Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Democrats bring a Watergate
Speaker 1: air official to Capitol Hill and it basically does nothing.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about how this factors into the Muller pro
Speaker 1: but also the latest on how dodgeball is a tool
Speaker 1: of oppression. Trump seems to have gotten a deal with
Speaker 1: Mexico based on his tariff threat, and a whole lot
Speaker 1: more coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. No. Trump is showing true Nixonian's style.
Speaker 1: Trump is Nixon on steroids and stilts. If I had
Speaker 1: to channel a little of Richard Nixon, I think he'd
Speaker 1: tell this president he's going too far. This is the
Speaker 1: sort of stuff of a banana republic. This is what
Speaker 1: an autocrat does, frighteningly dictatorial. He's thinking like Putin would think.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, John dene down
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill of Watergate infamy. This guy is Avanadi
Speaker 1: like in his understanding of how to push the media
Speaker 1: buttons and just say the things they're so desperate to here.
Speaker 1: Oh it's Nixonian and banana republic and dictator and what
Speaker 1: a joke, what a joke. But sure enough today he
Speaker 1: was down on Capitol Hill testifying before the Congress as
Speaker 1: though he has something to add. He's a bystander, he's
Speaker 1: just someone from a long time ago who was involved
Speaker 1: in something that has nothing to do with this. But
Speaker 1: because the media in this town, in particular in DC,
Speaker 1: view the torpedoing of the Nixon presidency as the highlight
Speaker 1: of all journalism of all time. They think it's the
Speaker 1: single greatest moment for journalism in this country's history. And
Speaker 1: they only can think in terms of repeats and a loop.
Speaker 1: You know, Oh, this is like, this is like Nixon,
Speaker 1: This is like Nixon. It's almost like Libs have a
Speaker 1: very hard time accepting the results of elections and just
Speaker 1: just letting it go, just let it go. They won't.
Speaker 1: They come up with some narrative, some storyline that makes
Speaker 1: them think, oh, well, we don't have to let it
Speaker 1: go because it's not real, or it didn't really happen,
Speaker 1: or it's about to end before the next election even happens.
Speaker 1: Sure enough, that's not how this plays out. That's not
Speaker 1: how it works. But they think that it's a good
Speaker 1: idea to bring John Dean out once again. This guy
Speaker 1: who I believe went to prison for what he did
Speaker 1: to Watergate. He was Nixon's counsel. And this is what
Speaker 1: he said on CNN, which is hashtag resistance Central. This
Speaker 1: is what he had to CNN this morning, play seventeen.
Speaker 1: Clearly not a fact witness, but I hope I can
Speaker 1: give them some context and show them how strikingly like Watergate,
Speaker 1: what we're seeing now, and as reported in the Muller
Speaker 1: report is the fact that Nixon was hands on very
Speaker 1: early is just like Trump, hands on very early. The
Speaker 1: firing of Komi was certainly not dissimilar from some of
Speaker 1: the actions that Nixon took. Nixon is just like Trump.
Speaker 1: That's all he has to say. And he gets on
Speaker 1: TV and he gets treated by all these these very
Speaker 1: borderline IQ and highly unimpressive CNN anchors like this is
Speaker 1: this is the word of the Almighty on all things
Speaker 1: in p OH. We have John Deane today. I gotta
Speaker 1: listen everything this guy has to say. Well, I would
Speaker 1: like to give you a little window into what this
Speaker 1: what this John deedon character is really all about. He
Speaker 1: is serving a very clear purpose here, which is tying
Speaker 1: the Bush I'm sorry, tying the Trump administration back to Nixon. Right,
Speaker 1: Nixon was impeached and resigned. I'm sorry, Nixon was not impeached.
Speaker 1: Pardon me. Nixon resigned, but would have been impeached, would
Speaker 1: have been removed from office most likely. So he resigned
Speaker 1: in advance of this. And they want to create that
Speaker 1: storyline that's this is all about. That is just like
Speaker 1: but you see the issue with John Deed, and there
Speaker 1: are a lot of them. What the us is John
Speaker 1: Deed is that this is what he always does. He
Speaker 1: wrote a book in two thousand and four worse than Watergate,
Speaker 1: the secret presidency of George W. Bush, worse than Watergate.
Speaker 1: And this has now become a phrase that people use,
Speaker 1: usually in a kind of mock high dudgeon. Worse than Watergate.
Speaker 1: This is oh, it's worse than one. Well, if the
Speaker 1: Bush administration was worse than Watergate, I guess this has
Speaker 1: to be worse than worse than Watergate. This fellow, mister Dean,
Speaker 1: he exists so that Democrats have someone they can point
Speaker 1: to that will be a little little time and space
Speaker 1: transport back to the era of big journalism's unbelievable power,
Speaker 1: where they could bring down a presidency, and they don't
Speaker 1: really have quite the same power anymore. In fact, Trump
Speaker 1: is really a slap in the face to that power.
Speaker 1: Trump's mere existence as president is a constant reminder to
Speaker 1: the journo class that they ain't what they used to be.
Speaker 1: They have John Dene to trot out here, as though
Speaker 1: his testimony on this should matter at all to anyone.
Speaker 1: They could have any figure from the Nixon era, any author,
Speaker 1: or from any presidential era for that matter, come out
Speaker 1: and just answer questions about what they think is in
Speaker 1: the Muller report, or what they think about what's been published.
Speaker 1: Who the heck cares Democrats are embarrassing on this? They
Speaker 1: want to get John Dene and testify. Where's where are
Speaker 1: the calls for Muller to testify? I'm telling you, folks.
Speaker 1: They want to let Muller skate away without a whole
Speaker 1: lot of scrutiny and without any opposition questions. They want
Speaker 1: to let Muller just go. Muller did them the best
Speaker 1: solid he could with this report and his little his
Speaker 1: little weirdo press conference. He did everything he could for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. They want to send him off and not
Speaker 1: They don't want him to get comat and getting comy
Speaker 1: just means they don't want people to find out who
Speaker 1: this guy really is and what he's all about. Because
Speaker 1: if that happens, then guess what his report will be
Speaker 1: seen through the prism of the partisan that he really
Speaker 1: is the anti trumpster that we all know him to be.
Speaker 1: But that's right. They bring down the guy who wrote
Speaker 1: the worst than Watergate book about the Bush presidency. And
Speaker 1: I can't even tell you here. This is what the
Speaker 1: Amazon description of this John Deane book from the Bush
Speaker 1: era is. The former counsel the President Nixon provides a
Speaker 1: stinging critique of the current Bush administration, it's obsession with
Speaker 1: secrecy and its willingness to deceive the American people, emphasizing
Speaker 1: the presidents. This is what it says, emphasis on image
Speaker 1: over substance, imperial governing, and flaw decision making. Okay, so
Speaker 1: he doesn't like Bush, but that makes it worse than Watergate.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a laughable phrase, right, This is preposterous,
Speaker 1: worse than what how Ny has nothing to push, has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the water Gate. Oh, it's worse
Speaker 1: than a water gate. Yeah, sure it is. Meanwhile, if
Speaker 1: you want to look at what's really going to be
Speaker 1: a problem. Oh wait, no way, hold on, I'm not
Speaker 1: let him get away with this. Jim Jordan, Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: had a moment. I really liked Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan
Speaker 1: had a moment with John Deane. Did I play at please?
Speaker 1: Did you give advice to Lanny Davis or Michael Collins
Speaker 1: prior to mister collins testimony to Congress? Yeah? I have
Speaker 1: known Lanny Davis for almost a couple decades and we
Speaker 1: have talked about it, and I did say, as soon
Speaker 1: as you're turning your testimony over, it will be picked apart.
Speaker 1: So you instructed Michael Collins lawyer to keep information from
Speaker 1: Republicans to instruct the committee work that we were doing
Speaker 1: in the Oversight Committee just a few months ago. You
Speaker 1: told that to meet Michael Collins lawyer. I didn't quite
Speaker 1: phrase it that right. Now. You know what. They took
Speaker 1: your advice. I'm sorry they took your advice. Good day. Yeah,
Speaker 1: mister Cohen kept his testimony from us for as long
Speaker 1: as possible, but you know, what else mister Cohen did
Speaker 1: that day line. This is what concerns I think so
Speaker 1: many Americans about the work that's going on in this Congress,
Speaker 1: this one hundred and sixteen. The first the first announced
Speaker 1: witness of the one hundred and sixteenth Congress is Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: The guys sits in prison today for lying to Congress. Today,
Speaker 1: Chairman Nadler brings in from the Judiciary Committee a guy
Speaker 1: to talk about obstruction of justice who went to prison
Speaker 1: in nineteen seventy four were obstructing justice. At least they're
Speaker 1: going with experts now. He's an expert in obstructing justice
Speaker 1: because that's what he did, just like Michael Cohen is
Speaker 1: an expert in lying under oath because that's what he did.
Speaker 1: But you know, it really gets the Democrats worried. Media
Speaker 1: is not covering this much, doesn't want to talk about it.
Speaker 1: But what keeps them up at night, I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: is the Bar report the Inspector General, which has been
Speaker 1: delayed folks until I think July, which is a shame,
Speaker 1: but it has been delayed. But that Bar report that
Speaker 1: has them worried. They no Bar is serious, They no
Speaker 1: Bar is talented. They know that there's the very real
Speaker 1: possibility that he will have answers finally about the Russia
Speaker 1: steel origin, Russia investigation origins and the Steel dossier. And
Speaker 1: this is what really worries them. Mark Meadows touched on this.
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows is doing some great work on this. He says, Look,
Speaker 1: the senior FBI folks had to know that the Steel
Speaker 1: dossier was a joke play fourteen prior to that first
Speaker 1: fives application. Peter Struck, Andy McCabe and others at the
Speaker 1: FBI knew that Christopher Steele's dossier was not credible, and
Speaker 1: they did a rush to make sure that they could
Speaker 1: actually surveil him. That will come out because there's a
Speaker 1: cover up that happened within certain realms at the FBI,
Speaker 1: a rush to surveil and a cover up. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of information that I think we're going to see her.
Speaker 1: That's that's what we are going to find out from
Speaker 1: this Inspector General report, because the most dirty stuff will
Speaker 1: be what happened in the very beginning to get this
Speaker 1: investigation going. That's why they're lying about this whole Papadoppolis thing.
Speaker 1: There's no way that Papadopolis was the origin point of
Speaker 1: the investigations, there's no way. It just doesn't hold water,
Speaker 1: doesn't hold together, it doesn't make any sense. There was
Speaker 1: other stuff going on here. There were partisans in this process.
Speaker 1: Who knows how far up a chain it goes over
Speaker 1: the DNC and the Hillary campaign. There were people involved
Speaker 1: in the Obama administration who had to know. And that's
Speaker 1: where you're going to have the really scary stuff for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. So you know, they can put John Deane
Speaker 1: on the stand today and this whole dog and pony show,
Speaker 1: it's a waste of everybody's time. They're making themselves look
Speaker 1: like a bunch of clowns. We have some good and
Speaker 1: worthwhile testimony to look forward to. I believe we have
Speaker 1: an Inspector General report that's delayed but still coming out.
Speaker 1: And it is true that the single most the single
Speaker 1: most dangerous man to the Democrats delusions in this country
Speaker 1: right now, it's not even Donald Trump, it's Attorney General
Speaker 1: Bill Barr. I'll be right back. It's very preliminary information.
Speaker 1: The fire Department is on scene and they're responding, But
Speaker 1: the preliminary information is that there was a helicopter that
Speaker 1: made a forced landing. Emergency landing or landed on the
Speaker 1: roof of the building for one reason or another. There
Speaker 1: was a fire that happened when the helicopter hit the roof.
Speaker 1: People who were in the building said they felt the
Speaker 1: buildings shake. The fire department believes the fire is under control.
Speaker 1: There may have been casualties involved in people and the
Speaker 1: helicopter that we do not know. So there was this
Speaker 1: helicopter crash that was getting a ton of media attention,
Speaker 1: and I think I think one person I believe so far,
Speaker 1: we think, Mike am I right here, it's the pilot
Speaker 1: that died. Yes, that's since then it's there if confirmed
Speaker 1: that one died, and it was the pilot was the
Speaker 1: pilot was And we don't think right now that there
Speaker 1: was anyone else on that on that helicopter. No, it
Speaker 1: happens now we don't. Yeah, this is one of these
Speaker 1: things where you notice how how a news cycle is
Speaker 1: generated from not necessarily what is really going to have
Speaker 1: impact on the lives of the most people, but just
Speaker 1: what can capture, you know, attention and imagination very quickly.
Speaker 1: A helicopter crash of this kind. As soon as they've
Speaker 1: determined that it wasn't terrorism, which it seemed right away
Speaker 1: that was the case. I mean, a helicopter would be
Speaker 1: a particularly poor choice of a vehicle for a suicide
Speaker 1: operation because it carries very few people, and it would
Speaker 1: helicopters are fragile. Those of you who fly to them
Speaker 1: know that they're not not particularly sturdy or durable craft.
Speaker 1: And obviously today one of them tragically crashed on this building.
Speaker 1: Whether the I believe one of my family members works
Speaker 1: in the building that is right next to this building.
Speaker 1: So there's been quite a lot of to do from
Speaker 1: the streets around this in New York City, a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff going on, but we do have it in
Speaker 1: New York. Anytime there's an aerial incident of this kind,
Speaker 1: people's minds tend to go right to terrorism because of
Speaker 1: nine to eleven and the impact that that had on
Speaker 1: our lives. This, though, is a reminder also of how
Speaker 1: the old media maxim if if it bleeds, it leads,
Speaker 1: is very much the case. This was getting more attention,
Speaker 1: which I think also tells you a lot about how
Speaker 1: much impact the John Deane hearing was really having. This
Speaker 1: news story for much of the day, was the number
Speaker 1: one cable news item for many hours, and ultimately we're
Speaker 1: talking about something that is about as significant as a
Speaker 1: car crash where a person died. It's really not Once
Speaker 1: you established that it's not terrorism and that there was
Speaker 1: only one person involved, it's very sad for him and
Speaker 1: his family. And I'm not trying to down plenty of
Speaker 1: that at all. I'm just saying that this is effectively
Speaker 1: a car crash at the top of a building. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is one person dying and a crash of a
Speaker 1: mechanical failure. And there's been more or less flood the
Speaker 1: zone coverage of it for many, many hours today. And
Speaker 1: I think it's in part because of the mentality in
Speaker 1: New York that anytime there's a crash involving an aerial craft,
Speaker 1: everyone starts to think terrorism. That's true, but perhaps more
Speaker 1: to our purposes here, an incident like this was able
Speaker 1: to take all the focus off of what the Democrats
Speaker 1: and what is a relatively minor news story in the
Speaker 1: grand scheme of things. I was able to take hours
Speaker 1: of attention away from the John the John Deane testimony.
Speaker 1: I wonder how much of that was ratings, old school
Speaker 1: news judgment driven versus whether some networks realized that you know,
Speaker 1: it would be probably to the Democrats benefit to have
Speaker 1: less people watch John Dene make a jackass of himself.
Speaker 1: Why anyone should care what this guy from an incident
Speaker 1: forty years ago that very few people in America even
Speaker 1: really know much about, but beyond that it was a
Speaker 1: very different incident from we're talking about today. Why that
Speaker 1: person should be the focus of an inquiry on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill is something that Democrats, I just don't think have
Speaker 1: any real answer to. So it's probably for the best
Speaker 1: for them today that this turned into just a news
Speaker 1: story that was consuming all the different channels and getting
Speaker 1: all the attention and not John Dene and making a
Speaker 1: fool himself on the Hill. I will say the man,
Speaker 1: you know I've written around Mike you ever been in
Speaker 1: a helicopter? I have not, and I don't plan to.
Speaker 1: I've been in a bunch of military helicopters. I've been
Speaker 1: in a few private helicopters. They're you know, you're in
Speaker 1: a plane. You have this forward uh you know, you
Speaker 1: have you have the wing speed and everything, and you
Speaker 1: just feel like you can maybe kind of get to
Speaker 1: some kind of a landing. Things go bad in a helicopter,
Speaker 1: they go People tell me that there's continuous rotation in
Speaker 1: the blades. But yeah, yeah, things go bad in a helicopter,
Speaker 1: they go really bad. Yeah, I trust the military. I
Speaker 1: don't trust the people flying around New York City. Y's
Speaker 1: for sure. Yeah, that's a different, different thing. It's one
Speaker 1: thing to get into a black Hawk with like a
Speaker 1: you know, night Stalker pilot or something. It's another thing
Speaker 1: to hop in with some guy who's like, yeah, we
Speaker 1: take tourists around the island and yeah, it's all fun.
Speaker 1: And I can't hear you because I got the loud
Speaker 1: rotor going in the bank. You know. That always strikes
Speaker 1: me as Yeah, it's mayhem in New York and there's
Speaker 1: all I mean, there's been way more crashes than normal
Speaker 1: here of over the last few years of helicopters. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: regulations probably coming, by the way, you know, build the Blasio.
Speaker 1: I saw this today. He is less popular in New
Speaker 1: York then. And what was it? Was it Jillibrand or
Speaker 1: was it Cuomo? I think it was Jillibrand, But is
Speaker 1: jillabrand I think, right, who's basically in the very very
Speaker 1: low end of the Democrat race. But I think the
Speaker 1: Blasio serves an important purpose in New York City, and
Speaker 1: that is that to build a Blasio shows you that
Speaker 1: you can be a lazy moron and run the largest
Speaker 1: city in the country and the city will more or
Speaker 1: less be okay. I mean, you'll do things that hurt
Speaker 1: the city, but it'll continue to run as is because
Speaker 1: it's such a big machine and been around for so
Speaker 1: long that even somebody as lazy and dumb as build
Speaker 1: a Blasio is not able to completely and utterly make
Speaker 1: it go could put all at once. So that's a
Speaker 1: good news. That's a little bit of upbeating us for
Speaker 1: the day and a team. We've got more coming up.
Speaker 1: Staying with me. See the President of the United States
Speaker 1: in prison, it's an extraordinary statement from the Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House. Do you agree with her? Is that how
Speaker 1: you see it? Do you want to see the president
Speaker 1: in prison instead of impeaching him? That she wants to
Speaker 1: see President Trump in prison? Look, I don't have any
Speaker 1: difficulty with those words. Do you think President I'm committed
Speaker 1: crimes that could be prosecuted he did. No one is
Speaker 1: above the law, and that includes President Trump. If it
Speaker 1: determines that we lead to impeachment or if he ends
Speaker 1: up in jail, so be it are almost said that
Speaker 1: he should be in jail. All, if you become president
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, would you want your Justice department to
Speaker 1: pursue charges against President Trump? Well, let me press you,
Speaker 1: our congressman. Do you want to see the president of
Speaker 1: the United States in jail more than anything else? Will
Speaker 1: look the lizard brain that I have says, I hope
Speaker 1: bad things happened to this man because he has been
Speaker 1: so destructive. They want him in prison. Folks libs, whether
Speaker 1: this is just their little way of being able to
Speaker 1: sleep at night, not cry too much, way to keep
Speaker 1: the snowflakes from melting entirely? They tell themselves that there
Speaker 1: are still a realistic prospect of President Trump going to prison.
Speaker 1: They want this president in jail, in jail for what, Well,
Speaker 1: depends who you ask. They'll all say obstruction. And then
Speaker 1: I always point out which which count of obstruction or
Speaker 1: rather which act of obstruction. They don't seem as clear
Speaker 1: on that. Are they really going to settle on the
Speaker 1: Don McGann thing? That wouldn't go anywhere. They wouldn't win
Speaker 1: that case, So they'd rather just refer to the generic
Speaker 1: Oh Trump is a criminal, he's a bad guy. He's terrible.
Speaker 1: They want they want him in prison and with no
Speaker 1: trace of irony. Hello, you know who's coming to weigh
Speaker 1: in on this issue none other than Hillary Clinton her self. Besides,
Speaker 1: it's time to jump in on this issue. And as
Speaker 1: though as though she has any credibility whatsoever, as though
Speaker 1: anyone really needs to hear what Hillary I don't know
Speaker 1: what she means in that paragraph, even though I'm Secretary
Speaker 1: of State and it clearly means confidential, which is classified,
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton still thinks the public needs to hear from.
Speaker 1: She is so deeply bitter still about losing the presidency
Speaker 1: to Trump. I mean, this is not something that she
Speaker 1: will ever forgave or forget. She's never going to get
Speaker 1: past it. I think Hillary Clinton, in her mind probably
Speaker 1: thinks the last thirty years of her existence, maybe even
Speaker 1: all sixty some odd years of her existence, in their totality,
Speaker 1: we're about becoming president and that's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: It's just not going to happen. And she now has
Speaker 1: to deal with that. She has to wake up every
Speaker 1: day and no, Hillary Clinton is never going to be
Speaker 1: the president the United States. I don't know if she
Speaker 1: can really do that. I don't know if she can
Speaker 1: process it. And so what does she do? She goes
Speaker 1: out there and shares her opinion on things for which
Speaker 1: we do not. We do not need her input. Her
Speaker 1: input is not helpful, It is not needed. Play Cliff team.
Speaker 1: I don't want to be a downer, but I will
Speaker 1: say this. If you take the time to read the
Speaker 1: Mueller Report, actually read it, which all of us in
Speaker 1: this auditorium are more than capable of doing, you come
Speaker 1: to two inescapable conclusions. The first is that Russia conducted
Speaker 1: a sweeping and systemic interference in our election. The second
Speaker 1: is that obstruction of justice occurred. Now you cannot read
Speaker 1: the report, chapter and verse, fact after fact without reaching
Speaker 1: those conclusions. And yet Muller didn't reach those conclusions. He
Speaker 1: chose not to conclude, so as to hand off to
Speaker 1: the Democrat controlled House of Representatives and handoff to the
Speaker 1: anti Trump media apparatus. An issue that they could just
Speaker 1: keep alive forever. They could use for political purposes. Maybe
Speaker 1: they impeach, maybe they don't, but it'll always be the
Speaker 1: big what if. By abandoning prosecutorial ethics, by abandoning his
Speaker 1: duty at the DOJ, what Muller did is leave open
Speaker 1: a wound on the Trump administration that will never really heal.
Speaker 1: And that was the purpose all along inescapable conclusion that
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice can occurred. That is not That is
Speaker 1: not an inescapable conclusion. In fact, I think it's a
Speaker 1: very very weak. And I've spoken to federal prosecutors, current
Speaker 1: informer about this. I've spoken to people that this is
Speaker 1: all that they did, look at issues like this, look
Speaker 1: at cases like this, and they said that you might
Speaker 1: be able to bring an obstruction charge, but you would lose.
Speaker 1: And because federal prosecutors don't bring charges that they're likely
Speaker 1: to lose likely to lose on, they would never bring
Speaker 1: an obstructtion to justice charge against against President Trump. But
Speaker 1: Muller couldn't say that because then that would be case closed.
Speaker 1: So what does he do. He says, well, we're not
Speaker 1: gonna We're gonna decide to not decide one of the
Speaker 1: truly bizarre and just hacky political things to do, and
Speaker 1: a disgrace. I really do believe that Mueller will be
Speaker 1: thought of the same way that Comey has thought of. Now,
Speaker 1: remember we were told that Comy was the last honest man,
Speaker 1: and oh, he's so great, and how could anyone doubt
Speaker 1: the greatness of James Comy. Turns out that that was
Speaker 1: all just pr and spin and Comey is not some
Speaker 1: amazing hero for all time, and just the same as
Speaker 1: true with Muller, He's not some amazing hero for all
Speaker 1: time either. He's a guy who has a very particular
Speaker 1: view of how things should play out in this case,
Speaker 1: in this instance, and was willing to stack the deck,
Speaker 1: bend some rules, and be a partisan, and that's what happened.
Speaker 1: We're going to talk about immigration in some detail, but
Speaker 1: I wanted to just bring up here for a moment
Speaker 1: because the debate over abortion continues on very much in
Speaker 1: the public square now, and you're seeing more on this
Speaker 1: issue than you usually do because of the state. You know,
Speaker 1: some states are trying to protect life, and some states
Speaker 1: are saying we value life not at all. I mean,
Speaker 1: Democrats states are saying that life has the life of
Speaker 1: a fetus has no value, it's of no consideration, and
Speaker 1: it's appalling and it's really it's unsettling just as a
Speaker 1: human being to see this going on. But some of
Speaker 1: the feminists who are coming out now to take on
Speaker 1: this issue are whether recognizing it as such or not
Speaker 1: finally speaking honestly on this issue. It's this woman, Sophie Lewis.
Speaker 1: I've never even heard of her before, but she came
Speaker 1: out to speak about what the truth of abortion is
Speaker 1: from a left wing mind. And here I'll let her
Speaker 1: say it herself. Play thirteen. We tend to say that
Speaker 1: abortion is indeed very bad, but or we say, luckily,
Speaker 1: it's not killing ky, it's just a health care right.
Speaker 1: Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial
Speaker 1: this is a form of killing. It is a form
Speaker 1: of killing that we need to be able to defend.
Speaker 1: I am not interested in where a human life starts
Speaker 1: to exist. Now, it's a horrific thing to say, but
Speaker 1: at least she understands that the pro life position is
Speaker 1: about defending life. It's not about restricting women's rights. It's
Speaker 1: not about being anti woman. It's about there's a baby.
Speaker 1: It's about the life of a little baby. And she
Speaker 1: just comes out and says it, abortion is a form
Speaker 1: of killing, but it's just killing that we should be
Speaker 1: in favor of. That's the That is the real position.
Speaker 1: All this other stuff is just talking around it, and
Speaker 1: it's it's this is a form of killing. And the
Speaker 1: pro the pro voice or pro abortion position, if it
Speaker 1: was going to be based in anything that's coherent, would
Speaker 1: be it's killing. But we have to allow this killing
Speaker 1: for the following reasons. Now, maybe they would lose that argument.
Speaker 1: They should lose that argument. That's why they won't do it.
Speaker 1: But that's that's the arguments as it from a rational perspective,
Speaker 1: from an honest perspective, should be should be presented. You'll
Speaker 1: see more of that though some of the left, some
Speaker 1: of the feminists slipping up and telling us what's really true,
Speaker 1: which they usually don't want to do. Immigration, Trump a
Speaker 1: deal Mexico, what could be done to stop the massive
Speaker 1: migrant flow. That is where we're going next. That is
Speaker 1: what we're going to get into. There is a lot
Speaker 1: of time before the Iowa Caucus. We've never been guided
Speaker 1: by a pole before. If you were to look at
Speaker 1: the Texas Senate race the first couple of months after
Speaker 1: we were in, no poll was going to say that
Speaker 1: we were going to win that. Yeah, but like here's
Speaker 1: the problem, betto you didn't win the Texas Senate race.
Speaker 1: So the fact that no pole said that meant the
Speaker 1: poles were like totally right, oh man, betto I was
Speaker 1: kind of hoping he was gonna be around longer, folks.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's gonna be in this race all
Speaker 1: that long. I think he's gonna get He's gonna get tossed,
Speaker 1: sure enough, he's gonna get gonna get the boot. I
Speaker 1: don't know if he's gonna last longer than Tim Ryan
Speaker 1: or Hick and Looper or some of these other guys.
Speaker 1: But maybe he's got more name, more name recognition. But
Speaker 1: isn't it you know, they they skip past this part
Speaker 1: of it. What an empty suit and really kind of
Speaker 1: a phony. And you had all this national media attention
Speaker 1: on the everything that they could throw at him to
Speaker 1: prop him up to be able to be a realistic
Speaker 1: contender against Ted Cruz. And I just say, this is
Speaker 1: who they put up against Ted Cruise. This was their
Speaker 1: answer to Ted Cruise in Texas, and we were told
Speaker 1: that this race was gonna be oh so so close.
Speaker 1: It was closer than it should have been, I will
Speaker 1: admit that. But they also put an unbelievable amount of
Speaker 1: money and media attention and they went to the mat
Speaker 1: for this guy. They did everything they could. And now
Speaker 1: the Democrats have to really look at him and say, well,
Speaker 1: do we want this to be our guy? They go, oh, gosh,
Speaker 1: what exactly does what is acting? Does he bring to
Speaker 1: the table other than an inability to understand and read polls?
Speaker 1: From what we can gather, it's a remarkable state of
Speaker 1: affairs with this Democrat field right now. Joe Biden slipping
Speaker 1: in the polls. I knew it would happen. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: try to not be that guy. And I know you're
Speaker 1: holding to account for this. I'm gonna try to not
Speaker 1: be that guy that says like I knew it, I
Speaker 1: called it. You know I said it. But in this
Speaker 1: case with Biden, he's just not a good candidate, folks.
Speaker 1: He's just not compelling. He's not that smart, he's not exciting.
Speaker 1: Why Joe Biden? The answer that the campaign tells you
Speaker 1: one or another is why not. He could kind of
Speaker 1: do this. He's sort of good enough to make this happen. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's go with Joe Biden, because why not? That doesn't
Speaker 1: get people out of their seats, That does not get
Speaker 1: people excited to vote for someone. And it's going to
Speaker 1: be a problem for him in the primary because eventually
Speaker 1: they're going to realize. Hold on a second, Democrats are
Speaker 1: gonna wake up and say, did we learn our lesson
Speaker 1: from twenty sixteen at all? Because the lesson of twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen really was going with the quote electable candidate not
Speaker 1: a good idea. You've got to go with somebody who
Speaker 1: matches up against the other person that they're supposed to defeat.
Speaker 1: You can't just go with someone that you have this
Speaker 1: concept unsupported by anything in particular of electability. You know,
Speaker 1: Jeb was electable until he wasn't. Please clap. You know,
Speaker 1: Hillary was electable twice until she wasn't. Joe Biden's a
Speaker 1: default candidate. He's a we don't have anybody, So let's
Speaker 1: just let's just you know, pull Biden out of the
Speaker 1: freezer and you know, put you know, let the let
Speaker 1: the chips fall where they may not that Biden's really
Speaker 1: in the freezer, you know what I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: just dust dust Biden off, pull him off the shelf.
Speaker 1: He's the guy that I'll get it done. Of course,
Speaker 1: he's not the guy that'll get it done. Why would
Speaker 1: anyone over for this guy? At least at least Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren have some ideas and think they're terrible ideas,
Speaker 1: but they are ideas Biden, Biden's ideas. What should I
Speaker 1: say right now? He reminds me one of these politicians
Speaker 1: you see made fun of in different TV shows in
Speaker 1: movies where his staff just tells them what to say,
Speaker 1: like they whispered into his ear and he just says it.
Speaker 1: This is Biden. Guy's been wrong on every major foreign
Speaker 1: policy issue for the last forty years. It's on the
Speaker 1: wrong side of every bajor foreign policy issue. Thought that
Speaker 1: he had this brilliant plan to fix ir Rock that
Speaker 1: would have just cut the country up into three pieces,
Speaker 1: and that sounds great. Oh yeah, that'll that'll work. Let's
Speaker 1: just let's just do it like Yugoslavia, except do you
Speaker 1: want to go through a massive civil war because where
Speaker 1: you draw those dividing lines in a country like Iraq
Speaker 1: mean everything, mean everything for resource control populations that are
Speaker 1: inside or outside those lines, it's a big deal. Producer
Speaker 1: Mike is pointing out here that nine Democrats right now
Speaker 1: are at zero percent in Iowa. It really wouldn't be
Speaker 1: crazy for me to be like, you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna run. I'm gonna get in the mix. That's right,
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton running on the Democrat ticket. Hey, I don't
Speaker 1: share any of their beliefs, and I make fun of
Speaker 1: them all the time. I think that they're nuts. But
Speaker 1: at this point i'd probably have a better chance. It's
Speaker 1: on the Democrat candidates. I really mean that. I think
Speaker 1: it's well, okay, maybe I don't mean that, but you
Speaker 1: know what I'm I'm with. The exaggeration went a little farther,
Speaker 1: but still I could get it. I'll tell you this.
Speaker 1: I could get zero percent. I could get zero votes.
Speaker 1: I could do that. I could make that happen for you.
Speaker 1: There's also seven at one percent, so if you think
Speaker 1: get zero, you could probably get one percent too. Producer Mike.
Speaker 1: I think with what we could cook up here in
Speaker 1: the Hut, my friend, I think we could get me
Speaker 1: to one percent. Man, you know, one percent. People just
Speaker 1: vote for him because my nanny like that guy's name
Speaker 1: is so weird. We gotta vote for him, man, Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut Headquarters. We could do anything, that's right, dude, and
Speaker 1: our only our only limit is the limit of our dreams.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike, that's right. That's right. Immigration, folks, I told
Speaker 1: you last week that this was going to happen that
Speaker 1: if if Trump got a deal, the media was going
Speaker 1: to completely rewrite history. And oh no, well, it's just
Speaker 1: one thing that was kind of fun though, and this
Speaker 1: was a surprise. But but Donna bash Over at CNN,
Speaker 1: I like that because I'm one of the only people
Speaker 1: that knows how to pronounce her name. It's spelled Dana,
Speaker 1: but she likes to be called Donna. Donna bash Over
Speaker 1: at CNN has had the temerity, the the gall to
Speaker 1: call out Bernie Sanders in the past for saying that
Speaker 1: the well for the way that he described the border crisis.
Speaker 1: Listen to this play seven. You tweeted this week that
Speaker 1: President Trump's tariffs who were a quote fake border crisis
Speaker 1: in quotation marks but immigration officials have arrested or encountered
Speaker 1: more than one hundred and forty four thousand migrants at
Speaker 1: the southern border in May, the highest monthly total in
Speaker 1: thirteen years. Border facilities are dangerously overcrowded. Migrants are actually
Speaker 1: standing on toilets to get space to breathe. How is
Speaker 1: that night a crisis? What we need to do? I
Speaker 1: mean what Trump has been doing. And I think what
Speaker 1: the meaning of that tweet is about is that Trump
Speaker 1: has been demonizing undocumented people in this country and that's
Speaker 1: part of his strategy. So I'm just gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ignore everything that I said in the tweet and pretend
Speaker 1: that I tweeted something else and talk about Trump demonizing
Speaker 1: undocumented people, and you know, going to pretend that I
Speaker 1: wasn't lying and lying lying pants on fire for saying
Speaker 1: there was no border crisis. The border crisis was fake.
Speaker 1: It's clearly not fake. The dumb thing for me to
Speaker 1: tweet a dub a dumb thing for me to say.
Speaker 1: And yeah, here I am jumping down Trump's wrote saying
Speaker 1: he's demonizing undocumented people. Undocumented about it? You know that's
Speaker 1: undocumented is like people that refer to the patriarchy and intersectionality.
Speaker 1: You tell me everything I need to know about your
Speaker 1: politics the moment use the word undocumented, which is a
Speaker 1: made up word does not appear in the legal code,
Speaker 1: is not the proper designation for what these people are.
Speaker 1: They're illegal. It's in the federal law. They're called the
Speaker 1: legal aliens. That is what they describe their status as.
Speaker 1: More on this coming up. I spoke with the President
Speaker 1: of Mexico. I get along with them very well, and
Speaker 1: we made this deal. But this is very This is
Speaker 1: something the US has been trying to get for over
Speaker 1: twenty years with Mexico. They've never been able to do it.
Speaker 1: As soon as I put tariffs on the table, it was,
Speaker 1: it was done. It took two days. We purposely said
Speaker 1: we wouldn't mention it for a little while because it
Speaker 1: has to be brought by their legislative body. It's got
Speaker 1: to be taken to a vote. It's another very powerful
Speaker 1: tool in addition to the very powerful tools we got.
Speaker 1: We had none of these tools of virtually none, or
Speaker 1: they were just being talked about. They've been talked about
Speaker 1: for twenty years with Mexico. The New York Times wrote
Speaker 1: a story like, I already made the deal. It's nonsense.
Speaker 1: We talked about it for months and months and months,
Speaker 1: and they wouldn't get there. And we just said, hey, look,
Speaker 1: if you don't get there, we're just going to have
Speaker 1: to charge you hundreds of billions of dollars in Texas.
Speaker 1: And we would have been just fine. So Trump got
Speaker 1: a deal. Folks escorting to Trump, that's what has happened.
Speaker 1: Here's got a deal with Mexico. And so the tariffs
Speaker 1: do not go into effect today. But sure enough, do
Speaker 1: you think do you think that the liberals are saying, Wow,
Speaker 1: Trump was Trump was right. Trump managed to do something
Speaker 1: here that we didn't think he'd be able to do. No,
Speaker 1: of course not. I mean I told you this. I
Speaker 1: predicted this last week. As you know, he said, just wait,
Speaker 1: he might actually get this done. And when he does,
Speaker 1: the Libs will act like, oh no, this was It
Speaker 1: was never the thing we said it was. It was something.
Speaker 1: It was something else. There was some other reason that
Speaker 1: they had to talk about this. There was some other
Speaker 1: reason why this was a front page news story, or
Speaker 1: the the way this would shake out. Forget what they said.
Speaker 1: Then now they're telling you the truth. Here's the Wall
Speaker 1: Street Row reporting this. Mexico's border pack with the US
Speaker 1: bought time on Trump's asylum demand. As part of a
Speaker 1: deal to avert tariffs. Mexico agreed to revisit US demands
Speaker 1: for a radical hall of the immigration system if it's
Speaker 1: proposed measures to curb immigration don't work, putting it under
Speaker 1: intense pressure to stem the tide of Central Americans riving
Speaker 1: at the US a US Mexico border. President Trump on
Speaker 1: Monday wrote on Twitter the two countries had fully signed
Speaker 1: and documented another very important part of immigration security deal
Speaker 1: with Mexico that would require a vote by Mexican lawmakers.
Speaker 1: That was an apparent reference to a safe third country
Speaker 1: designation that would require migrants fleeing their home end to
Speaker 1: pass through Mexico to seek asylum there. We do not
Speaker 1: anticipate a problem with the vote, but if for any
Speaker 1: reason the approval is not forthcoming, tariffs will be reinstated. Folks.
Speaker 1: This is exactly what Trump was trying to get here.
Speaker 1: This is what this is what Trump was looking for
Speaker 1: with the tariff threat against Mexico, and now here we
Speaker 1: are being told that this is moving the football down
Speaker 1: the field. Not a done deal. It's not all solved,
Speaker 1: it's not all fine. There still are plenty of ways
Speaker 1: this could go, but Trump has prepared for that. I
Speaker 1: really do think that what you see is that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people in DC. It's certainly a
Speaker 1: lot of journalists and a lot of people in the
Speaker 1: DC political class who don't really understand negotiation. I think,
Speaker 1: you know, in DC you have so many different members
Speaker 1: of Congress who are just engaged in covering their own
Speaker 1: butts and they're so focused with putting their names on
Speaker 1: things that won't come back to bite them and making
Speaker 1: sure that they won't be held accountable for tough votes
Speaker 1: that in a difficult negotiation. How many of them you
Speaker 1: think really know what they're doing. I think the answer
Speaker 1: is very, very few. And I think that when Trump
Speaker 1: takes the position of all right, we're going to do
Speaker 1: this because we want a change in behavior from Mexico,
Speaker 1: what should happen in response to that is a lot
Speaker 1: of people say, Okay, well let's judge this by the results.
Speaker 1: But what does happen in response to that instead is
Speaker 1: you have a whole bunch of people in the journalist
Speaker 1: class who judge this thing before it's even gotten going,
Speaker 1: before we know what the results are. And that's why
Speaker 1: I said, you watch and see if he gets Mexico
Speaker 1: change behavior. They're going to say, well, it was nothing
Speaker 1: last week. It was He's crazy for thinking Mexico will
Speaker 1: do anything as a result of these straps. Why would
Speaker 1: Mexico be crazy? Why is that a crazy thought. It's
Speaker 1: a very straightforward thing. Mexico could do a lot more.
Speaker 1: And I've spoken to people in border patrol about this.
Speaker 1: I've been speaking to people for the last week about
Speaker 1: what's realistic for the Mexican government to do to meet
Speaker 1: the threshold of demands here from the Trump administration. It's
Speaker 1: really not that hard. They can stop these people met
Speaker 1: Mexico has its own immigration laws, its own territorial control.
Speaker 1: They don't have to let anybody in from Guatemala who
Speaker 1: wants to come in from Guadamala. They don't have to
Speaker 1: take anybody from Honduras wants to come in from Honduras.
Speaker 1: And they should have a third Safe Country agreement where
Speaker 1: if someone comes from Central America and they want to
Speaker 1: apply for asylum in the United States, it's really actually,
Speaker 1: if we're gonna be technical, I believe it's applying to
Speaker 1: be a refugee in the United States, because asylum is
Speaker 1: what you apply for inside the United States. When you're here,
Speaker 1: you get here, you apply for asylum. A refugee is
Speaker 1: somebody who's elsewhere who wants that status, which is the
Speaker 1: status is very similar between asylum refugee, but wants that
Speaker 1: in the United States. But a third Safe Country agreement
Speaker 1: means that now you don't get to come in and
Speaker 1: exploit the system and get let into the interior of
Speaker 1: the United States, never to be seen again. Now you
Speaker 1: stay in Mexico. Now you apply and you show up.
Speaker 1: You don't get to establish all these different ties in
Speaker 1: the United States. You don't get to develop these roots
Speaker 1: that then oh my gosh, it'd be so inhumane to
Speaker 1: take people away from Look what they've done in this community.
Speaker 1: Look at all their son is a scholar at the school.
Speaker 1: Blah blah, all the stuff you're gonna hear, all of that.
Speaker 1: This deals with that problem. And so now there's not
Speaker 1: some big end run on the immigration system. Now the
Speaker 1: immigration system can function much more along the lines that
Speaker 1: we would would hope it would function right now, can
Speaker 1: do the things that we wanted to do. But the
Speaker 1: Libs hate this, of course, because one you get Trump
Speaker 1: coming up with a if not a solution, at least
Speaker 1: a possible solution, I mean, taking some actions here that
Speaker 1: might be worthwhile. And what are the lives want to
Speaker 1: talk about? Well, one you get Corey Booker, who is
Speaker 1: just desperate for it. He's like the candidate that's the
Speaker 1: most desperate for attention, because I think Corey Booker can't
Speaker 1: believe that he's not higher up in the polls than
Speaker 1: he is polayclippit. You hear the president talk, I mean
Speaker 1: he uses as the language that is why knowing history
Speaker 1: is so important. He uses language like a political party
Speaker 1: of our past called the know Nothings, same language. Trying
Speaker 1: to then stop Irish and Italian immigrants, trying to make
Speaker 1: us afraid of people coming from the southern border with
Speaker 1: brown skin. But but you know how many deaths have
Speaker 1: happened in terrorism since nine to eleven and where that
Speaker 1: has come from. As much as he wants to make
Speaker 1: us afraid of people trying to come here escaping terror,
Speaker 1: not remembering like when we turned away other in we're
Speaker 1: just trying to escape terror. There was a ship that
Speaker 1: came here during World War two with a bunch of
Speaker 1: folks trying to escape the Holocaust, and we turned it
Speaker 1: around where they got killed in the Holocaust. With a
Speaker 1: shame of that. You think we would learn our lesson
Speaker 1: about people coming here to seek asylum, escaping terror, escaping terror.
Speaker 1: That's what he's saying. Is El Salvador in a state
Speaker 1: of terror right now? Are there mass exterminations going on
Speaker 1: Al Salvador that I'm not aware of? Is Honduras in
Speaker 1: a state of terror right now? If that were the case,
Speaker 1: why don't these people just say, oh my gosh, we're
Speaker 1: in Mexico down now, we're safe, We're okay. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: Corey Booker is not this stupid. He's just this much
Speaker 1: of a demagogue. He is a cynical, self loving, self
Speaker 1: involved politician who will say whatever he has to say
Speaker 1: to get collapsed from the left. Clearly, there's no real
Speaker 1: comparison between Central America as a place from which refugees
Speaker 1: or departed than it states and people fleeing the Holocaust
Speaker 1: in the Second World War. But he'll say that it's emotional.
Speaker 1: It gets you know, it gets the libs all all
Speaker 1: energized and aggravated, and oh my gosh. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like it's really a slap in the face to people
Speaker 1: that are true refugees. I mean, what you have going
Speaker 1: on the border. And I know this because I've been
Speaker 1: down there a couple of times. You have people lying
Speaker 1: about what they're fleeing. Nobody on that ship fleeing Europe
Speaker 1: was lying, Okay, they knew that they face certain death
Speaker 1: back home. But these Central Americans lying about their age,
Speaker 1: line up, their family status, lying about why they're coming. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm scared of the gangs. No, you just want American
Speaker 1: welfare programs and better job prospects. It's very different. Are
Speaker 1: you willing to give President Trump for any credit for
Speaker 1: avoiding tariffs and for striking this deal with Mexico for
Speaker 1: creating a crisis which he then sort of partially at
Speaker 1: the last minute solved while still misrepresenting Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: the President has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved.
Speaker 1: These are agreements that Mexico had already made, in some
Speaker 1: cases months ago. They might have accelerated the timetable, but
Speaker 1: by and large, the President achieved nothing except to jeopardize
Speaker 1: the most important trading relationship that the United States of
Speaker 1: America has. There are six million jobs in this country
Speaker 1: that depend on US Mexico trade. Who called it, folks?
Speaker 1: I went into detail. You remember this. I told you
Speaker 1: last week. I said, if Trump gets Mexican action because
Speaker 1: of the tariffs, if the Mexican government gives in on
Speaker 1: this one and is willing to finally do something in
Speaker 1: response to the tariffs, which would mean that Trump's strategy
Speaker 1: here has borne fruit or is bearing fruit, that it
Speaker 1: will have won at some level, that he will have
Speaker 1: gotten what he sought out or what he sought to get,
Speaker 1: and the media would give him no credit for it whatsoever.
Speaker 1: It's It's amazing, isn't it how predictable they are. I
Speaker 1: don't sit here and tell you that I am no stradamis,
Speaker 1: although we all know that I kind of am. Libs.
Speaker 1: Last week we're saying Trump doesn't understand tariffs, he'll never
Speaker 1: get Mexico take action on immigration. This is all a
Speaker 1: stunt oh over the weekend, turns out Mexico agrees to
Speaker 1: some stuff in a deal, and then libs this week
Speaker 1: Mexico taking action isn't a win for Trump because blab
Speaker 1: blab blah, nonsense, nonsense talking points. Even Beto there, even
Speaker 1: Betto had to say it, Well, maybe he did get
Speaker 1: the acceleration, the acceleration of action here. And so if
Speaker 1: let let's just say that the doubters and the haters,
Speaker 1: as the Trumpster would say, let's say they're correct. Let's
Speaker 1: say that this is not necessarily new stuff that Mexico
Speaker 1: has agreed to. Well, if it's not new, but they
Speaker 1: haven't done it yet, and now they're going to do it,
Speaker 1: and they have agreed to accelerate the speed with which
Speaker 1: they will do it. That is meaningful. If I tell
Speaker 1: if I agree to build your house six months ago,
Speaker 1: and now finally you say, look, you either build my
Speaker 1: house starting today or I'm going to sue you. And
Speaker 1: then I say, okay, okay, I'm gonna start building a
Speaker 1: house tomorrow. Assuming I build a house tomorrow, you will
Speaker 1: have gotten your way. You will have one in that
Speaker 1: negotiation that I haven't built the house for six months
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden I start within the house.
Speaker 1: For see, it doesn't mean well, you agree to it then,
Speaker 1: so this doesn't mean anything. No. Clearly the lawsuit threat
Speaker 1: in that case motivated me to take action, just like
Speaker 1: Trump threatening Mexico on this issue. And that's why Kevin
Speaker 1: McLean and over at DHS it's like, look, people come on,
Speaker 1: stop with this stuff where how you know where anything
Speaker 1: that Trump does just can't be good because Trump did it.
Speaker 1: This is ridiculous. Play six, the President tweeted out that
Speaker 1: the tariff has been suspended. The second communition pointed out
Speaker 1: that there's a mechanism to make sure that they do
Speaker 1: what they've promised to do, that there's an actual result
Speaker 1: that we see a vast reduction in those numbers. People
Speaker 1: can disagree with the tactics. Mexico came to the table
Speaker 1: with real proposals. We have an agreement that if they implement,
Speaker 1: will be effective. The President put a charge in this
Speaker 1: whole dialogue with Mexico with the tariff threat, brought them
Speaker 1: to the table. This is the first time we've heard
Speaker 1: anything like this kind of number of law enforce and
Speaker 1: being deployed in Mexico to address migration. Six thousand national
Speaker 1: guards that's the Guatemalan border to help with the immigration
Speaker 1: issue that's happening now. Further agreements that I'm sure we'll
Speaker 1: hear more details about the days ahead. And here's all that.
Speaker 1: This really took Trump recognizing that we have leverage. We
Speaker 1: have leverage Visa v. Mexico. We don't just have to
Speaker 1: sit here and let the Mexican government do whatever they
Speaker 1: want to do, get away with whatever they want to
Speaker 1: get away with. We, the American people, the American government,
Speaker 1: are in a position to push them in the right direction.
Speaker 1: That's what's going on, that is what we are doing.
Speaker 1: And yet the Libs won't budge on this. Hate it,
Speaker 1: hate it, hate it, no interest whatsoever in saying, wow,
Speaker 1: it looks like Trump might even run on this, because
Speaker 1: if he was right on this short term tariff threat,
Speaker 1: maybe tariffs can be a tool of policy after all.
Speaker 1: Maybe tariffs, which China has been using too great effect
Speaker 1: for a long time, and which originally funded the American
Speaker 1: government in this country often lost people forget this part
Speaker 1: of our history. How did the federal government fund itself
Speaker 1: until well into the American experiment. I can't even tell
Speaker 1: you what the year was. Obviously we didn't have an
Speaker 1: income tax till the twentieth century. But there's really tariffs
Speaker 1: that funded the the fund of the federal government for
Speaker 1: a long time. So that seems to get lost, That
Speaker 1: seems to get thrown by the way. So now I'm
Speaker 1: not saying, go tariff crazy and tariff's gonna solve everything.
Speaker 1: But they're acting like Trump has no idea what he's doing.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make any sense. It's all ridiculous. And you know, now,
Speaker 1: now we finally can look at this and say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, if the president manages to get
Speaker 1: action from the Mexican government on this, if he can
Speaker 1: stem this border crisis, that would certainly be worthwhile. Well,
Speaker 1: one more thing I want to put in the mix
Speaker 1: here is as we're talking about the border California, California,
Speaker 1: is it always going to be able? You can always
Speaker 1: say that and people know you're talking about the governator, right,
Speaker 1: most famous government that guy Gavin Newson is now the
Speaker 1: governor of California, which, wow, that guy California now is
Speaker 1: in the process. I don't think it's officially passed yet,
Speaker 1: but they're poised, that's the word they always use with
Speaker 1: something's about to happen. Poised to give illegal immigrants free healthcare.
Speaker 1: This is the Democrats state legislature. Of course, California has
Speaker 1: an agreement in place to allow low income individuals who
Speaker 1: are between the age of nineteen and twenty five who
Speaker 1: are in America illegally, so they are a legal aliens
Speaker 1: to be able to get medical which is the state
Speaker 1: of California's Medicaid program. So it's a state healthcare welfare program.
Speaker 1: And they're going to start a real small at least
Speaker 1: comparatively to what it could be for the rest of
Speaker 1: the state. Ninety thousand people are going to be under
Speaker 1: this measure. It's not that much. California's got a population
Speaker 1: of over thirty million. The two hundred and thirteen billion
Speaker 1: dollar budget deal. This is a part of and the
Speaker 1: estimated cost of this. Who wants to guess if the
Speaker 1: stated costs is going to be a fraction of what
Speaker 1: the real cost is. But the estimated cost of this
Speaker 1: is about one hundred million dollars a year. One hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars a year. Now, that's not nothing for a
Speaker 1: state budget. One hundred million dollars a lot of money.
Speaker 1: On a hundred million dollars any worth a lot of money.
Speaker 1: They're just throwing them this in there. This is a
Speaker 1: welfare program. This is just the taxpayers in California are
Speaker 1: going to be funding this. And you know how they're
Speaker 1: going to do it. They're using money raise from the
Speaker 1: individual mandate that is now no longer the no longer
Speaker 1: the law at the federal level, because the Trump administration
Speaker 1: will now California is going to say, if you don't
Speaker 1: have insurance and you fall into a certain income threshold,
Speaker 1: you're going to pay a penalty to this state of California,
Speaker 1: and that money is going to go to give other
Speaker 1: people healthcare. Just redistribution of wealth, folks, but redistribution of wealth,
Speaker 1: not even to our fellow Americans, to illegals. Does anyone
Speaker 1: think that this program is going to stop at night
Speaker 1: at people nineteen to twenty five. Of course not. It's
Speaker 1: going to go well beyond that. You're going to have
Speaker 1: the expansion of this become a major political issue. And
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom knows that the Latino community, the many many illegals,
Speaker 1: and the many many millions of people who are related
Speaker 1: to sons and daughters of etc. Illegals, they will see
Speaker 1: this and they will say, Okay, well, if you can
Speaker 1: do it for this age group, you should do it
Speaker 1: for another age group and another age group. And they're
Speaker 1: going to try to build their way up to a
Speaker 1: statewide Medicare for Medicaid for all illegals program. This is
Speaker 1: just taking your money and giving to people that are
Speaker 1: breaking the law. Folks. That's what this is, at least
Speaker 1: in California. That is what they will be doing. And
Speaker 1: this is where the country is heading right now. If
Speaker 1: Democrats are in charge, they're going to want to open
Speaker 1: up Obamacare to all illegals. Hillary Clinton already said so
Speaker 1: owner twenty sixteen campaign. California is just a canary in
Speaker 1: the coal mine. The Tree of Life synagogue shooting in
Speaker 1: Pittsburgh of Jewish people. Those were only designated and charged
Speaker 1: as hate crimes, not domestic terrorist incidents. Mister mcgarrity, Why
Speaker 1: did the FBI not believe that these incidents were domestic
Speaker 1: terrorist incidents? That's not correct. I don't know who told
Speaker 1: you that we didn't, but we certainly had cases open
Speaker 1: on them in both those cases. And I wasn't here
Speaker 1: for the Dylan Roof case, but it's certainly in our
Speaker 1: own Department Justice Civil Rights about three four weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and their testimony actually stated that it was a domestic
Speaker 1: terrorism event, charged through the Civil Rights Division of the
Speaker 1: Department Justice for a hate crime. So you are disputing
Speaker 1: that theme. You're saying that Amy was charged with domestic
Speaker 1: terrorism untilan Roof, so you're using the word charge. So,
Speaker 1: as I said before, there's no domestic terrorism charge like
Speaker 1: eighteen USC. Twenty three thirty nine ABCD for a foreign
Speaker 1: terrorist organization. But the actual charge it was the actual
Speaker 1: charge domestic terrorism. You're not going to find an actual
Speaker 1: charge of mystic terrorism out there. AOC who is technically
Speaker 1: a lawmaker has a lot of problem, a lot of
Speaker 1: problems understanding the law and what laws doing, what they
Speaker 1: what they don't do. But let me bring you into
Speaker 1: what's going on here. That was miss Okazio Cortez putting
Speaker 1: on her most serious, serious face, looking very serious, the
Speaker 1: classes on, very studious looking talking to the FBI Assistant
Speaker 1: Director of counter Terrorism, Michael mcgarrity, and she's making this
Speaker 1: point that you'll hear leftist make We're just talking about
Speaker 1: extremism on YouTube and right wing radicalization on YouTube, which
Speaker 1: is the way that the Times did it. They're just
Speaker 1: trying to smear a bunch of people, create an excuse
Speaker 1: to have the left dominate YouTube and have their point
Speaker 1: of view turn YouTube into a straight up partisan megaphone,
Speaker 1: which would also mean YouTube as a publisher, which comes
Speaker 1: with an additional set of rules and stuff that you know,
Speaker 1: they need to start thinking a bit more about if
Speaker 1: that's the way they're going to be. There's some downside
Speaker 1: of that for them. But AOC is pushing on this
Speaker 1: because here's what the left wants to the narrative to be,
Speaker 1: especially in the Trump era. On going into Trump's reelection
Speaker 1: that the real threat they always say this, the real
Speaker 1: terrorism threat is right wing white nationalist extremists. Here as
Speaker 1: though we're really concerned about mass plots by right wing
Speaker 1: white nationalists to bring down, you know, the Freedom Tower,
Speaker 1: to bring down planes out of the sky. No. I
Speaker 1: worked in the largest city police department counter terrorist immunity
Speaker 1: in the country. There were that we had white We
Speaker 1: had white nationalist, neo Nazi people, you know, assigned to
Speaker 1: that account. We had anarchist terrorists. We had people that
Speaker 1: covered all the stuff. They were really bored. The jihattest
Speaker 1: terrorists people were the ones that had stuff to do.
Speaker 1: And the fact that there is a specific statute for
Speaker 1: foreign terrorist organizations and not for someone who is engaged
Speaker 1: in you know, if someone hates people because of their
Speaker 1: skin color, that is a hate crime, and if they
Speaker 1: take action on that where they kill people, then they're
Speaker 1: charged with a hate crime. They're going to go to
Speaker 1: prison forever or get the death penalty. Why does it
Speaker 1: matter to AOC so much what the specific charges when
Speaker 1: you're already talking about something that's a death penalty case. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because the left really believes this narrative that
Speaker 1: the real terrorism threat comes from the white American who
Speaker 1: lives next door. That's what the left believes. They don't
Speaker 1: want to get into the numbers and look at terrorism,
Speaker 1: percentage of the population in America that is Muslim, which
Speaker 1: is about one percent, and percent of the population that
Speaker 1: is white, which is somewhere in the sixty five percent range.
Speaker 1: And then look at Okay, you're comparing the one percent
Speaker 1: of America to sixty five percent of America and they're
Speaker 1: close in terms of all out casualty, all in casualties.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you, has no idea, doesn't know
Speaker 1: anything about that. They call it the making of a
Speaker 1: YouTube radical, a rather long piece in The New York
Speaker 1: Times magazine that profiles a young man named Caleb Kane,
Speaker 1: and Caleb Kane talks about his very disturbing period in
Speaker 1: his life when he spent time watching videos of right
Speaker 1: wing YouTube stars and how he felt like this was
Speaker 1: a brainwashing that was engaged in. He was a college dropout,
Speaker 1: they said, looking for directions, so he turned to YouTube
Speaker 1: and this, Oh, you can just feel the terror and
Speaker 1: the fear of all the left wingers that the idea
Speaker 1: of a college kid or college dropout in this case,
Speaker 1: who wants to expose himself to other very very popular
Speaker 1: and in some cases really quite mainstream and well established
Speaker 1: and well credentialed individuals, but they're all thrown into this
Speaker 1: right wing soup together. This is one of the favorite
Speaker 1: tactics of the left now because they don't want there
Speaker 1: to be alternative voices. They do not want digital platforms
Speaker 1: to be free, fair and open. They're so used to
Speaker 1: the media dominance that they've had in the past. They're
Speaker 1: so used to what they've achieved on college campuses and
Speaker 1: in the faculty lounge, and then in Hollywood and in
Speaker 1: the news media, where the country is roughly fifty fifty
Speaker 1: Republican Democrat. Meanwhile, journalists are ninety percent Libs. Hollywood is
Speaker 1: probably ninety nine percent Libs. College professors are you know,
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly I won't give you a percentage because I don't
Speaker 1: know at the top of my head, but overwhelmingly Libs.
Speaker 1: I mean, there were more if identified Marxist at my
Speaker 1: alma mater and there were open Republicans. Okay, So they
Speaker 1: really insist on having this ideological advantage, and they would
Speaker 1: just say that it's because they're right. Well, if it's
Speaker 1: because they're right, why does half the country disagree with them?
Speaker 1: I Mean, it's such a facile and unserious explanation for
Speaker 1: their dominance. The reason they're dominant in this way is
Speaker 1: because they emotionally and psychologically need to feel like their
Speaker 1: opinion is the only opinion. They're not capable, They're not
Speaker 1: equipped to deal with the argumentcy of the other side,
Speaker 1: and therefore they also feel very comfortable using whatever tools
Speaker 1: of coercion they have at any given time to shut
Speaker 1: down those alternative voices. Essentially, the left can't handle real debate.
Speaker 1: The Left can't handle opposing voices, and this is why
Speaker 1: they don't react with engagement. They react with hatred and
Speaker 1: shut it down, Shut it down down. This is what
Speaker 1: they always want to do. Now, in this New York
Speaker 1: Times piece, they put all these different figures together on
Speaker 1: the right, everyone from Jordan Peterson to Crowder to Shapiro
Speaker 1: to uh Stefan Mali No, I you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know him, Milo Lauren Southern, Uh you know who is
Speaker 1: I think no longer even doing media, Paul Joseph Watson.
Speaker 1: It was kind of a funny little British accent. They
Speaker 1: put all these people in the same in the same boat,
Speaker 1: as though being right of center and being on YouTube
Speaker 1: means that you're you're basically a neo Nazi. I mean
Speaker 1: they're not saying they're neo Nazis, but they're basically putting
Speaker 1: them in the same category as like Stormfront and white
Speaker 1: nationalists and and and they walk through this whole, uh,
Speaker 1: this whole process in this New York Times piece, which
Speaker 1: is written, I mean, it's a laughably partisan, dishonest, left
Speaker 1: wing hit piece, which you would expect. It's The New
Speaker 1: York Times, a rag, it's a joke. But they have
Speaker 1: these quotes from this guy, this one guy who's supposed
Speaker 1: to be representative of this experience. Why nobody really seems
Speaker 1: to know they just picked this guy. I fell down
Speaker 1: the alt right rabbit hole, he said in a video
Speaker 1: that he posted. Um so, I guess he posted this
Speaker 1: video on YouTube where he said that he was a
Speaker 1: recovering alt right video addict or something from YouTube. And
Speaker 1: now he's trying to make amends for that by telling
Speaker 1: The New York Times that he's learned all these terrible things.
Speaker 1: You know, I found it fascinating when you when you
Speaker 1: look at what what some of the things are they're
Speaker 1: discussed in these videos, and there are issues that are
Speaker 1: going to be inherently very controversial and and they're going
Speaker 1: to be contentious, but that doesn't mean that they're they're
Speaker 1: illegitimate areas of serious discourse and discussion. Here's the new
Speaker 1: Here's this timespiece wrote that mister kay In recently I
Speaker 1: swore off the alt right nearly five years after discovering it,
Speaker 1: and has become a vocal critic of the movement. He
Speaker 1: is scarred by his experience of being radicalized by what
Speaker 1: he calls a decentralized cult of far right YouTube personalities
Speaker 1: who convinced him that Western civilization was under threat from
Speaker 1: Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists. Okay, is wait, let's just
Speaker 1: start with that one. Is Western civilization under threat from
Speaker 1: cultural Marxists. Yeah, I think that's fair to say. I
Speaker 1: think cultural Marxists are kicking at the load bearing walls
Speaker 1: of Western civilization. Is mass Muslim immigration dramatically changing societies
Speaker 1: in Europe and could have dramatically changed this country too
Speaker 1: if it were at a similar level of what we've
Speaker 1: seen in Europe. It's a It's a fair question, isn't it.
Speaker 1: A lot of Europeans certainly think so. What else is
Speaker 1: in here? Innate IQ differences explained racial disparities, Well, that
Speaker 1: takes us back to the Bell Curve, the book written
Speaker 1: by Charles Murray, and people don't really read the book.
Speaker 1: They just hear that line then they want to shout
Speaker 1: and scream it. And if anyone really understands what is contained,
Speaker 1: I've read the Bell Curve. When you read the Bell Curve,
Speaker 1: you know it's not this. There's one chapter that deals
Speaker 1: with racial disparities in IQ based on the aggregate numbers
Speaker 1: that they pulled together over a period of many decades.
Speaker 1: The differences are small, and the differences are only meaningful,
Speaker 1: according to Charles Murray, when spread out over a vast
Speaker 1: population of a whole lot of people. But one thing
Speaker 1: that anybody who wants to use that kind of information
Speaker 1: for racist or racial purposes has to grapple with, and
Speaker 1: generally the racist can't, is that the whole point of
Speaker 1: what the Bell Curve shows is that there are people
Speaker 1: of all races with one forty iq s. There are
Speaker 1: people of all races with IQs in the nineties, right,
Speaker 1: I mean there are you know, doesn't matter what your
Speaker 1: skin color is, you can be at the absolute top
Speaker 1: of cognitive ability or you can be very very low
Speaker 1: in the cognitive ability scale. So that's what the science
Speaker 1: that Murray was talking about, says, and therefore to judge
Speaker 1: somebody based in their skin colors to make is to
Speaker 1: make a judgment for which there is for which the
Speaker 1: data does not support, because you just don't know. Are
Speaker 1: you talking to somebody from are you talking to somebody
Speaker 1: from the Aleutian Islands with a one forty IQ or
Speaker 1: a ninety IQ could be either? You don't know. And
Speaker 1: does it really matter when people interacted with each other
Speaker 1: to find out, well, there's a you know, a standard
Speaker 1: deviation more geniuses in this group when you strapolated out
Speaker 1: into the millions. No, but see, but that's really what
Speaker 1: Murray's book talked about. Instead it's just, oh, disparities and
Speaker 1: outcomes are all about race IQ as a racist tool, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: But see this is these are interesting areas of conversation.
Speaker 1: You can't have these discussions. I mean, you go back
Speaker 1: and listen to as Recline talking to Sam Harris, a neuroscientist.
Speaker 1: As Recline is a little nerd that pretends to know
Speaker 1: a lot about the economy, and it's really just a
Speaker 1: Marxist who thinks that the Constitution is really really old man.
Speaker 1: But client sits down and it's just smarmy and nasty
Speaker 1: to Sam Harris talking about the issue of race and IQ,
Speaker 1: where Sam Harris is a is a lib and a neuroscientist,
Speaker 1: and he's trying to have a serious discussion about it,
Speaker 1: but as your client takes a position of well, you're
Speaker 1: saying things that hurt the social justice fabric, so you
Speaker 1: must be destroyed. That's really all that he has. Oh
Speaker 1: and then the last one on this list is feminism
Speaker 1: is a dangerous ideology. I think that's true. So it's
Speaker 1: funny to me because I sit here. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think feminism leads a lot of women to being miserable,
Speaker 1: to being deeply unhappy, to make poor life choices. I
Speaker 1: sit here, and I think I don't. I would never
Speaker 1: be described by anybody who's not a liar or an
Speaker 1: idiot as being all th right. But I find some
Speaker 1: of these topics that are so controversial in this radicalization
Speaker 1: of somebody on YouTube, I find needs to be topics
Speaker 1: that I would want to talk about on this show,
Speaker 1: and then I do talk about on this show, And
Speaker 1: then I do think are worthy of exploration and understanding
Speaker 1: and applying knowledge and insight and whatever data we have
Speaker 1: to these to get a better understanding of what's true
Speaker 1: and what's not. But you can't have these discussions at
Speaker 1: the mainstream media networks. You can't. You can't have them
Speaker 1: in the pages of the so called leading newspapers and
Speaker 1: magazines or whatever's left of magazines, and so, yes, people
Speaker 1: do turn to YouTube for it. Does that mean that
Speaker 1: there are true racist, far right neo Nazi morons on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Of course there are. But they're on the Internet and
Speaker 1: they always have been, and they're in society and they
Speaker 1: always will be. They're a fringe, they're reviled. They're not
Speaker 1: taken seriously or in any way treated with warmth by
Speaker 1: the vast, vast, vast majority of people on the right.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think many of us gladly and make
Speaker 1: it make not just a habit, but take a particular
Speaker 1: pride in trashing the far right as people that just
Speaker 1: make the lives of everybody who are trying to push
Speaker 1: for a conservatism to be as open and widespread and
Speaker 1: widely adopted an ideology as possible. You know, having neo
Speaker 1: Nazis say yeah, you know, we're we're on the right,
Speaker 1: it goes, oh, no, we don't want them on the right.
Speaker 1: We don't want them anywhere. We don't want their ideas
Speaker 1: anywhere near us. But they put all this in this
Speaker 1: New York Times piece. They put all this together to say,
Speaker 1: oh see, it's all this all right, far right YouTube radicalization.
Speaker 1: No mention of radical Islam in this piece, by the way,
Speaker 1: that that's not a thing that I don't have to
Speaker 1: worry about. You know, does YouTube radical Does watching Alocky
Speaker 1: videos make you want to go blow up Times Square
Speaker 1: or something question mark? They're not. They don't want to
Speaker 1: deal with that, you know, that's that's not a part
Speaker 1: of the radicalization this guy, mister Kane. One thing, you know,
Speaker 1: just to skip to the end here, I'll give you
Speaker 1: the I'll help you avoid having to read through this
Speaker 1: really pretty garbage epiece. Mister Kane. I don't I'm not
Speaker 1: aware of him taking any radical action here. They just
Speaker 1: found some guy to profile on this. They smeared a
Speaker 1: bunch of really interesting, really insightful conservatives by putting them
Speaker 1: together with people that are idiots and racists, and other
Speaker 1: idiots and racists on the left too, you know, the
Speaker 1: true Israelites or whatever those guys were called, the ones
Speaker 1: that yelled at the Covington kids. They've been around for
Speaker 1: a long time. They'll put YouTube videos up, they'll put
Speaker 1: stuff up on the Internet. But this guy. The happy
Speaker 1: ending to this piece, so to speak from the New
Speaker 1: York Times perspective, is that this guy, mister Kane at
Speaker 1: the end, starts looking at far left answers to the
Speaker 1: right on these questions, and that brings him, That brings
Speaker 1: him back into what could be considered a civilized and
Speaker 1: decent perspective on this. Oh okay, so the far left,
Speaker 1: you two, that's taking positions on these issues. That's good.
Speaker 1: That's not brainwashing. That's just sensible without a trace of irony.
Speaker 1: That's how this New York Times peace ends. You know. Thankfully,
Speaker 1: the far left is now getting involved on YouTube, the
Speaker 1: radical left, and they're answering these radical right wing perspectives,
Speaker 1: and so all will be right in the world as
Speaker 1: long as YouTube engages in a whole lot of censorship
Speaker 1: and algorithm algorithm favoring and blocking of right wing content
Speaker 1: and all this, which is really what this is about. Now,
Speaker 1: when the left is making an open play for an
Speaker 1: Internet that they have dominance of out in the I,
Speaker 1: out in the open now, they just want it to
Speaker 1: be that the Left gets to dominate communication on the
Speaker 1: internet because they've been. They feel like they've lost too
Speaker 1: much ground, too many elections, They've lost too many arguments
Speaker 1: by allowing people to really think and find out for themselves.
Speaker 1: They much rather have Silicon Valley barons spoon feeding the
Speaker 1: public wing slop. And that's what this YouTube article is
Speaker 1: really hoping will happen. I don't know about you, but
Speaker 1: I played a lot of dodgeball when I was a kid.
Speaker 1: I was pretty good at it. I had pretty good arm,
Speaker 1: pretty good at catching the ball when it was thrown
Speaker 1: at me, reasonable agility to get out of the way
Speaker 1: of the folks trying to take me out, and I
Speaker 1: was one of the ones that were trying to go
Speaker 1: for was I the last one left? Often on my
Speaker 1: side and dodgeball? Indeed, indeed I was. Was I more
Speaker 1: than once second or third grade dodgeball champion. I don't
Speaker 1: mean to brag, but obviously, but turns out, all that time,
Speaker 1: all those many years as a young kid running around
Speaker 1: during recess, which is what we called it, I guess,
Speaker 1: which is a fancier way of saying playtime. I didn't
Speaker 1: know this, but I was engaged in a form of
Speaker 1: unethical oppression. And there is in fact a movement of
Speaker 1: social scientists, which we know aren't real scientists up in
Speaker 1: Canada saying that dodgeball quote isn't just problematic, it is
Speaker 1: an unethical tool of oppression. I love, oh Man live academics.
Speaker 1: You guys are fun. You guys are a fun bunch.
Speaker 1: I enjoy getting to dig into stuff like this one.
Speaker 1: So there's some conference of conference of comedies up in Vancouver,
Speaker 1: the Annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Science Sciences,
Speaker 1: which just what just happened this past week up in Canada,
Speaker 1: and they're presenting papers and ideas and all these things.
Speaker 1: But one of the one of the funniest ones, one
Speaker 1: of the best ones of all, is that quote. The
Speaker 1: moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single
Speaker 1: out others for dominance and to enjoy that dominance as
Speaker 1: a victory or just a game. Kids throw balls at
Speaker 1: each other and it's usually over in a couple of minutes,
Speaker 1: and the balls, assuming that they're relatively soft and harmless.
Speaker 1: I mean, yeah, you shouldn't play dodgeball with little kids
Speaker 1: throwing baseballs at each other or something right. It needs
Speaker 1: to be usually a kind of a large, fluffy ball.
Speaker 1: Even even using a volleyball, I know somebody like Buck,
Speaker 1: don't be a whimp. Using a volleyball can be a
Speaker 1: little little harsh. It should be something that has a
Speaker 1: little bit of a sponge sponginess in it. The proper
Speaker 1: dodgeball should have some sponge, some give, or be a
Speaker 1: rubber ball inflated with air so it's soft but can
Speaker 1: still move pretty fast through the air. I look, I
Speaker 1: played a fair I played my fair share of dodgeball
Speaker 1: back in the day. I'm just gonna tell you straight up.
Speaker 1: But I didn't realize I was engaged in a form
Speaker 1: of oppression. And there's this story in the National Post
Speaker 1: in Canada. Keep in mind they're not writing about dodgeball
Speaker 1: as oppression. And I now I have I've never seen Mark.
Speaker 1: Have you seen the dodgeball movie with whatever the guy's name,
Speaker 1: I can't remember, guys, classic, what's that guy's name? Is this?
Speaker 1: You know it's I want to say, no, yeah, probably,
Speaker 1: but the other you know, the guy who's from us
Speaker 1: so you know, um, there's something about Mary and meet them,
Speaker 1: Meet the Fockers and all that stuff. I know you
Speaker 1: you're talking about, but I can't grasp the name Ben
Speaker 1: ben Stiller. Thank you ben Stiller. He's in it, right,
Speaker 1: he's like the bad guy in it. Well, it's classic.
Speaker 1: I should watch it. Maybe i'll watch you this. Maybe
Speaker 1: i'll watch it this weekend. I'd be kind of a
Speaker 1: fun one, you know, I like, I like silly sports
Speaker 1: movies like that. Well I've never seen that one, but
Speaker 1: I'm told that's good. But this article up in Canada
Speaker 1: is telling me that the children, the games that children
Speaker 1: play in schoolyards are famously horrible if you stop and
Speaker 1: think about them. So it's not just dodgeball that's coming
Speaker 1: in for the rough stuff here. There's some others that
Speaker 1: are about to get taken to task by Kunatos. Very
Speaker 1: serious social scientists. Hey, yeah, they're like really upset about this.
Speaker 1: One tag, for example, singles out one participant, often the
Speaker 1: slowest child, as the dehumanized it. This is serious, this
Speaker 1: is what it says. I'm not making this up, all right.
Speaker 1: The dehumanized it in turn runs vainly in pursuit of
Speaker 1: the quicker ones. Yes, but this is true of pretty
Speaker 1: much any sport. If you're the slowest or the weakest
Speaker 1: or the worst. It's not as fun and you probably
Speaker 1: want to get better at it, but it gets Oh, folks,
Speaker 1: this is we're just beginning to pull apart the games
Speaker 1: that we all played and loved as children, like Capture
Speaker 1: the Flag, which is nakedly militaristic. I love it. The
Speaker 1: Capsure the Flag is a great game, by the way.
Speaker 1: I mean if you have a good setup with Capture
Speaker 1: the Flag, and you know you have reasonably evenly matched teams.
Speaker 1: I used to Capture the Flag at summer camp. The
Speaker 1: whole camp would be in one capture the Flag game,
Speaker 1: and if you actually managed to get that flag and
Speaker 1: get it across the other side, you were like a
Speaker 1: superstar for the night. You know, you were a hero.
Speaker 1: You got extra marshmallows to roast down by the campfire. Boom.
Speaker 1: Another game called British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes
Speaker 1: I have do you end up? Mark? What's British Bulldog?
Speaker 1: Never heard of it? Producer Mike British Bulldog. He've heard
Speaker 1: of this game? Oh, he hasn't heard of it. He's
Speaker 1: out smoking a stogie with the ladies. There's a game
Speaker 1: called Red Ass, which is known in America as butts up,
Speaker 1: which involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on the losers.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, I've never played butts up before, but
Speaker 1: none rouse the passions of reform minded educational progressives quite
Speaker 1: like dodgeball, the team sport of which players throw balls
Speaker 1: at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish
Speaker 1: them to the sidelines of shame. These are the I'm
Speaker 1: quoting from this piece in the National Post in Canada.
Speaker 1: They're serious about this. They want to get rid of
Speaker 1: they want to get rid of dodgeball, and they're applying
Speaker 1: the oh so rigorous intellectual standards of the Canadian social
Speaker 1: scientist a to this issue. The Canadian Study for the
Speaker 1: Society for the Study of Education has a trio of
Speaker 1: education theorists who are going to argue that dodgeball is
Speaker 1: not only problematic in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies
Speaker 1: of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is
Speaker 1: outright miseducative. As the abstract for this discussion describes those
Speaker 1: they face marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as
Speaker 1: weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by
Speaker 1: those who are considered more powerful. They're talking about they're
Speaker 1: talking about grammar school kids playing a game where they
Speaker 1: throw balls at each other and it's you know, and
Speaker 1: they can't cross a line. But no, it's high aierarchies
Speaker 1: of privilege, folks, hierarchies of privilege, you know what, you
Speaker 1: know what they need to tell these social scienceists. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. Life
Speaker 1: is hierarchies of privilege. Life is people being separated based
Speaker 1: on ability, based on access, based on prestige, based on power,
Speaker 1: based on strength. That's life. I'm not I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that that's the ideal world, but that is the world
Speaker 1: that we live in. And you know, were there's some
Speaker 1: people that maybe were a little better than me at
Speaker 1: dodgeball back in the day. You know, there are a
Speaker 1: few one or two. But is it just a game
Speaker 1: that we all learn? I mean, there's you know, everyone
Speaker 1: goes through things where they're not particularly they're not particularly
Speaker 1: good or skilled, and and that's a learning experience. Life
Speaker 1: is accepting that you're not good at everything. Life is
Speaker 1: understanding that just because you wish things would be a
Speaker 1: certain way, they will not be that way, and you
Speaker 1: can either take action, you can run away from it,
Speaker 1: or you can suffer in silence. So there is a
Speaker 1: by the way in dodgeball, you don't allow headhunting, obviously,
Speaker 1: or we're not you know, we're not. We're not savages.
Speaker 1: You know, you can't throw the ball at somebody's head, obviously,
Speaker 1: gotta keep it below the neck. I think that's okay,
Speaker 1: because sometimes you'll get some kid that's been held back
Speaker 1: like three years, and and he just starts, you know,
Speaker 1: just beating balls off a kid's faces all over the
Speaker 1: place if you let him, and that's not fun. I know. See,
Speaker 1: some of some of you are at are being savages
Speaker 1: right now. You're yelling at me. You're like, oh, buck, dodgeball.
Speaker 1: You can't anywhere on the bodies allowed in dodgeball. Don't
Speaker 1: be a whimp. I'm not saying put on a helmet.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it's got to be for the count.
Speaker 1: It should be below, you know, below the neck. That's
Speaker 1: that's the way civilized, that's the way civilized dodgeball is played.
Speaker 1: You know, unlike some of you listening to this being
Speaker 1: so savage, you eat cannibals. For breakfast. You know, let's
Speaker 1: be real here, folks. There are rules in dodgeball, and
Speaker 1: that's why it also reinforces that we all need to
Speaker 1: obey the same rules that we need to work as
Speaker 1: a team. There's a lot of good in dodgeball that
Speaker 1: they don't even talk about here, but instead they just
Speaker 1: call it a tool of oppression. And I mean this,
Speaker 1: one of the problems that the left never addresses, and
Speaker 1: I don't think ken address, is that life is life
Speaker 1: is full of oppression. People will always be oppressed in
Speaker 1: life in one way or another. Life is full of
Speaker 1: different kinds of oppression. And trying to create oppression free
Speaker 1: environments for kids, and I'm not talking about systematic racial
Speaker 1: oppression and things like that. Yeah, obviously you need to
Speaker 1: try to have some degree of legal and social equality,
Speaker 1: and you should strive for the maximum of those as
Speaker 1: well as other you know, gender equality. But you can't
Speaker 1: have equality and everything or else. You can't have competition,
Speaker 1: you can't have struggle, you can't have learning, you can't
Speaker 1: have growth, you can't have loss. None of those things
Speaker 1: are possible if you have absolute equality. So dodgeball is
Speaker 1: really a learning tool, and nothing else you learn if
Speaker 1: you can't compete, stand behind the nerdy kid with the inhaler,
Speaker 1: the glasses and the velcrow shoes, because at least he'll
Speaker 1: get hit first. Sometimes people say to me, Buck, is
Speaker 1: it really fair to refer to Libs as crazy? And
Speaker 1: I respond, yes, it is fair, it is right, it
Speaker 1: is accurate. There are many, many, many Libs who I
Speaker 1: don't mean they're crazies and they have mental health issues.
Speaker 1: That's not something to make jokes about. I mean they're
Speaker 1: crazy as in their political ideology is whacko, divorced from reality,
Speaker 1: separate from the day to day world that we all
Speaker 1: exist in. And it's a fiction, a fiction that really
Speaker 1: only exists in their mind, and they take action in
Speaker 1: the real world based on that fiction. So the non
Speaker 1: clinical but very effective way to describe this is to
Speaker 1: just refer to them as being nuts, because they are.
Speaker 1: They are, simply, clearly and truly go and if you
Speaker 1: ever think yourself, well back, I need proof of this.
Speaker 1: I can't hang out and go around and say things
Speaker 1: about how the Libs are nuts and not be able
Speaker 1: to immediately point to something that's just proof of a
Speaker 1: very specific, ideologically driven liberal insanity. And for evidence, you
Speaker 1: could call it exhibit A. I would give you a
Speaker 1: story up today on CNN, another place where there's a
Speaker 1: lot of live nonsense and craziness. But it's called birth strike,
Speaker 1: the people refusing to have kids because of climate change. Uh,
Speaker 1: let me read you a little bit of the story
Speaker 1: and then we can both enjoy the utter, the sheer
Speaker 1: lunacy that is on display in this Climate change is
Speaker 1: rapidly changing the environment we live in. That's the first
Speaker 1: line of the CNN piece. Wow, they really ending the
Speaker 1: sentence with a preposition. Climate change is rapidly changing the
Speaker 1: environment we live in. Only the best over at CNN,
Speaker 1: Only the best. But how far would you be willing
Speaker 1: to go to help save the planet? Question mark? Would
Speaker 1: you skip school, eat pigs feet? How about forgo having kids?
Speaker 1: For thirty three ye old British musician blythe Peppino not
Speaker 1: a real name, the latter is a reality. Her fears
Speaker 1: about climate change are so strong she has decided not
Speaker 1: to have biological children. I really want a kid, she
Speaker 1: told CNN. I love my partner and I want a
Speaker 1: family with him, but I don't feel like this is
Speaker 1: a time that you can do that. Peppino believes there
Speaker 1: will be an ecological armageddon and founded birth Strike at
Speaker 1: the end of twenty eighteen. Birthstrike is a group of
Speaker 1: people who are declaring their decision not to have kids
Speaker 1: because of climate change. So far, three hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: whole people have joined. Eighty percent of them are women. Now,
Speaker 1: you may say, buck, this is only three hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty people. No birth strike, This group that CNN is
Speaker 1: writing a news story on is only three hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty people. But I can tell you this, They all
Speaker 1: would seem normal to you before you talk politics with them,
Speaker 1: for the most part. You know, maybe some of them
Speaker 1: are white guys with dreadlocks who sell glassware and follow
Speaker 1: the band fish around everywhere. But but for the most part,
Speaker 1: they would seem relatively normal to you. So it's only
Speaker 1: when you engage them on a political issue that the
Speaker 1: absurdity and the insanity of their position becomes so apparent.
Speaker 1: They don't want to have children because they're afraid of
Speaker 1: climate change. This is a mental This is a mental disorder.
Speaker 1: This is a problem. This is like somebody who won't
Speaker 1: go outside. This is agoraphobia. This is aractophobia, irrational fear
Speaker 1: of spiders. I mean this belongs in that category of
Speaker 1: interrrational fear of the fe future. But it's not when
Speaker 1: that comes from nothing. It's not one that just jumps
Speaker 1: out of thin air at people. Right. This isn't some
Speaker 1: of the other fears, or you have to get very
Speaker 1: deep into the psychotherapy about where they come from and
Speaker 1: what the underlying reasons would be. This is taking what
Speaker 1: we are told by the lib medium, by the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party and running with it and believing it. This is
Speaker 1: believing that what the Democrats say about the world ending
Speaker 1: in twelve years is true. This is the end result
Speaker 1: of taking the ninety percent or ninety nine percent of
Speaker 1: scientists line believing catastrophic climate change to its conclusion. If
Speaker 1: nine of scientists believe this, if the global consensus is
Speaker 1: that we must act now or else, are these people
Speaker 1: crazy or are they just believing authorities around them who
Speaker 1: claim to have the only true scientific knowledge when it
Speaker 1: comes to this issue that everyone else has bad faith
Speaker 1: and bad motivation. People like me who understand and recognize
Speaker 1: that climate change hysteria is certain to be wrong, has
Speaker 1: been wrong many times in the past, is politically motivated.
Speaker 1: And you can tell this by the arguments they make
Speaker 1: you don't even have to open up the books. You
Speaker 1: don't have to look at the numbers. Although when you
Speaker 1: do look at the numbers, you find that they have
Speaker 1: to readjust and readjust and readjust, because it turns out
Speaker 1: the numbers are not on their side. They always have
Speaker 1: to keep changing it over time. But this is where
Speaker 1: I have to say. The people that react in this way,
Speaker 1: they're the true believers in a sense. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that listen to the government, listen to the Democrat consensus
Speaker 1: in this country and other countries. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: think that the scientific community that pedals this fear monging
Speaker 1: must be telling us the truth because they're scientists. You know,
Speaker 1: they were white lab coats. They're like Bill Nye. The
Speaker 1: science Guy's a guy who has an undergraduate degree in engineering,
Speaker 1: and Bill Bill Nye is the all time science expert guy.
Speaker 1: The same way that because I have a political science
Speaker 1: degree from AMIRST, everyone should just refer to me as
Speaker 1: the politics guy knows more about politics than everybody else
Speaker 1: because he's an undergrad degree in that subject matter. I
Speaker 1: don't think that's the case. I don't think he would
Speaker 1: do that. But if these people are the ones who
Speaker 1: listen and believe what they're told is true. If they
Speaker 1: take the climate change alarmists at their word, are what
Speaker 1: are the rest of them? What are the people that
Speaker 1: aren't changing their behavior that not only will they will
Speaker 1: they continue to have kids despite the fact the world's
Speaker 1: going to end in twelve years, but that don't sell
Speaker 1: their beachfront properties, or that still flying private jets, or
Speaker 1: don't change any of their individual behaviors in response to
Speaker 1: exhortations from a scientific community that the world's going to
Speaker 1: end unless they do this, I mean they must be.
Speaker 1: There are really only two options. They're sociopaths that they
Speaker 1: just don't care about anyone or anything but themselves, which
Speaker 1: may be true about a lot of libs. Or they're hypocrites.
Speaker 1: Then they don't really believe what they pretend to believe.
Speaker 1: Because while I can show you these birth strike people
Speaker 1: are completely nuts, they're the ones that are taking action
Speaker 1: based on what we're told. They believe the climate change consensus.
Speaker 1: It's the rest of the people that run It's like,
Speaker 1: do you believe in climate change as though that's going
Speaker 1: to end the debate? Would you say, well, yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean the climate's changing. Climate has always changed, and there
Speaker 1: will be, you know, weather based environmental disruptions, just like
Speaker 1: they're always have been, and we should adapt to them.
Speaker 1: But there's nothing, there's nothing to be freaked out about here.
Speaker 1: The people that will look at you like you're a
Speaker 1: monster for saying that, aren't they monsters for not taking
Speaker 1: seriously their sides rhetoric about the whole world ending? So,
Speaker 1: you know, the birth strikers, Yeah, we know they're crazy.
Speaker 1: You and I know they're crazy, but our lives in
Speaker 1: a position to call them crazy, I think the answer
Speaker 1: is quite obviously no. Some people ask why are there's
Speaker 1: so many Democrats running for president? And I say, look,
Speaker 1: you got this going the wrong way here, thinking about
Speaker 1: this the wrong way. It's really about the entertainment value
Speaker 1: of some of these Democrats. You know, Yeah, they're not
Speaker 1: gonna be president. They know they're not going to be president.
Speaker 1: No one really thinks that Mary Ann Williamson is going
Speaker 1: to be president the United States, including Mary Ann Williamson,
Speaker 1: and a lot of you are probably thinking, buck, who
Speaker 1: the heck is that? Exactly exactly, there's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of other candidates. Yeah, I can't even name them all.
Speaker 1: And I work in political media for a living right.
Speaker 1: I don't even know who what all their names are.
Speaker 1: If you showed me all their photos, I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure i'd get all their names with the photos to
Speaker 1: prompt me along. There's some real third tier stuff going
Speaker 1: on here, maybe fourth and fifth tier stuff, but it's
Speaker 1: still fascinating and very entertaining. You get guys like Eric Swalwell,
Speaker 1: who really I think, staked his career on the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion end of a Trump presidency. That was what he
Speaker 1: was promising, that's what we're supposed to get. That that that
Speaker 1: did not happen, And so he's going around now trying
Speaker 1: to convince people to vote for him based on radical
Speaker 1: anti gun stances, anti Second Amendment stances, and how he
Speaker 1: tries to speak as a He recognizes his white male privilege,
Speaker 1: of course, and that he is inherently, because of his
Speaker 1: gender and skin color, part of the patriarchy, but also
Speaker 1: thinks that he can understand the concerns of the intersectional
Speaker 1: left somehow. And he had a moment when he was
Speaker 1: speaking over the weekend. I don't even he was on
Speaker 1: stage somewhere on c SPAN doing some rally or something,
Speaker 1: and he just he's a real wamp wamp machine play
Speaker 1: play the clip, but I will always be real with you.
Speaker 1: I will be bold without the ball. My wife and
Speaker 1: I we fight insurance companies when I'm not sure what
Speaker 1: I will be bold without the bowl. Was that because
Speaker 1: he trying to make a play on words with bull.
Speaker 1: It's not like he said, without the bowl. The bull
Speaker 1: is Eric Swalwell a false flag candidate run by conservatives
Speaker 1: as a satire of the typical beta mail lib. Think
Speaker 1: about that before you answer it. Is it possible that
Speaker 1: Swallowell is really in this race because a bunch of
Speaker 1: conservatives got together and said, if we were creating the
Speaker 1: prototypical beta male liberal to run and to say the
Speaker 1: things that now a liberal white male has to say,
Speaker 1: or else he'll be excommunicated from the left. And it
Speaker 1: has to do this bending of the knee and the
Speaker 1: self flagellation in and the oh, I'm make me president,
Speaker 1: but I know I'm not so great, and I know
Speaker 1: that I'm part of oppression, but I want to end depression.
Speaker 1: You know, all this stuff, He's all that possible in
Speaker 1: the character of Eric Swalwell himself. My buddy Jesse Kelly
Speaker 1: tweeted out about that same sound bite every time I
Speaker 1: hold the stud finder up to my chest and make
Speaker 1: the beeping sound in front of my wife, reminds him
Speaker 1: of Eric Swalwell. Eric Swalwell, it's oh, he's such a nerd,
Speaker 1: but he is not necessarily the most cringe inducing of
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates. You may know this. It was Pride weekend
Speaker 1: over the weekend, and there were there were a lot
Speaker 1: of Pride parades. I went out to dinner. What was
Speaker 1: it over the weekend and sure enough saw some of
Speaker 1: the aftermath of Pride parade stuff. And Kirsten Gillibrand, who
Speaker 1: used to be four Gun Rights and now says he
Speaker 1: na raised the worst organization in America. Used to be
Speaker 1: the female CEO who didn't want to be thought of
Speaker 1: as like the mommy, and now is all about being
Speaker 1: a mommy who's also going to be president. Right, it
Speaker 1: just changes, however she has to change. She has this
Speaker 1: video and you have to see the video. It's on
Speaker 1: my Twitter account. I twittered it out. But where she's
Speaker 1: dancing in a rainbow colored gay Pride T shirt and
Speaker 1: with a video camera on her just happens to let
Speaker 1: this slip at the right time, play it Gay Rights.
Speaker 1: She's yelled out gay rights. Yeah, yeah, that was a
Speaker 1: really authentic moment from Garson. Gilabred just happened to be
Speaker 1: dancing with like a bunch of you know, necklaces on
Speaker 1: at a bar, drinking shots, being cool pride shirt on
Speaker 1: gay rights, because that's what that's what everybody who's who's
Speaker 1: at the parade, they just random way have a video
Speaker 1: camera on them when they yell out gay rights. Oh,
Speaker 1: she is in this race, so that Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: not the least authentic person in the race. That's what
Speaker 1: Jillibrand does. So she has a purpose here and swallwell
Speaker 1: is to make us all feel manlier by comparison. Hey,
Speaker 1: team buck it's time for roll call. Really letting the
Speaker 1: dubstep roll call air out there for a second. It's
Speaker 1: the first day of a new world for the Buckster.
Speaker 1: I woke up this morning at eight fifteen am like
Speaker 1: a very civilized fellow. And I know that's a lot
Speaker 1: that's later than most of you probably wake up, but
Speaker 1: I needed to sort of catch up on some sleep.
Speaker 1: I stayed up late last night watching Castlevania on Netflix,
Speaker 1: the cartoon that reminded me of the video game I
Speaker 1: played as a as a youth. Is it particularly good? No?
Speaker 1: But could I stay up late because I didn't have
Speaker 1: to get up at the crack of dawn? Yes? Yes,
Speaker 1: it was very nice and very nice, and there's additional
Speaker 1: energy now to devote to all things freedom up, which
Speaker 1: is very exciting for me. All right, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slide buck Sexton, and I gotta figure out if Mike,
Speaker 1: is there a email thing that we have from the
Speaker 1: website yet? We gotta we gotta come into the digital
Speaker 1: age here and start doing stuff like that. I know
Speaker 1: we've got the website's been redone and updated. It looks
Speaker 1: all pretty now, Buck Sexton dot com. Do we have
Speaker 1: an email contact form thing? You know, one of those
Speaker 1: thingies with the email form that you contact and we'll
Speaker 1: full figure it out. I'm on it now. I got time.
Speaker 1: Now My excuse is gone for all of your requests
Speaker 1: when you say, hey, Buck, can you do this? And
Speaker 1: I say, well, I'll try to get to it, but
Speaker 1: I'm busy chatting with libs every day over at the Hill.
Speaker 1: Turn out that, no, I will be less busy, and
Speaker 1: I'll still be busy'll be less busy, John writes Shields
Speaker 1: High Real News Days fan, Well, John kicking it back now,
Speaker 1: for we started real news in twenty in January or
Speaker 1: so of twenty twelve, I think, or something like that.
Speaker 1: Maybe I forget, I forget when real News start, but
Speaker 1: I think it was twenty twelve. Watching Chernobyl, I got
Speaker 1: the sense that it was making nuclear energy look bad.
Speaker 1: The Left would love to use the opportunity to use
Speaker 1: Chernobyl or a three mile island to shake a finger
Speaker 1: at and say we can't use that for energy. Now, John,
Speaker 1: I think that that's there's some truth to that, and
Speaker 1: it's frustrating because the way that the show depicts the
Speaker 1: Soviet bureaucracy. I'm very very much in favor of. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that it did a good job showing you
Speaker 1: that the Soviets, they worship this master of the state
Speaker 1: and the people that run the state machinery have no
Speaker 1: interest whatsoever in the truth when the truth is not
Speaker 1: advantageous to them. But the treatment of nuclear energy in
Speaker 1: the show is not good. It's just not good. The
Speaker 1: way that they show people that I mentioned this last
Speaker 1: week bleeding and immediately their hand almost eroding because of
Speaker 1: the nuclear the nuclear energy and the radiation that it
Speaker 1: was giving off the very way that the scientists describes
Speaker 1: I can't remember his name out and it's like Latakov
Speaker 1: or something. I forget Israel. Have you seen this, producer,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, Have you seen Chernobyl yet? I have watched
Speaker 1: the first three episodes. Here we go. What do you
Speaker 1: think so far? I enjoy it. I need to get
Speaker 1: around to watching the rest. But I like the suggestion
Speaker 1: it's a good show. Yeah, thank you, all right, good? Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I agree. But the way that they show the nuclear energy,
Speaker 1: the radiation poisoning and all that is it's just not
Speaker 1: it's it's scientifically sloppy. You still would have had a
Speaker 1: lot of dramatic tension without completely mischaracterizing the dangers of
Speaker 1: the nuclear nuclear radiation. I just would say, also the
Speaker 1: aftermath stuff is what bothered me the most, where they
Speaker 1: claim that there were, you know, essentially millions of people
Speaker 1: irreparably harmed by this meltdown. People were harmed and people
Speaker 1: did die, but there's no need to exaggerate it. And
Speaker 1: I think that there was a very obvious exaggeration at
Speaker 1: the end of it. And then when you add to
Speaker 1: it that the creator of the show, the show runner
Speaker 1: said that this is somehow about Trump. I'm like, this
Speaker 1: is not about Trump, dude. You can try to this
Speaker 1: is a historical event. You can try to tie it
Speaker 1: to Trump, the same way you can tie bad weather
Speaker 1: tomorrow to Trump. But it's a silly thing to do.
Speaker 1: It's a foolish thing to do. Laurel rights. Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: your idea of using the Muslim band to stop the
Speaker 1: flow of Central American and South American migrants has merit,
Speaker 1: even if it will be inflammatory to the left, Laurel,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. But the central problem exists of why
Speaker 1: they want to be in the US and not stay
Speaker 1: in their home country. We know that most of these
Speaker 1: migrants are economic migrants looking for better paying work. Did
Speaker 1: you also know that remittance is sent to Central and
Speaker 1: South American countries work fifty three billion in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: That's from the World Bank. It's estimated that ninety five
Speaker 1: percent of that is sent from the United States. Mexico's
Speaker 1: economy in particular takes in thirty three billion, making it
Speaker 1: less economically rewarding to work in the US. President Trump's
Speaker 1: effectively slowed the rate of migrants through high taxes on
Speaker 1: outgoing remittances to Central and South American countries. It will
Speaker 1: also have the added benefit of causing pain to their
Speaker 1: home countries, which they'll want to see reversed, and will
Speaker 1: take steps to stop or slow migrants from coming here illegally. Well, Laurel,
Speaker 1: taxing remittances has been out there as a plan as
Speaker 1: an idea for a while, and I do think that
Speaker 1: there's there's plenty of reason to get into that and
Speaker 1: to have that discussion. The issue with the Democrats will
Speaker 1: be that they they'll say that this is hurting poor
Speaker 1: people and the optics of it don't look particularly strong,
Speaker 1: and demagogues. Democrats will demogogue that you know what out
Speaker 1: of the issue, suggesting that, you know, Wall Street should
Speaker 1: be paying the taxes, not hard working day laborers sending
Speaker 1: money back to their families in Mexico or Venezuela or
Speaker 1: who knows where. But thank you, Laurel. Good to have
Speaker 1: you running in Jamie rides Buck on one of the
Speaker 1: weekend news shows, I heard Robert Francis O'Rourke speak for
Speaker 1: the first time. I must say your impersonation of him
Speaker 1: is spot on. Thanks Jamie in Panama City. Well, Jamie,
Speaker 1: I really appreciate that. And even though I can't get
Speaker 1: above one percent in the polls. Right now, I just
Speaker 1: I want you to give me your heart. Beto, what
Speaker 1: could have been? Beto? What could have been? Deborah Rights?
Speaker 1: A bunch of long stuff that I can't get to
Speaker 1: right now, Chris Rights Buck I grew up in the
Speaker 1: seventies and eighties in Germany. Nuclear power was the boogeyman
Speaker 1: of the time. Even acknowledging the terrible devastation of the
Speaker 1: Japanese tsunami nuclear disaster, the damage to the environment pales
Speaker 1: against the environmental damage of developing nations who lived through
Speaker 1: primitive environmental disasters caused by poverty and even natural disasters.
Speaker 1: If you compare the no go zones of Japan and
Speaker 1: Chre Noble, there are many worse non nuclear disasters that
Speaker 1: devastate entire regions. Hollywood poison the well for generations to come. Yeah, Chris,
Speaker 1: nuclear is a boogeyman and has been for a long time.
Speaker 1: Nuclear power as I understand that you could fit all
Speaker 1: of the nuclear power waste that has ever been created
Speaker 1: in a warehouse. I was told this recently by a
Speaker 1: nuclear by a nuclear energy expert. By a warehouse, I
Speaker 1: think a couple of football fields long ten stories high
Speaker 1: All the nuclear waste that has ever, ever ever been
Speaker 1: created could fit into essentially one big building somewhere. The
Speaker 1: storyline you hear is that nuclear waste. They're always close
Speaker 1: to having some kind of a shutdown. We can never
Speaker 1: get rid of the waste. We'll never figure out what
Speaker 1: to do when entire cities can be powered by nuclear plants.
Speaker 1: And Europe is better on this issue than we are.
Speaker 1: And the Friends have been much more willing to embrace
Speaker 1: nuclear power than we have in this country because of
Speaker 1: the environmental lobby. And I do think that there is
Speaker 1: a bad faith hatred of nuclear power that comes from
Speaker 1: the environmental left because they don't want it an industrial
Speaker 1: solution to their climate change hysteria. They want wind and solar,
Speaker 1: and you know that they don't want it to be nuclear. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: wind and solar will not be able to power the
Speaker 1: American economy anytime soon. It's ridiculous. The technology's not there.
Speaker 1: That's just that's just the way things are. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: Andrew Shields high Buck, I'm calling balderdash on Chernobyl's depiction
Speaker 1: of animal extermination squads. As you said, radiation poisoning isn't
Speaker 1: a transferable disease, so the premise of exterminating the dogs
Speaker 1: and cats of the exclusions zone would have been counterproductive.
Speaker 1: I suspect a total fabrication solely for the sake of
Speaker 1: the scene where he has to kill the puppy. Andrew,
Speaker 1: I think you're right. I think that you are correct
Speaker 1: on this one. And I don't know if maybe at
Speaker 1: the time there were so panicked that there were some
Speaker 1: pet pet extermination squads from the military, from the Soviet
Speaker 1: military that went out there to track down Phido because
Speaker 1: he had been irradiated. Does anyone ever call their dog
Speaker 1: FIGHTO anymore? You know, it's kind of the John Doe
Speaker 1: of dog names. Does anyone actually say, Yeah, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: name my dog FIGHTO. Just putting that out there, but yeah,
Speaker 1: the cat that was close to the Chernobyl meltdown does
Speaker 1: not carry around with it radiation that kills everybody that
Speaker 1: it touches. That's that's not how radiation works. It's internalized
Speaker 1: and that it's within that person. It's not a They
Speaker 1: really do treat radiation almost like a zombie apocalypse disease strain,
Speaker 1: and that's not correct. So the science was very for
Speaker 1: a show that's this high profile and gotten this much attention,
Speaker 1: that science is very shaky. Well, it's just wrong in
Speaker 1: some places, and it didn't need to be wrong. That's
Speaker 1: you know. Do you to use dramatic interpretation or to
Speaker 1: write in a scene to make a point? We all,
Speaker 1: we all understand. That's fine, you're gonna do that stuff
Speaker 1: when you're making a TV show. But when you're explaining
Speaker 1: in some detail the science of nuclear reactor at different
Speaker 1: points in the show, I think it would be better
Speaker 1: to stick to the actual science of the disaster and
Speaker 1: not make it up as you go along. Cheryl writes,
Speaker 1: Buck Unleashed can't wait, looking forward to all you're going
Speaker 1: to do. Wishing you all the best. Cheryl, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. I appreciate that. Yes, Buck is unleashed, and
Speaker 1: things are going to get Things are going to get spicy.
Speaker 1: Giselle rites, Hey, Buck, are you going to stay in DC?
Speaker 1: You're gonna move back to New York, Giselle. Time will tell,
Speaker 1: my friend, time will tell. We shall see how that
Speaker 1: ends up shaking out. Now, we have some more in
Speaker 1: the roll call box here. Nadine, all right, Buck, listen
Speaker 1: to podcast here work. I'm a bit behind hearing you
Speaker 1: more about you going buck wild than getting the things
Speaker 1: that allow your talents to shine. So very excited for
Speaker 1: you're looking forward to what you have coming for the
Speaker 1: rest of us. Long time listener, very much appreciate your insight,
Speaker 1: wisdom beyond your years, and ability to laugh at yourself.
Speaker 1: Hope you'll come back to us here in New York. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you very much, Nadine, and appreciate the kind note today.
Speaker 1: And yes we are going to be getting buck wild,
Speaker 1: but until then she'll tie