brooks once. When I met him for
Speaker 1: the first time. I was kind of stammering. I said,
Speaker 1: you make movies, they live on forever. I just do
Speaker 1: these late night shows. They get lost, they're never seen again,
Speaker 1: and who cares. And he looked at me and he said,
Speaker 1: what are you talking about? None of it matters, None
Speaker 1: of it matters. No that's the secret. In nineteen forty,
Speaker 1: people said Clark Gable is the face of the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: Who the blank thinks about Clark Gable doesn't matter. You'll
Speaker 1: be forgotten, I'll be forgotten, We'll all be forgotten. It's
Speaker 1: so funny because you'd think that would depress me. I
Speaker 1: was walking on air after that. I understand what he's
Speaker 1: going for here. First of all, Calvin Coolidge is the
Speaker 1: prototype of what an American president should be, which is
Speaker 1: a guy who just does the job without a ton
Speaker 1: of fanfare and doesn't mess things up for people, and
Speaker 1: it's just there to do a job, not there to
Speaker 1: be some deity, not there to try to pretend that
Speaker 1: he's going to solve everybody's problems or that he's going
Speaker 1: to make all the bad things in the world go away.
Speaker 1: Just a guy doing a job. I do wish we
Speaker 1: could get back to that, less cult like and less
Speaker 1: celebrity obsessed, not just presidency but culture overall. But that's
Speaker 1: where I would come in here and say he's right,
Speaker 1: meaning Conan is right, Albert Brooks was right. None of
Speaker 1: this really matters in a profound, long term sense. You
Speaker 1: know your job, who whatever you do whatever your job is.
Speaker 1: You're listening to this across the country. It doesn't really matter. Sure,
Speaker 1: you've got to put food on the table for you
Speaker 1: and your family. It has purpose, but we have to
Speaker 1: derive and this gets into some of the conversation around
Speaker 1: the Tucker Carlson monologue recently. We have to find purpose
Speaker 1: beyond just our work and our labor and our careers.
Speaker 1: And that's where you get into how it's actually the
Speaker 1: stuff that many of us think of as what's around
Speaker 1: our jobs, what is sometimes even in the way of
Speaker 1: our jobs that really matters. It's your family. It's your spouse, kids,
Speaker 1: your brothers and sisters, mom and dad, aunt's, uncle's cousins,
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. It's your friends. It's how
Speaker 1: you treat people. It's how you make people feel around
Speaker 1: you every day. It's the small contributions you make to
Speaker 1: putting those around you more at ease with how you
Speaker 1: treat them and how you act. And that is professionally
Speaker 1: and personally. That's the only stuff in a way that
Speaker 1: really matters in a day to day sense. And then
Speaker 1: also obviously your relationship with God. And that's what I
Speaker 1: meant about spiritual health. Before that all matters whether you're
Speaker 1: doing an hour show or a thirty minute show or
Speaker 1: any of that stuff. It's just at the end of
Speaker 1: the day or at the end of all of our days,
Speaker 1: no one is really going to remember all that. And
Speaker 1: I think that now more than ever before, there is
Speaker 1: a sense that we can achieve a kind of immortality
Speaker 1: through the success whatever, however you define that, the success
Speaker 1: of what it is that you're doing. And really it's
Speaker 1: more about the success of how you've been as a person.
Speaker 1: What are you really like? What do you value? What
Speaker 1: have you done for those around you? Have you served
Speaker 1: the people around you? Have you served a purpose for them?
Speaker 1: Does your life have a meaning that is positive at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, and that is not measured
Speaker 1: in dollars or ratings or any of that other or
Speaker 1: social media you know, Twitter, following, Instagram following. That is
Speaker 1: all incredibly transient, and I think it's becoming even more
Speaker 1: transient as time passes. People are realizing that clicks and
Speaker 1: likes and shares, all this stuff is in the end meaningless.
Speaker 1: And there's also a freedom that comes from this to
Speaker 1: know what doesn't really matter, is to know what you
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about and that's why I know
Speaker 1: this this little little segment where Color O'Brien was just saying,
Speaker 1: whether I do a thirty minute show an hour show,
Speaker 1: or whether I'm the best comedian in the country or
Speaker 1: no one knows who I am, That's not what is
Speaker 1: really important. And I do think there's also a conversation
Speaker 1: about each and every one of us. Part of our
Speaker 1: purpose is to find our purpose and to understand what
Speaker 1: is important for you in your life. But all right,
Speaker 1: enough of the enough of the spiritual talk. I've got
Speaker 1: a quick news store I wanted to hit with you,
Speaker 1: and then we will get two roll calls. Stay right there.
Speaker 1: Here's a story that I think is a pretty good
Speaker 1: one to get ready for a weekend with. Here. This
Speaker 1: is pretty incredible. This was reported on by the in
Speaker 1: the UK by the Mirror. So there was this al
Speaker 1: Shabab terror attack that that just happened. What was a
Speaker 1: few days ago where you had Al Shabab, which is
Speaker 1: an al Qaeda linked group in Somalia. It's basically the
Speaker 1: jihadest entity of Somalia and it has engaged in some
Speaker 1: very high profile terror attacks in the past and neighboring Kenya, well,
Speaker 1: it turns out there was a one of these attacks
Speaker 1: at a hotel in Kenya. Altrabab attacks was going on
Speaker 1: and this whole hotel complex killed fourteen people, including a
Speaker 1: British charity worker. So terrible this this attack that went
Speaker 1: on and you took a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: innocent people brutally murdered. Horrific stuff. One part of the
Speaker 1: story though, that I just found out today is that
Speaker 1: there was a British SAS, which is their equivalent of
Speaker 1: essentially a Tier one military unit like the like Seal
Speaker 1: Team six or the Delta or Delta Force. British SAS
Speaker 1: counter terrorism trainer just happened to be out on a
Speaker 1: personal shopping trip, you know, just go get i don't know,
Speaker 1: food or clothing whatever needed. Happened to be nearby and
Speaker 1: he heard what was going on when they were storming
Speaker 1: this hotel, heard the gunfire, he sprinted to his car.
Speaker 1: He had his counter terror training equipment in the car,
Speaker 1: so he got all geared up and went in there
Speaker 1: and went, you know, room clearing in this hotel to
Speaker 1: get people out. And it's a pretty amazing story. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is like the plot of Under Siege or
Speaker 1: you know, die Hard or one of these movies where
Speaker 1: there's one person who just happens to be the one
Speaker 1: right guy at the time to intervene when a terrible
Speaker 1: terrorists act like this is under way. So I'm assuming
Speaker 1: that we're going to find out more information about this
Speaker 1: that this sas terror trainer. I mean, there's photos of him.
Speaker 1: They've blurred his face, but he's evacuating people out. I mean,
Speaker 1: and he is just completely he's all geared up and
Speaker 1: he's going in there. You know, he told the local
Speaker 1: police to wait. I mean, he's smart. He knows that
Speaker 1: friendly fire blue on blue here is one of the
Speaker 1: biggest problems a guy like him would have to be
Speaker 1: on the lookout for, other than the highly armed, you know,
Speaker 1: a K forty seven wielding terrorists that were inside. So
Speaker 1: a pretty amazing story and just goes to show you
Speaker 1: you never know. You just never know when For those
Speaker 1: of you and I know other people listening to this
Speaker 1: who have elite law enforced and military training, you never
Speaker 1: know when it's gonna be go time. And this guy,
Speaker 1: we don't. I don't even think we know his I
Speaker 1: don't think they released his name, so he's they certainly
Speaker 1: are not showing his face. Yeah, they didn't release his
Speaker 1: name either. Pretty remarkable though, reporting here out of the
Speaker 1: UK Mirror. Never know when it's going to be your
Speaker 1: time to step in and save some lives. Roll Call
Speaker 1: is up next, Rock and roll fellow page, time to
Speaker 1: spread some freedom coast to coast. It's time for Roll Call.
Speaker 1: So I hear Raheem did a great job last night
Speaker 1: on the show. That always makes me very happy. As
Speaker 1: you know, I have the let's get the best guest
Speaker 1: host we can philosophy in play, so we go to
Speaker 1: Raheem and Harlan and others because we want to make
Speaker 1: sure every night you tune into this show you have
Speaker 1: a fantastic listening experience. All right, man, I cannot wait
Speaker 1: for this weekend. I got a long weekend actually, although
Speaker 1: I don't even know, Hey, producer, Mike, are we on radio?
Speaker 1: Are we on radio Monday or not? That's probably something
Speaker 1: that I should find out, because you know, I'm the
Speaker 1: host and all that good stuff, so that's important. That's
Speaker 1: your home. Are you too good for your home? To me?
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash buck sex if you want to
Speaker 1: get in on this, by the way, I want to
Speaker 1: let you know if you don't have it, you can
Speaker 1: download the iHeart app onto your phone for free, and
Speaker 1: there is in fact a Buck Sexton twenty four to
Speaker 1: seven option. Now, as amazing as it may sound, that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you have to listen to me twenty four
Speaker 1: to seven. It just means that at any point in
Speaker 1: your busy day, your schedule, you can just go to
Speaker 1: the iHeart app and listen that way. So if you
Speaker 1: ever feel like you've missed out on your local station
Speaker 1: or you didn't download the podcast you got Wi Fi,
Speaker 1: you can just go on the iHeart app. Otherwise, iTunes
Speaker 1: is a great place to download the podcast. And with that,
Speaker 1: TJ my man. TJ has a shield Tige T shirt
Speaker 1: in his profile photo, so he has a special place
Speaker 1: in Team Buck's heart. Buck, how do you get swindled
Speaker 1: in sharing that got awful parody music video about the
Speaker 1: shutdown this morning? On Rising? That was awful? You really
Speaker 1: need to chew out the producers there you haven't already.
Speaker 1: I know you said it, but nine thousand views is
Speaker 1: not exactly going viral. Also, in regards to Cardi B,
Speaker 1: didn't she have a video not too long ago complaining
Speaker 1: about paying taxes? I'm guessing if she didn't have to
Speaker 1: pay taxes during government shutdown, she'd be changing her tune
Speaker 1: pretty quick. I'm all for not paying taxes during a
Speaker 1: government shutdown. PS. I don't know about Cardi B's tax policies.
Speaker 1: I do know that that video, the parody video, sucked
Speaker 1: and was not something that I think we should have
Speaker 1: put on air on Rising. But I don't get to
Speaker 1: make all the decisions there. One of the reasons I
Speaker 1: love radio so much is I do get to make
Speaker 1: the decisions here. This is this is pure, unfiltered, unadulterated
Speaker 1: buck tasticness here, unlike on the TV, TV is always
Speaker 1: more collaborative in general, but especially when you're doing a
Speaker 1: left right show and some other stuff like that, you
Speaker 1: need to You needed to loot the buck a little bit,
Speaker 1: which is not the way I like to do things.
Speaker 1: Jen writes, Buck, Happy New Year. Two things look up
Speaker 1: Paul check a holistic health guy, Superjack fifty five years old,
Speaker 1: common sense health and fitness stuff. And secondly, how is
Speaker 1: miss Molly. I hope you two are still together. I've
Speaker 1: not heard you speak of her of late. Happy Friday,
Speaker 1: Shields high Jen, Jen, Miss Molly's fine she's just traveling
Speaker 1: for work right now. She's away for a few for
Speaker 1: a few weeks, sometimes she has to go. She works
Speaker 1: in the fashion industry, and so she has to go
Speaker 1: on these essentially road shows where she meets with different
Speaker 1: clients and different buyers all around the country and sometimes
Speaker 1: even overseas. So miss Molly's great. I will tell her
Speaker 1: the team was asking for her. And as for this guy,
Speaker 1: Paul Check, I will check him out. So there you
Speaker 1: have wra Sorry, and it's late on a Friday. You
Speaker 1: gotta give me a little leeway here to let some
Speaker 1: some bad ones. Let some bad ones fly occasion. Occasionally
Speaker 1: it's gonna happen, now, simcha right, Dear Zvi gabye A
Speaker 1: rough translation of buck Sexton into Hebrew. This photo is
Speaker 1: from my car as I drive from the suburb where
Speaker 1: I live into Jerusalem for work. Years ago, this highway
Speaker 1: was a target for rock attacks or shootings. It's been
Speaker 1: safe for a while because walls work and because we
Speaker 1: hear in Israel know how to keep our shields high.
Speaker 1: All the best, Sam, Well, Sam. First of all, thank
Speaker 1: you for telling me my Hebrew name ZV. You can
Speaker 1: always write hey V and I'll know who you're talking
Speaker 1: about now. As to walls working, yes, I mean that's
Speaker 1: what I was. I didn't learn it this week. I
Speaker 1: just had it reinforced this week by all these different
Speaker 1: members of border patrol who just can't imagine how all
Speaker 1: these talking heads and all these so called experts on
Speaker 1: different things and go on TV and just be so
Speaker 1: foolish when they talk about walls. I mean, walls obviously
Speaker 1: work and are very effective as a form of protection
Speaker 1: and security and border separation. And you in Israel have
Speaker 1: shown the whole world this Israel was in I remember
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and one, two thousand and two,
Speaker 1: is in really rough shape with all the suicide bombings
Speaker 1: that were happening and the infiltration of these different hamass
Speaker 1: operative operatives and you know, all the Cassam brigades and
Speaker 1: Al Kood's and all this different stuff that was going on.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I'm glad it worked for Israel obviously, and
Speaker 1: I hope we have learned from Israel's lesson, although the
Speaker 1: Democrats certainly haven't. Julie Rights, hey back, I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: want to know why illegal immigrants are allowed to have
Speaker 1: their children while US citizens are losing custody rights based
Speaker 1: on a disability. Your show is great, Thank you, Julie.
Speaker 1: I don't know about this US citizens losing custody question
Speaker 1: over disabilities, so I'd have to ask about that. I
Speaker 1: will say that, you know one part of the and
Speaker 1: thank you for saying my show is great. I appreciate that.
Speaker 1: One part of the child separation discussion that does not
Speaker 1: get enough focus is that children are separated from parents
Speaker 1: in this country without anyone being convicted of a crime
Speaker 1: all the time. And that's with citizens. Children are separated
Speaker 1: from parents if there's if there's a credible reason to
Speaker 1: believe there's abuse, I mean child services. Child services don't
Speaker 1: show up and say, oh, you haven't been convicted of
Speaker 1: felony abuse, We're just going to leave the kid here.
Speaker 1: Child services can and do take children away from people
Speaker 1: based upon a feeling that they need to protect them
Speaker 1: from possible child abuse or to you know, make sure
Speaker 1: they don't suffer continued child abuse. So that does happen
Speaker 1: in this country, and you do not get much discussion
Speaker 1: of it. Rocky rights. Netflix should have taken a cue
Speaker 1: from the Dems. Have some one of the companies say
Speaker 1: they want to raise your rates fifty percent. All the
Speaker 1: customers freak. Then cooler heads prevail. They appear to chastise
Speaker 1: the person they only raise a reasonable sum. Customers let
Speaker 1: out a sigh of relief. Well, Rocky, that's an interesting
Speaker 1: approach for sure. Steve Wright Shield's high buck. My name
Speaker 1: is Steve. I'm a truck driver and this may sound weird,
Speaker 1: but you're in my cab every night. Lol. I love
Speaker 1: your show. I enjoy it. A little over a week ago,
Speaker 1: you mentioned a Sasquatch movie. Do you remember the name?
Speaker 1: I can't find it. This is the first time I
Speaker 1: send anyone a message outside of friends and family. I'm
Speaker 1: sending this note, but thanks for all the information. You're
Speaker 1: very good at what you do. It'd be great to
Speaker 1: hear you back when you are back from California. Stay safe, Steve, Well,
Speaker 1: Steve meant. It is my honor and it is a
Speaker 1: privilege to keep you company while you are engaged in
Speaker 1: the very necessary transport of goods. My friend, you are
Speaker 1: a soldier of capitalism out there on the highways. So
Speaker 1: thank you for what you do, and stay safe on
Speaker 1: the road. As to the movie, yes, it was called
Speaker 1: Primal Rage. And now let me say that it is
Speaker 1: very graphic. Okay, so do not repeat, do not try
Speaker 1: to watch this one with the kids, or let any
Speaker 1: kids watch it. There is a scene in the movie
Speaker 1: that is about as graphic as some of the stuff
Speaker 1: you see in the hills have eyes. So for those
Speaker 1: of you who know what I'm talking about, it was disturbing.
Speaker 1: That said, if you're an adult, if you're eighteen plus
Speaker 1: and you want to see it's really a Sasquatch horror movie.
Speaker 1: It's not a Sasquatch thriller movie because there's a lot
Speaker 1: of gore and violence, and I will say the acting
Speaker 1: from the human beings is pretty terrible, but it's well,
Speaker 1: it's well shot. They film it the right place in
Speaker 1: the Pacific Northwest. The backdrops look cool, and the Sasquatch
Speaker 1: is really scary. So you know, I think I think
Speaker 1: it's worth a watch. But just remember I told you
Speaker 1: it is very violent. I mean, like stomach curdling violent.
Speaker 1: And it also has at least one scene of violence
Speaker 1: that I was like, come on, you can't do, you
Speaker 1: can't do, can't show that. I just think that there's
Speaker 1: room for a great Sasquatch movie out there that's a
Speaker 1: little less heavy handed on the gore and a little
Speaker 1: more into the backstory of the Squatch and and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. So I enjoyed it, but I was in
Speaker 1: the mood to watch I just, you know, sometimes you
Speaker 1: just want to watch a certain kind of movie on
Speaker 1: a certain kind of night. It was a cold, snowy
Speaker 1: night here in DC, and man, I just wanted to
Speaker 1: watch some Squatch. So Steven, thanks so much for writing
Speaker 1: in Michael rides. Please compare contrast AOC's run train comment
Speaker 1: and Trump's Access Hollywood remark. Okay, Michael, I did not
Speaker 1: previously get into this run train remarks. It's a very
Speaker 1: it's a very graphic one for people who know what
Speaker 1: it is. It is a reference to essentially a group sex.
Speaker 1: And I don't even know what the specifics are other
Speaker 1: than I know that it's something like that. And AOC
Speaker 1: said this, I think that it maybe has multiple meetings.
Speaker 1: You know, it can be used for he said, for
Speaker 1: different things. For example, you know what I'm even gonna say,
Speaker 1: But there's certain things like there's certain foods that I've
Speaker 1: eaten recently that I have only later found out or
Speaker 1: also can be a very dirty sexual reference. But it's
Speaker 1: a real food but people, and some of you will
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about here, and some of you
Speaker 1: I don't want to get into it, you know, I
Speaker 1: keep the show clean. I'm just saying AOC's run train
Speaker 1: comment was very, very strange, and I don't really know
Speaker 1: what she was going for there. But I'm also not
Speaker 1: that well versed in the millennial urban vernacular of the day.
Speaker 1: That maybe the nerdiest thing I've ever said on radio.
Speaker 1: But it's true. I'm not in the nineties. Man. I
Speaker 1: could tell you I got all the nineties. I had
Speaker 1: all the nineties slang, which, by the way, it was
Speaker 1: not limited to any one community. It was really the
Speaker 1: pop culture youth. We're all saying, you know, that's you
Speaker 1: know yo, that's dope, that's ill, that's fat, that's all
Speaker 1: all these different things that now if I said them
Speaker 1: out loud, some of you would start chuckling at me.
Speaker 1: But this is the way that people talked when I
Speaker 1: was growing up. You know that that guy's such a player.
Speaker 1: Oh that's so, that's so dope. Oh that's ill, that's
Speaker 1: that's the ill, na, na, that's you know, what's up?
Speaker 1: Home slice? People say at home slice. I've said it
Speaker 1: a couple of times on the show that no one
Speaker 1: says it anymore. What's up Homie? People who say what's
Speaker 1: up Homie all the time? You know the languages, so
Speaker 1: I don't know how the kids talk. Now. I'm getting
Speaker 1: too I'm getting I'm getting close to forty, I'm getting
Speaker 1: to school. I'm getting too old for that stuff. Let's
Speaker 1: see here, Rita rights oh Man, Steve King is my
Speaker 1: rep Why talk to the New York Times at all?
Speaker 1: And why try to have a theoretical discussion with the enemy.
Speaker 1: Don't talk about anything to the New York Times. No
Speaker 1: one makes any effort to understand what Steve meant? Why
Speaker 1: is Western civilization now evil? Not? How to understand if
Speaker 1: you aren't determined to find wrongdoing. He's taken his lungs,
Speaker 1: but his career may be ruined, but he is not
Speaker 1: a racist. She'll tie from Rita. Well, Rita, they certainly
Speaker 1: he said some things that I think we're unwise, and
Speaker 1: perhaps you could honestly describe as as racist. Honestly, he's
Speaker 1: also said some things, though, that have been called racist,
Speaker 1: that I think are not fairly called racist. So we
Speaker 1: have to talk about the specific comments. But I do
Speaker 1: think you're onto something. When you say why, try to
Speaker 1: have a theoretical discussion with the other side, meaning the
Speaker 1: New York Times on this, because they are just looking
Speaker 1: to jam him up. All right, everybody, have a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: We will be on the air Monday. So if you're
Speaker 1: hanging out for the holiday, if you got the day off,
Speaker 1: make sure you tune in six to nine Eastern and
Speaker 1: this weekend. You still owe me a late Christmas slash
Speaker 1: Birthday present. Tell a friend to download the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: The next time you're talking politics, be like, you know
Speaker 1: you need to listen to this buck Sexton guy. Talk
Speaker 1: to you all Monday. Have a great weekend, Shield's Eye.
Speaker 1: You know what's smart figuring out who you need to
Speaker 1: hire to take your business to the next level in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. You know what else is smart? Starting the
Speaker 1: new year off strong by going to zip recruiter dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to hire the right people. Unlike other
Speaker 1: job site, zip Recruiter finds qualified candidates for you. It's
Speaker 1: powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify people
Speaker 1: with the right skills, education, and experience, and actively invites
Speaker 1: them to apply to your job. So you get qualified
Speaker 1: candidates fast. That's why zipp recruiter is rated number one
Speaker 1: by employers in the US and this rating comes from
Speaker 1: hiring sites on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews.
Speaker 1: Right now, my listeners can try zip recruiter for free
Speaker 1: at this exclusive web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: If you love this show, show your support to it
Speaker 1: and zip recruiter by going to zip recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck again for any job, any position you have opened.
Speaker 1: This is how you want to hire zip recruiter dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck because zip recruiter is the smartest way
Speaker 1: to hire