Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hunt. The Buck is back
Speaker 1: from China. Everybody very excited to be here with you.
Speaker 1: So many stories to tell you, so much to share.
Speaker 1: We will get into that, and also the latest on
Speaker 1: the fight over who will be testifying on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Does the administration win this latest battle over Don McGann
Speaker 1: and whether he'll get to talk to Congress. We got
Speaker 1: that and so much more coming up on The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes American. You're a great American Again,
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No, Hello, everybody, welcome, welcome,
Speaker 1: great to have you here on The Buck Sexton Show. Man.
Speaker 1: I I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to take a moment here.
Speaker 1: I missed you all very much. I missed doing this show.
Speaker 1: I love doing this show. Thank you for giving my
Speaker 1: excellent guest host your attention last week and through yesterday
Speaker 1: when I was still trying to get back on task
Speaker 1: and get back on schedule. And here I am, and
Speaker 1: I'm not going anywhere for a long time. So there
Speaker 1: it is. Back from China. Fascinating trip over there, really
Speaker 1: interesting timing because of all the back and forth over
Speaker 1: the trade deal. You see now Google just broke I
Speaker 1: think the last twenty four hours. Google is not going
Speaker 1: to give all the software that it has been giving
Speaker 1: to Huawei, which is a major Chinese telecommunications giant that
Speaker 1: people have very real national security concerns about. There are
Speaker 1: those who think that Huawei and the race for five
Speaker 1: G and these different battles that are playing out in
Speaker 1: the technology space will have a major impact on not
Speaker 1: just our economic competitiveness, but at some point in the
Speaker 1: future in terms of US matching up against the Chinese,
Speaker 1: could have national security implications, very very serious stuff. So
Speaker 1: I wanted to take some time that I know there's
Speaker 1: some things going on in Capitol Hill. We've got some
Speaker 1: updates on immigration and some other stories that I'm thrown
Speaker 1: into the mix. Definitely have stuff to discuss all across
Speaker 1: the news spectrum. But I wanted to start today because
Speaker 1: I was gone for a week in China and spend
Speaker 1: a little time sharing some of my observations and what
Speaker 1: I saw, what I learned, and how that will I
Speaker 1: hope provide a little additional context where all of us
Speaker 1: here and our conversations going forward. I mean, let's just
Speaker 1: start with this. China is the biggest economic and national
Speaker 1: security challenge facing the United States, bar none, without question.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely clear. And there were different aspects of
Speaker 1: my time there that were encouraging from what I saw
Speaker 1: in different aspects that were discourding. Now, I did do
Speaker 1: some of the tourists stuff, and I can share some
Speaker 1: kind of more fun thoughts about that with you too,
Speaker 1: But I also was there for a two day conference
Speaker 1: with a lot of experts on the Chinese economy, investing
Speaker 1: in China, what China's going to do going forward, to
Speaker 1: try to prop up or grow depending on who you
Speaker 1: talk to. It's stock market and real estate prices. And
Speaker 1: and here's what I'll say to you, just right off
Speaker 1: the bat. The China that you may have in your
Speaker 1: mind from watching as I did growing up, from watching movies.
Speaker 1: I know I've mentioned, which isn't even in China, Big
Speaker 1: Trouble in Little China many times, which is a kind
Speaker 1: of ridiculous but fun to watch movie. The notion you
Speaker 1: may have of a China where you have people, millions
Speaker 1: of people on bicycles and running around with rickshaws and
Speaker 1: chickens that have just been had their heads chopped off
Speaker 1: hanging in the windows, or you know whatever you've seen
Speaker 1: in different China towns across the United States, and that
Speaker 1: that would be some the China itself would be some
Speaker 1: big version of it. No, it's not China. Now, I
Speaker 1: was in Beijing and Shanghai. You have expensive automobiles all
Speaker 1: over the place. You have a tremendous explosion in wealth,
Speaker 1: you have massive department stores full of all of the
Speaker 1: most expensive luxury good it's a very consumer heavy, consumer
Speaker 1: driven culture. I don't think it's very noticeable over there.
Speaker 1: It's also noticeable that there are many many high end
Speaker 1: fake merchandise stores out there. They sell the different Louis
Speaker 1: Vauton bags and fake rolexes and all these different fake
Speaker 1: designer items. And it's in part because and I spoke
Speaker 1: to some of the Chinese that I was interacting with
Speaker 1: when I was there, and it's because not everybody can
Speaker 1: afford this offense, so it's easier for them to just
Speaker 1: you know, churn it out for everybody. And there's different
Speaker 1: levels of the fakes. Is fascinating. I mean, it's also
Speaker 1: illegal in this country. You know you can't do this.
Speaker 1: It's a trademark. It's the patent infringement or trademark infringement.
Speaker 1: It depends on what we're specifically addressing. But this is
Speaker 1: a country that has brought hundreds of millions of people
Speaker 1: out of poverty and essentially subsistence farming, and now they're
Speaker 1: moving into the cities and massive numbers, and they are
Speaker 1: going to be our competitor, There's no question about it.
Speaker 1: You can drive. I got on a high speed train
Speaker 1: from Beijing to Shanghai. You can drive for an hour
Speaker 1: and a half in Beijing in any direction and you'll
Speaker 1: still see around you massive apartment buildings. I mean the
Speaker 1: largest apartment buildings you would see in any American city.
Speaker 1: You'll see them in Beijing, and they're just sprawling. They're
Speaker 1: all over the place. Some of the old stereotypes about
Speaker 1: the or the old the old things that come to
Speaker 1: mind about China. The smog very real. When I was
Speaker 1: in Shanghai. You could just see it hanging in the
Speaker 1: Airmy so, pollution is a is a major problem. Pollution
Speaker 1: still not something that Chinese have gotten and a gutt
Speaker 1: in a handle on I did not. And this was
Speaker 1: interesting from a number of perspectives. I chose to go
Speaker 1: in sterile, meaning that I showed up in China. Granted
Speaker 1: I was there in a tourist capacity. I was not
Speaker 1: there as a representative of either of my media organizations.
Speaker 1: I did go to a conference, but I wasn't I
Speaker 1: wasn't acting as a journalist. I didn't bring a laptop,
Speaker 1: I didn't bring a cell phone. Because we know it's
Speaker 1: it's well established now that the Chinese, in particular, if
Speaker 1: you work in the media, and in my case, somebody
Speaker 1: who works in media and had a previous career as
Speaker 1: an intelligence officer, you're gonna you're gonna be somebody who
Speaker 1: is of high counter intelligence interests for the Chinese. And
Speaker 1: that means that if you log onto their systems, if
Speaker 1: you use your passwords, if you go to WiFi, you
Speaker 1: are a target and you're living in their world. You're
Speaker 1: living in their world. And that then brings me up today,
Speaker 1: waking up this morning excited that I get a chance
Speaker 1: to to read in and get back into my routine
Speaker 1: and do this show, the show that I love doing
Speaker 1: for all of you so much. I see this pole
Speaker 1: in the gallipole that you know four in ten Americans
Speaker 1: is or four in ten Americans are ok are favorable
Speaker 1: to socialism. And it's a reminder one of just how
Speaker 1: little it seems that many of our fellow Americans have
Speaker 1: learned about about history and about recent history and around
Speaker 1: the world. But it's also an indicator that there's not
Speaker 1: all there's there's a lack of understanding of what it
Speaker 1: really means to live in a country where the government
Speaker 1: has real control over economics, real control over over private property,
Speaker 1: the means of production. You know, they have that in China.
Speaker 1: And from a material prosperity side, the Chinese haven't getting
Speaker 1: wealthier and wealthier. There's no question the Chinese have created
Speaker 1: a much much larger what you would consider middle class.
Speaker 1: There's also a hyper elite of wealthy Chinese billionaires now.
Speaker 1: So from a material prosperity side, you really have one
Speaker 1: party capitalism or a kind of one party hybrid of
Speaker 1: capitalism and statism. But the statism component is still very strong.
Speaker 1: When you ask people about China, you know that you
Speaker 1: bring up the government, you get something mutter muttered about
Speaker 1: you know, they mutter something about, oh well, you know,
Speaker 1: things are getting better and there's more prosperity all the time,
Speaker 1: and and he said, okay, well, but do you have
Speaker 1: free speech? And I was told by some of the
Speaker 1: China experts I talked to you over there, that you
Speaker 1: have to keep in mind free speech something that we
Speaker 1: hold very near and dear. An individual rights, individual protections
Speaker 1: of those rights. That's what animates the American mind. That's
Speaker 1: what gets us all excited about about being Americans. Know
Speaker 1: that we have a society based upon the individual and
Speaker 1: the relation of the individual with the state, and the
Speaker 1: ability to appreciate and enjoy all these different freedoms laid
Speaker 1: out first in the Constitution, but also in our political
Speaker 1: and social culture. You can go to China and there's
Speaker 1: not some clamoring for that, at least you're never able
Speaker 1: to hear it. You know, who knows it's one point
Speaker 1: four billion people. Just to stay that, you know, from
Speaker 1: a small sample size of experts here or there or wherever,
Speaker 1: you can really get a sense of what the Chinese
Speaker 1: people want. I don't think anybody really knows. I do
Speaker 1: know that the economic prosperity is something that you cannot ignore.
Speaker 1: It's it's very very real. It has happened, and in
Speaker 1: a sense, as an economic miracle. I mean to go
Speaker 1: from when I was born, I think it's a seventy
Speaker 1: billion to now, or yeah, seventy billion to seven trillion
Speaker 1: dollars in GDP. I mean, that's just remarkable. It's a
Speaker 1: remarkable rise of economic power and with that the military
Speaker 1: power that comes along. But the individual there is not
Speaker 1: the basis for the polity. Individual rights don't really exist.
Speaker 1: Your rights in China or whatever the government says they
Speaker 1: are at any point in time. That's an unsettling thing,
Speaker 1: even for me as an American, to be in a
Speaker 1: country like that where you recognize that you live your
Speaker 1: life by the leave of the government. So interesting too,
Speaker 1: just a cursory overview of of Google Maps when I
Speaker 1: was over there. Sorry, it wasn't Google Maps, of just maps,
Speaker 1: you know, using bay Do, which is their search under.
Speaker 1: You can't you can't use Google, you can't use Facebook,
Speaker 1: can use Twitter. Things are all blocked off. Part of
Speaker 1: the Great Firewall. I went to the Great Wall too.
Speaker 1: We can talk about that in a moment. But you
Speaker 1: see all this, the peoples this and the peoples that
Speaker 1: in China, and they doth protest too much about how
Speaker 1: everything belongs to the people. It belongs to the communist
Speaker 1: part of the Central Committee, belongs to people in charge.
Speaker 1: They make the decisions. Some of those decisions have obviously
Speaker 1: brought about a degree of economic prosperity, But economic prosperity
Speaker 1: in the absence of individual freedom and property rights and
Speaker 1: rule of law does not alone make for I think,
Speaker 1: a happy, healthy, and over the long term stable society.
Speaker 1: You need those other components human beings deserve. There's a
Speaker 1: there's an obligation on the state to give basic rights
Speaker 1: and freedoms. And when you have a society where that
Speaker 1: has been swept aside, either with the consent at some
Speaker 1: level of the people or just because their fear of
Speaker 1: the big s state is so profound that they don't
Speaker 1: even want to voice any of these concerns, you wonder
Speaker 1: what else is this state capable of doing. What happens
Speaker 1: to the surplus that they believe will be in just
Speaker 1: a matter of years of twenty million unmarried Chinese men
Speaker 1: of marriageable age, What do they do, what happens to them,
Speaker 1: what happens to this country? When what happens to China? Rather,
Speaker 1: when going forward they have an economic downturn, They've had
Speaker 1: all this growth and all this prosperity over a number
Speaker 1: of decades here, but things will change. What goes up
Speaker 1: must come down. How does it destabilize them if all
Speaker 1: of a sudden the Central Committee doesn't look like a
Speaker 1: bunch of financial wizards who just make everybody wealthier and
Speaker 1: happier all with them, or at least wealthier, I don't
Speaker 1: know if they're happier. There is a lot. There's a
Speaker 1: lot that we have to unpack here. I mean, China
Speaker 1: is a fascinating, fascinating problem for US policymakers. I want
Speaker 1: to talk to you about some of the attitudinal things
Speaker 1: that I saw, some of the how I think the
Speaker 1: trade deal will play out after speaking to a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of Chinese about about it and the
Speaker 1: ones that are least willing to talk to me, so
Speaker 1: we have much much ground to cover. Her team and
Speaker 1: some other just fun anecdotes from what I saw there.
Speaker 1: And I'm again just so so so happy to be
Speaker 1: back with all of you. I enjoyed my time overseas
Speaker 1: and it was it was nice to switch it up,
Speaker 1: man that I missed doing this radio show. And I'm
Speaker 1: so glad to be back. And I appreciate that you're
Speaker 1: all listening, so let's hit it. Hit a quick beat here.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in a moment with much more on China.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Just a bit of quick tips for
Speaker 1: those of you that are wondering, Like, all right, Buck,
Speaker 1: you were in China. What do you want to tell
Speaker 1: us about if you're going to visit. Many of them
Speaker 1: have been to China a lot. Some of you've probably
Speaker 1: lived there. Beijing. I think you do two days in Beijing,
Speaker 1: maybe three if you're as unless you have some other
Speaker 1: reason to be there, two days, maybe three. Max. I
Speaker 1: was there for five, two days in Shanghai. Beijing is
Speaker 1: a massive city. Not to be unfair to it, but
Speaker 1: it is something along the lines of a twenty million
Speaker 1: person traffic jam. And the joke when I was there
Speaker 1: was that everywhere you wanted to go, you'd ask a local,
Speaker 1: you know, how how far is it thirty minutes, and
Speaker 1: thirty minutes means anywhere from forty five minutes to an
Speaker 1: hour and a half. Anywhere you think about going in Beijing,
Speaker 1: you better be ready to just sit in traffic. There's
Speaker 1: traffic everywhere. There's a lot of people that's putting it mildly,
Speaker 1: but it's not a really international city in the sense
Speaker 1: that it is very much Chinese dominated and centric. And
Speaker 1: I know it's the capital city of China's that'll make sense.
Speaker 1: But you know, you go to New York City, for example,
Speaker 1: and there's people from all over the world there, all
Speaker 1: over the world. You go to Beijing and you're basically
Speaker 1: going to walk around and see mostly people from China.
Speaker 1: There are some internationals, but it's not a truly it's
Speaker 1: not a true global city. Shanghai a little more so,
Speaker 1: more visitors, more of an international feeling to it. Best
Speaker 1: stuff to see in Beijing, stuff that I saw of
Speaker 1: the Great Wall, which as soon as I posted a
Speaker 1: photo that I knew some of you were going to
Speaker 1: say this, you have the Great Wall, and people say, wow, Buck,
Speaker 1: do you mean that walls work? Yes? In fact, we
Speaker 1: have known human civilization has known for a very very
Speaker 1: long time that walls are quite effective at what they
Speaker 1: are intended to do, either keep people in or keep
Speaker 1: people out, or prevent the free movement between two points.
Speaker 1: Walls are quite good at that. It is a marvel
Speaker 1: of engineering. When you go and see the Great Wall itself,
Speaker 1: and I think they said, I didn't even know how
Speaker 1: many thousands of miles because there's all these different sections
Speaker 1: of wall and it wasn't built all at once, and
Speaker 1: these histories something that I should I should probably brush
Speaker 1: up on quite a bit. More fun parts about going
Speaker 1: to the Wall though, is that you have a lot
Speaker 1: of domestic Chinese tourists that go to these different historic sites.
Speaker 1: So Beijing has the cool history stuff for sure. The
Speaker 1: Great Wall I think is top of the list of
Speaker 1: the stuff I saw that was that was the coolest
Speaker 1: it is. It is the most impressive single spot to
Speaker 1: go and see if you're doing the touristy thing. But
Speaker 1: you have these tourists from all over the rest of
Speaker 1: China who many many of whom are able to travel
Speaker 1: now because of the improvements in the economy, so it
Speaker 1: might be their first time ever going to the Wall,
Speaker 1: especially for some of the older generation. And they did
Speaker 1: like seeing Americans, They like seeing western as many of
Speaker 1: them wanted to take photographs with me and take selfies
Speaker 1: with me, and not because they're buck sex and show listeners,
Speaker 1: although they should be. But it was an interesting experience
Speaker 1: for sure to see that. You also went to the
Speaker 1: Forbidden City, which was interesting to be sure. Was definitely
Speaker 1: uh it's worth seeing. I did not get to go
Speaker 1: to Tianamen Square because it was closed for some security
Speaker 1: reason or something. I don't know what it was, but
Speaker 1: it was closed off to us. But the Forbidden City
Speaker 1: where the Emperor, the Chinese Emperor lived was you know,
Speaker 1: you see it, you walk around, you kind of done it.
Speaker 1: But Beijing. And I'm just gonna say this, if you're
Speaker 1: used to American Chinese food, you can get it in China,
Speaker 1: but you don't go. It's not like they've got general
Speaker 1: sauce chicken everywhere and you're gonna order whatever you used
Speaker 1: to ordering. It's a little bit different than that. The
Speaker 1: food is fine after a few days it was. It's
Speaker 1: not easy to be gluten free in China. I'll tell
Speaker 1: you that you did not want to be a somebody
Speaker 1: with Celiac disease because they really like brown sauce and
Speaker 1: anything in a brown sauce basically has soy sauce, and
Speaker 1: soy sauce has gluten. So that makes things tough. And
Speaker 1: to my fair share of banquet dinners where I think
Speaker 1: there was one where there was like an eight maybe
Speaker 1: a ten course meal, you know, a good old buckster
Speaker 1: was able to eat white rice. Oh yeah, I got
Speaker 1: to eat some white mice. So those are some of
Speaker 1: my tours and fists. You go to Shanghai, better food,
Speaker 1: It's fun down by the waterfront, more stuff going on there.
Speaker 1: If you're gonna if you're looking to kind of get
Speaker 1: out and about I would say that a Shangha. Well,
Speaker 1: what does this all mean for the trade deal and
Speaker 1: for the Trump administration? And you know enough of Bucks
Speaker 1: Tourism guide here, We're gonna get into all of that
Speaker 1: and then talk about the showdown over who's going to
Speaker 1: testify in front of Congress, who's gonna win these cord battles,
Speaker 1: over what information the Democrats have access to? That and
Speaker 1: more coming up. Remember when the left called the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal bold? Or how about their bold defensive anti
Speaker 1: semitism in the House. I think they're mistaking bold for
Speaker 1: something else because the way I define bold is the
Speaker 1: taste of freedom I get every morning with my Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. Black Rifle delivers the best roast or a
Speaker 1: coffee right to your door, and Black Rifles Coffee Club
Speaker 1: makes things easy. Just pick your blend and the amount
Speaker 1: you want, and Black Rifle ships your coffee right to
Speaker 1: your door every month, hassle free, no lines, no running out,
Speaker 1: just great coffee ship right to your door every month,
Speaker 1: hassle free. Plus, when you join their coffee Club, you'll
Speaker 1: receive discounts and offers not available to other customers. When
Speaker 1: you drink Black Rifle Coffee, you're supporting a company that
Speaker 1: gives back to veteran and first responder causes, and serves
Speaker 1: coffee and culture to those who truly love America. For
Speaker 1: a bold cup of America's best coffee, visit Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and get twenty percent off your
Speaker 1: first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck, Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for twenty percent off. Just
Speaker 1: an update here on the battle over information and executive privilege.
Speaker 1: Here's the latest from the Department of Justice, courtesy of
Speaker 1: Clinton News Network. I guess, now, what do we call it?
Speaker 1: The DNCCNN or the d n CNN. There you go,
Speaker 1: I like that the d n CNN. The Justice Department
Speaker 1: is trying to stave off an enforcement action against Attorney
Speaker 1: General William Barr this week, making a rare offer to
Speaker 1: out of the House Intelligence Committee review materials from Special
Speaker 1: Counsel Robert Mueller's report if House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: agrees to back down. Last week, Shift shared that he
Speaker 1: Schiff said that he would hold a business meeting to
Speaker 1: take an unspecified action against the Department of Justice for
Speaker 1: not providing the committee documents related to Volume one of
Speaker 1: Mueller's report on links between the Trump campaign and the
Speaker 1: Russian government. And so now the DJ's thinking maybe they're
Speaker 1: going to have a different you know, they're going to
Speaker 1: try to come to some sort of accommodation here. Okay,
Speaker 1: I want to go. I'm not done with China yet.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm like I was there for a week.
Speaker 1: We I'm more to talking about on China. But I
Speaker 1: just this is the latest from today and it's getting
Speaker 1: a lot of getting a lot of attention, speaking a
Speaker 1: lot of attention. Will also discussed the fight over abortion
Speaker 1: and where all that's going, because I was gone for that,
Speaker 1: so there's gonna be some Oh hey, I didn't get
Speaker 1: a chance to talk to you about this, so I
Speaker 1: want to take the time to talk to you about
Speaker 1: it now, obviously because I missed all of you very much.
Speaker 1: And here's what we got going on with the Democrats.
Speaker 1: I've realized this as I was away and had a
Speaker 1: lot of time to think and ponder, ponder the universe
Speaker 1: in China. The Democrats, it doesn't really matter. I think
Speaker 1: the political calculations here are not that clear that they
Speaker 1: even know how all this will play out. No one
Speaker 1: really knows, but they didn't even think they necessarily know.
Speaker 1: How do you get how do you really assass impeachment?
Speaker 1: Let's just say let's start with that. I think what
Speaker 1: three presidents have been impeached? Bill Clinton was impeached after
Speaker 1: his reelection, So that doesn't really give you much of
Speaker 1: a much of a way to compare things then and now.
Speaker 1: Because Trump would be at least theoretically impeached before trying
Speaker 1: to be reelected president. Would it blow back or would
Speaker 1: it take Trump down? Nobody really knows. Nobody really knows.
Speaker 1: But what I do know is this the efforts that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are going through here to try and take
Speaker 1: all this information just pride from the hands of the Republicans,
Speaker 1: take it out of you know, President Trump's senior most
Speaker 1: advisor's minds, and just use the Congress to jam the
Speaker 1: Trump administration up with just request for documents and appearances
Speaker 1: and hearings and this and that, and this is all
Speaker 1: a throwing the proverbial wooden shoe in the gears of
Speaker 1: the factory, which is at least how some people say
Speaker 1: the word sabotage came along, but I don't think that's
Speaker 1: actually true. So don't don't take that one. See, this
Speaker 1: is the problem with the internet. You read all this stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, like, is that even true? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I stought on the internet, and as we know, Abe
Speaker 1: Lincoln once said, don't believe everything you see on the internet.
Speaker 1: So this is the Democrats though, the gears of sand
Speaker 1: in watch of this administration. That's what all this stuff is.
Speaker 1: Does it win? Do people like it? I'm not even
Speaker 1: sure that's the plan. I think the plan is much
Speaker 1: more to just make it as unpleasant and high pressure
Speaker 1: situation as possible for Trump and all the people around
Speaker 1: him whose power and opinions matter for this administration. And
Speaker 1: it's it's a slow and delay tactic. Slow things up,
Speaker 1: delay things, that's the main. That's the main effort. And
Speaker 1: by just forcing all these showdowns, either with the DOJ
Speaker 1: or later on or upcoming certainly in court, it's it
Speaker 1: makes things harder for them. But I did want to
Speaker 1: just do a little more of what I think is
Speaker 1: going on in China, and what I took away from this,
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a problem, folks. At some point China
Speaker 1: is not going to stop the behaviors that the Trump
Speaker 1: administration is rightly i'd say calling out they do not.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going to go for a trade
Speaker 1: deal before they see who wins reelection. Why would they.
Speaker 1: They're able to try and wait this out. And if
Speaker 1: they know if they get a president Biden or you know,
Speaker 1: any of these different candidates and these Democrat candidates, they
Speaker 1: essentially reset the clock. They get a restart on. Oh now,
Speaker 1: let's have a new series of negotiations. And because this
Speaker 1: issue is associated with Trump, because holding China accountable for
Speaker 1: its violation of intellectual property, theft and hacking and all
Speaker 1: these different and the tariffs that it has in place,
Speaker 1: and all the ways that it cheats so that it's
Speaker 1: state state supported enterprises, you know, state owned enterprises are
Speaker 1: able to be globally in some cases globally dominant companies
Speaker 1: or close to it. All the different ways that China
Speaker 1: tilts the table toward itself that's not going to stop
Speaker 1: anytime soon. They're gonna wait and see what's going on
Speaker 1: with the possible incoming Democrat administration. And because it's all
Speaker 1: associated the fight against them, all this associated with Trump,
Speaker 1: any Democrat who comes into office is going to position
Speaker 1: where it's like, well, that was a Trump issue. You know,
Speaker 1: think about Obama with the war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: didn't matter what was going on in Rock and Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: Bush was the Iraq war. And Obama was saying that
Speaker 1: he was all about the Afghanistan war, and that was
Speaker 1: that was never going to change because that was the
Speaker 1: dynamic when he took office. Any Democrat coming in fighting
Speaker 1: China on trade trade war with China is a Trump thing,
Speaker 1: and therefore the Democrat has to take a different approach
Speaker 1: to that, which likely means going back to where we've been,
Speaker 1: which is a form of you know, suffering silence. Don't
Speaker 1: make too much noise about this. We need China, we
Speaker 1: don't want to, we don't want to, you know, ruffle
Speaker 1: any feathers, rock the boat, you name it. But this
Speaker 1: is a country that has a really obvious reinvigorated not pride.
Speaker 1: I've heard from people that have been going there for
Speaker 1: a long time, that there is a sense of a
Speaker 1: kind of resentment toward the West and toward America now
Speaker 1: that was not really there before. The idea of being
Speaker 1: the Chinese are. They're now wealthy and the second most
Speaker 1: powerful economy in the world, the largest by population country
Speaker 1: in the world, and they don't like taking a backseat
Speaker 1: the United States, and they've they're strutting their stuff a
Speaker 1: little bit. Can we compete with them economically and can
Speaker 1: compete with them in terms of innovation, We'll have to see.
Speaker 1: They are executing on a very aggressive program of expanding
Speaker 1: all of their different you know, the different industries that
Speaker 1: they're already in. They have this this belt and belt
Speaker 1: and road policy where they're going around the globe working
Speaker 1: with regimes they don't care what their human rights record.
Speaker 1: Maybe they don't care, you know, what's going on in
Speaker 1: that country. They'll build infrastructure that do deals with the
Speaker 1: government as long as they have access to raw materials.
Speaker 1: It's kind of twenty first century Chinese mercantilism. Twenty first
Speaker 1: century mercantilism. I mean, they are making sure they have
Speaker 1: access to all the raw materials they need to continue
Speaker 1: their growth and what does that look like going forward?
Speaker 1: How will they be able to control all of this
Speaker 1: and will they butt up against their neighbors and ways
Speaker 1: where what is now friction turns into something much hotter,
Speaker 1: much more dangerous, much more fiscile. We don't know yet,
Speaker 1: but this is it. This is the big challenge. This
Speaker 1: is a country that does not plan to be in
Speaker 1: this junior role to America much longer. And what that
Speaker 1: means for us, what that means for the global markets.
Speaker 1: Who knows. There's certainly been a deception that American presidency
Speaker 1: stretching back for thirty years, have fallen for that China
Speaker 1: has no ambitions beyond just pulling itself out of poverty
Speaker 1: and everything's going to be fine, and they want to
Speaker 1: be a friend to the rest of the world. And
Speaker 1: they don't view themselves as the pre eminent, preeminent. I mean,
Speaker 1: there is a clear Chinese nationalism that they are the
Speaker 1: pre eminent civilization in the world already and therefore it
Speaker 1: is only rightful for them to take their place as
Speaker 1: the Hegemont not thinking certainly comes across. You know, there
Speaker 1: are Chinese companies now that are top one hundred companies
Speaker 1: by earnings that are really just in the Chinese market.
Speaker 1: I mean, the market is so big that internal dominance
Speaker 1: can mean there are a global b myth one point
Speaker 1: four billion people. We only have three hundred and twenty
Speaker 1: some odd million in this country. One point four billion.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of Chinese people, and they want material goods,
Speaker 1: they want prosperity, and they have a government that does
Speaker 1: not value as I was saying at the start of
Speaker 1: Show to individual rights, that does not You know, if
Speaker 1: you get picked up off the street by the Chinese government,
Speaker 1: I don't care who you are. You're in a bad place.
Speaker 1: They decide that they're going to make an example of you,
Speaker 1: or that you're some kind of a threat to the
Speaker 1: plan that they're engaged in. You have very little, very
Speaker 1: little to come to your side. And that's true for
Speaker 1: anybody in that country right now. And that's an eerie thing.
Speaker 1: It unsettled It unsettled me when I was there. You're
Speaker 1: in a country that has not embraced these Western values
Speaker 1: of rule of law, that is, that is beyond political
Speaker 1: ambitions of those in power. Look, I'm not saying our
Speaker 1: situation is perfect either, right, we could were I talked
Speaker 1: to you all the time, but I rule of laws
Speaker 1: being vited at our border and what we've seen from
Speaker 1: the deep State in their efforts to slow down and
Speaker 1: destroy if they can the Trump administration and use the
Speaker 1: law as a weapon and all that. But it's different
Speaker 1: in China and now now here's some of you probably
Speaker 1: knew this was kind of This is where I also
Speaker 1: have to tell you, my friends. I know we've got
Speaker 1: this week will dive in the news as we always do.
Speaker 1: There's a lot more things I want to get to
Speaker 1: and talk to you about. But if you will, if
Speaker 1: you'll just let me for a moment, this country is amazing, America,
Speaker 1: this place is incredible. Just just give me a moment,
Speaker 1: if you don't mind, let me just say America is
Speaker 1: such an an incredible and we are all so fortunate
Speaker 1: to be Americans. You go, you's spend a week of
Speaker 1: a place in Chinese, say to yourself, I am so blessed.
Speaker 1: We are all those I know. Not everyone who listens
Speaker 1: to the show is in America. There's some of you
Speaker 1: who live in Canada, some live in Israel, some live
Speaker 1: in Germany, some live in Japan. Usually it's basically America, Canada,
Speaker 1: and US military bases around the world. That's who listens
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sex and show Man. This place is incredible.
Speaker 1: You know, drink the water right out of the tap.
Speaker 1: I don't have to worry about that, you know, obviously
Speaker 1: that really gets betterally bothers me. I hate that stuff
Speaker 1: where you can't treat the Laura the top. This is
Speaker 1: a country of just tremendous assumed freedom, and it is there.
Speaker 1: It's not perfect, but there is an assumption of freedom.
Speaker 1: There's an assumption that if something were to go wrong,
Speaker 1: you have a chance to make it right. You're not
Speaker 1: just an automaton doing whatever the state wills you to do.
Speaker 1: That is the existence that a lot of other people lead,
Speaker 1: and in China you do do whatever the state tells
Speaker 1: you to do. There is no other option. State gets
Speaker 1: to determine what's going on in your life. State gets
Speaker 1: to make decisions for you. It was making decisions about
Speaker 1: how many kids you're allowed to have until relatively recently,
Speaker 1: made decisions back in the sixties with Mao and the
Speaker 1: Great Lead before they led to the deaths of tens
Speaker 1: of millions of people. It was a strange thing to
Speaker 1: reach into my wallet and pull out currency that had
Speaker 1: mouse dung on it? Who is a dictator and a
Speaker 1: mass murderer? Really, But that's how your paint you know,
Speaker 1: we talk about grappling with our history in this country.
Speaker 1: Nobody on our money's got anything on Chairman Mao, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. What does this mean, by the way, for
Speaker 1: a country now that has the kind of power, influence
Speaker 1: and money that it's it's a global player, does it
Speaker 1: become a country that is moral on the world stage
Speaker 1: remains to be seen. Plenty of reason to doubt that.
Speaker 1: Has it become an aggressor against its neighbors, How long
Speaker 1: before it thinks that America is not willing to pay
Speaker 1: the price to push back on Chinese aggression in its
Speaker 1: sphere of influence. You know, these are all the questions
Speaker 1: that I had as I was coming out of there.
Speaker 1: But the US pivot to China, forget about what the
Speaker 1: Obama administration said about it, It's already happened. We now
Speaker 1: face one near peer competitor, and it is the People's
Speaker 1: Republic of China. And I'm just so glad to be
Speaker 1: back in America. Man. When you when you land in
Speaker 1: this country after you've been it was only there for
Speaker 1: a week, and look, I've been in I've been in
Speaker 1: war zones for many, many months on end, different war zones,
Speaker 1: and but there's something really special every time about touching
Speaker 1: back down in this place when you leave the land
Speaker 1: of the unfree and enter the land of the free.
Speaker 1: So just take a little moment, he be like, Man,
Speaker 1: this country is great. I'm telling you. It is worth it.
Speaker 1: It is worth it. Remember how lucky we all are
Speaker 1: for all the problems that I see, for all things
Speaker 1: we talked about her on the show, This place is
Speaker 1: amazing and it's a great be back. You're doing the show,
Speaker 1: all right. I've got a quick moment here to catch
Speaker 1: breath and we come back. We'll talk about this Don
Speaker 1: McGann thing Capitol Hill. Oh. Also, someone's lying in the government.
Speaker 1: Well that's leaves a lot of open territory. A lot
Speaker 1: of people are lying in the government. But there are
Speaker 1: some folks that have been caught up in this Russia
Speaker 1: collusion investigation and have lied, and they need to be
Speaker 1: held accountable because other people that lied during the course
Speaker 1: of that, who were civilians who were not part of
Speaker 1: the Roman apparatus, had the freedom taken away for pure
Speaker 1: time face felony charges. What about those in the government
Speaker 1: who do that? Shouldn't they be punish the same way.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that in more coming up. When you
Speaker 1: have the best economy, probably that we've ever had. I
Speaker 1: don't know, how the hell do you lose this election? Right,
Speaker 1: gotta win this state. We did great last time. Remember
Speaker 1: the polls, the fake poles, Pennsylvania will go to Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: Unfortunately for them, didn't work out that. Upon my inauguration,
Speaker 1: I inherited one of the worst trade deals ever negotiated.
Speaker 1: It was ready to be put into action, the Transpacific Partnership,
Speaker 1: and would have destroyed the state of Pennsylvania. Yet Sleepy
Speaker 1: Joe said that he's running to quote save the world.
Speaker 1: Well he was, He's gonna save every country but ours.
Speaker 1: They want Biden so that China can continue to make
Speaker 1: five hundred billion dollars a year and more ripping off
Speaker 1: the United States. They like it. The previous administration, what
Speaker 1: they did to our country, they should be ashamed of themselves. There.
Speaker 1: Of how formidable President Trump is on stage at rallies
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail, Democrats are in for a little
Speaker 1: bit of a rude refresher course. I don't think I
Speaker 1: don't think they remember just how much Trump wiped the
Speaker 1: floor with his Republican opponents and then with Hillary. But
Speaker 1: that's what's going to be happening. That twenty twenty election, folks,
Speaker 1: is going to be quite a show. By the way,
Speaker 1: I mentioned McCann or McGann rather and the fight over
Speaker 1: getting him to testify. Here's what our friend Lindsey Graham
Speaker 1: had to say, play it what they want to do
Speaker 1: in terms of claim, you know, executive privilege. If I
Speaker 1: were the White House, I would fight this effort because
Speaker 1: then may McGain available to Muller, and Muller to me,
Speaker 1: was the guy that we all considered to be fair.
Speaker 1: The Muller report is in m again testified thirty hours
Speaker 1: and what I see going on in the House is
Speaker 1: more political revenge than it is anything else. Yep. This
Speaker 1: is just Trump's arrangement syndrome through the powers of the
Speaker 1: Congress to subpoena and therefore harass people and keep running
Speaker 1: us through this over and over again. What are the
Speaker 1: politics of this really though? In terms of who benefits
Speaker 1: we bono right, who's going to benefit from this? Will
Speaker 1: Democrats do well if they stay on this track? And
Speaker 1: will McGain end up testifying, among others. There's some other
Speaker 1: from the world folks that have gotten subpoenas. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about that and immigration status of that fight, and so
Speaker 1: much more coming up. It's good to be back to
Speaker 1: stay with me. I believe that the president's conduct since
Speaker 1: the report was at least we respect him. Mister McGann's
Speaker 1: testimony and other information we have sought has carried this
Speaker 1: a pattern of obstruction and cover up well beyond the
Speaker 1: four corners of the Mueller Report. He took to Twitter
Speaker 1: to call mister McGann a liar. His lawyers went on
Speaker 1: cable television to do the same to call mister McGan
Speaker 1: a liar. There are reports of the president and his
Speaker 1: lieutenants exerting other kinds of pressure on mister McGann. In short,
Speaker 1: the President took it upon himself to intimidate a witness
Speaker 1: who has a legal obligation to be here today. This
Speaker 1: conduct is not remotely acceptable. Everything that we're looking at today,
Speaker 1: even gabbling in today's hearing without a witness, is theatrical.
Speaker 1: The camera's love us bactrical and well majority love the
Speaker 1: chance to run against the administration. I just am glad
Speaker 1: today to see that we don't have chicken on the dies.
Speaker 1: Well as I understand that they're doing that for the
Speaker 1: Office of the Presidency, for future presidents. I think it's
Speaker 1: a very important press segent And the attorneys say that
Speaker 1: they're not doing that for me, they're doing that for
Speaker 1: the office of the president. So we're talking about the future.
Speaker 1: Will he or will he not testify? You got white
Speaker 1: former White House Council Don McGann, who, on instructions from
Speaker 1: the White House is not showing up at at this
Speaker 1: House Judiciary Committee or in response is how Judiciary Committee
Speaker 1: subpoena And he's saying, look, you know that the administration's
Speaker 1: position is there, it's what it should be, which they're
Speaker 1: going to fight every step of the way on every issue,
Speaker 1: which is exactly what they should be doing. Because the
Speaker 1: Democrats are engaged. This is an oversight. This is not
Speaker 1: a good faith effort to get to the truth of
Speaker 1: how we're being governed and what's going on the executive branch.
Speaker 1: This is just trying to curate a spectacle. This is
Speaker 1: using the power of the House of Representatives, of a
Speaker 1: Democrat majority in the House of Representatives, to have the
Speaker 1: government all these government employees, their salaries being paid by
Speaker 1: you and me, the taxpayer act as a kind of
Speaker 1: opposition research arm for the Democratic National Committee. This is
Speaker 1: this is a dnc APO effort you are seeing play
Speaker 1: out in real time. We've already had them all the report,
Speaker 1: which I read again on the plane ride over to China,
Speaker 1: and I gotta tell you is not more riveting reading
Speaker 1: the second time around. But we've already had them all
Speaker 1: the report. We already know that there's no there there,
Speaker 1: but they keep going. And now it's either they won't
Speaker 1: give us the Democrats complain that they won't give enough
Speaker 1: information or the full scope of the information, or they
Speaker 1: just start other investigations that are spinoffs of this. You know,
Speaker 1: last week or the week before, I was obviously gone.
Speaker 1: Last week, it was all about seeing the unredacted report,
Speaker 1: the full report. He needs to see the full report.
Speaker 1: That's what they were all saying. And then we're told, oh, okay, well,
Speaker 1: actually what we need are more witnesses to show up.
Speaker 1: And I know today you have Hope Hicks and also Donaldson,
Speaker 1: who are told that they have to according to Nadler,
Speaker 1: here you have they're they're supposed to show up. They
Speaker 1: are going to be questioned. This is going to be
Speaker 1: a legal fight. This should be a legal fight because
Speaker 1: the president in waiving the executive privilege that he does
Speaker 1: have and could have asserted during the Muller probe in
Speaker 1: order to comply with a criminal investigation, that should not
Speaker 1: be a waiver of all privilege going forward for anything
Speaker 1: that was discussed by the President United States with his
Speaker 1: senior counsel. There's no good faith here at all from
Speaker 1: the Democrats on this though. I mean you you know this.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, you have to remember this, you
Speaker 1: know this. I mean the White House saying that McGann
Speaker 1: should not show up as an effort to at least slow,
Speaker 1: if not stop, what's going to be a spectacle where
Speaker 1: they're going to just ask Domagan what's already been hashed
Speaker 1: out of them all report They just they want it
Speaker 1: on TV. They want there to be opportunities to embarrass
Speaker 1: the president, opportunities to bring up things that are not
Speaker 1: brand enhancing. I guess you could say that are not
Speaker 1: going to do anything to make people think that President
Speaker 1: Trump is a more adept and more skilled commander in chief.
Speaker 1: But fighting them every step of the way is what
Speaker 1: has to happen here. Fighting them is absolutely the path forward.
Speaker 1: Otherwise you're just going to keep getting pulled around and
Speaker 1: forced into things and forced into essentially damaging one's own
Speaker 1: presidency or damaging one's president. Yeah, you had now that.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure two former White House
Speaker 1: officials Hope Hicks and uh Donaldson. I don't I don't
Speaker 1: know who who Donaldson is. I just learn this now.
Speaker 1: Who's Donaldson? Longest serving aids in the West Wing? So, oh,
Speaker 1: Annie Donaldson? There you go, served as chief of staff
Speaker 1: to former White House counsel Don McGann. Oh okay, So
Speaker 1: this is an end ron on they can't get mc
Speaker 1: McGann has said, no, it's another gonna get them again staff.
Speaker 1: They're gonna disubpoena everybody. And to those who say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: they have a right to do this, I just want
Speaker 1: to say, can they subpoena the same person a hundred times?
Speaker 1: Just subpoena of them, subpoena of them, subpoena of them.
Speaker 1: Can you be told you have to show up to
Speaker 1: Congress every day for the next year just because Congress says, so,
Speaker 1: what are the limits? At what point do we say
Speaker 1: that the Congress should not be used as an open
Speaker 1: ended excuse, or the Congress's power cannot be used as
Speaker 1: an open ended excuse to do anything and everything to
Speaker 1: try and trash Trump destroy any Remember, it's not just
Speaker 1: the information that may come out from the questioning of
Speaker 1: different senior Trump aids and these interactions. It's also that
Speaker 1: Trump will have in some cases, especially if there's still
Speaker 1: people that he either trusts outside of government or that
Speaker 1: still work for him in the government. It will strain
Speaker 1: relationships that he has with very senior advisors. How can
Speaker 1: any president going forward have any faith whatsoever in the
Speaker 1: very high level strategic conversations that he or she would
Speaker 1: have with top advisors. When the Democrats have made it
Speaker 1: clear that they will try to break that privilege, they
Speaker 1: will fight everything. They will fight any sense of privacy,
Speaker 1: any sense of the president able to seek counsel without
Speaker 1: it ending up on the front page of the newspaper.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is going to change what at least
Speaker 1: any Republican president. You know, the Democrats would never do this, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, they didn't even fight. They're suing and the
Speaker 1: media is suing too, for more access to these records
Speaker 1: and trying to get more stuff about Trump's finances, and
Speaker 1: I know the Deutsche Bank decision just came out recently,
Speaker 1: but they're just going to do what they've been doing,
Speaker 1: which is pretending that the information they have doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: They always need more information. You know, they didn't go
Speaker 1: after Obama's college records with one and what one hundredth
Speaker 1: of the gusta. They're going after Trump's financial records. You
Speaker 1: have to ask you why is that. We know the answers,
Speaker 1: but you need to ask the question anyway. I think
Speaker 1: that Trump's approach here is the one that is the
Speaker 1: only one at this point. Fight him every step of
Speaker 1: the way. Make them just make them pull it out
Speaker 1: of you, make them take it to court. No more
Speaker 1: compliance because you're trying to be helpful. And there's this
Speaker 1: oh yeah, government institutions, we all need to support them. No,
Speaker 1: no more of that. That's done. That's over with now.
Speaker 1: This is political trench warfare. Every subpoenas should be dragged
Speaker 1: into court. Every witness should be told, don't show up
Speaker 1: until we've reached some kind of accommodation. I know Bill
Speaker 1: Barr is now negotiating something. It's not really clear what's
Speaker 1: going to happen yet for this testimony. But I like
Speaker 1: the way the administration has geared up for battle, because
Speaker 1: battle is what they face. I'm doing the show from
Speaker 1: California this week, which is nice. Although the weather I
Speaker 1: think right now in New York and DC is believe
Speaker 1: or not better than the weather in California's a little
Speaker 1: cold here. I only brought like a couple of sweatshirts
Speaker 1: with me, you know, and it's it's actually a little
Speaker 1: cold in California, which I did not I did not
Speaker 1: sign up for that. But sure enough here I am
Speaker 1: an Immigration is still a massive, massive policy challenge. Nothing
Speaker 1: has nothing's gotten better. In fact, I saw an Ann
Speaker 1: Culter column right when I got back, because you all
Speaker 1: know I really like Ann's work. But I saw an
Speaker 1: end Culter column where she said what I've been saying,
Speaker 1: or she wrote what I've been saying for a long time,
Speaker 1: which is that the border is is worse now than
Speaker 1: it has been perhaps ever, that our southern border is
Speaker 1: so porous and security has gotten to be so not.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't even know what the proper way
Speaker 1: to describe it as other than it just we cannot
Speaker 1: cure the border with the laws that we have right now.
Speaker 1: It is ineffective. We are ineffective right now in having
Speaker 1: an orderly southern border with all that going on, I
Speaker 1: come back. You know, Anne agrees that it's it's terrible.
Speaker 1: She's very upset with with Trump because of this. And
Speaker 1: guess what California is doing. I mean this is I
Speaker 1: should never say things like I couldn't believe this, because
Speaker 1: of course I can believe it. California wants to give
Speaker 1: healthcare to What they write as here at NBC News
Speaker 1: is undocumented immigrants. We don't use the term undocument. Undocumented
Speaker 1: is a nonsense, politicized term. Undocumented is the equivalent for
Speaker 1: me of when people say that any criticism of radical
Speaker 1: Islam is essentially islamophobia. This is not a good faith discussion.
Speaker 1: This is not trying to have a worthwhile exchange, learn
Speaker 1: about an issue and come to good conclusions about policy.
Speaker 1: This is meant to skew it in a certain direction.
Speaker 1: This is meant to make people feel a certain way
Speaker 1: about those who are in the country illegally. Oh, they're
Speaker 1: not illegal, they're undocumented. People aren't illegal, they're just undocumented. No.
Speaker 1: US Federal Code says that the term is illegal alien.
Speaker 1: That is the term, so they can keep saying undocumented.
Speaker 1: But what that shows you is an active that is
Speaker 1: an editorial choice. It is not an accuracy choice. It
Speaker 1: is not a legally correct choice. It is an editorial
Speaker 1: choice that anyone who used the term undocumented is making
Speaker 1: every time they use that term. But here in California,
Speaker 1: which is the test tube, this is the experiment playing out.
Speaker 1: This shows us what happens with mass illegal immigration over
Speaker 1: a large period or long period of time. And what
Speaker 1: you have is a political system at the state level
Speaker 1: then where it's no longer even possible to view illegal
Speaker 1: immigration as a problem. The state of California, the state
Speaker 1: government of California, does not have an issue with illegal aliens,
Speaker 1: meaning they do not have They have a lot of issues,
Speaker 1: but they do not have criticism of it. They do
Speaker 1: not treat it like it is a problem to be solved.
Speaker 1: They treat it like it is a situation to be
Speaker 1: addressed through the largest of the taxpayer. That's right, you
Speaker 1: and me, folks, California is considering giving free healthcare to
Speaker 1: illegal aliens. That's what you got here. And this is
Speaker 1: a classic NBC move. They talk about a woman, it's
Speaker 1: a very sad story. Woman was cancer did not have
Speaker 1: access to healthcare. So I guess that means that now
Speaker 1: we have to pay for the entire world healthcare. That
Speaker 1: you must pay your taxes. You must pay them fully
Speaker 1: and accurately, even though the tax code is obscure, opaque,
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense in a lot of ways. You must
Speaker 1: do that, and you must do it now, knowing that
Speaker 1: money that you are paying if you live in the
Speaker 1: state of California, for sure, and maybe the federal level,
Speaker 1: it depends on how they manage to go about this.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm sure that they'll want federal dollars kicked
Speaker 1: in for this. You know, there's a lot of ways
Speaker 1: that the states try to tip into the federal trough.
Speaker 1: But even if they do all, you know, even if
Speaker 1: they fund this only through stead of California, that means
Speaker 1: if you live here, and a lot of you listening
Speaker 1: to the show, I know do live in California, you're
Speaker 1: going to be your tax dollars are going to go
Speaker 1: toward giving healthcare to people who are in the country illegally,
Speaker 1: which I would just I would want to ask questions
Speaker 1: of Gavin Newsom, the governor in this state, ask them
Speaker 1: things like, Okay, so what about somebody who just flies
Speaker 1: here and then demands healthcare? What about anyone who gets
Speaker 1: a visa and then says, Hey, I can't get a
Speaker 1: heart transplant in the Sudan, but I'm in America now
Speaker 1: and I deserve a heart transplant. Mynderstanding has cost something
Speaker 1: like a million dollars all in, So do we pay
Speaker 1: for that? What about the Americans who are on waiting
Speaker 1: list for these things? What about the Americans who can't
Speaker 1: pay for things? The people that are in the country legally,
Speaker 1: do they just get whatever they whatever healthcare they I
Speaker 1: need pay for. Look, it's very easy to offer free
Speaker 1: things that other people have to put the bill for.
Speaker 1: I know. This is also called the Democratic Parties platform.
Speaker 1: This is what they do. They make promises to people
Speaker 1: that are easy for them because it's always someone else
Speaker 1: who's going to pay. It's the rich, it's the Republicans,
Speaker 1: it's the fat cats, it's people with white privilege, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be. But when you start to look at
Speaker 1: what this will do too, not just taxes, but to
Speaker 1: the healthcare system itself, I kind of want them to
Speaker 1: play out this experiment in California. I want to see
Speaker 1: what happens. I think it'll be a warning for the
Speaker 1: rest of the country. You already have ears that are
Speaker 1: very crowded with illegal aliens. I've seen it myself. I've
Speaker 1: been I've waited in ears before when a lot of
Speaker 1: people that you know do not speak a word of
Speaker 1: English at thieves are coming in for routine medical care
Speaker 1: and you have to wait in line behind all this
Speaker 1: and deal with all this, and you know, if your
Speaker 1: eyes bleeding, sorry, you know you gotta wait because other
Speaker 1: people want to have a vision test and the taxpayers
Speaker 1: is going to pay for it. And these people aren't
Speaker 1: supposed to be in the country at all. This is
Speaker 1: the future we're heading for. I just I want to ask,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna talk more about immigration after the break here,
Speaker 1: but I want to ask, where is the line drawn?
Speaker 1: When is it too much? If you can be in
Speaker 1: the country illegally, and the expectation is not only that
Speaker 1: you get to send your kids. If your kids are
Speaker 1: born here and you're illegal, they're US citizens. You get
Speaker 1: to stay in the country once you have kids here
Speaker 1: because you can't separate families. And there are ways, there
Speaker 1: are ways to get access to benefits even if you're
Speaker 1: illegal if you have an especially if you have a
Speaker 1: kid here. But if that's not a problem, then I
Speaker 1: need the Democrats to explain to man, I really mean this,
Speaker 1: why we don't just let anyone in? Why do we
Speaker 1: even have an immigration system if we have unlimited funds
Speaker 1: for this, if we have nothing but cash to throw
Speaker 1: at people that are violating our gracian laws, and they're
Speaker 1: going to make this country better, stronger, smarter, all the stuff,
Speaker 1: they say, why not just open the doors? Entirely, they
Speaker 1: don't have a reason why open borders is a bad
Speaker 1: idea because under the surface, in their hearts, the Democrats
Speaker 1: that the Left aren't open borders party. It just makes
Speaker 1: them more powerful. They like they like the way that
Speaker 1: this plays out from an electoral politics standpoint. They like
Speaker 1: that there are people that are going to the Democrats.
Speaker 1: People the Democrats are going to benefit from this politically.
Speaker 1: They want greater levels of dependence on the federal government.
Speaker 1: They want the continued influx of particularly migrants from the
Speaker 1: Third World, who are going to take the left and
Speaker 1: become a part of the intersectional identity politics that they're
Speaker 1: always promoting. And that's why today, when you had Ben
Speaker 1: Carson in this Maelstrom over the Democrats criticizing him because
Speaker 1: he was out of hearing talking about rules that would
Speaker 1: take public housing assistance away for illegal immigrants. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people would stop and say, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, we have we give public housing assistance, We
Speaker 1: pay for illegals to have housing in this country. Here's
Speaker 1: what it says. This is one Fox News Today quote.
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, I find it despicable, Congresswoman Maloney said of
Speaker 1: the plan, which would eliminate government aid for families with
Speaker 1: members who are in the US illegally, even if other
Speaker 1: family members, such as children our citizens, are legal residents.
Speaker 1: A HUD study found that roughly twenty five thousand households
Speaker 1: are in this situation, including approximately fifty five thousand children
Speaker 1: with legal status. Yeah, that's right. This is getting rid
Speaker 1: of what is effectively a loophole, which is that if
Speaker 1: you're in the country illegally but you have a kid
Speaker 1: and they're a US citizen, you are not supposed to
Speaker 1: be able to benefit from the federal largess that comes
Speaker 1: with having a US citizen child. You're not supposed to
Speaker 1: be able to receive money and receive the benefits for
Speaker 1: being here illegally, but that's currently the situation, Carson said, Look,
Speaker 1: if you're read the rule carefully, you'll see it provides
Speaker 1: a six month or furl on request if they have
Speaker 1: not found another place to live. He said, the renewal
Speaker 1: can be or the ferral can be renewed twice for
Speaker 1: total of eighteen months, which is plenty of time for
Speaker 1: Congress to engage in comprehensive immigration reforms. So this becomes
Speaker 1: a moot point. Yeah, yeah, this is where we are now.
Speaker 1: It is politically radioactive. Democrats viewed as politically radioactive to
Speaker 1: oppose giving illegal aliens free stuff from the tax bearer.
Speaker 1: And a better way to say that is stuff that
Speaker 1: the taxpayer pays for that is then appropriated by the
Speaker 1: government and given to people who are not entitled to
Speaker 1: be in the country legally. Tell me again, how the
Speaker 1: Democrats aren't the open borders party somebody police seem there's
Speaker 1: some stories, said, I didn't get a chance to address
Speaker 1: with you right when they came out, So I don't
Speaker 1: know if you've already heard a little bit of this,
Speaker 1: but I don't care because I have a take on
Speaker 1: it and I need to tell you about it. This
Speaker 1: is just from a couple of days ago when I
Speaker 1: was trying to make my way back from Red China.
Speaker 1: DNA tests This is the Washington Examiner reveal thirty percent
Speaker 1: thirty percent of suspected fraudulent migrant families were unrelated one
Speaker 1: and three. This is stunning. This is based on a
Speaker 1: pilot program with rapid DNA tests of immigrant adults who
Speaker 1: were quote suspected of arriving at the southern border with
Speaker 1: children who weren't theirs, and just revealed the adults were
Speaker 1: not co related to the children. Quote. There's been some
Speaker 1: concern are the stepfathers? Are they stepfathers or adopted fathers?
Speaker 1: Officials said those were not the case in these cases.
Speaker 1: They were miss represented as family members. Pilot lasted a
Speaker 1: few days earlier this month and was used only in McAllen,
Speaker 1: Texas and al Paso, Texas, according to ICE officials. Partment
Speaker 1: of Homeland Security said they'll look at the results to
Speaker 1: determine if it will be part of its comprehensive solution
Speaker 1: to border issues. Homeland Security has not issued a public
Speaker 1: statement on its intentions going forward. What have I been
Speaker 1: saying all along? This whole thing at the border is
Speaker 1: a massive, a massive scam. Of course people are going
Speaker 1: to abuse this system. It's an incredibly enticing offer to
Speaker 1: be able to show up with some kids at the
Speaker 1: border and find yourself all of a sudden, let into
Speaker 1: America without any without any real issue, without any problem.
Speaker 1: You are good to go. All you have you show
Speaker 1: up with kids. Of course people are going to do this.
Speaker 1: It's exactly what's been happening. And I know that that
Speaker 1: Trump is working on there's this immigration, immigration plan that's
Speaker 1: getting some play. It's getting talked about here, and I
Speaker 1: know Ken hu Chanelli is expected to pick up a
Speaker 1: major immigration role in the administration. I think I think
Speaker 1: that's a pretty solid pick. I saw some weird stuff
Speaker 1: about Kobak, Chris Kobak saying he needed to have a
Speaker 1: private jet. I don't know if that was the case
Speaker 1: or not. I was digging out, man, I had five
Speaker 1: hundred emails waiting for me after a week of being
Speaker 1: off the good five hundred emails, and lordly knows how
Speaker 1: many Facebook and Twitter and other messages, and I've been
Speaker 1: I've been digging out. So if there's anything today that
Speaker 1: I miss, You're like, Buck, you need to get to you.
Speaker 1: Please do let me know, Facebook dot Com, slash buck
Speaker 1: sex and I've I've tried. I'm trying to cover as
Speaker 1: much ground as I can is as quickly and efficiently
Speaker 1: as I can. But it's it was fire host time
Speaker 1: when I finally had connectivity again. But so back to
Speaker 1: what's going on here in the immigration I mean, Trump
Speaker 1: is in a position where he's better than the alternative
Speaker 1: on this right, He's better than Democrats who are effectively
Speaker 1: open borders. But Trump hasn't delivered, and we need to
Speaker 1: be very clear about that. Trump has not delivered on
Speaker 1: his promises on immigration. Let's not delude ourselves. Let's not
Speaker 1: pretend something is true that is not true, and that
Speaker 1: may be a problem for him going into reelection. That
Speaker 1: may be something that some of his base is not
Speaker 1: willing to accept. I don't know yet. But the massive scam,
Speaker 1: the more data we get on it, it keeps on
Speaker 1: becoming more clear that this is an active defrauding of
Speaker 1: the United States government. This isn't an active process of
Speaker 1: people showing up over one hundred thousand a month now
Speaker 1: lying and trying to scheme and abuse things. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've got the cartels, that cartels are running tons of
Speaker 1: illegal drugs over the border, all the time trying to
Speaker 1: find ways to do it more efficiently, better costs for them.
Speaker 1: And now they realize the money even made from human smuggling,
Speaker 1: so that they have an incentive too in helping these
Speaker 1: individuals that they are transporting and getting a fee from
Speaker 1: to get into the country, that it's better for their business.
Speaker 1: You know, I watched some movies on the plane. I
Speaker 1: know I'm making a little heat for this one. I
Speaker 1: couldn't even get through the Clint Eastwood movie The Mule,
Speaker 1: and I know people liked it. I just I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: He all of a sudden, he does like three trips
Speaker 1: with a bag in his car and a leader of
Speaker 1: a Mexican drug cartels, like he's our best guy. Come on,
Speaker 1: this is ridiculous. It's kind of a bad The plot's
Speaker 1: kind of a bad rip off of Breaking Bad. I know,
Speaker 1: I can hear some of you booing at me. That's fine,
Speaker 1: that's fine. I saw Stars Born. I was on a
Speaker 1: plane for twelve thirteen hours there and roughly the same
Speaker 1: coming back something like that. It was long flights to
Speaker 1: get to China. I saw Stars Born. Very good, predictable,
Speaker 1: but very good. Well acted well done. And now you
Speaker 1: know what, I'm gonna lean into the boo right now,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna lean into your booze. That's right. I missed you.
Speaker 1: All right, you're my family. I can tell you things
Speaker 1: that's gonna upset some of you. That's okay. We can
Speaker 1: do that. We have that kind of relationship. Aquaman was
Speaker 1: an unwatchable piece of trash. Oh, I know, it hurts
Speaker 1: me too. It hurts me too. Aquaman was terrible, completely
Speaker 1: and I don't remember who. I remember someone in conservative
Speaker 1: media writing nice stuff about it, and I think it
Speaker 1: was Twitter saying it was fun, and I want to
Speaker 1: find who it was, just so I can say, really, man,
Speaker 1: I can't remember who it is. Atom my heead. Aquaman
Speaker 1: was one of the worst movies. It's one of the
Speaker 1: worst big budget movies I've ever seen. I mean there's
Speaker 1: worst movies, obviously, but for a movie that they spent
Speaker 1: a lot on, for a movie with over one hundred
Speaker 1: million dollar budget, maybe even over two hundred million dollars budget,
Speaker 1: Aquaman was Mark, have you seen it? I y am
Speaker 1: I being too harsh, way too harsh? What Oh my gosh, Mark,
Speaker 1: come on, man. But like all these weird fish running around.
Speaker 1: There's like lasers and stuff. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But listen, I prefer Marvel movies, and I think the
Speaker 1: DC movies have been terrible in comparison, but Aquaman was
Speaker 1: one of the better ones. When you're looking at DC movies.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, Mark, how can a man who's so
Speaker 1: skilled and so right about so many things we so
Speaker 1: wrong on this one. But you know, I think the audi,
Speaker 1: I think most of the audience who seen Aquaman is
Speaker 1: probably with you. Oh but I do have a recommendation
Speaker 1: for you before we go into the break. They will
Speaker 1: not grow old. Fabulous, incredible. Really, it's Peter Jackson. It's
Speaker 1: World War One as told through the voices of people
Speaker 1: who were there into the trenches, literally there in the trenches,
Speaker 1: and they do a color update of the footage from it,
Speaker 1: and it's very well done. I mean, it's eerie, it's haunting.
Speaker 1: You will watch this and think, how could so much,
Speaker 1: how could so much human misery and death and the
Speaker 1: infliction of these casualties, How could this meet grinder of
Speaker 1: humanity have been allowed to happen the way that it did.
Speaker 1: But they they will not grow old. If you have
Speaker 1: not seen it. Refee. This is when you get on
Speaker 1: a long plane, right, you watch a lot of movies. Right,
Speaker 1: I read books and watch movies. It's excellent. It's excellent.
Speaker 1: It's it's a Every history class that does World War
Speaker 1: One should should watch that movie, every single one. It's
Speaker 1: a documentary. Really, but I mean every history class across
Speaker 1: the country, in my opinion, should have to watch that
Speaker 1: does World War One should have to watch. They will
Speaker 1: not grow old. It's excellent. We'll be right back. So
Speaker 1: it's not hypothetical. There's six thousand women a year who
Speaker 1: got abortions in the third that's right, representing less than
Speaker 1: one percent of cases. Let's pick ourselves in so let's
Speaker 1: put ourselves in the shoes of a woman in that situation.
Speaker 1: If it's that late in your pregnancy, that means almost
Speaker 1: by definition, you've been expecting to carry it to term.
Speaker 1: We're talking about women who have perhaps chosen a name,
Speaker 1: women who have purchased a crip. Families that then get
Speaker 1: the most devastating medical news of their lifetime, something about
Speaker 1: the health or the life of the mother that forces
Speaker 1: them to make an impossible, unthinkable choice, and the bottom
Speaker 1: line is as horrible as that choice is that woman,
Speaker 1: that family may seek spiritual guidance, they may seek medical guidance,
Speaker 1: but it's that decision is not going to be made
Speaker 1: any better medically or morally because the government is dictating
Speaker 1: how that decision should be made. People were all excited
Speaker 1: about Mayor Pete's town hall on Fox News, at least
Speaker 1: that audience was, and a lot of you're like, Buck,
Speaker 1: I wasn't excited. I want to take on that one
Speaker 1: moment there that we just played for you, or he's
Speaker 1: talking about third trimester abortions. I know. I was gone
Speaker 1: when this law pass in Alabama. I was in China,
Speaker 1: and I was able to pick up some of the
Speaker 1: media and left wing freak out over it. But now
Speaker 1: you have may Or Pete out there, and he's gained
Speaker 1: all He's the first Democrat candidate to not break out
Speaker 1: to the front of the pack, but go from being
Speaker 1: a kind of who cares candidate to being a top
Speaker 1: three or top four candidates. So he's he's obviously made
Speaker 1: his way up the ranks. And this is where I
Speaker 1: have to say that he's a guy who's willing to
Speaker 1: either pretend he's not as smart as we're told he is,
Speaker 1: or maybe he's just not that. Maybe he's not as
Speaker 1: clever as we're led to believe. I don't know, because
Speaker 1: what he said there was nonsense, total nonsense. You know,
Speaker 1: the games and the and the half truths, miss truths,
Speaker 1: the effort to hide what's really going on whenever you
Speaker 1: talk to the pro choice side about any of these issues.
Speaker 1: And I'm out here in California, and I was actually
Speaker 1: out last night just having a drink at the hotel
Speaker 1: where I'm dang, and I was around some people who
Speaker 1: are chatting and chatted up some some folks here who
Speaker 1: sure enough very very upset. I didn't bring up politics.
Speaker 1: They just started talking about it, turning a very very
Speaker 1: upset about the Alabama bill. It's getting a lot of
Speaker 1: attention among the Hollywood set. I think Tristan Wigg, who's
Speaker 1: from formerly of SNL still in SNL. I don't know,
Speaker 1: she said that she's taken her comedy show from there
Speaker 1: or something. I mean, there's all this stuff now, they're
Speaker 1: all upset about it. They want to do a women's march,
Speaker 1: you know, women's march for control of their Bodies or
Speaker 1: something like that. But they have been fed all this propaganda,
Speaker 1: and Boodha Chig Buddha Chig there or Buddha Judge, he's
Speaker 1: engaging in that very same kind of propaganda by saying
Speaker 1: that one, it's a function, or this is an issue.
Speaker 1: Third tremester abortions, of which of which there are nestimate
Speaker 1: at six thousand a year. It's a lot of people,
Speaker 1: a lot of little, tiny human beings, not nuts. Then
Speaker 1: you know, imagine if you said that you six thousand
Speaker 1: deaths from something that was entirely preventable, and he said, oh,
Speaker 1: it's only six thousand, and we're talking about dead babies.
Speaker 1: Oh it's only six thousand. That's what we can accept.
Speaker 1: That we could we could make it zero. But let's
Speaker 1: not make it zero because it's only six thousand. That's
Speaker 1: that's the moral fallacy that Buddha Judge is engaging in
Speaker 1: there because he needs the planned paranoide, he needs the
Speaker 1: left wing abortion lobby behind him, or else he has
Speaker 1: no no shot at winning the nomination and certainly no
Speaker 1: shot at winning the presidency. He knows that, so he'll
Speaker 1: say whatever he has to say under the circumstances. But
Speaker 1: what he also said there about how it's the life
Speaker 1: of the mother. That's a lie. There is, in fact,
Speaker 1: no known medical condition that arises in the third trimester
Speaker 1: of a pregnancy that requires the termination of the pregnancy
Speaker 1: for the safety of the mother. Induced labor, yes, bringing
Speaker 1: the baby out of the mother, yes, But there is
Speaker 1: no medical condition that exists. And you can check it.
Speaker 1: You can check this, you know, check my homework on
Speaker 1: this if you like. No medical condition that exists that
Speaker 1: requires the termination of a pregnancy in the third trimester,
Speaker 1: No such thing. Does may or Pete not know that,
Speaker 1: or does he not care to know that? Does he
Speaker 1: just prefer to lie? Does he prefer to make it
Speaker 1: up as he goes along? And it's even worse than that.
Speaker 1: Notice how he uses words to describe a third trimester
Speaker 1: abortion like unthinkable and horrible. That's not how the abortion
Speaker 1: left describes any abortion. They don't think of it as unthinkable,
Speaker 1: they don't say it's horrible. In fact, you do have
Speaker 1: the incredibly ghoulish and really satanic mentality among many of
Speaker 1: the pro planned parenthood set on the Democrat and the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that abortion should be celebrated, that this is
Speaker 1: something that is the manifestation of a kind of empowerment
Speaker 1: of women, that you know, women are now free because
Speaker 1: of abortion. Therefore, you know, shout your abortion, celebrate your abortion.
Speaker 1: Horrible stuff. So why does mayor Pete say this is
Speaker 1: terrible and then lie about why it's necessary. It's not
Speaker 1: medically necessary. That's not true. It is terrible. And if
Speaker 1: it's terrible and not medically necessary, why does he still
Speaker 1: supported eighty percent plus in all the reputable polling that
Speaker 1: I've seen of the American people say that there should
Speaker 1: not be any abortions in the third trimester eighty percent plus.
Speaker 1: This is an issue where there's really not a lot
Speaker 1: of not a lot of doubt when it comes to
Speaker 1: the data about where the American people are. So, then
Speaker 1: why is the Democratic Party a party of abortion extremism,
Speaker 1: meaning that they will accept, they will sign on for,
Speaker 1: they will allow, without a fight, any restriction on abortion whatsoever.
Speaker 1: They will allow none, no restrictions whatsoever. So there de
Speaker 1: facto in the minority in a fringe here for their position.
Speaker 1: But they because of the Supreme Court and because of
Speaker 1: the ways that they have been able to manipulate the
Speaker 1: levers of power to their advantage on this issue, They've
Speaker 1: skipped through the legislative process, They've skipped through the democracy
Speaker 1: that they profess to love so much. When it comes
Speaker 1: to defending our democracy, it gets Trump and Russia. Notice
Speaker 1: how the same this is, I know, a digression, but
Speaker 1: we'll talk about this in the next hour. The same
Speaker 1: idiots who have been saying that Trump does Putin's bidding
Speaker 1: all the time don't have anything to say about now
Speaker 1: the story that they're running. I don't think it's a really,
Speaker 1: really a threat that Trump is going to go to
Speaker 1: war with Iran. Iran is a client state of Russia
Speaker 1: in many ways. I mean, Iran and Russia are closely allied.
Speaker 1: They work together to prop up the Assad regime. Putin
Speaker 1: does not want Iran to collapse, does not want regime change.
Speaker 1: Putin is supportive of the Mullust. So if Trump were
Speaker 1: Putin's puppet, why would he do that? I just I
Speaker 1: would like some of the so called smart set in
Speaker 1: the media and the different you know, pundits and analysts
Speaker 1: on the left who hate Tryan on the right who
Speaker 1: hate Trump so much and say his Putin's puppet, explain
Speaker 1: that one. To me, taking out Russia's most important clients
Speaker 1: stayed in the Middle East, more important even than Syria,
Speaker 1: is that doing Putin's bidding? That must be fifteen d chest.
Speaker 1: That must be some level of chess that no one's
Speaker 1: ever heard of or thought of before. That's how skilled
Speaker 1: the Russian manipulation of Trump is that no one could
Speaker 1: even imagine how it's a manipulation they would ever want
Speaker 1: to engage in anyway. Back to this situation with Buddha Judge,
Speaker 1: I have not been impressed with this guy so far.
Speaker 1: I found his answer on abortion to be intellectually indefensible
Speaker 1: and based on lies. And I think that we have
Speaker 1: to remember what is at stake here. The Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is a party of abortion extremism. There's no question about this.
Speaker 1: And we are finally pushing back and fighting back, and
Speaker 1: things are going to get ugly around this issue. Just
Speaker 1: wait if a Supreme Court seat opens up too, It's
Speaker 1: going to get truly nasty out there. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: Iran and what's going on with the Trump administration, and
Speaker 1: also a plan to judge to assess how much adversity
Speaker 1: a person has faced when they're being considered for admission
Speaker 1: to a certain college. Oh sure, this isn't going to
Speaker 1: be a huge invitation for abuse. Favor pulling all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff. Oh no, no, this is going to be
Speaker 1: just great, isn't. We'll get into that and more coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with me, Team You are now entering the Freedom
Speaker 1: hot Table Operation Center. All programs strictly need to know
Speaker 1: Team Buck is cleared and ready for the Buck brief.
Speaker 1: Don't kid yourself. You do have a military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: They do like war in Syria with the Caliphaith. So
Speaker 1: I wipe out one hundred percent of the Caliphaith, That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean you're not going to have these crazy people
Speaker 1: going around blowing up stores and blowing up things. These
Speaker 1: are seriously ill people. They want to bring our troops
Speaker 1: back home to place when crazy they want to keep.
Speaker 1: You have people here in Washington. They never want to leave.
Speaker 1: I say, you know what I'll do. I'll leave a
Speaker 1: couple of hundred soldiers behind, But if it was up
Speaker 1: to them, they bring thousands of soldiers in. Someday people
Speaker 1: will explain it, well, you do have You do have
Speaker 1: a group, and they call it the military industrial complex.
Speaker 1: They never want to leave. They always want to fight. No,
Speaker 1: I don't want to fight, but you do have situations
Speaker 1: like Iran. You can't let them have no clear weapons.
Speaker 1: You just can't let that happen. So I come back
Speaker 1: from China only to find out that the the media
Speaker 1: is suggesting that the president wants a war with Iran,
Speaker 1: and I think this is just reckless, absolutely reckless stuff.
Speaker 1: And it reminds me of what I saw when I
Speaker 1: was When I was over there, you know, there were
Speaker 1: no channels really to watch in English. There were, I
Speaker 1: mean a handful. One was like soccer all the time.
Speaker 1: Another had a lot of bad minton on it, which
Speaker 1: is really exhilarating, and watched that professional badminton stuff woo.
Speaker 1: But there was CNN International And I must tell you
Speaker 1: CNN International is anti American propaganda for the rest of
Speaker 1: the world. A CNN International's perspective on all the different
Speaker 1: news stories of the day is trash Trump and take
Speaker 1: the view of this administration. And I would argue anything
Speaker 1: that American does because this administration take the perspective that
Speaker 1: what they're doing is terrible. Trump is a monster. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, this is all so bad. This is terrible, bad,
Speaker 1: bad things. And I mean, I just think CNN should
Speaker 1: be ashamed of itself. You know, from watching it in
Speaker 1: my hotel room, I had no choice. There was no Fox,
Speaker 1: there was nothing else that I could watch for the news,
Speaker 1: and I, as I've said, didn't have my cell phone
Speaker 1: or my laptop. So CNN International comes on and I say, oh,
Speaker 1: my gosh. You know, Trump wants to start a war
Speaker 1: with they're on. Trump wants to start a war with
Speaker 1: North Korea. You know, the Trump administrations in disarray. Trump
Speaker 1: is a colluded with Russia, He's a criminal. All these stories,
Speaker 1: all this really terrible stuff about the commander in chief
Speaker 1: of the United States, coming from Americans, coming from people
Speaker 1: who you would think would have some sense of pride
Speaker 1: and loyalty to their country when they're presenting it to
Speaker 1: the rest of the world and people are gonna tell me, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: they're being objective journalist bull crap. They take this very
Speaker 1: left wing globalist, internationalist point of view that America is
Speaker 1: no different from or better than any other country because
Speaker 1: they're pandering to the international audience. They're pandering to people
Speaker 1: in other countries that watch CNN, which is not that
Speaker 1: many people. But you know, CNN has managed to insert
Speaker 1: itself into airports and places all over the world where
Speaker 1: you have no choice, like me, stuck in a hotel
Speaker 1: room in Beijing and then Shanghai. No choice really but
Speaker 1: to watch CNN if you want to get news. But
Speaker 1: they should be ashamed. But on this Iran piece, and
Speaker 1: really it really burned my behind. Man, it got me.
Speaker 1: It got me very agitated because this stuff, you know,
Speaker 1: with bro Cuomo and Cooper and these people, I don't
Speaker 1: know how they don't understand that what they do justify
Speaker 1: eyes a lot of anti Americanism abroad and justifies a
Speaker 1: lot of the a lot of the sense in much
Speaker 1: of the rest of the world or some of the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, that we are the cause of
Speaker 1: so many global problems. I mean, the truth is that
Speaker 1: the world, including China, should be thanking America every day,
Speaker 1: said thank you America for all the incredible stuff that
Speaker 1: you have done, not saying we're perfect. But on balance,
Speaker 1: the world has benefited immensely from the United States. China
Speaker 1: specifically has benefited tremendously from the United States from our
Speaker 1: sense of goodwill and our desire for prosperity and the
Speaker 1: betterment of humankind. That's something that America has been profound
Speaker 1: in advancing over over many, many, many decades, over really centuries,
Speaker 1: but over many decades. For sure. But on Iran, I
Speaker 1: come back and I see what's going on. I think, well, wow,
Speaker 1: Trump must be doing all kinds of crazy stuff. All
Speaker 1: I can see is to see an inversion of it.
Speaker 1: Turns out to know what they're They're pushing sanctions, additional sanctions,
Speaker 1: Beyomba Obama had. The Iranians are trying to see what
Speaker 1: they can get away with. They're pulling some nonsense here
Speaker 1: and there, and turns out that the Iranians start to
Speaker 1: squeal a little bit. They don't like it when the
Speaker 1: pressure is enough that it hurts. And what I would
Speaker 1: say to this, and I know I was on Shannon
Speaker 1: bream show last night talking about it, is, of course
Speaker 1: the Iranians don't like this. Of course the Iranians aren't saying, oh,
Speaker 1: you mean Trump is really going to hold us accountable
Speaker 1: for the terrorism that we not just support that they direct,
Speaker 1: that they engage in themselves. I mean, the IRGC is
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization. The IRGC is the elite, so to speak,
Speaker 1: the wing of the Islamic Revolution. This is this is
Speaker 1: their equivalent, the Iranian Revolutions, equivalent of the Praetorian Guard
Speaker 1: and the SEAS now listed as a terrorist group as
Speaker 1: it should be. So this isn't just a state sponsor
Speaker 1: of terror, it's really a terrorist state, and that's what
Speaker 1: you have in Tehran. And Trump takes the perspective that
Speaker 1: we're not going to allow them to just keep sending
Speaker 1: money to Hezbollah and Hamas and the Houthi rebels and
Speaker 1: Yemen and fighters to Syria and propping up the Asido regime,
Speaker 1: all this different stuff that's going on. It's not okay,
Speaker 1: it's not all right. And to stop them from doing it,
Speaker 1: you have to inflict pain on them. What does it
Speaker 1: tell us about what the Obama administration's approach was that
Speaker 1: the Iranians are shocked that there is now an administration,
Speaker 1: that there is now a White House that insists on
Speaker 1: an end to Iran acting as the you know, second
Speaker 1: worst access of evil country still in exists. I think
Speaker 1: you could argue North Korea is still worse, although you know,
Speaker 1: North Korea is worse to its own people and has
Speaker 1: the potential to be much worse on a national security level.
Speaker 1: But North Korea, day in and day out, is not
Speaker 1: engaged in the same kind of subversion of our interests
Speaker 1: and attacks on our allies that you see the Iranians
Speaker 1: engaged in So there's different cases to be made here.
Speaker 1: But I just think that the way that this was presented,
Speaker 1: it was so interesting for me to have to rely
Speaker 1: on very limited source of information. And I wasn't going
Speaker 1: to call my sources in you know, Langley, I wasn't
Speaker 1: going to call my sources in the White House, I
Speaker 1: because you know, the Chinese are listening to everything that
Speaker 1: I do, so I had to rely on what I
Speaker 1: was given. I'd rely on Chinese State News and CNN, which,
Speaker 1: no surprise to a lot of you listening, I'm sure
Speaker 1: line up a lot in terms of their editorial positions.
Speaker 1: Somehow CNN is finding itself more often than not opposing
Speaker 1: the US perspective in US interests on a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of issues. What a what a journalistic abomination it is?
Speaker 1: I know, I know, I keep switching off from which
Speaker 1: do you hate more buck, Iran or CNN. It's a
Speaker 1: good question one I should give some additional thought too.
Speaker 1: You know, the Iranians are far away threats. CNN is
Speaker 1: right here for us, so I'm not seeing anything with
Speaker 1: the moves administration taking with Iran. For those of you,
Speaker 1: I know you've been writing in and asking about this.
Speaker 1: I don't see anything that's out of line, that's going
Speaker 1: too far. Trump when he says all options are on
Speaker 1: the table, he means it, and there will be consequences
Speaker 1: for bad actions from the Iranians. But there's not going
Speaker 1: to be a ground troop invasion. We're not going to
Speaker 1: send one hundred and twenty thousand soldiers into Iran. And
Speaker 1: I'll say this right now, and I will stand behind
Speaker 1: this if if it comes down to it, I would
Speaker 1: very much vocally actively oppose another US military intervention in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. We're not rebuilding another country for somebody
Speaker 1: else in the Muslim world. We're just not doing it.
Speaker 1: We cannot be dragged into that again. But Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: want to get dragged in. That's why we started off
Speaker 1: with his with his sound bite on what's going on
Speaker 1: in Syria. And he understands. He doesn't want to leave
Speaker 1: troops in these places. He knows that it's endless. He
Speaker 1: knows that Afghanistan is never going to be what we've
Speaker 1: been promised by many people who have been in charge,
Speaker 1: stretching back for now going on twenty years. It's never
Speaker 1: gonna be what we've been promised. It's never gonna work
Speaker 1: the way they say it's gonna work. Trump knows that
Speaker 1: he wants out, so his instincts are right on this stuff.
Speaker 1: We're not invading Iran. We're not taking over Iran. That's
Speaker 1: just fear mongering from people including CNN and see an
Speaker 1: international opposing US interest and making us look bad on
Speaker 1: the world stage, and any remember anything to hurt Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, ultimately, that is the m O here is
Speaker 1: whatever the news story is, if it looks bad for Trump,
Speaker 1: that's what we have to That's what we have to
Speaker 1: go with. That's what they're gonna do. And just amazing
Speaker 1: to be subjected to it in a way where I
Speaker 1: couldn't scare ape overseas. Man, it was so good to
Speaker 1: be back, So good to actually have real media people
Speaker 1: that I can talk to and rely on on. Behalf
Speaker 1: of the eighth generations of my family who have been
Speaker 1: in this country. We're gonna put a little fuel in
Speaker 1: your bus. This is my class twenty nineteen, and my
Speaker 1: family is making a grant to eliminate their student loans
Speaker 1: because we are enough to take care of our own community.
Speaker 1: We are enough to ensure we have all the opportunities
Speaker 1: of an American dream, and we will show up to
Speaker 1: each other through our actions and through our words and
Speaker 1: through our deeds. Great story here about how billionaire Robert Smith,
Speaker 1: he's an African American founder and CEO of Vista Equity Partners.
Speaker 1: How he said that at the graduation for Moorhouse College
Speaker 1: for this year, he was going to pay off all
Speaker 1: the student loans for all those all those in agels
Speaker 1: in that class with a great story. Um. And you know,
Speaker 1: obviously a really really nice graduation gift. I don't I
Speaker 1: don't even know if I got a graduation gift, but
Speaker 1: it's it's a very you know, heartwarming and one of
Speaker 1: these things where I'm happy that we get to talk
Speaker 1: about it. Um. But it also brought up I think
Speaker 1: a lot of very interesting commentary from a left about how,
Speaker 1: you know, this shouldn't be seen as a as a
Speaker 1: band aid and this is and this doesn't really deal
Speaker 1: with the student debt. I'm you know, no good deed
Speaker 1: goes unpunished, especially when the left is involved. And so
Speaker 1: this guy, people said, you know, he's I saw people
Speaker 1: on social media calling him a sellout for different things
Speaker 1: he's done in the past, like can't the guy help
Speaker 1: a bunch of African American students out without getting just
Speaker 1: trash for it by some bizarre turn of of of logic,
Speaker 1: And that's what they end up doing. But you know,
Speaker 1: then then you realize how contentious this whole college debt,
Speaker 1: but also college admissions and and the academy and college
Speaker 1: campuses as the arbiters of who gets what in life.
Speaker 1: We need to really think about this more. They're credentialing academies. Largely,
Speaker 1: people don't learn all that much in these undergraduate programs anymore.
Speaker 1: I know that that's some will challenge challenge me on that,
Speaker 1: but I know that I'm right. Overwhelmingly, what you have
Speaker 1: with these schools are they are very expensive ways to
Speaker 1: separate yourself from others and create some kind of brand value.
Speaker 1: Now for your undergraducations very valuable in the job market.
Speaker 1: It's really a prerequisite now for a lot of jobs.
Speaker 1: But as more and more people get them, it's not
Speaker 1: as valuable, valuable as it used to be, And so
Speaker 1: you're seeing a bit of downward pressure on college degrees,
Speaker 1: so that now people are suggesting you got to go
Speaker 1: to get a graduate degree, you got to get a
Speaker 1: business school, you gotta do all these other things. But
Speaker 1: there's also this effort to say, well, if we're going
Speaker 1: to make school, elite schools more valuable in this process
Speaker 1: because more and more people are going to go to schools,
Speaker 1: how do we determine who goes to elite schools? Ah,
Speaker 1: the admissions side of this. Now, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: talk about how Aunt Becky from Full House in a
Speaker 1: lot of trouble and Felicity Huffman from Desperate Housewives I
Speaker 1: think has already been she's already pleaded guilty of that
Speaker 1: might have happened right before I left for China. Now
Speaker 1: this is a different admissions story, and it has to
Speaker 1: do with something that until I read about it, I
Speaker 1: didn't think that it was possible. I didn't think that
Speaker 1: this was something that they would really do. But sure enough,
Speaker 1: here we are. Now the College Board has announced that
Speaker 1: they will when they administered the SAT, they're going to
Speaker 1: append a quote adversity index to aptitude the SAT aptitude
Speaker 1: scores so they can create a handicap system for handicap
Speaker 1: as in like golf handicap or standards of privilege. That's right,
Speaker 1: there's going to be an overall disadvantage level that is
Speaker 1: assessed here as part of your standardized scores, and it's
Speaker 1: going to create what they're calling a quote environmental context dashboard.
Speaker 1: My friends, this is going to be a disaster. This
Speaker 1: isn't right, It doesn't make any sense. It will not
Speaker 1: work the way it is intended to work. It will
Speaker 1: only cause more problems. People need to stop trying to
Speaker 1: create a system where there is a lack of reliance
Speaker 1: on what is objective and replace it with what is
Speaker 1: entirely subjective or increasingly subjective in the minds of these
Speaker 1: admissions committees, based on social justice. That's what this is.
Speaker 1: This is a social justice balancing in college, in the
Speaker 1: college admissions process. And I would want to ask question.
Speaker 1: It's like, okay, how do you how would you put
Speaker 1: how would you gauge the overall disadvantage level of a
Speaker 1: white middle class kid whose mom comes down with cancer
Speaker 1: and let's say she's the main breadwinner in the house actually,
Speaker 1: and then you know, the dad has to stop his
Speaker 1: job and then they lose their house. Does that person
Speaker 1: have white privilege or where do they fall on the
Speaker 1: disadvantage index. This reminds me of a leftist that I
Speaker 1: used to read. I can't remember the guys, Oh, Freddie
Speaker 1: Debour I think was his name, talking about how trauma
Speaker 1: is something the left for a while tried to corner
Speaker 1: the market on that you could only have you can
Speaker 1: only use the word trauma and have trauma psychologically if
Speaker 1: you were in a press minority. And he said, well,
Speaker 1: what about losing your parents, what about dealing with serious illness,
Speaker 1: any number of different traumas that one can suffer over
Speaker 1: the course of a lifetime. Does that does that could
Speaker 1: discounted if you're a white male. There are some leftists
Speaker 1: wh would say, well, yes, it can't reach the level
Speaker 1: of psychological trauma of being an oppressed minority in America.
Speaker 1: How do we assess this? How do you create a table,
Speaker 1: a chart, that's what they're doing here, that would assign
Speaker 1: some kind of numeric value to the degree of oppression.
Speaker 1: You know, we've often here on the show talked about
Speaker 1: intersectionality and how it's the left's approach to well life
Speaker 1: in America, which is that there's all these different, intersecting
Speaker 1: and overlapping groups that either suffer from oppression or enjoy
Speaker 1: different degrees of privilege. But there really is a hierarchy,
Speaker 1: a clear hierarchy. This is the college board, which has
Speaker 1: a lot of power because it helps determine where people
Speaker 1: go to school. This is the college board saying that
Speaker 1: they are getting into the social justice game in a
Speaker 1: big way and trying to balance the playing field more
Speaker 1: toward people that they believe are oppressed, that go to
Speaker 1: schools that have school lunch as a higher percentage, you know,
Speaker 1: provided by the government, that have more single parent households.
Speaker 1: That this is doomed a failure. It's going to be
Speaker 1: highly imprecise and incredibly politicide. And how anyone could not
Speaker 1: see that is really beyond me. I mean, how anyone
Speaker 1: could think that this will be anything other than an
Speaker 1: ongoing fight and a disaster for an already cheetering on
Speaker 1: the brink of annihilation college emissions process with the end
Speaker 1: of affirmative action, which I do think is coming. I
Speaker 1: think affirmative action and college admissions is going to be
Speaker 1: I think it will be found unconstitutional at some point
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. I can't tell you when. But the disadvantage,
Speaker 1: overall disadvantage level, the adversity index, now it's going to
Speaker 1: be applied to it. Oh and if it starts in colleges.
Speaker 1: You know, Ork's next. Folks, jobs, government hiring all over
Speaker 1: the place. You're going to see this. This is gonna
Speaker 1: tear us apart as a society if we allow this
Speaker 1: is very, very destructive. I gotta get into roll call
Speaker 1: because it's been a while, right back. Ain't no party
Speaker 1: like a Team Buck party, because a Team Buck party
Speaker 1: don't stop. Yeah, we got bucks turned up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Roll call time, everybody. It's
Speaker 1: been a while in a while. It is so so
Speaker 1: good to be back. Man, I missed doing this. I
Speaker 1: will say that it's tough to take vacation when you
Speaker 1: feel like vacation takes you away from the thing you love.
Speaker 1: It's true. I know it sounds a little corny maybe
Speaker 1: to some of you, but it is true. Although it
Speaker 1: was really some think of a working vacation. Nonetheless, roll
Speaker 1: call is where we are now. Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Michael Rights. Even if nothing untoward happened while you were there,
Speaker 1: there's always a feeling of relief when the plane clears
Speaker 1: Chinese airspace. That's the thing about authoritarian regimes. You just
Speaker 1: never know. Knee how bub sextual well, Michael, I gotta
Speaker 1: agree with you, my friend. There's something that's always a
Speaker 1: little unsettling about going to a country where there is
Speaker 1: no such thing as due process, where you don't have
Speaker 1: the ability to challenge in any kind of true adversarial sense,
Speaker 1: the whim of the government. You know, when I was
Speaker 1: over there, one thing that would come up is people said,
Speaker 1: and the locals wouldn't really say this, but some of
Speaker 1: the old China hands that I was traveling with, people
Speaker 1: that have been to the country a lot and know
Speaker 1: the country, would refer to how in some place is
Speaker 1: they would just clear out. They would clear out a
Speaker 1: whole section of housing. And they called it a Chinese
Speaker 1: style approach to dealing with urban sprawl, urbanization, gentrification, which
Speaker 1: is the government says you leave now, you're done, and
Speaker 1: that's it, and you don't really have any redress. Now
Speaker 1: that's just about people's that's about people's homes, which is important.
Speaker 1: But you can imagine a situation where your freedom maybe
Speaker 1: in jeopardy, and it's very unsettling. You do not want
Speaker 1: to be on the wrong side of an authoritarian police state,
Speaker 1: no matter how efficient and you know, economically powerful. It
Speaker 1: has become so I'm very much with you, my friend.
Speaker 1: It was it was a big sigh of relief when
Speaker 1: I cleared Chinese airspace, just because, as you said, I
Speaker 1: had no reason to be concerned. But you just you
Speaker 1: don't know my right. So Buck, how many continents have
Speaker 1: you been to? How many countries are you planning on visiting?
Speaker 1: An Antarctica at some point? Shield's high, you know, Michael,
Speaker 1: I've traveled a fair amount, but there's a lot of
Speaker 1: places that you know. So I've been to now China,
Speaker 1: Southeast Asia, all over the Middle East, all over Europe.
Speaker 1: That's really it. I'm not somebody who's traveled in South America.
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who has traveled in Central Eurasia much.
Speaker 1: Haven't been to Russia. I don't know when I'm gonna
Speaker 1: go to Russia anytime. But there's there's places that on
Speaker 1: my list, top of my list to go that I
Speaker 1: haven't been to yet. Spain, Portugal, nice places. I'm at
Speaker 1: a point now in life where I really do prefer
Speaker 1: to go somewhere that I can drink the water and
Speaker 1: that I don't have to be worried about the day
Speaker 1: to day life support things that you do anywhere you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like when I have to brush my teeth
Speaker 1: with bottled water, for example, so I won't go to
Speaker 1: places like that on vacation. Usually China, I was using
Speaker 1: bottled water. I think some people say you don't necessarily
Speaker 1: have to depending on where you're staying, but I did.
Speaker 1: I think that was probably the right move. I know
Speaker 1: there's a lot of places that I haven't been to
Speaker 1: that I really want to go do. And I know
Speaker 1: other people listening to this who have done a whole
Speaker 1: lot more traveling than me. Jeff, welcome back, Buck. Glad
Speaker 1: to see you didn't come back on your shield. Well, Jeff,
Speaker 1: that makes two of us. You didn't overdo it with
Speaker 1: the by j I don't even know what that is.
Speaker 1: I had visited China about ten years ago, and I've
Speaker 1: noticed that people really didn't like six foot three westerners
Speaker 1: walking around, even at a hard time catching a cab.
Speaker 1: Just wondering if things had changed at all, Jeff. You know,
Speaker 1: you get a huge variety. You get people that come
Speaker 1: from the more rural parts of China, some of the
Speaker 1: outer lying provinces, who come into Beijing, who come into Shanghai,
Speaker 1: and they find Westerners to be a kind of exciting treat.
Speaker 1: They want to take photos with us. I mean, I
Speaker 1: had people that wanted to take photos with me. Not
Speaker 1: because they're part of my beloved radio audience, although I
Speaker 1: guess that would theoretically be possible because they could listen
Speaker 1: to podcast, but because they just find the site of
Speaker 1: a Westerner and you know, my little scraggly red Beard
Speaker 1: and everything else. They find it interesting. And I even
Speaker 1: had people tell me that they've had parents hand their
Speaker 1: kids to a Western because they want the kid to
Speaker 1: pose with the Western and a photographs because they think
Speaker 1: it's kind of funny or they like it for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: There's much less of that with the native Beijing population
Speaker 1: and with the Shanghai Shanghai Nie native Shanghai folks. So
Speaker 1: there you go. They're not and I think there's right
Speaker 1: now because of the old trade war situation. There's a
Speaker 1: degree of hostility. Now there's a degree of you know,
Speaker 1: irritation and frustration at America and also a sense of
Speaker 1: a swelling nationalist and economic pride from the side of
Speaker 1: the Chinese. Where it used to be Oh America, McDonald's,
Speaker 1: Coca Cola, Hollywood, there was a more of a sense
Speaker 1: of how great America was or how there was a
Speaker 1: cultural fondness. Now I think the Chinese and this is
Speaker 1: what look, this is why they've shut off Google's well,
Speaker 1: they've shut off Facebook. They want to do it their
Speaker 1: way and they want their approach, and as a result,
Speaker 1: there's a little bit of the other rising of America
Speaker 1: in the eyes of the Chinese. And you are definitely
Speaker 1: the other when you are there, that is for sure. Nathan,
Speaker 1: hey Bock, hope you're having a great trip. Your guest
Speaker 1: host are on point. But producer Mike know the volume
Speaker 1: on Stitcher is better and three commercials aren't for trend
Speaker 1: gender issue podcast, great job shields high. Nathan, I don't
Speaker 1: know what the podcast commercials were, but I can tell
Speaker 1: you that I'm seeing a lot of very positive feedback
Speaker 1: about our guest hosts across the board. And that's that's
Speaker 1: my mission for all of you, is that when if
Speaker 1: I can't be here, I always want someone at the
Speaker 1: reins if I have to, if I'm sick or on vacation,
Speaker 1: which don't I don't like doing either of those things,
Speaker 1: really vacation. Once in a while, I want somebody at
Speaker 1: the helm of the freedom hunt who is really good,
Speaker 1: who's doing a good show for you that you're going
Speaker 1: to want to listen to Other hosts do this thing,
Speaker 1: and I get the kind of the mediocre to weak
Speaker 1: host so that people, oh, I miss you know so
Speaker 1: and so so amazing. That's not my approach. I prefer
Speaker 1: to have somebody in who's really good and hopefully you
Speaker 1: still always want me back. Brittany rights, Team Buck misses you,
Speaker 1: safe travels and if China tries to keep you, which
Speaker 1: I wouldn't blame them for, I'll join the bring Buck
Speaker 1: back movement. Well, Brittany, I very much appreciate that. Fortunately
Speaker 1: it did not come to that, so that's a good thing.
Speaker 1: But yeah, thank you so much. Missed all of you too,
Speaker 1: William right Cia analyst Jack Ryan Amazon Prime series. It
Speaker 1: has John Krasinski from the Office in thirteen hours. I
Speaker 1: only watched the first episode and thought it was awesome.
Speaker 1: Jack Ryan reminded me of you because he's an analyst
Speaker 1: and he was walking around drinking coffee. Indeed, William, two
Speaker 1: things I was very good at. Watch it and give
Speaker 1: Team Buck your thoughts shields high. William, I think I've
Speaker 1: talked about that show before. I thought it was pretty entertaining.
Speaker 1: It's preposterous. I mean, it's wildly unrealistic, but it is
Speaker 1: pretty entertaining. I can say that it's something that I
Speaker 1: think you will enjoy if you were to watch the
Speaker 1: rest of it. And John Krasinski does a good job.
Speaker 1: I wasn't. I know he was good in the office too.
Speaker 1: I should separate out. You know, do I like his politics?
Speaker 1: Knows he a big lib Yes, But overall I think
Speaker 1: he does a pretty good job on that show. And yeah,
Speaker 1: sometimes CI analysts do get the girl or the ladies,
Speaker 1: as the case may be. That's right, allo, all rights.
Speaker 1: I just turned on the podcast from Monday with Charlie
Speaker 1: Kirk and liked the first few minutes about the China
Speaker 1: trade war. Sounded like a Rush Limbaugh regurgitation, but good information.
Speaker 1: Then Charlie went into the into the latest episode of
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones, which I haven't seen yet. I turned
Speaker 1: off the podcast and will not listen anytime Charlie's on
Speaker 1: his podcast. He doesn't even have the common sense not
Speaker 1: to tell movie plots on national shows. Shields, I hope
Speaker 1: all as well in China, you know, also attacking China
Speaker 1: on your national show while you're in China could make
Speaker 1: you the next victim of a Chinese kidnapping. Just a thought. Well, all,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry if there was a spoiler for you about
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones, but you know that's gonna be, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: something that's an occupational hazard for people in media when
Speaker 1: when there's a big thing like that, people are going
Speaker 1: to talk about it. But I can tell you I
Speaker 1: have not seen the last two episodes of Game of Thrones,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to waste any of your time
Speaker 1: talking about it right now because I haven't seen it,
Speaker 1: so that wouldn't make any sense. But also, I've known
Speaker 1: for a while, and I've been saying it for a
Speaker 1: while that the show is it's not what it used
Speaker 1: to be. It's it's gone off the rails a little bit.
Speaker 1: It's just not as compelling. It's not the writing is
Speaker 1: not as good, the writing is not as tight, and
Speaker 1: you just see that throughout. So that's where I am
Speaker 1: one of my friends. That's that's what I got for
Speaker 1: you on Game of Thrones. For now. I'll come back
Speaker 1: when I've got more and we'll hit a quick pause,
Speaker 1: come back to finish out the roll call strong, stay
Speaker 1: with me, all right, We're back in roll Call after
Speaker 1: the longest absence that I think I've had from this
Speaker 1: show since it began, and I don't know, I don't
Speaker 1: want to. I'm not taken off like that again for
Speaker 1: a while because I missed you all too much. But
Speaker 1: let's get right back into it with all of your thoughts,
Speaker 1: all of your comments, suggestions, witticisms. Irene, right, it's glad
Speaker 1: you're home, safe and sound. The guys filled in well
Speaker 1: for you, but you are the Buck. Welcome back. We'll
Speaker 1: be listening tonight here you're on after Hannity. Well, I'm
Speaker 1: in great company then, and Irene, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for your kind words. Missed you all too. It is
Speaker 1: good to be back, Terry, Welcome back. Buck. Question. I
Speaker 1: know when people modify their mortgages, the IRS views these
Speaker 1: forgiven debts as new income. Happened to my brother in law.
Speaker 1: Will this be the case if Liz Warren gets her
Speaker 1: college debt forgiveness plan. Would people get a letter from
Speaker 1: the IRS claiming they owe money because of this new
Speaker 1: debt modification? Shields high from Terry? You know, Terry, I
Speaker 1: always tell you when I don't know in the answers,
Speaker 1: I have no idea. Now, I think it's fair to
Speaker 1: say that no one really has any idea, because if
Speaker 1: you're if we're really talking about a future Elizabeth Warren plan,
Speaker 1: you know, who knows what that's gonna look like when
Speaker 1: it's all when it's all said and done, I mean,
Speaker 1: who knows where that's really gonna shake out. I would
Speaker 1: say that it sounds to me like the IRS, unless
Speaker 1: they created some kind of a car about the IRS
Speaker 1: might consider that to be some form of new income.
Speaker 1: This is why I'm still an advocate for We need
Speaker 1: the IRS to be much much smaller. We need the
Speaker 1: IRS to have a simplified code, all this stuff, but
Speaker 1: you have it, Stephen, Right, Hey, Buck, this a little
Speaker 1: out of left field. Okay, maybe the next zip code over.
Speaker 1: But I listened to Joe Rogan the other day and
Speaker 1: he had on Tulsi Gabbert. If Penns decided not to run,
Speaker 1: what do you think of her? She's all about the
Speaker 1: people like Trump. Plus, I think she'd be the perfect
Speaker 1: Yang to his yang. I selected them to be with
Speaker 1: the Republican just wanted to hear your thoughts, shields high, Stephen.
Speaker 1: I will tell you of the Democrats and some of
Speaker 1: you might get mad at me for this. I kind
Speaker 1: of like Tulci Gabbert. I know that they they trash
Speaker 1: her over the whole Assad thing, but maybe that was
Speaker 1: bad judgment to talk to him, and maybe her positions
Speaker 1: on Assad are not in line with I can't even
Speaker 1: tell you what their positions are. I'll be I've got
Speaker 1: to just say I know that the left and the
Speaker 1: right trash her for what she does and what she says,
Speaker 1: but because she agitates all the right leftists, I think
Speaker 1: that there must be something to her. There must be
Speaker 1: something to recommend Dulcie Gabbert because the the establishment left
Speaker 1: and even many progressives hate her, absolutely hate her, and
Speaker 1: she seems pretty inoffensive to me on a number of
Speaker 1: a number of topics, and I think that her sense
Speaker 1: of where we are in terms of interview mentioned in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, I think she's on the right track
Speaker 1: with that. So I find Tulsie Gabert kind of interesting.
Speaker 1: I also just have to note that the Democrats have
Speaker 1: really abandoned her and do not do not promote her.
Speaker 1: She is not a favorite of the Democrat establishment, either
Speaker 1: on the far left or the more DNC Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: Biden of types. So that's what I got for you
Speaker 1: on Tulsi Gabert. Maybe I'll get her on the show.
Speaker 1: I'd love to have her on the show. We should
Speaker 1: reach out here. I don't think she'll ever do it.
Speaker 1: You know, people think, oh, here's our conservative. Yeah, I'm
Speaker 1: a conservative, but I'm a smart, nice conservative. If anything,
Speaker 1: I'm too polite. Probably start crushing fools under my boot
Speaker 1: heel instead. I'm just oh so witty and cudley at
Speaker 1: the same time, Alan writes, but a great line up
Speaker 1: a guest host. Kudos to all of them, but will
Speaker 1: be glad to hear you back again on the air
Speaker 1: regale US with your stories from your China expedition. One
Speaker 1: quick question. If the Mexican cartells or make billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: then what do they do with all that money. I
Speaker 1: don't see any stories about them buying yacht's, private jets
Speaker 1: and NYC condos overlooking the park. It'd be interesting to
Speaker 1: find out how they spend all that loot. Thank you, Alan.
Speaker 1: There's a whole book written on narconomics that might be
Speaker 1: able to answer this better than I can just off
Speaker 1: the top of my head, So if you want to
Speaker 1: check that out, that's one place. That's one resource I
Speaker 1: can refer YouTube. And then as to where the cartel
Speaker 1: spends its money, one paying a massive array of different personnel,
Speaker 1: everything from accountants to assassins and politicians and policemen too,
Speaker 1: and they stash their money all over the world. Remember
Speaker 1: that if you have a willing government and pretty lax
Speaker 1: banking laws, stashing cash now is an exercise, and moving
Speaker 1: electrons around you don't have to necessarily well, I guess
Speaker 1: at the initial phase when you get cash for a
Speaker 1: drug deal and a lot of people are putting drugs
Speaker 1: on their credit card, but they try to launder it,
Speaker 1: and then you're just and cash wherever you can. So
Speaker 1: there it is. Team. I am so glad to be back.
Speaker 1: I'm out here on the West Coast for the week.
Speaker 1: I'm in Los Angeles, So how do you give Team
Speaker 1: buck that have any recommendations or if you want it?
Speaker 1: This weekend, I'm gonna be running around Santa Monica and Venice,
Speaker 1: so hey, reach out. Maybe I'll be able to grab
Speaker 1: a beer with you. Although I don't drink beer, as
Speaker 1: you know, I drink other things. But I'm here on
Speaker 1: the West Coast and so glad to be back. I'll
Speaker 1: be with you every day this week and every day
Speaker 1: going forward. I will talk to you next time. Shields
Speaker 1: High