Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Was it spying or
Speaker 1: was it just clandestine surveillance for political ends that the
Speaker 1: FBI engaged in, perhaps with some other government folks when
Speaker 1: it came to the Trump campaign. We have the current
Speaker 1: FBI director weighing in on that. Plus will they impeach
Speaker 1: or not? Do the Democrats even know their own mind
Speaker 1: on the issue. We've also got Gordon Chang joining us
Speaker 1: to talk about China trade and Lyla Rose from Live
Speaker 1: Action on a pro life movement that you might want
Speaker 1: to hear about. Folks that are more coming up. Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Mission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: No mistake here, a great American again, this is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Palma CIA analysts, I can speak to
Speaker 1: three hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometime.
Speaker 1: A couple of things going on. First, there is, of
Speaker 1: course the ongoing Inspector General's investigation that's being conducted by
Speaker 1: the Independent Office of Inspector General, and our folks are
Speaker 1: assisting them with their effort. And then, second, as you
Speaker 1: alluded to, now that the Special Council investigation is completed
Speaker 1: and having only recently returned to the Department. The Attorney
Speaker 1: General is seeking to understand better the circumstances at the
Speaker 1: Department and the FBI relating to how this investigation started,
Speaker 1: and we're working to help him get that understanding. I
Speaker 1: think that's part of his job and part of mine.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Saxton Show. That's a long answer
Speaker 1: from FBI Director Ray about are we going to find
Speaker 1: out if there were spying or not? Surveillance as I
Speaker 1: know fond of saying, it's really just a fancy French
Speaker 1: word for spying. Silveillance, surveillance, right to watch, usually in
Speaker 1: clandestine fashion, to gather information on I could tell you
Speaker 1: that when you fly a plane over enemy territory to
Speaker 1: see all their stuff, you can call it a surveillance plane.
Speaker 1: You could also call it a spy plane. Both are
Speaker 1: both are correct. And this fight over words, which, as
Speaker 1: I tell you, Democrats love to try and dictate the
Speaker 1: words that we can use as a means of assisting
Speaker 1: their side in the battle of ideas before we can
Speaker 1: even mount our own defense. The insistence on not using
Speaker 1: the term spying is very, very indicative of where their
Speaker 1: minds are on all this stuff. They're worried, folks, they're worried.
Speaker 1: They should be worried, because it gets very hard to
Speaker 1: explain spying on a presidential campaign by the top figures
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration national security apparatus. When your justification
Speaker 1: for it is a rumor that George Papadopoulos passed on
Speaker 1: to some foreigner over drinks and Carter Page. It really
Speaker 1: is hard to believe, isn't. In fact, I don't believe it.
Speaker 1: When I say it's hard to believe, I mean I
Speaker 1: think it is incredible. It is incredible, as in not
Speaker 1: possible to be believed. I am incredulous about the story.
Speaker 1: I don't think that we haven't told the truth yet
Speaker 1: about how this whole thing got going. The Russia collusion
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory was not born of some innocent investigative work
Speaker 1: from the FBI looking into George Papadopolis and Carter Page.
Speaker 1: Someone somewhere in a position of considerable power and an
Speaker 1: Obama administration appointee almost certainly made the call, made a
Speaker 1: decision to do this, and now the country has had
Speaker 1: to suffer the consequences of it for over two years.
Speaker 1: I just I think it's instant that Christopher Ray, as
Speaker 1: the FBI Director of course he's going to defend the
Speaker 1: institution at some level. This is a terrible situation for
Speaker 1: the FBI. This is a terrible situation for public confidence
Speaker 1: in the ability of the premier federal law enforcement agency
Speaker 1: in the country to avoid entangling itself in our politics.
Speaker 1: This looks really bad, folks. But you know, I would
Speaker 1: just say that if they're going to try to play
Speaker 1: these word games, then I wanted I want to make
Speaker 1: sure the left degrees that the FBI back in the
Speaker 1: sixties wasn't spying on Martin Luther King Jr. Oh No, no no, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. The FBI was just engaged in unconstitutional
Speaker 1: surveillance based on on shaky counterintelligence premises, and we're willing
Speaker 1: to deploy human assets to influence events for political outcomes.
Speaker 1: It wasn't spying, though, you see, it was just unconstitutional
Speaker 1: counterintelligence surveillance also known as spying. In fact, co intel
Speaker 1: pro which you can read about anywhere on the internet,
Speaker 1: was written about here in NPR when they're talking about
Speaker 1: this history of the FBI spying on Martin Luther King Jr.
Speaker 1: As a history of domestic spying. So just because the
Speaker 1: FBI does it doesn't mean it's not spying, especially when
Speaker 1: it is in the realm of counterintelligence and not traditional
Speaker 1: criminal law enforcement. All Right, the word is spying, and
Speaker 1: they should have to now. So I'm spying. It's good.
Speaker 1: I worked for a spy agency. Spying on Al Qaida
Speaker 1: is a good thing. I take pride in spying on
Speaker 1: Al Qaida. I mean, I don't do it anymore, but
Speaker 1: that was something that I thought was a great patriotic
Speaker 1: and even pro civilization, pro humanity duty. I would never
Speaker 1: shy away from spying on Al Qaida. So if there
Speaker 1: was a real threat, why, you know, if these FBI
Speaker 1: guys and who knows who else that we're talking to,
Speaker 1: Papadopolis and Carter Page, if it was reasonable even for
Speaker 1: them to think that there was a threat, why would
Speaker 1: they shy away from the term spying so much? They
Speaker 1: should be proud to have spied on the Trump administration
Speaker 1: if that's what they did. But we know they aren't.
Speaker 1: And isn't that instructive? Isn't that something of a red flag?
Speaker 1: You could say? And then some This is where you
Speaker 1: also have Clapper, James Clapper, who has been at the
Speaker 1: heart of so much of this and has done what
Speaker 1: I would argue, is it really multi generational damage, meaning
Speaker 1: that for generations to come people will have questions about
Speaker 1: the lack of political gamesmanship at the CIA, Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence, the FBI, at Clapper has been a part
Speaker 1: of dramatically damaging the reputations of these agencies. And I
Speaker 1: know from my friends who there are Trump to range
Speaker 1: people all over the federal government. You have to remember
Speaker 1: that whenever you have the Washington Post or one of
Speaker 1: these papers that says, well, you know, we've spoken to
Speaker 1: sources inside the building and they tell you what their
Speaker 1: snapshot is. They will never tell you that there are
Speaker 1: patriotic conservative types who think that what's been done to
Speaker 1: the president is horrible. And I know people at Langley
Speaker 1: at FBI headquarters that fall into that category. But what
Speaker 1: they will tell you is that there are people who
Speaker 1: are still deeply outraged that Trump think that Trump. Remember
Speaker 1: we used to hear this Trump was at war with
Speaker 1: the intel community. They used to say that the president
Speaker 1: and if it was, it war with his employees, because
Speaker 1: that is what the members of the intelligence community are,
Speaker 1: They are Trump's employees. Clapper clearly didn't think of them
Speaker 1: that way. Though Clapper thought he had a higher purpose,
Speaker 1: Wasn't that was that the James Comey book. Did I
Speaker 1: just do that by accident? I'm so smooth, that was slick.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest. Play clip five here. Using undercover agents
Speaker 1: is a standard and legitimate technique that is widely used
Speaker 1: in investigations. So I'm sure. I mean, there are protocols
Speaker 1: and standard standards for using an agent, and I'm sure
Speaker 1: that's the case here. So you're thinking this was not
Speaker 1: done lightly, Well, no, it's never done lightly. Uh well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess it miss meets definitely the Dictionary definition of
Speaker 1: spy of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like.
Speaker 1: It's not a term of art used by intelligence people.
Speaker 1: It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out
Speaker 1: of control, not in compliance with the law, and that's
Speaker 1: not the case at all. He doesn't know if that's
Speaker 1: not the case at all, let's start with that, and
Speaker 1: I do appreciate that he's at least willing to admit that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: from a definitional standpoint, it was spine. They were spying
Speaker 1: on the Trump campaign, knowing that it was people tied
Speaker 1: to the Trump campaign trying to use the surveillance fancy
Speaker 1: French word for spying of people tied to Donald Trump
Speaker 1: to get access to information about much higher up people. Remember,
Speaker 1: it wasn't just Carter Page and Papadoppolas. They were very
Speaker 1: interested in Maniford early on, very interested in General Flynn.
Speaker 1: And there's some interesting wording in the I was gonna
Speaker 1: say that dossier in the report, the Mulla report about
Speaker 1: the investigation into Flynn. How thorough was that? How long
Speaker 1: back did that? How far back did that go? It
Speaker 1: seemed like Flynn was on the radar of the authorities,
Speaker 1: perhaps even before the completely pretextual and bad faith Logan
Speaker 1: Act violation meeting came up. Sally Yates set General Flynn up.
Speaker 1: That is what she did. These are not good people.
Speaker 1: These are not people that were acting with the best
Speaker 1: interests of their fellow national security professionals or the United
Speaker 1: States when they did this. This was petty, It was spiteful.
Speaker 1: Sally Yates is a spiteful person, all right. That's why
Speaker 1: she also refused to take orders from the President and
Speaker 1: also refused to resign. Made him fire her because she
Speaker 1: was hashtag resistance. These people are disgraced to the offices
Speaker 1: they held. The Clapper and Yates and Combie a disgrace.
Speaker 1: But notice how with Clapper here he says meets the
Speaker 1: Dictionary definition of spying, but he doesn't like the connotations
Speaker 1: about how it's a rogue operation out of control. He also,
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's talking to Monsieur Dona Lament
Speaker 1: don Lemon, I prefer the French Don Lament. But when
Speaker 1: he was talking to him there, we just take it
Speaker 1: as a given or he takes it as a given
Speaker 1: Clapper that this was all on the up and up,
Speaker 1: that there was nothing about this that should have raised
Speaker 1: an eyebrow. Why would anyone think that is the case
Speaker 1: given what we've seen so far. I mean, they briefed
Speaker 1: the president. Just take this one example. James Comey, as
Speaker 1: the FBI director, briefed the President of the United States
Speaker 1: on this dossier and did not tell him, Nor did
Speaker 1: anyone in the intelligence community think it was necessary for
Speaker 1: anyone to know in the public that the dossier was
Speaker 1: a compilation of foreign assembled paid for by the Hillary
Speaker 1: campaign lies. Don't you think that would have affected the
Speaker 1: perception of how much veracity anybody could possibly think was
Speaker 1: in this. Don't you think that if President if someone
Speaker 1: handed President Trump a piece of paper like this and said, Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm the fbid ract. You should just know that the
Speaker 1: Hillary campaign is spreading the stuff about you. You'd say, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a bunch of lies, it's a bunch of crazy nonsense.
Speaker 1: Why why, James Comey, are you showing this to me? Oh?
Speaker 1: And that's right. CNN ends up reporting on it within hours.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to believe that's a coincidence, just like CNN
Speaker 1: being the only journalistic outfit that happened to be in
Speaker 1: place for the Roger Stone arrest, the circus arrest of
Speaker 1: you know, geriatric sartorial icon Roger Stone with dozens of
Speaker 1: guys heavily armed. I will tell you I spoke to
Speaker 1: some DJ sources and I read them the riot Act
Speaker 1: over that one, and there was a oh, well, it
Speaker 1: was within the bounds of what we could as a
Speaker 1: non non no, no, no, don't pull that. It was
Speaker 1: within the bounds nonsense with me. Oh, I don't want
Speaker 1: to hear that stuff. Guys. We all know what that was.
Speaker 1: We all know what Mauler's team was engaged in there.
Speaker 1: Let's let's not let's not talk to Buck like he's
Speaker 1: a dumb dumb okay, and they I had sometimes I
Speaker 1: got a little test team with some of my my
Speaker 1: sources in this town. I have to I did not
Speaker 1: like that. Well it was it was within the discretion
Speaker 1: of the mother team. No no, no, no, no no, no.
Speaker 1: That should have raised more than eyebrows. That should have
Speaker 1: raised hackles. People should have been ticked off. They could
Speaker 1: have called Roger Stone and said, oh, show up, turn
Speaker 1: yourself in. Everyone knows he would have done it. He's
Speaker 1: not gonna flee. He's not gonna flee and leave all
Speaker 1: of his finely tailored suits behind. Nonsense. But CNN just
Speaker 1: happened to be there. CNN that also happens to have
Speaker 1: a number of former senior FBI you know, administrative assistance
Speaker 1: to James Comi on the payroll, just happens to be there.
Speaker 1: No other no local journalism, no no other networks. Just
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, I know they say they just
Speaker 1: got lucky. It was just good journalism. After all the
Speaker 1: other good journalism CNN's done on this issue. Oh man,
Speaker 1: they really, they really pushed the limits, don't they. This
Speaker 1: was spine. I worked for a spy agency. What was
Speaker 1: done to Trump campaign was spine. It was done by
Speaker 1: senior members of the National security apparatus appointed by and
Speaker 1: under the orders of, at least in general, the Obama
Speaker 1: administration and President Obama. These were Obama employees, folks, That
Speaker 1: is a fact. James Clapper comy. These are employees in
Speaker 1: the executive branch of President Barack Obama who spied on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign based on a delusion, one that should
Speaker 1: have been shut down before it even got started. And
Speaker 1: instead they did everything they could we know this from
Speaker 1: the page struck tex at the FBI, everything they could
Speaker 1: to breathe more life into it, to leak to the press,
Speaker 1: to collude with the anti Trump mainstream media. That was
Speaker 1: what they chose to do. Now they're desperately trying to
Speaker 1: cover it up on the one hand and attack Trump
Speaker 1: for obstruction on the other. I'm sorry, now, we've seen
Speaker 1: enough of their games. We know what they're up to.
Speaker 1: It's not going to work, not on my watch, not
Speaker 1: here in the freedom hunt. We'll be right back. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not the term I would use. Look, there are
Speaker 1: lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that
Speaker 1: the FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of
Speaker 1: investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes,
Speaker 1: and to me, the key question is making sure that
Speaker 1: it's done by the book. And at this time, do
Speaker 1: you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the
Speaker 1: campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the FBI occurred.
Speaker 1: I don't think I personally have any evidence of that sort.
Speaker 1: Ah back to the spying debate here, that's FBI Director
Speaker 1: Christopher Ray, who was showing us who he is today,
Speaker 1: and it doesn't surprise me at all. He's an institutionalist.
Speaker 1: He's somebody who's been in government, been in these roles
Speaker 1: for a very long time, comes from within the bureau,
Speaker 1: and is going to protect the bureau because this is,
Speaker 1: from the perspective of public trust, an existential crisis for
Speaker 1: the FBI in the making. What happens when the American
Speaker 1: people find out, as we will, that the FBI can
Speaker 1: vary easily and perhaps even within their regulations and within
Speaker 1: the law, quite easily and legally spy on a presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: Is that supposed to make us feel better? Should we
Speaker 1: feel better about the FBI if, in fact, like a
Speaker 1: bunch of imbeciles, they believed some Internet conspiracy theories that
Speaker 1: were working around during the election, and thought that it
Speaker 1: was a worthwhile usage of resources to send an agent
Speaker 1: to go talk to or send someone acting on behalf
Speaker 1: of the FBI to go talk to Papadopoulos, open up
Speaker 1: a FIZA and get it renewed three times on Carter page.
Speaker 1: I think they should be careful what they wished for here.
Speaker 1: It would be better for the reputation of the FBI,
Speaker 1: and it would be better for public confidence in the
Speaker 1: FBI if, in fact, the Inspector General report were to
Speaker 1: find that there was a rogue actor that you know,
Speaker 1: Comey really was like you know, agent number one running
Speaker 1: around doing all this stuff and lying and falsifying documents,
Speaker 1: And that would because you can root that out. But
Speaker 1: if the law currently is so lax, and if the
Speaker 1: FBI has so little oversight that they can show up
Speaker 1: to a FISA car and be like, yeah, we got
Speaker 1: this like pile of crap that we haven't actually verified
Speaker 1: at all. It's called we'll call it a dossier. And
Speaker 1: you know, the American citizen, we want to pull all
Speaker 1: of his communications for the next few months, and we
Speaker 1: don't know that he's committed a crime or we have
Speaker 1: no reason to believe he has committed any crime. Actually,
Speaker 1: but this paper, this was handed to me by an
Speaker 1: opposition researcher during a presidential campaign, so I figure we'll
Speaker 1: just use this and we'll go from there. That's appalling.
Speaker 1: That's even worse. What this really means, what Christopher Way
Speaker 1: is telling you, is yeah, maybe it was all by
Speaker 1: the book. And in this case, the book means that
Speaker 1: the Fourth Amendment doesn't count anymore. It means that people
Speaker 1: who are unscrupulous can abuse their authority in the government
Speaker 1: to open up spying, because that's what it was on
Speaker 1: the political opposition, on conservatives, on Republicans, on Trump. That's
Speaker 1: even worse than a rogue actor. For a few weeks now,
Speaker 1: I've been reminding you that Mother's Day is fast approaching. Now,
Speaker 1: it's just days away. So what one hundred Flowers is
Speaker 1: here to pick out a gorgeous bouquet for you that'll
Speaker 1: show her she's loved. One eight hundred Flowers still has
Speaker 1: amazing offers on beautiful Mother's Day bouquets and arrangements starting
Speaker 1: at twenty nine ninety nine. Now that's an offer that
Speaker 1: mom would approve of. There's still time to have your
Speaker 1: bouquet delivered on Mother's Day, but you've got to get moving.
Speaker 1: With an amazing selection of sweet streets in bouquets, One
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers has everything you need for Mother's Day
Speaker 1: and she'll never guess how great of a last minute
Speaker 1: deal you scored. Mother's Day Bouquets and arrangement starting at
Speaker 1: twenty nine ninety nine is an amazing offer, but you
Speaker 1: have to order today. Trust one in hundred flowers to
Speaker 1: make mom feel loved. Order today from one hundred flowers
Speaker 1: dot com to order beautiful and vibrant Mother's Day bouquet
Speaker 1: is starting at twenty nine ninety nine. Go to one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck. That's one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com slash buck. Mother's Day is Sunday,
Speaker 1: so order today and save at one eight hundred flowers
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. He's back with you now, because
Speaker 1: when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck
Speaker 1: never stops. Did you have a problem away, Comey handled
Speaker 1: the Clintoney mill investigation. Yes, I said so at the time. Okay, so,
Speaker 1: given the fact that a lot of people coming should
Speaker 1: be fired, did you find that to be a persuasive
Speaker 1: act of obstructing justice. No. I think even the report
Speaker 1: at the end of the day came to the conclusion,
Speaker 1: if you read the analysis, that a reason that loomed
Speaker 1: large there for his termination was his refusal to tell
Speaker 1: the public what he was privately telling the president, which
Speaker 1: was that the president was not under investigation. Why wouldn't
Speaker 1: Comey tell the public that? Isn't there an important isn't
Speaker 1: there a compelling interest in not having that cloud over
Speaker 1: the commander in chief? You have to remember that for
Speaker 1: the anti Trump forces in this country, in the media
Speaker 1: and government Democratic Party, they think anything that justifies taking
Speaker 1: away the ability to operate freely when it comes to Trump,
Speaker 1: anything is justified. They're fine with it. Whatever it is
Speaker 1: they have to do so that Trump can't really be
Speaker 1: the president. They think is a good thing. They think
Speaker 1: that they have a right to make sure that that
Speaker 1: is the case. And Comey was playing games. He's playing
Speaker 1: games along the whole standing up and reading that statement
Speaker 1: about Hillary and the emails, and that just reminds me
Speaker 1: the gall the hootspa on some of these analysts and
Speaker 1: pundits and news people who are now running around holding
Speaker 1: up this letter written by hundreds of former federal prosecutors
Speaker 1: who have all signed their names to this four hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty former federal prosecutors who have said that there
Speaker 1: should have been obstruction charges would have been obstruction charges
Speaker 1: if not for the fact that Trump is president United States.
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating that these people think that we're
Speaker 1: supposed to care. I don't give a I don't give what.
Speaker 1: I don't give a you know what about what a
Speaker 1: bunch of lawyers who, by the way, no offense. The
Speaker 1: lawyers listening tend to be Democrats, right American Bar Association
Speaker 1: basically a wing of the DNC. A lot of lawyers
Speaker 1: or Democrats. A lot of prosecutors in particular are Democrats,
Speaker 1: especially in the bluer parts of the country. And I
Speaker 1: don't much care what they think about this. I also
Speaker 1: want to know what their response, if we're going to
Speaker 1: go down this pathway, what their response would be to
Speaker 1: the fact that Mueller himself did not take the position
Speaker 1: that they are asserting. Are they saying that Muller was scared?
Speaker 1: Was Mueller somehow unwilling to speak the truth on this issue?
Speaker 1: Was Saint Muller the Great Anointed Destroyer? Of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Oops didn't manage to pull it off. Did he? Did
Speaker 1: Saint Muller get cold feet? He very well could have
Speaker 1: written in that four hundred plus page report we found
Speaker 1: enough evidence to bring charges, but we know the OLC
Speaker 1: guidance from the Department of Justice states that you cannot
Speaker 1: bring charges against the sitting president. So therefore we leave
Speaker 1: this to the American people into Congress to handle as
Speaker 1: they see fit. He didn't say that. He didn't say that.
Speaker 1: I think in part because here's the most persuasive anti
Speaker 1: obstruction charge argument that I know of. Trump didn't obstruct anything.
Speaker 1: I would also like to know what these prosecutors who
Speaker 1: signed this letter that all the media was all excited about.
Speaker 1: It was posted Monday afternoon, including Bill Weld, who is
Speaker 1: running against Trump. Oh, well, he must be really objective.
Speaker 1: He's a former US attorney in the Reagan administration who's
Speaker 1: running against Trump for the Republican Nation. Yeah, he's a
Speaker 1: he's a guy that you can look to to be
Speaker 1: totally honest and fair minded in this whole process. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, this is just a This is just a
Speaker 1: pr and a propaganda exercise. These are people who obviously
Speaker 1: don't like the president, and they think that because they've
Speaker 1: worked in government in some capacity as prosecutors, that their
Speaker 1: judgment is now beyond partisanship. And that's just that's just silly.
Speaker 1: No reasonable person would think that that's what's going on here.
Speaker 1: It's it's not It shouldn't be their expectation that in
Speaker 1: a country of three hundred and twenty or so million people,
Speaker 1: because a few hundred people that happen to have law
Speaker 1: degrees and had worked in government prosecution, think that there
Speaker 1: would have been obstruction charges here? That what does that?
Speaker 1: What does that mean? So do we have the evidence
Speaker 1: now to bring those charges because Mueller didn't? Is there
Speaker 1: new evidence? No, there's not. This is there's a level
Speaker 1: of this is kind of sad, and I know that
Speaker 1: that's not the way you usually hear this discuss. But
Speaker 1: there were all these stories towards the end of the
Speaker 1: Muller Probe about how there were people who were worried
Speaker 1: that they would older people were worried they would die
Speaker 1: before seeing justice and the Mulla Probe could be released
Speaker 1: and finally set things right in the land. You know,
Speaker 1: this is almost like it's the end of a Shakespearean drama.
Speaker 1: It's like the end of Hamlet, where the last act
Speaker 1: on stage is to set things, you know, set things
Speaker 1: right going forward, set things right into the future after
Speaker 1: all the tragedy and loss. This isn't a stage drama.
Speaker 1: This is this is real life, and there are much
Speaker 1: more There should be much more important things to really
Speaker 1: everybody in America, especially if they're in their last days.
Speaker 1: Then whether or not the Mulla report has come out,
Speaker 1: this was a mass hysteria. This was along the lines
Speaker 1: of another mass hysteria that is getting some attention now
Speaker 1: that I won't have the time to go into today,
Speaker 1: but it's that we're in the midst of a of
Speaker 1: a massive species die off and that if we don't
Speaker 1: do something soon. This is an assessment some report that
Speaker 1: just came out that's that said that humans are having
Speaker 1: a quote unprecedented and devastating effect on global biodiversity, with
Speaker 1: about a million animal and plant species threatened with extinction.
Speaker 1: You know what they don't really get into the report
Speaker 1: is that nine p nine percent of all species that
Speaker 1: have ever existed our extinct, extinction for species over time
Speaker 1: and the different processes of new species coming to light.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is the way it's always been. But
Speaker 1: they want you to think that all the all the planets,
Speaker 1: animals are going to die because of us. It's our fault. Oh,
Speaker 1: how do we fix it? Who wants to take a guess?
Speaker 1: How do we stop a million animals and plant a
Speaker 1: million animal and plant species from going extinct? Well, that's right,
Speaker 1: climate chance change, climate change legislation, which is also a
Speaker 1: way to help struggling and minority and oppress communities in
Speaker 1: this kind, it's just it's a justification for everything, for
Speaker 1: all things. Climate change, in the parlance of late eighteenth
Speaker 1: century France or early twentieth century Russia, is the revolution.
Speaker 1: It's whatever they want it to be. It gives them
Speaker 1: the power to do anything that they seek to do.
Speaker 1: And if you stand athwart it, you are a threat.
Speaker 1: You are a counter revolutionary, You are a bad person.
Speaker 1: You must be destroyed. Do you want a million animal
Speaker 1: and plant species to go extinct? Well, I hope not.
Speaker 1: The only way to solve it is to empower imbeciles
Speaker 1: like Ocasio Cortez and Nancy Pelosi. Otherwise you want all
Speaker 1: the animals and plants to die. They believe that this
Speaker 1: is not what normal people would think about the world
Speaker 1: around them. This is the result of massive media propaganda
Speaker 1: and brainwashing and the rejection of reason in and thought
Speaker 1: and science and the scientific method. That same ability to
Speaker 1: get completely panicked about the prospect of all species dying
Speaker 1: off because of us, because we're so terrible human beings.
Speaker 1: That same mentality is unfortunately tied to the Mulla Report,
Speaker 1: which is, even though it's not true, they still think
Speaker 1: there must be something there. It must be true. We'll
Speaker 1: go right back. So our leader says, let's move on.
Speaker 1: It's sort of like Richard Nixon saying let's move on
Speaker 1: at the height of the investigation of his wrongdoing. Of course,
Speaker 1: he wants to move on. He wants to cover up,
Speaker 1: He wants to silence on one of the most serious
Speaker 1: issues we face. Chuck Schumer saying that McConnell is trying
Speaker 1: to engage in some kind of a cover up here
Speaker 1: because because cocaine Mitch, aka said a majority leader, Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: he's more fun to call him cocaine Mitch. He said
Speaker 1: it's time to move on. This case close. He's right.
Speaker 1: The case is closed. Two years, thousands and thousands of
Speaker 1: pages of documents, and the subpoenas and the hundreds of
Speaker 1: witnesses and all this stuff. Muller went scorched earth released
Speaker 1: this four hundred page long anti Trump editorial effectively, but
Speaker 1: it was not able to find a crime to charge either,
Speaker 1: just the facts and how much. McConnell's like, can we
Speaker 1: just please do other things this country? And Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: because he knows that a lot of his constituents, a
Speaker 1: lot of people, unfortunately in my home state of New York,
Speaker 1: have Trump's arrangement syndrome. They'll just they'll never stop with this,
Speaker 1: They'll never give this up. They think that Congress is
Speaker 1: going to or at least the Democrats in Congress going
Speaker 1: to get some degree of truth, some nugget that was
Speaker 1: missed by Muller and his whole squad. This is absurd.
Speaker 1: This is absurd, But it's like the absurdity of those
Speaker 1: who are calling for a bar to be fired. They
Speaker 1: say that Mitch McConnell is part of the cover up,
Speaker 1: they say that Bill Barr is part of the cover up.
Speaker 1: They attack anyone who just says, you know, when is
Speaker 1: enough enough? I mean, here, here's here to say. Montage
Speaker 1: Democrats are not just content to try and drag the
Speaker 1: Attorney General's reputation through the mud. They like a bunch
Speaker 1: of screeching lunatics, really do want, at least from what
Speaker 1: they say, to lock Bar up in prison, which is
Speaker 1: just utterly absurd. I mean, just completely crazy town. And
Speaker 1: it's not like one or two of them are saying it.
Speaker 1: A lot of them are saying. At Playlipate, are you
Speaker 1: talking about just having him sit for a hearing or
Speaker 1: locking him up somehow? And you have to have him
Speaker 1: sit for a hearing, and I think you have to
Speaker 1: have him locked up, and unless he agrees to participate
Speaker 1: and come to the hearing. The House and the Senate,
Speaker 1: each chamber has an inherent power to compare a witness
Speaker 1: to testify. If that witness just refuses, and that includes
Speaker 1: arrests and then even includes jail, the House is powerless
Speaker 1: unless the House takes some action. We have what's called
Speaker 1: inherent contempt proceedings, which means we send the sergeant of
Speaker 1: arms out to handcuff the individual who is declining to Well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to start with mister Barr. These are people
Speaker 1: who are These are democrats who are really saying they
Speaker 1: want to send the sergeant sergeant at arms in Congress
Speaker 1: to go arrest the Attorney General. No, no, I understand
Speaker 1: that at some level, this is just theatrics. This is
Speaker 1: for the people, the very, very simple minded and easily
Speaker 1: brainwashed folks who watch MSNBC constantly, who think that they're
Speaker 1: getting objective It's one thing if you watch MSNBC and
Speaker 1: you realize that you're watching lewing propaganda, at least you
Speaker 1: have some self awareness. But there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people who watch MSNBC and think that it's objective news,
Speaker 1: and I feel bad for them because their understanding of
Speaker 1: politics and the world around them is deeply unsophisticated. They
Speaker 1: think they're really sophisticated, but they are not. But here
Speaker 1: you have people that are pandering to that unsophisticated but
Speaker 1: very self righteous crowd of MSNBC true believers by saying
Speaker 1: that they're gonna they're gonna try to lock up the
Speaker 1: Attorney general, as if that wouldn't create a constitutional crisis.
Speaker 1: You know, the same the same Democrat left that has
Speaker 1: been whining about the undermining of institutions for the last
Speaker 1: two years just as a favorite talking point. You know,
Speaker 1: they just they try to make it sound like they're
Speaker 1: the only people who care about the institutions of government. Oh,
Speaker 1: it still comes to election results. They don't like then it.
Speaker 1: You know, the Georgia election was stolen, the North Carolina
Speaker 1: election was to all these elections are stolen, stolen, stolen,
Speaker 1: that they don't win the twenty sixteen presidential election stolen.
Speaker 1: You think that maybe that in and of itself would
Speaker 1: constitute some kind of undermining of our institutions, like the
Speaker 1: institutions of our election. But Democrats, come on, we're not
Speaker 1: looking for consistency with them. Will be looking all day,
Speaker 1: my friends, We're not gonna find it. They want to
Speaker 1: throw the Attorney General in jail, why, you might ask,
Speaker 1: because he won't sit there and allow them to engage
Speaker 1: in the obvious shenanigans of having staff attorneys cross examined
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of the United States. That's right, that's
Speaker 1: what they think that should be done. Here. You have
Speaker 1: a bunch of lawyers, these members of Congress, they're almost
Speaker 1: all lawyers, like seventy percent of the ones who sit
Speaker 1: on the Judiciary Committee our lawyers. And they won't do
Speaker 1: the questioning themselves. They want to have somebody else do
Speaker 1: it for them. They want to do that because they
Speaker 1: want it to seem like a criminal proceeding in Bar
Speaker 1: is a defendant in that they can't beat Bar on
Speaker 1: the merits. So now they're just trying every every campaign
Speaker 1: of insinuation, Slanders sliming their conduct on this is utterly disgraceful.
Speaker 1: And they're, oh, we actually have Mitch McConnell on what
Speaker 1: he thinks about all this and why they're going after Bar. Right,
Speaker 1: Chuck Schumer got all upset about what Minch McConnell said.
Speaker 1: Let me play for you what Cochi and Mitch had
Speaker 1: to say. Play seven. Now, I've been more than six
Speaker 1: weeks since Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former FBI director,
Speaker 1: concluded his investigation into Russia's interference in our twenty sixteen
Speaker 1: election and delivered his findings to the Justice Department. It's
Speaker 1: been two weeks since Attorney General William Barr made the
Speaker 1: four hundred and fifty page report public. This investigation went
Speaker 1: on for two years. It's finally over, case closed, all right,
Speaker 1: it's time for this thing to be done. They said
Speaker 1: there was a conspiracy. Now they're going after bar because
Speaker 1: he's a convenient targets more than he's a convenient target.
Speaker 1: They're going after bar because they have to run interference
Speaker 1: for the little Democrat deep state clients who were the
Speaker 1: ones that generated this whole conspiracy in the first place.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that created this whole narrative. They're the
Speaker 1: ones that came up with this Russia collusion fantasy. And
Speaker 1: the Inspector General report from within the Department of Justice,
Speaker 1: I think is going to show that some of these
Speaker 1: people were just way outside the bounds of what is
Speaker 1: ethical given the power they have. I'm not so you
Speaker 1: notice how I'm not telling you they're going to go
Speaker 1: to prison very hard. You know, prosecutors, FBI agents, they
Speaker 1: can engage in a lot of really poor conduct and
Speaker 1: the worst thing that will happen is they'll get fired.
Speaker 1: For prosecutors, it's usually not even that prosecutors. There's so
Speaker 1: little oversight of what federal prosecutors do and their decision making.
Speaker 1: But even within the FBI, within those federal bureaucracies, you
Speaker 1: can mess up and then some and they're not necessarily
Speaker 1: gonna come after you with anything other than a possible
Speaker 1: suspension maybe of firing. Very unlikely. I think you'll see
Speaker 1: anyone go to I know other people tell you, oh,
Speaker 1: Coomy's going to jail, and no, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna happen. Coomy's gonna look really
Speaker 1: bad on this whole process. But the attacks on bar
Speaker 1: are meant to prepare the battleground for when Bar is
Speaker 1: releasing or as Attorney General is at a press conference
Speaker 1: and talking about the Inspector General report and what is
Speaker 1: in it, and it's going to look really bad for Democrats.
Speaker 1: And it's gonna look also terrible for the media in
Speaker 1: that the members of the media were so willing to
Speaker 1: go along with his especially in the early stages, this
Speaker 1: crazy Russia collusion story and use all this pretextual nonsense
Speaker 1: about Papadopolis and Carter Page as as evidence in this conspiracy,
Speaker 1: as evidence to present to the Fiser Corp. But also
Speaker 1: is evidence to present the public in all these different
Speaker 1: news articles. Just absurd, absolutely absurd. It should be case closed,
Speaker 1: But because the Democrats just can't let it go, we're
Speaker 1: going to have to continue to talk about this, but
Speaker 1: we will continue to fight them. My friends, don't worry
Speaker 1: about it. Obviously, border security is top of mind for
Speaker 1: this president since January. Democrats are now seventeen points more
Speaker 1: likely to refer to what's happening at the southern border
Speaker 1: as a quote crisis. Remember that it was in January
Speaker 1: that Schumer and Pelosi went on primetime television following the
Speaker 1: President's Oval Office address and said, this is a manufacturer crisis.
Speaker 1: So border security top of mind, but also the President
Speaker 1: will be considering a merit based immigration system. He put.
Speaker 1: The President put together a seventy point plan and submitted
Speaker 1: to Congress in October of twenty seventeen. So anybody who
Speaker 1: seems surprised that this president wants to end the VS
Speaker 1: lottery system, end chain migration, have a merit based immigration system,
Speaker 1: a deal with DOCCA as he can, and certainly continue.
Speaker 1: So that's on the table. Order so Daco'll be on
Speaker 1: the table. I get ahead of it, but it could
Speaker 1: be we'll see. Trump better be careful these negotiations over
Speaker 1: immigration because the Democrats have no good faith whatsoever on
Speaker 1: this issue. They do not want the same thing that
Speaker 1: the rest of the or that a majority of the
Speaker 1: American people want. They aren't looking for a border that
Speaker 1: is secure, that does not allow the continued influx of illegals,
Speaker 1: that does not reward people for crossing in massive numbers illegally.
Speaker 1: We're not trying to achieve the same thing. This is
Speaker 1: absolutely central. It's fundamental to understand this. On a lot
Speaker 1: of policy issues, the Democrats and the Republicans are separated
Speaker 1: by the means to achieve the same end. On this issue,
Speaker 1: on immigration, we no longer differ on the means. We
Speaker 1: differ on the ends. We don't want the same goal,
Speaker 1: we don't want the same immigration reality. And so when
Speaker 1: Trump is talking about, or when the administration that was
Speaker 1: Kelly and Conway's discussing what Trump would be willing to
Speaker 1: a budge on or what's on the table, I get it.
Speaker 1: He's a negotiator. He wants to make his pitch, but
Speaker 1: he needs to be very careful. I'm don't get mad
Speaker 1: at me, but Saint Reagan, wonderful man, wonderful president, got swindled,
Speaker 1: got swindled with an amnesty back in nineteen eighties six.
Speaker 1: I think it was millions of people amnestied, no real
Speaker 1: improvements of border security, nothing in terms of the verification
Speaker 1: and enforcement measures for those that were possibly covered by
Speaker 1: the amnesty. And they were still hearing amnesty cases as
Speaker 1: of I think twenty ten or twenty eleven from that
Speaker 1: initial amnesty in the eighties. All Right, everyone's like, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I should have been covered by that. Now let me
Speaker 1: have a you know, a lawyer appointed to represent me
Speaker 1: in court. It's just this is what ends up happening.
Speaker 1: Democrats just want amnesty. They'll say anything to get there,
Speaker 1: because everything else is negotiable. Every other aspect of the
Speaker 1: border can change. They want ambassy and they don't want
Speaker 1: a wall because tearing down the wall that might be tough.
Speaker 1: That's a tough sell. Yeah, we've just built this wall.
Speaker 1: Now we're going to tear it down that that wouldn't
Speaker 1: be an easy thing for Democrats to pull off. The
Speaker 1: optics of that are not strong. But yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that Trump Trump's gonna have a tough time here. Democrats
Speaker 1: don't want to be working with him on anything with
Speaker 1: regard to immigration. They want this to be a major
Speaker 1: issue going into the midterms, rather the presidential election, not
Speaker 1: the midterms. New York Post as an interesting piece here,
Speaker 1: speaking of the border, Central American migrants have Mexico facing
Speaker 1: a border crisis of its own. This is in sidad
Speaker 1: hidaa go Mexico. I I do not I took French,
Speaker 1: not Spanish. That'll make fun of my Tijuana. I know
Speaker 1: it's Tijuana. I gotta say it like that, Tejuana. When
Speaker 1: the migrant caravans crossed the Succuiote River and International Bridge
Speaker 1: from Guatemala, Aidan Lopez springs into action. In this steamy
Speaker 1: tropical city, he shuts down his shop and takes cover.
Speaker 1: Like many merchants along Mexico's southern border, Lopez says his
Speaker 1: business is suffering due to a recent escalation in crime
Speaker 1: committed by migrants. Many are calling for the Mexican government
Speaker 1: to shut its doors. Lopez owns a stall selling blue
Speaker 1: jeans in this city of nearly fifteen thousand people on
Speaker 1: the southern tip of Mexico. Since last October, thousands of
Speaker 1: mostly Central American asylum seekers have overwhelmed the city, which
Speaker 1: is just steps from a bridge connecting Mexico to Guatemala.
Speaker 1: With no other place to go, many camp out in
Speaker 1: the town square and beg quote, we know they are
Speaker 1: not all bad people, but when they started to come through,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of robberies and assaults, Lopez told
Speaker 1: the New York Post. Here so now we get a
Speaker 1: multitude crossing, we just clo the shop. Wait a second,
Speaker 1: I thought that these this is all this New York
Speaker 1: postpiece by Isabel Vincent. I thought that the migrants were
Speaker 1: better than Americans. I thought that they were going to
Speaker 1: just do the jobs we won't do, work harder than
Speaker 1: we work, be more law abiding than we are. This
Speaker 1: is what we're always told, is whether Democrats consistently say
Speaker 1: about migrants that come across the border illegally, that come
Speaker 1: as part of these caravans, that they're amazing and we
Speaker 1: are deficient because we do not understand how amazing they are,
Speaker 1: even though they're breaking our laws, even though we are
Speaker 1: not supposed to bring in one hundred thousand illegal crossing
Speaker 1: illegal crossers a month. But where's the Trump administration on this?
Speaker 1: What are we going to do about this? The money
Speaker 1: that they're talking about moving to the border is just
Speaker 1: going to grease the wheels of process. The only area
Speaker 1: where I've started to see some real movement that I
Speaker 1: think could be helpful, it could be useful to securing
Speaker 1: the border is in stricter enforcement, stricter enforcement of credible
Speaker 1: fear claims that may actually be worthwhile. That has the
Speaker 1: possibility I think of starting to turn back this tidal
Speaker 1: wave of people coming into the country illegally. Essentially just
Speaker 1: make it harder for them to get through and lie.
Speaker 1: That's all it is. That in and of itself, I
Speaker 1: think would really be powerful here. It is US asylum
Speaker 1: screeners to take a more confrontational approach. Internal document show
Speaker 1: as Trump aims to turn away more migrants. Oh, because
Speaker 1: Trump is such a big meaning they want you to know.
Speaker 1: He's so mean. That's why he's doing this. Meanwhile, he's
Speaker 1: trying to re establish any kind of security at the border.
Speaker 1: It's the Washington Post. The Trump administration has sent new
Speaker 1: guidelines to asylum officers, directing them to take a more
Speaker 1: skeptical and confrontational approach during interviews with migrants seeking refuge
Speaker 1: in the United States. It is the latest measure and
Speaker 1: that tightening the nation's legal quote loopholes homeland security officials
Speaker 1: blame for a spike in border crossings. According to internal
Speaker 1: documents and staff emails obtained Tuesday by The Washington Post,
Speaker 1: the asylum officers will more aggressively challenge applicants whose claims
Speaker 1: of persecution contained discrepancies, and they'll need to provide detailed
Speaker 1: justifications before concluding an applicant has a well founded fear.
Speaker 1: That's right, credible fear. Folks might have to actually be
Speaker 1: credible fear. Oh wow, you mean it will no longer
Speaker 1: just be I am scared in my country of the
Speaker 1: people coming for me, Like they're robotically reading this crap
Speaker 1: that is handed to them by the different pro migrant
Speaker 1: groups that are involved in all this, by the coyotes,
Speaker 1: by the smugglers. They're told what to say. We know
Speaker 1: they're economic migrants. We know they're not fleeing political or
Speaker 1: religious or ethnic persecution. They're not asylum seekers. They're liars,
Speaker 1: Not all of them, but ninety percent plus of them
Speaker 1: who are saying they have a credible fear are lying
Speaker 1: about it. Okay, let's just be honest about this. Just
Speaker 1: living in Honduras does not mean you have a credible
Speaker 1: fear of persecution. Just being from the country of asabad
Speaker 1: or does not make you an asylum seeker. And if
Speaker 1: it does, we need to be opening up our doors
Speaker 1: to those entire countries, which we're getting pretty close to
Speaker 1: doing these days. It feels like Trump administration's right tighten
Speaker 1: things up, enforce the rules, make it harder secure the border.
Speaker 1: They're moving to the right direction. Might be too little,
Speaker 1: too late in terms of owning the center ground. I
Speaker 1: think the center ground can be owned by the left,
Speaker 1: whether it's raising the minimum way age, securing social security, medicare, medicaid,
Speaker 1: redefine what the center is and don't let them define
Speaker 1: our in a Canada as something of that is far left.
Speaker 1: Trump is coding us to impeach him. That's what he's doing.
Speaker 1: It's so perfect. I mean, we pull those two little
Speaker 1: sound bites you together. On the one hand, you have
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. You know, the left is really the party
Speaker 1: of the center. You know, Democrats, the progressives. We can
Speaker 1: own the center. But I mean Trump is just begging
Speaker 1: us to impeach him. Am I right? Am I right?
Speaker 1: She's amazing, folks, She's amazed that just say whatever she
Speaker 1: has to say, no no ethical, moral, or ideological core,
Speaker 1: just whatever she needs to say whenever she needs to
Speaker 1: say it. Moral, relativism, statis, m big government. These these
Speaker 1: are the closest things that she has to organizing principles
Speaker 1: for her ideology. And atop all that, of course is
Speaker 1: the the glory of Nancy Pelosi. But whatever she has
Speaker 1: to do to maintain her privileged position in society. Very wealthy,
Speaker 1: very powerful, very connected. But I love us, you know, yeah, Democrats,
Speaker 1: we're totally reasonable. Trump is begging us to impeach him.
Speaker 1: Though I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure that Trump is
Speaker 1: not goading them to impeach him. I'm pretty sure that
Speaker 1: they have decided to embrace a trumped arrangement syndrome that
Speaker 1: does feel and does does appear to be truly pathological.
Speaker 1: Speaking of pathological, there is a a kind of multiple
Speaker 1: personality disorder that is on display with Democrats over the
Speaker 1: issue of impeachment. Depending on the day, you have Democrats
Speaker 1: who say, well, we have to impeach him, and then
Speaker 1: you have Democrats who say we're waiting for the evidence.
Speaker 1: And then you have others who say we'll have to
Speaker 1: give up on impeachment because it's going to blow back
Speaker 1: on us. The political ramifications are not worth it. I
Speaker 1: just wish, you know, they would get on the same
Speaker 1: sheet of music for a few days instead of all here.
Speaker 1: You know, people say buck, but they're politicians. They have
Speaker 1: different opinions. No, no, no. The whole point is that
Speaker 1: they're speaking with many mouths about this issue because it's
Speaker 1: just bizarre, it's absurd. So they want to have some
Speaker 1: people saying, oh, no, we're going to impeach them. So
Speaker 1: that makes the left wing base happy. They want some
Speaker 1: people who are saying, oh, we're gonna wait and see
Speaker 1: who the evidence is. That's where the Trump deranged but
Speaker 1: not completely insane. They are more comfortable with that. And
Speaker 1: then the hold on a second, you know, maybe we
Speaker 1: shouldn't go completely all in on this idea of impeachment
Speaker 1: because it's going to blow back on us politically. That's
Speaker 1: for the Democrat establishment that realizes if Muller couldn't deliver
Speaker 1: them the big win that they wanted, they're no way,
Speaker 1: no way, impeachment is going to do that for them.
Speaker 1: They keep striving, struggling, begging, scratching, clawing for some one thing.
Speaker 1: You know that that one coop de gross or is
Speaker 1: it a coop de grosse? I think it's cool that
Speaker 1: that one master stroke, that one moment of aha, where
Speaker 1: Trump's presidency is finished and it's just not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: And I have to wonder when they when they will
Speaker 1: realize it's not gonna happen. I guess it'll be when
Speaker 1: Trump wins reelection, then then there'll be some at least
Speaker 1: a few hours of oh wow, this is real again.
Speaker 1: But all the impeachment issue. But do we do? We
Speaker 1: have Elizabeth war Elizabeth Warren, she was really annoying me today.
Speaker 1: We gotta get someone, you know, Elizabeth Warren has been
Speaker 1: saying annoying things about this. Beto O'Rourke is running around
Speaker 1: desperate to try and get some attention for himself because look,
Speaker 1: apparently my home videos and my rolled up sleeves and
Speaker 1: my sort of rugged Kennedy Usk handsomeness is not enough
Speaker 1: to make me president. Uh. He says that we are
Speaker 1: at the must impeach Trump phase. We must do this
Speaker 1: play clip twelve to invite power to participate in our elections,
Speaker 1: to obstructs justice and cover up during the investigation. There
Speaker 1: there must be accountability. We must get behind the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives and they pursuing peach, must pursue impeach of
Speaker 1: this president. Does Betto ever have to explain? What's this?
Speaker 1: Trump invited a foreign power to participate in our election?
Speaker 1: I don't remember that, Betto? Is that because he made
Speaker 1: a joke about Russia. If you have the Hillary emails,
Speaker 1: let us know, keep in mind, they're all hoping that
Speaker 1: nobody will do the due diligence and the research to
Speaker 1: separate these things out. Russia never did have the Hillary emails.
Speaker 1: Russia hacked into the DNC servers and John Podesta's emails
Speaker 1: and release some of those through wiki leagues, but they
Speaker 1: never got Hillary's emails. The people who say that, oh,
Speaker 1: but they were acting on Trump's orders, No, they weren't.
Speaker 1: And these were rumors that were flying around all over
Speaker 1: the place. Invited a foreign power to participate at our election.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, these people really, I would say they
Speaker 1: need to get out more. But bettos out all the time.
Speaker 1: He's running around doing this kind of on the road
Speaker 1: Jack Kerouac thing where he's just traveling all over the
Speaker 1: place and trying to get attention for himself. You know,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, I knew Betto wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: the guy. Although I for a moment thought that the
Speaker 1: Democrats were so in love with him and so delusional
Speaker 1: that nothing could nothing could dissuade them. There was a
Speaker 1: moment in time where because everything about him was defying
Speaker 1: gravity and reality. But when he did that that totally
Speaker 1: dumbass video of himself getting his teeth cleaned. He's like her,
Speaker 1: are you know he's in the dentist chair of the
Speaker 1: whole thing? And get who is this guy? Why? Why
Speaker 1: would anyone think this is a good idea? And how
Speaker 1: could anyone expect us to want to give them the
Speaker 1: nuclear codes when this is their version of a judgment?
Speaker 1: Call Representative Al Green, I would not. It is also
Speaker 1: in the impeach, impeach, impeach side of things. Play thirteen.
Speaker 1: Are you concerned that impeachment talk may actually help the
Speaker 1: president's reelection? I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president,
Speaker 1: he will get reelected, so he takes You know, democrats
Speaker 1: can't can't seem to figure it out. Is it that
Speaker 1: if they impeach him he will get reelected, he won't
Speaker 1: get You know, there's they have no idea. This is
Speaker 1: all It's all just political. It's all nonsense. This is
Speaker 1: their obsession. They want to keep talking about this. They're
Speaker 1: desperate to make it seem like there's more at work
Speaker 1: here than the most obvious partisan nonsense. You know that
Speaker 1: this is about the defending our democracy and about protecting
Speaker 1: our core institutions. And come on, no no serious person
Speaker 1: believes this. Nobody really thinks this is the case. But
Speaker 1: I guess some Democrats are wacko enough that they're they're
Speaker 1: on this one man. They're they're deciding that this is
Speaker 1: what they're gonna this is what they're gonna do. And
Speaker 1: then they got Joe Biden out there. They got Joe
Speaker 1: Biden leading the charge right now. I just I know
Speaker 1: I've been saying it, but I don't see it. I
Speaker 1: don't think Uncle Joe's got the goods. I don't think
Speaker 1: he had him then. I don't think he has him now.
Speaker 1: I think he's a guy who has gotten very lucky
Speaker 1: in his political career, got him in the right place
Speaker 1: at the right time, and his clinging to the legacy
Speaker 1: of Barack Obama's gonna get old. People are gonna realize
Speaker 1: that this isn't this isn't enough. Talking about his buddy
Speaker 1: Baroque is not gonna sell people on why he should
Speaker 1: be the next leader of the free world. Play clip four.
Speaker 1: I watch my buddy Brock stand out there, watch the
Speaker 1: r and he talked about we have to find that
Speaker 1: amazing grace. By the way, there is amazing grace in
Speaker 1: this country. We just have to reach out and pull
Speaker 1: it in, folks, where you must defeat Donald Trump above
Speaker 1: all else. He says, we gotta defeat Donald Trump. That's
Speaker 1: gonna be his pitch. He's gonna say he's electable. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm just putting this out there for the Democrats who
Speaker 1: are listening in the audience. What was the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: pitch again? Oh, that's right, that above all else. If
Speaker 1: you wanted to beat Hell, if you wanted to beat
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton was your choice. How did that
Speaker 1: work out? Exactly? How did the super establishment insider, boring,
Speaker 1: uninspiring Democrat candidate to defeat Donald Trump in twenty sixteen?
Speaker 1: How that go? Oh? That's right. They had to cook
Speaker 1: up a whole crazy person story about Russia collusion to
Speaker 1: explain the loss. I'm telling you, China collusion twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: When Biden loses, it could happen. You know, people say, well, Joe,
Speaker 1: how are you gonna do all this? Well, guess what
Speaker 1: first thing I do is going to repeal this Trump
Speaker 1: tax cut. Oh, not a joke, Not a joke. Biden's like,
Speaker 1: you know what, everybody don't. I don't think you should
Speaker 1: like this great economy. I don't think you should be
Speaker 1: excited about what's going on in America right now. I
Speaker 1: think we need people making less money, we need higher unemployment,
Speaker 1: we need things to stop going so well. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: blue color, Joe sharing you his wisdom for the day.
Speaker 1: Oh man. The Democrats, Yeah, I'm not the I'm not
Speaker 1: a lone voice in the woods anymore with Democrats who
Speaker 1: are realizing this guy's got weaknesses. Folks, this is not
Speaker 1: it's not gonna be enough to be Trump. When you
Speaker 1: line up Biden and Hillary, you know, Hillary had the
Speaker 1: whole woman thing going for her, had a you could argue,
Speaker 1: certainly a more distinguished track record. I don't know if
Speaker 1: I wouldn't say successful, but you know, with her whole
Speaker 1: secretary of state run me. Look, they're they're comparable. I mean,
Speaker 1: the resumes are comparable. They're both creatures of public life
Speaker 1: with their whole lives. But Hillary had the whole glass
Speaker 1: ceiling thing and the Clinton establishment around her, and I
Speaker 1: think that you could make a case that she was
Speaker 1: a she was a stronger establishment candidate against Trump than
Speaker 1: Joe Biden would be. And Democrats are starting to figure
Speaker 1: that out. And that's why when they're saying things like,
Speaker 1: the first thing I'm gonna do is repeal those tax cuts.
Speaker 1: Why are people cheering for that? They really want to
Speaker 1: give more of their money to the government. Who who
Speaker 1: wants to do that? Ever? Come across people who really
Speaker 1: think that that's a good idea in real life, but conceptually,
Speaker 1: you know, theoretically that other people would be paying more
Speaker 1: in taxes as somehow exciting to them. That just that
Speaker 1: strikes me as very very odd mentality that Democrats have.
Speaker 1: But it's worse than just bad ideas that they're repackaging.
Speaker 1: The Democrats will never give up on. You know, higher
Speaker 1: taxes is better, Well, it turns out it's not better
Speaker 1: for you as an individual, and it's not better for
Speaker 1: economic growth, so it's not better. Overall, government is incredibly wasteful.
Speaker 1: Government should not be taking more money than is absolutely
Speaker 1: necessary to run. It's very limited and constitutionally secured mandates
Speaker 1: like national defense, and you know, there's only a few
Speaker 1: things that government should really be doing, but we do
Speaker 1: a whole lot more now. But what concerns me is
Speaker 1: that you have Joe Biden getting all this establishment attention,
Speaker 1: and then on the other side you have these quite
Speaker 1: these establishment candidates that don't really seem to get the
Speaker 1: same degree of support from the DNC, And you know,
Speaker 1: the media likes them, but they haven't yet fallen in
Speaker 1: love with them, and they're moving further and further left
Speaker 1: with ideas that aren't just you know, raising my taxes
Speaker 1: is annoying. Raising my taxes is something that the Democrats
Speaker 1: want to do that would bother me and should bother
Speaker 1: you too. They're if you pay taxes more or less.
Speaker 1: There's some exceptions to this. You got a tax cut.
Speaker 1: So if you're a taxpayer, it is there's an eighty
Speaker 1: percent chance that you got a tax cut because of Trump.
Speaker 1: Democrats want to take that away. But I can handle that.
Speaker 1: I don't approve of it. I think it's a bad idea,
Speaker 1: but it doesn't really put me on edge. Some of
Speaker 1: the other things you're hearing from these left wing candidates
Speaker 1: or these candidates that are trying to appear more left wing,
Speaker 1: that's really what's going on. Appear more left wing so
Speaker 1: they can appeal to the progressive base that they need
Speaker 1: in order to gain enough numbers and enough support to
Speaker 1: come out of this primary. People like Corey Booker or
Speaker 1: like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren Corey Booker on guns is
Speaker 1: concerning to me. There's an authoritarian statism that is at
Speaker 1: the heart of his appeal on guns. This is CNN
Speaker 1: asking Corey Booker about what the consequences would be for
Speaker 1: They always say a buyback program. Remember, a buy back
Speaker 1: program when it comes to guns, is mandatory confiscation with
Speaker 1: whatever fee they decide to give you, which you know,
Speaker 1: for in a lot of cases, is not going to
Speaker 1: be the fair market value of the guns. So it's
Speaker 1: really a confiscation with some you know, minimal compensation. Oh
Speaker 1: and by the way, if you just don't want to
Speaker 1: go along with this, they'll throw you in prison. Corey
Speaker 1: Booker was asked about this. Here's what he said in
Speaker 1: play too. The critical thing is, I think most Americans
Speaker 1: agree that these weapons of war should not be on
Speaker 1: our streets. Again, would you prosecute people do support the
Speaker 1: government buying them back? And if not, potentially people could
Speaker 1: go to jail if they don't want to sell them back.
Speaker 1: Yes or no. Again, we should have a law that
Speaker 1: bans these weapons, and we should have a reasonable period
Speaker 1: in which people can turn in these weapons. Right now,
Speaker 1: we have a nation that allows in streets and communities
Speaker 1: like mine. These weapons that should not exist. Okay, let's
Speaker 1: unpack their what he says, because it's quite clear to
Speaker 1: me that the answer is that he's giving is Oh, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: we're gonna lock people up for they're lawfully purchased and
Speaker 1: currently possessed firearms. We're gonna lock people up for that.
Speaker 1: He says. There should be a reasonable period in which
Speaker 1: they can turn in these weapons. Okay, what if they
Speaker 1: don't turn them in. But if they don't want to
Speaker 1: turn them in, what if this is their private property
Speaker 1: that they lawfully obtained and that the Second Amendment guarantees
Speaker 1: their right to continue to own. They are weapons in
Speaker 1: common usage, so they are covered under d C. V. Heller.
Speaker 1: What happens to those people? You pass this law, you
Speaker 1: give the time period, what if they don't do it?
Speaker 1: A law without a penalty rapidly ceases to be a
Speaker 1: law at all. Corey Booker knows this, and that's why
Speaker 1: Corey Booker wants you to know. Although he won't come
Speaker 1: out and say it that he would be comfortable, Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, separating families, because that's what happens when you
Speaker 1: lock somebody up because they have a semi automatic rifle
Speaker 1: that they are legally allowed to own until Corey Booker
Speaker 1: and the Progressive Democrats come along and pass some sort
Speaker 1: of assault rifle ban. All the data shows that the
Speaker 1: assault rifle ban was effectively irrelevant, did nothing in terms
Speaker 1: of dropping violent crime, was annoying to people though, and
Speaker 1: was an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. This phrase,
Speaker 1: they use weapons of war is such an idiotic phrase.
Speaker 1: A weapon of war. I mean, you think about some
Speaker 1: of the weapons that are in common usage. You say, well,
Speaker 1: of course they're used in warfare, And ultimately that is
Speaker 1: the point. The point is, and this is where liberals
Speaker 1: get really uncomfortable. If we needed to wage an insurrection
Speaker 1: against a tyrannical government, we would be in a position
Speaker 1: to do so. So that's why, Yeah, we don't want muskets.
Speaker 1: We want semi automatic rifles, we want handguns. We want
Speaker 1: things that would be useful in the context of a
Speaker 1: defense against tyranny as well as self defense and defense
Speaker 1: at ones home and property. Put weapons of war. They
Speaker 1: make it sound like they're talking about Stinger missiles. They're
Speaker 1: talking about semi automatic rifles that have a folding stock.
Speaker 1: But ultimately, Corey Booker is willing to throw you in
Speaker 1: prison if you don't do what he wants on us.
Speaker 1: Just remember that Democrats are all about smiles and the
Speaker 1: little guy and the poor guy and all that nice
Speaker 1: stuff until it comes to guns. They think guns are
Speaker 1: ikey and gun owners should go to prison. They're okay
Speaker 1: with that. For many years, Trees have been taking total
Speaker 1: advantage of the United States on trade, whether they're allies
Speaker 1: or not. They looked at us really as a bunch
Speaker 1: of very soft touches. And that's not what's happening anymore.
Speaker 1: We've placed massive tariffs on China, and the tariffs have
Speaker 1: really had a positive impact. Number One, our country has
Speaker 1: taken in a lot of money. Number Two, we're creating
Speaker 1: jobs like never before. So it's very important that China
Speaker 1: open its markets to our farmers and everybody else because
Speaker 1: right now they're clothes largely, and yet our markets are
Speaker 1: open to them. We're changing things, and we're changing them fast.
Speaker 1: How fast are we changing things and how are we
Speaker 1: doing in this trade negotiation with China. It's supposed to
Speaker 1: be a big deadline on Friday. We've got our friend
Speaker 1: Gordon Chang back in the house. Everybody he is the
Speaker 1: author of the Coming Collapse of China. You can also
Speaker 1: go to Gordon sea Chang dot com for his latest analysis,
Speaker 1: and you see him a lot on Fox and pretty
Speaker 1: much every news network out there. Gordon, great to have
Speaker 1: you on, sir, Thank you so much. Buck. So, how
Speaker 1: are things, How are things looking for this trade deadline
Speaker 1: on Friday? How's the Trump administration handling all this? And
Speaker 1: what do you think the Chinese? What are they thinking
Speaker 1: right now about this whole trade deal? I think Beijing
Speaker 1: is a bit in a panic because they're used to
Speaker 1: getting their way with the American negotiators, but President Trump
Speaker 1: has kept them off balance. I think the things look
Speaker 1: a lot better for us after Trump's tweet on Sunday
Speaker 1: where he said he was going to increase the tariffs,
Speaker 1: and that's what we absolutely need to do because Beijing
Speaker 1: right now is not talking to us in good faith
Speaker 1: see jumping. The Chinese ruler withdrew commitments that his trade
Speaker 1: negotiators made to the United States, and those commitments were
Speaker 1: across the board. So right now I don't believe Beijing
Speaker 1: is actually come to terms with the United States. What
Speaker 1: should Trump do if, in fact, as we go into Friday,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's twenty five percent tariff on two hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars of good Do you think that's the move? Well,
Speaker 1: that's the start. If it were President Chang, the tariffs
Speaker 1: would not be twenty five percent, They'd be two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty percent or twenty five hundred percent. I would
Speaker 1: ban the importation into the US of any goods that
Speaker 1: have benefited from the theft of US intellectual property, and
Speaker 1: I would ban the importation of goods sold by any
Speaker 1: company that has stolen USIP. We need to be extremely
Speaker 1: tough on them. But what Trump is doing is really
Speaker 1: moves in the right direction, because at some point, you know,
Speaker 1: the Chinese have to understand that they cannot use their
Speaker 1: traditional tactics against US and expect continued success. How has
Speaker 1: the shift in trade policy from the Trump administration affected
Speaker 1: the Chinese? We always hear about the downside for our
Speaker 1: own economy from the mainstream media, but it's been a
Speaker 1: rough year in China For people who pay attention to
Speaker 1: the markets. I think they've certainly been seeing that. So, Gordon,
Speaker 1: how do you gauge all this? It has been a
Speaker 1: rough year, and right after the President's on Sunday, you
Speaker 1: saw the Shanghai composite drop five point six percent or so,
Speaker 1: but more significantly the Shenshin composite down seven something and
Speaker 1: the China X which is tech heavy, that was down
Speaker 1: seven point nine percent one day. So China, actually, I think,
Speaker 1: is not doing very well in general, but the trade
Speaker 1: war hasn't helped it. But remember, China has structural problems
Speaker 1: on its own, and what Trump's actions are doing is
Speaker 1: sort of adding another level of insecurity to people in China,
Speaker 1: and that's a good thing for US. China right now
Speaker 1: is growing maybe one or two percent in reality, it's
Speaker 1: not nearly the six point four percent that they claim
Speaker 1: for the last quarter. And the most important thing buck
Speaker 1: in order to get whatever growth they have, they're creating
Speaker 1: five and a half times as much debt as nominal
Speaker 1: gross domestic product, even if the inflated GDP claims are accurate.
Speaker 1: That's up from one and a half times from a
Speaker 1: year ago. That's really a sign of an economy in trouble.
Speaker 1: What do you think the break Is there any realistic
Speaker 1: possibility of a breakthrough where all parties come away, if
Speaker 1: not happy, at least with the most constructive deal in
Speaker 1: place possible I mean, all along Trump has been hoping
Speaker 1: to get a deal with the Chinese? Is there any
Speaker 1: they've been getting away with a lot for a long time?
Speaker 1: Intellectual property theft, you mentioned predatory trade practices. A lot
Speaker 1: of folks I know would argue they never should have
Speaker 1: been allowed in the World Trade Organization period. But if
Speaker 1: the Chinese finally succumbed to the pressure the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has put on them to establish a more fair deal,
Speaker 1: are is there a big upside for the Chinese economy
Speaker 1: over the long run? I mean, you know, what is
Speaker 1: the best case scenario out of all This is what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get at. Okay, from my perspective, a
Speaker 1: best case scenario is no trade deal and we disengage
Speaker 1: from China, we get our faith there, and we go
Speaker 1: our separate way. And the reason is that the Chinese
Speaker 1: are not leaving us any choice. I mean, they steal
Speaker 1: somewhere I would guess three to four hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year in USIP. If you disengage, you're giving them
Speaker 1: fewer opportunities to take stuff. And also the more you disengage,
Speaker 1: the fewer the opportunities they have to violate trade agreements
Speaker 1: with US, But you know, anything is possible, Buck, there
Speaker 1: could be an agreement. An agreement would be a great
Speaker 1: thing for China because what they're lacking right now is
Speaker 1: confidence in their own economy. And you're starting to see
Speaker 1: a number of manufacturers move their operations out of China
Speaker 1: because they're worried about geopolitical risk. They're also worried about
Speaker 1: other things, but one of the factors is geopolitical risk,
Speaker 1: and that is a trade agreement. You have a trade agreement,
Speaker 1: you reduce those concerns. Trump administration is handling China the
Speaker 1: way that you would like them too, for the most part, Gordon,
Speaker 1: is that fair to say, Yeah, I think the administration
Speaker 1: is moving in the right direction. I of course would
Speaker 1: like to see it faster, but you know, American governments
Speaker 1: don't move that fast. But we're seeing I think, a
Speaker 1: political calculus across the spectrum of American politics that right
Speaker 1: now understands the threat that China poses and is actually,
Speaker 1: you know, we're moving in the right direction. So, for instance,
Speaker 1: you had Chuck's humor talk about supporting the president's policies
Speaker 1: on tariffs. That's a very good thing. We know, the
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House doesn't like Beijing for very good reasons.
Speaker 1: And so clearly Trump can put together a coalition here
Speaker 1: because people understand the China challenge. How are we doing
Speaker 1: switching gears for second to North Korea? There have been
Speaker 1: some critics of the president who are saying, see, Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un isn't doing what he said he would do this.
Speaker 1: They're already trying to declare failure on the North Korea
Speaker 1: nuclear negotiations the Trump administrations engaged in. Where do you
Speaker 1: come down on that cordon? Well, they haven't failed, but
Speaker 1: they are failing. We've got to remember buck that nobody,
Speaker 1: nobody has ever enticed the Kim regime into good behavior
Speaker 1: over the long term, not the Chinese, not the Russians,
Speaker 1: not the South Koreans. And this is exactly what Trump
Speaker 1: is doing. A matter of fact, this is what Trump
Speaker 1: said he was doing at the Ottawa g seven just
Speaker 1: before the historic June's Summit last year with Kim Jong un.
Speaker 1: President Trump said, look, I'm going to give Kim a
Speaker 1: quote unquote one time shot. That's a one time shot
Speaker 1: to do the right thing. Trump wanted to make him
Speaker 1: feel secure enough so that he would give up his weapons.
Speaker 1: But since you know that one time shot started. You know,
Speaker 1: we've seen Kim move in all the wrong directions, So
Speaker 1: I think it's time for the president to pivot, go
Speaker 1: back to the policies that made him successful, which were
Speaker 1: to really enforce sanctions in a way that made the
Speaker 1: regime in kiang Yang hurt. Now, what should Trump do
Speaker 1: given that there's this intransigence. I think that we should
Speaker 1: first of all, go after the Chinese banks for continuing
Speaker 1: to launder money for the North Koreans. The Trump administration
Speaker 1: on June twenty ninth, twenty seventeen, designated Bank of Doundong
Speaker 1: a primary money laundering concern under the Patriot Act. That
Speaker 1: disconnected the bank from the global system because it could
Speaker 1: no longer transact business in dollar. That was a warning.
Speaker 1: We know that, but Banka Dondong is a real small institution.
Speaker 1: We also know that all of China's Big four have
Speaker 1: been laundering for the Kim regime, and we should be
Speaker 1: imposing at least fines and maybe even disconnecting them from
Speaker 1: the global system him That would be a warning shot
Speaker 1: that Beijing could not ignore. We also need to go
Speaker 1: after the South Koreans for busting sanctions, as well as
Speaker 1: the Russians. You know, people violate sanctions because the US
Speaker 1: is not stopping them. We stopped them. Kim Jong hun
Speaker 1: is then forced to either keep his weapons or survive,
Speaker 1: and in that case, he's going to choose survival. All right, everybody.
Speaker 1: Gordon Chang check out his Twitter handle Gordon ge Chang
Speaker 1: on Twitter, and also Gordon Chang dot com for his website. Gordon,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Thank you, Buck team. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Okazio Cortez is in many ways in the
Speaker 1: vanguard of the Democratic Party. Some say she's almost the
Speaker 1: de facto spiritual leader of the progressive left. She does
Speaker 1: a lot of social media stuff. She runs all over
Speaker 1: the place and takes these little homemade videos, puts them
Speaker 1: on Instagram and they get millions of views. Well. In
Speaker 1: her most recent one, it seemed that she was in
Speaker 1: fact terrified by a garbage disposal. Play it. I am
Speaker 1: told this is a garbage disposal. I've never seen a
Speaker 1: garbage disposal. I never had one in any place I've
Speaker 1: ever lived. It is terrifying. I don't know what for
Speaker 1: or what its purpose is, like food scraps, like is
Speaker 1: this environmentally sound? I don't know, well, like I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure it's for the disposing of garbage. But we get
Speaker 1: into the some more. Okazio Cortez had a parody account
Speaker 1: of her, and she is hard to parody, so I
Speaker 1: give that person credit. It turns out that that parody
Speaker 1: account was recently banned from Twitter. So what are the
Speaker 1: rules here? What do the social media czars in Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley get to determine? And where should we go from here?
Speaker 1: We've got our buddy Will Chamberlain on the line. He
Speaker 1: is the publisher of Human Events. He has some thought
Speaker 1: on these things. Well, great to have. You're gonna be
Speaker 1: with you back, all right. So now Twitter's gonna ban
Speaker 1: parody accounts that are marked as parody. I mean, this
Speaker 1: seems to be beyond farce. Well, I mean, you got
Speaker 1: to realize that Twitter's principle here is not some consistent,
Speaker 1: broad application of a rule against parody accounts, but rather
Speaker 1: a particularly privileged interpretation of those rules that say that
Speaker 1: if you're a liberal and you parody a conservative, well
Speaker 1: that's just fine in dandy. But if you're a conservative
Speaker 1: and you effectively parody a liberal, well that's that we
Speaker 1: just can't have that, candily, So that's the real point.
Speaker 1: The double standard is obvious in many ways. But you
Speaker 1: know what I want to ask is what should the
Speaker 1: standard be? You know, David French over National Review put
Speaker 1: out a piece today where he's essentially imploring these Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley social media giants to voluntarily adopt viewpoint neutral First
Speaker 1: Amendment protections via their platform. This sounds great to me,
Speaker 1: except there's no way they're going to do this, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, this sounds like as likely to happen as
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party to decide the wholesale abandon planned parenthood
Speaker 1: and embrace a pro life position. The people that he
Speaker 1: is appealing to are completely on the other side of
Speaker 1: the political spectrum than him and want him and his
Speaker 1: fellow travelers to lose election. So to try and persuade
Speaker 1: them that they should be viewpoint neutral is sort of
Speaker 1: a feudal exercise. One should realize who one has the
Speaker 1: capacity to persuade, and in this case, perhaps we do
Speaker 1: have the ability to persuade Silicon Valley of certain things,
Speaker 1: but only under duress. What do you think we should do?
Speaker 1: I mean, the bias and social media is obvious at
Speaker 1: this point, and people who pretend that there isn't an
Speaker 1: effort to silence, to punish, and to really downgrade in
Speaker 1: the national conversation conservative points of view. I think they're
Speaker 1: just being other, dishonest or delusional. What do we do though,
Speaker 1: I mean, in a world where Facebook is Facebook and
Speaker 1: Twitter alone are determining a lot of what people see, read,
Speaker 1: and here, what's the answer for conservatives who don't want
Speaker 1: to live by these very biased and mercurial rules. So
Speaker 1: I have two core recommendations for conservatives generally and the
Speaker 1: conservative movement. So the first is a framing recommendation. I
Speaker 1: believe we should be framing access to large social media
Speaker 1: platforms as a civil right because in the same way
Speaker 1: that private discrimination was rendering the Constitution's commitment to the
Speaker 1: equality of people sort of a dead letter in the
Speaker 1: Jim Crow South in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties,
Speaker 1: and we needed federal law to fix that and make
Speaker 1: it so that stopped. I see a similar dynamic here
Speaker 1: where in a world where the vast majority of serious
Speaker 1: political discourse occurs on major social media platforms. To make
Speaker 1: the underlying cultural commitment, we have to free speech more
Speaker 1: than a dead letter. We need to actually impose restrictions
Speaker 1: on social media companies, and the way to justify that
Speaker 1: is to say the right to speak on these platforms
Speaker 1: is a civil right and that private companies don't have
Speaker 1: should not have the ability to violate it. So that's
Speaker 1: part one. The second yeah, part two. Part two is
Speaker 1: we should be aiming to pass legislation at both the
Speaker 1: state and federal level where that creating essentially a consumer
Speaker 1: protection law that says something along these lines. If Facebook
Speaker 1: or Twitter bans you for lawful speech, and what you
Speaker 1: should be able to do is the very next day,
Speaker 1: walk into a courthouse get an injunction against Facebook or
Speaker 1: Twitter or Instagram that forces them to restore your account.
Speaker 1: In addition, force them to pay your attorney sees and
Speaker 1: in further impose a further statutory penalty. Right. I want
Speaker 1: to this is a private right of action. I want
Speaker 1: to make it possible. So if you are, if you
Speaker 1: have your account wrongfully taken away from you by one
Speaker 1: of these companies, you can tomorrow go to court and
Speaker 1: a judge will give you an injunction forcing Twitter to
Speaker 1: get it back to you. Sounds good to me. Anyone
Speaker 1: else on board for this, well, I think I'm the
Speaker 1: only person on the line. So I am firmly on
Speaker 1: board for my own idea. No, I mean, I mean,
Speaker 1: does anyone else trying to support your idea here? Have
Speaker 1: you gotten to anyone in Congress or other publications or
Speaker 1: other you know who else is on board? So I
Speaker 1: mean the Ron Coleman, a lawyer on Twitter, was the
Speaker 1: sort of the originator of the idea, especially of focusing
Speaker 1: on state consumer protection. The legislation, you know, we the
Speaker 1: article that I first proposed this in, uh you know,
Speaker 1: we just came out two days ago, and so we
Speaker 1: haven't really gotten a full fledged movement behind the legislay
Speaker 1: to push yet. But that said, I mean, the formulation
Speaker 1: of the right to speak on social media platforms as
Speaker 1: of a right has gotten a huge amount of traction
Speaker 1: very very quickly. Denish to SUSA picked it up on
Speaker 1: Laura Ingraham Show. Paul Jesseph Watson picked it up on
Speaker 1: his own YouTube, and since he was the person that
Speaker 1: was purged by Facebook and sort of the most recent
Speaker 1: catalyst for all this, that was a big deal too.
Speaker 1: And Broncos, a cartoonist that Legal Insurrection, seems to have
Speaker 1: also picked up on it pretty clearly by posting a
Speaker 1: cartoon that analogizes the social media fight to the civil
Speaker 1: rights Now No, Raheem Kassam is a beloved member of
Speaker 1: this circus that we run here called the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: Right Sexton Show obviously, and will you know therefore as
Speaker 1: a as a human events person, you're also in the
Speaker 1: broader family. I just want to know what for all
Speaker 1: the folks listening tell me about we got about a minute.
Speaker 1: What are you doing a human events and why should
Speaker 1: folks go check it out? So this is the oldest
Speaker 1: conservative magazine in the country, started in nineteen forty four,
Speaker 1: and we've relaunched it. It was defunk for about five years,
Speaker 1: and we're bringing you I think you should really go
Speaker 1: check out the website because I think you'll see it
Speaker 1: different from anything else in conservative media. We are publishing beautiful,
Speaker 1: long form, interesting and thought provoking articles that I think
Speaker 1: you'll really get a kick out of and that will
Speaker 1: really make you think. So that's the core of what
Speaker 1: we're doing, and we're not trying to be clickbaity, you know,
Speaker 1: our core. The way we're trying to fund this is
Speaker 1: through memberships and if you come a member of founding
Speaker 1: Father of Human Events as it where you can get
Speaker 1: access to a group chat with me and Ride Kassan
Speaker 1: and others as well, where you can talk with us
Speaker 1: about what we're doing, how we're doing it, and what
Speaker 1: we're publishing. So all right, I don't know Human events
Speaker 1: dot com. Everybody check it out. Publisher Will Chamberlain will
Speaker 1: great to have you on my friend. Come back soon,
Speaker 1: all right, thanks buck. Oh you've got here a bunch
Speaker 1: of protesters, a bunch of pseudo Christian protesters who've been
Speaker 1: out here shaming young girls for being here. So here's
Speaker 1: the deal. I've got one hundred dollars to anybody who
Speaker 1: will identify any of these three. So we're going to
Speaker 1: do I'm going to donate the plant. Look a bunch
Speaker 1: of white people ending up of a plant, power rights
Speaker 1: shaming people. There's nothing Christian about what you're doing. Nothing
Speaker 1: Christians at all about what you're doing. Hi, nothing Christian
Speaker 1: or loving or godly about what you're doing. So I've
Speaker 1: got one hundred dollars to anybody who will identify. One
Speaker 1: hundred dollars. Rich. What makes you think that it's your
Speaker 1: job to tell women what's right for their bodies? And
Speaker 1: the truth is, I'm not really asking because I don't care.
Speaker 1: Shame on you. Well, that was Pennsylvania's State Rep. Brian Simms,
Speaker 1: who not content merely to harass an elderly woman who
Speaker 1: is exercising her First Amendment rights to advocate for the
Speaker 1: lives of the unborn outside of a planned parative clinic,
Speaker 1: but now wants to This guy wants to docks and
Speaker 1: is offering a bounty, offering money to people who will docks,
Speaker 1: some young people who are trying to also spread a
Speaker 1: message of life. This did not go over well with
Speaker 1: people in the pro life community, rightfully so. And we're
Speaker 1: joined now by one person who is going to have
Speaker 1: some thoughts to share on the whole fiasco and also
Speaker 1: what really matters here. Lila Rose is with us. She
Speaker 1: is the founder and president of Live Action. Lila, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for giving us some of your time.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me back. So you are going to
Speaker 1: be engaging in a prey in what exactly is happening
Speaker 1: in response to what's going on outside this plan parenthood
Speaker 1: clinic in Philadelphia where this elected official is verbally abusing people,
Speaker 1: being threatening toward people, putting it on his Facebook, putting
Speaker 1: it on Twitter, sharing it all over the place. You
Speaker 1: and other pro life advocates are going to do what
Speaker 1: in response? Sure, So we're going there to support the
Speaker 1: local community because there have been wonderful folks in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: who have been praying outside the planned parent has there
Speaker 1: and this one in particular for years now, doing peaceful
Speaker 1: sidewalk counseling, trying to help women in need and support
Speaker 1: women with other options, the most of all praying, and
Speaker 1: that's what you see on the video, I mean, Brian
Speaker 1: sends this elected representative for the state House in Pennsylvania
Speaker 1: is her king a group of three teen girls and
Speaker 1: their moms who are praying peacefully and harassing getting up
Speaker 1: in the face of an elderly woman holding a rosary praying,
Speaker 1: calling them bullies, making fun of their their race, making
Speaker 1: fun of their prayer, calling on his followers to docs
Speaker 1: them docs teen girls, and again they just respond by praying.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what they're there to do, to pray
Speaker 1: for an end abortion. So Live Action will be going
Speaker 1: out there as well as other groups to supporting incredible
Speaker 1: work of local activists who are peacefully praying for an
Speaker 1: intro abortion in Pennsylvania. If anyone hearing this wants to
Speaker 1: join you by the way if they want to know
Speaker 1: where this is happening and how they can be a
Speaker 1: part of it, where should they go? Sure, so there's
Speaker 1: a if you go to my Twitter feed Lilah gray Throws,
Speaker 1: you can get information on the time and the address
Speaker 1: eleven am on Friday morning at this planned parenthead There's
Speaker 1: also a Facebook event that Live Action aid is linked to,
Speaker 1: so if you are local in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, please
Speaker 1: head over and join. This is a prayerful protest. We
Speaker 1: stand down to bullies, but we don't respond to bullying
Speaker 1: with bullying. We respond to it with love. The endgame here,
Speaker 1: Buck is to end abortion, is to educate others about
Speaker 1: what abortion does, the violent act that it is. It's
Speaker 1: about advocating for other options for women and girls. It's
Speaker 1: about proclaiming that human beings have dignity and value. I mean,
Speaker 1: I would fight for the right to life of Brian Sins,
Speaker 1: this representative, just like anybody else. And it's saying that bullying, harassment,
Speaker 1: doxing against those who are standing for life will not be,
Speaker 1: will not be. We will stand up to it. We're
Speaker 1: not going to back down. And I'm excited to know
Speaker 1: that there are hundreds of people who are already saying
Speaker 1: you want to be there because people are passionate about
Speaker 1: this and they will not stand down. They will not
Speaker 1: stand down to bullies. Your group is obviously also very
Speaker 1: active in general in the pro life movement. Tell me
Speaker 1: about the latest from different state legislatures. I see here
Speaker 1: Georgia think is the most recent one that are either
Speaker 1: poised to or have already signed a fetal heartbeat bill.
Speaker 1: What are these bills? What do they do? And what
Speaker 1: do people need to know about this? Sure, so this
Speaker 1: is a big deal. The heartbeat bill would ban abortions
Speaker 1: after the heartbeat can be detected of the baby by ultrasound,
Speaker 1: So that's about six weeks into a woman's pregnancy. This
Speaker 1: is a baby that's art is already beating. This is
Speaker 1: often before a woman even realizes she's pregnant. So it's
Speaker 1: amazing how early in embryonic development a child's heart begins
Speaker 1: to beat, and it's really exciting. Georgia is the fourth
Speaker 1: state now this year. Governor Kempt just signing this bill
Speaker 1: into law this morning. Georgia's state number four. So Kentucky, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: and Ohio have already passed their own heartbeat bills. This
Speaker 1: is a huge step forward for the prolif movement and
Speaker 1: for human rights because it's finally saying, if you're a
Speaker 1: human with a heartbeat, you should be protected by law.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you're inside the woomb or outside
Speaker 1: the womb. And how many states right now have already
Speaker 1: done this, and also what's the position to this. I'm
Speaker 1: sure that Planned Parenthood and nay roll and other groups
Speaker 1: that defend abortion are mounting a ferocious assault on these bills. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean ferocious is perhaps an understatement. You may have
Speaker 1: seen Alissa, you know, actress Elissa Milano and others pledging
Speaker 1: to boycott the state of Georgia and not do business
Speaker 1: in the state. You know, Hollywood will refuse to do
Speaker 1: business in the state if they pass this horrible law.
Speaker 1: I mean that is the reaction is boycotts, I mean Hollywood.
Speaker 1: It's kind of good, good riddance. I think Georgia is
Speaker 1: thinking because we'd rather protect life than court Hollywood actors.
Speaker 1: But look, there are four other states that three other
Speaker 1: states have done this just year alone besides Georgia, and
Speaker 1: the laws have not gone into effect yet. They're set
Speaker 1: to go into effect in July. And part of this
Speaker 1: is because there are attacks and challenges made to the
Speaker 1: laws by nay Rao Biplane parenthood by proabortion justices or
Speaker 1: judges who do not want these laws to go into effect,
Speaker 1: who do not think the states have the right to
Speaker 1: do this. Of course, I think that the states absolutely
Speaker 1: have the right to protect human life within their jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: I think that's actually in the interest of the US
Speaker 1: federal government to be concerned with the preservation of human life.
Speaker 1: It's securing a common defense. But because of Rob Wade
Speaker 1: and because of some of the subsequent rulings by the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court, that has really harmed the ability of
Speaker 1: states to protect children in the womb in their jurisdiction.
Speaker 1: So that's going to it's going to come down to
Speaker 1: the court stuck, and you know, the way the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court is looking right now, it's really troubling. I mean,
Speaker 1: we need to we need another seat on the court.
Speaker 1: I think that's not a far left proabortion villot. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: we have several of those in the Supreme Court right now.
Speaker 1: So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Speaker 1: If this goes to the US Supreme Court. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you had a chance to hear this, la la,
Speaker 1: it's pretty self explanatory. Though. A former New York City
Speaker 1: council Christine Quinn was on CNN, a place that I
Speaker 1: actually used to also sometimes offer analysis and much much
Speaker 1: to mine now shock and dismay. But she she had
Speaker 1: this to say about what the truth is of infants
Speaker 1: in the womb. Please play the clip. When a woman
Speaker 1: gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her,
Speaker 1: it's part of her body. When a woman gets pregnant,
Speaker 1: that is not a human being inside of her, it's
Speaker 1: part of her body. When we get it, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's what That's what she said. I yeah, it's
Speaker 1: hard to think of anything that is more scientifically inaccurate.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is kind of like saying my head
Speaker 1: is my foot, but this is applauded somehow. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is the leg they have to stand on. Buck
Speaker 1: abortion advocates, the ones who are really honest, admit, it's
Speaker 1: a baby, and we're just gonna be okay with killing it.
Speaker 1: And those are some of the folks who are behind
Speaker 1: the New York law. And they were celebrating. I don't
Speaker 1: know if you remember, but they were celebrating lighting up
Speaker 1: the Empire State building paint because they were so excited
Speaker 1: that abortion would now be legal through all nine months
Speaker 1: and even committing potentially and fantasied infants to survive abortion attempts.
Speaker 1: So when you see this from some abortion advocates saying, well,
Speaker 1: it's not a baby and a woman isn't pregnant with
Speaker 1: the human beings to primember with their own body, I mean,
Speaker 1: it's obviously ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything
Speaker 1: we know about the development of an embryo in the womb,
Speaker 1: how it's a unique, distinct individual life. We know that
Speaker 1: that's a fact of any biology book. The problem with facts, though,
Speaker 1: buck is they have consequences, and if we acknowledge that
Speaker 1: this is a human life, then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: we have to ask the question of it should it
Speaker 1: be okay to take that human life away from them?
Speaker 1: It should it be okay to end that human life?
Speaker 1: And that is exactly the pro life pro choice debate,
Speaker 1: And unfortunately a lot of pro abortion supporters I call
Speaker 1: them pro abortion because I don't actually think they're about choice,
Speaker 1: but a lot of the self named pro choice supporters
Speaker 1: they don't want to have that, Ila, because they recognize
Speaker 1: that if you could acknowledge it's the human life all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, you have to be willing to say
Speaker 1: that some human beings don't matter, that some human beings
Speaker 1: don't have a right to live, that it's okay for older,
Speaker 1: stronger human beings to kill younger, weaker human beings. And
Speaker 1: that doesn't sound very good. So they're going to try
Speaker 1: to ignore that part of the discussion by just flat
Speaker 1: out saying it's not even a human to begin with.
Speaker 1: Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, Lila, always
Speaker 1: a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us, Thanks for having me on. All right team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I didn't talk at all about
Speaker 1: the Kentucky Derby, which happened over the weekend. My favorite
Speaker 1: thing or the cool names the horses have. Beyond that,
Speaker 1: I know almost nothing but horse racing. I've never even
Speaker 1: been to Louisville. I should probably go there at some
Speaker 1: point and check it out. Producer Mike, though, has some
Speaker 1: thoughts on this. He's way more into sports and just
Speaker 1: generally being an American than me. Mike, what was the
Speaker 1: controversy exactly? So, yeah, the winner of the derby. The
Speaker 1: original winner got this qualified for running into another horse,
Speaker 1: and this had never happened before, so they basically took
Speaker 1: his tile away, and you know, people were up in
Speaker 1: arms for many reasons. And then the President tweeted about
Speaker 1: it and said the best horse didn't win, and then
Speaker 1: that made it a major story. So I started digging
Speaker 1: in a little deeper and following it on the mainstream media.
Speaker 1: And the consensus of the mainstream media was that they
Speaker 1: got it right, that they should have taken away from
Speaker 1: him and given it to the second place source. And
Speaker 1: whenever the mainstream media says that they got it right,
Speaker 1: I tendn't believe that they means they got it wrong.
Speaker 1: And I actually agree with with Trump here that they
Speaker 1: should not have done it, and I think they should
Speaker 1: have given it to the original winner. Do you do
Speaker 1: you ever go in the bet on the ponies? Wherever
Speaker 1: the nearest place? I actually have and not reason. It's
Speaker 1: a fun of it. I've never been to the Derby.
Speaker 1: I go to the Belmont Stakes here in New York
Speaker 1: and it's a blast to do. It's a lot of
Speaker 1: fun um So it's definitely worth a day of going out,
Speaker 1: and especially when it's nice out. But I don't know
Speaker 1: too much about it. I just go to you know,
Speaker 1: for the cocktails and the fancy dresses and and you
Speaker 1: know that stuff that sounds like a fun time to me,
Speaker 1: it is. It's a lot it's actually a lot of fun.
Speaker 1: You brought another story to my attention, and it's about
Speaker 1: Trump wanting to explain this to me. For people that
Speaker 1: are in the military service academies, they could go pro
Speaker 1: right away and then serve after their pro career. What's
Speaker 1: what's the significance here? Correct? So, yeah, if you're a
Speaker 1: you know, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and if you're
Speaker 1: in a sports program there. Uh. The most notable example
Speaker 1: would be David Robinson, the basketball player. U he had
Speaker 1: to you know, he was an outstanding player, an NBA legend.
Speaker 1: Now he's in the Hall of Fame. But when believe
Speaker 1: his nickname was the Admiral that he never quite reaching
Speaker 1: the rank of admiral exactly. He was the Admiral um.
Speaker 1: So from a from a perspective, if you're an athlete,
Speaker 1: you know, and you really want to play pro, why
Speaker 1: would you go to a service academy If you have to,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't go play. You'd have to wait
Speaker 1: four years, do your time and then go in it,
Speaker 1: and that that hurts you money wise. So the President
Speaker 1: today I thought it was really cool. Um, he wants
Speaker 1: to make a weaver so which will allow U military
Speaker 1: athletes to turn pro and then they can return and
Speaker 1: serve their time to the military after the pro career
Speaker 1: is over, which you know, on the surface is like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's pretty cool. But it's a really big deal for
Speaker 1: the I think our military academies when it comes to recruiting,
Speaker 1: they can now go out there and sell their school
Speaker 1: to the best athletes that in our nation and you'll
Speaker 1: see more prominent you know, imagine Army Navy in the
Speaker 1: top ten rankings in football or basketball. Um. I think
Speaker 1: that's great for our country. I think it's great for
Speaker 1: the students and the student athletes. Yeah, it sounds like
Speaker 1: a great idea to me. I don't I don't see
Speaker 1: any we actually have Trump talking about it. If you
Speaker 1: want to hear it real quick, Yeah, play can I
Speaker 1: call clipall for Clipbuck? Yeah, call for a Proucer Markymark
Speaker 1: play clip fourteen. I mentioned this to the coach and
Speaker 1: it's a big deal. I hope it doesn't become the story,
Speaker 1: but it is a big story because I'm gonna look
Speaker 1: at doing a waiver for service Academy athletes who can
Speaker 1: get into the major leagues like the NFL, hockey, baseball.
Speaker 1: We're gonna see what we're gonna do it and they'll
Speaker 1: serve their time after they've finished with professional sports, and
Speaker 1: that'll make things. Can you imagine this incredible coach with
Speaker 1: that little asset, because I would imagine that would make
Speaker 1: recruiting a little bit easier. So we're gonna in behalf
Speaker 1: of the coach, who's a tremendous guy. We're gonna look
Speaker 1: at a waiver for the service academy so they'll serve
Speaker 1: at that time after. I think it sounds good, right,
Speaker 1: sounds like a cool idea to me. Thanks for bringing
Speaker 1: it to the team's attention, producer Mike. And then here
Speaker 1: we go. So I'm here for good things, all right,
Speaker 1: President Trump? Coming up with you had another way to
Speaker 1: just make things a little make things a little better
Speaker 1: in this country, make America a little more great, one
Speaker 1: little piece at a time. So we are going to
Speaker 1: go into a roll call here in just a moment. Team,
Speaker 1: you know what that means ebook dot com slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: If you want to slip one in at the last second,
Speaker 1: we'll be right back. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call dot com slash buck Sexton. Forge in on
Speaker 1: the roll call. Such a fun thing, such an easy
Speaker 1: thing to do. You're sitting there like I would like
Speaker 1: to share my thoughts with people across the country. I
Speaker 1: have an idea, and that idea is going to be
Speaker 1: shared with mister buck Sexton, and he will then share
Speaker 1: it with the world, or at least the world of
Speaker 1: Team Buck. Thomas kicks us off today. Hello Buck. Listening
Speaker 1: to you yesterday talking about how the Democrats use lying
Speaker 1: to promote their agenda kind of remind me of the
Speaker 1: Islamic concept of takia. I guess that is more common
Speaker 1: ground between the radical left and radical Islam. Interesting shields
Speaker 1: high Thomas, for those who don't know, is referring to
Speaker 1: a precept within Islam that is taught in some Islamic jurorsprudence.
Speaker 1: Some folks who study Shariah. They promote this idea of takia,
Speaker 1: which is lying for the benefit of the faith. So
Speaker 1: if you have to lie to infidels, I have to
Speaker 1: lie to nonbelievers. If will benefit Islam, then you do that.
Speaker 1: So that's what that's what takia is, and I think
Speaker 1: that Libs do engage in a kind of form of takia,
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to the dishonesty that they engage
Speaker 1: in around things like what their real policy goals are,
Speaker 1: what they're really hoping to achieve, etc. Now, next one
Speaker 1: up here we have Branda who writes, Hey, Buck, if
Speaker 1: Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, suppressed the vote, he's
Speaker 1: the worst suppressor of all time because his policy as
Speaker 1: a Secretary of State of Georgia increased the roles by Democrats.
Speaker 1: Like to complain about the time it took to vote
Speaker 1: in areas with a high black population. That's part of
Speaker 1: the suppression plan. They're not realizing that these polls are
Speaker 1: run by local governments and those are mostly Democrat controlled
Speaker 1: polling places. Brandon, what you are saying is true. The
Speaker 1: long lines in some predominantly black areas of Georgia that
Speaker 1: were cited as voter suppression efforts were Democrat controlled areas
Speaker 1: under local Democrat control. So how that could be voter suppression?
Speaker 1: Some will have to try and explain to me and
Speaker 1: then also the record voter turnout. Now they would say, well,
Speaker 1: the turnout would have been even higher. But if somebody
Speaker 1: was trying to scheme a way to suppress the vote,
Speaker 1: don't you think that they would at least, especially somebody
Speaker 1: with the kind of power that Brian Kemp had, don't
Speaker 1: you think it'd be at least successful enough that there
Speaker 1: wouldn't be record a high turnout. It's not a perfect argument,
Speaker 1: but it's an indicator to be sure. Roger Rights heard
Speaker 1: the show. I'll be waiting for a list. If your
Speaker 1: friend David responds to you, keep charging buck. Thank you.
Speaker 1: On the Israel book issue, yeah, I don't have a
Speaker 1: great list of books on israel I really, and I
Speaker 1: wish that I could just rattle some off the top
Speaker 1: of my head, but I wouldn't want to give you
Speaker 1: the first five things that pop up on Amazon. You
Speaker 1: don't need me for that. So usually when I recommend
Speaker 1: a book to you, one it's something that I've read,
Speaker 1: and two it's something that I highly recommend. I don't
Speaker 1: have one on Israeli history specifically. And actually I'm going
Speaker 1: to be flying, you know, next week, I'm going to China.
Speaker 1: As our president likes to say, and if any of
Speaker 1: you have any recommendations. I need to bring hard copy
Speaker 1: books because I don't want to bring electronic devices with
Speaker 1: me unnecessarily to China for obvious reasons. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to bring hard copy books. If you have a book
Speaker 1: that you're like Buck, this is the greatest thing I've
Speaker 1: read in a long time. Nonfiction, please nonfiction. Feel free
Speaker 1: to send me your recommendations on Facebook. Let's see we
Speaker 1: have Nathan who rights Hey, what's up. I've been listening
Speaker 1: to your show since the Saturday show on the Blaze. Well, Nathan,
Speaker 1: that means your original Saturday squad oss and the fact
Speaker 1: that you can keep my attention almost daily through a
Speaker 1: three hour show is a testament to your skills on
Speaker 1: the air. This is my first time writing in but
Speaker 1: your appeals for some good workout music have finally motivated
Speaker 1: me to reach out. I have no idea what your
Speaker 1: range of favorite music genres are, but as a guy
Speaker 1: who works out three days a week and almost obsessively
Speaker 1: works on expanding his Spotify library, I thought i'd give
Speaker 1: you my two cents. Check out the artist Cartel, especially
Speaker 1: their album cycles. Okay energetic but with actual music skills
Speaker 1: on display. Thank you, Nathan. I will check out Cartels.
Speaker 1: I think I've heard of them. I think I might
Speaker 1: know one or two of their songs that I did
Speaker 1: like it, So I'm willing to go back and look
Speaker 1: at some more ps from Nathan. As a guy who
Speaker 1: recently grew a beard, I have come to realize you
Speaker 1: can't please everyone with what you do or do not
Speaker 1: grow on your face. If you do, you at least
Speaker 1: you don't look like an adolescent when you're clean shaven,
Speaker 1: like me. Shields high, Nathan, Nathan the beard. I will
Speaker 1: tell you I've had a few a few ladies whose
Speaker 1: opinions I respect, who have been very pro beard, and
Speaker 1: I think they've They've definitely tipped the balance in favor
Speaker 1: of the beard staying for a while. Also, I like
Speaker 1: it because it's low maintenance and I don't have to
Speaker 1: think about shaving, which is kind of nice. And if
Speaker 1: it gets really hot this summer, I will unleash my
Speaker 1: bare skinned face on the world and hopefully that will
Speaker 1: be a little bit cooler as in temperature not hip.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, James Rights stolen hah, Hillary, you lost
Speaker 1: Farren Square. I dislike Bernie Sanders, but Hillary stole the
Speaker 1: election from him. The lad for trying to steal our
Speaker 1: chosen president who won faren Square by trying to impeach
Speaker 1: President Trump and create ways for unfair voting like early
Speaker 1: voting on a holiday for voting allowing employees to be
Speaker 1: able to leave for work three hours, an idea New
Speaker 1: York that Koma wanted to do. They cry voter suppression,
Speaker 1: and if I can remember correctly, they tried to throughout
Speaker 1: President Trump in the trash throw out votes rather for
Speaker 1: President Trump. The trash three words for Hillary and the
Speaker 1: rest of them. Get over it, shields high Trump will
Speaker 1: win again. From w g Y up in Coubleskill, New York,
Speaker 1: or at Cobleskill, New York. I'm not sure how I
Speaker 1: say that you should visit upstate. Visit the Bay Hall,
Speaker 1: OH Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. Were
Speaker 1: only thirty minutes from there. Lots to do well it
Speaker 1: just when I say Hi five and thank you to
Speaker 1: all my wonderful folks up in the w g Y
Speaker 1: area of upstate New York. I am a New Yorker,
Speaker 1: as you all know, so I have a particular fondness
Speaker 1: for anything New York related. I have never been to
Speaker 1: the Baseball Hall of Fame. Will I will keep my
Speaker 1: opinions about baseball to myself because I want I want
Speaker 1: you all to still be my friend. I don't want
Speaker 1: you to get mad at me. Thanks for writing in, James,
Speaker 1: Pamela writes, most of the complaints you just leave it
Speaker 1: against Biden fit Donald Trump. I'm not a Democrat, I
Speaker 1: am not a liberal. I am never trump x goop.
Speaker 1: Sadly too many bought the spin. Well, Pamela, I wish
Speaker 1: you would give me a bit of the specifics of
Speaker 1: what the complaints I leave it against Biden are when
Speaker 1: it comes to Trump. You know, Trump isn't a career
Speaker 1: Let's just start with this. Let's start with how Trump
Speaker 1: and Biden are different. Trump isn't a career politician. He's
Speaker 1: not a lifetime swamp creature. He has worked and very
Speaker 1: successfully worked in the private sector for many decades. He's
Speaker 1: built a globally recognizable brand. He did inherit money from
Speaker 1: his father, but he did not inherit a global brand.
Speaker 1: He created that. He has been a very successful media
Speaker 1: personality in his own right. Let's see ran on a
Speaker 1: campaign of some ideas that were his and really almost
Speaker 1: nobody else's in the Republican field, including things like building
Speaker 1: a wall and stopping Chinese predatory trade practices, two areas
Speaker 1: where I would note he has been proven to be
Speaker 1: correct and the consensus in the Republican Party has been
Speaker 1: proven incorrect. So I what are you talking about? You
Speaker 1: think that Trump sniffs women's hair or touches them too much.
Speaker 1: I've never seen photos of Trump putting his hand in
Speaker 1: kind of weird places with young women in public. I've
Speaker 1: never seen that. I know there are accusations from some
Speaker 1: women against President Trump that he is, that he was
Speaker 1: sexually aggressive with them. How much you believe them or not,
Speaker 1: I leave up to you, But there's not the same
Speaker 1: clear evidence of a weird, creepy behavior. While I remember,
Speaker 1: while also an elected public official with a lot of power.
Speaker 1: So I need you to tell me what the complaints
Speaker 1: are against Biden. Then also fit Trump that he's that
Speaker 1: he says whatever to make anybody like him at any
Speaker 1: point in time. I mean, Trump says things that make
Speaker 1: a lot of people hate him. He said things that
Speaker 1: make a lot of the goop hate him. He said
Speaker 1: things that created what is the never Trump movement that
Speaker 1: continues to this day. I don't think he says whatever
Speaker 1: people will want to hear. Yeah, his supporters will want
Speaker 1: to hear it, but his supporters were not the Republican
Speaker 1: mainstream when he started it. So I don't think it's
Speaker 1: fair to say that he was pandering to the GOP.
Speaker 1: Quite the opposite. I think he was kind of a
Speaker 1: punch in the face to the GOP. But as you
Speaker 1: can see, Pamela, you got me thinking with your question,
Speaker 1: so I appreciate you sending it to me. Friday's quote
Speaker 1: this is from Adam was the late Alan Rickman as
Speaker 1: Hans Gruber to THEO. I think you should add that
Speaker 1: quote to your list intro for the show Shields High
Speaker 1: THEO you wanted a miracle? I give you the f B.
Speaker 1: I did I sound like Rahem Kassam there. Raheim has
Speaker 1: such a such a fancy accent. It's a huge, huge advantage.
Speaker 1: We can't put too much Raheem on the radio because
Speaker 1: of his fancy British accent. I don't want you guys
Speaker 1: to say, Buck, you need a fancy British accent too,
Speaker 1: speak of Raheim. Rain writes in I love Raheim's guest
Speaker 1: hosting when he sat in for you, great great guest host.
Speaker 1: Brexit and UK goings on are important for us to
Speaker 1: hear about. Maybe interview Sargon of Akad. You might like
Speaker 1: to chat with him about classical liberalism versus what the
Speaker 1: left calls it. Now. I don't know who Sargon is,
Speaker 1: so I'd have to figure this out. Is that a
Speaker 1: real Is there a person named Sargon of Akad? I
Speaker 1: learned something new every day. When someone asks you if
Speaker 1: you're a god, you say yes. Matt writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I lost track for you in your radio shows when
Speaker 1: you change networks back around twenty sixteen, I've been busy
Speaker 1: building a new family ranch, kind of got it rolling.
Speaker 1: Just thought i'd touch base, see how things are going,
Speaker 1: see if you're still on the radio, what network and
Speaker 1: all that. I'm not sure if you remember. I was
Speaker 1: listening from your Days and the Freedom Hut at the Blaze.
Speaker 1: We've chatted before. I called your show a couple of times.
Speaker 1: Hope Ball as well, Matt in Texas. There we go,
Speaker 1: Matt Man, Well you got through me on Facebook, and yeah,
Speaker 1: you can listen to the show anytime. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: on about one hundred and twenty plus stations across the country.
Speaker 1: You can listen on the iHeartRadio app. So yeah, um,
Speaker 1: I think I think you should definitely listen my friend,
Speaker 1: or you can just listen on the iTunes on iTunes podcast.
Speaker 1: That's where a lot of a lot of the cool
Speaker 1: kids listen these days on the podcast. Yeah so, uh, Matt,
Speaker 1: good to have you back. Matt original Saturday Squad people
Speaker 1: that have been been with me from OSS days. That's
Speaker 1: like seven years now. It's a long time, a long time,
Speaker 1: all right, team, Speaking of seven years, more coming up
Speaker 1: tomorrow she'll tie