Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The government is still
Speaker 1: shut down, my friends, but the Buck never stops. I'm
Speaker 1: coming to you live tonight from San Diego, California, after
Speaker 1: two full days spent with border patrol agents. I have
Speaker 1: a lot to tell you about what's real, what's not,
Speaker 1: who's telling the truth, and who's lying about security at
Speaker 1: our southern border. That and more coming up on The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence, magnor mistake America, You're a great American Again.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, No, not one congressional leader,
Speaker 1: including Nancy Pelosi. Chuck Schumer has went to the border
Speaker 1: to talk to barbato chiefs about the effectiveness of the wall.
Speaker 1: I keep hearing the walls ineffective from them people. I
Speaker 1: don't know what data they're basing it on, but every
Speaker 1: place a border barrier has been built, illegal immigration has declined.
Speaker 1: That's a fact. They went through the southern Mexican border
Speaker 1: last time. Mexico failed to stop them. However, for those
Speaker 1: that get in that want to come to port a
Speaker 1: venture to claim asylum. That we need to make that
Speaker 1: agreement operational where they wait to Mexico until they get
Speaker 1: that hearing, because ninety two percent of them will not
Speaker 1: get relief from the immigration courts and they'll be ordered removed.
Speaker 1: So we need to keep it in Mexico rather than
Speaker 1: get in the United States disappear in society with the
Speaker 1: other twelve thirteen million people. I went and spent some
Speaker 1: time with border patrol. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, everybody.
Speaker 1: Unlike Pelosi and her gang of Democrats, I wanted to
Speaker 1: get as much ground truth as I could because this
Speaker 1: is the single most important policy issue in the country
Speaker 1: right now, what to do about border security and how
Speaker 1: we can approach the broader issue of immigration and all
Speaker 1: of the issues that are tied into it. So I
Speaker 1: have been out here in the San Diego sector of
Speaker 1: the border for the last couple of days. That's why, Yes,
Speaker 1: I had to have a guest host, our friend Harlan Hill. Hope.
Speaker 1: He did a fantastic job. No, he did a fantastic job.
Speaker 1: Always great to have Harlan sitting in for me. But man,
Speaker 1: do I have some things to tell you today. The
Speaker 1: good news is that all the things that we've been
Speaker 1: saying here on this show about the border. All along
Speaker 1: are accurate, meaning that walls do work. There is no
Speaker 1: question that walls work. It is an un serious, anti
Speaker 1: factual position to say that walls work. It is an
Speaker 1: irrational position to say that walls do not work. It
Speaker 1: makes no sense. It flies in the face of history, reality,
Speaker 1: and all of the experts I spoke to members of
Speaker 1: Border Patrol. Some you could tell, maybe we're a little
Speaker 1: more favorable to this president than others. All of them
Speaker 1: said here in the San Diego sector that a wall
Speaker 1: isn't just helpful, it is a game changer. Now I
Speaker 1: have more stories any which, I mean, we can really
Speaker 1: fill this out, but you know, I wanted to start
Speaker 1: with the very broad takeaways from having been out there
Speaker 1: and toward areas without fencing with fencing. Saw an apprehension
Speaker 1: happen in real time. One moment, I'm getting a tour
Speaker 1: of the fence. The next moment, oh, look there's a
Speaker 1: bunch of illegals who were making a run for it,
Speaker 1: hit the accelerator and I had to sit there and
Speaker 1: watch the whole thing go down. We also had, or
Speaker 1: rather a male with a very young kid about ten
Speaker 1: years old turn himself in, and so I managed to see,
Speaker 1: over the course of forty eight hours, the different components
Speaker 1: of how border security is done here. But also I
Speaker 1: saw the scams that are being run, the exploitation of
Speaker 1: American law for the purposes of people who want to
Speaker 1: just skip the whole immigration process as we know it
Speaker 1: and get access into the American interior and do all
Speaker 1: of this in ways that the media is just either
Speaker 1: blind to you or a lying to you about. I've
Speaker 1: been telling you for a while that ninety percent of
Speaker 1: the media is just flatly dishonest about the realities of
Speaker 1: immigration what's coming on of the border. And now I'm
Speaker 1: more convinced than ever. I mean, now I'm certain that's
Speaker 1: the case, because you can't spend any time with border
Speaker 1: patrol as they're trying to enforce federal law when it
Speaker 1: comes to illegal alien crossings in this country. You can't
Speaker 1: spend any time with and not realize that the primary
Speaker 1: Democrat talking points from Pelosi and Schumer and all the
Speaker 1: rest of their left wing crew are just false lies,
Speaker 1: fake news, whatever you want to call it. Walls don't work,
Speaker 1: it's a lie. All they need is a ladder it's
Speaker 1: a lie. Border Patrol doesn't want more fencing. It's a lie.
Speaker 1: There's not a massive problem of infiltration of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: into this country currently ongoing, also known as a crisis.
Speaker 1: There's no crisis, they say. That's a lie. The cartels
Speaker 1: aren't getting incredibly rich off of human smoking. In fact,
Speaker 1: now there's some estimates that they might even be making
Speaker 1: in some of the plazas, some of the sectors that
Speaker 1: they break the border down into for cartel control, they
Speaker 1: might be making more money off the smuggling of human
Speaker 1: beings than the smuggling of drugs. So there's not a crisis.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. There's not a major problem of the
Speaker 1: infiltration of drugs and human beings. That's a lie. They
Speaker 1: aren't lying to us in order to exploit our immigration system,
Speaker 1: lying to the faces of our customs agents and our borderings.
Speaker 1: That is also a lie. The record, when I was
Speaker 1: I started out, I went into and I want to
Speaker 1: walk you through what I saw over the course of
Speaker 1: the two days, because it's if you're going to talk
Speaker 1: about the border, if you're going to care about the border,
Speaker 1: any American should know these things. These are facts. This
Speaker 1: is what is really going on. This isn't just the
Speaker 1: talking point is not the CNN. Oh, it's they're doing
Speaker 1: the jobs Americans won't do, and they're better than than
Speaker 1: actual Americans are. They're more American than Americans. These illegals.
Speaker 1: There's no problem here. There's no security threat, there's no
Speaker 1: scamming that's going on. There's no risk to our sovereignty,
Speaker 1: and there's no impact on the economy, on er rooms,
Speaker 1: on schools. Lies. They're just lying, lying all over the
Speaker 1: place about this, and it happened for a very long time.
Speaker 1: So I want to walk you piece by piece through this.
Speaker 1: But one of the most impactful moments that I had
Speaker 1: was being brought into the initial I mean, other than
Speaker 1: actually being there on the first day and seeing illegal
Speaker 1: illegals try to cross, and I would note that some
Speaker 1: people because I took a photo as they were jumping
Speaker 1: off the fence on the US side, and then the
Speaker 1: car I was in chase them down and boarder troll
Speaker 1: agents got out and they surrendered. I mean, there was
Speaker 1: no the illegal alien crossers weren't being aggressive or anything.
Speaker 1: They knew they were caught and that was it. And
Speaker 1: the worst thing's going to happen to them is they're
Speaker 1: out some money and they're gonna get deported back to Mexico.
Speaker 1: It's a misdemeanor felony the first time to cross, although
Speaker 1: those individuals had already crossed before. Of course, this was
Speaker 1: not their first time doing this, as we found out
Speaker 1: later on, and they were Mexican, unlike a lot of
Speaker 1: what I saw in the initial and this is what
Speaker 1: really stuck with me. In the initial processing center. When
Speaker 1: you are caught in the San Diego sector of the
Speaker 1: border and you get brought in for processing, they separate out.
Speaker 1: Now women who were with children are in one holding
Speaker 1: cell and then there's a hold, then they break them
Speaker 1: down by medical need. There is a in the McCallen
Speaker 1: sector or down in mcmccalen, Texas and that part of
Speaker 1: the border, there is a holding cell specifically for illegal
Speaker 1: aliens crossing with HIV, specifically for legal aliens crossing with tuberculosis,
Speaker 1: specifically for legal aliens crossing with scabies. Lies. I mean,
Speaker 1: all all these health problems, and you may say, well, buck,
Speaker 1: I mean they need help, okay, But we need to
Speaker 1: understand that this this influx of people into the country
Speaker 1: is one not just taxing border patrol resources. I mean
Speaker 1: this influx of people that are yes, they're they're crossing
Speaker 1: sometimes illegally, sometimes illegally, but using the asylum process, and
Speaker 1: this is what we're seeing. It's all these would be
Speaker 1: asylum seekers coming in. They are taxing the medical system.
Speaker 1: When you have one person who shows up two border
Speaker 1: it shows up and is apprehended by border patrol or
Speaker 1: turns themselves in and they have to go to an
Speaker 1: ear an emergency room facility, it requires two border patrol
Speaker 1: agents to stay with that individual the entire time they're
Speaker 1: receiving medical treatment, so they get pulled off the lines.
Speaker 1: So now that's you can imagine how you get You
Speaker 1: get twenty or thirty people who have to go to
Speaker 1: the hospital and Border Patrol has to send forty fifty
Speaker 1: sixty agents. I mean they say large numbers of agents
Speaker 1: to go essentially babysit them in an American er, where
Speaker 1: of course the taxpayers paying for this. So it's not
Speaker 1: about being unkind or inhumane or mean, I'm not bringing
Speaker 1: up the holding facilities for people that are coming across
Speaker 1: the border will have tuberculosis as anything other than just
Speaker 1: to give the full scope of what the resources are
Speaker 1: involved here and what we're asking Border patrolled to do.
Speaker 1: They set up a frontline triage center essentially for medical screening,
Speaker 1: medical screening of people that are coming across the border,
Speaker 1: because a lot of them do have very serious health problems.
Speaker 1: There's another thing that's just happening now in larger and
Speaker 1: larger numbers. You have these family units showing up. And
Speaker 1: the family units tend to show up and they turn
Speaker 1: themselves in. I saw that happen. I saw a guy
Speaker 1: claiming to have a ten year old side just they
Speaker 1: walked up to the border, to the border fence and
Speaker 1: said we want to claim asylum, and Border patrol said okay,
Speaker 1: and they got them. They got them transport and then
Speaker 1: they processed them in the facility, right and they keep
Speaker 1: the families together. Now they've reverted from the policy that
Speaker 1: was in place this path once they've established that it
Speaker 1: is family Oh, which by the way, they lie about that.
Speaker 1: You don't see that reported very often, but they call
Speaker 1: it recycling children. There will be kids that are someone
Speaker 1: else's kids who are being used in order to get
Speaker 1: the benefit of arriving as a family unit at the border.
Speaker 1: So that happens, But the medical needs are very intense
Speaker 1: for some of these recently arrived migrants, and now we're
Speaker 1: seeing more and more women arriving in their ninth month
Speaker 1: of pregnancy. I am nine months pregnant and I would
Speaker 1: like to claim asylum in your country. Okay, Well, now
Speaker 1: they're going to get processed. Right. Once they get processed,
Speaker 1: they're also going to get medically checked out to make
Speaker 1: sure they're okay, and then they're going to be by
Speaker 1: Immigrations and Customs Enforcement released into the interior of the
Speaker 1: United States pending their court date, which will probably be
Speaker 1: a year or two, maybe three years away. Is there
Speaker 1: any person right now out there who thinks that a
Speaker 1: woman who comes into America saying that she has a
Speaker 1: credible fear And I'll get into the credible the credible
Speaker 1: fear thing is a huge scam. It's a lie. You
Speaker 1: are we are being lied to when the media says
Speaker 1: you're allowed to claim asylum. No, you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: lie in order to get asylum. It is happening all
Speaker 1: the time, day in and day out. And I'll get
Speaker 1: into y in a moment. I Mean, there's a lot
Speaker 1: to dig into here, But does anyone think that somebody
Speaker 1: who arrives in their ninth month of pregnancy. Obviously they're
Speaker 1: going to give birth in the United States. That child
Speaker 1: is a US citizen because of birthright citizenship. And now
Speaker 1: when that parent, that mother shows up claiming asylum in
Speaker 1: two years, do you think that it even matters where
Speaker 1: she's from, or what threat she's under, or what her
Speaker 1: asylum case is. No, Now she's got an American citizen child.
Speaker 1: Do you think any judge is going to say, any
Speaker 1: immigration judge is going to say, yeah, we're gonna send
Speaker 1: you back now? Obviously not. The incentive now is not
Speaker 1: only do you get to come into the country and
Speaker 1: get medical care and give birth in this country and
Speaker 1: give citizenship to your child, you are effectively guaranteed to
Speaker 1: be able to stay into in the country with that
Speaker 1: child afterwards. And this is all using the system and
Speaker 1: the laws we have they are in place. Now, why
Speaker 1: do I say there's a scam? How are they lying
Speaker 1: about this? How is the word out, what NGOs are involved,
Speaker 1: who's paying to bring them to the border. Why is
Speaker 1: it that South Texas is a thousand miles closer for
Speaker 1: the caravan that came up than San Diego. But somehow
Speaker 1: they all ended up in San Diego in the caravan
Speaker 1: rather quickly and went far out of the way to
Speaker 1: get there. Why is that who's pushing this? There are
Speaker 1: people pushing this, There are NGOs, and there are efforts
Speaker 1: just using the Internet and social media to get information
Speaker 1: out there to make sure that migrants who arrive at
Speaker 1: the border know exactly what to say and what to
Speaker 1: expect and how to try and leverage the processes that
Speaker 1: we have in place that are supposed to save people
Speaker 1: from imminent fear of death. This is just being exploited
Speaker 1: for people who want to be here because it's a
Speaker 1: better country. This is Central Americans who come through Mexico
Speaker 1: and say, well, I don't want to stay in Mexico.
Speaker 1: And they'll say this, I asked border patrol. I said,
Speaker 1: what when you ask a Hondura or El Salvadoran, why
Speaker 1: don't they just stop in Mexico and claim asylum. They're
Speaker 1: they're granted asylum if they want it in Mexico. They said,
Speaker 1: we don't want to be in Mexico. Mexico's got all
Speaker 1: kinds of problems. They want to be in America. That's
Speaker 1: not asylum, that's immigration. That's trying to come to another
Speaker 1: country because it's a better country. That's not what the
Speaker 1: asylum process is for. It is being abused. You are
Speaker 1: being lied to, and people in the me ninety percent
Speaker 1: of the media is perpetuating this lie. And I will
Speaker 1: break down the scams for you. I'll talk more about
Speaker 1: the wall, the fence, where this is going. We'll also
Speaker 1: today get into the insanity. I was on Tucker Show
Speaker 1: last night. I talk with the insanity of this. Trump
Speaker 1: is a Russian agent and people are just out of
Speaker 1: their minds. Pelosi saying no State of the Union address
Speaker 1: now pretending to have gotten Secret Service to sign off
Speaker 1: on this, and I'm seeing now that that's not even
Speaker 1: the case. But Pelosi, what do we expect from her?
Speaker 1: And also one thing today, I really would love to
Speaker 1: hear from a lot of you. We are going to
Speaker 1: kick those lines open. I know we haven't taken a
Speaker 1: lot of calls in a while, but I feel like
Speaker 1: today I'm out here. If you've got any questions about
Speaker 1: the border, if you want to throw in your two
Speaker 1: cents about the shutdown or anything else, team, I want
Speaker 1: to hear from you. Eight four four nine hundred buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four something you're like, WHOA, I haven't
Speaker 1: heard the number a while eight four four nine hundred
Speaker 1: two eight two five. Let's talk border security. Light up
Speaker 1: those lines and we will be right back. The President's
Speaker 1: message has been right all along. We have a crisis
Speaker 1: at the border, both the national security and a humanitarian crisis.
Speaker 1: Democrats have got to stop ignoring the problem, sit down
Speaker 1: with the President at the table and help us come
Speaker 1: to a solution. The President is right on board of security.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are wrong. And I think that finally because
Speaker 1: Trump has focused so much attention on this issue, because
Speaker 1: he has the courage of his convictions on this policy
Speaker 1: question to stay in the fight. Anybody who is willing
Speaker 1: to learn to pay attention. We'll see. And the numbers
Speaker 1: don't lie. Walls don't work is a lie. You look
Speaker 1: back at the San Diego sector specifically, they had hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of illegal crossings in the nineteen eighties into
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties every year, hundreds of thousands and an
Speaker 1: apprehend rate that was maybe fifty sixty percent. Really just
Speaker 1: guessing now, the apprehension rate is ninety percent. That means
Speaker 1: that if you try to cross from Tijuana into and
Speaker 1: some people told me, I have to say Tijuana, but
Speaker 1: I'll tell you everybody here says Tijuana. So there's that
Speaker 1: from Tijuana in the United States, you have a nine
Speaker 1: out of ten shot of getting caught. That's a pretty
Speaker 1: high apprehension rate, and it is overwhelmingly due to the wall. Now,
Speaker 1: how did these walls work? And why would I say that?
Speaker 1: Especially yesterday I saw people who got over a wall. Well,
Speaker 1: they got over a double layer fence that had territory
Speaker 1: in between it that is US controlled. But what they
Speaker 1: did was trip sensors on the first fence, and then
Speaker 1: while they were covering that territory between the two fences
Speaker 1: and the double layer fence, they were called on more
Speaker 1: surveillance cameras. Border Patrol was able to respond. By the
Speaker 1: time they were up and climbing with a ladder on
Speaker 1: this second fence, we were already there. You can see
Speaker 1: if you if you follow me on Twitter, you see
Speaker 1: I tweetered out a photo we saw them climbing down
Speaker 1: the fence. We don't we got sixteen miles of fence
Speaker 1: we're talking about here, folks. We were only able to
Speaker 1: get there so quickly because they triggered censors and there
Speaker 1: was a fence that slowed them down and that's why
Speaker 1: they got They got apprehended. So the wall worked. Right.
Speaker 1: This is like saying an alarm system that tells the
Speaker 1: cops to come to your house and catches the burglar
Speaker 1: if he gets caught because the alarm system, the alarm worked.
Speaker 1: It's not saying nobody can kick in your front door.
Speaker 1: So we'll get into more of these security nuances at
Speaker 1: the border in just a moment. Stay with me. And
Speaker 1: it has taken our government hostage. So this president has
Speaker 1: an opportunity to not create a crisis and to not
Speaker 1: hold the American people and federal employees hostage. I think
Speaker 1: we know this is not about border security. This is
Speaker 1: about whether it is right, we're wrong to hold the
Speaker 1: American people hostage, holding the American people hostage, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: I'll say it's all Trump's fault. Well, why are we
Speaker 1: at this impast forget about who started it or who's responsible.
Speaker 1: What's really the problem. What is the core issue? The
Speaker 1: President wants money for, yes, additional barriers, fencing, wall as
Speaker 1: well as other aspects of border security. It's a multi
Speaker 1: faceted thing. You want more agents, you want more surveillance, tools.
Speaker 1: There's a whole lot of stuff that should really be
Speaker 1: added in, and the President wants to do all of that.
Speaker 1: He is right on this issue on a pilot, unless
Speaker 1: you don't want a secure border, if you want the
Speaker 1: continuation of what we currently have, which is a border
Speaker 1: where billions of dollars of illegal drugs are still flooding
Speaker 1: into this country, killing tens of thousands of Americans a year,
Speaker 1: where you have tens of thousands of family units showing
Speaker 1: up at the border claiming that they have a credible fear.
Speaker 1: And I'll get into that aspect of the scam in
Speaker 1: a moment. If you want that, well, then yeah, of
Speaker 1: course you don't want anything to change. But if we
Speaker 1: are all on the same page, if Democrats do want
Speaker 1: and I do not believe they do, by the way,
Speaker 1: and that reminds me of us to talk to you
Speaker 1: about the state of California, which is on issues of immigration,
Speaker 1: it is a legal abomination. This place is nuts. And
Speaker 1: I'll get into how moment. As you can see, there's
Speaker 1: all there's just a lot to cover here on the border.
Speaker 1: Because you're just not being told, you're not being told
Speaker 1: the truth. Nancy Pelosi says a wall is immoral. It's
Speaker 1: an idiotic statement. What does that even mean? A wall
Speaker 1: is immoral? How why are the is? It's mostly offense.
Speaker 1: If you look at what they've built here in San
Speaker 1: Diego along the border, it's a slatted steel fence with
Speaker 1: plates at the top of it that help prevent essentially
Speaker 1: people from once if they can shimmy up some portion
Speaker 1: of the fence. When they get to the top, it's
Speaker 1: even harder because there's nowhere to grip or put your foot.
Speaker 1: And that's it. And it's been remarkably effective and really
Speaker 1: help the Border Patrol get a handle on things. People
Speaker 1: say to me, well, Buck, can't they go around because
Speaker 1: the fence does end at some point, Yeah, they can
Speaker 1: go around, but the fence ends in a rural area.
Speaker 1: There's not any access roads, so now you're going to
Speaker 1: have to go on foot to that part of the
Speaker 1: US Mexico border. Border Patrol does have sensors agents. I
Speaker 1: saw one of their surveillance trucks in action today, and
Speaker 1: let me tell you, if you're trying to cross an
Speaker 1: open territory on foot and you've got tough terrain to manage,
Speaker 1: they're gonna find you. Not every time, but a lot
Speaker 1: of the time, most of the time, sixty percent of
Speaker 1: the time, border patrol surveillance works every time. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1: That's some of you will catch that reference, which I
Speaker 1: think is actually, isn't that a San Diego reference? Isn't
Speaker 1: Ron Burgundy and San Diego. So there's a lot that
Speaker 1: there's a lot that you see when you actually come
Speaker 1: out here that adds to one's understanding of how this
Speaker 1: all goes. But here's the part of this that because
Speaker 1: I have to debate with libs on a regular basis
Speaker 1: all over the place on this issue of asylum, they
Speaker 1: will say, you have a right to claim asylum in
Speaker 1: this country. Remember, refugee status just means you're applying outside
Speaker 1: of the US. Asylum is essentially requesting refugee status from
Speaker 1: within the US. That's the big difference. It matters to
Speaker 1: some degree, it's a terminology thing, but largely they want
Speaker 1: to be refugees. They're saying they're refugees effectively, and they're
Speaker 1: just a refugee inside the US, so that means asylum.
Speaker 1: I saw a whole holding room full of maybe a
Speaker 1: dozen or so guys and that was just from that
Speaker 1: day who were from Bangladesh. You have Bangladeshis who are
Speaker 1: showing up here who are claiming asylum. What are they
Speaker 1: fleeing O Religious persecution of some kind. You have Chinese
Speaker 1: nationals who show up at our southern border. They are
Speaker 1: claiming persecution and fear of violence. All these different individuals
Speaker 1: from around the world are coming here because they know
Speaker 1: that right now there is this loophole. It was opened
Speaker 1: up by the Obama administration. We have not been able
Speaker 1: to close it now into the Trump administration because Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit judges are just nuts and they will stop anything
Speaker 1: that truly enforces immigration law or border security. And they're
Speaker 1: all just reading from the same script. They're all saying
Speaker 1: the same things. They also try to play games with
Speaker 1: the unaccompanied minor provision. The record so far according to
Speaker 1: border patrol in this sector. Remember this is all San
Speaker 1: Diego sectory, but this is this is the busiest port
Speaker 1: of entry in the world in terms of foot traffic
Speaker 1: back and forth and vehicle traffic back and forth. Is
Speaker 1: this is where it's all happening. And this was ground
Speaker 1: zero four legal crossings for a very long time and
Speaker 1: it has gotten under control. San Diego is the model
Speaker 1: in terms of border patrol. This is the model for
Speaker 1: what could be done along the rest of the border,
Speaker 1: which is yes, fencing, barriers, surveillance, border patrol agents, access roads.
Speaker 1: There's a whole bunch of things that all come together
Speaker 1: that mean that you can get nine apprehensions, which means
Speaker 1: that you are pretty close to secure. Now they have
Speaker 1: to work at the ports of entry to deal with
Speaker 1: the inflow of drugs. Increasingly sophisticated techniques being used to
Speaker 1: bring in the drugs. But maybe you can talk more
Speaker 1: about the cartel side of it in a few moments
Speaker 1: and what the cartels are doing. But the record so
Speaker 1: far for somebody claiming to be an unaccompanied miner in
Speaker 1: the San Diego sector is a thirty two year old
Speaker 1: saying that he was seventeen. These are things that I
Speaker 1: had just I've said this on radio. I'm sure people,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've got a lot of twenty year olds
Speaker 1: who are staying there seventeen and guess what now he's
Speaker 1: able to ask, look at the numbers and see with
Speaker 1: my own eyes, yes, that is happening. They are claiming
Speaker 1: to be miners when they are a decade, a decade
Speaker 1: beyond being miners. In some cases even more than that,
Speaker 1: because they know, oh they show up with papers, sometimes
Speaker 1: they show up with no papers, sometimes they show up
Speaker 1: with fraudulent papers. They're lying to federal officers. And I
Speaker 1: think it's so interesting. I would note that the same people,
Speaker 1: same Democrats, who were going on television and saying, how
Speaker 1: dare Papadopoulos or Venders Juan or any of these guys
Speaker 1: caught up in the Russia collusion lunacy? How dare they lie?
Speaker 1: Why do they lie? They should go to prison for
Speaker 1: their lives lying about non criminal behavior. Meanwhile, you have
Speaker 1: border patrol agents and customs agents being allied to every day.
Speaker 1: Those are federal law enforcement officers that are trying to
Speaker 1: enforce federal criminal law. Do you do you think that
Speaker 1: there's a huge, a huge push from the same people
Speaker 1: who say that lying to the Special Council it's a
Speaker 1: it's a criminal offense. Lying to immigration is a criminal offense.
Speaker 1: You think that's being prosecuted? Do you think that you
Speaker 1: think they're they're prosecuting all the people that are saying
Speaker 1: that they have a credible fear they're from Honduras when
Speaker 1: they're really just from southern Mexico. But they think they
Speaker 1: have a better shot of getting in if they're from Honduras.
Speaker 1: Do you think do you think that? Then? Of course not,
Speaker 1: of course not the law. There's a separate set of
Speaker 1: laws that Democrats have created for people who want to
Speaker 1: come into this country illegally. There's there's an entirely separate
Speaker 1: approach to law enforce, and then we're supposed to accept
Speaker 1: because it benefits Democrats politically. That's that's what this is
Speaker 1: all about. That's what's going on. And then you have
Speaker 1: the state of California, the border fence that we have
Speaker 1: now here in this sector in San Diego where I'm
Speaker 1: coming to you live on the radio from San Diego.
Speaker 1: The border fence that we have, it's about I think
Speaker 1: ten million dollars per mile for this fence, which I
Speaker 1: will say seemed to me to be pretty expensive, but
Speaker 1: it makes more sense when you understand that California expressly
Speaker 1: forbid any California based contractors from putting forward a bid
Speaker 1: to build defence. So you had to bring in a
Speaker 1: company from Texas, because I mean, you know Texas is
Speaker 1: going to get it done. Bring in a company from
Speaker 1: Texas that was willing to build the fence. Here because
Speaker 1: California did not want any California based companies to be
Speaker 1: involved in helping federal law enforcement build dispense. The relationship
Speaker 1: between California law enforcement and Border Patrol is strained not
Speaker 1: because people, whether it's LAPD or San Diego PD or
Speaker 1: any of the other law enforcement agencies that are state
Speaker 1: or local controlled, don't like Border Patrol necessarily or have
Speaker 1: some personal issue with them, but because this California legislature
Speaker 1: has created all of these penalties and all of these
Speaker 1: pitfalls in any cooperation. I mean, they enforce the sanctuary
Speaker 1: status of California at the expense, explicitly and openly, at
Speaker 1: the expense of Border Patrol being able to get some
Speaker 1: help to do its job. Border Patrol is not able
Speaker 1: to be part of task forces that are set up
Speaker 1: in different cities. Border Patrol is not able to use
Speaker 1: their full authority all because California is complicit as a state.
Speaker 1: As a state government, California is complicit in illegal immigration
Speaker 1: top to bottom. They favor illegal immigration, They want more
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. They just won't come out and say it.
Speaker 1: All the policies they advocate for, they'll make it harder
Speaker 1: doing for to secure the border. All the policies they
Speaker 1: advocate for make it more likely you'll have illegal crossings
Speaker 1: going on because it's a Democrat controlled state. And the
Speaker 1: Democrats entirely and totally have bought in to this notion
Speaker 1: that we really shouldn't even have a border. I don't
Speaker 1: think that they think there should be a southern border.
Speaker 1: If they had their way, there wouldn't be a southern border.
Speaker 1: And I will say this. You spend just a couple
Speaker 1: of hours along the border between San Diego County and Mexico,
Speaker 1: which is Tijuana, to see, I'm doing it now, Tijuana
Speaker 1: Northern Baja, which is that's how they designate the sector.
Speaker 1: Northern Baa is currently the single most violent part of Mexico.
Speaker 1: You had twenty eight hundred murders in Tijuana the surrounding
Speaker 1: areas alone last year. Okay, twenty eight hundred murders. Mexico
Speaker 1: as a country is about half of the US population,
Speaker 1: and per capita has about double or sorry overall, rather
Speaker 1: has double the murder rate, so double our murders, half
Speaker 1: of our population. Mexican crimes are solved by the state
Speaker 1: at a rate of and this was according to a
Speaker 1: former US ambassador to Mexico who told me this a
Speaker 1: while ago. But I think it's necessary to bring us
Speaker 1: into the conversation about three percent three that's not thirty
Speaker 1: three lawlessness, corruption, and dysfunction prevail on the Mexican side
Speaker 1: of the border. Why is that. I'll leave that to
Speaker 1: somebody else. But to think that that would not become
Speaker 1: all of California and all of the country's problem immediately.
Speaker 1: If you really just gave up on this idea of
Speaker 1: having a border whatsoever, is to live in a delusion,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately a lot of Californians and a lot of
Speaker 1: their state government live in that delusion. I had this
Speaker 1: is the classic, you know, media guy thing to do.
Speaker 1: I had a drive over here with the with an
Speaker 1: Uber driver to get the studio, and I had the
Speaker 1: guy's a nice guy. We're chatting up. He's a he's
Speaker 1: a Navy vet, and I could tell he's a little liberal.
Speaker 1: Just I could tell he had some some of those
Speaker 1: like sort of surfer looking jewelry on. This guy's probably
Speaker 1: a lib. He's got some flip flaps on and surfer jewelry.
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe maybe I'm wrong, maybe, but he
Speaker 1: turned out to be a LIB and he's He said,
Speaker 1: what he've been doing here? Man? I said, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: I spent some time with border patrol. I'm just here
Speaker 1: doing some media work, you know, trying to learn about
Speaker 1: some things. He said, yeah, you know, walls don't work.
Speaker 1: I live right by the border. Walls don't work. Told me.
Speaker 1: He says, he lives a five minute drive from one
Speaker 1: of the ports of entry. And I'm sitting here, I'm
Speaker 1: thinking to myself, this is how effective the propaganda is
Speaker 1: that people who live near they're pulling a Jim Acosta.
Speaker 1: They're saying, well, you know, it's I don't see them
Speaker 1: running through my backyard, although they used to. I don't
Speaker 1: see them running through my backyard. I don't see all
Speaker 1: the violence and all. You know, I'm not seeing people
Speaker 1: O D from Fentatl on my front front porch. Soas
Speaker 1: walls must not be necessary and the border must be secure. False.
Speaker 1: This is not just a California issue or San Diego issue.
Speaker 1: It is an issue for the entire country. The drugs,
Speaker 1: the illegal immigration, the drain on resources, the lawlessness, the
Speaker 1: lack of sovereignty, all of it. And here's just that,
Speaker 1: if nothing else I need to take away from today
Speaker 1: Trump is right when it comes to border security. It's
Speaker 1: really not up for debate. The Democrats are living in
Speaker 1: a fantasy. They are wrong, and they are lying to you.
Speaker 1: Eight four four nine hundred two eight two five lines
Speaker 1: are open. Got them open, folks, Light them up. Haven't
Speaker 1: been able to talk to you guys in a while.
Speaker 1: Eight four four nine hundred buck. We got much more
Speaker 1: show coming. Stay with me lines. Let all up in
Speaker 1: this place. Let's get to it show. We first up
Speaker 1: Scott in Mississippi. Hey, Scott, hey, Buck, thanks to techno call.
Speaker 1: Thanks for calling in hey, just very quick. I wanted
Speaker 1: to mention, of course we understand and know that these
Speaker 1: Democrats are prolonging the funding the water wall because obviously
Speaker 1: because Trump's an office, but I wanted to note that, um,
Speaker 1: you know, we're living in the digital age now and
Speaker 1: a lot of people, especially the youth, are becoming you know,
Speaker 1: um they think that for some reason that these people
Speaker 1: can come over here some other way. The only way
Speaker 1: that people can come over here is land, sea or air.
Speaker 1: You know, by air, they're not really going to get in.
Speaker 1: You know, Florida is having an issue with the Florida
Speaker 1: Peninsula coming in from Cuba. But a wall is the
Speaker 1: thing that we need in order to prevent illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: for coming in. And I do want to notice that
Speaker 1: Democrats are they keep saying that we're going to use
Speaker 1: advanced technology to suffice. Yeah, you know, I hear this too.
Speaker 1: I mean, I can tell you what border patrol says
Speaker 1: about it. Yeah, it's it's great to know with technology
Speaker 1: when someone's coming. But if you don't have physical barriers,
Speaker 1: all they have to do is line up people along
Speaker 1: the border in a few different a few different places,
Speaker 1: and they are very Look, the cartels are the ones
Speaker 1: getting paid off by this. The human smuggling networks below
Speaker 1: them are very savvy about this. They use this tactic.
Speaker 1: Yesterday we had at the border an adult and a
Speaker 1: ten year old turn themselves in requesting the asylum, and
Speaker 1: then just down about a mile where we were, they
Speaker 1: had a bunch of guys make a break forward and
Speaker 1: try to cross over. That wasn't an accident, that was planned.
Speaker 1: They tried to tie up border patrol resources in one
Speaker 1: place and then make a break forward in the other. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can know, but you got to have the agents
Speaker 1: and you have to have the reaction time to get there,
Speaker 1: and that's what the wall does. That's what the fence does, right,
Speaker 1: It slows them down. So you know, you bring up
Speaker 1: an important point. Guys, We're gonna take more calls in
Speaker 1: the next hour because I love getting a chance to
Speaker 1: chat with you. We got a couple of spots open
Speaker 1: eight four four nine two eight two five eight four
Speaker 1: four nine hundred buck. We'll finish our conversation about the border.
Speaker 1: I'm coming to you live from San Diego after spending
Speaker 1: time with border patrol. Then we'll talk about the shutdown,
Speaker 1: the state of the Union, crazy people thinking Trump's a
Speaker 1: Russian agent, etc. Libs love to whine about all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff, whether it's transgender pronouns that aren't being used properly,
Speaker 1: or pretending that walls don't work at the border, or
Speaker 1: taxes aren't high enough. Maybe they just need some better coffee.
Speaker 1: So if that's the case, why don't they just fix
Speaker 1: the problem try some delicious Black Rifle coffee. I start
Speaker 1: every day with a delicious cup of Black Rifle. I
Speaker 1: absolutely love it. In fact, I am a member of
Speaker 1: Black Rifles Coffee Club. That means that my coffee gets
Speaker 1: delivered to me every month to my door and I
Speaker 1: get delicious fresh roast order coffee that make sure that
Speaker 1: I start my day off the right way every day. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you need to check this out for yourself. This
Speaker 1: should be everybody listening your coffee of choice, but make
Speaker 1: sure you go get it this way. Nothing cures a
Speaker 1: bad attitude like starting your day with the most American freedom,
Speaker 1: love and coffee ever Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck for fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck. The resident cannot
Speaker 1: hold public employees hostage because he wants to have a
Speaker 1: wall that is not effective. Not effective in terms of
Speaker 1: its purpose, not cost effective in terms of what the
Speaker 1: opportunity costs. It is of a federal dollars to spend.
Speaker 1: And the President said, Mexico is going to pay for this.
Speaker 1: Come on, let's let's anchor ourselves into reality. Mexico is
Speaker 1: not going to pay for this wall. President, in order
Speaker 1: to open the government a dollar dollar. A wall is
Speaker 1: an immorality, an immorality. Nancy Pelosi says, a wall is
Speaker 1: an immorality. Maybe she should actually spend some time either
Speaker 1: on the border with border patrol or learning about the
Speaker 1: situation before she mouths off on this. She doesn't I
Speaker 1: don't know if she has no idea what she's talking about,
Speaker 1: or she just lies. She knows that what she's saying
Speaker 1: is false, but Democrats want to believe it's so she
Speaker 1: says it. I wanted to take just a moment here
Speaker 1: to update you on on a couple of pieces of
Speaker 1: breaking news from earlier today. One is that the FBI
Speaker 1: has arrested a man in Georgia for allegedly plotting to
Speaker 1: attack the White House. One of the conversations that I
Speaker 1: had that came up a few times with Border patrol
Speaker 1: agents was this issue of terrorism and the southern border
Speaker 1: because the White House, the Trump administration got a lot
Speaker 1: of heat and a lot of pushback recently for some
Speaker 1: of their numbers around that. Now here's what I would say.
Speaker 1: First of all, this this FBI arrest in Georgia seems
Speaker 1: like a pretty classic sting operation. They had somebody human
Speaker 1: sources close to this individual who was planning to I
Speaker 1: wanted at one point join the Islamic State. I mean
Speaker 1: He's an ISIS sympathizer essentially, and he wanted to He's
Speaker 1: accused of wanting to attack locations in DC, including the
Speaker 1: White House. The accused name is hush Husher jalal Taheb,
Speaker 1: and he is now in custody or plotting all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I wanted to say this, you know, I had a
Speaker 1: I had a moment yesterday or yesterday where I saw
Speaker 1: these South Asian males which means either Indian, Pakistani or
Speaker 1: Bangladeshi or Afghan descent. They knew that they had some
Speaker 1: Indians in Bangladeshi's. I don't know if there were any
Speaker 1: Pakistani's in custody yet. And this was just from Remember,
Speaker 1: they hold people in these in these cells for no
Speaker 1: more than seventy two hours, so I'm seeing when I'm
Speaker 1: telling you that I saw a whole room full of
Speaker 1: banglad South Asian males, mostly Bangladeshis. I'm telling you that
Speaker 1: that's what they had caught in the last forty eight hours. Now.
Speaker 1: I have been critical of bringing up or or making
Speaker 1: the issue of terrorist infiltration of America via the southern
Speaker 1: border too prominent in the list of reasons why. I
Speaker 1: think it's the just the general human smuggling, drugs smuggling.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why we need a secure border. Tho
Speaker 1: of the primary stop the fentinel, stop the opioids from
Speaker 1: flooding into communities that it comes across in San Diego sector,
Speaker 1: it ends up in Indiana, West Virginia, it ends up
Speaker 1: in Illinois. You know, name your state. That's where the
Speaker 1: drug pipelines send. You know, that's where the stuff eventually
Speaker 1: ends up. It just crosses here as well as other
Speaker 1: places obviously along the border. Arizona and Texas have some
Speaker 1: very active sectors too. But now when you have this
Speaker 1: asylum process abused as it is, and you have people
Speaker 1: who can show up and know what to say, they're
Speaker 1: being told what to say, and the claim is, well,
Speaker 1: I just I have a credible fear. Think about it
Speaker 1: this way. It used to be a bad idea from
Speaker 1: the from the terrorist perspective, from a Jihattest perspective, for example,
Speaker 1: to come to our southern border when you could very
Speaker 1: when it's very high likelihood that you'll be caught, right,
Speaker 1: So why would you do that? There are better ways.
Speaker 1: It'd be smarter, quite honestly, if you can get access
Speaker 1: to Canada to try to come across the northern border, right,
Speaker 1: because you're more likely to be caught at the southern border.
Speaker 1: We have more resources here. But remember the game now
Speaker 1: has changed. So now if you present yourself to border patrol,
Speaker 1: I saw this happen. You present yourself and say, I
Speaker 1: have a credible fear. I have no documents on me.
Speaker 1: I've just got here from whatever the country is. You yes,
Speaker 1: have to You will get processed, you will get fingerprinted.
Speaker 1: But unless they have a hit on you as a
Speaker 1: known or suspected terrorist and you know what to say,
Speaker 1: you will be released into the interior of the United States.
Speaker 1: It will happen. That's the polo, and you'll get a
Speaker 1: court date for a year or two from now. So
Speaker 1: let's just assume him for a moment that you have
Speaker 1: a Pakistani national, which you know, Bangladesh is what used
Speaker 1: to be called East Pakistan, right, so this and Pakistan
Speaker 1: was West Pakistan. But let's say you have a Pakistani
Speaker 1: national who arrives at our who arrives in Mexico or
Speaker 1: even makes his way up from Central America, gets to
Speaker 1: our southern border, says I'm fleeing religious persecution in Pakistan,
Speaker 1: and I want entry in the United States under your
Speaker 1: asylum program. Even if even if it's very flimsy the
Speaker 1: case that he's going to present to immigration court, he
Speaker 1: will go through the Immigrations and Customs enforcement process. Border
Speaker 1: patrol will transfer him over, and this individual will then
Speaker 1: be released pending a court date. That means released in
Speaker 1: the American interior, and the court date might be six months,
Speaker 1: twelve months, eighteen months out, who knows, maybe three or
Speaker 1: four years out that process unless they already have derogatory
Speaker 1: information on this individual. That is the process now. So
Speaker 1: whereas it used to be, if you were, let's say,
Speaker 1: a train jihadi, whether you're from Isis or wherever, al Qaeda,
Speaker 1: you name it, would you wouldn't want to come to
Speaker 1: our southern border because there's a major law enforce in
Speaker 1: presence and if they catch you, they're they're gonna detain
Speaker 1: you and they're gonna kick you out. And maybe now
Speaker 1: you're up on the radar, and now it's if you
Speaker 1: have a what they call from a document's perspective, clean
Speaker 1: you're a clean skin, meaning you don't have you don't
Speaker 1: come up on a you know, on the violation of
Speaker 1: the terrorist system. The terrorist databases that they have, right,
Speaker 1: that's what they're talking about with all these different possible
Speaker 1: terrorists that have come up. The White House is bringing
Speaker 1: this up. If you show up and you don't hit
Speaker 1: on any of these databases, and you say you have
Speaker 1: a credible fear, you're get it. You are getting into
Speaker 1: the United States. You are going to get in on
Speaker 1: That is the law right now. You're going to get
Speaker 1: in unless they can prove that you're a threat or
Speaker 1: there's some problem all. If you show up with no
Speaker 1: documents with the right story, that is a huge security
Speaker 1: loople and it's a relatively new one. It wouldn't have
Speaker 1: been the case a few years ago. Now it is
Speaker 1: the case. So I think that that's important to keep
Speaker 1: in mind. While I'm critical of overstating the terrorism threat
Speaker 1: in terms of the other pieces of this. And I know,
Speaker 1: we just have this guy who's an ISO sympathizer arrested
Speaker 1: within the United States. If people can say you can
Speaker 1: radicalize within the US, I know, But we're talking about
Speaker 1: security and risk mitigation. Nothing is going to be perfect.
Speaker 1: There's always a way to infiltrate any system. There's always
Speaker 1: a way to get around the security processes in place.
Speaker 1: We want to make it as efficient and smart as
Speaker 1: we can. Now, with that, I wanted to get to
Speaker 1: we got. We got every line lit here, so let
Speaker 1: me get some of these calls here. We got Charlie
Speaker 1: online too in Maryland. Hey Charlie, Hey Buck chiels I
Speaker 1: and brother field time and man, what's up? Hey. I'm
Speaker 1: an old guy who lives on the opposite side of
Speaker 1: the country, and I see a real need for the
Speaker 1: border wall. I think I talked to you some time
Speaker 1: ago about the military, like the CBEES. I was a
Speaker 1: CBE for four years, spent a couple of years in
Speaker 1: Nam and all that stuff. But I I heard a
Speaker 1: report that I think the Farming Corps of Engineers has
Speaker 1: a back fund of like ten billion dollars setting narrative
Speaker 1: they use, and why can't the president appropriate three billion
Speaker 1: of that give it to the CBS. Let him build
Speaker 1: the wall, which would be much more efficient, no government contract,
Speaker 1: no you know, high cost. You was talking about like
Speaker 1: ten million dollars per mile there in San Diego. I
Speaker 1: think a CBS could probably do that about a million
Speaker 1: dollars a mile, save a lot of money and go
Speaker 1: to that route. Well, look, there's a chance and you know,
Speaker 1: it's all very good questions, Charlote. There's a chance that
Speaker 1: the president is you know, may try something along these lines.
Speaker 1: That the President may decide that he's going to declare
Speaker 1: a tional emergency and use funds that are already within
Speaker 1: the DoD system. And I don't know, you brought up
Speaker 1: this fund that exists. I don't know if that's true
Speaker 1: or not, or how that works, but we know the
Speaker 1: President has discussed this. The problem is without congressional funding.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think there's any judge out there.
Speaker 1: There are some limits to how crazy, even Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: judges can be. I don't think that a judge is
Speaker 1: going to say congressionally appropriated funds cannot be used for
Speaker 1: this purpose, right, I don't, although maybe you know, but
Speaker 1: I think that that's much less likely. The moment that
Speaker 1: the president uses executive authority to build the wall and
Speaker 1: uses funds that have not been congressionally appropriated for that
Speaker 1: specific purpose, you will have a court challenge. This will
Speaker 1: be in the courts, and you essentially have a federal
Speaker 1: injunction against presidential authority here, which I would know this
Speaker 1: is a big problem. One federal judge can put the
Speaker 1: brakes now because of the one federal judge can put
Speaker 1: the brakes on national level policy see for the rest
Speaker 1: of the country whenever and whenever and however rather and
Speaker 1: that's that's an issue. I mean, this is this is
Speaker 1: a form of hashtag resistance lawfare against the president. So
Speaker 1: you know that. That's why I think it's important that
Speaker 1: they try to get this. But you know, the Democrats
Speaker 1: are not gonna I don't know how this ends up
Speaker 1: because the Democrats are not going to cave, even though
Speaker 1: I believe the Democrats are. For people who are paying
Speaker 1: attention to the facts, all this argument, the Democrats are losing,
Speaker 1: but I don't know how many people are paying attention.
Speaker 1: And you know, the media is certainly all out to
Speaker 1: to help the Democrats out. So thank you for calling in,
Speaker 1: Charlie from Maryland. I do appreciate it. Brent in New Mexico,
Speaker 1: what's up, Brent, Oh, Brent, just drop my bed. Joseph
Speaker 1: in wherever in Texas. Hey, Joseph, Hey Buck. I'm very
Speaker 1: serious about my point here. The Democrats have won this one.
Speaker 1: They have proven the Walls on moral They've proven the
Speaker 1: wall is not helpful, They've proven their point. Let's give
Speaker 1: the Democrats a win on this one. Let's bring the
Speaker 1: seabees in there and start at the beach in San
Speaker 1: Diego and start removing the wall from the beach in
Speaker 1: San Diego, California to Yuma, Arizona. We just start once
Speaker 1: flat at the time, taking the wall down. It's a
Speaker 1: moral and it's not helpful. Take all the border control
Speaker 1: along the California border, move it to Arizona in Texas.
Speaker 1: I've been to San Diego, I've walked across the pedway
Speaker 1: into Tijuana. I've been on the beach. Okay. If they
Speaker 1: call it useless, remove it. If they call it ill moral,
Speaker 1: remove it. Okay. So I sense what you're saying is
Speaker 1: that they should have to live with the consequences of
Speaker 1: their insanity. And if you took border patrol off, and
Speaker 1: you took the fence down, everything else they would see
Speaker 1: that there would be I mean, the state of California
Speaker 1: would essentially collapse. I mean if you had, if you
Speaker 1: had Tijuana able to just completely come across at will
Speaker 1: and everybody from the rest of Mexico. Is that what
Speaker 1: you're getting at, Because obviously what you're saying, you're all
Speaker 1: the things you're saying are untrue. But I'm assuming you're
Speaker 1: doing that on purpose. Yes, there's an air of sarcasm
Speaker 1: in my bl Yes, that's what I'm going. Okay, yes,
Speaker 1: you're being sarcastic. Shut down the border crossing, take all
Speaker 1: of the security. Donald Trump can make a phone call tomorrow, Morney.
Speaker 1: Take everybody out of the state of California, spread them
Speaker 1: over Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Start taking the slats
Speaker 1: down one of the time. Why why do they have
Speaker 1: to endure walking across the border and going through that
Speaker 1: little door and you gotta get get permission to walk
Speaker 1: into America. Well, Joseph, people of San Diego need permission
Speaker 1: to go to Mexico. Well, Joseph, I appreciate. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: take your take your idea here in Roma for a second.
Speaker 1: I appreciate your calling it from Texas. I'd say this,
Speaker 1: it is worth asking Democrats because I've said, and I
Speaker 1: get people to come after me on Twitter, for example,
Speaker 1: a little blue check journo types. I'll come after you
Speaker 1: say it's not right for you to say Democrats are
Speaker 1: pro illegal immigration. I like to turn around and say
Speaker 1: why not. Why aren't democrats pro illegal immigration, ask them
Speaker 1: that question, All right, this is this is a version
Speaker 1: of what I say to you. When you have to
Speaker 1: argue with a liberal, start from what would falsify what
Speaker 1: you believe? Or what evidence could I theoretically show you
Speaker 1: that would change your mind. Sometimes they'll tell you a
Speaker 1: lot of times they'll they'll think there's nothing, And that
Speaker 1: just means that their position is rooted in emotion, not
Speaker 1: in the facts, and not in reason and history and logic.
Speaker 1: When you when you are presented with a liberal on
Speaker 1: this issue, and you and you can say what I say,
Speaker 1: which is the Democratic Party is the pro illegal immigration party?
Speaker 1: There they favor illegal aliens breaking the law coming to
Speaker 1: this country. That doesn't mean they're going to admit it,
Speaker 1: but they do favor it, and they're pushing they're doing
Speaker 1: everything they can to make it easier for that to happen.
Speaker 1: When they say that's not true, that true, say well
Speaker 1: why not? Why shouldn't if Democrats believe these things like
Speaker 1: illegal aliens do the jobs Americans won't do. They're all
Speaker 1: just trying to be dreamers. They're trying to better themselves.
Speaker 1: What's the downside? And you'll see that they stutter and
Speaker 1: they don't really have an answer because they haven't thought
Speaker 1: this through. And that's I think the point that our
Speaker 1: previous colors trying to make, which is if what they
Speaker 1: say is true, that there's no downside to illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: that it makes our GDP larger and makes our country
Speaker 1: stronger and more vibrant than all these things, then why
Speaker 1: even have why even have border patrol? What's the point?
Speaker 1: Why not just allow people the complete free flow of
Speaker 1: individuals back and forth, if it won't deteriorate our security,
Speaker 1: if it won't cause major problems with drugs and with
Speaker 1: the cartels now having free reign into this country, never
Speaker 1: mind what they already have, why not do it? And
Speaker 1: when Democrats and the Pelosiites and the sum schum Arians
Speaker 1: and all the rest of them, when they can't answer
Speaker 1: or that question, and they won't be able to, you know,
Speaker 1: you've got them, and they haven't thought this through. They
Speaker 1: don't even understand the consequences of the policies they want.
Speaker 1: They just know that it feels good to say. It
Speaker 1: gives an emotional high to say we're a nation of immigrants.
Speaker 1: Bring the more the merrier, including illegals. We're a nation
Speaker 1: of illegal immigrants is what Democrats believe. They should say that,
Speaker 1: and they should have to explain why we've got much more.
Speaker 1: I will move off this topic. I'm obviously in San Diego,
Speaker 1: spent two days border patrol talking about the craziness around
Speaker 1: the whole Trump is a Russian agent thing, and then
Speaker 1: some other some other topics. Four Americans killed in Syria.
Speaker 1: I gotta go to break. I'll be right back. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of folks have heard of AARP, right,
Speaker 1: but you know, you may already know somebody who's a member,
Speaker 1: You may be a member. Did you know that the
Speaker 1: aarps really all about left wing politics? They fought tooth
Speaker 1: and nail for government control of our healthcare system via Obamacare.
Speaker 1: Why don't you get all the benefits of AARP, but
Speaker 1: through an organization that actually shares your values? I recommend AMAC.
Speaker 1: Why Amack? Well, first of all, AMAC, like you, is
Speaker 1: all about conservative values, patriotism, and America. So that means
Speaker 1: that you're supporting an organization that is pushing for policy
Speaker 1: you agree with. But it also gets you discounts on
Speaker 1: car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants. All the upside of AARP,
Speaker 1: none of the liberal politics Okay, stand with AMAC. Join
Speaker 1: the good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are great, the cause is even greater. Joined right now
Speaker 1: at amac dot us slash buck. That's Amac dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck again, one more time, Amac dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: The evidence suggests indeed Trump is has been a pawn
Speaker 1: of the Russians. Put the fact that he said yesterday
Speaker 1: I've never worked for Russia. This made you think over
Speaker 1: and never get about our two previous presidents and broiled
Speaker 1: in potential impeachments, Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, saying Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: I'd never had sexual relations with that woman. Richard Nixon,
Speaker 1: I am not a crook. Turned out they were lying.
Speaker 1: Maybe Donald Trump is too. But when you start to
Speaker 1: see a pattern where he basically spouts Putin's lines, then
Speaker 1: we have to ask the most unusual and frightening question
Speaker 1: about our own president. Why this president seems to be
Speaker 1: putting Russia's interests ahead of our own. There's no evidence
Speaker 1: for this, but it is repeated by journalist after journalists,
Speaker 1: anchor after anchor, pundit after pundit. Just it's really essentially
Speaker 1: a form of propaganda, just the repetition of it, right,
Speaker 1: just said, well, I can't prove this thing, but I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna keep saying it. I'm just gonna keep I'm
Speaker 1: gonna keep asking the question, you know, does this does
Speaker 1: this person beat his spouse? I have no proof, but
Speaker 1: I just want to keep asking the question, does you
Speaker 1: know individual a abuse his children? I don't have any evidence,
Speaker 1: but let's just keep asking the question. They're smearing people,
Speaker 1: They're smearing Trump. That's what this is a Russian agent.
Speaker 1: Who could believe this? Apparently much of the media does.
Speaker 1: And this is where you have them conflating disagreements with
Speaker 1: the president on foreign policy from having any real reason
Speaker 1: to believe that the President United States is working against
Speaker 1: American national security interests abroad. You know, they don't like
Speaker 1: his foreign policy. Therefore he's a Trump puppet. This is
Speaker 1: I mean a Putin puppet. Rather, this is crazy. But
Speaker 1: this is a widespread theme. Now. The MSNBC led their
Speaker 1: APM show with this last night, this lunacy. How do
Speaker 1: you even have a conversation with them? I'll get into
Speaker 1: more of this and then also what this information that
Speaker 1: we've got now coming in about what happened in Syria
Speaker 1: that's coming up eight four four nine hundred two eight
Speaker 1: two five eight four four nine hundred buck. You know,
Speaker 1: I know we don't take that many live calls here
Speaker 1: lately on the show because I've got so much to
Speaker 1: say to you. But tonight I'm in California. Want to
Speaker 1: open it up a little bit of figure? Why not?
Speaker 1: Let's get to it. Uh, Dno in Delaware? D and D.
Speaker 1: What's up? Oh? Well, A lot, a whole lot. But
Speaker 1: I've been listening to these different radio shows for what
Speaker 1: maybe ten years. The question I always have is, is
Speaker 1: uh is an a prisonable offense to impede the operations
Speaker 1: of the executive brand of where he one who breaks
Speaker 1: non federal law? My question is why President Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: have a secret service arrest the governor to these sanctuary cities?
Speaker 1: Are some of these lives that he can prove that
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Schumer are doing just playing? I mean, there's
Speaker 1: there is some yeah, do you know? Do you know
Speaker 1: I appreciate you calling in there? There is some of
Speaker 1: some as or some legal foundation for what he's talking
Speaker 1: about with regard to sanctuary cities and obstructing obstructing federal
Speaker 1: officers from doing their jobs. There's also giving harbor to
Speaker 1: illegal aliens that's technically illegal, but these are laws that
Speaker 1: are not enforced, and I think that there's a sense
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't want to create some kind of a
Speaker 1: crisis of federalism where you have a governor or state
Speaker 1: officials who are being arrested by the federal government. But
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean that what they're doing in these states
Speaker 1: is okay. What California should be ashamed of its approach
Speaker 1: to immigration laws. California does not get to write immigration law.
Speaker 1: That is a federal prerogative, and California acts like it
Speaker 1: shouldn't really count in this state, and it's an embarrassment.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately a lot of Californians think that it's just fine.
Speaker 1: The propaganda out here is very strong. Jim in Pleasant Valley,
Speaker 1: New York, Hey, Jim, hey Buck, thank you for taking
Speaker 1: my call. Thank you for calling in. What's up? First
Speaker 1: things first, man, I've been listening to you for a
Speaker 1: long time, all the way back when you filled them
Speaker 1: for the Big Boys, and thank you for your service
Speaker 1: and everything you do. With that said, I'm all for
Speaker 1: the border. I'm all for that. As the crow flies,
Speaker 1: I'm like forty miles north of New York City. So
Speaker 1: let's go back twenty years. You know, you can't tell
Speaker 1: me that Chucky Cheese hasn't known Trump forever. You know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. So what I want to talk about
Speaker 1: it is, is that Schumer is that Chucky Cheese. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, come on to go to this. Look, man,
Speaker 1: you were in New York. But what I'm getting at is,
Speaker 1: I'm all for the wall. I'm all for all of that.
Speaker 1: Everything you've talked about tonight and everything everybody's men talking
Speaker 1: about that's going on for the last month and a half.
Speaker 1: But let's talk about what Trump ran on when he
Speaker 1: knocked out all the other Republicans going against him. He
Speaker 1: ran also draining the swamp. That's what they're pissed off at.
Speaker 1: That's what Fancy Anty and Chucky Cheese has pissed off
Speaker 1: with because he's trying to drink his swamp at the
Speaker 1: same time. Yeah, that's all true. I mean, he is,
Speaker 1: he is. I think it's exposing much of the establishment,
Speaker 1: especially the establishments approach and feelings on the immigration issue. Look,
Speaker 1: I I keep repeating it because it's important that we
Speaker 1: hold the Republicans accountable on this too. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans. Paul Ryan was basically a quasi open
Speaker 1: borders advocate. He was, you know, everybody wants to come
Speaker 1: should come. Yeah, we do guessworker visas for them, but
Speaker 1: there should be really very little restrictions on it. We
Speaker 1: should have amnesty for everybody's here illegally. Oh one more thing,
Speaker 1: and I didn't want to get any of them on
Speaker 1: the record with this one because I know that there's
Speaker 1: the official number for how many legal aliens in the country.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you that my whole theory about
Speaker 1: how you can't look at the numbers of illegal crossings
Speaker 1: and visa overstates for the last ten years and tell
Speaker 1: me that the number has stayed at twelve million. Border
Speaker 1: patrol agents they agree. They're like, there's no way, there's
Speaker 1: no there's no way. Yeah, a racer. The other thing
Speaker 1: I want to just add quick and honor to my
Speaker 1: dead father here volunteered in World War Two. Were like
Speaker 1: millions of other men did for a submarine duty, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. And it's like go back in history. Man,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm all four people coming in legally, but
Speaker 1: are you are you kidding me? This is this is crazy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we gotta have a look. I'm with you, gym. We
Speaker 1: gotta have a legal process and uh good, good on
Speaker 1: your dad for the for the service. Thank you very
Speaker 1: much for calling in. Uh, Rocky in Nebraska? What's up
Speaker 1: Rocky there? Buck? Hey, what's up? Hey? I'm doing pretty good.
Speaker 1: How are you doing all right? Man? Are you backing? Bucks?
Speaker 1: Listening to you from across all across the country? Are
Speaker 1: you uh back in? Uh? Are you back home? Or
Speaker 1: are you back No? Man, I'm live in San Diego
Speaker 1: right now. I'm at a Kogo or i Heart affiliate here. Man.
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed seeing your tweets and stuff, the pictures
Speaker 1: from the border, and I'm really glad um u. I
Speaker 1: listened to you all the time. Buck Man, you're you're, you're,
Speaker 1: you're the best voice on the radio right now. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. I just wanted to say something about
Speaker 1: I don't know, did you get to see Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Chuck I'm sure you probably did. Yeah. I've been
Speaker 1: following the news as much as I can, although the
Speaker 1: cell service and some of these canyons out here and stuff,
Speaker 1: I couldn't really download all my usual data. But yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: like just looking at them, I'm telling you those two
Speaker 1: are liars. The whole Liberal Party is liars. And I
Speaker 1: feel the frustration of the country because we're fighting something
Speaker 1: that is just not logical. It doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: They've been lying all the time. Global warming is lying,
Speaker 1: the border is lying. I'm afraid that we'd be We're
Speaker 1: going to be infiltrated, and maybe we already are infiltrated
Speaker 1: in our own government. It's looking pretty spooky. There's there's
Speaker 1: some troubling signs. But anyway, I gotta I gotta leave
Speaker 1: it there, Rocky, so we got have to run into
Speaker 1: a break man. Thank you so much for calling it
Speaker 1: from Alaska. I do want to talk to you all
Speaker 1: about what's going on in Syria because we had four
Speaker 1: Americans KIA there in the last twenty four hours. Very
Speaker 1: from first of all, biggest things that we're taking losses
Speaker 1: and that we're losing. We're losing our people still in
Speaker 1: these combat zones, so we need to always remember that.
Speaker 1: And then also I wanted to see I wanted to
Speaker 1: get into how interestingly enough, both sides of the Syria
Speaker 1: US troop withdrawal debate are viewing the research well, essentially
Speaker 1: using this attack to bolster their position on this, meaning
Speaker 1: that some people are saying, well, because we lost US troops,
Speaker 1: clearly we should get them out faster. Others are saying, no,
Speaker 1: we lost US troops, and I think it was two
Speaker 1: d D civilians and two military, you know, two active
Speaker 1: duty military personal two soldiers. Because of that, we need
Speaker 1: to stay there because it shows that isis is coming back.
Speaker 1: So I want to give you my sense of that,
Speaker 1: and then the third hour we'll get into some more
Speaker 1: just news of the day stuff. I mean, so Pelosi's
Speaker 1: canceled the State of the Union address, maybe we'll talk
Speaker 1: a bit more about that. I also have Gillette thoughts.
Speaker 1: I see, I told you about the Gillette thing before
Speaker 1: I left. I was ahead of the curve on that one.
Speaker 1: Now o Gillette and their toxic masculinity ads. I prefer
Speaker 1: one Blade, which is what I shave with. Go check
Speaker 1: out one Blade if you haven't before, One Blade shave
Speaker 1: dot com. Check it out. That's my razor, and uh yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. President Trump is not shared with
Speaker 1: the Foreign Relations Committee much of as foreign policy objectives
Speaker 1: or strategies. I've talked for ALIS and they're not clarissing
Speaker 1: our policy so it's causing national security folds. My concern
Speaker 1: by the statements made by President Trump is it you'd
Speaker 1: set in motion enthusiasm by the enemy we're fighting. So
Speaker 1: what hope the President will look long and hard before
Speaker 1: he's headed in Syria. Now, there is a very honest
Speaker 1: and good faiths well argument we had on both sides
Speaker 1: of the discussion of what we should be doing right
Speaker 1: now in Syria. I get that, as you know, I
Speaker 1: think that we shouldn't allow ourselves and we should not
Speaker 1: have US troops to be ordered to set up what
Speaker 1: would effectively be a forward operating base in Syria for
Speaker 1: the foreseeable future. And the foreseeable future, as we've seen
Speaker 1: in a Rock and Afghanistan, means years, decades, maybe forever.
Speaker 1: Who knows that that is mission creep that we don't need,
Speaker 1: we don't want, we do not want responsibility for trying
Speaker 1: to hold the eastern portion of Syria together in the
Speaker 1: aftermath of a civil war with many factions international players involved.
Speaker 1: It's just a mess. Anyone with a passing familiarity of
Speaker 1: the history of Lebanon throughout the nineteen eighties and the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties and what the US mission to try and
Speaker 1: quiet things down there. Under the Reagan administration went like
Speaker 1: would know that this is not something we want to
Speaker 1: be deeply involved in. That's it. I'm persuadable on the
Speaker 1: timeline how quickly we should withdraw, but not we should
Speaker 1: withdraw in a year or five. It's just is it
Speaker 1: three months, is it six months? And how do we
Speaker 1: do this? We have been told by the Trump administration
Speaker 1: that they have received assurances from the Turkish government. I
Speaker 1: know we got to take that with a grain assault,
Speaker 1: but assurances that our Turkish allies in the ground will
Speaker 1: not be targeted by Turkish air strikes. And that's an
Speaker 1: important concession. That's something you have to have in place.
Speaker 1: But now we have to deal with what is the
Speaker 1: security situation really like for our forces that are on
Speaker 1: the ground, and what does it say about the possibility
Speaker 1: of a resurgence of the Islamic State. There was a
Speaker 1: bombing in man Bidge, which is toward the Turkish border
Speaker 1: with Syria, east of Aleppo, the second biggest city, what
Speaker 1: was the second biggest city until it was largely destroyed
Speaker 1: in fighting, but man Bidge is east of Aleppo and
Speaker 1: there was a bombing there that killed two US soldiers
Speaker 1: and to the most recent reporting I've seen, todd civilians
Speaker 1: and the Islamic State has already has already claimed that
Speaker 1: this is one of their bombings. And this is where
Speaker 1: I have to say it's very important not to get
Speaker 1: caught up in this. Well. If we set up a
Speaker 1: base in Syria, it'll be like our base in It'll
Speaker 1: be like our bases in South Korea or in Nawah
Speaker 1: or Germany. No, that is not what we are signing
Speaker 1: our but that is not what we are assigning our
Speaker 1: troops to do. They are going to be in a
Speaker 1: policing role in what is a civil war that is
Speaker 1: still ongoing, and they are going to be under threat
Speaker 1: like this, even if they're mostly in a static role.
Speaker 1: They're not in Ford deployed. I shouldn't say Ford deployed.
Speaker 1: They're not in frontline combat roles continuously. Just by being
Speaker 1: on Syrian soil, there is an instability and an insecurity
Speaker 1: that goes along with that. We have learned this lesson
Speaker 1: in different ways in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's one thing
Speaker 1: to smash the enemy. Our military is the best that
Speaker 1: has ever existed at smashing defeat the enemy. Nobody can
Speaker 1: face us on open terrain, nobody can square off against
Speaker 1: our troops and come out anything other than the loser.
Speaker 1: But trying to hold together a society for other people,
Speaker 1: trying to police their streets or assist in the policing
Speaker 1: of their streets, trying to reconstruct or construct, depending on
Speaker 1: how you look at it. Another country a foreign country,
Speaker 1: particlarly a Middle Eastern country where we have not established
Speaker 1: full military dominance, and that is not our purpose there.
Speaker 1: Right we're supposed to be assisting these governments, assisting the
Speaker 1: government in Afghanistan and Iraq to be self sufficient. In Syria,
Speaker 1: we don't even have that option. In Syria, the government
Speaker 1: is still the only real national government is the Assad regime.
Speaker 1: There is no other government, and we can talk about
Speaker 1: trying to create a political settlement, but there is no
Speaker 1: political settlement that the Assad regime would ever accept that
Speaker 1: does not involve them running the country. So these are
Speaker 1: the realities that we face there. And I think that
Speaker 1: the losses that we've taken in Syria are a tragic
Speaker 1: reminder that this is an active combat zone and this
Speaker 1: is ultimately not beyond the suppression of the Islamic state.
Speaker 1: This is not going to be a fight that is
Speaker 1: ours or a fight that we should we should engage
Speaker 1: in it. And I would just note I got a
Speaker 1: fair amount of heat, including from some fellow conservatives, and
Speaker 1: I think that the main line of attack on this
Speaker 1: one against me, or the main criticism I should say,
Speaker 1: was oh, well, this is just because Trump says it.
Speaker 1: And I would point to I wrote a National Review
Speaker 1: I think in twenty twelve that assad was an Arab problem,
Speaker 1: that we should not have US troops on the ground
Speaker 1: in Syria, that we should not be engaged in ongoing
Speaker 1: combat operations, and yet another. So it's not a new
Speaker 1: position for me. It's not just Trump related or anything
Speaker 1: like that. I mean, I'm in writing many years before
Speaker 1: anyone ever thought Trump would be president, saying this is
Speaker 1: not a problem, so we want to take on We've
Speaker 1: seen what happens in Iraq, We've seen what the situation
Speaker 1: is in Afghanistan, and we shouldn't be adding to our
Speaker 1: militaries mission in this way. It's just not it's not
Speaker 1: sound policy. I think now the Islamic State, can it rebound?
Speaker 1: Can there be a resurgence, of course, but let's remember
Speaker 1: that we have destroyed the territorial Caliphate. There is a
Speaker 1: serious Kurdish ground force in place now, tens of thousands
Speaker 1: of Kurds that have come together who would be who
Speaker 1: are there and going to continue to be there because
Speaker 1: it's their territory, they live there, their Syrian Kurds that
Speaker 1: would be able to provide assistance and support. It's a
Speaker 1: groundforce that we did not have before that we could
Speaker 1: rely on as an ally to stop the Islamic State.
Speaker 1: And we still have thousands of US troops in Iraq
Speaker 1: right next door. Air power we can call upon if
Speaker 1: need be, you know, not just fixed wing but also
Speaker 1: rotary wing aircraft. So there's a lot that can be done.
Speaker 1: And I do think that the President needs to keep
Speaker 1: faith with the promises that he made, and one of
Speaker 1: them was that we weren't going to make everyone else's
Speaker 1: problems in the Middle East our problem. We weren't going
Speaker 1: to go looking for more countries to piece together and
Speaker 1: more problems to solve, especially if the inhabitants of if
Speaker 1: the natives of that country don't necessarily want to play
Speaker 1: ball with us. And I look at the situation in
Speaker 1: Iraq and the strongest block in the Iraqi Parliament is
Speaker 1: the Sodris Block, which is named for Maktada Alsado. Those
Speaker 1: of you who fought over there, I know many of
Speaker 1: you listening did know that Muktada Alsader is a world
Speaker 1: class dirt bag and has the blood of Americans on
Speaker 1: his hands. And this is who the Iraqi I mean,
Speaker 1: the Iraqi people are, by a majority or at least
Speaker 1: the single biggest party I should say, support a guy
Speaker 1: who we very likely could have seen and should have seen,
Speaker 1: in my opinion, as a battlefield target years ago. So
Speaker 1: that our experiment with the Iraqi democracy so far is
Speaker 1: shaky at best. And don't even get me started on Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: You all know I do not believe that there is
Speaker 1: a there is a military solution to that. There is
Speaker 1: a solution that we are going to drive. We're just
Speaker 1: we can hang on. We can we can push for
Speaker 1: status quo, which, whether they'll admit it or not, that
Speaker 1: is the policy now, status quo. Just hold on to
Speaker 1: what we've got for as long as we can. Don't
Speaker 1: allow the Taliban to take major urban centers, don't allow
Speaker 1: them to be the de facto government of entire governorates
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. Try to prevent that from happening. So I
Speaker 1: think that we need to I think the President's right
Speaker 1: on Syria. Scale down the mission, draw down the mission,
Speaker 1: do it sensibly. But we're right next door in a
Speaker 1: rock if a crisis were to hit. We do not
Speaker 1: want to get caught up in the middle of the
Speaker 1: Syrian civil war that is ongoing and has way too
Speaker 1: many players. And that's that's where I stand on that
Speaker 1: one UM talk. Nancy Pelosi stayed the Union address. Maybe
Speaker 1: an so the Gillette man, what is it mansplaining or
Speaker 1: toxic masculinity? There we go, toxic masculinity problem and some
Speaker 1: other stuff coming up. So I'll stay with me. You
Speaker 1: want to be smart in twenty nineteen, Well, you want
Speaker 1: to be smart all the time. You know what is smart?
Speaker 1: Kicking off this year by planning out those roles, those
Speaker 1: hires you have to make so that your business gets
Speaker 1: up to the next level. You know what else is smart?
Speaker 1: Making sure that you start the new year off strong
Speaker 1: by going to zip recruiter dot com slash buck to
Speaker 1: fill those roles and hire the right people. Unlike other
Speaker 1: job sites, zip recruiter finds qualified candidates for you. It's
Speaker 1: powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify people
Speaker 1: with the right skills, education, and experience and actively invites
Speaker 1: them to apply to your job so you get qualified
Speaker 1: candidates fast. That's why zip recruiter is rated number one
Speaker 1: by employers in the US, and this rating comes from
Speaker 1: hiring sites on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews.
Speaker 1: Right now, my listeners can try zip recruiter for free
Speaker 1: at this exclusive web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: If you love this show, show your support, go to
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck again to fill any job,
Speaker 1: any business you got zip recruiter dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: because zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Buck section show. Coming to you live
Speaker 1: from well sunny San Diego, except not so sunny. It's
Speaker 1: been a little rainy. Not to sound like not to
Speaker 1: sound like a whiney swamp creature. Here. I'll take what
Speaker 1: I can get. It was freezing in DC what I left.
Speaker 1: But here we are all right, all right, our brother
Speaker 1: Kenny and Boston. He's been holding and holding and holding. Kenny. Well,
Speaker 1: you're our last call to night, my friend. Then I
Speaker 1: gotta get to some stuff but thanks for calling in
Speaker 1: greeting shields of not crossed for a long time. No,
Speaker 1: we've missed you, Kenny, Yeah, me too. Listen. For about
Speaker 1: two plush years now, we've been told that Vladimir Putin
Speaker 1: was the puppet master. But over the last a week
Speaker 1: and a half or so, I've been hearing the stuff
Speaker 1: that Rush Limbaugh was the puppet master. So how is
Speaker 1: it It's kind of incongruent in my mind? How is
Speaker 1: it possible that both could be the puppet master? Who's
Speaker 1: who is saying that? I've never heard. I mean, Rush
Speaker 1: is awesome and he is the man, but I've never
Speaker 1: heard somebody referred him as Trump's puppet masters. This immedia
Speaker 1: thing now, Yeah, that was over the last week, during
Speaker 1: this shutdown, when he was going to sign the Continuing Resolution,
Speaker 1: and I believe that Rush was on the radio saying, oh, no,
Speaker 1: don't sign it. I hope he doesn't sign it and
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and he did not, And then at
Speaker 1: that from that point they've been calling him a well
Speaker 1: a few of them have been calling him a puppet master. Yeah. Look,
Speaker 1: they're just these are hysterical libs. This is what they do.
Speaker 1: They try to find various boogeymen to fit into this
Speaker 1: narrative of you know, Trump doesn't do anythinking for himself
Speaker 1: and he just does what he's told and all all
Speaker 1: this other stuff that you hear. Look, there are obviously
Speaker 1: conservative media voices that are very influential, not just on
Speaker 1: the president's minds that I think, but on the national
Speaker 1: conversation about these issues, you know, and Coulter Rush Limbaugh,
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity. I mean, these are people who are moving
Speaker 1: the needle on perception on issues like immigration, and that
Speaker 1: includes the perception of the president himself. I would just
Speaker 1: note that, you know, this is true of all presidents.
Speaker 1: I mean, everybody has people that know that they respect
Speaker 1: on certain issues or just in general, their their judgment
Speaker 1: and their wisdom, so that that's nothing surprising at all.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I mean to your point about how there's
Speaker 1: there's one, there's one puppet master this week and another
Speaker 1: than next week. Just like one week they have to
Speaker 1: get rid of Trump because the twenty fifth Amendment. The
Speaker 1: next week they had to get rid of Trump because
Speaker 1: of Russia, and then the next week they had to
Speaker 1: get rid of Trump because of paying you know, paying
Speaker 1: off Stormy Daniels and Stephanie Clifford. You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: That's it changes every week because that's there their emotion.
Speaker 1: I'll need is to find a justification for their hatred.
Speaker 1: That's really what it comes down to. How's it up
Speaker 1: in Boston? By the way, are you are you like
Speaker 1: skiing to work? How's it going there skiing to work?
Speaker 1: We haven't had a flake of snow on the ground here,
Speaker 1: at least just north to Boston. I think a little
Speaker 1: bit further north they have a little dusting and something. No,
Speaker 1: we haven't really had much snow. You have a lot
Speaker 1: of rain. All right. We'll tell your Boston buddies, by
Speaker 1: the way, to tune into the show up there on
Speaker 1: our Boston affiliates. So thank you very much for listening.
Speaker 1: I'm trying night best you spread the word. I know
Speaker 1: it's a bunch of libs up there in Massachusetts, but
Speaker 1: there's some good, God fearing conservatives in the Boston area.
Speaker 1: You need to listen to this shows. You tell her
Speaker 1: you spread the word. My friend Kenny Shields High, thank
Speaker 1: you for calling in that it reminds you, By the way,
Speaker 1: it's a great time to say that. You know, if
Speaker 1: you're listening to us live at any station across the country.
Speaker 1: If you ever can't listen live on a station and
Speaker 1: you want to listen to the show at your on
Speaker 1: your schedule, at your leisure, the podcast of the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show is available. It is twenty nineteen. Folks, all
Speaker 1: of you who are listening should It's totally free. You
Speaker 1: should be subscribed to the podcast. You can find it
Speaker 1: on iTunes. You can find it on the iHeart app.
Speaker 1: And this is also great because when someone's talking to
Speaker 1: they're like, hey, you know, I want to learn more
Speaker 1: about the border. You don't just say, oh, have you
Speaker 1: heard about this guy the Have you heard about this
Speaker 1: guy the Buck Sexon. No, no, have you heard about
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. You can say, oh, here, I
Speaker 1: will text you a link to the iTunes the iTunes
Speaker 1: podcast of the Buck Sexton Show, or hey, here's an
Speaker 1: email with the iHeart radio app that shows you where
Speaker 1: to listen to the Buck sections Show. That is how
Speaker 1: you can spread the word about the show, my friends,
Speaker 1: and it is something for which I will be eternally grateful.
Speaker 1: So please do tell some folks out there about this
Speaker 1: and that will help us continue to grow. By the way,
Speaker 1: my I just saw this. This is a kind of
Speaker 1: a random thought. But my Hill TV co host, the
Speaker 1: wonderful and talented Crystal Ball, was a Jeopardy question tonight.
Speaker 1: So I gotta John, you gotta. I gotta find out
Speaker 1: a way that I want to be a Jeopardy question.
Speaker 1: What is buck Sexton? You know? Oh? No, I guess
Speaker 1: I think I think it would be who is whoops? Right? Guy? Exactly?
Speaker 1: Thank you. That's what I'm talking about. But I'm a
Speaker 1: little jealous on my co host got to be a
Speaker 1: Jeopardy question. I want to be on Jeopardy. How do
Speaker 1: I got to do that? I have no delusions of grandere.
Speaker 1: It wouldn't be celebrity Jeopardy would just be I just
Speaker 1: want to be a normal Jeopardy. You gotta find out
Speaker 1: how you do it. I think I think I would
Speaker 1: clean up. I'm just saying I think i'd be I'd
Speaker 1: be pretty strong on the Jeopardy front. Uh, talk some
Speaker 1: smack about that. Oh I didn't play this before, and
Speaker 1: I want to. And then we'll get to maybe the
Speaker 1: Gillette ad and I mean the Pelosi State of the
Speaker 1: Union thing. She we got, Man, I haven't talked. I
Speaker 1: didn't talk to you guys yesterday. So there's so many
Speaker 1: things I want to get to the Gillette ad. Maybe
Speaker 1: we got time for that, all right, let me start
Speaker 1: with this though. You know Clapper is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: James Clapper's out there. He's a former Director of National Intelligence.
Speaker 1: He's kind of a crusty, old curmudgeon, and he obviously
Speaker 1: hates Trump and says some really terrible things about President Trump,
Speaker 1: to include that he thinks that, well, I'll let him,
Speaker 1: I'll let him say it for himself. Playclip three withdrawing
Speaker 1: from NATO, even discussing discussion about throwing for NATO. I
Speaker 1: think is would it would be disastrous for the security?
Speaker 1: I think that act would be so destructive to our country.
Speaker 1: It would be a ground for some profound effort by
Speaker 1: our part, whether it's impeachment or the twenty fifth Amendment.
Speaker 1: He can't do that to this country, and I don't
Speaker 1: believe that he can do it without Senate ratification. Notice
Speaker 1: how this is, This is something that he's said and
Speaker 1: is not often challenging the media, but that you could
Speaker 1: think that foreign policy differences of opinion are grounds for
Speaker 1: removal behind the twenty fifth Amendment. Effectively, what that was
Speaker 1: a Democratic representative, Jackie spire Spear, and I say it inspire.
Speaker 1: This is a way of saying that if you don't
Speaker 1: agree with the establishment foreign policy consensus, you're crazy. This
Speaker 1: is what This is what they think, which I think
Speaker 1: is in fact crazy. But they think that if you
Speaker 1: disagree with the approach that we've had of not just
Speaker 1: being a NATO, but you know, allowing NATO to be
Speaker 1: what it is. I mean, I don't think Turkey should
Speaker 1: be in a NATO. I think we got a problem.
Speaker 1: I think the Turks we should start to say, look,
Speaker 1: you guys need to be a little more helpful here
Speaker 1: or else. That whole NATO situation might have to change.
Speaker 1: I think that we should at least be willing to
Speaker 1: ask these questions and retest assumptions about about alliances and
Speaker 1: about what we're trying to accomplish. And there's always this
Speaker 1: there's impulse that you see from many people in the
Speaker 1: press because foreign policies where they think they get to
Speaker 1: sound really smart. You know, a lot of people have
Speaker 1: opinions on what's going on here at home, but it's
Speaker 1: it's foreign policy where the journals get to flux that
Speaker 1: afflects their Wikipedia muscles a bit more. You know, Oh,
Speaker 1: this is what I just looked up. Let me talk
Speaker 1: about it on TV. But Clapper and the rest of
Speaker 1: them who think that Trump's difference of opinion with them
Speaker 1: on a foreign policy matter like NATO is grounds for
Speaker 1: removing him, that is really disconcerting. I mean that, for me,
Speaker 1: is something that we need to take along look at it,
Speaker 1: and it ties into this broader mentality of well, the
Speaker 1: establishment and the apparatus of the government, the FBI, the
Speaker 1: national security agencies, they can be in a place to
Speaker 1: override the president's judgment on what is international security interests,
Speaker 1: Which is why that New York Times piece from what
Speaker 1: was it last week where they were saying that the
Speaker 1: FBI opened investigation on Trump because he fired Komey, The
Speaker 1: FBI already had an investigation into a Trump and Russia
Speaker 1: and collusion and they're already looking at this. So that
Speaker 1: to me just indicates even further they don't understand their
Speaker 1: constitutional limitations. Whether you want to call it a deep
Speaker 1: state or just the permanent bureaucracy or the fourth branch
Speaker 1: of government or whatever it is, there are clearly very
Speaker 1: powerful careerist elements within the national security bureaucracy that think
Speaker 1: that they should have their judgment be above the presidents
Speaker 1: on these matters. And I'm sorry, but you know I
Speaker 1: wasn't suggesting that people within the DoD or within the
Speaker 1: DOJ veto Obama's judgment on matter. I thought Obama had
Speaker 1: really poor judgment on a lot of stuff, but he
Speaker 1: was the president and he did get to get his
Speaker 1: way on stuff. You've noticed that right now within the
Speaker 1: Trump era, there are all these efforts to justify overriding
Speaker 1: presidential discretion and decision making, and that in and of
Speaker 1: itself is really troubling. It should not be happening. And
Speaker 1: Clapper and the rest are trying to give cover to
Speaker 1: that that impulse, and I just think I think it's wrong.
Speaker 1: It's very obviously wrong. But we got toxic masculinity to discuss.
Speaker 1: We got all kinds of stuff here, folks. So our
Speaker 1: three is a rockin. We'll be right back. When do
Speaker 1: you want to spot that burglar when he's casing your
Speaker 1: home or after he's in? Ask John who's blink camera
Speaker 1: alerted him to burglars trying to break in while he
Speaker 1: and his family were home, Or Shannon, who's blink camera
Speaker 1: caught a thief stealing packages. Both times, Blink video clips
Speaker 1: were sent to police to help convict the crooks. Blink
Speaker 1: motion activated indoor and outdoor cameras are wire free, set
Speaker 1: up in minutes, and run on two double A batteries
Speaker 1: that last up at two years. And if you're traveling,
Speaker 1: Blinks live feed options lets you monitor your home and
Speaker 1: check in on pets from anywhere using the Blink smartphone app.
Speaker 1: No contracts, no subscriptions, totally affordable, and Blink works with Alexa.
Speaker 1: Blink camera systems make great gifts and they're a brilliant
Speaker 1: way to monitor your package deliveries. Visit blink protect dot
Speaker 1: com slash Buck again, blink protect dot Com slash Buck
Speaker 1: one more time. That's blink Protect dot Com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: Blink is an Amazon company. So you have this a
Speaker 1: Gillette apt that I told you about. I was early
Speaker 1: on this train. I was one of the ones that
Speaker 1: figured out that this was going to get a lot
Speaker 1: of attention. As you know, don't be a jerk, don't
Speaker 1: abuse people, don't pick on people. And you know it's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we know this has nothing to do with masculinity. That
Speaker 1: says you can just call this psa don't be a
Speaker 1: don't be a bad person, which the people either know
Speaker 1: that or they don't. At this point, I think, um,
Speaker 1: but there was an end panel. Yeah, I have. I
Speaker 1: don't even think I've bashed CNN once this whole show.
Speaker 1: So that is something that we have to take care
Speaker 1: of right now. There's a CNN panel that got together
Speaker 1: on this one, bashing tactic masculinity. Here's what they said,
Speaker 1: play clip six. I like the odd Actually, I thought
Speaker 1: it was great, and I guess people are outraged because
Speaker 1: they don't want to hear that men sometimes behave in
Speaker 1: a toxic way. I watched this with my eleven year
Speaker 1: old son because I wanted to figure out what the
Speaker 1: controversy was here, and we both looked at each other afterwards,
Speaker 1: like all this add is about is bad behavior. There's
Speaker 1: nothing on the line. This is kind of in a
Speaker 1: way right on target because it is the men's shaving
Speaker 1: in the locker room after the gym in the morning,
Speaker 1: getting ready for working. You're talking crazy and you have
Speaker 1: to say, yo, we can't talk like that. This is
Speaker 1: not okay men being groomed. I like this metaphor. What
Speaker 1: is in the water over at CNN. Really, what are
Speaker 1: they did? They all go to some kind of re
Speaker 1: education camp, where's all of our normal impulses as Americans
Speaker 1: get get wiped away and where it's posted just not
Speaker 1: our heads and end accept this progressive claptrap. The ad
Speaker 1: is The ad is idiotic, and Jillette is getting crushed
Speaker 1: all over the place. It didn't bring anything new, delighted,
Speaker 1: It didn't tackle any tough issue. It's just yeah, don't
Speaker 1: don't be a jerk. Who was that, uh, kirstin Powers,
Speaker 1: I think it was. That's what it sounded like, saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, some some men behave in a toxic way. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we know. Thanks thanks for pointing out that some men
Speaker 1: are bad. Pretty sure, we're all quite aware of that
Speaker 1: that men can do bad things. But just imagine for
Speaker 1: a moment, what would happen if we released a toxic
Speaker 1: femininity add is there? Are we really going to pretend
Speaker 1: that that can't be a thing? I mean, I just
Speaker 1: want to I want to really dig into this room.
Speaker 1: And why is there all this focus on on this
Speaker 1: concept of toxic masculinity? Is toxic femininity not something that?
Speaker 1: And now I know that there it's wide open for
Speaker 1: all kinds of jokes here. You know, toxic femininity is
Speaker 1: telling me a hundred times a day to put the
Speaker 1: toilet seat down, right. I mean, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: things that we could all talk about but that would
Speaker 1: never happen. And it's it's strange because obviously men and
Speaker 1: women are both capable of being fantastic in every way
Speaker 1: and being terrible in lots of ways. So this is
Speaker 1: kind of a big idiocy, but it has gotten more attention.
Speaker 1: I just think it's so funny. It's like clockwork. It's
Speaker 1: seen and they're like, yeah, I like the ad about
Speaker 1: the toxic masculinity because it's virtue signaling. This is all
Speaker 1: about showing people. The concept of toxic masculinity is closely
Speaker 1: associated now with liberalism and progressivism and intersectional politics and
Speaker 1: being a cutting edge, hip progressive type that that's what
Speaker 1: it is. You just put it on the big list
Speaker 1: of things like climate change and being for DACA and
Speaker 1: the dreamers, and you know, being for Ocasio Quartet style
Speaker 1: tax rate seventy percent plus and all this. This is
Speaker 1: you don't have to think about any of these positions.
Speaker 1: If you want to be one of the good people
Speaker 1: who likes this stuff. You just have to favor these positions,
Speaker 1: and then everything else gets a lot easier after that, right,
Speaker 1: everything else turns into oh okay, Well, in that case,
Speaker 1: I just have to say what I'm told to say
Speaker 1: here and and then everything will find But by the way,
Speaker 1: this this uh well, using certain phrases and relying on
Speaker 1: certain concepts on the left too much so that it
Speaker 1: becomes mechanical, so that it's wrote so that it's just
Speaker 1: a phrase to be deployed for a purpose, not one
Speaker 1: that somebody really thinks about. That came back to bite
Speaker 1: at least one liberal here. I have in the past
Speaker 1: worked with and and gotten to know David Webb's he's
Speaker 1: a good guy. I know this happened yesterday, but I
Speaker 1: didn't get a chance to address it. He was talking
Speaker 1: to a CNN legal analyst named Riva Martin. I will
Speaker 1: say CNN's legal analysts are particularly poor. They have a
Speaker 1: lot of analysts that are are not very good on
Speaker 1: their chosen subject matter, but they're legal analysts, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: are among the the the flimsiest in terms of their
Speaker 1: reasoning and the intellectual ability they display Across the board.
Speaker 1: All their legal analysts and Jeffrey Tubin, I mean just
Speaker 1: not good. But Arriva Martin had an exchange with David Webb.
Speaker 1: Many of you, I'm sure no. David Webb is also
Speaker 1: a Fox Foxings contributor. And here's how this went play
Speaker 1: Cliff two friend. Parts of the media world done the
Speaker 1: work so that I'm qualified to be in each one.
Speaker 1: I never considered my color the issue. I considered my
Speaker 1: qualifications the issue. Well, David, you know that that's a
Speaker 1: whole another long conversation about white privilege of things that
Speaker 1: you have the privilege of doing that people of color
Speaker 1: don't have the privilege of. How do I have privilege
Speaker 1: of white privilege? David by virtue of being a white male,
Speaker 1: you have white privilege with a whole long conversation. I
Speaker 1: don't have time to get Riva. I hate to break
Speaker 1: it to you, but you should have been better prepped.
Speaker 1: I'm black, Okay. Then I say, you went to white privilege.
Speaker 1: This is the falsehood in this. You went immediately with
Speaker 1: an assumption your people obviously or you didn't look you're
Speaker 1: talking to a black man. This is part of the
Speaker 1: problem with driving a narrative around a construct like white privilege,
Speaker 1: privilege is one thing. We're applied wealth, economy, various social factors,
Speaker 1: but not necessarily determined by color of skin. Yep, that
Speaker 1: just happened. You had a female African American scene and
Speaker 1: a let us tell a black conservative analyst and host
Speaker 1: that day he has white privilege. Obviously she did not
Speaker 1: know what she was talking about out but that that
Speaker 1: that would happen doesn't surprise me at all the same
Speaker 1: way it doesn't surprise me that a panel at CNN
Speaker 1: would all say that toxic masculinity is something we need
Speaker 1: to talk about, because these are buzzwords, these are phrases.
Speaker 1: These are are ways that you show what side you're on,
Speaker 1: and you don't have to think them through, you don't
Speaker 1: have to apply them judiciously. You know, whenever any male,
Speaker 1: particularly whenever any conservative male does something you don't like,
Speaker 1: just call him out for toxic masculinity and you will
Speaker 1: get applause from the left, from your side. Whenever any
Speaker 1: person says anything who is white, it obviously doesn't work
Speaker 1: when you're saying this to David Webb, although that she
Speaker 1: had to find that out the you know, the hard way.
Speaker 1: But whenever a person who is white says something that
Speaker 1: someone on the left who is a minority or not
Speaker 1: even another white person disagrees with because liberal white people
Speaker 1: give themselves a pass from white privilege, right because they
Speaker 1: they criticize their own white privilege, but then they weaponize
Speaker 1: the white privilege as a concept against others. But they
Speaker 1: say these things not just because it's a way of
Speaker 1: trying to essentially score cheap points in our argument in
Speaker 1: her debate, but they know that those on their own
Speaker 1: side will say, oh, okay, see you're with us, You're
Speaker 1: with the good side, the good people. And it's it's
Speaker 1: virtue signaling, and it's it's a means of separating left
Speaker 1: from right that all it takes is just to say
Speaker 1: the right words. Team, we'll be back in just a moment.
Speaker 1: I think most most people involved in law enforcement are
Speaker 1: I don't know if then the lingo is still the same.
Speaker 1: They used to be called essential. I think it's been
Speaker 1: changed to something else. But I think they're on the job.
Speaker 1: But obviously we'd like to people would like to see
Speaker 1: the shutdown ended, and that's why people want to see
Speaker 1: some kind of compromise. And you know, you call it
Speaker 1: the Trump shutdown, but I mean it takes two to tango,
Speaker 1: so I didn't get to talk to you about incoming
Speaker 1: hopefully Attorney General bar And I think I think Bill
Speaker 1: bar will do do a fine job from everything I've
Speaker 1: seen and heard so far. I think it is interesting
Speaker 1: also that they keep changing. And this came up when
Speaker 1: I talked to Border Patrol today. I asked him, I said,
Speaker 1: how do you guys be able to shut down? They said,
Speaker 1: look or working without pay. Trump has already i think,
Speaker 1: signed a bill that give them retroactive pay, though they
Speaker 1: will get paid that might be a few more weeks though,
Speaker 1: But they used to call it non essential personnel, and
Speaker 1: over time the governed employees that fell into that non
Speaker 1: essential category really resented that because it does bring people
Speaker 1: to ask the question, well, if you're non essential, why
Speaker 1: do we have you doing this job? And so they've
Speaker 1: changed it. I think it went at one point to
Speaker 1: exempt it, but even that sounded a little bit like
Speaker 1: it was given a special stat and so there was
Speaker 1: there was a little bit of pushback on that, and
Speaker 1: then they changed it to accept it. So now you
Speaker 1: are accepted from a government shutdown if you have to
Speaker 1: continue to show up and do your job. And I've
Speaker 1: found these I found these online, mostly on Twitter, people
Speaker 1: saying you know, a TSA agent I saw looked at
Speaker 1: me and said, you know, but keep the fight up
Speaker 1: against Trump and we cried. I'm like, why do people
Speaker 1: do this making up anecdotes thing all the time on
Speaker 1: social media? It's always so obvious. It's like when as
Speaker 1: liberals that tend to do it from what I see,
Speaker 1: maybe I'm just maybe I'm biased about this part. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but yeah, liberals the ones just say you know,
Speaker 1: my ten year old came off to me and said,
Speaker 1: I don't understand why Section five of the Voting Rights
Speaker 1: Act has been changed in such a way as to
Speaker 1: not fully protect the voting right. I don't think your
Speaker 1: ten year old ask you that me wrong exactly. I
Speaker 1: don't think your ten year old did I think that
Speaker 1: that's Uh. I think people are having a little bit
Speaker 1: of a little bit of fun with the truth there,
Speaker 1: or playing some games with the truth. But on the Bob,
Speaker 1: I want to say, Bob Barr, it's a different guy.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr asked about this one, and uh, he said, Look,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm gonna do my job. I'm gonna let this
Speaker 1: thing happen the way it's it's been, it has been happening,
Speaker 1: and that's it. Play nine. If confirmed. I will not
Speaker 1: permit partisan politics, personal interests, or any other improper consideration
Speaker 1: to interfere with this or any other investigation. I will
Speaker 1: follow the Special Council regulations scrupulously and in good faith,
Speaker 1: and on my watch, Bob will be allowed to finish
Speaker 1: his work. My goal will be to provide as much
Speaker 1: transparency as I can, consistent with the law. When his
Speaker 1: report comes to you, will you share it with us
Speaker 1: as much as possible, consistent with the regulations and the law. Yes,
Speaker 1: I am going to make as much information available as
Speaker 1: I can, consistent with the rules and regulations that are
Speaker 1: part of the Special Council Regulations, in favor of as
Speaker 1: much transparency as there can be consistent with the rules
Speaker 1: and the law. See a case where the president could
Speaker 1: claim executive privilege. In theory, if if there was executive
Speaker 1: privilege material that to which an executive privilege claim could
Speaker 1: be made, it might contin know someone might raise a
Speaker 1: claim of executive That would be pretty difficult. Following the
Speaker 1: US versus Nixon, and mister Giuliani said the president should
Speaker 1: be able to correct smaller report before any public release.
Speaker 1: So in other words, you could take this investc as
Speaker 1: a report, put his own spin on corrected before its release.
Speaker 1: You commit that would not happen. If your attorney in general,
Speaker 1: that will not happen. So what problem I mean, you
Speaker 1: kind of heard some of the highlights here from the hearing.
Speaker 1: I know you don't sit around. It's my job to
Speaker 1: sit around and watch all these boring Capital Hill hearings
Speaker 1: all day and tell you what matters from it. But
Speaker 1: but what problem could the Democrats really have with this guy?
Speaker 1: He's already been the attorney general. He did a fine job.
Speaker 1: There's you know, he's friends with Muller for Evan's sake,
Speaker 1: so you can't say that he's some kind of anti
Speaker 1: Muller Zellot. I think, I think it's all gonna work
Speaker 1: out just fine. But I hope that he also brings
Speaker 1: some transparency. I hope that he goes even further than
Speaker 1: just not disrupting the Muller probe. I mean, at this point,
Speaker 1: I think the Muller problem is illegitimate, but I think
Speaker 1: that stopping it would be a terrible idea for the administration,
Speaker 1: and it would just give the Libs what they want,
Speaker 1: which is another excuse to completely freak out. But Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham's at least telling him, look, you gotta you gotta
Speaker 1: also do a little bit of housekeeping here and get
Speaker 1: this place in order. At the Department of Justice, play eleven.
Speaker 1: This is a message August eighth, twenty sixteen, a text message.
Speaker 1: Trump's not ever going to become president, right right Struck responded, No, no,
Speaker 1: he's not. We'll stop him. March fourth, twenty sixteen, Page
Speaker 1: destruct God. Trump is a loathsome human being. October the twenty,
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, Trump is an effing idiot as unable to
Speaker 1: provide a coherent answer, how do these statements sit with you?
Speaker 1: I was shocked when I saw them. Okay, please get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of it. I promise you. We will
Speaker 1: protect the investigations, but we're lying upon you to clean
Speaker 1: this place up. Has got to be some house cleaning.
Speaker 1: It goes on over at the Department of Justice. There's
Speaker 1: been a lot of bad actors over there, very very
Speaker 1: senior levels. And I should know that my colleague John
Speaker 1: Solomon over at the at the Hill has has just
Speaker 1: broken a story. I'm not going to tell you too
Speaker 1: much about it now. Maybe we'll get into it more tomorrow.
Speaker 1: But he's broken a story on The Hill dot com,
Speaker 1: where I also work, saying essentially that Bruce Orr tried
Speaker 1: to warn tried to warn senior DJ officials. So maybe
Speaker 1: Or wasn't a bad guy in this at all. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but Or tried to warn DJ officials about
Speaker 1: the fact that the dossier was bought and paid for
Speaker 1: by the Hillary Clinton campaign and that they should really
Speaker 1: think long and hard about how much credibility they give it.
Speaker 1: And they took it. DJ took it to the fires
Speaker 1: accord anyway, and got the fire fires of stuff up
Speaker 1: and running based on the dossier right on carter page.
Speaker 1: And it's bad stuff, bad stuff that we need to
Speaker 1: we need to get to the bottom of for sure.
Speaker 1: I want to get you a roll call here. It's
Speaker 1: always fun to hear from all of you, So we'll
Speaker 1: do that. Remember Facebook dot com slash buck sex, and
Speaker 1: if you want to get in on that roll call action,
Speaker 1: we'll take it. Just a moment here, we'll have a
Speaker 1: beat and come right back. Hey, team Buck, it's time
Speaker 1: for roll call. Somehow it seems fitting that I am
Speaker 1: doing roll call from California and there's some dubstep going on.
Speaker 1: California very hip, very hip, very with its states coming
Speaker 1: to you live from the west coast, the left coast,
Speaker 1: but is it really the best coast? All right? Roll call?
Speaker 1: I have not been able to get into a roll
Speaker 1: call in twenty four hours, so I miss it, hopefully
Speaker 1: you miss it. And with that, without further ado, we
Speaker 1: will see what we've got going on here. And that
Speaker 1: means first up, Brandon whoa Brandon reads? You mentioned eating
Speaker 1: better on Monday's show. I would strongly recommend looking into
Speaker 1: the Trim Healthy Mamma diet. I have quite a bit
Speaker 1: of success with it, haven't really changed my lifestyle at
Speaker 1: all and dropped thirty pounds in a few months. The
Speaker 1: basic concept is you wait at least three hours between meals,
Speaker 1: and you can either have a high fat, low carb
Speaker 1: meal or a high carb low fat meal. It isn't
Speaker 1: as efficient as keto, but when you have a cheat
Speaker 1: day like chocolate over the weekend doesn't really set you back.
Speaker 1: You aren't always trying to stay in a state of cautosis.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are many people who know that a
Speaker 1: lot more than me about the subject, but this one
Speaker 1: really works for me. Anyway, best of luck, Shields. Hi Brandon, Brandon,
Speaker 1: I have never heard of the Big Mama diet, but
Speaker 1: that sounds interesting. I'm not really sure even how it
Speaker 1: would work, but there we go. Beth writes, Buck just
Speaker 1: watch Chucker Carlson tonight. He has a segment tonight telling
Speaker 1: us about an abortion activist talking to children on the
Speaker 1: YouTube show High Kids, telling these children how God is
Speaker 1: okay with them having abortions. Well, Beth, that is horrific
Speaker 1: and I haven't seen the segment, but it sounds terrible,
Speaker 1: so I will take a look and see if I
Speaker 1: can find it. All right, Julie writes, I love your show.
Speaker 1: I was wondering, could you look into a big problem
Speaker 1: happening with parents with disability losing custody of their children
Speaker 1: and how they get away with it? Please? And thank
Speaker 1: you custody to the state. Um, Julie, I'll have to
Speaker 1: check into that. I don't know anything about it offhand,
Speaker 1: and right have you noticed the only people talking about
Speaker 1: ending the Muller investigation are the Dems or the people
Speaker 1: who accuse Trump of being a tyrant while expecting him
Speaker 1: to solve issues with executive orders are Dems? I don't
Speaker 1: understand it. Well, no, end it's it's because it feeds.
Speaker 1: It feeds their narrative and it feeds their news cycle
Speaker 1: needs right, if they can create an entire news cycle
Speaker 1: that's really just an extended discussion about whether or not
Speaker 1: Muller's probe is going to get shut down, this creates
Speaker 1: the fear reflex in their audience of oh, my gosh,
Speaker 1: Trump is destroying America. And then there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: you know, follow on commentary that's necessary. Oh what will
Speaker 1: we do? It's a constitutional crisis. Dogs and cats living
Speaker 1: together as hysteria, you get it. So it's only win
Speaker 1: win for them to speculate wildly about how the molloprobe
Speaker 1: is going to end. They just keep they just keep
Speaker 1: doing it, and yeah, there you have it. Chaleene, right,
Speaker 1: you spoke about keto tonight. Have it tell you three people.
Speaker 1: My family have been doing it since November. My son
Speaker 1: has lost fifty pounds. I've lost almost thirty. It has
Speaker 1: been surprisingly easy to me. I'm sixty eight and never
Speaker 1: would have thought it possible. We also use a fitness
Speaker 1: app to help keep track of stats. Should be plenty
Speaker 1: for you to eat. That's gluten free on keto. Good luck,
Speaker 1: love your show, She'll tie Shelleen, Well, thank you, Chlene.
Speaker 1: It sounds like a lot of people really like this
Speaker 1: keto approach, and I have heard many good things from
Speaker 1: many many people. The finest people, only the finest people.
Speaker 1: Richard writes, Buck, happy hoos, your hellos, my friend. If
Speaker 1: you're gonna be in Chicago, Italian beef all the way.
Speaker 1: But when you order be in the no always gets
Speaker 1: sweet or spicy peppers, and then there's gravy, So dipp
Speaker 1: means you submerge it in the goodness with gravy means
Speaker 1: it gets a good amount put on, and dry means
Speaker 1: little to no gravy. Dry is just lame. It's like
Speaker 1: diet dessert. Don't do it. See if you're ordering get
Speaker 1: Italian beef spicy with gravy or sweet dipped. Wow, this
Speaker 1: food looks amazing. It looks not particularly healthy or gluten free,
Speaker 1: but does look very delicious. Thank you for sending that
Speaker 1: my way. Nathan writes, Buck, you are a prime candidate
Speaker 1: for the carnivore diet. Knowing well a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of dietary advice coming. What do you guys trying
Speaker 1: to tell me here. You know, oh gosh, I haven't
Speaker 1: been quite as strict on my gym routine. But man,
Speaker 1: it's like jump, everyone's jumping in the mix. Here. We gotta,
Speaker 1: we gotta. We got other things we could talk about too.
Speaker 1: You're prime candidate for the carnivorre diet, knowing how much
Speaker 1: you dig RIBI check out the Joe Rogan Jordan Peterson
Speaker 1: podcast where Jordan talks about his experience with it. It's
Speaker 1: pretty much what it sounds like. Animal products, no vegetables,
Speaker 1: no veggis. Huh. I don't know. I feel like veggies
Speaker 1: are good. I'd I'd have to look into this one
Speaker 1: a little bit more before I could sign on. Eric.
Speaker 1: Tool is my favorite heavy rock metal band, hands down,
Speaker 1: at least in my lifetime. I think their biggest single
Speaker 1: was Sober. It's a badass band all around, highly recommend
Speaker 1: and their great addition as a workout tune choice gets
Speaker 1: the juices flowing. All right, Eric, looks like I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to add some Tool to my Spotify playlist. I
Speaker 1: will check that out, Joel. Right, but caught part of
Speaker 1: your show the other day, the Global Warming one with
Speaker 1: the peer reviewed journal of one scientist warning others not
Speaker 1: to tell the truth about global warming. Could not write
Speaker 1: down info. Can you share a link? I did not
Speaker 1: get a chance to listen as often as as I
Speaker 1: want to, but thank you for the concise information, and
Speaker 1: thank you for your time and work. Jerry, Jerry, I
Speaker 1: have to go back and look at that one. But
Speaker 1: it was a an academic journal, so I don't remember
Speaker 1: offhand even what it was called. Was like the journal
Speaker 1: of something and something or other. It's definitely not anything
Speaker 1: that you would expect to be fun reading. It's it's
Speaker 1: not a beach read that much. I can tell you
Speaker 1: Here more keto, more keto, more keto. Alright, alright, Kathy writes,
Speaker 1: Hey buck, Kathy here, love the show. Last week you
Speaker 1: asked for suggestions on possible guests. Have you ever heard
Speaker 1: of Michael Cutler. He appears as a guest on our
Speaker 1: station here. Please consider reaching out to him. I think
Speaker 1: your listeners would love to hear what he has to say.
Speaker 1: Shields High. I do not know this Michael Cutler guy,
Speaker 1: but I will look into him. Thank you for that
Speaker 1: heads up. Josh comes up with some new stuff here.
Speaker 1: He writes, Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes,
Speaker 1: exhaust and murders itself. There has never been a democracy
Speaker 1: yet that did not commit suicide. John Adams eighteen fourteen.
Speaker 1: I really hope and pray we are not seeing this
Speaker 1: before our very eyes. Well, Josh, that's pretty pretty intense.
Speaker 1: I have to be honest with I didn't even know
Speaker 1: that that was an Adams quote. So I hope you're
Speaker 1: writing and democracy is not consuming itself right now, Rocky,
Speaker 1: I don't understand an emergency can be declared and it's
Speaker 1: expected a judge is going to block any actions to
Speaker 1: address it for months. If I declared I have an emergency,
Speaker 1: I'm declaring I don't take care of this expeditiously. I
Speaker 1: may not ever be able to Rocky, that's a good point.
Speaker 1: If you're declaring an emergency, for a judge to overrule
Speaker 1: and say no, you can't declare an emergency seems like
Speaker 1: it kind of defeats the whole purpose of the emergency declaration, right,
Speaker 1: So that's that's something that I do think you re
Speaker 1: raise a fair point. Thomas writes, Buck, you're doing a
Speaker 1: great job exposing the high level crime in DC. Alan
Speaker 1: Dershwitz is correct when he says the first crime committed
Speaker 1: in the Muller investigation was for a special counsel to
Speaker 1: conduct a counterintelligence investigation based in an illegal fis A warrant.
Speaker 1: The whole thing was contrived from the very beginning and
Speaker 1: will not prove anything except that the top level of
Speaker 1: the FBI were biased and corrupt. Even when Muller finally,
Speaker 1: if ever, finishes his investigation, there will be no indictments
Speaker 1: or recommendations for criminal charges. Keep exposing the fraud shields
Speaker 1: high from Thomas Well, my friend, Yeah, I think that
Speaker 1: there has been malfees instead a very high level, and
Speaker 1: I will continue to expose it as much as I can.
Speaker 1: Here the team that's going to be our show from
Speaker 1: the West Coast today out in San Diego. I wanted
Speaker 1: to thank our iHeart partner out here, kogo Ory. Nice
Speaker 1: of them to let me hang out in their studio
Speaker 1: space and do my show from sunny San Diego. All
Speaker 1: the weather has been a little iffy last few days.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, but no, it's been great out here,
Speaker 1: really really worthwhile trip at the borders, obviously you can
Speaker 1: tell from what I've been able to tell you about it.
Speaker 1: I'm flying back tomorrow there's no way for me to
Speaker 1: be able to get to a radio studio in time.
Speaker 1: So that means that we're going to have our friend
Speaker 1: Raheem Kassam who will be in the mix. So Rahim's
Speaker 1: in for me tomorrow. He always does a great show
Speaker 1: for you guys, and then I will be back live
Speaker 1: with you on Friday. Until then, Shields High. There is
Speaker 1: a conservative alternative to all those super lib progressive email
Speaker 1: services out there, I patriots dot us. I patriots dot
Speaker 1: us is gonna give you all of the best aspects
Speaker 1: of email. That means it's secure, private, includes more of
Speaker 1: what you want, and it's better than other services because
Speaker 1: it doesn't have all the ads and spam and doesn't
Speaker 1: sell your information to third parties. Okay, you're gonna get
Speaker 1: thirty gigs of cloud storage with ipatriots, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: two hundred and fifty six bit encryption, and it's compatible
Speaker 1: with most mobile devices. So all the technology you want,
Speaker 1: none of the nonsense, and none of the liberal progressive
Speaker 1: agenda that's being driven by the company that controls your email. Okay,
Speaker 1: you don't want this, show your a patriot. Go to
Speaker 1: ipatriots dot us. Now choose your membership program and input
Speaker 1: your desired Ipatriots email address during checkout, and our promo
Speaker 1: code buck that's buck for ten percent savings during your
Speaker 1: first year of membership. Again Ipatriots dot us promo code
Speaker 1: buck for ten percent savings