Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Biden is a pure
Speaker 1: demagogue and a perfect flip flopper. Not a surprise at all,
Speaker 1: my friends, But to play Kate the radical left, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has decided that the Biden of the last forty
Speaker 1: years didn't know what he was talking about on abortion.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that. Also, the latest with the crisis
Speaker 1: on immigration. Will Trump get his way with Mexico because
Speaker 1: of the tariffs? That are more coming up on the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show begins. So you still opposed the
Speaker 1: public funding for abortion? I still am opposed the public
Speaker 1: funding to abortion. And the reason I am as again
Speaker 1: it goes to the question of whether or not you
Speaker 1: are going to impose a view to support something that
Speaker 1: is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to
Speaker 1: promote when in fact there is this enormous pressure and
Speaker 1: even threat to close down clinics that are available in
Speaker 1: the past for women who do not have the funds
Speaker 1: but are able to have them paid for. More privately
Speaker 1: as you've been able to do. That was one thing,
Speaker 1: but we now see so many Republican goods denying healthcare
Speaker 1: of the millions of the most poorest and most vulcable
Speaker 1: Americans of our refusing even Medicaid experiences. I can't justify
Speaker 1: leaving millions of women without access to the care they need.
Speaker 1: And they're building the constitut exercise, they're constitutionally protective right
Speaker 1: if I as right as I do, I can no
Speaker 1: longer support WHOA what a flip flop we have there?
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sex and show my friends the
Speaker 1: Democrats top contender and an almost presumed nominee at this point,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden showing you nice and early who he really is,
Speaker 1: showing you at this stage of the game that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden will say whatever he has to say, whenever he
Speaker 1: has to say it. Remember, we had our discussion about
Speaker 1: Reagan and front him as an almost pure demagogue, and
Speaker 1: demagogue defined I believe by I can't remember now if
Speaker 1: it was Oh gosh, I don't know if it was
Speaker 1: Menkin or Chester to know it was Menkin, I believe
Speaker 1: who said one who speaks to a room says things
Speaker 1: he knows to be untrue to a room of people
Speaker 1: he believes to be idiots. Something along those lines. That's
Speaker 1: Esic Biden right there, say whatever he has to say,
Speaker 1: whenever he has to say it. My friend David Harshawnie
Speaker 1: over at over at the Federals, he pulled together a
Speaker 1: little timeline today. Remember this is Joe Biden on an
Speaker 1: issue that for his entire career, stretching back now forty
Speaker 1: some odd years as a public figure, this guy's been
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has one speed and it's politician. That's it.
Speaker 1: There's no other Joe Biden. Stretching back to nineteen seventy six.
Speaker 1: Harsaani pulled together this little timeline of Biden who has
Speaker 1: been able to get by as a Catholic Democrat. Don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on a lot of the Democrats
Speaker 1: who are Catholic out there, who they're Catholic, all right.
Speaker 1: They believe in abortion for all nine months of the pregnancy,
Speaker 1: that the public should pay for it via taxes, that
Speaker 1: there's thirty seven genders, that we should be teaching eleven
Speaker 1: year olds to do drag shows. But but they're they're Catholic,
Speaker 1: all right. They're Democrats. Hey, I'm just saying one needs
Speaker 1: to explain that one to me and a whole lot
Speaker 1: of other people. Nancy Pelosi planned parenthood. Loves her, but
Speaker 1: she's a she's a Catholic, all right. But what they
Speaker 1: do is they say, well, they're personally pro life, but
Speaker 1: in their public lives their pro choice, which I've this
Speaker 1: is just this is the old Lincoln Douglas argument. You know,
Speaker 1: I personally oppose slavery, but I'm not going to stop
Speaker 1: somebody else from ing slaves. That was the old That
Speaker 1: was the argument. That was what the This is what
Speaker 1: you know, Stephen Douglas. This is how it went. Lincoln's like, actually,
Speaker 1: if it's wrong, it's wrong, and you don't get to
Speaker 1: just do this, Well, somebody else can do those those
Speaker 1: moral wrongs in the state has no say in it,
Speaker 1: and the state will protect that moral wrong. In fact,
Speaker 1: in this case the case of abortion, of the state
Speaker 1: will fund that moral wrong. Oh the left, so many,
Speaker 1: so much intellectual contortion and distortion. Here's the timeline from
Speaker 1: Harsani though of mister Biden, the top Democrat now running
Speaker 1: for the presidency. Nineteen seventy six, Biden voted for the
Speaker 1: high Amendment, a law banning federal funds to pay for abortion.
Speaker 1: In nineteen eighty one, the Biden Amendment to the Foreign
Speaker 1: Assistance Act banned any American aide from being used in
Speaker 1: research related to abortions. In nineteen eighty four, Biden supported
Speaker 1: the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding for private
Speaker 1: organizations that provide abortion. Advocated decriminalize abortion or expand abortion services.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety three, Biden votes to save the High Amendment.
Speaker 1: In nineteen ninety five nineteen ninety seven, Biden voted for
Speaker 1: partial birth abortion bands that would be vetoed by Hillary.
Speaker 1: Sorry by Bill Clinton, she was not president, despite what
Speaker 1: some people think. June fifth, twenty nineteen, Joe Biden continues
Speaker 1: his forty plus year support for the High Amendment. All right,
Speaker 1: that just happened? June sixth, Twitter pushback to Biden support
Speaker 1: of the High Amendment. Night of June sixth, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: caves drops a forty plus your position to appease progressives
Speaker 1: and now supports taxpayer funded abortion from conception to crowning.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, man of principle, says, no one who knows anything,
Speaker 1: this is what they offer to us, a man who
Speaker 1: will abandon at a moment's notice the second that it
Speaker 1: is necessary for his own policy. I told him he's
Speaker 1: a Bidenist first and foremost. He is a Bidenist. He'll
Speaker 1: drop forty years plus of effort to seem like he
Speaker 1: was a kind of a Democrat moderate on the issue
Speaker 1: of abortion. Now he's a hardliner. Now he's a leftist
Speaker 1: hardliner on abortion, full stop. He wants to take money
Speaker 1: that the government forces you to pay in taxes and
Speaker 1: send that money to Planned Parenthood to pay four babies
Speaker 1: being killed. This is Joe Biden today, folks. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's in his late seventies, and we're really to believe
Speaker 1: that now now he's evolving on a on a very
Speaker 1: clearly established position as as not a defender of life,
Speaker 1: but at least as something of a moderate in the
Speaker 1: Democrat party on this issue. Now he's a hardliner. We
Speaker 1: all know why this is right, Well, none other than
Speaker 1: Okazio Cortez explained it. In case anyone has any questions
Speaker 1: about why Biden, just on whoop sees forty years of
Speaker 1: public life, didn't know what I was talking about. Just
Speaker 1: learn now, Oh, look at that, Okazio Cortez gives away
Speaker 1: the plot here at play twenty. The term progressive is
Speaker 1: getting hijacked so much that people just think it means
Speaker 1: democrat now, and not all Democrats are progressive. And I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but if you're going to come out and saying that
Speaker 1: you you support the High Amendment, which prevents us from
Speaker 1: funding clinics like planned parenthood, that's not progressive. That's not
Speaker 1: a progressive position. And you know what, if your pride
Speaker 1: is being a moderate centrist candidate, then go out and
Speaker 1: say that. Say I'm proud to be a centrist. I'm
Speaker 1: proud to be funded by Wall Street. I'm proud to
Speaker 1: not push as hard as I can on women's rights.
Speaker 1: Say it own it, be it. But don't kind of
Speaker 1: come out here and then say your progressive candidate but
Speaker 1: at the same time not support repealing something as basic
Speaker 1: as the High Amendment. The High Amendment. You know, this
Speaker 1: is what's so interesting about this is considered a concession
Speaker 1: to what would be essentially it's it's a way of
Speaker 1: not being total extremists on the issue of abortion. Right,
Speaker 1: the Democrats make this concession and say, okay, look where
Speaker 1: we women's right to choose, all that stuff, but just
Speaker 1: to kind of cool things down a little bit and
Speaker 1: we can still have our abortion factories and plan part
Speaker 1: and everything. We're not going to just totally take your
Speaker 1: money and pay for this. We're going to give money
Speaker 1: to plan parenthood via grants and say that none of
Speaker 1: that money can be used for abortion, and money is fungible.
Speaker 1: So this is really, this is really a fiction to
Speaker 1: begin with, folks. I mean you've been paying, we've all
Speaker 1: been paying for abortion for a long time in this country.
Speaker 1: I don't just mean morally, I mean financially. But now
Speaker 1: the left is like, no, no, no, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: to This is the progression with the left all the time.
Speaker 1: It's not enough to tolerate, it's not enough to accept.
Speaker 1: You must celebrate. You must be complicit. You must be
Speaker 1: a part of what they want. You must embrace what
Speaker 1: they want. Say yes, yes, give me more of that.
Speaker 1: I need more of that progressivism. I want to bathe
Speaker 1: in it. I want to be surrounded with it. I
Speaker 1: want to make my life's work. Now. Part of advancing
Speaker 1: the left is cause. And if you don't do that, well,
Speaker 1: then you're regressive. Then you're a counter revolutionary. Then you're
Speaker 1: insufficiently committed to women's rights, then you're insufficiently committed to diversity.
Speaker 1: Then you are a part of the problem. This is
Speaker 1: the shortcoming I see of the more libertarian conservative view
Speaker 1: of things, which is, let's let's just let these things
Speaker 1: play out. Let's just see what happens. Will obey, We'll
Speaker 1: obey the rules even when they don't. We'll play nice
Speaker 1: even when they don't. We'll hope that things get better
Speaker 1: while they make things go their way, and just see
Speaker 1: what happens. Now. This is why the rise of trump
Speaker 1: Ism and a more muscular conservative right is so necessary,
Speaker 1: because we've been pushed to the brink of social emergency,
Speaker 1: and this social and political emergency, we've seen that they
Speaker 1: will finish, finish us off if they can. We can surrender,
Speaker 1: and then they will come in and bayonet the survivors.
Speaker 1: We can say that, you know, we we wave the
Speaker 1: white flag. And then once they've they've taken all of
Speaker 1: our armaments, so to speak, then they'll line us up
Speaker 1: and finish us off. And we may feel very very
Speaker 1: very very fancy and self righteous. You know. Well, as conservatives,
Speaker 1: we adhered to principle the whole time. Okay, Well, while
Speaker 1: we're adhering to principle, babies are being murdered and slaughterhouses
Speaker 1: across the country. So somebody explained to me how that
Speaker 1: benefits us while we had here to principal. People like
Speaker 1: Joe Biden show very clearly that the left now runs
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a leftist party there.
Speaker 1: They are not looking for middle ground. They're not looking
Speaker 1: to play nice or play fair or find agreement with
Speaker 1: the other side. They're looking to ram it down your throat.
Speaker 1: And this then forces us to revisit the revolution on
Speaker 1: the right in the last two years of who when
Speaker 1: people are trying to use the state to ram this
Speaker 1: down your throat, when they're trying to take money out
Speaker 1: of your pocket and use it to fund planned parenthood,
Speaker 1: and people like Joe Biden won't even pretend to not
Speaker 1: stand in the way of it, but just not make
Speaker 1: it so blatant. Right, let's get rid of the High Amendment.
Speaker 1: Do you want Mit Romney fighting against them or do
Speaker 1: you want Donald Trump fighting against them? That's that's really
Speaker 1: what it all comes down to at this point, who's
Speaker 1: going to be more effective will who will say that
Speaker 1: what they're doing is just They're just a bunch of
Speaker 1: liars and frauds. It's not Mit Romney. But I do
Speaker 1: take as much as this issue shows how fall how
Speaker 1: far the left has morally degraded itself, that Biden's already
Speaker 1: done this in a way that I mean, this has
Speaker 1: got even John Kerry's got to be looking at him saying, Wow,
Speaker 1: this guy's a flip flopper. That was my favorite line
Speaker 1: from when John carry is running for president was that
Speaker 1: he kept saying that he was nuanced in his positions.
Speaker 1: And then I forget who it was, but someone said
Speaker 1: the nuance was just a fancy a fancy French word
Speaker 1: for flip flop, which I think was true. Oh man,
Speaker 1: just like as I say, surveillance is a fancy French
Speaker 1: word for spying. Um, this is now the reality that
Speaker 1: we're facing. Though this is a hard left Democrat party,
Speaker 1: They're they're not they're they're kicking out from under us
Speaker 1: things that have been in place to make us feel like, well,
Speaker 1: at least they're not complete, at least, they're not completely insane.
Speaker 1: At Least they're their blood lust does not have to
Speaker 1: be funded out of our pockets explicitly. And now they're
Speaker 1: saying no, no, it will be you will fund this,
Speaker 1: You will pay for this Joe Biden. Everybody, your your
Speaker 1: so called centrist moderate, your return to normalcy. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is a hack. Joe Biden has done nothing in public
Speaker 1: life that has benefited people more than it has benefited
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. He is a product of and for the
Speaker 1: Democrat system, the swamp, the overall political apparatus here in DC.
Speaker 1: That is what his existence has been defined by. Does
Speaker 1: he have some patriotic impulses? Does he wish his fellow
Speaker 1: human being? Well? Sure, but should this guy be the
Speaker 1: next commander in chief of this country? This man who
Speaker 1: has clearly no moral or political core. It can change
Speaker 1: on a dime after decades. You know, people say, buck,
Speaker 1: what about Trump? He's changed? Then? Yeah, But Trump is
Speaker 1: a private person. Joe Biden has been passing laws on
Speaker 1: these issues for decades, and the moment it is politically
Speaker 1: advantageous for him, he just says, whoops, forget all that
Speaker 1: other stuff. I said, Oh my gosh, Democrats, you both
Speaker 1: terrify me and crack me up at the same time. Lives,
Speaker 1: We've got more showcome and it's Friday. It's going to
Speaker 1: be awesome, stay with me things like the High Amendment
Speaker 1: or attacks on women, and I will continue to fight
Speaker 1: to rip them down and empower women have better access
Speaker 1: to contraceptive care, to healthcare, and the kind of things
Speaker 1: that help them live healthy lives where they control their destinies.
Speaker 1: Not a bunch of politicians. The Vice president is absolutely
Speaker 1: wrong on this one. I hope that that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: rethinks his position on this issue. Perhaps he doesn't have
Speaker 1: all the facts, perhaps he doesn't understand who the High
Speaker 1: Amendments hurts most. And again it's it's lower income communities,
Speaker 1: communities of color. We do not pass laws that take
Speaker 1: away that freedom from the women who are most all.
Speaker 1: It's been the law for a while, and it's been
Speaker 1: wrong for a long time because it really is it's
Speaker 1: just discrimination. We do not pass laws that take a
Speaker 1: where the freedom of man. That be careful, folks, she's
Speaker 1: gonna be a next president. I'm telling you, she's having
Speaker 1: a surge with the lefties. We do not pass laws.
Speaker 1: Oh man, she is. She is not the most not
Speaker 1: the most charming of political candidates issue, But here we are.
Speaker 1: When they talk about freedom and access, isn't that such
Speaker 1: an interesting bastardization of the terms freedom, access. No, No,
Speaker 1: what they mean is you have to pay for other
Speaker 1: people to have abortions. Your tax dollars will go to this,
Speaker 1: a policy that half the country basically opposes on deep
Speaker 1: religious and moral and ethical grounds. You will have to
Speaker 1: pay for this. It is no longer acceptable to even pretend,
Speaker 1: because I think you can argue that we've been paying
Speaker 1: for it all along, but to pretend that you shouldn't
Speaker 1: have to pay for this. You will have to pay
Speaker 1: for this. You must be complicit in this in a sense.
Speaker 1: This is now, you know, planned parent and being able
Speaker 1: to show up at your door and demand it's little,
Speaker 1: it's a little piece of your bank account. Democrats have
Speaker 1: stripped the facade office. They're no longer going to They're
Speaker 1: no longer going to go through this. Uh, this rigor
Speaker 1: morale up. Well, you know we don't really pay for
Speaker 1: drinking out that you're you're paying for it now. And
Speaker 1: Joe Biden was not about to get his hand caught
Speaker 1: and left his buzzsaw by saying, well, that's a little
Speaker 1: bit crazy, that's a little bit out of control. Um,
Speaker 1: he's just gonna go along with it. He's gonna change
Speaker 1: his mind on the fly, as he did here, because
Speaker 1: he's not a principled man. He's not a principalman. He's
Speaker 1: also a man who has to apologize a lot for
Speaker 1: a lot of things. Do we have time to do? Yeah? Yeah, God,
Speaker 1: this is Biden. This is random. But play three here
Speaker 1: he's Biden apologizing to women for saying something. But I
Speaker 1: don't think anything has a solid it the system and
Speaker 1: the fundamental makeup of this country as much as this
Speaker 1: Watergate thing has. And the only analogy I can really
Speaker 1: think of is a football analogy. And I apologize to
Speaker 1: you women in the audience for not being able to
Speaker 1: think of a more appropriate analogy. But they told me here.
Speaker 1: They didn't want you here anyway. I didn't expect any
Speaker 1: women to be here. There's your Joe Biden, everybody, top
Speaker 1: Democrat candidate. It's the best they can offer up there.
Speaker 1: Didn't expect any women to be You cannot take the freedom.
Speaker 1: I mean, if it's hem or Warren, I don't know.
Speaker 1: They're both frauds. They're just frauds in different ways. We
Speaker 1: got to talk immigration, the crisis, the tariffs, Mexico. The
Speaker 1: show is packed and stacked and re racked. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. We spend a lot of time talking about
Speaker 1: the United States being a melting pot. Well that's true,
Speaker 1: but quite frankly, I think it's overrated. We've been able
Speaker 1: to move forward because of politics, and in my opinion,
Speaker 1: politics need not necessarily be a dirty word. Politics should
Speaker 1: be the most honorable of professions. Those of you who
Speaker 1: heard doctors and lawyers and Indian chiefs in the audience,
Speaker 1: how can any of you possibly do as much good
Speaker 1: if you're very good at what you do as I
Speaker 1: can do. If I'm very good at what I can do,
Speaker 1: you can't. This is where the action is. Politicians happen
Speaker 1: to affect everything that affects you, as you are very
Speaker 1: well aware. Joe Biden very high self regard as a politician. There,
Speaker 1: that's from back in the day. As a little throwback
Speaker 1: Biden for you. But I'm not gonna let anybody forget
Speaker 1: who this guy is. How can you be as good
Speaker 1: as I am? And this whole practice voice thing that
Speaker 1: he has too, it's it's all just a stage show
Speaker 1: for him, folks. It's all just it's all put on,
Speaker 1: you know, this is it's like he's playing an actor.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're playing a politician rather in a movie.
Speaker 1: But now let's move on to the terrified in Mexico.
Speaker 1: Is this really important? I told you remember the way
Speaker 1: the media set this up, because if Trump wins, they're
Speaker 1: going to pretend like it's not a win, and he
Speaker 1: might get his way on this. If the Mexican government
Speaker 1: says they're going to change their ways in response to
Speaker 1: this tariff, that means Trump was right. And all the
Speaker 1: people mocking him and all the people saying he's such
Speaker 1: an idiot, he so you know this and that didn't
Speaker 1: know what they were talking about. So that may be
Speaker 1: the case here. Trump has not backed down off the
Speaker 1: tariff issue. Here's what he said, Place sixteen. When you're
Speaker 1: the piggiebank that everybody steals and robs from, and they
Speaker 1: deceive you, and they've like they've been doing for twenty
Speaker 1: five years. Tariffs are a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful
Speaker 1: word if you know how to use them properly. Republicans
Speaker 1: should love what I'm doing because I viewed tariffs in
Speaker 1: two phases. Number One, it's great to negotiate with because
Speaker 1: people don't want to be tariffed for coming into the
Speaker 1: United States. They don't want that. And number two, frankly,
Speaker 1: if they gone, you make a fortune because all the
Speaker 1: companies are going to move back into the country. Now.
Speaker 1: Is the right about that? I don't know. Probably not,
Speaker 1: not in the short term at least. But what happens
Speaker 1: if Mexico does change its behavior, because they can, and
Speaker 1: they start acting like a more responsible partner in securing
Speaker 1: the border and doing what needs to be done so
Speaker 1: that we don't have this massive Central American Mican crisis.
Speaker 1: Report of the Wall Street Journal Robbie Whalen tweeted this
Speaker 1: out earlier today. Quote Mexican Mexico's Foreign Affairs ministry confirmed
Speaker 1: last night that it is sending six thousand members of
Speaker 1: its newly established National Guard to the southeast of the
Speaker 1: country to assist with the migrant issue. No word yet
Speaker 1: on us is reported request to change their asylum procedure, however, Okay,
Speaker 1: but this is significant. Mexico sending six thousand people from
Speaker 1: its own national guard to its border with essentially the
Speaker 1: checkpoint that separates it from Central American countries like like Guatemala,
Speaker 1: that's significant. This is action taken in response to the
Speaker 1: tariffs that are supposed to hit on Monday of five percent,
Speaker 1: and that escalate from there. People are saying, Oh, Trump
Speaker 1: is so crazy, Why would he do this thing? How
Speaker 1: could he be so silly? Well, meanwhile, the United States
Speaker 1: would rather the Mexican government is treating this very seriously
Speaker 1: and maybe taking action in response to it. That is
Speaker 1: exactly what Trump wants them to do. Wouldn't that be
Speaker 1: negotiating successfully. Wouldn't that be something of a victory for
Speaker 1: the president. Just imagine, imagine how it's going to be
Speaker 1: reported on Monday if the tariffs don't go into effect
Speaker 1: because Mexico more or less comes out and says, Okay,
Speaker 1: we're gonna do We're gonna play ball, we don't want
Speaker 1: those tariffs, We're gonna do more. You mean that the
Speaker 1: president understands negotiation better than many of these bureaucrats and
Speaker 1: journalists who run around yelling about how well we'll see.
Speaker 1: I don't want to get ahead of it. It might
Speaker 1: not happen, Mike Pence said early today, quote at this point,
Speaker 1: the tariffs are going to be imposed on Monday. I'm
Speaker 1: encouraged that Mexican government came today with more, but it
Speaker 1: will be a matter for the president who consider so
Speaker 1: now they're in a back and forth to see what
Speaker 1: is sufficient, you know, what is an acceptable response from
Speaker 1: the government of Mexico here to prevent this five percent
Speaker 1: tariff from going into effect. But this is thinking, This
Speaker 1: is thinking from the president that is somewhat outside the box.
Speaker 1: And yet yet again here we are. The consensus says, Oh,
Speaker 1: the president's crazy, why would he do this? Don't conflate
Speaker 1: immigration and economics. Okay, we'll see. We'll see a lot
Speaker 1: of people out there that think their policy wants that
Speaker 1: essentially tell you we've been wrong up to this point
Speaker 1: and we never get our way, but just stay the
Speaker 1: course and somehow that will change. Now, the crisis continues
Speaker 1: at the border, and even if Mexican government tries to help,
Speaker 1: it may not be enough. I have an idea in mind.
Speaker 1: It's been getting some traction online, one that I support,
Speaker 1: and it really does just come down to the president
Speaker 1: and his will to act. Could solve the crisis with
Speaker 1: one executive order. I will explain what that is, how
Speaker 1: it would work, and want the opposition to it would
Speaker 1: be on the other side of this brink. So why
Speaker 1: does it seem like Mexico's it's their fault? Also because
Speaker 1: they're letting millions of people walk up through their country,
Speaker 1: and they shouldn't let anybody walk up through their country.
Speaker 1: I mean, frankly, we shouldn't even have to have border patrol.
Speaker 1: Border patrol is doing incredibly, you know, they apprehend it
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand people less. I don't want this.
Speaker 1: I want people to come in legally. We want the
Speaker 1: people that we want, and I want to marry based system,
Speaker 1: but we shouldn't have anybody. They shouldn't be able to
Speaker 1: walk through Mexico. And now I've told Mexico, if you
Speaker 1: don't stop this onslaught, this invasion, people get angry, and
Speaker 1: I use the word in invasion. People like Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: that honestly, they don't know what the hell they're talking about.
Speaker 1: I watch her. She was saying, we have to protect Mexico.
Speaker 1: We have to take care of Mexico. Look, I'm dealing
Speaker 1: with Mexico right now. They send in five hundred billion
Speaker 1: dollars worth of drugs, They kill a hundred thousand people,
Speaker 1: They ruin a million families every year. If you look
Speaker 1: at that, that's really an invasion without the gun, an
Speaker 1: invasion without the guns. The President says Mexico is not
Speaker 1: doing enough. Mexico is a mess and we suffer as
Speaker 1: a result of it. And as a country with the
Speaker 1: opioid epidemic at such horrific levels, it's quite clear that
Speaker 1: there's a human cost that is catastrophic as a result
Speaker 1: of Mexico's lawlessness, corruption, bureaucracy, inefficiency, lack of political will
Speaker 1: to be a reliable partner on all these security and
Speaker 1: immigration related issues. That's all real, an invasion without the guns.
Speaker 1: That's really the line of the day. That's really the
Speaker 1: most interesting the President has said in some time. But
Speaker 1: when he says it's the fault of Mexico and Congress,
Speaker 1: there is truth to that, but that's not the only truth.
Speaker 1: Let's just first assess what he means by that, and
Speaker 1: then I'll tell you why. I think the President has
Speaker 1: set himself up now where it's on him. He has
Speaker 1: there's something that he can do, and I think he
Speaker 1: has to do it, and he's not going to want
Speaker 1: to do it because the Libs are going to lose
Speaker 1: their minds. They're going to absolutely lose their minds. But
Speaker 1: doesn't that mean that that's even better. He says it's
Speaker 1: the fault of Mexican Congress. Let's start with Mexico. One
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty three thousand people a month making their
Speaker 1: way through Mexico gay in the US Mexico border. They're
Speaker 1: not in Mexico legally, they're just crossing into Mexico as
Speaker 1: migrants from Central America. They could be told to turn around.
Speaker 1: Mexico has sovereignty, they could stop them from doing this.
Speaker 1: They're not Mexican citizens, they don't have they don't have
Speaker 1: special rights to be in Mexico or to walk through
Speaker 1: Mexico or any of this. So could the Mexican government
Speaker 1: do more to stop them? Absolutely? Is it clear that
Speaker 1: they're going, These Central American migrants are going a very
Speaker 1: long distance because they want to be in a better country. Yes.
Speaker 1: But notice how you'll see these stories that try I
Speaker 1: knew this would happen. There are stories out there now
Speaker 1: that are trying to make the case that Mexico for
Speaker 1: Central American migrants is not a sufficient next stop. It
Speaker 1: has to be America, America or bust. Here's this piece
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal. Violence makes Mexico an unwelcoming refuge
Speaker 1: as US asked neighbor to take an asylum seekers women
Speaker 1: in Tijuana shelter in Tijuana shelter. Describe the dangers. Let's
Speaker 1: give you some of them. You'll get the flavor of
Speaker 1: this piece quickly. Let's give you a little bit of this.
Speaker 1: People from Mexico's impoverished south used to migrant to the
Speaker 1: US and hopes of getting a better paying job. Nowadays
Speaker 1: many are fleeing violence. As President Trump threatens to impose
Speaker 1: tariffs on Monday unless Mexico does more to stem the
Speaker 1: northern flow of Central Americans, his administration has calm on
Speaker 1: Mexico to require migrants to request asylum there instead of
Speaker 1: the US by declaring itself a safe third country. Current
Speaker 1: negotiations between senior US and Mexican officials to contain the
Speaker 1: migrant tide have touched on such a designation, which could
Speaker 1: be costly and risk overwhelming border communities. Left unsaid is
Speaker 1: something migration analysts and security experts say is indisputable Mexico
Speaker 1: isn't a safe country. Surgeon. Migration from Central America on
Speaker 1: the northbound caravans that infuriated mister Trump have eclipsed as
Speaker 1: silent exodus of Mexico Mexicans fleeing the lawlessness of what
Speaker 1: is known as untamed Mexico. You can hear gunshots while
Speaker 1: you dress your children for school, said Elita Nava, who
Speaker 1: fled Guerrero State with her three children hoping to join
Speaker 1: her husband and washed in DC. Kids are afraid to
Speaker 1: go out. They're only aspirationous to join a gang. What happens,
Speaker 1: my friends, when the border is such a mess and
Speaker 1: such a debacle and so overwhelmed that every impoverished Mexican decides,
Speaker 1: you know what, now's a good time to just go
Speaker 1: and get in the mix. Here, show up without any papers,
Speaker 1: say I'm Honduran. The border patrol's knocking to the difference.
Speaker 1: What happens when that wave arrives. In fact, there are
Speaker 1: so many Central Americans who are from these small particularly
Speaker 1: from rural and outlying villages. Wait, rural villages, but that's
Speaker 1: not where you have a lot of gang violence. Oh
Speaker 1: maybe it's really not about gang violence. You have so
Speaker 1: many Hondurans and Al Salvadorans and Guatemalans making the track
Speaker 1: to the United States. Now it's not really even I mean,
Speaker 1: they're just making the journey topping on buses, getting on
Speaker 1: trains whatever. That people that aren't going are feeling left behind,
Speaker 1: they feel like they're missing out on this. Folks, this
Speaker 1: is a mass migration event. This is going to turn
Speaker 1: into not a million, this will be millions of people
Speaker 1: unless we figure out something really soon. You're already seeing
Speaker 1: the beginnings of Oh, not only a Central America so
Speaker 1: crime ridden and unsafe that anyone who lives there, any Honduran,
Speaker 1: any Mexican, must be considered an asylum seeker at the
Speaker 1: drop of a hat. They're just by saying my country
Speaker 1: is too dangerous. Now there are people who are going
Speaker 1: to say there are whole states, at least whole parts
Speaker 1: of Mexico that are so dangerous that any Mexican should
Speaker 1: be considered an asylum seeker. And I just want to know,
Speaker 1: what about Venezuela, what about Brazil? What about name a
Speaker 1: country that has a crime problem, and then tell me
Speaker 1: how we're supposed to claim that they're not allowed to
Speaker 1: come here and claim asylum to this problem only gets worse.
Speaker 1: Mexico is a big part of the problem. Congress is
Speaker 1: a big part of the problem because Democrats are on
Speaker 1: board for this, they like this, and there are a
Speaker 1: lot of weak Republicans on immigration. They don't talk about
Speaker 1: it openly, but when push comes to shove, they don't
Speaker 1: want to really do anything. Okay, But here's what the
Speaker 1: issue for Trump is, and I think it's time that
Speaker 1: somebody raised this with the President himself. The President of
Speaker 1: the United States does have the ability to this. The
Speaker 1: President of the United States can by decree shut this
Speaker 1: whole thing down. It will drive libs completely insane. They
Speaker 1: will claim that he is worse than Hitler, but they
Speaker 1: will say that no matter what. Remember there was the
Speaker 1: Muslim ban, and I remember thinking, why is he going
Speaker 1: after this right away? Well, it could be very important
Speaker 1: that the president thought that Muslim ban issue out all
Speaker 1: the way up to the Supreme Court. You remember Trump v. Hawaii.
Speaker 1: That was a Supreme Court case. It was decided June
Speaker 1: twenty six, twenty eighteen, just around a year ago. There
Speaker 1: was a line in that, remember, and it was found
Speaker 1: in favor of the administration. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in
Speaker 1: that opinion, eleven eighty two in the US Federal Code
Speaker 1: enables the President to suspend the entry of all aliens
Speaker 1: or any class of aliens, whenever he finds that their
Speaker 1: entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United states.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty clear law, isn't it. That's the statute.
Speaker 1: The President can suspend the entry of any alien or
Speaker 1: class of aliens when he finds it is not in
Speaker 1: US interests. That's the law. That's what the law says.
Speaker 1: All of the Central American migrants are aliens. None of
Speaker 1: them have the rights of citizenship or permanent residents. They
Speaker 1: don't have the protections that are afforded to our citizens
Speaker 1: under the Constitution. They don't have the right to be
Speaker 1: in the United States at all. If President Trump wants
Speaker 1: this thing to end, maybe he gets this thing done
Speaker 1: with Mexico. That's possible. If he really wants this to end,
Speaker 1: he should declare sent Americans to be because of the crisis,
Speaker 1: because of the overwhelmed border centers, because of the amount
Speaker 1: of people that are scamming the system and the fraud,
Speaker 1: and one hundred and thirty three thousand that are coming in,
Speaker 1: and the people lying about family units, the people lying
Speaker 1: about the violence they're fleeing, the people that are never
Speaker 1: showing up at their hearings. He should declare anyone from
Speaker 1: the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, hunter Us or Al
Speaker 1: Salvador to be inadmissible by executive order. That's it. That's all. Now.
Speaker 1: You might say, Buck, that'll be challenging court right away,
Speaker 1: and I say, yes, it will. But we have a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court precedent from a year ago that went in
Speaker 1: the administration's favor. Will the court overturn Trump? Will some
Speaker 1: petty little circuit court dictator in black robes tell the
Speaker 1: President he can't do the sure but it'll go to
Speaker 1: appeal and they'll lose an appeal most likely unless it's
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit with the crazies. But when it makes
Speaker 1: its way up to the court, the Court's gonna have
Speaker 1: look at this and say, we've already affirmed this. The
Speaker 1: president does have this right. What are we going to
Speaker 1: do undermine the right that we affirmed a year ago.
Speaker 1: The law is clear. The president needs to declare Central
Speaker 1: American migrants inadmissible until Congress fixes the laws and we
Speaker 1: have a secure border and we have the barrier we
Speaker 1: need full stop. The president must do this. Liberals will
Speaker 1: completely freak out, they will lose their minds, doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: This is what needs to be done. Mexico is not
Speaker 1: going to play ball long term on this issue. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to have the tariffs. The president must act.
Speaker 1: The totalitarian Libs will never relent, my friends, they don't
Speaker 1: come back to reason. They don't want to find a
Speaker 1: central way forward or a moderate path. They want their way,
Speaker 1: They want to win, and so many of the core
Speaker 1: constitutional values that they will occasionally pretend to care about,
Speaker 1: they will abandon very quickly the moment that it is
Speaker 1: inconvenient to their emotions and their beliefs. And here's what
Speaker 1: I found quite interesting about the Masterpiece or the latest
Speaker 1: on what could be considered the bake that cake phenomenon. Right. So,
Speaker 1: just by way of quick review, last year, there was
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court case Masterpiece cake Shop the Colorado Civil
Speaker 1: Rights Commission. And in that instance, you had someone who
Speaker 1: was told that he had to make a cake for
Speaker 1: a gay wedding and had to put certain messages on
Speaker 1: that cake despite the violation of his sincere and fundamental
Speaker 1: religious beliefs that it would have forced them to effectively
Speaker 1: endorse right. And the Supreme Court in that instance didn't
Speaker 1: really establish a defense of that core religious liberty, just said, well,
Speaker 1: let's the animus from the state of Colorado. Was obvious
Speaker 1: state of Colorado in this case, the Colorado Civil Rights
Speaker 1: Commission that was set up to adjudicate these things was
Speaker 1: allowing some people, you know, they're not gonna make like
Speaker 1: a Muslim baker put Genitalia on a cake, or or
Speaker 1: make a devil cake or anything. They're not gonna make.
Speaker 1: You know, some people have religious freedom, just not Christians,
Speaker 1: right that there was a double standard in what you know,
Speaker 1: would you make a black baker baker cake that had
Speaker 1: had a Confederate flag on it, for example? Is that
Speaker 1: is that something that the constitution mandates? Well, no, the
Speaker 1: Colorado Civil Rights Commission wouldn't do that because you know,
Speaker 1: Christians are up for it's open season on Christians as
Speaker 1: we know that the Libs really don't like traditional Christian belief.
Speaker 1: There's all I know. There's a lot of these other
Speaker 1: churches that are like the lave whatever you want, but
Speaker 1: like we all love Jesus, but there's no such thing
Speaker 1: as a real rule. You know, that's fine, and you
Speaker 1: know people can do whatever. They have the religious freedom
Speaker 1: to get into that stuff too. A lot of people
Speaker 1: go to these churches where you essentially have a motivational
Speaker 1: speaker posing as a pastor, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: like you know, electrified music and stuff. That's, you know,
Speaker 1: to each his own whatever. Fine, But on the religious
Speaker 1: liberty question, libs are constantly trying to destroy traditional Christian
Speaker 1: belief and force them to bend the knee. As we see,
Speaker 1: and these these instances of the of the Christian or
Speaker 1: the evangelical baker that's being told to make a gay
Speaker 1: wedding cake, this is targeted harassment. There are plenty of
Speaker 1: other bakers that somebody could go to, and remember it's
Speaker 1: not a person saying I will not sell you a cake.
Speaker 1: I will not make a cake for you. I will
Speaker 1: not sell you what is already in my store. It's
Speaker 1: not that they won't serve them. It's this in the
Speaker 1: Masterpiece Cake Shop case, that baker was saying, look, I'm
Speaker 1: just not gonna celebrate a gay wedding with messaging that
Speaker 1: I have to create for a cake that I do
Speaker 1: not believe in. That's all. That's all. He was not
Speaker 1: saying I won't sell you to sell you the cake,
Speaker 1: or I won't bake a cake for you. It's I
Speaker 1: won't bake a cake and say I loved I love
Speaker 1: gay marriage or whatever. That's a version of what the
Speaker 1: argument is here. Well, just slapping down the the the
Speaker 1: blatantly discriminatory Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was really just
Speaker 1: an anti Christian commission. That did not no surprise here,
Speaker 1: that did not solve the problem. Because the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: whenever it comes to defending religious liberty, the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: anything that conservatives and that you know, traditional traditional American
Speaker 1: views of the Constitution, anytime that's up for grabs, there's
Speaker 1: absolutely no, absolutely no chads. It seems that we're going
Speaker 1: to get some sweeping ruling. You know, Row never happens
Speaker 1: on our side of a ledger reminding Roe v. Wade.
Speaker 1: You know, we never get this. We're always told, Oh,
Speaker 1: the Court's gone so far to the right. No, it hasn't.
Speaker 1: When was the last time the Court had a sweeping
Speaker 1: conservative decision that set policy for the rest of the
Speaker 1: country and eradicated something central to the left. I can't
Speaker 1: think of it. People say, oh, dcv. Heller book, No, dcv.
Speaker 1: Heller just prevented the eradication of the Second Amendment. There's
Speaker 1: still a whole lot of restriction. And this look at
Speaker 1: where abortion rights are versus where gun rights are. Abortion
Speaker 1: is a right without an abortion isn't just a right
Speaker 1: that cannot be restricted. It's a right now based on
Speaker 1: judicial fiat that you have to pay for and that
Speaker 1: you have other restrictions on your fundamental rights, including the
Speaker 1: First Amendment. You know, where can you protest an abortion clinic?
Speaker 1: How much leeway and space do you have to give
Speaker 1: an abortion? No other part of law has this stuff.
Speaker 1: Abortion an absolutist right that they say is constitutional, but
Speaker 1: it's not even the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a
Speaker 1: real constitutional right and there are restrictions all over the
Speaker 1: place such that people say, oh, dcv. Heller, what a
Speaker 1: sweeping victory for the Second Amendment. No, it just it
Speaker 1: just kept it alive. It just kept it on life support.
Speaker 1: You can't outright ban a citizen's right to own a
Speaker 1: gun because you don't want guns in the hands of
Speaker 1: citizens DC, which is why that's where it happened here
Speaker 1: in the swamp. So with that in mind, when you
Speaker 1: see what happened to Masterpiece Cake Shop, it was obvious
Speaker 1: this was going to happen. Washington's State Supreme Court has
Speaker 1: now pushed the issue right back into the Supreme Court's hands.
Speaker 1: The case is Washington versus Arlene's Flowers. You know, in Masterpiece,
Speaker 1: you got a Christian baker who served gay customers but
Speaker 1: didn't want to do a custom design cake that relied
Speaker 1: on his creative talents and messaging for a gay wedding.
Speaker 1: And in this case, this is another Christian florist who
Speaker 1: serve gay customers, including the gay couple at issue in
Speaker 1: this case, but would not custom design floral arrangements for
Speaker 1: a gay wedding. This is essentially artistic talent and artistic
Speaker 1: creation versus just the basic services of a of a
Speaker 1: of a business. This has to do with the nature
Speaker 1: of the message. Things that are message free, you got
Speaker 1: to serve people, right, this is this is the country
Speaker 1: we're living on. Things that a message three free, you
Speaker 1: have to serve. But this is where this is where
Speaker 1: we are. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the people
Speaker 1: that were shown to be really anti Christian bigots in
Speaker 1: that whole process, they were they weren't chasing at all
Speaker 1: by this. They're just gonna keep They're gonna keep pushing
Speaker 1: it until they get their way, unless the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: finally says, you know what, the First Amendment has meaning
Speaker 1: you cannot tell someone that they have to endorse a
Speaker 1: message that they do not want to endorse. You know,
Speaker 1: you cannot make a baker or a painter or a
Speaker 1: writer sign a loyalty oath to gay marriage. You can't
Speaker 1: do it and still believe that you have freedom of
Speaker 1: speech and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. You
Speaker 1: can't do it. But you know, we have this this mentality.
Speaker 1: Oh you know, if we just if we just play
Speaker 1: right as conservatives and people that believe in religious freedom,
Speaker 1: if we you know, stick to the rules and we
Speaker 1: don't get too crazy, you know, eventually we'll win out.
Speaker 1: Really have we won out on abortion for the last
Speaker 1: fifty years. Where where are these big social victories that
Speaker 1: are being delivered, you know, social conservative victories that are
Speaker 1: being delivered to the right. I don't know. I haven't
Speaker 1: seen one in a long time. So this is this
Speaker 1: is why we are in a We're gonna fight for
Speaker 1: the soul of this country. We really are. It's an
Speaker 1: idea iological war, but it's a war nonetheless. I mean,
Speaker 1: this woman, if the court doesn't find, if the court
Speaker 1: doesn't find in her favor, and this Arlene's Arlene's flowers,
Speaker 1: she is personally liable for vast if she'll go bankrupt
Speaker 1: they'll destroy her. That's right, a gay couple upset that
Speaker 1: this woman wouldn't help celebrate their gay wedding. We'll be
Speaker 1: bankrupt and destroyed and ruined because she's somebody who believes
Speaker 1: in traditional marriage. She has no problem with gay people.
Speaker 1: She just believes in marriage as it was practiced for
Speaker 1: a few thousand years until you know, a few years ago.
Speaker 1: So she should be ruined. Now bankrupted, no more business,
Speaker 1: no more bank account, nor more food on the table,
Speaker 1: unless the Supreme Court says no, you actually don't. You
Speaker 1: don't have to sign loyalty oaths to gay marriage in
Speaker 1: this country publicly as part of your business dealings. You
Speaker 1: don't have to do that. Well, we'll see. I have
Speaker 1: very little faith in it for some reason, you know,
Speaker 1: conservatives are I don't know. We just we just keep
Speaker 1: getting kicked in the face and thinking that if we
Speaker 1: get well, get take one more kick, and maybe this
Speaker 1: will all turn in our favor. It's not what's happening
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. It's time for a lot of people
Speaker 1: on the right to wake up. We're gonna talk later
Speaker 1: on in the show about Chernobyl and I have a
Speaker 1: very different take on it. To offer you today, one
Speaker 1: that is far more critical of the series and looks
Speaker 1: at the left wing politics and messaging that I'm now,
Speaker 1: having finished the series, and particularly the last episode, I'm
Speaker 1: quite aware have been infused into this, and contemporary propaganda
Speaker 1: unfortunately has reared its head in many ways in the
Speaker 1: Chernobyl series. But the parts of the Soviet Union and
Speaker 1: the Soviet bureaucracy that deals with, as I've mentioned, that's
Speaker 1: very worthwhile interesting. And one thing about the Soviets was
Speaker 1: that they were very concerned with controlling the record. They
Speaker 1: knew that whatever gets written down will be treated as
Speaker 1: reality in the future. Whatever becomes the record will be
Speaker 1: treated as the reality in time, not entirely, but but
Speaker 1: generally and usually overwhelmingly. This is also why the Soviets
Speaker 1: would do things like painstakingly go through records when someone
Speaker 1: was liquidated, for example, within the government ranks, and they
Speaker 1: would use a razor blade to take their name out
Speaker 1: of official documents. They do want to even white it
Speaker 1: out or anything else, so anybody could try to scratch
Speaker 1: it away and see it was what was under there.
Speaker 1: They would they would have these They would go to
Speaker 1: painstaking lengths to remove people from the bureaucratic records and
Speaker 1: to make it as in essence they did not exist.
Speaker 1: And one of the final scenes of Chernobyl, you have
Speaker 1: the I believe it's the head of the KGB, and
Speaker 1: the punishment that he offers one of the scientists who
Speaker 1: speaks out, is that they're going to make that person live, ay,
Speaker 1: make him live, to see that his entire legacy is
Speaker 1: erased and handed off to other people. Everybody else will
Speaker 1: get credit for what he had done. Nobody will speak
Speaker 1: his name, nobody will know that he ever existed, that
Speaker 1: his punishment was to watch in real time as his
Speaker 1: existence was erased, and that as he was going to
Speaker 1: die from the poisoning of the radiation. But you know
Speaker 1: that's a very Soviet mindset. Well, we have something that
Speaker 1: reminds me a bit of that going on right now
Speaker 1: in this country. I've mentioned to you before that the
Speaker 1: left is completely comfortable with ruining lives based on actions,
Speaker 1: political decisions, not criminal things, actions taken years ago that
Speaker 1: at the time were considered certainly within the realm of
Speaker 1: acceptable you know, acceptable discourse, or was considered an acceptable
Speaker 1: decision at the time. But the left will settle scores
Speaker 1: long after the fact, and this may seem like a
Speaker 1: relatively minor case, but I don't find it minor at all.
Speaker 1: I think I think this should send a chill up
Speaker 1: the backs of everybody out there who has ever taken
Speaker 1: a stand for something that has later on become a
Speaker 1: stand that has later on become unpopular, that the Left
Speaker 1: has deemed to be on the wrong side of history
Speaker 1: one of their favorite phrases. Linda Fairsteam was one of
Speaker 1: the prosecutors involved in the case known as the Central
Speaker 1: Park five. I grew up in New York. I was
Speaker 1: in Central I grew up two blocks from Central Park.
Speaker 1: It was my family home was right next to the park,
Speaker 1: and it loomed very large in the lives of everybody
Speaker 1: in Manhattan. And we all knew about Central Park and
Speaker 1: this case of the Central Park jogger. It was a
Speaker 1: very sensationalized and sensitive and horrifying case of a woman
Speaker 1: who was jogging was brutally raped and almost beaten to
Speaker 1: death with a brick in the park. And you had
Speaker 1: a number of young men, they were all minorities, who
Speaker 1: were found guilty of this crime. And then a long
Speaker 1: time passed and then they were found not guilty. And
Speaker 1: now it has become this article of faith on the
Speaker 1: left that they were wrongfully imprisoned. Now I have read
Speaker 1: the work of none other than Anculter, who is a
Speaker 1: talented lawyer. People often forget that clerk for a federal
Speaker 1: judge worked as a corporate lawyer. She is a talented lawyer,
Speaker 1: knows the law very well and does a lot of
Speaker 1: research and reads everything, which separates her from a lot
Speaker 1: of the other legal analysts out there. And just based
Speaker 1: on the excerpts that she has pulled in the arguments
Speaker 1: that she has made, I do not believe that the
Speaker 1: Central Park five are innocent despite the exoneration. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but the fact that there was DNA that did not
Speaker 1: belong to them at the scene did not mean that
Speaker 1: the confessions that they all gave with adult relatives present,
Speaker 1: taped and that a jury heard and a jury was like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: these guys are all guilty. The fact that there was
Speaker 1: DNA from somebody that was not one of them found
Speaker 1: on this woman who was so brutally attacked doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that they weren't a part of the attack. I mean,
Speaker 1: the fundamental premise of the exoneration is something that I'm
Speaker 1: sorry I've got a problem with unless I'm missing something.
Speaker 1: They always believe that there was someone who got away.
Speaker 1: Because one rapist attacker got away doesn't mean that anybody
Speaker 1: else who was part of a gang rape, which was
Speaker 1: always what was believed to have occurred here, doesn't make
Speaker 1: them not guilty. There every bit is guilty. And they
Speaker 1: knew things about this woman that they could only have
Speaker 1: known if they were there during the attack, and it's
Speaker 1: on record. But now we're all told, oh, you know,
Speaker 1: this was racism. It was terrible, and it's not enough
Speaker 1: merely to exonerate them. Now they go out and they
Speaker 1: find people to blame and punish for this injustice. It's
Speaker 1: not enough to get the quote justice of exonerating these men,
Speaker 1: who also got a huge payout tens of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars in the City of New York, thanks New York taxpayers.
Speaker 1: Linda Fairstein, who was the prosecutor back in nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: nine for the Central Park five, she was the prosecutor
Speaker 1: in this case. Her publisher has dropped her now due
Speaker 1: to public pressure. Fairstein is the author of twenty four books,
Speaker 1: sixteen of them New York Times bestsellers. Crime novels, and
Speaker 1: her publisher has said, sorry, we're not working with you anymore.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not pretending like this is, you know, the
Speaker 1: same as her getting sent to prison or something. But
Speaker 1: there this is public pressure being brought on a person
Speaker 1: for doing her job. In nineteen eighty nine, I was
Speaker 1: eight years old, and I am quite a ways from
Speaker 1: eight years old. Now this is public pressure being brought
Speaker 1: to bear so that she suffers consequences. Now, you are
Speaker 1: never free of the vindictive left. There is no statute
Speaker 1: of limitations on the social justice rage that is out there.
Speaker 1: If they can find a way to hold you accountable
Speaker 1: when it is politically convenient for something that you didn't
Speaker 1: even do wrong, they will do it. And this is
Speaker 1: why you see it with brendan Ike at Mozilla. You
Speaker 1: know he's for traditional marriage when Obama's for traditional marriage.
Speaker 1: You know, a bunch of years, five, six years passed
Speaker 1: and they decide, oh, well, you can't be the CEO
Speaker 1: of this company, Moore, because you're a bigot. Was Obama
Speaker 1: a bigot at the same time or No? They have
Speaker 1: no They have no real pable to discuss here. There's
Speaker 1: nothing they can really say that explains us other than
Speaker 1: they like one person Obama, they don't like the other
Speaker 1: person Ike. But when your publishers are dropping you, when
Speaker 1: you're getting fired from Mozilla, they want consequences against individuals
Speaker 1: based upon the present whims of the liberal mob. I'm
Speaker 1: going to have to dig into the Central Park five
Speaker 1: case now, because this one is I think that, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: people are being brainwashed on this, and they're being told
Speaker 1: that this was some terrible injustice, and it's become so
Speaker 1: popular now on the left to talk about how horrible
Speaker 1: it was that these memoir in prison wrongfully. Really all
Speaker 1: of them con fess the new details about the event.
Speaker 1: They couldn't have known unless they were there. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to think that that's all a coincidence. I'll have more
Speaker 1: on this, you know, I think the Democrats should stop
Speaker 1: talking about investigating and do investigating, you know, all this
Speaker 1: stuff of it. Should there be impeachment, should there be oversight.
Speaker 1: They ought to hold hearings. You know, they're holding a
Speaker 1: hearing on money Day with John Deane, who, with all
Speaker 1: due respect, is a figure from the nineteen seventies. You
Speaker 1: know this. I don't think Democrats are helped at all
Speaker 1: by this sort of process, arguments about how we should
Speaker 1: do it or when we should do it, Like Woldsome hearings,
Speaker 1: talk about the substance of the investigation, not this process talk.
Speaker 1: You know, it's June already, and you know the Intelligence
Speaker 1: Committee hasn't held any serious hearings. Oversight has held a couple.
Speaker 1: The Michael Kohn hearing was a serious, important hearing. The
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee hasn't held any significant hearings about, you know,
Speaker 1: investigating the president. Do that, don't talk about this. I
Speaker 1: actually agree for a change with the CNN's favorite legal analyst,
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Tubin, insofar as the Democrats are a joke on impeachment,
Speaker 1: a joke at this point, this is ridiculous. No, No,
Speaker 1: we need to dig into process. We need to you know,
Speaker 1: they've turned into like it's some sort of ridiculous parody
Speaker 1: of themselves. We've had two years, two years of a
Speaker 1: Muller investigation. You've had tens of millions of dollars spent
Speaker 1: to try and get all of the possible derogatory information
Speaker 1: on President Trump you could, I mean, all the nastiest,
Speaker 1: most damaging stuff by a bunch of anti Trump partisans.
Speaker 1: That's what's been going on and what is the response
Speaker 1: that we get from Democrats. Well, Trump is the worst.
Speaker 1: He has to be impeached, but we're not sure if
Speaker 1: he should be impeached yet. It can't be both of
Speaker 1: these things. This is not possible, This is not feasible.
Speaker 1: Democrats are preposterous here. Democrats are simply and utterly un
Speaker 1: serious elected officials. Although they are doing this because they
Speaker 1: think that it's about their power. It's about maintaining power.
Speaker 1: It's about staying in power or achieving more of it.
Speaker 1: That's it. Everything else, all these arguments about defending our
Speaker 1: democracy or you know, saving this or that institution, that's
Speaker 1: just all not it's just all nonsense. It's all complete
Speaker 1: and utter crap. And they should be embarrassed by this,
Speaker 1: as you know they are not. And I like that
Speaker 1: Trump is taking the fight to them. I mean, I
Speaker 1: know that they got all angry at Trump because of
Speaker 1: his interview with Laura Ingram, but you know, he should
Speaker 1: point out that Nancy Pelosi is a disaster of black
Speaker 1: lit one. I think she's a disgrace. I actually don't
Speaker 1: think she's a talented person. I've tried to be nice
Speaker 1: to her because I would have liked to have gotten
Speaker 1: some deals done. She's incapable of doing deals. She's a nasty, vindictive,
Speaker 1: horrible person. Tamula report came out, it was a disaster
Speaker 1: for them. Nancy Pelosi equal and nervous, Nancy. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: doesn't talk about it. Nancy Pelosi's a disaster. Okay, she's
Speaker 1: a disaster. I think he's correct, Nancy Pelosi. Helly, they
Speaker 1: should have pitched the pasited as ar as people tell
Speaker 1: make mean videos, have put them on Facebook of me. Ah,
Speaker 1: he's right that she's nasty and there is something vindictive
Speaker 1: about her saying. And this is people who compare the
Speaker 1: Hillary thing lock her up to this. I think that's
Speaker 1: a really inept comparison, because one, Hillary did break the law,
Speaker 1: full stop. She broke the law. People can try to say,
Speaker 1: oh no, but let know she broke the law, and
Speaker 1: the law is supposed to be serious. The law she
Speaker 1: broke are supposed to be meaningful. But they bailed her out,
Speaker 1: The system bailed her out. And she also wasn't the
Speaker 1: sitting president. Folks. I know that they all thought of her,
Speaker 1: the Democrats and left she might as well, as far
Speaker 1: as they were concerned, have been the sitting president, but
Speaker 1: she was not. And there is something different about being
Speaker 1: inside the very top wrong of power in the legislative branch,
Speaker 1: as Nancy Pelosi is, and saying in front of your
Speaker 1: colleagues in the Congress that you want the current president
Speaker 1: to go to prison, which is what Nancy Pelosi did.
Speaker 1: It's disgusting. It is disgusting. She is a person without honor,
Speaker 1: she is a person without integrity. People can argue with
Speaker 1: me on that as much as they want. I don't
Speaker 1: care they're wrong. Pelosi, just like some t other Democrats,
Speaker 1: should be ashamed, but is not. I mean, here's here's
Speaker 1: Debbie Dingle, which I always think is and my name
Speaker 1: is buck Sexton. So how can I really poke fun
Speaker 1: at anyone but technically James Buckman Sexton. But who cares?
Speaker 1: Debbie Dingle says that there's no problem here the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party right now, play clip two. She's got the full
Speaker 1: support of the Caucus. I agree with where she is
Speaker 1: on the subject of impeachment. We've got to continue the investigations.
Speaker 1: No one's above the law. I am not for a
Speaker 1: partisan of impeachment. I've said that many times, and I
Speaker 1: think we need to focus on the issues that was
Speaker 1: a Democrat member of Congress. You just said, I'm not
Speaker 1: for a partisan impeachment. I mean, is she a moron?
Speaker 1: Is she not smart? Or is she so cynical that
Speaker 1: she thinks that the people that vote for her and
Speaker 1: the Democrats are so dumb that they really believe that
Speaker 1: it would that there's any universe in which the impeachment
Speaker 1: of this president would be anything other than partisan. How
Speaker 1: can anyone say this? How can they say this with
Speaker 1: a straight face? The left of the Democrats, the anti Trumpers,
Speaker 1: they're always lecturing us about truth and about how Trump lies,
Speaker 1: and then they say things like this. It's just are
Speaker 1: they living on a different planet. Are they operating in
Speaker 1: some alternate reality, some other universe? What does this even mean?
Speaker 1: There's no rift in the party. She's the full support
Speaker 1: of the Continue the investigation. How much more investigation are
Speaker 1: they're really going to do? How much more? What else
Speaker 1: do they need to find out? We have a four
Speaker 1: hundred plus page report of the most anti Trump investigation
Speaker 1: they could possibly cobble together, and they're supposed to be
Speaker 1: more investigating. As if what Congress is going to get
Speaker 1: to the truth that Muller missed. They need more facts.
Speaker 1: These are the same people that aren't even requesting that
Speaker 1: Muller testify yet. I mean, they're a joke. This whole
Speaker 1: thing is ridiculous. I start to wonder does the country
Speaker 1: even care about this or is this just a DC
Speaker 1: about way, a sella corridor coastal obsession. Maybe it is.
Speaker 1: Maybe people really don't care about this. Maybe this is
Speaker 1: some kind of a media fight that gets magnified because
Speaker 1: the people that are just the people that are creating
Speaker 1: the news narrative every day all echo each other on
Speaker 1: the at oh impeach or not to impeach, to impeach
Speaker 1: or not to impeach. I think the biggest, the biggest
Speaker 1: hold up in this whole thing is the Democrats don't
Speaker 1: know how it would shake out for them if they
Speaker 1: did impeach. They don't know if that would work out
Speaker 1: for them or not, and they can't figure it out.
Speaker 1: And so that's what the Indian action has nothing to do,
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing to do with getting to the facts or
Speaker 1: the truth or anything like that. It's just they're not
Speaker 1: sure of the political calculation involved. And because they're not
Speaker 1: sure if the political calculation involved, they don't want to
Speaker 1: take action. But what's interesting to me is they're never
Speaker 1: going to really know what the political calculation involved is.
Speaker 1: They're never really gonna know what's going to happen here.
Speaker 1: So I think Heaven forbid, but I think Tube and
Speaker 1: over at CNN is right. You know, just do it.
Speaker 1: Stop being such a bunch of whimps. Stop talking about
Speaker 1: it all the time. Stop pretending that there's some bit
Speaker 1: of information you're going to figure out, you know. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: they should just embrace the crazy here. Embrace it's the crazy,
Speaker 1: like pocahonas Warren has when she says that Trump, if
Speaker 1: he wasn't Trump would be carried out on a hancuffs
Speaker 1: played fourteen. Donald Trump as president delayed, deflected, move, fired,
Speaker 1: and did everything he could to obstruct justice. Is he
Speaker 1: or any other person in the United States based on
Speaker 1: what's documented in that report, he would be carried out
Speaker 1: in handcuffs. Everything she said there is pretty much idiotic. Okay.
Speaker 1: First of all, he did everything he could, That's what
Speaker 1: she said, Everything he could to delay, obstruct, etc. Etc.
Speaker 1: Obstruct all this stuff. He could have shut down the
Speaker 1: investigation any day he wanted to. He could have fired
Speaker 1: Muller any day he wanted to He could have claimed
Speaker 1: executive privilege over huge amounts of documents and prevented testimony.
Speaker 1: Didn't do that. In what way did he obstruct the instigation?
Speaker 1: That's the real By saying something to his counsel that
Speaker 1: did not turn into any action of any kind, that's obstruction.
Speaker 1: If that is obstruction, Wow, we have to really rethink
Speaker 1: the law in its entirety. Did she said everything he could?
Speaker 1: If you told me that, you know, if I was standing,
Speaker 1: you know, if I was standing at the you know,
Speaker 1: on the front steps of a house, and I had
Speaker 1: a lighter and a gasoline can and you said, well,
Speaker 1: you've done everything you can already to burn down this house.
Speaker 1: And I hadn't done anything. But I could, but I
Speaker 1: hadn't done anything. I think you were a crazy person.
Speaker 1: And that's why I have to ask Elizabeth warren't crazy.
Speaker 1: He was the president the United States. He could obstruct
Speaker 1: the investigation. He could have ended it. He could have
Speaker 1: just said no more investigation, shut this thing down. Now.
Speaker 1: Would they have gone along with that? I don't know,
Speaker 1: but at least could have given the order. And it
Speaker 1: was and it might have been a constitutional I would
Speaker 1: argue it as a constitution of legitimate order. Robert Muller
Speaker 1: is not above the president in the executive branch. He's
Speaker 1: an employee. He worked for the president. So someone explained
Speaker 1: to me, how how can Elizabeth Warren, who has a
Speaker 1: law degree and taught law at Harvard, get away with
Speaker 1: saying he did everything it could do obstructor and we'd
Speaker 1: be carried out in handcuffs. But this is just idiocy.
Speaker 1: This is idiocy. I mean Democrats, this is the problem
Speaker 1: with them. They've had two years of Trump. The country's
Speaker 1: doing well. All the numbers show that Trump is actually
Speaker 1: a pretty pretty solid commander in chief, not starting any
Speaker 1: foolish wars, slapping around journalists on Twitter that deserved it
Speaker 1: get slapped around. It's a glorious thing. And then they
Speaker 1: come forward and these are the people they offer to
Speaker 1: replace him. Sorry staying I'm staying with Trump man, I'm not,
Speaker 1: and I feel good about it. I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't have I have no regrets. No, if my choice
Speaker 1: is Trump or Elizabeth Warren, it's just racial fraudster. Not
Speaker 1: gonna go for it, not gonna be a pardon, not prudent,
Speaker 1: not prudent, not gonna do it. I just find the
Speaker 1: whole thing really pretty stunning that the Democrats have stumbled
Speaker 1: so in my opinion, so clearly out of the gates
Speaker 1: here that they just can't get someone. They can't get
Speaker 1: anybody to pull it together. By the way, you know,
Speaker 1: there's a letter from Jordan, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: that point the points out that it's been one hundred
Speaker 1: days since Michael Cohen perjured himself in testimony before Congress,
Speaker 1: and my friend Sean Davis over the Federalist pointed this out,
Speaker 1: and they won't take any action against Michael Cohen. I
Speaker 1: thought lying under oath was a big deal. It's a
Speaker 1: big deal if you're Papadopolis, big deal if you're Michael Flynn,
Speaker 1: big deal if you're anybody had tied to Trump. But
Speaker 1: if you're anti Trump, it seems lying under oath there's
Speaker 1: no big deal. If you're anti Trump, if you're Andy
Speaker 1: McCabe and you're the FBI acting director, you can lie
Speaker 1: under oath and nothing really happened. Do you be on
Speaker 1: getting fired? You don't go to prison. Though. This is
Speaker 1: not okay, This is not okay, This is not sit around,
Speaker 1: and let's let's just be cordialed. The other side. This
Speaker 1: is where we're seeing This is where we're seeing the
Speaker 1: politics's war reality come together. When the law only applies
Speaker 1: to us when it's bad for our side and doesn't
Speaker 1: apply to their side, that's not acceptable. It's not an
Speaker 1: acceptable state of affairs in the future. When you look
Speaker 1: up the word dirty cop, if you have a fair
Speaker 1: internet and free internet, you will see the pictures of
Speaker 1: Komi and McCabe. There is this is These guys make
Speaker 1: Hoover look like a saint. It is absolutely despicable that
Speaker 1: the head of the FBI would think it's funny and
Speaker 1: cute to send over these FBI agents to go and
Speaker 1: interview the national security advisor for the President of the
Speaker 1: United States, and then they walk out of there and say, look,
Speaker 1: we don't think the guy's lying, but instead, what do
Speaker 1: you do? You double down and I'll just see you
Speaker 1: just closing with this. Let's not forget the biggest league
Speaker 1: of all the leagues was the league of General Flynn,
Speaker 1: the national incoming National Security Advisor for the president of crime.
Speaker 1: Is it not talking to the Russian ambassador? It is
Speaker 1: an absolute crime. They have nine individuals who supposedly told
Speaker 1: the mainstream news media nothing was ever done to get
Speaker 1: to the bottom of that biggest league in US history.
Speaker 1: How is it that nobody on their side, no pro Hillary,
Speaker 1: pro Obama Democrats in the bureaucratic apparatus, no one who
Speaker 1: is a prominent Democrat got caught up in the Muller machinery.
Speaker 1: After all the crimes that were committed, all the stuff
Speaker 1: that was done to take down Trump, all the lies
Speaker 1: that have been told, how is it that in the
Speaker 1: Hillary email investigation there were no secondary prosecutions of anyone
Speaker 1: for destroying evidence, for obstruction of justice, for lying under oath,
Speaker 1: none of those process charges. If you believe that that's
Speaker 1: because Hillary and her top advisors are so ethical and honest,
Speaker 1: you're an imbecile. I know you don't believe that. But
Speaker 1: if one were to believe that, it's just a difference
Speaker 1: in the application of the law based on the people
Speaker 1: with power and the fact that Democrats feel very good
Speaker 1: about themselves and have no problem using the law as
Speaker 1: a tool of partisan politics, including sending people to prison,
Speaker 1: including the destruction of people's lives. Speaking of the destruction
Speaker 1: of lives, switching gears here for a second. There is
Speaker 1: so there's this controversy over what's gone on with YouTube
Speaker 1: and Stephen Crowder and vox dot com which is the
Speaker 1: most beta, male, left wing whimpy lib website perhaps in existence,
Speaker 1: But they published something that thought was interesting, an open
Speaker 1: letter to YouTube CEO. This Pride Month, your lgbt Q
Speaker 1: creators deserve more than just a rainbow logo. And here's
Speaker 1: what they write. Dear Susan Wojicky. YouTube social media profiles
Speaker 1: have been updated with the rainbow theme version of your
Speaker 1: logan to celebrate Pride Month, but to truly celebrate your
Speaker 1: lgbt Q creators and users, there's another meaningful update you
Speaker 1: need to make this month. Your platform has made it
Speaker 1: easier than ever for people to make abuse of content
Speaker 1: to reach a massive scale. As a Vox video producer,
Speaker 1: Carlos Maza documented a Twitter thread, he's been the subject
Speaker 1: of personal attacks by the popular YouTube commentator Stephen Crowder
Speaker 1: during a series of videos attempting to robut Carlos's arguments.
Speaker 1: He calls Carlos quote the list be queer from Vox,
Speaker 1: along with many other homophobic and racist slurs. These are
Speaker 1: petered attacks on Carlos's sexual orientation, ethnicity have led to
Speaker 1: vicious onslaughts, including doxing and dogpiling for many of Crowder's
Speaker 1: fans to YouTube, However, behavior well worthy of demonetization is
Speaker 1: not in violation of its policies as long as language
Speaker 1: it's offending. Language is not the primary purpose of a video.
Speaker 1: If the repeated harassment and these videos doesn't cross the
Speaker 1: line by YouTube standards, then your line needs to be removed.
Speaker 1: So this is all saying that they need a change
Speaker 1: in standards right now. These policies make everyone less safe.
Speaker 1: The dangerous backlash against creators who dare to speak out
Speaker 1: against abuse is all the more explosive when your rules
Speaker 1: are confusing and applied inconsistently, Signed editor in chief and
Speaker 1: head of Video for vox dot Com. Journalists Now, folks
Speaker 1: so called journals want censorship. On the left, call for censorship,
Speaker 1: demand censorship. Isn't that? Isn't that interesting? Not surprising? Just
Speaker 1: remember that the next time they make some flowery speech
Speaker 1: about the First Amendment, they don't care a wit about
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. In terms of radiation, I'm told, as
Speaker 1: Steve could at a jest extrain chernobyl is on fire
Speaker 1: and every atom of uranium is like a bullet. Kind
Speaker 1: of trating everything in its path, metal, concrete, flesh. Now
Speaker 1: Chernobyl holds over three trillion of these bullets. Some of
Speaker 1: them will not stop firing for fifty thousand years. Tell
Speaker 1: me how to put it out. You are dealing with
Speaker 1: something that has never occurred on this planet before. All right,
Speaker 1: So that's from Chernobyl, which I've been talking about here
Speaker 1: on the show. It's it's made a lot of waves
Speaker 1: among concern among everybody, really, but conservatives like it too.
Speaker 1: I've I find that the depiction of the ossified Soviet
Speaker 1: bureaucracy to be really, really worthwhile. I just the performances,
Speaker 1: the writings. It's an It's excellent in the execution of
Speaker 1: the storyline. And it's one of these moments where I
Speaker 1: take a step back and I say, well, why can't
Speaker 1: so many other shows be written at this quality and
Speaker 1: done in this way without you know, without overacting, without cheesy,
Speaker 1: predictable nonsense. That said, there's some problems with Chernobyl, and
Speaker 1: I will tell you that there are problems that a
Speaker 1: number of you identified for me and for my benefit.
Speaker 1: That the more I thought about it, the more I
Speaker 1: realized that those of you who have written me on
Speaker 1: this one sent me Facebook messages or emails that you
Speaker 1: are correct that there is something inherently and clearly anti
Speaker 1: nuclear about this series. And I thought to myself, well,
Speaker 1: come on, is it really the way that it pulls
Speaker 1: apart and shows you the g of the corrupt Soviet
Speaker 1: bureaucracy and its necessity for forcing its people to choke
Speaker 1: down the most obvious and toxic of lies. And that's
Speaker 1: all so worthwhile. And this is why I say the
Speaker 1: Lives of Others, which gives you a similar taste of
Speaker 1: totalitarianism in East Germany at the hands of the Stazi.
Speaker 1: These are really important pieces of art. They bring to
Speaker 1: life a part of recent history in the Western world
Speaker 1: that we should all be quite aware of and understand
Speaker 1: what those lessons are. There are lessons to be taken
Speaker 1: from this. The problem with the Chernobyl series is that
Speaker 1: one of the lessons you take from it is, oh,
Speaker 1: my gosh, nuclear power is horrifically scary, and these terrible, catastrophic,
Speaker 1: possibly world ending things could happen just because a few
Speaker 1: stupid Soviet clowns don't know what buttons to push during
Speaker 1: the late night shift at a reactor. That's not really
Speaker 1: the case. And let me just give you. And there's
Speaker 1: a very good breakdown of this from Michael Schellenberger over
Speaker 1: at Forbes. He wrote why HBO's Chernobyl gets nuclear so wrong,
Speaker 1: And here are just a few of the other things.
Speaker 1: Radiation victims are often covered in blood for some reason,
Speaker 1: he points out, which is just not It does not
Speaker 1: radiation does not erode your skin in open wounds in
Speaker 1: real time. That is not how radiation poisoning works. And
Speaker 1: then there's some other parts of it that are just
Speaker 1: I understand that they took some you know, creative license
Speaker 1: with it, but a big issue because people see this.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of exposition. There's a lot of explaining
Speaker 1: how a nuclear reactor works, what goes into a nuclear reactor,
Speaker 1: and that's fascinating stuff. And this is an opportunity to
Speaker 1: teach people, and to teach people in a dramatic way
Speaker 1: that will they'll remember. So you're not just learning about
Speaker 1: the Soviet bureaucracy. You're learning about how does a nuclear
Speaker 1: power plant even work? You know, you got these cooling
Speaker 1: rods and you got water circulating. You know, it's kind
Speaker 1: of a weird thing. How does it work? People want
Speaker 1: to know, and that part of it's all great, and
Speaker 1: I think most of that, although I'm not a nuclear engineer,
Speaker 1: most of that is pretty accurate. At the they do
Speaker 1: it at a level that a lay person can understand.
Speaker 1: But why then this way over the top visualization and
Speaker 1: this depiction of radiation as being almost like an alien
Speaker 1: life form that is going to take us all over.
Speaker 1: One part of the movie that I mean of the
Speaker 1: series that's definitely problematic, and that is clearly beyond where
Speaker 1: the facts should would take it, is that radiation is
Speaker 1: something that you can internalize and then it's almost like
Speaker 1: a disease, so you can't If you touch somebody who
Speaker 1: has been subject to radiation poisoning, you can be radiat
Speaker 1: If they are irradiated and then walk over with their
Speaker 1: clothing and their skin still covered in radiation, then yeah,
Speaker 1: you could get some radiation from that. But in this series,
Speaker 1: there are there's a wife who goes to visit somebody
Speaker 1: in the hospital. It's it's her husband, I believe her boyfriend.
Speaker 1: I think it's her husband, and she is told don't
Speaker 1: touch him. Don't touch him because you'll get radiation too. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe you could say that the soviets in that hospital
Speaker 1: didn't know, But that's not really true. In fact, the
Speaker 1: whole basis of the movie is they have to investigate
Speaker 1: what happened at the reactor, when in truth, the nuclear
Speaker 1: scientists in the Soviet Union had a pretty good idea
Speaker 1: rather quickly of what happened. But radioactivity is something that
Speaker 1: is internalized. It is not a is not a contagious disease.
Speaker 1: And the reason that you have people in the movie
Speaker 1: who have been subjected to dangerous levels of radiation behind
Speaker 1: plastic sheeting in the hospital is because their immune systems
Speaker 1: are deeply weakened. So in fact, it's the people coming
Speaker 1: to visit the radiation victims that put the radiation victims
Speaker 1: at risk, not the other way around. UM. So that's
Speaker 1: there's a lot of um, there's a lot of stuff.
Speaker 1: And look, there's some of the dramatic license. I'm fine
Speaker 1: with that. There are guys that we're going to sacrifice
Speaker 1: their lives to empty the water tanks that didn't really happen.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are some things that you can you
Speaker 1: can expect that would be part of the dramatic license.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with that. But there's other parts of this
Speaker 1: that that when you look at the science. There's there's
Speaker 1: a degree of science propaganda going on here. You know,
Speaker 1: this is the first time in a long time that
Speaker 1: a that a mass audience has thought about and been
Speaker 1: subjected to anything really about nuclear power that was in
Speaker 1: something completely fantastical, like the is that a word? I
Speaker 1: think that's a word, like the Hills have Eyes, where
Speaker 1: it's you know, the mutants that are created by nuclear
Speaker 1: power or by nuclear weapons testing that nuclear power, And
Speaker 1: that's really the that's the conflation that you see is
Speaker 1: that nuclear power is as dangerous as nuclear weapons, and
Speaker 1: that's just completely fallacious. That's it's a preposterous comparison. It's
Speaker 1: not true at all. In fact, at one point, the
Speaker 1: main scientist in the movie, who's who's based on a
Speaker 1: real a real person, says that this is like the
Speaker 1: Hiroshima bomb going off, you know, twice an hour, every hour,
Speaker 1: every twenty four hours, you know whatever, And that's not
Speaker 1: really it's not really true. There's there's a lot of
Speaker 1: fear mongering on the science in the movie. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't think there's fear mongering from the how bureaucratic,
Speaker 1: inefficient and disgraceful the KGB was. I mean, that's all,
Speaker 1: I've studied the KGB that that's all true. We actually
Speaker 1: have a guest who's going to be joining us in
Speaker 1: a few minutes. You've written a book on some of
Speaker 1: the using some old KGB terminology. He's a former former
Speaker 1: agency guy that wanted to come on. He loves the
Speaker 1: show and he wanted to come on and talk about
Speaker 1: his book. And he served thirty five years at Langley.
Speaker 1: So I figured, you know what, well, we'll let him
Speaker 1: come on and talk about his book for a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes. So that'll be happening a moment. But but
Speaker 1: the the sensationalism of the science in Chernobyl was unnecessary.
Speaker 1: There's no reason for this to have happened in this way,
Speaker 1: and that's why I start to be you know, especially
Speaker 1: in the at the very end, they do this whole
Speaker 1: You know, the estimates and the number of dead range
Speaker 1: from the official estimate is thirty one, but the real
Speaker 1: estimate from people is up to based on radiation and
Speaker 1: do sicknesses and cancers one hundred thousand. Uh, that's not
Speaker 1: that's not true. You know that's not true. That's not correct,
Speaker 1: and you shouldn't use the PostScript finished the series now
Speaker 1: We're going to tell you what really happened and present
Speaker 1: us as realit. You shouldn't use that to push things
Speaker 1: that are factually incorrect. As I said. In this Forbes
Speaker 1: piece by Michael Schellenberger, he writes, quote, there's no good
Speaker 1: evidence that chernobyl radiation killed a baby, nor that it
Speaker 1: caused any increase in birth defects. We've now had a
Speaker 1: chance to observe all the children that have been born
Speaker 1: close to chernobyl, reported UCLA physician Robert Gale in nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty seven, and none of them, at birth at least,
Speaker 1: has had any detectable abnormalities. Indeed, the only public health
Speaker 1: impact beyond the depths of the first responders was twenty
Speaker 1: thousand documented cases of thyroid cancer in those underaged eighteen
Speaker 1: at the time of the accident. The United Nations in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen concluded that only twenty five percent of that
Speaker 1: five thousand can be attributed to chernobyl radiation. In earlier studies,
Speaker 1: the UN estimated there could be up to sixteenth sixteen
Speaker 1: thousand cases attributable to chernobyl, but since thyroid cancer has
Speaker 1: a mortality rate of just one percent, that means the
Speaker 1: expected debts from thyroid cancers caused by Chernobyl will be
Speaker 1: fifty to one hundred and sixty over an eighty year lifespan.
Speaker 1: At the end of the show, HBO claims there was
Speaker 1: a dramatic spike in cancer rates across Ukraine and Belarus,
Speaker 1: but this is wrong. Residents of those two countries were
Speaker 1: exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. According
Speaker 1: to the World Health Organization, If there are additional cancer debts,
Speaker 1: they will be about point six percent of the cancer
Speaker 1: debts expected in this population. Due to other causes. Radiation
Speaker 1: is not the super potent toxin Chernobyl depicts. In one
Speaker 1: episode one, high doses of radiation make workers bleed, and
Speaker 1: an episode two, a nurse who merely touches a firefighter
Speaker 1: sees her hand turn bright red as though burned. Neither
Speaker 1: thing occurred. Neither thing is possible. Chernobyl ominously depicts people
Speaker 1: gather on a bridge watching the Chernobyl fire. At the
Speaker 1: end of the series, HBO claims it has been reported
Speaker 1: that none of the people on that bridge survived. It
Speaker 1: is known as the Bridge of Death, but the Bridge
Speaker 1: of Death is an urban legend. There is no evidence
Speaker 1: to support it. Why? Why the lives? Why? And remember
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about that, this is the stuff that
Speaker 1: the text that appeared on the screen at the end
Speaker 1: of the series. Why put out a claim about the
Speaker 1: bridge of death when a quick Google search proves that
Speaker 1: there was no bridge of death? Why claim that this
Speaker 1: affected hundreds of thousands of people with cancer and you know,
Speaker 1: spread enormous death and misery across a huge region of
Speaker 1: Ukraine in Belarus when that's not really true. Now, I'd
Speaker 1: like to think that that's just because they're trying to
Speaker 1: be dramatic and they're trying to sell tickets, so to speak.
Speaker 1: But you know, there is this movement out there about
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal. There is this movement that we
Speaker 1: need a massive government takeover to deal with the existential
Speaker 1: threat of CO two induced climate change. And they want
Speaker 1: wind and they want solo and then all these things.
Speaker 1: These are technologies that are inefficient, that will not work
Speaker 1: well enough to let us enjoy our standard of living
Speaker 1: as we have it now. There is only one technology
Speaker 1: that does not create the CO two that would destroy
Speaker 1: according to these people, the world, there's only one technology
Speaker 1: that really works at the level that we needed to
Speaker 1: for the future when it comes to energy creation. Right now,
Speaker 1: it's nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly clean, incredibly efficient, It's an
Speaker 1: unbelievable scientific advance. But nuclear power should be the future.
Speaker 1: Is this movie about propaganda and lies inside the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union at some level, propaganda for the green movement scaremongering
Speaker 1: over nuclear power because they don't want that to be
Speaker 1: the response. They don't want that to take the place
Speaker 1: of the green Nude Deal. I think that's worth exploring.
Speaker 1: A special guest on this Freestyle Friday Friends. His name
Speaker 1: is Bill Rooney. He has a very distinguished, fascinating career
Speaker 1: in the government behind him, and now he is a novelist.
Speaker 1: His latest book is wet Work Repair, which is out now.
Speaker 1: Bill Rooney, great to have you on the program. Buck,
Speaker 1: It's a real pleasure to be talking to you and
Speaker 1: your audience, your listeners. I am a thirty five year
Speaker 1: retired Central Intelligence Agency CIA officer. Did a lot of
Speaker 1: posting overseas. I've been around operations a lot of years.
Speaker 1: After I finished the CIA career, I worked on railroad
Speaker 1: security for five years, and as Buck pointed out, I'm
Speaker 1: this is my second attempt at putting together a story
Speaker 1: well with a lot of operational sights into the story.
Speaker 1: Wet Work Repair is the title of the book. Wet
Speaker 1: Work is a euphemism out of the Russian language. At
Speaker 1: KGB had a department thirteen charged with carrying out wet
Speaker 1: work or heavy lifting operations. I grew up on the
Speaker 1: East coast a Jersey guy, and I would hear in
Speaker 1: the neighborhood the term wet work to indicate in Jersey
Speaker 1: somebody would be run into a terrible ending, but then
Speaker 1: they would hide the body. So I always in my
Speaker 1: mind had work thinking about cement or putting them behind
Speaker 1: boards or a wall or something like that. Usually mafia
Speaker 1: stuff in New Jersey. Sure, that's exactly you have that
Speaker 1: I've heard of. I know nothing about it, but that's
Speaker 1: what I've heard of. But I also was one time
Speaker 1: in Philadelphia when a guy said to me, knew at
Speaker 1: some point how he found out, I don't know, but
Speaker 1: he knew I was aged, and he asked me if
Speaker 1: I was I was doing whitt work. I said, no, okay,
Speaker 1: So tell us what is wet work repair? What's this
Speaker 1: book about? Well, the book book is a story, and
Speaker 1: any any author the challenges that you don't give away
Speaker 1: the ending In this story, it's fiction. In this story,
Speaker 1: it's very troubling. I'd spent a lot of thought, UH
Speaker 1: in time before I put it together. A Central intelligence officer,
Speaker 1: highly experienced, comes back from the Middle East. He's now
Speaker 1: assigned to Washington, DC. UM he UH is murdered in
Speaker 1: his home. He lives in in Virginia, in the suburbs
Speaker 1: of Washington. UH. He's murdered, and the people who carried
Speaker 1: it out, they lead a warning. The warning on the
Speaker 1: body is cease and assist. The investigators and including agency
Speaker 1: people who knew him and worked with him he was
Speaker 1: He was a subject matter expert on Iranian and Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabian affairs and worked with them for years. People couldn't
Speaker 1: believe that somebody had done them in. They could not
Speaker 1: figure out a motive. The note that was left on
Speaker 1: his body was cease and desist. Well, the investigators could
Speaker 1: not get their hands around that cease and desists. Who
Speaker 1: are they supposed to say cease and desist agency operations
Speaker 1: or what's going on? So they couldn't figure that out.
Speaker 1: The crime scene itself is well, Bill, though we don't
Speaker 1: have time to go into the details of every every
Speaker 1: chef of your buddy. I just needed to tell you
Speaker 1: what's the overview? What did you write the book for.
Speaker 1: I wrote the book to get several messages out, my friend.
Speaker 1: And those messages are all about what's happening to values
Speaker 1: being attacked today in the United States of America. And
Speaker 1: what are those messages? Let's hear them. Well, the messages
Speaker 1: are things like, uh, I say, you don't lead classified information.
Speaker 1: You maybe stand up for our flag when it's being raised.
Speaker 1: We've got too many stars on the wall and walk
Speaker 1: around Arlingston Cemetery to remind people of what the value
Speaker 1: of that is about. Uh, And so what what it is? Uh?
Speaker 1: This story addresses a number of those issues. And uh,
Speaker 1: that's kind of that's kind of a general rap on it.
Speaker 1: Well that's what we want. Hey, Bill, Look, I appreciate
Speaker 1: your career in the agency. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: for what you did for a country for thirty five years.
Speaker 1: And uh, we wish you all the best with the book.
Speaker 1: The title is wet Work Repair. My brother from Langley,
Speaker 1: Bill Rooney, is the author. Helly, what bunk? Justin signing off,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry you you left the opposite. I know you're
Speaker 1: doing a great job now. But we could still guys
Speaker 1: like you in operations. I appreciate that, sir, you take
Speaker 1: care of yourself. Thank you so much. Team We'll be
Speaker 1: right back, Team Buck. It's time for roll call. Yes, indeed,
Speaker 1: roll call. Before I get to the usual roll call,
Speaker 1: to let me just say that today was, in fact
Speaker 1: my last day at Hill TV, which has at different
Speaker 1: times been called uh, the Hill TV, hill dot TV,
Speaker 1: lots of different variations on the on the theme there,
Speaker 1: hill dot TV, the Hill TV, lots of things like that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, um, it was. It was quite an experience. Um.
Speaker 1: I will tell you that the Hannity and Combs model
Speaker 1: of doing the show every day with somebody with whom
Speaker 1: you it's not that you're independent thinkers, it's that you
Speaker 1: are pretty diametrically opposed with all of your political beliefs.
Speaker 1: To do a political talk show under those conditions is really,
Speaker 1: really hard. It is very trying. And I listened for
Speaker 1: those of you that would write me over the course
Speaker 1: of the year. Well, there was a reason why I
Speaker 1: didn't spend a lot of a lot of time and
Speaker 1: energy trying to get you all to watch Hill TV,
Speaker 1: because I wasn't sure that it would be your jam
Speaker 1: As I like to say, I wasn't sure this was
Speaker 1: something that would be your in your your Bailey Wick,
Speaker 1: so to speak. So that was because it's just hard.
Speaker 1: You know, you sit there and you know what I
Speaker 1: want to say is no, it's it's not that. And
Speaker 1: this isn't about my colleague Crystal, for whom I do
Speaker 1: disagree with her on nine of politics, but I am
Speaker 1: fond of her, and she was a very professional and
Speaker 1: skilled and solid co host. But it's just really hard
Speaker 1: because when someone sits there, whether it's your co host
Speaker 1: or other guests or other people that work at Hill TV,
Speaker 1: and they say, well, you know, really, the what the
Speaker 1: Democrats are doing here with these investigations at Trump, this
Speaker 1: is about protecting our democracy. I just want to scream
Speaker 1: and say, it's not about protecting democracy. It's an obvious,
Speaker 1: obvious scam to destroy this president. It's just completely done
Speaker 1: in bad faith. It's madness. It's absolutely this is what
Speaker 1: I want to say every day. I wanted to just
Speaker 1: grabe it. Oh, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna take this Trump bashing anymore. That's where I was.
Speaker 1: I couldn't take the Trump bashing anymore. Man, I just
Speaker 1: couldn't do it. Couldn't do it, you know, And they
Speaker 1: were very kind to me, and they were gonna compensate
Speaker 1: me even better than they had for my time. If
Speaker 1: I had stick stuck around through the election, and you know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have been light. I wouldn't have been lighting
Speaker 1: my cigars one hundred dollar bills or anything, but it
Speaker 1: would have been nice. And I know, I just I
Speaker 1: just couldn't do it. Couldn't do it. I couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: And I'm just also so excited that now I'll be
Speaker 1: able to this show and whatever writing I want to do,
Speaker 1: whatever Fox I want to do. The live stream, which
Speaker 1: is going to be a TV version of this show
Speaker 1: that we're going to start in it's going to start
Speaker 1: in August, so I can tell you that now. I
Speaker 1: can't make more announcements about it, but the stream will
Speaker 1: begin in August, so you'll have a way to watch
Speaker 1: a video essentially a video broadcast of this radio show,
Speaker 1: and you can watch it on demand and at your leisure.
Speaker 1: It'll be high definition quality, it'll be it'll be pretty badass,
Speaker 1: I think when we get it all set up as
Speaker 1: well as now, when you say, hey, Buck, can you
Speaker 1: do a history show? Yeah, I might actually be able
Speaker 1: to do that. I have a contract for a book
Speaker 1: that I'm looking at the contract this weekend, and once
Speaker 1: I signed the contract, then I'm writing the book. So
Speaker 1: for those of you even saying when you're gonna write
Speaker 1: a book, it looks like it might be very soon.
Speaker 1: So I got all these things I gotta do, but
Speaker 1: one of them is not going to be. Oh, you
Speaker 1: mean the head of Media Matters wants to come in
Speaker 1: and sit on my set today. Yes, I will press
Speaker 1: him with questions, but I will show him the due
Speaker 1: respect and professionalism that I must as a representative of
Speaker 1: the Hill dot com. You know, Nope, now it's you
Speaker 1: want to play, So let's play. You know now it's
Speaker 1: gonna be Buck Unleashed, Unfiltered, Uncensored twenty four seven and
Speaker 1: not just here in radio. And I will tell you,
Speaker 1: those of you who listen to this show for the
Speaker 1: past year, you were really my salvation that I could
Speaker 1: come and sit and do this show every day. I remember,
Speaker 1: I never I never said anything on the Hill that
Speaker 1: I didn't believe. I never. It's just a question of
Speaker 1: having to work within the defined or semi defined boundaries
Speaker 1: of finding a central point into the conversation where you
Speaker 1: can disagree without arguing. That was you can debate without
Speaker 1: getting angry, and it's very tiresome to do that. It's
Speaker 1: very tough to do that. And I don't even know
Speaker 1: how much of an audience there is for that. I
Speaker 1: will say that the young man, who is a young man.
Speaker 1: The young man was taking over Mike No, but the
Speaker 1: dude has taken over for me is a former Daily
Speaker 1: Caller reporter named Sager and Jetty. I've had him before
Speaker 1: as a guest numerous times here on the show. He's
Speaker 1: a fantastic guy and he's he's going to be a star.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's already very well respected, but he's excellent
Speaker 1: at what he does and is also a heck of
Speaker 1: a nice guy. So I'm very happy for him because
Speaker 1: this my departure is in a sense a promotion for him,
Speaker 1: because he now is He's not a correspondent for the show.
Speaker 1: He's an anchor for the show, but it's and I
Speaker 1: think he'll do very well in the role. It's really hard, though,
Speaker 1: it's really really challenging to have a conversation in the
Speaker 1: current environment and not lose your cool when you hear
Speaker 1: certain things and you remember, I'm remember, this is not
Speaker 1: a conversation about politics with anybody. This is conversations about
Speaker 1: politics with people who are hard left, who, in the
Speaker 1: case of some of the guests and some of the
Speaker 1: pundits who come on the show, are people who would
Speaker 1: like to see the president imprisoned, people who would like
Speaker 1: to see the president's family ruined and perhaps sent to
Speaker 1: prison along with him. People who believe that there's nothing
Speaker 1: wrong with any of these state abortion bills that we've
Speaker 1: seen in New York or Virginia. I mean, people believe
Speaker 1: just a whole slew of things that it's very hard
Speaker 1: to sit there and say, yeah, you know, I think
Speaker 1: you're you're astonishingly and and just stunningly wrong on this thing.
Speaker 1: But I can't just call you crazy, you know, I
Speaker 1: can't just say, oh, yeah, green new deal, Let's put
Speaker 1: the government in charge of trillions of dollars of the economy,
Speaker 1: and let's make sure that every progressive and environment so
Speaker 1: cause is funded via taxpayer of dollars. Create the most
Speaker 1: giant green socialist slush fund in the world, all because
Speaker 1: we think there's too much CO two in the air.
Speaker 1: According to people who have been wrong over and over again.
Speaker 1: You know, how do you how do you say to
Speaker 1: somebody it's not just that you're missing some components of this,
Speaker 1: but your your fundamental premise is borderline insane. How do
Speaker 1: you say that to somebody in a way that's not disrespectful.
Speaker 1: It's very hard. It's very hard. I can tell you.
Speaker 1: Having had to do that, I feel like a professional
Speaker 1: weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I'll now be
Speaker 1: able to do what you hear, which is me is
Speaker 1: just what I get to be all day. I don't
Speaker 1: have to put on a different you know, a different hat.
Speaker 1: I don't have to put on the I was never
Speaker 1: a moderate, but the both sides of the conversation premise. Nope,
Speaker 1: now it's the buck side of the conversation. This is
Speaker 1: going to be I think, better for well, certainly better
Speaker 1: for me, and I hope will be even more joyable
Speaker 1: for those of you who listen, because we are going
Speaker 1: to light it up. We are going into an election
Speaker 1: year and team, we are going to be fired up.
Speaker 1: Shields Hi. It is going to be wild. And with that,
Speaker 1: now I'll come back to Roll Call in just a moment. Hey, team, Buck,
Speaker 1: it's time for roll call. It's time for roll call. Everybody,
Speaker 1: that's right. Sorry, I know I kind of stalled the
Speaker 1: roll call in the last one, so now I will
Speaker 1: I will avoid the stalling. Facebook dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Lydia. First up, I just wrote a long message
Speaker 1: about you, asking why are the homelessness numbers growing? What
Speaker 1: is the root problem? I have a theory. I wanted
Speaker 1: to get it to you to mull Over because I
Speaker 1: truly believe it goes back to the progressives not wanting
Speaker 1: insane asylums. Look at my three posts under your picture
Speaker 1: love your radio program. I guess that's on Instagram, Lydia.
Speaker 1: I will check it out. Thank you for writing in.
Speaker 1: I do know that there were efforts I think from
Speaker 1: I know they're from the left. I believe the ACLU
Speaker 1: was quite involved in them, stretching back for a long
Speaker 1: time that they did not want, or rather they opposed
Speaker 1: people being involuntarily committed. And you know that in general
Speaker 1: you could think, well that seems like a good idea,
Speaker 1: but you don't want people getting sent to an insane
Speaker 1: asylum who should not be. But I think they may
Speaker 1: have pushed a bit too far and now people that
Speaker 1: really honestly should be getting medical help from the state.
Speaker 1: You know, it does not benefit and benefit anyone for
Speaker 1: a person to be living on the street, covered in filth,
Speaker 1: mumbling to himself and posing a danger to himself and
Speaker 1: others because of severe mental illness. But it's very hard
Speaker 1: to involuntarily commit anyone. Is that really a part of
Speaker 1: the homelessness epidemic? I don't know. I know that mental
Speaker 1: health issues are a very large, in general, large part
Speaker 1: of homelessness, but much of that mental health issue, or meant,
Speaker 1: much of those mental health issues manifest themselves with addiction.
Speaker 1: So it's really your very high rates of drug addiction
Speaker 1: and alcoholism among the homeless population. I've seen numbers as
Speaker 1: high in the past, if something like seventy five to
Speaker 1: eighty percent of the homeless have some form of addiction
Speaker 1: or mental illness. But I don't see much really good
Speaker 1: research on this. I don't see and I don't even
Speaker 1: know what the conservative answer to it is. I'm not
Speaker 1: sure there is a conservative answer to it. We know
Speaker 1: that what the liberals are trying, which is just more
Speaker 1: state funding for it and more permissive policies for people
Speaker 1: to live on the streets as of that's some kind
Speaker 1: of basic human rights that's not working that much. We
Speaker 1: do see right here Peter rights Greeting's book regarding your
Speaker 1: conversation on Chernobyl and totalitarianism. Our generation watched the USSR
Speaker 1: collapse and the Berlin Wall fall on TV. I had
Speaker 1: the good fortune to travel to Europe in the summer
Speaker 1: of my freshman year of high school and visited Berlin
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety six. Even then, the contrast between East
Speaker 1: Berlin and West was stark, dull, and dilapidated. Communist construction
Speaker 1: covered the eastern portion of the city. The remnants of
Speaker 1: the wall still stood, but were transformed by art into
Speaker 1: a monument of liberation. The generations younger than us aren't
Speaker 1: being taught the true lessons of history. Shields high from
Speaker 1: a fellow Graybeard millennial, Pete in Michigan, Well, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Pete, and appreciate you writing in And yes,
Speaker 1: I can imagine that Germany in the late nineteen nineties
Speaker 1: you would have been able to see quiet a difference.
Speaker 1: Right now. My understanding is that what was formerly East
Speaker 1: Germany and has now been part of very, very capitalist
Speaker 1: and industrious Germany for decades, but what was formerly East
Speaker 1: Germany has become kind of a coolol area in Berlin. So,
Speaker 1: but I've never been to Germany. It's the two holes
Speaker 1: in my travel that I have to fill a sap
Speaker 1: our Spain and Germany. Have not been to either of
Speaker 1: those countries, and I really want to go to both,
Speaker 1: So I think I gotta put that top of the
Speaker 1: list next time I have some time. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: Max Rights, Hey Buck, your show went all the way
Speaker 1: through roll call tonight in Boston. I heard you read
Speaker 1: my message. Thanks for your prior and current service to
Speaker 1: our country. Let's see you know so sorry for my ignorance.
Speaker 1: The saddest part of my healing missions when people continue
Speaker 1: to suffer Shield Tie James all right, well, James day
Speaker 1: our Max James aka Max. Thanks Max, I appreciated. Let's
Speaker 1: see here, Gina all rights, Hey Buck, and listening to
Speaker 1: your D Day coverage today is with all my day
Speaker 1: long talk shows. For the first time my fifty six years,
Speaker 1: I feel frightened. Never have I felt in my lifetime
Speaker 1: that their sacrifice, their ultimate sacrifice, may have been in vain.
Speaker 1: I firmly believe the Left is actiously awaiting the deaths
Speaker 1: of our so few survivors of these horrendous days to
Speaker 1: pass away so they can rewrite history yet again. I
Speaker 1: had two grandfathers and three great uncles fight this war.
Speaker 1: I will never forget their sacrifice. But how soon will
Speaker 1: all those raised up now forget? My favorite local chat
Speaker 1: hose posted up Kate Smith's God Bless America at the
Speaker 1: end of his segment, sitting at worked here streaming, I
Speaker 1: silently said a prayer for my country, shields high or
Speaker 1: needed now more than ever. Well, Gina, I look, I
Speaker 1: appreciate your you know the emotions you feel, and also
Speaker 1: the depth of the love you have for the sacrifice
Speaker 1: of those on that beach in Normandy seventy five years ago,
Speaker 1: and I would just say, don't forget that there are
Speaker 1: that they're the spirit of those men is still very
Speaker 1: much alive today, and many of your fellow Americans. There's
Speaker 1: so many incredible There are so many incredible patriots here still,
Speaker 1: and they will not let this country go quietly into
Speaker 1: the long night. I can assure you of that. Don
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, great hair, great show. Thanks Don first, never
Speaker 1: leave the continental the US ever again, Rather favor one
Speaker 1: of fifty plus UK protectorate second, so I'm coating conflating
Speaker 1: your thoughts this week with regard to the lack of
Speaker 1: support from the right for POTUS programs to protect US
Speaker 1: and the media coloring conservatives is read, then Democrats should
Speaker 1: be labeled communist, Republicans are democrats, and the remainder are conservatives.
Speaker 1: Don I have no idea what the heck you just wanted?
Speaker 1: Just because I have no idea what that was, I
Speaker 1: don't if anybody else can follow that, but I missed
Speaker 1: that one. We went from programs in the Middle East
Speaker 1: to conservatives are read, Democrats are commies, Republicans are Democrats'
Speaker 1: wait what? I don't know? Don You lost me, buddy,
Speaker 1: But we love you anyway. Thanks for writing in. Let's
Speaker 1: see here, Brian? What up? Brian? Here we go buck
Speaker 1: very excited for your new beginnings with your departure from
Speaker 1: Rising Well, I could not catch the show all the time.
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed your interviews, your poignant questions with people
Speaker 1: both agree with you and the ones you are diametrically
Speaker 1: opposed to. You fulfilled your contract and did a great
Speaker 1: job keeping it civil with many uncivil people. Well, thank you,
Speaker 1: Brian man I appreciate that's that was sort of the
Speaker 1: That was the whole So what of what we were doing?
Speaker 1: That was the idea? Rob God bless you. Buck. First
Speaker 1: of all, Mexico should consider their friend America and do
Speaker 1: what it takes to control their border for our sake. Second,
Speaker 1: the idea of leaving children the border for us to
Speaker 1: take care of is a philosophy of a parasite. Consider
Speaker 1: the cuckoo bird, which lays its eggs for others to
Speaker 1: take care of. And by the way, Biden speaks to
Speaker 1: his audience like they're idiots, and I really think he
Speaker 1: believes it. Those are my rents. Trump twenty twenty. God
Speaker 1: bless him to Thank you, Ron, thank you for writing
Speaker 1: in appreciate it. William. I'm glad you're leaving the Hill.
Speaker 1: It must have been absolute torture for you to work there.
Speaker 1: I understand that you have liberal friends so but they
Speaker 1: just can't understand reason. It's very difficult to be friends
Speaker 1: with liberals. Only my most intelligent and dare I say
Speaker 1: Christian liberal friends have kept me as a friend on Facebook.
Speaker 1: Something happened in the past ten years that made a
Speaker 1: lot of people crazy. Anyway, you're an honorable man and
Speaker 1: full of integrity. Love your show and love you Buck
Speaker 1: Shields high Will. That is very kind of you, man,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for writing in and and uh,
Speaker 1: look I did. I did my best to under the
Speaker 1: uh the rules and by laws of the Hill TV.
Speaker 1: I hope made the made the team proud. But now
Speaker 1: now now it's the rules, my friends, you and I
Speaker 1: write the rules now for the team. That's that's the
Speaker 1: way this goes from now on. I have I have
Speaker 1: one boss and the bosses all of you listening to
Speaker 1: this show. So I'm looking forward to that. That's the
Speaker 1: way I want things to be from now on. Everybody,
Speaker 1: my first weekend post two full time jobs. This weekend,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be really nice. I'm gonna lie around and
Speaker 1: read some books and get ready for my focus returning
Speaker 1: to one thing and one thing only, the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: Every day next week, every day thereafter Monday through Friday.
Speaker 1: Looking forward to have a great weekend. Everybody tells somebody
Speaker 1: about the podcast. Shield Tie