Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A bombshell report in
Speaker 1: the New York Times that makes quite clear that there
Speaker 1: was spying against the Trump campaign, using a human asset
Speaker 1: to get close to George Papadopoulos, just like the guy
Speaker 1: told us last week. My friends, we'll get into that.
Speaker 1: And also they went after bar again today and he
Speaker 1: swatted them away. But now they're trying to double down
Speaker 1: with their lies. That and more coming up on The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, You're a great American
Speaker 1: Again The buck Sexton Show begins. Thomas Seas, He's a
Speaker 1: great guy. This no really lost sleep last night after
Speaker 1: watching over and over again the testimony of the Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the United States. How sad it is, How
Speaker 1: sad it is for us to see the top law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer in our country misrepresenting withholding the truth from
Speaker 1: the Congress of the United States. He lied to Congress.
Speaker 1: He lied to Congress, and anybody else did that, it
Speaker 1: would be considered a crime. Nobody is above the law,
Speaker 1: not the President of the United States and not the
Speaker 1: Attorney General. Being the attorney general does not give you
Speaker 1: a bath to go say whatever you want. And it
Speaker 1: is the fact because you are the attorney general. It
Speaker 1: just isn't true. There's a process involved here, and as
Speaker 1: I said, the Committee will act upon how we will proceed.
Speaker 1: Well him to the Buck Sexton show, Bar up on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill day two, actually didn't show up for it,
Speaker 1: but they wanted him to. Nancy Pelosi is a disgrace.
Speaker 1: She's a dishonorable person. She's a liar, she's a snake.
Speaker 1: She is not somebody that anybody should have to take
Speaker 1: seriously or listen to. But she's the best the Democrats
Speaker 1: have got, I suppose, so we're supposed to show her
Speaker 1: all kinds of respect. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: saying that Barr lied. You'll notice she doesn't say what
Speaker 1: he lied about. Why can't we know, Nancy? How did
Speaker 1: he lie? What's the lie? Should he go to prison? Now?
Speaker 1: The Attorney General, Bob Barr, I'm sorry I keep doing
Speaker 1: that Bill Barr. Bob bar is a different guy. Bill
Speaker 1: Barr crushed, intellectually, ethically crushed the Democrats yesterday. I mean,
Speaker 1: he was laying waste to their pathetic partisan jabs. He
Speaker 1: was just swatting them aside, like the spoiled whiny children
Speaker 1: the Democrats in Congress are. And now today they've continued
Speaker 1: with this effort, this widespread campaign of defamation against him,
Speaker 1: and it is just completely and utterly unacceptable. What they're
Speaker 1: trying to do to bar is what they've tried to
Speaker 1: do to so many other people that they don't agree
Speaker 1: with politically, and that is destroy them. Don't win the
Speaker 1: American people to your side, don't make your best case
Speaker 1: and let the chips fall where they may destroy your competition.
Speaker 1: Lie about them, slander them, spy on them. Oh, we'll
Speaker 1: get to that. We'll get to what happened with George
Speaker 1: Poppadopolis New York Times Big story today. Remember how I
Speaker 1: had George on last week for an hour. There's a
Speaker 1: reason for that, folks. The reason we walk through all
Speaker 1: of George Papadopoulos's story here on the show because the
Speaker 1: Inspector General port that's going to come out in the
Speaker 1: next sixty days is going to rock the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: to its foundations. They're gonna say it's not a big deal,
Speaker 1: but to anyone with an IQ above single digits, it
Speaker 1: will be obvious what happened, which is that the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: the Deep State apparatus, the Hillary Clinton campaign, we're all
Speaker 1: in cahoots to run a conspiracy theory through the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: And it all got started because a few Hillary partisans
Speaker 1: in the deep state in the federal government decided to
Speaker 1: spy on a presidential campaign. That is what they did. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll get into the specifics of it. They're not going
Speaker 1: to run from the truth forever. And there's a little
Speaker 1: bit of the hist sterea right now that I think
Speaker 1: you can attribute to the fact that they know that
Speaker 1: they're not going to be able to continue with this.
Speaker 1: They know they're not going to be able to evade
Speaker 1: accountability forever. And while unfortunately a good portion of America
Speaker 1: is so brainwashed by democratic propaganda, has become so incapable
Speaker 1: of independent thought because of the cultural lock that the
Speaker 1: left has on the minds of the coasts, in particular,
Speaker 1: that it won't matter what comes out. It won't matter
Speaker 1: if we have struck in an email over the FBI
Speaker 1: saying whatever we have to do to take down Trump,
Speaker 1: that's what we're going to do. They don't. He's already
Speaker 1: essentially said that it doesn't even matter at this point.
Speaker 1: They'll just say, well, the FBI was really worried, so
Speaker 1: we shouldn't we shouldn't second guess them. Meanwhile, the Democrats
Speaker 1: second guest law enforcement all the time. Just now the
Speaker 1: FBI is beyond reproach. Isn't that convenient? Isn't isn't that
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, very very helpful to their purposes.
Speaker 1: But I want to let me let me pause on
Speaker 1: that Papadoppolo story for a moment to get back to
Speaker 1: what Nancy Pelosi has done here. Nancy Pelosi is sliming
Speaker 1: and she knows she I mean, she's a liar. I mean,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is a so called Catholic who is an
Speaker 1: abortion extremist as a politician at the national level, and
Speaker 1: should be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Maybe that's a
Speaker 1: conversation we could have another day. That's right, she should be.
Speaker 1: But Nancy Pelosi is out there saying that he lied
Speaker 1: and is essentially calling Bar a criminal. That's what happens
Speaker 1: when you're when you're able to dismantle deftly and skillfully
Speaker 1: the arguments of your political opponents the way that Barr did.
Speaker 1: And now you could say buck, but he's not. They're
Speaker 1: not supposed to be political opposition. They make themselves the
Speaker 1: political opposition because an attorney general in the Trump administration
Speaker 1: who does not give the left what they want, which
Speaker 1: is either throw the Trump administration under the bus or
Speaker 1: stand aside while someone else does it. That's that's the
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions routine. Allow yourself to get bullied into not
Speaker 1: doing what you need to do to defend the rule
Speaker 1: of law, never mind to defend the president. You know,
Speaker 1: with all the things that are going on now, with
Speaker 1: all the things that are happening, you would think you
Speaker 1: would think that Democrats would it would at least make
Speaker 1: some effort at something other than sliming and undermining. And
Speaker 1: you know, they do something, they take some action at,
Speaker 1: if not self reflection, at least you know, give some
Speaker 1: credit where its due. These people are crazy. They're saying
Speaker 1: that bars involved in a cover up. He's involved in
Speaker 1: the opposite of a cover up. He released as much
Speaker 1: of the report as he possibly theoretically could. He could
Speaker 1: have kept the whole thing under wraps. They're accusing him
Speaker 1: of a cover up because he released a summary that
Speaker 1: accurately described the end results of the investigation, and yet
Speaker 1: now they're saying that he's the bad guy. Now they're
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, he's somebody who shouldn't even have
Speaker 1: a law license. Maybe he should go to prison. This
Speaker 1: is insane. The Democrats have lost it. They have absolutely
Speaker 1: lost it. And Nancy Pelosi is just symptomatic of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's leading the charge right now saying that
Speaker 1: he's a liar, saying that maybe he should go to prison.
Speaker 1: Bars a top legal mind, a top legal mind, an
Speaker 1: ethical goody. But the Democrats, their ferocity when it comes
Speaker 1: to hatred of Trump just blinds them to everything else.
Speaker 1: These are the people that have been lecturing us for
Speaker 1: two years about undermining our institutions, the sanctity of our democracy,
Speaker 1: blah blah blah, fbi DJ, we need to have public
Speaker 1: faith in these institutions. And then you've got an Attorney
Speaker 1: general that's being called this effectively a criminal. They're saying
Speaker 1: that he's too chicken to stand in front of Connor.
Speaker 1: He's set with Congress for six hours yesterday, just hearing stupid,
Speaker 1: stupid question after stupid question from Demo really speeches, I mean,
Speaker 1: typified by Maizie Herono, not just one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: people in Congress, one of the dumbest people that I've
Speaker 1: heard say anything in a very long time. But we're
Speaker 1: supposed to take them seriously. Now we think that they're
Speaker 1: they're the guardians of the Republic. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: are looking for the truth here, looking for and we've
Speaker 1: skipped way past Russia collusion, we've skipped way past you know,
Speaker 1: the president's a trade or now it's now it's bar
Speaker 1: that's on the hot seat for them. Now he's the
Speaker 1: one that must be destroyed. It's not about making their case,
Speaker 1: it's not about their position or what they'd like. The
Speaker 1: American people who know it's let's ruin this person. That
Speaker 1: is what they do, search and destroy missions for anyone
Speaker 1: who stands in the way of their power. And Pelosi
Speaker 1: should be ashamed of herself, ashamed of herself. And this
Speaker 1: is just pathetic, these arguments that I'm seeing from Democrats
Speaker 1: in the media and on Capitol Hill that Barr is,
Speaker 1: you know, he's doing the president's bidding and all this.
Speaker 1: He's acting like the President's lawyer. He's just answering their questions,
Speaker 1: giving them his legal opinions. He's released the full report.
Speaker 1: They're so stupid and crazy that they think that they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna be able to cling to this narrative
Speaker 1: that the guy who's showing them everything is somehow hiding things.
Speaker 1: And this is after the Trump administration gave unbelievable cooperation
Speaker 1: in this Muller probe. We know Muller was a partisan
Speaker 1: out to get Trump from day one, and there's no
Speaker 1: there's no serious person things otherwise. Now, the way he
Speaker 1: handled this investigation at the end just shows us. This
Speaker 1: the leak of the letter right before bar goes on
Speaker 1: Capitol Hill. I mean, this is proof. This is all
Speaker 1: the proof that we need. It's all the proof that
Speaker 1: a normal person trying to think through these issues would need.
Speaker 1: But remember what we've been saying here, Remember a recurring
Speaker 1: theme here on the Buck Sexton Show. Trump broke them.
Speaker 1: He has broken psychologically, emotionally, dare I say spiritually? He
Speaker 1: has broken the Democrats. They don't know what to do
Speaker 1: with themselves now. They're not as as as smart and
Speaker 1: beloved by the American people and wise, and the march
Speaker 1: of their ideas will not go forth without any opposition.
Speaker 1: That's not reality and they can't handle it. They assured
Speaker 1: themselves he would never be president, and then they assured
Speaker 1: themselves they could end his presidency. And now they realize
Speaker 1: they probably can't even stop four more years of his presidency,
Speaker 1: and they're panicking. They're panicking. They've destroyed whatever credibility they
Speaker 1: have as public servants. I don't even like to use
Speaker 1: the term, but they've destroyed whatever integrity they're supposed to
Speaker 1: show in their elected offices. The media has be clowned
Speaker 1: and debased itself in this whole Russia collusion mess, the
Speaker 1: tortured legal analysis. You hear from people about obstruction, This
Speaker 1: isn't that hard, folks. If he obstructed, he would have
Speaker 1: had to obstruct. He didn't obstruct anything. People who say
Speaker 1: otherwise don't know what the heck they're talking about. We'll
Speaker 1: get into some of bars analysis of this too, and
Speaker 1: then you know, there's this assault on bar today, and
Speaker 1: then I want to move to, Oh, there's the Papadopolis
Speaker 1: story in New York Times today. They are trying this
Speaker 1: is a leak. This is a leak from somebody who
Speaker 1: is trying to help the left wing media get ahead
Speaker 1: of what is going to be a very damaging Inspector
Speaker 1: General port in the FBR. That's going to show that
Speaker 1: the fix was in that, the real malfeasance, the real
Speaker 1: wrongdoing here wasn't Trump and Trump's people. It was though,
Speaker 1: It was those individuals who were trying to stop Trump
Speaker 1: and trying to take him down once he had won
Speaker 1: the presidency. That's where we are, and you want to
Speaker 1: talk about things. They're going to really rattle the cages
Speaker 1: of the left. I don't know how they're going to
Speaker 1: handle that once that truth gets out. They're gonna try
Speaker 1: to come up with any number of different ways to
Speaker 1: justify it, to spin it, but it won't work because
Speaker 1: the facts are what they are. More on this team
Speaker 1: and a whole lot more coming up. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: In the situation of the president, who has constitutional authority superhetings,
Speaker 1: if in fact a proceeding was not well founded, if
Speaker 1: it was a groundless proceeding, if it was based on
Speaker 1: false allegations, the president does not have to sit there
Speaker 1: constitutionally and allow it to run its course. The president
Speaker 1: could terminate that proceeding and it would not be a
Speaker 1: corrupt intent because he was being falsely accused, and he
Speaker 1: would be worried about the impact on his administration. That's
Speaker 1: important because most of the obstruction claims that are being
Speaker 1: made here or episodes do involve the exercise of the
Speaker 1: president's constitutional authority, and we now know that he was
Speaker 1: being falsely accused. Boom Barr takes the Democrats to the
Speaker 1: woodshed gives him a spanking, just to be clear on
Speaker 1: what he said there. This is the Attorney General who
Speaker 1: was formerly in the Office of Legal Counsel the DJ
Speaker 1: also formally the Attorney General before this time around, a
Speaker 1: guy who knows the stuff backwards and forwards, saying that
Speaker 1: the president of the United States exercising his constitutional authority
Speaker 1: if he did which he did not even do in
Speaker 1: this case, but if he did exercise constitutional authority as
Speaker 1: president who shut down an investigation that was based on
Speaker 1: a false allegation, which is what the investigation did find
Speaker 1: and is the truth that is not by its very
Speaker 1: nature by definition, that is not corrupt intent, that is
Speaker 1: actually doing the country a service. So all this stuff
Speaker 1: that you know Muller has about, you know, the process,
Speaker 1: the process, the ten different things here and there he
Speaker 1: said this, He said that doesn't matter, doesn't even matter.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are multiple layers of defense. You want
Speaker 1: to know why Bob Muller didn't say it bring charges,
Speaker 1: Because Bob Mueller always wanted this to just be a
Speaker 1: political fight on Capitol Hill. He wanted this to turn
Speaker 1: in to an impeachment, an impeachment blueprint, which is exactly
Speaker 1: what he handed the Democrats on Capitol Hill. That's what
Speaker 1: this Stat's where this was all about. All along. There
Speaker 1: was nothing stopping him, stopping Mueller from saying that the
Speaker 1: president should be charged. He did not say if he
Speaker 1: said the president should be charged, he would have had
Speaker 1: to pick a specific instance, wouldn't he He'd have to say,
Speaker 1: he's going to be charged for this thing? What's he
Speaker 1: going to pick? Folks? He lays out all these ten
Speaker 1: things that are meant to really just be OPO research,
Speaker 1: meant to look bad for the president. But nothing, nothing
Speaker 1: he can point to that is a true action, that
Speaker 1: is a decision that the President of the United States
Speaker 1: made that could reasonably be described as obstruction. Which one
Speaker 1: of the ten would it be? Mueller? Which one would
Speaker 1: you pick? The time where he said maybe we should
Speaker 1: do this thing and then didn't do it, The time
Speaker 1: when he said I think I'm gonna shut down the
Speaker 1: investigation and didn't do it. That's obstruction. Now, Mueller didn't
Speaker 1: have the goods. He didn't have the goods because the
Speaker 1: president didn't commit a crime. The president sat back and
Speaker 1: allowed this process to play out. Barr shared the memo
Speaker 1: with all these different not just all of the members
Speaker 1: of Congress, with the American people, and now they're just
Speaker 1: saying whatever they want to say. The Democrats are coming
Speaker 1: out of them with all this just crazy nonsense because
Speaker 1: they can't handle it. They've lost. It's over the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They lost on this one. And I'm at a point
Speaker 1: now where I just want to say, you know what,
Speaker 1: bring it. You know, be a man and woman whatever.
Speaker 1: Democrats have the courage, your convictions, impeach this president. Bring it.
Speaker 1: Let's see what you got. They're not. They're not even
Speaker 1: honest enough about how they feel and courageous enough about
Speaker 1: their positions that they will impeach as president right now.
Speaker 1: The only thing that holds them back is they wonder
Speaker 1: if it's going to blow back on them, so they
Speaker 1: want to keep talking about it because they view it
Speaker 1: as negative for the presidents, just to keep it alive,
Speaker 1: keep talking about it. No, no, no, this is about
Speaker 1: defending our republic, right, this is about saving the country
Speaker 1: from Trump. Impeach the president. Democrats, Let's see what you got.
Speaker 1: Put your cards on the table. Why won't you? I
Speaker 1: thought you were going to save the country, Democrats. I
Speaker 1: thought this was all about America and the Republican and
Speaker 1: our democracy. Oh, it's really just about petty partisan politics.
Speaker 1: No one is shocked by that. The Democrats are a disgrace.
Speaker 1: After a childhood full of unsuccessful attempts to pull the
Speaker 1: wool over mom's eyes, do you really think she won't
Speaker 1: be able to tell the difference between a last minute
Speaker 1: Mother's gift and something truly thoughtful this Mother's Day. Don't
Speaker 1: settle for anything less than the biggest and brightest bouquets
Speaker 1: from one eight hundred flowers dot com. One hundred flowers
Speaker 1: has amazing offers on beautiful Mother's Day bouquets and arrangements
Speaker 1: starting at twenty nine ninety nine with an amazing selection
Speaker 1: of sweet streets in bouquets. One hundred flowers has everything
Speaker 1: you need for Mother's Day. You'll never guess how great
Speaker 1: of a last minute deal you scored. Mother's Day bouquets
Speaker 1: and arrangements starting at twenty nine ninety nine is an
Speaker 1: amazing offer, but you have to order today, so make
Speaker 1: sure you lock in this offer. Only good Wall supplies
Speaker 1: last to order beautiful and vibrant Mother's Day bouquets starting
Speaker 1: at twenty nine ninety nine. It's a great deal. Go
Speaker 1: to one one hundred flowers dot com slash buck order
Speaker 1: today and save at one eight hundred flowers dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck one more time one eight hundred flowers dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. He's holding the line for America, buck
Speaker 1: Sexton his back. I guess they want to treat him
Speaker 1: differently than they have anybody else. And for many, many
Speaker 1: years they've never done it this way where they're bringing
Speaker 1: in outside council or something. Then that's not the way,
Speaker 1: you know, if you elect people that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: able to do their own talking. But he did a
Speaker 1: fantastic job today. I'm told I got to see some
Speaker 1: of it. He did a fantastic job. And it's all
Speaker 1: a big hoax, this whole thing with Russia. It turned
Speaker 1: out there is no collusion, there is no obstruction. So
Speaker 1: you have Bill bar highly respected, great attorney general, and
Speaker 1: he's got to take the abuse from people that are
Speaker 1: running for office. They don't care about this. They're just
Speaker 1: looking for political points. And I really think that the
Speaker 1: American people see through it. I hope the American people
Speaker 1: see through it. It is a circus. Democrats are a joke,
Speaker 1: not a very funny one, but a joke. The problem
Speaker 1: today was that they wanted to have outside council. They
Speaker 1: want to bring in lawyers outside to question the attorney general.
Speaker 1: Now why would they do that, You may ask, why
Speaker 1: would they want to bring it? These are mostly lawyers themselves,
Speaker 1: So start with that. Most of the members of Congress
Speaker 1: that are on this committee are are lawyers. Not very
Speaker 1: good ones, but they're lawyers. Why they want to bring
Speaker 1: somebody else in? Oh, that's right, because it creates a perception.
Speaker 1: This is all about the optics, all about the way
Speaker 1: this looks to the outside world. Creates a perception that
Speaker 1: bar is almost a defendant in a criminal trial. You're
Speaker 1: going to bring people in that are going to cross
Speaker 1: examine the witness or in this case, they defendant. That's
Speaker 1: what they want. It's too obvious when you have the
Speaker 1: likes of Maisie Horrono engaged in grand standing in buffoonery.
Speaker 1: It's too obvious. But we know what she's all about.
Speaker 1: It's trying to get some points with their left wing base.
Speaker 1: But you bring in today in the in the House
Speaker 1: and the House side of the equation, you bring in
Speaker 1: some outside lawyers, and it looks like, ooh, what are
Speaker 1: these lawyers are really having to push the Attorney general?
Speaker 1: Why is the Attorney general so defensive when being asked
Speaker 1: by these professional lawyers who are not politicians? That's all,
Speaker 1: this is all. They're playing games, folks, They're playing games.
Speaker 1: And you've got Nadler, who you know, this guy, there's
Speaker 1: there's snakes. These people are not men and women of honor.
Speaker 1: These democrats have no integrity, no decency in the way
Speaker 1: they're conducting themselves. Nadler said this about how bar look.
Speaker 1: But the Attorney General United States is not gonna sit
Speaker 1: there and be cross examined by a bunch of outside lawyers.
Speaker 1: After sitting for six hours yesterday with members of the
Speaker 1: Senate committee, now he's gonna sit with members of the
Speaker 1: House committees, and not even them, He's gonna sit with
Speaker 1: lawyers that they bring in hired guns from the outside.
Speaker 1: What is this? What's next? They're gonna make Bar sit
Speaker 1: in a dunk tank, and they're gonna, you know, they're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna throw tomatoes and see if they gonna
Speaker 1: make them fall in the water. But no, this is
Speaker 1: what Nadler says, play for, I will now recognize myself
Speaker 1: for an opening statement. Attorney General Barr has informed us
Speaker 1: that he will not appear today, although we worked to
Speaker 1: accommodate his concerns. He objects to the prospect of answering
Speaker 1: questions by staff counsel and to the possibility that we
Speaker 1: may go into executive session to discuss certain sensitive topics.
Speaker 1: Given the Attorney General's lack of candor before other Congressional committees,
Speaker 1: I believe my colleagues and I were right to insist
Speaker 1: on the extended questioning. But even if Democrats and Republicans
Speaker 1: disagree on the format of this hearing, we must come
Speaker 1: together to protect the integrity of this chamber. The administration
Speaker 1: may not dictate the terms of a hearing in this
Speaker 1: hearing room. The challenge we face is bigger than a
Speaker 1: single witness. Bigger than a single witness. He says, huh.
Speaker 1: Just by way of reminder, you know what what was
Speaker 1: yesterday's hearing like just just here, here's a here's a
Speaker 1: quick you know, today they're all upset because, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: Barr is not. All he does is answer questions. He's
Speaker 1: had full transparency with the Muller Report. He's put himself
Speaker 1: through all these stupid questions from stupid members of Congress,
Speaker 1: and just to just to bring us to down to earth, here,
Speaker 1: have a little reality check. This is what it sounds,
Speaker 1: this is what it was like yesterday when Barr was
Speaker 1: sitting there getting all kinds of nonsense thrown his way
Speaker 1: by these these partisan democrats play too. Do you expect
Speaker 1: to change your mind about the bottom line conclusions of
Speaker 1: the Mueller Report? No? Do you know Bob Muller? Yes?
Speaker 1: Do you trust him? Yes? May we have those notes? No?
Speaker 1: Why not? Why should you have them? You still have
Speaker 1: a situation where a president essentially try to change the
Speaker 1: lawyers account in order to prevent further criticism of himself. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not a crime. He's mister attorney to down all.
Speaker 1: You know, give us some credit for knowing what the
Speaker 1: hell is going on around here with He aren't really
Speaker 1: to this line of questioning. So we're good. Listen, you've
Speaker 1: slandered this man. Yeah. What I sort of want to
Speaker 1: know is how do we get how do we get
Speaker 1: to this point? I do not think anyone, yes, she was,
Speaker 1: They were all slandering him. There's a reason for this,
Speaker 1: not just because they hate him, because he's so effective,
Speaker 1: because he's crushing them like the fools. They are in
Speaker 1: front of anyone in America who's actually washing watching these hearings.
Speaker 1: But they need to undermine it because they have a
Speaker 1: formidable adversary in bar and they have an Inspector General
Speaker 1: port looming that is going to that is going to
Speaker 1: make the Democrats look even dumber and show us just
Speaker 1: how far the rot of this spygate nonsense had spread,
Speaker 1: how high up the chain in the Obama administration spygate went,
Speaker 1: and the degree of abuse of power, abuse of some
Speaker 1: of the most sensitive authorities that the United States government
Speaker 1: has under the Obama administration, what really occurred here. So
Speaker 1: they need to try to convince some people as many
Speaker 1: as they can that Barr is bad. He's Trump's lawyer,
Speaker 1: He's not really a good attorney general. He should resign,
Speaker 1: They say, he should be fired from his job. The
Speaker 1: guy's already been attorney general once and now they think
Speaker 1: that he's not qualified this time around. This is stunning
Speaker 1: stupidity from Democrats. So you had Representative Steve Cohen today,
Speaker 1: who has said I've interviewed him before, he says crazy
Speaker 1: stuff all the time. He showed up carrying a plastic
Speaker 1: chicken into Capitol Hill today, and the whole idea being
Speaker 1: that Bar is a chicken because he won't show up
Speaker 1: and answer questions from staff counsel. Not even remember, why
Speaker 1: are congressmen chicken to ask Bar the questions themselves? Why
Speaker 1: did they bring in staff counsel? They have staffs writing
Speaker 1: the questions for them anyway, They can't do this themselves.
Speaker 1: Oh we all know why. Because they want to make
Speaker 1: it look like Bars a defendant in a criminal trial.
Speaker 1: That's what this is supposed to be about. And Cohen,
Speaker 1: I think he also showed up, Mike, did he have
Speaker 1: a Cohen show up with like a bucket of chicken
Speaker 1: that he was eating too, right, wasn't he? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he had a bucket of KFC on the floor. What
Speaker 1: what an imbecile? Yeah? He brought the circus there, Yeah
Speaker 1: he did. Head he turned he turned the circus dial
Speaker 1: up to eleven. Play clip eleven. We are looking at
Speaker 1: images of you at that committee hearing today with what
Speaker 1: if here's to be a bucket of fried chicken? And oh,
Speaker 1: there it is you brought props I see with you here.
Speaker 1: What is the message you're trying to send? The message
Speaker 1: is that Bill Barr is a chicken? He was chicken
Speaker 1: to come to the House Judiciary Committee, faced the members
Speaker 1: of the committee and also faced thirty minutes from counsel
Speaker 1: that would have been difficult for him to respond to
Speaker 1: because he stands on shaky ground. His legal premises are
Speaker 1: very very obscure and rare and questionable, and his facts
Speaker 1: are false. He lies, He tries to defend the president
Speaker 1: at all costs, and he did not want to go
Speaker 1: again as he did before the Senate and exposed as
Speaker 1: a liar and a fixer and a cover up for
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. It's just all accusations. It's all he's bad.
Speaker 1: He's a stupid faith I don't like Barr, bad man.
Speaker 1: No specifics here. What is the legal theory that he
Speaker 1: has that's so obscure? Steve Cohen is just he's just
Speaker 1: making it up as he goes along. We know, we
Speaker 1: all know this is the what is the area of
Speaker 1: dishonesty they've identified with bar I mean, I hear people
Speaker 1: mumbling about how he said he talked him all or
Speaker 1: about something one day, but maybe he talked about it
Speaker 1: another day, or I mean, this is really now, this
Speaker 1: is at the he said he had corn flakes last Tuesday,
Speaker 1: but really he had corn flakes last Monday. Who cares,
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter, But they're just looking for something. They're
Speaker 1: trying to find some underlying justification to call him a
Speaker 1: liar and maybe even say that he should be criminally prosecuted.
Speaker 1: These people are completely nuts. Look, I have zero respect
Speaker 1: for these Democrats in Congress. They are doing this none.
Speaker 1: It's not that I think that they have good ideas
Speaker 1: and we disagree. They are being dishonorable, disreputable, bad people
Speaker 1: in this process. They should feel shame, they should feel
Speaker 1: embarrassed for what they are doing, but they don't. They
Speaker 1: don't because there's a purpose to it all. The purpose
Speaker 1: was hinted at today by Lindsey Graham talking about the
Speaker 1: FISA process and how all this, how do we get
Speaker 1: to this point? Why are we even talking about up struction?
Speaker 1: Why are we talking about the Russia investigation that would
Speaker 1: offer two years. What got this whole thing going? We
Speaker 1: don't have answers about that? And we should. This should
Speaker 1: be so simple, right, this should be so straightforward. We've
Speaker 1: had We've had all this investigation and transparency and all
Speaker 1: these lawyers and millions, tens of millions of dollars spent
Speaker 1: trying to get answers. Why don't we have more answers here?
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham brought up the files of process, brought up
Speaker 1: the way that the dirty dossier was laundered through the
Speaker 1: intelligence community. They acted like it was something worthy not
Speaker 1: just of attention, but of action. Stunning that they would
Speaker 1: do that without verifying this. But here's what Lindsay Graham
Speaker 1: said about a play clip twelve. The Muller report has
Speaker 1: put the bed and it soon will be. This committee
Speaker 1: is going to look long and hard and how this
Speaker 1: all started. We're gonna look at the FISA warrant process.
Speaker 1: Did Russia provide Christopher Steel the information about Trump that
Speaker 1: turned out to be a garbage that was used to
Speaker 1: get a warrant on an American system citizen? And if so,
Speaker 1: how did this system fail? Yes, how did the system fail?
Speaker 1: Who made the system fail. Who are the names we know,
Speaker 1: Comy McKay, brennan, Struck Page, Lisa, not Carter, who was
Speaker 1: engaged in the abuse of their power to change a
Speaker 1: presidential election. That's why they're attacking bar because he's going
Speaker 1: to get some of those answers and we're going to
Speaker 1: find out pretty soon. And he's not scared. They can't
Speaker 1: shake him down. He's not going to back off the
Speaker 1: word spying because spying is what they did. Speaking of
Speaker 1: that spying, George Papadopoulos, big story in the New York Times. Oh,
Speaker 1: it turns out they were very much spying on him.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that in just a moment. When did
Speaker 1: the DOJ and the FBI, if you know, when did
Speaker 1: the DOJ and the FBI know that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: paid for Christopher Steele's Dulcia, which then served as the
Speaker 1: foundation for the Carter Page vice application. I don't know
Speaker 1: the answer to that. Are you investigating to determine that, Yes,
Speaker 1: did the Department of Justice, the FBI, and other federal
Speaker 1: agencies engage in investigative activities before an official investigation was
Speaker 1: launched in July twenty sixteen. I don't know the answer
Speaker 1: to that, But that's one of the you're also investigating that,
Speaker 1: all right, thank you very much. In general, that's what
Speaker 1: has Democrats on edge. How did this all get started?
Speaker 1: How did the lie? How did the dirty docia? How
Speaker 1: did the conspiracy theory about Russia Trump collusion get so far,
Speaker 1: so fast and become the primary weapon of opposition that
Speaker 1: the Democrat left wielded against this president for over two years.
Speaker 1: Those are questions. We need some answers to my friends,
Speaker 1: and they're trying to get ahead of this to soften
Speaker 1: the blow to the Democrat credibility here with stories like
Speaker 1: this one that just came out today. FBI sent investigator
Speaker 1: posing as assistant to meet with Trump aid in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: Oh that's right. The conversation at a London bar in
Speaker 1: September twenty sixteen took a strange turn when the woman
Speaker 1: sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign advisor, asked
Speaker 1: a direct question was the Trump campaign working with Russia?
Speaker 1: The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign
Speaker 1: policy issues, but she was actually a government investigator posing
Speaker 1: as a Reacher research assistant. According to people familiar with
Speaker 1: the operation, I sent her to London as part of
Speaker 1: the counter intelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand
Speaker 1: the Trump campaigns linked links to Russia. The American government's
Speaker 1: affiliation with the woman who said her name was Azra
Speaker 1: Turk is one previously unreported detail of an operation that
Speaker 1: has become a political flashpoint in the face of accusations
Speaker 1: by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement
Speaker 1: and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his
Speaker 1: electoral chances last year. He called it spygate. It's not
Speaker 1: an accusation, it's a fact. Trump is right. He's been
Speaker 1: right about this all along. The Democrats did spy on
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign. Anti Trump forces in the f behind
Speaker 1: the DOJ spied on the Trump campaign. This happened the
Speaker 1: Obama administration. Remember these people people like come and they
Speaker 1: are appointees of the Obama administration. There in the executive
Speaker 1: branch chain of command under Obama, he is responsible for
Speaker 1: their decision making. The buck stops with him. I know,
Speaker 1: kind of weird whenever I say that and there was spying,
Speaker 1: they call this person. I just love the way a
Speaker 1: government investigator posing as a research assistant. You know what,
Speaker 1: I'd call that human intelligence collection. Spying. I used to
Speaker 1: work for a spy agency. This is spying, folks. This
Speaker 1: is the infiltration of a human asset overseas to try
Speaker 1: and entrap a member of the Trump campaign to bring
Speaker 1: down President Trump's election chances. That's what this was, to
Speaker 1: destroy his election campaign. All is part of a counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigation that never should have started in the first place.
Speaker 1: They spied. What's the justification for this going to be?
Speaker 1: How are they going to look the American people in
Speaker 1: the eye at the DOJ or the FBI after this
Speaker 1: and say that they're not a complete and utter sham. Well,
Speaker 1: what we find out is that the dossier was basically
Speaker 1: the whole story here, that the dossier was what justified
Speaker 1: the fires warrants. And what if we find out that
Speaker 1: there was more than just the FIES warrants that have
Speaker 1: already been reported. What were they really doing when it
Speaker 1: came to General Flynn. How much surveillance was General Flynn
Speaker 1: under and why what other human assets spies were deployed
Speaker 1: against the Trump campaign, and what was the pretext that
Speaker 1: they used. How much entrapment to the FBI engagement. By
Speaker 1: the way, do we think the FBI was the only
Speaker 1: agency involved here were their foreign intelligence agencies involved. These
Speaker 1: are questions, my friends, that are going to have explosive answers,
Speaker 1: and you know what, Bill Barr is going to get
Speaker 1: them for us. And that's why they hate him so much.
Speaker 1: That's why they're doing everything they can to undermine them.
Speaker 1: But you know what, he's going to crush these lives.
Speaker 1: You watch. Social media bands now include Alex Jones, Lewis Farrakon,
Speaker 1: and Milo Janopolis. Facebook has permanently banned those three individuals
Speaker 1: as of today. This is this is noteworthy, my friends.
Speaker 1: Let's let's dig into this a little bit. Let me
Speaker 1: just first note that The Washington Post referred to Lewis
Speaker 1: Farakon as a far right figure at one point, which
Speaker 1: was that was fascinating. That was quite a pill to swallow.
Speaker 1: But here's the story today as we dig into these details,
Speaker 1: let me just lay this out for you. This one
Speaker 1: from the New York Times Facebook on earlier today. It's
Speaker 1: that it had barred Alex Jones, the conspiracy theorists and
Speaker 1: founder of info Wars, and other right wing personalities from
Speaker 1: its service in an escalation of enforcement of its content policies. Wow, okay,
Speaker 1: so New York Times still says Lewis Farakon's right wing.
Speaker 1: I guess the other band people include Lewis Farakon, the
Speaker 1: outspoken black nationalist minister who has been frequently criticized for
Speaker 1: his anti Semitic remarks, Milo Janopolis, the provocateur and far
Speaker 1: right media personality, and other less prominent but still controversial
Speaker 1: figures like Laura Lumer, Paul Joseph Watson, and Paul Nailin.
Speaker 1: The company said they were barred from using Facebook and
Speaker 1: Instagram under Facebook's policies against dangerous individuals and organizations. Dangerous
Speaker 1: I mean Lewis Farakon is a hate monger. You know,
Speaker 1: you could argue he's dangerous. Is I know that the
Speaker 1: title of his Very Bad book was dangerous? But is
Speaker 1: Milo Janopolis dangerous? You've had Milo on the show in
Speaker 1: the past, is it? Is it dangerous when Milo says
Speaker 1: that a lot of radical feminists are just deeply unhappy
Speaker 1: man haters. Well, maybe it's dangerous in the sense that
Speaker 1: it hurts people's feelings, but it's also true. So is
Speaker 1: the truth now dangerous? Is the truth something that is
Speaker 1: not a defense when it comes to social media bands
Speaker 1: and blacklisting. I don't know enough about Paul, Joseph Watson
Speaker 1: or Paul Naillen to really Mike, do you know though,
Speaker 1: do you know any I mean, isn't Joseph Watson that
Speaker 1: he's an Info Wars guy? Right at last said but
Speaker 1: I'm not really familiar. Yeah, I don't know who's Paul.
Speaker 1: I don't even know who Paul Nailin is. Do you
Speaker 1: know Paul Nailin is? I'm checking out see some of
Speaker 1: these guys like the best thing that can happen to
Speaker 1: them and say, oh no, he is a he is
Speaker 1: a white supremacist. Okay, so he's a bad guy. I
Speaker 1: didn't even know who he was. But you know, Milo,
Speaker 1: why is he banned? Well, what is it about Miley? Look,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that I agree with Milo or even
Speaker 1: I like what Milo does or anything else, but banned
Speaker 1: from Facebook, band from Instagram. Look, this is a reminder,
Speaker 1: folks that these these social media platforms are now operating
Speaker 1: as the new version of the mainstream media monopoly of old.
Speaker 1: You know, you had this, You had this monopoly of
Speaker 1: the broadcast networks and the cable channels until Fox came along,
Speaker 1: of the major newsrooms, So you had newspapers and cable.
Speaker 1: The only real piercing of this monopoly came from talk radio,
Speaker 1: and you know, thank you El rush Bow and some
Speaker 1: of the others that came after him for having some
Speaker 1: alternate voice out there other than just what we're being
Speaker 1: spoon fed by the corporate left media. And but then
Speaker 1: then with the Internet and Fox News, it's really came
Speaker 1: around the same time, isn't that interesting? You know, Fox
Speaker 1: News started I think in nineteen ninety six, and you know,
Speaker 1: the Internet obviously is older than that, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: really you know, you weren't getting all of your news
Speaker 1: in the nineties from the web. There's still a lot
Speaker 1: of folks who are really dependent on newspapers. But you
Speaker 1: think of the information platform dominance that these different, these
Speaker 1: different news outlets had, and it's astonishing that anybody was conservative.
Speaker 1: It's astonishing that anyone is was conservative in America given
Speaker 1: how much the left was able to control the narrative.
Speaker 1: Then the Internet comes along. The Internet comes along, and
Speaker 1: now you have bloggers, you have Drudge Report, you have
Speaker 1: all these different conservative sites, places that I've worked out,
Speaker 1: like the Blaze, that pop up and in relatively short
Speaker 1: periods of time end up getting tens of millions of readers,
Speaker 1: and it feels like there's this democratization of the debate,
Speaker 1: that everybody can have a voice now that the audience
Speaker 1: determines what gets read, that the best ideas will win,
Speaker 1: that we have a true marketplace of ideas. That was
Speaker 1: the Internet fifteen years ago. Now what we see is, well,
Speaker 1: there's been this massive consolidation of power and of these
Speaker 1: platforms like Facebook and Instagram, and they are private companies,
Speaker 1: and they come from Silicon Valley, which is overwhelmingly not
Speaker 1: just democrat but progressive left. I mean Silicon Valley. And
Speaker 1: I know folks who worked I have friends who are
Speaker 1: high up actually in some Silicon some big Silicon Valley companies,
Speaker 1: and I don't ever name them or talk about them
Speaker 1: because they're private citizens that I would never want them
Speaker 1: to get in trouble for being friends with the likes
Speaker 1: of me. But I hear stuff. I mean, when James
Speaker 1: Daymore got run out of Google for asking questions that
Speaker 1: some people didn't want to get asked. We're bringing up
Speaker 1: some ideas that people didn't want brought up like Google is.
Speaker 1: And you know Google's response to, hey, this is an
Speaker 1: ideological echo chambers you can't say that you're out without
Speaker 1: any irony. They do these things, but the Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: ethos is far to the left of the rest of America.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Silicon Valley is as progressive and really
Speaker 1: I think more progressive in many ways than what you'd
Speaker 1: find even in a major newsroom a place like the
Speaker 1: New York Times the Washington Post. But the control that
Speaker 1: they have now shifts the debate in so many ways.
Speaker 1: And this is something that we're going to have to
Speaker 1: come up with an answer to because this right right now,
Speaker 1: they start with, you know, Laura Lumer and Paul Joseph
Speaker 1: Watson and Mila Janapolis. You know, they start with these
Speaker 1: people that you know are controversial. To be sure, some
Speaker 1: of them, I mean I didn't know who Paul Naylan
Speaker 1: was until now. Some of them are actually, you know, scum,
Speaker 1: not good people that are pushing very bad ideas. But
Speaker 1: if they can ban Alex Jones, and this is not
Speaker 1: just a lazy, slippery slope argument, this is real. I mean,
Speaker 1: if they can ban Alex Jones, they can ban any
Speaker 1: conservative that's on the wrong side of instrument. How long
Speaker 1: is it? I asked this question honestly, how long is
Speaker 1: it before someone like me could be banned from a
Speaker 1: social media platform for refusing to use a female pronoun
Speaker 1: for a biological male. I think you probably would get
Speaker 1: banned right now. Actually, you know, how long is it
Speaker 1: before having a history of speaking about transgender rights in
Speaker 1: a way that upsets the left makes you really a
Speaker 1: digital untouchable. You're no longer able to use any of
Speaker 1: the major social media platforms to get your message out,
Speaker 1: to share your ideas. We may already be there. And
Speaker 1: as much as I hate the idea of turning someone
Speaker 1: like Alex Jones into a First Amendment martyr, this is
Speaker 1: the dire action we're heading in now. This is what's
Speaker 1: going to happen. And you know, once again, I just
Speaker 1: wish that conservatives could we have one social media platform
Speaker 1: that's not all about wokeness and social justice? Could could
Speaker 1: we just create one platform or have just an even
Speaker 1: playing field? Would be nice. You know, we don't have
Speaker 1: to be in a situation where we have the scale
Speaker 1: tilted toward us. I just would like to be in
Speaker 1: a place where we don't have the scale tilted towards them.
Speaker 1: That would be a major improvement, that would be greatly appreciated.
Speaker 1: We're not there. We're not there, and banning banning these
Speaker 1: people is just the start, you know. And if you're
Speaker 1: off Facebook and Instagram these days in the media world,
Speaker 1: in the information battle, you are at a massive disadvantage.
Speaker 1: You're a massive disadvantage of conservatives. It's just a matter
Speaker 1: of time before you're going to see some mainstream conservatives
Speaker 1: on Alex Jones is not Miley Annopolis is people that
Speaker 1: I would come on here and say, I respect that person.
Speaker 1: That person's smart. They're already banned from college campuses in
Speaker 1: some places. How long do you think it is before
Speaker 1: they're banned from the social media platforms. The left can't
Speaker 1: win the debate. That's why they don't like debating. It's
Speaker 1: why they always want to shut it down. They want
Speaker 1: to have their safe spaces and their trigger warnings. They
Speaker 1: don't want the exchange of ideas to occur, and they're
Speaker 1: finding as many ways as they can to make sure
Speaker 1: that it does not occur. And this is yet another
Speaker 1: instance of how the left will cheat in order to
Speaker 1: win in the war of ideas. They don't care that
Speaker 1: it wasn't a fair fight. They never wanted it to
Speaker 1: be a fair fight. They're going to have Twitter and
Speaker 1: Facebook and Instagram. And for a lot of you are
Speaker 1: on social media, you may not care all that much
Speaker 1: about this, you may say back, I'm on, I don't
Speaker 1: even have social media accounts. But this is how everyone's communicating.
Speaker 1: This is this is the way it's going to be
Speaker 1: going forward. This is where people get their news. This
Speaker 1: is the new cable network, this is the new printing press,
Speaker 1: and the left has seized control of it. And we
Speaker 1: need to find a way to rest at least some
Speaker 1: control back, or else our ideas are going to get
Speaker 1: suppressed and then we're doomed. The left has collected another scalp.
Speaker 1: My friends, I don't know. I don't know what it's
Speaker 1: going to take for us to wake up and start
Speaker 1: rallying around our own start defending those who are trying
Speaker 1: to carry on with the conservative agenda, with the Trump agenda.
Speaker 1: But Stephen Moore, a guy I've interviewed many times, I
Speaker 1: believe I've had on radio a number of times, has
Speaker 1: withdrawn from consideration to be on the Federal Reserve Board.
Speaker 1: He put out a letter today, Mister President, I was
Speaker 1: honored and grateful that you asked me to serve on
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve Board. Your economic policies have been a
Speaker 1: spectacular success for American workers. Record unemployment, three point two
Speaker 1: percent growth, seven million job openings, and a near forty
Speaker 1: percent rise in the stock market with five quarters now
Speaker 1: a three percent economic growth, something your critics said could
Speaker 1: never happen, Trumponomics has been vindicated. Your confidence in me
Speaker 1: makes why I'm about to say much harder. I am
Speaker 1: respectfully asking that you withdraw my name from consideration. The
Speaker 1: unrelenting attacks on my character have become untenable for me
Speaker 1: and my family, and three more months of this would
Speaker 1: be too hard on us. With greatest regards in respect,
Speaker 1: Steven More, this is a This is a complete and
Speaker 1: utter disgrace that Stephen Moore has been chased out of
Speaker 1: contention here for this job just because of the It
Speaker 1: was a CNN investigative journalists I think, got this whole
Speaker 1: snowball rolling. And now there's more and more and more,
Speaker 1: and people say, oh, he's bashing women, and he's got
Speaker 1: these really controversial opinions. I mean, look, I can't speak
Speaker 1: for everything that he's ever written, but I read a
Speaker 1: lot of what he's being criticized for and not only
Speaker 1: is it not beyond the pale or crossing the line,
Speaker 1: a lot of it's very sensible. The left is angry
Speaker 1: at him because he thinks that all this focus on
Speaker 1: gender pay equity doesn't take into account that men overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: are the breadwinners in most American families, and there's a
Speaker 1: real social cost to having men not earn enough money,
Speaker 1: especially not to earn enough money to be in a
Speaker 1: breadwinner role. And just for bringing that up, which is
Speaker 1: a completely serious point. And you know social scientists, which
Speaker 1: there's really no such thing, but that's what people call them.
Speaker 1: The people can disagree about this, but there's nothing unacceptable
Speaker 1: about this idea, or there shouldn't be. But the left
Speaker 1: is radical. The left can't grapple with ideas that they
Speaker 1: don't like. They just want to say they want to
Speaker 1: shut down. They want to tell people that they can't
Speaker 1: think things, they can't say things. In a September I'm
Speaker 1: trying to find some of the ones here. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: here we go. On female athletes, he wrote a National
Speaker 1: Review in two thousand, quote, the women tennis pros don't
Speaker 1: really want equal pay for equal work. They want equal
Speaker 1: pay for inferior work. There's a very practical reason why
Speaker 1: Pete Sampras, for example, makes a lot more money than
Speaker 1: Martina Hingis does. He's much much better than she is.
Speaker 1: The day that Martina can return Pete serve is the
Speaker 1: day she should get paid what he does. If there
Speaker 1: is an injustice in tennis, it's that women like Martina
Speaker 1: Hingis and Monica Sellis make millions of dollars a year
Speaker 1: even though there are hundreds of men at the collegiate
Speaker 1: level who could beat them handily. By the way, he's correct,
Speaker 1: that is true. So what part of this is so unacceptable?
Speaker 1: What part of this is so awful that Steve Moore
Speaker 1: should be chased out of the public square. I need
Speaker 1: someone to walk me through this one. You know. This
Speaker 1: is this is when I when I look at the
Speaker 1: stuff that he's saying here, I go a whole lot
Speaker 1: of seconds. So he's talking about, you know, women in
Speaker 1: athletics and women in sports, and he's got ideas, none
Speaker 1: of these ideas. He's not bigoted, he's not racist, he's
Speaker 1: not saying horrible stuff. He just has a more traditional
Speaker 1: view a bunch of this. But this is like when
Speaker 1: people try to people get so upset about the w
Speaker 1: NBA being criticized for example. Look, I mean the w
Speaker 1: NBA is an inferior product to the NBA, meaning that
Speaker 1: when you watch the w NBA, it's just not interesting. Now,
Speaker 1: if you love the w n B A and you
Speaker 1: want to watch it, that's great, that's good for you.
Speaker 1: But there's a business here, and the business model is
Speaker 1: the more eyeballs, the more advertisers will pay for those eyeballs,
Speaker 1: so you make more money. People don't want to watch
Speaker 1: the w NBA, and we can we can say that
Speaker 1: sexist or that's mean or whatever, but there's only so
Speaker 1: much you know, passing and the occasional layup can do
Speaker 1: to get people excited. And people want to see feats
Speaker 1: of tremendous athletic skill and prowess. So I just got
Speaker 1: I just gotta say, you know, this is this is
Speaker 1: what the left does. And until we finally stand up
Speaker 1: and say that we will not bow to this kind
Speaker 1: of pressure anymore, they're gonna keep doing it. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is horrific that they're Dragon's got through
Speaker 1: the muddy. You know, I've spoken to Steve Moore many times.
Speaker 1: He's a nice guy. It's a smart dude, he's a
Speaker 1: nice guy. He's gonna be in the Federal Reserve Board.
Speaker 1: But the guy's not gonna be president United States. Everyone
Speaker 1: needs to calm down bashing when he's not bashing women.
Speaker 1: He feels differently about women's professional sports than some other people,
Speaker 1: do you know. I don't know what to say. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's he should be entitled his opinions. We're quickly heading
Speaker 1: to a place where to be a conservative means that
Speaker 1: you have a constant liability in your professional life, and
Speaker 1: to be a public figure of any kind and be
Speaker 1: a conservative just means that the left will draw something
Speaker 1: from your background to try and crush you and ruin
Speaker 1: you and destroy your reputation. They'll find some way to
Speaker 1: make it seem like you're Neanderthal. You have these bad
Speaker 1: I've heard people say Neanderthal. I don't know if any
Speaker 1: of you have had that. Maybe that's a British thing,
Speaker 1: but I always said Neanderthal. Here's another one that Steve
Speaker 1: Moore got in trouble for. He wrote about the inequity
Speaker 1: of co ed sports at very junior levels. Quote, no
Speaker 1: one seems to care much that co ed sports is
Speaker 1: doing irreparable harm to the psyche of America's little boys.
Speaker 1: At this pre puberty state of life, girls tower over
Speaker 1: boys and typically have greater coordination. Last year, the pelee
Speaker 1: of my son's league was a kindergartener named Kate Lynn
Speaker 1: Secretariat in pigtails. During one game, Kate and stampeded over
Speaker 1: Justin repeatedly, which of course, did wonders for his fledgling
Speaker 1: self esteem. If the girls are bad, the moms are worse.
Speaker 1: They'd be rate. The referees taunt opposing players, nag the
Speaker 1: coach unmercifully to put their no talent kid back in.
Speaker 1: Let me just say, you know, I think Steve Moore
Speaker 1: is wrong here, for whatever that's worth, because I coach
Speaker 1: soccer and dads are just as bad as the moms.
Speaker 1: Uh you know it's you know, there are great dads
Speaker 1: and great moms that have their kids play soccer, and
Speaker 1: there are lunatics that have their kids playing soccer, male
Speaker 1: and female doesn't. So I mean I think Steve's wrong here.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I agree with what he's written. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying he shouldn't be chased out of public life
Speaker 1: or saying, you know, the w NBA is boring that
Speaker 1: you know, women's tennis players shouldn't make as much as
Speaker 1: men's tennis players, that men need to make more money
Speaker 1: to feel like they have social value to women and
Speaker 1: to their families. And you know, these are ideas, these
Speaker 1: are these are reasonable ideas to discuss. That doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that I agree with him, And I'm sure he said
Speaker 1: some things here and there. I mean, I can't speak
Speaker 1: for everything Steve Moore has ever written, but I have
Speaker 1: not seen anything that is oh my gosh, this guy
Speaker 1: can't be on the Federal Reserve board. But the left,
Speaker 1: they got it, folks, another scalp. When do we do this?
Speaker 1: When do we get scalps from the left for this
Speaker 1: kind of stuff? We just don't they play rough? We
Speaker 1: played gentle. It's not good so team In the break,
Speaker 1: producer Mike actually brought me up to speed with some
Speaker 1: some additional sports gender inequity complaints, stuff that I that
Speaker 1: I didn't even know about. That's worthy of an inclusion
Speaker 1: in this conversation from Mike. Tell, What's what's going on
Speaker 1: with the women's World Cup team? Yeah, I saw that
Speaker 1: they were going to boycott the next women's soccer right
Speaker 1: with soccer, Women's soccer World Cup team excellent team, I
Speaker 1: mean when the gold medal. From what I see, all
Speaker 1: they do is when. But they're talking about boycott the
Speaker 1: next World Cup over paid discrimination. I was like, like,
Speaker 1: I wish that they would realize this is not about
Speaker 1: you know, women or their gender. It's about advertising and
Speaker 1: nobody watches. I mean, that's an article was about that,
Speaker 1: as it wrote, and it tied in the NCAA tournament
Speaker 1: in women's basketball and the nc Double A tournament. How
Speaker 1: little people watch and there's no advertising dollars. They can't
Speaker 1: broadcast it because nobody watches. Nobody watches because it's not
Speaker 1: a good spectator experience. Exactly. I rode crew in college.
Speaker 1: Crew is incredibly difficult competitive. You know, people that are
Speaker 1: in really top boats are in phenomenal physical condition, and uh,
Speaker 1: crew is boring to watch on TV. I mean it
Speaker 1: is straight up boring. It's like watching people in canoes
Speaker 1: or something just float down a river. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just not exciting. It's not a good spectator experience. All
Speaker 1: the rowing looks the same, all the boats look the same.
Speaker 1: So if I if I were running and complaining about
Speaker 1: how well, why didn't our crew team get all these
Speaker 1: sponsorships from Nike and everything else, because doesn't matter how
Speaker 1: good you are, nobody wants to watch it. And that's
Speaker 1: not the same thing as saying people don't respect it, right,
Speaker 1: And there aren't people that you know that that love
Speaker 1: it and that you know engage and you know that
Speaker 1: sport out of all kinds of passion. But I mean, dude,
Speaker 1: look women's soccer as a spectator and somebody who actually
Speaker 1: likes soccer, which I know makes me sound not American.
Speaker 1: You know, women's soccer is like men's soccer, except at
Speaker 1: half speed. That's that's what it is speaking of. Speaking
Speaker 1: of half speed, this is a quick story for you.
Speaker 1: One of my best friends at NBA referee. He got
Speaker 1: his start refereeing w NBA games and when he moved
Speaker 1: to the NBA, where we're talking about the difference between
Speaker 1: the guys and a girl's game, and he said that
Speaker 1: exactly about the speed. He's like, it's night and day.
Speaker 1: He's like, I could fall asleep on the court towing
Speaker 1: a w NBA game and still do my job. Yes,
Speaker 1: and this is not to say that you know, I'm
Speaker 1: not putting down this skill or ability that wn NBA
Speaker 1: players have. You know, I'm not saying that they're not,
Speaker 1: you know, good at what they're doing anything like that.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that from the enjoyment, the spectator enjoyment perspective,
Speaker 1: you know, there's it's just not it's not a good product. Now,
Speaker 1: some people love it, and for those you don't have
Speaker 1: to send me if you love it, that's great, right.
Speaker 1: I also think that. And now I'm gonna get really no,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna start trashing different sports because I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna make everybody mad at me. Okay, here's one that
Speaker 1: I don't mind. Lacrosse. Lacrosse is just not it's lacrosse
Speaker 1: is fun to watch in person. I saw when I
Speaker 1: was in college. I'd watched lacrosse games, But lacrosse on TV,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it just looks like a bunch of guys
Speaker 1: are shaking sticks. You can't even see the ball, you
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on, and they're kind of just
Speaker 1: running around in circles the whole time. It's just not
Speaker 1: a good spectator experience, and as entertainment, it doesn't work
Speaker 1: well enough to make a lot of money. That's why
Speaker 1: there's not a huge professional lacrosse league. It's not about sexism,
Speaker 1: it's about the value that it creates via audience for
Speaker 1: the sale of product. And Mike, what's the the WNBA said,
Speaker 1: there's another so the cup thing? And then what's with
Speaker 1: women's college basketball at the NCAA tournament I was talking
Speaker 1: about earlier? Yeah, yeah, they had there, Like every year,
Speaker 1: there's like one article. And I followed the nc Double Tournament,
Speaker 1: love watching it, and they always intermix the women's game
Speaker 1: with the men's game. They played on the off off
Speaker 1: days and nobody watches, and you know, and you invariably
Speaker 1: get the article out there that says, why isn't you know,
Speaker 1: why aren't there networks broadcasting the women's game during prime
Speaker 1: time because nobody watches? Well, you know, what are we
Speaker 1: supposed to do about that? Are we supposed to make
Speaker 1: people watch? Oh? No, I know we're supposed to do
Speaker 1: We're supposed to engage in a kind of entertainment Marxism
Speaker 1: where we give people money that they did not earn
Speaker 1: through their ability because you know, they feel gender discrimination
Speaker 1: or something. You know, I'm sorry, you know. By by
Speaker 1: the way, I think that on the issue of women's tennis,
Speaker 1: I think women's tennis actually is a good product, and
Speaker 1: I think that there are a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of reason to especially for pople who
Speaker 1: are like me, who are recreational players. Uh, it's much
Speaker 1: less based on the serve. It's much less based on
Speaker 1: that one aspect of the game. So so I can
Speaker 1: make a case that like women's tennis is a is
Speaker 1: a very good spectator sport actually, and I think there's
Speaker 1: a reason why. You know, Serena and Venus and these
Speaker 1: other players are international superstars. But you know, women's ice hockey,
Speaker 1: which I saw when I was in college, which is hockey,
Speaker 1: but again at half speed and no checking, no physical contact.
Speaker 1: Not fun. Okay, it's not fun to watch. So people
Speaker 1: can make up all these explanations and stories as much
Speaker 1: as they as much as they want. But you know,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the real issue here
Speaker 1: for me is whether you agree or disagree with me.
Speaker 1: These are just ideas that are that should be in
Speaker 1: an open forum for discussion, and people should be able
Speaker 1: to have these feelings about different sporting events, have these
Speaker 1: feelings about uh, you know, pay gaps or pay equity
Speaker 1: in all this and not be chased out of the
Speaker 1: public square. But you know, the left has a has
Speaker 1: a totalitarian instinct. You know, you criticize the w NBA
Speaker 1: at your peril. You know, you talk about men, and
Speaker 1: I also would note that they're the same, the same
Speaker 1: people that get so upset about that now want men
Speaker 1: to be able to play in women's sports because they
Speaker 1: are a transgender and they say, oh, we should. I
Speaker 1: just saw earlier this week, I think there was a
Speaker 1: transgender athlete. I think this was maybe hopefully it wasn't
Speaker 1: one of these things where I saw a news story
Speaker 1: that's old and just made it back into my feed.
Speaker 1: But set some Mike who need check on this one
Speaker 1: for me, set some kind of powerlifting, like three powerlifting records.
Speaker 1: It's because the person's genetically mail. So the people that
Speaker 1: are upset at us for saying that, you know, men's
Speaker 1: sports because it attracts a larger audience generally speaking than
Speaker 1: women's sports make more money, and that's just the market speaking.
Speaker 1: That's not sexism. Those that same intellectual left in this country,
Speaker 1: maybe calling an intellectual gives them too much credit, but
Speaker 1: that same ideological left runs around saying that now biological
Speaker 1: males should be able to compet compete in women's sports.
Speaker 1: You know, I had a conversation with a friend who's
Speaker 1: a Democrat recently about this, and I said, you know,
Speaker 1: what about MMA, I mean, what about mixed martial arts?
Speaker 1: But now you're talking about somebody who has the testosterone,
Speaker 1: bone density, muscle, muscle placement, and you know, of a
Speaker 1: male fighting in combat hand to hand physical females, You
Speaker 1: think that that's well, you know, we don't want people
Speaker 1: to feel not included. Really you think that, you know,
Speaker 1: if that were your daughter in the ring, you know,
Speaker 1: even granted you know she's an MMA fighters, she's trained,
Speaker 1: but you would want some guy to be able to
Speaker 1: get in there. And it's just nuts. You're you're right
Speaker 1: about that trans center. This was just yesterday and that
Speaker 1: the headline is transgender weightlifter or smashes women's record, sparks
Speaker 1: backlash from Olympians. Yeah, anyway, and by the way, me
Speaker 1: saying that I have a problem with that in ten years,
Speaker 1: if I want to be on the Fed reserve, you know,
Speaker 1: governors or whatever, I mean, if I'm going to be
Speaker 1: in public life in that kind of way, I'm sure
Speaker 1: that CNN some little beta mail at CNN, Well, we'll
Speaker 1: dredge that up from my path. So look at him.
Speaker 1: He's opposed to transgender rights. It's a completely valid, completely
Speaker 1: valid point. You got men doing powerlifting records, men for women, right.
Speaker 1: But you know, give it ten years and they'll say
Speaker 1: that I'm beyond the pale, I'm unacceptable. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is this is the crazy world the left is forcing
Speaker 1: us all to live in. Now. It's just wrong. For
Speaker 1: as long as people can come into the country illegally
Speaker 1: and then get released into the country without fear of
Speaker 1: deportation or extended stays and detention, they're going to keep coming.
Speaker 1: Put these numbers in perspective, though, is this really a
Speaker 1: crisis at the border? Absolutely, this is a crisis. This
Speaker 1: sector alone is already over one hundred and seventy seven
Speaker 1: thousand apprehensions. That's more than we had in the entire
Speaker 1: fiscal year last year. But in addition to that, this
Speaker 1: sector leads the nation in marijuana seizures, so it leads
Speaker 1: the nation in cocaine seizars. So while we have this
Speaker 1: policy crisis going on, there's also this border security crisis
Speaker 1: going on. A border security crisis keeps grinding on day
Speaker 1: after day. I cover it here on this show. As
Speaker 1: much as much as I can, as much as there's
Speaker 1: additional news and information to bring to you, because this
Speaker 1: is immensely important. Democrats don't want it to go away,
Speaker 1: they don't want it to stop. They don't want to
Speaker 1: change any of this. Their preference is the continuation of
Speaker 1: the status quo, as we have discussed many times, and
Speaker 1: this is just bad from all levels. They don't see
Speaker 1: any problems with it. The problems that I see with
Speaker 1: the current situation at our southern border are the lawlessness,
Speaker 1: the destruction of our sovereignty, the importation of vast quantities
Speaker 1: of drugs, the enormous cost of the taxpayer, the drain
Speaker 1: on assimilation and social cohesion from massive illegal immigrant communities
Speaker 1: that are growing and growing in the country that arrive
Speaker 1: here in violation of our laws, and then demand more
Speaker 1: things from the people that are actually in this country
Speaker 1: legally because the Left tells them that they are entitled
Speaker 1: to that. The cartels getting richer, cartel's sweep and influence
Speaker 1: growing all the time, the cartel is able to import
Speaker 1: more illegal drugs into our communities that are killing more
Speaker 1: of our fellow Americans. This is a mess, and yet
Speaker 1: they still you had MSNBC's Gabe gautieras they're saying, well,
Speaker 1: is this is this a crisis? Yeah, dude, it's a crisis.
Speaker 1: If if a crisis has meaning, this is or the
Speaker 1: word has any meaning, this is it? Just like if
Speaker 1: spying is a thing. Democrats spied on the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: That's you know, the FBI, the Hillary funded dossier, all
Speaker 1: this stuff. There was spying on the Trump campaign. If
Speaker 1: the word spying has any meaning, that there's a crisis
Speaker 1: at our border, if the word crisis has any meaning.
Speaker 1: And that's why now, as of this week, the White
Speaker 1: House is asking for an additional four point five billion
Speaker 1: dollars for border security. And I'll just note that the
Speaker 1: border security they're talking about will be helpful, but keep
Speaker 1: in mind that they wouldn't give four point five billion
Speaker 1: dollars for a wall. They said, we didn't have money
Speaker 1: for that. We had money for that, But now we
Speaker 1: need four point five billion to surge more people, you know,
Speaker 1: more taxpayer dollars going to a system that is being
Speaker 1: intentionally exploited, that is being intentionally overwhelmed, and that one
Speaker 1: political party has no interest in addressing in a meaningful way,
Speaker 1: and the facilities and resources at the border have been
Speaker 1: pushed beyond the breaking points. This is all just fact.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've been down there, I've seen it, and
Speaker 1: now we're just going to start shoveling more and more
Speaker 1: money to the border without dealing with the problem. The
Speaker 1: problem is if people think they can come to this
Speaker 1: country in violation of our laws and receive benefits and
Speaker 1: no punishment, They're going to keep doing it. That is
Speaker 1: the fundamental problem that that is the decore issue that
Speaker 1: all of this revolves around. Yes, conducting these DNA tests
Speaker 1: that will at least create some penalty or some disincentive
Speaker 1: for people to be fake family units at the border.
Speaker 1: I mean, that will help somewhat, but it's not going
Speaker 1: to do all that much. Federal Court Ninth Circuit, usually
Speaker 1: usually a judge in San Francisco or somewhere on the
Speaker 1: West coast. They stop the Trump administration from taking actions
Speaker 1: clearly within executive authority to try to deal with this problem.
Speaker 1: And here's what I've got for you. I gotta just
Speaker 1: start to think, how does this play out in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: I'm of two minds on this one, because you know
Speaker 1: I've been I've been supporting Trump along the way here,
Speaker 1: I've been supporting the president doing everything that is in
Speaker 1: his power and then some to try and secure the border.
Speaker 1: I think that he understands the gravity of this issue.
Speaker 1: I think he is serious about this in a way
Speaker 1: that other Republicans have not been. And he recognizes that
Speaker 1: this was a solemn promise that he made to his base,
Speaker 1: to his voters, people like you and me, back in
Speaker 1: the days of not just the general election, but the primary.
Speaker 1: This was really what separated Trump from the competition his
Speaker 1: position on the border, which then you had some people,
Speaker 1: including Ted Cruze, get closer and closer to him because
Speaker 1: they knew that this is what this is what conservatives
Speaker 1: the right rule of law, sovereignty, This is what It
Speaker 1: requires a major effort to deal with the overflow of
Speaker 1: all these people at the border right now, the intentional
Speaker 1: inundation of the US Mexico border. But how does it
Speaker 1: look for twenty twenty when the Trump administration has the
Speaker 1: least secure border and the worst situation when it comes
Speaker 1: to border security of any administration for the last really
Speaker 1: last almost twenty years now, at least last fifteen or so,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You tell me, what do you think
Speaker 1: about that? How do you how should we feel about this?
Speaker 1: I can make and I have all the arguments, but
Speaker 1: how it's not Trump's fault, it's the system and it's
Speaker 1: but you know, there was a majority in the Congress,
Speaker 1: there was there was an opportunity to do something, and
Speaker 1: they did really nothing on immigration. I mean, there was
Speaker 1: the travel ban, which was a big fight with the
Speaker 1: left and the Trump administration, but that's not gonna stop
Speaker 1: what's going on our southern border. No one thought that
Speaker 1: was the case. Shouldn't there be at least some accountability
Speaker 1: for being in charge? I mean, if we voted for
Speaker 1: Trump to handle the situation of the border and he's
Speaker 1: been unable to do so. I'm not saying that means
Speaker 1: you start to think about voting for the other guy.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, you know, we need to turn the
Speaker 1: heat up a little bit here. I worry a little
Speaker 1: bit that the President's base maybe disaffected somewhat going into
Speaker 1: the election, because you know, the wall has not been built.
Speaker 1: All right, Let's not pretend. Yes, some sections of the
Speaker 1: wall have been built up, but those were sections that
Speaker 1: it's upgrades. There's not new wall being built, and the
Speaker 1: wall is certainly not completed. New sections of the wall
Speaker 1: are not in a noticeable way under construction. It's really
Speaker 1: just upgrades to existing wall, which is important because a
Speaker 1: lot of places where we have existing wall, those are
Speaker 1: the most critical areas for physical barrier. But the wall
Speaker 1: is not yet finished. And you know, trum Trump hasn't
Speaker 1: been able to solve this problem yet, not even close.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's worse than it was under Obama, which
Speaker 1: if we're going to really talk about this, I think
Speaker 1: we need to just put that in very straightforward terms.
Speaker 1: The only good thing that Trump has going for him
Speaker 1: on the porter really right now is that the Democrats
Speaker 1: are completely insane. The Democrats are now an open borders
Speaker 1: party in all but name. They will not criticize illegal immigrants,
Speaker 1: they do not seem to have any problem with illegals
Speaker 1: flooding into America across the US Mexico border. That they
Speaker 1: do everything they can to make the enforcement of our
Speaker 1: laws harder, to make the enforcement of our laws less
Speaker 1: likely to occur in any meaningful sense, and this is
Speaker 1: just a power play for them. So the good news
Speaker 1: is that while Trump is imperfect, or rather, he has
Speaker 1: not yet delivered on the border for his voters, The
Speaker 1: other side of this is that the Democrats on immigration
Speaker 1: are just completely insane. They cannot be trusted, they do
Speaker 1: not speak the truth, and they do not have any
Speaker 1: real plan other than letting this continue to happen. And
Speaker 1: then they want to take money from you, the taxpayer,
Speaker 1: to assist these people, to set them up, and and
Speaker 1: they're not gonna get a lot of gratitude for this.
Speaker 1: Keep this in mind because the Left is also telling
Speaker 1: those from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, Honduras, and
Speaker 1: El Salvador that their countries are in such bad shape
Speaker 1: because of what America has done. This is now a
Speaker 1: common theme that you hear. It's all our faults, so
Speaker 1: we have to make up for it by giving people money,
Speaker 1: even those you violate our laws to be here. Honesty, dude,
Speaker 1: It'll all be a woman's choice. I'm not about to
Speaker 1: be the male till a woman would do with her body.
Speaker 1: Kid the right to make the seats us I directular
Speaker 1: is it? Some kids are the underwarted, so you kill them,
Speaker 1: kill them. Laden. You bring them in the world on
Speaker 1: one love, they seem to making ship, so you kill them.
Speaker 1: Na kill him Laden? That was and I know It's
Speaker 1: a little hard understand the audio quality there, but that
Speaker 1: was Alabama State Representative John Rodgers, Democrat, of course, talking
Speaker 1: about abortion. As you know, there's a lot of attention
Speaker 1: on some of these state abortion bills. Some of these
Speaker 1: bills are really shockingly well straightforward and what they're trying
Speaker 1: to accomplish, which is to make an abortion at all
Speaker 1: nine months of a pregnancy, including up to the moment
Speaker 1: of birth, and even after birth in some cases legal,
Speaker 1: to make it legal to terminate a pregnancy to end
Speaker 1: of human life at any point in that process. And
Speaker 1: here you have Alabama State Representative John Rodgers who is
Speaker 1: just saying what is the true position of the abortion lobby,
Speaker 1: which is that this really just comes down to, yes,
Speaker 1: a woman's choice, but also you know, some kids are
Speaker 1: just unwanted, and because they're unwanted, they should be able
Speaker 1: to be terminated. He said, some kids are unwanted, quote,
Speaker 1: so you kill them now or you kill them later.
Speaker 1: You bring them into the world unloved, you send them
Speaker 1: to the electric chair. So you kill them now or
Speaker 1: you kill them later. This is really a position that
Speaker 1: is very similar to a kind of eugenics position, which
Speaker 1: is that we should eliminate the undesirable as before they
Speaker 1: come into the world, so that we don't have to
Speaker 1: deal with the social consequences. That is what an undesirable,
Speaker 1: just being they're not desired by the parents. In this case,
Speaker 1: that's what Alabama State Representative John Rodgers, who has been
Speaker 1: in public life as a politician I believe for decades,
Speaker 1: been around for a long time, not some new guy
Speaker 1: to all this, But he let the mask slip here
Speaker 1: for a second. For the pro abortion left. He's saying
Speaker 1: what they all think and what the logic of their
Speaker 1: position really is. He's just not dressing it up in
Speaker 1: terms like just oh, it's just about choice and women's
Speaker 1: body and all of these things. That's not the approach
Speaker 1: that he took there. So it is a little jarring
Speaker 1: because we're used to hearing this always discussed in language
Speaker 1: that is meant to obscure what's really going on. I mean,
Speaker 1: that is a central, a central theme of all pro
Speaker 1: choice propagandas that you never really talk about what's happening,
Speaker 1: you never really talk about the process. And in fact,
Speaker 1: the movie Unplanned is so horrific to the pro abortion movement.
Speaker 1: It's horrific to people who are pro life too because
Speaker 1: of what it's depicting. But it's so unthinkable to the
Speaker 1: pro abortion movement because you're actually from what I understand,
Speaker 1: I have not seen it yet to be fair, I
Speaker 1: need to see it. But friends of mine I have
Speaker 1: seen it and describe to me that it is graphic
Speaker 1: and showing you the procedure, and that is enough to
Speaker 1: really upset people that are constantly advocating for that procedure,
Speaker 1: and not just for the right to the procedure, but
Speaker 1: for the tax dollars that go toward it. That you
Speaker 1: should be paying for this as well. You know. Alexandra
Speaker 1: da Sanctis is a staff writer at National Review, and
Speaker 1: she pulled together just to give you a sense of
Speaker 1: how the media covers all this. She pulled together of
Speaker 1: the time times that media outlets have framed quote democratic
Speaker 1: extremism on abortion as conservatives pounce, and she wrote here
Speaker 1: that it is astonishing how often this happens and how
Speaker 1: egregious it is. It's true whenever you have something like this,
Speaker 1: where you have Alabama State Representative John Rogers saying what
Speaker 1: abortion really is and what the abortion movement is all about,
Speaker 1: and people like me and others on the conservative side
Speaker 1: use this to highlight what the truth is of their position.
Speaker 1: Then immediately there's this whole machinery, this propaganda machinery that
Speaker 1: goes into high gear, and that's meant to obscure, distract, deflect,
Speaker 1: lie about what has been said or what's really going on.
Speaker 1: You saw this when you had that guy, the guy
Speaker 1: who wore the black face back in high school. It's
Speaker 1: a northumb there we go, because there's a few of them,
Speaker 1: actually the Democrat party. But when North them talked about
Speaker 1: the procedure and making a baby comfortable and the doctor
Speaker 1: and the mother figuring out what to do after the
Speaker 1: an unsuccessful abortion procedure and there's a baby outside the womb.
Speaker 1: I mean, he described it, and what he described is
Speaker 1: what Democrats want. But they acted like he didn't say
Speaker 1: what he said. And remember he's an MD. He said
Speaker 1: he didn't really say that. Or Republicans conservatives are misconstruing it. Oh,
Speaker 1: just like we misconstrued the Mueller report, right, even though
Speaker 1: they have the whole Mudel report. None of this makes
Speaker 1: any sense to normal people. But Democrats are, unfortunately, psychologically
Speaker 1: these days, not a normal party. But Alexander pulled together
Speaker 1: different threads, and I just wanted to share some He's
Speaker 1: with you because it really does illustrate how entrenched abortion
Speaker 1: is the Democratic Party and how all mainstream journalism really
Speaker 1: without exception is that is, anything from center to left
Speaker 1: to the far left, is just on a mission to
Speaker 1: defend abortion at all costs. Here's what the Washington Post
Speaker 1: after Senate Democrats voted down the Born Alive Abortion Survivors
Speaker 1: Protection Act, which would have required medical care for infants
Speaker 1: who survive attempted abortions. Here's what the Washington Post headline was,
Speaker 1: Trump and Republicans are trying to paint Democrats as radical
Speaker 1: on abortion. Well, if they won't support a child receiving
Speaker 1: medical care after it has been delivered from the womb,
Speaker 1: I don't think that they're trying to paint them as radicals.
Speaker 1: I think they are radicals. But here's Politico after Senate
Speaker 1: Democrats defeated the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, a
Speaker 1: bill that did not limit abortion any way, political rights.
Speaker 1: Senate defeats anti abortion bill as GOP tries to jam Dems. Oooh,
Speaker 1: they're the bad guys who are trying to jam them. See,
Speaker 1: they are the aggressors here Here's more from Politico in
Speaker 1: which Republicans are both pounding and seizing. After Senate Democrats
Speaker 1: defeated a bill to require medical care for infants born
Speaker 1: alive after attempted abortions, Republicans pound abortion infanticide message. Democrats
Speaker 1: say the GOP arguments are inflammatory and inaccurate, but Republicans
Speaker 1: are already seizing on the issue in their twenty twenty strategy.
Speaker 1: That's right, seizing on the Republicans seas Republicans pounce anytime
Speaker 1: Democrats look bad. The focus in the media. This is
Speaker 1: a classic tactic of the mainstream media's propaganda. The focus
Speaker 1: has to shift right away to what the Republicans are
Speaker 1: doing in response and how they're either overreaching, pouncing, seizing
Speaker 1: all these Exploiting is really the term that they're often
Speaker 1: looking for, you know, Republicans exploit this vulnerability in the
Speaker 1: Democrat message. Alexander Desanctus goes on here with this very
Speaker 1: interesting list. Here's the New York Times after Democratic lawmakers
Speaker 1: in New York and Virginia pushed bills to allow abortion
Speaker 1: after viability in the last three months of pregnancy. Here's
Speaker 1: the headline, Folks Trump Pence lead GOP seizure of late
Speaker 1: term abortion as a potential twenty twenty issue. Then she
Speaker 1: has Here's Politico after Senate Democrats defeated the Born Alive
Speaker 1: Protection Survivors Protection Act, not only inexplicably putting attempted abortion
Speaker 1: in scare quotes, but also noting that Republicans were trying
Speaker 1: to squeeze Democrats political rights. The Senate rejected a bill
Speaker 1: making it a felony for a doctor to a harm
Speaker 1: or neglect an infant who survives a quote attempted abortion
Speaker 1: end quote, part of a Republican effort to squeeze Democrats
Speaker 1: ahead of the twenty twenty campaign. Then she goes on
Speaker 1: Conservative sees on Alabama Democrat state, Democrat abortion comments. And
Speaker 1: then this is Washington post abortion bill GOP outrage against
Speaker 1: Democrat governor Northam Democratic legislatures. See, the problem is always
Speaker 1: the Republican response as far as the media is concerned.
Speaker 1: The problem is always Republicans going too far, overreaching, pouncing, seizing,
Speaker 1: just like when we talk about this Alabama State Rep.
Speaker 1: John Rodgers. See. I think the problem is that Democrats
Speaker 1: have embraced a party of death that not just legalizes,
Speaker 1: but really does celebrate, as some kind of right our
Speaker 1: ite the murder and sacrifice of infants for a political platform.
Speaker 1: That is what is going on here, and we need
Speaker 1: not speak around the subject. I think it better to
Speaker 1: be blunt, no matter what they say about us seizing
Speaker 1: on it. I dream a little smaller and gonna tell
Speaker 1: you guy will happen to you again, and there will
Speaker 1: PDBB people in your life who will tell you not
Speaker 1: to dream to me because they don't want their haters
Speaker 1: and they didn't want in any Moore for you union.
Speaker 1: They hate the Unchians. So in those moments, in those moments,
Speaker 1: because they they'll have they happen to me, they'd have
Speaker 1: in my head and where people say you don't belong,
Speaker 1: this isn't leave you. So in those times, because they
Speaker 1: will come up, you have to ask yourself whether you're
Speaker 1: gonna gonna leave the haters or where are you're gonnnna
Speaker 1: leave the only truth of your story. That's Michelle Obama,
Speaker 1: who was giving what a commencement address there, I think,
Speaker 1: or so or not a commend with a graduation address.
Speaker 1: Commencement's the beginning, graduations the end or I don't know
Speaker 1: what she was given. It was a speech she gave yesterday.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really matter. Uh, I just find this. Maybe
Speaker 1: she's a one for rhetorical flourish here. But her quote,
Speaker 1: they told me that I wanted too much for myself.
Speaker 1: I should dream a little smaller. Did anyone ever really
Speaker 1: tell her that. I can't prove that that's not true,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't ring true with me. Has anyone ever
Speaker 1: told you dream smaller for yourself? I don't know. It
Speaker 1: seems like kind of a strange thing to say. And
Speaker 1: you know, Michelle Obama is somebody who I think the
Speaker 1: adoration that the media holds for Michelle Obama is probably
Speaker 1: greater than any other human being in the country. Really,
Speaker 1: I think she's probably the single favorite person for a
Speaker 1: majority of political journalists in America. I mean second, I
Speaker 1: mean or rather, the only person that's more beloved than Obama,
Speaker 1: I think is Michelle Obama. But do you know there
Speaker 1: was always a tone that Michelle Obama would strike on
Speaker 1: certain issues that I found off putting. Of course, when
Speaker 1: she said that for the first time in her adult
Speaker 1: life she was proud of her country when her husband,
Speaker 1: that's a very strange thing for a first lady to say.
Speaker 1: And if you read her thesis, from Princeton University one.
Speaker 1: I mean, she obviously wasn't a very good writer or
Speaker 1: a particularly strong student, so you start with that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've read the thesis. It's shockingly inarticulate and poorly written,
Speaker 1: and it's about how being a black student at Princeton
Speaker 1: means that you are constantly being unfairly treated and undermined.
Speaker 1: And it was very much a victimology treatise. But Michelle
Speaker 1: Obama is still considered. If you ever criticize her, you
Speaker 1: are going to feel the wrath of the mainstream median
Speaker 1: ways that you cannot really imagine. They are completely and
Speaker 1: utterly enamored with her, and I do believe that we're
Speaker 1: going to be hearing more from the Obama's going into
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election than we did in the midterms,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. And speaking of p the media are
Speaker 1: enamored with Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is a person that in
Speaker 1: many ways exemplifies the woke left, which is all emotion,
Speaker 1: no substance, all social justice, not a lot of reading
Speaker 1: of books. And this is kind of a funny moment.
Speaker 1: She's at a at a garden. Producer Mike, what is
Speaker 1: going on here, she's she's in I think she's at
Speaker 1: her garden where she lives, I believe, I'm not one
Speaker 1: hundred percent sure where she's dpe here somewhere. Yeah. So
Speaker 1: she just does these random social media videos, right, that's
Speaker 1: what this is all. She just creates these little videos
Speaker 1: and then we're all supposed to go, oh, look at her,
Speaker 1: or she's so social media savvy. Whatever. Here's Nocazio Corte
Speaker 1: is getting all excited over her garden played nineteen. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, you guys, I just checked on my community
Speaker 1: garden slot, and I was so nervous because I was
Speaker 1: I was in New York for two weeks recess. Look,
Speaker 1: Oh my god, look at this. It's like, look at
Speaker 1: the colored greens, they're shute. Look at the dahlia's. Oh
Speaker 1: my god, I don't have to trim all of these
Speaker 1: back for smoothies. I am shook. Look like, honestly, gardening
Speaker 1: food that comes out of dirt, like it's magic or
Speaker 1: it's just what human beings have been doing tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of years. Now. It's it's agriculture, that's right. Plants
Speaker 1: they grow, they turn into food. This is a thing
Speaker 1: that happens, like this is an important stuff, but I
Speaker 1: think it's kind of funny. Do you think she loses
Speaker 1: her mind when the sun comes up? The sun comes
Speaker 1: up every morning, she's like, oh my gosh, Like the
Speaker 1: sun is like coming up. It's amazing, Like look at it,
Speaker 1: so bright, like hurts your eyes you look at it.
Speaker 1: But I just love it. It's so warm. Yeah, Mike,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, They really they really love Kazio Cortez.
Speaker 1: And I keep wondering when people are gonna wake up
Speaker 1: and understand that she is a false idol for the left.
Speaker 1: But I guess all the idols the left are kind
Speaker 1: of false. Not somebody that I find impressive in the least,
Speaker 1: but probably the most of all Democrats. She is more
Speaker 1: able to shift the national media narrative than anyone else.
Speaker 1: I mean, she is completely with one tweet, with one statement,
Speaker 1: she can create a news story that everyone will seize on,
Speaker 1: and of course the ninety percent of the of the
Speaker 1: media that her Democrats will find some way to make
Speaker 1: it sound like she's brilliant, she's wonderful. And then when
Speaker 1: the conservative media is like, a hold on a second,
Speaker 1: she's kind of an imbecile. There's why are you obsessed
Speaker 1: with her? Well, why do you guys all run stories
Speaker 1: on her all the time? But yeah, gardening, that's a
Speaker 1: thing that works. You can plant things in the ground.
Speaker 1: It turns into food, amazing. It's like magic, or it's
Speaker 1: like plants and agriculture. This is close enough. But looks
Speaker 1: she was having a nice time. You know, you've gotta
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of poking fun. And then we
Speaker 1: also gotta say she's allowed to have fun too. She's
Speaker 1: gardening whatever fine she likes to make. Put it in
Speaker 1: her smoothies. I don't really drink smoothies because smoothies are
Speaker 1: generally very high in sugar. Because to make a smoothie
Speaker 1: taste good, you have to put the good juice in it,
Speaker 1: and the good juice like apple juice or pineapple juice,
Speaker 1: things like that that really sweeten it up. You might
Speaker 1: as sort of drink soda. Speaking of which, check out
Speaker 1: my smooth transition here in the third hour of the show.
Speaker 1: That's right, Speaking of which, drinking producer Mike, did you
Speaker 1: know this drinking diet soda? According to the the New York
Speaker 1: Post today, studies have come out that drinking diet soda
Speaker 1: means you are more likely to gain weight. This does
Speaker 1: not surprise me at all. There's no a no such
Speaker 1: thing as a free lunch, including calorie free stuff that
Speaker 1: you drink with lunch. It's not good for you. I
Speaker 1: do not like these things. I do not like this
Speaker 1: fake sweetener stuff. If you're gonna have the sweet taste,
Speaker 1: have sugar, because what ends up happening. According to this
Speaker 1: new study, it's actually published in Pediatric Obesity, and it
Speaker 1: shows the kids and teenagers who drink diet coke and
Speaker 1: other diet beverages ate an extra two hundred calories a
Speaker 1: day because their body thinks they're taking in calories that
Speaker 1: they're not taking, or rather their body essentially compensates for
Speaker 1: what the processes are of taking in this sea. I
Speaker 1: can't really really explain it, no one really knows. But
Speaker 1: they eat too much or they eat more than they
Speaker 1: should because they're drinking the diet sodas. The researchers focused
Speaker 1: on those kids drinking sodas packed with low calories sweeters.
Speaker 1: They found youngsters who drank diet drinks consume extra calories
Speaker 1: and also took in more calories from added sugars in
Speaker 1: food and drinks compared to water. Drinkers basically drink water.
Speaker 1: People should be drinking water. And I mean I'll throw
Speaker 1: coffee in there too, but water, coffee, tea, that's what
Speaker 1: you should drink. Booze when you want to celebrate, you know,
Speaker 1: a little wine with a great steak or a beer
Speaker 1: with a great burger or whatever. But people should be
Speaker 1: drinking water. The entire sweetened beverage industry is something that
Speaker 1: I think is going bye bye sooner than later. All right,
Speaker 1: roll calls coming up, seeing Buck, It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton roll call time. I
Speaker 1: tell you I had a I had lunch today with
Speaker 1: a friend of mine who was coming into DC. She
Speaker 1: actually was getting a tour from a friend in the
Speaker 1: White House who works in the White House. She said, hey,
Speaker 1: can we grab lunch? And it was just kind of
Speaker 1: fun because we did we did the math on it.
Speaker 1: She was the first and we've been we've been friends
Speaker 1: now for god, I said, we did the math and
Speaker 1: now I'm forgetting about twenty four years. We've been friends
Speaker 1: for twenty four years. And she was the first person,
Speaker 1: first girl who I ever asked for a phone number from,
Speaker 1: and I was in the sixth grade at the time,
Speaker 1: or maybe the fifth grade, one of my oldest friends,
Speaker 1: and we had lunch that I was kind of funny
Speaker 1: because now I have some friends who I count our
Speaker 1: our friendship no longer in years, but in decades. That's
Speaker 1: how it goes. She's a she's a good buddy, and
Speaker 1: she's getting a personal tour of the White House. And
Speaker 1: it was just kind of funny to think about how
Speaker 1: man thirteen year old bucks like a very long time
Speaker 1: ago Facebook dot com slash buck sexton. Let me get
Speaker 1: to your thoughts here, and first up, we have low
Speaker 1: law rights. I feel like we have switched from wag
Speaker 1: the dog to wag the swamp. Two months ago, Trump
Speaker 1: signed an extension on the budget that restricted his ability
Speaker 1: to build a wall, giving the local landowners the ability
Speaker 1: to block the wall. He didn't have to sign. He
Speaker 1: could have at the time just given an extension. Now
Speaker 1: the MULA report has done, and for no apparent reason,
Speaker 1: he meets with Schumer and Pelosi and signs a two
Speaker 1: trillion dollars infrastructure deal. Please the love of God, someone
Speaker 1: please explain to me what's going on here. Shields High,
Speaker 1: you know, the bureaucracy is very powerful, my friend. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a real thing. The bureaucracy has its own will,
Speaker 1: has its own desires. As I have often said, the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy is self aware. The bureaucracy is like Skynet in
Speaker 1: the Terminator movies. It advocates for its own interests. It's
Speaker 1: no longer concerned with what its initial task that it
Speaker 1: was set up to do. Maybe so, yes, it's not
Speaker 1: surprising to me that there are all these checks and well,
Speaker 1: checks and balances are good, But this is the checks
Speaker 1: on power that are not supposed to be there. Although
Speaker 1: I do try to take some comfort in the safety
Speaker 1: and security of gridlock right that our government not being
Speaker 1: able to do that much in some ways is probably
Speaker 1: for the best. Just think about, would you really want
Speaker 1: to have Okazio Cortez or Amy klobischar or Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: You want them to have a blank slate to do
Speaker 1: whatever they want to do and affect your life however
Speaker 1: they want to affect it. Nope, So why I limited
Speaker 1: government is so important. Part of a limited government is
Speaker 1: a government that is not just not allowed to do
Speaker 1: certain things, but it's incapable of doing certain things. That's
Speaker 1: why the system that we have with really oppositional aspects
Speaker 1: of government or people. Checks and balance is a better
Speaker 1: way of saying it. So I'll just say that checks
Speaker 1: and balances in place, that's why it's so important. But
Speaker 1: it's gotten a little out of control. I mean, to
Speaker 1: the point being made here by Lowell that you have
Speaker 1: one federal judge that now can effectively overrule whatever it
Speaker 1: is the president tries to do at any point in time.
Speaker 1: That's just that's just excessive, that's just too much. That's
Speaker 1: not what the and that's not what the system is
Speaker 1: supposed to have in place. And also in the era
Speaker 1: of Trump, there are a lot of people who feel
Speaker 1: like the old rules and I mean constitutional and statutory
Speaker 1: rules no longer apply. Anything to take Trump down, anything
Speaker 1: to stop Trump, anything to prevent the implementation of Trump's agenda,
Speaker 1: is justified in the eyes of many people in the resistance.
Speaker 1: It's just the truth. Graham Rights, I'm assuming you plan
Speaker 1: to give this pressing national security story all the coverage
Speaker 1: it richly deserves. And this is about a bluga whale
Speaker 1: that is apparently part of some Russian spy program. The
Speaker 1: reason they know this is that it had a harness
Speaker 1: on with letters from the cyrillic alphabet written on it.
Speaker 1: So people think that maybe there's something with the Bluga
Speaker 1: whales getting trained to do recon or something. I don't know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I saw this story. I think we actually talked about
Speaker 1: it on Rising. These days, we do a fair amount
Speaker 1: of funky stories on Rising. That's become a thing that
Speaker 1: we do, so yeah, let's check this one out. In fact,
Speaker 1: it was a Russian disinformation or no, not disinformation, a
Speaker 1: Swedish counter propaganda operation of dropping bears behind enemy lines
Speaker 1: in Russia from the sky freedom bears that brought us
Speaker 1: commy Bear a long time ago. And now some of
Speaker 1: you're saying, Buck, commy bear. Where have I heard that before?
Speaker 1: I know, I have not yet forgotten. It is time
Speaker 1: for the bear to come back, and I've been saying
Speaker 1: it for a long time. So we will have to
Speaker 1: make that happen. Chuck friends with Buck. The whole collusion
Speaker 1: hoax was always just a pretext to an obstruction charge
Speaker 1: by the Dems. They thought that if they turned the
Speaker 1: screws hard enough on the President, he would take action
Speaker 1: that could be construed as obstruction and therefore impeachable. Am
Speaker 1: I in the ballpark, Chuck, Yes, the collusion narrative. They
Speaker 1: knew very early on that they weren't going to be
Speaker 1: able to make that stick, and so the real effort
Speaker 1: was going to be what we see now, which is
Speaker 1: to make it about obstruction. Oh, it's not the crime,
Speaker 1: it's the cover up. Well, there was no crime, and
Speaker 1: in fact, obstruction as a charge does not work either
Speaker 1: because there was no cover up either. Where is the obstruction?
Speaker 1: How did Trump obstruct an investigation that at any point
Speaker 1: in time he could have just ended. You're gonna tell
Speaker 1: me he obstructed something when he could have ended it.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like saying that you know, I
Speaker 1: obstructed a dinner party. Well, you know, I'm the chef.
Speaker 1: I cooked all the food. If I didn't want the
Speaker 1: dinner party to happen, I could have just not cooked
Speaker 1: the food. So someone explained that one to me. That
Speaker 1: analogy kind of held up. That worked, Kevin, Right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm listening to Wednesday's podcast. Have a say, you're throwing
Speaker 1: too many softball movie quotes out there. Clear and present
Speaker 1: danger is the reference to the Potomac two step. You
Speaker 1: are correct sir, That's my favorite. That's probably my favorite
Speaker 1: scene in the whole thing where where he gets in
Speaker 1: there and he says, you know, old Jack, you'll hold
Speaker 1: us in your back pocket, the Old Potomac two step.
Speaker 1: That guy is great in the role of President. He
Speaker 1: really does a good job. Whatever. I don't know that
Speaker 1: actor is from Clear and Present Danger, but he does
Speaker 1: a really, really good job. I'm sorry, mister President. I
Speaker 1: don't dance, you know. I think in his day you
Speaker 1: can make it. You can make an argument that Harrison
Speaker 1: Ford was really the great you know, who's really the
Speaker 1: top of the is for the greatest leading male movie
Speaker 1: stars of well of the movie generation really, which is
Speaker 1: what we have had now. I would say, you've got
Speaker 1: Tom Cruise there. I know I'm not I'm not really
Speaker 1: a Tom Cruise fan, but he's got to be in
Speaker 1: the conversation. You've got to put Harrison Ford up there.
Speaker 1: You've I think you can make a case for either
Speaker 1: Will Smith or Denzel Washington. I think you could dan
Speaker 1: Donald Moffatt was the president there Jack the Old Potomac
Speaker 1: two Step. But that's a great Clear and President Danger.
Speaker 1: I think as a better movie than Patriot Games, although
Speaker 1: there's something kind of eerie and gritty about Patriot games.
Speaker 1: You know that reminds me I want to go back
Speaker 1: and read some of the Clancy classics. Man that guy was.
Speaker 1: That guy was the man back in the day, Harla Rights.
Speaker 1: The radio show has been exceptional this week. You are
Speaker 1: on fire in Fuego. Thank you for what you do, Carla.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the words of encouragement. I've really been
Speaker 1: putting it, putting it out there this week, you know,
Speaker 1: going hard on the show, and I appreciate that you
Speaker 1: appreciate it and everyone else listening, and I hope that
Speaker 1: it spurs some of you on to say, Hey, I
Speaker 1: like this Buck Sexton guy. I'm gonna tell somebody to
Speaker 1: download his podcast so that more more people listen to
Speaker 1: the show, so he'll also keep having a show that grows. Um.
Speaker 1: But yes, now this has been a good week for
Speaker 1: good week for the news. A lot to talk about.
Speaker 1: I will say I've slowed down a little bit today.
Speaker 1: I just kind of hit a wall. I'm just some days,
Speaker 1: you know, you just haven't gotten enough sleep for three
Speaker 1: or four days, and today was one of those days.
Speaker 1: From me. I just like, oh man, but you cannot
Speaker 1: you cannot stop. When the when the g wats hot,
Speaker 1: as a guy used to tell me, the global war
Speaker 1: on terrorism. And you cannot stop when the freedom hunt
Speaker 1: is hot. So freedom Hut's hot this week, U David right?
Speaker 1: Buck Beard's high, I mean shield's high. You look great, brother,
Speaker 1: SI swimsuit issue going, Shariah has my jaw on the floor.
Speaker 1: I'm half expecting a pick with a beech cop from
Speaker 1: the nineteen twenties. They're measuring her burkini to make sure
Speaker 1: it doesn't violate the law, I aim. The woman that
Speaker 1: is Islamic dress codes proves that social justice in its
Speaker 1: feminist wing have nothing to do with liberty and progress,
Speaker 1: but sending it for anything that isn't Christian. No matter
Speaker 1: how hypocritical the feminists are on the left, it is
Speaker 1: a leftist ideology. And Islam is also considered a protected
Speaker 1: religious category in this country by the left because they
Speaker 1: think of it as a non white, non Christian religion,
Speaker 1: even though there are plenty of white people who are Muslims,
Speaker 1: but they still think of it as a predominantly non
Speaker 1: white religion and so they give it special consideration. They
Speaker 1: think that it deserves special treatment. So there you have it.
Speaker 1: Let's get a quick pausire. Will come back. We'll finish
Speaker 1: up from a role call on the flip side. I
Speaker 1: have more for you, more of your thoughts, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton. We will be right back, Laurel. Next
Speaker 1: up here on a roll call. Hey Bock, listening to
Speaker 1: the show from Wednesday night, have a question on Mueller's scope.
Speaker 1: I think Andrew McCarthy is very smart, but he keeps
Speaker 1: referring to obstruction as being Muller's main objective in his investigation.
Speaker 1: As a fellow swamp dweller, I have had interesting conversations,
Speaker 1: including one with somebody reputable who pointed out that obstruction
Speaker 1: is nowhere in the letter authorizing the Special Council. It
Speaker 1: is inferred in the sections about any matter arising from
Speaker 1: the investigation. Laurel, I'd have to check. I sounds like
Speaker 1: you're probably correct on this one, but I'm sure Andy
Speaker 1: would say right, and obstruction is a matter arising from
Speaker 1: the investigation. Now. I think it's not happenstance that it's
Speaker 1: a matter of arising between investigation. I think that that
Speaker 1: was the plan all along. But see your point. Also,
Speaker 1: Laura writes, I'm with you on the burke Keeny No,
Speaker 1: just no, I work way too hard for summer to
Speaker 1: wear that. And as for playlists, I have a tum
Speaker 1: but what kind of music and what kind of workouts?
Speaker 1: You know, I'm just looking for like stuff. See here's
Speaker 1: the problem. Whenever I ask for somebody to give me
Speaker 1: workout music, they're like, I've got great music uc DC
Speaker 1: and I have the Tiger and guys, I've got all
Speaker 1: that covered, all right. I'm looking for stuff that's like
Speaker 1: a little more current. I don't want stuff from the
Speaker 1: seventies to work out too per se and ever classic rock,
Speaker 1: I got all the classic rock already. I'm looking for
Speaker 1: music from the last you know, five to ten years
Speaker 1: that will get you psyched up for a workout, mostly
Speaker 1: weightlifting not I don't really do cardio. I know I
Speaker 1: probably should. People will book do cardio, yeah whatever, yeah, whatever,
Speaker 1: you do your own cardio. I do cardio, just not
Speaker 1: necessarily in the gym, walking to the grocery store. Get
Speaker 1: your mind out of the gutter. Come on, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: you know you know how I roll. David Riots, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: your movie quote was clear and President Danger. Yeah, David,
Speaker 1: you're correct, it was clear in President Danger. Good job,
Speaker 1: Sean afternoon, Buck just a quick quip. The beard has
Speaker 1: turned your appearance into that of an Irish pirate. Shield's Hi, Matie,
Speaker 1: Well it is, I do go a. I got a
Speaker 1: big red beard now, so I'm kind of I'm getting
Speaker 1: used to it, you know, I'm sort of leaning it
Speaker 1: into this beard thing. Beardy mcbeard Beard. James, here's a
Speaker 1: good question for you. A friend and I were trying
Speaker 1: to find out if it is constitutional for a sitting
Speaker 1: senator who is running for president to be able to
Speaker 1: take part in the Russian investigation, or any other senator
Speaker 1: or a congressperson who was running for president. We tried
Speaker 1: to look online for info, but no luck shields Hie
Speaker 1: from w G y up in Koble Skill in New York.
Speaker 1: So you're asking me if a sitting senator can take
Speaker 1: part in the Russian investigation. Yeah, James, I don't think
Speaker 1: there's any prohibition on a member of Congress conduct any
Speaker 1: any of their constitutionally mandated duties, including oversight, just because
Speaker 1: they're also going to be running for president. Now, is
Speaker 1: there a conflict of interest there? Of course, But there
Speaker 1: are plenty of people that hold elected office that then
Speaker 1: run for something else, and I'm not aware of any
Speaker 1: prohibition on that. But then again, one of the fun
Speaker 1: things about this show is that I learned new things
Speaker 1: from all of you all the time. So if there's
Speaker 1: a legal or constitutional scholar out there who wants to
Speaker 1: tell me that I'm way off on this one, Sampson Nite,
Speaker 1: I was way off. Is it even going to get
Speaker 1: that one? We'll see. Please do right and let me know, Mike.
Speaker 1: Another from wgy Land and Upstate New York. For some
Speaker 1: odd reason, I can't figure out how to post on
Speaker 1: your page, so I message you here. But it seems
Speaker 1: the volume on your podcast is very low. I can
Speaker 1: barely hear you. You know, what's going on with that?
Speaker 1: Do we know, producer, Mike? Is this a real thing?
Speaker 1: Is our podcast not? You know? Mark? Do we have
Speaker 1: a problem with our podcast volume? Has that been happening?
Speaker 1: I don't people keep complaining about this. Yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think it is, but we'll look until its
Speaker 1: for sure. Ah Man killing me here, Producer, Mike, what
Speaker 1: do you do for Cardio? And remember it's a family show. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I walk my dog. That's right. How's Cash doing? He's
Speaker 1: doing good? Yeah? He actually he runs me. He's got
Speaker 1: way more energy than I do, so I usually wind up.
Speaker 1: I'm like the guy in the cartoon who's like the
Speaker 1: dogs running and he's pulling his owner along. That's me
Speaker 1: with cash. I got you, Kevin writes buck Love the
Speaker 1: show and the Beard very on, pointing out about Bar
Speaker 1: and the moronic liberals trying to attack his character. It
Speaker 1: was an absolute disgrace. Had my blood boiling. I don't
Speaker 1: have a question, but I've a request. Can you do more? Bro? Cuomo?
Speaker 1: Do you even lift bro? Impressions? There was always happy
Speaker 1: rolling and cheer me up. She'll tell and go team
Speaker 1: block Kevin for you? Kevin, of course, Man, do you
Speaker 1: even lift Bro? Do you even know who my brother was?
Speaker 1: Governor of New York? Look at these pecks. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: can do more of that for you. We can make
Speaker 1: that happen. Let's see here, Scott, he know, Scott? Is
Speaker 1: it just me or conservatives constantly having to defend against
Speaker 1: arguments we're not making. I wish I could remember the
Speaker 1: article that prompted this question, but I'm reminded of the
Speaker 1: Parks and rec episode in season seven where Leslie goes
Speaker 1: on a tirade about all the questions she's tired of
Speaker 1: hearing female politicians asked every time. I'm left wondering who
Speaker 1: has seriously asked any of these questions the last forty
Speaker 1: years Shields High Scott. People love to just create strawman
Speaker 1: and then tear them down. It makes you feel big
Speaker 1: and tough and strong and all that stuff. So I
Speaker 1: mean I hear you on all that. Yep, I don't
Speaker 1: know about these questions that Leslie Nope was asked. I'd
Speaker 1: have to go back and watch that episode again. But
Speaker 1: Parkson rec's a great show, a little liberal, but Ron
Speaker 1: Swanson kind of balances it out. So and just skip
Speaker 1: season one, just go right to season two. All right, team,
Speaker 1: that is going to be it. From the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: For this wonderful episode of the Buck Sexton Show, I
Speaker 1: hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. I'm
Speaker 1: sure that at least some of you did, so that's
Speaker 1: always good news. Tomorrow is a freestyle Friday, already planning
Speaker 1: a fantastic show, so, as is my custom, I will
Speaker 1: be talking to you then coast to coast, speak English,
Speaker 1: Buck across the country. She'll tie