Speaker 1: Why pay your hard earned money to join an organization
Speaker 1: that fought tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system,
Speaker 1: one that scripted portions of White House speeches behind closed
Speaker 1: doors to ensure the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Speaker 1: The organization that stood against tax cuts for middle class
Speaker 1: Americans and small business owners. You know that's AARP. Join
Speaker 1: AMAC instead. The conservative alternative AMAC offers the same kinds
Speaker 1: of money saving benefits of AARP without the liberal agenda.
Speaker 1: Become an AMAC member right now at AMA dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMAC fights for your values, protecting our borders
Speaker 1: by enforcing common sense immigration laws, supporting small business, and
Speaker 1: standing up for your individual God given freedoms. AMAC is
Speaker 1: the way to go. Stand with AMAC as they fight
Speaker 1: the good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are great, but the cause is even greater. Join right
Speaker 1: now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, Better
Speaker 1: for America. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence magnor mistake American, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins analysts. Remember no, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Winegarden in four
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton coming to you live from the New York
Speaker 1: branch of the Freedom Hunt, the only way Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: that exists into Camio and Cuomo's New York. Thank you
Speaker 1: for taking this Friday night to hang with us here
Speaker 1: in the New York Freedom Hut. I've guest hosted before,
Speaker 1: but in case you didn't listen, I was senior contributor,
Speaker 1: am a senior contributor of the Federalist, a Senior Fellow
Speaker 1: at the London Center, and you can find me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at b H Winegarden. I'd also urge you to
Speaker 1: subscribe to my Big Ideas with Ben Winegarden podcast for
Speaker 1: in depth interviews with great things, ankers and doers, folks
Speaker 1: just like Buck Sexton. And I want to start by
Speaker 1: thanking Buck for giving me the opportunity to fill in
Speaker 1: here on a busy Friday nights. You know, Fridays are
Speaker 1: supposed to be the slow days, but that's when all
Speaker 1: the news actually gets dropped now in this twenty four
Speaker 1: to seven media cycle, so let's get right to it.
Speaker 1: I want to talk about three major themes today. One
Speaker 1: of them national sovereignty, two, sabotage, three socialism. The three
Speaker 1: ess For tonight's episode, the Border Wall is the big
Speaker 1: story of the day and President Trump's emergency declaration, and
Speaker 1: we'll play some audio from that in case you missed
Speaker 1: it during the Your Busy Work Day from the Rose Garden,
Speaker 1: and he laid out sort of his case for why
Speaker 1: there needs to be an emergency declaration declared on top
Speaker 1: of the funding that was received in the recently negotiated
Speaker 1: Continuing Resolution. And let's talk about that Continuing Resolution for
Speaker 1: a second. You know, we're more than two years into
Speaker 1: this presidency. Republicans had the presidency, the House, the Senate,
Speaker 1: and the House and Senate did nothing to advance the
Speaker 1: president's agenda really when it came to immigration period, full stop.
Speaker 1: The fact that it ever had to come to this,
Speaker 1: this Continuing Resolution, twelve hundred pages released at three am
Speaker 1: in the morning, ten pages of which were then released
Speaker 1: after the fact Congressman themselves didn't even know where to
Speaker 1: go for the full bill text is absurd and it's
Speaker 1: really a slap in the face to the American people.
Speaker 1: Over about sixty three million people voted for this president
Speaker 1: and the fact that there was insufficient border wall funding
Speaker 1: the first two years, and now you have to deal
Speaker 1: with this basically phony negotiation where the President had to
Speaker 1: grit his teeth and say, I accept this bill, but
Speaker 1: I really don't like this bill. It's a travesty, and you,
Speaker 1: as an American should take it as a slap in
Speaker 1: the face that you're supposed representatives that this is the
Speaker 1: best that they could come up with. So what was
Speaker 1: in the bill. The bill is about more than the bill.
Speaker 1: The bill is representative of the disdand that our political
Speaker 1: establishment has for you and I three hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: eight billion dollar continuing resolution with a measly one point
Speaker 1: four billion dollars for the border wall. Now one point
Speaker 1: four billion dollars is a lot, but in context of
Speaker 1: the federal budget in a given year, where the federal
Speaker 1: budgets well over three trillion dollars, probably close to four
Speaker 1: trillion dollars at this point, it's nothing. It's nothing for
Speaker 1: something as fundamental as territorial integrity, the job of the
Speaker 1: government protect the homeland. That's number one. Peace and prosperity.
Speaker 1: In order to have peace, you have to have a
Speaker 1: secure border. So three hundred twenty eight billion dollars one
Speaker 1: point four for the wall one point three seven five.
Speaker 1: Of course, there are strings attached to this one point
Speaker 1: three seven five. And consider by the way the strings
Speaker 1: attached to this versus the lack of strings attached to
Speaker 1: all the other asinine things that come out of Washington,
Speaker 1: hidden deep within these bills that you'll never know about
Speaker 1: because they are twelve hundred pages. So, first of all,
Speaker 1: this wall funding one point four billion dollars, it's limited
Speaker 1: to the Rio Grand sector. It's not just limited to
Speaker 1: a fifty five mile area along the southern border in
Speaker 1: the Rio Grand Valley of Texas and restricted so you
Speaker 1: can't use it in a series of other areas that
Speaker 1: they lay out, other areas which need secure fencing as well.
Speaker 1: But there are two strings attached that really it just again,
Speaker 1: it's more than disdain. It's just spitting in your face.
Speaker 1: It's like a big joke that you can have a
Speaker 1: twelve hundred page bill and have a couple provisions like these.
Speaker 1: Section two twenty four A. I'll read it verbatim. None
Speaker 1: of the funds provided by this Act may be used
Speaker 1: by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention,
Speaker 1: Remove refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings
Speaker 1: or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or
Speaker 1: member of a house of a sponsor or potential sponsor
Speaker 1: of an unaccompanied alien child. Let me simplify that for you,
Speaker 1: because there's a lot of sponsors in there, and this
Speaker 1: is typically loyally in the way that it's crafted. This
Speaker 1: is a magnet for folks coming here and not being deportable.
Speaker 1: That's what this is. You come with an unaccompanied alien
Speaker 1: child referred to by the acronym UAC frequently, you can't
Speaker 1: be thrown out. Think about what the incentive is there. Then,
Speaker 1: of course you want to be a sponsor or, a
Speaker 1: potential sponsor or, a member of a household of a
Speaker 1: sponsor or, a potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child.
Speaker 1: Because per section two twenty four A, you can't be
Speaker 1: placed in detention, removed, or referred to a decision for
Speaker 1: a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings. You can't be deported.
Speaker 1: That's what it's saying. Here's another piece of text layered
Speaker 1: into the bill, Section two thirty two A. Prior to
Speaker 1: use of any funds made available by this Act for
Speaker 1: the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of
Speaker 1: any city or census designated place. Department of Homeland Security
Speaker 1: and the local elected officials of such a city or
Speaker 1: census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual
Speaker 1: agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within
Speaker 1: that city or the census designated place. Translation, local officials
Speaker 1: are going to be the ones to determine where the
Speaker 1: wall goes up and what kind of wall it is,
Speaker 1: design and alignment of physical barriers. And oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: it just so happens my understanding that those areas those
Speaker 1: municipalities jurisdictions in the Rio Grand Valley, well they happen,
Speaker 1: of course, be pretty much all blue districts. So what
Speaker 1: do you think is going to happen then with that funding?
Speaker 1: You know, there's other elements of this as well. There's
Speaker 1: potentially a doubling of the amount of people in the
Speaker 1: capped guest worker program hbtwo program, And you know we
Speaker 1: can talk about that, and I guarantee you they're about
Speaker 1: a thousand other things layered into this bill that make
Speaker 1: you and I go crazy what it represents. Again, not
Speaker 1: just a slap in the face to us and a
Speaker 1: slap in the face to the president, but a total
Speaker 1: dereliction of duty, a total lack of sincerity, of care,
Speaker 1: of faithfulness to us as the citizen. You know what
Speaker 1: the wall itself represents. It's not about the physical barrier. Yes,
Speaker 1: of course, a physical barrier is necessary as one element
Speaker 1: of having truly secure borders, because the first thing is
Speaker 1: secure borders at home, and then we can worry about
Speaker 1: the trillions of dollars that have been spent overseas that
Speaker 1: haven't necessarily made us any safer. But it starts with homeland,
Speaker 1: protecting the homeland. What does a wall represent. It represents
Speaker 1: national sovereignty, priority number one essentially of a government, and
Speaker 1: in the Constitution it talks about the need for the
Speaker 1: government to protect us from invasion, which we essentially have
Speaker 1: in which the emergency declaration today represents. It represents faithfulness
Speaker 1: to the citizenry, it represents strength, it represents a pact
Speaker 1: with us that the government respects us and they understand
Speaker 1: that we are the number one responsibility, we the people,
Speaker 1: and if not, they should all be thrown out of office.
Speaker 1: That's what the wall represents for us for they left
Speaker 1: for the Robert Francis O'Rourkes of the world, because I
Speaker 1: will refuse to refer to him by that moniker, the
Speaker 1: Beto moniker for folks like him. He says, let's tear
Speaker 1: down the walls that exist today. How would that work
Speaker 1: out for the country? Exactly? You know, the left makes
Speaker 1: the argument it's immoral. A wall is immoral. Well, what
Speaker 1: could be more moral than protecting the life and limb
Speaker 1: of citizen ry? Okay, survival is moral, especially survival from
Speaker 1: some of the worst people in the world. These drug
Speaker 1: traffickers and incidentally terrorists and the terrorist groups that work
Speaker 1: with the drug traffickers and child traffickers to get into
Speaker 1: this country cause lots of crime, billions of dollars in damages,
Speaker 1: all the associated cultural costs. They say, that's immoral. Okay.
Speaker 1: The wall for us represents a citizen rate. For the left,
Speaker 1: it represents an affront to multiculturalism and a lack of
Speaker 1: concern that they have for the citizen ry because they
Speaker 1: believe that everyone that there should be no borders, that
Speaker 1: we're all the same, there's no differences in cultures. Well,
Speaker 1: except that they know that their culture is superior to
Speaker 1: deplorable culture. What they really care about at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, what this is really all about, of course,
Speaker 1: is the fact that the left wants the country overrun.
Speaker 1: They at their core believe in some of them believe
Speaker 1: in open borders because ideologically that's really where they are,
Speaker 1: and they are really that deluded to think that there
Speaker 1: is no difference between different peoples everywhere, and that's a
Speaker 1: citizenship is something that should be treated cheaply and taken lightly.
Speaker 1: And then for the others it is more cynical and political.
Speaker 1: And a little bit later today we're going to talk
Speaker 1: about one of the ways in which even absence and
Speaker 1: amnesty in this country, mass illegal immigration to this country
Speaker 1: actually gives the left substantial political power already full stop.
Speaker 1: So before there is down the road, presumably some kind
Speaker 1: of mass amnesty, the way that things are trending in
Speaker 1: our political class, already there is power to having our
Speaker 1: borders overrun. And that's really the point ultimately is that
Speaker 1: this is a cynical power play from the left, though
Speaker 1: it's sort of it's the old Cloward Piven overload the
Speaker 1: system to force a change, overload the system, where illegal
Speaker 1: aliens overload the system with government spending, put as much
Speaker 1: power within the state as possible, doll out as much
Speaker 1: our jest as possible. It all works in their favor
Speaker 1: if you're a progressive, because a bigger state means more
Speaker 1: power for you. That's where the left is right now.
Speaker 1: But those on our side, quote unquote, we're talking about
Speaker 1: a percentage of a percentage that really actually believes in
Speaker 1: faithfulness to the Constitution, and faithfulness and fidelity to the
Speaker 1: American people, and again to national sovereignty and territorial integrity
Speaker 1: and citizenship itself. Citizenship itself is not a cheap word.
Speaker 1: It's something to be held in very high esteem. And
Speaker 1: for those immigrants who came here legally and actually had
Speaker 1: to work for it, as opposed to spitting in the
Speaker 1: face of those who are just abrogating the system, they
Speaker 1: value that citizenship a lot of times, probably more highly
Speaker 1: than folks who were born here and take it for granted.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to say. The reality of the situation is
Speaker 1: that there's a bipartisan establishment, and that bipartisan establishment believes
Speaker 1: essentially in open borders, some of them to different degrees.
Speaker 1: It's open borders on the left and on the right,
Speaker 1: what is it. It's cheap labor. That's sad on both sides.
Speaker 1: It should be an affront to every concerned American. It
Speaker 1: really should. If we could actually go to clip ten
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows talking about the border wall, he speaks a
Speaker 1: little bit about this. This is a president who has
Speaker 1: performed over and over and over again. He's moved the
Speaker 1: embassy to Jerusalem. He's brought back jobs from China to America.
Speaker 1: The economy is roaring. We've got a number of people
Speaker 1: that were hostages brought home. Every time they say he
Speaker 1: won't do it, he does do it. He's going to
Speaker 1: do it this time. I'm confident of that. I believe
Speaker 1: that he will take it executive action to make sure
Speaker 1: he gets the dollars that he needs to make sure
Speaker 1: that that wall gets built. Congress won't do his job.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, we could have done a lot better. We
Speaker 1: could have given him the five point seven billion that
Speaker 1: he requested, But instead he's having to embark on a
Speaker 1: three step process that I applaud. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I can tell you that I wish that the executive
Speaker 1: branch would have less ability to do things on their own.
Speaker 1: That was House Freedom Caucus chair, Mark Meadow, and of
Speaker 1: course he called for executive action and he got it.
Speaker 1: This is Ben Winegarden in for Buck Sexon on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon Show eight four nine zero zero Buck. That's
Speaker 1: two eight two five eight four four nine zero zero
Speaker 1: two eight two five. Follow me on Twitter at bh
Speaker 1: Winegarden and apologize about that. The guys behind the glass
Speaker 1: played a little joke on me before the break. We
Speaker 1: now have the Mark Meadows clip. You've heard him. I
Speaker 1: wholeheartedly agree with Mark Meadows. I suspect a lot of
Speaker 1: you do too. No one wants the executive to have
Speaker 1: to have the authority or to have to take a
Speaker 1: measure like the President is taking, and it's clear that
Speaker 1: he was very begrudgingly taking this measure as well. In fact,
Speaker 1: in comments today he sort of went over why a
Speaker 1: national emergency here is merited and then also why he
Speaker 1: knows it's going to get caught up in litigation. If
Speaker 1: we could go to quip six to Trump talking about
Speaker 1: the national emergency in the wall, we're going to be
Speaker 1: signing today and registry National emerg Agency. And it's a
Speaker 1: great thing to do because we have an invasion of drugs,
Speaker 1: invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable. I
Speaker 1: could do the wall over a longer period of time,
Speaker 1: I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do
Speaker 1: it much faster, and I don't have to do it
Speaker 1: for the election. I've already done a lot of wall
Speaker 1: for the election twenty twenty. And the only reason we're
Speaker 1: up here talking about this is because of the election.
Speaker 1: That was the President speaking at the Rose Garden this afternoon,
Speaker 1: explaining justifying the need to call for a national emergency. Here,
Speaker 1: let me say what the real national emergency is in America.
Speaker 1: It's that our leaders don't represent us. The media, the
Speaker 1: left they love, they love to talk about, oh, dictatorship,
Speaker 1: unprecedented violation of norms. They are actually the ones who
Speaker 1: are violating the norms here because they don't care about
Speaker 1: securing the country. We spend I mentioned before, we've spent
Speaker 1: trillions of dollars overseas on engagements, and you'd be very
Speaker 1: hard pressed. I'd be interested to hear from some of
Speaker 1: you a bit later tonight, what has been the actual
Speaker 1: outcome of Afghanistan. You know, we're there seventeen and eighteen years,
Speaker 1: approaching twenty years. Maybe there will be some kind of
Speaker 1: negotiation to get out of there. Can you define what
Speaker 1: are the three seminole achievements of our time in Afghanistan?
Speaker 1: What about in Iraq? It's pretty clear that Iraq has
Speaker 1: become in many ways a proxy for Iran. It should
Speaker 1: have been a counterbalance for it. Now it's a proxy
Speaker 1: for it. So we've wasted all of this blood and
Speaker 1: treasure overseas. And I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate
Speaker 1: things that we need to be doing overseas, because I'm
Speaker 1: as ardent accounter g hottest as you'll find, and I
Speaker 1: believe in taking it to the enemy when they pose
Speaker 1: a threat to US national interests. But it starts at home.
Speaker 1: And if we don't have home right, then everything else
Speaker 1: is in big trouble, big trouble. So what did the
Speaker 1: President do with this invocation of his authority under the
Speaker 1: National Emergency Act? Essentially he was able to identify, according
Speaker 1: to the White House, eight up to eight point one
Speaker 1: billion dollars available to build the border wall post declaration,
Speaker 1: with additional funds having been reprogrammed. And so there's six
Speaker 1: hundred and one million from the Treasury forfeiture fund, there's
Speaker 1: up to two and a half billion from the DoD
Speaker 1: funds Department of Defense funds transferred for support for counter
Speaker 1: drug activities under Title ten and of the US Code,
Speaker 1: Section two eighty four. There's up to three point six
Speaker 1: billion dollars reallocated from the Department of Defense military construction
Speaker 1: projects under the President's Declaration of a National Emergency Title ten,
Speaker 1: US Code Section twenty eight O eight. And we'll talk
Speaker 1: about the legal wranglings a bit later. Allow me to
Speaker 1: allow me to have the President explain how he thinks
Speaker 1: this is going to go down legally Quip seven, if
Speaker 1: you would. Guys, we will have a national emergency, and
Speaker 1: we will then be sued, and they will sue us
Speaker 1: in the Ninth Circuit even though it shouldn't be there,
Speaker 1: and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then
Speaker 1: we'll get another bad ruling, and then we'll end up
Speaker 1: in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we'll get a fair
Speaker 1: shake and we'll win in the Supreme Court. There you
Speaker 1: have it. I think that's pretty wise legal analysis from
Speaker 1: the President right there. In fact, the legal challenges are
Speaker 1: already starting to fly this afternoon or this morning. Even
Speaker 1: it might have been reported that Alexandroocazio Cortez and Joaquin
Speaker 1: Castro are going to introduce legislation to try to block
Speaker 1: the president's use of a national emergency here, and actually
Speaker 1: the ACLU has tweeted as well that they're going to
Speaker 1: be attacking it, and some folks are pointing to comments
Speaker 1: from the President later on during this Rose Garden address
Speaker 1: where he talks about, you know, I didn't want to
Speaker 1: do it this way, we didn't need to do it
Speaker 1: this way, but we have to do it this way.
Speaker 1: And of course his words are going to be parsed
Speaker 1: by the Ninth Circuit, as he mentioned, and we will
Speaker 1: get into the legal wranglings of this. I do think
Speaker 1: it will become very clear throughout this episode that legally
Speaker 1: the president is on very sound footing, and we can
Speaker 1: talk about executive power, separation of powers and the like,
Speaker 1: but this is more a political question in reality than
Speaker 1: a legal question, and it is sad that it has
Speaker 1: come to it at this point. This is Ben Winegarten
Speaker 1: in four Bucks Sexon on the Buck Sexton Show. Call
Speaker 1: in lines are open eight four four nine zero zero Buck.
Speaker 1: That's eight four four nine zero zero Buck two eight
Speaker 1: two five eight four four nine zero zero two eight
Speaker 1: two five. We'll be right back and talk about the
Speaker 1: census citizenship question. Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is Ben Winegarden in four buck Sexton lines are
Speaker 1: open eight four four nine zero zero two eight two
Speaker 1: five eight four four nine zero zero two eight to five.
Speaker 1: Follow me on Twitter at b H. Winegarden. All right,
Speaker 1: we've been talking about the President's national emergency, sovereignty, border
Speaker 1: wall funding and the like. Let's hear what you have
Speaker 1: to say. Let's go to the phone, starting with doctor
Speaker 1: Rick from Silver Spring, Maryland. Hello, doctor Rick. Yes, Hi,
Speaker 1: good evening, and I tell you I could not be
Speaker 1: more upset about this whole matter. Buck Show last night.
Speaker 1: I think he did a great job talking about all
Speaker 1: the problems with the bill. I think it you know,
Speaker 1: I agree with him. I think it does more harm
Speaker 1: than good, and I kind of wish the President had
Speaker 1: said distinct stinks. I'm not going to say yes, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to shut down the government again. But I
Speaker 1: want to get your take on it. Ben. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: my opinion of it is this the bill cuts both ways. Obviously,
Speaker 1: there are provisions in there that the incentive structure is terrible.
Speaker 1: From the perspective of sovereignty, and it cuts against the
Speaker 1: president's agenda, which is part of the reason that I've
Speaker 1: argued that, look, even in getting this one point four billion,
Speaker 1: which is a fraction of the five point seven billion,
Speaker 1: which is a fraction of the twenty five billion, that
Speaker 1: even with that, they had to fight him tooth and
Speaker 1: nail through the shutdown and then put in all of
Speaker 1: these potential poison pills, these land mines, as they've been
Speaker 1: described by some within the bill. So again, I think
Speaker 1: it's a reflection of Congress and a smack in the
Speaker 1: face of sixty three million Americans now in terms of
Speaker 1: what would the president's best strategy have been in this scenario.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of folks who were advocating for
Speaker 1: maybe a one or two week continuing resolution to allow
Speaker 1: folks to actually examine the twelve hundred pages. God forbid,
Speaker 1: we took more than two or three days seventy two
Speaker 1: hours to look at what was actually in the thing.
Speaker 1: Although of course we could have all guessed that there
Speaker 1: would be things in the bill that were egregious. I
Speaker 1: suspect that if you were in those White House conversations
Speaker 1: about strategy here, the reality was that they said, given
Speaker 1: the calendar and where we are relative to twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: and how long legal challenges would potentially take, and how
Speaker 1: much time has already been wasted on this, that this
Speaker 1: was probably the end of the line, and we'll take
Speaker 1: the one point four bill in because it's better than
Speaker 1: nothing else. We'll live to fight another day. We'll get
Speaker 1: the incremental funding to get to over five point seven
Speaker 1: billion potentially all in, and there will be a court fight.
Speaker 1: Hopefully the bulldozers will get rolling well before election day
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Although it's worth noting that the President talked
Speaker 1: about twenty twenty and the political element of this, and
Speaker 1: the press will say, you know, they love to say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is Trump's vanity project. It's not Trump's vanity vanity project.
Speaker 1: It's that he made a promise to the American people
Speaker 1: that represents all those things that I mentioned in my monologue,
Speaker 1: fidelity and faithfulness to the Constitution, and territorial integrity, and
Speaker 1: the fact that it is imperative that we get a
Speaker 1: handle on our homeland. So that's really my opinion of it.
Speaker 1: Do you have any follow up to that, doctor Rick? Well,
Speaker 1: I'm just so very frustrated with the political ruling class.
Speaker 1: Like you said, we had control of House and Senate
Speaker 1: and the president. They could have gotten this done. Clearly
Speaker 1: they didn't want to get this done. And I just
Speaker 1: you know the fact that so disconnected from the people
Speaker 1: warned us. You know, I would love for the presidents
Speaker 1: say I'm building it, I'm using the army corps of engineers,
Speaker 1: sue me, stop me and just build it um and
Speaker 1: and you know, to you know, to be damned with,
Speaker 1: you know, and let them try to stop it. You know,
Speaker 1: I just I'm that's frustrated. Well, well, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for the call. And and I think we're all frustrated
Speaker 1: at our so called representatives that that's really what they are.
Speaker 1: They represent us, they claim every midterm election, and you
Speaker 1: know then for the senators when their races are up.
Speaker 1: But it's a con essentially that it really is. And
Speaker 1: again you look at it. You have basically the House
Speaker 1: Freedom Caucus or at least a you know, disproportionate percentage
Speaker 1: of the House Freedom Caucus that actually believes in the
Speaker 1: things that they run on. And you have a handful
Speaker 1: of senators and that is pretty much it. And it's
Speaker 1: a very it's it's it's it's a it's a small
Speaker 1: minority that speaks for the silent majority in this country.
Speaker 1: All right, let's go to Charles in Boston. Charles, you
Speaker 1: are on the buck Sex and show. How are you? Sir?
Speaker 1: I agree with the first with the college just before me.
Speaker 1: I'm disappointed too. And uh, I don't know, and I'm
Speaker 1: not really clear why the President couldn't have said, you know,
Speaker 1: he said, I'm going to read the bill. I don't
Speaker 1: like this. I'm going to view to it, have a
Speaker 1: continuing resolution and then and then uh and then uh
Speaker 1: Board of Security because this is getting serious enough where
Speaker 1: uh that this is getting serious enough that I almost
Speaker 1: think we ought to have the military on the boarder
Speaker 1: imagine find the imagine. And Israel has a wall way
Speaker 1: back way back in uh and uh in the early
Speaker 1: modern era. UH, Vienna had a wall to keep out
Speaker 1: invading terms from the Ottoman Empire. And these people are
Speaker 1: invading from South America. And I just don't know how
Speaker 1: this is going to turn out. And I'm just afraid
Speaker 1: for our public. Basically, if we lose the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: what happens to the country. Is the company going to
Speaker 1: be worth living in? Anymore, or should we just say Okay,
Speaker 1: let's you know. That's how frustrated I feel, and I
Speaker 1: just wanted to get your take on it, mister weinegotten
Speaker 1: and again I agree with it with the doctor who
Speaker 1: called from Silver Spring, Maryland. Okay, I'll take your answer
Speaker 1: off the air, and thank you for having me on. Bye, Charles,
Speaker 1: Thank thanks so much for that heartfelt call. Look, I
Speaker 1: share your frustration and your concern about the direction of
Speaker 1: the country, and this kind of gets to why Trump's
Speaker 1: presidency was such a monumental act, a revolutionary act, revolutionary
Speaker 1: in the sense of going back towards the people. I've
Speaker 1: said this before in other forums that I believe and
Speaker 1: I think that this continuing resolution reflects the fact that
Speaker 1: Trump is a man alone in Washington, DC. And you
Speaker 1: can read press accounts that sort of reflect this as well.
Speaker 1: He holds ideas that can completely fly in the face
Speaker 1: of ninety percent of the folks in Washington, DC. That
Speaker 1: can't be said at elite cocktail parties, that go against
Speaker 1: everything you learn at elite institutions that's reinforced in popular culture,
Speaker 1: and it is near impossible to take on this behemoth.
Speaker 1: He's one person essentially taking the swings and arrows for
Speaker 1: sixty three million of US He is when they talk
Speaker 1: about the presidency being the loneliest office in the world,
Speaker 1: it really is the loneliest office in the world. When
Speaker 1: you hear about the internal sniping, leaking, lying, sabotage in
Speaker 1: the executive branch. It is one person standing up for
Speaker 1: sixty three million, but there's almost no one else in
Speaker 1: the political class there. It is a It really does
Speaker 1: imperil our nation the fact that we don't have a
Speaker 1: handle on this, and these measures are not the ideal measures,
Speaker 1: And I think the President would be the first person
Speaker 1: to agree on that he's taken every measure gun beyond
Speaker 1: where other politicians would go. Clearly in terms of tactical
Speaker 1: what should have been done in the near term, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that the continuing resolution would lead to anything
Speaker 1: other than probably a worset deal. Even ultimately, it's very
Speaker 1: tough sweating when your side consists of a president and
Speaker 1: a few other people in Congress. It's very challenging. And
Speaker 1: you see now that the president is using a power
Speaker 1: that he'd probably rather not use, that's going to be challenged.
Speaker 1: That has drawn the ire of even some conservatives and
Speaker 1: some libertarians. We're going to speak with one of those. Incidentally,
Speaker 1: we're going to speak with John You a little bit
Speaker 1: later tonight, a constitutional scholar who has studied executive power
Speaker 1: versus legislative power, the ins and outs of national emergencies.
Speaker 1: And look, the Department of Defense is going to be
Speaker 1: down at the border, their budgets being reallocated for these purposes.
Speaker 1: And look, you saw it in the face of the
Speaker 1: caravans as well. And the caravans are part of kind
Speaker 1: of the series of events, the fact pattern leading up
Speaker 1: to the justification for declaring a national emergency. And we're
Speaker 1: going to go back to kind of the legal battle
Speaker 1: over this and a little bit of the political battle
Speaker 1: as well with John Yu as I mentioned a bit
Speaker 1: later in the program, But I want to talk about
Speaker 1: another issue that has really been off the radar except
Speaker 1: for wonky folks in Washington, d C. But which has
Speaker 1: really drawn the focus of the left in a way
Speaker 1: that I think few anticipated. And you could sort of
Speaker 1: see this and I wrote about this in The Federalist,
Speaker 1: and probably almost a year ago. Eric Holder, former Attorney General,
Speaker 1: he came out and it's not as if he's made
Speaker 1: a ton of public statements or written a ton of
Speaker 1: op eds. He came out focused on this issue of
Speaker 1: a census citizenship question. Now, let's start at the highest level.
Speaker 1: Why would you care about the census and what does
Speaker 1: the citizenship question have to do with this topic of
Speaker 1: national sovereignty. The census is actually a vital document when
Speaker 1: it comes to political power because it is used in
Speaker 1: primarily two tasks, one apportioning seats in the US House
Speaker 1: and two allocating upwards of eight hundred billion and perhaps
Speaker 1: nine hundred billion dollars a year in federal funds down
Speaker 1: to district. So let me say it state that again,
Speaker 1: the number of representatives in your given states, and thus
Speaker 1: the number of presidential electors that you send to the
Speaker 1: Electoral College, is dictated by the census numbers. That redistricting
Speaker 1: occurs every ten years, and that's why the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: census is so essential. And again, nine hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: in federal funds are allocated. Nine hundred billion dollars, that's
Speaker 1: like a third of the federal budget, maybe slightly less,
Speaker 1: are allocated based upon the census. The question of the
Speaker 1: census citizenship question, what is that? Well, the Trump administration
Speaker 1: decided under Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Census Bureau fits
Speaker 1: under the Commerce Department, that a citizenship question should be
Speaker 1: included on the primary census. So every American, every household
Speaker 1: who receives a census, Wilbur Ross and the Trump administration
Speaker 1: would like the question to be asked, are you a
Speaker 1: citizen of the United States. There are a few different
Speaker 1: boxes relating to what your citizenship is, and then there's
Speaker 1: no not a citizen of the United States. That's all
Speaker 1: they want to ask. You would think that that would
Speaker 1: be a pretty basic question that a country would want
Speaker 1: to know. You know, in my district, what percentage of
Speaker 1: people here are citizens? What percentage are non citizens? Well,
Speaker 1: the backlash on the left has been massive, and here's why.
Speaker 1: The census count that determines how many representatives are in
Speaker 1: each state is based upon total people counted. Let me
Speaker 1: repeat that total people counted, that citizens and non citizens.
Speaker 1: And within non citizens, there are illegal immigrants and there
Speaker 1: are people here who are here illegally. So the census
Speaker 1: count to determine that apportioning counts illegal aliens. So if
Speaker 1: you live in a state that as a disproportionate number
Speaker 1: of illegal aliens, You might have a disproportionate number of
Speaker 1: representatives in your state. A lot of people aren't aware
Speaker 1: of that. Doesn't that strike you as strange that a
Speaker 1: sent be political power? How many representatives you have, how
Speaker 1: many electors go to the electoral college, and then what
Speaker 1: percentage of the nine hundred billion plus dollars that gets
Speaker 1: allocated down to the district levels based upon those population
Speaker 1: counts that the numbers that influence that actually include illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: Did you know that illegal aliens can actually dilute the
Speaker 1: political power of some people, those who live in states
Speaker 1: they're disproportionately citizens, and conversely creates more power for those
Speaker 1: states that have more illegal aliens or more non citizens. Generally,
Speaker 1: this isn't talked about very often. One of the reasons
Speaker 1: that the Trump the reason the Trump administration wants to
Speaker 1: include the question, and the reason they've argued for it,
Speaker 1: is that in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act,
Speaker 1: something that you would think Democrats would be on board with.
Speaker 1: Properly enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act, you need
Speaker 1: an accurate account of citizens versus non citizens. Otherwise non
Speaker 1: citizens can dilute the political power of some artificially increase
Speaker 1: the political power of others. So the Trump administration puts
Speaker 1: forth the census citizenship question in their proposals and immediately
Speaker 1: are met with a swift backlash from all sorts of
Speaker 1: leftist advocacy groups. The case that lost for the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is now going to be kicked up to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Today the news came out Wall Street Journal
Speaker 1: headline quote, Supreme Court degree is to decide legality of
Speaker 1: census citizenship question. Trump administrations seeking to ask census respondents
Speaker 1: if they are US citizens. When we come back, we'll
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more about the stakes of this fight,
Speaker 1: about what the left is arguing. The insane arguments against
Speaker 1: something is basic as you knowing what percentage of the
Speaker 1: country is citizens versus non citizens in your own district,
Speaker 1: what happens to your political power, Why some states are
Speaker 1: going to lose representatives and some are going to gain representatives,
Speaker 1: Why there's more funding for some states and not other states.
Speaker 1: We'll get to this major legal argument that's brewing that
Speaker 1: sticks to this point of national sovereignty and do we
Speaker 1: defend the rights of our citizens and the political power
Speaker 1: of our citizens. We'll get right back to that, and
Speaker 1: we have an interview with someone who is supporting the
Speaker 1: government's efforts to include that citizenship question at the top
Speaker 1: of the hour. This is Ben Weinegarden in four Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Eight four four nine
Speaker 1: zero zero two eight two five. That's eight four four
Speaker 1: nine zero zero two eight two five beer right back.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, and this is Ben
Speaker 1: Weinegarden in four Buck Sexton linzeropen eight four four nine
Speaker 1: zero zero two eight to five, and you can follow
Speaker 1: me on Twitter at b h wine Garden. All right,
Speaker 1: before the break, I was talking a bit about the
Speaker 1: census citizenship question and how this question is now going
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court based upon a ruling that came
Speaker 1: down today and that the Trump administration had lost in
Speaker 1: the Southern District of New York in a federal court
Speaker 1: by an Obama appointed judge. And I mentioned the fact
Speaker 1: that the census is such a vital, vital count because
Speaker 1: the census really determines how much political power each state
Speaker 1: has and ultimately how much political power each citizen has.
Speaker 1: But it's impacted by non citizens because the counts that
Speaker 1: we get out of the census total population count is
Speaker 1: what matters to determine a portioning of the seats, an
Speaker 1: allocation of hundreds of billions of federal dollars. Okay, So
Speaker 1: why did Democrats hate the idea of the inclusion of
Speaker 1: this question? What they state that they believe that there
Speaker 1: will be an unconstitutional undercount, that non citizens will be
Speaker 1: afraid to respond to a question are you a citizen
Speaker 1: or not? In the census. We can walk through the
Speaker 1: history of this, but this question was on the census
Speaker 1: every decade from eighteen twenty to nineteen fifty, outside of
Speaker 1: eighteen forty for whatever reason that was A similar question
Speaker 1: has been asked of one in six households in nineteen eighty,
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety, and two thousand on the long form Census.
Speaker 1: The Obama administration, I don't think they're racist targeting illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: They asked the question of one and thirty eight households
Speaker 1: on the document that replaced the long form Census, the
Speaker 1: American Community Survey. As mentioned, the Trump administration makes the
Speaker 1: case that in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act,
Speaker 1: something that we can all agree on, that they need
Speaker 1: an accurate account of citizens versus non citizens. But the
Speaker 1: Left has fearmongered about this issue, saying it's a Trump administration.
Speaker 1: We can't trust them to ask this question. They're trying
Speaker 1: to drive down non citizen numbers, But what is their
Speaker 1: real argument. At the end of the day, they will
Speaker 1: lose political power. In fact, in the judge's opinion from
Speaker 1: New York who wrote against the Trump administration, he said
Speaker 1: that the question was actually constitutional. He was fine with
Speaker 1: a citizenship question. He differed with Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross's
Speaker 1: judgment and the way he came to his decision. And
Speaker 1: he wrote, and I quote here, the Court finds, by
Speaker 1: a preponderance of evidence that the addition of a citizenship
Speaker 1: question will cause, or is likely to clause etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: Several jurisdictions to lose seats in the next congressional apportionment period.
Speaker 1: Let's stop right there. People could potentially lose house seats
Speaker 1: because of non citizens not being included. Thus the potentially
Speaker 1: this all hypothetical question can't be asked. He added, a
Speaker 1: net under account of people live in non citizen households.
Speaker 1: Whilst it caused states to lose access to federal funding.
Speaker 1: What does this all come down to At the end
Speaker 1: of the day, it comes down to political power. It's
Speaker 1: not about you the citizen. It's about political power for
Speaker 1: those who benefit from those states with large non citizen populations.
Speaker 1: When we come back, we'll talk with Jay Christian Adams.
Speaker 1: His legal group has actually filed an amicist CUI bief
Speaker 1: brief with the Trump administration that went to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back on the buck Sex and show.
Speaker 1: You're probably familiar with AARP. You or someone you know
Speaker 1: might already be a member, But did you know that
Speaker 1: AARP is about left wing politics. They lobby for a
Speaker 1: lot of progressive causes. An AARP fought tooth and nail
Speaker 1: for a government run healthcare system. Well, I recommend AMAC YAMAC.
Speaker 1: AMAC was founded by an Air Force veteran, Dan Weber
Speaker 1: over a decade ago to represent not only conservative views,
Speaker 1: but policy that's good for America. AMAC advocates for border
Speaker 1: protection and it also advocates for fixing social security. Your
Speaker 1: investment in AMAC also allows AMAC to act for policy
Speaker 1: good for America the AMAC difference. It's held over one
Speaker 1: thousand real face to face meetings with key decision makers
Speaker 1: in DC, including Senators, as well as key influencers at
Speaker 1: the White House. AMAC offers the same kind of money
Speaker 1: saving benefits that AARP offers, but without the liberal agenda.
Speaker 1: Join AMAC, the conservative alternative. Instead, stand with AMAC as
Speaker 1: they fight the good fight by becoming a member today.
Speaker 1: The benefits are great, but the cause is even greater.
Speaker 1: Tell your family and tell your friends join right now
Speaker 1: at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, better for America.
Speaker 1: We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United
Speaker 1: States under protected, undocumented, unchecked, and illegal aliens should not
Speaker 1: be treated the same as people who entered the US legally.
Speaker 1: We must control our borders, must protect our borders. This
Speaker 1: is Ben Weegarden in for Buck sexon on the Buck
Speaker 1: Sex and Show eight four four nine zero zero two
Speaker 1: eight two five Follow me on Twitter at bh wine Garden.
Speaker 1: And those were just some of the few disingenuous Democrats
Speaker 1: who over the years have of course completely flipped on
Speaker 1: this issue, proving per usual that with them and of
Speaker 1: course with many Republicans too, it's about power, it's not
Speaker 1: actually about principle and those questions, and again, this question
Speaker 1: of citizenship, border security and the like is really intrinsic
Speaker 1: to the question of census citizenship, and I think a
Speaker 1: unique microcosm of what the political class thinks about us,
Speaker 1: because there isn't even a question. You've probably never even
Speaker 1: heard the question asked, mister representative of my district, why
Speaker 1: is it that illegal aliens can take political power from me?
Speaker 1: Or conversely, why is it that this other district, this
Speaker 1: other state has more political power by counting people who
Speaker 1: have cheated the system. I talked a little bit about
Speaker 1: the historical background of the census citizenship question, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration's justification for it on the Voting Rights Act, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats challenged to it, and I mentioned the judge
Speaker 1: in the Southern District of New York, federal judge. He
Speaker 1: shot down the Trump administration's ability to ask this question
Speaker 1: not on constitutional ground. I'm going to quote from his
Speaker 1: opinion here the citizenship question and I quote is quote
Speaker 1: not inconsistent with the Constitution unquote. I it's not the
Speaker 1: question that's an issue here, it's how the Trump administration
Speaker 1: came to their determination. And by the way, this doesn't
Speaker 1: even get into the fact that the groups who brought
Speaker 1: this suit to this judge, Obama appointed judge in the
Speaker 1: Southern district were of course leftist act VISC groups who
Speaker 1: arguably should have had no standing, and the judge made
Speaker 1: his argument that essentially some political power could be lost
Speaker 1: among some groups if there was an undercount. But Secretary
Speaker 1: Ross was the person who had the power delegated to
Speaker 1: him to determine what questions go on that census, since
Speaker 1: he is the Commerce Secretary and the Census sits under him.
Speaker 1: The judge was not delegated that power. Secretary Ross was.
Speaker 1: And by the way, that's a running theme that will
Speaker 1: really run throughout this episode when we talk about not
Speaker 1: just sovereignty, but everything that the president tries to do
Speaker 1: visa via the legislative branch and vice versa. Where does
Speaker 1: power reside. Here's what Secretary Ross said, quote Neither the
Speaker 1: Census Bureau nor the concerned stakeholders could document that the
Speaker 1: response rate would in fact decline materially. The Census Bureaus
Speaker 1: analysis did not provide definitive empirical support for that belief.
Speaker 1: And then he went on, even if there was an
Speaker 1: i quote here an impact on responses, the value of
Speaker 1: more complete and accurate day derived from surveying the entire
Speaker 1: population outweighs such concerns. Unte you know, it seems pretty
Speaker 1: reasonable to me, seems common sense to me. And more importantly,
Speaker 1: who is a judge to question Secretary Ross's decision making?
Speaker 1: The judiciary is out of control. The legislative branch is
Speaker 1: actually supposed to be in the most important powerful branch,
Speaker 1: the executive executes. The courts are there to review constitutionality,
Speaker 1: period full stop. They're not there to question the judgment
Speaker 1: of a person, in this case, an executive branch official
Speaker 1: who was delegated pretty clear authority to ask whatever questions
Speaker 1: are necessary, provided there is a constitutional purpose, and here
Speaker 1: the constitutional purpose is enforcing the Voting Rights Act? So
Speaker 1: what is the real story here? Was I mentioned? The
Speaker 1: judge himself admits that this is basically about political power.
Speaker 1: Potentially some states could lose seats in the US House
Speaker 1: and billions of dollars, some portion of which might be
Speaker 1: allocated elsewhere, and as there was, some people might be
Speaker 1: hurt by that based upon this hypothetical that people aren't
Speaker 1: going to respond to a question that asks are you
Speaker 1: a citizen or not? And oh, by the way, if
Speaker 1: you're not a citizen, it doesn't ask are you here
Speaker 1: legally or illegally? It's not asking people to self incriminate.
Speaker 1: It is a pretty basic question of a country. Are
Speaker 1: you a citizen? Are you not a citizen? I think
Speaker 1: that most Americans would probably agree. Guys behind the glass,
Speaker 1: do you agree with that assertion? You should know who?
Speaker 1: What percentage of Americans are citizens? What percentage of people
Speaker 1: in America are non citizens? Seems pretty reasonable to me
Speaker 1: in a country top of the list citizenship. No broader question.
Speaker 1: Should should the census count all people? Oppose that? Also
Speaker 1: to you, guys, if you are here illegally, should you
Speaker 1: be counted in a census so that maybe you get
Speaker 1: one more see it in the House of Representatives in
Speaker 1: your state? Is that fair? Is not fair? Pretty basic?
Speaker 1: But Democrats say, actually it's unfair. The other way, it's
Speaker 1: actually unfair. So there are a lot of legal aliens, Well,
Speaker 1: they use public services in your districts. You need more
Speaker 1: money now, But why is there another representative? And why
Speaker 1: does a probably red state that has a lower percentage
Speaker 1: of legal aliens, why do they get less political power?
Speaker 1: And where are the Republicans. I've never heard a Republicans
Speaker 1: say a word about Oh my gosh, this is actually
Speaker 1: another magnet for illegal immigration, sanctuary cities. Have you ever
Speaker 1: heard someone say, well, sanctuary cities are a magnet for
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, and that's actually going to be in more
Speaker 1: power for their state. So there's actually an incentive before
Speaker 1: there's ever an amnesty for open borders. I think more
Speaker 1: than anything this week, what we found out with this
Speaker 1: bill is that both parties are for open borders. I
Speaker 1: think they both became exposed and now we both know
Speaker 1: what they're all about. Essentially, that's the stakes, and they
Speaker 1: can't keep lying to us about it. In twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: this would be a fundamental question. President Trump layed out
Speaker 1: kind of what the fundamental questions are in that state
Speaker 1: of the Union. You know, if we don't have a
Speaker 1: border wall, we don't have sovereignty, we're not a country.
Speaker 1: Pretty basic thing, fundamental. It really the political class. They're
Speaker 1: up in arms. How could you ever believe in, you know,
Speaker 1: territorial integrity because apparently they don't believe that there are
Speaker 1: border lines in this country. Okay, so borders. Do you
Speaker 1: believe in borders or not? Do you believe in defending
Speaker 1: your citizens or do you believe that America exists for
Speaker 1: everyone in the world. Do you believe in in fanticide,
Speaker 1: do you believe in socialism? Pretty basic things, and Republicans
Speaker 1: will rally to the President's side on that. But then
Speaker 1: when push comes to shove, when you get into the
Speaker 1: nitty gritty of policy, he's pretty much left high and dry.
Speaker 1: I still think probably the most telling act of this
Speaker 1: Congress is what was their seminole achievements with the two
Speaker 1: years under President Trump when we had all three branches?
Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, the political class always said
Speaker 1: with respect to healthcare and probably a bunch of other
Speaker 1: things as well, well, to do this first, we need
Speaker 1: the House. Okay, got the House. Well we need the Senate.
Speaker 1: Got the Senate. Well we need the presidency. Got the presidency.
Speaker 1: We need the Supreme Court? Got Supreme Court. Who's kidding?
Speaker 1: Who here? Who is getting who here? And I want
Speaker 1: to go back to that fundamental question about people in
Speaker 1: the census. And this does get into a little bit
Speaker 1: of the legal weeds, but it really shouldn't fundamental question
Speaker 1: that Americans should be able to pose to their representatives.
Speaker 1: In my view, why should non citizens, including illegal aliens,
Speaker 1: be able to increase the political power of some Americans
Speaker 1: and decrease the political power of other Americans. So this
Speaker 1: comes down to definition of people. A constitution talks about
Speaker 1: Congress shall set the rules for counting citizens, and we'll
Speaker 1: use it to apportion seats. That's Article one. Section two
Speaker 1: of the Constitution calls for a citizenship, citizens census counts,
Speaker 1: apportioning representatives, and directing taxes. And then the language was
Speaker 1: modified after the abolition of slavery under Section two of
Speaker 1: the fourteenth Amendment. So of course before there were slavery provisions,
Speaker 1: they were stricken after the abolition of slavery, so that
Speaker 1: every American was counted. Boy, And I'll quote here from
Speaker 1: section to fourteenth Amendment, which requires that a portioning can
Speaker 1: be based on quote, the whole number of persons in
Speaker 1: each state, excluding Indians, not tax The section that becomes
Speaker 1: both comes before proceeds Section two of the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: Section one begins all persons born or naturalized in the
Speaker 1: United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof our citizens
Speaker 1: of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Speaker 1: So if you're reading that document like a normal person
Speaker 1: and not like a liberal lawyer, okay, first sentence defines
Speaker 1: who persons are. Second sentence references persons. Those persons are
Speaker 1: born or naturalized in the US and subject to the
Speaker 1: jurisdiction thereof that's who the whole number of persons in
Speaker 1: each state are. And the same holds true for the
Speaker 1: Constitution itself, by the way, and the census count is
Speaker 1: called for under the Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution
Speaker 1: quote we the people of the United States, not as
Speaker 1: constitutional scholar John Eastman puts it, we the people of
Speaker 1: the world, or we any foreign nationals who happen to
Speaker 1: be in the United States when a census is taken.
Speaker 1: This is pretty basic stuff. You never have heard this questions.
Speaker 1: I have not heard a politician with any kind of
Speaker 1: bully pulpit get up and say, why should illegal aliens
Speaker 1: dilute your vote and increase the power of another person's vote. Again,
Speaker 1: this is minutia. This is getting into the weeds. But
Speaker 1: this is just as this is vital, just like the
Speaker 1: border wall is vital. And it comes from the same
Speaker 1: line of argumentation, which is, are we a country or not?
Speaker 1: Do we respect our citizens or not? And it's very
Speaker 1: clear that the political quest does not. Otherwise you might
Speaker 1: have heard Republicans one time step up and actually defend
Speaker 1: the Trump administration on including the question, even though the
Speaker 1: question can't be proven that it's going to suppress suppress
Speaker 1: response rates, because who should be afraid of answering the
Speaker 1: question Am I a citizen or not? When I check
Speaker 1: the box not, it doesn't say yes, I'm here illegally,
Speaker 1: Come arrest me. So there have been legal fights on
Speaker 1: the definition of persons. It's been inconclusive. There's a legislative
Speaker 1: solution as well. There's a representative from Ohio. His name's
Speaker 1: Warren Davidson. He recently reintroduced a constitutional amendment, the Fair
Speaker 1: Representation Amendment, that a portions representative sole we quote by
Speaker 1: counting the number of persons in each state who are
Speaker 1: citizens of the United States unquote. And here's what he
Speaker 1: says about that. He says, Ohio citizens should not have
Speaker 1: their voices diminished by other states harboring illegal aliens in
Speaker 1: sanctuary cities. Many Americans don't even realize that through current
Speaker 1: census practices, non citizens dilute the influence of citizens, especially
Speaker 1: in Ohio and other states with lower non citizen populations.
Speaker 1: The status quo of awarding states greater representation for this
Speaker 1: illegal behavior subverts our Constitution, proper census calculations are needed
Speaker 1: to ensure that every citizens vote counts. Now, this amendment,
Speaker 1: of course, is just going to languish in Speaker Pelosi's House,
Speaker 1: But here's the reality, it also languished in Republican control
Speaker 1: at houses. Why is that the case? Why shouldn't this
Speaker 1: fight be had? So I've argued, and in a piece
Speaker 1: that's going to come out for the Federalist shortly, I
Speaker 1: make the case that excluding non citizens from the census
Speaker 1: might be a legal and political loser, given the state
Speaker 1: of today's courts and the political incentives around it. But
Speaker 1: it's incumbent upon those of us who believe in the
Speaker 1: rule of law and the sanctity of citizenship to challenge
Speaker 1: the statish quo, both in the courts and in the
Speaker 1: legislative spheres, just as Democrats do on every single matter,
Speaker 1: as you're seeing today, for example with the President's National
Speaker 1: Emergency Declaration. I mean, Democrats challenge on every single playing
Speaker 1: field they possibly can. And when do Republicans put up
Speaker 1: fights and what do Republicans put up fights for? As
Speaker 1: I mentioned before, what do they do in two years
Speaker 1: their seminal achievement in that in that Congress was a
Speaker 1: tax reform bill which wasn't even exactly what the president
Speaker 1: had called for when he ran for office, and clear
Speaker 1: it was not Agenda item number one. They got their priority,
Speaker 1: and they ignored the priorities that the American people had
Speaker 1: called for above all else. So, as I said, members
Speaker 1: of the political establishment who cling to the status quo
Speaker 1: should be put on record and made to answer the
Speaker 1: following question. You should demand this question of your representatives.
Speaker 1: Why should non citizens, including illegal aliens, be able to
Speaker 1: increase the political power of some Americans while decreasing the
Speaker 1: political power of others. This is Ben Weingarten in for
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Eight four four
Speaker 1: nine zero zero two eight two five. That's eight four
Speaker 1: four nine zero zero two eight two five. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified
Speaker 1: veteran own background investigations and vetting company. It's useful if
Speaker 1: you're renting out a home or another space. For important
Speaker 1: decisions like these, you need a service like Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Go TOMGVN dot com or call at eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine. Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: is federally certified as a veteran owned small business. It's
Speaker 1: independently certified by the National Veteran Business Development Council, which
Speaker 1: is the only minority spend certification recognized by the Billion
Speaker 1: Dollar Roundtable. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago with
Speaker 1: offices throughout the nation. They are the risk mitigation experts
Speaker 1: and they work with all companies from startups to fourtune
Speaker 1: one hundreds rest ashore. No data or client information is
Speaker 1: ever offshored, and all employees are located throughout the United States.
Speaker 1: Visit Global Verification Network at MYGVN dot com or call
Speaker 1: them at eight seven seven six nine five one one
Speaker 1: seven nine. This has Ben wine Garden in four Buck
Speaker 1: sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Lines are open eight
Speaker 1: four four nine zero zero two eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four four nine zero zero two eight to five. You
Speaker 1: can follow me on Twitter at bh wine Garden and
Speaker 1: I actually just tweeted out a quick explainer on the
Speaker 1: Census citizenship for your reference. Or We've got a bevy
Speaker 1: of callers from the Mid Atlantic region out tonight. Let's
Speaker 1: go to No in Virginia Beach, Virginia. No, you're on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and Show. Oh hey, then are you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: pretty good. Uh, yeah, that's that's about three years three
Speaker 1: four years ago, Ched Kent did a really good, uh
Speaker 1: exposay on what was Donald Trump or right about birthday
Speaker 1: citizenship and it actually went into the actual the framers
Speaker 1: of the amendment to see what they they went because
Speaker 1: it was very lengthy debate on the Sun floor about it,
Speaker 1: and it was a very very very good expersay on it, saying,
Speaker 1: you know, basically that the children of illegal aliens are
Speaker 1: not subjects to the jurisdiction there of evidence in the amendment,
Speaker 1: and because they must be subduct the jurisdiction thereof and
Speaker 1: since the parents are the children are Yeah. No, it's
Speaker 1: a it's a question that's been raised in and thanks
Speaker 1: for the call. It's a question that's been raised in
Speaker 1: any number of pieces of litigation, and of course the
Speaker 1: left raises great arguments. I think the arguments on our
Speaker 1: side are more compelling. You see conservative legal scholars who
Speaker 1: are very split on this question, and of course usually
Speaker 1: the arguments are in some way former fashion sort of
Speaker 1: tinged by their views on immigration. More broadly, these questions
Speaker 1: really strike at the heart though, of the question of
Speaker 1: who are we as a nation. What did the language
Speaker 1: mean at the time it was written. And I think
Speaker 1: it's very hard to make the argument that subject to
Speaker 1: the jurisdiction thereof doesn't mean subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
Speaker 1: That is, if you came here and your parents weren't
Speaker 1: citizens and you come into this country, whose jurisdiction are
Speaker 1: you subject to? Well, temporarily, of course, you're subject to
Speaker 1: our laws, but that's not the power that typically you're
Speaker 1: governed by. So I think it's a legitimate question. There's
Speaker 1: some great, great arguments out there. You can see on
Speaker 1: the federalist Judge Hoe, who's a federal judge out of Texas,
Speaker 1: has written sort of the anti case on birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1: Michael Anton has stirred up the political class in many ways,
Speaker 1: but in particular his argument in favor of challenging birthright citizenship.
Speaker 1: And of course the President himself has brought up the question,
Speaker 1: perhaps to raise it as a trial balloon and see
Speaker 1: where the political wins might be. But I think it's
Speaker 1: a legitimate question and it absolutely should be debated. All right,
Speaker 1: let's go to Randy from Richmond, Virginia. Randy, you're on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Yes, it's been correct. It is.
Speaker 1: I got several things I want to talk about, but
Speaker 1: I just want to want to talk about that. There.
Speaker 1: Mark Laman mentions a lot of times, this is like
Speaker 1: a post constitutent republic, and I really believe that. So
Speaker 1: I think what we're trying to do is save a republic.
Speaker 1: It's already gone. It's been gone for a number of years.
Speaker 1: We just didn't recognize that. That's the first point. Second,
Speaker 1: I feel like what mister Trump is trying to do
Speaker 1: it is not the way to do it. He is
Speaker 1: listening to the wrong advisers. He needs to come out
Speaker 1: to the people and persuade the twenty and thirty million
Speaker 1: people who have not been voting for over forty to
Speaker 1: fifty years. You get them back on side to vote
Speaker 1: for liberty. Everything will change overnight, everything. But he too,
Speaker 1: you get those of people engage, You're not We're gonna
Speaker 1: have the other forty million balloting for having no more liberty,
Speaker 1: others saying they want more socialist. That's what's gonna be
Speaker 1: all with your word more not polarized like the guy
Speaker 1: with Steve Days, and I think it is. He says
Speaker 1: we're balcan eye. That's absolutely correct. We're balcan eyed. We
Speaker 1: have been balcanized for many, many decades, and we'll never
Speaker 1: realized that. We're none starting to realize that only because
Speaker 1: we're now engaged in the argument. And not to add
Speaker 1: to that, we have lost the arguments partly because we've
Speaker 1: lost the language. We don't even know what conservative means.
Speaker 1: Conservative meant to be all one time preserved values, preservative
Speaker 1: to liberty, but they wouldn't mean it actually made no
Speaker 1: because because it meants with the status quote, what is
Speaker 1: the status quote? It's not liberty, it's tyranny. It's statism,
Speaker 1: it's socialism. And we've had a social qualizized quas socialist
Speaker 1: state since the time of FDR really spent the time.
Speaker 1: But Winter Wilson when he gave to the banking institutions
Speaker 1: control VERYCA and a COB for that the RS, why
Speaker 1: would they do that? The gato our lives and they've
Speaker 1: been controleing olives. So in the Federal Reserve when they
Speaker 1: say well we'll go ahead and do this and that
Speaker 1: say they're CONTROI what our currency? How you remain in
Speaker 1: our lives? We don't when you do that. The gam
Speaker 1: Congress gave that over to them their authority, didn't they
Speaker 1: And you hear they do it again again and again
Speaker 1: and again. Our enemy has been more of the Congress
Speaker 1: than anything else. But we keep voting on the same
Speaker 1: people over and over again. Why because they give us
Speaker 1: stuff like if you're a black person, I vote for
Speaker 1: that guy over that because they gives me stuck. The
Speaker 1: gam Press convinced half the people the vote against anything
Speaker 1: portunity to liberty and vote for more socialism. So they
Speaker 1: vote in more Democrats to get what more Randy We're
Speaker 1: gonna have to go to break shortly. I share your passion,
Speaker 1: and I share your outrage. And actually in the next
Speaker 1: hour we're gonna talk a little bit about how our
Speaker 1: constitutional liberal liberties have been eviscerated. The language is stolen.
Speaker 1: Woodrow Wilson, of course, was the start of all this.
Speaker 1: This is Ben Weingarten in four Buck Sex and on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexon show. It for four zero two eight
Speaker 1: two five. Will be right back. This is Ben weinertan
Speaker 1: in for Buck sexon on the Buck Sexton Show eight
Speaker 1: for four nine zero zero two eight to five eight
Speaker 1: for four nine zero zero two eight two five. I've
Speaker 1: been teasing this for a little bit in just a moment,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a constitutional scholar, a human trigger warning
Speaker 1: as I like to call him, to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about citizenship, a bit this census question, but also
Speaker 1: the emergency that was declared today, and we'll talk a
Speaker 1: bit about the legal ramifications, what the challenges are likely
Speaker 1: to be, what the president will do to counter Potentially
Speaker 1: this should be a fascinating legal battle to watch, in
Speaker 1: part because it really implicates questions of separation of powers
Speaker 1: and checks and balances, and in this case, as we'll
Speaker 1: get to in a moment, here, you have a president.
Speaker 1: Some will argue taking authority from the legislative branch, but
Speaker 1: it's authority that the legislative branch delegated to the president
Speaker 1: and the executive branch, and that's something that has done.
Speaker 1: It's very commonplace, and you have constitutional conservatives who don't
Speaker 1: like that necessarily. But what this reflects, as I mentioned
Speaker 1: at the top of this episode, is the fact that
Speaker 1: the president has avowed himself of every potential possible option
Speaker 1: and was left with no choice by the political establishment
Speaker 1: but to go with this route. And we'll see how
Speaker 1: it plays out. And again I think this guest will
Speaker 1: argue in just a sec that the legal authority is there.
Speaker 1: This is more a political question than anything else. All right, So,
Speaker 1: without further ado, John you is a human trigger warning
Speaker 1: for Democrats everywhere. You probably know him as one of
Speaker 1: the George W. Bush administrations chief legal architects of the
Speaker 1: so called War on Terror. He currently serves as a
Speaker 1: law professor at Berkeley, where I understand he's very popular
Speaker 1: on campus. And I should mention that John and I
Speaker 1: did an interview on a completely different topic, his book
Speaker 1: Striking Power, How cyber robots and space weapons change the
Speaker 1: rules for war that I think all of you will
Speaker 1: find quite insightful. We'll tweet it out after the segment
Speaker 1: without further ado, Professor you, thanks for joining us today, Ben,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. And I like this new title,
Speaker 1: human trigger Warning. I think I should get a what
Speaker 1: is it a called a Twitter handle or a T
Speaker 1: shirt T shirt that has that on the front. I
Speaker 1: love it and should be a right up top on
Speaker 1: your resume as well. All right, so let's jump right
Speaker 1: into it. John, you wrote a piece that I thought
Speaker 1: was exceptional at National Review about a week ago where
Speaker 1: you challenge some of the arguments about the president's legal
Speaker 1: authority to declare a national emergency and use that to
Speaker 1: reallocate funds for purposes of building a wall and supplement
Speaker 1: this one point three seventy five billion that he procured today.
Speaker 1: What is your best argument for why the president has
Speaker 1: the authority to do this? Well, first, as I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people in the media are really exactly
Speaker 1: treating what President Trump has done, of making the argument
Speaker 1: that it's a constitutional power grab and it's anything. But
Speaker 1: this is a case where Congress has the law called
Speaker 1: the National Emergencies Act in nineteen seventy six, and it
Speaker 1: said when the president issues a national emergency order, then
Speaker 1: he has to go through the following steps which have occurred.
Speaker 1: And most importantly, Congress does not sit there and define
Speaker 1: what a national emergency is. Instead, it just recognizes that
Speaker 1: has been and is the president's progative. Then step two,
Speaker 1: and this is the key, is Congress has already passed
Speaker 1: a series of statutes that say, when there is a
Speaker 1: national emergency declared by the president, then he can reallocate
Speaker 1: funds from any military construction project to a new one
Speaker 1: so long as it supports the troops. I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty straightforward. Actually, Then that the president has this already.
Speaker 1: I think I'm afraid what you're seeing is almost a
Speaker 1: Trump double standard. What would be normally approved, upheld, not
Speaker 1: even controversial under any other president is seen as somehow
Speaker 1: an attack on the constitution order just because the president's
Speaker 1: last name is Trump. You know. I think that's actually
Speaker 1: one of the untold stories of this presidency is there's
Speaker 1: the attack leveled. And I've mentioned this before, Oh, norms
Speaker 1: are being violated, the institutions are being threatened, the will
Speaker 1: of the people is being thwarted by this president acting unilaterally.
Speaker 1: Well actually relative to his predecessors. Can you think of
Speaker 1: a more constrained president in the sense of judges probably
Speaker 1: overreaching and the legislative branch really not being helpful in
Speaker 1: any sense. Well, he has been, i think, challenging court
Speaker 1: to a remarkable level. So you've seen cases where judges
Speaker 1: out here where I am in California, Hawaii have blocked
Speaker 1: various policies, and then you have cases where it's taken months,
Speaker 1: if not a year, for those cases to get to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, so that eventually the normal standards are applied.
Speaker 1: So a good example with the travel band, which I
Speaker 1: think will I think this case about the wall will
Speaker 1: play out very similarly to the travel band case. There
Speaker 1: you had courts out and why here block abuse of
Speaker 1: presidential power again given to him by Congress, that previous
Speaker 1: presidents had used regularly to regulate the flow of immigrants
Speaker 1: into the United States. And then it took you had
Speaker 1: to go all Trump had to go all the way
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court to get the regular powers that
Speaker 1: presidents exercise recognized and improved. And it's worth noting, of course,
Speaker 1: that in matters of national security, the president is typically
Speaker 1: provided wide latitude under the Constitution. Oh yes, and you know,
Speaker 1: as you know, Ben, you you know you interviewed peoplefore
Speaker 1: about my other books. The Constitution put aside these congressional statutes.
Speaker 1: But the Constitution created the presidency. The framers wanted the
Speaker 1: president to be a single person exactly so he could
Speaker 1: act quickly and decisively in response to emergencies. This is
Speaker 1: this is what Congress itself acknowledges when it gives the
Speaker 1: president these kinds of broad powers by statute to act
Speaker 1: in times of emergencies. So it's not a case where
Speaker 1: the president and Congress disagree. This is a case actually
Speaker 1: where Congress has handed these powers to the president to
Speaker 1: amplify his powers and make it easier for him to
Speaker 1: act in time of emergency. Now, I'm sure there's going
Speaker 1: to be some sort of absurd argument made about what
Speaker 1: is the definition of an emergency? And then does a
Speaker 1: judge get to overrule a president in the president's judgment
Speaker 1: about what an emergency is? Is there any merit to
Speaker 1: an argument like that or do you see probably a
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit judge saying yes, there is a problem to it,
Speaker 1: and the Supreme Court overruling that rationale. It's a great question.
Speaker 1: You know, what you're asking is what the law is
Speaker 1: and then predicting what some wild judge might do. So Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I think you're right, there's scott to be one judge
Speaker 1: out there in the eight hundred federal judges in our
Speaker 1: country who will strike this down, who just like the
Speaker 1: judges struck down the travel Then I think they're going
Speaker 1: to be judges who misread the law just because they
Speaker 1: want to stop Trump in any of these initiatives. But
Speaker 1: then what the actual law says is that courts aren't
Speaker 1: supposed to second guess the president in determining national emergency.
Speaker 1: The Supreme Court has never substituted its judgment for the
Speaker 1: presidents about whether a national emergency exists. The only question
Speaker 1: is how much power can the president exercise if there
Speaker 1: isn't once he declares an emergency. And there is a
Speaker 1: case from the nineteen fifties called Youngstown Sheet and Stealing Tube,
Speaker 1: where President Truman declared a national emergency occur over the
Speaker 1: Korean War, but then he tried to nationalize the steal
Speaker 1: industry basically run a large sector of our economy. And this,
Speaker 1: I think is very different from that. This is a
Speaker 1: case not where President Trump is claiming, oh, I can
Speaker 1: run the economy because of the border. But it's what
Speaker 1: he said, congress Or Ray said, I can move money
Speaker 1: from one account to another to build military facilities. Is
Speaker 1: much narrower power, not even really involving any claim of
Speaker 1: constitutional authority by President Trump. But that said, and I
Speaker 1: expect the Supreme Court would uphold the president. That said,
Speaker 1: I can't discount the possibility there's some trial judge in
Speaker 1: San Francisco or Honolulu or Seattle who be willing to
Speaker 1: try to throw the way to the courts against the
Speaker 1: president and spark a constitutional confrontation. Yeah, it strikes me
Speaker 1: actually since you raisetown steel, which all of those who
Speaker 1: are critics of this policy ray, is that Youngstown is
Speaker 1: actually probably the right response to those who say President
Speaker 1: Trump is creating a precedent that will allow some future
Speaker 1: Democratic president to impose the New Green Deal by decree,
Speaker 1: that Youngstown is actually probably a better analog for that
Speaker 1: than this case. Do you see that as well? I mean,
Speaker 1: I understand the worries of my conservative friends who say,
Speaker 1: aren't you creating a precedent for you know, President Warren
Speaker 1: or President Kamala Harris declaring a national emergency and then
Speaker 1: eliminating fossil fuel imports and forcing electrification of all and
Speaker 1: the slaughter of all cowns Exactly? Well, I believe it
Speaker 1: was certain kinds of cows keep it in, as it were.
Speaker 1: So you know the problem is that, you know, one
Speaker 1: it does say emergency. An emergency does imply an event
Speaker 1: or something happening. So you couldn't declare national emergency about
Speaker 1: the weather or crime levels or you know, poverty. You know,
Speaker 1: it's not a consistent social condition. It would have to
Speaker 1: be something happening, and you're responding to something happening otherwise
Speaker 1: than you're just you're not talking about an emergency. And
Speaker 1: then second, as you say, this is more like Youngstown,
Speaker 1: because again the question is what powers are you allowed
Speaker 1: to exercise? Here? You're just talking about transferring money from
Speaker 1: one military construction account to another. It's kind of boring
Speaker 1: federal budget accounting in a way. You know, these people
Speaker 1: were about a green New Deal and might let me
Speaker 1: add I can't see President Harris or President Warrenson. Oh,
Speaker 1: because President Trump did not declare national emergency over the wall.
Speaker 1: I'm going to restrain myself now. You know, I don't
Speaker 1: think anything President Trump does is going to act as
Speaker 1: some kind of restraint on what a future Warrant or
Speaker 1: Harris presidency will do. But you know, there's a big
Speaker 1: difference because they don't have any delegated power from Congress
Speaker 1: to force electrification of all of our energy and the
Speaker 1: end of use of fossil fuels and all the other
Speaker 1: wild dreams they have in the screen New Deal project
Speaker 1: and the way I see it, and this is as
Speaker 1: a layman talking here, you know, the delegation question is
Speaker 1: really what this all kind of comes down to in
Speaker 1: the final analysis, So is you've described it as sort
Speaker 1: of transferring funds from one account to another that had
Speaker 1: already been earmarked for the executive branch. Effectively, is there
Speaker 1: an argument that certain provisions of the National Emergency Act
Speaker 1: are unconstitutional because Congress is delegating powers It has no
Speaker 1: right to delegate. Ie. Congress exists to make laws and
Speaker 1: appropriate funds, and it isn't the president's job to basically
Speaker 1: be able to have that power handed to him. Again,
Speaker 1: I think this is a people like I've read commentary
Speaker 1: some you know, people who are conservatives, you know, like
Speaker 1: a Rampaul for example. I'm sorry, rand Pall, not a Rompall,
Speaker 1: a Rampaul for example. I think they're completely misreading this.
Speaker 1: You know, they're making this claim, Oh, the president is
Speaker 1: seizing authority to use the power of the purse. It's anything.
Speaker 1: But you know, if it had been like Lincoln, who
Speaker 1: actually at the start of the Civil War went into
Speaker 1: the treasuring took money out without any congressional act, then
Speaker 1: you would have that argument. But this is a case
Speaker 1: where Congress already put money in the pot and it
Speaker 1: said spend it on military construction, billions of dollars, and
Speaker 1: then the president said, and then Congress says, under certain conditions,
Speaker 1: you can move it from one project to the next.
Speaker 1: The money's already been appropriated by Congress, the purse has
Speaker 1: already been opened, and in fact then Congress already recognized
Speaker 1: the authority of a president to move it around. So
Speaker 1: I think you know, these claims that the president is
Speaker 1: evading the power of the purse taking away congress urs
Speaker 1: this is anything, But this is an area where Congress
Speaker 1: wanted the president to have this power and gave it
Speaker 1: away willingly. One of the attacks on the president's power,
Speaker 1: and we'll have to leave it at this question, but
Speaker 1: I'd love to hear your take on it. One of
Speaker 1: the biggest assaults on his power during this presidency has
Speaker 1: been the use of universal or nationwide injunctions, where effectively
Speaker 1: one in six hundred judges in federal courts across the
Speaker 1: country can say, my judgment overrules the president's judgment, and
Speaker 1: thus a decision some kind of executive action will be
Speaker 1: vacated or stalled put on hold for everyone in the country.
Speaker 1: So one judge who has jurisdiction in one particular area,
Speaker 1: their ruling applies to everyone nationwide. And this has of
Speaker 1: course happened with the travel ban and in series of
Speaker 1: other instances as well. In response to that travel band case,
Speaker 1: Justice Clarence Thomas, one of your former bosses, challenge the
Speaker 1: notion that universal injunctions are necessarily constitutional, that there wasn't
Speaker 1: really a historical precedent for them. They're sort of a
Speaker 1: new creation, and frankly, he thinks that a president or
Speaker 1: some other party may have to challenge them to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. I agree with him. Frankly, my question would be,
Speaker 1: is there a way do you believe that universal injunctions
Speaker 1: can be killed? Well, first, I agree with Justice Thomas,
Speaker 1: who has I have to say, excellent taste in his hires.
Speaker 1: But I have to say, Josice Thomas, I think is
Speaker 1: right on this, and I think it's fairly straightforward. A court,
Speaker 1: like a district court like the ones here, have power
Speaker 1: only over the people who appear before in its territory.
Speaker 1: Sole San Francisco's territory of its courts is only the
Speaker 1: northern part of California. They don't have, I think, the
Speaker 1: authority to tell the entire federal government. God, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: We're gonna have to cut it right there. We will
Speaker 1: have you back, and we will finish this conversation. And
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. This was John Yu and this is
Speaker 1: Ben Weingarten in four Buck Sexon on the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show eight four four nine zero zero two eight
Speaker 1: two five will be right back. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon Show and this is Ben Weingarten in four Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton ones. Open it for four nine zero zero to
Speaker 1: eight to five. You can follow me on Twitter at
Speaker 1: bh Winegarden. Let's go to the phone here, Let's go
Speaker 1: to Charlie in Ocean City, Maryland. Charlie, you're on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show. Thanks for taking my call, Arabn.
Speaker 1: I just I'm a little older senior citizen, but I
Speaker 1: followed politics pretty well and I'm a conservative, and I'm
Speaker 1: not ashamed of that. I think a lot of our
Speaker 1: supposed conservative Republicans don't really vote that way. And my
Speaker 1: question to you is, since you guys had such a
Speaker 1: big voice, why can't we public they're voting, whether it
Speaker 1: be in the Senate or into Congress and make it public.
Speaker 1: Because all politicians, once they get into office, they're most
Speaker 1: prioritize vision is reelection and if we start publishing how
Speaker 1: they vote, then they will be more aware of their voters,
Speaker 1: which is me. Charlie thanks for the cause. So I
Speaker 1: think the idea here is sort of name and shame.
Speaker 1: Pull out the ten most vital votes and let's get
Speaker 1: everyone on record, and let's put it out there. And
Speaker 1: you know what I would suggest to you, Charlie, is,
Speaker 1: like you said, the first role of politics is win.
Speaker 1: The second role politics is win reelection. And for folks
Speaker 1: in the House, they continue to sort of hoodwink voters.
Speaker 1: And part of this is that who do they really
Speaker 1: answer to? Ultimately they ultimately answer to their donors. And
Speaker 1: you have every once in a blue moon, you know,
Speaker 1: someone like a Dave of Brad who comes out and
Speaker 1: wins on principles and ideology. The best thing that we
Speaker 1: can do long term isn't any one particular election. We
Speaker 1: have to take back the real institutions, the institutions that
Speaker 1: build civil society. Our full sure, our schools are media
Speaker 1: that should be our hundred year project. Just like the
Speaker 1: Progressives had their long March, this has been Winartan in
Speaker 1: for Buck Sex and on the Buck Sex and Show
Speaker 1: eight four four nine zero zero two eight two five
Speaker 1: Morning Coffee is an American institution. That's why when it
Speaker 1: comes to starting my day, I reach for the most
Speaker 1: American coffee on the market, Black Rifle Coffee. I like
Speaker 1: to load up on Black Raffle Coffee for extra ammunition
Speaker 1: two times per day. It's got a great flavor, it
Speaker 1: packs a punch, and it reflects my conservative values. Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee gives a portion of their sales to veteran
Speaker 1: and first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee is rose to order,
Speaker 1: guaranteeing you fresh, delicious coffee with every order. Black Rifle's
Speaker 1: Coffee Club makes things easy. Just pick your plan in
Speaker 1: the amount you want, and Black Raffles ships your coffee
Speaker 1: right to your door every month. Hassle free, wake up
Speaker 1: with America's coffee, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is ben Wine
Speaker 1: Garden in four Buck Sexon here at the top of
Speaker 1: our three dialing numbers eight four four nine zero zero
Speaker 1: two eight to five, and you can follow me on
Speaker 1: Twitter at bh wine Garden right in the past couple hours,
Speaker 1: we talked a lot about sovereignty citizenship, and I mentioned
Speaker 1: that this census citizenship question is really intrinsic to the
Speaker 1: entire broader argument, and it's being challenged in mitigation right now,
Speaker 1: which we found out today is headed up to the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Jay Chrishan Adams serve from two thousand and
Speaker 1: five to twenty ten and the Voting Section at the
Speaker 1: United States Department of Justice, so he knows a little
Speaker 1: thing or two about the Voting Rights Act and why
Speaker 1: the census citizenship question is relevant to it. Today he's
Speaker 1: President in General Council of the Public Interest Legal Foundation
Speaker 1: known as PILF, which has filed amicus curi briefs alongside
Speaker 1: the Commerce Department, both in the New York federal case
Speaker 1: and now at the Supreme Court is where that New
Speaker 1: York case has been punted to. Christian Adams joins us. Now, Christian,
Speaker 1: how are you, sir? I'm great glad to be here. Well,
Speaker 1: it's my pleasure and thanks for all the great work
Speaker 1: that PILF does. Let's get right to it. I think
Speaker 1: that this case of census citizenship is a perfect microcosm
Speaker 1: for how the left uses lawfare to pursue its policy objectives.
Speaker 1: And let's start with a very basic question about this
Speaker 1: New York federal case, which is who filed the case
Speaker 1: against the Trump administration and did they have a right
Speaker 1: to be heard? That is, did they have standing? Oh,
Speaker 1: my gracious, who filed? Well, remember, there's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of cases happening at one time. You have you have
Speaker 1: you have a tax going on in California, in Maryland.
Speaker 1: These obviously came out of New York. You have groups
Speaker 1: like the Legal Women Voters, you have you have other
Speaker 1: organizations who all want to stop all want to stop
Speaker 1: the the census, stop the Census from actually getting real
Speaker 1: scientific data about the number of non citizens who live
Speaker 1: in the United States. It's it's just an astonishing You know,
Speaker 1: we hear all the time about science and how one
Speaker 1: party is the party of science. Well, here's an example
Speaker 1: where somebody doesn't want the truth about what's happening out there.
Speaker 1: So let's go to the substance of the case. You know,
Speaker 1: the argument is made that by having this question essentially
Speaker 1: are you a citizen or not? And the only box
Speaker 1: if you're in the not category is no, not a citizen.
Speaker 1: So in other words, you don't out yourself as an
Speaker 1: illegal alien potentially, but more broadly, why is it imperative
Speaker 1: that the government have accurate accounts of citizens and non citizens? Right?
Speaker 1: The reason that the Trump administration offered is that it
Speaker 1: helps enforce the voting right Tack the Voting Right Attact,
Speaker 1: of course, prevents discrimination in voting. And I can tell
Speaker 1: you from very first hand experience that that is the
Speaker 1: truth that when you have citizenship data and you're preparing
Speaker 1: a voting rights at case, you have a better case.
Speaker 1: How do I know this because I do it repeatedly.
Speaker 1: I won a case in federal court very recently as
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, in the United States District Court
Speaker 1: for Guam. I'm actually in representing an Air Force retire
Speaker 1: Air Force major in Guam who was denied the right
Speaker 1: to vote because he was not a native tomorrow. And
Speaker 1: we were able to prove that this law was racially
Speaker 1: discriminatory in its intent because of the senses data from
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty and I won't trouble you with all the
Speaker 1: ins and outs of that was very important that year
Speaker 1: because that's when Guam became a territory with the people
Speaker 1: they're getting rights as citizenship. So we were able to
Speaker 1: figure out how many people were citizens and not citizens
Speaker 1: in nineteen fifty because the census asked that question. But
Speaker 1: that's only one example. When I was at the Justice
Speaker 1: Department and I was bringing voting rights at cases, one
Speaker 1: of the things you would put in your initial complaint
Speaker 1: was the citizen population. Now, the problem is that in
Speaker 1: most places in the country that's an estimate because you
Speaker 1: don't have the real data. Because remember that's what those
Speaker 1: fights all about, and so we would have to make
Speaker 1: guesses sometimes, and getting citizenship data in the next senses
Speaker 1: will help him enforce the Voting Rights Act. YEA. So
Speaker 1: this judge who Obama appointed judge in the Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York, he says in his opinion that the
Speaker 1: census citizenship question is quote unquote not inconsistent with the Constitution. Ie,
Speaker 1: there's not really a constitutional argument against asking something as
Speaker 1: basic as are you a citizen or not? His beef,
Speaker 1: if I'm reading the opinion correctly, is with how Commerce
Speaker 1: Secretary Wilber came to his decision, and then basically questioning
Speaker 1: his judgment altogether. How is it possible that a judge
Speaker 1: can substitute his wisdom for the person to whom the
Speaker 1: power is delegated here in this case, the Commerce Secretary. Right,
Speaker 1: the Congress has specifically delegated this power to do the
Speaker 1: citizenship to do all the senses questions to Commerce Secretary
Speaker 1: Wilbur Ross. But you know what, the New York Immigration Coalition,
Speaker 1: who's the plaintiff in that case, doesn't like that. So
Speaker 1: what they had to do was form shop go to
Speaker 1: Manhattan to find a judge who who apparently thinks that
Speaker 1: the President can be second guest on this no matter
Speaker 1: what Congress said to the contrary. And so what the
Speaker 1: plaintiffs are saying is, hey, you didn't listen to the bureaucrats.
Speaker 1: You know, this is just a pretext. You're supposed to
Speaker 1: listen to the bureaucrats. You're supposed to basically do whatever
Speaker 1: the New York Immigration Coalition once, or they're going to
Speaker 1: take you to court. And thank goodness, we have a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court now that is almost certainly likely to uphold
Speaker 1: the citizenship question. Yeah, this judge in New York essentially
Speaker 1: struck down the citizenship question on the basis of the
Speaker 1: administrative Procedures Act. In other words, the way that the
Speaker 1: Commerce Secretary came to his decision and what that decision
Speaker 1: ultimately was. Do you think that case holds up at
Speaker 1: all when it gets to the Supreme Court. No. I
Speaker 1: think what will happen is the Supreme Court justices who
Speaker 1: are very familiar with the exercises, simply reading what the
Speaker 1: laws says. Right. The law says that the Commerce Secretary
Speaker 1: has the authority to write the census questions, full stop. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's all you need to decide this case is to
Speaker 1: look at the law and see who has the power
Speaker 1: to write the census questions under a law passed by
Speaker 1: the Congress and signed by the President. That's the kind
Speaker 1: of basic stuff we learned in Schoolhouse Rock. When the
Speaker 1: laws passed, it is a law and we have to
Speaker 1: follow it. But these days up is down and in
Speaker 1: is out. And this judge sided with the New York
Speaker 1: Immigration Coalition. Last question on this, and I think this
Speaker 1: really gets to the core of a much bigger argument
Speaker 1: which hasn't been made yet, but I believe should be made.
Speaker 1: And I'm going to argue in a piece coming out
Speaker 1: soon at the Federalists that it must be made. The
Speaker 1: reality here is that non citizens essentially empower certain citizens
Speaker 1: politically and disempower other citizens politically, because, as I've discussed
Speaker 1: earlier in this episode tonight, apportionment is determined based upon
Speaker 1: total population count ie citizens and non citizens, as well
Speaker 1: as the allocation of hundreds of billions of federal dollars
Speaker 1: are dictated based upon total population count. And it goes
Speaker 1: to this question of the definition of people the enumeration
Speaker 1: both in the Constitution and then in the fourteenth Amendment.
Speaker 1: In your view, is there a legal case to be
Speaker 1: made for defining people as citizens, period, full stop, and
Speaker 1: is it being made? Well, Okay, now we're talking about
Speaker 1: a number of different things. Just to be clear, Apportionment
Speaker 1: is how many congressional seats each state gets, Okay, and
Speaker 1: so far they've used total population. It does say people
Speaker 1: in the Constitution, So the question is is that citizens
Speaker 1: non citizens are both. What I think is also very
Speaker 1: fascinating is when it comes to redistricting, you talk about
Speaker 1: political impacts all over the country. There are people elected
Speaker 1: to office who are elected solely because because they're counting
Speaker 1: non citizens for drawing the district lines for things like
Speaker 1: school board, county council, state legislatures. Who's getting screwed by this?
Speaker 1: For example, African Americans in Los Angeles. African Americans in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles have been losing political power and political seats
Speaker 1: on council over the last twenty years because of the
Speaker 1: influx of illegal aliens into Los Angeles and the fact
Speaker 1: that they're being counted for the purpose of drawing district
Speaker 1: lines for school board and council seats, and so what's
Speaker 1: happened is African Americans have been squeezed out. Here's how
Speaker 1: that works. Let's say you need one hundred thousand people
Speaker 1: in each district. Okay, it's probably more than that, but
Speaker 1: we'll just take it. For an example, if you need
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand people in a Hispanic district in Los Angeles,
Speaker 1: there might be seventy thousand citizen Hispanics and thirty thousand
Speaker 1: non citizens. But in that African American district, where they're
Speaker 1: almost all citizens, it's going to take a hundred thousand citizens.
Speaker 1: So Hispanic seat gets created under the Voting Rights Act
Speaker 1: because there's seventy thousand Hispanic citizens, and a African American
Speaker 1: seat gets created only after there's one hundred thousand see
Speaker 1: see what happens. It's a political subsidy to areas with
Speaker 1: high alien populations. Last question, real quick before I let
Speaker 1: you go, because you've been doing great work on this
Speaker 1: HR one, the first bill put forth in the new
Speaker 1: Democratic House. Tell our listeners what they need to know
Speaker 1: about HR one. This is Nancy Pelosi's top priority. It
Speaker 1: takes every bad idea about elections and makes it a
Speaker 1: federal mandate. Takes all of the nonsense from California, just everything.
Speaker 1: It stripped states of their powers to run their own elections.
Speaker 1: It federalizes all state elections into one centralized control. It's
Speaker 1: their top priority. It is their number one priority. It's
Speaker 1: a disaster Christian On that sunny note, we'll leave it
Speaker 1: right there. Thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate all
Speaker 1: your great work. This has Ben Wangaran in for Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show eight four four nine
Speaker 1: zero zero two eight two five will be right back.
Speaker 1: By now. You've probably heard Buck talk about snippy dot
Speaker 1: com new social media website. If you looked at snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and left book again, thousands of Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and show listeners like you of joint snippy dot com
Speaker 1: expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy is
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform that's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
Speaker 1: users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators.
Speaker 1: Snippy is a place where everyone is free to express
Speaker 1: their thoughts and share their opinions. It's a real safe space.
Speaker 1: Snippy is totally free to join, open to everyone. Join
Speaker 1: us at snippy dot com and let your opinion matter.
Speaker 1: There's no shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever.
Speaker 1: Now with an updated user interface and exciting new features,
Speaker 1: also available in the Apple App Store and now available
Speaker 1: for Android, Snippy your new alternative social media. This is
Speaker 1: the Bucksex and Show, and this is Ben Wangarten in
Speaker 1: four bucksex in lines are open eight four four nine
Speaker 1: zero zero Buck. That's eight four four nine zero zero
Speaker 1: to eight two five. All right, we're gonna go to
Speaker 1: the phone lines real quick, and I understand we have
Speaker 1: a one Robert Francis O'Rourke from El Paso, Texas joining us.
Speaker 1: Robert Francis, You're on the Buck Sexton Show. Hello, Benn,
Speaker 1: how are you I'm well, I'm well, mister a roork
Speaker 1: how are you, sir? I'm okay then, But I just
Speaker 1: like I just don't understand, like like why don't you
Speaker 1: open your heart the way that we should open the borders?
Speaker 1: Like I just I just want to know, like do
Speaker 1: you do you just not want like your heart to
Speaker 1: be full of love and immigrants. There's room in your
Speaker 1: honor for immigrants, So representative of ROURK, I want to
Speaker 1: ask you about that. If you were elected president, would
Speaker 1: your first act be to tear down every wall? Absolutely?
Speaker 1: I want to tear down walls the same way then
Speaker 1: I want to tear down the barriers between people when
Speaker 1: like it's just time to give out hugs at a
Speaker 1: rally that like maybe has thirty or forty people down
Speaker 1: the street from a Trump rally with like fifteen or
Speaker 1: twenty thousand people. And I just also, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you know this, man, because I know you're a
Speaker 1: conservative and you think you know things, but perhaps like
Speaker 1: when you build walls and you're skateboarding, you can run
Speaker 1: into those walls. That's about that is a valid point
Speaker 1: that now it is valid that actually it is no, no, no,
Speaker 1: Can I ask you to the extent to which you're
Speaker 1: not living on the streets of Brooklyn these days. Do
Speaker 1: you have walls surrounding you when you're abode right now,
Speaker 1: then let me explain something, okay, because when I'm the
Speaker 1: next president, I just don't want to have to go
Speaker 1: over the same ground because I'm very busy. That's why
Speaker 1: I have to do social media while people see my
Speaker 1: root canal happening. And I just feel like it's time
Speaker 1: for people to understand that, yes, I'm maybe a mare
Speaker 1: into a family that is worth like a cool four
Speaker 1: or five hundred million dollars, but I'm totally normal. And
Speaker 1: the compound in which I live, like when we go
Speaker 1: see like Papa and Mama and like say, are flying
Speaker 1: us in with helicopters? Of course there's walls, ben because
Speaker 1: like we're really important. Now, let me ask you something,
Speaker 1: because you went through many trials and tribuations in your life,
Speaker 1: what was the toughest thing about being a nanny on
Speaker 1: the Upper West Side of New York following your ivlegue education. Well,
Speaker 1: it's hard because like when you're a left wing sex
Speaker 1: symbol like I am, like you know, the people like
Speaker 1: ladies just come over and they're like, oh my god, Pato,
Speaker 1: you're going to stop climate change? And also I need
Speaker 1: to see your washboard apps. I'd be like, excuse me, first,
Speaker 1: are we going to bring down the climate one degree
Speaker 1: centigrade or not? And if they said yes, then obviously
Speaker 1: they could see my abdominal bless you may be the
Speaker 1: cause of global warming yourself. Actually, I think that's a
Speaker 1: fair point. And I just also want to say, band man, congratulations,
Speaker 1: I'll do it a great show, my friend, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for hope. The team is loving it, and
Speaker 1: I'm let you get back to it, all right. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. But I was going to ask you, you know,
Speaker 1: do you think that the claim that Beato is cultural
Speaker 1: appropriation holds any water. I'm curious to see your thoughts
Speaker 1: on that. Uh is the cultural appropriation for millennials or
Speaker 1: is a cultural creation for a guy that uses a
Speaker 1: Hispanic nickname because he thinks it makes him sound cool.
Speaker 1: I don't know, man, when he's running against the Cuban.
Speaker 1: I leave this stuff to you. I have a great rest.
Speaker 1: I'm flying up the lines. You got people in the
Speaker 1: team calling in. Let me, let me let you get
Speaker 1: back to you with my friend thank you so much
Speaker 1: for all your great work. Brother. I'll talk to you soon. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you for letting me fill your big shoes, Buck
Speaker 1: and I appreciate it. And that's a hell of a
Speaker 1: Beato impression, folks. He may be more likable than the
Speaker 1: actual Robert Francis O. Rourke. All Right, we're gonna go
Speaker 1: take one quick call and then we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: hit a break. Let's go to Don in Mobile, Alabama.
Speaker 1: Don you want to talk about the new Green Deal something.
Speaker 1: Beata L. Rourke surely is a fan of you. Are
Speaker 1: on the buck sex and show. Yeah, absolutely, Ben and
Speaker 1: uh let buck No, we need to start saying shields higher.
Speaker 1: I think, um, yeah, I've got a little, a little
Speaker 1: quick thing. I want to run by everybody. Magnetic propulsion
Speaker 1: train system from San Diego to probably somewhere around Brownsville,
Speaker 1: Texas runs along the border of the US Mexican border.
Speaker 1: The Democrats can start their pilot project for the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal. Let Trump have his money to build his
Speaker 1: steel magnetic propulsion system. They can put their bullet train
Speaker 1: on top of it and they can travel from San
Speaker 1: Diego to Brownsville, and then they could start their oversea
Speaker 1: probably I don't know, maybe Costa Rica. You know, the
Speaker 1: train system they're talking about. They must have some kind
Speaker 1: of technology that we just don't know about yet, about
Speaker 1: doing away with aircraft and automobiles, and you know, I
Speaker 1: just thought that might be something we could, you know,
Speaker 1: ask Buck about what do you think? Well, yeah, and
Speaker 1: you know, probably for less than seventy seven billion dollars
Speaker 1: as well, which, oh, by the way, in California they
Speaker 1: failed to build a train from La to San Francisco.
Speaker 1: You know what, though, your your idea though, Yeah, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead, don there, Yeah, you know your your idea though.
Speaker 1: There's definitely merit to because you see all the people
Speaker 1: fleeing in droves from California to Texas. So I think
Speaker 1: you might have a business plan there. You should probably
Speaker 1: talk to Elon Musk about that. Yes, sir, might make
Speaker 1: me a millionaire. Huh exactly. We sall know how to vote, brother,
Speaker 1: Shields high, Shields higher. I appreciate the call of Don.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk a little bit in the last little
Speaker 1: remaining time that we have a bit about economics and
Speaker 1: the New Green Deal, so called Green New Deal rather
Speaker 1: and what that's all about. You know, part of the
Speaker 1: argument that has not been leveled. But and maybe it's
Speaker 1: because people aren't taking it seriously, but they really should
Speaker 1: given how many members we're talking at least around seventy
Speaker 1: members of Congress that the Senate and the House, including
Speaker 1: a number of announced presidential contenders on the Democratic side,
Speaker 1: Given how many folks are actually supporting this thing, it's
Speaker 1: probably worth taking a closer look at. And I think
Speaker 1: what you really see is that the Democrats are scared
Speaker 1: because all the energy in their party is really with
Speaker 1: the Okazio Cortez Rashida twayib ilhan Omar caucus. That is
Speaker 1: where the power is. You saw it with Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: and this is just the young generation version of Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: because the progressives have dominated at our institutions for the
Speaker 1: last forty or fifty years. So Bernie is old, but
Speaker 1: his ideas are new. They're blooming right now, except that
Speaker 1: they've been tried repeatedly throughout history and failed and left
Speaker 1: people in poverty, misery, starvation. And we'll talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about that in our last half hour. But I
Speaker 1: also want to talk about the fact that what is
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal, Well, was the first New Deal
Speaker 1: itself such a smashing success. Did it actually lead us
Speaker 1: to prosper Did it get us out of the Great Depression?
Speaker 1: Words matter when we talk about the success of the
Speaker 1: New Deal. So a green new deal is going to
Speaker 1: be even better? Why challenge that assertion? And anyone who
Speaker 1: loves liberty, and anyone who's honest should challenge that too.
Speaker 1: This has ben Winegarden in for Buck sexon on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sex and Show eight four four nine zero zero
Speaker 1: two eight two five eight four four nine zero zero
Speaker 1: two eight two five. Medicare for All would save the
Speaker 1: American people a very large amount of money. Why aren't
Speaker 1: we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of
Speaker 1: those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare.
Speaker 1: We look at these figures and we say, oh, unemployment
Speaker 1: is low. Everything is fine, right, Well, unemployment is low
Speaker 1: because everyone has two jobs. I need to occupy every airport,
Speaker 1: We need to occupy every border, we need to occupy
Speaker 1: every ice office. If we work our butts off to
Speaker 1: make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress,
Speaker 1: rather all three chambers of government, the Presidency, the Senate,
Speaker 1: the House. You use the term the occupation of Palestine.
Speaker 1: What did you mean by that? Oh? Um? I think
Speaker 1: what I meant is like the settlement. Just last year,
Speaker 1: we gave the military a seven hundred billion dollars tack
Speaker 1: a budget increase which they didn't even ask for, and
Speaker 1: we're like, the world is going to end in twelve
Speaker 1: years if we don't address climate change. And your biggest
Speaker 1: issue is your biggest issue is how are we going
Speaker 1: to pay for it? No, I think it is a
Speaker 1: green dream, and I think that it is it is.
Speaker 1: This is ben Winegarden and this is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: show that was Alexandrocazio Cortez. I'm just speechless listening to
Speaker 1: that montage. Follow me on Twitter at b h Wine
Speaker 1: Garden and we started with that little montage because I
Speaker 1: wanted to talk a little bit about the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal and what it's all about. And Occazio Cortez as
Speaker 1: a freshman congresswoman from New York. Her counterpart in New York,
Speaker 1: the Governor Cuomo, recently made some remarks and I think
Speaker 1: that this all sort of fits together here. Now. Acasio
Speaker 1: Quartez recently in New York helped kill Amazon coming to
Speaker 1: New York, and she didn't make the arguments on chrony
Speaker 1: capitalism grounds, which might have been a legitimate argument. You know,
Speaker 1: should a city like New York or a state provide
Speaker 1: all sorts of incentives several hundred million dollars in essentially
Speaker 1: giveaways and then taxes that would not have to be
Speaker 1: paid down the road. Well, regardless, twenty five thousand jobs
Speaker 1: went up in smoke, and I think that's a pretty
Speaker 1: good start to where the Green New Deal is. Actually
Speaker 1: they would rather their impose their dream quote unquote green dream,
Speaker 1: then actually see prosperity. She made the comment about, oh, well,
Speaker 1: everyone has two jobs and that's why unemployment is solo,
Speaker 1: which is not how unemployment is calculated. Of course. I know,
Speaker 1: by the way, during the Obama years, when they tried,
Speaker 1: you know, a fraction, just a mere the smallest percentage
Speaker 1: possible relative to what the Green New Deal is talking about,
Speaker 1: we had declining unemployment rates only because millions of people
Speaker 1: were falling out of the workforce. There is now a
Speaker 1: much higher percentage of people in the workforce and actively
Speaker 1: looking for jobs. It's completely different scenario because the policies
Speaker 1: have completely flipped. In any event, Acasio Cortez against Amazon,
Speaker 1: Cuomo and others for Amazon, and why was Cuomo for
Speaker 1: Amazon being here? Well, he complained recently that essentially all
Speaker 1: of the wealthy taxpayers are fleeing New York and going
Speaker 1: to Florida. Gee, can you imagine that A guy who
Speaker 1: said conservatives are not welcome in this city, A guy
Speaker 1: who believes in infanticide and celebrates it, a guy who
Speaker 1: believes in taxing and spending ad infinitum. Why would people
Speaker 1: want to leave a place where your tax rate could
Speaker 1: be over fifty percent all in and go to a
Speaker 1: place where there's no state income tax and better weather
Speaker 1: for that matter. Well, the numbers are actually in, and
Speaker 1: the big winners you'll be shocked in net domestic migration
Speaker 1: in the past year include Florida plus one hundred and
Speaker 1: thirty two thousand, six hundred and two, Arizona plus eighty
Speaker 1: three thousand, two hundred and forty, and Texas eighty two thousand,
Speaker 1: five hundred and sixty nine. What states are losing New
Speaker 1: York negative one hundred and eighty thousand, three hundred and six,
Speaker 1: California negative one hundred and fifty six thousand and sixty eight,
Speaker 1: Illinois negative one hundred and fourteen thousand and one fifty four,
Speaker 1: and what do all these states have in common. It
Speaker 1: answers itself. It really answers itself. Okay, So then you
Speaker 1: have people like aoc Alexandriacazio Cortez. You know, she's celebrating,
Speaker 1: she tweeted anything as possible. Today was the day a
Speaker 1: group of dedicated every day in New Yorkers and their
Speaker 1: neighbors defeated Amazon's corporate greed. It's worker exploitation and the
Speaker 1: power of the richest man in the world. Good good
Speaker 1: luck getting the Washington Post indorsement anytime soon, by the way,
Speaker 1: when you're attacking Jeff Bezos's company. But beyond that, yeay,
Speaker 1: down with jobs twenty five thousand jobs gone for a
Speaker 1: New Yorker, it's an amazing argument. But there's something that
Speaker 1: links both Acasio Quartez and Cuomo, and that is Cuomo
Speaker 1: doesn't want to see people fleeing his state because he's
Speaker 1: afraid there's actually competition. There's federalism in this country. There's
Speaker 1: still a concept of states being laboratories of experiment. And
Speaker 1: if my state has a much more favorable business climate,
Speaker 1: tax climate, other areas, you know, more freedom and education,
Speaker 1: educational choice than the like politicians to represent their values.
Speaker 1: People can still get up and walk, and the federal government,
Speaker 1: no matter how much power it has taken, there is
Speaker 1: still a difference between these states. What AOC wants to
Speaker 1: do is help solve Andrew Cuomo's problem by federalizing everything
Speaker 1: so that there is no difference and there is no
Speaker 1: state to escape too. Just like America is the last
Speaker 1: fashion of freedom in the world, there's no other country
Speaker 1: to escape to when things get bad here. What the
Speaker 1: left wants to do is say, all of our states
Speaker 1: are struggling New York, Illinois, California, these progressive as the
Speaker 1: places where everything should be wonderful all the time, and
Speaker 1: they want to federalize the very policies that are at
Speaker 1: those states, so you can't go anywhere. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, the productive states have to subsidize the unproductive states.
Speaker 1: There is another element of this, and that ultimately comes
Speaker 1: down to the fact that the New Green Deal Green
Speaker 1: New Deal quote unquote, what it is really all about
Speaker 1: is socialism with a smiley face of environmentalism on it.
Speaker 1: It creates a facade of legitimacy based upon the fact that,
Speaker 1: according to Alexandriocazio, Cortez, the world is going to end
Speaker 1: in twelve years unless we massively redistribute wealth and power
Speaker 1: to Washington, DC. And oh, by the way, Washington DC
Speaker 1: is going to be the one creating all the jobs
Speaker 1: by imposing the same policies that let's say, let's see
Speaker 1: seventy seven billion dollars wasted in California to do a
Speaker 1: high speed train that they can't get between Los Angeles
Speaker 1: and San Francisco. But Accazio Cortez wants to do it intercontinental. Vermont,
Speaker 1: that's another progressive bastion. It's very small. You would think
Speaker 1: that if you were going to be able to have
Speaker 1: socialism anywhere, it would be in Bernie Sanders's home state.
Speaker 1: Guess what. Vermont ha to ditch single payer healthcare several
Speaker 1: years ago because it just didn't work. The costs were
Speaker 1: rising too high. That's in little Vermont. Now, people on
Speaker 1: the left, they'll tell you, well, look at the Scandinavian countries. See, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're not Venezuela. We don't believe in that sort of socialism.
Speaker 1: We believe in the Scandinavian kind. We'll look at the
Speaker 1: statistics and what you'll see is that besides the fact
Speaker 1: that the Scandinavian countries are small and they have relatively
Speaker 1: homogeneous populations that get along well. It's very cohesive culturally
Speaker 1: in the like, so you don't have any issues there.
Speaker 1: They actually have very free market economies and based upon
Speaker 1: some ratings, actually are more liberalized than the US is.
Speaker 1: So yes, they have generous welfare states, but they have
Speaker 1: societies that can deal with the downsides of them, first
Speaker 1: of all, and second, second of all, they're very restrictive
Speaker 1: in terms of their immigration. They want productive people coming,
Speaker 1: people who believe in the ethoses that animate those nations.
Speaker 1: And third, they have relatively free market economies that are
Speaker 1: able to underscore and overwhelm the largest that's doled out
Speaker 1: by the government. My question to all the green New
Speaker 1: dealers is how many experiences with central planning do we
Speaker 1: have to have before we realize the disastrous consequences everywhere
Speaker 1: they're tried, And how many times are people going to
Speaker 1: be duped by the fact that, except for the truest
Speaker 1: of true believers, what these policies are really about is
Speaker 1: more power in Washington, DC over your life. All you
Speaker 1: have to do to look at how this works out.
Speaker 1: You can look at Venezuela. For starters, you can go
Speaker 1: back to the founding of the United States, Flymouth Governor
Speaker 1: William Bradford back in Plymouth, we're talking in the sixteen
Speaker 1: twenties year prior to Thanksgiving, they essentially had communism, in
Speaker 1: his own words in his diaries, communism, and they almost
Speaker 1: literally died off when they implemented private property rights. Suddenly
Speaker 1: there was bounty and that led to the Thanksgiving that's
Speaker 1: been depicted. There are many other examples in real time
Speaker 1: in the real world recent years. East Germany versus West Germany.
Speaker 1: That was a real example of the exact same nation,
Speaker 1: essentially the same people, the same starting point, the same infrastructure.
Speaker 1: One was governor under the iron curtain of communism, the
Speaker 1: other was free. How did that turnout? North Korea versus
Speaker 1: South Korea today? Again, we can't get a high speed
Speaker 1: rail line in progressive California. You can't do socialized medicine
Speaker 1: in Vermont. What the Left wants to do that was
Speaker 1: make sure that these policies are imposed everywhere. They want
Speaker 1: to take these failures and put them on steroids. The
Speaker 1: size and scope of the Green New Deal would cover
Speaker 1: every aspect of your life. It wasn't just in the
Speaker 1: fact sheet that came out that they then had to
Speaker 1: pull back and claim it was a gaff or a
Speaker 1: doctor document created as some kind of right wing conspiracy. No,
Speaker 1: the size and scope says that the aims are what
Speaker 1: was in FDR's sort of square deal in effect or
Speaker 1: his second Bill of Rights rather, and those weren't rights,
Speaker 1: we're services. You have the right to great healthcare and
Speaker 1: affordable cost. You have the right to a job. You
Speaker 1: have the right to all manner of things that are
Speaker 1: created in a free world that government cannot decree. They
Speaker 1: cannot buy Fiat rain down from the heavens. Here are jobs,
Speaker 1: here is wealth, and the New Deal itself is a
Speaker 1: great example of that. And when we come back, we'll
Speaker 1: do a little history lesson to show that the New
Speaker 1: Deal was terrible. The Green New Deal will be ten
Speaker 1: times as disastrous. This is Ben Winegarden in for Buck
Speaker 1: Sexon on the Buck Sex and Show. Eight four four
Speaker 1: nine zero zero two eight two five eight four four
Speaker 1: nine zero zero two eight two five. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon Show. And this is Ben Weingarten in for
Speaker 1: Buck Sexon All right, before we close up shop tonight,
Speaker 1: As I was mentioning when I hear green New Deal
Speaker 1: raised words matter what was the New Deal? And the
Speaker 1: fact that we have to go through this history lesson
Speaker 1: every time socialism is brought forth really gets tiring, frankly,
Speaker 1: But it cannot be said enough. The New Deal was
Speaker 1: not some panacea that did not get us out of
Speaker 1: the Great Depression. It's a myth. A couple of economists
Speaker 1: proved this pretty well. Harold Cole of the University of
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and Leohnian of UCLA wrote back in two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, and this was during the financial crisis, when
Speaker 1: there were all sorts of arguments for we need essentially
Speaker 1: a second New Deal, and we got part of the
Speaker 1: way there. They did an article and they showed that
Speaker 1: actually the New Deal impeded the recovery. Why did it
Speaker 1: impede economic recovery? Because it implemented all sorts of collectivists
Speaker 1: measures that hampered the free market's ability to adjust after
Speaker 1: the dislocation of the economic crash. If it didn't work,
Speaker 1: then after a crash, when your recovery is supposed to
Speaker 1: be quite strong because you're getting back to normal, why
Speaker 1: would it work now? Why would we take a booming
Speaker 1: economy and destroy it. Here's what they said in an
Speaker 1: article in the Wall Street Journal about their research. Quote here,
Speaker 1: there was even less work on average during the New
Speaker 1: Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per
Speaker 1: adult including government employees, were eighteen percent below their nineteen
Speaker 1: twenty nine level between nineteen thirty and nineteen thirty two,
Speaker 1: but we're twenty three percent lower on average during the
Speaker 1: New Deal in nineteen thirty three to nineteen thirty nine.
Speaker 1: Private hours worked. We're even lower after FDR took office,
Speaker 1: averaging twenty seven percent below their nineteen twenty nine level
Speaker 1: compared to eighteen percent lower between nineteen thirty and nineteen
Speaker 1: thirty two. Total hours worked per adult in nineteen thirty
Speaker 1: nine remained about twenty one percent below their nineteen twenty
Speaker 1: nine level, So hours worked twenty one percent lower. Ten
Speaker 1: years after we actually had the crash. Per capita consumption
Speaker 1: did not recover at all. It remained twenty five percent
Speaker 1: below its trend level throughout the New Deal. So why
Speaker 1: did this all happen? They write in this paper about
Speaker 1: the fact that it was the new Deal that hampered
Speaker 1: any recovery. The new Deal is the answer, and I'll
Speaker 1: quote here, anti market policies choked off powerful recover reforces
Speaker 1: that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend
Speaker 1: by the mid nineteen thirties. Most damaging were those at
Speaker 1: the heart of the recovery plan, including the National Industrial
Speaker 1: Recovery Act, which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and
Speaker 1: permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided they shared their
Speaker 1: newfound monopoly rents with workers. By substantially raising wages well
Speaker 1: above underlying productivity growth, that is collusion, government incentivized collusion
Speaker 1: in the economy. The NIRA, that's the National Industrial Recovery Act,
Speaker 1: covered over five hundred industries, ranging from autos and steel
Speaker 1: to ladies, hosiery, and poultry production. Each industry created a
Speaker 1: code of fair competition quote unquote, which spelled out what
Speaker 1: producers could and could not do, and which were designed
Speaker 1: to eliminate quote excessive competition that FDR believed to be
Speaker 1: the source of the depression. These codes distorted the economy
Speaker 1: by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing
Speaker 1: productive capacity. By placing quotas on industry investment in new
Speaker 1: plants and equipment, and on and on. That is basically
Speaker 1: what the New Green Deal New Deal Rather would do
Speaker 1: on steroids. At the end of the day, what did
Speaker 1: Henry Morgan thou Roosevelt's Treasury secretary say in nineteen thirty nine,
Speaker 1: after all of these different government interventions were tried, Quote,
Speaker 1: we are spending more than we have ever spent before,
Speaker 1: and it does not work. I say, after eight years
Speaker 1: of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as
Speaker 1: when we started, and an enormous debt to Boot New
Speaker 1: Deal disaster, Green New Deal disaster on steroids, President Obama
Speaker 1: so called stimulus and the other widespread government regulation and
Speaker 1: intervention after the financial crisis, including Obamacare. We the weakest
Speaker 1: recovery of any from any recession that we've had since
Speaker 1: the Great Depression. So why would this time be any different?
Speaker 1: Why would Alexandrocazio Cortez somehow have this divine knowledge that
Speaker 1: this time central planning is going to work. You know,
Speaker 1: the greatest economic stimulus we could ever have is for
Speaker 1: every citizen to read Bastiat and Hayek and Milton and
Speaker 1: Milton Freedman Rather and the founding Fathers. That would be
Speaker 1: the greatest economic stimulus. It would be a heck of
Speaker 1: a lot cheaper than a green new deal that's going
Speaker 1: to cost fifty times what our federal government budget is
Speaker 1: every year. Democrats will resist attempts to challenge this agenda,
Speaker 1: of course, because for them, this is all about power.
Speaker 1: And while we're on that topic of power, before we
Speaker 1: close up tonight, a reminder that this week we celebrated
Speaker 1: a sad anniversary, the fourtieth anniversary of the Islamic Revolution
Speaker 1: in Iran, which took a relatively dynamic and free, prosperous
Speaker 1: country authoritarian, yes in terms of its leadership, but relatively
Speaker 1: European and booming and secular, and turned it into what
Speaker 1: we have today, which is the world's leading state sponsor
Speaker 1: of jihad, with total restrictions on basically every possible liberty
Speaker 1: and economic basket case, and full on, truly totalitarian rule.
Speaker 1: So also the thirtieth anniversary of Salmon Rushti's book The
Speaker 1: Satanic Verses, leading to him having a fatua put on
Speaker 1: his head by the Supreme Leader in Iran. Why is
Speaker 1: Iran relevant? Well, Iran took a place that was relatively
Speaker 1: dynamic at the time, imposed their theocratic creed Islam, dominant
Speaker 1: Islam and tried to export it throughout the world and
Speaker 1: restricted all manner of freedom, freedom of speech, you can't
Speaker 1: criticize or in any way threatened, essentially the ruling creed there.
Speaker 1: I would suggest to you that America is free, but
Speaker 1: where progressives want to take us is to a state
Speaker 1: of anti religious, theocratic totalitarianism, where you can't have dissenting
Speaker 1: opinions or you'll get thrown out of social media or
Speaker 1: fired from your company, and where you also have control
Speaker 1: of government over every aspect of your life. It's not
Speaker 1: because you don't subscribe to Islam, it's because you don't
Speaker 1: subscribe to the state religion of progressivism. And if you
Speaker 1: dissent your livelihood, your freedom, all of it will be
Speaker 1: taken away, and those bad corrosive ideas can have an
Speaker 1: immediate impact. It's destroyed Venezuela, and the same thing could
Speaker 1: happen here faster than ever before in history. This is
Speaker 1: Ben Weingarten. I've been filling in for Buck Sexon tonight.
Speaker 1: I want to thank Buck Sexton for the opportunity to
Speaker 1: fill his big shoes, and I want to thank you
Speaker 1: for spending your Friday night with me. Have a great
Speaker 1: weekend and look forward to having yon next time. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran own background
Speaker 1: investigations and vetting company. It's useful if you run a
Speaker 1: business or are looking to hire for important decisions like these,
Speaker 1: you need Global Verification Network. Go to MYGVN dot com
Speaker 1: or call them at eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: one one seven nine. Global Verification Network is federally certified
Speaker 1: as a veteran owned small business. It's independently certified by
Speaker 1: the National Veteran Business Development Council, which is the only
Speaker 1: minoritady spend certification recognized by the Billion Dollar Roundtable. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago with offices throughout the nation.
Speaker 1: They are the risk mitigation experts and they work with
Speaker 1: companies from startups to Fortune one hundreds. And with Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network, you can rest ashore that no data or
Speaker 1: client information is ever offshored. Plus, all employees are located
Speaker 1: throughout the United States. Visit Global Verification Network ATMGVN dot com.
Speaker 1: That's MYGVN dot com or call them at eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine