Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom huge lot of national security
Speaker 1: stories heating up, a possible Iranian plot to strike at
Speaker 1: US interests or allies the Middle East, of course, the
Speaker 1: exchange of missiles and response between Israel and Hamas and
Speaker 1: Palestinian Islamic jihad. Is Maduro going to be out in Venezuela?
Speaker 1: And then do the Democrats have a serious contender yet
Speaker 1: of the twenty or so to take President Trump's place
Speaker 1: in the next election. We'll break down what's happened with
Speaker 1: Biden and Harris and all the rests coming up on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexon Show. This is the bus Sexon Show
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with passionable intelligence. Make no mistakes here a great
Speaker 1: American again the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Thank you so
Speaker 1: much for being here. I hope you had a fantastic weekend.
Speaker 1: We got a lot to get to you today, a
Speaker 1: lot of national security stuff. Will be joined by my
Speaker 1: friend David fun and then Tony Shay, Lieutenant Colonel Tony
Speaker 1: Schaefer's We've got much much to discuss. But there was
Speaker 1: a little bit of a of a panic, I think
Speaker 1: in some of the Democrat quarters here in the Swamp
Speaker 1: and across the country more broadly, at the recognition that
Speaker 1: if things continue as they are right now, Trump's gonna win.
Speaker 1: He's gonna win. He's got an approval rating today, according
Speaker 1: to Gallup, at a new high of forty six percent.
Speaker 1: And you look at what's happened with the economy under
Speaker 1: the president, and then you start to juxtapose that, you
Speaker 1: compare that to what the Democrats told us was going
Speaker 1: to happen if in fact Trump became president, and not
Speaker 1: only is it not a disaster, but it has actually
Speaker 1: been incredibly strong. Things are going very very well. And
Speaker 1: so there's a struggle on the left to find some narrative.
Speaker 1: Why should people be so dissatisfied with this president? You've
Speaker 1: got one point two million more job openings than unemployed
Speaker 1: in the country. What are people supposed to What are
Speaker 1: people supposed to come up with as the storyline of
Speaker 1: why this is so awful? You know? How do the
Speaker 1: Democrats sell this idea to people that Trump needs to go,
Speaker 1: we need to put Bernie Sanders in place. Would you
Speaker 1: risk I mean, I really ask you would you risk
Speaker 1: the value of your home. Would you risk the strength
Speaker 1: of your four oh one k your healthcare plan on
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders being a better steward of the economy at
Speaker 1: this point than Donald Trump. Could any serious person really
Speaker 1: make that case right now? I think at least maybe
Speaker 1: a serious person could, but it wouldn't be a very
Speaker 1: serious case. That's where we are, and that's why when
Speaker 1: you look at the candidates for the the Democrat candidate that
Speaker 1: are lining up, I think a lot of them are
Speaker 1: just trying to play a bit to the left wing
Speaker 1: base to get enough of a number going that they're
Speaker 1: in contention. But they don't yet have the narrative. They
Speaker 1: don't yet have the storyline as to why they should
Speaker 1: why they should replace Trump. Some of them may have
Speaker 1: really been hoping all along that the Mueller probe was
Speaker 1: going to do their work for them, that Trump would
Speaker 1: be so damaged when that report was finally released that
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be necessary to have a compelling Why why
Speaker 1: should somebody vote for any of these Democrats that are
Speaker 1: aspiring to run against Trump over the current president? What
Speaker 1: is the real reason for it? Oh? Because of Trump's
Speaker 1: Twitter habits, because of the way that he speaks about
Speaker 1: the press. My favorite thing really about Trump is the
Speaker 1: way he speaks about the press, to be honest with you,
Speaker 1: the way that he takes the fight to them and
Speaker 1: does not allow them to be this this really nasty
Speaker 1: group of untalented, snickering high school students who all just
Speaker 1: cover each other's back and say the same things, think
Speaker 1: the same things. A lot of group think. That Trump
Speaker 1: holds them to account is one of my favorite things
Speaker 1: about this president. But you look at the crew that
Speaker 1: has been assembled to try and oppose him, the people
Speaker 1: that they're offering up and Joe Biden is He calls
Speaker 1: Trump a clown, which I think is so funny. Psychologists
Speaker 1: would call that projection. I mean, Joe Biden is a clown.
Speaker 1: There's nothing about Joe Biden that is impressive. There's nothing
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden that makes you think, Wow, this is
Speaker 1: somebody that I would want to have on my debate team,
Speaker 1: or have my back in a bar fight, or you know,
Speaker 1: you name it, performing surgery on me, writing a speech
Speaker 1: for me. Joe Biden is a man who's only talent
Speaker 1: is advancing the career prospects in political office of Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and beyond that, he's quite a weird guy. They've
Speaker 1: tried to tell us for a long time, and you know,
Speaker 1: he's the primary competitor Trump right now. They've tried to
Speaker 1: tell us for a long time that he's so kind
Speaker 1: of charming and oh, you know, Joe is a great
Speaker 1: guy because of this and that, and he's so funny
Speaker 1: and he's like your crazy uncle with the No, that's
Speaker 1: the spin, that's the storyline that they want you too,
Speaker 1: except they want you to believe, but it's not rooted
Speaker 1: in reality. He's a weird guy. And as they look
Speaker 1: more into some of his dealings in the past than
Speaker 1: I think some of his family dealings, some of what
Speaker 1: he has done for his own family members used his
Speaker 1: office to their benefit. It's going to get very hard
Speaker 1: to get past the whiff of corruption and self dealing
Speaker 1: from the Biden clan. But I saw this over the weekend.
Speaker 1: This I had never seen this video before. If Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: This is from two thousand and seven, So this isn't
Speaker 1: some thirty year old clip that we dredged up for you.
Speaker 1: This is from two thousand and seven. This is the
Speaker 1: Democrat front runner for the presidency in twenty twenty. Who
Speaker 1: is just He's just going to tell you about what
Speaker 1: he spent his summer doing. And I think you need
Speaker 1: to hear this for yourself. Play clip five Joe Biden summer.
Speaker 1: There's neglect in the part of the medical and the
Speaker 1: white community focusing on educating the minority community out there.
Speaker 1: I spent last summer going through the black sections of
Speaker 1: my town, holding rallies in parks, trying to get black
Speaker 1: men to understand is not unmanly to wear a condom,
Speaker 1: getting women understand they can say no, getting people in
Speaker 1: the position where testing matters. I got tested for age.
Speaker 1: I know Barack got tested for age. There's no shame
Speaker 1: in being testifage. It's an important thing because the fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is in the community and the community's
Speaker 1: engaged in denial. They're engaged in denial. No one wants
Speaker 1: to talk about it in the community, and we do
Speaker 1: not have enough leaders in the community and outside the
Speaker 1: community demanding we face the reality, confront the men in
Speaker 1: the community as well as the women, letting them know
Speaker 1: there are alternatives. Thank you. Joe Biden claims there, all right,
Speaker 1: I'm you heard it. I'm not I'm not getting creative
Speaker 1: here with with some transcript or. Joe Biden claims back
Speaker 1: in two thousand and seven that he was quote going
Speaker 1: through the black sections of my town trying to get
Speaker 1: black men to understand it's not unmanly to wear a condom.
Speaker 1: What what the heck is like? What is wow? This
Speaker 1: is Joe Biden though when he's not doing this, which
Speaker 1: I understand he's talking about maybe trying to do, you know,
Speaker 1: HIV prevention or something, but just the way that he
Speaker 1: discusses these issues, the way that he holds himself up
Speaker 1: as somebody that can just relate to anybody. No, he's
Speaker 1: a weird guy. He is a weird guy doing weird stuff.
Speaker 1: There's the sniffing and the grabbing and the kind of
Speaker 1: gropy grope stuff too. This is the best the Democrats
Speaker 1: have to offer. This is what they've got. I think
Speaker 1: some of them are. And I bring this up to
Speaker 1: because after those job numbers last week, job creation was
Speaker 1: huge and way exceeded expectations and just the overall positive
Speaker 1: trajectory of the American economy and I think American in
Speaker 1: many ways, American day to day life. I mean, there
Speaker 1: isn't optimism. You can convince yourself, there's no optimism. You
Speaker 1: can convince yourself that Putin is running this country, that
Speaker 1: Trump stole the election, that Trump is a member of
Speaker 1: the KKK. I mean, you can be a delusional, you know,
Speaker 1: freak if you want. I mean, you can be a weirdo.
Speaker 1: You can. And a lot of Democrats have done that.
Speaker 1: They've they've convinced themselves that there's an alternate reality that
Speaker 1: we're all living in. You know, it's like this is
Speaker 1: the Matrix, except instead of Agent Smith, there's just Trump's
Speaker 1: running around everywhere. Or they can deal with what's really happening,
Speaker 1: which is that the country's doing pretty well. There's still
Speaker 1: tons of challenges and all that. I'm not saying. I mean,
Speaker 1: the border drives me nuts right now, but you'll see
Speaker 1: that the Obama administration head of Border Patrol, Trump is
Speaker 1: not putting him forward to be running running ice. We
Speaker 1: had him, producer, Mike, Do we have him on the
Speaker 1: show recently? I know I interviewed him for Rising. I
Speaker 1: can't always remember which show I did the interview on
Speaker 1: m But he's very strong on the border. So they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna deal with that issue. But Joe Biden
Speaker 1: doesn't even really think he's going to make the country
Speaker 1: a better, happier, safer, more prosperous place based on what
Speaker 1: you know, based on his I mean, just unbelievable, an
Speaker 1: unashamed pandering that he will do to people. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a guy who is He's the quintessential tell
Speaker 1: you what you want to hear politician say one thing
Speaker 1: to one group, another thing to another group, does not
Speaker 1: care how how slimy it all is just just just
Speaker 1: peddling nonsense to people as long as it benefits him.
Speaker 1: You know, he's he's running around saying, you know, he
Speaker 1: does do very well with the minority community so far
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party. I have asked friends of mine
Speaker 1: who are Democratic strategists who are African American, like, why
Speaker 1: do they like Joe Biden so much? Why does the
Speaker 1: black community support but they support Biden over Corey Booker
Speaker 1: over Kamala Harris. Now I'm somebody who's an advocate for
Speaker 1: you support people based on who they are and what
Speaker 1: they believe, not the color of their skin. But if
Speaker 1: you're a party, as a Democratic Party, is that is
Speaker 1: so rooted in identity politics, wouldn't you think that the
Speaker 1: African American community would say, well, you know, we've got
Speaker 1: a black man and a black woman who are both
Speaker 1: running for president, there'd be a greater support. No, they like,
Speaker 1: they like, They prefer not everyone, but the majority numbers
Speaker 1: show they prefer Joe Biden, and it's because of his
Speaker 1: association with Barack Obama. It's because there's a sense that
Speaker 1: a Biden presidency might be a return to the Obama years,
Speaker 1: which I don't even think it's true. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Biden is anywhere near the political force that Obama was.
Speaker 1: It's not even the same conversation. It's really none in
Speaker 1: the same category. But you can tell Biden's trying to
Speaker 1: get a little bit of a steam goat. He's trying
Speaker 1: to get a wind at at his back. By I
Speaker 1: guess if you're using steam, you wouldn't be using wind.
Speaker 1: But you know what I mean saying things like this
Speaker 1: playlot four. Speaking of dignity, it means we have to
Speaker 1: protect which does not happening now. The single most important
Speaker 1: right you have as an American the right to vote,
Speaker 1: the right to vote in folks. Last year, twenty four
Speaker 1: states introduced or an active at least seventy bills took
Speaker 1: curtail the right to vote, and guess what mostly directed
Speaker 1: at quote people of color. You see it, We got
Speaker 1: Jim crow sneaking back in. No, I mean it's all
Speaker 1: a cup. Why Why because they know you saw it
Speaker 1: in North Carolina, you saw what happened in Georgia, Oh
Speaker 1: what happened in Florida. Why because you know, if everybody
Speaker 1: has nickel right to vote, guess what they lose? They lose.
Speaker 1: He's kind of a moron, you know, I really and
Speaker 1: I don't like to throw that terminology around, but he's
Speaker 1: really not a very smart guy. He's just he's been
Speaker 1: listening to the tape, so to speak, for a long time.
Speaker 1: He knows what he's expected to say in different category
Speaker 1: at different situations. And but really not a bright individual
Speaker 1: from what I see and what I hear. And I
Speaker 1: mean to say that Jim Crowe is sneaking back in
Speaker 1: is such a reckless and dishonest thing for a prominent
Speaker 1: member of the Democratic Party to say. But he knows
Speaker 1: that if he especially in states like North Carolina, and
Speaker 1: you know, he knows if and Georgia, if he can
Speaker 1: convince the African American community that he is their biggest advocate.
Speaker 1: That's an enormous advantage over the rest of the field.
Speaker 1: So he'll just say whatever he has to say. But
Speaker 1: that's what you get with Joe Biden. There is no
Speaker 1: political core, there is no particular belief system. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: believes in Joe Biden, and Democrats who are honest know
Speaker 1: this and know that that's probably not going to be
Speaker 1: enough in an era of Trump not just presiding over
Speaker 1: a very successful economy, but also being able to take
Speaker 1: the fight to his opponents himself not have to worry
Speaker 1: about a mainstream media filter deciding, you know, when he
Speaker 1: can talk and who he can talk to and how
Speaker 1: he can say things. You know, Biden's come up with
Speaker 1: clown as a nickname. He wants to play the nickname
Speaker 1: game with Trump. Oh man, this is this is gonna
Speaker 1: look like the varsity against the freshman team. He's really
Speaker 1: going to get into a name calling contest with Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, Joe Biden telling you folks, you know, I've
Speaker 1: been saying it all along. He is I do not
Speaker 1: think he's going to be the nominee, and he's gonna
Speaker 1: flame out here. People are gonna realize he just doesn't
Speaker 1: have it. And what's amazing is the Democrats. For two years,
Speaker 1: I've been telling us that Trump is a trader, He's
Speaker 1: the worst and all this stuff. Who are they offering
Speaker 1: up to replace him, Joe Biden? They can't be serious.
Speaker 1: I guess they are, but it's ridiculous. All Right, we
Speaker 1: got a lot more. I do want to talk to
Speaker 1: you all about the some of the big national security
Speaker 1: stories today. I feel like there's there's some trouble brewing
Speaker 1: outside of just the military response that Israel had for
Speaker 1: the terrorist attacks from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jiha. But
Speaker 1: you know Iran, We've got a carrier group on the
Speaker 1: way right now. I'm been tasked to have a show
Speaker 1: of force to the Iranians and obviously Venezuela, there's still
Speaker 1: that fight for power and fight for supremacy in Caracas.
Speaker 1: So we'll get into that quite a bit and talk
Speaker 1: about some of the other Democrats in the field right now.
Speaker 1: It's one of these days where there's a lot of
Speaker 1: different stories, a lot of threads we have to pull together.
Speaker 1: There's not one mega story today, but I kind of
Speaker 1: like that because we can cover a lot of grounds.
Speaker 1: So we'll be back the more. My one question is
Speaker 1: was it like that working for other politicians? You've worked
Speaker 1: for politicians. I've definitely worked for politicians. They insists, insist
Speaker 1: on slavery. Come on, it's so to a woman of
Speaker 1: color here. I mean, I'm serious. I think some washers
Speaker 1: are tiously bad to people, and they do humiliate there.
Speaker 1: I mean bad to be the humiliar people still very
Speaker 1: short of slavery. Lyndon Johnson was an awful man. He
Speaker 1: did cheat them my slaves. And the fact is it
Speaker 1: didn't get it. We didn't hear about it till later.
Speaker 1: Chris Matthews is an idiot. Yeah, what what is NBC doing? Well?
Speaker 1: Why is this guy someone that we have to listen
Speaker 1: to talk about politics or anything else? I good credit
Speaker 1: that that. The panelist there was Juanita Tolliver, who does
Speaker 1: arise you with me a lot. She's a Democrat. I'm
Speaker 1: actually very fond of one Nita. She's really nice and
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of fun um. But good
Speaker 1: for her. What are you What are you saying working
Speaker 1: on a political campaign is like slavery? I mean, if
Speaker 1: he said at once, and he was trying to say
Speaker 1: it with a rhetorical flourish, I guess, but he really
Speaker 1: drilled down it like flavor. It's like flavor. This is
Speaker 1: one of one of the problems in this town is
Speaker 1: that you have, I mean in the swamp here, you
Speaker 1: have this, uh, this hierarchy of morons that we have
Speaker 1: to listen to about politics and about America, and if
Speaker 1: you question it, you're told that you know there must
Speaker 1: be something wrong with you. Meanwill no, no person who
Speaker 1: knows anything thinks that Chris Matthews knows anything. And yet
Speaker 1: he's a multi millionaire who does his show on MSNBC
Speaker 1: and blah blah blah. But Democrats have, uh, there's a
Speaker 1: there's a lack of Democrat mojo right now. There's a
Speaker 1: lack of a sense of purpose because they can't just
Speaker 1: keep talking about impeachment every day because they know that
Speaker 1: ultimately they just want to they want to get to impeachment,
Speaker 1: but they don't have what they need yet and I
Speaker 1: don't think they ever gonna get it. They are all
Speaker 1: fired up about Mueller testifying. Muther's not going to testify
Speaker 1: for at least I think it's two or three weeks now,
Speaker 1: and Trump has said he doesn't want up too. I
Speaker 1: think Mueller is going to testify, so maybe that's a
Speaker 1: good place for us to transition the discussion here in
Speaker 1: just a moment, I think Mueller will testifying. It won't
Speaker 1: be nearly as exciting for Democrats as they want it
Speaker 1: to be. But there is a story that he just
Speaker 1: broke on Fox about leaks from the intel community to
Speaker 1: the media to get Trump. What's going on here? We've
Speaker 1: got that in more coming up. Team, stay right there.
Speaker 1: For a few weeks now, I've been reminding you that
Speaker 1: Mother's Day is fast approaching. Now it's just days away.
Speaker 1: So what one hundred Flowers is here to pick out
Speaker 1: a gorgeous bouquet for you that'll show her she's loved.
Speaker 1: One eight hundred Flowers still has amazing offers on beautiful
Speaker 1: Mother's Day bouquets and arrangements starting at twenty nine ninety nine.
Speaker 1: Now that's an offer that mom would approve of. There's
Speaker 1: still time to have your bouquet delivered on Mother's Day,
Speaker 1: but she've got to get moving with an amazing selection
Speaker 1: of sweet streets and bouquets. One hundred Flowers has everything
Speaker 1: you need for Mother's Day, and she'll never guess how
Speaker 1: great of a last minute deal. You scored. Mother's Day
Speaker 1: bouquets and arrangement starting at twenty nine ninety nine is
Speaker 1: an amazing offer, but you have to order today. Trust
Speaker 1: one hundred flowers to make mom feel loved. Order today
Speaker 1: from one hundred flowers dot com to order beautiful and
Speaker 1: vibrant Mother's Day bouquet is starting at twenty nine ninety nine.
Speaker 1: Go to one eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's one eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck. Mother's
Speaker 1: Day is Sunday, so order today and save at one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck. He's holding the
Speaker 1: line for America. Buck sex in his back. I do
Speaker 1: want to talk to you all about this story I
Speaker 1: just broke on Fox and as I just see that
Speaker 1: indicates their may have been some oh what, it's some
Speaker 1: deep state actors who leaked as according to some struck
Speaker 1: page text messages suggesting that the Intel agencies leaked on
Speaker 1: the Russia case. Of course they did. I mean that
Speaker 1: the Intel agencies had a bunch of anti Trump, anti
Speaker 1: Trump zealots who were using the zealously anti Trump media
Speaker 1: to try to take down this president. But just as
Speaker 1: to hold that for one second. Something else we're going
Speaker 1: to discuss today on the program is how progressives are nasty,
Speaker 1: not all of them, but progressive ideology in this country
Speaker 1: has really jumped the shark and is often incredibly vitriolic
Speaker 1: ad hominem and meant to make people feel bad about themselves,
Speaker 1: meant to just go at the individual, not at their ideas,
Speaker 1: because it is one it's the product of a lot
Speaker 1: of brainwashing and cultural reinforcement from the perspective of all
Speaker 1: these petty totalitarians that find them self drawn to progressivism,
Speaker 1: so that that's one competent of it. And also they
Speaker 1: don't have the emotional strength and and honestly the sense
Speaker 1: of decency to just make it about the ideas. They
Speaker 1: often go after people here is alan Well, the there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a few examples of this in the show today. Alabama,
Speaker 1: Alabama Democrat John Rogers talking about the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, son, and you need to hear this play
Speaker 1: the one earlier today, Donald Trump Junior condemned your comments.
Speaker 1: Do you ever sponsor to that? Son? Hey, that's an
Speaker 1: honor from you, Thank god. Right on, that's been no right,
Speaker 1: because no, no, he'd be right old, since he'd be here.
Speaker 1: That proved the right to the biggest seat by the boys.
Speaker 1: Him being born, there's proved the right. That's a very
Speaker 1: big defeat. I am for a boy to ready to
Speaker 1: him looking him. Wanted you wanted you to the born
Speaker 1: to him when he was born, But hell are you
Speaker 1: want to made a stupid statement? Right? He means see
Speaker 1: the hill of him. Didn't they could aborted him, but
Speaker 1: they means see to keep it because he's really retarded,
Speaker 1: crazy he should Hey, that's a that's a best that
Speaker 1: guy from one posts you're ready and looking at him.
Speaker 1: There's an elected Democrat official in the state of Alabama
Speaker 1: representing the people of Alabama saying that Donald Trump Junior
Speaker 1: is the very best defense he could think of for
Speaker 1: the right to an abortion because he should have been aborted,
Speaker 1: and then went on to call him quote retarded. Do
Speaker 1: you think that this is going to lead the broadcast
Speaker 1: at MSNBC tonight and they say, whoa John Rodgers, Alabama
Speaker 1: can't do that. I can't say this stuff, man. That's
Speaker 1: it's a political ideology without decency, without a moral core.
Speaker 1: It is statism and lust for power dressed up in
Speaker 1: a whole lot of fancy, fancy language about caring about
Speaker 1: the poor and the oppressed, but really doesn't care about
Speaker 1: anything other than the lust for power, certainly doesn't enforce
Speaker 1: any norms of civility or decency. And just remember that
Speaker 1: the next time they oh, Trump's tweet was so mean. Really,
Speaker 1: you got an elected official referring to the president's son
Speaker 1: as retarded and saying that he is a defense for
Speaker 1: the right to an abortion because he should have been aborted.
Speaker 1: I mean, one of the dumbest things. But there are
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrat politicians who say just shockingly stupid
Speaker 1: things and do not get called and not just stupid, immoral,
Speaker 1: heinous things. I mentioned this switching gears. I mentioned this
Speaker 1: Fox News story. Struck page text suggests Intel agencies leaked
Speaker 1: on Russia case. According to some centers and the GOP,
Speaker 1: here's what they say. Republican congresional leaders are calling for
Speaker 1: new investigation of media leaks surrounding the Russia investigation, possibly
Speaker 1: emanating from the intelligence community, pointing to internal text messages
Speaker 1: they say indicate a more widespread problem. These texts and
Speaker 1: emails demonstrate the need to investigate leaks from agencies or entities.
Speaker 1: Other than the FBI, according to Senate Homeland Security Committee
Speaker 1: Chairman Ron Johnson. So here's what I see happening. There
Speaker 1: are going to be people that are in a whole
Speaker 1: heap of trouble if Bill Barr is able to do
Speaker 1: his job here, and I think he will do his
Speaker 1: job and track down communications between former heads of the
Speaker 1: Director of National for the former Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 1: the former head of the CIA, the former FBI director.
Speaker 1: These are people who never ever should have been going
Speaker 1: on TV trading on their classified access. The whole point
Speaker 1: of there being on TV was that was not just
Speaker 1: the perception that they had secret knowledge about TROMP and Russia,
Speaker 1: but that they were directly involved in it. Now, I
Speaker 1: never would have, from my time at CIA, gone on
Speaker 1: television to talk about highly sensitive work that the intelligence
Speaker 1: community was doing on issues that I covered there. You
Speaker 1: can speak about things in a broad policy sense, and
Speaker 1: you know that those are usually the kinds of conversations
Speaker 1: you have on TV. But Clapper and Brennan and come
Speaker 1: and these these paid left wing hills doing all the
Speaker 1: kind of demagoguery and shameless pandering to the left that
Speaker 1: they were doing on television on a regular basis. The
Speaker 1: reason that they were going on TV was that they
Speaker 1: they were the ones who created the Russia collusion narrative
Speaker 1: while they were in government, and then their presence on
Speaker 1: these TV shows was used as a kind of justification
Speaker 1: for the continued belief in the Russia collusion narrative. Does
Speaker 1: any person really think that John Brennan or James Clapper
Speaker 1: weren't in some way involved in being sources for the
Speaker 1: stories that were broken at places like NBC and CNN.
Speaker 1: And does anyone think that it's a coincidence that James
Speaker 1: Comey briefs Donald Trump on this dossier doesn't say that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and the DNC paid for it. Isn't that
Speaker 1: an interesting detail to leave out? Brief some on the dossier,
Speaker 1: and then Tapper, one of the most sanctimonious and self
Speaker 1: aggrandizing jerks in the entire world of journalism, you know,
Speaker 1: CNN Brayton starts reporting on the how the dossier has
Speaker 1: been briefed. There weren't a lot of people in the room, folks.
Speaker 1: There were some very bad actors here. There were there
Speaker 1: were individuals who betrayed their oaths, who betrayed the loyalty
Speaker 1: they're supposed to show to the United States government to
Speaker 1: be partisan hacks for a paycheck in the media, and
Speaker 1: they did a tremendous disservice the intelligence community, and they
Speaker 1: did a lot of damage to in the case of
Speaker 1: comy law enforcing community. And I'm i am very confident
Speaker 1: that they will find out that there were criminal leagues here. Specifically,
Speaker 1: what comes up in these text messages quote, these text
Speaker 1: and emails raise a number of serious questions and concerns.
Speaker 1: For example, who are the sisters and what does it
Speaker 1: mean to say the sisters have been leaking like mad?
Speaker 1: What are they worried about? And what are they kicking
Speaker 1: into overdrive? Which agency is he referring to? And why
Speaker 1: does Struck believe the reference news articles highlights the agency
Speaker 1: as a source of the leaks. They're digging into these
Speaker 1: tech messages between Struck and Page and they're finding stuff
Speaker 1: that I'm telling you the Democrats are going to want
Speaker 1: to hide. They're finding stuff that Democrats aren't going to
Speaker 1: want to see the light of day. And get ready
Speaker 1: for a lot of kicking and screaming over this, because
Speaker 1: once you start finding people who are leakers, then you
Speaker 1: know what the question turns into. Why shouldn't we prosecute
Speaker 1: these people. Why should George Papadoppolus face prison time for
Speaker 1: an unimportant non lie. But these people breaking their oaths
Speaker 1: and sharing classify with the media, they would just get
Speaker 1: away with it. I don't think so that's not going
Speaker 1: to fly. I got more on this and so much
Speaker 1: more Team stay with me. So many of the solutions
Speaker 1: I believe we're going to come from our communities, communities
Speaker 1: like the one where I grew up, which is an
Speaker 1: industrial Midwestern city that is exactly the kind of place
Speaker 1: that our current president targeted with a message saying that
Speaker 1: we could find greatness by just stopping the clock and
Speaker 1: turning it back and making America great again. When that passed,
Speaker 1: that he is promising to return us to was never
Speaker 1: as great as advertised, especially for marginalized Americans, and there's
Speaker 1: no going back anyway. They have Mayor Pete who's now
Speaker 1: become a darling of the left. He's one of the
Speaker 1: top four candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination, I think
Speaker 1: maybe top five. Top four. Mayor Pete from South Bend,
Speaker 1: a city that I'm surprised to have found out it
Speaker 1: has a very high crime rate per capita violent crime
Speaker 1: rate does not speak well to Mayor Pete's management skills
Speaker 1: as the chief executive of the City of South Bend, Indiana.
Speaker 1: But he's saying that we're never going to return that
Speaker 1: the past that Trump wants to return to is not
Speaker 1: that great, and you know, and it wouldn't be possible
Speaker 1: to turn out clock anyway. I just think it's so
Speaker 1: interesting Democrats just culturally, emotionally, and really instinctively take a
Speaker 1: more negative view of America than Republicans. Do you see
Speaker 1: this time and again Democrats derive strength from thinking that
Speaker 1: they are better than America and need to fix it,
Speaker 1: whereas Republicans tend to drive strength and a sense of
Speaker 1: pride just from being America. You know, Patriotism on the
Speaker 1: right is America is the most wonderful, free, incredible country
Speaker 1: in the history of the world. Patriotism on the left
Speaker 1: is more. Yeah, America is really powerful and great, but
Speaker 1: it's not that great, and there's a lot of problems,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of history we still have to confront.
Speaker 1: And it's only going to be good if progressives are
Speaker 1: in charge, and if the left has its way and
Speaker 1: we become socialist and you know, it takes this turn
Speaker 1: very quickly. Whereas what Trump to me, at least when
Speaker 1: Trump says make America great again, but he's just saying
Speaker 1: is a return to and obviously one of the most
Speaker 1: incredible political slogans of all time in the power that
Speaker 1: it wielded, in how successful it was. But a return
Speaker 1: to that core Republican belief that this country that when
Speaker 1: the American people are free to pursue their destiny, when
Speaker 1: they don't have the boot of government on their hand
Speaker 1: or on their neck, why when you are free to
Speaker 1: express your pride and love for this country and to
Speaker 1: view yourself as an American as different from people from
Speaker 1: the rest of the world, your obligations to this community
Speaker 1: as different, your future as inherently whined with this country
Speaker 1: in a way that non Americans it's not the case.
Speaker 1: Just a recalibration of thinking about what it is to
Speaker 1: be a patriotic American back to a more traditionally you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, people say, well buck, when when is the
Speaker 1: marketing back to I don't think Trump is saying we
Speaker 1: want to make this country, we want to party like
Speaker 1: at seventeen ninety nine. He's saying, wouldn't that be an
Speaker 1: interesting party, like it's seventeen ninety nine. But what he's
Speaker 1: saying is, you know, people a little bit more like
Speaker 1: it was under the era of Reagan, I think, where
Speaker 1: you know, we were confronting the evil Empire, and we
Speaker 1: had this sense of purpose and love of country that
Speaker 1: was rooted in the fact that you know, we are
Speaker 1: We're not perfect, but we're the good guys. Under the
Speaker 1: Obama administration wasn't always clear that we were the good guys, folks.
Speaker 1: Obama's position was, you know, the real good guys are
Speaker 1: the United Nations. You know, the real good guys are
Speaker 1: the international community. We can we can sometimes be a
Speaker 1: good guy, but sometimes we're America. We're a bad guy.
Speaker 1: That's a different friend. There's there's a philosophical separation, an
Speaker 1: important fundamental philosophical separation between the Democrats view America in
Speaker 1: the world and in history, and then we Republicans doing
Speaker 1: the right and the left and conservatives and liberals and
Speaker 1: you know, these are these are real conceptual distinctions. And
Speaker 1: so Trump takes the perspective of, you know, we need
Speaker 1: to understand how great this country is and try to
Speaker 1: promote the aspects of a try to try to free
Speaker 1: it up to pursue its destiny of continued greatness. Whereas
Speaker 1: you know, may or Pete say, oh, he wants to
Speaker 1: take us back to time when it was bad for minorities.
Speaker 1: Let me just note that, you know, minority communities, I
Speaker 1: don't just mean ethnic moundities, I mean minorities of any kind.
Speaker 1: In any country, there there's always at tension there, there
Speaker 1: are always problems historically with the way that minorities are
Speaker 1: treated by and fit into the broader state. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as as perfection with this, and
Speaker 1: no one has ever gotten entirely right. You know, America
Speaker 1: today is in so many ways, and progressives would scoff
Speaker 1: at this, but the fact that this country gets along
Speaker 1: as well as it does with itself and you know,
Speaker 1: with each other within this nation, with all of the
Speaker 1: incredible array of differences in groups and individuals and everything
Speaker 1: that we have, is really just a testament to the
Speaker 1: greatness of America. But because it's it's imperfect, there's a
Speaker 1: focus on down talking America, you know, saying, you know,
Speaker 1: we haven't done enough. And this victim narrative you get
Speaker 1: from so many people is it's far too prevalence speaking
Speaker 1: of the victim narrative, I just you know Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: who is still a very viable Democrat Canada. I think
Speaker 1: that she's gonna have a breakout here in the next
Speaker 1: few months, not because she's so great, just because it's
Speaker 1: kind of a default situation, right. They need to find
Speaker 1: somebody who gets the left wing base excited and off,
Speaker 1: but also is enough of an establishment player with a
Speaker 1: high enough profile. And she just she checks off the boxes.
Speaker 1: But it will later on we'll talk about Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: still says that the election was stolen from her, which
Speaker 1: is I thought that was undermining democracy. To say these
Speaker 1: things when they were worried about Trump doing it was
Speaker 1: undermining democracy. Hillary can just say it, but Kamala and
Speaker 1: the Democrats will cover for her. Of course. Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: also likes to go to a talking point here that
Speaker 1: you know, I wonder what the basis in reality for
Speaker 1: it is voter suppression. She talks talking about voter suppression.
Speaker 1: Playclip three. Let's say this loud and clear. Without voters suppression,
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrams would be the governor of Georgia. Andrew Gillham
Speaker 1: is the governor of Florida. So the truth is we
Speaker 1: need a new voting rights at Let's say that this
Speaker 1: is just intellectually dishonest, absolutely dishonest. This is lying to
Speaker 1: people about the scope of a problem and then saying
Speaker 1: you want to solve it without having a real solution
Speaker 1: to mind. A new voting rights act that would say
Speaker 1: what you can't You can't purge dead people and people
Speaker 1: that move from voter rules. You can't have voter ide
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court's already rual voter idea is constitutional. The
Speaker 1: left can try to fight this as much as they want.
Speaker 1: Voter at voter ID, voters having ID to vote is constitutional.
Speaker 1: She's claiming voter suppression, saying Stacey Abrams would would have
Speaker 1: wont her like she's saying it was stolen from Stacey Abrams.
Speaker 1: Is not true. There's no real case to be made
Speaker 1: that it was stolen from her. They may not like
Speaker 1: the rules, but the rules are the rules. But this
Speaker 1: is what you do to get the left wing bas excited.
Speaker 1: Lie to them, tell them what they want to hear.
Speaker 1: Say that there was voter suppression. Do you have any proof? No?
Speaker 1: But who needs proof? When you can just get people
Speaker 1: really upset about something? Who needs proof? When you'll rally
Speaker 1: the left wing base with claims of a voter suppression.
Speaker 1: Of course, voter suppression of minorities. That's always the subtext here.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they're explicit about it. A new Voting Rights Act.
Speaker 1: What would it say exactly that laws that are applicable
Speaker 1: across the board for people like voter ID they don't
Speaker 1: count because certain communities don't like them to count. I mean,
Speaker 1: what what is it going to say? But the lie
Speaker 1: is comforting that there's voters suppression. Well, the degree of voting,
Speaker 1: including with the minority communities in these elections is there
Speaker 1: are all time highs. Voting is way up. Overall voting
Speaker 1: is if people are trying to suppress the vote in Georgia,
Speaker 1: they did a terrible job because they're voting. We're voting.
Speaker 1: Was that a record for an offseason cycle? So again,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are just making stuff up as they go along.
Speaker 1: But that's what their base wants to hear, so that's
Speaker 1: what they do. These guys are bound and determined to
Speaker 1: go after the attorney general, to go after President Trump,
Speaker 1: and not going to focus on what we need to
Speaker 1: do to help the country. So I think they're nervous
Speaker 1: about Bill bark because remember what he said three weeks
Speaker 1: ago in front of the the Senate Finance commit He made
Speaker 1: four important points. First of all, he said spying did
Speaker 1: in fact take place. Second, he said there is a
Speaker 1: basis for his concern that the spying wasn't properly predicated. Third,
Speaker 1: he said there was a failure of leadership at the
Speaker 1: upper echelon of the FBI. We know that's for sure
Speaker 1: a comey McKay baker struck page. We know there was
Speaker 1: a fare of leadership there. And then fourth, he used
Speaker 1: two terms that I've never really heard before, and my
Speaker 1: guess is most Americans haven't. He used the term unauthorized surveillance,
Speaker 1: and he used the term political surveillance. So the Democrats
Speaker 1: are scared, and frankly, I think when we're talking about
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice, the real obstruction of justice is what
Speaker 1: Democrats are trying to do to the Attorney general. They're
Speaker 1: trying to stop him by all these things that's contempt
Speaker 1: and not having him come testify. They're trying to stop
Speaker 1: him from getting the answers that we just talked to me.
Speaker 1: You know, when you're taking a lot of flak, you're
Speaker 1: above the target and Attorney General bar drives liberals completely insane,
Speaker 1: not because he's hijacked the narrative of the Mulla Report
Speaker 1: and all this other stuff, but because he is a
Speaker 1: pro and he's going to get answers and their answers
Speaker 1: that the left doesn't want to hear. They don't want
Speaker 1: to know about this, that I want to hear about this.
Speaker 1: The origins of the Russia collusion fantasy are going to
Speaker 1: look very very bad. We will see, I mean, I
Speaker 1: am certain that we will see that the deep state
Speaker 1: was very real, That Komy and Struck and Page and
Speaker 1: Brennan and Clapper, that these individuals, Sally Yates, these individuals
Speaker 1: cook this whole thing up, showed incredibly bad judgment, incredibly
Speaker 1: bad faith, and tried to stop Trump from becoming president,
Speaker 1: and then tried to destroy him when he was president
Speaker 1: and in the transition process too, using the powers of
Speaker 1: their public offices to do So, that's what we're going
Speaker 1: to find out. That no serious, credible human being could
Speaker 1: have really thought that George Papadopolis really knew about Russian
Speaker 1: hacking of Hillary Clinton's personal emails, when that wasn't even
Speaker 1: what they ended up doing anyway. But that was what
Speaker 1: the storyline was. Andy McCarthy is a great piece of
Speaker 1: National View for the weekend about this that the whole
Speaker 1: FBI story that we've been told this far, about how
Speaker 1: Papadopolis came on their radar, what was thought doesn't add up,
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. They're they're lying. One thing I
Speaker 1: find is so interesting is that I know, if you
Speaker 1: lie to the FBI, you get a prison if the
Speaker 1: FBI as an FBI you know, senior official. If you
Speaker 1: lie to the American people, apparently that happens to you.
Speaker 1: If you work within the FBI and you are dishonest
Speaker 1: with what happened, you do not face any consequences of
Speaker 1: any kind. Maybe you'll get maybe you'll get fired if
Speaker 1: you're Andy McCabe, who should face criminal prosecutions. It's worse
Speaker 1: than that. Devin Newness is also on this issue. I mean,
Speaker 1: he has not forgotten. And you know they remember when
Speaker 1: they were completely demonizing Newness. I mean, they hated Newness
Speaker 1: for a while. But Devin Newness was someone who early
Speaker 1: on recognized that there was a whole other component to
Speaker 1: this Russia Gate spy story, and he wants to know
Speaker 1: how many human assets were run against the Trump campaign
Speaker 1: and under what auspices and what the justification was play
Speaker 1: Cliff ten, I'm not worried about whether or not they
Speaker 1: were spying on the Trump campaign. That is fact. What
Speaker 1: I want to know is how many spies with an
Speaker 1: S were involved in this. We have to get to
Speaker 1: the bottom of this. All this information needs to come out.
Speaker 1: It does need to come out. And the reason that
Speaker 1: you've seen such a ferocity of criticism against Attorney General
Speaker 1: bar is they know that they have to undermine him
Speaker 1: before he can even get going. I mean they have
Speaker 1: to destroy Their best play is to destroy his credibility
Speaker 1: with as many people as a ken. They'll never destroy
Speaker 1: with you and me, because we know the Bars bars
Speaker 1: a stunt. That guy's a badass. He is, and everyone
Speaker 1: I speak to you in DJ says he is such
Speaker 1: a common presence there because he knows all the games
Speaker 1: the pathetic Democrats are going to play. He knows all
Speaker 1: the lies and the misdirection that the mainstream media a
Speaker 1: little Democrat Aaron boys and girls for the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: in the mainstream media. He knows what they're gonna do,
Speaker 1: their stories, what they're gonna say, and he's just gonna
Speaker 1: stay on this. He knows that when we finally get
Speaker 1: the information about what happened with this Russia collusion investigation,
Speaker 1: it's gonna look very bad, not just for the people
Speaker 1: who were the deep state operators, if you will, the
Speaker 1: Komis and the mccaves and the Strucks, and but it's
Speaker 1: gonna look very bad for the Obama administration. And that's
Speaker 1: the that's the true sacred cow for the left right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, they have this whole story, this whole theory
Speaker 1: and belief that Obama was scandal free, that Obama's eight
Speaker 1: years were marked with just such tremendous progress in America,
Speaker 1: and it was also wonderful in the politics, where it's
Speaker 1: such a different tone. And meanwhile, I mean, the economy
Speaker 1: was took forever to recover from the recession because of
Speaker 1: Obama's policies. You had race riots in major American cities,
Speaker 1: or the demonization of cops. You had the first US
Speaker 1: ambassador murdered abroad because of just cheer incompetence, because of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton in a Barack Obama, you know a lot.
Speaker 1: You know, does Syria turn into an otter nightmare? A
Speaker 1: half million people die? We went into Libya, to turn
Speaker 1: that into you know, disaster ref disaster. Well, what's the
Speaker 1: big win for the Obama administration Obamacare? Oh, you mean
Speaker 1: really expensive health insurance in the individual market that's not
Speaker 1: very good with limited doctor networks, and I mean that
Speaker 1: that's supposed to be the but they cling to this.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the story. That's what you're that Obama
Speaker 1: was amazing and wonderful. And so even if we can't,
Speaker 1: even if the Democrats can't of Obama running again, something
Speaker 1: someone who is more like Obama is the promise. You know.
Speaker 1: That's why Joe Biden appeals so much just to at
Speaker 1: least a third of whatever or whatever it is the
Speaker 1: twenty five or thirty percent of Democrats now that are
Speaker 1: for Joe Biden because it would be a return to Obama.
Speaker 1: But if we find out that the Obama administration and
Speaker 1: at some level he had to know about this, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying he knew every step of the way. That's
Speaker 1: not how this works. Comey wasn't sending Obama emails every
Speaker 1: day gonna do this, We're gonna put this asset in place.
Speaker 1: But it is it defies belief that someone who is
Speaker 1: as obsessed with cya as James Comey wouldn't have covered
Speaker 1: himself with Obama at some way, in some manner or
Speaker 1: in some way, at some time, there just had to
Speaker 1: be notification that you're you're running human assets against the
Speaker 1: presidential campaign, trying to entrap them, trying to convince them
Speaker 1: to say things to then justify a surveillance trag that
Speaker 1: under counterintelligence auspices. I mean, this is the biggest political
Speaker 1: scandal of my lifetime, and it just shows how dirty
Speaker 1: Democrats willing to play. They're complaining about voter suppression even
Speaker 1: though voting is way up in the places they complain about,
Speaker 1: you know, they complain about stolen elections. They say all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Meanwhile, the real cheating was what the deep
Speaker 1: state did to Trump in the twenty sixteen election. That's
Speaker 1: the real cheating. That's where you see people breaking the rules,
Speaker 1: acting in bad faith, and fighting dirty against their political opponents,
Speaker 1: just fighting very dirty. They hate they hated Newness because
Speaker 1: they knew that they couldn't throw him off target. They
Speaker 1: hate him Jordan because he doesn't wear he doesn't wear
Speaker 1: a suit jacket ever, because you know, he wants to
Speaker 1: take him to the gun show even though you can't
Speaker 1: really see it, I guess under his shirt. But they
Speaker 1: hate him Jordan because he's a fighter. They hate Mark
Speaker 1: Meadows because he wants to get to the truth. But
Speaker 1: they hate Bar more than anybody. You know. They want
Speaker 1: Bar to go the way of Jeff Sessions, where they
Speaker 1: can just mock and ridicule him until he caves, until
Speaker 1: he gives up. That's the plan. That's really what they want.
Speaker 1: They want to push him aside. It's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: I cannot wait until we get one the declassification of
Speaker 1: the documents that Trump has been promising about the Russia
Speaker 1: investigation origins, and then also that Inspector General report. I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be lit. It's gonna be lit. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be a bad day for the deep state, bad
Speaker 1: day for the Democrats, and it's coming. I think it's
Speaker 1: also critical to understand that, as I've been telling candidates
Speaker 1: who have come to see me, you can run the
Speaker 1: best campaign, you can even become the nominee, and you
Speaker 1: can have the election stolen from you, stolen. It was stolen.
Speaker 1: She says. This is something that I don't think we
Speaker 1: should just let slip past. Here. You have the presume
Speaker 1: not just nominee for the Democrats all along for the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election, but they're next presumed president, Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: who is claiming, without evidence, as they like to say
Speaker 1: over the Washington Post, the New York Times whenever they
Speaker 1: talk about Trump, without evidence, the election was stolen from her.
Speaker 1: This is a at a minimum, a massive exaggeration. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a lie based on the decontextualization of the
Speaker 1: Russian interference to be the Russian interference was a blip
Speaker 1: on the radar screen. It barely even registered at all.
Speaker 1: It No serious person believed that it turned the election
Speaker 1: away from Lly Clinton. It was not that close. It
Speaker 1: was not that tight. Hillary maybe should have campaign in Wisconsin.
Speaker 1: Maybe he should have actually run a campaign where there
Speaker 1: was something to vote for other than just I'm Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: so I get to be your president. But she is
Speaker 1: saying that it was stolen from her, and I just
Speaker 1: can't help but recall that the media was at the
Speaker 1: time of the election in twenty sixteen all jumping all
Speaker 1: over Trump saying that he wouldn't accept the election results,
Speaker 1: and now here she is like a crazy person two
Speaker 1: years plus after the election and she doesn't accept the results.
Speaker 1: She does it, she says it was stolen from her.
Speaker 1: As I've been saying for a long time, there is
Speaker 1: a hole in Hillary Clinton's soul, and the only way
Speaker 1: she can fill it as money and power. She's had
Speaker 1: to make so many, let's just say, sacrifices of character
Speaker 1: and decency and honor along the way that she feels
Speaker 1: like the world owes her that top job. And even
Speaker 1: when she had it, I would know it. It's not
Speaker 1: like that would make her a happy person that feels fulfilled.
Speaker 1: I think she does lack a degree of fulfillment. I
Speaker 1: think it's obvious in the way she conducts herself now
Speaker 1: in public life as a post presidential candidate. But speaking
Speaker 1: of post presidential candidates, I also have not forgotten that,
Speaker 1: you know, Bill and Hillary Clinton are doing this this
Speaker 1: this speaking tour the Clintons, and I always forget when
Speaker 1: Chelsea's involved, which you know, I don't know, what does
Speaker 1: Chelsea have to tell people about how to be the
Speaker 1: daughter of a former president and have people throw money
Speaker 1: at you despite you not being throughly good at anything
Speaker 1: and never having to have a real job. She's never
Speaker 1: had a real job. There are other people who are
Speaker 1: famous and then sons or daughters of politicians. You can
Speaker 1: say this about too. I'm not limited to the Chelsea Clinton.
Speaker 1: But Chelsea Clinton has never had a real job, never
Speaker 1: had a job job. Even the job jobs that she's
Speaker 1: had in the past are given to her by virtue
Speaker 1: of who her parents are. And she's never really in
Speaker 1: a position where she has to perform because you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, she just she was on the board of IAC,
Speaker 1: which is a huge media company. It's owned by Barry Dillard.
Speaker 1: She made three hundred thousand dollars a show for six meetings.
Speaker 1: What does she know about a what does she know
Speaker 1: about digital? Nothing? It's just name recognition and just being
Speaker 1: in the Clinton orbit. And these people all take care
Speaker 1: of each other and pay each other off. But I
Speaker 1: remember debating with people at CNN when what feels like
Speaker 1: a different lifetime now I was a CNN contributor. They
Speaker 1: were actually paying me to go on their air and
Speaker 1: try to enlighten their delusional liberal masses about what time
Speaker 1: it really is and what's really going on in the
Speaker 1: world and in America. And I remember there was this
Speaker 1: this outrage, just this just complete outrage at the idea
Speaker 1: that the Clintons were really selling access, and that what
Speaker 1: the market will bear for a Bill Clinton speech isn't
Speaker 1: really how much people need to hear Bill Clinton give
Speaker 1: the same, you know, kind of bloviating, bombastic nonsense speech
Speaker 1: over to it's paying him off so that you maintain
Speaker 1: a relationship and access to his wife, who was going
Speaker 1: to be the next president the United States. They thought
Speaker 1: for eight years, and I would say, this is so obvious,
Speaker 1: and this is why people were donating all this money
Speaker 1: the Clinton Foundation and all along. I had said, and
Speaker 1: you can go back, you can check the tape on radio.
Speaker 1: Check the tape. I had said, Just wait until it's
Speaker 1: clear that Hillary Clinton is not going to be the
Speaker 1: next president the United States, and see what happens to
Speaker 1: the Clinton foundation clinton Foundation donations, and see what happens
Speaker 1: to their speech fees and their live events and how.
Speaker 1: And of course I was right. And all the people
Speaker 1: that were running around saying that Hillard that that was
Speaker 1: crazy and that people just love Bill clinton speeches so
Speaker 1: much they pay him five hundred, six hundred, seven hundred
Speaker 1: grand for a speech. No one makes that for a speeches,
Speaker 1: No such thing. No one's one hour long speech is
Speaker 1: worth half a million dollars You don't have to pay
Speaker 1: anybody a half million dollars to get them to do that. No,
Speaker 1: no one does that in the political world. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe if you're paying, you know, Beyonce to
Speaker 1: show up and play a set or something, they'll pay
Speaker 1: a million dollars for an hour. But even I don't
Speaker 1: think Beyonce would do that. Not enough money. But no
Speaker 1: one does that in the former politician world. It was
Speaker 1: all just a big scheme, folks. It was it was
Speaker 1: all just Clinton corruption. It was selling access or at
Speaker 1: a minimum, the perception of access to the highest offices
Speaker 1: in the highest office in the land. That's what the
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation was all about. That's what those speeches. That's
Speaker 1: how that's how they became fabulously wealthy over one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars without ever creating a product, selling a product,
Speaker 1: you building a business. They were the business. Hanging out
Speaker 1: with the Clintons, having them speak at your events, that
Speaker 1: was the business. And it was only so lucrative and
Speaker 1: only so powerful because Hillary Clinton was going to be
Speaker 1: the next president. I just I haven't let this go.
Speaker 1: And all the people that were donating, especially the foreign
Speaker 1: governments that were donating money to the Clinton Foundation. They
Speaker 1: were just buying access and purchasing favors. That's what they
Speaker 1: thought they were doing. And so the people that are
Speaker 1: now telling us about how we need to go through
Speaker 1: Trump's tax returns, I need to this and then everything,
Speaker 1: they're the same people that are that were running interference
Speaker 1: for the Clintons for all those years, acting like they
Speaker 1: were too stupid to understand what was really going on
Speaker 1: when anybody paying attention knew that the Clintons were just
Speaker 1: they were so rapaciously and unrepentantly greedy. And that's one
Speaker 1: thing that you can always and into. Clintons are just
Speaker 1: they are just such unbelievably self indulgent, money obsessed individuals
Speaker 1: that they couldn't hide what was going on. So they
Speaker 1: needed everybody else around them to come up with these narratives.
Speaker 1: And the media that you know, loved them so much
Speaker 1: and was going to have eight years of access to
Speaker 1: Clinton in the White House, it was all gonna be
Speaker 1: so amazing. They acted like they're a bunch of morons.
Speaker 1: Now they can't even give away tickets to their live events.
Speaker 1: They you know, the donations Clinton Foundation are down like
Speaker 1: fifty percent, maybe more than I would jump falling off
Speaker 1: a cliff, and the people that were pretending that that
Speaker 1: wasn't the case, they act like we're not supposed to
Speaker 1: remember how just shockingly dishonest they were along and how
Speaker 1: just completely and utterly fraudulent their analysis was on this
Speaker 1: because they were just they were trying to do what
Speaker 1: they could to carry water for the Clintons. And now
Speaker 1: we know that that's what was going on. Now we
Speaker 1: know that the corruption the Clintons engagement was so widespread
Speaker 1: and so systematic that it almost overwhelmed our ability to
Speaker 1: comprehend it. You know, this is like you kill you
Speaker 1: kill one person, you're a murderer. You kill a million people,
Speaker 1: you're a conqueror. The Clintons were in terms of corruption
Speaker 1: in the in the million person potty calary, it's just
Speaker 1: so out of control, so widespread, and we just have
Speaker 1: more and more evidence of it coming in all the time,
Speaker 1: and I have not forgotten. I will not just let
Speaker 1: it go that the Clintons, not only that Hillary won't
Speaker 1: accept that she lost the election, which you'll hear more
Speaker 1: and more of that going is that was stolen from her,
Speaker 1: but that she was selling her office and her husband
Speaker 1: was pro fitting off of her office and the perception
Speaker 1: that she was going to be a very powerful individual,
Speaker 1: intellected office. And it's a disgrace. I mean, the Clintons
Speaker 1: are a true disgrace to American politics and I'm never
Speaker 1: going to forget what they've done. Israelis have every right
Speaker 1: to defend themselves. I've seen video that we can't validate
Speaker 1: just yet, but where there have been strikes at homes,
Speaker 1: civilian populations, these rockets were fired with civilians around them
Speaker 1: in order to protect return from return fire. Israel has
Speaker 1: a right to protect itself and that means that there
Speaker 1: are going to be some serious reprisals if Hamas fires
Speaker 1: more massive volleys of rockets. Hamas Palestine and Islamic jihad
Speaker 1: terrorist organizations that do not want to live side by
Speaker 1: side with the State of Israel. They want to eradicate
Speaker 1: the State of Israel. Where is this going now? What
Speaker 1: happens next? We have a friend, David Iffun on the
Speaker 1: line where this. He is the editor in chief of
Speaker 1: the Alga Miner and David, great to have you, as
Speaker 1: always always a pleasure. But all right, first, what created
Speaker 1: this most recent I mean, to the best of your
Speaker 1: knowledge and your sources in Israel what created this most
Speaker 1: recent violent exchange. So, look, the situation that you have
Speaker 1: over there on the ground is that basically Gaza, the
Speaker 1: entire Gada is a tender books. You know, it can
Speaker 1: take off at any time. I mean, there are a
Speaker 1: tend of thousands of advanced missiles are sitting there, and
Speaker 1: basically it's just a question as to whether the leaders
Speaker 1: in Gaza want to switch it on or switch it off.
Speaker 1: So there are two major groups in Gaza that have
Speaker 1: the ability to fire a serious amount of munitions into
Speaker 1: the Jewish State. The leaders are a group called from
Speaker 1: US that payments is a mainly Sunni Islamic states like
Speaker 1: Qatar for example, but there's slightly more independent per se
Speaker 1: and they're objective at this stage, probably has a lot
Speaker 1: more to do with shake down the Israeli government, but
Speaker 1: to be allowing funds into the Gaza strip that they
Speaker 1: can then use and loosening some of the restrictions and
Speaker 1: importing cement or other banned items into the Gaza strip
Speaker 1: or items that have been used to then turn around
Speaker 1: and to create weapons that they use to get to
Speaker 1: your state, like terra tunnels for example. So why now,
Speaker 1: why why would ha mus have an interest in escalating
Speaker 1: now because you know there's been a delay apparently entertainments
Speaker 1: in terms of money that Israel is allowed to come through.
Speaker 1: They also understand that Israel has its independent state celebrations
Speaker 1: coming up to toasting Eurovision in two weeks, so they
Speaker 1: see a great opportunity for a shakedown over hare and
Speaker 1: Israel is not looking to escalate either for Tree executive
Speaker 1: the same reasons. Then you have the second major group,
Speaker 1: terror groups that vise for influence in the Gaza strip,
Speaker 1: which is the Islamity Had terror group, which is backed
Speaker 1: by Iran. And when Iran tells them to pull a trigger,
Speaker 1: that's why they're going to pull the trigger. And obviously
Speaker 1: a run has an entirely different set of considerations when
Speaker 1: they want to draw the world's attention away from themselves
Speaker 1: sometimes and of course there are other objectives as well.
Speaker 1: We've seen some pretty cryptic news coming out of Israel,
Speaker 1: some reports in the Hebrew media saying there is a
Speaker 1: secret reason as to why Issol didn't want to take
Speaker 1: this site further at this time. So it seems that
Speaker 1: they've sort of capitulated to what the demand was. They're
Speaker 1: allowing the money in or they're saying that the money
Speaker 1: will go in and for now things are quiet. Now
Speaker 1: do you think that this is this is not the
Speaker 1: beginning of some broader war, some broader military action. It
Speaker 1: sounds almost like the way the way you describe it, Dovid,
Speaker 1: this is like a mafia state in the case of
Speaker 1: what's going on in Gaza, that's doing this to just
Speaker 1: demand some cash. Yeah, that's a good way to put it.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, we see these flares from time to time.
Speaker 1: Having said that, everybody in Israel knows that is only
Speaker 1: a matter of time until an all out war is
Speaker 1: going to have to take place. The only question really
Speaker 1: is when. So now is not the time now the
Speaker 1: objectives are different, at least so it seems as of
Speaker 1: the seats fire holding this morning. But you know, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day you have a scenario on
Speaker 1: the ground, and the only way to end this threat
Speaker 1: once and for all for Israel is basically to sending
Speaker 1: ground forces that's going to come with a cost of
Speaker 1: thousand or more Israeli lives, maybe even thousands, and no
Speaker 1: as READI leader is ready to take that step at
Speaker 1: this stage. Having said that, you know, the citizens of
Speaker 1: southern Israel, and the citizens of Israel in general are angry.
Speaker 1: They're frustrated, they see no end in sight, and they're
Speaker 1: not willing to live under the shadow of this threat forever. Now,
Speaker 1: the Israelis pulled out of Gaza, right, So you often
Speaker 1: hear people in the media in this country say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, they they'll talk about the occupation of Gaza,
Speaker 1: but but there is no occupation of Gaza. How has
Speaker 1: this affected Israeli opinion about what the proper security posture
Speaker 1: is visa vi Gaza, And and you know, just just
Speaker 1: what is what is this meant inside of the inside
Speaker 1: of Israeli politics when you see that, you know, they
Speaker 1: they pulled out, right, Israeli forces pulled out, and it
Speaker 1: was not some small concession. It involved a lot of
Speaker 1: logistics and the abandonment of territory and moving settlers and
Speaker 1: and Gaza has not been any but really a problem
Speaker 1: for the region. I mean, it's not like Gaza has
Speaker 1: responded to this by saying, well, well, we'll act in
Speaker 1: good faith, not going forward, quite the opposite. So I'm
Speaker 1: just wondering, well, you know, how has that affected the
Speaker 1: perception of the pullout and how one must deal with
Speaker 1: Hamas going forward. You know, that's that's a very good question.
Speaker 1: And to you know, I was actually on the ground
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and five when He's Ready's pulled
Speaker 1: out of Gather, So I saw, you know, some of
Speaker 1: the sentiments and the and the emotions that that you know,
Speaker 1: were felt in the country at the time. And I
Speaker 1: think at the end of the day, it's put a
Speaker 1: nail in the coffin to the land for Peace concepts.
Speaker 1: You know, people wonder a couple of weeks ago pregnants
Speaker 1: and that Nether was reelected. People wonder how there's this
Speaker 1: sort of permanent majority for the right wing block in Israel,
Speaker 1: And really that's what that's what it's borne off. I mean,
Speaker 1: even the opposition, even even the major party that gave
Speaker 1: him now a run for his money, they're also not
Speaker 1: talking about this land for Peace paradigm. I mean, he
Speaker 1: is ready tried these ready has tried it with OSLO.
Speaker 1: They gave you know, a lot of control or autonomy
Speaker 1: to the kind of sin authority of the PLO, and
Speaker 1: they were the response was a secondent to further bombing
Speaker 1: and blood all over the streets, thousand casualties. They tried
Speaker 1: it with Southern Lebanon. What they have today is probably
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty thousand rockets pointing at them from
Speaker 1: hesball of territory in southern Lebanon, and they tried it
Speaker 1: with Gaza. Every single time they vacate territory, it becomes
Speaker 1: a terror breeding ground at a terrorist controlled territory that
Speaker 1: puts Israel and further and further and further danger. The
Speaker 1: Israeli people are permanently traumatized by this concept, which is
Speaker 1: why when we see a new peace plan unveiled by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, which they've been promising now for some time,
Speaker 1: and they're expecting, sometimes they think in the summer to
Speaker 1: be unveiling, I think that they're going to shy away
Speaker 1: from a central socus on the length for peace paradigm
Speaker 1: because there's just no appetized for it in Israel whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And how is the Trump Administra Asian doing in terms
Speaker 1: of the relationship with Israel and backing them, and is
Speaker 1: there really is there a feeling of a difference between
Speaker 1: how Trump and his cabinet and the people that are
Speaker 1: running national security over here interact with net Yahoo in
Speaker 1: the Israeli state. From what we saw under the Obama years, Oh,
Speaker 1: there's no question. You know. I'm sure you're familiar with
Speaker 1: the biblical story of Joseph and Farah, the years of
Speaker 1: famine and the years of plenty. If the Obama years
Speaker 1: were the years of famine, these are the years of plenty.
Speaker 1: There has never been an administration that is more aligned
Speaker 1: with the Israeli perspective of the region, worldview, ideology, and
Speaker 1: sent me strategic understandings. And this is not you know,
Speaker 1: me saying it is a pundit. You know, I've I've
Speaker 1: heard this from ambassadors, from from ministers Israeli governments and
Speaker 1: advisors to the Prime Minister. I mean, they almost cannot
Speaker 1: believe their luck. I mean, that's that's really how how
Speaker 1: good it is. I mean, we saw yesterday Israel responding
Speaker 1: to this, this incredible barrage six hundred and ninety or
Speaker 1: so missiles fired from Garda, four dents on the Israeli side,
Speaker 1: and the American response was, go get them, Asrael. You know,
Speaker 1: we back you whatever you want to do. We saw that,
Speaker 1: we saw the Vice President, the President, Secretary of State Pompeo,
Speaker 1: who you just played over their all voice in their support.
Speaker 1: And this would have been unheard of in the Obama
Speaker 1: administration and even in the Bush administration, you had this
Speaker 1: sort of support, but there was also this you know,
Speaker 1: falling on all sides to turne things down, you know,
Speaker 1: this sort of evening out of the of the playing field,
Speaker 1: you know, as opposed to you know, this full show
Speaker 1: to support for the Israeli position that was seeing today.
Speaker 1: Definitely is a difference, and I think it's one that
Speaker 1: has some very important implications for the re Speaking of which, David,
Speaker 1: where do you think all this goes? I mean, what
Speaker 1: are we just in this this cycle for the next
Speaker 1: you know, the next ten years. I mean, is there
Speaker 1: going to ever be some form of of a of
Speaker 1: a real Palestinian state that will take shape in some
Speaker 1: of these territories now where you have a Palestinian majority?
Speaker 1: You know, what what is the Israeli position on what
Speaker 1: the what the region should look like in ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen years. I think the way that a lot of
Speaker 1: people feel that there actually is already a Palestinian state.
Speaker 1: I mean, Daza is independently an independent territory that is
Speaker 1: ruled by Palestinians. And you know, we've we've seen what's
Speaker 1: what's become of it, So the question is really going
Speaker 1: to be um, you know, if there's going to be
Speaker 1: any more land at sea, then I think the answer
Speaker 1: is no, it's not likely that that's ever going to
Speaker 1: going to take place. So the question is, you know,
Speaker 1: what's going to happen with a territory that exists, what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with Gaza, and what's going to happen
Speaker 1: with with the West Bank? Um. You know, obviously there'll
Speaker 1: be different answers for each of them. With the West Bank,
Speaker 1: it seems that there's something of a waiting game going on.
Speaker 1: You have a bus holding onto control and you know,
Speaker 1: he's sort of at the twilight of his twilight zone
Speaker 1: of his career. There's a lot of you know, looking
Speaker 1: and thinking and seeing who might the likely success of
Speaker 1: THEE and that that will probably be the most likely
Speaker 1: scenario or the most likely question that everyone's gonna be
Speaker 1: asking before taking further steps. And then there's also been
Speaker 1: some talk of annexation from the Israeli side of some
Speaker 1: of the territory over there. It was something that Nahou
Speaker 1: spoke of in his campaign. So they we're going to
Speaker 1: be waiting to see how serious that promise was or
Speaker 1: that idea was in terms of Gaza, it's run by
Speaker 1: from us. So there's only one real way to deal
Speaker 1: with it, and that's you know, a military invasion, which
Speaker 1: which will be bloody and uh and a really nasty prospect.
Speaker 1: So in that sense, you know, it's it's the can
Speaker 1: is just being kicked down the road, and you know
Speaker 1: it means to be seen if anybody's going to bite
Speaker 1: the bullet or if it's or if it's determined that
Speaker 1: you know, this is we don't think this expected Cushner
Speaker 1: piece plan. You don't see this going anywhere. Well, the
Speaker 1: peace plan, you know, the way that that we see,
Speaker 1: the way that I see, you know, based on what
Speaker 1: we've heard, based on what we've seed, uh, should not
Speaker 1: be viewed, you know, as as a continuation of previous
Speaker 1: peace plans. You know, this this sort of lamp of
Speaker 1: peace business. I think they're gonna they're going to present
Speaker 1: something very very different. Um, They're going to focus on
Speaker 1: sort of the regional peace. It's not going to be
Speaker 1: Israel the Palestinians. It's gonna it's gonna be a widening
Speaker 1: of the piece discussions. It's going to be is on
Speaker 1: the our world. There's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: sort of economic incentives and roadmaps and opportunities that are presented.
Speaker 1: So I think that the goals are actually very different.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're using similar language, right, we're talking about
Speaker 1: a peace plan, but I don't think it's going to
Speaker 1: be anything like any peace time that we've witnessed before.
Speaker 1: And you know, we see a lot of pundits, you know,
Speaker 1: especially you know, former State Department officials and others who
Speaker 1: are negotiators who are involved in previous discussions, talking about
Speaker 1: how it's doomed to fail. It may be the case
Speaker 1: and it may be the case that the Palestinents will
Speaker 1: reject it out of hand. But the Americans and the
Speaker 1: White House and the Chushier team have known this to
Speaker 1: day one. They know what the Palestinans will accept and
Speaker 1: what they won't accept, and what they're embarking on have
Speaker 1: to have to have taken that into consideration. They know
Speaker 1: that it's that the Palestinians won't accept it. They're working
Speaker 1: on a framework that can that can create some value
Speaker 1: and mootings forward with or without Palestinians. And I think
Speaker 1: that's going to become clear as more details are emerged.
Speaker 1: But you know, based on the few comments that we've
Speaker 1: seen until now and just our understanding of the attitude
Speaker 1: and the approach, I think what we're going to see
Speaker 1: is going to be very different to anything we've ever
Speaker 1: seen before. All right, my friend, thanks so much, David,
Speaker 1: if you and everybody editor in chief of the Alga Miner,
Speaker 1: check out the Algamier for all the latest on news
Speaker 1: that affects Israel and the Jewish people in the Middle East.
Speaker 1: And great to have you on David. As always, always
Speaker 1: a plaster book always all right, team we'll be back
Speaker 1: in just a moment. You are now entering the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hardt In Elaboration Center. All the program small decapstry. We
Speaker 1: need to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for
Speaker 1: the Buck brief. Well, it's likely the Iranians are reacting
Speaker 1: to designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization and the
Speaker 1: fact that the United States will not continue to waivers
Speaker 1: that five countries have been training oil with Iran and
Speaker 1: underscoring that is the fact that the sanctions have really
Speaker 1: taken US toll inside Iran's a US carrier group sent
Speaker 1: to send a message to the regime in Tehran. Reports
Speaker 1: of a possible planned attack from the Iranians against US
Speaker 1: interests or allies somewhere in the Middle East? What is
Speaker 1: going on here? We have our friend Tony Schaeffer joining
Speaker 1: us now he's a x DoD intel operative and president
Speaker 1: of the London Center for Policy Research. Then a CLONL. Schaeffer.
Speaker 1: Good have you, sir, about always great to bail with you.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me? All right, what's what are you
Speaker 1: seeing with this whole Iran situation? And the headlines today
Speaker 1: were basically, you know, one Iran is playing a role
Speaker 1: behind the scenes here with this most recent violence with
Speaker 1: the Israelis, but also the possibility of some kind of
Speaker 1: attack plotting here. What do you make of it? Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's I appreciate Jack Keane's comments regarding the IRGC, but
Speaker 1: I think it's more complex than that. We've been pushing
Speaker 1: buck as you know, and this year I said, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not an econ, but I do believe that we
Speaker 1: have to be a lot more aggressive than direct in
Speaker 1: dealing with the Iranians. And so what this person's done
Speaker 1: has actually introduced the concept of accountability to the process.
Speaker 1: He is working right now to make sure that the
Speaker 1: economic benefit that the Iranians have enjoyed under the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: which basically was, yeah, we got sanctions against the Iranians,
Speaker 1: but we're looking the other way to let our allies
Speaker 1: pay them money. So the end effect was to really
Speaker 1: have no effective sanctions and trumps into them. Secondly, regarding
Speaker 1: the IRGC, in my book Operation Dark Heart, there's a
Speaker 1: section the way there where we had to actually break
Speaker 1: the FBI and I had to interrogate and break an operative. Well,
Speaker 1: that operative was making bringing money in from the IRGC
Speaker 1: into Hran, into Afghanistan to pay the Tolly Bond to
Speaker 1: attack US. Imagine that. So this president again has held
Speaker 1: the Iranians a much higher and realistic standard. And last
Speaker 1: I think that because of this all going on a buck,
Speaker 1: they're now reacting badly. I think they recognize they can't
Speaker 1: wait Trump out for two years in he's not changed,
Speaker 1: and I think that's what you see the reaction to. Now.
Speaker 1: They're basically saying, we got to go back and be
Speaker 1: more aggressive to prove the point that we can and
Speaker 1: try to get the United States to change course. And
Speaker 1: they're typical and most pervasive tool is terrorism, and I
Speaker 1: think that's why you're seeing the very I think appropriate
Speaker 1: response militarily moving forces there. Now, I know that it's
Speaker 1: asking maybe a bit much to get you to mirror
Speaker 1: image the thinking of Momola's here Tony, but for them
Speaker 1: to lash out with this administration, it just feels like,
Speaker 1: how in what universe is that going to get them
Speaker 1: they want, which is essentially, I'm not a cessation of
Speaker 1: the sanctions, but at least maybe some kind of relief
Speaker 1: or some think twice attitude from the administration about putting
Speaker 1: even more sanctions on. Do you think that's just a
Speaker 1: miscalculation from their perspective? I mean, how do you think
Speaker 1: they see this? Yeah, I think there's two pieces at
Speaker 1: play here. I think first off is that yes, they
Speaker 1: want to be seen as fierce, and the way they
Speaker 1: do that is by putting their back up and jumping
Speaker 1: into this. But I think the more important messaging here,
Speaker 1: Buck is to our allies. Remember when right after I
Speaker 1: think there was two thousand two or three, I can't exactly.
Speaker 1: I think it was two thousand and two of the
Speaker 1: Madrid train bombings of al Qaeda. There have been attacks,
Speaker 1: terror attacks which actually have changed the thinking of some
Speaker 1: of our allies. Unfortunately, I don't think that's going to
Speaker 1: be an effective tactic that I to say that the
Speaker 1: Iranians try to do some things on the edges. You know,
Speaker 1: our friend, my friend, Ambassador Rick Grinnell has been very
Speaker 1: clear on on getting the European alli, especially Germany, to
Speaker 1: play take a harder line. So I don't think it's
Speaker 1: going to work. But I think when you're when you're
Speaker 1: basis for thinking is religion, and that's what the Malas do.
Speaker 1: I think they have almost a flight of fantasy, thinking
Speaker 1: that somehow they can do these things and achieve a
Speaker 1: favorable outcome to their cost. I just I think there's
Speaker 1: a huge miscalculation. But again I think they're basing it
Speaker 1: partly on the Europeans caving before on some other issues.
Speaker 1: What do you think the Trump administration should do the
Speaker 1: next eighteen months where at least we know Trump will
Speaker 1: be the commander in chief. I mean, I'm assuming it'll
Speaker 1: be a lot longer than that. But what should they
Speaker 1: What should be the game plan with Iran to continue
Speaker 1: the current I mean, you you support what the administrations
Speaker 1: that are doing. I support it as well. What are
Speaker 1: the goals? What are what are the next steps? Well,
Speaker 1: this is going to be a controversial one. Buck, and
Speaker 1: I think the number one thing is regime change. Look,
Speaker 1: we watched during the Obama administration the Arab Spring. We
Speaker 1: missed an opportunity to see the Persian Spring. In two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, the Green movement in Iran was very
Speaker 1: much alive and wanted to throw off the yoke of totalitarianism.
Speaker 1: They wanted to get rid of the mullas, they wanted
Speaker 1: to get rid of the theocracy, and we fail to
Speaker 1: be their form. So I believe the best way that
Speaker 1: nuclearize Iran to make sure they've never get an ecular weaponsiscent. Basically,
Speaker 1: you encourage a new regime to commit a real democracy.
Speaker 1: So that's the first thing. And I'm sure people don't
Speaker 1: like her in that, and I don't think we should
Speaker 1: do it for them. I'm not for us going in.
Speaker 1: I'm saying that the people have the right to be free,
Speaker 1: they should do that. Secondly, we should continue to work
Speaker 1: with our allies in the region to minimize the ability
Speaker 1: of the Iranians to gain access to hard currency. They
Speaker 1: actually have a very robust economy right now. I think
Speaker 1: they're doing much better than they led on and we
Speaker 1: need to continue to do things to strangle off the leadership,
Speaker 1: not the people, but the leadership. And third, and most importantly,
Speaker 1: as they go about trying to launch terror operations in
Speaker 1: the region, we retaliate with very strong, very precise military actions,
Speaker 1: which again I think that's why you're seeing the military
Speaker 1: elements move into the region. Today we're speaking to Tony Schaefer,
Speaker 1: President London Center for Policy Research XDOD INTEL Operative. Tony,
Speaker 1: let's move to Venezuela for respect a second. Speaking about
Speaker 1: regime change that one feels like it might be imminent.
Speaker 1: But you know, I actually am somebody who does have
Speaker 1: a little bit of I get a little uncomfortable and
Speaker 1: I hear all options on the table. Okay, fine, all
Speaker 1: options should really always be on the table when you're
Speaker 1: talking about national security of the United States. But this
Speaker 1: notion of a military intervention of Venezuela, how serious should
Speaker 1: we view that from the administration's point of view, What
Speaker 1: would be the circumstances and which that would happen. And
Speaker 1: you know, I don't want to make Venezuela our problem
Speaker 1: more so than we have to. That's my concern. Well,
Speaker 1: that's you and I share that point. Look, it's not
Speaker 1: our job to fix Venezuela and Venezuela got to words
Speaker 1: that because of their own problems. So you roll in
Speaker 1: there and try to fix it, you're responsible, as we
Speaker 1: saw in Iraq. So I'm much more of a mind
Speaker 1: to continue to be helpful. Obviously, if Americans are attacked,
Speaker 1: we need to consider how to defend the Americans and
Speaker 1: our equities. But with that said, you know, I think
Speaker 1: there are allies within the region, the Brazilians and others
Speaker 1: so very much have seen the very same things worth seeing.
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way they live there, there are neighbors.
Speaker 1: Maybe they ought to be the ones who think about
Speaker 1: jumping in and actually doing something to help bring a
Speaker 1: positive political change to that country. So if there's going
Speaker 1: to be military action, and Joe Dunford, General Dunford has
Speaker 1: done a very good job of something called to buy
Speaker 1: with and through strategy, and we effectively were able to
Speaker 1: beat back ISIS in Iraq by not putting overwhelming US
Speaker 1: military force on the ground, but by organizing our allies
Speaker 1: to be effective as a military force as a proxy
Speaker 1: and effective conduit of supporting our policy, which was to
Speaker 1: free the Iraqi people. So I think the very same
Speaker 1: thing that needs to be looked at here is that
Speaker 1: how do we organize our allies in the region to
Speaker 1: be successful and what does that look like? And I
Speaker 1: think that's the preferable path forward. I think we are
Speaker 1: far better off with our allies in the region than
Speaker 1: we've led on. I've talked to some folks to Tinagon
Speaker 1: who ind Kate that they've got some very strong alliances.
Speaker 1: But Bucket, there's going to be military action, should not
Speaker 1: be us. If it's going to be military action that
Speaker 1: we want to see a proper outcome, we should be helpful,
Speaker 1: but it should not be We should not be the
Speaker 1: ones leading it, and we should not be the ones
Speaker 1: having to carry the consequences of anything that goes wrong
Speaker 1: or having to sustain the vineasp playing people after whatever happens,
Speaker 1: we got less than a minute. I just want to
Speaker 1: ask you, do you think Maduro hangs on or you
Speaker 1: think he's on the way out now. I think he's
Speaker 1: on the way out. I think the only thing that's
Speaker 1: keeping in there right now. I tend to believe this
Speaker 1: is the Russians. I think the Russians have said some
Speaker 1: things to him to encourage him, and I think this
Speaker 1: is where we need to put some pressure on Putin
Speaker 1: and the Chinese to let them carry the message for
Speaker 1: us as well. So, Lieutenant Colonel Schaeffer, always great to
Speaker 1: have you on, sir, looking forward to going shooting with
Speaker 1: you soon, very soon. Get you get your ten milimeter
Speaker 1: nine milimeter A ready all right, So let's go by friend,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Gotta check out London Center for
Speaker 1: Policy Research and team. We are gonna roll into a
Speaker 1: break here in just a moment. We're gonna have oh
Speaker 1: so much more show coming your way. So stay with me.
Speaker 1: It's again out in front of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: It's not only in my district, just the most heavily
Speaker 1: protested planned parenthood I believe in the country. And today's
Speaker 1: protester now, she is an old white lady who's gonna
Speaker 1: try to avoid showing you her face. But the same
Speaker 1: law is unluckily to protect her from being out here
Speaker 1: also protect me from showing you who she is. So
Speaker 1: I have a couple of questions for you, ma'am. How
Speaker 1: how many children have you clothed today? I'm sorry I
Speaker 1: missed your answer. How many children have you clothed today?
Speaker 1: How about how many children have you put shoes on
Speaker 1: their feet today? Have you fed any children today or
Speaker 1: have you just stood out in front of a planned
Speaker 1: parenthood shaming people for something that they have a constitutional
Speaker 1: right to do. Huh, you're out here shaming people who
Speaker 1: would have thought that an old white lady would be
Speaker 1: out in front of a plan parenthood telling people what's
Speaker 1: right for their bodies. That it was Pennsylvania State Representative
Speaker 1: Brian Simms harassing an elderly woman who was standing outside
Speaker 1: of a plan parent whood trying to convince women not
Speaker 1: to make the irrevocable and life altering in a very
Speaker 1: bad way decision to aboard a pregnancy to kill a
Speaker 1: baby's I think a very honorable thing to do. I'm
Speaker 1: sure she has probably saved lives, and whether she has
Speaker 1: been successful or not, she's certainly trying to save lives
Speaker 1: by being out there. And yet Pennsylvania State Representative Brian
Speaker 1: Simms thinks that he should make a video of her,
Speaker 1: harass her, mock her, talk about all there's a constitutional
Speaker 1: right to the there is no constitutional right to an abortion,
Speaker 1: all right. There's a Supreme Court decision that made up
Speaker 1: a constitutional right to an abortion. That is the single
Speaker 1: greatest act of constitutional destruction in the last let's call
Speaker 1: it in the post World War two era, all right,
Speaker 1: meaning that that was the most egregious usurpation of the
Speaker 1: English language, relate to or and of constitutional jurisprudence to
Speaker 1: create a right where none existed. But people still say this,
Speaker 1: there's a constitutional right to this, and that no one
Speaker 1: really believes there's a constitutional right to an abortion, and
Speaker 1: it's just that's just idiocy. People can believe if they want,
Speaker 1: that an abortion is not a terrible thing that we
Speaker 1: should all try to limit and then eliminate from American society.
Speaker 1: They can believe that they can't believe that there's a
Speaker 1: constitutional right to an abortion. That's just stupid. No one
Speaker 1: really think. No one thinks the Founding others like I
Speaker 1: got an idea, let's do this. Let's write in a
Speaker 1: constitutional right to an abortion procedure that didn't even exists
Speaker 1: at the time. And I'm sure if the Founding fathers
Speaker 1: knew about it would have been rather horrified by it.
Speaker 1: But anyway, this is also though, is a reminder for me,
Speaker 1: by the way, producer, Mike, do you know you're you're
Speaker 1: always my Pennsylvania expert. Do you know this State Rep.
Speaker 1: Brian Sims. You ever heard of this guy before? Now?
Speaker 1: I haven't heard of him until today. Actually, what a
Speaker 1: what a jerk? Yeah, that was pretty classless movement. The
Speaker 1: video of it showing it was even worse than it
Speaker 1: sounded because he was stalking her and she was trying
Speaker 1: to avoid him and that be confrontational. She wasn't an
Speaker 1: old lady and he just would not. He was circling
Speaker 1: her and getting in her face. It was pretty disgusting.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, man, I mean just also as a guy,
Speaker 1: as a man to corner and harass on the street.
Speaker 1: You know, an old lady like that who wasn't bothering him.
Speaker 1: She was just she She does have a constitutional right,
Speaker 1: although you'll notice the abortion extremist or as trying to
Speaker 1: truncate the right to free speech when it comes to
Speaker 1: opposing abortion. Then you know, you have to keep a
Speaker 1: certain distance from the clinic and you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: you know. You know, they're always trying to just be
Speaker 1: a little totalitarians in favor of the the death cult
Speaker 1: that they've been supporting since Roe v. Wade. But you know,
Speaker 1: Brian Sims, even apart from the substance of this issue,
Speaker 1: on which he is very very wrong. I believe he's
Speaker 1: a noted LGBTQ activist as well. That's something that I
Speaker 1: just read a little bit about this guy that I
Speaker 1: had never heard about him before. But he approaches a
Speaker 1: woman's way, and it's so aggressive and so so dishonorable.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's just something about being an an able bodied,
Speaker 1: you know, male in your forties who is going to
Speaker 1: get up in the face of and really try it.
Speaker 1: He's trying to scare her. I mean, he's trying to
Speaker 1: scare away a person that is described and I don't
Speaker 1: mean this in a mocking way, as a little old
Speaker 1: lady who is just hoping that she can convince some
Speaker 1: women don't have an abortion and have the baby that
Speaker 1: is growing in your womb. Just just do that. That's
Speaker 1: a better that's a better decision. Um. You know, go
Speaker 1: to a crisis pregnancy center where they will help you
Speaker 1: with this, you know, go to a place where you know,
Speaker 1: go to your church, go to your synagogue, go somewhere
Speaker 1: where there will be support for you. Don't don't do this,
Speaker 1: don't go to Planned parenthood. And yet he thought it
Speaker 1: was a good idea to harast this woman. I just
Speaker 1: note that the left has this this this pr in
Speaker 1: place of how they're the nice ones, you know, they're
Speaker 1: the ones that care about people. And I know you
Speaker 1: know this without be telling you, but it's just it's
Speaker 1: not true. In fact, I find that the left is,
Speaker 1: especially when you're talking about the hard left people that
Speaker 1: are are real ideologues, that are are true progressives, they
Speaker 1: are many of the nastiest, h dishonorable. And I really
Speaker 1: I use that word a lot, I know, but you know,
Speaker 1: honor is something that you either have or you don't,
Speaker 1: and it comes from within and and it's about how
Speaker 1: you carry yourself, how you how you conduct yourself to today,
Speaker 1: how you interact with people around you? Is your word
Speaker 1: to be trusted? Do you think of other people and
Speaker 1: not just yourself? Do you do you have a sense
Speaker 1: that you are upholding not just your own reputation, but
Speaker 1: but but building on your soul day in and day out.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're actually growing as a human being by
Speaker 1: the way you interact with other people and the way
Speaker 1: that you treat them. And you know, do you have
Speaker 1: some aspiration to be to be decent in your conduct
Speaker 1: all the time? Do you hold yourself to standards? I
Speaker 1: mean that's where that's where honor comes from. These progressives,
Speaker 1: they think that's like an antiquated nonsense. I mean, they
Speaker 1: have no interest in being honorable. They have no interest
Speaker 1: in being kind and being thoughtful. In fact, many of
Speaker 1: the worst organizations in media, the very worst organizations in
Speaker 1: my opinion, that are considered somewhat mainstream, are hard left
Speaker 1: organizations places like Media Matters for America and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: or organizations that do all these boycotts and all these
Speaker 1: efforts to destroy and take down these They're merciless, absolutely mercials.
Speaker 1: I mean, the progressives are without without decency, without honor,
Speaker 1: without mercy. And not only are they getting in an
Speaker 1: old woman's face here we want of them getting an
Speaker 1: old woman's face because she doesn't want people to kill babies,
Speaker 1: but there's really a kind of glee at humiliating this
Speaker 1: old lady, putting your own video, having the video go viral.
Speaker 1: Show you know, he was proud of this. He took
Speaker 1: the video. He wants everyone to see he's humiliating old lady.
Speaker 1: If I were this guy, I wouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: sleep for a month after acting this way. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would never act this way because I'm not a
Speaker 1: piece of scum, but he's proud of this progressive It's
Speaker 1: as much as I want to lect you about Trump
Speaker 1: and old Trump is so mean and this other thing
Speaker 1: Trump Trump because a counterpuncher. Trump doesn't, you know, chase
Speaker 1: around little old ladies and harass them and say horrible
Speaker 1: things to them, and is really mean to them for
Speaker 1: no reason. Progressives do that and they're proud of it.
Speaker 1: They're proud of it. So I think that's worth remembering
Speaker 1: the next time I want to give you a lecture
Speaker 1: about ncy and restoring decency to our politics. Progressivism is
Speaker 1: oftentimes incredibly indecent in the way that it treats people,
Speaker 1: and it is always indecent when it comes to the
Speaker 1: issue of life and abortion and the protection of the unborn.
Speaker 1: So I just I have a very different takeaway than
Speaker 1: the State Rep. Ryan Simms here. Why don't you try
Speaker 1: that with me sometime. Put put in a little video
Speaker 1: camera in my face and try to be a tough guy,
Speaker 1: try to be a smart guy. Simms. We'll see, We'll
Speaker 1: see how that goes for you. It's a little a
Speaker 1: little friendly invitation or not so friendly really. For the
Speaker 1: first time on the Buck Sexton Show Team, I get
Speaker 1: to introduce you to one of the true professionals in
Speaker 1: this business and one of the nicest people in the
Speaker 1: business as well. She is, of course, the anchor at
Speaker 1: eleven o'clock on Fox News, and she has a new
Speaker 1: book out, Finding the bright Side, The Art of Chasing
Speaker 1: What Matters. We have the wonderful Shannon Bream joining us now. Shannon,
Speaker 1: thank you for making the time. Buck. I am so
Speaker 1: happy to be with you. I feel a little funny
Speaker 1: because usually I'm asking you all the questions. This is
Speaker 1: quite a role reversal. So well, I'll see if I
Speaker 1: can if I can get myself into the mindset here, Shannon.
Speaker 1: But I want you to just tell me about this book,
Speaker 1: The Art of Chasing What Matters, why you write it,
Speaker 1: and what do people need to know? You know what?
Speaker 1: I think everybody all of us have common threads kind
Speaker 1: of in life, hitting really tough times and figuring out
Speaker 1: how you move forward from there. I mean, I share
Speaker 1: some of the worst and toughest times in my life
Speaker 1: for sure. And finding out that I have a genetic
Speaker 1: illness that there's really no cure for it, unfortunately, and
Speaker 1: kind of learning to try to advocate for myself in
Speaker 1: the midst of that, but you know, tough times with
Speaker 1: my husband as well, going through his own trouble with
Speaker 1: a brain tumor. And you know, I think everybody in life,
Speaker 1: it may be a different thing, may be financial, maybe
Speaker 1: losing someone you love. I mean, I went to some
Speaker 1: really dark places, but I found hope in that and
Speaker 1: came out the other side. And I really wanted the
Speaker 1: book just to be an encouragement to people that wherever
Speaker 1: you are, there are good things, there is hope, there
Speaker 1: are lifelines you can reach out to. And of course
Speaker 1: I tell a lot of stories where I laugh at myself,
Speaker 1: and I'm happy to do that so helpfully people who
Speaker 1: laugh along. But that as well. Now you mentioned your
Speaker 1: your husband, who I've met, is a great guy, and
Speaker 1: he seems to be everything. Seems like you know, he's
Speaker 1: healthy and going well. Now when you talk about a
Speaker 1: brain term, though, it's one of the scariest things anybody
Speaker 1: can hear about anyone, any loved one in moments like that,
Speaker 1: when you are going through that process, and where did
Speaker 1: you turn, Where did you turn for strength, and where
Speaker 1: did you turn to help put you in a position
Speaker 1: to fight through and come out on the other side.
Speaker 1: I mean, for me, the number one thing in my
Speaker 1: life is my faith, and so I know for a
Speaker 1: lot of people it's a place of comfort to say, listen,
Speaker 1: there's a bigger plan than me. This is I believe
Speaker 1: you know, my faith is a Christian This is not
Speaker 1: a surprise to God, my father. I mean, he knew
Speaker 1: this was coming. He's going to walk us through it
Speaker 1: one way or the other. And so for me, that's
Speaker 1: that's incredibly comforting and knowing that good or bad, I mean,
Speaker 1: there is purpose in all of it, and um finding
Speaker 1: strength there. And you know, in turn from that, there
Speaker 1: were complete strangers who were people at churches that would
Speaker 1: hear about what was going on with my husband and
Speaker 1: that would send us notes. I mean, these are people
Speaker 1: that I'll never meet, but they share our faith and
Speaker 1: wanted to say, hey, we're praying for you, we heard
Speaker 1: about it through the grapevine, and we're just supporting you.
Speaker 1: And that was incredibly encouraging to think people I may
Speaker 1: never meet this side of heaven wanted to reach out
Speaker 1: and just say we're with you in this, that there's
Speaker 1: a broader, you know, world of faith and family of
Speaker 1: faith that is reaching out to hold up even if
Speaker 1: you don't know their names, and it's just a beautiful thing.
Speaker 1: You know. You see you see someone like you on
Speaker 1: TV and you're a Fox News anchor, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: to many of the millions of people who watch your
Speaker 1: show across the country, and I think this is common.
Speaker 1: People elevate those who are successful, who have reached a
Speaker 1: level similar to where you are in your career, but
Speaker 1: particularly in TV and media, and there's this perception that
Speaker 1: you know, you've, you've it's just all been lined up
Speaker 1: the way it was supposed to be shit. And you know,
Speaker 1: I hear there's some people all the time about different people.
Speaker 1: And I'm friendly enough with some of the folks like
Speaker 1: you who are at the pinnacles of their careers where
Speaker 1: I could say, well, I could actually tell you a
Speaker 1: story about you know, and you're telling them obviously in
Speaker 1: your book. Do you come across a fair amount of
Speaker 1: that where people are are just really surprised that it
Speaker 1: hasn't just been like one string of our victories and
Speaker 1: ease after another, that you actually had to turn to
Speaker 1: your faith as well, that you've had struggles that are
Speaker 1: as very real as anything can get in life. I mean,
Speaker 1: do come across that when you talk to me about
Speaker 1: the book. I sure do. And the thing is, I'm
Speaker 1: so happy to be vulnerable and transparent about that, because
Speaker 1: I think when you look at someone and think, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: their life is so great and easy and everything's fallen
Speaker 1: into place, I think that can be really discouraging to
Speaker 1: the average person out there, because we all are average
Speaker 1: people with struggles and trouble, and so I'm really happy
Speaker 1: to just kind of pull back the curtain and say, nope,
Speaker 1: I've been in the dumps before, I've had trouble. And
Speaker 1: you know, my first TV job, I got fired. The
Speaker 1: guy told me I was hideous, the worst person he's
Speaker 1: ever seen on TV, and I had no chance of
Speaker 1: making it in this business. And I'd love to tell
Speaker 1: that to our college associates and young people who come
Speaker 1: to tour through college and that kind of thing, to say,
Speaker 1: It's okay, if you get fired, it's going to probably
Speaker 1: happen to all of us at least once in our lives.
Speaker 1: But if you have a dream, if you believe in yourself,
Speaker 1: if you pick yourself back up, just keep fighting. I mean,
Speaker 1: you may go in a different direction than you ever
Speaker 1: thought you would. Certainly that's the case for me, But
Speaker 1: she may end up in an even better place. And
Speaker 1: I'm happy to tell people. Listen, I've fallen down a
Speaker 1: flight of stairs in front of a room full of dignitaries.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've gotten fired. Whatever it is. I think
Speaker 1: it's good for people to know. No, there's been a
Speaker 1: lot of bumps along the road, but you still just
Speaker 1: keep fighting, Shannon, What really matters? Before we let you go,
Speaker 1: I just want to know that it's in the title
Speaker 1: of the book. For people who are listening, some of
Speaker 1: them probably right now or having their own you know,
Speaker 1: at a point in their lives where things aren't adding
Speaker 1: up the way they're supposed to. They've got their own struggles,
Speaker 1: their own problems, and hearing from you make of them
Speaker 1: a bit of inspiration. What really does matter? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean for me, it's not what the world quote unquote
Speaker 1: tells you. The money in your bank account, or the
Speaker 1: cars or the trophy spouse or you know, that promotion.
Speaker 1: It's really not there. I mean, if you're a person
Speaker 1: of faith, I think it's in that. I think it's
Speaker 1: in your relationships and your family and friends. The people
Speaker 1: who do not care about any of that stuff. They're
Speaker 1: going to be there with you, side by side through
Speaker 1: the good and the bad. And I think being able
Speaker 1: to be vulnerable and open up to people when you're
Speaker 1: really struggling, there will always be at least one person,
Speaker 1: even if it's a stranger, that you can get a
Speaker 1: lifeline from and keep moving and just ask for help.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that relationships are really kind of
Speaker 1: the fabric of our whole life, and when we're pursuing
Speaker 1: other things to the detriment of our relationships, we're really
Speaker 1: missing out on. To me, what matters most, Finding the
Speaker 1: bright Side, The Art of Chasing What matters. That's the
Speaker 1: book by Shannon Bream. You can get it now on Amazon,
Speaker 1: and Shannon, thank you so much for joining us, and
Speaker 1: also thank you for being so kind as to have
Speaker 1: me drop by your Fox show. Always a pleasure and
Speaker 1: an honor, and best of luck to the book and
Speaker 1: give the Hubs my regards. I will thank you, Buck
Speaker 1: and come back soon. All right, thanks so much, Team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back, Team Bucking. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Roll call time. Everybody who missed the roll call. I
Speaker 1: missed the roll call. I've been a few days a
Speaker 1: few days. Although it's kind of a rainy I was
Speaker 1: gonna tell you it's a great week I had fun
Speaker 1: this weekend, but it was a rainy weekend here in DC.
Speaker 1: I want something that good weather. I want to get
Speaker 1: out there and get a little bit of a little
Speaker 1: bit of sun on my face. If you find yourself
Speaker 1: riding in open fields with a son on your face,
Speaker 1: do not be troubled, for you already dead. You're an
Speaker 1: elysium good things. TJ. Whoa TJ? This is? This is
Speaker 1: an opus? Here you go. Buck. Perhaps this is thinking
Speaker 1: too much into the future and maybe even counting my
Speaker 1: eggs before they hatch. But when Trump wins, see what
Speaker 1: I did there, does it behoove us to be a
Speaker 1: little more critical of him for his final terms since
Speaker 1: there's no reelection we will have to worry about. To
Speaker 1: me me, it feels like we're cheatering on the potential
Speaker 1: for a mass conservative revolution that could be led by
Speaker 1: honest and critical gen xers and millennials like you Shapiro, Crenshaw, Owens, Kirk,
Speaker 1: and list goes on. But there's a contingency of older
Speaker 1: school baby boom or conservatives. I won't name names. But
Speaker 1: you know who they are that can be a little
Speaker 1: too sycophantic toward the president. I'm sure their tone won't
Speaker 1: change for his final term. This intern will leave a
Speaker 1: sour taste them out. Those conservatives and potential conservatives looking
Speaker 1: forward to the next chapter of conservatism may even bleed
Speaker 1: in our next round of presidential candidates for twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: Like Crenshaw, I think, for the sake of conservatism, our
Speaker 1: younger punnits and leaders have louder and more influential thoughts. Well, TJ.
Speaker 1: I like the idea of me being louder and more influential,
Speaker 1: so I can sign off for that, and I think
Speaker 1: you are. Look, there's there's always going to be some
Speaker 1: intergenerational tension within any political movement. But I'm somebody who
Speaker 1: tries to always take the perspective of respect your elders.
Speaker 1: They know stuff you don't know. They've been through stuff
Speaker 1: you don't know. I thought I was man. I thought
Speaker 1: it like twenty six, twenty seven, I was one smooth operator.
Speaker 1: Smooth operator that wasn't even close to the song, wasn't
Speaker 1: that was way off. But I thought I knew a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff, and thirty seven year old Buck thinks
Speaker 1: twenty seven year old Buck doesn't know his forehead from
Speaker 1: his behind. I mean it really, it's amazing, and so
Speaker 1: I try to remind myself that forty seven year old
Speaker 1: Buck maybe, like, wow, thirty seven year old Buck had
Speaker 1: a lot to learn. It's probably gonna be the case.
Speaker 1: Hopefully he'll still have a lot of hair though. Gina
Speaker 1: rites hey Bock. Current workout music request, Try within Temptation,
Speaker 1: high powered group, great forgetting your heart going. All right,
Speaker 1: all right, Gina, you know I do like this band
Speaker 1: for workout purposes, and you guys can all make fun.
Speaker 1: I like Skillet though I've never heard of them before,
Speaker 1: but they kind of popped into my Spotify feed, and
Speaker 1: some of their stuff is good. It kind of reminds
Speaker 1: me a little bit of a little bit like Evanescence.
Speaker 1: Remember they had that really big song like ten or
Speaker 1: fifteen years ago, sort of like that, which if you
Speaker 1: like that kind of stuff. I also listened to some
Speaker 1: very heavy bass hip hop music when I work out,
Speaker 1: so because I'm cool, you know, I know what the
Speaker 1: kids listen to. Hello, fellow youth people. Michael writes Buck,
Speaker 1: is it just mirror when Democrats lose most of their
Speaker 1: votes if people stop believing their constant lines and half truths.
Speaker 1: I'm not a Republican, but in my opinion, most a
Speaker 1: lie seemed to come from the left. Am I just
Speaker 1: unknowingly biased? Or is this true? Shields High Michael, I mean,
Speaker 1: I'd like to agree with you. I might be it
Speaker 1: might be a little bit simplistic for me to just say, yes,
Speaker 1: the lies all come from left. There are Republicans who
Speaker 1: lie to and you say you're not a Republican. I
Speaker 1: would say this here, here is a real distinction between
Speaker 1: left and right. I mean this really, This is not
Speaker 1: trying to be a pundit and get you know, people
Speaker 1: all riled up or anything like that. This is this
Speaker 1: is real. I'd like to think everything on the show
Speaker 1: is real, but this is real real. The left often
Speaker 1: has to lie about what they really want and what
Speaker 1: their end goal is in order to get enough people
Speaker 1: to go along that they have the power to do
Speaker 1: what they want to do. So you have people on
Speaker 1: the left who will pretend, for example, that they don't
Speaker 1: really want government control of healthcare socialized medicine, when they
Speaker 1: very much do, but they they're not. You know, they
Speaker 1: will dissemble, They will, they will hide their true intentions
Speaker 1: from the American people. So that because the twenty or
Speaker 1: thirty percent of America that is true left on issues,
Speaker 1: it's really more like fifteen to twenty percent. But they
Speaker 1: know when because because they share the same ideology with
Speaker 1: the head of the Democratic Party, now that is very progressive.
Speaker 1: They know what they're really trying to achieve, but they're
Speaker 1: happy to be dishonest about it along the way. They're
Speaker 1: happy to tell people untruths as long as it gets them.
Speaker 1: So that's whereas Republicans I find tend to say, look,
Speaker 1: we want we want this. We know it's not perfect,
Speaker 1: we know there's some trade offs, but this is a
Speaker 1: thing we want. There's greater honesty about what the Republican
Speaker 1: Party is trying to achieve than with the Democratic I mean,
Speaker 1: the open board is another one. I mean, Democrats want
Speaker 1: open boarders, they just won't say it. They do not
Speaker 1: want the enforcement of immigration law. They do not believe
Speaker 1: that immigration law should be enforced in a way that
Speaker 1: that makes life more difficult or you know, punishes people
Speaker 1: that break immigration law. So but they won't say that.
Speaker 1: So that is that is a difference between Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans and their lies and half truths on the left.
Speaker 1: I think are are an important They're a feature, not
Speaker 1: a bug. Rogers, Okay, Buck, I've really enjoyed your pushing
Speaker 1: the Russia probe and keeping us aware of all the
Speaker 1: updates switching gears to Israel. Any good reads on the
Speaker 1: conflict in history between Palestine and Israel. Thanks Man, Roger.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you're enjoying the show, and I hope you
Speaker 1: particularly enjoyed the conversations we had today about what's going
Speaker 1: on in Israel. I do not have a great reading
Speaker 1: list for Israeli Palestinian stuff. I really don't. I mean,
Speaker 1: I know some of the big names, you know, Tom
Speaker 1: Segev and obviously Thomas Freedman with from Beyrout to Jerusalem,
Speaker 1: and you know, I'm familiar with with some of the
Speaker 1: very well known authors on the subject. But you know,
Speaker 1: Israeli Palestinian stuff is there's so much on it, and
Speaker 1: there's so many people that have such deep expertise that
Speaker 1: you know, you really have to roll up your sleeves
Speaker 1: and get into it to know what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on. It's not a subject where you it's not
Speaker 1: a subject matter or rather, it's not a subject where
Speaker 1: you can be a dilettante and not look like one
Speaker 1: when you're trying to analyze it. I mean, you really
Speaker 1: have to know where you are on the issue, be
Speaker 1: honest about that, because there's so many people who all
Speaker 1: they do is Israeli Palestinian issues. I mean, there's so
Speaker 1: many people that this is the core of their expertise.
Speaker 1: So I am not an Israeli Palestinian issue, issue matter,
Speaker 1: subject matter expert. And so that's my way of saying,
Speaker 1: I don't have any great books for you that jump
Speaker 1: out of that come to mind. But maybe I can
Speaker 1: ask my friend David, who is this is the issue
Speaker 1: that he follows more than anything else, and I can
Speaker 1: post on Facebook a list of them. Wayne writes, Dude,
Speaker 1: your Bernie impression is getting much better. Well, Dwayne, will
Speaker 1: I will take the compliment. Well, I think my Bernie
Speaker 1: impression has always been fantastic. Book. The may think he
Speaker 1: gets it right, he knows, he knows that it's about
Speaker 1: millionaires and billionaires and how care for everyone a right,
Speaker 1: not a privilege, not just for the rich, the super rich,
Speaker 1: the fat cats. But yeah, that Bernie's getting better, for sure, definitely.
Speaker 1: I'm a little sad that Betto like he's not just
Speaker 1: like doing better in the polls, because I just thought
Speaker 1: that we'd be talking about Betto for such a long time.
Speaker 1: It turns out Betto is he's flamed out. As I've said,
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete. Mayor Pete came along and stole Bettos tuna
Speaker 1: fish sandwich. It's all gone now. Stole a sandwich right
Speaker 1: from in front of him. And I remember I used
Speaker 1: to like eat Tune a sandwich and chocolate milk. I
Speaker 1: used to drink so much chocolate milk. The stuff's incredible.
Speaker 1: Now apparently you know calories and sugar, it's not good
Speaker 1: for you. Chris writes Buck, I'm the only person who
Speaker 1: remembers Judge Knapp, or rather, am I the only person
Speaker 1: who remembers Judge. I'm claiming British intel involvement and getting
Speaker 1: suspended from Fox at the beginning of this sad saga.
Speaker 1: Now Nap is trashing the Orange Adonis, losing all credibility
Speaker 1: he ever had with me, like a watered down George
Speaker 1: will funny how the MSM trash Nap then but can't
Speaker 1: remember that today. Chris, I have always enjoyed my personal
Speaker 1: interactions with Judgment Politano. He has always been a gentleman
Speaker 1: when we've talked. I do not understand what he is
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish with a lot of his analysis these days.
Speaker 1: I think that he is I think he's way off,
Speaker 1: and I think he's not doing himself any favors. So
Speaker 1: you know, I would not say that. Judge Nap and
Speaker 1: I are friends, so he doesn't fall into the friend
Speaker 1: category where I won't say anything negative about him. But
Speaker 1: he is a good He's always been a good guy
Speaker 1: to me. I have no complaints about him. I just
Speaker 1: think his analysis is way off. I just think he's
Speaker 1: wrong on this stuff and has been wrong a lot.
Speaker 1: Every time I see him on Fox talking about something,
Speaker 1: Muller proble lad to go. That's not right, that's not true.
Speaker 1: I don't know what's going on there because because because
Speaker 1: I like the guy, but I think he's just you know,
Speaker 1: I think he's way off. Team gonna close up shop
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hunt for the day. I think we've
Speaker 1: covered a lot of ground, loot of territory, as we
Speaker 1: tend to do. Looking forward to chatting with you all tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Please tell a friend about the podcast. They can download
Speaker 1: the Buck Sextit Show on iTunes, share it with somebody
Speaker 1: this week, and we will talk tomorrow. Shields High