Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt. CNN's favorite White House
Speaker 1: reporter clown Jim Acosta gets his pass back to the
Speaker 1: White House. Judge ruled in his favor. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: that and also the latest on the elections in Florida
Speaker 1: and Georgia. Got some experts joining, and what's going on
Speaker 1: with immigration, the caravan and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Plus Facebook involved in some very shady business. That and
Speaker 1: more coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake you're a great American Again, the buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: begins it Bucks Now, welcome to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I am back here in the swamp. I missed you
Speaker 1: all very much. Although I did, I did here as
Speaker 1: always that my main man, Raheim did a fantastic job
Speaker 1: in for me. So I'm really glad that you guys
Speaker 1: are enjoying the Some of the new guests we're gonna have,
Speaker 1: guest hosts we're gonna have in the rotation, Rahim of
Speaker 1: course high up on that list. With the holidays coming,
Speaker 1: might even have some other some other new special exciting
Speaker 1: folks who knows. I like to keep you all on
Speaker 1: your toes. Um, But I was out in Springfield, Illinois,
Speaker 1: landa Lincoln. It was Um, it was really fun. I
Speaker 1: gotta speak some really great Republicans. You know that that
Speaker 1: part of Illinois, Sangamon County is pretty red, which is nice.
Speaker 1: It's like, Oh, I'm on I'm on home turf here,
Speaker 1: home team. I'm so used to living among the LIB
Speaker 1: team that when I when I go to a place
Speaker 1: where there are conservatives with our Republicans, like wow, So
Speaker 1: this is what America feels like for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: I'm so used to walking around like, oh, is that
Speaker 1: Antifa around the corner? All No, I have to always
Speaker 1: keep that in mind. I've got some really interesting stuff
Speaker 1: to get into together today. Obviously, gonna get a chance
Speaker 1: talk to you yesterday. Some updates on the Georgia and
Speaker 1: Florida races, which are still the twenty t mid term
Speaker 1: still going on. Haven't figured that out, Stacy Abrams. Apparently
Speaker 1: we're gonna Phil Kirpin join us to really walk through
Speaker 1: exactly what's because he's all over this election low stuff,
Speaker 1: and he'll give you the full run. You'll know more
Speaker 1: to listen to that guy than I think you will
Speaker 1: listen to. There's very few people that really drill down
Speaker 1: into the way that he does that I see out there.
Speaker 1: But Stacy Abrams is she said she can't defeat Kemp
Speaker 1: in Georgia, but she also plans to sue to essentially
Speaker 1: get a totally new election. I mean, this is just crazy.
Speaker 1: This is a whole this is a whole other level
Speaker 1: of Shenanigan, a whole other level of Shenanigan's from the
Speaker 1: from the Democrats. So not really not really all that surprising,
Speaker 1: but nonetheless, this is this is what they do that,
Speaker 1: this is you could say, how they roll. Uh. And
Speaker 1: then in Florida, obviously there's still all kinds of stuff
Speaker 1: going on there that we will discuss. We got the caravan,
Speaker 1: whereas the caravan going, what's going on? Any of the
Speaker 1: big news for today, and I will discuss with you,
Speaker 1: And don't get in a little bit of the it's
Speaker 1: not a legal opinion, that's a final it's a preliminary
Speaker 1: legal injunction. I'll get into it. But Jim Acosta gets
Speaker 1: his pass back. Oh you know, Son now has fifty
Speaker 1: one people with White House passes. Oh my Oh, good heavens,
Speaker 1: the Republic was in jeopardy before they were all so
Speaker 1: upset about it. Oh, it's terrible. Look, I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: with not all conservatives with me on this. I know
Speaker 1: that you know, Fox News actually back to Costa up
Speaker 1: in this one. So and I'm not perfect, I'm a
Speaker 1: human being. So the fact that Acosta is an untalented
Speaker 1: clown um definitely probably weighs in on my definitely probably
Speaker 1: oh man spoken like a spoken like a liberal pund
Speaker 1: to definitely probably uh ways on my judgment of how
Speaker 1: acceptable or unacceptable what he did really is. So I
Speaker 1: will admit that, I mean, well, what he did was
Speaker 1: jerk stuff. I'm not saying that, you know, the jerk
Speaker 1: store called and they say they're running out of Acosta. So,
Speaker 1: but what I mean is that the procedural reality of
Speaker 1: Kenny be kicked out. Well, we'll get into all that,
Speaker 1: because this is the biggest new store of the day,
Speaker 1: the biggest new story of the day, only because it
Speaker 1: involves the media. And I try to be self aware
Speaker 1: about this because technically, yeah, I know, and some of
Speaker 1: the some of the emails like you're in the media, yeah,
Speaker 1: but like not really, you know, I mean, yeah, but
Speaker 1: kinda I'm I'm I'm some other some other type. I'm
Speaker 1: not your your typical media dude. Um certainly didn't go
Speaker 1: to a school. So we'll get into some of that,
Speaker 1: but it's because it involves the media. The media cares
Speaker 1: about it so much, but it really cares. And we'll
Speaker 1: make fun of a cost a little bit. They'll be
Speaker 1: good times. Oh. Also, Kamala Harris thinks that people should know.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's not saying it, she just wants people
Speaker 1: to know what a congressional hearing death. You know, Democrats
Speaker 1: kind of think that immigrations and customs enforcement is the KKK,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of kind of similar. She's not saying that,
Speaker 1: she says it. She just wants ever to know that
Speaker 1: she hears people saying it. If you you can't make it,
Speaker 1: you can't make this stuff up. This is this is
Speaker 1: who wants to run the country. By the way, these
Speaker 1: the Democrats, I think they should be in charge. But
Speaker 1: all right, so I think this is actually a much
Speaker 1: more interesting story than any of that, which is why
Speaker 1: I'm I'm starting it off with this today. And it's
Speaker 1: actually a New York Times piece and it's called a
Speaker 1: look inside the tactics of Definers, Facebook's attack dog. Now, yeah,
Speaker 1: you have to get into weeds a little bit on
Speaker 1: this one for it to really the full impact at home.
Speaker 1: But let me let me walk you through this. So
Speaker 1: Facebook hired this group called Definers Public Affairs, and their
Speaker 1: whole thing is that they yeah, they working in PR,
Speaker 1: but it's kind of aggressive PR. It's really more propaganda
Speaker 1: for hires. So Facebook hires this this group, and they,
Speaker 1: for example, compile information on senators that's derogatory information about
Speaker 1: particularly their use of Facebook. Um. But they they use
Speaker 1: software tally what the fifteen members of the intelligence community
Speaker 1: used to track visitors to their Senate websites. They also
Speaker 1: looked at how much easy or rather how much each
Speaker 1: senator spent on Facebook ads, and how much they received
Speaker 1: in campaign donations from Facebook. So they're doing OPO research
Speaker 1: on senators right for Facebook at Facebook's BEHS, right before
Speaker 1: Facebook is going down to testify on Capitol Hill about
Speaker 1: how according to Cheryl Sandberg, the ce chief operating a
Speaker 1: chief operating officer rather obviously Zuckerberg's CEO, they want to
Speaker 1: work with senators, right, They wanted to work with the
Speaker 1: Senate Committee but oh wait, they were compiling oppo research
Speaker 1: on those senators. That's that doesn't seem like a very
Speaker 1: good faith action, does it. And they're tracking the tools
Speaker 1: that senter websites you So what they're essentially saying is
Speaker 1: you want to regulate Facebook, but you use Facebook, so
Speaker 1: you're a hypocrite, Senators. Okay, this is and by the way, Facebook,
Speaker 1: since this has come out, it's completely backed off and
Speaker 1: be like, oh, we we don't want to do that.
Speaker 1: We you know, we don't want to be involved in
Speaker 1: that kind of stuff. Yeah, that's that's what we thought.
Speaker 1: It's a feeling and a feeling, that's the case. So
Speaker 1: you look a little deeper into it though, and the
Speaker 1: way they went about this is particularly interesting. Definers. Remember
Speaker 1: Facebook hires definers to compile opo research on senators who
Speaker 1: are going to be in a committee with a senior
Speaker 1: Facebook officer talking about, you know, what they could do
Speaker 1: about Russia collusion stuff and and should they be regulated
Speaker 1: and so you know, they're basical getting ready to go
Speaker 1: to war with the Senate if they have to in
Speaker 1: public and public relations stuff. And then there's some more
Speaker 1: details for I think conference thing about this, so quote
Speaker 1: Facebook initially hired definers this this PR group to monitor
Speaker 1: news about the social network. It's really a private intelligence firm.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's really not a PR. Private intelligence
Speaker 1: is the way we should describe as it expanded its
Speaker 1: relationship with the firm. When scrutinyum Facebook was increasing over
Speaker 1: how Russian agents had used this site to sow discord
Speaker 1: before the United States election. Should be discord, discord or discord?
Speaker 1: I probably say that one wrong define has began doing
Speaker 1: some general communications work. Blah BiH blah. It also undertook
Speaker 1: more covert effort to spread the blame for the rise
Speaker 1: of Russian disinformation, pointing other fingers, pointing fingers that other
Speaker 1: companies like Google, Oh wow, you mean Facebook, which just
Speaker 1: wants to be your buddy and it's such a great, wonderful, friendly,
Speaker 1: big hug of a company hired another company to spread
Speaker 1: disinformation about that company. When it came to who's responsible
Speaker 1: for Russian disinformation? This informazia, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: speak Russian. Some of you do. You're always like buck,
Speaker 1: your emphasis is on the wrong sillaball. That's probably true,
Speaker 1: But this I just like to say it, like my
Speaker 1: name isia. Then it sounds close enough right, or is
Speaker 1: its Informazia. I'll keep switching syllables till I get it right.
Speaker 1: It goes on, though, folks. Not just trying to throw
Speaker 1: Google onto the bus here. Facebook hired this private intel
Speaker 1: firm to do the following quote. A key part of
Speaker 1: Definer's strategy was nt K Network, a website that appeared
Speaker 1: to be a run of the mill news aggregator with
Speaker 1: a right wing slant. In fact, many of nt k's
Speaker 1: news stories were written by employers employees rather at Definers
Speaker 1: and America Rising, a sister firm to criticize rivals of
Speaker 1: their clients. According to one former employee not allowed to
Speaker 1: speak publicly, Folks, Facebook hired a private intel firm to
Speaker 1: spread fake news about the fake news that was spread
Speaker 1: by the Russians. You can't make this up. They appeared
Speaker 1: to be conservative. They're they're spoofing conservative websites affect a
Speaker 1: conservative opinion in order to throw people off the scent
Speaker 1: of how responsible Facebook was for this. This is pretty
Speaker 1: I mean, come on, this is pretty amazing, right. Think
Speaker 1: about this for a second, um, And they went after people.
Speaker 1: Quote in an email days before the hearing, a definer's employee,
Speaker 1: Press of Times reporter to write that Facebook was talking
Speaker 1: to senators talking taking the senator's concerned seriously, while Google
Speaker 1: was irresponsible. The day before the hearing, this fake news
Speaker 1: network that was actually this definer's group hired by Facebook,
Speaker 1: said that Senator Marco Rubio had suggested that Google was
Speaker 1: possibly a monopoly. The next day, shortly after hearing ended,
Speaker 1: Anti k Network posted another story highlighting Rubio's criticism of
Speaker 1: Google during the hearing. My friends, Facebook hired this company
Speaker 1: to spread fake news about senators while they're meeting with
Speaker 1: senators to discuss the problem of fake news. Come on, people,
Speaker 1: this is beautiful, right, this is amazing Silicon Valley. They're
Speaker 1: all a bunch of libs. You can't trust them. Can't
Speaker 1: trust the libs that you know. This, can't trust the
Speaker 1: Libs should be a song. I should write a song
Speaker 1: called Can't Trust the Libs. And then it goes even
Speaker 1: a little deep. But this gets even more interesting. Definers
Speaker 1: distributed memos that sought to layout evidence for angles that
Speaker 1: it wanted reporters to pursue, According to The New York Times. Here,
Speaker 1: the memos were typically based on public information etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: Definers urged reporters to explore the financial ties between Mr Soros,
Speaker 1: that that Judge Soros, Hello Sotos is here, and Freedom
Speaker 1: from Facebook, a coalition of groups that had criticized Facebook.
Speaker 1: The idea was to persuade reporters that the coalition was
Speaker 1: not a sincere movement of like minded groups, rather an
Speaker 1: orchestrated campaign by a rich partisan opponent. A two page
Speaker 1: document that Definers distributed about Freedom from Facebook noted that
Speaker 1: at least four of the groups and the coalition received
Speaker 1: funding or are aligned with George Soros, who has publicly
Speaker 1: criticized Facebook. The four groups named the document appear to
Speaker 1: have received do appear to receive funding from Soros is
Speaker 1: open Society Foundations. That's right there, blaming Soros. Facebook blames
Speaker 1: Sorrows for for some of its public relations woes. Uh.
Speaker 1: It says that these these anti Facebook groups are receiving
Speaker 1: their funding from Sorrows. Wait I thought I thought saying
Speaker 1: that you received funding from Sorrows was anti semitic. That's
Speaker 1: what That's what we're being told by journals like a
Speaker 1: week ago. But now Facebook will do that. So so
Speaker 1: somebody tell me, what are the new rules here when
Speaker 1: a bunch of Silicon Valley libs with tremendous UH resources
Speaker 1: and reach and power Facebook and others, when they say,
Speaker 1: but Sorrows is behind this stuff? Is that anti semitic?
Speaker 1: Or is that okay? You mean that Soros actually does
Speaker 1: fund a lot of these groups to make it seem
Speaker 1: like they're more grassroots and organic than they are and
Speaker 1: that they're pushing a left wing agenda or in this case,
Speaker 1: is just an anti Facebook agenda and they're willing to
Speaker 1: pretend it's coming from fake conservative groups. By the way,
Speaker 1: we we we weren't supposed to find out about any
Speaker 1: of this. This all just came out. If this is
Speaker 1: what's going on in this one case, what else do
Speaker 1: you think Facebook is up to? You know, I've been
Speaker 1: telling you for a while. Those you listen have been listening,
Speaker 1: have been with me for a while. It's only a
Speaker 1: matter of time before you see the weaponization of social
Speaker 1: media platforms not just for propaganda purposes, but to target individuals.
Speaker 1: Facebook and Google and Twitter, these places they have information
Speaker 1: on so many people, and people use them for private conversations,
Speaker 1: for sensitive business conversations. They probably shouldn't, but everybody does
Speaker 1: because it's so convenient. There will be a time mark
Speaker 1: my words. There will be a time and it might
Speaker 1: be when, at a critical moment, one of these social
Speaker 1: media companies will say, you know what, we have this information.
Speaker 1: We just have terms of service. We're not contractually bound
Speaker 1: to keep it all secret. And here's what candidate so
Speaker 1: and so was saying to his mistress, you know, before
Speaker 1: he visited his you know, his wife at the hospital
Speaker 1: or something. I mean, that's gonna happen. That is going
Speaker 1: to happen, and that I think is something that you know,
Speaker 1: we we all need to be very aware of. Here. Um,
Speaker 1: and we got more on this and uh and a
Speaker 1: whole on more. We'll talk about the accost of situation
Speaker 1: and all that coming up. So stay with me. In
Speaker 1: the midst of all the whining coming from the left,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just crazy these days. They're chasing people
Speaker 1: out of restaurants, yelling at you in the coffee shop,
Speaker 1: acting like a bunch of maniacs. You have to wonder
Speaker 1: why in the world would anyone act this way. My
Speaker 1: guess is they're just not getting their daily dose and
Speaker 1: black rifle coffee. I drink black Rifle every morning. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's such delicious coffee that I'm usually a guy that
Speaker 1: likes a little can lache in my coffee. But guess what,
Speaker 1: I drink it black because it's Black Rifle for one.
Speaker 1: And also this is delicious, small batch, roast to order coffee. Alright,
Speaker 1: I am a salente for smooth blond guy, but their
Speaker 1: entire catalog of different beans and blends is amazing. Black
Speaker 1: Rifle is roaster order and is guaranteed fresh right to
Speaker 1: your door. Nothing cures a bad attitude like starting your
Speaker 1: day with the most American coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: Visit black Rifle Coffee dot com. Slash buck received fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck for fifteen percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash Buck. Okay, before we get into a Costa's
Speaker 1: hard pass, which every and now the media is obsessed
Speaker 1: with a lot of you like Buck. Who cares? I know,
Speaker 1: but this is one of these problems where I can't
Speaker 1: determine the news cycle right and I can't be my
Speaker 1: own final news gathering organization. You know, you know the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt reports, you know, I mean, I did other
Speaker 1: people to actually do some reporting too. I can't just
Speaker 1: pull it all together myself. Um. I mean I can
Speaker 1: tell you what it was like at the airport in
Speaker 1: Illinois at five am this morning. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: that was exciting. But other than that, I've been in
Speaker 1: the air most of today. Um. But we'll talk about
Speaker 1: the cost of thing a little bit. Then we'll move
Speaker 1: on to areas that I think matter more to you.
Speaker 1: What's going on the Muller pro what's going on with immigration,
Speaker 1: the elections Florida, Georgia. So we'll cover all that, all
Speaker 1: that good stuff, and then we'll send you off with
Speaker 1: some fantastic roll call and chit chat and the most
Speaker 1: important question the moment, which is should pickles be on burgers,
Speaker 1: not next to them? On them? We'll get into that.
Speaker 1: But I saw this, and this is just a reminder
Speaker 1: of how skewed these social media platforms have become. This woman,
Speaker 1: Megan Murph, I don't know who she is. I think
Speaker 1: she's a liberal tho. I think she's a lib. She
Speaker 1: calls herself a pinko and her Twitter bios I think
Speaker 1: that's a lip thing. It's basically saying she is a comedy.
Speaker 1: She and she's a feminist. She got in trouble with Twitter.
Speaker 1: She Twitter Center. This was on Twitter today. She got
Speaker 1: a note from them saying that you are violating our
Speaker 1: rules against hateful conduct. This is official from Twitter. Do
Speaker 1: you know what she said? How are trans women not men?
Speaker 1: What is the difference between a man and a trans woman?
Speaker 1: And then said men aren't women? I am not exaggerating,
Speaker 1: I am not making this up. I am not taking
Speaker 1: it out of context. It is now considered a violation
Speaker 1: of twitters terms of service to state the following men
Speaker 1: are not women. Let that sink in for a moment.
Speaker 1: You can be deep platformed, you can be called out
Speaker 1: for abusive behavior and violation of rules for saying that
Speaker 1: men are not women. I don't think I don't think
Speaker 1: that it's too much to say that we're living in
Speaker 1: some kind of bizarro left wing delusion now, because I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go, I'm gonna go on record. I'm not afraid
Speaker 1: to say it. I don't care who yells a better.
Speaker 1: I'm darn sure that men are not women. That this
Speaker 1: is a thing that you and I know, And I
Speaker 1: don't care how many progressives, how many on the left,
Speaker 1: how many Democrats, try to tell me otherwise. Great day
Speaker 1: for the first eventment in journalism. Very excited to happen
Speaker 1: his prepossibly be able to go back and get his
Speaker 1: heart passive report the news about the White House. I'll
Speaker 1: turn it over to Jim. Thank you, Hi, everybody, thanks
Speaker 1: for coming. I just want to say something very briefly,
Speaker 1: and that is I want to thank all of my
Speaker 1: colleagues and the press who supported us this week. And
Speaker 1: I want to thank the judge for the decision he
Speaker 1: made today and let's go back to work. Acosta got
Speaker 1: his hard passed back. Man. I gotta tell you this
Speaker 1: one is this one is annoying. This decision is annoying.
Speaker 1: Acosta is annoying this whole, this whole thing. Man. So
Speaker 1: let's just like, let's take a little trip down, a
Speaker 1: little trip down, well at all. Before we take a
Speaker 1: trip down memory land, I'll tell you what happened. So
Speaker 1: you had a judge issue a preliminary injunction today, federal judge.
Speaker 1: It's a Trump appointee. And the longer and short of
Speaker 1: it is, he said on fit Amendment do process grounds,
Speaker 1: they must give a Coste his press pass back because
Speaker 1: you know, inhibits him from reporting and blabity blah First
Speaker 1: Amendment stuff, but he didn't make it clear for Amendment
Speaker 1: ruling as to whether or not they could restrict his
Speaker 1: access based upon how much of a jerky's being because
Speaker 1: he's definitely being a jerk, but the judge didn't really
Speaker 1: weigh in on that one. The judge says there's a
Speaker 1: lack of due process here um and and what that
Speaker 1: means now is that Acosta, the hero of the resistance,
Speaker 1: left the well. This guy has never said an interesting,
Speaker 1: smart or witty thing on his life on television, and
Speaker 1: it's just he's he's one of these guys who would
Speaker 1: be lucky to be like the local news anchor in
Speaker 1: some you know, small town in Massachusetts. And yet now
Speaker 1: he's this guy who's the First Amendment martyr for CNN.
Speaker 1: It's just so frustrating. But you know, look that they
Speaker 1: the problem here is that they didn't have the due
Speaker 1: process concerned. And there's a previous court ruling from I
Speaker 1: think back in the Set and Easy that that somehow
Speaker 1: influence that influences this decision. They do. Process component of
Speaker 1: it is well, there's not rules and so it's arbitrary
Speaker 1: and they have to give him the right to respond.
Speaker 1: They have to give him essentially written notice. Um. I mean,
Speaker 1: I I complete just for the I completely disagree with this.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's crap. Whether on a on
Speaker 1: a purely procedural basis, this judge ruled the right way.
Speaker 1: I mean this, this is it's getting down into the weeds. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's not a final ruling, its preliminary injunction. Um. But
Speaker 1: you know, because what I say is all right, So
Speaker 1: there's not official rules. If a Costas stood up and
Speaker 1: started just screaming curses at the president, they wouldn't give
Speaker 1: him written notice. They would just escort him out of
Speaker 1: the room and take away his hard pass and take
Speaker 1: away his access to the White House. Can they not
Speaker 1: do that? Oh, I'm sorry. They have to give him
Speaker 1: written notice of that. They they have to say, Mr Costa,
Speaker 1: you have violated the following rules and then let him
Speaker 1: respond in writing. I mean, you know, at some point
Speaker 1: the process. And by the way, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: abuse of this due process concept. Now, whenever there's anything
Speaker 1: that can be done to stick a thumb in the
Speaker 1: eye of the Trump administration, you see a lot of this.
Speaker 1: So huh. Obviously, very very frustrating. But Trump is saying,
Speaker 1: and now they're gonna write up rules on decorum so
Speaker 1: that they have a codified Hey, don't be a jerk
Speaker 1: like a costa system in place, play Levin John regulation
Speaker 1: three US Decora, you can't take three questions and four
Speaker 1: questions and you just stand up and not sit down. Decora,
Speaker 1: you have to practice Dacora. You were there, You understood,
Speaker 1: and you understand. We want uh total freedom of the press.
Speaker 1: That's very important because they it's more important to mean
Speaker 1: than anybody would believe. But you have to act with respect.
Speaker 1: You're in the White House, and when I see the
Speaker 1: way some of my people get treated at press conference
Speaker 1: isn't terrible. So we're setting up a certain standard, which
Speaker 1: is what the court is requesting. And always free to
Speaker 1: the press, always first Amendment. But that's the way it is.
Speaker 1: And we always have the option of just leaving, you know,
Speaker 1: we feel that things aren't being treated properly, that people
Speaker 1: aren't being treated properly, we always have the right to leave.
Speaker 1: And I think the other media, the other press in
Speaker 1: the room will not be very happy if that happens.
Speaker 1: But I've instructed my people when they're not treated properly.
Speaker 1: You have the right to just leave anytime you want
Speaker 1: to do. Yeah, so now they're going to have the
Speaker 1: rules in place. Now they're now they've they've decided that
Speaker 1: you know, this is gonna be a situation where in
Speaker 1: the future they'll be able to take away costs. Is
Speaker 1: hard passed, but just just as a little fun, a
Speaker 1: little fun, uh, as I said, a trip down memory
Speaker 1: lane here when when you have always was like, oh
Speaker 1: the cost there's a victor of the first m And
Speaker 1: this is how this jerk acted back on November se
Speaker 1: John play the Trump via Costa throw down. I think
Speaker 1: you should let me run the country. You run CNN,
Speaker 1: and if you did it well, If I may one question,
Speaker 1: if I may ask question, are you worried? That's enough?
Speaker 1: President asked one of the other folks. That's enough. Pardon me, ma'am,
Speaker 1: this president. That's enough, this president, I had one of
Speaker 1: the dosens. If I may ask on on the Russia investigation,
Speaker 1: are you concerned that that you may I'm not concerned
Speaker 1: about anything you have investigation because it's a hoax. Are
Speaker 1: that's enough? Put down the mic? This president? Are you
Speaker 1: worried about indictments coming down in this investigation, Mr President,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what. CNN should be ashamed of itself
Speaker 1: having you working for them. You are a rude, terrible person.
Speaker 1: You shouldn't be working for CNN. Go ahead. I think
Speaker 1: that's your very rude person. The way you treat Sarah
Speaker 1: Huckabee is horrible, and the way you treat other people
Speaker 1: are horrible. You shouldn't treat people that way. Go ahead.
Speaker 1: And Peter gun in Jim's defense, I've traveled with him
Speaker 1: and watched him. He's a diligent reporter who bustle. I'm
Speaker 1: not at so let me ask you a question. If
Speaker 1: I can't you repeatedly, Mr President, you repeatedly over the course.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, Trump can handle these guys. Obviously did
Speaker 1: a great it did a great job. I really I
Speaker 1: really like the Peter Alexandra thing. You know, Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: not so great either, dude. Just just calm yourself. Calm yourself.
Speaker 1: I mean's this notion of of solidarity in the press.
Speaker 1: By the way, let me tell you for a second,
Speaker 1: a little bit of an inside peek here. Most of
Speaker 1: these people the press hate each other. Most of them
Speaker 1: are eyeing each other's jobs, most of them talk smack
Speaker 1: about each other all the time. And I'm not guessing.
Speaker 1: I know because I hear what they say. I see
Speaker 1: what they say. A lot of people in the press corps,
Speaker 1: it just attracts the the the biggest egos with the
Speaker 1: thinnest skin. I mean, that's what you generally get, especially
Speaker 1: in the traditional mainstream mainstream media TV journalism side of things.
Speaker 1: I mean, you just get the worst, the worst people.
Speaker 1: And I just think it's so funny. They're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're all standing together at the first time, and please,
Speaker 1: this is now. This is now. The press his own
Speaker 1: version of this is a special version of virtue signaling,
Speaker 1: you know, the the First Amendment, the First Amendment martyr
Speaker 1: pose that they're all taking here. Meanwhile, CNN has like
Speaker 1: fifty other people with hard passes. The the idea that
Speaker 1: Jimmy costas not even lack of access. He wasn't even
Speaker 1: banned from the White House. He just wasn't able to
Speaker 1: walk in and out whenever he please, you get to
Speaker 1: stop in and get a pass. By the way, I've
Speaker 1: had to do that when I interviewed the President, I
Speaker 1: stopped and get a pass. You know, you don't see
Speaker 1: me walking around with some scarlet letter on on my chest.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, what am I gonna do? I mean,
Speaker 1: give me a break. It's so ridiculous. The whole thing
Speaker 1: is so completely absurd. And I just want to know you.
Speaker 1: When is Info Wars gonna say that they should get
Speaker 1: White House press credits? On on what First Amendment basis?
Speaker 1: Can the White House deny them press credentials? Somebody answer
Speaker 1: that and answer me that question. I'm not aware of
Speaker 1: any First Amendment basis that they can be denied, because
Speaker 1: apparently you have a due process right to be told
Speaker 1: why you can't. And the only real way they could
Speaker 1: tell them they can't be given a pass to Info Wars,
Speaker 1: for example, would be to say because you're a bunch
Speaker 1: of you know, maniacs, and that's that's viewpoint discrimination folks.
Speaker 1: So the White House doesn't get to make these kinds
Speaker 1: of designations anymore, if you if you really continue people
Speaker 1: right now, Oh, it's through process. Yeah, but there's still
Speaker 1: a First Amendment question and they may have to look
Speaker 1: at this. They're gonna force the issue, you know what.
Speaker 1: A lot of what this comes down to is that
Speaker 1: journalists realize that there's no secret sauce to what they
Speaker 1: do except for access. Access on the platform is everything.
Speaker 1: Access to newsmaker. Anybody sits down with a newsmaker and
Speaker 1: they get ratings. We all know this. Anybody gets access
Speaker 1: to the president or whatever you're gonna have. If it's written,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a lot of clicks, if it's a video,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a lot of views. Right, I mean
Speaker 1: this is and so there's real money at stake here,
Speaker 1: and that's that's once you start to think about it
Speaker 1: in those terms, it all makes a whole lot more sense.
Speaker 1: You go way hold on a second, Access to the
Speaker 1: White House is really a monetary issue for media organizations.
Speaker 1: So I'll just I'm just point out that this whole thing, man,
Speaker 1: it is so off the rails. This this a cost
Speaker 1: of nonsense, and I think it's going to create a
Speaker 1: lot of problems, you know, a lot of problems down
Speaker 1: the line. But you know, here we are, here we
Speaker 1: are with with CNN just doing what it does, which
Speaker 1: is acting like they're they're just they're just there to
Speaker 1: protect the First Amendment, man, like they just want to
Speaker 1: make everybody like you just want to take care of
Speaker 1: everybody who's jury. It was out there please. You know,
Speaker 1: I give credit to Major Garrett, who I think is
Speaker 1: over at CBS now, who said that when he was
Speaker 1: at Fox, Obama used to trash Fox News all the time.
Speaker 1: And and remember, you want to talk about a threat
Speaker 1: to free expression, free in the press. Half the country
Speaker 1: only as one news channel to watch one half the country,
Speaker 1: and that channel was just completely maligned by Obama because
Speaker 1: Obama was so used to everybody telling him how brilliant,
Speaker 1: what a genius he was, what a what a pile
Speaker 1: of garbage that was. Anybody who would stand up and say,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe Obama is not perfect? Pretty much? Was
Speaker 1: it Fox News? With with a handful of exceptions, what
Speaker 1: was that Fox News? And Obama would Obama ascentually said
Speaker 1: they're not a news network, as well as calling out
Speaker 1: talk radio and talk radio host by name with the
Speaker 1: President did that and the opposition to him in the
Speaker 1: media was was a fraction of the support that he
Speaker 1: had in the media. You know, Oh, the First Amendment
Speaker 1: wasn'tunder assault then when Obama used the Espionage Act to
Speaker 1: go after reporters and listed a Fox News reporter as
Speaker 1: an unindicted co conspirator in a federal criminal espionage indictment,
Speaker 1: you know. The press, Yeah, they there was some criticism
Speaker 1: of but but it was all kind of like, come on, Obama,
Speaker 1: you're so amazing. Don't be not amazing on this one
Speaker 1: because you're the greatest, Obama, but this one wasn't the greatest,
Speaker 1: but you're still the greatest. That's basically the tone they take. Man.
Speaker 1: You know, I gotta keep an eye. I gotta keep
Speaker 1: an eye on these lefties. They're a kg disreputable, dishonest bunch,
Speaker 1: especially at Costa Wiki leaks back in the news today.
Speaker 1: Looks like there's a legal battle brewing right now because
Speaker 1: the founder of Wicked Eggs, Julian Assange, has said via
Speaker 1: his lawyers today that he will not at least willingly
Speaker 1: go to the United States because it has come out
Speaker 1: that and and this is let me, let me just
Speaker 1: tell you what the Associated Press reported here that'll make
Speaker 1: make more sense. Um. In an errant court filing in
Speaker 1: an unrelated case from prosecutors, it was inadvertently revealed that
Speaker 1: there are sealed charges against you an Assange. The filing,
Speaker 1: discovered late Thursday night, said the charges and arrest warrant
Speaker 1: would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in
Speaker 1: connection with the charges in the criminal complaint, and therefore
Speaker 1: no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.
Speaker 1: A person familiar with the matter, cording of the Associated Press,
Speaker 1: speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that charges had
Speaker 1: been filed under seal. The exact charges of Sage faces
Speaker 1: and when they might be un sealed, remained unser hurtin
Speaker 1: Any charges against him could help illuminate whether Russia coordinated
Speaker 1: with a Trump campaign to swear the sixteen presidential election.
Speaker 1: They also would suggest that, after years of internal Justice
Speaker 1: Department wrangling, prosecutors have decided to take a more aggressive
Speaker 1: tack against wiki leaks. This is very interesting. This is
Speaker 1: very interesting. This is going to face quite a challenge
Speaker 1: because here's the problem that we're gonna come up against here. Now.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think, as san just, I think Assan
Speaker 1: just got some very shady, very shady connections. I think
Speaker 1: he's got shady and to think he does have shady
Speaker 1: connections to the Russians, I think he's a he's not
Speaker 1: a not a good not a good guy in that sense.
Speaker 1: But we in this country allow American citizen journalists, American
Speaker 1: citizens who are journalists to publish classified information, including very
Speaker 1: damaging classified information, with impunity. And that's not a special
Speaker 1: constitutional protection that they have that does not exist. They
Speaker 1: live under the same laws as all the rest of us.
Speaker 1: The notion of them being pressed versus you being pressed
Speaker 1: in the era of the Internet isn't really a separation
Speaker 1: that courts could adhere to. If you have a Facebook
Speaker 1: account and you you know, you're basically pressed to now,
Speaker 1: anybody can publish, anybody can be pressed. It's probably why
Speaker 1: every when the press is so insecure these days, but
Speaker 1: they publish classified information and are not punished for it.
Speaker 1: Assange is not even a US citizen, and now they're
Speaker 1: claiming that he uh now clearly that they're going to
Speaker 1: try to prosecute him under violation of r Espionage Act laws,
Speaker 1: which is gonna be very interesting because why is why
Speaker 1: would he go to prison? But the New York Times
Speaker 1: can publish classified information because they're journalists. He says, he's
Speaker 1: a journalist. Is he a dirtbag? Can he be trusted? Yes,
Speaker 1: he's a r back. No he can't be trusted. But
Speaker 1: is what he does in some ways journalistic? I mean,
Speaker 1: you could say is a non state intelligence uh, you
Speaker 1: know actor, you know, kind of a nonstated hostile intelligence agency.
Speaker 1: I know people call them that, and there's certainly truth
Speaker 1: to that the way that he operates. But what's the
Speaker 1: principle here? Is publishing classified illegal or not? If it's
Speaker 1: not illegal for The New York Times, I don't know
Speaker 1: how it's illegal for Julian Assange other than people don't
Speaker 1: like him. Oh and that's right. Here's why the journalists
Speaker 1: are not going to close ranks around to Sange because
Speaker 1: they're perfectly happy with him during Uh, you know, they're
Speaker 1: perfectly happy with him when he was publishing stuff that
Speaker 1: they like to see in the public. Right when he
Speaker 1: published all that stuff about the the the the Chelsea
Speaker 1: Manning releases, all that diplomatic and military classified cable traffic,
Speaker 1: they were fine with that. They were defending that as
Speaker 1: radical transparency. They made a movie, an award winning movie
Speaker 1: about about him and about what he did. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've made movies about this. But then there was the
Speaker 1: whole thing about the emails from Podesta and the d
Speaker 1: n C. Then there was the whole problem of oh
Speaker 1: wait a second, you mean to say that he's hurting
Speaker 1: a Democrat that became unacceptable. That is why the press
Speaker 1: will not close ranks around him. And when you look
Speaker 1: at how this plays out now, just remember that they
Speaker 1: would rush to Osanga's defense in the American media, I think,
Speaker 1: except for the fact that they blame him in part
Speaker 1: for Hillary losing. That is his great sin, not espionage.
Speaker 1: The press could care less about espionage. They do it themselves.
Speaker 1: Every time you sign an online there's the possibility that
Speaker 1: some bad actor is gonna try to get your information.
Speaker 1: But you know there are companies that are constantly trying
Speaker 1: to buy the information that you put online. Via the
Speaker 1: social media platforms you use, the Google search engine you use,
Speaker 1: all those things can be liabilities for you. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you you can take back your security online. Take
Speaker 1: back your privacy from hackers, spies, and thieves. Use Express vpn.
Speaker 1: Express vpn has easy to use apps that run seamlessly
Speaker 1: in the background of my computer, phone, and tablet. It
Speaker 1: takes one click to do it cost less than seven
Speaker 1: dollars a month. Express vpn is what you need to
Speaker 1: take back your online privacy protect your online activity. Today
Speaker 1: found out how you can get three months free at
Speaker 1: express vpn dot com. Slash buck that's Express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck for three months free with a one
Speaker 1: year package. Visit express vpn dot com slash buck to
Speaker 1: learn more. The results where Pride risk. When I came
Speaker 1: out and made a statement, the results were being uploaded
Speaker 1: as I came out to speak to you, according the
Speaker 1: word we would tell from the division of the election.
Speaker 1: Our completion was three o two and you should have
Speaker 1: been three o'clock on the button. They have Brenda Snipes
Speaker 1: now famous or perhaps infamous for election and competence at
Speaker 1: a minimum, perhaps election mouthfeasance, and and even some some
Speaker 1: worse stuff than that. What the heck is going on
Speaker 1: at this point in the Florida election with Broward County
Speaker 1: and with a Senate seat and a governorship hanging in
Speaker 1: the balance, and also what's going on with Stacy Abrams
Speaker 1: the governor's race in Georgia. We've got somebody who's all
Speaker 1: over this gonna walk us through all the nitty gritty
Speaker 1: so we actually know what the heck is going on.
Speaker 1: Phil Kirpin is with us. He is the President of
Speaker 1: American Commitment. Phil Happy Friday man, Thanks for coming on
Speaker 1: my pleasure buck, Thanks for having me all right, let's
Speaker 1: start with Let's start with floor ord to because just
Speaker 1: tell people what what has happened in the last few
Speaker 1: days in this Florida election that we need to know about. Well, um,
Speaker 1: on election night, it looked like Republicans had swept all
Speaker 1: of the statewide races, uh, not by a lot, but
Speaker 1: by a relatively comfortable amount. And so it was something
Speaker 1: like eighty something thousand votes in the governor's race, fifty
Speaker 1: something thousand in the Senate race, and I think it
Speaker 1: was twenty or thirty thousand in the Agriculture commissioner race.
Speaker 1: And what happened And several days after the election, two counties,
Speaker 1: Broward County and Palm Beach County just kept counting and
Speaker 1: they kept counting and camp counting for two or three days.
Speaker 1: I think it was three days after the election. They
Speaker 1: just kept posting more and more ballots, and they wouldn't
Speaker 1: say how many they had left to count, They wouldn't
Speaker 1: say where they were coming from. They didn't have They
Speaker 1: weren't complying with any of the transparency requirements of the law,
Speaker 1: or the requirement of Florida law that said that all
Speaker 1: of the mail ballots had to be posted by within
Speaker 1: half an hour of the polls closing on election day,
Speaker 1: and some of they just coming kept coming and coming,
Speaker 1: and those margins got smaller and small learned smaller. Governor Scott,
Speaker 1: who's a candidate in the US Center race, Rick Scott
Speaker 1: got a court order requiring those counties to comply with
Speaker 1: the transparency rules of the laws in Florida, so they
Speaker 1: would have to post the numbers of outstanding ballots they
Speaker 1: had left, of the number that had come in after
Speaker 1: the deadline, all that kind of stuff. And magically, as
Speaker 1: soon as he got that order, they said, okay, now
Speaker 1: we're done counting. So then the then they didn't have
Speaker 1: any more ballots appearing after the transparency order was issued.
Speaker 1: But we had pretty much closer margins at that point.
Speaker 1: So you know, at that point, the governor race was
Speaker 1: down to thirty something votes. I think the center race
Speaker 1: was around thirteen or fourteen thousand, and the Agriculture commission
Speaker 1: race has actually flipped, so the Democrat is now ahead
Speaker 1: by four or five thousand votes in the Agriculture commissioner race.
Speaker 1: And we went, um, you know, the Nelson people, the
Speaker 1: the Senator Bill Nelson people hired Mark Elias, the famous
Speaker 1: Perkins Coy attorney who has stolen a number of races
Speaker 1: in the past and recount. It's the famous Minnesota Al
Speaker 1: Franken race. The that was straight up stolen, by the way, right,
Speaker 1: I mean when I read about that, I'm like Al Frankie,
Speaker 1: who by the way, was the sixtiest vote for Obamacare,
Speaker 1: did not win that election. Oh no, he definitely did
Speaker 1: not win. But you know, they there's Mark elized that
Speaker 1: the difference thereis it was, you know, I think it
Speaker 1: was three or four hundred votes that Norman had going
Speaker 1: into the recount, and Elias worked his magic. But the
Speaker 1: the other one, they're more fame, the most, the uh
Speaker 1: most outrageous. One of Mark Elias's greatest hits was probably
Speaker 1: the Washington State gubernatorial race. I don't remember the exact year,
Speaker 1: but it was between Dino Rossi and Christine greg Ore
Speaker 1: and Rossi won like the initial count, he won the
Speaker 1: first recount, he won the second recount. In like the
Speaker 1: third recount, they discovered enough votes somewhere out of Seattle
Speaker 1: King County to change the outcome and the Democratic one.
Speaker 1: So so you know, the Democrats brought in the master,
Speaker 1: the recount master. He's filed like a million lawsuits all
Speaker 1: over the place. Only one of those lawsuits really has
Speaker 1: been successful. They did extend the cure deadline for provisional
Speaker 1: ballots if you have voted provisional and your signature doesn't
Speaker 1: match or there's some other problem with it. UH. That
Speaker 1: was supposed to be resolved by the day before the election,
Speaker 1: of judges now said they have to this coming Saturday.
Speaker 1: So I'm so sure Democrats are going wild now trying
Speaker 1: to get as many of those as possible. And we've
Speaker 1: we've found out that part of the Democrats strategy, and
Speaker 1: this story was actually broken by the Naples Daily News yesterday.
Speaker 1: The Democrats actually created phony cure forms for the for
Speaker 1: mail in ballots, which is a much much larger pool
Speaker 1: of ballots of than the provisionals. UH. They created phony
Speaker 1: forms with a fake deadline that they made up mail
Speaker 1: in ballots had to be cured before the election. They
Speaker 1: created a phony form saying that they could be cured
Speaker 1: after the election, and they were going out and trying
Speaker 1: to get people to cure their defective mail ballots in
Speaker 1: the hopes that they would then find a judge who
Speaker 1: would extend that deadline and they would already have done
Speaker 1: all the work, whereas Republicans would then not have nearly
Speaker 1: as much time to catch up. And I don't think
Speaker 1: that's going to happen now because the scheme has been reported.
Speaker 1: Naples Daily News broke the story, and Florida election officials
Speaker 1: have actually referred that to federal prosecutors for investigation, and
Speaker 1: so we could actually see a federal criminal investigation around
Speaker 1: the fake forms that they were trying to use to
Speaker 1: get mail in ballots cured in the hopes of getting
Speaker 1: a joke to let then let those in UM. However,
Speaker 1: it looks like, notwithstanding these various democratic efforts, uh the
Speaker 1: the governor's race and the center race should both go
Speaker 1: to Republicans. The machine recounts have been completed. They were
Speaker 1: doing the hand recounts today it looks like those are
Speaker 1: only going to shift numbers, you know, by the hundreds,
Speaker 1: not by the thousands. We're still waiting on the overseas
Speaker 1: absentees and military absentees. Those are going to be finalized
Speaker 1: and I think tomorrow, so we'll get final counts on
Speaker 1: Sundays when it's going to be certified. And I do
Speaker 1: think that the Senate and the governor's race are both
Speaker 1: going to go to the Republicans. But I think, you know,
Speaker 1: the big loser and all this is called Well, the
Speaker 1: Republican candidate for Agriculture Commissioner, who I'm pretty sure should
Speaker 1: have won. Um, he stands to be a loser right
Speaker 1: now because when they were farming those votes in Broward
Speaker 1: in secret for a few days, UM, that slipped the
Speaker 1: outcome of that race before they were able to put
Speaker 1: a stop to it. And he actually has an ongoing
Speaker 1: lawsuit in state court in Broward County. It's called Well
Speaker 1: versus Snipes. A former Senator, George Lemieux is his lawyer
Speaker 1: in that case. And and they say, I watched I
Speaker 1: watched some of the video of this case from yesterday.
Speaker 1: They say they've already identified over six thousand ballots that
Speaker 1: Broward counted that were not received until after the deadline.
Speaker 1: So I don't know if they're actually going to be
Speaker 1: able to prove that, you know, I don't know how
Speaker 1: they would prove that. So I just I mean, this
Speaker 1: is all, this is all really important and relevant information.
Speaker 1: I just want to jump in to ask you, you know,
Speaker 1: at what point is incompetence fraud and at what point
Speaker 1: is fraud cheating? I mean, you know, have we seen
Speaker 1: any places here with all this stuff in Florida where
Speaker 1: it's clearly gone from into the other because it sounds
Speaker 1: like I was like, yeah, elections are complicated. Well, it
Speaker 1: seems like there's more than just that going on. Well,
Speaker 1: the scheme, the scheme that involved doctored state forms that
Speaker 1: changed the deadline as to when people could file a
Speaker 1: cure on a defective mail in ballot. Uh, that I
Speaker 1: believe is pretty clearly criminal. And you know, they weren't
Speaker 1: able to actually implement that scheme, probably because they got
Speaker 1: sort of busted before they did. And you know, how
Speaker 1: are they going to find a judge to let them
Speaker 1: get those ballots in after the stories everywhere of what
Speaker 1: they were trying. So I don't think they're going to
Speaker 1: succeed in that scheme, but what they were trying to
Speaker 1: do with that was clearly criminal, and you know they
Speaker 1: are under federal investigation now for that. Um some of
Speaker 1: this other stuff. You know, if Broward really did count
Speaker 1: ballots that arrived after the deadline, well you know that's
Speaker 1: a pretty severe violation. We'll see if that can be
Speaker 1: proven or not. UM, But I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's a hard question of the President of the United
Speaker 1: States that he doesn't think Brenda Snipes is incompetent. He
Speaker 1: thinks she's highly competent at cheating. Well, I don't know,
Speaker 1: she seems pretty incompetent, and to me, to be honest,
Speaker 1: I mean, she's she's pretty corrupt to but she also
Speaker 1: seems to be pretty incompetent. So it's hard to say.
Speaker 1: You know, when they did the whole recount of Broward
Speaker 1: and found that it actually helped Rick Scott, that he
Speaker 1: was supposed to gain seven d seventy nine votes for it,
Speaker 1: and then they said, oh oops, we didn't submit it
Speaker 1: on time. We missed the deadline by two minutes. To me,
Speaker 1: it's pretty hard to believe that that was an accident.
Speaker 1: You know, you just assume if that had been the
Speaker 1: other way around. If Republican County did a recount that
Speaker 1: helped the Democrat and then they said, oh, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: we click send two minutes too late, no one would
Speaker 1: believe it. The media would report it as a as
Speaker 1: a as a scam and a trick. And you know,
Speaker 1: when the Democrats do it, you look at all these
Speaker 1: headlines and it's like, you know, Oopsie Broward does it again?
Speaker 1: They failed a lot of whoop sees that go in
Speaker 1: one direction. That's what I keep saying. I think Democrats, honestly, Phil,
Speaker 1: they just need to throw one of these so it
Speaker 1: doesn't look like every time this is what happens. You
Speaker 1: know that they need to just have one where the
Speaker 1: Republican with all the shenanigans, actually comes out ahead. Because
Speaker 1: I think since two thousand there have only there have
Speaker 1: been three elections that have been changed via recounts, and
Speaker 1: they've all gone to Democrats. Of course, the two thousand
Speaker 1: thanks to the Supreme Court, one for Republican. Can we
Speaker 1: ask you also about what's going on? We're speaking of
Speaker 1: Phil Kirpin, President of American Commitment, Phil Georgia another place
Speaker 1: where it's it seems to me that I get I get,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm up my eyeballs and reading about this stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, can we just make this end? It
Speaker 1: seems Stacy Abram's whole plan is I'm just not gonna
Speaker 1: stop sewing. I'm just not going to concede. Well, it's
Speaker 1: actually even past that, because um, you know, they've got
Speaker 1: certified results in every single county in the state has
Speaker 1: certified their results. She lost by over fifty four thousand votes, so,
Speaker 1: I mean it was close, but it wasn't particularly close.
Speaker 1: I mean, can you imagine if everybody lost by fifty
Speaker 1: thousand votes or less tried to contest the election and
Speaker 1: claim they didn't lose. I mean, that's that's that's an
Speaker 1: awful lot of votes. That's a real margin. That's that's
Speaker 1: real people voting against you. Yeah, right, And so, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know, the ap AP, the Associated Press is
Speaker 1: still saying they will will not call the winner yet.
Speaker 1: And even though every single county certified the results and
Speaker 1: they ran an exclusive today about her her litigation plan
Speaker 1: to demand a new election because this one was supposedly
Speaker 1: so marred by voters suppression or what have you. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's really bizarre, you know, because they had record
Speaker 1: black turnout everywhere in Georgia. I mean, her her strategy
Speaker 1: of registering more Democratic voters than anyone's ever seen and
Speaker 1: pumping turnout through the roof by sort of bashing Brian
Speaker 1: Camp and saying he was trying to suppress them. You know,
Speaker 1: it worked. The threat, you know, scaring people about suppression
Speaker 1: worked and they had massive turnout. So I don't know
Speaker 1: how you turn around after you get your massive turnout
Speaker 1: and say, actually, everything we were saying about suppression was true,
Speaker 1: and now we're going to call for a new election,
Speaker 1: which is what she's trying to do. Well, what do
Speaker 1: you what do you assess as to whether there was
Speaker 1: you know, what, what was Kemp actually kind of playing
Speaker 1: a little fast and loose or was he just let
Speaker 1: her the law all the suppression stuff. Well, I mean mhm.
Speaker 1: The big thing that the national media made a story
Speaker 1: about was this exact match provision of Georgia law that
Speaker 1: said that if you didn't have an exact match between
Speaker 1: the information they had on file uh and your voter registration,
Speaker 1: then you went into a special list you had to
Speaker 1: vote provisional um or you could bring an I D
Speaker 1: and if your i D match what they had, then
Speaker 1: you'd be able to vote a regular ballot. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't you know, if people have a problem with that,
Speaker 1: it's not really a problem with him because that was
Speaker 1: the Georgia law. I mean, you have a problem with
Speaker 1: the legislature that passed that law. But a lot of
Speaker 1: this stuff the states are sort of forced to do
Speaker 1: by federal law because of the Help America Vote Act
Speaker 1: that was put in, you know, after the Bush v.
Speaker 1: Gore stuff. There are a lot of these rules that
Speaker 1: are federal, and I kind of question also, this is
Speaker 1: a little bit strange to me. The federal judges in
Speaker 1: both Florida and Georgia required, uh required ballots to be
Speaker 1: counted even if the birth date on the ballot did
Speaker 1: not match the birth date on file. And I don't
Speaker 1: wonder how common it is for you know, states that
Speaker 1: the wrong birthdate on file for people, because I can't
Speaker 1: imagine someone actually writing their birthday wrong. I mean, everyone
Speaker 1: knows their own birthday, so a real voter is not
Speaker 1: going to write their birthday wrong. Um. I kind of
Speaker 1: need to learn a little more about why they think
Speaker 1: that that, you know, why the judges keep finding that that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's unreasonable to have to require a birthday match.
Speaker 1: But I think that I think that there was I
Speaker 1: think that there was nothing particularly egregious through out of
Speaker 1: the ordinary. In Georgia. It was probably a bad decision
Speaker 1: by Brian Kemp not to resign as Secretary of State
Speaker 1: before the election so that there wouldn't be the appearance
Speaker 1: that he's overseeing the same election that he's running in. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, the Democrats I think got a lot of
Speaker 1: uh you know, they made a lot of noise on
Speaker 1: that point, and it sort of makes sense to say, look,
Speaker 1: if you're running for the you know you and I
Speaker 1: was saying on TV. I was like, yeah, it doesn't
Speaker 1: look it doesn't look good. Whether it's right or not,
Speaker 1: it doesn't that, you know, I mean. And then right
Speaker 1: after the election he resigns and he says, Okay, now
Speaker 1: you someone else can count the votes. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't think he did himself any favors. I mean,
Speaker 1: Georgia is not a state where you know, fifty votes
Speaker 1: that we're saying. It's not that smaller Martin. But it's like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's like one percent basically, you know, Georgia
Speaker 1: and White. It's like one and one and a half
Speaker 1: percent basically that he won by Georgia. She is she
Speaker 1: actually gonna lose that we gotta go to break here
Speaker 1: in second film, but she she actually pretty much done
Speaker 1: in your opinion, Abrams, Is she gonna lose? Yeah, So,
Speaker 1: I mean they'd say it's certified and she lost. It's
Speaker 1: just a matter if she might have some you know,
Speaker 1: legal theory about something, but it's it will not succeed.
Speaker 1: I think more than anything, they're trying to keep Democrats
Speaker 1: stoked and fired up because they have a runoff in
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State race and they really want to
Speaker 1: elect a Democrat to that. All right, Phil Kirpin, President
Speaker 1: of American Commitment, Phil, great information on this man, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us on the show. All Right,
Speaker 1: have a good one, Zame. We got more coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with us. Background checks are a necessary part of
Speaker 1: the hiring process, and if you want to make sure
Speaker 1: that the people doing your background checks are not only
Speaker 1: the best in the business, but also all based here
Speaker 1: in the States, all American made and operated. That's Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Okay. Global Verification Network is the only dual
Speaker 1: certified and veteran owned background investigation and vetting company out there.
Speaker 1: So whatever size company you run or are working with
Speaker 1: right now, small company all the way up through a
Speaker 1: fortune one hundred called Global Verification, and say look, I
Speaker 1: want to set up with you to be my background investigator.
Speaker 1: It's not hard to do and you'll be so happy
Speaker 1: you did. Call eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: seven nine. That's eight seven seven six nine five one
Speaker 1: one seven nine. Tell Global Verification that Bucks Sexton sentius.
Speaker 1: They'll know you're part of team buck or if you
Speaker 1: wanted to do this online my GVN dot com again,
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com. You almost couldn't make it up
Speaker 1: if you were writing a novel. This is the second
Speaker 1: time him that Broward County has been a total disaster,
Speaker 1: and every time you turn around there's something weird going on.
Speaker 1: I mean, how do you I almost feel sad for him.
Speaker 1: How do you miss a deadline by two minutes? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you mess with by two hours for five hours,
Speaker 1: but two minutes. So the whole thing is a fiasco.
Speaker 1: In those three counties, there's just consistently a mess, and
Speaker 1: I hope that the new governor and the new Attorney
Speaker 1: General are going to take steps, along with the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State to clean it up before the presidential election
Speaker 1: in two thousand twenty. There's been so many egregious acts
Speaker 1: out of Broward County. I wanted to be here for
Speaker 1: the handry account today. It's going well today, but we've
Speaker 1: had to bring in tons of attorneys and be here
Speaker 1: to make sure that we could oversee this process that
Speaker 1: it was done fairly. It's not just that Democrats have
Speaker 1: done things in Florida and in Georgia that are unseemly.
Speaker 1: It's not just the Democrats have taken actions that are
Speaker 1: in violation and Florida and violation of state law. When
Speaker 1: I say violation of law, right, it doesn't it's not
Speaker 1: a criminal statute necessarily. But they've they have not done
Speaker 1: what they're supposed to do. There there's you know, the
Speaker 1: government has or rather the election body such as it
Speaker 1: is in Broward County, has failed its responsibilities. But you
Speaker 1: have to remember that they also would be okay with cheating.
Speaker 1: And I don't I don't say that just to get
Speaker 1: a rise out of people. I don't say that they
Speaker 1: don't care and and there's a very important reason for that.
Speaker 1: They have told themselves, this is why their narratives matter
Speaker 1: so much. They've told themselves that the election was stolen.
Speaker 1: So if you really believe the election was stolen, would
Speaker 1: you mind? I mean, how many Democrats that you know
Speaker 1: would be really upset if they found out that there
Speaker 1: was actual, active cheating going on in Florida to try
Speaker 1: to give you know, Gill him the governor's mansion and
Speaker 1: try to give the that that Senate seat to Nelson
Speaker 1: over the Santa I mean, how many people are over
Speaker 1: um Scott. How many people do you think that you
Speaker 1: know that our Democrats would be really would be upset
Speaker 1: if they found out there was cheating and that the
Speaker 1: cheating help the Democrat win. I know very few Democrats,
Speaker 1: you know why because they think it's evening the score.
Speaker 1: This is why these lingering delusions that Democrats have about
Speaker 1: things like election was stolen, the oh the two thousand
Speaker 1: election was stolen. They think to presidential elections were stolen. Well,
Speaker 1: if you're operating in that world, if if that is
Speaker 1: your mentality, as it is for mainstream Democrats across the country,
Speaker 1: not all of them, but a lot of them. I
Speaker 1: mean to say that if you walk into a room
Speaker 1: full of Democrats and say Trump still the election, I
Speaker 1: promise you not a single person and there will say
Speaker 1: that's just that's terrible. You can't so that. In fact,
Speaker 1: I guess about check their heads, Oh yeah, he stole it.
Speaker 1: If you watch the HBO movie you know, recount from
Speaker 1: the two thousand election, somehow the Democrats who were clearly
Speaker 1: trying to cheat. We're the good guys, and that's what
Speaker 1: people really believe. The Supreme Court handed Bush that election,
Speaker 1: that's what they believe. Every recount that was done Bush one,
Speaker 1: but somehow Bush was the bad guy. This is why
Speaker 1: they're their lore. Really, Democrat mythology is so important because
Speaker 1: it creates an environment where, you know, they feel pretty
Speaker 1: okay with cheating. They feel like they feel like it's justice.
Speaker 1: You know, you could almost feel, you could almost call
Speaker 1: what the Democrats are doing these elections redistributive electoral justice.
Speaker 1: You know, you guys cheated in two thousand, you guys
Speaker 1: meeting the Republicans. We gotta cheat a little bit, now,
Speaker 1: you know we got we gotta we gotta spread the
Speaker 1: cheating around. That's there. That's how they view this. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you, Ah, Yes, the caravan, the border, board, of security, immigration,
Speaker 1: these are all things that we continue to talk about
Speaker 1: because we do not have resolution here, my friends. None
Speaker 1: of these problems have been solved, and in fact, I
Speaker 1: think they are getting worse. We are joined now by
Speaker 1: an expert in these matters, marcret Corey, and he's the
Speaker 1: executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, Mark Great
Speaker 1: to have you back on the program. Glad to be here.
Speaker 1: Thanks all right for first let's talk caravans, because because
Speaker 1: I was here in you know, right after the election
Speaker 1: last week at beginning this week, oh, no one talks
Speaker 1: about the caravan anymore. And then whoa, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: the caravan, at least part of the caravan is at
Speaker 1: the border. Uh, should we expect that that a good
Speaker 1: contingent of the several thousand or so that we're part
Speaker 1: of that initial caravan, we'll get to the border. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, aren't people showing up to the border
Speaker 1: illegally every day anyway? Yeah? Exactly. I mean there's two
Speaker 1: questions there, and the answer is, yet substantial portion of
Speaker 1: the people in that caravan are going to make it
Speaker 1: to the border. Some of them won't. Some of them
Speaker 1: will just stay in Mexico and it has an asylum
Speaker 1: system and they may figure, Okay, that's just easier. Some
Speaker 1: of them have given up and gone home. But the
Speaker 1: last caravan, the one in the spring that was smaller
Speaker 1: than this but was the first one that really got attention,
Speaker 1: that started out of people, and five hundred of them
Speaker 1: made it to the border. So if you figure this
Speaker 1: caravan was, you know, seven thousand. If it's something similar
Speaker 1: the you know those share that get here, you know,
Speaker 1: could be two thousand or something like that. I mean,
Speaker 1: we don't know, but yeah, a substantial number are going
Speaker 1: to make it to the California border. And the issue
Speaker 1: here about about asylum and asylum seekers, nothing has really
Speaker 1: changed your other. I mean, the administration has said, and
Speaker 1: Jeff's sessions that d o J has pushed that you
Speaker 1: can't you can't just be fleeing domestic violence, right. I
Speaker 1: mean there's some things now that they're saying, all right,
Speaker 1: well you're that's not a valid asylum claim. But they're
Speaker 1: being told I mean I had a friend on a
Speaker 1: few days ago who's down with the caravan, and he
Speaker 1: says they're organizers and there are essentially workshops where these
Speaker 1: people are being told this is what you say to
Speaker 1: get into the country. I mean, how is this not
Speaker 1: an obvious scam at this point, Mark, I mean, what's
Speaker 1: the argument in favor of just letting anybody who claims
Speaker 1: to be from Central America, claims to be fleeing violence,
Speaker 1: to jump the asylum process. Yeah, of course it's a scam.
Speaker 1: I mean if they're using asylum as a kind of ruse,
Speaker 1: a trick to get into the United States, because once
Speaker 1: they get past the border patrol um, they're basically home free.
Speaker 1: Because what they do is it's not so much that
Speaker 1: they're sneaking across the border and then asking for asylum.
Speaker 1: Some people do that, but the large bulk of people
Speaker 1: who do this just wait in line the inspection points,
Speaker 1: you know, the port of entry is the technical term
Speaker 1: for it. When they get to the head of line,
Speaker 1: there's our immigration inspector and they say, you know, I
Speaker 1: fear going back to my home country, or I um,
Speaker 1: I have fear persecution in my home country. Again, like
Speaker 1: you said, they're coached on this. They have seminars on
Speaker 1: what are the things they're supposed to say, what not
Speaker 1: to say, and then they have an initial interview. And
Speaker 1: the law requires this. This is one of the problems.
Speaker 1: It's called a credible fear interview. And what that basically
Speaker 1: means is they you know, I mean, the only way
Speaker 1: you fail that is if you say, you know, Mickey
Speaker 1: Mouse is communicating through my dental work, you know, that
Speaker 1: sort of thing. Any other plausible story you can make up,
Speaker 1: you pass that first hurdle. And that doesn't mean you
Speaker 1: apply for asylum. It means they let you into the country,
Speaker 1: they give you, you know, a court date, and then
Speaker 1: they drop you off at the bus station. Uh. Sometimes
Speaker 1: they give you a goodie bag, uh, and then let
Speaker 1: you go. Half of those people who are let go
Speaker 1: with the understanding that they will apply for asylum, half
Speaker 1: of them never even bother to apply. The whole thing
Speaker 1: was a scam, and they know it's a scam. The
Speaker 1: other half also, it's a scam for most of them
Speaker 1: because very few of them get asylum, but they'll go
Speaker 1: to a few hearings in order to actually get a
Speaker 1: work permit, because if your asylum claim stretches out more
Speaker 1: than six months, you get a work permit and a
Speaker 1: social Security number, and then after that you cannot show
Speaker 1: up anymore. You know. It's that's I mean, it's just
Speaker 1: the whole thing is absurd. It's scams. These are scams.
Speaker 1: I mean, I you know, these are straight up scams,
Speaker 1: and everybody listening, I think knows that. And it's never
Speaker 1: talked about this way. It's always, oh, there are asylum
Speaker 1: seekers in most of the media, but as you know,
Speaker 1: and I know, these are scams. Uh, how do we
Speaker 1: fix this, though, Mark, I mean, how does this get
Speaker 1: changed in a way that matters? Unfortunately, Chuck Schumer is
Speaker 1: the only way it's gonna get changed, by which I mean,
Speaker 1: Congress has to act, and the Republicans have uh introduced
Speaker 1: a number of measures that would plug some of these loopholes.
Speaker 1: The problem is the Democrats won't vote for them, and
Speaker 1: starting in January when they have one, when they also
Speaker 1: have the House, They're simply not gonna there's literally not
Speaker 1: going to be any possibility of keeping an effectively unlimited
Speaker 1: number of Central Americans from coming into the country. I mean,
Speaker 1: the Democrats refuse to take the steps necessary to plug
Speaker 1: these loopholes. I've been saying to some of the Democrats
Speaker 1: that I debate on this, Mark that under the standard,
Speaker 1: and I've spoken to both the current and former ICE
Speaker 1: Director and and Border Patrol director about this issue, and
Speaker 1: I didn't get to ask them this, but I've been
Speaker 1: I've been putting this out there, one of your take
Speaker 1: under the current standard, if they say the right things,
Speaker 1: all seven or so million Hondurans can get asylum basically
Speaker 1: or not so much. They may not get asylum in
Speaker 1: these I'm sorry. I'm sorry they could show up and
Speaker 1: claim asylum and get in the country, is what I
Speaker 1: meant to say. Probably, you know, I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: nothing's ever perfect. Maybe there're only but I mean it's absurd.
Speaker 1: You know, it really is a completely ridiculous situation. The
Speaker 1: whole asylum system was never designed for this kind of assault.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is this really is um. It's
Speaker 1: not just Congress as fault, but it is the Obama
Speaker 1: administration's fault as well. They basically got this going. They
Speaker 1: sort of primed the pump by UM letting people who
Speaker 1: were you know, Central Americans, especially if they had kids
Speaker 1: with them or if they were kids smuggled on their
Speaker 1: own up here. Uh, they let them in, no questions asked. Really,
Speaker 1: and that the word got back. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: travels on the Grapevine. In fact, even back I sent
Speaker 1: one of my UM team down there. Guy speaks Spanish,
Speaker 1: journalist at Politzer Prize winner, in fact, has lived in Mexico.
Speaker 1: He was talking to people at the McCallan, Texas bus station,
Speaker 1: which is where the border Patrol drops a lot of
Speaker 1: these people off if they crossed in that area. And
Speaker 1: the woman from Guatemala with her kids. She she came
Speaker 1: with a friend who brought her kids. They said, yeah,
Speaker 1: we were back in Guatemala and we were We saw
Speaker 1: it on CNN that if you brought your kid, they'd
Speaker 1: let you go. And then we heard that somebody in
Speaker 1: our town did it, and they got and they did it,
Speaker 1: they got away with it, and so we figured he
Speaker 1: was worth to try. So that's why we're here. Wow, Mark,
Speaker 1: I gotta ask you. We're speaking to market Corey and
Speaker 1: executive director the Center of Immigration Studies. How is the
Speaker 1: Trump administration really done on the border, because this was
Speaker 1: a lot of promises. Obviously the wall probably the most
Speaker 1: notable one in terms of what people remember what was chanted.
Speaker 1: But it feels look, it feels like very little of
Speaker 1: substance has been done. But maybe I'm just and cynical.
Speaker 1: You'd tell me there's a lot. There's been a lot
Speaker 1: of small improvements, even some big improvements in the sense
Speaker 1: that ice and border patrol now are allowed to do
Speaker 1: their jobs in a way that they really weren't under
Speaker 1: Obama or they had to apologize for it and look
Speaker 1: over their shoulder. But the real challenge now with the
Speaker 1: border is not something the wall could fix even if
Speaker 1: Congress gave the president money for it. The problem is
Speaker 1: this asylum issue, and the president can't really fix that.
Speaker 1: There are some things he can try to do to
Speaker 1: tighten up. They've done some stuff. There's really not that
Speaker 1: much more they can do. And the President, rather than
Speaker 1: boasting that, you know, these people will not be allowed in,
Speaker 1: you know, I'll make sure that the caravan doesn't get in,
Speaker 1: he needed to be saying from day one, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I don't really have the power to keep these people out.
Speaker 1: You need to call Chuck Humor. The Senate Democrats have
Speaker 1: filibuster the changes necessary, and it's their fault. And every
Speaker 1: single one of these people getting in is getting in
Speaker 1: because of Chuck Schumer and he should be down there
Speaker 1: every day, Uh, you know, hammering Congress to do something
Speaker 1: about this because they cannot be let off the hook.
Speaker 1: This is their responsibility and their fault. And the President
Speaker 1: by saying, you know, I'll be able to stop this,
Speaker 1: is giving people the impression that he has the authority
Speaker 1: to stop it, and then they're going to be disappointed
Speaker 1: when he can't. Yeah. Absolutely, Look, Mark, thank you for
Speaker 1: all your work on this. As always I'm getting pretty
Speaker 1: frustrated with the state of things, uh with with this
Speaker 1: administration in the border right now, but you know we'll
Speaker 1: stay on it. Cee I s dot Org right for
Speaker 1: all the latest. You guys are doing a Center for
Speaker 1: Immigration studies. Yep, we got a blog every day and
Speaker 1: all our pubs and for people who like snark and sarcasm,
Speaker 1: I'm on Twitter at Mark s as In, Stephen Mark
Speaker 1: s pricorim alright, Mark, thanks so much, team, We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Are you aware of the perception of many
Speaker 1: about how the power and the discretion at ice is
Speaker 1: being used to enforce the laws? And do you see
Speaker 1: any parallels. I do not see any parallels between I'm
Speaker 1: talking about pipers and agents. I'm talking about perception. I
Speaker 1: do not see a parallel between what is constitutionally mandated
Speaker 1: as as it relates to forcing the law. Are you
Speaker 1: aware that there's a perception. Are you aware that there's
Speaker 1: a perception in the same category as the KKK? Is
Speaker 1: that what you're asking me? No, I'm very specific about
Speaker 1: what I'm asking. Are you aware of a perception? Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is deeply unimpressive to me. I mean, even as
Speaker 1: somebody that I disagree with on everything. I just everything
Speaker 1: that she says, everything that she doesn't like, she's just
Speaker 1: it's she's just be team, maybe even c team. And
Speaker 1: that was a complete outrage that whole situation there. So
Speaker 1: she was and look, she's a likely contender for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: as you know, already being talked about as oh Kamala
Speaker 1: I was gonna run. She was comparing in that clip
Speaker 1: on a hearing on Capitol Hill U s Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement to the ku klux Klan the k k K.
Speaker 1: During that hearing, she was asking Ronald Vitiello, the man
Speaker 1: at President Trump is hoping will lead ICE, whether he
Speaker 1: shares the whether he is aware of the perception that
Speaker 1: ICE is similar to the KKK. So this is such
Speaker 1: a slimy Democrat construction of the issue, right, this is
Speaker 1: so underheaded, so grotesque. What they're really doing is saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we Democrats, who, by the way, last summer, we're chanting
Speaker 1: about the need to abolish ice, Abolish ice, abolish I
Speaker 1: remember those chants that sounded just like that. We Democrats
Speaker 1: created that whole movement of abolished ice because of what
Speaker 1: was going on at the border. We Democrats created this
Speaker 1: ground swell of antipathy, of of disdain, of hatred for
Speaker 1: immigrations and customs enforcement because it serves their political needs,
Speaker 1: because because immigration and more specifically racial agitation. Because remember,
Speaker 1: whenever they're talking about immigration, they're really only talking about
Speaker 1: immigration from south of our border. I mean that they
Speaker 1: don't Democrats don't spend a lot of time on immigration
Speaker 1: from the rest of the world. They're really just concerned
Speaker 1: with immigration from south of the border, and they view
Speaker 1: any effort to make that immigration orderly and legal as racist.
Speaker 1: That's what they're always saying. It's about the quote, you know,
Speaker 1: it's about the quote administration, the Trump administrations not liking
Speaker 1: brown people, right, that's what they always say, and Trump
Speaker 1: supporters not liking brown people, which is a hideous slur,
Speaker 1: but that is what they do. That's that's the storyline.
Speaker 1: But Kamala Harris here is asking him. So basically, we've
Speaker 1: we've created that. Have you heard this rumor that ICE
Speaker 1: is as bad as the KKK KKK, which was responsible,
Speaker 1: as you know, for horrific lynching and mutilation of black
Speaker 1: Americans also people, I forget. KKK was very anti Semitic,
Speaker 1: anti Jewish attack Jews, very anti Catholic as well, but
Speaker 1: primarily and predominantly opposed to and you know, viciously targeted
Speaker 1: African Americans. And oh, by the way, they're Democrats, right,
Speaker 1: the KKK were Democrats. That always gets left out of
Speaker 1: this conversation somehow. But who who what was the part
Speaker 1: of the KKK? Oh, that's write democrats. What was the
Speaker 1: party of of slavery in the South, Let's write democrats?
Speaker 1: What was the party of segregation? And Jim Crow, Oh,
Speaker 1: my gosh, who could have guessed Democrats? And now they're
Speaker 1: now they're the the heroes of of the of the
Speaker 1: story when it comes to minority rights, at least in
Speaker 1: their own telling of it. It's an amazing It's an
Speaker 1: amazing turnabout, isn't it. Well, that's that is where we
Speaker 1: are now. Um I would just note that what Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris does here is is similar to say, it's similar
Speaker 1: to if you were the person in high school that
Speaker 1: was responsible for spreading a rumor and then you went
Speaker 1: up to the and it was a really terrible, nasty
Speaker 1: rumor that was meant to you know, hurt someone's reputation
Speaker 1: and and then you went up to them and I'm
Speaker 1: just like, well, I just want to know, do you
Speaker 1: know about that rumor? Do you know about that that's
Speaker 1: basically Kamala Harris is doing. Do you know about the
Speaker 1: perception created by Democrats that ICE operated away some of
Speaker 1: the k A. By the way, this is a stupid
Speaker 1: thing to say. Anyone who let me just go and
Speaker 1: look for that. Anyone who believes that Immigration and Customs
Speaker 1: Enforcement is similar to a racist paramilitary organization that was
Speaker 1: ascended predominantly around what the nineteen twenties into the nineteen thirties,
Speaker 1: forties and fifties. Uh. Anyone who believes that though that
Speaker 1: the k k K is in any way similar to
Speaker 1: ICE is a moron is a moron. Do you know
Speaker 1: that there's a large percentage of veterans who work for ICE.
Speaker 1: I think it's about twenty of ICE employees are actually veterans.
Speaker 1: So that that doesn't get brought up enough because they're
Speaker 1: trashing Democrats are actually trashing veterans who are now serving
Speaker 1: their country in another way. Um, So that that's one
Speaker 1: part of this. And then also you know there's ICE
Speaker 1: has a diverse makeup and there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people in ICE who are of uh Latino or other
Speaker 1: minority extraction themselves. Right, So this idea that the KKK though,
Speaker 1: and this is a stupid point, but come out Harris
Speaker 1: uh pushes it because trashing ICE is good politics for Democrats,
Speaker 1: but it's we're taking a step back from it. What
Speaker 1: does that say about the Democratic Party that a a
Speaker 1: completely legitimate and necessary law enforcement agency is something they're
Speaker 1: willing to They're willing throw in the bus. Meanwhile, the FBI,
Speaker 1: which did at the top level engage in a complete
Speaker 1: abuse of power to try to stop Trump from being
Speaker 1: president the whole and the and the c I a
Speaker 1: my former agency, right that group of international nerds. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, they they did stuff that was egregious and
Speaker 1: the and the Democrats will go, oh my gosh, they're
Speaker 1: serving our country, the FBI and CIA. How dare you
Speaker 1: only now? I mean that they'll trash the FBI and
Speaker 1: c I at the first side. And that's the thing
Speaker 1: with Democrats where they're talking about ICE or anything else.
Speaker 1: They have no consistent principles. They only like lawn for
Speaker 1: worsenon when it suits them. They trash law enforcement when
Speaker 1: it doesn't. And Senator Harris. It's just a perfect example
Speaker 1: of this. You've probably heard me talk about snippy dot
Speaker 1: com a little bit, which is a new social media site. Well,
Speaker 1: if you've looked at snippy dot com and left, I'm
Speaker 1: telling you you've got to go back and look again.
Speaker 1: Thousands of my listeners have joint snippy dot com and
Speaker 1: now they're expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations.
Speaker 1: Snippy is an unbiased social media platformat's all about conversation
Speaker 1: and community. Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but
Speaker 1: guarantees its users the ability to discuss topics freely without
Speaker 1: suppression from administrators. Snippy is a place where everyone is
Speaker 1: free to express their thoughts and share their opinions. It
Speaker 1: is totally free to join, open to everyone, and unlike Facebook,
Speaker 1: they're not hiring APO firms to check out what's going
Speaker 1: on with senators and trying to smear their arrivals these days, folks.
Speaker 1: So trust me, Snippy dot com is a place you
Speaker 1: should check out. Let your opinion matter, no shadow bedding,
Speaker 1: no suppression of conservative thought ever. Now with an updated
Speaker 1: user interface and exciting new features, also filmed on the
Speaker 1: Apple App Store, and available for Android. Snippy, your new
Speaker 1: alternative social media is agitated about which TV I'm not
Speaker 1: agitated to. The whole thing is a hocus. There was
Speaker 1: no collusion, No, not at all. No, I'm very happy.
Speaker 1: I'm very happy with the White House. I'm extremely happy
Speaker 1: with our country. We're doing better when the economy. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's the best economy we've ever had. They may be
Speaker 1: the best unemployment numbers and employment numbers that we've ever had.
Speaker 1: There are more people working in the United States right
Speaker 1: now at this moment that have ever worked in the
Speaker 1: United States by by far, by far. I'm extremely happy.
Speaker 1: I'm very happy with almost all of my cabinet. And
Speaker 1: you know, changesn't made because they're always made, especially after
Speaker 1: mid terms. But it's all fake news. It's all fake news, folks.
Speaker 1: This whole Maller probe things garbage, absolute garbage. And the journalists,
Speaker 1: the people who have been pushing this so hard, they
Speaker 1: should honestly be embarrassed. They should, they should receive a
Speaker 1: real repudiation from the general public for their work on
Speaker 1: this issue. But they won't because the Malla probe all
Speaker 1: along has been about one thing and one thing only,
Speaker 1: just hashtag resistance, stop Trump, hurt Trump. Many many powerful
Speaker 1: people have decided that this was the this was the
Speaker 1: path to do it, and the whole thing. It's just
Speaker 1: it's just hurt the country. By the way, we've learned
Speaker 1: these people who took it, Oh it's about election security
Speaker 1: and stopping the Russians. That that was all. That was
Speaker 1: all nonsense. We're not stopping the road. You can't stop
Speaker 1: the Russians from doing that. Facebook, by the way, you
Speaker 1: trust Facebook now, Oh yeah, we're gonna trust Facebook to
Speaker 1: be the ones that are policing this stuff. Good luck
Speaker 1: with that. I think. I think with the news of
Speaker 1: the day, news for this week, we're all a little
Speaker 1: more aware of Oh maybe Facebook operates like a very
Speaker 1: self interested private corporation with way too much power. And
Speaker 1: it's not just some like oh gee, like we're just
Speaker 1: a Silicon Valley companies started by some college kids that
Speaker 1: you know, it's just been so successful. It's not that simple.
Speaker 1: It's not that simple at all. In fact, Facebook has
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of power as a media platform. It
Speaker 1: is not a utility. It does not act like a utility.
Speaker 1: It does not see itself as a utility. We all
Speaker 1: have to remember that. You know, Trump was was going
Speaker 1: after them a little bit on Twitter, which I I
Speaker 1: can appreciate. I was this was yesterday when I was
Speaker 1: in I was in Springfield, but I saw these tweets.
Speaker 1: Here's what he wrote. The inner workings of the Muller
Speaker 1: investigation are a total mess. They have found no collusion
Speaker 1: and Canna have gone absolutely nuts. They're screaming and shouting
Speaker 1: at people horribly, threatening them to come up with answers
Speaker 1: they want. They are a disgrace to our nation and
Speaker 1: don't care how many lives they him. This is from
Speaker 1: Trump himself, Folks. These are angry people, including the highly
Speaker 1: conflicted Bob Muller who worked for Obama for eight years.
Speaker 1: They won't even look at all the bad acts and
Speaker 1: crimes on the other side. A total witch hunt like
Speaker 1: no other in American history. All caps on those universities
Speaker 1: will someday study what highly conflicted and not Senate approved
Speaker 1: Bob Muller and his gang of Democrat thugs have done
Speaker 1: to destroy people. Why is he protecting crooked Hillary Comey McCabe,
Speaker 1: Lisa Page and her lover Peter Struck and all of
Speaker 1: his friends on the other side. The only collusion is
Speaker 1: that of the Democrats and many others. Why didn't the
Speaker 1: FBI take the server from the d n C. They
Speaker 1: still don't have it. Check Out how biased Facebook, Google,
Speaker 1: and Twitter are in favor of the Democrats. That's the
Speaker 1: real collusion. You know. The President, I like when he
Speaker 1: lets it ripped like this. I like when he decides that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's time to take the gloves off
Speaker 1: a little bit and and let people know what's what's
Speaker 1: really going on, what's really on his mind too. And
Speaker 1: I know he does it on a regular basis. I'm
Speaker 1: just saying I like it. I like it. Meanwhile, you got,
Speaker 1: you know, on the on the other side, Schilmer, track Schumer.
Speaker 1: He's out there and he's saying that they should pass legislation.
Speaker 1: You want to talk about a constitutional crisis. Now the
Speaker 1: Congress thinks they get to dictate what the executive branch
Speaker 1: does within its discretion. Play play the Schumer clip, please.
Speaker 1: We should pass legislation now in the Lame Duck to
Speaker 1: protect the Special Counsel's investigation from the President and from
Speaker 1: his woefully unqualified henchman, Mr. Whittaker. Woefully unqualified. This guy
Speaker 1: has been d O j Attorney general, chief of staff,
Speaker 1: has been a U. S. Attorney for a state, and
Speaker 1: he's woefully unqualified. Democrats and they just make it all
Speaker 1: up as they go along. That doesn't really matter. I'll
Speaker 1: just say what they'll say, whatever they have to say.
Speaker 1: In the moment, you get the intended political effect, the
Speaker 1: intended impact on their base for their base, that's that's
Speaker 1: the game that they play. That's what they are up to.
Speaker 1: And the whole thing is absolutely preposterous. But you got
Speaker 1: these questions, and so this is the big looming thing
Speaker 1: right now. You have these questions that originally they thought
Speaker 1: maybe Mueller was gonna try and force the president under oath,
Speaker 1: essentially forced the president into a perjury trap, and that
Speaker 1: was the ideal. That's been the idea along. And now
Speaker 1: you've got written answers coming along. And Trump got quite
Speaker 1: a bit of attention because he spoke about this. Is
Speaker 1: when when he's asked about the written answers that he's
Speaker 1: going to give to the Mueller probe, here's what the
Speaker 1: President says, play clif nine lawyer. Yeah, my lawyers aren't
Speaker 1: working on that. I'm working at that. I write an answers.
Speaker 1: My lawyers write answers. I write answers. I was asked
Speaker 1: a serious of questions. I've answered them very easily, very easily.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're tricked up because you know, they like
Speaker 1: to catch people. G you know, was the weather sunny
Speaker 1: or was it rainy? He said it may have been
Speaker 1: a good day, it was rainy. Therefore he told a lie.
Speaker 1: He perjured himself. Okay, so, uh, you have to always
Speaker 1: be careful when you answer questions with people that probably
Speaker 1: have bad intentions. But um no, it's uh, the questions
Speaker 1: were very routinely answered by me, by me me the
Speaker 1: special thing, and you you submitted. I haven't submitted him yet.
Speaker 1: We just I just finished him. As you know, I've
Speaker 1: been a little bit busy. He has been a little busy.
Speaker 1: Bres In tends to be busy. But they're they're making
Speaker 1: a big deal of this too with the questions. Uh,
Speaker 1: they're they're saying that you know, he's you know, he's
Speaker 1: lying about answering the questions. They just can't they just
Speaker 1: can't let it go. My friends, they won't. They won't
Speaker 1: let it go. Oh. They they're very disappointed by the
Speaker 1: press corps. They're very disappointed that Mueller is not forcing
Speaker 1: a real constitutional crisis and a showdown by sitting down
Speaker 1: with the president trying to get him in a perjury trap,
Speaker 1: because that's the only way they're gonna get him. I
Speaker 1: I repeat, I know I've said this too so many times,
Speaker 1: but Russian collusion is a dumb idea. Even if somebody
Speaker 1: was willing to do it, it's not even a smart plan.
Speaker 1: Never mind all the risks and all the stuff that comes.
Speaker 1: It's not even something that Russian collusion was such a
Speaker 1: threat to our election integrity that while this so called
Speaker 1: collusion was going on, the people were looking at it.
Speaker 1: Everybody was a suvier. Hillary was gonna win. It was
Speaker 1: only a problem when she lost. Don't lose sight of that.
Speaker 1: This was this was a nothing burger, and they knew
Speaker 1: it was a nothing burger till every lost. You see
Speaker 1: the same mentality in Florida. You see the same mentality
Speaker 1: in Georgia. They can't accept reality. There's always an excuse
Speaker 1: for they didn't get their way, always an excuse for
Speaker 1: why they didn't win every single time. So that's what's
Speaker 1: going on with the smaller problem. I hope it ends soon.
Speaker 1: I hope it ends before Christmas. But I think it's
Speaker 1: going to extend pretty deep in the next year. It's
Speaker 1: just a shame. It's a shame. But the good thing
Speaker 1: is Trump's a brawler and he's gonna come out on
Speaker 1: top of this. When you watch it's so easy for
Speaker 1: hackers to get your information. All it takes is one
Speaker 1: little slip up on your end, My friend, they get
Speaker 1: all your stuff. If you're using public WiFi, who knows
Speaker 1: what the security protocols are in place? And never mind
Speaker 1: if you travel a lot, you really want to be
Speaker 1: protected because you've got important financial information, personal information, all
Speaker 1: that going over your phone, your laptop. Use Express VPN.
Speaker 1: A VPN is a virtual private network. Think of this
Speaker 1: like a security system for your computer or smartphone, and
Speaker 1: Express VPN is the best in the business. If you
Speaker 1: want to keep hackers and spies from seeing your data,
Speaker 1: you need Express VPN. So protect your online activity today
Speaker 1: and find out how you can get three months free
Speaker 1: at Express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express vpn
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for three months free with a
Speaker 1: one year package. Is it Express vpn dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck To learn more. Seam one of the trends that
Speaker 1: I've noticed takular the last couple of years. Is that
Speaker 1: the stuff that we used to say during the Obama era,
Speaker 1: early on in the Obama era, the stuff that we
Speaker 1: used to bring up as this is what they want
Speaker 1: to do, this is where this is going. We always
Speaker 1: end up being right and they say, oh no, no,
Speaker 1: and the left, the Democrats, they claimed that's a strong man.
Speaker 1: That's not a real thing. They're not gonna we would
Speaker 1: never do that. And then you fast forward a couple
Speaker 1: of years, maybe three or four years, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, oh yeah, I know they want to do
Speaker 1: that thing. That thing that we used to illustrate how
Speaker 1: state is or authoritarian or destructive of their argument is
Speaker 1: that that thing that we're all concerned, they want to
Speaker 1: do that thing. And then we're supposed to pretend like
Speaker 1: we didn't see this coming and that we don't believe
Speaker 1: that we can tell the next step right, because it's
Speaker 1: one when when you keep getting it right, because remember,
Speaker 1: it's not really so much about predicting the future as
Speaker 1: about assessing the trajectory. That's a different thing. You know,
Speaker 1: if I see a car that's driving down the road
Speaker 1: and I say, well, you know, I think that car
Speaker 1: is going to be approximate. If it's going sixty miles
Speaker 1: an hour, it's going to be a mile ahead in
Speaker 1: one minute. You know, I'm just taking a pretty good
Speaker 1: educated guess on how things are going, and the same
Speaker 1: things to a progressives. You can't tell everything they're gonna do,
Speaker 1: and we can't tell the future in general, but you know,
Speaker 1: the overall direct and something's moving, kind of like how
Speaker 1: even the smartest people that I know, for the most part,
Speaker 1: in the stock market, they can tell you where they
Speaker 1: whether they think an investment will work, but they generally
Speaker 1: can't tell you in exactly what time frame. That's very,
Speaker 1: very hard to do. We can tell where Democrats are
Speaker 1: going with stuff, whether it's on transgender rights, it's on healthcare.
Speaker 1: Oh my god, it used to be um that they
Speaker 1: would never push for single payer. Oh no, remember earlier
Speaker 1: two thousand nine, that's a strong man argument. Obama didn't
Speaker 1: want single pair of healthcare, and now our's now they're saying,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, no, single pair, that's that sounds cool. We
Speaker 1: like single pair, and many of us, myself included in
Speaker 1: two thousand and ten and eleven and twelve, well not ten,
Speaker 1: because I was told in government but eleven and twelve
Speaker 1: and we're saying this is all heading a single pair.
Speaker 1: Obamacare is not that good. There's actually some interesting new
Speaker 1: studies that show that, yes, some people benefit, but most
Speaker 1: of the people affected by Obamacare get kind of screwed
Speaker 1: by it. So it's a bad law on balance, is bad. Um,
Speaker 1: But we've been saying for a while that it's heading
Speaker 1: toward a single party, and sure enough, now that's what
Speaker 1: they're pushing for. We've been saying for a while they
Speaker 1: want to give illegals, uh, not just in state tuition
Speaker 1: and driver's license, which now they're doing, but also Obamacare
Speaker 1: access for illegal aliens, which which was a part of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. So so we can usually tell where this
Speaker 1: stuff is going. And then with transgender rights, as you know, oh,
Speaker 1: we would never we would never tell twelve year old
Speaker 1: you know, girls, they have to shower with the twelve
Speaker 1: year old boy in school. We would never. Oh no,
Speaker 1: they are doing that. Now they are doing that. And
Speaker 1: we would never encourage people who are miners who are
Speaker 1: still adolescents to get a you know, sex change. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know medicine started for hormones. Oh no, they are
Speaker 1: doing that. They in fact to push for these things. Well,
Speaker 1: guns is another place where one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: the debate over guns breaks down so quickly, and there
Speaker 1: are many of them, um and and in recent years
Speaker 1: at least, the left is finally figured out that they
Speaker 1: can't just keep trying to put these people forward as
Speaker 1: anti gun spokespersons who know nothing about guns or gun laws.
Speaker 1: They're they're just now they still do it sometimes. I mean,
Speaker 1: you'll see things written by David Hogg, who is now
Speaker 1: an activist. He's no longer just somebody who you know
Speaker 1: is under eighteen or just eighteen or no, he's an activist.
Speaker 1: He's held up by the media. He's part of the
Speaker 1: public discussion. He says a lot of dumb things. Uh.
Speaker 1: But you look at what's been said for a while
Speaker 1: now in these discussions, and we always say, look, the
Speaker 1: only way you can realistically even hold these positions, you know,
Speaker 1: an assault weapon restriction, for example, is a joke. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna stop anyone from doing anything. In fact, in
Speaker 1: New York after Sandy Hook, they passed these regulations that
Speaker 1: that changed the cosmetic features of some so called assualt rifles,
Speaker 1: and now there's assault weapon and assault rifle and these
Speaker 1: can be different designations and they are sometimes legally codified.
Speaker 1: So now we do have to refer to an assault
Speaker 1: weapon or assault rifle. And you know, yeah, it gets
Speaker 1: very you know, there's a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: detail and complications on this. But what they did in
Speaker 1: New York, which brings you back to uh Cuomo, nobody
Speaker 1: needs a thousand rounds to kill a dear. No one
Speaker 1: must have a heat seeking stinger missile to shoot quail.
Speaker 1: It is not necessary for a gatling gun to be
Speaker 1: in your hands to go shoot a squirrel. Those that
Speaker 1: you might remember, You might remember that speech um back
Speaker 1: in the day. But anyway, John, do you don't know
Speaker 1: what I'm talking about? The Cuomo speech about the name
Speaker 1: you were? You were with me it was remember remember that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: nobody needs a nuclear missile in order to stop a
Speaker 1: number of these ten violets to kill a deer. There
Speaker 1: we go, Oh man, maybe the deer's moving kind of fast.
Speaker 1: Maybe that deer, you know, it took a little PCP beforehand,
Speaker 1: it's got a little extra oomph. You know that deer
Speaker 1: has been working out who knows. Anyway, the assault rifle
Speaker 1: restrictions they put in place in New York involved changing
Speaker 1: the stock and the size of the magazine, so that
Speaker 1: does nothing, and that that does not make it less lethal.
Speaker 1: It it does absolutely nothing. And and then in Connecticut,
Speaker 1: which is where Sandy Hook happened, they they they essentially
Speaker 1: outlawed unless you register different assault rifles. So that really
Speaker 1: just a R a R fifteen type rifles. Um and
Speaker 1: I know that's not even really a thing. It's a buck.
Speaker 1: There's semi on a semi o a matter hunting rifles
Speaker 1: that nothing like the A R. I know, but we can't.
Speaker 1: You know, we'll go to ammal Land and talk about
Speaker 1: this another time. Uh. But it didn't do anything and
Speaker 1: make anybody safer. We've been saying that they're gonna push
Speaker 1: for more bands because only all out bands are going
Speaker 1: to do anything, even theoretically. In reality, bands don't work either.
Speaker 1: And now here we are. The news that makes me
Speaker 1: think about, uh, think about this is that you know,
Speaker 1: you've had people like Eric Swallowell, for example, who has
Speaker 1: proposed um A is essentially just that, you know, forcing
Speaker 1: gun owners to uh, forcing gun owners to sell their firearms. Now,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you that that was back in back
Speaker 1: in May that this first came up that Swallow who's
Speaker 1: running for president by the way. Um, but you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear more about this. You're gonna hear more about the
Speaker 1: assault rifle, assault rifled bands because people are uh, you know,
Speaker 1: people are are focused in on guns as the enemy,
Speaker 1: guns as the bad guys. But we can always tell.
Speaker 1: So so there's this, there's this bright Sorry I got
Speaker 1: I got jammed up between two different pieces of This
Speaker 1: is Breitbart piece, uh that talks about how Eric Swalwell
Speaker 1: on you know, on Twitter, was talking about an assault
Speaker 1: weapons buy back program. This is this is in California,
Speaker 1: and you know that you're you're going to hear more
Speaker 1: of this. Um, you're going to hear more about about
Speaker 1: how the left wants to ban right, you know, because
Speaker 1: this is all part of what the base. But I
Speaker 1: just wish we could be more honest about it. I
Speaker 1: just wish that they would just say this all the time.
Speaker 1: We just want to ban guns. Stop saying it's about
Speaker 1: background checks. You want to ban ownership of guns. Swallowell
Speaker 1: and others want to ban ownership of guns. Swallow on Twitter,
Speaker 1: this was just oh, this is this morning. That's what
Speaker 1: came up my feed. Joe Biggs wrote Representative Swalwell. So
Speaker 1: Swallow wants a war because that's what you would get.
Speaker 1: You're out of your mind if you think I'll give
Speaker 1: up my rights and give the government all the power.
Speaker 1: Swallow'll responded to them and it would be a short war.
Speaker 1: My friend. The government has nukes, too many of them,
Speaker 1: but they're legit. I'm sure if we talked we could
Speaker 1: find common ground to protect our families and communities. And
Speaker 1: then Biggs rope back. I don't know who this guy
Speaker 1: Bigs is. So our government with nuke it's own country
Speaker 1: to take guns away? Wow? Oh to be fair. Um,
Speaker 1: So Swallow is the guy who back in May was
Speaker 1: pushing the assault weapons ban and now he's it's come
Speaker 1: up once again. This is a stupid position that these
Speaker 1: people in government take. Oh, well, the government has nukes,
Speaker 1: so a R fifteens don't mean anything. Nope, that's not
Speaker 1: how it works. Um. In fact, look at places around
Speaker 1: the world where the government has been unable to subdue
Speaker 1: an insurgency or subdue a rebellion, no matter what kind
Speaker 1: of firepower and has I mean, look at the Soviets
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan, and look at us in Afghanistan. And we're
Speaker 1: not willing to kill masses of civilians and destroy entire
Speaker 1: cities and villages the way the Sylvie It's were. But
Speaker 1: you know it's not. If you've got an armed populace,
Speaker 1: it's a very difficult thing to control. But we're heading
Speaker 1: toward more talk of just outright bands because they've lost
Speaker 1: the arguments over background checks and everything. That's just window dressing.
Speaker 1: They want to take your guns, folks, They want to
Speaker 1: take your guns. That's where this is heading. Hey, team Buck,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. Oh, team, I missed you
Speaker 1: so indeed, I was out in the home of Lincoln himself,
Speaker 1: Mr Mr Abraham Lincoln. Although if you've seen the Lincoln
Speaker 1: movie with Daniel day Lewis for sure reason he thinks
Speaker 1: Lincoln shounds like this, like why is his voice so
Speaker 1: weird and high? I never under stood that. But anyway, yeah,
Speaker 1: I was in I was in Springfield, Illinois, had a
Speaker 1: very good time. Went to Malden Nurse, which those of
Speaker 1: you who know Springfield know what I'm talking about. It
Speaker 1: probably the most most famous restaurant in Springfield. I had
Speaker 1: a burger no bun. What's up? Oh, that reminds me.
Speaker 1: I started quite a a frenzy online. John, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: need you to weigh in on this one. I like
Speaker 1: pickles when they're good. Some pickles are low quality, and
Speaker 1: pickles can be very tasty. I obviously love burgers. They
Speaker 1: are a gift from God to humanity when it comes
Speaker 1: to cuisine. I don't understand why people think that you
Speaker 1: should just put pickles on burgers. I think we need
Speaker 1: to just all finally come together and accept that pickles
Speaker 1: don't go with burgers as an addition on top of them.
Speaker 1: On the side, I'm fine with it, but when I
Speaker 1: get my burger there's already pickles on it, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I don't want pickles, John, where do you weigh in
Speaker 1: on this one? I don't mind pickles on my burger,
Speaker 1: but I just realized when I get a burger with
Speaker 1: pickles on it, I'll take the pickles off and eat
Speaker 1: them first. Of course you do, John, You're not a savage. See,
Speaker 1: That's what I'm trying to say. You brought this up,
Speaker 1: and I never realized that I was doing that until
Speaker 1: just now. Yeah. You always get You're always like, oh, pickles, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll get rid of them. Nobody really wants pickles on
Speaker 1: their burger. Some of you are saying, oh, no, Buck,
Speaker 1: I love pickles. I'm like, no, no, it's pickle propaganda.
Speaker 1: You've been lied to all these years. They forced fed
Speaker 1: you these pickles with your burger. It's like Pavlov. They've
Speaker 1: trained you. You salivate when you see the pickles on
Speaker 1: the burger, But no, you just want the burger. I
Speaker 1: got a lot, a lot of intense opinions on this one.
Speaker 1: That happened, a lot of intense opinions. All right, Catherine,
Speaker 1: First up in roll call, We're gonna do a double
Speaker 1: roll cos I missed you all very much. I didn't
Speaker 1: get a hang, although of course I heard Raheem did
Speaker 1: a great job, and yes he has a cool accent.
Speaker 1: I'mna have to ask him for permission to just so
Speaker 1: I can keep up, be like Raheim? Can I do it?
Speaker 1: Can I do at least part of a show in
Speaker 1: a British accent? Just because that would be fun for me? Right,
Speaker 1: would be like, get out of you? What are you
Speaker 1: talking about? Crazy man? Uh? Catherine writes, Hi, Buck, love
Speaker 1: your show and I got my sister hooked on your
Speaker 1: show too, well, Catherine, love you too, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: We both listen to podcast. However, she is not happy
Speaker 1: with you right now since it appears that there's no
Speaker 1: longer the ability to download older podcasts from your website
Speaker 1: or even download podcasts under an ancient MP three player.
Speaker 1: He does not have iTunes, that is not it does
Speaker 1: not have the capability download apps and just I heart
Speaker 1: help unless you bring back that capability of loss as
Speaker 1: a listener, can you help us out here? John, I
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on. Have we changed the way
Speaker 1: we put our podcast stuff up? I don't know. Everything
Speaker 1: is the same. I don't know if the platforms have
Speaker 1: changed as the website. Did we do something on the
Speaker 1: land of the websites under maintenance right now? So I
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on. Yeah, it's up to the
Speaker 1: platforms to allow you to download, I think, but I'll
Speaker 1: look into it and now I'll confer with Quinlin and
Speaker 1: see what's going on. Yeah, we gotta check out with Quinn. Alright,
Speaker 1: fair enough, also known as Mike, producer Mike who is
Speaker 1: that a he's tonight? We gave producer Mike the day
Speaker 1: off because the the wedding. He's gotta be there, you know,
Speaker 1: he's gonna show. He's gonna show some moves on the
Speaker 1: dance floor. You know through some Mike you move pretty good?
Speaker 1: Saw you on the dance floor, you move pretty good? Uh, Catherine,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for turning your sister onto this one.
Speaker 1: I promise we we'll try to address this. I'll up
Speaker 1: pass this to Mike and we'll send it to the
Speaker 1: people who actually understand technology and see we can get
Speaker 1: this one fixed. Because every every listener counts, every listener matters,
Speaker 1: and I want all of you listening, please, when somebody
Speaker 1: brings up podcasts, you gotta be like, do you know
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton podcast? You've got to listen to it.
Speaker 1: I really hope that's what happens. Ryan writes Buck, these
Speaker 1: guys are the best live bearded dot com. They have
Speaker 1: great products and tutorials, how to videos in the whole
Speaker 1: nine yards, beard oil, butter wash, and other beard products. Wow.
Speaker 1: First of all, you guys can't see Ryan. I can.
Speaker 1: Ryan has an incredible beard. Ryan has the kind of
Speaker 1: beard with a guy some duck dynasty would look at
Speaker 1: them and be like, have beard, that's real beard. I
Speaker 1: mean they would really respect the beard because the serious
Speaker 1: beard he's got um as to whether I'm gonna grow
Speaker 1: on or not, I don't know. I gotta I gotta
Speaker 1: give it a little bit of thought. Um, it depends,
Speaker 1: I don't you know. Grow First of all, it's red,
Speaker 1: so i'd have a red beard. Think about that. My
Speaker 1: my facial hair grows in red, which I think is
Speaker 1: some kind of a there's some kind of a genetic
Speaker 1: trait that you can inherit red beard, red bearded nous.
Speaker 1: Because my hair is my uh, my head hair is
Speaker 1: not red. I guess what you gotta call it, right
Speaker 1: head hair instead of my face hair. Uh. Michael, Wow, Wow,
Speaker 1: Michael sending in a photo. I wish I could show
Speaker 1: this to you guys. Hey, buck, listen to the podcast
Speaker 1: on delay, as we don't get the show in terrestrial.
Speaker 1: I just know that I know of here in Houston.
Speaker 1: I listen to Second on facial hair. I feel that
Speaker 1: the standalone mustache a winner. That said, only Tom can
Speaker 1: really pull off the magnum p. I as a firefighter,
Speaker 1: we can't grow beard. So I am any of my
Speaker 1: brother's rock the handlebar, I say go for it. Michael
Speaker 1: has what Ryan had in a beard just a moment
Speaker 1: ago from the photo Michael has with a a a
Speaker 1: rocking mustache. I mean, this guy's mustache is he looks
Speaker 1: like one of those old posters of the shirtless guys
Speaker 1: who are boxing, you know, with kind of the hands
Speaker 1: put out in front of him. You know, wanta wanta
Speaker 1: want to be pugilists from the nineteen twenties. He's got
Speaker 1: that kind of a mustache. It's legit, very very very
Speaker 1: well done, Michael. I have to say, I am I
Speaker 1: am duly, duly impressed with your your facial hair prowess. Leanna. Right,
Speaker 1: so Acosta gets his pass back, But does President Trump
Speaker 1: have to call on him? Why doesn't he mix it
Speaker 1: up and call on a reporter two to three rows back? Now, Leanna,
Speaker 1: I think you're right, and that's probably gonna happen here.
Speaker 1: They're just not gonna give a Costa the ability. They're
Speaker 1: gonna have to set the rules, which I'm amazed they
Speaker 1: didn't already have rules, but apparently they don't. Uh, They're
Speaker 1: they're gonna have to set the rules for what is
Speaker 1: acceptable decorum, and then they'll have to call on other people.
Speaker 1: And if a cost Of throws a tantrum, then I
Speaker 1: think they can give him his due process and say
Speaker 1: by he wasn't even kicked out of the White House.
Speaker 1: But this whole thing is such a non story story,
Speaker 1: it really is. But you know it's because it involves
Speaker 1: You always gonna remember anything that involves the media, the
Speaker 1: media cares a lot more about. That's just that's just
Speaker 1: the way that we are. I mean, yeah, I'm technically
Speaker 1: part of the media. You know, the little radio about
Speaker 1: a hundred twenty five stations across the country, you know,
Speaker 1: it is what it is um as well as obviously
Speaker 1: the Hill dot com Rising every morning. Uh by the way,
Speaker 1: those of you haven't checked it out of if you
Speaker 1: want the Hill dot tv slash Rising. And the truth is,
Speaker 1: you can just look at the segments and click on
Speaker 1: the ones that you look at the guests or you know,
Speaker 1: look at the panel and see who's on it and
Speaker 1: click and see if you wanna wat You don't have
Speaker 1: to sit there while the interview like sorrows if you
Speaker 1: don't want to, because we do have some of those,
Speaker 1: and when we do have some very left wing well
Speaker 1: that would actually be a great segment, but I mean
Speaker 1: left wing opinionators that come on. You don't have to
Speaker 1: sit through that. If you don't want to, you can
Speaker 1: watch all of Rising a la carte. So but it
Speaker 1: is a bipartisan show, so just be prepared. You know,
Speaker 1: you know this, this is pure buck on radio. It's
Speaker 1: only fifty percent buck on because I got a co
Speaker 1: host and she's she's great, but she's a liberal, So
Speaker 1: it's only fifty percent pure buck there, Uh, Stephen, right,
Speaker 1: buck Listen to comments about the Wisconsin election. One thing
Speaker 1: that comes to mind, if not for the oh no,
Speaker 1: you already read that one, sorry, Stephen. Stephen also said
Speaker 1: should go for a full out battle beard shields high. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, Stephen, I remember when I was told when
Speaker 1: I was just a we just a wee CIA analyst,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to trying to find his sea legs.
Speaker 1: I was told by some very here in c I
Speaker 1: A folks, not actual veterans, but veterans in the in
Speaker 1: the CIA, Um, don't be the guy who shows up
Speaker 1: into the war zone when you're gonna be doing you know,
Speaker 1: analytic uh, analytic assessments and reports and yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: get outside the wire a little bit. But you know
Speaker 1: you're not You're not a door kicker. You're not You're
Speaker 1: not a snake eater, not by a mile. Don't be
Speaker 1: the guy who's like, I just got here, time to
Speaker 1: grow a beard right away? You know, there's something if
Speaker 1: you're interacting with locals in Afghanistan, it makes more sense
Speaker 1: because they look at people without beards kind of like huh.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I did not. I did not go for
Speaker 1: a battle beard then, which I think was clearly the
Speaker 1: right move. Um then as to going for a battle beard, now,
Speaker 1: I do battle the libs on a regular basis, So
Speaker 1: I feel like I feel like that gives me some
Speaker 1: some leeway on the subject matter. I think that's possibly
Speaker 1: something to consider. I just don't know how to get
Speaker 1: None of you have told me how I get past
Speaker 1: the itchy phase? You know, John, did you ever grow
Speaker 1: a beard? I have a beard? Now what? John? You
Speaker 1: just blew my mind. I haven't seen you in weeks.
Speaker 1: You saw me last Friday. Because now you just blown
Speaker 1: up my night, just blown up my spot and make
Speaker 1: me see him like you know, self involved talent over
Speaker 1: here doesn't pay attention to his below. You were two
Speaker 1: into your black Rifle, coffee and h Man New York
Speaker 1: and looking forward to seeing everybody. DJ John is lighting
Speaker 1: me up. All right, Well, I'm gonna you know what
Speaker 1: I'm gonna. I'm gonna throw a towel here, take a quick,
Speaker 1: quick pause, we'll come back. We'll finish rod call. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. The show ain't over yet, folks. Keeping it real,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll. Call that bad. That's why I
Speaker 1: think that might be my favorite role call. It just
Speaker 1: it sets us off the way. Although we did just
Speaker 1: play dub separal call, which is funny because I don't
Speaker 1: even think dubstep is a thing anymore. Like other people
Speaker 1: listening to this show, I bet less than one percent
Speaker 1: have listened to dub step in the last month. I
Speaker 1: remember for a while that guy scrill X with a
Speaker 1: little cigarette dangling out of his mouth, was just you know,
Speaker 1: blasting out people's ear drums all across the country. But
Speaker 1: things change, all right. Joe whoops, Sorry I hit the
Speaker 1: mic there, Joe right stashes Buck. Oh wait, we got
Speaker 1: a lot from Joe here. Buck. Listen to your recent show.
Speaker 1: We talked about beardness and opinions. Here it goes scratchy
Speaker 1: beard chin. Yep. The first two weeks are the worst.
Speaker 1: Once the hair grows out enough that it's not constantly
Speaker 1: poking you you're in the clear. Beard hygiene is also important.
Speaker 1: It's like washing your hair, decent shampoo and get in
Speaker 1: and give the skin roots a good scrub. It sounds
Speaker 1: gross and silly, but it gets overlooked by some people. Huh,
Speaker 1: interesting stashes. You could totally roll the nice handlebar, nice accessory,
Speaker 1: that badass quaff on your nogging. Although the whole wax
Speaker 1: thing is a pain as well as the period of time,
Speaker 1: and it's too short to shape wax, but long enough
Speaker 1: to get into anything you're eating drinking. My humble opinion,
Speaker 1: it's just one more thing to have to do. But
Speaker 1: I'm an old curmudgeon. Now, wow, Joe is like Joe
Speaker 1: is like, you know, ninth degree black belt in in
Speaker 1: beard and stash. I got a lot I gotta I know,
Speaker 1: I knew this audience there there Look, there's some things
Speaker 1: where I can crowdsource at a world class level every
Speaker 1: time to this audience. No question right. Questions about American
Speaker 1: history done, questions about World War Two done, questions about
Speaker 1: meat the proper cooking thereof done? Firearms done? And yes,
Speaker 1: facial hair. Facial hair also falls into the category. Here,
Speaker 1: could I pull off a handlebar? I don't know. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Some of you should just send me your
Speaker 1: your favorite periods where you had facial hair, you know,
Speaker 1: So you should just send in to the Facebook and
Speaker 1: facebook dot com slash buck sex and show me your
Speaker 1: adventures and facial hair and maybe that will inspire me
Speaker 1: team to engage in my own facial hair adventure. Although
Speaker 1: I will tell you that there's a part of me
Speaker 1: that worries a little bit that if I did get
Speaker 1: this whole thing going, that management at the Hill where
Speaker 1: I have to appear on TV every day would be like, uh,
Speaker 1: you look like a cross between a toddler and a lumberjack.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna We're gonna cut, We're gonna shut this
Speaker 1: one down. Um yeah, Mike, right Buck, it's Mike from
Speaker 1: Canada picking you up on podcasts and loving it for
Speaker 1: close to three years. Now, well, thank you, Mike. I
Speaker 1: like you and a chocolate lover. Indeed, Mike, chocolate is
Speaker 1: one of my weaknesses. Where we really differ is that
Speaker 1: I enjoy it wrapped around nuts. I know you don't,
Speaker 1: and I was very close to triggering when you dissed
Speaker 1: those of us who do. Now I see you don't
Speaker 1: appreciate a good deal. Pickle on your burger side? What up?
Speaker 1: Can we agree at least in the fact that Krispy
Speaker 1: Bacon takes a burger to the Promised Land. Anyway, Beyond
Speaker 1: all that, I truly hope you in the other conservative
Speaker 1: voices can begin to sway millennials to the light. Cheers
Speaker 1: and godspeed buck Um. Okay, Mike, First of all, I
Speaker 1: love you, my brother up from the North, so thank
Speaker 1: you so much for writing in. As the chocolate and nuts,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not. I'm not always opposed to chocolate with nuts.
Speaker 1: I do like a good chocolate bar with some almonds
Speaker 1: and a little sea salt. I can get down with that.
Speaker 1: And chocolate covered nuts. I'm actually fine with it's nuts
Speaker 1: in brownies. Where I throw a red flag, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I throw a flag. We are civilized people, We are
Speaker 1: not savages. We did not put nuts in brownies. Nobody
Speaker 1: wants nuts in brownies. Nobody. Okay, this is just a
Speaker 1: fiction that we've all been led to. Oh, somebody will
Speaker 1: want them, so I'll put them in and ruin the
Speaker 1: brownies for everybody. No, false, do not do it. We
Speaker 1: do not want it's in the brownies. Um. And as
Speaker 1: to the pickle on the burger, Mike, you're Canadian, so
Speaker 1: I guess that's how they do it up North. That's
Speaker 1: all I can say. Man, Here in America, we don't.
Speaker 1: Actually I'm wrong, because they put pickles and McDonald's and
Speaker 1: put pickles on the burgers all the time. But it's
Speaker 1: a salty vegetable you're putting on top of your burger.
Speaker 1: It interferes with the taste of the delicious burger. I know.
Speaker 1: As to bacon, Mike, of course, of course. My burger
Speaker 1: that I had out in uh Springfield, Illinois yesterday, of
Speaker 1: course it had bacon on it. It was it was
Speaker 1: an option. I said, Bam, make that happen. Bacon is
Speaker 1: one of the foods that I honestly eat most commont
Speaker 1: I I eat bacon of different kinds and varieties. I
Speaker 1: even have I even keep some panchetta, which is very
Speaker 1: versatile in the fridge. Pancetta is fruit fruit bacon. But
Speaker 1: you can't make fun of it because it's still bacon. Debra, Right,
Speaker 1: why is Judge Kavanaugh being replaced already? I didn't know
Speaker 1: where to put my question, Debra, I don't know what
Speaker 1: you're talking about. But thank you for the question. Taylor writes, Absolutely,
Speaker 1: grow a beard and a mullet if you're feeling a
Speaker 1: little rednecky. Um, I could definitely do a mullet. I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure my parents, God bless them, let me have
Speaker 1: a mullet for part of my grammar school years. I
Speaker 1: definitely had the hair that kind of like flipped up
Speaker 1: at the bottom, you know, not not really a full mode,
Speaker 1: kind of a baby mold baby mullet. Um. But yeah,
Speaker 1: there you have it. But asked to that, wow, wow,
Speaker 1: Taylor's beard. Taylor's beard is zz top level. Taylor's beard
Speaker 1: is and he's posed with a large ant lurd animal
Speaker 1: that I'm assuming he killed himself so or he just
Speaker 1: really likes to wear the color orange and found some
Speaker 1: road kill. But I'm gonna guess that he killed this
Speaker 1: very very impressive. Is that a prong horn? I can't
Speaker 1: even tell what it is? But well, don Taylor. Taylor's
Speaker 1: beard is amazing. Erin rights, hey, buck, do the beard
Speaker 1: during the itchy leave a little conditioner in neck beard's
Speaker 1: okay if you grow it long, if you keep it
Speaker 1: close crop to bass business attire, no neck beard if
Speaker 1: all else fails asked Mr Mola Shields. Hi, well, Aaron,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. Oh even John just sent me
Speaker 1: a photo because I'm down in d C is up
Speaker 1: in New York. Thank you John. That'll keep me safe
Speaker 1: and warm, knowing that John's beard is fully grown in.
Speaker 1: All right, everybody, have a fantastic weekend, have a great time.
Speaker 1: I will see you Monday. Shields High, Facebook, Google, Some
Speaker 1: of these companies we're finding out and have kind of
Speaker 1: known for a while. They've got agenda's folks, and they're
Speaker 1: not conservative that much is for sure. Do you really
Speaker 1: trust the corporate types over at Google to protect your
Speaker 1: Gmail or Yahoo to protect your hotmail account? I don't know.
Speaker 1: You can check out I patriots dot Us, however, which
Speaker 1: is a new conservative alternative to those liberal based email services.
Speaker 1: I patriots dot us is secure, private, and includes more
Speaker 1: of what you want without all the ads and spam.
Speaker 1: With I Patriots you get thirty gigs of cloud storage,
Speaker 1: larger attachment sizes, and much more. They've got great encryption
Speaker 1: and they won't sell your information or support liberal agendas
Speaker 1: like a lot of those other free email providers. I
Speaker 1: patriots dot Us emails compatible with most mobile devices. Show
Speaker 1: your Patriot. Go to I Patriots dot us now, choose
Speaker 1: your membership program and input your desired I Patriots email
Speaker 1: addresser and check out. Enter promo code buck that's b
Speaker 1: u c K for ten percent savings during your first
Speaker 1: year of membership