Speaker 1: Why pay your hard eard money to join an organization
Speaker 1: that fought for a government run a healthcare system and
Speaker 1: stood against tax cuts for middle class Americans and small
Speaker 1: business owners. That's AARP. Join AMAC, the conservative alternative, same
Speaker 1: money saving benefits of AARP without the liberal agenda. Stand
Speaker 1: with AMAC as they fight the good fight and become
Speaker 1: a member today. Join now at AMAC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's AMAC dot us slash buck. You are entering the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt. Democrats are now the House majority. We've already
Speaker 1: gotten a sense of where this is all going. Folks.
Speaker 1: They are nuts. All the Democrats have to do is
Speaker 1: not be crazy, and they can't do it. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about their socialist tendencies, the tax rates they're putting forward,
Speaker 1: the ideas that they are espousing, and the incendiary rhetoric
Speaker 1: they're using against the president. That and also the border
Speaker 1: shut down and the fight of the Wall. Coming up
Speaker 1: on the Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show where the mission or mission is to decode what
Speaker 1: really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again. The Buck Sexton Show begins the
Speaker 1: sect of it. When your son looks at you and says, Mama,
Speaker 1: look you won. Bullies don't win. And I said, baby,
Speaker 1: they talked, because we're gonna go in there. We're gonna
Speaker 1: impeach the Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. There you
Speaker 1: have it a pretty good summation of what you're going
Speaker 1: to be seeing from the incoming Democrat majority in the Congress.
Speaker 1: We're going to impeach the mf in president. That's from
Speaker 1: a newly installed US Member of Congress, Rashida to Leib,
Speaker 1: who says that not only are they going to impeach Trump,
Speaker 1: but they're going to use in public with people there
Speaker 1: or you know, people obviously videoing this, use profanity about
Speaker 1: the president. Now, I understand that the immediate inclination of
Speaker 1: the left is going to be to say, oh, but Trump,
Speaker 1: Trump uses such coarse language and Trump says such bad things,
Speaker 1: and you can't complain about this. Now, I'm not really
Speaker 1: complaining about the fact that a member of Congress wants
Speaker 1: to debase herself and the office that she represents and
Speaker 1: the constituents that she has by using that kind of language.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a difference between calling somebody a dog
Speaker 1: or calling somebody a jerk and using that kind language,
Speaker 1: which I obviously can't use on the air. I think
Speaker 1: you all know what I'm talking about. Though. That's about
Speaker 1: as extreme as it's as it's going to get in
Speaker 1: terms of curses that you're going to hear somebody throw around,
Speaker 1: in terms of phrases that someone could use to try
Speaker 1: and debase the president, that's that's really a new level.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's crossing a line. I have never
Speaker 1: seen or heard Trump say anything in the same stratosphere
Speaker 1: of profanity as that. Now, this is from a new
Speaker 1: member of Congress. It's not the President, it's not Nancy Pelosi.
Speaker 1: I know what the counter arguments are going to be here,
Speaker 1: but I wanted to drill down into this for a moment,
Speaker 1: just because this is not a one off, folks. This
Speaker 1: is not something that comes out of a vacuum. You
Speaker 1: know that woman who is now a sitting member of Congress,
Speaker 1: who also some of you are probably saying buck talk
Speaker 1: about how she's a you know, anti Israeli some would
Speaker 1: say anti Semitic, pro Palestinian activists. And I know there's
Speaker 1: a whole other background we could get into here, but
Speaker 1: I'm more concerned with the overall context in which somebody
Speaker 1: can come in, and she's one of the first Muslim
Speaker 1: women ever elected to Congress. I'm concerned with how this
Speaker 1: is not that surprising given the kind of things that
Speaker 1: have been said about this president freely for a long
Speaker 1: time by the press and by the Democratic Party. Let's
Speaker 1: not forget that as we start twenty nineteen and now
Speaker 1: have Democrats in control of at least the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: that we are coming off a year where the hatred
Speaker 1: of the left, the willingness of left wing activists and
Speaker 1: the mainstream media and the Democratic Party to act in
Speaker 1: the most heinous and just destructive ways toward their fellow
Speaker 1: Americans was on display time and time again. As these
Speaker 1: Democrats are now entering office, and there's this new hope
Speaker 1: on the left that they're going to hold Trump accountable
Speaker 1: and there's finally going to be a check on his power,
Speaker 1: as if there haven't been checks on his power all along.
Speaker 1: This is a delusional stance. All it takes is one
Speaker 1: federal judge to stop Trump or who doesn't want Trump
Speaker 1: to do something, and all of a sudden Trump can't
Speaker 1: do it, and he doesn't say, you know, no, I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna go ahead anyway. But there's a context for
Speaker 1: the hatred against this president, and it's that this has
Speaker 1: been building and building and getting more toxic and more destructive.
Speaker 1: There's been a corrosion of the soul of the progressive left.
Speaker 1: That has been an ongoing program. I mean, this has
Speaker 1: been an intentional policy, mean to make people not just
Speaker 1: disagree with Trump and his supporters, and don't forget that
Speaker 1: part of it, it's the supporters too. It's you and me,
Speaker 1: not just to disagree with Trump or to even hate Trump,
Speaker 1: but to hate all of us and think that we
Speaker 1: are bad. It's not that we're wrong, it's that we're
Speaker 1: bad people, and we're wrong, but more importantly, we're bad people.
Speaker 1: That's what they really think. That is what the Democrat
Speaker 1: base believes. They think we're all racist, they think we're
Speaker 1: all hateful. They think these things, and that is not
Speaker 1: about to change. That was not just a coping mechanism
Speaker 1: for the last two years, really, but that has been
Speaker 1: building and now we will see it channeled and weaponized.
Speaker 1: Now we'll see the full scope of their crazy. Representative
Speaker 1: Hank Johnson, here's an example. I mean, this is now
Speaker 1: not just this is now the the standard that you
Speaker 1: will hear from people talking about Trump. This is this
Speaker 1: is an outliers. I'm not you know, I know. We
Speaker 1: started the show this woman in Congress who's yelling, you know,
Speaker 1: profanity about calling the president of profane word and and
Speaker 1: and also saying she's gonna impeach him, which let's not forget.
Speaker 1: We've had a credulous, laughably credulous media running around for
Speaker 1: the last six months saying, oh, no, we're gonna wait
Speaker 1: for the Muller probe defend, and they're gonna wait for them,
Speaker 1: We're gonna wait. Well, they want to impeach the president too,
Speaker 1: but they've been claiming we're gonna wait for the Muller
Speaker 1: probe to finish before we make any decision about about impeachment. No,
Speaker 1: they're not. It's a lie. They're gonna they're going, mark
Speaker 1: my words, they are going to impeach this president. They're
Speaker 1: not going to remove him. And I even I would
Speaker 1: even willing to concede. I think Nancy Pelosi knows it's
Speaker 1: probably not a good idea to impeach the president. But
Speaker 1: she's gonna be in the kind of puncher's pilot position here.
Speaker 1: She's gonna say, look, if this is what all know,
Speaker 1: if this is what all you crazy's want, I mean,
Speaker 1: and all right, I guess I'll give it to you.
Speaker 1: She is going to get so much pressure from the
Speaker 1: left wing, lunatic Democrat Party base that I just think
Speaker 1: that impeachment is a foregone conclusion. And that's why when
Speaker 1: you hear people already coming out and saying and they
Speaker 1: already had a member of Congress file articles on peachbi,
Speaker 1: I know this is this is going to be an
Speaker 1: ongoing thing. I mentioned Hank Johnson. Yeah, here's here is
Speaker 1: the standard line from the left on who Trump is
Speaker 1: and who Trump supporters therefore are. Play clip twenty two
Speaker 1: Americans elected an authoritarian, anti immigrant, racist strong man to
Speaker 1: the nation's highest office, Donald Trump and his make America
Speaker 1: great Again. Follow us who want to return America back
Speaker 1: to a time when white men and white privilege were
Speaker 1: unchallenged and where minorities and women were in their place.
Speaker 1: Much like Hitler took over the Nazi Party, Trump has
Speaker 1: taken over the Republican Party. Nazi Party Trump, Trump has
Speaker 1: taken it over. This is not a fringe This is
Speaker 1: not a a fringe position. This is not something that
Speaker 1: you will not hear from more and more Democrats, and
Speaker 1: you have been hearing from Democrats obviously for quite for
Speaker 1: quite some time now. I do want to focus in
Speaker 1: on some of the policy that they've been discussing as well,
Speaker 1: because we're starting to be reminded and this is the
Speaker 1: greatest advertisement for the Republican party in power, really is
Speaker 1: the Democrats talking about what they want to do. That's
Speaker 1: when you really get a sense of, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: you cannot give these people power. You cannot allow them
Speaker 1: to be in a position where they get to make decisions,
Speaker 1: because their ideas aren't just bad, I mean they are
Speaker 1: catastrophically bad. You know, today you had your introduction to
Speaker 1: the House of Pelosi articles of impeachment and an effort
Speaker 1: to maybe abolish the electoral college, right voting, this brinksmanship
Speaker 1: on shutdown, profanity from a new member of Congress. You've
Speaker 1: got this insane tax scheme that okaus Y Cortez is
Speaker 1: talking about. I just played audio of that guy talking
Speaker 1: about how Trump is a Nazi and this is day
Speaker 1: you know, this is day one, This is day one.
Speaker 1: Where does it go from here? And that's why I
Speaker 1: have to laugh. I have to laugh when people say, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be an infrastructure bill, and there's how can
Speaker 1: this is the favorite? The favorite? And I'm man, I
Speaker 1: get forced to ask it too, So don't don't you
Speaker 1: know dredge up audio of me saying the same thing.
Speaker 1: There We all end up having this conversation, even though
Speaker 1: I think a pretty useless one, of well, what are
Speaker 1: the ways that the new the new you know, Democrat
Speaker 1: majority can work with the Republicans in a bipartisan fashion
Speaker 1: to make America. It's not gonna happen. It's not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: It is not going to happen. Okay, that's we can
Speaker 1: sit around and talk about it, But that's not what
Speaker 1: this is about. You and I my friends are in
Speaker 1: the early phase of a struggle for power that will
Speaker 1: not stop. That will be a continuous, ongoing, bare knuckle
Speaker 1: brawl until twenty twenty, and then it just goes into
Speaker 1: a new phase with whoever wins and you know, and
Speaker 1: then the cycle resets. But but we are, we are
Speaker 1: on a on a pathway now to twenty twenty. Nothing
Speaker 1: of any real political significance from a legislative perspective, is
Speaker 1: going to happen between now and then it's just you know,
Speaker 1: and people talk about gridlock. I'll say this, you know,
Speaker 1: let me give you a little moment, a happy because
Speaker 1: we're here on a Friday because Bucks happy. Do you
Speaker 1: know there's I like that song. Um, let me give
Speaker 1: you a little moment happy. Though, I think the founders
Speaker 1: wanted gridlock to be common, I think that it should
Speaker 1: be hard for the Congress to make massive, massive transformations
Speaker 1: to this country. I do not want it to be
Speaker 1: a simple thing for them to take it upon themselves,
Speaker 1: one way or another, to transform this country. I think
Speaker 1: that it's probably for the best. A lot of very
Speaker 1: smart historians, analysts, pundits, people that look at these issues
Speaker 1: all the time will tell you and have told me
Speaker 1: that in a lot of ways, the less the Congress does,
Speaker 1: the better for the rest of us. Now, there are
Speaker 1: things that they can fix, but oftentimes they try to fit.
Speaker 1: Look at Obamacare, they say they're fix it. If they're
Speaker 1: making it worse, they're making it worse. You know, if
Speaker 1: if we can just get a few a few wins,
Speaker 1: a few more wins racked up from the president's side
Speaker 1: of things like oh, I don't know, another Supreme Court
Speaker 1: justice would be really nice, then I think you're you're
Speaker 1: pretty much just in a election twenty twenty showdown, which
Speaker 1: is where we're heading. And in the meantime, it is stuff.
Speaker 1: If you're gonna Democrats are gonna be all those And
Speaker 1: this is what I meant before about the context, right
Speaker 1: when when you have this member of Congress screaming the
Speaker 1: president is an mf or all of these marches in
Speaker 1: the streets, the Women's March and Antifa and showing up
Speaker 1: outside of conservatives homes and chasing them down in restaurants,
Speaker 1: and the psychopath who tried to kill Steve Scalise and
Speaker 1: a bunch of other members of Conservative members of Congress.
Speaker 1: Any all of that background, all of that history is
Speaker 1: now going to be funneled into channeled into the histrionics,
Speaker 1: the grandstanding, the narcissism, and the nastiness of Nancy Pelosi's Democrats. So,
Speaker 1: you know, this has been a very It's been a
Speaker 1: good twenty four hour introduction to what we're going to
Speaker 1: be up against here, which is a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of kind of worthless talk about
Speaker 1: policies that the Democrats know they have no chance of
Speaker 1: getting through in the next two years. But they're going
Speaker 1: to be engaged in a propaganda battle to see also
Speaker 1: where where they're going to run for twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: then just just tear down this president. I mean, the
Speaker 1: effort is going to go into hyper drive here, overdrive, hyperdrive,
Speaker 1: whichever one is more of a drive. That's what they're
Speaker 1: gonna do. Team. We're in the midst of our Friday
Speaker 1: salon here on the Buck Sexton Show, so I'm very
Speaker 1: much enjoying it. If you want to send me your thoughts,
Speaker 1: note Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton is a great way
Speaker 1: to do it. We've got more on Pelosi's paranoid and
Speaker 1: crazy Congress and also the Wall shut Down Showdown coming up.
Speaker 1: One of the things that's so beautiful to watch is
Speaker 1: three point two percent wage growth that hasn't happened in
Speaker 1: so long per our country. That's an incredible thing. That
Speaker 1: means people are actually getting more money, taking home more money.
Speaker 1: A lot of good things are happening. Labor participation ation
Speaker 1: rate increased to sixty three point one. That's an incredible
Speaker 1: number also, so I just wanted to bring that out.
Speaker 1: The economy is very good, and remember from the time
Speaker 1: of my election, the stock market's gone up very close
Speaker 1: to thirty percent. And that's with all of the things
Speaker 1: that are happening. Three hundred and ten I'm sorry, three
Speaker 1: hundred and twelve thousand jobs and latest jobs report unemployment
Speaker 1: still below four percent. In sameer times, this would be
Speaker 1: the primary news story, the single most important thing that
Speaker 1: we've been told today by the news media. Meanwhile, give
Speaker 1: you a sense of where things are. You know, on
Speaker 1: the other side of things, you have CNN and MSNBC
Speaker 1: and all these different Here you go CNN, hundreds of
Speaker 1: TSA screeners calling out six okay, and also on seeing
Speaker 1: an amen allegedly chased a woman into a karate studio,
Speaker 1: it went, just how you okay? Well, that's that's the
Speaker 1: top story. I guess there must be a viral video
Speaker 1: with that. Speaking of viral videos, you know, there was
Speaker 1: this uh Okazi Quartes dancing video. It's not worth playing
Speaker 1: on Eric because you can't see your dancing. It was
Speaker 1: put out by some anonymous Twitter account and it went
Speaker 1: it went viral. People were all talking about this last night,
Speaker 1: and it was a big conversation among the the Twitterati,
Speaker 1: you know, the various media folks out there that are
Speaker 1: all Unfortunately, we're all we're all glued to Twitter these
Speaker 1: days because of the president and and the importance of
Speaker 1: some of the proclamations that come via tweet. But this
Speaker 1: a Kazy Cortes's video. She's danced around, she's having fun,
Speaker 1: and look it's cute. I mean, she's she's an appealing person.
Speaker 1: You know, she will talk about her terrible ideas and
Speaker 1: bad economics in a second, but she's an appealing person.
Speaker 1: And I saw all this, all this reporting, or at
Speaker 1: least all this commentary on how oh look at people jump,
Speaker 1: you know, jumping conclusions and trying to bash Okazia Quartez
Speaker 1: for dancing and having some fun when she was in
Speaker 1: college or on this video. And then I looked around,
Speaker 1: and I've still I put out this challenge. I said,
Speaker 1: can someone show me one instance of a conservative of
Speaker 1: any note, of an actual conservative of any with any
Speaker 1: kind of platform or following her voice, who was calling
Speaker 1: Okazia Cortes out for this video? And I still have
Speaker 1: yet to see one. Tons of people claiming that Republicans
Speaker 1: pounce and Republicans have overreached on Okazia Quartz And then
Speaker 1: I look at I say, well, hold on a second
Speaker 1: where it says who who says who Poles or Poles?
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Michael Cohen. Yeah, that was that was a
Speaker 1: different era, wasn't it. So I just wish people would
Speaker 1: be honest about whether there really is this overreach on
Speaker 1: this issue with Okazi Quartez, but also in general, you know,
Speaker 1: conservatives basher for policies, not for her persona. That's an
Speaker 1: important thing. They're just making her more famous all the time.
Speaker 1: And Libs don't care if Okazio Cortez, you know, isn't
Speaker 1: good at math. So I mentioned Okazio Cortes and and
Speaker 1: her her tax rate, you know, and a math. And
Speaker 1: this is where you're gonna have real This is where
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna have real problems for the for
Speaker 1: the Democrats going forward. They're not the moment that people
Speaker 1: get into a place where they hear what the reality
Speaker 1: of these policies are. Things like a green New Deal, right,
Speaker 1: that's you're gonna hear a lot about that coming up.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's not going to happen, but they're gonna
Speaker 1: be proposing this idea of a green new deal, um.
Speaker 1: And and then also just on the redistribution of wealth
Speaker 1: and what what paying your your fair share, right, bringing
Speaker 1: back the old Obama phrase paying your fair share. Maybe.
Speaker 1: I think today she said, was it seventy percent Ocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez on taxes, Yes, seventy percent tax on the on
Speaker 1: the super wealthy too fund the Green New Deal. And
Speaker 1: you always hear people trot out this, oh well, under
Speaker 1: the Eisenhower administration, So yeah, let's go back to let's
Speaker 1: go back now sixty some oddiars. Under the Eisenhower administration,
Speaker 1: the top tax rate was, you know, ninety one percent
Speaker 1: and two things one. Nobody paid. Whether that might have
Speaker 1: been the rate, nobody paid that rate. You know, this
Speaker 1: is like saying, well, in Greece in the mid two thousands,
Speaker 1: the tax rate was whatever it was. Yeah, but it
Speaker 1: didn't matter what the tax rate was. Nobody was paying taxes,
Speaker 1: which is why Grease had the problems that it did.
Speaker 1: I mean the tax compliance rate. It's not nobody. I'm exaggerating, body,
Speaker 1: The tax compliance rate was very, very low, and no
Speaker 1: one was really paying ninety one percent. This is also
Speaker 1: where I get it, I get a little revolutionary in
Speaker 1: my tone here. You know, if we're gonna have these
Speaker 1: high taxes, we need to we need to have a
Speaker 1: wealth tax. It can't be a tax on income. A
Speaker 1: tax on income prevents people from ascending the ladder. It
Speaker 1: punishes people for productive activity. Tax on wealth. You know,
Speaker 1: if we're going to start, you know, just having the
Speaker 1: government confiscate from people, well, it shouldn't confiscate from somebody
Speaker 1: who makes two hundred and fifty thousand dollars one year,
Speaker 1: the same as it confiscates from somebody who's worth ten
Speaker 1: million dollars. And it is making two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars on unearned investment income every year. Right, that's
Speaker 1: not we're going to talk about fair. That's not fair.
Speaker 1: And we already have an incredibly and like I don't
Speaker 1: think of wealth tax a good idea. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: if we're going to go down this road, let's not
Speaker 1: pretend that one the people at the at the top
Speaker 1: end of the of the spectrum are going to be
Speaker 1: able to fund all of this. There's there's not enough money.
Speaker 1: There's not enough money to do this. And you know,
Speaker 1: I understand that right now because of the Republicans are
Speaker 1: spending a lot in you know, Trump we got almost
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars deficit this past year. It's not not
Speaker 1: good in that sense because Republicans are spending a lot
Speaker 1: the discussion about the debt and what it's going to
Speaker 1: mean when interest service payments on the debt start to
Speaker 1: crowd out more of overall spending. You know, we're not
Speaker 1: in as strong opposition as we should be to make
Speaker 1: that case the American people, because the Republican Party and yes,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration have been somewhat complicit in blowing up
Speaker 1: the debt. I mean, we're not We're not as bad
Speaker 1: as Obama was, right Obama. Obama took it and basically
Speaker 1: doubled it, which is pretty remarkable. I mean, if you're
Speaker 1: gonna say, one thing that Obama definitely accomplished was putting
Speaker 1: the United States in a long term dire fiscal situation.
Speaker 1: So he did manage to do that, which which was
Speaker 1: remarkable in its own way. But this notion of a
Speaker 1: seventy percent tax rate only is that going to fundamentally
Speaker 1: change not just this country's economy, but the global economy.
Speaker 1: We are responded, this country responsible for so much innovation
Speaker 1: and wealth creation. You go back and I know that
Speaker 1: some people, you know, this doesn't really get headlines, doesn't
Speaker 1: really get a lot of attention. You go back, you
Speaker 1: look at how much of the world lived in true poverty,
Speaker 1: even as far back as nineteen fifty, right, so not
Speaker 1: that long ago. A lot of you were alive in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty, you know, you go back and look at
Speaker 1: what was what the global poverty index was then and
Speaker 1: what it is now. And there are billions of people
Speaker 1: who aren't in poverty anymore relative to what was going
Speaker 1: on then. And this is because of the American approach,
Speaker 1: which other countries have to adopted obviously, you know, Japan
Speaker 1: and Western Europe to very degrees, and but rewarding productive
Speaker 1: behavior and ingenuity and risk taking and wealth creation in
Speaker 1: and understanding how much human self interest is a motivating
Speaker 1: and mobilizing force in society and the good that that creates.
Speaker 1: This has you know, we are so blessed. We're almost
Speaker 1: you know, people all that our life today, we're almost
Speaker 1: like the spoiled brats of the human race because we
Speaker 1: didn't have to go through what some of the others,
Speaker 1: what some of the others have in the past. You know,
Speaker 1: we didn't have to deal with the constraints, the artificial
Speaker 1: constraints on our productivity and on our ability to choose
Speaker 1: our own destinies put on us by this state. Remember
Speaker 1: the left, the Democrat Party is now the American Socialist Party.
Speaker 1: They they are playing a little bit of foot see
Speaker 1: with the terminology, but that's where they are. And that's
Speaker 1: why the radicalism in the language that you've heard in
Speaker 1: the last two years is when you're now, it's being
Speaker 1: translated into policies abolishing the electoral college, a seventy percent
Speaker 1: tax rate, impeaching the president, a Green new Deal, you know,
Speaker 1: a radical transformation that just means a radical transformation of
Speaker 1: the energy sector that will make this country a lot
Speaker 1: poorer very quickly. This is what these people really want
Speaker 1: to do. The biggest advertisement for keeping Trump and Republicans
Speaker 1: in power, fortunately for us, is the Democratic Party. As
Speaker 1: long as the American people are paying attention. Let's talk
Speaker 1: about that wall fight coming up. You ran your campaign
Speaker 1: promising supporters that Mexico is going to pay for the
Speaker 1: wall and that the wall was going to be made
Speaker 1: of concrete. You just said earlier that the wall could
Speaker 1: be made of steel, and right now our government is
Speaker 1: shut down over a demand from your administration that the
Speaker 1: American taxpayer pay for the wall. So how can you
Speaker 1: say you're not failing on that promise to your supporters.
Speaker 1: A very nice question, so beautifully asked. Even though I
Speaker 1: just answered, it didn't let me take excuse me? Are
Speaker 1: you ready? Are you ready? I just tell you that
Speaker 1: we just made a trade deal and we will take
Speaker 1: in billions and billions of does far more than the
Speaker 1: cost of the wall. The wall is peanuts compared to
Speaker 1: what the value of this trade deal is to the
Speaker 1: United States. As far as concrete, I said I was
Speaker 1: going to build a wall. I never said I'm going
Speaker 1: to build a concrete I said I'm gonna build a wall,
Speaker 1: just so you know, because I know you're not into
Speaker 1: the construction business. If I build this wall or fence
Speaker 1: or anything that Democrats need to call it, because I'm
Speaker 1: not into names. I'm into production. I'm into something that works.
Speaker 1: If I build a steel wall rather than a concrete wall,
Speaker 1: it will actually be stronger than a conquered Steel is
Speaker 1: stronger than concrete. Okay, okay, yep, you could check it out.
Speaker 1: This is so dumb, but it tells you a lot
Speaker 1: of it where the Democrats and their their lackeys in
Speaker 1: the media are this It's a wall it's a fence.
Speaker 1: It's a barrier. No, it's a fence. Everyone knows. We're
Speaker 1: just talking about barriers at the border to stop people
Speaker 1: from coming into the country illegally. We don't care what
Speaker 1: color defense is. We don't care what hype the barrier is,
Speaker 1: as long as it is a physical obstruction to prevent
Speaker 1: illegal access. How are we even having this discussion? Maybe though,
Speaker 1: it's because there's a little bit of concern among the
Speaker 1: left wing propagandists in the media and their allies in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party over what's going to happen here. Maybe
Speaker 1: they've started to realize that the more the American people
Speaker 1: pay attention to this really can't spare five billion dollars
Speaker 1: to build a wall, and Trump is having the shutdown.
Speaker 1: They could end the shutdown anytime they want. Just give
Speaker 1: the man the money he needs to start building this wall.
Speaker 1: Five billion dollars is nothing the government. The federal government
Speaker 1: loses an estimated eighty billion dollars a year in Medicare
Speaker 1: and Medicaid fraud. In fraud, the federal government's spending how
Speaker 1: many billions of dollars on fourign eight, how many tens
Speaker 1: of billions of dollars on FOIGN eight every year. We
Speaker 1: don't have five billion dollars with the border, but they
Speaker 1: focus in on, Oh, the fence is not a fence,
Speaker 1: it's a barrier. Oh, it's not a barrier, it's a wall.
Speaker 1: That's just this is just a semantics game. This is nonsense.
Speaker 1: It doesn't do anything. Why why would anyone spend their
Speaker 1: time on this? And then also you said Mexico's gonna
Speaker 1: pay for it, Well, Mexico's not paying for it. Okay,
Speaker 1: Well maybe Trump was wrong and in that Mexico won't
Speaker 1: be able to pay for it right away or it Still,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to
Speaker 1: build a wall. That that's not some argument ender, you know.
Speaker 1: That's uh. CNN's Caitlin Collins. I know Caitlin, and I
Speaker 1: like Caitlin. I don't know. She used to work a
Speaker 1: daily caller. We've we used to hang out sometimes. I look,
Speaker 1: she's seen Jim Acostas turn himself into a household name
Speaker 1: by going after the president. I understand, if you're at CNN,
Speaker 1: there's no better career move than going after the president.
Speaker 1: But I don't think she was I don't think she
Speaker 1: was doing herself long term any favors there. But you know,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm wrong. She's become like I said, I like her,
Speaker 1: and I it's hard. It's hard for me to see
Speaker 1: what's going on over at CNN these days because I
Speaker 1: know some good people over there who are on air
Speaker 1: and and they're just doing what little Jeff Zucker tells
Speaker 1: him to do. You know, that's that's really You got
Speaker 1: to dance to Jeff's tune over there or else you're
Speaker 1: out of luck. You know, he decides whatever gets paid.
Speaker 1: He decides, you know, whether you whether you live or dies,
Speaker 1: so to speak, at CNN is completely in Zucker's hands.
Speaker 1: And obviously he's a he's an anti Trump fanatic at
Speaker 1: this point. So uh, and it's it's just a shame, um.
Speaker 1: But this idea that it somehow is a useful addition
Speaker 1: to the national conversation here to pretend that the specifics
Speaker 1: of the wall, oh well, you know the wall that
Speaker 1: he's talking about now, the slats that wasn't one of
Speaker 1: the one of the initial prototypes. Who cares? What is this?
Speaker 1: I think it's desperation. I think it's the left and
Speaker 1: the Democrats just trying to find a way to just
Speaker 1: to kick up dust, to throw smooth blow smooth, throw smoke,
Speaker 1: blow smoke. You can do lots of things with smoke.
Speaker 1: You can just smoke it. Um. Democrats used to talk
Speaker 1: about building a wall. By the way, this this also
Speaker 1: gets lost. You know, if we had an honest press Corps,
Speaker 1: they would be holding Democrats feet to the fire. On
Speaker 1: the Secure Fence Act of two thousand and six, huge
Speaker 1: bipartisan majority said yeah, let's build it. Let's build a
Speaker 1: border fence. And this this was because everyone knew this
Speaker 1: was a very effective thing to do. But now they're
Speaker 1: pretending to like, oh, it's not But Democrats, even in
Speaker 1: recent years have talked about their desire to build a wall.
Speaker 1: Democrats have been saying openly it's a we have the internet,
Speaker 1: we have the interwebs, we can pull this stuff up,
Speaker 1: we can find it. Here's a here's a whole montage
Speaker 1: of them play clip nineteen. I voted numerous times when
Speaker 1: I was a Senator to spend money to build a
Speaker 1: barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in.
Speaker 1: And I do think you have to control your borders.
Speaker 1: People who enter the United States without our permission are
Speaker 1: illegal aliens and illegal aliens should not be treated the
Speaker 1: same as people who entered the US legally. The American
Speaker 1: people will never accept immigration reform unless they truly believe
Speaker 1: that their government is committed to ending future illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: But those who enter our country illegally and those who
Speaker 1: employ them disrespect the rule of law. And because we
Speaker 1: live in an age where terrorists are challenging our borders,
Speaker 1: we cannot allow people to pour into the US undetected, undocumented,
Speaker 1: and unchecked. Who knew that Hillary, Schumer and Obama were
Speaker 1: slid a bunch of racists, right, Wow? They must really
Speaker 1: not like Mexicans because they're talking about illegal immigration being bad.
Speaker 1: You can't do this, It's not a good thing for
Speaker 1: the country, Hilary said. Quote I voted to spend money
Speaker 1: to build a barrier. Oh my gosh, she said barrier.
Speaker 1: Well she didn't say wall. The dumbest stuff that you're
Speaker 1: hearing these days coming from these democrats I do. And
Speaker 1: also the hypocrisy and dishonesty of it. It really bothers me. Maybe, though,
Speaker 1: just maybe the President's going to find a way a
Speaker 1: way through this. It is it is possible, it is
Speaker 1: conceivable that the president finds a way through no matter
Speaker 1: what happens with a shutdown. Now he's saying he's not
Speaker 1: going to cave. And I think one thing you say
Speaker 1: about Trump is trying to force that man to do
Speaker 1: something he doesn't want to do. Good luck, Democrats, good
Speaker 1: luck getting Trump to cave when he's really set on something.
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying he's not a guy who changes
Speaker 1: his mind, but if he's dug in, looking how douging
Speaker 1: he is on trade, He's gone against the He's gone
Speaker 1: against the most unanimous expert consensus on trade, almost unanimous.
Speaker 1: It's not n US, but he's going against it, and
Speaker 1: he's he's not backing down one bit. You don't think
Speaker 1: he's gonna ride this shut down out as long as
Speaker 1: he has to. But then there's a possibility maybe he
Speaker 1: just gets a little bit of funding and they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you can't use it for this reason or that reason,
Speaker 1: and then he just drums there is maybe he declares
Speaker 1: the national emergency play eighteen. Have you considered using emergency
Speaker 1: powers to grant yourself authorities to build this wall without
Speaker 1: congressional approval? And seconds ago you have, Yes, I have,
Speaker 1: and I can do it if I want. So you
Speaker 1: don't need congressional approval to build the national emergency because
Speaker 1: of the security of our country. Absolutely no, we can
Speaker 1: do it. I haven't done it. I may do it,
Speaker 1: I may do it. But we can call a national
Speaker 1: emergency and build it very quickly. And it's another way
Speaker 1: of doing it. But if we can do it through
Speaker 1: a negotiated process, we're giving about a shot. I think
Speaker 1: that's the right attitude. Now, if Trump did declare a
Speaker 1: national emergency, there's no question that the federal anti Trump,
Speaker 1: never Trump judiciary would shut it down with another nationwide
Speaker 1: But this will we got to change this, by the way, folks,
Speaker 1: you can't have one federal judge just declaring for the
Speaker 1: whole country all the time. Sorry, you know that the
Speaker 1: executive branch can't do this thing. But you get you
Speaker 1: get an it'll get a nationwide injunction that'll stop the
Speaker 1: building of the wall, and then you'll probably get a
Speaker 1: request for a stay, and then I'll go to appeals
Speaker 1: and then it'll make its way that you know that
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court in the election year might be looking
Speaker 1: at whether or not the president can use emergency power
Speaker 1: to build the wall. And you can imagine how contentious
Speaker 1: that will be. But if Trump takes it there, if
Speaker 1: he just if he does truly everything that he can
Speaker 1: to get this wall built as he should, then I
Speaker 1: think he's in excellent shape for twenty twenty and then
Speaker 1: he may have an their four years to get this
Speaker 1: wall going. So that's why this fight is so important,
Speaker 1: which is why Pelosi and Schumer obviously don't want to
Speaker 1: budge at all on it. They understand the political The
Speaker 1: one thing Nancy Pelosi does know is what's good for
Speaker 1: her and what's not. I don't think she knows what's
Speaker 1: good for the country and what's not, or maybe it's
Speaker 1: more apt to say she doesn't care, but she definitely
Speaker 1: knows what's good for Nancy Pelosi, which is why she
Speaker 1: is in the position she is in now. So we'll look,
Speaker 1: We're going to continue to talk more about it. This
Speaker 1: is the most important issue in the country right now,
Speaker 1: no question immigration. Who's gonna win. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this is like the Obama care fight of twenty ten,
Speaker 1: and you know we lost that one, folks. I don't
Speaker 1: think we want to see what the future is like
Speaker 1: for this country if we lose this one. I don't
Speaker 1: think that we're going to be able to rebound from
Speaker 1: what would really just be the end of any effort
Speaker 1: to have a secure border. You know, you'd one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty five thousand people apprehended in the last year
Speaker 1: at the border, five hundred thousand visa overstays every year.
Speaker 1: You have hundreds of thousands of illegals coming into the
Speaker 1: country every year, and they're not planning on leaving anytime soon.
Speaker 1: That's why the numbers. I've told you as a joke,
Speaker 1: it's now or never. Trump understands that, and that's why
Speaker 1: I'm so pleased to see these willing to fight on
Speaker 1: this one. But I worry about these Republicans, weak knees
Speaker 1: among a lot of GOP establishment types. We got more
Speaker 1: on this. Stay with me. We need protection in our country.
Speaker 1: We're gonna make it good. The people of our country
Speaker 1: want it. Without a wall, you cannot have border security,
Speaker 1: it won't work. Hopefully, we're gonna work together and we're
Speaker 1: gonna get lots of things done. I think the Presence
Speaker 1: made it very clear. Yes, there's no wall, no deal,
Speaker 1: but look, we really are prepared to negotiate. We're prepared
Speaker 1: to talk. I like that they're saying that no wall,
Speaker 1: no deal. But you know the issue with opening this
Speaker 1: up here there you had obviously Trump and Pence with
Speaker 1: a one two punch on on where we stand in
Speaker 1: this shutdown. The issue is that the Democrats aren't opposed
Speaker 1: to the wall really for any reason. When I say
Speaker 1: the Democrat Democrat Party broadly speaking is opposed to the
Speaker 1: wall because it will work and because they like illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: The Democrats that you're going to have to negotiate with
Speaker 1: to get funding for a wall, Pelosi, Schumer, etc. Their
Speaker 1: main opposition to this, at least in the immediate sense,
Speaker 1: is they are against it because Trump is for it.
Speaker 1: They don't want there to be a wall because that
Speaker 1: would be a win for Trump and they know that
Speaker 1: and politically they will not allow that. You know, I
Speaker 1: spoke to the incoming budget Chairman, John Yarmouth today on
Speaker 1: rising and I just said, you know, it's five five
Speaker 1: billion dollars. There's not a lot of money. And the
Speaker 1: head of Order Patrol, the head of Immigration, of Customs Enforcement,
Speaker 1: you know, every border patrol age and I've talked to
Speaker 1: all say that a wall is useful and a wall works,
Speaker 1: and we need a wall and places where we have
Speaker 1: a wall on the southern border or a barrier of
Speaker 1: some kind. It's already proven that it works. So what
Speaker 1: is this nonsense? I mean, what is this fabrication that
Speaker 1: we're always told experts say a wall won't work. I
Speaker 1: never see anybody that'll go, oh, there's an expert. You know,
Speaker 1: this is why, you know, you can't take their word
Speaker 1: on any of this stuff. You can't take their word
Speaker 1: with the Oh, all the experts agree, agree on climate change,
Speaker 1: all scientists agree. Well that's not true, but they'll say it.
Speaker 1: They'll say it because of the momentary propaganda value of
Speaker 1: the lie and the hope that people aren't paying close
Speaker 1: enough attention that they'll be held to account for the falsehood.
Speaker 1: You know, they'll they'll just go go forward with with
Speaker 1: the same nonsense they've always done. You know this, this
Speaker 1: is a very straightforward issue, and it's being made complicated
Speaker 1: by the Democrats, not not by the Republican. Republicans are
Speaker 1: not the ones that are complicated. It's very easy to
Speaker 1: give them what they want. Democrats the ones you say,
Speaker 1: we want border security, but you know not, that's not
Speaker 1: border security that will actually secure the border. That's that's
Speaker 1: a complicated position. That's a difficult thing to to make
Speaker 1: work and to make sense. You know, here, here's Pelosi
Speaker 1: and you know she's back. Everybody, Hey, that's a Pelosi.
Speaker 1: She's back, and you're gonna be hearing a lot from
Speaker 1: her in the next two years. So get ready for
Speaker 1: We're we're gonna be gonna be spending plenty of time
Speaker 1: holding Pelosi to account here on the show. So that
Speaker 1: will be I'm hoping, very entertaining for us as well
Speaker 1: as worthwhile. But here are some of the things that
Speaker 1: she says about the wall and about the negotiations. Your
Speaker 1: play clip too. What we're asking the president the Republicans
Speaker 1: in the Senate to do is to take yes for
Speaker 1: an answer. A wall is an immorality. It's not who
Speaker 1: we are as a nation. And this is not a
Speaker 1: wall between Mexico and the United States that the president
Speaker 1: is creating here. It's a wall between reality and his constituents.
Speaker 1: I wonder who writes these seemingly gotcha lines for Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi dispute on TV that when you think about it
Speaker 1: for more than a second, you realize it is idiocy.
Speaker 1: This is not an intelligent thing. A wall is an immorality. Well,
Speaker 1: a wall is an inanimate object. So I can't understand
Speaker 1: how a wall is an immorality. And if let's play
Speaker 1: this out for a moment, let's take Nancy at her
Speaker 1: word here froment. If a wall is immoral, isn't our
Speaker 1: border patrol? Immoral? Isn't our border? Immoral? Isn't the whole
Speaker 1: idea that we will take people? You know, current US
Speaker 1: law that exists because of the Congress, that she is
Speaker 1: now the single most important official working in which is,
Speaker 1: as I say it, astonishing, But that's where we are
Speaker 1: as a country. Oh well, but the law is that
Speaker 1: if you try to come to the country legally, you'll
Speaker 1: be stopped. Is that immoral? Is our border? Immoral? Democrats
Speaker 1: are never forced to have a real debate on these issues.
Speaker 1: They are never forced to get deep into the discussion
Speaker 1: about any of this, and they just stick to the
Speaker 1: talking points. It's very superficial, very surface level, and all
Speaker 1: about trying to rile people up emotionally without having to
Speaker 1: engage on the substance. That has been their tactic to
Speaker 1: deal with immigration for a long time, and as you know,
Speaker 1: it's probably the single on this show. I think we
Speaker 1: talk with immigration more than any other policy issue. And
Speaker 1: we have for quite a long time. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think immigration is from the perspective of what the government
Speaker 1: can do, should do, needs to do, what the Trump
Speaker 1: administration needs. So it's probably the single most important area
Speaker 1: where there needs to be success because it's an existential
Speaker 1: issue for the Republican Party for conservatism, for limited government,
Speaker 1: and over the long term, it's an existential issue for
Speaker 1: the United States as we know it. It will not
Speaker 1: be the same country in fifty years, some would say
Speaker 1: in fifteen years unless we get I handle all this
Speaker 1: and understand what the real implications are of nearly unrestricted
Speaker 1: mass immigration that's been going on for decades that has
Speaker 1: overwhelmed the systems of assimilation that we have had in
Speaker 1: place in this country for a long time. But the
Speaker 1: idea that the wall is an immorality, why when Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi says that a real press corps would push her
Speaker 1: and say is a border immoral? Is it immoral that
Speaker 1: we don't let anyone just come into this country and
Speaker 1: then have a claim on our stuff. And I mean
Speaker 1: that quite literally. If you're allowed to just come to
Speaker 1: America because you want to be in America and get
Speaker 1: the full benefits of being here, then you're essentially able
Speaker 1: to apprise yourself of or able to acquire for yourself
Speaker 1: the benefits of the state that are paid for by
Speaker 1: the taxpayer. So is that that's all good, that's fine,
Speaker 1: that's acceptable. I mean, at what point is it theft?
Speaker 1: What point is this breaking of laws eroding the very
Speaker 1: foundation of national sovereignty and of the state itself. But
Speaker 1: there's more Pelosi in the wall plicklip three. Resident cannot
Speaker 1: hold public employees hostage because he wants to have a
Speaker 1: wall that is not affected, not effective in terms of
Speaker 1: its purpose, not cost effective in terms of what the
Speaker 1: opportunity costs it is of a federal dollars to spend.
Speaker 1: And the President said, Mexico is going to pay for this. Oh,
Speaker 1: let's let's anchor ourselves into reality. Mexico is not going
Speaker 1: to pay for this wall. So no, he could make
Speaker 1: Mexico pay for the wall after the fact. I don't
Speaker 1: remember the President saying that the Mexico is going to
Speaker 1: pay upfront. He could start taxing remittances, which I think
Speaker 1: would be an excellent idea. There should be taxes on remittances.
Speaker 1: You've got about twenty billion dollars a year flowing south
Speaker 1: of our border, most of it, you know, just just
Speaker 1: in pure cash, untaxed, unaccounted for, and subsidizing the Mexican economy.
Speaker 1: I always fine, it's such an interesting argument. You'll hear
Speaker 1: this from lefties too, from from progressive types. Oh well,
Speaker 1: that's a good thing, because the stronger the Mexican economy is,
Speaker 1: the less likely people are to come here. Okay, but
Speaker 1: we're still subsidized. You know, you could say that about
Speaker 1: a lot of different countries. So so how much more
Speaker 1: do we need to subsidize the Honduran economy and the
Speaker 1: El Salvadoran economy and the Nicara You know, you just
Speaker 1: go all the way down the line. We again subsidize
Speaker 1: them enough that people don't want to come here. Being
Speaker 1: an American is a very special thing. We are lucky
Speaker 1: you and I understand that. I know that people listen
Speaker 1: to the show actually all over the world, and some
Speaker 1: of you aren't Americans, but vast majority of us listening
Speaker 1: to the show are American. There are some Canadians, what's up,
Speaker 1: Team Bot Canada. There are some Canadians listen to the
Speaker 1: show too, But we understand that it's it's a privilege
Speaker 1: and we're incredibly lucky and are grateful for that, but
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that we want to give it away
Speaker 1: to everybody and allow it to be destroyed either, right,
Speaker 1: And is it fair? You know, there's the accident of
Speaker 1: birth is a real thing. There's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that aren't fair. One of the most important things in
Speaker 1: life is to understand that life is not fair. And
Speaker 1: the fact that you and I were born in the greatest, wealthiest,
Speaker 1: freest country in the history of the planet and not
Speaker 1: born in the midst of a civil war in Somalia
Speaker 1: or a North Korean gulag is to our everlasting benefit
Speaker 1: and just a stroke of incredible good luck for all
Speaker 1: of us. Right, we are very, very lucky comparatively and
Speaker 1: not I don't even have to go with present day
Speaker 1: worst case scenarios places like North Korea. You know, we're
Speaker 1: lucky compared to what we would have been dealing with
Speaker 1: in you know, in basically all of the world you
Speaker 1: to one hundred years ago. We're lucky, not just in
Speaker 1: the time we were born, but in the place we
Speaker 1: were born. So there's a lot that we have to
Speaker 1: be a lot that we have to be thankful for.
Speaker 1: But the you know, the Democrats don't see it this way.
Speaker 1: They see it as we owe the world, we owe
Speaker 1: the third world, in particular the redistribution of wealth that
Speaker 1: will occur from citizens to non citizens through a mass amnesty,
Speaker 1: through open borders, through continued infiltration of illegal aliens in
Speaker 1: this country. Rona McDaniel said this about about the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party and Pelosi, and you know, she definitely hit hit
Speaker 1: some of the highlights here play for the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: is now the party of sanctuary cities, abolish ice, open borders.
Speaker 1: She called a wall immorl. What we know about the
Speaker 1: walls and the borders that we have is that it
Speaker 1: has decreased illegal crossings by ninety percent where we have them.
Speaker 1: She called that immorl. I think it's immorl to give
Speaker 1: more money to foreign governments than you do to protect
Speaker 1: our border. The president's asking for five billion, she gave
Speaker 1: fifty four billion to foreign governments. Her priorities are out
Speaker 1: of whack. The American people now see Republicans are fighting
Speaker 1: for our country. Democrats are doubling down at obstruction and
Speaker 1: everything against this president that they can do, instead of
Speaker 1: solving the problems at home. Rememb're this fight's all over
Speaker 1: spending five billion dollars on border screup. Think of think
Speaker 1: of all the money. I mean, you know this, this
Speaker 1: point about priorities that Ron McDaniels making here you use
Speaker 1: the R and C chairwoman, This point about priorities is
Speaker 1: a very poignant one. I think. I just consider all
Speaker 1: the money that's been spent in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in
Speaker 1: foreign aid to countries le Honduras like Mexico. Think of
Speaker 1: all the money that the federal government is spending that
Speaker 1: they're taking from tag The federal government has no money,
Speaker 1: it has your money. So think of all the checks
Speaker 1: that sent into governments all of the world. And think
Speaker 1: of here we are talking about, as I've said, I
Speaker 1: mean maybe second only to the you know, the economy
Speaker 1: and the and the debt, but the long term, biggest
Speaker 1: challenge we have, most important challenge we have is is
Speaker 1: secure orders and immigration. You know, after the debt deficit
Speaker 1: in the economy, and they won't spend five billion dollars
Speaker 1: to maybe get this thing right. And if they're so
Speaker 1: sure that it wouldn't work, wouldn't it be worth spending
Speaker 1: the money. Wouldn't it be worth allowing Republicans to go
Speaker 1: off on this fool's errand and Trump to do his
Speaker 1: wall that all Mexican's gonna pay for it. They all
Speaker 1: think they're so clever with this, put it up, and
Speaker 1: then and then let's see what the numbers are. If
Speaker 1: they're right, there'll be no change in illegal crossing, there'll
Speaker 1: be no more secure border sectors than they currently are.
Speaker 1: And then they can laugh at us and say we're
Speaker 1: also dumb. And you know what, if that happens, I'll say, Wow, guys,
Speaker 1: I guess every single real border expert I spoke to,
Speaker 1: and every person that's worked on law enforce in the border,
Speaker 1: we were somehow all wrong. But I will say that.
Speaker 1: And they're not taking the position that they're not sure
Speaker 1: this will work. They're saying it won't work, it won't work,
Speaker 1: it's foolish, it's dumb. Well, if they're so sure, let's
Speaker 1: try it out. Let's try it out. And if this
Speaker 1: were a good faith negotiation of the Democrats, they would say,
Speaker 1: you know, we're not gonna even five billion dollars. We're
Speaker 1: gonna give you two billion dollars, and we're gonna pick
Speaker 1: one sector of the you know, the US Texas. I
Speaker 1: start the Mexico Texas border. You take one piece of
Speaker 1: the border where we're having a lot of legal crossings,
Speaker 1: and we're going to use that as a test case.
Speaker 1: And if it really, if it really does shut down
Speaker 1: legal crossings there, even if across the entire border it
Speaker 1: remains unchanged, well then at least we know that sector
Speaker 1: by sector it could work. So there are ways to
Speaker 1: test out this theory and see who's right. They don't
Speaker 1: want to do it. They don't want to do it,
Speaker 1: and as we've been discussing the things they do want
Speaker 1: to do or are just nuts. You know, all the
Speaker 1: Democrats have to do is not be crazy, and they
Speaker 1: are incapable of doing it. So we do have that
Speaker 1: going for us, which is which is very nice. In
Speaker 1: the midst of all the whining that comes from the left,
Speaker 1: you have to wonder why in the world would anyone
Speaker 1: act this way. My guess is they're just not getting
Speaker 1: their daily dose of black rifle coffee. You know, that's
Speaker 1: why they're running around all upset, trigger warnings, crying about this,
Speaker 1: that and the other thing, acting like the world's going
Speaker 1: to end because the climate change. I got an idea,
Speaker 1: drink some black rifle coffee libs. It'll make your day better,
Speaker 1: all right. I love Black Rifle. I drink it every day.
Speaker 1: I want everyone to drink it. I want you to
Speaker 1: drink it. It is rose to order delicious, fresh coffee
Speaker 1: that gets delivered right to your door. And Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee gives a portion of sales to veteran first responder causes.
Speaker 1: Join the coffee club. They'll just send it to you
Speaker 1: every month. That's what I do, and that's what I drink.
Speaker 1: Nothing cures a bad attitude quite like starting your day
Speaker 1: with the most American coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck for fifteen percent off Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: Speaker Pelosi is basically align herself with her left wing,
Speaker 1: and I think that for her to back off will
Speaker 1: be very expensive. The President has said publicly so many
Speaker 1: times now that he won't sign anything that doesn't pay
Speaker 1: for border security. That for him to back down would
Speaker 1: be very expensive, and I think this is one of
Speaker 1: those cases where exhaustion is the only thing that's going
Speaker 1: to work. I mean, people can get anxiety written, we
Speaker 1: can have mass TV coverage of every meeting, but the
Speaker 1: fact is neither side is tired enough to start moving
Speaker 1: towards an agreement. As you know, I'd advocated several weeks
Speaker 1: ago to provide a legal path for the Dreamers as
Speaker 1: part of a package that would include border security. You
Speaker 1: would think the Democrats would be very interested in trying
Speaker 1: to help seven hundred thousand people who came here as children,
Speaker 1: But the fact is they dislike Trump a lot more
Speaker 1: than they care about young Latinos. Now. I agree with
Speaker 1: Mit in general on I'm sorry, Mit, I meant Newt mits.
Speaker 1: I got Mit on the brain this week. Sorry about that.
Speaker 1: I agree with Newt in general on a lot of
Speaker 1: these immigration issues, at least right now. Mit is if
Speaker 1: you go back, gosh, I gotta step sing Mit. Newt
Speaker 1: if you go back, is somebody that I think has,
Speaker 1: let's just say, evolved in the issue of immigration. He's
Speaker 1: much more open to the Dreamer situation dealing with that now,
Speaker 1: and quite honestly, even I think it is sensible, because
Speaker 1: if you don't have a secure border before you get
Speaker 1: the Dreamers, the cascading effect of the amnesty for dreamers
Speaker 1: will overwhelm your ability to have any leverage negotiations to
Speaker 1: really get border security. I mean, you have to get
Speaker 1: border security now. It has to be real, it has
Speaker 1: to happen, and you have to change the whole conversation
Speaker 1: around preventing illegal entry into the country and also enforcing
Speaker 1: immigration law in this country and giving up this point
Speaker 1: of leverage on DACA. Remember DACA turned into DAPPA, which
Speaker 1: is deferred action for the parents of arrivals. So now
Speaker 1: it was kids who are here and their families and oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, people who came here and it's not
Speaker 1: just kids. People came here as kids who claim to
Speaker 1: have come here as kids, and you know, if they've
Speaker 1: had kids, then you know even the extended family is
Speaker 1: not going to get because there are going to be citizens.
Speaker 1: And then so no one's going to be sent home.
Speaker 1: And you just start looking at this and you know,
Speaker 1: there's no way that we come out of this with
Speaker 1: a more secure border down the line if we give
Speaker 1: up on some of these issues that are so important
Speaker 1: to the left right now. And they know that because
Speaker 1: what I'm saying is if they get dreamer amnesty, and
Speaker 1: I don't like the term dreamer, but that's you know,
Speaker 1: I can't think of you know, if they get amnesty
Speaker 1: for illegals governed under DACA, then the next thing is
Speaker 1: just going to be another amnesty. They're just gonna keep
Speaker 1: holding out. They don't budge on these things. There might
Speaker 1: be there might be a compromise here. This is what
Speaker 1: Rampaul said, Play eight. Well, you know, I think there
Speaker 1: is a compromise when you think about it. The Democrats
Speaker 1: last year, almost every one of them in the Senate
Speaker 1: voted for twenty five billion dollars for a wall. Now
Speaker 1: the president's only asking for five billion. Now, the democrats
Speaker 1: new position is zero. So I figure you take their
Speaker 1: position zero the president's position five. I haven't split the difference,
Speaker 1: you know, two to two and a half billion dollars,
Speaker 1: and I think that would probably be adequate to have
Speaker 1: a deal where both sides can say, you know, they
Speaker 1: didn't give the president what he wanted, but the President
Speaker 1: didn't cave in and get nothing. In their counter, they're
Speaker 1: increasing foreign aid to other countries to over fifty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: There's a twelve billion dollar increase in foreign aid. Many
Speaker 1: of these countries hate us and burn our flag. And
Speaker 1: the President campaigned on America first, so he wants to
Speaker 1: spend that five billion dollars here at home. And I
Speaker 1: think the Democrats are gonna have a lot of explaining
Speaker 1: as to why they won't spend any money at home
Speaker 1: on security, but they're willing to send it to foreign countries,
Speaker 1: many of whom burn our flag and chant death to America.
Speaker 1: Well said by Senator Paul. We'll be right back. A
Speaker 1: lot of news stories now about how difficult it is
Speaker 1: for people that are affected by the shutdown, and well,
Speaker 1: we can be sympathetic to those who are working without
Speaker 1: a paycheck. It's also perhaps a good time to ask
Speaker 1: some questions about is this really the federal workforce that
Speaker 1: we need? Is it the size we need? Is this
Speaker 1: really essential to borrow a term that is often used
Speaker 1: in these situations, Well, I've got somebody who has no
Speaker 1: qualms looking at this and asking those tough questions and
Speaker 1: coming up with some answers that may not necessarily be
Speaker 1: what the public sector union folks want to hear. We
Speaker 1: have Inez Felcher in the House. He's a senior policy
Speaker 1: analyst and the Independent Woman's Forum, and she's ready to
Speaker 1: drop some knowledge here with us on Friday Ines. Thanks
Speaker 1: for calling in, Thanks so much for having me back.
Speaker 1: So let's let's just start with the reforming civil service,
Speaker 1: chopping it down, make it a different. What should we
Speaker 1: do with our federal government employee workforce? According to your
Speaker 1: most recent white paper? Well, I think Donald Trump has
Speaker 1: some great ideas. When he mentioned that the last State
Speaker 1: of the Union address, he said, give managers the power
Speaker 1: to hire and fire to make sure that the federal
Speaker 1: workforce actually works for the American people. And that sounds
Speaker 1: like a really basic thing, But the way that our
Speaker 1: civil services had today, it's basically an impossible goal. It's
Speaker 1: tie in the sky just to have a civil service,
Speaker 1: a competent civil service that actually works for the American people.
Speaker 1: And that's the case because for the last about one
Speaker 1: hundred years, since the progressive era, we've been piling all
Speaker 1: of these job protections on top of federal employees to
Speaker 1: protect them essentially even when they're doing a really bad
Speaker 1: job or when they're outright defying the people that we
Speaker 1: elect to direct them in their jobs. Now, you mentioned
Speaker 1: to me off Fair that there was a Project Veritas video.
Speaker 1: James O'Keefe outfit that came out pretty recently where you
Speaker 1: had federal government employees who were saying what they were
Speaker 1: pleased with their ability to frustrate Trump's agenda by essentially
Speaker 1: not doing what they're supposed to do as employees of
Speaker 1: the of the executive branch. That's exactly right. So James
Speaker 1: O'Keeffe's outfit uncovered basically when undercover with some of these folks.
Speaker 1: These are some of the folks who actually were if
Speaker 1: you recall that there was a moment, especially during the
Speaker 1: Kabinaugh hearings, but even before that, Republican senators, Republican officials
Speaker 1: who worked in the administration were being chased out of buildings. Actually,
Speaker 1: the main organizer of the group that does that, that
Speaker 1: goes to restaurants and yells at Republicans is a socialist
Speaker 1: and she works in the States Department, And so she
Speaker 1: wasn't one of the many people they caught on tape
Speaker 1: basically saying, yeah, we're gonna go ahead and obstruct Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's agenda because we don't agree with Donald Trump's agenda,
Speaker 1: and we worked for the federal government and it's impossible
Speaker 1: to fire us. This is a deep constitutional problem. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter if you like Donald Trump. Where you don't
Speaker 1: like Donald Trump. This is a deep constitutional problem. It's
Speaker 1: a democratic problem, right, small d democratic problem. When the
Speaker 1: person that the people elect has very little power over
Speaker 1: the people who are supposed to carry out his agenda,
Speaker 1: and when they have absolutely who do not stand for
Speaker 1: election right before the American people, when they have this
Speaker 1: much power to sign me that agenda, there's a democratic
Speaker 1: problem here. How hard is it to fire most people
Speaker 1: under civil service regulations? What kind of hurdles are there
Speaker 1: in place? Well, it currently takes between a year and
Speaker 1: three years. There are four separate different systems that one
Speaker 1: might go through to appeal a dismissal. There are two
Speaker 1: that are used the most often. The other two are
Speaker 1: used in particular instances. But either way that you go,
Speaker 1: there's a twelve step or more slow chart for a
Speaker 1: manager to go through to fire someone, and even for
Speaker 1: the most egregious misconduct, it can take years. So just
Speaker 1: as an example, the head of the Caribbean VA who
Speaker 1: was actually completely corrupt and was convicted of corruption by
Speaker 1: a criminal court. So he was convicted of a crime
Speaker 1: during the course of his job. This wasn't a crime
Speaker 1: that he committed on his own time. He was committing
Speaker 1: celonies while he was on the jobs. And it's still
Speaker 1: he was in jail, and it still took two years
Speaker 1: for the v to actually fire him. Okay, so the
Speaker 1: American taxpayer paid his salary while he was sitting in
Speaker 1: jail after being convicted of corruption while on the job.
Speaker 1: It still took two years to get rid of that
Speaker 1: guy and to make sure that the American taxpayer was
Speaker 1: not paying his salary. That is how long. And most
Speaker 1: managers they just don't deal with it. It's not worth it.
Speaker 1: For just a poorly employed, performing or even defiant employee.
Speaker 1: They just find ways to move them around at best
Speaker 1: and to get them out of everyone's way to the
Speaker 1: extent that they can. And oftentimes even there's I'm sure,
Speaker 1: as a former federal employee yourself, bof you've heard of
Speaker 1: the notorious notion of getting rid of an incompetent employee
Speaker 1: by actually promoting him so that you no longer have
Speaker 1: to deal with him. Oh. Absolutely, I mean I was
Speaker 1: always amazed at how much shuffling of people would occur
Speaker 1: based upon you know, you'd send some people, you'd send
Speaker 1: some people forward and put them up for positions that
Speaker 1: would have even the high you know, a higher paygrade
Speaker 1: than what they're supposed to have, just because you didn't
Speaker 1: want them in the office. So there's there's plenty of
Speaker 1: that stuff that would go on. There are a whole
Speaker 1: there were a whole agencies, whole places in the federal
Speaker 1: government where they'll just kind of park you instead instead
Speaker 1: of firing you. You know, I I think you would
Speaker 1: have been proud in as Earlier the week, I got
Speaker 1: to speak to a representative from one of the I
Speaker 1: think it is the biggest federal public sector union, and
Speaker 1: I just said, you know, why do we have to
Speaker 1: have public sector unions? And she looked at me like
Speaker 1: she had never even this had never even occurred to her.
Speaker 1: And I said, you know, I'm pretty sure FDR, way
Speaker 1: back in the day, it was like, well, unions are good,
Speaker 1: but obviously public sector unions would be crazy. We can't
Speaker 1: have government employees with their own unions against the American people.
Speaker 1: That would be nuts. No, that's what we have now.
Speaker 1: That's absolutely what we have now. And as you said,
Speaker 1: even FDR thought it was nuts. So the unionist is
Speaker 1: actually layered on top of all these caections that they
Speaker 1: have by law, And the purpose of a lot of
Speaker 1: these things, right, purpose, original purpose and a lot of
Speaker 1: these protections and union protections among others, was to make
Speaker 1: sure that we don't have a totally corruptible service, to
Speaker 1: totally politicize to civil service. Right. But the cure has
Speaker 1: turned out to be way worse than the disease, because
Speaker 1: now we have, as you mentioned, an entire class that's
Speaker 1: insulated from the American people, from the voter, who imposes
Speaker 1: their political views upon the American body politic with absolutely
Speaker 1: no legitimacy to do so. And the idea that the
Speaker 1: civil service is somehow a political because of all of
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. So in the last election federal employees,
Speaker 1: ninety five percent of the donation from federal employees went
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton ninety five percent. The only places that
Speaker 1: are more politically spewed than the civil service in America
Speaker 1: are maybe faculty lounges and maybe Hollywood awards ceremonies. The
Speaker 1: civil service is incredibly less leaning, but we pretend that
Speaker 1: it's a political and everyone sort of goes about their
Speaker 1: jobs and hands that these people do not have an agenda.
Speaker 1: They do just like any other American. The difference is
Speaker 1: they they're working for a government they ought to be
Speaker 1: responsive to the American people, and right now they're not.
Speaker 1: You know, this is kind of a random aside and
Speaker 1: as but I had to interview today. Did you ever
Speaker 1: watch the show The West Wing. I've watched a few
Speaker 1: episodes here and there of it, but I'm not a
Speaker 1: a voracious watcher. Let's say that. Yeah, yeah, the true
Speaker 1: meet me too. I probably have seen maybe a half
Speaker 1: a dozen episodes total of my life, but I've seen
Speaker 1: a few of them. But the deputy, the deputy White
Speaker 1: House chief of staff character is an actor that I
Speaker 1: got to interview today and I thought it was you know,
Speaker 1: so we were having kind of a Hollywood media talk
Speaker 1: and I said, so, you know, what do you think
Speaker 1: about Hollywood speaking about how politicized and how these places
Speaker 1: are really a uniparty under themselves. So what do you
Speaker 1: think about how politicized Hollywood is? Hollywood's really says, we're
Speaker 1: not really that liberal. So, oh my gosh, of course,
Speaker 1: now it all makes sense. Hollywood's not really that liberal.
Speaker 1: The federal government's not really that liberal. You know, this
Speaker 1: is this is why we never get anywheres because we
Speaker 1: can't even start with the basic reality of what's happening. Well, absolutely,
Speaker 1: and people, I mean I grew up in the Bay Area, right,
Speaker 1: and none of them actually label themselves as liberal. If
Speaker 1: you talk to them, they're like, oh, I'm an objective moderate, right,
Speaker 1: but the premises that you come in with are incredibly
Speaker 1: less wing. And I don't know it actually is a
Speaker 1: larger left wing problem. I think they refuse to see
Speaker 1: their own ideology. They pretend that everything, all the conclusions
Speaker 1: they come to are simply a dispassionate analysis of the fact,
Speaker 1: which is not true. But it leads them to feel like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: if you're well, if you're not left wing, you must
Speaker 1: not care about facts. You must be live in an
Speaker 1: alternative fact universe. Right. So I mean, that's the larger
Speaker 1: this is By the way, that's the go ahead. I
Speaker 1: was gonna say that that's the liberal that CNN caters
Speaker 1: to you. By the way, that's the whole purpose of CNN.
Speaker 1: It launders liberalism. It's it's an echo chamber. It's just
Speaker 1: the people with the same basics mistis underlying, disagreeing about
Speaker 1: maybe a policy here or there, but having the same
Speaker 1: fundamental principles talking to each other and then pretending that
Speaker 1: it's a real discussion that actually spans the political spectrum
Speaker 1: in America. It Jeff doesn't. And the same thing in
Speaker 1: the civil service. They may not think of themselves as
Speaker 1: explicitly political, but in the way that they see the world,
Speaker 1: they are, and it comes out when you actually look
Speaker 1: at something like their donations and see that they're ninety
Speaker 1: five percent go to the Democratic Party. And by the way,
Speaker 1: in the States Department, your favorite, I'm sure it's ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent that went to Hillary. Yeah, think about that, everyone,
Speaker 1: ninety nine percent of donations the last presidential cycle, the
Speaker 1: State Department went to Hillary Clinton. What a surprise. Inanez Felcher, everybody.
Speaker 1: Independent Women's Forum also readers stuff on the Federalist Inez.
Speaker 1: Have a fantastic weekend. Give Jared a high five for me.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you soon, talk to you to see you.
Speaker 1: Moore coming up, stay with us. It's a way to
Speaker 1: make noise, but it actually isolate Smith and puts him
Speaker 1: in a much narrower, smaller group. Very smart, he's been
Speaker 1: a governor, he's been a very successful businessman. He could
Speaker 1: come in there and have six or eight or nine
Speaker 1: really positive ideas he could make a real contribution, but
Speaker 1: to posture as the anti Trump, I think it's a
Speaker 1: really narrow career path. And I just think my guess
Speaker 1: is he has some advisors who thought it was clever.
Speaker 1: Newt didn't like it, did not like that. Mitt op
Speaker 1: ed on Trump, and my next guest also not a
Speaker 1: fan of it, and I'm not a fan of it either.
Speaker 1: So we'll all just dive into this together. He's got
Speaker 1: a piece up in the Detroit News. Romney stands for
Speaker 1: failed Politics of the past. Guest host of this program,
Speaker 1: Clairemont Institute fellow author of the book No Go Zones,
Speaker 1: which you can get on Amazon, and I highly recommend
Speaker 1: to you. The man himself, mister Raheem Kasam, is joining
Speaker 1: us before his weekend festivities kickoff or He'm great to
Speaker 1: have you back. I didn't know about weekend festivities. The
Speaker 1: buckets drive January for me. Oh my, I don't even know.
Speaker 1: I don't even know how that's going to go. But
Speaker 1: it's probably a good thing. You know, we should all
Speaker 1: get a good start, a good, strong start to the
Speaker 1: new year. Romney did this and we've been talking about
Speaker 1: it all week and I don't want to overplay this.
Speaker 1: I just I have a curiosity about what do you
Speaker 1: think Romney thinks he was doing here? Well, look, I mean,
Speaker 1: let's let's go back to when Trump was first running
Speaker 1: for president and Romney came out against him. Then Mit Romney,
Speaker 1: you know, audition for Secretary of State and President elect
Speaker 1: Trump entertained the idea. Then Romney slammed him again. Then
Speaker 1: Romney sought the Senate seat in Utah, and Trump and
Speaker 1: the administration gave them, gave him their blessing for whatever
Speaker 1: it was worse. And now he's in the Senate and
Speaker 1: he's slamming Trump again. So when you want to talk
Speaker 1: about bad character or poor character, as Mitt Romney suggests
Speaker 1: in this in this OpEd in the Washington Post, there's
Speaker 1: there's any one person in that relationship between those two
Speaker 1: men who have shown themselves to be poor of character
Speaker 1: and repeatedly hypocritical and backstabbing in that Romney And it
Speaker 1: comes down to this for me analyzing this over the
Speaker 1: last twenty four to forty eight hours, because I think
Speaker 1: it is something that requires us to be a fleet
Speaker 1: of foot when it comes to watching the opposition that
Speaker 1: the make America great again crowd experiences from within its
Speaker 1: own quote unquote conservative slash gop rax. I think that's
Speaker 1: a very important thing. And it comes down to this.
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney is not somebody who understands, as they say
Speaker 1: in my article in the Detroit News, the sort of
Speaker 1: a wildcatterie, the risk taking abilities of somebody like President Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: those risks sometimes come with rewards and sometimes they come
Speaker 1: with failures. But remember Romney comes from the school of
Speaker 1: thought that you always do things by the book, play
Speaker 1: it very safe, and you'll incrementally, very slowly rise. And
Speaker 1: that's been the sort of conservative gop mantra for the
Speaker 1: last ten fifteen years. But it hasn't got them very far,
Speaker 1: because fighting against radicals, fighting against the Democrat machine actually
Speaker 1: requires radicalism. In return, fighting fire with fire as President
Speaker 1: Trump's whole stick, and it appears to at least, if
Speaker 1: not completely be working at this point, at least is
Speaker 1: keeping the harvest line elements of the political establishment at
Speaker 1: bay and even seeding radical elements within the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: like the Alexander Occasio corteses who are now taking the
Speaker 1: fight to the Democrats from within. If anything, Trump's emboldened
Speaker 1: the radicals inside the Democrat Party to take on their
Speaker 1: own establishment. And I think this is what Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: really despises, because in a world of eccentrics and in
Speaker 1: the world of characters, somebody in the likement Romney disappears.
Speaker 1: He has no place, so he thinks he can grab
Speaker 1: some headlines in the Washington Post, he can get some
Speaker 1: airtime on CNN and really kick off this sort of
Speaker 1: new McCain flakelike resistance within I think actually it's probably
Speaker 1: going to new to him in the long term. What
Speaker 1: does it say to you that the GOP's last two
Speaker 1: presidential offerings before Trump were McCain and Romney, who are
Speaker 1: two of the most vocal anti Trump Republicans anyone can
Speaker 1: think of. Well, that's certainly. I mean, they had their chance.
Speaker 1: They had multiple chances to go out there and prove
Speaker 1: the case, and they failed to do it over and
Speaker 1: over again because they didn't. What they didn't do is
Speaker 1: aim listened to ordinary people in the United States. They
Speaker 1: didn't listen to their concerns. You know. They ran on
Speaker 1: things like tax cuts, which the GOP made the mistake
Speaker 1: of trying to do it this last midterm election to
Speaker 1: look out worked out we didn't run on the radical
Speaker 1: id views in Washington, DC, which aren't actually radical ideas,
Speaker 1: and the rest of the country like, oh, I don't
Speaker 1: know a semblance of border security or I don't know
Speaker 1: helping ordinary people find jobs. And look at the jobs
Speaker 1: numbers to day that came out under this radical president.
Speaker 1: Those are the things that the mccains of the Romney's
Speaker 1: are shoot for so long and just turn their backs
Speaker 1: on when it came to actually campaigning. So for Romney
Speaker 1: and you know the failed Weekly Standard and the departing
Speaker 1: Jeff Blakes of the world. This is this is their
Speaker 1: ideology dying. And of course when an animal has wounded,
Speaker 1: it will lash out. And that's what Mitt Romney's doing
Speaker 1: is he is the personification of a dying breed of
Speaker 1: pseudo conservatism. And I think if if the magatypes, if
Speaker 1: the trump Trumpists, Trumpites, whatever you want to call them,
Speaker 1: if they're good enough and they're smart enough to see
Speaker 1: that they can actually bury that pseudo conservatism for a
Speaker 1: good generation him. Kassam, everybody, Raheim, can we actually can
Speaker 1: we bring you back right after this Breakouf, because I
Speaker 1: want to ask you about what's being called by some
Speaker 1: the victimhood populism of Tucker Carlson. Others are saying Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson nailed it in this monologue early this week where
Speaker 1: he diagnosed some of the problems. Can you talk about that?
Speaker 1: Do you have a minute? Absolutely? Yeah, all right, We're
Speaker 1: gonna stick with Rahem Kasam will be back in just
Speaker 1: a moment. You know what's really smart figuring out who
Speaker 1: you want to hire for each position you have so
Speaker 1: that you can take your business to the next level
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen. You know what else is really smart?
Speaker 1: Starting the new year off strong by going to zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck to hire the right people.
Speaker 1: Unlike other job sites, zipp recruiter finds qualified candidates for you.
Speaker 1: It's powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify
Speaker 1: people with the right skills, education, and experience, and actively
Speaker 1: invites them to apply to your job so you get
Speaker 1: qualified candidates fast. That's why zippercruiters rated number one by
Speaker 1: employers in the US. This rating comes from ing sites
Speaker 1: on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews. Right now,
Speaker 1: my listeners can try zip recruiter for free at this
Speaker 1: exclusive web address. Zipp recruiter dot com, slash buck. If
Speaker 1: you love this show, show your support for the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut and zip recruiter by going to zip recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck again, zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Zip
Speaker 1: recruiter is the smartest way to hire Now. You had
Speaker 1: said before the shutdown that he was being quite cavalier
Speaker 1: and that maybe the shutdown will give him more time
Speaker 1: to golf. But in the end, it was you that
Speaker 1: took a holiday, and is it retake the holiday? I
Speaker 1: observed the Christmas holiday for a few days, and why
Speaker 1: cut in fact and cut in half the time I
Speaker 1: would have had with my fan? Was that a cheap shot?
Speaker 1: But the faid, Oh, it's not it's not important. It's
Speaker 1: totally unimportant. The President may not know this, but Hawaii
Speaker 1: is part of the United States of America. Maybe he
Speaker 1: doesn't realize that. I love how We're back with Raheem
Speaker 1: Kasam here, author of No Go Zones, Clairemont Institute, fellow host,
Speaker 1: guest host of the show You're listening right now, Raheem,
Speaker 1: I like how Pelosi there is asked by Savannah Guthrie
Speaker 1: if she made a cheap shot in another context and
Speaker 1: then she follows it up with she pivots doing a
Speaker 1: different cheap shot, which is maybe the President doesn't know
Speaker 1: Hawaii as part of the US, which was neither clever
Speaker 1: nor nor insightful. But but I do have this question
Speaker 1: about how it is that there are so many people
Speaker 1: who believe that Nancy Pelosi has the interests of the
Speaker 1: American people at heart. I really, you know, I want
Speaker 1: to talk about trump populism and how some conservatives have
Speaker 1: issues with that, But to me, Pelosi is the quintessential
Speaker 1: limousine liberal. Couldn't be more you know, distant from normal
Speaker 1: Americans and their concerns. And yet we're always told that
Speaker 1: she's practically like a social justice warrior who just you know,
Speaker 1: has hashtag resistance tattooed on her arms. It's crazy to me, Well,
Speaker 1: she's going to be in a lot of trouble over
Speaker 1: this this Congress, I think, and mostly from her own side.
Speaker 1: She doesn't represent what the Democrat Party a base, that
Speaker 1: the active base at least is wishing for in this Congress,
Speaker 1: and she barely manages to cobble together enough you know,
Speaker 1: support in not in the sense of the number of
Speaker 1: votes she gets to become speaker, but in the sense
Speaker 1: of the rhetorical and passion support that you need amongst
Speaker 1: your own, you know, your parliamentary party effectively to guide them.
Speaker 1: I mean, we've already got stories in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours about you know, this move on to or
Speaker 1: party from last night, where you've got one of the
Speaker 1: congresswomen swearing and saying we're going to impeach Trump, which
Speaker 1: is something that Pelosi had tried to get them away from.
Speaker 1: The talking points of the media over here is fascinated
Speaker 1: by people like Alexander Arcasio Cortez, and I think Pelosi
Speaker 1: number one will get very envious of that. But number
Speaker 1: two will lose a lot of power within her own
Speaker 1: party the results, So she's going to be constantly buying
Speaker 1: for power inside on your right. She has to prove
Speaker 1: that she can represent Trump represents to the conservative base,
Speaker 1: and I'm afraid she doesn't. She's sort of like the
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan figure in her own party. And Paul Ryan
Speaker 1: lost so much credibility and support over the last couple
Speaker 1: of years that he almost became irrelevant to most conversations
Speaker 1: about the future of conservatism. Now. On the issue of
Speaker 1: conservatism as it should be today, or where the right
Speaker 1: should be focusing its energy. There was a Tucker cross
Speaker 1: in monologue that was also then turned into an essay,
Speaker 1: or maybe it was an essay turned into monologue, whatever
Speaker 1: it was, it was on populism this week and really
Speaker 1: diagnosing some of the problems of American society and some
Speaker 1: of the inadequacies of the political elites in addressing that. I,
Speaker 1: of course, any of that, Tucker says, you're going to
Speaker 1: have a lot of pushback from the left. They're gonna
Speaker 1: say it's terrible, it's it's racist, or whatever. They'll always
Speaker 1: have the same knee jerk reactions to it. But there
Speaker 1: were many on the right of the kind of Weekly Standard,
Speaker 1: National Review, never Trump variety, who are saying that this
Speaker 1: is perpetuating victimhood, that this idea of a populist conservative
Speaker 1: movement that needs to take care of workers, that needs
Speaker 1: to reassess global trade and the free market at all
Speaker 1: costs mantra that we've had is somehow a sell out
Speaker 1: of principles. You know, you were there in the early
Speaker 1: days with Bannon talking about things like populism for conservatives.
Speaker 1: What do you make of this? Well, look, I'm glad
Speaker 1: that it's finally getting the airtime it deserves as a
Speaker 1: new guiding philosophy for the political right. And Fox News
Speaker 1: not exactly the most populist or nationalist are out there
Speaker 1: giving Coger Carlson the air time to do this. I
Speaker 1: think is it can only be a very good thing.
Speaker 1: You know, we should be welcoming conversations like this, but instead,
Speaker 1: David French in National Review, they poo poo it. They say,
Speaker 1: you know that this is this is a debasement of
Speaker 1: conservative values. Now, you know, British and American conservative values
Speaker 1: differ quite a bit, and I understand that. But I've
Speaker 1: also come to understand that when you talk about conservatism
Speaker 1: in America nowadays, people automatically think free market capitalism, low taxes,
Speaker 1: and perhaps even though not in practice, the theory of
Speaker 1: limited government. They don't really talk enough about, especially not
Speaker 1: in DC, family values, sovereignty, border control, jobs, wages, you know,
Speaker 1: as Tunis Carlson said in his monologue, dignity, human dignity,
Speaker 1: and this is this has been the clarion call of
Speaker 1: the so called populists in Europe over the last five
Speaker 1: or six years. When you look to Hungary and it's
Speaker 1: lea the Czech Republic, in Austria and the United Kingdom's
Speaker 1: Brixit vote. The human dignity element came in a very
Speaker 1: strong way. You know, people in the United States, the
Speaker 1: average family would struggle to put four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: dollars together in case their boiler breaks down in their home.
Speaker 1: That's an undignified position for the world's wealthiest nation to
Speaker 1: impart upon its citizens. So something has been broken, but
Speaker 1: the establishment right didn't want to admit it because it
Speaker 1: would mean having to admit that there was something fundamentally
Speaker 1: incorrect in their ideology. Now, conservativism, it's conservative, isn't supposed
Speaker 1: to be an ideology like a lot of the lefting dogmas.
Speaker 1: It's actually supposed to be a guiding philosophy. And the
Speaker 1: guiding philosophy behind that is effectively the nuclear family in
Speaker 1: your community. So it was incredible that Tucker managed to
Speaker 1: do thatteen minutes. And I understand it's gone superviral on
Speaker 1: the Internet in the last twenty four hours, and I
Speaker 1: think that's because for all of the magazines and quarter
Speaker 1: leads in journals out there, nobody's managed to boil it
Speaker 1: down just so succinctly and to such a massive audience,
Speaker 1: and of course that will cause what I call conservative ink.
Speaker 1: You know, the consulting class, the think tank class that
Speaker 1: you know in Washington, DC. You know the guys that
Speaker 1: were feeling us all those free drinks over the Christmas period,
Speaker 1: but their defensive Christmas part is it causes them great irritation.
Speaker 1: The drinks were good, they now have to go back
Speaker 1: to their donors. The drinks were fine, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: it was it was, it was all right, but the
Speaker 1: conversations were not like this. And it's it's so refreshing
Speaker 1: to me that that Tucker is moving these conversations on.
Speaker 1: And it's an addendum to that, he's written an amazing
Speaker 1: article as well this quarter in the American Conservative magazine
Speaker 1: about about the foolish and endless wars that Western nations
Speaker 1: have found themselves dragged into. So he's really becoming a
Speaker 1: torchbearer for the populist writing. I say more power to
Speaker 1: him who's written that article. Right, Oh, Tucker wrote an
Speaker 1: arcle American servant. I didn't know that he wrote about that.
Speaker 1: That's I'll have to find that one. I've obviously seen them.
Speaker 1: I've seen the monologue from this week. I just look,
Speaker 1: I like the robust debate, and I give the guys
Speaker 1: on the other side of this one who at least
Speaker 1: put their names to things and want to engage with
Speaker 1: these ideas seriously credit for being a part of an
Speaker 1: important discussion on the right and not just being you know,
Speaker 1: because because there really are and I think it's important
Speaker 1: keep in mind, they're people that just disagree with some
Speaker 1: aspects of Trump's you know, nationalism, Trump's view of trade.
Speaker 1: You know, there there are places to have disagreement on policy,
Speaker 1: never mind on the personal matters. And then they're the
Speaker 1: people like Anna Navarro who or Jennifer Rubin who are
Speaker 1: just in no meaningful way on the right except to
Speaker 1: pretend they are so they can trash people on the right.
Speaker 1: So those are the people that I have no time
Speaker 1: for and and don't need to hear from it all.
Speaker 1: And I'm fine with just if I could just I
Speaker 1: would be okay with that as well. And in fact,
Speaker 1: I would like to see some of these some of
Speaker 1: these ideas played out in massive debate settings. But David French,
Speaker 1: at the end of his National Review card criticizing Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: says the populist elevation of the political over the personal.
Speaker 1: It's perhaps the worst possible response. He's not actually tackling
Speaker 1: the ideas. He's just saying that bad mean good, and
Speaker 1: that's all I'm afraid the establishment has at the moment,
Speaker 1: it's not willing to say, well, actually, the ideas that
Speaker 1: we've been espousing in the cane that Romney, the Ryant
Speaker 1: ideas for the last twelve years plus has failed a
Speaker 1: lot of people in the country. So I've yet to
Speaker 1: see anybody on the political establishment right take Tucker or
Speaker 1: Anon or anything like that. Hyper Seriously, I'd like to
Speaker 1: see someone step up to the play, but I don't
Speaker 1: think we are going to see anyone. Well, I mean
Speaker 1: to the earlier points that we were making here, there
Speaker 1: is a lot of personal investment that some of the
Speaker 1: voices in this have just in being right above making
Speaker 1: sure that the movement is pushing in the right direction
Speaker 1: and acting in ways that are are for the betterment
Speaker 1: of the entire country. Right. So I think that there's
Speaker 1: essentially we're in the midst of a giant clash of
Speaker 1: egos on the right, and for a lot of people,
Speaker 1: they can't get beyond the fact that you know, Trump
Speaker 1: hasn't been their guy, and they don't want to hear it.
Speaker 1: I mean, today I was dealing with some people who
Speaker 1: are even kind of who are who are on the right,
Speaker 1: and they were they were just saying, well, you know
Speaker 1: the jobs numbers. I guess that. I guess they're good. No, no,
Speaker 1: they're good. It's just it's a good jobs number. Well,
Speaker 1: but I'll tell you what any were up against the
Speaker 1: debate you want to moderate because you're a very fair guy.
Speaker 1: If you want to moderate the debate, I'll take part
Speaker 1: on the populist national side. You find me an establishment
Speaker 1: conservative who can hold their own against me in debate,
Speaker 1: I'll be there ten out of ten times. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: I love this idea actually, and I'm not. This is
Speaker 1: not just a throwaway from me. Before we let you
Speaker 1: go to enjoy your weekend, raheem, Who if I could,
Speaker 1: if I could help arrange a conservative populism versus you know,
Speaker 1: traditionalist GOP debate for you know, with with you, who
Speaker 1: would you want to who would you want to uh
Speaker 1: have on the other side of that? I mean or
Speaker 1: or you know, you give me a couple of names.
Speaker 1: Who comes to mind. Yeah, it's a it's a good question.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it would have to be someone
Speaker 1: from from you know, the National Review Stable, to be
Speaker 1: somebody from from I think there were some people like
Speaker 1: that that way in trying to the Federalist um. You know,
Speaker 1: I think I think I can get you a short
Speaker 1: list of five to ten people. We should do this. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: we should. And I have the we have the ability
Speaker 1: of the you know, the resources and the platforms to
Speaker 1: do It's him. Let's give us one some thought because
Speaker 1: I think because I you know, I do want this
Speaker 1: discussion to be aired out more. I do think people
Speaker 1: need to hear it and not just oh, you know
Speaker 1: Trump mean Trump say bad things on Twitter, Trump nasty
Speaker 1: to women. You know. Therefore, on my side wins. Well,
Speaker 1: if we're talking about trade, I don't really care what
Speaker 1: Trump is writing on Twitter. But you know, we're talking
Speaker 1: about the purpose that people should feel day to day
Speaker 1: in their lives as Americans. I think that's that's worth more,
Speaker 1: and that's that's a more important issue than just the
Speaker 1: back and forth that we've been seeing a lot of time. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I've obviously had fun talking to Raheim because we've gone
Speaker 1: way over time. Here check out No Go zones. Follow
Speaker 1: Raheim on Twitter if you're not already, and and well
Speaker 1: we'll have Raheim back again sooner him. Have a great weekend,
Speaker 1: my friend. Thank you everybody. Remember the Mullet pro That's
Speaker 1: a thing that's still going on. Haven't yet had any
Speaker 1: resolution to it. Have not been told when this thing
Speaker 1: is going to end, where it's heading, or what the
Speaker 1: end result is going to be. But we are getting
Speaker 1: more information and no surprise to any of you, as
Speaker 1: we find out more about the origins of what you
Speaker 1: could call, more broadly, the Russia collusion investigation. Doesn't look good.
Speaker 1: It is not confidence inspiring. That's a pretty easy way
Speaker 1: to put it. And we've got somebody on now who
Speaker 1: has a very interesting addition into the canon of knowledge
Speaker 1: about just how shady the whole dossier Russia collusion fantasy
Speaker 1: really was. Lee Smith is an investigative journalist. He's with
Speaker 1: US now. He's written a piece up on the Federalist.
Speaker 1: New documents suggest the Steel dossier was a deliberate setup
Speaker 1: for Trump. Lee, great to have you back on the program. Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on. It's a pleasure. Happy New Year,
Speaker 1: and how do all your listeners do? Happy New Year?
Speaker 1: To you. So, so tell me, my friend, what do
Speaker 1: you What do you have here to suggest that the
Speaker 1: Steel dossier was in fact a setup meant to just
Speaker 1: take down Trump? Right? I mean, there are some interesting
Speaker 1: and useful details here, as well as some very helpful
Speaker 1: interviews from some former US officials and some current US
Speaker 1: officials which you know, which which points to specific housing
Speaker 1: wise of why Carter Page was targeted with the size
Speaker 1: of warrant, and how that would get them in there,
Speaker 1: and how that would allow them to monitor the communications
Speaker 1: of the entire Trump team. So I put a lot
Speaker 1: of different moving pieces in here together. How they weaponized
Speaker 1: this dossier as you nicely pronounced it, and managed a
Speaker 1: media campaign. I think it's really important to see these
Speaker 1: two things moving in tanda, the media campaign as well as,
Speaker 1: I guess, for want of a better word, we might
Speaker 1: call it the spy campaign, since a lot of it
Speaker 1: was run by FBI counter intelligence people. How these things merge.
Speaker 1: So I had some more details which I think are
Speaker 1: very helpful and very interesting. One of the other important
Speaker 1: things about the piece, I think is to remind people
Speaker 1: that this has been going on for nearly two years.
Speaker 1: James Comey ushered in the era of the dossier January sixth,
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, when he briefed President elect Trump on the
Speaker 1: existence of this thing. That's the fact of that briefing
Speaker 1: was leaked to CNN and then BuzzFeed later published the
Speaker 1: entire document. And since that the last two years, we've
Speaker 1: been living with this not only the nonsense Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: not only Russia Gate, which is filled the pages, filled
Speaker 1: print and broadcast media, but as I point out in
Speaker 1: the Federalist piece, uh, there have been other operations modeled
Speaker 1: on the dossier operation, targeting not just Trump team policies,
Speaker 1: but also targeting the American public. So that's that's how
Speaker 1: what what what I think the piece adds to the
Speaker 1: to the discussion targeting the American public house quote if
Speaker 1: you um, I mean I think the American public was
Speaker 1: targeted with the Russia Gate. Uh when with the dossier operation.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was about a bunch of people. You're
Speaker 1: saying it was an information operation, It was a it
Speaker 1: was a propaganda operation, right, Yeah, that's what I mean. Um,
Speaker 1: you know they were contesting uh kendidate and then an
Speaker 1: election that that they didn't like. Um, so yeah, so
Speaker 1: so so so that's what I mean. They were, you know,
Speaker 1: going after the going after the election, going after the election,
Speaker 1: right information operation, And I mean, did you do you
Speaker 1: find that the To me, it seems like the dossier
Speaker 1: has just gotten lost in the memory hole for so
Speaker 1: many people because it served its purpose, which was to
Speaker 1: give the at the time, to give some kind of
Speaker 1: a fig leaf for all these different pieces to be
Speaker 1: put in play to go after Trump, to go after
Speaker 1: people around Trump. And now that a lot of time
Speaker 1: has passed and there's no collusion proof whatsoever that's been shown,
Speaker 1: yet everyone's kind of like, yeah, what was that dossier again?
Speaker 1: What was that all about? Where, in my mind, shouldn't
Speaker 1: we be verifying if the dossier was ever really a
Speaker 1: thing that anybody should have paid attention to. It seems
Speaker 1: like there's not as much interest in this from journalists
Speaker 1: or the government as there should be. I think that,
Speaker 1: you know, unfortunately, most of the press was part of this, uh,
Speaker 1: part of this information operation, so there's not a lot
Speaker 1: of interest on that part of of trying to see
Speaker 1: what was going on here. And certainly we see right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are large parts of the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: including the Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who was still
Speaker 1: pushing back. I mean, when Republicans were in control of
Speaker 1: the House and in control of oversight committees, they were
Speaker 1: pushing back on House intelligence, on judiciary, on oversight. And
Speaker 1: now that now that the House has changed hands and
Speaker 1: it's in Democratic hands, we're likely to get the answers
Speaker 1: that we're going to get are not going to come
Speaker 1: through the House. But I think that one of the
Speaker 1: things we're going to see happen is I mean, who
Speaker 1: has already Brad Sherman, who is filing, you know, filing
Speaker 1: some sort of impeachment papers. I think that this is
Speaker 1: going to come up again. They're going to use the
Speaker 1: Russia Gate stuff. They're going to use They're going to
Speaker 1: use the dossier, They're going to use all of these
Speaker 1: things again to target President Trump. To that that is,
Speaker 1: that is for sure, We're gonna have to Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: gonna to see if if they're able to actually get
Speaker 1: the bottom this. Lee Smith, everybody check out his piece
Speaker 1: on the Federalist. Lee, thanks so much for calling in,
Speaker 1: Thanks for bringing me on. Oh, it's almost the weekend, team,
Speaker 1: which means that I have a very exciting and very
Speaker 1: very social weekend plan of watching movies with Miss Molly.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be who it's gonna be, gonna be crazy.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we're gonna how we're gonna keep
Speaker 1: up with all of it. Lots of time on the couch,
Speaker 1: lots of napping. But there will be some film watching,
Speaker 1: I think, or at least some Netflix watching. And I
Speaker 1: saw this. I saw this piece by Kyle Smith over
Speaker 1: a National Review. I think Kyle's an astute guy. Have
Speaker 1: had him on the show many times in the past,
Speaker 1: many different shows in fact. And he says he's got
Speaker 1: this piece out ten conservative movies that hit home in
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, and and I was really curious. It's like, wow,
Speaker 1: what ten conservative movies? What could be? You know, what
Speaker 1: could be on this list? And sure enough he does
Speaker 1: have some some good ones. I'll start in order of
Speaker 1: the top of the list down to h you know,
Speaker 1: so we'll start with with the the biggest and the best,
Speaker 1: I guess, and move our way downloads a little bit.
Speaker 1: But he points out the chap Aquittic on Netflix is
Speaker 1: a movie that you can watch now. I saw it
Speaker 1: when it was streaming online a while ago. I think
Speaker 1: we actually I think I might have even had the
Speaker 1: producers of the movie on on this show. I can't
Speaker 1: remember now, I think we did. And Chapa Quittics pretty
Speaker 1: good producer, Mike, you see this one, Yeah I did. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they were on the show. Actually they we had they
Speaker 1: were a sponsor for they were right, Yeah, and they were.
Speaker 1: That's right, they were a sponsor on the show. We
Speaker 1: love our sponsors. Uh. You know, I like this movie
Speaker 1: just because, for the first time that I can think of,
Speaker 1: it was fun to see the Kennedy's finally get a
Speaker 1: little bit a little bit of the truth treatment, you know,
Speaker 1: where we're so uh inundated in the in our culture
Speaker 1: with people trying to pretend that the Kennedy's were fantastic,
Speaker 1: that the Kennedy's were, you know, Camelot and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and at Teddy Anny Wash you know, kind of a
Speaker 1: dirt bag. You know, it's not not a good guy.
Speaker 1: Yeh man. He got away with murder. You start with that,
Speaker 1: and then everything else is kind of you know, you
Speaker 1: could throw and yeah, you know he's a womanizer and
Speaker 1: you know, a booze hound and all that stuff. But
Speaker 1: you know, at the end of the day, he let
Speaker 1: he let a woman drown the back of his car,
Speaker 1: and and the whole effort to salvage his political career affords. Anyway,
Speaker 1: chap a quick. It's look, it's not gonna be a
Speaker 1: popcorn eating blockbuster kind of experience for your for you,
Speaker 1: but if you haven't seen it, you know it was.
Speaker 1: It's a good movie. So I I point that one
Speaker 1: out and then, or rather Kyle Smith points it out,
Speaker 1: but I agree with him. He's got number two on
Speaker 1: his top ten list. Here is Halloween, which I am,
Speaker 1: which is now available on demand. I have never seen, Mike,
Speaker 1: I just realized this. Any of the Halloween movies have you? Yeah?
Speaker 1: A lot. Actually, I'm a big Christmas movie guy. So Halloween,
Speaker 1: the the original Halloween. Yeah, Halloween, the horror movie. Halloween.
Speaker 1: Isn't it about Halloween not Christmas? Yeah? My mind is
Speaker 1: still on vacation down in Florida where I just got
Speaker 1: back from. But so I'm still thinking Christmas. But I
Speaker 1: actually do like, I actually do like Halloween movies. Um,
Speaker 1: and I don't like You're about to start a whole
Speaker 1: existential discussion. There is Halloween a Christmas movie. I know
Speaker 1: you could, you could. It is a Halloween. It is
Speaker 1: a holiday movie. You could say, well, how is it conservative?
Speaker 1: I don't. I have no idea unless they're trying to say,
Speaker 1: like conservatives, Kyle Smith writes. He writes about it, the
Speaker 1: importance of armed individual self defense, the fallen nature of man,
Speaker 1: the incompetence of state authorities, the necessity of capital punishment
Speaker 1: for evildoers, and even the vapidity of liberal true crime podcasters.
Speaker 1: All gets traumatized. Well, he's made me in his description,
Speaker 1: He's made me kind of want to want to watch Halloween.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'll see if this Molly wants to download it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that started out as a stretch, but then I could
Speaker 1: see where he was going. Yeah, what's kind of like
Speaker 1: how when you when you think of about it? You know,
Speaker 1: Grand Turino very conservative movie. Yeah, Ghostbusters, very conservative movie.
Speaker 1: Ghostbusters about a couple of plucky entrepreneurs who start a
Speaker 1: small business and get screwed over by the EPA. What
Speaker 1: could be more of a conservative fairy tale than that?
Speaker 1: It's very true, so you know some Yeah, sometimes these
Speaker 1: movies you don't think of as conservative, turns out they are.
Speaker 1: But I also would throw in there, Mike, I saw
Speaker 1: I've always thought that if I was going to make
Speaker 1: a movie. There are a few genres that I feel
Speaker 1: like you can't miss if you do it right. And
Speaker 1: I'm not a I'm not a big Sasquatch person, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I don't get that excited about Sasquatch. That said,
Speaker 1: I've always been surprised that there aren't more excellent offerings
Speaker 1: in the Sasquatch film and it's kind of horror and
Speaker 1: uh and thriller movie genre, you know, movie genre. I
Speaker 1: found one over the break. It's called Primal Rage, which
Speaker 1: is not a pretty good title for a Sasquatch movie,
Speaker 1: but it is like it is the the big Foot
Speaker 1: of your nightmares. I mean, it's like hunting people down
Speaker 1: and it's it's incredibly violent and a very brutal, brutal movie. Um,
Speaker 1: but I gotta say it was pretty entertaining. Actually I'll
Speaker 1: check it out. Yeah, yeah, I mean I'm I'm somebody
Speaker 1: that just feels like they're there are movies that you
Speaker 1: know you can watch, you think yourself, I could do
Speaker 1: a better version of this, uh and and that's definitely
Speaker 1: one of them. I feel like I one day will
Speaker 1: write the great Sasquatch horror movie. And this is just
Speaker 1: a weird, A weird thing I thought of before. Oh,
Speaker 1: back to uh, back to the list. Here, um Gosnel,
Speaker 1: the trial of America's biggest serial killer. I know we've
Speaker 1: had I've had him people from that Nick Searcy, for example,
Speaker 1: I had him on Rising. I think we had him
Speaker 1: here here on Radio two. I have not seen Gosnell,
Speaker 1: So I've got to add that, add that to my list.
Speaker 1: First Reformed. I don't know what that. Have you heard
Speaker 1: of that? I don't even know what that is? No, yeah,
Speaker 1: I haven't the only one, actually I did. I did
Speaker 1: not hear of it. I know of Gosnel, I know Halloween,
Speaker 1: and I know Chap a Quick. The other ones I
Speaker 1: don't know about. And then this is the one that
Speaker 1: really surprised me here, Black Panther, he says. The new
Speaker 1: Black Panther is a rebuke to the old Black Panthers,
Speaker 1: as played by Chadwick Boseman in this terrifically entertaining and
Speaker 1: smart blockbuster. I am a I'm a Black Panther contrarian.
Speaker 1: I do not like Black Panther as a movie at all.
Speaker 1: I thought it was loud, dumb, and too long, and
Speaker 1: I would I would say for example, if we're talking
Speaker 1: about a superhero movie with an African American in the
Speaker 1: lead role, I think Blade with Wesley Snipe's a better movie.
Speaker 1: I think it's a better movie the Black Panther. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm crazy. I haven't heard great things about Black Panther.
Speaker 1: But Blade was an excellent movie, right, Blade's an excellent movie.
Speaker 1: I mean in Black Panther, at the end, you've got
Speaker 1: cgi uh, you know, Rhinoceros is running people over. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just nonsense. It's just I don't know. And I
Speaker 1: get I said this at the Hill today because we're
Speaker 1: talking to Black Panther came up earlier today. I just
Speaker 1: I don't understand. Everyone has drunk the Black Panther kool aid.
Speaker 1: They're all being told that it's the greatest movie and
Speaker 1: you have to love it, you know, you have to
Speaker 1: be into Black Panther. And I'm just like, I don't
Speaker 1: I don't get it. I don't see it. Yeah, yeah, anyway,
Speaker 1: Well that's that's what. And then there's the Death of Stalin.
Speaker 1: I will say that's on showtime. I've I've been told
Speaker 1: that's excellent. So that actually this weekend, I think Death
Speaker 1: of Stalin top of my list producer, Mike, if you
Speaker 1: pick one of these up, you gotta come on and
Speaker 1: give us your review, right, Yeah, I will watch one
Speaker 1: of these. I'm looking at a couple of them look
Speaker 1: really good. Um that the Stalin sounds the most appealing
Speaker 1: to me right now, so I might go with that,
Speaker 1: and maybe we can we're first reformed. I'll go with
Speaker 1: one of those. Ding I think the Gods, no one.
Speaker 1: I don't think I could get through that. That's for me.
Speaker 1: That's I'll get and yeah, disgusted all at the same time,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean I was for Schindler's List for
Speaker 1: for quite a while. After I saw it, I was
Speaker 1: kind of, yeah, you know, kind of traumatized. I think
Speaker 1: it's important that people see that movie, but I don't.
Speaker 1: I think I'd have a traumatic experience if I sat
Speaker 1: through Goss. Although I'm told there's not it's not gory
Speaker 1: or anything, which is obviously good, but it deals, you know,
Speaker 1: the subject matter. It's tough to tough to watch and
Speaker 1: listen and hear about that and not I think come
Speaker 1: away angry and that was all happening in Philly, your hometown.
Speaker 1: I know. I was just about to say that and
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's a little disappointing. You know. They gotta wait.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to watch it at some point so
Speaker 1: I'll everybody know what I think. But I am a
Speaker 1: next seriously, but all right, that's yeah. You know, he
Speaker 1: was in the Shape but he was the only good
Speaker 1: thing in the Shape of Water, which is a movie
Speaker 1: about a woman who has sex with her aquarium pet.
Speaker 1: And every time I say that to people, they think
Speaker 1: that I'm weird, and then they think about They're like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, you're right, Buck, that's right. It's a
Speaker 1: bizarre movie. Ye, I believe it one best picture. But
Speaker 1: the oscars now are about as meaningful as a Nobel
Speaker 1: Peace Prize, which is, as we all know, not very meaningful. Meaningful.
Speaker 1: So let's let's come back and do some role call
Speaker 1: team to close out the show for the and kick
Speaker 1: it off for the weekend. Stay with me like soft
Speaker 1: butter on warm toast. Time to spread some freedom coast
Speaker 1: to coast. It's time for roll call. Indeed, it is
Speaker 1: time for the roll call. I'm trying to uh, trying
Speaker 1: to think about ways I can I can follow through
Speaker 1: on some of the things we've discussed, some of the
Speaker 1: changes we've discussed for the show in the new year,
Speaker 1: so I have not forgotten. I know we've said we're
Speaker 1: gonna get away to get more calls going here. That's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. We've we've got We've got plans, folks, we
Speaker 1: got plans. So roll call, though, is always fun. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna keep going with that. Rocky kicks us off.
Speaker 1: It is imperative we let the people who vote Democrat, no,
Speaker 1: they are supporting the things that Democrats are pushing. After
Speaker 1: talking to a number of them, it seemed there were
Speaker 1: more single issue voters when I mentioned the other issues
Speaker 1: they're pushing. They seem to think they can separate themselves.
Speaker 1: We have to let them know we are holding every
Speaker 1: one of them responsible for the craziest, stupidest ideas. Don't
Speaker 1: let them escape responsibility. All right, Rocky's Rocky's got a
Speaker 1: plan and he's gonna fallow through on it. Andrea, all right,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for acknowledging publicly that the opioid
Speaker 1: crisis is not patient doctor base, but illegal consumption based.
Speaker 1: I have a very painful and debilitating condition for which
Speaker 1: my doctor will no longer prescribe meds. I had safely
Speaker 1: been on for six years. To make it worse, the
Speaker 1: symptoms are extremely bad in the cold, and we're about
Speaker 1: to be stationed in Mongolia, oh gosh, where it's usually
Speaker 1: negative twenty to negative forty in the winter. I'll have
Speaker 1: to entertain dignitaries while in pain, which makes it difficult
Speaker 1: to move, think or interact. Thanks mainstream media and military
Speaker 1: healthcare for letting me down horribly. Keep up the good work.
Speaker 1: Maybe your voice and other rational voices will help reverse
Speaker 1: some of this. Yeah, Andrew, it's it's troublesome because there
Speaker 1: is a clear preference in the media for talking about
Speaker 1: the downsides of opioids when it comes to prescription drugs
Speaker 1: and doctors who are prescribing, they always want to focus
Speaker 1: on that part of the problem. And in the last
Speaker 1: five years that's become a smaller and smaller slice of
Speaker 1: the last ten years, it's become much much smaller than
Speaker 1: it was, and yet the problem is worse than it
Speaker 1: ever was. And that's because the cartels have seen an
Speaker 1: opening and there's a lot of money to be made
Speaker 1: for them, and they're now just providing at the street level.
Speaker 1: They're providing these drugs for people that they can now
Speaker 1: get illegally, but they're illegal drugs, right if you if
Speaker 1: you buy fake oxyconton, which might actually even be fentonel,
Speaker 1: so it's incredibly dangerous. But if you buy that from
Speaker 1: the cartels, that is a felony. That's illegal. It's illegal
Speaker 1: from a seller, it's legal for anyone to buy it.
Speaker 1: So that's part of the illegal drug trade. And it
Speaker 1: is disconcerting because one of the reasons that there was
Speaker 1: such an opening for this explosion of prescribing certain drugs OxyContin.
Speaker 1: OxyContin is the most well known one, but one of
Speaker 1: the reasons for it is that there's a lot of
Speaker 1: chronic pain. People are living longer, but also as life
Speaker 1: expectancy has gone up and people are trying to be
Speaker 1: more active, they're dealing with more chronic and debilitating pain
Speaker 1: and there's not The truth is that are modern medicine
Speaker 1: is pretty disappointing when it comes to really effective pain management,
Speaker 1: or at least you have to really become your own
Speaker 1: advocate within the health system to find ways to get
Speaker 1: the assistance you need. And there's no there's you know,
Speaker 1: there's no easy fix, and there's a lot of bad information.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people who will tell you, oh,
Speaker 1: it's in your head, or maybe it's maybe it's fibro myalger,
Speaker 1: or maybe it's this, or it's that. They just they
Speaker 1: just don't and the answers they don't know. Um, pain management,
Speaker 1: once you get into the real you know, the real
Speaker 1: deep weeds, if you will, of things like the gastro
Speaker 1: intestinal tract, of of pain management, of you know, neuro
Speaker 1: neurobiological function. We know stuff, but we also don't know
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff, meaning that modern medicine's got a
Speaker 1: long way to go on that. So anyway, Andrea, stay strong,
Speaker 1: keep your shield high and uh and and hopefully you'll
Speaker 1: be able to find a regiment that works well for you.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you will. Just keep just keep looking and
Speaker 1: remember what I said, You've got to be your own advocate. Joseph,
Speaker 1: all right, it's happy Friday, Buck. I really enjoyed listening
Speaker 1: to you shredding budget chairman this morning. Could could up
Speaker 1: the fight shields high? Um. Yeah, I I did get
Speaker 1: to talk to Joseph saw me on Unhealthy and I
Speaker 1: asked the budget chairman, is there any I love to
Speaker 1: do this? I like to do the understated question that
Speaker 1: just wrecks that just ri e kt, as they say
Speaker 1: on Twitter, leave somebody wrecked by just asking a question
Speaker 1: that exposes what the real agenda is or what they're doing.
Speaker 1: I mean, I had somebody on not long ago, and
Speaker 1: her whole thing was how Trump's Trump's deregulation and all
Speaker 1: she does is study regulations and advocate against the deregulatory
Speaker 1: efforts of the Trump administration. And I said, well, Trump
Speaker 1: has gotten rid of how many thousands of regulations? Is
Speaker 1: there a single regulation he's gotten rid of that you
Speaker 1: can name person who only works on regulations that was
Speaker 1: a good was a good decision? Crickets chirping, Nothing, couldn't
Speaker 1: name one. So every federal government regulation Trump's gotten rid of,
Speaker 1: we're supposed to believe they're all good ideas, meaning the
Speaker 1: regulations were all good ideas. That's laughable. It just goes
Speaker 1: to show how people are are often because they're especially
Speaker 1: in DC, when you're talking about lobbying or policy advocates,
Speaker 1: they're they're mercenaries. They're they're paid for an outcome. They're
Speaker 1: not paid for the best interests of the American people.
Speaker 1: And in the budget Chairman Yarmouth, what I will say
Speaker 1: is a very nice guy from from Kentucky. He's very
Speaker 1: charming guys, he's very friendly. Um. But you know, I
Speaker 1: ask he's he's the incoming Democrat budget chairman in the House,
Speaker 1: and I say, is there an area of the government
Speaker 1: where we're spending too much money? And what do you think?
Speaker 1: He says the only thing that he singles out defense,
Speaker 1: and then we hear a yeah, we need to balance
Speaker 1: the budget more generally, you know, kind of some a
Speaker 1: little bit of this, a little bit of that, not
Speaker 1: too hot, not too cold, just rite talk. And then
Speaker 1: he starts talking about raising taxes. So this, this is
Speaker 1: just the This is the Democrat, the Democrat two steps.
Speaker 1: This is what you're always going to hear from them.
Speaker 1: The only thing we spend too much money on, they'll
Speaker 1: admit his defense and the only thing we really need
Speaker 1: to do is raise taxes. As if that's going to
Speaker 1: get us out of the twenty two trillion dollar hole
Speaker 1: that we're in, or even over the long term, stabilizes
Speaker 1: it is not. Mike writes Buck. I listen every night
Speaker 1: in LA on eleven fifty am, and of course that's
Speaker 1: a six pm start time for your show out here.
Speaker 1: I guess you're aware of the situation that they have
Speaker 1: replaced your show sometimes with UCLA sports programming and not
Speaker 1: just games, but locker room talk. Is there anyway we
Speaker 1: can get them off of eleven fifty, am, Man, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you that most of your shows were placed in
Speaker 1: November and December. Well that's a and then Mike writes,
Speaker 1: I love your show. This is not good. This is
Speaker 1: not good at all that they're cutting you off. Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, I'm on one hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: stations or so one hundred and twenty seven I think,
Speaker 1: or something like that. So I'm not sure what's going
Speaker 1: on with this one, but I will look into it
Speaker 1: and team. That's gonna be it for this weekend or
Speaker 1: for this week rather have a fantastic weekend. I will
Speaker 1: talk to you Monday, shield Hie. It's a new year.
Speaker 1: That means new hiring, bringing new people into your company,
Speaker 1: into the fold, and that means background checks. Now, you
Speaker 1: may be listening to this and you're somebody who's got
Speaker 1: a company with ten employees. You might have ten thousand employees,
Speaker 1: maybe working on HR department. Maybe you're a small business owner.
Speaker 1: You gotta have background checks done. The person that you
Speaker 1: should have. The organization you should have doing your background
Speaker 1: checks is Global Verification Network. GVN is the only dual
Speaker 1: certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. Okay, they
Speaker 1: are experts in risk mitigation as well, and they never
Speaker 1: offshore any client information. They never subcontract this stuff out.
Speaker 1: You deal with them. You call Global Verification Network, you'll
Speaker 1: get Global Verification Network on the phone, speaking of which,
Speaker 1: give them a call for your background investigation and vetting needs.
Speaker 1: Eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: That's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven
Speaker 1: nine or GOMGVN dot com