Speaker 1: Sorry to spoil the surprise, but if you're getting gift
Speaker 1: from me this Christmas, you're getting coffee from my favorite
Speaker 1: coffee company, Black Rifle Coffee. Every morning when I go
Speaker 1: into the hill, I have a steamy, hot, delicious cup
Speaker 1: of Black Rifle, just black. And that's also how I
Speaker 1: drink it. And the name of the coffee. By the way,
Speaker 1: it is delicious. Okay. The aromas, the different taste profiles
Speaker 1: that come through are incredible. Oh and by the way,
Speaker 1: this is a company run by and four veterans, including
Speaker 1: veterans of the United States Special Forces. These guys are amazing.
Speaker 1: Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things so easy. Just pick
Speaker 1: your blend amount you want and they'll ship the coffee
Speaker 1: right to your door. Check this out for yourself. They
Speaker 1: offer three, six and twelve month prepaid and pay as
Speaker 1: you go subscriptions. The best tasting, most energizing coffee imaginable,
Speaker 1: and they help veteran first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: is the gift that keeps on giving. Visit Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off.
Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Lies, lies and more
Speaker 1: lies from the media about the caravan for weeks all
Speaker 1: the way up to today. Just what is the truth
Speaker 1: of what's been going on south of our border and
Speaker 1: what can we do about it? Plus general motors cutting
Speaker 1: about fifteen thousand jobs. People are starting to say they're
Speaker 1: worried about the economy, China, the trade war. We will
Speaker 1: get to the truth separated from the fiction, and also
Speaker 1: the latest on the Mullar probe 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 American, You're a great
Speaker 1: American Again, The buck Sexton Show begins Analyst, No, here
Speaker 1: we look at children get being subjected to tear gas.
Speaker 1: That's the United States causing that. That's outrageous as we
Speaker 1: have seen the images of the children and the women,
Speaker 1: and there has got to be a pragmatic and compassionate
Speaker 1: answer here that does not involved here gassing children. That
Speaker 1: is not who America is. Little questions whether or not
Speaker 1: anyone actually through rocks. Yesterday MPR was reporting that actually
Speaker 1: it was relatively peaceful, Welcome to the buck section, Cheryl.
Speaker 1: The media is lying to you, lying through straight out falsehood,
Speaker 1: lying through misdirection, through exaggeration, all kinds of lies, omission, misdirection,
Speaker 1: you name it, lying to you about what's going on
Speaker 1: with immigration with illegal aliens. With every aspect of this
Speaker 1: debate and discussion, they are constantly throwing up nonsense and
Speaker 1: hoping that we don't catch on. Do it. Let me
Speaker 1: just give you a quick, a quick and dirty here
Speaker 1: on the lies on immigration. You're just hearing there about
Speaker 1: tear gass and children. No, they deployed tear gas against
Speaker 1: a mob, a mob that was using women and children
Speaker 1: as human shields while they threw rocks at border patrol officers.
Speaker 1: What it's border patrols supposed to do? Put down their shields,
Speaker 1: no tear gas. So yeah, I just threw rocks at
Speaker 1: us because you know there are kids around here. They
Speaker 1: have use of force protocols for a reason, and the
Speaker 1: use of force protocols were adhered to. But here are
Speaker 1: the biggest media eyes about the caravan crisis. Number one,
Speaker 1: it's mostly women and children. No, it is not, but
Speaker 1: you've heard that from so many people. Oh, it's women
Speaker 1: and children. It's women and children. That's not true. Why
Speaker 1: have you been told that so many times with the media, Well,
Speaker 1: because it's easy for them to lie about this. It
Speaker 1: makes their base happy. Number two, it's mostly valid asylum seekers. No,
Speaker 1: it is not. In fact, we'll play later for you.
Speaker 1: A guy at MSNBC made the I'm sure unforgivable over there,
Speaker 1: mistake of reporting on the truth of what is going
Speaker 1: on with this caravan. Big, big problem. You can't can't
Speaker 1: tell people the truth. They're not asylum seekers in a
Speaker 1: valid sense. They are fraudulent asylum seekers. They will say
Speaker 1: what they are told to say, what they're being coached
Speaker 1: to say at the border, when in reality they are
Speaker 1: economic migrants who are seeking to be in the United States.
Speaker 1: People keep saying, oh, they're seeking better opportunity. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean also they're seeking a large, safe, wealthy welfare state,
Speaker 1: which is what America is for a lot of legal aliens.
Speaker 1: So there's that. Number Three, another big media lie here.
Speaker 1: No criminals. Remember we were talking about in the early
Speaker 1: days the caravan, how there's probably criminal elements and there's
Speaker 1: a safety issue here. Oh no, no, no criminals. They
Speaker 1: were saying, Well, now it turns out that just based
Speaker 1: on whom they've already identified so far, we're looking at
Speaker 1: about six hundred criminals, which is roughly ten percent of
Speaker 1: the caravan overall, are known criminals apart from the criminal
Speaker 1: act of trying to cross in the United States not
Speaker 1: at a port of entry illegally. So there are plenty
Speaker 1: of people to look at here and say, oh, that
Speaker 1: that's actually a criminal. That's so that's a big line.
Speaker 1: Number five, no external organizers, No external organizers. Well, who
Speaker 1: are the people that are showing up and providing legal
Speaker 1: advice and food and water and assisting them? And oh,
Speaker 1: you mean there are organizers there? Yep. Of course. Number six,
Speaker 1: that the troop deployment is not helpful. It turns out
Speaker 1: the Customs and Border Patrol disagrees with the notion that
Speaker 1: the US military presence of the border was not helpful.
Speaker 1: They found that to be quite helpful and they could
Speaker 1: use more assistance. And then another lie here number seven,
Speaker 1: that there's no un there's no threat to US personnel
Speaker 1: posed by this whole caravan. Play play five and play six.
Speaker 1: Here Brandon Plan both kind of challenge that this was
Speaker 1: a peaceful protest or the majority of these people were
Speaker 1: claiming asylum. We ended up making about forty two arrests.
Speaker 1: Only eight of those were females, and there were only
Speaker 1: a few children involved. The vast majority of the people
Speaker 1: were dealing with their adult males. One of the groups
Speaker 1: that I watched one of the groups that actually several
Speaker 1: of them were arrested. They passed ten or fifteen marked
Speaker 1: Border patil units walking east to west or west to east.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, numerous uniform personnel as they were chanting, waving
Speaker 1: a Honduran flag and throwing rocks at the agents. If
Speaker 1: they were truly asylum seekers, they would have just walked
Speaker 1: up with their hands up and surrendered, and that did
Speaker 1: not take place. What I find uncomfortable is that people
Speaker 1: would intentionally take children into this situation. What we saw
Speaker 1: over and over yesterday was that the group, the caravan
Speaker 1: as we call them, would push women and children towards
Speaker 1: the front and then begin basically rocking our agents. Our
Speaker 1: agents were being an assaulted. Large group rushed the area
Speaker 1: and they were throwing rocks and bottles at my men
Speaker 1: and women, putting them in harm's way as well as
Speaker 1: other members of the caravan. We needed to disperse the group,
Speaker 1: and with that assaultive nature, it was it was imperative
Speaker 1: that we dispersed them from the area. And we started
Speaker 1: off the show with all these people like, oh, they're
Speaker 1: tear gassing children. That's just a lot. They deployed tear
Speaker 1: gas against rioters and rock throwers and some people happen
Speaker 1: to have children there. This would be like saying they're
Speaker 1: they're they're shooting children. They're shooting children, Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: at when when the police have to intervene in a
Speaker 1: terrorist incident. No, they they shot at people who were
Speaker 1: terrorists and there were children nearby because they were trying
Speaker 1: to save lives. It would not be it would not
Speaker 1: be a proper description to just say, well they shot
Speaker 1: at children. Yeah, there were bullets that were flying, but
Speaker 1: they weren't actually trying to hurt the children. They were
Speaker 1: trying to get other people. I mean. But this is
Speaker 1: what I mean. This is this is what the media does,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, reporting on how Hamas operates against
Speaker 1: Israel or reporting on how our own border patrol deals
Speaker 1: with people trying to get across the border. They just
Speaker 1: find ways to twist it, to lie about it. Here's
Speaker 1: a perfect example. There are photos there are journalists, lots
Speaker 1: of people down there. I was actually going to go
Speaker 1: down there this week, but the last minute my travel
Speaker 1: plants had to change. I wanted to go, but I
Speaker 1: basically couldn't get somebody to cover from me on Rising
Speaker 1: and so I had to I got responsibilities, but I
Speaker 1: was trying to get down there for the whole week.
Speaker 1: Hopefully they'll get down there soon. There's plenty of people
Speaker 1: covering this issue, lots of media down there. They see
Speaker 1: what's going on, they know, but you can do this anywhere.
Speaker 1: They pick one photo, one photo to talk about on
Speaker 1: TV as though that's indicative of everything that's happening and
Speaker 1: the entire problem. You know, here's the media just freaking
Speaker 1: out about this play eight. But look at the photo.
Speaker 1: See for yourself. That group and includes men, women, and
Speaker 1: several children, some of them trying to cross after being
Speaker 1: denied access to the port of entry where they could
Speaker 1: legally claim asylum. One photo shows a mother struggling to
Speaker 1: scoop up her children and flee the fumes. And in
Speaker 1: this photo shared around the world, shows a family running
Speaker 1: from the fumes. This is a shameful American moment. It's
Speaker 1: a shameful American moment. Those children, those pictures are the
Speaker 1: pictures we saw at the end of the Vietnam War.
Speaker 1: Comparing this to the end of Vietnam War, I mean,
Speaker 1: these people have no shame. They also seem to have
Speaker 1: no brains, but they have no shame. They're all talking
Speaker 1: about the same photo. I saw that there was one
Speaker 1: photo they really like, just like when we had family
Speaker 1: separation to shoot the border. Remember, they showed the child
Speaker 1: who was crying, and that was emblematic of the whole
Speaker 1: situation that was supposed to symbolize all of it turns
Speaker 1: out that she wasn't even separated from her family. And
Speaker 1: when you learn the backstory of the photo, it's propaganda.
Speaker 1: It's it's not an honest representation of what was going
Speaker 1: on there. And to say that what's happened at the
Speaker 1: border to find one family with a woman, you know,
Speaker 1: who's grabbing her child by the arm, I gotta tell you.
Speaker 1: If you've got small kids and you think that bring
Speaker 1: them into a riot situation is smart, you know, at
Speaker 1: what point do the parents deserve a whole On a second,
Speaker 1: what the heck are you doing here? Moment? You know,
Speaker 1: put your children in harm's way? And that way, what
Speaker 1: if just this mob that's trying to crawl over the
Speaker 1: fences and overrun border patrol, of one of them, you know,
Speaker 1: runs into your child, runs over your child, A is
Speaker 1: it trying to flee the to your gas. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just a dangerous situation. And the fact that there
Speaker 1: are all these reports that they actually try to push
Speaker 1: them the women in the caravan forward, push the children forward,
Speaker 1: goes to show you, at least in some cases, what
Speaker 1: kind of men we're really dealing with here. Are these
Speaker 1: people of honor and integrity who are trying to come
Speaker 1: across the border. If they're putting women and children in
Speaker 1: front as they are antagonizing and assaulting police, I think
Speaker 1: we all know the answer to that. And also this
Speaker 1: notion that throwing rocks is not a big deal. Let
Speaker 1: me tell you to all the libs over at c
Speaker 1: in An MSNBC who were acting like that's just you
Speaker 1: know what happens, man, No, it is not. If they
Speaker 1: were to try throwing a rock at a DC Metro cop,
Speaker 1: they'd be lucky if the worst that happened was that
Speaker 1: the guy pulled out of baton and went to work
Speaker 1: on their knees. While they arrested them. You don't get
Speaker 1: to throw rocks at people just you know, think about
Speaker 1: this form. What if one of those rocks actually had
Speaker 1: hit a border patrol agent in the temple? I mean,
Speaker 1: what if it hit him in the nose? Did you
Speaker 1: want to be that border patrol agent. We're not talking
Speaker 1: about mean words. We're talking about protests. We're talking about
Speaker 1: people who are engaged in assault with a weapon, using
Speaker 1: a projectile here. You know, I like that that Tom
Speaker 1: Homan's out there, somebody's out there with real back and
Speaker 1: real knowledge calling this stuff out. This idea that the
Speaker 1: tear gas was an overrepresentation, no notice that we're never
Speaker 1: dealing with the substance of the issue, which is there's
Speaker 1: an invasion of illegal aliens trying to overrun a US
Speaker 1: border patrol sector and with the Democratic Party cheering it
Speaker 1: on and running interference. That's what's happening. But then they'll
Speaker 1: find one photo, They'll find one aspect, oh, the tear
Speaker 1: gas that was used. That's the entire news story from
Speaker 1: their perspective. Emotionalize it, personalize it, go a Lynsky on this.
Speaker 1: Don't allow this to be a real national level policy discussion.
Speaker 1: Don't allow people to figure out that what's really at
Speaker 1: stake here is is the United States a country or not?
Speaker 1: Do we have sovereignty? Do we have control over our borders?
Speaker 1: I mentioned Tom Holman, he's laying it down play ten.
Speaker 1: A lot of these people, based on iron intelligence, have
Speaker 1: been deported before, so when they enter the country, that's
Speaker 1: a felony. But one thing I want to say, they'll
Speaker 1: put the nastairs on tier. Guys need to get this
Speaker 1: out for those stairs put on you in the forum,
Speaker 1: strap a gun to your hip, get rock stone at
Speaker 1: you and tell me there wasn't a better response. It's
Speaker 1: non lethal law enforcement response. I was proper concerned they're
Speaker 1: being assaulted. Yeah, what do they want them to do?
Speaker 1: What do they think the proper response is when law
Speaker 1: enforcement is being assaulted? I remember that's what Border patrol is,
Speaker 1: sworn law enforcement. They are armed law enforcement officers. A
Speaker 1: lot of them, by the way, are veterans, and a
Speaker 1: lot of them are Hispanic and Latino. So while we're
Speaker 1: always told that they're racist, terrible, you know, like the
Speaker 1: stormtroopers from Star Wars, the truth is that these are
Speaker 1: Americans doing a very important job. Many of them are minorities,
Speaker 1: many of them are veterans, but the left will spit
Speaker 1: on them anyway, just like they'll spit on ice. Abolish Ice.
Speaker 1: They were saying all Summers people are a disgrace, a
Speaker 1: total disgrace. I'm a Democratic party. They've lost they have
Speaker 1: lost their mind on this issue, and they're not to
Speaker 1: be taken seriously because they are unserious. It's troubling that
Speaker 1: this plays out in the way that it does. It.
Speaker 1: It's bothersome to me that we have to sit here
Speaker 1: and watches CNN and all these other channels engage in
Speaker 1: just the worst kind of distortions, the worst kind of
Speaker 1: of left wing propagandizing about how some as though, you know,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration has set up a bunch of thugs
Speaker 1: at the statue of liberty, turning away the you know,
Speaker 1: the tired, the weak, and the hungry of the world
Speaker 1: at all this No, we have a border with people
Speaker 1: that are trying to buy force overrun it because now
Speaker 1: we've finally figured out that the scam that they're running,
Speaker 1: and enough people understand what's really going on here that
Speaker 1: letting them into the interior of the United States is
Speaker 1: no longer really an option. So what are they doing
Speaker 1: although they're forcing this confrontation, but after all of the
Speaker 1: lies the leftist told on this, why would you believe
Speaker 1: anything they have to say on immigration? Now? Why should
Speaker 1: we listen to a single word that Pelosi and Schumer
Speaker 1: and you know, the CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington
Speaker 1: Post fraudulence complex engages in you? Why should we listen
Speaker 1: to any of their nonsense at all. They're not telling
Speaker 1: you the truth, They're not presenting the facts to you
Speaker 1: in order to illuminate the issue. They want to spread
Speaker 1: a narrative. This is about power for them, and I
Speaker 1: wish conservatives would would wake up a little more to
Speaker 1: the fact that this is it. This is the end game.
Speaker 1: If they can truly de facto eradicate our southern border,
Speaker 1: and if more caravans come, more people come, more illegals come,
Speaker 1: and then they're able, whether it's through lucky timing for
Speaker 1: them in terms of the presidential election in twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: if they're able to get the House, the Senate and
Speaker 1: the presidency at one time, the first thing they will
Speaker 1: do is amnesty. And the Republican Party is dead, It's gone,
Speaker 1: it is finished. Because as I've been telling you it's
Speaker 1: ambacy for twenty million eleven is a lie. Oh, speaking
Speaker 1: of lies, another lie. Got a jam pack chare for
Speaker 1: your the teams. So stay with me. I'll be right back. Clearly,
Speaker 1: this goes back to Barack Obama's presidency when he created
Speaker 1: the DACA problem without ever trying to solve it. He said, literally,
Speaker 1: come to America illegally, bring your kids here illegally. He
Speaker 1: never tried to fix it. They never. In fact, when
Speaker 1: Pelosi had the House state a supermajority the Senate, they
Speaker 1: never tried to bring a bill to fix the problem.
Speaker 1: They wanted a political issue. President Trump comes into office,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer initially was willing to work with him on
Speaker 1: a solution of DOCA that included funding for the wall.
Speaker 1: Then the radical left went nuts and Chumer pulled that
Speaker 1: deal off the table. We've tried to pass bills through
Speaker 1: the House to solve the interior loophole problems that you've
Speaker 1: cited so many times, as well as funding the wall.
Speaker 1: Not one Democrat. We've had two different approaches on this.
Speaker 1: So no matter where you are on this, there was
Speaker 1: a chance for you to vote to solve the problem.
Speaker 1: This is a legacy of the Obama administration. Again, with
Speaker 1: our media the way that it is, they don't spend
Speaker 1: any time telling anybody that, but it was the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: You will recall that had the lack of well, I
Speaker 1: was gonna say lack of wisdom, But I actually know
Speaker 1: that they've wanted this all along. They were looking for
Speaker 1: ways to allow there to be more people to come
Speaker 1: into the country who are leaving third world countries where
Speaker 1: they have very generally speaking, low levels of education and
Speaker 1: ability to speak English, and they go right to the
Speaker 1: front of the line, so to spin the plan. That's
Speaker 1: been the all along. What this has has done for
Speaker 1: the left, this idea that if you show up at
Speaker 1: the border with a family unit, you must get let
Speaker 1: into the country. You know, I don't think that. I
Speaker 1: don't think a Honduran migrants came up with this on
Speaker 1: their own. By the way, there have been international NGOs
Speaker 1: pushing this. There have even been some of our foreign partners,
Speaker 1: you know, foreign national activity pushing this. And it's really
Speaker 1: a form of lawfare against the United States, right using
Speaker 1: the law as its own weapon of war against this country,
Speaker 1: in this case, a weapon against our immigration policies and
Speaker 1: for those who are open borders extremists, which is increasingly
Speaker 1: just the Democrat Party. This has been very effective if
Speaker 1: it's just women and children on the board, or why
Speaker 1: are we being so mean? You'll notice that they did
Speaker 1: this for a while as well with refugee policy, and
Speaker 1: they kept saying that there are you know, there's no
Speaker 1: there's never been a threat against the United States. We
Speaker 1: don't need to do extreme vetting. And then all actually
Speaker 1: we let in a few people that either themselves or
Speaker 1: they're immediate family members were terrorists, so that change that
Speaker 1: conversation a little bit. But just like what they've done here,
Speaker 1: lie after lie, it's all women and children. There are
Speaker 1: no criminals. They're never going to get here anyway. They
Speaker 1: have no credibility anymore on this. But we need to
Speaker 1: fix it and to fix it, which brings us then
Speaker 1: to the conversation about funding in the wall and the shutdown.
Speaker 1: We will certainly get into that and oh so much
Speaker 1: more teams they would be. She says that she's hoping
Speaker 1: that they give her a chance to work. That's what
Speaker 1: we've heard from this family. This family hasn't really talked
Speaker 1: about asylum per se. They are saying that they don't
Speaker 1: even want to come to the United States, and definitely
Speaker 1: they're going to be asking for permission to work for
Speaker 1: three to four years. From what we've seen, the majority
Speaker 1: are actually men, and some of these men have not
Speaker 1: articulated that need for asylum. Instead they have talked about,
Speaker 1: you know, going to the United States for a better
Speaker 1: life and to find work. Whoa somebody better code read
Speaker 1: that MSNBC reporter, because what is he doing speaking the
Speaker 1: truth about the caravan? That is unacceptable over at MSNBC.
Speaker 1: You are not allowed to do that. You have to
Speaker 1: stick to the narrative. You have to stay with all
Speaker 1: of the lies, right. I mean, they've made it very
Speaker 1: clear where they stand on this stuff. They don't want
Speaker 1: people getting all all upity with the facts. Much better
Speaker 1: for them to believe that this is a group of
Speaker 1: women and children fleeing certain you know, violence, murder, extermination.
Speaker 1: If they stay in Honduras country of nine million people
Speaker 1: that is not currently yet war and if we take
Speaker 1: in these people, by the way, then why shouldn't we
Speaker 1: have to take in all the rest of the millions
Speaker 1: of Hondurans who would rather be an American than in
Speaker 1: a Honduras. Does anyone want to even try to answer
Speaker 1: that question. No, you never get any any answers from
Speaker 1: Democrats on this stuff. You just get more of what
Speaker 1: they have been doing all along, which is essentially lying
Speaker 1: to you about all this. Here, let's just have some
Speaker 1: fun for a moment. Remember when Jim Acosta got into
Speaker 1: trouble and and that whole back and forth with TROMP
Speaker 1: and it led to them the press pass revocation, all
Speaker 1: that stuff, right, Remember all that stuff that happened there,
Speaker 1: and what Acosta is said then, which this was now
Speaker 1: what two weeks ago. I just want to take a
Speaker 1: little go in the in the in the way back machine,
Speaker 1: if you will, for a second. Here, now that we
Speaker 1: know what's happened, I mean here, here's here's what it
Speaker 1: sounds like with order at the border crossing of Sandy
Speaker 1: Cedro in California, with migrants rushing play clip three bombas
Speaker 1: vambas were. You know, they're all saying, let's go, let's go.
Speaker 1: They're trying to overrun and climb over a wall. Remember
Speaker 1: when Acosta was given that whole lecture to the president,
Speaker 1: and the President wasn't having any of it. Here's just
Speaker 1: a little just a little little taste of what that
Speaker 1: was like. Play clip one for your campaign had an
Speaker 1: ad showing migrants climbing over walls and it. But they
Speaker 1: weren't actor not going to be doing they weren't actress. Well, no,
Speaker 1: it's true. Do you think they were actors. They were
Speaker 1: an actress. They didn't come from Hollywood climbing over walls.
Speaker 1: Your campaign has climbing the walls. They're not going to
Speaker 1: be doing that. Now you could say that Will Buck
Speaker 1: he's he's making an analytic judgment there, or you know,
Speaker 1: he's essentially speculating. But to that, I would respond, why
Speaker 1: the heck is a White House corresponded, challenging the president
Speaker 1: with speculation. If he doesn't know what the heck he's
Speaker 1: talking about, maybe he should shut his dumb mouth. How
Speaker 1: about that he says they're not going to be doing that, Well,
Speaker 1: we know, in fact, they are going to be doing that.
Speaker 1: So I would just note that, you know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: a little bit of humility from the press going forward
Speaker 1: on this stuff would be would be in order. But
Speaker 1: that's we know that's that's not gonna happen, right, No
Speaker 1: way that's gonna happen. And then that brings me to
Speaker 1: other places, and I've been telling you that the real Yeah,
Speaker 1: if there's anything you can take away from from this
Speaker 1: part of the show so far, it's how much you
Speaker 1: have been lied to about this caravan. And that's really
Speaker 1: emblematic of how much we are all lied to about
Speaker 1: immigration all the time. We're constantly lied to about this,
Speaker 1: lie after lie after lie. And remember when they were
Speaker 1: saying that one, it's not an invasion, which I think
Speaker 1: when you have a mass of people and you have
Speaker 1: to deploy tear gas and they're overrunning your border, that's
Speaker 1: an invasion. And also the caravan they were saying is
Speaker 1: not even gonna be a thing because it's not even
Speaker 1: gonna show up playlip two. There is no invasion, there
Speaker 1: is no emergency. They're panicked about this fake invasion. For
Speaker 1: everybody out there that was telling me, no, it's a
Speaker 1: real story. We're worried about the caravan to come in,
Speaker 1: and Trump's strong enough to I go back to what
Speaker 1: I said about Martians coming to my backyard. Well they're
Speaker 1: not coming. The caravan's not coming, the leprosy is not coming.
Speaker 1: So there's just Joe Scarbrow going er and say, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe I shouldn't have said that maybe I'm a buffoon
Speaker 1: and my show is really about snarky, snarky liberal sensibilities
Speaker 1: getting a platform to be shared with other snarky liberals
Speaker 1: so they can feel so superior in their stupidity because
Speaker 1: there's so much dumb stuff that is said on that show.
Speaker 1: I mean that, of all the shows out there these
Speaker 1: days that are not on CNN, I've got to say
Speaker 1: MSNBC is among the wol Morning Joe is among the
Speaker 1: worst offenders for just being pathologically anti Trump. Like they
Speaker 1: can be anti Trump, that's fine, but they're anti Trump
Speaker 1: to the point where you can't take anything they say
Speaker 1: seriously because they are unserious. Right, They're not trying to
Speaker 1: present facts to people. They're trying to present a very
Speaker 1: specific and curated anti Trump narrative. It's just anti Trump propaganda,
Speaker 1: that's what they are doing. And you know that they've
Speaker 1: been wrong about this for weeks and weeks and weeks.
Speaker 1: And do you see anyone saying, you know, maya culpa,
Speaker 1: any of these big media's ong in your heads. We
Speaker 1: were saying, you know what, maybe they won't say they lied,
Speaker 1: but we got this one way wrong. Turns out, the
Speaker 1: caravan wasn't as you know, of course not. They're not
Speaker 1: gonna do any of that. There's no honesty, no introspection
Speaker 1: you can expect from the media. They will just continue
Speaker 1: to do what they have always done, which is saying
Speaker 1: what they have to say in the moment that is
Speaker 1: of greatest of greatest use utility for them, and then
Speaker 1: just move on and act like it never happened the
Speaker 1: moment that it goes bad for them, That's what they do. This.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of why also, you know, the funding,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talking more about the shutdown of the next hour.
Speaker 1: I will get into that. As you know, I tend
Speaker 1: to be pretty cynical about the whole shutdown issue. Here's
Speaker 1: what Lindsay Graham says about that place seventeen secure the
Speaker 1: border is going to be a bottom line for the president.
Speaker 1: He's got a twenty five billion dollar playing I don't
Speaker 1: think he expects to get twenty dollars all at once,
Speaker 1: but he does expect to get five villion, like the
Speaker 1: House authorized without a bunch of strains attached. They're not
Speaker 1: going to give him that money. Democrats are not. They'll
Speaker 1: do everything that they will go full Kavanaugh if they
Speaker 1: have to. They will throw out the decency rule book
Speaker 1: in a heartbeat. They don't care. They have to stop
Speaker 1: Trump from getting that funding for the wall, because this
Speaker 1: is why there are so many lies about this, This
Speaker 1: is why they report so recklessly on the topic. They
Speaker 1: know deep down that if a wall is built, and
Speaker 1: if that wall is beyond doubt proven to be effective,
Speaker 1: which will be the case, then it will be very
Speaker 1: hard for people to take liberals seriously on any of
Speaker 1: the other issues that they are running around screaming to
Speaker 1: be expert on, wise on knowledgeable about. These people are
Speaker 1: just essentially engaged in mirroring what the rest of the
Speaker 1: so called cool kids, smart set mob is saying. They're
Speaker 1: wrong on immigration and they're wrong on the wall. I
Speaker 1: predicted this on Sunday when I said that Muller is
Speaker 1: not going to be able to use manaphor because he
Speaker 1: is a proven liar, and you can't put a liar
Speaker 1: on the witness stand. Just like he's not going to
Speaker 1: be able to use coursie. He's not going to be
Speaker 1: able to use anybody who he got to plead guilty
Speaker 1: to perjury or lying to an FBI agent. You know
Speaker 1: the number of witnesses that he has that are credible
Speaker 1: are shrinking by the day. So I think the dirsh
Speaker 1: is right on this one. It's getting harder and harder
Speaker 1: for Muller to for anyone to really believe that Muller
Speaker 1: is going to have a real chance at a at
Speaker 1: a bombshell final act here, because he's just jamming everybody
Speaker 1: up with perjury charges. Well, if you're going to throw
Speaker 1: perjury charges at everyone all the time, who are you
Speaker 1: going to have left to make your case that Trump is,
Speaker 1: you know, the guy who colluded with Russia, that Trump
Speaker 1: is a bad guy, and that Trump is uh, you
Speaker 1: know whatever it is that I don't even know what
Speaker 1: they think is supposed to happen or is going to happen.
Speaker 1: I just think that they're they're pretty delusional about this.
Speaker 1: Here's the latest, I mean, Paul MANA four, according to Muller,
Speaker 1: has repeatedly lied to federal investigators in breach of his
Speaker 1: plea agreement. This is according to a Special Counsel's office
Speaker 1: and prosecutors saying that manaphorts crimes and lies about a
Speaker 1: variety of subject matters. Relieve them of all promises they
Speaker 1: made to him in the plea agreement under the plea,
Speaker 1: under the terms of the agreement, Manaphort cannot withdraw his
Speaker 1: guilty plea. Defense lawyers disagree that Maniford had violated the deal.
Speaker 1: In the same filing, according to The New York Times,
Speaker 1: they said Manaford had repeatedly met with the Special Counsel's
Speaker 1: office and believes he provided truthful information. So they've asked
Speaker 1: for a District of Columbia District Court judge to set
Speaker 1: a sentence in date. Who has been in solitary confinement
Speaker 1: in a detention center in Alexandria, Virginia. Why is Maniford
Speaker 1: in solitary? What is that all about? But you know,
Speaker 1: this is just shows you think about. And I know
Speaker 1: this is not somewhere Everyone's gonna want to go with me.
Speaker 1: But hold on a moment. Let's just try think about
Speaker 1: what would have been the result of approaching Hillary Clinton's
Speaker 1: little army of crooked liars people around her, people Whoma Abbydeen,
Speaker 1: you know, the Whoma Abode was married to, you know,
Speaker 1: the the per of Anthony Wiener. What would have been
Speaker 1: the result if in the email investigation they had taken
Speaker 1: the Muller approach, they had had a bunch of you know,
Speaker 1: right wing zealots who used the law in every way
Speaker 1: they could to destroy as many many people they could
Speaker 1: around Hillary. Does anyone really think that Hillary Clinton, she
Speaker 1: who is married to, did not have sexual relations with
Speaker 1: that woman. Does anyone really think that there wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been charges. It's just so galling this whole thing to
Speaker 1: see that the way that justice is done if you're
Speaker 1: a Democrat versus justice if you are a Republican. It's
Speaker 1: so fricking annoying because it's so obvious, it's so very
Speaker 1: very clear that there's a double standard in place. Now
Speaker 1: I'm hearing from some of my sources, some of my
Speaker 1: people here in the Swamp that they Clinton Foundation. There
Speaker 1: may be some Clinton Foundation bombshells that are dropped that,
Speaker 1: if my sourcing is correct, are going to raise the
Speaker 1: issue of not only where there no charge is brought
Speaker 1: against the Clinton Foundation, but there was really no desire
Speaker 1: by federal authorities to even look into the Clinton Foundation
Speaker 1: when there was smoking gun level evidence of malfeasance, all
Speaker 1: the stuff that you would think was going on to
Speaker 1: Clinton Foundation, people whose salaries were way too high, people
Speaker 1: who were abusing the funds of the organization for their
Speaker 1: own purpose. This is beep. I mean that was all happening.
Speaker 1: Of course, we're talking about the Clintons. There is no
Speaker 1: level of corruption that they will stoop to, or that
Speaker 1: they will not stoop to. Pardon me, and and the
Speaker 1: idea that they weren't going to be charged, it's just crazy.
Speaker 1: It's just crazy. It has been along. So we'll continue
Speaker 1: to follow the Muller probe, I know, the Jerome Corsi wiki, leaks, Assange,
Speaker 1: all that stuff. We got my man Sager and Jetty
Speaker 1: going to join us the next hour from a Daily
Speaker 1: caller Jelly Caller broke a big story on that today. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Roger Stone involved. I think Alex Jones went live for
Speaker 1: a while today, you know, with the whole whatever the
Speaker 1: heck Alex Jones talking about. So clearly there's there's some
Speaker 1: interest in in those stories too, and I will get
Speaker 1: to that just just before we get into the economy
Speaker 1: and the White House Press briefing. It happened today first time,
Speaker 1: first time in the month of November there's been a
Speaker 1: White House Press briefing. Yeahs Acosta was there. We'll get
Speaker 1: into it, and was there so he can give us
Speaker 1: some atmospherics on what happened today at the White House.
Speaker 1: I thought this was, you know, we've got the Jesse
Speaker 1: Kelly situation playing out, and it was great. Jesse on
Speaker 1: radio yesterday, we had him on Rising this morning. He
Speaker 1: was on Tucker Show last night. I'll be on Tucker
Speaker 1: Show tonight at eight o'clock. Those you want to see
Speaker 1: eight o'clock Eastern, so you can check that out. That'll
Speaker 1: be fun. That's right, Fox News, you know how to
Speaker 1: find it. But there's this this slow recognition that is
Speaker 1: I think finally beginning to you know, settle into people's minds. Here.
Speaker 1: There's this slow recognition that, oh, we really do have
Speaker 1: a problem here with the social media giants being overcome
Speaker 1: with progressive bias, and that's where you get stored. Not
Speaker 1: just the Jesse Kelly Twitter banishing that has happened, but
Speaker 1: also Google, which is the parent company for I'm sorry. Alphabet,
Speaker 1: which is the parent company for Google, introduced a feature
Speaker 1: for Gmail that automatically completes sentences for users as they
Speaker 1: type tap out I love you, and Gmail might propose
Speaker 1: you or or rather tap out I love a Gmail
Speaker 1: might add in you or it, but users are out
Speaker 1: of luck if the object of their affection is him
Speaker 1: or her. This is a Reuter's story. Today, Google's technology
Speaker 1: will not suggest gender based pronouns because the risk is
Speaker 1: too high that it's smart composed technology might predict someone's
Speaker 1: sex or gender identity incorrectly and offend users, product leaders
Speaker 1: revealed to Reuter's in interview, Gmail product manager Paul Lambert
Speaker 1: said a company research scientists discovered the problem in January
Speaker 1: when he typed I am meeting an investor next week,
Speaker 1: and smart Composed suggested a possible follow up this question,
Speaker 1: do you want to meet him instead of her? Yep?
Speaker 1: This is that's right. This is what these companies, these
Speaker 1: mega giants of Silicon Valley, are worried about the possibility
Speaker 1: that they may, through essentially AI, misgender somebody. Now, how
Speaker 1: can this be such a terrible the notion of mis gendering,
Speaker 1: Given the complexities that the left offers up for gender,
Speaker 1: shouldn't they then be willing to admit that, you know,
Speaker 1: it's really tough to get somebody's gender right. In fact,
Speaker 1: I would offer you that mis gendering shouldn't be offensive
Speaker 1: at all anymore to the left, because we don't know
Speaker 1: what anyone's gender is by looking at them. You used
Speaker 1: to think, oh, male female, That's something that as a
Speaker 1: rational functioning adult, I can probably tell just by looking
Speaker 1: at somebody, right, But no, no, not anymore. Somebody could
Speaker 1: be somewhere on the gender spectrum and you have no idea.
Speaker 1: So that being the case, until we can eradicate all pronouns,
Speaker 1: which I know there are some radicals on the left. Dude,
Speaker 1: that's what they want to do. Shouldn't there be a
Speaker 1: much greater acceptance of mis gendering. I mean, some of
Speaker 1: you might think to yourself, oh, well, you know Bob
Speaker 1: and accounting. You know, you know he's a he. You
Speaker 1: don't know, you don't know Bob's truth. You know, maybe
Speaker 1: Bob is hiding something from you all this time, so
Speaker 1: you can't say, hey, man, how you doing. And instead
Speaker 1: of just getting everybody in trouble for this, maybe we
Speaker 1: should just accept that we have no idea what anybody's
Speaker 1: gender is. Now. I know this is stupid, obviously, but
Speaker 1: the point I'm making here is this whole thing is dumb.
Speaker 1: But the Left is that they can't crawl out of
Speaker 1: this insanity. They've created it, and now they're stuck with it,
Speaker 1: including Google. Social media giants are full of left wing bias.
Speaker 1: You know it's true, But there are some places you
Speaker 1: can go now where you don't have to worry about
Speaker 1: people shadow banning you, people deciding that you're violating the
Speaker 1: terms of service. It's all nonsense, right, go to snippy
Speaker 1: dot com. And if you've looked at snippy dot com
Speaker 1: and left in the past, you need to look again.
Speaker 1: Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy dot com, expressing
Speaker 1: their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy is an
Speaker 1: unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
Speaker 1: users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators.
Speaker 1: So you know, Snippy's a place where you can express
Speaker 1: your thoughts and share your opinions totally freely, all right.
Speaker 1: It's free to join, by the way, and open to everyone.
Speaker 1: So go to snippy dot com. Let your opinion matter,
Speaker 1: no shadow banning, no suppression of conservative thought. Now, with
Speaker 1: an updated user interface and exciting new features available in
Speaker 1: the app store and for Android, Snippy your new alternative
Speaker 1: social media. Oh there's great disappointment there. There's disappointment that
Speaker 1: it seems like GM would rather build its selectric cars
Speaker 1: in China rather than in the United States. We are
Speaker 1: going to be looking at certain subsidies regard electric cars
Speaker 1: and others, whether they should apply or not. I can't
Speaker 1: say anything final about that, but we're looking into it again.
Speaker 1: That so, GM is cutting a lot of jobs, all right.
Speaker 1: There's there's been some bad news for General Motors, and
Speaker 1: that is that they're going to cut fourteen thousand, eight
Speaker 1: hundred jobs in the US and Canada, and they're going
Speaker 1: to stop production at a few North American factories. All right.
Speaker 1: So this is the first time since the Obama era
Speaker 1: restructuring of General Motors that they've had this kind of
Speaker 1: this kind of moment of recognition, moment of reality that
Speaker 1: is that has hit them. This is going to reduce
Speaker 1: the cost that GM currently has by four point five
Speaker 1: billion dollars they say, by twenty twenty, which will free
Speaker 1: up money you invest in electric and self driving vehicles. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, the Autoworkers Union has said this is calida
Speaker 1: and it's terrible, and people are all upset about it.
Speaker 1: There's a lot going on here, let me start with
Speaker 1: a few things. Let's go back and share a little
Speaker 1: history here. Okay, the Obama administration, for purely political reasons,
Speaker 1: didn't allow General Motors to go bankrupt. The Obama administration realized,
Speaker 1: you know, the people that say, oh, Trump, he's so
Speaker 1: involved in different companies and picking winners and losers, and
Speaker 1: he's an authoritarian on economics and all this. I don't
Speaker 1: like everything that Trump does when it comes to his
Speaker 1: rhetoric on different private companies, and I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't agree with all those different things that he says.
Speaker 1: That said. Obama took and his administration took really severe
Speaker 1: action in order to save General Motors. And keep in mind,
Speaker 1: all it really did was use the taxpayers to bail
Speaker 1: out General Motors. And that then because the government was involved,
Speaker 1: because the government eventually took General Motors into receivership. I mean,
Speaker 1: the government was what was for a while, you know,
Speaker 1: the part owner of General Motors. What that meant was
Speaker 1: that they could do things like, for example, decide that
Speaker 1: they're going to break contract with bond holders for General Motors,
Speaker 1: who are supposed to be taken care of first under
Speaker 1: contract under the law as part of a big giveaway
Speaker 1: to the United Auto Workers Union. That's right, autoworkers unions, unions,
Speaker 1: Democrat power base. They were given a lot of special
Speaker 1: favors and attention by the Obama administration, when in reality,
Speaker 1: what should have happened here is that you know, General
Speaker 1: Motors for Chrysler, all of them, all of them should
Speaker 1: have been allowed to go bankrupt because all that you
Speaker 1: had with the bailout was the continuation of an unhealthy
Speaker 1: corporate culture, unsustainable cost structure or in place because of
Speaker 1: UAW that's right, union demands. And now we've they finally
Speaker 1: run out of room to maneuver. I mean, now they
Speaker 1: have to go to this point where they're saying they're
Speaker 1: gonna lay off fifteen thousand people, dramatically cut costs and
Speaker 1: and take this whole pardon the expression, great leap forward
Speaker 1: on electric cars and on you know, on you know,
Speaker 1: self driving cars, the cars of the future, if you will.
Speaker 1: Who knows if they're going to be good at that
Speaker 1: stuff like that. That's not that's not been there their
Speaker 1: strong suit in the past, that's for sure. But what's
Speaker 1: happened here is that they you know, they were able
Speaker 1: to continue on as they you know, continue on with
Speaker 1: a lot of problems, a lot of structural problems in place,
Speaker 1: because there's just a you know, General Motors. It's like
Speaker 1: General Electric. General Electric had a a diseased corporate culture
Speaker 1: that allowed it to become essentially largely a financial institution,
Speaker 1: not one that just makes light bulbs and things and
Speaker 1: planes and engines and you know whatever, or engines for planes,
Speaker 1: but also become a major lender, and it become a
Speaker 1: financial when you know, ge financial was a huge part
Speaker 1: of it, of its profit for a number of years.
Speaker 1: And you know, people would say, oh, General Motors a
Speaker 1: General Electric rather this great American company, and you know,
Speaker 1: it hasn't made the necessary hasn't made the necessary changes
Speaker 1: to its corporate cultures. That company is in terrible shape. Right.
Speaker 1: General Motors had problems too, but the problem is really
Speaker 1: that one its strategy has been wrong. The cars that
Speaker 1: it built. People just don't want cars made by General
Speaker 1: Motors as much as they want other cars. And some
Speaker 1: of these autoworker autoworker contracts that they have because of
Speaker 1: the unions are just the costs are too high. You know,
Speaker 1: what General Motors did, and this is what the administration
Speaker 1: is pointing out with with saying I'm maybe the subsidies
Speaker 1: will change. They decided to set up shop in China.
Speaker 1: They build General Motors cars in China. I know you
Speaker 1: can say to me, oh, buck, but you know they
Speaker 1: sell those cars into the Chinese market. Yeah, but point
Speaker 1: is they could be making them here and selling them
Speaker 1: in the US market. They can't even sell US cars
Speaker 1: in the US market and make a profit on them.
Speaker 1: And they're having tremendous issues. You know, these other major
Speaker 1: you know, Japanese and Korean automakers, they've set up shop
Speaker 1: here in America. They're selling their cars in our markets.
Speaker 1: They're selling their cars and they're made here. But General
Speaker 1: Motors are set up overseas because yes, it wanted to
Speaker 1: get access into the overseas market. But it's also a
Speaker 1: question of they realize that the cost structure for them
Speaker 1: is better overseas. So you know this is And by
Speaker 1: the way, the Vault is one of the ugliest cars.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, if you're a driver, don't don't get mad
Speaker 1: at me, but I think it's one of the ugliest
Speaker 1: cars I've ever seen in my entire life. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, I think there's also just been some design
Speaker 1: flaws and design issues here. But you know, people have
Speaker 1: this nostalgia for the you know, the great American car company,
Speaker 1: and GM has needed a really serious come to Jesus
Speaker 1: moment for a long time, and I think it's it's
Speaker 1: maybe having it now and might not be enough to
Speaker 1: really turn all of this around. But then there's there's
Speaker 1: not just general but that was the big the big
Speaker 1: news item from the week. Then you've got the overall economy.
Speaker 1: You've got China. I mean, could Low, very charming fellow.
Speaker 1: This Larry could Low is the head of the Council
Speaker 1: of Economic Advisors UM. He came out today as part
Speaker 1: of the White House Press conference, talked about the economy,
Speaker 1: talked about China. Let's get to some of that play thirteen.
Speaker 1: The US is coming to the Semit in very good shape.
Speaker 1: Our economy is quite strong. It's scrong at three percent
Speaker 1: over the past year. Second quarter was four point two,
Speaker 1: third quarter was three point five, perhaps to be revised upwards.
Speaker 1: A very strong holiday season, so called Black Friday, very strong.
Speaker 1: We've had tremendous investments, business investments, energy investments, will prices
Speaker 1: and gasoline prices coming down. That helps consumers of course,
Speaker 1: we're in very good shape. China not so good. I'm
Speaker 1: not here to critique our second guest, the Chinese economy,
Speaker 1: but most observers believe China to be in a slump,
Speaker 1: whereas the United States is in a very strong, solid
Speaker 1: position going into this summit. Yep, the US economy, based
Speaker 1: on the numbers that we use to try to gauge
Speaker 1: these things, is still very very healthy, still doing very well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's been a stock market correction, trust me, I've it's
Speaker 1: been a rough two months for the buckster over here. Man,
Speaker 1: some of my portfolio has been getting. The good news
Speaker 1: is it's very little money. I just I'm just more
Speaker 1: interested in investing that I am actually trying to make
Speaker 1: any real money because certainly not flying around on the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut Express in the sky. I don't have a
Speaker 1: G five in my future. But you know, the market
Speaker 1: has had a bit of a correction. But the market
Speaker 1: is not everything. It's just an It's an indicator among
Speaker 1: many others. I think what Kudlow is saying is, look,
Speaker 1: the uscon He's still gonna by the way, China's got issues.
Speaker 1: He's bringing this up because there's gonna be at the
Speaker 1: g twenty summit sit down with Trump and h and
Speaker 1: She and Hijinping, Chinese premiere, and they're gonna look at
Speaker 1: this issue once again of okay, where are we on
Speaker 1: trade policy? Where are we on the whole tariff well,
Speaker 1: trade war people are calling it, but the tariff situation
Speaker 1: because so far, yeah, there's been some downside to it.
Speaker 1: I was talking to you about GM just a moment ago.
Speaker 1: GM for all the United Auto workers running up the
Speaker 1: you know, running up the tab too high and the
Speaker 1: fact that the cars that they're making just aren't very good.
Speaker 1: GM also says that they've got a billion dollars of
Speaker 1: additional costs because a steel price is because of the
Speaker 1: steel tariffs, and that's real. You know, you've got to
Speaker 1: factor that into all this. People want to say it's
Speaker 1: bigger than it is because it's once again an opportunity
Speaker 1: to bash Trump. But could let's say, look, there's gonna
Speaker 1: this is part of the process. There's gonna be some
Speaker 1: pain here to get to a better place. And Trump
Speaker 1: is hoping we can all include in China get to
Speaker 1: that better place. Play fourteen. President said there's a good
Speaker 1: possibility that we can make a deal, and he is
Speaker 1: open to it. But on the other hand, if these
Speaker 1: conditions I mentioned a few moments ago are not met,
Speaker 1: not dealt with. No President has said, look, he's perfectly
Speaker 1: happy to stand on his tariff policies, which ten percent
Speaker 1: last two hundred billion dollars scheduled to go to twenty
Speaker 1: five percent. That's not a certainty, but that's the schedule.
Speaker 1: And he has said as recently as yesterday the day before,
Speaker 1: if need be, if things don't work out in this
Speaker 1: US China summit meeting, he will invoke another two hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty seven some hi billion dollars in tariffs. Trump's
Speaker 1: doubling down on this, not gonna change, not going to
Speaker 1: back off one bit. Trump is very serious about seeing
Speaker 1: this thing through with China. I hope he's right. If
Speaker 1: he's wrong, we're gonna talk about it here, but it's
Speaker 1: too early to know. One thing's for sure. Though Trump's
Speaker 1: not messing around. This is the one issue where I
Speaker 1: don't think he's gonna blink no matter how much pressure
Speaker 1: people try to put on it. You're gonna be doing
Speaker 1: a lot of online shopping over the holidays, and you're
Speaker 1: going to be exchanging all kinds of sensitive information on
Speaker 1: your computer, on your various devices. Are you safe? Do
Speaker 1: you know that your stuff is being protected? Because I've
Speaker 1: seen how easy it is to hack into things, and
Speaker 1: I've got some experience protecting individual information. And you know
Speaker 1: you need Express vpn if you really want to be
Speaker 1: safe online, if you want to maintain your privacy, because
Speaker 1: Express vpn has easy to use apps that run the
Speaker 1: background on my computer, phone, and tablet and protect me
Speaker 1: from hackers. They do this by anonymizing my Internet browsing,
Speaker 1: by encrypting data and hiding my public IP address. You
Speaker 1: need Express vpn. Okay, it's less than seven dollars a month,
Speaker 1: so easy to have, so easy to set up. Protect
Speaker 1: your online activity today and find out how you can
Speaker 1: get three months free at express vpn dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash buck for three months
Speaker 1: free with a one year package. Again visit ExpressVPN dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck. There's any shutdown, it's on President Trump's back. First,
Speaker 1: left to our own devices, the Senate and House could
Speaker 1: come to an agreement. Second, the Democrat the Republicans are
Speaker 1: in control of the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
Speaker 1: A shutdown is on their back stick to the one
Speaker 1: point six billion. We're trying to get the President the
Speaker 1: money he would like for the wall. That's part of
Speaker 1: the year and funding discussion, which is ongoing. That's one
Speaker 1: of the many things we've got to wrap up here
Speaker 1: at the end of the year. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: going to be a government shutdown, and I say that
Speaker 1: to you with a lot of frustration, because I kind
Speaker 1: of wish there would be a government shutdown. I wish
Speaker 1: that the Republican Party was full of the courage of
Speaker 1: its convictions here. I wish that there was a willingness
Speaker 1: to go to the mat on this issue, because it's
Speaker 1: not going to be not going to be a good
Speaker 1: thing for Trump to run for reelection in twenty twenty
Speaker 1: without having at least procure the funding for a wall.
Speaker 1: And there's even more pressing issue of look at what
Speaker 1: is going on at our border. One of the great
Speaker 1: lies of the Democrat left is that a wall wouldn't
Speaker 1: do anything. Nobody wants a wall. A wall is irrelevant,
Speaker 1: A wall won't help well. You talk to border patrol,
Speaker 1: you talk to people that are actually on the front
Speaker 1: lines of trying to defend our sovereign borders. They'll tell you,
Speaker 1: oh no, as they've told me, a border would in
Speaker 1: fact help. A border is a good idea, is something
Speaker 1: that should be pursued, and it should have been pursued
Speaker 1: earlier than this. It should have been something that the
Speaker 1: Trump administration and the Republicans were willing a long time ago,
Speaker 1: a long time ago, to fight for. So you know,
Speaker 1: this is why also I want to say a long
Speaker 1: time ago, I mean the last time that they had
Speaker 1: an opportunity, for example, the last time that there was
Speaker 1: an opportunity for them to go to the go to
Speaker 1: the mat on this and have that shutdown fight. And
Speaker 1: you know, I would just also point out that it
Speaker 1: is in fact the law. It is the law to
Speaker 1: build a fence. There is something called the Secure Fence Act.
Speaker 1: How many people remember this? How many people remember that
Speaker 1: there was the Secure of Fence Act And this was
Speaker 1: passed many years ago. And we're told now that this
Speaker 1: is crazy, that this is somehow completely out of left field.
Speaker 1: But the reality is that you've already had people public
Speaker 1: Law one or nine three sixty seven, the Secure Offence Act.
Speaker 1: It was passed with bi parties and majorities in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, received two hundred and eighty three votes
Speaker 1: in the House and eighty in the Senate, and it
Speaker 1: required the federal government, according to the Washington Examiner here
Speaker 1: to build reinforced fencing at least two layers deep along
Speaker 1: about seven hundred miles of the border. Specified the areas
Speaker 1: in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas where fencing would
Speaker 1: be installed. You know, that's something you have to remember.
Speaker 1: Any barrier system isn't about preventing all entry. Right, you
Speaker 1: don't have a fence around your house, for example, because
Speaker 1: you think that no one can climb over the fence.
Speaker 1: But you may have a fence around your house so
Speaker 1: that one people know not to cross. Two they can't
Speaker 1: just drive their vehicle right up to your house. Right,
Speaker 1: it does give you some gre protection. Three they can't
Speaker 1: just walk, They have to actually climb, and depending on
Speaker 1: how high the fence is, it makes it harder for them.
Speaker 1: And that's what border security needs to be about. Lessening.
Speaker 1: We have two thousand apart from the migrant caravan, we
Speaker 1: have two thousand arrests happening every day at the border
Speaker 1: of illegal crossings. Do the math. Two thousand, three hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty six days a year. It's a lot of
Speaker 1: Oh but then but it's eleven million, buck, it's eleven million.
Speaker 1: Sure it is because you have half a million people
Speaker 1: leaving the West to go back to Mexico every year.
Speaker 1: Bull crap, no way, all right, that's just this is
Speaker 1: the word we're lied to about this issue constantly, constantly,
Speaker 1: Just like I was saying all the big lies we
Speaker 1: have been told about the caravan in the first place, right,
Speaker 1: they lie to us about the wall specifically, they say
Speaker 1: a wall will do nothing, except we see that a
Speaker 1: wall is doing lots of stuff. A wall is, in fact,
Speaker 1: very useful. And that just brings me back to oh,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't. It wasn't racist and terrible in two
Speaker 1: thousand and six, and it wasn't for the whole border.
Speaker 1: Keep in mind, if they're just certain areas where there's
Speaker 1: a greater likelihood of a crossing, if there's just certain
Speaker 1: areas seven one hundred miles of fence, it would have
Speaker 1: made it harder. So maybe that two thousand a day
Speaker 1: drops down, Maybe that two thousand a day. And remember
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people that aren't even being caught.
Speaker 1: It's more like, you know, half that number are caught
Speaker 1: trying to cross, because a lot fewer people overall are
Speaker 1: crossing illegally into the country. But no one, no one
Speaker 1: ever talks about this, No one ever brings up that
Speaker 1: they just don't enforce the law and immigration. They don't
Speaker 1: enforce the law and building offense, building a wall, it's
Speaker 1: already there. They just don't do it. They don't fund it.
Speaker 1: You know, Gosh, Darreth. They need to have a fight
Speaker 1: over this issue. Let's really have it out. Force the
Speaker 1: Democrats to show the American people that they are a
Speaker 1: party that is in favor of illegal immigration. They're in
Speaker 1: favor of the boarders. But look, the shutdown, if it's
Speaker 1: gonna happen, it'll be on December seventh. And I think
Speaker 1: there's not going to be a shutdown. I think that
Speaker 1: Republicans will once again once again take the path of
Speaker 1: least resistance on this one. And the path of least resistance,
Speaker 1: as we all know, is gonna be. Oh, let's come
Speaker 1: up with a you know, some kind of attempt ary
Speaker 1: funding measure, a fancy legislative way to kick the can
Speaker 1: down the road, not take a hard vote, not deal
Speaker 1: with any of this difficult stuff, and then when the
Speaker 1: next election comes up, say, you know, build the dang fence.
Speaker 1: You know everyone's gonna all of a sudden be pushing
Speaker 1: for pushing for a wall to be built, and that's
Speaker 1: just not it's just not gonna happen. Then it's not
Speaker 1: gonna happen an election time. So we'll see. I think
Speaker 1: the shutdown talk is probably much ado about nothing. It
Speaker 1: usually is, but in this context, I'm hoping that I
Speaker 1: am wrong, because we should shut the government down over this.
Speaker 1: Trump must get funding for the wall. Now is the
Speaker 1: time eighteen months ago and twenty five or thirty million
Speaker 1: dollars ago. If you had said we came up with
Speaker 1: Carter Page as a possible suspect, he hasn't been indicted,
Speaker 1: or mister Papadopoulos, or now we're going after Jerome Corsi
Speaker 1: and Roger Stone because they may have been playing fast
Speaker 1: at moose with the truth. That's like saying PG PJ.
Speaker 1: Barnum exaggerated. If that's what this whole thing was about,
Speaker 1: it I could call it a circus, but it's a
Speaker 1: tragic circus. And what you get the impression, Tucker, is
Speaker 1: that what you cannot get in quality indictments you're trying
Speaker 1: to justify with a quantity of indictments. They're indicting everybody,
Speaker 1: and indicting everybody that was a victor. David Hanson talking
Speaker 1: about where the Muller probe is right now, I keep
Speaker 1: having people that will rattle off, Oh, but there are
Speaker 1: twenty Russians and Menaphort and all these and I said, yeah,
Speaker 1: none of this has anything to do with the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: which is the only reason there's a special counsel. But
Speaker 1: what is this whole coursie info wars Roger Stone debacle?
Speaker 1: What is going on here? We've got Sagar and Jetty
Speaker 1: with us. He is the White House reporter for the
Speaker 1: Daily Caller. Daily Caller broke big story on this today.
Speaker 1: Saga agreed to have you back. Hey, thanks for having
Speaker 1: me a book. Can you just walk us through here?
Speaker 1: What what the heck is going on? Jerome Corsi is
Speaker 1: now involved in this whole Muller saga. Roger Stone's name
Speaker 1: is popped up again. What is happening here? Sure thing?
Speaker 1: So Corsi and Stone go back along ways. Corsi is
Speaker 1: you know, best known for pushing Birtherism in the you know,
Speaker 1: in the twenty tens. He was also behind some of
Speaker 1: the swift boat stuff during the Bush campaign. But anyways,
Speaker 1: basically what Mullover is focusing on is communications between Roger
Speaker 1: Stone and Jerome Corsi with Wiki leaks, and so what
Speaker 1: Corsi is now being current is being targeted by Muller
Speaker 1: for is allegedly lying about an effort for a by
Speaker 1: Stone to get him to reach out to a sage
Speaker 1: about the forthcoming emails, and some of his other communications
Speaker 1: with a concern ovative journalist in Britain who is allegedly
Speaker 1: in contact with Wiki leaks. And so it's it's very
Speaker 1: very complicated weird web here. And you also have this
Speaker 1: story today of from The Guardian, a British a British
Speaker 1: left wing newspaper that says that Julian Assange met with
Speaker 1: Manaphort before what was it in twenty sixteen, before the
Speaker 1: emails came out. Some people are having a hard time
Speaker 1: with us. What's your take on it? Yeah, I'm a
Speaker 1: very suspect of this story because for I noticed first
Speaker 1: of all that the dateline was in Quito, which is
Speaker 1: a capital of Ecuador, which suggests that, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: this information is coming out of an Ecuadorian diplomatic source,
Speaker 1: but there's been no confirmation on it. Both WikiLeaks and
Speaker 1: Manafort have issued a flat denial. Now that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that this story is not true, but that you know,
Speaker 1: that's that is definitely something to be read into. And
Speaker 1: I think the most interesting thing is that they actually
Speaker 1: edited some of the language in the story after it
Speaker 1: came out where they said that an apparent meeting. They
Speaker 1: basically hedged the claims that the meeting had occurred within
Speaker 1: the story after it had come out, and everybody went
Speaker 1: bananas over it. So I am waiting for a bit
Speaker 1: more independent confirmation. I've been trying to confirm him myself,
Speaker 1: but you know, both Lely, I think it's very important
Speaker 1: to know that both Wiki Leaks and Manaphort saying that
Speaker 1: it is a completely flat out false story, and it
Speaker 1: should be pretty easy for any US government authority to know,
Speaker 1: you know, based on flight manifests or what or surveillance records,
Speaker 1: what have you on, whether he was in the Ecuadorian
Speaker 1: embassy or not. Yeah, I absolutely do not believe it
Speaker 1: is possible in any way that the US government the
Speaker 1: British government would not know about a meeting between Manaphort
Speaker 1: and Julian Assange, who is living in a tiny room.
Speaker 1: I mean I actually interviewed Assange I don't know two
Speaker 1: years ago now from the Ecuadorian embassy, meaning that I
Speaker 1: connected with him online and we did an interview for
Speaker 1: a podcast and I was like, what's it like over there, dude.
Speaker 1: He's like, there's not a lot to do here, not
Speaker 1: much of a party going on. I mean, tar about
Speaker 1: living under under a microscope. The moment he steps out
Speaker 1: of that embassy, they're going to arrest him. Everyone knows that.
Speaker 1: So he's been living in this diplomatic community space for
Speaker 1: a while and and essentially or not to community people,
Speaker 1: the immunity of the building. And you know, people are
Speaker 1: now saying, oh, at just the right time, we get
Speaker 1: this story that breaks that there might have been this meeting,
Speaker 1: and we all know this about right, this is how
Speaker 1: the so the the alleged collusion could have happened. You
Speaker 1: have Manafort saying to Asange, hey, get these Hillary emails
Speaker 1: or get there weren't even Hillary's emails though, you know, Sager,
Speaker 1: one of the problems I have with this, it's not
Speaker 1: even a good evil plan, right, It's not even a
Speaker 1: good bad guy plot, right, Yeah, yeah, You're absolutely right, Buck.
Speaker 1: I mean, he lives, like you said, in this tiny
Speaker 1: room in the Ecuadorian embassy. The idea that that would
Speaker 1: stay secret for over two two and a half years
Speaker 1: just seems patently absurd. And then if you go down
Speaker 1: you know, if you go down the road on that
Speaker 1: in terms of alleged for knowledge or whatever. Even even
Speaker 1: let's go back to Jerome Corsi, he was thinking, according
Speaker 1: to his own emails and draft records, that this was
Speaker 1: stories about like the Panama papers in relation to John
Speaker 1: and Tony Podesta, which of course that's absolutely nothing to
Speaker 1: do with what it ended up coming out. So it
Speaker 1: really does seem like a lot of these guys were
Speaker 1: just trying to guess on what sort of so called
Speaker 1: damaging information was out there, and then Wiki Leaks did
Speaker 1: end up dropping it, and then you know, some weird
Speaker 1: characters both either tried to claim credit or they just
Speaker 1: used it as they would any APO dump in a campaign. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I interviewed Roger Stone a few months back and he
Speaker 1: was basically like, yeah, I might get I might get prosecuted.
Speaker 1: I was like, Wow, he's very in soussion for a
Speaker 1: guy who might be heading to a federal prison. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I thought to Roger quite a bit. Rogers convinced that
Speaker 1: the Mueller team has it out for him and that
Speaker 1: they're going to try and diet in and he should
Speaker 1: probably be pretty scared because if you look at what's
Speaker 1: going on with Jerome Corsie, you have a guy. So
Speaker 1: of course he deleted all of his emails and so
Speaker 1: then in the course of an interview, he was asked
Speaker 1: about something and he said, to the best of my recollection,
Speaker 1: I did not do X. Then they produced an email
Speaker 1: showing that he had done that, and they allowed him
Speaker 1: to revise his statement. What they're trying to nail him
Speaker 1: with now is lying to the FBI, and he's saying, no,
Speaker 1: I didn't lie. I just didn't have the records in
Speaker 1: front of me, and I didn't remember this email that
Speaker 1: I had sent over two and a half years ago.
Speaker 1: And so if you look at the you know, just
Speaker 1: the technicalities that they are getting people on in this case.
Speaker 1: You know, Roger, you know, I think the president said
Speaker 1: the President said one of the reasons that he won't
Speaker 1: sit down with Mueller's because if he claimed it was
Speaker 1: a cloudy day and it was actually blue sky, that
Speaker 1: they would indict him for lying to the FBI. Well,
Speaker 1: there is there is a judgment that comes into all this.
Speaker 1: There there are some gray areas, and if you have
Speaker 1: a prosecutor that really does want to make an example
Speaker 1: of you, I mean one, you know, one situation that
Speaker 1: folks should be reminded of is what happened during the
Speaker 1: whole Scooter Libby debacle. I mean, people keep saying, and
Speaker 1: I've had to point out to some very prominent lefty
Speaker 1: news anchors, they keep saying that he was indicted for
Speaker 1: revealing the name of a of a CIA officer, of
Speaker 1: a covert employee of a CIA. That's what happened Scooter Libby. No,
Speaker 1: he was. He was prosecuted for lying about a conversation
Speaker 1: with a journalist who already knew about this person's identity,
Speaker 1: which is what you never gets brought up in this
Speaker 1: context at all. So you know, what is a lie
Speaker 1: worthy of prosecution and what is somebody misremembering is a grayer?
Speaker 1: You know, you were there today in the West Wing,
Speaker 1: I assumed during the press conference, first one in a while, Yes, yeah,
Speaker 1: I was, I was there first one in the last month.
Speaker 1: This subject did come up. But Sarah Sanders. You know,
Speaker 1: she stuck by it. She said there's been no collusion.
Speaker 1: The President's not really worried about whatever this man, this
Speaker 1: latest development is, and that when the Mueller report comes out,
Speaker 1: he's also not worried because he knows he didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong anything that was a surprise to you from
Speaker 1: the press conference. Name what was it? What's it like
Speaker 1: having a costed back of the room after all that mess. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean Jim asked several questions as he normally does.
Speaker 1: He takes quite a bit of time. Uh, he likes,
Speaker 1: he likes to get several follow ups in there. But
Speaker 1: you know, overall today was actually pretty run of the mill.
Speaker 1: Lots of policy. There was only a few Muller questions.
Speaker 1: There wasn't a Usually what happens whenever something's going on
Speaker 1: with the Muller investigations, you get about twelve different versions
Speaker 1: of the exact same question with the same answer. But
Speaker 1: you know, today it was only fourteen minutes and most
Speaker 1: of the briefing was talking about the President headed down
Speaker 1: to Argentina for his G twenty summit. So we have
Speaker 1: a surprising amount of policy that was that was talked
Speaker 1: about today. Saga and Jetty. Everybody follow him on Twitter.
Speaker 1: Also read his latest at Daily Caller Daily Caller dot com.
Speaker 1: He's a wet else correspondent Zager great workers always my man,
Speaker 1: Come back soon, Thanks Buck. All right, team, let's let's
Speaker 1: talk a bit about the economy coming up here in
Speaker 1: a moments. A lot of talk about that today from
Speaker 1: the White House. We'll get to that in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Even Obama's undersecretary for Science didn't believe the radical conclusions
Speaker 1: of the report that release. And you have to look
Speaker 1: at the fact that this report is based on the
Speaker 1: most extreme modeled scenario, which contradicts long established trends. It's
Speaker 1: not they on facts, it's based on it's not data driven.
Speaker 1: We'd like to see something that is more data driven.
Speaker 1: It's based on modeling, which is extremely hard to do
Speaker 1: when you're talking about the climate. Our focus is on
Speaker 1: making sure we have the safest, cleanest error in water,
Speaker 1: and the President's going to do exactly though there is
Speaker 1: this climate change hysteria out there, as you know, something
Speaker 1: that we I try not to obsess about it in
Speaker 1: response to the left's obsession, because if you're listening to
Speaker 1: this show, if you were a climate change alarmist. You
Speaker 1: probably wouldn't be able to listen to me because you
Speaker 1: would think that I was essentially hoping for the destruction
Speaker 1: of the planet, which tells you a lot about how
Speaker 1: crazy climate change alarmists really are. You know, I managed
Speaker 1: to sit down today with a woman who's basically from
Speaker 1: the Obama administration. She worked. I forget what she was doing,
Speaker 1: but she was all about how Trump is removing all
Speaker 1: of these regulations and it's just so bad. He's removing
Speaker 1: all these regulations because we need clean water. And I said, ok,
Speaker 1: what's one regulation he's removed that has made water less clean?
Speaker 1: Tell tell me what the regulation is, and oh and
Speaker 1: I and a lot of sort of well, the General
Speaker 1: Waterway Treaty blah blat, a lot of a lot of claptrap.
Speaker 1: And then I managed to ask. I said, Okay, so
Speaker 1: Trump's gotten rid of tons of regulations. Is there one
Speaker 1: regulation that Trump has gotten rid of that you agree
Speaker 1: with him on? This is a person, minds you, an
Speaker 1: Obama administration official appointee. This is somebody who all she
Speaker 1: does is promote promote regulation, not deregulation. Couldn't come up
Speaker 1: with a single one, not one. There's not one regulation
Speaker 1: that Trump and this is her life is to study
Speaker 1: regulations apparently, and couldn't come up with a single one.
Speaker 1: I'd sit here and think to myself, you know, this
Speaker 1: is the problem with libs. They don't really think through
Speaker 1: their arguments. They're just always an advocacy mode. And on
Speaker 1: climate change, you see this in a way that it's
Speaker 1: just breathtaking and it's arrogance and its dupidity. At the
Speaker 1: same time, this idea, yea, that climate change is going
Speaker 1: to destroy our economy. This is nuts. I don't know
Speaker 1: how else to put it. I mean, if people really
Speaker 1: believe this, then we should be taking radical, dramatic steps
Speaker 1: to destroy our economy today, because that's what it would do.
Speaker 1: That's what it would take in order to prevent this
Speaker 1: climate change catastrophe from actually happening. He hears. The Wall
Speaker 1: Street Journal take on this headlines warned of economic doom
Speaker 1: after the US government release its fourth National Climate Assessment
Speaker 1: last week. Yet a close reading of the report shows
Speaker 1: that the overall economic impact of human cause climate change
Speaker 1: is expected to be quite small. Projecting human cause changes
Speaker 1: in the global climate is a major scientific challenge. Estimates
Speaker 1: of the temperature increases due to rising greenhouse gas concentration
Speaker 1: are uncertain by a factor of three. Trying to make
Speaker 1: projections for a particular region compounds the uncertainty. Estimates of
Speaker 1: the economic impact are less certain still, in part because
Speaker 1: as yet unknown modes of adaptation will mitigate the effects.
Speaker 1: The report's numbers turn out to me not all of
Speaker 1: that alarming. Final figure on the final chapter shows an
Speaker 1: increase in global average temperature of nine degrees fahrenheit would
Speaker 1: directly reduce the US gross domestic product in twenty ninety
Speaker 1: by four percent plus or minus two percent. That is,
Speaker 1: the GDP would be about four percent less than it
Speaker 1: would have been absent human influences on the climate. That
Speaker 1: worst case estimate assumes the largest plausible temperature rise and
Speaker 1: only known modes of adaptation. My friends, we're told the
Speaker 1: economy is going to be in deep trouble because of
Speaker 1: a four percent projected worst case scenario drop in twenty ninety.
Speaker 1: And let me say, and I tell value this with
Speaker 1: absolute certainty. If I am wrong, you can show up
Speaker 1: and slap me right across the face. In twenty ninety.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you this right now. I guarantee you,
Speaker 1: I guarantee you this is true. Nobody who is talking
Speaker 1: about what the economy will look like, where it will be,
Speaker 1: what we are doing in twenty ninety has any idea
Speaker 1: what the heck they are talking about, period, full stop.
Speaker 1: They have no I mean, this whole exercise is laughable.
Speaker 1: It is preposterous because, first of all, based on real math,
Speaker 1: real numbers that we can count, and this maybe should
Speaker 1: keep you up at night, based on the amount of
Speaker 1: debt we are compiling in this country year and in
Speaker 1: year out, we are going to have the destruction of
Speaker 1: US Fiat currency decades before this four percent drop in
Speaker 1: GDP in twenty ninety. And I wouldn't even pretend to
Speaker 1: be able to tell you what decade what it's gonna happen, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, does anyone really think that you can have
Speaker 1: fifty fifty trillion dollars of US national debt and doesn't
Speaker 1: doesn't really do anything. That's fine, they'll pay that back.
Speaker 1: Someone's gonna get paid back to fifty trillion. You know,
Speaker 1: we're getting there. One more big recession, one more big
Speaker 1: spending Democrat administration. All of a sudden you find yourself
Speaker 1: in a place where, oh wait a second, oh that's
Speaker 1: right now, We got to spend another ten trillion, which
Speaker 1: is what Obama spent over his eight years ten trillion.
Speaker 1: And now that's not all spending. That's in debt in
Speaker 1: addition to the spending offset by revenue year in a
Speaker 1: year out. But but this is what I mean. I
Speaker 1: saw a CNN splainer. It's the fancy way of saying explainer.
Speaker 1: I saw a CNN explainer where they're like looking at
Speaker 1: the year twenty one hundred and how there could be
Speaker 1: I think they said it was a ten percent drop
Speaker 1: in GDP by twenty one hundred. I sit here and
Speaker 1: I think to myself, are these people idiots? Or is
Speaker 1: this just a cult of stupidity? Who really thinks that
Speaker 1: our economic projections in the year twenty one hundred from
Speaker 1: today are valid in any way, shape or form. I mean,
Speaker 1: who even knows that we're gonna have a planet in
Speaker 1: twenty one hire? Don't only get me started on all that, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, we could have a nuclear nuclear holocaust, all
Speaker 1: kinds of bad stuff. But think about what the country
Speaker 1: look like economically in nineteen sixty All right, so fifty
Speaker 1: years ago, and now not even fifty We've got to
Speaker 1: go back seventy years right, So think about what the
Speaker 1: what the financial prospects were for America and for all
Speaker 1: this stuff back in nineteen forty, and think about what
Speaker 1: they're will be like. In what they are like today,
Speaker 1: these people have no idea what they are talking about.
Speaker 1: This is lunacy in this climate change report. Not only
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen should we be in prospective. We should
Speaker 1: move beyond introspection to reconstruction and figuring out a way
Speaker 1: to link our ideals and our practices. And in Mississippi,
Speaker 1: with the history, the ghost of Mississippi, the blood of
Speaker 1: Mississippi from its rivers, where Emmett Till died, where Meger
Speaker 1: Evers died, where those three civil rights workers, two Jews
Speaker 1: and a black person died, we have to come to
Speaker 1: grips with it in twenty eighteen. And the only way
Speaker 1: to do that is to take a harder look at
Speaker 1: what we've been able to do and not able to do,
Speaker 1: and then put, you know, roll up our sleeves, so
Speaker 1: to speak, and work together. Cindy Hyde Smith is a racist,
Speaker 1: a white nationalist, a white supremacist, a racist, a white nationalist,
Speaker 1: a white supremacist. That's being said on Cable TV about
Speaker 1: a woman who is probably going to be the next
Speaker 1: Senator from the state of Mississippi. But that passes for
Speaker 1: Democrat analysis these days, that passes for an astute assessment
Speaker 1: of what's going on in our national national politics. You know,
Speaker 1: we're going to find out here soon. What's you know,
Speaker 1: what's going on? I mean, this is going to be
Speaker 1: a close, a close race. We've got the election coming
Speaker 1: and results coming in tonight. I will not be able
Speaker 1: to tell you who has won because of the timing
Speaker 1: of when we're on air and when the results will
Speaker 1: be in b Thursday. This was gonna be tight. You've
Speaker 1: got Cindy Hyde Smith up against SP Mike esp who
Speaker 1: you know well. On the one hand, they're saying that
Speaker 1: that Hide Smith is such a racist, that guy that's
Speaker 1: I forget his name, Michael Eric Dyson, he is he
Speaker 1: is not a nice fellow. Always say everything is about
Speaker 1: how everybody else is racist, and so they love him
Speaker 1: at CNN and MSNBC because that's all they ever want
Speaker 1: to talk about is how everybody who disagrees with them
Speaker 1: as racist. But this guy ESP, when you look into
Speaker 1: his his background a little bit, you know, we're told
Speaker 1: about how you know, Hide Smith said this one thing
Speaker 1: that you know, in the context of Mississippi was insensitive
Speaker 1: and all right, fine, How many of you have been
Speaker 1: hearing from the media, for example, that Mike esp was
Speaker 1: indicted on I think it's fourteen counts and while he did,
Speaker 1: he did in fact manage to evade or rather he
Speaker 1: managed to beat the prosecution. The fact is he was
Speaker 1: involved in some very shady stuff back in the day
Speaker 1: and had to step down from his from his post.
Speaker 1: You know, Mike esp is somebody who has a checkered
Speaker 1: past in politics. He was acquitted in this gift's case. Okay,
Speaker 1: So he was the former agriculture secretary and he was
Speaker 1: forced out in nineteen ninety four by people saying that
Speaker 1: he took gifts from lobbyists. Essentially, thirty corruption charges brought
Speaker 1: against him and a lot of other people, by the way,
Speaker 1: went to prison for this, fifteen convictions, eleven million dollars
Speaker 1: in fines, and SP's indictment was that he took thirty
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars in gifts. So, you know, he's a
Speaker 1: guy who how many of you have heard this about him? Oh?
Speaker 1: The answer is I'm sure very few, because the media
Speaker 1: is not talking about this at all. He was acquitted.
Speaker 1: But this guy wants to talk about ethics, that guy
Speaker 1: wants to talk about good leadership. I think that it's
Speaker 1: only fair to point out that he was certainly surrounded
Speaker 1: by a lot of people who are engaged in some
Speaker 1: really corrupt, nasty stuff, and here you have. You know,
Speaker 1: I just think that's necessary background that we should all know.
Speaker 1: But they just want to call Cindy hide Smith racist.
Speaker 1: That's the whole point of everything that they're putting on
Speaker 1: TV now on the left, all the Democrats stuff. They're
Speaker 1: trying to find a way to trash this woman, and
Speaker 1: that's that's the purpose of their coverage by speaking of
Speaker 1: just calling people racist, and that's their form of an
Speaker 1: argument and the smear tactics that you get. You've got
Speaker 1: this guy, Max Boot, who maybe I shouldn't give him
Speaker 1: any more airtime on this show because he's someone who
Speaker 1: has embraced his status as a turncoat to all that
Speaker 1: he once believed in. And he used to be a
Speaker 1: stalwart neo conservative and considered himself a conservative. Now he
Speaker 1: goes on on CNN and finds himself trashing not just Trump,
Speaker 1: but all the people that support Trump and all the
Speaker 1: ideas beyond, and you've never really made the full break
Speaker 1: with the right until you're willing to just be a
Speaker 1: complete shill for the climate change alarmists. You have to
Speaker 1: be running around saying the same stupid talking points about
Speaker 1: how science has settled on this and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. Here, here's what Max boot now does because
Speaker 1: he's an anti Trump, never Trump jerk play twenty. Okay,
Speaker 1: you're trying to filibuster because you're embarrassed by about what
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say, which is that you and I'm embarrassed.
Speaker 1: I'm embarrassed about Okay, I'm embarrassed by your filibuster, and
Speaker 1: I'm embarrassed by the fact that you will not call
Speaker 1: out this blatant racism on the part of Sidney hid
Speaker 1: Smith and Donald Trump. You offer this kind of values
Speaker 1: and neutral horse race analysis, and you refuse to condemn
Speaker 1: the descent into bigotry of the Republican Party, the Party
Speaker 1: of Lincoln. This is a disgrace to what the Republican
Speaker 1: Party has stood for for so much of its history.
Speaker 1: The Republican Party has stood for racism. Max. That's really
Speaker 1: interesting because the Democrats are the party of slavery, segregation
Speaker 1: and Jim Crowe, but the Republican Party stands for racism.
Speaker 1: This is this is a recurring theme. Though. Find something
Speaker 1: that a politician says that maybe is you know, that
Speaker 1: was ill advised, but with no ill intent, and turn
Speaker 1: it into oh my gosh, this person is so racist.
Speaker 1: They're the most racist racist ever and that's all they
Speaker 1: want to say. Oh, I mentioned the climate change the
Speaker 1: thing because boot that was last night. Remember he's one
Speaker 1: of the Look, he's a he's a trader to conservatism,
Speaker 1: and so he's going on TV doing calling the Republican
Speaker 1: a Mississippi racist, calling the whole GOP racist. And now
Speaker 1: he's written in the Washington Post within twenty four hours
Speaker 1: of that appearance, I was wrong on climate change. Why
Speaker 1: can't other conservatives admit it too? See? This is what
Speaker 1: I mean. He This is how you prove your fealty
Speaker 1: to the to the left. You have to go with
Speaker 1: there are there are a few things that you have
Speaker 1: to do. You have to say that climate change is
Speaker 1: man made and a serious problem and bend the knee
Speaker 1: on that. And you have to be willing to call
Speaker 1: everybody who disagrees with you racist. This is what the
Speaker 1: Democratic party does. Now, this is how it functions. Doesn't
Speaker 1: make arguments, makes accusations, makes allegations, and Boot and others
Speaker 1: who are essentially boot liquors of the left. Now, it's
Speaker 1: just pathetic. It's really sad in a sense to see.
Speaker 1: But I guess they hate Trump so much that they
Speaker 1: are willing to tear down everything that they have ever
Speaker 1: stood for in their adult lives and their professional lives
Speaker 1: in order to score some cheap points against Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's just to pay the bills, you know.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just taking this to an ideological place when
Speaker 1: it's really just an economic thing. They just want to
Speaker 1: make that cash, want to make that money, you know,
Speaker 1: and CNN's paying them and Fox isn't, so they'll go
Speaker 1: on CNN and trash conservatives. But Boots a disgrace. I know.
Speaker 1: It's the holidays, And if you want to give the
Speaker 1: gear of freedom, my friends, you can do that via
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. They're freedom to drink delicious coffee every day,
Speaker 1: just like I do. In fact, you can sign up
Speaker 1: for the coffee Club, which means you'll get it sent
Speaker 1: to your door all the time. You can sign somebody
Speaker 1: else up for the coffee Club at Black Rifle, and
Speaker 1: then you'll never have to think about getting coffee again
Speaker 1: because it'll come right to you, all right. So this
Speaker 1: is the gift a great tasting coffee made easy, and
Speaker 1: in the process you're supporting a veteran owned and operated company.
Speaker 1: I love Black Rifle. I'm making Black Rifle converts left
Speaker 1: and right. It's also a company with awesome guys running
Speaker 1: to go check it out. The best tasting, best coffee imaginable,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. Go to Black Riflecoffee dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot Com, slash buck for fifteen percent off again,
Speaker 1: everybody listening, just in time for the holidays. Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot Com, slash buck. Many of you know that I
Speaker 1: have friends at The Federalist and try to have a
Speaker 1: pretty good rotation of a guest from the Federalist dot
Speaker 1: Com who come on to this show. People like Ben
Speaker 1: Dominich who's the co founder of it, Sean Davis, Molly
Speaker 1: hemmingway En s Felcher. There's there's a whole crew over
Speaker 1: there that I think does really excellent work, and I
Speaker 1: really like getting in the mix on radio and on TV.
Speaker 1: This is one of the best federalist pieces I've read
Speaker 1: in a while, though it comes from someone named Chris Bray,
Speaker 1: who's a former infantry regiment and sorry, infantry sergeant in
Speaker 1: the US Army and has a history PhD from UCLA,
Speaker 1: so really obviously impressive in terms of his credentials, which
Speaker 1: is necessary because he's about to in this piece essentially
Speaker 1: pull apart the notion that you can judge people by
Speaker 1: their credentials. That's kind of the irony of this. He
Speaker 1: wrote this, Our culture war is between people who get
Speaker 1: results and empty suits with pristine credentials, And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of really profound stuff in here. He goes right
Speaker 1: to the heart of what I think is the real
Speaker 1: animosity that you have, particularly among among journalists toward Trump,
Speaker 1: and that is that their status is threatened. There You've
Speaker 1: often heard me say that their sense of self is threatened,
Speaker 1: meaning that their sense of their own importance in the world,
Speaker 1: their own the necessity that society has for them, that
Speaker 1: is all in doubt because Trump comes along and cast
Speaker 1: doubt over it. That's why the whole fake news issue
Speaker 1: does really Bother places like CNN, even though their ratings
Speaker 1: overall are up in the Trump era. And it's because
Speaker 1: they like to think of themselves as the guardians of democracy.
Speaker 1: They like to think of themselves as the essential protectors
Speaker 1: of you know, truth and liberty and freedom and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff, although they're generally pretty anti liberty and
Speaker 1: anti freedom in the press these days. But he goes
Speaker 1: through how throughout history and he's got a PhD in history.
Speaker 1: There were different groups, whether it is the elites in Vichy, France,
Speaker 1: who were I don't know why I just pronounced that weirdly,
Speaker 1: France Frost and now he Biont who were supposed to
Speaker 1: be running that country, who had all this fantastic schooling,
Speaker 1: or the elites in China where your Confucian, your Confucian scholarship,
Speaker 1: reputation and skills. If you are a good Confucian scholar,
Speaker 1: then you are in charge of an area. If you
Speaker 1: are fantastic, you are in charge of a whole region.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you were the best, the best,
Speaker 1: you're a national administrator. And then the British showed up
Speaker 1: during the Opium Wars with guns and we're like, guess
Speaker 1: what we're in charge now? And being a Confucian scholar
Speaker 1: didn't really matter anymore. Point year is that we have
Speaker 1: a society that is particularly obsessed with credentialing, as shown
Speaker 1: by universities. But universities are not in any way good
Speaker 1: proxies or good sorting mechanisms for how capable and how
Speaker 1: honestly how worthwhile a person is professionally or personally. These
Speaker 1: universities have been so polluted with social justice indoctrination, and
Speaker 1: the liberal orthodoxies are so uniformly enforced at them that
Speaker 1: you can't really expect somebody who comes out of a
Speaker 1: certain school to be able to defend their point of
Speaker 1: view to be impressively in any way, because there are
Speaker 1: a lot of different reasons why they take people too.
Speaker 1: Even the admissions process at these places is tainted in
Speaker 1: a sense by this left wing, redistributive, intersectional social justice
Speaker 1: this ideology. But I think he makes some really fantastic
Speaker 1: points in this, And here's one. He talks about the
Speaker 1: Obama administration and he writes, quote staffing up new administration,
Speaker 1: Barack Obama hired Cementa Power, Cass Sunstein, both professors Professor
Speaker 1: Stephen Chow, Professor Christina Romer, and so on and so on.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump hired general CEOs and governors, people who are
Speaker 1: credentialed by lives of action and management. This isn't disagreement.
Speaker 1: This is a difference of foundational premises. He also says,
Speaker 1: for forty years with oh this is this is the
Speaker 1: really most profound part of this. I think that we
Speaker 1: do not separate people into a class system in this
Speaker 1: country anymore based on their ability or even their wealth.
Speaker 1: You know, usually you'd think of wealth as the thing
Speaker 1: that determines where you are in the strata. And of
Speaker 1: course wealth does matter to some extent. With all that,
Speaker 1: but to the issue specifically here of how people think
Speaker 1: of themselves within class structure. It's really about virtue signaling
Speaker 1: and postures and cultural positions. Here's what he writes. Quote,
Speaker 1: for forty years, with gathering uniformity of purpose, our credentialing
Speaker 1: institutions have taught postures rather than skills, attitudes rather than knowledge.
Speaker 1: This isn't invariably true, and many fine scholars have taught
Speaker 1: many excellent practitioners, but the overarching trend is toward training
Speaker 1: in intellectual and psychologically uniformity, toward the world of excellent sheep.
Speaker 1: The hollowing out of our credentialing institutions has been abundantly
Speaker 1: clear for years in well known examples like the discussion
Speaker 1: of rape law at Harvard and quote, it is not
Speaker 1: about creating an intellectual space tantrum over at Halloween costumes
Speaker 1: at Yale. What credentialing institutions teach is mental rigidity, intellectual cowardice,
Speaker 1: and fear of disagreement. They narrow the mind and constrain
Speaker 1: the ability to act. Our elites largely can put the
Speaker 1: wet stuff on the red stuff. It's referring to firefighters
Speaker 1: and the most important part of their job, because it's
Speaker 1: triggering and unsafe to mention. This is this is really true.
Speaker 1: I mean these places. This is why also you see
Speaker 1: such a there's such a uniformity of belief coming out
Speaker 1: of them. This is why when you ask, well, why
Speaker 1: are so many people that go to Ivy League schools
Speaker 1: liberals and so many of them really liberal? The answer
Speaker 1: is because they're taught to be liberals. Because that's what
Speaker 1: these schools are teaching people now, and they're also constantly
Speaker 1: picking up from those around them that if you want
Speaker 1: to be considered smart, worthwhile socially acceptable and elite. You
Speaker 1: have to adopt certain postures, certain premises, and that's what
Speaker 1: they're spending a lot of time focused on, especially at
Speaker 1: the at the undergraduate level, but increasingly at the graduate level.
Speaker 1: People ask me why, you know, why didn't get an
Speaker 1: advanced degree? Thought about it? For example, I thought about
Speaker 1: getting an MBA. I thought about, at one point even
Speaker 1: getting a master's degree in international relations. But the answer
Speaker 1: is I didn't think that I needed one. The answer
Speaker 1: is also that it was going to be really expensive,
Speaker 1: and I didn't want to take on a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of debt because I don't like debt. I don't want
Speaker 1: to take on debt. I would rather live simply and
Speaker 1: frugally than owe somebody and live my life wondering if
Speaker 1: I'll be able to pay them back. But this is
Speaker 1: the real the credentialing, the fall of credentialing institutions in
Speaker 1: the public's eye is one of the main Now you
Speaker 1: could say to me, buck Trump went to Wharton. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's all true. But on the right there's a greater
Speaker 1: acceptance of who you are is really a compilation of
Speaker 1: the choices you make and what you've done. That's who
Speaker 1: you are, who you are is not a resume, It's
Speaker 1: not a sheet of paper that I went to this
Speaker 1: place and this place in this place. I mean, I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how many people when I was in government,
Speaker 1: I would see a resume and oh, I'm talking Rhodes
Speaker 1: scholars and speak this language and that language. And then
Speaker 1: you meet them, you know, this person is just not
Speaker 1: used to thinking rigorously about anything. This person has learned
Speaker 1: to play within a certain system in order to advance
Speaker 1: himself or herself, and that system skews to the left.
Speaker 1: And that's really what you pick up from all this.
Speaker 1: That's what you pick up from these institutions. I mean,
Speaker 1: the basic legal training, for example, of a law school
Speaker 1: is pretty much the same everywhere. According to all my
Speaker 1: friends who have gone to law school. It's just a
Speaker 1: question of the elite status that you attain from going there,
Speaker 1: but also how you talk about these things, the way
Speaker 1: that you view them, the way that you present yourself.
Speaker 1: A lot of this is just about flash. It's certainly
Speaker 1: not about substance. And Democrats hate this stuff because ultimately
Speaker 1: they're the ones who are always trying to hold up
Speaker 1: their dominance at the academy as somehow evidence of their
Speaker 1: intellectual superiority. So in the Obama administration where you had
Speaker 1: all these professors, that's a perfect example of how the
Speaker 1: real world comes hard and fast to people who think
Speaker 1: that because they have a fancy sounding pedigree, everything's going
Speaker 1: to be easier. He ends as piece Chris Bray again,
Speaker 1: I thought this is really good at the Federalists, and
Speaker 1: I would recommend it to you. I'll put it up
Speaker 1: on Facebook. In short, Trump declines the authority of the
Speaker 1: cultural sectors that most assertively claim it. That's the conflict,
Speaker 1: and that's why it's being played in a relentless tone
Speaker 1: of hysteria. There are credentialing authorities and credential holding elites
Speaker 1: who can see the path to their own obsolescence, like
Speaker 1: the Empress Dowager. They will not go quietly. Yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: That is why there's such a tantrum going on. Trump
Speaker 1: is a threat, not just to them politically, to their
Speaker 1: sense of who they are, how elite they are, how
Speaker 1: special they are, and they can't abide that. Hello, the
Speaker 1: Foreign Secretary. I saw this on the BBC Twitter account
Speaker 1: earlier today, and I gotta say I like Boris Johnson.
Speaker 1: I think he's a pretty interesting guy. I've heard him
Speaker 1: say some really good stuff in the past. I don't
Speaker 1: follow British politics closely because I got my hants full
Speaker 1: on this side of the pond. But this was I
Speaker 1: thought this was pretty great. Today this is This is
Speaker 1: Boris Johnson trying to do a little visit promo video
Speaker 1: as Foreign Secretary, their equivalent of Secretary of State Roland Ster.
Speaker 1: The Foreign Secretary has to do a quick bit of
Speaker 1: filming for his official Twitter feed. Okay, yeah, high folks,
Speaker 1: Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary. I'm here in Lisbon, in Portugal
Speaker 1: to celebrate what is the oldest alliance and friendship in
Speaker 1: diplomatic history, going back to thirteen eighty six, going forward
Speaker 1: through the Napoleonic Wars through to the Second World War.
Speaker 1: But of course this was a place that was I
Speaker 1: think of what happened the same world w catalysts? What
Speaker 1: are we doing the same world? A neutral? Wasn't the
Speaker 1: fourth the Oars? What are we doing? The Zords? Love it?
Speaker 1: The use alls, well, what did we do in the
Speaker 1: as we were? Dol Oh? Oh yes, neutral? Neutral, that's right?
Speaker 1: Oh Portugal not really not really our best ever, ally,
Speaker 1: not not the best I've ever seen not not in
Speaker 1: fact our ally at all in the Second World War.
Speaker 1: Oh that's quite That's quite strange, isn't it? Okay, let's
Speaker 1: get back to it. Boris Johnson, Foreign Secretary. Take two,
Speaker 1: Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary. I'm here in Lizabeth's. Portugal
Speaker 1: is our fourth biggest trading partners, trading partner. Last we
Speaker 1: are Portugal's fourth largest. Portugal is not our fourth largest.
Speaker 1: What what do you mean? But Portual's not not our
Speaker 1: fourth third largest, fourth largest? What's going on here but Portugal? Ow?
Speaker 1: Bloody hell? Take three, high folks, Boris Johnson, I'm here
Speaker 1: in Lizabeth. James Bond himself was said to have been
Speaker 1: born in Estherill, and today James Bond was born. Well,
Speaker 1: you can't put one for you might the great idea,
Speaker 1: the idea for James Bonne was born, the idea for
Speaker 1: the James Oh, come on, what do you what do
Speaker 1: you mean? The idea for James Bond has written right
Speaker 1: there in script, Sir James Bonne Borne he idea James
Speaker 1: Bonne a person at least in literary fiction. Sec Oh,
Speaker 1: come off it. I love it with British guys fight man.
Speaker 1: It was that was great but but, but but the idea, sir,
Speaker 1: the idea? What do you mean? It says right here
Speaker 1: in my briefing book, James Bond born born in esterill, Man.
Speaker 1: Life would be so much easier if I had a
Speaker 1: British accent, really would. People would listen to me on
Speaker 1: all the different cable networks and just say, well, that
Speaker 1: guy's so smart listening to his British accent. Even if
Speaker 1: I said things like well, James Bond born here. In fact,
Speaker 1: I believe he went to preschool just down the street.
Speaker 1: He was quite a rambunctious young fellow in his early days. Yeah,
Speaker 1: or he's a fictional character. It's all pretty much the
Speaker 1: same thing. Oh, we got one more take from the
Speaker 1: Foreign Minister of the UK here. It's a great friendship,
Speaker 1: it's a great partnership. It's built on shared values and
Speaker 1: we're gonna take it from you, right. They go, oh,
Speaker 1: all right, now we can finish. Oh we're all finished.
Speaker 1: Oh great, fantastic. That's fun stuff. Man. People don't realize
Speaker 1: how much social media is changing the way that we
Speaker 1: see each other as well. I mean, I've been telling
Speaker 1: you for a while that the biggest problem with credibility
Speaker 1: for journalists is not even the fake news that they peddle.
Speaker 1: It's that because of their social media accounts, we are
Speaker 1: all now able to see just who they really are
Speaker 1: and what they think and what their biases are. And
Speaker 1: they act like that doesn't mean anything, or perhaps we're
Speaker 1: all too dumb to figure out who they are based
Speaker 1: on their social media profiles. But with politicians too, you know,
Speaker 1: everybody is now a pundit. I mean, everybody has instantaneous
Speaker 1: publication access. They can just decide that they're going to
Speaker 1: share a thought. In that thought, if it has enough
Speaker 1: interest from people, can then go viral. So it's it's
Speaker 1: a bit of a game changing experience. But even politicians
Speaker 1: now walking out with their staffs trying to come up
Speaker 1: with clever things to say on Snapchat and just I'm
Speaker 1: gonna just say this one time, I don't understand the
Speaker 1: dog filter thing on Snapchat or the bunny filters or
Speaker 1: whatever the animal filters. No one looks good with an
Speaker 1: animal filter over their face. This is why Snapchat, I think,
Speaker 1: is a company that's not long for this world, because
Speaker 1: everyone who's below the age of thirty is going to
Speaker 1: figure out, oh, when I put the weird dog face
Speaker 1: filter on, I look like a dog face, which is
Speaker 1: not good. Mic drop buckets out, Roll call coming up,
Speaker 1: rock and roll, fellow patriots, time to spread some freedom
Speaker 1: coast to coast. It's time for roll call. Alrighty, roll
Speaker 1: call is where it's at. Folks always like to hear
Speaker 1: from you at Facebook dot com, slash a buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: So please do send me your thoughts, your insights, your
Speaker 1: pithy remarkable quips. Paul kicks us off today. Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I've heard some talk regarding the FIS a mess about
Speaker 1: abuse of classification authority. During your time as an analyst
Speaker 1: looking at classified material, what percent of documents would you
Speaker 1: guess didn't really need to be classified? Also, do you
Speaker 1: think this kind of thing happens deliberately for CYA reasons?
Speaker 1: Or is it just lazy swamp dwellers taking a shotgun
Speaker 1: approach and just classifying huge batches of documents without bothering
Speaker 1: to go through them. So sorry you have to live
Speaker 1: in the swamp. As a former denizen of Fairfax, I
Speaker 1: can honestly say you are taking one for the team.
Speaker 1: Shield tie Paul, Paul, excellent questions. Let me try to
Speaker 1: take these in order. Do I think that there see. See,
Speaker 1: there's mostly overclassification, which is a huge thing in the government.
Speaker 1: I mean they classify everything. You know, they would classify
Speaker 1: a ham sandwich if nobody stopped them from doing it.
Speaker 1: And most of that is a combination of laziness and
Speaker 1: better safe than sorry attitude. And I can understand with
Speaker 1: some things a better safe than sorry attitude certainly is
Speaker 1: the way you want to go. But when you are
Speaker 1: talking about taking that approach to pretty much everything, then
Speaker 1: you're really misusing the classification system because then that also
Speaker 1: prevents transparency, so people can't get access to government documents
Speaker 1: that they should have access to. And it also means
Speaker 1: that people like me, when I was in the government
Speaker 1: and had a top secret clearance, take a much more
Speaker 1: no big deal attitude when you know there was stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean I remember being in the CIA and coming
Speaker 1: into contact with information that was kind of wow, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, this is really this is really serious, this
Speaker 1: is really sensitive, and you have and it's not that
Speaker 1: often that that would happen, but you can imagine that
Speaker 1: it certainly does, and you remember when it does when
Speaker 1: you're the person it happens too. So that's that's a
Speaker 1: part of it. As to the CIA aspect, well, yes,
Speaker 1: there's definitely overclassification. In fact, we saw some overclassification already
Speaker 1: in a very high profile setting with the whole Muller
Speaker 1: probe and all of the FBI and deep state shenanigans
Speaker 1: around it. When you had McCabe who was the deputy
Speaker 1: director and at one point acting director of the FBI.
Speaker 1: McCabe had a seventy thousand dollars conference room table bought
Speaker 1: for him for the executive directors or for the rather
Speaker 1: the director's conference room, and he just didn't want that
Speaker 1: information out there, and that's all that was. So they
Speaker 1: classified it and later it came out. So it's really
Speaker 1: all of the above, lots of different reasons, but over
Speaker 1: classification is a big problem. And as to the swamp, yeah,
Speaker 1: this place does not grow on me. In fact, I
Speaker 1: really do look forward to this show every day because
Speaker 1: it's like I get to connect to my folks, my people,
Speaker 1: my like minded patriots. And that's one of the beauties
Speaker 1: of this show is that it's almost like I'm sending
Speaker 1: up the distress began every time the show starts. You know,
Speaker 1: save me, Team Buck, Save me, because I am I
Speaker 1: am deep behind liberal lines. Here in DC and outside
Speaker 1: of Fox News, the White House and Republican Congressional offices,
Speaker 1: you are in You are in hostile territory here as
Speaker 1: a conservative, Steve writes Buck Comma. Steve Well put another,
Speaker 1: Steve writes, a crazy uncle echo of your sentiment regarding
Speaker 1: Media Matters, note the spelling. The people there have such
Speaker 1: repulsive personalities. I'm convinced that it's an employment requirement that
Speaker 1: the only action they get is online. They don't have
Speaker 1: to worry about birth control. From Steve Steve, I think
Speaker 1: Media Matters is a detestable organization. I think that move
Speaker 1: On is a detestable organization. And I really mean this
Speaker 1: apart from disagreeing with their politics. I just think that
Speaker 1: people who work for those places should think long and
Speaker 1: hard about what they're doing with their days. You know,
Speaker 1: what they're doing with their lives at this point because
Speaker 1: their organizations that exist to smear and undermine and destroy
Speaker 1: and have there's no good faith. No one at Media
Speaker 1: Matters operates in good faith. It is essentially a media
Speaker 1: character assassination squad that abuses the tax code. By the way,
Speaker 1: in order to be a five O one see three
Speaker 1: nonprofit Peter writes, Buck, I'm a big fan and wanted
Speaker 1: to let you know your calm, reasonable and reasoned voice
Speaker 1: for all things pro Usa is truly inspirational and also
Speaker 1: is saving this country by getting the word of logic
Speaker 1: and history out there. You make me laugh routinely. Your
Speaker 1: quip months ago about the Southern Property Law Center chipping
Speaker 1: away at the load bearing walls of Western civilization had
Speaker 1: me giggling for days. When we can laugh at such
Speaker 1: a tragedy, life is much better. Shields High, Peter, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for the very kind and encouraging note.
Speaker 1: It really does mean a lot, and please keep listening
Speaker 1: to the show. Please tell some friends about it too.
Speaker 1: Remember they can always download it, folks, and our downloads
Speaker 1: are going up earlier than they were before, so you
Speaker 1: usually should be able to listen to this show by
Speaker 1: seven Eastern time because some of our guest interviews and
Speaker 1: some other things we're able to get done in advance,
Speaker 1: so you can. You can usually get the show by,
Speaker 1: you know, earlier than you used to. I can. I
Speaker 1: can tell you that much earlier than you used to
Speaker 1: be able to. Josh writes, I love your show, but
Speaker 1: I'm done wasting my time I pull off the highway,
Speaker 1: I might commute home to message or tweet you no
Speaker 1: more have a great life Sexton. Um, well, Josh, I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know, man. I mean I just got to
Speaker 1: your message now. Thank you for saying you love my show.
Speaker 1: Please keep listening to the show. We just we get
Speaker 1: a lot of messages in the inbox and I can't
Speaker 1: get to them all on air, or the whole show
Speaker 1: would just be people writing to me on roll call.
Speaker 1: Maybe we could do a whole Friday like roll call extravaganza.
Speaker 1: That'll be kind of fun for the end of the year. Um.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's an idea. But Josh, come back, my friend.
Speaker 1: Listen to me on your commute at home. Don't give
Speaker 1: up the freedom. Hud is here for you. We're just
Speaker 1: a little understaffed and and rambling. John, who has a
Speaker 1: very very groovy last name, John writes. Your mention of
Speaker 1: people who want to have limbs removed reminded me of
Speaker 1: this song as recorded by Billie Holiday, All of me?
Speaker 1: Why not take all of me? Can't you see I'm
Speaker 1: no good without you? Take my lips I want to
Speaker 1: lose them. Take my arms. I never use them. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's intense. You took the best, so why not take
Speaker 1: the rest, Baby, take all of me, John, thank you
Speaker 1: for sharing. I'm actually, I'll tell you a fan of
Speaker 1: Nina Simone, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald. I go through phases
Speaker 1: where I'll listen to a lot of that genre of
Speaker 1: music from that from that period of time, Nina Simone
Speaker 1: in particular. I've always actually really enjoyed listening to an
Speaker 1: Elaphitzgerald kind of just even though some of the songs
Speaker 1: are very kind of emotional and sad, ell Fitzgerald usually
Speaker 1: puts me in a good mood. Mary writes, can you
Speaker 1: tell mister Sexton thanks for the giggles each time he
Speaker 1: mocks Hillary's voice? Well, Mary, you're welcome. That's about as
Speaker 1: close to Hillary's voice as we can get tonight. But
Speaker 1: she says you're welcome, So there you go. Mark write's
Speaker 1: book Shields High. Shouldn't the Democrats be loudly and actively
Speaker 1: warning all immigrants trying to come here to stay away?
Speaker 1: You don't want to come here right now? You know,
Speaker 1: since Trump is literally hitler, you know, Mark, you raise
Speaker 1: a good point. The country on the world stage is
Speaker 1: still a place where lots of folks want to come
Speaker 1: and even if they're gonna get tear gas, you know,
Speaker 1: even if there's going to be some difficulty for them
Speaker 1: in that whole process. So clearly America, as far as
Speaker 1: the rest of the world is concerned, or at least
Speaker 1: people that have to take action based upon their perception
Speaker 1: of America. Other people don't really think that we are
Speaker 1: basically in Nazi Germany here. We just don't know it
Speaker 1: yet other countries recognized, or at least refugees people from
Speaker 1: other places recognize that is the case. You know. I
Speaker 1: would also just say that's one of the major stumbling
Speaker 1: blocks in this whole argument about how these people from
Speaker 1: Honduras and Al Salvador and Nicaragua and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it, that they are refugees or that they're asylum seekers.
Speaker 1: They've been offered asylum in Mexico, they have chosen not
Speaker 1: to take it because it's not about being safe, it's
Speaker 1: about wanting to be in America. This is very similar
Speaker 1: to if somebody on the street was saying, I am starving,
Speaker 1: please give me food, and you said, all right, I
Speaker 1: got you. Here's a you know, here's a cheeseburger and
Speaker 1: some fries. And they said, oh, I'm sorry, so I
Speaker 1: only eat prime rib medium rab because I am not
Speaker 1: a savage. Well that would seem strange, right, If you're starving,
Speaker 1: don't you just want food? And aren't you grateful for
Speaker 1: that food? If that is really your argument, then you
Speaker 1: should be able to follow that through. Sherry writes, definitely
Speaker 1: another vote here for Pickles on the side when it
Speaker 1: comes to burgers. I really enjoy your show and try
Speaker 1: to recruit more listeners for you when I can keep
Speaker 1: up the good work. Your schedule sounds grueling, but a
Speaker 1: lot of us out here appreciate your dedication. Sherry in
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania shared, thank you so much. It really means a lot.
Speaker 1: The schedule is grueling, but I love what I do,
Speaker 1: and the one thing that I look forward to every day,
Speaker 1: as I've told you so many times, is this show.
Speaker 1: That is the one thing that I am always excited
Speaker 1: to do. I'm always excited to hear from all of
Speaker 1: you and get a chance to address you here in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt. So yes, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: listening in Pennsylvania. Please do spread the word, and we
Speaker 1: got one more here. Jackie writes, you have to have
Speaker 1: pickles on the burger have to and more nuts in brownies, Jackie.
Speaker 1: I know you're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong,
Speaker 1: but come on, I mean, it's one thing to say
Speaker 1: pickles on burgers, but nuts in brownies. I was gonna
Speaker 1: say that's nuts, but that's too weak. You know, that's
Speaker 1: just crazy town tonight. I'm hoping as soon as I
Speaker 1: finish radio, although it's kind of late, I might make
Speaker 1: myself some some what is it going to be a
Speaker 1: lemon butter sauce for some soul? I'm trying to expand
Speaker 1: my fish cooking abilities and my fish repertoire, my culinary
Speaker 1: seafood exploits. So I'll let you know how that goes.
Speaker 1: Team and honor and a privilege always to talk to you.
Speaker 1: I'll be back here, same time, same place tomorrow. Shields
Speaker 1: high email security is everything, and you shouldn't trust it
Speaker 1: to one of those left leaning comie companies out there. Okay,
Speaker 1: you need to try I Patriots dot Us. I Patriots
Speaker 1: dot us is a new conservative alternative to all those
Speaker 1: super lib email services ipatriots dot us is secure, includes
Speaker 1: more of what you want, okay, thirty gigs at cloud storage,
Speaker 1: larger attachment sizes. Your emails and files are safe with
Speaker 1: an anti virus, anti spam encryption system that is phenomenal.
Speaker 1: Ipatriots dot us won't sell your information or support liberal
Speaker 1: agenda items like a lot of those other free email
Speaker 1: providers and ipatriots dot us email is compatible with most
Speaker 1: mobile devices here iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile, BlackBerry. You name,
Speaker 1: but show your a patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us
Speaker 1: now choose your membership program. Input your desired ipatriots email
Speaker 1: address during checkout and our promo code buck. Make sure
Speaker 1: you do this and our promo code buck for ten
Speaker 1: percent savings during your first year of membership