Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Will radical leftist to
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party actually overthrow the old guard and take
Speaker 1: this country further into the depths of progressivism and socialism?
Speaker 1: That plus, what's the latest from Florida, the Shenanigans, the
Speaker 1: outrage the accusations continues over those elections, and the trial
Speaker 1: of Chapo Guzman is going on in New York City,
Speaker 1: the biggest drug kingpin in the world. Let's talk to
Speaker 1: somebody down in Mexico City about what's really going on
Speaker 1: with the cartels. Coming up? This is the bus Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck Section Show. Everybody, great to have you here.
Speaker 1: I gotta say, this is one of these weeks, one
Speaker 1: of these rare weeks in the Trump era when we
Speaker 1: don't just have bombshell political story after bombshell straight I
Speaker 1: just all this, Oh my gosh, the world is ending.
Speaker 1: It's been Yeah, there's the election stuff and we get
Speaker 1: to talk a bit about policy this week. Isn't that exciting?
Speaker 1: I'm gonna discuss immigration where the administration stands right now.
Speaker 1: On that we'll also discuss the status of the Mexican
Speaker 1: drug cartels and the Choppo Guzman trial. Have very interesting
Speaker 1: guests joining the show later on that one. I want
Speaker 1: to get right to it because I think the single
Speaker 1: biggest issue right now that faces the country. The number
Speaker 1: one issue is I was gonna say climate change just
Speaker 1: to mess with you guys, but it's Donor. The number
Speaker 1: one issue is the drift toward socialism. I think it's
Speaker 1: the single biggest can certain we should have as a
Speaker 1: country because it really goes to the very foundation of
Speaker 1: the ideology that this country was founded on in our constitution,
Speaker 1: and it is a version of collectivism that erodes our
Speaker 1: individual rights and what is most special about this country
Speaker 1: or individual liberty and our devotion to that as a
Speaker 1: political entity, as a polity. The formidable Thomas Soul, one
Speaker 1: of the great minds on the right who the left
Speaker 1: has always pretended like did not exist. He said the
Speaker 1: following about socialism. The strongest argument for socialism is that
Speaker 1: it sounds good. The strongest argument against socialism is that
Speaker 1: it doesn't work. But those who live by words will
Speaker 1: always have a soft spot in their hearts for socialism
Speaker 1: because it sounds so good. He's absolutely, socialism as an
Speaker 1: ideology makes the people who are espousing it feel righteous,
Speaker 1: They feel good about themselves. They feel like they are
Speaker 1: kind and thoughtful and moral, and that their ideas will
Speaker 1: mean that people are better off and healthier and happier. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: history shows that that's not true. History shows that in
Speaker 1: the long run, socialism is always doomed to failure, and
Speaker 1: many times in the short run it can create tremendous misery.
Speaker 1: And also you look at some of these countries that
Speaker 1: they point to as successes when the democratic socialism, they'll
Speaker 1: they'll point to some of the countries in Northern Europe,
Speaker 1: for example. These are very small countries that were very
Speaker 1: wealthy before they tried socialism, very well off before that
Speaker 1: on a relative basis, and had a tremendou this amount
Speaker 1: of social cohesion, you know, had a basically a literacy
Speaker 1: rate before that. I mean, these were very very wealthy
Speaker 1: societies that, as we see, also have adopted many free
Speaker 1: market and capitalist policies. They just have a large welfare state.
Speaker 1: But they're not socialists in the sense that they don't
Speaker 1: have the government and control of industry and the government
Speaker 1: making all the decisions about who will do what and
Speaker 1: where in the commercial sector. So they're not truly classic socialism.
Speaker 1: That is why I say they're democratic socialists. Okay, but
Speaker 1: we're heading in that direction now if we do not
Speaker 1: put a stop to this nonsense from the left. Ocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez is now the youngest ever what will soon de
Speaker 1: be She has not technically taken her seat, but she
Speaker 1: will be the youngest ever member of Congress, and she
Speaker 1: is a something of a folk hero on the left.
Speaker 1: And I'm telling you right now, they want someone like
Speaker 1: o Calzio Cortez to run for the presidency. They really do.
Speaker 1: They don't care that she doesn't have a background in politics.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying it will be her, but they want
Speaker 1: someone like her. They don't care that she doesn't know
Speaker 1: anything about policy or politics. Really in terms of what works.
Speaker 1: She speaks with the twang of the leftist. You know,
Speaker 1: she speaks in a way that is recognizable to the
Speaker 1: social justice warriors, and that's why they like her so much.
Speaker 1: I mean, the the verbiant she uses, the phraseology, the
Speaker 1: way that she expresses herself is straight out of the
Speaker 1: Wellesley faculty lounge. But it doesn't make for sound policy,
Speaker 1: and it certainly doesn't show any expertise on the issues.
Speaker 1: It's just all slogans. It's just all jumbles of words
Speaker 1: that just like the strongest argument for socialism sounds good.
Speaker 1: She let a sit in today which was very interesting
Speaker 1: in the in the walth of Congress, and here is
Speaker 1: how that went exactly play fifteen. Then you will know
Speaker 1: how flower I am of each and every single one
Speaker 1: of you for putting yourselves and your body and and
Speaker 1: everything on the line to make sure that we save
Speaker 1: our planet, our generation, and our future. It's so incredibly important.
Speaker 1: Everyday people doing exactly what you all were doing too.
Speaker 1: And is standing Ablacoda stood standing with allies, standing with
Speaker 1: indigenous tribes. Because we don't have a choice. We do
Speaker 1: not have a choice. We have to get to a
Speaker 1: percent real energy in saverny years. There is no ab option.
Speaker 1: We have to get to one renewable energy. That is
Speaker 1: a plan to catastrophically heard our economy. I mean that
Speaker 1: is nobody that I know who deals with markets energy
Speaker 1: the economy makes the case that we're gonna get renewable
Speaker 1: energy without massive economic dislocation and disruption and destruction. But
Speaker 1: there are all these people, They're all assembled there. This
Speaker 1: is where the mind of the left currently is. And
Speaker 1: I want to make my case to you now because
Speaker 1: we're gonna be revisiting this over the next eighteen months
Speaker 1: or so. Right now, her ideas are silly sounding to
Speaker 1: anybody who knows anything, anybody who's serious about policy. Here's
Speaker 1: what she says. And they say, well, she doesn't really
Speaker 1: have a grasp of the facts, and she's it's a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of flash, not a lot of substance.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem. We are in an environment where one
Speaker 1: there's still a sense of Trump momentum, and two, and
Speaker 1: perhaps even more importantly tied into the first, the economy
Speaker 1: is very strong right now. Unemployments incredibly low. Stock markets
Speaker 1: had a rough couple of days, but overall stock markets high,
Speaker 1: investment is high. There's a lot of reason to be favorable,
Speaker 1: not just the Trump administration, but towards you know, capitalism.
Speaker 1: If we have and I do get this feeling that
Speaker 1: it is coming. I can't tell you when, but it
Speaker 1: is going to happen if we have another serious economic downturn,
Speaker 1: perhaps not as bad as two thousand and eight. But
Speaker 1: but in that vein close to it, then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, the Occasio Cortez is the Bernie Sanders esque
Speaker 1: demagogues in American political life. We're saying, let's just wipe
Speaker 1: out your student loans. They're gonna wipe out the bank's
Speaker 1: debts again, they're gonna bail people out from the bad mortgages.
Speaker 1: They're gonna do all these other things. Let's wipe out
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars student loan debt. While we're at it,
Speaker 1: why don't we wipe out credit card debt for people
Speaker 1: that you know, have less than thirty thou dollars in
Speaker 1: total assets. And why don't we have a millionaires tax
Speaker 1: on people who are making two thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're gonna do all this stuff, and they
Speaker 1: don't have to convince the whole country. This is what's
Speaker 1: so important. They really just have to get of the
Speaker 1: vote roughly speaking, I mean, they really just have to
Speaker 1: get control of Congress and control of the White House.
Speaker 1: And even with the Trump movement that we've seen, it
Speaker 1: was a very close fought battle in with Hillary as
Speaker 1: we know, Yeah, the electoral college, Trump went a while more,
Speaker 1: but it was it was a tight election of the
Speaker 1: sense that the separation overall U Yeah, Hillary got more
Speaker 1: of the popular vote, but that's a silly dump talking
Speaker 1: point because it's not about the popular vote. But if
Speaker 1: you look at a state by state breakdown, there were
Speaker 1: they were they were tight races and places Michigan, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: there were tight racist there. They just have to win
Speaker 1: power and then they can do these things. They don't
Speaker 1: have to win the argument. And that's true of socialists
Speaker 1: throughout history. They're not looking to convince you, folks. They're
Speaker 1: not looking to bring you over into the light of
Speaker 1: the glories of redistribute of economics and how everything will
Speaker 1: be fine and great and any No, they're gonna tell
Speaker 1: you here's your government healthcare, take it or leave it,
Speaker 1: and if you don't like it, that's on you. Maybe
Speaker 1: you shouldn't be reveling, assuming you're white, and a lot
Speaker 1: of listening aren't. But maybe you're reveling too much in
Speaker 1: your white privilege. Yeah. There, there's not gonna be any
Speaker 1: any sympathy. There's not gonna be any effort at and outreach.
Speaker 1: Look at what you have with Obama, the the furthest
Speaker 1: left United States senator before he ran for the presidency.
Speaker 1: There's no effort at winning, winning over the other side.
Speaker 1: There was no bipartisan nothing never something that's conveniently left
Speaker 1: out of the narrative. Now Obama was scorched earth. Elections
Speaker 1: have consequences. I want you lost it with That was
Speaker 1: his philosophy, and the press was holding them up for
Speaker 1: eight years as a genius god, which neither of those
Speaker 1: things were true. But nonetheless, now we see this elevation
Speaker 1: of Acazio Cortez, and I understand that what she says
Speaker 1: now to people who know better, who understand history and
Speaker 1: economics and are well read, what she says is silly.
Speaker 1: So it's like I can said, Harry, I do That's
Speaker 1: like in Parson and everyone's doing that kind of Acasio
Speaker 1: Cortez impersonation. I get it. But she is not there
Speaker 1: to make a case to people who want to trade
Speaker 1: in facts and logic. She is there because the strongest
Speaker 1: argument for socialism is that it sounds good. She's just
Speaker 1: gonna make it sound good. That's that might be all
Speaker 1: she has to do. Doesn't have to How are you
Speaker 1: gonna pay for this? Whatever? We're a rich country, We'll
Speaker 1: figure it out. Rich people will pay. It's all Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders ever says. And you want Swedish healthcare, you gotta
Speaker 1: pay Swedish taxes. Does anyone ever bring that up now?
Speaker 1: Of course not. And by the way, I think that
Speaker 1: if you look at being sick in many cases in
Speaker 1: this country versus being sick in Sweden, our five year
Speaker 1: cancer survival rates are actually better than Europe's are by comparison,
Speaker 1: But that's one specific measure. People always compare also American
Speaker 1: health to European health. And look, here's the deal. We
Speaker 1: live a little harder here in America. I'm not afraid
Speaker 1: to say it's true. You know, we eat what we want,
Speaker 1: we drink what we want, we go hard at life,
Speaker 1: and that has health consequences. We are in general less
Speaker 1: healthy than some of our European counterparts. But that's a
Speaker 1: a separate discussion. The left under Pelosi is going to emerge,
Speaker 1: and I think perhaps even try to consume some of
Speaker 1: the old leadership. I think you will see o'casia Cortez.
Speaker 1: I think you will see Chuck Schumer pushed aside, if
Speaker 1: not officially, then in arms of the perception of who
Speaker 1: the leaders are remember this with o'casio Cortez back in
Speaker 1: the day about Pelosi and the future of the Democrat
Speaker 1: parties was just a couple of months ago, place sixteen.
Speaker 1: She is she is the leader of No No she
Speaker 1: I mean um um speaker or rather leader Pelosi hopefully um.
Speaker 1: You know, we'll see she's a she's the current leader
Speaker 1: of the party. And I think that the party absolutely
Speaker 1: does have its leadership in the House. We have our
Speaker 1: leadership in in the Senate as well. Now, put aside
Speaker 1: the stumbles and stuff there. Notice how not really a
Speaker 1: big vote of confidence. They don't want to do business.
Speaker 1: The Chuck humor way, the the lesson that the progressive left,
Speaker 1: which is now the the aid of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 1: the lesson they took away from was if you run
Speaker 1: a crony capitalist, uh you know Hillary like candidate or
Speaker 1: Hillary yourself, you can you'll you're gonna lose because it's
Speaker 1: there's no purity to it, there's no honesty to it.
Speaker 1: And people are now savvy enough, the elector to savvy
Speaker 1: enough to see through that Hillary is a kleptocrat and
Speaker 1: she loves big business and she loves lining her pockets.
Speaker 1: She doesn't really care about poor people or minorities. That's
Speaker 1: all a facade, that's all a front. So you need authenticity,
Speaker 1: and authenticity on the left means radicalism. So if you're
Speaker 1: going for authenticity and therefore radicalism, it doesn't matter how
Speaker 1: much policy experience the person has, It doesn't matter whether
Speaker 1: they actually know what the heck they're talking about. How
Speaker 1: do they sound, how do they appear, do they get
Speaker 1: the masses riled up? And can they convince them that
Speaker 1: socialism is a better path for this country if we
Speaker 1: have a major economic downturn that coincides with the election cycle.
Speaker 1: The answer is that's a real threat, that's a real concern.
Speaker 1: And you're seeing some of those seeds right now in place.
Speaker 1: You're seeing this German e slowly. I'm telling you it's
Speaker 1: going to get worse. There will not be any tilt
Speaker 1: towards the center to be Trump. They are going hard left. Alright, Team,
Speaker 1: I've got we're gonna catch up on all the Florida
Speaker 1: recount stuff too. We've we've got much much more coming
Speaker 1: your way. An update on the whole Whitaker fiasco over
Speaker 1: at the Department of Justice and how the left is
Speaker 1: trying to say there's a constitutional crisis there, Jam Pact
Speaker 1: show stay with me. Should the Majority looking to these
Speaker 1: issues related to President Trump that has come up a
Speaker 1: pace force yes, James Comby's firing yes, the travel ban yes,
Speaker 1: and the family separation puls absolutely, Hurricane relief in Puerto
Speaker 1: Rico it was absolutely inadequate. White House staff use of
Speaker 1: personal email, oh for sure. The president's business dealings abroad, absolutely,
Speaker 1: And I want to see his tax return of core.
Speaker 1: Of course she does, Producer Mike, did she leave anything
Speaker 1: off there the need Nita Lowe or whatever? Did she
Speaker 1: leave anything off? No, I don't think so. Maybe like
Speaker 1: a home inspection or something like Yeah, I think so.
Speaker 1: You know, I want to see a collection of Trump's
Speaker 1: tonemail clippings. I really need to know how many die cooks.
Speaker 1: Let's he drink a day. American people have a right
Speaker 1: to know. They are going to investigate everything. And and
Speaker 1: what's amazing to me is that a normal person would say, Wow,
Speaker 1: what a waste of time and resources. They're just investigating
Speaker 1: things as a form of harassment. There's not even that
Speaker 1: stuff that she's even talking about. But what she said
Speaker 1: of Puerto Rico is false. I've actually spoken to political
Speaker 1: leadership in Puerto Rico and they're like, no, we we
Speaker 1: had a lot of stuff sent to us. It was
Speaker 1: just really hard to get into the places we needed
Speaker 1: to get it. There was not a lack of response,
Speaker 1: it was just difficult to respond. So I don't think
Speaker 1: she said don't even accurate, but probably you know that
Speaker 1: none of those things she said was anything for the
Speaker 1: American people, nothing for us. She's gonna investigate Space Force.
Speaker 1: They haven't even done anything yet. That was hilarious. She's gonna,
Speaker 1: I mean, really, this is a this is a congresswoman
Speaker 1: who's telling the American people she's gonna investigate Trump's tuna
Speaker 1: melt from last week. Who cares? I mean, hopefully he
Speaker 1: didn't use too much mayo because that can ruin an
Speaker 1: otherwise delicious tuna melt, as I will tell you. Um.
Speaker 1: But now it's this is what we're this is what
Speaker 1: we're in for my friends. This is uh, this is
Speaker 1: the whole plan. This is the plan to win over voters.
Speaker 1: And what troubles me is that for a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of leftists they think this is great. They
Speaker 1: they're like, oh, yes, sign me up for more of this.
Speaker 1: The more that they can get um Trump trashed by
Speaker 1: members of Congress with any of these investigations. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of people that get happy about this. A
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats are gonna say, you know what this is,
Speaker 1: this is great, this is what I want to see.
Speaker 1: Just a constant, you know, water torture of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: I'm just drip drip, drip all the time, and it's
Speaker 1: just gonna be so damaging. That's why I know the
Speaker 1: country's going hard. Left folks they got they've got nobody
Speaker 1: on the bench, nobody who is gonna be able to
Speaker 1: leverage the old Obama Hillary network effectively enough. So their
Speaker 1: whole thing is gonna be to create a frenzy of
Speaker 1: left wing activism and just try to take Trump down.
Speaker 1: I don't think it will work, but that's gonna be
Speaker 1: the plan. You're gonna see some crazy stuff happening here. Um,
Speaker 1: we gotta get into Florida. Speaking of crazy stuff like
Speaker 1: that segue buck as smooth as silk. We gotta talk
Speaker 1: about what's going on in Florida and then some immigration
Speaker 1: discussion is like the best show. So maybe not the
Speaker 1: best show ever, but it's like very good. We'll go
Speaker 1: it back Georgia, Arizona and Florida Democrats have to have
Speaker 1: the same message. Just make sure every single vote is counted.
Speaker 1: Every vote should be counted. We need to count the votes,
Speaker 1: count all the votes. I want every vote counted. Every
Speaker 1: vote has to be counted. Every vote must be counted.
Speaker 1: Counter every vote, every vote on account. Let every vote
Speaker 1: be counted. Why do you have to file a lawsuit
Speaker 1: for that. Shouldn't every vote just get counted. At the
Speaker 1: end of the day, every single vote should count making
Speaker 1: sure every lawful vote is counted. Count every vote, count
Speaker 1: all the valid votes. Wow, that's so weird, folks. You
Speaker 1: got a bunch of left wing protesters in the Georgia
Speaker 1: Capitol building there yelling count every vote, and then you
Speaker 1: had all these media figures say the exact, exact same thing,
Speaker 1: count every vote counted. This it's almost like the talking
Speaker 1: point has gotten out there and they're all saying the
Speaker 1: same thing. Meanwhile, there's nobody who says don't count every
Speaker 1: vote that doesn't exist, that that position is non existent.
Speaker 1: All they say is count every vote that is legal,
Speaker 1: legally cast vote. Count every vote that should in fact
Speaker 1: be counted. And that's what you get. For example, from
Speaker 1: Rick Scott, who's down in Florida trying to trying to
Speaker 1: keep his lawfully one UH Senate seat. Play clip three.
Speaker 1: My goal is that we follow the law. And what
Speaker 1: we've seen is, you know, in the supervisor election in
Speaker 1: Broward and Pommide County, both of them, the courts have
Speaker 1: said they haven't followed the law. We know Britain snipes
Speaker 1: and mixed um illegal ballots with legal ballots. We know
Speaker 1: they have not let party officials in the courts have
Speaker 1: said followed the law. So what I'm trying to do
Speaker 1: is get them to do what we what we expect
Speaker 1: the laws a sit up there to prevent fraud, and
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, they don't want to do it. Oh,
Speaker 1: for whatever reason, we all know the reason. Oh here's
Speaker 1: a fun fact. Because I've been saying this. I've been
Speaker 1: saying this all week. Remember, I keep saying, tell me
Speaker 1: when the Republicans, uh, you know, tell me when the
Speaker 1: Republicans managed to turn an election around by by playing
Speaker 1: games and by extending things out. Tell me when when
Speaker 1: that happens. There have been only this is according to
Speaker 1: Jim Garrity over National Review, there have only been three
Speaker 1: recounts since two thousand where the result of a race
Speaker 1: has been changed. Republicans Jim Rights with long memories will
Speaker 1: notice that all three changed the same way, from a
Speaker 1: GOP win to a Democrat win. So since two thousands,
Speaker 1: since they straight up try to steal the floors, try
Speaker 1: to steal the presidential election. That's what they did. That's
Speaker 1: why the Supreme Court had to slap them down. They
Speaker 1: were trying to steal that election. Three elections that have
Speaker 1: involved recounts have gone to Democrats zero for the Republicans.
Speaker 1: That seems significant to me, doesn't I knew that without
Speaker 1: even doing the initial Google search. You just know. You know.
Speaker 1: Democrats are the party of emotion and self righteousness, and
Speaker 1: therefore when they lose an election, there has to be
Speaker 1: something wrong with the election. It's not something that's wrong
Speaker 1: with their message. It has to be the people that
Speaker 1: the mean bad Republicans who don't want to count all
Speaker 1: the votes. Katherine Harris, by the way, speaking of the
Speaker 1: two thousand election, she was Secretary of State in Florida
Speaker 1: during the two thousand election. Here's what she says about
Speaker 1: what's going on right now. Play eleven. So what's gonna
Speaker 1: happen is there are laws that must be followed. Uh,
Speaker 1: there are laws according to who is an eligible voter.
Speaker 1: So if someone is a felon in this election, their
Speaker 1: vote is not counted. If someone is an illegal alien,
Speaker 1: are not allowed to determine Florida's future or the future
Speaker 1: of our nation. They're not. Their vote will not be counted.
Speaker 1: If absentee ballot signature doesn't match up with the absentee
Speaker 1: ballot on record, they're not. They're allowed to count that vote.
Speaker 1: They have to follow the rule of law and the
Speaker 1: law in the state of Florida. Actually, our election laws
Speaker 1: are sufficient to handle this. It's just a matter of
Speaker 1: people are breaking them or not. Are people breaking the laws?
Speaker 1: That's what the fight is here. No one is trying
Speaker 1: show me one instance of a Republican official who has
Speaker 1: been sanctioned for being caught trying to not count a
Speaker 1: vote that should be counted. Um, I am not familiar
Speaker 1: with any of them, with any of that happening. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's impossible, but certainly don't hear about it,
Speaker 1: do you. Meanwhile, Snipes in Broward County has already been sanctioned.
Speaker 1: She's already been been put on notice that what she's
Speaker 1: doing is unacceptable and everyone should just be prepared for
Speaker 1: this thing in Florida to get even what it was Thursday,
Speaker 1: they've got to tell what the count is. And they're saying, oh,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do it by Thursday. But this
Speaker 1: is gonna it's gonna get worse. It's gonna I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: it's gonna get worse. You're gonna see the ugliest side
Speaker 1: of the Democrat Party here. Um. And and by the way,
Speaker 1: one of the one of the ways this is going
Speaker 1: to get worse is that as soon as Democrats start,
Speaker 1: you know what's coming, as soon as Democrats start to
Speaker 1: lose on the issue of the law, the rule of law,
Speaker 1: the election regulations that are in place, whether it's Georgia, Florida,
Speaker 1: they've already won in Arizona. But as soon as that happens,
Speaker 1: you know, you know what, then the rallying crime becomes
Speaker 1: for them racism. Hey, you can't actually count those ballots
Speaker 1: because they weren't marked properly. We don't know who the
Speaker 1: person was really trying to vote for, So those don't
Speaker 1: those don't count under the law, under the rules. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: why are you so racist? That's what's that's what's coming Susan.
Speaker 1: Uh Butcher. I don't know if it's Boucher or Butcher
Speaker 1: one of the other. She said the following to the
Speaker 1: press about this whole issue. She's a Democrat obviously Place seven.
Speaker 1: She's the Palm Beach County Supervisor elections, so she's in
Speaker 1: the same position in the sense that Snipes is in
Speaker 1: in Brower County. Here's a Butcher says play seventeen. You know,
Speaker 1: very unfortunate that some of the highest elected officials in
Speaker 1: our country are trying to disrupt our democracy because they
Speaker 1: don't like the demographics of our voters. I would wish
Speaker 1: that they would allow us to continue to count the
Speaker 1: ballots or just doing our job in accordance with law.
Speaker 1: How he's not disrupting me, it's disrupting you if you
Speaker 1: try to clarify when you're talking. I'm not going to
Speaker 1: clarify that demographics of our county. They don't like them.
Speaker 1: And you know why. That's all I have to say. Oh,
Speaker 1: she sounds really non political and uh neutral, a nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: doesn't she? Oh yeah, she sounds like somebody that you
Speaker 1: can really listen to a trust on this issue. Huh.
Speaker 1: The demographics of our voters. I mean, look, you could
Speaker 1: say it's a you could say it's just that they're
Speaker 1: they're mostly Democrats. But I feel like she said demographics
Speaker 1: are not party affiliation, So not entirely clear to me
Speaker 1: if she just meant more, Oh, yeah, they're more minorities here.
Speaker 1: There are minorities in this county whose votes will be counted.
Speaker 1: And obviously Trump and the Republicans don't want that. But
Speaker 1: this is once again they make it. There's at least
Speaker 1: a hint there that it's it's about it's about race. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's a hint, and we'll get into more of that
Speaker 1: later on. But also it's no ship of trying to
Speaker 1: disrupt your democracy there behind they're they're the ones. This
Speaker 1: is a classic Democrats actic. They're the ones who are
Speaker 1: breaking the law. They're the ones who are violating procedures.
Speaker 1: They're the ones who have been caught doing it. And
Speaker 1: the problem you see is Trump and the Republicans who
Speaker 1: are saying, hey, you can't do that, that's not allowed.
Speaker 1: You're supposed you're supposed to tell people. For example, in
Speaker 1: Broward County, how many how many ballots were cast? How
Speaker 1: many ballots do you even have, because that establishes a
Speaker 1: baseline so that you can't just find an additional thousand here,
Speaker 1: a thousand there that you need when you need them.
Speaker 1: It's a lot harder to commit fraud if you already
Speaker 1: established how many votes, because then there's already those votes
Speaker 1: that will be counted. But if you're gonna try to
Speaker 1: stack the deck, you have to leave the ceiling open.
Speaker 1: So it's really important. It's not a minor thing that
Speaker 1: they missed that deadline. It's not a minor thing that
Speaker 1: they haven't reported these things accurately, as much as they
Speaker 1: want to pretend that it is. Um Then you've got
Speaker 1: Bill Nelson, who what a He's such a creepy weirdo.
Speaker 1: I don't know how else to describe. I think it's
Speaker 1: a pretty accurate to describe the guy. Play eighteen. The
Speaker 1: legal proceedings are ongoing. This process is about one thing,
Speaker 1: making sure that every legal ballot is counted and protecting
Speaker 1: the right of every Floridian to participate in our democracy,
Speaker 1: and that is to have their ballot counted and to
Speaker 1: count as they intended it. Now that all sounds fine,
Speaker 1: except why is it that, first of all, as they
Speaker 1: intended it you know, this is where you get into
Speaker 1: these gray areas folks. Oh yeah, or we you know.
Speaker 1: Now we're having flashbacks and a dimpled and hanging chats
Speaker 1: and all that stuff. But as they enchanted it, huh okay.
Speaker 1: I don't think this process for the Democrats is about
Speaker 1: one thing. I think it's about many things. I think
Speaker 1: it's about figuring out well, first of all, it's about
Speaker 1: trying to trying to make this somehow come out with
Speaker 1: the Democrat to Democrat victory is very important ones governor
Speaker 1: ownership and a Senate seat, So that's those are priorities
Speaker 1: one and two. But that also looking at how they
Speaker 1: get looking at how this plays out, what are the rules,
Speaker 1: how can they adjust them going forward? I think they're
Speaker 1: preparing for the inevitable what they think would be inevitable recount,
Speaker 1: and I do believe it that ways in the minds
Speaker 1: of all involved here. But this idea that counting every
Speaker 1: vote is somehow going to be uh, that's the pantasy.
Speaker 1: And just count every vote now, just just count every vote? Yeah,
Speaker 1: what if an illegal alien cast the vote? What if
Speaker 1: the vote is not what if it's not clear on
Speaker 1: the ballot who the vote was cast? Forward, what if
Speaker 1: it comes after the deadline? These are all very real things.
Speaker 1: Not everybody in the country votes. Not everyone in the
Speaker 1: country can vote. We're a nation of laws. By the way,
Speaker 1: there's a really Oh no, you know what. Matt Gets
Speaker 1: has been out there. Uh you know, he's he's been
Speaker 1: going forward quite a bit here. He's I've seen I
Speaker 1: just say gets Gates, not Gets. Leo Gets. You guys
Speaker 1: remember him from die Hard. Whatever you want Leo gets?
Speaker 1: What if Joe Pesci's lesser but more memorable roles. No,
Speaker 1: Matt Gates Representative Gates. He's been he's been sounding the
Speaker 1: alarm on this stuff, and he's really been making the case.
Speaker 1: And we're gonna play some audio. I wish we could
Speaker 1: show you the video of it, um, but we will
Speaker 1: play the audio for you coming back here and just
Speaker 1: talk more about how this is all gonna how this
Speaker 1: is gonna play out, and what's gonna be coming up
Speaker 1: here with this election fight, because this week that you're
Speaker 1: gonna see, you know, who really wins in Florida. The
Speaker 1: answers we don't know yet. I am not convinced that
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to let this thing go. Why can't
Speaker 1: we watch what's going on? Man, so we can't be here?
Speaker 1: Who told you that we can't watch what's going on
Speaker 1: out of the truck? Who's your super Yeah? I would
Speaker 1: love to see him? Until then? All right, will you
Speaker 1: tell me why why we can't know what's going in
Speaker 1: and out of that truck? And who? What's the name
Speaker 1: her supervisor? Do you know this? Do you know who's
Speaker 1: her name? The supervisor name? Who? What's their name? Do
Speaker 1: you know their name? What is it we tell to me?
Speaker 1: Bring so Representative Gates? There he he comes out and
Speaker 1: sure enough he's he's saying, look, you know what's being
Speaker 1: loaded into these trucks in Broward County. I wish we
Speaker 1: should have called Matt and got him on the show.
Speaker 1: I just thought of this now. But you can tell
Speaker 1: what people that there's a maybe maybe maybe those folks
Speaker 1: were just doing their jobs. They're just a little uncomfortable.
Speaker 1: They know they're on camera and I I can't show
Speaker 1: you the video right now, but you know what's being
Speaker 1: loaded onto trucks in Broward County. When it comes to
Speaker 1: these election offices, these should be very easy questions for
Speaker 1: people to answer. You think should be very straightforward answer
Speaker 1: and there's just a lack of This goes to the
Speaker 1: the lack of trust in the process because, as I've said,
Speaker 1: this is not conspiracy stuff when it comes to the
Speaker 1: violations that have already been established. Snipes has mixed in
Speaker 1: ballots with with with you know, illegally cast ballots already.
Speaker 1: She's already done that because they want to count more
Speaker 1: than less. That was her justification for it. Uh, they're
Speaker 1: viewing this in entirely different terms than than what conservatives are.
Speaker 1: Democrats want whatever they can get in terms of votes
Speaker 1: for the Democrat Party. They don't care if they're illegal votes.
Speaker 1: They don't care if you know, if they could have
Speaker 1: ten year olds voting for them, they go for it.
Speaker 1: Is why Democrats always wanted they want to lower the
Speaker 1: voting age, they want to you know, extend voting hours.
Speaker 1: I mean, their whole conception of this is let's expand
Speaker 1: the electorate as much as possible, beyond even what is
Speaker 1: currently legal, in the hopes that we can get to
Speaker 1: the number that we need. It's it's essentially changed the
Speaker 1: rules until you get the outcome you want and then say, oh, look,
Speaker 1: we obeyed the rules. We did things the way that
Speaker 1: we had to under the circumstances to get the desired outcome.
Speaker 1: So this whole thing is very it is very troubling.
Speaker 1: Um by the way, you know, one thing you should
Speaker 1: be prepared for, and you're gonna hear it this week.
Speaker 1: But it's also just gonna be more of a of
Speaker 1: a steady drumbeat from the left going into well now
Speaker 1: and all the way until constant accusations of racism. We're
Speaker 1: gonna make a big comeback. I mean about every everything
Speaker 1: now is going to be racist. That's gonna be And
Speaker 1: you can say, buck, that's it's so unfair and to
Speaker 1: the left, the left leader should know better. All that's true.
Speaker 1: Problem is it calling people racist works a lot of time,
Speaker 1: and especially when you see how corporate America and these
Speaker 1: pressure campaigns have I've come together and had real consequences
Speaker 1: for people for not even doing anything that's particularly egregious
Speaker 1: or you know, just they get on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of the left and all of a sudden they're in trouble.
Speaker 1: That's certainly true of allegations of racism. And you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear it this week, and you're already hearing some of
Speaker 1: it as we've played for you or at least the
Speaker 1: beginnings of it where people are saying that the reason
Speaker 1: and what was it? I think Joy read yesterday we
Speaker 1: had it. We played her audio from MSNBC. She said
Speaker 1: that the reason people are being so harsh on Snipes
Speaker 1: isn't that she's obviously incompetent and is not doing her
Speaker 1: job right. The reason they're being so harsh in her,
Speaker 1: they say, is racism. Al Sharpton, yep, still still a big,
Speaker 1: big dude in the Democrat Party, big important, powerful figure
Speaker 1: in among the Democrats that everything. Remember the party im morals, folks,
Speaker 1: the Tawanna Brawley guy, Al Sharpton Party immrals. This is
Speaker 1: what he was saying earlier today about what the Congress
Speaker 1: is gonna be like going for play thirteen. We you
Speaker 1: want to hear from our senators and our congress people
Speaker 1: on their vision than we want to visit them and
Speaker 1: and and have dialogue with them, and we want them
Speaker 1: to know by having these amount of people from these
Speaker 1: amount of states here, let them know we're gonna be
Speaker 1: in your face. We didn't just vote and go home.
Speaker 1: We did go vote and go back and eat turkey.
Speaker 1: We are ready for action because we are under the
Speaker 1: administration that has declared war on us, and we want
Speaker 1: to know whose side everybody's on? Am I right, administration
Speaker 1: Al Sharpon says has declared war on everyone in the
Speaker 1: room at the National Action Network. I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know what he means specifically by us. Get ready for
Speaker 1: a lot more of that kind of dangerous, overheated and
Speaker 1: destructive rhetoric about racism. Team. I think you've heard me
Speaker 1: mention its snippy dot com, But you know, you really
Speaker 1: should go back and take another look if you haven't
Speaker 1: yet started your account, because if you've looked at snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and left, there's a lot of new stuff
Speaker 1: going on there that you're gonna love. Thousands of my
Speaker 1: listeners have joint snippy dot com, expressing their opinions and
Speaker 1: stirring up lively conversations. Snippy is an unbiased social media platform.
Speaker 1: It's all about conversation and community. It's maybe not only
Speaker 1: encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its users the ability
Speaker 1: to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators. Okay, check
Speaker 1: into Snippy for any number of things, whatever topics that
Speaker 1: are top of mind for you, and you know what,
Speaker 1: you can start the thread just like I do. Go
Speaker 1: see for yourself. Snippy is a place where everyone is
Speaker 1: free to express their thoughts and share their opinions. Totally
Speaker 1: free to join, open to everyone, Join us at snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and let your opinion matter. No shadow banning
Speaker 1: and no suppression of conservative thought ever. It's and exciting
Speaker 1: new features. Also available in the Apple App Store and
Speaker 1: now available for Android. Snippy your new alternative social media
Speaker 1: it He's basically trying to undermine at every turn to Florida.
Speaker 1: He weighed in on Arizona, He's weighed in on other races.
Speaker 1: He's undermining the legitimacy of elections where he does where
Speaker 1: he doesn't like the results. And that is a hallmark
Speaker 1: of a failing democracy, of someone moving towards an authoritarian
Speaker 1: They just won't give it up on the left, will they?
Speaker 1: Trump undermines elections because of Russian Facebook trolls. How is
Speaker 1: that supposed to work? How does that Kremlin conspiracy really
Speaker 1: add up? Whatever? You know, Trump's a trader, That's what
Speaker 1: they say. And now, in an act of breathtaking hubrists
Speaker 1: and stupidity, I guess a combination thereof we have people
Speaker 1: coming forward, prominent democrats talking heads on TV who we're
Speaker 1: all saying that it is Trump's fault that we have
Speaker 1: questions about the legitimacy of these of some of these
Speaker 1: elections that have not yet been decided mid terms. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, they don't see him at all troubled
Speaker 1: by the fact that there is an astonishing, a completely
Speaker 1: astonishing level of incompetence. I mean, you have to be
Speaker 1: a complete buffoon to accept the buffoonery that has gone
Speaker 1: on in Florida. And what you see happening in Georgia
Speaker 1: is also just lawfare when it comes to elections. You know,
Speaker 1: if you if you aren't registered in the in the
Speaker 1: right county and you're registered to the and you voted
Speaker 1: to the wrong county, guess what, your vote doesn't count.
Speaker 1: That's the rule. The rule is not well, we think
Speaker 1: your vote should counsel. Let's pretend, because that's not how
Speaker 1: this works, but they wanted to work that way. Um,
Speaker 1: here's Jake Christian Adams talking about I mean, there's there's
Speaker 1: so much going on. First of all, the fact that
Speaker 1: mc sally lost to this KUK cinema, I mean just uh,
Speaker 1: totally a space cadet of a lady I don't know
Speaker 1: what the heck people in Arizona are thinking. And to
Speaker 1: say with you, well, even if you hate Trump, mcs
Speaker 1: sally is a very solid, strong candidate, veteran, great background,
Speaker 1: got a golden retriever. For heaven sakes, I mean, you
Speaker 1: know this is what you want, America. And yet they
Speaker 1: went with Cinema, who says joining the Taliban is no
Speaker 1: big deal. Well, we've got troops fighting with talent. Me
Speaker 1: Just who votes for this woman, who who trashes her
Speaker 1: own state of Arizona, says it's a meth lab? Who
Speaker 1: votes for this woman? Well, apparently a lot of people did,
Speaker 1: because she beat McSally, which is stunning in of itself.
Speaker 1: But here's Jay Christian Adams on what's going on down
Speaker 1: in Florida where you have Brenda's Snipes, who doesn't know
Speaker 1: up the heck is going on? Apparently play five, what
Speaker 1: you're seeing is astonishing incompetence. We sued Brenda Snipes for
Speaker 1: incompetence in maintaining the voter rolls, and I got to
Speaker 1: know her very well. I got to know her employees.
Speaker 1: She was my witness on the stand at a federal
Speaker 1: court trial where she admitted noncitizens are on the voter
Speaker 1: rolls and Broward they're voting. She doesn't turn them in
Speaker 1: when she finds out about them. She admitted there's felons
Speaker 1: illegally voting. She doesn't call the police when she finds
Speaker 1: out about them. There are people on her voter rolls
Speaker 1: who were born They have birthdates when Grover Cleveland was
Speaker 1: president in Broward County. So I got to see close
Speaker 1: up how incredibly incompetent both Brenda Snipes is as well
Speaker 1: as her entire staff. So this is not just her,
Speaker 1: it's the whole office. That stuff is is stunning. What
Speaker 1: he's saying, and he's talking about court proceedings, so there's
Speaker 1: obviously gotta be transcripts of it. It's gotta be on
Speaker 1: the record. There are legal aliens registered. She doesn't an
Speaker 1: illegal aliens who actually vote. Oh I thought that never happens. Oh,
Speaker 1: it does happen, doesn't it. This is why Democrats are
Speaker 1: so testy about this issue. That's why they hate voter
Speaker 1: I D so much. They hate election integrity measures because
Speaker 1: ultimately they think that the country will be saved I e.
Speaker 1: That will be in a single party state when you
Speaker 1: have illegals made legal and or just voting because they can.
Speaker 1: Then it's all over. For Forget forget this, you know,
Speaker 1: ninety thousand vote margin we had that allowed Trump to
Speaker 1: defeat Hillary in the last election in in a few
Speaker 1: key states. Forget that, We're gonna be millions of votes behind.
Speaker 1: And they know that, right. So, for them, the illegal
Speaker 1: alien issue is really an existential political issue because they
Speaker 1: think that it is a secret weapon to end their
Speaker 1: fight against conservatism in America forever. That's not an exaggeration.
Speaker 1: That is really leave the long term plan of the
Speaker 1: left here with illegal immigration. People say, oh, buck, but
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants in time, Yeah, I mean maybe there's no
Speaker 1: evidence is supported by the way that people that come
Speaker 1: here as illegals within three generations or two generations become conservatives.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence to support that. So I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess it's theoretically possible, but the country will already be
Speaker 1: ruined by the time that happens. The country will already
Speaker 1: be a collectivist, democrat, socialist. Yeah, dystopia, at least from
Speaker 1: the perspective of people who appreciate rule of law. You know,
Speaker 1: what is the biggest difference between America, for example, in Mexico,
Speaker 1: I mean and I've asked, I've asked the U S
Speaker 1: Ambassador of Mexican, former us A bastard of Mexico. This,
Speaker 1: what's the biggest difference. Why is our society in terms
Speaker 1: of you know, violence and crime and the functions of government.
Speaker 1: Why are we so different from Mexico and how our
Speaker 1: society functions. It's very simple. It's rule of law. That's
Speaker 1: what really distinguishes this country from from Mexico. Here, there
Speaker 1: are laws, we all know what the laws are. We
Speaker 1: forced the laws. And I'm not saying this is perfect
Speaker 1: and all the time, but as a general rule, in Mexico,
Speaker 1: people don't care what the laws are and the laws
Speaker 1: are not enforced. Why is it different there than here?
Speaker 1: Because of our political culture. That's it. That's it. So
Speaker 1: do we want to protect our political culture? Do we
Speaker 1: want to continue to have assimilation occurring in this country
Speaker 1: of legal immigrants coming in at a rate that allows
Speaker 1: them to be integrated into the fabric of American society
Speaker 1: and also to have their first act respecting our laws.
Speaker 1: I certainly, I certainly hope that's what we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: But increasingly the Democrats are just kicking open the floodgates
Speaker 1: because they think it benefits them and their power and
Speaker 1: their ideology in the long run and the short run.
Speaker 1: But what you're seeing here is just incredibly you know,
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy also waited on what's going on in Florida,
Speaker 1: and he's that we maybe we'll have any joined later
Speaker 1: this week. He's such a good dude, and he's so
Speaker 1: spot on here play clip four. We have two different
Speaker 1: things going on here. We have the potential procedural irregularity
Speaker 1: that applies to this particular election, and then you have
Speaker 1: the overarching Democrat approach to government, which is to eviscerate
Speaker 1: the distinction between citizens and non citizens. And we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be we shouldn't think for a moment that if you
Speaker 1: can wrap your brain around the procedural irregularities that their
Speaker 1: overarching agenda goes away. It doesn't. So of course they're
Speaker 1: going to take the position that none of the votes
Speaker 1: of people who might not properly be voting should not
Speaker 1: be counted, because in their minds, those people are just
Speaker 1: as legitimate to count as Americans voting are to count.
Speaker 1: And that's why that's a big reason why our electoral
Speaker 1: system is in the mess. That it's in count every vote,
Speaker 1: they say, folks, that it's not count every legal vote,
Speaker 1: kind of every vote, every vote, every person, people power
Speaker 1: for the Democrats. You see, that's the plan, that's what
Speaker 1: they're trying to do, or that's what they're trying to accomplish.
Speaker 1: And what you see is a media that is completely uncurious, incurious,
Speaker 1: does not care to get to the bottom of what
Speaker 1: the heck is really going on here. Somehow Trump is
Speaker 1: the problem. Broward can't get its stuff together and and
Speaker 1: understand that the twenty twenty stakes here are obvious to
Speaker 1: anyone paying attention. Florida, just by by ballot measure, legalized
Speaker 1: four million felons to vote in Florida. Now, as you
Speaker 1: may know, felons are a very reliable Democrat voting constituency.
Speaker 1: I think they vote four to one in favor of
Speaker 1: Democrats over Republicans. So even if you have a pretty
Speaker 1: weak registration of convicted felons in Florida who want to vote,
Speaker 1: guess what that could be. The difference the felon vote
Speaker 1: could be the difference as to who carries Florida in
Speaker 1: which could be the difference about who is the next
Speaker 1: president of the United States. That's how important Florida is.
Speaker 1: And once you add the governor's mansion into the mix,
Speaker 1: once you add another Senate seat, and that makes you
Speaker 1: start to see that this isn't just about the right now,
Speaker 1: this is about the way forward. And you know, I
Speaker 1: also think that you can expect the Democrats are using
Speaker 1: this as a test run to see, you know, what
Speaker 1: can they legally and not so legally get away with
Speaker 1: when it comes to votes. You know they they view this,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you they're viewing this in Florida as a
Speaker 1: dry run for the inevitable razor thin election in Florida.
Speaker 1: And you know what they can do, what they what
Speaker 1: they will do in order to make sure that that
Speaker 1: critical state goes goes blue. That's that's what I think
Speaker 1: you can expect to happen here. Um. But you know,
Speaker 1: they really should be they should be asked the question.
Speaker 1: Democrats should be asked to answer the question do you
Speaker 1: think do you think Chuck Schumer? Do you think Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosium and just go down the line that illegal aliens
Speaker 1: should I'm not asking if you think, if it's legal,
Speaker 1: should illegal aliens in this country be able to vote?
Speaker 1: Should they? I'd be very curious to hear what their
Speaker 1: answer is. I think they'd go into some you know,
Speaker 1: some dodge they're going too. Well, it's not technically legal,
Speaker 1: but we'd really like to have everybody's voice counted and
Speaker 1: we're all human beings and we're all people and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff. Huh, Because if that's really your philosophy,
Speaker 1: I just want to point this out. Why can't people
Speaker 1: living in Mexico, Why can't people living in Canada just
Speaker 1: show up here and vote. I'm Erica affects the whole world.
Speaker 1: You can make a very clear case that the American
Speaker 1: election has massive implications for the global economy, for foreign relations,
Speaker 1: all these things. And if people are just people man,
Speaker 1: and the law of the United States doesn't matter, if
Speaker 1: our sovereignty doesn't matter, heck, why not just take mail
Speaker 1: in ballots from you know, Morocco to Malaysia and back again.
Speaker 1: I mean, why not just let anybody wants to vote
Speaker 1: in our election vote. We're all just people. You know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna visit probably at some point, so maybe they
Speaker 1: want to say what goes on here? Plus we affect them.
Speaker 1: You know, there's a a complete lack of seriousness and
Speaker 1: intellectual rigor from Democrats, not just in the issue of
Speaker 1: legal aliens, but also the issue of what does it
Speaker 1: mean to have an election that is based in the
Speaker 1: rule of law. Voter ide has been upheld by the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court already as constitutional. You rarely will hear that,
Speaker 1: but it's true. Voter I D is constitutional. But they
Speaker 1: fight voter i D through procedural measures. However, they can
Speaker 1: all across the country because they refuse to accept that
Speaker 1: it's constitutional. Now, if you don't have voter I D,
Speaker 1: you don't have to register in a specific place, and
Speaker 1: there's you know, no independent monitors that for the plus,
Speaker 1: you wouldn't be able to do that at every polling
Speaker 1: station across the country. How could you ever even know
Speaker 1: if there was fraud. How could you ever know if
Speaker 1: in fact something has transpired that will all to the
Speaker 1: course of the country. I mean, people are cynical enough
Speaker 1: about politics because I think, well, they see how gross
Speaker 1: politicians are. Just imagine how they'll feel about it if
Speaker 1: they start to feel like their vote gets canceled out
Speaker 1: by people that are in the country illegally, by by
Speaker 1: people who are not filling out their ballots, by people
Speaker 1: who are not abiding by the same procedures and same
Speaker 1: rules as everybody else. You know, Democrats are playing with
Speaker 1: fire ere folks, they really are. But it's it really
Speaker 1: all comes down to Trump and there mind, so they'll
Speaker 1: do anything. I was exhausted this morning, man, and because
Speaker 1: I'm not a socialist, I had to actually show up
Speaker 1: for work. But you know what I had to help
Speaker 1: me get through the day and get the day started
Speaker 1: right A cup of just black Black Rifle coffee. And
Speaker 1: I drink it black. By the way, I'm all about it.
Speaker 1: This is delicious, premium roast to order coffee that you
Speaker 1: will absolutely love. If you have a k cup at home,
Speaker 1: or if you're somebody that does your own ground grinding,
Speaker 1: you can get the beans before their ground, get them
Speaker 1: ground up, but have it all delivered to your door
Speaker 1: via Black Rifle. It's so easy. I get it delivered
Speaker 1: every month, and it's what I drink every day. Everyone
Speaker 1: listening to this should get in on this action too,
Speaker 1: all right. Nothing cures a bad attitude quite like starting
Speaker 1: your day with the most American fruitom loving coffee ever,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck. Are you staying
Speaker 1: in the Senate or you're gonna run for president? I've
Speaker 1: been thinking about it because, as we said earlier, what
Speaker 1: President Trump has been putting into this country is so disturbing,
Speaker 1: so divisive, so dark, that I believe that I've been
Speaker 1: called to fight as hard as I possibly can to
Speaker 1: restore that moral integor, to that moral decency. That sounds
Speaker 1: like so I'm thinking about it. Yeah, that's right, Jilibrand folks,
Speaker 1: the Democrats best and brightest or among them. Also, I
Speaker 1: just find this this construction fascinating. The party of planned parenthood,
Speaker 1: transgenderism for twelve year olds and you know, no, no,
Speaker 1: uh no, crushed scenes in the in the town square.
Speaker 1: They're the party of morality now, the party of Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton and Hillary They're the party of morality now. Oh okay,
Speaker 1: isn't that in a sting the people who wanted to
Speaker 1: elevate the Clintons back into the White House after eight years,
Speaker 1: that same political party is now out there lecturing us
Speaker 1: about morality. You cannot make this crap up. But Kirsten
Speaker 1: jilla Brand is deeply unimpressive. Every time she speaks on
Speaker 1: a shoe, I think to myself, Wow, this woman is
Speaker 1: a centator from New York. That's what the heck is
Speaker 1: going on with my home state. So I refused, even
Speaker 1: though I'm checking a resident of d C, I refused
Speaker 1: to accept it. I'm still a New Yorker. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not changing, I'm not changing daring it. But but
Speaker 1: jilla Brand is just you know, symbolical, emblematic, not symbolic,
Speaker 1: wrong word, emblematic of what we see on the left
Speaker 1: in general, which is they're just saying all this stuff
Speaker 1: and and you know they don't get really they don't
Speaker 1: get challenged on it. You know, one thing that's happened
Speaker 1: is because the meeting environment is so toxic now, you
Speaker 1: really don't have many people that will go and try
Speaker 1: to even attempt us to talk to the other side. Um,
Speaker 1: but the Democrats are gonna have so many of these
Speaker 1: of these candidates who come forward, and they're all gonna
Speaker 1: be saying the same all gonna be saying the same thing.
Speaker 1: You know, He's not gonna be saying the same thing. Actually,
Speaker 1: is my my colleague from the Hill of Crystal Ball. Uh,
Speaker 1: the the wonderful and talented Crystal Ball. She is involved
Speaker 1: with o Jetta, who just announced yesterday. We actually broke
Speaker 1: the story on the Hill that he's running for president
Speaker 1: for the Democrats. He voted for Trump, by the way,
Speaker 1: in two thousand and sixteen, but he he is. He
Speaker 1: has announced that he will in fact run. And at
Speaker 1: least there's a guy who is not going to be
Speaker 1: straight off the talking points from the right. So that'll
Speaker 1: be interesting. I mean, I don't think he's gonna win,
Speaker 1: but it'll be interesting. Uh, and he'll be an interesting
Speaker 1: voice in the whole discussion. Um, but Michelle Obama way
Speaker 1: down the Democratic candidates or here's what Michelle had say,
Speaker 1: play one. What candidates do you see out there that
Speaker 1: inspire you to catch your eye? And did you did
Speaker 1: you hear recently recently one of Hillary Clinton's former advisors
Speaker 1: speculating that she could run again. Do you think she should? I?
Speaker 1: You know, I think at this point everybody's qualified and
Speaker 1: everybody should run. Like I might even tap Sasha, So
Speaker 1: you know, everyone's qualified and everyone should run. I might
Speaker 1: tap Sasha. She she says. You know, Okay, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be kind of battle royale of Democrats. As I've been
Speaker 1: telling you, though, do not be surprised if this goes
Speaker 1: to the far left. Be prepared for your fellow Americans
Speaker 1: to really disappoint you with their knowledge of history and
Speaker 1: their political judgment when there's there's this lurch toward towards
Speaker 1: socialism in this country. I mean it, it's coming. I
Speaker 1: really think it's going to happen. I do not expect
Speaker 1: through to be a Biden esque mainstream Democrat candidate. I
Speaker 1: think that in their view, the only way to fight
Speaker 1: against Trump is to find the Democrat opposite of Trump,
Speaker 1: and that's going to be a just and an open
Speaker 1: lefty Bernie Sanders heavy socialist instead of Bernie Sanders light.
Speaker 1: That didn't really makes sense, but you know what, I mean,
Speaker 1: more more of a fighter than Bernie Sanders and a leftist.
Speaker 1: Who is that gonna be? Yeah, I can't tell you
Speaker 1: right now, but it's gonna be something like that. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna be Jilla Brand, It's not gonna be Kamala Harris.
Speaker 1: Trump will will crush those standard issue Democrat opponents. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just no way, Bernie I think would be interesting.
Speaker 1: I don't know if Bernie has the fire in the
Speaker 1: belly to take on Trump, but at least the Bernie contest,
Speaker 1: you've got a guy who said, yeah, I'm all socialist.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a basic socialism free stuff for everybody.
Speaker 1: Forgot about Venezuela, but they got They got nobody who's
Speaker 1: waiting on the bench to take the reins. We gotta
Speaker 1: talk immigration, though, folks, I gotta I gotta talk about
Speaker 1: some I got some tough love coming for the Trump
Speaker 1: administration on this issue in just a moment. The Final shutdown? Delude,
Speaker 1: do do do? Do? I wonder if I don't want
Speaker 1: to get I don't want to get sued for like
Speaker 1: rights violations. I think I'm allowed to do a weird
Speaker 1: al version the final shut down. Because we got a
Speaker 1: government shutdown looming. Everybody, Oh, I know all the humanity.
Speaker 1: What will we do? Ah? The answer is nothing. The
Speaker 1: answer is we will continue to fund the government, and
Speaker 1: there'll be a lot of tough talk about, Oh, we're
Speaker 1: gonna stand for principle, We're gonna we're gonna stop this
Speaker 1: shutdown from half Robbie, Robbie, Nope, Nope, we are not.
Speaker 1: We are not in fact going to do that. It
Speaker 1: is much more likely that we'll just have business as usual.
Speaker 1: I saw Paul Ryan today, who you know, I think
Speaker 1: I've been a little I've always said he's terrible immigration,
Speaker 1: so you can you gotta credit me with that. He's
Speaker 1: horrible in the issue immigration, which is obviously very very important.
Speaker 1: But I've been a little Well, he's a nice he's
Speaker 1: a nice guy, and so there's that and that that
Speaker 1: goes a long way with me. But the whole notion
Speaker 1: of Paul Ryan as a budget walk, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I start to feel like that's that's a lot of posturing.
Speaker 1: What did he do for the budget that was so great?
Speaker 1: What what legislation as Paul Ryan spearheaded that we all go, Wow,
Speaker 1: Thank heavens, Paul Ryan was there for that one. I
Speaker 1: just I think he's been a little you know, he's
Speaker 1: a he's a little cozy with the establishment. I'm sure
Speaker 1: he's gonna end up running like the Heritage Foundation or
Speaker 1: something pretty soon. I mean, he's a big think tank
Speaker 1: kind of guy. Maybe a I I don't know, one
Speaker 1: of those places. I like Heritage, So don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying he's gonna get one of those big
Speaker 1: think tank jobs. Um, but he's saying today that, oh,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be some kind of a you know something
Speaker 1: for this shut member in December. They're supposed to be
Speaker 1: a government shutdown unless they do this. We keep going
Speaker 1: on as a continuing resolution. The government run out on
Speaker 1: December seven of money unless they can reach an agreement
Speaker 1: in the twelve legislative days before that deadline. And Trump
Speaker 1: has not ruled out. This is from the Washington Post
Speaker 1: that I Trump is not ruled out a shutdown. He said, quote,
Speaker 1: we need the money to build the wall, the whole wall,
Speaker 1: not pieces of it all over. So we will see
Speaker 1: Mark Meadows, however, of the House Freedom Caucus is quote
Speaker 1: not optimistic that they'll be able to follow through all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Let me tell you this, Okay, there's there's
Speaker 1: not gonna be a shutdown with Democrats about to take
Speaker 1: the House. It's just not it's just not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: It didn't happen the last time, it didn't happen the
Speaker 1: time before that. It's not gonna happen this time. Republicans
Speaker 1: think that they lose and shutdown fights, all right. They
Speaker 1: think they lose. I mean, there was that very brief,
Speaker 1: that very brief shutdown, um and the Democrats actually blinked
Speaker 1: on it, but they didn't really capitalize. And I think
Speaker 1: that when you look at this now, you see that
Speaker 1: there's there's just a lack of willingness on the Republican
Speaker 1: side to go to the math for the wall. I
Speaker 1: really think there are a lot of Republicans who believe
Speaker 1: that if they started, if they funded building a wall, uh,
Speaker 1: there would be a wipeout. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: Republican members of Congress actually believe that. Meanwhile, Trump got
Speaker 1: elected promising a wall and had a Republican majority, and
Speaker 1: we did not. We did not get what was promised
Speaker 1: even though we had that majority. And you know, this
Speaker 1: is where I got to do a little tough love
Speaker 1: for the administration. You know, the the budget and this
Speaker 1: looming foe shut shutdown. It's not really gonna shut down.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna fight over. They're just gonna do a
Speaker 1: continuing resolution, I can almost guarantee. But this is a
Speaker 1: reminder that right now we are are losing the fight
Speaker 1: with the left over immigration. And I don't think you're
Speaker 1: hearing that enough. I don't think you're hearing that from
Speaker 1: enough people in enough places. Uh. Border crossings of family
Speaker 1: units last month set a record sixteen thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty eight family units were caught entering between points
Speaker 1: of entry, which is an all time record according to
Speaker 1: Customs and Border Patrol numbers, that is eight This increased
Speaker 1: thirty nine percent, by the way, all right, I mean
Speaker 1: these numbers are going up big time. In October, fifty thousand,
Speaker 1: nine hundred and fifty seven individuals were apprehended at the
Speaker 1: southern border between points of entry. Almost ten thousand apprehended
Speaker 1: at points of entry, the sixty seven totals of single
Speaker 1: highest one month total of Trump's entire presidency. And folks,
Speaker 1: what what this is telling us is that the illegal
Speaker 1: alien market, so to speak, has spoken here. They think
Speaker 1: that Trump is un serious about his promises. They think
Speaker 1: that with Jeff Sessions on the way out, and remember
Speaker 1: this isn't you know, this is an important life and
Speaker 1: financial economic decision for people that are crossing the bord.
Speaker 1: They pay attention to this stuff, everybody, and they have
Speaker 1: activist groups that are informing them what to say, where
Speaker 1: to go, how to do this. So they're getting help
Speaker 1: along the way too. But the word is out. The
Speaker 1: word is out. The first year of Trump's presidency, there
Speaker 1: were there were far fewer illegal crossing is what we
Speaker 1: saw under the Obama presidency. But now we see that
Speaker 1: this is in fact business as usual. Business as usual. Um,
Speaker 1: this is what over over a Conservative review, very instring
Speaker 1: piece from from Daniel horowits on this year it's falling.
Speaker 1: The points of entry are a huge loophole. Let's not
Speaker 1: forget that the caravans always come to the points of
Speaker 1: entry anyway, and an increasing number of the more low
Speaker 1: key migrants are surrounding themselves at the points of entry
Speaker 1: as well. The new rule is another giant invitation on
Speaker 1: a silver platter for arriving migrants to ask for asylum
Speaker 1: at the legal points of entry. Well, there will be
Speaker 1: processed and released in somewhat slower motion under the same
Speaker 1: standards that have been placed all along, which results in
Speaker 1: nine of those asking for asylum being allowed to enter,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that only ten percent will ultimately be
Speaker 1: given asylum by a judge. This is what I have
Speaker 1: been saying all along. They can anybody who is willing
Speaker 1: to go through a short detainment and knows what to
Speaker 1: say at our southern border, and is willing to lie
Speaker 1: can get into the United States pretty much free and clear,
Speaker 1: and there's no interior enforcement they have to worry about.
Speaker 1: They know that DOCCA is looming just over the horizon.
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats believe that they're gonna be able
Speaker 1: to get a compromise measure on DOCCA from this administration.
Speaker 1: I think that whether that's true or not, I think
Speaker 1: there are many in the administration. I certainly think Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is gonna push for that. And you know, my friends,
Speaker 1: this is not what we were promised. This is not
Speaker 1: what's supposed to be happening here. The Republican Party is
Speaker 1: letting us down. And yes, this is on Trump's watch.
Speaker 1: Trump I give him a lot of credit for when
Speaker 1: he follows through when he does good things. I love
Speaker 1: it when he Trump slaps Acosta and all the rest
Speaker 1: of them. But this is not what was said. Who
Speaker 1: was gonna happen. This was not followed through on. And
Speaker 1: this is a big problem because, as I've been telling you,
Speaker 1: I think that while Trump in a normal universe could win,
Speaker 1: we have some very troubling far left radical trends in
Speaker 1: this country. Right now, and if you were to see
Speaker 1: a backlash to Trump, and especially if it coincided with
Speaker 1: a massive economic downturn, and all of a sudden the
Speaker 1: left was truly emboldened to just pursue their wackiest dreams,
Speaker 1: then I do think there's the possibility of a major
Speaker 1: Democrat and the actual blue wave, right, the actual blue wave,
Speaker 1: the blue tsunami can hit just like it happened in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight with Obama, and the first thing
Speaker 1: that they will do this time around, I assure you,
Speaker 1: the first thing Democrats will do when they have the
Speaker 1: opportunity is legalize all the legal aliens in this country.
Speaker 1: Make it irreversible. And oh, by the way, that's also
Speaker 1: when people will say, because all of a sudden, you
Speaker 1: have all these people coming forward, Oh the number was
Speaker 1: twenty million. Wow, that buck Sexton guy wasn't such a
Speaker 1: crazy after all, because the number is not eleven million.
Speaker 1: My friends, explain to me, how the number is eleven million, when,
Speaker 1: as I just told you, according to Customs and Border
Speaker 1: Patrol you had Let me just make sure I'm giving
Speaker 1: you the right number. Sixteen thousand plus family units caught
Speaker 1: caught between points of entry. How what percent. Do you
Speaker 1: think you're getting caught less than half? Family units are
Speaker 1: at least two people, some cases three four people. You've
Speaker 1: got fifty sixty seventy thousand people that are getting caught
Speaker 1: between points of entry at the border crossing illegally last month.
Speaker 1: I can do math. You can do math. If we're
Speaker 1: getting fifty or sixty thousand people getting caught crossing illegally,
Speaker 1: that means there's got to be that number that are
Speaker 1: actually crossing successfully illegally, probably more than that. It's a
Speaker 1: hundred thousand a month. Do the math on one year.
Speaker 1: You think it really stays at eleven eleven million. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. We are losing my friends on immigration.
Speaker 1: Someone needs to ring the alarm belt. Trump has not
Speaker 1: gotten it done on this yet, and we need to
Speaker 1: stay on it. I thank you, as president. Challenge you
Speaker 1: on on one of the statements that you made in
Speaker 1: the tailing of the campaign, uh in the mid terms,
Speaker 1: that here we go that well, if you don't miss,
Speaker 1: president that this caravan was an invasion, as you know
Speaker 1: consider it to be. As you know as president, the
Speaker 1: caravan was not an invasion. It's a it's a group
Speaker 1: of migrants moving up from Central America towards the border
Speaker 1: with the US. Why why did you why did you
Speaker 1: characterize it as such? Uh, becas I consider an invasion.
Speaker 1: You and I have a difference of it. But do
Speaker 1: you think that you demonized immigrants this election to try
Speaker 1: to want them. I want them to come into the country,
Speaker 1: but they have to come in legally. You know, they
Speaker 1: have to come in jim through a process. I wanted
Speaker 1: to be a process and I people to come in.
Speaker 1: And we need the people. Your campaign, your campaign, you
Speaker 1: know why would need the people do because we have
Speaker 1: hundreds of companies moving in. We need the people. But
Speaker 1: your campaign had an ad showing migrants climbing over walls
Speaker 1: and such. But they weren't actor not going to be
Speaker 1: doing they weren't actors. Well, no, it's true. Do you
Speaker 1: think they were actors. They weren't actress, They didn't come
Speaker 1: from Hollywood. These were these were people. This was an
Speaker 1: actual you know, it happened a few days ago, and
Speaker 1: they're hundreds of miles away. Though they're hundreds and hundreds
Speaker 1: of miles away, that's not an invasion. Honestly, I think
Speaker 1: you should let me run the country. You run CNN,
Speaker 1: And if you did it, well, you're ratings. Let me
Speaker 1: ask you if I may ask question, If I may
Speaker 1: ask question? All right, so you guys remember that, right,
Speaker 1: just I just wanted But that's you know, Trump slab.
Speaker 1: I enjoyed it. Of course, that was Jim Acosta trying
Speaker 1: to Acosta at up as he usually does in the
Speaker 1: in the White House where when he's at a press,
Speaker 1: press conference or briefing with the President whatever. And it
Speaker 1: turns out the CNN is letting this go. CNN and
Speaker 1: reporter Jim Acosta filed a lawsuit today claiming quote that
Speaker 1: the White House violated his constitutional rights by suspending his
Speaker 1: press access following an incident where Acosta would not relinquish
Speaker 1: the microphone during a press conference. The White House's characterization
Speaker 1: of the events of last Wednesday have been ripped apart
Speaker 1: as an exaggeration, complete with altar video, etcetera, etcetera. But
Speaker 1: the account put forth and CNN's complaint is even more
Speaker 1: detached from reality. This is from Law and Crime. This
Speaker 1: is a piece by Ron Blitzer. So here's here's what
Speaker 1: CNN in this complaint says, quote, Acosta asked a question
Speaker 1: about want of President Trump statements during the midterm campaign,
Speaker 1: namely whether a caravan making its way of the United
Speaker 1: States from Central America constitutes and invasion of the country,
Speaker 1: a significant feature of the President's messaging during the just
Speaker 1: end of campaign. This is a live folks, accomplain. Didn't
Speaker 1: really ask a question a cost Or, rather didn't ask
Speaker 1: a question at all. He said, quote, I want to
Speaker 1: challenge you on one of the statements you made in
Speaker 1: the tail end of the campaign in mid terms. That's right, folks,
Speaker 1: this is a journalist ending up. Who's who thinks that
Speaker 1: his press pass is the right to get a televised
Speaker 1: debate with the president whenever he wants it. Now, you
Speaker 1: can call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure that that
Speaker 1: is not what the press pass entitles him. Two, I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure that a Costa is not supposed to be
Speaker 1: able to stand up and drown out any other reporters
Speaker 1: in the room hog the ball, so to speak. And
Speaker 1: more importantly, I gotta tell you something. He does not
Speaker 1: have a constitutional right to a daily White House access pass.
Speaker 1: What is that? Think about this from Jimmycasta. Because he's
Speaker 1: so important and famous. According to see, an end has
Speaker 1: to be able to go to what there's there's a
Speaker 1: ton of other people in the and not just in
Speaker 1: the press, but in CNN who have hard passes, so
Speaker 1: they can't provoke a hard pass that CNNs that CNN's
Speaker 1: legal position on this, it's unconstitutional. By the way, the
Speaker 1: A c L you wait into. But everybody they're just
Speaker 1: it's always, oh, the press is under assault. The press
Speaker 1: is under assault. This press is specifically trying to destroy
Speaker 1: the president, and they're destroying the idea that the Constitution
Speaker 1: is actually something that has meaning, that isn't just whatever
Speaker 1: you want it to be at any given time. That's
Speaker 1: what they seem to think the Constitution is, and that
Speaker 1: is not the Constitution. The Constitution is words that have meaning.
Speaker 1: It's not just what, It's not just something I don't like,
Speaker 1: therefore it's unconstitutional. I mean, it just goes on and on.
Speaker 1: This was this was a guy who was acting poorly,
Speaker 1: and they are disciplining him in a very mild fashionment.
Speaker 1: I just want to know, is it is it the
Speaker 1: case now? Is it the standard that if you do
Speaker 1: anything in the White House press room that is completely
Speaker 1: out abound. Let's say you started what what if he
Speaker 1: told the president to go blank himself? I know it's
Speaker 1: a horrifying thought, but but I'm just saying, what if
Speaker 1: a reporter stood up today, it's the president, you know,
Speaker 1: your your your mother wears combat boots or whatever, you know,
Speaker 1: says something stupid. You know, hey, go go blank yourself.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, let's say that somebody said something
Speaker 1: to the president and it's you know, it's completely it's wrong,
Speaker 1: it's nasty, and it's not a journey within the bounds
Speaker 1: of journalistic standards integrity at all. Is that person not
Speaker 1: allowed to be told okay, you're you have to leave.
Speaker 1: What if somebody stands up and refuses to stop shouting.
Speaker 1: If you had somebody who decides to go code pink
Speaker 1: in the West Wing, do they have a right to
Speaker 1: not just stay there and continue to scream and yell,
Speaker 1: but to continue to have a They call it a
Speaker 1: hard pass, which means that you can have daily access
Speaker 1: to the White House whenever you want. You can be
Speaker 1: in the White House whenever you want. Is that really,
Speaker 1: you know, is that the new standard? I just want
Speaker 1: to know where CNN thinks it's legal boundaries are here.
Speaker 1: You know, what is CNN allowed to do and not
Speaker 1: allowed to do? Uh? And and The answer is they
Speaker 1: just want to make this a big moment for Acosta,
Speaker 1: and that's that's what they're going to do. But this
Speaker 1: is just why there's no there's no honest discussion here
Speaker 1: about what this guy has done on the left and
Speaker 1: what a clown show he is making of journalism. I mean,
Speaker 1: it really is appalling, and he's making he is making
Speaker 1: the case for Trump. And look, do I think Trump
Speaker 1: likes it? Absolutely? Trump likes getting into it with this
Speaker 1: guy because he proves the lie that CNN is not
Speaker 1: an objective news source. That it is the It is
Speaker 1: the televised hashtag resistance. It is the the TV version
Speaker 1: of the elite revolt against Trump. That's what CNN has become,
Speaker 1: even more so than MSNBC. And they should just own
Speaker 1: it and be honest about it and stop trying to
Speaker 1: hide behind these phony bologning. Oh, the first Amendment charges,
Speaker 1: first amendments, fine, the entirety of the press corps against Trump? Okay,
Speaker 1: the first amendments just fine. How would you feel if
Speaker 1: you knew somebody was looking over your shoulder and reading
Speaker 1: everything that you were doing on a computer all day
Speaker 1: for a month, how about a day? Guess what third parties,
Speaker 1: social media apps, all kinds of different online monitoring occurs,
Speaker 1: whether you realize it or not. And that's not even
Speaker 1: including hackers. These are people who can track you, who
Speaker 1: can find out what you're doing online, who can download
Speaker 1: your information, who can sell it to other people you
Speaker 1: don't want that take your privacy back like I have
Speaker 1: by using Express vpn. Express vpn has easy to use
Speaker 1: apps that runs seamlessly in the background of my computer,
Speaker 1: phone and tablet less than seven bucks and and you
Speaker 1: can take back your online privacy. Do it today called
Speaker 1: to Protect your online activity and find out how you
Speaker 1: can get three months free at express vpn dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's Express vpn dot com slash buck for
Speaker 1: three months free with a one year package Express vpn
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. You don't have confidence in him
Speaker 1: as America's force an officer. No, I don't and don't
Speaker 1: test take it from me. There's bipartisan editorializing about this,
Speaker 1: that that he should never have been appointed, and that
Speaker 1: uh that it does violence to the Constitution and the
Speaker 1: vision of our founders to appoint such a person in
Speaker 1: such a manner to be the chief legal officer in
Speaker 1: our country and that's bipartisans. I'll go further. The his
Speaker 1: appointment is simply part of an attack on the investigation
Speaker 1: by Robert Mueller, the Special Counsel. It's part of a
Speaker 1: patent of interference by the president, part of a pattern
Speaker 1: of obstruction of that attentive instruction of that investigation. We
Speaker 1: Democrats House and Senate UH will attempt to add to
Speaker 1: must pass legislation, in this case, the spending bill, legislation
Speaker 1: that would prevent Mr Whittaker from interfering with the Mueller investigation.
Speaker 1: There's no reason we shouldn't add this and avoid a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis. These imbeciles, these democrats, powerful democrats, all that
Speaker 1: you're hearing from there are leaping to conclusions without any
Speaker 1: evidence yet at all. And they're saying, and this is
Speaker 1: the greatest part, they're saying that they think that they're
Speaker 1: going to avoid a constitutional crisis by creating law or
Speaker 1: regulation or whatever. I think it will be some kind
Speaker 1: of resolution that will directly affect the ability of the
Speaker 1: executive branch. Was what the d o J is to
Speaker 1: do its job. Do you want to talk about a
Speaker 1: constitutional crisis? The Congress does not get to pass a
Speaker 1: law to tell the president how to do something that
Speaker 1: the president is empowered by the constitution to do. Right. So, so,
Speaker 1: for example, Congress can't pass a law that says the
Speaker 1: president has no has no right to pardon somebody. I mean,
Speaker 1: Congress can pass that law, but it would it would
Speaker 1: be constitutionally invalid. Just like the Congress can't pass a
Speaker 1: law that, at least then I'm aware of, that would
Speaker 1: say what that the Department of Justice official overseeing an
Speaker 1: investigation is not allowed to oversee the investigation. This is
Speaker 1: all hot air, This is all bogus. What do they
Speaker 1: even think that they are saying. But as you know,
Speaker 1: this is twofold one. They just have to make noise.
Speaker 1: They have to make noise around Whittaker and about Whittaker
Speaker 1: because this is what their base wants. Notice how they
Speaker 1: went very quiet on this for a while because to
Speaker 1: win those you know, independent voters in Florida and a Rizona,
Speaker 1: to win people over who were still thinking about who
Speaker 1: are they going to vote for, the Democrats had to
Speaker 1: stop being Democrats essentially for a little bit. They they
Speaker 1: had to pretend that they were a little a little
Speaker 1: less crazy, right, a little less not so okay? So
Speaker 1: with that in mind. Now we look at what is
Speaker 1: at the at the core of this, what is the
Speaker 1: core of their objection, uh, and that is that Whittaker
Speaker 1: is not has you know, there's this whole argument over
Speaker 1: advice and consent to the Senate. Whittaker was had to
Speaker 1: receive advice and consent to the Senate when he was
Speaker 1: a U. S Attorney and I don't even remember what
Speaker 1: the state was. Doesn't a is that the Midwest doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter? Uh, but he hasn't received it in his
Speaker 1: role from what I understand, as acting Attorney general. But
Speaker 1: this is a complicated legal question because no one is
Speaker 1: saying that he is the attorney general. They are merely
Speaker 1: saying that until they can get somebody else through Senate procedure,
Speaker 1: he is the attorney general for now. That's it. He
Speaker 1: is acting. He's a temporary Attorney General. And and this
Speaker 1: now goes to, well, does the president have the right
Speaker 1: to have somebody in an acting role that has not
Speaker 1: been through the advice and consent procedure of the Senate,
Speaker 1: which is prescribed for for a cabinet posts like this.
Speaker 1: That's since you can see this is not a it's
Speaker 1: not a straightforward thing that there's a there's a good
Speaker 1: faith argument to be made, or at least there is
Speaker 1: an argument to be made on on both sides of this.
Speaker 1: But the other part of this is that the Democrats
Speaker 1: don't get to choose for the president. This is an
Speaker 1: executive branch agency. Congress doesn't get to say you can
Speaker 1: only have this person or or here's the person you
Speaker 1: put in charge of that agency. That's not how this works.
Speaker 1: So their complaint is that it shouldn't be Whittaker, it
Speaker 1: should be Rosenstein. But Trump is the head of the
Speaker 1: executive branch, and Trump gets to appoint the attorney general
Speaker 1: and get the advice and consent of the Senate. So
Speaker 1: you know, you can see there's a bunch of moving
Speaker 1: pieces here, but they're skipping right past all that and
Speaker 1: just saying that this is unconstitutional and it will force
Speaker 1: a constitutional crisis. And meanwhile, this is all based, I mean,
Speaker 1: all their objections are based on this idea that Trump
Speaker 1: that Trump appointed somebody who is in his pocket, and
Speaker 1: we'll shut down the Mueller probe. And that's just crazy.
Speaker 1: He's not gonna shut down the Mueller probe. The Muller
Speaker 1: probe is winding down. Folks running out of steam, people
Speaker 1: whom saying there's gonna be more indictments. Yeah, maybe they'll
Speaker 1: indict somebody who writes for info Wars for conspiracy or something.
Speaker 1: Who cares? Who cares? What a what a ridiculous joke,
Speaker 1: although it's a very unfunny one. This whole thing has become.
Speaker 1: But they are impugning Whittaker's integrity because we see what
Speaker 1: they did to someone like having all right, so that
Speaker 1: that was a very important lesson in many ways, because
Speaker 1: they'll do that to anyone and everyone. We see what
Speaker 1: they're doing with Whittaker, which is to suggest that he's
Speaker 1: a crony. You can't trust him. He's uh, you know,
Speaker 1: he's gonna do whatever Trump wants him to do. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: why is Rosenstein who should have accused himself? And anybody
Speaker 1: who knows the regulations and ethics laws around accusal and
Speaker 1: is honest agrees with that Rosenstein absolutely should have procused himself. Okay,
Speaker 1: he cannot oversee an investigation that is directly looking at
Speaker 1: something that implicates action that he took, as in the
Speaker 1: firing of James Comey. He wrote the letter that was
Speaker 1: used by the Executive Branch by the President to fire
Speaker 1: James Comey was Rosenstein's letter. Rosenstein, of course, though, is
Speaker 1: an Obama pointee and has shown some hostility to Trump
Speaker 1: and people who defend Trump in this whole Russia collusion fiasco,
Speaker 1: and so as a result of that, they want Rosenstein
Speaker 1: in this role. Rosenstein obviously has an interfere with Mueller.
Speaker 1: But but they've concocted this whole story, and I just
Speaker 1: sit here and I say to myself, first of all,
Speaker 1: you know, why don't they just focus on who the
Speaker 1: acting or who the actual attorney general is going to
Speaker 1: be instead of the acting attorney general. But they view
Speaker 1: this as, oh, the timing is meant to so this
Speaker 1: is meant to subvert the actual investigation. I just think
Speaker 1: that that's honestly just a whole bunch of crap. It
Speaker 1: really is. It's a whole bunch of garbage. It's not
Speaker 1: really based on on anything um other than their desire.
Speaker 1: They're desired to established before anything has even happened, that
Speaker 1: you can't trust this guy Whittaker. This nightmare that the
Speaker 1: Democrats have put the country through on Russia collusion is
Speaker 1: something that we should all never forget. We always need
Speaker 1: to remember what they were willing to do in this
Speaker 1: in this case, what they have been willing to do
Speaker 1: because they don't like the president reminds you by the
Speaker 1: way of this, uh, this piece in the Washington Examiner,
Speaker 1: that this pole and and because I think the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion thing is really at the heart of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've really tried to convince people that President Trump is
Speaker 1: a trader. I mean that's a word that people in
Speaker 1: the media, prominent people and former government officials have used.
Speaker 1: I mean that they will throw around the term trader.
Speaker 1: But here's what you have. The examiners six, according to
Speaker 1: this Zogby poll, say that the media is more divisive
Speaker 1: than the president. Sevent that quote the mainstream media has
Speaker 1: played a major role in dividing Americans along racial, general
Speaker 1: and political lines. This has led to a spread of
Speaker 1: hate and misunderstanding among some people. Only two thirds said
Speaker 1: the same thing about Trump. So seven and ten people
Speaker 1: men and women agree the media is dividing the nation.
Speaker 1: H Only fifty of the press says that's because the
Speaker 1: hard or left loves what the press is doing. The
Speaker 1: press is an opposition party, not not opposition as in
Speaker 1: what a free press is supposed to do. The press
Speaker 1: is an ideological left wing, anti conservative opposition to the
Speaker 1: Republican Party and to President Trump. That is the role
Speaker 1: that they fill. I know this. I've been inside, I've
Speaker 1: been behind the scenes. I know these people. I understand
Speaker 1: how they think. Having a discussion today actually with some
Speaker 1: colleagues of mine just about how whenever somebody lets slip
Speaker 1: that the who's a quote journal who is supposed to
Speaker 1: be objective, Whenever they let's slip how partisan they are.
Speaker 1: When they just mutter something about you know, blank Trump
Speaker 1: this or blank Trump that. You know, you're like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's another Democrat. You never have somebody come out and
Speaker 1: drop some bomb and he's like, oh wow, that person
Speaker 1: is actually a conservative. What a shock. But this old
Speaker 1: Russia collusion thing, the notion that this is heading to
Speaker 1: a this is heading to a constitutional crisis. This is
Speaker 1: all being manufactured by the media, and it's in part
Speaker 1: for ratings, but it's also because of their deep ideologically
Speaker 1: driven hatred of the president. And they're really hoping that
Speaker 1: Russia collusion is still gonna cost Trump the presidency essentially
Speaker 1: at least for his second term. They have not given
Speaker 1: up on this yet, and so that means they're really
Speaker 1: willing to not just exaggerate, but to just fabricate, to
Speaker 1: lie on this issue. You know what's not smart just
Speaker 1: sort of hoping that you're going to get the right
Speaker 1: resumes that magically flow into your inbox by posting on
Speaker 1: some random jobs site. You know, it's also not smart
Speaker 1: wasting a lot of time by sifting through terrible applications
Speaker 1: that aren't even for the right industry. You know what
Speaker 1: is smart going to zip recruiter dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: to hire the right person. Zip recruiter doesn't depend on
Speaker 1: candidates finding you, It finds them for you. It's powerful
Speaker 1: matching technology scans thousands of resumes, identifies people with the
Speaker 1: right skills, education, and experience for your job, and actively
Speaker 1: invites them to apply so you get qualified candidates past.
Speaker 1: That's why zip recruiters rated number one by employers in
Speaker 1: the US, and this rating comes from higher excites on
Speaker 1: trust pilot with over a thousand reviews. My listeners can
Speaker 1: try zip recruiter right now for free at this exclusive
Speaker 1: web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck. That's zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck again. Zipp recruiter the smartest
Speaker 1: way to hire. Try it for free at zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com. Slash buck incredibly tight security for one of
Speaker 1: the highest profile criminal drug trials in the country's history.
Speaker 1: Chapo Guzman is currently in New York City. He is
Speaker 1: being shuttled back and forth with the highest of high
Speaker 1: security around him to the Federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan.
Speaker 1: They have to shut down the Brooklyn Bridge each day,
Speaker 1: twice a day to take him across. Every juror, every
Speaker 1: person involved in this trial has a tremendous amount of security. Uh.
Speaker 1: And this is because Guzman was the single biggest and
Speaker 1: most powerful drug trafficker in the world until he was captured.
Speaker 1: At least that's the reporting we're getting from the various
Speaker 1: outlets that are covering this one. I want to bring
Speaker 1: in somebody who can shed some light on what it
Speaker 1: was really like in Mexico under Guzman's reign of terror
Speaker 1: and also what's going on now with the Sinaloa cartel
Speaker 1: that he used to run. We've got Jon Grillo calling
Speaker 1: us from the streets of Mexico right now. Yon is
Speaker 1: a journalist. He's also the author of the very excellent
Speaker 1: book El Narco's and gangster war lords. He's been covering
Speaker 1: Mexico and the cartels for decades now, Yan, thanks for
Speaker 1: making the time. Boy, it's good to be here. So
Speaker 1: tell me about just just for the folks listening, what
Speaker 1: do they need to know about this guy who's currently
Speaker 1: facing life sentence on seventeen federal charges, essentially being a
Speaker 1: massive drug kingpin, Chopo Guzman. Well, the I I did
Speaker 1: to his home dudes up in the mountains of and
Speaker 1: he comes from yeah community high up in the mountains. Uh,
Speaker 1: there's maybe it's such a bit like people living in
Speaker 1: the very high appellations in the United States, people quite
Speaker 1: cut off. And this community has been involved in drug
Speaker 1: trafficking for a century, right back since Washington first made
Speaker 1: the drugs illegal back in nineteen fourteen. From similar trafficking drugs,
Speaker 1: and he rose up to become the most infamous trafficker
Speaker 1: in Mexico. I think he's alongside Pablo escar bar and
Speaker 1: our Campone as some of the most infamous zoomings or
Speaker 1: infamous traffickers of all time. Now, he was really made
Speaker 1: super famous by his two escapes from both of Mexico's
Speaker 1: highest security prisons, and that really put him into the stratosphere.
Speaker 1: But as well as that, I mean, I've been too
Speaker 1: many murder things around Mexico, sadly, seen many bodies mutilated,
Speaker 1: and I've seen notes buddies that is sometimes with the
Speaker 1: name L Chapo can And I don't think he wrote
Speaker 1: it personally that people in his name have been carrying
Speaker 1: out these murders. And we're talking about hundreds, maybe thousands
Speaker 1: of murders ordered by Chapo, which means shorty, right or
Speaker 1: that's also what that's that's the the nickname that he has,
Speaker 1: uh that El Chapo ordered himself over the years. Well,
Speaker 1: that's very hard to note. In the case of the
Speaker 1: United States, he's not on trial for murder because the
Speaker 1: murders happened here in Mexico, and US on trial for
Speaker 1: conspirator to traffic drugs in our Nedos count and being
Speaker 1: the head of a criminal conspiracy. Now, the prosecutors worked
Speaker 1: in thirty three different murders and they want to tie
Speaker 1: them to make the conspiracy case longer. And the judge said, well,
Speaker 1: don't wring in. You wutten too many murders. There's not
Speaker 1: a medicated as a drug case now in you know,
Speaker 1: in Mexico, the killing has been devastating over the last
Speaker 1: ten years. That an estimate has been more than one
Speaker 1: hundred nineteen thousand murders UM, which are linked to drug
Speaker 1: carters fighting each other, urban security forces fighting the drug
Speaker 1: cars for a hundred nineteen thousand, that's more than many
Speaker 1: regular war zones. That is very very very hard to
Speaker 1: tell exactly who all of those and how the cart
Speaker 1: Hood days. The most violent city for a time was
Speaker 1: to our quartest just in that city with nine thousand
Speaker 1: murdicants three years, and the similar card to off Chappel.
Speaker 1: The man was fighting there, but it's hard to know.
Speaker 1: And actually in Mexico he kind of had a reputation
Speaker 1: as doing met one of the worst, most violent traffickers,
Speaker 1: these other traffickers who have a more violent reputation, and
Speaker 1: he in a sense has um it's sad to say,
Speaker 1: a kind of Robin Hood reputation in some of his
Speaker 1: communities that arriving in these poor areas, handing out dollar
Speaker 1: bills or pepper bills, building roads in hospitals and so forth.
Speaker 1: So he's very much like like Pablo Escobar in that sense,
Speaker 1: and that there's this other mythology, this local mythology that
Speaker 1: was built around him, and that obviously is also an
Speaker 1: image that he cultivated for reasons of having popular support.
Speaker 1: I mean it's almost like he's if you're running a
Speaker 1: narco insurgency, the insurgents need some of the locals to
Speaker 1: actually be willing to at least turn a blind eye
Speaker 1: to what they're doing. Yeah. Absolutely, I mean that that
Speaker 1: idea of buying support at which they do. It's obviously,
Speaker 1: you know, not always just about helping people. It's about
Speaker 1: buying people so they don't imform on you. I bought
Speaker 1: by buying their loyalty. I mean these communities, there are
Speaker 1: some people who who are against the drug happ because now,
Speaker 1: especially within level of violance has been and then you
Speaker 1: can talk to mothers whose sons have been blagged away
Speaker 1: by marked man in the AK forty seven. Some of
Speaker 1: this legend of our Chaplin, I think it really is
Speaker 1: a legendary status he has um now a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot that s go around by songs as well.
Speaker 1: There's hundreds and hundreds of songs about old Chapo. And
Speaker 1: even when he escaped from proven the second time, people
Speaker 1: were writing songs, composing songs within hours and putting these videos,
Speaker 1: these songs up this kind of religion. Chapter had his
Speaker 1: own energy. Even what he creates himself is somehow kind
Speaker 1: of mythology among people about the miral of this guy
Speaker 1: who runs Do we know who runs the cinealoa cartel
Speaker 1: right now? And and how is it in terms of
Speaker 1: it's its power and and the the influence that it
Speaker 1: has on the current narco narco war is going on
Speaker 1: in Mexico. So right after Eve or Donald fund being
Speaker 1: inaugurated as presidents, Um, he's flown up in a plane. Uh.
Speaker 1: Why after that happened, the tear for broke out into
Speaker 1: narctell And on one side you had a couple of
Speaker 1: sons of Chapel known as the Chapepos, and on the
Speaker 1: other side you had a former prison guard who had
Speaker 1: helped Chapel escape and become a lieutenant and doing up
Speaker 1: in the organization. And these two sides were fighting. There
Speaker 1: was these big shootouts and over the place. Now it
Speaker 1: seems that the Chapetos, the sons of old Chapel one
Speaker 1: and consolidated their control of the cartel and are now
Speaker 1: running the cartel. But then you have another cartel called
Speaker 1: the halis Goo new generation cartel, which is even more
Speaker 1: for it in an environment those list the cartel which
Speaker 1: is a very paramilitary type organization. Some of their guys
Speaker 1: once shot down and military helicopter with an RPG seven.
Speaker 1: They had a couple of factories making their own a
Speaker 1: R fifteen rifles or assembling their own aar fisteine rifles. Um.
Speaker 1: And that cartel is fighting the in many places and
Speaker 1: might be becoming the most dominant cartel in Mexico. That's
Speaker 1: amazing stuff. Well, you all really appreciate are you calling
Speaker 1: from the streets of Mexico, Yo, and Grilla. By the way, guys,
Speaker 1: if you are interested in the cartels, highly recommend you
Speaker 1: pick up Jones book El Narco, which you can get
Speaker 1: on Amazon, and also Gangster Warlords. I have read both
Speaker 1: of them, which is how I tracked you down. And
Speaker 1: now he's he's our man down in Mexico City. Yan,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for calling in. Its great to
Speaker 1: be here. It was amazing. I saw this photo of
Speaker 1: what was a high school graduation and in the graduation
Speaker 1: photos is in Wisconsin. That was out earlier today and
Speaker 1: NBC News was reporting on this that a that the
Speaker 1: boys were giving a Nazi salute, and this was one
Speaker 1: of these things where it was I could just tell
Speaker 1: that the outrage machinery of the left was going to be, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, up in in full force. And this is
Speaker 1: the rise of white Nationale's This Wisconsin school, all boys
Speaker 1: and there looked pretty much to be mostly, if not
Speaker 1: all white in this photo. And I knew that this
Speaker 1: was gonna become a big issue. But there's a thing
Speaker 1: about it that maybe he's gonna slow it down a
Speaker 1: little bit. The Associated Press picked this up. It turns
Speaker 1: out the photographer who took the photo, so he's not
Speaker 1: implicated in in the hand gesture. He says that he
Speaker 1: asked the students to wave goodbye to their parents. Um,
Speaker 1: and he said that it was a totally he said
Speaker 1: it was an innocent photo. He quote. He says he
Speaker 1: asked the boys to give him a high five for
Speaker 1: the photo, which was taken north northwest of Milwaukee, and
Speaker 1: he says to anyone who has hurt, I sincerely apologize.
Speaker 1: And police are investigating the photo. I mean, I look
Speaker 1: at this, and you know I'm not gonna lie. I mean,
Speaker 1: there there's some there are some things in this photo.
Speaker 1: There's some hand gestures that really do look like they're waving.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm looking at it right now as I
Speaker 1: talk to you, And there are others where it looks
Speaker 1: like maybe some of the kids thought it would be
Speaker 1: funny themselves too, and maybe that called on you know,
Speaker 1: it's not I'm not gonna say that, this isn't This
Speaker 1: isn't like the white nationalist hand gesture controversy, in which
Speaker 1: was a non controversy. But they remember, they tried to
Speaker 1: make a I believe half Mexican, half Jewish adviser to
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh a white nationalist because she stretched her arm
Speaker 1: at one point after hours and hours of hearings. Remember that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, that's your that's your You're so so serious
Speaker 1: and ethical news media at work. But this is just
Speaker 1: one of these stories again where you can tell it's
Speaker 1: a minor incident, but now it's going to be made
Speaker 1: into a major national incident and the police are involved.
Speaker 1: And that's the part of it that I really have
Speaker 1: a question about. Why would the police be involved. Uh,
Speaker 1: making a gesture that's that's racist is not in and
Speaker 1: of itself a crime. This seems to be lost on
Speaker 1: people now. I mean this people, I think really do
Speaker 1: have the notion that if you say something that is
Speaker 1: some kind of an ethnic slur, that you can go
Speaker 1: to prison. And that's still not the law, although it's
Speaker 1: getting closer and closer to being the law. Anyway, you
Speaker 1: can check out this photo for yourself. You'll see what
Speaker 1: I mean. There's some hands that look, you know, it
Speaker 1: looks like maybe these kids were, but there are others
Speaker 1: were the kids. The elbows are bent and they're waving,
Speaker 1: so you know, you know, the photographer says, it's I
Speaker 1: wasn't intended as anything other than just given a high
Speaker 1: five and a wave. So anyway, it made me think though,
Speaker 1: because today I saw this, this little announcement. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna get much attention, but I think it's really interesting
Speaker 1: that there is an effort under way to create a
Speaker 1: journal of This is what it's gonna be called, the
Speaker 1: Journal of Controversial Ideas. This is from the Chronicle of
Speaker 1: Higher Education, published just a day or two ago. So
Speaker 1: they're looking specifically at creating a an anonymously well or
Speaker 1: you know, pseudonym based, peer reviewed academic journal to tackle
Speaker 1: the most controversial ideas. Essentially, as long as it is
Speaker 1: intellectually rigorous, nothing will be taboo, and the editors will
Speaker 1: stand behind publishing whatever it is that they publish. I
Speaker 1: think this is actually gonna be, if it gets off
Speaker 1: the ground, really interesting and could turn into kind of
Speaker 1: a big deal, because this is what we don't have anymore.
Speaker 1: We don't have the good faith and political debate and
Speaker 1: argument to allow people to pursue controversial ideas, controversial feces
Speaker 1: to their conclusion. We have left wing doctrine and dogma,
Speaker 1: and you deviate from that at your peril. But some
Speaker 1: of the things that they may address here, things like
Speaker 1: a defense of colonialism, whoa hold on a second Colonialism
Speaker 1: might have actually done at least some very good things
Speaker 1: for the societies that that was a serious paper that
Speaker 1: was written and caused a huge controversy. Trans racialism, Oh
Speaker 1: you can change your genitalia, but you can't change your
Speaker 1: skin color according to the left Why And there's a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of other things that you could obviously put
Speaker 1: in here. But one thing I think is so interesting
Speaker 1: about this concept is that it's needed. When you would
Speaker 1: think that academia would already be doing this. The fact
Speaker 1: that you even need a quote journal of controversial ideas
Speaker 1: tells you where we are in America right now? The
Speaker 1: intellectual life of America is stunted right now because of
Speaker 1: the left, because of the petty pettit totalitarians of the
Speaker 1: progressive left. And then the other part of it is that, well,
Speaker 1: what controversies are going to really fit within this rubric?
Speaker 1: Things like free speech, basic concepts in this country are
Speaker 1: increasingly controversial. So what's supposed to be a journal of
Speaker 1: the most controversial ideas? I would not be surprised if
Speaker 1: we were to find out it's actually just a journal
Speaker 1: of some real ideas with the occasional controversial idea thrown in.
Speaker 1: Tells us where we are as a country right now,
Speaker 1: doesn't it of more? Coming up? Team stay with me,
Speaker 1: Roll calls next. Ain't no party like a Team Buck party,
Speaker 1: because a Team Buck party, don't stop. Yeah, we got
Speaker 1: bucks turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: All right, let's get to it with roll call. Keith first,
Speaker 1: out of the gate here, Jimmy man. Very few people
Speaker 1: call me Jimmy. You're ninety nine, correct, But yesterday you
Speaker 1: were talking about the World War One, ur mistice. Also,
Speaker 1: you throughout that we've never fought the Russians U S
Speaker 1: soldiers fought Bolsheviks three months after the eighteen Armistice and lost.
Speaker 1: I know it's picking knits, but we almost never get
Speaker 1: the chance to with you with the other point one
Speaker 1: seven of the facts that you get wrong, Keith, Well, Keith,
Speaker 1: You're you're correct. Savor the flavors. It's not gonna happen again. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding. Thank you so much. You're you're bringing
Speaker 1: up a very interesting point. They're harkening back to the
Speaker 1: America North Russia Expeditionary Force, which was five thousand or
Speaker 1: so US troops that were sent as part of an
Speaker 1: Allied intervention force into the into the Russian Civil War
Speaker 1: in eighteen and obviously decide that we backed lost, so
Speaker 1: it wasn't really a great move for us. But yeah,
Speaker 1: this is something that is kind of forgotten to history.
Speaker 1: People don't really remember that little moment very much. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you do. I picture all of
Speaker 1: Team Buck sitting around, essentially like me, with stacks of
Speaker 1: old books in either their living room, there, den bedroom,
Speaker 1: wherever it is you keep your books, particularly history books.
Speaker 1: Erica writes, I'm counting on my kids eighteen and twenty
Speaker 1: and their whole generation to save us from Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1: They will never forgive her for destroying their school lunches,
Speaker 1: you know, Erica, I remember that was that was kind
Speaker 1: of a controversy for a little while, the whole destroying
Speaker 1: the school lunches thing. And I don't remember exactly what
Speaker 1: it was. I remember the Michelle Obama. It was essentially
Speaker 1: pushing this and the media, of course, because the involved
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama didn't want to say anything but wonderful things
Speaker 1: about the school lunch program, and obviously it had to
Speaker 1: be fantastic because it had to do with Michelle Obama.
Speaker 1: And I did see the photos of kids that were
Speaker 1: supposed to eat like a piece of boiled chicken and
Speaker 1: some kale for lunch, and I thought back to my
Speaker 1: days as a kid. Man my mom. I had the
Speaker 1: best mom, and she understood that growing boys needed real food. Man.
Speaker 1: I used to eat bagels and cheetos and hamburgers and
Speaker 1: nest Lee Quick. I mean, I'm telling some of some
Speaker 1: of my my guilty pleasures as a kid. I used
Speaker 1: to drink Nestlee quick and and wash it down with
Speaker 1: a blondie, or I guess wash my blondie down with
Speaker 1: Nestlee Quick, which is probably about a hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: grams of sugar and about you know, eight hundred calories
Speaker 1: or so. But it was delicious, delicious, I tell you so. Yes, indeed, uh,
Speaker 1: thanks for writing in Erica, Thomas writes, I like your
Speaker 1: buck wild segments, common sense and to the point, this
Speaker 1: latest growing controversy over the temporary appointment of Whittaker to
Speaker 1: replace Sessions a g can be ended by President Trump
Speaker 1: declassifying all the documents relating to them, all investigation and
Speaker 1: fives A warrants that created it. That is what the
Speaker 1: progressives are so desperate to protect. Once those are declassified,
Speaker 1: Whittaker will simply be a placeholder until the next Congress
Speaker 1: convenes and a regular process of appointment can be done
Speaker 1: for sessions full time replacement. Hopefully President Trump's legal staff
Speaker 1: will encourage him to take those actions and avoid another
Speaker 1: lame legal battle that will go nowhere. Keep up the
Speaker 1: good work, Shields Eye Thomas. Great to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts on this one.
Speaker 1: As to where I think this whole thing is going
Speaker 1: with Mueller and the investigation and Trump and the declassification.
Speaker 1: I still believe that Trump will end up declassifying a
Speaker 1: lot of it. I think that he's holding it back now,
Speaker 1: as I've said, because one and he doesn't want to
Speaker 1: anger any allies that may have shared information with us,
Speaker 1: but also he realizes it's tremendous leverage because no matter
Speaker 1: what the Mulla report really says, I can assure you
Speaker 1: right now that the media will claim that the Mulla
Speaker 1: Report vindicates their insane reporting on Russia for the last
Speaker 1: two years. No matter what it says, they will claim
Speaker 1: that this is exactly what they were looking for. And
Speaker 1: and maybe there's not yet criminal charges being filed against Trump,
Speaker 1: and he's not gonna be removed by the Senate, but
Speaker 1: there will be. When they get the real information, that's
Speaker 1: going to be what they say. So there you have it.
Speaker 1: Um Tom writes, I was part of Smokey Bears of
Speaker 1: Fink movement in the seventies and would love to see
Speaker 1: the article reference on Monday Show with pictures of the
Speaker 1: California Force from decades ago, and now if not, I'll
Speaker 1: keep searching shields high Tom. It was a Forbes article
Speaker 1: that I was reading from. I do not remember the
Speaker 1: exact title of it, but it was a Forbes article,
Speaker 1: so that might help you a little bit. I hope
Speaker 1: Doug Doug e Fresh, Doug rights Buck, I called Friday
Speaker 1: Show on delay. I've been off the dating app for
Speaker 1: a bid, but I can confirm the top three statements
Speaker 1: that follow the phrase swipe left. If are you are
Speaker 1: a smoker, you are shorter than me. The girl says
Speaker 1: that you are a Republican Trump supporter. Guess if you
Speaker 1: want a nice conservative girl, you have better luck looking
Speaker 1: at church than on tender Just saying, Lieutenant Doug, Lieutenant Doug,
Speaker 1: I think you're probably right. Uh, there's such a an
Speaker 1: acceptance culturally and dating and just in day to day
Speaker 1: life of an animust towards people who are Trump supporters.
Speaker 1: You know what another name for Trump supporters most of
Speaker 1: the time a Republican. And you know what percentage of
Speaker 1: the country's Republican about half. So people who will cut
Speaker 1: out a hundred and sixty million or so of their
Speaker 1: fellow Americans, I mean not you know, I guess kids
Speaker 1: aren't necessarily part of the equation there, But you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, people that will cut out a huge
Speaker 1: swath of the country because they discute their politics it's
Speaker 1: really sad. It's it's a sad state of affairs, and
Speaker 1: it's something we're going to see more and more of
Speaker 1: because I believe the left is radicalized and I don't
Speaker 1: think that they are able to see past these issues
Speaker 1: of political identity because it really is an identity for them.
Speaker 1: And being a liberal isn't about I want slightly higher taxes.
Speaker 1: Being a liberal is I'm not a racist the other
Speaker 1: people are. I'm for women's choice, the other people aren't.
Speaker 1: I'm for transgender rights, the other people aren't. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's very much a statement of who you are
Speaker 1: as a person to be a liberal. Meanwhile, as a conservative,
Speaker 1: I mean I sit around that. I say, can I
Speaker 1: be wrong on that issue? Do I need to change
Speaker 1: my position on any on any issue that involves government
Speaker 1: action or in action? I mean, I do this with
Speaker 1: foreign policy all the time. I think that to be
Speaker 1: a conservative who has been focused on foreign policy for
Speaker 1: the last eighteen years or so is to be somebody
Speaker 1: who has been humbled numerous times. I don't care who
Speaker 1: you are, you've been humbled by either being wrong or
Speaker 1: missing a major trend, or just recognizing that your previous
Speaker 1: positions weren't what you weren't as sound as you thought
Speaker 1: they were. So yeah, David rights in with hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: the fires in California are terrible, But it isn't like
Speaker 1: this is a recent phenomenon. The Eagles made it pretty
Speaker 1: clear forty years ago that never reigned in southern California.
Speaker 1: If you don't like fires, Santa Ana, winds, earthquakes, et cetera.
Speaker 1: Move Um. I don't know that song, David, But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell you something that's probably gonna get some of
Speaker 1: you mad at me. But I cannot hide things from
Speaker 1: your team. We are friends, we are a family here.
Speaker 1: I cannot hide from you that I do not particularly
Speaker 1: like the Eagles. I know, I know. Between that and
Speaker 1: the fact that I find baseball on TV at least boring,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things about me that needs some adjustment.
Speaker 1: I get it. I get it. I will, however, say,
Speaker 1: to distract you from what I just said, that I've
Speaker 1: learned a new technique for cooking uh filet mignon in
Speaker 1: the pan, which if you're gonna do what you want
Speaker 1: to do it right, because those little suckers are expensive
Speaker 1: and you want to roll the outside of the filet
Speaker 1: around the pan after you've seared the top on the bottom,
Speaker 1: and make sure that you have a bit of butter,
Speaker 1: and you based the butter slash whatever herbs you're using
Speaker 1: out of the edge when you tilt the pan on
Speaker 1: that filet. I did it recently. It was amazing. See
Speaker 1: you don't even remember that I told you I don't
Speaker 1: like the eagles, And so that now we can all
Speaker 1: still be friends. Braiden writes Buck. Two things. First, movie quote,
Speaker 1: all right, here we go listen and understand that fill
Speaker 1: in the blank is still out there. It can't be
Speaker 1: bargained with, It can't be reason with. It doesn't feel
Speaker 1: pity or remorse or fear, and it absolutely will not
Speaker 1: stop until you are dead. That is Kyle Reese in
Speaker 1: Terminator one talking about the Terminator raiding right. Second, it's
Speaker 1: not fair for you to lump lump Jake Tapper with
Speaker 1: Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper and the other clowns the communist
Speaker 1: News network. Tapper might be center left, however, he does
Speaker 1: try to be objective. Shields Hie Brandon Brandon, I appreciate
Speaker 1: you running in. I disagree with you on on Tapper.
Speaker 1: I think that for purposes of his own brand he's created.
Speaker 1: He tries to create a perception of being fair, but
Speaker 1: that goes away as soon as it's a really important
Speaker 1: issue to the left. I promise you he if you
Speaker 1: were to look back over the last year, yeah, sure,
Speaker 1: he'll call out Keith Ellison, but you know you're allowed
Speaker 1: to call out Keith Ellison and still being good standing
Speaker 1: with the left. Uh. Look at some of the ways
Speaker 1: that the Tapper Show has handled issues like the Kavanaugh hearings.
Speaker 1: Look at the way that uh Tapper has handled violence
Speaker 1: from the left versus violence from the right. There's there's
Speaker 1: clearly a bias in what he does. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that he's Is he less to to your point
Speaker 1: and to be fair, Braden, is he less overtly partisan
Speaker 1: than say Don Lemon and Chris Cuomo? Absolutely, But is
Speaker 1: he still clearly doing opinion journalism under the guise of
Speaker 1: objective new for journalism. Yes, but you do make a point,
Speaker 1: and uh, it's it's uh I think partially I would
Speaker 1: agree with it, partially or in part. But thank you
Speaker 1: again for writing in and thank you for the movie quote, Gene,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be it for today in the Hut. It
Speaker 1: has been an honor of privilege and a pleasure as always.
Speaker 1: I will be out on Thursday. My friend Rahim Kassam
Speaker 1: will be taken the Khan, but we will be hanging
Speaker 1: out together tomorrow, so I'll see you then. Shields Hie.
Speaker 1: It's so easy to think that you're fine online and
Speaker 1: only find out at the wrong moment when something's gone
Speaker 1: really bad, that you aren't protecting your online security. There
Speaker 1: is all kind of monitoring that goes on right now.
Speaker 1: They'll sell your information, by the way, a lot of
Speaker 1: these sites you use to third parties, and then when
Speaker 1: you add hackers in the mix, you've got to be
Speaker 1: concerned about what you're doing online. But if you want
Speaker 1: to make sure that you are good to go even
Speaker 1: when using public WiFi, express VPN is for you. Express
Speaker 1: VPN protects you when you use public WiFi, keeps hackers
Speaker 1: and spies from seeing your data and downloading and attacking
Speaker 1: your stuff. Express VPN is your solution to make sure
Speaker 1: that you don't have to worry about your online privacy.
Speaker 1: Protect yourself today and find out how you can get
Speaker 1: three months free at express vpn dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: that's Express vpn dot com. Slash buck for three months
Speaker 1: free with a one year package. Visit express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck