Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump pulls back
Speaker 1: on a strike on Iran, and the left and the
Speaker 1: Democrats are angry at him over it. They say it
Speaker 1: shows that he's erratic. No surprise there, but the President
Speaker 1: knows that the Iranians need to change their ways. Welcome
Speaker 1: to that. Plus the fight over the ice raids that
Speaker 1: have not happened yet, we'll get into allegations over a
Speaker 1: leak and what AOC is telling illegals across the country
Speaker 1: that in more coming up on the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show or the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag no mistake, American, You're a great American Again, the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of restraint has been shown by us,
Speaker 1: a lot of restraint, and that doesn't mean we're going
Speaker 1: to show it in the future. But I felt that
Speaker 1: we want to give this a chance, give it a
Speaker 1: good chance. The Supreme Leader of Iran is one who
Speaker 1: ultimately is responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime.
Speaker 1: He's respected within his country, his office overseas, the regime's
Speaker 1: most brutal instruments, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. For these
Speaker 1: measures represent a strong and proportionate response to Iran's increasingly
Speaker 1: provocative actions. We will continue to increase pressure on Terran
Speaker 1: until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and aspirations, including
Speaker 1: the pursuit of nuclear weapons. Welcome to the Bucks actions show, everybody.
Speaker 1: Resident Trump making the right move here deciding that we
Speaker 1: would not fire on Iranian targets in response to their
Speaker 1: doubting of a one hundred and thirty million dollars US grown.
Speaker 1: There were reports over the weekend of a possible cyber
Speaker 1: attack on some Iranian targets, but we decided not to
Speaker 1: go kinectic and involving casualties, which was the right move.
Speaker 1: But as I predicted at the time, and I've said
Speaker 1: on Twitter as well as here on this show, the
Speaker 1: left would find a way to criticize Donald Trump for
Speaker 1: not taking lives and being judicious and statesmanlike and wise
Speaker 1: in his use of his powers as commander in chief,
Speaker 1: which is exactly what I believe he did here. The
Speaker 1: left found a problem with this anyway, Now, before I
Speaker 1: get into how they managed to spin this as somehow
Speaker 1: a bad thing that Donald Trump did, which is exactly
Speaker 1: what has happened. Let me say that they would have
Speaker 1: absolutely hammered him had this gone the other way. If
Speaker 1: President Trump had ordered these strikes and one hundred or
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty or more Iranians were killed, including
Speaker 1: I would assume some civilians, although maybe mostly military personnel,
Speaker 1: but even still military personnel, those are Iranian lives as well.
Speaker 1: And we don't want to kill people unnecessarily from any country.
Speaker 1: But even if he had done that, they would be saying,
Speaker 1: what a war monger, what a monster, he's terrible, he's crazy,
Speaker 1: he's a sexist, he's a rapist, he's all these horrible things, right,
Speaker 1: That's what they would have said. Instead, Trump pulls back
Speaker 1: and says, no, we're not going to do this. I
Speaker 1: decided we're not going to do this. And what you
Speaker 1: have are Democrats going forward to say that. Now, the
Speaker 1: criticism is that he's erratic. Oh, let's let's criticize the
Speaker 1: process of the commander in chief not ordering for a
Speaker 1: lethal strike that could have killed hundreds of people and
Speaker 1: instead trying to give diplomacy and continued discussion a chance. Here. Remember,
Speaker 1: they did not shoot down an armed America. If they
Speaker 1: shot down it's rather a manned American plane. If they
Speaker 1: shot down a plane they killed our people, I'd say,
Speaker 1: you know, blood for blood, we got to do it.
Speaker 1: They shot down a drone, all right, We've now maybe
Speaker 1: taken some according to the the reports, some cyber response to this,
Speaker 1: but the President has let it be known that the
Speaker 1: next time there's going to be hell to pay. And
Speaker 1: I think the Iranians know that they should take that seriously.
Speaker 1: But sometimes it's Maximus the Merciful for those of you
Speaker 1: who know the movie Gladiator, and this time around, that
Speaker 1: was the choice that the President made. I think it
Speaker 1: was the right one. That Democrats came out criticizing this
Speaker 1: as erratic, as if consistency in ordering a military strike
Speaker 1: is something that should they should strive for it. It's
Speaker 1: not even clear what they think their critics sism is
Speaker 1: other than just Trump equals bad Orange man equals bad
Speaker 1: on face the nation. Senator Bernie Sanders described this as
Speaker 1: Trump's actions to quote, somebody setting a fire a basket
Speaker 1: full of paper and then putting it out. So what
Speaker 1: are starting a fire a basket full of paper and
Speaker 1: then putting it out. See, we didn't even have to
Speaker 1: go to the audio, because I can do it for you.
Speaker 1: Senator Kamala Harris told CBS is Ed O'Keefe, I don't
Speaker 1: believe that anyone should receive credit for a crisis of
Speaker 1: their own making. Huh. Corey Booker said that Trump's hailing
Speaker 1: of around was meant to quote, even when there are
Speaker 1: strikes on tankers, we see again our allies very skeptical
Speaker 1: to even believe us. Right now. This has been folly.
Speaker 1: There is no strategy here. We have a president that
Speaker 1: seems to be doing this like a reality TV show
Speaker 1: and trying to build more drama and trying to make
Speaker 1: foreign policy by tweet my friends end quote here. Oh
Speaker 1: we've got Harris saying this play fifteen. I don't believe
Speaker 1: that anyone should receive credit for a crisis of their
Speaker 1: own making. There is no question in my mind that
Speaker 1: the current occupant of the White House, President Trump, put
Speaker 1: in place a series of events that led to that event.
Speaker 1: How when a President Harris fixed the problem? Well, frankly,
Speaker 1: I believe that we need to get back into the
Speaker 1: arounnuclear deal. It was an agreement that was being complied
Speaker 1: with by all parties. It cannot be the goal to
Speaker 1: express one's ego and to engage in gamesmanship without much
Speaker 1: serious regard to the consequence. And I think that's what
Speaker 1: we've seen in this president. Let's just pull apart the
Speaker 1: nonsense that Kambala Harris is spewing here one when she
Speaker 1: says all parties agreed to President Obama agreed to President
Speaker 1: Trump did not. This was not a treaty ratified by
Speaker 1: the Senate. This was one president saying I'm going to
Speaker 1: do this thing, and believe it or not. Obama's not
Speaker 1: president for life. He was not Emperor Obama. He was
Speaker 1: president for eight years. Now he's not. Now there's a
Speaker 1: new president. This president doesn't like some of the decisions
Speaker 1: that Obama made, doesn't like a lot of the decisions
Speaker 1: Obama made, and he's allowed to undo them or make
Speaker 1: different choices. This is the system. We have Democrats always
Speaker 1: talking about the system and undermining it. And what Obama
Speaker 1: hath done is not written in stone for all eternity,
Speaker 1: despite what they might like. You know, if he wanted
Speaker 1: something with greater permanence, he should have taken it to
Speaker 1: the Senate. There should have been a ratified treaty. That
Speaker 1: is not what happened here one administration's foreign Paul Oh.
Speaker 1: It turns out President Trump agrees with me on this.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike says, I don't even realize this playclip seventeen.
Speaker 1: We would love to be able to negotiate a deal
Speaker 1: if they want to. If they don't want to, that's
Speaker 1: fine too, But we would love to be able to
Speaker 1: and frankly, they might as well do it soon. It's
Speaker 1: very sad what's happening to that country. The deal shouldn't
Speaker 1: never been done. It wasn't ratified by Congress, wasn't properly
Speaker 1: as you know, as a treaty. It wasn't properly done.
Speaker 1: It was incorrectly done. But we'll get it properly done. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, he says, they can either do it or not.
Speaker 1: This was always, let me say, before Obama came along
Speaker 1: with a foreign policy team equal parts arrogant and incompetent.
Speaker 1: Before Obama came along, it was very much the policy
Speaker 1: of the United States, on a near bipartisan basis or
Speaker 1: somewhat bipartisan basis, to put pressure on Iran to capitulate
Speaker 1: over its nuclear program. It was not to take all
Speaker 1: the pressure that had been building on Iran and say, okay,
Speaker 1: you can keep all of your nuclear stuff. Just don't
Speaker 1: do any more nuclear stuff for a little while, and
Speaker 1: we'll give you all the access in the international markets.
Speaker 1: You need to become much richer, much more powerful, much
Speaker 1: more enmeshed in the banking system. Continue all of your
Speaker 1: malign activity across the Middle East, but they'll continue your
Speaker 1: ballistic missiles. But just put a little push the pause
Speaker 1: button on your nuclear program. That was never what the
Speaker 1: initial pressure campaign on Iran was supposed to be about. It.
Speaker 1: It's not push the pause button so that you can
Speaker 1: push play at any time. And now we see that's
Speaker 1: exactly what they've done. They're saying they're going to enrich
Speaker 1: You're in from three percent twenty percent, and from twenty
Speaker 1: percent up to ninety percent, ninety percent its weapons grade. Well,
Speaker 1: that that didn't take it. You know this all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, we're talking for this again. It's not like,
Speaker 1: oh wait, but the Iran Deal was in place. I thought, No,
Speaker 1: the Iran Deal didn't do anything to stop Iran from
Speaker 1: getting nukes. In fact, it created essentially a clear pathway
Speaker 1: to a nuclear Iran, which was considered from the outset
Speaker 1: to be unacceptable to the parties that put together the
Speaker 1: strategy of economic pain on the Iranian regime and yes,
Speaker 1: the Iranian state and people to get a change in
Speaker 1: their behavior. It was not economic pain to get the
Speaker 1: Iranians to the table so that Obama could create some
Speaker 1: perception of a foreign policy win, so would not look
Speaker 1: like eight years of American hard and soft power were
Speaker 1: wasted under an incompetent Democrat administration, which is exactly what happened.
Speaker 1: You want to talk about narcissism and arrogance. The Obama
Speaker 1: administration put everything into this Iran deal because it was
Speaker 1: the only way they could create a talking point that
Speaker 1: their foreign policy was not a failure. Let's just do
Speaker 1: a quick review, shall we. Syria success or failure, Libya
Speaker 1: success or failure, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, Pick
Speaker 1: a country. Where was the foreign policy success with the
Speaker 1: Obama administration? Where did we actually get change that was
Speaker 1: meaningful from a foreign ally or partner under the Obama
Speaker 1: You know, yeah, he antagonized Israel a lot, which the
Speaker 1: left like in this country. What else did he do
Speaker 1: that was good? He surged true in Afghanistan to over
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand, dramatically increasing casualties, especially of our brave
Speaker 1: marines in Helmand and Kandahar. And for what what was
Speaker 1: the strategy to make it look like Obama could be
Speaker 1: tough on Afghanistan? That was it. That was it. And
Speaker 1: of course, you know, a rock pull out, didn't want
Speaker 1: to status the forces agreement, didn't get one pulled out, precipitously,
Speaker 1: ices fills in the vacuum and we don't know what
Speaker 1: happened from there, and then the other Syrian civil war going.
Speaker 1: I mean, just Obama was a disaster on foreign policy,
Speaker 1: a disaster. And these people like Ben Rhodes, these are
Speaker 1: not good people. These are not people that I think
Speaker 1: even really try hard to do the right things and
Speaker 1: just mess up. They're just not good people. They're a
Speaker 1: little petty, smarmy propagandists. The top Obama advisor on foreign policies,
Speaker 1: Samantha Power, Susan Rice ben Roth, these are not good people,
Speaker 1: and that was reflected in the foreign policy. That was
Speaker 1: reflected in the choices that were being made. They do
Speaker 1: not share your philosophy of America or right and wrong
Speaker 1: for that matter, when it comes to nation states and
Speaker 1: their interactions and so now we have to hear from
Speaker 1: those who failed for eight years. Oh my gosh, how
Speaker 1: could Trump have gotten us out of this foreign policy?
Speaker 1: How could he have done this? The Irondealist was this
Speaker 1: was such a brilliant master stroke of statecraft. Saying that
Speaker 1: he is erratic is interesting, isn't it? Because Trump came
Speaker 1: in in a sense to office because he's erratic. I remember,
Speaker 1: and many of you were telling me this early on.
Speaker 1: Many of you saw this before I did. I remember
Speaker 1: when you were saying that Trump is being brought into
Speaker 1: smash things, that Trump is coming in because he will
Speaker 1: do it differently, because he's not going to just take
Speaker 1: the DC swamp consensus and run with it. He came
Speaker 1: in to smash, if not the system, at least the
Speaker 1: blockages in the system, the parts of it that do
Speaker 1: not function, that do not work. And one area where
Speaker 1: I certainly hope the President can fight back and smash
Speaker 1: back is on not getting pulled into another war in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. I understand that military, limited military strikes
Speaker 1: and war are not the exact same thing. I also
Speaker 1: know that limited strikes in many other contexts lead to
Speaker 1: less limited strikes leads to an air campaign leads to
Speaker 1: a no fly zone, leads to you know, this is
Speaker 1: what happens, and we just don't want to make this
Speaker 1: our problem anymore. And they're over the weekend. There are
Speaker 1: stories that there are Trump advisors that really do want
Speaker 1: regime change. They think that they think that now is
Speaker 1: the time for regime change. Now is the time that
Speaker 1: the Iranian molos will finally be toppled to. You have
Speaker 1: to also remember that there are very powerful people in DC,
Speaker 1: in the Pentagon, in the White House, in the think
Speaker 1: tank community, which still doesn't have a lot of influence
Speaker 1: with the public, that has a lot of influence with
Speaker 1: the policy community, that they have been waiting decades for
Speaker 1: this opportunity in their minds to finally delay deathblow to
Speaker 1: the Iranian regime. And they will feel very justified in
Speaker 1: pushing this president in that direction to try to take it.
Speaker 1: And I'm here to say, no, this is not our fight,
Speaker 1: this is not our time, this is not what we
Speaker 1: should be doing. We tell the Iranians, you hit us,
Speaker 1: We're going to hit you back much harder. We don't
Speaker 1: want any of this. Though Iran could make the economic
Speaker 1: pain stop tomorrow, stop trying to be a nuclear power.
Speaker 1: You're a belligerent, you're a state sponsor of terror, and
Speaker 1: we've got you where we want you. Iran, you want
Speaker 1: to be a normal country. We're going to bring you
Speaker 1: into being a normal country. You want to act like this,
Speaker 1: We're going to treat you like the state sponsor of
Speaker 1: terror that you are and not let up because we
Speaker 1: want to get editorials written about us in the w
Speaker 1: Washington Post, the New York Times and make it sounds
Speaker 1: like the administration is doing a good job. No, they
Speaker 1: must seed any belief and rite to a nuclear weapons program, period,
Speaker 1: full stop. That's what has to happen. And they have
Speaker 1: to stop their support of terror, and they have to
Speaker 1: stop undermining our allies in the region in ways that
Speaker 1: normal countries don't do. We don't have this, you know,
Speaker 1: we're not just picking on Iran for no reason. We
Speaker 1: don't have this problem with Bangladesh. We don't have this
Speaker 1: problem with Ethiopia. You know, we're not running around just
Speaker 1: picking countries at random and saying do what we say
Speaker 1: or else. The Iranian state has brought this on itself
Speaker 1: and it should pay the price and pay the consequences.
Speaker 1: But that does not mean invasion. It does not mean
Speaker 1: regime change. It does not mean this is our problem
Speaker 1: to fix. We've cut them off financially. They know our terms.
Speaker 1: They can either meet them or suffer the consequences that
Speaker 1: should be our post toward them. And I think Trump
Speaker 1: gets that. And the fact that Democrats are whining about
Speaker 1: it and acting like Trump is somehow in the here
Speaker 1: just goes to show you that, even when it comes
Speaker 1: to life to saving human lives, Pelosi and Booker and
Speaker 1: Harris and the rest of them would rather score points
Speaker 1: against Trump than let men and women in Iran go
Speaker 1: back home to their families for at least another day.
Speaker 1: Tells you a lot about what the opposition is all about.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I'm not looking for war, and
Speaker 1: if there is, it'll be obliteration like you've never seen before.
Speaker 1: But I'm not looking to do that. But you can't
Speaker 1: have a nuclear weapon. You want to talk good Otherwise
Speaker 1: you can have a bad economy for the next three years,
Speaker 1: not as far as I'm concerned, no preconditions. That seems
Speaker 1: like the proper positioning to me. Why isn't that right?
Speaker 1: What about what Trump is saying there is problematic? What
Speaker 1: about what Trump is putting forward. What should anybody who
Speaker 1: knows anything about this disagree with saying you can't have
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. He's saying, you know, you can deal with this,
Speaker 1: or you can go on as is. And he said
Speaker 1: that there are certainly people in his administration that come
Speaker 1: from different sides of this, which I think is a
Speaker 1: good thing. Don't we want the president to hear both
Speaker 1: sides of the issue? Play fourteen? He can't have nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: and if you want to talk about it, good. Otherwise
Speaker 1: you can live in a shattered economy for a long
Speaker 1: time to come. If you are you do you feel
Speaker 1: like you were being pushed into military action against iron
Speaker 1: by any of your advices. I have two groups of people.
Speaker 1: I have doves and have hawks. You have some have
Speaker 1: some hawks. John Bolden was absolutely a hawk. Is up
Speaker 1: to him, he'd take on the whole world at one time. Okay,
Speaker 1: But that doesn't matter because I want both sides, Isn't it?
Speaker 1: Isn't it amazing how this president on both sides, is
Speaker 1: trying to be deliberative and thoughtful about as important issue
Speaker 1: as faces any commander in chief, issues of war in peace.
Speaker 1: And they've been saying, they've been saying that he is
Speaker 1: the problem. You know, the establishment is saying that he's
Speaker 1: the one that's pushing us closer war, that he's the
Speaker 1: one that can't be trusted, and Obama and Bush midiast wars,
Speaker 1: that we did not have to fight Trump trying to
Speaker 1: keep us out of a Midiast war. He gets no support,
Speaker 1: including from Democrats who are generally opposed to all US
Speaker 1: military interventions abroad. They're still finding a way to make
Speaker 1: Trump the problem instead of giving him credit where it's due.
Speaker 1: We will make a full and complete education a human
Speaker 1: right in America to which all of our people are entitled.
Speaker 1: This means making public colleges, universities, and HBCUs tuition free
Speaker 1: and debt free. This proposal completely eliminates student debt in
Speaker 1: this country and ends the absurdity of sentencing an entire generation,
Speaker 1: the millennial generation, to a lifetime of debt for the
Speaker 1: crime of doing the right thing, and that is going
Speaker 1: out and getting a higher education. Our proposal, which costs
Speaker 1: two point two trillion over ten years, will be fully
Speaker 1: paid for by a tax on Wall Street speculation, similar
Speaker 1: to what exists in dozens of countries around the world.
Speaker 1: Oh here we go, Bertie. Third, This is gonna give
Speaker 1: rid of one point seven trillion dollars of student loan
Speaker 1: debt all at once, one point six trillion gone, just
Speaker 1: disappeared in the couch cushions. It's pretty amazing, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders saying that if you have outstanding student loan debt,
Speaker 1: it will just disappear under his administration. I'm sure this
Speaker 1: is very populous. And folks, this is problematic, my friends,
Speaker 1: It's terrible idea. Really. That's not to say there won't
Speaker 1: be people who benefit from it. I know probably a
Speaker 1: lot of you listen to this and be like, wow, Buck,
Speaker 1: that'd be kind of cool. It'd be nice to be
Speaker 1: free of student loan debt. Okay. But his plan is
Speaker 1: different than Elizabeth Warren's plan. Elizabeth Warren's plan from a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago was to and this is you're
Speaker 1: now seeing the progressive fight that we all knew was
Speaker 1: coming between Warren and Sanders. Warren and Sanders, here's a
Speaker 1: I think Warren's gonna win this, meaning she's gonna beat Sanders.
Speaker 1: I think Warren is going to become the progressive Candida,
Speaker 1: I think, my friends, despite her DNA debacle, I think
Speaker 1: Warren maybe the Democratic candidate. I know it's I know
Speaker 1: you're saying, fuck right now, there's you're her driving, Please
Speaker 1: please drive safely, keep keep your eyes on the road
Speaker 1: ahead of you. You're probably you know, throwing something out
Speaker 1: the window. Yeah, I think that there could be warned.
Speaker 1: Democrats don't. They didn't care the Clinton lied and was
Speaker 1: and had all the baggage that he had. They don't
Speaker 1: care about Warren's baggage. She gives them a lot of
Speaker 1: what of what do they want? She really does. She
Speaker 1: fills in a lot of the boxes for them. So
Speaker 1: a woman which they still haven't gotten over the whole
Speaker 1: Hillary didn't break the ultimate glass ceiling thing. It's very progressive.
Speaker 1: She has, you know, the impressive academic background, not earned
Speaker 1: by being an impressive academic, but she does have the background.
Speaker 1: She does have the resume. So Warren is very very real.
Speaker 1: Back in contention again, it's just this is the world
Speaker 1: we live in now, where she can be a bizarro
Speaker 1: and a liar and a fraud, but Democrats are like,
Speaker 1: so what Her plan, though, for whatever it's worth, was
Speaker 1: more realistic as these things go. It would have capped
Speaker 1: all debt forgiveness for student loans for each individual at
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars and would have also tapered off for
Speaker 1: households that earn over six figures. Sanders is just TABULARASA
Speaker 1: clean slate. It's a party baby going down to zero,
Speaker 1: no more student loans, that's what he's telling you. They
Speaker 1: all go away, all they all go by by. Well,
Speaker 1: who pays for that? You say, because there's debt owed
Speaker 1: to somebody. That's what student loans, you know, debt means
Speaker 1: there's a counterparty's somebody. Also in this case, the federal
Speaker 1: government has backstop these loans. The money has already been
Speaker 1: paid at the university. So the federal government, I suppose,
Speaker 1: just pretends like this money was never owed, comes from somewhere,
Speaker 1: is going to come from somewhere else. I mean, what
Speaker 1: is the real financial mechanism it's going to be used here?
Speaker 1: That's not even all that clear. But there are so
Speaker 1: many problems in this in the implementation, never mind in
Speaker 1: the conceptualization, which I'll also get into. Almost forty percent
Speaker 1: of student loan debt that has been has been taken
Speaker 1: out at this point is for graduate at schools. These
Speaker 1: are people who are in many cases specializing in and
Speaker 1: trying to advance their professional careers. And this is something
Speaker 1: that I know of because you are listening to a
Speaker 1: radio host who got into media because my choices were
Speaker 1: mba program and a couple one hundred thousand dollars of
Speaker 1: debt by the time I paid it off. Or take
Speaker 1: a job with a little company called the Blaze, and
Speaker 1: this guy named Glenn Beck, who took a chance on
Speaker 1: a kid that had never done media before, turned out
Speaker 1: to be pretty darn good at it. And thank you Glenn,
Speaker 1: by the way, and I'm always going to be thankful
Speaker 1: to Glenn for the opportunity. But it was no small
Speaker 1: part of my decision making process to be like cool
Speaker 1: new company with a paycheck, Or go to a fancy
Speaker 1: business school and just start running the running the the
Speaker 1: clock on massive loans. Big loans, you know, something like
Speaker 1: seventy five thousand a year, because you have to take
Speaker 1: out living expenses too. And then by the time you
Speaker 1: pay that off, if you paid it off on the schedule,
Speaker 1: it ends up being two hundred two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: You're paying off for two years of school. Folks. Okay,
Speaker 1: I looked at that and I said nah. You know,
Speaker 1: I came out of the government. I had very meager savings.
Speaker 1: Ninety five percent of you listening to this, I'm sure
Speaker 1: I had more money in the bank that I did
Speaker 1: after six years in the intelligence community, and I just
Speaker 1: decided that I wasn't gonna do this. So I look
Speaker 1: at this and I say, oh, okay, So you know,
Speaker 1: I could have gone to that Ivy League NBA program
Speaker 1: and taken out two or fifty thousand dollars loans and
Speaker 1: like have it all just wiped away for me. I
Speaker 1: still would have done the media thing, but I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, that would have been a more
Speaker 1: difficult decision at the time. Oh, don't worry, buck. At
Speaker 1: some point the socialist is going to come along and
Speaker 1: be like, guess what, it's all free. That's right, Happy
Speaker 1: New Year to me. No more debt. So a lot
Speaker 1: of this is for graduate degree programs, which is you
Speaker 1: you'd have to wonder. So now we're gonna make you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna make it easier for lawyers and doctors to
Speaker 1: pay off their debts. But meanwhile, what about people that
Speaker 1: got jobs right out of school or didn't even go
Speaker 1: to college and just we're working. Do we pay off
Speaker 1: their mortgages? Do we pay off their credit card debt?
Speaker 1: Does individual choice matter at all? Here? I mean, this
Speaker 1: isn't Nobody was fooled by the price of their of
Speaker 1: their college tuition. They were told what it was, they
Speaker 1: signed on for this, and yeah, the truth is college
Speaker 1: is too expensive. That is that is the truth. College
Speaker 1: is too expensive, It is too long, it is too expensive.
Speaker 1: Grad programs are too expensive. These universities have become bloated,
Speaker 1: full of administrators and just massive budgets and the endowments
Speaker 1: they have, it's just crazy. They're like multinational corporations. You
Speaker 1: look at the you know, Harvard has a twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollars endowment. These places have so much money. They have
Speaker 1: so much money, and the tuitions are still so expensive
Speaker 1: at these schools. I know some of them are going
Speaker 1: towards free because they have so much money, they're not
Speaker 1: going towards free tuition, but most of them you still
Speaker 1: pay fifty fifty five thousand a year. Or some of
Speaker 1: you were like, what, you know, my state school was great.
Speaker 1: It was maybe fifteen grand in state, maybe ten grand
Speaker 1: in state tuition, and that's first, you know, a good
Speaker 1: state school fifty five. My college AMers fifty plus thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a year for four years. You know, I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at this and it's all about credentialing too.
Speaker 1: It's really not about skills training. The skills training comes
Speaker 1: more in the grad programs. The grad programs go toward
Speaker 1: higher earning potential. That's why people generally do it. All
Speaker 1: if you want to get a PhD in eighteenth century
Speaker 1: French literature, God bless. But people look at this program
Speaker 1: they say, well, this is in a sense, this is
Speaker 1: socializing the costs of higher education for the upper middle class,
Speaker 1: which is predominantly wide and predominantly pretty well off. And
Speaker 1: this is Bernie Sanders big idea. This is gonna, this
Speaker 1: is gonna, you know, so help the country. What about
Speaker 1: bringing down the cost of these schools. How about some
Speaker 1: pressure on them, because right now, with the federal government
Speaker 1: backstopping all of these loans, the schools have no risk.
Speaker 1: They just keep raising prices, raising prices. Higher education has
Speaker 1: become this cartel where they have they have buyers that
Speaker 1: they know are going to be there for their product,
Speaker 1: and they can take them on loans. They can bring
Speaker 1: them in and let them get paid, even though they're
Speaker 1: all A lot of them are taking out loans to
Speaker 1: pay for these institutions because there's really nothing, you know,
Speaker 1: there's really nothing in terms of risk. This is a problem.
Speaker 1: People should think long and hard before they take out
Speaker 1: a massive loan. I try to live life debt free.
Speaker 1: I do not like debt. Debt for education under very
Speaker 1: specific circumstances is okay, But you got to know what
Speaker 1: you're doing. And it's buy or beware. And debt for
Speaker 1: a home and you better love that home, not as
Speaker 1: an investment or anything out you know, that's your home, right,
Speaker 1: These are those are the only debts. Not that I'm
Speaker 1: a financial advisor or anything, but I just debt is bad.
Speaker 1: You do not want to be living in debt. You
Speaker 1: certainly don't want credit card debt. You don't want, you know,
Speaker 1: car loan debt. You don't want to have that kind
Speaker 1: of debt at all. Student loan debt is a popular issue.
Speaker 1: It will mobilize voters. This will, but this is a giveaway.
Speaker 1: And this is a giveaway that is privileging. It's picking
Speaker 1: winners and losers in the market. And I sit here
Speaker 1: and tell you that I made a choice and My
Speaker 1: choice was to work, to work for not a lot
Speaker 1: of money and a very uncertain job where it could
Speaker 1: have been fired any day. And thank you Glenn for
Speaker 1: not firing me. But I could have been fired any day,
Speaker 1: or I could have gone to a very fancy I
Speaker 1: got into very fancy NBA programs and realize that the
Speaker 1: debts that I would incur in those programs were just
Speaker 1: going to be a problem for me. And I wanted
Speaker 1: to get married. I'm working on it, i know, and
Speaker 1: I want to start a family and do all these things.
Speaker 1: And I didn't want to have a couple hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a dead hanging over my head. So I made
Speaker 1: a choice. And now at Bernie Sanders and to a
Speaker 1: lesser sent Elizabeth Warren saying is yeah, but you know,
Speaker 1: the people that made the other choice, they actually made
Speaker 1: the right choice, because the government says, so we're going
Speaker 1: to bail them out, you know. You know, at some
Speaker 1: point we also have to ask, if everyone's education is
Speaker 1: paid for all the way through college, that means everyone's
Speaker 1: more or less going to go through college. And if
Speaker 1: everyone's going to go through college, then how much is
Speaker 1: college really worked as a credentialing program. And if it's
Speaker 1: not really worth that much as a credentialing program, meaning
Speaker 1: that you're not going to get some great job because
Speaker 1: you went to a four year college, then what is
Speaker 1: really the worth of that four year education. Wouldn't it
Speaker 1: be better? Wouldn't people be better served to have a
Speaker 1: much more rigorous high school education and then immediate professional
Speaker 1: job training or go into a career field and then
Speaker 1: maybe go to college after that. I wish I had
Speaker 1: had a year or two. I mean, I think the
Speaker 1: norm of a year to either do service or do
Speaker 1: a job. I think that every eighteen year old in
Speaker 1: the country who has never done it would benefit from
Speaker 1: showing up to a place at a certain time and
Speaker 1: being told do this thing, and I will give you
Speaker 1: money at the end of the day or the end
Speaker 1: of the week or whatever it is, and no one's
Speaker 1: celebrating your showing up, and no one's giving you a trophy,
Speaker 1: and you know you have responded, and if you mess up,
Speaker 1: you get fired. I think everybody would benefit from that.
Speaker 1: Who hasn't. I know a lot of you will say, buck,
Speaker 1: I was doing that when I was thirteen. You know,
Speaker 1: some of you were Ron Swanson style running the sawmill
Speaker 1: when you were twelve, whatever it is. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: it's a good thing to understand that responsibility. It also
Speaker 1: means that when someone tells you, hey, so now you're
Speaker 1: gonna have four years, or maybe it's less than that.
Speaker 1: So maybe some are going to two year junior colleges,
Speaker 1: but let's just say it's four years. That's what a
Speaker 1: standard undergrad program is. Your four years to just study
Speaker 1: and learn and improve and get better. You really think
Speaker 1: about that differently when you've because you know, I've had
Speaker 1: I've done jobs where no one cares that you're there.
Speaker 1: No one is patting you on the back and telling you, oh,
Speaker 1: you're so great or you're so wonderful. I mean, I
Speaker 1: know all of you have had this too, Right, you
Speaker 1: do a job where you're just labor, you know, I've
Speaker 1: I've carried hot equipment around in the sun for very
Speaker 1: little money at a day camp. I mean, I've done
Speaker 1: things you're like, what and not fun jobs? Not fun jobs,
Speaker 1: you know, not even as a coach, just as like
Speaker 1: the equipment manager guy. I mean, and I've done things
Speaker 1: you're like, oh, and for very little money, and it
Speaker 1: gives you an appreciation for someone telling you. And this
Speaker 1: is why the loans matter as well. The loans are responsibility.
Speaker 1: It's about making responsible choices. We cannot make this kind
Speaker 1: of determination in society from the government on down, where
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, some people's choices are ratified because
Speaker 1: it's polittedly convenient, while the rest of us who have
Speaker 1: lived debt free, who have paid off our loans, where
Speaker 1: pay off our mortgages and working really hard to do
Speaker 1: or to told them, why isn't my debt canceled? And
Speaker 1: all never even I haven't even gotten into the economic
Speaker 1: implications and the tax implications of free college for everybody
Speaker 1: and free you know this, free for everybody's stuff. This
Speaker 1: is dangerous, folks, This is bad. This leads down a
Speaker 1: very very destructive path for our economy. There's a whole
Speaker 1: philosophical underpinnings here. What does it mean to individual choice
Speaker 1: and responsibility? And you know, the changing relationship between citizen
Speaker 1: and state. But I don't even have time to get
Speaker 1: it all that today. We'll have to revisit this probably tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And I don't even I don't even even get to
Speaker 1: the immigration stuff that's going on right now, which is
Speaker 1: huge but we got this woman who is accusing Trump
Speaker 1: of rape. We've got to talk about that. The next hour,
Speaker 1: I got Central Park five stuff I wanted to update
Speaker 1: you on. I got a lot of show folks. So
Speaker 1: stick around following the asylum process, the legal standards when
Speaker 1: they're here. So should they be prosecuted? Should they be deported?
Speaker 1: I don't like this deportation thing at all, and I
Speaker 1: think Trump uses this as a beginning to do worst
Speaker 1: things to come. So when I bespoke to the President,
Speaker 1: I said, look, I'm a mom. I have five kids,
Speaker 1: nine grandchildren, and your children are scared. You're scaring the
Speaker 1: children of America, not just in those families, but their
Speaker 1: neighbors and their communities. You're scaring the children. You're scaring
Speaker 1: the children. Nancy Pelosi's argument on immigration summed up in
Speaker 1: one sound. But I guess that's what this is now,
Speaker 1: You're scaring the children. Let me say that children are
Speaker 1: scared when their parents get arrested for anything. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: you don't feel bad for the kids, but children are scared.
Speaker 1: Children are separated from their parents as well, over tax fraud,
Speaker 1: over possession of drugs, oh over weapons possession. Cases that
Speaker 1: are sometimes very murky and very anti Second Amendment. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of reasons people get separated from their
Speaker 1: families and where children get scared, but only on illegal
Speaker 1: immigration is it okay to break the law? And all
Speaker 1: we should care about is what does the family that's
Speaker 1: affected by this thing. I don't hear Nancy Pelosi's shedding
Speaker 1: tears for people that are engaged in medicare fraud who
Speaker 1: get separated from their kids, or who engage in tax
Speaker 1: fraud who gets separated from their kids. And no person
Speaker 1: could ever make the case to me with a straight
Speaker 1: face that one instance of tax fraud does anything to anybody.
Speaker 1: The only victim of that crime is the state. And
Speaker 1: it's at a level that is so insignificant that who
Speaker 1: really cares. Ah, But it's deterrence enforcement, right, It's meant
Speaker 1: to send a message, is illegal immigration bad or not?
Speaker 1: This is the fundamental question that Democrats cannot answer, or
Speaker 1: if they do answer it, they tell us what they
Speaker 1: won't then say up on the debate stage this week,
Speaker 1: which is coming up in just a couple of days here,
Speaker 1: which is that no, they don't think anything is really
Speaker 1: wrong with the legal immigration. They just want to manage it.
Speaker 1: They just want to be more in control of illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to stop it. They don't want
Speaker 1: to deter it, they don't want to infor the laws
Speaker 1: on the books. This is a problem. This is a problem.
Speaker 1: My friends, Bernie Sanders coming on saying deport that there
Speaker 1: should be no deportation. If we're not going to deport
Speaker 1: people that have already had all their days in court
Speaker 1: and have been found by that court to not have
Speaker 1: any legal right to stay in the country. If they
Speaker 1: don't get deported, who does. Remember these are people that
Speaker 1: have had their say, they've showed up, they've done all,
Speaker 1: and now they've just decided that they're not going to
Speaker 1: show up for rather their final date, or they're just
Speaker 1: going to avoid the authorities and hide when they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be deported. I mean, Democrats are in favor of lawlessness.
Speaker 1: That's what this is. Let's speak plainly about it, and
Speaker 1: they better pay the price at the ballot box in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty or else we are heading for mass amnesty
Speaker 1: and a very different country going forward. Would you consider
Speaker 1: bringing a rape charge account Trump for this? Why not?
Speaker 1: I would find it disrespectful to the women who are
Speaker 1: down on the border who are being raped around the
Speaker 1: clock down there without any protection. They're young women, they've
Speaker 1: you know, tried to come into the they're as you know,
Speaker 1: they're there by the thousand. The women have very little
Speaker 1: protection there. It would just be disrespectful if I, you know,
Speaker 1: and mine was three minutes. I'm a mature woman. I
Speaker 1: can handle it. I can keep going. You know, my
Speaker 1: life has gone on. I'm a happy woman. But for
Speaker 1: the women down there, and for the women actually around
Speaker 1: the world. You know, in every culture this is going on,
Speaker 1: no matter high in society or low in society, it
Speaker 1: just seems disrespectful that I would bring it just doesn't
Speaker 1: make sense to me. That's e Gene Carol, the woman
Speaker 1: who just last week and got a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: publicity from it, as I'm sure she knew she would,
Speaker 1: and I believe that was a large part of why
Speaker 1: she brought this up. Ee Gene Carroll, who was has
Speaker 1: now claimed in a book that is just coming out.
Speaker 1: So the timing is certainly from a book sales perspective,
Speaker 1: very fortuitous for her. That Donald Trump in a Barneys
Speaker 1: or Berg Dwarf Goodman. I forget which one one of
Speaker 1: this storied department store in New York City, had a
Speaker 1: brief encounter with her, pushed her into a dressing room
Speaker 1: and forcibly raped her against her will. And she said
Speaker 1: it lasting about three minutes, and that's her story. And
Speaker 1: she did not raise any official complaint at the time,
Speaker 1: did not go to the police. That's it. Nothing else.
Speaker 1: And now we are left once again to based on
Speaker 1: a woman's word decades after the fact. Right, this isn't
Speaker 1: a woman's word from last night where there's automatically going
Speaker 1: to be verifiable thing. Were you in the place where
Speaker 1: this thing was said to have happened. Was the person
Speaker 1: that you claim attacked you in the place where you
Speaker 1: said this? This is how investigation works. I'm familiar with this.
Speaker 1: You verify all the known facts, you see if the
Speaker 1: story lines up, and you know, this is why when
Speaker 1: it comes to a defense against an allegation of rape,
Speaker 1: the two general pathways are either it was consensual, which
Speaker 1: can be a tough thing to prove or disprove, and
Speaker 1: that's you know, that's going to be a court fight
Speaker 1: and that can be tough, or I wasn't in that
Speaker 1: city that night. Because sometimes despite what you hear from
Speaker 1: the media there are completely disconnected from reality, wildly false
Speaker 1: claims of rape made against people in fact. A. Tucker
Speaker 1: Crowson has spoken about this before publicly and several occasions
Speaker 1: where he was accused by rape of when he was
Speaker 1: at CNN of a woman he had never met in
Speaker 1: a city he had never been to. She was deeply
Speaker 1: mentally ill, but she followed the claim. And the police,
Speaker 1: when they have a woman, if they believe it's credible,
Speaker 1: they can arrescue just on that. They can just decide
Speaker 1: to pick you up. And now you're now you're being
Speaker 1: processed for a rape charge. So you can imagine how
Speaker 1: that would go or you know how that would make
Speaker 1: you feel, even if you knew you would never met
Speaker 1: the person. I'd never been in that city. But so
Speaker 1: that's why the distance from the event is relevant here.
Speaker 1: You know, if it's a day ago, a month ago,
Speaker 1: a year ago, you know, maybe four or five years ago,
Speaker 1: even you might have some chance of verifying. There's no
Speaker 1: way to verify any of this, none of it. This
Speaker 1: is Kavanaugh two point oh, this is all over again.
Speaker 1: You know, she she there's nothing, she doesn't have a
Speaker 1: receipt from that day, she doesn't know nothing. Now she
Speaker 1: says she has the dress that she wore. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: how do we know that? I mean, I would be
Speaker 1: curious to know if I don't know, if thirty years
Speaker 1: later they could expect to find, you know, DNA evidence
Speaker 1: on it, but that would be interesting. But then again,
Speaker 1: I'd be wanting to know if you know, a whole
Speaker 1: bunch of things here, like why'd she wait this long?
Speaker 1: Why the timing of this, and what is Donald Trump
Speaker 1: supposed to do in response? And all these women who
Speaker 1: come forward and say that the Donald Trump has actually
Speaker 1: assaulted them, none of them thought to ever make a
Speaker 1: complaint to the police. Why because of what notice? How
Speaker 1: these claims remain untested by the medium, by the public.
Speaker 1: They're out there, but they don't really chase them down,
Speaker 1: just like they didn't chase down Julie Sweatnick. Julie Swetnick
Speaker 1: is a crazy person. She's a liar. She was the
Speaker 1: third accuser of Brett Cavanaugh. She wasn't confused, she wasn't misremembering.
Speaker 1: She is a crazy person seeking attention. She's a liar.
Speaker 1: I believe the second woman as well is a liar.
Speaker 1: And I think that Blasi Ford is unfortunate that she is.
Speaker 1: I think that she's mentally ill, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: I think that she believes what she is saying. But
Speaker 1: she wouldn't be the first person that misremember something from
Speaker 1: thirty years ago and with mental illness behind it or
Speaker 1: involved in some capacity. And I don't mean mental illnesses.
Speaker 1: And she's not, you know, not of sound mind entirely,
Speaker 1: but you know, I think she has probably deep depression
Speaker 1: and anxiety issues, and you know, has got stuff to
Speaker 1: work out. I think she was wrong about what she
Speaker 1: said about Kavanaugh for many, many reasons. But this is
Speaker 1: the slimiest and most underhanded tactic that you can really
Speaker 1: think of. The I'm going to fight against my political
Speaker 1: enemies by making accusations that destroy their character, destroy their reputation,
Speaker 1: that they have no means of really disproving, you know,
Speaker 1: effectively dispelling these allegations. And it's just it's the ultimate
Speaker 1: smear tactic you know, think of. And that's why the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh situation was such a wake up call for many
Speaker 1: of us, because they could do this to anyone and
Speaker 1: all these journalists I saw who were refusing to accept
Speaker 1: that very simple fact we're idiots, and their disgrace to
Speaker 1: their profession, which is supposed to be able to facts
Speaker 1: and information that could be done to anyone. Anyone listening
Speaker 1: to this broadcast that's been on the earth long enough.
Speaker 1: You know, someone could come up and say that you
Speaker 1: in a you know, in the town that you lived
Speaker 1: in thirty years ago, they saw you behind a quickie
Speaker 1: mart and you know you did something terrible to them.
Speaker 1: And how do you prove it? They're lying. You can't
Speaker 1: prove it all, you know, how do you prove it
Speaker 1: a lie? You can't. They can just say this just
Speaker 1: just ruin you. Oh but I always knew. I said
Speaker 1: it from the beginning. Meat too would be weaponized against conservatives,
Speaker 1: and it was really building all along to be weaponized
Speaker 1: against Kavanaugh. You know, it was a real movement. As
Speaker 1: often by the way, you know, this is like when
Speaker 1: you think of you know, Marxist revolutionaries, there are real
Speaker 1: problems in the societies. When they come along and say
Speaker 1: they are real problems, you know that the you know,
Speaker 1: the czars in Russia were corrupt and we're not connected
Speaker 1: to the people and we're brutal and okay, but that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the new regime can come in and
Speaker 1: do whatever the heck it wants. But that's what ends
Speaker 1: up happening in the Me Too movement. Yes, there are
Speaker 1: bad actors that have been found by it, that it's
Speaker 1: a good thing that they've been taken down as a result.
Speaker 1: But what then happened is they go, oh, okay, so
Speaker 1: we have all this power and out of takedown powerful men,
Speaker 1: so let's use this for political purposes and destroy Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: And that's what they did, or they tried to. That
Speaker 1: was a close fought battle. Kavanaugh just barely made it through.
Speaker 1: Ejean Carol. I don't find her allegation to be credible.
Speaker 1: I'm surprised that some of the people on the right
Speaker 1: that I've seen who say they do think it's credible.
Speaker 1: I do not find it credible. I think she is
Speaker 1: not telling the truth. I don't know if she knows
Speaker 1: she's not telling the truth. I think she's not telling
Speaker 1: the truth. And I think that it's also utterly bizarre
Speaker 1: that when asked why she won't because forcible rape in
Speaker 1: New York City there's no statute of limitations on it.
Speaker 1: If you forcibly rape somebody, the charge can be brought
Speaker 1: at any time. Why you want to bring it because
Speaker 1: of the women on the border. What does that have
Speaker 1: to do with anything? How is that relevant? I mean,
Speaker 1: this is like saying, why don't you bring a rape
Speaker 1: charge against Donald Trump? You say he raped you. Imagine
Speaker 1: if the woman said, well, I really dislike his tax policy,
Speaker 1: so I don't want to confuse things. You'd think that
Speaker 1: that was that was completely bizarre. Right, Well, that's in
Speaker 1: a sense what happened here. You got a bizarre answer,
Speaker 1: something that has nothing to do with anything, and that's
Speaker 1: how she responds on TV. And then there were other
Speaker 1: things she said too, about how she wished she had
Speaker 1: gotten his tax returns. I mean she's a part, isn't.
Speaker 1: Obviously she's a left wing columnist, kind of one of
Speaker 1: these like life advice sex columnist people, I think, sex
Speaker 1: advice columnists. I don't know exactly what kind of advice
Speaker 1: she gives, but you know, I'm assuming it's like a
Speaker 1: dear It is a dear, dear Abbey, or I guess
Speaker 1: dear Jean in this case, Mark, what what's the who's
Speaker 1: the famous advice columnist? You know what I'm talking about? Anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't it's dear Abbey, Dear Abbey, that's right, thank you, Mike. Um. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: she's one of those. I mean, hey, producer, Mike, am
Speaker 1: I allowed, I don't want to get you in hot
Speaker 1: water because I know you got to go back to
Speaker 1: Brooklyn and there's a lot of like lives running around there.
Speaker 1: But I mean, do you do you find I think
Speaker 1: this woman sounds sounds a little nuts. Yeah, it doesn't
Speaker 1: sound right at all because one of the things you
Speaker 1: actually were saying with the dress, she gave a really
Speaker 1: crazy explanation for that interview that we played I believe
Speaker 1: was from MSNBCA stall Are talking to CNM and she
Speaker 1: was asked about the dress and her answer for that
Speaker 1: was even more off the wall than the answer she
Speaker 1: gave about you know, the whole story, like she was
Speaker 1: afraid to look at it or something. And it just
Speaker 1: doesn't lie enough to me. Yeah, she's afraid to look
Speaker 1: at it, but she wants to go on TV and
Speaker 1: talk about it right exactly. No, this is folks, you know,
Speaker 1: this is why all we have is our ability to
Speaker 1: think through these issues and try to be fair minded
Speaker 1: in our approach to them. And I do not find
Speaker 1: her allegation credible. I do not think that this is
Speaker 1: a real I don't think that. I do not believe
Speaker 1: for one second. There's zero percent of me that believes
Speaker 1: Donald Trump raped this woman, zero percent of me that
Speaker 1: believes that We'll be right back. We have a picture
Speaker 1: of it because you're on the front page of New
Speaker 1: York magazine. This is the exactly the outfit that you
Speaker 1: were wearing the day that you say the attack happened.
Speaker 1: You have kept that dress. You've never worn it again.
Speaker 1: You say, have you ever dry landon? No. The thing is,
Speaker 1: we all have dresses. You just hang them in the closets.
Speaker 1: Something bad. You didn't have a good time worrying it,
Speaker 1: and you never put it on again because it's just
Speaker 1: a bad luck dress. I never felt like putting it
Speaker 1: on again. I did not turn it into a talisman.
Speaker 1: I didn't wrap it in plastic. I didn't think. I
Speaker 1: just didn't want to put it on again. I guess
Speaker 1: my question is is could there be any DNA and
Speaker 1: no idea? I do not know if the president ejaculated
Speaker 1: have no idea, wouldn't just be that. Pardon me for
Speaker 1: playing that on air, but that is that is what
Speaker 1: was played on CNN today. Their DNA is not just
Speaker 1: that folks, there's you leave DNA hair and and you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of ways that DNA can get left behind. Um.
Speaker 1: And if she's telling the truth, yeah, let's let's see it.
Speaker 1: Let's let let's put that in a forensic laboratory and
Speaker 1: see what they come up with. I'm willing to bet
Speaker 1: they won't come up with anything. But notice how she
Speaker 1: just wouldn't. Wouldn't if you were her and you thought that,
Speaker 1: if you were E Jean Carroll and you really believe
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump did this to you and someone, and
Speaker 1: she's never thought of that before, I would not. No
Speaker 1: one's ever brought up to her that she could have that.
Speaker 1: Even at this point, DNA doesn't fade. I mean DNA
Speaker 1: can last decades. So I mean it fades, but it
Speaker 1: can last for a very long time, much longer than
Speaker 1: say fingerprints. Will Um, what is it that is stopping
Speaker 1: her then from doing it? But you'll see she goes, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't really you know, she's not interested.
Speaker 1: Why is she not interested? Don't you want to don't
Speaker 1: you want to get the guy that did this to you?
Speaker 1: He's the president the United States? To be quite a story,
Speaker 1: that's because you're lying. I mean, she's lying. They can
Speaker 1: tell me, Oh Buck, you can't say that she has
Speaker 1: a right to be believed. Really, did Jennifer Flowers have
Speaker 1: a right to be believed of Bill Clinton? We can
Speaker 1: play this game all day. I listen to the facts
Speaker 1: of individual cases and decide whether or not they are credible.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get to the truth always here on
Speaker 1: this show and in general life. I do not find
Speaker 1: her story credible, and I think that those who do
Speaker 1: find it credible are blinded by their hatred for Trump.
Speaker 1: Let's also just one other component of this that does
Speaker 1: not get nearly the thought that I think it should hear.
Speaker 1: Is so, Donald Trump meets a woman in one of
Speaker 1: the most storied department stores in the world. And I
Speaker 1: just mean that in that it's very crowded and there's
Speaker 1: a lot of security. There's a lot of people there,
Speaker 1: and he doesn't know this woman at all. So he
Speaker 1: has no belief that there's some social pressure that she
Speaker 1: would keep quiet, or you know, that they've had dalliances
Speaker 1: before and he could maybe get away with pushing the
Speaker 1: envelope or something like that. He doesn't know this woman
Speaker 1: says some thing to her and then pushes her into
Speaker 1: a dressing room and forcibly rapes her in the process,
Speaker 1: risking not just his his reputation but his freedom and
Speaker 1: risks going to prison for fifteen or twenty years. And
Speaker 1: was that reckless and that predatory and criminal? Really, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I do not find that credible at all. I just
Speaker 1: don't you know, this isn't up in the you know,
Speaker 1: this isn't up in the you know, the Trump Tower
Speaker 1: late at night, alcohol, he said, She said, this is
Speaker 1: this is the equivalent of a guy sees, you know,
Speaker 1: that Trump sees someone in an alley and attacks her
Speaker 1: and then just you know, runs away. That's that's not
Speaker 1: who I mean, That's not who Donald Trump was. Come on,
Speaker 1: he was a playboy, no question. He's a philander or
Speaker 1: no question. That's a long that's many, many, many, many
Speaker 1: many miles away from what she's talking about, forcibly raping
Speaker 1: a woman in a department store. It's just folks, they're
Speaker 1: they're so full of hatred for the president they are
Speaker 1: that they think, here's the real problem. And this is
Speaker 1: true of Blasi for this is true in a lot
Speaker 1: of these cases. They think that the lie is justified
Speaker 1: by this greater good that they're trying to achieve. I'm
Speaker 1: sure that in her mind, whatever doubts she has about
Speaker 1: the truth, whether she knows it's all lie or if
Speaker 1: there's she saw him or something, you know, there's some
Speaker 1: way that she makes this seem like less of a
Speaker 1: lie in her mind. But whatever it is, it's justified
Speaker 1: by the fact that Donald Trump to the left, is
Speaker 1: worse than Hitler. So whatever can be done to destroy you.
Speaker 1: I mean, if if you could destroy Hitler's persona before
Speaker 1: he becomes the head of the of the third you know,
Speaker 1: of the third Right, I mean, would you would you
Speaker 1: do that? Would you feel justified? I mean, I know
Speaker 1: it's a crazy question. But they think that Trump is
Speaker 1: operating concentration camps. They say they think that Trump is
Speaker 1: a threat to Meanwhile, Trump is somehow a threat to
Speaker 1: a world peace and stability because he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: go to war in the Middle East, as we've been
Speaker 1: discussing him. And this is those whole Thing's astounding, isn't it.
Speaker 1: They really hate the fact that President Trump showed restraint here.
Speaker 1: They would hate it much more if he hadn't showed restraint.
Speaker 1: But that's just because they hate Trump and all things
Speaker 1: about him and everything that he does. There's nothing that
Speaker 1: Trump does that's you know, in any way mitigating in
Speaker 1: their minds. But you know, as a man, as an American,
Speaker 1: as somebody who believes in truth and believes in the
Speaker 1: presumption of innocence and the rule of law. This destruction
Speaker 1: of conservative political figures via and you see it more
Speaker 1: with Donald Trump, but obviously Kavanaugh was the real high
Speaker 1: watermark of this frenzy. A frenzy the destruction of people
Speaker 1: with undisprovable allegations of sexual misconduct, rape as all this is,
Speaker 1: this really tears at us as a society. And this
Speaker 1: really makes it so that the worst among us, the
Speaker 1: worst impulses in our politics, are given a means of
Speaker 1: being acted out right. I mean, if someone is willing,
Speaker 1: if someone is willing to bring these allegations, they have
Speaker 1: a power that's that's irrefutable, even if there's no underlying evidence,
Speaker 1: even if it looks look at me, this woman, maybe
Speaker 1: she'll sell more books. Now. I also, by the way,
Speaker 1: I think that there's you're allowed to bring this into
Speaker 1: the discussion. I mean, she held back on all this
Speaker 1: until she was able to benefit personally from it. I
Speaker 1: think that that's then fair. I think that's fair game
Speaker 1: to say, well, why would you wait until you had
Speaker 1: a book to write about this thirty years later? Isn't it?
Speaker 1: Isn't it more? Oh, I'm sorry. She cares so much
Speaker 1: about the women at the border, who she says are
Speaker 1: being raped, and I guess she means by the car tells.
Speaker 1: I assume she means that because that is happening. It's not.
Speaker 1: There's no systematic rape going on in the detention facilities.
Speaker 1: But she's so worried about them. What about the women
Speaker 1: that would have been subjected to the alleged predations of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump during all those years? She didn't shield them
Speaker 1: something by coming forward? Now, folks, she's she's lying. It's
Speaker 1: just not credible. I mean, if she provides evidence, if
Speaker 1: there's DNA on this dress or whatever, I mean, then
Speaker 1: I'll change my mind. But based on what she's said
Speaker 1: right now, it's just not credible. And we have to
Speaker 1: maintain this. We have to have critical faculties. When there
Speaker 1: are horrible allegations made about any person, What are the facts?
Speaker 1: What do we know? It's not do we like the
Speaker 1: person or not? And that's what the left is trying
Speaker 1: to do the trying to change the justicystem to make
Speaker 1: it about what you like. So I watched the first
Speaker 1: episode of When They See Us over the weekend, and
Speaker 1: this is about the Central Park five and the Central
Speaker 1: Park jogger case from a nineteen eighty nine in case.
Speaker 1: Even though I was very young, I remember it being
Speaker 1: talked about by all the adults around me. I remember
Speaker 1: this was the most shocking thing to happen in New
Speaker 1: York City in quite some time, and it was on
Speaker 1: the front pages of the newspapers for a long time,
Speaker 1: and everybody's really focused on this. So I have memories
Speaker 1: of this, and you have to remember that. I also
Speaker 1: when they describe the roots and the areas and the places,
Speaker 1: and I mean, I know Central Park like the back
Speaker 1: of my hand. I know the park very well. In fact,
Speaker 1: people when they post on Instagram and they're anywhere in
Speaker 1: the park, I usually even if there's not a major
Speaker 1: landmark around, I can usually tell with a pretty high
Speaker 1: accuracy where that photo was taken in Central Park, just
Speaker 1: based on the trees and the paths and what's around them.
Speaker 1: So I've spent a lot of time. They're played all
Speaker 1: of my grammar school and high school sports in Central
Speaker 1: Park ran I believe it or not, It used to
Speaker 1: be a long distance runner. I used to run frequently
Speaker 1: on all the trails there, so I know exactly where
Speaker 1: this is. So I just by way of background, this
Speaker 1: is all very It all felt very hit, very close
Speaker 1: to home to us. You know, my own mother and
Speaker 1: my own sister jogged in the park for years and
Speaker 1: years and years, and you know, I would jog in
Speaker 1: the park, and it was it was also always really
Speaker 1: the beating heart of a lot of ways for a
Speaker 1: lot of people felt like the maybe not the beating heart,
Speaker 1: but the the oasis of New York City. I mean everybody.
Speaker 1: It really feels like Manhattan was built around Central Park.
Speaker 1: So the idea that Central Park would be seated at
Speaker 1: times to criminal elements rampaging around it really affected people
Speaker 1: and was deeply upsetting. And there had been for a
Speaker 1: long time stories about muggings and violence and things in
Speaker 1: the park, but it usually wasn't quite as as vicious,
Speaker 1: It wasn't quite as as horrific in any given year
Speaker 1: as what you saw with the Central Part jogger case,
Speaker 1: which was just horrible beyond words, and so over the weekend,
Speaker 1: I watched this one episode of the of the When
Speaker 1: They See Us Show, and then I went and I
Speaker 1: thought to myself, Okay, all right, I'm before I start
Speaker 1: drawing any conclusions about this, although it's hard not to
Speaker 1: because I'm pretty familiar with the case. Before anyone says,
Speaker 1: have you read all of the There are two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand pages of information that have been released about that case,
Speaker 1: and my understanding, there's actually a lot more information that
Speaker 1: we publicly released this fall, including information that I think
Speaker 1: will be very, very damaging to the exoneration case, such
Speaker 1: as it is. But you don't have to be familiar
Speaker 1: to keep in mind. I mean, the jury didn't read
Speaker 1: all two hundred thousand pages either. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: at some point a lot of this is just information
Speaker 1: to have that people will go to for reference. But
Speaker 1: there are key facts, key facts about this that you
Speaker 1: should know. Before I can get into those key facts,
Speaker 1: a few things. The way that the actors the actors
Speaker 1: were cast in this movie versus Worth the actors looked
Speaker 1: like in real life. I just mean in terms of
Speaker 1: their size and physicality. That alone, it is very reminiscent
Speaker 1: of how you had if you remember Trayvon Martin. The
Speaker 1: photo that was always being used to show Trayvon Martin
Speaker 1: by the media and where there was active medium malpractice.
Speaker 1: I mean there were people who there was a woman
Speaker 1: who was fired from I think it was either an
Speaker 1: ABC or NBC affiliate in Florida for doctoring the audio
Speaker 1: and playing a doctored audio to make it sound like, uh,
Speaker 1: what was his name is? Zimmerman was racist? Right? You
Speaker 1: know George Zimmerman, who, keep in mind, is like the
Speaker 1: first white Hispanic I'd ever heard of before. I mean,
Speaker 1: the guy's half Hispanic, he looks Hispanic, but they they
Speaker 1: called him white because it was more important for their
Speaker 1: for their narrative. So so the press was putting their
Speaker 1: thumbs on that scale, no question about it. And they
Speaker 1: kept using this photo of Trayvon Martin from when he
Speaker 1: was twelve years twelve or thirteen years old. He was
Speaker 1: eighteen during that fight. He was eighteen six feet tall,
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty five pounds. Why are you showing
Speaker 1: a photo of a twelve year old all the time.
Speaker 1: I mean it just like an eighth grade graduation cap.
Speaker 1: That's there's a reason they're doing that, right. This is
Speaker 1: also you see this in, folks, This is why there's
Speaker 1: no such thing as a truly objective media. There's no
Speaker 1: such thing that's just journalism in just the facts. Look
Speaker 1: at the photos that they pick of different senators. Look
Speaker 1: at how they depict people when there's some subjectivity involved
Speaker 1: in it. Some people always get their best photos picked.
Speaker 1: Some people always look like Darth Vader when the photos
Speaker 1: picked of them. This is all done on purpose, you know,
Speaker 1: this is all done for a certain effect and to
Speaker 1: bring about a certain response from the audience. But the
Speaker 1: kid that they have playing Richardson in this documentary looks
Speaker 1: to be about ten or eleven years old, and he's crying.
Speaker 1: He's just crying and crying, crying for mommy. And I
Speaker 1: mean it looks like they have taken a kid out
Speaker 1: of you know, drawing with crawns in the nursery room
Speaker 1: and are screaming at him and threatening his parents. And Okay,
Speaker 1: let's get to the reality. Because I watched the entire
Speaker 1: Richardson interrogation tape over the weekend, which you can do.
Speaker 1: You can see for yourself, and what you see, there
Speaker 1: is a pretty sizeable sixteen year old kid. I mean,
Speaker 1: one that I could tell you you know if if
Speaker 1: he came at you and you weren't expecting it. And remember,
Speaker 1: these kids all admitted to punching people, clotheslining people. They admitted.
Speaker 1: That was all admitted. They were engaged in gang violence
Speaker 1: in the park that was known. This is understood. They
Speaker 1: went around as a mob attacking people, including a jogger
Speaker 1: before this, the woman that became known as the Central
Speaker 1: Park jogger who's mail that they almost beat to death
Speaker 1: with a pipe had to go to the hospital fractured skull.
Speaker 1: So that's these civil rights heroes were part of gang
Speaker 1: mob violence in the park. Almost killed a guy. And
Speaker 1: by the way, if you're part of that, if you
Speaker 1: run up and kick somebody when they've already had their
Speaker 1: head caved in, you're that's a gang violent statute. You
Speaker 1: go away for or for ten years for that. Just
Speaker 1: for that, these kids all got treated as except for one,
Speaker 1: as juveniles. I'm wondering for five years. Some of you
Speaker 1: I know have come at me on the email over this. Look,
Speaker 1: I appreciate the robust exchange of ideas. If you think
Speaker 1: these these people were interested, you're wrong. I've I know
Speaker 1: all of the counter theories and the facts that none
Speaker 1: of this is compelling at all. You cannot explain to
Speaker 1: me why it is that Richardson again, because he's he's
Speaker 1: really key to this. There's you know, Carrie Wise, and
Speaker 1: there's there's obviously five of them. But why Richardson is
Speaker 1: picked up the night of you, Oh, don't even sorry.
Speaker 1: I get very the Netflix show, which is now being
Speaker 1: treated like it's a it's a documentary and it's the reality,
Speaker 1: and it's not. It's completely sensationalized. In one scene, they
Speaker 1: show bicyclist driving past them in the park and the
Speaker 1: kids all go, you know, ooh, and kind of make
Speaker 1: some scary noise at them. As they know, they chase
Speaker 1: them down and tried to knock them off the bicycle
Speaker 1: and probably beat their heads to a pulp like they
Speaker 1: did the other guy and like they did by the
Speaker 1: way to the jogger. That's right, these guys were guilty.
Speaker 1: We can all sit here and say oh, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: until someone explains to me why Richardson, who was a
Speaker 1: part of gang violence that same time. I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: gang violence, I mean group mob violence, right, doesn't mean
Speaker 1: I'm not saying he was in an established gang, but
Speaker 1: he was part of mob violence was in the park
Speaker 1: for that purpose. Someone tell me why he is picked
Speaker 1: up by a black detective, by the way, who that
Speaker 1: night had no idea that there had even been a
Speaker 1: rape in the park. And when they're questioning him and
Speaker 1: they asked how he got a scratch over next to
Speaker 1: his eye, says that your part says that the other
Speaker 1: cop did that to me. Now, let's just unpack this
Speaker 1: for a second. A little scratch. What cop takes his
Speaker 1: fingernail and does a little scratch under the eye of
Speaker 1: a of a teenage kid they're picking up for unlawful
Speaker 1: assembling in the park. Now, I'm not saying that cops
Speaker 1: haven't done bad stuff and haven't ever taken out of
Speaker 1: baton and you know, wrapped a kid on the hands
Speaker 1: or on the knees or something. A little scratch with
Speaker 1: a fingernail into the eye. I know a lot of cops, folks,
Speaker 1: I worked with a lot of cops. They don't they
Speaker 1: don't say, hey, don't move, I'm gonna scratch you under
Speaker 1: the eye. Sir Richardson had a scratch under his eye.
Speaker 1: This is all a matter of record. Says that the
Speaker 1: other cop did it. Cop says this is all on tape, folks,
Speaker 1: This is all on record. Other cops says, or the
Speaker 1: cop says, Okay, we're gonna bring him in here. Is
Speaker 1: that really what happened? Basically saying do you want to
Speaker 1: say this to that other guy's face? And like, you're
Speaker 1: really gonna say that he scratched you under the eye
Speaker 1: with his fingernail? How would that have happened? And then
Speaker 1: he goes, no, the woman did it when I was
Speaker 1: trying to hold her down. How does that happens if
Speaker 1: he's not there and a part of this whole thing,
Speaker 1: How does he know to say that? Why? Why is
Speaker 1: the woman did it all of a sudden the thing
Speaker 1: that he says. Why does one of their friends, who
Speaker 1: is a teenage girl who thought that she was helping
Speaker 1: one of the Central Park five, why does she tell
Speaker 1: the cops, well, no, he didn't actually rape her. He
Speaker 1: just held her down while the other guy did. Did
Speaker 1: someone coerce her? You look at these confessions. These confessions
Speaker 1: are not coerced. These kids are sitting there retelling what
Speaker 1: they know to have happened. They knew facts they could
Speaker 1: only know if they had been there, and if they
Speaker 1: were there in any capacity involved in the assault, even
Speaker 1: if it was just to run up and touch her
Speaker 1: on the shoulder while she was being violated. They are guilty.
Speaker 1: Do we have to live in this world where we
Speaker 1: can't deal in reality anymore? I mean, are there's still
Speaker 1: people running around with think O J didn't do it.
Speaker 1: You don't see this as a giant payoff to al
Speaker 1: Sharpton by de Blasio his administration comes in? What about
Speaker 1: what about Malee? What about the woman who was attacked?
Speaker 1: Do you ever hear about her? She didn't want this
Speaker 1: settlement to be made. She thought they were multiple attackers,
Speaker 1: not one attacker. She was so beaten in brain damage
Speaker 1: that her memory of it is largely blacked out. But
Speaker 1: she thought there were multiple attackers. Medical examination of her,
Speaker 1: multiple sized handprints on her. Someone want to explain that, well,
Speaker 1: the DNAs on her. All the DNA proved is that
Speaker 1: somebody also raped her who was not there, which was
Speaker 1: initially the theory of the case. They knew this at
Speaker 1: the time, somebody else was involved and got away. Or
Speaker 1: are we to believe it's coincidence that that guy who
Speaker 1: was a completely sadistic, homicidal rapist, who should be if
Speaker 1: you believe the death penalty that guy Reus. I mean
Speaker 1: I would throw the switch myself. Do we think that
Speaker 1: he just happened to have a beef in prison with
Speaker 1: one of the Central Park five and they had problems
Speaker 1: with each other just because because they did carry wise,
Speaker 1: they had beef in prison. Why do you think they
Speaker 1: had beef in prison because Rays had gotten away with it?
Speaker 1: Does someone does there another explanation? Rikers is a big place, folks.
Speaker 1: Somebody who is Central Park five and Reys happened to
Speaker 1: be fighting in prison? Why was that? Huh? Why would
Speaker 1: they be fighting? Explain this? I mean, there are all
Speaker 1: these points that that cannot be explained by who. Good
Speaker 1: Dan eggsoneration. This is like you know whose streets are
Speaker 1: streets occupied? Walster? It's just slogans. It's nonsense. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: the city at least go to court to present its
Speaker 1: side of the case instead of writing a check for
Speaker 1: over forty million dollars forty million dollars to a group
Speaker 1: of kids who are part of mob assaults all night
Speaker 1: in the park and who admitted on video with their
Speaker 1: legal guardians present to questioning that I have heard you
Speaker 1: can watch the videos, folks, don't watch the Netflix thing.
Speaker 1: You better do this or we're gonna get your dad
Speaker 1: fired from his job. It's all lies. You watch the
Speaker 1: actual interrogations, completely respectful, completely professional. You know, what is this?
Speaker 1: What is the message that people really think they're the
Speaker 1: system is so racist? That's what they think happened, Yet
Speaker 1: that the system was racist, because I want to know
Speaker 1: that they captured a bunch of kids who were engaged
Speaker 1: in criminal activity, serious criminal activity, by their own admission,
Speaker 1: admitted to doing something horrible based on facts that they
Speaker 1: could have only known if they were at least there.
Speaker 1: And then all of a sudden, the city decides, for
Speaker 1: would seemed like transparently political reasons that they're just gonna
Speaker 1: pretend like this thing never happened. I mean, if the
Speaker 1: people running the justice system in any context decide that
Speaker 1: there's something more important than the actual system, there's very
Speaker 1: little you can do about it. Look at Jesse Smilett.
Speaker 1: Now maybe there's a special prosecutor, but yeah, Kim Fox,
Speaker 1: like Jesse wanted to help him out, made the whole
Speaker 1: thing go away, locked it all up, nothing, no case,
Speaker 1: no publicity for the case either, no no information to
Speaker 1: be public. Just made it all go away. This is
Speaker 1: a reverse of that. In a sense, this is, oh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna exoner these people do not have this city
Speaker 1: defended by the NYPD. People that I talked to you
Speaker 1: about this case, furious about it, furious right around when
Speaker 1: this was happening in New York City. And this is
Speaker 1: why this is near and dear to my heart, meaning
Speaker 1: that it's important. I mean, not like yeah, but this
Speaker 1: is something that really hits home. Right around when this
Speaker 1: case happened, I mean, New York City was getting over
Speaker 1: eighteen hundred, two thousand murders a year. I think it
Speaker 1: hit an absolute peak in nineteen ninety with twenty two
Speaker 1: hundred and forty five murders over one hundred thousand robberies
Speaker 1: reported a year in New York City. One hundred thousand.
Speaker 1: That's a lot. There was lawlessness, There was a fear
Speaker 1: on the streets. I know because I grew up there
Speaker 1: and I remember, and then I lived there for years
Speaker 1: after where the fear was gone. New York City, folks,
Speaker 1: if you're listening now, it's very safe. I mean no
Speaker 1: city is perfectly safe, but it's a very safe place.
Speaker 1: You should have no fear going to New York of
Speaker 1: a great time. This is the night and day compared
Speaker 1: to what it was when I was a kid, when
Speaker 1: when this Central Park jogger case happened. We were always told,
Speaker 1: you know, gotta watch out, people gonna rob you, people
Speaker 1: gonna attack you, and like gotta be careful in the streets,
Speaker 1: and you know, don't go at certain places at night
Speaker 1: and all this. You know, the criminal element had taken
Speaker 1: control of part of the city. It was like an insurgency,
Speaker 1: and it was an insurgency that had to be fought.
Speaker 1: And this like retelling of the history, were the real problem,
Speaker 1: you see, the real enemy. The real thing we have
Speaker 1: to be worried about is the police racism. Oh that's
Speaker 1: the story. Not to those of us who actually lived
Speaker 1: in New York City in the eighties and the nineties, folks,
Speaker 1: that was not the real story. The real story was
Speaker 1: there are criminals running around all over the place, not
Speaker 1: getting in trouble and not getting caught. That was the problem.
Speaker 1: Thank you Rudy Giuliani for changing that. I don't know
Speaker 1: as agree with everything Juliani says these days, but man,
Speaker 1: he turned that city around. It was a miracle. It
Speaker 1: was a miracle. But now now they questioned the tactics.
Speaker 1: They don't even question now. They say it's racist. It's
Speaker 1: all racist. So someone explained to me how how you
Speaker 1: have these I mean, I'm open to it. Explain to
Speaker 1: me how you have the Oh, it's if your story
Speaker 1: is that just the cops pinned it on these kids,
Speaker 1: when that woman was alive and could have woken up
Speaker 1: any day and said that it was one guy, here's
Speaker 1: who did it. And then they the whole police would
Speaker 1: have looked horrible, would have risked their careers, their livelihoods
Speaker 1: to get a bunch of random kids in trouble. It's
Speaker 1: an unserious point of view, folks. The cops didn't set
Speaker 1: them up. So if the cops didn't set them up,
Speaker 1: how do they know things that they could not have
Speaker 1: known unless they were there on the record on tape. Ah,
Speaker 1: I don't know. It sounds like a pretty strong, circumstantial case.
Speaker 1: All right, We'll be right back, all right, seem sorry.
Speaker 1: I got a little passionate about that last one. I
Speaker 1: probably spent way too much time reading through transcripts and
Speaker 1: watching the videos, and I'm gonna I'm gonna make myself
Speaker 1: watch the rest of this Netflix documentary. But you know.
Speaker 1: I hate wrongful convictions when they happen, I really do.
Speaker 1: And I think that a lot of innocent people rather
Speaker 1: a lot of guilty people should go free to prevent
Speaker 1: one innocent people from one innocent person from going to jail.
Speaker 1: I do believe that. I just don't believe those kids
Speaker 1: were innocent. I don't believe it. I've looked at all
Speaker 1: the different theories and all the different evidence that's out there,
Speaker 1: and what's going on now where there's this witch hunt
Speaker 1: for everyone involved in the case, like they should be
Speaker 1: punished after the fact. That's completely immoral, it's totally wrong.
Speaker 1: I reach out to the one and only Ann Coulter today.
Speaker 1: She said she'll come on sometime this week to give
Speaker 1: us her view. That's gonna be h it's gonna be
Speaker 1: some fun stuff, So we will we will get into it. Um.
Speaker 1: I want to hear from Anne on this one, because
Speaker 1: she's she's fearless and she's as on this case as
Speaker 1: anybody else that I know, and I've never seen her
Speaker 1: have to retract something about this or be wrong in
Speaker 1: anything on any legal case for that matter. But well,
Speaker 1: hopefully we'll get an later this week, and then we've
Speaker 1: got a big third hour coming up. Stay with me
Speaker 1: about whether or not I apologize to coddle the reputations
Speaker 1: of segregations of people who, if they had their way,
Speaker 1: I would literally not be standing here as I remember
Speaker 1: Senate is I think, um, it's just it's misinformed. Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris going for it against Joe Biden. There they're not
Speaker 1: letting this, not letting this go. Biden, who was Obama's
Speaker 1: vice president, his at least politically speaking, his right hand
Speaker 1: man for eight years. All of a sudden, the left
Speaker 1: has figured out that Biden's a racist. What how does
Speaker 1: that work? Someone explained that one to me, Now, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, Biden's a racist. They didn't know this
Speaker 1: for the eight years that he was Oh okay, because
Speaker 1: he said something recently about working with senators, including senators
Speaker 1: who were segregationists at the time. One the I think
Speaker 1: the really clear hit on Biden among all this, put
Speaker 1: aside the part as an angle of it for a second,
Speaker 1: is that Biden's been in the Senate way too long.
Speaker 1: This is a guy who should have been doing other
Speaker 1: things in life too. I don't I don't think this
Speaker 1: is a badge of honor. I know that I'm here
Speaker 1: in the swamp, I'm in DC, and we're supposed to
Speaker 1: all stand and applaud and stand and clap when we
Speaker 1: hear that so and so senator or so and so
Speaker 1: congressman has been around for thirty years or forty years
Speaker 1: or whatever. No. No, I would prefer if they did
Speaker 1: a couple of terms and then went out, went about
Speaker 1: being a normal human being and lived among their fellow
Speaker 1: citizens and got a real job, like a job job.
Speaker 1: But instead you have that Biden is the prototypical permanent
Speaker 1: political class figure. He is as much a creature of
Speaker 1: the Senate as anybody else in the Senate right now,
Speaker 1: and that he is also out of touch. And it
Speaker 1: seems like in any minute he's going to ask if
Speaker 1: somebody can give him a walkman so he can listen
Speaker 1: to all the latest cool tunes. Yo. That seems like
Speaker 1: he's he's a guy who he's out of touch, and
Speaker 1: he's a guy who doesn't really know where the heart
Speaker 1: and soul of the country is right now, which is
Speaker 1: not surprising given how long the guy's been around and
Speaker 1: been in the game. And he's lost he's lost whatever
Speaker 1: edge or whatever touch he had in the past. Even
Speaker 1: assuming that he was something of a fraud and a
Speaker 1: Charlottan all along, which I believe he was. But the
Speaker 1: other lesson from this is that for the social justice left,
Speaker 1: no one is safe. In a sense. This is not
Speaker 1: a new lesson. This is just what we have already
Speaker 1: seen for some time. But it doesn't even matter if
Speaker 1: your Biden's VP. If the woke left wing journal class
Speaker 1: designs that you aren't somebody that they need to make
Speaker 1: an example of, you're going down. They're gonna do it.
Speaker 1: They're gonna they're gonna take you out. They're gonna find
Speaker 1: a way to ruin your reputation, make you sound like
Speaker 1: all that other stuff you had done in your life.
Speaker 1: No matter how much you had worshiped at the altar
Speaker 1: of diversity, no matter how much you had pushed social
Speaker 1: justice and multiculturalism and all of these central themes. To
Speaker 1: the progressives, you are disposable, and they'll and it's not
Speaker 1: just that your disposables, and they'll fight against you if
Speaker 1: you stand in their way. They will still say that
Speaker 1: you're a racist. Nobody is immune from the left charges
Speaker 1: of racism, because if you're a minority who disagrees to
Speaker 1: the left then they say that you're a traitor to
Speaker 1: your race, which we know they very openly do all
Speaker 1: the time. And if you're a white person, even if
Speaker 1: you had been in the good graces of the progressive
Speaker 1: left for a long time, if you've been an ally,
Speaker 1: as they call it, the moment that you are no
Speaker 1: longer useful, they will dispose of you. They do not
Speaker 1: need you anymore, and they will come at you with
Speaker 1: the very same tools of destruction they use, you know,
Speaker 1: the same. How do you defend yourself against a critique
Speaker 1: or an assault of racism? How do you do How
Speaker 1: do you prove that you're not a racist? Prove you're
Speaker 1: not a racist? This thing you said a bunch of
Speaker 1: powerful minorities and the Democrat Party say that it's racist.
Speaker 1: Prove it's not. It's kind of a hard thing to do,
Speaker 1: isn't it. But then crazy Joe comes along. Is he
Speaker 1: Sleepy Joe? It's probably crazy Joe and sleepy Joe, And
Speaker 1: he decides that instead of I don't know if taking
Speaker 1: the high road is even really an option for this
Speaker 1: guy ever, but he thought it would be best to
Speaker 1: just go even further and say one of the crazier
Speaker 1: things I've heard in a while. This to me is
Speaker 1: Joe Biden trying to establish some kind of bonafides with
Speaker 1: minority community. This is Joe Biden trying to reach out
Speaker 1: and say, see, I'm hip, I'm cool. I know, like
Speaker 1: what's going on in the urban sector. Man. So then
Speaker 1: Joe Biden says things like this play clip one. There's
Speaker 1: so much we can do, and it's within our capacity
Speaker 1: to do it. That's the interesting thing. And I think
Speaker 1: what's happening now as I think that Donald Trump may
Speaker 1: have reawakened the sensibilities in this country to say, whoa,
Speaker 1: maybe we can do this now, just like our generation
Speaker 1: was awakened when Doctor King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated.
Speaker 1: At whole generation, I'm back in man. These millennials they
Speaker 1: get it right, and now they want to get engaged.
Speaker 1: These millennials, man, they get it. Yeah. He's a Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's a hip cat. Yeah he's like he's such a panther. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's smooth, he's cool, he's Joe Biden. Yeah. Hey, you know,
Speaker 1: like he's like, all of a sudden, he's Duke Silver
Speaker 1: Ron Swanson's jazz playing alter ego. Duke Silver, which is
Speaker 1: one of the great parts of the Ron Swanson character
Speaker 1: from Parks and rec Joe Biden just compared the election
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.
Speaker 1: As a wake up call the people that remember the
Speaker 1: Joe and so, you know, put you all back in
Speaker 1: Chain's guy. I mean, he he doesn't dog whistle, he
Speaker 1: dog loudspeakers, you know. He he just blasts out stuff
Speaker 1: to try to burnish his credentials with certain communities. And
Speaker 1: it's appalling. It's appalling. But I've I've you will agree.
Speaker 1: I think team sorry again, my coole has not something gone.
Speaker 1: So my voice will be breaking sometimes during the show.
Speaker 1: You will recall that I've said along Biden's not their guy.
Speaker 1: He's not their guy. He's just not good enough. He's
Speaker 1: just not compelling enough. He's I don't want to say
Speaker 1: he's a loser because he has managed to get reelected
Speaker 1: to the Senator, you know, but jillion times, but he's
Speaker 1: there's no reason for Biden to be president, and everyone
Speaker 1: kind of knows that not Trump is not enough. There
Speaker 1: has to be more than that. And that's why you've
Speaker 1: seen the Practorian guard media. It's very much like the
Speaker 1: last scene in Gladiator, which is really a great movie,
Speaker 1: really holds up well. Remember the last scene in Gladiator
Speaker 1: when Maximus is fighting against Commodus in the ring in
Speaker 1: the arena and the Praetorian Guard surrounds him, and then Commudist,
Speaker 1: who has been disarmed by a wounded Maximus, wants one
Speaker 1: of the Praetorian Guard members to give him a sword
Speaker 1: who can finish off Maximus, and none of them will
Speaker 1: do it. Joe Biden's running around of the Praetorian Guard
Speaker 1: media saying, Hey, aren't you guys gonna, you know, hold
Speaker 1: up your shields high and protect me, And they're like, nah, Joe, sorry,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to fight this one out on your own.
Speaker 1: And you know, Obama has known this all along, which
Speaker 1: is why he hasn't endorsed Joe Biden. He's known, He's
Speaker 1: known that Biden was Biden was just in the right
Speaker 1: place at the right time and got to be VP.
Speaker 1: Otherwise he was just a pretty, you know, replaceable senator
Speaker 1: from Delaware and who really cares at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, and was on the wrong on foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Don't eve get me started. And Biden's been on the
Speaker 1: wrong side of every major foreign policy for forty years.
Speaker 1: That's not even just my analysis. That's what Bob Gates,
Speaker 1: who's a lifelong defense bureaucrat, you know, was sect deaf
Speaker 1: and comes to the intelligence community the Secretary of Defense
Speaker 1: he was. Now he said that about Biden. It's right,
Speaker 1: whenever there's an important foreign policy decision to make, you
Speaker 1: should just think, what does Joe Biden want to do?
Speaker 1: That's the opposite. I can tell you this just by
Speaker 1: way of personal ancdote. I was working on the Iraq
Speaker 1: desk of the CIA when I heard Joe Biden give
Speaker 1: a speech to about fifty people when he was point
Speaker 1: zero zero one percent in the polls in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, and his idea was that we should break
Speaker 1: Iraq up into three countries. Maybe it was even two thousand, No,
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight. Yeah, we should break Iraq up
Speaker 1: into three countries, which sounds fine, except that the whole
Speaker 1: problem is how you break it up. And that's why
Speaker 1: there was already some degree of ethnic cleansing going on
Speaker 1: in the country, where there are people getting rid of
Speaker 1: either sooner or Shia from or Kurds from whole neighborhoods,
Speaker 1: and if you made that official, it just would have
Speaker 1: heightened the stakes even more. It was a horrible idea,
Speaker 1: a horrible idea, But that was Joe Biden's big that
Speaker 1: was his big winning solution at the time. So the
Speaker 1: Left is not going to cover for Biden anymore. You're
Speaker 1: gonna watch, They're gonna He's gonna get torn apart. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you he will no longer be number one of
Speaker 1: the poles by labor Day. That's my prediction to you.
Speaker 1: He will not last number one through labor day. Do
Speaker 1: you think human induced climate emergency is a threat to
Speaker 1: the United States, Well, what I will tell you is
Speaker 1: that we'll always follow the science on that in this administration,
Speaker 1: the science. But what we won't do, and the Clean
Speaker 1: Power Plan was all about that was hamstringing energy in
Speaker 1: this country, raising the costs of utility rates for working
Speaker 1: families across this country. But all other nations like China
Speaker 1: and India do absolutely nothing or make illusory promises decades
Speaker 1: down the road to deal with it. But it is
Speaker 1: what people are calling a climate emergency. Is it a threat?
Speaker 1: Do you think it's a threat? Man made climate emergency
Speaker 1: is a threat I think the answer to that is
Speaker 1: going to be based up on the science. But the
Speaker 1: science says yes, I'm asking you what you think. There's
Speaker 1: many in the science that the science community have been
Speaker 1: your own administration at Noah, I got at the at
Speaker 1: the DNI. They all say, it's like, look some reason,
Speaker 1: Oh the smug lib Tapper, look at that sciences. It's
Speaker 1: a threat, Tapper, what do you know about science? Nothing?
Speaker 1: Let's start with that. Second, of all, science is not
Speaker 1: about consensus and politicized opinion making from within bureaucracies. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's a threat. What degree of threat? I mean? I
Speaker 1: wish I were there. Pence is a nice guy, but
Speaker 1: he's he's not ready for the smarmy lib propagandist like
Speaker 1: Jake Tapper. He's just not up for the task. I think. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: he keeps dancing around the issue. We don't want to
Speaker 1: make the utilities. Yeah, that's true, we don't make utilities, sire. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's say it is a threat. How much of a threat,
Speaker 1: mister Tapper? Do you think that it's enough of a
Speaker 1: threat that we should abandon the carbon fuel based economy
Speaker 1: that we currently have that has led to untold prosperity
Speaker 1: that is necessary for the feeding of billions of people
Speaker 1: around the world, for heating and cooling and electricity. Should
Speaker 1: we just toss that aside? What level of threat is this?
Speaker 1: Here's a better way of asking the question, folks, what
Speaker 1: is what is the possibility? What is the threat profile
Speaker 1: of me being hit by a meteor in the next
Speaker 1: twenty four hours. I could sit there and ask Jake
Speaker 1: to Jake Tapper, do do you is it a threat
Speaker 1: that you could be hit by a meteor The science
Speaker 1: says it is a threat. It's probably one in you know,
Speaker 1: fifty trillion, But it's a threat. He can't say that
Speaker 1: won't happen, that a meteorite won't won't strike his home
Speaker 1: when he's asleep in it. So this is but this
Speaker 1: is what the propagandist does. Get you to concede a
Speaker 1: very broad, very vague point, and then try to make
Speaker 1: you do everything they want Beyond that, is man made
Speaker 1: climate change a threat? I mean sure, I think it's
Speaker 1: a one in a million threat that anything really bad
Speaker 1: is going to happen to the world because of man
Speaker 1: made climate change, maybe even one in ten thousand. I'm
Speaker 1: not losing any sleepover the people that are the catastrophist
Speaker 1: who say it's an urgent threat are generally hypocrites and
Speaker 1: are entirely unserious about doing anything real to stop it.
Speaker 1: But they want control of everything in your life now,
Speaker 1: the economy, they want control of the political system, they
Speaker 1: want control of electricity, of business, of commerce now. Because
Speaker 1: it's such a threat. No, I don't want to give
Speaker 1: them that power. So I was a little disappointed. I mean, Pence,
Speaker 1: I don't know why he why I just think that
Speaker 1: he's not Look, he's a nice guy. I think he's
Speaker 1: an ethical and a good fellow. But he's no one
Speaker 1: ever said that he's a real intellectual pugilist. He's not
Speaker 1: somebody who I've ever seen really mix it up with somebody.
Speaker 1: And notice Tapper, you know, belolent us Dad, he's just
Speaker 1: kind of snippy with him at the end. He's just
Speaker 1: such a jerk. Do you think he was ever disrespectful
Speaker 1: like that? The Vice President Biden, who's an imbecile by
Speaker 1: the way, as we've been discussing, really is it's just
Speaker 1: just a just a fraud, just a glorified used appliance salesman.
Speaker 1: No offense to the used appliance salesman listening to the show. Okay,
Speaker 1: I just thought of you know, that's just what came
Speaker 1: to mind. You're doing an honorable thing, and it's it's
Speaker 1: a decent living I don't know, use Shamlow salesman. There
Speaker 1: we go. Everyone always likes that one. Use Shamlow salesman.
Speaker 1: You know, he's just he's dealing with you know. Also,
Speaker 1: why they will do this interview with Tapper in this way,
Speaker 1: you know, you know, within DC, people go, oh, it's
Speaker 1: one of the Sunday shows. You only people who care
Speaker 1: about this live in DC really and do media commentary
Speaker 1: about the people who live in DC. But the science says,
Speaker 1: is it a threat? And the science says these are
Speaker 1: such this is what Tapper is trying to box Pence
Speaker 1: in with. And these are such vague terms as to
Speaker 1: just be meaningless other than as a tool of propaganda.
Speaker 1: The science says this it's a really really big threat. Okay,
Speaker 1: what do we do about that threat? How big a
Speaker 1: threat is it? And what do we do about it?
Speaker 1: That's what really matters. But if you concede their initial points,
Speaker 1: then they think everything else follows. Then we have to
Speaker 1: do I mean, he I would have turned around said Jake,
Speaker 1: do you think the Green New Deal is serious? And
Speaker 1: then you go, oh, I'm not asking the classie and
Speaker 1: I eat all the stumbling. Do you think this is
Speaker 1: why these CNN anchors they have to be coddled and
Speaker 1: kept only on certain shows. They'll do The Colbert Show,
Speaker 1: which might as well be an extension of CNN. Now,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just the politics are all completely aligned.
Speaker 1: They'll go to places where everyone claps for them and
Speaker 1: no one challenges them. They never have real exchanges with
Speaker 1: people that know what's up. They never do. None of
Speaker 1: the good conservatives that I know these days will even
Speaker 1: go on CNN really for as you start with that,
Speaker 1: none of the none of the real deal people. And
Speaker 1: it's a combination if they're not asked on or they
Speaker 1: just realize that they're gonna be on and be shouted
Speaker 1: at and they're gonna be one of five people on air,
Speaker 1: and it's just not worth anyone's time. But I was
Speaker 1: a little frustrated here because I think that that Pence,
Speaker 1: first of all, should have known that he's going in
Speaker 1: to speak to Smarmie Tapper, who is a smart man.
Speaker 1: As I've told you, he is a nasty person. And
Speaker 1: it's very frustrating to be in the business and know
Speaker 1: that someone like Tapper, who's always, oh, just everything is
Speaker 1: about building his brand, and he's this newsman. He's a jerk,
Speaker 1: he's not a nice guy. Has a very bad reputation
Speaker 1: among those who aren't at CNN. I can tell you that.
Speaker 1: And you know, Penn should have known better. Penn should
Speaker 1: have been able to fight back a lot more. All right, So,
Speaker 1: so should we go green new deal? Should we kill
Speaker 1: all the cows, stop all the farting? We rebuild all
Speaker 1: the houses? What's the amount? What's the amount of emergency
Speaker 1: activity that is justified by this threat? Oh? But the
Speaker 1: International Panel on client the International Panel on Climate Change
Speaker 1: is not scientists for the most part. It's actually bureaucrats
Speaker 1: work for the UN. And also they give a range,
Speaker 1: a range of what they think of temperature will be,
Speaker 1: a range of what they think the man made warming
Speaker 1: will turn out to be. They don't know there is
Speaker 1: giving you an estimate. And by the way, the estimates
Speaker 1: that have given the past we're wrong. So we're to
Speaker 1: ignore that now. And he just lives have really lost it.
Speaker 1: They focus in on all these things that are either
Speaker 1: never going to happen, or are or just crazy, and
Speaker 1: they don't realize it's crazy. They think that you and
Speaker 1: I are the crazy ones. I mean, Tapper, I'm sure
Speaker 1: went home, you know, probably stopped by the fancy country
Speaker 1: club on the way on Sunday and then went into like,
Speaker 1: you know, his whatever castle he lives in here in DC,
Speaker 1: courtesy of Jeff Zucker and CNN International and all that,
Speaker 1: and you know, probably thought that he had done some
Speaker 1: great service for humanity by hammering a climate change skeptic. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: every person that I know that debates this issue with
Speaker 1: the other side and who is familiar with not just
Speaker 1: the facts, but the basic logic and reasoning involved in
Speaker 1: this argument, the climate change hysterics get crushed, get crushed
Speaker 1: because ultimately you see who the big names are on
Speaker 1: that side. They're not They're not scientists that have policy
Speaker 1: proposals that are serious. It's AOC, it's Al Gore, it's
Speaker 1: Leonardo DiCaprio. This is just another giant vanity play. That's
Speaker 1: what's at the heart of so much liberal policy in
Speaker 1: this good liberal politics. It's just vanity, it's all. I'm
Speaker 1: so great. I think this because I'm smart. I think
Speaker 1: this because I'm nice. A lot of stuff that I
Speaker 1: think is a conservative I'm like, man, it'd be fun
Speaker 1: to believe the other stuff, you know, it'd be fun
Speaker 1: to believe that, like everyone just do whatever they want?
Speaker 1: Who really cares? But no, I try to live in
Speaker 1: the real world where there's cause and effect and consequence
Speaker 1: and individual responsibility and things like that. But it'd be
Speaker 1: a lot more fun to be a live be a
Speaker 1: lot more fun to be smug Tapper, fake Jake coming
Speaker 1: after Mike Pence. I look, I like Pence, but he
Speaker 1: need to do a better job pushing back on that stuff.
Speaker 1: We're at back. You know, this is one of my
Speaker 1: favorite topics, which is that what does science really know?
Speaker 1: What does science really know? I like to ask that
Speaker 1: question because we think science knows a lot, and then
Speaker 1: we think more about it, we realize science got a
Speaker 1: long way to go on a lot of stuff. And
Speaker 1: today just as another one for that. You know, it
Speaker 1: is milk good for you, our eggs good for you?
Speaker 1: Is butter good for you? Should you eat before or
Speaker 1: after working out? Should you do intermitted fasting, or should
Speaker 1: you spread six to eight meals throughout the day? Shitty
Speaker 1: blah b blah by blah. No one really seems to know.
Speaker 1: And I understand there are more complicated answers out there, like, well,
Speaker 1: you should do what works for you, what's right for you,
Speaker 1: and our genetics aren't all the same. Ah. Genetics play
Speaker 1: a very important role in all of our lives, but
Speaker 1: we are constantly made to believe, made to think that
Speaker 1: genetics are irrelevant. If I had wanted to be a
Speaker 1: All Star wide receiver, I just needed to work harder
Speaker 1: at it, Right, that's what I'm told. It's not really
Speaker 1: true and barely scraping the bottom of six feet and
Speaker 1: I was never going to run a four four forty.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, we're all told it's just a matter of
Speaker 1: your hopes and dreams and chasing them. Right. Our genetics
Speaker 1: are all different, our bodies react differently to different things,
Speaker 1: that is true. But you would think something as straightforward
Speaker 1: as vitamin D supplements and heart health would be within
Speaker 1: the purview of science to determine. And today there's a
Speaker 1: study was up on Drudge Report, and this is what
Speaker 1: it says. If you're taking vitamin D supplements every day
Speaker 1: to improve your heart's health and reduce your chances of
Speaker 1: suffering from cardio vascular disease, You're likely wasting your money.
Speaker 1: Researchers from Michigan State University say that both men and
Speaker 1: women who take vitamin D aren't any more protected against
Speaker 1: heart attack, strokes, or related heart conditions than those who don't.
Speaker 1: The authors were surprised by their discovery since prior research
Speaker 1: pointed to a link between lower levels of vitamin D
Speaker 1: in the blood and cardio vascular disease. Researchers this is
Speaker 1: all from study fines dot org. Researchers gathered data from
Speaker 1: twenty one clinical trials, assessing results of more than eighty
Speaker 1: three thousand patients. Across these studies, half the pridisms took
Speaker 1: vitamin D supplements, the other half took placebos. No changes
Speaker 1: between the two of them. So it's a very very
Speaker 1: big study about whether vitamin D will help your heart
Speaker 1: or not. Vitamin D supplements Will this help your heart?
Speaker 1: I guess people have thought this for a long time.
Speaker 1: Turns out that when you really do a large scale
Speaker 1: study of this, the answers no. It doesn't. Just keep
Speaker 1: in mind that until about i'd say ten years ago maybe,
Speaker 1: although I'm guessing there was a belief that the dietary
Speaker 1: cholesterol you ate was what caused bad cholesterol in the
Speaker 1: blood stream that could lead to a blockage in the
Speaker 1: heart attack. And now it turns out that that's not
Speaker 1: really true, and in fact, eating too much sugar and
Speaker 1: elevated glucose levels and the blood over long period of
Speaker 1: time and type two diabetes and also a heart disease.
Speaker 1: That that's the much bigger concern. We're still just figuring
Speaker 1: out the basics. Folks. This is what I really come
Speaker 1: down to. We have all these discussions over healthcare and medicine,
Speaker 1: and it's a little scary when you go in and
Speaker 1: you know what the doctors don't know, and you start
Speaker 1: asking some questions. They have been very well trained at
Speaker 1: identifying ailments and generally speaking, either treating the symptoms of
Speaker 1: the ailments or trying to find some mechanical way to
Speaker 1: correct the issue. That's for orthopedic surgery or heart surgery.
Speaker 1: Just change the physical structure of your body with surgery.
Speaker 1: But when you get into the root cause of different
Speaker 1: ailments and how to really treat them, it's I'm not
Speaker 1: saying they don't know anything, but there's a lot of
Speaker 1: we are you know, we are in the infancy of
Speaker 1: our species. When it comes to knowledge about medicine and
Speaker 1: the human body, we are really in our infancy. There's
Speaker 1: still so much that is not known. We have this massive,
Speaker 1: you know, health industrial complex out there, and it really
Speaker 1: is still driven by a work. Where are the dollars going.
Speaker 1: It's going to testing, it's going to treatment, not cure.
Speaker 1: There's just it's amazing to me. I keep finding more
Speaker 1: and more of these areas of human health where you
Speaker 1: really have to take it upon yourself to figure out
Speaker 1: what works for you and to the degree that you
Speaker 1: can become your own doctor. You know, that's really That's
Speaker 1: really what I think you need to just take from
Speaker 1: this is that you have to and I say, don't
Speaker 1: go to the doctor, but I mean, you have to
Speaker 1: become your own forget forget to be your own doctor.
Speaker 1: That's a bad way of saying it. You have to
Speaker 1: be your own health advocate, your own health advocates. So
Speaker 1: does vitamin D work? According does eighty three thousand patients study? No,
Speaker 1: So a lot of people have been taking vitamin D
Speaker 1: and just because maybe there's a placebo effect, who knows?
Speaker 1: Roll calls up Rock and Roll fellow patriots. We made
Speaker 1: ours go up to eleven. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Roll call, everybody. Yeah, it's the roll call. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that Yeah, you know what. I'm leaning into
Speaker 1: it today because I still have a call, but it's
Speaker 1: not as bad as it was. So waking up not
Speaker 1: feeling incredibly sick makes you appreciate a little more that
Speaker 1: you Your health is a thing that you need. Your
Speaker 1: health is important. That's that is for sure. Facebook dot
Speaker 1: Com slash buck sex in for roll call and let's
Speaker 1: get to it, Melissa Radio appropriate. Well, that's good to
Speaker 1: know because I'm reading it on live radio. Melissa. The
Speaker 1: husband is trapped in the swamp. Any suggestions on a
Speaker 1: great place to eat. He's over by the arena for
Speaker 1: the next week and could use a good meal or two,
Speaker 1: something heavily meat based. Thanks and shields. Hie oh, Melissa,
Speaker 1: I would say, mm. And there's a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of territory here. I would tell him to go
Speaker 1: to Old Ebbit Grill if he wants one of the
Speaker 1: old standbys here in DC for a nice steak and
Speaker 1: a very old school vibe. The Old Ebbit Grill's right
Speaker 1: next to the White House. For something a little more
Speaker 1: spicy and interesting, he could check out some of the
Speaker 1: Jose Andreas restaurants here. He could go to Oyamel, which
Speaker 1: is Jose Andreas. I believe you could also go to
Speaker 1: Ze Tinia, which is an old stand by here. And
Speaker 1: if he wants Mexican, I would say go to Espica
Speaker 1: Mesclaria if he wants something that's a little bit of
Speaker 1: a classic. Oh and obviously for a burger, go to
Speaker 1: the T International Hotel. There we go. I feel like
Speaker 1: I should be sponsored by them at this point. I'm
Speaker 1: talking about the Trump a lot here on the show.
Speaker 1: Those would be my out So i'd say old that
Speaker 1: mc grill eSpeak to him as Claria, Oyamel, and Trump International,
Speaker 1: those would all be very good choices. DC's got a
Speaker 1: lot of restaurants, but a lot of mediocre restaurants and
Speaker 1: a lot of chain restaurants. And if you're a visitor,
Speaker 1: I feel like you generally don't want to be spending
Speaker 1: your time and money on a restaurant you could go
Speaker 1: to at home. Right, So I'm sure there's like a
Speaker 1: Ruth's Chris here somewhere, but there's also that in a
Speaker 1: lot of other cities. So I would not recommend for
Speaker 1: a visitor to go check that out. Katie rights, hey buck.
Speaker 1: For the longest time, the ruling polite circles has been
Speaker 1: no religion and no politics. Now politics has gone cutthroat
Speaker 1: and something as benign as knitting. For the last few years,
Speaker 1: the knitting website Ravalry has been a vocal supporter of
Speaker 1: progressive ideology. Today they announced a ban on Trump supporters.
Speaker 1: Oh no, banning Trump supporters from the knitting community. What's
Speaker 1: next the crocheting community? Have you no decency? Knitting community?
Speaker 1: I can't even I don't even know enough about knitting
Speaker 1: to make more jokes than that. I got nothing, So
Speaker 1: what's the problem with just dropping them? Ravelry has established
Speaker 1: themselves as a compendium of nit and crochet. There we go,
Speaker 1: crochet patterns and a vital reference for knit professionals and hobbyists.
Speaker 1: As an indie pattern designer, that sounds cool, Katie. No
Speaker 1: one will find my patterns without this ubiquitous knitter's tool.
Speaker 1: So I'm shooting myself in the foot. But I'm removing
Speaker 1: my patterns from Ravelry. I hope users leave Ravelry in droves.
Speaker 1: I don't know how much cross over there is but
Speaker 1: you have listeners who use this resource, I encourage them
Speaker 1: to go to the designers directly rather than buying through ravelry.
Speaker 1: Thanks Katie, Katie, very interesting. Give me a little peek
Speaker 1: behind the scenes into the rough and tumble world of
Speaker 1: the crochet and knitting wars. Good to know that you're
Speaker 1: holding your shield high or your yarn ball. Harry, Oh, Harry,
Speaker 1: I don't know what you did. You send Harry, what happened?
Speaker 1: Whatever you sent me, it's not showing up. Pablo, hey Buck,
Speaker 1: you said you were looking for a rum that's not
Speaker 1: made from grain. Try Cruise on Rum. It's made in
Speaker 1: Saint Croix and even the lowest tier can be consumed
Speaker 1: on the rocks, although I do recommend spending a little
Speaker 1: more on the upper tier. Also, try Gosling's Black Seal.
Speaker 1: It's made in Bermuda and it's really easy to drink.
Speaker 1: If you don't like dark rum, steer clear of Goslings
Speaker 1: shields high. Pablo, Well, Pablo, muchos grassias, my friend, appreciate
Speaker 1: you sending this in um. Let's see here. I thought
Speaker 1: rum was generally made from sugarcane and so it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be glutinous, but sometimes they'll mix in some malt flavor
Speaker 1: or malt malt with the beverage that will I don't
Speaker 1: know why. They'd probably just to cut it make it cheaper.
Speaker 1: But so some spirits, you have to be careful because
Speaker 1: I'll mix in some malt liquor with it that comes
Speaker 1: from a grain. All right, Pablo, thank you for I
Speaker 1: will check that out. Let's try cruise on rum. Check
Speaker 1: out some cruise on rum. Chris sent me a clip
Speaker 1: from Homeland. Thank you, Chris. Andre all right, something she
Speaker 1: wants me to share. I gotta read that later. And
Speaker 1: Jim right, Buck, it's been weeks since you took a
Speaker 1: call on air from Team Buck. I love my wife
Speaker 1: of twenty five years with all my heart. I could
Speaker 1: never listen to her fifteen hours a week. What the
Speaker 1: heck is up? What's wrong? Address this? Fix this? Well? Tim?
Speaker 1: You know, Matt. Sometimes we open the lines and we
Speaker 1: don't get we don't get folks that are calling in
Speaker 1: the way we want them too. So I mean I'll
Speaker 1: do it. Don't don't get me wrong. We'll open up
Speaker 1: the lines again. But if we open up the lines,
Speaker 1: those of you who like calls need to call, because
Speaker 1: I get a lot more complaints when we take calls.
Speaker 1: Then I get requests that we take calls. I'm just
Speaker 1: telling you, I'll look, I'm I'm in the pleasing Team
Speaker 1: Buck business, and we always I if I open up
Speaker 1: the lines for more and a half an hour, we take,
Speaker 1: you know, a couple of segments worth the calls. I
Speaker 1: got a lot of people saying, look, you know, the
Speaker 1: calls are fine, but people can write in and we
Speaker 1: can do a role call. You don't have to do that.
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you like the calls, Tim, and I
Speaker 1: love talking to you guys. So we'll do it. We'll
Speaker 1: open it up. And I'm just saying every time I
Speaker 1: say all right, guys, lines are open, and we do that.
Speaker 1: And then if we're not feeling like we're getting lit
Speaker 1: up like a Christmas tree, you know we gotta or
Speaker 1: if we get a lot of complaints about the calls
Speaker 1: from other people in Team Buck, you know it's a
Speaker 1: balancing act, my man, I gotta keep gotta keep the
Speaker 1: team happy. But I'm taking your I'm taking your suggestion
Speaker 1: suggestion speak English Buck under advisement. Let's see. Donna writes Buck,
Speaker 1: I love your broadcast. I want to apologize for a
Speaker 1: message about the podcast speed. My granddaughter messed with the
Speaker 1: speed of the act. Well, Donna, sometimes it's on our
Speaker 1: end with the podcast mess up, and sometimes it is not.
Speaker 1: So there you go. There's that going on. Let's see, Misty,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't necessarily consider all of AOC's Twitter followers to
Speaker 1: be supporters. She is so insanely stupid. I would assume
Speaker 1: many follow her for entertainment value. Shields high, Misty, I
Speaker 1: think you're correct. I mean I follow AOC and I'm
Speaker 1: certainly not an AOC supporter. I just go back and
Speaker 1: forth on whether she is more about, you know, whether
Speaker 1: she's somebody that's more entertaining or more frightening, because I
Speaker 1: can make a case for both. I think she really
Speaker 1: is indicative of a mindset that is taking over the left.
Speaker 1: I don't think that it's I don't think that she's
Speaker 1: an anomaly. I don't think she's an outlier. I think
Speaker 1: that she is where the left is now. Bill Rights,
Speaker 1: hold on, Phil, rather rights, no need to watch the
Speaker 1: whole movie. When there's YouTube. Here's a clip of doctors
Speaker 1: Strange Glove, Major Kong rides the bomb. All right, Phil,
Speaker 1: I'll have to watch that when I'm not on the air.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Max. All Right, Hey Buck, the last hour
Speaker 1: on Wednesday still gets preempted in Boston. Could Chuck and
Speaker 1: Nancy be behind this? Oh Man shield tie Max? Max,
Speaker 1: I wish I could look man. You know, for some
Speaker 1: of you you're just gonna if you miss part of
Speaker 1: the show. Just get in the habit of pulling the
Speaker 1: podcast up on your phone. It's free, all of you.
Speaker 1: Even if you're a live radio listener, you should get
Speaker 1: in the habit. Please, if you would, if you would
Speaker 1: do me this honor, subscribe to the podcast. And that way,
Speaker 1: if you ever have a problem or you can't you
Speaker 1: can't hear it live on your local station, you can
Speaker 1: listen to the full audio of the show at your leisure.
Speaker 1: So please do a subscribe to the podcast. And those
Speaker 1: of you who are If you're a radio listener and
Speaker 1: you don't listen to podcast, I would offer to you
Speaker 1: that you know this is It's kind of like the
Speaker 1: CD to MP three switch. You know this is. This
Speaker 1: is happening. And I think the sooner you get used
Speaker 1: to at least listening to some things on podcast, the
Speaker 1: happier we will be with some of your overall experience.
Speaker 1: You know. Some Look, there's nothing that can replace the
Speaker 1: greatness of listening on live radio as live radio, but
Speaker 1: especially if you're missing content because we're preemptied somewhere. I
Speaker 1: want you to hear this whole show, and you can
Speaker 1: always do that, and it is always free, and you
Speaker 1: can do that either on the iHeart Radio app or
Speaker 1: on iTunes. Just type in the Buck Sexton Show Fantastic,
Speaker 1: which is a pretty cool name. Hey, Buck, you asked
Speaker 1: about sipping rum. I like Thomas Choose rum brewted Newport,
Speaker 1: Rhode Island and Plantation rum sixty nine percent overproof. They're
Speaker 1: both very tasty, but be careful of the overproof. It'll
Speaker 1: knock you down pretty quickly. Well, Fantastic, I have the
Speaker 1: I have the tolerance of a you know, one hundred
Speaker 1: and ten pounds sorority girl right now in terms of
Speaker 1: what I can drink before I get lit, So I'll
Speaker 1: have to be careful with that sixty nine proof over
Speaker 1: proof rather rum. Yeah. I think about the drinking habits
Speaker 1: of my peers in college and what I can handle
Speaker 1: now if I have more than three glasses of wine
Speaker 1: the next day, I'm like, I'm so slow. I can't move,
Speaker 1: you know it really three three glasses of wine. People
Speaker 1: in DC make fun of me because that's some of
Speaker 1: the rowdy, younger Trump supporters that I associate with. They
Speaker 1: can drink quite a bunch more in there, and they're
Speaker 1: in their late twenties and early thirties, so they still
Speaker 1: have those those booze legs. I'm I'd like to go
Speaker 1: home and drink tea and wear pajamas and watch Netflix
Speaker 1: in the piece of my own home. That's how I
Speaker 1: rock out, That's how I get down. Ah, let's see
Speaker 1: Richard rights. You can say a Buck Sodomyor is a
Speaker 1: moron and an Obama's dude. Richard Sodomyor is kind of
Speaker 1: a moron. And it's amazing that she's on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court because you read her, if you read the decisions
Speaker 1: that are going out under her name, I know the
Speaker 1: staffs are involved. But she's just not a she's just
Speaker 1: not a very sharp intellects. She's just not you know,
Speaker 1: and it's not a lib thing. I would never tell
Speaker 1: you that. You know, Kagan is a sharp lady, she's
Speaker 1: very smart. Ginsburg is a well, I mean, she's slowed
Speaker 1: down a little bit, but she's also smart. She's just
Speaker 1: wrong on everything and is a is a a super
Speaker 1: lib but sort of mean or it's just not smart.
Speaker 1: I don't know why. You know, people get all you
Speaker 1: can't say, no, she's just not that smart. I mean
Speaker 1: she's probably she's probably like you know, i'd say average.
Speaker 1: She's a person of average intellect, but has been promoted
Speaker 1: and pushed through and we're all supposed to believe because
Speaker 1: she's on the Supreme Court that she's so impressive. Here's
Speaker 1: a novel thing for some people on the left. Very
Speaker 1: dumb people can get very far in life. Sometimes they
Speaker 1: certainly say that about Republicans all the time. Turns out
Speaker 1: it goes both ways. That's gonna be the show for today.
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed it. I hope you thought it
Speaker 1: was a doozy. We're gonna have a great, great week
Speaker 1: on radio. So we should have download that podcast, subscribe
Speaker 1: to it. Talk to you tomorrow. Shields High